Representing a Multiple of the Fundamental Class of a Surface











up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1












Let us denote a connected, oriented surface of genus $g$ by $Sigma_g$. It is easy to see that if we have a map of degree $1$ from $Sigma_g$ to $Sigma_h$ then $ggeq h$.
Suppose now that $ggeq 2$ and fix a $kin mathbb{Z}$. Consider the following question: What is the minimal Euler characteristic of a surface $Sigma_h$ such that there exists a map $fcolonSigma_htoSigma_g$ such that $f_*([Sigma_h])=k[Sigma_g]$. My intuition tells me that the minimal Euler characteristic case is represented by a $k$-fold covering i.e. the minimal Euler characteristic should be $k(2-2g)$, but I have a hard time proving this.



Edit: Mikes answer is great, but the both us are interested in a more elementary proof.










share|cite|improve this question

















This question has an open bounty worth +300
reputation from Mike Miller ending in 4 days.


This question has not received enough attention.


This question should have an elementary answer, and I would like to see one.




















    up vote
    8
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    Let us denote a connected, oriented surface of genus $g$ by $Sigma_g$. It is easy to see that if we have a map of degree $1$ from $Sigma_g$ to $Sigma_h$ then $ggeq h$.
    Suppose now that $ggeq 2$ and fix a $kin mathbb{Z}$. Consider the following question: What is the minimal Euler characteristic of a surface $Sigma_h$ such that there exists a map $fcolonSigma_htoSigma_g$ such that $f_*([Sigma_h])=k[Sigma_g]$. My intuition tells me that the minimal Euler characteristic case is represented by a $k$-fold covering i.e. the minimal Euler characteristic should be $k(2-2g)$, but I have a hard time proving this.



    Edit: Mikes answer is great, but the both us are interested in a more elementary proof.










    share|cite|improve this question

















    This question has an open bounty worth +300
    reputation from Mike Miller ending in 4 days.


    This question has not received enough attention.


    This question should have an elementary answer, and I would like to see one.


















      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      Let us denote a connected, oriented surface of genus $g$ by $Sigma_g$. It is easy to see that if we have a map of degree $1$ from $Sigma_g$ to $Sigma_h$ then $ggeq h$.
      Suppose now that $ggeq 2$ and fix a $kin mathbb{Z}$. Consider the following question: What is the minimal Euler characteristic of a surface $Sigma_h$ such that there exists a map $fcolonSigma_htoSigma_g$ such that $f_*([Sigma_h])=k[Sigma_g]$. My intuition tells me that the minimal Euler characteristic case is represented by a $k$-fold covering i.e. the minimal Euler characteristic should be $k(2-2g)$, but I have a hard time proving this.



      Edit: Mikes answer is great, but the both us are interested in a more elementary proof.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Let us denote a connected, oriented surface of genus $g$ by $Sigma_g$. It is easy to see that if we have a map of degree $1$ from $Sigma_g$ to $Sigma_h$ then $ggeq h$.
      Suppose now that $ggeq 2$ and fix a $kin mathbb{Z}$. Consider the following question: What is the minimal Euler characteristic of a surface $Sigma_h$ such that there exists a map $fcolonSigma_htoSigma_g$ such that $f_*([Sigma_h])=k[Sigma_g]$. My intuition tells me that the minimal Euler characteristic case is represented by a $k$-fold covering i.e. the minimal Euler characteristic should be $k(2-2g)$, but I have a hard time proving this.



      Edit: Mikes answer is great, but the both us are interested in a more elementary proof.







      general-topology algebraic-topology differential-topology surfaces geometric-topology






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 24 at 16:27

























      asked Nov 23 at 22:09









      ThorbenK

      943412




      943412






      This question has an open bounty worth +300
      reputation from Mike Miller ending in 4 days.


      This question has not received enough attention.


      This question should have an elementary answer, and I would like to see one.








      This question has an open bounty worth +300
      reputation from Mike Miller ending in 4 days.


      This question has not received enough attention.


      This question should have an elementary answer, and I would like to see one.
























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          5
          down vote













          Yes, the minimal $h$ with a degree-$k$ map $Sigma_h to Sigma_g$ is that with $2 - 2h = k(2 -2g)$; that is, with $h = kg - k +1$.



          Let $M$ and $M'$ be closed surfaces. Given a compact submanifold with boundary a single circle in $M$, collapsing it to a point gives a surface $Q$ and a map $pi: M to Q$ of degree 1. This is called a pinch map. A map which is a covering map away from a finite set is called a branched cover.



          If $f: M to M'$ is a map of nonzero degree, the main result of this article of Edmonds is that there is some pinch map $pi: M to Q$ and some branched cover $beta: Q to M'$ so that $f$ is homotopic to $beta pi$.



          Clearly $pi$ only increases the genus of your domain (effectively, $pi$ collapses a connnected summand). So it suffices to answer your question in the case of branched covers.



