19
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a compact connected Lie group with maximal torus $T$ and Weyl group $W$. Recall the following two isomorphisms.

Isomorphism 1: $R(G) \cong R(T)^W$, where $R(-)$ denotes the representation ring.

Isomorphism 2: $H^{\bullet}(BG, \mathbb{Q}) \cong H^{\bullet}(BT, \mathbb{Q})^W$.

What relationship is there, if any, between these two isomorphisms? Can I see them both as special cases of some more fundamental fact?

It's tempting to conjecture a relationship involving K-theory but I don't know how to make this work out. In particular, any finite-dimensional representation $V$ of $G$ determines a vector bundle on $BG$ and hence a class in $K^{\bullet}(BG)$, and I hoped that I could apply the Chern character to this class, but for a space like $BG$ with infinite cohomological dimension the Chern character lands in the direct product, rather than the direct sum, of the cohomology groups. There is some story here involving equivariant K-theory and the Atiyah-Segal completion theorem but I am not sure it is enough to, say, deduce either of Isomorphism 1 or 2 from the other.

Here is another even vaguer attempt. By Peter-Weyl, some version of Isomorphism 1 should follow from a suitable isomorphism of the form $G/G \cong T/W$, where on the LHS I am taking the quotient with respect to conjugation. (I'm not sure exactly what category these quotients should be happening in.) On the other hand, Isomorphism 2 should follow from something like the observation that the fiber sequence $G/T \to BT \to BG$ gives a fiber sequence $(G/T)/W \to (BT)/W \to BG$, where $(G/T)/W$ has the rational homotopy type of a point, at least if I'm reading Allen Knutson's answer correctly here, and by the quotient $(BT)/W$ I mean the homotopy quotient. So $(BT)/W \to BG$ is a rational homotopy equivalence, and I might be able to go from this map $(BT)/W \to BG$ to a map $T/W \to G/G$ by taking some version of the free loop space. Maybe? (I might need to work with stacks instead of spaces.)

Edit: I think the two isomorphisms above can be restated in terms of equivariant K-theory and equivariant cohomology respectively as follows:

Isomorphism 1.1: $K_G^{\bullet}(\text{pt}) \cong K_T^{\bullet}(\text{pt})^W$

Isomorphism 2.1: $H_G^{\bullet}(\text{pt}, \mathbb{Q}) \cong H_T^{\bullet}(\text{pt}, \mathbb{Q})^W$

One way to probe the relationship between these two isomorphisms further, then, is to ask:

What happens when I replace $\text{pt}$ above with some other $G$-space? In what generality do the two isomorphisms above continue to hold? What other equivariant cohomology theories can I use here?

In particular, if we find that after replacing $\text{pt}$ by more general spaces one of the isomorphisms holds for different spaces than the other, that would be evidence against a more fundamental fact having them both as corollaries.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know how to answer your question, but let me try to clarify one thing that I probably said hastily in a talk some time. Of course, there is no equivalence (or even a map) of stacks $T/W \to G/G$ - the stabilizers are all wrong, even if the orbit spaces agree. Let us write $N=N_G(T)$. You do have a map of stacks $BN \to BG$, which gives a map on loop spaces $N/N \to G/G$ ($BN$ is what you write as $BT/W$). Inside $N/N$ you have a copy of $T/N = (T/T)/W$ which also maps to $G/G$. Not sure what else to say yet. $\endgroup$ – Sam Gunningham May 20 '14 at 16:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isn't $G/N$ rationally contractible ($N$ the normalizer of a maximal torus)? That would imply a rational equivalence $BN\to BG$ and that any rational cohomology theory can be computed on $BN$. $\endgroup$ – Matthias Wendt May 20 '14 at 18:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In addition to $H_G^*(X, {\Bbb Q}) = H_T^*(X, {\Bbb Q})^W$ (any space $X$, essentially due to Borel), these isomorphisms also hold for equivariant Chow groups and (higher) algebraic $K$-theory (of coherent sheaves). I think it's also true for (algebraic/topological) cobordism, but don't know much about that subject. The unifying theme is a version of the splitting principle; the proofs I know in these different contexts use different techniques, though it's certainly reasonable to ask for a mother-of-all proof. $\endgroup$ – Dave Anderson May 20 '14 at 19:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DavidSpeyer: yes, for finite CW-complexes. It means that in rational homotopy, $G/N$ is equivalent to the point and thus all rational cohomology theories like singular cohomology, K-theory, cobordism (all with rational coefficients) are trivial for $G/N$. I thought a bit more about this, and the rational contractibility of $G/N$ also implies that $X\times^N EG\to X\times^GEG$ also induces isomorphisms in all rational cohomology theories for $X$ any finite $G$-CW-complex. I think this explains the equivariant rational isomorphisms in the question. $\endgroup$ – Matthias Wendt May 20 '14 at 19:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Matthias: I think Dave's point is that your argument works for Borel-equivariant K-theory but it's not clear that one can go from this to the same statement for what is usually called equivariant K-theory. Atiyah-Segal compares the former to the completion of the latter, but as Dave says it's unclear whether this completion can be undone. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan May 20 '14 at 20:13
7
$\begingroup$

Some googling has led me to an answer to the second question, at least: $H_G^{\bullet}(X, \mathbb{Q}) \cong H_T^{\bullet}(X, \mathbb{Q})^W$ holds for any $G$-space $X$ and the argument is essentially the same, and I learned from a paper of Harada, Landweber, and Sjamaar that $K_G^{\bullet}(X) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \cong (K_T^{\bullet}(X) \otimes \mathbb{Q})^W$ holds at least for $X$ compact (actually we only need to invert $|W|$). So this is encouraging, although I don't know how similar the proofs can be made.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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