Fake proof of $2p_1=0$

122 Views Asked by At

Let $E$ be any real bundle over $X$. I have somehow produced a 'proof' that $2p_1(E)=0$:

By the splitting principle, we can write $E=E_1 \oplus ... \oplus E_n$ where $E_i$ are real line bundles. Then $p_1(E)=c_2(E \otimes \mathbb{C})=c_2(E_1 \otimes \mathbb{C} \oplus ... \oplus E_n \otimes \mathbb{C})=\sum_{i<j} c_1(E_i \otimes \mathbb{C})c_1(E_j \otimes \mathbb{C})$ by Whitney sum formula. Now it is known that $2c_1(E \otimes \mathbb{C})=0$ for any real bundle $E$ (this is in fact true for $c_i$ for odd $i$), so $2p_1(E)=\sum_{i<j} 2c_1(E_i \otimes \mathbb{C})c_1(E_j \otimes \mathbb{C})=0$.

This is absurd. Assume it were true, if $X$ is a 4-manifold then $H^4(X)$ is torsion free, so that the Pontryagin number $p_1(X)=<p_1(TM),[X]>=0$, but there are of course 4-manifolds with nonzero Pontryagin numbers. So where is the mistake in the above proof? Any help would be appreciated!

1

There are 1 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

The splitting principle is not true for real vector bundles and integral cohomology! That is, if $E$ is a real vector bundle on a space $X$ and $Y$ is the flag bundle over $X$ obtained from $E$, then the map $H^*(X;\mathbb{Z})\to H^*(Y;\mathbb{Z})$ is typically not injective. (It is injective if you use $\mathbb{Z}/2$ coefficients, as in the typical applications to Stiefel-Whitney classes, but not with integer coefficients!)