Let $M$ be a differentiable manifold of dimension $n$. First I give two definitions of Orientability.


The first definition should coincide with what is given in most differential topology text books, for instance Warner's book. 



> 
> Orientability using differential forms: There exists a nowhere vanishing differential form $\omega$ of degree $n$ on $M$.
> 
> 
> 


The second one is from Greenberg and Harper, "Algebraic Topology". This is the "fundamental class" approach. Let $x$ be a point on $X$, and let $R$ be a commutative ring and in the following the homologies are with coefficients in $R$.



> 
> Local orientability: A local $R$ orientation of $X$ at $x$ is a choice of a generator of the $R$-module $H\_n(X, X-x)$.
> 
> 
> 


By a simple application of Excision, it is seen that the above homology module is indeed isomorphic to $R$. We can also so arrange a neighborhood around every point that this local orientation can be "continued to a neighborhood" and is "coherent". Forgive me for being imprecise here; the detailed lemmas are in the reference given above. With this background in mind, we define:



> 
> A Global $R$-orientation of $X$ consists of: 1. A family $U\_i$ of open sets covering of $X$, 2. For each $i$, a local orientation $\alpha\_i \in H\_n(X, X -U\_i)$ of along $X$, such that a "compatibility condition" holds.
> 
> 
> 


Here again I am imprecise about the compatibility condition; please check in the reference given above for details. I mean this basically as a question for those who already know both the definitions, as fully writing down the second definition would take 2-3 pages with all the necessary lemmas.


Also we define "orientation" to be a such a global choice.


Now the question:



> 
> How do the two definitions, the first one using differential forms, and the second one using homology, match?
> 
> 
> 


Of course, to match we have to take $\mathbb{Z}$ to be the base ring for homology. A related question is about the meaning of orientability and orientation when we take a base ring other than $\mathbb{Z}$. It is nice when the base ring is $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$; every manifold is orientable. But what on earth does it mean to have $4$ possible orientations for the circle or real line for instance, when you take the base ring to be $\mathbb{Z}/5\mathbb{Z}$?


Also I ask, are there any additional ways to define orientability/orientation for a differentiable manifold(not just for a vector space)?



Two kinds of orientability/orientation for a differentiable manifold
If $X$ is a differentiable manifold, so that both notions are defined, then they coincide.


The ``patching'' of local orientations that you describe can be expressed more formally as follows: there is a locally constant sheaf $\omega\_R$ of $R$-modules on $X$ whose stalk at a point is $H^n(X,X\setminus\{x\}; R).$ Of course, $\omega\_R = R\otimes\_{\mathbb Z} \omega\_{\mathbb Z}$.


This sheaf is called the orientation sheaf, and appears in the formulation of Poincare duality for not-necessarily orientable manifolds. It is not the case that  *any* section of this sheaf gives an orientation. (For example, we always have the zero section.)
I think the usual definition would be something like a section which generates each stalk.


I will now work just with $\mathbb Z$ coefficients, and write $\omega = \omega\_{\mathbb Z}$.


Since the stalks of $\omega$ are free of rank one over $\mathbb Z$, to patch them together you
end up giving a 1-cocyle with values in $GL\_1({\mathbb Z}) = \{\pm 1\}.$ Thus underlying 
$\omega$ there is a more elemental sheaf, a locally constant sheaf that is a principal bundle for $\{\pm 1\}$. Equivalently, such a thing is just a degree two (not necessarily connected) covering space
of $X$, and it is precisely the orientation double cover of $X$.


Now giving a section of $\omega$ that generates each stalk, i.e. giving an orientation of $X$, is precisely the same as giving a section of the orientation double cover (and so $X$ is orientable, i.e. admits an orientation, precisely when the orientation double cover is disconnected).


Instead of cutting down from a locally constant rank 1 sheaf over $\mathbb Z$ to just a double cover, we could also build up to get some bigger sheaves.


For example, there is the sheaf $\mathcal{C}\_X^{\infty}$ of smooth functions on $X$.
We can form the tensor product $\mathcal{C}\_X^{\infty} \otimes\_{\mathbb Z} \omega,$
to get a locally free sheaf of rank one over ${\mathcal C}^{\infty}$, or equivalently, the sheaf of sections of a line bundle on $X$. This is precisely the line bundle of top-dimensional forms on $X$.


If we give a section of $\omega$ giving rise to an orientation of $X$, call it $\sigma$, then we certainly get a nowhere-zero section
of $\mathcal{C}\_X^{\infty} \otimes\_{\mathbb Z} \omega$, namely $1\otimes\sigma$.


On the other hand, if we have a nowhere zero section of $\mathcal{C}\_X^{\infty} \otimes\_{\mathbb Z}
\omega$, then locally (say on the the members of some cover $\{U\_i\}$ of $X$ by open balls) it has the form $f\_i\otimes\sigma\_i,$ where $f\_i$ is a nowhere zero real-valued function on $U\_i$ and $\sigma\_i$ is a generator of $\omega\_{| U\_i}.$


Since $f\_i$ is nowhere zero, it is either always positive or always negative; write
$\epsilon\_i$ to denote its sign. It is then easy to see that sections $\epsilon\_i\sigma\_i$
of $\omega$ glue together to give a section $\sigma$ of $X$ that provides an orientation.


One also sees that two different nowhere-zero volume forms will give rise to the same orientation if and only if their ratio is an everywhere positive function. 


This reconciles the two notions.


