Neeman, "Topology of Quotient Varieties"

Annals of Mathematics
The Topology of Quotient Varieties

Author(s): Amnon Neeman
Source: Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 122, No. 2 (Sep., 1985), pp. 419-459
Published by: Annals of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1971309
Accessed: 13-09-2015 19:49 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annals of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of Mathematics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.135.100.106 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:49:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122 (1985), 419-459

AnnalsofMathematics,
The topologyof quotientvarieties

By AMNON
NEEMAN
0. Introduction
to Part 1
Suppose X is a schemeacted on by a reductivealgebraicgroup G, and
suppose a space X/G exists,togetherwithan affinemorphismg: X -4 X/G,
suchthatoverthem r is givenby the
and X/G can be coveredby open affines
map Spec A -4 Spec AG. Then we call X/G thequotientof X by G. All known
quotientsare of this type. What we tryto do here is investigatethe relation
betweenthe ordinary,
complextopologyof X and thatof X/G.
The key resultsof Part 1 of the paper are thatthereexistsa closed subset
C C Spec A such that
(a) The compositemap C -4 Spec A -4 Spec AG is properand surjective.
that
retraction
retractofSpec A, witha deformation
(b) C is a deformation
commutes with g: Spec A
-4
Spec AG.
(a) maybe foundin Corollary1.4 and (b) is Theorem2.1. The restofPart1

of the paper containsvariousapplicationsof theseresults.A curiousapplication
of (a) is thatit can be used to provethatthe topologyof X/G is the quotient
topologyit inheritsfromX; for the Zariskitopologythis is well-known(see
Mumford[6]). But as faras I knowthe resultis new forthecomplextopologyof
X/G. A proofmaybe foundin Corollary1.6 and Remark1.7.
The rest of Part 1 is a studyof some vanishingtheoremson the high
cohomologyof X/G, a studythatheavilyrelieson Theorem2.1. In Section4, I
prove some vanishingtheorems,and in Section5, I apply the theoremsto an
example.
Now let us say somethingabout Section 3. When I wrotethe paper it
was a largelyconjecturalsection,but now I knowthatbothConjecture3.1 and
Conjecture3.5 are true.Conjecture3.5 is a special case of an inequalitydue to
Lojasiewicz, and Conjecture3.1 can be proved fromLojasiewicz's inequality
using estimatessimilarto those in Section3. I chose not to rewritethe text,
because at presentI do notfeelI could givean adequate accountofthe proofof
Conjecture3.1. AlthoughLojasiewicz'sinequalityis enough,a stronger
inequality
should be true; roughlyspeaking,I conjecturethat the correctvalue for E in
420
AMNON NEEMAN
Conjecture3.5 is 1/2 (see remark3.7). For thisreasonI feelthe appendixis still

important;it containsevidenceformynew conjectures.If I rewroteSection3 to
incorporatemy new conjectures,
the new sectionwouldbe too long,and largely
unconnectedwith the rest of the paper. As it stands,Section 3 tells how to
improveTheorem2.1, and the discussionat the end of Section5 showshow to
to get bettervanishingtheoremsforthe cohomologyof
use this improvement
X/G. Anychangesmade now could onlydetractfromthepresentation;
in a later
paper I hope to be able to explainConjecture3.1 better.
Part2 ofthepaperis largelyunrelatedto Part1; thereasontheyare lumped
togetheris thattheyshouldbe quite closelyrelatedonce the problemis better
to Part 2 and to the sequel
understood.I referthe readerto the introduction
wherethereis an explanationof whatI thinkthe relationshouldbe.
Part 2 concernsitselfwiththe studyof the Chernand PontrJagin
classesof
bundleson the quotient.A techniqueis developedto studytheseclasses.Then I
apply thistechniqueto an example,and show thatit yieldspartialresultsfora
certainconjecturedue to Ramanan.
Finally,I would like to thankMumfordforvaluable discussions.When I
initiallystudiedthe flowof Sections2 and 3, I did so by directestimates.It was
Mumfordwho suggestedthatI tryto exhibitthevectorfieldY as the gradientof
some function.
I also want to thank J. Moore for helpfulconversationsregardingthe
looking
topologicalSection7. Again,I initiallystudiedtheproblemtoo narrowly,
onlyat Lie groups.MooresuggestedthatI trya moregeneralapproach.
1. The setsC(a)
on a finite
Let G be a connectedreductivegroupactingholomorphically
dimensionalcomplexvectorspace V. Then G acts in a naturalfashionon C[V *],
on V. It is a standardfactthatthe
the symmetric
algebraofpolynomialfunctions
G-invariantpolynomialsin C[V *] forma finitely
generatedC-algebra,and that
and identifies
the map 7T: V= Spec C[V *]
Spec(C[V *]C) is surjective,
points
of V ifand onlyiftheclosuresoftheirG-orbitsintersect(see Mumford[6]). It is
also well known that the Zariskitopologyof Spec(C[V *]C) is the quotient
topologyinheritedfromV. What we want to do here is studythe ordinary,
complex topologyof the quotient.In this section,we constructforeveryreal
numbera ? 0 a subset C(a) C V such thatthe compositemap C(a) - V ->
Spec(C[V *]C) is proper(withrespectto the ordinarytopology)and surjective.
Let K be a maximalcompactsubgroupof
We startwithsomepreliminaries.
G, and let (, ) be an innerproducton V leftinvariantby K. Let A and 5 be
the real Lie algebrasof K and G respectively.5 has a naturalstructureof a
421
TOPOLOGY OF QUOTIENT VARIETIES
complexvectorspace. Let X1,..., Xn be a set of rightinvariantvectorfields

spanning A, and put Yj = iXi E 0. All these vector fields naturally induce
vectorfieldson V, and by abuse of notationwe will call thoseXi and Y1too. If

to linear
we identifyV withitsown tangentspace,thesevectorfieldscorrespond
of V. We call thesealso Xi and Yi. So, dependingon thecontext,
endomorphisms
Y,
denoterightinvariantvectorfieldson G. vectorfieldson V, or
and
could
Xi
of V. The factthatK respectstheinnerproducttranslates
linearendomorphisms
so thatthe Y1'sare hermitian.
to say thatthe Xi's are skew-hermitian,
Let f: V -4 R be definedby f(v) = (v, v). Let g: V -4 R be givenby
g = Z n=l(Yif)2. The set on which g vanishesis preciselythe criticalpointsof
the functionf withrespectto the actionof G. It is a theoremof Kempfand
Ness (see [4]) thatin any G-equivalenceclass ofpointsof V thereis exactlyone
orbit of K on which g vanishes. In particular, the map g - '(0) -* V
and has compactfibers.
Spec(C[V *]C) is surjective,
The map g: V -4 Spec(C[V *]C) is almostneverproper;the key resultof
thissectionis thatifwe throwin the map g we get a propermap. Precisely,we
have:
THEOREM
1.1. The map

(g, g): V----Spec(C[V *1G) x R
is proper(in theordinarytopology).
Proof Let P1,.... Pr be invarianthomogeneouspolynomialsin C[V*]
to provethat,forsome
whichgenerateC[V *]C as a C-algebra.It clearlysuffices
choice of positive integersa, a2, ..ar+1
(?T, g)
95V l
V--:Spec(C[V*IG)
XR
Cr X
is proper,where
(n(X), 5y)
(,P1(X)
So we may choose a,, ....,ar+?
a,
p2(X)
a2
p a,+(X)
I)
so that the map ?o(g, g): V
Cr x R is
homogeneous.By thiswe meanthatthereis an integerb suchthatmultiplication

by Xbon the firstr factorsof Cr x R and
by X in V will inducemultiplication
by IXb on thelast.
multiplication
it is now enoughto showthattheinverseimageofsome
Fromhomogeneity,
ball in Cr X R is compact.
Firstwe considerthe nullcone N of V (i.e., the set of vectorsv E V such
that 0 E Gv). This is preciselyg - 1(g(0)); so it is closed in V. Considerthe
of N withtheunitsphereS of V. On N n S. g does notvanish,by
intersection
422
AMNON NEEMAN
Kempf-Ness[4]. So g(N n S) is compactand does not contain0 E R. It follows

thatthereexistsa positiverealnumbera suchthatg- [0,a] n N does not meet
S. Now g- [0,a] n S is compactand does not meet N. So its imageby
g9'[0,a]
n S -V
projection
U xR -
.c
is compact, and does not contain 0 E Cr. It followsthat there is a positive

number/3such thatthe image does not meetthe closed ball in Cr of radius/3.
Put y = min(a, /); thenit is easy to showthatthe inverseimage of the ball of
radiusy in Cr x R by themap T o (, g) does notmeet S C V. Now homogeneityassuresus thatit mustbe entirelyinside S, and so it is bounded.It is clearly
closed as qpo(s, g) is continuous;henceit is compact.
QED
but firsta definition:
We now derivesome easy corollaries,
Definition1.2. For any non-negativereal number a, we write C(a)=
g'[O,
a].
Remark 1.3. We observedearlierthatthe theoremof Kempf-Nesstellsus

that C(O) " V -4 Spec(C[V*]G) is surjective.So the same is true for any
non-negativea.
COROLLARY
1.4. For any a 2 0, the map C(a) - V-4 Spec(C[V*]G) is
proper.
Proof:The diagram
C(a) r
Spec(C[V*]G) X [0,a]
j&OT,g)
Spec(C[V*]G) X R
is a pullback diagram;so it followsfromthis and Theorem 1.1 that C(a)

Spec(C[V *]G) X [0,a] is proper.But clearly
Spec(C[V*I G) X [O,a]
-4
Spec(C[V*I G)
is proper;hence the corollaryis proved.

COROLLARY 1.5. Given any affinevarietySpec A of finitetypeover C on
which a reductivegroupG acts, thereare sets CA(a) C Spec A such that the
compositeCA(a) - Spec A -* Spec AG is properand surjective.
Proof We may always embed Spec A equivariantlyas a Zariski closed

subsetof a vectorspace V on whichG acts. Put CA(a) = C(a) n Spec A.
423
COROLLARY 1.6. Let Spec A be of finitetypeover C and G a reductive

groupactingon Spec A. Then Spec AG has thequotienttopologyinducedby the
map 'r: Spec A
-4
Spec AC.
Proof Consider the composite CA(a)
Spec A
-4
Spec AG. It is a proper
map of locallycompactspaces, and hence is closed. It is surjective;so it is an

identificationmap. Hence so is aT.
Remark 1.7. The same extendsto quotientsof arbitraryvarieties.The

question is local, so that we may cover by invariantopen affinesand apply
Corollary1.6.
2. The deformation
retraction:
Part 1
We startwith the following,very generalsetting.Let P: R' -4 R be a
homogeneouspolynomial,and suppose P ? 0 on all of R'. Let f: R' -4 R be
v where 11 11 is the usual,Euclidean norm.We observe:
definedby f(v) = 11V2,
(grad(P))f
(grad(P),
grad(f))
= (grad(f ))P
and (grad(f))P is the derivativeof P in the radialdirection.As P is homogeneous, (grad(f))P ? 0, withequalityif and onlyif P = 0. So we immediately
have
grad(P) = 0
(1)
(the implication
minimized).
(2)
P= 0
is the above; to get

(grad(P))f
<=
observe that P = 0 =* P is
0.
Locally,the vectorfieldgrad(P) can be integrated

to givea flow.In thenegative
direction,f decreases.That flowtakesthe compactball f < r to itself,and it
followsthatthe grad(P) flowcan be continuedto - ox. Since the onlycritical
pointsare where P vanishes,the flowcan be used to constructa deformation
retractionR -n P'-[0, a], for any a > 0.
Now let us specializeto thecase whereV, G, K and the Y 's, 1 < i < n are
as in Section 1. Put g = Z(Yif)2 as above. We studythe grad(g) flow.It can be
used to define a deformationretractionV -4 g1 [0, a] = C(a). The key fact we
need is thatgrad(g) is a vectorfieldpointingin the directionof the orbits.
In the computations
thatfollow,Yj will alternatein meaning.Occasionally
will
be a vectorfield,and occasionallyit willbe a linearmap Yj: V -4 V. To
Yj
distinguishits two possibleroles,when it occurs as a vectorfieldI will write
bracketsaround its argument;when it is a linear operator,therewill be no
424
AMNON NEEMAN
brackets.Thus Y v is the linearoperatorYj actingon v. Yj(Kv, v)) is the vector

fieldYj actingon thefunctionv -- (v, v).
Now
YVfP) = YP(Kv,v))
=
Yiv, v) + (v, Yiv)
= 2KYiv,v) as Yj is hermitian.
withits tangent
The metricon V is givenby Re(, ) whereV is identified
space. Thus
Re(gradY (f), w) = 2Re(grad((Yiv,
v)), w)
= 2 Re[(Yiv, w) + (Yiw, v]
= 4Re(Y
v,w)
Therefore
(grad Y(
grad Yi(f)
4Yiv,
Y
Now we obtainthe formula

n
(*)
grad(g) = E8Yj(f)Yj,
i=1
we get:
and summarizing,
2.1. For a > 0, thereis a deformationretractionV
which is definedby a flowalong theorbitsof G.
THEOREM
C(a),
From this,we deduce:

2.2. Let A be a finitelygeneratedC-algebraon which G acts.
-4 CA(a) for each a > 0, where CA(a)
is as in Corollary1.5. Furthermore,
this retractioncommuteswith the map
COROLLARY
There is a deformationretractionSpec A
Spec A
-4
Spec AG.
Proof As in Corollary1.5,embedSpec A in a vectorspace V. Then theflow

set Spec A.
above, being a flowalongorbits,respectsthe G-invariant
Part2
retraction:
3. The deformation
For mostof whatwe do in the sequel,the resultsof Section2 are enough.
The readershouldfeelfreeto skip thissection.We knownow thatfora > 0,
retractof V, withthe flowgrad(g) givingthe retraction.
C(a) is a deformation
hereis whethertheflowcan be continuedto - ox. The
we
address
The problem
425
question is: we have a map ( -
x,
0] X V
--
V, given by integratinggrad(g).
to a map [ - ox,0] x V -V?

