text:
# On the calculation of UNil∗

## Introduction

The nilpotent $`K`$\- and $`L`$-groups of rings are a rich source of algebraic invariants for geometric topology, giving results of two types: if the groups are zero it is possible to solve the associated splitting and classification problems, while if they are non-zero the groups are infinitely generated and the solutions to the problems are definitely obstructed. See Bass , Farrell , , Farrell and Hsiang , Cappell ,, Ranicki , Connolly and Koźniewski .

The unitary nilpotent $`L`$-groups $`\text{UNil}_{}`$ arise as follows. Suppose given a closed $`n`$-dimensional manifold $`X`$ which is expressed as a union of codimension 0 submanifolds $`X_1,X_1X`$

$$X=X_1X_1$$

with

$$X_0=X_1X_1=X_1=X_1X$$

a codimension 1 submanifold. Assume $`X,X_1,X_0,X_1`$ are connected, and that the maps $`\pi _1(X_0)\pi _1(X_{\pm 1})`$ are injective, so that by the van Kampen theorem the fundamental group of $`X`$ is an amalgamated free product

$$\pi _1(X)=\pi _1(X_1)_{\pi _1(X_0)}\pi _1(X_1)$$

with $`\pi _1(X_i)\pi _1(X)`$ ($`i=1,0,1`$) injective. Given another closed $`n`$-dimensional manifold $`M`$ and a simple homotopy equivalence $`f:MX`$ there is a single obstruction

$$s(f)\text{UNil}_{n+1}(R;_1,_1)$$

to deforming $`f`$ by an $`h`$-cobordism of domains to a homotopy equivalence of the form

$$f_1f_1:M_1M_1X_1X_1$$

with $`f_{\pm 1}:(M_{\pm 1},M_{\pm 1})(X_{\pm 1},X_{\pm 1})`$ homotopy equivalences of manifolds with boundary such that

$$f_1|=f_1|:M_1=M_1X_1=X_1$$

and

$$R=[\pi _1(X_0)],_{\pm 1}=[\pi _1(X_{\pm 1})\backslash \pi _1(X_0)].$$

Cappell , proved geometrically that the free Wall  surgery obstruction groups $`L_{}=L_{}^h`$ of the fundamental group ring

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=[\pi _1(X)]=[\pi _1(X_1)]_{[\pi _1(X_0)]}[\pi _1(X_1)]$$

have direct sum decompositions

$$L_{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\text{UNil}_{}(R;_1,_1)L_{}^{}([\pi _1(X_0)][\pi _1(X_1)]\times [\pi _1(X_1)])$$

with $`L_{}^{}`$ appropriately decorated intermediate relative $`L`$-groups. The split monomorphism

$$\text{UNil}_{n+1}(R;_1,_1)L_{n+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda });s(f)\sigma (g)$$

sends the splitting obstruction $`s(f)`$ to the surgery obstruction $`\sigma (g)`$ of the ‘unitary nilpotent cobordism’ of , an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional normal map cobordism between $`f`$ and a split homotopy equivalence. The 4-periodicity $`L_{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=L_{+4}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ extends to a 4-periodicity

$$\text{UNil}_{}(R;_1,_1)=\text{UNil}_{+4}(R;_1,_1).$$

Farrell  obtained a remarkable factorization

$$\text{UNil}_{n+1}(R;_1,_1)\text{UNil}_{n+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda };\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })L_{n+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

For this reason (and some others too) the groups $`\text{UNil}_{}(R;R,R)`$ for any ring with involution $`R`$ are of especial significance to us, and we introduce the abbreviation:

$$\text{UNil}_n(R)=\text{UNil}_n(R;R,R).$$

But even the groups $`\text{UNil}_{}()`$ have remained opaque for the last 30 years. Cappell ,, proved that $`\text{UNil}_{4k}()=0`$ and that $`\text{UNil}_{4k+2}()`$ is infinitely generated. The UNil-groups $`\text{UNil}_{}(R;_1,_1)`$ are 2-primary torsion groups. Farrell  proved that $`4\text{UNil}_{}(R)=0`$, for any ring $`R`$. Connolly and Koźniewski  obtained an isomorphism

$$\text{UNil}_{4k+2}()\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝔽_2,$$

together with information on $`\text{UNil}_{4k+2}(R)`$ for various Dedekind domains and division rings. But that is nearly all that is known.

The infinite dihedral group is a free product of two copies of the cyclic group $`_2`$ of order 2

$$D_{\mathrm{}}=_2_2.$$

Since the surgery obstruction groups $`L_{}(R[D_{\mathrm{}}])`$ are hard to compute directly, the split monomorphisms $`\text{UNil}_{}(R)L_{}(R[D_{\mathrm{}}])`$ are more useful in computing $`L_{}(R[D_{\mathrm{}}])`$ from $`\text{UNil}_{}(R)`$ than the other way round. Connolly and Koźniewski  expressed $`\text{UNil}_{}(R;_1,_1)`$ as the $`L`$-groups $`L_{}(𝔸_\alpha [x])`$ of an additive category with involution $`𝔸_\alpha [x]`$. Although this expression did give new computations of $`\text{UNil}_{}(R)`$, the $`L`$-theory of additive categories with involution (Ranicki ) is not in general very computable.

The first goal of this paper therefore, is to provide a new description for $`\text{UNil}_n(R)`$ in terms of $`L`$-groups, which can be used to computational advantage. Cappell and Farrell observed that the infinite dihedral group $`D_{\mathrm{}}=_2_2`$ can also be viewed as an extension of $``$ by $`_2`$

$$\{1\}D_{\mathrm{}}_2\{1\},$$

so that the classifying space can be viewed both as a one-point union

$$K(D_{\mathrm{}},1)=K(_2,1)K(_2,1)=^{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}$$

and as the total space of a fibration

$$K(,1)=S^1K(D_{\mathrm{}},1)K(_2,1)=^{\mathrm{}},$$

and that this should have implications for codimension 1 surgery obstruction theory with $`\pi _1=D_{\mathrm{}}`$. This observation was used in Ranicki  (pp. 737–745) to prove geometrically that for the group ring $`R=[\pi ]`$ of a finitely presented group $`\pi `$

$$\text{UNil}_{}(R)=NL_{}(R)=\text{ker}(L_{}(R[x])L_{}(R))$$

with the involution on $`R`$ extended to $`R[x]`$ by $`\overline{x}=x`$, and $`R[x]R;x0`$ the augmentation map. The $`NL`$-groups are $`L`$-theoretic analogues of the nilpotent $`K`$-group

$$NK_1(R)=\text{ker}(K_1(R[x])K_1(R))=\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_0(R)$$

of Chapter XII of Bass , which is such that

$$K_1(R[x])=K_1(R)NK_1(R).$$

Theorem A. For any ring with involution $`R`$

$$\text{UNil}_{}(R)=NL_{}(R)$$

so that

$$L_n(R[x])=L_n(R)\text{UNil}_n(R).$$

We develop a new method for calculating $`\text{UNil}_{}(R)`$, adopting the following strategy. The symmetric $`L`$-groups $`L^{}(R)`$ of a ring $`R`$ with an involution $`RR;x\overline{x}`$ were defined by Mishchenko  and Ranicki  to be the cobordism groups of symmetric Poincaré complexes over $`R`$. The quadratic $`L`$-groups $`L_{}(R)`$ were expressed in  as the cobordism groups of quadratic Poincaré complexes over $`R`$, and the two types of $`L`$-groups were related by an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}L_n(R)L^n(R)\widehat{L}^n(R)L_{n1}(R)\mathrm{}$$

with the hyperquadratic $`L`$-groups $`\widehat{L}^{}(R)`$ the cobordism groups of (symmetric,quadratic) Poincaré pairs. The symmetric and hyperquadratic $`L`$-groups are not 4-periodic in general, but there are defined natural maps

$$L^n(R)L^{n+4}(R),\widehat{L}^n(R)\widehat{L}^{n+4}(R)$$

(which are isomorphisms for certain $`R`$, e.g. a Dedekind ring or the polynomial extension of a Dedekind ring). The 4-periodic versions of the symmetric and hyperquadratic $`L`$-groups

$$L^{n+4}(R)=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}L^{n+4k}(R),\widehat{L}^{n+4}(R)=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\widehat{L}^{n+4k}(R)$$

are related by an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}L_n(R)L^{n+4}(R)\widehat{L}^{n+4}(R)L_{n1}(R)\mathrm{}.$$

The theory of Weiss  identified $`\widehat{L}^{n+4}(R)`$ with the ‘twisted $`Q`$-group’ $`Q_n(B^R,\beta ^R)`$ of the ‘universal chain bundle’ $`(B^R,\beta ^R)`$ over $`R`$, which can be computed (more or less effectively) from the Tate $`_2`$-cohomology groups of the involution on $`R`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}H_n(B^R)\hfill & =\widehat{H}^n(_2;R)\hfill \\ & =\{aR|\overline{a}=(1)^na\}/\{b+(1)^n\overline{b}|bR\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In Proposition 11 we show that for a Dedekind ring with involution $`R`$

$$L^n(R[x])=L^n(R),NL^n(R)=0$$

making the UNil-groups

$$\text{UNil}_n(R)=\text{ker}(Q_n(B^{R[x]},\beta ^{R[x]})Q_n(B^R,\beta ^R))$$

accessible to computation.

Theorem B. For the ring $``$, we have:

$$\text{UNil}_0()=0,\text{UNil}_1()=0$$

and there is an exact sequence:

$$0𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2\stackrel{\psi ^21}{}𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2\text{UNil}_2()0$$

with

$$\psi ^2:𝔽_2[x]𝔽_2[x];aa^2$$

the Frobenius map. $`\text{UNil}_3()`$ is not finitely generated, with $`4\text{UNil}_3()=0`$.

We now give an outline of the rest of this paper.

In §1 we define the groups $`\text{UNil}_n(R)`$ and the map $`c:\text{UNil}_n(R)L_n(R[x])`$, as well as the various other morphisms and groups with which we will be working. Theorem A is proved in §1.

In §2 we relate $`\text{UNil}_n(R)`$ for Dedekind $`R`$ to the group of symmetric structures on the universal chain bundle of Weiss. We then make the calculations necessary to prove Theorem B.

We are grateful to the referee for various helpful suggestions.

This research was started during the visit of FXC to Edinburgh in 1994, which was supported by the SERC Visiting Fellowship GR/J94891.

## 1  Fundamental Concepts. The proof of Theorem A.

### 1.1  Algebraic $`L`$-groups

Throughout this paper $`R`$ denotes a ring with an involution

$$RR;r\overline{r}.$$

An $`R`$-module is understood to be a left $`R`$-module, unless a right $`R`$-module action is specified. Given an $`R`$-module $`P`$ let $`P^t`$ be the right $`R`$-module with the same additive group and

$$P^t\times RP^t;(x,r)\overline{r}x.$$

The dual of an $`R`$-module $`P`$ is the $`R`$-module

$$\begin{array}{c}P^{}=\text{Hom}_R(P,R),\hfill \\ R\times P^{}P^{};(r,f)(xf(x)\overline{r}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Write the evaluation pairing as

$$,:P^{}\times PR;(f,x)f,x=f(x).$$

An element $`\varphi \text{Hom}_R(P,P^{})`$ determines a sesquilinear form on $`P`$

$$,_\varphi :P\times PR;(x,y)\varphi (x),y,$$

and we identify $`\text{Hom}_R(P,P^{})`$ with the additive group of such forms. The dual of a f.g. (= finitely generated) projective $`R`$-module $`P`$ is a f.g. projective $`R`$-module $`P^{}`$, and the morphism

$$PP^{};x(f\overline{f(x)})$$

is an isomorphism, which we shall use to identify

$$P^{}=P,$$

and to define the $`ϵ`$-duality involution

$$T_ϵ:\text{Hom}_R(P,P^{})\text{Hom}_R(P,P^{});\varphi ϵ\varphi ^{},x,y_\varphi ^{}=\overline{y,x}_\varphi .$$

For $`ϵ=\pm 1`$, any $`R`$-module chain complex $`C`$ and any $`[_2]`$-module chain complex $`X`$ define the $``$-module chain complexes

$$\begin{array}{c}X^\%(C,ϵ)=\text{Hom}_{[_2]}(X,C^t_RC),\hfill \\ X_\%(C,ϵ)=X_{[_2]}(C^t_RC)\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`T_2`$ acting on $`C^t_RC`$ by the signed transposition isomorphisms

$$T_ϵ:C_p^t_RC_qC_q^t_RC_p;xy(1)^{pq}ϵyx.$$

We shall be mainly concerned with finite chain complexes $`C`$ of f.g. projective $`R`$-modules, in which case we identify

$$C^t_RC=\mathrm{Hom}_R(C^{},C)$$

using the natural $``$-module isomorphisms

$$C_p^t_RC_q\mathrm{Hom}_R(C^p,C_q);xy(f\overline{f(x)}.y)$$

with $`C^p=(C_p)^{}`$. The signed transposition isomorphisms correspond to the signed duality isomorphisms

$$T_ϵ:\mathrm{Hom}_R(C^p,C_q)\mathrm{Hom}_R(C^q,C_p);\varphi (1)^{pq}ϵ\varphi ^{}.$$

As in Ranicki  the group of $`n`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric (resp. $`ϵ`$-hyperquadratic, resp. $`ϵ`$-quadratic) structures on $`C`$ is defined by:

$$\begin{array}{c}Q^n(C,ϵ)=H_n(W^\%C),\widehat{Q}^n(C,ϵ)=H_n(\widehat{W}^\%C),\hfill \\ Q_n(C,ϵ)=H_n(W_\%C)=H_n((W^{})^\%C)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`W`$ (resp. $`\widehat{W}`$) denotes the standard free $`[_2]`$-module resolution of $``$ (resp. complete resolution) and

$$W^{}=\text{Hom}_{[_2]}(W,[_2]).$$

If $`S^1W^{}`$ denotes the desuspension of $`W^{}`$, the short exact sequence

$$0S^1W^{}\widehat{W}W0$$

induces the exact sequence:

$$\mathrm{}Q_n(C,ϵ)Q^n(C,ϵ)\stackrel{𝐽}{}\widehat{Q}^n(C,ϵ)Q_{n1}(C,ϵ)\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
Given a f.g. projective $`R`$-module $`P`$ define the 0-dimensional f.g. projective $`R`$-module chain complex

$$C:\mathrm{}0C_0=P^{}0\mathrm{}.$$

At the risk of notational confusion, the 0-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric and $`ϵ`$-quadratic $`Q`$-groups of $`C`$ are written

$$\begin{array}{c}Q^0(C,ϵ)=Q^ϵ(P)=\text{ker}(1T_ϵ:\text{Hom}_R(P,P^{})\text{Hom}_R(P,P^{})),\hfill \\ Q_0(C,ϵ)=Q_ϵ(P)=\text{coker}(1T_ϵ:\text{Hom}_R(P,P^{})\text{Hom}_R(P,P^{})).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Definition 1

An $`ϵ`$-symmetric form $`(P,\varphi )`$ (resp. an $`ϵ`$-quadratic form $`(P,\psi )`$) over $`R`$ is a f.g. projective $`R`$-module $`P`$ together with an element $`\varphi Q^ϵ(P)`$ (resp. $`\psi Q_ϵ(P)`$). The form is nonsingular if the $`R`$-module morphism

$$\varphi :PP^{}\text{(resp. }N_ϵ(\psi )=(1+T_ϵ)\psi :PP^{})$$

is an isomorphism.

We refer to Ranicki ,, for various accounts of the construction of the free $`ϵ`$-symmetric (resp. quadratic) $`L`$-groups $`L^n(R,ϵ)`$ (resp. $`L_n(R,ϵ)`$) as the cobordism groups of $`n`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric (resp. $`ϵ`$-quadratic) Poincaré complexes over $`R`$ $`(C,\varphi Q^n(C,ϵ))`$ (resp. $`(C,\psi Q_n(C,ϵ)))`$ with

$$C:\mathrm{}0C_nC_{n1}\mathrm{}C_00\mathrm{}$$

an $`n`$-dimensional f.g. free $`R`$-module chain complex. The projective $`L`$-groups $`L_p^{}(R,ϵ)`$ (resp. $`L_{}^p(R,ϵ)`$) are constructed in the same way, using f.g. projective $`C`$.

