Steenrod problem

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

1 Introduction

Given a space X, there is a homomorphism $\Phi : \Omega^{SO}_{∗}(X) \to H_{*}(X,\mathbb{Z})$$<!-- COMMENT: To achieve a unified layout, along with using the template below, please OBSERVE the following: besides, $...$ and $$...$$, you should use two environments: - For statements like Theorem, Lemma, Definition etc., use e.g. {{beginthm|Theorem 1|(Milnor)}} ... ... ... {{endthm}}. - For references, use e.g. {{cite|Milnor1958b}}. END OF COMMENT --> {{Stub}} == Introduction == <wikitex>; Given a space X, there is a homomorphism $\Phi : \Omega^{SO}_{∗}(X) \to H_{*}(X,\mathbb{Z})$, called the Thom homomorphism, given by $[M,f] \to f_{*}([M])$ where $[M]$ is the fundamental class of $M$. The elements in the image of $\Phi$ are called representable. In certain situations it is convenient to assume that a homology class is representable. In dimensions <script type="math/tex">\Phi : \Omega^{SO}_{∗}(X) \to H_{*}(X,\mathbb{Z})$, called the Thom homomorphism, given by $[M,f] \to f_{*}([M])$$[M,f] \to f_{*}([M])$ where $[M]$$[M]$ is the fundamental class of $M$$M$. The elements in the image of $\Phi$$\Phi$ are called representable. In certain situations it is convenient to assume that a homology class is representable. In dimensions $0$$0$ and $1$$1$ it is clear that $\Phi$$\Phi$ is surjective (even an isomorphism). It is less obvious in dimension $2$$2$, but also can be shown geometrically. This made Steenrod raise his famous problem in 1946 [Eilenberg1949]: Given a simplicial complex $X$$X$, is every (integral) homology class representable?

2 References

• [Eilenberg1949] S. Eilenberg, On the problems of topology, Ann. of Math. (2) 50 (1949), 247–260. MR0030189 (10,726b) Zbl 0034.25304

$ and \Phi : \Omega^{SO}_{∗}(X) \to H_{*}(X,\mathbb{Z}), called the Thom homomorphism, given by $[M,f] \to f_{*}([M])$$[M,f] \to f_{*}([M])$ where $[M]$$[M]$ is the fundamental class of $M$$M$. The elements in the image of $\Phi$$\Phi$ are called representable. In certain situations it is convenient to assume that a homology class is representable. In dimensions $0$$0$ and $1$$1$ it is clear that $\Phi$$\Phi$ is surjective (even an isomorphism). It is less obvious in dimension $2$$2$, but also can be shown geometrically. This made Steenrod raise his famous problem in 1946 [Eilenberg1949]: Given a simplicial complex $X$$X$, is every (integral) homology class representable?

2 References

• [Eilenberg1949] S. Eilenberg, On the problems of topology, Ann. of Math. (2) 50 (1949), 247–260. MR0030189 (10,726b) Zbl 0034.25304

$ it is clear that $\Phi$ is surjective (even an isomorphism). It is less obvious in dimension $, but also can be shown geometrically. This made Steenrod raise his famous problem in 1946 {{cite|Eilenberg1949}}: Given a simplicial complex $X$, is every (integral) homology class representable? == References == {{#RefList:}} [[Category:Theory]]\Phi : \Omega^{SO}_{∗}(X) \to H_{*}(X,\mathbb{Z}), called the Thom homomorphism, given by $[M,f] \to f_{*}([M])$$[M,f] \to f_{*}([M])$ where $[M]$$[M]$ is the fundamental class of $M$$M$. The elements in the image of $\Phi$$\Phi$ are called representable. In certain situations it is convenient to assume that a homology class is representable. In dimensions $0$$0$ and $1$$1$ it is clear that $\Phi$$\Phi$ is surjective (even an isomorphism). It is less obvious in dimension $2$$2$, but also can be shown geometrically. This made Steenrod raise his famous problem in 1946 [Eilenberg1949]: Given a simplicial complex $X$$X$, is every (integral) homology class representable?

2 References

• [Eilenberg1949] S. Eilenberg, On the problems of topology, Ann. of Math. (2) 50 (1949), 247–260. MR0030189 (10,726b) Zbl 0034.25304