LECTURE NOTES ON GENERALIZED HEEGAARD SPLITTINGS


 Tabitha Summers
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 LECTURE NOTES ON GENERALIZED HEEGAARD SPLITTINGS TOSHIO SAITO, MARTIN SCHARLEMANN AND JENNIFER SCHULTENS 1. Introduction These notes grew out of a lecture series given at RIMS in the summer of The authors were visiting RIMS in conjunction with the Research Project on Low Dimensional Topology in the TwentyFirst Century. They had been invited by Professor Tsuyoshi Kobayashi. The lecture series was first suggested by Professor Hitoshi Murakami. The lecture series was aimed at a broad audience that included many graduate students. Its purpose lay in familiarizing the audience with the basics of 3 manifold theory and introducing some topics of current research. The first portion of the lecture series was devoted to standard topics in the theory of 3manifolds. The middle portion was devoted to a brief study of Heegaaard splittings and generalized Heegaard splittings. The latter portion touched on a brand new topic: fork complexes. During this time Professor Tsuyoshi Kobayashi had raised some interesting questions about the connectivity properties of generalized Heegaard splittings. The latter portion of the lecture series was motivated by these questions. And fork complexes were invented in an effort to illuminate some of the more subtle issues arising in the study of generalized Heegaard splittings. In the standard schematic diagram for generalized Heegaard splittings, Heegaard splittings are stacked on top of each other in a linear fashion. See Figure 1. This can cause confusion in those cases in which generalized Heegaaard splittings possess interesting connectivity properties. In these cases, some of the topological features of the 3manifold are captured by the connectivity properties of the generalized Heegaard splitting rather than by the Heegaard splittings of submanifolds into which the generalized Heegaard splitting decomposes the 3manifold. See Figure 2. Fork complexes provide a means of description in this context. Figure 1. The standard schematic diagram 1
2 2 TOSHIO SAITO, MARTIN SCHARLEMANN AND JENNIFER SCHULTENS Figure 2. A more informative schematic diagram for a generalized Heegaard splitting for a manifold homeomorphic to (a surface) S 1 The authors would like to express their appreciation of the hospitality extended to them during their stay at RIMS. They would also like to thank the many people that made their stay at RIMS delightful, illuminating and productive, most notably Professor Hitoshi Murakami, Professor Tsuyoshi Kobayashi, Professor Jun Murakami, Professor Tomotada Ohtsuki, Professor Kyoji Saito, Professor Makoto Sakuma, Professor Kouki Taniyama and Dr. Yo av Rieck. Finally, they would like to thank Dr. Ryosuke Yamamoto for drawing the fine pictures in these lecture notes. 2. Preliminaries 2.1. PL 3manifolds. Let M be a PL 3manifold, i.e., M is a union of 3 simplices σi 3 (i = 1, 2,..., t) such that σi 3 σj 3 (i j) is emptyset, a vertex, an edge or a face and that for each vertex v, v σ σ 3 j 3 j is a 3ball (cf. [14]). Then the decomposition {σi 3} 1 i t of M is called a triangulation of M. Example (1) The 3ball B 3 is the simplest PL 3manifold in a sense that B 3 is homeomorphic to a 3simplex. (2) The 3sphere S 3 is a 3manifold obtained from two 3balls by attaching their boundaries. Since S 3 is homeomorphic to the boundary of a 4simplex, we see that S 3 is a union of five 3simplices. It is easy to show that this gives a triangulation of S 3. Exercise Show that the following 3manifolds are PL 3manifolds. (1) The solid torus D 2 S 1. (2) S 2 S 1. (3) The lens spaces. Note that a lens space is obtained from two solid tori by attaching their boundaries. Let K be a three dimensional simplicial complex and X a subcomplex of K, that is, X a union of vertices, edges, faces and 3simplices of K such that X is a simplicial complex. Let K be the second barycentric subdivision of K. A regular neighborhood of X in K, denoted by η(x; K), is a union of the 3simplices of K intersecting X (cf. Figure 3). Proposition If X is a PL 1manifold properly embedded in a PL 3 manifold M (namely, X M = X), then η(x; M) = X B 2, where X is
3 LECTURE NOTES ON GENERALIZED HEEGAARD SPLITTINGS 3 X K = տ ր η(x; K) Figure 3 identified with X {a center of B 2 } and η(x; M) M is identified with X B 2 (cf. Figure 4). M X η(x; M) Figure 4 Proposition Suppose that a PL 3manifold M is orientable. If X is an orientable PL 2manifold properly embedded in M (namely, X M = X), then η(x; M) = X [0, 1], where X is identified with X {1/2} and η(x; M) M is identified with X [0, 1]. Theorem (Moise [10]). Every compact 3manifold is a PL 3manifold. In the remainder of these notes, we work in the PL category unless otherwise specified Fundamental definitions. By the term surface, we will mean a connected compact 2manifold. Let F be a surface. A loop α in F is said to be inessential in F if α bounds a disk in F, otherwise α is said to be essential in F. An arc γ properly embedded in F is said to be inessential in F if γ cuts off a disk from F, otherwise γ is said to be essential in F. Let M be a compact orientable 3manifold. A disk D properly embedded in M is said to be inessential in M if D cuts off a 3ball from M, otherwise D is said to be essential in M. A 2sphere P properly embedded in M is said to be inessential in M if P bounds a 3ball in M, otherwise P is said to be essential