The suspension of an $`R`$-module chain complex $`C`$ is the $`R`$-module chain complex $`SC`$ with

$$d_{SC}=d_C:(SC)_{r+1}=C_r(SC)_r=C_{r1}.$$

As in Ranicki  (p. 105) use the natural $``$-module isomorphisms

$$S^2(W^\%(C,ϵ))W^\%(SC,ϵ),S^2(W_\%(C,ϵ))W_\%(SC,ϵ)$$

to identify

$$Q^n(C,ϵ)=Q^{n+2}(SC,ϵ),Q_n(C,ϵ)=Q_{n+2}(SC,ϵ)$$

and to define the skew-suspension maps

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{S}^n:L^n(R,ϵ)L^{n+2}(R,ϵ);(C,\varphi )(SC,\varphi ),\hfill \\ \overline{S}_n:L_n(R,ϵ)L_{n+2}(R,ϵ);(C,\psi )(SC,\psi ).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Definition 2

A ring $`R`$ is $`1`$-dimensional if it is hereditary and noetherian, or equivalently if every submodule of a f.g. projective $`R`$-module is f.g. projective.

In particular, Dedekind rings are $`1`$-dimensional.

###### Proposition 3

()
(i) For every ring with involution $`R`$ the $`\pm ϵ`$-quadratic skew-suspension maps $`\overline{S}_n`$ are isomorphisms, so that

$$L_n(R,ϵ)=L_{n+2}(R,ϵ)=L_{n+4}(R,ϵ),$$

with $`L_{2n}(R,ϵ)=L_0(R,(1)^nϵ)`$ the Witt group of stable isometry classes of nonsingular $`(1)^nϵ`$-quadratic forms over $`R`$.
(ii) If $`R`$ is $`1`$-dimensional then the $`\pm ϵ`$-symmetric skew-suspension maps $`\overline{S}^n`$ are isomorphisms, so that

$$L^n(R,ϵ)=L^{n+2}(R,ϵ)=L^{n+4}(R,ϵ),$$

with $`L^{2n}(R,ϵ)=L^0(R,(1)^nϵ)`$ the Witt group of stable isometry classes of nonsingular $`(1)^nϵ`$-symmetric forms over $`R`$.

Proof.By algebraic surgery below the middle dimension, given by Proposition I.4.3 of  for (i), and Proposition I.4.5 of  for (ii). ∎

For $`ϵ=1`$ we write

$$\begin{array}{c}X^\%(C,1)=X^\%C,X_\%(C,1)=X_\%C,\hfill \\ Q^{}(C,1)=Q^{}(C),\widehat{Q}^{}(C,1)=\widehat{Q}^{}(C),Q_{}(C,1)=Q_{}(C),\hfill \\ L^{}(R,1)=L^{}(R),L_{}(R,1)=L_{}(R).\hfill \end{array}$$

The hyperquadratic $`Q`$-groups $`\widehat{Q}^{}(C)`$ are used in Section 2 to define chain bundles.

### 1.2 The nilpotent $`L`$-groups $`L\text{Nil}`$, $`L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}`$

Theorem A identifies the unitary nilpotent $`L`$-groups $`\text{UNil}_{}(R)`$ with the nilpotent $`L`$-groups $`L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{}(R)`$, whose definition we now recall.

We start with nilpotent $`K`$-theory.

###### Definition 4

(i) An $`R`$-nilmodule $`(P,\nu )`$ is a f.g. projective $`R`$-module $`P`$ together with a nilpotent endomorphism $`\nu :PP`$, so that

$$\nu ^N=0:PP$$

for some $`N1`$.
(ii) A morphism of $`R`$-nilmodules $`f:(P,\nu )(P^{},\nu ^{})`$ is an $`R`$-module morphism $`f:PP^{}`$ such that $`\nu ^{}f=f\nu :PP^{}`$.
(iii) The nilpotent $`K`$-groups of $`R`$ are defined to be the $`K`$-groups

$$\text{Nil}_{}(R)=K_{}(\text{Nil}(R))$$

of the exact category $`\text{Nil}(R)`$ be of $`R`$-nilmodules. The reduced nilpotent $`K`$-groups

$$\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{}(R)=\text{ker}(\text{Nil}_{}(R)K_{}(R))$$

are such that

$$\text{Nil}_{}(R)=K_{}(R)\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{}(R).$$

(iv) The $`NK`$-groups of $`R`$ are defined by

$$NK_{}(R)=\text{ker}(K_{}(R[x])K_{}(R)),$$

so that

$$K_{}(R[x])=K_{}(R)NK_{}(R).$$

###### Proposition 5

(Bass )
(i) There is a natural identification

$$NK_1(R)=\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_0(R)$$

using the split injection

$$\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_0(R)K_1(R[x]);(P,\nu )\tau (1+x\nu :P[x]P[x]).$$

(ii) If $`R`$ is $`1`$-dimensional then

$$\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_0(R)=0.$$

Proof. (i) See Chapter XII of .
(ii) Given a nilmodule $`(P,\nu )`$ with $`\nu ^N=0:PP`$ for some $`N1`$ define the nilmodules

$$(P^{},\nu ^{})=(\text{ker}(\nu ),0),(P^{\prime \prime },\nu ^{\prime \prime })=(\text{im}(\nu ),\nu |),$$

using the $`1`$-dimensionality of $`R`$ to ensure that the $`R`$-modules $`\text{ker}(\nu ),\text{im}(\nu )P`$ are f.g. projective. It follows from the exact sequence

$$0(P^{},\nu ^{})(P,\nu )(P^{\prime \prime },\nu ^{\prime \prime })0$$

that

$$[P,\nu ]=[P^{},\nu ^{}]+[P^{\prime \prime },\nu ^{\prime \prime }]\text{Nil}_0(R).$$

Now $`\nu ^{}=0`$, $`(\nu ^{\prime \prime })^{N1}=0`$, so proceeding inductively we obtain

$$[P,\nu ]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}[\text{ker}(\nu ^i)/\text{ker}(\nu ^{i1}),0]K_0(R)\text{Nil}_0(R)$$

and hence that $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_0(R)=0`$. ∎

###### Definition 6

An $`n`$-dimensional $`R`$-nilcomplex $`(C,\nu )`$ is a $`n`$-dimensional f.g. projective $`R`$-module chain complex

$$C:\mathrm{}0C_nC_{n1}\mathrm{}C_1C_0$$

together with a chain map $`\nu :CC`$ which is chain homotopy nilpotent, i.e. such that $`\nu ^N0:CC`$ for some integer $`N1`$. ∎

###### Proposition 7

The chain equivalence classes of the following types of chain complexes are in one-one correspondence:

* $`n`$-dimensional chain complexes of $`R`$-nilmodules

$$(C,\nu ):\mathrm{}0(C_n,\nu )(C_{n1},\nu )\mathrm{}(C_1,\nu )(C_0,\nu ),$$
* $`n`$-dimensional $`R`$-nilcomplexes $`(C,\nu )`$,
* $`(n+1)`$-dimensional f.g. projective $`R[x]`$-module chain complexes

$$D:\mathrm{}0D_{n+1}D_n\mathrm{}D_1D_0$$

such that

$$H_{}(R[x,x^1]_{R[x]}D)=0.$$

Proof. (i) $``$ (ii) An $`n`$-dimensional chain complex of $`R`$-nilmodules is an $`n`$-dimensional $`R`$-nilcomplex.
(ii) $``$ (iii) Given an $`n`$-dimensional $`R`$-nilcomplex $`(C,\nu )`$ define the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional f.g. projective $`R[x]`$-module chain complexes

$$D=𝒞(x\nu :C[x]C[x])$$

such that

$$\begin{array}{c}H_{}(R[x,x^1]_{R[x]}D)=0,\hfill \\ x=\nu :H_{}(D)=H_{}(C)H_{}(D)=H_{}(C).\hfill \end{array}$$

(i) $``$ (iii) See Proposition 3.1.2 of Ranicki . ∎

In particular, it follows from Proposition 7 that every $`n`$-dimensional $`R`$-nilcomplex is chain equivalent to an $`n`$-dimensional $`R`$-nilcomplex $`(C,\nu )`$ with $`\nu ^N=0:CC`$ for some $`N1`$ (rather than just $`\nu ^N0`$).

Now for nilpotent $`L`$-theory.

###### Definition 8

(Ranicki , p. 440,  p. 470)
(i) The $`ϵ`$-symmetric $`Q\text{Nil}`$-groups $`Q\text{Nil}^{}(C,\nu ,ϵ)`$ of an $`R`$-nilcomplex $`(C,\nu )`$ are the relative $`Q`$-groups in the exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}Q^{n+1}(C,ϵ)Q\text{Nil}^n(C,\nu ,ϵ)Q^n(C,ϵ)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu }{}Q^n(C,ϵ)\mathrm{}$$

with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu :W^\%(C,ϵ)W^\%(C,ϵ);\varphi (1\nu )\varphi \varphi (\nu 1).$$

Similarly for the $`ϵ`$-quadratic $`Q\text{Nil}`$-groups $`Q\text{Nil}_{}(C,\nu ,ϵ)`$, with an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}Q_{n+1}(C,ϵ)Q\text{Nil}_n(C,\nu ,ϵ)Q_n(C,ϵ)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu }{}Q_n(C,ϵ)\mathrm{}.$$

(ii) An $`n`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric Poincaré nilcomplex over $`R`$ $`(C,\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi )`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional $`R`$-nilcomplex $`(C,\nu )`$ together with an element

$$(\delta \varphi ,\varphi )Q\text{Nil}^n(C,\nu ,ϵ)$$

such that $`(C,\varphi Q^n(C,ϵ))`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric Poincaré complex over $`R`$. The $`ϵ`$-symmetric $`L\text{Nil}`$-group $`L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)`$ is the cobordism group of $`n`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric Poincaré nilcomplexes over $`R`$. Similarly in the $`ϵ`$-quadratic case, with $`L\text{Nil}_n(R,ϵ)`$.
(iii) The reduced $`ϵ`$-symmetric $`L\text{Nil}`$-groups are defined by

$$L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}^{}(R,ϵ)=\text{ker}(L\text{Nil}^{}(R,ϵ)L_p^{}(R,ϵ)),$$

with

$$L\text{Nil}^{}(R,ϵ)=L_p^{}(R,ϵ)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}^{}(R,ϵ).$$

Similarly in the $`ϵ`$-quadratic case, with $`L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{}(R,ϵ)`$.
(iv) Extend the involution to $`R[x]`$ by $`\overline{x}=x`$. Use the augmentation map

$$R[x]R;x0$$

to define the nilpotent $`ϵ`$-symmetric $`L`$-groups of $`R`$

$$NL^{}(R,ϵ)=\text{ker}(L^{}(R[x],ϵ)L^{}(R,ϵ))$$

with

$$L^{}(R[x],ϵ)=L^{}(R,ϵ)NL^{}(R,ϵ).$$

Similarly for the nilpotent $`ϵ`$-quadratic $`L`$-groups $`NL_{}(R,ϵ)`$. ∎

###### Proposition 9

(i) The $`Q\text{Nil}`$-groups of an $`R`$-nilcomplex $`(C,\nu )`$ are the $`Q`$-groups of the $`R[x,x^1]`$-contractible f.g. projective $`R[x]`$-module chain complex

$$D=𝒞(x\nu :C[x]C[x])$$

with

$$\begin{array}{c}x=\nu :H_{}(D)=H_{}(C)H_{}(D)=H_{}(C),\hfill \\ Q\text{Nil}^n(C,\nu ,ϵ)=Q^{n+1}(D,ϵ),\hfill \\ Q\text{Nil}_n(C,\nu ,ϵ)=Q_{n+1}(D,ϵ).\hfill \end{array}$$

An element $`(\delta \varphi ,\varphi )Q\text{Nil}^n(C,\nu ,ϵ)`$ corresponds to an element

$$\mathrm{\Phi }Q^{n+1}(D,ϵ)=Q^{n1}(S^1D,ϵ)$$

with

$$\varphi _0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0:H^{n+1}(D)=H^n(C)H_{}(D)=H_{}(C),$$

so that $`(C,\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi )`$ is an $`ϵ`$-symmetric Poincaré nilcomplex if and only if $`(S^1D,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is an $`ϵ`$-symmetric Poincaré complex. Similarly in the $`ϵ`$-quadratic case.
(ii) The nilpotent $`ϵ`$-symmetric $`L`$-group of a ring with involution $`R`$ fits into a split exact sequence:

$$0L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x],ϵ)L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x,x^1],ϵ)L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)0$$

with the surjection split by the injection

$$\begin{array}{c}L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x,x^1],ϵ);\hfill \\ (C,\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi )(C[x,x^1],[\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi ])(C[x,x^1],\varphi )\hfill \\ ([\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi ]_s=(x\nu )\varphi _s+T_ϵ\delta \varphi _{s1},s0,\delta \varphi _1=0).\hfill \end{array}$$

Similarly in the $`ϵ`$-quadratic case, with a split exact sequence:

$$0L_n^{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}(R[x],ϵ)L_n^{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}(R[x,x^1],ϵ)L\text{Nil}_n(R,ϵ)0$$

where the surjection split by the injection

$$\begin{array}{c}L\text{Nil}_n(R,ϵ)L_n^{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}(R[x,x^1],ϵ);\hfill \\ (C,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi )(C[x,x^1],[\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi ])(C[x,x^1],\psi )\hfill \\ ([\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi ]_s=(x\nu )\psi _s+T_ϵ\delta \psi _{s+1},s0).\hfill \end{array}$$

(iii) The morphism

$$\begin{array}{c}L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x],ϵ);(C,\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi )(C[x],\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})\hfill \\ (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_s=(1x\nu )\varphi _s+xT_ϵ\delta \varphi _{s1},s0,\delta \varphi _1=0)\hfill \end{array}$$

is an isomorphism, and

$$L^n(R[x],ϵ)=L^n(R,ϵ)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}^n(R,ϵ),NL^n(R,ϵ)=L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}^n(R,ϵ).$$

Similarly in the $`ϵ`$-quadratic case, with the morphism<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1As noted by the referee the cycles $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},(1+T)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(W^\%C[x])_n`$ differ by a boundary involving $`\delta \psi _0`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}L\text{Nil}_n(R,ϵ)L_n^{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}(R[x],ϵ);(C,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi )(C[x],\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }})\hfill \\ (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_s=(1x\nu )\psi _s+xT_ϵ\delta \psi _{s+1},s0)\hfill \end{array}$$

an isomorphism, and

$$L_n(R[x],ϵ)=L_n(R,ϵ)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_n(R,ϵ),NL_n(R,ϵ)=L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_n(R,ϵ).$$

Proof. (i) Ranicki , Propositions 34.5.
(ii) The $`ϵ`$-symmetric $`L`$-theory localization exact sequence of Proposition 3.7.2 of Ranicki

$$\mathrm{}L_I^n(A,ϵ)L_{S^1I}^n(S^1A,ϵ)\stackrel{}{}L_I^n(A,S,ϵ)L_I^{n1}(A,ϵ)\mathrm{}$$

is defined for any ring with involution $`A`$, a central multiplicative subset $`SA`$ of nonzero divisors, and any $``$-invariant subgroup $`I\stackrel{~}{K}_0(A)`$, with $`L_I^n(A,S,ϵ)`$ the cobordism group of $`(n1)`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric Poincaré complexes $`(C,\varphi )`$ over $`A`$ such that

$$S^1A_AC0,[C]I.$$

The boundary map is defined by

$$:L_{S^1I}^n(S^1A,ϵ)L_I^n(A,S,ϵ);S^1(C,\varphi )(C,\varphi )$$

with $`(C,\varphi )`$ an $`n`$-dimensional $`S^1A`$-Poincaré $`ϵ`$-symmetric complex over $`A`$ such that $`[C]I`$, and $`(C,\varphi )=(C,\varphi )`$ the $`(n1)`$-dimensional $`S^1A`$-contractible $`ϵ`$-symmetric Poincaré complex over $`A`$ given by the boundary construction of page 48 of , with $`C=𝒞(\varphi _0:C^nC)_{+1}`$. For

$$(A,S)=(R[x],\{x^k|k0\}),S^1A=R[x,x^1],I=\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R[x])$$

the localization exact sequence breaks up into split exact sequences

$$0L_I^n(A,ϵ)L_{S^1I}^n(S^1A,ϵ)\stackrel{}{}L_I^n(A,S,ϵ)0$$

with

$$\begin{array}{c}L_I^n(A,ϵ)=L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x],ϵ),\hfill \\ L_{S^1I}^n(S^1A,ϵ)=L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x,x^1],ϵ),\hfill \\ L_I^n(A,S,ϵ)=L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)\hfill \end{array}$$

