MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Let $T = \mathrm{Spec}\ \mathbb{C}[x_1^{\pm 1}, x_2^{\pm 1}, \ldots, x_n^{\pm 1}]$ be an algebraic torus and $X$ a closed subvariety. Let $\eta$ be a differential form on $T$ of the form $$\sum_I a_I\cdot \bigwedge_{i \in I} d \log x_i $$ where $I$ runs over subsets of $\{ 1,2, \ldots, n\}$ and $a_I$ are various constants. If the cohomology class of $\eta$ restricts to $0$ on $X$, is $\eta$ identically zero?

Cases where this is true: $X$ a subtorus (easy), $X$ a curve (easy), $X$ cut out by linear equations in the $x_i$ (Orlik-Solomon).

share|cite|improve this question
This is a sort of Hodge theorem for subvarieties of tori, I guess? That each cohomology class should have but one representative of this form? – Allen Knutson May 9 '13 at 1:42
If we add extra variables, $X$ can always be seen as the intersection of a subtorus and a subvariety cut out by linear equations. If it is a complete intersection when so described, I think we can wedge with a form that is perpendicular to the subtorus to reduce to the linear equations case, but that might be nonsense. – Will Sawin May 9 '13 at 4:53

To expand on my comment: Suppose $X$ is a complete intersection of a subtorus and a linear subspace. View the form as a form on the linear subspace. If its restriction to a subvariety like the $X$ is cohomologous to $0$, then its cup product with the class of $X$ is cohomologous to $0$. But the class of $X$, which is the pullback of the class of the subtorus, can be represented by a form of this type. One simply pulls back the "volume form" ($I=\{1,\dots,n\}$) from the quotient torus.

So the original form wedge this new form is cohomologous to $0$ on the linear subspace, so by Orlik-Solomon it is identically zero. Now looking locally at a point of the intersection, the new form is nonzero and completely transverse to $X$, so if wedging with it produces the zero form, then restricting to $X$ will as well.

If $X$ is any complete intersection, then by adding variables we can make it a complete intersection of a torus and a linear subspace. Simply replace each monomial that occurs in the polynomial equations of $X$ with a new variable, making them linear equations, and then set the new variables equal to the old monomials, creating new toric equations. Clearly this preserves the property of being a complete intersection.

EDIT: We use the duality between regular cohomology and compactly supported cohomology. Let $a$ be the original form, let $b$ be the new form, and let $c$ be any compactly supported form. By non-compact Poincare duality, showing that $a \wedge b \wedge c$ integrates to $0$ for all $c$ of the appropriate degree is sufficient to show $a\wedge b$ is $0$. This is the same as showing $(c \wedge a) \wedge b$ integrates to $0$. But this is another example of integrating a compact form against a non-compact form, so it's another Ponicare duality. But we can also express Poincare duality as integrating non-compact forms over compact submanifolds, or non-compact forms over compact submanifolds. Clearly $b$ corresponds to the class of $X$, by pullback from the torus , so we need $c \wedge a$ to be cohomologous to $0$ when restricted to $X$, which happens as long as $c$ is cohomologous to $0$ when restricted to $X$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Wait, I'm confused. When you say that $\omega|_X$ is cohomologous to $0$ if and only if $\omega \wedge \eta$ is cohomologous to $0$ for a properly chosen $\eta$, you seem to be using some sort of Poincare duality. But this is not a compact setting... – David Speyer May 9 '13 at 17:02
I think I can do it using duality between compact and regular cohomology. – Will Sawin May 9 '13 at 18:44
Please add the details when you figure them out! – David Speyer May 10 '13 at 11:56

I think this works. We prove a slightly stronger statement by induction on $\dim X$: Let $X$ be a quasi-projective variety over $\mathbb{C}$. Let $x_1$, $x_2$, ..., $x_n$ be units in $H^0(X, \mathcal{O})$. By "$d \log x_i$" I mean the class in $H^1(X)$ pulled back from the generator of $H^1(\mathbb{G}_m)$ by the map $x_i : X \to \mathbb{G}_m$. (I say this to address the possibility that $X$ isn't smooth, since I'm not sure whether Kahler differentials give cohomology classes in general.) Then, as before, I claim that:

If a polynomial $\eta$ in the $d \log x_i$ is exact, then it is $0$.

The base case, $\dim X=0$, is trivial.

Reduction We may (and do) assume that $X$ is smooth.

Proof Let $\tilde{X} \to X$ be a resolution of singularities. Since the class of $\eta$ is $0$ in $H^{\ast}(X)$, it pulls back to $0$ in $H^{\ast}(\tilde{X})$. So $\eta$ pulls back to $0$ on $\tilde{X}$, and is thus $0$. $\square$

Now, choose a simple normal crossing compactification $\bar{X}$ of $X$. Let $D_1$, $D_2$, ..., $D_m$ be the components of $D$. Our next goal is to prove

Claim For any component $D_1$ of $D$, the form $\eta$ has no pole on $D_1$.

Reduction We may assume that $x_2$, $x_3$, ...., $x_n$ don't have poles or zeroes along $D_1$, and $x_1$ vanishes on $D_1$.

Proof Let $d_i$ be the order to which $x_i$ vanishes on $D_1$. Let $d = GCD(d_1, d_2, \dots, d_m)$. Then by applying a monomial transformation to the $x$'s, we may assume that $x_1$ vanishes to order $d$ on $D_1$. $\square$

Let $Y = D_1 \setminus \bigcup_{i \geq 2} D_1 \cap D_i$ and let $Z$ be the union of $X$ and $Y$ inside $\bar{X}$. So $Y$ is a smooth hypersurface in $Z$. We claim that the $x_i$ extend to homolomorphic function on $Z$, and that $x_2$, ..., $x_n$ extend to nonvanishing functions. Proof: Suppose $x_i$ does not extend to $Z$. Then $x_i$ has a pole along some hypersurface in $Z$. By the previous Reduction, that hypersurface is not $Y$, so it must meet $X$. But $x_i$ is well defined on $X$. For $i \geq 2$, this argument also shows that $x_i^{-1}$ extends.

Proof of Claim Let $\omega = \mathrm{Res}_{Y} \eta$. The form $\omega$ is a $d \log$ form on $Y$, in the ring generated by $d \log x_2$, $d \log x_3$, ..., $d \log x_n$. The residue map is a well defined map $H^k(X) \to H^{k-1}(Y)$. More specifically, let $U$ be a tubular neighborhood of $Y$, so $\partial U \subset X$ is a circle bundle over $Y$. Then $\mathrm{Res}$ is the composition of restriction $H^k(X) \to H^k(\partial U)$ and the Gysin map $H^k(\partial U) \to H^{k-1}(Y)$.

So $\omega$ is exact on $Y$. By induction, $\omega=0$. We have now established that the residue of $\eta$ along $Y$ is $0$. But $\eta$ clearly has at most a first order pole on $Y$, so it has no pole at all. $\square$.

Proof of theorem We have shown that $\eta$, as a form on $\bar{X}$, does not blow up on any of $D_i$. Since $\bar{X}$ is smooth, this shows that $\eta$ extends to $\bar{X}$. But, by Hodge theory, on a smooth projective variety, any exact holomorphic form is $0$.

Alternate proof As above, reduce to $X$ smooth; let $\overline{X}$ be a normal crossing compactification; let $D = \overline{X} \setminus X$. Let $\eta$ be a $k$-form. The condition that $\eta$ is generated by $d \log$ forms implies that $\eta$ is an element of $H^0(\overline{X}, \Omega^k(\log D))$. The condition that $\eta$ is exact says that the image of $\eta$ in $H^k(X, \mathbb{C})$ is $0$.

Conveniently, there is a spectral sequence $H^q(\overline{X}, \Omega^p(\log D)) \Rightarrow H^{p+q}(X, \mathbb{C})$ which degenerates at $E_1$. (I'm looking at Voisin's book, volume 1, Theorem 8.35, she cites Deligne Theorie de Hodge II.) So $H^0(\overline{X}, \Omega^k(\log D))$ injects into $H^k(X, \mathbb{C})$, which was the desired claim.

Thomas Lam and I have finally started writing the paper where we needed this lemma; this is probably the proof we will use.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.