This might be a weird/stupid question, but it came to me a couple of times, and I would like to get an answer for that.

In some papers I read, constantly the authors define some analytic subspaces, say $X$ and $Y$, and then the authors take the intersection product of their cycles $[X]\cdot [Y]$ in the homology group, without requiring $x$ intersect $Y$ transversely.

My question is, it seems that there is an intersection theory applied here, but I don't know how it works. Does Fulton-MacPherson's intersection theory directly apply to analytic setting ?


You don't say what kind of space $X$ and $Y$ are subspaces of. But if they sit in an oriented manifold there's an easy way to define an intersection product in homology. Namely if $M$ is an oriented $d$-manifold then there is a Poincaré duality isomorphism $$ H_i(M,\mathbf Z) \cong H^{d-i}_c(M,\mathbf Z)$$ between homology and compactly supported cohomology. The cohomology with compact support is a ring (though typically a non-unital ring) for the same reason that the usual cohomology is a ring: use contravariant functoriality for the diagonal morphism. In this way we obtain an intersection product on homology.

One can also work with Borel-Moore homology which is sometimes even nicer: under Poincaré duality the Borel-Moore homology corresponds to the usual cohomology, and in particular we get a unital ring, the unit being given by the fundamental class. And fundamental classes exist very generally in Borel-Moore homology, for example any irreducible complex analytic space (not necessarily smooth, not necessarily compact) has a fundamental class.

This is all easier than what Fulton does in his book. But Fulton obtains an intersection product on Chow groups, which carries more refined information.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.