Changing coefficients of cohomology and pullbacks












1














If I have a compact complex manifold $M$ and a map $f:Mto M$. Let $mathbb F$ a field. Then $H^k(M;mathbb F) $ is a $n$-dimensional vector space and chosing a basis, $f^*_{mathbb F}$ defines a matrix.



Let's say I already know how the matrix $f^*_mathbb F$ looks for $mathbb F = mathbb R$. How do I obtain $f^*_mathbb C$ from it?

Is it just the same matrix but we think of the entries as complex numbers with vanishing imaginary part?



What about the other way around? If I know $f^*_mathbb C$, how do I get $f^*_mathbb R$?

I know that there is a standard way to make a real matrix out of a compley one by replacing every entry $x=a+ ib$ by a block $begin{pmatrix} a & -b \ b & a end{pmatrix} $. But this would change the size of the matrix, so it cannot be right.










share|cite|improve this question



























    1














    If I have a compact complex manifold $M$ and a map $f:Mto M$. Let $mathbb F$ a field. Then $H^k(M;mathbb F) $ is a $n$-dimensional vector space and chosing a basis, $f^*_{mathbb F}$ defines a matrix.



    Let's say I already know how the matrix $f^*_mathbb F$ looks for $mathbb F = mathbb R$. How do I obtain $f^*_mathbb C$ from it?

    Is it just the same matrix but we think of the entries as complex numbers with vanishing imaginary part?



    What about the other way around? If I know $f^*_mathbb C$, how do I get $f^*_mathbb R$?

    I know that there is a standard way to make a real matrix out of a compley one by replacing every entry $x=a+ ib$ by a block $begin{pmatrix} a & -b \ b & a end{pmatrix} $. But this would change the size of the matrix, so it cannot be right.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      1












      1








      1







      If I have a compact complex manifold $M$ and a map $f:Mto M$. Let $mathbb F$ a field. Then $H^k(M;mathbb F) $ is a $n$-dimensional vector space and chosing a basis, $f^*_{mathbb F}$ defines a matrix.



      Let's say I already know how the matrix $f^*_mathbb F$ looks for $mathbb F = mathbb R$. How do I obtain $f^*_mathbb C$ from it?

      Is it just the same matrix but we think of the entries as complex numbers with vanishing imaginary part?



      What about the other way around? If I know $f^*_mathbb C$, how do I get $f^*_mathbb R$?

      I know that there is a standard way to make a real matrix out of a compley one by replacing every entry $x=a+ ib$ by a block $begin{pmatrix} a & -b \ b & a end{pmatrix} $. But this would change the size of the matrix, so it cannot be right.










      share|cite|improve this question













      If I have a compact complex manifold $M$ and a map $f:Mto M$. Let $mathbb F$ a field. Then $H^k(M;mathbb F) $ is a $n$-dimensional vector space and chosing a basis, $f^*_{mathbb F}$ defines a matrix.



      Let's say I already know how the matrix $f^*_mathbb F$ looks for $mathbb F = mathbb R$. How do I obtain $f^*_mathbb C$ from it?

      Is it just the same matrix but we think of the entries as complex numbers with vanishing imaginary part?



      What about the other way around? If I know $f^*_mathbb C$, how do I get $f^*_mathbb R$?

      I know that there is a standard way to make a real matrix out of a compley one by replacing every entry $x=a+ ib$ by a block $begin{pmatrix} a & -b \ b & a end{pmatrix} $. But this would change the size of the matrix, so it cannot be right.







      abstract-algebra matrices differential-geometry algebraic-topology homology-cohomology






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 days ago









      J.Doe

      214




      214






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          Part 1: Relating cohomology with complex and real coefficients



          Let's take a look at the universal coefficient theorem for cohomology, which says that for a PID $R$ and $R$-module $M$, there is a natural short exact sequence
          $$0tonewcommandExt{operatorname{Ext}}Ext^1_R(H_{i-1}(X;R),M)to H^i(X;M)to newcommandHom{operatorname{Hom}}Hom_R(H_i(X;R),M)to 0,$$
          and taking $R=newcommandRR{Bbb{R}}RR$, we see $H_{i-1}(X;R)$ is free, so $Ext$ vanishes, so we get natural isomorphisms,
          $$H^i(X;M)simeq Hom_RR(H_i(X;RR),M)$$



          Now apply this to both $M=RR$ and $M=newcommandCC{Bbb{C}}CC$, to get $H^i(X;RR)simeq H_i(X;RR)^*$, where $*$ denotes taking the dual $RR$-vector space and $$H^i(X;CC) simeq Hom_RR(H_i(X;RR),CC)simeq H_i(X;RR)^*otimes CCsimeq H^i(X;RR)otimes CC,$$
          where this last natural isomorphism follows from this question for example.



