The Unapologetic Mathematician

Mathematics for the interested outsider

De Rham Cohomology

The really important thing about the exterior derivative is that it makes the algebra of differential forms into a “differential graded algebra”. We had the structure of a graded algebra before, but now we have a degree-one derivation whose square is zero. And as long as we want it to agree with the differential on functions, there’s only one way to do it.

Why does this matter? Well, the algebra \Omega(M) is the direct sum of its grades — the spaces \Omega^k(M), and for each one we have a map d:\Omega^k(M)\to\Omega^{k+1}(M). We can even write them out in a row:

\displaystyle \dots\to\mathbf{0}\to\Omega^0(M)\to\dots\to\Omega^k(M)\to\dots\to\Omega^n(M)\to\mathbf{0}\to\dots

where we have padded out the sequence with \mathbf{0} — the trivial space — in either direction. This is just like a chain complex, except the arrows go backwards! Instead of the indices counting down, they count up. We can deal with this by thinking of these as negative numbers, but really it doesn’t matter.

Anyway, now we can bring all our homological machinery to bear! We say that a differential form \omega\in\Omega^k(M) is “closed” if d\omega=0, and we write the subspace of closed forms as Z^k(M)=\mathrm{Ker}(d)\subseteq\Omega^k(M). We say that \omega is “exact” if there is some \alpha\in\Omega^{k-1}(M) with \omega=d\alpha, and we write the subspace of exact forms as B^k(M)=\mathrm{Im}(d)\subseteq\Omega^k(M). The fact that d^2=0 implies that B^k(M)\subseteq Z^k(M).

And now we can define the k-th “de Rham cohomology space” H^k(M)=Z^k(M)/B^k(M). The cohomology space H^k(M) measures the extent to which it is possible to have a k-form on M be closed without being exact. If H^k(M)=\mathbf{0}, then closed k-forms are all exact. And it’s roughly accurate to say that the rank of H^k(M) counts the “number of independent ways” to set up a closed-but-not-exact k-form.

The really amazing thing, which we will come to understand later, is that this actually tells us a lot about the topology of M itself: combinatorial information about the topology of a manifold is encoded into the algebraic structure of its sheaf of differential forms.

July 20, 2011 - Posted by | Differential Topology, Topology


  1. Beautiful stuff. I love how these more conceptual results act as a “light at the end of the tunnel” after all the tedious computations from the past week.

    Comment by Sam Alexander | July 21, 2011 | Reply

  2. This material you’ve been posting on differential topology has been some of the best I’ve seen on your site in several years of devoted reading. Thanks very much.

    Comment by Dan | July 21, 2011 | Reply

  3. […] is a degree-zero homomorphism of graded algebras. But now that we’ve seen that and are differential graded algebras, it would be nice if the pullback respected this structure as well. And luckily enough, it […]

    Pingback by Pullbacks on Cohomology « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 21, 2011 | Reply

  4. […] turns out that the de Rham cohomology spaces are all contravariant functors on the category of smooth manifolds. We’ve even seen how it […]

    Pingback by De Rham Cohomology is Functorial « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 23, 2011 | Reply

  5. […] on to the theorem! We know how to integrate a differential -form over a -chain . We also have a differential operator on differential forms and a boundary operator on chains. We can put these together in two […]

    Pingback by Stokes’ Theorem (statement) « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 17, 2011 | Reply

  6. […] is an exact -form. It’s not quite as nice as equality, but if we pass to De Rham cohomology it’s just as good. Advertisement Eco World Content From Across The Internet. Featured […]

    Pingback by The Codifferential « The Unapologetic Mathematician | October 21, 2011 | Reply

  7. […] also has an empty boundary. Since is a top form, we know that — it’s closed in the de Rham cohomology. But we know that it cannot also be exact, for if for some -form then Stokes’ theorem would […]

    Pingback by Compact Oriented Manifolds without Boundary have Nontrivial Homology « The Unapologetic Mathematician | November 24, 2011 | Reply

  8. […] know that a map induces a chain map , which induces a map on the de Rham cohomology. This is what we mean when we say that de Rham cohomology is […]

    Pingback by Homotopic Maps Induce Identical Maps On Homology « The Unapologetic Mathematician | December 6, 2011 | Reply

  9. […] we’ve seen that all contractible spaces have trivial de Rham cohomology, we can’t use that tool to tell them apart. Instead, we introduce de Rham cohomology with […]

    Pingback by Compactly Supported De Rham Cohomology « The Unapologetic Mathematician | December 6, 2011 | Reply

  10. […] We’ve seen that if a manifold is simply-connected then the first degree of cubic singular homology is trivial. I say that the same is true of the first degree of de Rham cohomology. […]

    Pingback by Simply-Connected Spaces and Cohomology « The Unapologetic Mathematician | December 17, 2011 | Reply

  11. […] but knowing that is not enough to conclude that for some . In fact, this question is exactly what de Rham cohomology is all […]

    Pingback by A Short Rant about Electromagnetism Texts « The Unapologetic Mathematician | February 18, 2012 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: