MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Any map of finite graphs (1-dimensional CW-complexes) factors as a composition of

  1. a finite sequence of folds;
  2. an inclusion; and
  3. a finite-to-one covering map.

There should be a corresponding result for handlebodies, which presumably should say that, after a homotopy, a continuous map of handlebodies factors as:

  1. a compression (by which I mean a map of a handle into the complement of its interior);
  2. an inclusion; and
  3. a finite-to-one covering map.

Is my intuition correct, and does anyone have a reference? I'm specifically interested in how well-behaved the homotopy can be taken to be. For instance, can it be made to respect the boundary?


A fold is a map that identifies two edges with a common endpoint. Many folds don't change the homotopy type of a graph, and one would expect not to need these in the handlebody setting. The important folds are the ones that kill a loop. In handlebody terms, you can think of this as gluing in a two-handle, or as cutting a one-handle - hence my use of the word "compression". Is this word acceptable in this context?

The graph-theoretic result is due to Stallings.

By an inclusion of handlebodies, I mean that the new one should be obtained from the old by attaching 1-handles.

EDIT (prompted by Sam's comments below) I'm not quite sure what "respect the boundary" should mean, at this point. Suggestions welcome!

share|cite|improve this question
What does "respect the boundary" mean? – Sam Nead Nov 18 '09 at 20:21
At each "time", the homotopy should map the boundary to itself. – HJRW Nov 18 '09 at 20:27
So the maps has to start by mapping the boundary to the boundary? For example, what about placing a trefoil knot in a three-ball, and thickening it a bit? A homotopy can unknot this (and then I guess you want to compress), but not in any boundary respecting way... – Sam Nead Nov 18 '09 at 23:30
I'd be happy to start with any factorization, and worry about whether the homotopy can be made nice later. – HJRW Nov 18 '09 at 23:45
What about taking a regular neighborhood of the (p,q) curve on the boundary (p times about the meridian, q times about the longitude). So this is incompressible... I suppose that you will homotope this to be a q-fold covering. I don't see how you are going to do this keeping the boundary "nice". – Sam Nead Nov 19 '09 at 0:02
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Suppose that we are given a PL map from a handlebody $W$ to a handlebody $V$. Choose a spine for $W$. Homotope the map until the image is a regular neighborhood of the image of the spine. By general position, our map is now an embedding. Fix a pants decomposition of disks $D = (D_i)$, for $V$. Suppose that $P$ is a component of $V - D$ (so $P$ is a three-ball with three distinguished disks on its boundary). Consider a component $X$ of $f(W) \cap P$. This is essentially a knotted graph. Via a homotopy (keeping $X \cap D$ fixed) unknot $X$. If the rank of $X$ is positive then another homotopy produces small lollipops which we shall compress a bit later. If $X$ meets any disk $D_i \subset \partial P$ more than once then we may homotope a leg of $X$ through $D_i$. Let $Y$ be the resulting component of $f(W) \cap P$. (Note that this reduces $f(W) \cap D$.)

Homotoping in this fashion we eventually arrive at an embedding of $W$ so that every component in every three-ball of $V - D$ is either a tripod or an interval, possibly with lollipops attached. The feet of the tripod/interval lie in distinct disks in the boundary of the containing solid pants.

Now compress all of the lollipops to get $f'(W')$ (a new handlebody, because we compressed and a new map because we have to extend it over the two-handles we added).

EDIT: This reproduces, in our context, part of Stallings paper (eg sliding the leg is a fold, arriving at only tripods and intervals produces an immersion.)

Since $f'$ is an immersion, it follows from Stallings paper that $f'$ is $\pi_1$ injective and that $W'$ embeds into a finite cover of $V$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Looks good! I want to use a homotopy to make X as big as possible in P, so the complement is either empty or a ball whose boundary contains one distinguished disc. If we do so then I think we get that, after a homotopy, the map factors as: glue on some 2-handles; glue on some 1-handles; and then a finite-sheeted covering. (Note that, in the question, I mentioned that by "inclusion", I meant gluing on 1-handles.) Does that sound right? – HJRW Nov 19 '09 at 16:27
(I mean that the complement of X in P should be a ball after X has been compressed.) – HJRW Nov 19 '09 at 16:31
This is right. After producing f' we can 1) isotope each components of $f'(W') \cap D_i$ to be homeomorphic to its containing disk, 2) apply isotopy extension to the map $f'$, and 3) fix the boundaries of the components $f'(W') \cap P$. – Sam Nead Nov 19 '09 at 17:54
Excellent! I think this is the best possible statement I could have hoped for. – HJRW Nov 19 '09 at 18:21

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.