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

This question is only motivated by curiousity; I don't know a lot about manifold topology.

Suppose $M$ is a compact topological manifold of dimension $n$. I'll assume $n$ is large, say $n\geq 4$. The question is: Does there exist a simplicial complex which is homeomorphic to $M$?

What I think I know is:

  • If $M$ has a piecewise linear (PL) structure, then it is triangulable, i.e., homeomorphic to a simplicial complex.

  • There is a well-developed technology ("Kirby-Siebenmann invariant") which tells you whether or not a topological manifold admits a PL-structure.

  • There are exotic triangulations of manifolds which don't come from a PL structure. I think the usual example of this is to take a homology sphere $S$ (a manifold with the homology of a sphere, but not maybe not homeomorphic to a sphere), triangulate it, then suspend it a bunch of times. The resulting space $M$ is supposed to be homeomorphic to a sphere (so is a manifold). It visibly comes equipped with a triangulation coming from that of $S$, but has simplices whose link is not homemorphic to a sphere; so this triangulation can't come from a PL structure on $M$.

This leaves open the possibility that there are topological manifolds which do not admit any PL-structure but are still homeomorphic to some simplicial complex. Is this possible?

In other words, what's the difference (if any) between "triangulable" and "admits a PL structure"?

This wikipedia page on 4-manifolds claims that the E8-manifold is a topological manifold which is not homeomorphic to any simplicial complex; but the only evidence given is the fact that its Kirby-Siebenmann invariant is non trivial, i.e., it doesn't admit a PL structure.

share|improve this question
    
Excellent question; I'd like to hear the answer to this too. –  Todd Trimble Oct 28 '10 at 21:55
    
The fact that the double suspension of a homology sphere is homeo to a sphere is due to Bob Edwards. It finally appeared (after 30 years!) on the ArXiv in 06 front.math.ucdavis.edu/0610.5573 –  Paul Oct 29 '10 at 2:17
4  
@Paul : That's not quite true. The double suspension theorem is due to Jim Cannon and was published a 1979 paper entitled "Shrinking cell-like decompositions of manifolds. Codimension three". Edwards proved a "triple suspension theorem" and also proved the double suspension theorem for many examples, including the Poincare homology 3-sphere. –  Andy Putman Oct 29 '10 at 2:40
add comment

4 Answers 4

up vote 30 down vote accepted

Galewski-Stern proved

http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=420637

" It follows that every topological m-manifold, m≥7 (or m≥6 if ∂M=∅), can be triangulated if and only if there exists a PL homology 3-sphere H3 with Rohlin invariant one such that H3#H3 bounds a PL acyclic 4-manifold."

The Rohlin invariant is a Z/2 valued homomorphsim on the 3-dimensional homology cobordism group, $\Theta_3\to Z/2$, so if it splits there exist non-triangulable manifodls in high dimensions.

share|improve this answer
    
Your answer is about combinatorial triangulations. The question is about arbitrary ones. –  Igor Belegradek Oct 29 '10 at 0:59
    
@Igor : Galewski-Stern's theorem is definitely about noncombinatorial triangulations. –  Andy Putman Oct 29 '10 at 1:06
2  
I take it back, Andy and Paul are right. By the way, the introduction to "The Hauptvermutung Book" explains this all in some detail: See maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/books/haupt.pdf. –  Igor Belegradek Oct 29 '10 at 1:31
1  
I've found the paper. Question settled: a "PL acyclic manifold" is the same as an acyclic PL manifold. –  algori Apr 29 '11 at 20:29
11  
Ciprian Manolescu has just posted a paper in which he claims to prove that no such homology 3-sphere exists. arXiv:1303.2354 Pin(2)-equivariant Seiberg-Witten Floer homology and the Triangulation Conjecture –  Jeffrey Giansiracusa Mar 12 '13 at 10:19
show 3 more comments

I don't know about dimension 4, but for high dimensions this is a well-known open problem. I don't think much progress has been made on it for a while. I recommend Ranicki's lecture notes from Siebenmann's retirement conference for a good summary about what is known about this and related problems: http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/slides/orsay.pdf

EDIT : Hot off the press is a paper of Manolescu claiming to disprove the conjecture of Galewski-Stern and construct manifolds in all dimensions $\geq 5$ which are not homeomorphic to simplicial complexes.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks! Those slides say that the problem is solved in dimension 4 (all manifolds are triangulable), attributed to Casson. –  Charles Rezk Oct 28 '10 at 22:38
3  
The slides say (on page 5) that NOT every 4-manifold is triangulable. –  Igor Belegradek Oct 28 '10 at 22:49
1  
It seems that the fact that E8 is not triangulable should follow from basic properties of Casson invariant (of which I know next to nothing). I am curious to see how the argument goes. –  Igor Belegradek Oct 28 '10 at 23:19
    
@IB the relationship is explained in Akbulut-McCarthy's book in detail but I've forgotten the argument. There's an outline here math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/96/Triangulations which asserts that if E8 were triangulable it could be smoothed in the complement of its vertices. Removing a nbd of each vertex yields a smooth manifold with boundary a union of homotopy (?) 3-spheres whose total Rohlin invariant is 1 (since $\sigma(E8)=1$). But Casson's invariant is zero on homotopy spheres and is a lift of Rohlin. –  Paul Oct 29 '10 at 1:03
    
Ah, I misread it. –  Charles Rezk Oct 29 '10 at 1:10
show 1 more comment

Regarding Charles Rezk's second question:

This leaves open the possibility that there are topological manifolds which do not admit any PL-structure but are still homeomorphic to some simplicial complex. Is this possible?

For dimension 4, it follows from the Poincare conjecture that a 4-manifold is triangulable iff smoothable (which is also equivalent to having PL structure for dimension <8). See Problem 3 of http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/haupt/sandro.pdf. Also see this presentation.

For dimension >4, Springer Online Reference Works claims that "the imbedding $PL \subset TRI$ is also irreversible in the same strong sense (there exist polyhedral manifolds of dimension $\geq 5$ that are homotopy inequivalent to any PL-manifold)", but gives no examples. In this presentation it is stated that "All oriented closed 5-manifolds triangulable", so I think among them there may be some with nontrivial KS invariant and hence cannot bear PL structure.

In addition, This book (p.168, Theorem 18.4) seems to contain a result that strengthens the one mentioned in Paul's answer.

Added: This paper (22.5. Example) explicitly gives an example of "A topological manifold which is homeomorphic to a polyhedron but does not admit any PL structure".

share|improve this answer
add comment

For a discussion of the 4-dimensional case see http://www.map.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/Questions_about_surgery_theory.

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.