arXiv:1810.07498v2 [math.AT] 6 Dec 2019
INTERSECTION HOMOLOGY
MARTINTXO SARALEGI-ARANGUREN AND DANIEL TANR´E
Abstract. Using a cap product, we construct an explicit Poincar´e duality isomor-phism between the blown-up intersection cohomology and the Borel-Moore intersec-tion homology, for any commutative ring of coefficients and second-countable, oriented pseudomanifolds.
Introduction
Poincar´e duality of singular spaces is the “raison d’ˆetre” ([10, Section 8.2]) of intersec-tion homology. It has been proven by Goresky and MacPherson in their first paper on intersection homology ([16]) for compact PL pseudomanifolds and rational coefficients and extended toZcoefficients with some hypothesis on the torsion part, by Goresky and
Siegel in [18]. Friedman and McClure obtain this isomorphism for a topological pseu-domanifold, from a cap product with a fundamental class, for any field of coefficients in [14], see also [10] for a commutative ring of coefficients with restrictions on the torsion. Using the blown-up intersection cohomology with compact supports, we have estab-lished in [7] a Poincar´e duality for any commutative ring of coefficients, without hypoth-esis on the torsion part, for any oriented paracompact pseudomanifold. Moreover, we also set up in [8] a Poincar´e duality between the blown-up intersection cohomology and the Borel-Moore intersection homology of an oriented PL pseudomanifoldX.
This paper is the “chaˆınon manquant:” the existence of an explicit Poincar´e duality isomorphism between the blown-up intersection cohomology and the Borel-Moore inter-section homology, from a cap product with the fundamental class, for any commutative ring of coefficients and any second-countable, oriented pseudomanifold. This allows the definition of an intersection product on the Borel-Moore intersection homology, induced from the Poincar´e duality and a cup product, as in the case of manifolds, see Corol-lary3.3 and Remark3.7. Let us note that a Poincar´e duality isomorphism cannot exist with an intersection cohomology defined as homology of the dual complex of intersection chains, see Example 3.6.
In Section 1, we recall basic background on pseudomanifolds and intersection homol-ogy. In particular, we present the complex of blown-up cochains, already introduced and studied in a series of papers [3,4,5,6,7,8,9] (also called Thom-Whitney cochains
Date: December 9, 2019.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 55N33, 57P10, 57N80, 55U30.
Key words and phrases. Intersection homology; Borel-Moore chains; cap product; Poincar´e duality. The second author was supported by the MINECO and FEDER research project MTM2016-78647-P. and the ANR-11-LABX-0007-01 “CEMPI”.
in some works). Section 2 contains the main properties of Borel-Moore intersection homology: the existence of a Mayer-Vietoris exact sequence in Theorem 2.4 and the recollection of some results established in [8]. Section 3 is devoted to the proof of the main result stated in Theorem3.1: the existence of an isomorphism between the blown-up intersection cohomology and the Borel-Moore intersection homology, by using the cap-product with the fundamental class of a second-countable, oriented pseudomanifold,
DX:H∗
p (X;R)→H
∞,p
n−∗(X;R),
for any commutative ring of coefficients. In [8], we prove it for PL-pseudomanifolds with a sheaf presentation of intersection homology. Here the duality is realized for topological pseudomanifolds, by a map defined at the chain complexes level by the cap product with a cycle representing the fundamental class.
Notice also that the intersection homology of this work (Definition 1.8) is a general version, called tame homology in [9] and non-GM in [10], which coincides with the original one for the perversities of [16]. Let us also observe that our definition of Borel-Moore intersection homology coincides with the one studied by G. Friedman in [11] for perversities depending only on the codimension of strata.
Homology and cohomology are considered with coefficients in a commutative ring,
R. In general, we do not explicit them in the proofs. For any topological space X, we denote bycX =X×[0,1]/X× {0} the cone onX and by ˚cX =X×[0,1[/X× {0}the
open cone on X. Elements of the cones cX and ˚cX are denoted [x, t] and the apex is v= [−,0].
Contents
Introduction 1
1. Background 2
2. Borel-Moore intersection homology 7
3. Poincar´e duality 9
References 14
1. Background
1.1. Pseudomanifold. In [16], M. Goresky and R. MacPherson introduce intersection homology for the study of pseudomanifolds. Some basic properties of intersection ho-mology, as the existence of a Mayer-Vietoris sequence, do not require such a structure and exist for filtered spaces.
Definition 1.1. A filtered space of (formal) dimension n, X, is a Hausdorff space en-dowed with a filtration by closed subsets,
∅=X−1 ⊆X0⊆X1 ⊆ · · · ⊆Xn=X,
such thatXn\Xn−1 6=∅. The strata of X of dimensioniare the connected components S of Xi\Xi−1; we denote dimS =iand codimS = dimX−dimS. Theregular strata
are the strata of dimensionnand thesingular setis the subspace Σ =Xn−1. We denote
by SX (or Sif there is no ambiguity) the set of non-empty strata.
Definition 1.2. An n-dimensional CS set is a filtered space of dimension n, X, such that, for any i ∈ {0, . . . , n}, Xi\Xi−1 is an i-dimensional topological manifold or the
empty set. Moreover, for each pointx∈Xi\Xi−1,i6=n, there exist
(i) an open neighborhood V ofx inX, endowed with the induced filtration, (ii) an open neighborhoodU of x inXi\Xi−1,
(iii) a compact filtered space Lof dimension n−i−1, whose cone ˚cL is endowed with
the filtration (˚cL)i= ˚cLi−1,
(iv) a homeomorphism,ϕ:U×˚cL→V, such that
(a) ϕ(u,v) =u, for anyu∈U, wherevis the apex of the cone ˚cL,
(b) ϕ(U ×˚cLj) =V ∩Xi+j+1, for all j∈ {0, . . . , n−i−1}.
