An nn-dimensional complete intersection Xn(d‾)X_n(\underline d) is the smooth complex variety cut out by transverse hypersurfaces of degrees d1,…,dkd_1,\dots,d_k in CPn+k\mathbb{C}P^{n+k}. Crowley and Nagy proved the 4-dimensional Sullivan Conjecture — complete intersections of complex dimension 4 with the same total degree, Pontryagin numbers, and Euler characteristic are diffeomorphic — and determined the inertia group I(X4(d‾))⊆Θ8≅Z/2I(X_4(\underline d))\subseteq\Theta_8\cong\mathbb{Z}/2 (Θ8\Theta_8 the Kervaire–Milnor group of homotopy 8-spheres) in the spin case and in the non-spin case with vanishing fourth Wu class. For the remaining non-spin complete intersections with v4(X4(d‾))≠0v_4(X_4(\underline d))\neq 0, they conjecture (Conjecture 1.15, Geometry & Topology 29 (2025), 269–311) that I(X4(d‾))=0I(X_4(\underline d))=0 when p1(4,d‾)≡3(mod8)p_1(4,\underline d)\equiv 3\pmod 8 and I(X4(d‾))=Θ8I(X_4(\underline d))=\Theta_8 when p1(4,d‾)≡7(mod8)p_1(4,\underline d)\equiv 7\pmod 8. The problem is to prove or refute these two predicted rows, which together predict, for every multidegree d‾\underline d with X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) non-spin and v4≠0v_4\neq 0, whether X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) is diffeomorphic to its connected sum with the exotic 8-sphere. The conjecture is open as stated in the published version.

