This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/76007684/MishasThing
12/18/2011
text
original
What
Are We? Where Are We Going
Misha Gromov
September 13, 2010
Contents
1 Ideas and Deﬁnitions. 2
2 Homotopies and Obstructions. 4
3 Generic Pullbacks. 9
4 Duality and the Signature. 12
5 The Signature and Bordisms. 25
6 Exotic Spheres. 36
7 Isotopies and Intersections. 39
8 Handles and hCobordisms. 46
9 Manifolds under Surgery. 49
1
10 Elliptic Wings and Parabolic Flows. 53
11 Crystals, Liposomes and Drosophila. 58
12 Acknowledgments. 63
13 Bibliography. 63
Abstract
Descendants of algebraic kingdoms of high dimensions, enchanted by
the magic of Thurston and Donaldson, lost in the whirlpools of the Ricci
ﬂow, topologists dream of an ideal land of manifolds – perfect crystals of
mathematical structure which would capture our vague mental images of
geometric spaces. We browse through the ideas inherited from the past
hoping to penetrate through the fog which conceals the future.
1 Ideas and Deﬁnitions.
We are fascinated by knots and links. Where does this feeling of beauty and
mystery come from? To get a glimpse at the answer let us move by 25 million
years in time.
25 × 10
6
is, roughly, what separates us from orangutans: 12 million years to
our common ancestor on the phylogenetic tree and then 12 million years back
by another branch of the tree to the present day orangutans.
But are there topologists among orangutans?
Yes, there deﬁnitely are: many orangutans are good at ”proving” the triv
iality of elaborate knots, e.g. they fast master the art of untying boats from
their mooring when they fancy taking rides downstream in a river, much to the
annoyance of people making these knots with a diﬀerent purpose in mind.
A more amazing observation was made by a zoopsychologist Anne Russon
in mid 90’s at Wanariset Orangutan Reintroduction Project (see p. 114 in [68]).
”... Kinoi [a juvenile male orangutan], when he was in a possession of a
hose, invested every second in making giant hoops, carefully inserting one end
of his hose into the other and jamming it in tight. Once he’d made his hoop,
he passed various parts of himself back and forth through it – an arm, his head,
his feet, his whole torso – as if completely fascinated with idea of going through
the hole.”
Playing with hoops and knots, where there is no visible goal or any practical
gain – be it an ape or a 3Dtopologist – appears fully ”nonintelligent” to a
practically minded observer. But we, geometers, feel thrilled at seeing an animal
whose space perception is so similar to ours.
2
It is unlikely, however, that Kinoi would formulate his ideas the way we
do and that, unlike our students, he could be easily intimidated into accepting
”equivalence classes of atlases” and ”ringed spaces” as appropriate deﬁnitions
of his topological playground. (Despite such display of disobedience, we would
enjoy the company of young orangutans; they are charmingly playful creatures,
unlike the aggressive and reckless chimpanzees – our nearest evolutionary neigh
bors.)
Apart from topology, orangutans do not rush to accept another human def
inition, namely that of ”tools”, as of
”external detached objects (to exclude a branch used for climbing a tree)
employed for reaching speciﬁc goals”.
(The use of tools is often taken by zoopsychologists for a measure of ”intel
ligence” of an animal.)
Being imaginative arboreal creatures, orangutans prefer a broader deﬁnition:
For example (see [68]):
● they bunch up leaves to make wipers to clean their bodies without detach
ing the leaves from a tree;
● they often break branches but deliberately leave them attached to trees
when it suits their purposes – these could not have been achieved if orangutans
were bound by the ”detached” deﬁnition.
Morale. Our best deﬁnitions, e.g. that of a manifold, tower as prominent
landmarks over our former insights. Yet, we should not be hypnotized by deﬁ
nitions. After all, they are remnants of the past and tend to misguide us when
we try to probe the future.
Remark. There is a nontrivial similarity between the neurological structures
underlying the behaviour of playful animals and that of working mathematicians
(see [31]).
3
2 Homotopies and Obstructions.
For more than half a century, starting from Poincar´e, topologists have been
laboriously stripping their beloved science of its geometric garments.
”Naked topology”, reinforced by homological algebra, reached its today
breathtakingly high plateau with the following
Serre S
n+N
→ S
N
Finiteness Theorem. (1951) There are at most
ﬁnitely many homotopy classes of maps between spheres S
n+N
→ S
N
but for
the two exceptions:
● equividimensional case where n = 0 π
N
(S
N
) = Z; the homotopy class of a
map S
N
→ S
N
in this case is determined by an integer that is the degree of a
map.
(Brouwer 1912, Hopf 1926. We deﬁne degree in section 4.) This is expressed
in the standard notation by writing
π
N
(S
N
) = Z.
● Hopf case, where N is even and n = 2N −1. In this case π
2N−1
(S
N
) contains
a subgroup of ﬁnite index isomorphic to Z.
It follows that
the homotopy groups π
n+N
(S
N
) are ﬁnite for N >> n,
where, by the Freudenthal suspension theorem of 1928 (this is easy),
the groups π
n+N
(S
N
) for N ≥ n do not depend on N.
These are called the stable homotopy groups of spheres and are denoted π
st
n
.
H. Hopf proved in 1931 that the map f ∶ S
3
→ S
2
= S
3
]T, for the group
T ⊂ C of the complex numbers with norm one which act on S
3
⊂ C
2
by (z
1
, z
2
) ↦
(tz
1
, tz
2
), is noncontractible.
In general, the unit tangent bundle X = UT(S
2k
) →S
2k
has ﬁnite homology
H
i
(X) for 0 < i < 4k − 1. By Serre’s theorem, there exists a map S
4k−1
→ X of
positive degree and the composed map S
4k−1
→ X → S
2k
generates an inﬁnite
cyclic group of ﬁnite index in π
4k−1
(S
2k
).
The proof by Serre – a geometer’s nightmare – consists in tracking a multi
tude of linearalgebraic relations between the homology and homotopy groups
of inﬁnite dimensional spaces of maps between spheres and it tells you next to
nothing about the geometry of these maps. (See [58] for a ”semigeometric”
proof of the ﬁniteness of the stable homotopy groups of spheres and section 5
4
of this article for a related discussion. Also, the construction in [23] may be
relevant.)
Recall that the set of the homotopy classes of maps of a sphere S
M
to
a connected space X makes a group denoted π
M
(X), (π is for Poincar´e who
deﬁned the fundamental group π
1
) where the deﬁnition of the group structure
depends on distinguished points x
0
∈ X and s
0
∈ S
M
. (The groups π
M
deﬁned
with diﬀerent x
0
are mutually isomorphic, and if X is simply connected, i.e.
π
1
(X) = 1, then they are canonically isomorphic.)
This point in S
M
may be chosen with the representation of S
M
as the one
point compactiﬁcation of the Euclidean space R
M
, denoted R
M
●
, where this
inﬁnity point ● is taken for s
0
. It is convenient, instead of maps S
m
= R
m
●
→
(X, x
0
), to deal with maps f ∶ R
M
→ X ”with compact supports”, where the
support of an f is the closure of the (open) subset supp(f) = supp
x
0
(f) ⊂ R
m
which consists of the points s ∈ R
m
such that f(s) ≠ x
0
.
A pair of maps f
1
, f
2
∶ R
M
→ X with disjoint compact supports obviously
deﬁnes ”the joint map” f ∶ R
M
→X, where the homotopy class of f (obviously)
depends only on those of f
1
, f
2
, provided supp(f
1
) lies in the left half space
¦s
1
< 0¦ ⊂ R
m
and supp(f
2
) ⊂ ¦s
1
> 0¦ ⊂ R
M
, where s
1
is a nonzero linear
function (coordinate) on R
M
.
The composition of the homotopy classes of two maps, denoted f
1
 ⋅ f
2
,
is deﬁned as the homotopy class of the joint of f
1
moved far to the left with f
2
moved far to the right.
Geometry is sacriﬁced here for the sake of algebraic convenience: ﬁrst, we
break the symmetry of the sphere S
M
by choosing a base point, and then we
destroy the symmetry of R
M
by the choice of s
1
. If M = 1, then there are
essentially two choices: s
1
and −s
1
, which correspond to interchanging f
1
with
f
2
– nothing wrong with this as the composition is, in general, noncommutative.
In general M ≥ 2, these s
1
≠ 0 are, homotopically speaking, parametrized
by the unit sphere S
M−1
⊂ R
M
. Since S
M−1
is connected for M ≥ 2, the
composition is commutative and, accordingly, the composition in π
i
for i ≥ 2 is
denoted f
1
 + f
2
. Good for algebra, but the O(M + 1)ambiguity seems too
great a price for this. (An algebraist would respond to this by pointing out that
the ambiguity is resolved in the language of operads or something else of this
kind.)
But this is, probably, unavoidable. For example, the best you can do for
maps S
M
→S
M
in a given nontrivial homotopy class is to make them symmet
ric (i.e. equivariant) under the action of the maximal torus T
k
in the orthogonal
group O(M + 1), where k = M]2 for even M and k = (M + 1)]2 for M odd.
And if n ≥ 1, then, with a few exceptions, there are no apparent symmetric
representatives in the homotopy classes of maps S
n+N
→S
N
; yet Serre’s theorem
does carry a geometric message.
If n ≠ 0, N − 1, then every continuous map f
0
∶ S
n+N
→ S
N
is homotopic to
a map f
1
∶ S
n+N
→S
N
of dilation bounded by a constant,
dil(f
1
) =
def
sup
s
1
≠s
2
∈S
n+N
dist(f(s
1
), f(s
2
))
dist(s
1
, s
2
)
≤ const(n, N).
Dilation Questions. (1) What is the asymptotic behaviour of const(n, N)
for n, N →∞?
5
For all we know the Serre dilation constant const
S
(n, N) may be bounded
for n → ∞ and, say, for 1 ≤ N ≤ n − 2, but a bound one can see oﬀhand is that
by an exponential tower (1 + c)
(1+c)
(1+c)
...
, of height N, since each geometric
implementation of the homotopy lifting property in a Serre ﬁbrations may bring
along an exponential dilation. Probably, the (questionably) geometric approach
to the Serre theorem via ”singular bordisms” (see [75], [23],[1] and section 5)
delivers a better estimate.
(2) Let f ∶ S
n+N
→S
N
be a contractible map of dilation d, e.g. f equals the
mmultiple of another map where m is divisible by the order of π
n+N
(S
N
).
What is, roughly, the minimum D
min
= D(d, n, N) of dilations of maps F of
the unit ball B
n+N+1
→S
N
which are equal to f on ∂(B
n+N+1
) = S
n+N
?
Of course, this dilation is the most naive invariant measuring the ”geometric
size of a map”. Possibly, an interesting answer to these questions needs a more
imaginative deﬁnition of ”geometric size/shape” of a map, e.g. in the spirit of
the minimal degrees of polynomials representing such a map.
Serre’s theorem and its descendants underly most of the topology of the
high dimensional manifolds. Below are frequently used corollaries which relate
homotopy problems concerning general spaces X to the homology groups H
i
(X)
(see section 4 for deﬁnitions) which are much easier to handle.
S
n+N
→ XTheorems. Let X be a compact connected triangulated or
cellular space, (deﬁned below) or, more generally, a connected space with ﬁnitely
generated homology groups H
i
(X), i = 1, 2, ... . If the space X is simply con
nected, i.e. π
1
(X) = 1, then its homotopy groups have the following properties.
(1) Finite Generation. The groups π
m
(X) are (Abelian!) ﬁnitely generated
for all m = 2, 3, ....
(2) Sphericity. If π
i
(X) = 0 for i = 1, 2, N − 1, then the (obvious) Hurewicz
homomorphism
π
N
(X) →H
N
(X),
which assigns, to a map S
N
→ X, the Ncycle represented by this Nsphere in
X, is an isomorphism. (This is elementary, Hurewicz 1935.)
(3) QSphericity. If the groups π
i
(X) are ﬁnite for i = 2, N−1 (recall that we
assume π
1
(X) = 1), then the Hurewicz homomorphism tensored with rational
numbers,
π
N+n
(X) ⊗Q →H
N+n
(X) ⊗Q,
is an isomorphism for n = 1, ..., N − 2.
Because of the ﬁnite generation property, The Qsphericity is equivalent to
(3’) Serre mSphericity Theorem. Let the groups π
i
(X) be ﬁnite (e.g.
trivial) for i = 1, 2, ..., N − 1 and n ≤ N − 2. Then
an mmultiple of every (N +n)cycle in X for some m ≠ 0 is homologous to
an (N + n)sphere continuously mapped to X;
every two homologous spheres S
N+n
→X become homotopic when composed
with a noncontractible i.e. of degree m ≠ 0, selfmapping S
n+N
→ S
n+N
. In
more algebraic terms, the elements s
1
, s
2
∈ π
n+N
(X) represented by these spheres
satisfy ms
1
− ms
2
= 0.
The following is the dual of the mSphericity.
6
Serre → S
N

Q
 Theorem. Let X be a compact triangulated space of
dimension n + N, where either N is odd or n < N − 1.
Then a nonzero multiple of every homomorphism H
N
(X) → H
N
(S
N
) can
be realized by a continuous map X →S
N
.
If two continuous maps are f, g ∶ X → S
N
are homologous, i.e. if the ho
mology homomorphisms f
∗
, g
∗
∶ H
N
(X) → H
N
(S
N
) = Z are equal, then there
exists a continuous selfmapping σ ∶ S
N
→ S
N
of nonzero degree such that the
composed maps σ ○ f and σ ○ f ∶ X →S
N
are homotopic.
These Qtheorems follow from the Serre ﬁniteness theorem for maps between
spheres by an elementary argument of induction by skeletons and rudimentary
obstruction theory which run, roughly, as follows.
Cellular and Triangulated Spaces. Recall that a cellular space is a
topological space X with an ascending (ﬁnite or inﬁnite) sequence of closed
subspaces X
0
⊂ X
1
⊂ ... ⊂ X
i
⊂ ... called he iskeleta of X, such that ⋃
i
(X
i
) = X
and such that
X
0
is a discrete ﬁnite or countable subset.
every X
i
, i > 0 is obtained by attaching a countably (or ﬁnitely) many iballs
B
i
to X
i−1
by continuous maps of the boundaries S
i−1
= ∂(B
i
) of these balls to
X
i−1
.
For example, if X is a triangulated space then it comes with homeomorphic
embeddings of the isimplices ∆
i
→X
i
extending their boundary maps, ∂(∆
i
) →
X
i−1
⊂ X
i
where one additionally requires (here the word ”simplex”, which is,
topologically speaking, is indistinguishable from B
i
, becomes relevant) that the
intersection of two such simplices ∆
i
and ∆
j
imbedded into X is a simplex ∆
k
which is a face simplex in ∆
i
⊃ ∆
k
and in ∆
j
⊃ ∆
k
.
If X is a nonsimplicial cellular space, we also have continuous maps B
i
→X
i
but they are, in general, embeddings only on the interiors B
i
∖∂(B
i
), since the
attaching maps ∂(B
i
) → X
i−1
are not necessarily injective. Nevertheless, the
images of B
i
in X are called closed cells, and denoted B
i
⊂ X
i
, where the union
of all these icells equals X
i
.
Observe that the homotopy equivalence class of X
i
is determined by that
of X
i−1
and by the homotopy classes of maps from the spheres S
i−1
= ∂(B
i
)
to X
i−1
. We are free to take any maps S
i−1
→ X
i−1
we wish in assembling a
cellular X which make cells more eﬃcient building blocks of general spaces than
simplices.
For example, the sphere S
n
can be made of a 0cell and a single ncell.
If X
i−1
= S
l
for some l ≤ i−1 (one has l < i−1 if there is no cells of dimensions
between l and i − 1) then the homotopy equivalence classes of X
i
with a single
icell onetoone correspond to the homotopy group π
i−1
(S
l
).
On the other hand, every cellular space can be approximated by a homotopy
equivalent simplicial one, which is done by induction on skeletons X
i
with an
approximation of continuous attaching maps by simplicial maps from (i − 1)
spheres to X
i−1
.
Recall that a homotopy equivalence between X
1
and X
2
is given by a pair
of maps f
12
∶ X
1
→ X
2
and f
21
∶ X
2
→ X
1
, such that both composed maps
f
12
○ f
21
∶ X
1
→X
1
and f
21
○ f
12
∶ X
2
→X
2
are homotopic to the identity.
Obstructions and Cohomology. Let Y be a connected space such that
π
i
(Y ) = 0 for i = 1, ..., n − 1 ≥ 1, let f ∶ X → Y be a continuous map and let
7
us construct, by induction on i = 0, 1, ..., n − 1, a map f
new
∶ X → Y which is
homotopic to f and which sends X
n−1
to a point y
0
∈ Y as follows.
Assume f(X
i−1
) = y
0
. Then the resulting map B
i
f
→ Y , for each icell B
i
from X
i
, makes an isphere in Y , because the boundary ∂B
i
⊂ X
i−1
goes to a
single point – our to y
0
in Y .
Since π
i
(Y ) = 0, this B
i
in Y can be contracted to y
0
without disturbing its
boundary. We do it all icells from X
i
and, thus, contract X
i
to y
0
. (One can
not, in general, extend a continuous map from a closed subset X
′
⊂ X to X, but
one always can extend a continuous homotopy f
′
t
∶ X
′
→ Y , t ∈ 0, 1, of a given
map f
0
∶ X → Y , f
0
X
′
= f
′
0
, to a homotopy f
t
∶ X → Y for all closed subsets
X
′
⊂ X, similarly to how one extends Rvalued functions from X
′
⊂ X to X.)
The contraction of X to a point in Y can be obstructed on the nth step,
where π
n
(Y ) ≠ 0, and where each oriented ncell B
n
⊂ X mapped to Y with
∂(B
n
) → y
0
represents an element c ∈ π
n
(Y ) which may be nonzero. (When
we switch an orientation in B
n
, then c ↦−c.)
We assume at this point, that our space X is a triangulated one, switch from
B
n
to ∆
n
and observe that the function c(∆
n
) is (obviously) an ncocycle in X
with values in the group π
n
(Y ), which means (this is what is longer to explain
for general cell spaces) that the sum of c(∆
n
) over the n+2 facesimplices ∆
n
⊂
∂∆
n+1
equals zero, for all ∆
n+1
in the triangulation (if we canonically/correctly
choose orientations in all ∆
n
).
The cohomology class c ∈ H
n
(X; π
n
(X)) of this cocycle does not depend
(by an easy argument) on how the (n − 1)skeleton was contracted. Moreover,
every cocycle c
′
in the class of c can be obtained by a homotopy of the map
on X
n
which is kept constant on X
n−2
. (Two Avalued ncocycles c and c
′
,
for an abelian group A, are in the same cohomology class if there exists an
Avalued function d(∆
n−1
) on the oriented simplices ∆
n−1
⊂ X
n−1
, such that
∑
∆
n−1
⊂∆
n d(∆
n−1
) = c(∆
n
) − c
′
(∆
n
) for all ∆
n
. The set of the cohomology
classes of ncocycles with a natural additive structure is called the cohomology
group H
n
(X; A). It can be shown that H
n
(X; A) depends only on X but not an
a particular choice of a triangulation of X. See section 4 for a lighter geometric
deﬁnitions of homology and cohomology.)
In particular, if dim(X) = n we, thus, equate the set X → Y  of the ho
motopy classes of maps X → Y with the cohomology group H
n
(X; π
n
(X)).
Furthermore, this argument applied to X = S
n
shows that π
n
(X) = H
n
(X)
and, in general, that
the set of the homotopy classes of maps X → Y equals the set of homomor
phisms H
n
(X) →H
n
(Y ), provided π
i
(Y ) = 0 for 0 < i < dim(X).
Finally, when we use this construction for proving the above Qtheorems
where one of the spaces is a sphere, we keep composing our maps with self
mappings of this sphere of suitable degree m ≠ 0 that kills the obstructions by
the Serre ﬁniteness theorem.
For example, if X is a ﬁnite cellular space without 1cells, one can deﬁne the
homotopy multiple l
∗
X, for every integer l, by replacing the attaching maps of all
(i+1)cells, S
i
→X
i
, by l
k
i
multiples of these maps in π
i
(X
i
) for k
2
<< k
3
<< ...,
where this l
∗
X comes along with a map l
∗
X → X which induces isomorphisms
on all homotopy groups tensored with Q.
The obstruction theory (developed by Eilenberg in 1940 following Pontrya
gin’s 1938 paper) well displays the logic of algebraic topology: the geometric
8
symmetry of X (if there was any) is broken by an arbitrary triangulation or
a cell decomposition and then another kind of symmetry, an Abelian algebraic
one, emerges on the (co)homology level.
(See [56] for a comprehensive overview of algebraic and geometric topology.)
Serre’s idea is that the homotopy types of ﬁnite simply connected cell com
plexes as well as of ﬁnite diagrams of continuous maps between these are ﬁnitary
arithmetic objects which can be encoded by ﬁnitely many polynomial equations
and nonequalities with integer coeﬃcients, and where the structural organiza
tion of the homotopy theory depends on nonﬁnitary objects which are inductive
limits of ﬁnitary ones, such as the homotopy types of spaces of continuous maps
between ﬁnite cell spaces.
3 Generic Pullbacks.
A common zero set of N smooth (i.e. inﬁnitely diﬀerentiable) functions f
i
∶
R
n+N
→ R, i = 1, ...N, may be very nasty even for N = 1 – every closed subset
in R
n+1
can be represented as a zero of a smooth function. However, if the
functions f
i
are taken in general position, then the common zero set is a smooth
nsubmanifold in R
n+N
.
Here and below, ”f in general position” or ”generic f”, where f is an element
of a topological space F, e.g. of the space of C
∞
maps with the C
∞
topology,
means that what we say about f applies to all f in an open and dense subset
in F. (Sometimes, one allows not only open dense sets in the deﬁnition of
genericity but also their countable intersections.)
Generic smooth (unlike continuous) objects are as nice as we expect them
to be; the proofs of this ”niceness” are localanalytic and elementary (at least
in the cases we need); everything trivially follows from Sard’s theorem + the
implicit function theorem.
The representation of manifolds with functions generalizes as follows..
Generic Pullback Construction (Pontryagin 1938, Thom 1954). Start
with a smooth Nmanifold V , e.g. V = R
N
or V = S
N
, and let X
0
⊂ V be
a smooth submanifold, e.g. 0 ∈ R
N
or a point x
0
∈ S
N
. Let W be a smooth
manifold of dimension M, e.g. M = n + N.
if f ∶ W →V is a generic smooth map, then the pullback X = f
−1
(X
0
) ⊂ W is
a smooth submanifold in W with codim
W
(X) = codim
V
(X
0
), i.e. M−dim(X) =
N − dim(X
0
).
Moreover, if the manifolds W, V and X
0
are oriented, then X comes with
a natural orientation.
Furthermore, if W has a boundary then X is a smooth submanifold in W
with a boundary ∂(X) ⊂ ∂(W).
Examples. (a) Let f ∶ W ⊂ V ⊃ X
0
be a smooth, possibly nongeneric,
embedding of W into V . Then a small generic perturbation f
′
∶ W → V of
f remains an embedding, such that image W
′
= f
′
(W) ⊂ V in V becomes
transversal (i.e. nowhere tangent) to X
0
. One sees with the full geometric
clarity (with a picture of two planes in the 3space which intersect at a line)
that the intersection X = W
′
∩ X
0
(= (f
′
)
−1
(X
0
)) is a submanifold in V with
codim
V
(X) = codim
V
(W) + codim
V
(X
0
).
9
(b) Let f ∶ S
3
→S
2
be a smooth map and S
1
, S
2
∈ S
3
be the pullbacks of two
generic points s
1
, s
2
∈ S
2
. These S
i
are smooth closed curves; they are naturally
oriented, granted orientations in S
2
and in S
3
.
Let D
i
⊂ B
4
= ∂(S
3
), i = 1, 2, be generic smooth oriented surfaces in the ball
B
4
⊃ S
3
= ∂(B
4
) with their oriented boundaries equal S
i
and let h(f) denote
the intersection index (deﬁned in the next section) between D
i
.
Suppose, the map f is homotopic to zero, extend it to a smooth generic map
ϕ ∶ B
4
→S
2
and take the ϕpullbacks D
ϕ
i
= ϕ
−1
(s
i
) ⊂ B
4
of s
i
.
Let S
4
be the 4sphere obtained from the two copies of B
4
by identifying
the boundaries of the balls and let C
i
= D
i
∪ D
ϕ
i
⊂ S
4
.
Since ∂(D
i
) = ∂(D
ϕ
i
) = S
i
, these C
i
are closed surfaces; hence, the intersec
tion index between them equals zero (because they are homologous to zero in
S
4
, see the next section), and since D
ϕ
i
do not intersect, the intersection index
h(f) between D
i
is also zero.
It follows that nonvanishing of the Hopf invariant h(f) implies that f is
nonhomotopic to zero.
For instance, the Hopf map S
3
→ S
2
is noncontractible, since every two
transversal ﬂat dicks D
i
⊂ B
4
⊂ C
2
bounding equatorial circles S
i
⊂ S
3
intersect
at a single point.
The essential point of the seemingly trivial pullback construction, is that
starting from ”simple manifolds” X
0
⊂ V and W, we produce complicated and
more interesting ones by means of ”complicated maps” W → V . (It is next
to impossible to make an interesting manifold with the ”equivalence class of
atlases” deﬁnition.)
For example, if V = R, and our maps are functions on W, we can generate
lots of them by using algebraic and analytic manipulations with functions and
then we obtain maps to R
N
by taking Ntuples of functions.
And less obvious (smooth generic) maps, for all kind of V and W, come as
smooth generic approximations of continuous maps W → V delivered by the
algebraic topology.
Following Thom (1954) one applies the above to maps into one point com
pactiﬁcations V
●
of open manifolds V where one still can speak of generic pull
backs of smooth submanifolds X
0
in V ⊂ V
●
under maps W →V
●
Thom spaces. The Thom space of an Nvector bundle V → X
0
over a
compact space X
0
(where the pullbacks of all points x ∈ X
0
are Euclidean spaces
R
N
x
= R
N
) is the one point compactiﬁcations V
●
of V , where X
0
is canonically
embedded into V ⊂ V
●
as the zero section of the bundle (i.e. x ↦0 ∈ R
N
x
).
If X = X
n
⊂ W = W
n+N
is a smooth submanifold, then the total space of its
normal bundle denoted U
⊥
→X is (almost canonically) diﬀeomorphic to a small
(normal) εneighbourhood U(ε) ⊂ W of X, where every εball B
N
(ε) = B
N
x
(ε)
normal to X at x ∈ X is radially mapped to the ﬁber R
N
= R
N
x
of U
⊥
→X at x.
Thus the Thom space U
⊥
●
is identiﬁed with U(ε)
●
and the tautological map
W
●
→ U(ε)
●
, that equals the identity on U(ε) ⊂ W and sends the complement
W ∖ U(ε) to ● ∈ U(ε)
●
, deﬁnes the AtiyahThom map for all closed smooth
submanifold X ⊂ W,
A
⊥
●
∶ W
●
→U
⊥
●
.
Recall that every R
N
bundle over an ndimensional space with n < N, can
be induced from the tautological bundle V over the Grassmann manifold X
0
=
10
Gr
N
(R
n+N
) of Nplanes (i.e. linear Nsubspaces in R
n+N
) by a continuous
map, say G ∶ X →X
0
= Gr
N
(R
n+N
).
For example, if X ⊂ R
n+N
, one can take the normal Gauss map for G that
sends x ∈ X to the Nplane G(x) ∈ Gr
N
(R
n+N
) = X
0
which is parallel to the
normal space of X at x.
Since the Thom space construction is, obviously, functorial, every U
⊥
bundle
inducing map X → X
0
= Gr
N
(R
n+N
) for X = X
n
⊂ W = W
n+N
, deﬁnes a map
U
⊥
●
→V
●
and this, composed with A
⊥
●
, gives us the Thom map
T
●
∶ W
●
→V
●
for the tautological Nbundle V →X
0
= Gr
N
(R
n+N
).
Since all nmanifolds can be (obviously) embedded (by generic smooth maps)
into Euclidean spaces R
n+N
, N >> n, every closed, i.e. compact without bound
ary, nmanifold X comes from the generic pullback construction applied to maps
f from S
n+N
= R
n+N
●
to the Thom space V
●
of the canonical Nvector bundle
V →X
0
= Gr
N
(R
n+N
),
X = f
−1
(X
0
) for generic f ∶ S
n+N
→V
●
⊃ X
0
= Gr
N
(R
n+N
).
In a way, Thom has discovered the source of all manifolds in the world
and responded to the question ”Where are manifolds coming from?” with the
following
1954 Answer. All closed smooth nmanifolds X come as pullbacks of the
Grassmannians X
0
= Gr
N
(R
n+N
) in the ambient Thom spaces V
●
⊃ X
0
under
generic smooth maps S
n+N
→V
●
.
The manifolds X obtained with the generic pullback construction come with
a grain of salt: generic maps are abundant but it is hard to put your ﬁnger on
any one of them – we can not say much about topology and geometry of an
individual X. (It seems, one can not put all manifolds in one basket without
some ”random string” attached to it.)
But, empowered with Serre’s theorem, this construction unravels an amazing
structure in the ”space of all manifolds” (Before Serre, Pontryagin and following
him Rokhlin proceeded in the reverse direction by applying smooth manifolds
to the homotopy theory via the Pontryagin construction.)
Selecting an object X, e.g. a submanifold, from a given collection X of
similar objects, where there is no distinguished member X
⋆
among them, is a
notoriously diﬃcult problem which had been known since antiquity and can be
traced to De Cael of Aristotle. It reappeared in 14th century as Buridan’s ass
problem and as Zermelo’s choice problem at the beginning of 20th century.
A geometer/analyst tries to select an X by ﬁrst ﬁnding/constructing a ”value
function” on X and then by taking the ”optimal” X. For example, one may go
for nsubmanifolds X of minimal volumes in an (n + N)manifold W endowed
with a Riemannian metric. However, minimal manifolds X are usually singular
except for hypersurfaces X
n
⊂ W
n+1
where n ≤ 6 (Simons, 1968).
Picking up a ”generic” or a ”random” X from X is a geometer’s last resort
when all ”deterministic” options have failed. This is aggravated in topology,
since
● there is no known construction delivering all manifolds X in a reasonably
controlled manner besides generic pullbacks and their close relatives;
11
● on the other hand, geometrically interesting manifolds X are not anybody’s
pullbacks. Often, they are ”complicated quotients of simple manifolds”, e.g.
X = S]Γ, where S is a symmetric space, e.g. the hyperbolic nspace, and Γ is a
discrete isometry group acting on S, possibly, with ﬁxed points.
(It is obvious that every surface X is homeomorphic to such a quotient, and
this is also so for compact 3manifolds by a theorem of Thurston. But if n ≥ 4,
one does not know if every closed smooth manifold X is homeomorphic to such
an S]Γ. It is hard to imagine that there are inﬁnitely many nondiﬀeomorphic
but mutually homeomorphic S]Γ for the hyperbolic 4space S, but this may be
a problem with our imagination.)
Starting from another end, one has ramiﬁed covers X → X
0
of ”simple”
manifolds X
0
, where one wants the ramiﬁcation locus Σ
0
⊂ X
0
to be a subvariety
with ”mild singularities” and with an ”interesting” fundamental group of the
complement X
0
∖Σ
0
, but ﬁnding such Σ
0
is diﬃcult (see the discussion following
(3) in section 7).
And even for simple Σ
0
⊂ X
0
, the description of ramiﬁed coverings X → X
0
where X are manifolds may be hard. For example, this is nontrivial for ramiﬁed
coverings over the ﬂat ntorus X
0
= T
n
where Σ
0
is the union of several ﬂat
(n−2)subtori in general position where these subtori may intersect one another.
4 Duality and the Signature.
Cycles and Homology. If X is a smooth nmanifold X one is inclined to deﬁne
”geometric icycles” C in X, which represent homology classes C ∈ H
i
(X),
as ”compact oriented isubmanifolds C ⊂ X with singularities of codimension
two”.
This, however, is too restrictive, as it rules out, for example, closed self
intersecting curves in surfaces, and/or the double covering map S
1
→S
1
.
Thus, we allow C ⊂ X which may have singularities of codimension one,
and, besides orientation, a locally constant integer valued function on the non
singular locus of C.
First, we deﬁne dimension on all closed subsets in smooth manifolds with the
usual properties of monotonicity, locality and maxadditivity, i.e. dim(A∪B) =
max(dim(A), dim(B)).
Besides we want our dimension to be monotone under generic smooth maps
of compact subsets A, i.e. dim(f(A)) ≤ dim(A) and if f ∶ X
m+n
→ Y
n
is a
generic map, then f
−1
(A) ≤ dim(A) + m.
Then we deﬁne the ”generic dimension” as the minimal function with these
properties which coincides with the ordinary dimension on smooth compact
submanifolds. This depends, of course, on specifying ”generic” at each step,
but this never causes any problem insofar as we do not start taking limits of
maps.
An icycle C ⊂ X is a closed subset in X of dimension i with a Zmultiplicity
function on C deﬁned below, and with the following set decomposition of C.
C = C
reg
∪ C
×
∪ C
sing
,
such that
12
● C
sing
is a closed subset of dimension≤ i − 2.
● C
reg
is an open and dense subset in C and it is a smooth isubmanifold in
X.
C
×
∪ C
sing
is a closed subset of dimension ≤ i − 1. Locally, at every point,
x ∈ C
×
the union C
reg
∪ C
×
is diﬀeomorphic to a collection of smooth copies of
R
i
+
in X, called branches, meeting along their R
i−1
boundaries where the basic
example is the union of hypersurfaces in general position.
● The Zmultiplicity structure, is given by an orientation of C
reg
and a
locally constant multiplicity/weight Zfunction on C
reg
, (where for i = 0 there
is only this function and no orientation) such that the sum of these oriented
multiplicities over the branches of C at each point x ∈ C
×
equals zero.
Every C can be modiﬁed to C
′
with empty C
′
×
and if codim(C) ≥ 1, i.e.
dim(X) > dim(C), also with weights = ±1.
For example, if 2l oriented branches of C
reg
with multiplicities 1 meet at
C
×
, divide them into l pairs with the partners having opposite orientations,
keep these partners attached as they meet along C
×
and separate them from
the other pairs.
No matter how simple, this separation of branches is, say with the total
weight 2l, it can be performed in l! diﬀerent ways. Poor C
′
burdened with this
ambiguity becomes rather noneﬃcient.
If X is a closed oriented nmanifold, then it itself makes an ncycle which
represents what is called the fundamental class X ∈ H
n
(X). Other ncycles
are integer combinations of the oriented connected components of X.
It is convenient to have singular counterparts to manifolds with boundaries.
Since ”chains” were appropriated by algebraic topologists, we use the word
”plaque”, where an (i + 1)plaque D with a boundary ∂(D) ⊂ D is the same as
a cycle, except that there is a subset ∂(D)
×
⊂ D
×
, where the sums of oriented
weights do not cancel, where the closure of ∂(D)
×
equals ∂(D) ⊂ D and where
dim(∂(D) ∖ ∂(D)
×
) ≤ i − 2.
Geometrically, we impose the local conditions on D∖∂(D) as on (i+1)cycles
and add the local icycle conditions on (the closed set) ∂(D), where this ∂(D)
comes with the canonical weighted orientation induced from D.
(There are two opposite canonical induced orientations on the boundary
C = ∂D, e.g. on the circular boundary of the 2disc, with no apparent rational
for preferring one of the two. We choose the orientation in ∂(D) deﬁned by the
frames of the tangent vectors τ
1
, ..., τ
i
such that the orientation given to D by
the (i +1)frames ν, τ
1
, ..., τ
i
agrees with the original orientation, where ν is the
inward looking normal vector.)
Every plaque can be ”subdivided” by enlarging the set D
×
(and/or, less
essentially, D
sing
). We do not care distinguishing such plaques and, more gen
erally, the equality D
1
= D
2
means that the two plaques have a common subdi
vision.
We go further and write D = 0 if the weight function on D
reg
equals zero.
We denote by −D the plaque with the either minus weight function or with
the opposite orientation.
We deﬁne D
1
+ D
2
if there is a plaque D containing both D
1
and D
2
as its
subplaques with the obvious addition rule of the weight functions.
Accordingly, we agree that D
1
= D
2
if D
1
− D
2
= 0.
13
On Genericity. We have not used any genericity so far except for the deﬁni
tion of dimension. But from now on we assume all our object to be generic. This
is needed, for example, to deﬁne D
1
+ D
2
, since the sum of arbitrary plaques is
not a plaque, but the sum of generic plaques, obviously, is.
Also if you are used to genericity, it is obvious to you that
If D ⊂ X is an iplaque (icycle) then the image f(D) ⊂ Y under a generic
map f ∶ X →Y is an iplaque (icycle).
Notice that for dim(Y ) = i + 1 the selfintersection locus of the image f(D)
becomes a part of f(D)
×
and if dim(Y ) = i + 1, then the new part the ×
singularity comes from f(∂(D)).
It is even more obvious that
the pullback f
−1
(D) of an iplaque D ⊂ Y
n
under a generic map f ∶ X
m+n
→
Y
n
is an (i +m)plaque in X
m+n
; if D is a cycle and X
m+n
is a closed manifold
(or the map f is proper), then f
−1
(D) is cycle.
As the last technicality, we extend the above deﬁnitions to arbitrary tri
angulated spaces X, with ”smooth generic” substituted by ”piecewise smooth
generic” or by piecewise linear maps.
Homology. Two icycles C
1
and C
2
in X are called homologous, written
C
1
∼ C
2
, if there is an (i+1)plaque D in X×0, 1, such that ∂(D) = C
1
×0−C
2
×1.
For example every contractible cycle C ⊂ X is homologous to zero, since the
cone over C in Y = X × 0, 1 corresponding to a smooth generic homotopy
makes a plaque with its boundary equal to C.
Since small subsets in X are contractible, a cycle C ⊂ X is homologous to
zero if and only if it admits a decomposition into a sum of ”arbitrarily small
cycles”, i.e. if, for every locally ﬁnite covering X = ⋃
i
U
i
, there exist cycles
C
i
⊂ U
i
, such that C = ∑
i
C
i
.
The homology group H
i
(X) is deﬁned as the Abelian group with generators
C for all icycles C in X and with the relations C
1
 − C
2
 = 0 whenever
C
1
∼ C
2
.
Similarly one deﬁnes H
i
(X; Q), for the ﬁeld Q of rational numbers, by al
lowing C and D with fractional weights.
Examples. Every closed orientable nmanifold X with k connected compo
nents has H
n
(X) = Z
k
, where H
n
(X) is generated by the fundamental classes
of its components.
This is obvious with our deﬁnitions since the only plaques D in X × 0, 1
with ∂(D) ⊂ ∂(X × 0, 1) = X × 0 ∪ X × 1 are combination of the connected
components of X × 0, 1 and so H
n
(X) equals the group of ncycles in X.
Consequently,
every closed orientable manifold X is noncontractible.
The above argument may look suspiciously easy, since it is even hard to
prove noncontractibility of S
n
and issuing from this the Brouwer ﬁxed point
theorem within the world of continuous maps without using generic smooth or
combinatorial ones, except for n = 1 with the covering map R → S
1
and for S
2
with the Hopf ﬁbration S
3
→S
2
.
The catch is that the diﬃculty is hidden in the fact that a generic image of
an (n + 1)plaque (e.g. a cone over X) in X × 0, 1 is again an (n + 1)plaque.
14
What is obvious, however without any appeal to genericity is that H
0
(X) =
Z
k
for every manifold or a triangulated space with k components.
The spheres S
n
have H
i
(S
n
) = 0 for 0 < i < n, since the complement to a
point s
0
∈ S
n
is homeomorphic to R
n
and a generic cycles of dimension < n misses
s
0
, while R
n
, being contractible, has zero homologies in positive dimensions.
It is clear that continuous maps f ∶ X → Y , when generically perturbed,
deﬁne homomorphisms f
∗i
∶ H
i
(X) →H
i
(Y ) for C ↦f(C) and that
homotopic maps f
1
, f
2
∶ X → Y induce equal homomorphisms H
i
(X) →
H
i
(Y ).
Indeed, the cylinders C×0, 1 generically mapped to Y ×0, 1 by homotopies
f
t
, t ∈ 0, 1, are plaque D in our sense with ∂(D) = f
1
(C) − f
2
(C).
It follows, that the
homology is invariant under homotopy equivalences X ↔ Y for manifolds
X, Y as well as for triangulated spaces.
Similarly, if f ∶ X
m+n
→Y
n
is a proper (pullbacks of compact sets are com
pact) smooth generic map between manifolds where Y has no boundary, then
the pullbacks of cycles deﬁne homomorphism, denoted, f
!
∶ H
i
(Y ) →H
i+m
(X),
which is invariant under proper homotopies of maps.
The homology groups are much easier do deal with than the homotopy
groups, since the deﬁnition of an icycle in X is purely local, while ”spheres
in X” can not be recognized by looking at them point by point. (Holistic
philosophers must feel triumphant upon learning this.)
Homologically speaking, a space is the sum of its parts: the locality allows
an eﬀective computation of homology of spaces X assembled of simpler pieces,
such as cells, for example.
The locality+additivity is satisﬁed by the generalized homology functors that
are deﬁned, following Sullivan, by limiting possible singularities of cycles and
plaques [6]. Some of these, e.g. bordisms we meet in the next section.
Degree of a Map. Let f ∶ X → Y be a smooth (or piecewise smooth)
generic map between closed connected oriented equidimensional manifolds
Then the degree deg(f) can be (obviously) equivalently deﬁned either as the
image f
∗
X ∈ Z = H
n
(Y ) or as the f
!
image of the generator ● ∈ H
0
(Y ) ∈ Z =
H
0
(X). For, example, lsheeted covering maps X →Y have degrees l. Similarly,
one sees that
ﬁnite covering maps between arbitrary spaces are surjective on the rational
homology groups.
To understand the local geometry behind the deﬁnition of degree, look closer
at our f where X (still assumed compact) is allowed a nonempty boundary and
observe that the fpullback
˜
U
y
⊂ X of some (small) open neighbourhood U
y
⊂ Y
of a generic point y ∈ Y consists of ﬁnitely many connected components
˜
U
i
⊂
˜
U,
such that the map f ∶
˜
U
i
→U
y
is a diﬀeomorphism for all
˜
U
i
.
Thus, every
˜
U
i
carries two orientations: one induced from X and the second
from Y via f. The sum of +1 assigned to
˜
U
i
where the two orientation agree
and of −1 when they disagree is called the local degree deg
y
(f).
If two generic points y
1
, y
2
∈ Y can be joined by a path in Y which does not
cross the fimage f(∂(X)) ⊂ Y of the boundary of X, then deg
y
1
(f) = deg
y
2
(f)
since the fpullback of this path, (which can be assumed generic) consists,
besides possible closed curves, of several segments in Y , joining ±1degree points
15
in f
−1
(y
1
) ⊂
˜
U
y
1
⊂ X with ∓1points in f
−1
(y
2
) ⊂
˜
U
y
2
.
Consequently, the local degree does not depend on y if X has no boundary.
Then, clearly, it coincides with the homologically deﬁned degree.
Similarly, one sees in this picture (without any reference to homology) that
the local degree is invariant under generic homotopies F ∶ X×0, 1 →Y , where
the smooth (typically disconnected) pullback curve F
−1
(y) ⊂ X × 0, 1 joins
±1points in F(x, 0)
−1
(y) ⊂ X = X×0 with ∓1points in F(x, 1)
−1
(y) ⊂ X = X×1.
Geometric Versus Algebraic Cycles. Let us explain how the geometric
deﬁnition matches the algebraic one for triangulated spaces X.
Recall that the homology of a triangulated space is algebraically deﬁned with
Zcycles which are Zchains, i.e. formal linear combinations C
alg
= ∑
s
k
s
∆
i
s
of
oriented isimplices ∆
i
s
with integer coeﬃcients k
s
, where, by the deﬁnition of
”algebraic cycle” , these sums have zero algebraic boundaries, which is equiv
alent to c(C
alg
) = 0 for every Zcocycle c cohomologous to zero (see chapter
2).
But this is exactly the same as our generic cycles C
geo
in the iskeleton
X
i
of X and, tautologically, C
alg
taut
↦ C
geo
gives us a homomorphism from the
algebraic homology to our geometric one.
On the other hand, an (i + j)simplex minus its center can be radially ho
motoped to its boundary. Then the obvious reverse induction on skeleta of the
triangulation shows that the space X minus a subset Σ ⊂ X of codimension i +1
can be homotoped to the iskeleton X
i
⊂ X.
Since every generic icycle C misses Σ it can be homotoped to X
i
where the
resulting map, say f ∶ C →X
i
, sends C to an algebraic cycle.
At this point, the equivalence of the two deﬁnitions becomes apparent, where,
observe, the argument applies to all cellular spaces X with piecewise linear
attaching maps.
The usual deﬁnition of homology of such an X amounts to working with all
icycles contained in X
i
and with (i +1)plaques in X
i+1
. In this case the group
of icycles becomes a subspace of the group spanned by the icells, which shows,
for example, that the rank of H
i
(X) does not exceed the number of icells in
X
i
.
We return to generic geometric cycles and observe that if X is a noncompact
manifold, one may drop ”compact” in the deﬁnition of these cycles. The result
ing group is denoted H
1
(X, ∂
∞
). If X is compact with boundary, then this
group of the interior of X is called the relative homology group H
i
(X, ∂(X)).
(The ordinary homology groups of this interior are canonically isomorphic to
those of X.)
Intersection Ring. The intersection of cycles in general position in a
smooth manifold X deﬁnes a multiplicative structure on the homology of an
nmanifold X, denoted
C
1
 ⋅ C
2
 = C
1
 ∩ C
2
 = C
1
∩ C
2
 ∈ H
n−(i+j)
(X)
for C
1
 ∈ H
n−i
(X) and C
2
 ∈ H
n−j
(X),
where C ∩ C is deﬁned by intersecting C ⊂ X with its small generic pertur
bation C
′
⊂ X.
(Here genericity is most useful: intersection is painful for simplicial cycles
conﬁned to their respective skeleta of a triangulation. On the other hand, if X
16
is a not a manifold one may adjust the deﬁnition of cycles to the local topology
of the singular part of X and arrive at what is called the intersection homology.)
It is obvious that the intersection is respected by f
!
for proper maps f,
but not for f
∗
. The former implies. in particular, that this product is invari
ant under oriented (i.e. of degrees +1) homotopy equivalences between closed
equidimensional manifolds. (But X×R, which is homotopy equivalent to X has
trivial intersection ring, whichever is the ring of X.)
Also notice that the intersection of cycles of odd codimensions is anticommutative
and if one of the two has even codimension it is commutative.
The intersection of two cycles of complementary dimensions is a 0cycle, the
total Zweight of which makes sense if X is oriented; it is called the intersection
index of the cycles.
Also observe that the intersection between C
1
and C
2
equals the intersection
of C
1
× C
2
with the diagonal X
diag
⊂ X × X.
Examples. (a) The intersection ring of the complex projective space CP
k
is
multiplicatively generated by the homology class of the hyperplane, CP
k−1
 ∈
H
2k−2
(CP
k
), with the only relation CP
k−1

k+1
= 0 and where, obviously,
CP
k−i
 ⋅ CP
k−j
 = CP
k−(i+j)
.
The only point which needs checking here is that the homology class CP
i

