Let (\Omega^{\ast}(M), d) be the de Rham cochain complex for a smooth compact closed manifolds M of dimension n. For an odd-degree closed form H, there are a twisted de Rham cochain complex (\Omega^{\ast}(M), d+H_\wedge) and its associated twisted de Rham cohomology H^*(M,H). We show that there exists a spectral sequence \{E^{p, q}_r, d_r\} derived from the filtration F_p(\Omega^{\ast}(M))=\bigoplus_{i\geq p}\Omega^i(M) of \Omega^{\ast}(M), which converges to the twisted de Rham cohomology H^*(M,H). We also show that the differentials in the spectral sequence can be given in terms of cup products and specific elements of Massey products as well, which generalizes a result of Atiyah and Segal. Some results about the indeterminacy of differentials are also given in this paper.
For H=\sum_{i=1}^{[\frac{n-1}{2}]}H_{2i+1} and [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q} (t\geq 1), the differential of the spectral sequence (?) d_{2t+3}: E_{2t+3}^{p, q}\to E_{2t+3}^{p+2t+3, q-2t-2} is given by
and [\langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_{A}]_{2t+3} is independent of the choice of the defining system A obtained from Theorem 4.1.
For H=H_{2s+1} (s\geq 1) only and [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q} (t\geq 1), the differential of the spectral sequence (?) d_{2t+3}: E_{2t+3}^{p, q}\to E_{2t+3}^{p+2t+3, q-2t-2} is given by
and [\langle \underbrace{H_{2s+1},\cdots,H_{2s+1}}\limits_{l},x_p\rangle_{B}]_{2t+3} is independent of the choice of the defining system B obtained from Theorem 4.3.
{\rm (i)} The twisted de Rham cohomology groups H^*(M, H) (*=o, e) depend on the closed form H and not just on its cohomology class. If H and H^{'} are cohomologous, then H^*(M, H)\cong H^*(M, H^{'}) (see [A-S, § 6]).
{\rm (ii)} The twisted de Rham cohomology is also an important homotopy invariant (see [M-W, § 1.4]).
For the cochain complex (K_p/K_{p+1},D), we have
and
If p is odd, then
Also
and
Similarly for even p, we have
{\rm (i)} There exists a spectral sequence (E^{p, q}_r, d_r) derived from the filtration \{K_n\}_{n\geq 0}, where E_1^{p, q} = H^{p+q}_D(K_p/K_{p+1}) and d_1=j_1k_1, and E^{p, q}_2=H_{d_1}(E^{p, q}_1) and d_2=j_2k_2. The bidegree of d_r is (r, 1-r).
{\rm (ii)} The spectral sequence \{E^{p, q}_r, d_r\} converges to the twisted de Rham cohomology
Since the filtration is bounded and complete, the proof follows from the standard algebraic topology method (see [M]).
Note that
and
Then we have that H_D^i(K_p) and H_D^i(K_p/K_{p+1}) are 2-periodic on i. Consequently, the spectral sequence \{E_r^{p,q}, d_r\} is 2-periodic on q.
There is also a spectral sequence converging to the twisted cohomology H^*(M, E, H) for a flat vector bundle E over M.
For the spectral sequence in Proposition 3.2,
{\rm (i)} The E_1^{*, *}-term is given by
and d_1x_p=dx_p for any x_p\in E_1^{p,q}.
{\rm (ii)} The E_2^{*, *}-term is given by
and d_2 = 0.
{\rm (iii)} E_3^{p, q}= E_2^{p, q} and d_3[x_p]=[H_3\wedge x_p] for [x_p]_3\in E_3^{p, q}.
(i) By Lemma 3.1, we have the E_1^{*, *}-term as desired, and by definition we obtain d_1=j_1k_1:E_1^{p,q}\rightarrow E_1^{p+1,q}. We only need to consider the case when q is even, otherwise d_1=0. By (?) for odd p (the case when p is even, is similar), we have a large commutative diagram
where the rows are exact and the columns are cochain complexes.
