First de Rham Cohomology group of the 2-torus











up vote
3
down vote

favorite













Show that for the de Rham cohomology, $H^{1}_{dR}({T^{2}})$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{R}^{2}$ by showing that the following map: $[alpha] to (int_{S^{1}}f^{*}_{1}alpha,int_{S^{1}}f^{*}_{1}alpha)$, where $f_{1}=(theta,c_{1}), f_{2}=(c_{2},theta)$ for $c_{1},c_{2}$ constants (seen as maps $S^{1} to S^{1} times S^{1}$) is an isomorphism.




I have shown that the map is well-defined, linear and independent of the constants chosen. However, I'm having trouble with showing that it is surjective and injective. Surjectivity seems to be easy to show, but I'm not sure on how to go about it. For injectivity, it suffices to show that if the integrals are $0$, then $alpha$ is an exact form, yet I'm having troubles with it as well. What would be a good way to tackle this problem?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Do you already know the map $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$ given by $[alpha]mapsto int_{S^1} alpha$ is an isomorphism? If not, I would start there.
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 18 at 16:56










  • Yes, I do know that. I'm not sure on how to use this fact to show that the map $H^{1}_{dR}(T^{2}) to mathbb{R}^{2}$ is an isomorphism though. Would perhaps composing the induced cohomology map $F_{1}^{*}$ by $f_{1}^{*}$ with the isomorphism $H^{1}_{dR}(S^{1}) to mathbb{R}$ be a good way to proceed?
    – betelgeuse
    Nov 18 at 21:28












  • Sorry for the delay, been doing holiday traveling. (Also, if you want to message me, you should precede your comment with "@Jason" or something like that, so that I get pinged). This gives you a way of showing surjectivity more or less immediately. Given $(r,0)in mathbb{R}^2$, by surjectivity of $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$, there is a $1$-form $beta$ on $S^1$ with $int_{S^1} beta = r$. Now, let $alpha(theta_1, theta_2) = beta(theta_1)$ . Then $[alpha]mapsto (r,0)$. To get $(0,r)$, use the same trick. To get $(r_1,r_2)$....
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 21 at 16:32










  • use the fact that $H^1_{dR})(T^2)subseteq mathbb{R}^2$ is a subspace. It does seem like injectivity is trickier. You may need to do something like what Pedro did below.
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 21 at 16:33















up vote
3
down vote

favorite













Show that for the de Rham cohomology, $H^{1}_{dR}({T^{2}})$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{R}^{2}$ by showing that the following map: $[alpha] to (int_{S^{1}}f^{*}_{1}alpha,int_{S^{1}}f^{*}_{1}alpha)$, where $f_{1}=(theta,c_{1}), f_{2}=(c_{2},theta)$ for $c_{1},c_{2}$ constants (seen as maps $S^{1} to S^{1} times S^{1}$) is an isomorphism.




I have shown that the map is well-defined, linear and independent of the constants chosen. However, I'm having trouble with showing that it is surjective and injective. Surjectivity seems to be easy to show, but I'm not sure on how to go about it. For injectivity, it suffices to show that if the integrals are $0$, then $alpha$ is an exact form, yet I'm having troubles with it as well. What would be a good way to tackle this problem?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Do you already know the map $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$ given by $[alpha]mapsto int_{S^1} alpha$ is an isomorphism? If not, I would start there.
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 18 at 16:56










  • Yes, I do know that. I'm not sure on how to use this fact to show that the map $H^{1}_{dR}(T^{2}) to mathbb{R}^{2}$ is an isomorphism though. Would perhaps composing the induced cohomology map $F_{1}^{*}$ by $f_{1}^{*}$ with the isomorphism $H^{1}_{dR}(S^{1}) to mathbb{R}$ be a good way to proceed?
    – betelgeuse
    Nov 18 at 21:28












  • Sorry for the delay, been doing holiday traveling. (Also, if you want to message me, you should precede your comment with "@Jason" or something like that, so that I get pinged). This gives you a way of showing surjectivity more or less immediately. Given $(r,0)in mathbb{R}^2$, by surjectivity of $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$, there is a $1$-form $beta$ on $S^1$ with $int_{S^1} beta = r$. Now, let $alpha(theta_1, theta_2) = beta(theta_1)$ . Then $[alpha]mapsto (r,0)$. To get $(0,r)$, use the same trick. To get $(r_1,r_2)$....
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 21 at 16:32










  • use the fact that $H^1_{dR})(T^2)subseteq mathbb{R}^2$ is a subspace. It does seem like injectivity is trickier. You may need to do something like what Pedro did below.
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 21 at 16:33













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite












Show that for the de Rham cohomology, $H^{1}_{dR}({T^{2}})$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{R}^{2}$ by showing that the following map: $[alpha] to (int_{S^{1}}f^{*}_{1}alpha,int_{S^{1}}f^{*}_{1}alpha)$, where $f_{1}=(theta,c_{1}), f_{2}=(c_{2},theta)$ for $c_{1},c_{2}$ constants (seen as maps $S^{1} to S^{1} times S^{1}$) is an isomorphism.




I have shown that the map is well-defined, linear and independent of the constants chosen. However, I'm having trouble with showing that it is surjective and injective. Surjectivity seems to be easy to show, but I'm not sure on how to go about it. For injectivity, it suffices to show that if the integrals are $0$, then $alpha$ is an exact form, yet I'm having troubles with it as well. What would be a good way to tackle this problem?










share|cite|improve this question
















Show that for the de Rham cohomology, $H^{1}_{dR}({T^{2}})$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{R}^{2}$ by showing that the following map: $[alpha] to (int_{S^{1}}f^{*}_{1}alpha,int_{S^{1}}f^{*}_{1}alpha)$, where $f_{1}=(theta,c_{1}), f_{2}=(c_{2},theta)$ for $c_{1},c_{2}$ constants (seen as maps $S^{1} to S^{1} times S^{1}$) is an isomorphism.




I have shown that the map is well-defined, linear and independent of the constants chosen. However, I'm having trouble with showing that it is surjective and injective. Surjectivity seems to be easy to show, but I'm not sure on how to go about it. For injectivity, it suffices to show that if the integrals are $0$, then $alpha$ is an exact form, yet I'm having troubles with it as well. What would be a good way to tackle this problem?







differential-geometry algebraic-topology smooth-manifolds differential-forms






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 18 at 14:48

























asked Nov 18 at 14:36









betelgeuse

305




305








  • 1




    Do you already know the map $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$ given by $[alpha]mapsto int_{S^1} alpha$ is an isomorphism? If not, I would start there.
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 18 at 16:56










  • Yes, I do know that. I'm not sure on how to use this fact to show that the map $H^{1}_{dR}(T^{2}) to mathbb{R}^{2}$ is an isomorphism though. Would perhaps composing the induced cohomology map $F_{1}^{*}$ by $f_{1}^{*}$ with the isomorphism $H^{1}_{dR}(S^{1}) to mathbb{R}$ be a good way to proceed?
    – betelgeuse
    Nov 18 at 21:28












  • Sorry for the delay, been doing holiday traveling. (Also, if you want to message me, you should precede your comment with "@Jason" or something like that, so that I get pinged). This gives you a way of showing surjectivity more or less immediately. Given $(r,0)in mathbb{R}^2$, by surjectivity of $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$, there is a $1$-form $beta$ on $S^1$ with $int_{S^1} beta = r$. Now, let $alpha(theta_1, theta_2) = beta(theta_1)$ . Then $[alpha]mapsto (r,0)$. To get $(0,r)$, use the same trick. To get $(r_1,r_2)$....
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 21 at 16:32










  • use the fact that $H^1_{dR})(T^2)subseteq mathbb{R}^2$ is a subspace. It does seem like injectivity is trickier. You may need to do something like what Pedro did below.
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 21 at 16:33














  • 1




    Do you already know the map $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$ given by $[alpha]mapsto int_{S^1} alpha$ is an isomorphism? If not, I would start there.
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 18 at 16:56










  • Yes, I do know that. I'm not sure on how to use this fact to show that the map $H^{1}_{dR}(T^{2}) to mathbb{R}^{2}$ is an isomorphism though. Would perhaps composing the induced cohomology map $F_{1}^{*}$ by $f_{1}^{*}$ with the isomorphism $H^{1}_{dR}(S^{1}) to mathbb{R}$ be a good way to proceed?
    – betelgeuse
    Nov 18 at 21:28












