Does $Graff(n,mathbbR^infty)$ generate all $n$-dimensional closed Riemannian manifolds $M$?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












How does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$? Would $Graff(n,mathbbR^infty)$ suffice? (It seems like we need more for it to be closed and simply connected.)



Thanks in advance!




riemannian-geometry grassmannian




share|cite|improve this question

















  • 1




    What do you mean by generate in this context?
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 4:54










  • As in the affine Grassmannian parametrically exhausts (i.e. it is identically equal to) all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds. I think it should be smaller than $Graff(n,mathbbR^n+1)$ if we just need the conditions of closure and simple-connectedness to be met, however.
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:05











  • Are you asking about whether every simply connected closed manifold must be homeomorphic to a $Graff(n, mathbbR^n+1)$ for some $n$? (I'm not sure why you are giving them Riemannian metrics...)
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 5:09











  • Yes, this is my question (can they be identified). I suppose the choice of a Riemannian metric is arbitrary (but preferable) @Lorenzo
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:13














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












How does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$? Would $Graff(n,mathbbR^infty)$ suffice? (It seems like we need more for it to be closed and simply connected.)



Thanks in advance!




riemannian-geometry grassmannian




share|cite|improve this question

















  • 1




    What do you mean by generate in this context?
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 4:54










  • As in the affine Grassmannian parametrically exhausts (i.e. it is identically equal to) all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds. I think it should be smaller than $Graff(n,mathbbR^n+1)$ if we just need the conditions of closure and simple-connectedness to be met, however.
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:05











  • Are you asking about whether every simply connected closed manifold must be homeomorphic to a $Graff(n, mathbbR^n+1)$ for some $n$? (I'm not sure why you are giving them Riemannian metrics...)
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 5:09











  • Yes, this is my question (can they be identified). I suppose the choice of a Riemannian metric is arbitrary (but preferable) @Lorenzo
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:13












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











How does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$? Would $Graff(n,mathbbR^infty)$ suffice? (It seems like we need more for it to be closed and simply connected.)



Thanks in advance!




riemannian-geometry grassmannian




share|cite|improve this question













How does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$? Would $Graff(n,mathbbR^infty)$ suffice? (It seems like we need more for it to be closed and simply connected.)



Thanks in advance!





riemannian-geometry grassmannian





share|cite|improve this question












share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jul 31 at 18:48
























asked Jul 30 at 2:20









Multivariablecalculus

490313




490313







  • 1




    What do you mean by generate in this context?
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 4:54










  • As in the affine Grassmannian parametrically exhausts (i.e. it is identically equal to) all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds. I think it should be smaller than $Graff(n,mathbbR^n+1)$ if we just need the conditions of closure and simple-connectedness to be met, however.
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:05











  • Are you asking about whether every simply connected closed manifold must be homeomorphic to a $Graff(n, mathbbR^n+1)$ for some $n$? (I'm not sure why you are giving them Riemannian metrics...)
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 5:09











  • Yes, this is my question (can they be identified). I suppose the choice of a Riemannian metric is arbitrary (but preferable) @Lorenzo
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:13












  • 1




    What do you mean by generate in this context?
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 4:54










  • As in the affine Grassmannian parametrically exhausts (i.e. it is identically equal to) all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds. I think it should be smaller than $Graff(n,mathbbR^n+1)$ if we just need the conditions of closure and simple-connectedness to be met, however.
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:05











  • Are you asking about whether every simply connected closed manifold must be homeomorphic to a $Graff(n, mathbbR^n+1)$ for some $n$? (I'm not sure why you are giving them Riemannian metrics...)
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 5:09











  • Yes, this is my question (can they be identified). I suppose the choice of a Riemannian metric is arbitrary (but preferable) @Lorenzo
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:13







1




1




What do you mean by generate in this context?
– Lorenzo
Jul 30 at 4:54




What do you mean by generate in this context?
– Lorenzo
Jul 30 at 4:54












As in the affine Grassmannian parametrically exhausts (i.e. it is identically equal to) all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds. I think it should be smaller than $Graff(n,mathbbR^n+1)$ if we just need the conditions of closure and simple-connectedness to be met, however.
– Multivariablecalculus
Jul 30 at 5:05





As in the affine Grassmannian parametrically exhausts (i.e. it is identically equal to) all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds. I think it should be smaller than $Graff(n,mathbbR^n+1)$ if we just need the conditions of closure and simple-connectedness to be met, however.
– Multivariablecalculus
Jul 30 at 5:05













