4
$\begingroup$

Suppose $H_g$ is a genus $g$, orientable handlebody. Suppose $A\subset H_g$ is properly embedded ($\partial H_g \cap A = \partial A$, a transverse intersection), non-$\partial$-parallel annulus. It seems intuitively obvious to me that the closure of $H_g \setminus A$ should always be a (possibly disconnected) orientable handlebody, but perhaps there is something subtle I am missing. So is this as obvious as I think it is, or am I missing something here?

(Actually it seems like the non-$\partial$-parallel assumption may not be necessary).

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The components will be irreducible, and I think it is easy to see they have free fundamental groups (just think about how the fundamental groups assemble when you reglue along the annulus). This is enough to show they are handlebodies (by a theorem from somewhere in Hempel’s book — roughly speaking, the boundary cannot be $\pi_1$-injective, so by the disk theorem you can find an essential disk that you can cut along and induct). $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 18 at 1:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To elaborate on @AndyPutman’s comment a little further, if the annulus is homotopically essential then it follows from Britton’s lemma that the complementary components have free fundamental groups. It’s not so clear to me what happens if the annulus is homotopically trivial. $\endgroup$
    – HJRW
    Commented Aug 18 at 2:32

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

The answer to the question, as asked, is "no".

For, suppose that $B$ is a three-ball. So, $B$ is a genus zero handlebody. Let $\alpha$ be a knotted arc properly embedded in $B$. So the fundamental group of $B - \alpha$ is not free. Let $A$ be the frontier of a regular neighbourhood of $\alpha$. So $\alpha$ is an annulus, properly embedded in $B$. Cutting $B$ along $A$ and taking closures yields a three-ball ("inside $A$") and a knot complement ("outside $A$").

In general, we can take $H$ to be an handlebody of any genus and carry out the above procedure inside of a ball inside of $H$. Or we can use arcs $\alpha$ that do not lie in a three-ball in $H$ - there is no simple classification of knotted arcs in handlebodies.


However, in the above example the annulus $A$ is compressible. Perhaps you want to rule that out? If we add the assumption that $A$ is incompressible, then the answer to the question becomes "yes".

For, suppose that $H$ is a handlebody. Suppose that $A$ is a properly embedded incompressible annulus. Suppose that $D$ is a collection of essential disks, properly embedded in $H$, cutting $H$ into a collection of three-balls. We properly isotope $D$ to minimise the number of arcs of $A \cap D$.

We now cut $H$ along $D$. The components of $A$ (in the resulting three-balls) are all disks (as otherwise $A$ is compressible).

We now cut $H - D$ along $A$. By Alexander's lemma (and after taking closures) the result is a collection of three-balls. We call these the "pieces" of $H - (A \cup D)$. The remains of $\partial H$, $A$, and $D$ on the boundaries of the pieces are called "patches". So all patches are planar surfaces. In fact, all $D$- and all $A$-patches are disks (by the incompressibility of $A$ and the minimality of $A \cap D$).

We now reassemble the pieces of $H - (A \cup D)$, gluing only along the $D$-patches. So, we are gluing three-balls along disks: this gives a union of handlebodies.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think for the incompressible case you can also just argue as @AndyPutman suggests above, using Britton’s lemma and the theorem from Hempel. $\endgroup$
    – HJRW
    Commented Aug 18 at 11:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah: I agree that avoiding Dehn’s lemma is worthwhile! $\endgroup$
    – HJRW
    Commented Aug 18 at 14:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, thank you! Yes, I did want to assume that the annulus is incompressible. And thank you once again for answering another of my many 3-manifold related questions. :) $\endgroup$
    – luthien
    Commented Aug 19 at 3:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The argument applies without the assumption that $A$ is an annulus - it just needs to be incompressible. This is Lemma 2 in the paper "Additivity of tunnel number for small knots" by Jennifer Schultens (CMH 2000) $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 20 at 12:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @HJRW - Again, the extension (to the case where $A$ is an incompressible surface) does not need Dehn’s lemma. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Commented Aug 23 at 19:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .