Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:05:53.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Equivariant Formality of Kähler Manifolds With Finite Group Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Benjamin L. Fine  and
Georgia Triantafillou
Benjamin L. Fine
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47405 U.S.A.
Georgia Triantafillou
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637 USA.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An appropriate definition of equivariant formality for spaces equipped with the action of a finite group G, and for equivariant maps between such spaces, is given. Kahler manifolds with holomorphic G-actions, and equivariant holomorphic maps between such Kàhler manifolds, are proven to be equivariantly formal, generalizing results of Deligne, Griffiths, Morgan, and Sullivan

Keywords

55P6232C1757S17Kahler manifoldsformalityequivariant minimal models
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Mathematics , Volume 45 , Issue 6 , 01 December 1993 , pp. 1200 - 1210
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Mathematical Society 1993

References

[B] Bredon, G.E., Equivariant Cohomology Theories, Lecture Notes in Math. 34, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[DGMS] Deligne, P., Griffiths, P., Morgan, J. and Sullivan, D., Real Homotopy Theory of Kàhler Manifolds, Inv. Math. 29(1975. 245–274.Google Scholar
[H] Humphreys, J., Linear Algebraic Groups, Grad. Texts in Math. 21, Springer Verlag, New York Heidelberg Berlin, 1975.Google Scholar
[HS] Halperin, S. and Stasheff, J., Obstructions to homotopy equivalences, Advances in Math. 32(1979), 233–279.Google Scholar
[L] Lambre, T., Homotopie équivariante et formalité, C.R. Acad. Sci. Pans, t. (I) 309(1989. 55–57.Google Scholar
[L2] Lambre, T., Modèle minimal équivariant et formalité, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc, to appear.Google Scholar
[M] Miller, T., On the formality of(k — 1)-connected compact manifolds of dimension less or equal to 4k — 2, Illinois J. Math. 23(1979), 253–258.Google Scholar
[RT] Rothenberg, M. and Triantafillou, G., On the classification of G-manifold s up to finite ambiguity, Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics XLIV(1991), 733–759.Google Scholar
[RT2] Rothenberg, M. and Triantafillou, G., On the formality of the equivariant classifying space BU﹛ct), preprint, 1991.Google Scholar
[S] Sullivan, D., Infinitesimal computations in topology, Publ. Math. IHES 47(1978), 269–331.Google Scholar
[Se] Serre, J.-P, Cohomologie Galoisienne, Lecture Notes in Math. 5, Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg NewYork, 1965.Google Scholar
[T] Triantafillou, G., Equivariant minimal models, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. (2) 274(1982), 509–532.Google Scholar
[T2] Triantafillou, G., An algebraic model for G-homotopy types, Astérisque 113-114(1984), 312–337.Google Scholar
[T3] Triantafillou, G., Rationalization ofHopfG-spaces, Math. Zeit. 182(1983), 485–500.Google Scholar