MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider a Seifert fiber space. Is it always possible to find a finite cover that is a circle bundle and the preimage of any fiber is a finite union of circles?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted

If the Seifert fiber space is compact, then this is true, as long as the base orbifold is "good", which means that it has a finite-sheeted manifold cover, which is a compact surface. This induces a cover of the Seifert fiber space which is a circle bundle over the surface. If the base orbifold is bad, then no such covering will exist. This can happen for a Seifert fibering of $S^3$ over a football orbifold with distinct orders of torsion points, or over a teardrop orbifold. If the Seifert fiber space is non-compact, then there may be infinitely many exceptional fibers, and the base orbifold might have torsion of arbitrarily large order, so there is no hope of finding a finite-index cover which is a circle bundle.

See the draft of Thurston's book for more information on orbifolds and Seifert fibered spaces. Exercise 5.7.10 is on the Seifert fibering of $S^3$ over bad orbifolds.

share|cite|improve this answer
I was thinking about compact case. Thanks! And thanks for the book, it's kinda hard to read online though... – Zarathustra Aug 21 '10 at 22:30

I believe the answer is yes (although I haven't actually checked). Here's the idea: Given a Seifert-fibred space you can think of it as being fibred over a $2$-orbifold. You can de-singularise that $2$-orbifold by taking the appropriate branched cover. Pulling back the Seifert-fibering gives you a genuine $S^1$-bundle. This skirts the issue of whether or not you can de-singularize the $2$-orbifold by an appropriate cover but I believe it's not hard to show such "bad" 2-orbifolds never occur as the base space to a Seifert-fibred $3$-manifold. Right, they're classified here: and you can compare that to the base orbifolds of Seifert-fibred 3-manifolds to answer your question.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks! $ $ – Zarathustra Aug 21 '10 at 22:32
I suppose what one needs to do is check what the bad orbifold types are -- if they're only things like the the non-Hopf fibration fiberings of $S^3$, just replace those Seifert fiberings with the Hopf fibering, and you'd be done. – Ryan Budney Aug 21 '10 at 22:54
Ah, I think my first response (the one that I erased) was the one you were looking for. It's as Ian says, but here is perhaps a slightly more concrete version -- take a lens space like $L_{p,q}$ and its fibering always lifts to a singular fibering of of all of its covering spaces. If you allow yourself the freedom of changing the seifert fibering after you take a covering space, this isn't a problem. – Ryan Budney Aug 21 '10 at 23:13
How do you know that it's always possible to substitute the fibering over a bad orbifold with a "good" fibering? – Zarathustra Aug 23 '10 at 0:59
The caveat is you can only do it after a finite cover of the total space, so it's answering a slightly different question than you asked (the source of my confusion). But the reason is pretty simple. Compare the "bad" orbifolds here: to the classification of the fiberings of Seifert-fibred manifolds here: and you see the only problems are fiberings of lens spaces, $S^3$, $S^1\times S^2$ all of which have covers where you can replace the Seifert-fibrings with a bundle. – Ryan Budney Aug 27 '10 at 22:33

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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