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

According to Madsen-Brumfiel "Evaluation of the Transfer and the Universal Surgery Classes" Inventiones mathematicae 32 (1976): 133-170 Theorem 3.11, we can compute the composition $BO(1)^2\stackrel{Bi}{\rightarrow} BO(2)\stackrel{tr}{\rightarrow} BO(1)^2$ where $i$ is the inclusion $O(1)^2\subset O(2)$ and $tr$ is the transfer. The result is that it should be the sum with possibly signs of the identity and the switch map.

Now, if we compute the composition $BO(1)^2\stackrel{Bi}{\rightarrow} BO(2)\stackrel{tr}{\rightarrow} BO(1)^2\rightarrow BO(1)\rightarrow Be$ where all unnamed arrows are transfers, we should get trivial map as the transfer associated to the inclusion $e\subset O(2)$ is trivial. This can be seen, for example, using Theorem II.17 of Feshbach "The transfer and compact Lie groups" Transactions of the American Mathematical Society vol 251 (1979) pp.139-169. So the two signs have to differ.

On the other hand, $Bi$ composed with the switch map is still $Bi$ up to homotopy since the conjugation by the permutation matrix $\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)$ on $O(2)$ swithches the two factors of $O(1)$. Thus by considering the composition $BO(1)^2\stackrel{Switch}{\rightarrow} BO(1)^2\stackrel{Bi}{\rightarrow} BO(2)\stackrel{tr}{\rightarrow} BO(1)^2$ we see that the two signs have to be same.

[Added afther the comment by Oscar Randal-Williams]

The map $2(id-Switch)$ should be non-trivial for the following reason.

Let's compute the induced maps in homology of infinite loop space by $2id$ and $2Switch$ The multiplication by $2$ induces in homology $F\circ V$ where $F$ is Frobenius, $V$ is Verschibung. Thus if we denote $e_i\otimes e_j$ the generator of $H_i(BO(1))\otimes H_j(BO(1))$, and we identify it with its image in $H_{i+j}(QBO(1)^2)$, then $\Omega ^{\infty}(2id) $ sends, let's say, $e_4\otimes e_2$ to $e_2^2\otimes e_1^2$, whereas $\Omega ^{\infty}(2Switch)$ sends $e_4\otimes e_2$ to $e_1^2 \otimes e_2^2$.

As $H_*(Q(BO(1)^2))$ is a polynomial algebra, those elements do differ.

[Added Nov.30] Here is another argument to show that $2id$ and $2Switch$ are different. As the Morava K-theory of $BO(1)^2$ is concentrated in even degrees, the Morava $E$-cohomology of $BO(1)^2$ is 2-torsion free, at least after $I_n$-adic completion (probably a simple 2-adic completion should suffice). Now, the identity and the switch map induce different maps on $E^*(BO(1)^2)$, so $2id$ and $2Switch$ induce different maps on $E^*(BO(1)^2)$ as well.

[Added Dec. 07 after a private communication with Oscar Randall-Williams] (edited Dec 09)

What goes wrong in the above was the assumption that the "coefficients" are in $\{\pm 1\}$ whereas they lie in certain ring of units of an appropriate Burnside ring c.f. Mitchell-Priddy "A double coset formula for levi subgroups and splitting $BGL _n$" This issue is more ore less adressed in Remark (1.6), as well as in the remark following Theorem (2.3).

share|improve this question
    
How do you know that you have "globally constant" signs when working with a disconnected group? –  user76758 Nov 26 '13 at 20:00
    
@user76758 The connectedness of the group is irrelevant, we have the double coset formula for discrete groups as well. Besides, the classifying space is connected. –  user43326 Nov 26 '13 at 20:37
    
The issue would be resolved if $Id - \tau = \tau - Id$ (so $2\tau = 2\cdot Id$), where $\tau$ is the switch map. I suspect that this is true, but I don't see an independent way to prove it. –  Oscar Randal-Williams Nov 27 '13 at 17:09
    
@OscarRandal-Williams I edited the question, added a paragraph explaining why $2\tau \neq 2⋅Id$. –  user43326 Nov 28 '13 at 11:16
    
@user76758: Maybe I misunderstood your comment. So basically what I am saying is that there are contradictions whatever the choice of signs are, which are only "locally constant". –  user43326 Dec 2 '13 at 7:48
show 2 more comments

1 Answer

What goes wrong in the above was the assumption that the "coefficients" are in $\{\pm 1\}$ whereas they lie in certain ring of units of an appropriate Burnside ring c.f. Mitchell-Priddy "A double coset formula for levi subgroups and splitting $BGL _n$" This issue is more ore less adressed in Remark (1.6), as well as in the remark following Theorem (2.3).

share|improve this answer
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.