Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

On the relative $L$-theory and the relative signature of PL manifolds with boundary

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the relative higher rho invariant is a group homomorphism from the relative topological structure group of PL manifolds with boundary to the K-theory of the relative obstruction algebra, making the relative surgery…

desk verdict A genuinely new relative version of Weinberger–Xie–Yu, but two load-bearing shortcuts (normal-group identification and product formula) need real proofs before I'd rely on it. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07451 v5 pith:BQ5DEVG4 submitted 2019-08-18 math.KT math.AT

Bingzhe Hou , Hongzhi Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.KTmath.AT MSC 57R6719K5619J2546L80
keywords relativehigherrhoinvariantstructuregroupsurgeryexactsequenceL-theoryobstructionalgebracontrolledtopologyoperatorK-theorymanifoldswithboundary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether the secondary invariant that measures failure of a homotopy equivalence between piecewise-linear (PL) manifolds with boundary to be locally controlled can be made additive. Its answer is yes: after introducing a controlled relative structure group whose addition is disjoint union, it proves that the relative higher rho invariant is a well-defined group homomorphism from this group to the K-theory of the relative obstruction algebra. It also proves that the entire relative topological surgery exact sequence maps commutatively into the K-theory exact sequence of relative geometric C*-algebras. This matters because additivity is what turns the rho invariant from a set-valued label into a homomorphism, opening the way to detect non-rigidity and to compare surgery obstructions with analytic index-theoretic obstructions in the presence of a boundary.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is $S_n(X,\partial X;\omega)$: a controlled relative structure group whose elements are homotopy equivalences of manifold 2-ads over $(X,\partial X)$, with the positive-boundary part an infinitesimally controlled homotopy equivalence over $X$, and whose addition is disjoint union. The paper proves this group is isomorphic to the classical relative topological structure group, using topological periodicity, which makes the statement that $\mathrm{rel}\rho$ is additive meaningful on the classical object. The analytic side is carried by three relative geometric C*-algebras: the relative Roe algebra, the relative localization algebra, and the relative obstruction algebra $C^*_{L,0}(\tilde X,\tilde\partial X)_{G,\Gamma}$, all built from the mapping-cone C*-algebra of the inclusion $\partial X\to X$. The invariant $\mathrm{rel}\rho$ is assembled by concatenating the path, from the mapping-surgery-to-analysis construction, that kills the signature class of the difference $M\sqcup -N$ with the relative K-homology path; additivity is proved through an auxiliary homomorphism $\mathrm{rel}\hat\rho$ on an L-theory group of manifold 3-ads, together with the product formula $\mathrm{rel}\rho(\theta\times\mathbb{R})=k_n\alpha_*(\mathrm{rel}\rho(\theta)\otimes \mathrm{Ind}_L(\mathbb{R}))$.

