Mathematical Notes

, Volume 103, Issue 1–2, pp 187–195 | Cite as

Lower Bounds for the Degree of a Branched Covering of a Manifold



The problem of finding new lower bounds for the degree of a branched covering of a manifold in terms of the cohomology rings of this manifold is considered. This problem is close to M. Gromov’s problem on the domination of manifolds, but it is more delicate. Any branched (finite-sheeted) covering of manifolds is a domination, but not vice versa (even up to homotopy). The theory and applications of the classical notion of the group transfer and of the notion of transfer for branched coverings are developed on the basis of the theory of n-homomorphisms of graded algebras.

The main result is a lemma imposing conditions on a relationship between the multiplicative cohomology structures of the total space and the base of n-sheeted branched coverings of manifolds and, more generally, of Smith–Dold n-fold branched coverings. As a corollary, it is shown that the least degree n of a branched covering of the N-torus T N over the product of k 2-spheres and one (N − 2k)-sphere for N ≥ 4k + 2 satisfies the inequality nN − 2k, while the Berstein–Edmonds well-known 1978 estimate gives only nN/(k + 1).


branched coverings of manifolds transfer cohomology of groups 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. W. Alexander, “Note on Riemann spaces,” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 26 (8), 370–372 (1920).MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. V. Chernavskii, “Finite-to-one open mappings of manifolds,” Mat. Sb. 65 (107) (3), 357–369 (1964).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Berstein and A. L. Edmonds, “The degree and branch set of a branched covering,” Invent. Math. 45 (3), 213–220 (1978).MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Smith, “Transfer and ramified coverings,” Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 93 (3), 485–493 (1983).MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Dold, “Ramified coverings, orbit projections and symmetric powers,” Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 99 (1), 65–72 (1986).MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. V. Gugnin, “Topological applications of graded Frobenius n-homomorphisms,” Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obshch. 72 (1), 127–188 (2011) [Trans. MoscowMath. Soc. 72 (1), 97–142 (2011)].MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. M. Bukhshtaber and E. G. Rees, “Multivalued groups and Hopf n-algebras,” Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 51 (4 (310)), 149–150 (1996) [RussianMath. Surveys 51 (4), 727–729 (1996)].MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. M. Buchstaber and E. G. Rees, “Multivalued groups, their representations and Hopf algebras,” Transform. Groups 2 (4), 325–349 (1997).MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. M. Buchstaber and E. G. Rees, “Rings of continuous functions, symmetric products and Frobenius algebras,” Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 59 (1 (355)), 125–144 (2004) [Russian Math. Surveys 59 (1), 125–145 (2004)].MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. M. Buchstaber and E. G. Rees, “Frobenius n-homomorphisms, transfers and branched coverings,” Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 144 (1), 1–12 (2008).MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations