# Martin's Blog

## Tate twists in singular and de Rham cohomology

Posted by Martin Orr on Friday, 19 June 2015 at 19:30

Tate twists in singular cohomology are a device for dealing with factors of which come up whenever we compare singular and de Rham cohomology of complex projective varieties. In this post I will explain the problem, including calculating the in the case of , and define Tate twists to solve it.

In the case of singular cohomology, Tate twists are largely a matter of normalising things conveniently. Without them, we could just write out factors of everywhere. On the other hand, there is also a notion of Tate twists for -adic cohomology, which cannot be omitted so easily, and which I will discuss in a subsequent post.

### The problem

Let be a field of characteristic zero which can be embedded in and let be a smooth projective variety over . For each embedding , there is a comparison isomorphism between de Rham and singular cohomology of :

As I briefly mentioned previously, for each -algebraic subvariety of codimension , we can define a so-called de Rham cycle class .

If we choose an embedding , we can also define a cycle class for in singular cohomology (which appears in the Hodge conjecture). But there are two different normalisations for the cycle class map into singular cohomology.

First, there is the topologist's version , defined by taking the fundamental class of in singular homology and then using Poincaré duality. This is an integral element of singular cohomology:

However, it turns out that the topologist's cycle class map is not compatible with the de Rham cycle class map. They differ by a factor of : I will prove this below for the class of a point in .

### The solution: Tate twists

We fix this problem by changing the normalisation of the cycle class map for singular cohomology. Why do we change the normalisation for singular cohomology instead of for de Rham cohomology? Because this normalisation is something we will only do over , and the definition of the de Rham cycle class map works over all fields.

If we simply multiplied by , then we would solve the compatibility issue, but it would no longer take values in (and hence its values would not be Hodge classes). So instead we introduce a new object called a Tate twist.

The Tate twist for singular cohomology is a -Hodge structure, denoted , with underlying -module and with Hodge type .

As pieces of notation, we define for each positive integer , and define to be the dual of . We also define to be -Hodge structure induced by , and

We define the algebraic geometer's cycle class map for singular cohomology to be (The subscript is for Betti.)

It is useful to also define Tate twists for de Rham cohomology, even though they are trivial. We thus define to be equal to (not just isomorphic). The reason why we want to use the label for a Tate twist in de Rham cohomology is so that we remember which isomorphism to use to compare it with singular cohomology.

I was a bit confused about this until I asked a MathOverflow question a few days ago which helped me clear it up. The comparison isomorphism is defined as the untwisted comparison isomorphism multiplied by the inclusion .

With this comparison isomorphism, we get the desired compatibility between cycle class maps:

Because the Tate twist is defined to have Hodge type , the Hodge structure has weight 0. We define a Hodge class in to be an element of with Hodge type . The image of consists of Hodge classes.

We could have carried out all of our previous two posts on absolute Hodge classes using in place of ; the changes would be essentially just notational.

### Calculating the de Rham cycle class map for

I am going to justify the fact that the de Rham cycle class map and the topologist's cycle class map into differ by a factor of . One often sees the justified by some sort of vague reference to the integral round a loop in , but that doesn't seem to fit our setting of smooth projective varieties. So I am going to write out this calculation carefully (except that I will not be careful about signs - there are several sign conventions along the way and I don't think it is worth keeping track of them). Thanks to Jack Shotton who helped with this.

First, is a generator of . If we choose a 2-form representing the corresponding element of , the definition of the comparison isomorphism says that

The hard work is to calculate . In particular, we want to show that

First, we interpret our point as a divisor of degree 1 on . Under the standard isomorphism , a divisor of degree 1 corresponds to the Čech cocycle with respect to the open cover , (this is one place where I can never remember the sign convention).

We then apply the map to get the class in represented by the Čech cocyle

The degeneracy of the Hodge-de Rham spectral sequence gives us an isomorphism . To compute this isomorphism analytically over , we compare the Čech and Dolbeault complexes for :

Here denotes the sheaf of -forms. We have chosen a partition of unity such that , vanishes on a neighbourhood of zero and vanishes on a neighbourhood of . Note that and this implies that the square in the centre of the diagram commutes.

We conclude that is represented by the -form We want to compute the integral of over , and show that this is equal to .

Choose a loop which generates . Let and be the two regions into which divides , labelled such that and .

On , the 1-form is well-defined and has total derivative equal to . Similarly, on , the 1-form is well-defined and has total derivative equal to .

Hence, using Stokes' theorem, we get (The minus sign in the second integrand cancels with the fact that the boundary of goes backwards round .)

Since , we get

1. Absolute Hodge classes in l-adic cohomology From Martin's Blog

We can define absolute Hodge classes in l-adic cohomology in the same way as absolute Hodge classes in de Rham cohomology. We can then prove Deligne's theorem, that Hodge classes on an abelian variety are absolute Hodge, for l-adic cohomology. ...

2. Period relations on abelian varieties From Martin's Blog

The Legendre period relation is a classical equation relating the periods and quasi-periods of an elliptic curve, as defined last time. I will discuss this relation, and then more generally discuss how the existence of polarisations implies ...