Brandon Williams
mbw@math.sunysb.edu
November 25, 2008
Contents
1 Transversality and Intersection Theory 3
1.1 Immersions, Submersions and Transversality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Intersection Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Knot Theory 7
2.1 Basic Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 The Alexander Polynomial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Knot Signatures and 4Ball Genus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4 Cyclic and Branched Covers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.6 Knots in other 3Manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3 Handlebodies 26
3.1 Handlebody Decompositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2 Handle Moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 The Fundamental Group and Homology of a Handlebody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4 2Dimensional Handlebodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.5 Heegaard Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.6 Kirby Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4 Morse Theory 43
4.1 Morse Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2 Handlebody Decompositions Induced by Morse Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.3 Properties of Gradient Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.4 Existence of Morse Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5 Kirby Calculus 52
5.1 Surgery on Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2 Kirby Moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.3 The Rational Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6 4Manifold Theory 60
6.1 Intersection Forms on 4Manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.2 Kirby Calculus Reinterpreted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
1
7 Morse Homology 66
7.1 The MorseSmale Condition and Moduli Spaces of Flow Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
7.2 The Compactness and Gluing Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7.3 The Morse Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.4 A Natural Isomorphism between Morse and Singular Homology . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.5 Direct Invariance of Morse Homology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7.6 Orientations on Moduli Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
7.7 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
7.8 Wittens Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
8 Heegaard Floer Homology 87
8.1 Construction for 3Manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
8.2 Invariance of Heegaard Floer Homology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
8.2.1 Independence of Complex Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
8.2.2 Independence of Isotopies of Attaching Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
8.2.3 Independence of Handle Slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
8.2.4 Independence of Stabilizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
8.3 The Surgery Exact Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
8.4 The Absolute Q Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.5 Heegaard Floer Knot Homology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
A Homotopy Groups 117
B Duality Theorems 118
C Cohomology with Homotopy 119
D Homeomorphisms of Surfaces 120
E Some Analysis 121
F Some Exercises 124
References 126
2
1 Transversality and Intersection Theory
1.1 Immersions, Submersions and Transversality
Let ) : ` be a smooth map between smooth manifolds. A point j ` is said to be regular
if d)
p
: T
p
` T
f(p)
is surjective, otherwise it is said to be critical. The image of a critical
point is called a critical value, and a regular value in is any point that is not a critical value.
We say that ) is an immersion at j ` if d)
p
is injective, and a submersion at j ` if d)
p
is surjective. Recall the inverse function theorem and its corollaries pertaining to immersions and
submersions.
Theorem 1.1 (Inverse Function Theorem). If d)
p
: T
p
` T
f(p)
is an isomorphism, then ) is a
local dieomorphism at j, i.e. there is a neighborhood l of j and \ of )(j) such that )[
U
: l \
is a dieomorphism.
Corollary 1.1. If ) : `
m
n
is an immersion at j `, then there are coordinates :
l R
m
around j ` and : \ R
n
around )(j) such that )
1
(r
1
, . . . , r
m
) =
(r
1
, . . . , r
m
, 0, . . . , 0).
Proof. First let and be any charts such that (j) = (j) = 0, and let p = )
1
. Then
dp
0
: 1
m
1
n
is injective since ) is an immersion, so we can change the coordinates so that
dp
0
=
_
1
m
0
_
where 1
m
is the : : identity matrix and 0 is the (n :) : zero matrix. We cannot apply
the inverse function theorem to p since : < n, but if we dene G : (l) 1
nm
1
n
by
G(r, .) = p(r) + (0, .), then dG
0
= 1
n
. So G is a local dieomorphism, and G is another
chart around )(j) of . In these coordinates we have that the local representation of ) is just
(r
1
, . . . , r
m
) (r
1
, . . . , r
m
, 0, . . . , 0).
Corollary 1.2. If ) : `
n
m
is an submersion at j `, then there are coordinates : l R
n
around j ` and : \ R
m
around )(j) such that )
1
(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) = (r
1
, . . . , r
m
).
Proof. First let and be any charts such that (j) = (j) = 0, and let p = )
1
. Then
dp
0
: 1
n
1
m
is injective since ) is a submersion, so we can change the coordinates so that
dp
0
=
_
1
m
0
_
where 1
m
is the : : identity matrix and 0 is the : (n :) zero matrix. We cannot apply
the inverse function theorem to p since : < n, but if we dene G : 1
n
(\ ) 1
nm
by
G(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) = (p(r), r
m+1
, . . . , r
n
), then dG
0
= 1
n
. So G is a local dieomorphism, and G
1
is another chart around j of `. In these coordinates we have that the local representation of ) is
just (r
1
, . . . , r
n
) (r
1
, . . . , r
m
).
