$A_\infty$-Minimal Model on Differential Graded Algebras
Jiawei Zhou

TL;DR
This paper studies $A_ abla$-minimal models of differential graded algebras, expanding formality criteria for manifolds and analyzing the structure of minimal models for sphere and circle bundles over formal manifolds.
Contribution
It extends Miller's and Crowley-Nordstr"{o}m's theorems on formality and minimal models, providing new bounds and structural results for $A_ abla$-minimal models of manifolds.
Findings
Manifolds with dimension ≤ (l+1)k+2 have $A_ abla$-minimal models with vanishing $m_p$ for p ≥ l.
Sphere bundles over formal manifolds have $A_ abla$-minimal models with only $m_2$ and $m_3$ non-trivial.
Necessary and sufficient conditions for the formality of circle bundles over formal symplectic manifolds in low dimensions.
Abstract
The rational homotopy type of a differential graded algebra (DGA) can be represented by a family of tensors on its cohomology, which constitute an -minimal model of this DGA. When only the cohomology is needed to determine the rational homotopy type, then the DGA is called formal. By a theorem of Miller, a compact -connected manifold is formal if its dimension is not greater than . We expand this theorem and a result of Crowley-Nordstr\"{o}m to prove that if the dimension of a compact -connected manifold , then its de Rham complex has an -minimal model with for all . Separately, for an odd-dimensional sphere bundle over a formal manifold, we prove that its de Rham complex has an -minimal model with only and non-trivial. In the special case of a circle bundle over a formal symplectic manifold…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology · Algebraic structures and combinatorial models · Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory
-Minimal Model on Differential Graded Algebras
Jiawei Zhou
Abstract
The rational homotopy type of a differential graded algebra (DGA) can be represented by a family of tensors on its cohomology, which constitute an -minimal model of this DGA. When only the cohomology is needed to determine the rational homotopy type, then the DGA is called formal. By a theorem of Miller, a compact -connected manifold is formal if its dimension is not greater than . We expand this theorem and a result of Crowley-Nordström to prove that if the dimension of a compact -connected manifold , then its de Rham complex has an -minimal model with for all . Separately, for an odd-dimensional sphere bundle over a formal manifold, we prove that its de Rham complex has an -minimal model with only and non-trivial. In the special case of a circle bundle over a formal symplectic manifold satisfying the hard Lefschetz property, we give a necessary condition for formality which becomes sufficient when the base symplectic manifold is of dimension six or less.
Contents
-
4 Minimal model of an extension of formal DGA and its application on odd-dimensional sphere bundles
-
4.2 Formality of circle bundle over formal manifolds with hard Lefschetz property
1 Introduction
In rational homotopy theory, a differential graded algebra (DGA) is formal if it is quasi-isomorphic to its cohomology. Thus, we can study its homotopy type by its cohomology. If the de Rham complex of a manifold is a formal DGA, the manifold itself is called formal. A natural question is, what conditions or characteristics ensure that a manifold is formal?
For a -connected compact manifold , a theorem of Miller [miller] states that is formal if its dimension . When the dimension , examples constructed by Dranishnikov-Rudyak [Dranishnikovetal] and Fernández-Muñoz [Fernandezetal] showed that -connected compact manifolds may no longer be formal without imposing further conditions. For instance, Cavalcanti [7] considered imposing conditions on the -Betti number. He showed that the manifold is formal when and the dimension . For , Cavalcanti [7] had to introduce even more restrictive conditions to prove formality. However, not much can be said about formality for compact -connected manifold when is larger.
Since higher dimensional -connected compact manifold is non-formal in general, we can consider relaxing the formal condition and instead ask what properties in addition to cohomology will determines a manifold’s rational homotopy type. Crowley and Nordström [cn] showed that when , the rational homotopy type of a -connected manifold can be determined by its cohomology together with a -tensor acting on a subspace of , which they called the Bianchi-Massey tensor. This -tensor represents the additional data beyond cohomology needed to determine rational homotopy up to dimension . It is reasonable to expect that as the dimension increases, even more data is needed to describe rational homotopy. As we will show, the additional required data for a -connected manifold of arbitrary dimension can be succinctly represented in terms of an -algebraic structure on . Such a structure is called an -minimal model of . This leads to our first result:
Theorem 1.1**.**
Suppose is an -dimensional -connected compact manifold. If such that , then has an -minimal model with for .
When , the structure is equivalent to the DGA structure and the statement is just the theorem of Miller [miller]. When , it becomes the theorem of Crowley and Nordström [cn]. For higher , it implies that the homotopy type of is determined by its cohomology together with operations .
Another question is whether we can construct formal manifolds from a given formal manifold. One common way of obtaining new manifolds is constructing a fiber bundle. In this paper, we consider a relatively simple fiber bundle where the fiber is an odd dimensional sphere. A motivation for studying this type of bundle is its relation to the -algebra on a symplectic manifold , constructed by Tsai, Tseng and Yau [tty]. By the work of Tanaka and Tseng [tt], Tsai-Tseng-Yau’s -algebra is quasi-isomorphic to the de Rham cochain complex of an bundle over the symplectic manifold with Euler class .
As we shall see, the total sphere bundle space can be non-formal even when the base is formal. For example, it is non-formal for the circle bundle over the torus (See Example 4.11). On the other hand, circle bundles over projective spaces or over Euclidean spaces are both formal. To quantify the non-formality of a sphere bundle over a base that is formal, we can consider giving the cohomology of the circle bundle an -algebraic structure. It turns out that this structure is sufficient to completely determine the rational homotopy of the odd-sphere bundle over a formal base.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let be a formal manifold, be an even-dimensional integral differential form, and be the sphere bundle over with Euler class . Then is formal if is exact. When is non-exact, has an -minimal model with for all except for or .
Biswas, Fernándes, Muñoz and Tralle [biswasetal] obtained a similar statement when the base symplectic manifold satisfies the hard Lefschetz property instead of being formal. The hard Lefchetz property on a symplectic manifold is analogous to the -lemma on a complex manifold. They both can be viewed as special cases of the -lemma of generalized complex geometry [7][merkulov]. In the complex manifolds case, there is the well known result of Deligne, Griffiths, Morgan and Sullivan [deli] that all complex manifolds satisfying the -lemma are formal. By analogy, this may suggest that the hard Lefschetz property would relate to the formality on symplectic manifolds. In fact, it was conjectured by Babenko and Taimanov [bt] in 1998 that a simply-connected compact symplectic manifold is formal if and only if it satisfies the hard Lefschetz property. Both directions of the statement are now known to be false. Gompf [gompf] constructed a simply-conected 6-manifold which does not satisfy the hard Lefschetz property. This example is formal by Miller’s criterion [miller] that all simply-connected compact 6-manifolds are formal. The other direction was studied in [irtu][lo], and was further clarified by Cavalcanti [caval] (see also [caval3]) who gave a simply connected non-compact symplectic manifold with the hard Lefschetz property, but is not formal.
Although the hard Lefschetz property has no relation with the formality of a symplectic manifold, it is nevertheless useful for our consideration of the formality of circle bundles. In Section 4.2, we focus on a special class of circle bundles where the base symplectic manifold is formal and satisfies the hard Lefschetz property. A circle bundle over the symplectic manifold with Euler class is called a Boothby-Wang fibration. For such fibrations, we have found a necessary condition for formality. When the dimension of the base space , this condition is also sufficient.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let be a formal symplectic manifold satisfying the hard Lefschetz property. Suppose is integral, then there exists a circle bundle over whose Euler class is . In the following statements, (1) implies (2), and (2) implies (3). Moreover, when , (3) also implies (1).
- (1)
X is formal. 2. (2)
All generalized Massey products of vanish. 3. (3)
For arbitrary , satisfying and
[TABLE]
for some , and for arbitrary , we have
[TABLE]
Here, for . Given an element , we define operator as
[TABLE]
Simpler than the vanishing of the Massey products, equation (1.1) is also a necessary condition for formality and can be checked straightforwardly. It gives a quick way to determine non-formality for certain classes of manifolds. For example, we have the following statement:
Corollary 1.4**.**
When is a compact Kähler manifold and is reducible, is non-formal.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the definitions and some basic properties of DGA and -algebra. Section 3 consists of the proof of Theorem 1.1. In Section 4, we prove Theorem 1.2, then consider the special case of circle bundles. We motivate the statement of Theorem 1.3 and provide the proof. A main ingredient of our proof including a detailed analysis of the required -morphism is provided in the Appendix.
Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank his Ph.D. advisor, Li-Sheng Tseng, for his patient guidance and valuable advice. The author also appreciates his postdoctoral mentor Si Li, for suggesting many ideas and related questions. The author also thanks Vladimir Baranovsky, Xiaojun Chen and Matthew Gibson for their helpful suggestions. This work is supported by National Key Research and Development Program of China (NO. 2020YFA0713000).
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we recall some basic definitions and properties of differential graded algebras and -algebras (c.f. [compgeo][keller]).
2.1 Differential graded algebras
Definition 2.1**.**
A (commutative) differential graded algebra (DGA) over a field is a graded -algebra together with a -linear map such that
- i)
; 2. ii)
The multiplication is graded commutative: For , we have 3. iii)
The Leibniz product rule holds: ; 4. iv)
.
Example 2.2**.**
Let be a manifold. Its differential forms form a DGA , where is the differential operator and is the wedge product of differential forms.
Example 2.3**.**
Given a DGA , its cohomology is also a DGA, with . The multiplication on is naturally induced by the multiplication on .
Definition 2.4**.**
Let () and () be two DGAs. A DGA-homomorphism is a -linear map such that
- i)
; 2. ii)
; 3. iii)
:
[TABLE]
Naturally, induces a homomorphism:
[TABLE]
is called a DGA-quasi-isomorphism if is an isomorphism.
Definition 2.5**.**
Two DGAs () and () are equivalent if there exists a sequence of DGA-quasi-isomorphisms:
[TABLE]
Definition 2.6**.**
A DGA () is called formal if () is equivalent to a DGA () with . Identically, () is equivalent to () if and only if () is formal.
We say a manifold is formal if its de Rham complex () is a formal DGA.
Remark 2.7**.**
We usually omit the multiplication sign of . For example, in the DGA of differential forms, we write as , and write as simply. So , where are the degrees of and respectively.
2.2 -algebra
Definition 2.8**.**
Let be a field. An -algebra over is a -graded vector space endowed with graded -linear maps
[TABLE]
of degree satisfying
[TABLE]
In particular, when , we have
[TABLE]
When , we have
[TABLE]
If , is associative. Every DGA is an -algebra, where is the differential , is the multiplication, and for all .
Definition 2.9**.**
A morphism of -algebra is a family of graded maps of degree such that
[TABLE]
where the sum on left-hand side runs over all decompositions , and the sum on the right-hand side runs over all and all decompositions . The sign on the right side is given by
[TABLE]
Specifically, when , we have
[TABLE]
also induces a morphism . The morphism is called a quasi-isomorphism if is an isomorphism.
Alternatively, we can describe an -algebra by its suspension. In this convention, no negative signs appear. Let be a graded vector space such that . Set , the canonical map of degree -1. Then we can define a family of maps corresponding to by
[TABLE]
For example, and , where is the degree of .
All are of degree 1, and the equations of (2.1) become equivalent to
[TABLE]
Similarly, given an -morphism , we can define corresponding to by
[TABLE]
All are of degree 0, and the equations of (2.2) become equivalent to
[TABLE]
Again, the left-hand side sum runs over all decompositions , and the right-hand side sum runs over all and all decompositions .
An -algebra is quasi-isomorphic to its cohomology equipped with an appropriate -algebraic structure.
Theorem 2.10** (Kadeishvili [kadei], see also [keller]).**
If is an -algebra, then has an -algebraic structure such that
- i)
* and is induced by ;* 2. ii)
There is an quasi-isomorphism of -algebras .
This structure is unique up to isomorphisms of -algebras.
Definition 2.11**.**
given above is called an -minimal model for . We say is formal if we can choose all to be 0 for on its -minimal model.
We will give an explicit construction of an -minimal model, which will be used in later sections. For convenience, we use following notation:
Let be an -morphism. For , set
[TABLE]
is defined by and . It then determines and . Since , and need to satisfy . So must be . Therefore, given an -algebra , if we want to give an -algebraic structure together with a quasi-isomorphism , we can define and inductively by calculating .
Similarly, on the suspension, we set
[TABLE]
As , and need to satisfy .
For an -morphism , we can define and in a similar way.
Proof of Theorem 2.10.
Let denote the subspace of all -exact forms in . By the splitting Lemma, we can decompose the space of all -closed forms as for , and can decompose as for . Then for each , there is a unique such that . So we can define a map such that . Then and , where 1 is the identity map.
In particular, if is a Riemannian manifold and , we can set to be the space of harmonic forms, , and .
Now we define an -algebra structure on and a quasi-isomorphism . For each , there exists a unique representing the cohomology class . Set . For , set . To define higher and , suppose on and have been defined, then and needs to satisfy . Set . By induction, we can construct an -minimal model of . ∎
By the theorem below, a DGA satisfying the definition of formal in the DGA sense is equivalent to satisfying the definition of formal as an -algebra. So in this context, we will simply say that this DGA is formal.
Theorem 2.12** (see [keller]).**
If A is a DGA, it is formal as a DGA if and only if it is formal as an -algebra.
Definition 2.13**.**
An -algebra is called strictly unital if there exists some such that , , and for when some .
An -morphism is called strictly unital if and are strictly unital, , and for when some .
Theorem 2.14**.**
When is a strictly unital -algebra and is non-exact, we can construct a strictly unital minimal model , and a strictly unital quasi-isomorphism .
Proof.
We construct the minimal model by the proof of Theorem 2.10. Let be the cohomology class of . Choose such that it contains . Then . In particular, when , is the only representative of , so it must be in . Also cannot be exact in this case.
Since is induced by , for each we have . Similarly .
To avoid keeping track of plus and minus signs, we will finish the proof on suspension . Then the equations of become
[TABLE]
is defined by
[TABLE]
So for arbitrary , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
This implies .
For , we prove the statement inductively. Suppose and have been constructed and satisfy the condition for strictly unital. is defined as
[TABLE]
Assume for some . Consider the first term on the right-hand side. For each summand b^{A}_{r}\big{(}(sf)_{i_{1}}\otimes\ldots\otimes(sf)_{i_{r}}\big{)}(sx_{1},\ldots,sx_{p}), there exists some such that
[TABLE]
When , is acting on the tensor of some elements including . So the image is [math]. The non-trivial summand must satisfy . In this case if , we have and . Thus, . Since acting on the tensor of some elements including is 0. All summands are trivial. For the same reason, if , the only non-trivial summand is
[TABLE]
If , the only non-trivial summand is
[TABLE]
Now we turn to the second term: . In each summand, , so . If or , is acting on the tensor of some elements including . Hence, the image is [math]. When and , the summand is also trivial because is acting on the tensor of some elements including . So the only non-trivial summand satisfies or , and . When , the second term becomes
[TABLE]
When , the second term becomes
[TABLE]
When , the second term becomes
[TABLE]
In each case, the first term is equal to the second term. Therefore, we always have if some . Then and sf_{p}=sQ\big{(}(sf)_{1}b_{p}-sF_{p}\big{)} are both 0. So and are strictly unital. ∎
3 Minimal model of -connected compact manifold
We here recall a result of Miller for -connected compact manifolds. A manifold is called -connected if it is path-connected and its homotopy group for . Our goal in this section is to generalize Miller’s result.
Theorem 3.1** (Miller [miller]).**
Let be an -dimensional -connected compact manifold. If , then M is formal.
Consider a strictly unital -algebra with the following properties.
for or . 2. 2.
is finite dimensional. . 3. 3.
Take a basis for each , where is the dimension of . Let denote the only generator of . Then there exists a ”dual” basis such that on the suspension
[TABLE] 4. 4.
For arbitrary , let be the total degree. Let denote a permutation such that
[TABLE]
Then the cyclic sum
[TABLE]
for all .
In particular, if is a compact orientable manifold, satisfies the conditions above. Condition 3 follows from Poincaré duality. Condition 4 follows from a simple calculation below. For ,
[TABLE]
And for .
We claim that when acting on . By definition,
[TABLE]
When is odd, for every . When is even, . So .
Theorem 3.2**.**
Suppose is an -algebra satisfying the conditions above. If for , and is an integer such that , then has an -minimal model with for .
Proof.
The idea is first constructing a minimal model of and a quasi-isomorphism following the proof of Theorem 2.10. Then do some modifications to make for .
By Theorem 2.14, and are strictly unital. As and for , if is non-trivial for , the degree of each is at least . Thus, the degree of is at least . On the other hand, we have assumed that a basis of have a ”dual” in . When , . In this case is 0 for and is 1 for . Hence, if is non-trivial, it must be in , i.e. the total degree .
Now we define another -structure on and a quasi-isomorphism such that . Set and for . Then must equal to and with . Define and as in (2.4). We have
[TABLE]
As discussed above, if and only if the cohomology class of with total degree . We can make when the total degree , so that the summation part of (3.1) will vanish. Then the required equation becomes
[TABLE]
The equation above is equivalent to
[TABLE]
for any .
For each , take a basis , and its ”dual” basis such that . Here is the generator of . Then for arbitrary with , (so ) for , and . Let , then for each generator , the following equation needs to be satisfied.
[TABLE]
The equations above form a linear equation system for \Big{[}b_{2}^{A}\big{(}(s\delta)_{l-1}\otimes(s\delta)_{1}\big{)}\sigma^{a}(sx^{(i_{1})}_{u_{1}},\ldots,sx^{(i_{l-1})}_{u_{l-1}},sx^{(t)}_{v})\Big{]}. Since , this system has variables and equations. Add all these equations together. The right-hand side is
[TABLE]
Also by the assumption of Condition 4, the left-hand side is
[TABLE]
Therefore, this system has solutions. We can take one of the solutions as
[TABLE]
Since is generated by , we can define an operator from to the ground field such that . So we can set
[TABLE]
when for and . And Set
[TABLE]
when some or .
