Draft:Formal Spaces (Topology)
Draft article not currently submitted for review.
This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should:
It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Last edited by Poleancuisine (talk | contribs) 7 seconds ago. (Update) |
In rational homotopy theory, formal spaces are a class of rational spaces for which their rational homotopy type is a formal consequence of their cohomology ring with rational coefficients. In other words, the rational homotopy type is completely determined by the cohomology ring with rational coefficients.
Background
[edit]The terminology Quillen and Sullivan in their work on rational homotopy theory. In this context, formallity was introduced as a property of certain classes of differential graded algebras (DGAs). Formal differential algebras were used by Quillen[1] to show that any simply connected commutative differential graded algebra (CDGA) of finite type is the cohomology ring of some topological space. It was also used by Deligne, Griffiths, Morgan, and Sullivan[2] to classify the homotopy types of Kähler manifolds.
Formal CDGAs
[edit]Given a CDGA, , over a field we may view its cohomology ring as a CDGA with zero differential. If is a morphism of CDGAs then induces a CDGA morphism on cohomology. Note that, by definition, a CDGA with zero differential is its own cohomology. In particular, a CDGA morphism induces a morphism on cohomology. Note that the cohomology depends on the field , over which is defined.
A minimal CDGA, , defined over a field of characteristic zero, is said to be formal[2] if there exists a CDGA morphism such that the induced map on cohomology is the identity.
The main property of interest in relation to formal CDGAs is the following. If is a CDGA such that its minimal model is formal, then the homotopy type of (i.e., the isomorphism class of its minimal model) is a formal consequence of its cohomology.
Characterizations
[edit]It turns out that formality is independent of the base field in the following sense. If is a CDGA defined over then is formal if and only if it is formal for some field of characteristic zero. In this case, we simply say that is formal. This result was proved independently by Sullivan[3], Miller and Neisendorfer[4], and Halperin and Stasheff[5]
Let be a minimal CDGA and let be the subspaces of -th degree elements of . For each we may consider the space of closed elements of . The following theorem due to Deligne, Griffiths, Morgan, and Sullivan[2] gives another characterization of formality.
Theorem 1 — is formal if and only if for each there is a subspace of with such that, every closed element, , of the ideal generated by is exact. The choice of is equivalent to a choice of morphism which induces the identity map on cohomology.
Formal Spaces
[edit]Let be a rational space, i.e., is a simply connected CW complex such that, for each , is a -vector space.
Piecewise-polynomial Differential Forms
[edit]For a CW complex, , the singular cochain complex with rational coefficients, naturally forms a DGA over with the multiplication given by the cup product. While the cup product extends to a graded commutative product on singular cohomology, the cup product on singular cochains is not graded commutative in general so may only be a DGA and not a CDGA. Instead, we may consider the complex of piecewsise-polynomial differential forms, i.e., differential forms which are given by polynomials on each simplex. This can be thought of as an analog of the de Rham complex for rational spaces. This is sometimes called the piecewise linear or PL de Rham complex and denotes .
This complex has a natural CDGA structure and the cohomology[6]. There is a natural map given by integration of forms, i.e., for and a simplex we have For rational spaces, we have a Stokes' theorem[6] which tells us that this is a cochain map. In particular, it induces a map on cohomology.
PL de Rham Theorem[6] — The map induces a CDGA isomorphism on cohomology.
Thus, the cohomology of is canonically isomorphic to the singular cohomology and so we may use as our CDGA substitute for .
Minimal Models
[edit]We define the minimal model of a rational space to be the minimal model, , of . Since is minimal, we may write for some -vector space . In particular, we may decompose where is the subspace spanned by the degree generators of .
Theorem 2[2] — There exists an isomorphism as -vector spaces
In particular, contains the -homotopy type of .
Formal Spaces
[edit]We say that a rational space is formal if its minimal model, is a formal CDGA. By definition, this means that that the isomorphism class of is a formal consequence of the cohomology of . By the PL de Rham theorem, this is exactly the singular cohomolgy. Moreover, by Theorem 2, the isomorphism class of is exactly the -homotopy type of . Thus, if is a formal space, its -homotopy type is a formal consequence of its cohomology ring.
Examples
[edit]Here are some examples of formal spaces:
- The -sphere are formal for .
- Complex projective space .
- Kähler manifolds[2].
- Simply connected Lie groups.
- The classifying space of a Lie group .
- Compact simply connected symmetric spaces[7] (e.g., , , Grassmanians).
See Also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Quillen, Daniel (1969). "Rational Homotopy Theory". Annals of Mathematics. 90 (2): 205–295. doi:10.2307/1970725.
- ^ a b c d e Deligne, Pierre; Griffiths, Phillip; Morgan, John; Sullivan, Dennis (1975). "Real Homotopy Theory of Kähler Manifolds". Inventiones Mathematicae. 29: 245–274. doi:10.1007/BF01389853.
- ^ Sullivan, Dennis (1977). "Infinitesimal Computations in Topology". Publications Mathématiques de L'institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. 47: 269–331. doi:10.1007/BF02684341.
- ^ Miller, Timothy; Neisendorfer, Joseph (1978). "Formal and Coformal Spaces". Illinois Journal of Mathematics. 22 (4): 565–580. doi:10.1215/ijm/1256048467.
- ^ Halperin, Stephen; Stasheff, James (1979). "Obstructions to Homotopy Equivalences". Advances in Mathematics. 32: 233–279. doi:10.1016/0001-8708(79)90043-4.
- ^ a b c Griffiths, Phillip; Morgan, John (2013). Rational Homotopy Theory and Differential Forms (2 ed.). New York: Birkhäuser New York. pp. 83–93. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8468-4.
- ^ Stępień, Zofia (2002). "On Formality of a Class of Compact Homogeneous Spaces". Geometriae Dedicata. 93: 37–45. doi:10.1023/A:1020313930539.