What is the intuition for higher homotopy groups not vanishing?What are the uses of the homotopy groups of spheres?Why do the homology groups capture holes in a space better than the homotopy groups?How to tell whether a compact manifold can be realized as a nontrivial fiber bundle?What is the 31th homotopy group of the 2 - sphere ?Is there an analogue of CW-complexes built from $K(mathbb Z, n)$ instead of $S^n$?A refinement of Serre's finiteness theorem on unstable homotopy groups of spheres

What is the intuition for higher homotopy groups not vanishing?


What are the uses of the homotopy groups of spheres?Why do the homology groups capture holes in a space better than the homotopy groups?How to tell whether a compact manifold can be realized as a nontrivial fiber bundle?What is the 31th homotopy group of the 2 - sphere ?Is there an analogue of CW-complexes built from $K(mathbb Z, n)$ instead of $S^n$?A refinement of Serre's finiteness theorem on unstable homotopy groups of spheres













27














$begingroup$



The homotopy groups of the spheres $S^n$ (see Wikipedia) vanish for the circle $S^1$ as, naively speaking, there are not higher order holes to be grasped by higher order homotopy groups. This intuitions already breaks down for the two sphere $S^2$, e.g. $pi_3(S^2)$ is non-trivial because of the Hopf fibration. This non-triviality seems to keep on going for all the higher spheres $S^n$. What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different?










share|cite|improve this question










$endgroup$










  • 12




    $begingroup$
    The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Miller
    Jul 20 at 15:39







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 20 at 16:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
    $endgroup$
    – skd
    Jul 20 at 16:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DenisNardin actually $n$-dimensional torus $(S^1)^n$ has vanishing of higher homotopy groups, and they are n-manifolds.
    $endgroup$
    – user43326
    Jul 20 at 16:11






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 20 at 16:14















27














$begingroup$



The homotopy groups of the spheres $S^n$ (see Wikipedia) vanish for the circle $S^1$ as, naively speaking, there are not higher order holes to be grasped by higher order homotopy groups. This intuitions already breaks down for the two sphere $S^2$, e.g. $pi_3(S^2)$ is non-trivial because of the Hopf fibration. This non-triviality seems to keep on going for all the higher spheres $S^n$. What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different?










share|cite|improve this question










$endgroup$










  • 12




    $begingroup$
    The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Miller
    Jul 20 at 15:39







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 20 at 16:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
    $endgroup$
    – skd
    Jul 20 at 16:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DenisNardin actually $n$-dimensional torus $(S^1)^n$ has vanishing of higher homotopy groups, and they are n-manifolds.
    $endgroup$
    – user43326
    Jul 20 at 16:11






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 20 at 16:14













27












27








27


13



$begingroup$



The homotopy groups of the spheres $S^n$ (see Wikipedia) vanish for the circle $S^1$ as, naively speaking, there are not higher order holes to be grasped by higher order homotopy groups. This intuitions already breaks down for the two sphere $S^2$, e.g. $pi_3(S^2)$ is non-trivial because of the Hopf fibration. This non-triviality seems to keep on going for all the higher spheres $S^n$. What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different?










share|cite|improve this question










$endgroup$





The homotopy groups of the spheres $S^n$ (see Wikipedia) vanish for the circle $S^1$ as, naively speaking, there are not higher order holes to be grasped by higher order homotopy groups. This intuitions already breaks down for the two sphere $S^2$, e.g. $pi_3(S^2)$ is non-trivial because of the Hopf fibration. This non-triviality seems to keep on going for all the higher spheres $S^n$. What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different?







at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory hopf-fibration homotopy-groups-of-sphere






share|cite|improve this question














share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jul 20 at 15:22









horropiehorropie

1591 silver badge12 bronze badges




1591 silver badge12 bronze badges










  • 12




    $begingroup$
    The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Miller
    Jul 20 at 15:39







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 20 at 16:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
    $endgroup$
    – skd
    Jul 20 at 16:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DenisNardin actually $n$-dimensional torus $(S^1)^n$ has vanishing of higher homotopy groups, and they are n-manifolds.
    $endgroup$
    – user43326
    Jul 20 at 16:11






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 20 at 16:14












  • 12




    $begingroup$
    The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Miller
    Jul 20 at 15:39







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 20 at 16:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
    $endgroup$
    – skd
    Jul 20 at 16:00






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DenisNardin actually $n$-dimensional torus $(S^1)^n$ has vanishing of higher homotopy groups, and they are n-manifolds.
    $endgroup$
    – user43326
    Jul 20 at 16:11






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 20 at 16:14







12




12




$begingroup$
The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
$endgroup$
– Mike Miller
Jul 20 at 15:39





$begingroup$
The "universal covering space" operation is simultaneously very geometric and preserves all homotopy groups except $pi_1$. This transparently sends $S^1$ to the contractible space $Bbb R$. There are analogues to this for higher homotopy groups, but the 'Whitehead truncation' operations are no longer so geometric; there is no real way to see visually what the Whitehead truncations of higher spheres are, and indeed they are not contractible.
$endgroup$
– Mike Miller
Jul 20 at 15:39





2




2




$begingroup$
I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
Jul 20 at 16:00




$begingroup$
I think it is a combination of two facts: (1) taking the universal cover is "geometric". In particular if $X$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold, so is its universal cover. (2) There aren't that many simply connected 1-manifolds. Note that taking higher Whitehead covers does not preserve being a manifold (and in fact tends to send finite-dimensional objects to infinite-dimensional objects, in some sense)
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
Jul 20 at 16:00




1




1




$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
$endgroup$
– skd
Jul 20 at 16:00




$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you mean by "this non-triviality seems to keep on going"; for instance, the homotopy group pi_10 S^6 (in the stable range) vanishes. There are, however, infinitely many nontrivial homotopy groups of S^n for n>1. This is a consequence of a result known as the McGibbon-Neisendorfer theorem, which states that if X is a simply-connected finite complex which is not p-locally trivial, then pi_n X has p-torsion for infinitely many n. From this point of view, the failure of S^1 to be simply-connected is one root of the issue.
$endgroup$
– skd
Jul 20 at 16:00




1




1




$begingroup$
@DenisNardin actually $n$-dimensional torus $(S^1)^n$ has vanishing of higher homotopy groups, and they are n-manifolds.
$endgroup$
– user43326
Jul 20 at 16:11




$begingroup$
@DenisNardin actually $n$-dimensional torus $(S^1)^n$ has vanishing of higher homotopy groups, and they are n-manifolds.
$endgroup$
– user43326
Jul 20 at 16:11




5




5




$begingroup$
@user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
Jul 20 at 16:14




$begingroup$
@user43326 I never said there are no aspherical manifolds, there are obviously lots (tori, hyperbolic manifolds,...). I meant to say that if you start with a manifold with non-trivial $pi_n$ and you take the $n$-th Whitehead cover, it will usually not be the homotopy type of a manifold anymore (in fact it will usually tend to become "infinite-dimensional" in some sense).
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
Jul 20 at 16:14










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















19
















$begingroup$

So far the discusion mostly focused on a geometric explanation, I'd like to mention the algebraic one as well:



One way to formulate it involves the delooping machinery: up to delooping, $mathbbS^n$ corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generator.




Small recall: the usual delooping machinery say that the looping/delooping construction induce an equivalence between pointed spaces $X$ such that $pi_k X =0$ for all $k<n$ and group like $E_n$-algberas. Through that correspondence $mathbbS^n$ corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators, as the looping/delooping adjunction justs shift the $pi_n$ you can describe the homotopy group of sphere as shifted homotopy group of these free group like $E_n$-algebra. A more explicit way to say all this is that the free group like $E_n$-algebra is $Omega^n mathbbS^n$.