The filtered space L is called alink ofx.
Except in the reminder of a previous result (see Proposition 3.2), this work is only concerned with particular CS sets, the pseudomanifolds.
Definition 1.3. Ann-dimensionalpseudomanifold is ann-dimensional CS set for which the link of a point x ∈ Xi\Xi−1, i 6= n, is a compact pseudomanifold L of dimension n−i−1.
For a pseudomanifold, the formal dimension of the underlying filtered space coincides with the classical dimension of the manifoldXn\Xn−1. In [16], the pseudomanifolds are
supposed without strata of codimension 1. Here, we do not require this property. The class of pseudomanifolds is large anough to include ([17]) complex algebraic or analytic varieties, real analytic varieties, Whitney and Thom-Mather stratified spaces, quotients of manifolds by compact Lie groups acting smootly, Thom spaces of vector bundles over triangulable compact manifolds, suspension of manifolds, ...
Remark 1.4. For the convenience of the reader, we first collect basic topological defini-tions. A topological spaceX is said
(1) separable if it contains a countable, dense subset;
(2) second-countable if its topology has a numerable basis; that is there exists some numerable collection U={Uj|j∈N} of open subsets such that any open subset
ofX can be written as a union of elements of some subfamily ofU;
(3) hemicompact if it is locally compact and there exists a numerable sequence of relatively compact open subsets, (Ui)i∈N, such that Ui⊂Ui+1 andX =∪iUi.
To relate hypotheses of some following results to ones of previous works, we list some interactions between these notions.
• A second countable space is separable and, in a metric space, the two properties are equivalent ([24, Theorem 16.9]).
• A space is locally compact and second-countable if, and only if, it is metrizable and hemicompact, see [1, Corollaire of Proposition 16].
As second-countability is a hereditary property, any open subset of a second-countable pseudomanifold is one also. Moreover, we also know that a second-countable pseudo-manifold is paracompact, separable, metrizable and hemicompact.
1.2. Intersection homology. We consider intersection homology relatively to the gen-eral perversities defined in [20].
Definition 1.5. Aperversity on a filtered space,X, is an application,p:S→Z, defined
on the set of strata of X and taking the value 0 on the regular strata. Among them, mention the null perversity 0, constant with value 0, and the top perversity defined by
t(S) = codimS−2 on singular strata. (This inferst(S) =−1 for codimension 1 strata.) For any perversity, p, the perversity Dp:=t−p is called the complementary perversity
ofp.
The pair (X, p) is called a perverse space. For a pseudomanifold we say perverse pseudomanifold.
Example 1.6. Let (X, p) be a perverse space of dimension n.
• An open perverse subspace (U, p) is an open subset U of X, endowed with the induced filtration and a perversity still denotedpand defined as follows: ifS⊂U
is a stratum ofU, such thatS⊂U∩S′withS′a stratum ofX, thenp(S) =p(S′). In the case of a perverse pseudomanifold, (U, p) is one also.
• IfM is a connected topological manifold, the productM×X is a filtered space for the product filtration, (M ×X)i = M ×Xi. The perversity p induces a
perversity on M×X, still denoted p and defined byp(M×S) =p(S) for each stratum S ofX.
• IfXis compact, the open cone ˚cXis endowed with theconical filtration,(˚cX)
i =
˚cXi−1, 0≤i≤n+ 1, where ˚c∅={v}is the apex of the cone. A perversitypon
˚cX induces a perversity on X still denotedp and defined byp(S) =p(S×]0,1[)
for each stratum S ofX.
For the rest of this section, we consider a perverse space (X, p). We introduce now a chain complex giving the intersection homology with coefficients inR, cf. [9].
Definition 1.7. A regular simplex is a continuous map σ: ∆ → X of domain an Eu-clidean simplex decomposed in joins, ∆ = ∆0 ∗ ∆1 ∗ · · · ∗ ∆n, such that σ−1Xi =
∆0∗∆1∗ · · · ∗∆i for all i∈ {0, . . . , n}and ∆n6=∅.
Given an Euclidean regular simplex ∆ = ∆0∗ · · · ∗∆n, we denoted∆ the regular part
of the chain ∂∆. More precisely, we set d∆ =∂(∆0∗ · · · ∗∆n−1)∗∆n, if dim(∆n) = 0
and d∆ =∂∆, if dim(∆n)≥1. For any regular simplex σ: ∆→X, we set dσ =σ∗◦d.
Notice thatd2 = 0. We denote byC∗(X;R) the complex of linear combinations of regular simplices (called finite chains) with the differentiald.
Definition 1.8. Theperverse degree of a regular simplexσ: ∆ = ∆0∗· · ·∗∆n→Xis the
(n+ 1)-uple,kσk= (kσk0, . . . ,kσkn), wherekσki = dimσ−1Xn−i= dim(∆0∗ · · · ∗∆n−i),
with the convention dim∅ = −∞. For each stratum S of X, the perverse degree of σ
along S is defined by
kσkS =
−∞, ifS∩σ(∆) =∅, kσkcodimS, otherwise.