          Thus we see that cohomology with complex coefficients is the complexification of cohomology with real coefficients.



          Part 2: Converting a matrix for $f^*_RR$ to a matrix for $f^*_CC$.



          Since cohomology with complex coefficients is just the complexification of cohomology with real coefficients, the matrix of the pullback for complex coefficients will be the exact same matrix as the matrix for the pullback with real coefficients, but where we regard the real matrix as now being a complex matrix in the obvious way. (I.e. exactly what you suggested first)



          Part 3: The other direction



          To go the other way, it's a bit more complicated, and I'll see if I can give the general story for complexifications overall.



          Suppose we have a real vector space $V$, and its complexification, $V_CC=VotimesCC$, and another real vector space $W$, and its complexification $W_CC$, and a map $T : Vto W$, which induces a map $S:V_CCto W_CC$.



          Now if we have bases ${e_i}$ and ${f_j}$ for $V$ and $W$ respectively, and we compute the matrix of $S$ with respect to these (now regarded as bases for $V_CC$ and $W_CC$), then you can check that the resulting matrix for $S$ will be real, and will equal the matrix for $T$ computed with respect to ${e_i}$ and ${f_j}$.



          The difficulty arises when we have the matrix of $S$ with respect to what you can think of as "non-real" basis vectors, since then we don't have obvious bases for $V$ and $W$ to compute $T$ with respect to. It's then a bit complicated, so I'll leave my answer here.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Very nice, thank you
            – J.Doe
            2 days ago










          • $left{frac{1}{2}(e_i+tau e_i)right}$ does not form a basis in general. For example, take $V=mathbb{R}$ so that $V_{mathbb{C}}=mathbb{C}$. This is a dimension 1 vector space. Consider the basis ${i}$. Then ${i,tau i}$ is not a $mathbb{R}$-basis of $V_{mathbb{C}}$ and $frac{1}{2}(i+tau i)$ is not a basis of $V$.
            – Roland
            yesterday










          • @Roland Yes, I realized that as well, I've decided to delete that portion of my answer, and just leave it where it is now.
            – jgon
            yesterday











          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',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          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%2f3060595%2fchanging-coefficients-of-cohomology-and-pullbacks%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









          2














          Part 1: Relating cohomology with complex and real coefficients



          Let's take a look at the universal coefficient theorem for cohomology, which says that for a PID $R$ and $R$-module $M$, there is a natural short exact sequence
          $$0tonewcommandExt{operatorname{Ext}}Ext^1_R(H_{i-1}(X;R),M)to H^i(X;M)to newcommandHom{operatorname{Hom}}Hom_R(H_i(X;R),M)to 0,$$
          and taking $R=newcommandRR{Bbb{R}}RR$, we see $H_{i-1}(X;R)$ is free, so $Ext$ vanishes, so we get natural isomorphisms,
          $$H^i(X;M)simeq Hom_RR(H_i(X;RR),M)$$



          Now apply this to both $M=RR$ and $M=newcommandCC{Bbb{C}}CC$, to get $H^i(X;RR)simeq H_i(X;RR)^*$, where $*$ denotes taking the dual $RR$-vector space and $$H^i(X;CC) simeq Hom_RR(H_i(X;RR),CC)simeq H_i(X;RR)^*otimes CCsimeq H^i(X;RR)otimes CC,$$
          where this last natural isomorphism follows from this question for example.



          Thus we see that cohomology with complex coefficients is the complexification of cohomology with real coefficients.



          Part 2: Converting a matrix for $f^*_RR$ to a matrix for $f^*_CC$.



          Since cohomology with complex coefficients is just the complexification of cohomology with real coefficients, the matrix of the pullback for complex coefficients will be the exact same matrix as the matrix for the pullback with real coefficients, but where we regard the real matrix as now being a complex matrix in the obvious way. (I.e. exactly what you suggested first)



          Part 3: The other direction



          To go the other way, it's a bit more complicated, and I'll see if I can give the general story for complexifications overall.



