« first day (5294 days earlier)      last day (21 days later) » 

01:14
is it true that $\lim_{d \to \infty} \lim_{n \to \infty} \biggl( \sum_{i=1}^d \lvert x_i \lvert ^n \biggr)^{1/n} = \sup \lvert x _i \lvert$?
Well, what does evaluating the inner limit yield?
it should yield $\max_{i} \lvert x_i \lvert$
good. then what does evaluating the outer limit yield? :)
i believe such a max is actually dependent on the $d$ still (at least intuitively it should depend on $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^d$), so I would think that the natural result is $\sup_{i} \lvert x_i \lvert$
wdym "intuitively it should"
01:20
well the inner limit results in the maximum of a set $S= \{x_1, ..., x_d\}$. the set $S$ depends on the parameter $d$.
if you feel at all unsure about that statement you should spent some time actually proving that the inner limit is what you claim it is
and make precise what you're taking the maximum over
@SillyGoose yes, so why the uncertainty? :)
ben's advice is good advice. the inner limit is a many times duplicate on MSE if you want to find various proofs of that
@Ben btw, fun fact (courtesy of a friend): every countable, finite-dimensional CW-complex should have the homotopy type of an open (stably?) parallelizable smooth manifold
it's also instructive to evaluate on your own, and shouldn't be very difficult
well i think something is going wrong in my reasoning as applying such a result to a physics problem i am working in results in the wrong answer
i did follow one of the proofs in a stack answer (the "sandwich proof" in which you sandwich the sum of interest betwixt $\max(\{x_i\})^n$ and $d\max(\{x_i\})^n$
01:24
well who knows what is going on in your more general problem. if physics is involved, it may be relevant that there is generally no guarantee that that sup is finite. just a random thought.
@Thorgott hmm
yes i am actually expecting the sup to not be well-defined (this is the correct result I am looking for)
so maybe i should delve into in what ways the sup can fail to be well-defined
how do you get parallelizability?
@SillyGoose hint: there's not too many of those
actually one could argue that the sup is always well-defined
my analysis is really poor...this is a good opportunity to brush up a bit :P
silly for any fixed d the max over |x_1|, ..., |x_d| will be finite. and as a function of d, this sequence of max's is nondecreasing. so it isn't going to behave too wildly. but it doesn't have to be finite.
it can be +oo is all.
01:26
yes i am expecting it to be $+\infty$ in a particular case of interest
i am actually working through an exact solution of the 2d ising model. the quantity of interest ends up being $\lim_{N,M \to \infty} \biggl[ \frac{1}{NM} \log \biggl( \sum_{i} \lambda_{i,M}^N \biggr) \biggr]$, so is essentially the limit problem I stated above (after a wee bit of manipulation)
i guess it is slightly different. there is an additional factor of $1/d$ in the notation I used previously
@BenSteffan it's an inductive construction where you replace every cell attachment with a handle attachment, but a technical step still eludes me
handle attachment? not sure I can
ho ho
heh
I can't
well I know $\epsilon$ about handle decompositions of 3-manifolds now so
clearly I'm qualified
the idea isn't too bad, if M has dim 2k+1 and the homotopy type of the k-skeleton, an attaching map S^k -> M for a (k+1)-cell can be homotoped to an embedding by Whitney. the normal bundle is stably trivial since S^k and M are, but its in the stable range, so its trivial, i.e. you get a framing of this sphere.
attaching a handle along this framing has the same effect on the homotopy type as attaching a cell along the core sphere. the only technical detail (which I'm terribly stuck on) is understanding why the framing of S^k can be chosen so that the framing of the tangent bundle extends ove
01:41
okay that's reasonable
here's another question, perhaps you know this: if a group G acts freely on a contractible space E and E -> E/G is a fibration, does E/G have the homotopy type of a BG?
What if $G$ acts transitively? :)
hm, I guess you want to count a point as a $B1$?
it definitely is
hm actually i am confused about this now
I don't know
01:56
Given a set that has a maximum, I can write the quality $\max S = \sup S$
you should have $\Omega E / G \simeq_w G$, but about non-weak homotopy equivalence I don't see what to do
Now, given a whole list of sets with extant maxima $\{S_i\}$, I can write $\max S_i = \sup S_i$.
Now if I take the $\lim_{i \to \infty} \max S_i$, will this still be equal to $\lim_{i \to \infty} \sup S_i$?
er wait sorry
I think I am not formulating my question correctly.
@BenSteffan I don't care about weak vs non-weak, the issue is deloopings aren't unique
but somehow this coming from a fibration with an action on the total space should make it unique? or perhaps it's false, I don't know
I guess the obstruction is to show that your fibration is in fact a principal $G$-bundle
I somehow doubt this is true in your setting in general
02:13
yes I don't think that will be true on the nose
Ah, how about this: Consider $\mathbb{Z} / 2$ as an indiscrete space and let $\mathbb{Z} / 2$ as a discrete group act on it in the obvious way. This action is free and transitive and its codomain is contractible, so the quotient is a point and therefore the quotient projection a fibration, but this is obviously not a $B\mathbb{Z} / 2$.
You could do that with any discrete group
that is true and I don't like it
grr
if you impose nicety restrictions on the topology then the problem becomes more difficult, but I doubt it's ever true
I'm confused by a post like mathoverflow.net/questions/130078/…
John Klein proves it's a fibration, but why is that enough to identify a $BG$?
forgive me, but I will read this tomorrow
it's too late tonight :)
02:24
all good, I'm also mentally depleted
is there a name for combining two limits in two distinct variables into one?
e.g. $\lim_{n,m \to \infty} f(n,m)$ versus $\lim_{\alpha \to \infty} f(n+\alpha, m+\alpha)$
 
1 hour later…
03:33
silly i dunno quite what you have in mind but the first one of those is asking about a limit of a function on ZxZ (or NxN or whatever, the point is, a limit as a pair of things is going "to infinity") while the second is asking about a limit of a function on Z (or N or whatever) where the function itself depends on n and m. they both put pressure on exactly what you mean for something to "go to infinity," but in the domains of two functions with very different domains.
a natural setting for this kind of discussion would be in a point set topology class where you discuss limits in different kinds of spaces, including limits as you "go to infinity" in some sense, where the "infinity" isn't necessarily a point in your original space.
and because you can consider all sorts of sequences in things like ZxZ, there are lots of ways you might expect the existence of some kind of "two variable" "ZxZ limit" to imply the existence of a ton of "one variable" "Z limits" you consider by pre-composing your two variable function with a function that maps Z into ZxZ.
i'm using scare quotes because you can make potentially different choices in how you set this up and i do not want to imply it's just one thing that exists without you adding in more structure to say what it is that you're doing. although if you took multivariable calculus you may remember in a non sequence context, how the existence of a "multivariable" limit of a function on R^n implies the existence of a lot of "one variable" limits you get by considering the function on paths through a point
something kind of similar is at work here
 
3 hours later…
06:13
In Rudin's PMA, there's the following theorem,
> Theorem 2.43 Let $P$ be a nonempty perfect set in $\mathbb R^k$. Then $P$ is uncountable.
He proves this by constructing a sequence of open balls whose closure are the closed balls. As far as I can tell, he hasn't proved this result yet that a closed ball is the closure of an open ball in Euclidean space with the Euclidean norm. One inclusion is trivial, since the closed ball is a closed set that contains the open ball, hence its closure. However, without using sequences (since these haven't been introduced yet), how can I show the other inclusion?
06:25
i forget exactly how rudin sets it up but the triangle inequality, which should absolutely be in there as part of verifying that R^n with its usual norm is a metric space, implies that the euclidean norm is continuous, as a function from R^n with the euclidean topology to R (or to [0, +oo) (it makes no difference))
and again i forget exactly how he sequences it but the inverse image of a closed set under a continuous map is closed, so if you know that intervals of the form [a,b] are closed in R, you deduce that closed balls with center 0 in R^n are closed in R^n from that
the continuity of translation by some fixed element of R^n (as a map from R^n to R^n) is also apparent from the fact that it is an isometry under the usual euclidean metric, which would get you that arbitrary closed balls are closed in R^n
thats just one way of organizing the ideas in terms of more fundamental ideas, i don't have PMA on this device so i can't check if that fits into exactly how he sets it up
i'm a little suspicious of the claim that rudin "hasn't introduced sequences" at this point in the book. chapter 2? surely he has. maybe he didn't define closedness in R^n using them, and maybe he prefers not to write arguments that use them (in favor of e.g. arguments involving open sets), but they must be there
Ok. Hmm. Chapter 3 is sequences and Chapter 4 is continuity :) I thought about proving something like if V is the open ball centered at x with radius r>0, then y is a limit point of V iff y is in V or |y-x|=r.