Let x_p\in \Omega^p(M)\cong H_D^{p+q}(K_p/K_{p+1})\cong E_1^{p,q} and
be an (inhomogeneous) form, where x_{p+2i} is a (p+2i)-form (0 \leq i\leq [\frac{n-p}{2}]). Then x\in K_p^o, jx=x_p and Dx\in K_p^e. Also Dx\in K_{p+1}^e. By the definition of the homomorphism \delta in (?), we have
where [\ \ ]_D is the cohomology class in H_D^{\ast}(K_{p+1}). The class [Dx]_D is well defined and independent of the choices of x_{p+2i} (1 \leq i\leq [\frac{n-p}{2}]) (see [Ha, p. 116]).
Choose x_{p+2i}=0 (1 \leq i\leq [\frac{n-p}{2}]). Then we have
Thus one obtains
(ii) By the definition of the spectral sequence and (i), one obtains that E_2^{p,q}\cong H^{p}(M) when q is even, and E_2^{p,q}=0 when q is odd. Note that d_2: E^{p, q}_2 \to E_2^{p+2, q-1}. It follows that d_2=0 by degree reasons.
(iii) Note that [x_p]_3\in E_3^{p, q} implies dx_p=0. Choose x_{p+2i}=0 for 1 \leq i\leq [\frac{n-p}{2}], and we get
where x is given in the proof of (i). Note that
It follows that
where the first, second and fourth identities follow from the definitions of d_3, k_3 and j_3 respectively, and the third and the last identities follow from (?) and (?). By (ii), d_2=0, so E_3^{p,q}=E_2^{p,q}. Then we have
d_{2k}=0 for k\geq 1. Therefore, for k\geq 1,
Note that d_{2k}:E_{2k}^{p,q}\longrightarrow E_{2k}^{p+2k,q+1-2k}. By Proposition 3.4 (ii), if q is odd, then E_{2}^{p,q}=0 which implies that E_{2k}^{p,q}=0. By degree reasons, we have d_{2k}=0 and E_{2k+1}^{p,q}=E_{2k}^{p,q} for k\geq 1.
For [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q} (t\geq1), there exist x_{p+2i}=x_{p+2i}^{(t)} (1\leq i\leq t) such that y_{p+2j+1}=0 (0\leq j\leq t) and
where the (p+2i)-form x_{p+2i}^{(t)} depends on t.
The theorem is shown by mathematical induction on t.
When t=1, [x_p]_{2t+3}=[x_p]_5. [x_p]_5\in E_5^{p,q} implies that dx_p=0 and d_3[x_p]=[H_3\wedge x_p]=0 by Proposition 3.4. Thus there exists a (p+2)-form v_1 such that H_3\wedge x_p=d(-v_1). We can choose x_{p+2}^{(1)}=v_1 to get y_{p+3}=dx_{p+2}^{(1)}+H_3\wedge x_p=dv_1+H_3\wedge x_p=0 from (?). Note that
we obtain
The reasons for the identities in (?) are similar to those of (?). Thus we have
where the first identity follows from (?) and the definition of y_{p+5} in (?), and the second one follows from that dx_{p+4} vanishes in E_5^{\ast,\ast}. Hence the result holds for t=1.
Suppose the result holds for t\leq m-1. Now we show that the theorem also holds for t=m.