  • Sorry for the delay, been doing holiday traveling. (Also, if you want to message me, you should precede your comment with "@Jason" or something like that, so that I get pinged). This gives you a way of showing surjectivity more or less immediately. Given $(r,0)in mathbb{R}^2$, by surjectivity of $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$, there is a $1$-form $beta$ on $S^1$ with $int_{S^1} beta = r$. Now, let $alpha(theta_1, theta_2) = beta(theta_1)$ . Then $[alpha]mapsto (r,0)$. To get $(0,r)$, use the same trick. To get $(r_1,r_2)$....
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 21 at 16:32










  • use the fact that $H^1_{dR})(T^2)subseteq mathbb{R}^2$ is a subspace. It does seem like injectivity is trickier. You may need to do something like what Pedro did below.
    – Jason DeVito
    Nov 21 at 16:33








1




1




Do you already know the map $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$ given by $[alpha]mapsto int_{S^1} alpha$ is an isomorphism? If not, I would start there.
– Jason DeVito
Nov 18 at 16:56




Do you already know the map $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$ given by $[alpha]mapsto int_{S^1} alpha$ is an isomorphism? If not, I would start there.
– Jason DeVito
Nov 18 at 16:56












Yes, I do know that. I'm not sure on how to use this fact to show that the map $H^{1}_{dR}(T^{2}) to mathbb{R}^{2}$ is an isomorphism though. Would perhaps composing the induced cohomology map $F_{1}^{*}$ by $f_{1}^{*}$ with the isomorphism $H^{1}_{dR}(S^{1}) to mathbb{R}$ be a good way to proceed?
– betelgeuse
Nov 18 at 21:28






Yes, I do know that. I'm not sure on how to use this fact to show that the map $H^{1}_{dR}(T^{2}) to mathbb{R}^{2}$ is an isomorphism though. Would perhaps composing the induced cohomology map $F_{1}^{*}$ by $f_{1}^{*}$ with the isomorphism $H^{1}_{dR}(S^{1}) to mathbb{R}$ be a good way to proceed?
– betelgeuse
Nov 18 at 21:28














Sorry for the delay, been doing holiday traveling. (Also, if you want to message me, you should precede your comment with "@Jason" or something like that, so that I get pinged). This gives you a way of showing surjectivity more or less immediately. Given $(r,0)in mathbb{R}^2$, by surjectivity of $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$, there is a $1$-form $beta$ on $S^1$ with $int_{S^1} beta = r$. Now, let $alpha(theta_1, theta_2) = beta(theta_1)$ . Then $[alpha]mapsto (r,0)$. To get $(0,r)$, use the same trick. To get $(r_1,r_2)$....
– Jason DeVito
Nov 21 at 16:32




Sorry for the delay, been doing holiday traveling. (Also, if you want to message me, you should precede your comment with "@Jason" or something like that, so that I get pinged). This gives you a way of showing surjectivity more or less immediately. Given $(r,0)in mathbb{R}^2$, by surjectivity of $H^1_{dR}(S^1)rightarrow mathbb{R}$, there is a $1$-form $beta$ on $S^1$ with $int_{S^1} beta = r$. Now, let $alpha(theta_1, theta_2) = beta(theta_1)$ . Then $[alpha]mapsto (r,0)$. To get $(0,r)$, use the same trick. To get $(r_1,r_2)$....
– Jason DeVito
Nov 21 at 16:32












use the fact that $H^1_{dR})(T^2)subseteq mathbb{R}^2$ is a subspace. It does seem like injectivity is trickier. You may need to do something like what Pedro did below.
– Jason DeVito
Nov 21 at 16:33




use the fact that $H^1_{dR})(T^2)subseteq mathbb{R}^2$ is a subspace. It does seem like injectivity is trickier. You may need to do something like what Pedro did below.
– Jason DeVito
Nov 21 at 16:33










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Recall that $H_1(T^2)$ is $mathbb Z^2$, and is spanned by the class of the simplices $f_1$ and $f_2$, and in fact your map is coming from a pairing $Omega^*(T^2) otimes C_*(T^2,mathbb R)tomathbb R$ such that $langle omega,sigmarangle = int_sigma omega$. This is the same as the corresponding map $Omega^*(T^2)to C^*(T^2,mathbb R)$, and what your question is claiming is that this is an isomorphism on cohomology, that is, a quasi-isomorphism. One can actually consider this map for any manifold $X$, let us call it $r_X$, the de Rham pairing.



