-
There is a degree

normal map
We may pull back the canonical line bundle

over

. By the Poincar\'{e} conjecture, the sphere bundle

is

-homeomorphic to the sphere

.

is a homotopy complex projective space obtained by coning off the boundary of the disk bundle.
Similarly we may form the connected sum

, where

is the
Kervaire manifold, and once again, we take pullback of

line bundle via the natural degree

normal map. Now to obtain a homotopy equivalence

we have to use a little bit of surgery. Nevertheless there exists a manifold

such that
is a homotopy equivalence of manifolds with boundary. Again since the boundary is already

-homeomorphic to a sphere we may extend the homotopy equivalence after coning off the boundaries.
The aim of this exercise is to write full details of proof of Lemma 8.24 form [Madsen&Milgram1979].
A sketch of this proof can be found in the book, on page 170.
References
$ normal map $$h\colon\widetilde{\mathbb{C}P^5}\to \mathbb{C}P^5.$$ We may pull back the canonical line bundle $H_5\to \mathbb{C}P^5$ over $\widetilde{\mathbb{C}P^5}$. By the Poincar\'{e} conjecture, the sphere bundle $S(h^*(H_5))=\partial D(h^*(H_5))$ is $PL$-homeomorphic to the sphere $S^{11}$. $\widetilde{\mathbb{C}P^6}=D(h^*(H_5))\cup_{S^{11}}D^{12}$ is a homotopy complex projective space obtained by coning off the boundary of the disk bundle.
Similarly we may form the connected sum $\widetilde{\mathbb{C}P^5}\# M^{10}_A$, where $M^{10}_A$ is the [[Kervaire_sphere|Kervaire manifold]], and once again, we take pullback of $H_5$ line bundle via the natural degree 1 normal map
We may pull back the canonical line bundle

over

. By the Poincar\'{e} conjecture, the sphere bundle

is

-homeomorphic to the sphere

.

is a homotopy complex projective space obtained by coning off the boundary of the disk bundle.
Similarly we may form the connected sum

, where

is the
Kervaire manifold, and once again, we take pullback of

line bundle via the natural degree

normal map. Now to obtain a homotopy equivalence

we have to use a little bit of surgery. Nevertheless there exists a manifold

such that
is a homotopy equivalence of manifolds with boundary. Again since the boundary is already

-homeomorphic to a sphere we may extend the homotopy equivalence after coning off the boundaries.
The aim of this exercise is to write full details of proof of Lemma 8.24 form [Madsen&Milgram1979].
A sketch of this proof can be found in the book, on page 170.
References
$ normal map. Now to obtain a homotopy equivalence $\partial D(f^*(H_5))\to \partial D(H_5)$ we have to use a little bit of surgery. Nevertheless there exists a manifold $W^{12}$ such that $$D(f^*(H_5))\cup W^{12}\to D(H_5)$$ is a homotopy equivalence of manifolds with boundary. Again since the boundary is already $PL$-homeomorphic to a sphere we may extend the homotopy equivalence after coning off the boundaries.
{{beginthm|Lemma}}
$\mathbb{C}P^6$, $\widetilde{\mathbb{C}P^6}$ and $f^*(H_5)\cup W^{12}\cup_{S^{11}}D^{12}$, are topologically distinct homotopy projective spaces.
{{endthm}}
The aim of this exercise is to write full details of proof of Lemma 8.24 form \cite{Madsen&Milgram1979}.
A sketch of this proof can be found in the book, on page 170.
== References ==
{{#RefList:}}
[[Category:Exercises]]1 normal map
We may pull back the canonical line bundle

over

. By the Poincar\'{e} conjecture, the sphere bundle

is

-homeomorphic to the sphere

.

is a homotopy complex projective space obtained by coning off the boundary of the disk bundle.
Similarly we may form the connected sum

, where

is the
Kervaire manifold, and once again, we take pullback of

line bundle via the natural degree

normal map. Now to obtain a homotopy equivalence

we have to use a little bit of surgery. Nevertheless there exists a manifold

such that
is a homotopy equivalence of manifolds with boundary. Again since the boundary is already

-homeomorphic to a sphere we may extend the homotopy equivalence after coning off the boundaries.
The aim of this exercise is to write full details of proof of Lemma 8.24 form [Madsen&Milgram1979].
A sketch of this proof can be found in the book, on page 170.
References