(additively) generates H
i
(CP
k
), which is seen by observing that CP
i+1
∖ CP
i
,
i = 0, 1, ..., k − 1, is an open (2i + 2)cell, i.e. the open topological ball B
2i+2
op
(where the cell attaching map ∂(B
2i+2
) = S
2i+1
→ CP
i
is the quotient map
S
2i+1
→S
2i+1
]T = CP
i+1
for the obvious action of the multiplicative group T of
the complex numbers with norm 1 on S
2i+1
⊂ C
2i+1
).
(b) The intersection ring of the ntorus is isomorphic to the exterior algebra
on ngenerators, i.e. the only relations between the multiplicative generators
h
i
∈ H
n−1
(T
n
) are h
i
h
j
= −h
j
h
i
, where h
i
are the homology classes of the n
coordinate subtori T
n−1
i
⊂ T
n
.
This follows from the K¨ unneth formula below, but can be also proved directly
with the obvious cell decomposition of T
n
into 2
n
cells.
The intersection ring structure immensely enriches homology. Additively,
H
∗
= ⊕
i
H
i
is just a graded Abelian group – the most primitive algebraic object
(if ﬁnitely generated) – fully characterized by simple numerical invariants: the
rank and the orders of their cyclic factors.
But the ring structure, say on H
n−2
of an nmanifold X, for n = 2d deﬁnes
a symmetric dform, on H
n−2
= H
n−2
(X) which is, a polynomial of degree d in
r variables with integer coeﬃcients for r = rank(H
n−2
). All number theory in
the world can not classify these for d ≥ 3 (to be certain, for d ≥ 4).
One can also intersect noncompact cycles, where an intersection of a com
pact C
1
with a noncompact C
2
is compact; this deﬁnes the intersection pairing
H
n−i
(X) ⊗H
n−j
(X, ∂
∞
)
∩
→H
n−(i+j)
(X).
Finally notice that generic 0 cycles C in X are ﬁnite sets of points x ∈ X
with the ”orientation” signs ±1 attached to each x in C, where the sum of these
±1 is called the index of C. If X is connected, then ind(C) = 0 if and only if
C = 0.
Thom Isomorphism. Let p ∶ V → X be a ﬁberwise oriented smooth
(which is unnecessary) R
N
bundle over X, where X ⊂ V is embedded as the zero
17
section and let V
●
be Thom space of V . Then there are two natural homology
homomorphisms.
Intersection ∩ ∶ H
i+N
(V
●
) → H
i
(X). This is deﬁned by intersecting generic
(i + N)cycles in V
●
with X.
Thom Suspension S
●
∶ H
i
(X) → H
i
(V
●
), where every cycle C ⊂ X goes to
the Thom space of the restriction of V to C, i.e. C ↦(p
−1
(C))
●
⊂ V
●
.
These ∩ and S
●
are mutually reciprocal. Indeed (∩ ○ S
●
)(C) = C for all
C ⊂ X and also (S
●
○ ∩)(C
′
) ∼ C
′
for all cycles C
′
in V
●
where the homology is
established by the ﬁberwise radial homotopy of C
′
in V
●
⊃ V , which ﬁxes ● and
move each v ∈ V by v ↦tv. Clearly, tC
′
→(S
●
○ ∩)(C
′
) as t →∞ for all generic
cycles C
′
in V
●
.
Thus we arrive at the Thom isomorphism
H
i
(X) ↔H
i+N
(V
●
).
Similarly we see that
The Thom space of every R
N
bundle V → X is (N − 1)connected, i.e.
π
j
(V
●
) = 0 for j = 1, 2, ...N − 1.
Indeed, a generic jsphere S
j
→ V
●
with j < N does not intersect X ⊂ V ,
where X is embedded into V by the zero section. Therefore, this sphere radially
(in the ﬁbers of V ) contracts to ● ∈ V
●
.
Euler Class. Let f ∶ X → B be a ﬁbration with R
2k
ﬁbers over a smooth
closed oriented manifold B. Then the intersection indices of 2kcycles in B with
B ⊂ X, embedded as the zero section, deﬁnes an integer cohomology class, i.e.
a homomorphism (additive map) e ∶ H
2k
(B) → Z ⊂ Q, called the Euler class of
the ﬁbration. (In fact, one does not need B to be a manifold for this deﬁnition.)
Observe that the Euler number vanishes if and only if the homology pro
jection homomorphism
0
f
∗2k
∶ H
2k
(V ∖ B; Q) → H
2k
(B; Q) is surjective, where
B ⊂ X is embedded by the zero section b ↦ 0
b
∈ R
k
b
and
0
f ∶ V ∖ B → B is the
restriction of the map (projection) f to V ∖ B.
Moreover, it is easy to see that the ideal in H
∗
(B) generated by the Euler
class (for the ⌣ring structure on cohomology deﬁned later in this section) equals
the kernel of the cohomology homomorphism
0
f
∗
∶ H
∗
(B) →H
∗
(V ∖ B).
If B is a closed connected oriented manifold, then eB is called the Euler
number of X →B also denoted e.
In other words, the number e equals the selfintersection index of B ⊂ X.
Since the intersection pairing is symmetric on H
2k
the sign of the Euler number
does not depend on the orientation of B, but it does depend on the orientation
of X.
Also notice that if X is embedded into a larger 4kmanifold X
′
⊃ X then the
selfintersection index of B in X
′
equals that in X.
If X equals the tangent bundle T(B) then X is canonically oriented (even
if B is nonorientable) and the Euler number is nonambiguously deﬁned and it
equals the selfintersection number of the diagonal X
diag
⊂ X × X.
Poincar´eHopf Formula. The Euler number e of the tangent bundle T(B)
of every closed oriented 2kmanifold B satisﬁes
e = χ(B) =
i=0,1,...k
rank(H
i
(X; Q)).
18
It is hard the believe this may be true! A single cycle (let it be the fundamental
one) knows something about all of the homology of B.
The most transparent proof of this formula is, probably, via the Morse theory
(known to Poincar´e) and it hardly can be called ”trivial”.
A more algebraic proof follows from the K¨ unneth formula (see below) and
an expression of the class X
diag
 ∈ H
2k
(X×X) in terms of the intersection ring
structure in H
∗
(X).
The Euler number can be also deﬁned for connected nonorientable B as
follows. Take the canonical oriented double covering
˜
B → B, where each point
˜
b ∈
˜
B over b ∈ B is represented as b + an orientation of B near b. Let the bundle
˜
X →
˜
B be induced from X by the covering map
˜
B →B, i.e. this
˜
X is the obvious
double covering of X corresponding to
˜
B →B. Finally, set e(X) = e(
˜
X)]2.
The Poincar´eHopf formula for nonorientable 2kmanifolds B follows from
the orientable case by the multiplicativity of the Euler characteristic χ which is
valid for all compact triangulated spaces B,
an lsheeted covering
˜
B →B has χ(
˜
B) = l ⋅ χ(B).
If the homology is deﬁned via a triangulation of B, then χ(B) equals the
alternating sum ∑
i
(−1)
i
N(∆
i
) of the numbers of isimplices by straightforward
linear algebra and the multiplicativity follows. But this is not so easy with our
geometric cycles. (If B is a closed manifold, this also follows from the Poincar´e
Hopf formula and the obvious multiplicativity of the Euler number for covering
maps.)
K¨ unneth Theorem. The rational homology of the Cartesian product of
two spaces equals the graded tensor product of the homologies of the factors. In
fact, the natural homomorphism
⊕
i+j=k
H
i
(X
1
; Q) ⊗H
j
(X
2
; Q) →H
k
(X
1
× X
2
; Q), k = 0, 1, 2, ...
is an isomorphism. Moreover, if X
1
and X
2
are closed oriented manifolds, this
homomorphism is compatible (if you say it right) with the intersection product.
This is obvious if X
1
and X
2
have cell decompositions such that the num
bers of icells in each of them equals the ranks of their respective H
i
. In the
general case, the proof is cumbersome unless you pass to the language of chain
complexes where the diﬃculty dissolves in linear algebra. (Yet, keeping track
of geometric cycles may be sometimes necessary, e.g. in the algebraic geometry,
in the geometry of foliated cycles and in evaluating the so called ﬁlling proﬁles
of products of Riemannian manifolds.)
Poincar´e QDuality. Let X be a connected oriented nmanifold.
The intersection index establishes a linear duality between homologies of com
plementary dimensions:
H
i
(X; Q) equals the Qlinear dual of H
n−i
(X, ∂
∞
; Q).
In other words, the intersection pairing
H
i
(X) ⊗H
n−i
(X, ∂
∞
)
∩
→H
0
(X) = Z
is Qfaithful: a multiple of a compact icycle C is homologous to zero if and only
if its intersection index with every noncompact (n−i)cycle in general position
equals zero.
19
Furthermore, if X equals the interior of a compact manifolds with a bound
ary, then a multiple of a noncompact cycle is homologous to zero if and only
if its intersection index with every compact generic cycle of the complementary
dimension equals zero.
Proof of H
i
↔ H
n−i
 for Closed Manifolds X. We, regretfully, break the
symmetry by choosing some smooth triangulation T of X which means this T
is locally as good as a triangulation of R
n
by aﬃne simplices (see below).
Granted T, assign to each generic icycle C ⊂ X the intersection index of
C with every oriented ∆
n−i
of T and observe that the resulting function c
⊥
∶
∆
n−i
↦ind(∆
n−i
∩C) is a Zvalued cocycle (see section 2), since the intersection
index of C with every (n−i)sphere ∂(∆
n−i+1
) equals zero, because these spheres
are homologous to zero in X.
Conversely, given a Zcocycle c(∆
n−i
) construct an icycle C
⊥
⊂ X as follows.
Start with (n−i+1)simplices ∆
n−i+1
and take in each of them a smooth oriented
curve S with the boundary points located at the centers of the (n − i)faces of
∆
n−i+1
, where S is normal to a face ∆
n−i
whenever it meets one and such
that the intersection index of the (slightly extended across ∆
n−i
) curve S with
∆
n−i
equals c(∆
n−i
). Such a curve, (obviously) exists because the function c
is a cocycle. Observe, that the union of these S over all (n − i + 1)simplices
in the boundary sphere S
n−i+1
= ∂∆
n−i+2
of every (n − i + 2)simplex in T is a
closed (disconnected) curve in S
n−i+1
, the intersection index of which with every
(n − i)simplex ∆
n−i
⊂ S
n−i+1
equals c(∆
n−i
) (where this intersection index is
evaluated in S
n−i+1
but not in X).
Then construct by induction on j the (future) intersection C
j
⊥
of C
⊥
with the
(n−i+j)skeleton T
n−i+j
of our triangulation by taking the cone from the center
of each simplex ∆
n−i+j
⊂ T
n−i+j
over the intersection of C
j
⊥
with the boundary
sphere ∂(∆
n−i+j
).
It is easy to see that the resulting C
⊥
is an icycle and that the composed
maps C → c
⊥
→ C
⊥
and c → C
⊥
→ c
⊥
deﬁne identity homomorphisms H
i
(X) →
H
i
(X) and H
n−i
(X; Z) → H
n−i
(X; Z) correspondingly and we arrive at the
Poincar´e Zisomorphism,
H
i
(X) ↔H
n−i
(X; Z).
To complete the proof of the Qduality one needs to show that H
j
(X; Z)⊗Q
equals the Qlinear dual of H
j
(X; Q).
To do this we represent H
i
(X) by algebraic Zcycles ∑
j
k
j
∆
i
and now, in
the realm of algebra, appeal to the linear duality between homologies of the
chain and cochain complexes of T:
the natural pairing between classes h ∈ H
i
(X) and c ∈ H
i
(X; Z), which we
denote (h, c) ↦ c(h) ∈ Z, establishes, when tensored with Q, an isomorphism
between H
i
(X; Q) and the Qlinear dual of H
i
(X; Q)
H
i
(X; Q) ↔HomH
i
(X; Q) →Q
for all compact triangulated spaces X. QED.
Corollaries (a) The nonobvious part of the Poincar´e duality is the claim
that, for ever Qhomologically nontrivial cycle C, there is a cycle C
′
of the
complementary dimension, such that the intersection index between C and C
′
does not vanish.
20
But the easy part of the duality is also useful, as it allows one to give a lower
bound on the homology by producing suﬃciently many nontrivially intersecting
cycles of complementary dimensions.
For example it shows that closed manifolds are noncontractible (where it
reduces to the degree argument). Also it implies that the K¨ unneth pairing
H
∗
(X; Q)⊗H
∗
(Y ; Q) →H
∗
(X×Y ; Q) is injective for closed orientable manifolds
X.
(b) Let f ∶ X
m+n
→Y
n
be a smooth map between closed orientable manifolds
such the homology class of the pullback of a generic point is not homologous to
zero, i.e. 0 ≠ f
−1
(y
0
) ∈ H
m
(X). Then the homomorphisms f
!i
∶ H
i
(Y ; Q) →
H
i+m
(X; Q) are injective for all i.
Indeed, every h ∈ H
i
(Y ; Q) diﬀerent from zero comes with an h
′
∈ H
n−i
(Y )
such that the intersection index d between the two is ≠ 0. Since the intersection
of f
!
(h) and f
!
(h
′
) equals df
−1
(y
0
) none of f
!
(h) and f
!
(h
′
) equals zero.
Consequently/similarly all f
∗j
∶ H
j
(X) →H
j
(Y ) are surjective.
For example,
(b1) Equidimensional maps f of positive degrees between closed oriented
manifolds are surjective on rational homology.
(b2) Let f ∶ X →Y be a smooth ﬁbration where the ﬁber is a closed oriented
manifold with nonzero Euler characteristic, e.g. homeomorphic to S
2k
. Then
the ﬁber is nonhomologous to zero, since the Euler class e of the ﬁberwise
tangent bundle, which deﬁned on all of X, does not vanish on f
−1
(y
0
); hence,
f
∗
is surjective.
Recall that the unit tangent bundle ﬁbration X = UT(S
2k
) → S
2k
= Y with
S
2k−1
ﬁbers has H
i
(X; Q) = 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4k − 1, since the Euler class of T(S
2k
)
does not vanish; hence; f
∗
vanishes on all H
i
(X; Q), i > 0.
Geometric Cocycles. We gave only a combinatorial deﬁnition of cohomol
ogy, but this can be deﬁned more invariantly with geometric icocycles c being
”generically locally constant” functions on oriented plaques D such that c(D) =
−c(−D) for reversing the orientation in D, where c(D
1
+ D
2
) = c(D
1
) + c(D
2
)
and where the ﬁnal cocycle condition reads c(C) = 0 for all icycles C which are
homologous to zero. Since every C ∼ 0 decomposes into a sum of small cycles,
the condition c(C) = 0 needs to be veriﬁed only for (arbitrarily) ”small cycles”
C.
Cocycles are as good as Poincar´e’s dual cycles for detecting nontriviality of
geometric cycles C: if c(C) ≠ 0, then, C is nonhomologous to zero and also c
is not cohomologous to zero.
If we work with H
∗
(X; R), these cocycles c(D) can be averaged over mea
sures on the space of smooth selfmapping X → X homotopic to the identity.
(The averaged cocycles are kind of duals of generic cycles.) Eventually, they
can be reduced to diﬀerential forms invariant under a given compact connected
automorphism group of X, that let cohomology return to geometry by the back
door.
On Integrality of Cohomology. In view of the above, the rational cohomology
classes c ∈ H
i
(X; Q) can be deﬁned as homomorphisms c ∶ H
i
(X) → Q. Such a
c is called integer if its image is contained in Z ⊂ Q. (Nonintegrality of certain
classes underlies the existence of nonstandard smooth structures on topological
spheres discovered by Milnor, see section 6.)
21
The Qduality does not tell you the whole story. For example, the following
simple property of closed nmanifolds X depends on the full homological duality:
Connectedness/Contractibiliy. If X is a closed kconnected nmanifold,
i.e. π
i
(X) = 0 for i = 1, ..., k, then the complement to a point, X ∖ ¦x
0
¦, is
(n−k−1)contractible, i.e. there is a homotopy f
t
of the identity map X∖¦x
0
¦ →
X∖¦x
0
¦ with P = f
1
(X∖¦x
0
¦) being a smooth triangulated subspace P ⊂ X∖¦x
0
¦
with codim(P) ≥ k + 1.
For example, if π
i
(X) = 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n]2, then X is homotopy equivalent to
S
n
.
Smooth triangulations. Recall, that ”smoothness” of a triangulated sub
set in a smooth nmanifold, say P ∈ X, means that, for every closed isimplex
∆ ⊂ P, there exist
an open subset U ⊂ X which contains ∆,
an aﬃne triangulation P
′
of R
n
, n = dim(X),
a diﬀeomorphism U →U
′
⊂ R
n
which sends ∆ onto an isimplex ∆
′
in P
′
.
Accordingly, one deﬁnes the notion of a smooth triangulation T of a smooth
manifold X, where one also says that the smooth structure in X is compatible
with T.
Every smooth manifold X can be given a smooth triangulation, e.g. as
follows.
Let S be an aﬃne (i.e. by aﬃne simplices) triangulation of R
M
which is
invariant under the action of a lattice Γ = Z
M
⊂ R
M
(i.e. S is induced from a
triangulation of the Mtorus R
M
]Γ) and let X ⊂
f
R
M
be a smoothly embedded
(or immersed) closed nsubmanifold. Then there (obviously) exist
● an arbitrarily small positive constant δ
0
= δ
0
(S) > 0,
● an arbitrarily large constant λ ≥ λ
0
(X, f, δ
0
) > 0,
● δsmall moves of the vertices of S for δ ≤ δ
0
, where these moves themselves
depend on the embedding f of X into R
M
and on λ, such that the simplices of the
correspondingly moved triangulation, say S
′
= S
′
δ
= S
′
(X, f) are δ
′
transversal
to the λscaled X, i.e. to λX = X ⊂
λf
R
M
, where
the δ
′
transversality of an aﬃne simplex ∆
′
⊂ R
M
to λX ⊂ R
M
means that
the aﬃne simplices ∆
′′
obtained from ∆
′
by arbitrary δ
′
moves of the vertices of
∆
′
for some δ
′
= δ
′
(S, δ) > 0 are transversal to λX. In particular, the intersection
”angles” between λX and the isimplices, i = 0, 1, ..., M − 1, in S
′
are all ≥ δ
′
.
If λ is suﬃciently large (and hence, λX ⊂ R
M
is nearly ﬂat), then the δ
′

transversality (obviously) implies that the intersection of λX with each simplex
and its neighbours in S
′
in the vicinity of each point x ∈ λX ⊂ R
M
has the same
combinatorial pattern as the intersection of the tangent space T
x
(λX) ⊂ R
M
with these simplices. Hence, the (cell) partition Π = Π
f
′ of λX induced from S
′
can be subdivided into a triangulation of X = λX.
Almost all of what we have presented in this section so far was essentially
understood by Poincar´e, who switched at some point from geometric cycles to
triangulations, apparently, in order to prove his duality. (See [41] for pursuing
further the ﬁrst Poincar´e approach to homology.)
The language of geometic/generic cycles suggested by Poincar´e is well suited
for observing and proving the multitude of obvious little things one comes across
every moment in topology. (I suspect, geometric, even worse, some algebraic
topologists think of cycles while they draw commutative diagrams. Rephrasing
22
J.B.S. Haldane’s words: ”Geometry is like a mistress to a topologist: he cannot
live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public”.)
But if you are far away from manifolds in the homotopy theory it is easier to
work with cohomology and use the cohomology product rather than intersection
product.
The cohomology product is a bilinear pairing, often denoted H
i
⊗H
j
⌣
→H
i+j
,
which is the Poincar´e dual of the intersection product H
n−i
⊗H
n−j
∩
→H
n−i−j
in
closed oriented nmanifolds X.
The ⌣product can be deﬁned for all, say triangulated, X as the dual of the
intersection product on the relative homology, H
M−i
(U; ∞) ⊗ H
M−j
(U; ∞) →
H
M−i−j
(U; ∞), for a small regular neighbourhood U ⊃ X of X embedded into
some R
M
. The ⌣ product, so deﬁned, is invariant under continuous maps f ∶
X →Y :
f
∗
(h
1
⌣ h
2
) = f
∗
(h
1
) ⌣ f
∗
(h
2
) for all h
1
, h
2
∈ H
∗
(Y ).
It easy to see that the ⌣pairing equals the composition of the K¨ unneth
homomorphism H
∗
(X) ⊗ H
∗
(X) → H
∗
(X × X) with the restriction to the
diagonal H
∗
(X × X) →H
∗
(X
diag
).
You can hardly expect to arrive at anything like Serre’s ﬁniteness theorem
without a linearized (co)homology theory; yet, geometric constructions are of a
great help on the way.
Topological and Qmanifolds. The combinatorial proof of the Poincar´e du
ality is the most transparent for open subsets X ⊂ R
n
where the standard
decomposition S of R
n
into cubes is the combinatorial dual of its own translate
by a generic vector.
Poincar´e duality remains valid for all oriented topological manifolds X and
also for all rational homology or Qmanifolds, that are compact triangulated
nspaces where the link L
n−i−1
⊂ X of every isimplex ∆
i
in X has the same
rational homology as the sphere S
n−i−1
, where it follows from the (special case
of) Alexander duality.
The rational homology of the complement to a topologically embedded k
sphere as well as of a rational homology sphere, into S
n
(or into a Qmanifold
with the rational homology of S
n
) equals that of the (n − k − 1)sphere.
(The link L
n−i−1
(∆
i
) is the union of the simplices ∆
n−i−1
⊂ X which do not
intersect ∆
i
and for which there exists an simplex in X which contains ∆
i
and
∆
n−i−1
.)
Alternatively, an ndimensional space X can be embedded into some R
M
where the duality for X reduces to that for ”suitably regular” neighbourhoods
U ⊂ R
M
of X which admit Thom isomorphisms H
i
(X) ↔H
i+M−n
(U
●
).
If X is a topological manifold, then ”locally generic” cycles of complementary
dimension intersect at a discrete set which allows one to deﬁne their geometric
intersection index. Also one can deﬁne the intersection of several cycles C
j
,
j = 1, ...k, with ∑
j
dim(C
i
) = dim(X) as the intersection index of ×
j
C
j
⊂ X
k
with X
diag
⊂ X
k
, but anything more then that can not be done so easily.
Possibly, there is a comprehensive formulation with an obvious invariant
proof of the ”functorial Poincar´e duality” which would make transparent, for
example, the multiplicativity of the signature (see below) and the topological
nature of rational Pontryagin classes (see section 10) and which would apply to
23
”cycles” of dimensions βN where N = ∞ and 0 ≤ β ≤ 1 in spaces like these we
shall meet in section 11.
Signature. The intersection of (compact) kcycles in an oriented, possibly
noncompact and/or disconnected, 2kmanifold X deﬁnes a bilinear form on the
homology H
k
(X). If k is odd, this form is antisymmetric and if k is even it is
symmetric.
The signature of the latter, i.e. the number of positive minus the number of
negative squares in the diagonalized form, is called sig(X). This is well deﬁned
if H
k
(X) has ﬁnite rank, e.g. if X is compact, possibly with a boundary.
Geometrically, a diagonalization of the intersection form is achieved with a
maximal set of mutually disjoint kcycles in X where each of them has a non
zero (positive or negative) selfintersection index. (If the cycles are represented
by smooth closed oriented ksubmanifolds, then these indices equal the Euler
numbers of the normal bundles of these submanifolds. In fact, such a maximal
system of submanifolds always exists as it was derived by Thom from the Serre
ﬁniteness theorem.)
Examples. (a) S
2k
× S
2k
has zero signature, since the 2khomology is gen
erated by the classes of the two coordinate spheres s
1
× S
2k
 and S
2k
× s
2
,
which both have zero selfintersections.
(b) The complex projective space CP
2m
has signature one, since its middle
homology is generated by the class of the complex projective subspace CP
m
⊂
CP
2m
with the selfintersection = 1.
(c) The tangent bundle T(S
2k
) has signature 1, since H
k
(T(S
2k
)) is gener
ated by S
2k
 with the selfintersection equal the Euler characteristic χ(S
2k
) = 2.
It is obvious that sig(mX) = m ⋅ sig(X), where mX denotes the disjoint
union of m copies of X, and that sig(−X) = −sig(X), where ”−” signiﬁes
reversion of orientation. Furthermore
The oriented boundary X of every compact oriented (4k+1)manifold Y has
zero signature.(Rokhlin 1952).
(Oriented boundaries of nonorientable manifolds may have nonzero sig
natures. For example the double covering
˜
X → X with sig(
˜
X) = 2sig(X)
nonorientably bounds the corresponding 1ball bundle Y over X.)
Proof. If kcycles C
i
, i = 1, 2, bound relative (k +1)cycles D
i
in Y , then the
(zerodimensional) intersection C
1
with C
2
bounds a relative 1cycle in Y which
makes the index of the intersection zero. Hence,
the intersection form vanishes on the kernel ker
k
⊂ H
k
(X) of the inclusion
homomorphism H
k
(X) →H
k
(Y ).
On the other hand, the obvious identity
C ∩ D
Y
= C ∩ ∂D
X
and the Poincar´e duality in Y show that the orthogonal complement ker
⊥
k
⊂
H
k
(X) with respect to the intersection form in X is contained in ker
k
. QED
Observe that this argument depends entirely on the Poincar´e duality and it
equally applies to the topological and Qmanifolds with boundaries.
Also notice that the K¨ unneth formula and the Poincar´e duality (trivially)
imply the Cartesian multiplicativity of the signature for closed manifolds,
sig(X
1
× X
2
) = sig(X
1
) ⋅ sig(X
2
).
24
For example, the products of the complex projective spaces ×
i
CP
2k
i
have signa
tures one. (The K¨ unneth formula is obvious here with the cell decompositions
of ×
i
CP
2k
i
into ×
i
(2k
i
+ 1) cells.)
Amazingly, the multiplicativity of the signature of closed manifolds under
covering maps can not be seen with comparable clarity.
Multiplicativity Formula if
˜
X →X is an lsheeted covering map, then
sign(
˜
X) = l ⋅ sign(X).
This can be sometimes proved elementary, e.g. if the fundamental group of
X is free. In this case, there obviously exist closed hypersurfaces Y ⊂ X and
˜
Y ⊂
˜
X such that
˜
X∖
˜
Y is diﬀeomorphic to the disjoint union of l copies of X∖Y .
This implies multiplicativity, since signature is additive:
removing a closed hypersurface from a manifold does not change the signa
ture.
Therefore,
sig(
˜
X) = sig(
˜
X ∖
˜
Y ) = l ⋅ sig(X ∖ Y ) = l ⋅ sig(X).
(This ”additivity of the signature” easily follows from the Poincar´e duality as
observed by S. Novikov.)
In general, given a ﬁnite covering
˜
X → X, there exists an immersed hyper
surface Y ⊂ X (with possible selfintersections) such that the covering trivializes
over X ∖ Y ; hence,
˜
X can be assembled from the pieces of X ∖ Y where each
piece is taken l times. One still has an addition formula for some ”stratiﬁed
signature” but it is rather involved in the general case.
On the other hand, the multiplicativity of the signature can be derived in a
couple of lines from the Serre ﬁniteness theorem (see below).
5 The Signature and Bordisms.
Let us prove the multiplicativity of the signature by constructing a compact
oriented manifold Y with a boundary, such that the oriented boundary ∂(Y )
equals m
˜
X − mlX for some integer m ≠ 0.
Embed X into R
n+N
, N >> n = 2k = dim(X) let
˜
X ⊂ R
n+N
be an embedding
obtained by a small generic perturbation of the covering map
˜
X → X ⊂ R
n+N
and
˜
X
′
⊂ R
n+N
be the union of l generically perturbed copies of X.
Let
˜
A
●
and
˜
A
′
●
be the AtiyahThom maps from S
n+N
= R
n+N
●
to the Thom
spaces
˜
U
●
and U
′
●
of the normal bundles
˜
U →
˜
X and
˜
U
′
→
˜
X
′
.
Let
˜
P ∶
˜
X → X and
˜
P
′
∶
˜
X
′
→ X be the normal projections. These projec
tions, obviously, induce the normal bundles
˜
U and
˜
U
′
of
˜
X and
˜
X
′
from the
normal bundle U
⊥
→X. Let
˜
P
●
∶
˜
U
●
→U
⊥
●
and
˜
P
′
●
∶
˜
U
′
●
→U
⊥
●
be the corresponding maps between the Thom spaces and let us look at the two
maps f and f
′
from the sphere S
n+N
= R
N+n
●
to the Thom space U
⊥
●
,
f =
˜
P
●
○
˜
A
●
∶ S
n+N
→U
⊥
●
, and f
′
=
˜
P
′
●
○
˜
A
′
●
∶ S
n+N
→U
⊥
●
.
25
Clearly
˜●˜●
′
 f
−1
(X) =
˜
X and (f
′
)
−1
(X) =
˜
X
′
.
On the other hand, the homology homomorphisms of the maps f and f
′
are related to those of
˜
P and
˜
P
′
via the Thom suspension homomorphism S
●
∶
H
n
(X) →H
n+N
(U
⊥
●
) as follows
f
∗
S
n+N
 = S
●
○
˜
P
∗

˜
X and f
′
∗
S
n+N
 = S
●
○
˜
P
′
∗

˜
X
′
.
Since deg(
˜
P) = deg(
˜
P
′
) = l,
˜
P
∗

˜
X =
˜
P
′
∗

˜
X
′
 = l ⋅ X and f
′
S
n+N
 = fS
n+N
 = l ⋅ S
●
X ∈ H
n+N
(U
⊥
●
);
hence,
some nonzero mmultiples of the maps f, f
′
∶ S
n+N
→ U
⊥
●
can be joined by
a (smooth generic) homotopy F ∶ S
n+N
× 0, 1 → U
⊥
●
by Serre’s theorem, since
π
i
(U
⊥
●
) = 0, i = 1, ...N − 1.
Then, because of ˜●˜●
′
, the pullback F
−1
(X) ⊂ S
n+N
× 0, 1 establishes a
bordism between m
˜
X ⊂ S
n+N
×0 and m
˜
X
′
= mlX ⊂ S
n+N
×1. This implies that
m⋅ sig(
˜
X) = ml ⋅ sig(X) and since m ≠ 0 we get sig(
˜
X) = l ⋅ sig(X). QED.
Bordisms and the RokhlinThomHirzebruch Formula. Let us mod
ify our deﬁnition of homology of a manifold X by allowing only nonsingular
icycles in X, i.e. smooth closed oriented isubmanifolds in X and denote the
resulting Abelian group by B
o
i
(X).
If 2i ≥ n = dim(X) one has a (minor) problem with taking sums of non
singular cycles, since generic isubmanifolds may intersect and their union is
unavoidably singular. We assume below that i < n]2; otherwise, we replace X
by X × R
N
for N >> n, where, observe, B
o
i
(X × R
N
) does not depend on N for
N >> i.
Unlike homology, the bordism groups B
o
i
(X) may be nontrivial even for
a contractible space X, e.g. for X = R
n+N
. (Every cycle in R
n
equals the
boundary of any cone over it but this does not work with manifolds due to the
singularity at the apex of the cone which is not allowed by the deﬁnition of a
bordism.) In fact,
if N >> n, then the bordism group B
o
n
= B
o
n
(R
n+N
) is canonically isomorphic
to the homotopy group π
n+N
(V
●
), where V
●
is the Thom space of the tautological
oriented R
N
bundle V over the Grassmann manifold V = Gr
or
N
(R
n+N+1
) (Thom,
1954).
Proof. Let X
0
= Gr
or
N
(R
n+N
) be the Grassmann manifold of oriented N
planes and V →X
0
the tautological oriented R
N
bundle over this X
0
.
(The space Gr
or
N
(R
n+N
) equals the double cover of the space Gr
N
(R
n+N
) of
nonoriented Nplanes. For example, Gr
or
1
(R
n+1
) equals the sphere S
n
, while
Gr
1
(R
n+1
) is the projective space, that is S
n
divided by the ±involution.)
Let U
→X be the oriented normal bundle of X with the orientation induced
by those of X and of R
N
⊃ X and let G ∶ X → X
0
be the oriented Gauss map
which assigns to each x ∈ X the oriented Nplane G(x) ∈ X
0
parallel to the
oriented normal space to X at x.
26
Since G induces U
⊥
from V , it deﬁnes the Thom map S
n+N
= R
n+N
●
→ V
●
and every bordism Y ⊂ S
n+N
× 0, 1 delivers a homotopy S
n+N
× 0, 1 → V
●
between the Thom maps at the two ends Y ∩ S
n+N
× 0 and Y ∩ S
n+N
× 1.
This deﬁne a homomorphism
τ
bπ
∶ B
o
n
→π
n+N
(V
●
)
since the additive structure in B
o
n
(R
i+N
) agrees with that in π
i+N
(V
o
●
). (Instead
of checking this, which is trivial, one may appeal to the general principle: ”two
natural Abelian group structures on the same set must coincide.”)
Also note that one needs the extra 1 in R
n+N+1
, since bordisms Y between
manifolds in R
n+N
lie in R
n+N+1
, or, equivalently, in S
n+N+1
× 0, 1.
On the other hand, the generic pullback construction
f ↦f
−1
(X
0
) ⊂ R
n+N
⊃ R
n+N
●
= S
n+N
deﬁnes a homomorphism τ
πb
∶ f → f
−1
(X
0
) from π
n+N
(V
●
) to B
o
n
, where,
clearly τ
πb
○ τ
bπ
and τ
bπ
○ τ
πb
are the identity homomorphisms. QED.
Now Serre’s Qsphericity theorem implies the following
Thom Theorem. The (Abelian) group B
o
i
is ﬁnitely generated;
B
o
n
⊗Q is isomorphic to the rational homology group H
i
(X
0
; Q) = H
i
(X
0
)⊗Q
for X
0
= Gr
or
N
(R
i+N+1
).
Indeed, π
i
(V
●
) = 0 for N >> n, hence, by Serre,
π
n+N
(V
●
) ⊗Q = H
n+N
(V
●
; Q),
while
H
n+N
(V
●
; Q) = H
n
(X
0
; Q)
by the Thom isomorphism.
In order to apply this, one has to compute the homology H
n
(Gr
or
N
(R
N+n+j
)); Q),
which, as it is clear from the above, is independent of N ≥ 2n + 2 and of j > 1;
thus, we pass to
Gr
or
=
def ⋃
j,N→∞
Gr
or
N
(R
N+j
).
Let us state the answer in the language of cohomology, with the advantage of
the multiplicative structure (see section 4) where, recall, the cohomology product
H
i
(X) ⊗ H
j
(X)
⌣
→ H
i+j
(X) for closed oriented nmanifold can be deﬁned via
the Poincar´e duality H
∗
(X) ↔H
n−∗
(X) by the intersection product H
n−i
(X)⊗
H
n−j
(X)
∩
→H
n−(i+j)
(X).
The cohomology ring H
∗
(Gr
or
; Q) is the polynomial ring in some distin
guished integer classes, called Pontryagin classes p
k
∈ H
4k
(Gr
or
; Z), k = 1, 2, 3, ...
[50], [21].
(It would be awkward to express this in the homology language when N =
dim(X) → ∞, although the cohomology ring H
∗
(X) is canonically isomorphic
to H
N−∗
(X) by Poincar´e duality.)
If X is a smooth oriented nmanifold, its Pontryagin classes p
k
(X) ∈ H
4k
(X; Z)
are deﬁned as the classes induced from p
k
by the normal Gauss map G →
Gr
or
N
(R
N+n
) ⊂ Gr
or
for an embedding X →R
n+N
, N >> n.
27
Examples (see [50]). (a) The the complex projective spaces have
p
k
(CP
n
) = _
n + 1
k
_h
2k
for the generator h ∈ H
2
(CP
n
) which is the Poincar´e dual to the hyperplane
CP
n−1
⊂ CP
n−1
.
(b) The rational Pontryagin classes of the Cartesian products X
1
×X
2
satisfy
p
k
(X
1
× X
2
) =
i+j=k
p
i
(X
1
) ⊗p
j
(X
2
).
If Q is a unitary (i.e. a product of powers) monomial in p
i
of graded degree
n = 4k, then the value Q(p
i
)X is called the (Pontryagin) Qnumber. Equiva
lently, this is the value of Q(p
i
) ∈ H
4i
(Gr
or
; Z) on the image of (the fundamental
class) of X in Gr
or
under the Gauss map.
The Thom theorem now can be reformulated as follows.
Two closed oriented nmanifolds are Qbordant if and only if they have equal
Qnumbers for all monomials Q. Thus, B
o
n
⊗ Q = 0, unless n is divisible by 4
and the rank of B
o
n
⊗Q for n = 4k equals the number of Qmonomials of graded
degree n, that are ∏
i
p
k
i
i
with ∑
i
k
i
= k.
(We shall prove this later in this section, also see [50].)
For example, if n = 4, then there is a single such monomial, p
1
; if n=8, there
two of them: p
2
and p
2
1
; if n = 12 there three monomials: p
3
, p
1
p
2
and p
3
1
; if
n = 16 there are ﬁve of them.
In general, the number of such monomials, say π(k) = rank(H
4k
(Gr
or
; Q)) =
rank
Q
(B
o
4k
) (obviously) equals the number of the conjugacy classes in the per
mutation group Π(k) (which can be seen as a certain subgroup in the Weyl
group in SO(4k)), where, by the Euler formula, the generating function E(t) =
1 + ∑
k=1,2,...
π(k)t
k
satisﬁes
1]E(t) =
k=1,2,...
(1 − t
k
) =
−∞<k<∞
(−1)
k
t
(3k
2
−k)2
,
Here the ﬁrst equality is obvious, the second is tricky (Euler himself was not
able to prove it) and where one knows nowadays that
π(k) ∼
exp(π
_
2k]3)
4k
√
3
for k →∞.
Since the top Pontryagin classes p
k
of the complex projective spaces do not
vanish, p
k
(CP
2k
) ≠ 0, the products of these spaces constitute a basis in B
o
n
⊗Q.
Finally, notice that the bordism groups together make a commutative ring
under the Cartesian product of manifolds, denoted B
o
∗
, and the Thom theorem
says that
B
o
∗
⊗Q is the polynomial ring over Q in the variables CP
2k
, k = 0, 2, 4, ....
Instead of CP
2k
, one might take the compact quotients of the complex hy
perbolic spaces CH
2k
for the generators of B
o
∗
⊗Q. The quotient spaces CH
2k
]Γ
have two closely related attractive features: their tangent bundles admit natural
ﬂat connections and their rational Pontryagin numbers are homotopy invariant,
see section 10. It would be interesting to ﬁnd ”natural bordisms” between (linear
28
combinations of) Cartesian products of CH
2k
]Γ and of CP
2k
, e.g. associated
to complex analytic ramiﬁed coverings CH
2k
]Γ →CP
2k
.
Since the signature is additive and also multiplicative under this product, it
deﬁnes a homomorphism sig ∶ B
o
∗
→ Z which can be expressed in each degree
4k by means of a universal polynomial in the Pontryagin classes, denoted L
k
(p
i
),
by
sig(X) = L
k
(p
i
)X for all closed oriented 4kmanifolds X.
For example,
L
1
=
1
3
p
1
, L
2
=
1
45
(7p
2
− p
2
1
), L
3
=
1
945
(62p
3
− 13p
1
p
2
+ 2p
3
1
).
Accordingly,
sig(X
4
) =
1
3
p
1
X
4
, (Rokhlin 1952)
sig(X
8
) =
1
45
(7p
2
(X
8
) − p
2
1
(X
8
))X
8
, (Thom 1954)
and where a concise general formula (see blow) was derived by Hirzebruch who
evaluated the coeﬃcients of L
k
using the above values of p
i
for the products
X = ×
j
CP
2k
j
of the complex projective spaces, which all have sig(X) = 1, and
by substituting these products ×
j
CP
2k
j
with ∑
j
4k
j
= n = 4k, for X = X
n
into
the formula sig(X) = L
k
X. The outcome of this seemingly trivial computation
is unexpectedly beautiful.
Hirzebruch Signature Theorem. Let
R(z) =
√
z
tanh(
√
z)
= 1+z]3−z
2
]45+... = 1+2
l>0
(−1)
l+1
ζ(2l)z
l
π
2l
= 1+
l>0
2
2l
B
2l
z
l
(2l)!
,
where ζ(2l) = 1 +
1
2
2l
+
1
3
2l
+
1
4
2l
+ ... and let
B
2l
= (−1)
l
2lζ(1 − 2l) = (−1)
l+1
(2l)!ζ(2l)]2
2l−1
π
2l
be the Bernoulli numbers [47],
B
2
= 1]6, B
4
= −1]30, ..., B
12
= −691]2730, B
14
= 7]6, ..., B
30
= 8615841276005]14322, ....
Write
R(z
1
) ⋅ ... ⋅ R(z
k
) = 1 + P
1
(z
j
) + ... + P
k
(z
j
) + ...
where P
j
are homogeneous symmetric polynomials of degree j in z
1
, ..., z
k
and
rewrite
P
k
(z
j
) = L
k
(p
i
)
where p
i
= p
i
(z
1
, ..., z
k
) are the elementary symmetric functions in z
j
of degree
i. The Hirzebruch theorem says that
the above L
k
is exactly the polynomial which makes the equality L
k
(p
i
)X =
sig(X).
A signiﬁcant aspect of this formula is that the Pontryagin numbers and
the signature are integers while the Hirzebruch polynomials L
k
have nontrivial
29
denominators. This yields certain universal divisibility properties of the Pon
tryagin numbers (and sometimes of the signatures) for smooth closed orientable
4kmanifolds.
But despite a heavy integer load carried by the signature formula, its deriva
tion depends only on the rational bordism groups B
o
n
⊗Q. This point of elemen
tary linear algebra was overlooked by Thom (isn’t it incredible?) who derived
the signature formula for 8manifolds from his special and more diﬃcult compu
tation of the true bordism group B
o
8
. However, the shape given by Hirzebruch
to this formula is something more than just linear algebra.
Question. Is there an implementation of the analysis/arithmetic encoded in
the Hirzebruch formula by some inﬁnite dimensional manifolds?
Computation of the Cohomology of the Stable Grassmann Manifold. First,
we show that the cohomology H
∗
(Gr
or
; Q) is multiplicatively generated by some
classes e
i
∈ H
∗
(Gr
or
; Q) and then we prove that the L
i
classes are multiplica
tively independent. (See [50] for computation of the integer cohomology of the
Grassmann manifolds.)
Think of the unit tangent bundle UT(S
n
) as the space of orthonormal 2
frames in R
n+1
, and recall that UT(S
2k
) is a rational homology (4k−1)sphere.
Let W
k
= Gr
or
2k+1
(R
∞
) be the Grassmann manifold of oriented (2k+1)planes
in R
N
, N → ∞, and let W
′′
k
consist of the pairs (w, u) where w ∈ W
k
is an
(2k +1)plane R
2k+1
w
⊂ R
∞
, and u is an orthonormal frame (pair of orthonormal
vectors) in R
2k+1
w
.
The map p ∶ W
′′
k
→ W
k−1
= Gr
or
2k−1
(R
∞
) which assigns, to every (w, u), the
(2k−1)plane u
⊥
w
⊂ R
2k+1
w
⊂ R
∞
normal to u is a ﬁbration with contractible ﬁbers
that are spaces of orthonormal 2frames in R
∞
⊖u
⊥
w
= R
∞−(2k−1)
; hence, p is a
homotopy equivalence.
A more interesting ﬁbration is q ∶ W
k
→ W
′′
k
for (w, u) ↦ w with the ﬁbers
UT(S
2k
). Since UT(S
2k
) is a rational (4k − 1)sphere, the kernel of the coho
mology homomorphism q
∗
∶ H
∗
(W
′′
k
; Q) →H
∗
(W
k
; Q) is generated, as a ⌣ideal,
by the rational Euler class e
k
∈ H
4k
(W
′′
k
; Q).
It follows by induction on k that the rational cohomology algebra of W
k
=
Gr
or
2k+1
(R
∞
) is generated by certain e
i
∈ H
4i
(W
k
; Q), i = 0, 1, ..., k, and since
Gr
or
= lim
←
k→∞
Gr
or
2k+1
, these e
i
also generate the cohomology of Gr
or
.
Direct Computation of the LClasses for the Complex Projective Spaces. Let
V →X be an oriented vector bundle and, following RokhlinSchwartz and Thom,
deﬁne Lclasses of V , without any reference to Pontryagin classes, as follows.
Assume that X is a manifold with a trivial tangent bundle; otherwise, embed
X into some R
M
with large M and take its small regular neighbourhood. By
Serre’s theorem, there exists, for every homology class h ∈ H
4k
(X) = H
4k
(V ),
an m = m(h) ≠ 0 such that the mmultiple of h is representable by a closed 4k
submanifold Z = Z
h
⊂ V that equals the pullback of a generic point in the sphere
S
M−4k
under a generic map V → S
M−4k
= R
M−4k
●
with ”compact support”, i.e.
where all but a compact subset in V goes to ● ∈ S
M−4k
. Observe that such a Z
has trivial normal bundle in V .
Deﬁne L(V ) = 1 + L
1
(V ) + L
2
(V ) + ... ∈ H
4∗
(V ; Q) = ⊕
k
H
4k
(V ; Q) by the
equality L(V )(h) = sig(Z
h
)]m(h) for all h ∈ H
4k
(V ) = H
4k
(X).
If the bundle V is induced from W → Y by an f ∶ X → Y then L(V ) =
f
∗
(L(W)), since, for dim(W) > 2k (which we may assume), the generic image
of our Z in W has trivial normal bundle.
30
It is also clear that the bundle V
1
× V
2
→ X
1
× X
2
has L(V
1
× V
2
) = L(V
1
) ⊗
L(V
2
) by the Cartesian multiplicativity of the signature.
Consequently the Lclass of the Whitney sum V
1
⊕V
2
→X of V
1
and V
2
over
X, which is deﬁned as the restriction of V
1
× V
2
→ X × X to X
diag
⊂ X × X,
satisﬁes
L(V
1
⊕V
2
) = L(V
1
) ⌣ L(V
2
).
Recall that the complex projective space CP
k
– the space of Clines in C
k+1
comes with the canonical Cline bundle represented by these lines and denoted
U → CP
k
, while the same bundle with the reversed orientation is denoted U
−
.
(We always refer to the canonical orientations of Cobjects.)
Observe that U
−
= Hom
C
(U →θ) for the trivial Cbundle
θ = CP
k
× C →CP
k
= Hom
C
(U →U)
and that the Euler class e(U
−
) = −e(U) equals the generator in H
2
(CP
k
) that
is the Poincar´e dual of the hyperplane CP
k−1
⊂ CP
k
, and so e
l
is the dual of
CP
k−l
⊂ CP
k
.
The Whitney (k + 1)multiple bundle of U
−
, denoted (k + 1)U
−
, equals the
tangent bundle T
k
= T(CP
k
) plus θ. Indeed, let U
⊥
→ CP
k
be the C
k
bundle
of the normals to the lines representing the points in CP
k
. It is clear that
U
⊥
⊕U = (k+1)θ, i.e. U
⊥
⊕U is the trivial C
k+1
bundle, and that, tautologically,
T
k
= Hom
C
(U →U
⊥
).
It follows that
T
k
⊕θ = Hom
C
(U →U
⊥
⊕U) = Hom
C
(U →(k + 1)θ) = (k + 1)U
−
.
Recall that
sig(CP
2k
) = 1; hence, L
k
((k + 1)U
−
) = L
k
(T
k
) = e
2k
.
Now we compute L(U
−
) = 1+∑
k
L
k
= 1+∑
k
l
2k
e
2k
, by equating e
2k
and the
2kdegree term in the (k + 1)th power of this sum.
(1 +
k
l
2k
e
2k
)
k+1
= 1 + ... + e
2k
+ ...
Thus,
(1 + l
1
e
2
)
3
= 1 + 3l
1
+ ... = 1 + e
2
+ ...,
which makes l
1
= 1]3 and L
1
(U
−
) = e
2
]3.
Then
(1 + l
1
e
2
+ l
2
e
4
)
5
= 1 + ... + (10l
1
+ 5l
2
)e
4
+ ... = 1 + ... + e
4
+ ...
which implies that l
2
= 1]5 − 2l
1
= 1]5 − 2]3 and L
2
(U
−
) = (−7]15)e
4
, etc.
Finally, we compute all Lclasses L
j
(T
2k
) = (L(U
−
))
k+1
for T
2k
= T(CP
2k
)
and thus, all L(×
j
CP
2k
j
).
For example,
(L
1
(CP
8
))
2
CP
8
 = 10]3 while (L
1
(CP
4
× CP
4
))
2
CP
4
× CP
4
 = 2]3
31
which implies that CP
4
× CP
4
and CP
8
, which have equal signatures, are not
rationally bordant, and similarly one sees that the products ×
j
CP
2k
j
are mul
tiplicatively independent in the bordism ring B
o
∗
⊗Q as we stated earlier.
Combinatorial Pontryagin Classes. RokhlinSchwartz and indepen
dently Thom applied their deﬁnition of L
k
, and hence of the rational Pontryagin
classes, to triangulated (not necessarily smooth) topological manifolds X by ob
serving that the pullbacks of generic points s ∈ S
n−4k
under piecewise linear
map are Qmanifolds and by pointing out that the signatures of 4kmanifolds
are invariant under bordisms by such (4k + 1)dimensional Qmanifolds with
boundaries (by the Poincar´e duality issuing from the Alexander duality, see
section 4). Thus, they have shown, in particular, that
rational Pontryagin classes of smooth manifolds are invariant under piece
wise smooth homeomorphisms between smooth manifolds.
The combinatorial pullback argument breaks down in the topological cate
gory since there is no good notion of a generic continuous map. Yet, S. Novikov
(1966) proved that the Lclasses and, hence, the rational Pontryagin classes are
invariant under arbitrary homeomorphisms (see section 10).
The ThomRokhlinSchwartz argument delivers a deﬁnition of rational Pon
tryagin classes for all Qmanifolds which are by far more general objects than
smooth (or combinatorial) manifolds due to possibly enormous (and beautiful)
fundamental groups π
1
(L
n−i−1
) of their links.
Yet, the naturally deﬁned bordism ring QB
o
n
of oriented Qmanifolds is only
marginally diﬀerent from B
o
∗
in the degrees n ≠ 4 where the natural homomor
phisms B
o
n
⊗ Q → QB
o
n
⊗ Q are isomorphisms. This can be easily derived by
surgery (see section 9) from Serre’s theorems. For example, if a Qmanifold
X has a single singularity – a cone over Qsphere Σ then a connected sum of
several copies of Σ bounds a smooth Qball which implies that a multiple of X
is Qbordant to a smooth manifold.
On the contrary, the group QB
o
4
⊗ Q, is much bigger than B
o
4
⊗ Q = Q as
rank
Q
(QB
o
4
) = ∞ (see [44], [22], [23] and references therein).
(It would be interesting to have a notion of ”reﬁned bordisms” between
Qmanifold that would partially keep track of π
1
(L
n−i−1
) for n > 4 as well.)
The simplest examples of Qmanifolds are one point compactiﬁcations V
4k
●
of the tangent bundles of even dimensional spheres, V
4k
= T(S
2k
) → S
2k
, since
the boundaries of the corresponding 2kball bundles are Qhomological (2k−1)
spheres – the unit tangent bundles UT(S
2k
) →S
2k
.
Observe that the tangent bundles of spheres are stably trivial – they be
come trivial after adding trivial bundles to them, namely the tangent bundle
of S
2k
⊂ R
2k+1
stabilizes to the trivial bundle upon adding the (trivial) normal
bundle of S
2k
⊂ R
2k+1
to it. Consequently, the manifolds V
4k
= T(S
2k
) have all
characteristic classes zero, and V
4k
●
have all Qclasses zero except for dimension
4k.
On the other hand, L
k
(V
4k
●
) = sig(V
4k
●
) = 1, since the tangent bundle V
4k
=
T(S
2k
) →S
2k
has nonzero Euler number. Hence,
the Qmanifolds V
4k
●
multiplicatively generate all of QB
o
∗
⊗Q except for QB
o
4
.
Local Formulae for Combinatorial Pontryagin Numbers. Let X be a closed
oriented triangulated (smooth or combinatorial) 4kmanifold and let ¦S
4k−1
x
¦
x∈X
0
32
be the disjoint union of the oriented links S
4k−1
x
of the vertices x in X. Then
there exists, for each monomial Q of the total degree 4k in the Pontryagin
classes, an assignment of rational numbers QS
x
 to all S
4k−1
x
, where QS
4k−1
x

depend only on the combinatorial types of the triangulations of S
x
induced from
X, such that the Pontryagin Qnumber of X satisﬁes (LevittRourke 1978),
Q(p
i
)X =
S
4k−1
x
∈[[X]]
QS
4k−1
x
.
Moreover, there is a canonical assignment of real numbers to S
4k−1
x
with this
property which also applies to all Qmanifolds (Cheeger 1983).
There is no comparable eﬀective combinatorial formulae with a priori ratio
nal numbers QS
x
 despite many eﬀorts in this direction, see [24] and references
therein. (LevittRourke theorem is purely existential and Cheeger’s deﬁnition
depends on the L
2
analysis of diﬀerential forms on the nonsingular locus of X
away from the codimension 2 skeleton of X.)
Questions. Let ¦S
4k−1

△
¦ be a ﬁnite collection of combinatorial isomor
phism classes of oriented triangulated (4k − 1)spheres let Q
{[S
4k−1
]
△
}
be the
Qvector space of functions q ∶ ¦S
4k−1

△
¦ → Q and let X be a closed oriented
triangulated 4kmanifold homeomorphic to the 4ktorus (or any parallelizable
manifold for this matter) with all its links in ¦S
4k−1

△
¦.
Denote by q(X) ∈ Q
{[S
4k−1
]
△
}
the function, such that q(X)(S
4k−1

△
) equals
the number of copies of S
4k−1

△
in ¦S
4k−1
x
¦
x∈X
0
and let L¦S
△
¦ ⊂ Q
{[S
4k−1
]
△
}
be the linear span of q(X) for all such X.
The above shows that the vectors q(X) of ”qnumbers” satisfy, besides 2k+1
EulerPoincar´e and DehnSomerville equations, about
exp(π
2k3)
4k
√
3
linear ”Pon
tryagin relations”.
Observe that the EulerPoincar´e and DehnSomerville equations do not de
pend on the ±orientations of the links but the ”Pontryagin relations” are anti
symmetric since Q−S
4k−1

△
= −QS
4k−1

△
. Both kind of relations are valid for
all Qmanifolds.
What are the codimensions codim(L¦S
4k−1

△
¦ ⊂ Q
{[S
4k−1
]
△
}
, i.e. the num
bers of independent relations between the ”qnumbers”, for ”speciﬁc” collections
¦S
4k−1