Now something remarkable about $r_X$ this is that it is compatible with, for example, the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, in the sense that if $U,V$ are open and cover $X$, then the following diagram commutes



$$require{AMScd}
begin{CD} 0@>>>Omega^*(X) @>>> Omega^*(U)oplus Omega^*(V) @>>> Omega(Ucap V) @>>> 0\ {} @VVr_XV @VV{r_Uoplus r_V} V @VV{r_{Ucap V}}V\
0 @>>> C^*(X) @>>> C^*(U)oplus C^*(V) @>>> C^*(Ucap V) @>>> 0 end{CD}
$$



It follows that if $r_X$ is a quasi-isomorphism for $U,V$ and $Ucap V$, it is an isomorphism. Indeed, this is a statement of homological algebra and follows from the so-called 5 lemma applied to the "infinite staircase" diagram obtained by lookin at the long exact sequences of the two Mayer-Vietoris sequences above.



Now you can cover the torus $T^2$ by two open sets $U$ and $V$ which
are homotopic to the $1$-sphere, and whose intersection is a disjoint union of two $1$-spheres. Hence, proving it for the $1$-sphere suffices.



In this case you know that $H^*_{dR}(S^1)$ is spanned by $1$ and an angle form $dtheta$,
and that $H_*(S^1)$ is spanned by, more or less, the identity $S^1to S^1$. Then the induced by on homology is simply the isomorphism $mathbb Rotimesmathbb Rtomathbb R$,
so you get what you wanted.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • This whole story is wonderfully explained in Bott and Tu's Differential forms in algebraic topoogy.
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    Nov 21 at 0:04












  • I see, we haven't covered Mayer-Vietoris sequences yet but this makes a lot of sense now.
    – betelgeuse
    Dec 2 at 14:06











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003608%2ffirst-de-rham-cohomology-group-of-the-2-torus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Recall that $H_1(T^2)$ is $mathbb Z^2$, and is spanned by the class of the simplices $f_1$ and $f_2$, and in fact your map is coming from a pairing $Omega^*(T^2) otimes C_*(T^2,mathbb R)tomathbb R$ such that $langle omega,sigmarangle = int_sigma omega$. This is the same as the corresponding map $Omega^*(T^2)to C^*(T^2,mathbb R)$, and what your question is claiming is that this is an isomorphism on cohomology, that is, a quasi-isomorphism. One can actually consider this map for any manifold $X$, let us call it $r_X$, the de Rham pairing.



Now something remarkable about $r_X$ this is that it is compatible with, for example, the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, in the sense that if $U,V$ are open and cover $X$, then the following diagram commutes



$$require{AMScd}
begin{CD} 0@>>>Omega^*(X) @>>> Omega^*(U)oplus Omega^*(V) @>>> Omega(Ucap V) @>>> 0\ {} @VVr_XV @VV{r_Uoplus r_V} V @VV{r_{Ucap V}}V\
0 @>>> C^*(X) @>>> C^*(U)oplus C^*(V) @>>> C^*(Ucap V) @>>> 0 end{CD}
$$



It follows that if $r_X$ is a quasi-isomorphism for $U,V$ and $Ucap V$, it is an isomorphism. Indeed, this is a statement of homological algebra and follows from the so-called 5 lemma applied to the "infinite staircase" diagram obtained by lookin at the long exact sequences of the two Mayer-Vietoris sequences above.



Now you can cover the torus $T^2$ by two open sets $U$ and $V$ which
are homotopic to the $1$-sphere, and whose intersection is a disjoint union of two $1$-spheres. Hence, proving it for the $1$-sphere suffices.