Background

A complete intersection Xn(d‾)X_n(\underline d) is a closed, simply connected 2n2n-manifold obtained as the transverse intersection in CPn+k\mathbb{C}P^{n+k} of kk hypersurfaces of degrees d1,…,dkd_1,\dots,d_k; the product d=d1⋯dkd=d_1\cdots d_k is the total degree. Sullivan, in his 1970 MIT notes, asked whether such manifolds are classified up to diffeomorphism by their Sullivan data SDn(d‾)=(d,(pi(n,d‾))i=1⌊n/2⌋,χ)SD_n(\underline d)=(d,(p_i(n,\underline d))_{i=1}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor},\chi), where pi(n,d‾)p_i(n,\underline d) is the integer defined by pi(Xn(d‾))=pi(n,d‾) x2ip_i(X_n(\underline d))=p_i(n,\underline d)\,x^{2i} for the standard generator x∈H2x\in H^2 pulled back from projective space (in the convention of Crowley–Nagy, p(Xn(d‾))=(1−x2)n+k+1∏i=1k(1−di2x2)−1p(X_n(\underline d))=(1-x^2)^{n+k+1}\prod_{i=1}^{k}(1-d_i^2x^2)^{-1}, so that p1(4,d‾)=∑i=1kdi2−(k+5)p_1(4,\underline d)=\sum_{i=1}^{k}d_i^2-(k+5) and e.g. p1(CP4)=−5p_1(\mathbb{C}P^4)=-5), and χ\chi is the Euler characteristic. Libgober and Wood used this classification to count connected components of complex-moduli spaces of complete intersections, which is one main motivation. Prior partial results: for n=4n=4, Fang and Klaus (Manuscripta Math. 90 (1996)) proved the conjecture up to connected sum with a homotopy 8-sphere, and Kreck (Surgery and Duality, 1999), in work with Traving, proved it when 64 divides the total degree. By Kervaire and Milnor's computation (Ann. of Math. 77 (1963)), the group Θ8\Theta_8 of homotopy 8-spheres up to oriented diffeomorphism is Z/2\mathbb{Z}/2; write Σex8\Sigma^8_{ex} for the exotic generator. The inertia group of a closed manifold MM is I(M)={Σ∈Θ8:  M≅M♯Σ}I(M)=\{\Sigma\in\Theta_8:\;M\cong M\sharp\Sigma\}; MM is called Θ\Theta-rigid when I(M)=Θ8I(M)=\Theta_8 and Θ\Theta-flexible when I(M)=0I(M)=0. Thus the Fang–Klaus indeterminacy is exactly the question of whether a given X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) is Θ\Theta-rigid. Crowley and Nagy (Geom. Topol. 29 (2025) 269–311) proved the 4-dimensional Sullivan Conjecture in all cases, and their analysis splits the inertia question by the Wu classes v2,v4∈Z/2v_2,v_4\in\mathbb{Z}/2 (the Wu classes are the cohomology classes satisfying Sq(v)=wSq(v)=w for the Stiefel–Whitney classes; by Remark 2.6 of the paper they are single Z/2\mathbb{Z}/2-valued bits for these manifolds, with v2=w2v_2=w_2 detecting spin): (i) if X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) is spin, the total space S(X4(d‾),±x)S(X_4(\underline d),\pm x) of the circle bundle with Chern class ±x\pm x is framed null-cobordant while S(X4(d‾)♯Σex8,±x)S(X_4(\underline d)\sharp\Sigma^8_{ex},\pm x) is not, giving a geometric diffeomorphism invariant, so X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) is Θ\Theta-flexible with I=0I=0 (Theorem 1.7); (ii) if X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) is non-spin with v4=0v_4=0, the manifold is Θ\Theta-rigid, I=Θ8I=\Theta_8 (Theorem 1.12). The non-spin case with v4≠0v_4\neq 0 — which forces p1(4,d‾)≡3(mod4)p_1(4,\underline d)\equiv 3\pmod 4, so that p1(4,d‾) mod 8p_1(4,\underline d)\bmod 8 is either 3 or 7 — remains undecided in general, even though the Sullivan Conjecture itself is proved in these cases too (via Kreck's modified surgery: a normal 3-smoothing is a 3-connected bundle-covered map to the normal type (B4,ξ4(d‾)×γBO⟨8⟩)(B_4,\xi_4(\underline d)\times\gamma_{BO\langle 8\rangle}), with ξ4(d‾)\xi_4(\underline d) the stable normal bundle over CP∞\mathbb{C}P^\infty; bordant smoothings plus equal Euler characteristic imply diffeomorphism). The rigidity question in these families reduces to computing the canonical homomorphism i0:Θ8≅Tors Ω8O⟨7⟩→Ω8O⟨7⟩(CP∞;ξ4(d‾))i_0:\Theta_8\cong\mathrm{Tors}\,\Omega^{O\langle 7\rangle}_8\to\Omega^{O\langle 7\rangle}_8(\mathbb{C}P^\infty;\xi_4(\underline d)) into the twisted string bordism group (O⟨7⟩O\langle 7\rangle is the 7-connected cover of OO, i.e. the string structure on the stable normal bundle), which the authors analyse through the homotopy type of the Thom spectrum of ξ4(d‾)∣CP4\xi_4(\underline d)|_{\mathbb{C}P^4}; i0=0i_0=0 forces Θ\Theta-rigidity, while injectivity is expected to be obstructive. They note (after Conjecture 1.15) that in the Θ\Theta-flexible non-spin cases no purely geometric diffeomorphism invariant analogous to the spin-case circle-bundle framing property is known. Kasilingam (Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. 126 (2016)) showed I(CP4)=0I(\mathbb{C}P^4)=0. The inertia-group result of Senger–Zhang does not apply here, because complete intersections have π2≅Z\pi_2\cong\mathbb{Z}.

