6
$\begingroup$

In page 79 of Bott-Tu, "Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology", they define the relative de Rham theory as follows:

Let $f:S\to M$ be a smooth map. Define the complex $\Omega^*(f)$ by $$\Omega^k(f):=\Omega^k(M)\oplus\Omega^{k-1}(S)$$ $$\underline{\mathrm{d}}(\alpha,\beta)=(\mathrm{d}\alpha,f^*\alpha-\mathrm{d}\beta)$$ It is easy to prove that $\underline{\mathrm{d}}^2=0$ which allows us to define the cohomology $H^*(f)$. As a particular case, one can consider a submanifold $\imath:N\hookrightarrow M$ and define $$\Omega^*(M,N):=\Omega^*(\imath)$$


My interest lies in the case when $N=\partial M$ and $M$ compact, where one can also define the integral of top forms as $$\int_{(M,\partial M)}(\alpha,\beta):=\int_M\alpha-\int_{\partial M}\beta$$ It is easy to check, using Stoke's theorem, that $$\int_{(M,\partial M)}\underline{\mathrm{d}}(\alpha,\beta)=0$$ Thus, we have a well defined map $$\tag{1}\label{one}\int_{(M,\partial M)}:H^n(M,\partial M)\to\mathbb{R}$$

If $\partial M=\varnothing$, then $H^n(M,\partial M)=H^n(M)$ and the previous integral is the standard one. The de Rham's theorem for top-forms then tells us that if $M$ has no boundary $$\tag{2}\label{two}\int_M:H^n(M)\to\mathbb{R}\quad \text{ is an isomorphism}$$ However, with boundary we have:

 1. It is surjective (applying \eqref{two} over the boundary and using elements of the form $(0,\beta)$).

 2. Its kernel is isomorphic to $H^n(M)$. Sketch of the proof: for every $[\alpha]\in H^n(M)$, build an element $[(\alpha,\beta)]$ such that $\int_{(M,\partial M)}(\alpha,\beta)=0$ using de Rham's theorem over the boundary. This map is well defined.

I have a heuristic argument to show that $H^n(M)$ is always zero: given $\alpha\in\Omega^n(M)$, take the double of $M$ along the boundary $\partial M$ and extend to some $\widetilde{\alpha}\in\Omega^n(M\sqcup_{\partial M}M)$ such that its integral is zero (using a tubular neighborhood over $\partial M$). Then using \eqref{two} (the double has no boundary) shows that $\widetilde{\alpha}$ is exact and, therefore, its pullback to $M$, which is $\alpha$, is also exact.

This seems a very strong result that I haven't found anywhere, while the proof seems very simple, thus I doubt if there are obstructions to the extension that invalidate the proof.


So the questions I have in mind (all of them are almost the same question) are:

  1. Is $H^n(M)=0$ if $M$ is compact with boundary?
  2. Is there a useful characterization of $H^n(M,\partial M)$ that can be used in this context?
  3. Is there a de Rham's theorem like \eqref{two} for manifolds with boundary (with no prescribed boundary conditions)?
  4. Is there a de Rham's theorem like \eqref{two} for relative cohomology?
  5. If $H^n(M)\neq 0$, is there another a map $G:H^n(M,\partial M)\to \mathbb{R}$ such that $(\int_{(M,\partial M)},G)\to\mathbb{R}^2$ is an isomorphism?
$\endgroup$
1

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

It is indeed true that $H^n(M)=0$ if $M$ is a compact manifold with boundary. In particular, $H^n(M,\partial M)\cong\mathbb{R}$ by Lefschetz duality (as Chris Gerig mentioned) and the integral (1) is an isomorphism.

The only reference I have found that states this results is:

Differential forms: theory and practice. Steven Weintraub. Academic Press (Elsevier) 2014.

  • Theorem 8.3.10 for compact manifolds with boundary.
  • Theorem 8.4.8 for non-compact manifold with boundary using compact support forms.
$\endgroup$

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.