Now, when you construct the free $E_1$-algebra, there is not much you can do: you only have one way to multiply elements and the free $E_1$-algebra on one generator is just the monoid $mathbbN$ (and $mathbbZ$ for the group like one).



But for $E_n$ you get $n$ "compatible" (in a homotopy theoretic sense) way to multiply the elements and all the higher elements in the homotopy group comes from the interaction (the coherence law, that are given by homotopies) between these multiplications, for example the free $E_2$-algebra has all the braid groups appearing as its various $pi_1$ due to that, and the free group like $E_2$-algebra become too complicated to described (well... it is $Omega^2 mathbbS^2$ ).



So the difference is that for $n=1$ no such interaction is happening because to get interaction you need at least two compatible multiplication.



Alternatively to the delooping machinery, one can (somehow equivalently) think of spaces as $infty$-groupoids and as the $n$-sphere as the $infty$-groupoid freely generated by a cell in dimension $n$. The discussion is pretty much the same except that now the $n$ "compatible" multiplication are simply the compositions in direction $k$ for $k$ from $0$ to $n-1$.



Edit: Here is how you get a non trivial element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, in the second perspective. I'm using an unspecified model of weak $infty$-groupoid, and applying freely the operation of strict $infty$-categories to give a feel of how it works, this is not mean't to be formal (but it is formalizable in any algebraic model of weak $infty$-groupoid, or in Hott )



Given a two cells $u$ and $v$ whose source and target is a (weak) identity, the usual Eckman Hilton argument (so the typical example of interaction between $#_0$ and $#_1$ as I mentioned above) gives an isomorphism $theta_u,v : u #_0 v simeq v #_0 u$.



If $e$ is the generating 2-cell of the 2sphere then this gives an isomorphisms $theta_e,e: e #_0 e simeq e #_0 e $
taking $e^*$ a $0$ inverse of $e$, one has that $e^* #_0 theta_e,e # e^*$ is a 3-cell whose source and target are (up to the coherence isomorphism expressing that $e$ and $e^*$ are inverse) identities, so it gives an element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, which is non-zero by a universality argument. I'm convince it is a generator (so either the Hopf fibration or its opposite depending which way you have rotated the 'Eckman-Hilton clock') but I don't know how to prove it using only this type of tools.






share|cite|improve this answer












$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    Jul 20 at 20:59







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    Jul 20 at 21:48










  • $begingroup$
    @NoahSnyder : I think I'm misunderstanding your comment: isn't "counterclockwise" Eckman-Hilton the inverse of the clockwise Eckman-Hilton ? so if you compose them you should get something trivial no ?
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    Jul 21 at 21:36







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Though in a sense I think the nonvanishing of $pi_3(S^2 vee S^2)$ more directly illustrates why just the group structure fails to capture higher loop spaces. The free grouplike $E_2$ algebra generated by two 2-loops has an interesting 3-loop given by $xy rightarrow yx rightarrow xy$ because there are two distinct proofs of Eckman-Hilton, the clockwise one and the counterclockwise one.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Snyder
    Jul 21 at 22:16







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Right, that’s the right thing to do for $S^2$. What I was writing down gives $2 in mathbbZ$ instead of 1. But note it doesn’t give 0. To work out what a given construction does you should work out the corresponding Pontryagin-Thom diagram.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Snyder
    Jul 21 at 22:32


















13
















$begingroup$

Homotopy groups of spheres correspond to framed submanifolds of Euclidean space through the Pontrjagin-Thom construction. For example, the Hopf map corresponds to a circle in $mathbbR^3$ framed “with a twist”. The homotopy groups of $S^1$ thus correspond to framed codimension one submanifolds. But such are canonically framed and all bound, so there are no interesting/ non-trivial examples.






share|cite|improve this answer












$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    This is probably well-known, but could you describe what the ambient manifold is here when you say "submanifolds of Euclidean space"? Is this something like R^infty with the direct limit topology?
    $endgroup$
    – D. Zack Garza
    Jul 25 at 22:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry to be brief: if we consider $pi_n(S^k)$ then the submanifolds in question are codimension $k$ submanifolds of $mathbbR^n$. (The ambient manifold can be taken to be $mathbbR^n$ rather than $S^n$ because the map is based so the preimage of a non-basepoint will be disjoint from the basepoint of $S^n$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Dev Sinha
    Jul 26 at 17:07


















10
















$begingroup$

In a sense, failure of the the higher homotopy groups of $S^n$ to be trivial, $n>1$, is due to them not representing singular cohomology. If the higher homotopy groups were trivial, all spheres would be Eilenberg-MacLane spaces and would represent cohomology. For most spheres, this failure to represent cohomology can be seen because they are not loop spaces which in turn is because they are not groups.






share|cite|improve this answer










$endgroup$










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Well, $S^3$ is a group (yeah, yeah, not a commutative one...)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 21 at 21:34










  • $begingroup$
    The “most” is meant to apply both to failing to represent cohomology and failing to be a group in that only a couple actually accomplish either.
    $endgroup$
    – Connor Malin
    Jul 21 at 22:14


















9
















$begingroup$

One explanation follows from the fact that if $X$ is a space and $tilde X$ is its universal cover, then for $igeq 2$ we have $pi_i X cong pi_i tilde X$.



Then you can just observe that the universal cover of $S^1$ is $mathbb R$ (which is contractible and hence has vanishing higher homotopy groups), while for $n > 1$, the universal cover of $S^n$ is just $S^n$ itself (it is simply-connected, so you can just take the identity as a covering map).






share|cite|improve this answer










$endgroup$










  • 11




    $begingroup$
    That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Jul 20 at 20:46







  • 17




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jul 20 at 22:07






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
    $endgroup$
    – kp9r4d
    Jul 20 at 22:32










  • $begingroup$
    @kp9r4d Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean. Which Whitehead theorem? The one about weak equivalences of CW complexes being homotopy equivalence, the one about embeddings...? I don't really see how either one applies.
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Jul 22 at 12:21






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi : nonzero homology implies noncontractibility without mentioning homotopy groups or Hurewicz; so I don't see how that's circular. The homology here is not part of the question as all spheres have "the same" homology (the formula is the same)
    $endgroup$
    – Max
    Jul 24 at 16:27


















3
















$begingroup$

Iʼm no homotopy theorist, but I have a little scrap-let of intuition that may be helpful. I havenʼt studied the underlying concepts enough to go into much meaningful detail here. Maybe someone else can expand on this; maybe my thoughts are utterly wrong. But without further ado…



I'm going to compare the 1-sphere and the 2-sphere by describing them in alternation, one paragraph each.



If you want to trace out a 1-sphere, one way to do that is to take a 0-sphere (a pair of points), anchor one of the points, and move the other point in a loop, starting and ending at that anchor point. By doing that, you've traced out a path within the 1-sphere, and that path is the generator of the space.



Likewise, if you want to trace out a 2-sphere, you can take a 1-sphere, anchor one of the points, and move the opposite point in a loop, starting and ending at that anchor point. By doing that, you've traced out a homotopy (a 2-path) within the 2-sphere, and that homotopy is the generator of the space.



Of course, the 1-sphere has more loops (paths from the anchor point to itself) than just the generator. There's a trivial loop, and you can also reverse loops and compose them. These are, of course, simply the operations of a group, and the homotopy group $pi_1(S^1)$ describes how these operations work.



Likewise, the 2-sphere has more 2-loops (homotopies from the trivial loop on the anchor point, to itself) than just the generator. You have the group operations again, described by the homotopy group $pi_2(S^2)$.



With the 1-sphere, the group operations "tell the whole story". Up to homotopy, there are no more loops than those created by the group operations.



