11
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ be a connected noncompact parallelisable smooth $n$-manifold. (By Hirsch-Smale theory, $M$ can be immersed into $\mathbb{R}^n$.) I am interested in the following two properties:

P1: $M$ can be smoothly embedded into $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$.

P2: $M$ admits a smooth embedding into $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ which is transverse to the constant vector field $e_{n+1}$ on $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$.

Questions/problems (my main concern is Q2):

Q1: Are P1 and P2 equivalent? If not, then I am asking Q2 and Q3 also for P1, but I am primarily interested in P2.

Q2: I'd like to have an example $M$ which does not have property P2. I expect that one exists. If not, then I'd like to have a proof of the nonexistence.

Q3: Assuming that an $M$ without P2 exists: what is the smallest dimension $n$ where P2-violation is possible?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

I was slightly confused by the wording of your question. I interpret it that you are asking first if an immersion into $R^n$ implies an embedding into $R^{n+1}$ (P1) and if so, if you get an embedding that is transverse to a coordinate vector field (P2). It wasn't clear to me whether you wanted to specify the immersion in $R^n$ to which the embedding resulting from P2 would project.

It is not true that parallelizability implies embedding into $R^{n+1}$, so P1 and a fortiori, P2 do not follow from the existence of an immersion in $R^n$. The easiest examples of this are for $n=3$, where you can take $M$ to be a punctured lens space $L(2p,q) - pt$, where the linking form (on the torsion in the homology) provides an obstruction. This goes back quite some time to W. Hantzsche: Einlagerung von Mannigfeltigkeiten in euklidishe Raume. Math. Zeit. 43 (1938). 38-58 and D. B. A. Epstein: Embedding punctured manifolds. Proc. A.M.S. 16 (1965), 175-176. A more modern treatment of the 3-dimensional case is in the paper On embeddings of 3-manifolds in 4-space, by P. Gilmer and C. Livingston, Topology Vol. 22. No. 3, pp. 241-252, 1983. There are examples in higher dimensions as well.

With regard to the equivalence of P1 and P2, I don't know the answer. An example of Carter and Saito (Surfaces in 3-space that do not lift to embeddings in 4-space. Knot theory (Warsaw, 1995), 29–47, Banach Center Publ., 42, Polish Acad. Sci., Warsaw, 1998) seems somewhat relevant, although they are concerned with closed surfaces, rather than the specified non-compact manifold. A potential counterexample to P1 implies P2 might be found amongst higher dimensional lens spaces, where stable parallelizability of a lens space whose fundamental group has prime-power order implies that the punctured manifold embeds in codimension one (so P1 holds). (This is according to an old paper of mine: Imbedding punctured lens spaces and connected sums. Pacific J. Math. 113 (1984), no. 2, 481–491.) But I don't know if there would be an obstruction to embedding transverse to a given vector field.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ You interpreted my question correctly. Thank you. Just to say it explicitly: Your answer shows also that the answer to Q3 is "n=3", because it is easy to see that every open 2-manifold which is parallelisable (equivalently: orientable) has property P2. (The case n<2 is trivial anyway.) $\endgroup$ Apr 16, 2014 at 21:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you mean "On embeddings of 3-manifolds in 4-space". The other way around would make a short paper! $\endgroup$ Apr 18, 2014 at 0:11
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Dylan--that was pretty silly; I fixed the citation. I might add that the survey of Budney and Burton, Embeddings of 3-manifolds in $S^4$ from the point of view of the 11-tetrahedron census (arxiv.org/abs/0810.2346) is a great resource for anything you might want to know about embeddings of 3-manifolds in 4-space. $\endgroup$ Apr 18, 2014 at 1:00

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.