DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Progress Report on the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute 2013–2014 Activities Supported by NSF Grant DMS-0932078 July 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Progress Report on the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute 2013–2014 Activities Supported by NSF Grant DMS-0932078 July 2015 Annual Progress Report on the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute 2013–2014 Activities supported by NSF Grant DMS-0932078 July 2015 Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Annual Report for 2013–2014 1. Overview of Activities ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 New Developments ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Summary of Demographic Data for 2013–14 Activities .................................................... 5 1.3 Scientific Programs and their Associated Workshops ........................................................ 7 1.4 Scientific Activities Directed at Underrepresented Groups in Mathematics ...................... 9 a. Modern Math Workshop (NSF Supplement Grant DMS-1126721) .................... 10 1.5 Summer Graduate Schools (Summer 2013)……………………………………………..10 1.6 Other Scientific Workshops .............................................................................................. 11 1.7 Education & Outreach Activities ...................................................................................... 11 a. Critical Issues in Mathematics Education 2014: The role of the mathematics department in the mathematical preparation of teachers (NSF Supplement Grant DMS-1118532) ......................................................................................................... 11 1.8 Programs Consultant List .................................................................................................. 12 2. Program and Workshop Data ................................................................................................ 12 2.1 Program Participant List ................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Program Participant Summary .......................................................................................... 12 2.3 Program Participant Demographic Data ........................................................................... 13 2.4 Workshop Participant List ................................................................................................ 15 2.5 Workshop Participant Summary ....................................................................................... 15 2.6 Workshop Participant Demographic Data ........................................................................ 16 2.7 Program Publication List .................................................................................................. 19 2.8 Program Publication Work-In-Progress List .................................................................... 19 3. Postdoctoral Program ............................................................................................................. 19 3.1 Description of Activities ................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Postdoctoral Fellow Placement List.................................................................................. 48 3.3 Postdoctoral Fellow Participant Summary........................................................................ 49 3.4 Postdoctoral Fellow Demographic Data ........................................................................... 50 3.5 Postdoctoral Research Member Placement List ............................................................... 52 3.6 Postdoctoral Research Member Summary ........................................................................ 52 4. Graduate Program .................................................................................................................. 52 4.1 Summer Graduate Schools (SGS) ..................................................................................... 53 4.2 Summer Graduate School Data ......................................................................................... 54 4.3 Program Associates ........................................................................................................... 57 4.4 Program Associates Data .................................................................................................. 58 4.5 Graduate Student List ....................................................................................................... 