Problem Statement

Determine the inertia group I(X4(d‾))⊆Θ8≅Z/2I(X_4(\underline d))\subseteq\Theta_8\cong\mathbb{Z}/2 of the 4-dimensional complete intersection X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) for every multidegree d‾\underline d such that X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) is non-spin and v4(X4(d‾))≠0v_4(X_4(\underline d))\neq 0, where v2,v4v_2,v_4 are the Wu classes and p1(4,d‾)p_1(4,\underline d) is defined by p1(X4(d‾))=p1(4,d‾) x2p_1(X_4(\underline d))=p_1(4,\underline d)\,x^2 for the standard generator x∈H2(X4(d‾))x\in H^2(X_4(\underline d)) (with the sign convention p(X4(d‾))=(1−x2)k+5∏i=1k(1−di2x2)−1p(X_4(\underline d))=(1-x^2)^{k+5}\prod_{i=1}^{k}(1-d_i^2x^2)^{-1} fixed in Background, i.e. p1(4,d‾)=∑i=1kdi2−(k+5)p_1(4,\underline d)=\sum_{i=1}^{k}d_i^2-(k+5)). Specifically, settle each of the two open rows of Crowley–Nagy's Conjecture 1.15, independently, by proving or refuting it: (a) if p1(4,d‾)≡3(mod8)p_1(4,\underline d)\equiv 3\pmod 8 then I(X4(d‾))=0I(X_4(\underline d))=0 (i.e. X4(d‾)♯Σex8X_4(\underline d)\sharp\Sigma^8_{ex} is not diffeomorphic to X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) for the exotic 8-sphere Σex8\Sigma^8_{ex}), and (b) if p1(4,d‾)≡7(mod8)p_1(4,\underline d)\equiv 7\pmod 8 then I(X4(d‾))=Θ8I(X_4(\underline d))=\Theta_8 (i.e. X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) is Θ\Theta-rigid). Each row is a universal claim over the qualifying multidegrees with the given residue of p1(4,d‾) mod 8p_1(4,\underline d)\bmod 8: proving a row determines I(X4(d‾))I(X_4(\underline d)) — equivalently, whether X4(d‾)X_4(\underline d) is diffeomorphic to X4(d‾)♯Σex8X_4(\underline d)\sharp\Sigma^8_{ex} — for every such multidegree, while refuting a row requires only one qualifying multidegree in that class whose inertia group is opposite to the row's prediction, and it settles that row alone, leaving I(X4(d‾))I(X_4(\underline d)) undetermined for the remaining multidegrees of the class. The two rows are decided separately; proving both determines I(X4(d‾))I(X_4(\underline d)) for every qualifying multidegree.

References

  1. Diarmuid Crowley and Csaba Nagy, The smooth classification of 4-dimensional complete intersections, Geometry & Topology 29 (2025) 269–311, DOI 10.2140/gt.2025.29.269, arXiv:2003.09216, https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.09216
  2. Fuquan Fang and Stephan Klaus, Topological classification of 4-dimensional complete intersections, Manuscripta Mathematica 90 (1996) 139–147, DOI 10.1007/BF02568299, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02568299
  3. Matthias Kreck, Surgery and duality, Annals of Mathematics (2) 149 (1999) 707–754, arXiv:math/9905211, https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9905211
  4. Michel A. Kervaire and John W. Milnor, Groups of homotopy spheres: I, Annals of Mathematics (2) 77 (1963) 504–537, DOI 10.2307/1970128, https://doi.org/10.2307/1970128
  5. Anatoly S. Libgober and John W. Wood, Differentiable structures on complete intersections—I, Topology 21 (1982) 469–482, DOI 10.1016/0040-9383(82)90024-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-9383(82)90024-6
  6. Ramesh Kasilingam, Classification of smooth structures on a homotopy complex projective space, Proceedings — Mathematical Sciences 126 (2016) 277–281, DOI 10.1007/s12044-016-0269-4, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12044-016-0269-4
  7. Andrew Senger and Adela YiYu Zhang, Inertia groups of (n−1)(n-1)-connected 2n2n-manifolds, arXiv:2211.00782 (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.00782
  8. David Baraglia, The alpha invariant of complete intersections, arXiv:2002.06750 (2020), https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06750
  9. Samik Basu, Ramesh Kasilingam and Ankur Sarkar, Enumerating Smooth Structures on CP3×Sk\mathbb{C}P^3\times\mathbb{S}^k, arXiv:2503.16267 (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16267
  10. Diarmuid Crowley and Csaba Nagy, The Witt groups of extended quadratic forms over Z\mathbb{Z}, arXiv:2404.09189 (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.09189
  11. Csaba Nagy, Realising automorphisms of the extended intersection form by diffeomorphisms, arXiv:2608.24617 (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.24617