What would settle it

Take $X=M\times[0,1]$ for a closed PL manifold $M$ with a nontrivial higher rho class, and let $\theta\in S_n(X,\partial X)$ come from a nontrivial homotopy equivalence of $M$. Compute both sides of the product formula $\mathrm{rel}\rho(\theta\times\mathbb{R})=k_n\alpha_*(\mathrm{rel}\rho(\theta)\otimes \mathrm{Ind}_L(\mathbb{R}))$ in the K-theory of the relative obstruction algebra; a mismatch disproves the additivity theorem. Equally directly, one can compare $\mathrm{rel}\rho(\theta_1+\theta_2)$ with $\mathrm{rel}\rho(\theta_1)+\mathrm{rel}\rho(\theta_2)$ under the disjoint-union addition for two explicitly given elements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 6.8: for a compact PL manifold with boundary $(X,\partial X)$ of dimension $n\ge 6$, the relative higher rho invariant $\mathrm{rel}\rho$ induces a group homomorphism from the relative structure group $S_n(X,\partial X;\omega)$ (a group whose operation is disjoint union, shown isomorphic to the classical relative structure group) to the K-theory group $K_n(C^*_{L,0}(\tilde X,\tilde\partial X)_{G,\Gamma})$ of the relative obstruction algebra, and the surgery-to-analysis diagram (1.1) commutes. In the course of the proof the paper establishes a new description of the relative topological surgery exact sequence, identifies the classical relative structure group with the controlled group $S_n(X,\partial X;\omega)$, and shows that the relative signature class, the relative K-homology class of the signature operator, and $\mathrm{rel}\rho$ fit into the analytic surgery exact sequence via $\mathrm{relInd}$ and $\mathrm{relInd}_L$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that making the geometric control scale arbitrarily small does not change the relative normal cobordism groups; if this control-topology identification fails, the controlled group $S_n(X,\partial X;\omega)$ is not the classical relative structure group and the domain of $\mathrm{rel}\rho$ is different.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Additivity of $\mathrm{rel}\rho$ means the invariant behaves linearly under disjoint union in the relative structure group, so it can serve as a group homomorphism rather than merely a label on each structure element.
  • The isomorphism $S_n(X,\partial X;\omega)\cong S^{TOP}(X,\partial X)$ supplies an explicit abelian group structure on the classical relative structure set for $n\ge 6$, with addition by disjoint union.
  • The commutative diagram (1.1) makes the relative topological surgery exact sequence compatible with the K-theory exact sequence of relative geometric C*-algebras, so L-theoretic surgery obstructions and normal invariants map to analytic index classes coherently.
  • By Lemma 6.2, $\mathrm{rel}\rho$ vanishes on infinitesimally controlled homotopy equivalences, so a nonzero value is an obstruction to making a boundary-preserving homotopy equivalence controlled.
  • The product formula computes $\mathrm{rel}\rho$ after crossing with the real line, giving a suspension behavior for the invariant that matches the closed-manifold case.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One natural extension is to use the additivity of $\mathrm{rel}\rho$ to distinguish elements in relative structure groups in explicit examples, for instance manifolds with boundary arising from spin geometry or positive scalar curvature, where the K-theory of the relative obstruction algebra is more computable.
  • The same disjoint-union group structure may be the right domain for secondary invariants in other controlled settings, such as stratified spaces or foliations, where control is imposed along a subspace instead of a boundary.
  • Because the identification of the controlled normal group with the classical one is only sketched, a fully detailed proof of that step would determine exactly which fundamental groups and orientation characters the present statement covers; the analytic construction itself is likely to remain well defined on the controlled group regardless.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends the Weinberger–Xie–Yu framework for additive higher rho invariants from closed topological/PL manifolds to PL manifolds with boundary. The authors define a controlled relative structure group S_n(X,∂X;ω) whose addition is disjoint union, prove a relative surgery exact sequence in this category, and show for dim X ≥ 6 that S_n(X,∂X;ω) is isomorphic to the classical relative topological structure group STOP(X,∂X). They then introduce the relative obstruction algebra C*_{L,0}(~X,~∂X)_{G,Γ}, define a relative higher rho invariant relρ valued in its K-theory, prove that relρ is well defined and additive on S_n(X,∂X;ω), and assemble the relative surgery and analytic K-theory sequences into the commutative diagram (1.1) (Theorem 6.8).