From [x_p]_{2m+3}\in E_{2m+3}^{p,q}, we have [x_p]_{2m+1}\in E_{2m+1}^{p,q} and d_{2m+1}[x_p]_{2m+1}=0. By induction, there exist x_{p+2i}^{(m-1)} (1\leq i \leq m-1) such that
By d_{2m}=0 and the last equation in (?), there exists a (p+2)-form w_{p+2} such that
By induction and [w_{p+2}]_{2m-1}\in E_{2m-1}^{p+2,q-2}, there exist w^{(m-2)}_{p+2(i+1)} (1\leq i \leq m-2) such that
By (?) and the last equation in (?), we obtain
Note that d_{2m-2}=0, it follows that there exists a (p+4)-form w_{p+4} such that
Keeping the same iteration process as mentioned above, we have
By d_6=0, it follows that there exists a (p+2(m-2))-form w_{p+2(m-2)} such that
By induction and [w_{p+2(m-2)}]_5\in E_5^{p+2(m-2),q-2(m-2)}, there exists w_{p+2(m-1)}^{(1)} such that
By (?), the last equation in (?) and d_4=0, it follows that there exists a (p+2(m-1))-form w_{p+2(m-1)} such that
and y_{p+2m-1}^{(0)}(w_{p+2(m-1)})=dw_{p+2(m-1)}=0. Thus there exists a (p+2m)-form w_{p+2m} such that
By comparing (?) with (?), we choose at this time
From (?), by a direct computation we have
Note that
By the similar reasons as in (?), the following identities hold.
So we have
showing that the result also holds for t=m.
The proof of the theorem is finished.
Note that x_{p+2i}^{(t)} (1\leq i\leq t) depends on t, and x_{p+2i}^{(t_1)}\neq x_{p+2i}^{(t_2)} on the condition that t_1\neq t_2 generally. x_{p+2i}^{(t)} (1\leq i\leq t) are related to x_{p+2j}^{(t-1)} (1\leq j\leq t-1, j\leq i).
For H=H_{2s+1} (s\geq 1) only and [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q} (t\geq 1), there exist x_{p+2is}=x_{p+2is}^{([\frac{t}{s}])}, x_{p+2(i-1)s+2j}=0 and x_{p+2[\frac{t}{s}]s+2k}=0 for 1\leq i\leq [\frac{t}{s}], 1\leq j\leq s-1 and 1\leq k \leq t-[\frac{t}{s}]s such that y_{p+2u+1}=0 (0\leq u\leq t) and
where the (p+2is)-form x_{p+2is}^{([\frac{t}{s}])} depends on [\frac{t}{s}].
The proof of the theorem is by mathematical induction on s.
When s=1, the result follows from Theorem 4.1.
When s\geq 2, we prove the result by mathematical induction on t. We first show that the result holds for t=1. Note that [x_p]_5\in E_5^{p,q} implies y_{p+1}=dx_p=0. Choose x_{p+2}=0 and make y_{p+3}=0.
(i). When s=2, by (?) we have
(ii). When s\geq 3, by (?) we have
Combining (i) and (ii), we have that the theorem holds for t=1.
Suppose the theorem holds for t\leq m-1. Now we show that the theorem also holds for t=m.
Case 1. 2\leq m\leq s-1.
By induction, the theorem holds for 1\leq t\leq m-1. Choose x_{p+2i}=0 (1\leq i\leq m), and from (?) we easily get that y_{p+2j+1}=0 (0\leq j\leq m). By (?) and (?), we have
Case 2. m=ls-1 (l\geq 2).
By induction, the theorem holds for t=m-1=ls-2. Thus, there exist x_{p+2is}=x_{p+2is}^{([\frac{m-1}{s}])}=x_{p+2is}^{(l-1)}, x_{p+2(i-1)s+2j}=0 and x_{p+2(l-1)s+2k}=0 for 1\leq i\leq l-1, 1\leq j\leq s-1 and 1\leq k \leq s-2 such that y_{p+2u+1}=0 (0\leq u\leq ls-2). Choose x_{p+2(ls-1)}=0, and by (?) we get
Then we have
Case 3. m=ls (l\geq 1).
By induction, there exist x_{p+2is}=x_{p+2is}^{([\frac{ls-1}{s}])}=x_{p+2is}^{(l-1)}, x_{p+2(i-1)s+2j}=0 and x_{p+2(l-1)s+2k}=0 for 1\leq i\leq l-1, 1\leq j\leq s-1 and 1\leq k \leq s-1 such that y_{p+2u+1}=0 (0\leq u\leq ls-1). By the same method as in Theorem 4.1, one has that there exist x_{p+2is}=x_{p+2is}^{(l)}, x_{p+2(i-1)s+2j}=0 and x_{p+2(l-1)s+2k}=0 for 1\leq i\leq l, 1\leq j\leq s-1 and 1\leq k \leq s-1 such that y_{p+2u+1}=0 (0\leq u\leq ls). By (?), (?) and x_{p+2ls-2s+2}=0, we have
Case 4. ls<m<(l+1)s-1 (l\geq 1).