Corollary 1.3. If is a regular value of ) : `
n
m
, then )
1
() is a submanifold of ` with
codim)
1
() = :.
Proof. Let j )
1
(), then ) is a submersion at j, so by corollary 1.2 we can nd coordinates
: l R
n
around j and : \ R
m
around such that )
1
(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) = (r
1
, . . . , r
m
) and
() = (0, . . . , 0). Thus for r l and )(r) = we have (r) = (0, . . . , 0, r
m+1
, . . . , r
n
) for some
r
m+1
, . . . , r
n
. So restricted to l )
1
() provides a chart of the relatively open set l )
1
()
into R
nm
, making )
1
() into a submanifold of dimension n :.
3
Consider the following simple application of corollary 1.3. For realvalued functions )
1
, . . . , )
k
:
` R, when is the set 7 of common zeros a manifold? If we set ) = ()
1
, . . . , )
k
) : ` R
k
,
then it is clear that )
1
(0) is a manifold if 0 is a regular value of ). Another way of looking at
this is to see that d)
p
= ((d)
1
)
p
, . . . , (d)
k
)
p
) : T
p
` T
f(p)
R
k
, and this is surjective if and only
if (d)
1
)
p
, . . . , (d)
k
)
p
are linearly independent functionals. When this happens we say )
1
, . . . , )
k
are
independent at j, and so we have the following corollary.
Corollary 1.4. If )
1
, . . . , )
k
: ` R are independent at all points where they simultaneously
vanish, then the set of common zeros 7 is a submanifold with dim7 = dim` /.
In the case of the above corollary we say that the submanifold 7 has been cut out by the
functions )
1
, . . . , )
k
. However, not every submanifold can be globally cut out by independent
functions.
Now that we know the preimage of regular values are submanifolds, we naturally wonder if the
preimage of submanifolds are submanifolds. Two smooth maps ) : ` and p : 1 are
said to be transversal if at any point j ` and 1 for which )(j) = p() we have
d)
p
(T
p
`) +dp
q
(T
q
) = T
f(p)
and we denote this by ) p. Note that the above sum does not have to be direct, and in fact
most of the time will not be. If p is just the inclusion of a submanifold 1 of , then we say ) is
transverse to 1 and write ) 1. If ) is also an inclusion of a submanifold ` of , then we say
the submanifolds ` and 1 are transversal, and write ` 1.
Proposition 1.1. If ) : ` is transverse to a submanifold 1 in , then )
1
(1) is a subman
ifold of ` with codim)
1
(1) = codim1. In particular, if two submanifolds ` and 1 of are
transversal, then ` 1 is another submanifold of and codim(` 1) = codim` + codim1.
An important feature of immersions, submersions, transversal intersections and embeddings is
that they can be perturbed slightly, and they will remain in their respective class. To make
this precise we need to dene what we mean by perturbation. Fix a smooth map )
0
: ` ,
and let 1 : ` [1, 1] be a smooth map such that 1(, 0) = )
0
. In fact, we will use the
notation )
t
= 1(, t). Then any of the smooth maps )
t
: ` for t [1, 1] are called smooth
perturbations of )
0
; that is, we just smoothly homotoped )
0
a little bit. We say that a statement
1 dened on the space of smooth functions C
(`, ) such
that 1()) and every family of perturbations 1 of ), then there is a small enough c such that 1()
t
)
for all [t[ < c.
Theorem 1.2. Let ` be compact. The following statements are stable as statements on C
(`, ).
1. 1()) = ) is an immersion.
2. 1()) = ) is an submersion.
3. 1()) = ) is a local dieomorphism.
4. For a xed submanifold 7 , 1()) = ) is transversal to 7.
5. 1()) = ) is an embedding.
6. 1()) = ) is an dieomorphism.
4
Proof.
1. Suppose )
0
: `
m
n
is an immersion, and take a family 1 : `[1, 1] perturbations
of )
0
, i.e. 1(, 0) = )
0
. The result will follow if we prove every point (r, 0) ` [1, 1]
has an open neighborhood l
x
such that d)
p
is injective for all j l. For then we can
take their union l =
x
l
x
and choose an c 0 small enough so that ` (c, c) l.
Since this is now just a local question we might as well assume ` is an open subset of R
m
and is an open subset of R
n
. Since (d)
0
)
x
is injective, we have that the Jacobian matrix
(()
0
)
i
,r
j
(r))
ij
contains at least : linearly independent columns. We can of course assume
that these columns are the rst : columns of the Jacobian. If we consider the Jacobian as a
function of (r, t) A [1, 1], then we see that the determinant of the rst : columns is a
smooth function that is not equal to zero at (0, r), hence we can nd an c 0 small enough
so that it is not zero for (t, r), [t[ < c. Therefore all the )
t
s are immersions for [t[ < c.
