Return to Answer

This question was debated in another forum a few years ago. The result was a note by Frédéric Campana in which he describes a counterexample as a corollary of another construction. In 1986 Gang Xiao (An example of hyperelliptic surfaces with positive index Northeast. Math. J. 2 (1986), no. 3, 255–257.) found two simply connected complex surfaces $S$ and $S'$ (that is, complex dimension 2), with different Hodge numbers, that are homeomorphic by Freedman's classification. The homeomorphism has to be orientation-reversing, but $S \times S$ and $S' \times S'$ are orientedly diffeomorphic and of course still have different Hodge numbers. Freedman's difficult classification is not essential to the argument, because in 8 real dimensions you can use standard surgery theory to establish the diffeomorphism.

Campana also explains that Borel and Hirzebruch found the first counterexample in 1959, in 5 complex dimensions.

This question was debated in another forum a few years ago. The result was a note by Frédéric Campana in which he describes a counterexample as a corollary of another construction. In 1986 Gang Xiao (An example of hyperelliptic surfaces with positive index Northeast. Math. J. 2 (1986), no. 3, 255–257.) found two simply connected complex surfaces $S$ and $S'$ (that is, complex dimension 2), with different Hodge numbers, that are homeomorphic by Freedman's classification. The homeomorphism has to be orientation-reversing, but $S \times S$ and $S' \times S'$ are orientedly diffeomorphic and of course still have different Hodge numbers. Freedman's difficult classification is not essential to the argument, because in 8 real dimensions you can use standard surgery theory to establish the diffeomorphism.

Campana also explains that Borel and Hirzebruch found the first counterexample in 1959, in 5 complex dimensions.

This question was debated in another forum a few years ago. The result was a note by Frédéric Campana in which he describes a counterexample as a corollary of another construction. In 1986 Gang Xiao found two simply connected complex surfaces $S$ and $S'$ (that is, complex dimension 2), with different Hodge numbers, that are homeomorphic by Freedman's classification. The homeomorphism has to be orientation-reversing, but $S \times S$ and $S' \times S'$ are orientedly diffeomorphic and of course still have different Hodge numbers. Freedman's difficult classification is not essential to the argument, because in 8 real dimensions you can use standard surgery theory to establish the diffeomorphism.

Campana also explains that Borel and Hirzebruch found the first counterexample in 1959, in 5 complex dimensions.

This question was debated in another forum a few years ago. The result was a note by Frédéric Campana in which he describes a counterexample as a corollary of another construction. In 1986 Gang Xiao (An example of hyperelliptic surfaces with positive index Northeast. Math. J. 2 (1986), no. 3, 255–257.) found two simply connected complex surfaces $S$ and $S'$ (that is, complex dimension 2), with different Hodge numbers, that are homeomorphic by Freedman's classification. The homeomorphism has to be orientation-reversing, but $S \times S$ and $S' \times S'$ are orientedly diffeomorphic and of course still have different Hodge numbers. Freedman's difficult classification is not essential to the argument, because in 8 real dimensions you can use standard surgery theory to establish the diffeomorphism.

Campana also explains that Borel and Hirzebruch found the first counterexample in 1959, in 5 complex dimensions.

This question was debated in another forum a few years ago. The result was a note by Frédéric Campana in which he describes a counterexample as a corollary of another construction. In 1986 Gang Xiao found two simply connected complex surfaces $S$ and $S'$ (that is, complex dimension 2) that are homeomorphic by Freedman's classification. The homeomorphism has to be orientation-reversing, but $S \times S$ and $S' \times S'$ are orientedly diffeomorphic and of course still have equal Hodge numbers. Freedman's difficult classification is not essential to the argument, because in 8 real dimensions you can use standard surgery theory to establish the diffeomorphism.

Campana also explains that Borel and Hirzebruch found the first counterexample in 1959, in 5 complex dimensions.

This question was debated in another forum a few years ago. The result was a note by Frédéric Campana in which he describes a counterexample as a corollary of another construction. In 1986 Gang Xiao found two simply connected complex surfaces $S$ and $S'$ (that is, complex dimension 2), with different Hodge numbers, that are homeomorphic by Freedman's classification. The homeomorphism has to be orientation-reversing, but $S \times S$ and $S' \times S'$ are orientedly diffeomorphic and of course still have different Hodge numbers. Freedman's difficult classification is not essential to the argument, because in 8 real dimensions you can use standard surgery theory to establish the diffeomorphism.

Campana also explains that Borel and Hirzebruch found the first counterexample in 1959, in 5 complex dimensions.