7
$\begingroup$

I am stuck with a technical question concerning parabolic cohomology of modular groups and cup-products on them. Basically, I am trying to understand the appendix about cohomology of Hida's book "elementary theory of $L$-functions and Eisenstein Series" and related ideas, and though Hida's exposition is very detailed, I am not illuminated.

So, $\Gamma$ is a congruence subgroup of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ which acts freely on the Poincaré upper half-plane, for instance $\Gamma_1(\nu)$ for $\nu \geq 3$. We choose for each cusp of $\Gamma$ a generator of the subgroup fixing that cusp, and we define a subset $P$ of $\Gamma$ as the set of all conjugate of those elements. We let $M$ (and later $N$) be left $\Gamma$-modules.

So we have the cohomology groups $H^i(\Gamma,M)$ defined as the homology of the usual complex $C^0(\Gamma,M) \rightarrow C^1(\Gamma,M) \rightarrow C^2(\Gamma,M) \rightarrow \dots$ These groups have a geometric interpretation, namely there are canonical isomorphisms $H^i(\Gamma,M) \simeq H^i(Y_\Gamma,\tilde M)$ where $Y_\Gamma$ is the quotient of the upper half-plane by $\Gamma$ and $\tilde M$ the locally free sheaf on it defined by $M$, and the RHS $H^i$ is sheaf cohomology.

To define parabolic cohomology we consider a subcomplex $C^\bullet_P(\Gamma,M)$ of $C^\bullet(\Gamma,M)$ as follows: $C^i_P(\Gamma,M) = C^i(\Gamma,M)$ for $i=0,2,3,4,\dots$ and for $i=1$, we set $$C^1_P(\Gamma,M) = \{u \in C^1(\Gamma,M), u(\pi) \in (\pi-1) M \ \ \forall \pi \in P\}.$$ (To check that $C^\bullet_P$ is a subcomplex we just need to check that the differential sends $C^0$ into $C^1_P$ but this is trivial.) We define $H^i_P(\Gamma,M)$ as the homology of that complex. It is trivial that $H^i_P(\Gamma,M)=H^i(\Gamma,M)$ for all $i \neq 1,2$. Hida also gives a geometric interpretation of the new cohomology groups: there are canonical isomorphisms $$H^1_P(\Gamma,M) = H^1_! (Y_\Gamma, \tilde M) := Im \left(H^1_c(Y_\Gamma,\tilde M) \rightarrow H^1(Y_\Gamma,\tilde M)\right),$$ $$H^2_P(\Gamma,M) =H^2_c(Y_\Gamma,\tilde M),$$ where $H^i_c$ is the sheaf cohomology with compact support. (The second isomorphism is given in the last assertion of Prop. 2 of the appendix of Hida's book, and the first is Prop. 1 of his paper Congruences of cusp forms and special values of $L$-functions, invent. math 63 (1981).)

So far, so good. Now the cup-product $H^1_c(Y_\Gamma,\tilde M) \otimes H^1_c(Y_\Gamma,\tilde N) \rightarrow H^2_c(Y_\Gamma,\tilde M \otimes \tilde N)$ induces a cup-product $H^1_!(Y_\Gamma,\tilde M) \otimes H^1_!(Y_\Gamma,\tilde N) \rightarrow H^2_c(Y_\Gamma, \tilde M \otimes \tilde N)$ (as explained in Hida's paper, cf (2.2) and the first page of section 2), hence a cup-product $$H^1_P(\Gamma,M) \otimes H^1_P(\Gamma,N) \rightarrow H^2_P(\Gamma,M \otimes N).$$ Now my question:

How can this cup-product be described in terms of the definition of $H^\bullet_P$ as the homology of $C^\bullet_P$?

That is, how can this cup-product be described in purely group cohomological terms?

In theory, one should be able to answer this question by translating the definition of the cup-product in sheaf cohomology through all the isomorphisms involved, but this looks not very engaging. What worries me more is that I can't seem to be able to guess what the result could be, that is I am not able to define a cup-product $H^1_P \otimes H^1_P \rightarrow H^2_P$ in the only natural way I can think of, that is by defining it at the level of cochains. Indeed, the natural map $C^0(\Gamma,M) \otimes C^1_P(\Gamma,N) \rightarrow C^1(\Gamma,M \otimes N)$ does not seem to have image in $C^1_P$. So, I would be happy with any "natural" definition of the cup-product in terms of cochains, and quite ready to believe it corresponds to the one defined using geometric cup-product.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Of course, something in my exposition leading to my question may be wrong, and the cup-product I am trying to understood may actually not exist. Pointing out the possible mistake would be of course a perfectly correct answer. $\endgroup$
    – Joël
    Jun 2, 2017 at 20:10

