Is there a Morita cocycle for the mapping class group Mod(g,n) when n > 1?A finite index subgroup of the Mapping Class GroupOrigin of the name “Torelli group”Distorsion of subgroups of the mapping class groupTorsion elements in the mapping class groupVeech group and mapping class groupCategorical mapping class group actionA question about the abelianization of the Johnson kernel

Is there a Morita cocycle for the mapping class group Mod(g,n) when n > 1?


A finite index subgroup of the Mapping Class GroupOrigin of the name “Torelli group”Distorsion of subgroups of the mapping class groupTorsion elements in the mapping class groupVeech group and mapping class groupCategorical mapping class group actionA question about the abelianization of the Johnson kernel













8












$begingroup$


Write Mod(g,n) for the mapping class group of a genus-$g$ surface $Sigma$ with $n$ boundary components. When $n=0,1$ we define the Torelli group $T$ to be the subgroup of Mod(g,n) which acts trivially on the homology $H = H_1(Sigma,mathbfZ)$.



The Johnson homomorphism is a much-studied homomorphism from the Torelli group to $mathrmHom(H,wedge^2 H)$ (when n=1) or a quotient of this (when n=0) whose kernel turns out to be the commutator subgroup of Torelli.



Morita showed in 1993 that the Johnson homomorphism extends to the whole group Mod(g,1), not as a homomorphism, but as a 1-cocycle in



$H^1(mathrmMod(g,1), mathrmHom(H,wedge^2 H))$



where the action is given by the action of Mod(g,n) on $H$. (Thus the Morita cocycle restricts to a homomorphism on Torelli, as claimed.) It can be thought of as keeping track of the action of the mapping class on the quotient of $pi_1(Sigma)$ by the third term of its lower central series.



All of the above is well-known, or at least well-known to the people who know this kind of thing well. Now here's my question: is there a Morita cocycle on Mod(g,n) when n > 1?



Of course, such a cocycle would restrict to a Johnson homomorphism from the Torelli subgroup of Mod(g,n), and even this is subtle; but Church's paper "Orbits of curves under the Johnson kernel," gives a way to define a Torelli group and a Johnson homomorphism for Mod(g,n) which behaves well with respect to inclusion of subsurfaces. So a more specific version of my question would be: when n > 1, does Church's "Johnson homomorphism" extend to a "Morita cocycle" on all of Mod(g,n) which behaves well with respect to inclusion of subsurfaces?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$


















    8












    $begingroup$


    Write Mod(g,n) for the mapping class group of a genus-$g$ surface $Sigma$ with $n$ boundary components. When $n=0,1$ we define the Torelli group $T$ to be the subgroup of Mod(g,n) which acts trivially on the homology $H = H_1(Sigma,mathbfZ)$.



    The Johnson homomorphism is a much-studied homomorphism from the Torelli group to $mathrmHom(H,wedge^2 H)$ (when n=1) or a quotient of this (when n=0) whose kernel turns out to be the commutator subgroup of Torelli.



    Morita showed in 1993 that the Johnson homomorphism extends to the whole group Mod(g,1), not as a homomorphism, but as a 1-cocycle in



    $H^1(mathrmMod(g,1), mathrmHom(H,wedge^2 H))$



    where the action is given by the action of Mod(g,n) on $H$. (Thus the Morita cocycle restricts to a homomorphism on Torelli, as claimed.) It can be thought of as keeping track of the action of the mapping class on the quotient of $pi_1(Sigma)$ by the third term of its lower central series.



    All of the above is well-known, or at least well-known to the people who know this kind of thing well. Now here's my question: is there a Morita cocycle on Mod(g,n) when n > 1?



    Of course, such a cocycle would restrict to a Johnson homomorphism from the Torelli subgroup of Mod(g,n), and even this is subtle; but Church's paper "Orbits of curves under the Johnson kernel," gives a way to define a Torelli group and a Johnson homomorphism for Mod(g,n) which behaves well with respect to inclusion of subsurfaces. So a more specific version of my question would be: when n > 1, does Church's "Johnson homomorphism" extend to a "Morita cocycle" on all of Mod(g,n) which behaves well with respect to inclusion of subsurfaces?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$
















      8












      8








      8


      1



      $begingroup$


      Write Mod(g,n) for the mapping class group of a genus-$g$ surface $Sigma$ with $n$ boundary components. When $n=0,1$ we define the Torelli group $T$ to be the subgroup of Mod(g,n) which acts trivially on the homology $H = H_1(Sigma,mathbfZ)$.



      The Johnson homomorphism is a much-studied homomorphism from the Torelli group to $mathrmHom(H,wedge^2 H)$ (when n=1) or a quotient of this (when n=0) whose kernel turns out to be the commutator subgroup of Torelli.



      Morita showed in 1993 that the Johnson homomorphism extends to the whole group Mod(g,1), not as a homomorphism, but as a 1-cocycle in



      $H^1(mathrmMod(g,1), mathrmHom(H,wedge^2 H))$



      where the action is given by the action of Mod(g,n) on $H$. (Thus the Morita cocycle restricts to a homomorphism on Torelli, as claimed.) It can be thought of as keeping track of the action of the mapping class on the quotient of $pi_1(Sigma)$ by the third term of its lower central series.



      All of the above is well-known, or at least well-known to the people who know this kind of thing well. Now here's my question: is there a Morita cocycle on Mod(g,n) when n > 1?



      Of course, such a cocycle would restrict to a Johnson homomorphism from the Torelli subgroup of Mod(g,n), and even this is subtle; but Church's paper "Orbits of curves under the Johnson kernel," gives a way to define a Torelli group and a Johnson homomorphism for Mod(g,n) which behaves well with respect to inclusion of subsurfaces. So a more specific version of my question would be: when n > 1, does Church's "Johnson homomorphism" extend to a "Morita cocycle" on all of Mod(g,n) which behaves well with respect to inclusion of subsurfaces?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Write Mod(g,n) for the mapping class group of a genus-$g$ surface $Sigma$ with $n$ boundary components. When $n=0,1$ we define the Torelli group $T$ to be the subgroup of Mod(g,n) which acts trivially on the homology $H = H_1(Sigma,mathbfZ)$.



      The Johnson homomorphism is a much-studied homomorphism from the Torelli group to $mathrmHom(H,wedge^2 H)$ (when n=1) or a quotient of this (when n=0) whose kernel turns out to be the commutator subgroup of Torelli.



      Morita showed in 1993 that the Johnson homomorphism extends to the whole group Mod(g,1), not as a homomorphism, but as a 1-cocycle in



      $H^1(mathrmMod(g,1), mathrmHom(H,wedge^2 H))$



      where the action is given by the action of Mod(g,n) on $H$. (Thus the Morita cocycle restricts to a homomorphism on Torelli, as claimed.) It can be thought of as keeping track of the action of the mapping class on the quotient of $pi_1(Sigma)$ by the third term of its lower central series.



      All of the above is well-known, or at least well-known to the people who know this kind of thing well. Now here's my question: is there a Morita cocycle on Mod(g,n) when n > 1?



      Of course, such a cocycle would restrict to a Johnson homomorphism from the Torelli subgroup of Mod(g,n), and even this is subtle; but Church's paper "Orbits of curves under the Johnson kernel," gives a way to define a Torelli group and a Johnson homomorphism for Mod(g,n) which behaves well with respect to inclusion of subsurfaces. So a more specific version of my question would be: when n > 1, does Church's "Johnson homomorphism" extend to a "Morita cocycle" on all of Mod(g,n) which behaves well with respect to inclusion of subsurfaces?