          Suppose we have a real vector space $V$, and its complexification, $V_CC=VotimesCC$, and another real vector space $W$, and its complexification $W_CC$, and a map $T : Vto W$, which induces a map $S:V_CCto W_CC$.



          Now if we have bases ${e_i}$ and ${f_j}$ for $V$ and $W$ respectively, and we compute the matrix of $S$ with respect to these (now regarded as bases for $V_CC$ and $W_CC$), then you can check that the resulting matrix for $S$ will be real, and will equal the matrix for $T$ computed with respect to ${e_i}$ and ${f_j}$.



          The difficulty arises when we have the matrix of $S$ with respect to what you can think of as "non-real" basis vectors, since then we don't have obvious bases for $V$ and $W$ to compute $T$ with respect to. It's then a bit complicated, so I'll leave my answer here.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Very nice, thank you
            – J.Doe
            2 days ago










          • $left{frac{1}{2}(e_i+tau e_i)right}$ does not form a basis in general. For example, take $V=mathbb{R}$ so that $V_{mathbb{C}}=mathbb{C}$. This is a dimension 1 vector space. Consider the basis ${i}$. Then ${i,tau i}$ is not a $mathbb{R}$-basis of $V_{mathbb{C}}$ and $frac{1}{2}(i+tau i)$ is not a basis of $V$.
            – Roland
            yesterday










          • @Roland Yes, I realized that as well, I've decided to delete that portion of my answer, and just leave it where it is now.
            – jgon
            yesterday
















          2














          Part 1: Relating cohomology with complex and real coefficients



          Let's take a look at the universal coefficient theorem for cohomology, which says that for a PID $R$ and $R$-module $M$, there is a natural short exact sequence
          $$0tonewcommandExt{operatorname{Ext}}Ext^1_R(H_{i-1}(X;R),M)to H^i(X;M)to newcommandHom{operatorname{Hom}}Hom_R(H_i(X;R),M)to 0,$$
          and taking $R=newcommandRR{Bbb{R}}RR$, we see $H_{i-1}(X;R)$ is free, so $Ext$ vanishes, so we get natural isomorphisms,
          $$H^i(X;M)simeq Hom_RR(H_i(X;RR),M)$$



          Now apply this to both $M=RR$ and $M=newcommandCC{Bbb{C}}CC$, to get $H^i(X;RR)simeq H_i(X;RR)^*$, where $*$ denotes taking the dual $RR$-vector space and $$H^i(X;CC) simeq Hom_RR(H_i(X;RR),CC)simeq H_i(X;RR)^*otimes CCsimeq H^i(X;RR)otimes CC,$$
          where this last natural isomorphism follows from this question for example.



          Thus we see that cohomology with complex coefficients is the complexification of cohomology with real coefficients.



          Part 2: Converting a matrix for $f^*_RR$ to a matrix for $f^*_CC$.



          Since cohomology with complex coefficients is just the complexification of cohomology with real coefficients, the matrix of the pullback for complex coefficients will be the exact same matrix as the matrix for the pullback with real coefficients, but where we regard the real matrix as now being a complex matrix in the obvious way. (I.e. exactly what you suggested first)



          Part 3: The other direction



          To go the other way, it's a bit more complicated, and I'll see if I can give the general story for complexifications overall.



          Suppose we have a real vector space $V$, and its complexification, $V_CC=VotimesCC$, and another real vector space $W$, and its complexification $W_CC$, and a map $T : Vto W$, which induces a map $S:V_CCto W_CC$.



          Now if we have bases ${e_i}$ and ${f_j}$ for $V$ and $W$ respectively, and we compute the matrix of $S$ with respect to these (now regarded as bases for $V_CC$ and $W_CC$), then you can check that the resulting matrix for $S$ will be real, and will equal the matrix for $T$ computed with respect to ${e_i}$ and ${f_j}$.



          The difficulty arises when we have the matrix of $S$ with respect to what you can think of as "non-real" basis vectors, since then we don't have obvious bases for $V$ and $W$ to compute $T$ with respect to. It's then a bit complicated, so I'll leave my answer here.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Very nice, thank you
            – J.Doe
            2 days ago










          • $left{frac{1}{2}(e_i+tau e_i)right}$ does not form a basis in general. For example, take $V=mathbb{R}$ so that $V_{mathbb{C}}=mathbb{C}$. This is a dimension 1 vector space. Consider the basis ${i}$. Then ${i,tau i}$ is not a $mathbb{R}$-basis of $V_{mathbb{C}}$ and $frac{1}{2}(i+tau i)$ is not a basis of $V$.
            – Roland
            yesterday










          • @Roland Yes, I realized that as well, I've decided to delete that portion of my answer, and just leave it where it is now.
            – jgon
            yesterday














          2












          2








          2






          Part 1: Relating cohomology with complex and real coefficients



          Let's take a look at the universal coefficient theorem for cohomology, which says that for a PID $R$ and $R$-module $M$, there is a natural short exact sequence
          $$0tonewcommandExt{operatorname{Ext}}Ext^1_R(H_{i-1}(X;R),M)to H^i(X;M)to newcommandHom{operatorname{Hom}}Hom_R(H_i(X;R),M)to 0,$$
          and taking $R=newcommandRR{Bbb{R}}RR$, we see $H_{i-1}(X;R)$ is free, so $Ext$ vanishes, so we get natural isomorphisms,
          $$H^i(X;M)simeq Hom_RR(H_i(X;RR),M)$$



          Now apply this to both $M=RR$ and $M=newcommandCC{Bbb{C}}CC$, to get $H^i(X;RR)simeq H_i(X;RR)^*$, where $*$ denotes taking the dual $RR$-vector space and $$H^i(X;CC) simeq Hom_RR(H_i(X;RR),CC)simeq H_i(X;RR)^*otimes CCsimeq H^i(X;RR)otimes CC,$$
          where this last natural isomorphism follows from this question for example.



          Thus we see that cohomology with complex coefficients is the complexification of cohomology with real coefficients.



          Part 2: Converting a matrix for $f^*_RR$ to a matrix for $f^*_CC$.



          Since cohomology with complex coefficients is just the complexification of cohomology with real coefficients, the matrix of the pullback for complex coefficients will be the exact same matrix as the matrix for the pullback with real coefficients, but where we regard the real matrix as now being a complex matrix in the obvious way. (I.e. exactly what you suggested first)



          Part 3: The other direction



          To go the other way, it's a bit more complicated, and I'll see if I can give the general story for complexifications overall.



          Suppose we have a real vector space $V$, and its complexification, $V_CC=VotimesCC$, and another real vector space $W$, and its complexification $W_CC$, and a map $T : Vto W$, which induces a map $S:V_CCto W_CC$.



          Now if we have bases ${e_i}$ and ${f_j}$ for $V$ and $W$ respectively, and we compute the matrix of $S$ with respect to these (now regarded as bases for $V_CC$ and $W_CC$), then you can check that the resulting matrix for $S$ will be real, and will equal the matrix for $T$ computed with respect to ${e_i}$ and ${f_j}$.



          The difficulty arises when we have the matrix of $S$ with respect to what you can think of as "non-real" basis vectors, since then we don't have obvious bases for $V$ and $W$ to compute $T$ with respect to. It's then a bit complicated, so I'll leave my answer here.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Part 1: Relating cohomology with complex and real coefficients



          Let's take a look at the universal coefficient theorem for cohomology, which says that for a PID $R$ and $R$-module $M$, there is a natural short exact sequence
          $$0tonewcommandExt{operatorname{Ext}}Ext^1_R(H_{i-1}(X;R),M)to H^i(X;M)to newcommandHom{operatorname{Hom}}Hom_R(H_i(X;R),M)to 0,$$
          and taking $R=newcommandRR{Bbb{R}}RR$, we see $H_{i-1}(X;R)$ is free, so $Ext$ vanishes, so we get natural isomorphisms,
          $$H^i(X;M)simeq Hom_RR(H_i(X;RR),M)$$



          Now apply this to both $M=RR$ and $M=newcommandCC{Bbb{C}}CC$, to get $H^i(X;RR)simeq H_i(X;RR)^*$, where $*$ denotes taking the dual $RR$-vector space and $$H^i(X;CC) simeq Hom_RR(H_i(X;RR),CC)simeq H_i(X;RR)^*otimes CCsimeq H^i(X;RR)otimes CC,$$
          where this last natural isomorphism follows from this question for example.



          Thus we see that cohomology with complex coefficients is the complexification of cohomology with real coefficients.



          Part 2: Converting a matrix for $f^*_RR$ to a matrix for $f^*_CC$.



          Since cohomology with complex coefficients is just the complexification of cohomology with real coefficients, the matrix of the pullback for complex coefficients will be the exact same matrix as the matrix for the pullback with real coefficients, but where we regard the real matrix as now being a complex matrix in the obvious way. (I.e. exactly what you suggested first)



          Part 3: The other direction



          To go the other way, it's a bit more complicated, and I'll see if I can give the general story for complexifications overall.



          Suppose we have a real vector space $V$, and its complexification, $V_CC=VotimesCC$, and another real vector space $W$, and its complexification $W_CC$, and a map $T : Vto W$, which induces a map $S:V_CCto W_CC$.



          Now if we have bases ${e_i}$ and ${f_j}$ for $V$ and $W$ respectively, and we compute the matrix of $S$ with respect to these (now regarded as bases for $V_CC$ and $W_CC$), then you can check that the resulting matrix for $S$ will be real, and will equal the matrix for $T$ computed with respect to ${e_i}$ and ${f_j}$.



          The difficulty arises when we have the matrix of $S$ with respect to what you can think of as "non-real" basis vectors, since then we don't have obvious bases for $V$ and $W$ to compute $T$ with respect to. It's then a bit complicated, so I'll leave my answer here.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered 2 days ago









          jgon

          13.2k21941




          13.2k21941












          • Very nice, thank you
            – J.Doe
            2 days ago










          • $left{frac{1}{2}(e_i+tau e_i)right}$ does not form a basis in general. For example, take $V=mathbb{R}$ so that $V_{mathbb{C}}=mathbb{C}$. This is a dimension 1 vector space. Consider the basis ${i}$. Then ${i,tau i}$ is not a $mathbb{R}$-basis of $V_{mathbb{C}}$ and $frac{1}{2}(i+tau i)$ is not a basis of $V$.
            – Roland
            yesterday










          • @Roland Yes, I realized that as well, I've decided to delete that portion of my answer, and just leave it where it is now.
            – jgon
            yesterday


















          • Very nice, thank you
            – J.Doe
            2 days ago










          • $left{frac{1}{2}(e_i+tau e_i)right}$ does not form a basis in general. For example, take $V=mathbb{R}$ so that $V_{mathbb{C}}=mathbb{C}$. This is a dimension 1 vector space. Consider the basis ${i}$. Then ${i,tau i}$ is not a $mathbb{R}$-basis of $V_{mathbb{C}}$ and $frac{1}{2}(i+tau i)$ is not a basis of $V$.
            – Roland
            yesterday










          • @Roland Yes, I realized that as well, I've decided to delete that portion of my answer, and just leave it where it is now.
            – jgon
            yesterday
















          Very nice, thank you
          – J.Doe
          2 days ago




          Very nice, thank you
          – J.Doe
          2 days ago












          $left{frac{1}{2}(e_i+tau e_i)right}$ does not form a basis in general. For example, take $V=mathbb{R}$ so that $V_{mathbb{C}}=mathbb{C}$. This is a dimension 1 vector space. Consider the basis ${i}$. Then ${i,tau i}$ is not a $mathbb{R}$-basis of $V_{mathbb{C}}$ and $frac{1}{2}(i+tau i)$ is not a basis of $V$.
          – Roland
          yesterday




          $left{frac{1}{2}(e_i+tau e_i)right}$ does not form a basis in general. For example, take $V=mathbb{R}$ so that $V_{mathbb{C}}=mathbb{C}$. This is a dimension 1 vector space. Consider the basis ${i}$. Then ${i,tau i}$ is not a $mathbb{R}$-basis of $V_{mathbb{C}}$ and $frac{1}{2}(i+tau i)$ is not a basis of $V$.
          – Roland
          yesterday












          @Roland Yes, I realized that as well, I've decided to delete that portion of my answer, and just leave it where it is now.
          – jgon
          yesterday




          @Roland Yes, I realized that as well, I've decided to delete that portion of my answer, and just leave it where it is now.
          – jgon
          yesterday


















          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%2f3060595%2fchanging-coefficients-of-cohomology-and-pullbacks%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

          Mario Kart Wii

          What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

          Antonio Litta Visconti Arese