The motivation to this question is the paper of Crowley and Nordstrøm "A New Invariant of $G_2$-Structures". I am trying to find a homotopy theoretic interpretation of the following geometric situation: The exceptional Lie-group $G_2$ can be regarded as the stabilizer of a vector in $S^7$ under the action of $Spin(7)$ on $\mathbb{R}^8$ (this action can be depicted by octonionic multiplication). On a 7-dimensional $Spin$-manifold a $G_2$-structure on the tangent bundle $TM$ is equivalent to a homotopy class of non-vanishing unit sections $s\colon M \rightarrow \Sigma M$ into the associated real spinor bundle $\Sigma M$, giving an isomorphism of oriented Riemannian vector bundles $\underline{\mathbb{R}} \oplus TM \cong \Sigma M$. Crowley and Nordstrøm show, that every $G_2$-structure is bounded by a $Spin(7)$-structure, i. e. an 8-dimensional spin manifold $W$ with a unit section $\bar{s} \colon W \rightarrow \Sigma ^+ W$ into the positive half-spinor bundle, extending $s$. It follows that the Euler class of the positive half-spinor bundle vanishes.

Some thoughts so far have been: We are looking at sections into bundles associated to tangential structures, while bordism works in the stable normal direction. Thus, to fix a trivialization between normal and tangential structure, it could be worthwhile taking the homotopy fibre $B$ of the map $BG_2 \times BSpin(7) \rightarrow BSpin$ as an underlying space and construct the Thom-spectrum MB over B by the map $\xi \colon B \rightarrow BG_2 \times BSpin(7) \rightarrow BO(7) \rightarrow BO$. But if every $G_2$-structure is bounded by a $Spin(7)$-structure then the group $\pi _7 (MB)$ should vanish, correct? Another idea would be the classifying space $BG_2$ and its Thomspectrum. At least it is known that the bordism group is $\Omega ^{G_2}_7 \cong \mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$. But in that situation I do not see how to transfer this normal $G_2$-structure to a tangential structure.

So my question is: Which choice of underlying space and Thomspectrum seems reasonable to deal with the explained geometric situation?


1 Answer 1


The second version of the arXiv post of the Crowley-Nordström paper goes into some detail in giving an answer to this question: see Section 7 of version 2. The out-line is as follows:

1) First define stable $G_2$-structures and stable tangential $G_2$-bordism.

2) Then make the standard identification of stable tangential bordism and normal bordism.

3) Finally, use the Thom spectrum for normal $G_2$ bordism - this is the suspension spectrum of the Thom space of the inverse to the canonical vector bundle $V$ over $BG$, where $V$ is obtained from the standard representation of $G_2$ on $\mathbb{R}^7$. i.e. our candidate for $MG_2$ is the suspension spectrum of $T(-V)$, where $-V$ is the K-theory inverse of $V$ and $T(-V)$ is its Thom space: of course, you have to take some care to make the rank of the representative of $-V$ and the indexing of the suspension spectrum match up.

Whether this is what you want, I am not sure, but did allows us to compare $G_2$ bordism and $SU(2)$ bordism and to give a geometric interpretation of the $\nu$-invariant modulo 3.

  • $\begingroup$ Dear Diarmuid, thanks a lot for this answer! Sebastian Goette and me are trying to find a possibility to get the whole situation without the mod 3 reduction into a homotopy theoretic picture. But as the $\nu$-invariant is not invariant under cobordism, the space we are looking for should not be a Thom-spectrum. Still, as time for my diploma is running short, I'll be happy to show the mod 3 version at least. Thanks again! $\endgroup$
    – Arkadi
    Oct 3, 2013 at 13:13

Your Answer

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

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