Skip to main content
Expanded the abbreviation in the title and explained it in the body of the question
Source Link
Mikhail Borovoi
  • 14.1k
  • 2
  • 31
  • 71

Two MHSmixed Hodge structures on equivariant cohomology for actions by finite groups

The answer to the following question might be obvious but I haven’t found a full proof yet (neither by myself nor in the literature). So my apologies if it is trivial.

Let $X$ be a (for simplicity quasi-projective and non-singular) complex variety $X$ on which a finite group $G$ acts. Deligne has shown in Hodge III that the equivariant cohomology groupsgroup $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$ carryfor any $k$ carries a natural mixed Hodge structuresstructure (MHS). On the other hand, the Leray-Serre spectral sequence for the Serre fibration \begin{equation} X \to X\times_G EG \to BG \end{equation} degenerates (complex topology) over $\mathbb{Q}$ and hence yields an isomorphism

\begin{equation} H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G \end{equation}

(cf. this MO question: Equivariant cohomology of finite group actions and invariant cohomology classes). Clearly, $H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G$ inherits a MHS from the MHS on $H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$. Now my question is:

Are these two MHS on $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$ naturally isomorphic? More precisely, is there a simplicial version of the above Serre fibration yielding an isomorphism $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G$ of MHS?

A natural candidate for such a simplicial version is

\begin{equation} [X/G]_\bullet \to B_\bullet G, \end{equation}

where I (essentially) use Deligne's notation from Hodge III. Since I'm still learning simplicial methods, I was not sure if this is maybe too naive.

Any thoughts/references/comments are very welcome!

Two MHS on equivariant cohomology for actions by finite groups

The answer to the following question might be obvious but I haven’t found a full proof yet (neither by myself nor in the literature). So my apologies if it is trivial.

Let $X$ be a (for simplicity quasi-projective and non-singular) complex variety $X$ on which a finite group $G$ acts. Deligne has shown in Hodge III that the equivariant cohomology groups $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$ carry natural mixed Hodge structures. On the other hand, the Leray-Serre spectral sequence for the Serre fibration \begin{equation} X \to X\times_G EG \to BG \end{equation} degenerates (complex topology) over $\mathbb{Q}$ and hence yields an isomorphism

\begin{equation} H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G \end{equation}

(cf. this MO question: Equivariant cohomology of finite group actions and invariant cohomology classes). Clearly, $H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G$ inherits a MHS from the MHS on $H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$. Now my question is:

Are these two MHS on $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$ naturally isomorphic? More precisely, is there a simplicial version of the above Serre fibration yielding an isomorphism $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G$ of MHS?

A natural candidate for such a simplicial version is

\begin{equation} [X/G]_\bullet \to B_\bullet G, \end{equation}

where I (essentially) use Deligne's notation from Hodge III. Since I'm still learning simplicial methods, I was not sure if this is maybe too naive.

Any thoughts/references/comments are very welcome!

Two mixed Hodge structures on equivariant cohomology for actions by finite groups

The answer to the following question might be obvious but I haven’t found a full proof yet (neither by myself nor in the literature). So my apologies if it is trivial.

Let $X$ be a (for simplicity quasi-projective and non-singular) complex variety $X$ on which a finite group $G$ acts. Deligne has shown in Hodge III that the equivariant cohomology group $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$ for any $k$ carries a natural mixed Hodge structure (MHS). On the other hand, the Leray-Serre spectral sequence for the Serre fibration \begin{equation} X \to X\times_G EG \to BG \end{equation} degenerates (complex topology) over $\mathbb{Q}$ and hence yields an isomorphism

\begin{equation} H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G \end{equation}

(cf. this MO question: Equivariant cohomology of finite group actions and invariant cohomology classes). Clearly, $H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G$ inherits a MHS from the MHS on $H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$. Now my question is:

Are these two MHS on $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$ naturally isomorphic? More precisely, is there a simplicial version of the above Serre fibration yielding an isomorphism $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G$ of MHS?

A natural candidate for such a simplicial version is

\begin{equation} [X/G]_\bullet \to B_\bullet G, \end{equation}

where I (essentially) use Deligne's notation from Hodge III. Since I'm still learning simplicial methods, I was not sure if this is maybe too naive.

Any thoughts/references/comments are very welcome!

Source Link
Florian
  • 143
  • 5

Two MHS on equivariant cohomology for actions by finite groups

The answer to the following question might be obvious but I haven’t found a full proof yet (neither by myself nor in the literature). So my apologies if it is trivial.

Let $X$ be a (for simplicity quasi-projective and non-singular) complex variety $X$ on which a finite group $G$ acts. Deligne has shown in Hodge III that the equivariant cohomology groups $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$ carry natural mixed Hodge structures. On the other hand, the Leray-Serre spectral sequence for the Serre fibration \begin{equation} X \to X\times_G EG \to BG \end{equation} degenerates (complex topology) over $\mathbb{Q}$ and hence yields an isomorphism

\begin{equation} H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G \end{equation}

(cf. this MO question: Equivariant cohomology of finite group actions and invariant cohomology classes). Clearly, $H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G$ inherits a MHS from the MHS on $H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$. Now my question is:

Are these two MHS on $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$ naturally isomorphic? More precisely, is there a simplicial version of the above Serre fibration yielding an isomorphism $H_G^k(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})^G$ of MHS?

A natural candidate for such a simplicial version is

\begin{equation} [X/G]_\bullet \to B_\bullet G, \end{equation}

where I (essentially) use Deligne's notation from Hodge III. Since I'm still learning simplicial methods, I was not sure if this is maybe too naive.

Any thoughts/references/comments are very welcome!