(Propositions 5.1.3, 5.1.4 of ). The formulae for $`[\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi ]`$ and $`[\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi ]`$ are from page 445 of . The identification $`L_I^n(A,S,ϵ)=L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)`$ can be deduced from (i), noting that by Proposition 7 a finite f.g. projective $`R[x]`$-module chain complex $`D`$ with projective class $`[D]I`$ is such that $`R[x,x^1]_{R[x]}D0`$ if and only if $`D`$ is chain equivalent to $`𝒞(x\nu :C[x]C[x])`$ for an $`R`$-nilcomplex $`(C,\nu )`$, with $`C`$ $`R`$-module chain equivalent to $`D`$ and $`\nu x:CDCD`$. The map

$$L\mathrm{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)L_I^n(R[x],S,ϵ);(C,\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi )(S^1D,\mathrm{\Phi })$$

is an isomorphism, which factors as

$$L\mathrm{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x,x^1],ϵ)\stackrel{}{}L_I^n(R[x],S,ϵ)$$

with

$$\begin{array}{c}L\mathrm{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x,x^1],ϵ);\hfill \\ (C,\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi )(C[x,x^1],\{(x\nu )\varphi _s+T_ϵ\delta \varphi _{s1}|s0\})(\delta \varphi _1=0).\hfill \end{array}$$

(iii) The inclusion $`R[x^1]R[x,x^1]`$ induces a split injection

$$L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x^1],ϵ)L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x,x^1],ϵ)=L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x],ϵ)L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)$$

with image

$$L_p^n(R,ϵ)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}^n(R,ϵ)=L\mathrm{Nil}^n(R,ϵ).$$

Replacing $`R[x^1]`$ by $`R[x]`$, it follows that the morphism

$$\begin{array}{c}L\mathrm{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x^1],ϵ);\hfill \\ (C,\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi )(C[x^1],\{(1x^1\nu )\varphi _s+x^1T_ϵ\delta \varphi _{s1}|s0\})(\delta \varphi _1=0)\hfill \end{array}$$

is an isomorphism. The inclusion $`R[x^1]R[x,x^1]`$ induces a split injection

$$L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x^1],ϵ)L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x,x^1],ϵ)=L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x],ϵ)L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)$$

with image

$$L^n(R,ϵ)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}^n(R,ϵ),$$

and an isomorphism

$$L^n(R,ϵ)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}^n(R,ϵ)L_{\stackrel{~}{K}_0(R)}^n(R[x^1],ϵ).$$

In the applications of the nilpotent $`L`$-groups to the unitary nilpotent $`L`$-groups we shall be particularly concerned with the Witt groups of ‘nilforms’ over $`R`$.

Define the $`Q\mathrm{Nil}`$-groups of an $`R`$-nilmodule $`(P,\nu )`$ to be the $`Q\mathrm{Nil}`$-groups of the 0-dimensional $`R`$-nilcomplex $`(C,\nu ^{})`$ with

$$C:\mathrm{}0C_0=P^{}0\mathrm{},$$

as given in the $`ϵ`$-symmetric case by

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q\mathrm{Nil}^ϵ(P,\nu )\hfill & =Q\mathrm{Nil}^0(C,\nu ^{},ϵ)\hfill \\ & =\{\varphi \mathrm{Hom}_R(P,P^{})|ϵ\varphi ^{}=\varphi ,\nu ^{}\varphi =\varphi \nu :PP^{}\}\hfill \end{array}$$

and in the $`ϵ`$-quadratic case by

$$\begin{array}{c}Q\mathrm{Nil}_ϵ(P,\nu )=Q\mathrm{Nil}_0(C,\nu ^{},ϵ)\hfill \\ =\frac{\{(\delta \psi ,\psi )\mathrm{Hom}_R(P,P^{})\mathrm{Hom}_R(P,P^{})|\nu ^{}\psi \psi \nu =\delta \psi +ϵ\delta \psi ^{}:PP^{}\}}{\{(\delta \chi ϵ\delta \chi ^{}+\nu ^{}\chi \chi \nu ,\chi ϵ\chi ^{})|(\delta \chi ,\chi )\mathrm{Hom}_R(P,P^{})\mathrm{Hom}_R(P,P^{})\}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

There is an evident $`ϵ`$-symmetrization map

$$N_ϵ:Q\mathrm{Nil}_ϵ(P,\nu )Q\mathrm{Nil}^ϵ(P,\nu );(\delta \psi ,\psi )N_ϵ(\psi ).$$

###### Definition 10

(, p.452)
(i) A nonsingular $`ϵ`$-symmetric nilform over $`R`$ $`(P,\nu ,\varphi )`$ consists of

* an $`R`$-nilmodule $`(P,\nu )`$,
* an element $`\varphi Q\mathrm{Nil}^ϵ(P,\nu )`$ such that $`\varphi :PP^{}`$ is an isomorphism.

Thus $`(P,\varphi )`$ is a nonsingular $`ϵ`$-symmetric form over $`R`$, and there is defined an isomorphism of $`R`$-nilmodules

$$\varphi :(P,\nu )(P^{},\nu ^{}).$$

A lagrangian for $`(P,\nu ,\varphi )`$ is a direct summand $`LP`$ such that

* $`\nu (L)L`$,
* the sequence

$$0L\stackrel{𝑖}{}P\stackrel{i^{}\varphi }{}L^{}0$$

is exact, with $`i:LP`$ the inclusion.

In particular, $`L`$ is a lagrangian for the nonsingular $`ϵ`$-symmetric form $`(P,\varphi )`$.
(ii) A nonsingular $`ϵ`$-quadratic nilform over $`R`$ $`(P,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi )`$ consists of

* an $`R`$-nilmodule $`(P,\nu )`$
* an element $`(\delta \psi ,\psi )Q\mathrm{Nil}_ϵ(P,\nu )`$ such that $`N_ϵ(\psi ):PP^{}`$ is an isomorphism.

Thus $`(P,\psi )`$ is a nonsingular $`ϵ`$-quadratic form over $`R`$, and there is defined an isomorphism of $`R`$-nilmodules

$$N_ϵ(\psi ):(P,\nu )(P^{},\nu ^{}).$$

A lagrangian for $`(P,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi )`$ is a direct summand $`LP`$ such that

* $`\nu (L)L`$,
* the sequence

$$0L\stackrel{𝑖}{}P\stackrel{i^{}N_ϵ(\psi )}{}L^{}0$$

is exact, with $`i:LP`$ the inclusion,
* $`(i^{}\delta \psi i,i^{}\psi i)=(0,0)Q\mathrm{Nil}_ϵ(L,\nu |)`$ .

In particular, $`L`$ is a lagrangian for the nonsingular $`ϵ`$-quadratic form $`(P,\psi )`$.

The notion of stable isometry of nilforms is now defined in the usual way using lagrangians and orthogonal direct sums, and $`L\text{Nil}^0(R,ϵ)`$ (resp. $`L\text{Nil}_0(R,ϵ)`$) is the Witt group of nonsingular $`ϵ`$-symmetric (resp. $`ϵ`$-quadratic) nilforms over $`R`$. See Ranicki  (pp. 456-457) for the identification of $`L\text{Nil}^1(R,ϵ)`$ (resp. $`L\text{Nil}_1(R,ϵ)`$) with the Witt group of nonsingular $`ϵ`$-symmetric (resp. $`ϵ`$-quadratic) nilformations over $`R`$.

###### Proposition 11

(Ranicki , Proposition 41.3)
(i) For any ring with involution $`R`$ the skew-suspension maps in the nilpotent $`\pm ϵ`$-quadratic $`L`$-groups are isomorphisms, so that

$$L\text{Nil}_n(R,ϵ)=L\text{Nil}_{n+2}(R,ϵ)=L\text{Nil}_{n+4}(R,ϵ),$$

with $`L\text{Nil}_{2n}(R,ϵ)=L\text{Nil}_0(R,(1)^nϵ)`$ the Witt group of nonsingular $`(1)^nϵ`$-quadratic nilforms over $`R`$. Similarly for $`L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{}(R,ϵ)`$.
(ii) If $`R`$ is a Dedekind ring with involution then

$$\begin{array}{c}L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)=L\text{Nil}^{n+2}(R,ϵ)=L\text{Nil}^{n+4}(R,ϵ),\hfill \\ L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)=L_p^n(R,ϵ),L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}^n(R,ϵ)=0(n0).\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. (i) In order to establish the 4-periodicity use algebraic surgery below the middle dimension, as for the ordinary $`ϵ`$-quadratic $`L`$-groups $`L_n(R,ϵ)`$ in Proposition I.4.3 of  (cf. Proposition 3 above).
(ii) The explicit proof in the case $`n=0`$ (, p. 588) extends to the general case as follows. Let $`(C,\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi )`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric Poincaré nilcomplex over $`R`$, representing an element of $`L\text{Nil}^n(R,ϵ)`$, with

$$\nu ^N=0:CC$$

for some $`N1`$. We reduce to the case $`N=1`$ using the structure theory of f.g. modules over the Dedekind ring $`R`$ : every f.g. $`R`$-module $`M`$ fits into a split exact sequence

$$0T(M)MM/T(M)0$$

with

$$T(M)=\{xM|ax=0M\text{for some}a0R\}$$

the torsion $`R`$-submodule and the quotient torsion-free $`R`$-module $`M/T(M)`$ is f.g. projective. In particular, for any $`R`$-nilmodule $`(P,\nu )`$ with

$$\nu ^N=0:PP$$

the $`R`$-submodule of $`P`$ defined by

$$T_N(P,\nu )=\{xP|ax\nu ^{N1}(P)\text{for some}a0R\}$$

is such that

$$T_N(P,\nu )/\nu ^{N1}(P)=T(P/\nu ^{N1}(P)).$$

The torsion-free quotient $`R`$-module

$$(P/\nu ^{N1}(P))/T(P/\nu ^{N1}(P))=P/T_N(P,\nu )$$

is f.g. projective, so that $`T_N(P,\nu )`$ is a direct summand of $`P`$. The inclusion defines a morphism of $`R`$-nilmodules

$$i:(T_N(P,\nu ),0)(P,\nu )$$

Moreover, if $`(P^{},\nu ^{})`$ is another $`R`$-nilmodule with $`\nu ^N=0`$ and

$$\theta :(P,\nu )(P^{},\nu ^{})^{}=(P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{},\nu ^{})$$

is a morphism of $`R`$-nilmodules then

$$i_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\theta i=0:T_N(P,\nu )T_N(P^{},\nu ^{})^{}$$

since for any $`xT_N(P,\nu )`$, $`x^{}T_N(P^{},\nu ^{})`$ there exist $`a,a^{}0R`$, $`yP`$, $`y^{}P^{}`$ with

$$ax=\nu ^{N1}(y)P,a^{}x^{}=\nu ^{N1}(x^{})P^{}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}a^{}\theta (x)(x^{})\overline{a}\hfill & =\theta (ax)(a^{}x^{})\hfill \\ & =\theta (\nu ^{N1}(y))(\nu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{N1}(y^{}))\hfill \\ & =\theta (\nu ^{2N2}(y))(y^{})\hfill \\ & =0R\text{(since }2N2N\text{)}\hfill \end{array}$$

so that

$$\theta (x)(x^{})=0R.$$

Returning to the $`n`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric Poincaré nilcomplex $`(C,\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi )`$ with $`\nu ^N=0:CC`$, let $`i:(B,0)(C^n,\nu ^{})`$ be the inclusion of the subcomplex defined by

$$B_r=T_N(C^{nr},\nu ^{}).$$

The chain map of $`R`$-nilmodule chain complexes defined by

$$f=i^{}:(C,\nu )(D,0)=(B^n,0)$$

is such that

$$f^{}(\delta \varphi ,\varphi )=0Q\text{Nil}^n(D,0,ϵ).$$

Algebraic surgery on $`(C,\nu ,\delta \varphi ,\varphi )`$ using the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric nilpair $`(f:(C,\nu )(D,0),(0,(\delta \varphi ,\varphi )))`$ over $`R`$ results in a cobordant $`n`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-symmetric Poincaré nilcomplex $`(C^{},\nu ^{},\delta \varphi ^{},\varphi ^{})`$ over $`R`$ with

$$\nu ^{}0:C^{}C^{}.$$

### 1.3  The unitary nilpotent $`L`$-groups UNil

Let $`R`$ be any ring. An involution on an $`R`$-$`R`$ bimodule $`𝒜`$ is a homomorphism

$$𝒜𝒜;a\overline{a}$$

which satisfies

$$\overline{\overline{a}}=a,\overline{ras}=\overline{s}\overline{a}\overline{r}\text{for all }a𝒜,r,sR.$$

For any $`R`$-module $`P`$ there is defined an $`R`$-module

$$𝒜P=𝒜_RP.$$

As in the special case $`𝒜=R`$ write the evaluation pairing as

$$,:𝒜P^{}\times P𝒜;(af,x)af,x=af(x).$$

An element $`\varphi \text{Hom}_R(P,𝒜P^{})`$ determines a $`𝒜`$-valued sesquilinear form on $`P`$

$$,_\varphi :P\times P𝒜;(x,y)\varphi (x),y,$$

and we identify $`\text{Hom}_R(P,𝒜P^{})`$ with the additive group of such forms. For $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ and a f.g. projective $`P`$ define an involution

$$T_ϵ:\text{Hom}_R(P,𝒜P^{})\text{Hom}_R(P,𝒜P^{});\varphi ϵ\varphi ^{},x,y_\varphi ^{}=\overline{y,x}_\varphi .$$

One then defines a map

$$N_ϵ=1+T_ϵ:\text{Hom}_R(P,𝒜P^{})\text{Hom}_R(P,𝒜P^{});\varphi \varphi +ϵ\varphi ^t$$
(2)
with

$$x,y_{N_ϵ(\varphi )}=x,y_\varphi +ϵ\overline{y,x}_\varphi .$$

An $`𝒜`$-valued $`ϵ`$-symmetric form $`(P,\lambda )`$ (resp. $`ϵ`$-quadratic form $`(P,\mu )`$) over $`R`$ is a f.g. projective $`R`$-module $`P`$ together with an element of the group

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda Q^ϵ(P,𝒜)=\text{ker}(1T_ϵ:\text{Hom}_R(P,𝒜P^{})\text{Hom}_R(P,𝒜P^{})),\hfill \\ \mu Q_ϵ(P,𝒜)=\text{coker}(1T_ϵ:\text{Hom}_R(P,𝒜P^{})\text{Hom}_R(P,𝒜P^{})).\hfill \end{array}$$

As usual, for $`\lambda Q^ϵ(P,𝒜)`$ we write

$$\lambda (x,y)=\lambda (x),y𝒜$$

and for $`\mu Q_ϵ(P,𝒜)`$ we write

$$\mu (x)=\mu (x),x𝒜/\{aϵ\overline{a}|a𝒜\}.$$

The map $`N_ϵ`$ induces a well defined map:

$$N_ϵ:Q_ϵ(P,𝒜)Q^ϵ(P,𝒜);[\mu ]\mu +ϵ\mu ^t.$$
(3)
###### Definition 12

(Cappell )
(i) Let $`_1,_1`$ be $`R`$-bimodules with involution. Assume $`_1,_1`$ are free as right $`R`$-modules. A nonsingular $`ϵ`$-quadratic unilform over $`(R;_1,_1)`$ is a quadruple

$$(P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1)$$

where, for $`\delta =\pm 1`$, we require:

* $`(P_\delta ,\mu _\delta )`$ is a stably f.g. free $`_\delta `$-valued $`ϵ`$-quadratic form over $`R`$,
* $`P_\delta =P_\delta ^{}`$; we then identify $`(P_\delta ^{})^{}=P_\delta `$ in the usual way, and write the evaluation pairing as

$$,:P_1\times P_1R;(x,f)f(x).$$
* If $`\lambda _\delta =N_ϵ(\mu _\delta )`$ is the associated $`ϵ`$-symmetric form to $`\mu _\delta `$, then the composite

$$P_1\stackrel{\lambda _1}{}_1P_1\stackrel{\lambda _11}{}_1_1P_1\stackrel{\lambda _11}{}_1_1_1P_1\stackrel{\lambda _11}{}\mathrm{}$$

is eventually zero. (That is to say, for some $`k`$, the composite map $`P_1(_1_1)^kP_1`$ is zero.)