          Coming to save the day is the Riemann-Hurwitz theorem, which asserts the following. If $beta: Q to M'$ is a branched cover, the local form in $Q$ of the "bad points" where your map is not a cover is given by the map $z mapsto z^n$ on the disc $D^2$; the map is $n$-to-$1$ at that point. Writing $P$ for a generic "bad point", we write $e_P$ for the corresponding $n$ there. The assumption that $P$ is a bad point means that $e_P > 1$.



          Now the Riemann-Hurwitz theorem gives $$2g(Q) = 2(1-k+g(M')) + sum_P (e_P - 1).$$ Because the final term is non-negative (possibly zero, if $beta$ was an honest cover), we have $$g(Q) geq 1 - k + g(M'),$$ which is precisely the desired inequality for branched covers.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I anticipate there should be a more elementary proof, and hope someone else writes one up. If they do, you should accept their answer.
            – Mike Miller
            Nov 23 at 23:28










          • I was thinking about some "general position" stuff for maps between surfaces as my question is easily answered for branched coverings. This Edmonds article is essentially what I was hoping for. Nevertheless I'm also hoping for a more elementary proof.
            – ThorbenK
            Nov 24 at 9:19












          • @Thorbenk This isn't really elementary but some results on simplicial volume combined with Gauss-Bonnet gives it too. (Also good catch on my wrong answer, for some reason I didn't think it was a problem...). Maybe some of it can be made even simpler in this special case.
            – Paul Plummer
            Nov 29 at 1:33












          • @ThorbenK Also Skora gave a simpler proof of Edmonds result in The degree of a map between surfaces.
            – Paul Plummer
            2 days ago


















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          I wouldn't call this elementary and it does rely on hyperbolic geometry, but I thought it might still be of interest, plus I wanted to learn the proof. The proof is using simplicial volume(Gromov norm). You can read about this in Gromov's original paper Volume and bounded cohomology, or you can look at Thurston's notes on 3-manifolds where he discusses it. In dimension 2 a lot of the discussion can be simplified. I will basically present Gromov's proof in his Volume and bounded cohomology section $0.2$.



          The idea: define a norm on chains which "records" the most efficient representation of the fundamental class(by taking infimum of chains which represent the class). Lets call this value $|| Sigma ||$. We will prove that if you have a degree $k$ map $Sigma to Sigma'$ then $||Sigma|| geq k ||Sigma'||$. For a surface $Sigma_g$, $g geq 2$, we can show that the norm is $2|chi (Sigma_g)|$(basically volume!). This will give the result you want since the above shows $chi(Sigma_h) geq k |chi (Sigma_g)|$. To prove this we will make use of some basic facts of hyperbolic geometry and that surfaces can be given a hyperbolic structure(consider right $4g$-gon in the hyperbolic plane and glue in the standard way). The intuition you should have is that the best way to "represent" the fundamental class is with an ideal triangulation of your surface.



          The norm: A real chain on $Sigma$ is a linear combination $c=sum_i r_i sigma_i$, and you can define a norm $|c|= sum |r_i|$. On homology you can define a pseudo-norm on a class $||[c]||= inf { |c'| mid c' in [c] }$. We define $||Sigma||=|| [Sigma] ||$.(This can be done for any manifold)



          Lemma: $f: Sigma to Sigma'$ is degree $k$ then $||Sigma|| geq k ||Sigma'||$.



          proof: Let $c=sum_i r_i sigma_i$ be a chain and $C$ is a homology class representing $C$. We have $$||f(c)||= ||sum_i r_i f(sigma_i)||leq ||c||,$$ so $||f_*(C)|| leq inf || f(c) ||_{c in C} leq ||C||$(none of this depends on the degree of the map). In the case of fundamental classes we have that $f_*([Sigma])= k[Sigma']$, and applying the above inequality(plus obvious linearity) we get $|k| ||Sigma'|| leq ||Sigma||.$



          The case of surfaces: Now we want to prove that $||Sigma_g|| = 2 |chi(Sigma_g)|$. First put a hyperbolic structure on $Sigma_g$, it doesn't matter which. Note that in hyperbolic geometry geodesic triangle has area less than $pi$ and all ideal geodesic triangles have area exactly $pi$. Also Gauss-Bonnet tells us that such a surface has area $2pi|chi(Sigma_g)|$.



          Given a chain $sum r_isigma_i$ representing the fundamental class. We can lift each $sigma_i: Delta to Sigma_g$ to the hyperbolic plane and straighten the triangle. We can assume that our fundamental class consists of straight simplices, and note the norm of the class can not increase. We have that $$2pi|chi(Sigma_g)|=sum r_i int_{Delta} sigma_i^* dA leq sum |r_i|pi$$ where the last inequality comes from the integral being less than $pi$ since the maximal area of a straight simplex is $pi$.



