$\DeclareMathOperator\Ch{Ch}$Let $M$ be a connected manifold of finite type. We denote $\Ch_{\mathbb{Q}}(M),$ $\Ch_{\mathbb{Z}}(M)$ and $\Ch_{\mathbb{\pm}\mathbb{Z}}(M)$ by cohomological dimensions of $M$ over $\mathbb{Q},$ $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\pm\mathbb{Z}$ (coefficients in the orientation sheaf $\mathbb{\pm}\mathbb{Z}$) respectively. Is it always true that $\Ch_{\mathbb{Q}}(M)\leq \Ch_{\mathbb{Z}}(M)\leq \Ch_{\mathbb{\pm}\mathbb{Z}}(M)?$ I know that if $M$ is orientable then $\Ch_{\mathbb{Z}}(M)= \Ch_{\mathbb{\pm}\mathbb{Z}}(M).$ Can we say that $\Ch_{\mathbb{Z}}(M)< \Ch_{\mathbb{\pm}\mathbb{Z}}(M)$ if $M$ is non-orientable? $H^{*}(M,\mathbb{\pm}\mathbb{Z})$ is the homology of $Hom_{\mathbb{Z}[\pi_{1}(X)]}(C_{*}(M^{c}),\mathbb{Z}),$ where $C_{*}(M^{c})$ is the singular chain complex of universal cover $M^{c}$ of $M,$ and where the action of (the class of) a loop on the $\mathbb{Z}$ is multiplication by $\pm1$ according to whether this loop preserves or reverses orientation. We denote by $Ch_{\pm\mathbb{Z}}(M)$ the smallest integer with property that $$H^{i}(M,\pm\mathbb{Z})=0,\quad\mbox{ for all $i>Ch_{\pm\mathbb{Z}}(M)$}.$$
-
1$\begingroup$ If $M$ is closed and non-orientable, then $\mathrm{Ch}_{\mathbb Z}(M) < \mathrm{Ch}_{\pm \mathbb Z}(M) = \mathrm{dim}(M)$. I don't think it is true if $M$ is not closed however: the Moebius band retracts to a circle, whose virtual cohomological dimension is $1$ anyway... $\endgroup$– NicolastCommented Dec 2, 2021 at 9:05
-
1$\begingroup$ Usually the cohomological dimension of a connected space over $\mathbb{Z}$ would mean the largest dimension in which there is non-vanishing cohomology with local coefficients in some $\mathbb{Z}\pi_1$-module. Here you seem to mean the largest dimension in which the integral cohomology (constant coefficents) is non-vanishing. If that is the case, then everything follows from standard calculations of the homology of manifolds and the Universal Coefficient Theorem. $\endgroup$– Mark GrantCommented Dec 2, 2021 at 14:32
-
$\begingroup$ So, can we say that $Ch_{\mathbb{Z}}(M)\leq Ch_{\pm\mathbb{Z}}(M)$ for open non-orientable manifold $M$? $\endgroup$– King KhanCommented Dec 2, 2021 at 16:09
-
2$\begingroup$ For the Moebius band, the cohomology with coefficients in the orientation sheaf is zero in every degree, whereas the cohomology with coefficients in the trivial sheaf is not zero in dimensions 0 and 1. Real line bundles are equivalent to $\mathbb Z$-line-bundles. Given a manifold with some rank 1 local systems, you can make any of them the orient sheaf of a h eq manifold by taking the total space of an appropriate line bundle on the original, just as the Moebius band is the total space of the nontrivial line bundle on the circle. So the coh in the orientation sheaf is not much restricted. $\endgroup$– Ben WielandCommented Dec 3, 2021 at 18:03
-
$\begingroup$ Thank you, this is very useful for me. $\endgroup$– King KhanCommented Dec 4, 2021 at 7:23
1 Answer
By Bredon's Sheaf Theory, Proposition II.16.15, if $X$ is locally paracompact then $\dim_L X\leq \dim_{\mathbb Z}X$ for any ring $L$ with unit. So that should answer the question about the relation between $\dim_{\mathbb Q}$ and $\dim_{\mathbb Z}$.
For the other part, I'm not completely sure what you mean by $\mathbb Z_\pm$, but if it's something to do with twisted coefficients then my guess is that for nice spaces like this it would be possible to prove the $\mathbb Z$ and $\pm\mathbb Z$ dimensions are the same using covering spaces. I'll think some more about the details.
Update: looking more carefully at the definition of dimension in Bredon, for a family of supports $\Phi$ and ring with unit $L$, he defines $\dim_{\Phi,L} X$ to be the least integer $n$ such that $H^k_{\Phi}(X; A)=0$ for all sheaves $A$ of $L$-modules and all $k>n$. Since we're using manifolds, the system of supports can be taken to be the usual closed supports. So, assuming this is the same notion of cohomological dimension that you mean, I'm not sure then what it means to talk about dimension over something that's not a fixed ring. Can you say more about your definition?
-
-
$\begingroup$ Ah, this is not the standard definition of "cohomological dimension." $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 3, 2021 at 6:10