you're focusing maybe a little too much on chapter titles and less on what is written in the book. you should be able to prove by hand in chapter 2, using whatever material he develops in chapter 1 for the euclidean norm (e.g. the triangle inequality), that the closure of {x in R^n: |x| < 1} is {x in R^n: |x| <= 1}
using whatever definition he gives for the closure in chapter 2
it is also maybe instructive to first do special cases, e.g. the ball of radius 1 center 0 instead of an arbitrary ball, and then maybe n = 1 instead of arbitrary R^n, to see what is sort of "really" happening and what is mostly a notational artifact of having extra coordinates or whatever to play with
yes, the closure of V is the union of V and its limit points. He talks a lot about limit points.
he has briefly mentioned in chapter 2 what a sequence is though.
06:42
so maybe as a first stab at it, using whatever his definition of limit point is, can you prove that 1 is a limit point of (-1,1) (as a subset of R^1 with the euclidean norm)
then, trying to change as little of the argument as possible, can you rewrite that so it shows that any x with ||x|| = 1 is a limit point of {x in R^d: ||x|| < 1}
there will be some ways of answering this that maybe don't clearly generalize, but there are also ones that do and they willl use things like the properties of the euclidean norm as hopefully shown in chapter 1
the norm properties show you for example that given any x with ||x|| = 1 and any delta > 0 the point (1 - delta/2) x will be in the open unit ball and less than delta away from x
which is almost literally the argument in R^1. you can find points that show you that such an x is a limit point of the open ball not just in the open ball but in the subset {tx: t in (-1,1)} which is like a "copy of R^1" sitting inside whatever R^n you are working in
and in that copy, calculation with the norm is exactly like calculating with real numbers
rudin's never going to say any of this stuff out loud, which is why we love him as an author
ok 👍 so for an arbitrary open ball, I just argue that it is a translation and dilation of the unit ball?
07:02
I think closure in a metric space is easier understood with saying a point is in the closure iff there's a sequence in the set converging to the point of closure. I don't understand the focus on limit points.
07:18
...in the book, that is.
07:38
if i have a sentence in a first order theory, then there is no algorithm to determine if that sentence is a theorem. then we say that first order logic is undecidable
is this correct
also, if i have a proof of a statement within a theory and i have an algorithm to verify that proof, what is this property called
 
3 hours later…
10:47
in a decidable logic, there is an algorithm which tells u if a statement is a theorem
what happens if u apply that algorithm to a statement that is independent from the theory ,i.e. it is neither probable nor disprovable?
does that algorithm also check for independence
An independent statement is not a theorem of the theory under consideration, so the algorithm will recognize it as such
11:08
oh
so the output is binary : either is a theorem or is not a theorem
so it doesn't distinguish between a false statement and an independent statement?
Well you can run the algorithm again with the negation of your statement to check
yes
so if we run it twice, we can be sure about the statements status
thanks
and a semi decidable logic is when this algorithm does not always halt
It always halts on theorems, but might run forever on non theorems
Semidecidability is a very weak notion though, every first order theory with recursively enumerable axioms is semidecidable
11:18
oh
first order logic is also extremely powerful. so i think we are okay with semidecidability
In that case you can write down al algorithm that lists all theorem in order (fix some computable enumeration of the axioms, go though it and apply all possible inference rules)
are there countably many theorems?
for any first order theory?
And then the algorithm to recognize whether a formula is a theorem is to run the algorithm producing all theorems as above and stop as soon as you find the formula in the list
For any first order theory in a countable language, but there are also theories in uncountable languages
11:21
like we are allowed to use an uncountable list of symbols?
@AlessandroCodenotti Of course if you run this algorithm on a non theorem, it will never find it in the list and just run forever
@RyderRude exactly
wow
@AlessandroCodenotti yes
i can formalised real numbers using countable FO logic. but I can't define most real numbers in that language, which means I can only talk about describable numbers
so it is kinda strange. i think the idea is that any such theory has a countable model (Lowenheim Skolem theorem i think)
Lowenheim-Skolem guarantees the existence of a theory in every cardinality not smaller than that of the language
i think most mathematicians are only comfortable with countable languages??
