Here is my attempt to address Eric's actual question. Given a real n-dimensional vector bundle E on a space X, there is an associated Thom space that can be understood as a twisted n-fold suspension SigmaEX. (If E is trivial then it is a usual n-fold suspension SigmanX.) In particular, if E=L is a complex line bundle, it is a twisted double suspension. In particular, if X=mathbbCPinfty, the twisted double suspension of the tautological line bundle L satisfies the equation
SigmaLmathbbCPinfty=mathbbCPinfty.
As I understand it, Eric wants to know whether this periodicity can be interpreted as a Bott map, maybe after some modification, and then used to prove Bott periodicity. What I am saying matches Eric's steps 1 and 2. Step 3 is a modification to make the map look more like Bott periodicity.
I think that the answer is a qualified no. On the face of it, Eric's map does not carry the same information as the Bott map. Bott periodicity is a theorem about unitary groups and their classifying spaces. What Eric has in mind, as I understand now, is a result of Snaith that constructs a spectrum equivalent to the Bott spectrum for complex K-theory by modifying mathbbCPinfty. Snaith's model has been called "Snaith periodicity", but the existing arguments that it is the same are a use and not a proof of Bott periodicity. (In that sense, Snaith's model is stone soup, although that metaphor is not really fair to his good paper.)
For context, here is a quick definition of Bott's beautiful map as Bott constructed it in the Annals is beautiful. In my opinion, it doesn't particularly need simplification. The map generalizes the suspension relation SigmaSn=Sn+1. You do not need Morse theory to define it; Morse theory is used only to prove homotopy equivalence. Bott's definition: Suppose that M is a compact symmetric space with two points p and q that are connected by many shortest geodesics in the same homotopy class. Then the set of these geodesics is another symmetric space M′, and there is an obvious map SigmaM′toM that takes the suspension points to p and q and interpolates linearly. For example, if p and q are antipodal points of a round sphere M=Sn+1, the map is Sigma(Sn)toSn+1. For complex K-theory, Bott uses M=U(2n), p=q=I2n, and geodesics equivalent to the geodesic gamma(t)=Inoplusexp(it)In, with 0letle2pi. The map is then
Sigma(U(2n)/U(n)2)toU(2n).
The argument of the left side approximates the classifying space BU(n). Bott show that this map is a homotopy equivalence up to degree 2n. Of course, you get the nicest result if you take ntoinfty. Also, to complete Bott periodicity, you need a clutching function map Sigma(U(n))toBU(n), which exists for any compact group. (If you apply the general setup to M=G for a simply connected, compact Lie group, Bott's structure theorem shows that pi2(G) is trivial; c.f. this related MO question.)
At first glance, Eric's twisted suspension is very different. It exists for mathbbCPinfty=BU(1), and of course mathbbCPinfty is a K(mathbbZ,2) space with a totally different homotopy structure from BU(infty). Moreover, twisted suspensions aren't adjoint to ordinary delooping. Instead, the space of maps SigmaLXtoY is adjoint to sections of a bundle over X with fiber mathcalL2Y. The homotopy structure of the twisted suspension depends on the choice of L. For instance, if X=S2 and L is trivial, then SigmaLS2=S4 is the usual suspension. But if L has Chern number 1, then SigmaLS2=mathbbCP2, as Eric computed.
However, in Snaith's paper all of that gets washed away by taking infinitely many suspensions to form Sigmainfty+mathbbCPinfty, and then as Eric says adjoining an inverse to a Bott element beta. (I think that the "+" subscript just denotes adding a disjoint base point.) You can see what is coming just from the rational homotopy groups of SigmainftymathbbCPinfty. Serre proved that the stable homotopy of a CW complex K are just the rational homology H∗(K,mathbbQ). (This is related to the theorem that stable homotopy groups of spheres are finite.) Moreover, in stable, rational homotopy, twisted and untwisted suspension become the same. So Snaith's model is built from the fact that the homology of mathbbCPinfty equals the homotopy of BU(infty). Moreover, there is an important determinant map
det:BU(infty)toBU(1)=mathbbCPinfty
that takes the direct sum operation for bundles to tensor multiplication of line bundles. Snaith makes a moral inverse to this map (and not just in rational homology).
Still, searching for a purely homotopy-theoretic proof of Bott periodicity is like searching for a purely algebraic proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra. The fundamental theorem of algebra is not a purely algebraic statement! It is an analytic theorem with an algebraic conclusion, since the complex numbers are defined analytically. The best you can do is a mostly algebraic proof, using some minimal analytic information such as that mathbbR is real-closed using the intermediate value theorem. Likewise, Bott periodicity is not a purely homotopy-theoretic theorem; it is a Lie-theoretic theorem with a homotopy-theoretic conclusion. Likewise, the best you can do is a mostly homotopy-theoretic proof that carefully uses as little Lie theory as possible. The proof by Bruno Harris fits this description. Maybe you could also prove it by reversing Snaith's theorem, but you would still need to explain what facts you use about the unitary groups.
(The answer is significantly revised now that I know more about Snaith's result.)
No comments:
Post a Comment