MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

as far as I know, there are two main ways to have a relative version of De Rham Cohomology for a pair (M,N), where M and N are smooth manifolds and N is a closed (as a topological subspace) submanifold of M:

1) Godbillon, Elements de topologie algébrique: $\Omega^p(M,N)$ is the space of all forms on $M$ whose restriction to $N$ is zero. This is a subalgebra of $\Omega^p(M)$ so it defines a cohomological space $H^p(M,N)$.

2) Bott-Tu, Differential forms in algebraic topology: this times, $\Omega^p(M,N)=\Omega^p(M)\oplus \Omega^{p-1}(N)$ with differential $d(\omega,\theta)=(d\omega,i^*(\omega)-d\theta)$, where $i:N\to M$ is the inclusion.

Does these two cohomologies give the same results? Otherwise, are they related and how are they related?

Bott and Tu's paragraph on the relative De Rham cohomology is very short. Does someone know a good reference on this subject?

Thank you in advance.

share|cite|improve this question
the otimes should be an oplus... – Xandi Tuni Oct 30 '12 at 8:52
Yes, thanks Johannes for editing. And for your answer. I just seen it right now (because of Sandy), so I need time to check it and ask details. – Taladris Nov 1 '12 at 0:17
up vote 17 down vote accepted

A chain map $\Theta$ from the Godbillon theory to the Bott-Tu version is given by $\omega \mapsto (\omega,0)$ (note that is a chain map only on $\Omega^{p} (M;N)_{G}$). I claim that this induces an isomorphism on cohomology. A couple of special cases is obvious: if $N=\emptyset$, then both theories agree with absolute de Rham theory. If $N \to M$ is a homotopy equivalence, both theories are trivial by long exact sequences and homotopy invariance of the absolute theory.

For the general case, pick a tubular neighborhood $U$ of $N$. You get short exact sequences of chain complexes (in both cases)

$$ 0\to \Omega (M;N) \to \Omega(U;N) \oplus \Omega (M-N) \to \Omega (U-N) \to 0 $$

(exactness is checked by means of a partition of unity), and $\Theta$ compares the both short exact sequences. The associated (Mayer-Vietoris) exact sequence and the $5$-lemma concludes the proof.

share|cite|improve this answer
What is $G$ here, and what does it mean for $\Theta$ to "compare" two short exact sequences? – Vidit Nanda Oct 30 '12 at 10:08
I assume $G$=Godbillon. That is $\Omega(M;N)$ with a $G$ subscript is the Godbillon definition and without a $G$ is the Bott-Tu definition. – Michael Murray Oct 30 '12 at 10:27
@Michael: absence of the G subscript means that the above exact sequence of chain complexes can be defined for the two kinds of relative cohomology (with different maps in the sequences of course). – Taladris Nov 1 '12 at 3:10
@Vel: "Compare" means that we have a commutative diagram connecting the exact sequences $ 0\to \Omega(M;N)_{G} \to \Omega(U;N)_{G}\oplus\Omega(M\setminus N)\to \Omega(U\setminus N)\to 0$ and $ 0\to \Omega(M;N)_{BT} \to \Omega(U;N)_{BT}\oplus\Omega(M\setminus N)\to \Omega(U\setminus N)\to 0$ (where the $G$ and $BT$ respectively mean Godbillon and Bott-Tu) and the vertical maps are $\Theta$, $\Theta\times id$ and $id$. These maps induce isomorphisms in cohomology (as Johannes claimed). @Johannes: thank you! I considered the chain map $\Theta$ but unsuccessfully. – Taladris Nov 1 '12 at 3:12

The fact that the DeRham cohomology of $M$ computes the singular cohomology is a reflection of the fact that the cohomology of a sheaf (in this case the constant sheaf $\newcommand{\bR}{\mathbb{R}}$ $\underline{\bR}$ over $M$) can be computed by using any (soft, flabby) resolution of this sheaf. The geometry appears when we produce a concrete such resolution, in your case the DeRham resolution.

Thus, an appropriate question would be if the relative cohomology could be given a sheaffy description.

The answer is yes. If $\newcommand{\eS}{\mathscr{S}}$ $\eS$ is a sheaf of Abelian groups on $M$ and $Z\subset M$ is a closed subset, then we denote by $\eS_Z$ the ``restriction'' of $\eS$ to $Z$ extended by $0$ outside. I want to emphasize that $\eS_Z$ is a sheaf on $M$: its stalk at $x\in M$ is $\eS_x$ if $x\in Z$, and $0$ otherwise. We have a natural surjective morphism

$$ r:\eS\to\eS_Z $$

We denote its kernel by $\eS_{M\setminus Z}$.We thus get a short exact sequence of sheaves

$$ 0\to\eS_{M\setminus Z} \to \eS\to\eS_Z\to 0. $$

This leads to an exact sequence in cohomology

$$ \cdots \to H^\bullet(M,\eS_{M\setminus Z})\to H^\bullet(M,\eS)\to H^\bullet(M,\eS_Z) \stackrel{+1}{\to}\cdots $$

When $\eS=\underline{\bR}$ is the constant sheaf on $M$ with stalk $\bR$ then $H^\bullet(M,\underline{\bR})$ is the singular cohomology of $M$, $H^\bullet(M,\underline{\bR}_Z)$ is the cohomology of $Z$ and $H^\bullet(M,\underline{\bR}_{M\setminus Z})$ is the (relative) cohomology of the pair $(M,Z)$.

You can get the two descriptions by from this fact alone (the one in Bott-Tu requires additionally the cone of construction). I refer to Iversen's book Cohomology of sheaves.

share|cite|improve this answer
For the benefit of anyone else learning about relative de Rham cohomology, Liviu explains this in another answer here and gives a link to his notes. – ಠ_ಠ Mar 31 at 8:30

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.