Not every orientable 3-manifold is a double cover of $S^3$ branched over a link. For example, the 3-torus isn't. However, in 1975 Montesinos conjectured (Surjery on links and double branched covers of $S^3$, in: "Knots, groups and 3-manifolds", papers dedicated to the memory of R. Fox) that every orientable 3-manifold is a double branched cover of a sphere with handles i.e. the connected sum of a certain number of copies of $S^1\times S^2$ (this number can be zero, in which case we get $S^3$). Notice that this time $T^3$ does not provide a counter-example since if we take the quotient of $T^3$ by the involution $(x,y,z)\mapsto (x^{-1}, y^{-1},z)$ we get $S^2\times S^1$.

I was wondering what the status of this conjecture is.


It is false. For example, there are closed, orientable, aspherical 3-manifolds that admit no nontrivial action of a finite group whatsoever. The first examples were due to F. Raymond and J. Tollefson in the 1970s, I believe.

  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand the answer. Why a manifold without nontrivial action cannot a branch cover of $S^1\times S^2$? Compare it with that every 3-manifold is a 3-fold branch cover of $S^3$. $\endgroup$ – Wolffo May 11 '10 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ It's because the question asks for a 2-fold cover, which would have to be regular. $\endgroup$ – Autumn Kent May 11 '10 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – Wolffo May 11 '10 at 15:09
  • $\begingroup$ Then is the conjecture true when restricting the condition on manifold with $\mathbb{Z}$ action? $\endgroup$ – Wolffo May 11 '10 at 15:41

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.