Poincare conjecture.

  • Thread starter Ragnar
  • Start date
  • #1
23
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

What is the poincare conjecture in layman's terms?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
10,938
1,096
every subset of euclidean space which in the neighborhood of every point looks like a ball in R^3, and which is also closed, bounded, and connected, and in which every loops contracts continuousy to a point, is globally equivalent to S^3, the one point compactification of R^3, i.e. to the solution set of the equation X^2 +Y^2 +Z^2 +W^2 = 1, in R^4.

i.e. up to homeomorphism, the only compact, connected, simply conected, 3 manifold, is the 3 sphere.

it is a list of properties that characterize the 3 - sphere up to continuous equivalence.

closed, bounded, connected, locally euclidean, 3 dimensional, and "simply connected" i.e. all loops can be contracted continuously to points.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
364
0
Is the poincare conjecture officialy proved?
 
  • #4
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
10,938
1,096
well there is a preprint by john morgan from columbia (whom i know and trust) sAYINg HE HAS WORKED OUT THE DETAILS OF peRELEMANS PROOF ANd THAT IT IS INDEED PROVED. SO I CANNOT SAY PERSONALLY I KNOW THIS BUT I BELieVE JOhn THAT IT IS.

http://www.ams.org/notices/200608/comm-perelman.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #5
1,997
5
Does a proven Poincare conjecture imply anything for manifolds that do not have a positive definite metric?
Is so, what?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
932
0
If the statement of the conjecture didn't involve a metric (it looked like all topology to me), i.e. we're not even assuming we have defined a metric, why would the proof of the conjecture have any relevance to an as-yet undefined metric?
 
  • #7
Chris Hillman
Science Advisor
2,345
8
Hi, masudr,

Not sure I understand the question (or was it rhetorical?), but if you saw something about Hamilton's program or the recent proof by Perelman, this involves the idea of putting a metric on a manifold and then evolving it by a "lossy" PDE (analogous to the heat equation, which over time "evenly spreads out" an initial disturbance, thus destroying evidence that of said disturbance). This evolution gradually deforms our metric into a constant curvature metric. Think of this as a kind of differential topology analog to the algebraic algorithm for finding the rational canonical form of a matrix.

This idea doesn't really work, because the evolution tends to develop "kinks" which can prevent the "smoothing", but Hamilton fixed it up under some circumstances and then Perelman made it work in sufficient generality to establish the Poincare conjecture.

The summary I just offered is a huge oversimplification. For an accurate account, see http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0610903
 
Last edited:
  • #8
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
10,938
1,096
since every simply connected three manifold can apparently be given a metric, it suffices to prove the conjecture for thiose that can have one. then since the statement that amanifold is homeo orphic to the usual three sphere is independent of which metric is chosen, proving it using a metric in fact proves it period.
 

Related Threads on Poincare conjecture.

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Top