          Now divide by $pi$ to get $$2|chi(Sigma_g)| leq inf sum |r_i|=||Sigma_g||.$$



          Now we need $|| Sigma_g| leq 2| chi(Sigma_g)|=2|2-2g|$. Consider the standard $4g$-gon/$(2|chi(Sigma_g)|+4)$-gon that describes $Sigma_g$. You can triangulate it with $4g-2$ triangles, and this gives a cycle representing the fundamental class. So $||Sigma_g|| leq 4g-2= 2|chi(Sigma_g)|+2$. Apply $d$-sheeted covers to the construction to get $2d|chi(Sigma_g)|+2$. Using our inequalites and dividing by $d$ we get $$|| Sigma_g || leq 2|chi(Sigma_g)| + 2/d.$$ Take the limit as $d$ goes to infinity to get the result.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I like the simplicial volume approach a lot and it is almost elementary, except for this small hyperbolic geometry argument.
            – ThorbenK
            14 hours ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          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',
          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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3010906%2frepresenting-a-multiple-of-the-fundamental-class-of-a-surface%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








          up vote
          5
          down vote













          Yes, the minimal $h$ with a degree-$k$ map $Sigma_h to Sigma_g$ is that with $2 - 2h = k(2 -2g)$; that is, with $h = kg - k +1$.



          Let $M$ and $M'$ be closed surfaces. Given a compact submanifold with boundary a single circle in $M$, collapsing it to a point gives a surface $Q$ and a map $pi: M to Q$ of degree 1. This is called a pinch map. A map which is a covering map away from a finite set is called a branched cover.



          If $f: M to M'$ is a map of nonzero degree, the main result of this article of Edmonds is that there is some pinch map $pi: M to Q$ and some branched cover $beta: Q to M'$ so that $f$ is homotopic to $beta pi$.



          Clearly $pi$ only increases the genus of your domain (effectively, $pi$ collapses a connnected summand). So it suffices to answer your question in the case of branched covers.



          Coming to save the day is the Riemann-Hurwitz theorem, which asserts the following. If $beta: Q to M'$ is a branched cover, the local form in $Q$ of the "bad points" where your map is not a cover is given by the map $z mapsto z^n$ on the disc $D^2$; the map is $n$-to-$1$ at that point. Writing $P$ for a generic "bad point", we write $e_P$ for the corresponding $n$ there. The assumption that $P$ is a bad point means that $e_P > 1$.



          Now the Riemann-Hurwitz theorem gives $$2g(Q) = 2(1-k+g(M')) + sum_P (e_P - 1).$$ Because the final term is non-negative (possibly zero, if $beta$ was an honest cover), we have $$g(Q) geq 1 - k + g(M'),$$ which is precisely the desired inequality for branched covers.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I anticipate there should be a more elementary proof, and hope someone else writes one up. If they do, you should accept their answer.
            – Mike Miller
            Nov 23 at 23:28










          • I was thinking about some "general position" stuff for maps between surfaces as my question is easily answered for branched coverings. This Edmonds article is essentially what I was hoping for. Nevertheless I'm also hoping for a more elementary proof.
            – ThorbenK
            Nov 24 at 9:19












          • @Thorbenk This isn't really elementary but some results on simplicial volume combined with Gauss-Bonnet gives it too. (Also good catch on my wrong answer, for some reason I didn't think it was a problem...). Maybe some of it can be made even simpler in this special case.
            – Paul Plummer
            Nov 29 at 1:33












          • @ThorbenK Also Skora gave a simpler proof of Edmonds result in The degree of a map between surfaces.
            – Paul Plummer
            2 days ago















          up vote
          5
          down vote













          Yes, the minimal $h$ with a degree-$k$ map $Sigma_h to Sigma_g$ is that with $2 - 2h = k(2 -2g)$; that is, with $h = kg - k +1$.



          Let $M$ and $M'$ be closed surfaces. Given a compact submanifold with boundary a single circle in $M$, collapsing it to a point gives a surface $Q$ and a map $pi: M to Q$ of degree 1. This is called a pinch map. A map which is a covering map away from a finite set is called a branched cover.



          If $f: M to M'$ is a map of nonzero degree, the main result of this article of Edmonds is that there is some pinch map $pi: M to Q$ and some branched cover $beta: Q to M'$ so that $f$ is homotopic to $beta pi$.



          Clearly $pi$ only increases the genus of your domain (effectively, $pi$ collapses a connnected summand). So it suffices to answer your question in the case of branched covers.



          Coming to save the day is the Riemann-Hurwitz theorem, which asserts the following. If $beta: Q to M'$ is a branched cover, the local form in $Q$ of the "bad points" where your map is not a cover is given by the map $z mapsto z^n$ on the disc $D^2$; the map is $n$-to-$1$ at that point. Writing $P$ for a generic "bad point", we write $e_P$ for the corresponding $n$ there. The assumption that $P$ is a bad point means that $e_P > 1$.



          Now the Riemann-Hurwitz theorem gives $$2g(Q) = 2(1-k+g(M')) + sum_P (e_P - 1).$$ Because the final term is non-negative (possibly zero, if $beta$ was an honest cover), we have $$g(Q) geq 1 - k + g(M'),$$ which is precisely the desired inequality for branched covers.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I anticipate there should be a more elementary proof, and hope someone else writes one up. If they do, you should accept their answer.
            – Mike Miller
            Nov 23 at 23:28










          • I was thinking about some "general position" stuff for maps between surfaces as my question is easily answered for branched coverings. This Edmonds article is essentially what I was hoping for. Nevertheless I'm also hoping for a more elementary proof.
            – ThorbenK
            Nov 24 at 9:19












          • @Thorbenk This isn't really elementary but some results on simplicial volume combined with Gauss-Bonnet gives it too. (Also good catch on my wrong answer, for some reason I didn't think it was a problem...). Maybe some of it can be made even simpler in this special case.
            – Paul Plummer
            Nov 29 at 1:33












          • @ThorbenK Also Skora gave a simpler proof of Edmonds result in The degree of a map between surfaces.
            – Paul Plummer
            2 days ago













          up vote
          5
          down vote










          up vote
          5
          down vote









          Yes, the minimal $h$ with a degree-$k$ map $Sigma_h to Sigma_g$ is that with $2 - 2h = k(2 -2g)$; that is, with $h = kg - k +1$.



          Let $M$ and $M'$ be closed surfaces. Given a compact submanifold with boundary a single circle in $M$, collapsing it to a point gives a surface $Q$ and a map $pi: M to Q$ of degree 1. This is called a pinch map. A map which is a covering map away from a finite set is called a branched cover.



          If $f: M to M'$ is a map of nonzero degree, the main result of this article of Edmonds is that there is some pinch map $pi: M to Q$ and some branched cover $beta: Q to M'$ so that $f$ is homotopic to $beta pi$.



          Clearly $pi$ only increases the genus of your domain (effectively, $pi$ collapses a connnected summand). So it suffices to answer your question in the case of branched covers.



          Coming to save the day is the Riemann-Hurwitz theorem, which asserts the following. If $beta: Q to M'$ is a branched cover, the local form in $Q$ of the "bad points" where your map is not a cover is given by the map $z mapsto z^n$ on the disc $D^2$; the map is $n$-to-$1$ at that point. Writing $P$ for a generic "bad point", we write $e_P$ for the corresponding $n$ there. The assumption that $P$ is a bad point means that $e_P > 1$.



          Now the Riemann-Hurwitz theorem gives $$2g(Q) = 2(1-k+g(M')) + sum_P (e_P - 1).$$ Because the final term is non-negative (possibly zero, if $beta$ was an honest cover), we have $$g(Q) geq 1 - k + g(M'),$$ which is precisely the desired inequality for branched covers.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Yes, the minimal $h$ with a degree-$k$ map $Sigma_h to Sigma_g$ is that with $2 - 2h = k(2 -2g)$; that is, with $h = kg - k +1$.



          Let $M$ and $M'$ be closed surfaces. Given a compact submanifold with boundary a single circle in $M$, collapsing it to a point gives a surface $Q$ and a map $pi: M to Q$ of degree 1. This is called a pinch map. A map which is a covering map away from a finite set is called a branched cover.



          If $f: M to M'$ is a map of nonzero degree, the main result of this article of Edmonds is that there is some pinch map $pi: M to Q$ and some branched cover $beta: Q to M'$ so that $f$ is homotopic to $beta pi$.



          Clearly $pi$ only increases the genus of your domain (effectively, $pi$ collapses a connnected summand). So it suffices to answer your question in the case of branched covers.



          Coming to save the day is the Riemann-Hurwitz theorem, which asserts the following. If $beta: Q to M'$ is a branched cover, the local form in $Q$ of the "bad points" where your map is not a cover is given by the map $z mapsto z^n$ on the disc $D^2$; the map is $n$-to-$1$ at that point. Writing $P$ for a generic "bad point", we write $e_P$ for the corresponding $n$ there. The assumption that $P$ is a bad point means that $e_P > 1$.



          Now the Riemann-Hurwitz theorem gives $$2g(Q) = 2(1-k+g(M')) + sum_P (e_P - 1).$$ Because the final term is non-negative (possibly zero, if $beta$ was an honest cover), we have $$g(Q) geq 1 - k + g(M'),$$ which is precisely the desired inequality for branched covers.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 23 at 23:28









          Mike Miller

          35.1k467132




          35.1k467132












          • I anticipate there should be a more elementary proof, and hope someone else writes one up. If they do, you should accept their answer.
            – Mike Miller
            Nov 23 at 23:28










          • I was thinking about some "general position" stuff for maps between surfaces as my question is easily answered for branched coverings. This Edmonds article is essentially what I was hoping for. Nevertheless I'm also hoping for a more elementary proof.
            – ThorbenK
            Nov 24 at 9:19












          • @Thorbenk This isn't really elementary but some results on simplicial volume combined with Gauss-Bonnet gives it too. (Also good catch on my wrong answer, for some reason I didn't think it was a problem...). Maybe some of it can be made even simpler in this special case.
            – Paul Plummer
            Nov 29 at 1:33