In this case you know that $H^*_{dR}(S^1)$ is spanned by $1$ and an angle form $dtheta$,
and that $H_*(S^1)$ is spanned by, more or less, the identity $S^1to S^1$. Then the induced by on homology is simply the isomorphism $mathbb Rotimesmathbb Rtomathbb R$,
so you get what you wanted.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • This whole story is wonderfully explained in Bott and Tu's Differential forms in algebraic topoogy.
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    Nov 21 at 0:04












  • I see, we haven't covered Mayer-Vietoris sequences yet but this makes a lot of sense now.
    – betelgeuse
    Dec 2 at 14:06















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Recall that $H_1(T^2)$ is $mathbb Z^2$, and is spanned by the class of the simplices $f_1$ and $f_2$, and in fact your map is coming from a pairing $Omega^*(T^2) otimes C_*(T^2,mathbb R)tomathbb R$ such that $langle omega,sigmarangle = int_sigma omega$. This is the same as the corresponding map $Omega^*(T^2)to C^*(T^2,mathbb R)$, and what your question is claiming is that this is an isomorphism on cohomology, that is, a quasi-isomorphism. One can actually consider this map for any manifold $X$, let us call it $r_X$, the de Rham pairing.



Now something remarkable about $r_X$ this is that it is compatible with, for example, the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, in the sense that if $U,V$ are open and cover $X$, then the following diagram commutes



$$require{AMScd}
begin{CD} 0@>>>Omega^*(X) @>>> Omega^*(U)oplus Omega^*(V) @>>> Omega(Ucap V) @>>> 0\ {} @VVr_XV @VV{r_Uoplus r_V} V @VV{r_{Ucap V}}V\
0 @>>> C^*(X) @>>> C^*(U)oplus C^*(V) @>>> C^*(Ucap V) @>>> 0 end{CD}
$$



It follows that if $r_X$ is a quasi-isomorphism for $U,V$ and $Ucap V$, it is an isomorphism. Indeed, this is a statement of homological algebra and follows from the so-called 5 lemma applied to the "infinite staircase" diagram obtained by lookin at the long exact sequences of the two Mayer-Vietoris sequences above.



Now you can cover the torus $T^2$ by two open sets $U$ and $V$ which
are homotopic to the $1$-sphere, and whose intersection is a disjoint union of two $1$-spheres. Hence, proving it for the $1$-sphere suffices.



In this case you know that $H^*_{dR}(S^1)$ is spanned by $1$ and an angle form $dtheta$,
and that $H_*(S^1)$ is spanned by, more or less, the identity $S^1to S^1$. Then the induced by on homology is simply the isomorphism $mathbb Rotimesmathbb Rtomathbb R$,
so you get what you wanted.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • This whole story is wonderfully explained in Bott and Tu's Differential forms in algebraic topoogy.
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    Nov 21 at 0:04












  • I see, we haven't covered Mayer-Vietoris sequences yet but this makes a lot of sense now.
    – betelgeuse
    Dec 2 at 14:06













up vote
2
down vote



accepted







up vote
2
down vote



accepted






Recall that $H_1(T^2)$ is $mathbb Z^2$, and is spanned by the class of the simplices $f_1$ and $f_2$, and in fact your map is coming from a pairing $Omega^*(T^2) otimes C_*(T^2,mathbb R)tomathbb R$ such that $langle omega,sigmarangle = int_sigma omega$. This is the same as the corresponding map $Omega^*(T^2)to C^*(T^2,mathbb R)$, and what your question is claiming is that this is an isomorphism on cohomology, that is, a quasi-isomorphism. One can actually consider this map for any manifold $X$, let us call it $r_X$, the de Rham pairing.



Now something remarkable about $r_X$ this is that it is compatible with, for example, the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, in the sense that if $U,V$ are open and cover $X$, then the following diagram commutes



$$require{AMScd}
begin{CD} 0@>>>Omega^*(X) @>>> Omega^*(U)oplus Omega^*(V) @>>> Omega(Ucap V) @>>> 0\ {} @VVr_XV @VV{r_Uoplus r_V} V @VV{r_{Ucap V}}V\
0 @>>> C^*(X) @>>> C^*(U)oplus C^*(V) @>>> C^*(Ucap V) @>>> 0 end{CD}
$$



It follows that if $r_X$ is a quasi-isomorphism for $U,V$ and $Ucap V$, it is an isomorphism. Indeed, this is a statement of homological algebra and follows from the so-called 5 lemma applied to the "infinite staircase" diagram obtained by lookin at the long exact sequences of the two Mayer-Vietoris sequences above.



Now you can cover the torus $T^2$ by two open sets $U$ and $V$ which
are homotopic to the $1$-sphere, and whose intersection is a disjoint union of two $1$-spheres. Hence, proving it for the $1$-sphere suffices.



In this case you know that $H^*_{dR}(S^1)$ is spanned by $1$ and an angle form $dtheta$,
and that $H_*(S^1)$ is spanned by, more or less, the identity $S^1to S^1$. Then the induced by on homology is simply the isomorphism $mathbb Rotimesmathbb Rtomathbb R$,
so you get what you wanted.






share|cite|improve this answer














Recall that $H_1(T^2)$ is $mathbb Z^2$, and is spanned by the class of the simplices $f_1$ and $f_2$, and in fact your map is coming from a pairing $Omega^*(T^2) otimes C_*(T^2,mathbb R)tomathbb R$ such that $langle omega,sigmarangle = int_sigma omega$. This is the same as the corresponding map $Omega^*(T^2)to C^*(T^2,mathbb R)$, and what your question is claiming is that this is an isomorphism on cohomology, that is, a quasi-isomorphism. One can actually consider this map for any manifold $X$, let us call it $r_X$, the de Rham pairing.



Now something remarkable about $r_X$ this is that it is compatible with, for example, the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, in the sense that if $U,V$ are open and cover $X$, then the following diagram commutes



$$require{AMScd}
begin{CD} 0@>>>Omega^*(X) @>>> Omega^*(U)oplus Omega^*(V) @>>> Omega(Ucap V) @>>> 0\ {} @VVr_XV @VV{r_Uoplus r_V} V @VV{r_{Ucap V}}V\
0 @>>> C^*(X) @>>> C^*(U)oplus C^*(V) @>>> C^*(Ucap V) @>>> 0 end{CD}
$$



It follows that if $r_X$ is a quasi-isomorphism for $U,V$ and $Ucap V$, it is an isomorphism. Indeed, this is a statement of homological algebra and follows from the so-called 5 lemma applied to the "infinite staircase" diagram obtained by lookin at the long exact sequences of the two Mayer-Vietoris sequences above.



Now you can cover the torus $T^2$ by two open sets $U$ and $V$ which
are homotopic to the $1$-sphere, and whose intersection is a disjoint union of two $1$-spheres. Hence, proving it for the $1$-sphere suffices.



In this case you know that $H^*_{dR}(S^1)$ is spanned by $1$ and an angle form $dtheta$,
and that $H_*(S^1)$ is spanned by, more or less, the identity $S^1to S^1$. Then the induced by on homology is simply the isomorphism $mathbb Rotimesmathbb Rtomathbb R$,
so you get what you wanted.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 21 at 0:49

























answered Nov 21 at 0:02









Pedro Tamaroff

95.7k10150295




95.7k10150295












  • This whole story is wonderfully explained in Bott and Tu's Differential forms in algebraic topoogy.
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    Nov 21 at 0:04












  • I see, we haven't covered Mayer-Vietoris sequences yet but this makes a lot of sense now.
    – betelgeuse
    Dec 2 at 14:06


















  • This whole story is wonderfully explained in Bott and Tu's Differential forms in algebraic topoogy.
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    Nov 21 at 0:04












  • I see, we haven't covered Mayer-Vietoris sequences yet but this makes a lot of sense now.
    – betelgeuse
    Dec 2 at 14:06
















This whole story is wonderfully explained in Bott and Tu's Differential forms in algebraic topoogy.
– Pedro Tamaroff
Nov 21 at 0:04






This whole story is wonderfully explained in Bott and Tu's Differential forms in algebraic topoogy.
– Pedro Tamaroff
Nov 21 at 0:04














I see, we haven't covered Mayer-Vietoris sequences yet but this makes a lot of sense now.
– betelgeuse
Dec 2 at 14:06




I see, we haven't covered Mayer-Vietoris sequences yet but this makes a lot of sense now.
– betelgeuse
Dec 2 at 14:06


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003608%2ffirst-de-rham-cohomology-group-of-the-2-torus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa