Return to Answer

I would guess that the terminology goes back to the work of Sullivan and Quillen on rational homotopy theory. You should probably also look at the paper of Deligne-Griffiths-Morgan-Sullivan on the real homotopy theory of Kähler manifolds. Actually, I think that at least some familiarity with the DGMS paper is an important prerequisite for understanding many of Kontsevich's papers.

In the context of rational homotopy theory, I think the term "formal" is fine, for the reasons I've explained above. Perhaps in the more general context of dg algebras, the use of the term "formal" makes less sense. However, I think that it is still reasonable, for the following reasons. Let me use the more "modern" language of A-infinity algebras. In general, it is not true that a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is quasi-isomorphic to $H^\ast(A,d)$ considered as a dg algebra with zero differential. However, it is a "standard" fact (Kontsevich-Soibelman call this the "homological perturbation lemma" (for example, it's buried somewhere in this paper), and you can find it in the operads literature as the "transfer theorem") that you can put an A-infinity structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$ which makes $A$ and $H^\ast(A,d)$ quasi-isomorphic as A-infinity algebras. The A-infinity structure manifests itself as a series of $n$-ary products satisfying various compatibilities. Intuitively at least, these $n$-ary products should be thought of as being analogous to Massey products in topology. So $H^\ast(A,d)$ with this A-infinity structure does carry some "homotopy theoretic" information. In this language then, a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is formal if it is quasi-isomorphic, as an A-infinity algebra, to $H^\ast(A,d)$ with all higher products zero. In other words, all of the "Massey products" vanish*, and thus the only remaining "homotopy theoretic" information is that coming from the ordinary ring structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$.

I would guess that the terminology goes back to the work of Sullivan and Quillen on rational homotopy theory. You should probably also look at the paper of Deligne-Griffiths-Morgan-Sullivan on the real homotopy theory of Kähler manifolds. Actually, I think that at least some familiarity with the DGMS paper is an important prerequisite for understanding many of Kontsevich's papers.

In the context of rational homotopy theory, I think the term "formal" is fine, for the reasons I've explained above. Perhaps in the more general context of dg algebras, the use of the term "formal" makes less sense. However, I think that it is still reasonable, for the following reasons. Let me use the more "modern" language of A-infinity algebras. In general, it is not true that a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is quasi-isomorphic to $H^\ast(A,d)$ considered as a dg algebra with zero differential. However, it is a "standard" fact (Kontsevich-Soibelman call this the "homological perturbation lemma" (for example, it's buried somewhere in this paper), and you can find it in the operads literature as the "transfer theorem") that you can put an A-infinity structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$ which makes $A$ and $H^\ast(A,d)$ quasi-isomorphic as A-infinity algebras. The A-infinity structure manifests itself as a series of $n$-ary products satisfying various compatibilities. Intuitively at least, these $n$-ary products should be thought of as being analogous to Massey products in topology. So $H^\ast(A,d)$ with this A-infinity structure does carry some "homotopy theoretic" information. In this language then, a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is formal if it is quasi-isomorphic, as an A-infinity algebra, to $H^\ast(A,d)$ with all higher products zero. In other words, all of the "Massey products" vanish*, and thus the only remaining "homotopy theoretic" information is that coming from the ordinary ring structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$.

I would guess that the terminology goes back to the work of Sullivan and Quillen on rational homotopy theory. You should probably also look at the paper of Deligne-Griffiths-Morgan-Sullivan on the real homotopy theory of Kähler manifolds. Actually, I think that at least some familiarity with the DGMS paper is an important prerequisite for understanding many of Kontsevich's papers.

The phrase "the real (resp. rational) homotopy type of X is a formal consequence of the real (resp. rational) cohomology ring of X", which appears in e.g. the DGMS paper, simply means that the real (resp. rational) homotopy theory of X is determined by (and is probably explicitly and algorithmically computable from?) the cohomology ring of X. In other words, if X and Y are formal (over the rationals resp. the reals) and have isomorphic (rational resp. real) cohomology rings, then their respective (rational resp. real) homotopy theories are the same (and are explicitly computable, if we know the cohomology ring(s)?). In particular, the ranks of their homotopy groups will be equal.

In the context of rational homotopy theory, I think the term "formal" is fine, for the reasons I've explained above. Perhaps in the more general context of dg algebras, the use of the term "formal" makes less sense. However, I think that it is still reasonable, for the following reasons. Let me use the more "modern" language of A-infinity algebras. In general, it is not true that a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is quasi-isomorphic to $H^\ast(A,d)$ considered as a dg algebra with zero differential. However, it is a "standard" fact (Kontsevich calls this the "homological perturbation lemma", and you can find it in the operads literature as the "transfer theorem") that you can put an A-infinity structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$ which makes $A$ and $H^\ast(A,d)$ quasi-isomorphic as A-infinity algebras. The A-infinity structure manifests itself as a series of $n$-ary products satisfying various compatibilities. Intuitively at least, these $n$-ary products should be thought of as being analogous to Massey products in topology. So $H^\ast(A,d)$ with this A-infinity structure does carry some "homotopy theoretic" information. In this language then, a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is formal if it is quasi-isomorphic, as an A-infinity algebra, to $H^\ast(A,d)$ with all higher products being zero. In other words, all of the "Massey products" vanish*, and thus the only remaining "homotopy theoretic" information is that coming from the ordinary ring structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$.

*Don Stanley notes correctly that vanishing of Massey products is weaker than formality. However, I believe that triviality of the A-infinity structure is equivalent to formality. In the language of the DGMS paper, which does not use the A-infinity language, I believe they say that formality is equivalent to the vanishing of Massey products "in a uniform way". I believe this uniform vanishing is the same as triviality of A-infinity structure.

I would guess that the terminology goes back to the work of Sullivan and Quillen on rational homotopy theory. You should probably also look at the paper of Deligne-Griffiths-Morgan-Sullivan on the real homotopy theory of Kähler manifolds. Actually, I think that at least some familiarity with the DGMS paper is an important prerequisite for understanding many of Kontsevich's papers.

The phrase "the real (resp. rational) homotopy type of X is a formal consequence of the real (resp. rational) cohomology ring of X", which appears in e.g. the DGMS paper, simply means that the real (resp. rational) homotopy theory of X is determined by (and is probably explicitly and algorithmically computable from?) the cohomology ring of X. In other words, if X and Y are formal (over the rationals resp. the reals) and have isomorphic (rational resp. real) cohomology rings, then their respective (rational resp. real) homotopy theories are the same (and are explicitly computable, if we know the cohomology ring(s)?). For example, the ranks of their homotopy groups will be equal.

In the context of rational homotopy theory, I think the term "formal" is fine, for the reasons I've explained above. Perhaps in the more general context of dg algebras, the use of the term "formal" makes less sense. However, I think that it is still reasonable, for the following reasons. Let me use the more "modern" language of A-infinity algebras. In general, it is not true that a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is quasi-isomorphic to $H^\ast(A,d)$ considered as a dg algebra with zero differential. However, it is a "standard" fact (Kontsevich-Soibelman call this the "homological perturbation lemma" (for example, it's buried somewhere in this paper), and you can find it in the operads literature as the "transfer theorem") that you can put an A-infinity structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$ which makes $A$ and $H^\ast(A,d)$ quasi-isomorphic as A-infinity algebras. The A-infinity structure manifests itself as a series of $n$-ary products satisfying various compatibilities. Intuitively at least, these $n$-ary products should be thought of as being analogous to Massey products in topology. So $H^\ast(A,d)$ with this A-infinity structure does carry some "homotopy theoretic" information. In this language then, a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is formal if it is quasi-isomorphic, as an A-infinity algebra, to $H^\ast(A,d)$ with all higher products zero. In other words, all of the "Massey products" vanish*, and thus the only remaining "homotopy theoretic" information is that coming from the ordinary ring structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$.

