Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Assume $M^n$ and $N^n$ are null bordant, i.e. each can be realized as boundary of an $n+1$ dimensional manifold. Suppose $M^n \times \mathbb R$ is homeomorphic to $N^n\times \mathbb R$. Is there any example shows that $M$ is NOT homeomorphic to $N$?

share|improve this question
1  
Are $M$ and $N$ assumed to be closed? smooth? –  Mark Grant Mar 29 '13 at 22:14
    
@Mark, Yes they are compact and hence closed. I don't impose smoothness here since I mainly interested in topological category. –  J. GE Mar 29 '13 at 22:18
    
Compact does not imply closed, however nullbordand does. –  Fernando Muro Mar 30 '13 at 0:27
    
@Fernando, of course. –  J. GE Mar 30 '13 at 10:43
    
Could one relate the respective Karol Borsuk papers from the past to this topic? –  Wlodzimierz Holsztynski Jun 13 at 5:31

1 Answer 1

up vote 16 down vote accepted

[Edit: I have added some details and a more explicit example by Milnor.]

I will present a couple of examples verifying the conditions required in the question.$\newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\TT}{\mathbb{T}} \newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathbb{Z}}$

$H$-cobordant manifolds

We will make fundamental use of the following fact: if $M$ and $N$ are $h$-cobordant, closed, smooth manifolds of dimension greater than 3, then $M\times\RR$ is diffeomorphic to $N\times\RR$. [Aside: A similar statement holds for topological manifolds; simply replace diffeomorphism with homeomorphism.] Here are a couple of quick references for this fact, both making use of the $s$-cobordism theorem:

[Further aside: Incidentally, the converse also holds — although we will not make use of it. In another mathoverflow question, Igor Belegradek remarks in his answer and the ensuing comments that if $M\times\RR$ is homeomorphic to $N\times\RR$, then $M$ and $N$ are $h$-cobordant.]

So it suffices to find closed smooth manifolds $M$ and $N$ which are $h$-cobordant, yet not homeomorphic. As required by the question, we also want $M$ to be null-cobordant; then $N$ will be null-cobordant as well. As a minor bonus, since $M$ and $N$ are smoothly $h$-cobordant, $M\times\RR$ is actually diffeomorphic to $N\times\RR$.

An example by Farrel and Hsiang

One such example is given by Farrel and Hsiang in their article "$H$-cobordant manifolds are not necessarily homeomorphic". There, the manifold $M$ is a product $M=L\times\TT^n$, where $L$ is any 3-dimensional lens space such that $\pi_1(L)\simeq\ZZ/p^2$ for some prime $p$, and $\TT^n=(S^1)^{\times n}$ is a torus of dimension $n\geq 3$. Note that $M$ is null-cobordant since the torus $\TT^n$ is null-cobordant. Unfortunately, the methods used by Farrel and Hsiang do not yield an explicit description of the manifold $N$.

Milnor's examples

A more explicit example is given in the celebrated article "Two complexes which are homeomorphic but combinatorially distinct" by John Milnor. Milnor essentially proves that we can take $M=L(7,1)\times S^{2n}$ and $N=L(7,2)\times S^{2n}$ for any $n>0$, where $L(p,q)$ denotes the lens space of type $(p,q)$. This is only partially stated as theorem 4 in that article. By the way, observe that $M$ and $N$ are null-cobordant since spheres are null-cobordant.

I will briefly describe how to conclude from Milnor's article that the preceding $M$ and $N$ meet our requirements. In section 2, Milnor sketches a proof that $M$ and $N$ are $h$-cobordant. At the end of section 4, in the proof of corollary 2, he uses the fact that $L(7,1)$ and $L(7,2)$ have distinct Reidemeister torsions, and concludes that $M$ and $N$ also have distinct Reidemeister torsions, and thus are not diffeomorphic. But more is true: since the Reidemeister torsions of $M$ and $N$ differ, $M$ and $N$ are not homeomorphic. This follows from the topological invariance (i.e. invariance under homeomorphisms) of Reidemeister torsion, which is itself a simple consequence of the topological invariance of Whitehead torsion — proved by Chapman after the publication of Milnor's article.

In general, the results in sections 2 and 4 of Milnor's article actually prove that we can take $M=K\times S^n$ and $N=L\times S^n$, where:

  • $K$, $L$ are parallelizable, smooth, closed $k$-manifolds;

  • $K$, $L$ are homotopy equivalent;

  • $n$ is even and $n\geq k$;

  • the Reidemeister torsions of $K$ and $L$ are defined (for some complex-valued representation of their common fundamental group), and have different absolute values.

For instance, we can take $K$ and $L$ to be 3-dimensional lens spaces, and not just $L(7,1)$ and $L(7,2)$. The homotopical classification and Reidemeister torsions of lens spaces are well-known: see http://www.map.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/Lens_spaces.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.