Skip to main content

Timeline for Quotient of trivial bundles

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 19, 2013 at 3:12 vote accept kalafat
Mar 19, 2013 at 3:11 vote accept kalafat
Mar 19, 2013 at 3:12
Mar 13, 2013 at 15:41 answer added Tom Goodwillie timeline score: 6
Mar 12, 2013 at 20:08 comment added Ricardo Andrade @Alex_K: You are welcome. @Chris Gerig: I cannot understand whether you are implying that every manifold is stably parallelizable. Nevertheless, that is certainly not true: any non-orientable manifold is not stably parallelizable.
Mar 12, 2013 at 19:38 comment added Chris Gerig Taking that one step further, you can always stabilize by adding trivial summands: $TM\oplus\epsilon^m= \epsilon^N$ and then do your division.
Mar 12, 2013 at 12:33 answer added Ben McKay timeline score: 6
Mar 12, 2013 at 12:08 comment added Alex_K Oh yes...thank you for pointing out my mistake...every stably trivial bundle is a counter example to what I said...
Mar 12, 2013 at 9:15 comment added Ricardo Andrade @Alex_K: The normal bundle of $S^2$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ is trivial. So the tangent bundle of $S^2$ is the quotient of a trivial bundle (the tangent bundle of $\mathbb{R}^3$ restricted to $S^2$) by a trivial 1-dimensional sub-bundle (the normal bundle of $S^2$). Yet $S^2$ is not parallelizable.
Mar 12, 2013 at 8:58 comment added Alex_K If you equip the bundle with the constant metric, then the quotient can be identified with the orthogonal complement and thus is trivial...
Mar 12, 2013 at 8:45 history edited kalafat CC BY-SA 3.0
typo
Mar 12, 2013 at 8:13 comment added IMeasy At least in the algebraic setting, I feel like the quotient is always a trivial bundle because a map between two trivial bundles is just a vector of scalars...
Mar 12, 2013 at 7:59 history asked kalafat CC BY-SA 3.0