MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In the Atiyah-Singer paper mentioned above, they introduced on p.557 a concept called $H$-structure which is used to describe the Chern character of special elements of $K(TX)$. It is roughly the following: Take a principal $H$-bundle $P$, so that $P \times_H V \cong TX$ for some $V$ and use this to construct a map from $K_G(V)$ to $K(TX)$.

On p. 559, Remark 2, they describe how this concept can be generalised to $H$-structures with an action of a group $G$. For the special case that $G$ acts trivially on the manifold $X$, they state that

"the action of $G$ on the principal $H$-bundle $P$ is given by some homomorphism $\rho:G \to$ Centre($H$)"

I actually do not believe this is true (or I misunderstood what kind of actions are considered here). In my opinion we only have fibre-preserving left action of $G$ on $P$, which can be given by any map $G \to H$ (we assume that the base space $X$ is connected).

Can somebody familiar with the paper give me argument for (or against) it?

PS: Any source where the case of Remark 2 is calculated in special cases would also be helpful.

share|cite|improve this question

Maybe I am mistaken, but I think the actions they consider should be such that the projection map $\pi \colon P \to X$ is equivariant with respect to $G$. So, if the action of $G$ on $X$ is trivial (as they state in before the part you quote), this would mean that $p \cdot h \cdot g = p \cdot g \cdot h$ for all $p \in P$, $h \in H$ and $g \in G$. Thus, the action map $G \to H$ would have to have its image in the center.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.