5
$\begingroup$

In Bredon's book, at page 118-119, there is a little chapter about the Thom-Pontrjagin construction, and I'm trying to follow the reason depicted there.

He starts with a map $f \colon R^{n+k}\to R^n_+$ (constant outside a compact) coming from a map $f \colon S^{n+k}\to S^n$ where we identify the spheres with the one-point compactification of the respective real spaces (denoted with $R^n_+$), and he builds a fattened manifold $M^k\times E^n \xrightarrow{embedded} R^{n+k}$ using such map $f$. Then he introduce this map $\theta$, homotopic to the identity of $R^n_+$ which spreads $E^n$ on all $R^n$ and everything else to $\infty$. and now it comes the part which is confusing me:

Then the composition $\theta\circ f\simeq f$ is the same as the map taking $N\cong M^k\times E^n \to E^n$ by the projection followed by a diffeomorphism $E^n\to R^n$ and taking everything else to $\infty$. Therefore every fattened $k-$manifold $g\colon M^k\times E^n \to R^{n+k}$ gives rise to a map $\phi_g \colon R^{n+k} \to R^n_+$ of this form, and every map $R^{n+k} \to R^n_+$ as above, is homotopic to a map arising in this way.

picture in bredon

I don't get how a fattened manifold induces the map $\phi_g$, because the only idea which came to my mind is to include the fat. manifold in $R^{n+k}$, project to the second factor $E^n$, and then use the map $\theta$ (as suggested by the picture above?) but in this way the induced map is always null-homotopic, because $E^n \neq S^n$ and therefore by composing with a stereographic projection we can "shrink" it to a point.

So how does this "assignment" works precisely?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

I think, "fattern manifold" is $k$-submanifold $M\subset\mathbb R^{n+k}$ with trivialized normal bundle, so you can identify neighborhood of $M$ with $M\times E^n$, $g$ is the inclusion $M\times E^n\subset \mathbb R^{n+k}$. And the map $\theta_g$ is constructed as follows: you should project $M\times E^n$ on the $E^n$, then cover $S^n$ without $\infty$ by this $E^n$, and send all the $\mathbb R^{n+k}\setminus (M\times E^n)$ to $\infty$.

If you continue $\theta_g$ on the $S^{n+k}=\mathbb R^{n+k}\cup\{\infty\}$ (let $\infty\mapsto\infty$), this mapping is not always null-homotopic. For example, if $n=2$, $k=1$ and $M$ is $S^1$ with standart embedding into $\mathbb R^3$, the map $\theta_g:S^3\to S^2$ will be homotopic to Hopf fibration (you can prove is as a beautiful geometric-topology exercise).

EDIT: But fixed trivialization of normal bundle (or neighborhood) of $S^1$ with $S^1\times \mathbb R^2$ must be not "trivial", it must be twisted so that any two constant sections form the Hopf link.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ (sorry for late answering your nice answer) so there must be a fault in my reasoning about the null-homotopicness of the map. What can possibly go wrong so? $\endgroup$ – Riccardo Jul 31 '15 at 8:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ of course, the map $M\times E^n\to S^n$ can be null-homotopic, but when the source becomes $S^{n+k}$ it already cannot. the easiest example is when as the $M$ you take one point (so $k=0$), this brings us the identity map $S^{n+0}\to S^n$ . $\endgroup$ – Andrey Ryabichev Jul 31 '15 at 9:50
  • $\begingroup$ i was wondering.. do you have some hints on how to do the "exercise" of the Hopf Fibration? I tried writing down the maps but I don't see where the Hopf map comes out let's say $\endgroup$ – Riccardo Jul 31 '15 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ sorry, there is a mistake: the trivialization of normal bundle with $S^1\times \mathbb R^2$, that you fix, must be not "trivial", it must be twisted so that any two constans sections form the Hopf link (otherwise preimages of different points of $S^2$ will be not linking and the map really will be null-homotopic). if you, conversely, take the Hopf map, just look on the preimages of different points, identifying $S^3\setminus\{\infty\}$ with $\mathbb R^3$. $\endgroup$ – Andrey Ryabichev Jul 31 '15 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Andrey, I posted another question about this topic, do you have time to give it a look? because I really like your answer here math.stackexchange.com/questions/1386435/… $\endgroup$ – Riccardo Aug 6 '15 at 11:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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