Aregular simplex is p-allowable if
for any stratum S. A finite chain ξ is p-allowable if it is a linear combination of p -allowable simplices and of p-intersection if ξ and its boundary dξ are p-allowable. We denote byCp∗(X;R) the complex of p-intersection chains and byHp∗(X;R) its homology, called p-intersection homology.
If (U, p) is an open perverse subspace of (X, p), we define the complex of relative
p-intersection chains as the quotient Cp∗(X, U;R) = Cp∗(X;R)/Cp∗(U;R). Its homology is denoted Hp∗(X, U;R). Finally, if K ⊂ U is compact, we have Hp∗(X, X\K;R) =
Hp∗(U, U\K;R) by excision, cf. [9, Corollary 4.5].
Remark 1.9. This homology is called tame intersection homology in [9]. As we are only using it in this work, for sake of simplicity, we call it intersection homology. It coincides with the non-GM intersection homology of [10] (see [9, Theorem B]) and with intersection homology for the original perversities of [16], see [9, Remark 3.9].
The GM-perversities introduced by Goresky and MacPherson in [16] depend only on the codimension of the strata and verify a growth condition,p(k)≤p(k+ 1)≤p(k) + 1, that implies the topological invariance of the intersection homology groups, if there is no strata of codimension 1. In [9], we prove that a certain topological invariance is still verified within the framework of strata dependent perversities. For that, we consider the intrinsic space, X∗, associated to a pseudomanifold X (introduced by King in [19]) and use pushforward and pullback perversities. In particular, if there is no singular strata in
X becoming regular in X∗, we establish the invariance of intersection homology under a refinement of the stratification ([9, Remark 6.14]).
1.3. Blown-up intersection cohomology. Let N∗(∆) and N∗(∆) be the simplicial chains and cochains, with coefficient in R, of an Euclidean simplex ∆. Given a face F
of ∆, we write 1F the element ofN∗(∆) taking the value 1 on F and 0 otherwise. We
denote also by (F,0) the same face viewed as face of the conec∆ = [v]∗∆ and by (F,1)
the facecF of c∆. The apex is denoted (∅,1) =c∅= [v].
If ∆ = ∆0∗ · · · ∗∆n is a regular Euclidean simplex, we set
e
N∗(∆) =N∗(c∆0)⊗ · · · ⊗N∗(c∆n−1)⊗N∗(∆n).
A basis of Ne∗(∆) is made of the elements 1(F,ε) = 1(F0,ε0)⊗ · · · ⊗1(Fn−1,εn−1) ⊗1Fn,
whereεi∈ {0,1} and Fi is a face of ∆i fori∈ {0, . . . , n}or the empty set with εi = 1 if
i < n. We set|1(F,ε)|>s=Pi>s(dimFi+εi), withεn= 0.
Definition 1.10. Let ℓ∈ {1, . . . , n}. The ℓ-perverse degree of 1(F,ε)∈Ne∗(∆) is k1(F,ε)kℓ = −∞ if εn−ℓ = 1, |1(F,ε)|>n−ℓ if εn−ℓ = 0. For a cochain ω =Pbλb 1(Fb,εb)∈Ne ∗(∆) withλ
b 6= 0 for allb, the ℓ-perverse degree is
kωkℓ= max
b k1(Fb,εb)kℓ.
By convention, we set k0kℓ =−∞.
Let (X, p) be a perverse space and σ: ∆ = ∆0∗ · · · ∗∆n→X a regular simplex. We
setNeσ∗=Ne∗(∆). Letδℓ: ∆′→∆ be the inclusion of a face, we set∂ℓσ=σ◦δℓ: ∆′→X
with the induced filtration ∆′ = ∆′
Theblown-up complex ofXis the cochain complexNe∗(X;R) composed of the elements
ω associating to each regular simplex σ: ∆0∗ · · · ∗∆n → X an element ωσ ∈Neσ∗ such
that δ∗ℓ(ωσ) = ω∂ℓσ, for any regular face operator δℓ: ∆
′ → ∆. The differential dω is
defined by (dω)σ =d(ωσ). Theperverse degree of ω along a singular stratum S equals
kωkS = sup{kωσkcodimS |σ: ∆→Xregular such that σ(∆)∩S6=∅}.
By settingkωkS = 0 for any regular stratumS, we get a map kωk: S→N.
Definition 1.11. Acochainω∈Ne∗(X;R)isp-allowableifkωk ≤pand ofp-intersection
ifωand dωarep-allowable. We denoteNep∗(X;R) the complex ofp-intersection cochains and H∗
p (X;R) its homology, called blown-up p-intersection cohomology ofX.
Let us recall its main properties. First, the canonical projection pr : X×R → X
induces an isomorphism ([5, Theorem D])
(1.1) pr∗:Hp∗(X;R)→Hp∗(X×R;R).
Also, if L is a compact pseudomanifold and p a perversity on the cone ˚cL, inducing p
onL, we have [5, Theorem E]: (1.2) Hp∗(˚cL;R) =
( H∗
p (L;R), if k≤p(v),
0 ifk > p(v),
wherev is the apex of the cone. Ifk≤p(v), the isomorphismH∗
p (˚cL;R) =∼Hp∗(L;R)
is given by the inclusionL×]0,1[= ˚cL\{v}֒→˚cL.