4 4 TOSHIO SAITO, MARTIN SCHARLEMANN AND JENNIFER SCHULTENS in M. Let F be a surface properly embedded in M. We say that F is parallel in M if F cuts off a 3manifold homeomorphic to F [0, 1] from M. We say that F is compressible in M if there is a disk D M such that D F = D and D is an essential loop in F. Such a disk D is called a compressing disk. We say that F is incompressible in M if F is not compressible in M. The surface F is compressible in M if there is a disk δ M such that δ F is an arc which is essential in F, say γ, in F and that δ M is an arc, say γ, with γ γ = δ. Otherwise F is said to be incompressible in M. Suppose that F is homeomorphic neither to a disk nor to a 2sphere. The surface F is said to be essential in M if F is incompressible in M and is not parallel in M. Definition Let M be a connected compact orientable 3manifold. (1) M is said to be reducible if there is a 2sphere in M which does not bound a 3ball in M. Such a 2sphere is called a reducing 2sphere of M. M is said to be irreducible if M is not reducible. (2) M is said to be reducible if there is a disk properly embedded in M whose boundary is essential in M. Such a disk is called a reducing disk. 3. Heegaard splittings 3.1. Definitions and fundamental properties. Definition A 3manifold C is called a compression body if there exists a closed surface F such that C is obtained from F [0, 1] by attaching 2handles along mutually disjoint loops in S {1} and filling in some resulting 2sphere boundary components with 3handles (cf. Figure 5). We denote F {0} by + C and C \ + C by C. A compression body C is called a handlebody if C =. A compression body C is said to be trivial if C = F [0, 1]. Definition For a compression body C, an essential disk in C is called a meridian disk of C. A union of mutually disjoint meridian disks of C is called a complete meridian system if the manifold obtained from C by cutting along are the union of C [0, 1] and (possibly empty) 3balls. A complete meridian system of C is minimal if the number of the components of is minimal among all complete meridian system of C. Remark The following properties are known for compression bodies. (1) A compression body C is reducible if and only if C contains a 2sphere component. (2) A minimal complete meridian system of a compression body C cuts C into C [0, 1] if C, and cuts C into a 3ball if C = (hence C is a handlebody). (3) By extending the cores of the 2handles in the definition of the compression body C vertically to F [0, 1], we obtain a complete meridian system of C such that the manifold obtained by cutting C along is homeomorphic to a union of C [0, 1] and some (possibly empty) 3balls. This gives a dual description of compression bodies. That is, a compression body C is obtained from C [0, 1] and some (possibly empty) 3balls by attaching
5 LECTURE NOTES ON GENERALIZED HEEGAARD SPLITTINGS 5 Dual discription F [0, 1] ց ւ Figure 5 some 1handles to C {1} and the boundary of the 3balls (cf. Figure 5). (4) For any compression body C, C is incompressible in C. (5) Let C and C be compression bodies. Suppose that C is obtained from C and C by identifying a component of C and + C. Then C is a compression body. (6) Let D be a meridian disk of a compression body C. Then there is a complete meridian system of C such that D is a component of. Any component obtained by cutting C along D is a compression body. Exercise Show Remark An annulus A properly embedded in a compression body C is called a spanning annulus if A is incompressible in C and a component of A is contained in + C and the other is contained in C. Lemma Let C be a nontrivial compression body. Let A be a spanning annulus in C. Then there is a meridian disk D of C with D A =. Proof. Since C is nontrivial, there is a meridian disk of C. We choose a meridian disk D of C such that D intersects A transversely and D A is minimal among all such meridian disks. Note that A C is an essential loop in the component of C containing A C. We shall prove that D A =. To this end, we suppose D A.
6 6 TOSHIO SAITO, MARTIN SCHARLEMANN AND JENNIFER SCHULTENS Claim 1. There are no loop components of D A. Proof. Suppose that D A has a loop component which is inessential in A. Let α be a loop component of D A which is innermost in A, that is, α cuts off a disk δ α from A such that the interior of δ α is disjoint from D. Such a disk δ α is called an innermost disk for α. We remark that α is not necessarily innermost in D. Note that α also bounds a disk in D, say δ α. Then we obtain a disk D by applying cut and paste operation on D with using δ α and δ α, i.e., D is obtained from D by removing the interior of δ α and then attaching δ α (cf. Figure 6). Note that D is a meridian disk of C. Moreover, we can isotope the interior of D slightly so that D A < D A, a contradiction. (Such an argument as above is called an innermost disk argument.) α δ α δ α δ α A D Figure 6 D Hence if D A has a loop component, we may assume that the loop is essential in A. Let α be a loop component of D A which is innermost in D, and let δ α be the innermost disk in D with δ α = α. Then α cuts A into two annuli, and let A be the component obtained by cutting A along α such that A is adjacent to C. Set D = A δ α. Then D ( C) is a compressing disk of C, contradicting (4) of Remark Hence we have Claim 1. Claim 2. There are no arc components of D A. Proof. Suppose that there is an arc component of D A. Note that D + C. Hence we may assume that each component of D A is an inessential arc in A whose endpoints are contained in + C. Let γ be an arc component of D A which is outermost in A, that is, γ cuts off a disk δ γ from A such that the interior of δ γ is disjoint from D. Such a disk δ γ is called an outermost disk for γ. Note that γ cuts D into two disks δ γ and δ γ (cf. Figure 7). If both δ γ δ γ and δ γ δ γ are inessential in C, then D is also inessential in C, a contradiction. So we may assume that D = δ γ δ γ is essential in C. Then we can isotope D slightly so that D A < D A, a contradiction. Hence we have Claim 2. (Such an argument as above is called an outermost disk argument.) Hence it follows from Claims 1 and 2 that D A =, and this completes the proof of Lemma Remark Let A be a spanning annulus in a nontrivial compression body C.
