Timeline for sufficient conditions on Non-Haken manifolds
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2013 at 6:37 | comment | added | yanqing | @Igor:I have constructed a closed manifold from Heegaard splitting. But I do not know whether it is a Haken or not. Since it is hard to determine it from the definition, I want to know some other sufficient conditions. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 6:35 | history | edited | yanqing | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Jul 11, 2013 at 6:33 | vote | accept | yanqing | ||
| Jul 11, 2013 at 6:33 | comment | added | yanqing | @Misha: Yeah, you are right. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 6:14 | comment | added | Misha | yanqing: Your definition of a non-Haken manifold is incorrect. A manifold is Haken if it is irreducible and sufficiently large. Negation would be: $M$ is Either reducible or is not sufficiently large. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 3:39 | answer | added | Ian Agol | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 3:27 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | I don't understand the question: since there is an algorithm to find an incompressible surface (e.g., Haken's algorithm), that algorithm will return with failure when the manifold is not Haken (or it will say that the surfaces it found were all spheres). | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 2:24 | history | asked | yanqing | CC BY-SA 3.0 |