6
$\begingroup$

What would be counterexamples to the following statement:

It is not true that any $n$-manifold with boundary is a $n$-manifold with finitely many embedded disjoint open disks removed, since that would mean that its boundary is a disjoint union of spheres. E.g. the solid torus $B^2\times S^1$ has boundary the torus $S^1\times S^1$, which is not a disjoint union pf spheres.

Fuzzy question: If one had a classification of manifolds (up to diffeomorphism/homeomorphism/h-equivalence), could one automatically obtain a clasification of manifolds with boundary?

I know that to each manifold $M$ with boundary, there is associated a double manifold $DM$, which is the disjoint union of two copies of $M$, glued along their boundary. But if knew precisely what $DM$ was (in the classification scheme), could we classify $M$ itself?

Is any manifold a double of some other manifold, i.e. can every manifold be split into equal halves?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I found your question very confusing initially, because under the standard definitions, "manifold" means "manifold without boundary" (see this nLab entry), and hence "compact" means "closed". May I suggest saying "compact $n$-manifolds with boundary" to clarify? $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles Jul 7 '13 at 0:57
  • $\begingroup$ In my faculty, manifolds can have boundary by default. But I fixed the formulation. Thanks for the advice. $\endgroup$ – Leo Jul 7 '13 at 1:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Doesn't your condition simply imply that the boundary components of $X$ are homemorphic/diffeomorphic to spheres? This is easily shown to be false - $S^1\times S^1$ is a not a sphere and is a boundary of $D^2\times S^1$. What am I missing? $\endgroup$ – Jason DeVito Jul 7 '13 at 1:04
  • $\begingroup$ @JasonDeVito: Eh, you're right. I guess that answers my question. But may I change it a little to get a more meaningful thread? $\endgroup$ – Leo Jul 7 '13 at 1:06
  • $\begingroup$ I wouldn't mind if you did, and I'd guess no one else would really, but of course, I can't really speak for everyone. $\endgroup$ – Jason DeVito Jul 7 '13 at 1:10
3
$\begingroup$

Simpler, $\mathbb RP^2$, the real projective plane, is not the double of a manifold with boundary.

If a manifold $M$ has boundary, notice that $\partial (M \times [0,1])$ is the double of $M$. So doubles have the property that they are boundaries of higher-dimensional manifolds. In dimension 2, a manifold is a double if and only if it is null-cobordant, which is if and only if it has even Euler characteristic.

You could construct some much sharper obstructions to a manifold being a double. Doubles have an effective action of $\mathbb Z_2$ with co-dimension $1$ fixed point set, the action switching the orientation of the normal bundle. With a little more work you could refine this to an if and only if statement for when a manifold is a double.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! What about the classification of $\partial$-manifolds out of a classification of manifolds? $\endgroup$ – Leo Jul 7 '13 at 13:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, if you had a classification of closed manifolds with $\mathbb Z_2$-actions that have a co-dimension 1 fixed point set, then you would have a classification of manifold with boundary via the doubling operation. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Budney Jul 7 '13 at 21:31
4
$\begingroup$

In 3-manifold theory, any hyperbolic manifold that splits as a double must contain an embedded, $\pi_1$-injective surface (namely, the old boundary itself), and so must be Haken. There are manifolds that are not Haken, so not every manifold is a doubled manifold.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! How about my first question? $\endgroup$ – Leo Jul 7 '13 at 13:59

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.