      at.algebraic-topology gt.geometric-topology mapping-class-groups






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 2 hours ago







      JSE

















      asked 8 hours ago









      JSEJSE

      15.4k5 gold badges56 silver badges119 bronze badges




      15.4k5 gold badges56 silver badges119 bronze badges























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          The answer is "yes" -- in fact one can do better and get a class in



          $$H^1(textAut(F_m), textHom(H, wedge^2 H)),$$



          where $F_m$ is the free group on $m$ generators and $H$ is the Abelianization of $F_m$, if I'm not mistaken. This gives the cocycle you want since there is an obvious map $textMod_g, nto textAut(pi_1(Sigma_g, n-1))simeq F_2g+n-2$ for $ngeq 2$, given by the conjugation action of $textMod_g,n$ on the point-pushing subgroup, namely $pi_1(Sigma_g, n-1)$.



          A construction goes as follows. Let $mathbbZ[F_m]$ be the group ring of $F_m$, and let $mathscrI$ be the augmentation ideal. Then $H simeq mathscrI/mathscrI^2$ canonically (via the map sending $g$ to $g-1$) and $mathscrI^2/mathscrI^3simeq H^otimes 2$ canonically (via the multiplication map). There is a short exact sequence of $textAut(F_m)$ modules $$0to mathscrI^2/mathscrI^3to mathscrI/mathscrI^3to mathscrI/mathscrI^2to 0,$$ which we can think of as an extension of $H$ by $H^otimes 2$, and hence gives a class in



          $$H^1(textAut(F_m), textHom(H, H^otimes 2)).$$



          But in fact a direct computation of a crossed homomorphism representing this class shows that it lands in $textHom(H, textAlt^2(H)).$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            Actually this will all be in a paper I'm writing with one of your students, among others!
            $endgroup$
            – Daniel Litt
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            To fix the conjugation action, I am worried you need to fix a base point which is $operatornameMod(g,n)$-invariant, which could be a point on one of the boundary components. It seems, though, that this cocycle could depend on the choice of boundary component. This is not so bad except it might cause trouble for the compatibility with inclusions of surfaces, if the chosen boundary component disappears or something.
            $endgroup$
            – Will Sawin
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I'm disturbed by the fact that I can't figure out which of my students you're referring to!
            $endgroup$
            – JSE
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Do you think when you restrict from Aut(F_m) to Mod(g,n) you still get image in something that looks like wedge^3 H?
            $endgroup$
            – JSE
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @JSE: I don't think so--that identification relies on Poincare duality. And I think in the un-punctured case, one only gets that after taking Inn-coinvariants to get a class that comes from H^1(Out(F_m), ...)... And the paper is the thing with Wanlin et al from the MRC in Rhode Island, as well as (I hope) multiple sequels I think will come out of it.
            $endgroup$
            – Daniel Litt
            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%2f338212%2fis-there-a-morita-cocycle-for-the-mapping-class-group-modg-n-when-n-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          4












          $begingroup$

          The answer is "yes" -- in fact one can do better and get a class in



          $$H^1(textAut(F_m), textHom(H, wedge^2 H)),$$



          where $F_m$ is the free group on $m$ generators and $H$ is the Abelianization of $F_m$, if I'm not mistaken. This gives the cocycle you want since there is an obvious map $textMod_g, nto textAut(pi_1(Sigma_g, n-1))simeq F_2g+n-2$ for $ngeq 2$, given by the conjugation action of $textMod_g,n$ on the point-pushing subgroup, namely $pi_1(Sigma_g, n-1)$.



          A construction goes as follows. Let $mathbbZ[F_m]$ be the group ring of $F_m$, and let $mathscrI$ be the augmentation ideal. Then $H simeq mathscrI/mathscrI^2$ canonically (via the map sending $g$ to $g-1$) and $mathscrI^2/mathscrI^3simeq H^otimes 2$ canonically (via the multiplication map). There is a short exact sequence of $textAut(F_m)$ modules $$0to mathscrI^2/mathscrI^3to mathscrI/mathscrI^3to mathscrI/mathscrI^2to 0,$$ which we can think of as an extension of $H$ by $H^otimes 2$, and hence gives a class in