By induction, there exist x_{p+2is}=x_{p+2is}^{([\frac{m-1}{s}])}=x_{p+2is}^{(l)}, x_{p+2(i-1)s+2j}=0 and x_{p+2ls+2k}=0 for 1\leq i\leq l, 1\leq j\leq s-1 and 1\leq k \leq m-ls-1 such that y_{p+2u+1}=0 (0\leq u\leq m-1). Choose x_{p+2m}=0 and make y_{p+2m+1}=0. By (?), (?) and x_{p+2m-2s+2}=0, we have
Combining Cases 1-4, we have that the result holds for t=m and the proof is completed.
Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 show that the differentials in the spectral sequence (?) can be computed in terms of cup products with H_{2i+1}’s. The existence of x_{p+2i}^{(t)}’s and x_{p+2is}^{([\frac{t}{s}])}’s in Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 plays an essential role in proving Theorems 5.8 and 5.13, respectively. Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 give a description of the differentials at the level of E_{2t+3}^{p,q} for the spectral sequence (?), which was ignored in the previous studies of the twisted de Rham cohomology in [A-S, M-W].
Note that Theorem 4.3 is not a corollary of Theorem 4.1, and it can not be obtained from Theorem 4.1 directly.
Let (\Omega^{\ast}(M),d) be de Rham complex, and x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n closed differential forms on M with [x_i]\in H^{r_i}(M). A collection of forms, A = (a_{i,j}), for 1\leq i\leq j \leq k and (i,j)\neq(1,n) is said to be a defining system for the n-fold Massey product \langle x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n\rangle if
a_{i,j}\in \Omega^{r_i+r_{i+1}+\cdots+r_j-j+i}(M),
a_{i,i}=x_i for i=1,2,\cdots, k,
d(a_{i,j})=\sum \limits_{r=i}^{j-1}\bar{a}_{i,r}\wedge a_{r+1,j}.
The (r_1+\cdots+r_n-n+2)-dimensional cocycle, c(A), defined by
is called the related cocycle of the defining system A.
There is a unique matrix associated to each defining system A as follows.
The n-fold Massey product \langle x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n\rangle is said to be defined if there is a defining system for it. If it is defined, then \langle x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n\rangle consists of all classes w\in H^{r_1+r_2+\cdots +r_n-n+2}(M) for which there exists a defining system A such that c(A) represents w.
There is an inherent ambiguity in the definition of the Massey product arising from the choices of defining systems. In general, the n-fold Massey product may or may not be a coset of a subgroup, but its indeterminacy is a subset of a matrix Massey product (see [May, § 2]).
(1) For [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q} (t\geq 1), there are defining systems for \langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle obtained from Theorem 4.1.
(2) For [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q}, when t=ls-1 (l\geq 2) there are defining systems for \langle \underbrace{H_{2s+1},\cdots,H_{2s+1}}\limits_{l},x_p\rangle obtained from Theorem 4.3 .
(1) From Theorem 4.1, there exist x_{p+2j}^{(t)} (1\leq j\leq t) such that y_{p+2i+1}=0 (0\leq i \leq t) and d_{2t+3}[x_p]_{2t+3}=[\sum\limits_{i=1}^t H_{2i+1}\wedge x_{p+2(t-i+1)}^{(t)}+H_{2t+3}\wedge x_p]_{2t+3}. By Theorem 4.1 and (?), there exists a defining system A=(a_{i,j}) for \langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle as follows:
to which the matrix associated is given by
The desired result follows.
