3
$\begingroup$

I was reading the following post on mathoverflow: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/80081/what-are-good-examples-of-spin-manifolds in an answer there is written that

Orientability means the tangent bundle trivializes over a 1-skeleton. Dually you could think of that as saying the complement of a co-dimension 2 subcomplex has a trivial tangent bundle.

As Lee Mosher suggests in the comment section, this means that the tangent bundle of an $n$ dimensional $M$ (homeomorphic to a simplicial complex) is trivial when restricted to the $1$-skeleton of $M$.

Unfortunately, I do not manage to prove that this is equivalent to the definition of orientability that I am used to (for smooth manifolds). Namely that exists a never vanishing section of the bundle of $n$-forms over an $n$ dimensional manifold. Can someone explain it to me?

Question: Show that the above definition of orientability (in the smooth setting) is equivalent to the existence of a volume form. Also I wonder why we have that "dual" definition.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Your remark that "any embedding $\gamma$... is such that the pull-back of the tangent bundle ... is a trivial bundle" is confusing; under what hypotheses are you making this assertion? There are only two $\mathbb{R}^n$ bundles over $\mathbb{S}^1$ up to isomorphism, the trivial bundle $\mathbb{S}^1 \times \mathbb{R}^n$ and a nontrivial example. If you consider just a single continuous map $\gamma : \mathbb{S}^1 \to M^n$, triviality of $\gamma^* TM$ is equivalent to saying that $\gamma$ preserves orientation. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Jan 12 '18 at 17:06
  • $\begingroup$ Do you know the fact that $M$ is orientable iff every loop on $M$ is orientation preserving? Meaning that you can find a finite partition of $I$ ($0=t_0<t_1...<t_n=1$) and charts $U_i$ such that the loop maps $[t_1, t_{i+1}]$ to $U_i$ and on each overlap $U_i\cap U_{i+1}$ (with the convention that $U_{n+1}=U_0$) the jacobian of the transition maps are positive. $\endgroup$ – Ahr Jan 12 '18 at 17:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Warlock: Forget about $n$-forms per se, and just think about the line bundle $\mathscr L = \bigwedge^n T^*M$. $M$ is orientable if and only if $\mathscr L$ is trivial. Can you convince yourself that a line bundle on $M$ is trivial if and only if its restriction to the $1$-skeleton is trivial? (Think about the usual differential topology proof that a simply connected manifold is orientable.) $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Jan 12 '18 at 18:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The meaning of the statement "The tangent bundle trivializes over the 1-skeleton $M^{(1)}$" is that $$TM \bigm| M^{(1)} \cong M^{(1)} \times \mathbb{R}^n$$ $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Jan 12 '18 at 19:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As Lee suggested, up to isomorphism, on a circle, there are only two vector bundles of rank $n$ [because $\pi_1(SO(n)) \cong \Bbb Z_2$]. One is an orientable vector bundle; the other is non-orientable. And of course the top exterior power detects precisely this: For a vector bundle $E$ on any reasonable space, $E$ is an orientable bundle of rank $n$ if and only if $\bigwedge^n E$ is the trivial line bundle. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Jan 12 '18 at 19:51
2
$\begingroup$

A manifold is orientable if and only if its first Stiefel-Whitney class vanishes, which is equivalent to say that this class vanishes on the $1$-skeleton.

Basically, by taking a good cover $(U_i)$ that is such that $(U_i\cap U_j)$ is connected of $M$, you can associate a $1$-Cech cocycle which takes its values in $\mathbb{Z}$, it is the sign of the determinant of the coordinate change. This $1$-cocycle is the first Stiefel-Whitney class and is trivial if the manifold is oriented. And $1$-cocycle is trivial if it is trivial on the $1$-skeleton.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you Tsemo, but I am interested in proving that for a smooth manifold the trivialization of the tangent bundle along any 1-skeleton is equivalent to the existence of a volume form. Also I would like to see why we have that dual definition. $\endgroup$ – Warlock of Firetop Mountain Jan 12 '18 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ If the class vanishes on the skeleton it implies that the tangent bundle is trivial over the $1$-skeleton because of the dimension. $\endgroup$ – Tsemo Aristide Jan 12 '18 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ I am not very familiar with Stiefel-Whitney classes or with Cech cohomology, thus I need some time to digest your answer, thank you anyway. Can I find all this in the Milnor-Stasheef's book or there is some other reference you would suggest me? $\endgroup$ – Warlock of Firetop Mountain Jan 12 '18 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ You can also remark that an orientable vector bundle over $S^1$ is defined by a classifying map $S^1\rightarrow BSO(n)$, the homotopy exact sequence of Serre applied to the universal fibration $ESO(n)\rightarrow BSO(n)$ shows that $\pi_1(BSO(n))=1$ since $ESO(n)$ is contractible and $SO(n)$is connected, this implies that the bundle is trivial. $\endgroup$ – Tsemo Aristide Jan 12 '18 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ Finally I have understood your answer. $\endgroup$ – Warlock of Firetop Mountain Oct 28 '18 at 19:56

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.