By the discussion above, this construction makes .
Then we can define and as the proof of Theorem 2.10. Since satisfies the condition of strictly unital, so do , and . Thus, when is non-trival, the degree of each is at least , and the degree of is at least . It is possible only when and the total degree .
Similarly, we define an -structure on and a quasi-isomorphism such that . Set and for . Then and with . Hence,
[TABLE]
In a similar way, we can define by setting
[TABLE]
when some or . This construction makes the summation part of (3.2) become 0. And we set
[TABLE]
when for and . Here . This construction makes
[TABLE]
for arbitrary and arbitrary .
Therefore, for arbitrary with , we have
[TABLE]
This implies .
Same as the proof of Theorem 2.10, we can continue define then and for inductively. By the discussion of Theorem 2.14, and are strictly unital. Thus, for , if some . If every , the degree is at least . So and it must be 0. Hence, .
By the discussion above, is an -minimal model of with for . ∎
As a corollary, when is a -connected compact orientable manifold, satisfied the theorem above. More generally, we can show that the statement is also true when is not orientable.
Theorem 3.3**.**
Suppose is an -dimensional -connected compact manifold. If such that , then has an -minimal model with for .
Proof.
As is -connected, for all . It follows that by the Hurewicz Theorem.
The case that is orientable is a special case of Theorem 3.2. When is not orientable, . Let be the orientation bundle over . is also connected and for . So when , . By twisted Poincaré duality, . Therefore, for all .
Construct a minimal model of . Then is strictly unital. Thus, on the suspension if is non-trivial, then for all , i.e. . When , the degree of is at least . Since , and for , must be 0. Therefore, for all . ∎
In the proof of Theorem 3.2, and are constructed in a similar way. It would be interesting to construct -minimal models for other types of DGAs or -algebras following this way. For example, we may extend Cavalcanti’s result [caval2] that a compact orientable -connected manifold where the -Betti number is formal if its dimension . A conjecture is that the de Rham complex of such a manifold has an -minimal model with for if its dimension .
4 Minimal model of an extension of formal DGA and its application on odd-dimensional sphere bundles
Let be a formal DGA, and be the extension of by an odd-degree generator . The odd degree of implies . Hence, we can also write . For the differential, we set for some even-degree , with . In Section 4.1 below, we will describe how simple this -minimal model of can be.
A topological example is that , the singular cochain complex of a formal manifold . Then is the singular cochain complex of the mapping cone by taking cup product with . Geometrically, when is an integral differential form, we consider . In this case is quasi-isomorphic to , where is a sphere bundle over whose Euler class is .
When is a symplectic manifold and , is also quasi-isomorphic to an -algebra over [tt], constructed by Tsai, Tseng and Yau [tty]. Moreover, when is taken as the symplectic form of and is integral, becomes a circle bundle over and is called the Boothby-Wang fibration. In Section 4.2, we will describe the formality of such with formal and satisfying the hard Lefschetz property.
4.1 Minimal model of an extension of formal DGA
First we will show that when is formal, is quasi-isomorphic to , which is the extension of by . Then we can consider a much simpler DGA.
Theorem 4.1**.**
Suppose are two DGAs and is a quasi-isomorphism. are -closed even-degree elements such that . Extend to with and with . Then there exists a quasi-isomorphism .
Proof. Without loss of generality, we can assume . Otherwise, by assumption for some . Then we can consider and instead of and .
Set
[TABLE]
It is easy to check that is linear, preserves wedge products and . It remains to show that is bijective.
1) is injective.
Suppose is closed in and . There exists such that
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
So we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
Hence, is closed and . Since , must be exact in .
Assume such that . By
[TABLE]
and is surjective, there exists and such that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
So is exact in . Also
[TABLE]
Hence, is exact since is injective. Let such that
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
which is exact in . That shows is injective.
2) is surjective.
Given arbitrary closed , we have
[TABLE]
As is closed and is surjective, there exists such that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Since is closed and is injective, must be exact. So there exists such that . Thus,
[TABLE]
So there exists and such that
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
i.e.
[TABLE]
Thus, is surjective.∎
When is formal, there exists a zigzag of quasi-isomorphisms between and . We can extend each quasi-isomorphism by the previous theorem, and obtain the following statement.
Corollary 4.2**.**
Suppose is a formal DGA. is a closed even-degree element. , where . is quasi-isomorphic to , where .
Now we can consider the extension of a DGA whose differential is 0, then construct its -minimal model.
Theorem 4.3**.**
Suppose is a DGA and . is an even-degree element. Let with . Then has an -minimal model with for all except for or .
Proof. Since , for arbitrary , is closed if and only if . It is exact if and only if and , where is the ideal generated by in . Thus,
[TABLE]
where is an operator on by multiplying .
1) Defining .
Decompose for some subspace of . For each cohomology class in H^{*}\big{(}\mathcal{H}[\theta]\big{)}, by the discussion above there exists a unique such that So we can set
[TABLE]
It is easy to verify is a quasi-isomorphism.
2) Defining .
Give another decomposition of by for some subspace of . For each , there exists a unique such that . So we can define a map by Then set as
[TABLE]
Such is well-defined. Suppose
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
As is the identity map on , satisfies the equation
[TABLE]
3) Defining and .
and need to satisfy
[TABLE]
and is the cohomology class of . By the definition of , its image is in , which is the ideal generated by in . Hence, for any x,y,z\in H^{*}\big{(}\mathcal{H}[\theta]\big{)},
[TABLE]
for some . Thus,
[TABLE]
Therefore, , and we can set .
4) Triviality of and .
As , and need to satisfy
[TABLE]
We claim since and . On the other hand, for any x,y,z,w\in H^{*}\big{(}\mathcal{H}[\theta]\big{)}, we can assume
[TABLE]
for some . Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hence, m_{1}f_{2}\big{(}m_{3}(x,y,z),w\big{)}=0. By previous discussion we have , so . Similarly, .
