What is the intuition for higher homotopy groups not vanishing?What are the uses of the homotopy groups of spheres?Why do the homology groups capture holes in a space better than the homotopy groups?Intuition on finite homotopy groupsVanishing of higher homotopy groups of finite complexesHow to see the quaternionic hopf map generates the stable 3-stem?Proving that a space cannot be delooped.Are the higher homotopy groups of the Hawaiian earring trivial?A refinement of Serre's finiteness theorem on unstable homotopy groups of spheresWhitehead products in homotopy groups of spheresModern survey of unstable homotopy groups?

What is the intuition for higher homotopy groups not vanishing?


What are the uses of the homotopy groups of spheres?Why do the homology groups capture holes in a space better than the homotopy groups?Intuition on finite homotopy groupsVanishing of higher homotopy groups of finite complexesHow to see the quaternionic hopf map generates the stable 3-stem?Proving that a space cannot be delooped.Are the higher homotopy groups of the Hawaiian earring trivial?A refinement of Serre's finiteness theorem on unstable homotopy groups of spheresWhitehead products in homotopy groups of spheresModern survey of unstable homotopy groups?













6












$begingroup$



The homotopy groups of the spheres $S^n$ (see Wikipedia) vanish for the circle $S^1$ as, naively speaking, there are not higher order holes to be grasped by higher order homotopy groups. This intuitions already breaks down for the two sphere $S^2$, e.g. $pi_3(S^2)$ is non-trivial because of the Hopf fibration. This non-triviality seems to keep on going for all the higher spheres $S^n$. What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you can ask this question not only for $S^1$ but for all unstable homotopy groups of spheres. I can't really think of an inspiring reason for existence of the unstable homotopy theory though.
    $endgroup$
    – jawa
    9 hours ago






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Miller
    9 hours ago







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
    $endgroup$
    – skd
    9 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    8 hours ago















6












$begingroup$



The homotopy groups of the spheres $S^n$ (see Wikipedia) vanish for the circle $S^1$ as, naively speaking, there are not higher order holes to be grasped by higher order homotopy groups. This intuitions already breaks down for the two sphere $S^2$, e.g. $pi_3(S^2)$ is non-trivial because of the Hopf fibration. This non-triviality seems to keep on going for all the higher spheres $S^n$. What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you can ask this question not only for $S^1$ but for all unstable homotopy groups of spheres. I can't really think of an inspiring reason for existence of the unstable homotopy theory though.
    $endgroup$
    – jawa
    9 hours ago






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Miller
    9 hours ago







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
    $endgroup$
    – skd
    9 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    8 hours ago













6












6








6


4



$begingroup$



The homotopy groups of the spheres $S^n$ (see Wikipedia) vanish for the circle $S^1$ as, naively speaking, there are not higher order holes to be grasped by higher order homotopy groups. This intuitions already breaks down for the two sphere $S^2$, e.g. $pi_3(S^2)$ is non-trivial because of the Hopf fibration. This non-triviality seems to keep on going for all the higher spheres $S^n$. What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$





The homotopy groups of the spheres $S^n$ (see Wikipedia) vanish for the circle $S^1$ as, naively speaking, there are not higher order holes to be grasped by higher order homotopy groups. This intuitions already breaks down for the two sphere $S^2$, e.g. $pi_3(S^2)$ is non-trivial because of the Hopf fibration. This non-triviality seems to keep on going for all the higher spheres $S^n$. What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different?







at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory hopf-fibration homotopy-groups-of-sphere






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 9 hours ago









horropiehorropie

634 bronze badges




634 bronze badges







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you can ask this question not only for $S^1$ but for all unstable homotopy groups of spheres. I can't really think of an inspiring reason for existence of the unstable homotopy theory though.
    $endgroup$
    – jawa
    9 hours ago






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Miller
    9 hours ago







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
    $endgroup$
    – skd
    9 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    8 hours ago












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you can ask this question not only for $S^1$ but for all unstable homotopy groups of spheres. I can't really think of an inspiring reason for existence of the unstable homotopy theory though.
    $endgroup$
    – jawa
    9 hours ago






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Miller
    9 hours ago







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
    $endgroup$
    – skd
    9 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    8 hours ago







3




3




$begingroup$
I think you can ask this question not only for $S^1$ but for all unstable homotopy groups of spheres. I can't really think of an inspiring reason for existence of the unstable homotopy theory though.
$endgroup$
– jawa
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
I think you can ask this question not only for $S^1$ but for all unstable homotopy groups of spheres. I can't really think of an inspiring reason for existence of the unstable homotopy theory though.
$endgroup$
– jawa
9 hours ago




8




8




$begingroup$
The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
$endgroup$
– Mike Miller
9 hours ago





$begingroup$
The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
$endgroup$
– Mike Miller
9 hours ago





2




2




$begingroup$
I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
9 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
$endgroup$
– skd
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
$endgroup$
– skd
9 hours ago




4




4




$begingroup$
@user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
@user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
8 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

So far the discusion mostly focused on a geometric explanation, I'd like to mention the algebraic one as well:



One way to formulate it involves the delooping machinery: up to delooping, the $n$-sphere corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators.



(Small recall: the usual delooping machinery say that the looping/delooping construction induces an equivalence between pointed spaces $X$ such that $pi_k X =0$ for all $k<n$ and group like $E_n$-algberas. Through that correspondences the n-sphere corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators, as the looping/delooping adjunction justs shift the $pi_n$ you can describe the homotopy group of sphere as shifted homotopy group of these free group like $E_n$-algebra.)



Now when you construct the free $E_1$-algebra, there not much you can do: you only have one way to multiply elements and the free $E_1$-algebra on one generators is just $mathbbN$ (and $mathbbZ$ for the group like one)



But for $E_n$ you get $n$ "compatible" (in a homotopy theoretic sense) way to multiply the elements and all the higher elements in the homotopy group comes from the interaction (the coherence law, that are given by homotopies) between these multiplications, for example the free $E_2$-algebra has all the braid groups appearing as its various $pi_1$ due to that, and the free group like $E_2$-algebra become too complicated to described (well... it is essentially $Omega^2 mathbbS^2$ ).



So the difference is that for $n=1$ no such interaction is happening because to get interaction you need at least two compatible multiplication.



Alternatively to the delooping machinery, one can (somehow equivalently) think of spaces as $infty$-groupoids and as the $n$-sphere as the $infty$-groupoid freely generated by a cell in dimension $n$. The discussion is pretty much the same except that now the $n$ "compatible" multiplication are simply the compositions in direction $k$ for $k$ from $0$ to $n-1$.



Edit: Here is how you get a non trivial element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, in the second perspective. I'm using an unspecified model of weak $infty$-groupoid, and applying freely the operation of strict $infty$-categories to give a feel of how it works, this is not mean't to be formal (only formalize )



Given a two cells $u$ and $v$ whose source and target is a (weak) identity, the usual Eckman Hilton argument (so the typical example of interaction between $#_0$ and $#_1$ as I mentioned above) gives an isomorphism $theta_u,v : u #_0 v simeq v #_0 u$.



If $e$ is the generating 2-cell of the 2sphere then this gives an isomorphisms $theta_e,e: e #_0 e simeq e #_0 e $
taking $e^*$ a $0$ inverse of $e$, one has that $e^* #_0 theta_e,e # e^*$ is a three cell whose source and target are (up to the coherence iso expression that $e$ and $e^*$ are inverse) identites, so it gives an elements of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$ which is non-zero by a universality argument.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    3 hours ago


















4












$begingroup$

One explanation follows from the fact that if $X$ is a space and $tilde X$ is its universal cover, then for $igeq 2$ we have $pi_i X cong pi_i tilde X$.



Then you can just observe that the universal cover of $S^1$ is $mathbb R$ (which is contractible and hence has vanishing higher homotopy groups), while for $n > 1$, the universal cover of $S^n$ is just $S^n$ itself (it is simply-connected, so you can just take the identity as a covering map).






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor



D. Zack Garza is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    4 hours ago







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
    $endgroup$
    – kp9r4d
    2 hours ago













Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f336598%2fwhat-is-the-intuition-for-higher-homotopy-groups-not-vanishing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7












$begingroup$

So far the discusion mostly focused on a geometric explanation, I'd like to mention the algebraic one as well:



One way to formulate it involves the delooping machinery: up to delooping, the $n$-sphere corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators.



