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?
$begingroup$
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?
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory hopf-fibration homotopy-groups-of-sphere
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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?
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory hopf-fibration homotopy-groups-of-sphere
$endgroup$
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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?
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory hopf-fibration homotopy-groups-of-sphere
$endgroup$
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
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory hopf-fibration homotopy-groups-of-sphere
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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).
New contributor
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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).
New contributor
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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).
New contributor
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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).
New contributor
$endgroup$
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).
New contributor
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
D. Zack GarzaD. Zack Garza
514 bronze badges
514 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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