          • @ThorbenK Also Skora gave a simpler proof of Edmonds result in The degree of a map between surfaces.
            – Paul Plummer
            2 days ago


















          • I anticipate there should be a more elementary proof, and hope someone else writes one up. If they do, you should accept their answer.
            – Mike Miller
            Nov 23 at 23:28










          • I was thinking about some "general position" stuff for maps between surfaces as my question is easily answered for branched coverings. This Edmonds article is essentially what I was hoping for. Nevertheless I'm also hoping for a more elementary proof.
            – ThorbenK
            Nov 24 at 9:19












          • @Thorbenk This isn't really elementary but some results on simplicial volume combined with Gauss-Bonnet gives it too. (Also good catch on my wrong answer, for some reason I didn't think it was a problem...). Maybe some of it can be made even simpler in this special case.
            – Paul Plummer
            Nov 29 at 1:33












          • @ThorbenK Also Skora gave a simpler proof of Edmonds result in The degree of a map between surfaces.
            – Paul Plummer
            2 days ago
















          I anticipate there should be a more elementary proof, and hope someone else writes one up. If they do, you should accept their answer.
          – Mike Miller
          Nov 23 at 23:28




          I anticipate there should be a more elementary proof, and hope someone else writes one up. If they do, you should accept their answer.
          – Mike Miller
          Nov 23 at 23:28












          I was thinking about some "general position" stuff for maps between surfaces as my question is easily answered for branched coverings. This Edmonds article is essentially what I was hoping for. Nevertheless I'm also hoping for a more elementary proof.
          – ThorbenK
          Nov 24 at 9:19






          I was thinking about some "general position" stuff for maps between surfaces as my question is easily answered for branched coverings. This Edmonds article is essentially what I was hoping for. Nevertheless I'm also hoping for a more elementary proof.
          – ThorbenK
          Nov 24 at 9:19














          @Thorbenk This isn't really elementary but some results on simplicial volume combined with Gauss-Bonnet gives it too. (Also good catch on my wrong answer, for some reason I didn't think it was a problem...). Maybe some of it can be made even simpler in this special case.
          – Paul Plummer
          Nov 29 at 1:33






          @Thorbenk This isn't really elementary but some results on simplicial volume combined with Gauss-Bonnet gives it too. (Also good catch on my wrong answer, for some reason I didn't think it was a problem...). Maybe some of it can be made even simpler in this special case.
          – Paul Plummer
          Nov 29 at 1:33














          @ThorbenK Also Skora gave a simpler proof of Edmonds result in The degree of a map between surfaces.
          – Paul Plummer
          2 days ago




          @ThorbenK Also Skora gave a simpler proof of Edmonds result in The degree of a map between surfaces.
          – Paul Plummer
          2 days ago










          up vote
          3
          down vote













          I wouldn't call this elementary and it does rely on hyperbolic geometry, but I thought it might still be of interest, plus I wanted to learn the proof. The proof is using simplicial volume(Gromov norm). You can read about this in Gromov's original paper Volume and bounded cohomology, or you can look at Thurston's notes on 3-manifolds where he discusses it. In dimension 2 a lot of the discussion can be simplified. I will basically present Gromov's proof in his Volume and bounded cohomology section $0.2$.



          The idea: define a norm on chains which "records" the most efficient representation of the fundamental class(by taking infimum of chains which represent the class). Lets call this value $|| Sigma ||$. We will prove that if you have a degree $k$ map $Sigma to Sigma'$ then $||Sigma|| geq k ||Sigma'||$. For a surface $Sigma_g$, $g geq 2$, we can show that the norm is $2|chi (Sigma_g)|$(basically volume!). This will give the result you want since the above shows $chi(Sigma_h) geq k |chi (Sigma_g)|$. To prove this we will make use of some basic facts of hyperbolic geometry and that surfaces can be given a hyperbolic structure(consider right $4g$-gon in the hyperbolic plane and glue in the standard way). The intuition you should have is that the best way to "represent" the fundamental class is with an ideal triangulation of your surface.



          The norm: A real chain on $Sigma$ is a linear combination $c=sum_i r_i sigma_i$, and you can define a norm $|c|= sum |r_i|$. On homology you can define a pseudo-norm on a class $||[c]||= inf { |c'| mid c' in [c] }$. We define $||Sigma||=|| [Sigma] ||$.(This can be done for any manifold)



          Lemma: $f: Sigma to Sigma'$ is degree $k$ then $||Sigma|| geq k ||Sigma'||$.



          proof: Let $c=sum_i r_i sigma_i$ be a chain and $C$ is a homology class representing $C$. We have $$||f(c)||= ||sum_i r_i f(sigma_i)||leq ||c||,$$ so $||f_*(C)|| leq inf || f(c) ||_{c in C} leq ||C||$(none of this depends on the degree of the map). In the case of fundamental classes we have that $f_*([Sigma])= k[Sigma']$, and applying the above inequality(plus obvious linearity) we get $|k| ||Sigma'|| leq ||Sigma||.$



          The case of surfaces: Now we want to prove that $||Sigma_g|| = 2 |chi(Sigma_g)|$. First put a hyperbolic structure on $Sigma_g$, it doesn't matter which. Note that in hyperbolic geometry geodesic triangle has area less than $pi$ and all ideal geodesic triangles have area exactly $pi$. Also Gauss-Bonnet tells us that such a surface has area $2pi|chi(Sigma_g)|$.