With the 2-sphere, the group operations no longer tell the whole story. The generator we identified consists of taking a point and moving it in a circle in a particular direction. The group operations allow us to move in the opposite direction. But it's also possible to move in a perpendicular direction, or sideways, or in any of $S^1$-many directions. So in order to tell the whole story, we need additional homotopy groups.




Of course, the question I'm failing to answer is: how, exactly, do additional homotopy groups tell the rest of the story? I don't really know. But hopefully I've given some motivation how, unlike the loop space of $S^1$, the loop space of $S^2$ is itself an interesting space; and the loop space of that space is an interesting space, and so on.






share|cite|improve this answer










$endgroup$
















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );














    draft saved

    draft discarded
















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f336598%2fwhat-is-the-intuition-for-higher-homotopy-groups-not-vanishing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown


























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    19
















    $begingroup$

    So far the discusion mostly focused on a geometric explanation, I'd like to mention the algebraic one as well:



    One way to formulate it involves the delooping machinery: up to delooping, $mathbbS^n$ corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generator.




    Small recall: the usual delooping machinery say that the looping/delooping construction induce an equivalence between pointed spaces $X$ such that $pi_k X =0$ for all $k<n$ and group like $E_n$-algberas. Through that correspondence $mathbbS^n$ corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators, as the looping/delooping adjunction justs shift the $pi_n$ you can describe the homotopy group of sphere as shifted homotopy group of these free group like $E_n$-algebra. A more explicit way to say all this is that the free group like $E_n$-algebra is $Omega^n mathbbS^n$.




    Now, when you construct the free $E_1$-algebra, there is not much you can do: you only have one way to multiply elements and the free $E_1$-algebra on one generator is just the monoid $mathbbN$ (and $mathbbZ$ for the group like one).



    But for $E_n$ you get $n$ "compatible" (in a homotopy theoretic sense) way to multiply the elements and all the higher elements in the homotopy group comes from the interaction (the coherence law, that are given by homotopies) between these multiplications, for example the free $E_2$-algebra has all the braid groups appearing as its various $pi_1$ due to that, and the free group like $E_2$-algebra become too complicated to described (well... it is $Omega^2 mathbbS^2$ ).



    So the difference is that for $n=1$ no such interaction is happening because to get interaction you need at least two compatible multiplication.



    Alternatively to the delooping machinery, one can (somehow equivalently) think of spaces as $infty$-groupoids and as the $n$-sphere as the $infty$-groupoid freely generated by a cell in dimension $n$. The discussion is pretty much the same except that now the $n$ "compatible" multiplication are simply the compositions in direction $k$ for $k$ from $0$ to $n-1$.



    Edit: Here is how you get a non trivial element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, in the second perspective. I'm using an unspecified model of weak $infty$-groupoid, and applying freely the operation of strict $infty$-categories to give a feel of how it works, this is not mean't to be formal (but it is formalizable in any algebraic model of weak $infty$-groupoid, or in Hott )



    Given a two cells $u$ and $v$ whose source and target is a (weak) identity, the usual Eckman Hilton argument (so the typical example of interaction between $#_0$ and $#_1$ as I mentioned above) gives an isomorphism $theta_u,v : u #_0 v simeq v #_0 u$.



    If $e$ is the generating 2-cell of the 2sphere then this gives an isomorphisms $theta_e,e: e #_0 e simeq e #_0 e $
    taking $e^*$ a $0$ inverse of $e$, one has that $e^* #_0 theta_e,e # e^*$ is a 3-cell whose source and target are (up to the coherence isomorphism expressing that $e$ and $e^*$ are inverse) identities, so it gives an element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, which is non-zero by a universality argument. I'm convince it is a generator (so either the Hopf fibration or its opposite depending which way you have rotated the 'Eckman-Hilton clock') but I don't know how to prove it using only this type of tools.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
      $endgroup$
      – Kevin Carlson
      Jul 20 at 20:59







    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
      $endgroup$
      – Simon Henry
      Jul 20 at 21:48










    • $begingroup$
      @NoahSnyder : I think I'm misunderstanding your comment: isn't "counterclockwise" Eckman-Hilton the inverse of the clockwise Eckman-Hilton ? so if you compose them you should get something trivial no ?
      $endgroup$
      – Simon Henry
      Jul 21 at 21:36







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Though in a sense I think the nonvanishing of $pi_3(S^2 vee S^2)$ more directly illustrates why just the group structure fails to capture higher loop spaces. The free grouplike $E_2$ algebra generated by two 2-loops has an interesting 3-loop given by $xy rightarrow yx rightarrow xy$ because there are two distinct proofs of Eckman-Hilton, the clockwise one and the counterclockwise one.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Snyder
      Jul 21 at 22:16







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Right, that’s the right thing to do for $S^2$. What I was writing down gives $2 in mathbbZ$ instead of 1. But note it doesn’t give 0. To work out what a given construction does you should work out the corresponding Pontryagin-Thom diagram.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Snyder
      Jul 21 at 22:32















    19
















    $begingroup$

    So far the discusion mostly focused on a geometric explanation, I'd like to mention the algebraic one as well:



    One way to formulate it involves the delooping machinery: up to delooping, $mathbbS^n$ corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generator.




    Small recall: the usual delooping machinery say that the looping/delooping construction induce an equivalence between pointed spaces $X$ such that $pi_k X =0$ for all $k<n$ and group like $E_n$-algberas. Through that correspondence $mathbbS^n$ corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators, as the looping/delooping adjunction justs shift the $pi_n$ you can describe the homotopy group of sphere as shifted homotopy group of these free group like $E_n$-algebra. A more explicit way to say all this is that the free group like $E_n$-algebra is $Omega^n mathbbS^n$.




    Now, when you construct the free $E_1$-algebra, there is not much you can do: you only have one way to multiply elements and the free $E_1$-algebra on one generator is just the monoid $mathbbN$ (and $mathbbZ$ for the group like one).



    But for $E_n$ you get $n$ "compatible" (in a homotopy theoretic sense) way to multiply the elements and all the higher elements in the homotopy group comes from the interaction (the coherence law, that are given by homotopies) between these multiplications, for example the free $E_2$-algebra has all the braid groups appearing as its various $pi_1$ due to that, and the free group like $E_2$-algebra become too complicated to described (well... it is $Omega^2 mathbbS^2$ ).



    So the difference is that for $n=1$ no such interaction is happening because to get interaction you need at least two compatible multiplication.



    Alternatively to the delooping machinery, one can (somehow equivalently) think of spaces as $infty$-groupoids and as the $n$-sphere as the $infty$-groupoid freely generated by a cell in dimension $n$. The discussion is pretty much the same except that now the $n$ "compatible" multiplication are simply the compositions in direction $k$ for $k$ from $0$ to $n-1$.



    Edit: Here is how you get a non trivial element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, in the second perspective. I'm using an unspecified model of weak $infty$-groupoid, and applying freely the operation of strict $infty$-categories to give a feel of how it works, this is not mean't to be formal (but it is formalizable in any algebraic model of weak $infty$-groupoid, or in Hott )



    Given a two cells $u$ and $v$ whose source and target is a (weak) identity, the usual Eckman Hilton argument (so the typical example of interaction between $#_0$ and $#_1$ as I mentioned above) gives an isomorphism $theta_u,v : u #_0 v simeq v #_0 u$.



