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

Let $M_{n+1}$ be a fibre bundle with $S_1$ as the base and $n$-dimensional CW complex $F_n$ as the fibre. Assume $M_{n+1}$ is oriented.

(1) Can one show that $M_{n+1}$ is always a boundary of a CW complex $M_{n+2}$, where $M_{n+2}$ is a fibre bundle with $S_1$ as the base and $(n+1)$-dimensional CW complex $F_{n+1}$ as the fibre?

(2) Can one show that $M_{n+1}$ is always a boundary of a CW complex $N_{n+2}$, where $N_{n+2}$ is a fibre bundle with a disk $D_2$ as the base and $n$-dimensional CW complex $F_{n}$ as the fibre?

Edit: Based on the discussions below, one needs to replace the term "CW complex" above by term "manifold" or "topological manifold". This maybe the key issue of my question: when (1) will be valid?

share|improve this question
1  
What is "the boundary of a CW complex"? –  Misha Sep 14 '13 at 12:08
2  
Ok, what is the boundary of a topological space? –  Misha Sep 14 '13 at 12:18
1  
There is not a good notion of the boundary of a general CW complex. Do you need spaces that are more general than manifolds? –  Kevin Walker Sep 14 '13 at 13:58
1  
@Xiao-GangWen: Of course, there is a notion of boundary for manifolds, homology manifolds and pseudomanifolds. (Disk is a manifold.) But defining boundary for general CW complex let alone topological space, makes no sense whatsoever. –  Misha Sep 14 '13 at 16:19
1  
The correct notion is the one of topological manifold, possibly with boundary. No smoothness is assumed here. –  Misha Sep 15 '13 at 6:25
show 4 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I'll answer your questions with "CW complex" replaced by "manifold".

The answer to question (1) is no. If I understand you correctly, you want the boundary of $F_{n+1}$ to be $F_n$. But some manifolds cannot be realized as boundaries of other manifolds. (The simplest examples are 4-manifolds with non-zero signature.)

(On the other hand, if we allow $F_{n+1}$ to be a CW complex (and ignore the difficulties of defining what "boundary" means in this context), then the answer to (1) is clearly yes, since we can take $F_{n+1}$ to be the cone on $F_n$.)

The answer to question (2) is also no. The bundle over $S^1$ is determined by the monodromy $g:F_n\to F_n$. If $g$ is not isotopic to the identity, then the bundle does not extend over the disk. And if $g$ is isotopic to the identity, then the bundle is a product.

share|improve this answer
    
Regarding to your answer we can take $F_{n+1}$ to be the cone on $F_n$, can the monodromy $g:F_n \to F_n$ (needed to define the bundle over $S^1$) extended to $F_{n+1}$? Thank you very much. –  Xiao-Gang Wen Sep 15 '13 at 8:31
    
I wonder if $F_n$ is a simplicial complex that is equal to its closure, then we can define the boundary of $F_n$. I have always assumed that a complex is equal to its closure. (I wonder if there is name for such kind of complex.) –  Xiao-Gang Wen Sep 15 '13 at 8:58
2  
You can extend g to the cone in the obvious way: the line between x and the cone point will be mapped to the line between g(x) and the cone point, for all $x\in F_n$. –  user39082 Sep 15 '13 at 9:09
add comment

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.