7 LECTURE NOTES ON GENERALIZED HEEGAARD SPLITTINGS 7?γ δ γ γ A Figure 7 } {{ } δ γ } {{ } δ γ D (1) By using the arguments of the proof of Lemma 3.1.5, we can show that there is a complete meridian system of C with A =. (2) It follows from (1) above that there is a meridian disk E of C such that E A = and E cuts off a 3manifold which is homeomorphic to (a closed surface) [0, 1] containing A. Exercise Show Remark Let ᾱ = α 1 α p be a union of mutually disjoint arcs in a compression body C. We say that ᾱ is vertical if there is a union of mutually disjoint spanning annuli A 1 A p in C such that α i A j = (i j) and α i is an essential arc properly embedded in A i (i = 1, 2,..., p). Lemma Suppose that ᾱ = α 1 α p is vertical in C. Let D be a meridian disk of C. Then there is a meridian disk D of C with D ᾱ = which is obtained by cutandpaste operation on D. Particularly, if C is irreducible, then D is ambient isotopic such that D ᾱ =. Proof. Let Ā = A 1 A p be a union of annuli for ᾱ as above. By using innermost disk arguments, we see that there is a meridian disk D such that no components of D Ā are loops which are inessential in Ā. We remark that D is ambient isotopic to D if C is irreducible. Note that each component of Ā is incompressible in C. Hence no components of D Ā are loops which are essential in Ā. Hence each component of D Ā is an arc; moreover since D is contained in + C, the endpoints of the arc components of D Ā are contained in +C Ā. Then it is easy to see that there exists an arc β i ( A i ) such that β i is essential in A i and β i D =. Take an ambient isotopy h t (0 t 1) of C such that h 0 (β i ) = β i, h t (Ā) = Ā and h 1(β i ) = α i (i = 1, 2,..., p) (cf. Figure 8). Then the ambient isotopy h t assures that D is isotoped so that D is disjoint from ᾱ. In the remainder of these notes, let M be a connected compact orientable 3manifold. Definition Let ( 1 M, 2 M) be a partition of components of M. A triplet (C 1, C 2 ; S) is called a Heegaard splitting of (M; 1 M, 2 M) if C 1 and C 2 are compression bodies with C 1 C 2 = M, C 1 = 1 M, C 2 = 2 M and C 1 C 2 = + C 1 = + C 2 = S. The surface S is called a Heegaard surface and the genus of a Heegaard splitting is defined by the genus of the Heegaard surface.
8 8 TOSHIO SAITO, MARTIN SCHARLEMANN AND JENNIFER SCHULTENS α i A i Figure 8 K 1 K 2 Figure 9 Theorem For any partition ( 1 M, 2 M) of the boundary components of M, there is a Heegaard splitting of (M; 1 M, 2 M). Proof. It follows from Theorem that M is triangulated, that is, there is a finite simplicial complex K which is homeomorphic to M. Let K be a barycentric subdivision of K and K 1 the 1skeleton of K. Here, a 1skeleton of K is a union of the vertices and edges of K. Let K 2 K be the dual 1skeleton (see Figure 9). Then each of K i (i = 1, 2) is a finite graph in M. Case 1. M =. Recall that K 1 consists of 0simplices and 1simplices. Set C 1 = η(k 1 ; M) and C 2 = η(k 2 ; M). Note that a regular neighborhood of a 0simplex corresponds to a 0handle and that a regular neighborhood of a 1simplex corresponds to a 1 handle. Hence C 1 is a handlebody. Similarly, we see that C 2 is also a handlebody. Then we see that C 1 C 2 = M and C 1 C 2 = C 1 = C 2. Hence (C 1, C 2 ; S) is a Heegaard splitting of M with S = C 1 C 2. Case 2. M. In this case, we first take the barycentric subdivision of K and use the same notation K. Recall that K is the barycentric subdivision of K. Note that no 3simplices of K intersect both 1 M and 2 M. Let N( 2 M) be a union of the 3 simplices in K intersecting 2 M. Then N( 2 M) is homeomorphic to 2 M [0, 1], where 2 M {0} is identified with 2 M. Set 2 M = 2M {1}. Let K 1 ( K 2