Definition 1.12. LetUbe an open cover ofX. AU-small simplex is a regular simplex,
σ: ∆ = ∆0 ∗ · · · ∗∆n → X, such that there exists U ∈ U with Imσ ⊂ U. The blown-up complex of U-small cochains of X with coefficients in R, written Ne∗,U(X;R) is the cochain complex made up of elements ω, associating to any U-small simplex,
σ: ∆ = ∆0∗ · · · ∗∆n→X, an element ωσ ∈Ne
∗
(∆), so thatδℓ∗(ωσ) =ω∂ℓσ, for any face
operator,δℓ: ∆′0∗ · · · ∗∆′n →∆0∗ · · · ∗∆n, with ∆′n6=∅. If pis a perversity on X, we
denote byNep∗,U(X;R) the complex ofU-small cochains verifyingkωk ≤pandkδωk ≤p.
Proposition 1.13. [5, Corollary 9.7] The restriction map is a quasi-isomorphism,
ρU:Ne
∗
p(X;R)→Ne ∗,U
p (X;R).
Finally, the blown-up intersection cohomology satisfies the Mayer-Vietoris property.
Proposition 1.14. [5, Theorem C] Let(X, p)be a paracompact perverse space, endowed with an open cover U = {W1, W2} and a subordinated partition of the unity, (f1, f2).
For i = 1,2, we denote by Ui the cover of Wi consisting of the open subsets (W1 ∩
W2, fi−1(]1/2,1]) and by Uthe cover of X, union of the covers Ui. Then, the canonical inclusions,Wi⊂X andW1∩W2 ⊂Wi, induce a short exact sequence, whereϕ(ω1, ω2) = ω1−ω2, 0 //Ne∗,U p (X;R) //Ne ∗,U1 p (W1;R)⊕Ne ∗,U2 p (W2;R) ϕ / /Ne∗ p(W1∩W2;R) //0.
2. Borel-Moore intersection homology
In a filtered space X, locally finite chains are sums, perhaps infinite, ξ=Pj∈Jλjσj,
such that every point x ∈ X has a neighborhood Ux for which all but a finite number
of the regular simplices σj (see Definition 1.7) with support intersecting Ux have a
coefficient λj equal to 0.
Definition 2.1. Let (X, p) be a perverse space. We denote by C∞∗ ,p(X;R) the complex of locally finite chains ofp-intersection with the differentiald. Its homology,H∞∗ ,p(X;R), is called the locally finite (or Borel-Moore) p-intersection homology.
Recall a characterization of locally finitep-intersection chains.
Proposition 2.2. [8, Proposition 3.4] Let (X, p) be a perverse space. Suppose that
X is locally compact, metrizable and separable. Then, the complex of locally finite p -intersection chains is isomorphic to the inverse limit of complexes,
C∞∗ ,p(X;R)∼= lim←−
K⊂X
Cp∗(X, X\K;R),
where the limit is taken over all compact subsets of X.
Since locally finite chains in an open subset ofX are not necessarily locally finite in
X, the complex C∞∗ ,p(−;R) is not functorial for the inclusions of open subsets. To get round this defect, we introduce a contravariant chain complex as in [2]. In the context of intersection homology a similar approach is done by Friedman (see [11, Section 2.3.2]), the sheafification of the resulting complex being nothing but Deligne’s sheaf of [17]. So we set
C∞∗ ,X,p(U;R) := lim←−
K⊂U
Cp∗(X, X\K;R),
where K runs over the family of compact subsets of U. An element α ∈ C∞∗ ,X,p(U;R) is a family α = hαKiK, indexed by the family of compacts of U, with αK ∈ Cp∗(X;R)
and αK′ −αK ∈ Cp∗(X\K;R), if K ⊂ K′. In particular, α = 0 if, and only if, αK ∈
Cp∗(X\K;R) for every K.
For the construction of the projective limit, an exhaustive family of compacts suf-fices. Therefore, if X is hemicompact, we may use a numerable increasing sequence of compacts, (Ki)i∈N, and getα=hαiii, withαi ∈C∗p(X;R) andαi+1−αi∈Cp∗(X\Ki;R).
Given two open subsets V ⊂U ⊂X, we denote by (2.1) IV,UX,p: lim←−
K⊂U
Cp∗(X, X\K;R)→ lim←−
K⊂V
Cp∗(X, X\K;R)
the map induced by the identity. So, the complex C∞∗ ,X,p(−;R) defines a contravariant functor from the poset of open subsets ofX. Moreover, this is an appropriate substitute for the study of locally finite p-intersection homology as shows the following result.
Proposition 2.3. Let (X, p) be a locally compact, second-countable perverse space and
U ⊂ X an open subset. The natural restriction IUp:C∞∗ ,p(U;R) → C∞∗ ,X,p(U;R) is a quasi-isomorphism.
Proof. Let (Ki)i∈Nbe a numerable increasing sequence of compacts ofU, coveringU and
cofinal in the family of compact subsets ofU. The mapsCp∗(U, U\Ki)→Cp∗(U, U\Ki+1)
and Cp∗(X, X\Ki) → Cp∗(X, X\Ki+1) being surjective, these two sequences verify the
Mittag-Leffler condition. Thus the inclusions (Cp∗(U, U\Ki))i → (Cp∗(X, X\Ki))i give a
morphism of short exact sequences ([23, Proposition 3.5.8]): 0 //lim ←−1i H p k+1(U, U\Ki) / /Hk(lim ←−iC p ∗(U, U\Ki)) / /lim ←−iH p k(U, U\Ki) / /0 0 //lim ←−1i H p k+1(X, X\Ki) //Hk(lim ←−iC p ∗(X, X\Ki)) //lim ←−iH p k(X, X\Ki) //0. The result is now a consequence of the excision property.
