Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Revisions

2 of 6
deleted 36 characters in body
user avatar
user avatar

Unifying "cohomology groups classify extensions" theorems

It is common for the first or second degree of various cohomologies to classify extensions of various sorts. Here are some examples of what I mean:

  1. Derived functor of hom, $\text{Ext}^1_R(M, N)$. Let $R$ be a ring (not necessarily commutative, with a $1$). As is its namesake, $\text{Ext}^1_R (M, N)$ classifies extensions $0 \rightarrow M \rightarrow L \rightarrow N \rightarrow 0$ up to isomorphism. We can put an abelian group structure on this, the Baer sum.

  2. Quillen cohomology, $\text{D}^1_{R} (A/B, M)$. Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $A$ be an $R$-algebra. Let $B$ Be an $R$-algebra with a map into $A$ (so we have a sequence $R \rightarrow A \rightarrow B$). The first Andre-Quillen cohomology $D^1(A/B, M)$ is $\text{Exalcomm}(A/B, M)$, the set of $A$-algebra extensions $0 \rightarrow M \rightarrow C \rightarrow B \rightarrow 0$, where we set $a b = 0$ for $a, b \in M$.

In other cohomologies, $H^2$ classifies extensions:

  1. Group cohomology, $H^2(G;M)$. Let $G$ be a group, and let $M$ be a $G$-module. $H^2(G;M)$ classifies extensions $0 \rightarrow M \rightarrow L \rightarrow G \rightarrow 0$ such that $G$ acts trivially on $M$.

  2. Lie algebra cohomology, $H^2(\mathfrak{g};M)$. Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a Lie-algebra, and let $M$ be a $\mathfrak{g}$-module. $H^2(\mathfrak{g};M)$ classifies extensions $0 \rightarrow M \rightarrow \mathfrak{h} \rightarrow \mathfrak{g} \rightarrow 0$ such that $\mathfrak{g}$ acts trivially on $M$.

  3. Hoschild cohomology, $H^2(R, M)$. Let $R$ be a commutative ring. The Hoschild cohomology module $H^2(R, M)$ classifies extensions $0 \rightarrow M \rightarrow S \rightarrow R \rightarrow 0$ where $ab = 0$ for $a, b \in M$. Note that Hoschild cohomology and Quillen cohomology are related; often $D^{n+1}(R, M) = H^n(R, M)$.

(1) and (2) are potentially different from (3) and (4), but there is the mentioned relationship between (2) and (5).

I am wondering if there is a (possibly categorical) unification of these theorems. Probably it would be easier to unify (1) and (2), and (3) and (4) separately- I can't say for sure there is a relationship between these pairs.

user30211