Can thisbe extendedcontinuously
I do not knowthe answerto thisproblem,but wouldliketo conjecturethat
it is positive.
Conjecture3.1 (Mumford).Let P: R' -- R be a homogeneouspolynomial,
and suppose P(v) ? 0 forall v E Rn. Then the grad(P) flowcan be continued
to - ox; precisely, there is a map [-
flow.
0,0] x Rn
Rn extending the grad(P)
-*
Remark3.2. If Mumford'sconjectureweretrue,we wouldclearlybe done;

g is just a special polynomialsatisfyingthe hypothesisof the conjecture.
However,I do not knowwhetherit is true.In any case, forthe special case we
have in mind,we can makesome estimateson the flow.
The key to our estimateis the observation:
LEMMA3.3. Let f, g be as in Sections 1 and 2; then (grad(g))(f)
8g.
Proof.By formula(*) of Section2, grad(g) = 8?n=1Yi(f)Y1. So

n
(grad(g))(f) = 8Z (Yi(f))2
i=1
COROLLARY
3.4. Re~grad(g),grad(f))
= 8g.
8g.
It followsthat
Ilgrad(g)II211grad(f)1122 64g2.
However,this estimateturnsout to be inadequate. So suppose we could

precisely,supposewe knew
provea slightimprovement;
Conjecture3.5. For some E > 0, and some c > 0
grad(g )11 grad(f)1211
E2c2-E
Remark3.6. The inequalityof conjecture3.5 is homogeneous,so thereis a

chance thatit holds.WhileI cannotprovethe conjecturein general,I can prove
it forG a torus;see Appendix.
In the restof thissectionI will show how to provethat,givenconjecture
3.5, we can extendthe flow.
It is easy to verifythat 11grad(f)112= 4f. So, changingthe constantc
we get the inequality
appropriately,
f1-2E
grad(g),grad(g)) ?
Cg2-Es
426
AMNON
NEEMAN
Now f increasesalong integralcurves,so that we get the inequality,for

t < 0,
dg
dt
C
+
(1
f(O))-
2-E
-
Note that we may suppose 0 < E < (1/2), because given any E > 0 for
which an inequalityas in conjecture3.5 exists,such inequalitiesexist for all
smallerE. So we now integratethe inequality.
d
dt g
1E
c(I-)to
(1
f(o))1-2<
c(l
(1 +f0)
g(0)'-
_t
So along the integralcurvewhichat t = 0 passes throughv(O) E V, we get

an estimate
g < A(- t)' /'-?
fort < 0,
where A is a constantforthisintegralcurve,and variescontinuously

withv(O).
(Explicitly,
A
c(1-1
\(1+ f(O))1'2E
The essential fact is that (-t )g
f~1
| (-
t)Eg
?|
00
where B
1
_of
l
- 1). In fact,
is integrable on (-o,
JA-1
A(-
t)
(11-?)+?
<
00
B(v(O)) is just the function A multiplied by the constant

+E
)- 0(l/l?)
Now recallthat
g(s)
dg dt =
00
11grad(
g)112
~~~~00
dt.
Then
f'-1
=f'(-s)j
s)Eg(s)ds
Ilgrad(g)
00
t dtds.
cc
The integrandis positivedefinite,so that we can change the order of

is t < s < - 1, and the integralbecomes
integration.The regionof integration
f
II grad(g)
1grad(g
427
Then we get
f'Igrad(g)112
dt < (1 + c)B.
(- t)l+e-1i
Now we use H6lder'sinequalityto estimatethe integralof IIgrad(g)I. For
any r <
1,
11grad(g)II
[(- t)+E-
j_(Ilgrad(g)II
111/2)[(-
1/2
t)le-
__
-00
< (
lgrad(g)11 (_ t)l+E - 1)
X (]
<
(1
t)l+e
E)1/2B1/2(
1]
[(
t)1+E
-1
Note that IIgrad(g) is integrableon (-o,

0). More importantly,we have
shown that fr0II grad(g)II -1 0 uniformlyon compact sets as r o .
Using this, it is easy to extend the flow: We define v( - oc)=
v(r) - fr.Lgrad(g). The fact that this extended function[-o, O] X V -* V is
-
continuouscomes fromthe uniformconvergenceof frOgrad(g) to zero as
v-x.
Remark3.7. I suspectthatthe correctE in conjecture3.5 is 1/2. It works

for the torus,and it gives the particularly
simpleestimatethat A and B are
independentof the starting
point v(O).
4. High Bettinumbersofquotientvarieties
ofthe
We now applytheresultsofSections1 and 2 to studythecohomology
quotient.Let X be a varietyover C and suppose G is a connected,reductive
group acting on X. Suppose also thata quotientspace X/G exists,as in the
and X/G can be coveredby
introduction;
i.e., the map 'n: X -* X/G is affine,
open affinesover which 77 is given as Spec A
--
Spec AC. We will show that the
vanishingof high cohomologygroupson X impliesthe same on X/G. The

argumentis similarto the one in Seshadri[10]. There Seshadriused the idea to
provethevanishingofhighetalecohomology
groupsof X/G, whentheactionof
X
was proper and withoutfixedpoints. The major improvementon
G on
Seshadri'sresultis thatwe showhow to handlethe pointson whichG does not
act properly.
428
AMNON NEEMAN
A point x E X is called stable if x has a finitestabilizerand its orbit

Gx C X is closed. It is well knownthat G acts properlyon the set of stable
points(see Mumford[6], Proposition
0.8).
Let XS be the set of stable points in X. Put Z = X
XS. Then we have
inclusionmaps j: XS - X, i: Z -* X. Let Q denotethesheafofconstantson X

withvalues in Q. Let Q IXs,Q Iz be the obvioussheaveson XS and Z. Then we
have an exact sequenceof sheaveson X,
O -*j(QlXs)
-*Q-*i*(Qlz)
-*0
where jl(Qlxs) is the extensionby 0 of the sheafQIXs*So thereis a corresponding long exact sequencein cohomology,
fromwhichwe get that
HP '(Z, Q) = HP(X, Q) = 0
HP(X, j!(QIXs))
0.
Now let k1 be an integersuch that 1 ? k1 * H'(Z,Q) = 0, and k2 an

H'(X, Q) = 0. Then 1 ? max(k1 + 1, k2)
integer such that 1 ? k2
=
0.
H'(X, j!(QIxs))
The sheafforwhichwe will studythe spectralsequence in cohomologyis
j!(QIxs). Firstwe observethatwhen we take quotients,we also have inclusions
j: XS/G - X/G,
i: Z/G - X/G and X/G - XS/G = Z/G,
where XS/G is open and Z/G is closed. Now we wish to computethe sheaf
thissheafto XS/G, we
RZ'TT* !((QXs)). Firstwe observethatwhen we restrict
can computeit. Observethat
[Ri'nT*j!(Qlxs)] KXS/C-R(TIxs)*(QIxs)
and whenwe restrict

to XS, G actsproperlyand withfinitestabilizers;so forany
x E XS/G choose x-E XS over x. Then the map X: G -* XS givenby g
gxdefinesa map
HZ(X): RZ(lTIxs)*(QIxs) - H'(G,Q).
This map is independent of x, and it definesa map
RZ(7TIxs)*(Qlxs)
>
H'(G, Q)& (QIxS,/c)
which can be shownto be an isomorphism

of sheaves.So we certainlyobtaina
map
a: HZ(G,Q) ?
j!(QIXs/c)
--*R?g*j!(Qjxs)-
I assert:
LEMMA4.1. a is an isomorphism
of sheaves.
For now we deferthe proofof Lemma 4.1; it is the onlyargumentin this

sectionthatis not trivial.
429
Suppose we knewLemma4.1. Then we could studythespectralsequenceof

the sheaf j!(QIxs). We get
E ,q
= Hq(G.
(HPRqG*,j((I
Q) ? HP(X/G, j! (Q IXs/c))
and thisspectralsequenceconvergesto HP q(X, j( Q Ixs)). Now observethatthe

E q form a rectangleof (possibly) non-vanishingterms. In particular,if
q = dimG, and p is the largestintegerforwhichHP(X/G, !I(QIxs/c)) failsto
vanish, then the E ' q term survivesto the limit. We could conclude that
HP+q(X, jI(QIXs)) # 0. It followsthatdimG + p < max(k1+ 1, k2); i.e., p <
max(k1+ 1, k2) - dimG. Whatthismeansis thatif
?
p > max(k1+ 1, k2)
dimG,
then HP(X/G, ji(Q1xs/c)) = 0.

Again,on X/G we have an exactsequenceof sheaves
0 ' I1(Q1xS1c)
i*(QIZIG)
0.
From the exact sequencein cohomologywe get thatif H '(X/G, j!(Q IxsG)) and
H'(Z/G, Q) bothvanish,so does H'(X/G, Q). Now if k3 is an integersuch that
1 > k3 H'(Z/G, Q) = 0, thenwe get
1 > max(k1 + 1 - dimG,k2
* H'(X/G,Q)
dimG,k3)
= 0.
Let us put thistogetheras a theorem:

THEOREM
4.2. Let k1,k2,k3 be integerssuch that

1? k1
=> H'(ZQ)
1 ? k2
H'(X, Q)
k3
H'(Z/G,Q)
1?
0,
0,
= 0.
Then we have
1 2 max(k1+ 1-dimG, k2 -dimG, k3) = H'(X/G, Q) = O.
It remainsto proveLemma 4.1, but now we provea slightlymoregeneral
lemma.
4.3. Let m: X -* X/G be as above. Let j: Z -* X/G be an open
and
immersion,
by abuse of notation j is also the inclusion 77- '(Z) -* X. Then
LEMMA
RiT *(jgQIs-1z)
= jiR'(Lgjr-1z)*(Qj1-,z).
This has Lemma4.1 as a specialcase, ifwe put Z = XS/G (I apologizethat

here Z switchedroles.It has become the open set).
Proof The question is local in X/G, so that we assume X = Spec A,
X/G = Spec AG. Then by Sections1 and 2 thereexistsa set CA(l) C Spec A
430
AMNON NEEMAN
retraction
retractof Spec A, witha deformation
such that CA(l) is a deformation
respectingfibers.Now we can replaceSpec(A) by CA(l) and S by thecomposite
CA(l)
Spec A
->
--
Spec A' in the homology computation. But the map CA(l)
Spec AG is proper,so thatLemma 4.3 followsfromthe next,generalresult:
LEMMA4.4. Let m: X -* Y be a propermap of locally compact spaces. Let

-* Y be an open immersion,
and let H be a sheafon T- 1U C X. By abuse
U
j:
of notation,let j denotetheinclusion r - 'U - X. Thenwe get
Proof.This is an easy corollaryof Corollary2 to Proposition3.10.1 in

Grothendieck[2].
5. Examples
Let M(n) be the set of n X n matrices,n > 2, regardedas the affine
varietySpec C[ xij]. PGL( n) actsby conjugationso thatit also acts on M( n)' by
simultaneousconjugation.We studythisexample.
Firstwe computetheset ofstablepoints.If a point(Ml, M2, ..., Mr) is not
stable, there exists a 1-parametersubgroup X of PGL( n) for which
..., X(t)-1MrX(t)) has a limitas t -* 0. (Here,by a 1-parameter
(X(t)-1MX(t)
a map C * PGL(n)). Withrespectto somechoiceofbasis,
we
mean
subgroup
(
tal
we may assume X(t)
ta
>
a1 integersand a, ? aa2
tan,
Let M be the matrixmip, X(t) - 1MX(t) = (taj- aimij). This has limitifwhenever
a, < ai, mi, = 0. So we get:
Observation5.1. (M, ..., Mr) is not stable if and only if thereexistsa

non-trivial
subspaceof C' whichis invariantforthe actionof all the Mi.
It follows that if X
dim(X
XS) <
M2 -
M(n)r,
r(n
1) + dimPGL(n)
= (r + 1)n2
1 -r(n
1).
This estimatecomesaboutbecause notbeingstableforcesat least r(n - 1) zeros

in some conjugateof(Ml, . . ., Mr). For r largecomparedwithn, thisdimension
is much smallerthandimX.
If we apply Theorem4.2 to thisspace X, we get triviality
because X, Z,
X/G and Z/G are all contractible.
But let us forgetfora secondthatwe know
that X/G is contractibleand use Theorem4.2, knowingthat X, Z, and Z/G
TOPOLOGY
are. Then k =
OF QUOTIENT
431
VARIETIES
1, and we get
k3-
1 2 max(2
I> 1
Then
= 0.
H'(X/G)
dimPGL(n), 1)
H'(X/G) = O.
The resultchecks.
result,we look at subsetsof X. For instance,if we
To get a non-trivial
trace,we get a subset
requirethateach matrixMi shouldhave a non-vanishing
X' C X, and in this case it turns out that Z' =
(X)s
X-
= X'Il
Z. (In
general,it is not truethatthe stablepointsof an open subsetare stablein the

entirespace.) The homologyof X' is easilycomputedto be the homologyof a
productof r circles;so it vanishesin dimensiongreaterthan k2 = r + 1. Z' is
affine,of complex dimensionat most (r + 1)n2 - 1 - r(n - 1). Since it
is a Stein space, its homologyvanishes above that dimension,and k1
(r + 1)n2
r(n - 1) will do.
To estimatek3,we observethatanyunstablepointhas,in theclosureofits

orbit,a point(M1,. . ., Mr) where,afterreplacingeach Mi by A - 'MiA we can
( si).SupposeM' is n1 x n
M,' is
assumeit takestheform
n2
n2,
a componentto Z'/B whose

n1 + n2 = n. Then thistypeof matrixcontributes
dimensionis at mostn2r + n2r - dimPGL(n1) - dimPGL(n2) (at least,thisis
sothatthemapsending
points(0(
trueifr islargeenough
(')
Ml'))
to Z'/G has genericallya fiberof dimensiondimPGL(n1) + dimPGL(n2)).

This gives that the homologyof Z'/G vanishesin dimensiongreaterthan
maxnn nO2= n ((n2 + n2)(r - 1) + 2). Now we have, for r large,the estimate
that k3 = ((n - 1)2 + 1)(r - 1) + 3 willcertainlydo. We get
1 > max[m2 + 2
r(n
1), r + 2
n2, n2(r
1) -2(n
=* H'(X'/G)=
1)(r
1) + 3]
0.
In practice,if r is large comparedto n, the firsttermin the maximum

dominates;so we get
1 ? r(n2
n + 1) + 2
H'(X'/G)
= 0.
Note that dim(X'/G) = m2 _ (n2 _ 1). Now as X'/G is affine the trivial
largerthan n, we clearlyget
vanishingis for 1 ? (r - 1)n2. If r is sufficiently
thatthe bound of Theorem4.2 is better.
Now note that the dimensionthat dominates is dim X' - (X ')S. Suppose we
knew conjecture3.1 or conjecture3.5. Then we shouldcontinuethe flowto

-
o, and get a deformationretractionof X' - (X')s
But inside X'
to the critical set C(O).
(X')s thereis a closed subsetF on whichG acts withpositive
432
AMNONNEEMAN
dimensionalstabilizers.The same deformationretractionalso takes F onto

the intersectionof X' - (X')s with the criticalset. So F and X' - (X')s
have the same homotopy type. The codimension of X' - (X')s is at
least (n - 1)r
dim PGL(n),
and the codimension of F
is at least
2( n - 1)r - dimPGL( n). So ourresultroughlydoublesin accuracyonce we are

giveneitherof our conjectures.
Appendix:Proofof conjecture3.5 forthetorus
Here I proposeto outlinea proofof the conjecturewhen G is a torus.We

startwitha theorem:
matriceson a
A.1. Let Y1,... Yn be commuting,
real, symmetric
finitedimensionalvectorspace V over R. Let (, ) be thenaturalinnerproduct
on thespace. Thenthereexistsa constantc > 0 forwhich
THEOREM
~~2
\3/2
/f
> C
V)y1V ,
(Yi=
(YiV"
V)2
Proof We provethisby inductionon thenumberof Yi's and thedimension

of V. Suppose the theoremis knownforlowerdimensionalspaces and the same
numberof Yi's, and forany dimensionalspace and a smallernumberof Yi's. To
startthe induction,suppose n = 1. Then we get:
11(Yv,
= (Yv,
v)YvII2
v)2(Yv,
YV).
Now Y commuteswiththe orthogonal

projectionP to the imageof Y.
(YPv ,Pv) = (Yv, v)
and (YPv ,YPv) = (Yv ,Yv),,

so thatwe can studytheinequalityon Im Y only.But on Im Y, Y is invertible;
so
we gettheestimateI(Yv, v) I < 11y- 111YVI112, andit follows
that
11(yVV,
)yV112
>
Ily-111
-11(yV
V) 13
Thus there is a constant c as above.
Now observefirstthatboth i= 1(Yiv, v)Yiv and IKYiv, v)2 are invariant

under an orthogonalchangeof the Yi's. Furthermore,
inequality(1) is homogeneous; so it suffices
to proveit on the sphere.Since the sphereis compact,it is
enough to show thatany non-zeropointof V has a neighbourhood
on which
thereexistsa constantc forwhich(1) holds.
Take v0 E V, V0# 0. Afteran orthogonalchange of the Yi1's,we may
assume Yiv0, Y2vO,... , YkvO are nonzeroand orthogonal
and Yk? 1vO= Yk+ 2vO=
= Ynvo= 0. If k = 0, then all the Yi's kill vo and we are reduced to
*
studyingthe problemon vo, which is a smallerdimensionalspace. So by
induction,we mayassumek # 0.
433
Let V1 C V be S[Y1. . . Yj] vo, where S[Y1. . . YJ is the symmetricalgebra in
on
the Y 's. Then V1 is clearlyan invariantsubspaceforall the Y,'s; furthermore,
-*
.
V
V1
all
vanish.
P:
be
.
Let
the
to
orthogonal
projection
V1,
V1.
, Yn
IYk?I1
Then P(=1K Yiv, v)Yiv) is shorterthanYLn1K
Yiv,v)Yiv, and we get
||?(yiVV)yiV||2
PE(YiV)YiV
2
|?
Yiv V)YiPv
i=1
k
i,j=l
(Yivv)KYiPv, YjPv)KYjv v).
But at vo, the k x k matrix A whose entriesare a = (YiPvOY1Pv0) =

of vo.
so thesame is truein someneighbourhood
( Yi v0, Yvo) is positive
definite;
of vo,
Now we get thatforsome constantc1 > 0 and forsome neighbourhood
n
Z Yiv,v)Yv
i=l
~~~2
c1Z?Yiv5V)2.
||
i=1
If k = n, we are clearlydone. If k # n, we have that

1k
? ()is V 5 iA
i=1
< ? I JYiv, V) I 11YiV1||

i=1
Near vo, we get the estimate
i=1
(YiVV)YiV|C2
| ?(YiVV)YiV
i=1
forsome c2 > 0. Now observethatif

n
2 ZK(YiVV)YiV
i=1
ZK(YivV)YiV|
k+1
the above estimatetellsus

n
>3K=
vv)
1
i= 1Yvv)~
i~k+1
434
AMNON NEEMAN
On the otherhand,if Ek? 1KYiv, v) Yiv>

