On dimensions supporting a rational projective plane
Lee Kennard, Zhixu Su

TL;DR
This paper simplifies the classification conditions for rational projective planes, confirms their existence in two new dimensions, and establishes non-existence in others using number theory and surgery techniques.
Contribution
It introduces a simplified quadratic residue criterion for existence, extends known existence results, and provides new non-existence proofs for rational projective planes.
Findings
Confirmed existence of $ ext{QP}^2$ in two new dimensions.
Proved non-existence of $ ext{QP}^2$ in certain other dimensions.
Resolved the existence question for the Spin case.
Abstract
A rational projective plane () is a simply connected, smooth, closed manifold such that . An open problem is to classify the dimensions at which such a manifold exists. The Barge-Sullivan rational surgery realization theorem provides necessary and sufficient conditions that include the Hattori-Stong integrality conditions on the Pontryagin numbers. In this article, we simplify these conditions and combine them with the signature equation to give a single quadratic residue equation that determines whether a given dimension supports a . We then confirm existence of a in two new dimensions and prove several non-existence results using factorizations of numerators of divided Bernoulli numbers. We also resolve the existence question in the Spin case, and we discuss existence…
| prime factor with | dimension | there exists a in dimension ? | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| No | |||
| No | |||
| ? | |||
| No | |||
| No | |||
| No | |||
| 37 | No | ||
| 59 | No | ||
| 37 | No | ||
| 4349 | No | ||
| 1669 | No | ||
| irregular prime , | such that | dim () that does not support a |
|---|---|---|
| ; | ||
| ; | ||
| no such | ||
| no such | ||
| and | no such | |
| no such | ||
| ; | ||
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
On dimensions supporting a rational projective plane
Lee Kennard
Department of Mathematics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019
[email protected] www.math.ou.edu/ kennard and
Zhixu Su
Department of Mathematics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47408
Abstract.
A rational projective plane () is a simply connected, smooth, closed manifold such that . An open problem is to classify the dimensions at which such a manifold exists. The Barge–Sullivan rational surgery realization theorem provides necessary and sufficient conditions that include the Hattori–Stong integrality conditions on the Pontryagin numbers. In this article, we simplify these conditions and combine them with the signature equation to give a single quadratic residue equation that determines whether a given dimension supports a . We then confirm existence of a in two new dimensions and prove several non-existence results using factorization of the numerators of the divided Bernoulli numbers. We also resolve the existence question in the Spin case, and we discuss existence results for the more general class of rational projective spaces.
Key words and phrases:
rational projective planes, characteristic classes, rational surgery realization
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
57R20 (Primary), 57R65, 57R67, 57R15 (Secondary)
The rank one symmetric spaces given by the complex projective plane , the quaternionic projective plane , and the Cayley plane have the property of being simply connected, closed, smooth manifolds with cohomology ring isomorphic to . These examples exist in dimensions , , and respectively. By Adams’ resolution of the Hopf invariant one problem, no other dimension supports such a manifold (see [Ada60]). In fact, Adams’ proof also covers mod projective planes, i.e., manifolds as above with the property that (cf. [Liu62, SY61] for work on odd prime analogues).
By analogy, a rational projective plane (denoted ) is a simply connected, closed, smooth manifold with rational cohomology ring isomorphic to . The dimensions at which such a manifold exist are not yet classified. The second author began work on this question and proved that a exists in dimension but not in any other dimension less than aside from , , and (see [Su14]). It was also shown that a necessary condition for the existence of a in dimensions is that for some . Fowler and the second author showed further that must be of the form , and that no exists in dimensions and .
Theorem A**.**
A exists in dimension if and only if . Moreover, no exists in any dimension , except for five possible exceptions, .
The approach is by rational surgery, as in [Su14, FS16]. By the rational surgery realization theorem of Barge and Sullivan, the existence of a in a particular dimension is equivalent to the existence of formal Pontryagin classes that satisfy the Hirzebruch signature equation and the Hattori–Stong integrality conditions (see [Su14], cf. [Bar76, Sul77]). The main step in this article is to show that two of the Hattori–Stong integrality conditions are sufficient to imply the others (see Section 2). We then prove that the signature equation and these two integrality conditions are equivalent to a single quadratic residue equation (see Section 3). In Sections 4 and 5, we apply these simplifications to answer the existence question for in all but five dimensions less than and, in particular, to prove Theorem A.
