Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
added pointer to the original article:
added pointer to
added pointer to:
added pointer to:
added pointer to:
I have added (here) some more lead-in words for the equivariant case (but still thin) and then I started to spell out (here) detail/proof for the claims implicit in FHT 07, (3.5).
(What I don’t see yet is how to prove that the action of on the cohomology of the fiber is trivial, so that their Serre spectral sequence really applies – have left a comment on this here.)
Added:
A spectral sequence for twisted de Rham cohomology is discussed in
for when editing functionality is back:
we should add pointer to
Pierre Deligne, Section II.6 in: Equations différentielles à points singuliers réguliers, Lecture Notes in Math 163, Springer 1970 (pdf, publication.ias:355)
Pavel I. Etingof, Igor Frenkel, Alexander A Kirillov, Section 7.2 in: Lectures on Representation Theory and Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov Equations, Mathematical surveys and monographs 58, American Mathematical Society (1998)
for textbook/moograph discussion of 1-twisted de Rham cohomology.
added pointer to:
This is the kind of textbook account that I had been looking for. Will add this also to local system, Gauss-Manin connection and elsewhere.
The following fact ought to be classical textbook material, but I am still looking for a real reference:
Given a complex line bundle with a flat connection on some smooth manifold, the -twisted de Rham cohomology of is isomorphic to the untwisted but suitably -invariant de Rham cohomology of the universal cover.
For the record, I have made a note with the exact statement and a pedantic proof: pdf.
But is there any citable reference that makes this explicit?
I mean a reference with a real proof that one can point people to who don’t already know how this works. (Is this in Deligne 1970, for the holomorphic version? Maybe I should check again.) And I mean in the generality of complex line bundles that are not assumed to be trivial.
I have now added to the entry here a section with the statement of this proposition:
With a pointer to my pdf note for proof.
(I have checked again in Deligne 1970, but I don’t see it stated there. It must be stated in some standard account on local systems – if anyone has a citable reference, please drop a note.)
added pointer to:
1 to 16 of 16