(2) By Theorem 4.3, there exist x_{p+2is}=x_{p+2is}^{(l-1)}, x_{p+2(i-1)s+2j}=0 and x_{p+2(l-1)s+2k}=0 for 1\leq i\leq l-1, 1\leq j\leq s-1 and 1\leq k \leq s-1 such that y_{p+2i+1}=0 (0\leq i \leq t) and d_{2t+3}[x_p]_{2t+3}=[H_{2s+1}\wedge x_{p+2(l-1)s}^{(l-1)}]_{2t+3}. By Theorem 4.3 and (?), there also exists a defining system A=(a_{i,j}) for \langle \underbrace{H_{2s+1},\cdots,H_{2s+1}}\limits_{l},x_p\rangle as follows:
to which the matrix associated is given by
The desired result follows.
(1) Given a class [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q} (t\geq 1), a specific element of (t+2)-fold Massey product \langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle, denoted by \langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_{A}, is a class in H^{p+2t+3}(M) represent by c(A), where A is a defining system obtained from Theorems 4.1. We define the (t+2)-fold allowable Massey product \langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_{\star} to be the set of all the cohomology classes w\in H^{p+2t+3}(M) for which there exists a defining system A obtained from Theorem 4.1 such that c(A) represents w.
(2) Similarly, given a class [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q} (t\geq 1), when t=ls-1 (l\geq 2) we define the specific element of (l+1)-fold Massey product \langle \underbrace{H_{2s+1},\cdots,H_{2s+1}}\limits_{l},x_p\rangle and the (l+1)-fold allowable Massey product \langle \underbrace{H_{2s+1},\cdots,H_{2s+1}}\limits_{l},x_p\rangle_{\star} by replacing Theorem 4.1 by Theorem 4.3 in (1).
(1) From Definition 5.6, we can get the following
(2) The allowable Massey product \langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_{\star} is less ambiguous than the general Massey product \langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle. Take \langle H_3,H_3,x_p \rangle_{\star} in Definition 5.6 for example. Suppose H=\sum_{i=1}^{[\frac{n-1}{2}]}H_{2i+1}. By Theorem 4.1 and (?), there exist x_{p+2j}^{(1)} such that y_{p+2i+1}=0\quad (0\leq i \leq 1) and d_{5}[x_p]_5=[H_{3}\wedge x_{p+2}^{(1)}+H_{5}\wedge x_p]_5. By Lemma 5.5, we get a defining system A for \langle H_3,H_3,x_p\rangle and its related cocycle c(A)=-H_{3}\wedge x_{p+2}^{(1)}-H_{5}\wedge x_p. Thus, we have
Obviously, the indeterminacy of the allowable Massey product \langle H_3,H_3,x_p\rangle_{\star} is [H_3]H^{p+2}(M). However, in the general case, the indeterminacy of the Massey product \langle H_3,H_3,x_p\rangle is [H_3]H^{p+2}(M)+H^5(M)[x_p].
Similarly, the allowable Massey product \langle \underbrace{H_{2s+1},\cdots,H_{2s+1}}\limits_{l},x_p\rangle_{\star} is less ambiguous than the general Massey product \langle \underbrace{H_{2s+1},\cdots,H_{2s+1}}\limits_{l},x_p\rangle.
For H=\sum_{i=1}^{[\frac{n-1}{2}]}H_{2i+1} and [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q}, the differential of the spectral sequence (?) d_{2t+3}: E_{2t+3}^{p, q}\to E_{2t+3}^{p+2t+3, q-2t-2} is given by
and [\langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_{A}]_{2t+3} is independent of the choice of the defining system A obtained from Theorem 4.1.
By Lemma 5.5 (1), there exist defining systems for \langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle given by Theorem 4.1. For any defining system A=(a_{i,j}) given by Theorem 4.1, by (?) we have
By Definition 5.6, we have
Then by Theorem 4.1, we have
Thus, we have d_{2t+3}[x_p]_{2t+3}=(-1)^t[\langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_{A}]_{2t+3}.
By the arbitrariness of A, we have [\langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_{A}]_{2t+3} is independent of the choice of the defining system A obtained from Theorem 4.1.