Therefore, and we can set .
5) Triviality of higher and .
For higher degrees, we will prove and by induction. Suppose on H^{*}\big{(}\mathcal{H}[\theta]\big{)} for and for , where . and need to satisfy
[TABLE]
where and .
Since , either or , so . Also, . So . That implies . Therefore, and we can take . ∎
By the previous theorem, we have the following statement for formal DGA.
Theorem 4.4**.**
Suppose is a formal DGA, and is an even-degree element. Extend to with . Then has an -minimal model with for all except for or .
When for some formal manifold and is an integral differential form, is quasi-isomorphic to . Here is a sphere bundle over whose Euler class is . So we have
Theorem 4.5**.**
Let be a formal manifold, be an even-dimensional integral differential form, and be the sphere bundle over with Euler class . Then is formal if is exact. When is non-exact, has an -minimal model with for all except for or .
When is non-exact, may be or may not be formal. There are examples for both cases. We will talk about this in next subsection.
In the Introduction, we asked whether we can construct formal manifolds from a given formal manifold, and we have only described the special case of odd dimensional sphere bundles here. It is natural to consider the case of even dimensional sphere bundles next, or more generally, other types of fiber bundles. We can also think about other ways of obtaining new manifolds, such as symplectic reduction, blowing up and down.
Another question is whether we can extend Theorem 4.4, which would fit as the case of the following broader statement. Suppose is a DGA. is an even-degree element. Extend to with . If has an -minimal model with for , can we prove that has an -minimal model with for ?
4.2 Formality of circle bundle over formal manifolds with hard Lefschetz property
In this subsection, we will focus on the special case of circle bundles. The base is assumed to be a compact formal symplectic manifold satisfying the hard Lefschetz property. For simplicity, we use to denote the DGA , and use to denote its cohomology class in unless otherwise stated. When is integral, let denote the circle bundle over with Euler class .
By Corollary 4.2, is quasi-isomorphic to , where . Then the circle bundle is formal if and only if is formal.
Since satisfies the hard Lefschetz property, is an isomorphism. We can set the space of primitive classes
[TABLE]
Then has the Lefschetz decomposition
[TABLE]
So
[TABLE]
With this decomposition, we can introduce an operator such that for ,
[TABLE]
Let’s first consider a simple case.
Example 4.6**.**
Suppose , and is taken as a representative of the generator of . Then is formal since it is Kähler. So the circle bundle is formal if and only if is formal. The cohomology ring of is
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Since , H^{i}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} must be trivial except for or . The morphism is a DGA quasi-isomorphism from H^{i}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} to . So and are formal.
As we will see later, may not be formal even if is formal. By the following lemma, when is formal we can construct an -quasi-isomorphism f:H^{i}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\to A[\theta] such that the image of is . Note that in this following theorem denote a general formal DGA rather than .
Lemma 4.7**.**
Suppose is an arbitrary formal DGA. Then there exists an -quasi-isomorphism between suspensions, where on for . For any linear map of degree , we can find another -quasi-isomorphism such that .
Proof.
Set
[TABLE]
By a straightforward calculation, we can verity that
[TABLE]
for all . So is the -quasi-isomorphism we want. ∎
Then we have a necessary condition to make formal.
Theorem 4.8**.**
Suppose is formal. Take arbitrary , satisfying and is in the ideal generated by , i.e.
[TABLE]
for some . Then for any , the following equation must hold
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let f:H^{*}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\to A be an -quasi-isomorphism. By Lemma 4.7, we can modify sending each cohomology class to any representative. So we can assume that
[TABLE]
for any .
By , we can obtain m_{1}f_{2}\big{(}[x_{i}],[y_{i}]\big{)} by calculating the other terms. When , f_{1}\big{(}[x_{i}y_{i}]\big{)} is the primitive part of , i.e. projecting to . This primitive part can be written as . Hence,
[TABLE]
When , is in the ideal generated by according to the hard Lefschetz property. So its cohomology class is 0, and . Then we also have
[TABLE]
Thus, f_{2}\big{(}[x_{i}],[y_{i}]\big{)} is plus some closed element in . Since its degree is not greater than n, that closed element must be in . Similarly, and f_{2}\big{(}[y_{i}],[z]\big{)} is in the coset .
By , we let the left-hand side acting on for each and add them together. Then the part of the first term is
[TABLE]
The second term -f_{2}\big{(}[\sum x_{i}y_{i}],[z]\big{)}+\sum f_{2}\big{(}[x_{i}],[y_{i}z]\big{)} vanishes as and all are 0. The third term is an exact element in , which must be in . Therefore, the coefficient of must be 0, i.e.
[TABLE]
∎
With this theorem, we can claim that is non-formal quickly in some special cases.
Definition 4.9**.**
A cohomology class is called reducible if it is in , i.e. there exist such that
[TABLE]
and all have positive degree.
Corollary 4.10**.**
When is a compact Kähler manifold and is reducible, is non-formal.
Proof.
Since is reducible, such that
[TABLE]
As is Kähler, . So we can assume that all and all . Since , there exists some . Take , then is a non-trivial class in . So for any , and we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
By Theorem 4.8, is not formal. Neither is . ∎
Example 4.11**.**
Let . Take , where and . Then is a Kähler manifold and is reducible. Hence, is non-formal.
When the dimension of is low, equation is also sufficient for the formality of .
Theorem 4.12**.**
When the dimension of is not greater than 6, is formal if and only if (4.1) holds for all .
Proof.
The 2-dimensional case follows from Example 4.6 and Corollary 4.10. When the genus of is greater than or equal to 1, is reducible and is Kähler. So (4.1) does not hold and is non-formal. When the genus is 0, . So trivially holds and is formal.
When is 6-dimensional, we will construct an -quasi-isomorphism f:H^{*}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\to A[\theta]. The 4-dimensional case is similar. We just give the definition of here, and will give the proof that it is indeed an -quasi-isomorphism in the Appendix.