like, they might not trust uncountable languages to produce true things
it becomes a matter of faith, right? how far you are willing to believe in something non constructive
@AlessandroCodenotti ooh
A stupid example is that if you have a language with uncountably many constant symbols $(c_i)_{i\in I}$ and axioms $c_i\neq c_j$ for every pair $i\neq j$ in $I$, then all models of this theory will have cardinality at least $|I|$
11:26
i think it is a great example :P
But of course all commonly studied theories have a countable (finite more often than not) language
this means mathematicians, in practice, only ever deal with countably many theorems
i find that relaxing
and also there is a way to generate the list of theorems such that nothing is missed
like applying every possible rule of inference
in a systematic way
really cool
thanks for discussing :)
11:53
Consider the subgroup $H$ of $F_2$ generated by $x^2,y^2$. Is the index of $H$ in $F_2$ infinite?
what do you think?
Suppose $[F_2:H]$ is finite, by Schreier index formula, so $2=\mathrm{rank}(H)=[F_2:H](\mathrm{rank}(F_2)-1)+1=[F_2:H]+1$, so $[F_2:H]=1$, so $F_2=H$, contradiction.
I try to find coset representatives
The coset representatives of $H$ are $x,y,xy,yx,xyx,yxy,\ldots$. So the index of $H$ in $F_2$ is infinite. Is this proof correct?
looks correct to me but it's been a long time since I last thought about such stuff
12:09
where do constructivist mathematicians disagree with usual mathematicians
i think it is pretty constructive to have an algorithm to generate all theorems of your theory
i think usual mathematics is already pretty concrete... where do constructivist mathematicians disagree
@RyderRude Does every vector space have a basis?
> In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivism asserts that it is necessary to find (or "construct") a specific example of a mathematical object in order to prove that an example exists.
@BenSteffan idk.... i think this requires axiom of choice?
maybe constructivist mathematicians disagree on the use of $\exists$
that's the point :)
12:14
oh
like, one can't just postulate that something exists. i got it
yeah, for a constructivist you'd need to actually come up with some way to give or construct a basis for any given vector space
they don't accept the axiom of choice
then there are other mathematician who disagree on whether or not we should be dealing with actual infinite sets. these are called finitists
@BenSteffan yes
yes, but constructivists form a serious if non-mainstream group of mathematicians. finitists, on the other hand...
the few of them that are out there mostly speak for themselves, so to say
i feel they have similar stances? one could argue that we can't explicitly construct an infinite set either?
@BenSteffan yes. NJ Wildberger :P
@RyderRude no, that's simply not true
12:18
i feel okay with ANY mathematics as long as the language is finite or maybe countably infinite
@BenSteffan oh
you can construct the natural numbers just fine
and then the integers. if you have those, you can construct $\mathbb{Q}$
i think i am missing a technical meaning of construction
and then you can construct $\mathbb{R}$
if you want to be formal about it, constructivists use different axiom systems than we do
for example ones which don't have choice
but infinite constructions are generally valid still
I need to give a way to construct each natural number, but I can still form the set of all such numbers
12:22
we can say that finitists are even more skeptical than constructivists
yes, certainly
@BenSteffan it is strange... we can never actually deal with an infinite bunch of things..
but we can postulate that that thing exists
we can, in a sense
12:23
yeah
if we couldn't, there wouldn't be much point in considering them, and we would all be finitists
sure, you can't inspect an infinite number of things individually
i feel okay with any mathematics which has recursively enumerable language, and which has a finite number of axioms. and there should be a way to prove things
but infinite families of something are generally characterized by all having some property, and you can "get hold of" infinitely many elements that way
12:24
yes
a way to prove things you can never have, really :^)
i think the technical term is that I want semi decidability
so i am okay with semi decidable math with a finite number of axioms. this is the largest subset of math I am willing to trust rn
but what do we even mean by trust :P
this means that I am also okay with non constructivism
but one can also have axiom schemas, which are technically an infinite number of axioms
but they can be summarised in a finite way
12:39
@BenSteffan I'm always slightly annoyed when the nlab feels like making a point out of referring to "inhabited sets"
13:37
Can someone help me render mathjax in chat? I am on a tablet
@SoumikMukherjee how much are you willing to pay?
@Thorgott You could have ended that sentence at "nlab". :P
13:54
@SineoftheTime I can pay with some funny jokes that'll make you laugh
I'd help you but I didn't manage to render mathjax on phone :(
 
1 hour later…
15:06
@SoumikMukherjee The last attempt didn’t help right?