gle inequalitysaysthat
n
?
2|(Yivv)Yiv
LK(Yiv,V)Yiv
~~~k+1i=
i=1
v,v)Y vI1, the trian-
|E(Yivv)Yiv
1KY
2 34
(YiV)YiV
(YiV, V)Yiv].
we get thatthereexistsa constantc3 such that

Puttingall of thistogether,
~~2
Y
Yv |2
(Yiv,v)
i=1 ~
k
C3 )E (2Yi V,
ZKn VV)
V2V
+ |E
2V
(YiV,
[i=1
k+1J
Now we can applyinduction,and we get a constantc = c4 such that
KY
||E(Yi
i=1
2
n)Y3/2
v, vA)
iv|
C4 ( E ( YiV,
U=
V ) 2)
forall v sufficiently
near v0. The resultfollows.
6. Introduction
to Part2
Sections7, 8 and 9 are largelythe technicalbackgroundneeded forSection
10, where a methodto show how to prove vanishingforChern or Pontrjagin
ringson quotientvarietiesis indicated.In Sections11 and 12 this technique,
called the "Program",is applied to one example.We obtainpartialresultson a
conjectureof Ramanan'sabout the vanishingof Pontrjaginclasseson the moduli
space of stable vectorbundlesof rank2 and degree 1 over an algebraiccurve.
Let X be a topologicalspace, G a topologicalgroupactingon X. Let Y" be
a G-bundleon X. The keyresultof Section7, Theorem7.12, allowsus to form
the quotient bundle Y/'G over X/G when G acts freely,and some other
technicalconditionsare satisfied.Because the theoremis so crucial,I give a
relativelycarefuland completeproof.However,Section7 is so writtenthatit can
easily be skimmed.All the importantstatementsare numbered,and only the
statementsand definitions
are necessaryforthe restof the paper.
Section 8 showsthateven when the quotientbundle fI/G is not defined,
one can, with suitablefunctoriality
in X and G. definea generalizationof the
Chern class of f7G. Again, with suitablefunctoriality
one can compare the
here.
ordinaryChern class of fIG, whenit exists,to the fancyone constructed
This sectionis largelyformaland straightforward.
I
feel
it is
that
Nonetheless,
best said in the rightcategoricalframework.
435
Section 9 containsthe real point of the exercise.There I prove special

propertiesfor algebraic bundles over a scheme X that allow considerable
freedomin movingbetweenspaces. The key theoremsare Theorem9.6 which
allows us to resolveG-sheaves,and Theorem9.11 whichpermitsus to extend
G-sheavesfroman open set.
Section11 is
Section 10 spellsout how we can use all these constructions.
the applicationto themodulispace ofvectorbundlesovera curve.In Section12,
thatis
I specializeto vectorbundlesof rank2, whereI can, usinga construction
theoremabout the vanishingof the Pontrjagin
less thanelegant,get a significant
ring.This sectionis includedto showthatthe techniquedevelopedin the paper
can be powerful.
In the sequel, I outlinesome ratherwild conjectures.The way to improve
withan
construction
Theorem12.7 shouldnotbe by replacingmyunsatisfactory
of the earlier,more
equally disagreeableone. I feelthata betterunderstanding
formalsectionsof thepaper shouldyieldmorepowerfultechniquesand thenthe
answersto the conjecturesshouldbecome evident.
For thisreason,Sections7 through11 are writtenfairlycompletely.Section
12 is notintendedto be detailed;thereis indicationenoughofwhatto do so that
the work.
the interestedreadercan reconstruct
7. Topologicalpreliminaries
of quotientspaces has been studied;see
For compactgroups,the K-theory
here will rarelybe compact so that
studied
the
groups
Segal [8]. However,
somethingmust be said about the generalizationof Segal's arguments.The
and thissectionis devotedto
noncompactcase raisessometopologicaldifficulties
treatingthem.
The key resultis Theorem 7.12, which allows us to constructquotient
bundles.I did not attemptto followSegal's methodswhichreducethe problem
to the case where G is a compactLie group.For our purposesthisis altogether
Theorem7.12 is a formalstatementin
the wrongapproach;viewed correctly,
point-settopology,and shouldhave a purelyformalproof,as givenhere.
we workin thecategoryof"countablyK-spaces."
To maketheconstruction,
We shall see below that this is a sensible categoryin which to construct
quotients.
Definition7.1. A Hausdorfftopologicalspace X is called a countably
K-space if thereis a countablecollection{ X Ii c N) of compactsubsetsXi c X
such that
(1) UXi = X,
(2) X has the weak topologywithrespectto the Xi's.
436
AMNONNEEMAN
Remark7.2. If X is a countablyK-space,clearlythe Xi's can be takento be

thatfollow.
increasing;it will oftenbe convenientto do so in the constructions
locallycompact,and has a countablebasis
Example 7.3. If X is Hausdorff,
foropen sets,then clearlyX is a countablyK-space. So, forinstance,a locally
compactconnectedLie groupis a countablyK-space.
lemmasare clear.
The proofsof the following
LEMMA7.4. Theproductof twocountablyK-spacesis a countablyK-space.
Y is a quotientmap betweenHausdorffspaces X and

Y, thenwhen X is a countablyK-space, so is Y.
LEMMA 7.5. If X
-*
PROPOSITION 7.6.
If X and Y are countablyK-spaces,so is thejoin.
quotientof X X Y X I.
The join of X and Y is a Hausdorff
whereeach Ai is a countablyK-space, X is
Hausdorffand has the weak topologywith respectto the A i's, then X is a
countablyK-space.
LEMMA 7.7. If X
= Ui
NAi,
cf.Theorem7.10.
it is automaticthatX is Hausdorff;
In fact,if Ai c A
PROPOSITION 7.8. Let G be a topologicalgroup which is a countably
K-space. ThenEG has a modelwhichis also a countablyK-space.
of EG expressesit as a countableunion of
Proof:Milnor'sconstruction
successive joins of G with itself.
Remark 7.9. Proposition7.8 is the main reasonforintroducingcountably

for EG, using
K-spaces. The propositionallows us to do certainconstructions
by compact sets. As an example of how one uses
successive approximations
countablyK-spaces,we prove:
THEOREM 7.10. Let X be a countablyK-space, and let G be a topological
groupwhich acts on X properly.Thenthe topologicalquotientspace X/G is a
countablyK-space.
Proof.By Lemma 7.5, it sufficesto prove that X/G is Hausdorff.Put

X =UiENXZ,
c
iXcX
i+
Xi compact forall i, and suppose furtherthat X has
the weak topologywithrespectto the Xi's (cf. Definition7.1 and Remark7.2).

Let g: X -* X/G be the projection. Pick x, y E X such that 7(x) # 7(y). We
we have to separate
have to separate 7(x) fromg(y) by open sets;equivalently,
open sets.The idea is to do this
the orbitof x fromtheorbitof y by G-invariant
inductivelyforthe X 's.
in the
Step 1: Suppose A, B C Xi are closedsubsetswhichare G-invariant
exist
that
there
we
show
B.
Then
BG
=
U. V
A,
n
=
AG
n
that
sense
Xi
437
open in Xi, A c U. B c V, U, V Ginvariant(i.e. UG n
U, VG ni
V).
Since Xi is compact,it is normal;so if we do not insistthat U. V be

G-invariantthereis nothingto prove.Startwithany U. V. We "improve"them
sets.
to G-invariant
The point is that since G acts properly,the multiplicationmap
X is proper.In particularm`(Xi) is compact.Let 7T1:m`(Xi)
m: Xi x G
Xi x G
Xi be the projectionto the firstfactor.Since 7r '(Xi - U),
7T 1(XiV) are closed, they are compact. Now m(7r7'(Xi - U)),
(with G-invariare closed in Xi, and are clearlyG-invariant
m(7rj1(X -V))
- U)) and V by Xi ance being as above). ReplacingU by Xi m (7T 1(X - V)) we have whatwe need.
Step 2: Pick x, y E X. There existsan i such that x, y E Xi. Suppose
# ST(y); thenwe wantto separatexG fromyG. Sincetheactionis proper,
xG and yG are closedin X; so xG n Xi, yG n Xi are closedin Xi. By Step 1,
sets; so we can choose G-invariant
Xi is "normal" withrespectto G-invariant
closedsubsetsAi and Bi in Xi so that
open sets Ui and Vi in Xi and G-invariant
ST(x)
xG n Xi c Ui c Ai and yG n Xi c Vi c Bi and Ai n Bi = 0. (One of the

odditiesis thatif Ui c Xi is G-invariant
in thesensethatUiG n Xi = Ui,it does
So we cannottake Ai = Ui.)
not followthat Ui is G-invariant.
open sets
Step3: This is theinductionstep.SupposethereexistG-invariant
in
Xi such that
Ui and Vi in Xi and G-invariantclosed sets Ai and Bi
xG n Xi c U, c Ai, yG n Xi c V, c Bi and Ai n Bi = 0. We will show that
thereexist Uit+, Vi+1, A i+ and Bi+1 in Xi+1 withthe same properties,and

thatUi+ n Xi = Ui, V,+ n Xi = V,.
withthe extraproperty
m:
X
Recall that
Xi G -- X is proper.Now m-'(Xi +) is compact,and it
followseasilythat XiG n Xi+1 is closed in Xi+1 and UG n Xi+,, VG n Xi+,
are open in XiG n Xi+,; also AiG n Xi+,, BiG n Xi+, are closed in
subsets
XiG n Xi+ l So Ai n Xi+ BiG n Xi+ are disjoint,closed,G-invariant
in
X
there
exist
of + 1. They can be separatedby G-invariants; Xi+ 1
Ui+1, Vi+
invariantopen sets, Ai+ I, Bi+I1 invariantclosedsetswith
AiG n Xi+1 c Ui+1c Ai+15 BiG n Xi+, c
41 c si+1
whereA i+ 1 n Bi + 1 = 0. We leave theA i+ 1 and B + 1 alone;we need to modify

Ui+> and Vi+?so thatUi+1n Xi = U,, V,+, n Xi = V,+1.
c Zi+lsuch that Ui+> n XiG
Choose any open subsetsUi+ cUc,
X>Vi+
=
=UG
V+ l XiG VG. Then we use theprocedureofStep I to shrinkthese
, V,
we still
to G-invariantopen sets. The readermay check that,aftershrinking,
have Ui c Ui+ 1,Vi c Vi+ 1.
438
AMNON NEEMAN
End of Proof. Put U = UUi, V = UV. Now U and V are open (because X
has the weak topologywithrespectto the Xi's). Since theyare clearlydisjoint
QED
theyprovidethenecessaryseparationof xG fromyG.
and G-invariant,
Remark 7.11. Theorem7.10 will not be needed in the remainderof this
paper. It is includedto convincethe readerof the usefulnessof Definition7.1.
What is needed is the following:
7.12. Let X be a countablyK-space, and let G be a locally
compacttopologicalgroup.Suppose G acts on X freely(= withoutfixedpoints
and properly).Let f' be a vectorbundleon X on which G acts, compatibly
with its action on X. (In thefuturewe will call such bundlesG-bundles.)Then
if v: X -* X/G is the projection,thereis a bundle 5"/G on X/G and a
canonical isomorphism
vr*(5//G)* .
THEOREM
Proof We need to show that Y" has enoughinvariantsectionsto locally

generate it at everypoint. The proofis lengthy,so we divide it up into a
sequence of steps.
Step 1: Choose Xi C X, Xi compact,Xi cXC + 1 UX3 = X and suchthatX
has the weak topologywithrespectto the Xi's. Firstwe want to showthat,for
each i, XiG is closed and locallycompact.
This is clear: since G acts properlyon X, the map m:Xi X G -> X is
proper. Xi x G is locallycompact(Xi is compact,G is locallycompact);so it
followseasilythat m(Xi X G) = XiG c X is closed and locallycompact.
Step 2: Choose a point x E X. We wantto constructplentyof G-invariant
U of x overwhichY" is trivial.Then
sectionsof 1" near x. Picka neighborhood
1"
.
there exist sections SI, S2,. ., sn of
over U which forma basis for Y" at every
to makethe"averaging"ofsections
pointof U. In Step 2 we shrinkU sufficiently
a safe operation.
Restrictingattentionto the orbit xG, we get for each si a map Ki: G -V,
V the n-dimensional
vectorspace which is the fiberof Y'' at x. The map is
definedby gi(g) = si(xg)T(g-1), where T(g-1) is translation(of f') by g-1.
small
The 91(e), &2(e),..., &n(e) forma basis for V; so for some sufficiently
neighborhoodN of e, we have thatif we choose ji in the convexhull of si(N)
foreach i, then ..,
Jn
overN is
forma basisforV. In thissense,averaging
harmless.
Because G acts freely,the map g 4 xg definesa (closed) embedding
G
X. Now shrinkU to ensure that U n xG C xN.
Step 3: Here we constructa functionon X thatwe will eventuallyuse to
