Both (Lie) group and Lie algebra cohomology are essentially part of a more general procedure. Namely, we take an abelian category C with enough projectives or enough injectives, take a (say, left) exact functor F from C to abelian groups (or modules over a commutative ring) and compute the (right) derived functors of F using projective or injective resolutions.
For example, if mathfrakg is a Lie algerba over a field k, we can take the category of U(mathfrakg)-modules as C and MmapstomathrmHommathfrakg(k,M)
as F (here k is a trivial mathfrakg-module). Notice that this takes M to the set of all elements annihilated by any element of mathfrakg; this is not a mathfrakg-module, only a k-module, so the target category is the category of k-vector spaces.
In the category of U(mathfrakg)-modules there are enough projectives and enough injectives, so in principle to compute the Exts from k to M we can use either an injective resolution of M or a projective resolution of k as U(mathfrakg)-modules.
I've never seen anyone considering injective U(mathfrakg)-modules, probably because they are quite messy. So most of the time people go for the second option and construct a projective resolution of k.
One of the ways to choose such a resolution is the "standard" resolution with
Cq=U(mathfrakgotimesLambdaq(mathfrakg)
All the above holds for group cohomology as well. We have to replace U(mathfrakg) by the group ring (or algebra) of a group G. The only difference is that there is no analogue of the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex, so one has to use the bar resolution. Probably, Van Est cohomology of a topological group can also be described in this way.
No comments:
Post a Comment