Let $G$ be a finite group. Usually, a 2-cocycle on $G$ with values in $\mathbb{Z}\_2 = \{+1, -1\}$ is a collection of signs $\epsilon_{g,h} \in \{+1, -1\}$, $g,h \in G$, satisfying the cocycle equation (written multiplicatively) $$ \epsilon_{g,h} \epsilon_{gh, k} = \epsilon_{h,k} \epsilon_{g,hk} $$ And a 2-coboundary is a 2-cocycle with $\epsilon_{g,h} = \frac{t_g t_g}{t_{gh}}$ for all $g,h \in G$, with $t : G \rightarrow \{+1, -1\}$ an arbitrary map. Then the second cohomology group is $H^2(G, \mathbb{Z}\_2)$ = {2-cocycles} / {2-coboundaries}.

But suppose we demand that our 2-cocyles satisfy the 2-cocycle equation above together with the "conjugate-cyclic" symmetry $$ \epsilon_{g,h} = \epsilon_{h^{-1} g^{-1}, g} $$ as well as the "conjugate symmetric" symmetry, $$ \epsilon_{g,h} = \epsilon_{h^{-1}, g^{-1}}. $$ These symmetries make sense from a TQFT perspective if you draw the 2-cocycle as a bunch of trivalent vertices, when the first symmetry corresponds to counterclockwise rotation of the diagram and the second to a kind of vertical flip.

And suppose now that the coboundaries given by $\{t_g\}$ satisfy $t_1 = 1$ and $t_g t_{g^{-1}} = 1$. This ensures that the "symmetric" 2nd cohomology group $H^2_{sym} (G) := ${ "symmetric" 2-cocycles} / {"symmetric" 2-coboundaries} makes sense.

Question: Does this symmetric 2nd cohomology group always vanish?

I've only checked one example, namely $G = \mathbb{Z}\_2 \times \mathbb{Z}\_2 = \langle a,b : a^2 = b^2 =(ab)^2 = 1 \rangle$. In normal cohomology, we have $H^2(G, \mathbb{Z}\_2)$ = $(\mathbb{Z}\_2)^3$ but according to my calculations, none of the non-trivial 2-cocycles respect the above symmetries, so $$ H^2_{sym} (G, \mathbb{Z}_2) = 0. $$ Is this perhaps always true for arbitrary $G$? Or perhaps I have made a silly mistake.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/… "The cohomology group is isomorphic to elementary abelian group:E8", I am not great expert, but there are at least 4 different central extentsions of Klein group Z/2xZ/2 wiht Z/2 - trivial, Dihedral, quaternion, and Z/4xZ/2 - so it seems it cannot be H^* = Z/2 $\endgroup$ Sep 30 '12 at 16:24
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Yes I'm afraid I had built my whole argument around the fact that the "2nd cohomology" was Z_2, which I got from a quick lookup, but in fact what I had looked up was that H^2(G, U(1)) = Z_2, whereas I needed H^2(G ,Z_2) = (Z_2)^3. $\endgroup$ Sep 30 '12 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, my statement that the "symmetric" cohomology is zero in this example is still true - checked by a direct calculation. Also, of the 4 extensions of $Z_2 x Z_2$ by $Z_2$, only the product extension and $Z_2 \times Z_4$ satisfy the second symmetry above, so the quaternion and the dihedral group don't come into it. There are only 2 cocycles satisfying both symmetries above, and they are both coboundaries. $\endgroup$ Sep 30 '12 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ I have corrected the error Alexander Cherkov pointed out above. But my question still stands. Any takers? $\endgroup$ Oct 1 '12 at 8:10

I'm pretty sure now that $H^2_{sym} (\mathbb{Z}_4 \times \mathbb{Z}_2, \mathbb{Z}_2) = \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$, so it can be nonzero. For comparison, in ordinary group cohomology $H^2 (\mathbb{Z}_4 \times \mathbb{Z}_2, \mathbb{Z}_2) = (\mathbb{Z}_2)^3$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.