Skip to main content
added 18 characters in body
Source Link
Greg Kuperberg
  • 56.6k
  • 10
  • 203
  • 282

I'm not sure if I know a good source, but I can make a remark.

In the category of topological spaces up to homotopy, there is a highly nontrivial geometric invariant that people have taken as interesting: What is the lowest dimension of a topological representative of a given homotopy type? For instance if you have a group $G$, what is the lowest possible dimension of a classifying space $B_G$? The cohomological dimension is a lower bound for this geometric invariant which is more algebraic and sometimes more tractable.

For example, if you have a group $G$, it may not be easy to tell whether it is the fundamental group of a compact, hyperbolic $n$-manifold. (Or a Euclidean manifold or a non-positively curved manifold.) If you can compute its group cohomology, then you'll learn something about it, because there is such an $n$-manifold, then the cohomological dimension of $G$ is exactly $n$.

As another example, if $G$ is a non-trivial finite group, then it is not hard to computenot hard to compute that its cohomology is periodic and thus known that its cohomology is periodic and thus its cohomological dimension is infinite. Thus, any finite-dimensional CW complex with a non-trivial but finite fundamental group has to have higher homotopy groups.

Maybe a good reference is Brown's GTM book on cohomology of groups.

I'm not sure if I know a good source, but I can make a remark.

In the category of topological spaces up to homotopy, there is a highly nontrivial geometric invariant that people have taken as interesting: What is the lowest dimension of a topological representative of a given homotopy type? For instance if you have a group $G$, what is the lowest possible dimension of a classifying space $B_G$? The cohomological dimension is a lower bound for this geometric invariant which is more algebraic and sometimes more tractable.

For example, if you have a group $G$, it may not be easy to tell whether it is the fundamental group of a compact, hyperbolic $n$-manifold. (Or a Euclidean manifold or a non-positively curved manifold.) If you can compute its group cohomology, then you'll learn something about it, because there is such an $n$-manifold, then the cohomological dimension of $G$ is exactly $n$.

As another example, if $G$ is a non-trivial finite group, then it is not hard to compute that its cohomology is periodic and thus its cohomological dimension is infinite. Thus, any finite-dimensional CW complex with a non-trivial but finite fundamental group has to have higher homotopy groups.

Maybe a good reference is Brown's GTM book on cohomology of groups.

I'm not sure if I know a good source, but I can make a remark.

In the category of topological spaces up to homotopy, there is a highly nontrivial geometric invariant that people have taken as interesting: What is the lowest dimension of a topological representative of a given homotopy type? For instance if you have a group $G$, what is the lowest possible dimension of a classifying space $B_G$? The cohomological dimension is a lower bound for this geometric invariant which is more algebraic and sometimes more tractable.

For example, if you have a group $G$, it may not be easy to tell whether it is the fundamental group of a compact, hyperbolic $n$-manifold. (Or a Euclidean manifold or a non-positively curved manifold.) If you can compute its group cohomology, then you'll learn something about it, because there is such an $n$-manifold, then the cohomological dimension of $G$ is exactly $n$.

As another example, if $G$ is a non-trivial finite group, then it is not hard to compute that its cohomology is periodic and thus known that its cohomological dimension is infinite. Thus, any finite-dimensional CW complex with a non-trivial but finite fundamental group has to have higher homotopy groups.

Maybe a good reference is Brown's GTM book on cohomology of groups.

Source Link
Greg Kuperberg
  • 56.6k
  • 10
  • 203
  • 282

I'm not sure if I know a good source, but I can make a remark.

In the category of topological spaces up to homotopy, there is a highly nontrivial geometric invariant that people have taken as interesting: What is the lowest dimension of a topological representative of a given homotopy type? For instance if you have a group $G$, what is the lowest possible dimension of a classifying space $B_G$? The cohomological dimension is a lower bound for this geometric invariant which is more algebraic and sometimes more tractable.

For example, if you have a group $G$, it may not be easy to tell whether it is the fundamental group of a compact, hyperbolic $n$-manifold. (Or a Euclidean manifold or a non-positively curved manifold.) If you can compute its group cohomology, then you'll learn something about it, because there is such an $n$-manifold, then the cohomological dimension of $G$ is exactly $n$.

As another example, if $G$ is a non-trivial finite group, then it is not hard to compute that its cohomology is periodic and thus its cohomological dimension is infinite. Thus, any finite-dimensional CW complex with a non-trivial but finite fundamental group has to have higher homotopy groups.

Maybe a good reference is Brown's GTM book on cohomology of groups.