For formal manifolds which are manifolds with vanishing Massey products, it is easy to get
by Theorem 5.8. Note that simply connected compact Kähler manifolds are an important class of formal manifolds (see [D-G-M-S]).
(1) From the proof of the theorem above, we have that the specific element \langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_{A} represents a class in E_{2t+3}^{\ast,\ast}. For two different defining systems A_1 and A_2 given by Theorem 4.1, we have
generally. However, in the spectral sequence (?) we have
(2) Since the indeterminacy of \langle \underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_{\star} does not affect our results, we will not analyze the indeterminacy of Massey products in this paper.
(3) By Theorem 5.8, d_{2t+3}[x_p]_{2t+3}= (-1)^{t}[\langle\underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_A]_{2t+3} for t\geq 1 which is expressed only by H_3 and x_p. From the proof of Theorem 5.8, we know that the expression above conceals some information, because the other H_{2i+1}’s affect the result implicitly.
For H=H_3 only and [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q} (t\geq 1), we have that in the spectral sequence (?),
and [\langle\underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle_A]_{2t+3} is independent of the choice of the defining system A obtained from Theorem 4.1.
Because the definition of Massey products is different from the definition in [A-S], the expression of differentials in Corollary 5.11 differs from the one in [A-S, Proposition 6.1].
The two specific elements of \langle\underbrace{H_3,\cdots,H_3}\limits_{t+1},x_p\rangle in Theorem 5.8 and Corollary 5.11 are completely different, and equal [c(A_1)] and [c(A_2)] respectively, where c(A_i) (i=1,2) are related cocycles of the defining systems A_i (i=1,2) obtained from Theorem 4.1. The matrices associated to the two defining systems are given by
and
respectively. Here x_{p+2i}^{(t)} (1\leq i\leq t) in the first matrix are different from those in the second one.
For H=H_{2s+1} (s\geq 1) only and [x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p,q} (t\geq 1), the differential of the spectral sequence (?) d_{2t+3}: E_{2t+3}^{p, q}\to E_{2t+3}^{p+2t+3, q-2t-2} is given by
and [\langle \underbrace{H_{2s+1},\cdots,H_{2s+1}}\limits_{l},x_p\rangle_{B}]_{2t+3} is independent of the choice of the defining system B obtained from 4.3.
When t=s-1, the result follows from Theorem 4.3.
When t=ls-1 (l\geq 2), from Lemma 5.5 (2) we know that there exist defining systems for \langle \underbrace{H_{2s+1},\cdots,H_{2s+1}}\limits_{l},x_p\rangle obtained from Theorem 4.3. For any defining system B given by Theorem 4.3, by (?) we get c(B)=(-1)^{l-1}H_{2s+1}\wedge x_{p+2(l-1)s}^{(l-1)}. By Definition 5.6,
Then by Theorem 4.3, we have
Thus
By the arbitrariness of B, we have [\langle \underbrace{H_{2s+1},\cdots,H_{2s+1}}\limits_{l},x_p\rangle_{B}]_{2t+3} is independent of the choice of the defining system B obtained from Theorem 4.3.
For the rest cases of t, the results follows from Theorem 4.3.
The proof of this theorem is completed.
We now use the special case that H=H_5 and d_9[x_p]_9 to illustrate the compatibility between Theorems 5.8 and 5.13 for s=2 and t=3.
Note that in this case H_3=0 and H_i=0 for i>5. By Theorem 5.8, we get the corresponding matrix associated to the defining system A for \langle 0,0,0,0,x_p\rangle_{A} is
and
By Theorem 5.13, in this case the matrix associated to the defining system B for \langle H_5,H_5,x_p\rangle_{B} is
and
We claim that \langle H_5,H_5,x_p\rangle_{\star}= \langle0,0,0,0,x_p\rangle_{\star}. For any defining system B above, there is a defining system {\tilde B}
for \langle0,0,0,0,x_p\rangle which can be obtained from Theorem 4.1 such that
Hence \langle H_5,H_5,x_p\rangle_{\star}\subseteq \langle0,0,0,0,[x_p]\rangle_{\star}. On the other hand, for any defining system A above there is also a defining system \bar{A}
for \langle H_5,H_5,x_p\rangle which can be obtained from Theorem 4.3 such that
Therefore \langle0,0,0,0,x_p\rangle_{\star} \subseteq\langle H_5,H_5,x_p\rangle_{\star}, and the claim follows.
