Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the interpretation and implications of a theorem in the context of Pontrjagin classes and their relationship with cohomology rings when using different coefficient rings, particularly PIDs containing 1/2. Participants explore the definitions and mappings between cohomology groups with integer coefficients and those with other coefficients.
Discussion Character
- Technical explanation
- Conceptual clarification
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- One participant questions the meaning of a Pontrjagin class as an element of H^*(G,Λ) and whether there exists a natural map from H^*(G,ℤ) to H^*(G,Λ) that facilitates this identification.
- Another participant suggests that the definition of the Euler class can be generalized to any PID, implying that Chern and Pontrjagin classes could also be defined with coefficients in any PID.
- A participant confirms the existence of the map mentioned in the first post, explaining the contravariant nature of cohomology in spaces and covariant nature in coefficient modules, referencing a theorem from a textbook.
- One participant reflects on their previous knowledge of related constructions in Milnor-Stasheff and expresses gratitude for the clarification regarding the mapping, noting their initial difficulty in finding it in the Universal Coefficient Theorem.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally agree on the existence of a mapping between cohomology groups with different coefficients, but there is no consensus on the implications or broader interpretations of Pontrjagin classes in this context. The discussion remains somewhat unresolved regarding the specific nature of these classes in relation to the theorem.
Contextual Notes
Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and mappings involved, particularly in relation to the Universal Coefficient Theorem and the specific characteristics of Pontrjagin classes when generalized to other coefficient rings.