(ii) A sublagrangian for $`(P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1)`$ is a pair of stably f.g. free direct summands $`V_1P_1`$, $`V_1P_1`$ such that, for $`\delta =\pm 1`$

$$V_1,V_1=0,\lambda _\delta (V_\delta )_\delta V_\delta ,\mu _\delta (x)=0\text{for  all}xV_\delta .$$
(4)
We call $`(V_1,V_1)`$ a lagrangian if in addition:

$$V_1=V_1^{}.$$
(5)
One can form orthogonal direct sums of $`ϵ`$-quadratic unilforms over $`(R;_1,_1)`$ in a rather obvious way. Cappell  defined $`\text{UNil}_{2n}(R;_1,_1)`$ to be the Witt group of stable isometry classes of nonsingular $`(1)^n`$-quadratic unilforms over $`(R;_1,_1)`$ modulo those admitting lagrangians, and showed (geometrically) that if $`\pi _1,\pi _0,\pi _1`$ are finitely presented groups with $`\pi _0\pi _1`$, $`\pi _0\pi _1`$ and

$$\pi =\pi _1_{\pi _0}\pi _1,R=[\pi _0],_{\pm 1}=[\pi _{\pm 1}\backslash \pi _0]$$

then the morphism defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{UNil}_{2n}(R;_1,_1)L_{2n}([\pi ]);\hfill \\ (P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1)([\pi ]_{[\pi _0]}(P_1P_1),\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mu _1& 1\\ 0& \mu _1\end{array}\right))\hfill \end{array}$$

is a split monomorphism.

If an $`ϵ`$-quadratic unilform $`u=(P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1)`$ has a sublagrangian $`(V_1,V_1)`$, then one can form a new $`ϵ`$-quadratic unilform (see Connolly and Koźniewski , 6.3 (f))

$$u^{}=(V_1^{}/V_1,V_1^{}/V_1,\mu _1^{},\mu _1^{}),$$

so that

$$[u]=[u^{}]\text{UNil}_{2n}(R;_1,_1).$$

### 1.4 The proof of Theorem A in the even-dimensional case.

We begin by defining maps:

$$L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)\stackrel{𝑐}{}\text{UNil}_{2n}(R;R,R)\stackrel{𝑟}{}NL_{2n}(R)L_{2n}(R[x]).$$

The proof will show that the maps $`c,r`$ are both isomorphisms.

Let $`ϵ=(1)^n.`$

###### Definition 13

The map

$$r:\text{UNil}_{2n}(R;R,R)NL_{2n}(R);ur(u)$$

sends an $`ϵ`$-quadratic unilform $`u=(P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1)`$ over $`(R;R,R)`$ to the $`ϵ`$-quadratic form $`r(u)`$ over $`R[x]`$ given by:

$$r(u)=(P_1[x]P_1[x],\psi _0+x\psi _1)$$

where

$$\psi _0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& \mu _1\end{array}\right),\psi _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mu _1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Here, $`\psi _i:(P_1P_1)[x](P_1P_1)[x]`$ $`(i=0,1)`$ is the $`R[x]`$-module morphism induced, using change of coefficients, from the $`R`$-module morphism of the same name

$$\psi _i:(P_1P_1)(P_1P_1)^{}=(P_1P_1).$$

In order to verify that $`r`$ is well-defined, first notice that

$$N_ϵ(\psi _0+x\psi _1)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ ϵ& 0\end{array}\right)(1+\nu ):(P_1P_1)[x](P_1^{}P_1^{})[x]$$

where

$$\nu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ϵ\lambda _1\\ x\lambda _1& 0\end{array}\right):(P_1P_1)[x](P_1P_1)[x],\lambda _{\pm 1}:=N_ϵ(\mu _{\pm 1}).$$

Because

$$\nu ^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}xϵ\lambda _1\lambda _1& 0\\ 0& x\lambda _1\lambda _1\end{array}\right)$$

Definition 12 shows that $`\nu `$ is obviously nilpotent. Therefore $`N_ϵ(\psi _0+x\psi _1)`$ is nonsingular.

To see that $`[r(u)]NL_{2n}(R)`$, notice that $`\eta _{}[r(u)]=[P_1P_1,\psi _0]`$, and that $`P_10`$ is a lagrangian for $`(P_1P_1,\psi _0)`$.

The rule $`ur(u)`$ preserves orthogonal direct sums of forms. If $`(V_1,V_1)`$ is a lagrangian for $`u`$, then $`V_1[x]V_1[x]`$ is a lagrangian for $`r(u)`$. We thus have a well-defined homomorphism:

$$r:\text{UNil}_{2n}(R;R,R)NL_{2n}(R).$$

###### Definition 14

The map

$$c:L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)\text{UNil}_{2n}(R;R,R);zc(z)$$

sends a nonsingular $`ϵ`$-quadratic nilform $`z=(P,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi )`$ over $`R`$ (see Definition 10) to $`c(z)=(P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1)`$, where

$$P_1=P,P_1=P^{},\mu _1=\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi ,\mu _1=\varphi ^1\psi ^{}\varphi ^1$$

with $`\varphi =N_ϵ(\psi ):PP^{}`$ an isomorphism.

Using Definition 10 set

$$\lambda _1=N_ϵ(\mu _1)=\varphi \nu =\nu ^{}\varphi ,$$

noting that $`N_ϵN_ϵ(\delta \psi )=0`$. Set also

$$\lambda _1=N_ϵ(\mu _1)=ϵ\varphi ^1.$$

Because $`\lambda _1\lambda _1=ϵ\nu `$, and $`\nu `$ is nilpotent, it follows that $`c(z)`$ is an $`ϵ`$-quadratic unilform over $`(R;R,R).`$ The rule $`zc(z)`$ preserves orthogonal direct sums. Moreover, if $`N`$ is a lagrangian for $`z`$, then $`(N,N^{})`$ is a lagrangian for $`c(z)`$. Therefore Definition 14 gives a homomorphism:

$$c:L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)\text{UNil}_{2n}(R;R,R)$$
(6)
###### Definition 15

The morphism

$$j:L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)NL_{2n}(R);yj(y)$$

sends $`y=[P,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi ]`$ to

$$j(y)=[P[x],\psi +x(\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi )].$$

It was proved in Ranicki , p. 445 that $`j`$ is in fact an isomorphism. See Remark 16 below for the precise matching up of the formula in Definition 15 with the morphism defined there.

The right hand side in Definition 15 gives a nonsingular form because:

$$N_ϵ(\psi +x(\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi ))=N_ϵ(\psi )(1x\nu ),$$

an isomorphism by Definition 10. Moreover this right hand side is in $`NL_{2n}(R)`$, also by Definition 10.

###### Remark 16

In order to obtain the formula in Definition 15 for $`j(y)`$ from the formula in , p. 445 one must make the following translation of the terminology there to our terminology:

$$\begin{array}{c}A=R,C^0=P,C^i=0\text{for}i0,\hfill \\ \psi _0=\psi ,\delta \psi _1=\delta \psi ,\hfill \end{array}$$

noting that the $`x^1`$ is our $`x`$, and the $`\nu ^{}`$ there is our $`\nu `$. In the following argument we shall use the Witt group

$$L\text{Nil}_{2n}^h(R)=L_{2n}(R)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)$$

of nonsingular $`()^n`$-quadratic nilforms $`(P,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi )`$ over $`R`$ with $`P`$ a f.g. free $`R`$-module, and the split injection

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:L\text{Nil}_{2n}^h(R)L_{2n}(R[x,x^1]);[P,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi ][P[x,x^1],(x^1\nu ^{})\psi +\delta \psi ]$$

defined there, along with the splitting map

$$:L_{2n}(R[x,x^1])L\text{Nil}_{2n}^h(R)$$

and the natural inclusion and projection:

$$L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)\stackrel{𝑖}{}L\text{Nil}_{2n}^h(R)\stackrel{𝑝}{}L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R).$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{E}:NL_{2n}(R)L_{2n}(R[x,x^1])`$ be the restriction of the natural monomorphism

$$E:L_{2n}(R[x])L_{2n}(R[x,x^1]).$$

Also, set

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{}=p:L_{2n}(R[x,x^1])L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }i:L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)L_{2n}(R[x,x^1]).\hfill \end{array}$$

Because $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1,`$ we get $`\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=1`$. According to the braid on page 448 of , $`\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is an isomorphism. The map $`j`$ of Definition 15 is $`j=(\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{E})^1`$. To get the formula for $`j`$ in Definition 15, note that the ”devissage” map $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ satisfies:

$$\stackrel{~}{}=\stackrel{~}{}M$$

with

$$M:L_n(R[x,x^1])L_n(R[x,x^1]);(P,\psi )(P,x\psi ).$$

Then from , p. 445, we translate and find:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(y)\hfill & =\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}([P,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi ])\hfill \\ & =[P[x,x^1],x^1\{\psi +x(\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi )\}].\hfill \end{array}$$

So

$$\begin{array}{cc}j(y)\hfill & =j(\stackrel{~}{}M\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(y))\hfill \\ & =\stackrel{~}{E}^1M\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(y)\hfill \\ & =\stackrel{~}{E}^1([P[x,x^1],\psi +x(\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi )])\hfill \\ & =[P[x],\psi +x(\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi )],\hfill \end{array}$$

as in Definition 15.

As explained above,  proves that $`j`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Remark 17

The inverse of $`j`$

$$k=j^1:NL_{2n}(R)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)$$
(7)
can be computed via Higman linearization (see Connolly and Koźniewski , 3.6 (a)) in the following way. By Higman linearization, each element of $`NL_{2n}(R)`$ can be represented in the form $`[P[x],\psi _0+x\psi _1]`$. In these terms, the formula for $`k=j^1`$ is:

$$k[P[x],\psi _0+x\psi _1]=[P,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi ],$$
(8)
where

$$\psi =\psi _0,\nu =(N_ϵ(\psi _0))^1N_ϵ(\psi _1),\delta \psi =\nu ^{}\psi _0+\psi _1.$$

It is clear that $`jk=1`$.

We now turn to the proof of Theorem A in even dimensions. We only have to show that:

$$(\mathrm{i})ckr=1,(\mathrm{ii})rc=j.$$
(9)
The proof of (9) (i) is easiest: let $`(P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1)`$ be an $`ϵ`$-quadratic unilform over $`(R;R,R)`$. By Definitions 13, 14 and (8), and direct calculation, we obtain:

$$ckr[P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1]=[P_1P_1,P_1P_1,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1]$$
(10)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mu _1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mu _1& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Perform a sublagrangian construction on the right hand side of (10), using the sublagrangian

$$V_1=0P_1,V_1=0.$$

This yields:

$$[P_1P_1,P_1P_1,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1]=[P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1].$$

Therefore $`ckr=1`$, proving equation (9) (i).

Next we prove equation (9) (ii).

Suppose $`a=[P,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi ]L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)`$. By direct calculation and Definitions 13, 14, we have

$$rc(a)=[P[x]P^{}[x],\mathrm{\Psi }_0+x\mathrm{\Psi }_1]$$
(11)
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& \varphi ^1\psi ^{}\varphi ^1\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi & 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

with $`\varphi =N_ϵ(\psi )`$. By hypothesis (see Definition 10), $`(P,\psi )`$ admits a lagrangian, say $`NP`$. Let

$$V=(\varphi N)[x]P^{}[x]P[x]P^{}[x].$$

By (11) $`V`$ is a sublagrangian for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0+x\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$. In fact, setting $`\mathrm{\Phi }=N_ϵ(\mathrm{\Psi }_0+x\mathrm{\Psi }_1)`$, one readily computes that the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-orthogonal complement of $`V`$ is

$$V_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\{(u,v)P[x]P^{}[x]|\varphi (u)vV\}.$$

Therefore one obtains an isomorphism

$$g:P[x]V_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/V;u(u,\varphi (u)).$$

Let $`(V_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/V,\mathrm{\Psi }^{})`$ be the sublagrangian construction on $`cr(a)`$ using $`V`$. We claim that

$$g:(P[x],\psi +x(\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi ))(V_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/V,\mathrm{\Psi }^{})$$
(12)
is an isometry. Since the right hand side of (12) represents $`rc(a)`$, and the left hand side is $`j(a)`$, this claim (12) will prove (9) (ii).

We prove (12) using the duality pairing

$$\begin{array}{cc}\{,\}:\hfill & (P^{}[x]P[x])\times (P[x]P^{}[x])R[x];\hfill \\ & ((\xi ,\eta ),(\eta ^{},\xi ^{}))\{(\xi ,\eta ),(\eta ^{},\xi ^{})\}=\xi ,\eta ^{}+\overline{\xi ^{},\eta }.\hfill \end{array}$$

(12) amounts to the identity:

$$[\psi +x(\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi )](u),v=\{\mathrm{\Psi }(u,\varphi (u)),(v,\varphi (v))\}(u,vP[x]),$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_0+x\mathrm{\Psi }_1:P[x]P^{}[x]P^{}[x]P[x]`$ . The right hand side of (13) is computed from (11) as:

$$\begin{array}{c}[\varphi +x(\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi )](u),v+\overline{\varphi (v),\varphi ^{}\psi ^{}(u)}\hfill \\ =[\varphi +x(\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi ](u),v+\varphi ^{}\varphi ^1\psi ^{}(u),v\hfill \\ =[(\varphi ϵ\psi ^{})+x(\delta \psi \nu ^{}\psi )](u),v,\hfill \end{array}$$

which is the left hand side of (13). This proves (12) and therefore also (9) (ii). Therefore the proof of Theorem A, when $`n`$ is even, is complete.

###### Remark 18

It seems appropriate to record here an explicit formula for the inverse isomorphism

$$c^1:\text{UNil}_{2n}(R;R,R)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)$$

which can be derived from (8), (9) and Definition 13, as follows.

For $`[P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1]\text{UNil}_{2n}(R;R,R)`$ we have:

$$c^1([P_1,P_1,\mu _1,\mu _1])=(P_1P_1,\nu ,\delta \psi ,\psi )$$
(14)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& \mu _1\end{array}\right):P_1P_1P_1P_1,\psi _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mu _1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \delta \psi =\nu ^{}\psi +\psi _1:P_1P_1P_1P_1,\hfill \\ \nu =N_ϵ(\psi )^1N_ϵ(\psi _1)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ\lambda _1\lambda _1& 0\\ \lambda _1& 0\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`\lambda _{\pm 1}=N_ϵ(\mu _{\pm 1})`$.

### 1.5 The proof of Theorem A in the odd-dimensional case

We begin by commenting that the “simple $`L`$-theory” version of Theorem A, in even dimensions, proceeds uneventfully, along the same lines as above. We explain this in some detail now.

