5
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ be a compact orientable manifold with the first two Stieffel-Whitney numbers equal to zero (this is my definition of SPIN manifold). Let $B$ be the boundary of $M$; I want to show that $B$ is spin (in the sense that I've already stated).

I know that there is a theorem of Pontryagin that holds in a more general context and gives a stronger result (if $M$ is a compact manifold with boundary, than the Stieffel-Whitney numbers $w_i$ with $i \geq 1$ of $\partial M$ vanish) but I was wandering if in this case there exists a simpler proof of this fact.

I know for example that if $TM$ is orientable (as bundle, since as manifold is always orientable) than $M$ is spin iff the restriction of the tangent bundle to the 2-skeleton of $M$ is trivial (given a cellularization of M as CW-complex). The problem is that I don't know how to use this, since I don't know how to relate the $2$-skeleton of $\partial M$ to the $2$-skeleton of $M$.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

There are some confusions here I should clear up before answering.

1) This is a definition of spinnable manifold, not of a spin manifold. (Similar to the difference between oriented manifold and orientable manifold.) When spin structures exist, there are $H^1(W;\Bbb Z/2)$-many of them, and a spin manifold requires one such choice.

2) If $M$ is the boundary of another manifold $W$, then it is not necessarily true that the Stiefel-Whitney classes $w_i(M) \in H^i(M;\Bbb Z/2)$ vanish. For instance, if $M$ has nontrivial $w_i(M)$ for $i < \dim M$, then so does $M \# M$, but the latter is always null-bordant. What instead is the case is that the Stiefel-Whitney numbers vanish. These are the results of all products of $w_i(M)$ that land in $H^{\dim M}(M; \Bbb Z/2) \cong \Bbb Z/2$; they are labeled by partitions of $\dim M$.

3) A vector bundle $E$ of rank at least 3 is spinnable if and only if it is trivializable over the 2-skeleton. This is not true for bundles of rank 2: there are spinnable bundles which are not trivial over the 2-skeleton. Think $TS^2$.


As for your actual question, the point is that we have a natural isomorphism $T(\partial W) \oplus \Bbb R \cong TW\big|_{\partial W}$. The easy claim is that if $W$ is spinnable, then $\partial W$ is spinnable: naturality of Stiefel-Whitney classes implies that $j^*(w_i(W)) = w_i(\partial W)$, where $j: \partial W \to W$ is the inclusion. If you already know that $w_1(W) = w_2(W) = 0$, you hence know that as well for $\partial W$. This argument applies for any condition defined by the vanishing of some set of Stiefel-Whitney classes.

To actually pin down a specific spin structure, we need to be able to argue that a spin structure on $E \oplus \Bbb R$ induces a natural spin structure on $E$. (This is true for orientations!) This amounts to the inverse claim that the map sending spin structures on $E$ to spin structures on $E \oplus \Bbb R$ (via the natural map $\text{Spin}(n) \to \text{Spin}(n+1)$) is a bijection; and this may be verified using that spin structures are affine over the group of isomorphism classes of real line bundles, aka $H^1(W;\Bbb Z/2)$.

This argument doesn't work for arbitrary sorts of structure on the tangent bundle. For instance, one that famously doesn't work is "$W$ parallelizable implies $\partial W$ parallelizable". Every disc $D^n$ is parallelizable, but the only spheres which are are $S^0, S^1, S^3$, and $S^7$. In the argument above, the way that showed up was in our descriptions of spin structures as affine over $H^1(W;\Bbb Z/2)$, which is true for spin structures on rank $n$ bundles for all $n$; trivializations are affine over $[W, SO(n)]$, which depends on $n$ until $n$ is quite large.

$\endgroup$

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.