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

Is there an explicit example of non-Kahler manifold $M$ such that $M$ satisfies the dd^c lemma ?

share|cite|improve this question
Any Moishezon manifold would do. So perhaps asking for explicit examples of Moishezon manifolds would answer your question. – José Figueroa-O'Farrill Apr 21 '11 at 9:34
complementing Jose's comment: ... or in fact anything bimeromorphic to a K\"ahler manifold, see Deligne, Griffiths, Morgan, Sullivan, Real homotopy type of K\"ahler manifolds. By the way, a explicit example of a Moishezon space is given in Appendix B of Hartshorne's Algebraic geometry. – algori Apr 21 '11 at 11:48
up vote 9 down vote accepted

Here is an example of a Moishezon manifold which is easy to visualize. Take a high degree (e.g. a quintic) hypersurface $Z$ in $\mathbb{P}^{4}$ which has a single ordinary double point. Let $X$ be a small resolution of $Z$. Explicitly, a small analytic neighborhood of the singularity can be identified with the vertex of a cone over a two dimensional quadric and you just need to blow-up the Weil divisor which is the preimage of one ruling. The threefold $X$ is compact complex manifold and does not admit any Kaehler structure. The last statement follows for instance from a theorem of Smith-Thomas-Yau which states that a threefold with a single node will admit a symplectic small resolution only if the three sphere that vanishes at the node is homologous to zero. The high degree condition on $Z$ ensures that the vanishing cycle is not homologous to zero, hence the statement.

share|cite|improve this answer
Tony, this is a nice example. – Donu Arapura Apr 22 '11 at 12:24

This does not answer your question, but it seems interesting to point out.

A non-example would be any complex threefold diffeomorphic to the six-sphere (if such a manifold exists).

To see this, first note that the $dd^c$-lemma holds for $(1,1)$-forms on a compact complex manifold iff $b_1=2h^{0,1}$ (see for example the paper of Paul Gauduchon "La 1-forme de torsion d'une variete hermitienne compacte", Math.Ann. 1984, page 504).

Now any threefold diffeomorphic to the six-sphere must have $h^{0,1}\geq 1$ by a result of Alfred Gray ("A property of a hypothetical complex structure on the six-sphere", Bollettino U.M.I. 1997, Theorem 5), and therefore the $dd^c$-lemma for $(1,1)$-forms fails since $b_1=0$.

share|cite|improve this answer
No access to Gray's paper where I am, so no idea if he does the following, but here's a short proof that $h^{0,1}\geq 1$ for those who are curious. The argument holds whenever both integer cohomology in degree 2 and $b_n$ vanish on a complex $n$-fold. Since $H^2(Z)=0$, the exponential sequence shows $H^{0,1}$ surjects onto the group of line bundles. So it's enough to find a non-trivial holomorphic line bundle. Now the canonical bundle is nontrivial, for if not a holomorphic $n$-form $\Omega$ would have $\int \Omega \wedge \bar{\Omega} >0$ so $[\Omega]$ would be non-zero contradicting $b_n=0$. – Joel Fine Apr 22 '11 at 3:26

I think this is an example.

There is an integrable complex structure on X=S^3 xS^3. For topological reasons we have Td(X)[X]=1. Thus h^0,1 =0. It's an easy exercise that a complex manifold with h^0,1 =0 satisfies the d\bar{d} lemma.

share|cite|improve this answer
The exercise is not easy for me. The $dd^c$ lemma has very strong consequences, such as degeneration of various spectral sequences, formallity etc. So I find the last statement surprising. – Donu Arapura Apr 21 '11 at 16:03
I think that perhaps $H^{0,1}=0$ implies the d-dbar lemma for (1,1)-forms, but I can't see how it would help for higher degrees. – Joel Fine Apr 22 '11 at 2:12
@Yang-Mills, from what you say it follows that $h^{0,1} = 0$ DOES imply the $dd^c$-lemma for $(1,1)$-forms. For if $h^{0,1}=0$ then it follows that $b_1=0$ hence certainly $b_1 = 2h^{0,1}$. But there is a much more prosaic way to see it. Let $a = db$ be an exact real (1,1) form. Then $\bar{\partial}b^{0,1} = 0$ so $b^{0,1} = \bar{\partial} f$. From here it follows that $a = 2 i \partial\bar{\partial} g$ where $g$ is the imaginary part of $f$. – Joel Fine Apr 22 '11 at 2:26
so it seems that $S^3\times S^3$ does not satisfy the $dd^c$-lemma after all, since $b_1\neq 2h^{0,1}$. Also, it has $h^{1,1}=1$, see the same paper of Hofer, so there are nontrivial $\overline{\partial}$-closed $(1,1)$-forms – YangMills Apr 22 '11 at 2:28
It's possible that Craig intended the statement only for (1,1) forms as in the follow up discussion, it's hard to say. However, I am sure that the stronger statement is false. The reason I think so is that by Deligne-Griffiths-Morgan-Sullivan, a compact complex manifold satisfying the $dd^c$-lemma should be formal. Now, I think one can use a twistor construction (Taubes, JDG 1992) to build a compact complex manifold which is not formal but with $b_1=0$. – Donu Arapura Apr 22 '11 at 12:59

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.