$`\text{UNil}_{2n}^s(R;_1,_1)`$ is defined in Cappell  (p.1118). Also,

$$L\text{Nil}_n^s(R)=L_n^s(R)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_n^s(R)$$

is defined in (, p. 466-468), where there are also constructed exact sequences:

$$\begin{array}{c}0L_n^{I_+}(R[x])\stackrel{E^s}{}L_n^J(R[x,x^1])L_n^p(R)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_n^s(R)0\hfill \\ 0L_n^I_{}(R[x^1])L_n^J(R[x,x^1])\stackrel{^s}{}L_n^p(R)L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_n^s(R)0\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}I_\pm =\stackrel{~}{K}_1(R)\stackrel{~}{K}_1(R[x^{\pm 1}])=\stackrel{~}{K}_1(R)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Nil}}_0(R),\hfill \\ J=\stackrel{~}{K}_1(R)K_0(R)\stackrel{~}{K}_1(R[x,x^1])=\stackrel{~}{K}_1(R)K_0(R)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Nil}}_0(R)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Nil}}_0(R).\hfill \end{array}$$

Define

$$NL_n^s(R)=\text{ker}(\eta _{}:L_n^{K_1(R)}(R[x])L_n(R))$$

and let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^s,\stackrel{~}{E}^s,\stackrel{~}{}^s`$ be as in Remark 16, concluding that $`\stackrel{~}{}^s\stackrel{~}{E}^s`$ is an isomorphism. As before, define

$$j^s=(\stackrel{~}{}^s\stackrel{~}{E}^s)^1:L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}(R)NL_{2n}^s(R)$$

using the formula of Definition 15. The maps

$$L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}^s(R)\stackrel{c^s}{}\text{UNil}_{2n}^s(R;R,R)\stackrel{r^s}{}NL_{2n}^s(R),\text{and }k^s=(j^s)^1$$

are now defined exactly as in Definitions 138, and the proof that these are isomorphisms can now be repeated without change. In summary, we have:

###### Proposition 19

The maps $`L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_{2n}^s(R)\stackrel{c^s}{}\text{UNil}_{2n}^s(R;R,R)\stackrel{r^s}{}NL_{2n}^s(R)`$ described in the paragraph above are isomorphisms. Moreover, $`j^s=r^sc^s.`$

We now complete the proof of Theorem A in odd dimensions.

Let $`S=R[z,z^1]`$, extending the involution on $`R`$ to $`S`$ by

$$\overline{z}=z^1.$$

Let $`i:RS`$ be the inclusion. The split exact sequence of Shaneson  and Ranicki

$$0L_n^s(R)\stackrel{i_{}}{}L_n^s(S)L_{n1}(R)0$$

yields the split exact sequence

$$0NL_n^s(R)\stackrel{i_{}}{}NL_n^s(S)NL_{n1}(R)0.$$

Cappell  defined $`\text{UNil}_{2n1}(R;R,R)`$ as the cokernel in the split exact sequence:

$$0\text{UNil}_{2n}^s(R;R,R)\text{UNil}_{2n}^s(S;S,S)\text{UNil}_{2n1}(R;R,R)0.$$

The isomorphism $`r^s`$ of Proposition 19, being functorial, therefore induces an isomorphism:

$$r:\text{UNil}_{2n1}(R;R,R)NL_{2n1}(R).$$

This proves Theorem A.

## 2 Chain bundles and the proof of Theorem B.

### 2.1 Universal chain bundles.

We begin with a resumé of the results of Ranicki , and Weiss  which we need. As in Section 1, $`R`$ is a ring with involution.

A chain bundle $`(B,\beta )`$ over $`R`$ is a projective $`R`$-module chain complex $`B`$ together with a 0-cycle

$$\beta (\widehat{W}^\%B^{})_0.$$

(We shall be mainly concerned with cases when the chain modules $`B_r`$ are f.g. projective.) A map of chain bundles $`f:(C,\gamma )(B,\beta )`$ is a chain map $`f:CB`$ such that

$$[\widehat{f}^\%(\beta )]=[\gamma ]\widehat{Q}^0(C^{}),$$

with $`\widehat{f}^\%:\widehat{W}^\%B^{}W^\%C^{}`$ the chain map induced by $`f`$. Each chain bundle $`(B,\beta )`$ determines a homomorphism

$$J_\beta :Q^n(B)\widehat{Q}^n(B);\varphi J(\varphi )\widehat{\varphi }_0^\%(S^n\beta )$$
(15)
where $`J`$ is as in (1), $`\varphi _0^\%`$ is the map induced by $`\varphi _0:B^nB`$, and $`S^n:\widehat{W}^\%C\mathrm{\Sigma }^n\widehat{W}^\%\mathrm{\Sigma }^n(C)`$ is the natural isomorphism of chain complexes. The map $`J_\beta `$ is not induced by a chain map.

The Tate $`_2`$-cohomology group

$$\widehat{H}^r(_2;R)=\{xR|\overline{x}=(1)^rx\}/\{y+(1)^r\overline{y}|yR\}$$

is an $`R`$-module via

$$R\times \widehat{H}^r(_2;R)\widehat{H}^r(_2;R);(a,x)ax\overline{a}.$$

The Wu classes of a chain bundle $`(B,\beta )`$ are the $`R`$-module morphisms

$$v_r(\beta ):H_r(B)\widehat{H}^r(_2;R);x\beta _{2r},xx(r).$$
(16)
The universal chain bundle $`(B^R,\beta ^R)`$ exists for each $`R`$. It is the chain bundle (unique up to equivalence) characterized by the requirement that the map (16) is an isomorphism for each $`r`$. This implies the more general property that for each f.g. free chain complex $`C`$ the map

$$k_C:H_n(C_RB^R)\widehat{Q}^n(C);fS^nf^\%(\beta )$$
(17)
is an isomorphism. A cycle $`f(C_RB^R)_n`$ is a chain map $`f:(B^R)^{}S^nC`$, inducing a morphism

$$S^nf^\%:\widehat{Q}^0((B^R)^{})\widehat{Q}^0(S^nC)=\widehat{Q}^n(C).$$

See Weiss  and Ranicki .

### 2.2 The chain bundle exact sequence and the theorem of Weiss

For each chain bundle $`(B,\beta )`$, the map $`J_\beta `$ above fits into an exact sequence:

$$\mathrm{}\widehat{Q}^{n+1}(B)\stackrel{𝐻}{}Q_n(B,\beta )\stackrel{N_\beta }{}Q^n(B)\stackrel{J_\beta }{}\widehat{Q}^n(B)\mathrm{}$$
(18)
where the group $`Q_n(B,\beta )`$ of “twisted quadratic structures” and the maps $`N_\beta `$ and $`H`$ are defined as follows.

$`Q_n(B,\beta )`$ is defined as the abelian group of equivalence classes of pairs $`(\varphi ,\theta )`$ (called symmetric structures on $`(B,\beta )`$) where $`\varphi (W^\%B)_n`$, $`\theta (\widehat{W}^\%B)_{n+1}`$ satisfy

$$d\varphi =0,d\theta =J_\beta (\varphi ).$$

The addition is defined by

$$(\varphi ,\theta )+(\varphi ^{},\theta ^{})=(\varphi +\varphi ^{},\theta +\theta ^{}+\xi )\text{where }\xi _s=\varphi _0\beta _{sn+1}\varphi _0^{}.$$

One says that $`(\varphi ,\theta )`$ is equivalent to $`(\varphi ^{},\theta ^{})`$ if there exist $`\zeta (W^\%B)_{n+1}`$, $`\eta (\widehat{W}^\%B)_{n+2}`$ such that

$$d\zeta =\varphi ^{}\varphi ,d\eta =\theta ^{}\theta +J(\zeta )+(\zeta _0,\varphi _0,\varphi _0^{})^\%(S^n\beta ).$$

Here $`(\zeta _0,\varphi _0,\varphi _0^{})^\%:(\widehat{W}^\%B^{})_n(\widehat{W}^\%B)_{n+1}`$ is the chain homotopy from $`\varphi _0^\%`$ to $`(\varphi ^{})_0^\%`$ induced by $`\zeta _0`$. (See Ranicki , section 3).

The map $`H`$ is defined by: $`H(\theta )=[0,\theta ]`$.

The map $`N_\beta `$ is defined by: $`N_\beta ([\varphi ,\theta ])=[\varphi ]`$.

When $`\beta =0`$, then $`Q_n(B,0)=Q_n(B)`$ and (18) reduces to (1).

Recall now from (,p.19,p.39, p.137), the cobordism groups $`L_n(R,ϵ)`$ (resp. $`L^n(R,ϵ),\widehat{L}^n(R,ϵ)`$) of free $`n`$-dimensional $`ϵ`$-quadratic (resp. symmetric, resp. hyperquadratic) Poincaré complexes over $`R`$, where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$. These are related by a long exact sequence and a skew-suspension functor:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\widehat{L}^{n+1}(R,ϵ)& \stackrel{H}{}& L_n(R,ϵ)& & L^n(R,ϵ)& & \widehat{L}^n(R,ϵ)\\ \widehat{\overline{S}}^{n+1}& & \overline{S}_n& & \overline{S}^n& & \widehat{\overline{S}}^n& & \\ \widehat{L}^{n+3}(R,ϵ)& & L_{n+2}(R,ϵ)& & L^{n+2}(R,ϵ)& & \widehat{L}^{n+2}(R,ϵ).\end{array}$$
(19)
$`\overline{S}_n`$ is an isomorphism for all $`n`$, and $`L_n(R,1)`$ is the Wall surgery obstruction group, $`L_n(R).`$ But $`\widehat{\overline{S}}^n`$ and $`\overline{S}^n`$ are not isomorphisms in general. Instead, the main result of Weiss  (see also Ranicki ) identifies the limit of the maps $`\widehat{\overline{S}}^n`$ in terms of a functorial isomorphism:

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\widehat{L}^{n+2k}(R,(1)^k)\stackrel{}{}Q_n(B^R,\beta ^R).$$
(20)
The skew-suspension maps $`\widehat{S}^n`$, $`S^n`$ are isomorphisms for $`1`$-dimensional $`R`$.

### 2.3 UNil and $`1`$-dimensional rings

Recall from Definition 2 that a ring $`R`$ is said to be $`1`$-dimensional if it is hereditary and noetherian.

###### Proposition 20

For any $`1`$-dimensional ring $`R`$ with involution, and any $`n0`$, there is a short exact sequence:

$$0\text{UNil}_n(R;R,R)Q_{n+1}(B^{R[x]},\beta ^{R[x]})Q_{n+1}(B^R,\beta ^R)0$$

Proof. Following Definition 8 set

$$NQ_n(R)=\text{ker}\{Q_n(B^{R[x]},\beta ^{R[x]})Q_n(B^R,\beta ^R)\}.$$
(21)
By Propositions 9 and 11

$$NL^n(R)=L\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}^n(R)=0\text{for all}n0.$$

So by (19) we get a square of isomorphisms, for all $`n0`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}N\widehat{L}^{n+1}(R,ϵ)& \stackrel{}{}& NL_n(R,ϵ)\\ \widehat{S}^n& & S_n& & \\ N\widehat{L}^{n+3}(R,ϵ)& \stackrel{}{}& NL_{n+2}(R,ϵ).\end{array}$$
(22)
By Theorem A, (20), (21), and (22), for all $`n0`$, we have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{UNil}_n(R;R,R)\hfill & NL_n(R,1)N\widehat{L}^{n+1}(R,1)\hfill \\ & lim_kN\widehat{L}^{n+1+2k}(R,(1)^k)NQ_{n+1}(R).\hfill \end{array}$$

This proves (20). ∎

### 2.4 Rules for calculating $`Q_n(C,\gamma )`$.

Our goal, in the light of Proposition 20, is to compute $`Q_n(B^A,\beta ^A)`$, especially when $`A=`$. But first we explain three tools for computing $`Q_n(C,\gamma )`$ for any chain bundle $`(C,\gamma )`$ over any ring with involution $`A`$.

A) Suppose $`(C,\gamma )`$ is a chain bundle and $`C_AC`$ is $`n`$-connected. Then:

$$Q_i(C,\gamma )=0\text{for}in1\text{and }Q^{n+1}(C)\stackrel{J_\gamma ^{n+1}}{}\widehat{Q}^{n+1}(C)\stackrel{H^{n+1}}{}Q_n(C,\gamma )0$$

is exact. Moreover, for $`in,J_\gamma ^i=J^i:Q^i(C)\widehat{Q}^i(C),`$ and $`J_\gamma ^i`$ is an isomorphism.

Proof of A): Use the spectral sequence:

$$E_{p,q}^2=H_p(_2;H_q(C_AC))H_{p+q}((W^{})^\%C)=Q_{p+q}(C).$$

This proves $`Q_i(C)=0`$, for $`in`$. Next,

$$J_\gamma ^i([\varphi ])=J^i([\varphi ])\varphi _0^\%([S^i\gamma ])$$

for any $`[\varphi ]Q^i(C).`$ But if $`in,\varphi _0`$ is null homotopic because $`[\varphi _0]=0H_i(C_AC)`$. Consequently, $`\varphi _0^\%=0`$ and $`J_\gamma ^i=J^i`$ for all $`in`$. But by the exact sequence 1, it follows that $`J_\gamma ^i`$ is an isomorphism for all $`in`$, and $`H^{n+1}`$ is an epimorphism. This proves A).

B) Suppose $`(C,\gamma )`$ is a chain bundle for which the chain complex $`C`$ splits as:

$$C=\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C(i).$$

Then

$$\gamma =\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\gamma (i)$$

where $`\gamma (i)\widehat{Q}^0(C(i)),`$ and the inclusions $`C(i)C`$ induce a long exact sequence:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_n(C(i),\gamma (i))Q_n(C,\gamma )\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{i<j}{}H_n(C(i)C(j))\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_{n1}(C(i),\gamma (i))\mathrm{}.\end{array}$$
(23)
Proof of B): On general principles

$$\widehat{Q}^n(C)=\underset{i}{}\widehat{Q}^n(C(i))$$

and

$$Q^n(\underset{i}{}C(i))=\underset{i}{}Q^n(C(i))\underset{i<j}{}H_n(C(i)C(j)).$$

Therefore, B) is a consequence of a diagram chase applied to the following map of exact sequences obtained from (18):

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\underset{i}{}Q_n(C(i),\gamma (i))& & \underset{i}{}Q^n(C(i))& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }J_{\beta (i)}}{}& \underset{i}{}\widehat{Q}^n(C(i))& & \\ & & & & & & \\ Q_n(C,\gamma )& & Q^n(C)& \stackrel{J_\beta }{}& \widehat{Q}^n(C)& & .\end{array}$$

C) Suppose the chain complex $`C`$ is concentrated in degrees $`n`$. Then $`Q^k(C)=0`$ if $`k>2n`$. If, in addition, $`H_n(C)=0`$, then $`Q^{2n}(C)=0`$ as well.

The proof of C. is straightforward from the definition of $`W^\%C`$.

The $`A`$-modules $`\widehat{H}^r(_2;A)`$ ($`r=0,1`$) will be said to be $`k`$-dimensional if they admit $`k`$-dimensional f.g. free $`A`$-module resolutions. In the next two subsections we compute $`Q_n(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ for $`A`$ with $`2A=0`$ and $`k=0,1`$.

### 2.5 $`Q_n(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ for $`0`$-dimensional $`\widehat{H}^{}(_2;A)`$.

Throughout this section we suppose $`2A=0`$, the involution on $`A`$ is trivial (and consequently $`A`$ is commutative), and that $`\widehat{H}^r(_2;A)`$ is a f.g. free $`A`$-module for each $`r`$.

This occurs, for example, when $`A=𝔽`$ or $`𝔽[x]`$, where $`𝔽`$ is a perfect field of characteristic 2.

The Frobenius map

$$\psi ^2:AA;a\psi ^2(a)=a^2.$$

is a ring homomorphism which makes the target copy of $`A`$ a module over the source copy of $`A`$. We denote the target copy $`A`$-module as $`A^{}`$; thus $`A^{}`$ is the additive group of $`A`$ with $`A`$ acting by

$$A\times A^{}A^{};(a,x)a^2x$$

and there is defined an $`A`$-module isomorphism

$$A^{}\widehat{H}^r(_2;A);xx.$$

In this case one can easily construct the universal chain bundle $`(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ for $`A`$ with

$$d=0:(B^A)_r=A^{}(B^A)_{r1}=A^{}.$$

The 0-cycle of $`\widehat{W}^\%B^{}`$

$$\beta =\underset{r}{}\beta ^{2r}(\widehat{W}^\%B^{})_0=\underset{r}{}(\mathrm{Hom}_{[_2]}(\widehat{W},B_r^{}_RB_r^{}))_0$$

is obtained as follows. Here and below we view $`B_r`$ as a chain complex concentrated in degree $`r`$. Its dual chain complex, $`B_r^{}`$, concentrated in degree $`r`$, consists of $`B^r=\mathrm{Hom}_A(B_r,A)`$.

Let $`x_1\mathrm{}x_k`$ be a basis of $`A^{}`$ over $`A`$. Let $`x^1\mathrm{}x^k`$ be the dual basis. Write $`\underset{¯}{x}_i`$ for the element $`x_i`$, viewed as a member of the ring $`A`$. Note that $`B^r_AB^r`$ is the $`A`$-module of bilinear forms on $`B_r`$ with values in $`A`$, which is canonically identified with

$$(\widehat{W}^\%B_r^{})_0=\mathrm{Hom}_{[_2]}(\widehat{W}_{2r},B_r^{}_RB_r^{}).$$

Therefore the elements $`x^ix^i`$, $`\underset{¯}{x}_i(x^ix^i)`$ and

$$\beta _{2r}:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{¯}{x}_i(x^ix^i)$$

are 0-cycles in $`\widehat{W}^\%B_r^{}`$, and bilinear forms on $`B_r`$. The matrix of the symmetric bilinear form $`\beta _{2r}`$ is diagonal:

$$\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\underset{¯}{x}_1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \underset{¯}{x}_2& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \underset{¯}{x}_3& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right]$$

It follows that $`\widehat{v}_r:H_r(B)A^{}`$ is the identity map. So $`(B,\beta )`$ is universal. Inclusion induces a map of chain bundles, $`(B_r,\beta _{2r})\stackrel{\iota _r}{}(B,\beta )`$.

###### Lemma 21

Assume $`2A=0`$, the involution on $`A`$ is trivial, and $`A^{}`$ is free and finitely generated over $`A`$. With notation as above, the map $`\iota _r:Q_{}(B_r,\beta _{2r})Q_{}(B,\beta )`$, and the exact sequence (18) for $`(B_r,\beta _{2r})`$, combine to give an exact sequence for each r:

$$0Q_{2r}(B,\beta )Q^{2r}(B_r)\stackrel{J_{\beta _{2r}}}{}\widehat{Q}^{2r}(B_r)Q_{2r1}(B,\beta )0.$$
(24)
Proof. By (17) we have an isomorphism $`B_rB_{nr}\stackrel{k_{B_r}}{}\widehat{Q}^n(B_r).`$ By 2.4. A), we have $`Q_n(B_s,\beta _{2s})=0\text{for}n<2s1`$. Therefore (23) can be written:

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{sr}{}\widehat{Q}^{2r+1}(B_s)\underset{sr}{}Q_{2r}(B_s,\beta _{2s})Q_{2r}(B,\beta )\underset{s<r}{}\widehat{Q}^{2r1}(B_s)\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{sr}{}Q_{2r1}(B_s,\beta _{2s})Q_{2r1}(B,\beta )\underset{s<r}{}\widehat{Q}^{2r}(B_s)Q_{2r2}(B_s,\beta _{2s})\end{array}$$
(25)
Now, for dimensional reasons, if $`n>2s,Q^n(B_s)=0,`$ and so $`\widehat{Q}^{n+1}B_s)\stackrel{𝐻}{}Q_n(B_x,\beta _{2s})`$ is an isomorphism. So (25) reduces to two pieces:

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{Q}^{2r+1}(B_r)\stackrel{𝐻}{}Q_{2r}(B_r,\beta _{2r})Q_{2r}(B,\beta )0\hfill \\ \hfill Q_{2r1}(B_r,\beta _{2r})\stackrel{\iota _r}{}Q_{2r}(B,\beta ).\end{array}$$
(26)
Now apply the exact sequence (18) and Rule 2.4 A to $`B_r`$ to get:

$$0\text{coker}(H_{\beta _{2r}})Q^{2r}(B_r)\stackrel{J_{\beta _{2r}}}{}\widehat{Q}^{2r}(B_r)Q_{2r1}(B_r,\beta _{2r})0,$$

which, together with (26) implies Lemma 21. ∎

We now restrict ourselves to the case when $`A=𝔽[x]`$ where $`𝔽`$ is a perfect field of characteristic 2. Then $`A^{}`$ is free of rank 2 over $`A`$, generated by $`1`$ and $`x`$. Since $`B_r=A^{}`$ for all $`r`$, the abelian group $`Q^{2r}(B_r)`$ can be identified with the additive group, $`\text{Sym}_2(A),`$ of $`2\times 2`$ symmetric matrices over $`A`$. The $`A`$-module $`\widehat{Q}^{2r}(B_r)`$ can be identified with $`\text{Sym}_2(A)/\text{Quad}_2(A)`$ where $`\text{Quad}_2(A)`$ denotes the matrices of the form $`M+M^t`$. The map $`J_{\beta _{2r}}:\text{Sym}_2(A)\text{Sym}_2(A)/\text{Quad}_2(A)`$ then has the form:

$$\begin{array}{cc}J_\beta \left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& d\end{array}\right]\hfill & =\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& d\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& x\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& d\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& d\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ & =\left[\begin{array}{cc}a^2+a+xb^2& \\ & b^2+d+xd^2\end{array}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

We intend to show that the kernel and cokernel of $`J_\beta `$ can be identified with the kernel and cokernel of the map $`\psi ^21:AA`$.

We have two inclusion maps $`A\stackrel{𝜄}{}\text{Sym}_2(A)`$, and $`A\stackrel{\iota ^{}}{}\text{Sym}_2(A)/\text{Quad}_2(A)`$, both of the form:

$$a\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$

Denote the images of these two maps as $`X,X^{}`$. Note that $`(J_\beta )\iota =\iota ^{}(\psi ^21).`$

We use the following easily proved lemma:

###### Lemma 22

Suppose $`X,X^{}`$ are subgroups of two abelian groups $`Y,Y^{}`$. Suppose $`j:YY^{}`$ is a homomorphism such that $`j(X)X^{}`$, and the induced map $`\stackrel{~}{j}:Y/XY^{}/X^{}`$ is an isomorphism. Set $`k=j|X:XX^{}`$. Then $`\text{ker}(k)=\text{ker}(j)`$, and the inclusion $`X^{}Y^{}`$ induces an isomorphism

$$\iota :\text{coker}(k)\text{coker}(j).$$

We want to apply this lemma when $`X,X^{}`$ are as mentioned earlier and the role of $`j:YY^{}`$ is played by

$$J_\beta :\text{Sym}_2(A)\text{Sym}_2(A)/\text{Quad}_2(A).$$

This means we must first check that $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ is an isomorphism. In other words, we must check that each element $`p𝔽[x]`$ can be written in one and only one way in the form $`b^2+d+xd^2`$ where $`b,d𝔽[x]`$.

Write

$$p=\underset{j=0}{\overset{2n+1}{}}a_jx^j,b=\underset{i}{}b_ix^i,d=\underset{i}{}d_ix^i.$$

Then:

$$b^2+xd^2+d=\underset{i}{}(b_i^2+d_{2i})x^{2i}+\underset{i}{}(d_i^2+d_{2i+1})x^{2i+1}.$$

Therefore the equation $`p=b^2+xd^2+d`$ reduces to equations,

$$d_i^2+d_{2i+1}=a_{2i+1};b_i^2+d_{2i}=a_{2i}.$$

One solves these recursively for $`d_i`$ and $`b_i`$, working from higher to lower indices. Note that the first equation implies that $`d_i=0`$ for all $`i>n`$. Therefore recursively, the equations

$$d_i^2=d_{2i+1}+a_{2i+1}$$

specify $`d`$. Then the equations

$$b_i^2=d_{2i}+a_{2i}$$

specify $`b`$. Here we use that $`𝔽`$ is perfect. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ is an isomorphism.

Applying the lemma, we conclude that if $`A=𝔽[x]`$ then

$$\text{ker}(\psi ^21)\stackrel{𝜄}{}\text{ker}J_\beta ;\text{coker}(\psi ^21)\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\iota }}{}\text{coker}(J_\beta ).$$
(27)
The map $`\stackrel{~}{\iota }`$ is induced by $`A\stackrel{\iota ^{}}{}\text{Sym}_2(A)/\text{Quad}_2(A)`$.

Note that if $`A=𝔽_2[x]`$, then $`\text{ker}(\psi ^21)=𝔽_2`$ and the cokernel of $`A\stackrel{\psi ^21}{}A`$ can be identified with the vector space $`\{\underset{i}{}a_ix^i|a_{2i}=0\text{for}i>0\}`$.

Summarizing, we have a confirmation of the calculation of Connolly and Koźniewski :

###### Theorem 23

: For all $`k`$, we have :

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{UNil}_{2k+1}(𝔽_2;𝔽_2,𝔽_2)=0,\hfill \\ \text{UNil}_{2k}(𝔽_2;𝔽_2,𝔽_2)\mathrm{coker}(𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2\stackrel{\psi ^21}{}𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2)\hfill \\ \{\underset{i}{}a_ix^i:a_{2i}=0\text{for}i0,a_i𝔽_2\}\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. This is a consequence of Corollary 20, Lemma 21 and (27). ∎

### 2.6 $`Q_n(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ for $`1`$-dimensional $`\widehat{H}^{}(_2;A)`$.

In this subsection we deal with a ring $`A`$ whose universal chain bundle $`(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ satisfies:

$$\text{For all }i\text{,}B_{2i}^A\stackrel{𝑑}{}B_{2i1}^A\text{is zero;}B_{2i+1}^A\stackrel{𝑑}{}B_{2i}^A\text{is injective}$$
(28)
with $`B_r^A`$ f.g. free $`A`$-modules. Thus $`\widehat{H}^0(_2;A)`$ has a 1-dimensional f.g. free $`A`$-module resolution

$$0B_{2i+1}^A\stackrel{𝑑}{}B_{2i}^A\widehat{H}^0(_2;A)0$$

and $`\widehat{H}^1(_2;A)=0`$. (We shall see that this holds for $`A=`$ or $`[x]`$. The point is that Corollary 20 reduces the calculation of $`\text{UNil}_{}(;,)`$ to that of $`Q_{}(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ for such rings $`A`$).

We clearly have:

$$(B^A,\beta ^A)=\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(B^A(i),\beta ^A(i)),\text{where }B^A(i)\text{ is: }\mathrm{}0B_{2i+1}^A\stackrel{𝑑}{}B_{2i}^A0\mathrm{}.$$

We first relate $`Q_n(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ to $`Q_n(B^A(0),\beta ^A(0))`$, for $`n=1,0,1,2,`$ by analyzing the exact sequence (23), of the above direct sum splitting. By (2.4 A), we have:

$$\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_m(B^A(i),\beta ^A(i))=\underset{i\frac{m+1}{4}}{}Q_m(B^A(i),\beta ^A(i)).$$

Next, because of (17), and dimensional reasons, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{i<j}{}H_m(B^A(i)B^A(j))\hfill & =\underset{2i<[\frac{m}{2}]}{}H_m(B^A(i)B^A([\frac{m}{2}]i))\hfill \\ & =\underset{2i<[\frac{m}{2}]}{}H_m(B^A(i)B^A)\hfill \\ & =\underset{i<\frac{1}{2}[\frac{m}{2}]}{}\widehat{Q}^m(B^A(i)).\hfill \end{array}$$

But, by (18) and (2.4) C), the map $`\widehat{Q}^{m+1}(B^A(i))Q_m(B^A(i),\beta ^A(i))`$ is an isomorphism if $`i{\displaystyle \frac{m2}{4}}`$. Therefore, after we remove isomorphic direct summands from the exact sequence (23), it reduces to the much simpler long exact sequence:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\underset{\frac{m2}{4}<i\frac{m+1}{4}}{}Q_m(B^A(i),\beta ^A(i))Q_m(B^A,\beta ^A)\hfill \\ \underset{\frac{m3}{4}<i<\frac{1}{2}[\frac{m}{2}]}{}\widehat{Q}^m(B^A(i))\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

So, we get:

$`Q_m(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ $`\stackrel{}{}Q_m(B^A(0),\beta ^A(0))\text{ for}m=1,0,\text{and:}`$ (29)
$`Q_1(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ $`=\text{ker}\{Q^1(B^A(0))\stackrel{J_{\beta ^A(0)}^1}{}\widehat{Q}^1(B^A(0))\}`$
$`Q_2(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ $`=\text{im}\{Q^2(B^A(0))\stackrel{J_{\beta ^A(0)}^2}{}\widehat{Q}^2(B^A(0))\}=0\text{by}(\text{2.4})C),`$
whenever $`(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ is the universal chain bundle of $`A`$, and $`(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ satisfies (28).

Next we show that (28) holds when $`A=`$ or $`[x]`$.

#### 2.6.1  The construction of $`(B^A,\beta ^A)`$ for certain rings $`A`$.

Suppose $`A`$ is a commutative ring with no elements of order 2, and trivial involution. Write

$$A_2=A/2A.$$

Therefore $`\widehat{H}^1(_2;A)=0`$, and $`\widehat{H}^0(_2;A)=A_2^{}`$, by which we mean the abelian group $`A_2`$, equipped with the $`A`$-module structure:

$$A\times A_2A_2;(a,x)(a^2x).$$

Suppose further that there are elements $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_rA,r>0,`$ such that,

$$0A^r\stackrel{\times 2}{}A^r\stackrel{𝑗}{}A_2^{}0$$

is exact, where

$$j:A^rA_2^{};(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_r)a_1^2x_1+a_2^2x_2+\mathrm{}+a_r^2x_r.$$

(For example, if $`A=`$ then $`r=1,x_1=1`$, while if $`A=[x]`$ then $`r=2,x_1=1,x_2=x`$).

We show here how to construct the universal chain bundle $`(B,\beta )`$ for $`A`$, so that (28) holds.

First we construct $`B`$. For all $`i`$, we define:

$`B_i`$ $`=A^r`$ (30)
$`B_{2i}`$ $`\stackrel{d=0}{}B_{2i1}`$
$`B_{2i+1}=A^r`$ $`\stackrel{d=\times 2}{}A^r=B_{2i}.`$
Next let $`XM_r(A)`$ be the diagonal matrix,

$$X=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}x_1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& x_2& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& x_r\end{array}\right).$$

We define $`\beta =\{\beta _i(B^{}B^{})_i\}`$ by:

$`\beta _{4i}`$ $`=XM_r(A)=(B_{2i}B_{2i})^{}`$
$`\beta _{4i1}`$ $`=(\delta 1)\beta _{4i}`$
$`\beta _{4i2}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta \delta )\beta _{4i}\text{for all }i.`$ (31)
Here $`\delta :B_0^{}B_1^{}`$ is the coboundary homomorphism.

As in (2.5), the map $`\widehat{v}_{2i}:H_{2i}(B)A_2^{}`$ is an isomorphism for all $`i`$, and so $`(B,\beta )`$ is the universal chain bundle for $`A`$.

We can now apply the calculation (29) to the computation of $`Q_n(B^A,\beta ^A)`$, when $`A=`$ or $`[x]`$. Specifically, (29) and Corollary 20 give us the split short exact sequence if $`n=0`$ or $`1`$:

$$0\text{UNil}_{n1}(;,)Q_n(B^{[x]}(0),\beta ^{[x]}(0))\stackrel{\eta _{}}{}Q_n(B^{}(0),\beta ^{}(0))0,$$
(32)
where $`\eta :[x]`$ is the augmentation map.

To simplify things further we define three families of groups, $`K_n,C_n,I_n`$, by the exactness of the following three split sequences:

$$\begin{array}{c}0K_n\text{ker}(J_{\beta (0)}^n([x]))\stackrel{\eta _{}}{}\text{ker}(J_{\beta (0)}^n())0\hfill \\ 0C_n\text{coker}(J_{\beta (0)}^{n+1}([x]))\stackrel{\eta _{}}{}\text{coker}(J_{\beta (0)}^{n+1}())0\hfill \\ 0I_{n+1}\text{im}(J_{\beta (0)}^{n+1}([x]))\stackrel{\eta _{}}{}\text{im}(J_{\beta (0)}^{n+1}())0\hfill \end{array}$$

We next claim there is an isomorphism:

$$\text{UNil}_2(;,)C_1.$$
(33)
To see this, note that $`Q_n(B^A(0))=0`$ for dimensional reasons if $`n1`$. Also, by (2.4) A),

$$J_{\beta ^A(0)}^1=J^1:Q^1(B^A(0))\widehat{Q}^1(B^A(0)),$$

which is a monomorphism by (1). This implies that

$$Q_1(B^A(0),\beta ^A(0))\text{coker}(J_{\beta ^A(0)}^0).$$

Therefore (32) simplifies when $`n=1`$, to (33).