By Theorem 5.8 and Remark 5.7, we have that \tilde{d}_5[y_p]_5=-[\langle 0,0,y_p\rangle_{A}]_5=-[-H_5\wedge y_p]_5=[H_5\wedge y_p]_5. By Theorem 5.13, \bar{d}_5[y_p]_5=[H_5\wedge y_p]_5. By Proposition ?, \tilde{d}_1=\bar{d}_1=d and \tilde{d}_3=\bar{d}_3=0. It follows that \tilde{d}_5=\bar{d}_5.
By Theorems 5.8 and 4.1, we have that \tilde{d}_7[z_p]_7=[\langle 0,0,0,z_p\rangle_{A}]_7=[-H_5\wedge z^{(2)}_{p+2}]_7, where z^{(2)}_{p+2} is an arbitrary (p+2)-form satisfying d(z^{(2)}_{p+2})=0\wedge z_p. By Remark 5.10 (2), we take z^{(2)}_{p+2}=0. Then we have \tilde{d}_7[z_p]_7=0, i.e., \tilde{d}_7=0. At the same time, we also have \bar{d}_7=0 from Theorem 5.13. Thus \tilde{d}_7=\bar{d}_7=0.
By \tilde{E}_1^{p,q}=\bar{E}_1^{p,q}, \tilde{d}_i=\bar{d}_i for 1\leq i\leq 7 and \langle H_5,H_5,x_p\rangle_{\star}= \langle0,0,0,0,x_p\rangle_{\star}, we can conclude that \tilde{d}_9=\bar{d}_9 from (?) and (?).
Let H=\sum_{i=1}^{[\frac{n-1}{2}]}H_{2i+1} and [x_p]_r\in E_{r}^{p, q} (r\geq 3), then the indeterminacy of [x_p]\in E_{2}^{p, q}\cong H^{p}(M) is the following normal subgroup of H^{p}(M)£º
where d is just the exterior differentiation and \bar{\delta} is the connecting homomorphism of the long exact sequence induced by the short exact sequence of cochain complexes
From the tower (?) above, we get a tower of subgroups of E_2^{p,q}
Note that E_{r}^{p,q}\cong (Z_{r}^{p,q}/B_2^{p,q})/(B_{r}^{p,q}/B_2^{p,q}). It follows that the indeterminacy of [x_p] is the normal subgroup B_{r}^{p,q}/B_2^{p,q} of H^{p}(M).
From the short exact sequences of cochain complexes
we can get the following long exact sequence of cohomology groups
where \delta^{\prime} and \bar{\delta} are the connecting homomorphisms.
Combining (?) and (?), we have the following commutative diagram of long exact sequences
Using the commutative diagram above and the fact that i^{{\ast}^ {r-1}}={i}^{\prime\ast}, we have
When r=2, from (?) we have that
From (?), it follows that \bar{\delta}=d_1. By Proposition 3.4, \bar{\delta}=d. Thus we have
The desired result follows.
In Theorem 5.8, for d_{2t+3}[x_p]_{2t+3}\in E_{2t+3}^{p+2t+3, q-2t-2} we have the indeterminacy of d_{2t+3}[x_p] is a normal subgroup of H^{p+2t+3}(M)
where d is just the exterior differentiation and \bar{\delta} is the connecting homomorphism of the long exact sequence induced by the short exact sequence of cochain complexes
In Theorem 6.1 r, p and q are replaced by 2t+3, p+2t+3 and q-2t-2, then the desired result follows.
The text on this page is from arXiv:0911.1417v4 by Weiping Li, Xiugui Liu and He Wang, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/0911/0911.1417.jsonl.