Changing coefficients of cohomology and pullbacks
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
abstract-algebra matrices differential-geometry algebraic-topology homology-cohomology
asked 2 days ago
J.Doe
214
214
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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