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

The following assertion appears in a paper I am reading, and I can't seem to verify it.

Let $\text{Gr}_{n,m}$ denote the set of pairs $(V,W)$ where $V$ and $W$ are as follows.

  1. $V$ is an $n$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{C}^{\infty}$.
  2. $W$ is an $m$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{C}^{\infty}$.
  3. $V$ and $W$ are orthogonal.

The space $\text{Gr}_{n,m}$ has an obvious topology. If $\text{Gr}_n$ and $\text{Gr}_m$ are the usual Grassmannians of $n$ and $m$ planes in $\mathbb{C}^{\infty}$, then there is an obvious map $\psi : \text{Gr}_{n,m} \rightarrow \text{Gr}_n \times \text{Gr}_m$.

The map $\psi$ is almost a homeomorphism, but not quite because of condition 3 above. The paper claims that $\psi$ is a homotopy equivalence.

Thanks for any help!

share|improve this question
Is $\mathbb{C}^\infty$ $\bigoplus_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathbb{C}$ or $\bigtimes_{i=1}^{\infty} \mathbb{C}$? –  David Roberts Nov 2 '11 at 4:47
Oh, and what paper? –  David Roberts Nov 2 '11 at 4:50
It is the direct sum of infinity many copies of $\mathbb{C}$. The paper is actually the 10th lecture (on Bott periodicity) from the following set of lecture notes : math.stanford.edu/~church/stablehomology.html –  Ralph Nov 2 '11 at 4:57
@Ralph Thanks for the link, btw, — very interesting. –  Grigory M Nov 12 '11 at 18:51
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

The forgetful map $Gr_{n,m} \to Gr_n$ that drops $W$ is a fiber bundle (exercise), and the map $Gr_{n,m} \to Gr_n \times Gr_m$ is a map of fiber bundles. It's an equivalence on the (connected) base space, so it suffices to check that the map of fibers is an equivalence.

The fibers over $V$ are, respectively: $m$-dimensional subspaces in $V^\perp \subset \mathbb{C}^\infty$, and $m$-dimensional subspaces in $\mathbb{C}^\infty$.

The inclusion of one infinite-dimensional complex vector space in another induces a homotopy equivalence of Grassmannians; you could construct an explicit homotopy equivalence by choosing an appropriate basis, or you could argue that the associated map of Stiefel manifolds is a homotopy equivalence (both are contractible, so this is easy) and so it passes to an equivalence after taking the quotient by the general linear group.

share|improve this answer
Beautiful, thanks! –  Ralph Nov 2 '11 at 5:06
Yes, very nice. But where I come from "hyperplane" means a linear subspace of codimension one. –  Tom Goodwillie Nov 2 '11 at 5:15
@Tom: That's a bad habit that I picked up for no apparent reason, and it's proved difficult to drop. Edited. –  Tyler Lawson Nov 2 '11 at 5:33
add comment

Look at the canonical principal $U(n)\times U(m)$ bundle over $Gr_{n,m}$ given by pairs of orthonormal frames $(v_1,\ldots, v_n), (w_1,\ldots w_m)$. Its total space is the set of all orthonormal $n+m$-frames in $\mathbb C^\infty$. It's contractible (that's well-known) and hence $Gr_{n,m}$ is a homotopy $B_{U(n)\times U(m)}$ which is clearly homotopy equivalent to $B_{U(n)}\times B_{U(m)}=Gr_n\times Gr_m$. To see that the natural map $Gr_{n,m}\to Gr_n\times Gr_m$ is the one inducing an equivalence notice that it's obviously covered by a map of principal bundles and hence the result follows by 5-lemma since total spaces are contractible and the fibers are the same.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.