9 LECTURE NOTES ON GENERALIZED HEEGAARD SPLITTINGS 9 K 1 K 1 2 M K 2 K 2 2 M 1 M Figure 10 resp.) be the maximal subcomplex of K 1 (K 2 resp.) such that K 1 ( K 2 resp.) is disjoint from 2M ( 1 M resp.) (cf. Figure 10). Set C 1 = η( 1 M K 1 ; M). Note that C 1 = η( 1 M; M) η( K 1 ; M). Note again that a regular neighborhood of a 0simplex corresponds to a 0handle and that a regular neighborhood of a 1simplex corresponds to a 1handle. Hence C 1 is obtained from 1 M [0, 1] by attaching 0handles and 1handles and therefore C 1 is a compression body with C 1 = 1 M. Set C 2 = η(n( 2 M) K 2 ; M). By the same argument, we can see that C 2 is a compression body with C 2 = 2 M. Note that C 1 C 2 = M and C 1 C 2 = C 1 = C 2. Hence (C 1, C 2 ; S) is a Heegaard splitting of M with S = C 1 C 2. We now introduce alternative viewpoints to Heegaard splittings as remarks below. Definition Let C be a compression body. A finite graph Σ in C is called a spine of C if C \ ( C Σ) = + C [0, 1) and every vertex of valence one is in C (cf. Figure 11). Figure 11 Remark Let (C 1, C 2 ; S) be a Heegaard splitting of (M; 1 M, 2 M). Let Σ i be a spine of C i, and set Σ i = im Σ i (i = 1, 2). Then M \ (Σ 1 Σ 2 ) = (C 1 \ Σ 1 ) S (C 2 \ Σ 2 ) = S (0, 1). Hence there is a continuous function f : M [0, 1] such that f 1 (0) = Σ 1, f 1 (1) = Σ 2 and f 1 (t) = S (0 < t < 1). This is called a sweepout picture.
10 10 TOSHIO SAITO, MARTIN SCHARLEMANN AND JENNIFER SCHULTENS Remark Let (C 1, C 2 ; S) be a Heegaard splitting of (M; 1 M, 2 M). By a dual description of C 1, we see that C 1 is obtained from 1 M [0, 1] and 0handles H 0 by attaching 1handles H 1. By Definition 3.1.1, C 2 is obtained from S [0, 1] by attaching 2handles H 2 and filling some 2sphere boundary components with 3handles H 3. Hence we obtain the following decomposition of M: M = 1 M [0, 1] H 0 H 1 S [0, 1] H 2 H 3. By collapsing S [0, 1] to S, we have: M = 1 M [0, 1] H 0 H 1 S H 2 H 3. This is called a handle decomposition of M induced from (C 1, C 2 ; S). Definition Let (C 1, C 2 ; S) be a Heegaard splitting of (M; 1 M, 2 M). (1) The splitting (C 1, C 2 ; S) is said to be reducible if there are meridian disks D i (i = 1, 2) of C i with D 1 = D 2. The splitting (C 1, C 2 ; S) is said to be irreducible if (C 1, C 2 ; S) is not reducible. (2) The splitting (C 1, C 2 ; S) is said to be weakly reducible if there are meridian disks D i (i = 1, 2) of C i with D 1 D 2 =. The splitting (C 1, C 2 ; S) is said to be strongly irreducible if (C 1, C 2 ; S) is not weakly reducible. (3) The splitting (C 1, C 2 ; S) is said to be reducible if there is a disk D properly embedded in M such that D S is an essential loop in S. Such a disk D is called a reducing disk for (C 1, C 2 ; S). (4) The splitting (C 1, C 2 ; S) is said to be stabilized if there are meridian disks D i (i = 1, 2) of C i such that D 1 and D 2 intersect transversely in a single point. Such a pair of disks is called a cancelling pair of disks for (C 1, C 2 ; S). Example Let (C 1, C 2 ; S) be a Heegaard splitting such that each of C i (i = 1, 2) consists of two 2spheres and that S is a 2sphere. Note that there does not exist an essential disk in C i. Hence (C 1, C 2 ; S) is strongly irreducible. Suppose that (C 1, C 2 ; S) is stabilized, and let D i (i = 1, 2) be disks as in (4) of Definition Note that since D 1 intersects D 2 transversely in a single point, we see that each of D i (i = 1, 2) is nonseparating in S and hence each of D i (i = 1, 2) is nonseparating in C i. Set C 1 = cl(c 1 \ η(d 1 ; C 1 )) and C 2 = C 2 η(d 1 ; C 1 ). Then each of C i (i = 1, 2) is a compression body with + C 1 = +C 2 (cf. (6) of Remark 3.1.3). Set S = + C 1 (= +C 2 ). Then we obtain the Heegaard splitting (C 1, C 2; S ) of M with genus(s ) = genus(s) 1. Conversely, (C 1, C 2 ; S) is obtained from (C 1, C 2; S ) by adding a trivial handle. We say that (C 1, C 2 ; S) is obtained from (C 1, C 2 ; S ) by stabilization. Observation Every reducible Heegaard splitting is weakly reducible. Lemma Let (C 1, C 2 ; S) be a Heegaard splitting of (M; 1 M, 2 M) with genus(s) 2. If (C 1, C 2 ; S) is stabilized, then (C 1, C 2 ; S) is reducible. Proof. Suppose that (C 1, C 2 ; S) is stabilized, and let D i (i = 1, 2) be meridian disks of C i such that D 1 intersects D 2 transversely in a single point. Then η( D 1 D 2 ; S) bounds a disk D i in C i for each i = 1 and 2. In fact, D 1 (D 2 resp.) is obtained from two parallel copies of D 1 (D 2 resp.) by adding a band