Now 29, Corollary 20, and the exact sequence (18) for $`(B^A(0),\beta ^A(0))`$ (when $`A=,[x]`$) yield the following calculations:

$`\text{UNil}_0(;,)K_1`$ (34)
$`\text{UNil}_1(;,)I_2`$
$`0C_0`$ $`\text{UNil}_1(;,)K_00`$
$`C_1`$ $`\text{UNil}_2(;,).`$
Therefore our goal is to calculate $`C_0,C_1,K_0,`$ and $`K_1`$. This is done in the next two subsections.

#### 2.6.2  Calculation of $`Q^n(B^A(0))`$ and $`\widehat{Q}^n(B^A(0))`$.

Recall from Ranicki  that for any ring with involution $`A`$ and for any $`A`$-module chain complex $`C`$ an element $`\varphi (\widehat{W}^\%C)_n`$ is specified by the sequence of elements $`(\mathrm{},\varphi _1,\varphi _0,\varphi _1,\mathrm{})`$ of $`C_AC`$ defined by

$$\varphi _i=\varphi (e_i)(C_AC)_{n+i}(i)$$

where $`e_i\widehat{W}_i`$ is the standard basis element. Likewise, an element $`\varphi (W^\%C)_n`$ is specified by a sequence $`(\varphi _0,\varphi _1,\mathrm{})`$, with $`\varphi _i=\varphi (e_i)`$.

For the rest of this section we assume $`A`$ is a ring satisfying the hypotheses at the beginning of section 2.6.1.

Let $`t:M_r(A)M_r(A)`$ be the transpose map and define

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Sym}_r(A)=\text{ker}(1t:M_r(A)M_r(A))\hfill \\ \text{Quad}_r(A)=\text{im}(1+t:M_r(A)M_r(A))\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`B^A(0)`$ is the algebraic mapping cone $`𝒞(f)`$ of the map $`f:CD`$, where $`C=D=A^r`$ is concentrated in degree 0, and $`f=\times 2:A^rA^r`$. Therefore, for all $`m`$:

$$\widehat{Q}^{2m}(C)=\widehat{Q}^{2m}(D)\text{Sym}_r(A)/\text{Quad}_r(A):[\varphi ][\varphi _{2m}]$$

because $`\varphi _{2m}A^rA^r=M_r(A)`$ must be in the kernel of $`1T`$, for all $`2m`$-cycles $`\varphi (\widehat{W}^\%D)_{2m}`$.

Also, $`Q^{2m+1}(C)=\widehat{Q}^{2m+1}(D)=0`$ for all $`m`$. Since the induced map, $`f^\%:\widehat{Q}^m(C)\widehat{Q}^m(D)`$ is multiplication by 4, we see $`f^\%=0`$. So the sequence:

$$0\widehat{Q}^m(D)\widehat{Q}^m(B^A(0))\widehat{Q}^m(\mathrm{\Sigma }C)0$$

is exact for all $`m`$.

If $`m=1`$ the composite isomorphism,

$$\widehat{Q}^1(B^A(0))\stackrel{}{}\widehat{Q}^1(\mathrm{\Sigma }C)\stackrel{}{}\frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{\text{Quad}_r(A)}$$

is written as

$$\widehat{Q}^1(B^A(0))\stackrel{\beta ^1}{}\frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{\text{Quad}_r(A)}:\beta ^1([(\varphi _1,\varphi _0,\varphi _1)])=[\varphi _1]$$
(35)
If $`m=0`$ we write the inverse of the composite isomorphism

$$\frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{\text{Quad}_r(A)}\widehat{Q}^0(D)\widehat{Q}^0(B^A(0))$$

as:

$$\widehat{Q}^0(B^A(0))\stackrel{\beta ^0}{}\frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{\text{Quad}_r(A)}:\beta ^0([(\varphi _0,\varphi _1,\varphi _2)])=[\varphi _0].$$
(36)
The calculation of $`Q^m(B^A(0))`$ requires more work.

Following Ranicki  we define $`Q^m(f)`$ as the $`m`$-th homology group of the mapping cone of $`f^\%`$:

$$Q^m(f)=H_m(f^\%:W^\%CW^\%D),$$

for any chain map $`f:CD`$ of free $`A`$-module chain complexes. We also write $`𝒞(f)`$ for the mapping cone of such $`f`$, and we write $`g:D𝒞(f)`$ for the inclusion. The symmetrization map

$$H_m(C_AC)Q^m(C);\theta \{\varphi _s=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1+T)\theta \hfill & \text{if }s=0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }s1\hfill \end{array}\}$$

fits into a natural transformation of exact sequences:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}H_m(C_AC)& \stackrel{f}{}& H_m(DC)& \stackrel{g}{}& H_m(𝒞(f)C)& & H_{m1}(C_AC)\\ \left(1+T\right)& & \left(1+T\right)f& & \left(1+T\right)f& & \left(1+T\right)& & \\ Q^m(C)& \stackrel{f^\%}{}& Q^m(D)& & Q^m(f)& & Q^{m1}(C)\end{array}$$

This leads to a further exact sequence relating $`Q^m(f)`$ to $`Q^m(𝒞(f))`$:

$$\mathrm{}Q^{m+1}(𝒞(f))H_m(𝒞(f)C)\stackrel{(1+T)f}{}Q^m(f)Q^m(𝒞(f))\mathrm{}$$

Now in the case at hand (where $`C=D=A^r`$, and $`𝒞(f)=B^A(0)`$), we have

$$Q^m(C)=Q^m(D)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{Sym}_r(A),\text{if}m=0\hfill & \\ \frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{\text{Quad}_r(A)},\text{if }m\text{ is even and }m<0\hfill & \\ 0,\text{in all other cases }.\hfill & \end{array}$$

But $`f^\%`$ is multiplication by 4. Thus

$$\begin{array}{c}Q^0(f)=\frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{4\text{Sym}_r(A)},\hfill \\ Q^{2m}(f)=\frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{\text{Quad}_r(A)}(m<0),\hfill \\ Q^k(f)=0\text{for all other}k.\hfill \end{array}$$

So from the above exact sequence, we extract the following diagram with exact rows:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}H_0(𝒞(f)C)& \stackrel{(1+T)f}{}& Q^0(f)& & Q^0(B^A(0))& & 0\\ & & & & =& & \\ \frac{M_r(A)}{2M_r(A)}& \stackrel{2(1+t)}{}& \frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{4\text{Sym}_r(A)}& \stackrel{\alpha }{}& Q^0(B^A(0))& & 0\end{array}$$

Therefore $`\alpha `$ induces an isomorphism:

$$\frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{2\text{Quad}_r(A)}\stackrel{\alpha ^0}{}Q^0(B^A(0));\alpha ^0([M])=[(M,0,0)],$$
(37)
where $`(M,0,0)`$ is a $`0`$-cycle in $`W^\%B^A(0),`$ for any

$$M\text{Sym}_r(A)M_r(A)=A^rA^r=(B^A(0)B^A(0))_0.$$

Now $`Q^m(B^A(0))=0`$ if $`m2`$ by 2.4 C). Also by (1), if $`m1`$, the map $`Q^m(B^A(0))\stackrel{J^m}{}\widehat{Q}^m(B^A(0))`$ is an isomorphism.

Therefore, we are only left with the calculation of $`Q^1(B^A(0))`$. Instead of the above method (which would yield the result) we calculate this by hand both for its therapeutic value and for its greater explicitness. The bottom line will be (38).

For each $`MM_r(A)`$, define

$$\varphi ^M=(\varphi _0^M,\varphi _1^M)(W^\%B^A(0))_1$$

by:

$`\varphi _1^M`$ $`=MM_r(A)=A^rA^r=B_1B_1`$
$`\varphi _0^M`$ $`=M(M)(B_1B_0)(B_0B_1)`$
where $`B_i=B^A(0)_i`$.

###### Lemma 24

If $`M\text{Sym}_r(A)`$, then $`\varphi ^M`$ is a 1-cycle in $`W^\%B^A(0)`$, and the rule $`M\varphi ^M`$ induces an isomorphism:

$$\alpha ^1:\frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{2\text{Sym}_r(A)}Q^1(B^A(0)).$$
(38)
Proof. For any $`\varphi =(\varphi _0,\varphi _1)(W^\%B^A(0))_1`$, $`\varphi =(\varphi _0,\varphi _1)`$ where $`\varphi _i(B^A(0)_AB^A(0))_{i+1}`$. We can write

$$\varphi _0=\kappa _1\kappa _2,$$

where $`\kappa _1M_r(A)=B_1_AB_0,`$ and $`\kappa _2M_r(A)=B_0_AB_1`$. $`\varphi `$ is a 1-cycle if and only if:

$$1)\varphi _0=0;2)(T1)\varphi _0=\varphi _1;3)(T+1)\varphi _1=0,$$

where $`T:B^A(0)B^A(0)B^A(0)B^A(0)`$ is the twist chain map

$$T(xy)=(1)^{|x||y|}yx.$$

These three conditions are equivalent to:

$$\kappa _2=\kappa _1;(1+t)\kappa _1=2\varphi _1;t\varphi _1=\varphi _1\text{in }A^r_AA^r=M_r(A).$$

Here $`t`$ denotes the transpose map in $`M_r(A)`$. Also a cycle $`\varphi `$ as above is a boundary in $`W^\%B^A(0)`$ if and only if there is an element $`\psi B_1B_1,`$ such that $`\kappa _1=2\psi `$ in $`A^rA^r=M_r(A)`$. Therefore the map

$$Q^1(B^A(0))\text{Sym}_r(A)/2\text{Sym}_r(A):[\varphi ]\kappa _1mod(2A)$$
(39)
is an isomorphism.

The above discussion shows that if $`M\text{Sym}_r(A)`$, then $`\varphi ^M`$ is a 1-cycle, and if $`M2\text{Sym}_r(A)`$, then $`\varphi ^M`$ is a boundary. Since the map (39) obviously sends $`\varphi ^M`$ to $`M`$, the proof is complete. ∎

We summarize the calculations of this subsection as follows:

$`\widehat{Q}^m(B^A(0))`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{\text{Quad}_r(A)}}\text{for all }m,`$
$`Q^0(B^A(0))`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{2\text{Quad}_r(A)}}`$ (40)
$`Q^1(B^A(0))`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{2\text{Sym}_r(A)}}`$
$`Q^n(B^A(0))`$ $`=0\text{for }n2`$
$`Q^n(B^A(0))`$ $`\stackrel{J^n}{}\widehat{Q}^n(B^A(0))\text{if }n1.`$
#### 2.6.3  The maps $`J_{\beta (0)}^0(A),J_{\beta (0)}^1(A)`$ and the groups $`C_1,C_0`$ and $`K_1,K_0`$.

We first analyze the map $`J_{\beta (0)}^0(A):Q^0(B^A(0))\widehat{Q}^0(B^A(0))`$, when $`A=`$ or $`[x]`$ using the isomorphisms of (35),(36),(37),(38). By 15, $`\beta ^0J_{\beta (0)}^0(A)\alpha ^0`$ sends a matrix $`M{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{2\text{Quad}_r(A)}}`$ to:

$$\beta ^0(J^0([(M,0,0)]))M^tXM=MMXM\frac{\text{Sym}_r(A)}{\text{Quad}_r(A)}.$$

In the case when $`A=`$, so that $`r=1`$, and $`X=1,`$ we have $`\beta ^0J_{\beta (0)}^0()\alpha ^0`$, sending $`a_4`$ to $`aa^2_4/2_4=_2`$. So $`J_{\beta (0)}^0()=0.`$ Therefore:

$$\text{ker}J_{\beta (0)}^0()=Q^0(B^{}(0))_4;\text{coker}J_{\beta (0)}^0()=\widehat{Q}^0(B^{}(0))_2.$$

Now we let $`A=[x]`$. Set

$$𝒥^0=\beta ^0J_{\beta (0)}^0([x])\alpha ^0:\text{Sym}_2([x])/2\text{Quad}_2([x])\text{Sym}_2([x])/\text{Quad}_2([x]).$$

For any

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& d\end{array}\right)\text{Sym}_2([x])/2\text{Quad}_2([x])$$

we compute from the above formula:

$$𝒥^0\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}aa^2b^2x& babbdx\\ babbdx& db^2d^2x\end{array}\right)\frac{\text{Sym}_2(A)}{\text{Quad}_2(A)}$$
(41)
We want to apply Lemma 22 again. Let $`j=𝒥^0`$, and:

$$Y=\frac{\text{Sym}_r([x])}{2\text{Quad}_r([x])},Y^{}=\frac{\text{Sym}_r([x])}{\text{Quad}_r([x])},X=(_4[x])\times (𝔽_2[x]),X^{}=(𝔽_2[x])$$

$`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ include into $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ respectively by the rules: $`(a,d)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& 2d\end{array}\right)`$, and $`a\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$. We first will have to show that $`Y/XY^{}/X^{}`$ is an isomorphism. To this end, we note an isomorphism, $`𝔽_2[x]\times 𝔽_2[x]Y/i(X),`$ defined by: $`(b,d)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& b\\ b& d\end{array}\right),`$ and an isomorphism $`𝔽_2[x]Y^{}/i^{}(X^{}),`$ given by : $`p\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& p\end{array}\right]`$. Therefore the claim that $`j`$ induces an isomorphism, $`Y/XY^{}/X^{}`$, amounts to the statement that each $`p𝔽_2[x]`$ can be written uniquely in the form, $`p=b^2+d+xd^2,`$ for some $`b,d𝔽_2[x].`$ But this was proved already in section 2.5.

Define

$$k:_4[x]\times 𝔽_2[x]𝔽_2[x];(a,d)aa^2mod2.$$

Clearly,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ker}(k)=\{(a,d)_4[x]\times 𝔽_2[x]|a=a_0+2a_1,\text{for some }a_0_4,a_1_4[x]\},\hfill \\ \text{coker}(k)=\text{coker}(\psi ^21).\hfill \end{array}$$

Applying Lemma (22), we see that $`i`$ and $`i^{}`$ induce isomorphisms:

$$\text{ker}(k)\stackrel{𝜄}{}\text{ker}J_{\beta (0)}^0([x]);\text{coker}(\psi ^21)\stackrel{\iota ^{}}{}\text{coker}(J_{\beta (0)}^0([x])).$$

Also, $`\iota (a,d)=\alpha ^0\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& 2d\end{array}\right]`$.

The augmentation map induced by $`\eta `$

$$Q^0(B^{[x]}(0))\stackrel{\eta _{}}{}Q^0(B^{}(0))$$

sends $`\alpha ^0\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& 2d\end{array}\right]`$ to $`a_0_4,`$ the degree zero coefficient of $`a`$. The same formula holds as well for $`\eta _{}:Q^0(B^{[x]}(0))Q^0(B^{}(0)).`$

Restricting $`\eta _{}`$ to $`\text{ker}J_{\beta (0)}^0([x])`$, we get a short exact sequence:

$$0𝔽_2[x]\times 𝔽_2[x]\stackrel{k_2}{}\text{ker}(J_{\beta (0)}^0([x]))\stackrel{\eta _{}}{}\text{ker}(J_{\beta (0)}^0())0$$

where $`k_2`$ is defined by:

$$k_2(a,d)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2a& 0\\ 0& 2d\end{array}\right).$$

This yields isomorphisms:

$$𝔽_2[x]\times 𝔽_2[x]\stackrel{k_2}{}K_0,\text{coker}\{(\psi ^21):𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2\}\stackrel{k_2^{}}{}C_1.$$
(42)
Here $`(\psi ^21):𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2`$ is the map induced by $`\psi ^21:𝔽_2[x]𝔽_2[x],`$ and $`k_2^{}`$ is induced by $`\iota ^{}`$.

Now we analyse $`J_{\beta (0)}^1(A)`$ similarly. Recall $`B^A(0)`$ is a chain complex concentrated in degrees $`0`$ and $`1`$: $`B_0=A^r;B_1=A^r,`$ and its boundary map is $`=\times 2:B_1B_0`$.