Significance. The paper's main contribution, if all steps are made rigorous, is to make the relative structure group an abelian group in a geometrically transparent way and to produce an additive secondary invariant mapping the relative surgery sequence into operator K-theory. This would generalize the closed-manifold additivity theorem of [27] and supply a relative version of 'mapping surgery to analysis,' with potential applications to relative Novikov-type rigidity questions. The authors deserve credit for giving full definitions of the controlled groups and relative C*-algebras and for clearly stating the main theorems. The main caveats are that several load-bearing steps are quoted from or left to the reader rather than proved in the text.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Theorem 2.16] The isomorphism α_*: N^{TOP}_{∂+}(X×D^i, ∂(X×D^i)) → N_{n+i}(X,∂X;ω) is load-bearing: it is used in Theorem 2.20 and, through the five-lemma argument, in Lemma 2.21 and Theorem 2.23 to identify S_n(X,∂X;ω) with the classical STOP(X,∂X). The proof is a single diagram asserting that the algebraic normal invariant maps on both sides are isomorphisms onto H_{n+i}(X,∂X;L•) 'by the idea of control topology [8,28]'. No inverse of α_* is constructed, and no specific result in [8] or [28] is quoted that covers the ∂+-relative normal group with its restriction-to-homeomorphism condition. Without a proof or a precise citation at this level of generality, the identification between the formally defined S_n and the classical relative structure group is not established; this in turn affects the interpretation of relρ as a map on STOP(X,∂X).
  2. [Section 6.3, Theorem 6.5] Theorem 6.5, the product formula kn α_*(relρ(θ)⊗Ind_L(R)) = relρ(θ×R), is the step that identifies the geometrically defined relρ with the cone construction relρ̂ and is used in Corollary 6.7 to prove additivity. The proof in the text says only that it is 'elementary and exactly the same with the proof of Theorem 6.8 of [27] (Appendix D of [27])' and omits the details. Since [27] treats closed manifolds and the present setting has boundary and corner contributions, the transfer is not automatic; the boundary conditions in the relative localization algebra need to be verified explicitly. As written, the main additivity theorem rests on an unproved assertion.
  3. [Section 6.3, Theorem 6.6] The commutativity of the central diagram connecting L_{n+1}(π_1X, π_1∂X, X), S_n(X,∂X), and the K-theory of the relative obstruction algebra is established by 'direct comparison' after displaying liftings a_{θ×[0,1]} and a_{θ×R}. This comparison is the heart of the proof that relρ is a group homomorphism, and the text does not carry out the computation of ∂_*(relρ̂(θ×[0,1])) and ∂_MV(relρ(θ×R)) in sufficient detail to verify equality. A more explicit proof, or at least a reduction to the closed case that tracks the relative boundary terms, is needed before Corollary 6.7 can be considered proved.
  4. [Section 3.3, Theorem 3.6] Theorem 3.6, the quantitative K-theory vanishing for the relative obstruction algebra, is proved by invoking Proposition 3.5 of Chen–Yu–Liu [4] and asserting that 'the argument... can be applied verbatim to a PL manifold.' Proposition 3.5 is stated for complete manifolds with a proper, free, cocompact group action by isometries, whereas the present paper needs PL manifolds with boundary equipped with simplicial metrics. The adaptation requires checking bounded geometry and cocompactness of the universal cover boundary pair, and because [4] has a co-author in common with the present paper, the reader cannot simply take this extension on faith. This vanishing is used in Lemma 6.2 to show that relρ vanishes on infinitesimally controlled maps, so it is load-bearing for the well-definedness of relρ on S_n.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Definition 2.7] In item 2 of Definition 2.7, the formula `∂V = N (=∂1V)∪∂2W∪∂3W` appears to be a typo for `∂V = N (=∂1V)∪∂2V∪∂3V`.
  2. [Theorem 5.5] In the statement of Theorem 5.5, the displayed formula `i∗(relIndL(M,∂M ) = 0` is missing a closing parenthesis.
  3. [Section 6.3] The name 'Mayor-Vietoris' should be 'Mayer–Vietoris' in the discussion of the sequences and connecting maps.
  4. [Section 2, Lemmas 2.21–2.23] The notation for the relative structure set is not uniform: `STOP(X,∂X)`, `STOP_∂(X,∂X)`, and `STOP_∂(X,∂X;ω)` are used in Theorem 2.20 and Lemmas 2.21–2.23; the authors should fix one convention.