          $$H^1(textAut(F_m), textHom(H, H^otimes 2)).$$



          But in fact a direct computation of a crossed homomorphism representing this class shows that it lands in $textHom(H, textAlt^2(H)).$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            Actually this will all be in a paper I'm writing with one of your students, among others!
            $endgroup$
            – Daniel Litt
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            To fix the conjugation action, I am worried you need to fix a base point which is $operatornameMod(g,n)$-invariant, which could be a point on one of the boundary components. It seems, though, that this cocycle could depend on the choice of boundary component. This is not so bad except it might cause trouble for the compatibility with inclusions of surfaces, if the chosen boundary component disappears or something.
            $endgroup$
            – Will Sawin
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I'm disturbed by the fact that I can't figure out which of my students you're referring to!
            $endgroup$
            – JSE
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Do you think when you restrict from Aut(F_m) to Mod(g,n) you still get image in something that looks like wedge^3 H?
            $endgroup$
            – JSE
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @JSE: I don't think so--that identification relies on Poincare duality. And I think in the un-punctured case, one only gets that after taking Inn-coinvariants to get a class that comes from H^1(Out(F_m), ...)... And the paper is the thing with Wanlin et al from the MRC in Rhode Island, as well as (I hope) multiple sequels I think will come out of it.
            $endgroup$
            – Daniel Litt
            2 hours ago
















          4












          $begingroup$

          The answer is "yes" -- in fact one can do better and get a class in



          $$H^1(textAut(F_m), textHom(H, wedge^2 H)),$$



          where $F_m$ is the free group on $m$ generators and $H$ is the Abelianization of $F_m$, if I'm not mistaken. This gives the cocycle you want since there is an obvious map $textMod_g, nto textAut(pi_1(Sigma_g, n-1))simeq F_2g+n-2$ for $ngeq 2$, given by the conjugation action of $textMod_g,n$ on the point-pushing subgroup, namely $pi_1(Sigma_g, n-1)$.



          A construction goes as follows. Let $mathbbZ[F_m]$ be the group ring of $F_m$, and let $mathscrI$ be the augmentation ideal. Then $H simeq mathscrI/mathscrI^2$ canonically (via the map sending $g$ to $g-1$) and $mathscrI^2/mathscrI^3simeq H^otimes 2$ canonically (via the multiplication map). There is a short exact sequence of $textAut(F_m)$ modules $$0to mathscrI^2/mathscrI^3to mathscrI/mathscrI^3to mathscrI/mathscrI^2to 0,$$ which we can think of as an extension of $H$ by $H^otimes 2$, and hence gives a class in



          $$H^1(textAut(F_m), textHom(H, H^otimes 2)).$$



          But in fact a direct computation of a crossed homomorphism representing this class shows that it lands in $textHom(H, textAlt^2(H)).$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            Actually this will all be in a paper I'm writing with one of your students, among others!
            $endgroup$
            – Daniel Litt
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            To fix the conjugation action, I am worried you need to fix a base point which is $operatornameMod(g,n)$-invariant, which could be a point on one of the boundary components. It seems, though, that this cocycle could depend on the choice of boundary component. This is not so bad except it might cause trouble for the compatibility with inclusions of surfaces, if the chosen boundary component disappears or something.
            $endgroup$
            – Will Sawin
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I'm disturbed by the fact that I can't figure out which of my students you're referring to!
            $endgroup$
            – JSE
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Do you think when you restrict from Aut(F_m) to Mod(g,n) you still get image in something that looks like wedge^3 H?
            $endgroup$
            – JSE
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @JSE: I don't think so--that identification relies on Poincare duality. And I think in the un-punctured case, one only gets that after taking Inn-coinvariants to get a class that comes from H^1(Out(F_m), ...)... And the paper is the thing with Wanlin et al from the MRC in Rhode Island, as well as (I hope) multiple sequels I think will come out of it.
            $endgroup$
            – Daniel Litt
            2 hours ago














