Sphere, torus, degree, cohomology

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Degree Sphere Torus
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the degree of smooth maps from the 2-sphere to the 2-torus, exploring various definitions and approaches to demonstrate that any such map has degree zero. The scope includes theoretical aspects of topology, cohomology, and homology, as well as the application of lifting properties in smooth maps.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the degree of a smooth map F from the 2-sphere to the 2-torus can be defined using integrals of pullbacks of forms, suggesting that if no smooth map can be surjective, then the degree would be zero by convention.
  • Another participant suggests considering the projection of the torus as R²/Z² and the existence of a lift G from the 2-sphere to R², which would help in establishing a commutative diagram in cohomology.
  • A different participant notes that since the 2-sphere is simply-connected, every map from S² to T² lifts to the universal cover, and this lift is unique up to a point, implying smoothness of the lift.
  • One participant mentions the relationship between singular homology and the degree of a smooth map, questioning if this applies to the cohomology theory being discussed.
  • Another participant provides a proof involving the volume element of the torus and the property that every closed form on the sphere is exact, leading to the conclusion that the integral of the wedge product is zero.
  • There is a repeated inquiry about whether homotopic maps induce the same map in De Rham cohomology, with a suggestion that the second homotopy group of the torus being zero could support this argument.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and approaches to the problem, with some agreeing on the utility of lifting properties and the implications of homotopy, while others raise questions about the applicability of certain definitions and theorems. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to definitively establish the degree of the map.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference different definitions of degree and properties of cohomology, indicating potential limitations in their arguments based on assumptions about smoothness, homotopy, and the nature of forms involved.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
I am trying to show that any smooth map F from the 2-sphere to the 2-torus has degree zero.

The definition of the degree of F can be taken to be the (integer) degF such that

\int_{\mathbb{S}^2}F^*\omega=(\deg F)\int_{\mathbb{T}^2}\omega

For omega any 2-form on T². Another definition would be

\deg F= \sum_{x\in F^{-1}(y)}sgn(dF_x)

where y is any regular value of F (meaning dF_x is invertible at every x is in F^{-1}(y)) and where the sign of det(dF_x) is +1 if the isomorphism dF_x preserves the orientation and -1 if it reverses it.So! Of course, if it were to happen for some reason that no smooth map from S² to T² can be surjective, then the result would follow because we would only have to select in the second definition a y in T² that has an empty preimage, in which case degF=0 by convention. But I don't see how could argue in this direction.

Another trail is this. Consider T² as / and let p:R²-->/ be the projection map.

R²
|
|p
|
v
T²<---F---S²

Topologically, there exists a lift G:S²-->R² making the above diagram commutative. If such a smooth lift exists, then noting that H²(S²)=R and H²(R²)=0 and passing to the cohomology in the preceeding diagram, we would end up with the following commutative diagram:

H²(R²)=0
^
|
|p*
|
H²(T²)---F*--->H²(S²)=R

(and G*:H²(R²)=0-->H²(S²)=R). We conclude that the pullback F* of F in cohomology is identically 0. That is to say, the usual pullback pulls every 2-form to an exact 2-form (since every 2-forms on the 2-torus is closed). But on the n-sphere, the integral of an n-form vanishes if and only if the form is exact. In particular, taking omega to be an orientation (aka volume) form so that \int\omega \neq 0, we could conclude that degF=0.

So the question is, does the smooth version of the lifting lemma used above holds?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If p is a local diffeomorphism, this will undoubtedly imply that the a priori only continuous G is smooth.

I'm going to look into this.
 
I like your second approach. Since the 2-sphere is simply-connected, every map f:S^2 -> T^2 lifts to the universal cover (i.e., lifts to a continuous map F:S^2 -> R^2.) This lift is unique up to the choice of a point in the fiber above f(1,0,0), where I'm assuming (1,0,0) to be the chosen basepoint of S^2. Since the covering projection R^2 -> T^2 has smooth local sections, the lift F is smooth. Thus, you have the commutative diagram you're after.

Quick question: I usually work with singular homology, in which case the degree of a smooth map f:M -> N between manifolds of the same dimension n can be defined to be the integer corresponding to the induced map f_*:H_n(M) -> H_n(N). Relative to this approach, the result (that deg(f) = 0) follows from the existence of the commutative diagram. Does this apply to the (co)homology theory you're using?
 
you don't seem to need any help.
 
Indeed, it turns out that p is a local diffeomorphism and approach #2 works.

It often happens that the key idea comes to me as I am typing the question or a minute after I'm done.
 
here's a proof that you might like.

The volume element of the torus is the wedge-product of the two closed one forms dual to its generating circles. If you think of the torus as R2/Z2 then these are just the forms dx and dy projected onto the torus.

But every closed form on the sphere is exact. Thus the pullbacks of these two one forms on the torus to the sphere are exact and the integral of their wedge product is zero.
 
Don't homotopic maps induce the same map in De Rham cohomology? I would think that
\pi_2 T^2 = 0
would do the trick.
 
zhentil said:
Don't homotopic maps induce the same map in De Rham cohomology? I would think that
\pi_2 T^2 = 0
would do the trick.

that also works.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K