I was reading the wonderful book "The wild world of 4-manifolds" by Alexandru Scorpan and I found the following sentence:

"We are able to orient $\mathfrak{M}$ (else we only get modulo 2 invariants)."

Here $\mathfrak{M}$ is the moduli space of instantons on a four-manifold. The thing is that I have seen similar statements before in the literature. These statements seem to associate singular homology $H^{\ast}(M,\mathbb{Z}_{2})$ with $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ coefficients to non-orientable manifolds and singular homology $H^{\ast}(M,\mathbb{Z})$ with $\mathbb{Z}$ coefficients to orientable manifolds. However I don't understand this. Certainly one can define $H^{\ast}(M,\mathbb{Z}_{2})$ for any manifold $M$, oriented or not, and one can define $H^{\ast}(M,\mathbb{Z})$ again for any manifold, oriented or not. So why are the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ coefficients related to non-orientable manifolds?



I think the basic source of the statement comes from Poincare-duality. This builds on the fact that a closed oriented manifold has a fundamental holomology class in in $H_n(M,\mathbb Z)$, where $n=\dim(M)$. This class is obtained from local fundamental classes which are determined up to sign and the condition that these classes can be chosen consistently to fit together to a global class exactly is orientability. If one drops the orientability requirement, then there is no fundamental class, but the construction still can be pushed through for coefficients in $\mathbb Z_2$. Therefore any compact manifold admits a fundamental homology class in $H_n(M,\mathbb Z_2)$ and Poincare-duality works in general with $\mathbb Z_2$-coefficients.

Starting from this basic ingredient, it turns out that several constructions for oriented closed manifolds, which involve integral cohomology, admit an a non-orientable analog with $\mathbb Z_2$-coefficients.


I'm not sure I understand your quesiton. The Donaldson invariants are actually defined by taking $\mathcal M$ and intersecting it with submanifolds defined by homology classes $[\Sigma_i]$, and when you eventually get something of dimension 0, you count the number of points. (This defines a polynomial in $H^2(X;\Bbb Z)$, more or less.) This last bit - counting the points - is where we needed the orientation of $\mathcal M$, for then we get a signed count of points. If you cannot count signed points, you get mod 2 invariants, just like in degree theory/intersection theory. (I don't know if Scorpan talks about this, but the orientation of $\mathcal M$ depends on a little more than just the orientation of the underlying manifold; it depends also on something called a homology orientation. Not super important, though.)

I have never thought about the non-orientable theory, but the point is that when you cut down by surfaces in $2H^2(X;\Bbb Z)$, you end up with an even number of points, and hence your mod 2 invariants are zero. So they're really only $\Bbb Z/2$-valued polynomials in $H^2(X;\Bbb Z/2)$; there's no value whatsoever in defining it as a polynomial in $H^2(X;\Bbb Z)$ - we're just going to be writing down lots of extra zeroes.


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.