DOCSLIB.ORG

Assembly Maps and Pseudoisotopy Functors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assembly Maps and Pseudoisotopy Functors ASSEMBLY MAPS AND PSEUDOISOTOPY FUNCTORS DISSERTATION ZUR ERLANGUNG DES DOKTORGRADES (DR. RER. NAT.) DER MATHEMATISCH-NATURWISSENSCHAFTLICHEN FAKULTÄT DER RHEINISCHEN FRIEDRICH-WILHELMS-UNIVERSITÄT BONN VORGELEGT VON MALTE MARIO PIEPER AUS BONN BONN 2018 ii Angefertigt mit Genehmigung der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakult¨atder Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universit¨atBonn 1. Gutachter Prof. Dr. Wolfgang L¨uck 2. Gutacher Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Steimle Tag der Promotion: 18.07.2018 Erscheinungsjahr: 2019 iii Abstract We show the existence of a stable, smooth pseudoisotopyfunctor and construct in the topological, piecewise linear, and smooth category a zig-zag of natural weak equivalences between the stable pseudoiso- topyfunctor and the corresponding functor of Whitehead spectra. iv Contents Introduction vii 1 The Smooth Pseudoisotopy Functor 1 1.1 The Space of Stable Pseudoisotopies . .4 1.1.1 Stereographic projections . .7 1.2 From Continuous Maps to Smooth Embeddings . 17 1.2.1 Strictification of homotopy coherent diagrams . 19 1.2.2 Basic results on manifolds with corners . 22 1.2.3 Smooth approximation . 24 1.2.4 Stable embeddings . 26 1.2.5 Disk bundles and codimension zero embeddings . 27 1.3 Unique Points of Intersection . 29 1.4 The Homotopy Coherent Diagram . 39 1.4.1 Proof of the main theorem . 39 1.4.2 Spectra . 47 1.4.3 All of the δ .......................... 50 2 A natural h{cobordism theorem 51 2.1 Connective Naturality . 53 2.1.1 The stable parametrised h-cobordism theorem . 53 2.1.2 The H{cobordism map . 57 2.1.3 The pseudoisotopy functor . 60 2.1.4 The Whitehead space (1; 1){functor . 70 2.1.5 The natural transformation . 72 2.2 Non-Connective Naturality . 86 2.2.1 Non-connective pseudoisotopies and h{cobordisms . 87 2.2.2 A suspected model for the Whitehead spectrum . 97 2.2.3 The natural transformation . 108 2.2.4 The smooth case . 117 v vi CONTENTS Introduction The automorphism spaces of manifolds have been of major interest to topologists for at least eighty years. The study of automorphism spaces of high-dimensional manifolds as its own field of research came into fruition a little later: Following Stephen Smale's proof of the h{cobordism theorem [42] in 1960, topologists established a flurry of results on the classification of high-dimensional manifolds. In particular, the notion of block bundle automorphisms was intro- duced by Rourke and Sanderson [40] which gave the homotopy fibre sequence of simplicial sets Aut(M) ! Aut(g M) ! Aut(g M)= Aut(M) where Aut(M) and Aut(g M) refers to automorphisms and block bundle auto- morphisms, respectively. The calculation of Aut(g M) via surgery theory proceeded in the following decades. We focus our attention on the quotient Aut(g M)= Aut(M). Let us explain the geometric problem encoded in this quotient: Given some automorphism, we want to decide whether it is isotopic to the Identity. If we follow a strategy similar to the one to figure out whether two given manifolds are isomorphic, then the tools of surgery theory present us with a 1{parameter family of h{cobordisms. The key difference between the two questions is now, that the classification of parametrised families of h{cobordisms is far more subtle than that of h{ cobordisms. Parametrised families of h{cobordisms are just bundles of h{cobordisms with nice clutching maps, hence the problem can be rephrased in understanding the space of possible clutching maps. This is what pseudoisotopies are and how pseudoisotopy spaces enter our story. The study of pseudoisotopies began in earnest in 1970, when Jean Paul Cerf showed his pseudoisotopy theorem [8] which raised the methods of Morse theory, key in the proof of the h{cobordism theorem, to a parametrised setting. In the following years, the study of pseudoisotopy spaces was advanced greatly by, among others, Allen Hatcher, Dan Burghelea, Kyoshi Igusa, Richard Lashof and Friedhelm Waldhausen. In the 1970s, Hatcher [22] described an approach to reduce the geometric questions about pseudoisotopies to a more combinatorial setting. Although his arguments contained several flaws, the general direction of research in the next decades followed along the lines of his ideas. In particular, he claimed that the pseudoisotopy space, intrinsically linked to the automorphism spaces of manifolds, could be connected to the stable vii viii INTRODUCTION pseudoisotopy space which seemed much more accessible via homotopy theory and thus provided a chance for actual computation. Starting in the late 1970s, Waldhausen showed in a series of papers, begin- ning with [49], that this hope was not ill-founded. He introduced A{theory, a functor with good homotopy theoretic properties, and showed that computa- tions about homotopy invariants of stable pseudoisotopy could essentially be reduced to computations on A{theory. In 1987, the same year Waldhausen finished his program (for the most part - we come back to this in a moment), Michael Weiss and Bruce Williams [53] answered precisely how the difference between automorphisms and block bundle automorphisms relates to pseudoisotopies. Let Cat = Top; PL or Diff and let M be a compact Cat{manifold, possibly with boundary. Let Aut@ (M) ⊆ Aut(M) denote the subspace of automorphisms which restrict to the Identity on the boundary, similarly for Autg @ (M). Also, let EZ=2 denote a contractible, free Z=2{CW{complex and P(M) the stable space of Cat{pseudoisotopies relative boundary. Theorem 0.0.0.1 ([53, Theorem A]). There exists a map s 1 2 Φ : Autg @ (M)= Aut@ (M) ! Ω (EZ=2+ ^Z=2 Ω P(M)) which is (k + 1){connected if k is in the Cat{concordance stable range for M. This was only the first article in their ongoing program on combining all of the previous material into a single algebro-topological object to compute the automorphism spaces. Also in 1987, Thomas Farrell and Lowell Jones [15] showed that their meth- ods to simplify h{cobordisms on hyperbolic manifolds via carefully applied geodesic flows and controlled topology [14] could be transferred to pseudoiso- topies. Roughly speaking, their result stated that (for a hyperbolic manifold) each pseudoisotopy was determined by its behaviour on a set of representatives of the isotopy classes of the geodesics. This marked the beginning of what is now known as the Farrell-Jones conjecture for pseudoisotopies. Igusa [30] connected the pseudoisotopy space, intrinsically linked to the au- tomorphism spaces of manifolds, to the stable pseudoisotopy space which by the work of Waldhausen now seemed less mysterious. It also empowered [53, Theorem A]. We denote the unstable pseudoisotopy space by P (M). Theorem 0.0.0.2. The suspension map σ : P Diff (M) ! P Diff (M × [0; 1]) is k{connected, if dim(M) ≥ max(2k + 7; 3k + 4), i.e. the concordance stable range of M is at least k. By now, we also have result for the concordance stable range in the other cases, see [31, Corollary 1.4.2]. As a brief tangent, we note that Goodwillie [18] introduced his calculus of functors in 1990, providing a computation of the differential of pseudoisotopy and thus another tool for actual calculations. After almost two decades, Bjørn Jahren, John Rognes and Friedhelm Wald- hausen [31] gave a proof for the stable parametrised h{cobordism theorem in ix 2005, originally announced by Waldhausen but not published as a part of his original series. In the following theorem, the functors are defined on codimension zero embeddings. Theorem 0.0.0.3 ([31, Theorem 0.1]). There is a natural homotopy equivalence Cat Cat H (M) ' Ω Wh (M) between the stable h{cobordism space and the one fold loops of the Whitehead space for each compact Cat{manifold M. At this point, the results finally provide us with a clear connection between the homotopy groups of the automorphism spaces of high-dimensional manifolds in a certain range and the homotopy groups of A{ and L{theory. Starting with Hatcher, the notion of a pseudoisotopy functor has been part of the discussion and played a rather curious role. Hatcher [23] sketched the definition of a functor on homotopy categories, Burghelea and Lashof [6] pro- vided some necessary details and Waldhausen [50] briefly mentioned it - but did not, in contrast to later references, claim the existence of a strict pseudoisotopy functor on all continuous maps. In this work, we show that a smooth pseudoisotopy functor does indeed exist. This is Theorem 1.4.2.4. Theorem 0.0.0.4. Let Top and Spectra denote the category of compactly gen- erated weak Hausdorff spaces and prespectra, respectively. There is a functor PDiff : Top ! Spectra with the following properties: 1. It descends to a functor of homotopy categories ho PDiff : ho(Top) ! ho(Spectra): 2. There is a natural weak equivalence Ω1PDiff; Spectra !PDiff; Spaces: 3. The subset inclusion PDiff ⊆ PTop extends to a natural transformation of functors of quasicategories. The construction of PTop is given in [12]. As these properties do not uniquely determine the functor, the obvious next step is to compare it with the well-established functor structure on the com- putational side. It turns out that the functors are compatible. This is Corol- lary 2.1.5.18, Theorem 2.2.3.13 and Theorem 2.2.4.2. Theorem 0.0.0.5. Let Cat = Top; PL or Diff. There is a natural weak equiv- alence of (1; 1){functors Ψ: PCat ) Ω2 WhCat;−∞ Cat h:c: h:c: from the (1; 1){functor P : N• Top∆ !N• Spectra∆ of pseudoisotopies to the twofold loops of the functor given by the Whitehead spectrum. In particular, there is a zig-zag of natural weak equivalences between the strict functors PCat : Top ! Spectra and Ω2 WhCat;−∞.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:1006.1489V2 [Math.GT] 8 Aug 2010 Ril.Ias Rfie Rmraigtesre Rils[14 Articles Survey the Reading from Profited Also I Article
    Pure and Applied Mathematics Quarterly Volume 8, Number 1 (Special Issue: In honor of F. Thomas Farrell and Lowell E. Jones, Part 1 of 2 ) 1—14, 2012 The Work of Tom Farrell and Lowell Jones in Topology and Geometry James F. Davis∗ Tom Farrell and Lowell Jones caused a paradigm shift in high-dimensional topology, away from the view that high-dimensional topology was, at its core, an algebraic subject, to the current view that geometry, dynamics, and analysis, as well as algebra, are key for classifying manifolds whose fundamental group is infinite. Their collaboration produced about fifty papers over a twenty-five year period. In this tribute for the special issue of Pure and Applied Mathematics Quarterly in their honor, I will survey some of the impact of their joint work and mention briefly their individual contributions – they have written about one hundred non-joint papers. 1 Setting the stage arXiv:1006.1489v2 [math.GT] 8 Aug 2010 In order to indicate the Farrell–Jones shift, it is necessary to describe the situation before the onset of their collaboration. This is intimidating – during the period of twenty-five years starting in the early fifties, manifold theory was perhaps the most active and dynamic area of mathematics. Any narrative will have omissions and be non-linear. Manifold theory deals with the classification of ∗I thank Shmuel Weinberger and Tom Farrell for their helpful comments on a draft of this article. I also profited from reading the survey articles [14] and [4]. 2 James F. Davis manifolds. There is an existence question – when is there a closed manifold within a particular homotopy type, and a uniqueness question, what is the classification of manifolds within a homotopy type? The fifties were the foundational decade of manifold theory.
    [Show full text]
  • On Controlled Assembly Maps
    RIMS Kôkyûroku Bessatsu B39 (2013), 197214 On Controlled Assembly Maps By * Masayuki Yamasaki Abstract Theorem 3.9 of [9] says that the L^{-\infty} homology theory and the controlled L^{-\infty} theory of a simplicially stratified control map p:E\rightarrow X are equivalent. Unfortunately the proof given there contains serious errors. In this paper I give a correct statement and a correct proof. §1. Introduction For a covariant functor \mathrm{J}=\{\mathrm{J}_{n}\} from spaces to spectra and a map p : E\rightarrow X, Quinn defined a homology spectrum \mathbb{H}(X;\mathrm{J}(p))[4]. \mathbb{H} \mathrm{J} defines a covariant functor which sends a pair (X, p : E\rightarrow X) to a - spectrum \mathbb{H}(X;\mathrm{J}(p)) . Suppose we are given a covariant functor \mathrm{J} ) which sends a pair (X, p) to a spectrum \mathrm{J}(X;p) . Then we can define a covariant functor, also denoted from to . And then we obtain a \mathrm{J} , spaces spectra by \mathrm{J}(E)=\mathrm{J}(*;E\rightarrow*) homology spectrum \mathbb{H}(X;\mathrm{J}(p)) for a map p:E\rightarrow X . Quinn showed that, if the original functor \mathrm{J} -) satisfies three axioms (the restriction, continuity, and inverse limit axioms) and p is nice ( i.e . it is a stratified system of fibrations [4]), then there is a homotopy equivalence A:\mathbb{H}(X;\mathrm{J}(p))\rightarrow \mathrm{J}(X;p) when X is compact [4, Characterization Theorem, p.421]. If X is non‐compact, we need to consider a locally‐finite homology theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Invariance of Higher Signatures and 3-Manifold Groups
    HOMOTOPY INVARIANCE OF HIGHER SIGNATURES AND 3-MANIFOLD GROUPS MICHEL MATTHEY, HERVE´ OYONO-OYONO AND WOLFGANG PITSCH Abstract. For closed oriented manifolds, we establish oriented homotopy in- variance of higher signatures that come from the fundamental group of a large class of orientable 3-manifolds, including the “piecewise geometric” ones in the sense of Thurston. In particular, this class, that will be carefully described, is the class of all orientable 3-manifolds if the Thurston Geometrization Conjec- ture is true. In fact, for this type of groups, we show that the Baum-Connes Conjecture With Coefficients holds. The non-oriented case is also discussed. 1. Introduction and statement of the main results We assume all manifolds to be non-empty, pointed (i.e. we fix a base-point), sec- ond countable, Hausdorff and smooth. Given a closed connected oriented manifold m M of dimension m, let [M] denote either orientation classes in Hm(M; Q) and m 4∗ in H (M; Z), and let LM ∈ H (M; Q) be the Hirzebruch L-class of M, which is defined as a suitable rational polynomial in the Pontrjagin classes of M (see [20, pp. 11–12] or [34, Ex. III.11.15]). Denote the usual Kronecker pairing for M, with rational coefficients, by ∗ h .,. i : H (M; Q) × H∗(M; Q) −→ Q . If M is of dimension m = 4k, then the Hirzebruch Signature Theorem (see [20, Thm. 8.2.2] or [34, p. 233]) says that the rational number hLM , [M]i is the signature of the cup product quadratic form 2k 2k 4k H (M; Z) ⊗ H (M; Z) −→ H (M; Z) = Z·[M] =∼ Z , (x, y) 7−→ x ∪ y .
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Surgery to Analysis III: Exact Sequences
    K-Theory (2004) 33:325–346 © Springer 2005 DOI 10.1007/s10977-005-1554-7 Mapping Surgery to Analysis III: Exact Sequences NIGEL HIGSON and JOHN ROE Department of Mathematics, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] (Received: February 2004) Abstract. Using the constructions of the preceding two papers, we construct a natural transformation (after inverting 2) from the Browder–Novikov–Sullivan–Wall surgery exact sequence of a compact manifold to a certain exact sequence of C∗-algebra K-theory groups. Mathematics Subject Classifications (1991): 19J25, 19K99. Key words: C∗-algebras, L-theory, Poincare´ duality, signature operator. This is the final paper in a series of three whose objective is to construct a natural transformation from the surgery exact sequence of Browder, Novikov, Sullivan and Wall [17,21] to a long exact sequence of K-theory groups associated to a certain C∗-algebra extension; we finally achieve this objective in Theorem 5.4. In the first paper [5], we have shown how to associate a homotopy invariant C∗-algebraic signature to suitable chain complexes of Hilbert modules satisfying Poincare´ duality. In the second paper, we have shown that such Hilbert–Poincare´ complexes arise natu- rally from geometric examples of manifolds and Poincare´ complexes. The C∗-algebras that are involved in these calculations are analytic reflections of the equivariant and/or controlled structure of the underlying topology. In paper II [6] we have also clarified the relationship between the analytic signature, defined by the procedure of paper I for suitable Poincare´ com- plexes, and the analytic index of the signature operator, defined only for manifolds.
    [Show full text]
  • Monomorphism - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Monomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomorphism Monomorphism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In the context of abstract algebra or universal algebra, a monomorphism is an injective homomorphism. A monomorphism from X to Y is often denoted with the notation . In the more general setting of category theory, a monomorphism (also called a monic morphism or a mono) is a left-cancellative morphism, that is, an arrow f : X → Y such that, for all morphisms g1, g2 : Z → X, Monomorphisms are a categorical generalization of injective functions (also called "one-to-one functions"); in some categories the notions coincide, but monomorphisms are more general, as in the examples below. The categorical dual of a monomorphism is an epimorphism, i.e. a monomorphism in a category C is an epimorphism in the dual category Cop. Every section is a monomorphism, and every retraction is an epimorphism. Contents 1 Relation to invertibility 2 Examples 3 Properties 4 Related concepts 5 Terminology 6 See also 7 References Relation to invertibility Left invertible morphisms are necessarily monic: if l is a left inverse for f (meaning l is a morphism and ), then f is monic, as A left invertible morphism is called a split mono. However, a monomorphism need not be left-invertible. For example, in the category Group of all groups and group morphisms among them, if H is a subgroup of G then the inclusion f : H → G is always a monomorphism; but f has a left inverse in the category if and only if H has a normal complement in G.
    [Show full text]
  • Induced Homology Homomorphisms for Set-Valued Maps
    Pacific Journal of Mathematics INDUCED HOMOLOGY HOMOMORPHISMS FOR SET-VALUED MAPS BARRETT O’NEILL Vol. 7, No. 2 February 1957 INDUCED HOMOLOGY HOMOMORPHISMS FOR SET-VALUED MAPS BARRETT O'NEILL § 1 • If X and Y are topological spaces, a set-valued function F: X->Y assigns to each point a; of la closed nonempty subset F(x) of Y. Let H denote Cech homology theory with coefficients in a field. If X and Y are compact metric spaces, we shall define for each such function F a vector space of homomorphisms from H(X) to H{Y) which deserve to be called the induced homomorphisms of F. Using this notion we prove two fixed point theorems of the Lefschetz type. All spaces we deal with are assumed to be compact metric. Thus the group H{X) can be based on a group C(X) of protective chains [4]. Define the support of a coordinate ct of c e C(X) to be the union of the closures of the kernels of the simplexes appearing in ct. Then the intersection of the supports of the coordinates of c is defined to be the support \c\ of c. If F: X-+Y is a set-valued function, let F'1: Y~->Xbe the function such that x e F~\y) if and only if y e F(x). Then F is upper (lower) semi- continuous provided F'1 is closed {open). If both conditions hold, F is continuous. If ε^>0 is a real number, we shall also denote by ε : X->X the set-valued function such that ε(x)={x'\d(x, x')<Lε} for each xeX.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Whitehead's Theorem
    1 Whitehead's theorem. Statement: If f : X ! Y is a map of CW complexes inducing isomorphisms on all homotopy groups, then f is a homotopy equivalence. Moreover, if f is the inclusion of a subcomplex X in Y , then there is a deformation retract of Y onto X. For future reference, we make the following definition: Definition: f : X ! Y is a Weak Homotopy Equivalence (WHE) if it induces isomor- phisms on all homotopy groups πn. Notice that a homotopy equivalence is a weak homotopy equivalence. Using the definition of Weak Homotopic Equivalence, we paraphrase the statement of Whitehead's theorem as: If f : X ! Y is a weak homotopy equivalences on CW complexes then f is a homotopy equivalence. In order to prove Whitehead's theorem, we will first recall the homotopy extension prop- erty and state and prove the Compression lemma. Homotopy Extension Property (HEP): Given a pair (X; A) and maps F0 : X ! Y , a homotopy ft : A ! Y such that f0 = F0jA, we say that (X; A) has (HEP) if there is a homotopy Ft : X ! Y extending ft and F0. In other words, (X; A) has homotopy extension property if any map X × f0g [ A × I ! Y extends to a map X × I ! Y . 1 Question: Does the pair ([0; 1]; f g ) have the homotopic extension property? n n2N (Answer: No.) Compression Lemma: If (X; A) is a CW pair and (Y; B) is a pair with B 6= ; so that for each n for which XnA has n-cells, πn(Y; B; b0) = 0 for all b0 2 B, then any map 0 0 f :(X; A) ! (Y; B) is homotopic to f : X ! B fixing A.
    [Show full text]
  • Spaces Over a Category and Assembly Maps in Isomorphism Conjectures in K- and L-Theory
    K-Theory 15: 201–252, 1998. 201 © 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Spaces over a Category and Assembly Maps in Isomorphism Conjectures in K- and L-Theory JAMES F. DAVIS?1 and WOLFGANG LUCK¨ 2 1Department of Mathematics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, U.S.A. e-mail: [email protected] 2 Institut fur¨ Mathematik, Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universtitaet, 48149 Muenster, Germany e-mail: [email protected] (Received: April 1997) Abstract. We give a unified approach to the Isomorphism Conjecture of Farrell and Jones on the algebraic K- and L-theory of integral group rings and to the Baum–Connes Conjecture on the topological K-theory of reduced C∗-algebras of groups. The approach is through spectra over the orbit category of a discrete group G. We give several points of view on the assembly map for a family of subgroups and characterize such assembly maps by a universal property generalizing the results of Weiss and Williams to the equivariant setting. The main tools are spaces and spectra over a category and their associated generalized homology and cohomology theories, and homotopy limits. Mathematics Subject Classification (1991). 57-XX. Key words: Algebraic K- and L-theory, Baum–Connes Conjecture, assembly maps, spaces and spectra over a category. 0. Introduction Glen Bredon [5] introduced the orbit category Or(G) of a group G. Objects are homogeneous spaces G/H , considered as left G-sets, and morphisms are G-maps. This is a useful construct for organizing the study of fixed sets and quotients of G- actions. If G acts on a set X, there is the contravariant fixed point functor Or(G) −→ H SETS given by G/H 7→ X = mapG(G/H, X) and the covariant quotient space functor Or(G) −→ SETS given by G/H 7→ X/H = X ×G G/H .
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure Set of an Arbitrary Space, the Algebraic Surgery Exact
    The structure set of an arbitrary space, the algebraic surgery exact sequence and the total surgery obstruction Andrew Ranicki∗ Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK arXiv:math/0111316v1 [math.AT] 30 Nov 2001 Lecture given at the: Summer School on High-dimensional Manifold Topology Trieste, 21 May – 8 June 2001 LNS ∗[email protected] Abstract The algebraic theory of surgery gives a necessary and sufficient chain level condition for a space with n-dimensional Poincar´eduality to be homotopy equivalent to an n- dimensional topological manifold. A relative version gives a necessary and sufficient chain level condition for a simple homotopy equivalence of n-dimensional topological manifolds to be homotopic to a homeomorphism. The chain level obstructions come from a chain level interpretation of the fibre of the assembly map in surgery. The assembly map A : Hn(X; L•) → Ln(Z[π1(X)]) is a natural transformation from the generalized homology groups of a space X with coefficients in the 1-connective simply-connected surgery spectrum L• to the non-simply-connected surgery obstruc- tion groups L∗(Z[π1(X)]). The (Z, X)-category has objects based f.g. free Z-modules with an X-local structure. The assembly maps A are induced by a functor from the (Z, X)-category to the category of based f.g. free Z[π1(X)]-modules. The generalized homology groups H∗(X; L•) are the cobordism groups of quadratic Poincar´ecomplexes over (Z, X). The relative groups S∗(X) in the algebraic surgery exact sequence of X A ···→ Hn(X; L•) −→ Ln(Z[π1(X)]) → Sn(X) → Hn−1(X; L•) → .
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1506.05408V1 [Math.AT]
    NOVIKOV’S CONJECTURE JONATHAN ROSENBERG Abstract. We describe Novikov’s “higher signature conjecture,” which dates back to the late 1960’s, as well as many alternative formulations and related problems. The Novikov Conjecture is perhaps the most important unsolved problem in high-dimensional manifold topology, but more importantly, vari- ants and analogues permeate many other areas of mathematics, from geometry to operator algebras to representation theory. 1. Origins of the Original Conjecture The Novikov Conjecture is perhaps the most important unsolved problem in the topology of high-dimensional manifolds. It was first stated by Sergei Novikov, in various forms, in his lectures at the International Congresses of Mathematicians in Moscow in 1966 and in Nice in 1970, and in a few other papers [84, 87, 86, 85]. For an annotated version of the original formulation, in both Russian and English, we refer the reader to [37]. Here we will try instead to put the problem in context and explain why it might be of interest to the average mathematician. For a nice book- length exposition of this subject, we recommend [65]. Many treatments of various aspects of the problem can also be found in the many papers in the collections [38, 39]. For the typical mathematician, the most important topological spaces are smooth manifolds, which were introduced by Riemann in the 1850’s. However, it took about 100 years for the tools for classifying manifolds (except in dimension 1, which is trivial, and dimension 2, which is relatively easy) to be developed. The problem is that manifolds have no local invariants (except for the dimension); all manifolds of the same dimension look the same locally.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Math/9807156V1 [Math.GT] 27 Jul 1998
    SURGERY AND STRATIFIED SPACES Bruce Hughes and Shmuel Weinberger 0. Introduction The past couple of decades has seen significant progress in the theory of strat- ified spaces through the application of controlled methods as well as through the applications of intersection homology. In this paper we will give a cursory intro- duction to this material, hopefully whetting your appetite to peruse more thorough accounts. In more detail, the contents of this paper are as follows: the first section deals with some examples of stratified spaces and describes some of the different cate- gories that have been considered by various authors. For the purposes of this paper, we will work in either the PL category or a very natural topological category intro- duced by Quinn [Q4]. The next section discusses intersection homology and how it provides one with a rich collection of self dual sheaves. These can be manipulated by ideas long familiar to surgery theorists who have exploited Poincar´eduality from the start. We will give a few applications of the tight connection between an im- portant class of stratified spaces (Witt spaces), self dual sheaves, and K-theory; one last application will appear in the final section of the paper (where we deal with the classification of “supernormal” spaces with only even codimensional strata). Section three begins an independent direction, more purely geometric. We de- scribe the local structure of topological stratified spaces in some detail, in particular explaining the teardrop neighborhood theorem ([HTWW], [H2]) and giving appli- cations to isotopy theorems and the like. The last three sections describe the theory of surgery on stratified spaces, building on our understanding of teardrop neigh- borhoods, and some applications to classification problems (other applications can also be found in the survey [CW4]).
    [Show full text]
  • Complex Quantum Groups and a Deformation of the Baum-Connes Assembly Map
    COMPLEX QUANTUM GROUPS AND A DEFORMATION OF THE BAUM-CONNES ASSEMBLY MAP ANDREW MONK AND CHRISTIAN VOIGT Abstract. We define and study an analogue of the Baum-Connes assembly map for complex semisimple quantum groups, that is, Drinfeld doubles of q- deformations of compact semisimple Lie groups. Our starting point is the deformation picture of the Baum-Connes assembly map for a complex semisimple Lie group G, which allows one to express the K-theory of the reduced group C∗-algebra of G in terms of the K-theory of its associated Cartan motion group. The latter can be identified with the semidirect product of the maximal compact subgroup K acting on k∗ via the coadjoint action. In the quantum case the role of the Cartan motion group is played by the Drinfeld double of the classical group K, whose associated group C∗-algebra is the crossed product of C(K) with respect to the adjoint action of K. Our quantum assembly map is obtained by varying the deformation parameter in the Drinfeld double construction applied to the standard deformation Kq of K. We prove that the quantum assembly map is an isomorphism, thus providing a description of the K-theory of complex quantum groups in terms of classical topology. Moreover, we show that there is a continuous field of C∗-algebras which encodes both the quantum and classical assembly maps as well as a natural deformation between them. It follows in particular that the quantum assembly map contains the classical Baum-Connes assembly map as a direct summand. 1.
    [Show full text]