    If $e$ is the generating 2-cell of the 2sphere then this gives an isomorphisms $theta_e,e: e #_0 e simeq e #_0 e $
    taking $e^*$ a $0$ inverse of $e$, one has that $e^* #_0 theta_e,e # e^*$ is a 3-cell whose source and target are (up to the coherence isomorphism expressing that $e$ and $e^*$ are inverse) identities, so it gives an element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, which is non-zero by a universality argument. I'm convince it is a generator (so either the Hopf fibration or its opposite depending which way you have rotated the 'Eckman-Hilton clock') but I don't know how to prove it using only this type of tools.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
      $endgroup$
      – Kevin Carlson
      Jul 20 at 20:59







    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
      $endgroup$
      – Simon Henry
      Jul 20 at 21:48










    • $begingroup$
      @NoahSnyder : I think I'm misunderstanding your comment: isn't "counterclockwise" Eckman-Hilton the inverse of the clockwise Eckman-Hilton ? so if you compose them you should get something trivial no ?
      $endgroup$
      – Simon Henry
      Jul 21 at 21:36







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Though in a sense I think the nonvanishing of $pi_3(S^2 vee S^2)$ more directly illustrates why just the group structure fails to capture higher loop spaces. The free grouplike $E_2$ algebra generated by two 2-loops has an interesting 3-loop given by $xy rightarrow yx rightarrow xy$ because there are two distinct proofs of Eckman-Hilton, the clockwise one and the counterclockwise one.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Snyder
      Jul 21 at 22:16







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Right, that’s the right thing to do for $S^2$. What I was writing down gives $2 in mathbbZ$ instead of 1. But note it doesn’t give 0. To work out what a given construction does you should work out the corresponding Pontryagin-Thom diagram.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Snyder
      Jul 21 at 22:32













    19














    19










    19







    $begingroup$

    So far the discusion mostly focused on a geometric explanation, I'd like to mention the algebraic one as well:



    One way to formulate it involves the delooping machinery: up to delooping, $mathbbS^n$ corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generator.




    Small recall: the usual delooping machinery say that the looping/delooping construction induce an equivalence between pointed spaces $X$ such that $pi_k X =0$ for all $k<n$ and group like $E_n$-algberas. Through that correspondence $mathbbS^n$ corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators, as the looping/delooping adjunction justs shift the $pi_n$ you can describe the homotopy group of sphere as shifted homotopy group of these free group like $E_n$-algebra. A more explicit way to say all this is that the free group like $E_n$-algebra is $Omega^n mathbbS^n$.




    Now, when you construct the free $E_1$-algebra, there is not much you can do: you only have one way to multiply elements and the free $E_1$-algebra on one generator is just the monoid $mathbbN$ (and $mathbbZ$ for the group like one).



    But for $E_n$ you get $n$ "compatible" (in a homotopy theoretic sense) way to multiply the elements and all the higher elements in the homotopy group comes from the interaction (the coherence law, that are given by homotopies) between these multiplications, for example the free $E_2$-algebra has all the braid groups appearing as its various $pi_1$ due to that, and the free group like $E_2$-algebra become too complicated to described (well... it is $Omega^2 mathbbS^2$ ).



    So the difference is that for $n=1$ no such interaction is happening because to get interaction you need at least two compatible multiplication.



    Alternatively to the delooping machinery, one can (somehow equivalently) think of spaces as $infty$-groupoids and as the $n$-sphere as the $infty$-groupoid freely generated by a cell in dimension $n$. The discussion is pretty much the same except that now the $n$ "compatible" multiplication are simply the compositions in direction $k$ for $k$ from $0$ to $n-1$.



    Edit: Here is how you get a non trivial element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, in the second perspective. I'm using an unspecified model of weak $infty$-groupoid, and applying freely the operation of strict $infty$-categories to give a feel of how it works, this is not mean't to be formal (but it is formalizable in any algebraic model of weak $infty$-groupoid, or in Hott )



    Given a two cells $u$ and $v$ whose source and target is a (weak) identity, the usual Eckman Hilton argument (so the typical example of interaction between $#_0$ and $#_1$ as I mentioned above) gives an isomorphism $theta_u,v : u #_0 v simeq v #_0 u$.



    If $e$ is the generating 2-cell of the 2sphere then this gives an isomorphisms $theta_e,e: e #_0 e simeq e #_0 e $
    taking $e^*$ a $0$ inverse of $e$, one has that $e^* #_0 theta_e,e # e^*$ is a 3-cell whose source and target are (up to the coherence isomorphism expressing that $e$ and $e^*$ are inverse) identities, so it gives an element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, which is non-zero by a universality argument. I'm convince it is a generator (so either the Hopf fibration or its opposite depending which way you have rotated the 'Eckman-Hilton clock') but I don't know how to prove it using only this type of tools.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    $endgroup$



    So far the discusion mostly focused on a geometric explanation, I'd like to mention the algebraic one as well:



    One way to formulate it involves the delooping machinery: up to delooping, $mathbbS^n$ corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generator.




    Small recall: the usual delooping machinery say that the looping/delooping construction induce an equivalence between pointed spaces $X$ such that $pi_k X =0$ for all $k<n$ and group like $E_n$-algberas. Through that correspondence $mathbbS^n$ corresponds to the free group like $E_n$-algebra on one generators, as the looping/delooping adjunction justs shift the $pi_n$ you can describe the homotopy group of sphere as shifted homotopy group of these free group like $E_n$-algebra. A more explicit way to say all this is that the free group like $E_n$-algebra is $Omega^n mathbbS^n$.




    Now, when you construct the free $E_1$-algebra, there is not much you can do: you only have one way to multiply elements and the free $E_1$-algebra on one generator is just the monoid $mathbbN$ (and $mathbbZ$ for the group like one).



    But for $E_n$ you get $n$ "compatible" (in a homotopy theoretic sense) way to multiply the elements and all the higher elements in the homotopy group comes from the interaction (the coherence law, that are given by homotopies) between these multiplications, for example the free $E_2$-algebra has all the braid groups appearing as its various $pi_1$ due to that, and the free group like $E_2$-algebra become too complicated to described (well... it is $Omega^2 mathbbS^2$ ).



    So the difference is that for $n=1$ no such interaction is happening because to get interaction you need at least two compatible multiplication.



    Alternatively to the delooping machinery, one can (somehow equivalently) think of spaces as $infty$-groupoids and as the $n$-sphere as the $infty$-groupoid freely generated by a cell in dimension $n$. The discussion is pretty much the same except that now the $n$ "compatible" multiplication are simply the compositions in direction $k$ for $k$ from $0$ to $n-1$.



    Edit: Here is how you get a non trivial element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, in the second perspective. I'm using an unspecified model of weak $infty$-groupoid, and applying freely the operation of strict $infty$-categories to give a feel of how it works, this is not mean't to be formal (but it is formalizable in any algebraic model of weak $infty$-groupoid, or in Hott )



    Given a two cells $u$ and $v$ whose source and target is a (weak) identity, the usual Eckman Hilton argument (so the typical example of interaction between $#_0$ and $#_1$ as I mentioned above) gives an isomorphism $theta_u,v : u #_0 v simeq v #_0 u$.



