6
$\begingroup$

I have seen in several sources that this results holds, however none of them included the proof. Does anyone know where I can find one?

Also, it would be great if someone could provide me with a counterexample, where irreducibility of the manifold matters.

Thank you.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

The proof might be too long for this fact. However, here is one reference

Algorithmic Topology and Classification of 3-Manifolds by Sergei Matveev in the series Algorithms and computations in Mathematics, Volume 9, 2003, Springer-Verlag.

You may start reading from page 167.

$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

Counterexample: the 3-ball $B^3$. It is irreducible because it is a compact submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^3$ with connected boundary. It has non-empty boundary and $\partial B$ is simply connected (and incompressible surfaces with boundary must send their boundary to curves which do not bound disks in $\partial B$). Hence if there is an incompressible surface it must be closed. Non orientable closed surfaces do not embed in $B^3$. Moreover, $B^3$ is simply connected and recall that by Dehn's lemma an orientable, closed surface with $\chi(S)\leq 0$ is incompressible if the inclusion is injective at the level of fundamental group.

However the following is true:

If $M$ is compact with non-empty boundary, oriented , irreducible, and $\partial$-irreducible* then either $M=B^3$ or $M$ contains an incompressible and $\partial$-incompressible surface.

This result relies on the fact that (under the above assumptions), given a class in $H_2(M,\partial M;\mathbb{Z})$ you can represent it by disjoint union of incompressible and and $\partial$-incompressible surfaces. *

You can find all the details for example in Bruno Martelli. An Introduction to Geometric Topology. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.02592.pdf Proposition 9.4.3 and Corollary 9.4.5.

*Meaning that there are no essential disks, in other words $M$ is not obtained by joining two 3-manifolds with a 1-handle.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ @Haldot The definition of incompressible surface I use (also used in the book mentioned above) concerns surfaces with non-positive Euler characteristic. This rules out 2-disks. In the case of 2-disks the interesting notion is the one of essential disk, which are disks that are not boundary parallel (i.e. are not obtained by pushing the interior or a disk in the boundary $\partial M$ into the interior of $M$). $\endgroup$ Jun 27, 2020 at 18:35
  • $\begingroup$ This is the "correct" notion of essential disk (as an essential sphere is one that does not bound a B^3 and an essential surface with $\chi\leq 0$ in necessarily incompressible) because as in the case of spheres finding an essential sphere allows you to decompose the manifold wrt connected sum, fiinding an essential 2-disk allows you to decompose the 3-manifold with respect to boundary connected sum) $\endgroup$ Jun 27, 2020 at 18:35
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, sorry, I deleted my comment before I saw your answer. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Haldot
    Jun 27, 2020 at 18:43

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.