Are you asking about whether every simply connected closed manifold must be homeomorphic to a $Graff(n, mathbbR^n+1)$ for some $n$? (I'm not sure why you are giving them Riemannian metrics...)
– Lorenzo
Jul 30 at 5:09





Are you asking about whether every simply connected closed manifold must be homeomorphic to a $Graff(n, mathbbR^n+1)$ for some $n$? (I'm not sure why you are giving them Riemannian metrics...)
– Lorenzo
Jul 30 at 5:09













Yes, this is my question (can they be identified). I suppose the choice of a Riemannian metric is arbitrary (but preferable) @Lorenzo
– Multivariablecalculus
Jul 30 at 5:13




Yes, this is my question (can they be identified). I suppose the choice of a Riemannian metric is arbitrary (but preferable) @Lorenzo
– Multivariablecalculus
Jul 30 at 5:13










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










There are lots of simply connected, closed manifolds which are not Grassmannians of $k$ planes in some $mathbbR^n$.



One way to see this is as follows: the dimension of $G(k,n)$ is $k(n - k)$.



Solving for $k(n -k) = 8$, we get $(k,n) in (1,9), (2,6), (4,6), (8,9) $



However, here are five non-homeomorphic $8$-manifolds that are closed and simply connected:



1) $S^2 times S^2 times S^2 times S^2$



2) $S^8$.



3) $S^3 times S^3 times S^2$



4) $S^4 times S^2 times S^2$



5) $S^6 times S^2$.



Thus, at least one of these is not homeomorphic to a Grassmannian.



To check that these five products of spheres are not homeomorphic to each other, you can use the Poincare polynomial: https://topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/Poincare_polynomial






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • +1 @Lorenzo Thanks! Is there a known expression involving affine Grassmannians that exhausts all simply connected closed manifolds? Going back to my original question, how does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$?
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:59






  • 1




    @Multivariablecalculus I doubt that there's a simple formula... you may want to look at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_manifolds
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 6:00






  • 1




    I should add that spheres (n > 1) are the universal covers of projective spaces , so the manifolds I gave you are products of covers of Grassmannians... (For that matter, I should point out that Grassmannians aren't simply connected in general...)
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 6:12










  • Thank you. Hmm, I wonder then if there is any topological object that parameterizes such manifolds that may be explicitly written down?
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 6:14






  • 1




    I don't think so ... Classifying manifolds is a really hard problem.
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 15:38











Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2866612%2fdoes-graffn-mathbbr-infty-generate-all-n-dimensional-closed-riemanni%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
2
down vote



accepted










There are lots of simply connected, closed manifolds which are not Grassmannians of $k$ planes in some $mathbbR^n$.



One way to see this is as follows: the dimension of $G(k,n)$ is $k(n - k)$.



Solving for $k(n -k) = 8$, we get $(k,n) in (1,9), (2,6), (4,6), (8,9) $



However, here are five non-homeomorphic $8$-manifolds that are closed and simply connected:



1) $S^2 times S^2 times S^2 times S^2$



2) $S^8$.



3) $S^3 times S^3 times S^2$



4) $S^4 times S^2 times S^2$



5) $S^6 times S^2$.



Thus, at least one of these is not homeomorphic to a Grassmannian.



To check that these five products of spheres are not homeomorphic to each other, you can use the Poincare polynomial: https://topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/Poincare_polynomial






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • +1 @Lorenzo Thanks! Is there a known expression involving affine Grassmannians that exhausts all simply connected closed manifolds? Going back to my original question, how does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$?
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:59






  • 1




    @Multivariablecalculus I doubt that there's a simple formula... you may want to look at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_manifolds
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 6:00






  • 1




    I should add that spheres (n > 1) are the universal covers of projective spaces , so the manifolds I gave you are products of covers of Grassmannians... (For that matter, I should point out that Grassmannians aren't simply connected in general...)
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 6:12










  • Thank you. Hmm, I wonder then if there is any topological object that parameterizes such manifolds that may be explicitly written down?
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 6:14






  • 1




    I don't think so ... Classifying manifolds is a really hard problem.
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 15:38















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










There are lots of simply connected, closed manifolds which are not Grassmannians of $k$ planes in some $mathbbR^n$.



One way to see this is as follows: the dimension of $G(k,n)$ is $k(n - k)$.



Solving for $k(n -k) = 8$, we get $(k,n) in (1,9), (2,6), (4,6), (8,9) $



However, here are five non-homeomorphic $8$-manifolds that are closed and simply connected:



1) $S^2 times S^2 times S^2 times S^2$



2) $S^8$.