11 LECTURE NOTES ON GENERALIZED HEEGAARD SPLITTINGS 11 along D 2 \ (the product region between the parallel disks) ( D 1 \ (the product region between the parallel disks) resp.) (cf. Figure 12). D 2 D 1 D 1 D 2 C 1 C 2 D 1 D 2 Figure 12 Note that D 1 = D 2 cuts S into a torus with a single hole and the other surface S. Since genus(s) 2, we see that genus(s ) 1. Hence D 1 = D 2 is essential in S and therefore (C 1, C 2 ; S) is reducible. Definition Let (C 1, C 2 ; S) be a Heegaard splitting of (M; 1 M, 2 M). (1) Suppose that M = S 3. We call (C 1, C 2 ; S) a trivial splitting if both C 1 and C 2 are 3balls. (2) Suppose that M = S 3. We call (C 1, C 2 ; S) a trivial splitting if C i is a trivial handlebody for i = 1 or 2. Remark Suppose that M = S 3. If (M; 1 M, 2 M) admits a trivial splitting (C 1, C 2 ; S), then it is easy to see that M is a compression body. Particularly, if C 2 (C 1 resp.) is trivial, then M = 1 M and + M = 2 M ( M = 2 M and + M = 1 M resp.). Lemma Let (C 1, C 2 ; S) be a nontrivial Heegaard splitting of (M; 1 M, 2 M). If (C 1, C 2 ; S) is reducible, then (C 1, C 2 ; S) is weakly reducible. Proof. Let D be a reducing disk for (C 1, C 2 ; S). (Hence D S is an essential loop in S.) Set D 1 = D C 1 and A 2 = D C 2. By exchanging subscripts, if necessary, we may suppose that D 1 is a meridian disk of C 1 and A 2 is a spanning annulus in C 2. Note that A 2 C 2 is an essential loop in the component of C 2 containing A 2 C 2. Since C 2 is nontrivial, there is a meridian disk of C 2. It follows from Lemma that we can choose a meridian disk D 2 of C 2 with D 2 A 2 =. This implies that D 1 D 2 =. Hence (C 1, C 2 ; S) is weakly reducible Haken s theorem. In this subsection, we prove the following. Theorem Let (C 1, C 2 ; S) be a Heegaard splitting of (M; 1 M, 2 M).
12 12 TOSHIO SAITO, MARTIN SCHARLEMANN AND JENNIFER SCHULTENS (1) If M is reducible, then (C 1, C 2 ; S) is reducible or C i is reducible for i = 1 or 2. (2) If M is reducible, then (C 1, C 2 ; S) is reducible. Note that the statement (1) of Theorem is called Haken s theorem and proved by Haken [4], and the statement (2) of Theorem is proved by Casson and Gordon [1]. We first prove the following proposition, whose statement is weaker than that of Theorem 3.2.1, after showing some lemmas. Proposition If M is reducible or reducible, then (C 1, C 2 ; S) is reducible, reducible, or C i is reducible for i = 1 or 2. We give a proof of Proposition by using Otal s idea (cf. [11]) of viewing the Heegaard splittings as a graph in the three dimensional space. Edge slides of graphs. Let Γ be a finite graph in a 3manifold M. Choose an edge σ of Γ. Let p 1 and p 2 be the vertices of Γ incident to σ. Set Γ = Γ \σ. Here, we may suppose that σ η( Γ; M) consists of two points, say p 1 and p 2, and that cl(σ \ (p 1 p 2 )) consists of α 0, α 1 and α 2 with α 0 = p 1 p 2, α 1 = p 1 p 1 and α 2 = p 2 p 2 (cf. Figure 13). σ p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 Figure 13 Take a path γ on η( Γ; M) with γ p 1. Let σ be an arc obtained from γ α 0 α 2 by adding a straight short arc in η( Γ; M) connecting the endpoint of γ other than p 1 and a point p 1 in the interior of an edge of Γ (cf. Figure 14). Let Γ be a graph obtained from Γ σ by adding p 1 as a vertex. Then we say that Γ is obtained from Γ by an edge slide on σ. γ α 0 { }} { p 1 p 2 p 1 Figure 14 If p 1 is a trivalent vertex, then it is natural for us not to regard p 1 as a vertex of Γ. Particularly, the deformation of Γ which is depicted as in Figure 15 is realized by an edge slide and an isotopy. This deformation is called a Whitehead move.