Section 5 also contains some general non-existence results. They rely on congruences of Carlitz and Kummer, and obstructions from irregular prime factors of the numerators of the divided Bernoulli numbers. The results provide new infinite families of dimensions that do not support a (see Section 5 for precise families of dimensions obstructed).
Theorem B**.**
There are infinitely many dimensions of the form , and infinitely many dimensions of the form with , that do not support the existence of a .
As mentioned above, Fowler and the second author proved that no exists in a dimension not of the form or for some (see [FS16]). It remains an open question whether infinitely many dimensions, and whether any dimension of the latter form, can support a rational projective plane.
We specialize in Section 6 to the Spin case, and we classify the dimensions that support a Spin . Note that and are examples in dimensions and .
Theorem C**.**
A Spin exists in dimension if and only if .
The necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of Spin are analogous to the smooth case except the Spin Hattori–Stong integrality conditions involve the –genus instead of –genus. The obstructions coming from the signature equation, integrality of –genus, and one of the Spin Hattori–Stong conditions are sufficient to prove no Spin exists in dimensions .
Finally, we discuss existence questions for rational projective spaces. Extending the notation above, let denote a simply connected, smooth, closed manifold in dimension with rational cohomology isomorphic to , . For example, a is a rational Cayley plane. The main existence result we prove in Section 7 is the following.
Theorem D**.**
If a exists, then a exists whenever .
We illustrate this theorem with some examples:
- I.
By Theorems A and D, higher dimensional analogues of rational Cayley planes exist for . Note that exist for all odd (see [FS16]). 2. II.
No exists, however there exist higher dimensional analogues, and .
In light of the last example, it may be asked whether every power of two can be realized as the degree of a for some . The answer is yes by Theorem D if infinitely many dimensions equal to a power of two support a , but this too remains an open question.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Matthias Kreck and Don Zagier for email communication regarding their independent work on this problem, which includes results equivalent to Theorem A stated above, as well as nonexistence results beyond the range of dimensions we considered in this paper.
We also want to thank Yang Su and Jim Davis for communication about this problem and Sam Wagstaff for discussions on Bernoulli numbers that made possible the proof of Theorem B. Finally we are grateful to the referee for carefully reading and making suggestions to improve the paper. The first author was supported by NSF Grant DMS 1622541.
1. Preliminaries
We consider the question of whether a exists in dimension . By the graded commutativity of the cup product, the dimension must be a multiple of four. Moreover, the second author proved that, except for dimension four, a can exist only if for some integer (see [Su14]).
We first outline the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a simply connected, closed, smooth manifold realizing a prescribed rational cohomology ring. If is an –dimensional , then all its rational Pontryagin classes vanish except for and . Hence the total class can be written as
[TABLE]
As derived in [MS74] and [And69], the coefficients are
[TABLE]
With a choice of orientation, we may assume that the signature of is . The following necessary conditions must hold true:
- (1)
(Hirzebruch signature equation)
[TABLE] 2. (2)
(Hattori–Stong integrality condition from )
[TABLE] 3. (3)
(Pontryagin numbers of )
[TABLE]
Condition (3) is a consequence of the rational cohomology ring structure of . Since , where is any generator in , we may write the Pontryagin classes and for some rational numbers and . By the choice of orientation, the rational intersection form of is isomorphic to and the signature is 1, so we must have for some rational number , then the Pontryagin numbers of can be expressed as and , where and must be integers because the Pontryagin numbers of a smooth manifold must be integers. With this substitution, the signature equation (1) can be written as
[TABLE]
The Hattori–Stong integrality condition (2) characterizes the integral lattice in formed by all possible Pontryagin numbers of a smooth -dimensional manifold in . The classes are defined as follows. If one writes the total Pontryagin class formally as , the -th Pontryagin class can be expressed as the -th elementary symmetric function of .
