I am attempting Exercise 12.15 in Dan Freed's notes. It says the following:

suppose $M$ is a closed oriented $4k$-manifold whose rational bordism class is the sum $c_{i_1 \cdots i_r} y^{i_1} \cdots y^{i_r}$ under the isomorphism $\mathbb{Q}[y^1,y^2,y^3,\dots] \stackrel{\cong}{\to} \Omega^{SO} \otimes \mathbb{Q}$, then $c_{i_1 \cdots i_r}$ is the Pontrjagin number $p_{i_1 \cdots i_r}$ of the stable normal bundle over $M$.

I am stuck with the identification of $y^I$ and also his hint to use Pontrjagin-Thom collapse which should bring in the stable normal bundle.

Could somebody help me? If the proof is lengthy then could somebody points me to a reference?


I'm going to outline an argument, but it's sketchy at parts and I leave it to you to fill in the gaps. For convenience, I'm going to abbreviate $x^I := x^{i_1} \cdots x^{i_r}$ and $p_I = p_{i_1} \cdots p_{i_r}$.

Idea 1: If you squint at Theorems 12.4 and 12.9, you should believe that the class $x^I \in \pi_{4k} MSO$ is "dual" to the product of the Pontryagin classes $p_I$.

Idea 2: Recall the Pontryagin-Thom construction. In particular, recall how to go from an element $\pi_{4k} MSO$ to a (cobordism class of) a $4k$-manifold. Roughly an element $x \in \pi_{4k} MSO$ corresponds to a map $S^{4k+l} \to MSO(l)$ for $l \gg 0$. Since $S^{4k+l}$ is compact, this map factors through the Thom space of the tautological oriented $l$-plane bundle $\gamma_l^+$ over the oriented Grassmannian $\operatorname{Gr}^+(m,l)$ for $m \gg 0$. The preimage of the zero section $\operatorname{Gr}^+(m,l) \subset \operatorname{Th}(\gamma_l^+)$ in $S^{4k+l}$ is the wanted $4k$-manifold $M$. In other words, we have \begin{array}{ccccc} M & \rightarrow & S^{4k+l} \\ \downarrow & & \downarrow & \overset{x}{\searrow} \\ \operatorname{Gr}^+(m,l) & \xrightarrow[0]{} & \operatorname{Th}(\gamma_l^+) & \hookrightarrow & MSO(l) \end{array} where the left square is a pullback. By abuse of notation, I'm also going to call all the vertical maps $x$.

We want to compute the Pontryagin number of the stable normal bundle $\nu_M$. Since we've taken $l \gg 0$, I'm going to suppress mentioning "stable".

Idea 3: Identify this normal bundle using naturality. By construction, $\nu_M = (x^I)^* \nu_{\operatorname{Gr}}$ is the pullback of the normal bundle of the Grassmannian $\operatorname{Gr}^+(m,l)$ in $\operatorname{Th}(\gamma_l^+)$. This normal bundle is just $\gamma_l^+$.

The Pontryagin number we want to compute is $$\langle p_I(\nu_M), [M] \rangle = \langle (x^I)^* p_I(\gamma_l^+), [M] \rangle.$$ By definition of the Pontryagin classes using the universal bundle, $p_I(\gamma_l^+)$ is the cohomology class $p_I \in H^* \operatorname{Gr}^+(m,l)$.

But the conclusion of idea 1 is that $x^I$ is "dual" to $p_I$, which more precisely means in cohomology $(x^I)^* p_J$ is $[M]^\vee$ (dual to the fundamental class $[M] \in H_{4k} M$) if $I = J$, and $0$ otherwise.

So we have shown that $$\langle p_I(\nu_M), [M] \rangle = \langle \delta_{I = J} [M]^\vee, [M] \rangle = \delta_{I = J}.$$

The rest of the argument is straightforward.

  • $\begingroup$ I see! Many thanks for the sketch of proof! I think the key fact is that $\text{Gr}^+(m,l)$ as a zero section of $\text{Th}(\gamma_l^+) \to \text{Gr}^+(m,l)$, because from it we can (1) construct the stable normal bundle over $M$ by pullback and (2) introduce the homotopy type (equivalently the bordism class) of $x$ which defines $M$, am I right? (I am trying to summarize your proof into one sentence which I always try to do in learning math : ) $\endgroup$ – PhysicsMath Aug 7 '16 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ One minor question: if you look at 12.4 and 12.9 the ``dual'' is actually dual up to cup product with Thom space (from the Thom isomorphism). I actually was not very comfortable about what Thom space we use for the cup product and why we can safely ignore that. $\endgroup$ – PhysicsMath Aug 7 '16 at 21:42
  • $\begingroup$ Also is it a typo that you use $S^{4k}$ instead of $S^{4k+l}$ in the commutative diagram? $\endgroup$ – PhysicsMath Aug 7 '16 at 21:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, fixed the "$+l$" typo. As for the other comment, the Thom class is essentially uniquely determined, which is why I am sloppy with the Thom isomorphism. I think this is the same "sloppiness" when I abuse notation and call all the vertical maps in the diagram $x$. In any case, it's probably a good exercise for you to verify that the "duality" between $x^I$ and $p_I$ that you get from all the isomorphisms (Thom, etc.) gives me what I use, which is the formula $(x^I)^* p_I = [M]^\vee$ (for suitably interpreted $x^I$). $\endgroup$ – JHF Aug 7 '16 at 22:07

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.