13 LECTURE NOTES ON GENERALIZED HEEGAARD SPLITTINGS 13 Figure 15 A Proof of Proposition Let Σ be a spine of C 1. Note that η( C 1 Σ;M) is obtained from regular neighborhoods of C 1 and the vertices of Σ by attaching 1handles corresponding to the edges of Σ. Set Σ η = η(σ;m). The notation h 0 v, called a vertex of Σ η, means a regular neighborhood of a vertex v of Σ. Also, the notation h 1 σ, called an edge of Σ η, means a 1handle corresponding to an edge σ of Σ. Let = D 1 D k be a minimal complete meridian system of C 2. Let P be a reducing 2sphere or a reducing disk of M. If P is a reducing disk, we may assume that P C 2 by changing subscripts. We may assume that P intersects Σ and transversely. Set Γ = P (Σ η ). We note that Γ is a union of disks P Σ η and a union of arcs and loops P in P. We choose P, Σ and so that the pair ( P Σ, P ) is minimal with respect to lexicographic order. Lemma Each component of P is an arc. Proof. For some disk component, say D 1, of, suppose that P D 1 has a loop component. Let α be a loop component of P D 1 which is innermost in D 1, and let δ α be an innermost disk for α. Let δ α be a disk in P with δ α = α. Set P = (P \δ α ) δ α if P is a reducing disk, or set P = (P \δ α ) δ α and P = δ α δ α if P is a reducing 2sphere. If P is a reducing disk, then P is also a reducing disk. If P is a reducing 2sphere, then either P or P, say P, is a reducing 2 sphere. Moreover, we can isotope P so that ( P Σ, P ) < ( P Σ, P ). This contradicts the minimality of ( P Σ, P ). By Lemma 3.2.3, we can regard Γ as a graph in P which consists of fatvertices P Σ η and edges P. An edge of the graph Γ is called a loop if the edge joins a fatvertex of Γ to itself, and a loop is said to be inessential if the loop cuts off a disk from cl(p \ Σ η ) whose interior is disjoint from Γ Σ η. Lemma Γ does not contain an inessential loop. Proof. Suppose that Γ contains an inessential loop µ. Then µ cuts off a disk δ µ from cl(p \Σ η ) such that the interior of δ µ is disjoint from Γ Σ η (cf. Figure 16). We may assume that δ µ = δ µ D 1. Then µ cuts D 1 into two disks D 1 and D 1 (cf. Figure 17).
14 14 TOSHIO SAITO, MARTIN SCHARLEMANN AND JENNIFER SCHULTENS an inessential monogon Figure 16 D 1 P P δ µ D 1 Figure 17 Let C 2 be the component, which is obtained by cutting C 2 along, such that C 2 contains δ µ. Let D 1 + be the copy of D 1 in C 2 with D+ 1 δ µ and D1 the other copy of D 1. Note that C 2 is a 3ball or a (a component of C 2 ) [0, 1]. This shows that there is a disk δ µ in +C 2 such that δ µ = δ µ and δ µ δ µ bounds a 3ball in C 2. Note that δ µ D 1 +. By changing superscripts, if necessary, we may assume that δ µ D 1 (cf. Figure 18). D + 1 { }} { D 1 D 1 + C 2 } {{ } δ µ δ µ Figure 18
15 LECTURE NOTES ON GENERALIZED HEEGAARD SPLITTINGS 15 Set D 0 = δ µ D 1 if δ µ D 1, and D 0 = δ µ D 1 if δ µ D 1 =. We may regard D 0 as a disk properly embedded in C 2. Set = D 0 D 2 D k. Then we see that is a minimal complete meridian system of C 2. We can further isotope D 0 slightly so that P < P. This contradicts the minimality of ( P Σ, P ). A fatvertex of Γ is said to be isolated if there are no edges of Γ adjacent to the fatvertex (cf. Figure 19). an isolated fatvertex Figure 19 Lemma If Γ has an isolated fatvertex, then (C 1, C 2 ; S) is reducible or reducible. Proof. Suppose that there is an isolated fatvertex D v of Γ. Recall that D v is a component of P Σ η which is a meridian disk of C 1. Note that D v is disjoint from (cf. Figure 20). P D v Figure 20 Let C 2 be the component obtained by cutting C 2 along such that C 2 contains D v. If D v bounds a disk D v in C 2, then D v and D v indicates the reducibility of (C 1, C 2 ; S). Otherwise, C 2 is a (a closed orientable surface) [0, 1], and D v is a boundary component of a spanning annulus in C 2 (and hence C 2 ). Hence we see that (C 1, C 2 ; S) is reducible. Lemma Suppose that no fatvertices of Γ are isolated. Then each fatvertex of Γ is a base of a loop.
16 16 TOSHIO SAITO, MARTIN SCHARLEMANN AND JENNIFER SCHULTENS the following three cases.?? D w D w D w D w γ D w δ γ D w D D w D w 1 Figure 21 Proof. Suppose that there is a fatvertex D w of Γ which is not a base of a loop. Since no fatvartices of Γ are isolated, there is an edge of Γ adjacent to D w. Let σ be the edge of Σ with h 1 σ D w. (Recall that h 1 σ is a 1handle of Σ η corresponding to σ.) Let D be a component of with D h 1 σ. Let C w be a union of the arc components of D P which are adjacent to D w. Let γ be an arc component of C w which is outermost among the components of C w. We call such an arc γ an outermost edge for D w of Γ. Let δ γ D be a disk obtained by cutting D along γ whose interior is disjoint from the edges incident to D w. We call such a disk δ γ an outermost disk for (D w, γ). (Note that δ γ may intersects P transversely (cf. Figure 21).) Let D w ( D w ) be the fatvertex of Γ attached to γ. Then we have Case 1. ( δ γ \ γ) (h 1 σ D). In this case, we can isotope σ along δ γ to reduce P Σ (cf. Figure 22). δ γ D w σ Dw γ δ γ P D w D w σ γ Figure 22 Case 2. ( δ γ \ γ) (h 1 σ D) and D w (h 1 σ D). Let p be the vertex of Σ such that p σ and h 0 p δ γ. Let β be the component of cl(σ \ D w ) which satisfies β p. Then we can slide β along δ γ so that β contains γ (cf. Figure 23). We can further isotope β slightly to reduce P Σ, a contradiction. Case 3. ( δ γ \ γ) (h 1 σ D) and D w (h1 σ D). Let p and p be the endpoints of σ. Let β and β be the components of cl(σ \ (D w D w )) which satisfy p β and p β. Suppose first that p p. Then we can slide β along δ γ so that β contains γ (cf. Figure 24). We can further isotope β slightly to reduce P Σ, a contradiction.
