M. Atiyah has posted a preprint on arXiv on the non-existence of complex structure on the sphere $S^6$.


It relies on the topological $K$-theory $KR$ and in particular on the forgetful map from topological complex $K$-theory to $KR$.

Question: what are the nice references to learn about $KR$?

Edit : Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions, M. Atiyah's paper "K-theory and reality." Quart. J. Math., Oxford (2), 17 (1966),367-86 is a fantastic paper. However I have more questions.

Question 1: how to build the morphism $$KSp(\mathbb{R}^6)\rightarrow K^{7,1}(pt)?$$

Question 2: why do we use $\mathbb{R}^{7,1}$?

In fact I do not understand the sentence "The 6-sphere then appears naturally as the base of the light-cone". And why it suffices to look at this particular model of $S^6$.

  • 3
    It looks like you implicitly do not accept Atiyah's reference [1] in his paper. What isn't "nice" about that? – Ryan Budney Oct 31 '16 at 20:05
  • 4
    I am reading [1], it is beautifully written. However as I am a complete amateur, I would like to understand the relationships between topological complex K-theory and KR-theory. In particular this sentence: "There are natural forgetful maps from complex K-theory to KR-theory and in dimension 6 the integers go to 0". – David C Oct 31 '16 at 20:22
  • 3
    I think it's just a straight-forward computation, isn't it? I've only scanned the paper and this is my first time thinking about $KR$, but I suspect what's going on is that the generator for complex k-theory is the bundle with Euler class $1$. In $KR$ theory this is twice the generator, because the generator is one where the fixed-point set of the involution is a Moebius bundle. I haven't thought about this in detail but that's what I suspect is going on. – Ryan Budney Oct 31 '16 at 21:22
  • 5
    I think basics of $KR$ theory is easy to learn from [1]. What is puzzling is the claim on p.5 of arxiv.org/abs/1610.09366 that "Because of the Atiyah-Singer theory, the linear algebra acquires a topological meaning, and that is embodied in $KR$ theory." – Igor Belegradek Nov 1 '16 at 2:56
  • 4
    @RyanBudney I suspect that the sentence "integers goes to 0" means integrable ACS goes to 0 in KR, while non-integrable ones goes to 1. It seems that he was using this map to separate integrable and non-integrable ACSs, it cannot be done if it is trivial. I feel that this might be the most crucial step, but do not have a clear idea what's going on... – Mingcong Zeng Nov 1 '16 at 21:28

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.