          Given a chain $sum r_isigma_i$ representing the fundamental class. We can lift each $sigma_i: Delta to Sigma_g$ to the hyperbolic plane and straighten the triangle. We can assume that our fundamental class consists of straight simplices, and note the norm of the class can not increase. We have that $$2pi|chi(Sigma_g)|=sum r_i int_{Delta} sigma_i^* dA leq sum |r_i|pi$$ where the last inequality comes from the integral being less than $pi$ since the maximal area of a straight simplex is $pi$.



          Now divide by $pi$ to get $$2|chi(Sigma_g)| leq inf sum |r_i|=||Sigma_g||.$$



          Now we need $|| Sigma_g| leq 2| chi(Sigma_g)|=2|2-2g|$. Consider the standard $4g$-gon/$(2|chi(Sigma_g)|+4)$-gon that describes $Sigma_g$. You can triangulate it with $4g-2$ triangles, and this gives a cycle representing the fundamental class. So $||Sigma_g|| leq 4g-2= 2|chi(Sigma_g)|+2$. Apply $d$-sheeted covers to the construction to get $2d|chi(Sigma_g)|+2$. Using our inequalites and dividing by $d$ we get $$|| Sigma_g || leq 2|chi(Sigma_g)| + 2/d.$$ Take the limit as $d$ goes to infinity to get the result.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I like the simplicial volume approach a lot and it is almost elementary, except for this small hyperbolic geometry argument.
            – ThorbenK
            14 hours ago















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          I wouldn't call this elementary and it does rely on hyperbolic geometry, but I thought it might still be of interest, plus I wanted to learn the proof. The proof is using simplicial volume(Gromov norm). You can read about this in Gromov's original paper Volume and bounded cohomology, or you can look at Thurston's notes on 3-manifolds where he discusses it. In dimension 2 a lot of the discussion can be simplified. I will basically present Gromov's proof in his Volume and bounded cohomology section $0.2$.



          The idea: define a norm on chains which "records" the most efficient representation of the fundamental class(by taking infimum of chains which represent the class). Lets call this value $|| Sigma ||$. We will prove that if you have a degree $k$ map $Sigma to Sigma'$ then $||Sigma|| geq k ||Sigma'||$. For a surface $Sigma_g$, $g geq 2$, we can show that the norm is $2|chi (Sigma_g)|$(basically volume!). This will give the result you want since the above shows $chi(Sigma_h) geq k |chi (Sigma_g)|$. To prove this we will make use of some basic facts of hyperbolic geometry and that surfaces can be given a hyperbolic structure(consider right $4g$-gon in the hyperbolic plane and glue in the standard way). The intuition you should have is that the best way to "represent" the fundamental class is with an ideal triangulation of your surface.



          The norm: A real chain on $Sigma$ is a linear combination $c=sum_i r_i sigma_i$, and you can define a norm $|c|= sum |r_i|$. On homology you can define a pseudo-norm on a class $||[c]||= inf { |c'| mid c' in [c] }$. We define $||Sigma||=|| [Sigma] ||$.(This can be done for any manifold)



          Lemma: $f: Sigma to Sigma'$ is degree $k$ then $||Sigma|| geq k ||Sigma'||$.



          proof: Let $c=sum_i r_i sigma_i$ be a chain and $C$ is a homology class representing $C$. We have $$||f(c)||= ||sum_i r_i f(sigma_i)||leq ||c||,$$ so $||f_*(C)|| leq inf || f(c) ||_{c in C} leq ||C||$(none of this depends on the degree of the map). In the case of fundamental classes we have that $f_*([Sigma])= k[Sigma']$, and applying the above inequality(plus obvious linearity) we get $|k| ||Sigma'|| leq ||Sigma||.$



          The case of surfaces: Now we want to prove that $||Sigma_g|| = 2 |chi(Sigma_g)|$. First put a hyperbolic structure on $Sigma_g$, it doesn't matter which. Note that in hyperbolic geometry geodesic triangle has area less than $pi$ and all ideal geodesic triangles have area exactly $pi$. Also Gauss-Bonnet tells us that such a surface has area $2pi|chi(Sigma_g)|$.



          Given a chain $sum r_isigma_i$ representing the fundamental class. We can lift each $sigma_i: Delta to Sigma_g$ to the hyperbolic plane and straighten the triangle. We can assume that our fundamental class consists of straight simplices, and note the norm of the class can not increase. We have that $$2pi|chi(Sigma_g)|=sum r_i int_{Delta} sigma_i^* dA leq sum |r_i|pi$$ where the last inequality comes from the integral being less than $pi$ since the maximal area of a straight simplex is $pi$.



          Now divide by $pi$ to get $$2|chi(Sigma_g)| leq inf sum |r_i|=||Sigma_g||.$$



          Now we need $|| Sigma_g| leq 2| chi(Sigma_g)|=2|2-2g|$. Consider the standard $4g$-gon/$(2|chi(Sigma_g)|+4)$-gon that describes $Sigma_g$. You can triangulate it with $4g-2$ triangles, and this gives a cycle representing the fundamental class. So $||Sigma_g|| leq 4g-2= 2|chi(Sigma_g)|+2$. Apply $d$-sheeted covers to the construction to get $2d|chi(Sigma_g)|+2$. Using our inequalites and dividing by $d$ we get $$|| Sigma_g || leq 2|chi(Sigma_g)| + 2/d.$$ Take the limit as $d$ goes to infinity to get the result.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I like the simplicial volume approach a lot and it is almost elementary, except for this small hyperbolic geometry argument.
            – ThorbenK
            14 hours ago













          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          I wouldn't call this elementary and it does rely on hyperbolic geometry, but I thought it might still be of interest, plus I wanted to learn the proof. The proof is using simplicial volume(Gromov norm). You can read about this in Gromov's original paper Volume and bounded cohomology, or you can look at Thurston's notes on 3-manifolds where he discusses it. In dimension 2 a lot of the discussion can be simplified. I will basically present Gromov's proof in his Volume and bounded cohomology section $0.2$.



          The idea: define a norm on chains which "records" the most efficient representation of the fundamental class(by taking infimum of chains which represent the class). Lets call this value $|| Sigma ||$. We will prove that if you have a degree $k$ map $Sigma to Sigma'$ then $||Sigma|| geq k ||Sigma'||$. For a surface $Sigma_g$, $g geq 2$, we can show that the norm is $2|chi (Sigma_g)|$(basically volume!). This will give the result you want since the above shows $chi(Sigma_h) geq k |chi (Sigma_g)|$. To prove this we will make use of some basic facts of hyperbolic geometry and that surfaces can be given a hyperbolic structure(consider right $4g$-gon in the hyperbolic plane and glue in the standard way). The intuition you should have is that the best way to "represent" the fundamental class is with an ideal triangulation of your surface.



          The norm: A real chain on $Sigma$ is a linear combination $c=sum_i r_i sigma_i$, and you can define a norm $|c|= sum |r_i|$. On homology you can define a pseudo-norm on a class $||[c]||= inf { |c'| mid c' in [c] }$. We define $||Sigma||=|| [Sigma] ||$.(This can be done for any manifold)



          Lemma: $f: Sigma to Sigma'$ is degree $k$ then $||Sigma|| geq k ||Sigma'||$.



          proof: Let $c=sum_i r_i sigma_i$ be a chain and $C$ is a homology class representing $C$. We have $$||f(c)||= ||sum_i r_i f(sigma_i)||leq ||c||,$$ so $||f_*(C)|| leq inf || f(c) ||_{c in C} leq ||C||$(none of this depends on the degree of the map). In the case of fundamental classes we have that $f_*([Sigma])= k[Sigma']$, and applying the above inequality(plus obvious linearity) we get $|k| ||Sigma'|| leq ||Sigma||.$



          The case of surfaces: Now we want to prove that $||Sigma_g|| = 2 |chi(Sigma_g)|$. First put a hyperbolic structure on $Sigma_g$, it doesn't matter which. Note that in hyperbolic geometry geodesic triangle has area less than $pi$ and all ideal geodesic triangles have area exactly $pi$. Also Gauss-Bonnet tells us that such a surface has area $2pi|chi(Sigma_g)|$.



          Given a chain $sum r_isigma_i$ representing the fundamental class. We can lift each $sigma_i: Delta to Sigma_g$ to the hyperbolic plane and straighten the triangle. We can assume that our fundamental class consists of straight simplices, and note the norm of the class can not increase. We have that $$2pi|chi(Sigma_g)|=sum r_i int_{Delta} sigma_i^* dA leq sum |r_i|pi$$ where the last inequality comes from the integral being less than $pi$ since the maximal area of a straight simplex is $pi$.



          Now divide by $pi$ to get $$2|chi(Sigma_g)| leq inf sum |r_i|=||Sigma_g||.$$



          Now we need $|| Sigma_g| leq 2| chi(Sigma_g)|=2|2-2g|$. Consider the standard $4g$-gon/$(2|chi(Sigma_g)|+4)$-gon that describes $Sigma_g$. You can triangulate it with $4g-2$ triangles, and this gives a cycle representing the fundamental class. So $||Sigma_g|| leq 4g-2= 2|chi(Sigma_g)|+2$. Apply $d$-sheeted covers to the construction to get $2d|chi(Sigma_g)|+2$. Using our inequalites and dividing by $d$ we get $$|| Sigma_g || leq 2|chi(Sigma_g)| + 2/d.$$ Take the limit as $d$ goes to infinity to get the result.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          I wouldn't call this elementary and it does rely on hyperbolic geometry, but I thought it might still be of interest, plus I wanted to learn the proof. The proof is using simplicial volume(Gromov norm). You can read about this in Gromov's original paper Volume and bounded cohomology, or you can look at Thurston's notes on 3-manifolds where he discusses it. In dimension 2 a lot of the discussion can be simplified. I will basically present Gromov's proof in his Volume and bounded cohomology section $0.2$.



