2010
DOI: 10.1007/s10711-010-9527-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the construction and topological invariance of the Pontryagin classes

Abstract: We use sheaves and algebraic L-theory to construct the rational Pontryagin classes of fiber bundles with fiber R n . This amounts to an alternative proof of Novikov's theorem on the topological invariance of the rational Pontryagin classes of vector bundles. Transversality arguments and torus tricks are avoided.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From this point of view, the difficulties that we find in constructing the bordismtheory instead appear when one tries to obtain fundamental classes, whose construction beyond the manifold-case [35, §16] and pl-case [4] again becomes difficult. See also [36].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From this point of view, the difficulties that we find in constructing the bordismtheory instead appear when one tries to obtain fundamental classes, whose construction beyond the manifold-case [35, §16] and pl-case [4] again becomes difficult. See also [36].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recall that the rational Pontrjagin classes of a smooth manifold are defined using the smooth structure. A celebrated result of Novikov [Nov66] shows however that these classes in fact only depend on the underlying topological structure (other proofs were given in [Gro95], [Ran95], [RY06], and [RW10]). More precisely, if one has a pair of homeomorphic smooth manifolds, then the homeomorphism can be chosen to take the total rational Pontrjagin class to the total rational Pontrjagin class.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9 See [17, Thm. 0] for the precise result used here and see [37,Appendix] for a history of the result. Igor Belegradek explains on MathOverflow (https://mathoverflow.net/q/442025) why compactness assumptions are not required.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%