Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Here, $K$ is complex K-theory, $R(G)$ is the complex representation ring of $G$ (which -- for now, though it shouldn't matter -- is a finite group), and $K_G$ is $G$-equivariant complex K-theory.

In fact, I don't even see how the map is supposed to run. If $E\rightarrow X$ is a vector bundle and $G \rightarrow \mbox{Aut}(V)$ is a $G$-representation, then I should be able to get a vector bundle out of the pair $(E,V)$. (If so, I can extend in the obvious way to formal differences in both slots.) If $\mbox{rk }E = \dim V =r$, then we can just convert $E$ into a principal $U(r)$-bundle $\mathcal{F}(E)$ and apply the Borel construction $\mathcal{F}(E) \times_{U(r)} V$; up to messing with which side things are acting on, this admits a fiberwise $G$-action and we're good to go. I'll denote this composite construction by $E \cdot V$ for brevity. If $E$ and $V$ don't have the same rank, then presumably we should stabilize until they do and then proceed as before, but I'm having trouble working this out. If $\mbox{rk }E=n$ and $\dim V=n+d$, then we could carry this out as $E\cdot V = (E\oplus\underline{\mathbb{R}^d})\cdot V - \underline{\mathbb{R}^d} \cdot V$ ... but now we're stuck trying to define the subtrahend, which is no better than before. Ditto for when the ranks are switched.

Then, why is this an isomorphism if $G$ acts trivially on $X$? I've seen this stated breezily in two different sources, with no indication of why it should be true. To describe a backwards map, we might take a $G$-equivariant bundle $E \rightarrow X$, choose a point $x\in X$ and then decompose $E \stackrel{\sim}{\leftarrow} \mathcal{F}_{E_x}(E) \times_{U(r)} E_x$ (where by $\mathcal{F}_{E_x}(E)$ I mean the frames modeled on the complex vector space $E_x$). But I'm having trouble convincing myself that this is indeed $G$-equivariant. I suspect I'm missing something basic here; I'm not sure I have a single equivariant bone in my whole body.

share|cite|improve this question
I feel for you - I too, have no equivariant bones! But have you checked 'Segal - Equivariant K-theory'? The map $K(X) \otimes R(G) \to K_G(X)$ seems to be fairly easy to construct - there is always a map from $X$ to a point, and so this gives a map $R(G) \to K_G(X)$. For a trivial action we also have a homomorphism $K(X) \to K_G(X)$ and the combination is the map in question. Segal then explicitly constructs an inverse to this map – Juan S Sep 2 '12 at 22:49
@JuanS: Ah, I've looked at it but I'll check again! This was one of the two sources I was referring to in my last paragraph. (The other is Rezk's notes on power operations.) IIRC it's on the very first page that Segal asserts this isomorphism as a self-evident fact. Maybe I should have read further. – Aaron Mazel-Gee Sep 3 '12 at 0:12
See Proposition 2.2 – Juan S Sep 3 '12 at 2:08
Not having looked at the paper in a long time, I think the point should just be that you can consider your G-representation as a vector space (with G-action) and cross with X to get a trivial bundle (with fiberwise G-action) and then tensor that (G-)vector bundle with your bundle $E\rightarrow X$. This is the same as what Juan said, essentially; I'm just saying it less functorially. – Dan Ramras Sep 3 '12 at 6:39
@DanRamras: Yeah, that's essentially what I was trying to do in my final paragraph. I'll expand in a CW answer. – Aaron Mazel-Gee Sep 3 '12 at 10:56

Here is one (maybe not to enlightning) way to see that at least these two groups are abstractly isomorphic. Please let me know if I got something wrong.

My proof will use that topological $K$-theory is a special case of bivariant $K$-theory. Moreover it is important that the group $G$ is compact (or discrete and finite). Let me also assume for simplification that $X$ is compact. So here we go:

$K^G(X) \cong K_0^G(C(X))$ due to an equivariant version of the Theorem of Swan. Now we use bivariant $K$-theory to get $K_0^G(C(X)) \cong KK_0^G(\mathbb{C},C(X))$.

Now there is a Theorem called the Theorem of Green and Julg, saying that $KK^G_0(\mathbb{C},C(X)) \cong KK_0(\mathbb{C},C(X)\rtimes G)$ where $C(X)\rtimes G$ denotes the socalled crossed product $C^*$-algebra of the $G$-$C^*$-algebra $C(X)$. This is only true if $G$ is compact. For a proof see for example the book "basic bundle theory and $K$-cohomology invariants" partly written by Husemöller. There is a proof of the Green-Julg Theorem in there by S. Echterhoff using $KK$-theory.

Now it is a fact from $C^*$-algebra theory that if $G$ acts trivially on an algebra like $C(X)$ in your case, that $C(X)\rtimes G \cong C(X)\otimes C^*G$. In the case where $G$ is discrete this is just $C(X)\otimes \mathbb{C}G$.

Now using the Künneth-type sequence of Claude Schochet (both algebras are nuclear, (at least if $G$ is finite and discrete) and therefore in the bootstrap category).

$0 \to K_*(A)\otimes K_*(B) \to K_*(A\otimes B) \to \mathrm{Tor}(K_*(A),K_*(B)) \to 0$

for the case $A=C(X)$ and $B= \mathbb{C}G$ and using the fact that $K_0(\mathbb{C}G) \cong R_{\mathbb{C}}(G)$ and $K_1(\mathbb{C}G) = 0$ we see that the Tor term vanishes and that

$K^G_0(C(X)) \cong KK_0(\mathbb{C},C(X)\rtimes G) \cong K_0(C(X)\otimes \mathbb{C}G) \cong K_0(C(X))\otimes R_{\mathbb{C}}(G)$

Note that we also use that $KK_*(\mathbb{C},C(X)) \cong K_0(C(X))$.

Actually we could have avoided $KK$-theory, but I do not know a reference of the Green-Julg isomorphism that does not use $KK$-theory.

share|cite|improve this answer
Haha. This is cool, but you're right that it's not particularly enlightening (at least for those of us who aren't $C^*$-algebraists!). In any case, it's good to know that this result is a special case of a much more general theory. – Aaron Mazel-Gee Sep 3 '12 at 13:12
so I just checked, also in the case where $G$ is non-discrete but compact, it still is true that $G$ is amenable, hence the full groups $C^*$-algebra $C^*G$ is nuclear. In particular your isomorphism should also hold for compact groups if we identify or replace $R(G)$ by $K_0(C^*G)$. :) .. thanks that you still like the approach, although it is kind of abstract nonsense.. – mland Sep 3 '12 at 14:34
up vote 2 down vote accepted

So it turns out that I actually got the map wrong, or at least I was being too complicated by trying to use frame bundles; rather than define it on arbitrary monomials, one just uses the universal property of the tensor product. Specifically, as Juan S points out in the comments, there's a "trivial $G$-action" map $K(X) \rightarrow K_G(X)$, and there's the map $R(G)=K_G(\mbox{pt}) \rightarrow K_G(X)$, induced by the terminal map $X \rightarrow \mbox{pt}$ (which is a map of trivial $G$-spaces).

To prove that the induced map $\varphi: K(X) \otimes R(G) \rightarrow K_G(X)$ is an isomorphism, we construct an explicit inverse $\psi$ (as I attempted to do above). This assumes that $G$ is compact (so that its set $\mbox{simp}(G)$ of isomorphism classes of simple representations is finite, maybe?). Our explicit inverse $\psi:K_G(X) \rightarrow K(X) \otimes R(G)$ is given on a $G$-vector bundle $E$ by $$\psi(E) = \sum_{V \in \mbox{simp}(G)} \mbox{Hom}^G(\underline{V},E) \otimes [V].$$ On the one hand, $\varphi \circ \psi = \mbox{id}_{K_G(X)}$ since $$\sum_{V \in \mbox{simp}(G)} \mbox{Hom}^G(\underline{V},E) \otimes [V] \mapsto \bigoplus_{V \in \mbox{simp}(G)} \mbox{Hom}^G(\underline{V},E) \otimes \underline{V} \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} E$$ (as this is true fiberwise). On the other hand, we can check factorwise that $\psi \circ \varphi = \mbox{id}_{K(X) \otimes R(G)}$. First, $$E \otimes 1 \mapsto E \mapsto \sum_{V \in \mbox{simp}(G)}\mbox{Hom}^G(\underline{V},E) \otimes [V] = \mbox{Hom}^G( \underline{1},E) \cong E$$ since any nontrivial $V\in \mbox{simp}(G)$ induces a $G$-bundle $\underline{V}$ which has no nontrivial maps to $E$. Second, $$ 1 \otimes [V_0] \mapsto \underline{V_0} \mapsto \sum_{V\in \mbox{simp}(G)} \mbox{Hom}^G(\underline{V},\underline{V_0}) \otimes [V] = \mbox{Hom}^G(\underline{V_0},\underline{V_0}) \otimes [V_0] = 1 \otimes [V_0]$$ since nonisomorphic simple representations don't have any nontrivial maps between them.

QED. Note that we're using (twice) the fact that $\mbox{Hom}^G (\underline{V}, \underline{V})=\underline{1}$ (i.e. the endomorphisms of a simple representation are only the scalars). In general, the endomorphisms of a simple representation form an associative division algebra over the base field; as this must be finite-dimensional (since it's contained in the endomorphism ring of the underlying vector space) and $\mathbb{C}$ is algebraically closed, it follows that the endomorphisms in the complex case are just the complex scalars.

share|cite|improve this answer
$Hom_G (V,V) = 1$ always holds for complex representations. This is a consequence of Schur's lemma (which says that every map of irreps is either 0 or an isomorphism). For take $T \in Hom_G(V,V)$. Since this is over $\mathbb C$, $T$ has an eigenvalue $c$. Now $T-cId \in Hom_G(V,V)$ and is not invertible so it must be 0 by Schur. Thus $T = c Id$. – Eric O. Korman Sep 3 '12 at 13:50
@Eric: Thanks, I just discovered this myself a few minutes ago; I must have been editing the final paragraph while you were commenting. – Aaron Mazel-Gee Sep 3 '12 at 13:55

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.