The existence of a Mayer-Vietoris exact sequence in this context can be deduced from a sheaf theoretic argument in the case of perversities depending only on the codimension of strata, as mentioned in [11, Proof of Proposition 2.20]. We provide below a direct proof for general perversities.
Theorem 2.4. Let (X, p) be a locally compact, second-countable perverse space and
{U, V} an open covering of X. Then we have a Mayer-Vietoris exact sequence, with coefficients inR, (2.2) . . . //H∞,p k (X) //H ∞,p k (V)⊕H ∞,p k (U) //H ∞,p k (U ∩V) //H ∞,p k−1(X) //. . .
Proof. As U and V are hemicompact, we choose sequences (Ui)i∈N and (Vi)i∈N of
rela-tively compact open subsets ofU andV, respectively, such that Ui⊂Ui+1,∪i∈NUi=U
and Vi ⊂ Vi+1,∪i∈NVi =V. Let us notice that (Ui ∪Vi)i∈N and (Ui∩Vi)i∈N are
se-quences of compact subsets such thatUi∪Vi⊂Ui+1∪Vi+1 and Ui∩Vi ⊂Ui+1∩Vi+1
which are exhaustive forU ∪V and U ∩V respectively.
As observed in the proof of Proposition 2.3, the sequences (Cp∗(X, X\Ki))i∈N satisfy
the Mittag-Leffler property, for Ki =Ui, Vi, Ui∩Vi or Ui∪Vi. Therefore, the short
exact sequences
0→Cp∗(X\(Ui∪Vi))→Cp∗(X\Ui)⊕Cp∗(X\Vi)→Cp∗(X\Ui) +Cp∗(X\Vi)→0
induce the short exact sequence (2.3) 0 //lim ←−iC p ∗(X,X\(Ui∪Vi)) //lim←− iC p ∗(X,X\Ui)⊕lim←− iC p ∗(X,X\Vi) //lim←− iQ p ∗(X,Ui,Vi)) //0
with Qp∗(X, Ui, Vi)) = Cp∗(X)/(Cp∗(X\Ui) +Cp∗(X\Vi)). The long exact sequence
asso-ciated to (2.3) gives (2.2). Let us see that.
• First, by Proposition 2.3, we have H∞∗ ,p(U ∪V) ∼= Hk(lim←−iCp∗(X, X\(Ui∪Vi))), H∞∗ ,p(U)∼=Hk(lim←−iCp∗(X, X\Ui)) andH∞∗ ,p(V)∼=Hk(lim←−iCp∗(X, X\Vi)).
•As for thethird termof the sequence (2.3), we proved in [9, Proposition 4.1] that the identity map onX induces a quasi-isomorphism,Cp∗(X\Ui) +Cp∗(X\Vi)→Cp∗(X\(Ui∩
Vi)). Therefore, it induces a quasi-isomorphism
With the Mittag-Leffler property and Proposition 2.3, the identity map also gives a quasi-isomorphism (2.4) ψ: lim←− i Qp∗(X, Ui, Vi)→lim←− i Cp∗(X, X\(Ui∩Vi)) =C∞∗ ,X,p(U∩V). The following properties have been proven in [8].
Proposition 2.5. [8, Proposition 3.5] Let (L, p) be a compact perverse space. Then we have
H∞k,p(Rm×L;R) =Hpk−m(L;R).
Proposition 2.6. [8, Proposition 3.7] Let L be a compact space and p be a perversity on the cone˚cL of apex v. Then we have
H∞k ,p(Rm×˚cL;R) = (
0 if k≤m+Dp(v) + 1,
Hpk−m−1(L;R) if k≥m+Dp(v) + 2.
3. Poincar´e duality
3.1. Fundamental class and cap product. Let (X, p) be a perverse pseudomanifold of dimensionn.
Recall from [16] that anR-orientation ofX is anR-orientation of the manifoldXn:=
X\Xn−1. For any x∈ Xn, we denote by ox ∈Hn(Xn, Xn\{x};R) =H0
n(X, X\{x};R)
the associated local orientation. We know (see [14] or [10, Theorem 8.1.18]) that, for any compact K ⊂X, there exists a unique element ΓKX ∈H0n(X, X\K;R) whose restriction equals ox for any x ∈ K. These classes give a Borel-Moore homology class, called the
fundamental class of X,
ΓX =hΓKXiK ∈H∞n,0(X;R).
The fundamental classes are natural for the injections between open subsets ofX. Given two open subsetsV ⊂U ⊂X, the map induced in Borel-Moore homology by the identity (3.1) IV,UX,p: lim←−
K⊂U
Cp∗(X, X\K;R)→ lim←−
K⊂V
Cp∗(X, X\K;R) sends ΓU on ΓV, see [10, Theorem 8.1.18].
Suppose thatX is equipped with two perversities,pand q. In [5, Proposition 4.2], we prove the existence of a map
(3.2) −⌣−:Nepk(X;R)⊗Neqℓ(X;R)→Nepk++qℓ(X;R),
inducing an associative and commutative graded product, called intersection cup prod-uct,
(3.3) −⌣−:Hk
p (X;R)⊗Hqℓ(X;R)→Hpk++qℓ(X;R).
Mention also from [5, Propositions 6.6 and 6.7] the existence ofcap products,
such that (η ⌣ ω)⌢ ξ=η ⌢(ω ⌢ ξ) andd(ω ⌢ ξ) =dω ⌢ ξ+ (−1)|ω|ω ⌢dξ. Thus,
this cap product induces acap product in homology,
(3.5) −⌢−:Hpi(X;R)⊗Hqj(X;R) →Hjp−+iq(X;R).