(Small recall: the usual delooping machinery say that the looping/delooping construction induces an equivalence between pointed spaces $X$ such that $pi_k X =0$ for all $k<n$ and group like $E_n$-algberas. Through that correspondences the n-sphere corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators, as the looping/delooping adjunction justs shift the $pi_n$ you can describe the homotopy group of sphere as shifted homotopy group of these free group like $E_n$-algebra.)



Now when you construct the free $E_1$-algebra, there not much you can do: you only have one way to multiply elements and the free $E_1$-algebra on one generators is just $mathbbN$ (and $mathbbZ$ for the group like one)



But for $E_n$ you get $n$ "compatible" (in a homotopy theoretic sense) way to multiply the elements and all the higher elements in the homotopy group comes from the interaction (the coherence law, that are given by homotopies) between these multiplications, for example the free $E_2$-algebra has all the braid groups appearing as its various $pi_1$ due to that, and the free group like $E_2$-algebra become too complicated to described (well... it is essentially $Omega^2 mathbbS^2$ ).



So the difference is that for $n=1$ no such interaction is happening because to get interaction you need at least two compatible multiplication.



Alternatively to the delooping machinery, one can (somehow equivalently) think of spaces as $infty$-groupoids and as the $n$-sphere as the $infty$-groupoid freely generated by a cell in dimension $n$. The discussion is pretty much the same except that now the $n$ "compatible" multiplication are simply the compositions in direction $k$ for $k$ from $0$ to $n-1$.



Edit: Here is how you get a non trivial element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, in the second perspective. I'm using an unspecified model of weak $infty$-groupoid, and applying freely the operation of strict $infty$-categories to give a feel of how it works, this is not mean't to be formal (only formalize )



Given a two cells $u$ and $v$ whose source and target is a (weak) identity, the usual Eckman Hilton argument (so the typical example of interaction between $#_0$ and $#_1$ as I mentioned above) gives an isomorphism $theta_u,v : u #_0 v simeq v #_0 u$.



If $e$ is the generating 2-cell of the 2sphere then this gives an isomorphisms $theta_e,e: e #_0 e simeq e #_0 e $
taking $e^*$ a $0$ inverse of $e$, one has that $e^* #_0 theta_e,e # e^*$ is a three cell whose source and target are (up to the coherence iso expression that $e$ and $e^*$ are inverse) identites, so it gives an elements of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$ which is non-zero by a universality argument.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    3 hours ago















7












$begingroup$

So far the discusion mostly focused on a geometric explanation, I'd like to mention the algebraic one as well:



One way to formulate it involves the delooping machinery: up to delooping, the $n$-sphere corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators.



(Small recall: the usual delooping machinery say that the looping/delooping construction induces an equivalence between pointed spaces $X$ such that $pi_k X =0$ for all $k<n$ and group like $E_n$-algberas. Through that correspondences the n-sphere corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators, as the looping/delooping adjunction justs shift the $pi_n$ you can describe the homotopy group of sphere as shifted homotopy group of these free group like $E_n$-algebra.)



Now when you construct the free $E_1$-algebra, there not much you can do: you only have one way to multiply elements and the free $E_1$-algebra on one generators is just $mathbbN$ (and $mathbbZ$ for the group like one)



But for $E_n$ you get $n$ "compatible" (in a homotopy theoretic sense) way to multiply the elements and all the higher elements in the homotopy group comes from the interaction (the coherence law, that are given by homotopies) between these multiplications, for example the free $E_2$-algebra has all the braid groups appearing as its various $pi_1$ due to that, and the free group like $E_2$-algebra become too complicated to described (well... it is essentially $Omega^2 mathbbS^2$ ).



So the difference is that for $n=1$ no such interaction is happening because to get interaction you need at least two compatible multiplication.



Alternatively to the delooping machinery, one can (somehow equivalently) think of spaces as $infty$-groupoids and as the $n$-sphere as the $infty$-groupoid freely generated by a cell in dimension $n$. The discussion is pretty much the same except that now the $n$ "compatible" multiplication are simply the compositions in direction $k$ for $k$ from $0$ to $n-1$.



