Suppose you have a map $g:\Sigma \rightarrow G$ from a Riemann surface $\Sigma$ to a compact Lie group $G$. What is the obstruction to finding a $3$-manifold $W$, such that $\partial W = \Sigma$, and an extension of $g$ to a map $\tilde{g}:W\rightarrow G$? In the paper I'm reading they say it lies in $H_2(G,\mathbb{Z})$. Why is this true? I mean, the obstruction class to extending $g$ to $\tilde{g}$ is an element in $H^3(W,\pi_2(G))$, which vanishes since $\pi_2(G)=0$ for compact $G$, right? So does this mean that the obstruction to finding a $3$-manifold $W$ with boundary $\Sigma$ lies in $H_2(G,\mathbb{Z})$? By the way, the paper I'm referring is here Link , see section 4.1 (page 405). Thanks.

  • $\begingroup$ I added the mp tag b/c the question arises from a paper written by two mathematical physicists. Hence, maybe the solution relies on some ideas from physics. $\endgroup$
    – Kevin Wray
    Apr 27, 2011 at 0:55

1 Answer 1


This has nothing to do with Lie groups. Let $X$ be any space, let $S$ be a closed, orientable surface and let $f : S \rightarrow X$ be a map. We then get a canonical homology class $f_{\ast}([S]) \in H_2(X;\mathbb{Z})$. If there exists a closed orientable $3$-manifold $M$ with boundary $S$ such that $f$ extends over $S$, then we are done : the manifold $M$ maps into $X$ to provide a homology between $f_{\ast}([S])$ and $0$. Conversely, assume that $f_{\ast}([S]) = 0$. This implies that $f_{\ast}([S])$ is the boundary of a singular chain mapping into $X$. This singular chain can be thought of as a collection of tetrahedra glued together. Aside from the faces of the tetrahedra which lie in $S$, the faces of these tetrahedra are glued together in pairs. Let $M'$ be the result of gluing these tetrahedra together. We thus have $\partial M' = S$ and a map $F' : M' \rightarrow X$ extending $f$. It is a fun exercise to show that $M'$ is a 3-manifold except possibly at finitely many points $x_1,\ldots,x_n$. A small neighborhood of $x_i$ is homeomorphic to the cone on an oriented surface. Cut out these neighborhoods and glue in handlebodies. We get a $3$-manifold $M$ with $\partial M = S$, and from the construction it is clear that we can modify $F'$ to give a function $F : M \rightarrow X$ which still extends $f$.

The point here is that in low degree, bordism agrees with homology.

  • $\begingroup$ Andy, does this actually give rise to an example of a map $\Sigma \to G$ that can't be extended over, say, a handlebody? I think klw1026 correctly explained that the (homotopical) obstruction to that extension problem is trivial, because $\pi_2 (G) = 0$ and we're only adding 3-cells to form the handlebody. So I'm really confused by Dijkgraaf and Witten's statement that sometimes there's a non-trivial obstruction (of the sort you're describing). It's not very consequential to their paper, though, so maybe they just didn't notice that the obstruction always vanishes? $\endgroup$
    – Dan Ramras
    Apr 27, 2011 at 2:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dan : If $v \in H_2(X;\mathbb{Z})$ is any homology class, then there exists a closed orientable surface $S$ and a map $f : S \rightarrow X$ such that $f_{\ast}([S]) = v$ (think about piecing together the simplices in a singular 2-cycle). Thus there will be something like I describe if and only $H_2(X;\mathbb{Z})$ is nonzero. $\endgroup$ Apr 27, 2011 at 2:28
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, I agree, but I'm still confused... Let $G=SO(3)\times SO(3)$ so that $H_2 (G; Z) = Z/2$ and take a map $g:\Sigma\to G$ representing the non-trivial class. Why doesn't $\pi_2 (G) = 0$ imply that we can extend $g$ over a handlebody? The handlebody is a 3-complex and the attaching maps of the 3-cell, when composed with $g$, is a (nullhomotopic) map $S^2\to G$, which says $g$ extends over the 3-cell. Surely I'm just being dumb. But this really gets to the heart of the original question, I think. $\endgroup$
    – Dan Ramras
    Apr 27, 2011 at 2:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ To construct a handlebody from a surface, you can't just attach $3$-cells. You have to first attach some $2$-cells (to kill off half of the first homology group). $\endgroup$ Apr 27, 2011 at 2:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @klw1026 : 1. I am claiming that $H_2(X)$ is the same as $\Omega_2(X)$. In fact, I basically gave a proof of it!, and 2. If $G$ was simply-connected, then by Hurewitz we would have $H_2(G)=\pi_2(G)=0$. $\endgroup$ Apr 27, 2011 at 2:47

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.