60 4.6 Graduate Student Data ...................................................................................................... 60 5. Undergraduate Program (MSRI-UP) (NSF Grant DMS-1156499) ..................................... 61 5.1 Description of Undergraduate Program ............................................................................ 61 11. Brief Report of Activities in 2014–15 .................................................................................. 64 12. Appendix – Final Reports .................................................................................................. ..82 Program Reports No. 272: Model Theory, Arithmetic Geometry and Number Theory No. 275: Mathematical General Relativity No. 277: Optimal Transport: Geometry and Dynamics No. 279: Algebraic Topology No. 290: Complementary Program 2013–14 Workshop Reports No. 654: Connections for Women on Optimal Transport: Geometry and Dynamics No. 655: Introductory Workshop on Optimal Transport: Geometry and Dynamics No. 656: Fluid Mechanics, Hamiltonian Dynamics, and Numerical Aspects of Optimal Transportation No. 684: Connections for Women: Algebraic Topology No. 685: Introductory Workshop: Algebraic Topology No. 686: Model Theory in Geometry and Arithmetic No. 687: Connections for Women: Model Theory and Its Interactions with Number Theory and Arithmetic Geometry No. 688: Introductory Workshop: Model Theory, Arithmetic Geometry and Number Theory No. 689: Reimagining the Foundations of Algebraic Topology No. 690: Connections for Women: Mathematical General Relativity No. 691: Introductory Workshop: Mathematical General Relativity No. 692: Initial Data and Evolution Problems in General Relativity No. 731: Hot Topics: Perfectoid Spaces and their Applications No. 732: Critical Issues in Mathematics Education 2014: The role of the mathematics department in the mathematical preparation of teachers Summer Graduate School Reports No. 676: Introduction to the Mathematics of Seismic Imaging No. 680: New Geometric Techniques in Number Theory No. 681: Seminaire de Mathematiques Superieures 2013: Physics and Mathematics of Link Homology No. 695: Algebraic Topology No. 699: IAS/PCMI Summer 2013: Geometric Analysis No. 718: Mathematical General Relativity in Cortona, Italy 1. Overview of Activities This annual report covers MSRI projects and activities that occurred during the fourth year, 2013–14, of the NSF core grant DMS #0932078. 1.1 New Developments The year 2013–14, was a busy and exciting year. We held four (4) one-semester programs: Optimal Transport: Geometry and Dynamics and Mathematical General Relativity were paired during the fall semester and Algebraic Topology and Model Theory, Arithmetic Geometry and Number Theory were held during the spring semester. All four programs were very popular, and their workshops well attended. All programs had stellar researchers. Four (4) of them, Lars Hasselholt, Ehud Hrushovski, Vincent Moncrief, and Cédric Villani were funded by the Clay Mathematics Institute. Lars Hesselholt received an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship in 1998 and addressed the International Congress of Mathematicians in 2002. He became a Foreign Member of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters in 2012. In addition, he is an editor for three highly regarded journals: Documenta Mathematica, Nagoya Mathematical Journal, and Selecta Mathematica. Ehud Hrushovski has been awarded too many fellowships and prizes to list them all here. Let us point out the Presidential Young Investigator award (1989–94), the Anna and Lajos Erdős Prize in Mathematics given by the Israel Mathematical Union (1994), the Rothschild Prize for outstanding Israeli academics who have made exceptional contributions to their fields (1998), and the 1998 Karp Prize of the Association for Symbolic Logic for his work on the Mordell- Lang Conjecture. In 2007 Hrushovski was elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and in 2008 he was elected to the Israel Academy of Sciences. Vincent Moncrief is one of the most knowledgeable and accomplished researchers working at the confluence of mathematics and gravitational physics. He has been among the very top researchers in mathematical relativity for almost forty years, and he remains one of its most important leaders. In 2004, the Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity (IOP Science) had a special issue, “A Spacetime Safari: Essays in Honour of Vincent Moncrief” dedicated to Prof. Moncrief’s contributions to mathematics and physics. Cédric Villani is widely recognized as one of the most brilliant mathematical minds of his generation. He has received numerous prestigious prizes, including the 2010 Fields Medal for his proofs of nonlinear Landau damping and convergence to equilibrium for the Boltzmann equation. A year earlier, he received the Fermat Prize (2009) for his contributions to the theory of optimal transport and his studies of non-linear evolution equations. That same year, he received the Henri Poincaré Prize for his innovative work on kinetic theory and optimal transport with applications to dissipative physical systems and Riemannian geometry. As these two prizes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tōhoku Rick Jardine
    INFERENCE / Vol. 1, No. 3 Tōhoku Rick Jardine he publication of Alexander Grothendieck’s learning led to great advances: the axiomatic description paper, “Sur quelques points d’algèbre homo- of homology theory, the theory of adjoint functors, and, of logique” (Some Aspects of Homological Algebra), course, the concepts introduced in Tōhoku.5 Tin the 1957 number of the Tōhoku Mathematical Journal, This great paper has elicited much by way of commen- was a turning point in homological algebra, algebraic tary, but Grothendieck’s motivations in writing it remain topology and algebraic geometry.1 The paper introduced obscure. In a letter to Serre, he wrote that he was making a ideas that are now fundamental; its language has with- systematic review of his thoughts on homological algebra.6 stood the test of time. It is still widely read today for the He did not say why, but the context suggests that he was clarity of its ideas and proofs. Mathematicians refer to it thinking about sheaf cohomology. He may have been think- simply as the Tōhoku paper. ing as he did, because he could. This is how many research One word is almost always enough—Tōhoku. projects in mathematics begin. The radical change in Gro- Grothendieck’s doctoral thesis was, by way of contrast, thendieck’s interests was best explained by Colin McLarty, on functional analysis.2 The thesis contained important who suggested that in 1953 or so, Serre inveigled Gro- results on the tensor products of topological vector spaces, thendieck into working on the Weil conjectures.7 The Weil and introduced mathematicians to the theory of nuclear conjectures were certainly well known within the Paris spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Interviewed by T. Christine Stevens)
    KENNETH A. ROSS JANUARY 8, 2011 AND JANUARY 5, 2012 (Interviewed by T. Christine Stevens) How did you get involved in the MAA? As a good citizen of the mathematical community, I was a member of MAA from the beginning of my career. But I worked in an “AMS culture,” so I wasn’t actively involved in the MAA. As of January, 1983, I had never served on an MAA committee. But I had been Associate Secretary of the AMS from 1971 to 1981, and thus Len Gillman (who was MAA Treasurer at the time) asked me to be MAA Secretary. There was a strong contrast between the cultures of the AMS and the MAA, and my first two years were very hard. Did you receive mentoring in the MAA at the early stages of your career? From whom? As a graduate student at the University of Washington, I hadn’t even been aware that the department chairman, Carl Allendoerfer, was serving at the time as MAA President. My first mentor in the MAA was Len Gillman, who got me involved with the MAA. Being Secretary and Treasurer, respectively, we consulted a lot, and he was the one who helped me learn the MAA culture. One confession: At that time, approvals for new unbudgeted expenses under $500 were handled by the Secretary, the Treasurer and the Executive Director, Al Wilcox. The requests usually came to me first. Since Len was consistently tough, and Al was a push-over, I would first ask the one whose answer would agree with mine, and then with a 2-0 vote, I didn’t have to even bother the other one.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Overview of Activities, April, 2005-March, 2006 …
    MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2005-2006 I. Overview of Activities, April, 2005-March, 2006 …......……………………. 2 Innovations ………………………………………………………..... 2 Scientific Highlights …..…………………………………………… 4 MSRI Experiences ….……………………………………………… 6 II. Programs …………………………………………………………………….. 13 III. Workshops ……………………………………………………………………. 17 IV. Postdoctoral Fellows …………………………………………………………. 19 Papers by Postdoctoral Fellows …………………………………… 21 V. Mathematics Education and Awareness …...………………………………. 23 VI. Industrial Participation ...…………………………………………………… 26 VII. Future Programs …………………………………………………………….. 28 VIII. Collaborations ………………………………………………………………… 30 IX. Papers Reported by Members ………………………………………………. 35 X. Appendix - Final Reports ……………………………………………………. 45 Programs Workshops Summer Graduate Workshops MSRI Network Conferences MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2005-2006 I. Overview of Activities, April, 2005-March, 2006 This annual report covers MSRI projects and activities that have been concluded since the submission of the last report in May, 2005. This includes the Spring, 2005 semester programs, the 2005 summer graduate workshops, the Fall, 2005 programs and the January and February workshops of Spring, 2006. This report does not contain fiscal or demographic data. Those data will be submitted in the Fall, 2006 final report covering the completed fiscal 2006 year, based on audited financial reports. This report begins with a discussion of MSRI innovations undertaken this year, followed by highlights
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Andrew J. Wiles
    ISSN 0002-9920 (print) ISSN 1088-9477 (online) of the American Mathematical Society March 2017 Volume 64, Number 3 Women's History Month Ad Honorem Sir Andrew J. Wiles page 197 2018 Leroy P. Steele Prize: Call for Nominations page 195 Interview with New AMS President Kenneth A. Ribet page 229 New York Meeting page 291 Sir Andrew J. Wiles, 2016 Abel Laureate. “The definition of a good mathematical problem is the mathematics it generates rather Notices than the problem itself.” of the American Mathematical Society March 2017 FEATURES 197 239229 26239 Ad Honorem Sir Andrew J. Interview with New The Graduate Student Wiles AMS President Kenneth Section Interview with Abel Laureate Sir A. Ribet Interview with Ryan Haskett Andrew J. Wiles by Martin Raussen and by Alexander Diaz-Lopez Allyn Jackson Christian Skau WHAT IS...an Elliptic Curve? Andrew Wiles's Marvelous Proof by by Harris B. Daniels and Álvaro Henri Darmon Lozano-Robledo The Mathematical Works of Andrew Wiles by Christopher Skinner In this issue we honor Sir Andrew J. Wiles, prover of Fermat's Last Theorem, recipient of the 2016 Abel Prize, and star of the NOVA video The Proof. We've got the official interview, reprinted from the newsletter of our friends in the European Mathematical Society; "Andrew Wiles's Marvelous Proof" by Henri Darmon; and a collection of articles on "The Mathematical Works of Andrew Wiles" assembled by guest editor Christopher Skinner. We welcome the new AMS president, Ken Ribet (another star of The Proof). Marcelo Viana, Director of IMPA in Rio, describes "Math in Brazil" on the eve of the upcoming IMO and ICM.
    [Show full text]
  • Professor AO Kuku
    CURRICULUM VITAE Professor A.O. Kuku I. Personal Details Date of Birth: March 20, 1941 Marital Status: Married with four children Nationality: Nigerian Sex: Male U.S.A. Permanent Resident (Green card) since March 2002 II CURRENT POSITION: Professor of Mathematics, Grambling State University, Grambling, LA, USA. Since August 2008 III. Position held in the last five years (a) Member, Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ, USA. Sept. 2003-Aug. 2004 (b) Visiting Research Professor, MSRI Berkeley, CA, USA. Aug-Dec 2004 (c) Visiting Professor, OSU (Ohio State Univ.) Columbus, OH, USA 2005 (d) Distinguished Visiting Professor, Miami 2005 – 2006 University, Oxford, OH, USA (e) Visiting Professor, Universitat Bielefeld, Germany ,USA. 2006 (f) Visiting Professor, IHES, Paris, France 2006 (g) Visiting Professor, Max Planck Inst. Fur Mathematik, Bonn, Germany 2007 (h) Visiting Professor, National Mathema- tical Centre, Abuja, Nigeria. 2007 (i) Visiting professor, The University of Iowa, Iowa-City, USA 2007-2008 (j) Visiting Professor, National Mathema- Tical Centre, Abuja, Nigeria. 2008 IV. Educational Institutions Attended (University Education) 1.Makerere University College, Kampala, Uganda (then under special relationship with the University of London) 1962-1965 2.University of Ibadan, Nigeria 1966-1971 1 3Columbia University, New York City, USA (To write my Ph.D thesis) (Thesis written under Professor Hyman Bass) 1970-1971 V. Academic Qualification (with dates and granting bodies) 1.B. Sc (Special- Honours) Mathematics, University of London 1965 2.M. Sc. (Mathematics), University of Ibadan, Nigeria. 1968 3.Ph. D. (Mathematics), University of Ibadan, Nigeria 1971 (Thesis written under Professor Hyman Bass of Columbia Univerisity, New York).
    [Show full text]
  • An Invitation to Model-Theoretic Galois Theory
    AN INVITATION TO MODEL-THEORETIC GALOIS THEORY. ALICE MEDVEDEV AND RAMIN TAKLOO-BIGHASH Abstract. We carry out some of Galois’ work in the setting of an arbitrary first-order theory T . We replace the ambient algebraically closed field by a large model M of T , replace fields by definably closed subsets of M, assume that T codes finite sets, and obtain the fundamental duality of Galois theory matching subgroups of the Galois group of L over F with intermediate exten- sions F ≤ K ≤ L. This exposition of a special case of [11] has the advantage of requiring almost no background beyond familiarity with fields, polynomials, first-order formulae, and automorphisms. 1. Introduction. Two hundred years ago, Evariste´ Galois contemplated symmetry groups of so- lutions of polynomial equations, and Galois theory was born. Thirty years ago, Saharon Shelah found it necessary to work with theories that eliminate imaginar- ies; for an arbitrary theory, he constructed a canonical definitional expansion with this property in [16]. Poizat immediately recognized the importance of a theory already having this property in its native language; indeed, he defined “elimina- tion of imaginaries” in [11]. It immediately became clear (see [11]) that much of Galois theory can be developed for an arbitrary first-order theory that eliminates imaginaries. This model-theoretic version of Galois theory can be generalized be- yond finite or even infinite algebraic extensions, and this can in turn be useful in other algebraic settings such as the study of Galois groups of polynomial differential equations (already begun in [11]) and linear difference equations. On a less applied note, it is possible to bring further ideas into the model-theoretic setting, as is done in [10] for the relation between Galois cohomology and homogeneous spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Program of the Sessions San Diego, California, January 9–12, 2013
    Program of the Sessions San Diego, California, January 9–12, 2013 AMS Short Course on Random Matrices, Part Monday, January 7 I MAA Short Course on Conceptual Climate Models, Part I 9:00 AM –3:45PM Room 4, Upper Level, San Diego Convention Center 8:30 AM –5:30PM Room 5B, Upper Level, San Diego Convention Center Organizer: Van Vu,YaleUniversity Organizers: Esther Widiasih,University of Arizona 8:00AM Registration outside Room 5A, SDCC Mary Lou Zeeman,Bowdoin upper level. College 9:00AM Random Matrices: The Universality James Walsh, Oberlin (5) phenomenon for Wigner ensemble. College Preliminary report. 7:30AM Registration outside Room 5A, SDCC Terence Tao, University of California Los upper level. Angles 8:30AM Zero-dimensional energy balance models. 10:45AM Universality of random matrices and (1) Hans Kaper, Georgetown University (6) Dyson Brownian Motion. Preliminary 10:30AM Hands-on Session: Dynamics of energy report. (2) balance models, I. Laszlo Erdos, LMU, Munich Anna Barry*, Institute for Math and Its Applications, and Samantha 2:30PM Free probability and Random matrices. Oestreicher*, University of Minnesota (7) Preliminary report. Alice Guionnet, Massachusetts Institute 2:00PM One-dimensional energy balance models. of Technology (3) Hans Kaper, Georgetown University 4:00PM Hands-on Session: Dynamics of energy NSF-EHR Grant Proposal Writing Workshop (4) balance models, II. Anna Barry*, Institute for Math and Its Applications, and Samantha 3:00 PM –6:00PM Marina Ballroom Oestreicher*, University of Minnesota F, 3rd Floor, Marriott The time limit for each AMS contributed paper in the sessions meeting will be found in Volume 34, Issue 1 of Abstracts is ten minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exploratory Study with Major Professional Content Providers in the United Kingdom
    Online science videos: an exploratory study with major professional content providers in the United Kingdom M. Carmen Erviti and Erik Stengler Abstract We present an exploratory study of science communication via online video through various UK-based YouTube science content providers. We interviewed five people responsible for eight of the most viewed and subscribed professionally generated content channels. The study reveals that the immense potential of online video as a science communication tool is widely acknowledged, especially regarding the possibility of establishing a dialogue with the audience and of experimenting with different formats. It also shows that some online video channels fully exploit this potential whilst others focus on providing a supplementary platform for other kinds of science communication, such as print or TV. Keywords Popularization of science and technology; Science and media; Visual communication Context Online video is one of the most popular content choices for Internet users. According to Cisco [2014], video traffic was, in terms of data, 66% of all consumer Internet traffic in 2013 and it is predicted to be 79% by 2018. Online video is extensively used for instructional purposes and various authors have analysed this use in recent years [e.g. Pace and Jones, 2009; DeCesare, 2014; Cooper and Higgins, 2015]. Morain and Swarts [2012] proposed a methodology to analyse instructional online video, focussing on sounds, images and texts, the rhetorical work and the information design of a sample of videos. The use of online video within the academic community is also growing as a means of peer-to-peer communication, and Kousha, Thelwall and Abdoli [2012] studied YouTube videos cited in published academic research.
