I'm having trouble understanding the proof given in Morgan's The Seiberg-Witten Equations that every 4-manifold $X$ admits a $Spin^c$ structure (Lemma 3.1.2). One can easily see from the exact sequence: \begin{equation*} H^1(X;Spin^c) \to H^1(X; SO(n)) \oplus H^1(X;\mathbb{Z}) \xrightarrow{c_1+w_2} H^2(X;\mathbb{Z}_2) \end{equation*} that a $Spin^c$ structure will exist iff $w_2(TX)$ lifts to an integral class, which we can check using Bockstein homomorphisms. After that, I'm lost; I'm not sure if these are theorems, or whether they are supposed to be obvious:

  1. In what sense is every $\mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}$ 3-class represented by a mapping from a smooth $\mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}$-manifold into $X$?
  2. Why are integral 2-classes that represent torsion elements necessarily represented by embedded oriented surfaces?

EDIT: Since the proof from Morgan's book is quite short, I may as well write out the whole thing here:

"We need only see that $w_2(X)$ lifts to an integral class $c \in H^2(X;\mathbb{Z})$ in order to prove the existence of a $Spin^c$ lifting. But for any class $x \in H_2(X;\mathbb{Z}/2 \mathbb{Z})$ the value of $w_2(X)$ on $x$ is given as follows: represent $x$ as an embedded (possibly non-orientable) closed surface in $X$ and take the self-intersection of this surface modulo two. To see that $w_2(X)$ lifts to an integral class, we must see that its integral Bockstein $\delta w_2(X)$ is zero. But this torsion integral class is zero if and only if it evaluates trivially on every $\mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}$ class of dimension three. Any such class is represented by a mapping of a smooth $\mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}$-manifold into $X$. The value of $\delta w_2(X)$ on such a class is equal to the value of $w_2(X)$ on the Bockstein of this $\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}$-manifold. Thus, we need only see that $w_2(X)$ vanishes on integral classes which represent torsion elements in $H_2(X;\mathbb{Z})$. But this is clear, any such class is represented by a smoothly embedded oriented surface with zero self-intersection".

I suppose what I'm really asking is which statements in this proof are non-trivial theorems about the topology of 4-manifolds, and which ones are supposed to be obvious?

Sorry, I don't seem to be able to comment, so I'll just say here: Ryan Budney, I hope this makes the question less vague, and Anton Fetisov, yes, there are other proofs of this fact that I do understand, but I'm specifically trying to understand this proof, because it seems very slick.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Dimension 4 appears because you end up using Poincare duality (cup/cap product for computing intersection numbers). It is a classical result of Thom (google "representable classes") that every homology class in sufficiently low degrees (including 2 and 3) is represented by a submanifold, i.e. the fundamental class of such a submanifold is your desired homology class (explaining Question 1), and orientability for Question 2 is clarified for example in Torsten's answer here[mathoverflow.net/questions/22473/…. $\endgroup$ – Chris Gerig Apr 11 '17 at 23:31
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the comment. Yes, I am familiar with the result of Thom, but I'm not aware of its extension to manifolds with a G-structure in Q1. Torsten's answer is nice but it seems to indicate that we didn't need the torsion condition at all in Q2. $\endgroup$ – jdk3264 Apr 12 '17 at 1:32
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Your question is rather vague. Could you write it up in a way that doesn't require readers to go somewhere else? $\endgroup$ – Ryan Budney Apr 12 '17 at 5:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dimension 4 is required because any proof rests either on the Poincare duality (in compact case) or on the intersection form on 2-cohomology in general. Note that you also need orientability. I didn't read the paper you cite, but perhaps this paper will help. $\endgroup$ – Anton Fetisov Apr 12 '17 at 21:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Another proof along these lines is given in a short note of Teichner and Vogt, people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/teichner/Papers/spin.pdf. You might find the exposition there helpful. $\endgroup$ – Danny Ruberman Apr 14 '17 at 14:12

First let me stress the importance of Anton Fetisov's comment that $X$ must be orientable. Indeed, this seems to be used at nearly every step of the proof you cite.

For example, consider the claim "for any class $x\in H_2(X;\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ the value of $w_2(X)$ on $x$ is given as follows: represent $x$ as an embedded (possibly non-orientable) closed surface in $X$ and take the self-intersection of this surface modulo two." This can fail if $X$ is non-orientable. For example, take $X=\mathbb{R}P^2\times\mathbb{R}P^2$, which has $w_2(X)=a^2\times 1 + a\times a + 1\times a^2$ where $a\in H^1(\mathbb{R}P^2;\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ is the generator. Consider the homology class $x\in H_2(X;\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ represented by the embedding $\iota:\mathbb{R}P^2\hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}P^2\times\mathbb{R}P^2$ of the first factor. Then $$ \langle w_2(X),x\rangle =\langle w_2(X),\iota_*[\mathbb{R}P^2]\rangle = \langle \iota^*w_2(X),[\mathbb{R}P^2]\rangle = \langle a^2,[\mathbb{R}P^2]\rangle \equiv 1, $$ whereas it is clear that the self-intersection is zero in this case.

Now to your actual questions:

  1. Here a $\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}$-manifold means a manifold which is oriented with respect to singular homology with $\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}$ coefficients. When $k=1$ this is all manifolds, and the claim reduces to Thom's positive answer to the mod $2$ Steenrod realizability problem. When $k>1$, a $\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}$-manifold is an orientable manifold $M^m$ with a choice of fundamental class $[M]\in H_m(M;\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z})$. By Thom's results, a homology class $a\in H_3(X;\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z})$ is represented by an embedded $\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}$-manifold if and only if its Poincaré dual in $H^1(X;\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z})$ is induced from the universal Thom class $t_{\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}}\in H^1(MSO(1);\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z})$ under some map $f: X\to MSO(1)$. Now note that $MSO(1)\simeq S^1$, and that the Thom class induces an isomorphism $$t^*_{\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}}:H^1(MSO(1);\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z})\cong H^1(K(\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z},1);\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}).$$ It follows that every $a\in H_3(X;\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z})$ is represented by an embedded $\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}$-manifold.

(Note that orientability of $X$ was used here, to get Poincaré duality with $\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}$ coefficients.)

  1. Again by orientability and Thom's results, every class in $H_2(X;\mathbb{Z})\cong H^2(X;\mathbb{Z})$ is represented by an embedded oriented surface $\Sigma\hookrightarrow X$. The torsion assumption is just used to get the final clause, that $\Sigma$ has zero self-intersection. This is because the self-intersection is Poincaré dual to cup square, and the square of a torsion class in $H^2(X;\mathbb{Z})$ is a torsion class in $H^4(X;\mathbb{Z})\cong \mathbb{Z}$, therefore is zero.

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.