2
$\begingroup$

I am reading this notes of Hitchin to understand about gerbes. He defines gerbe by giving a collection of $2$ cocycles $g_{\alpha\beta\gamma}:U_\alpha\cap U_\beta\cap U_\gamma\rightarrow S^1$ with some conditions as here.

He then

define a connection on a gerbe given by cocycles $g_{\alpha\beta\gamma}:U_\alpha\cap U_\beta\cap U_\gamma\rightarrow S^1$ by forms which satisfy $$G|_{U_\alpha}=dF_\alpha$$ $$F_\beta-F_\alpha=dA_{\alpha\beta}$$ $$i A_{\alpha\beta}+iA_{\beta\gamma}+iA_{\gamma\alpha}=g_{\alpha\beta\gamma}^{-1}dg_{\alpha\beta\gamma}.$$ We call the closed $3$ form $G$ the curvature of the gerbe connection.

We say that a connection on a gerbe is flat if its curvature $G$ vanishes. Suppose a gerbe is flat, we have $G=0$ i.e., $dF_{\alpha}=0$. As we are considering contractible $U_\alpha$ (good open cover) we see that $F_\alpha$ being closed implies $F_\alpha$ is exact (by Poincare lemma) i.e., $F_\alpha=dB_{\alpha}$ on $U_\alpha$.

On $U_\alpha\cap U_\beta$ we have $F_\beta-F_\alpha=d(B_\beta-B_\alpha)$.

As $F_\beta-F_\alpha=dA_{\alpha\beta}$ we have $d(B_\beta-B_\alpha)=dA_{\alpha\beta}$ i.e., $A_{\alpha\beta}-B_\beta+B_\alpha=df_{\alpha\beta}$ (again by Poincare lemma) on $U_\alpha\cap U_\beta$.

He then says,

as $iA_{\alpha\beta}+iA_{\beta\gamma}+iA_{\gamma\alpha}=g_{\alpha\beta\gamma}^{-1}dg_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ , we have $d(if_{\alpha\beta}+if_{\beta\gamma}+if_{\gamma\alpha}-\log g_{\alpha\beta\gamma})=0$

I am not able to see how this is true. I did write down what $A_{\alpha\beta}$ and $f_{\alpha\beta}$ are but I got some relation that does not look anyway close to this.

Assuming $d(if_{\alpha\beta}+if_{\beta\gamma}+if_{\gamma\alpha}-\log g_{\alpha\beta\gamma})=0$, it says the following:

Of course $\log(g)$ is defined only modulo $2\pi i \mathbb{Z}$ so what we have here is a collection of constants $c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\in 2\pi \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$. The cocycle $c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}/2\pi$ represents a Cech class in $H^2(X,\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z})$ which we call the holonomy of the connection.

I do not understand completely what this means.

As $if_{\alpha\beta}+if_{\beta\gamma}+if_{\gamma\alpha}-\log g_{\alpha\beta\gamma}:U_\alpha\cap U_\beta\cap U_\gamma\rightarrow S^1$, $d(if_{\alpha\beta}+if_{\beta\gamma}+if_{\gamma\alpha}-\log g_{\alpha\beta\gamma})=0$ implies that $if_{\alpha\beta}+if_{\beta\gamma}+if_{\gamma\alpha}-\log g_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ is a constant and I guess this is what they are calling $c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$. Identifying $S^1$ with $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$ he says $c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\in 2\pi \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$. Seeing constants $c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ as constant functions, this defines maps $c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}:U_\alpha\cap U_\beta\cap U_\gamma\rightarrow \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$. This defines $2$ cocycle, thus an element of $H^2(X,\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z})$, this they are calling it as a holonomy.

I am not very sure if this is what it means. Any comments are welcome.

Any reference for concept of holonomy on gerbes would be useful.