17 LECTURE NOTES ON GENERALIZED HEEGAARD SPLITTINGS 17 σ D w γ p δ γ δ γ D w D w P σ γ Figure 23 δ γ β D w p p β D w σ γ δ γ σ P p p β β D w D w σ γ Figure 24 Suppose next that p = p. In this case, we perform the following operation which is called a broken edge slide. p β β P D w D w w Figure 25 We first add w = D w Σ as a vertex of Σ. Then w cuts σ into two edges β and cl(σ \ β ). Since γ is an outermost edge for D w of Γ, we see that β β (cf. Figure 25). Hence we can slide cl(β \ β ) along δ γ so that cl(β \ β ) contains γ. We now remove the verterx w of Σ, that is, we regard a union of β and cl(σ \β ) as an edge of Σ again. Then we can isotope cl(σ \ β ) slightly to reduce P Σ, a contradiction (cf. Figure 26).
WHICH SCORING RULE MAXIMIZES CONDORCET EFFICIENCY? 1. Introduction
WHICH SCORING RULE MAXIMIZES CONDORCET EFFICIENCY? DAVIDE P. CERVONE, WILLIAM V. GEHRLEIN, AND WILLIAM S. ZWICKER Abstract. Consider an election in which each of the n voters casts a vote consisting of
More informationAN INTRODUCTION TO OMINIMAL GEOMETRY. Michel COSTE Institut de Recherche Mathématique de Rennes michel.coste@univrennes1.fr
AN INTRODUCTION TO OMINIMAL GEOMETRY Michel COSTE Institut de Recherche Mathématique de Rennes michel.coste@univrennes1.fr November 1999 Preface These notes have served as a basis for a course in Pisa
More informationRegular Languages are Testable with a Constant Number of Queries
Regular Languages are Testable with a Constant Number of Queries Noga Alon Michael Krivelevich Ilan Newman Mario Szegedy Abstract We continue the study of combinatorial property testing, initiated by Goldreich,
More informationFoundations of Data Science 1
Foundations of Data Science John Hopcroft Ravindran Kannan Version /4/204 These notes are a first draft of a book being written by Hopcroft and Kannan and in many places are incomplete. However, the notes
More informationHow many numbers there are?
How many numbers there are? RADEK HONZIK Radek Honzik: Charles University, Department of Logic, Celetná 20, Praha 1, 116 42, Czech Republic radek.honzik@ff.cuni.cz Contents 1 What are numbers 2 1.1 Natural
More informationAn Elementary Introduction to Modern Convex Geometry
Flavors of Geometry MSRI Publications Volume 3, 997 An Elementary Introduction to Modern Convex Geometry KEITH BALL Contents Preface Lecture. Basic Notions 2 Lecture 2. Spherical Sections of the Cube 8
More informationSubspace Pursuit for Compressive Sensing: Closing the Gap Between Performance and Complexity
Subspace Pursuit for Compressive Sensing: Closing the Gap Between Performance and Complexity Wei Dai and Olgica Milenkovic Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign
More informationSome Applications of Laplace Eigenvalues of Graphs
Some Applications of Laplace Eigenvalues of Graphs Bojan MOHAR Department of Mathematics University of Ljubljana Jadranska 19 1111 Ljubljana, Slovenia Notes taken by Martin Juvan Abstract In the last decade
More informationA Concise Course in Algebraic Topology. J. P. May
A Concise Course in Algebraic Topology J. P. May Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1. The fundamental group and some of its applications 5 1. What is algebraic topology? 5 2. The fundamental group 6 3.
More informationAn Introduction to 3Dimensional Contact Topology. XiaoSong Lin
An Introduction to 3Dimensional Contact Topology XiaoSong Lin 2 Contents Preface 5 1 Basics 7 1.1 Contact structures............................... 7 1.2 Symplectic structures..............................
