Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My familiarity with concepts related to derived categories is only tangential, and little by little I intend to get more comfortable with them. I was playing around with Caldararu's introduction to the topic, and looking up various things on the web.

Here is my question (that I have every confidence is trivial for experts):

On the wiki page on Verdier duality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdier_duality it says the following: Let $F$ be a field, and $X$ a finite dimensional (dimension is defined here cohomologically, but for our purposes a finite dimensional manifold will do) locally compact space.

In the part about Poincare duality, it says: $H^k(X,F)=[F,X[k]]$. What is the interpretation of this notation? As I see it, $[F,X[k]]$ means $Hom(F,X[k])$ in the derived category. But this means that $X$ is seen as a complex. How? And why would $Hom(F,X[k])$ equal $H^k(X,F)$?

share|improve this question
1  
I guess that there is a typo and that $[F,X[k]]$ should be understood as $[F,F[k]]$. –  DamienC Jun 23 '11 at 20:27
1  
Why is $[F,F[k]]=H^k(X,F)$? –  James D. Taylor Jun 23 '11 at 20:30
2  
Very shortly, for any sheaf $S$ (i.e. a complex of sheaves concentrated in degree $0$), $[F[-k],S]=H^k(X,S)$. –  DamienC Jun 23 '11 at 20:37
1  
Thanks! You mean $[S[-k],S]$, right? Because $H^k(X,S)$ doesn't depend on $F$. –  James D. Taylor Jun 23 '11 at 20:40
1  
I do really mean $F$, because I ma working with the derived category of $F$-modules (as in the wiki). But you can just take $F=\mathbb{Z}$ if you like. –  DamienC Jun 23 '11 at 20:54
show 1 more comment

2 Answers 2

I think here is how one should understand the last paragraph of the wiki.

Consider $f:X\to pt$. We have (all functors are derived and my $Hom$ are sheaf $Hom$) $$ Hom_{pt}(f_!F,F)=f_*Hom_X(F,f^!F) $$

$f_!F=\Gamma_c(X,F)$, so the l.h.s. computes the dual of the cohomology with compact support of the constant sheaf $F$, i.e. the dual of the cohomology with compact support of $X$.

$Hom_X(F,f^!F)= \Gamma(f^!F)$ and thus the r.h.s. is $f_*(\Gamma(f^!F))=\Gamma(X,f^!F)$, the homology of $X$.

EDIT : to answer precisely the question I include a summary of the comments.

  1. there is a typo in the wiki: $[F,X[k]]$ should be understood as $[F,F[k]]$.

  2. for any sheaf of $F$-modules $S$ (concentrated in degree 0), $[F[−k],S]=H^k(X,S)$.

  3. Contrary to what is claimed in the wiki, there is no duality between $H^k(X,F)=[F[−k],F]$ and $H_k(X,F)=[F[−k],D_X]$ (where $D_X:=f^!F$ for $f:X\to pt$). The duality is, either between $H^k_c(X,F)$ and $H_k(X,F)$, or between $H^k(X,F)$ and $H_k^{BM}(X,F)$. And as far as I understand $H^*(X,S)$ is dual to $H_c^*(X,S^\vee)$.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm still a little confused. Under some conditions, in Poincare duality we have $D_X=F[-n]$, right? So $H_k(X,F)=Hom(F[-k],F[-n])=Hom(F,F[k-n])=H^{k-n}(X,F)=0$. I'm doing something wrong. –  James D. Taylor Jun 23 '11 at 21:11
    
Oh, I guess you're saying that $Hom(F,F[a])\neq H^a(X,F)$, but rather $H^a(X,F)=Hom(O_X,F[a])$. But still, how does one get from $Hom(F,F[k-n])$ to the desired $H^{n-k}(X,F)$ dual? I guess $Hom(F,F[k-n])=Hom(O_X,F[k-n]$ dual $)$. Now what? –  James D. Taylor Jun 23 '11 at 21:17
    
Aha! Here's what's missing. For some reason: $Hom(O_X,C)\cong$ to the dual of $H^(X,$ dual of $C)$. If I can only figure out why that's true, I'll be satisfied. –  James D. Taylor Jun 23 '11 at 21:19
2  
Sorry. The point is that there is another mistake in the wiki: Poincaré duality is - either between $H^*$ and $H^{BM}_*$ (Borel-Moore homology) - either between $H_c^*$ and $H_*$ - not between $H^*$ and $H_*$. Then one has $H^k(X,F)=[F[-k],F]$, $H_k(X,F)=[F[-k],D_X]$, and $H^k_c(X,F)$ is given by the formula in you comment. –  DamienC Jun 23 '11 at 22:22
1  
@euklid345: nobody's complaining (IMO spotting a typo and/or a mistake is not complaining). –  DamienC Jan 11 '12 at 8:02
show 5 more comments

I just revamped what was written. Perhaps now it is more understandable:New Wiki Entry on Verdier duality.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.