averagethe s5 s.
TOPOLOGY
OF QUOTIENT
439
VARIETIES
Suppose x E Xi (thisis trueforsome i). Since XiG is locallycompact,we

can pick a function(Pi of compactsupportin XiG, (Pi2 0, whose supportis
containedin U and suchthat(pi(x) = 0. The Tietze extensiontheoremallowsus
to extend(Pito cPi+lon Xi+ G, where 9?i+l has the same properties.(Caution:
Xi+IG need not be normal.But because Xi+lG is locally compact,we can
ofa compactsubsetof Xi, G. We applyTietze to
embed supp (Piin theinterior
that compact.) In this way, we get a continuousfunction9p on X, namely
T = Uqi
Step 4: Let so: X X G
->
X be the projection, m: X x G
-*
X the action.
4: maY
1* . If s1,..., Sn are
The actionof G on 'V givesan isomorphism
the sectionson U as before,thenTs1,..., cpsnare continuoussectionson all of X
(continuitycan be checked on the Xi's). So 0m*(qpsi) are global sectionsof
s71". Let Mibe the rightHaar measureon G; we put ai = fGcm*(Tsi) d1.
assertions:
We can now makethe following
(1) The ai are continuoussectionsof I".
(2) The ai are G-invariant.
(3) At x, the as1,.., an forma basis forthe fiberof I".
(2) is clear,and (3) followseasilyfromStep 2. (1) can be checkedon XiG
locallyin XiG
foreach i. Because XiG is locallycompactand G acts properly,
the integrationtakesplace reallyonlyover a compactsubsetof G. The details
are leftto the reader.
Thereforesince the a1. .., an forma basis at x, theyforma basis in some
QED
of x, whichcan, ofcourse,be takento be G-invariant.
neighborhood
Remark7.13. It followsfromStep 1 oftheproofthat,underthehypotheses
on X and G in Theorem7.12, X is a union of countablymany,G-invariant,
locallycompactclosed sets.Moreover,X has the weak topologywithrespectto
them.In fact,thisis all we use about the topologyof X. So thiscould have been
7.1. Thiswas themainreasonto include
insteadofDefinition
a startingdefinition
a proofof Theorem7.10: namely,to persuadethe readerthatDefinition7.1 is
betterand morenatural.
Remark 7.14. From Example 7.3, Proposition7.8 and Remark 7.13, it
basis,
followsthatif G is a locallycompactgroupwitha countableneighborhood
EG has a model whichis a countableunionof locallycompactclosed sets as in
note
fromMilnor'sconstruction;
transparent
Remark7.13. This is notcompletely
thatthe join of locallycompactspaces is not necessarilylocallycompact.
Before concludingthis section,I should state two more resultsneeded
so I includea proof.The secondis less trivial,but seems
below. The firstis trivial,
440
AMNON NEEMAN
forthe proofis unknownto me I give

Since a good reference
to be well-known.
the barestsketch.
PROPOSITION
7.15. SupposeX and Y are G-spaces,all Hausdorff,and that
G acts properlyon Y; thenthediagonalactionof G on X X Y is also proper.

Proof. We need to show that the map X X Y X G
-*
X X Y XX X Y
given by (x, y, g) -* (x, y, xg,yg) is proper.We are giventhat m: Y X G

id xmr
0
by X X X, we get that(X X X) X (Y X G)
Y x Y is proper.Multiplying
(X X X) X (Y X Y) is proper. The map X X Y X G
id xmr
-*
X X Y x X x Y de-
xY x X x Y; the second
composes as X X Y X G -* X X X Yx G *X
being the
map is proper,as we have just said. The firstis a closed immersion,
graph of a map X x Y x G
-*
X.
Finallywe willneed:
on a
7.16. Suppose G is a Lie group acting differentiably
manifoldM. Supposethattheactionis proper,and thestabilizersof pointsare
finitesubgroupsof G. Now G acts on M x EG by the diagonal action; let
M x EG be the quotient.The map M x EG -* M/G (projectionto the first
PROPOSITION
on rationalcohomology.
factor) inducesan isomorphism
Sketchof Proof.By the spectralsequence relatingthe cohomologyof the
ofthespace, theproblemis local in M/G. The
Cech coverwiththecohomology
open in M. What one does is take a
idea is to finda suitablysmall G-invariant
transversesectionto the G-orbitat x. Call thisspace N. Then N x G -* M, for
suitably small N. is a Galois coveringmap. The Galois group is naturally
isomorphicto GX,the stabilizerof x, and its actioncommuteswiththe actionof
G. The implicationsof thisforthe rationalcohomologyyieldthe proposition.
classes
8. Equivariantcharacteristic
We firstdefinethe categoriesstudiedin thissection.
Definition8.1. The category<,enormous has foritsobjectsall thepairs(X, G)
whereX is a topologicalspace, G a topologicalgroup,and G acts on X (on the
right). A morphism(X, G) -* (Y, H) is a pair of maps f: X -* Y and g: G -* H
on Y. f is a G map.
such that,withthe induced G structure
of enormous whose
Definition8.2. The categoryWbig is thefullsubcategory
objects are pairs(X, G) whereX and G are bothcountablyK-spacesand G is
locallycompact.
441
Definition8.3. The category%'little is the fullsubcategoryof %big' where

the objectsare pairs(X, G) suchthatG acts on X freely(= withoutfixedpoints
and properly).
Remark 8.4. The categorywe are most interestedin is %big' But it is
overthe othertwo.
sometimesconvenientto do the constructions
There are two functorswe want to consider.We defineV: 5enolous
JVv6lea I (,/6 le I is thecategoryof(small)abeliancategories)to be the functor
whichtakes(X, G) to thecategoryof G-bundleson X. We defineV: 567enormous
Th/
whichtakes(X, G) to the categoryof all bundleson
Wa to be the functor
4: V -* V
X/G (the topologicalquotient).There is a naturaltransformation
whichtakesa bundleon X/G to its pullback.Clearly?((x ) is an exactfunctor
foreveryobject (X, G).
Note. The categoryofvectorbundleson a space is notan abeliancategory;
of an abeliancategory.Nothingwe do willbe
it is onlya full,thicksubeategory
influencedby thispoint.So in a misuseofthelanguage,I use thewords" abelian
of abeliancategories".
category"to referto "full,thicksubcategories
of Theorem7.12 is that on 51ittle 4 is a naturalisomorThe significance
phism;it admitsan inverse4: V -*V whichtakesa bundle J/ to its quotient
--G.
Now we definethe corresponding
Grothendieck
groups.
Definition 8.5. There is a functork: 5eenormous-* -16 (j/6 being the
group
categoryof abeliangroups)whichtakesa pair(X, G) to theGrothendieck
thefreegroupon bundleson X/G divided
of the categoryV(X, G) (concretely,
-* '"-*
i"" -* 0
by the relations generated by f- i' - fr", where 0 -'
is an exact sequence).
Definition8.6. Thereis a functorK
the Grothendieck
groupof V(X, G).
-*
5eenormous
J2/6whichsends(X, G) to
Remark8.7. Definition8.6 is not new; see Segal [8]. He denotes K(X, G)

by KG(X).
k -* K. By
Definition8.8. Beingexact,0 inducesa naturaltransformation
its
abuse of notationwe call it 4 also. On Wlittle 4 is a naturalisomorphism,
inverse induced by 4: V -*V.
an analogueofthe
The realpointofthissectionis thatwe wantto construct
4
we
inverseof on Wbig' Since the group does not act freely, cannot always
constructquotientbundles.We set about "correcting"thatproblem.
442
AMNON
NEEMAN
Let G be a topologicalgroup; let EG denote the total space over the

classifyingspace of G, as constructed
by Milnor.We have to pick a model for
EG because we do not workin the homotopycategory.The propertiesof EG
thatwe use are:
Property8.9. EG is functorialin G: given a map G -- H there is an
induced map EG -* EH which respectscomposition(this is immediatefrom
Milnor'sconstruction).
Property8.10. If G is a countablyK-space,so is EG (see Proposition7.8).
To fixideas, we take EG to be a left G-space (to be consistentwiththe
literature).If X is a rightG-space, X x EG is a rightG-space withthe action
of the actionwe get:
(x, a)g > (xg, g -a). Withthisdefinition
F:
4 (X x EG, G)
Construction 8.11. (X, G)

W7big
-*
defines a
functor
Whale'
Proof We have to showthat,for(X, G) an objectof 5ebig) (X X EG, G) is

X and G are countablyK-spaces.By Property
an object of 0'little. By definition,
8.10, EG is a countablyK-space. So by Lemma 7.4, X x EG is a countably
K-space. Now at leastwe knowthat(X x EG, G) is in Wbig'
The action of G on X x EG is freebecause G acts freelyon EG. The
propernesscomesfromProposition
7.15. The factthatthereare no fixedpointsis
obvious.So, in fact,(X x EG, G) is an objectof rlittle*
Fact 8.12. Thereis a functorE:
beingthe category
of topologicalspaces) where E(X, G) = X/G. The functorsV and k can be
viewed as compositesV o E, K o E of E withthe naturalanalogueof V and K,
done on 9ol.
4: K o E
-*
567enormous
4J>(g
-*
K is a natural transformation.
We also have thefunctorF definedon Wbig in 8.11 above. Thereis a natural

transformation
of functorsp: F -* 1 given by projectionto the firstfactor;
p(X,G): (X x EG,G) -* (X,G) is the projection.So we get a commutative
diagramof naturaltransformations,
which,on objects,is
I (F
K(X, G)
Kp
KEp.
K(X1'G)K((X
K(X x EG, G)
x EG)/G)
K(X xGEG)
wherethe commutativity
is just the naturality
of 4.
443
Construction8.13. We define K to be K o E o F (so that K(X, G) =

K(X xGEG)). On W6big we have a naturaltransformation
A: K -> K givenby
o
is
Kp
an
on
F
isomorphism Wbig because takes Wbig to r1ittle)
(OF
(OF) Then the commutative
squareabove yieldsa commutative
triangle:
K
(*)-/_
kEp
pK
Usually,by abuse of notation,we will write p for KEp; it is the map

K(X/G) -* K(X x GEG) inducedby theprojection.
Remark8.14. This is the sense in whichwe constructan inverseto 4. The
pointis that 4 is close to beingan inversewhenwe pass to the cohomology.
We reallywantto computecharacteristic
classes.On 37ol4,thereare natural
transformationsChem: K
-*
H* (resp. Pontr: K
-*
H*) which send a vector
bundle to its Chem (resp. PontrJagin)

class. They send K(X) to (the centerof)
H
the groupof unitsof the ring *(X), and as such are maps of (abelian) groups.
Now the commutative
triangle(*) givesa commutative
diagram:
K
Chern
H*E HE
IChern
EpH*EF
Let H = H*E, H H*EF, and for H*Ep just write p. (It is the map
induced on cohomologyby the projectionX X GEG -* X/G.) Summingup, we
get:
PROPOSITION
8.15. Thereare natural maps Chern: K
H) which make the following diagrams commute:
-*
H (resp. Pontr:
- 0
Chern j
Chern
Up
444
AMNON
NEEMAN
(resp. the same with Pontrin place of Chern). In the notationabove, Chern:
K
--
4'
-Chern-
H is the compositeK --K
H.
classesto
a way to assigncharacteristic
Remark8.16. We have constructed
elementof K(X, G), for(X, G) an object of Wbig' in a way thatis
an arbitrary
classes on the quotient.
comparableto the naturalassignmentof characteristic
is that p: H -- H is oftenan isomorThe value of thiselaborateconstruction
forthe rationalcohomolphism.What we willneed is thatit is an isomorphism
properlyand with
ogy if G is a Lie group,X is smooth,G acts differentiably,
finitestabilizers(Proposition7.16).
9. K forsmoothalgebraicvarieties
the categoryto be considered.
We again startby defining
Definition9.1. Let V~agebraic be the categoryof pairs(X, G) where X is a
separatedschemeof finitetypeoverSpec C, G is a reductive,complexalgebraic
(X, G) -- (Y, H) is a pair of
group,and G acts on X on the right.A morphism
of
morphismof schemesf: X -- Y, g: G -- H such that g is a homomorphism
on Y, f is a G-map.
groupsand, withtheinduced G-structure
In completeanalogywithSection8, we can definea functorV: 'Valgebraic
-6 Val by sending(X, G) to thecategoryofalgebraicG-bundleson X. Whatis
