Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is it true that any finitely presented group can be realized as fundamental group of compact 3-manifold with boundary?

share|improve this question
11  
There's no need to apologize for a stupid question, and this isn't one. –  Tom Church Nov 19 '09 at 17:17

3 Answers 3

up vote 16 down vote accepted

A couple of extra points.

Any compact 3-manifold with boundary $M$ can be doubled to give a closed 3-manifold $D$. As $M$ is a retract of $D$, it follows that $\pi_1(M)$ injects into $\pi_1(D)$. Therefore, any "poison subgroup" (such as the Baumslag--Solitar groups that Richard mentions above) applies just as well to compact 3-manifolds as closed 3-manifolds.

Other classes of poison subgroups can be constructed from cohomological conditions. The Kneser--Milnor Theorem implies that any closed, irreducible 3-manifold with infinite fundamental group is aspherical. It follows that any freely indecomposable infinite group with cohomologial dimension greater than 3 cannot be a subgroup of a closed 3-manifold (and hence of a compact 3-manifold, by the previous paragraph).

EDIT:

Oh, and yet another source of poison subgroups comes from Scott's theorem that 3-manifold groups are coherent, meaning that every finitely generated subgroup is finitely presented. This rules out subgroups like $F\times F$ (where $F$ is a free group), which is not coherent.

share|improve this answer
    
Do you know if there is an algorithm to decide if a group of 3-mnfld-with-bry is trivial? –  Anton Petrunin Nov 20 '09 at 18:15
2  
There is an algorithm to determine if $\pi_1(M)$ is trivial for compact $M$: If the boundary has a component that is not a sphere, then $M$ will have nontrivial homology. If the boundary is a union of spheres, then cap them off with balls to get a closed manifold $N$. Then, by the Poincare conjecture, which we now know, the question is whether or not $N$ is the three-sphere. You can use Rubinstein's algorithm to recognize the three-sphere to do this. –  Richard Kent Nov 20 '09 at 20:25
    
Thank you very much :) –  Anton Petrunin Nov 21 '09 at 5:59
    
A less intelligent but more simple-minded algorithm is just to apply geometrization and deduce that the word problem is (uniformly) solvable in 3-manifold groups. If you know how to solve the word problem then it's easy to tell if a group is trivial. –  HJRW Nov 21 '09 at 17:51
    
Could you explain a little bit how $M$ turns out to be a retract of its double $D$? –  Maharana Dec 27 '09 at 7:05

No. The Baumslag solitar groups $\langle a, b | ab^m a^{-1} = b^n \rangle$ are not 3-manifold groups when $m \neq n$.

See

Heil, Wolfgang H. Some finitely presented non-$3$-manifold groups. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 53 (1975), no. 2, 497--500.

(See also Peter Shalen, Three-Manifolds and Baumslag-Solitar groups Topology Appl. 110 (2001), 113--118)

share|improve this answer
    
Are you sure that manifolds there can haave boundary? –  Anton Petrunin Nov 19 '09 at 17:22
    
Yes. These groups are never the fundamental group of any 3-manifold. –  Richard Kent Nov 19 '09 at 17:27

I recently heard of a result due to Aitchison and Reeves which shows that any finitely presented group arises as the fundamental group of a 3-dimensional orbifold (where fundamental group means the topological and not the orbifold fundamental group). In fact, they say that the orbifold can be taken to be the quotient of a closed oriented hyperbolic 3-manifold by an isometric involution with isolated fixed points, all modelled on $x\mapsto -x$.

(I'm certainly no expert on this topic, just passing on what I heard.)

share|improve this answer
3  
I asked Aitchison, he only can make it to be fundamental group of $M^3/\mathbb Z_2$ where $M^3$ is closed orientable 3-manifold and $\mathbb Z_2$ acts on $M$ with isolated fixed points. The question if $M$ can be made hyperbolic and $\mathbb Z_2$ action isometric is not yet resolved. –  Anton Petrunin Mar 22 '11 at 2:36
    
Ah, that's good to know - I must have misunderstood, although I thought I was quite insistent on knowing about the hyperbolic case. Still, that's quite a while ago now, probably I've misremembered things. –  Joel Fine Mar 24 '11 at 19:18

Your Answer

 
discard

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.