15:17
sometimes we can re-write a differential equation as an equation involving a Lie bracket, and then just solve it by Lie integration
anyone know the general version of this idea? a special case of this is used in physics, like QM
like, suppose I have two linear operators X and P and I have a differential equation dX/dt=f(X,P). sometimes we are able to re-write this equation as a commutator equation, like $ dX/dt=[g(X,P), X]$ for some $g(X,P)$. and then the explicit solution is something like $X(t)= e^{-g(X,P) t} X e^{g(X,P)t}$
15:35
@SohamSaha yes:(
15:45
@Thorgott today I learned that that's not synonymous with "non-empty"
16:40
I'm trying to prove that a^(1/m) + b^(1/n), where a, b, m and n are natural, and (a, b) and (m, n) are coprime pairs, is always irrational, can anyone give a small hint?
$\tiny{\text{hint}}$
16:57
6
Q: Proof that $\sqrt[m]{a} + \sqrt[n]{b}$ is irrational

ArthurNIs there a way to prove that $\sqrt[m]{a} + \sqrt[n]{b}$ ($\sqrt[m]{a}$ and $\sqrt[n]{b}$ are irrational); $a, b, m, n \in \mathbb{N}$; $m, n \neq 2$; is irrational without using the theorem mentioned in Sum of irrational numbers, a basic algebra problem? If one of $m$ or $n$ is $2$, then a poly...

spoiler alert, i guess, more than a tiny hint :)
17:16
Does anyone know if there is a name of the algebra of the last line?
 
3 hours later…
19:49
Yo chat,
I'm working an exercise in Rudin's PMA, Exercise 2.26. It says that if a metric space $X$ has the property that every infinite subset has a limit point, then prove $X$ is compact. I'm trying to understand his hint. It says that $X$ is separable (by a previous exercise) and hence has a countable base. So every cover of $X$ has a countable subcover $\{G_n\}$.
If no finite subcollection of $\{G_n\}$ covers $X$, then the complement $F_n$ of $G_1\cup G_2\cup\cdots \cup G_n$ is nonempty for each $n$, and so $\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty F_n$ is empty. Why is that intersection empty?
I observe that the $F_n$'s are decreasing, but I don't see why the intersection would be empty.
@Thorgott I don't see why being fibration should be enough there either.
@psie That's pretty much immediate. You can figure that out on your own.
It's also not an "and so." This is true even if there is a finite subcollection of the $G_n$ covers $X$.
20:11
@BenSteffan :\
why do you care about that problem?
20:44
it would imply the groupoid of maps $X\rightarrow BG$ and homotopy classes of homotopies between them is equivalent to the groupoid of principal $G$-bundles and equivariant homotopy classes of isomorphisms between them
ah
the day I will have to engage with the equivariant world is perhaps not so far off, but it is not today
this should be harmless at the end of the day
of course, this is (probably) just the statement you get by taking homotopy categories of the canonical equivalence of $\infty$-groupoids $\mathrm{Map}(X,BG)\simeq\mathrm{Prin}_G(X)$, but trying to translate that back into something concrete seemed not feasible to me
the result is in atiyah-bott and in a paper by gottlieb so
21:13
Have I solved this exercise correctly? Exercise: "Let $f:\mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}^3$ defined as $f(x,y,z) = (x, x-y, z)$. Determine $f^{-1}(e_1)$. Is $f^{-1}(e_1)$ a subspace of $\text{dom}(f)$?". My solution: $f^{-1}(e_1)=\{(x,y,z) \in \mathbb{R}^3 \ : \ (x,x-y,z)=(1,0,0)\} = \{(1,1,0\}$. This is not a subspace of $\mathbb{R}^3$ because $(0,0,0) \notin \{(1,1,0)\}$.
21:23
gwyn looks fine to me.
@psie I wonder...sometimes I wonder...does Rudin in the exercise statement mean that every infinite subset contains a limit point or simply has a limit point? He refers to this exercise in the text in the Heine-Borel theorem, and says that there is an equivalence between a set being compact and every infinite subset of the set containing a limit point, but he does write has in the exercise.
Does he say that in the Heine-Borel theorem? Because that's false.
As you can easily convince yourself of by coming up with an infinite subset of $[0, 1]$ which doesn't contain one.
@Z.G. On a related note, given a non-square integer $a$, we can find integers $b$ such that $\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}$ is almost an integer. Eg, $\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{967441} \approx 985.000000365$
@psie yeah, maybe I'm misreading...
21:31
I don't see where your claim is supported @psie
yeah, he's not saying that the limit point needs to be contained in the infinite subset. My bad!
Joe
Joe
Hello, I'm struggling with this proof. Specifically, I don't see why $B_{\mathfrak q}$ is a localization of $B\otimes_A A_{\mathfrak p}$.
I know that as $A_{\mathfrak p}$-modules, we have $B\otimes_A A_{\mathfrak p}\cong B_{\mathfrak p}$.
21:54
the latter is the localization of $B$ at the multiplicative subset $\rho(A\setminus\mathfrak{p})$
and $\rho(A\setminus\mathfrak{p})\subseteq B\setminus\mathfrak{q}$ by defn
22:34
@Thorgott The following is a result of Hambleton & Kreck. Let $M, N$ be $4$-manifolds with finite fundamental group $G$, and suppose $M \#^k (S^2 \times S^2) \cong_{\mathrm{diff}} N \#^k (S^2 \times S^2)$. If $M = M_0 \# (S^2 \times S^2)$, then $M \cong_{\mathrm{top}} N$.
They prove this by using some results of Bass on cancellation of quadratic forms over $\Bbb ZG$. I have been wondering for some time if there is an alternative, simpler proof. Here is an attempt.
Consider the cobordism $M \Longrightarrow M \#^k (S^2 \times S^2)$ by gluing trivial $2$-handles, and a cobordism $N \Longrightarrow N \#^k (S^2 \times S^2)$ by gluing trivial $2$-handles. Then reversing the latter and pasting by the diffeomorphism in the hypothesis, one gets a cobordism $W : M \Longrightarrow N$.
The inclusion $M \to W$ is an isomorphism in $\pi_1$. I want to surger $W$ to make it a surjection on $\pi_2$. Note that for any space $X$, $\pi_2(X) = H_2(X; \Bbb Z\pi_1(X))$.
Say the cokernel of $\pi_2(M) \to \pi_2(W)$ is generated by some $2$-spheres. These can be ensured to be embedded since $\dim W = 5 > 2 + 2$. Suppose these have trivial normal bundle. Then I can obviously surger on them. The problem is this need not decrease the cokernel: surgery takes out $S^2 \times D^3$ and glues back $D^3 \times S^2$. The belt sphere $0 \times S^2$ may now be a new element in the cokernel.
Claim: Suppose $S \subset W$ is an embedded $2$-sphere such that $[S] \in H_2(W, M \sqcup N; \Bbb ZG)$ is not torsion. Then I can in fact surger $S$ out so that the rank of $\mathrm{coker}(\pi_2(M) \to \pi_2(W))$ decreases.
Proof: Suppose $T \subset W$ is the meridian of $S$, linking $S$ once. If I can show $[T] = 0 \in H_2(W \setminus S; \Bbb ZG)$, I am done -- then the belt sphere in fact is not giving rise to a new element in the cokernel after I surger along $S$.
To do this, consider the Poincare dual $\mathrm{PD}[S] \in H^2(W; \Bbb ZG) \cong H^2_c(\widetilde{W}; \Bbb Z)$. Since $W$ is finite fundamental group, cohomology with compact supports is actually just cohomology. So, $\mathrm{PD}[S] \in H^2(\widetilde{W}; \Bbb Z)$. Since $[S]$ is non-torsion, so is $\mathrm{PD}[S]$. Consider its universal coefficients dual in $H_2(\widetilde{W}; \Bbb Z)$, which is thus non-zero.
I can represent the resulting non-zero element of $H_2(\widetilde{W}; \Bbb Z)$ by a map $f : Y^3 \to \widetilde{W}$ from a closed $3$-stratifold $Y$ (in fact, since Steenrod realization is solvable in this dimension, $Y$ can be chosen to be a $3$-manifold). Composing with the covering map, I get $f : Y^3 \to W$ which intersects $S$ transversely with intersection number $+1$, because $[Y]$ represents PD of $[S]$.
Suppose $Y \pitchfork S = \{x_1, \cdots, x_n\}$. Consider $Y \setminus \cup_i B_\varepsilon(x_i)$. Note that $\partial B_\varepsilon(x_i)$ is either $T$ or $-T$ ($T$ with orientation reversed). So, $Y \setminus \cup_i B_\varepsilon(x_i)$ is a $3$-chain in $W \setminus S$ bounding $\sum \pm [T] = [T]$ (since the signs add up to the intersection number $+1$).