△
¦?
It is pointed out in [23] that
● the spaces Q
S
i
±
of antisymmetric Qlinear combinations of all combinatorial
spheres make a chain complex for the diﬀerential q
i
±
∶ Q
S
i
±
→ Q
S
i−1
±
deﬁned by
the linear extension of the operation of taking the oriented links of all vertices
on the triangulated ispheres S
i
△
∈ S
i
.
● The operation q
i
±
with values in Q
S
i−1
±
, which is obviously deﬁned on
all closed oriented combinatorial imanifolds X as well as on combinatorial i
spheres, satisﬁes
q
i−1
±
(q
i
±
(X)) = 0, i.e. imanifolds represent icycles in this complex.
Furthermore, it is shown in [23] (as was pointed out to me by Jeﬀ Cheeger)
that all such antisymmetric relations are generated/exhausted by the relations
issuing from q
n−1
±
○ q
n
±
= 0, where this identity can be regarded as an ”oriented
(Pontryagin in place of EulerPoincar´e) counterpart” to the DehnSomerville
equations.
33
The exhaustiveness of q
n−1
±
○ q
n
±
= 0 and its (easy, [25]) DehnSomerville
counterpart, probably, imply that in most (all?) cases the EulerPoincar´e,
DehnSomerville, Pontryagin and q
n−1
±
○ q
n
±
= 0 make the full set of aﬃne (i.e.
homogeneous and nonhomogeneous linear) relations between the vectors q(X),
but it seems hard to eﬀectively (even approximately) evaluate the number of
independent relations issuing from for q
n−1
±
○ q
n
±
= 0 for particular collections
¦S
n−1

△
¦ of allowable links of X
n
.
Examples. Let D
0
= D
0
(Γ) be a DirichletVoronoi (fundamental polyhedral)
domain of a generic lattice Γ ⊂ R
M
and let ¦S
n−1

△
¦ consist of the (isomor
phism classes of naturally triangulated) boundaries of the intersections of D
0
with generic aﬃne nplanes in R
M
.
What is codim(L¦S
n−1

△
¦ ⊂ Q¦S
n−1

△
¦) in this case?
What are the (aﬃne) relations between the ”geometric qnumbers” i.e. the
numbers of combinatorial types of intersections σ of λscaled submanifolds X ⊂
f
R
M
, λ →∞, (as in the triangulation construction in the previous section) with
the Γtranslates of D
0
?
Notice, that some of these σ are not convexlike, but these are negligible
for λ → ∞. On the other hand, if λ is suﬃciently large all σ can be made
convexlike by a small perturbation f
′
of f by an argument which is similar to
but slightly more technical than the one used for the triangulation of manifolds
in the previous section.
Is there anything special about the ”geometric qnumbers” for ”distinguished”
X, e.g. for round nspheres in R
N
?
Observe that the ratios of the ”geometric qnumbers” are asymptotically
deﬁned for many noncompact complete submanifolds X ⊂ R
M
.
For example, if X is an aﬃne subspace A = A
n
⊂ R
M
, these ratios are
(obviously) expressible in terms of the volumes of the connected regions Ω in D ⊂
R
M
obtained by cutting D along hypersurfaces made of the aﬃne nsubspaces
A
′
⊂ R
M
which are parallel to A and which meet the (M −n−1)skeleton of D.
What is the number of our kind of relations between these volumes?
There are similar relations/questions for intersection patterns of particular
X with other fundamental domains of lattices Γ in Euclidean and some non
Euclidean spaces (where the ﬁner asymptotic distributions of these patterns
have a slight arithmetic ﬂavour).
If f ∶ X
n
→ R
M
is a generic map with singularities (which may happen if
M ≤ 2n) and D ⊂ R
M
is a small convex polyhedron in R
M
with its faces being
δtransversal to f (e.g. D = λ
−1
D
0
, λ → ∞ as in the triangulations of the
previous section), then the pullback f
−1
(D) ⊂ X is not necessarily a topological
cell. However, some local/additive formulae for certain characteristic numbers
may still be available in the corresponding ”noncell decompositions” of X.
For instance, one (obviously) has such a formula for the Euler characteristic
for all kind of decompositions of X. Also, one has such a ”local formula” for
sig(X) and f ∶ X →R (i.e for M = 1) by Novikov’s signature additivity property
mentioned at the end of the previous section.
It seems not hard to show that all Pontryagin numbers can be thus lo
cally/additively expressed for M ≥ n, but it is unclear what are precisely the
Qnumbers which are combinatorially/locally/additively expressible for given
n = 4k and M < n.
(For example, if M = 1, then the Euler characteristic and the signature are,
probably, the only ”locally/additively expressible” invariants of X.)
34
Bordisms of Immersions. If the allowed singularities of oriented ncycles in
R
n+k
are those of collections of nplanes in general position, then the resulting
homologies are the bordism groups of oriented immersed manifolds X
n
⊂ R
n+k
(R.Wells, 1966). For example if k = 1, this group is isomorphic to the stable ho
motopy group π
st
n
= π
n+N
(S
N
), N > n+1, by the Pontryagin pullback construc
tion, since a small generic perturbation of an oriented X
n
in R
n+N
⊃ R
n+1
⊃ X
n
is embedded into R
n+N
with a trivial normal bundle, and where every embedding
X
n
→ R
n+N
with the trivial normal bundle can be isotoped to such a pertur
bation of an immersion X
n
→ R
n+1
⊂ R
n+N
by the SmaleHirsch immersion
theorem. (This is obvious for n = 0 and n = 1).
Since immersed oriented X
n
⊂ R
n+1
have trivial stable normal bundles, they
have, for n = 4k, zero signatures by the Serre ﬁniteness theorem. Conversely,
the ﬁniteness of the stable groups π
st
n
= π
n+N
(S
N
) can be (essentially) reduced
by a (framed) surgery of X
n
(see section 9) to the vanishing of these signatures.
The complexity of π
n+N
(S
N
) shifts in this picture one dimension down to
bordism invariants of the ”decorated selfintersections” of immersed X
n
⊂ R
n+1
,
which are partially reﬂected in the structure of the lsheeted coverings of the
loci of lmultiple points of X
n
.
The Galois group of such a covering may be equal the full permutation
group Π(l) and the ”decorated invariants” live in certain ”decorated” bordism
groups of the classifying spaces of Π(l), where the ”dimension shift” suggests an
inductive computation of these groups that would imply, in particular, Serre’s
ﬁniteness theorem of the stable homotopy groups of spheres. In fact, this can
be implemented in terms of conﬁguration spaces associated to the iterated loop
spaces as was pointed out to me by Andras Sz` ucs, also see [1], [75], [76].
The simplest bordism invariant of codimension one immersions is the parity
of the number of (n + 1)multiple points of generically immersed X
n
⊂ R
n+1
.
For example, the ﬁgure ∞ ⊂ R
2
with a single double point represents a nonzero
element in π
st
n=1
= π
1+N
(S
N
). The number of (n+1)multiple points also can be
odd for n = 3 (and, trivially, for n = 0) but it is always even for codimension one
immersions of orientable nmanifolds with n ≠ 0, 1, 3, while the nonorientable
case is more involved [16], [17].
One knows, (see next section) that every element of the stable homotopy
group π
st
n
= π
n+N
(S
N
), N >> n, can be represented for n ≠ 2, 6, 14, 30, 62, 126 by
an immersion X
n
→R
n+1
, where X
n
is a homotopy sphere; if n = 2, 6, 14, 30, 62, 126,
one can make this with an X
n
where rank(H
∗
(X
n
)) = 4.
What is the smallest possible size of the topology, e.g. homology, of the
image f(X
n
) ⊂ R
n+1
and/or of the homologies of the (natural coverings of the)
subsets of the lmultiple points of f(X
n
)?
Geometric Questions about Bordisms. Let X be a closed oriented Rieman
nian nmanifold with locally bounded geometry, which means that every Rball
in X admits a λbiLipschitz homeomorphism onto the Euclidean Rball.
Suppose X is bordant to zero and consider all compact Riemannian (n+1)
manifolds Y extending X = ∂(Y ) with its Riemannian tensor and such that the
local geometries of Y are bounded by some constants R
′
<< R and l
′
>> λ with
the obvious precaution near the boundary.
One can show that the inﬁmum of the volumes of these Y is bounded by
inf
Y
V ol(Y ) ≤ F(V ol(X)),
35
with the power exponent bound on the function F = F(V ). (F also depends on
R, λ, R
′
, λ
′
, but this seems nonessential for R
′
<< R, λ
′
>> λ.)
What is the true asymptotic behaviour of F(V ) for V →∞ ?
It may be linear for all we know and the above ”dimension shift” picture
and/or the construction from [23] may be useful here.
Is there a better setting of this question with some curvature integrals and/or
spectral invariants rather than volumes?
The real cohomology of the Grassmann manifolds can be analytically repre
sented by invariant diﬀerential forms. Is there a compatible analytic/geometric
representation of B
o
n
⊗R? (One may think of a class of measurable nfoliations,
see section 10, or, maybe, something more sophisticated than that.)
6 Exotic Spheres.
In 1956, to everybody’s amazement, Milnor found smooth manifolds Σ
7
which
were not diﬀeomorphic to S
N
; yet, each of them was decomposable into the
union of two 7balls B
7
1
, B
7
2
⊂ Σ
7
intersecting over their boundaries ∂(B
7
1
) =
∂(B
7
2
) = S
6
⊂ Σ
7
like in the ordinary sphere S
7
.
In fact, this decomposition does imply that Σ
7
is ”ordinary” in the topological
category: such a Σ
7
is (obviously) homeomorphic to S
7
.
The subtlety resides in the ”equality” ∂(B
7
1
) = ∂(B
7
2
); this identiﬁcation of
the boundaries is far from being the identity map from the point of view of
either of the two balls – it does not come from any diﬀeomorphisms B
7
1
↔B
7
2
.
The equality ∂(B
7
1
) = ∂(B
7
2
) can be regarded as a selfdiﬀeomorphism f of
the round sphere S
6
– the boundary of standard ball B
7
, but this f does not
extend to a diﬀeomorphism of B
7
in Milnor’s example; otherwise, Σ
7
would be
diﬀeomorphic to S
7
. (Yet, f radially extends to a piecewise smooth homeomor
phism of B
7
which yields a piecewise smooth homeomorphism between Σ
7
and
S
7
.)
It follows, that such an f can not be included into a family of diﬀeomorphisms
bringing it to an isometric transformations of S
6
. Thus, any geometric ”energy
minimizing” ﬂow on the diﬀeomorphism group diff(S
6
) either gets stuck or
develops singularities. (It seems little, if anything at all, is known about such
ﬂows and their singularities.)
Milnor’s spheres Σ
7
are rather innocuous spaces – the boundaries of (the
total spaces of) 4ball bundles Θ
8
→ S
4
in some in some R
4
bundles V → S
4
,
i.e. Θ
8
⊂ V and, thus, our Σ
7
are certain S
3
bundles over S
4
.
All 4ball bundles, or equivalently R
4
bundles, over S
4
are easy to de
scribe: each is determined by two numbers: the Euler number e, that is the
selfintersection index of S
4
⊂ Θ
8
, which assumes all integer values, and the
Pontryagin number p
1
(i.e. the value of the Pontryagin class p
1
∈ H
4
(S
4
) on
S
4
 ∈ H
4
(S
4
)) which may be an arbitrary even integer.
(Milnor explicitly construct his ﬁbrations with maps of the 3sphere into
the group SO(4) of orientation preserving linear isometries of R
4
as follows.
Decompose S
4
into two round 4balls, say S
4
= B
4
+
∪ B
4
−
with the common
boundary S
3
∂
= B
4
+
∩ B
4
−
and let f ∶ s
∂
↦ O
∂
∈ SO(4) be a smooth map. Then
glue the boundaries of B
4
+
× R
4
and B
4
−
× R
4
by the diﬀeomorphism (s
∂
, s) ↦
(s
∂
, O
∂
(s)) and obtain V
8
= B
4
+
× R
4
∪
f
B
4
−
× R
4
which makes an R
4
ﬁbration
over S
4
.
36
To construct a speciﬁc f, identify R
4
with the quaternion line H and S
3
with
the multiplicative group of quaternions of norm 1. Let f(s) = f
ij
(s) ∈ SO(4)
act by x ↦ s
i
xs
j
for x ∈ H and the left and right quaternion multiplication.
Then Milnor computes: e = i + j and p
1
= ±2(i − j).)
Obviously, all Σ
7
are 2connected, but H
3
(Σ
7
) may be nonzero (e.g. for the
trivial bundle). It is not hard to show that Σ
7
has the same homology as S
7
,
hence, homotopy equivalent to S
7
, if and only if e = ±1 which means that the
selﬁntersection index of the zero section sphere S
4
⊂ Θ
8
equals ±1; we stick to
e = 1 for our candidates for Σ
7
.
The basic example of Σ
7
with e = ±1 (the sign depends on the choice of the
orientation in Θ
8
) is the ordinary 7sphere which comes with the Hopf ﬁbration
S
7
→ S
4
, where this S
7
is positioned as the unit sphere in the quaternion
plane H
2
= R
8
, where it is freely acted upon by the group G = S
3
of the unit
quaternions and where S
7
]G equals the sphere S
4
representing the quaternion
projective line.
If Σ
7
is diﬀeomorphic to S
7
one can attach the 8ball to Θ
8
along this S
7

boundary and obtain a smooth closed 8manifold, say Θ
8
+
.
Milnor observes that the signature of Θ
8
+
equals ±1, since the homology of
Θ
8
+
is represented by a single cycle – the sphere S
4
⊂ Θ
8
⊂ Θ
8
+
the selﬁntersection
number of which equals the Euler number.
Then Milnor invokes the Thom signature theorem
45sig(X) + p
2
1
X = 7p
2
X
and concludes that the number 45 + p
2
1
must be divisible by 7; therefore, the
boundaries Σ
7
of those Θ
8
which fail this condition, say for p
1
= 4, must be
exotic. (You do not have to know the deﬁnition of the Pontryagin classes, just
remember they are integer cohomology classes.)
Finally, using quaternions, Milnor explicitly constructs a Morse function
Σ
7
→ R with only two critical points – maximum and minimum on each Σ
7
with e = 1; this yields the two ball decomposition. (We shall explain this in
section 8.)
(Milnor’s topological arguments, which he presents with a meticulous care,
became a common knowledge and can be now found in any textbook; his lemmas
look apparent to a today topology student. The hardest for the modern reader
is the ﬁnal Milnor’s lemma claiming that his function Σ
7
→R is Morse with two
critical points. Milnor is laconic at this point: ”It is easy to verify” is all what
he says.)
The 8manifolds Θ
8
+
associated with Milnor’s exotic Σ
7
can be triangulated
with a single nonsmooth point in such a triangulation. Yet, they admit no
smooth structures compatible with these triangulations since their combina
torial Pontryagin numbers (deﬁned by RochlinSchwartz and Thom) fail the
divisibility condition issuing from the Thom formula sig(X
8
) = L
2
X
8
; in fact,
they are not combinatorially bordant to smooth manifolds.
Moreover, these Θ
8
+
are not even topologically bordant, and therefore, they
are nonhomeomorphic to smooth manifolds by (slightly reﬁned) Novikov’s topo
logical Pontryagin classes theorem.
The number of homotopy spheres, i.e. of mutually nondiﬀeomorphic man
ifolds Σ
n
which are homotopy equivalent to S
n
is not that large. In fact, it is
ﬁnite for all n ≠ 4 by the work of Kervaire and Milnor [39], who, eventually,
37
derive this from the Serre ﬁniteness theorem. (One knows nowadays that every
smooth homotopy sphere Σ
n
is homeomorphic to S
n
according to the solution
of the Poincar´e conjecture by Smale for n ≥ 5, by Freedman for n = 4 and by
Perelman for n = 3, where ”homeomorphic”⇒ ”diﬀeomorphic” for n = 3 by
Moise’s theorem.)
Kervaire and Milnor start by showing that for every homotopy sphere Σ
n
,
there exists a smooth map f ∶ S
n+N
→ S
N
, N >> n, such that the pullback
f
−1
(s) ⊂ S
n+N
of a generic point s ∈ S
N
is diﬀeomorphic to Σ
n
. (The existence
of such an f with f
−1
(s) = Σ
n
is equivalent to the existence of an immersion
Σ
n
→R
n+1
by the Hirsch theorem.)
Then, by applying surgery (see section 9) to the f
0
pullback of a point for a
given generic map f
0
∶ S
n+N
→S
N
, they prove that almost all homotopy classes
of maps S
n+N
→S
N
come from homotopy nspheres. Namely:
● If n ≠ 4k +2, then every homotopy class of maps S
n+N
→S
N
, N >> n, can
be represented by a ”Σ
n
map” f, i.e. where the pullback of a generic point is a
homotopy sphere.
If n = 4k +2, then the homotopy classes of ”Σ
n
maps” constitute a subgroup
in the corresponding stable homotopy group, say K
n
⊂ π
st
n
= π
n+N
(S
N
), N >> n,
that has index 1 or 2 and which is expressible in terms of the Kervaire(Arf )
invariant classifying (similarly to the signature for n = 4k) properly deﬁned
”selfintersections” of (k + 1)cycles mod 2 in (4k + 2)manifolds.
One knows today by the work of Pontryagin, KervaireMilnor and Barratt
JonesMahowald see [9] that
● If n = 2, 6, 14, 30, 62, then the Kervaire invariant can be nonzero, i.e.
π
st
n
]K
n
= Z
2
.
Furthermore,
● The Kervaire invariant vanishes, i.e. K
n
= π
st
n
, for n ≠ 2, 6, 14, 30, 62, 126
(where it remains unknown if π
st
126
]K
126
equals ¦0¦ or Z
2
).
In other words,
every continuous map S
n+N
→ S
N
, N >> n ≠ 2, 6, ..., 126, is homotopic to
a smooth map f ∶ S
n+N
→ S
N
, such that the fpullback of a generic point is a
homotopy nsphere.
The case n ≠ 2
l
−2 goes back to Browder (1969) and the case n = 2
l
−2, l ≥ 8
is a recent achievement by Hill, Hopkins and Ravenel [37]. (Their proof relies
on a generalized homology theory H
gen
n
where H
gen
n+256
= H
gen
n
.)
If the pullback of a generic point of a smooth map f ∶ S
n+N
→ S
N
, is
diﬀeomorphic to S
n
, the map f may be noncontractible. In fact, the set of
the homotopy classes of such f makes a cyclic subgroup in the stable homotopy
group of spheres, denoted J
n
⊂ π
st
n
= π
n+N
(S
N
), N >> n (and called the image
of the Jhomomorphism π
n
(SO(∞)) → π
st
n
). The order of J
n
is 1 or 2 for
n ≠ 4k−1; if n = 4k−1, then the order of J
n
equals the denominator of B
2k
]4k,
where B
2k
is the Bernoulli number. The ﬁrst nontrivial J are
J
1
= Z
2
, J
3
= Z
24
, J
7
= Z
240
, J
8
= Z
2
, J
9
= Z
2
and J
11
= Z
504
.
In general, the homotopy classes of maps f such that the fpullback of a
generic point is diﬀeomorphic to a given homotopy sphere Σ
n
, make a J
n
coset
in the stable homotopy group π
st
n
. Thus the correspondence Σ
n
↝ f deﬁnes a
map from the set ¦Σ
n
¦ of the diﬀeomorphism classes of homotopy spheres to
38
the factor group π
st
n
]J
n
, say µ ∶ ¦Σ
n
¦ →π
st
n
]J
n
.
The map µ (which, by the above, is surjective for n ≠ 2, 6, 14, 30, 62, 126) is
ﬁnitetoone for n ≠ 4, where the proof of this ﬁniteness for n ≥ 5 depends on
Smale’s hcobordism theorem, (see section 8). In fact, the homotopy nspheres
make an Abelian group (n ≠ 4) under the connected sum operation Σ
1
#Σ
2
(see
next section) and, by applying surgery to manifolds Θ
n+1
with boundaries Σ
n
,
where these Θ
n+1
(unlike the above Milnor’s Θ
8
) come as pullbacks of generic
points under smooth maps from (n + N + 1)balls B
n+N+1
to S
N
, Kervaire and
Milnor show that
(☀) µ ∶ ¦Σ
n
¦ → π
st
n
]J
n
is a homomorphism with a ﬁnite (n ≠ 4) kernel
denoted B
n+1
⊂ ¦Σ
n
¦ which is a cyclic group.
(The homotopy spheres Σ
n
∈ B
n+1
bound (n+1)manifolds with trivial tan
gent bundles.)
Moreover,
(⋆) The kernel B
n+1
of µ is zero for n = 2m ≠ 4.
If n + 1 = 4k + 2, then B
n+1
is either zero or Z
2
, depending on the Kervaire
invariant:
(⋆) If n equals 1, 5, 13, 29, 61 and, possibly, 125, then B
n+1
is zero, and
B
n+1
= Z
2
for the rest of n = 4k + 1.
(⋆) if n = 4k −1, then the cardinality (order) of B
n+1
equals 2
2k−2
(2
2k−1
−1)
times the numerator of 4B
2k
]k, where B
2k
is the Bernoulli number.
The above and the known results on the stable homotopy groups π
st
n
imply,
for example, that there are no exotic spheres for n = 5, 6, there are 28 mutually
nondiﬀeomorphic homotopy 7spheres, there are 16 homotopy 18spheres and
523264 mutually nondiﬀeomorphic homotopy 19spheres.
By Perelman, there is a single smooth structure on the homotopy 3 sphere
and the case n = 4 remains open. (Yet, every homotopy 4sphere is homeomor
phic to S
4
by Freedman’s solution of the 4DPoincar´e conjecture.)
7 Isotopies and Intersections.
Besides constructing, listing and classifying manifolds X one wants to under
stand the topology of spaces of maps X →Y .
The space X→Y 
smth
of all C
∞
maps carries little geometric load by itself
since this space is homotopy equivalent to X→Y 
cont(inuous)
.
An analyst may be concerned with completions of X→Y 
smth
, e.g. with
Sobolev’ topologies while a geometer is keen to study geometric structures, e.g.
Riemannian metrics on this space.
But from a diﬀerential topologist’s point of view the most interesting is the
space of smooth embeddings F ∶ X → Y which diﬀeomorphically send X onto a
smooth submanifold X
′
= f(X) ⊂ Y .
If dim(Y ) > 2dim(X) then generic f are embeddings, but, in general, you
can not produce them at will so easily. However, given such an embedding
f
0
∶ X → Y , there are plenty of smooth homotopies, called (smooth) isotopies
f
t
, t ∈ 0, 1, of it which remain embeddings for every t and which can be obtained
with the following
39
Isotopy Theorem. (Thom, 1954.) Let Z ⊂ X be a compact smooth
submanifold (boundary is allowed) and f
0
∶ X →Y is an embedding, where the
essential case is where X ⊂ Y and f
0
is the identity map.
Then every isotopy of Z
f
0
→Y can be extended to an isotopy of all of X. More
generally, the restriction map R
Z
∶ X→Y 
emb
→ Z→Y 
emb
is a ﬁbration;
in particular, the isotopy extension property holds for an arbitrary family of
embeddings X →Y parametrized by a compact space.
This is similar to the homotopy extension property (mentioned in section
1) for spaces of continuous maps X → Y – the ”geometric” cornerstone of the
algebraic topology.)
The proof easily reduces with the implicit function theorem to the case,
where X = Y and dim(Z) = dim(W).
Since diﬀeomorphisms are open in the space of all smooth maps, one can
extend ”small” isotopies, those which only slightly move Z, and since diﬀeomor
phisms of Y make a group, the required isotopy is obtained as a composition of
small diﬀeomorphisms of Y . (The details are easy.)
Both ”open” and ”group” are crucial: for example, homotopies by locally
diﬀeomorphic maps, say of a disk B
2
⊂ S
2
to S
2
do not extend to S
2
whenever a
map B
2
→S
2
starts overlapping itself. Also it is much harder (yet possible, [12],
[40]) to extend topological isotopies, since homeomorphisms are, by no means,
open in the space of all continuous maps.
For example if dim(Y ) ≥ 2dim(Z) + 2. then a generic smooth homotopy of
Z is an isotopy: Z does not, generically, cross itself as it moves in Y (unlike,
for example, a circle moving in the 3space where selfcrossings are stable un
der small perturbations of homotopies). Hence, every generic homotopy of Z
extends to a smooth isotopy of Y .
Mazur Swindle and Hauptvermutung. Let U
1
, U
2
be compact nmanifolds
with boundaries and f
12
∶ U
1
→U
2
and f
21
∶ U
2
→U
1
be embeddings which land
in the interiors of their respective target manifolds.
Let W
1
and W
2
be the unions (inductive limits) of the inﬁnite increasing
sequences of spaces
W
1
= U
1
⊂
f
12
U
2
⊂
f
21
U
1
⊂
f
12
U
2
⊂
f
12
...
and
W
2
= U
2
⊂
f
21
U
1
⊂
f
12
U
2
⊂
f
12
U
1
⊂
f
12
...
Observe that W
1
and W
2
are open manifolds without boundaries and that
they are diﬀeomorphic since dropping the ﬁrst term in a sequence U
1
⊂ U
2
⊂
U
3
⊂ ... does not change the union.
Similarly, both manifolds are diﬀeomorphic to the unions of the sequences
W
11
= U
1
⊂
f
11
U
1
⊂
f
11
... and W
22
= U
2
⊂
f
22
U
2
⊂
f
22...
for
f
11
= f
12
○ f
21
∶ U
1
→U
1
and f
22
= f
21
○ f
12
∶ U
2
→U
2
.
If the selfembedding f
11
is isotopic to the identity map, then W
11
is diﬀeo
morphic to the interior of U
1
by the isotopy theorem and the same applies to
f
22
(or any selfembedding for this matter).
40
Thus we conclude with the above, that, for example,
open normal neighbourhoods U
op
1
and U
op
2
of two homotopy equivalent n
manifolds (and triangulated spaces in general) Z
1
and Z
2
in R
n+N
, N ≥ n + 2,
are diﬀeomorphic (Mazur 1961).
Anybody might have guessed that the ”open” condition is a pure techni
cality and everybody believed so until Milnor’s 1961 counterexample to the
Hauptvermutung – the main conjecture of the combinatorial topology.
Milnor has shown that there are two free isometric actions A
1
and A
2
of the
cyclic group Z
p
on the sphere S
3
, for every prime p ≥ 7, such that
the quotient (lens) spaces Z
1
= S
3
]A
1
and Z
2
= S
3
]A
2
are homotopy equiv
alent, but their closed normal neighbourhoods U
1
and U
2
in any R
3+N
are not
diﬀeomorphic. (This could not have happened to simply connected manifolds
Z
i
by the hcobordism theorem.)
Moreover,
the polyhedra P
1
and P
2
obtained by attaching the cones to the boundaries
of these manifolds admit no isomorphic simplicial subdivisions.
Yet, the interiors U
op
i
of these U
i
, i = 1, 2, are diﬀeomorphic for N ≥ 5. In
this case,
P
1
and P
2
are homeomorphic as the one point compactiﬁcations of two home
omorphic spaces U
op
1
and U
op
2
.
It was previously known that these Z
1
and Z
2
are homotopy equivalent (J. H.
C. Whitehead, 1941); yet, they are combinatorially nonequivalent (Reidemeis
ter, 1936) and, hence, by Moise’s 1951 positive solution of the Hauptvermutung
for 3manifolds, nonhomeomorphic.
There are few direct truly geometric constructions of diﬀeomorphisms, but
those available, are extensively used, e.g. ﬁberwise linear diﬀeomorphisms of
vector bundles. Even the sheer existence of the humble homothety of R
n
, x ↦tx,
combined with the isotopy theorem, eﬀortlessly yields, for example, the following
B→Y Lemma. The space of embeddings f of the nball (or R
n
) into an
arbitrary Y = Y
n+k
is homotopy equivalent to the space of tangent nframes in
Y ; in fact the diﬀerential f ↦Df0 establishes a homotopy equivalence between
the respective spaces.
For example,
the assignment f ↦ J(f)0 of the Jacobi matrix at 0 ∈ B
n
is a homotopy
equivalence of the space of embeddings f ∶ B →R
n
to the linear group GL(n).
Corollary: Ball Gluing Lemma. Let X
1
and X
2
be (n + 1)dimensional
manifolds with boundaries Y
1
and Y
2
, let B
1
⊂ Y
1
be a smooth submanifold dif
feomorphic to the nball and let f ∶ B
1
→B
2
⊂ Y
2
= ∂(A
2
) be a diﬀeomorphism.
If the boundaries Y
i
of X
i
are connected, the diﬀeomorphism class of the
(n + 1)manifold X
3
= X
1
+
f
X
2
obtained by attaching X
1
to X
2
by f and
(obviously canonically) smoothed at the ”corner” (or rather the ”crease”) along
the boundary of B
1
, does not depend on B
1
and f.
This X
3
is denoted X
1
#
∂
X
2
. For example, this ”sum” of balls, B
n+1
#
∂
B
n+1
,
is again a smooth (n + 1)ball.
Connected Sum. The boundary Y
3
= ∂(X
3
) can be deﬁned without any
reference to X
i
⊃ Y
i
, as follows. Glue the manifolds Y
1
an Y
2
by f ∶ B
1
→B
2
⊂ Y
2
and then remove the interiors of the balls B
1
and of its fimage B
2
.
41
If the manifolds Y
i
(not necessarily anybody’s boundaries or even being
closed) are connected, then the resulting connected sum manifold is denoted
Y
1
#Y
2
.
Isn’t it a waste of glue? You may be wondering why bother glueing the
interiors of the balls if you are going to remove them anyway. Wouldn’t it be
easier ﬁrst to remove these interiors from both manifolds and then glue what
remains along the spheres S
n−1
i
= ∂(B
i
)?
This is easier but also it is also a wrong thing to do: the result may depend
on the diﬀeomorphism S
n−1
1
↔S
n−1
2
, as it happens for Y
1
= Y
2
= S
7
in Milnor’s
example; but the connected sum deﬁned with balls is unique by the B→Y 
lemma.
The ball gluing operation may be used many times in succession; thus, for
example, one builds ”big (n + 1)balls” from smaller ones, where this lemma in
lower dimension may be used for ensuring the ball property of the gluing sites.
Gluing and Bordisms. Take two closed oriented nmanifold X
1
and X
2
and
let
X
1
⊃ U
1
↔
f
U
2
⊂ X
2
be an orientation reversing diﬀeomorphisms between compact ndimensional
submanifolds U
i
⊂ X
i
, i = 1, 2 with boundaries. If we glue X
1
and X
2
by
f and remove the (glued together) interiors of U
i
the resulting manifold, say
X
3
= X
1
+
−U
X
2
is naturally oriented and, clearly, it is orientably bordant to
the disjoint union of X
1
and X
2
. (This is similar to the geometric/algebraic
cancellation of cycles mentioned in section 4.)
Conversely, one can give an alternative deﬁnition of the oriented bordism
group B
o
n
as of the Abelian group generated by oriented nmanifolds with the
relations X
3
= X
1
+ X
2
for all X
3
= X
1
+
−U
X
2
. This gives the same B
o
n
even if
the only U allowed are those diﬀeomorphic to S
i
× B
n−i
as it follows from the
handle decompositions induced by Morse functions.
The isotopy theorem is not dimension speciﬁc, but the following construction
due to Haeﬂiger (1961) generalizing the Whitney Lemma of 1944 demonstrates
something special about isotopies in high dimensions.
Let Y be a smooth nmanifold and X
′
, X
′′
⊂ Y be smooth closed submani
folds in general position. Denote Σ
0
= X
′
∩X
′′
⊂ Y and let X be the (abstract)
disjoint union of X
′
and X
′′
. (If X
′
and X
′′
are connected equividimensional
manifolds, one could say that X is a smooth manifold with its two ”connected
components” X
′
and X
′′
being embedded into Y .)
Clearly,
dim(Σ
0
) = n−k
′
−k
′′
for n = dim(Y ), n−k
′
= dim(X
′
) and n−k
′′
= dim(X
′′
).
Let f
t
∶ X → Y , t ∈ 0, 1, be a smooth generic homotopy which disengages
X
′
from X
′′
, i.e. f
1
(X
′
) does not intersect f
1
(X
′′
), and let
˜
Σ = ¦(x
′
, x
′′
, t)¦
f
t
(x
′
)=f
t
(x
′′
)
⊂ X
′
× X
′′
× 0, 1,
i.e.
˜
Σ consists of the triples (x
′
, x
′′
, t) for which f
t
(x
′
) = f
t
(x
′′
).
Let Σ ⊂ X
′
∪ X
′′
be the union S
′
∪ S
′′
, where S
′
⊂ X
′
equals the projection
of
˜
Σ to the X
′
factor of X
′
× X
′′
× 0, 1 and S
′′
⊂ X
′′
is the projection of
˜
Σ to
X
′′
.
42
Thus, there is a correspondence x
′
↔x
′′
between the points in Σ = S
′
∪ S
′′
,
where the two points correspond one to another if x
′
∈ S
′
meets x
′′
∈ S
′′
at some
moment t
∗
in the course of the homotopy, i.e.
f
t
∗
(x
′
) = f
t
∗
(x
′′
) for some t
∗
∈ 0, 1.
Finally, let W ⊂ Y be the union of the f
t
paths, denoted x
′
∗
t
x
′′
 ⊂ Y ,
travelled by the points x
′
∈ S
′
⊂ Σ and x
′′
∈ S
′′
⊂ Σ until they meet at some
moment t
∗
. In other words, x
′
∗
t
x
′′
 ⊂ Y consists of the union of the points
f
t
(x
′
) and f
t
(x
′′
) over t ∈ 0, t
∗
= t
∗
(x
′
) = t
∗
(x
′′
) and
W = ⋃
x
′
∈S
′
x
′
∗
t
x
′′
 = ⋃
x
′′
∈S
′′
x
′
∗
t
x
′′
.
Clearly,
dim(Σ) = dim(Σ
0
)+1 = n−k
′
−k
′′
+1 and dim(W) = dim(Σ)+1 = n−k
′
−k
′′
+2.
To grasp the picture look at X consisting of a round 2sphere X
′
(where
k
′
= 1) and a round circle X
′′
(where k
′′
= 2) in the Euclidean 3space Y , where
X and X
′
intersect at two points x
1
, x
2
– our Σ
0
= ¦x
1
, x
2
¦ in this case.
When X
′
an X
′′
move away one from the other by parallel translations
in the opposite directions, their intersection points sweep W which equals the
intersection of the 3ball bounded by X
′
and the ﬂat 2disc spanned by X
′′
.
The boundary Σ of this W consists of two arcs S
′
⊂ X
′
and S
′′
⊂ X
′′
, where S
′
joins x
1
with x
2
in X
′
and S
′′
join x
1
with x
2
in X
′′
.
Back to the general case, we want W to be, generically, a smooth submanifold
without double points as well as without any other singularities, except for the
unavoidable corner in its boundary Σ, where S
′
meet S
′′
along Σ
0
. We need for
this
2dim(W) = 2(n − k
′
− k
′′
+ 2) < n = dim(Y ) i.e. 2k
′
+ 2k
′′
> n + 4.
Also, we want to avoid an intersection of W with X
′
and with X
′′
away from
Σ = ∂(W). If we agree that k
′′
≥ k
′
, this, generically, needs
dim(W) + dim(X) = (n − k
′
− k
′′
+ 2) + (n − k
′
) < n i.e. 2k
′
+ k
′′
> n + 2.
These inequalities imply that k
′
≥ k ≥ 3, and the lowest dimension where
they are meaningful is the ﬁrst Whitney case: dim(Y ) = n = 6 and k
′
= k
′′
= 3.
Accordingly, W is called Whitney’s disk, although it may be nonhomeomorphic
to B
2
with the present deﬁnition of W (due to Haeﬂiger).
Haeﬂiger Lemma (Whitney for k + k
′
= n). Let the dimensions n − k
′
=
dim(X
′
) and n−k
′′
= dim(X
′′
), where k
′′
≥ k
′
, of two submanifolds X
′
and X
′′
in the ambient nmanifold Y satisfy 2k
′
+ k
′′
> n + 2.
Then every homotopy f
t
of (the disjoint union of ) X
′
and X
′′
in Y which
disengages X
′
from X
′′
, can be replaced by a disengaging homotopy f
new
t
which
is an isotopy, on both manifolds, i.e. f
new
t
(X
′
) and f
new
(X
′′
) reman smooth
without self intersection points in Y for all t ∈ 0, 1 and f
new
1
(X
′
) does not
intersect f
new
1
(X
′′
).
Proof. Assume f
t
is smooth generic and take a small neighbourhood U
3ε
⊂ Y
of W. By genericity, this f
t
is an isotopy of X
′
as well as of X
′′
within U
3ε
⊂ Y :
43
the intersections of f
t
(X
′
) and f
t
(X
′′
) with U
3ε
, call them X
′
3ε
(t) and X
′′
3ε
(t)
are smooth submanifolds in U
3ε
for all t, which, moreover, do not intersect away
from W ⊂ U
3ε
.
Hence, by the Thom isotopy theorem, there exists an isotopy F
t
of Y ∖ U
ε
which equals f
t
on U
2ε
∖ U
ε
and which is constant in t on Y ∖ U
3ε
.
Since f
t
and F
t
within U
3ε
are equal on the overlap U
2ε
∖ U
ε
of their deﬁni
tion domains, they make together a homotopy of X
′
and X
′′
which, obviously,
satisﬁes our requirements.
There are several immediate generalizations/applications of this theorem.
(1) One may allow selfintersections Σ
0
within connected components of X,
where the necessary homotopy condition for removing Σ
0
(which was expressed
with the disengaging f
t
in the present case) is formulated in terms of maps
˜
f ∶ X×X →Y ×Y commuting with the involutions (x
1
, x
2
) ↔(x
2
, x
1
) in X×X
and (y
1
, y
2
) ↔ (y
2
, y
1
) in Y × Y and having the pullbacks
˜
f
−1
(Y
diag
) of the
diagonal Y
diag
⊂ Y × Y equal X
diag
⊂ X × X, [33].
(2) One can apply all of the above to p parametric families of maps X →Y ,
by paying the price of the extra p in the excess of dim(Y ) over dim(X), [33].
If p = 1, this yield an isotopy classiﬁcation of embeddings X →Y for 3k > n+3
by homotopies of the above symmetric maps X ×X →Y ×Y , which shows, for
example, that there are no knots for these dimensions (Haeﬂiger, 1961).
if 3k > n + 3, then every smooth embedding S
n−k
→ R
n
is smoothly isotopic
to the standard S
n−k
⊂ R
n
.
But if 3k = n + 3 and k = 2l + 1 is odd then there are
inﬁnitely many isotopy of classes of embeddings S
4l−1
→ R
6l
, (Haeﬂiger
1962).
Nontriviality of such a knot S
4l−1
→ R
6l
is detected by showing that a
map f
0
∶ B
4l
→ R
6l
× R
+
extending S
4l−1
= ∂(B
4l
) can not be turned into an
embedding, keeping it transversal to R
6l
= R
6l
× 0 and with its boundary equal
our knot S
4l−1
⊂ R
6l
.
The WhitneyHaeﬂiger W for f
0
has dimension 6l + 1 − 2(2l + 1) + 2 = 2l + 1
and, generically, it transversally intersects B
4l
at several points.
The resulting (properly deﬁned) intersection index of W with B is nonzero
(otherwise one could eliminate these points by Whitney) and it does not depend
on f
0
. In fact, it equals the linking invariant of Haeﬂiger. (This is reminiscent
of the ”higher linking products” described by Sullivan’s minimal models, see
section 9.)
(3) In view of the above, one must be careful if one wants to relax the dimen
sion constrain by an inductive application of the WhitneyHaeﬂiger disengag
ing procedure, since obstructions/invariants for removal ”higher” intersections
which come on the way may be not so apparent. (The structure of ”higher
selfintersections” of this kind for Euclidean hypersurfaces carries a signiﬁcant
information on the stable homotopy groups of spheres.)
But this is possible, at least on the Qlevel, where one has a comprehensive
algebraic control of selfintersections of all multiplicities for maps of codimension
k ≥ 3. Also, even without tensoring with Q, the higher intersection obstructions
tend to vanish in the combinatorial category.
For example,
44
there is no combinatorial knots of codimension k ≥ 3 (Zeeman, 1963).
The essential mechanism of knotting X = X
n
⊂ Y = Y
n+2
depends on the
fundamental group Γ of the complement U = Y ⊂ X. The group Γ may look
a nuisance when you want to untangle a knot, especially a surface X
2
in a
4manifold, but these Γ = Γ(X) for various X ⊂ Y form beautifully intricate
patterns which are poorly understood.
For example, the groups Γ = π
1
(U) capture the ´etale cohomology of algebraic
manifolds and the NovikovPontryagin classes of topological manifolds (see sec
tion 10). Possibly, the groups Γ(X
2
) for surfaces X
2
⊂ Y
4
have much to tell us
about the smooth topology of 4manifolds.
There are few systematic ways of constructing ”simple” X ⊂ Y , e.g. im
mersed submanifolds, with ”interesting” (e.g. far from being free) fundamental
groups of their complements.
Oﬀhand suggestions are pullbacks of (special singular) divisors X
0
in com
plex algebraic manifolds Y
0
under generic maps Y →Y
0
and immersed subvari
eties X
n
in cubically subdivided Y
n+2
, where X
n
are made of nsubcubes ◻
n
inside the cubes ◻
n+2
⊂ Y
n+2
and where these interior ◻
n
⊂ ◻
n+2
are parallel to
the nfaces of ◻
n+2
.
It remains equally unclear what is the possible topology of selfintersections
of immersions X
n
→Y
n+2
, say for S
3
→S
5
, where the selfintersection makes a
link in S
3
, and for S
4
→S
6
where this is an immersed surface in S
4
.
(4) One can control the position of the image of f
new
(X) ⊂ Y , e.g. by
making it to land in a given open subset W
0
⊂ W, if there is no homotopy
obstruction to this.
The above generalizes and simpliﬁes in the combinatorial or ”piecewise
smooth” category, e.g. for ”unknotting spheres”, where the basic construction
is as follows
Engulﬁng. Let X be a piecewise smooth polyhedron in a smooth manifold
Y .
If n − k = dim(X) ≤ dim(Y ) − 3 and if π
i
(Y ) = 0 for i = 1, ...dim(Y ), then
there exists a smooth isotopy F
t
of Y which eventually (for t = 1) moves X to a
given (small) neighbourhood B
○
of a point in Y .
Sketch of the Proof. Start with a generic f
t
. This f
t
does the job away from
a certain W which has dim(W) ≤ n−2k +2. This is < dim(X) under the above
assumption and the proof proceeds by induction on dim(X).
This is called ”engulﬁng” since B
○
, when moved by the time reversed isotopy,
engulfs X; engulﬁng was invented by Stallings in his approach to the Poincar´e
Conjecture in the combinatorial category, which goes, roughly, as follows.
Let Y be a smooth nmanifold. Then, with a simple use of two mutually
dual smooth triangulations of Y , one can decompose Y , for each i, into the
union of regular neighbourhoods U
1
and U
2
of smooth subpolyhedra X
1
and X
2
in Y of dimensions i and n − i − 1 (similarly to the handle body decomposition
of a 3manifold into the union of two thickened graphs in it), where, recall, a
neighbourhood U of an X ⊂ Y is regular if there exists an isotopy f
t
∶ U → U
which brings all of U arbitrarily close to X.
Now let Y be a homotopy sphere of dimension n ≥ 7, say n = 7, and let
i = 3 Then X
1
and X
2
, and hence U
1
and U
2
, can be engulfed by (diﬀeomorphic
images of) balls, say by B
1
⊃ U
1
and B
2
⊃ U
2
with their centers denoted 0
1
∈ B
1
45
and 0
2
∈ B
2
.
By moving the 6sphere ∂(B
1
) ⊂ B
2
by the radial isotopy in B
2
toward 0
2
,
one represents Y ∖0
2
by the union of an increasing sequence of isotopic copies of
the ball B
1
. This implies (with the isotopy theorem) that Y ∖0
2
is diﬀeomorphic
to R
7
, hence, Y is homeomorphic to S
7
.
(A reﬁned generalization of this argument delivers the Poincar´e conjecture
in the combinatorial and topological categories for n ≥ 5. See [67] for an account
of techniques for proving various ”Poincar´e conjectures” and for references to
the source papers.)
8 Handles and hCobordisms.
The original approach of Smale to the Poincar´e conjecture depends on han
dle decompositions of manifolds – counterparts to cell decompositions in the
homotopy theory.
Such decompositions are more ﬂexible, and by far more abundant than tri
angulations and they are better suited for a match with algebraic objects such
as homology. For example, one can sometimes realize a basis in homology by
suitably chosen cells or handles which is not even possible to formulate properly
for triangulations.
Recall that an ihandle of dimension n is the ball B
n
decomposed into the
product B
n
= B
i
×B
n−i
(ε) where one think of such a handle as an εthickening
of the unit iball and where
A(ε) = S
i
× B
n−1
(ε) ⊂ S
n−1
= ∂B
n
is seen as an εneighbourhood of its axial (i −1)sphere S
i−1
×0 – an equatorial
isphere in S
n−1
.
If X is an nmanifold with boundary Y and f ∶ A(ε) → Y a smooth em
bedding, one can attach B
n
to X by f and the resulting manifold (with the
”corner” along ∂A(ε) made smooth) is denoted X +
f
B
n
or X +
S
i−1 B
n
, where
the latter subscript refers to the fimage of the axial sphere in Y .
The eﬀect of this on the boundary, i.e. modiﬁcation
∂(X) = Y ↝
f
Y
′
= ∂(X +
S
i−1 B
n
)
does not depend on X but only on Y and f. It is called an isurgery of Y at
the sphere f(S
i−1
× 0) ⊂ Y .
The manifold X = Y ×0, 1 +
S
i−1 B
n
, where B
n
is attached to Y ×1, makes
a bordism between Y = Y ×0 and Y
′
which equals the surgically modiﬁed Y ×1
component of the boundary of X. If the manifold Y is oriented, so is X, unless
i = 1 and the two ends of the 1handle B
1
× B
n−1
(ε) are attached to the same
connected component of Y with opposite orientations.
When we attach an ihandle to an X along a zerohomologous sphere S
i−1
⊂
Y , we create a new icycle in X+
S
i−1 B
n
; when we attach an (i+1)handle along
an isphere in X which is nonhomologous to zero, we ”kill” an icycle.
These creations/annihilations of homology may cancel each other and a han
dle decomposition of an X may have by far more handles (balls) than the number
of independent homology classes in H
∗
(X).
46
Smale’s argument proceeds in two steps.
(1) The overall algebraic cancellation is decomposed into ”elementary steps”
by ”reshuﬄing” handles (in the spirit of J.H.C. Whitehead’s theory of the simple
homotopy type);
(2) each elementary step is implemented geometrically as in the example
below (which does not elucidate the case n = 6).
Cancelling a 3handle by a 4handle. Let X = S
3
×B
4
(ε
0
) and let us attach
the 4handle B
7
= B
4
× B
3
(ε), ε << ε
0
, to the (normal) εneighbourhood A
∼
of
some sphere
S
3
∼
⊂ Y = ∂(X) = S
3
× S
3
(ε
0
) for S
3
(ε
0
) = ∂B
4
(ε
0
).
by some diﬀeomorphism of A(ε) ⊂ ∂(B
7
) onto A
∼
.
If S
3
∼
= S
3
× b
0
, b
0
∈ S
3
(ε
0
), is the standard sphere, then the resulting X
∼
=
X +
S
3
∼
B
7
is obviously diﬀeomorphic to B
7
: adding S
3
×B
4
(ε
0
) to B
7
amounts
to ”bulging” the ball B
7
over the εneighbourhood A(ε) of the axial 3sphere
on its boundary.
Another way to see it is by observing that this addition of S
3
× B
4
(ε
0
) to
B
7
can be decomposed into gluing two balls in succession to B
7
as follows.
Take a ball B
3
(δ) ⊂ S
3
around some point s
0
∈ S
3
and decompose X =
S
3
× B
4
(ε
0
) into the union of two balls that are
B
7
δ
= B
3
(δ) × B
4
(ε
0
)
and
B
7
1−δ
= B
3
(1 − δ) × B
4
(ε
0
) for B
3
(1 − δ) =
def
S
3
∖ B
3
(δ).
Clearly, the attachment loci of B
7
1−δ
to X and of B
7
δ
to X + B
7
1−δ
are diﬀeo
morphic (after smoothing the corners) to the 6ball.
Let us modify the sphere S
3
× b
0
⊂ S
3
× B
4
(ε
0
) = ∂(X) by replacing the
original standard embedding of the 3ball
B
3
(1 − δ) →B
7
1−δ
= B
3
(1 − δ) × S
3
(ε
0
) ⊂ ∂(X)
by another one, say,
f
∼
∶ B
3
(1 − δ) →B
7
1−δ
= B
3
(1 − δ) × S
3
(ε
0
) = ∂(X),
such that f
∼
equals the original embedding near the boundary of ∂(B
3
(1−δ)) =
∂(B
3
(δ)) = S
2
(δ).
Then the same ”ball after ball” argument applies, since the ﬁrst gluing site
where B
7
1−δ
is being attached to X, albeit ”wiggled”, remains diﬀeomorphic to
B
6
by the isotopy theorem, while the second one does not change at all. So we
conclude:
whenever S
3
∼
⊂ S
3
× S
3
(ε
0
) transversally intersect s
0
× S
3
(ε
0
), s
0
∈ S
3
, at a
single point, the manifold X
∼
= X +
S
3
∼
B
7
is diﬀeomorphic to B
7
.
Finally, by Whitney’s lemma, every embedding S
3
→ S
3
× S
3
(ε
0
) ⊂ S
3
×
B
4
(ε
0
) which is homologous in S
3
×B
4
(ε
0
) to the standard S
3
×b
0
⊂ S
3
×B
4
(ε
0
),
can be isotoped to another one which meets s
0
×S
3
(ε
0
) transversally at a single
point. Hence,
the handles do cancel one another: if a sphere
47
S
3
∼
⊂ S
3
× S
3
(ε
0
) = ∂(X) ⊂ X = S
3
× B
4
(ε
0
),
is homologous in X to
S
3
× b
0
⊂ X = S
3
× B
4
(ε
0
), b
0
∈ B
4
(ε),
then the manifold X +
S
3
∼
B
7
is diﬀeomorphic to the 7ball.
Let us show in this picture that Milnor’s sphere Σ
7
minus a small ball is
diﬀeomorphic to B
7
. Recall that Σ
7
is ﬁbered over S
4
, say by p ∶ Σ
7
→S
4
, with
S
3
ﬁbers and with the Euler number e = ±1.
Decompose S
4
into two round balls with the common S
3
boundary, S
4
=
B
4
+
∪B
4
−
. Then Σ
7
decomposes into X
+
= p
−1
(B
4
+
) = B
4
+
×S
3
and X
−
= p
−1
(B
4
−
) =
B
4
−
× S
3
, where the gluing diﬀeomorphism between the boundaries ∂(X
+
) =
S
3
+
×S
3
and ∂(X
−
) = S
3
−
×S
3
for S
3
±
= ∂B
4
±
, is homologically the same as for the
Hopf ﬁbration S
7
→S
4
for e = ±1.
Therefore, if we decompose the S
3
factor of B
4
−
× S
3
into two round balls,
say S
3
= B
3
1
∪B
3
2
, then either B
4
−
×B
3
1
or B
4
−
×B
3
2
makes a 4handle attached to
X
+
to which the handle cancellation applies and shows that X
+
∪ (B
4
−
× B
3
1
) is
a smooth 7ball. (All what is needed of the Whitney’s lemma is obvious here:
the zero section X ⊂ V in an oriented R
2k
bundle V →X = X
2k
with e(V ) = ±1
can be perturbed to X
′
⊂ V which transversally intersect X at a single point.)
The handles shaﬄing/cancellation techniques do not solve the existence
problem for diﬀeomorphisms Y ↔ Y
′
but rather reduce it to the existence of
hcobordisms between manifolds, where a compact manifold X with two bound
ary components Y and Y
′
is called an hcobordism (between Y and Y
′
) if the
inclusion Y ⊂ X is a homotopy equivalence.
Smale hCobordism Theorem. If an hcobordism has dim(X) ≥ 6 and
π
1
(X) = 1 then X is diﬀeomorphic to Y × 0, 1, by a diﬀeomorphism keeping
Y = Y × 0 ⊂ X ﬁxed. In particular, hcobordant simply connected manifolds of
dimensions ≥ 5 are diﬀeomorphic.
Notice that the Poincar´e conjecture for the homotopy spheres Σ
n
, n ≥ 6,
follows by applying this to Σ
n
minus two small open balls, while the case m = 1
is solved by Smale with a construction of an hcobordism between Σ
5
and S
5
.
Also Smale’s handle techniques deliver the following geometric version of the
Poincar´e connectedness/contractibilty correspondence (see section 4).
Let X be a closed nmanifold, n ≥ 5, with π
i
(X) = 0, i = 1, ..., k. Then X
contains a (n − k − 1)dimensional smooth subpolyhedron P ⊂ X, such that the
complement of the open (regular) neighbourhood U
ε
(P) ⊂ X of P is diﬀeomor
phic to the nball, (where the boundary ∂(U
ε
) is the (n−1)sphere ”εcollapsed”
onto P = P
n−k−1
).
If n = 5 and if the normal bundle of X embedded into some R
5+N
is trivial, i.e.
if the normal Gauss map of X to the Grassmannian Gr(R
5+N
) is contractible,
then Smale proves, assuming π
1
(X) = 1, that
one can choose P = P
3
⊂ X = X
5
that equals the union of a smooth topolog
ical segment s = 0, 1 ⊂ X and several spheres S
2
i
and S
3
i
, where each S
3
i
meets
s at one point, and also transversally intersects S
2
i
at a single point and where
there are no other intersections between s, S
2
i
and S
3
i
.
In other words,
48
(Smale 1965) X is diﬀeomorphic to the connected sum of several copies of
S
2
× S
3
.
The triviality of the bundle in this theorem is needed to ensure that all
embedded 2spheres in X have trivial normal bundles, i.e. their normal neigh
bourhoods split into S
2
× R
3
which comes handy when you play with handles.
If one drops this triviality condition, one has
Classiﬁcation of Simply Connected 5Manifolds. (Barden 1966) There
is a ﬁnite list of explicitly constructed 5manifolds X
i
, such that every closed
simply connected manifold X is diﬀeomorphic to the connected sum of X
i
.
This is possible, in view of the above Smale theorem, since all simply con
nected 5manifolds X have ”almost trivial” normal bundles e.g. their only
possible Pontryagin class p
1
∈ H
4
(X) is zero. Indeed π
1
(X) = 1 implies that
H
1
(X) = π
1
(X)]π
1
(X), π
1
(X) = 0 and then H
4
(X) = H
1
(X) = 0 by the
Poincar´e duality.
When you encounter bordisms, the generecity sling launches you to the
stratosphere of algebraic topology so fast that you barely discern the geometric
string attached to it.
Smale’s cells and handles, on the contrary, feel like slippery amebas which
merge and disengage as they reptate in the swamp of unruly geometry, where
ndimensional cells continuously collapse to lower dimensional ones and keep
squeezing through paperthin crevices. Yet, their motion is governed, for all we
know, by the rules dictated by some algebraic Ktheory (theories?)
This motion hardly can be controlled by any traditional geometric ﬂow. First
of all, the ”simply connected” condition can not be encoded in geometry ([52],
[28] [53] and also breaking the symmetry by dividing a manifold into handles
along with ”genericity” poorly fare in geometry.
Yet, some generalized ”Ricci ﬂow with partial collapse and surgeries” in the
”space of (generic, random?) amebas” might split away whatever it fails to
untangle and bring fresh geometry into the picture.
For example, take a compact locally symmetric space X
0
= S]Γ, where S
is a noncompat irreducible symmetric space of rank ≥ and make a 2surgery
along some noncontractible circle S
1
⊂ X
0
. The resulting manifold X has ﬁnite
fundamental group by Margulis’ theorem and so a ﬁnite covering
˜
X → X is
simply connected. What can a geometric ﬂow do to these X
0
and
˜
X? Would it
bring X back to X
0
?
9 Manifolds under Surgery.
The AtiyahThom construction and Serre’s theory allows one to produce ”ar
bitrarily large” manifolds X for the mdomination X
1
≻
m
X
2
, m > 0, meaning
that there is a map f ∶ X
1
→X
2
of degree m.
Every such f between closed connected oriented manifolds induces a surjec
tive homomorphisms f
∗i
∶ H
i
(X
1
; Q) → H
i
(X
1
; Q) for all i = 0, 1, ..., n, (as we
know from section 4), or equivalently, an injective cohomology homomorphism
f
∗i
∶ H
i
(X
2
; Q) →H
i
(X
2
; Q).
Indeed, by the Poincar´e Qduality, the cupproduct (this the common name
for the product on cohomology) pairing H
i
(X
2
; Q)⊗H
n−i
(X
2
; Q) →Q = H
n
(X
2
; Q)
49
is faithful; therefore, if f
∗i
vanishes, then so does f
∗n
. But the latter amounts
to multiplication by m = deg(f),
H
n
(X
2
; Q) = Q →
⋅d
Q = H
n
(X
1
; Q).
(The main advantage of the cohomology product over the intersection product
on homology is that the former is preserved by all continuous maps,
f
∗i+j
(c
1
⋅ c
2
) = f
∗i
(c
1
) ⋅ f
∗j
(c
2
) for all f ∶ X → Y and all c
1
∈ H
i
(Y ),
c
2
∈ H
j
(Y ).)
If m = 1, then (by the full cohomological Poincar´e duality) the above remains
true for all coeﬃcient ﬁelds F; moreover, the induced homomorphism π
i
(X
1
) →
π
i
(X
2
) is surjective as it is seen by looking at the lift of f ∶ X
1
→ X
2
to the
induced map from the covering
˜
X
1
→ X
1
induced by the universal covering
˜
X
2
→X
2
to
˜
X
2
. (A map of degree m > 1 sends π
1
(X
1
) to a subgroup in π
1
(X
2
)
of a ﬁnite index dividing m.)
Let us construct manifolds starting from pseudomanifolds, where a compact
oriented ndimensional pseudomanifold is a triangulated nspace X
0
, such that
● every simplex of dimension < n in X
0
lies in the boundary of an nsimplex,
● The complement to the union of the (n−2)simplices in X
0
is an oriented
manifold.
Pseudomanifolds are inﬁnitely easier to construct and to recognize than
manifolds: essentially, these are simplicial complexes with exactly two nsimplices
adjacent to every (n − 1)simplex.
There is no comparably simple characterization of triangulated nmanifolds
X where the links L
n−i−1
= L
∆
i ⊂ X of the isimplices must be topological
(n−i −1)spheres. But even deciding if π
1
(L
n−i−1
) = 1 is an unsolvable problem
except for a couple of low dimensions.
Accordingly, it is very hard to produce manifolds by combinatorial con
structions; yet, one can ”dominate” any pseudomanifold by a manifold, where,
observe, the notion of degree perfectly applies to oriented pseudomanifolds.
Let X
0
be a connected oriented npseudomanifold. Then there exists a smooth
closed connected oriented manifold X and a continuous map f ∶ X → X
0
of
degree m > 0.
Moreover, given an oriented R
N
bundle V
0
→ X
0
, N ≥ 1, one can ﬁnd an
mdominating X, which also admits a smooth embedding X ⊂ R
n+N
, such that
our f ∶ X →X
0
of degree m > 0 induces the normal bundle of X from V
0
.
Proof. Since that the ﬁrst N − 1 homotopy groups of the Thom space of
V
●
of V
0
vanish (see section 5), Serre’s msphericity theorem delivers a map
f
●
∶ S
n+N
→ V
●
a nonzero degree m, provided N > n. Then the ”generic
pullback” X of X
0
⊂ V
0
(see section 3) does the job as it was done in section 5
for Thom’s bordisms.
In general, if 1 ≤ N ≤ n, the msphericity of the fundamental class V
●
 ∈
H
n+N
(V
●
) is proven with the Sullivan’s minimal models, see theorem 24.5 in
[19]
The minimal model, of a space X is a free (skew)commutative diﬀerential
algebra which, in a way, extends the cohomology algebra of X and which faith
fully encodes all homotopy Qinvariants of X. If X is a smooth Nmanifold it
can be seen in terms of ”higher linking” in X.
For example, if two cycles C
1
, C
2
⊂ X of codimensions i
1
, i
2
, satisfy C
1
∼ 0
and C
1
∩C
2
= 0, then the (ﬁrst order) linking class between them is an element
50
in the quotient group H
N−i
1
−i
2
−1
(X)](H
N−i
1
−1
(X)∩C
2
) which is deﬁned with
a plaque D
1
∈ ∂
−1
(C
1
), i.e. such that ∂(D
1
) = C
1
, as the image of D
1
∩ C
2

under the quotient map
H
N−i
1
−i
2
−1
(X) ∋ D
1
∩ C
2
 ↦H
N−i
1
−i
2
−1
(X)](H
N−i
1
−1
(X) ∩ C
2
).
Surgery and the BrowderNovikov Theorem (1962 [8],[54]). Let X
0
be a
smooth closed simply connected oriented nmanifold, n ≥ 5, and V
0
→ X
0
be a
stable vector bundle where ”stable” means that N = rank(V ) >> n. We want to
modify the smooth structure of X
0
keeping its homotopy type unchanged but
with its original normal bundle in R
n+N
replaced by V
0
.
There is an obvious algebraictopological obstruction to this highlighted by
Atiyah in [2] which we call V
●
sphericity and which means that there exists
a degree one, map f
●
of S
n+N
to the Thom space V
●
of V
0
, i.e. f
●
sends the
generator S
n+N
 ∈ H
n+N
(S
n+N
) = Z (for some orientation of the sphere S
n+N
)
to the fundamental class of the Thom space, V
●
∈ H
n+N
(V
●
) = Z, which is
distinguished by the orientation in X. (One has to be pedantic with orientations
to keep track of possible/impossible algebraic cancellations.)
However, this obstruction is ”Qnonessential”, [2] : the set of the vector
bundles admitting such an f
●
constitutes a coset of a subgroup of ﬁnite index
in Atiyah’s (reduced) Kgroup by Serre’s ﬁniteness theorem.
Recall that K(X) is the Abelian group formally generated by the isomor
phism classes of vector bundles V over X, where V
1
 + V
2
 =
def
0 whenever
the Whitney sum V
1
⊕V
2
is isomorphic to a trivial bundle.
The Whitney sum of an R
n
1
bundle V
1
→ X with an R
n
2
bundle V
2
→ X,
is the R
n
1
+n
2
bundle over X. which equals the ﬁberwise Cartesian product of
the two bundles.
For example the Whitney sum of the tangent bundle of a smooth submanifold
X
n
⊂ W
n+N
and of its normal bundle in W equals the tangent bundle of W
restricted to X. Thus, it is trivial for W = R
n+N
, i.e. it isomorphic to R
n+N
×
X →X, since the tangent bundle of R
n+N
is, obviously, trivial.
Granted an f
●
∶ S
n+N
→V
●
of degree 1, we take the ”generic pullback” X of
X
0
,
X ⊂ R
n+N
⊂ R
n+N
●
= S
n+N
,
and denote by f ∶ X → X
0
the restriction of f
●
to X, where, recall, f induces
the normal bundle of X from V
0
. .
The map f ∶ X
1
→ X
0
, which is clearly onto, is far from being injective – it
may have uncontrollably complicated folds. In fact, it is not even a homotopy
equivalence – the homology homomorphism induced by f
f
∗i
∶ H
i
(X
1
) →H
i
(X
0
),
is, as we know, surjective and it may (and usually does) have nontrivial kernels
ker
i
⊂ H
i
(X
1
). However, these kernels can be ”killed” by a ”surgical implemen
tation” of the obstruction theory (generalizing the case where X
0
= S
n
due to
KervaireMilnor) as follows.
Assume ker
i
= 0 for i = 0, 1, ..., k − 1, invoke Hurewicz’ theorem and realize
the cycles in ker
k
by kspheres mapped to X
1
, where, observe, the fimages of
51
these spheres are contractible in X
0
by a relative version of the (elementary)
Hurewicz theorem.
Furthermore, if k < n]2, then these spheres S
k
⊂ X
1
are generically embedded
(no selfintersections) and have trivial normal bundles in X
1
, since, essentially,
they come from V → X
1
via contractible maps. Thus, small neighbourhoods
(εannuli) A = A
ε
of these spheres in X
1
split: A = S
k
× B
n−k
ε
⊂ X
1
.
It follows, that the corresponding spherical cycles can be killed by (k + 1)
surgery (where X
1
now plays the role of Y in the deﬁnition of the surgery);
moreover, it is not hard to arrange a map of the resulting manifold to X
0
with
the same properties as f.
If n = dim(X
0
) is odd, this works up to k = (n − 1)]2 and makes all ker
i
,
including i > k, equal zero by the Poincar´e duality.
Since
a continuous map between simply connected spaces which induces an isomor
phism on homology is a homotopy equivalence by the (elementary) Whitehead
theorem,
the resulting manifold X is a homotopy equivalent to X
0
via our surgically
modiﬁed map f, call it f
srg
∶ X →X
0
.
Besides, by the construction of f
srg
, this map induces the normal bundle of
X from V →X
0
. Thus we conclude,
the Atiyah V
●
sphericity is the only condition for realizing a stable vector
bundle V
0
→X
0
by the normal bundle of a smooth manifold X in the homotopy
class of a given odd dimensional simply connected manifold X
0
.
If n is even, we need to kill kspheres for k = n]2, where an extra obstruction
arises. For example, if k is even, the surgery does not change the signature;
therefore, the Pontryagin classes of the bundle V must satisfy the Rokhlin
ThomHirzebruch formula to start with.
(There is an additional constrain for the tangent bundle T(X) – the equality
between the Euler characteristic χ(X) = ∑
i=0,...,n
(−1)
i
rank
Q
(H
i
(X)) and the
Euler number e(T(X)) that is the selfintersection index of X ⊂ T(X).)
On the other hand the equality L(V )X
0
 = sig(X
0
) (obviously) implies that
sig(X) = sig(X
0
). It follows that
the intersection form on ker
k
⊂ H
k
(X) has zero signature,
since all h ∈ ker
k
have zero intersection indices with the pullbacks of kcycles
from X
0
.
Then, assuming ker
i
= 0 for i < k and n ≠ 4, one can use Whitney’s lemma
and realize a basis in ker
k
⊂ H
k
(X
1
) by 2m embedded spheres S
k
2j−1
, S
k
2j
⊂ X
1
,
i = 1, ...m, which have zero selfintersection indices, one point crossings between
S
k
2j−1
and S
k
2j
and no other intersections between these spheres.
Since the spheres S
k
⊂ X with S
k
 ∈ ker
k
have trivial stable normal bundles
U
⊥
(i.e. their Whitney sums with trivial 1bundles, U
⊥
⊕ R, are trivial), the
normal bundle U
⊥
= U
⊥
(S
k
) of such a sphere S
k
is trivial if and only if the
Euler number e(U
⊥
) vanishes.
Indeed any oriented kbundle V →B, such that V ×R = B×R
k+1
, is induced
from the tautological bundle V
0
over the oriented Grassmannian Gr
or
k
(R
k+1
),
where Gr
or
k
(R
k+1
) = S
k
and V
0
is the tangent bundle T(S
k
). Thus, the Euler
class of V is induced from that of T(S
k
) by the classifying map, G ∶ B →S
k
. If
52
B = S
k
then the Euler number of e(V ) equals 2deg(G) and if e(V ) = 0 the map
G is contractible which makes V = S
k
× R
k
.
Now, observe, e(U
⊥
(S
k
)) is conveniently equal to the selfintersection index
of S
k
in X. (e(U
⊥
(S
k
)) equals, by deﬁnition, the selfintersection of S
k
⊂
U
⊥
(S
k
) which is the same as the selfintersection of this sphere in X.)
Then it easy to see that the (k + 1)surgeries applied to the spheres S
k
2j
,
j = 1, ..., m, kill all of ker
k
and make X →X
0
a homotopy equivalence.
There are several points to check (and to correct) in the above argument,
but everything ﬁts amazingly well in the lap of the linear algebra (The case of
odd k is more subtle due to the KervaireArf invariant.)
Notice, that our starting X
0
does not need to be a manifold, but rather a
Poincar´e (Browder) nspace, i.e. a ﬁnite cell complex satisfying the Poincar´e
duality: H
i
(X
0
, F) = H
n−i
(X
0
, F) for all coeﬃcient ﬁelds (and rings) F, where
these ”equalities” must be coherent in an obvious sense for diﬀerent F.
Also, besides the existence of smooth nmanifolds X, the above surgery ar
gument applied to a bordism Y between homotopy equivalent manifolds X
1
and
X
2
. Under suitable conditions on the normal bundle of Y , such a bordism can
be surgically modiﬁed to an hcobordism. Together with the hcobordism the
orem, this leads to an algebraic classiﬁcation of smooth structures on simply
connected manifolds of dimension n ≥ 5. (see [54]).
Then the Serre ﬁniteness theorem implies that
there are at most ﬁnitely many smooth closed simply connected nmanifolds
X in a given a homotopy class and with given Pontryagin classes p
k
∈ H
4k
(X).
Summing up, the question ”What are manifolds?” has the following
1962 Answer. Smooth closed simply connected nmanifolds for n ≥ 5, up to
a ”ﬁnite correction term”, are ”just” simply connected Poincar´e nspaces X with
distinguished cohomology classes p
i
∈ H
4i
(X), such that L
k
(p
i
)X = sig(X) if
n = 4k.
This is a fantastic answer to the ”manifold problem” undreamed of 10 years
earlier. Yet,
● Poincar´e spaces are not classiﬁable. Even the candidates for the cohomol
ogy rings are not classiﬁable over Q.
Are there special ”interesting” classes of manifolds and/or coarser than
diff classiﬁcations? (Something mediating between bordisms and hcobordisms
maybe?)
● The π
1
= 1 is very restrictive. The surgery theory extends to manifolds
with an arbitrary fundamental group Γ and, modulo the Novikov conjecture – a
nonsimply connected counterpart to the relation L
k
(p
i
)X = sig(X) (see next
section) – delivers a comparably exhaustive answer in terms of the ”Poincar´e
complexes over (the group ring of) Γ” (see [80]).
But this does not tells you much about ”topologically interesting” Γ, e.g.
fundamental groups of nmanifold X with the universal covering R
n
(see [13]
[14] about it).
10 Elliptic Wings and Parabolic Flows.
The geometric texture in the topology we have seen so far was all on the side of
the ”entropy”; topologists were ﬁnding gentle routes in the rugged landscape of
53
all possibilities, you do not have to sweat climbing up steep energy gradients on
these routs. And there was no essential new analysis in this texture for about
50 years since Poincar´e.
Analysis came back with a bang in 1963 when Atiyah and Singer discovered
the index theorem.
The underlying idea is simple: the ”diﬀerence” between dimensions of two
spaces, say Φ and Ψ, can be deﬁned and be ﬁnite even if the spaces themselves
are inﬁnite dimensional, provided the spaces come with a linear (sometimes
nonlinear) Fredholm operator D ∶ Φ →Ψ . This means, there exists an operator
E ∶ Ψ → Φ such that (1 − D○ E) ∶ Ψ → Ψ and (1 − E ○ D) ∶ Φ → Φ are compact
operators. (In the nonlinear case, the deﬁnition(s) is local and more elaborate.)
If D is Fredholm, then the spaces ker(D) and coker(D) = Ψ]D(Φ) are
ﬁnite dimensional and the index ind(D) = dim(ker(D)) − dim(coker(D)) is
(by a simple argument) is a homotopy invariant of D in the space of Fredholm
operators.
If, and this is a ”big IF”, you can associate such a D to a geometric or
topological object X, this index will serve as an invariant of X.
It was known since long that elliptic diﬀerential operators, e.g. the ordinary
Laplace operator, are Fredholm under suitable (boundary) conditions but most
of these ”natural” operators are selfadjoint and always have zero indices: they
are of no use in topology.
”Interesting” elliptic diﬀerential operators D are scares: the ellipticity con
dition is a tricky inequality (or, rather, nonequality) between the coeﬃcients
of D. In fact, all such (linear) operators currently in use descend from a single
one: the AtiyahSingerDirac operator on spinors.
Atiyah and Singer have computed the indices of their geometric operators in
terms of traditional topological invariants, and thus discovered new properties
of the latter.
For example, they expressed the signature of a closed smooth Riemannian
manifold X as an index of such an operator D
sig
acting on diﬀerential forms on
X. Since the parametrix operator E for an elliptic operator D can be obtained
by piecing together local parametrices, the very existence of D
sig
implies the
multiplicativity of the signature.
The elliptic theory of Atiyah and Singer and their many followers, unlike the
classical theory of PDE, is functorial in nature as it deals with many intercon
nected operators at the same time in coherent manner.
Thus smooth structures on potential manifolds (Poincar´e complexes) deﬁne
a functor from the homotopy category to the category of ”Fredholm diagrams”
(e.g. operators – one arrow diagrams); one is tempted to forget manifolds and
study such functors per se. For example, a closed smooth manifold represents
a homology class in Atiyah’s Ktheory – the index of D
sig
, twisted with vector
bundles over X with connections in them.
Interestingly enough, one of the ﬁrst topological applications of the index
theory, which equally applies to all dimensions be they big or small, was the
solution (Massey, 1969) of the Whitney 4Dconjecture of 1941 which, in a sim
pliﬁed form, says the following.
The number N(Y ) of possible normal bundles of a closed connected non
orientable surface Y embedded into the Euclidean space R
4
equals χ(Y ) −1 +1,
54
where χ denotes the Euler characteristic.Equivalently, there are χ(Y ) − 1 = 1
possible homeomorphisms types of small normal neighbourhoods of Y in R
4
.
If Y is an orientable surface then N(Y ) = 1, since a small neighbourhood of
such a Y ⊂ R
4
is homeomorphic to Y × R
2
by an elementary argument.
If Y is nonorientable, Whitney has shown that N(Y ) ≥ χ(Y ) − 1 + 1 by
constructing N = χ(Y )−1+1 embeddings of each Y to R
4
with diﬀerent normal
bundles and then conjectured that one could not do better.
Outline of Massey’s Proof. Take the (unique in this case) ramiﬁed double
covering X of S
4
⊃ R
4
⊃ Y branched at Y with the natural involution I ∶ X →X.
Express the signature of I, that is the quadratic form on H
2
(X) deﬁned by the
intersection of cycles C and I(C) in X, in terms of the Euler number e
⊥
of
the normal bundle of Y ⊂ R
4
as sig = e
⊥
]2 (with suitable orientation and sign
conventions) by applying the AtiyahSinger equivariant signature theorem. Show
that rank(H
2
(X)) = 2 −χ(Y ) and thus establish the bound e
⊥
]2 ≤ 2 −χ(Y ) in
agreement with Whitney’s conjecture.
(The experience of the high dimensional topology would suggest that N(Y ) =
∞. Nowadays, multiple constrains on topology of embeddings of surfaces into
4manifolds are derived with Donaldson’s theory.)
Nonsimply Connected Analytic Geometry. The BrowderNovikov theory
implies that, besides the EulerPoincar´e formula, there is a single ”Qessential
(i.e. nontorsion) homotopy constraint” on tangent bundles of closed simply
connected 4kmanifolds– the RokhlinThomHirzebruch signature relation.
But in 1966, Sergey Novikov, in the course of his proof of the topological
invariance of the of the rational Pontryagin classes, i.e of the homology ho
momorphism H
∗
(X
n
; Q) → H
∗
(Gr
N
(R
n+N
); Q) induced by the normal Gauss
map, found the following new relation for nonsimply connected manifolds X.
Let f ∶ X
n
→ Y
n−4k
be a smooth map. Then the signature of the 4k
dimensional pullback manifold Z = f
−1
(y) of a generic point, sigf = sig(Z),
does not depend on the point and/or on f within a given homotopy class f
by the generic pullback theorem and the cobordism invariance of the signature,
but it may change under a homotopy equivalence h ∶ X
1
→X
2
.
By an elaborate (and, at ﬁrst sight, circular) surgery + algebraic Ktheory
argument, Novikov proves that
if Y is a ktorus, then sigf ○ h = sigf,
where the simplest case of the projection X×T
n−4k
→T
n−4k
is (almost all) what
is needed for the topological invariance of the Pontryagin classes. (See [27] for
a simpliﬁed version of Novikov’s proof and [62] for a diﬀerent approach to the
topological Pontryagin classes.)
Novikov conjectured (among other things) that a similar result holds for an
arbitrary closed manifold Y with contractible universal covering. (This would
imply, in particular, that if an oriented manifold Y
′
is orientably homotopy
equivalent to such a Y , then it is bordant to Y .) Mishchenko (1974) proved
this for manifolds Y admitting metrics of nonpositive curvature with a use of
an index theorem for operators on inﬁnite dimensional bundles, thus linking the
Novikov conjecture to geometry.
(Hyperbolic groups also enter Sullivan’s existence/uniqueness theorem of
Lipschitz structures on topological manifolds of dimensions ≥ 5.
A biLipschitz homeomorphism may look very nasty. Take, for instance,
55
inﬁnitely many disjoint round balls B
1
, B
2
, ... in R
n
of radii → 0, take a dif
feomorphism f of B
1
ﬁxing the boundary ∂(B
1
) an take the scaled copy of f
in each B
i
. The resulting homeomorphism, ﬁxed away from these balls, be
comes quite complicated whenever the balls accumulate at some closed subset,
e.g. a hypersurface in R
n
. Yet, one can extend the signature index theorem
and some of the Donaldson theory to this unfriendly biLipschitz, and even to
quasiconformal, environment.)
The Novikov conjecture remains unsolved. It can be reformulated in purely
group theoretic terms, but the most signiﬁcant progress which has been achieved
so far depends on geometry and on the index theory.
In a somewhat similar vein, Atiyah (1974) introduced square integrable (also
called L
2
) cohomology on noncompact manifolds
˜
X with cocompact discrete
group actions and proved the L
2
index theorem. For example, he has shown
that
if a compact Riemannian 4kmanifolds has nonzero signature, then the uni
versal covering
˜
X admits a nonzero square summable harmonic 2kform.
This L
2
index theorem was extended to measurable foliated spaces (where
”measurable” means the presence of transversal measures) by Alain Connes,
where the two basic manifolds’ attributes– the smooth structure and the measure
– are separated: the smooth structures in the leaves allow diﬀerential operators
while the transversal measures underly integration and where the two cooperate
in the ”noncommutative world” of Alain Connes.
If X is a compact measurably and smoothly nfoliated (i.e. almost all leaves
are smooth nmanifolds) leafwise oriented space then one naturally deﬁnes
Pontryagin’s numbers which are real numbers in this case.
(Every closed manifold X can be regarded as a measurable foliation with
the ”transversal Dirac δmeasure” supported on X. Also complete Rieman
nian manifolds of ﬁnite volume can be regarded as such foliations, provided the
universal coverings of these have locally bounded geometries [11].)
There is a natural notion of bordisms between measurable foliated spaces,
where the Pontryagin numbers are obviously, bordism invariant.
Also, the L
2
signature, (which is also deﬁned for leaves being Qmanifolds)
is bordism invariant by Poincar´e duality.
The corresponding L
k
number, k = n]4, satisﬁes here the Hirzebruch formula
with the L
2
signature (sorry for the mixup in notation: L
2
≠ L
k=2
): L
k
(X) =
sig(X) by the AtiyahConnes L
2
index theorem [11].
It seems not hard to generalize this to measurable foliated spaces where
leaves are topological (or even topological Q) manifolds.
Questions. Let X be a measurable leafwise oriented nfoliated space with
zero Pontryagin numbers, e.g. n ≠ 4k. Is X orientably bordant to zero, provided
every leaf in X has measure zero.
What is the counterpart to the BrowderNovikov theory for measurable fo
liations?
Measurable foliations can be seen as transversal measures on some universal
topological foliation, such as the Hausdorﬀ moduli space X of the isometry classes
of pointed complete Riemannian manifolds L with uniformly locally bounded ge
ometries (or locally bounded covering geometries [11]), which is tautologically
foliated by these L. Alternatively, one may take the space of pointed triangu
56
lated manifolds with a uniform bound on the numbers of simplices adjacent to
the points in L.
The simplest transversal measures on such an X are weak limits of convex
combinations of Dirac’s δmeasures supported on closed leaves, but most (all?)
known interesting examples descent from group actions, e.g. as follows.
Let L be a Riemannian symmetric space (e.g. the complex hyperbolic space
CH
n
as in section 5), let the isometry group G of L be embedded into a locally
compact group H and let O ⊂ H be a compact subgroup such that the inter
section O∩ G equals the (isotropy) subgroup O
0
⊂ G which ﬁxes a point l
0
∈ L.
For example, H may be the special linear group SL
N
(R) with O = SO(N) or
H may be an adelic group.
Then the quotient space
˜
X = H]O is naturally foliated by the Htranslate
copies of L = G]O
0
.
This foliation becomes truly interesting if we pass from
˜
X to X =
˜
X]Γ for a
discrete subgroup Γ ⊂ H, where H]Γ has ﬁnite volume. (If we want to make sure
that all leaves of the resulting foliation in X are manifolds, we take Γ without
torsion, but singular orbifold foliations are equally interesting and amenable to
the general index theory.)
The full vector of the Pontryagin numbers of such an X depends, up to
rescaling, only on L but it is unclear if there are ”natural (or any) bordisms”
between diﬀerent X with the same L.
Linear operators are diﬃcult to delinearize keeping them topologically inter
esting. The two exceptions are the CauchyRiemann operator and the signature
operator in dimension 4. The former is used by Thurston (starting from late
70s) in his 3Dgeometrization theory and the latter, in the form of the Yang
Mills equations, begot Donaldson’s 4Dtheory (1983) and the SeibergWitten
theory (1994).
The logic of Donaldson’s approach resembles that of the index theorem.
Yet, his operator D ∶ Φ →Ψ is nonlinear Fredholm and instead of the index he
studies the bordismlike invariants of (ﬁnite dimensional!) pullbacks D
−1
(ψ) ⊂ Φ
of suitably generic ψ.
These invariants for the YangMills and SeibergWitten equations unravel
an incredible richness of the smooth 4Dtopological structures which remain
invisible from the perspectives of pure topology” and/or of linear analysis.
The nonlinear Ricci ﬂow equation of Richard Hamilton, the parabolic rel
ative of Einstein, does not have any builtin topological intricacy; it is similar
to the plain heat equation associated to the ordinary Laplace operator. Its po
tential role is not in exhibiting new structures but, on the contrary, in showing
that these do not exist by ironing out bumps and ripples of Riemannian metrics.
This potential was realized in dimension 3 by Perelman in 2003:
The Ricci ﬂow on Riemannian 3manifolds, when manually redirected at its
singularities, eventually brings every closed Riemannian 3manifold to a canon
ical geometric form predicted by Thurston.
(Possibly, there is a nonlinear analysis on foliated spaces, where solutions of,
e.g. parabolic HamiltonRicci for 3D and of elliptic YangMills/SeibergWitten
for 4D, equations fast, e.g. L
2
, decay on each leaf and where ”decay” for non
linear objects may refer to a decay of distances between pairs of objects.)
There is hardly anything in common between the proofs of Smale and Perel
57
man of the Poincar´e conjecture. Why the statements look so similar? Is it the
same ”Poincar´e conjecture” they have proved? Probably, the answer is ”no”
which raises another question: what is the high dimensional counterpart of the
HamiltonPerelman 3Dstructure?
To get a perspective let us look at another, seemingly remote, fragment of
mathematics – the theory of algebraic equations, where the numbers 2, 3 and 4
also play an exceptional role.
If topology followed a contorted path 2→5...→4→3, algebra was going straight
1→2→3→4→5... and it certainly did not stop at this point.
Thus, by comparison, the SmaleBrowderNovikov theorems correspond to
nonsolvability of equations of degree ≥ 5 while the present day 3D and 4D
theories are brethren of the magniﬁcent formulas solving the equations of degree
3 and 4.
What does, in topology, correspond to the Galois theory, class ﬁeld theory,
the modularity theorem... ?
Is there, in truth, anything in common between this algebra/arthmetic and
geometry?
It seems so, at least on the surface of things, since the reason for the partic
ularity of the numbers 2, 3, 4 in both cases arises from the same formula:
4 =
3
2 + 2 ∶
a 4 element set has exactly 3 partitions into two 2element subsets and where,
observe 3 < 4. No number n ≥ 5 admits a similar class of decompositions.
In algebra, the formula 4 =
3
2 + 2 implies that the alternating group A(4)
admits an epimorphism onto A(3), while the higher groups A(n) are simple
nonAbelian.
In geometry, this transforms into the splitting of the Lie algebra so(4) into
so(3) ⊕ so(3). This leads to the splitting of the space of the 2forms into self
dual and antiselfdual ones which underlies the YangMills and SeibergWitten
equations in dimension 4.
In dimension 2, the group SO(2) ”unfolds” into the geometry of Riemann
surfaces and then, when extended to homeo(S
1
), brings to light the conformal
ﬁeld theory.
In dimension 3, Perelman’s proof is grounded in the inﬁnitesimal O(3)
symmetry of Riemannian metrics on 3manifolds (which is broken in Thurston’s
theory and even more so in the high dimensional topology based on surgery)
and depends on the irreducibility of the space of traceless curvature tensors.
It seems, the geometric topology has a long way to go in conquering high
dimensions with all their symmetries.
11 Crystals, Liposomes and Drosophila.
Many geometric ides were nurtured in the cradle of manifolds; we want to follow
these ideas in a larger and yet unexplored world of more general ”spaces”.
Several exciting new routes were recently opened to us by the high energy
and statistical physics, e.g. coming from around the string theory and non
commutative geometry – somebody else may comment on these, not myself.
But there are a few other directions where geometric spaces may be going.
58
Inﬁnite Cartesian Products and Related Spaces. A crystal is a collection
of identical molecules mol
γ
= mol
0
positioned at certain sites γ which are the
elements of a discrete (crystallographic) group Γ.
If the space of states of each molecule is depicted by some ”manifold” M,
and the molecules do not interact, then the space X of states of our ”crystal”
equals the Cartesian power M
Γ
= ×
γ∈Γ
M
γ
.
If there are intermolecular constrains, X will be a subspace of M
Γ
; further
more, X may be a quotient space of such a subspace under some equivalence
relation, where, e.g. two states are regarded equivalent if they are indistinguish
able by a certain class of ”measurements”.
We look for mathematical counterparts to the following physical problem.
Which properties of an individual molecule can be determined by a given class
of measurement of the whole crystal?
Abstractly speaking, we start with some category M of ”spaces” M with
Cartesian (direct) products, e.g. a category of ﬁnite sets, of smooth manifolds
or of algebraic manifolds over some ﬁeld. Given a countable group Γ, we enlarge
this category as follows.
ΓPower Category Γ
M
. The objects X ∈ Γ
M
are projective limits of ﬁnite
Cartesian powers M
∆
for M ∈ M and ﬁnite subsets ∆ ⊂ Γ. Every such X is
naturally acted upon by Γ and the admissible morphisms in our Γcategory are
Γequivariant projective limits of morphisms in M.
Thus each morphism, F ∶ X = M
Γ
→Y = N
Γ
is deﬁned by a single morphism
in M, say by f ∶ M
∆
→N = N where ∆ ⊂ Γ is a ﬁnite (sub)set.
Namely, if we think of x ∈ X and y ∈ Y as M and Nvalued functions x(γ)
and y(γ) on Γ then the value y(γ) = F(x)(γ) ∈ N is evaluated as follows:
translate ∆ ⊂ Γ to γ∆ ⊂ Γ by γ, restrict x(γ) to γ∆ and apply f to this
restriction xγ∆ ∈ M
γ∆
= M
∆
.
In particular, every morphism f ∶ M → N in M tautologically deﬁnes a
morphism in M
Γ
, denoted f
Γ
∶ M
Γ
→N
Γ
, but M
Γ
has many other morphisms
in it.
Which concepts, constructions, properties of morphisms and objects, etc.
from M ”survive” in Γ
M
for a given group Γ? In particular, what happens to
topological invariants which are multiplicative under Cartesian products, such
as the Euler characteristic and the signature?
For instance, let M and N be manifolds. Suppose M admits no topological
embedding into N (e.g. M = S
1
, N = 0, 1 or M = RP
2
, N = S
3
). When does
M
Γ
admit an injective morphism to N
Γ
in the category M
Γ
?
(One may meaningfully reiterate these questions for continuous Γequivariant
maps between ΓCartesian products, since not all continuous Γequivariant maps
lie in M
Γ
.)
Conversely, let M → N be a map of nonzero degree. When is the cor
responding map f
Γ
∶ M
Γ
→ N
Γ
equivariantly homotopic to a nonsurjective
map?
ΓSubvarieties. Add new objects to M
Γ
deﬁned by equivariant systems of
equations in X = M
Γ
, e.g. as follows.
Let M be an algebraic variety over some ﬁeld F and Σ ⊂ M×M a subvariety,
say, a generic algebraic hypersurface of bidegree (p, q) in CP
n
× CP
n
.
Then every directed graph G = (V, E) on the vertex set V deﬁnes a subvari
59
ety, in M
V
, say Σ(G) ⊂ M
V
which consists of those Mvalued functions x(v),
v ∈ V , where (x(v
1
), x(v
2
)) ∈ Σ whenever the vertices v
1
and v
2
are joined by a
directed edge e ∈ E in G. (If Σ ⊂ M×M is symmetric for (m
1
, m
2
) ↔(m
2
, m
1
),
one does not need directions in the edges.)
Notice that even if Σ is nonsingular, Σ(G) may be singular. (I doubt, this
ever happens for generic hypersurfaces in CP
n
× CP
n
.) On the other hand, if
we have a ”suﬃciently ample” family of subvarieties Σ in M ×M (e.g. of (p, q)
hypersurfaces in CP
n
×CP
n
) and, for each e ∈ E, we take a generic representative
Σ
gen
= Σ
gen
(e) ⊂ M × M from this family, then the resulting generic subvariety
in M × M, call it Σ
gen
(G) is nonsingular and, if F = C, its topology does not
depend on the choices of Σ
gen
(e).
We are manly interested in Σ(G) and Σ
gen
(G) for inﬁnite graphs G with
a coﬁnite action of a group Γ, i.e. where the quotient graph G]Γ is ﬁnite. In
particular, we want to understand ”inﬁnite dimensional (co)homology” of these
spaces, say for F = C and the ”cardinalities” of their points for ﬁnite ﬁelds F
(see [5] for some results and references). Here are test questions.
Let Σ be a hypersurface of bidegree (p, q) in CP
n
× CP
n
and Γ = Z. Let
P
k
(s) denote the Poincar´e polynomial of Σ
gen
(G]kZ), k = 1, 2, .... and let
P(s, t) =
∞
k=1
t
k
P(s) =
k,i
t
k
s
i
rank(H
i
(Σ
gen
(G]kZ)).
Observe that the function P(s, t) depends only on n, and (p, q).
Is P(s, t) meromorphic in the two complex variables s and t? Does it satisfy
some ”nice” functional equation?
Similarly, if F = F
p
, we ask the same question for the generating function in
two variables counting the F
p
l points of Σ(G]kZ).
ΓQuotients. These are deﬁned with equivalence relations R ⊂ X × X where
R are subobjects in our category.
The transitivity of (an equivalence relation) R, and it is being a ﬁnitary
deﬁned subobject are hard to satisfy simultaneously. Yet, hyperbolic dynamical
systems provide encouraging examples at least for the category M of ﬁnite sets.
If M is the category of ﬁnite sets then subobjects in M
Γ
, deﬁned with
subsets Σ ⊂ M × M are called Markov Γshifts. These are studied, mainly for
Γ = Z, in the context of symbolic dynamics [43], [7].
ΓMarkov quotients Z of Markov shifts are deﬁned with equivalence relations
R = R(Σ
′
) ⊂ Y × Y which are Markov subshifts. (These are called hyperbolic
and/or ﬁnitely presented dynamical systems [20], [26].)
If Γ = Z, then the counterpart of the above P(s, t), now a function only in
t, is, essentially, what is called the ζfunction of the dynamical system which
counts the number of periodic orbits. It is shown in [20] with a use of (Sinai
Bowen) Markov partitions that this function is rational in t for all ZMarkov
quotient systems.
The local topology of Markov quotient (unlike that of shift spaces which are
Cantor sets) may be quite intricate, but some are topological manifolds.
For instance, classical Anosov systems on infranilmanifolds V and/or ex
panding endomorphisms of V are representable as a Z Markov quotient via
Markov partitions [35].
60
Another example is where Γ is the fundamental group of a closed nmanifold
V of negative curvature. The ideal boundary Z = ∂
∞
(Γ) is a topological (n−1)
sphere with a Γaction which admits a ΓMarkov quotient presentation [26].
Since the topological S
n−1
bundle S → V associated to the universal cov
ering, regarded as the principle Γ bundle, is, obviously, isomorphic to the unit
tangent bundle UT(V ) → V , the Markov presentation of Z = S
n−1
deﬁnes the
topological Pontryagin classes p
i
of V in terms of Γ.
Using this, one can reduce the homotopy invariance of the Pontryagin classes
p
i
of V to the εtopological invariance.
Recall that an εhomeomorphism is given by a pair of maps f
12
∶ V
1
→ V
2
and f
21
∶ V
2
→V
1
, such that the composed maps f
11
∶ V
1
→V
1
and f
22
∶ V
2
→V
2
are εclose to the respective identity maps for some metrics in V
1
, V
2
and a small
ε > 0 depending on these metrics.
Most known proofs, starting from Novikov’s, of invariance of p
i
under home
omorphisms equally apply to εhomeomorphisms.
This, in turn, implies the homotopy invariance of p
i
if the homotopy can be
”rescaled” to an εhomotopy.
For example, if V is a nilmanifold
˜
V ]Γ, (where
˜
V is a nilpotent Lie group
homeomorphic to R
n
) with an expanding endomorphism E ∶ V →V (such a V is
a ZMarkov quotient of a shift), then a large negative power
˜
E
−N
∶
˜
V →
˜
V of the
lift
˜
E ∶
˜
V →
˜
V brings any homotopy close to identity. Then the εtopological
invariance of p
i
implies the homotopy invariance for these V . (The case of
V = R
n
]Z
n
and
˜
E ∶ ˜ v →2˜ v is used by Kirby in his topological torus trick.)
A similar reasoning yields the homotopy invariance of p
i
for many (manifolds
with fundamental) groups Γ, e.g. for hyperbolic groups.
Questions. Can one eﬀectively describe the local and global topology of
ΓMarkov quotients Z in combinatorial terms? Can one, for a given (e.g. hy
perbolic) group Γ, ”classify” those ΓMarkov quotients Z which are topological
manifolds or, more generally, locally contractible spaces?
For example, can one describe the classical Anosov systems Z in terms of
the combinatorics of their ZMarkov quotient representations? How restrictive
is the assumption that Z is a topological manifold? How much the topology
of the local dynamics at the periodic points in Z restrict the topology of Z
(E.g. we want to incorporate pseudoAnosov automorphisms of surfaces into
the general picture.)
It seems, as in the case of the hyperbolic groups, (irreducible) ZMarkov
quotients becomes more scarce/rigid/symmetric as the topological dimension
and/or the local topological connectivity increases.
Are there interesting ΓMarkov quotients over categories M besides ﬁnite
sets? For example, can one have such an object over the category of algebraic
varieties over Z with nontrivial (e.g. positive dimensional) topology in the
spaces of its F
p
i points?
Liposomes and Micelles are surfaces of membranes surrounded by water
which are assembled of rodlike (phospholipid) molecules oriented normally to
the surface of the membrane with hydrophilic ”heads” facing the exterior and the
interior of a cell while the hydrophobic ”tails” are buried inside the membrane.
These surfaces satisfy certain partial diﬀerential equations of rather general
nature (see [30]). If we heat the water, membranes dissolve: their constituent
molecules become (almost) randomly distributed in the water; yet, if we cool
61
the solution, the surfaces and the equations they satisfy reemerge.
Question. Is there a (quasi)canonical way of associating statistical ensem
bles S to geometric system S of PDE, such that the equations emerge at low
temperatures T and also can be read from the properties of high temperature
states of S by some ”analytic continuation” in T?
The architectures of liposomes and micelles in an ambient space, say W,
which are composed of ”somethings” normal to their surfaces X ⊂ W, are remi
niscent of ThomAtiyah representation of submanifolds with their normal bun
dles by generic maps f
●
∶ W →V
●
, where V
●
is the Thom space of a vector bundle
V
0
over some space X
0
and where manifolds X = f
−1
●
(X
0
) ⊂ W come with their
normal bundles induced from the bundle V
0
.
The space of these ”generic maps” f
●
looks as an intermediate between an
individual ”deterministic” liposome X and its high temperature randomization.
Can one make this precise?
Poincar´eSturtevant Functors. All what the brain knows about the geometry
of the space is a ﬂow S
in
of electric impulses delivered to it by our sensory
organs. All what an alien browsing through our mathematical manuscripts
would directly perceive, is a ﬂow of symbols on the paper, say G
out
.
Is there a natural functoriallike transformation P from sensory inputs to
mathematical outputs, a map between ”spaces of ﬂows” P ∶ S → G such that
P(S
in
)”=”G
out
?
It is not even easy to properly state this problem as we neither know what
our ”spaces of ﬂows” are, nor what the meaning of the equality ”=” is.
Yet, it is an essentially mathematical problem a solution of which (in a
weaker form) is indicated by Poincar´e in [59]. Besides, we all witness the solution
of this problem by our brains.
An easier problem of this kind presents itself in the classical genetics.
What can be concluded about the geometry of a genome of an organism by
observing the phenotypes of various representatives of the same species (with
no molecular biology available)?
This problem was solved in 1913, long before the advent of the molecular
biology and discovery of DNA, by 19 year old Alfred Sturtevant (then a student
in T. H. Morgan’s lab) who reconstructed the linear structure on the set of
genes on a chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster from samples of a probability
measure on the space of gene linkages.
Here mathematics is more apparent: the geometry of a space X is repre
sented by something like a measure on the set of subsets in X; yet, I do not
62
know how to formulate clearcut mathematical questions in either case (compare
[29], [31]).
Who knows where manifolds are going?
12 Acknowledgments.
I want to thank Andrew Ranicki for his help in editing the ﬁnal draft of this
paper.
13 Bibliography.
References
[1] P. Akhmet’ev, Geometric approach to stable homotopy groups of spheres.
The AdamsHopf invariants, Fundam. Prikl. Mat., 13:8, pp. 315, (2007).
[2] M. Atiyah, Thom complexes. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 11. 291310.
(1961).
[3] M. Atiyah, I. Singer, The Index of Elliptic Operators on Compact Mani
folds, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 69: 322433, (1963).
[4] D. Barden, Simply connected ﬁve manifolds. Ann. Math., 82, 365385
(1965).
[5] M. Bertelson, Topological invariant for discrete group actions. Lett. Math.
Phys. 62, 147156 (2004).
[6] S. Buoncristiano, C. P. Rourke, B. J. Sanderson, A geometric approach to
homology theory. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, no.
18, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1976)
[7] M. Boyle, Open problems in symbolic dynamics. url http://www
users.math.umd.edu/ mmb/open/, (2008).
[8] W. Browder, Homotopy type of diﬀerentiable manifolds, Colloq. Algebraic
Topology, pp. 4246, Aarhus University, (1962). reprinted in ”Novikov con
jectures, index theorems and rigidity, Vol. 1 (Oberwolfach, 1993)”, 97100,
LMS Lecture Notes 226 (1995)
[9] E. Brown Jr., The Kervaire invariant and surgery theory.
www.math.rochester.edu/u/faculty/doug/otherpapers/brown2.pdf
[10] J. Cheeger, Spectral geometry of singular Riemannian spaces, J. Diﬀerential
Geom. V. 18. 4. pp. 575657, (1983).
[11] J. Cheeger and M. Gromov, On the characteristic numbers of complete
manifolds of bounded curvature and ﬁnite volume, Diﬀerential geometry
and complex analysis, H. E. Rauch Memorial Volume, SpringerVerlag,
Berlin, (1985).
63
[12] A. Chernavskii, Local contractibility of the group of homeomorphisms of a
manifold, Math. USSR Sb. , 8 : 3 pp. 287333, (1969),
[13] M. Davis, Poincar´e duality groups, from: ”Surveys on surgery theory, Vol.
1”, Ann. of Math. Stud. 145, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 167193,
(2000).
[14] M. Davis, The Geometry and Topology of Coxeter Groups,. London Math
ematical Society Monographs, Princeton University Press, (2008).
[15] S. Donaldson, An Application of Gauge Theory to Four Dimensional Topol
ogy, Journal of Diﬀerential Geometry 18 (2): 279315, (1983).
[16] P. Eccles, Multiple points of codimension one immersions of oriented man
ifolds. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 87, 213220 (1980).
[17] P. Eccles, Codimension one immersions and the Kervaire invariant one
problem, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 90, 483493 (1981).
[18] S. Eilenberg, Cohomology and continuous mappings, Ann. of Math., 41,
231251, (1940).
[19] Y. Felix, S. Halperin, J.C. Thomas, Rational homotopy theory, Springer,
(2001).
[20] D. Fried, Finitely presented dynamical systems. Ergodic Theory and Dy
namical Systems, 7, pp 489507, (1987).
[21] D. Fuks, Classical Manifolds. In Topology1. Sovr. Probl. Math. Fund.
Napr. (Itogi. Nauki Tech.), M., VINITI, (1986).
[22] M. Furuta, Homology cobordism group of homology 3spheres, Invent.
Math. 100, 339355, (1990).
[23] A. Gaifullin, The construction of combinatorial manifolds with prescribed
sets of links of vertices, Izvestiya RAN: Ser. Mat. 72:5, 362, (2008).
[24] A. Gaifullin, Conﬁguration spaces, bistellar moves, and combinatorial for
mulae for the ﬁrst Pontryagin class, Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova, Volume 268,
pp. 7693, (2010).
[25] M. Gromov, On the number of simplices of subdivisions of ﬁnite complexes,
Mat. Zametki, 3:5, pp. 511522, (1968).
[26] M. Gromov, Hyperbolic manifolds, groups and actions, Ann. Math. Studies
97, 183215, Princeton University Press, Princeton, (1981).
[27] M. Gromov, Positive curvature, macroscopic dimension, spectral gaps and
higher signatures, Functional analysis on the eve of the 21st century, Vol.
II , 1213, Progr. Math., 132, Birkh¨auser, (1996).
[28] M. Gromov. Spaces and questions, Geom. Funct. Anal., Special Volume,
Part I:118161, (2000).
64
[29] M. Gromov, Mendelian Dynamics and Sturtevant’s Paradigm, in ”Geo
metric and Probabilistic Structures”, Contemporary Mathematics Series v.
469, (ed, Keith Burns,, Dmitry Dolgopyat and Yakov Pesin), pp 227242,
American Mathematical Society, Providence RI (2007).
[30] M. Gromov, Crystals, Proteins, Stability and Isoperimetry. Submitted to
Bulletin of AMS, (2010).
http://www.ihes.fr/˜gromov/PDF/pansucrystalsisoper.pdf
[31] M. Gromov, Structures, Learning and Ergosystems.
www.ihes.fr/˜gromov/PDF/ergobrain.pdf
[32] R. Hamilton Threemanifolds with positive Ricci curvature. J. Diﬀerential
Geom. Volume 17, Number 2, 255306, (1982).
[33] A. Haeﬂiger, Plongements diﬀrentiables de vari´et´es dans vari´et´es, Com
ment. Math. Helv. 36, 4782, (1961).
[34] A. Haeﬂiger, Knotted (4k1)spheres in 6kspace. Ann. of Math. (2) 75,
452466, (1962).
[35] B. Hasselblatt, Hyperbolic dynamical systems. Handbook of Dynamical
Systems 1A, 239319, Elsevier North Holland, (2002).
[36] H. Hopf, Abbildungsklassen ndimensionaler Mannigfaltigkeiten. Math.
Annalen 96, pp. 225250, (1926).
[37] M.Hill, M. Hopkins, D.Ravenel. On the nonexistence of elements of Ker
vaire invariant one.
www.math.rochester.edu/u/faculty/doug/kervaire
−
082609.pdf
[38] W. Hurewicz, Beitr¨age zur Topologie der Deformationen III. Proc. Ned.
Akad. Weten. Ser. A , 38, pp. 112119; 521528, (1935).
[39] M. Kervaire, J. Milnor, Groups of homotopy spheres. I Ann. of Math., 77:3,
pp. 504537 (1963).
[40] R. Kirby, L. Siebenmann, Foundational Essays on Topological Manifolds,
Smoothings and Triangulations, Ann. of Math. Studies 88 (1977).
[41] M. Kreck, Diﬀerential Algebraic Topology, Graduate Studies in Mathemat
ics, Volume 110, (2010).
[42] N. Levitt, C. Rourke, The existence of combinatorial formulae for charac
teristic classes, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 239, 391397, (1978).
[43] D. Lind and B. Marcus, An introduction to symbolic dynamics and coding,
Cambridge University Press, (1995).
[44] N. Martin, On the diﬀerence between homology and piecewiselinear bun
dles, J. London Math. Soc. (2), 6:2, 197204, (1973).
[45] W. Massey. Proof of a conjecture of Whitney. Paciﬁc J. Math. Volume 31,
Number 1 (1969), 143156.
65
[46] B. Mazur, Stable equivalence of diﬀerentiable manifolds, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. 67, 377384, (1961).
[47] B. Mazur, Bernoulli numbers and the unity of mathematics.
www.math.wisc.edu/˜boston/Bernoulli.pdf
[48] J. Milnor, On manifolds homeomorphic to the 7sphere, Ann. of Math. (2)
64 (1956) 399405, (1956).
[49] J. Milnor, Two complexes which are homeomorphic but combinatorially
distinct, Annals of Mathematics 74 (2): 575590 (1961).
[50] J. Milnor and J. Stasheﬀ, Characteristic classes,. Princeton. Univ. Press
(1974).
[51] A. Mishchenko, Inﬁnitedimensional representations of discrete groups, and
higher signatures, Math. USSRIzv., 8:1, 85111, (1974).
[52] A. Nabutovsky, Combinatorics of the space of Riemannian structures and
logic phenomena of Euclidean Quantum Gravity, in “Perspectives in Rie
mannian Geometry”, ed. by V. Apostolov et al., CRM Proceedings and
Lecture Notes, vol. 40, 223248, AMS, Providence, RI, (2006).
[53] A. Nabutovsky, S. Weinberger, The fractal geometry of Riem/Diﬀ, Geome
triae Dedicata 101, 154, (2003).
[54] S. Novikov, Homotopy equivalent smooth manifolds I. (In Russian). Izv.
Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. ser. mat. 28 (2) (1964),365474.Also, Translations
Amer. Math. Soc. 48, 271396, (1965).
[55] S. Novikov, On manifolds with free Abelian fundamental group and their
application, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, v. 30, N 1, 207246, (1966).
[56] S. Novikov, Topology. 1 : General survey, Berlin etc. : Springer, 1996.
 319 c. (Encyclopaedia of mathematical sciences). Per. izd. : Itogi
nauki i tekniki, Sovremennye problemy matematiki, Fundamental’nye
napravleniya..., Topologiya...  Moscow.
[57] G. Perelman, Ricci ﬂow with surgery on threemanifolds.
arXiv:math.DG/0303109, (2003).
[58] S. Podkorytov, An alternative proof of a weak form of Serre’s theorem, J.
of Math. Sci. vol 110, No.4 28752881, (2002).
[59] H. Poincar´e, Science and hypothesis, London and NewcastleonTyne: The
Walter Scott Publishing Co., (1905).
[60] L. Pontryagin, Classiﬁcation of continuous transformations of a complex
into a sphere, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR , 19, pp. 361363, (In Russian)
(1938).
[61] L. Pontryagin, Homotopy classiﬁcation of the mappings of an (n + 2)
dimensional sphere on an ndimensional one, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR
(N.S.) 70, 957959, (Russian) (1950).
66
[62] A. Ranicki, M. Weiss, On the construction and topological invariance of
the Pontryagin classes arXiv:0901.0819, (2009).
[63] V. Rokhlin, Summary of results in homotopy theory of continuous trans
formations of a sphere into a sphere, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 5:6(40), 88101,
(1950).
[64] V. Rokhlin, New results in the theory of 4dimensional manifolds, Dokl.
Akad. Nauk. SSSR 84, 221224, (Russian) (1952).
[65] V. Rokhlin, On Pontrjagin characteristic classes, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR
113, 276279, (1957).
[66] V. Rokhlin, A. Schwarz, The combinatorial invariance of Pontryagin classes,
Dokl. Akad Nauk SSSR, 114, 490493, (1957).
[67] C. Rourke, Essay on the Poincar´e conjecture,
http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/˜cpr/.
[68] A. Russon, Orangutans: Wizards of the Rain Forest, Key Porter books,
(2004).
[69] JP. Serre, Homologie singuli`ere des espaces ﬁbr´es. Applications”, Annals
of Mathematics, 54 (3): 425505, (1951).
[70] J. Simons, Minimal varieties in riemannian manifolds, Ann. Math. 88, 62
105, (1968).
[71] S. Smale, Generalized Poincar´e’s conjecture in dimensions greater than
four. Ann. of Math. (2) 74,1961 391406, (1961).
[72] S. Smale: On the structure of 5manifolds. Ann. Math., 75, 3846, (1962).
[73] J. Stallings, Polyhedral homotopyspheres, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. Volume
66, Number 6, 485488, (1960).
[74] D. Sullivan, Hyperbolic geometry and homeomorphisms, Geometric Topol
ogy., Proc. Georgia Topology Conf., Athens, Ga., Academic Press, New
York, pp. 543555, (1977).
[75] A. Sz` ucs, Cobordism of singular maps, Geometry and Topology 12, 2379
2452 (2008).
[76] A. Sz` ucs, A geometric proof of a theorem of Serre on pcomponents of
π
n+k
(S
k
), Periodica Matematica Hungarica, 29: pp. 913, (1977).
[77] R. Thom, Quelques propri´et´es globales des vari´et´es diﬀ´erentiables, Com