The map (3.4) can be extended to a map
(3.6) −⌢−:Nepi(X;R)⊗C∞j ,q(X;R)→C∞j−,pi+q(X;R) as follows:
given α ∈ Nei
p(X;R) and η = hηKiK ∈ Cj∞,q(X;R), we set α ⌢ η = hα ⌢ ηKiK ∈ C∞j−,pi+q(X;R). This definition makes sense since the cap product (3.4) is natural. More-over, from the compatibility with the differentials, we get an induced map,
(3.7) −⌢−:Hpi(X;R)⊗H∞j ,q(X;R) →Hj∞−,pi+q(X;R).
As ΓX ∈H∞n,0(X;R), the cap product with the fundamental class gives a map,
(3.8) DX :=−⌢ΓX:Hp∗(X;R)→H∞n−∗,p(X;R),
that is the Poincar´e duality map of the next theorem. Let us emphasize that this map exists at the level of chain complexes.
In this paradigm, the Poincar´e duality comes from a cap product with the fundamental class, ΓX. As this one is a Borel-Moore homology class, we need to adapt (3.5). In fact,
there are two ways of working.
• We may keep the blown-up cohomology, for which the cap with ΓX gives a
Borel-Moore homology class as in (3.8). This is the subject of this work which brings Theorem3.1 below.
• We may also work with blown-up cohomology with compact supports, for which the cap product with ΓX gives a (finite) homology class. That is, we extend (3.4)
in (3.9) −⌢−:Nep,ci (X;R)⊗C∞ ,q j (X;R) →C p+q j−i(X;R),
This approach was used in [7] and led to the Poincar´e duality ([7, Theorem B])
−⌢ΓX:Hp,ci (X;R)
∼ =
−→Hpn−i(X;R).
3.2. Main theorem. We prove the existence of an isomorphism between the Borel-Moore p-intersection homology and the blown-up p-intersection cohomology.
Theorem 3.1. Let (X, p) be ann-dimensional, second countable and oriented perverse pseudomanifold. The cap product with the fundamental class induces a Poincar´e duality isomorphism
DX:Hp∗(X;R) −=∼→H∞n−∗,p(X;R).
The proof uses the following result.
Proposition 3.2. [8, Proposition 13.2] Let FX be the category whose objects are
(strat-ified homeomorphic to) open subsets of a given paracompact and separable CS setX and whose morphisms are stratified homeomorphisms and inclusions. Let Ab∗ be the
cate-gory of graded abelian groups. Let F∗, G∗:FX → Ab be two functors and Φ :F∗ → G∗
(i) The functors F∗ and G∗ admit Mayer-Vietoris exact sequences and the natural
transformation Φ induces a commutative diagram between these sequences.
(ii) If {Uα} is a disjoint collection of open subsets of X and Φ : F∗(Uα) → G∗(Uα) is an isomorphism for eachα, then Φ : F∗(FαUα)→G∗(FαUα) is an isomorphism. (iii) If L is a compact filtered space such that X has an open subset stratified home-omorphic to Ri×˚cL and, if Φ : F∗(Ri ×(˚cL\{v})) → G∗(Ri ×(˚cL\{v})) is an
isomorphism, then so is Φ : F∗(Ri×˚cL) → G∗(Ri×˚cL). (Here, v is the apex of
the cone˚cL.)
(iv) If U is an open subset of X contained within a single stratum and homeomorphic to an Euclidean space, then Φ :F∗(U)→G∗(U) is an isomorphism.
Then Φ : F∗(X)→G∗(X) is an isomorphism.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. As any open subset U ⊂ X is an oriented pseudomanifold, we may consider the associated homomorphism defined in (3.8),D
U:H
p
k(U)→H
∞,X,p n−k (U),
where we use the identification H∞n,p
−k(U)
∼ =
−→ H∞n,X,p
−k (U) given by Proposition 2.3. Let
V ⊂ U ⊂ X be two open subsets of X, endowed with the induced structures of pseu-domanifold of X. The canonical inclusion (see (2.1)) and the cap product with the fundamental class give a commutative diagram,
(3.10) Hk p (U) DU (IV,Up )∗ / /Hk p (V) DV H∞n−,X,pk (U)(I X,p V,U) ∗ / /H∞,X,p n−k (V).
We apply Proposition3.2to the natural transformationDU:Hk
p (U)→H
∞,X,p
n−k (U). The
proof is reduced to the verifications of its hypotheses.
• First, let us notice that the conditions (ii) and (iv) are direct.
•Property(i). LetU={W1, W2}be an open covering ofX. Mayer-Vietoris sequences are constructed in Proposition 1.14 and Theorem 2.4. We build a morphism between them with the following diagram.
In the first row, we take over the notations of Proposition 1.14. As in the proof of Theorem 2.4, we choose sequences (Ui)i∈N and (Vi)i∈N of relatively compact open
∪i∈NVi =W2. The last row corresponds to (2.3). 0 //Ne∗,U p (X) //Ne ∗,U1 p (W1)⊕Ne ∗,U2 p (W2) // I e N∗ p(W1∩W2) // II 0 e N∗ p(X) // ρ O O ⌢γX e N∗ p(W1)⊕Ne ∗ p(W2) // ρ O O III ⌢γW1⊕⌢γW2 e N∗ p(W1∩W2) IV ⌢γW1∩W2 C∞n−∗,p(X) // IXp Cn∞−∗(,p W1)⊕Cn∞−∗(,p W2) // V I p W1⊕I p W2 C∞n−∗(,p W1∩W2) VI I p W1∩W2 C∞,X,p n−∗ (X) //C ∞,X,p n−∗ (W1)⊕C ∞,X,p n−∗ (W2) // VII C∞,X,p n−∗ (W1∩W2) VIII 0 //lim ←−iC p ∗(X,X\(Ui∪Vi)) //lim ←−iC p ∗(X,X\Ui)⊕lim ←−iC p ∗(X,X\Vi) //lim ←−iQ p ∗(X,Ui,Vi)) ψ O O / /0.