So $[T] = 0 \in H_2(W \setminus S; \Bbb ZG)$, as desired.
Suppose $H_2(W, M \sqcup N; \Bbb ZG)$ does not have torsion. I think I have a way of getting rid of torsion by doing the same thing as above with $\Bbb F_p$ and $\Bbb Q$ coefficients, but that will take us far.
So, after finitely many procedures of the above sort, I can ensure $H_2(W, M \sqcup N; \Bbb ZG) = 0$. One has to get from here to $H_2(W, M; \Bbb ZG) = 0$. This seems to require additional hypothesis. Let's get around to this later.
Remember this? The $\Bbb ZG$-valued cellular chain complex from $(W, M)$ is $0 \to C_3(W, M; \Bbb ZG) \stackrel{\partial}{\to} C_2(W, M; \Bbb ZG) \to 0$ and if $H_2(W, M; \Bbb ZG) =0$, then $\partial$ is surjective. The kernel of $\partial$ is a stably free $\Bbb ZG$-module.
If stably free $\Bbb ZG$-modules were free and $\mathrm{Wh}(\Bbb ZG) = 0$, then essentially by the same arguments using elementary collapse/expansion moves, I can find a middle level set $\Sigma \subset W$ such that the sub-cobordism $W' : M \Longrightarrow \Sigma$ satisfies (1) $M \to W'$ is an iso on $\pi_1$, (2) $H_*(W', M; \Bbb ZG) = 0$. If also (3) $\Sigma \to W'$ is an iso on $\pi_1$, then $W'$ would be an $s$-cobordism.
The rest of $W$ after $W'$ has only some $3$-cells attached to $\Sigma$. Seen from the other side, $\Sigma$ is obtained from $N$ by attaching $2$-cells. But $N \to W$ is also an isomorphism on $\pi_1$, so the $2$-cells must be attached trivially. So $\Sigma \cong N \#^p (S^2 \times S^2)$. But if $W'$ is an $s$-cobordism, Freedman's theorem tells me $M$ and $N$ are homeomorphic. So $M \cong_{top} N \#^p (S^2 \times S^2)$. A Euler characteristic argument tells me $p = 0$, I think.
Anyway, "(3) $\Sigma \to W'$ is an iso on $\pi_1$" is not difficult to argue. $\pi_1 \Sigma = \pi_1 N$ by my description above. And $N \to W$ is an iso on $\pi_1$, so $\Sigma \to W'$ better be.
So it seems to me that in certain cases this is stronger than Hambleton-Kreck if I can ensure (0) Spheres in $W$ have trivial normal bundle (eg, $W$ is spin -- maybe) (1) $H_2(W; M \sqcup N; \Bbb ZG)$ does not have $\Bbb Z$-torsion (2) $H_2(W, M \sqcup N; \Bbb ZG) = 0$ implies $H_2(W, M; \Bbb ZG) = 0$, (3) Stably free $\Bbb ZG$-modules are free, (4) $Wh(\Bbb ZG) = 0$. Then $M \cong_{top} N$, without further reducibility assumption on $M$.
23:22
@BalarkaSen ok, potentially stupid question (coincidentally, I've also been hung up on my lack of understanding handle attachments for something Mike was telling me about for the past day), but connected sum is a $0$-surgery on the disjoint union, no? so shouldn't the cobordism go like $M\sqcup^k(S^2\times S^2)\Rightarrow M\#^l(S^2\times S^2)$?
23:33
@Thorgott Yeah no this is indeed slightly confusing. But think of it like this. If you take $M$ and attach a $2$-handle to $M \times [0, 1]$ along $M \times \{1\}$ so that the core disk gets attached to a nullhomotopic curve in $M \times \{1\}$ with trivial framing, then the result is a cobordism $W = M \times [0, 1] \cup h^2$ whose top boundary is $M \# (S^2 \times S^2)$
Effectively, the core disk glued to a $2$-disk bounded by the nullhomotopic attaching curve in $M \times I$ gives a core $2$-sphere $S^2$ in $W$. This is one of the two $S^2$'s in $\#(S^2 \times S^2)$.
Alternatively, a trivial surgery along a nullhomotopic circle in $M$ is $M \# (S^2 \times S^2)$.

« first day (5294 days earlier)      last day (21 days later) »