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

It seems to me that the definition has been cooked up so that $H^0_P = H^0$, $H^1_P = \mathrm{Im}(H^1_c \to H^1)$, and $H^2_P = H^2_c$. This means that the parabolic cohomology is equal to the intersection cohomology. That is, if $j \colon Y_\Gamma \to X_\Gamma$ is the inclusion into the compact modular curve, then $H^\bullet_P(\Gamma,M) = I\!H^\bullet(X_\Gamma,\tilde M)$ (which also equals $H^\bullet(X_\Gamma,R^0 j_\ast\tilde M)$). But there is in general no natural cup product on intersection cohomology. This could explain why you don't see a natural multiplication.

Another remark is that the Manin-Drinfeld theorem provides a natural section of the map $H^1_c \to H^1_P$; the section is uniquely pinned down by the action of the Hecke algebra. Similarly the inclusion $H^1_P \to H^1$ splits, and $H^1_P$ is in a canonical way a direct summand of both $H^1_c$ and $H^1$. Hence the cup products on usual cohomology and compact support cohomology combine to induce cup products in parabolic cohomology. But perhaps you were after something rather explicit.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In this case, isn't there a pairing $j_*\tilde M\otimes j_*\tilde N\to j_*(\tilde M\otimes \tilde N)$, and wouldn't this give the cup product on $IH$? $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2017 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer. But like Donu, I think than in this case there exists a canonical pairing $H^1_P \otimes H^1_P \rightarrow H^2_P$, defined without having to choose a section $H^1_P \rightarrow H^1_c$. Simply, let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ two elements of $H^1$ that actually belongs to $H^1_P$, so that they are the image by the natural maps of elements $\alpha_0$, $\beta_0$ of $H^1_c$. Then the element $\alpha_0 \cup \beta$ (from the pairing $H^1_c \otimes H^1 \rightarrow H^2_c$) is equal to $\alpha_0 \cup \beta_0$ (from the pairing $H^1_c \otimes H^1_c \rightarrow H^2_c$... $\endgroup$
    – Joël
    Jun 3, 2017 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ ) by the compatibility of those two product, and also to the element $\alpha \cup \beta_0$ (from the pairing $H^1 \otimes H^1_c \rightarrow H^2_c$ by the same reasoning symmetrically). Hence that element does not depend of the choice of $\alpha_0$ or $\beta_0$. We call it $\alpha \cup \beta$, that's our cup product $H^1_P \otimes H^1_P \rightarrow H^2_P$. $\endgroup$
    – Joël
    Jun 3, 2017 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ You're both right of course, oops. $\endgroup$ Jun 4, 2017 at 20:32
2
$\begingroup$

Since I seem to my stuck on something myself, let me take a crack at your problem. This is just a proposal, I haven't checked if this really works.

Let me start with the suggestion in Dan's answer and identify $H^i_P(\Gamma, M)= H^i(X, j_*M)$, here $X=X_\Gamma$ is a smooth compactification of $Y=Y_\Gamma$. I'm conflacting $M$ with $\tilde M$ and dropping various decorations for ease of writing. Then from the triangle $$j_*M\to \mathbb{R}j_*M\to R^1j_*M[-1]\to $$ we get $$H^1_P(\Gamma, M)\to H^1(Y, M)\to \bigoplus_p H^1(C_p,M)\to H_P^2(\Gamma,M)\to0$$ where $p$ (resp. $C_p$) are (resp. circles around) the cusps. This can be translated back to group cohomology $$H^1_P(\Gamma, M)\to H^1(\Gamma, M)\to \bigoplus_p H^1(P_p,M)\stackrel{\partial}{\to}H_P^2(\Gamma,M)\to 0$$ where now $P_p=\pi_1(C_p)$. Given classes $\alpha\in H^1_P(M),\beta\in H_P^1(N)$, their product, whatever it is, would have to be $\partial(?)$. Here is a guess as to what it might be.

Let us assume that the above sequence is induced by an exact sequence of suitable complexes $$0\to C_P^\bullet(M)\to C^\bullet(M)\to \bigoplus C^\bullet(P_p, M)\to 0$$ (Perhaps the ones specified in your question will work for this, I haven't checked.) Let $\alpha\in C^1_P(M),\beta\in C_P^1(N)$ denote cocycles representing classes above. Then $\alpha,\beta$ can be mapped to cocycles, and in fact coboundaries, $\alpha',\beta'$ in $\oplus C(P_p,-)$. Write $\alpha'=d \alpha''$. Try $\partial(\alpha''\cup\beta')$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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