0

If there are 2-forms $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ in the manifold $M_1$ and $M_2$ respectively, does saying something like $[\omega_1]=[\omega_2]$ make sense if $M_1$ and $M_2$ don't have the same almost-complex structure, where $[\omega_1]$ denotes the cohomology class of $\omega_1$?

Additional info: We have $(M,\omega,J_1)$ and $(M,\omega,J_2)$, where $J_i$ is the almost-complex structure and $J_1$ and $J_2$ are homotopic by a 1-parameter family of diffeomorphisms $\varphi_t:M\rightarrow M$. The homotopy does not necessarily preserve $J_1$. $\omega$ is symplectic and $J_i$ is $\omega$- tame. Then we blow-up symplectically, and obtain respectively $\tilde{\omega}_1,\tilde{J}_1$ and $\tilde{\omega_2},\tilde{J}_2$, where $\tilde{J}_i$ is $\tilde{\omega}_i$-tame. Why are these two 2-forms not necessarily cohomologous?

flag
Gunthar- This question doesn't make any sense as written. Are $M_1$ and $M_2$ diffeomorphic? – Ben Webster Feb 2 2011 at 16:36
Yes they are diffeomorphic. – Gunthar Feb 2 2011 at 16:37
Saying $[\omega_1]=[\omega_2]$ does not make sense at all if $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ live on different manifolds. What is the role of the almost-complex structure? Maybe you state your question more precisely. – Johannes Ebert Feb 2 2011 at 16:39
1 
The edited question still doesn't make sense (surely one needs to fix a diffeomorphism between the two manifolds?). But something that may be relevant is that the symplectic blowup process has a parameter, the volume of the exceptional divisor. – Tim Perutz Feb 2 2011 at 17:05
2 
I think you are confusing de-Rham cohomology with complex coefficients and Dolbeaut cohomology. If you have two complex forms on a manifold $M$, they are maps $\omega_{1}, \omega_{2}: TM \wedge TM \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$, which are only $\mathbb{R}$-linear. In this case, there is no reference to the a.c. structure, and they can be cohomologous or not. Another thing is if you compute Dolbeaut cohomology, i.e. the cohomology of the operator $\overline{\partial}$: in this case you must fix the complex structure, since the operator $\overline{\partial}$ depends on it – Fabio Feb 2 2011 at 18:17
show 5 more comments

Your Answer

Get an OpenID
or

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.