Edit: Here is how you get a non trivial element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, in the second perspective. I'm using an unspecified model of weak $infty$-groupoid, and applying freely the operation of strict $infty$-categories to give a feel of how it works, this is not mean't to be formal (only formalize )



Given a two cells $u$ and $v$ whose source and target is a (weak) identity, the usual Eckman Hilton argument (so the typical example of interaction between $#_0$ and $#_1$ as I mentioned above) gives an isomorphism $theta_u,v : u #_0 v simeq v #_0 u$.



If $e$ is the generating 2-cell of the 2sphere then this gives an isomorphisms $theta_e,e: e #_0 e simeq e #_0 e $
taking $e^*$ a $0$ inverse of $e$, one has that $e^* #_0 theta_e,e # e^*$ is a three cell whose source and target are (up to the coherence iso expression that $e$ and $e^*$ are inverse) identites, so it gives an elements of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$ which is non-zero by a universality argument.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    3 hours ago













7












7








7





$begingroup$

So far the discusion mostly focused on a geometric explanation, I'd like to mention the algebraic one as well:



One way to formulate it involves the delooping machinery: up to delooping, the $n$-sphere corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators.



(Small recall: the usual delooping machinery say that the looping/delooping construction induces an equivalence between pointed spaces $X$ such that $pi_k X =0$ for all $k<n$ and group like $E_n$-algberas. Through that correspondences the n-sphere corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators, as the looping/delooping adjunction justs shift the $pi_n$ you can describe the homotopy group of sphere as shifted homotopy group of these free group like $E_n$-algebra.)



Now when you construct the free $E_1$-algebra, there not much you can do: you only have one way to multiply elements and the free $E_1$-algebra on one generators is just $mathbbN$ (and $mathbbZ$ for the group like one)



But for $E_n$ you get $n$ "compatible" (in a homotopy theoretic sense) way to multiply the elements and all the higher elements in the homotopy group comes from the interaction (the coherence law, that are given by homotopies) between these multiplications, for example the free $E_2$-algebra has all the braid groups appearing as its various $pi_1$ due to that, and the free group like $E_2$-algebra become too complicated to described (well... it is essentially $Omega^2 mathbbS^2$ ).



So the difference is that for $n=1$ no such interaction is happening because to get interaction you need at least two compatible multiplication.



Alternatively to the delooping machinery, one can (somehow equivalently) think of spaces as $infty$-groupoids and as the $n$-sphere as the $infty$-groupoid freely generated by a cell in dimension $n$. The discussion is pretty much the same except that now the $n$ "compatible" multiplication are simply the compositions in direction $k$ for $k$ from $0$ to $n-1$.



Edit: Here is how you get a non trivial element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, in the second perspective. I'm using an unspecified model of weak $infty$-groupoid, and applying freely the operation of strict $infty$-categories to give a feel of how it works, this is not mean't to be formal (only formalize )



Given a two cells $u$ and $v$ whose source and target is a (weak) identity, the usual Eckman Hilton argument (so the typical example of interaction between $#_0$ and $#_1$ as I mentioned above) gives an isomorphism $theta_u,v : u #_0 v simeq v #_0 u$.



If $e$ is the generating 2-cell of the 2sphere then this gives an isomorphisms $theta_e,e: e #_0 e simeq e #_0 e $
taking $e^*$ a $0$ inverse of $e$, one has that $e^* #_0 theta_e,e # e^*$ is a three cell whose source and target are (up to the coherence iso expression that $e$ and $e^*$ are inverse) identites, so it gives an elements of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$ which is non-zero by a universality argument.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



So far the discusion mostly focused on a geometric explanation, I'd like to mention the algebraic one as well:



One way to formulate it involves the delooping machinery: up to delooping, the $n$-sphere corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators.



(Small recall: the usual delooping machinery say that the looping/delooping construction induces an equivalence between pointed spaces $X$ such that $pi_k X =0$ for all $k<n$ and group like $E_n$-algberas. Through that correspondences the n-sphere corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators, as the looping/delooping adjunction justs shift the $pi_n$ you can describe the homotopy group of sphere as shifted homotopy group of these free group like $E_n$-algebra.)