    If $e$ is the generating 2-cell of the 2sphere then this gives an isomorphisms $theta_e,e: e #_0 e simeq e #_0 e $
    taking $e^*$ a $0$ inverse of $e$, one has that $e^* #_0 theta_e,e # e^*$ is a 3-cell whose source and target are (up to the coherence isomorphism expressing that $e$ and $e^*$ are inverse) identities, so it gives an element of $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$, which is non-zero by a universality argument. I'm convince it is a generator (so either the Hopf fibration or its opposite depending which way you have rotated the 'Eckman-Hilton clock') but I don't know how to prove it using only this type of tools.







    share|cite|improve this answer















    share|cite|improve this answer




    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Jul 21 at 14:59

























    answered Jul 20 at 20:04









    Simon HenrySimon Henry

    17.4k1 gold badge52 silver badges101 bronze badges




    17.4k1 gold badge52 silver badges101 bronze badges














    • $begingroup$
      Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
      $endgroup$
      – Kevin Carlson
      Jul 20 at 20:59







    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
      $endgroup$
      – Simon Henry
      Jul 20 at 21:48










    • $begingroup$
      @NoahSnyder : I think I'm misunderstanding your comment: isn't "counterclockwise" Eckman-Hilton the inverse of the clockwise Eckman-Hilton ? so if you compose them you should get something trivial no ?
      $endgroup$
      – Simon Henry
      Jul 21 at 21:36







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Though in a sense I think the nonvanishing of $pi_3(S^2 vee S^2)$ more directly illustrates why just the group structure fails to capture higher loop spaces. The free grouplike $E_2$ algebra generated by two 2-loops has an interesting 3-loop given by $xy rightarrow yx rightarrow xy$ because there are two distinct proofs of Eckman-Hilton, the clockwise one and the counterclockwise one.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Snyder
      Jul 21 at 22:16







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Right, that’s the right thing to do for $S^2$. What I was writing down gives $2 in mathbbZ$ instead of 1. But note it doesn’t give 0. To work out what a given construction does you should work out the corresponding Pontryagin-Thom diagram.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Snyder
      Jul 21 at 22:32
















    • $begingroup$
      Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
      $endgroup$
      – Kevin Carlson
      Jul 20 at 20:59







    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
      $endgroup$
      – Simon Henry
      Jul 20 at 21:48










    • $begingroup$
      @NoahSnyder : I think I'm misunderstanding your comment: isn't "counterclockwise" Eckman-Hilton the inverse of the clockwise Eckman-Hilton ? so if you compose them you should get something trivial no ?
      $endgroup$
      – Simon Henry
      Jul 21 at 21:36







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Though in a sense I think the nonvanishing of $pi_3(S^2 vee S^2)$ more directly illustrates why just the group structure fails to capture higher loop spaces. The free grouplike $E_2$ algebra generated by two 2-loops has an interesting 3-loop given by $xy rightarrow yx rightarrow xy$ because there are two distinct proofs of Eckman-Hilton, the clockwise one and the counterclockwise one.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Snyder
      Jul 21 at 22:16







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Right, that’s the right thing to do for $S^2$. What I was writing down gives $2 in mathbbZ$ instead of 1. But note it doesn’t give 0. To work out what a given construction does you should work out the corresponding Pontryagin-Thom diagram.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Snyder
      Jul 21 at 22:32















    $begingroup$
    Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    Jul 20 at 20:59





    $begingroup$
    Is it actually possible to do some computations with one of these perspectives, ideally the second one? I've thought a bit about it but I don't know how to find the Hopf fibration as a generator of the endomorphism group of the 2-identity in a weak 3-groupoid with one object freely generated by a 2-endomorphism of the 1-identity. Maybe its double, via Whitehead products, but even in HoTT to get the generator they seem to construct the fibration and use the long exact sequence, which I think of as a fundamentally geometric argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    Jul 20 at 20:59





    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    Jul 20 at 21:48




    $begingroup$
    @KevinCarlson : I've edited to show how to get a non trivial element in $pi_3(mathbbS^2)$. In theory you can get all elements of $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$ this way, though it is going to be very non automatic and I have no idea how you could show that you have found all elements, so I wouldn't call that a way to compute $pi_n(mathbbS^m)$, to me it is more a way of 'naming' its elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    Jul 20 at 21:48












    $begingroup$
    @NoahSnyder : I think I'm misunderstanding your comment: isn't "counterclockwise" Eckman-Hilton the inverse of the clockwise Eckman-Hilton ? so if you compose them you should get something trivial no ?
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    Jul 21 at 21:36





    $begingroup$
    @NoahSnyder : I think I'm misunderstanding your comment: isn't "counterclockwise" Eckman-Hilton the inverse of the clockwise Eckman-Hilton ? so if you compose them you should get something trivial no ?
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    Jul 21 at 21:36





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Though in a sense I think the nonvanishing of $pi_3(S^2 vee S^2)$ more directly illustrates why just the group structure fails to capture higher loop spaces. The free grouplike $E_2$ algebra generated by two 2-loops has an interesting 3-loop given by $xy rightarrow yx rightarrow xy$ because there are two distinct proofs of Eckman-Hilton, the clockwise one and the counterclockwise one.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Snyder
    Jul 21 at 22:16





    $begingroup$
    Though in a sense I think the nonvanishing of $pi_3(S^2 vee S^2)$ more directly illustrates why just the group structure fails to capture higher loop spaces. The free grouplike $E_2$ algebra generated by two 2-loops has an interesting 3-loop given by $xy rightarrow yx rightarrow xy$ because there are two distinct proofs of Eckman-Hilton, the clockwise one and the counterclockwise one.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Snyder
    Jul 21 at 22:16





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Right, that’s the right thing to do for $S^2$. What I was writing down gives $2 in mathbbZ$ instead of 1. But note it doesn’t give 0. To work out what a given construction does you should work out the corresponding Pontryagin-Thom diagram.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Snyder
    Jul 21 at 22:32




    $begingroup$
    Right, that’s the right thing to do for $S^2$. What I was writing down gives $2 in mathbbZ$ instead of 1. But note it doesn’t give 0. To work out what a given construction does you should work out the corresponding Pontryagin-Thom diagram.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Snyder
    Jul 21 at 22:32











    13
















    $begingroup$

    Homotopy groups of spheres correspond to framed submanifolds of Euclidean space through the Pontrjagin-Thom construction. For example, the Hopf map corresponds to a circle in $mathbbR^3$ framed “with a twist”. The homotopy groups of $S^1$ thus correspond to framed codimension one submanifolds. But such are canonically framed and all bound, so there are no interesting/ non-trivial examples.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      This is probably well-known, but could you describe what the ambient manifold is here when you say "submanifolds of Euclidean space"? Is this something like R^infty with the direct limit topology?
      $endgroup$
      – D. Zack Garza
      Jul 25 at 22:44






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Sorry to be brief: if we consider $pi_n(S^k)$ then the submanifolds in question are codimension $k$ submanifolds of $mathbbR^n$. (The ambient manifold can be taken to be $mathbbR^n$ rather than $S^n$ because the map is based so the preimage of a non-basepoint will be disjoint from the basepoint of $S^n$.)
      $endgroup$
      – Dev Sinha
      Jul 26 at 17:07















    13
















    $begingroup$

    Homotopy groups of spheres correspond to framed submanifolds of Euclidean space through the Pontrjagin-Thom construction. For example, the Hopf map corresponds to a circle in $mathbbR^3$ framed “with a twist”. The homotopy groups of $S^1$ thus correspond to framed codimension one submanifolds. But such are canonically framed and all bound, so there are no interesting/ non-trivial examples.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      This is probably well-known, but could you describe what the ambient manifold is here when you say "submanifolds of Euclidean space"? Is this something like R^infty with the direct limit topology?
      $endgroup$
      – D. Zack Garza
      Jul 25 at 22:44






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Sorry to be brief: if we consider $pi_n(S^k)$ then the submanifolds in question are codimension $k$ submanifolds of $mathbbR^n$. (The ambient manifold can be taken to be $mathbbR^n$ rather than $S^n$ because the map is based so the preimage of a non-basepoint will be disjoint from the basepoint of $S^n$.)
      $endgroup$
      – Dev Sinha
      Jul 26 at 17:07













    13














    13










    13







    $begingroup$

    Homotopy groups of spheres correspond to framed submanifolds of Euclidean space through the Pontrjagin-Thom construction. For example, the Hopf map corresponds to a circle in $mathbbR^3$ framed “with a twist”. The homotopy groups of $S^1$ thus correspond to framed codimension one submanifolds. But such are canonically framed and all bound, so there are no interesting/ non-trivial examples.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    $endgroup$



