3

I am trying to understand this mathematical physics paper by A. Kapustin, which assumes knowledge of bordism invariants of smooth compact manifolds: https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1467v3

For example, some non-trivial unoriented bordism groups are $$ \Omega^O_2 = \mathbb{Z}_2,\qquad\Omega^O_4 = \mathbb{Z}_2\oplus \mathbb{Z}_2\quad\textrm{and}\quad \Omega^O_5 = \mathbb{Z}_2$$

In the paper, Kapustin does not write explicit formulas for these invariants. However, he formulates the actions of the corresponding physical systems studied (pages 10-11). From those formulas, I expect the corresponding bordism invariants to be computed as integrals of cup products of Stiefel-Whitney classes.

Explicitly for the three groups above

$$n_2 = \int w_1^2 $$

$$n_4^{(1)} = \int w_1^4\quad\textrm{and}\quad n_4^{(2)} = \int w_2^2$$

$$n_5 =\int w_2 w_3$$

where all the products/powers are cup product, i.e. $w_2^2 = w_2 \smile w_2$ etc., and the Stiefel-Whitney class $w_q \in H^q(M,\mathbb{Z}_2)$ is a q-cocycle that "somehow" describes the topology of the manifold via its tangent bundle.

Given a triangulation of a manifold, together with a q-cocycle on each q-skeleton, it is clear to me how to compute the cup products and the integrals.

However, what is very unclear to me is how a triangulated manifold is equipped with the q-cocycles that characterize the tangent bundle in the first place. I understand that there should be some canonical choice (perhaps up to coboundary), but how does one explicitly construct this?

For example, let's say that I take $\mathbb{R}P^4$ or $\mathbb{C}P^2$ (which should correspond to different non-trivial elements of $\Omega_4^O$) - or perhaps some more trivial but lower-dimensional examples - with some triangulations. Then how can I define the corresponding 1-cocycles and 2-cocycles (i.e. a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ numbers of each 1-simplex resp. 2-simplex, which are subject to the cocycle condition) that characterize the tangent bundle?

Tomáš Bzdušek
  • 546
  • 2
  • 14

1 Answers1

2

Quoting (from memory) Milnor and Stasheff, Characteristic Classes,

"A curious fact is that for a triangulated manifold $M$, the Poincare dual of the total Stiefel-Whitney class is given by the sum of all simplices in the first barycentric subdivision of a triangulation."

In particular, if you have, say, a unit 2-sphere represented as a tetrahedron, then you can subdivide each face into 6 triangles using barycentric subdivision, and take the union of all the edges in this subdivision, and you get a cycle, $u_1$, whose homology class is Poincare dual to $w_1$.

Slightly more interesting is to do the same with an octahedron, because it's symmetric under the antipodal map. Summing up all edges in the first barycentric subdivision gives $u_1$, again dual to $w_1$. But if you take only those edges in the upper hemisphere, then their image, under the quotient by the antipodal map, gives a cycle in $RP^2$ whose homology class is the unique nonzero element of $H_1$, and whose dual is $w_1$, the generator of the cohomology ring of $RP^2$.

I think that M&S credit this result to Cheeger. And I'm sure I've gotten the quotation slightly wrong, but the gist is mostly correct. I'm thinking that the quotation appears somewhere in chapters 9-12, but that's just a shot in the dark. Perhaps it's in the section on obstruction theory.

John Hughes
  • 93,729
  • Thank you! It will take me some time to process this, but you are right -- I found this statement in Milnor & Stasheff, on page 143 in Chapter 12. – Tomáš Bzdušek Apr 15 '20 at 11:44
  • Excellent. I spent so much time reading and re-reading that book back in about 1979 that I can probably recite whole sections of it. :) – John Hughes Apr 15 '20 at 13:04
  • I can see that the described construction on tetrahedron gives a trivial 1-cycle, while the construction on $\mathbb{R}P^2$ (the half-octagon) gives a non-contractible 1-cycle. Your other answer here https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2212258/where-do-the-stiefel-whitney-numbers-and-the-general-characteristic-numbers-co with coloring of the simplex-centers has helped me understand it better.

    It's really peculiar that this simple trick also works (although difficult to visualize...) in higher dimensions. Thank you for mentioning this!

    – Tomáš Bzdušek Apr 15 '20 at 14:50
  • Do you know what makes the barycentric subdivision so useful here? Is it the fact that each p-simplex of the resulting (i.e. subdivided) triangulation is on the boundary of an even number of (p+1)-simplices? – Tomáš Bzdušek Apr 15 '20 at 16:38
  • Clint McCrory (I think) gave a lovely talk that gave a nice intuitive explanation: Take an equilateral triangle that's been subdivided. Fold it along each of the three medians, and you'll end up with all six 2-simplices stacked up, all the 1-simplices stacked up as well (with each original half-edge in the same stack, each $2/3$-median in another, and each $1/3$-median in a third), and finally, each original vertex in one stack (twice), each mid-edge vertex in another (twice), and the centroid vertex in the third (six times). If you do this for ALL triangles of a triangulated surface $F$ ... – John Hughes Apr 15 '20 at 17:45
  • ...you get a map from $F$ to a single triangle in the plane. The "fold set" of this map (places where adjacent triangles have opposite normals, more or less) ends up being...every edge of the subdivided triangulation. And (with a little fiddling to a theorem of Banchoff -- https://www.jstor.org/stable/2039937?seq=1) you can see that this fold set is homologous to the first SW-homology class. I believe McCrory said that tis generalizes to all the SW-homology classes, which would explain the coincidence. I have no idea whether he ever published it. – John Hughes Apr 15 '20 at 17:49