  5. [Throughout] There are scattered typos such as 'discripition', 'homotopoy', and 'opressed'; a careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the central derivation is a relative generalization of external results, not a reduction to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's advertised result, that the relative higher rho invariant defines a group homomorphism from the relative topological structure group to K-theory of the relative obstruction algebra, is not obtained by definitionally renaming its inputs. The new group S_n(X,∂X;ω) is defined independently, with group law by disjoint union, and the proof that it is isomorphic to the classical relative structure group is a genuine geometric comparison via Theorems 2.16, 2.20, and 2.23. The one-line proof of Theorem 2.16, which identifies the relative normal group with the controlled normal group by asserting both algebraic normal invariant maps are isomorphisms 'by the idea of control topology [8,28]', is terse and may be a correctness risk, but it is not circular: α* is explicitly defined, and the cited isomorphisms are external inputs, not the theorem being proved. Similarly, Theorem 3.6 uses Proposition 3.5 from [4], a paper whose second author is also a co-author here; however, Proposition 3.5 is a quantitative K-theory vanishing statement about complete manifolds with proper free cocompact actions, stated independently of the relative rho invariant or the additivity theorem, so it is an external technical input rather than a self-referential assumption. The omitted proof of the product formula, Theorem 6.5, is justified by reference to Theorem 6.8 of [27]; again this is an external result, not a restatement of the paper's own conclusion. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the same authors is used to force a choice, and no definition of relρ presupposes additivity. Thus there is no demonstrated circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a proof-based contribution with no fitted parameters, empirical data, or physical entities. Its theorems rest on standard surgery theory, on the relative C*-algebra framework of Chang-Weinberger-Yu, on the closed-manifold additivity framework of Weinberger-Xie-Yu, and on a quantitative K-theory result from the authors' earlier work. The new object Sn(X,∂X) is a mathematical definition with a proof of isomorphism, not a postulated entity pulled from a hat.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Wall's relative surgery exact sequence for topological manifolds with boundary is available and fits the diagram in Section 2.
    Used throughout Section 2 to frame STOP(X,∂X), NTOP(X,∂X), and L-groups; the paper cites Wall [26] but does not re-derive the sequence.
  • domain assumption Siebenmann periodicity holds for compact topological manifolds with boundary, as used in Lemma 2.22.
    Lemma 2.22 relies on Siebenmann periodicity with boundary to prove ι* is a group homomorphism; the paper cites [21], [14], and [12] for this extension.
  • ad hoc to paper The algebraic normal invariant maps from N^{TOP}_{∂+}(X×D^i, ∂(X×D^i)) to H_{n+i}(X,∂X; L•) are isomorphisms, making Theorem 2.16 true.
    Theorem 2.16 is proved by asserting vertical isomorphisms in the commutative diagram, with no derivation beyond a reference to control topology. This is load-bearing for the identification with the classical surgery sequence.
  • ad hoc to paper Proposition 3.5 of Chen-Yu-Liu [4] extends verbatim from complete manifolds with proper group actions to PL manifolds with boundary.
    Theorem 3.6 states this extension for the relative obstruction algebra and says the CW-structure argument applies verbatim to PL manifolds. The cited paper [4] is by the second author and is to appear, so the extension is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The Weinberger-Xie-Yu hybrid C*-algebra and additivity machinery for closed manifolds can be imported into the relative setting.
    Sections 3.4 and 6 use definitions and proofs from [27], including the product formula Theorem 6.5 whose proof is omitted and referred to Appendix D of [27].
  • standard math Higson-Roe signature classes and homotopy paths for Hilbert-Poincare complexes are valid as background.
    Sections 4 and 5 build the relative signature and rho invariants on the Higson-Roe framework from [9], [10], and [27], which is accepted background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the relative $L$-theory and the relative signature of PL manifolds with boundary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQ5DEVG4