Choose a basis such that H^{1}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\cdot H^{1}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}=\langle\,[a_{i}^{[2]}b_{i}^{[2]}]\,\rangle, where 1\leq i\leq\dim\left\{H^{1}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\cdot H^{1}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\right\}, . Then expand this basis such that H^{2}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}=\langle\,[a_{i}^{[2]}b_{i}^{[2]}]\,\rangle\oplus\langle\,[y_{j}^{(2)}]\,\rangle with . Set . Then we also have .
By Poincaré duality, for each there exists some such that and . Let be the projection of to . Since , is also orthogonal to other and satisfies . Similarly we can define . The choices of are unique because .
Similarly, we can choose a basis such that H^{2}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\cdot H^{1}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}=\langle\,[a_{i}^{[3]}b_{i}^{[3]}]\,\rangle with and . Then expand this basis such that H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}=\langle\,[a_{i}^{[3]}b_{i}^{[3]}]\,\rangle\oplus\langle\,[y_{j}^{(3)}]\,\rangle with . Set and we have . We can define in a same way such that they are orthogonal to all other except for .
Now we can start define f:H^{*}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\to A[\theta]. For , set
[TABLE]
Next we define . For , with we set
[TABLE]
When acting on H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{2}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}, for , we set
[TABLE]
For , we set
[TABLE]
For irreducible generators and , set
[TABLE]
Here means and sends to .
Similarly when acting on H^{2}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} we define
[TABLE]
for ,
[TABLE]
for , and
[TABLE]
When acting on H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}, for we define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Finally, we set when acting on H^{r}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{s}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} and one of . For , set . By straightforward calculation we will see that such is an -quasi-isomorphism. ∎
Remark 4.13**.**
In the proof of Theorem 4.12, we split as the subspace of reducible cohomology classes and its complement, then define acting on them separately. This works for . But when , the reducible cohomology classes of degree 4 contains two subspaces and , these two subspace may have a non-trivial intersection. This makes defining much more complicated. So we have to find other ways to generalize this theorem.
Observe that equation (4.1) is a special case of the vanishing generalized Massey product (c.f. [bt2]). Also all generalized Massey products vanishing is a necessary condition for formal. So we have the following corollary.
Corollary 4.14**.**
When the dimension of is not greater than 6, is formal if and only if its generalized Massey products all vanish.
Therefore, we have following theorem.
Theorem 4.15**.**
Let be a formal symplectic manifold satisfying the hard Lefschetz property. Suppose is integral, then there exists a circle bundle over whose Euler class is . In the following statements, (1) implies (2), and (2) implies (3). Moreover, when , (3) also implies (1).
- (1)
X is formal. 2. (2)
All generalized Massey products of vanish. 3. (3)
For arbitrary , satisfying and
[TABLE]
for some , and for arbitrary , we have
[TABLE]
Example 4.16**.**
Let be two Riemann surfaces, where are their volume form respectively. Let and (Here are actually the pullback of associated with the projection. For simplicity we omit the pullback sign). Then is a Kähler manifold. So it is formal and satisfies the hard Lefschetz property.
If the genus of both and are at least 1, and are reducible. Then is also reducible. By Corollary 4.10, the circle bundle over with Euler class is non-formal.
If one of the genus is 0, we will show that is formal. Without loss of generality, suppose the genus of is 0. Choose a basis of such that
[TABLE]
for all , where is the genus of . Let . Then the ring structure of can be described as follows.
[TABLE]
The last equation implies that is the generator of .
To prove that is formal, we will verify that (4.1) holds for all , satisfying the following conditions: , and is in the ideal generated by .
When , we have . So we can assume . In this case can be 1 or 2. We first discuss the case . Since the product of any two elements in is proportional to , must be 0 if it is in the ideal generated by . On the other hand, . Thus
[TABLE]
For the case , since the product of two elements in and is always in the ideal generated to , we only need to verify that (4.1) holds for , i.e.
[TABLE]
As , we can assume that they are both . Then
[TABLE]
When , and can only be 1. Same as the case above, we only need to verify that (4.1) holds for . Suppose . Then
[TABLE]
Therefore, is formal.
Example 4.17**.**
Let , and be the corresponding volume form of each . Set . Then is a Kähler manifold.
Let and . As , . Thus, . Similarly . We will show that .
For elements in , we have
[TABLE]
So
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
Therefore, The circle bundle over with Euler class is non-formal.
This example shows that being irreducible, even if is simply connected, is not enough to guarantee that is formal.
Appendix A Proof of Theorem 4.12
Here, we will show that f:H^{*}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\to A[\theta] defined in the proof of Theorem 4.12 is an -quasi-isomorphism. We assume .
Proof.
Recall that we choose bases of H^{2}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} and H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} satisfying
[TABLE]
Here for . All are generators of the subspace of reducible cohomologies, and is irreducible. The degree of is 2, and the degree of are 1. We use denote the dual of respectively corresponding to these bases.
is defined as follows. For , set
[TABLE]
is defined as follows. For , with we set
[TABLE]
When acting on H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{2}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}, we define
[TABLE]
for ,
[TABLE]
For , and
[TABLE]
Here sends to .
When acting on H^{2}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} we define
[TABLE]
for ,
[TABLE]
for , and
[TABLE]
When acting on H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}, for we define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
When acting on H^{r}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{s}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} and one of , we set . For , set .
f is well-defined.
First we need to verify that is well-defined. Namely, when there are two different ways of defining , they should be compatible.
For example, are defined by both (A.1) and (A.2). Under these definitions, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Compare corresponding terms. The degree of is 3, and the degree of and are 1. By assumption equation (4.1) holds. So we have
[TABLE]
Also, the degree of is 2. Since and are isomorphisms between and , we have
[TABLE]
Similarly
[TABLE]
Thus, the two definitions agree.
In the same way, we can verify that the definitions of f_{2}\big{(}[x_{i}^{(2)}],[x_{k}^{(3)}]\big{)} and f_{2}\big{(}[x_{i}^{(3)}],[x_{k}^{(3)}]\big{)} are also compatible. So is well-defined.