          The idea: define a norm on chains which "records" the most efficient representation of the fundamental class(by taking infimum of chains which represent the class). Lets call this value $|| Sigma ||$. We will prove that if you have a degree $k$ map $Sigma to Sigma'$ then $||Sigma|| geq k ||Sigma'||$. For a surface $Sigma_g$, $g geq 2$, we can show that the norm is $2|chi (Sigma_g)|$(basically volume!). This will give the result you want since the above shows $chi(Sigma_h) geq k |chi (Sigma_g)|$. To prove this we will make use of some basic facts of hyperbolic geometry and that surfaces can be given a hyperbolic structure(consider right $4g$-gon in the hyperbolic plane and glue in the standard way). The intuition you should have is that the best way to "represent" the fundamental class is with an ideal triangulation of your surface.



          The norm: A real chain on $Sigma$ is a linear combination $c=sum_i r_i sigma_i$, and you can define a norm $|c|= sum |r_i|$. On homology you can define a pseudo-norm on a class $||[c]||= inf { |c'| mid c' in [c] }$. We define $||Sigma||=|| [Sigma] ||$.(This can be done for any manifold)



          Lemma: $f: Sigma to Sigma'$ is degree $k$ then $||Sigma|| geq k ||Sigma'||$.



          proof: Let $c=sum_i r_i sigma_i$ be a chain and $C$ is a homology class representing $C$. We have $$||f(c)||= ||sum_i r_i f(sigma_i)||leq ||c||,$$ so $||f_*(C)|| leq inf || f(c) ||_{c in C} leq ||C||$(none of this depends on the degree of the map). In the case of fundamental classes we have that $f_*([Sigma])= k[Sigma']$, and applying the above inequality(plus obvious linearity) we get $|k| ||Sigma'|| leq ||Sigma||.$



          The case of surfaces: Now we want to prove that $||Sigma_g|| = 2 |chi(Sigma_g)|$. First put a hyperbolic structure on $Sigma_g$, it doesn't matter which. Note that in hyperbolic geometry geodesic triangle has area less than $pi$ and all ideal geodesic triangles have area exactly $pi$. Also Gauss-Bonnet tells us that such a surface has area $2pi|chi(Sigma_g)|$.



          Given a chain $sum r_isigma_i$ representing the fundamental class. We can lift each $sigma_i: Delta to Sigma_g$ to the hyperbolic plane and straighten the triangle. We can assume that our fundamental class consists of straight simplices, and note the norm of the class can not increase. We have that $$2pi|chi(Sigma_g)|=sum r_i int_{Delta} sigma_i^* dA leq sum |r_i|pi$$ where the last inequality comes from the integral being less than $pi$ since the maximal area of a straight simplex is $pi$.



          Now divide by $pi$ to get $$2|chi(Sigma_g)| leq inf sum |r_i|=||Sigma_g||.$$



          Now we need $|| Sigma_g| leq 2| chi(Sigma_g)|=2|2-2g|$. Consider the standard $4g$-gon/$(2|chi(Sigma_g)|+4)$-gon that describes $Sigma_g$. You can triangulate it with $4g-2$ triangles, and this gives a cycle representing the fundamental class. So $||Sigma_g|| leq 4g-2= 2|chi(Sigma_g)|+2$. Apply $d$-sheeted covers to the construction to get $2d|chi(Sigma_g)|+2$. Using our inequalites and dividing by $d$ we get $$|| Sigma_g || leq 2|chi(Sigma_g)| + 2/d.$$ Take the limit as $d$ goes to infinity to get the result.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 2 days ago

























          answered 2 days ago









          Paul Plummer

          4,85021950




          4,85021950












          • I like the simplicial volume approach a lot and it is almost elementary, except for this small hyperbolic geometry argument.
            – ThorbenK
            14 hours ago


















          • I like the simplicial volume approach a lot and it is almost elementary, except for this small hyperbolic geometry argument.
            – ThorbenK
            14 hours ago
















          I like the simplicial volume approach a lot and it is almost elementary, except for this small hyperbolic geometry argument.
          – ThorbenK
          14 hours ago




          I like the simplicial volume approach a lot and it is almost elementary, except for this small hyperbolic geometry argument.
          – ThorbenK
          14 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • 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.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • 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.


          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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3010906%2frepresenting-a-multiple-of-the-fundamental-class-of-a-surface%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

          Berounka

          Sphinx de Gizeh

          Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...