The maps ρ denote restriction and the cycles γY ∈C∞n,0(Y) represent the fundamental
class of Y, for Y = X, W1, W2, W1 ∩W2. First, we prove that the above diagram commutes.
The square VII is clearly commutative. The vertical maps of squares I, II, V and VI are induced by restrictions. Thus these squares are commutative. By naturality of the fundamental classes, we may choose forγW1 the restriction of γX and similarly forγW2
and γW1∩W2. So, diagrams III and IV commute. The diagram VIII is commutative by
construction of the map ψ, see (2.4).
Let us observe that the columns of the diagrams I, II, V, VI, VII and VIII are quasi-isomorphisms. This is a consequence of [5, Theorem B], Proposition2.3and (2.4) in the proof of Theorem2.4, respectively. So, we get the following commutative diagram,
... //Hk p(X) // DX Hk p(W1)⊕H k p(W2) // DW 1⊕DW2 Hk p(W1∩W2) // DW 1∩W2 Hk+1 p (X) // DX ... ... //H∞,p n−k(X) //H ∞,p n−k(W1)⊕H ∞,p n−k(W2) //H ∞,p n−k(W1∩W2) //H ∞,p n−k−1(X) //....
• Property (iii) We apply (1.1), (1.2), Proposition 2.5 and Proposition2.6. First, we have the isomorphism Hk
p (Ri×˚cL) = 0 =H
∞,p
n−k(Ri×˚cL) fork > p(v), or equivalently
n−k < i+Dp(v) + 2. (Observe thatDp(v) =n−i−2−p(v).) Next, letk≤p(v). The
following commutative diagram comes from (3.10). Hk p (Ri×˚cL) // D Ri×˚cL Hk p (Ri×L×]0,1[) D Ri×L×]0,1[ H∞n−,pk(Ri×˚cL) //H∞,p n−k(Ri×L×]0,1[).
The right column is an isomorphism by hypothesis. Since horizontal rows are also isomorphisms, we deduce thatDRi×˚cLis an isomorphism. This proves Property (iii).
Corollary 3.3. Let (X, p)be an n-dimensional, second countable and oriented perverse pseudomanifold. The Borel-Moore intersection homology can be endowed with an inter-section product, induced from Poincar´e duality and a cup product.
Proof. The following commutative diagram, whose vertical maps are isomorphisms, de-fines the intersection product⋔from the cup product,
(3.11) Hk p (X;R)⊗Hqℓ(X;R) −⌣− / / ∼ = DX⊗DX Hk+ℓ p+q(X;R) DX ∼ = Hn∞−,pk(X;R)⊗Hn∞−,qℓ(X;R) −⋔−//H∞,p+q n−k−ℓ(X;R).
Remark3.4. Ifp:N→Zis a loose perversity as in [11], we have an inclusion of complexes ι:C∞∗ ,p(X;R)֒→IpC∞
∗ (X;R), whereIpC∞∗ (X;R) denotes the chain complex studied by
Friedman in [11]. With the technique of the proof of Theorem3.1, using Proposition3.2, we also deduce thatιis a quasi-isomorphism. For the complexIpC∞
∗ (X;R), the existence
of a Mayer-Vietoris exact sequence follows from the fact that its homology proceeds from sheaf theory and the computations involving a cone are done in [11, Propositions 2.18 and 2.20]. Thus, the blown-up intersection cohomology is Poincar´e dual to the Borel-Moore intersection homology defined in [11], for any commutative ring of coefficients.
Remark 3.5. An intersection cohomology, denoted H∗p(X;R), can also be defined from the linear dual,C∗p(X;R) = hom(Cp∗(X;R), R). This is the point of view adopted in [10], [12], [14]. If (X, p) is a locally (p, R)-torsion free perverse space X, this cohomology is isomorphic to the blown-up cohomology with the complementary perversity,H∗
p(X;R)∼=
H∗
Dp(X;R), see [5, Theorem F]. (We send the reader to [16] for the condition on the
torsion, noting that it is always satisfied ifRis a field.) Therefore, in this case, there is a Poincar´e duality,Hk
p(X;R)∼=H
∞,Dp
n−k (X;R), induced by a cup product. But, in contrast
to the blown-up cohomology situation, such isomorphism does not exist in general as shows the following example.
Example 3.6. LetX = ΣRP3\∗ be the complementary subspace of a regular point in
the suspension of the real projective space RP3, together with the constant perversity
on 1, denoted 1. (Observe 1 =D1.) Direct calculations from the Mayer-Vietoris exact sequences give as only non zero values for the homology and cohomologies,
(i) H0 1 (X;Z) =Z and H 3 1(X;Z) =Z2, (ii) H∞1 ,1(X;Z) =Z2 and H∞4 ,1(X;Z) =Z, (iii) H0 1(X;Z) =Z and H 1 1(X;Z) =Z2. We notice Hk 1 (X;R) ∼= H ∞,1
4−k(X;R) as stated in Theorem 3.1 but H11(X;Z) = Z2 6∼=
H∞3 ,1(X;Z) = 0.
