4
$\begingroup$

Denote by $\Sigma_g$ the closed, orientable surface of genus $g$. I want to construct a cobordism $M_g$ between $\Sigma_g$ and $\Sigma_{g+1}$ with the following two nice properties:

1) $M_g$ is an orientable Haken manifold

2) The two boundary inclusions $\Sigma_g \hookrightarrow M_g$ and $\Sigma_{g+1} \hookrightarrow M_g$ are both $\pi_1$-injective. (By the loop theorem, this is equivalent to both components of $\partial M_g$ being incompressible in $M_g$)

I have made some attemps at constructing such $M_g$, here is what I came up with. Consider the product $X_g := \Sigma_g \times [0,1]$ and a smooth curve $\gamma \subset X_g$, properly embedded and transverse to $\partial X_g$, so that $\partial \gamma \subset \Sigma_g \times \{0\}$. By removing from $X_g$ an open tubular neighborhood $N$ of $\gamma$ (and smoothing the corners), one obtains a cobordism $X_g^\gamma$ between $\Sigma_g$ and $\Sigma_{g+1}$. By slightly extending the argument given in the answer to this similar question I posed a while ago, one can show that $X_g^\gamma$ will indeed always by an orientable Haken manifold. However, there are examples of such $X_g^\gamma$, where the inclusion $\Sigma_{g+1} \hookrightarrow M_g$ is not $\pi_1$-injective, and I do not know if there even exists a loop $\gamma$ as above, such that the resulting space $X_g^\gamma$ will have two incompressible boundary components.

QUESTION: Can the construction explained above even be used to obtain a "nice" cobordism between $\Sigma_g$ and $\Sigma_{g+1}$ ? If not, can someone give me a hint on how to properly approach this particular problem ?

I do not expect fully fleshed out answers. I would be more than happy about some hints. Thanks in advance!

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Yes, your construction works. Even with an "unknotted" arc your construction works. You can think of your manifold as a boundary connect sum of $S^1 \times S^1 \times [0,1] \setminus B^3$ with $\Sigma_g \times [0,1]$ along some embedded $D^3$ in the $S^2$-component of the first manifold's boundary. So this reduces checking $\pi_1$-injectivity to the $g=0$ case.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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