W:
new hereis thatwe wantto consideranotherfunctor
ralgebraic
At'7r
whichsends (X, G) to thecategoryof all coherentsheavesacted on by G.

Definition9.2. Thereis a functorKalgg:ralgebraic
to the Grothendieck
groupof V(X, G).
Definition9.3. Thereis a functorL:
the Grothendieck
groupof W(X, G).
ralgebraic
-A
-E, whichsends(X, G)
REX,
whichsends(X, G) to
Note. The " functor" L is not a functor on all of 'ealgebraic' If

(fg): (X, G) - (Y, H) is a morphismin (ealgebraic, L(f, g) is definedonlywhen
f is flat.To be correctwe shoulddefinea new category'eflat on which L is a
I believethatmy
of L foropen immersions;
functor.I onlyuse thefunctoriality
lack of rigorin fact clarifiesthe constructions,
whereas excessivecorrectness
would obscurethem.
V -* W which sends a bundle to itself,
There is a naturaltransformation
r: K9 -- L. We willshow
viewed as a sheaf.It inducesa naturaltransformation
of functors.
of 'ealgebraic) -T is an isomorphism
that,on some subcategory
To provethis,we need to resolvecoherentsheavesby vectorbundles.Even
in the case when G is trivial,to do thisone has to imposethe conditionthat X
445
be quasi-projective. It is natural enough to assume that X admits an ample line

bundle Y' on which the action of G linearizes. But this does not seem to suffice.
The "classical" condition that would usually be imposed is some stability
assumption. But if X is not proper, this is very unnatural. Stabilitydepends not
only on Y', but also on a choice of a finitedimensional C vector subspace of
H0(Y-) which embeds X into projective space. Put more concretely,it depends
on a choice of compactificationfor X.
For this reason, we introduce a better, more intrinsic notion of what it
should mean for ? to be "nice".
Definition 9.4. Let (X, G) be an object of Walgebraic'An ample line bundle ?
on X forwhich the action of G linearizes is called nice if forevery point p E X
there is a G-invariantsection s E H0(Y) such that Xs is affineand p E Xs.
Remark 9.5. If X is embedded equivariantlyin Pn, and Y is the pullback
of 0(1), then we can ask how Definition 9.4 compares with stability.If every
point of X is stable in Pn, Y' is nice. However, if one only requires that every
point of X be semistable, ?f need not be nice.
The firstresult needed is the following:
THEOREM
9.6. Let X be a schemeoffinitetypeover Spec C, G a reductive
algebraic group acting on X. Let ? be a nice line bundle on X. Then for any
coherent G-sheaf 9Y on X (i.e., a coherentsheaf that admits a G action), there
exists a surjection A'm-* J, where Y'" is a locally free G-sheaf and the map is G
equivariant.
Proof. Suppose firstthat X = Spec A is affineand ? is trivial. Then we
have to show that if M is a finiteA module acted on by G = Spec R, then there
exists a locally free finiteA module F, also with a G action, and a surjection
M which is a G map.
F
The essential point is well-known and may be found in Mumford ([6]).
Given any element m c M, mG generates a finitedimensional C vector space.
This is clear because the action is algebraic, which gives a map yt: M -* M ?CR.
If i(m) = ml ? r1 +
+?mn ? rn, then for every g c G, mg lies in the
.
vectorspace generatedby ml,..., mn.

Let ml, m2,. .., mk generateM overC. Let V be thevectorsubspaceof M
spanned by mlG U m2G U ... UmkG. Then V is a finite dimensional

G-invariant subspace of M, which spans M as a G module. The required map is
just the natural map V ?CA -* M.
(There is a small point here that should be mentioned: Because G is a
variety,the fact that VG C V can be checked at the closed points of G.)
446
AMNON NEEMAN
How do we globalizethe construction?

We cover X by finitely
manyopen
affinesXsi, 1 < i < r, si G-invariant
sectionsof YS (thiscan be done because ?
is nice). On Xsi we have,by the above, a vectorspace Vi C f(Xs, S") withthe
followingproperties:
(1) Vi is finitedimensional.
(2) Vi is G-invariant.
(3) Vi generates9? on Xsi.
Twistingthe sectionsby si, we may assume that the map Vi - f(Xs8,
Y' Y') factorsthrough f X, S"? ?'n) (i.e., the global sectionsin Vi lift).
However, the map Vi -- F(X, S? X Yn) will not necessarilybe G-equivariant.
Afterall, we have just liftedsections.
The extentto whichthe map failsto be G-equivariantis measuredon Xs.
of the square
by the non-commutativity
Vi
f(XS, 9? Yn)
) ViX9R
-_ f(X,S
n) ? R,
and on Xs n X = Xssi thediagramis commutative.

Twistingsomemoreby si,
we can killall the maps (,/ X 1)a - y,8(i.e. kill themon each XS). So if we
increase n, we mayassumethatVi -4 (X, 5"? ?n) is a G-equivariant
map.
foreachi, we havea map

Choosingan n thatworks
(f
?)
It is clearlyG-equivariant
and surjective.
?1n
-*
QED
Definition9.7. Wnice is the fullsubcategoryof Walgebraic whose objectsare

pairs (X, G) such that X is smoothand admitsa nice line bundle.
COROLLARY9.8. For (X, G) an object in
6nice, the inclusionV(X, G)

on theboundedderivedcategories.
W( X, G) inducesan isomorphism
Proof Let n be the maximaldimensionof any componentof X (which

exists; X is of finitetype).Then everyelementof W(X, G) has a resolutionof
length no more than n by objects of V(X, G), and the resultfollowsfrom
Hartshorne[3, Lemma4.6, part2, p. 42 and Prop.3.3, p. 32].
0
In particularit followsthatinducednaturalmap Kalg(X,G) -4 L(X, G) is
an isomorphism.
What turnsthiselaborateconstruction
intoa usefultoolis thatif U - X is
an open immersionof G-schemes,the corresponding
map L(X, G) -* L(U, G)
447
has a chance of being surjective;we could reasonablyexpectto be able to lift

G-sheaveson U to G-sheaveson X. But I onlysee how to do thisundercertain
assumptions.We makethefollowingdefinition:
Definition 9.9. Let U -- X be a G-equivariant open embedding of
G-schemes.The embeddingis called good if foreveryp E U, U containsthe
entireG-equivalenceclass of p. That is, if q E X and Gq fl Gp / 0, q E U.
Similarly,(U, G) -* (X, G) is called a good morphismif U -* X is a good
open immersion.
Example 9.10. If (X, G) is in Walgebraic' ?f is a nice line bundle on X, and
U = XS for some invariantsection s in f(X, ?f), then (U, G)
-*
(X, G) is good.
The reason is that,because ? can be trivializedlocallyby invariantsections,

locallyeverywhereXs is givenby the vanishingof invariantfunctions.
Since the
functionsare invariant,
theyare constanton G orbits,so thatwe cannothave an
orbitalong whichs tendsto zero.
9.11. Let (U, G)
(X, G) be a good morphismof objects in

Then any coherent
W'algebraic' Suppose (X, G) admits a nice line bundle Y.
G-sheafY on U extendsto a coherentG-sheafon X.
THEOREM
-*
Proof.The idea is to do the construction

one affineat a time.So suppose
X = Spec A is affine,
and Y is trivial.
The fact that U contains the G-equivalenceclass of every point says
preciselythatU = Ur. Spec Af, each f beinga G-invariant
elementof A. (See
Mumford[6].) For each i, we have an Af moduleMi = r(Spec Af, Y?). Mi is
finiteover Af because SY is coherent.
For each i, there exists a finitedimensionalG-invariantvector space
c
Vi Mi such that AfV2= Mi. (See the proofof Theorem9.6.) Twistingby f
enough,we may assumev c r(u, S") and, twistingsome moreby fi, we may
assumethatthe inclusionVi - r(u, SY) is G-equivariant
(again,the argumentis
as in Theorem9.6).
Now put F1 = @1Vi ? 4cA.Then F1 is a G-bundle,and over U we get a
suriection F1 I U
Y,
we get another
Repeatingthe argumentforthe kernelof this surJection,
G-bundle F2 overA, and an exactsequence
o2fsUeluas
oU
Y~~9--0
of sheaveson U.
448
AMNON NEEMAN
If we twist4 byif forn sufficiently

large,we will"cancelthedenomina-
tors" in the matrix4, so that finc is actuallya map F2 F1. If we increasen

some,the map willbe G-equivariant
(see the proofof Theorem9.6).
Setting n large enough,we can make it workforeveryi. Define a map
-
ED i 1F
F1 by (x1
+ ffnX1?
+
Xr)
?frnXr.
The map is G-equivariant,
and it is clear thatthe cokernelrestricts

to 9' on U.
How do we globalize?Since ? is a good line bundleon X, we can coverX
of the formXS) s a sectionof Y. We firstshowthat Y' can
by invariantaffines
be extendedto U U Xs.
The embedding U n Xs XS is clearly good (this does not use any
propertyof Xs). Thus YI u ,x can be extendedto all of Xs by the affinecase
just discussed.Now we get a sheaf Y' on XS, with ,i cl nX = 'I5l UnXs
We define9Y" to be the kernelof the sequence
0 ---y"
-*
i*tY'
j*Y-
k*
lunx,
where i: Xs - U U Xs, j: U-* U U Xs and k: U n Xs -> U U Xs are the

x - 5"'', so that5 " is coherent
embeddings.We clearlyhave 5? " = Y?,
and extends9Y.
To be able to carry the constructionfurtherwe need to know that
U U Xs > X is a good embedding.By Example 9.10, Xs X is good. By
QED
hypothesis,U - X is good.Then U U Xs - X is also good.
We get immediately:
Let (U, G) -- (X, G) be a good morphismin walgebraic*
Then if X admitsa nice line bundle, the inducedmap L(X, G) -- L(U, G) is
COROLLARY 9.12.
surJective.
This much comes easily,but we want to know more.Knowingthe maps

we can get,withonlyinfinitesimally
morecare:
quite explicitly,
9.13. Let (U, G) -- (X, G) be a good morphism,and assume
that
further
(X, G) is in Vnice Thenthe inducedmap Kal (X, G) -- Kalg(U, G)
COROLLARY
is surJective.
Proof We have a commutative

diagram
Kalg(X,G)-L
alg(U,G)
L(X, G)
pL(U, G).
449
by Corollary9.8, and p is surjectiveby

Note that 4 is an isomorphism
Corollary9.12. Suppose we pick FYe Kalg(U,G). Take x E L(X, G) so that
p(x) = ((f'). Fromthediagramaloneit is notquiteclearthatpo - 1(x) = f'. It
thereis a virtuein being
will become clear afterCorollary9.18. Nevertheless,
less mysterious.
quite explicitabout our maps; it makesthe constructions
The sheaf p( l) is the vectorbundle fY viewed as a sheaf,and x can be
taken to be a coherentsheaf Y? extendingY'. Also - 1(J) is obtainedby
to U; so we end up
thatresolution
constructing
a resolution
of 5Y,and p restricts
QED
of Y'.
witha resolution
Beforeconcludingthissection,we summarizesome factsabout good morphismsand nice bundles.
Property 9.14. Suppose f: U
V, g: V
X are good immersions of
Property 9.15. Suppose f: U
V, g: X
> Y are good immersions of
G-schemes.Then g o f is good.
G-schemes.Then so is f X g: U X X -> V X Y.
of G-schemes,and
Property9.16. Suppose f: U -- X is a good immersion
Y? is a nice line bundleon X. The U = USESXS, whereeach XS is affineand
s E S are G-invariant
sectionsof H0(Y'?), forsome n > 0. (cf. thebeginningof
the proofof Theorem9.10).
Remark 9.17. In property9.16 we use the fact that if X admitsa nice
hence noetherian.
bundle it is quasi-projective,
COROLLARY
i'nicen
and if(X, G) is
9.18. If (U, G) -- (X, G) is a goodmorphism,
then(U, G) is in W'nice
statements
are equivalent:
Property9.19. The following
(1) X admitsa nice linebundle.
affinemorphismX -, Pn, where G acts
(2) There existsa G-equivariant,
on pn.
trivially
Property9.20. Suppose X admitsa nice line bundle. Then the quotient
X/G exists,and the morphismX -) pn in Property9.18(2) factorsthrough
Since Pn is separated,
X/G. Boththe maps X -* Xc and X/G -> p are affine.
it followsthat X/G is separated.
Property
9.21. Let X admita nice linebundle.Then U -> X is a good open