    [Show full text]
  • Producers of Popular Science Web Videos – Between New Professionalism and Old Gender Issues
    Producers of Popular Science Web Videos – Between New Professionalism and Old Gender Issues Jesús Muñoz Morcillo1*, Klemens Czurda*, Andrea Geipel**, Caroline Y. Robertson-von Trotha* ABSTRACT: This article provides an overview of the web video production context related to science communication, based on a quantitative analysis of 190 YouTube videos. The authors explore the main characteristics and ongoing strategies of producers, focusing on three topics: professionalism, producer’s gender and age profile, and community building. In the discussion, the authors compare the quantitative results with recently published qualitative research on producers of popular science web videos. This complementary approach gives further evidence on the main characteristics of most popular science communicators on YouTube, it shows a new type of professionalism that surpasses the hitherto existing distinction between User Generated Content (UGC) and Professional Generated Content (PGC), raises gender issues, and questions the participatory culture of science communicators on YouTube. Keywords: Producers of Popular Science Web Videos, Commodification of Science, Gender in Science Communication, Community Building, Professionalism on YouTube Introduction Not very long ago YouTube was introduced as a platform for sharing videos without commodity logic. However, shortly after Google acquired YouTube in 2006, the free exchange of videos gradually shifted to an attention economy ruled by manifold and omnipresent advertising (cf. Jenkins, 2009: 120). YouTube has meanwhile become part of our everyday experience, of our “being in the world” (Merleau Ponty) with all our senses, as an active and constitutive dimension of our understanding of life, knowledge, and communication. However, because of the increasing exploitation of private data, some critical voices have arisen arguing against the production and distribution of free content and warning of the negative consequences for content quality and privacy (e.g., Keen, 2007; Welzer, 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Equivariant Cohomology Chern Numbers Determine Equivariant
    EQUIVARIANT COHOMOLOGY CHERN NUMBERS DETERMINE EQUIVARIANT UNITARY BORDISM FOR TORUS GROUPS ZHI LÜ AND WEI WANG ABSTRACT. This paper shows that the integral equivariant cohomology Chern num- bers completely determine the equivariant geometric unitary bordism classes of closed unitary G-manifolds, which gives an affirmative answer to the conjecture posed by Guillemin–Ginzburg–Karshon in [20, Remark H.5, §3, Appendix H], where G is a torus. As a further application, we also obtain a satisfactory solution of [20, Question (A), §1.1, Appendix H] on unitary Hamiltonian G-manifolds. Our key ingredients in the proof are the universal toric genus defined by Buchstaber–Panov–Ray and the Kronecker pairing of bordism and cobordism. Our approach heavily exploits Quillen’s geometric inter- pretation of homotopic unitary cobordism theory. Moreover, this method can also be k applied to the study of (Z2) -equivariant unoriented bordism and can still derive the classical result of tom Dieck. 1. INTRODUCTION AND MAIN RESULTS 1.1. Background. In his seminal work [37] , R. Thom introduced the unoriented bor- dism theory, which corresponds to the infinite orthogonal group O. Since then, vari- ous other bordism theories, which correspond to subgroups G of the orthogonal group O as structure groups of stable tangent bundles or stable normal bundles of compact smooth manifolds, have been studied and established (e.g., see [41, 31, 32] and for more details, see [26, 35]). When G is chosen as SO (resp. U, SU etc.), the corresponding bor- dism theory is often called the oriented (resp. unitary, special unitary etc.) bordism theory.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Motivic Spectra Representing Algebraic Cobordism and Algebraic K-Theory
    Documenta Math. 359 On the Motivic Spectra Representing Algebraic Cobordism and Algebraic K-Theory David Gepner and Victor Snaith Received: September 9, 2008 Communicated by Lars Hesselholt Abstract. We show that the motivic spectrum representing alge- braic K-theory is a localization of the suspension spectrum of P∞, and similarly that the motivic spectrum representing periodic alge- braic cobordism is a localization of the suspension spectrum of BGL. In particular, working over C and passing to spaces of C-valued points, we obtain new proofs of the topological versions of these theorems, originally due to the second author. We conclude with a couple of applications: first, we give a short proof of the motivic Conner-Floyd theorem, and second, we show that algebraic K-theory and periodic algebraic cobordism are E∞ motivic spectra. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 55N15; 55N22 1. Introduction 1.1. Background and motivation. Let (X, µ) be an E∞ monoid in the ∞ category of pointed spaces and let β ∈ πn(Σ X) be an element in the stable ∞ homotopy of X. Then Σ X is an E∞ ring spectrum, and we may invert the “multiplication by β” map − − ∞ Σ nβ∧1 Σ nΣ µ µ(β):Σ∞X ≃ Σ∞S0 ∧ Σ∞X −→ Σ−nΣ∞X ∧ Σ∞X −→ Σ−nΣ∞X. to obtain an E∞ ring spectrum −n β∗ Σ β∗ Σ∞X[1/β] := colim{Σ∞X −→ Σ−nΣ∞X −→ Σ−2nΣ∞X −→···} with the property that µ(β):Σ∞X[1/β] → Σ−nΣ∞X[1/β] is an equivalence. ∞ ∞ In fact, as is well-known, Σ X[1/β] is universal among E∞ Σ X-algebras A in which β becomes a unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Toric Polynomial Generators of Complex Cobordism
    TORIC POLYNOMIAL GENERATORS OF COMPLEX COBORDISM ANDREW WILFONG Abstract. Although it is well-known that the complex cobordism ring is a polynomial U ∼ ring Ω∗ = Z [α1; α2;:::], an explicit description for convenient generators α1; α2;::: has proven to be quite elusive. The focus of the following is to construct complex cobordism polynomial generators in many dimensions using smooth projective toric varieties. These generators are very convenient objects since they are smooth connected algebraic varieties with an underlying combinatorial structure that aids in various computations. By applying certain torus-equivariant blow-ups to a special class of smooth projective toric varieties, such generators can be constructed in every complex dimension that is odd or one less than a prime power. A large amount of evidence suggests that smooth projective toric varieties can serve as polynomial generators in the remaining dimensions as well. 1. Introduction U In 1960, Milnor and Novikov independently showed that the complex cobordism ring Ω∗ is isomorphic to the polynomial ring Z [α1; α2;:::], where αn has complex dimension n [14, 16]. The standard method for choosing generators αn involves taking products and disjoint unions i j of complex projective spaces and Milnor hypersurfaces Hi;j ⊂ CP × CP . This method provides a smooth algebraic not necessarily connected variety in each even real dimension U whose cobordism class can be chosen as a polynomial generator of Ω∗ . Replacing the disjoint unions with connected sums give other choices for polynomial generators. However, the operation of connected sum does not preserve algebraicity, so this operation results in a smooth connected not necessarily algebraic manifold as a complex cobordism generator in each dimension.
    [Show full text]