*Don Stanley notes correctly that vanishing of Massey products is weaker than formality. However, I believe that triviality of the A-infinity structure is equivalent to formality. In the language of the DGMS paper, which does not use the A-infinity language, they say that formality is equivalent to the vanishing of Massey products "in a uniform way". I believe this uniform vanishing is the same as triviality of A-infinity structure. From the paper:

... a minimal model is a formal consequence of its cohomology ring if, and only if, all the higher order products vanish in a uniform way.

and also

[Choosing a quasi-isomorphism from a minimal dg algebra to its cohomology] is a way of saying that one may make uniform choices so that the forms representing all Massey products and higher order Massey products are exact. This is stronger than requiring each individual Massey product or higher order Massey product to vanish. The latter means that, given one such product, choices may be made to make the form representing it exact, and there may be no way to do this uniformly.

In the context of rational homotopy theory, I think the term "formal" is fine, for the reasons I've explained above. Perhaps in the more general context of dg algebras, the use of the term "formal" makes less sense. However, I think that it is still reasonable, for the following reasons. Let me use the more "modern" language of A-infinity algebras. In general, it is not true that a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is quasi-isomorphic to $H^\ast(A,d)$ considered as a dg algebra with zero differential. However, it is a "standard" fact (Kontsevich calls this the "homological perturbation lemma", and you can find it in the operads literature as the "transfer theorem") that you can put an A-infinity structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$ which makes $A$ and $H^\ast(A,d)$ quasi-isomorphic as A-infinity algebras. The A-infinity structure manifests itself as a series of $n$-ary products satisfying various compatibilities. Intuitively at least, these $n$-ary products should be thought of as being analogous to Massey products in topology. So $H^\ast(A,d)$ with this A-infinity structure does carry some "homotopy theoretic" information. In this language then, a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is formal if it is quasi-isomorphic, as an A-infinity algebra, to $H^\ast(A,d)$ with all higher products being zero. In other words, all of the "Massey products" vanish, and thus the only remaining "homotopy theoretic" information is that coming from the ordinary ring structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$.

(Sorry for the proliferation of parentheses, and sorry for my lack of certainty on this, I have not thought about this in a while.)

In the context of rational homotopy theory, I think the term "formal" is fine, for the reasons I've explained above. Perhaps in the more general context of dg algebras, the use of the term "formal" makes less sense. However, I think that it is still reasonable, for the following reasons. Let me use the more "modern" language of A-infinity algebras. In general, it is not true that a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is quasi-isomorphic to $H^\ast(A,d)$ considered as a dg algebra with zero differential. However, it is a "standard" fact (Kontsevich calls this the "homological perturbation lemma", and you can find it in the operads literature as the "transfer theorem") that you can put an A-infinity structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$ which makes $A$ and $H^\ast(A,d)$ quasi-isomorphic as A-infinity algebras. The A-infinity structure manifests itself as a series of $n$-ary products satisfying various compatibilities. Intuitively at least, these $n$-ary products should be thought of as being analogous to Massey products in topology. So $H^\ast(A,d)$ with this A-infinity structure does carry some "homotopy theoretic" information. In this language then, a dg algebra $(A,d)$ is formal if it is quasi-isomorphic, as an A-infinity algebra, to $H^\ast(A,d)$ with all higher products being zero. In other words, all of the "Massey products" vanish*, and thus the only remaining "homotopy theoretic" information is that coming from the ordinary ring structure on $H^\ast(A,d)$.

*Don Stanley notes correctly that vanishing of Massey products is weaker than formality. However, I believe that triviality of the A-infinity structure is equivalent to formality. In the language of the DGMS paper, which does not use the A-infinity language, I believe they say that formality is equivalent to the vanishing of Massey products "in a uniform way". I believe this uniform vanishing is the same as triviality of A-infinity structure.

(Sorry for the proliferation of parentheses, and sorry for my lack of certainty on all of this, I have not thought about this in a while. People should definitely correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.)