[TABLE]
Consider the variable that is written as a power series of as follows:
[TABLE]
We denote the -th elementary symmetric functions of the variable as
[TABLE]
Since each class can be written as a rational linear combination of monomials of the Pontryagin classes , in our case of , each class can be written as a rational linear combination of and . Therefore the Hattori–Stong Integrality condition (2) can be expressed as a set of integrality conditions on the Pontryagin numbers and .
As discussed in [Su14], by the rational surgery realization theorem ([Bar76] and [Sul77]), the above necessary conditions are also the sufficient conditions for the existence of a . More precisely, there exists a smooth closed manifold in dimension such that if and only if there exist pair of integers and which realize the Pontraygin numbers of a as in (3), and they satisfy the signature equation (1) and the Hattori–Stong integrality conditions in (2). So the problem is reduced to solving a system of Diophantine equations, which is purely an elementary number theoretic problem.
2. Reducing the integrality conditions
In the proof of existence of -dimensional in [Su14], the second author explicitly computed the Hattori–Stong integrality condition in dimension . The calculation involved concretely writing each classes in Condition (2) in terms of the Pontraygin classes and . In this section, we simplify the Hattori–Stong integrality condition in our case of to a much simpler form. The argument works for any dimension.
Theorem 1**.**
There exists a in dimension if and only if there are integers and that satisfy the following conditions:
[TABLE]
Moreover, for any pair of integers and satisfying the above conditions, there is a whose Pontryagin numbers satisfy and .
We spend the rest of this section on the proof. Condition (1), the signature equation, is the same as Equation (4a), and Condition (3) on the integrality of the Pontryagin numbers is implicit in the statement. Therefore it is sufficient to show that the Hattori–Stong integrality conditions stated in Condition (2) are equivalent to Equations (4b) and (4c). Since a satisfies except possibly for , and , Condition (2) is equivalent to the claim that for all and that whenver .
In the following lemma, we calculate the class in terms of the Pontryagin classes.
Lemma 2**.**
If except , and , then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where .
Proof.
For any partition , there is the monomial symmetric polynomial . Let us denote the polynomial of the variable by
[TABLE]
Note, in particular, that
[TABLE]
Similar to the calculation carried out in [BLLV74] page 488, we find the coefficient of and in . Let denote the degree terms in an expression. We have
[TABLE]
Using Equation (7) and the fact that only contains terms of degree at least , this implies that
[TABLE]
By the Newton-Girard identities relating the monomial symmetric function with the elementary symmetric functions ,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Again by the Newton-Girard identities relating the symmetric functions and ,
[TABLE]
Since , and are the only non-trivial classes, and each class can be expressed as a rational linear combination of these classes, if the partition has length . Then we may express
[TABLE]
which gives (6a) if we plugin (9), and (6b) if we plugin (8). ∎
Using Formula (5) for from this lemma, we obtain the formulas
[TABLE]
where and . Note that these are Conditions (4b) and (4c) in Theorem 1. To complete the proof of Theorem 1, it suffices to prove that the conditions and imply that for all and for all .
Lemma 3**.**
If except possibly for , , and , and if , then for all .
Proof.
By Equation (5) in Lemma 2, . Together with Equation (6b), this implies that
[TABLE]
To prove the lemma, it is sufficient to show that divides for any integer . By the definition of in Lemma 2, it suffices to show that divides for all . To see this, we use the fact that divides . In particular, divides , which in turn divides . Hence divides , as required. ∎
Together with Lemma 3 and the comments preceding it, the following lemma implies Theorem 1.
Lemma 4**.**
If except possibly for , , and , and if and , then for all .
Proof.
