Timeline for Why must a reducible flat SU(2)-connection over a homology sphere be trivial?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 26, 2011 at 23:29 | comment | added | Xuanting Cai | Of Course. Thank you for your help. | |
| Jan 26, 2011 at 23:06 | vote | accept | Xuanting Cai | ||
| Jan 26, 2011 at 14:15 | comment | added | Tim Perutz | Xuanting, hope you don't mind that I edited your question (added Latex and a tag), and made the question the title (which is the convention on MO). | |
| Jan 26, 2011 at 14:13 | history | edited | Tim Perutz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Added Latex, gauge-theory tag and more specific title
|
| Jan 26, 2011 at 14:10 | answer | added | Tim Perutz | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 26, 2011 at 7:02 | answer | added | Somnath Basu | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 26, 2011 at 6:41 | comment | added | Somnath Basu | @ Xuanting - What do you mean by the "Product connection"? Do you mean the product of a $1$-form on $M$ and a map from $M$ to $\mathfrak{su}_2$ ? @ Dan - I believe the definition the OP stated is correct. At least it's the one that is used in Fukaya's notes and a couple of other places that I have seen. | |
| Jan 26, 2011 at 5:55 | comment | added | Dan Ramras | It seems to me that this is pretty immediate once you think in terms of holonomy representations. Have you thought in that direction? Maybe the bulk of the work is in relating the notion of reducible connection to reducibility of the holonomy representation. (Actually, I'm not completely sure I understand your definition of reducible: are you saying a connection is reducible if there is a non-trivial gauge transformation that fixes it? That doesn't sound right.) | |
| Jan 26, 2011 at 4:06 | history | asked | Xuanting Cai | CC BY-SA 2.5 |