    Homotopy groups of spheres correspond to framed submanifolds of Euclidean space through the Pontrjagin-Thom construction. For example, the Hopf map corresponds to a circle in $mathbbR^3$ framed “with a twist”. The homotopy groups of $S^1$ thus correspond to framed codimension one submanifolds. But such are canonically framed and all bound, so there are no interesting/ non-trivial examples.







    share|cite|improve this answer















    share|cite|improve this answer




    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Jul 26 at 22:19

























    answered Jul 24 at 5:00









    Dev SinhaDev Sinha

    3,81021 silver badges36 bronze badges




    3,81021 silver badges36 bronze badges














    • $begingroup$
      This is probably well-known, but could you describe what the ambient manifold is here when you say "submanifolds of Euclidean space"? Is this something like R^infty with the direct limit topology?
      $endgroup$
      – D. Zack Garza
      Jul 25 at 22:44






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Sorry to be brief: if we consider $pi_n(S^k)$ then the submanifolds in question are codimension $k$ submanifolds of $mathbbR^n$. (The ambient manifold can be taken to be $mathbbR^n$ rather than $S^n$ because the map is based so the preimage of a non-basepoint will be disjoint from the basepoint of $S^n$.)
      $endgroup$
      – Dev Sinha
      Jul 26 at 17:07
















    • $begingroup$
      This is probably well-known, but could you describe what the ambient manifold is here when you say "submanifolds of Euclidean space"? Is this something like R^infty with the direct limit topology?
      $endgroup$
      – D. Zack Garza
      Jul 25 at 22:44






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Sorry to be brief: if we consider $pi_n(S^k)$ then the submanifolds in question are codimension $k$ submanifolds of $mathbbR^n$. (The ambient manifold can be taken to be $mathbbR^n$ rather than $S^n$ because the map is based so the preimage of a non-basepoint will be disjoint from the basepoint of $S^n$.)
      $endgroup$
      – Dev Sinha
      Jul 26 at 17:07















    $begingroup$
    This is probably well-known, but could you describe what the ambient manifold is here when you say "submanifolds of Euclidean space"? Is this something like R^infty with the direct limit topology?
    $endgroup$
    – D. Zack Garza
    Jul 25 at 22:44




    $begingroup$
    This is probably well-known, but could you describe what the ambient manifold is here when you say "submanifolds of Euclidean space"? Is this something like R^infty with the direct limit topology?
    $endgroup$
    – D. Zack Garza
    Jul 25 at 22:44




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry to be brief: if we consider $pi_n(S^k)$ then the submanifolds in question are codimension $k$ submanifolds of $mathbbR^n$. (The ambient manifold can be taken to be $mathbbR^n$ rather than $S^n$ because the map is based so the preimage of a non-basepoint will be disjoint from the basepoint of $S^n$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Dev Sinha
    Jul 26 at 17:07




    $begingroup$
    Sorry to be brief: if we consider $pi_n(S^k)$ then the submanifolds in question are codimension $k$ submanifolds of $mathbbR^n$. (The ambient manifold can be taken to be $mathbbR^n$ rather than $S^n$ because the map is based so the preimage of a non-basepoint will be disjoint from the basepoint of $S^n$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Dev Sinha
    Jul 26 at 17:07











    10
















    $begingroup$

    In a sense, failure of the the higher homotopy groups of $S^n$ to be trivial, $n>1$, is due to them not representing singular cohomology. If the higher homotopy groups were trivial, all spheres would be Eilenberg-MacLane spaces and would represent cohomology. For most spheres, this failure to represent cohomology can be seen because they are not loop spaces which in turn is because they are not groups.






    share|cite|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Well, $S^3$ is a group (yeah, yeah, not a commutative one...)
      $endgroup$
      – Denis Nardin
      Jul 21 at 21:34










    • $begingroup$
      The “most” is meant to apply both to failing to represent cohomology and failing to be a group in that only a couple actually accomplish either.
      $endgroup$
      – Connor Malin
      Jul 21 at 22:14















    10
















    $begingroup$

    In a sense, failure of the the higher homotopy groups of $S^n$ to be trivial, $n>1$, is due to them not representing singular cohomology. If the higher homotopy groups were trivial, all spheres would be Eilenberg-MacLane spaces and would represent cohomology. For most spheres, this failure to represent cohomology can be seen because they are not loop spaces which in turn is because they are not groups.






    share|cite|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Well, $S^3$ is a group (yeah, yeah, not a commutative one...)
      $endgroup$
      – Denis Nardin
      Jul 21 at 21:34










    • $begingroup$
      The “most” is meant to apply both to failing to represent cohomology and failing to be a group in that only a couple actually accomplish either.
      $endgroup$
      – Connor Malin
      Jul 21 at 22:14













    10














    10










    10







    $begingroup$

    In a sense, failure of the the higher homotopy groups of $S^n$ to be trivial, $n>1$, is due to them not representing singular cohomology. If the higher homotopy groups were trivial, all spheres would be Eilenberg-MacLane spaces and would represent cohomology. For most spheres, this failure to represent cohomology can be seen because they are not loop spaces which in turn is because they are not groups.






    share|cite|improve this answer










    $endgroup$



    In a sense, failure of the the higher homotopy groups of $S^n$ to be trivial, $n>1$, is due to them not representing singular cohomology. If the higher homotopy groups were trivial, all spheres would be Eilenberg-MacLane spaces and would represent cohomology. For most spheres, this failure to represent cohomology can be seen because they are not loop spaces which in turn is because they are not groups.







    share|cite|improve this answer













    share|cite|improve this answer




    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jul 21 at 21:16









    Connor MalinConnor Malin

    3041 gold badge1 silver badge8 bronze badges




    3041 gold badge1 silver badge8 bronze badges










    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Well, $S^3$ is a group (yeah, yeah, not a commutative one...)
      $endgroup$
      – Denis Nardin
      Jul 21 at 21:34










    • $begingroup$
      The “most” is meant to apply both to failing to represent cohomology and failing to be a group in that only a couple actually accomplish either.
      $endgroup$
      – Connor Malin
      Jul 21 at 22:14












    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Well, $S^3$ is a group (yeah, yeah, not a commutative one...)
      $endgroup$
      – Denis Nardin
      Jul 21 at 21:34










    • $begingroup$
      The “most” is meant to apply both to failing to represent cohomology and failing to be a group in that only a couple actually accomplish either.
      $endgroup$
      – Connor Malin
      Jul 21 at 22:14







    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    Well, $S^3$ is a group (yeah, yeah, not a commutative one...)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 21 at 21:34




    $begingroup$
    Well, $S^3$ is a group (yeah, yeah, not a commutative one...)
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Jul 21 at 21:34












    $begingroup$
    The “most” is meant to apply both to failing to represent cohomology and failing to be a group in that only a couple actually accomplish either.
    $endgroup$
    – Connor Malin
    Jul 21 at 22:14




    $begingroup$
    The “most” is meant to apply both to failing to represent cohomology and failing to be a group in that only a couple actually accomplish either.
    $endgroup$
    – Connor Malin
    Jul 21 at 22:14











    9
















    $begingroup$

    One explanation follows from the fact that if $X$ is a space and $tilde X$ is its universal cover, then for $igeq 2$ we have $pi_i X cong pi_i tilde X$.