mentarii Mathematici Helvetici 28: 1786, (1954).
[78] R. Thom, Les classes caract´eristiques de Pontrjagin des vari´et´es trian
gul´ees,. Topologia Algebraica, Mexico, 5467, (1958).
[79] W. Thurston, The geometry and topology of 3manifolds, Princeton lecture
notes (19781981).
67
[80] C. T. C. Wall, Surgery on compact manifolds, Mathematical Surveys and
Monographs, 69 (2nd ed.), Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical So
ciety, (1999).
[81] H. Whitney, On the topology of diﬀerentiable manifolds, from: ”Lectures
in Topology”, University of Michigan Press,101141, (1941).
[82] H. Whitney, The selfintersection of a smooth nmanifold in 2nspace, Ann.
of Math. 45, 220246, (1944).
[83] E. Witten, Monopoles and fourmanifolds, Math. Res. Lett. 1 (6): 769
796,(1994).
[84] E. Zeeman, Unknotting combinatorial balls. Ann. of Math. (2) 78, 501–526,
(1963).
68
10 Elliptic Wings and Parabolic Flows. 11 Crystals, Liposomes and Drosophila. 12 Acknowledgments. 13 Bibliography.
Abstract Descendants of algebraic kingdoms of high dimensions, enchanted by the magic of Thurston and Donaldson, lost in the whirlpools of the Ricci ﬂow, topologists dream of an ideal land of manifolds – perfect crystals of mathematical structure which would capture our vague mental images of geometric spaces. We browse through the ideas inherited from the past hoping to penetrate through the fog which conceals the future.
53 58 63 63
1
Ideas and Deﬁnitions.
We are fascinated by knots and links. Where does this feeling of beauty and mystery come from? To get a glimpse at the answer let us move by 25 million years in time. 25 × 106 is, roughly, what separates us from orangutans: 12 million years to our common ancestor on the phylogenetic tree and then 12 million years back by another branch of the tree to the present day orangutans. But are there topologists among orangutans? Yes, there deﬁnitely are: many orangutans are good at ”proving” the triviality of elaborate knots, e.g. they fast master the art of untying boats from their mooring when they fancy taking rides downstream in a river, much to the annoyance of people making these knots with a diﬀerent purpose in mind. A more amazing observation was made by a zoopsychologist Anne Russon in mid 90’s at Wanariset Orangutan Reintroduction Project (see p. 114 in [68]). ”... Kinoi [a juvenile male orangutan], when he was in a possession of a hose, invested every second in making giant hoops, carefully inserting one end of his hose into the other and jamming it in tight. Once he’d made his hoop, he passed various parts of himself back and forth through it – an arm, his head, his feet, his whole torso – as if completely fascinated with idea of going through the hole.” Playing with hoops and knots, where there is no visible goal or any practical gain – be it an ape or a 3Dtopologist – appears fully ”nonintelligent” to a practically minded observer. But we, geometers, feel thrilled at seeing an animal whose space perception is so similar to ours. 2
It is unlikely, however, that Kinoi would formulate his ideas the way we do and that, unlike our students, he could be easily intimidated into accepting ”equivalence classes of atlases” and ”ringed spaces” as appropriate deﬁnitions of his topological playground. (Despite such display of disobedience, we would enjoy the company of young orangutans; they are charmingly playful creatures, unlike the aggressive and reckless chimpanzees – our nearest evolutionary neighbors.) Apart from topology, orangutans do not rush to accept another human definition, namely that of ”tools”, as of ”external detached objects (to exclude a branch used for climbing a tree) employed for reaching speciﬁc goals”. (The use of tools is often taken by zoopsychologists for a measure of ”intelligence” of an animal.) Being imaginative arboreal creatures, orangutans prefer a broader deﬁnition: For example (see [68]): they bunch up leaves to make wipers to clean their bodies without detaching the leaves from a tree; they often break branches but deliberately leave them attached to trees when it suits their purposes – these could not have been achieved if orangutans were bound by the ”detached” deﬁnition. Morale. Our best deﬁnitions, e.g. that of a manifold, tower as prominent landmarks over our former insights. Yet, we should not be hypnotized by deﬁnitions. After all, they are remnants of the past and tend to misguide us when we try to probe the future. Remark. There is a nontrivial similarity between the neurological structures underlying the behaviour of playful animals and that of working mathematicians (see [31]).
3
the homotopy class of a map S N → S N in this case is determined by an integer that is the degree of a map. In general. the unit tangent bundle X = U T (S 2k ) → S 2k has ﬁnite homology Hi (X) for 0 < i < 4k − 1. there exists a map S 4k−1 → X of positive degree and the composed map S 4k−1 → X → S 2k generates an inﬁnite cyclic group of ﬁnite index in π4k−1 (S 2k ). reinforced by homological algebra. z2 ) (tz1 . The proof by Serre – a geometer’s nightmare – consists in tracking a multitude of linearalgebraic relations between the homology and homotopy groups of inﬁnite dimensional spaces of maps between spheres and it tells you next to nothing about the geometry of these maps. by the Freudenthal suspension theorem of 1928 (this is easy). (1951) There are at most ﬁnitely many homotopy classes of maps between spheres S n+N → S N but for the two exceptions: equividimensional case where n = 0 πN (S N ) = Z. In this case π2N −1 (S N ) contains a subgroup of ﬁnite index isomorphic to Z. st These are called the stable homotopy groups of spheres and are denoted πn . Hopf case. reached its today breathtakingly high plateau with the following Serre [S n+N → S N ]Finiteness Theorem. for the group T ⊂ C of the complex numbers with norm one which act on S 3 ⊂ C2 by (z1 . where N is even and n = 2N − 1. the groups πn+N (S N ) for N ≥ n do not depend on N . (Brouwer 1912. Hopf 1926. ”Naked topology”. We deﬁne degree in section 4.) This is expressed in the standard notation by writing πN (S N ) = Z. For more than half a century. H. topologists have been e laboriously stripping their beloved science of its geometric garments. It follows that the homotopy groups πn+N (S N ) are ﬁnite for N >> n. Hopf proved in 1931 that the map f S 3 → S 2 = S 3 T. starting from Poincar´.2 Homotopies and Obstructions. By Serre’s theorem. is noncontractible. where. (See [58] for a ”semigeometric” proof of the ﬁniteness of the stable homotopy groups of spheres and section 5 4 . tz2 ).
f (s2 )) ≤ const(n. In general M ≥ 2. (π is for Poincar´ who e deﬁned the fundamental group π1 ) where the deﬁnition of the group structure depends on distinguished points x0 ∈ X and s0 ∈ S M . the composition is commutative and. Also. For example. the construction in [23] may be relevant. equivariant) under the action of the maximal torus Tk in the orthogonal group O(M + 1). denoted RM . and if X is simply connected. (1) What is the asymptotic behaviour of const(n. dist(s1 . If M = 1. s2 ) Dilation Questions. the composition in πi for i ≥ 2 is denoted [f1 ] + [f2 ]. is deﬁned as the homotopy class of the joint of f1 moved far to the left with f2 moved far to the right. A pair of maps f1 . and then we destroy the symmetry of RM by the choice of s1 . provided supp(f1 ) lies in the left half space {s1 < 0} ⊂ Rm and supp(f2 ) ⊂ {s1 > 0} ⊂ RM . there are no apparent symmetric representatives in the homotopy classes of maps S n+N → S N .) But this is.of this article for a related discussion. π1 (X) = 1. N ) for n.e. where s1 is a nonzero linear function (coordinate) on RM . probably. then they are canonically isomorphic. i. Since S M −1 is connected for M ≥ 2. (An algebraist would respond to this by pointing out that the ambiguity is resolved in the language of operads or something else of this kind. to deal with maps f RM → X ”with compact supports”. homotopically speaking. which correspond to interchanging f1 with f2 – nothing wrong with this as the composition is. where the support of an f is the closure of the (open) subset supp(f ) = suppx0 (f ) ⊂ Rm which consists of the points s ∈ Rm such that f (s) ≠ x0 . these s1 ≠ 0 are. parametrized by the unit sphere S M −1 ⊂ RM . denoted [f1 ] ⋅ [f2 ]. If n ≠ 0. Geometry is sacriﬁced here for the sake of algebraic convenience: ﬁrst. where the homotopy class of f (obviously) depends only on those of f1 . x0 ). Good for algebra. N → ∞? 5 .) This point in S M may be chosen with the representation of S M as the one point compactiﬁcation of the Euclidean space RM . f2 RM → X with disjoint compact supports obviously deﬁnes ”the joint map” f RM → X. And if n ≥ 1.e. f2 . (The groups πM deﬁned with diﬀerent x0 are mutually isomorphic. we break the symmetry of the sphere S M by choosing a base point. where k = M 2 for even M and k = (M + 1) 2 for M odd. It is convenient.) Recall that the set of the homotopy classes of maps of a sphere S M to a connected space X makes a group denoted πM (X). dil(f1 ) =def sup s1 ≠s2 ∈S n+N dist(f (s1 ). yet Serre’s theorem does carry a geometric message. N − 1. with a few exceptions. accordingly. noncommutative. the best you can do for maps S M → S M in a given nontrivial homotopy class is to make them symmetric (i. unavoidable. but the O(M + 1)ambiguity seems too great a price for this. then there are essentially two choices: s1 and −s1 . then. in general. instead of maps S m = Rm → (X. then every continuous map f0 S n+N → S N is homotopic to a map f1 S n+N → S N of dilation bounded by a constant. The composition of the homotopy classes of two maps. where this inﬁnity point is taken for s0 . N ).
. N ) of dilations of maps F of the unit ball B n+N +1 → S N which are equal to f on ∂(B n+N +1 ) = S n+N ? Of course. a connected space with ﬁnitely generated homology groups Hi (X). Let the groups πi (X) be ﬁnite (e. N − 1. f equals the mmultiple of another map where m is divisible by the order of πn+N (S N ). . 3.. say.. What is... trivial) for i = 1. The groups πm (X) are (Abelian!) ﬁnitely generated for all m = 2. for 1 ≤ N ≤ n − 2. (This is elementary.e. is an isomorphism for n = 1.For all we know the Serre dilation constant constS (n.. since each geometric implementation of the homotopy lifting property in a Serre ﬁbrations may bring along an exponential dilation. πN +n (X) ⊗ Q → HN +n (X) ⊗ Q. . every two homologous spheres S N +n → X become homotopic when composed with a noncontractible i. the minimum Dmin = D(d. 2.. e. by an exponential tower (1 + c)(1+c) . of height N . 2.g. Below are frequently used corollaries which relate homotopy problems concerning general spaces X to the homology groups Hi (X) (see section 4 for deﬁnitions) which are much easier to handle. .) (3) QSphericity. Because of the ﬁnite generation property.g. i. this dilation is the most naive invariant measuring the ”geometric size of a map”. N − 2. (1) Finite Generation. then its homotopy groups have the following properties.. 6 . In more algebraic terms.g. 2. then the (obvious) Hurewicz homomorphism πN (X) → HN (X).. Let X be a compact connected triangulated or cellular space. (2) Let f S n+N → S N be a contractible map of dilation d. e. the N cycle represented by this N sphere in X. but a bound one can see oﬀhand is that (1+c). Serre’s theorem and its descendants underly most of the topology of the high dimensional manifolds. If the space X is simply connected.. more generally.. N ) may be bounded for n → ∞ and. π1 (X) = 1. is an isomorphism. If πi (X) = 0 for i = 1. . to a map S N → X. then the Hurewicz homomorphism tensored with rational numbers. [S n+N → X]Theorems. n. the elements s1 . N −1 (recall that we assume π1 (X) = 1). Possibly. the (questionably) geometric approach to the Serre theorem via ”singular bordisms” (see [75]. i = 1.e. of degree m ≠ 0. The following is the dual of the mSphericity. N − 1 and n ≤ N − 2. selfmapping S n+N → S n+N .[1] and section 5) delivers a better estimate. [23]. The Qsphericity is equivalent to (3’) Serre mSphericity Theorem. an interesting answer to these questions needs a more imaginative deﬁnition of ”geometric size/shape” of a map. s2 ∈ πn+N (X) represented by these spheres satisfy ms1 − ms2 = 0... which assigns. Probably. (2) Sphericity. in the spirit of the minimal degrees of polynomials representing such a map. (deﬁned below) or. . roughly. Then an mmultiple of every (N + n)cycle in X for some m ≠ 0 is homologous to an (N + n)sphere continuously mapped to X. Hurewicz 1935. If the groups πi (X) are ﬁnite for i = 2.
since the attaching maps ∂(B i ) → Xi−1 are not necessarily injective. Let X be a compact triangulated space of dimension n + N .Theorem. such that both composed maps f12 ○ f21 X1 → X1 and f21 ○ f12 X2 → X2 are homotopic to the identity.. Cellular and Triangulated Spaces. embeddings only on the interiors B i ∂(B i ). Obstructions and Cohomology. Observe that the homotopy equivalence class of Xi is determined by that of Xi−1 and by the homotopy classes of maps from the spheres S i−1 = ∂(B i ) to Xi−1 . n − 1 ≥ 1. On the other hand. where either N is odd or n < N − 1. These Qtheorems follow from the Serre ﬁniteness theorem for maps between spheres by an elementary argument of induction by skeletons and rudimentary obstruction theory which run. let f X → Y be a continuous map and let 7 . as follows. i > 0 is obtained by attaching a countably (or ﬁnitely) many iballs B i to Xi−1 by continuous maps of the boundaries S i−1 = ∂(B i ) of these balls to Xi−1 . called he iskeleta of X. which is done by induction on skeletons Xi with an approximation of continuous attaching maps by simplicial maps from (i − 1)spheres to Xi−1 . is indistinguishable from B i . every cellular space can be approximated by a homotopy equivalent simplicial one.Serre [→ S N ]Q . Recall that a cellular space is a topological space X with an ascending (ﬁnite or inﬁnite) sequence of closed subspaces X0 ⊂ X1 ⊂ .e. if X is a triangulated space then it comes with homeomorphic embeddings of the isimplices ∆i → Xi extending their boundary maps. g X → S N are homologous. If two continuous maps are f. if the homology homomorphisms f∗ . and denoted Bi ⊂ Xi . Let Y be a connected space such that πi (Y ) = 0 for i = 1. Nevertheless.. Then a nonzero multiple of every homomorphism HN (X) → HN (S N ) can be realized by a continuous map X → S N . topologically speaking. We are free to take any maps S i−1 → Xi−1 we wish in assembling a cellular X which make cells more eﬃcient building blocks of general spaces than simplices. where the union of all these icells equals Xi . then there exists a continuous selfmapping σ S N → S N of nonzero degree such that the composed maps σ ○ f and σ ○ f X → S N are homotopic. g∗ HN (X) → HN (S N ) = Z are equal. which is. If Xi−1 = S l for some l ≤ i−1 (one has l < i−1 if there is no cells of dimensions between l and i − 1) then the homotopy equivalence classes of Xi with a single icell onetoone correspond to the homotopy group πi−1 (S l ).. Recall that a homotopy equivalence between X1 and X2 is given by a pair of maps f12 X1 → X2 and f21 X2 → X1 . every Xi . the images of B i in X are called closed cells. ⊂ Xi ⊂ . For example. roughly. the sphere S n can be made of a 0cell and a single ncell.. we also have continuous maps B i → Xi but they are. such that i (Xi ) = X and such that X0 is a discrete ﬁnite or countable subset.. For example. . in general.. i. If X is a nonsimplicial cellular space. ∂(∆i ) → Xi−1 ⊂ Xi where one additionally requires (here the word ”simplex”. becomes relevant) that the intersection of two such simplices ∆i and ∆j imbedded into X is a simplex ∆k which is a face simplex in ∆i ⊃ ∆k and in ∆j ⊃ ∆k ..
(Two Avalued ncocycles c and c′ . that the set of the homotopy classes of maps X → Y equals the set of homomorphisms Hn (X) → Hn (Y ). which means (this is what is longer to explain for general cell spaces) that the sum of c(∆n ) over the n + 2 facesimplices ∆n ⊂ ∂∆n+1 equals zero. a map fnew X → Y which is homotopic to f and which sends Xn−1 to a point y0 ∈ Y as follows. A) depends only on X but not an a particular choice of a triangulation of X.. if dim(X) = n we. The set of the cohomology classes of ncocycles with a natural additive structure is called the cohomology group H n (X. where this l∗ X comes along with a map l∗ X → X which induces isomorphisms on all homotopy groups tensored with Q. this argument applied to X = S n shows that πn (X) = Hn (X) and. Finally. by induction on i = 0. of a given ′ map f0 X → Y .. and where each oriented ncell B n ⊂ X mapped to Y with ∂(B n ) → y0 represents an element c ∈ πn (Y ) which may be nonzero. to a homotopy ft X → Y for all closed subsets ′ X ⊂ X. then c −c. provided πi (Y ) = 0 for 0 < i < dim(X). equate the set [X → Y ] of the homotopy classes of maps X → Y with the cohomology group H n (X. for each icell B i from Xi . The cohomology class [c] ∈ H n (X. where πn (Y ) ≠ 0. 1. for all ∆n+1 in the triangulation (if we canonically/correctly choose orientations in all ∆n ). by replacing the attaching maps of all (i+1)cells. A). thus. for every integer l. The obstruction theory (developed by Eilenberg in 1940 following Pontryagin’s 1938 paper) well displays the logic of algebraic topology: the geometric f 8 . thus. For example. are in the same cohomology class if there exists an Avalued function d(∆n−1 ) on the oriented simplices ∆n−1 ⊂ Xn−1 . πn (X)). for an abelian group A. . (One can not. similarly to how one extends Rvalued functions from X ′ ⊂ X to X. contract Xi to y0 . switch from B n to ∆n and observe that the function c(∆n ) is (obviously) an ncocycle in X with values in the group πn (Y ). Assume f (Xi−1 ) = y0 . t ∈ [0. when we use this construction for proving the above Qtheorems where one of the spaces is a sphere... that our space X is a triangulated one. Then the resulting map B i → Y . we keep composing our maps with selfmappings of this sphere of suitable degree m ≠ 0 that kills the obstructions by the Serre ﬁniteness theorem. this B i in Y can be contracted to y0 without disturbing its boundary. 1]. because the boundary ∂B i ⊂ Xi−1 goes to a single point – our to y0 in Y . Furthermore. S i → Xi . one can deﬁne the homotopy multiple l∗ X. n − 1. f0 X ′ = f0 . makes an isphere in Y . See section 4 for a lighter geometric deﬁnitions of homology and cohomology. by lki multiples of these maps in πi (Xi ) for k2 << k3 << . but one always can extend a continuous homotopy ft′ X ′ → Y . such that ∑∆n−1 ⊂∆n d(∆n−1 ) = c(∆n ) − c′ (∆n ) for all ∆n . Since πi (Y ) = 0.us construct. in general. (When we switch an orientation in B n . We do it all icells from Xi and..) In particular. in general.. if X is a ﬁnite cellular space without 1cells. Moreover. extend a continuous map from a closed subset X ′ ⊂ X to X.) We assume at this point. every cocycle c′ in the class of [c] can be obtained by a homotopy of the map on Xn which is kept constant on Xn−2 . πn (X)) of this cocycle does not depend (by an easy argument) on how the (n − 1)skeleton was contracted.) The contraction of X to a point in Y can be obstructed on the nth step. It can be shown that H n (X.
such that image W ′ = f ′ (W ) ⊂ V in V becomes transversal (i.e. the proofs of this ”niceness” are localanalytic and elementary (at least in the cases we need). A common zero set of N smooth (i. However.g. i = 1. nowhere tangent) to X0 . e. e. i. of the space of C ∞ maps with the C ∞ topology. M −dim(X) = N − dim(X0 ). Moreover.symmetry of X (if there was any) is broken by an arbitrary triangulation or a cell decomposition and then another kind of symmetry. V = RN or V = S N .g. (a) Let f W ⊂ V ⊃ X0 be a smooth.) Serre’s idea is that the homotopy types of ﬁnite simply connected cell complexes as well as of ﬁnite diagrams of continuous maps between these are ﬁnitary arithmetic objects which can be encoded by ﬁnitely many polynomial equations and nonequalities with integer coeﬃcients. e..g.g. Then a small generic perturbation f ′ W → V of f remains an embedding.. possibly nongeneric. ”f in general position” or ”generic f ”. embedding of W into V . V and X0 are oriented. everything trivially follows from Sard’s theorem + the implicit function theorem. where f is an element of a topological space F . an Abelian algebraic one.e. if the functions fi are taken in general position. The representation of manifolds with functions generalizes as follows. and let X0 ⊂ V be a smooth submanifold. One sees with the full geometric clarity (with a picture of two planes in the 3space which intersect at a line) that the intersection X = W ′ ∩ X0 (= (f ′ )−1 (X0 )) is a submanifold in V with codimV (X) = codimV (W ) + codimV (X0 ). Start with a smooth N manifold V . M = n + N . Furthermore. then the common zero set is a smooth nsubmanifold in Rn+N . inﬁnitely diﬀerentiable) functions fi Rn+N → R. Examples. Let W be a smooth manifold of dimension M .. then the pullback X = f −1 (X0 ) ⊂ W is a smooth submanifold in W with codimW (X) = codimV (X0 ).e. 9 . and where the structural organization of the homotopy theory depends on nonﬁnitary objects which are inductive limits of ﬁnitary ones. . e. if f W → V is a generic smooth map. Thom 1954).) Generic smooth (unlike continuous) objects are as nice as we expect them to be. emerges on the (co)homology level. may be very nasty even for N = 1 – every closed subset in Rn+1 can be represented as a zero of a smooth function. Generic Pullback Construction (Pontryagin 1938. such as the homotopy types of spaces of continuous maps between ﬁnite cell spaces. means that what we say about f applies to all f in an open and dense subset in F . if W has a boundary then X is a smooth submanifold in W with a boundary ∂(X) ⊂ ∂(W ). Here and below. 0 ∈ RN or a point x0 ∈ S N . (Sometimes.N . if the manifolds W . 3 Generic Pullbacks. then X comes with a natural orientation. (See [56] for a comprehensive overview of algebraic and geometric topology. one allows not only open dense sets in the deﬁnition of genericity but also their countable intersections.
where every εball B N (ε) = Bx (ε) N N ⊥ normal to X at x ∈ X is radially mapped to the ﬁber R = Rx of U → X at x. since every two transversal ﬂat dicks Di ⊂ B 4 ⊂ C2 bounding equatorial circles Si ⊂ S 3 intersect at a single point. and since Di do not intersect. The Thom space of an N vector bundle V → X0 over a compact space X0 (where the pullbacks of all points x ∈ X0 are Euclidean spaces RN = RN ) is the one point compactiﬁcations V of V . if V = R. the map f is homotopic to zero. extend it to a smooth generic map ϕ ϕ B 4 → S 2 and take the ϕpullbacks Di = ϕ−1 (si ) ⊂ B 4 of si . For instance. then the total space of its normal bundle denoted U ⊥ → X is (almost canonically) diﬀeomorphic to a small N (normal) εneighbourhood U (ε) ⊂ W of X. we produce complicated and more interesting ones by means of ”complicated maps” W → V . The essential point of the seemingly trivial pullback construction. Suppose. hence. they are naturally oriented. A⊥ W → U ⊥ . where X0 is canonically x embedded into V ⊂ V as the zero section of the bundle (i. s2 ∈ S 2 .(b) Let f S 3 → S 2 be a smooth map and S1 . granted orientations in S 2 and in S 3 . These Si are smooth closed curves. x 0 ∈ RN ). It follows that nonvanishing of the Hopf invariant h(f ) implies that f is nonhomotopic to zero. x If X = X n ⊂ W = W n+N is a smooth submanifold. see the next section). i = 1.e. Recall that every RN bundle over an ndimensional space with n < N . 4 Let S be the 4sphere obtained from the two copies of B 4 by identifying ϕ the boundaries of the balls and let Ci = Di ∪ Di ⊂ S 4 . Let Di ⊂ B 4 = ∂(S 3 ). be generic smooth oriented surfaces in the ball 4 B ⊃ S 3 = ∂(B 4 ) with their oriented boundaries equal Si and let h(f ) denote the intersection index (deﬁned in the next section) between Di . the intersection index h(f ) between Di is also zero. Thus the Thom space U ⊥ is identiﬁed with U (ε) and the tautological map W → U (ε) . deﬁnes the AtiyahThom map for all closed smooth submanifold X ⊂ W . 2.) For example. and our maps are functions on W . And less obvious (smooth generic) maps. the Hopf map S 3 → S 2 is noncontractible. can be induced from the tautological bundle V over the Grassmann manifold X0 = 10 . Following Thom (1954) one applies the above to maps into one point compactiﬁcations V of open manifolds V where one still can speak of generic pullbacks of smooth submanifolds X0 in V ⊂ V under maps W → V Thom spaces. the intersection index between them equals zero (because they are homologous to zero in ϕ S 4 . (It is next to impossible to make an interesting manifold with the ”equivalence class of atlases” deﬁnition. is that starting from ”simple manifolds” X0 ⊂ V and W . that equals the identity on U (ε) ⊂ W and sends the complement W U (ε) to ∈ U (ε) . come as smooth generic approximations of continuous maps W → V delivered by the algebraic topology. ϕ Since ∂(Di ) = ∂(Di ) = Si . these Ci are closed surfaces. S2 ∈ S 3 be the pullbacks of two generic points s1 . for all kind of V and W . we can generate lots of them by using algebraic and analytic manipulations with functions and then we obtain maps to RN by taking N tuples of functions.
g. The manifolds X obtained with the generic pullback construction come with a grain of salt: generic maps are abundant but it is hard to put your ﬁnger on any one of them – we can not say much about topology and geometry of an individual X. In a way. this construction unravels an amazing structure in the ”space of all manifolds” (Before Serre. a submanifold. Since all nmanifolds can be (obviously) embedded (by generic smooth maps) into Euclidean spaces Rn+N . This is aggravated in topology. one can take the normal Gauss map for G that sends x ∈ X to the N plane G(x) ∈ GrN (Rn+N ) = X0 which is parallel to the normal space of X at x. It reappeared in 14th century as Buridan’s ass problem and as Zermelo’s choice problem at the beginning of 20th century.GrN (Rn+N ) of N planes (i. minimal manifolds X are usually singular except for hypersurfaces X n ⊂ W n+1 where n ≤ 6 (Simons. linear N subspaces in Rn+N ) by a continuous map. if X ⊂ Rn+N . (It seems. i. composed with A⊥ .e. For example.e. obviously.) But. N >> n. e. say G X → X0 = GrN (Rn+N ). deﬁnes a map U ⊥ → V and this. every U ⊥ bundle inducing map X → X0 = GrN (Rn+N ) for X = X n ⊂ W = W n+N . empowered with Serre’s theorem. 1968).) Selecting an object X. nmanifold X comes from the generic pullback construction applied to maps f from S n+N = Rn+N to the Thom space V of the canonical N vector bundle V → X0 = GrN (Rn+N ). X = f −1 (X0 ) for generic f S n+N → V ⊃ X0 = GrN (Rn+N ). However. one may go for nsubmanifolds X of minimal volumes in an (n + N )manifold W endowed with a Riemannian metric. 11 . All closed smooth nmanifolds X come as pullbacks of the Grassmannians X0 = GrN (Rn+N ) in the ambient Thom spaces V ⊃ X0 under generic smooth maps S n+N → V . A geometer/analyst tries to select an X by ﬁrst ﬁnding/constructing a ”value function” on X and then by taking the ”optimal” X. Since the Thom space construction is. functorial. gives us the Thom map T W → V for the tautological N bundle V → X0 = GrN (Rn+N ). since there is no known construction delivering all manifolds X in a reasonably controlled manner besides generic pullbacks and their close relatives. compact without boundary. one can not put all manifolds in one basket without some ”random string” attached to it. Thom has discovered the source of all manifolds in the world and responded to the question ”Where are manifolds coming from?” with the following 1954 Answer. Picking up a ”generic” or a ”random” X from X is a geometer’s last resort when all ”deterministic” options have failed. Pontryagin and following him Rokhlin proceeded in the reverse direction by applying smooth manifolds to the homotopy theory via the Pontryagin construction. is a notoriously diﬃcult problem which had been known since antiquity and can be traced to De Cael of Aristotle. from a given collection X of similar objects. where there is no distinguished member X among them. For example. every closed.
dim(B)). which represent homology classes [C] ∈ Hi (X). For example. If X is a smooth nmanifold X one is inclined to deﬁne ”geometric icycles” C in X. is too restrictive. one does not know if every closed smooth manifold X is homeomorphic to such an S Γ. of course. locality and maxadditivity. but this never causes any problem insofar as we do not start taking limits of maps. this is nontrivial for ramiﬁed coverings over the ﬂat ntorus X0 = Tn where Σ0 is the union of several ﬂat (n−2)subtori in general position where these subtori may intersect one another. we deﬁne dimension on all closed subsets in smooth manifolds with the usual properties of monotonicity. closed selfintersecting curves in surfaces. This. And even for simple Σ0 ⊂ X0 . a locally constant integer valued function on the nonsingular locus of C. for example.e. we allow C ⊂ X which may have singularities of codimension one.e. 4 Duality and the Signature. Besides we want our dimension to be monotone under generic smooth maps of compact subsets A. the description of ramiﬁed coverings X → X0 where X are manifolds may be hard. and this is also so for compact 3manifolds by a theorem of Thurston. i. one has ramiﬁed covers X → X0 of ”simple” manifolds X0 . e. Cycles and Homology. as ”compact oriented isubmanifolds C ⊂ X with singularities of codimension two”. possibly. C = Creg ∪ C× ∪ Csing . on specifying ”generic” at each step. and Γ is a discrete isometry group acting on S. but ﬁnding such Σ0 is diﬃcult (see the discussion following (3) in section 7). they are ”complicated quotients of simple manifolds”. Then we deﬁne the ”generic dimension” as the minimal function with these properties which coincides with the ordinary dimension on smooth compact submanifolds. besides orientation. dim(A ∪ B) = max(dim(A). Often. and with the following set decomposition of C. but this may be a problem with our imagination. and/or the double covering map S 1 → S 1 .g. i.on the other hand. then f −1 (A) ≤ dim(A) + m. e. as it rules out. (It is obvious that every surface X is homeomorphic to such a quotient. Thus. where S is a symmetric space. It is hard to imagine that there are inﬁnitely many nondiﬀeomorphic but mutually homeomorphic S Γ for the hyperbolic 4space S. such that 12 . This depends. where one wants the ramiﬁcation locus Σ0 ⊂ X0 to be a subvariety with ”mild singularities” and with an ”interesting” fundamental group of the complement X0 Σ0 .g. geometrically interesting manifolds X are not anybody’s pullbacks. An icycle C ⊂ X is a closed subset in X of dimension i with a Zmultiplicity function on C deﬁned below.) Starting from another end. X = S Γ. with ﬁxed points. and. dim(f (A)) ≤ dim(A) and if f X m+n → Y n is a generic map. however. But if n ≥ 4. the hyperbolic nspace. First.
g. then it itself makes an ncycle which represents what is called the fundamental class [X] ∈ Hn (X). Accordingly. more generally. It is convenient to have singular counterparts to manifolds with boundaries. If X is a closed oriented nmanifold. keep these partners attached as they meet along C× and separate them from the other pairs. we agree that D1 = D2 if D1 − D2 = 0. We do not care distinguishing such plaques and. x ∈ C× the union Creg ∪ C× is diﬀeomorphic to a collection of smooth copies of Ri in X. Poor C ′ burdened with this ambiguity becomes rather noneﬃcient. τ1 . where this ∂(D) comes with the canonical weighted orientation induced from D. Geometrically. if 2l oriented branches of Creg with multiplicities 1 meet at C× . The Zmultiplicity structure. is given by an orientation of Creg and a locally constant multiplicity/weight Zfunction on Creg . C× ∪ Csing is a closed subset of dimension ≤ i − 1. also with weights = ±1. We go further and write D = 0 if the weight function on Dreg equals zero. Since ”chains” were appropriated by algebraic topologists.. we impose the local conditions on D ∂(D) as on (i+1)cycles and add the local icycle conditions on (the closed set) ∂(D). Creg is an open and dense subset in C and it is a smooth isubmanifold in X. ′ Every C can be modiﬁed to C ′ with empty C× and if codim(C) ≥ 1. where ν is the inward looking normal vector. Dsing ). except that there is a subset ∂(D)× ⊂ D× . dim(X) > dim(C). it can be performed in l! diﬀerent ways.. at every point.e. We choose the orientation in ∂(D) deﬁned by the frames of the tangent vectors τ1 . on the circular boundary of the 2disc. τi agrees with the original orientation. divide them into l pairs with the partners having opposite orientations. where the closure of ∂(D)× equals ∂(D) ⊂ D and where dim(∂(D) ∂(D)× ) ≤ i − 2. We denote by −D the plaque with the either minus weight function or with the opposite orientation. i. called branches. where an (i + 1)plaque D with a boundary ∂(D) ⊂ D is the same as a cycle.. say with the total weight 2l. this separation of branches is. . Locally. No matter how simple. the equality D1 = D2 means that the two plaques have a common subdivision. meeting along their Ri−1 boundaries where the basic + example is the union of hypersurfaces in general position. we use the word ”plaque”. Other ncycles are integer combinations of the oriented connected components of X. (There are two opposite canonical induced orientations on the boundary C = ∂D. (where for i = 0 there is only this function and no orientation) such that the sum of these oriented multiplicities over the branches of C at each point x ∈ C× equals zero. less essentially. For example.. . τi such that the orientation given to D by the (i + 1)frames ν.) Every plaque can be ”subdivided” by enlarging the set D× (and/or.Csing is a closed subset of dimension≤ i − 2.. 13 . We deﬁne D1 + D2 if there is a plaque D containing both D1 and D2 as its subplaques with the obvious addition rule of the weight functions. e. where the sums of oriented weights do not cancel. with no apparent rational for preferring one of the two..
g. if D is a cycle and X m+n is a closed manifold (or the map f is proper). for example. since it is even hard to prove noncontractibility of S n and issuing from this the Brouwer ﬁxed point theorem within the world of continuous maps without using generic smooth or combinatorial ones. then f −1 (D) is cycle. since the cone over C in Y = X × [0. obviously. if. we extend the above deﬁnitions to arbitrary triangulated spaces X.e. The above argument may look suspiciously easy. The homology group Hi (X) is deﬁned as the Abelian group with generators [C] for all icycles C in X and with the relations [C1 ] − [C2 ] = 0 whenever C1 ∼ C2 . As the last technicality. This is needed. It is even more obvious that the pullback f −1 (D) of an iplaque D ⊂ Y n under a generic map f X m+n → n Y is an (i + m)plaque in X m+n .On Genericity. Notice that for dim(Y ) = i + 1 the selfintersection locus of the image f (D) becomes a part of f (D)× and if dim(Y ) = i + 1. except for n = 1 with the covering map R → S 1 and for S 2 with the Hopf ﬁbration S 3 → S 2 . it is obvious to you that If D ⊂ X is an iplaque (icycle) then the image f (D) ⊂ Y under a generic map f X → Y is an iplaque (icycle). such that C = ∑i Ci . if there is an (i+1)plaque D in X×[0. Examples. for every locally ﬁnite covering X = i Ui . since the sum of arbitrary plaques is not a plaque. a cycle C ⊂ X is homologous to zero if and only if it admits a decomposition into a sum of ”arbitrarily small cycles”. Similarly one deﬁnes Hi (X. i. 1] and so Hn (X) equals the group of ncycles in X. 1]) = X × 0 ∪ X × 1 are combination of the connected components of X × [0. a cone over X) in X × [0. where Hn (X) is generated by the fundamental classes of its components. We have not used any genericity so far except for the deﬁnition of dimension. Since small subsets in X are contractible. Two icycles C1 and C2 in X are called homologous. every closed orientable manifold X is noncontractible. there exist cycles Ci ⊂ Ui . for the ﬁeld Q of rational numbers. Consequently. but the sum of generic plaques. 1]. to deﬁne D1 + D2 . with ”smooth generic” substituted by ”piecewise smooth generic” or by piecewise linear maps. by allowing C and D with fractional weights. then the new part the ×singularity comes from f (∂(D)). 1] with ∂(D) ⊂ ∂(X × [0. 14 . This is obvious with our deﬁnitions since the only plaques D in X × [0. written C1 ∼ C2 . Also if you are used to genericity. is. 1] is again an (n + 1)plaque. The catch is that the diﬃculty is hidden in the fact that a generic image of an (n + 1)plaque (e. such that ∂(D) = C1 ×0−C2 ×1. Every closed orientable nmanifold X with k connected components has Hn (X) = Zk . Homology. But from now on we assume all our object to be generic. For example every contractible cycle C ⊂ X is homologous to zero. Q). 1] corresponding to a smooth generic homotopy makes a plaque with its boundary equal to C.
Degree of a Map. example. by limiting possible singularities of cycles and plaques [6]. (Holistic philosophers must feel triumphant upon learning this. It follows. while Rn . If two generic points y1 . (which can be assumed generic) consists. The homology groups are much easier do deal with than the homotopy groups. since the complement to a point s0 ∈ S n is homeomorphic to Rn and a generic cycles of dimension < n misses s0 . The spheres S n have Hi (S n ) = 0 for 0 < i < n. The locality+additivity is satisﬁed by the generalized homology functors that are deﬁned. To understand the local geometry behind the deﬁnition of degree. a space is the sum of its parts: the locality allows an eﬀective computation of homology of spaces X assembled of simpler pieces. t ∈ [0. that the homology is invariant under homotopy equivalences X ↔ Y for manifolds X. then degy1 (f ) = degy2 (f ) since the f pullback of this path.g. of several segments in Y . when generically perturbed. joining ±1degree points 15 . 1] generically mapped to Y ×[0. 1]. which is invariant under proper homotopies of maps. has zero homologies in positive dimensions. f ! Hi (Y ) → Hi+m (X). For. Some of these.) Homologically speaking. following Sullivan. deﬁne homomorphisms f∗i Hi (X) → Hi (Y ) for C f (C) and that homotopic maps f1 . being contractible. for example. then the pullbacks of cycles deﬁne homomorphism. denoted. ˜i → Uy is a diﬀeomorphism for all Ui . if f X m+n → Y n is a proper (pullbacks of compact sets are compact) smooth generic map between manifolds where Y has no boundary. Y as well as for triangulated spaces. are plaque D in our sense with ∂(D) = f1 (C) − f2 (C). while ”spheres in X” can not be recognized by looking at them point by point. the cylinders C ×[0. It is clear that continuous maps f X → Y . look closer at our f where X (still assumed compact) is allowed a nonempty boundary and ˜ observe that the f pullback Uy ⊂ X of some (small) open neighbourhood Uy ⊂ Y ˜ ˜ of a generic point y ∈ Y consists of ﬁnitely many connected components Ui ⊂ U . such as cells. since the deﬁnition of an icycle in X is purely local. f2 X → Y induce equal homomorphisms Hi (X) → Hi (Y ). every Ui carries two orientations: one induced from X and the second ˜ from Y via f . besides possible closed curves. Let f X → Y be a smooth (or piecewise smooth) generic map between closed connected oriented equidimensional manifolds Then the degree deg(f ) can be (obviously) equivalently deﬁned either as the image f∗ [X] ∈ Z = Hn (Y ) or as the f ! image of the generator [ ] ∈ H0 (Y ) ∈ Z = H0 (X). Similarly.What is obvious. Indeed. however without any appeal to genericity is that H0 (X) = Zk for every manifold or a triangulated space with k components. ˜ such that the map f U ˜ Thus. y2 ∈ Y can be joined by a path in Y which does not cross the f image f (∂(X)) ⊂ Y of the boundary of X. The sum of +1 assigned to Ui where the two orientation agree and of −1 when they disagree is called the local degree degy (f ). Similarly. e. one sees that ﬁnite covering maps between arbitrary spaces are surjective on the rational homology groups. 1] by homotopies ft . lsheeted covering maps X → Y have degrees l. bordisms we meet in the next section.
(The ordinary homology groups of this interior are canonically isomorphic to those of X. The usual deﬁnition of homology of such an X amounts to working with all icycles contained in Xi and with (i + 1)plaques in Xi+1 . these sums have zero algebraic boundaries. then this group of the interior of X is called the relative homology group Hi (X. Recall that the homology of a triangulated space is algebraically deﬁned with Zcycles which are Zchains. ∂(X)). If X is compact with boundary. On the other hand. where. sends C to an algebraic cycle. Since every generic icycle C misses Σ it can be homotoped to Xi where the resulting map. Geometric Versus Algebraic Cycles.) Intersection Ring. where the smooth (typically disconnected) pullback curve F −1 (y) ⊂ X × [0. On the other hand. the equivalence of the two deﬁnitions becomes apparent. the local degree does not depend on y if X has no boundary. if X 16 taut . which shows. one sees in this picture (without any reference to homology) that the local degree is invariant under generic homotopies F X × [0. 0)−1 (y) ⊂ X = X×0 with 1points in F (x. by the deﬁnition of s ”algebraic cycle” . But this is exactly the same as our generic cycles Cgeo in the iskeleton Xi of X and. say f C → Xi . Let us explain how the geometric deﬁnition matches the algebraic one for triangulated spaces X. i. 1] → Y . where [C] ∩ [C] is deﬁned by intersecting C ⊂ X with its small generic perturbation C ′ ⊂ X. which is equivalent to c(Calg ) = 0 for every Zcocycle c cohomologous to zero (see chapter 2). tautologically. In this case the group of icycles becomes a subspace of the group spanned by the icells. 1)−1 (y) ⊂ X = X×1. one may drop ”compact” in the deﬁnition of these cycles. clearly. Then. At this point. formal linear combinations Calg = ∑s ks ∆i of s oriented isimplices ∆i with integer coeﬃcients ks .e. an (i + j)simplex minus its center can be radially homotoped to its boundary. for example. Calg Cgeo gives us a homomorphism from the algebraic homology to our geometric one. where. The resulting group is denoted H1 (X. Similarly. The intersection of cycles in general position in a smooth manifold X deﬁnes a multiplicative structure on the homology of an nmanifold X.˜ ˜ in f −1 (y1 ) ⊂ Uy1 ⊂ X with 1points in f −1 (y2 ) ⊂ Uy2 . (Here genericity is most useful: intersection is painful for simplicial cycles conﬁned to their respective skeleta of a triangulation. Consequently. Then the obvious reverse induction on skeleta of the triangulation shows that the space X minus a subset Σ ⊂ X of codimension i + 1 can be homotoped to the iskeleton Xi ⊂ X. that the rank of Hi (X) does not exceed the number of icells in Xi . ∂∞ ). We return to generic geometric cycles and observe that if X is a noncompact manifold. observe. 1] joins ±1points in F (x. it coincides with the homologically deﬁned degree. the argument applies to all cellular spaces X with piecewise linear attaching maps. denoted [C1 ] ⋅ [C2 ] = [C1 ] ∩ [C2 ] = [C1 ∩ C2 ] ∈ Hn−(i+j) (X) for [C1 ] ∈ Hn−i (X) and [C2 ] ∈ Hn−j (X).
The intersection ring structure immensely enriches homology. 1. H∗ = ⊕i Hi is just a graded Abelian group – the most primitive algebraic object (if ﬁnitely generated) – fully characterized by simple numerical invariants: the rank and the orders of their cyclic factors. that this product is invariant under oriented (i. If X is connected. it is called the intersection index of the cycles. All number theory in the world can not classify these for d ≥ 3 (to be certain. One can also intersect noncompact cycles. . i.. which is seen by observing that CP i+1 CP i . is an open (2i + 2)cell.e. (a) The intersection ring of the complex projective space CP k is multiplicatively generated by the homology class of the hyperplane. for d ≥ 4). where X ⊂ V is embedded as the zero 17 ∩ . say on Hn−2 of an nmanifold X. [CP k−1 ] ∈ H2k−2 (CP k ). a polynomial of degree d in r variables with integer coeﬃcients for r = rank(Hn−2 ). for n = 2d deﬁnes a symmetric dform. this deﬁnes the intersection pairing Hn−i (X) ⊗ Hn−j (X. Also observe that the intersection between C1 and C2 equals the intersection of C1 × C2 with the diagonal Xdiag ⊂ X × X. in particular. Additively. the only relations between the multiplicative generators hi ∈ Hn−1 (Tn ) are hi hj = −hj hi . But the ring structure. 2i+2 i = 0. of degrees +1) homotopy equivalences between closed equidimensional manifolds. Thom Isomorphism. the open topological ball Bop (where the cell attaching map ∂(B 2i+2 ) = S 2i+1 → CP i is the quotient map S 2i+1 → S 2i+1 T = CP i+1 for the obvious action of the multiplicative group T of the complex numbers with norm 1 on S 2i+1 ⊂ C2i+1 ). Let p V → X be a ﬁberwise oriented smooth (which is unnecessary) RN bundle over X. k − 1.. obviously. The intersection of two cycles of complementary dimensions is a 0cycle. then ind(C) = 0 if and only if [C] = 0. with the only relation [CP k−1 ]k+1 = 0 and where.) Also notice that the intersection of cycles of odd codimensions is anticommutative and if one of the two has even codimension it is commutative. where hi are the homology classes of the n coordinate subtori Tn−1 ⊂ Tn . The former implies.) It is obvious that the intersection is respected by f ! for proper maps f . which is homotopy equivalent to X has trivial intersection ring.e. where the sum of these ±1 is called the index of C. where an intersection of a compact C1 with a noncompact C2 is compact.. i This follows from the K¨nneth formula below. (b) The intersection ring of the ntorus is isomorphic to the exterior algebra on ngenerators. Finally notice that generic 0 cycles C in X are ﬁnite sets of points x ∈ X with the ”orientation” signs ±1 attached to each x in C. The only point which needs checking here is that the homology class [CP i ] (additively) generates Hi (CP k ). i. (But X × R. the total Zweight of which makes sense if X is oriented. Examples. on Hn−2 = Hn−2 (X) which is. [CP k−i ] ⋅ [CP k−j ] = [CP k−(i+j) ]. but can be also proved directly u with the obvious cell decomposition of Tn into 2n cells. but not for f∗ .is a not a manifold one may adjust the deﬁnition of cycles to the local topology of the singular part of X and arrive at what is called the intersection homology.e. ∂∞ ) → Hn−(i+j) (X). whichever is the ring of X.
but it does depend on the orientation of X. i. πj (V ) = 0 for j = 1. Euler Class.) Observe that the Euler number vanishes if and only if the homology projection homomorphism 0 f∗2k H2k (V B. This is deﬁned by intersecting generic (i + N )cycles in V with X.. a generic jsphere S j → V with j < N does not intersect X ⊂ V . Similarly we see that The Thom space of every RN bundle V → X is (N − 1)connected. Q) is surjective. one does not need B to be a manifold for this deﬁnition. Then there are two natural homology homomorphisms. 2. Intersection ∩ Hi+N (V ) → Hi (X). Moreover. Poincar´Hopf Formula. If X equals the tangent bundle T (B) then X is canonically oriented (even if B is nonorientable) and the Euler number is nonambiguously deﬁned and it equals the selfintersection number of the diagonal Xdiag ⊂ X × X. Therefore.e. These ∩ and S are mutually reciprocal. Since the intersection pairing is symmetric on H2k the sign of the Euler number does not depend on the orientation of B. a homomorphism (additive map) e H2k (B) → Z ⊂ Q. If B is a closed connected oriented manifold. C (p−1 (C)) ⊂ V .. this sphere radially (in the ﬁbers of V ) contracts to ∈ V .e. Let f X → B be a ﬁbration with R2k ﬁbers over a smooth closed oriented manifold B.N − 1. i. Thus we arrive at the Thom isomorphism Hi (X) ↔ Hi+N (V ). it is easy to see that the ideal in H ∗ (B) generated by the Euler class (for the ring structure on cohomology deﬁned later in this section) equals the kernel of the cohomology homomorphism 0 f ∗ H ∗ (B) → H ∗ (V B). then e[B] is called the Euler number of X → B also denoted e. which ﬁxes and move each v ∈ V by v tv. Indeed. where every cycle C ⊂ X goes to the Thom space of the restriction of V to C. where B ⊂ X is embedded by the zero section b 0b ∈ Rk and 0 f V B → B is the b restriction of the map (projection) f to V B. the number e equals the selfintersection index of B ⊂ X. .. Indeed (∩ ○ S )(C) = C for all C ⊂ X and also (S ○ ∩)(C ′ ) ∼ C ′ for all cycles C ′ in V where the homology is established by the ﬁberwise radial homotopy of C ′ in V ⊃ V .. In other words. Then the intersection indices of 2kcycles in B with B ⊂ X. embedded as the zero section.section and let V be Thom space of V . tC ′ → (S ○ ∩)(C ′ ) as t → ∞ for all generic cycles C ′ in V . Q) → H2k (B. i. (In fact.1. where X is embedded into V by the zero section.k rank(Hi (X. Clearly. 18 .. The Euler number e of the tangent bundle T (B) e of every closed oriented 2kmanifold B satisﬁes e = χ(B) = i=0. Q)). called the Euler class of the ﬁbration. deﬁnes an integer cohomology class.e. Also notice that if X is embedded into a larger 4kmanifold X ′ ⊃ X then the selfintersection index of B in X ′ equals that in X. Thom Suspension S Hi (X) → Hi (V ).
e. set e(X) = e(X) 2.g. e The intersection index establishes a linear duality between homologies of complementary dimensions: Hi (X. Q). The most transparent proof of this formula is. ˜ ˜ an lsheeted covering B → B has χ(B) = l ⋅ χ(B). .) Poincar´ QDuality. (Yet. the proof is cumbersome unless you pass to the language of chain complexes where the diﬃculty dissolves in linear algebra. In other words. The rational homology of the Cartesian product of u two spaces equals the graded tensor product of the homologies of the factors. then χ(B) equals the alternating sum ∑i (−1)i N (∆i ) of the numbers of isimplices by straightforward linear algebra and the multiplicativity follows. in the algebraic geometry. But this is not so easy with our geometric cycles. Take the canonical oriented double covering B → B. 19 ∩ . the intersection pairing Hi (X) ⊗ Hn−i (X. In the general case. where each point ˜ ∈ B over b ∈ B is represented as b + an orientation of B near b. if X1 and X2 are closed oriented manifolds. Q) ⊗ Hj (X2 . keeping track of geometric cycles may be sometimes necessary. (If B is a closed manifold. Let the bundle b ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ X → B be induced from X by the covering map B → B. Moreover.) K¨ nneth Theorem. the natural homomorphism Hi (X1 . e A more algebraic proof follows from the K¨nneth formula (see below) and u an expression of the class [Xdiag ] ∈ H2k (X × X) in terms of the intersection ring structure in H∗ (X). Q) → Hk (X1 × X2 . Q). ∂∞ ) → H0 (X) = Z is Qfaithful: a multiple of a compact icycle C is homologous to zero if and only if its intersection index with every noncompact (n − i)cycle in general position equals zero. Let X be a connected oriented nmanifold. The Poincar´Hopf formula for nonorientable 2kmanifolds B follows from e the orientable case by the multiplicativity of the Euler characteristic χ which is valid for all compact triangulated spaces B. this homomorphism is compatible (if you say it right) with the intersection product. 1.It is hard the believe this may be true! A single cycle (let it be the fundamental one) knows something about all of the homology of B. The Euler number can be also deﬁned for connected nonorientable B as ˜ follows. via the Morse theory (known to Poincar´) and it hardly can be called ”trivial”. this X is the obvious ˜ ˜ double covering of X corresponding to B → B. i+j=k is an isomorphism. If the homology is deﬁned via a triangulation of B.. in the geometry of foliated cycles and in evaluating the so called ﬁlling proﬁles of products of Riemannian manifolds.. ∂∞ . 2. Q) equals the Qlinear dual of Hn−i (X. In fact. e. probably. This is obvious if X1 and X2 have cell decompositions such that the numbers of icells in each of them equals the ranks of their respective Hi . k = 0. i. Finally. this also follows from the Poincar´e Hopf formula and the obvious multiplicativity of the Euler number for covering maps.
Z). Observe. 20 . e Hi (X) ↔ H n−i (X. assign to each generic icycle C ⊂ X the intersection index of C with every oriented ∆n−i of T and observe that the resulting function c⊥ ∆n−i ind(∆n−i ∩C) is a Zvalued cocycle (see section 2). Q)] → Q] for all compact triangulated spaces X. Z). Q) and the Qlinear dual of Hi (X. Granted T . j Then construct by induction on j the (future) intersection C⊥ of C⊥ with the (n−i+j)skeleton Tn−i+j of our triangulation by taking the cone from the center j of each simplex ∆n−i+j ⊂ Tn−i+j over the intersection of C⊥ with the boundary n−i+j sphere ∂(∆ ). appeal to the linear duality between homologies of the chain and cochain complexes of T : the natural pairing between classes h ∈ Hi (X) and c ∈ H i (X. Proof of [Hi ↔ H n−i ] for Closed Manifolds X. an isomorphism between H i (X. QED. then a multiple of a noncompact cycle is homologous to zero if and only if its intersection index with every compact generic cycle of the complementary dimension equals zero. Q) H i (X. It is easy to see that the resulting C⊥ is an icycle and that the composed maps C → c⊥ → C⊥ and c → C⊥ → c⊥ deﬁne identity homomorphisms Hi (X) → Hi (X) and H n−i (X. To do this we represent Hi (X) by algebraic Zcycles ∑j kj ∆i and now. that the union of these S over all (n − i + 1)simplices in the boundary sphere S n−i+1 = ∂∆n−i+2 of every (n − i + 2)simplex in T is a closed (disconnected) curve in S n−i+1 . in the realm of algebra. Q). the intersection index of which with every (n − i)simplex ∆n−i ⊂ S n−i+1 equals c(∆n−i ) (where this intersection index is evaluated in S n−i+1 but not in X). since the intersection index of C with every (n−i)sphere ∂(∆n−i+1 ) equals zero. if X equals the interior of a compact manifolds with a boundary. Z) → H n−i (X. We. Q) ↔ Hom[Hi (X. Start with (n−i+1)simplices ∆n−i+1 and take in each of them a smooth oriented curve S with the boundary points located at the centers of the (n − i)faces of ∆n−i+1 . regretfully. (obviously) exists because the function c is a cocycle. because these spheres are homologous to zero in X. Z) correspondingly and we arrive at the Poincar´ Zisomorphism. break the symmetry by choosing some smooth triangulation T of X which means this T is locally as good as a triangulation of Rn by aﬃne simplices (see below). Conversely. To complete the proof of the Qduality one needs to show that H j (X. Such a curve. where S is normal to a face ∆n−i whenever it meets one and such that the intersection index of the (slightly extended across ∆n−i ) curve S with ∆n−i equals c(∆n−i ). when tensored with Q. Corollaries (a) The nonobvious part of the Poincar´ duality is the claim e that. such that the intersection index between C and C ′ does not vanish. establishes. which we denote (h. there is a cycle C ′ of the complementary dimension. c) c(h) ∈ Z. for ever Qhomologically nontrivial cycle C. given a Zcocycle c(∆n−i ) construct an icycle C⊥ ⊂ X as follows.Furthermore. Z)⊗Q equals the Qlinear dual of Hj (X.
(b2) Let f X → Y be a smooth ﬁbration where the ﬁber is a closed oriented manifold with nonzero Euler characteristic. does not vanish on f −1 (y0 ).e. Q) = 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4k − 1. f∗ is surjective. as it allows one to give a lower bound on the homology by producing suﬃciently many nontrivially intersecting cycles of complementary dimensions. If we work with H ∗ (X. i > 0. We gave only a combinatorial deﬁnition of cohomology. Q)⊗H∗ (Y . every h ∈ Hi (Y . Such a c is called integer if its image is contained in Z ⊂ Q. but this can be deﬁned more invariantly with geometric icocycles c being ”generically locally constant” functions on oriented plaques D such that c(D) = −c(−D) for reversing the orientation in D. On Integrality of Cohomology. Q). they can be reduced to diﬀerential forms invariant under a given compact connected automorphism group of X. Indeed. the rational cohomology classes c ∈ H i (X. In view of the above. that let cohomology return to geometry by the back door. Also it implies that the K¨nneth pairing u H∗ (X. Q) → Hi+m (X. Geometric Cocycles. Then the homomorphisms f !i Hi (Y . Since every C ∼ 0 decomposes into a sum of small cycles. Since the intersection of f ! (h) and f ! (h′ ) equals d[f −1 (y0 )] none of f ! (h) and f ! (h′ ) equals zero. Q) is injective for closed orientable manifolds X. Q) can be deﬁned as homomorphisms c Hi (X) → Q. 0 ≠ [f −1 (y0 )] ∈ Hm (X).g. since the Euler class e of the ﬁberwise tangent bundle. (Nonintegrality of certain classes underlies the existence of nonstandard smooth structures on topological spheres discovered by Milnor. Q) are injective for all i. Cocycles are as good as Poincar´’s dual cycles for detecting nontriviality of e geometric cycles C: if c(C) ≠ 0. e.) 21 . For example it shows that closed manifolds are noncontractible (where it reduces to the degree argument). hence. Recall that the unit tangent bundle ﬁbration X = U T (S 2k ) → S 2k = Y with 2k−1 S ﬁbers has Hi (X. hence. homeomorphic to S 2k . f∗ vanishes on all Hi (X. (b1) Equidimensional maps f of positive degrees between closed oriented manifolds are surjective on rational homology. the condition c(C) = 0 needs to be veriﬁed only for (arbitrarily) ”small cycles” C. i. then. where c(D1 + D2 ) = c(D1 ) + c(D2 ) and where the ﬁnal cocycle condition reads c(C) = 0 for all icycles C which are homologous to zero. Q) → H∗ (X ×Y . For example. Then the ﬁber is nonhomologous to zero. Consequently/similarly all f∗j Hj (X) → Hj (Y ) are surjective. see section 6. which deﬁned on all of X. since the Euler class of T (S 2k ) does not vanish. Q) diﬀerent from zero comes with an h′ ∈ Hn−i (Y ) such that the intersection index d between the two is ≠ 0. (The averaged cocycles are kind of duals of generic cycles. C is nonhomologous to zero and also c is not cohomologous to zero. these cocycles c(D) can be averaged over measures on the space of smooth selfmapping X → X homotopic to the identity.) Eventually. R). (b) Let f X m+n → Y n be a smooth map between closed orientable manifolds such the homology class of the pullback of a generic point is not homologous to zero.But the easy part of the duality is also useful.
g. where the δ ′ transversality of an aﬃne simplex ∆′ ⊂ RM to λX ⊂ RM means that the aﬃne simplices ∆′′ obtained from ∆′ by arbitrary δ ′ moves of the vertices of ∆′ for some δ ′ = δ ′ (S. is (n−k−1)contractible.e. by aﬃne simplices) triangulation of RM which is invariant under the action of a lattice Γ = ZM ⊂ RM (i. there exist an open subset U ⊂ X which contains ∆. Every smooth manifold X can be given a smooth triangulation. i = 0. Recall.. e. k. some algebraic topologists think of cycles while they draw commutative diagrams. δsmall moves of the vertices of S for δ ≤ δ0 .. Let S be an aﬃne (i. for every closed isimplex ∆ ⊂ P . f. say P ∈ X. Rephrasing 22 . . the following simple property of closed nmanifolds X depends on the full homological duality: Connectedness/Contractibiliy. in order to prove his duality. i. geometric. If λ is suﬃciently large (and hence. Hence.e.e. say S ′ = Sδ = S ′ (X. λX ⊂ RM is nearly ﬂat). S is induced from a triangulation of the M torus RM Γ) and let X ⊂f RM be a smoothly embedded (or immersed) closed nsubmanifold.. means that. where these moves themselves depend on the embedding f of X into RM and on λ. i. to λX = X ⊂λf R .e. as follows. an aﬃne triangulation P ′ of Rn . Then there (obviously) exist an arbitrarily small positive constant δ0 = δ0 (S) > 0. an arbitrarily large constant λ ≥ λ0 (X. who switched at some point from geometric cycles to e triangulations. For example. a diﬀeomorphism U → U ′ ⊂ Rn which sends ∆ onto an isimplex ∆′ in P ′ . . For example. then the complement to a point.e. δ0 ) > 0.. In particular. X {x0 }. M − 1. where one also says that the smooth structure in X is compatible with T . that ”smoothness” of a triangulated subset in a smooth nmanifold. in S ′ are all ≥ δ ′ . n = dim(X). then X is homotopy equivalent to Sn. Almost all of what we have presented in this section so far was essentially understood by Poincar´. then the δ ′ transversality (obviously) implies that the intersection of λX with each simplex and its neighbours in S ′ in the vicinity of each point x ∈ λX ⊂ RM has the same combinatorial pattern as the intersection of the tangent space Tx (λX) ⊂ RM with these simplices. f ) are δ ′ transversal M to the λscaled X. i. if πi (X) = 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n 2. such that the simplices of the ′ correspondingly moved triangulation.. 1. If X is a closed kconnected nmanifold.. the intersection ”angles” between λX and the isimplices. (I suspect. the (cell) partition Π = Πf ′ of λX induced from S ′ can be subdivided into a triangulation of X = λX. (See [41] for pursuing further the ﬁrst Poincar´ approach to homology. apparently. Smooth triangulations. there is a homotopy ft of the identity map X {x0 } → X {x0 } with P = f1 (X {x0 }) being a smooth triangulated subspace P ⊂ X {x0 } with codim(P ) ≥ k + 1. even worse. one deﬁnes the notion of a smooth triangulation T of a smooth manifold X. Accordingly. πi (X) = 0 for i = 1.The Qduality does not tell you the whole story.) e The language of geometic/generic cycles suggested by Poincar´ is well suited e for observing and proving the multitude of obvious little things one comes across every moment in topology. δ) > 0 are transversal to λX.
∞) ⊗ HM −j (U . that are compact triangulated nspaces where the link Ln−i−1 ⊂ X of every isimplex ∆i in X has the same rational homology as the sphere S n−i−1 . . ∩ which is the Poincar´ dual of the intersection product Hn−i ⊗ Hn−j → Hn−i−j in e closed oriented nmanifolds X. j = 1. The product can be deﬁned for all.) But if you are far away from manifolds in the homotopy theory it is easier to work with cohomology and use the cohomology product rather than intersection product. Haldane’s words: ”Geometry is like a mistress to a topologist: he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public”. If X is a topological manifold. The rational homology of the complement to a topologically embedded ksphere as well as of a rational homology sphere. HM −i (U . into S n (or into a Qmanifold with the rational homology of S n ) equals that of the (n − k − 1)sphere. for e example. ∞).J. but anything more then that can not be done so easily.k. (The link Ln−i−1 (∆i ) is the union of the simplices ∆n−i−1 ⊂ X which do not intersect ∆i and for which there exists an simplex in X which contains ∆i and ∆n−i−1 . the multiplicativity of the signature (see below) and the topological nature of rational Pontryagin classes (see section 10) and which would apply to 23 . It easy to see that the pairing equals the composition of the K¨nneth u homomorphism H ∗ (X) ⊗ H ∗ (X) → H ∗ (X × X) with the restriction to the diagonal H ∗ (X × X) → H ∗ (Xdiag ).) Alternatively. geometric constructions are of a great help on the way. then ”locally generic” cycles of complementary dimension intersect at a discrete set which allows one to deﬁne their geometric intersection index. ∞) → HM −i−j (U . there is a comprehensive formulation with an obvious invariant proof of the ”functorial Poincar´ duality” which would make transparent. The combinatorial proof of the Poincar´ due ality is the most transparent for open subsets X ⊂ Rn where the standard decomposition S of Rn into cubes is the combinatorial dual of its own translate by a generic vector.B. Poincar´ duality remains valid for all oriented topological manifolds X and e also for all rational homology or Qmanifolds.S. is invariant under continuous maps f X →Y: f ∗ (h1 h2 ) = f ∗ (h1 ) f ∗ (h2 ) for all h1 . so deﬁned. h2 ∈ H ∗ (Y ). The cohomology product is a bilinear pairing. X as the dual of the intersection product on the relative homology. say triangulated.. often denoted H i ⊗H j → H i+j . yet. You can hardly expect to arrive at anything like Serre’s ﬁniteness theorem without a linearized (co)homology theory. with ∑j dim(Ci ) = dim(X) as the intersection index of ×j Cj ⊂ X k with Xdiag ⊂ X k . an ndimensional space X can be embedded into some RM where the duality for X reduces to that for ”suitably regular” neighbourhoods U ⊂ RM of X which admit Thom isomorphisms Hi (X) ↔ Hi+M −n (U ). where it follows from the (special case of) Alexander duality. Possibly. for a small regular neighbourhood U ⊃ X of X embedded into some RM . The product.. Also one can deﬁne the intersection of several cycles Cj . Topological and Qmanifolds.
then the (zerodimensional) intersection C1 with C2 bounds a relative 1cycle in Y which makes the index of the intersection zero.) Proof. 2kmanifold X deﬁnes a bilinear form on the homology Hk (X). In fact. (Oriented boundaries of nonorientable manifolds may have nonzero sig˜ ˜ natures. Geometrically. Hence. bound relative (k + 1)cycles Di in Y . possibly noncompact and/or disconnected. If kcycles Ci . This is well deﬁned if Hk (X) has ﬁnite rank. the intersection form vanishes on the kernel kerk ⊂ Hk (X) of the inclusion homomorphism Hk (X) → Hk (Y ). the obvious identity [C ∩ D]Y = [C ∩ ∂D]X ⊥ and the Poincar´ duality in Y show that the orthogonal complement kerk ⊂ e Hk (X) with respect to the intersection form in X is contained in kerk . since Hk (T (S 2k )) is generated by [S 2k ] with the selfintersection equal the Euler characteristic χ(S 2k ) = 2. (c) The tangent bundle T (S 2k ) has signature 1. where ”−” signiﬁes reversion of orientation. this form is antisymmetric and if k is even it is symmetric.g. It is obvious that sig(mX) = m ⋅ sig(X). (b) The complex projective space CP 2m has signature one. and that sig(−X) = −sig(X). The intersection of (compact) kcycles in an oriented. Also notice that the K¨nneth formula and the Poincar´ duality (trivially) u e imply the Cartesian multiplicativity of the signature for closed manifolds. possibly with a boundary. Signature. is called sig(X). If k is odd. since the 2khomology is generated by the classes of the two coordinate spheres [s1 × S 2k ] and [S 2k × s2 ]. sig(X1 × X2 ) = sig(X1 ) ⋅ sig(X2 ). which both have zero selfintersections.e. a diagonalization of the intersection form is achieved with a maximal set of mutually disjoint kcycles in X where each of them has a nonzero (positive or negative) selfintersection index. the number of positive minus the number of negative squares in the diagonalized form. On the other hand. such a maximal system of submanifolds always exists as it was derived by Thom from the Serre ﬁniteness theorem. if X is compact. 2. i = 1. 24 . (If the cycles are represented by smooth closed oriented ksubmanifolds. Furthermore The oriented boundary X of every compact oriented (4k + 1)manifold Y has zero signature. i. e. since its middle homology is generated by the class of the complex projective subspace CP m ⊂ CP 2m with the selfintersection = 1. For example the double covering X → X with sig(X) = 2sig(X) nonorientably bounds the corresponding 1ball bundle Y over X. The signature of the latter.(Rokhlin 1952). (a) S 2k × S 2k has zero signature. QED Observe that this argument depends entirely on the Poincar´ duality and it e equally applies to the topological and Qmanifolds with boundaries.) Examples. then these indices equal the Euler numbers of the normal bundles of these submanifolds. where mX denotes the disjoint union of m copies of X.”cycles” of dimensions βN where N = ∞ and 0 ≤ β ≤ 1 in spaces like these we shall meet in section 11.
This can be sometimes proved elementary. and X ˜ ˜ Let A and A′ be the AtiyahThom maps from S n+N = Rn+N to the Thom ˜ and U ′ of the normal bundles U → X and U ′ → X ′ . Therefore. the products of the complex projective spaces ×i CP 2ki have signatures one. 5 The Signature and Bordisms. since signature is additive: removing a closed hypersurface from a manifold does not change the signature. One still has an addition formula for some ”stratiﬁed signature” but it is rather involved in the general case. hence.) Amazingly. 25 . and f ′ = P ′ ○ A′ S n+N → U ⊥ . N >> n = 2k = dim(X) let X ⊂ Rn+N be an embedding ˜ obtained by a small generic perturbation of the covering map X → X ⊂ Rn+N ˜ ′ ⊂ Rn+N be the union of l generically perturbed copies of X. obviously. ˜ Embed X into Rn+N . This implies multiplicativity. On the other hand. (The K¨nneth formula is obvious here with the cell decompositions u of ×i CP 2ki into ×i (2ki + 1) cells. e. ˜ Multiplicativity Formula if X → X is an lsheeted covering map. Novikov. given a ﬁnite covering X → X. Let ˜ P ˜ ˜ ˜ U → U ⊥ and P ′ U ′ → U ⊥ be the corresponding maps between the Thom spaces and let us look at the two maps f and f ′ from the sphere S n+N = RN +n to the Thom space U ⊥ . ˜ ˜ sig(X) = sig(X ˜ Y ) = l ⋅ sig(X Y ) = l ⋅ sig(X). In this case.g. ˜ ˜ f =P ○A ˜ ˜ S n+N → U ⊥ . such that the oriented boundary ∂(Y ) ˜ equals mX − mlX for some integer m ≠ 0. then ˜ sign(X) = l ⋅ sign(X). X can be assembled from the pieces of X Y where each piece is taken l times.For example. Let us prove the multiplicativity of the signature by constructing a compact oriented manifold Y with a boundary.) ˜ In general. if the fundamental group of X is free. the multiplicativity of the signature of closed manifolds under covering maps can not be seen with comparable clarity. there obviously exist closed hypersurfaces Y ⊂ X and ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ Y ⊂ X such that X Y is diﬀeomorphic to the disjoint union of l copies of X Y . These projec˜ ˜ ˜ Let P ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ tions. (This ”additivity of the signature” easily follows from the Poincar´ duality as e observed by S. the multiplicativity of the signature can be derived in a couple of lines from the Serre ﬁniteness theorem (see below). there exists an immersed hypersurface Y ⊂ X (with possible selfintersections) such that the covering trivializes ˜ over X Y . induce the normal bundles U and U ′ of X and X ′ from the ⊥ normal bundle U → X. ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ spaces U ˜ X → X and P ′ X ′ → X be the normal projections.
or (The space GrN (Rn+N ) equals the double cover of the space GrN (Rn+N ) of or nonoriented N planes. Bordisms and the RokhlinThomHirzebruch Formula.e.) Let U → X be the oriented normal bundle of X with the orientation induced by those of X and of RN ⊃ X and let G X → X0 be the oriented Gauss map which assigns to each x ∈ X the oriented N plane G(x) ∈ X0 parallel to the oriented normal space to X at x. If 2i ≥ n = dim(X) one has a (minor) problem with taking sums of nonsingular cycles.N − 1. the homology homomorphisms of the maps f and f ′ ˜ ˜ are related to those of P and P ′ via the Thom suspension homomorphism S Hn (X) → Hn+N (U ⊥ ) as follows ′ ˜ ˜ ˜′ ˜ f∗ [S n+N ] = S ○ P∗ [X] and f∗ [S n+N ] = S ○ P∗ [X ′ ]. hence. o o if N >> n.Clearly [˜˜′ ] ˜ ˜ f −1 (X) = X and (f ′ )−1 (X) = X ′ . some nonzero mmultiples of the maps f. 1954). otherwise. where V is the Thom space of the tautological or oriented RN bundle V over the Grassmann manifold V = GrN (Rn+N +1 ) (Thom. we replace X o by X × RN for N >> n. For example. Let X0 = GrN (Rn+N ) be the Grassmann manifold of oriented N planes and V → X0 the tautological oriented RN bundle over this X0 . ˜ ˜ ˜′ ˜ P∗ [X] = P∗ [X ′ ] = l ⋅ [X] and f ′ [S n+N ] = f [S n+N ] = l ⋅ S [X] ∈ Hn+N (U ⊥ ). QED. ˜ ˜ Since deg(P ) = deg(P ′ ) = l.. Gr1 (Rn+1 ) equals the sphere S n . since πi (U ⊥ ) = 0. Then. On the other hand. 1] establishes a ˜ ˜ bordism between mX ⊂ S n+N × 0 and mX ′ = mlX ⊂ S n+N × 1. that is S n divided by the ±involution.) In fact. We assume below that i < n 2. . since generic isubmanifolds may intersect and their union is unavoidably singular. because of [˜˜′ ]. This implies that ˜ ˜ m ⋅ sig(X) = ml ⋅ sig(X) and since m ≠ 0 we get sig(X) = l ⋅ sig(X). where. e. o Unlike homology. then the bordism group Bn = Bn (Rn+N ) is canonically isomorphic to the homotopy group πn+N (V ). i = 1. while n+1 Gr1 (R ) is the projective space. for X = R . Let us modify our deﬁnition of homology of a manifold X by allowing only nonsingular icycles in X.. the bordism groups Bi (X) may be nontrivial even for n+N a contractible space X. 1] → U ⊥ by Serre’s theorem. observe. Bi (X × RN ) does not depend on N for N >> i. (Every cycle in Rn equals the boundary of any cone over it but this does not work with manifolds due to the singularity at the apex of the cone which is not allowed by the deﬁnition of a bordism. or Proof. 26 . f ′ S n+N → U ⊥ can be joined by a (smooth generic) homotopy F S n+N × [0.g. the pullback F −1 (X) ⊂ S n+N × [0. i. smooth closed oriented isubmanifolds in X and denote the o resulting Abelian group by Bi (X).
. since bordisms Y between manifolds in Rn+N lie in Rn+N +1 . Indeed. [21]. we pass to or Gror =def GrN (RN +j ). 27 . in S n+N +1 × [0.) e If X is a smooth oriented nmanifold. it deﬁnes the Thom map S n+N = Rn+N → V and every bordism Y ⊂ S n+N × [0. or. Z) are deﬁned as the classes induced from pk by the normal Gauss map G → or GrN (RN +n ) ⊂ Gror for an embedding X → Rn+N . one may appeal to the general principle: ”two natural Abelian group structures on the same set must coincide. 3. is independent of N ≥ 2n + 2 and of j > 1. 2. o Bn ⊗Q is isomorphic to the rational homology group Hi (X0 . recall. clearly τπb ○ τbπ and τbπ ○ τπb are the identity homomorphisms. Z). or In order to apply this. N >> n. hence.. where. πn+N (V ) ⊗ Q = Hn+N (V . The cohomology ring H ∗ (Gror . its Pontryagin classes pk (X) ∈ H 4k (X. Now Serre’s Qsphericity theorem implies the following o Thom Theorem. The (Abelian) group Bi is ﬁnitely generated. QED. Q). Q) by the Thom isomorphism. Q) = Hi (X0 )⊗Q or for X0 = GrN (Ri+N +1 ). (It would be awkward to express this in the homology language when N = dim(X) → ∞. while Hn+N (V .Since G induces U ⊥ from V . Q). thus. . as it is clear from the above. although the cohomology ring H ∗ (X) is canonically isomorphic to HN −∗ (X) by Poincar´ duality. k = 1. which. 1]. called Pontryagin classes pk ∈ H 4k (Gror . j. 1] → V between the Thom maps at the two ends Y ∩ S n+N × 0 and Y ∩ S n+N × 1. the generic pullback construction f f −1 (X0 ) ⊂ Rn+N ⊃ Rn+N = S n+N o deﬁnes a homomorphism τπb [f ] → [f −1 (X0 )] from πn+N (V ) to Bn . This deﬁne a homomorphism o τbπ Bn → πn+N (V ) o since the additive structure in Bn (Ri+N ) agrees with that in πi+N (V o ).”) Also note that one needs the extra 1 in Rn+N +1 . equivalently. (Instead of checking this. the cohomology product H i (X) ⊗ H j (X) → H i+j (X) for closed oriented nmanifold can be deﬁned via the Poincar´ duality H ∗ (X) ↔ Hn−∗ (X) by the intersection product Hn−i (X)⊗ e ∩ Hn−j (X) → Hn−(i+j) (X). which is trivial. one has to compute the homology Hn (GrN (RN +n+j )). Q) is the polynomial ring in some distinguished integer classes. 1] delivers a homotopy S n+N × [0. with the advantage of the multiplicative structure (see section 4) where. On the other hand. πi (V ) = 0 for N >> n. Q) = Hn (X0 . [50].N →∞ Let us state the answer in the language of cohomology. by Serre.
. p1 .. the number of such monomials. the products of these spaces constitute a basis in Bn ⊗ Q. there two of them: p2 and p2 . p1 p2 and p3 .2. denoted B∗ . Equivalently. and the Thom theorem says that o B∗ ⊗ Q is the polynomial ring over Q in the variables [CP 2k ]. say π(k) = rank(H 4k (Gror . if n=8. this is the value of Q(pi ) ∈ H 4i (Gror .2. Finally. also see [50]. It would be interesting to ﬁnd ”natural bordisms” between (linear 28 .. (1 − tk ) = −∞<k<∞ (−1)k t(3k 2 −k) 2 . π(k)tk satisﬁes 1 E(t) = k=1. 4k 3 Since the top Pontryagin classes pk of the complex projective spaces do not o vanish. If Q is a unitary (i. one might take the compact quotients of the complex hyo perbolic spaces CH 2k for the generators of B∗ ⊗ Q. Z) on the image of (the fundamental class) of X in Gror under the Gauss map.. . Here the ﬁrst equality is obvious. then there is a single such monomial. if n = 4. if 1 1 n = 16 there are ﬁve of them. where... k = 0. by the Euler formula. Thus.. The Thom theorem now can be reformulated as follows. see section 10. the generating function E(t) = 1 + ∑k=1. (b) The rational Pontryagin classes of the Cartesian products X1 ×X2 satisfy pk (X1 × X2 ) = i+j=k pi (X1 ) ⊗ pj (X2 ).e. that are ∏i pki with ∑i ki = k. (a) The the complex projective spaces have pk (CP n ) = n + 1 2k h k for the generator h ∈ H 2 (CP n ) which is the Poincar´ dual to the hyperplane e CP n−1 ⊂ CP n−1 . pk (CP 2k ) ≠ 0. Bn ⊗ Q = 0.. The quotient spaces CH 2k Γ have two closely related attractive features: their tangent bundles admit natural ﬂat connections and their rational Pontryagin numbers are homotopy invariant. In general.) For example. 4. Instead of CP 2k .Examples (see [50]). then the value Q(pi )[X] is called the (Pontryagin) Qnumber. Two closed oriented nmanifolds are Qbordant if and only if they have equal o Qnumbers for all monomials Q. a product of powers) monomial in pi of graded degree n = 4k. notice that the bordism groups together make a commutative ring o under the Cartesian product of manifolds. if n = 12 there three monomials: p3 . Q)) = o rankQ (B4k ) (obviously) equals the number of the conjugacy classes in the permutation group Π(k) (which can be seen as a certain subgroup in the Weyl group in SO(4k)). unless n is divisible by 4 o and the rank of Bn ⊗ Q for n = 4k equals the number of Qmonomials of graded degree n.. i (We shall prove this later in this section. 2. the second is tricky (Euler himself was not able to prove it) and where one knows nowadays that π(k) ∼ exp(π 2k 3) √ for k → ∞.
. B2 = 1 6. B30 = 8615841276005 14322.... ⋅ R(zk ) = 1 + P1 (zj ) + .. B14 = 7 6..combinations of) Cartesian products of CH 2k Γ and of CP 2k . associated to complex analytic ramiﬁed coverings CH 2k Γ → CP 2k ... π 2l tanh( z) l>0 l>0 (2l)! where ζ(2l) = 1 + 1 22l + 1 32l + 1 42l + .. for X = X n into the formula sig(X) = Lk [X].. zk ) are the elementary symmetric functions in zj of degree i. B12 = −691 2730.. which all have sig(X) = 1. Hirzebruch Signature Theorem. it o deﬁnes a homomorphism [sig] B∗ → Z which can be expressed in each degree 4k by means of a universal polynomial in the Pontryagin classes. where Pj are homogeneous symmetric polynomials of degree j in z1 . Let √ z ζ(2l)z l 22l B2l z l √ = 1 + z 3 − z 2 45 + . L2 = (7p2 − p2 ). The outcome of this seemingly trivial computation is unexpectedly beautiful.. and let B2l = (−1)l 2lζ(1 − 2l) = (−1)l+1 (2l)!ζ(2l) 22l−1 π 2l be the Bernoulli numbers [47]..g... A signiﬁcant aspect of this formula is that the Pontryagin numbers and the signature are integers while the Hirzebruch polynomials Lk have nontrivial 29 . 3 sig(X 8 ) = (Rokhlin 1952) 1 (7p2 (X 8 ) − p2 (X 8 ))[X 8 ].. = 1 + 2 (−1)l+1 R(z) = = 1+ . . + Pk (zj ) + . L1 = p1 . Since the signature is additive and also multiplicative under this product. The Hirzebruch theorem says that the above Lk is exactly the polynomial which makes the equality Lk (pi )[X] = sig(X). Write R(z1 ) ⋅ . 1 sig(X 4 ) = p1 [X 4 ]. 1 1 1 (62p3 − 13p1 p2 + 2p3 ). For example.... L3 = 1 1 3 45 945 Accordingly. e.. and by substituting these products ×j CP 2kj with ∑j 4kj = n = 4k.. B4 = −1 30. denoted Lk (pi ).. by sig(X) = Lk (pi )[X] for all closed oriented 4kmanifolds X. . .. . ... zk and rewrite Pk (zj ) = Lk (pi ) where pi = pi (z1 . (Thom 1954) 1 45 and where a concise general formula (see blow) was derived by Hirzebruch who evaluated the coeﬃcients of Lk using the above values of pi for the products X = ×j CP 2kj of the complex projective spaces.
. where all but a compact subset in V goes to ∈ S M −4k . Observe that such a Z has trivial normal bundle in V . ′′ A more interesting ﬁbration is q Wk → Wk for (w.. for dim(W ) > 2k (which we may assume). u) w with the ﬁbers 2k 2k U T (S ). Q) → H ∗ (Wk . i. Assume that X is a manifold with a trivial tangent bundle.e. If the bundle V is induced from W → Y by an f X → Y then L(V ) = f ∗ (L(W )). there exists. Question. and u is an orthonormal frame (pair of orthonormal vectors) in R2k+1 . or Let Wk = Gr2k+1 (R∞ ) be the Grassmann manifold of oriented (2k+1)planes N ′′ in R . ∈ H 4∗ (V . these ei also generate the cohomology of Gror . But despite a heavy integer load carried by the signature formula. Q) is multiplicatively generated by some classes ei ∈ H ∗ (Gror . Let V → X be an oriented vector bundle and.. without any reference to Pontryagin classes. Q) and then we prove that the Li classes are multiplicatively independent. .. Q) = ⊕k H 4k (V . By Serre’s theorem. to every (w. w ′′ or The map p Wk → Wk−1 = Gr2k−1 (R∞ ) which assigns. Q). the kernel of the coho′′ mology homomorphism q ∗ H ∗ (Wk . Q) is generated. as follows. and let Wk consist of the pairs (w.) Think of the unit tangent bundle U T (S n ) as the space of orthonormal 2frames in Rn+1 . the ⊥ 2k+1 ∞ (2k −1)plane uw ⊂ Rw ⊂ R normal to u is a ﬁbration with contractible ﬁbers that are spaces of orthonormal 2frames in R∞ u⊥ = R∞−(2k−1) . its derivao tion depends only on the rational bordism groups Bn ⊗ Q. for every homology class h ∈ H4k (X) = H4k (V ). k. an m = m(h) ≠ 0 such that the mmultiple of h is representable by a closed 4ksubmanifold Z = Zh ⊂ V that equals the pullback of a generic point in the sphere S M −4k under a generic map V → S M −4k = RM −4k with ”compact support”. Q) by the equality L(V )(h) = sig(Zh ) m(h) for all h ∈ H4k (V ) = H4k (X). 30 . and recall that U T (S 2k ) is a rational homology (4k − 1)sphere. Is there an implementation of the analysis/arithmetic encoded in the Hirzebruch formula by some inﬁnite dimensional manifolds? Computation of the Cohomology of the Stable Grassmann Manifold. First. p is a w homotopy equivalence. 1. as a ideal. the shape given by Hirzebruch to this formula is something more than just linear algebra. Q). N → ∞. since. otherwise. deﬁne Lclasses of V .. ← k→∞ Direct Computation of the LClasses for the Complex Projective Spaces. u). we show that the cohomology H ∗ (Gror . (See [50] for computation of the integer cohomology of the Grassmann manifolds. hence. the generic image of our Z in W has trivial normal bundle. It follows by induction on k that the rational cohomology algebra of Wk = or Gr2k+1 (R∞ ) is generated by certain ei ∈ H 4i (Wk . This yields certain universal divisibility properties of the Pontryagin numbers (and sometimes of the signatures) for smooth closed orientable 4kmanifolds. and since or Gror = lim Gr2k+1 . Since U T (S ) is a rational (4k − 1)sphere. However. embed X into some RM with large M and take its small regular neighbourhood.denominators. following RokhlinSchwartz and Thom. This point of elementary linear algebra was overlooked by Thom (isn’t it incredible?) who derived the signature formula for 8manifolds from his special and more diﬃcult compuo tation of the true bordism group B8 . 4k ′′ by the rational Euler class ek ∈ H (Wk . Deﬁne L(V ) = 1 + L1 (V ) + L2 (V ) + . i = 0. u) where w ∈ Wk is an 2k+1 ∞ (2k + 1)plane Rw ⊂ R .
tautologically. The Whitney (k + 1)multiple bundle of U − . all L(×j CP 2kj ). equals the tangent bundle Tk = T (CP k ) plus θ. (L1 (CP 8 ))2 [CP 8 ] = 10 3 while (L1 (CP 4 × CP 4 ))2 [CP 4 × CP 4 ] = 2 3 31 . It follows that Tk ⊕ θ = HomC (U → U ⊥ ⊕ U ) = HomC (U → (k + 1)θ) = (k + 1)U − . Thus. which is deﬁned as the restriction of V1 × V2 → X × X to Xdiag ⊂ X × X. U ⊥ ⊕U is the trivial Ck+1 bundle. hence. which implies that l2 = 1 5 − 2l1 = 1 5 − 2 3 and L2 (U − ) = (−7 15)e4 .e. Finally..... Tk = HomC (U → U ⊥ ). and that.. = 1 + e2 + . i.. For example.) Observe that U − = HomC (U → θ) for the trivial Cbundle θ = CP k × C → CP k = HomC (U → U ) and that the Euler class e(U − ) = −e(U ) equals the generator in H 2 (CP k ) that is the Poincar´ dual of the hyperplane CP k−1 ⊂ CP k . Indeed. It is clear that U ⊥ ⊕U = (k +1)θ. Consequently the Lclass of the Whitney sum V1 ⊕ V2 → X of V1 and V2 over X. by equating e2k and the 2kdegree term in the (k + 1)th power of this sum. we compute all Lclasses Lj (T2k ) = (L(U − ))k+1 for T2k = T (CP 2k ) and thus.... + (10l1 + 5l2 )e4 + .It is also clear that the bundle V1 × V2 → X1 × X2 has L(V1 × V2 ) = L(V1 ) ⊗ L(V2 ) by the Cartesian multiplicativity of the signature.. while the same bundle with the reversed orientation is denoted U − . Recall that the complex projective space CP k – the space of Clines in Ck+1 comes with the canonical Cline bundle represented by these lines and denoted U → CP k . (We always refer to the canonical orientations of Cobjects. which makes l1 = 1 3 and L1 (U − ) = e2 3... + e2k + . let U ⊥ → CP k be the Ck bundle of the normals to the lines representing the points in CP k . (1 + k l2k e2k )k+1 = 1 + . satisﬁes L(V1 ⊕ V2 ) = L(V1 ) L(V2 ). = 1 + ... Then (1 + l1 e2 + l2 e4 )5 = 1 + . and so el is the dual of e CP k−l ⊂ CP k . (1 + l1 e2 )3 = 1 + 3l1 + ... Now we compute L(U − ) = 1 + ∑k Lk = 1 + ∑k l2k e2k . Lk ((k + 1)U − ) = Lk (Tk ) = e2k . Recall that sig(CP 2k ) = 1. denoted (k + 1)U − .. etc. + e4 + .
Let X be a closed 4k−1 oriented triangulated (smooth or combinatorial) 4kmanifold and let {Sx }x∈X0 32 . Hence. Novikov (1966) proved that the Lclasses and. in particular. since the tangent bundle V 4k = T (S 2k ) → S 2k has nonzero Euler number. and similarly one sees that the products ×j CP 2kj are mulo tiplicatively independent in the bordism ring B∗ ⊗ Q as we stated earlier. RokhlinSchwartz and independently Thom applied their deﬁnition of Lk . Observe that the tangent bundles of spheres are stably trivial – they become trivial after adding trivial bundles to them. Lk (V 4k ) = sig(V 4k ) = 1. Combinatorial Pontryagin Classes. o o the Qmanifolds V 4k multiplicatively generate all of QB∗ ⊗ Q except for QB4 . if a Qmanifold X has a single singularity – a cone over Qsphere Σ then a connected sum of several copies of Σ bounds a smooth Qball which implies that a multiple of X is Qbordant to a smooth manifold. the group QB4 ⊗ Q. namely the tangent bundle of S 2k ⊂ R2k+1 stabilizes to the trivial bundle upon adding the (trivial) normal bundle of S 2k ⊂ R2k+1 to it. V 4k = T (S 2k ) → S 2k . The ThomRokhlinSchwartz argument delivers a deﬁnition of rational Pontryagin classes for all Qmanifolds which are by far more general objects than smooth (or combinatorial) manifolds due to possibly enormous (and beautiful) fundamental groups π1 (Ln−i−1 ) of their links. the naturally deﬁned bordism ring QBn of oriented Qmanifolds is only o marginally diﬀerent from B∗ in the degrees n ≠ 4 where the natural homomoro o phisms Bn ⊗ Q → QBn ⊗ Q are isomorphisms. o o On the contrary. since the boundaries of the corresponding 2kball bundles are Qhomological (2k − 1)spheres – the unit tangent bundles U T (S 2k ) → S 2k . which have equal signatures. that rational Pontryagin classes of smooth manifolds are invariant under piecewise smooth homeomorphisms between smooth manifolds. o Yet. [23] and references therein). For example. This can be easily derived by surgery (see section 9) from Serre’s theorems. [22]. S. Consequently.which implies that CP 4 × CP 4 and CP 8 . and hence of the rational Pontryagin classes.) The simplest examples of Qmanifolds are one point compactiﬁcations V 4k of the tangent bundles of even dimensional spheres. The combinatorial pullback argument breaks down in the topological category since there is no good notion of a generic continuous map. the manifolds V 4k = T (S 2k ) have all characteristic classes zero. to triangulated (not necessarily smooth) topological manifolds X by observing that the pullbacks of generic points s ∈ S n−4k under piecewise linear map are Qmanifolds and by pointing out that the signatures of 4kmanifolds are invariant under bordisms by such (4k + 1)dimensional Qmanifolds with boundaries (by the Poincar´ duality issuing from the Alexander duality. see e section 4). hence. the rational Pontryagin classes are invariant under arbitrary homeomorphisms (see section 10). Local Formulae for Combinatorial Pontryagin Numbers. they have shown. Yet. Thus. is much bigger than B4 ⊗ Q = Q as o rankQ (QB4 ) = ∞ (see [44]. (It would be interesting to have a notion of ”reﬁned bordisms” between Qmanifold that would partially keep track of π1 (Ln−i−1 ) for n > 4 as well. On the other hand. and V 4k have all Qclasses zero except for dimension 4k. are not rationally bordant.
The above shows that the vectors q(X) of ”qnumbers” satisfy. imanifolds represent icycles in this complex. the numbers of independent relations between the ”qnumbers”. which is obviously deﬁned on ± all closed oriented combinatorial imanifolds X as well as on combinatorial ispheres. such that the Pontryagin Qnumber of X satisﬁes (LevittRourke 1978). 4k−1 ] } Denote by q(X) ∈ Q{[S the function. i. satisﬁes i−1 i q± (q± (X)) = 0. Let {[S 4k−1 ] } be a ﬁnite collection of combinatorial isomor4k−1 ] } phism classes of oriented triangulated (4k − 1)spheres let Q{[S be the 4k−1 Qvector space of functions q {[S ] } → Q and let X be a closed oriented triangulated 4kmanifold homeomorphic to the 4ktorus (or any parallelizable manifold for this matter) with all its links in {[S 4k−1 ] }. it is shown in [23] (as was pointed out to me by Jeﬀ Cheeger) that all such antisymmetric relations are generated/exhausted by the relations n−1 n issuing from q± ○ q± = 0. there is a canonical assignment of real numbers to Sx with this property which also applies to all Qmanifolds (Cheeger 1983). Observe that the EulerPoincar´ and DehnSomerville equations do not dee pend on the ±orientations of the links but the ”Pontryagin relations” are antisymmetric since Q[−S 4k−1 ] = −Q[S 4k−1 ] . an assignment of rational numbers Q[Sx ] to all Sx . where Q[Sx ] depend only on the combinatorial types of the triangulations of Sx induced from X. Both kind of relations are valid for all Qmanifolds. There is no comparable eﬀective combinatorial formulae with a priori rational numbers Q[Sx ] despite many eﬀorts in this direction. Then there exists. about e 4k 3 tryagin relations”. i−1 i The operation q± with values in QS . Q(pi )[X] = 4k−1 ∈[[X]] Sx 4k−1 Q[Sx ].e. besides 2k +1 √ linear ”PonEulerPoincar´ and DehnSomerville equations. where this identity can be regarded as an ”oriented (Pontryagin in place of EulerPoincar´) counterpart” to the DehnSomerville e equations. such that q(X)([S 4k−1 ] ) equals 4k−1 4k−1 4k−1 ] } the number of copies of [S ] in {Sx }x∈X0 and let L{[S] } ⊂ Q{[S be the linear span of q(X) for all such X. see [24] and references therein. 4k−1 ] } What are the codimensions codim(L{[S 4k−1 ] } ⊂ Q{[S . for ”speciﬁc” collections {[S 4k−1 ] }? It is pointed out in [23] that i the spaces QS of antisymmetric Qlinear combinations of all combinatorial ± i i−1 i spheres make a chain complex for the diﬀerential q± QS → QS deﬁned by ± ± the linear extension of the operation of taking the oriented links of all vertices on the triangulated ispheres S i ∈ S i . 4k−1 Moreover.) Questions. i. (LevittRourke theorem is purely existential and Cheeger’s deﬁnition depends on the L2 analysis of diﬀerential forms on the nonsingular locus of X away from the codimension 2 skeleton of X.4k−1 be the disjoint union of the oriented links Sx of the vertices x in X. exp(π 2k 3) 33 .e. for each monomial Q of the total degree 4k in the Pontryagin 4k−1 4k−1 classes. Furthermore.
e for M = 1) by Novikov’s signature additivity property mentioned at the end of the previous section. if M = 1. then the pullback f −1 (D) ⊂ X is not necessarily a topological cell. If f X n → RM is a generic map with singularities (which may happen if M ≤ 2n) and D ⊂ RM is a small convex polyhedron in RM with its faces being δtransversal to f (e.g. the only ”locally/additively expressible” invariants of X. D = λ−1 D0 . For example. What is the number of our kind of relations between these volumes? There are similar relations/questions for intersection patterns of particular X with other fundamental domains of lattices Γ in Euclidean and some nonEuclidean spaces (where the ﬁner asymptotic distributions of these patterns have a slight arithmetic ﬂavour). probably. [25]) DehnSomerville counterpart. For instance.g. the numbers of combinatorial types of intersections σ of λscaled submanifolds X ⊂f RM . for round nspheres in RN ? Observe that the ratios of the ”geometric qnumbers” are asymptotically deﬁned for many noncompact complete submanifolds X ⊂ RM . λ → ∞.n−1 n The exhaustiveness of q± ○ q± = 0 and its (easy.e. (as in the triangulation construction in the previous section) with the Γtranslates of D0 ? Notice. However. homogeneous and nonhomogeneous linear) relations between the vectors q(X). if λ is suﬃciently large all σ can be made convexlike by a small perturbation f ′ of f by an argument which is similar to but slightly more technical than the one used for the triangulation of manifolds in the previous section. one has such a ”local formula” for sig(X) and f X → R (i. Let D0 = D0 (Γ) be a DirichletVoronoi (fundamental polyhedral) domain of a generic lattice Γ ⊂ RM and let {[S n−1 ] } consist of the (isomorphism classes of naturally triangulated) boundaries of the intersections of D0 with generic aﬃne nplanes in RM . It seems not hard to show that all Pontryagin numbers can be thus locally/additively expressed for M ≥ n. e. that some of these σ are not convexlike. but it seems hard to eﬀectively (even approximately) evaluate the number of n−1 n independent relations issuing from for q± ○ q± = 0 for particular collections n−1 n {[S ] } of allowable links of X . some local/additive formulae for certain characteristic numbers may still be available in the corresponding ”noncell decompositions” of X. Also.e. these ratios are (obviously) expressible in terms of the volumes of the connected regions Ω in D ⊂ RM obtained by cutting D along hypersurfaces made of the aﬃne nsubspaces A′ ⊂ RM which are parallel to A and which meet the (M − n − 1)skeleton of D. e n−1 n DehnSomerville. λ → ∞ as in the triangulations of the previous section). Examples.) 34 . but these are negligible for λ → ∞. if X is an aﬃne subspace A = An ⊂ RM . Pontryagin and q± ○ q± = 0 make the full set of aﬃne (i. imply that in most (all?) cases the EulerPoincar´. one (obviously) has such a formula for the Euler characteristic for all kind of decompositions of X. On the other hand. What is codim(L{[S n−1 ] } ⊂ Q{[S n−1 ] }) in this case? What are the (aﬃne) relations between the ”geometric qnumbers” i. but it is unclear what are precisely the Qnumbers which are combinatorially/locally/additively expressible for given n = 4k and M < n. Is there anything special about the ”geometric qnumbers” for ”distinguished” X. (For example. then the Euler characteristic and the signature are. probably.
