Cup Product and Representability

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jamma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Product
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between cup products in cohomology, specifically focusing on the first cohomology group H^1. Participants explore whether there is a canonical way to define the cup product of two functions mapping from a space X to S^1, and how this relates to the representation of cohomology classes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if there is a canonical way to define the cup product of two functions f and g that represent elements of H^1(X).
  • Another participant suggests that there may be a partial answer available in existing literature.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the interpretation of a statement about torsion in the fundamental group of surfaces, particularly in relation to the Klein bottle.
  • Some participants propose that the statement about torsion might apply to finitely generated abelian groups, leading to further confusion about the implications for the Klein bottle.
  • There is a discussion about the natural bijection between cohomology groups and homotopy classes of maps, referencing Brown's representability theorem.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the torsion in the fundamental group of the Klein bottle and the real projective plane, with conflicting views presented.
  • One participant corrects a previous claim regarding the relationship between finite CW-complexes and torsion in their fundamental groups.
  • There is a challenge to the validity of a claim regarding K(pi,1) spaces and torsion, with references to specific examples like RP².

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus on the implications of the statements regarding torsion in fundamental groups, particularly concerning the Klein bottle and other surfaces. Multiple competing views remain regarding the definitions and relationships discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the implications of certain mathematical statements, particularly regarding the definitions of aspherical manifolds and their fundamental groups. There are unresolved questions about the applicability of certain theorems to specific examples.

  • #31
Jamma said:
Out of curiosity, where does the more general statement with "for any G with torsion" come from? Is it true that if H<G, then the EM-space for G has the EM-space for H as a subcomplex?

I am not sure how the proof goes. For finite cyclic groups I think that H^2(Zn:Z2) generates cohomology classes in arbitrarily large dimensions. It follows immediately from this that the same is true for finite abelian groups.

I don't see how to generalize this. One idea might be to identify the second Z/2 cohomology of a group,G, with group extensions

0 -> Z/2 -> H -> G -> 0

and try to show that if the group,G, has torsion then there is always an extension that is not split and which restricts to a non-split extension over one of its finite cyclic subgroups.

There must be a general construction for a K(pi,1) as a CW complex that has cell in unbounded dimensions when the group has torsion. I will try to find one. I know for Z/2 it is the infinite dimensional real projective space which I think has a cell in every dimension.

A K(pi,1) is the universal classifying space for vector bundles whose structure group is the group,pi, with the discrete topology. These are so called flat bundles. Maybe one could show that if pi has torsion then in any dimension there is a manifold with a flat vector bundle over it whose structure group is,pi, and whose Euler class is not zero.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
lavinia said:
There must be a general construction for a K(pi,1) as a CW complex that has cell in unbounded dimensions when the group has torsion. I will try to find one. I know for Z/2 it is the infinite dimensional real projective space which I think has a cell in every dimension.

Well, just finding cells in unbounded dimensions isn't enough, because the CW complex may be homotopic to one which doesn't. It would be sufficient however to find the homology of the space and show that has unboundedly many non-trivial groups, although it is obviously infeasible to compute the homology of arbitrary K(G,1)'s where G has torsion.

The paper goes through the construction for the EM1-spaces for the cyclic groups at the end- they are the infinite lens spaces and indeed their homology is non zero in infinitely many dimensions. It seems to go from this to arbitrary groups quite suddenly- I don't know if this is intentional to imply that not much more work needs to be done, or it is simply mentioning the generalisation. However, it seems that the K(Zn,1)'s having to be infinite dimensional should somehow imply the same for any K(G,1) for which G has torsion.

Your group extension idea is good though- I'm sure more can be done with that.
 
  • #33
Ahha, I seem to remember something along the lines of this:

If we have a group extension such as:

0 -> H -> G -> G/H -> 0

Then this leads canonically to a fibre bundle:

K(H,1) -> K(G,1) -> K(G/H)

I'm not 100% sure on this, will check up on it when I get time. I don't even know if this helps- perhaps there is some sort of spectral sequence argument, although it would seem that we should know something about K(G/H,1).
 
  • #34
Or perhaps I'm over-complicating things in the above- another way of defining group cohomology is to take the simplicial cohomology of the classifying space (which is a K(Z,1) in the discrete case). So maybe there is an argument in here with exact sequences.
 
  • #35
Jamma said:
Or perhaps I'm over-complicating things in the above- another way of defining group cohomology is to take the simplicial cohomology of the classifying space (which is a K(Z,1) in the discrete case). So maybe there is an argument in here with exact sequences.

I think this line of thought would work. I would look for how one constructs the universal classifying space for flat bundles with a given structure group.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K