    Then you can just observe that the universal cover of $S^1$ is $mathbb R$ (which is contractible and hence has vanishing higher homotopy groups), while for $n > 1$, the universal cover of $S^n$ is just $S^n$ itself (it is simply-connected, so you can just take the identity as a covering map).






    share|cite|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 11




      $begingroup$
      That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
      $endgroup$
      – Najib Idrissi
      Jul 20 at 20:46







    • 17




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
      $endgroup$
      – Wojowu
      Jul 20 at 22:07






    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
      $endgroup$
      – kp9r4d
      Jul 20 at 22:32










    • $begingroup$
      @kp9r4d Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean. Which Whitehead theorem? The one about weak equivalences of CW complexes being homotopy equivalence, the one about embeddings...? I don't really see how either one applies.
      $endgroup$
      – Najib Idrissi
      Jul 22 at 12:21






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi : nonzero homology implies noncontractibility without mentioning homotopy groups or Hurewicz; so I don't see how that's circular. The homology here is not part of the question as all spheres have "the same" homology (the formula is the same)
      $endgroup$
      – Max
      Jul 24 at 16:27















    9
















    $begingroup$

    One explanation follows from the fact that if $X$ is a space and $tilde X$ is its universal cover, then for $igeq 2$ we have $pi_i X cong pi_i tilde X$.



    Then you can just observe that the universal cover of $S^1$ is $mathbb R$ (which is contractible and hence has vanishing higher homotopy groups), while for $n > 1$, the universal cover of $S^n$ is just $S^n$ itself (it is simply-connected, so you can just take the identity as a covering map).






    share|cite|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 11




      $begingroup$
      That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
      $endgroup$
      – Najib Idrissi
      Jul 20 at 20:46







    • 17




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
      $endgroup$
      – Wojowu
      Jul 20 at 22:07






    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
      $endgroup$
      – kp9r4d
      Jul 20 at 22:32










    • $begingroup$
      @kp9r4d Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean. Which Whitehead theorem? The one about weak equivalences of CW complexes being homotopy equivalence, the one about embeddings...? I don't really see how either one applies.
      $endgroup$
      – Najib Idrissi
      Jul 22 at 12:21






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi : nonzero homology implies noncontractibility without mentioning homotopy groups or Hurewicz; so I don't see how that's circular. The homology here is not part of the question as all spheres have "the same" homology (the formula is the same)
      $endgroup$
      – Max
      Jul 24 at 16:27













    9














    9










    9







    $begingroup$

    One explanation follows from the fact that if $X$ is a space and $tilde X$ is its universal cover, then for $igeq 2$ we have $pi_i X cong pi_i tilde X$.



    Then you can just observe that the universal cover of $S^1$ is $mathbb R$ (which is contractible and hence has vanishing higher homotopy groups), while for $n > 1$, the universal cover of $S^n$ is just $S^n$ itself (it is simply-connected, so you can just take the identity as a covering map).






    share|cite|improve this answer










    $endgroup$



    One explanation follows from the fact that if $X$ is a space and $tilde X$ is its universal cover, then for $igeq 2$ we have $pi_i X cong pi_i tilde X$.



    Then you can just observe that the universal cover of $S^1$ is $mathbb R$ (which is contractible and hence has vanishing higher homotopy groups), while for $n > 1$, the universal cover of $S^n$ is just $S^n$ itself (it is simply-connected, so you can just take the identity as a covering map).







    share|cite|improve this answer













    share|cite|improve this answer




    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jul 20 at 18:13









    D. Zack GarzaD. Zack Garza

    1014 bronze badges




    1014 bronze badges










    • 11




      $begingroup$
      That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
      $endgroup$
      – Najib Idrissi
      Jul 20 at 20:46







    • 17




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
      $endgroup$
      – Wojowu
      Jul 20 at 22:07






    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
      $endgroup$
      – kp9r4d
      Jul 20 at 22:32










    • $begingroup$
      @kp9r4d Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean. Which Whitehead theorem? The one about weak equivalences of CW complexes being homotopy equivalence, the one about embeddings...? I don't really see how either one applies.
      $endgroup$
      – Najib Idrissi
      Jul 22 at 12:21






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi : nonzero homology implies noncontractibility without mentioning homotopy groups or Hurewicz; so I don't see how that's circular. The homology here is not part of the question as all spheres have "the same" homology (the formula is the same)
      $endgroup$
      – Max
      Jul 24 at 16:27












    • 11




      $begingroup$
      That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
      $endgroup$
      – Najib Idrissi
      Jul 20 at 20:46







    • 17




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
      $endgroup$
      – Wojowu
      Jul 20 at 22:07






    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
      $endgroup$
      – kp9r4d
      Jul 20 at 22:32










    • $begingroup$
      @kp9r4d Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean. Which Whitehead theorem? The one about weak equivalences of CW complexes being homotopy equivalence, the one about embeddings...? I don't really see how either one applies.
      $endgroup$
      – Najib Idrissi
      Jul 22 at 12:21






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @NajibIdrissi : nonzero homology implies noncontractibility without mentioning homotopy groups or Hurewicz; so I don't see how that's circular. The homology here is not part of the question as all spheres have "the same" homology (the formula is the same)
      $endgroup$
      – Max
      Jul 24 at 16:27







    11




    11




    $begingroup$
    That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Jul 20 at 20:46





    $begingroup$
    That's not really an explanation for why the homotopy groups of spheres are nonzero though... All you can conclude here is that $pi_k(S^n) = pi_k(S^n)$!
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Jul 20 at 20:46





    17




    17




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jul 20 at 22:07




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi It does answer the question in the body: "What makes $S^1$ so fundamentally different"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jul 20 at 22:07




    6




    6




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
    $endgroup$
    – kp9r4d
    Jul 20 at 22:32




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi Modulo Whitehead theorem it explains why at least one higher homotopy group is nonzero.
    $endgroup$
    – kp9r4d
    Jul 20 at 22:32












    $begingroup$
    @kp9r4d Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean. Which Whitehead theorem? The one about weak equivalences of CW complexes being homotopy equivalence, the one about embeddings...? I don't really see how either one applies.
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Jul 22 at 12:21




    $begingroup$
    @kp9r4d Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean. Which Whitehead theorem? The one about weak equivalences of CW complexes being homotopy equivalence, the one about embeddings...? I don't really see how either one applies.
    $endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Jul 22 at 12:21




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi : nonzero homology implies noncontractibility without mentioning homotopy groups or Hurewicz; so I don't see how that's circular. The homology here is not part of the question as all spheres have "the same" homology (the formula is the same)
    $endgroup$
    – Max
    Jul 24 at 16:27




    $begingroup$
    @NajibIdrissi : nonzero homology implies noncontractibility without mentioning homotopy groups or Hurewicz; so I don't see how that's circular. The homology here is not part of the question as all spheres have "the same" homology (the formula is the same)
    $endgroup$
    – Max
    Jul 24 at 16:27











    3
















    $begingroup$

    Iʼm no homotopy theorist, but I have a little scrap-let of intuition that may be helpful. I havenʼt studied the underlying concepts enough to go into much meaningful detail here. Maybe someone else can expand on this; maybe my thoughts are utterly wrong. But without further ado…



    I'm going to compare the 1-sphere and the 2-sphere by describing them in alternation, one paragraph each.



    If you want to trace out a 1-sphere, one way to do that is to take a 0-sphere (a pair of points), anchor one of the points, and move the other point in a loop, starting and ending at that anchor point. By doing that, you've traced out a path within the 1-sphere, and that path is the generator of the space.



    Likewise, if you want to trace out a 2-sphere, you can take a 1-sphere, anchor one of the points, and move the opposite point in a loop, starting and ending at that anchor point. By doing that, you've traced out a homotopy (a 2-path) within the 2-sphere, and that homotopy is the generator of the space.



    Of course, the 1-sphere has more loops (paths from the anchor point to itself) than just the generator. There's a trivial loop, and you can also reverse loops and compose them. These are, of course, simply the operations of a group, and the homotopy group $pi_1(S^1)$ describes how these operations work.