Remark 3.7. In the case of a compact oriented pseudomanifold, a diagram as (3.11) has already been introduced in [4, Section 4] for the definition of a product in intersection homology, for any ring of coefficients. For a PL pseudomanifold, a product of geometric
cycles is defined by Goresky and MacPherson ([16]) for a simplicial intersection homology. The relationship between (3.11) and the geometric product can be specified as below. (For sake of simplicity, we consider coefficients in a field.)
• From a diagram similar to (3.11), Friedman and McClure define an intersection product on the intersection homology of a PL pseudomanifold, via a duality iso-morphism ([14]) with the intersection cohomologyH∗p(X) recalled in Remark3.5. In [15, Theorem 1.3], they connect it with the geometric product of [16].
• As recalled in Remark 3.5, the blown-up cohomology studied in this paper is connected to H∗p(X) through a natural quasi-isomorphism, which is compatible with the algebra structures (see [3, Corollary 4.4 and end of Section 4]).
Consequently, the intersection product onH•∗(X;R) defined by (3.11) coincides with the original geometric product of Goresky and McPherson in the PL compact case.
Finally, mention the existence of a construction of the intersection product via a Leinster partial algebra structure, done by Friedman in [13], who extends to the perverse setting the construction made by McClure on the chain complex of a PL manifold, see [21].
References
[1] N. Bourbaki, ´el´ements de math´ematique. I: Les structures fondamentales de l’analyse. Fascicule VIII. Livre III: Topologie g´en´erale. Chapitre 9: Utilisation des nombres r´eels en topologie g´en´erale, Deuxi`eme ´edition revue et augment´ee. Actualit´es Scientifiques et Industrielles, No. 1045, Hermann, Paris, 1958. MR 0173226
[2] Glen E. Bredon,Sheaf theory, second ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 170, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. MR 1481706
[3] David Chataur, Martintxo Saralegi-Aranguren, and Daniel Tanr´e,Steenrod squares on intersection cohomology and a conjecture of M Goresky and W Pardon, Algebr. Geom. Topol.16(2016), no. 4, 1851–1904. MR 3546453
[4] ,Singular decompositions of a cap product, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.145(2017), no. 8, 3645– 3656. MR 3652815
[5] , Blown-up intersection cohomology, An alpine bouquet of algebraic topology, Contemp. Math., vol. 708, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2018, pp. 45–102. MR 3807751
[6] , Intersection cohomology, simplicial blow-up and rational homotopy, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.254(2018), no. 1214, viii+108. MR 3796432
[7] ,Poincar´e duality with cap products in intersection homology, Adv. Math.326(2018), 314– 351. MR 3758431
[8] ,Blown-up intersection cochains and Deligne’s sheaves, Geometriae Dedicata (2019), Avail-able athttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10711-019-00458-w.
[9] ,Intersection homology: general perversities and topological invariance, Illinois J. Math.63 (2019), no. 1, 127–163. MR 3959870
[10] Greg Friedman, Singular intersection homology, Available at http://faculty.tcu.edu/gfriedman/index.html.
[11] ,Singular chain intersection homology for traditional and super-perversities, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.359(2007), no. 5, 1977–2019 (electronic). MR 2276609 (2007k:55008)
[12] ,Intersection homology and Poincar´e duality on homotopically stratified spaces, Geom. Topol. 13(2009), no. 4, 2163–2204. MR 2507117 (2010d:55010)
[13] ,The chain-level intersection product for PL pseudomanifolds revisited, J. Singul.17(2018), 330–367. MR 3857199
[14] Greg Friedman and James E. McClure, Cup and cap products in intersection (co)homology, Adv. Math.240(2013), 383–426. MR 3046315
[15] ,Intersection homology duality and pairings: singular, PL, and sheaf-theoretic, arXiv e-prints (2018), arXiv:1812.10585.
[16] Mark Goresky and Robert MacPherson,Intersection homology theory, Topology19 (1980), no. 2, 135–162. MR 572580 (82b:57010)
[17] ,Intersection homology. II, Invent. Math.72(1983), no. 1, 77–129. MR 696691 (84i:57012) [18] Mark Goresky and Paul Siegel, Linking pairings on singular spaces, Comment. Math. Helv. 58
(1983), no. 1, 96–110. MR 699009 (84h:55004)
[19] Henry C. King,Topological invariance of intersection homology without sheaves, Topology Appl.20 (1985), no. 2, 149–160. MR 800845 (86m:55010)
[20] Robert MacPherson, Intersection homology and perverse sheaves, Unpublished AMS Colloquium Lectures, San Francisco, 1991.
[21] James E. McClure, On the chain-level intersection pairing for PL manifolds, Geom. Topol. 10 (2006), 1391–1424. MR 2255502
[22] , Erratum for the paper ‘On the chain-level intersection pairing for PL manifolds’, Geom. Topol.13(2009), no. 3, 1775–1777. MR 2496056
[23] Charles A. Weibel,An introduction to homological algebra, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Math-ematics, vol. 38, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. MR 1269324 (95f:18001)
[24] Stephen Willard, General topology, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Don Mills, Ont., 1970. MR 0264581
Laboratoire de Math´ematiques de Lens, EA 2462, Universit´e d’Artois, SP18, rue Jean Souvraz, 62307 Lens Cedex, France
E-mail address: [email protected]
D´epartement de Math´ematiques, UMR-CNRS 8524, Universit´e de Lille, 59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France