[TABLE]
By the proof of Lemma 3, we have that divides , so the assumption of the lemma implies that the first term lies in . Moreover, the terms involving lie in by Lemma 3, so it suffices to show that the second term lies in . To do this, note that
[TABLE]
and that
[TABLE]
Hence it suffices to prove that divides and that is an integer for all . The first of these statements holds by the proof of Lemma 3. The second nearly holds by the Lipschitz-Sylvester theorem that for all integers (see, for example [IR90, p. 247]). In fact, an elementary argument shows that the statement still holds with replaced by , as required (cf. [Sla95] for a stronger statement that can also be replaced by ). ∎
3. Reducing to a single quadratic residue equation
It was proved in [FS16] that can only exist in dimensions of the form where for some integers . This result follows by a consideration of the -adic order of the coefficients in the signature equation. Here we divide into two cases, and with . In each case, we combine the integrality conditions involving (4b) and (4c) with the signature equation (4a). The result is equivalent to one single quadratic residue equation.
We introduce the following notation and recall some well known facts about Bernoulli numbers (see [IR90, Chapter 15]):
- •
: the 2-adic order of .
- •
: the number of ones in the binary expansion of .
- •
: the odd part of , i.e., .
- •
: the numerator of the divided Bernoulli number . is 1 only for , otherwise it is a product of powers of irregular primes.
- •
: the denominator of the divided Bernoulli number . By the theorem of von Staudt-Clausen, where is the highest power of dividing .
- •
: the odd part of the denominator of the divided Bernoulli number .
The condition (4c) in Theorem 1 requires . It follows that
[TABLE]
for some integer with the same parity as . Together with a change of variable , the signature equation (4a) can be written as:
[TABLE]
where and must have the same parity. So far, this shows that a exists in dimension if and only if there exist such that , Equation (10), and Equation (4b) in Theorem 1 hold.
Next, we eliminate Equation (4b) through another change of variables. Before proceeding, we need the following 2-adic numbers:
,
.
Using the variables and , the condition (4b) can be written as
[TABLE]
Since the -adic order of the left hand side is
[TABLE]
we can multiply by in (11) and expand using the definition to get
[TABLE]
This allows us to write as
[TABLE]
for some integer with the same parity as . The following lemma ensures that for any integers and (of the same parity or not). This lemma implies that Equation (13) holds for some of the same parity at if and only if Condition (11) holds. In other words, we can use Equation (13) to make the change of variables from with to with .
Lemma 5**.**
For any integer , divides .
Proof.
The odd part of the denominator of the divided Bernoulli number is
[TABLE]
where is the highest power of that divides . Consider the factor for some odd prime such that divides . If and , then equals and divides . If , then equals and divides . Finally, if , then and divides , which means it divides . Altogether, we have that divides , which divides . Since is odd, the result follows.
∎
Altogether, these arguments show that a exists in dimension if and only if there exist integers such that and such that Equations (10) and (13) hold. Substituting Equation (13) into Equation (10), we derive an equation in and that holds for some and of the same parity if and only if a exists in dimension . We determine the precise equations in the cases and with separately.
Theorem 6** (Dimension where ).**
There exists a in dimension if and only if there is integer solution to the quadratic residue equation
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and where .
Remark 7**.**
We remark that, if is a solution to Equation (14) and such that , then it follows by the parities of , , and that and have the same parity. Hence the condition that is not required in Theorem 6.
Remark 8**.**
In this case of ,
[TABLE]
It follows that is unless is a Fermat prime, in which case . The only known examples of Fermat primes are where . It is known that is composite for .
Proof.
Since , we have , , and , so the signature equation (10) becomes
[TABLE]
The condition (13) becomes
[TABLE]
Substituting Equation (16) into Equation (15), replacing by , and simplifying yields
[TABLE]
where , , and are as in the theorem. Reducing modulo , we obtain Congruence (14). ∎
We now consider dimensions of the form with . Recall that it remains an open problem whether such a dimension supports a .
Theorem 9** (Dimensions where and ).**
There exists a in dimension with if and only if there is an odd integer solution to the quadratic residue equation
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Proof.
In the case that with , we have , and without loss of generality, so the signature equation (10) becomes
[TABLE]
The condition (13) becomes
[TABLE]
Substituting (19) into (18) and proceeding as in the previous proof implies the theorem. ∎
4. Existence in dimensions 128 and 256
Recall that dimensions , , , and are known to support the existence of a . Having simplified the signature and Hattori–Stong integrality conditions to a single quadratic reciprocity condition in the previous section, we proceed to the proof that dimensions and also support a .