          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          The answer is "yes" -- in fact one can do better and get a class in



          $$H^1(textAut(F_m), textHom(H, wedge^2 H)),$$



          where $F_m$ is the free group on $m$ generators and $H$ is the Abelianization of $F_m$, if I'm not mistaken. This gives the cocycle you want since there is an obvious map $textMod_g, nto textAut(pi_1(Sigma_g, n-1))simeq F_2g+n-2$ for $ngeq 2$, given by the conjugation action of $textMod_g,n$ on the point-pushing subgroup, namely $pi_1(Sigma_g, n-1)$.



          A construction goes as follows. Let $mathbbZ[F_m]$ be the group ring of $F_m$, and let $mathscrI$ be the augmentation ideal. Then $H simeq mathscrI/mathscrI^2$ canonically (via the map sending $g$ to $g-1$) and $mathscrI^2/mathscrI^3simeq H^otimes 2$ canonically (via the multiplication map). There is a short exact sequence of $textAut(F_m)$ modules $$0to mathscrI^2/mathscrI^3to mathscrI/mathscrI^3to mathscrI/mathscrI^2to 0,$$ which we can think of as an extension of $H$ by $H^otimes 2$, and hence gives a class in



          $$H^1(textAut(F_m), textHom(H, H^otimes 2)).$$



          But in fact a direct computation of a crossed homomorphism representing this class shows that it lands in $textHom(H, textAlt^2(H)).$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The answer is "yes" -- in fact one can do better and get a class in



          $$H^1(textAut(F_m), textHom(H, wedge^2 H)),$$



          where $F_m$ is the free group on $m$ generators and $H$ is the Abelianization of $F_m$, if I'm not mistaken. This gives the cocycle you want since there is an obvious map $textMod_g, nto textAut(pi_1(Sigma_g, n-1))simeq F_2g+n-2$ for $ngeq 2$, given by the conjugation action of $textMod_g,n$ on the point-pushing subgroup, namely $pi_1(Sigma_g, n-1)$.



          A construction goes as follows. Let $mathbbZ[F_m]$ be the group ring of $F_m$, and let $mathscrI$ be the augmentation ideal. Then $H simeq mathscrI/mathscrI^2$ canonically (via the map sending $g$ to $g-1$) and $mathscrI^2/mathscrI^3simeq H^otimes 2$ canonically (via the multiplication map). There is a short exact sequence of $textAut(F_m)$ modules $$0to mathscrI^2/mathscrI^3to mathscrI/mathscrI^3to mathscrI/mathscrI^2to 0,$$ which we can think of as an extension of $H$ by $H^otimes 2$, and hence gives a class in



          $$H^1(textAut(F_m), textHom(H, H^otimes 2)).$$



          But in fact a direct computation of a crossed homomorphism representing this class shows that it lands in $textHom(H, textAlt^2(H)).$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 4 hours ago









          Daniel LittDaniel Litt

          15.2k3 gold badges62 silver badges113 bronze badges




          15.2k3 gold badges62 silver badges113 bronze badges














          • $begingroup$
            Actually this will all be in a paper I'm writing with one of your students, among others!
            $endgroup$
            – Daniel Litt
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            To fix the conjugation action, I am worried you need to fix a base point which is $operatornameMod(g,n)$-invariant, which could be a point on one of the boundary components. It seems, though, that this cocycle could depend on the choice of boundary component. This is not so bad except it might cause trouble for the compatibility with inclusions of surfaces, if the chosen boundary component disappears or something.
            $endgroup$
            – Will Sawin
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I'm disturbed by the fact that I can't figure out which of my students you're referring to!
            $endgroup$
            – JSE
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Do you think when you restrict from Aut(F_m) to Mod(g,n) you still get image in something that looks like wedge^3 H?
            $endgroup$
            – JSE
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @JSE: I don't think so--that identification relies on Poincare duality. And I think in the un-punctured case, one only gets that after taking Inn-coinvariants to get a class that comes from H^1(Out(F_m), ...)... And the paper is the thing with Wanlin et al from the MRC in Rhode Island, as well as (I hope) multiple sequels I think will come out of it.
            $endgroup$
            – Daniel Litt
            2 hours ago

















