21
$\begingroup$

Popular articles on mathematics often explain the difference between homeomorphism and diffeomorphism with statements like - "A rectangle is homeomorphic to the circle but not diffeomorphic to it". However, this is not really true, since all compact one dimensional smooth manifolds are diffeomorphic to $S^1$ - the corners of a rectangle are just artifacts of a particular embedding into the plane.

So, my question is - What is the best way to "visualize" manifolds which are homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic, like the usual sphere versus exotic spheres, say ?

It should be possible to embed exotic spheres in some $\mathbb{R}^n$. Now if this is a smooth embedding, then the image should not have any edges or corners - unlike a square or tetrahedron.

So then, how can one visualize the "failure of diffeomorphism" ? I ask this because typically, examples of "continuous but not differentiable" functions involve the image having a corner or edge.

$\endgroup$
15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You can embed exotic 7-spheres in $\Bbb R^{13}$. (Probably lower, but irrelevant to the point I want to make.) How does that help you intuit them, though? The first example is in 4-manifolds, which I can barely pretend to be able to visualize. Instead, we develop tools to understand how to construct and distinguish these, and our intuition comes from our tools --- the constructions we know how to do, and the obstructions we know how to make. $\endgroup$
    – mme
    Commented Oct 16, 2023 at 22:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For instance, to understand exotic (n+1)-spheres, these can be obtained by gluing two standard n-balls by a funny diffeomorphism of the boundary. So exotic (n+1)-spheres shed light on exotic diffeomorphisms of the n-sphere. So we can intuit these as "funny regluings of the hemispheres". But this is pretty weak intuition: why does such an exotic diffeomorphism exist, how do you understand it? (Actually, I think you're more likely to understand exotic diffeomorphism of S^6 using what you know about exotic 7-spheres...) $\endgroup$
    – mme
    Commented Oct 16, 2023 at 22:35
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy I think this would not satisfy OP as they have already (rightly) discounted the example of a circle and a square. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 0:59
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The exotic 7-spheres are all Brieskorn spheres, links of singularities, so embed in $S^9$. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_sphere#Brieskorn_spheres This gives them implicitly. $\endgroup$
    – Ian Agol
    Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 4:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For the clutching map interpretation of exotic spheres, we appear to be getting close to having explicit descriptions of the diffeomorphisms involved. It might take another year or two, but there are quite a few interesting candidates, starting with the recent work of Watanabe. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 18, 2023 at 7:19

1 Answer 1

18
$\begingroup$

Milnor’s original construction of an exotic $\mathbb{S}^7$ is fairly explicit and it’s reasonable to think that the resulting space is too weirdly twisted to actually be a sphere in the usual sense. Showing that it is not a standard sphere is very non-trivial and one of Milnor's key insights. However, it's not to hard to cook up a Morse function on this space with only two critical points, and from that you can see that the space has to be a sphere topologically. Intuitively, the space is topologically a sphere but because of the twisting there is no consistent way to identify ``directions" compared to a standard sphere if one travels from the North to South Pole. Here's the basic gist of how this goes.

For a normal sphere, we can consider $\mathbb{B}^4$ as the the unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^4$, and let $\mathbb{S}^3$ be its boundary. The boundary of $\mathbb{B}^4 \times \mathbb{S}^3$ would then be $\mathbb{S}^3 \times \mathbb{S}^3$. We can then take two copies of $\mathbb{B}^4 \times \mathbb{S}^3$ and glue them together along the boundary. Putting a standard flip into the $\mathbb{S}^3$ part and doing the gluing yields a sphere in the usual sense.*

However, if we consider $\mathbb{R}^4$ as the space of quaternions $\mathbb{H}$ and $\mathbb{S}^3$ as the space of unit quaternions. Take two copies of $\mathbb{R}^4 \times \mathbb{S}^3$ and identify the subsets $\left(\mathbb{R}^4-\{0\}\right) \times \mathbb{S}^3$ under the diffeomorphism $$ (u, v) \rightarrow\left(u^{\prime}, v^{\prime}\right)=\left(\frac{u} {\|u\|^2}, \frac{u^2 v u^{-1}}{\|u\|}\right) $$ (using quaternion multiplication). Here, we have "twisted" the identification using quaternionic multiplication (and also extended the gluing to not just occur on the boundary). So it is pretty reasonable to think that this space is not a sphere in the usual sense.

But then you might stumble on the function $$f=\frac{\Re(v)}{\left(1+\|u\|^2\right)^{1 / 2}}=\frac{\Re\left(u^{\prime \prime}\right)}{\left(1+\left\|u^{\prime \prime}\right\|^2\right)^{1 / 2}}$$ where $u^{\prime \prime}=v^{\prime} u^{\prime}$ and $\Re$ indicates the real part of the quaternion. A bit of effort will show that this is a Morse function with only two critical points, and thus the space must be a sphere in the sense of topology, which doesn't see the smooth structure.

*If you glue the boundaries without the flip, the resulting space is $\mathbb{S}^4 \times \mathbb{S}^3$. Thanks to @HenrikRüping for pointing this out.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Probably dumb question: what if we try to do something similar with $\mathbb{C}$ in place of $\mathbb{H}$? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 2:25
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Not a dumb question at all. But since multiplication in $\mathbb{C}$ is commutative, we just get the usual three-dimensional sphere. $\endgroup$
    – Gabe K
    Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 2:31
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "Doing so in the most natural way yields a sphere in the usual sense." I would say the most natural way gives $S^4\times S^3$, we still need a flip. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 6:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What if we take octonions instead of quaternions? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 10:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @VítTuček In that case, you will get exotic 15-dimensional spheres. For a reference, see Shimada, 1957 "Differentiable structures on the 15-sphere and Pontrjagin classes of certain manifolds." $\endgroup$
    – Gabe K
    Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 10:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .