I'm reading Kirby's The Topology of $4$ Manifolds, and I encountered the following claim:

Recall that a trivialised sub $k$-plane bundle of a trivialised $(n+k)$-plane bundle determines a trivialisation of the orthogonal $n$-plane bundle over the $(n-1)$-skeleton of the base space

How can I prove it?

What I did: My first thought was to use the characterization of Stiefel - Whitney classes as obstruction classes, but when we are dealing with $n$-frames in an $n$-plane bundle, the first class only detects a trivialisation on the $1$-skeleton, (an orientation), and the higher classes detect the presence of $n'$-frames ($n'<n$) on higher skeleta.

The results (that I'm aware of) about extending the $n$-frame on the $1$-skeleton to higher skeleta fail to apply since the fibre ($ V_n(\mathbb{R}^n)\cong GL_n(\mathbb{R})$) is not $k$-simple for any $k$. The other approach with obstruction theory was to try proving that the classifying map $f\colon B\to BSO(n)$ is trivial when restricted to the $n-1$ skeleton (that should prove my claim). Even though BSO(n) is simply connected, I don't know higher homotopy groups of it and therefore can t apply obstruction theory.

I tried applying even the prolongation theorem from Husemoller, page $21$, but the fibre is not $m-1$-connected for any $m$, since it is $GL_n(\mathbb{R}^n)$.

From the hypothesis it's easy to see that the Stiefel-Whitney classes of the orthogonal bundle all vanish, but by the remark before, I can't use this information.

What I found strange (about my approaches) is that I'm not using that our bundle is the orthogonal complement of a trivial subbbundle and the "total" bundle where they live is trivial. That's why I fear I'm missing something

Could someone provide me some hints about this claim?


This is a special case of the "Real Cancellation Theorem: suppose $X$ is $d$-dimensional CW complex and $E\to X$ an $n$-dimensional real vector bundle with $n>d$. Then, if $F$ is another vector bundle and $E\oplus \mathbb{R}^k\simeq F\oplus \mathbb{R}^k$, then $E\simeq F$."

By choosing $E=\mathbb{R^n}$ you get the thesis. Another way of stating the problem is the following:

"Given a stably trivial vector bundle $E$ on a CW complex $B$ with $\dim E>\dim B$, then $E$ is already trivial".

This is the content of the following

from the book "Differentiable Manifolds"-Kosinski (page 170). It relies on proposition 1.1 (same book):


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.