** is a quasi-isomorphism.**
Next we prove that is a quasi-isomorphism. By the definition of , it is clear that and is an isomorphism. So it remains to show
[TABLE]
for .
Case .
When we , the equation becomes . For , and ,
[TABLE]
For ,
[TABLE]
As the degree of is 4, . On the other hand,
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
because .
Follow the same way we have f_{2}\big{(}[x_{i}^{(3)}],[z^{(2)}]\big{)}=\big{(}f_{1}m_{2}-m_{2}(f_{1}\otimes f_{1})\big{)}\big{(}[x_{i}^{(3)}],[z^{(2)}]\big{)} for .
Next we consider
[TABLE]
Since L^{-3}\Big{(}-y_{j}^{(3)}f_{2}\big{(}[y_{k}^{(2)}],[x_{i}^{(3)}]\big{)}\Big{)} is some constant times , acting on the second term is proportional to . But . So and
[TABLE]
As and is injective, . Also . Therefore, we have
[TABLE]
Similarly we can show that holds when acting on H^{2}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} and H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}.
For any and , f_{2}\big{(}[\theta\omega^{n-r}z^{(r)}],[w^{(s)}]\big{)}=0. When , the total degree of is greater than . So f_{1}\big{(}[\theta\omega^{n-r}z^{(r)}w^{(s)}]\big{)}=f_{1}\big{(}[\theta\omega^{n-r}z^{(r)}]\big{)}f_{1}\big{(}[w^{(s)}]\big{)}=0.
When , we claim that . Observe that is the kernel of . Also . So f_{1}\big{(}[\theta\omega^{n-r}z^{(r)}w^{(s)}]\big{)}=\theta\omega^{n-r}z^{(r)}w^{(s)}=f_{1}\big{(}[\theta\omega^{n-r}z^{(r)}]\big{)}f_{1}\big{(}[w^{(s)}]\big{)}.
This proves holds when acting on H^{r}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{s}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} with . A same discussion shows the equation also holds for the case . Finally, when , the total degree of both sides are at least 8. So they must be 0 and the equation trivially holds.
Properties of .
Before talk about the case , we go through some properties of . The first one is that is graded commutative. Since is graded commutative, it follows from the definition directly that
[TABLE]
By equation (4.1),
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
A similar discussion shows that
[TABLE]
We have proved that f_{2}\big{(}[y_{k}^{(2)}],[x_{i}^{(3)}]\big{)}=f_{2}\big{(}[x_{i}^{(3)}],[y_{k}^{(2)}]\big{)}. It follows that
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Similarly, we prove f_{2}\big{(}[y_{j}^{(3)}],[y_{k}^{(3)}]\big{)}=-f_{2}\big{(}[y_{k}^{(3)}],[y_{j}^{(3)}]\big{)} by showing that
[TABLE]
This follows from the definition of and (4.1).
[TABLE]
In the remaining cases . So it is graded commutative.
Besides, we can generalize equation (A.1) as follows. For arbitrary and , we have
[TABLE]
Since [w^{(1)}v^{(1)}]\in H^{1}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\cdot H^{1}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}, there exist constant numbers such that
[TABLE]
By the definition of , we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, as is exact, it is in the ideal generated by . So are all . So we can apply equation (4.1) and get
[TABLE]
This implies (A.3).
Similarly, we have
[TABLE]
for arbitrary , and
[TABLE]
for arbitrary .
Because is graded commutative, we have similar statements that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Case .
When , the equation becomes
[TABLE]
We will go through all the cases that the left-hand side of the above equation acts on H^{r}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{s}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\otimes H^{t}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}. Since is graded commutative, we only need to check the case .
We first consider the case that . That is, for any , we have
[TABLE]
1) When ,
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
because the degree of is smaller than or equal to 2 and is the identity map. For the same reason
[TABLE]
Add all terms together we get (A.9).
2) When , i.e. when or , equation (A.10) also holds. But in this case, . Apply equation (4.1) we have
[TABLE]
Thus, we get (A.9).
3) When , we have went through the case and the remaining cases are and .
3.1) For the first two cases that , equation (A.10) still holds. As , . By (A.3) or (A.4),
[TABLE]
Then we get (A.9).
3.2) For the case , we also have equation (A.10). By (A.7) we have
[TABLE]
and by (A.4)
[TABLE]
Add all terms together again we get (A.9).
4) When , we have went through the case . It remains to check , and .
4.1) For , the proof is similar as before. Equation (A.10) holds, , and
[TABLE]
by (A.5). Adding them together we get (A.9).
4.2) For , the definition of f_{2}\big{(}[z^{(3)}],[w^{(2)}]\big{)} is depending on whether and are reducible. We will talk about these cases separately. In each case the term f_{2}\big{(}[z^{(3)}w^{(2)}],[v^{(1)}]\big{)}=0 as .
4.2.1) If , we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
by (A.2), and
[TABLE]
by (A.5). Adding all these terms together we get
[TABLE]
According to (4.1) we have
[TABLE]
So (A.9) holds.
4.2.2) If , we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
by (A.1), and
[TABLE]
by (A.5). Adding all these terms together we get
[TABLE]
According to (4.1) we have
[TABLE]
So (A.9) holds.
4.2.3) If and , the terms become
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
by (A.5). Adding all these terms together we get
[TABLE]
Observe that (A.11) is an element in . So according to Poincaré duality, we can show that (A.11) vanishes by verifying that it multiplies any element in is 0. When it multiplies , we assume in H^{3}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}, i.e. . Then the last term of (A.11) multiplying is
[TABLE]
as and . Thus, we get
[TABLE]
Then by (A.4)
[TABLE]
Observe that
[TABLE]
which is the second term of (A.11) multiplying . On the other hand, the first term of (A.11) multiplying is
[TABLE]
Since , . Also . So their product vanishes. Thus,
[TABLE]
This implies that (A.11) multiplying is 0. When it multiplies , the last term vanishes as . So the remaining terms are
[TABLE]
Therefore, (A.11) vanishes and (A.9) holds.
4.3) For , we also have to go through the cases that whether are reducible. This time both and are 0.
