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

It is known that any closed topological manifold is homotopy equivalent to an open smooth manifold.

Question 1. What can be said about the smallest dimension of a smooth manifold that is homotopy equivalent to a given closed topological manifold?

The following somewhat heavy-handed argument yields a smooth manifold of roughly twice the dimension, namely, use

  • West's solution of Borsuk's conjecture that any compact ANR of dimension $n$, and in particular any closed $n$-manifold, is homotopy equivalent to a finite polyhedron of dimension $\max\{n, 3\}$;
  • Stallings-Dranishnikov-Repovs's embedding up to homotopy type theorem that any finite $n$-dimensional polyhedron is homotopy equivalent to a finite $n$-dimensional subpolyhedron of $\mathbb R^{2n}$, so its regular neighborhood is the desired open smooth manifold.

Here is a specific question that shows the state of my ignorance on this matter:

Question 2. Is there a closed $n$-manifold which is not homotopy equivalent to a smooth $(n+1)$-manifold?

The naive idea to look at the product of a non-smoothable manifold of dimension $\ge 5$ with $\mathbb R$ fails, because such a product is also non-smoothable (by the topological product structure theorem of Kirby-Siebenmann).

Edit: Misha kindly corrects me that a $5$-manifold is smoothable if and only if its Kirby-Siebenmann invariant vanishes; in particular, this apples to products of a $\mathbb R$ and a closed $4$-manifold $M$. Thus $M\times\mathbb R$ is smoothable iff $M$ has zero KS invariant. Smooth $4$-manifolds have zero KS invariant, but amazingly so do some non-smoothable ones.

share|cite|improve this question
    
Should be Dranishnikov? – Mark Sapir May 21 '12 at 21:06
3  
@Igor: 1. Sometimes, the product with ${\mathbb R}$ is smoothable. 2. You can avoid Stallings' theorem if you use immersion to ${\mathbb R}^{2n}$ instead of an embedding. 3. Try Davis-Januszkiewicz argument, see the reference here and see if this gives a counter-example at least for a tame smoothing. (Try to argue that your open smooth (n+1)-manifold is properly homotopy-equivalent to an open interval bundle over a non-smoothable n-manifold.) – Misha May 21 '12 at 21:08
    
@Mark: corrected; I hope you won't insists on accents in Repovs. @Misha: Do you know a $4$-dimensional example? In higher dimensions there is an old preprint of Galewski-Hollingworth that implies that there is no $(n+1)$-dimensional compact smooth thickening $V$ of an $n$-dimensional Poincare complex $X$, provided both of them are orientable; compactness of $V$ can be replaced by the assumption that an image of $X$ separates a neighborhood in $V$. Showing that $V$ is properly h.e. to an $\mathbb R$-bundle seems tricky. – Igor Belegradek May 21 '12 at 21:36
    
@Misha: I am familiar with examples of closed non-smoothable aspherical manifolds by Davis-Januszkiewicz and Davis-Hausmann, in fact, my question was motivated by the desire to see how much the action dimension of arxiv.org/abs/math/0010141 would change if one defines it using smooth (!) properly discontinuous actions. – Igor Belegradek May 21 '12 at 22:03
1  
@Igor: Concerning KS invariant for 4-manifolds: It vanishes iff $M^4\times {\mathbb R}$ is smoothable. In dimension 4 there are non-smoothable manifolds with both zero and non-zero KS invariants since there are other, gauge-theoretic, obstructions to smoothability. – Misha May 23 '12 at 15:12

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.