Appendix: signs

P. Deligne

Some classical constructions give objects which are graded, and which can protably
be viewed as \super", i.e. subject to Koszul's sign rule. Examples: cohomology groups of
all kind (H  , Tor , Ext : : : ), the de Rham complex and other standard complexes, : : : .
To handle their analogue in the super world, two points of view have been used. As
we will see, they are basically equivalent. However, they lead to dierent sign conventions.
I. One considers them as graded mod 2 graded (i.e. super) objects. The grading which is
the analogue of the grading in the classical case will be called the cohomological grading.
The commutativity isomorphism for the tensor product of graded mod 2 graded vector
spaces is dened as follows: for v of bidegree (p; n): parity p and cohomological degree n,
and w of bidegree (q; m),

I : V
W ! W
V is v
w 7 ! ( 1)pq+nmw
v:

II. One considers that the classical construction already lives in the super world, with
parity = cohomological degree mod 2. In the super world, one continues to obtain super
objects; they also have a cohomological degree, with no in uence on signs: the commuta-
tivity isomorphism of graded mod 2 graded vector spaces is dened as

II : V
W ! W
V : v
w ! ( 1)pq w
v

for v of parity p and w of parity q. Of course, one could consider modules instead of vector
spaces.
Here are advantages of the point of view I.
1
(A) For any tensor category T, say additive with \associative and commutative" ten-
sor product, one can dene a new tensor category Tgr of graded objects of T, with the
commutativity of
being given by:

gr: V
W ! W
V
induces on V n
W m the map V n
W m ! W m
V n of T, multiplied by ( 1)nm . For T
the tensor category of super vector spaces, Tgr is the category I of graded mod 2 graded
vector spaces. The point of view I hence allows for the following way of reasoning: to prove
a statement in superworld, prove it rst in any tensor category (keeping in mind the case of
vector spaces). At the end, specialize to the category of super vector spaces. In the general
categorical story, no sign of super origin are there to confuse us: they are hidden in the
compatibilities obeyed by the associativity and commutativity isomorphisms for
.
Example (of this kind of reasoning). Suppose we want to see the following for nite
dimensional super vector spaces. Known: if W is the dual of V , then V is the dual of W .
As V is the dual of W , repeating \known" for W and V , we get that: W is the dual of V .
Wished: the duality map is the same as the one we started with.
The dual of V is well dened up to unique isomorphism as an object W provided with
a morphism ev: W
V ! 1 with suitable properties, for 1 the unit object. To give a map
W
V ! 1 is the same thing as giving a map V
W ! 1, by the isomorphism  of W
V
with V
W .
For super vector spaces, the structural map ev: W
V ! k identies W with the
space of linear forms on V , the evaluation map ev becoming w
v 7! w(v). If one prefers
to say that it is the map V
W ! k which makes of W the dual of V , one is rather led to
identify the dual W of V with the space of linear forms on V by w 7! linear form (v 7!
image of v
w). This gives two ways to identify the dual (in the categorical sense) with
the space of linear forms on V , those two ways dier by a sign on the odd part, and one
easily gets confused. In the general categorical setting, no sign occurs.
(B) One has not to decide early on whether an object should be seen as having a coho-
mological degree.
2
Example. Let A be a commutative super k-algebra. The point of view I suggest to dene
the module
1A of Kahler dierential as being an A-module (hence bimodule)
, provided
with a morphism of super k vector spaces d: A !
such that
(B.1) d(ab) = a:db + da:b;
which is universal. Later, when considering the de Rham complex, one may decide that

1A is of cohomological degree 1. In the point of view II, deciding that in the classical case
(purely even A)
1A is odd, requires d to be an odd map, and that (B.1) be replaced by
(B.2) d(ab) = ( 1)p(a)a:db + da:b

(C) The point of view I minimizes the use of the parity change functor . Using this
functor leads to nightmares of signs, for the following reasons.
(i) Let 1 be k, viewed as an odd k-vector space. The functor  is best viewed as being
the tensor product with 1 . One has to decide whether it is V 7! 1
V or V 7! V
1 .
The two are canonically isomorphic, but lead to dierent sign conventions.
(ii) One has natural isomorphisms (V )
W ! (V
W ) and (V
W ) ! (V
W ),
exchanged by the commutativity of
. The diagram
V
W ! (V
W )
?? ?
?
y y
(V
W ) ! (V
W )
is anticommutative, rather than commutative.

Here are advantages of the point of view II.

