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

Suppose you have a map $g:\Sigma \rightarrow G$ from a Riemann surface $\Sigma$ to a compact Lie group $G$. What is the obstruction to finding a $3$-manifold $W$, such that $\partial W = \Sigma$, and an extension of $g$ to a map $\tilde{g}:W\rightarrow G$? In the paper I'm reading they say it lies in $H_2(G,\mathbb{Z})$. Why is this true? I mean, the obstruction class to extending $g$ to $\tilde{g}$ is an element in $H^3(W,\pi_2(G))$, which vanishes since $\pi_2(G)=0$ for compact $G$, right? So does this mean that the obstruction to finding a $3$-manifold $W$ with boundary $\Sigma$ lies in $H_2(G,\mathbb{Z})$? By the way, the paper I'm referring is here http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.cmp/1104180750 , see section 4.1 (page 405). Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
I added the mp tag b/c the question arises from a paper written by two mathematical physicists. Hence, maybe the solution relies on some ideas from physics. –  Kevin Wray Apr 27 '11 at 0:55
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 10 down vote accepted

This has nothing to do with Lie groups. Let $X$ be any space, let $S$ be a closed, orientable surface and let $f : S \rightarrow X$ be a map. We then get a canonical homology class $f_{\ast}([S]) \in H_2(X;\mathbb{Z})$. If there exists a closed orientable $3$-manifold $M$ with boundary $S$ such that $f$ extends over $S$, then we are done : the manifold $M$ maps into $X$ to provide a homology between $f_{\ast}([S])$ and $0$. Conversely, assume that $f_{\ast}([S]) = 0$. This implies that $f_{\ast}([S])$ is the boundary of a singular chain mapping into $X$. This singular chain can be thought of as a collection of tetrahedra glued together. Aside from the faces of the tetrahedra which lie in $S$, the faces of these tetrahedra are glued together in pairs. Let $M'$ be the result of gluing these tetrahedra together. We thus have $\partial M' = S$ and a map $F' : M' \rightarrow X$ extending $f$. It is a fun exercise to show that $M'$ is a 3-manifold except possibly at finitely many points $x_1,\ldots,x_n$. A small neighborhood of $x_i$ is homeomorphic to the cone on an oriented surface. Cut out these neighborhoods and glue in handlebodies. We get a $3$-manifold $M$ with $\partial M = S$, and from the construction it is clear that we can modify $F'$ to give a function $F : M \rightarrow X$ which still extends $f$.

The point here is that in low degree, bordism agrees with homology.

share|improve this answer
    
Andy, does this actually give rise to an example of a map $\Sigma \to G$ that can't be extended over, say, a handlebody? I think klw1026 correctly explained that the (homotopical) obstruction to that extension problem is trivial, because $\pi_2 (G) = 0$ and we're only adding 3-cells to form the handlebody. So I'm really confused by Dijkgraaf and Witten's statement that sometimes there's a non-trivial obstruction (of the sort you're describing). It's not very consequential to their paper, though, so maybe they just didn't notice that the obstruction always vanishes? –  Dan Ramras Apr 27 '11 at 2:20
1  
@Dan : If $v \in H_2(X;\mathbb{Z})$ is any homology class, then there exists a closed orientable surface $S$ and a map $f : S \rightarrow X$ such that $f_{\ast}([S]) = v$ (think about piecing together the simplices in a singular 2-cycle). Thus there will be something like I describe if and only $H_2(X;\mathbb{Z})$ is nonzero. –  Andy Putman Apr 27 '11 at 2:28
    
Okay, I agree, but I'm still confused... Let $G=SO(3)\times SO(3)$ so that $H_2 (G; Z) = Z/2$ and take a map $g:\Sigma\to G$ representing the non-trivial class. Why doesn't $\pi_2 (G) = 0$ imply that we can extend $g$ over a handlebody? The handlebody is a 3-complex and the attaching maps of the 3-cell, when composed with $g$, is a (nullhomotopic) map $S^2\to G$, which says $g$ extends over the 3-cell. Surely I'm just being dumb. But this really gets to the heart of the original question, I think. –  Dan Ramras Apr 27 '11 at 2:41
2  
To construct a handlebody from a surface, you can't just attach $3$-cells. You have to first attach some $2$-cells (to kill off half of the first homology group). –  Andy Putman Apr 27 '11 at 2:43
1  
@klw1026 : 1. I am claiming that $H_2(X)$ is the same as $\Omega_2(X)$. In fact, I basically gave a proof of it!, and 2. If $G$ was simply-connected, then by Hurewitz we would have $H_2(G)=\pi_2(G)=0$. –  Andy Putman Apr 27 '11 at 2:47
show 4 more comments

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.