4
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ be a compact, orientable and irreducible 3-manifold with with boundary consisting of two incompressible components $N_0,N_1$, with $N_i \stackrel{f_i}{\cong} S_g$ for some diffeomorphism $f_i: S_g \to N_i$, where $S_g$ is the closed orientable surface of genus $g $. I wonder if the following is true:

If $f_0 \simeq f_1$, i.e, if the $f_i $ are homotopic as maps from $S_g$ to $M$, then $M$ is homeomorphic to $ S_g \times [0,1]$.

I have the following idea for a proof: Since $f_0 \simeq f_1$, there is a map $f: S_g \times [0,1] \to M$ with $f(x,i) = f_i(x)$ for $i=0,1$. In particular, we have $f_0 = f \circ i_0$ with $i_0: S_g \to S_g \times [0,1]$ the natural inclusion of $S_g$. Since $f_0$ is $\pi_1$-injective and $i_0$ is a homotopy equivalence, $f$ must be $\pi_1$ injective. I would be done once I've shown that $f$ is also $\pi_1$-surjective, since this implies that $f$ is indeed homotopic to a homeomorphism.

Intuitively, this should be the case, but i cannot come up with a formal proof of this. Does anybody have an idea, or a counterexample ?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps a possible approach: using Morse theory your bordism can be decomposed into handles. If $M$ is not a product, then it should be obtained by adding handles to $S_g\times I$. And then your homotopy can be made transversal to the handles of that decomposition. $\endgroup$
    – ThiKu
    Dec 11, 2015 at 10:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Show that $f$ is a degree 1 map. Degree 1 maps must be surjective on the fundamental group (since they can't lift to a non-trivial cover). $\endgroup$
    – user83633
    Dec 11, 2015 at 11:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $f$ has degree 1 as a map of manifolds with boundary, ie the degree of the map on $H_2(M,\partial M) \cong Z$. This is because the degree of the map on the boundary is 1. That the degree is the same as the covering degree is a basic fact that you can find in textbooks. $\endgroup$
    – Danny Ruberman
    Dec 11, 2015 at 12:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You probably mean $H_3(M,\partial M)$, don't you ? I was aware of the equality of homological degree and covering degree for closed manifolds, I guess the generalization to compact manifolds is straightforward. $\endgroup$
    – H1ghfiv3
    Dec 11, 2015 at 13:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is a remarkable skill, being able to even write coherent setences while fast asleep. A small mistake does not matter $\endgroup$
    – H1ghfiv3
    Dec 11, 2015 at 20:11

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

This follows, fairly easily, from the hypothesis of irreducibility and from the "annulus theorem" (see page 130 of Jaco-Shalen's book "Seifert Fibered Spaces in 3-Manifolds"). You can remove the hypothesis of irreducibility if you are willing to use the Poincaré conjecture.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I thought the Poincare conjecture was a theorem these days? $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Dec 11, 2015 at 20:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @IgorRivin - Sure. But the original poster might want to avoid using a giant hammer of a theorem, when a tiny spatula of an assumption will do the same job. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Dec 11, 2015 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, my understanding has been that the whole "irreducibility" hypothesis was invented to weasel out of the PC, so now that we don't need to weasel any more... $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Dec 11, 2015 at 22:00
  • $\begingroup$ You mean only in context of this question? Because in general, it seems to me that even to this day, irreducible 3 manifolds are far better understood than general 3 manifolds. $\endgroup$
    – H1ghfiv3
    Dec 12, 2015 at 1:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @IgorRivin - Yes, correct. But we wouldn't want to waste a good weasel! $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Dec 13, 2015 at 9:59
0
$\begingroup$

Although this question has already been answered, I would like to shortly explain the idea on how to prove that $f$ is $\pi_1$-surjective, as it has been established in the comments below my original question. The result then follows from the classification of Haken manifolds (See Hempel's "3 Manifolds", for example).

I will use the notation from the origianl question:

Let $X:= S_g \times [0,1]$, and $x$ some basepoint in $X$, let $G := f_*(\pi_1(X,x)) \subset \pi_1(M,f(x))$ and let $g: N \to M$ be a covering map corresponding to the subgroup $G$. The map $f$ then lifts to a map $h:X \to N$, so that we have $g \circ h = f$. Moreover, $N$ is also a (possibly noncompact) manifold-with-boundary; the homological degree $deg(g)$ is therefore well-defined and its absolute value coincides with the covering degree of $g$. In particular, since $deg(f) = deg(g)*deg(h)$, we must have $deg(g)= \pm 1$. That is because $f$ restricts to a homeomorphism on the boundary, implying $deg(f)= \pm1$. But then $g$ must be the trivial covering map, so $G = \pi_1(M)$. Therefore, $f$ is indeed $\pi_1$-surjective.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.