EDIT : I thank user Tsemo for proving the equality that I said I was not able to prove. As I have not clearly stated what my question is, I would like to say it now. Any thoughts on motivation behind calling this holonomy is welcome. Is this collection $\{c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\}$ restircted to some subset is holonomy of some (line) bundle?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ As I said elsewhere, it would be very helpful for you to work out the analogous situation for a circle bundle, and see how the construction maps to holonomy there. $\endgroup$ – Aaron Bergman May 2 '18 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ @AaronBergman Can you say little more than what you said here, I do not completely understand what does it mean. $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik May 2 '18 at 17:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do everything for one degree less in Cech cohomology, and you’ve got a circle bundle. Everything is analogous to that. $\endgroup$ – Aaron Bergman May 2 '18 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ I think how you understand this "holonomy" bit depends largely on the definition you are comfortable with. I think of holonomy as a function from closed n-surfaces, mapped into X, into a Lie Group. Based on my way of thinking, I agree that this line is a bit confusing. But I would just have to answer the question: why could constants on triple intersections give me all I need to know for a function from [closed 2-surfaces into X] into S^1!? $\endgroup$ – cheyne Aug 30 '18 at 19:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @cheyne your comment makes the question clearer... Do you have one or two lines to say why it is related to the notion of holonomy of a connection? $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik Aug 31 '18 at 2:07
3
$\begingroup$

$A_{\alpha\beta}=df_{\alpha\beta}+B_\beta-B_\alpha$ implies that

$iA_{\alpha\beta}+iA_{\beta\gamma}+iA_{\gamma\alpha}=$

$i(df_{\alpha\beta}+B_\beta-B_\alpha+df_{\beta\gamma}+B_\gamma-B_\beta+df_{\gamma\alpha}+B_\alpha-B_\beta)$

$=i(df_{\alpha\beta}+df_{\beta\gamma}+df_{\gamma\alpha})=dlog(g_{\alpha\beta\gamma})$ implies that $i(d(f_{\alpha\beta}+f_{\beta\gamma}+f_{\gamma\alpha}-log(g_{\alpha\beta\gamma}))=0$.

$c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ obtained here is a $2$-Cech cocycle which is by definition the holonomy of the gerbe.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. Question was more about paragraph above the line I dont completely understand what does this mean Its more about holonomy definition than about the equality that you have explained. I was able to see the equality and wanted to edit the question saying I got this point but as you have already gave answer for that It is not reasonable to do so. Please say something about my understanding of holonomy that I have said above.. $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik Apr 29 '18 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ It can be accepted as a definition of the holonomy of a gerbe. $\endgroup$ – Tsemo Aristide Apr 29 '18 at 14:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you say anything more than that, please. $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik Apr 29 '18 at 15:07
2
$\begingroup$

Take a closed surface, $\Sigma$, and map it into your manifold. If $\Sigma \hookrightarrow U_{i}$, then you can simply integrate $F_{i}$ over $\Sigma$ and obtain the holonomy in $S^1$, evaluated on $\Sigma$. Note that I'm skirting around the issues involved with thinking of holonomy as a functor/function, etc, but I think my comment will make you happy nonetheless.

OK, but what if $\Sigma \hookrightarrow U_i \cup U_j$? Well, then you could cut $\Sigma$ into two "2-cells": one which lays entirely in $U_i$, one which lays entirely in $U_j$ and the edge lies entirely in $U_i \cap U_j$. So now you integrate over the pieces with the corresponding $F_{\alpha}$, and then glue them together using $iA_{ij}$ integrated over the edge. Now, since closed surfaces have (in general) non-trivial degree two Cech Cohomology, this essentially means we have to worry about how this gluing remains compatible over triple intersections. So now for each triple $U_{ijk}$, you repeat my glueing process for each "2-cell" in a $U_{\alpha}$, glueing them together over "1-cells" using $iA_{\alpha \beta}$, and then glueing all of this together over vertices, using $g_{\alpha \beta \gamma}$.

I tried to keep things informal because of course the real question is "what do I mean by compatible", but then now you want to study this whole theory a bit more than a post like this one.

I wasn't really clear on where all of your forms/functions were taking their values, but it turns out that the process I outlined is well-defined for non-abelian situations to a certain extent as well so it remains useful.

$\endgroup$

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.