    Likewise, the 2-sphere has more 2-loops (homotopies from the trivial loop on the anchor point, to itself) than just the generator. You have the group operations again, described by the homotopy group $pi_2(S^2)$.



    With the 1-sphere, the group operations "tell the whole story". Up to homotopy, there are no more loops than those created by the group operations.



    With the 2-sphere, the group operations no longer tell the whole story. The generator we identified consists of taking a point and moving it in a circle in a particular direction. The group operations allow us to move in the opposite direction. But it's also possible to move in a perpendicular direction, or sideways, or in any of $S^1$-many directions. So in order to tell the whole story, we need additional homotopy groups.




    Of course, the question I'm failing to answer is: how, exactly, do additional homotopy groups tell the rest of the story? I don't really know. But hopefully I've given some motivation how, unlike the loop space of $S^1$, the loop space of $S^2$ is itself an interesting space; and the loop space of that space is an interesting space, and so on.






    share|cite|improve this answer










    $endgroup$



















      3
















      $begingroup$

      Iʼm no homotopy theorist, but I have a little scrap-let of intuition that may be helpful. I havenʼt studied the underlying concepts enough to go into much meaningful detail here. Maybe someone else can expand on this; maybe my thoughts are utterly wrong. But without further ado…



      I'm going to compare the 1-sphere and the 2-sphere by describing them in alternation, one paragraph each.



      If you want to trace out a 1-sphere, one way to do that is to take a 0-sphere (a pair of points), anchor one of the points, and move the other point in a loop, starting and ending at that anchor point. By doing that, you've traced out a path within the 1-sphere, and that path is the generator of the space.



      Likewise, if you want to trace out a 2-sphere, you can take a 1-sphere, anchor one of the points, and move the opposite point in a loop, starting and ending at that anchor point. By doing that, you've traced out a homotopy (a 2-path) within the 2-sphere, and that homotopy is the generator of the space.



      Of course, the 1-sphere has more loops (paths from the anchor point to itself) than just the generator. There's a trivial loop, and you can also reverse loops and compose them. These are, of course, simply the operations of a group, and the homotopy group $pi_1(S^1)$ describes how these operations work.



      Likewise, the 2-sphere has more 2-loops (homotopies from the trivial loop on the anchor point, to itself) than just the generator. You have the group operations again, described by the homotopy group $pi_2(S^2)$.



      With the 1-sphere, the group operations "tell the whole story". Up to homotopy, there are no more loops than those created by the group operations.



      With the 2-sphere, the group operations no longer tell the whole story. The generator we identified consists of taking a point and moving it in a circle in a particular direction. The group operations allow us to move in the opposite direction. But it's also possible to move in a perpendicular direction, or sideways, or in any of $S^1$-many directions. So in order to tell the whole story, we need additional homotopy groups.




      Of course, the question I'm failing to answer is: how, exactly, do additional homotopy groups tell the rest of the story? I don't really know. But hopefully I've given some motivation how, unlike the loop space of $S^1$, the loop space of $S^2$ is itself an interesting space; and the loop space of that space is an interesting space, and so on.






      share|cite|improve this answer










      $endgroup$

















        3














        3










        3







        $begingroup$

        Iʼm no homotopy theorist, but I have a little scrap-let of intuition that may be helpful. I havenʼt studied the underlying concepts enough to go into much meaningful detail here. Maybe someone else can expand on this; maybe my thoughts are utterly wrong. But without further ado…



        I'm going to compare the 1-sphere and the 2-sphere by describing them in alternation, one paragraph each.



        If you want to trace out a 1-sphere, one way to do that is to take a 0-sphere (a pair of points), anchor one of the points, and move the other point in a loop, starting and ending at that anchor point. By doing that, you've traced out a path within the 1-sphere, and that path is the generator of the space.



        Likewise, if you want to trace out a 2-sphere, you can take a 1-sphere, anchor one of the points, and move the opposite point in a loop, starting and ending at that anchor point. By doing that, you've traced out a homotopy (a 2-path) within the 2-sphere, and that homotopy is the generator of the space.



        Of course, the 1-sphere has more loops (paths from the anchor point to itself) than just the generator. There's a trivial loop, and you can also reverse loops and compose them. These are, of course, simply the operations of a group, and the homotopy group $pi_1(S^1)$ describes how these operations work.



        Likewise, the 2-sphere has more 2-loops (homotopies from the trivial loop on the anchor point, to itself) than just the generator. You have the group operations again, described by the homotopy group $pi_2(S^2)$.



        With the 1-sphere, the group operations "tell the whole story". Up to homotopy, there are no more loops than those created by the group operations.



        With the 2-sphere, the group operations no longer tell the whole story. The generator we identified consists of taking a point and moving it in a circle in a particular direction. The group operations allow us to move in the opposite direction. But it's also possible to move in a perpendicular direction, or sideways, or in any of $S^1$-many directions. So in order to tell the whole story, we need additional homotopy groups.




        Of course, the question I'm failing to answer is: how, exactly, do additional homotopy groups tell the rest of the story? I don't really know. But hopefully I've given some motivation how, unlike the loop space of $S^1$, the loop space of $S^2$ is itself an interesting space; and the loop space of that space is an interesting space, and so on.






        share|cite|improve this answer










        $endgroup$



        Iʼm no homotopy theorist, but I have a little scrap-let of intuition that may be helpful. I havenʼt studied the underlying concepts enough to go into much meaningful detail here. Maybe someone else can expand on this; maybe my thoughts are utterly wrong. But without further ado…



        I'm going to compare the 1-sphere and the 2-sphere by describing them in alternation, one paragraph each.



        If you want to trace out a 1-sphere, one way to do that is to take a 0-sphere (a pair of points), anchor one of the points, and move the other point in a loop, starting and ending at that anchor point. By doing that, you've traced out a path within the 1-sphere, and that path is the generator of the space.



        Likewise, if you want to trace out a 2-sphere, you can take a 1-sphere, anchor one of the points, and move the opposite point in a loop, starting and ending at that anchor point. By doing that, you've traced out a homotopy (a 2-path) within the 2-sphere, and that homotopy is the generator of the space.



        Of course, the 1-sphere has more loops (paths from the anchor point to itself) than just the generator. There's a trivial loop, and you can also reverse loops and compose them. These are, of course, simply the operations of a group, and the homotopy group $pi_1(S^1)$ describes how these operations work.



        Likewise, the 2-sphere has more 2-loops (homotopies from the trivial loop on the anchor point, to itself) than just the generator. You have the group operations again, described by the homotopy group $pi_2(S^2)$.



        With the 1-sphere, the group operations "tell the whole story". Up to homotopy, there are no more loops than those created by the group operations.



        With the 2-sphere, the group operations no longer tell the whole story. The generator we identified consists of taking a point and moving it in a circle in a particular direction. The group operations allow us to move in the opposite direction. But it's also possible to move in a perpendicular direction, or sideways, or in any of $S^1$-many directions. So in order to tell the whole story, we need additional homotopy groups.




        Of course, the question I'm failing to answer is: how, exactly, do additional homotopy groups tell the rest of the story? I don't really know. But hopefully I've given some motivation how, unlike the loop space of $S^1$, the loop space of $S^2$ is itself an interesting space; and the loop space of that space is an interesting space, and so on.







        share|cite|improve this answer













        share|cite|improve this answer




        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jul 21 at 19:49









        Tanner SwettTanner Swett

        4983 silver badges19 bronze badges




        4983 silver badges19 bronze badges































            draft saved

            draft discarded















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f336598%2fwhat-is-the-intuition-for-higher-homotopy-groups-not-vanishing%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

            Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

            Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

            Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?