@misc{pith2026190807451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the relative $L$-theory and the relative signature of PL manifolds with boundary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQ5DEVG4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07451}
}
abstract

In this paper, we give a new description of the group structure of the relative structure group of PL manifolds with boundary, and obtain a surgery exact sequence in the category of groups. Then we focus on the relative $L$-group of PL manifolds with boundary, and map it to the $K$-theory additively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07451 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An object θ = {M, ∂±M, φ, N, ∂±N, ψ, f} in Ln(π1X, π1(∂X); ω). Definition 2.5 (Equivalence relation for the definition of Ln(π1X, π1(∂X); ω)). Let θ = {M, ∂±M, φ, N, ∂±N, ψ, f} be an object in Ln(π1X, π1(∂X); ω). We write θ ∼ 0 if the following conditions are satisfied. 1. There exists a manifold 3-ads (W, ∂W) of dimension (n+1) with a continu￾ous map Φ : (W, ∂3W) → (X, ∂X) so that Φ ∗ (ω) describes the orientation … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Equivalence relation θ ∼ 0 for the definition of Ln(π1X, π1(∂X); ω). 3. There is a degree one normal map of manifold 3-ads F : (V, ∂V ) → (W, ∂W) such that Φ ◦ F = Ψ. Moreover, F restricts to f on N ⊆ ∂V . 4. The restriction F|∂2V : ∂2V → ∂2W is a homotopy equivalence over X. We denote by Ln(π1X, π1(∂X); ω) the set of equivalence classes from Def￾inition 2.5. Note that Ln(π1X, π1(∂X); ω) is an abelian group with the… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Addi tivity of higher rho invariants and nonrigidity of topological manifolds

    Shmuel Weinberger, Zhizhang Xie, and Guoliang Yu. Addi tivity of higher rho invariants and nonrigidity of topological manifolds. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , to appear

    work page

  2. [4]

    Higher rho in variant is an obstruction to the inverse being local

    Xiaoman Chen, Guoliang Yu, and Hongzhi Liu. Higher rho in variant is an obstruction to the inverse being local. J. Geom. Phys. , to appear, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [8]

    Ferry and Erik K

    Steven C. Ferry and Erik K. Pedersen. Epsilon surgery the ory. In Novikov conjectures, index theorems and rigidity, Vol. 2 (Oberwolfac h, 1993) , vol- ume 227 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. , pages 167–226. Cam- bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995

    work page 1993

  4. [28]

    L-groups of crystallographic groups

    Masayuki Yamasaki. L-groups of crystallographic groups. Invent. Math. , 88(3):571–602, 1987

    work page 1987

  5. [1]

    Arithmetic manif olds of positive scalar curvature

    Jonathan Block and Shmuel Weinberger. Arithmetic manif olds of positive scalar curvature. J. Differential Geom. , 52(2):375–406, 1999

    work page 1999

  6. [2]

    A geometric inte rpretation of Siebenmann’s periodicity phenomenon

    Sylvain Cappell and Shmuel Weinberger. A geometric inte rpretation of Siebenmann’s periodicity phenomenon. In Geometry and topology (Athens, Ga., 1985) , volume 105 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. , pages 47–52. Dekker, New York, 1987

    work page 1985

  7. [3]

    Posi tive scalar cur- vature and a new index theory for noncompact manifolds

    Stanley Chang, Shmuel Weinberger, and Guoliang Yu. Posi tive scalar cur- vature and a new index theory for noncompact manifolds. arXiv preprint , (arXiv:1506.03859), 2015

    arXiv 2015

  8. [5]

    The additivity of the ρ-invariant and periodicity in topological surgery

    Diarmuid Crowley and Tibor Macko. The additivity of the ρ-invariant and periodicity in topological surgery. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 11(4):1915–1959, 2011. 54

    work page 1915

Show all 30 references
  1. [6]

    Deeley and Magnus Goffeng

    Robin J. Deeley and Magnus Goffeng. Relative geometric as sembly and mapping cones Part II: Chern characters and the Novikov prop erty. Mün- ster J. Math. , 12(1):57–92, 2019

    2019

  2. [7]

    Deeley and Magnus Goffeng

    Robin J. Deeley and Magnus Goffeng. Relative geometric as sembly and mapping cones Part I: The geometric model and applications. arXiv preprint, (arXiv 1507.01735), 2015

    2015 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Mapping surgery to analysis

    Nigel Higson and John Roe. Mapping surgery to analysis. I . Analytic sig- natures. K-Theory, 33(4):277–299, 2005

    2005

  4. [10]

