1
$\begingroup$

I am trying to reproduce some of the details in how the Mayer-Vietoris sequence for bordism should go, especially in showing exactness using this definition of the boundary operator. I have tried to work out some of the details, I'd be grateful to anyone who can take a look at them and perhaps fill in some of the gaps.

First recall that we want an exact sequence

$$\dots \rightarrow \Omega_{n+1}(X)\xrightarrow{\delta_{n+1}} \Omega_{n}(U\cap V)\rightarrow \Omega_{n}(U)\oplus \Omega_{n}(V)\rightarrow \Omega_{n}(X)\rightarrow \dots$$

Here's how I guess the $\delta_{n+1}$ should be defined. One takes a map $f:W\rightarrow X$ representing an element of $\Omega_{n+1}(X)$ and chooses a function $\phi:X\rightarrow [-1,1]$ such that $\phi|_{X\setminus U}=-1$ and $\phi_{X\setminus V}=1$. Then, using Thom transversality, one homotopes the composition $\phi\circ f$ to a smooth map $\tilde{\phi}$ that is tranverse onto the point 0. That way one can take the inverse image $M:=\tilde{\phi}^{-1}(0)$ and this will be a n-dimensional submanifold of $W$ with a map $f|_{M}:M\rightarrow U\cap V$. We get that it indeed maps to $U\cap V$ because we could choose the map $\tilde{\phi}$ to be arbitrarily close to $\phi\circ f$. The choice of $\delta_{n+1}$ is independant of the choice of $\tilde{\phi}$, as any two choices of $\tilde{\phi}$ will be homotopic and hence give bordant classes.

Now to show exactness at $\Omega_{n}(U\cap V)$ we want to show that the compositions $M\rightarrow U\cap V \rightarrow U$ and $M\rightarrow U\cap V\rightarrow V$ are null-bordant. For this we can simply take the submanifold $\tilde{\phi}^{-1}([0,1])$. This is then a manifold with boundary $\tilde{\phi}^{-1}(0)=M$ and hence this gives us our null-bordism of $M\rightarrow U$ and similarly for $M\rightarrow V$ we can take the null-bordism $\tilde{\phi}^{-1}([-1,0])$.

The main problem for me begins with the reverse direction of exactness. Starting with a representative $M\rightarrow U\cap V$ such that $M\rightarrow U\cap V\rightarrow U$ and $M\rightarrow U\cap V\rightarrow V$ are null-bordant, say by null-bordisms $W_1\rightarrow U$ and $W_2\rightarrow V$, we can paste together these manifolds along the common boundary $M$ to get a representative $[W_1\cup_{M} W_2\rightarrow X]\in \Omega_{n+1}(X)$. What I can't figure out is then how to show that this represents maps back to $M\rightarrow U\cap V$ under the map $\delta_{n+1}$.

Anyone have any ideas/references for this? I'd be very grateful for any help!

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ok, coincidentally I have managed to find a reference after having randomly clicked on some link a few minutes after posting that made some reference to a book by Tom Dieck. And indeed there it is, on page 523, what I am looking for! (maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/diecktop.pdf) $\endgroup$
    – Raghav
    Commented Feb 22, 2020 at 14:15
  • $\begingroup$ You have to be a bit more careful in your argument since your statements about transversality require smoothness or some other hypotheses (or fancier theorems). In general, this kind of issue can make it hard to show that certain bordism theories really are homology theories, at least by hands on arguments. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 23, 2020 at 4:34
  • $\begingroup$ @GregFriedman, that part is guaranteed by the statement of the transversality theorem (such as on pg 24, appendix 2, Stong's "Notes on Cobordism theory"). It homotopes the continuous map $\phi\circ f$ to a smooth map $\tilde{\phi}$ that is moreover transverse regular on 0, so that the inverse image is indeed a submanifold of codimension 1. I have fixed this in the question, now $\endgroup$
    – Raghav
    Commented Feb 23, 2020 at 12:26

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .