- 4,796
- 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 R²/Z² and let p:R²-->R²/Z² 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*
²(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.
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 R²/Z² and let p:R²-->R²/Z² 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*

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