Let us define a Spin-H structure as a reduction of a SO(n)-bundle by the group: $$Spin^H (n)=Spin(n) \times SU(2)/\{ 1,-1\}$$ The Spin-H structures are analogous to the well-known Spin-C structures but for the Hamilton numbers instead of the complex numbers. Can we prove that an oriented riemannian manifold admits a Spin-H structure if and only if it is Spin?

  • $\begingroup$ I think you meant to write $(Spin(n)×SU(2))/\{1,−1\}$ or $\frac{Spin(n)×SU(2)}{\{1,−1\}}$, yes ? $\endgroup$ – wonderich Aug 16 '18 at 20:35

As mentioned in Arun Debray's answer, a closed orientable smooth manifold $M$ is spin${}^h$ if and only if there is a principal $SO(3)$-bundle (or equivalently, an orientable real rank three bundle) $P$ such that $w_2(M) = w_2(P)$.

  • If $M$ is spin, then $w_2(M) = 0$. Taking $P$ to be the trivial bundle, we see that $w_2(M) = 0 = w_2(P)$, so $M$ is spin${}^h$.
  • If $M$ is spin${}^c$, then $w_2(M)$ has an integral lift $c \in H^2(M; \mathbb{Z})$. There is a complex line bundle $L$ with $c_1(L) = c$ and hence $w_2(L) = w_2(M)$; one choice of such an $L$ is the complex line bundle associated to a spin${}^c$ structure. Now taking $P = L \oplus \varepsilon^1$, we see that $w_2(M) = w_2(L) = w_2(L\oplus\varepsilon^1) = w_2(P)$, so $M$ is spin${}^h$. For $M = \mathbb{CP}^2$ with its standard spin${}^c$ structure, this is the example given in Arun Debray's answer.
  • If $M$ is a closed oriented Riemannian four-manifold, then $w_2(M) = w_2(\Lambda^+) = w_2(\Lambda^-)$ so taking $P = \Lambda^+$ or $\Lambda^-$ shows that $M$ is spin${}^h$. Note, this can also be deduced from the previous point as all closed orientable smooth four-manifolds are spin${}^c$.
  • If $M$ is the Wu manifold, $SU(3)/SO(3)$, let $P$ be the principal $SO(3)$-bundle $SO(3) \to SU(3) \to SU(3)/SO(3)$. Then $w_2(M) = w_2(P)$, so $M$ is spin${}^h$. This is a notable example as $M$ is not spin${}^c$. I learnt this from Xuan Chen, a former student of Blaine Lawson.

In conclusion, every spin manifold is spin${}^c$, but not conversely (as $\mathbb{CP}^2$ demonstrates), and every spin${}^c$ manifold is spin${}^h$, but not conversely (as $SU(3)/SO(3)$ demonstrates).

Added Later: In this paper, Aleksandar Milivojevic and I prove the following:

  • The primary obstruction to the existence of a spin$^h$ structure on an orientable manifold $M$ is $W_5(M)$, the fifth integral Stiefel-Whitney class of $M$. It is worth noting that in the spin$^c$ case the primary (and only) obstruction is $W_3(M)$.
  • Every orientable manifold of dimension $\leq 7$ is spin$^h$.
  • In every dimension $\geq 8$, there exist infinitely many homotopy types of closed, simply connected manifolds which are not spin$^h$.

An explicit example of an orientable manifold which is not spin$^h$ is the ten-dimensional manifold $(SU(3)/SO(3))\times(SU(3)/SO(3))$.

  • $\begingroup$ Based on your answer it sounds like spin^h manifolds are interesting to you outside of just this question. How do they come up in what you're interested in? $\endgroup$ – Arun Debray Jul 7 '18 at 22:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I learnt about spin${}^h$ manifolds in Xuan Chen's thesis defense. Beyond that, I haven't really thought much about them. $\endgroup$ – Michael Albanese Jul 8 '18 at 6:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelAlbanese, thanks for mentioning Xuan Chen's thesis. It's short and studies an interesting question! $\endgroup$ – Igor Khavkine Jul 8 '18 at 8:05

SpinH-structures were studied by Shiozaki-Shapourian-Gomi-Ryu for applications to condensed-matter physics. They prove in Lemma D.9 that a closed manifold $M$ admits a spinH-structure iff it's orientable and there's a principal $\mathrm{SO}_3$-bundle $P\to M$ such that $w_2(P) = w_2(TM)$.

$\newcommand{\CP}{\mathbb{CP}}$This implies $\CP^2$ is spinH but not spin. If $x\in H^2(\CP^2)$ denotes the generator Poincaré dual to a hyperplane and $\bar x$ denotes its reduction in mod 2 cohomology, which is nonzero, then

$$c(\CP^2) = (1+x)^3 = 1 + 3x + 3x^2$$

and therefore $w_2(\CP^2) = \bar x$, so $\CP^2$ isn't spin.

If $S$ denotes the tautological bundle, then $c(S) = 1-x$, so $w_1(S) = 0$ and $w_2(S) = \bar x$. Therefore $S\oplus\underline{\mathbb R}$ is a rank-3 orientable real vector bundle, so its bundle of orthonormal frames admits a reduction to a principal $\mathrm{SO}_3$-bundle $P\to\CP^2$. Since Stiefel-Whitney classes are stable, $w_2(P) = w_2(S) = \bar x$, and therefore $\CP^2$ is spinH.

  • $\begingroup$ I considered the inclusion map $[Spin(n).Spin(3)/ \{ 1,-1\} ] \hookrightarrow Spin (n+3)$ so that the manifold is Spin-H if and only if there is a $Spin(3)$-fiber bundle $P$ so that $\omega_2 (TM \oplus P)=0,$ $\omega_2 (M)= \omega_2 (P)$ if and only if $\omega_2 (M)=0$ as $Spin_3= S^3$...? I must take a $SO(3)$-fiber bundle? $\endgroup$ – Antoine Balan Jul 7 '18 at 16:52
  • $\begingroup$ @AntoineBalan the condition you mention, that there's a $\mathrm{Spin}_3$-bundle $P$ with $w_2(TM) = w_2(P)$, is data of a $\mathrm{Spin}_n\times\mathrm{Spin}_3$-structure, but a spin^h structure is a $(\mathrm{Spin}_n\times\mathrm{Spin}_3)/\{\pm 1\}$-structure, which is different. The story is very similar to the difference between spin^c structures vs $\mathrm{Spin}_n\times\mathrm U_1$-structures. $\endgroup$ – Arun Debray Jul 7 '18 at 17:31

No, it is possible construct Spin-H structures on manifolds that don't have spin structures. For instance, the case of a 4-dimensional manifold $M$ was considered in detail in

Avis, S. J. & Isham, C. J. Generalized spin structures on four dimensional space-times. Communications in Mathematical Physics 72, 103-118 (1980).

In fact, they considered a general Lie group $G$ (and corresponding generalized Spin structures), instead of only $G = SU(2)$, and found that the obstruction to the existence of a generalized spin structure was obstructed by a characteristic class valued in $H^3(M,\pi_1(G))$, cf. their equation (4.14). Hence, at least in this case, since $\pi_1(SU(2)) = 0$, there are no obstructions to the existence of Spin-H structures on 4-manifolds. I suspect the situation becomes more complicated in higher dimensions, but I'm not competent to say how.

  • $\begingroup$ It seems that if I take $G=S^1$ there is a problem because it exists $M$ with $H^3(M, {\bf Z})\neq 0$...Is it false? $\endgroup$ – Antoine Balan Jul 7 '18 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ @AntoineBalan, this is exactly the remark that Avis & Isham make on p.113 of their paper. As I'm sure you know, $G=S^1=U(1)$ corresponds to Spin-C structure. $\endgroup$ – Igor Khavkine Jul 7 '18 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ In our case, it seems that the group is $G=Spin(n).SU(2)$ so that the obstruction is to be Spin in fact... $\endgroup$ – Antoine Balan Jul 7 '18 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is that if I take $G=\{ e \}$, there is no obstruction? $\endgroup$ – Antoine Balan Jul 7 '18 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ @AntoineBalan, I think you should have a look at the discussion in Avis & Isham to see more precisely how the corner cases fit into the general pattern. I think that setting $G=\{e\}$ just gives you back the frame bundle, since $Spin(n) \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2} \{e\} \cong SO(n)$. So indeed, there should be no obstruction. You need $G=\mathbb{Z}_2$ to get the usual Spin structure. I think that Avis & Isham may be working with the hidden assumption that their Lie group $G$ is connected, so that $G=\mathbb{Z}_2$ has to be a special case. $\endgroup$ – Igor Khavkine Jul 7 '18 at 17:58

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.