(A) One has only one parity to consider, for applying the sign rule.
(B) Some constructions are more natural. For example, if D is the standard odd line
(coordinate ring k[],  odd, 2 = 0), the de Rham complex of a super manifold M is (up
to a completion) the space of functions on the super manifold
Hom(D ; M ):
3
In the point of view I, one has to apply to the de Rham complex the functor \associated
simply graded object" explained below.
I prefer the point of view I. Bernstein prefers the point of view II.
The points of view I and II are equivalent, in the sense that the tensor categories TI
and TII of graded mod 2 graded vector spaces introduced in I and II are equivalent: we
have an equivalence of categories
es: TI ! TII
and an isomorphism of functors

: es(V
I W ) ! es(V )
II es(W )

compatible with the associativity and commutativity isomorphisms for

I and
II.
The functor es is the regrading functor: es(V ) has the same underlying vector space as
V , with v of parity p and cohomological degree n acquiring the parity p + n, and keeping
its cohomological degree.
On the underlying vector space,
I and
II are both the usual tensor product. For v
in V p;n and w in W q;m ,  is dened as

: v
w 7 ! ( 1)nq v
w:

The compatibility with the commutativity isomorphisms is the commutativity of the

diagram
( 1)nq
!
? ?
( 1)pq nm ?
+
y ?
y( 1) p n q m)
( + )( +

( 1)mp
! .
The compatibility with the associativity isomorphisms comes from the identity

n1(p2 + p3) + n2 p3 = n1p2 + (n1 + n2)p3 :

The functor \associated simply ( mod 2) graded" s is the composite of es with the
functor \forgetting the cohomological degree" to super vector spaces.
4
Example. Let A be a graded mod 2 graded algebra (point of view I). It is given by a
multiplication

: A
A ! A:
Applying s, we obtain a super algebra, with a of parity p and cohomological degree n
becoming of parity p + n. The new product

: s(A)
s(A)  s(A
A) s(!

)
s(A)
is

x  y = ( 1)nq x:y
for x in Ap;n and y in Aq;m .
The same applies to graded mod 2 graded modules.
Example: the already mentioned case of the Kahler dierential of A.
Example: the Berezinian. For V a super vector space, considering V as a space leads to
consider the super algebra Sym(V  ) of functions on \V , viewed as a space". More generally,
let V be a free super module of nite rank (p; q) on a commutative super ring A. One has
an augmentation SymA(V ) ! A, and
Ber(V ) := ExtSymA (V  )(A; SymA(V  )):
Those Ext are best considered as given by the derived functor of the functor Hom(A; ),
identied with the functor from SymA (V )-modules to A-modules: M 7! the sub-A-module
of elements of M annihilated by the augmentation ideal.
The only non zero Ext is Extp. It is a free A-module of dimension (1; 0) for q even,
(0; 1) for q odd. Cohomological degree is p.
Basic examples: For SymA (V  ) = A[T ], Ext can be computed using the following resolu-
tion of A[T ], pictured as a quasi-isomorphism of complexes
A?[T ] A?[T ]
?y : ?
y
K A[T; T 1 ] ! A[T; T 1 ]=A[T ] :
5
 This resolution is not injective, but it is good enough: Exti (A; K j ) = 0 for i > 0, as can
be seen by using the projective resolutions A[T ] T! A[T ] of the A[T ]-module A, and this
ensures that for any injective resolution K 0 and any morphism of resolutions : K ! K 0 ,
 induces an isomorphism, which is independent of ,

H  HomA[T ] (A; K ) ! H  HomA[T ] (A; K 0 ) :

A basis of Ext1 is the image of T 1 2 A[T; T 1 ]=A[T ]. For SymA (V  ) = A[], no resolution
is necessary. A basis of Ext0 is .
For (Vi )i2I a nite family of free modules, by the associativity and commutativity
isomorphisms for , one can dene the direct sum of the Vi without having rst to choose
an ordering of I . Similarly, by the associativity and commutativity isomorphisms for
,
for the tensor product of the Ber(Vi ), viewed as graded super modules (point of view I).
A Kunneth formula gives a canonical isomorphism

Ber(Vi) '
Ber(Vi ) :

If V is ltered, a splitting of the ltration gives a direct sum decomposition V ! GriF (V )

and the resulting isomorphism

Ber(V ) !
Ber(GriV (V ))

does not depend on the choice of the splitting.

The compatibilities to which those constructions obeys involve no sign. Trouble begins
when one wants to name an element of
Ber(Vi ): a family of bi 2 Ber(Vi ) dene an element

bi of
Ber(Vi ) only once an ordering of I has been chosen, and for dierent orderings,

bi maps to dierent elements, according ot the sign rule. In other words: trouble begins
when one starts writing formuli, as formuli name elements. Written text is linear, and it
is the usage that the linear order of a formula gives the linear order of I which is used.
Applying to Ber the functor \associated simply mod 2 graded" s, one obtains
ber(V ) := sBer(V ). It is a free A-module of rank (1; 0) or (0; 1), depending on the parity
of p + q;, and it obeys the same compatibility formalism.
6
Example: densities. On a supermanifold W of dimension (p; q), the line bundle of densi-
ties is the tensor product of the orientation local system with Ber(T _), for T the tangent
bundle. It is natural to give the orientation local system cohomological degree p: the line
bundle of densities has dimension (0; 1) or (0; 1), depending on the parity of q, and its
cohomological degree zero.
With these conventions, the integration of densities with compact support is an even
map.