3) $S^3 times S^3 times S^2$



4) $S^4 times S^2 times S^2$



5) $S^6 times S^2$.



Thus, at least one of these is not homeomorphic to a Grassmannian.



To check that these five products of spheres are not homeomorphic to each other, you can use the Poincare polynomial: https://topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/Poincare_polynomial






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • +1 @Lorenzo Thanks! Is there a known expression involving affine Grassmannians that exhausts all simply connected closed manifolds? Going back to my original question, how does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$?
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:59






  • 1




    @Multivariablecalculus I doubt that there's a simple formula... you may want to look at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_manifolds
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 6:00






  • 1




    I should add that spheres (n > 1) are the universal covers of projective spaces , so the manifolds I gave you are products of covers of Grassmannians... (For that matter, I should point out that Grassmannians aren't simply connected in general...)
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 6:12










  • Thank you. Hmm, I wonder then if there is any topological object that parameterizes such manifolds that may be explicitly written down?
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 6:14






  • 1




    I don't think so ... Classifying manifolds is a really hard problem.
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 15:38













up vote
2
down vote



accepted







up vote
2
down vote



accepted






There are lots of simply connected, closed manifolds which are not Grassmannians of $k$ planes in some $mathbbR^n$.



One way to see this is as follows: the dimension of $G(k,n)$ is $k(n - k)$.



Solving for $k(n -k) = 8$, we get $(k,n) in (1,9), (2,6), (4,6), (8,9) $



However, here are five non-homeomorphic $8$-manifolds that are closed and simply connected:



1) $S^2 times S^2 times S^2 times S^2$



2) $S^8$.



3) $S^3 times S^3 times S^2$



4) $S^4 times S^2 times S^2$



5) $S^6 times S^2$.



Thus, at least one of these is not homeomorphic to a Grassmannian.



To check that these five products of spheres are not homeomorphic to each other, you can use the Poincare polynomial: https://topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/Poincare_polynomial






share|cite|improve this answer













There are lots of simply connected, closed manifolds which are not Grassmannians of $k$ planes in some $mathbbR^n$.



One way to see this is as follows: the dimension of $G(k,n)$ is $k(n - k)$.



Solving for $k(n -k) = 8$, we get $(k,n) in (1,9), (2,6), (4,6), (8,9) $



However, here are five non-homeomorphic $8$-manifolds that are closed and simply connected:



1) $S^2 times S^2 times S^2 times S^2$



2) $S^8$.



3) $S^3 times S^3 times S^2$



4) $S^4 times S^2 times S^2$



5) $S^6 times S^2$.



Thus, at least one of these is not homeomorphic to a Grassmannian.



To check that these five products of spheres are not homeomorphic to each other, you can use the Poincare polynomial: https://topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/Poincare_polynomial







share|cite|improve this answer













share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer











answered Jul 30 at 5:35









Lorenzo

11.5k31537




11.5k31537











  • +1 @Lorenzo Thanks! Is there a known expression involving affine Grassmannians that exhausts all simply connected closed manifolds? Going back to my original question, how does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$?
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:59






  • 1




    @Multivariablecalculus I doubt that there's a simple formula... you may want to look at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_manifolds
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 6:00






  • 1




    I should add that spheres (n > 1) are the universal covers of projective spaces , so the manifolds I gave you are products of covers of Grassmannians... (For that matter, I should point out that Grassmannians aren't simply connected in general...)
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 6:12










  • Thank you. Hmm, I wonder then if there is any topological object that parameterizes such manifolds that may be explicitly written down?
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 6:14






  • 1




    I don't think so ... Classifying manifolds is a really hard problem.
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 15:38

















  • +1 @Lorenzo Thanks! Is there a known expression involving affine Grassmannians that exhausts all simply connected closed manifolds? Going back to my original question, how does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$?
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 5:59






  • 1




    @Multivariablecalculus I doubt that there's a simple formula... you may want to look at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_manifolds
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 6:00






  • 1




    I should add that spheres (n > 1) are the universal covers of projective spaces , so the manifolds I gave you are products of covers of Grassmannians... (For that matter, I should point out that Grassmannians aren't simply connected in general...)
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 6:12










  • Thank you. Hmm, I wonder then if there is any topological object that parameterizes such manifolds that may be explicitly written down?
    – Multivariablecalculus
    Jul 30 at 6:14






  • 1




    I don't think so ... Classifying manifolds is a really hard problem.
    – Lorenzo
    Jul 30 at 15:38
















+1 @Lorenzo Thanks! Is there a known expression involving affine Grassmannians that exhausts all simply connected closed manifolds? Going back to my original question, how does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$?
– Multivariablecalculus
Jul 30 at 5:59




+1 @Lorenzo Thanks! Is there a known expression involving affine Grassmannians that exhausts all simply connected closed manifolds? Going back to my original question, how does one generate all possible $n$-dimensional simply connected closed Riemannian manifolds $M$ from the affine Grassmannian $Graff(n,V)$?
– Multivariablecalculus
Jul 30 at 5:59




1




1




@Multivariablecalculus I doubt that there's a simple formula... you may want to look at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_manifolds
– Lorenzo
Jul 30 at 6:00




@Multivariablecalculus I doubt that there's a simple formula... you may want to look at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_manifolds
– Lorenzo
Jul 30 at 6:00




1




1




I should add that spheres (n > 1) are the universal covers of projective spaces , so the manifolds I gave you are products of covers of Grassmannians... (For that matter, I should point out that Grassmannians aren't simply connected in general...)
– Lorenzo
Jul 30 at 6:12




I should add that spheres (n > 1) are the universal covers of projective spaces , so the manifolds I gave you are products of covers of Grassmannians... (For that matter, I should point out that Grassmannians aren't simply connected in general...)
– Lorenzo
Jul 30 at 6:12












Thank you. Hmm, I wonder then if there is any topological object that parameterizes such manifolds that may be explicitly written down?
– Multivariablecalculus
Jul 30 at 6:14




Thank you. Hmm, I wonder then if there is any topological object that parameterizes such manifolds that may be explicitly written down?
– Multivariablecalculus
Jul 30 at 6:14




1




1




I don't think so ... Classifying manifolds is a really hard problem.
– Lorenzo
Jul 30 at 15:38





I don't think so ... Classifying manifolds is a really hard problem.
– Lorenzo
Jul 30 at 15:38













 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2866612%2fdoes-graffn-mathbbr-infty-generate-all-n-dimensional-closed-riemanni%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 5 down vote favorite 1 Here is the problem: For what $n$ is it possible to color the edges and diagonals of an $n$-side regular polygon with $dfracbinomn23$ colors, such that you use every color exactly three times and for every color the three segments (edges or diagonals) with that color form a triangle? Trivially $nequiv 0 text or 1 pmod3$. I can also prove that if the statement is true for $k$ than it is true for $3k$ as well. How to finish? Please help! Thanks combinatorial-geometry share | cite | improve this question edited Aug 6 at 21:57 alcana 118 4 asked Aug 6 at 21:15 Leo Gardner 356 11 Even assuming "polyhpn" in the title is a typo for polygon , it is unclear what you mean by "the edges and sides". Aren't the side of a regular polygon the same as the edges? A regular $n$-sided polygon has $n$ edges. – hardmath Aug 6 at 21:20 3 $n$ ne
Read more

Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite We are studying adjoints in class, and I was curious if there is a relationship between the determinant of matrix A, and the determinant of the adjoint of matrix A? I assume there would be a relationship because finding the adjoint requires creating a cofactor matrix and then transposing it. linear-algebra determinant adjoint-operators share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 17 '17 at 17:32 CluelessCoder 32 5 For a square matrix $A$ of order $n$, we have $A(operatornameadj A)=(operatornameadj A)A=|A|I_n$ where $I_n$ is the identity matrix of order $n$. This should tell you about the determinant of the adjoint in terms of that of $A$ (use multiplicative property and other elementary properties of determinants). – Prasun Biswas Nov 17 '17 at 17:35 1 @CluelessCoder: see here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/516127/… – Hector Blandin Nov 17 &
Read more

What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalized tilt? I've noticed that in most equations given to represent a cone, there is no parameter which defines the tilt of the cone in 3D space and that most of them have their point at the origin $(0,0,0)$ - I was wondering if anyone could give me a more generalized cone equation for a cone in any position in 3D space 3d share | cite | improve this question edited Jul 25 '16 at 0:05 ervx 9,425 3 13 36 asked Jul 24 '16 at 15:38 Charlene 11 2 2 Welcome to Math.SE! Could you please explain a few things to help people give an answer useful to you: 1. What do you mean by "generalized tilt"? 2. Are you asking about a right circular cone? Does the angle at the vertex matter? 3. What form of answer (implicit, parametric...?) are you looking for? 4. If this is homework, what tools do you have available, an
Read more