In order to understand the map $`J_{\beta (0)}^1(A)`$, we define, for any 1-cycle, $`\varphi (W^\%B^A(0))_1`$, another 1-cycle

$$\gamma ^\varphi =\varphi _0^\%(S^1(\beta (0)))(\widehat{W}^\%B^A(0))_1.$$

We know $`\gamma ^\varphi =(\gamma _1^\varphi ,\gamma _0^\varphi ,\gamma _1^\varphi ),`$ where

$$\gamma _i^\varphi =\gamma _i=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0(\beta (0)_{i1}).$$

Here $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0:B^A(0)^1B^A(0)`$ is the chain map whose matrix is $`\varphi _0(B^A(0)B^A(0))_1.`$

We conclude:

$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma _1=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0(X)B_1B_1,\hfill \\ \gamma _0=(1)\gamma _1(B^A(0)B^A(0))_1,\hfill \\ \gamma _1=\frac{1}{2}()\gamma _1B_0B_0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore

$$J_{\beta (0)}^1(A):Q^1(B^A(0))\widehat{Q}^1(B^A(0))\text{ is : }[\varphi ]J^1([\varphi ])[\gamma ^\varphi ].$$

Set

$$𝒥^1=\beta ^1J_{\beta (0)}^1(A)\alpha ^1.$$

We get:

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝒥^1(M)\hfill & =\beta ^1(J^1[\varphi ^M])[\gamma _1^{\varphi ^M}]=MM^tXM\hfill \\ & =MMXMmod\text{Quad}_r(A)\hfill \end{array}$$

for all $`M\text{Sym}_r(A).`$ (The formulae for $`𝒥^1`$ and $`𝒥^0`$ are identical!). Therefore the formula (41) can also be used for $`𝒥^1.`$ We therefore conclude at once that we have an isomorphism, induced by $`\beta ^1`$:

$$\text{coker}\{(\psi ^21):𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2\}C_0$$
(43)
To compute $`K_1`$, we note from 41 that the kernel of $`J_{\beta (0)}^1([x])\alpha ^1`$ is:

$$\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]\text{Sym}_2(𝔽_2[x]):a_0𝔽_2\}.$$

Since $`\widehat{\eta }_{}\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]=a_0_2,`$ we conclude at once that:

$$K_1=0$$
(44)
### 2.7  The calculation of $`\text{UNil}_n(;,)`$ for all $`n`$.

The results of the last section allow us to prove Theorem B of the Introduction:

###### Theorem 25

There are isomorphisms:

$`\text{UNil}_0(;,)`$ $`=0,`$
$`\text{UNil}_1(;,)`$ $`=0,`$
$`\text{UNil}_2(;,)`$ $`\text{coker}\{(\psi ^21):𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2\},`$
and an exact sequence:

$$0𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2\stackrel{(\psi ^21)}{}𝔽_2[x]/𝔽_2\text{UNil}_3(;,)𝔽_2[x]\times 𝔽_2[x]0.$$

Proof. Note $`I_2=0`$, by (29). Therefore (44) and (34) imply the first two equations at once. The third equation is immediate from (34) and (42). The final exact sequence is immediate from (34), (42), and (43). ∎

See Banagl and Ranicki  and Connolly and Davis  for further computations.


format: text

text:
# Dirac monopoles from the Matsumoto non-commutative spheres

## 1 Introduction

One of the first examples of a non-commutative three-sphere was constructed by Matsumoto in . This example was overlooked for a considerable time, mainly due to a focused attention attracted by a plethora of examples of quantum spheres coming from quantum groups. The interest in Matsumoto’s sphere was revived recently by general revival of interest in non-commutative spheres triggered by papers ,  and , where the Matsumoto spheres were re-derived through the construction of projective modules with vanishing lower Chern classes and were shown to satisfy the axioms of a non-commutative manifold proposed by A. Connes.

In a follow-up  to his original paper, Matsumoto has also constructed a non-commutative Hopf fibering, thus making the first step toward developing gauge theory with non-commutative spheres. The aim of this note is to review Matsumoto’s construction of non-commutative spheres, and then reformulate the Hopf fibering in terms of more modern language of quantum principal bundles as initiated in , in order to develop gauge theory on such spheres. In particular we prove that Matsumoto’s Hopf fibering is a quantum principal bundle or a Hopf-Galois extension. We also construct a connection in this quantum principal bundle, and show that it coincides with the standard Dirac magnetic monopole. In other words we show that a classical physical particle can be equivalently described as a particle existing in a non-commutative world.

## 2 Review of Matsumoto’s construction

The main idea of Matsumoto’s construction is based on the deformation of the topological construction of the classical three-sphere via the Heegaard splitting. Classically, one starts with the solid two-torus $`D^2\times S^1`$. The boundary of $`D^2\times S^1`$ is the two-torus $`S^1\times S^1`$. A loop on $`S^1\times S^1`$ is called a meridian if it vanishes in the fundamental group of $`D^2\times S^1`$, and it is called a longitude if it generates this group. The three-sphere $`S^3`$ can be obtained by gluing two copies of solid two-tori through a homeomorphism which exchanges a meridian with a longitude on their common boundary. Algebraically, in terms of algebras of continuous functions this construction can be summarised as

$$C(S^3)=\{(a,b)C(D^2\times S^1)C(S^1\times D^2)|\rho (\pi (a))=\pi (b)\},$$

where $`\pi :C(D^2\times S^1)C(S^1\times S^1)`$ is the canonical projection (restriction of the domain to the boundary), and $`\rho :C(S^1\times S^1)C(S^1\times S^1)`$ is an isomorphism corresponding to exchanging a meridian for a longitude.

Now, one can replace the algebra of functions on a solid torus, by a (non-commutative) $`C^{}`$-algebra $`D_\theta `$ of functions on a non-commutative solid torus. This is generated by a normal operator $`y`$ and a unitary $`v`$ such that $`vy=e^{2\pi i\theta }yv`$, where $`\theta `$ is a non-zero real number. There is a $`C^{}`$-algebra surjection $`\pi _\theta `$ from $`D_\theta `$ to the non-commutative torus $`A_\theta `$. The latter is generated by unitaries $`U,V`$ subject to the relations $`VU=e^{2\pi i\theta }UV`$. The surjection $`\pi _\theta `$ is given by $`\pi _\theta (v)=V`$, $`\pi _\theta (y)=U`$, and is the non-commutative version of the canonical projection $`\pi `$ above. Next, take $`D_\theta `$ generated by a normal operator $`x`$ and a unitary $`u`$, and the corresponding non-commutative torus $`A_\theta `$ generated by $`\widehat{U},\widehat{V}`$. A $`C^{}`$-algebra map

$$\rho _\theta :A_\theta A_\theta ,(\widehat{U},\widehat{V})(V,U),$$

is an isomorphism, which corresponds to the map interchanging meridians with longitudes. The deformed algebra of functions on the three-sphere can be thus defined as

$$C_\theta (S^3)=\{(a,b)D_\theta D_\theta |\rho _\theta (\pi _\theta (a))=\pi (b)\}.$$

The algebra $`C_\theta (S^3)`$ can be seen as generated by two normal operators $`S=(u,y)`$, $`T=(x,v)`$ and relations $`TS=\lambda ST`$, $`(1TT^{})(1S^{}S)=0`$ and $`S=T=1`$, where $`\lambda =e^{2\pi i\theta }`$. In , Matsumoto and Tomiyama observed that, equivalently, $`C_\theta (S^3)`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra which has presentation with generators $`a,b`$ and relations

$$aa^{}=a^{}a,bb^{}=b^{}b,ab=\lambda ba,ab^{}=\overline{\lambda }b^{}a,aa^{}+bb^{}=1.$$
(1)
The presentation (1) makes it clear that $`C_\theta (S^3)`$ is a deformation of functions on the classical sphere, and it also allows one to identify the Matsumoto sphere with one of the spheres in .

## 3 Non-commutative Hopf bundle

There is an action of $`U(1)`$ on the deformed $`S^3`$, which algebraically is represented as a coaction of a Hopf algebra (quantum group) $`C(U(1))`$ of functions on $`U(1)`$ on $`C_\theta (S^3)`$. Explicitly, let $`C(U(1))`$ be generated by a unitary $`Z`$ (i.e., $`ZZ^{}=Z^{}Z=1`$). Then the coaction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R:C_\theta (S^3)C_\theta (S^3)C(U(1))`$ is defined as a $``$-algebra map given on generators by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_R(a)=aZ,\mathrm{\Delta }_R(b)=bZ.$$

The quantum quotient space under this (co)action is defined as a subalgebra of coinvariants,

$$C_\theta (S^3/U(1))=C_\theta (S^2):=\{fC_\theta (S^3)|\mathrm{\Delta }_R(f)=f1\}.$$

One easily computes that $`C_\theta (S^2)`$ is generated by $`z=aa^{}`$, $`x_+=ba^{}`$, $`x_{}=ab^{}`$. This is a commutative algebra with an additional relation $`z^2+x_+x_{}=z`$, and thus coincides with the usual algebra of functions on the two-sphere, i.e., $`C_\theta (S^2)=C(S^2)`$.

Note that the coaction of $`C(U(1))`$ on $`C_\theta (S^3))`$ defines a $`𝐙`$-grading on the latter. An element $`fC_\theta (S^3)`$ has degree $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R(f)=fZ^n`$, and has degree $`n`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R(f)=fZ^n`$. Clearly $`C(S^2)`$ is a subalgebra of degree zero elements.

To make sure that the above construction defines a quantum principal bundle, one needs to check that the action represented by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ is free. Algebraically, this means that we need to prove that the extension of algebras $`C(S^2)C_\theta (S^3)`$ is a Hopf-Galois extension, i.e., that the map $`\mathrm{can}:C_\theta (S^3)_{C(S^2)}C_\theta (S^3)C_\theta (S^3)C(U(1))`$ given by $`fgf\mathrm{\Delta }_R(g)`$ is bijective. Consider a map $`\chi :C_\theta (S^3)C(U(1))C_\theta (S^3)_{C(S^2)}C_\theta (S^3)`$,

$$\chi (fZ^n)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda ^{m(nm)}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ \\ m\end{array}\right)fa^{nm}b^ma^{nm}b^m,$$

$$\chi (fZ^n)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda ^{m(nm)}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ \\ m\end{array}\right)fa^{nm}b^ma^{nm}b^m,$$

for all $`fC_\theta (S^3)`$ and $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ One easily checks that $`\mathrm{can}\chi =\mathrm{id}`$. The proof that also $`\chi \mathrm{can}=\mathrm{id}`$ is also based on direct calculation. To facilitate this calculation one needs to make a couple of observations. First, since both maps are obviously left $`C_\theta (S^3)`$-linear, suffices it to check the identity on elements of the form $`1f`$. Second, note that the tensor product is over $`C(S^2)`$, hence one may restrict oneself to elements of type $`f=a^mb^n`$ with $`m,n0`$. Now the calculation is straightforward. Thus we conclude that $`\chi `$ is the inverse of $`\mathrm{can}`$, i.e., we have defined a quantum $`U(1)`$-principal bundle over $`S^2`$ with the total space given by the Matsumoto’s three-sphere. This quantum bundle is denoted by $`(C(S^2)C_\theta (S^3))^{C(U(1))}`$.

## 4 Non-commutative setup for the Dirac monopole

Since the Matsumoto three-sphere is a total space of a quantum (non-commutative) principal bundle $`(C(S^2)C_\theta (S^3))^{C(U(1))}`$, it constitutes a proper setup for studying connections (cf. ). In particular we can define a special type of connection, known as a strong connection . There are various equivalent ways of defining such connections \[7, Theorem 2.3\]. One of the possibilities is to say that a strong connection in $`(C(S^2)C_\theta (S^3))^{C(U(1))}`$, is a left $`C(S^2)`$-linear, right $`C(U(1))`$-colinear splitting $`s:C_\theta (S^3)C(S^2)C_\theta (S^3)`$ of the product $`\mu :C(S^2)C_\theta (S^3)C_\theta (S^3)`$ such that $`s(1)=11`$. Such an $`s`$ can be defined as follows. Since $`C_\theta (S^3)`$ is a $`𝐙`$-graded algebra, suffices it to define $`s`$ on homogeneous elements only. Let

$$s(f)=f\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ \\ m\end{array}\right)\{\begin{array}{cc}(a^{nm}b^m)^{}a^{nm}b^m\hfill & \text{ if }f\text{ has degree }n0\hfill \\ a^{nm}b^m(a^{nm}b^m)^{}\hfill & \text{ if }f\text{ has degree }n<0\hfill \end{array}$$

Clearly $`s`$ is left $`C(S^2)`$-linear, since $`C(S^2)`$ consists of all elements of degree $`0`$. Obviously $`s(1)=11`$. The last equation in (1) implies that $`\mu s=\mathrm{id}`$, i.e., $`s`$ is a splitting of the product. Finally, degree counting ensures that $`s`$ commutes with right coactions, i.e., it is right colinear. Thus we have constructed a strong connection in $`(C(S^2)C_\theta (S^3))^{C(U(1))}`$. Note that $`s`$ is determined by a map $`\mathrm{}:C(U(1))C_\theta (S^3)C_\theta (S^3)`$ given by

$$\mathrm{}(Z^n)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ \\ m\end{array}\right)(a^{nm}b^m)^{}a^{nm}b^m,\mathrm{}(Z^n)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ \\ m\end{array}\right)a^{nm}b^m(a^{nm}b^m)^{}.$$

This map, which should be noted satisfies a number of conditions such as bicovariance, can be taken for another definition of a strong connection. The reader interested in details of the equivalence of these notions of a connection to more familiar notion of a connection form or a gauge field is referred to  and, in greater generality, to .

Strong connections provide one with a contact point between geometry of quantum principal bundles and non-commutative geometry. In non-commutative geometry, one studies finitely generated projective modules as modules of sections on non-commutative vector bundles. In classical geometry every vector bundle can be viewed as a bundle associated to a principal bundle: the standard fibre is a representation space of the structure (gauge) group. Given a quantum principal bundle or a Hopf-Galois extension $`(BP)^H`$ ($`H`$ is a Hopf algebra, $`P`$ is a right $`H`$-comodule algebra with the coaction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ and $`B`$ are coinvariants of $`P`$) and a right $`H`$-comodule (corepresentation) $`V`$ one identifies sections of the associated bundle with the left $`B`$-module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{Hom}^H(V,P)`$ of right $`H`$-comodule maps, i.e., maps $`\varphi :VP`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R\varphi =(\varphi \mathrm{id})\varrho ^V`$, where $`\varrho ^V:VVH`$ is the coaction (cf. \[1, Theorem 4.3\]). By \[7, Corollary 2.6\] if $`H`$ has a bijective antipode, $`(BP)^H`$ admits a strong connection, and $`V`$ is finite dimensional, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a finitely generated projective left $`B`$-module. Furthermore a strong connection induces a connection in module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which coincides with the Grassmann or Levi-Civita connection. Such a connection characterises projective module and is uniquely (up to a gauge transformation) determined by a projector, i.e., a matrix $`e`$ with entries from $`B`$ such that $`e^2=e`$ (cf. ).

In the case of deformed Hopf fibering $`(C(S^2)C_\theta (S^3))^{C(U(1))}`$, we can take a one-dimensional corepresentation $`V=𝐂`$ of $`C(U(1))`$, with $`\varrho ^V(1)=1Z`$. The resulting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a module of sections of a line bundle, and there is an algorithm of how to read the projector out of the strong connection (cf. ). Explicitly, if we write $`\mathrm{}(Z)=_il_ir_i`$, then the entries of the projector are $`e_{ij}=r_il_j`$. Thus the projector corresponding to $`s`$ above comes out as

$$e=\left(\begin{array}{cc}aa^{}& ab^{}\\ \\ ba^{}& bb^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}z& x_{}\\ \\ x_+& 1z\end{array}\right).$$

This is precisely the projector which describes the well-known Dirac monopole .

## 5 Conclusion

In this short note we have shown that Matsumoto’s non-commutative Hopf fibering fits perfectly into the framework of quantum principal bundles, i.e., it is a Hopf-Galois extension. Furthermore we have constructed a strong connection in this quantum principal bundle, and, by considering the associated line bundle, we have identified this connection with the Dirac magnetic monopole potential. By this means we have obtained a non-commutative geometric description of magnetic monopoles.

## References