Petrie conjecture

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 10: Line 10:
</wikitex>
</wikitex>
Results confirming that in some cases the Petrie conjecture is true go back to {{cite|Dejter1976}}, {{cite|Iberkleid1978}}, {{cite|Tsukada&Washiyama1979}}, {{cite|Dessai2002}},{{cite|Dessai&Wilking2004}}, and {{cite|Tolman2009}}.
+
Results confirming that in some cases the Petrie conjecture is true go back to {{cite|Dejter1976}}, {{cite|Iberkleid1978}}, {{cite|Tsukada&Washiyama1979}}, {{cite|Dessai2002}},{{cite|Dessai&Wilking2004}}, and {{cite|Tolman2010}}.
== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 21:02, 30 November 2010

This page has not been refereed. The information given here might be incomplete or provisional.

1 Introduction

The Petrie conjecture was formulated in the following context: suppose that a Lie group G acts smoothly on a closed smooth manifold M, what constraints does this place on the topology of M in general and on the Pontrjagin classes of M in particular.

Petrie restricted his attention to smooth actions of the Lie group S^1 [Petrie1972] (or more generally, the torus T^k for k \geq 1 [Petrie1973]) on closed smooth manifolds M which are homotopy equivalent to \CP^n. He has formulated the following conjecture.

Conjecture 0.1 [Petrie1972].

Suppose that M is a closed smooth manifold homotopy equivalent to \CP^n and that S^1 acts smoothly and non-trivially on M. Then the total Pontrjagin class p(M) of M agrees with that of \CP^n, i.e., for a generator x \in H^2(M; \mathbb{Z}),
\displaystyle p(M) = (1+x^2)^{n+1}.

Results confirming that in some cases the Petrie conjecture is true go back to [Dejter1976], [Iberkleid1978], [Tsukada&Washiyama1979], [Dessai2002],[Dessai&Wilking2004], and [Tolman2010].

2 References

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox