Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Milnor's statement is: "Let $M^r$ and $N^s$ be sub-manifolds of $V^{r+s}$ which are all smooth, compact, oriented and without boundary. If $p$ is a point of $M^r$ contained in an $r$-cell $U$, naturality of the Thom isomorphism implies that the inclusion induced map

$H_r(U,U-p) \longrightarrow H_r(V,V-N)$

is an isomorphism given by $\gamma \rightarrow \epsilon \psi(\alpha)$ where $\gamma$ is the orientation generator of $H_r(U,U-p)$, $\psi:H_0(N) \longrightarrow H_r(V,V-N)$ is the Thom isomorphism, $\alpha$ is the canonical generator of $H_0(N)$ and $\epsilon$ is the intersection number of $M$ and $N$ at $p$."

I understand that naturality of the Thom isomorphism is the fact that this diagram commutes, \begin{matrix} H_0(p)&\stackrel{j_*}{\longrightarrow}&H_0(N)\\ \downarrow{\psi}&&\downarrow{\psi}\\ H_r(U,U-p)&\stackrel{i_*}{\rightarrow}&H_r(V,V-N) \end{matrix}

where $i_*$ and $j_*$ are induced by inclusion. By the commutativity of the diagram, it is clear to me that $i_*$ is an isomorphism, but I don't see why $i_*(\gamma)=\epsilon \psi(\alpha)$.

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.