[17]. the ﬁgure ∞ ⊂ R2 with a single double point represents a nonzero st element in πn=1 = π1+N (S N ). where the ”dimension shift” suggests an inductive computation of these groups that would imply. for n = 0) but it is always even for codimension one immersions of orientable nmanifolds with n ≠ 0. while the nonorientable case is more involved [16]. 14.Wells. if n = 2. Serre’s ﬁniteness theorem of the stable homotopy groups of spheres. which means that every Rball in X admits a λbiLipschitz homeomorphism onto the Euclidean Rball. [75]. 14. one can make this with an X n where rank(H∗ (Xn )) = 4. 30. Y 35 . One knows. If the allowed singularities of oriented ncycles in Rn+k are those of collections of nplanes in general position. 6. 3. st the ﬁniteness of the stable groups πn = πn+N (S N ) can be (essentially) reduced n by a (framed) surgery of X (see section 9) to the vanishing of these signatures. which are partially reﬂected in the structure of the lsheeted coverings of the loci of lmultiple points of X n . in particular. [76]. 126. Let X be a closed oriented Riemannian nmanifold with locally bounded geometry. since a small generic perturbation of an oriented X n in Rn+N ⊃ Rn+1 ⊃ X n is embedded into Rn+N with a trivial normal bundle. The number of (n + 1)multiple points also can be odd for n = 3 (and.g. For example if k = 1. this group is isomorphic to the stable host motopy group πn = πn+N (S N ). 30. they have. and where every embedding X n → Rn+N with the trivial normal bundle can be isotoped to such a perturbation of an immersion X n → Rn+1 ⊂ Rn+N by the SmaleHirsch immersion theorem. homology. 1966). zero signatures by the Serre ﬁniteness theorem. One can show that the inﬁmum of the volumes of these Y is bounded by inf V ol(Y ) ≤ F (V ol(X)). 62. What is the smallest possible size of the topology. N >> n.Bordisms of Immersions. 126 by an immersion X n → Rn+1 . then the resulting homologies are the bordism groups of oriented immersed manifolds X n ⊂ Rn+k (R. for n = 4k. In fact. also see [1]. 6. For example. 62. (This is obvious for n = 0 and n = 1). can be represented for n ≠ 2. e. Conversely. Suppose X is bordant to zero and consider all compact Riemannian (n + 1)manifolds Y extending X = ∂(Y ) with its Riemannian tensor and such that the local geometries of Y are bounded by some constants R′ << R and l′ >> λ with the obvious precaution near the boundary. 1. Since immersed oriented X n ⊂ Rn+1 have trivial stable normal bundles. The Galois group of such a covering may be equal the full permutation group Π(l) and the ”decorated invariants” live in certain ”decorated” bordism groups of the classifying spaces of Π(l). this can be implemented in terms of conﬁguration spaces associated to the iterated loop spaces as was pointed out to me by Andras Sz`cs. (see next section) that every element of the stable homotopy st group πn = πn+N (S N ). N > n + 1. of the image f (X n ) ⊂ Rn+1 and/or of the homologies of the (natural coverings of the) subsets of the lmultiple points of f (X n )? Geometric Questions about Bordisms. The complexity of πn+N (S N ) shifts in this picture one dimension down to bordism invariants of the ”decorated selfintersections” of immersed X n ⊂ Rn+1 . u The simplest bordism invariant of codimension one immersions is the parity of the number of (n + 1)multiple points of generically immersed X n ⊂ Rn+1 . by the Pontryagin pullback construction. where X n is a homotopy sphere. trivially.
any geometric ”energy minimizing” ﬂow on the diﬀeomorphism group dif f (S 6 ) either gets stuck or develops singularities. that is the selfintersection index of S 4 ⊂ Θ8 . if anything at all. each of them was decomposable into the 7 7 7 union of two 7balls B1 . our Σ7 are certain S 3 bundles over S 4 .) It follows. In 1956. Then 4 4 glue the boundaries of B+ × R4 and B− × R4 by the diﬀeomorphism (s∂ . 7 7 The equality ∂(B1 ) = ∂(B2 ) can be regarded as a selfdiﬀeomorphism f of the round sphere S 6 – the boundary of standard ball B 7 . Thus. (F also depends on R. B2 ⊂ Σ7 intersecting over their boundaries ∂(B1 ) = 7 6 7 7 ∂(B2 ) = S ⊂ Σ like in the ordinary sphere S . Σ7 would be diﬀeomorphic to S 7 . All 4ball bundles. this identiﬁcation of the boundaries is far from being the identity map from the point of view of 7 7 either of the two balls – it does not come from any diﬀeomorphisms B1 ↔ B2 . over S 4 are easy to describe: each is determined by two numbers: the Euler number e.) What is the true asymptotic behaviour of F (V ) for V → ∞ ? It may be linear for all we know and the above ”dimension shift” picture and/or the construction from [23] may be useful here. the value of the Pontryagin class p1 ∈ H 4 (S 4 ) on [S 4 ] ∈ H4 (S 4 )) which may be an arbitrary even integer. say S 4 = B+ ∪ B− with the common 3 4 4 boundary S∂ = B+ ∩ B− and let f s∂ O∂ ∈ SO(4) be a smooth map. f radially extends to a piecewise smooth homeomorphism of B 7 which yields a piecewise smooth homeomorphism between Σ7 and S 7 . otherwise. see section 10. (Milnor explicitly construct his ﬁbrations with maps of the 3sphere into the group SO(4) of orientation preserving linear isometries of R4 as follows.e. but this seems nonessential for R′ << R. or. 7 7 The subtlety resides in the ”equality” ∂(B1 ) = ∂(B2 ).) Milnor’s spheres Σ7 are rather innocuous spaces – the boundaries of (the total spaces of) 4ball bundles Θ8 → S 4 in some in some R4 bundles V → S 4 . (Yet. s) 4 4 (s∂ . O∂ (s)) and obtain V 8 = B+ × R4 ∪f B− × R4 which makes an R4 ﬁbration 4 over S . is known about such ﬂows and their singularities.e. Is there a better setting of this question with some curvature integrals and/or spectral invariants rather than volumes? The real cohomology of the Grassmann manifolds can be analytically represented by invariant diﬀerential forms.) 6 Exotic Spheres. 36 . maybe. that such an f can not be included into a family of diﬀeomorphisms bringing it to an isometric transformations of S 6 . to everybody’s amazement. Milnor found smooth manifolds Σ7 which were not diﬀeomorphic to S N . or equivalently R4 bundles. In fact.with the power exponent bound on the function F = F (V ). Θ8 ⊂ V and. yet. and the Pontryagin number p1 (i. λ. this decomposition does imply that Σ7 is ”ordinary” in the topological category: such a Σ7 is (obviously) homeomorphic to S 7 . but this f does not extend to a diﬀeomorphism of B 7 in Milnor’s example. i. Is there a compatible analytic/geometric o representation of Bn ⊗ R? (One may think of a class of measurable nfoliations. R′ . (It seems little. λ′ >> λ. thus. λ′ . 4 4 Decompose S 4 into two round 4balls. something more sophisticated than that. which assumes all integer values.
since the homology of + Θ8 is represented by a single cycle – the sphere S 4 ⊂ Θ8 ⊂ Θ8 the selﬁntersection + + number of which equals the Euler number. The basic example of Σ7 with e = ±1 (the sign depends on the choice of the orientation in Θ8 ) is the ordinary 7sphere which comes with the Hopf ﬁbration S 7 → S 4 . of mutually nondiﬀeomorphic manifolds Σn which are homotopy equivalent to S n is not that large. the 1 boundaries Σ7 of those Θ8 which fail this condition. The number of homotopy spheres. we stick to e = 1 for our candidates for Σ7 . say Θ8 . they admit no smooth structures compatible with these triangulations since their combinatorial Pontryagin numbers (deﬁned by RochlinSchwartz and Thom) fail the divisibility condition issuing from the Thom formula sig(X 8 ) = L2 [X 8 ]. these Θ8 are not even topologically bordant. (You do not have to know the deﬁnition of the Pontryagin classes.) The 8manifolds Θ8 associated with Milnor’s exotic Σ7 can be triangulated + with a single nonsmooth point in such a triangulation. eventually. his lemmas look apparent to a today topology student. + Milnor observes that the signature of Θ8 equals ±1. must be exotic. they + are nonhomeomorphic to smooth manifolds by (slightly reﬁned) Novikov’s topological Pontryagin classes theorem. it is ﬁnite for all n ≠ 4 by the work of Kervaire and Milnor [39]. just remember they are integer cohomology classes. Then Milnor invokes the Thom signature theorem 45sig(X) + p2 [X] = 7p2 [X] 1 and concludes that the number 45 + p2 must be divisible by 7.g. homotopy equivalent to S 7 . say for p1 = 4. It is not hard to show that Σ7 has the same homology as S 7 . (We shall explain this in section 8.) Obviously. if and only if e = ±1 which means that the selﬁntersection index of the zero section sphere S 4 ⊂ Θ8 equals ±1. therefore. for the trivial bundle). In fact. became a common knowledge and can be now found in any textbook.) (Milnor’s topological arguments. where it is freely acted upon by the group G = S 3 of the unit quaternions and where S 7 G equals the sphere S 4 representing the quaternion projective line. who. but H3 (Σ7 ) may be nonzero (e. Then Milnor computes: e = i + j and p1 = ±2(i − j). which he presents with a meticulous care. all Σ7 are 2connected. they are not combinatorially bordant to smooth manifolds. Let f (s) = fij (s) ∈ SO(4) act by x si xsj for x ∈ H and the left and right quaternion multiplication. hence. Yet. using quaternions. Milnor explicitly constructs a Morse function Σ7 → R with only two critical points – maximum and minimum on each Σ7 with e = 1.To construct a speciﬁc f . Moreover. in fact.) Finally. 37 . and therefore. i. this yields the two ball decomposition. Milnor is laconic at this point: ”It is easy to verify” is all what he says. where this S 7 is positioned as the unit sphere in the quaternion plane H2 = R8 . If Σ7 is diﬀeomorphic to S 7 one can attach the 8ball to Θ8 along this S 7 boundary and obtain a smooth closed 8manifold.e. The hardest for the modern reader is the ﬁnal Milnor’s lemma claiming that his function Σ7 → R is Morse with two critical points. identify R4 with the quaternion line H and S 3 with the multiplicative group of quaternions of norm 1.
6. where B2k is the Bernoulli number. The case n ≠ 2l − 2 goes back to Browder (1969) and the case n = 2l − 2. i. l ≥ 8 is a recent achievement by Hill. st The Kervaire invariant vanishes. In fact. can be represented by a ”Σn map” f . KervaireMilnor and BarrattJonesMahowald see [9] that If n = 2. 30. 126. In general. every continuous map S n+N → S N . . if n = 4k − 1. J9 = Z2 and J11 = Z504 . the map f may be noncontractible. 14. 126 st (where it remains unknown if π126 K126 equals {0} or Z2 ).) Kervaire and Milnor start by showing that for every homotopy sphere Σn . they prove that almost all homotopy classes of maps S n+N → S N come from homotopy nspheres. J7 = Z240 . by Freedman for n = 4 and by e Perelman for n = 3. N >> n. Thus the correspondence Σn f deﬁnes a n map from the set {Σ } of the diﬀeomorphism classes of homotopy spheres to 38 . N >> n. If n = 4k + 2.. make a Jn coset st in the stable homotopy group πn . (The existence of such an f with f −1 (s) = Σn is equivalent to the existence of an immersion Σn → Rn+1 by the Hirsch theorem.) Then. i. Hopkins and Ravenel [37]. (Their proof relies gen gen gen on a generalized homology theory Hn where Hn+256 = Hn . is homotopic to a smooth map f S n+N → S N . then the order of Jn equals the denominator of B2k 4k .e. such that the pullback f −1 (s) ⊂ S n+N of a generic point s ∈ S N is diﬀeomorphic to Σn . Furthermore. where the pullback of a generic point is a homotopy sphere. then the Kervaire invariant can be nonzero. that has index 1 or 2 and which is expressible in terms of the Kervaire(Arf ) invariant classifying (similarly to the signature for n = 4k) properly deﬁned ”selfintersections” of (k + 1)cycles mod 2 in (4k + 2)manifolds.derive this from the Serre ﬁniteness theorem. The order of Jn is 1 or 2 for n ≠ 4k − 1. Kn = πn . N >> n. N >> n (and called the image st of the Jhomomorphism πn (SO(∞)) → πn ). then every homotopy class of maps S n+N → S N . say Kn ⊂ πn = πn+N (S N ). 62. denoted Jn ⊂ πn = πn+N (S N ). then the homotopy classes of ”Σn maps” constitute a subgroup st in the corresponding stable homotopy group. J3 = Z24 . there exists a smooth map f S n+N → S N . for n ≠ 2.. i. the homotopy classes of maps f such that the f pullback of a generic point is diﬀeomorphic to a given homotopy sphere Σn .) If the pullback of a generic point of a smooth map f S n+N → S N . by applying surgery (see section 9) to the f0 pullback of a point for a given generic map f0 S n+N → S N . In other words. is diﬀeomorphic to S n . 6. The ﬁrst nontrivial J are J1 = Z2 .e.e. 30. 6. such that the f pullback of a generic point is a homotopy nsphere. where ”homeomorphic”⇒ ”diﬀeomorphic” for n = 3 by Moise’s theorem. N >> n ≠ 2. 62. the set of the homotopy classes of such f makes a cyclic subgroup in the stable homotopy st group of spheres. One knows today by the work of Pontryagin. J8 = Z2 . (One knows nowadays that every smooth homotopy sphere Σn is homeomorphic to S n according to the solution of the Poincar´ conjecture by Smale for n ≥ 5. 14.. Namely: If n ≠ 4k + 2. st πn Kn = Z2 .
there are plenty of smooth homotopies. 5. there are 28 mutually nondiﬀeomorphic homotopy 7spheres. is surjective for n ≠ 2.st st the factor group πn Jn . depending on the Kervaire invariant: ( ) If n equals 1. (The homotopy spheres Σn ∈ B n+1 bound (n + 1)manifolds with trivial tangent bundles. However. Kervaire and Milnor show that st ( ) µ {Σn } → πn Jn is a homomorphism with a ﬁnite (n ≠ 4) kernel n+1 n denoted B ⊂ {Σ } which is a cyclic group. say µ {Σn } → πn Jn . called (smooth) isotopies ft . But from a diﬀerential topologist’s point of view the most interesting is the space of smooth embeddings F X → Y which diﬀeomorphically send X onto a smooth submanifold X ′ = f (X) ⊂ Y . An analyst may be concerned with completions of [X→Y ]smth . In fact. 125. of it which remain embeddings for every t and which can be obtained with the following 39 . by the above. listing and classifying manifolds X one wants to understand the topology of spaces of maps X → Y . e. 30. there are 16 homotopy 18spheres and 523264 mutually nondiﬀeomorphic homotopy 19spheres. e. Besides constructing. The map µ (which. given such an embedding f0 X → Y . 13. in general. then the cardinality (order) of B n+1 equals 22k−2 (22k−1 − 1) times the numerator of 4B2k k . The space [X→Y ]smth of all C ∞ maps carries little geometric load by itself since this space is homotopy equivalent to [X→Y ]cont(inuous) . 61 and. and n+1 B = Z2 for the rest of n = 4k + 1. that there are no exotic spheres for n = 5. then B n+1 is either zero or Z2 . (see section 8).g. Riemannian metrics on this space. st The above and the known results on the stable homotopy groups πn imply. every homotopy 4sphere is homeomorphic to S 4 by Freedman’s solution of the 4DPoincar´ conjecture.) e 7 Isotopies and Intersections. where these Θn+1 (unlike the above Milnor’s Θ8 ) come as pullbacks of generic points under smooth maps from (n + N + 1)balls B n+N +1 to S N . 29. 62. 126) is ﬁnitetoone for n ≠ 4.g. but. By Perelman. If n + 1 = 4k + 2. the homotopy nspheres make an Abelian group (n ≠ 4) under the connected sum operation Σ1 #Σ2 (see next section) and. you can not produce them at will so easily. where B2k is the Bernoulli number.) Moreover. t ∈ [0. possibly. If dim(Y ) > 2dim(X) then generic f are embeddings. ( ) if n = 4k − 1. 1]. 6. where the proof of this ﬁniteness for n ≥ 5 depends on Smale’s hcobordism theorem. for example. by applying surgery to manifolds Θn+1 with boundaries Σn . with Sobolev’ topologies while a geometer is keen to study geometric structures. (Yet. ( ) The kernel B n+1 of µ is zero for n = 2m ≠ 4. 14. then B n+1 is zero. there is a single smooth structure on the homotopy 3 sphere and the case n = 4 remains open. 6.
Since diﬀeomorphisms are open in the space of all smooth maps. 1954. Let U1 . This is similar to the homotopy extension property (mentioned in section 1) for spaces of continuous maps X → Y – the ”geometric” cornerstone of the algebraic topology. does not change the union. every generic homotopy of Z extends to a smooth isotopy of Y . [12]. by no means.Isotopy Theorem. For example if dim(Y ) ≥ 2dim(Z) + 2. (Thom.) Both ”open” and ”group” are crucial: for example. Mazur Swindle and Hauptvermutung. Observe that W1 and W2 are open manifolds without boundaries and that they are diﬀeomorphic since dropping the ﬁrst term in a sequence U1 ⊂ U2 ⊂ U3 ⊂ . and W22 = U2 ⊂f22 U2 ⊂f22. open in the space of all continuous maps.. say of a disk B 2 ⊂ S 2 to S 2 do not extend to S 2 whenever a map B 2 → S 2 starts overlapping itself. Hence. (The details are easy. for example. U2 be compact nmanifolds with boundaries and f12 U1 → U2 and f21 U2 → U1 be embeddings which land in the interiors of their respective target manifolds. Then every isotopy of Z → Y can be extended to an isotopy of all of X. and W2 = U2 ⊂f21 U1 ⊂f12 U2 ⊂f12 U1 ⊂f12 ... [40]) to extend topological isotopies. for f11 = f12 ○ f21 U1 → U1 and f22 = f21 ○ f12 U2 → U2 . since homeomorphisms are. one can extend ”small” isotopies. where X = Y and dim(Z) = dim(W ).. cross itself as it moves in Y (unlike. If the selfembedding f11 is isotopic to the identity map. homotopies by locally diﬀeomorphic maps. then a generic smooth homotopy of Z is an isotopy: Z does not. a circle moving in the 3space where selfcrossings are stable under small perturbations of homotopies)..) Let Z ⊂ X be a compact smooth submanifold (boundary is allowed) and f0 X → Y is an embedding... 40 f0 . both manifolds are diﬀeomorphic to the unions of the sequences W11 = U1 ⊂f11 U1 ⊂f11 ..) The proof easily reduces with the implicit function theorem to the case. Also it is much harder (yet possible. the required isotopy is obtained as a composition of small diﬀeomorphisms of Y . those which only slightly move Z. where the essential case is where X ⊂ Y and f0 is the identity map. More generally. Let W1 and W2 be the unions (inductive limits) of the inﬁnite increasing sequences of spaces W1 = U1 ⊂f12 U2 ⊂f21 U1 ⊂f12 U2 ⊂f12 . in particular. then W11 is diﬀeomorphic to the interior of U1 by the isotopy theorem and the same applies to f22 (or any selfembedding for this matter).. generically. the isotopy extension property holds for an arbitrary family of embeddings X → Y parametrized by a compact space. and since diﬀeomorphisms of Y make a group. the restriction map R Z [X→Y ]emb → [Z→Y ]emb is a ﬁbration.. Similarly.
the interiors Uiop of these Ui . C. The space of embeddings f of the nball (or Rn ) into an arbitrary Y = Y n+k is homotopy equivalent to the space of tangent nframes in Y . B n+1 #∂ B n+1 . N ≥ n + 2. op op open normal neighbourhoods U1 and U2 of two homotopy equivalent nmanifolds (and triangulated spaces in general) Z1 and Z2 in Rn+N . ﬁberwise linear diﬀeomorphisms of vector bundles. Milnor has shown that there are two free isometric actions A1 and A2 of the cyclic group Zp on the sphere S 3 . 1936) and. H. x tx. 41 . nonhomeomorphic. Whitehead. by Moise’s 1951 positive solution of the Hauptvermutung for 3manifolds. the diﬀeomorphism class of the (n + 1)manifold X3 = X1 +f X2 obtained by attaching X1 to X2 by f and (obviously canonically) smoothed at the ”corner” (or rather the ”crease”) along the boundary of B1 . The boundary Y3 = ∂(X3 ) can be deﬁned without any reference to Xi ⊃ Yi . yet. For example. combined with the isotopy theorem. 1941). let B1 ⊂ Y1 be a smooth submanifold diffeomorphic to the nball and let f B1 → B2 ⊂ Y2 = ∂(A2 ) be a diﬀeomorphism. For example. for example. Glue the manifolds Y1 an Y2 by f B1 → B2 ⊂ Y2 and then remove the interiors of the balls B1 and of its f image B2 . as follows.Thus we conclude with the above. Anybody might have guessed that the ”open” condition is a pure technicality and everybody believed so until Milnor’s 1961 counterexample to the Hauptvermutung – the main conjecture of the combinatorial topology. (This could not have happened to simply connected manifolds Zi by the hcobordism theorem. Corollary: Ball Gluing Lemma. that. are diﬀeomorphic (Mazur 1961).) Moreover. such that the quotient (lens) spaces Z1 = S 3 A1 and Z2 = S 3 A2 are homotopy equivalent. If the boundaries Yi of Xi are connected. they are combinatorially nonequivalent (Reidemeister. this ”sum” of balls. In this case. P1 and P2 are homeomorphic as the one point compactiﬁcations of two homeop op omorphic spaces U1 and U2 . Let X1 and X2 be (n + 1)dimensional manifolds with boundaries Y1 and Y2 . for every prime p ≥ 7.g. This X3 is denoted X1 #∂ X2 . the polyhedra P1 and P2 obtained by attaching the cones to the boundaries of these manifolds admit no isomorphic simplicial subdivisions. Connected Sum. does not depend on B1 and f . Even the sheer existence of the humble homothety of Rn . 2. but those available. eﬀortlessly yields. It was previously known that these Z1 and Z2 are homotopy equivalent (J. are extensively used. the following [B→Y ]Lemma. but their closed normal neighbourhoods U1 and U2 in any R3+N are not diﬀeomorphic. for example. i = 1. e. are diﬀeomorphic for N ≥ 5. the assignment f J(f ) 0 of the Jacobi matrix at 0 ∈ B n is a homotopy equivalence of the space of embeddings f B → Rn to the linear group GL(n). is again a smooth (n + 1)ball. hence. There are few direct truly geometric constructions of diﬀeomorphisms. Yet. in fact the diﬀerential f Df 0 establishes a homotopy equivalence between the respective spaces.
1] and S ′′ ⊂ X ′′ is the projection of Σ to ˜ of Σ ′′ X . dim(Σ0 ) = n − k ′ − k ′′ for n = dim(Y ). 2 with boundaries. but the following construction due to Haeﬂiger (1961) generalizing the Whitney Lemma of 1944 demonstrates something special about isotopies in high dimensions. where this lemma in lower dimension may be used for ensuring the ball property of the gluing sites. and let ˜ Σ = {(x′ . say X3 = X1 +−U X2 is naturally oriented and.e. Let Y be a smooth nmanifold and X ′ . The isotopy theorem is not dimension speciﬁc. x′′ . but the connected sum deﬁned with balls is unique by the [B→Y ]lemma. for example. (This is similar to the geometric/algebraic cancellation of cycles mentioned in section 4. t ∈ [0. be a smooth generic homotopy which disengages X ′ from X ′′ . where S ′ ⊂ X ′ equals the projection ˜ to the X ′ factor of X ′ × X ′′ × [0. f1 (X ′ ) does not intersect f1 (X ′′ ). t)}ft (x′ )=ft (x′′ ) ⊂ X ′ × X ′′ × [0. ˜ i. This gives the same Bn even if i n−i the only U allowed are those diﬀeomorphic to S × B as it follows from the handle decompositions induced by Morse functions. The ball gluing operation may be used many times in succession. thus. Wouldn’t it be easier ﬁrst to remove these interiors from both manifolds and then glue what n−1 remains along the spheres Si = ∂(Bi )? This is easier but also it is also a wrong thing to do: the result may depend n−1 n−1 on the diﬀeomorphism S1 ↔ S2 . Take two closed oriented nmanifold X1 and X2 and let X1 ⊃ U1 ↔ U2 ⊂ X2 f be an orientation reversing diﬀeomorphisms between compact ndimensional submanifolds Ui ⊂ Xi . as it happens for Y1 = Y2 = S 7 in Milnor’s example. one could say that X is a smooth manifold with its two ”connected components” X ′ and X ′′ being embedded into Y . 1]. one can give an alternative deﬁnition of the oriented bordism o group Bn as of the Abelian group generated by oriented nmanifolds with the o relations X3 = X1 + X2 for all X3 = X1 +−U X2 .) Clearly. Let Σ ⊂ X ′ ∪ X ′′ be the union S ′ ∪ S ′′ . Denote Σ0 = X ′ ∩ X ′′ ⊂ Y and let X be the (abstract) disjoint union of X ′ and X ′′ . t) for which ft (x′ ) = ft (x′′ ).If the manifolds Yi (not necessarily anybody’s boundaries or even being closed) are connected. 42 . (If X ′ and X ′′ are connected equividimensional manifolds. X ′′ ⊂ Y be smooth closed submanifolds in general position. Σ consists of the triples (x′ . one builds ”big (n + 1)balls” from smaller ones. then the resulting connected sum manifold is denoted Y1 #Y2 . n − k ′ = dim(X ′ ) and n − k ′′ = dim(X ′′ ). If we glue X1 and X2 by f and remove the (glued together) interiors of Ui the resulting manifold. it is orientably bordant to the disjoint union of X1 and X2 .e. Gluing and Bordisms. i = 1. 1]. Isn’t it a waste of glue? You may be wondering why bother glueing the interiors of the balls if you are going to remove them anyway. clearly. x′′ . i. Let ft X → Y .) Conversely.
can be replaced by a disengaging homotopy ftnew which is an isotopy.e. where S ′ meet S ′′ along Σ0 . Finally. and the lowest dimension where they are meaningful is the ﬁrst Whitney case: dim(Y ) = n = 6 and k ′ = k ′′ = 3. needs dim(W ) + dim(X) = (n − k ′ − k ′′ + 2) + (n − k ′ ) < n i. there is a correspondence x′ ↔ x′′ between the points in Σ = S ′ ∪ S ′′ . Accordingly. t∗ = t∗ (x′ ) = t∗ (x′′ )] and W= Clearly. By genericity. 2k ′ + 2k ′′ > n + 4. Let the dimensions n − k ′ = dim(X ′ ) and n − k ′′ = dim(X ′′ ). If we agree that k ′′ ≥ k ′ . i. their intersection points sweep W which equals the intersection of the 3ball bounded by X ′ and the ﬂat 2disc spanned by X ′′ . Assume ft is smooth generic and take a small neighbourhood U3ε ⊂ Y of W .e. W is called Whitney’s disk. this. a smooth submanifold without double points as well as without any other singularities. i. this ft is an isotopy of X ′ as well as of X ′′ within U3ε ⊂ Y : 43 . x2 – our Σ0 = {x1 . Back to the general case. Proof. 1]. denoted [x′ ∗t x′′ ] ⊂ Y . The boundary Σ of this W consists of two arcs S ′ ⊂ X ′ and S ′′ ⊂ X ′′ . where the two points correspond one to another if x′ ∈ S ′ meets x′′ ∈ S ′′ at some moment t∗ in the course of the homotopy. on both manifolds. where k ′′ ≥ k ′ . we want to avoid an intersection of W with X ′ and with X ′′ away from Σ = ∂(W ). ftnew (X ′ ) and f new (X ′′ ) reman smooth new without self intersection points in Y for all t ∈ [0. let W ⊂ Y be the union of the ft paths. 2dim(W ) = 2(n − k ′ − k ′′ + 2) < n = dim(Y ) i.e. We need for this ′ x′ ∈S ′ [x′ ∗t x′′ ] = x′′ ∈S ′′ [x′ ∗t x′′ ]. 1] and f1 (X ′ ) does not new ′′ intersect f1 (X ). we want W to be.e. 2k ′ + k ′′ > n + 2. where S ′ joins x1 with x2 in X ′ and S ′′ join x1 with x2 in X ′′ . ft∗ (x′ ) = ft∗ (x′′ ) for some t∗ ∈ [0. To grasp the picture look at X consisting of a round 2sphere X ′ (where k = 1) and a round circle X ′′ (where k ′′ = 2) in the Euclidean 3space Y . except for the unavoidable corner in its boundary Σ. dim(Σ) = dim(Σ0 ) + 1 = n − k ′ − k ′′ + 1 and dim(W ) = dim(Σ) + 1 = n − k ′ − k ′′ + 2. x2 } in this case. Haeﬂiger Lemma (Whitney for k + k ′ = n). generically. generically. When X ′ an X ′′ move away one from the other by parallel translations in the opposite directions. of two submanifolds X ′ and X ′′ in the ambient nmanifold Y satisfy 2k ′ + k ′′ > n + 2. although it may be nonhomeomorphic to B 2 with the present deﬁnition of W (due to Haeﬂiger). Also. These inequalities imply that k ′ ≥ k ≥ 3. Then every homotopy ft of (the disjoint union of ) X ′ and X ′′ in Y which disengages X ′ from X ′′ . travelled by the points x′ ∈ S ′ ⊂ Σ and x′′ ∈ S ′′ ⊂ Σ until they meet at some moment t∗ . [x′ ∗t x′′ ] ⊂ Y consists of the union of the points ft (x′ ) and ft (x′′ ) over t ∈ [0. where X and X ′ intersect at two points x1 . In other words.Thus.
this yield an isotopy classiﬁcation of embeddings X → Y for 3k > n+3 by homotopies of the above symmetric maps X × X → Y × Y . The WhitneyHaeﬂiger W for f0 has dimension 6l + 1 − 2(2l + 1) + 2 = 2l + 1 and. obviously. The resulting (properly deﬁned) intersection index of W with B is nonzero (otherwise one could eliminate these points by Whitney) and it does not depend on f0 . for example. y2 ) ↔ (y2 . by paying the price of the extra p in the excess of dim(Y ) over dim(X). 44 . Also. see section 9. [33]. [33].) (3) In view of the above. (Haeﬂiger 1962). if 3k > n + 3. (1) One may allow selfintersections Σ0 within connected components of X. But if 3k = n + 3 and k = 2l + 1 is odd then there are inﬁnitely many isotopy of classes of embeddings S 4l−1 → R6l . (The structure of ”higher selfintersections” of this kind for Euclidean hypersurfaces carries a signiﬁcant information on the stable homotopy groups of spheres. by the Thom isotopy theorem. Since ft and Ft within U3ε are equal on the overlap U2ε Uε of their deﬁnition domains. In fact. where one has a comprehensive algebraic control of selfintersections of all multiplicities for maps of codimension k ≥ 3. then every smooth embedding S n−k → Rn is smoothly isotopic to the standard S n−k ⊂ Rn . one must be careful if one wants to relax the dimension constrain by an inductive application of the WhitneyHaeﬂiger disengaging procedure.′ ′′ the intersections of ft (X ′ ) and ft (X ′′ ) with U3ε . keeping it transversal to R6l = R6l × 0 and with its boundary equal our knot S 4l−1 ⊂ R6l . it transversally intersects B 4l at several points. y1 ) in Y × Y and having the pullbacks f −1 (Ydiag ) of the diagonal Ydiag ⊂ Y × Y equal Xdiag ⊂ X × X. Nontriviality of such a knot S 4l−1 → R6l is detected by showing that a map f0 B 4l → R6l × R+ extending S 4l−1 = ∂(B 4l ) can not be turned into an embedding. Hence. call them X3ε (t) and X3ε (t) are smooth submanifolds in U3ε for all t. which shows. it equals the linking invariant of Haeﬂiger. at least on the Qlevel. that there are no knots for these dimensions (Haeﬂiger. where the necessary homotopy condition for removing Σ0 (which was expressed with the disengaging ft in the present case) is formulated in terms of maps ˜ f X × X → Y × Y commuting with the involutions (x1 . do not intersect away from W ⊂ U3ε . generically. which. they make together a homotopy of X ′ and X ′′ which. For example.) But this is possible. x1 ) in X × X ˜ and (y1 . If p = 1. there exists an isotopy Ft of Y Uε which equals ft on U2ε Uε and which is constant in t on Y U3ε . (This is reminiscent of the ”higher linking products” described by Sullivan’s minimal models. 1961). even without tensoring with Q. the higher intersection obstructions tend to vanish in the combinatorial category. x2 ) ↔ (x2 . moreover. (2) One can apply all of the above to p parametric families of maps X → Y . There are several immediate generalizations/applications of this theorem. satisﬁes our requirements. since obstructions/invariants for removal ”higher” intersections which come on the way may be not so apparent.
. with a simple use of two mutually dual smooth triangulations of Y . and let i = 3 Then X1 and X2 . recall. where.g. the groups Γ = π1 (U ) capture the ´tale cohomology of algebraic e manifolds and the NovikovPontryagin classes of topological manifolds (see section 10). Sketch of the Proof. It remains equally unclear what is the possible topology of selfintersections of immersions X n → Y n+2 . Then. a neighbourhood U of an X ⊂ Y is regular if there exists an isotopy ft U → U which brings all of U arbitrarily close to X. This is called ”engulﬁng” since B○ . Let X be a piecewise smooth polyhedron in a smooth manifold Y. for ”unknotting spheres”. This ft does the job away from a certain W which has dim(W ) ≤ n − 2k + 2. roughly. where the selfintersection makes a link in S 3 . If n − k = dim(X) ≤ dim(Y ) − 3 and if πi (Y ) = 0 for i = 1. the groups Γ(X 2 ) for surfaces X 2 ⊂ Y 4 have much to tell us about the smooth topology of 4manifolds. and for S 4 → S 6 where this is an immersed surface in S 4 . e. for each i. For example. engulfs X. can be engulfed by (diﬀeomorphic images of) balls.. into the union of regular neighbourhoods U1 and U2 of smooth subpolyhedra X1 and X2 in Y of dimensions i and n − i − 1 (similarly to the handle body decomposition of a 3manifold into the union of two thickened graphs in it). where the basic construction is as follows Engulﬁng. There are few systematic ways of constructing ”simple” X ⊂ Y . say n = 7. The above generalizes and simpliﬁes in the combinatorial or ”piecewise smooth” category.g. where X n are made of nsubcubes n inside the cubes n+2 ⊂ Y n+2 and where these interior n ⊂ n+2 are parallel to the nfaces of n+2 . Oﬀhand suggestions are pullbacks of (special singular) divisors X0 in complex algebraic manifolds Y0 under generic maps Y → Y0 and immersed subvarieties X n in cubically subdivided Y n+2 . 1963). Possibly. Now let Y be a homotopy sphere of dimension n ≥ 7. with ”interesting” (e.there is no combinatorial knots of codimension k ≥ 3 (Zeeman. say for S 3 → S 5 . if there is no homotopy obstruction to this. (4) One can control the position of the image of f new (X) ⊂ Y . immersed submanifolds. and hence U1 and U2 .dim(Y ). then there exists a smooth isotopy Ft of Y which eventually (for t = 1) moves X to a given (small) neighbourhood B○ of a point in Y . by making it to land in a given open subset W0 ⊂ W . one can decompose Y . but these Γ = Γ(X) for various X ⊂ Y form beautifully intricate patterns which are poorly understood.. which goes. The essential mechanism of knotting X = X n ⊂ Y = Y n+2 depends on the fundamental group Γ of the complement U = Y ⊂ X. e. e. especially a surface X 2 in a 4manifold. far from being free) fundamental groups of their complements. when moved by the time reversed isotopy. The group Γ may look a nuisance when you want to untangle a knot. as follows. This is < dim(X) under the above assumption and the proof proceeds by induction on dim(X).g. Start with a generic ft . Let Y be a smooth nmanifold.g. engulﬁng was invented by Stallings in his approach to the Poincar´ e Conjecture in the combinatorial category. say by B1 ⊃ U1 and B2 ⊃ U2 with their centers denoted 01 ∈ B1 45 .
These creations/annihilations of homology may cancel each other and a handle decomposition of an X may have by far more handles (balls) than the number of independent homology classes in H∗ (X).e. we create a new icycle in X +S i−1 B n . When we attach an ihandle to an X along a zerohomologous sphere S i−1 ⊂ Y . modiﬁcation ∂(X) = Y f Y ′ = ∂(X +S i−1 B n ) does not depend on X but only on Y and f . we ”kill” an icycle. If the manifold Y is oriented. For example. 46 . Such decompositions are more ﬂexible. See [67] for an account of techniques for proving various ”Poincar´ conjectures” and for references to e the source papers. This implies (with the isotopy theorem) that Y 02 is diﬀeomorphic to R7 . so is X. one represents Y 02 by the union of an increasing sequence of isotopic copies of the ball B1 . 1] +S i−1 B n . If X is an nmanifold with boundary Y and f A(ε) → Y a smooth embedding. i. where the latter subscript refers to the f image of the axial sphere in Y . when we attach an (i+1)handle along an isphere in X which is nonhomologous to zero. Y is homeomorphic to S 7 .and 02 ∈ B2 . makes a bordism between Y = Y × 0 and Y ′ which equals the surgically modiﬁed Y × 1component of the boundary of X. one can sometimes realize a basis in homology by suitably chosen cells or handles which is not even possible to formulate properly for triangulations. unless i = 1 and the two ends of the 1handle B 1 × B n−1 (ε) are attached to the same connected component of Y with opposite orientations. The manifold X = Y × [0. (A reﬁned generalization of this argument delivers the Poincar´ conjecture e in the combinatorial and topological categories for n ≥ 5. By moving the 6sphere ∂(B1 ) ⊂ B2 by the radial isotopy in B2 toward 02 . one can attach B n to X by f and the resulting manifold (with the ”corner” along ∂A(ε) made smooth) is denoted X +f B n or X +S i−1 B n . The original approach of Smale to the Poincar´ conjecture depends on hane dle decompositions of manifolds – counterparts to cell decompositions in the homotopy theory. where B n is attached to Y × 1.) 8 Handles and hCobordisms. The eﬀect of this on the boundary. hence. Recall that an ihandle of dimension n is the ball B n decomposed into the product B n = B i × B n−i (ε) where one think of such a handle as an εthickening of the unit iball and where A(ε) = S i × B n−1 (ε) ⊂ S n−1 = ∂B n is seen as an εneighbourhood of its axial (i − 1)sphere S i−1 × 0 – an equatorial isphere in S n−1 . It is called an isurgery of Y at the sphere f (S i−1 × 0) ⊂ Y . and by far more abundant than triangulations and they are better suited for a match with algebraic objects such as homology.
since the ﬁrst gluing site 7 where B1−δ is being attached to X. ε << ε0 . the handles do cancel one another: if a sphere 4 47 . Let us modify the sphere S 3 × b0 ⊂ S 3 × B 4 (ε0 ) = ∂(X) by replacing the original standard embedding of the 3ball 7 B 3 (1 − δ) → B1−δ = B 3 (1 − δ) × S 3 (ε0 ) ⊂ ∂(X) by another one. 7 7 7 Clearly. Finally.C. Cancelling a 3handle by a 4handle. Let X = S 3 × B 4 (ε0 ) and let us attach the 4handle B 7 = B 4 × B 3 (ε).H. at a 3 single point. Hence. remains diﬀeomorphic to 6 B by the isotopy theorem. the manifold X∼ = X +S∼ B 7 is diﬀeomorphic to B 7 . (2) each elementary step is implemented geometrically as in the example below (which does not elucidate the case n = 6). then the resulting X∼ = 3 X +S∼ B 7 is obviously diﬀeomorphic to B 7 : adding S 3 × B 4 (ε0 ) to B 7 amounts to ”bulging” the ball B 7 over the εneighbourhood A(ε) of the axial 3sphere on its boundary. 3 If S∼ = S 3 × b0 . such that f∼ equals the original embedding near the boundary of ∂(B 3 (1 − δ)) = ∂(B 3 (δ)) = S 2 (δ). by Whitney’s lemma. 7 f∼ B 3 (1 − δ) → B1−δ = B 3 (1 − δ) × S 3 (ε0 ) = ∂(X). every embedding S 3 → S 3 × S 3 (ε0 ) ⊂ S 3 × B (ε0 ) which is homologous in S 3 ×B 4 (ε0 ) to the standard S 3 ×b0 ⊂ S 3 ×B 4 (ε0 ). Another way to see it is by observing that this addition of S 3 × B 4 (ε0 ) to 7 B can be decomposed into gluing two balls in succession to B 7 as follows. s0 ∈ S 3 . b0 ∈ S 3 (ε0 ). while the second one does not change at all. albeit ”wiggled”. Whitehead’s theory of the simple homotopy type). by some diﬀeomorphism of A(ε) ⊂ ∂(B 7 ) onto A∼ . to the (normal) εneighbourhood A∼ of some sphere 3 S∼ ⊂ Y = ∂(X) = S 3 × S 3 (ε0 ) for S 3 (ε0 ) = ∂B 4 (ε0 ). the attachment loci of B1−δ to X and of Bδ to X + B1−δ are diﬀeomorphic (after smoothing the corners) to the 6ball. (1) The overall algebraic cancellation is decomposed into ”elementary steps” by ”reshuﬄing” handles (in the spirit of J. So we conclude: 3 whenever S∼ ⊂ S 3 × S 3 (ε0 ) transversally intersect s0 × S 3 (ε0 ). Then the same ”ball after ball” argument applies. is the standard sphere. can be isotoped to another one which meets s0 × S 3 (ε0 ) transversally at a single point. Take a ball B 3 (δ) ⊂ S 3 around some point s0 ∈ S 3 and decompose X = 3 S × B 4 (ε0 ) into the union of two balls that are 7 Bδ = B 3 (δ) × B 4 (ε0 ) and 7 B1−δ = B 3 (1 − δ) × B 4 (ε0 ) for B 3 (1 − δ) =def S 3 B 3 (δ). say.Smale’s argument proceeds in two steps.
is homologically the same as for the 7 4 Hopf ﬁbration S → S for e = ±1. Recall that Σ7 is ﬁbered over S 4 . 48 . k. Then Σ7 decomposes into X+ = p−1 (B+ ) = B+ × S 3 and X− = p−1 (B− ) = 4 3 B− × S . (All what is needed of the Whitney’s lemma is obvious here: the zero section X ⊂ V in an oriented R2k bundle V → X = X 2k with e(V ) = ±1 can be perturbed to X ′ ⊂ V which transversally intersect X at a single point. In other words. and also transversally intersects Si at a single point and where 2 3 there are no other intersections between s. e follows by applying this to Σn minus two small open balls. e Let X be a closed nmanifold. then either B− × B1 or B− × B2 makes a 4handle attached to 4 3 X+ to which the handle cancellation applies and shows that X+ ∪ (B− × B1 ) is a smooth 7ball. with S 3 ﬁbers and with the Euler number e = ±1. where a compact manifold X with two boundary components Y and Y ′ is called an hcobordism (between Y and Y ′ ) if the inclusion Y ⊂ X is a homotopy equivalence. that one can choose P = P 3 ⊂ X = X 5 that equals the union of a smooth topolog2 3 3 ical segment s = [0.. If n = 5 and if the normal bundle of X embedded into some R5+N is trivial. Si and Si . i = 1. 4 Therefore. where each Si meets 2 s at one point.3 S∼ ⊂ S 3 × S 3 (ε0 ) = ∂(X) ⊂ X = S 3 × B 4 (ε0 ). (where the boundary ∂(Uε ) is the (n−1)sphere ”εcollapsed” onto P = P n−k−1 ). Notice that the Poincar´ conjecture for the homotopy spheres Σn . 3 then the manifold X +S∼ B 7 is diﬀeomorphic to the 7ball. b0 ∈ B 4 (ε). 1].. assuming π1 (X) = 1. Also Smale’s handle techniques deliver the following geometric version of the Poincar´ connectedness/contractibilty correspondence (see section 4). where the gluing diﬀeomorphism between the boundaries ∂(X+ ) = 3 3 3 4 S+ × S 3 and ∂(X− ) = S− × S 3 for S± = ∂B± . such that the complement of the open (regular) neighbourhood Uε (P ) ⊂ X of P is diﬀeomorphic to the nball. 1] ⊂ X and several spheres Si and Si .) The handles shaﬄing/cancellation techniques do not solve the existence problem for diﬀeomorphisms Y ↔ Y ′ but rather reduce it to the existence of hcobordisms between manifolds. then Smale proves. Let us show in this picture that Milnor’s sphere Σ7 minus a small ball is diﬀeomorphic to B 7 . . Decompose S 4 into two round balls with the common S 3 boundary. is homologous in X to S 3 × b0 ⊂ X = S 3 × B 4 (ε0 ). Smale hCobordism Theorem. n ≥ 5. i. say by p Σ7 → S 4 . hcobordant simply connected manifolds of dimensions ≥ 5 are diﬀeomorphic. 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 say S = B1 ∪ B2 . S 4 = 4 4 4 4 4 B+ ∪ B− . Then X contains a (n − k − 1)dimensional smooth subpolyhedron P ⊂ X. if we decompose the S 3 factor of B− × S 3 into two round balls.. with πi (X) = 0. by a diﬀeomorphism keeping Y = Y × 0 ⊂ X ﬁxed. if the normal Gauss map of X to the Grassmannian Gr(R5+N ) is contractible. n ≥ 6. while the case m = 1 is solved by Smale with a construction of an hcobordism between Σ5 and S 5 . In particular. If an hcobordism has dim(X) ≥ 6 and π1 (X) = 1 then X is diﬀeomorphic to Y × [0.e.
Indeed. Smale’s cells and handles. e When you encounter bordisms. Q) → Q = H n (X2 . .. Yet. their normal neighbourhoods split into S 2 × R3 which comes handy when you play with handles. m > 0.e. some generalized ”Ricci ﬂow with partial collapse and surgeries” in the ”space of (generic. the generecity sling launches you to the stratosphere of algebraic topology so fast that you barely discern the geometric string attached to it. Q) → Hi (X1 . since all simply connected 5manifolds X have ”almost trivial” normal bundles e. The resulting manifold X has ﬁnite ˜ fundamental group by Margulis’ theorem and so a ﬁnite covering X → X is ˜ Would it simply connected. This is possible. their motion is governed. or equivalently. take a compact locally symmetric space X0 = S Γ. Yet. the cupproduct (this the common name e for the product on cohomology) pairing H i (X2 . an injective cohomology homomorphism f ∗i H i (X2 . n.(Smale 1965) X is diﬀeomorphic to the connected sum of several copies of S2 × S3. i. the ”simply connected” condition can not be encoded in geometry ([52]. on the contrary. π1 (X)] = 0 and then H 4 (X) = H1 (X) = 0 by the Poincar´ duality. Q) → H i (X2 . Every such f between closed connected oriented manifolds induces a surjective homomorphisms f∗i Hi (X1 . (Barden 1966) There is a ﬁnite list of explicitly constructed 5manifolds Xi . Q) for all i = 0. by the rules dictated by some algebraic Ktheory (theories?) This motion hardly can be controlled by any traditional geometric ﬂow. meaning that there is a map f X1 → X2 of degree m. The AtiyahThom construction and Serre’s theory allows one to produce ”arbitrarily large” manifolds X for the mdomination X1 m X2 . in view of the above Smale theorem. where ndimensional cells continuously collapse to lower dimensional ones and keep squeezing through paperthin crevices. feel like slippery amebas which merge and disengage as they reptate in the swamp of unruly geometry. (as we know from section 4). one has Classiﬁcation of Simply Connected 5Manifolds. First of all. [28] [53] and also breaking the symmetry by dividing a manifold into handles along with ”genericity” poorly fare in geometry. such that every closed simply connected manifold X is diﬀeomorphic to the connected sum of Xi . Q) 49 . The triviality of the bundle in this theorem is needed to ensure that all embedded 2spheres in X have trivial normal bundles. random?) amebas” might split away whatever it fails to untangle and bring fresh geometry into the picture. for all we know.g. Q)⊗H n−i (X2 . their only possible Pontryagin class p1 ∈ H 4 (X) is zero.. What can a geometric ﬂow do to these X0 and X? bring X back to X0 ? 9 Manifolds under Surgery. 1. For example. by the Poincar´ Qduality.. If one drops this triviality condition. Indeed π1 (X) = 1 implies that H1 (X) = π1 (X) [π1 (X). Q). where S is a noncompat irreducible symmetric space of rank ≥ and make a 2surgery along some noncontractible circle S 1 ⊂ X0 .
the msphericity of the fundamental class [V ] ∈ Hn+N (V ) is proven with the Sullivan’s minimal models. Then there exists a smooth closed connected oriented manifold X and a continuous map f X → X0 of degree m > 0. observe.) If m = 1. if 1 ≤ N ≤ n.) Let us construct manifolds starting from pseudomanifolds. N ≥ 1. Pseudomanifolds are inﬁnitely easier to construct and to recognize than manifolds: essentially.5 in [19] The minimal model. Moreover. If X is a smooth N manifold it can be seen in terms of ”higher linking” in X. one can ﬁnd an mdominating X. There is no comparably simple characterization of triangulated nmanifolds X where the links Ln−i−1 = L∆i ⊂ X of the isimplices must be topological (n − i − 1)spheres. given an oriented RN bundle V0 → X0 . (The main advantage of the cohomology product over the intersection product on homology is that the former is preserved by all continuous maps. provided N > n. H n (X2 . Let X0 be a connected oriented npseudomanifold. yet. which also admits a smooth embedding X ⊂ Rn+N . where. For example. then so does f ∗n . of a space X is a free (skew)commutative diﬀerential algebra which. the notion of degree perfectly applies to oriented pseudomanifolds. see theorem 24. it is very hard to produce manifolds by combinatorial constructions. In general. (A map of degree m > 1 sends π1 (X1 ) to a subgroup in π1 (X2 ) of a ﬁnite index dividing m. moreover. such that our f X → X0 of degree m > 0 induces the normal bundle of X from V0 . Proof. such that every simplex of dimension < n in X0 lies in the boundary of an nsimplex. then the (ﬁrst order) linking class between them is an element 50 . Then the ”generic pullback” X of X0 ⊂ V0 (see section 3) does the job as it was done in section 5 for Thom’s bordisms. c2 ∈ H j (Y ). But the latter amounts to multiplication by m = deg(f ). the induced homomorphism πi (X1 ) → πi (X2 ) is surjective as it is seen by looking at the lift of f X1 → X2 to the ˜ induced map from the covering X1 → X1 induced by the universal covering ˜ ˜ X2 → X2 to X2 . Since that the ﬁrst N − 1 homotopy groups of the Thom space of V of V0 vanish (see section 5). if two cycles C1 . these are simplicial complexes with exactly two nsimplices adjacent to every (n − 1)simplex. satisfy C1 ∼ 0 and C1 ∩ C2 = 0. i2 . C2 ⊂ X of codimensions i1 . Serre’s msphericity theorem delivers a map f S n+N → V a nonzero degree m. therefore. then (by the full cohomological Poincar´ duality) the above remains e true for all coeﬃcient ﬁelds F. where a compact oriented ndimensional pseudomanifold is a triangulated nspace X0 . if f ∗i vanishes. f ∗i+j (c1 ⋅ c2 ) = f ∗i (c1 ) ⋅ f ∗j (c2 ) for all f X → Y and all c1 ∈ H i (Y ). one can ”dominate” any pseudomanifold by a manifold.is faithful. Q) = Q →⋅d Q = H n (X1 . in a way. extends the cohomology algebra of X and which faithfully encodes all homotopy Qinvariants of X. Q). But even deciding if π1 (Ln−i−1 ) = 1 is an unsolvable problem except for a couple of low dimensions. The complement to the union of the (n − 2)simplices in X0 is an oriented manifold. Accordingly.