immersionif and only if thereexistsa scheme U/G and an open immersion
450
AMNON
U/G -- X/G
NEEMAN
such that U -. X is the pullback

U
I~
It
+X
U/G -+X/G.
10. The program

Suppose we want to show that some characteristic
classes of a bundle
vanish, for a specificbundle Y'* on X/G, where (X, G) is in Wbig' Then an
approachthatmightworkis this.
(1) Prove that p: fi(X, G) -- H(X, G) is an isomorphism.
(See Proposition
8.15. In more standardnotationthis means that the naturalcohomologymap
induced by the projectionX XGEG -* X/G is an isomorphismH*(X/G)
H*(X xGEG).)
(2) Exhibit 7T* 1 E K(X, G) as the pullbackof some x E Kalg(Y,H), for
some (Y, H) in Walgebraic, Y smooth.
(3) Find a good morphism(Y, H) -- Z, H) where (Z, H) is an object of
'enice
(4) Prove a vanishingresult for the equivariantcohomologyHH*(Z)

H*(Z XHEH). (In our previousnotation,thisis H(Z, H).)
The reasonthiswouldworkis thatwe have a diagram
k(x,G)
Kalg(Y,H)
Kal9(Z,
K(X, G)
K(Y, H)+
K(Z, H)
I i I
H)
where the right-hand

square commutes.(2) permitsus to pull back 7T* 1 to
K alg(Y, G). (3) togetherwithCorollary9.13 tellsus that a is surjective,so IT*
pulls all the way back to Kalg(Z,H). So it certainlypullsback to K(Z, H).
Since Z. H are separatedschemesoffinitetypeoverSpec C (because (Z, H)
in
have a countableneighborhood
basis and are
is
Z, H are Hausdorff,
'algebraic)5
locally compact. So theyare countablyK-spaces in the complextopology(see
Example 7.3). If we forgetthe algebraicstructure,
(Z, H) is an object of Wbig'
But on W'big thereare naturaltransformations
Chern (resp. Pontr)K -3 H (see
tellsus thatChern(7 * ') is a pullbackofa class
Proposition8.15).The naturality
451
in H(Z, H). The vanishingwe prove in (4) implies the same vanishingfor
Chern( *5/).
of the diagram in Proposition8.15 proves that
The commutativity
imp[Chern(Yr)] = Chern(7*1/). The factthat (1) provesp an isomorphism
has a truePontr
plies the same vanishingforChern(*/). Finally,everystatement
analogue.
Remark10.1. The powerofthetechniqueis thatZ is reallyquitearbitrary.
Considerfora
Even in the case whereH is trivial,the statementis surprising.
momentjust whatwe have proved.
Suppose H is trivial.Then foranyquasi-projective
Z, anyamplelinebundle
any open embeddingis good. So what we knowis thatif
is nice. Furthermore,
Y -3,Z is an open embeddingof smoothquasi-projective
algebraicvarieties,any
algebraicbundle on Y has its Chern class supportedin H*(Z). Considerthe
followingexample.
Example 10.2. Choose a line bundle?9 on S' x S' witha nonzeroc1(?9).
S' x S' withan ellipticcurve,just take O(9)
(Such bundlesexist;identifying
1
retractofC * x C *. So ?9
forsome pointon thecurve.)S x S 1 is a deformation
extendsto a line bundle,which we also call ?9, on C * x C *, and also on
firstChernclass. Let C* x C* _3 C2 be the
C * x C*, ? has a non-vanishing
ofalgebraicvarieties.Now anyalgebraicline
embedding.It is an open immersion
bundle on C * x C * musthave its Chernclass supportedon C2, a contractible
space. It followsthattheline bundle ?9 is not algebraizable.
11. A pleasantconstruction
Let /#g(n,k) be the modulispace of semistablevectorbundles fY over a
curveC of genusg, suchthatY has rankn and degreek. We wishto studythe
Pontrjaginringofthesespaces,at leastin thecase wheretheyare smooth(i.e., n
ringof a smoothmanifold
and k are relatively
prime).Recall thatthe Pontrjagin
bundle.
classes
of
the
tangent
is the ringgeneratedby the Pontrjagin
The point is that we know .11g(n,k) quite concretelyas a differentiable
is due to Narasimhanand Seshadri(see [7]).
manifold.The following
description
Let U(n) be the group of unitaryn x n matrices.Consider the map
f: U(n)2g -> SU(n) givenby
= (a-lb-lalbj) ... (a-1bg-1agbg).
Then if X is a primitiventhrootof unity,[7] tellsus:
(1) XI E SU(n) is a regularvalue forf.
conjugation.Clearly
(2) SU(n) acts on U(n)2g and SU(n) by simultaneous
f is an SU(n) map,and equallyclearlyXI E SU(n) is a fixedpointfortheaction
al,' bl,'a2, b ...,agbg)
452
AMNON
NEEMAN
(being in the center).Whatis notso clear,but is true,is thattheactionof SU(n)

of f-1(A I) is almostfree:onlythe centerof SU( n) has fixedpoints.So PSU( n)
acts withoutfixedpoints(and, ofcourse,properly),
wherePSU(n) is thequotient
SU( n)/center.
(3) f 1(XI )/PSU( n) =_ g( n, k) as differentiable
manifolds.
Remark 11.1. Our construction
is quite "robust",and is completelyindependent of the way k depends on A in (3). Philosophicallythis may seem
reasonable.Because SU(n) is connected,the manifoldsf- '(AI) are cobordant.
In fact,if we knew thatthe set of regularvalues of f is connected,we could
deduce that,fordifferent
A, the manifoldsf l(AI) are actuallydiffeomorphic.
Nevertheless,
thisis onlya philosophical
point,because it does notfollowthatthe
fordifferent
A.
quotientsf-'(AI)/PSU(n) are cobordant(resp. diffeomorphic)
We proposeto applyour Program(see ?10) to (f-(AI), PSU(n)), whichis
actuallyan object of Wlittle
(1) We have to showthatthe naturalmap
H*[ f -'(XI)/PSU(n)]
-->H* [f-'(XI) X pSu(,)EPSU(n)]
is an isomorphism.In fact,it is easy to show that the projectionfj'(

Il)
bundle
an
is
a
similar
to
the
f 1(AI)/PSU(n)
principalPSU(n)
(by
argument
proof of Proposition7.16), and so the map f-'(AI) Xpsu(n)EPSU(n)
fiber.
f '(A I)/PSU(n) is a fiberbundlewitha contractible
(2) is harder.Let r be thetangentbundleof f-'(AI)/PSU(n). Then first
rememberthatPontr(1) = Chern(Y? RC). If we applythe Programto Y/ RC
Chern,we willbe provingresultsaboutPontr(YV).
and thenaturaltransformation
We definea map f: GL(n, C)2The idea is to complexify
everything.
SL(n, C) by
J(ab,.
.., ag, bg) = (a'lbjla
bi)
...
(a;'bg'agbg).
If PGL(n, C) acts on GL(n, C)29 by simultaneous

conjugationand on SL(n, C)
by conjugation,thenf is a PGL( n, C) map. Also XI E SL( n, C) is fixed,beingin
the center;so PGL(n,C) acts on f '(AI).
We have a diagramof objectsin C big:
( f -1(XI ),PSU(n))(U(n)2g,
PSU(n)){(SU(n),
PSU(n))
PGL(ns))(GL(n )2g,
PGL(no))m(SL(n),
(whi(cI)hPGL(n))
whichclearlycommutes.
453
Let Tx denotethe tangentbundleof X.

On f `(XI) we get an exactsequenceof PSU(n) bundles
0
-O
Tf-(xI),
g*TU(n2g
*f*TSU(n)
But the naturalmaps

)2g ? RC TU(fn
TSU(fn)? RC
1TGL(n),
2TSL(fn)
are isomorphisms
(because U(n), resp. SU(n), are the maximalcompact subgroups of GL(n), resp. SL(n)). We have expressed Tf-'(XI) ? RC as the pullback
Of TGL4n)2g-f*TSL(n) in Kalg(GL(n)2g,PGL(n)).
If 1/, as above,is Tf-1(xI)/PSU(n), thenon f-'(XI) we get a sequenceof
PSU(n) bundles
0 -- E -- Tf-1(x I)
0
7lfwhere e is the bundleofvectorfieldsparallelto the fibers.Anotherdescription,
which permitsus to liftE ? RC, is thatit is the bundle of vectorfieldsin the
directionof the actionof PSU(n).
The way to obtain an algebraicliftingof 0 ?RC to GL(n )2g is easy.
Considerthe map ,u:GL(n)2g X PGL(n) -* GL(n)2g (theaction).It is a smooth
of GL(n)2g X PGL(n), it is just a projecmap; in fact,afteran automorphism
tion. Let 0 be the subbundleof the tangentbundle of GL(n)2g X PGL(n)
parallelto the fibers.Let s: GL(n)2g -- GL(n)2g X PGL(n) be a section.Then
s*@ is a bundleon GL(n)2g lifting0 ?RC.
Now vT* f' RC E K(f'- 1(XI), PSU(n)) is a pullbackof
TGL( n
TSL(n)
s*
K1 g(GL(n)
,PGL(n)).
This achieves(2).
but the problemis really(4): In
Step (3) of the programis moredifficult,
is under
thiscase the onlyway to provevanishingof theequivariantcohomology
the condition that H *(X/G) -- H *( X> EG) be an isomorphism;e.g., under
7.16.
the hypothesesof Proposition
Still, somethingcan be salvaged.We have a map (GL(n )2g,PGL(n))
(M(n )2g,PGL(n)), M(n) beingthe varietyof all n x n matrices.Now M(n )2g
is affine,so that the trivialbundle is nice. The morphismis good because
GL(n )2g is givenby thevanishingofan invariantsection,namelytheproductof
the determinants.
(See Example9.10.) Hence T* Y? RC liftsto an elementof
K(M(n)2g, PGL(n)), and it followsthat Chern(v*? RC) is a pullbackfrom
H*(M(n)2g X>PCL(n)EPGL(n)) H*(BPGL(n)). Fromthiswe get:
THEOREM 11.2. The Pontrjagin ring of v* l is a quotient of a subring of
H *(BPGL( n)).
454
AMNON NEEMAN
We can obtainbetterresultswhen n = 2, but fora generaln, morework

mustbe done.
12. An unpleasantconstruction
To treatthe case n = 2, we need to considera minordeviationfromthe
Program.
12.1: Variationon theProgram.We do Steps 1, 2 and 3 as in the Program,
but thenwe alterit to:
(4') Construct(R, K) in Wbig so that (X,G) -* (Z, H) factorsthrough
(RI K).
(5) Prove vanishing for the equivariant cohomology H(R, K) =
H*(R XKEK).
The reason thiswould also workis clear. We have alreadypulled ir*(Yl*)
back to K(Z, H), and the factoring
in (4') allowsus to pull it back to (R, K).
The restof the argumentin Section10 is unaltered.
In Section 11 we showed how 7T*Y" can be pulled back to
Kalg(M(n)2g, PGL(n)) whereYf is thetangentbundleof f-'(XI)/PSU(n). For
n = 2, we want to use Step 3 of the Programto pull it back further.
We startby constructing
M(2), a varietycontainingM(2) as an open subset.
The idea is to allow thedifference
oftheeigenvaluesofa matrixto go to infinity.
Let U C M(2) be the open subset of matriceswith distincteigenvalues.
There is a map T \ PGL(2) X C X C * -* U, where T is the maximaltorusof
diagonal matricesin PGL(2). The map is given by (A, Xi ? X2' X+ A
A-' X1 A. The map is a double cover, with covering transformation
X2, X2 -
1). Note that multiplication

on the leftby (?1) is well-defined
on T\ PGL(2) because(?1) is in the
of T. Because(?
normalizer
on theleftby (?1)hasno
T, multiplication
(A,A1Xi+ A
2
1-X
2)
1((?
o)A,X1 +
?)
fixedpointson T\ PGL(2).
Let U be the affinevarietyT\ PGL(2) X C X C, and write C2\ U for
the quotient of U by the cyclic group C2, where the action is given by
Now C2\ U is clearly smooth as C2 acts
x, (A, x, y)
O)A,
((
without fixedpoints.
Y).
We attach C2\ U to M(2) to formM(2) as follows.Take the subset of

C2 \ U given by y # 0. It is an open affinevariety,and is isomorphicto
U c M(2). We attach by the isomorphism(A,
x, y)
A1(
1)A. So Y
455
by allowing
correspondsto 1/(AX- X2), and in thissense M(2) is constructed
i- X2 to go to infinity.
PGL(2) acts on M(2) by conjugation,and on U by its action on the first
factor.The actionon U commuteswiththe actionof C, so thatwe get an action
hence
of PGL(2) on C2\ U. The actionsare compatibleon the intersection;
PGL(2) acts on M(2).
Observe that (X1 - X2)2 extendsto a morphismh: M(2) -- P'. Since

C2\ U = h'-(P1 - (0)), M(2) = h'-(P1 - {cx}c), h is actually an affinemorphism.Now h is separated,and because P' is separatedso is M(2).
on P'.
wherePGL(2) acts trivially
Note that h is also PGL(2) equivariant,
So we get an equivariantmap (M(2) x M(2))g -* (p1)g. Let Y be the pullback
_ ... ** (g*1(1) on (p1)g. Then by Property9.19, Y is a
of ir1(9(1) ? rYT2*9(1)
nice bundle on (M(2) x M(2))g, and (M(2) x M(2))g c (M(2) x M(2))g is the
vanishingof an invariantsectionof Y. So
((M(2) x M(2))g, PGL(2)) -),((M(2)
x M(2)) , PGL(2))
satisfiesthe hypothesesof (3) in the Program.

Nextwe carryout (4') in thevariantoftheProgram.In our case, R willbe