4.3.1) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
By (4.1) we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
So we get (A.9).
4.3.2) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
According to (4.1),
[TABLE]
So we get (A.9).
4.3.3) If and , the terms become
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We will also show that their sum m_{2}(f_{1}\otimes f_{2}-f_{2}\otimes f_{1})\big{(}[z^{(2)}],[w^{(3)}],[v^{(1)}]\big{)} is zero by multiplying it to any elements in . When multiplying , same as (A.12), the last term becomes
[TABLE]
For the other two terms, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
as and . This shows the sum m_{2}(f_{1}\otimes f_{2}-f_{2}\otimes f_{1})\big{(}[z^{(2)}],[w^{(3)}],[v^{(1)}]\big{)} multiplying is 0. It remains to check this sum multiplying is 0.
When multiplying , we have as and . The remaining terms are
[TABLE]
Thus, we get (A.9).
5) When , we have went through the case . It remains to check , and .
5.1) For , both and are 0. Similar as before we have to go through the cases that whether are reducible.
5.1.1) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
by (4.1), and
[TABLE]
we get (A.9).
5.1.2) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
According to (4.1) we have
[TABLE]
So (A.9) holds.
5.1.3) If and , the terms become
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
As the sum of these terms is in , we will show it is 0 by verifying it vanishes when multiplying any . Same as (A.12), we have
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
as and . So we get (A.9).
5.2) For , both and are 0. We will also go through the cases that whether are reducible.
5.2.1) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
By (4.1) we have
[TABLE]
Also
[TABLE]
So (A.9) holds.
5.2.2) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
By (4.1) we have
[TABLE]
Thus, (A.9) holds.
5.2.3) If and , the terms become
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We will also prove their sum is 0 by multiplying . Similar as (A.12), we assume , i.e. . Then the last term multiplying is
[TABLE]
Its second term vanishes because is in and becomes 0 when multiplies . The remaining first term is
[TABLE]
Thus, we get
[TABLE]
By (A.3),
[TABLE]
Observes that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
as and . So we get (A.9).
5.3) For , both and are 0. This time we need to go through all the cases that whether are reducible.
5.3.1) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
As
[TABLE]
and by (4.1)
[TABLE]
we get (A.9).
5.3.2) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Observe that
[TABLE]
as and is an isomorphism. For the same reason
[TABLE]
Also by (4.1) we have
[TABLE]
So the sum of all these terms are 0. Then (A.9) holds.
5.3.3) If , we have
[TABLE]
as is an isomorphism and . On the other hand,
[TABLE]
Adding them together we get
[TABLE]
Similar as before, we will prove it is 0 by multiplying . Same as (A.12), we have
[TABLE]
Observe that
[TABLE]
as and . On the other hand, by (4.1),
[TABLE]
Its left-hand side is
[TABLE]
and right-hand side is
[TABLE]
So we get
[TABLE]
and then (A.9) holds.
5.3.4) If , we can get (A.9) similarly as the above case, because and are graded commutative.
5.3.5) If , we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
By (4.1) . So the sum is
[TABLE]
We will show it is 0 by multiplying . Same as (A.12), we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Observe that
[TABLE]
Similarly we have
[TABLE]
By (4.1) . Then we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, the sum is 0 and (A.9) holds.
6) When , we need to check the cases and .
6.1) For , . We will also go through the cases that whether are reducible.
6.1.1) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
As is an isomorphism,
[TABLE]
So (A.9) holds.
6.1.2) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since is an isomorphism, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Also by (4.1),
[TABLE]
So the sum of all these terms are 0, and we have (A.9).
6.1.3) If , we have
[TABLE]
as and . On the other hand,
[TABLE]
So their sum is 0 and (A.9) holds.
6.1.4) If , we can get (A.9) by the above case since are graded commutative.
6.1.5) If , we have
[TABLE]
Both terms are 0. As and , their product are 0. Also for any . For the same reason,
[TABLE]
Therefore, (A.9) holds.
6.2) The last non-trivial case is . In this case both and are 0. We also have to go through the cases that whether are reducible.
6.2.1) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Observe that
[TABLE]
So the sum all all terms is 0 and (A.9) holds.
6.2.2) If , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since is an isomorphism, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Also by (4.1),
[TABLE]
So the sum of all terms is 0, and we have (A.9).
6.2.3) If , we have
[TABLE]
as and . On the other hand,
[TABLE]
In case 6.2.1) we have proved that
[TABLE]
So their sum is 0 and (A.9) holds.
6.2.4) If , we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
So their sum is 0 and (A.9) holds.
6.2.5) If , we have
[TABLE]
It vanishes because we have proved that both sides of equation (A.14) are 0. On the other hand
[TABLE]
Similar as the discussion of (A.14), since and , their product is 0. Also . So we get (A.9).
7) When , the left-hand side of (A.9) has degree 8. So it must be 0.
Now we have went through all cases that . Then we consider the other cases. Let \alpha\in H^{(r)}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)},\beta\in H^{(s)}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)} and \gamma\in H^{(t)}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}. We want to verify that
[TABLE]
8) When , by the definition of , and are all 0. So (A.15) holds.
9) When , and are 0. The only non-trivial term is . But by definition both and are in . So their product is 0. Then we get (A.15).
Since and are graded commutative, (A.15) also holds when . Therefore, we have verified all the cases of .
Case and higher.
When , the only non-trivial term of
[TABLE]
is . By the definition of , it is always in . As the product of two elements in is 0, (A.16) vanishes.
When , we claim that every term of (A.16) is 0. For the term , if it is non-trivial then . In this case at least one of and is greater than or equal to 3. Hence, or .
For the term , if it is non-trivial then . In this case . So .
Therefore, we have verified that f:H^{*}\big{(}A[\theta]\big{)}\to A[\theta] is indeed an -quasi-isomorphism.
This completes the proof of Theorem 4.12. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[]
- 2[7] Gil R. Cavalcanti, New aspects of d d c 𝑑 superscript 𝑑 𝑐 dd^{c} -lemma . Ph D thesis, Oxford University, 2004. ar Xiv:math/0501406 v 1.