More informationA GRAPHTHEORETIC DEFINITION OF A SOCIOMETRIC CLIQUE *
Journal of Mathematical Sociology Gordon and Breach Science Publishers 1973 Vol. 3, pp 113126 Printed in Birkenhead, England A GRAPHTHEORETIC DEFINITION OF A SOCIOMETRIC CLIQUE * RICHARD D. ALBA Columbia
More informationShort Cycles make Whard problems hard: FPT algorithms for Whard Problems in Graphs with no short Cycles
Short Cycles make Whard problems hard: FPT algorithms for Whard Problems in Graphs with no short Cycles Venkatesh Raman and Saket Saurabh The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai 600 113. {vraman
More informationAlgorithms for Designing PopUp Cards
Algorithms for Designing PopUp Cards Zachary Abel Erik D. Demaine Martin L. Demaine Sarah Eisenstat Anna Lubiw André Schulz Diane L. Souvaine Giovanni Viglietta Andrew Winslow Abstract We prove that every
More informationRandom matchings which induce Hamilton cycles, and hamiltonian decompositions of random regular graphs
Random matchings which induce Hamilton cycles, and hamiltonian decompositions of random regular graphs Jeong Han Kim Microsoft Research One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 9805 USA jehkim@microsoft.com Nicholas
More informationWHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT?
WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT? introduction Many students seem to have trouble with the notion of a mathematical proof. People that come to a course like Math 216, who certainly
More informationA PRIMER ON HOMOTOPY COLIMITS. Contents 1. Introduction 1
A PRIMER ON HOMOTOPY COLIMITS DANIEL DUGGER Contents 1. Introduction 1 Part 1. Getting started 4 2. First examples 4 3. Simplicial spaces 9 4. Construction of homotopy colimits 15 5. Homotopy limits and
More informationErgodicity and Energy Distributions for Some Boundary Driven Integrable Hamiltonian Chains
Ergodicity and Energy Distributions for Some Boundary Driven Integrable Hamiltonian Chains Peter Balint 1, Kevin K. Lin 2, and LaiSang Young 3 Abstract. We consider systems of moving particles in 1dimensional
More informationCOMPUTING EQUILIBRIA FOR TWOPERSON GAMES
COMPUTING EQUILIBRIA FOR TWOPERSON GAMES Appeared as Chapter 45, Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Vol. 3 (2002), eds. R. J. Aumann and S. Hart, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pages 1723 1759.
More informationSome Basic Techniques of Group Theory
Chapter 5 Some Basic Techniques of Group Theory 5.1 Groups Acting on Sets In this chapter we are going to analyze and classify groups, and, if possible, break down complicated groups into simpler components.
More informationONEDIMENSIONAL RANDOM WALKS 1. SIMPLE RANDOM WALK
ONEDIMENSIONAL RANDOM WALKS 1. SIMPLE RANDOM WALK Definition 1. A random walk on the integers with step distribution F and initial state x is a sequence S n of random variables whose increments are independent,
More informationWhen action is not least
When action is not least C. G. Gray a GuelphWaterloo Physics Institute and Department of Physics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1GW1, Canada Edwin F. Taylor b Department of Physics, Massachusetts
More informationPhysics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone
Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone John C. Baez Department of Mathematics, University of California Riverside, California 92521, USA Mike Stay Computer Science Department, University
More informationTHE PROBLEM OF finding localized energy solutions
600 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 45, NO. 3, MARCH 1997 Sparse Signal Reconstruction from Limited Data Using FOCUSS: A Reweighted Minimum Norm Algorithm Irina F. Gorodnitsky, Member, IEEE,
More informationProbability on Graphs
Probability on Graphs Random Processes on Graphs and Lattices GEOFFREY GRIMMETT Statistical Laboratory University of Cambridge Geoffrey Grimmett Statistical Laboratory Centre for Mathematical Sciences
More informationA 2factor in which each cycle has long length in clawfree graphs
A factor in which each cycle has long length in clawfree graphs Roman Čada Shuya Chiba Kiyoshi Yoshimoto 3 Department of Mathematics University of West Bohemia and Institute of Theoretical Computer Science
More informationA SELFGUIDE TO OMINIMALITY
A SELFGUIDE TO OMINIMALITY CAMERINO TUTORIAL JUNE 2007 Y. PETERZIL, U. OF HAIFA 1. How to read these notes? These notes were written for the tutorial in the Camerino Modnet Summer school. The main source
More informationWhat Cannot Be Computed Locally!
What Cannot Be Computed Locally! Fabian Kuhn Dept. of Computer Science ETH Zurich 8092 Zurich, Switzerland uhn@inf.ethz.ch Thomas Moscibroda Dept. of Computer Science ETH Zurich 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
More informationhow to use dual base log log slide rules
how to use dual base log log slide rules by Professor Maurice L. Hartung The University of Chicago Pickett The World s Most Accurate Slide Rules Pickett, Inc. Pickett Square Santa Barbara, California 93102
More informationYou know from calculus that functions play a fundamental role in mathematics.
CHPTER 12 Functions You know from calculus that functions play a fundamental role in mathematics. You likely view a function as a kind of formula that describes a relationship between two (or more) quantities.
More informationKonrad Polthier Math. Inst. Univ. Bonn Sonderforschungsbereich 256 Beringstr. 4 5300 Bonn 1 Germany. February 1993
Computing Discrete Minimal Surfaces and Their Conjugates Ulrich Pinkall Techn. Univ. Berlin Sonderforschungsbereich 288 Straße des 17. Juni 1000 Berlin 12 Germany Konrad Polthier Math. Inst. Univ. Bonn
More information