          • $begingroup$
            Actually this will all be in a paper I'm writing with one of your students, among others!
            $endgroup$
            – Daniel Litt
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            To fix the conjugation action, I am worried you need to fix a base point which is $operatornameMod(g,n)$-invariant, which could be a point on one of the boundary components. It seems, though, that this cocycle could depend on the choice of boundary component. This is not so bad except it might cause trouble for the compatibility with inclusions of surfaces, if the chosen boundary component disappears or something.
            $endgroup$
            – Will Sawin
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I'm disturbed by the fact that I can't figure out which of my students you're referring to!
            $endgroup$
            – JSE
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Do you think when you restrict from Aut(F_m) to Mod(g,n) you still get image in something that looks like wedge^3 H?
            $endgroup$
            – JSE
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @JSE: I don't think so--that identification relies on Poincare duality. And I think in the un-punctured case, one only gets that after taking Inn-coinvariants to get a class that comes from H^1(Out(F_m), ...)... And the paper is the thing with Wanlin et al from the MRC in Rhode Island, as well as (I hope) multiple sequels I think will come out of it.
            $endgroup$
            – Daniel Litt
            2 hours ago
















          $begingroup$
          Actually this will all be in a paper I'm writing with one of your students, among others!
          $endgroup$
          – Daniel Litt
          4 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Actually this will all be in a paper I'm writing with one of your students, among others!
          $endgroup$
          – Daniel Litt
          4 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          To fix the conjugation action, I am worried you need to fix a base point which is $operatornameMod(g,n)$-invariant, which could be a point on one of the boundary components. It seems, though, that this cocycle could depend on the choice of boundary component. This is not so bad except it might cause trouble for the compatibility with inclusions of surfaces, if the chosen boundary component disappears or something.
          $endgroup$
          – Will Sawin
          3 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          To fix the conjugation action, I am worried you need to fix a base point which is $operatornameMod(g,n)$-invariant, which could be a point on one of the boundary components. It seems, though, that this cocycle could depend on the choice of boundary component. This is not so bad except it might cause trouble for the compatibility with inclusions of surfaces, if the chosen boundary component disappears or something.
          $endgroup$
          – Will Sawin
          3 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          I'm disturbed by the fact that I can't figure out which of my students you're referring to!
          $endgroup$
          – JSE
          2 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          I'm disturbed by the fact that I can't figure out which of my students you're referring to!
          $endgroup$
          – JSE
          2 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          Do you think when you restrict from Aut(F_m) to Mod(g,n) you still get image in something that looks like wedge^3 H?
          $endgroup$
          – JSE
          2 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Do you think when you restrict from Aut(F_m) to Mod(g,n) you still get image in something that looks like wedge^3 H?
          $endgroup$
          – JSE
          2 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          @JSE: I don't think so--that identification relies on Poincare duality. And I think in the un-punctured case, one only gets that after taking Inn-coinvariants to get a class that comes from H^1(Out(F_m), ...)... And the paper is the thing with Wanlin et al from the MRC in Rhode Island, as well as (I hope) multiple sequels I think will come out of it.
          $endgroup$
          – Daniel Litt
          2 hours ago





          $begingroup$
          @JSE: I don't think so--that identification relies on Poincare duality. And I think in the un-punctured case, one only gets that after taking Inn-coinvariants to get a class that comes from H^1(Out(F_m), ...)... And the paper is the thing with Wanlin et al from the MRC in Rhode Island, as well as (I hope) multiple sequels I think will come out of it.
          $endgroup$
          – Daniel Litt
          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%2f338212%2fis-there-a-morita-cocycle-for-the-mapping-class-group-modg-n-when-n-1%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

          Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її