I asked this question in MathStackExchange 10 days ago but get no response (not a vote nor a comment), so I'm copying it here below. The link to the original question is:


Given an ordinary manifold $X$, the pair $(X,\Omega^\bullet)=:\Pi TX$ is called the parity reversed tangent bundle of $X$, which is a supermanifold. The page 4 of AKSZ's The Geometry of the Master Equation and Topological Quantum Field Theory gives, as an example of $Q$-manifold, the parity reversed tangent bundle $\Pi TN$ ($N$ an ordinary manifold) equipped with the odd vector field $Q$ defined in local coordinates $$ Q = \eta^a\frac{\partial}{\partial x^a}, $$ where $x^a$'s are the coordinates on $N$ and $\eta^a$'s are the corresponding coordinates along the fibre. After this it writes that "Note that $\Pi TN$ can be defined and equipped with a $Q$-structure also in the case where $N$ is a supermanifold" without any further explanation.

The question is that I'm not sure what is the definition of $\Pi TN$ when $N$ is a supermanifold. I did come up with one definition myself, but it seems too trivial to be the proper one. The following is the definition that I've came up with:

'Let $\mathcal{M}=(M,C^\infty_\mathcal{M})$ be a supermanifold and $C_M^\infty$ (not $C^\infty_\mathcal{M}$) denote the ring of ordinary smooth functions on $M$. The parity reversed tangent bundle of $\mathcal{M}$ is the supermanifold $$ \Pi T\mathcal{M}= (M,C^\infty_\mathcal{M}\otimes_{C^\infty_M} \Omega^\bullet), $$ where $C^\infty_\mathcal{M}\otimes_{C^\infty_M} \Omega^\bullet$ is the tensor product of $C^\infty_\mathcal{M}$ and $\Omega^\bullet$ seen as sheaves on $M$. '

With this definition, the mentioned $Q$-structure is obvious, with the defining formula exactly the same as above. But this doesn't look correct to me, since the supermanifold has a super tangent bundle on its own right, while this definition uses only the tangent bundle of the base manifold (with the induced smooth structure): the derivations along odd coordinates are nowhere included, and I don't know how to fix this.

I'd appreciate it if anyone could tell me the true definition, or convince me that the definition I came up by myself is the correct one (if it really is). If the latter is not the case, it would be even better if hints about the $Q$-structure could be given, since the structure might be no longer obvious under the new definition.

Thanks in advance.



Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy