Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: Hopf invariant

Bottom of Page

1 to 25 of 25

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2016
    • (edited Jan 20th 2016)

    I have been making trivial edits (adding references, basic statements, cross-links ) to Hopf invariant and a bunch of related entries, such as Kervaire invariant, Hopf invariant one problem, Arf-Kervaire invariant problem, normed division algebra.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2019

    added these pointer:

    Discussion via differential forms/rational homotopy theory

    • J. H. C. Whitehead, An expression of Hopf ’s invariant as an integral, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.33 (1947), 117–123 (jstor:87688)

    • Dev Sinha, Ben Walter, Lie coalgebras and rational homotopy theory II: Hopf invariants (arXiv:0809.5084)

    diff, v11, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2019

    and this one:

    • André Haefliger, p. 3 of Whitehead products and differential forms, In: Schweitzer P.A. (eds) Differential Topology, Foliations and Gelfand-Fuks Cohomology. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol 652. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (doi:10.1007/BFb0063500)

    diff, v11, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2019

    If at the beginning the requirement is n>1n \gt 1 in ϕ:S 2n−1⟶S n\phi \;\colon\; S^{2n-1} \longrightarrow S^n, then I guess the real Hopf fibration shouldn’t be included.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2019

    Mind you, Adams and Atiyah allow that case, so presumably change to n>0n \gt 0.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2019

    added pointer to

    • Dale Husemöller, chapter 15 of Fibre Bundles, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 20, Springer New York (1966)

    diff, v12, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2019

    added publication data for this here:

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2019

    added pointer to

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 3rd 2019
    • (edited Jun 3rd 2019)

    added the claim (here) that the Hopf invariant of a map ϕ\phi may be read off as the unique free coefficient of the Sullivan model of ϕ\phi.

    This follows straightforwardly, and I’d like to cite this from a canonical RHT source, if possible. But I don’t see it in the textbooks (FHT, …). If anyone knows opus, page and verse for a canonical citation of this fact, please let me know.

    diff, v16, current

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2019

    added also pointer to

    diff, v18, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2019

    added also pointer to

    and

    • Lee Rudolph, Whitehead’s Integral Formula, Isolated Critical Points, and the Enhancement of the Milnor Number, Pure and Applied Mathematics Quarterly Volume 6, Number 2, 2010 (arXiv:0912.4974)

    diff, v19, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2019

    added pointer to

    diff, v22, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2020

    starting a section on the Hopf invariant in generalized cohomology, here.

    So far I have added a homotopy pasting diagram which exhibits the Hopf invariant in any EE-theory in a natural way.

    diff, v30, current

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2020

    You have E 8E_8 in the diagram, where you want E 2nE_{2n}.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2020
    • (edited Nov 27th 2020)

    Thanks! Fixed now.

    Also added one more diagram, showing the case of the classical Hopf fibrations.

    diff, v30, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2020

    Does anything stop the octonionic Hopf fibration appearing in a similar diagram? “Octonionic orientation” receives precisely 0 hits.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2020

    By the way, bottom right of your new diagram you should have Σ 8κ\Sigma^8 \kappa.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2020
    • (edited Nov 27th 2020)

    Thanks again, fixed now.

    Regarding octonion-oriented cohomology:

    There are no octonionic projective spaces beyond 𝕆P 1and𝕆P 2\mathbb{O}P^1 and \mathbb{O}P^2 (e.g. “Why octonions are bad” here).

    Which made me wonder:

    The diagrams for the 𝕂\mathbb{K}-Hopf fibrations which I was showing involve exactly and only these two cases 𝕂P 1\mathbb{K}P^1, 𝕂P 2\mathbb{K}P^2.

    So while 𝕂\mathbb{K}-orientation in EE-cohomology in the sense of lifts though

    E˜(𝕂P ∞)⟶E˜(𝕂P 1) \widetilde E( \mathbb{K}P^\infty ) \longrightarrow \widetilde E( \mathbb{K}P^1 )

    does not make sense for 𝕂=𝕆\mathbb{K} = \mathbb{O}, what does make sense are “orientations to stage 2”, being lifts through

    E˜(𝕂P 2)⟶E˜(𝕂P 1). \widetilde E( \mathbb{K}P^2 ) \longrightarrow \widetilde E( \mathbb{K}P^1 ) \,.

    But these finite-stage orientations have received little attention, even for 𝕂=ℂ\mathbb{K} = \mathbb{C}: It looks like the list of references compiled here essentially exhausts the available literature. And these reference all focus on technicalities not going to the heart of the subject.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorDylan Wilson
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2020

    Another common generalization of the Hopf invariant is the ’e-invariant’. Suppose f:S k→S 0f:S^k \to S^0 is a stable map which vanishes in EE-(co)homology. Then we get an extension E *(S k+1)→E *(Cf)→E *(S 0)E^*(S^{k+1}) \to E^*(Cf) \to E^*(S^0) in Ext 1(E *,E *)\mathrm{Ext}^1(E^*, E^*). This is an extension in, for example, the category of modules over E^*-cohomology operations, and gives an invariant for ff (but you could think of it as an extension in any abelian category where E *(S k)E^*(S^k) lives, e.g. just as modules over E *E^* if you want). When EE is ordinary cohomology, this is the Hopf invariant, but in general it can detect much more (e.g. the \alpha family when E is KU, say).

    (Of course this is basically the beginning of the Adams spectral sequence relative to E)

    I wonder if this invariant agrees with yours when they are both defined? Yours depends on a choice of ’stage 2 orientation’, but maybe that orientation gives a preferred class in Ext to compare to? Presumably the extension class for the module E^*(KP^2)?

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2020

    Thanks, Dylan. That’s a great hint. I’ll think about this.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2020

    added the diagrammatic proof of the homotopy Whitehead ingegral/functional cup product-formula for the Hopf invariant (here)

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2020

    Re #18, right that’s what I was thinking, that octonions get you to pass up one stage at least.

    I was wondering if those section in Laughton’s thesis on quaternionic towers had anything to do with quaternionic orientation at finite stages, but I think not.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2020
    • (edited Nov 29th 2020)

    Dylan, thanks again for the hint towards the e-invariant in #19.

    So I was trying to read up on e-invariants computed in other generalized cohomogy theories, beyond K-theory.

    From Prop. 1 in Krueger 73 I gather that for all cohomology theories EE satisfying the usual assumptions for the EE-Adams spectral sequence, the e-invariants all “agree”, under some pertinent isos between their Ext 1Ext^1-s. Am I reading that right? (The definition on p. 5 needs some unravelling…)

    By the way, does anyone discuss the e-invariant in equivariant cohomology (K-theory or otherwise)?

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2021

    I have now spelled out (here) the argument for the essentially unique existence of the trivialization of the cup square on S nS^n, using appeal to connective covers of ring spectra

    (previously the paragraph just had a pointer to the idea of this argument in Lurie, Lec. 4. Exmpl. 8, which however I have kept)

    diff, v40, current

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2022

    added pointer to:

    diff, v44, current

1 to 25 of 25

  1.