Proof of existence in dimensions and .
It suffices to prove that Equation (14) has solution when , i.e., when . Factoring out the common divisor of from , , and , Equation (14) is equivalent to an equation of the form
[TABLE]
where and . The coefficients are large, so we do not include the calculations here. It suffices to solve the equation . Now is a quadratic residue modulo if and only if it is a quadratic residue modulo all odd prime factors of . Hence it suffices to show that the Legendre symbols for all prime factors of , and one can easily verify this using Mathematica.
For dimension , one proceeds similarly to check that Equation 14 has a solution when , i.e., when . Again it happens that the greatest common divisor of , , and is . ∎
5. Non-existence results in higher dimensions
So far, all the dimensions known to not support a were proved by obstructing the signature equation. As stated in [FS16, Lemma 3.2], one can search for an irregular prime such that , and to obstruct the signature equation in a candidate dimension of the form where . Adopting the same idea and using the more explicit necessary and sufficient conditions derived in Theorems 6 and 9, we prove the following proposition stating that any prime detected as a factor of the the numerator of the divided Bernoulli number is an “obstructing” prime.
Proposition 10**.**
If the numerator of has a prime factor , then there does not exist a in dimension . In particular, if , then there is no in dimension .
Proof.
The second statement follows immediately from the first. To prove the first, we claim that a exists in dimension only if two is a quadratic residue modulo . Indeed, when , Theorem 6 implies that some exists such that
[TABLE]
Similarly, when and , Theorem 9 implies that
[TABLE]
Since and are coprime, the claim follows.
Now if has a prime factor , 2 is a quadratic nonresidue modulo . Since two is a quadratic residue modulo only if two is a quadratic residue modulo for every prime power dividing , 2 is also a quadratic nonresidue modulo . This implies that no exists in this dimension. ∎
In the following corollary, we use Carlitz’s congruence to find families of dimensions where . Then Proposition 10 implies non-existence of in these dimensions.
Corollary 11**.**
No exists in dimension for all of the form with and .
Note that the corollary provides infinite families of dimensions with that do not support a , which implies part of Theorem B. We remark that this corollary holds for many more values of , and we suspect it holds for infinitely many values of .
Proof.
We show that for all of the form with and . Firstly one can computationally verify the claimed values of the form (i.e., those special values with ). This can be done with a computer or by hand using some of the observations that follow. We omit the proof of this part. Once this is done, it suffices to show that for all of the form . To show the latter claim, recall that Carlitz [Car53] proved that divides since divides (cf. [How95, Theorem 2]). We write in terms of the numerator and denominator of the divided Bernoulli number . Multiplying by and applying the Carlitz congruence, we have that modulo and hence modulo . To complete the proof, it suffices to show that the reduction of modulo is independent of where again .
We have that is the product of over odd primes such that . Note that for odd primes . Note also that and implies that for some and some divisor of . Note moreover that implies that . Hence
[TABLE]
where is the set of primes of the form for some divisor of and where, similarly, is the set of primes of the form for some divisor of . Clearly this quantity is independent of , so we have , as claimed. ∎
Note that the problem in dimensions less than has been resolved in [Su14, FS16]. Now we are ready to prove the non-existence dimensions included in Theorem A.
Theorem 12** (Theorem A).**
There does not exist a in dimension when except possibly when .
Proof.
For all strictly between and except the five exceptions stated in the theorem, we show that the numerator of the divided Bernoulli number either is congruent to itself, or it has a prime divisor . Then Proposition 10 concludes these dimensions do not support a .
Firstly, we eliminate all dimensions where with , since we have shown in Corollary 11 that itself is congruent to in these dimensions. In Table 1, we list all the remaining values of in the range we consider. While in each of the dimensions, we frequently find has an irregular prime factor , which then obstruct existence of by Proposition 10.
Note that for the values of of the form and in the range we consider, we are able exclude (i.e., dimension ) and (i.e., dimension ) using the irregular primes and , respectively. ∎
Remark 13**.**
We remark on the limits of this method to further obstruct existence of . The Bernoulli numerators and their irregular prime factors are of great importance in number theory, and with the aid of computers, factorizations of high order Bernoulli numerators have been done by various authors. Sam Wagstaff’s webpage [Wag] maintains a list of known prime factors of the Bernoulli numerators up to . We used this list to check whether has a prime factor .
In dimensions , we put “?” in the column of irregular prime. This indicates that, based on [Wag], we do not know whether has a prime factor .
We now state a second approach to obtain more nonexistence results. We thank Sam Wagstaff for pointing us to the Kummer’s congruence, which is applied to extend Proposition 10 to rule out families of dimensions by the obstructing irregular primes.
Proposition 14**.**
If the numerator of has a prime factor , then for any such that , there does not exist a in dimension .
Proof.
Suppose is an prime factor of the numerator of . By Kummer’s congruence, whenever ,
[TABLE]
so is also a prime factor of the numerator of . If, in addition, , Proposition 10 implies that no exists in dimension . ∎
Applying Proposition 14 to the first irregular prime , which divides , we obtain the following result.
Proposition 15** (Obstruction by the irregular prime dividing ).**
There does not exist a in any dimension of the form or for any . In particular, there is no in dimension for any .
Proof.
Note that whenever . This holds whenever or , as by the Euler’s theorem. Then by Proposition 14, these two cases correspond to the dimensions stated in the theorem. ∎
We apply Proposition 14 to the first thirteen irregular primes congruent to , the results are listed in Table 2. The following proposition summarizes the families of nonexistence dimensions of the form obstructed by the primes . Together with Corollary 11, this completes the proof of Theorem B.
Proposition 16** (Obstruction to dimensions by the first few irregular primes).**
There does not exist a in any dimension of the form , , , , , or for any .
Remark 17**.**
Proposition 14 provides new infinite families of dimensions that do not support a . Moreover, it seems that most irregular primes, of which there exist infinitely many, provide such families of dimensions that do not support a . It seems to be a difficult problem to classify the dimensions that are obstructed by such arguments.
6. Spin
As studied in [FS16], if a smooth manifold is a that admits a spin structure, the following conditions must hold true:
- (1’)
(Hirzebruch signature equation) , 2. (2’)
(Stong integrality condition from )
[TABLE] 3. (3’)
(Pontryagin numbers of )
[TABLE]
Condition (2’) characterizes the integral lattice in formed by all possible Pontryagin numbers of smooth -dim Spin manifolds. The total class can be written as
[TABLE]
where the coefficients
[TABLE]
Similar to the smooth case, the signature equation (1’) and the spin integrality condition (2’) together can be written as a set of integrality conditions on the Pontryagin numbers and . In [FS16], it was shown that there is no solution to (1’) and (2’) together in dimension 32, which proved the nonexistence of spin structure on any 32 dimensional . Now we prove the following theorem, a special case of which asserts the nonexistence of Spin in any dimension greater than .
Theorem 18**.**
Let be a simply connected closed smooth manifold that admits a spin structure. Assume all Pontryagin numbers of vanish except possibly for and . If the signature is nonzero, then
[TABLE]
In our case of Spin , the dimension is either four or of the form . Since a 4–dimensional Spin manifold must have even intersection form, a in dimension four cannot be Spin. For dimensions , Theorem 18 applies. Since the signature is , we have the estimate
[TABLE]
which is contradiction unless . Hence the following is immediate.
Corollary 19** (Theorem C).**
A admitting a Spin structure can only exist in dimensions and , i.e., the dimensions of and .
Proof of Theorem 18.