an open subsetof (M(2) X M(2))g, invariantunderthe actionof PGL(2).
Define first S C C2 \ U X M(2) by the following construction.
PGL(2) X C X C X M(2) maps onto C2\ U X M(2). Define a functionP on
PGL(2) X C X C X M(2) by (A, x, y, B) - /312/321, where ABA- =
1
undertheactionof T and C2
fl2 ). It is easy to showthat P is invariant
/321
f922/2
Now we
on C2\ U X M(2). It is also PGL(2)-invariant.
so it factorsas a function
get that S = (C2 \ U X M(2))p is a PGL(2)-invariantopen subset of M(2) x
M(2). The inclusionS > C2\ U X M(2) is good,beinggivenby thevanishingof
P. The inclusionC2 \ U X M(2) -* M(2) X M(2) is also good because C2 \ U
c-+ M(2) is given by the vanishingof a section,and Property9.15 says that
C2\ U X M(2) -)_M(2) x M(2) is a good immersion.By Property9.14, the
compositeS - M(2) X M(2) is a good open immersion.
9.15 again,we have thatthemap S x (M(2) x M(2)) gUsingProperty
X
Put
M(2))g is a good immersion.
(M(2)
=
Image S x (M(2)
x M(2))
M(2) x
(2)
where S goes to the ith factor.Then Ri c (M(2) X M(2))g is a good open

subset,so that R = U IiR is good. We want to put (R. K) = (R. PGL(2)) in
Step (4').
456
AMNON
NEEMAN
We mustshowthatf
I)--I)- (M(2) x M(2)) g factorsthroughR. Take
any (al, bl, ... ., ag, bg) E U(n)2g such that
(allb-la
b,)
...
(a-lbg-lagbg)
- I.
Then for some i, a i and bi do not commute.Since unitarymatricesare

diagonalizableand a is not in the center,the eigenvaluesof ai are distinct,so
conjugatingai and bi
that ai E U = M(2) n C2\ U c M(2). Simultaneously
witha unitarymatrix,we may assume ai diagonal.Then bi does not commute
with ai; so if bi =(Al
12
), either /12 or 821 must be nonzero. But a unitary
and /821are
matrixcannotbe of the form(g b) with b # 0; hence both 8B12
nonzero.Now / =12/A21+ 0, and (ai, bi) e S. Therefore
f(-1 I) c U9 Ri = R.
as required.This completesStep (4'), and we have also obtaineda factthatwe
will need in Step (5):
Fact 12.1. The immersion
R
(M(2) X M(2))g is good.
(5). There is a map (PGL(2) X C X C) X C X C X C*

(A5 X5Y5 15P25b)
--
'
((A. x.y), A-'8
S given by
)A)
This turnsout to be a doublecover,withcoveringtransformation
(A x,YP1,
2 b)
((1 o)Ax,
- Y5M25plb)
The PGL(2) actionon the coveris just the actionon the firstfactor,and it
and the same is true
has no fixedpoints.So everyorbitin S is threedimensional,
for
Ri=
S X(M(2) X M(2))
or R-= URi1
i=1
Fact 12.1, togetherwith the fact that (M(2) x M(2))g admitsa nice line
bundle and Property9.21, tell us that R admitsa separatedquotient.The fact
impliesthatPGL(2) acts properly
thateveryPGL(2) orbitin R is 3-dimensional
on R; this may be foundin Mumford[6, Prop. 0.8, p. 16]. Now we are in the
situation of Proposition7.16: PGL(2) acts on R properlyand with finite
stabilizers,and thenaturalmap H *(R/PGL(2)) -- H *(R x PGL(2)EPGL(2)) is
an isomorphism
forthe rationalcohomology.
By Corollary1.6 and Remark1.7 in Part 1 of this paper, the geometric
quotient R/PGL(2) has the complex topologyof the topological quotient
457
R/PGL(2). By Theorem4.2 in Part1, vanishingforthecohomology

of R implies
vanishingforthe cohomologyof R/PGL(2). To computethe cohomologyof R,
we use the open cover R = U9 R. We need to compute the cohoof the Ri's. A typicalone is homeomorphicto
mologyof finiteintersections
Sk X (M(2) X M(2)) g-k
two lemmas:
Hence we are reducedto the following
LEMMA
12.2. H'(S, Q) = 0 if 1 > 4.
S, hence
Proof.Recallthatwe havea doublecoverPGL(2) X C4 X C*
an injection
H'(S, Q) -* H'(PGL(2) X C4 X C*, Q). ButPGL(2) X C4 X C* has
the homotopytypeof RP3 x S1.

LEMMA 12.3. H'(M(2))
= 0
if 1 > 4.
Proof M(2) is the unionof contractible

space M(2) and
C2\ (T\ PGL(2) X C X C) = C2\ U.
So H*(C2 \ U) injectsintoH*(T\ PGL(2) X C X C) and T\ PGL(2) X C X C
has the homotopytypeof S2. The intersection
C2 \ U n M(2) is doublycovered
is
to S2 x S'. Whenall thisis
C
which
C*,
by T\PGL(2) X X
homotopic
exactsequence,the lemmafollows.
combinedwiththe Mayer-Vietoris
Foranyintersection
U ofRi's, if I >
COROLLARY12.4.
4g,
H'(U, Q)
= 0.
PROPOSITION12.5. H'(R. Q) = 0 if 1 ? 5g.
Proof:There is a spectralsequence whichabuts to HP+q(R, Q), whose El

termis
p+1
EP q
1
1<'I
3
<2
<
..<ip+l
<g
Hq n
n1si5Q
=l 1
Er q is zero except when q < 4g and p < g - 1. It followsthat for 1
5g,
= 0.
H'(RQ)
12.6. It followsfromProposition12.5 and Theorem4.2 thatfor

3, H'(R/PGL(2), Q) = 0.
COROLLARY
1 ? 5g
This completesStep 5 of the Program.Now we arriveat:

THEOREM
12.7. The Pontrjaginring of ffg(2,1) vanishes in dimensions
higherthan5g - 3.
Remark 12.8. A conjecturethat may be due to Newstead but is usually

attributedto Ramanan assertsthatthe ringvanishesabove dimension4g (see
458
AMNON
NEEMAN
Atiyah-Bott[1 Chap. 9]). J#g(2,1) is a compact manifoldof real dimension

real torus(the Jacobian).
8g - 6, but it admitsan actionby a 2g-dimensional,
The tangentbundle has a 2g-dimensional,
trivialsubbundle,and the quotient
may be expressedas the pullbackofthetangentbundleofa 6g - 6-dimensional,
real manifold.Hence the trivialvanishingis in dimension6g - 6. My method
goes "half-way"to provingthe conjecture.
Sequel
of Section12 is not quite right.The key difficulty
is Step
The construction
know
for
how to provevanishing the equivariant
(5) of the Program:I do not
cohomologyof a space except in the case where it agrees with the ordinary
cohomologyof the quotient.
Consider the following,tenuousargument.We know that the Pontrjagin
ringof 7T**, f* the tangentbundleof f '(XI)/PSU(n), is supportedon any
open subset of M(n)2g that containsf `(XI). In otherwords,the Pontrjagin
ringreallylives in the cohomologyof any such open subset.Section5 showed,
once you granttheconjecturesofSection3 (whichare true),thatif U is an open
subsetof M(n )2g whichis sufficiently
nice,the cohomologyof U/PGL(n) must
vanishabove dimensionroughly2gn2- 4g(n - 1). This estimateis independent
of U, provided H*(U) vanishes above a suitable dimension.If we could
somehowrealizewhatthismeansforthe equivariantcohomology,
or ifwe had a
construction
thataltogether
avoidedtheuse of the equivariantcohomology,
then
thismighttellus something
aboutChernclasses.For n = 2, thevanishingwould
be above dimension 8g
4g(2
1) = 4g. For n larger,this frivolousnumerical
estimateleads us to generalizeRamanan'sconjecture.The Pontrjaginringshould

vanishabove dimension2gn2 - 4g(n - 1) (approximately;
precisely,above dimension 2gn2
4g(n
1) + 2).
PRINCETON UNIVERSrrY, PRINCETON, NJ
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] M. F. ATiYAH and R. Borr, The Yang-Millsequationsover Riemannsurfaces,Phil. Trans.

Royal Soc. London 308 (1983), 523-615.
[2] A. GROTHENDIECK,Sur quelque pointsd'algebrehomologique,TohokuMath.J.,2nd Series,9
(1957), 119-221.
1966.
[3] R. HARTSHORNE,Residuesand Duality,LectureNotes20, Springer-Verlag,
[4] G. KEMPT and L. NESS, The lengthof vectorsin representation
spaces, SpringerLecture
Notes 732 (1978), 233-244.
[5] S. LojAsIEWICZ, Ensembles semi-analytiques,IHES preprint, 1965.
Heidelberg,1965.
[6] D. MUMFORD, GeometricInvariantTheory,Ergebnisse,Springer-Verlag,
TOPOLOGY
OF QUOTIENT
VARIETIES
[7] M. S.
459
and C. S. SESHADRI,Stable and unitaryvectorbundlesoveran algebraic

NARASIMHAN
curve,Ann. of Math.82 (1965), 540-567.
[8] G. SEGAL,EquivariantK-theory,
IHES Pub. Math.34 (1968), 129-151.
[9] J-P.SERBE, Geometriealgebriqueet geometrieanalytique,Ann. Inst. Fourier,Grenoble6
(1956), 1-42.
[10] C. S. SESHADRI,Quotient spaces modulo reductive algebraic groups, Ann. of Math.95 (1972),
511-556.
(ReceivedOctober13, 1983)
(RevisedMay 24, 1985)

Neeman, &quot;Topology of Quotient Varieties&quot;

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Neeman, &quot;Topology of Quotient Varieties&quot;

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Annals of Mathematics

The Topology of Quotient Varieties

122 (1985), 419-459

The topologyof quotientvarieties

(a) maybe foundin Corollary1.4 and (b) is Theorem2.1. The restofPart1

Conjecture3.5 is 1/2 (see remark3.7). For thisreasonI feelthe appendixis still

TOPOLOGY OF QUOTIENT VARIETIES

complexvectorspace. Let X1,..., Xn be a set of rightinvariantvectorfields

vectorfieldson V, and by abuse of notationwe will call thoseXi and Y1too. If

1.1. The map

So we may choose a,, ....,ar+?

so that the map ?o(g, g): V

homogeneous.By thiswe meanthatthereis an integerb suchthatmultiplication

Kempf-Ness[4]. So g(N n S) is compactand does not contain0 E R. It follows

is compact, and does not contain 0 E Cr. It followsthat there is a positive

Remark 1.3. We observedearlierthatthe theoremof Kempf-Nesstellsus

1.4. For any a 2 0, the map C(a) - V-4 Spec(C[V*]G) is

is a pullback diagram;so it followsfromthis and Theorem 1.1 that C(a)

is proper;hence the corollaryis proved.

Proof We may always embed Spec A equivariantlyas a Zariski closed

TOPOLOGY OF QUOTIENT VARIETIES

COROLLARY 1.6. Let Spec A be of finitetypeover C and G a reductive

map 'r: Spec A

Proof Consider the composite CA(a)

Spec AG. It is a proper

map of locallycompactspaces, and hence is closed. It is surjective;so it is an

Remark 1.7. The same extendsto quotientsof arbitraryvarieties.The

is the above; to get

Locally,the vectorfieldgrad(P) can be integrated

brackets.Thus Y v is the linearoperatorYj actingon v. Yj(Kv, v)) is the vector

Now we obtainthe formula

From this,we deduce:

Proof As in Corollary1.5,embedSpec A in a vectorspace V. Then theflow

TOPOLOGY OF QUOTIENT VARIETIES

question is: we have a map ( -

to a map [ - ox,0] x V -V?

to - ox; precisely, there is a map [-

Rn extending the grad(P)

Remark3.2. If Mumford'sconjectureweretrue,we wouldclearlybe done;

Proof.By formula(*) of Section2, grad(g) = 8?n=1Yi(f)Y1. So

However,this estimateturnsout to be inadequate. So suppose we could

Remark3.6. The inequalityof conjecture3.5 is homogeneous,so thereis a

Now f increasesalong integralcurves,so that we get the inequality,for

So along the integralcurvewhichat t = 0 passes throughv(O) E V, we get

where A is a constantforthisintegralcurve,and variescontinuously

The essential fact is that (-t )g

B(v(O)) is just the function A multiplied by the constant

The integrandis positivedefinite,so that we can change the order of

TOPOLOGY OF QUOTIENT VARIETIES

Now we use H6lder'sinequalityto estimatethe integralof IIgrad(g)I. For

Note that IIgrad(g) is integrableon (-o,

continuouscomes fromthe uniformconvergenceof frOgrad(g) to zero as

Remark3.7. I suspectthatthe correctE in conjecture3.5 is 1/2. It works

Spec AC. We will show that the

vanishingof high cohomologygroupson X impliesthe same on X/G. The

A point x E X is called stable if x has a finitestabilizerand its orbit

XS. Then we have

inclusionmaps j: XS - X, i: Z -* X. Let Q denotethesheafofconstantson X

Now let k1 be an integersuch that 1 ? k1 * H'(Z,Q) = 0, and k2 an

and whenwe restrict

H'(G, Q)& (QIxS,/c)

which can be shownto be an isomorphism

For now we deferthe proofof Lemma 4.1; it is the onlyargumentin this

TOPOLOGY OF QUOTIENT VARIETIES

Neeman, "Topology of Quotient Varieties"

Neeman, "Topology of Quotient Varieties"