In my quest to understand spin representations, I am looking at the equivalent views of spin structures (on some oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold). Given such a manifold $M$, its tangent bundle $TM$ is described by gluing cocycles $g_{ab}:U_{ab}\rightarrow SO(n)$.
A spin structure would be some lift of $g_{ab}$ to $U_{ab}\rightarrow Spin(n)$, or in other words, that there is a $Spin(n)$-equivariant lift of the frame bundle $F_{SO}(M)\rightarrow M$ with respect to the double cover $Spin(n)\rightarrow SO(n)$.
A spin-c structure would likewise be a combination of a principal $U(1)$-bundle $F_{U(1)}$ and a $Spin^c(n)$-bundle $F_{spinc}$ (over $M$) with a bundle map $F_{spinc}\rightarrow F_{SO}(M)\times F_{U(1)}$.

Now apparently, assuming our manifold admits some sort of cell decomposition, a spin structure corresponds to a [homotopy class of a] trivialization of $TM\oplus \mathbb{R}^k$ over the 1-skeleton of $M$ which extends over the 2-skeleton. Here, $k$ is taken to be $0$ for $n\ge 3$, but for $n=1,2$ we stabilize the tangent bundle appropriately.

Is there an analogous description for a spin-c structure?

  • $\begingroup$ I have been told that a $spin^c$ structure is the same thing as a choice of (a homotopy class of) a complex structure on the 2-skeleton which extends to the 3-skeleton, but I don't know how to prove this and I can't seem to find a reference. $\endgroup$ Feb 7, 2012 at 2:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ R. Gompf. Spin^c structures and homotopy equivalences. GEometry and Toplogy Vol 1 (1997) 41--50. Is a reference for what you're looking for, Chris. $\endgroup$ Feb 7, 2012 at 2:38

1 Answer 1


A spin-c structure on a vector bundle $\pi : E \to B$ can be thought of as two things:

(1) A complex line bundle $c : C \to B$

together with

(2) A spin structure on $\pi \oplus c : E \oplus C \to B$. $\pi \oplus c$ is meant to be the fibrewise direct sum.

This appears in the Gompf reference given in the comments above. It's also on the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_structure

So from an obstruction theory point of view, you can view a complex spin structure on a vector bundle as (1) an element of $H^2(B;\mathbb Z)$ (a cocycle) together with (2) a trivialization of the vector bundle $\pi$ over the 1-skeleton $B^1$ such that the obstruction to extending over the 2-skeleton agrees modulo two with the value of the above cocycle.

(1) is because line bundles over $B$ are given by maps to $K(\mathbb Z, 2)$, i.e. 2-dimensional cohomology classes.

Note, Paul Siegel's comment is explained the the Gompf reference, as well. I prefer the above formalism, myself.


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.