Now when you construct the free $E_1$-algebra, there not much you can do: you only have one way to multiply elements and the free $E_1$-algebra on one generators is just $mathbbN$ (and $mathbbZ$ for the group like one)



But for $E_n$ you get $n$ "compatible" (in a homotopy theoretic sense) way to multiply the elements and all the higher elements in the homotopy group comes from the interaction (the coherence law, that are given by homotopies) between these multiplications, for example the free $E_2$-algebra has all the braid groups appearing as its various $pi_1$ due to that, and the free group like $E_2$-algebra become too complicated to described (well... it is essentially $Omega^2 mathbbS^2$ ).



So the difference is that for $n=1$ no such interaction is happening because to get interaction you need at least two compatible multiplication.



Alternatively to the delooping machinery, one can (somehow equivalently) think of spaces as $infty$-groupoids and as the $n$-sphere as the $infty$-groupoid freely generated by a cell in dimension $n$. The discussion is pretty much the same except that now the $n$ "compatible" multiplication are simply the compositions in direction $k$ for $k$ from $0$ to $n-1$.



Edit: Here is how you get a non trivial element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, in the second perspective. I'm using an unspecified model of weak $infty$-groupoid, and applying freely the operation of strict $infty$-categories to give a feel of how it works, this is not mean't to be formal (only formalize )



Given a two cells $u$ and $v$ whose source and target is a (weak) identity, the usual Eckman Hilton argument (so the typical example of interaction between $#_0$ and $#_1$ as I mentioned above) gives an isomorphism $theta_u,v : u #_0 v simeq v #_0 u$.



If $e$ is the generating 2-cell of the 2sphere then this gives an isomorphisms $theta_e,e: e #_0 e simeq e #_0 e $
taking $e^*$ a $0$ inverse of $e$, one has that $e^* #_0 theta_e,e # e^*$ is a three cell whose source and target are (up to the coherence iso expression that $e$ and $e^*$ are inverse) identites, so it gives an elements of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$ which is non-zero by a universality argument.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered 5 hours ago









Simon HenrySimon Henry

16.5k1 gold badge51 silver badges94 bronze badges




16.5k1 gold badge51 silver badges94 bronze badges











  • $begingroup$
    Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    3 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    3 hours ago















$begingroup$
Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
$endgroup$
– Kevin Carlson
4 hours ago





$begingroup$
Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
$endgroup$
– Kevin Carlson
4 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
@KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
3 hours ago











4












$begingroup$

One explanation follows from the fact that if $X$ is a space and $tilde X$ is its universal cover, then for $igeq 2$ we have $pi_i X cong pi_i tilde X$.



Then you can just observe that the universal cover of $S^1$ is $mathbb R$ (which is contractible and hence has vanishing higher homotopy groups), while for $n > 1$, the universal cover of $S^n$ is just $S^n$ itself (it is simply-connected, so you can just take the identity as a covering map).






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor



D. Zack Garza is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    4 hours ago







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
    $endgroup$
    – kp9r4d
    2 hours ago















4












$begingroup$

One explanation follows from the fact that if $X$ is a space and $tilde X$ is its universal cover, then for $igeq 2$ we have $pi_i X cong pi_i tilde X$.



Then you can just observe that the universal cover of $S^1$ is $mathbb R$ (which is contractible and hence has vanishing higher homotopy groups), while for $n > 1$, the universal cover of $S^n$ is just $S^n$ itself (it is simply-connected, so you can just take the identity as a covering map).






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor



D. Zack Garza is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    4 hours ago







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
    $endgroup$
    – kp9r4d
    2 hours ago













4












4








4





$begingroup$

One explanation follows from the fact that if $X$ is a space and $tilde X$ is its universal cover, then for $igeq 2$ we have $pi_i X cong pi_i tilde X$.



Then you can just observe that the universal cover of $S^1$ is $mathbb R$ (which is contractible and hence has vanishing higher homotopy groups), while for $n > 1$, the universal cover of $S^n$ is just $S^n$ itself (it is simply-connected, so you can just take the identity as a covering map).






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor



D. Zack Garza is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$



One explanation follows from the fact that if $X$ is a space and $tilde X$ is its universal cover, then for $igeq 2$ we have $pi_i X cong pi_i tilde X$.



Then you can just observe that the universal cover of $S^1$ is $mathbb R$ (which is contractible and hence has vanishing higher homotopy groups), while for $n > 1$, the universal cover of $S^n$ is just $S^n$ itself (it is simply-connected, so you can just take the identity as a covering map).







share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor



D. Zack Garza is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer






New contributor



D. Zack Garza is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








answered 6 hours ago









D. Zack GarzaD. Zack Garza

514 bronze badges




514 bronze badges




New contributor



D. Zack Garza is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




D. Zack Garza is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









  • 6




    $begingroup$
    That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    4 hours ago







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
    $endgroup$
    – kp9r4d
    2 hours ago












  • 6




    $begingroup$
    That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    4 hours ago







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
    $endgroup$
    – kp9r4d
    2 hours ago







6




6




$begingroup$
That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
4 hours ago





$begingroup$
That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
$endgroup$
– Najib Idrissi
4 hours ago





3




3




$begingroup$
@NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
3 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
@NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
$endgroup$
– kp9r4d
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
@NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
$endgroup$
– kp9r4d
2 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f336598%2fwhat-is-the-intuition-for-higher-homotopy-groups-not-vanishing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Tom Holland Mục lục Đầu đời và giáo dục | Sự nghiệp | Cuộc sống cá nhân | Phim tham gia | Giải thưởng và đề cử | Chú thích | Liên kết ngoài | Trình đơn chuyển hướngProfile“Person Details for Thomas Stanley Holland, "England and Wales Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008" — FamilySearch.org”"Meet Tom Holland... the 16-year-old star of The Impossible""Schoolboy actor Tom Holland finds himself in Oscar contention for role in tsunami drama"“Naomi Watts on the Prince William and Harry's reaction to her film about the late Princess Diana”lưu trữ"Holland and Pflueger Are West End's Two New 'Billy Elliots'""I'm so envious of my son, the movie star! British writer Dominic Holland's spent 20 years trying to crack Hollywood - but he's been beaten to it by a very unlikely rival"“Richard and Margaret Povey of Jersey, Channel Islands, UK: Information about Thomas Stanley Holland”"Tom Holland to play Billy Elliot""New Billy Elliot leaving the garage"Billy Elliot the Musical - Tom Holland - Billy"A Tale of four Billys: Tom Holland""The Feel Good Factor""Thames Christian College schoolboys join Myleene Klass for The Feelgood Factor""Government launches £600,000 arts bursaries pilot""BILLY's Chapman, Holland, Gardner & Jackson-Keen Visit Prime Minister""Elton John 'blown away' by Billy Elliot fifth birthday" (video with John's interview and fragments of Holland's performance)"First News interviews Arrietty's Tom Holland"“33rd Critics' Circle Film Awards winners”“National Board of Review Current Awards”Bản gốc"Ron Howard Whaling Tale 'In The Heart Of The Sea' Casts Tom Holland"“'Spider-Man' Finds Tom Holland to Star as New Web-Slinger”lưu trữ“Captain America: Civil War (2016)”“Film Review: ‘Captain America: Civil War’”lưu trữ“‘Captain America: Civil War’ review: Choose your own avenger”lưu trữ“The Lost City of Z reviews”“Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios Find Their 'Spider-Man' Star and Director”“‘Mary Magdalene’, ‘Current War’ & ‘Wind River’ Get 2017 Release Dates From Weinstein”“Lionsgate Unleashing Daisy Ridley & Tom Holland Starrer ‘Chaos Walking’ In Cannes”“PTA's 'Master' Leads Chicago Film Critics Nominations, UPDATED: Houston and Indiana Critics Nominations”“Nominaciones Goya 2013 Telecinco Cinema – ENG”“Jameson Empire Film Awards: Martin Freeman wins best actor for performance in The Hobbit”“34th Annual Young Artist Awards”Bản gốc“Teen Choice Awards 2016—Captain America: Civil War Leads Second Wave of Nominations”“BAFTA Film Award Nominations: ‘La La Land’ Leads Race”“Saturn Awards Nominations 2017: 'Rogue One,' 'Walking Dead' Lead”Tom HollandTom HollandTom HollandTom Hollandmedia.gettyimages.comWorldCat Identities300279794no20130442900000 0004 0355 42791085670554170004732cb16706349t(data)XX5557367