[V ∈ Hn+N (V ) = Z. . is.. For example the Whitney sum of the tangent bundle of a smooth submanifold X n ⊂ W n+N and of its normal bundle in W equals the tangent bundle of W restricted to X. Granted an f X0 . i. The map f X1 → X0 . f sends the generator [S n+N ] ∈ Hn+N (S n+N ) = Z (for some orientation of the sphere S n+N ) to the fundamental class of the Thom space. these kernels can be ”killed” by a ”surgical implementation” of the obstruction theory (generalizing the case where X0 = S n due to KervaireMilnor) as follows. We want to modify the smooth structure of X0 keeping its homotopy type unchanged but with its original normal bundle in Rn+N replaced by V0 . map f of S n+N to the Thom space V of V0 .in the quotient group HN −i1 −i2 −1 (X) (HN −i1 −1 (X)∩[C2 ]) which is deﬁned with a plaque D1 ∈ ∂ −1 (C1 ). surjective and it may (and usually does) have nontrivial kernels keri ⊂ Hi (X1 ). However.. n ≥ 5. Thus. is the Rn1 +n2 bundle over X. (One has to be pedantic with orientations to keep track of possible/impossible algebraic cancellations. i. In fact. it is not even a homotopy equivalence – the homology homomorphism induced by f f∗i Hi (X1 ) → Hi (X0 ). The Whitney sum of an Rn1 bundle V1 → X with an Rn2 bundle V2 → X. recall. [2] : the set of the vector bundles admitting such an f constitutes a coset of a subgroup of ﬁnite index in Atiyah’s (reduced) Kgroup by Serre’s ﬁniteness theorem. There is an obvious algebraictopological obstruction to this highlighted by Atiyah in [2] which we call [V ]sphericity and which means that there exists a degree one. this obstruction is ”Qnonessential”. as the image of [D1 ∩ C2 ] under the quotient map HN −i1 −i2 −1 (X) ∋ [D1 ∩ C2 ] HN −i1 −i2 −1 (X) (HN −i1 −1 (X) ∩ [C2 ]). observe. invoke Hurewicz’ theorem and realize the cycles in kerk by kspheres mapped to X1 . which is distinguished by the orientation in X. such that ∂(D1 ) = C1 . Recall that K(X) is the Abelian group formally generated by the isomorphism classes of vector bundles V over X. . Let X0 be a smooth closed simply connected oriented nmanifold. as we know. Surgery and the BrowderNovikov Theorem (1962 [8]. is far from being injective – it may have uncontrollably complicated folds.e. where [V1 ] + [V2 ] =def 0 whenever the Whitney sum V1 ⊕ V2 is isomorphic to a trivial bundle. and denote by f X → X0 the restriction of f to X. i.e. we take the ”generic pullback” X of X ⊂ Rn+N ⊂ Rn+N = S n+N . where. which is clearly onto.e. it isomorphic to Rn+N × X → X.) However. trivial. it is trivial for W = Rn+N . the f images of 51 . k − 1. which equals the ﬁberwise Cartesian product of the two bundles. f induces the normal bundle of X from V0 . obviously. since the tangent bundle of Rn+N is. Assume keri = 0 for i = 0..[54]). 1. where. S n+N → V of degree 1. and V0 → X0 be a stable vector bundle where ”stable” means that N = rank(V ) >> n.
Furthermore. this map induces the normal bundle of X from V → X0 . S2j ⊂ X1 . including i > k. If 52 .m. they come from V → X1 via contractible maps. such that V × R = B × Rk+1 ..n (−1)i rankQ (Hi (X)) and the Euler number e(T (X)) that is the selfintersection index of X ⊂ T (X). the Euler class of V is induced from that of T (S k ) by the classifying map. the Atiyah [V ]sphericity is the only condition for realizing a stable vector bundle V0 → X0 by the normal bundle of a smooth manifold X in the homotopy class of a given odd dimensional simply connected manifold X0 . is induced or from the tautological bundle V0 over the oriented Grassmannian Grk (Rk+1 ). or k+1 k k where Grk (R ) = S and V0 is the tangent bundle T (S ). this works up to k = (n − 1) 2 and makes all keri . Since the spheres S k ⊂ X with [S k ] ∈ kerk have trivial stable normal bundles ⊥ U (i. Indeed any oriented kbundle V → B. (There is an additional constrain for the tangent bundle T (X) – the equality between the Euler characteristic χ(X) = ∑i=0. It follows. the Pontryagin classes of the bundle V must satisfy the RokhlinThomHirzebruch formula to start with. by the construction of fsrg .. their Whitney sums with trivial 1bundles. the resulting manifold X is a homotopy equivalent to X0 via our surgically modiﬁed map f . since. where an extra obstruction arises. assuming keri = 0 for i < k and n ≠ 4.. it is not hard to arrange a map of the resulting manifold to X0 with the same properties as f .. i = 1. . one can use Whitney’s lemma k k and realize a basis in kerk ⊂ Hk (X1 ) by 2m embedded spheres S2j−1 . For example. Then. small neighbourhoods n−k (εannuli) A = Aε of these spheres in X1 split: A = S k × Bε ⊂ X1 .. Thus. U ⊥ ⊕ R. the normal bundle U ⊥ = U ⊥ (S k ) of such a sphere S k is trivial if and only if the Euler number e(U ⊥ ) vanishes. since all h ∈ kerk have zero intersection indices with the pullbacks of kcycles from X0 . if k < n 2.) On the other hand the equality L(V )[X0 ] = sig(X0 ) (obviously) implies that sig(X) = sig(X0 ). equal zero by the Poincar´ duality. Thus we conclude. call it fsrg X → X0 . G B → S k . essentially. e Since a continuous map between simply connected spaces which induces an isomorphism on homology is a homotopy equivalence by the (elementary) Whitehead theorem. Besides. are trivial). Thus. If n = dim(X0 ) is odd. which have zero selfintersection indices. we need to kill kspheres for k = n 2.e. if k is even. moreover.these spheres are contractible in X0 by a relative version of the (elementary) Hurewicz theorem. that the corresponding spherical cycles can be killed by (k + 1)surgery (where X1 now plays the role of Y in the deﬁnition of the surgery). therefore. If n is even. then these spheres S k ⊂ X1 are generically embedded (no selfintersections) and have trivial normal bundles in X1 .. one point crossings between k k S2j−1 and S2j and no other intersections between these spheres. the surgery does not change the signature. It follows that the intersection form on kerk ⊂ Hk (X) has zero signature.
But this does not tells you much about ”topologically interesting” Γ. The geometric texture in the topology we have seen so far was all on the side of the ”entropy”.. such that Lk (pi )[X] = sig(X) if n = 4k. Now. Yet.. such a bordism can be surgically modiﬁed to an hcobordism. Under suitable conditions on the normal bundle of Y . Smooth closed simply connected nmanifolds for n ≥ 5. are ”just” simply connected Poincar´ nspaces X with e distinguished cohomology classes pi ∈ H 4i (X).e. observe. that our starting X0 does not need to be a manifold. m. up to a ”ﬁnite correction term”. F) = H n−i (X0 . kill all of kerk and make X → X0 a homotopy equivalence. where these ”equalities” must be coherent in an obvious sense for diﬀerent F. Together with the hcobordism theorem. The surgery theory extends to manifolds with an arbitrary fundamental group Γ and. topologists were ﬁnding gentle routes in the rugged landscape of 53 .) k Then it easy to see that the (k + 1)surgeries applied to the spheres S2j . 10 Elliptic Wings and Parabolic Flows. Poincar´ spaces are not classiﬁable. (e(U ⊥ (S k )) equals. Summing up. by deﬁnition. the selfintersection of S k ⊂ U ⊥ (S k ) which is the same as the selfintersection of this sphere in X. (see [54]). There are several points to check (and to correct) in the above argument. modulo the Novikov conjecture – a nonsimply connected counterpart to the relation Lk (pi )[X] = sig(X) (see next section) – delivers a comparably exhaustive answer in terms of the ”Poincar´ e complexes over (the group ring of) Γ” (see [80]). fundamental groups of nmanifold X with the universal covering Rn (see [13] [14] about it). e.) Notice. F) for all coeﬃcient ﬁelds (and rings) F. .g.B = S k then the Euler number of e(V ) equals 2deg(G) and if e(V ) = 0 the map G is contractible which makes V = S k × Rk . but everything ﬁts amazingly well in the lap of the linear algebra (The case of odd k is more subtle due to the KervaireArf invariant. a ﬁnite cell complex satisfying the Poincar´ e e duality: Hi (X0 . This is a fantastic answer to the ”manifold problem” undreamed of 10 years earlier. the above surgery argument applied to a bordism Y between homotopy equivalent manifolds X1 and X2 . i. Are there special ”interesting” classes of manifolds and/or coarser than dif f classiﬁcations? (Something mediating between bordisms and hcobordisms maybe?) The π1 = 1 is very restrictive. Also. this leads to an algebraic classiﬁcation of smooth structures on simply connected manifolds of dimension n ≥ 5. besides the existence of smooth nmanifolds X.. Even the candidates for the cohomole ogy rings are not classiﬁable over Q. e(U ⊥ (S k )) is conveniently equal to the selfintersection index of S k in X. but rather a Poincar´ (Browder) nspace. the question ”What are manifolds?” has the following 1962 Answer. j = 1. Then the Serre ﬁniteness theorem implies that there are at most ﬁnitely many smooth closed simply connected nmanifolds X in a given a homotopy class and with given Pontryagin classes pk ∈ H 4k (X).
all possibilities, you do not have to sweat climbing up steep energy gradients on these routs. And there was no essential new analysis in this texture for about 50 years since Poincar´. e Analysis came back with a bang in 1963 when Atiyah and Singer discovered the index theorem. The underlying idea is simple: the ”diﬀerence” between dimensions of two spaces, say Φ and Ψ, can be deﬁned and be ﬁnite even if the spaces themselves are inﬁnite dimensional, provided the spaces come with a linear (sometimes nonlinear) Fredholm operator D Φ → Ψ . This means, there exists an operator E Ψ → Φ such that (1 − D ○ E) Ψ → Ψ and (1 − E ○ D) Φ → Φ are compact operators. (In the nonlinear case, the deﬁnition(s) is local and more elaborate.) If D is Fredholm, then the spaces ker(D) and coker(D) = Ψ D(Φ) are ﬁnite dimensional and the index ind(D) = dim(ker(D)) − dim(coker(D)) is (by a simple argument) is a homotopy invariant of D in the space of Fredholm operators. If, and this is a ”big IF”, you can associate such a D to a geometric or topological object X, this index will serve as an invariant of X. It was known since long that elliptic diﬀerential operators, e.g. the ordinary Laplace operator, are Fredholm under suitable (boundary) conditions but most of these ”natural” operators are selfadjoint and always have zero indices: they are of no use in topology. ”Interesting” elliptic diﬀerential operators D are scares: the ellipticity condition is a tricky inequality (or, rather, nonequality) between the coeﬃcients of D. In fact, all such (linear) operators currently in use descend from a single one: the AtiyahSingerDirac operator on spinors. Atiyah and Singer have computed the indices of their geometric operators in terms of traditional topological invariants, and thus discovered new properties of the latter. For example, they expressed the signature of a closed smooth Riemannian manifold X as an index of such an operator Dsig acting on diﬀerential forms on X. Since the parametrix operator E for an elliptic operator D can be obtained by piecing together local parametrices, the very existence of Dsig implies the multiplicativity of the signature. The elliptic theory of Atiyah and Singer and their many followers, unlike the classical theory of PDE, is functorial in nature as it deals with many interconnected operators at the same time in coherent manner. Thus smooth structures on potential manifolds (Poincar´ complexes) deﬁne e a functor from the homotopy category to the category of ”Fredholm diagrams” (e.g. operators – one arrow diagrams); one is tempted to forget manifolds and study such functors per se. For example, a closed smooth manifold represents a homology class in Atiyah’s Ktheory – the index of Dsig , twisted with vector bundles over X with connections in them. Interestingly enough, one of the ﬁrst topological applications of the index theory, which equally applies to all dimensions be they big or small, was the solution (Massey, 1969) of the Whitney 4Dconjecture of 1941 which, in a simpliﬁed form, says the following. The number N (Y ) of possible normal bundles of a closed connected nonorientable surface Y embedded into the Euclidean space R4 equals χ(Y ) − 1 + 1,
54
where χ denotes the Euler characteristic.Equivalently, there are χ(Y ) − 1 = 1 possible homeomorphisms types of small normal neighbourhoods of Y in R4 . If Y is an orientable surface then N (Y ) = 1, since a small neighbourhood of such a Y ⊂ R4 is homeomorphic to Y × R2 by an elementary argument. If Y is nonorientable, Whitney has shown that N (Y ) ≥ χ(Y ) − 1 + 1 by constructing N = χ(Y )−1 +1 embeddings of each Y to R4 with diﬀerent normal bundles and then conjectured that one could not do better. Outline of Massey’s Proof. Take the (unique in this case) ramiﬁed double covering X of S 4 ⊃ R4 ⊃ Y branched at Y with the natural involution I X → X. Express the signature of I, that is the quadratic form on H2 (X) deﬁned by the intersection of cycles C and I(C) in X, in terms of the Euler number e⊥ of the normal bundle of Y ⊂ R4 as sig = e⊥ 2 (with suitable orientation and sign conventions) by applying the AtiyahSinger equivariant signature theorem. Show that rank(H2 (X)) = 2 − χ(Y ) and thus establish the bound e⊥ 2 ≤ 2 − χ(Y ) in agreement with Whitney’s conjecture. (The experience of the high dimensional topology would suggest that N (Y ) = ∞. Nowadays, multiple constrains on topology of embeddings of surfaces into 4manifolds are derived with Donaldson’s theory.) Nonsimply Connected Analytic Geometry. The BrowderNovikov theory implies that, besides the EulerPoincar´ formula, there is a single ”Qessential e (i.e. nontorsion) homotopy constraint” on tangent bundles of closed simply connected 4kmanifolds– the RokhlinThomHirzebruch signature relation. But in 1966, Sergey Novikov, in the course of his proof of the topological invariance of the of the rational Pontryagin classes, i.e of the homology homomorphism H∗ (X n ; Q) → H∗ (GrN (Rn+N ); Q) induced by the normal Gauss map, found the following new relation for nonsimply connected manifolds X. Let f X n → Y n−4k be a smooth map. Then the signature of the 4kdimensional pullback manifold Z = f −1 (y) of a generic point, sig[f ] = sig(Z), does not depend on the point and/or on f within a given homotopy class [f ] by the generic pullback theorem and the cobordism invariance of the signature, but it may change under a homotopy equivalence h X1 → X2 . By an elaborate (and, at ﬁrst sight, circular) surgery + algebraic Ktheory argument, Novikov proves that if Y is a ktorus, then sig[f ○ h] = sig[f ], where the simplest case of the projection X × Tn−4k → Tn−4k is (almost all) what is needed for the topological invariance of the Pontryagin classes. (See [27] for a simpliﬁed version of Novikov’s proof and [62] for a diﬀerent approach to the topological Pontryagin classes.) Novikov conjectured (among other things) that a similar result holds for an arbitrary closed manifold Y with contractible universal covering. (This would imply, in particular, that if an oriented manifold Y ′ is orientably homotopy equivalent to such a Y , then it is bordant to Y .) Mishchenko (1974) proved this for manifolds Y admitting metrics of nonpositive curvature with a use of an index theorem for operators on inﬁnite dimensional bundles, thus linking the Novikov conjecture to geometry. (Hyperbolic groups also enter Sullivan’s existence/uniqueness theorem of Lipschitz structures on topological manifolds of dimensions ≥ 5. A biLipschitz homeomorphism may look very nasty. Take, for instance,
55
inﬁnitely many disjoint round balls B1 , B2 , ... in Rn of radii → 0, take a diffeomorphism f of B1 ﬁxing the boundary ∂(B1 ) an take the scaled copy of f in each Bi . The resulting homeomorphism, ﬁxed away from these balls, becomes quite complicated whenever the balls accumulate at some closed subset, e.g. a hypersurface in Rn . Yet, one can extend the signature index theorem and some of the Donaldson theory to this unfriendly biLipschitz, and even to quasiconformal, environment.) The Novikov conjecture remains unsolved. It can be reformulated in purely group theoretic terms, but the most signiﬁcant progress which has been achieved so far depends on geometry and on the index theory. In a somewhat similar vein, Atiyah (1974) introduced square integrable (also ˜ called L2 ) cohomology on noncompact manifolds X with cocompact discrete group actions and proved the L2 index theorem. For example, he has shown that if a compact Riemannian 4kmanifolds has nonzero signature, then the uni˜ versal covering X admits a nonzero square summable harmonic 2kform. This L2 index theorem was extended to measurable foliated spaces (where ”measurable” means the presence of transversal measures) by Alain Connes, where the two basic manifolds’ attributes– the smooth structure and the measure – are separated: the smooth structures in the leaves allow diﬀerential operators while the transversal measures underly integration and where the two cooperate in the ”noncommutative world” of Alain Connes. If X is a compact measurably and smoothly nfoliated (i.e. almost all leaves are smooth nmanifolds) leafwise oriented space then one naturally deﬁnes Pontryagin’s numbers which are real numbers in this case. (Every closed manifold X can be regarded as a measurable foliation with the ”transversal Dirac δmeasure” supported on X. Also complete Riemannian manifolds of ﬁnite volume can be regarded as such foliations, provided the universal coverings of these have locally bounded geometries [11].) There is a natural notion of bordisms between measurable foliated spaces, where the Pontryagin numbers are obviously, bordism invariant. Also, the L2 signature, (which is also deﬁned for leaves being Qmanifolds) is bordism invariant by Poincar´ duality. e The corresponding Lk number, k = n 4, satisﬁes here the Hirzebruch formula with the L2 signature (sorry for the mixup in notation: L2 ≠ Lk=2 ): Lk (X) = sig(X) by the AtiyahConnes L2 index theorem [11]. It seems not hard to generalize this to measurable foliated spaces where leaves are topological (or even topological Q) manifolds. Questions. Let X be a measurable leafwise oriented nfoliated space with zero Pontryagin numbers, e.g. n ≠ 4k. Is X orientably bordant to zero, provided every leaf in X has measure zero. What is the counterpart to the BrowderNovikov theory for measurable foliations? Measurable foliations can be seen as transversal measures on some universal topological foliation, such as the Hausdorﬀ moduli space X of the isometry classes of pointed complete Riemannian manifolds L with uniformly locally bounded geometries (or locally bounded covering geometries [11]), which is tautologically foliated by these L. Alternatively, one may take the space of pointed triangu
56
e. Its potential role is not in exhibiting new structures but. begot Donaldson’s 4Dtheory (1983) and the SeibergWitten theory (1994). there is a nonlinear analysis on foliated spaces. up to rescaling. eventually brings every closed Riemannian 3manifold to a canonical geometric form predicted by Thurston. The former is used by Thurston (starting from late 70s) in his 3Dgeometrization theory and the latter. when manually redirected at its singularities. parabolic HamiltonRicci for 3D and of elliptic YangMills/SeibergWitten for 4D. but singular orbifold foliations are equally interesting and amenable to the general index theory. Let L be a Riemannian symmetric space (e.g. ˜ Then the quotient space X = H O is naturally foliated by the Htranslate copies of L = G O0 . These invariants for the YangMills and SeibergWitten equations unravel an incredible richness of the smooth 4Dtopological structures which remain invisible from the perspectives of pure topology” and/or of linear analysis. the complex hyperbolic space CH n as in section 5). decay on each leaf and where ”decay” for nonlinear objects may refer to a decay of distances between pairs of objects. we take Γ without torsion. Linear operators are diﬃcult to delinearize keeping them topologically interesting. in the form of the YangMills equations. The two exceptions are the CauchyRiemann operator and the signature operator in dimension 4. The nonlinear Ricci ﬂow equation of Richard Hamilton. H may be the special linear group SLN (R) with O = SO(N ) or H may be an adelic group.) The full vector of the Pontryagin numbers of such an X depends. (Possibly. ˜ ˜ This foliation becomes truly interesting if we pass from X to X = X Γ for a discrete subgroup Γ ⊂ H.g. in showing that these do not exist by ironing out bumps and ripples of Riemannian metrics. where H Γ has ﬁnite volume. as follows. but most (all?) known interesting examples descent from group actions. where solutions of. equations fast. (If we want to make sure that all leaves of the resulting foliation in X are manifolds.g. e. does not have any builtin topological intricacy. The simplest transversal measures on such an X are weak limits of convex combinations of Dirac’s δmeasures supported on closed leaves.) There is hardly anything in common between the proofs of Smale and Perel 57 . The logic of Donaldson’s approach resembles that of the index theorem. L2 . For example. This potential was realized in dimension 3 by Perelman in 2003: The Ricci ﬂow on Riemannian 3manifolds. it is similar to the plain heat equation associated to the ordinary Laplace operator. let the isometry group G of L be embedded into a locally compact group H and let O ⊂ H be a compact subgroup such that the intersection O ∩ G equals the (isotropy) subgroup O0 ⊂ G which ﬁxes a point l0 ∈ L. the parabolic relative of Einstein. e. on the contrary. only on L but it is unclear if there are ”natural (or any) bordisms” between diﬀerent X with the same L. his operator D Φ → Ψ is nonlinear Fredholm and instead of the index he studies the bordismlike invariants of (ﬁnite dimensional!) pullbacks D−1 (ψ) ⊂ Φ of suitably generic ψ. Yet.g.lated manifolds with a uniform bound on the numbers of simplices adjacent to the points in L.
g. It seems. we want to follow these ideas in a larger and yet unexplored world of more general ”spaces”. In dimension 2. not myself. where the numbers 2. Thus. 4 in both cases arises from the same formula: 4 =3 2 + 2 a 4 element set has exactly 3 partitions into two 2element subsets and where. Liposomes and Drosophila. the geometric topology has a long way to go in conquering high dimensions with all their symmetries.. In geometry. Many geometric ides were nurtured in the cradle of manifolds.→4→3. seemingly remote. since the reason for the particularity of the numbers 2. In dimension 3. at least on the surface of things. in truth. in topology. 58 .man of the Poincar´ conjecture. e. while the higher groups A(n) are simple nonAbelian. the group SO(2) ”unfolds” into the geometry of Riemann surfaces and then.. observe 3 < 4. the SmaleBrowderNovikov theorems correspond to nonsolvability of equations of degree ≥ 5 while the present day 3D. by comparison. coming from around the string theory and noncommutative geometry – somebody else may comment on these. class ﬁeld theory. If topology followed a contorted path 2→5. In algebra.. when extended to homeo(S 1 ). this transforms into the splitting of the Lie algebra so(4) into so(3) ⊕ so(3).. 11 Crystals. fragment of mathematics – the theory of algebraic equations. But there are a few other directions where geometric spaces may be going. algebra was going straight 1→2→3→4→5. Perelman’s proof is grounded in the inﬁnitesimal O(3)symmetry of Riemannian metrics on 3manifolds (which is broken in Thurston’s theory and even more so in the high dimensional topology based on surgery) and depends on the irreducibility of the space of traceless curvature tensors. Why the statements look so similar? Is it the e same ”Poincar´ conjecture” they have proved? Probably.. the answer is ”no” e which raises another question: what is the high dimensional counterpart of the HamiltonPerelman 3Dstructure? To get a perspective let us look at another.and 4Dtheories are brethren of the magniﬁcent formulas solving the equations of degree 3 and 4. No number n ≥ 5 admits a similar class of decompositions. ? Is there. 3. and it certainly did not stop at this point. What does. correspond to the Galois theory. brings to light the conformal ﬁeld theory. Several exciting new routes were recently opened to us by the high energy and statistical physics. 3 and 4 also play an exceptional role.. the modularity theorem. the formula 4 =3 2 + 2 implies that the alternating group A(4) admits an epimorphism onto A(3). anything in common between this algebra/arthmetic and geometry? It seems so. This leads to the splitting of the space of the 2forms into selfdual and antiselfdual ones which underlies the YangMills and SeibergWitten equations in dimension 4.
X may be a quotient space of such a subspace under some equivalence relation. etc.g. denoted f Γ M Γ → N Γ . from M ”survive” in ΓM for a given group Γ? In particular. X will be a subspace of M Γ . a category of ﬁnite sets. Add new objects to MΓ deﬁned by equivariant systems of equations in X = M Γ . let M → N be a map of nonzero degree. let M and N be manifolds. such as the Euler characteristic and the signature? For instance.g. Then every directed graph G = (V. 1] or M = RP 2 . Which properties of an individual molecule can be determined by a given class of measurement of the whole crystal? Abstractly speaking. what happens to topological invariants which are multiplicative under Cartesian products. q) in CP n × CP n . properties of morphisms and objects. F X = M Γ → Y = N Γ is deﬁned by a single morphism in M. Suppose M admits no topological embedding into N (e. When is the corresponding map f Γ M Γ → N Γ equivariantly homotopic to a nonsurjective map? ΓSubvarieties. as follows. Namely. we enlarge this category as follows.Inﬁnite Cartesian Products and Related Spaces. every morphism f M → N in M tautologically deﬁnes a morphism in MΓ . we start with some category M of ”spaces” M with Cartesian (direct) products. N = [0. If the space of states of each molecule is depicted by some ”manifold” M . e. Every such X is naturally acted upon by Γ and the admissible morphisms in our Γcategory are Γequivariant projective limits of morphisms in M. When does M Γ admit an injective morphism to N Γ in the category MΓ ? (One may meaningfully reiterate these questions for continuous Γequivariant maps between ΓCartesian products. constructions. where.g. E) on the vertex set V deﬁnes a subvari 59 . In particular. and the molecules do not interact. We look for mathematical counterparts to the following physical problem. restrict x(γ) to γ∆ and apply f to this restriction x γ∆ ∈ M γ∆ = M ∆ . say. but MΓ has many other morphisms in it. M = S 1 . N = S 3 ). Let M be an algebraic variety over some ﬁeld F and Σ ⊂ M ×M a subvariety. of smooth manifolds or of algebraic manifolds over some ﬁeld. Thus each morphism. two states are regarded equivalent if they are indistinguishable by a certain class of ”measurements”. say by f M ∆ → N = N where ∆ ⊂ Γ is a ﬁnite (sub)set. a generic algebraic hypersurface of bidegree (p.and N valued functions x(γ) and y(γ) on Γ then the value y(γ) = F (x)(γ) ∈ N is evaluated as follows: translate ∆ ⊂ Γ to γ∆ ⊂ Γ by γ. then the space X of states of our ”crystal” equals the Cartesian power M Γ = ×γ∈Γ Mγ . The objects X ∈ ΓM are projective limits of ﬁnite Cartesian powers M ∆ for M ∈ M and ﬁnite subsets ∆ ⊂ Γ. Which concepts. since not all continuous Γequivariant maps lie in MΓ .) Conversely. ΓPower Category ΓM . if we think of x ∈ X and y ∈ Y as M .g. e. Given a countable group Γ. A crystal is a collection of identical molecules molγ = mol0 positioned at certain sites γ which are the elements of a discrete (crystallographic) group Γ. furthermore. If there are intermolecular constrains. e.
now a function only in t. if F = Fp . i. It is shown in [20] with a use of (SinaiBowen) Markov partitions that this function is rational in t for all ZMarkov quotient systems.) If Γ = Z. in the context of symbolic dynamics [43].) On the other hand. hyperbolic dynamical systems provide encouraging examples at least for the category M of ﬁnite sets. and (p. v ∈ V . and let e P (s.Markov quotient via Markov partitions [35]. Observe that the function P (s. where the quotient graph G Γ is ﬁnite. If M is the category of ﬁnite sets then subobjects in MΓ . (I doubt. q). t) = ∞ k=1 tk P (s) = k. if F = C.i tk si rank(Hi (Σgen (G kZ)).. where (x(v1 ). its topology does not depend on the choices of Σgen (e). and it is being a ﬁnitary deﬁned subobject are hard to satisfy simultaneously. is.g. ΓMarkov quotients Z of Markov shifts are deﬁned with equivalence relations R = R(Σ′ ) ⊂ Y × Y which are Markov subshifts. [7]. (These are called hyperbolic and/or ﬁnitely presented dynamical systems [20]. one does not need directions in the edges. [26]. in M V . say Σ(G) ⊂ M V which consists of those M valued functions x(v). ΓQuotients. These are deﬁned with equivalence relations R ⊂ X × X where R are subobjects in our category. The transitivity of (an equivalence relation) R. then the counterpart of the above P (s. we take a generic representative Σgen = Σgen (e) ⊂ M × M from this family. deﬁned with subsets Σ ⊂ M × M are called Markov Γshifts. We are manly interested in Σ(G) and Σgen (G) for inﬁnite graphs G with a coﬁnite action of a group Γ.. k = 1. if we have a ”suﬃciently ample” family of subvarieties Σ in M × M (e. t) depends only on n. These are studied. Yet. q)hypersurfaces in CP n ×CP n ) and.) Notice that even if Σ is nonsingular. m1 ). Let Pk (s) denote the Poincar´ polynomial of Σgen (G kZ).ety. . of (p. Here are test questions. 2. 60 . what is called the ζfunction of the dynamical system which counts the number of periodic orbits. Let Σ be a hypersurface of bidegree (p. mainly for Γ = Z. we ask the same question for the generating function in two variables counting the Fpl points of Σ(G kZ). call it Σgen (G) is nonsingular and. (If Σ ⊂ M × M is symmetric for (m1 . The local topology of Markov quotient (unlike that of shift spaces which are Cantor sets) may be quite intricate. classical Anosov systems on infranilmanifolds V and/or expanding endomorphisms of V are representable as a Z. Is P (s.e. we want to understand ”inﬁnite dimensional (co)homology” of these spaces. m2 ) ↔ (m2 . then the resulting generic subvariety in M × M .. this ever happens for generic hypersurfaces in CP n × CP n . for each e ∈ E. Σ(G) may be singular. t) meromorphic in the two complex variables s and t? Does it satisfy some ”nice” functional equation? Similarly. q) in CP n × CP n and Γ = Z. For instance. essentially. t). In particular. say for F = C and the ”cardinalities” of their points for ﬁnite ﬁelds F (see [5] for some results and references). x(v2 )) ∈ Σ whenever the vertices v1 and v2 are joined by a directed edge e ∈ E in G. but some are topological manifolds.
”classify” those ΓMarkov quotients Z which are topological manifolds or.g. obviously. Then the εtopological invariance of pi implies the homotopy invariance for these V . These surfaces satisfy certain partial diﬀerential equations of rather general nature (see [30]). membranes dissolve: their constituent molecules become (almost) randomly distributed in the water. This. of invariance of pi under homeomorphisms equally apply to εhomeomorphisms. e. more generally. (The case of ˜ ˜ V = Rn Zn and E v → 2˜ is used by Kirby in his topological torus trick. locally contractible spaces? For example. if V is a nilmanifold V Γ. can one describe the classical Anosov systems Z in terms of the combinatorics of their ZMarkov quotient representations? How restrictive is the assumption that Z is a topological manifold? How much the topology of the local dynamics at the periodic points in Z restrict the topology of Z (E. Using this. ˜ ˜ For example. Since the topological S n−1 bundle S → V associated to the universal covering. in turn. we want to incorporate pseudoAnosov automorphisms of surfaces into the general picture.g. regarded as the principle Γ bundle. as in the case of the hyperbolic groups. one can reduce the homotopy invariance of the Pontryagin classes pi of V to the εtopological invariance. Most known proofs. (where V is a nilpotent Lie group homeomorphic to Rn ) with an expanding endomorphism E V → V (such a V is ˜ ˜ ˜ a ZMarkov quotient of a shift).Another example is where Γ is the fundamental group of a closed nmanifold V of negative curvature. Can one eﬀectively describe the local and global topology of ΓMarkov quotients Z in combinatorial terms? Can one. hyperbolic) group Γ. then a large negative power E −N V → V of the ˜ ˜ ˜ lift E V → V brings any homotopy close to identity. If we heat the water. Are there interesting ΓMarkov quotients over categories M besides ﬁnite sets? For example. V2 and a small ε > 0 depending on these metrics. for hyperbolic groups. for a given (e. (irreducible) ZMarkov quotients becomes more scarce/rigid/symmetric as the topological dimension and/or the local topological connectivity increases. can one have such an object over the category of algebraic varieties over Z with nontrivial (e. starting from Novikov’s. such that the composed maps f11 V1 → V1 and f22 V2 → V2 are εclose to the respective identity maps for some metrics in V1 . positive dimensional) topology in the spaces of its Fpi points? Liposomes and Micelles are surfaces of membranes surrounded by water which are assembled of rodlike (phospholipid) molecules oriented normally to the surface of the membrane with hydrophilic ”heads” facing the exterior and the interior of a cell while the hydrophobic ”tails” are buried inside the membrane. is.) It seems. Questions. The ideal boundary Z = ∂∞ (Γ) is a topological (n − 1)sphere with a Γaction which admits a ΓMarkov quotient presentation [26]. the Markov presentation of Z = S n−1 deﬁnes the topological Pontryagin classes pi of V in terms of Γ.g. if we cool 61 .g. implies the homotopy invariance of pi if the homotopy can be ”rescaled” to an εhomotopy. isomorphic to the unit tangent bundle U T (V ) → V . Recall that an εhomeomorphism is given by a pair of maps f12 V1 → V2 and f21 V2 → V1 . yet.) v A similar reasoning yields the homotopy invariance of pi for many (manifolds with fundamental) groups Γ.
The space of these ”generic maps” f looks as an intermediate between an individual ”deterministic” liposome X and its high temperature randomization. All what an alien browsing through our mathematical manuscripts would directly perceive. say Gout . yet. the surfaces and the equations they satisfy reemerge. An easier problem of this kind presents itself in the classical genetics.the solution. say W . where V is the Thom space of a vector bundle V0 over some space X0 and where manifolds X = f −1 (X0 ) ⊂ W come with their normal bundles induced from the bundle V0 . is a ﬂow of symbols on the paper. What can be concluded about the geometry of a genome of an organism by observing the phenotypes of various representatives of the same species (with no molecular biology available)? This problem was solved in 1913. Morgan’s lab) who reconstructed the linear structure on the set of genes on a chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster from samples of a probability measure on the space of gene linkages. Is there a natural functoriallike transformation P from sensory inputs to mathematical outputs. which are composed of ”somethings” normal to their surfaces X ⊂ W . long before the advent of the molecular biology and discovery of DNA. such that the equations emerge at low temperatures T and also can be read from the properties of high temperature states of S by some ”analytic continuation” in T ? The architectures of liposomes and micelles in an ambient space. it is an essentially mathematical problem a solution of which (in a weaker form) is indicated by Poincar´ in [59]. Can one make this precise? Poincar´Sturtevant Functors. Question. by 19 year old Alfred Sturtevant (then a student in T. Is there a (quasi)canonical way of associating statistical ensembles S to geometric system S of PDE. nor what the meaning of the equality ”=” is. I do not 62 . All what the brain knows about the geometry e of the space is a ﬂow Sin of electric impulses delivered to it by our sensory organs. a map between ”spaces of ﬂows” P S → G such that P(Sin )”=”Gout ? It is not even easy to properly state this problem as we neither know what our ”spaces of ﬂows” are. Here mathematics is more apparent: the geometry of a space X is represented by something like a measure on the set of subsets in X. Besides. we all witness the solution e of this problem by our brains. H. Yet. are reminiscent of ThomAtiyah representation of submanifolds with their normal bundles by generic maps f W → V .
365385 (1965). The Kervaire invariant and surgery theory. 62. no. (1963). 82. I want to thank Andrew Ranicki for his help in editing the ﬁnal draft of this paper. Browder. Cambridge Univ. [4] D. Brown Jr. J. Diﬀerential Geom. Boyle.know how to formulate clearcut mathematical questions in either case (compare [29]. J. 63 . 291310. Algebraic Topology.. I. References [1] P. (1983). Diﬀerential geometry and complex analysis. P. Berlin. A geometric approach to homology theory. Who knows where manifolds are going? 12 Acknowledgments. 18. 4. The AdamsHopf invariants. 13 Bibliography. pp. London Math.. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Aarhus University. Atiyah. 4246.. Spectral geometry of singular Riemannian spaces. (2007). [2] M. Math. Amer. Topological invariant for discrete group actions. Bull. (1976) [7] M. Sanderson. Bertelson. 13:8. (3) 11. (1985). 575657. 97100. Thom complexes. B.math. (1962). www. Barden. Atiyah. Cheeger and M. Simply connected ﬁve manifolds. Gromov. Math. [6] S.pdf [10] J. pp. SpringerVerlag. pp.edu/ mmb/open/. 18. [3] M. Singer. Soc.math.rochester. V. Press. The Index of Elliptic Operators on Compact Manifolds. 147156 (2004). 69: 322433. H. C. 315. Geometric approach to stable homotopy groups of spheres. Phys. Soc. [5] M. Vol. Homotopy type of diﬀerentiable manifolds. Colloq. LMS Lecture Notes 226 (1995) [9] E. reprinted in ”Novikov conjectures. url http://wwwusers. Cheeger. Buoncristiano. E. On the characteristic numbers of complete manifolds of bounded curvature and ﬁnite volume. Proc. 1 (Oberwolfach. [11] J. Rourke. (1961). (2008).umd. Lett. [31]). index theorems and rigidity. Ann. [8] W. Fundam. Mat. Math. Prikl. Rauch Memorial Volume. Open problems in symbolic dynamics.edu/u/faculty/doug/otherpapers/brown2. 1993)”. Akhmet’ev.
(1969). Conﬁguration spaces. Soc. An Application of Gauge Theory to Four Dimensional Topology. Ann. Math. [25] M. pp 489507. Felix. [19] Y. macroscopic dimension. Geom. [23] A. from: ”Surveys on surgery theory. Eccles. 483493 (1981). 7. 41. 8 : 3 pp. Math. (1987). (2000). Eilenberg. (1990). Math. Progr. a [28] M. 87. Mat. Poincar´ duality groups. Rational homotopy theory.[12] A. Press. 72:5. 511522. Codimension one immersions and the Kervaire invariant one problem. Funct. (1940). Ann.. Spaces and questions.C. Local contractibility of the group of homeomorphisms of a manifold. Part I:118161. Gromov. Fund. Princeton Univ. Anal. 231251. In Topology1.). M. 362. Halperin. Davis. Proc. e 1”. Ann. (1968).. Princeton. Chernavskii. II . Special Volume. Nauki. (Itogi. Cohomology and continuous mappings. Springer. 213220 (1980). Princeton University Press. Cambridge Philos. 7693. Studies 97. (2008). 64 . 167193. Soc. Math. Mat. Math. Classical Manifolds. The Geometry and Topology of Coxeter Groups. Proc. The construction of combinatorial manifolds with prescribed sets of links of vertices. On the number of simplices of subdivisions of ﬁnite complexes. 3:5. VINITI. [15] S. Inst. Fuks. Stud. 287333. Positive curvature. Gromov. Eccles.. spectral gaps and higher signatures. of Math. 1213. S. Donaldson. [16] P. Napr. Steklova. pp. Camb. Finitely presented dynamical systems. Phil. 100. groups and actions. Gromov. [18] S. Birkh¨user.. [26] M. Davis. (2001). 90. (2008). Probl. bistellar moves. Furuta. 132.. 339355. J. Multiple points of codimension one immersions of oriented manifolds. 183215. [13] M. Thomas. of Math. Invent.Tech. NJ. . Functional analysis on the eve of the 21st century. 145. [22] M. [17] P. Vol. (2010). Math. Gaifullin. (1983). Zametki. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems. and combinatorial formulae for the ﬁrst Pontryagin class. [14] M. Journal of Diﬀerential Geometry 18 (2): 279315. Math. [24] A. Princeton University Press. (1996). Izvestiya RAN: Ser. Hyperbolic manifolds. Princeton. Gaifullin. USSR Sb. Fried. (1986). [27] M. [21] D. Homology cobordism group of homology 3spheres. pp. Sovr. Vol. (2000). London Mathematical Society Monographs. [20] D. Tr. Gromov. Volume 268. Mat. (1981).
www. Proof of a conjecture of Whitney. Paciﬁc J. Cambridge University Press. (1995). Crystals. (2010). (1962). [30] M. Smoothings and Triangulations. Elsevier North Holland. Levitt. Kreck. www. Milnor. [37] M. London Math. [33] A. I Ann. [42] N. Haeﬂiger. Math. [43] D. Diﬀerential Algebraic Topology. (2) 75. pp. Massey. 38. Studies 88 (1977).. 255306. Siebenmann. Groups of homotopy spheres. J. (2). Weten. Mendelian Dynamics and Sturtevant’s Paradigm. 65 . [40] R. (1935).fr/˜gromov/PDF/ergobrain. pp 227242. Comee ee ment.. [35] B.pdf [38] W. Abbildungsklassen ndimensionaler Mannigfaltigkeiten. Lind and B. Soc. pp. Math. Marcus. Math. in ”Geometric and Probabilistic Structures”. 4782. Hopf.pdf [32] R. 77:3. [36] H. Beitr¨ge zur Topologie der Deformationen III. 112119.math.pdf [31] M. [45] W. Annalen 96.ihes. A .Ravenel. On the nonexistence of elements of Kervaire invariant one. Number 1 (1969). http://www. Contemporary Mathematics Series v. (2002). 521528. Volume 17. of Math. Math. Proteins. 504537 (1963). Keith Burns. Hyperbolic dynamical systems. pp. [41] M. Rourke. 239319.[29] M. Amer. Haeﬂiger. 469. Knotted (4k1)spheres in 6kspace. Stability and Isoperimetry. Trans.Hill. 225250. The existence of combinatorial formulae for characteristic classes. On the diﬀerence between homology and piecewiselinear bundles. Plongements diﬀrentiables de vari´t´s dans vari´t´s.rochester. (1961). of Math. L. Helv. Kervaire. (1973). American Mathematical Society. Ned. Hasselblatt. Volume 31. Martin. 239. J. 143156. 36. Submitted to Bulletin of AMS. Learning and Ergosystems. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. [34] A. D. Hopkins.edu/u/faculty/doug/kervaire− 082609. Dmitry Dolgopyat and Yakov Pesin). 6:2. C. M. (1926). Soc. Gromov. Volume 110. Proc. 452466. (1978). An introduction to symbolic dynamics and coding. Foundational Essays on Topological Manifolds. (1982). Hamilton Threemanifolds with positive Ricci curvature. Ann. [39] M. (ed. a Akad. Providence RI (2007). Ser. Gromov. Kirby. Diﬀerential Geom. Number 2. Handbook of Dynamical Systems 1A. Structures. Ann. [44] N. of Math.ihes. Hurewicz.fr/˜gromov/PDF/pansucrystalsisoper. J. Gromov. (2010). 197204. 391397.
(1974). [54] S. [52] A..4 28752881. and higher signatures. v. Akad. pp. (1961). Izv. Per. Weinberger. [60] L. Nauk S. S. (Encyclopaedia of mathematical sciences). On manifolds homeomorphic to the 7sphere. izd. An alternative proof of a weak form of Serre’s theorem. Nauk SSSR. in “Perspectives in Riemannian Geometry”. of Math. Inﬁnitedimensional representations of discrete groups. The fractal geometry of Riem/Diﬀ.S. Novikov. 361363. [59] H.S. . : Springer. Sovremennye problemy matematiki. N 1. Soc. mat. Nauk SSSR (N. Milnor. 67. Pontryagin. Bernoulli numbers and the unity of mathematics. [47] B. J. 1996. www. by V. (1956). 207246. Ann. Math. CRM Proceedings and Lecture Notes. Amer.pdf [48] J. ser. Poincar´. AMS. Annals of Mathematics 74 (2): 575590 (1961). [57] G.. 48. Topologiya. 223248. Homotopy equivalent smooth manifolds I. 957959.Moscow. Classiﬁcation of continuous transformations of a complex into a sphere. [56] S.Also. Akad.R. Akad. USSRIzv. arXiv:math.. Berlin etc... Akad. Science and hypothesis. (2006). (1965). Sci. Homotopy classiﬁcation of the mappings of an (n + 2)dimensional sphere on an ndimensional one. No. (2) 64 (1956) 399405. 19. . vol. (2003). Perelman. London and NewcastleonTyne: The e Walter Scott Publishing Co. (1905). Providence. Univ. 40. (2002). On manifolds with free Abelian fundamental group and their application. (1966). Bull.365474.wisc. Dokl.. Stable equivalence of diﬀerentiable manifolds. Math. Izv. 154.. Mazur. Soc. Dokl. [51] A.edu/˜boston/Bernoulli. Combinatorics of the space of Riemannian structures and logic phenomena of Euclidean Quantum Gravity. Mazur. 28 (2) (1964). Fundamental’nye napravleniya. 8:1. Milnor and J.S. 66 . Ricci ﬂow with surgery on threemanifolds. vol 110. (2003). [61] L. (In Russian). 30. [55] S. Geometriae Dedicata 101. : Itogi nauki i tekniki. Nauk SSSR .. Nabutovsky. Mishchenko. of Math. Nabutovsky. RI. Milnor. [50] J. ed.) 70. Translations Amer. Topology. Apostolov et al. Novikov. (In Russian) (1938). Math.. Characteristic classes. 1 : General survey.math.319 c. Podkorytov. Novikov. 271396. 85111. Princeton. Two complexes which are homeomorphic but combinatorially distinct. Press (1974). 377384.DG/0303109. (Russian) (1950). [53] A.[46] B. Stasheﬀ. Pontryagin. [58] S. [49] J.
Generalized Poincar´’s conjecture in dimensions greater than e four. Dokl. [65] V. (1962). Number 6. [74] D. Soc. Hyperbolic geometry and homeomorphisms. 5:6(40). Princeton lecture notes (19781981). [71] S. On the construction and topological invariance of the Pontryagin classes arXiv:0901. Athens. Thom. (1960). 67 . 54 (3): 425505. [70] J. 276279. Math.uk/˜cpr/. [64] V. e http://msp. (1950). Bull. (2009). [75] A. Geometric Topology. [72] S. Akad Nauk SSSR. Polyhedral homotopyspheres. [69] JP. The geometry and topology of 3manifolds. 5467. Geometry and Topology 12. 485488. Rokhlin. Applications”. (1977). The combinatorial invariance of Pontryagin classes.. Dokl. Les classes caract´ristiques de Pontrjagin des vari´t´s triane ee gul´es. [68] A. Thom. Orangutans: Wizards of the Rain Forest. Sullivan.ac. (1961). Math. Ga. 62105. (Russian) (1952). Rokhlin. Ann. Cobordism of singular maps. (1957). (1954). (1957).. (1977). Uspekhi Mat. Ann. Akad.1961 391406. Rourke. [73] J. Amer. 75. 114. Thurston. 3846. Topologia Algebraica. 88. of Math. Annals e e of Mathematics. Homologie singuli`re des espaces ﬁbr´s. 2379u 2452 (2008). Akad. Math. [67] C. [66] V. 29: pp. Russon. A. Sz`cs. Georgia Topology Conf. New York. M. Periodica Matematica Hungarica.. Nauk SSSR 113... SSSR 84. Serre. On Pontrjagin characteristic classes. Stallings. (1958). Rokhlin. [76] A. Sz`cs. Proc. Quelques propri´t´s globales des vari´t´s diﬀ´rentiables. Smale. Essay on the Poincar´ conjecture. Minimal varieties in riemannian manifolds. Ann. Simons. e [79] W. Nauk.[62] A. Smale: On the structure of 5manifolds. Academic Press. (2004). Dokl.warwick. 490493. Volume 66. (1968). pp. Schwarz. Rokhlin. 543555. [77] R. New results in the theory of 4dimensional manifolds. Mexico. Ranicki. Nauk. 913.0819. 88101. (2) 74. A geometric proof of a theorem of Serre on pcomponents of u πn+k (S k ). (1951). 221224. [63] V. Weiss. [78] R. Comee ee e mentarii Mathematici Helvetici 28: 1786. Key Porter books. Summary of results in homotopy theory of continuous transformations of a sphere into a sphere.
: American Mathematical Society. Surgery on compact manifolds. Whitney. Whitney. of Math. Monopoles and fourmanifolds. (2) 78. C.I.101141. 69 (2nd ed. [83] E.(1994). Wall. (1944). [82] H. Ann. of Math. The selfintersection of a smooth nmanifold in 2nspace. (1999). Lett. R. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. On the topology of diﬀerentiable manifolds. (1941). Ann. T. University of Michigan Press. 1 (6): 769796. 45. 68 . 220246. Zeeman. from: ”Lectures in Topology”. Providence. Witten. Res.[80] C. (1963). Unknotting combinatorial balls.). [81] H. 501–526. [84] E. Math.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?