MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

How does one compute Chern numbers of spherical rational homology classes $$f: S ^{2k} \to BU.$$ These generate rational homology by Milnor-Moore theorem since BU is a connected H-space, and so $c_k$ cannot kill such a class. It seems very likely that $\langle c_k,[f] \rangle =1$ but what is the proof? Let me add here that I meant that $[f]$ is a Milnor-Moore generator, i.e. it's the multiplicative identity in $\pi_{2k} (BU, \mathbb{Q}) \simeq {\mathbb {Q}}$.

share|cite|improve this question
Typo in the title: "primitve" – David White Nov 3 '11 at 13:39
up vote 5 down vote accepted

We have that if $f\colon S^{2k}\to BU$ is an actual map of topological spaces (it is a little bit unclear from your formulation if you assume this) then $\langle c_k,[f]\rangle>$ is a multiple of $(k-1)!$ and all multiple are possible. See for instance Husemoller: Fibre bundles, Cor 18.9.8, GTM 20, Springer Verlag.

share|cite|improve this answer
I cannot find this in Husemoller, would you give a section number or an outline of the argument? – Yasha Nov 3 '11 at 2:24
Sorry I intended to give the precise reference but managed to forget. – Torsten Ekedahl Nov 3 '11 at 5:11
I have 3rd edition but do not have this cor. What edition do you mean? Could you just outline the argument I may be able to fill in the details. – Yasha Nov 3 '11 at 13:00
In 3rd edition this statement is Cor 20.9.8. It's a consequence of Bott periodicity. – Vitali Kapovitch Nov 3 '11 at 14:40
I read the proof and it is pretty clear except for one part in the proof of periodicity. He looks at the Bott map $\beta:\tilde K(X)\to \tilde K(X\wedge S^2)$ coming from $\xi\mapsto \xi\otimes(\gamma -1)\in \tilde K(X\times S^2)$ where $\gamma$ is the canonical complex line bundle over $S^2=\mathbb{CP}^1$. He claims that this map is obviously onto. I don't quite see why that's true. – Vitali Kapovitch Nov 3 '11 at 16:38

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.