Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedaudited 2026-09-22
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Naturality, normalization, and Whitney sum for Chern classes

Statement

Assume AC. Let EB, FB be numerable complex bundles of ranks m,n0 over a path-connected CW complex B.

  1. Naturality. For every continuous f:BB with B a path-connected CW complex (or a CW-type base of Integral complex projective bundle theorem), ci(fE)=fci(E)for all i0.
  2. Normalization. On a complex line L, c1(L)=e(LR) and ci(L)=0 for i2.
  3. Whitney sum. c(EF)=c(E)c(F), that is ck(EF)=i+j=kci(E)cj(F) for every k0.
  4. Conventions. c0(E)=1, ci(E)=0 for i>rankE, and c(0B)=1; adjoining a trivial summand does not change the total class, c(Eεr)=c(E) for r0.

Facts & Assumptions

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice is assumed, exactly as inherited from the numerable-bundle, relative-cohomology and Euler-class suppliers (The Axiom of Choice).

[F1]

ci(E) is the i-th coefficient of the unique monic relation xEnc1(E)xEn1++(1)ncn(E)=0, with c0=1, ci=0 above the rank, c(0B)=1, and c1(L)=e(LR) for a line (Chern classes from the projective-bundle relation).

[F2]

The projective-bundle theorem gives the free basis 1,xR,,xRn1 over H(B;R) and asserts that the monic relation generates every polynomial relation (Integral complex projective bundle theorem).

[F3]

For a pullback fE the projective bundle is the pullback of P(E) and the tautological class pulls back: xfE=fxE, by naturality of the Euler class in the complex orientation; on the subbundle P(E)P(EF) the class xEF restricts to xE (Complex projective bundle and tautological complex line, Naturality, orientation sign, and Whitney product for Euler classes).

[F5]

For open A,BX with X=AB there is a relative cup product Hp(X,A;R)Hq(X,B;R)Hp+q(X,AB;R) (Relative cup product for an excisive triad).

[F6]

If i:AU is a deformation-retract inclusion, then i:H(U;Z)H(A;Z) is an isomorphism; and the long exact sequence of (X,U) identifies the image of H(X,U)H(X) with the kernel of restriction to U (Homotopic maps induce equal maps in singular cohomology, Long exact sequence of a pair in singular cohomology).

[F7]

A rank-k bundle with a nowhere-zero section has vanishing Euler class: e=0 (A nowhere-zero section forces the Euler class to vanish).

[F8]

Direct sums of complex bundles are formed fiberwise with the induced complex structure, and the construction is compatible with pullback (Whitney sum, tensor, dual, Hom, and exterior-power bundles).

Proof

technique · direct

Given: AC, numerable complex bundles EB, FB of ranks m,n0 over a path-connected CW complex B, and a continuous map f:BB from a path-connected CW complex.

1.1

Naturality of the class x: the projective bundle of fE is canonically fP(E) and the tautological line of fE is the pullback of γE, so xfE=fxE by naturality of the Euler class in the complex orientation.

F3given
1.2

Rank conventions: by [F1] one has c0=1, ci=0 above the rank, c(0B)=1, and on a line c1(L)=e(LR) with ci(L)=0 for i2; this is assertion 2 and the first part of assertion 4.

F1
1.3

If m=0 or n=0, the Whitney formula follows immediately from c(0B)=1; hence assume m,n1. Let X=P(EF) and put U1=XP(E), U2=XP(F); the subsets P(E),P(F)X are disjoint and U1U2=X. The map that sends a point of U2, a line not contained in F, to the line spanned by its E-component is a deformation retraction of U2 onto P(E), and symmetrically U1 deformation retracts onto P(F).

F1F8given
2.1

Applying f to the defining relation of E and using step 1.1 expresses xfEm as a monic relation with coefficients fci(E); by uniqueness in [F2] these are the coefficients of fE, so ci(fE)=fci(E) for all i, which is assertion 1.

F2step 1.1
2.2

The classes ω1:=j=0m(1)jcj(E)xmj and ω2:=j=0n(1)jcj(F)xnj, where x=xEF and cj of a summand means the pullback of cj to X, satisfy: on P(E)X the class x restricts to xE and ω1 restricts to the defining relation of E, hence to 0. Since P(E)U2 is a deformation retract, [F6] shows that the restriction of ω1 to U2 is also zero. The long exact sequence of (X,U2) therefore gives a relative lift of ω1 in H(X,U2). Symmetrically ω2 has a lift in H(X,U1).

F2F3F6step 1.3
3.1

Changing coefficients in step 2.1 gives the same identity over R=Z and over every Fp, and the rank cutoff is preserved because fE has the same rank.

step 1.2step 2.1
3.2

The relative cup product [F5] with A=U2, B=U1 maps ω1ω2 into H(X,U1U2)=H(X,X)=0 because U1U2=X. Hence the product of the two classes is zero in H(X): j=0m+n(1)j(r+s=jcr(E)cs(F))xm+nj=0.

F5step 2.2
4.1

Comparison with the defining relation of EF: by [F2] the unique monic relation of EF is xm+n+j=1m+n(1)jcj(EF)xm+nj=0. Subtracting the relation of step 3.2 from it gives a polynomial relation of degree less than m+n in x, so by the basis property of [F2] all its coefficients vanish. Hence cj(EF)=r+s=jcr(E)cs(F) for all j, which is assertion 3.

F2step 3.2
5.1

Stabilization. For the trivial complex line ε1 the identity section is nowhere zero, so e(εR1)=0 by [F7] and c(ε1)=1 by assertion 2; the trivial bundle εr is a sum of trivial lines, so assertion 3 gives c(εr)=1 and hence c(Eεr)=c(E) for all r0.

F1F7step 4.1
6.1

Boundary cases. The cases m=0 and n=0 were discharged in step 1.3. In the rank-one case m=1 the class ω1=xc1(E) and assertion 2 is [F1]. The empty base is excluded by the path-connected hypothesis, and a disconnected base is treated componentwise. AC is used only through [A1] in the bundle, relative-cohomology and Euler suppliers.

A1F1F2step 1.3step 3.2step 5.1

Source notes

Assertions 1 and 3 are Hatcher, Vector Bundles & K-Theory section 3.1, in the proof of Theorem 3.2: naturality is the pullback comparison of the defining relations, and the Whitney formula is the relative-class argument with the two open sets U1,U2 that deformation retract onto the two projective subbundles. The signs (1)j are carried because the page defines ci by the relation xnc1xn1++(1)ncn=0; with this convention assertion 3 is exactly the Whitney product formula.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

54 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources