7
$\begingroup$

The generalized PL Poincare hypothesis states that in dimension $n$ there is a unique PL manifold that has the homotopy-type of $S^n$. It's known to be true in all dimensions except perhaps $n=4$.

For $n \geq 5$ the standard argument uses rather explicit handle manipulations to come up with the proof (proving the h-cobordism theorem in the process), which is somewhat spiritually-similar to (although more complicated than) the proofs in dimension $n=2$.

The proof in dimension $n=3$ is very different than the above two cases.

But I wonder, perhaps there is a proof that avoids the h-cobordism theorem, perhaps there is a more direct proof? Has there been much discussion of this in the literature?

One thought would be to find an appropriately simplified proof of the Farrell fibering theorem (when a manifold fibers over $S^1$), one that perhaps allows you to reduce $S^n$ recognition into a homotopy-unknot recognition problem.

I imagine back in the 60's and 70's there was some discussion of these topics but I wouldn't know where to look.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I am taking a class with Farrell. He often say "this (seemingly trivial statement) is equivalent to Poincare conjecture" when I claim it was obvious... $\endgroup$
    – Bombyx mori
    Dec 18, 2013 at 7:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

The Poincare conjecture predates the h-cobordism theorem, and the original proof of it in Smale's paper does not prove the h-cobordism theorem (though the handle manipulations in it are what inspired the h-cobordism theorem, so this is maybe not a good answer).

A very different way of proving the Poincare conjecture is Stallings's proof using "engulfing". A nice modern source for this is Chapter 9 of Ferry's notes here.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, I suppose I disagree with you. The h-cobordism theorem was just the natural setting for Smale's proof of the Poincare conjecture. It wasn't much more than a recasting of the argument into its "natural" form. And Stallings proof I lump in with the handle-by-handle type arguments such as the h-cobordism theorem. $\endgroup$
    – Ryan Budney
    Dec 18, 2013 at 0:09
  • $\begingroup$ @RyanBudney : I'd be impressed if you managed to give an engulfing-style proof of the h-cobordism theorem; the flavor of the handle manipulations in it are pretty different from those that show up in Smale's work. $\endgroup$
    – Andy Putman
    Dec 18, 2013 at 0:21
  • $\begingroup$ (which is not to say that I wouldn't be interested in a completely different proof of the PC; however, I kind of doubt that one exists) $\endgroup$
    – Andy Putman
    Dec 18, 2013 at 0:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm starting to think maybe there's one does exist. I don't have a coherent argument, but when I put my next paper up on the arXiv you'll see some of my reasons why I have these hopes. $\endgroup$
    – Ryan Budney
    Dec 18, 2013 at 0:34
  • $\begingroup$ @RyanBudney : I look forward to seeing it! I always enjoy your papers. $\endgroup$
    – Andy Putman
    Dec 18, 2013 at 0:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.