    Mapping surgery to analysis

    Nigel Higson and John Roe. Mapping surgery to analysis. II. Geometric signatures. K-Theory, 33(4):301–324, 2005

    2005

  5. [11]

    Mapping surgery to analysis

    Nigel Higson and John Roe. Mapping surgery to analysis. III. Exact se- quences. K-Theory, 33(4):325–346, 2005

    2005

  6. [12]

    On Siebenmann periodicity

    Steven Hutt. On Siebenmann periodicity. Pacific J. Math. , 183(2):291–303, 1998

    1998

  7. [13]

    Higher eta-invariants

    John Lott. Higher eta-invariants. K-Theory, 6(3):191–233, 1992

    1992

  8. [14]

    Andrew J. Nicas. Induction theorems for groups of homot opy manifold structures. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 39(267):vi+108, 1982

    1982

  9. [15]

    On quantitative ope ratorK-theory

    Hervé Oyono-Oyono and Guoliang Yu. On quantitative ope ratorK-theory. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 65(2):605–674, 2015

    2015

  10. [16]

    Stratified surgery and K-theory invariants of the signature operator

    Paolao Piazza and Pierre Albin. Stratified surgery and K-theory invariants of the signature operator. arXiv preprint , (arXiv:1710.00934v1), 2017

    2017 arXiv

  11. [17]

    The surgery exact seque nce, K-theory and the signature operator

    Paolo Piazza and Thomas Schick. The surgery exact seque nce, K-theory and the signature operator. Ann. K-Theory, 1(2):109–154, 2016

    2016

  12. [18]

    B(TOPn)∗∗∗bt∗∗ and the surgery obstruction

    Frank Quinn. B(TOPn)∗∗∗bt∗∗ and the surgery obstruction. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 77:596–600, 1971

    1971

  13. [19]

    A. A. Ranicki. Algebraic L-theory and topological manifolds , volume 102 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1992

    1992

  14. [20]

    Coarse cohomology and index theory on complet e Riemannian manifolds

    John Roe. Coarse cohomology and index theory on complet e Riemannian manifolds. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 104(497):x+90, 1993. 55

    1993

  15. [21]

    Periodicity in topological sur gery

    Laurence C Siebenmann. Periodicity in topological sur gery. In Appendix C to Essay V in Foundational Essays on Topological Manifolds, Smoothings, and Triangulations by R. Kirby and L. Siebenmann . Princeton University Press, 1977

    1977

  16. [22]

    The strong Novikov conjecture

    Geng Tian. The strong Novikov conjecture . 2019. Thesis (Ph.D.)–The Texas A & M University

    2019

  17. [23]

    The strong relative Novikov conjecture and g eometry of Banach spaces, preprint, 2019

    Geng Tian. The strong relative Novikov conjecture and g eometry of Banach spaces, preprint, 2019

    2019

  18. [24]

    Naturality of split injectivity and the relative Novikov conjecture, preprint, 2019

    Geng Tian, Zhizhang Xie, and Guoliang Yu. Naturality of split injectivity and the relative Novikov conjecture, preprint, 2019

    2019

  19. [25]

    The relative B aum-Connes conjecture and relative Novikov conjecture, preprint, 201 9

    Geng Tian, Zhizhang Xie, and Guoliang Yu. The relative B aum-Connes conjecture and relative Novikov conjecture, preprint, 201 9

  20. [26]

    C. T. C. Wall. Surgery on compact manifolds , volume 69 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 1999. Edited and with a foreword by A. A. Rani cki

    1999

  21. [29]

    Localization algebras and the coarse Baum -Connes conjec- ture

    Guoliang Yu. Localization algebras and the coarse Baum -Connes conjec- ture. K-Theory, 11(4):307–318, 1997

    1997

  22. [30]

    Mapping the surgery exact sequence for topological manifolds to analysis

    Vito Felice Zenobi. Mapping the surgery exact sequence for topological manifolds to analysis. J. Topol. Anal. , 9(2):329–361, 2017. 56

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.