10
$\begingroup$

Given a smooth manifold $M$ and a relatively compact exhaustion $M=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N} M_n$ with open and relatively compact $M_n\subseteq M_{n+1}$ (hence $M=\lim\limits_{\to}M_n$) do we always have $$H^k(M)=\lim\limits_{\leftarrow} H^k(M_n)?$$

This looks so natural that the answer should be known in which case I would like to get a reference.

EDIT (inspired by Weibel's book and an article of Milnor from 1962). For fixed $k$ the projective spectrum $\Omega^k(M_n)$ of $k$-forms on $M_n$ satisfies the (strict) Mittag-Leffler condition so that the derived functor ${\lim\limits_{\leftarrow}}^1 \Omega^k(M_n)$ vanishes. We thus get an exact sequence $0\to \Omega^\ast(M)\to \prod_n \Omega^\ast(M_n)\to \prod_n \Omega^\ast(M_n)\to 0$ of cochain complexes (the last map is the difference map $(\omega_n)_n\mapsto (\omega_n-\rho_{n+1}(\omega_{n+1}))_n$ with the restriction operator $\rho_{n+1}$). The long cohomology sequence thus yields an exact sequence $$\cdots \to H^k(M)\to \prod_nH^k(M_n) \to \prod_nH^k(M_n) \to H^{k+1}(M)\to \cdots.$$ From this one gets short exact sequences $$0\to {\lim\limits_{\leftarrow}}^1 H^{k-1}(M_n) \to H^k(M)\to \lim\limits_{\leftarrow}H^k(M_n)\to 0.$$ It seems to me that the spectrum $H^0(M_n)$ of the spaces of locally constant functions again satisfies the strict Mittag-Leffler condition so that ${\lim\limits_{\leftarrow}}^1H^0(M_n)=0$. This means that $H^1(M)=\lim\limits_{\leftarrow} H^1(M_n)$ is always true. Another consequence is $H^k(M)=\lim\limits_{\leftarrow} H^k(M_n)$ if all cohomologies $H^{k-1}(M_n)$ are finite dimensional (because this implies a Mittag-Leffler condition).

However, in general the question remains open (and I would rather expect a counterexample).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the record, a proof of Mittag-Leffler for $H^0$. Let $M$ be relatively compact in $N$, with $N$ a manifold. I claim that the image of $H^0(N) \to H^0(M)$ is finite dimensional; this clearly implies ML. Let $N_i$ be the connected components of $N$. I claim that only finitely many of the $N_i$ meet $M$. Suppose, instead, that $x_i$ is an infinite sequence in $M$ with each $x_i$ in a different $N_i$. Let $y \in N$ be a limit point of the $x_i$ with $y \in N_0$. But then $N_0$ contains a ball a round $y$, so $x_n \in N_0$ for $n$ sufficiently large. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Aug 15 '17 at 21:10
7
$\begingroup$

$\def\RR{\mathbb{R}}\def\Hom{\mathrm{Hom}}$This seems too simple, so please tell me what I'm missing. We first prove the corresponding result in homology. Let $C_i(X)$ be the group of singular $i$-chains in $X$. Then $C_i(M) = \lim_{j \to \infty} C_i(M_j)$ (because $i$-simplices are compact, so the image of any finite number of them must lie in some $M_j$). Homology commutes with direct limits, so we deduce that $H_i(M) = \lim_{j \to \infty} H_i(M_j)$.

Now, the universal coefficient theorem tells us that $H^i(M, \RR) = \Hom(H_i(M), \RR)$ and the same for $M_j$. So the question is whether $\Hom( \ , \RR)$ turns direct limits into inverse limits, and the answer is yes.

Both the universal coefficient theorem, and the identification of singular and de Rham cohomology, work for general manifolds.


I also have a direct proof of Mittag-Leffler for $H^q(M_0) \leftarrow H^q(M_1) \leftarrow \cdots$.

Lemma Let $M$ be a manifold (PL or better) and let $K$ be a compact subset of $M$. Then $H^q(M) \to H^q(K)$ has finite dimensional image.

Proof Take a PL triangulation of $M$. For each face $\sigma$ of the triangulation, let $U_{\sigma}$ be the union of the relative interiors of those faces $\tau$ containing $\sigma$. So the $U_{\sigma}$ form an open cover of $M$.

As $K$ is compact, it can be covered by finitely many $U_{\sigma}$. Let $N$ be the union of the closures of those $U_{\sigma}$. So $K \subset N$ and $H^q(M) \to H^q(K)$ factors through $H^q(N)$. But $N$ is a finite simplicial complex, so $H^q(N)$ is finite dimensional. $\square$

Remark Actually, the union of the $U_{\sigma}$ also has finite cohomology, without taking the closure, but I didn't see a one line way of saying it.

Now, let $M_0 \subset M_1 \subset M_2 \subset \cdots$ be an ascending chain of manifolds, with the closure $\overline{M_i}$ (in $M_{i+1}$) compact. Then $H^q(M_{i+1}) \to H^q(M_i)$ factors through $H^q(\overline{M}_i)$, so it has finite dimensional image. For each $j \geq i+1$, the image of $H^q(M_j)$ lies in that finite dimensional image. So the Mittag-Leffler condition holds and $\lim_{\infty \leftarrow j}^1 H^q(M_j)=0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think you could also do this in a different way using general nonsense. The suspension spectrum functor is a left adjoint, and so preserves colimits. $\pi_0 \operatorname{Maps}( - , H\mathbb{R})$ turns homotopy colimits into limits. One then reduces to showing that $M$ is the homotopy colimit of the $M_n$'s but this is actually also a general nonsense result. See mathoverflow.net/questions/187866/… $\endgroup$ – Joe Berner Aug 16 '17 at 2:09
  • $\begingroup$ I believe that this is correct (and simple modulo de Rham's theorem) -- thanks a lot. It implies ${\lim\limits_{\leftarrow}}^1H^{k-1}(M_n)=0$ but I still don't see this directly. $\endgroup$ – Jochen Wengenroth Aug 16 '17 at 8:01
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JoeBerner The fact that $M$ is the hocolim of $M_n$'s is true but it is a nontrivial result. It subsumes both the Seifert-van Kampen theorem and the excision theorem for singular homology (and in fact it is more or less equivalent to the combination of those two theorems). Calling it a "general nonsense" result seems a bit dismissive. $\endgroup$ – Denis Nardin Aug 16 '17 at 16:36

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.