Assume that such a manifold exists. Its Pontryagin numbers and satisfy the signature equation, the genus condition, and the condition. Hence
[TABLE]
By (23c), for some integer . Let . The signature equation (23a) and the genus condition (23b) can be written as
[TABLE]
for some . Using the fact that , we use the second equation to eliminate in the first equation. This yields, after simplification,
[TABLE]
Computing of each of the two summands on the left-hand side yields
[TABLE]
and . Both of these are at least , so
[TABLE]
as claimed. ∎
7. Existence of rational projective spaces
Generalizing the notion of rational projective plane, a simply connected closed smooth manifold is called a rational projective space if . We let denote a –dimensional rational projective space where is the degree of the generator. In [FS16], it was shown that higher dimensional analogues of rational Cayley planes, i.e., for , exist in dimension whenever is odd. We prove the following theorem that extends existence results on rational projective plane to rational projective spaces.
Theorem** (Theorem D).**
If a exists, then a exists whenever .
Proof.
Assume is an integer such that is an even integer. Let denote the -dimensional rational graded commutative algebra where . Note that is realizable as a cohomology ring only if the degree of the generator is even. By the Sullivan-Barge rational surgery realization theorem, there exists a -dimensional closed smooth manifold such that if and only if there exist choices of cohomology classes for , where is a -local space carrying the desired rational cohomology data such that ; and a choice of fundamental class , such that the pairs are integers that satisfy
- (i)
The signature equation that 2. (ii)
The Hattori–Stong integrality conditions that . 3. (iii)
The rational intersection form is isomorphic to .
If we let the choice of cohomology classes be except and , Conditions (i) and (ii) become exactly the same as the corresponding conditions to realize a , which are stated as (1) and (2) in section 1. Moreover, the substitution stated in (3) in the case still holds true here. By the desired rational cohomology ring , any choice of cohomology classes and can be written as and for some rational numbers and . Under a choice of orientation, (iii) requires the rational intersection form with respect to to be isomorphic to and the signature is , so the choice of must satisfy for some rational number , therefore we may still express the pairs and , where and must be integers. So under such choice of having all except and , the sufficient conditions to realize a in dimension are also the sufficient conditions to realize a in dimension . ∎
As an application of this theorem, combined with the the existence of a in dimensions , , and , we have the following existence results of rational projective spaces.
Corollary 20**.**
Each of the following manifolds exists.
- I.
Higher dimensional analogues, for , of rational Cayley planes. 2. II.
Higher dimensional analogues and of the –dimensional . 3. III.
Manifolds and , despite the fact that no rational projective plane exists with generator in degree . 4. IV.
Manifold .
Remark 21**.**
Note that a dimension not supporting a is not necessarily one that does not support a . The sufficient conditions (i), (ii), and (iii) in the proof above might be realized by choices of cohomology classes with nonzero other than and .
Remark 22**.**
It is natural to ask if one can obtain a general existence theorem for rational projective spaces similar to the quadratic residue equation stated in Theorem 6 and Theorem 9 for rational projective planes. For the case of , which has rational cohomology ring , as addressed in [FS16, Remark 6.2], the signature equation becomes a quartic Diophantine equation with 4 unknowns if we assume each of the four Pontryagin classes , , , and could be nonzero. It also remains to be seen whether one can simplify the Hattori–Stong integrality conditions in this case.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[Ada 60] J.F. Adams. On the non-existence of elements of Hopf invariant one. Ann. of Math. , 72(1):20–104, 1960.
- 2[And 69] D.R. Anderson. On homotopy spheres bounding highly connected manifolds. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 139:155–161, 1969.
- 3[Bar 76] J. Barge. Structures différentiables sur les types d’homotopie rationnelle simplement connexes. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) , 9(4):469–501, 1976.
- 4[BLLV 74] J. Barge, J. Lannes, F. Latour, and P. Vogel. Λ Λ \Lambda -sphères. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) , 7:463–505 (1975), 1974.
- 5[Car 53] L. Carlitz. Some congruences for the Bernoulli numbers. Amer. J. Math. , 75:163–172, 1953.
- 6[FS 16] J. Fowler and Z. Su. Smooth manifolds with prescribed rational cohomology ring. Geom. Dedicata , 182:215–232, 2016.
- 7[How 95] F.T. Howard. Applications of a recurrence for the Bernoulli numbers. J. Number Theory , 52(1):157–172, 1995.
- 8[IR 90] K. Ireland and M. Rosen. A classical introduction to modern number theory , volume 84 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1990.