2. The proof of this identical to 1 as now the Jacobian has n linearly independent rows.
3. This follows directly from 1 since a local dieomorphism is just an immersion for when
dim` = dim.
4. The condition of being transverse has an equivalent reformulation in terms of local submer
sions, so this follows from 2.
5. Recall that an embedding is a proper, injective immersion )
0
: ` . Since ` is compact,
)
0
is automatically proper, so we only need to prove that if )
0
is injective, then )
t
is injective
for [t[ less than some small c 0. We prove this by contradiction, so we can assume there is
a sequence of numbers t
i
0 and distinct points r
i
,= j
i
such that )
t
i
(r
i
) = )
t
i
(j
i
). Since `
is compact we can pass to a subsequence such that t
i
0, r
i
r, and j
i
j. If we dene
the function G : ` 1 1, then we have G(r
i
, t
i
) = G(j
i
, t
i
) (by denition), hence
G(r, 0) = lim
i
G(r
i
, t
i
) = lim
i
G(j
i
, t
i
) = G(j, 0)
Since )
0
is injective this implies r = j. The Jacobian of G at (r, 0) is in block form
_
_
_
_
_
d()
0
)
x
.
.
.
0 0 1
_
_
_
_
_
But, d()
0
)
x
is injective, hence dG
(x,0)
has at least : + 1 linearly independent columns and
so G is an immersion at (r, 0). This will remain true in a small neighborhood of (r, 0),
which must contain the points (r
i
, t
i
) and (j
i
, t
i
) for large enough i. This contradicts that
G(r
i
, t
i
) = G(j
i
, t
i
), therefore no such sequence can exist, and so )
t
is injective for [t[ small
enough.
6.
Now let us extend the ideas of transversality to manifolds with boundary. For a manifold `
with boundary, and a smooth map ) : ` , the restriction of ) to the boundary ` will be
denoted by ).
UNFINISHED
5
1.2 Intersection Theory
Recall the following classication of 1dimensional manifolds and one of its immediate corollaries.
Proposition 1.2. Every compact 1dimensional manifold is homeomorphic to a disjoint union of
circles and closed intervals.
Corollary 1.5. The number of boundary components of any compact 1dimensional manifold is
even.
Consider a smooth map ) : ` , with ` compact, and submanifold 7 `. By slightly
perturbing ), if necessary, we can assume ) 7 and so )
1
(7) is a submanifold of `. If
codim7 = dim`, then codim)
1
(7) = codim7 = dim`, hence )
1
(7) is a 0dimensional
manifold. Since ` is compact, )
1
(7) consists of nitely many points, so we dene the mod2
intersection number of ) and 7 by 1
2
(), 7) = #)
1
(7) mod 2. This is welldened by the
following proposition.
Proposition 1.3. If ), p : ` are homotopic, then 1
2
(), 7) = 1
2
(p, 7) mod 2.
Proof. Let 1 : `1 be a homotopy between ) and p. We can perturb 1 slightly, while keeping
1
0
and 1
1
xed, to make 1 7. Then 1
1
(7) is a submanifold of ` 1 with codim1
1
(7) =
codim7 = dim`, hence dim1
1
(7) = 1. The boundary of 1
1
(7) consists of
1
1
(7) (` 1) = 1
1
(7) (` 0 ` 1) = )
1
(7) 0 p
1
(7) 1
Since #1
1
(7) is even, we must have that #)
1
(7) and #p
1
(7) are both even or both odd,
hence 1
2
(), 7) = 1
2
(p, 7) mod 2.
We can dene the mod2 intersection number of two submanifolds \, 7 ` as 1
2
(\, 7) :=
1
2
(i, 7) where i : \ ` is the inclusion. Although we can slightly perturb \ and 7 to create
more intersection points (or remove intersection points), the above proposition says that points
must be added in pairs.
UNFINISHED
6
2 Knot Theory
One of the reasons that low dimensional topology is so much harder to study than higher dimensions
is the appearance of knots. In high dimensions one can unravel all knots to become trivial, but
this does not happen in 3 dimensions. Fortunately we can get a combinatorial presentation of
3manifolds from knots, but before that we have to cover some basics of knot theory.
2.1 Basic Denitions
Classically, a knot / is just a smoothly embedded copy of o
1
into o
3
. We could also embed our
knots into R
3
, the theories would turn out to be equivalent, but o
3
is easier to think about since it
is a nice compact 3manifold. The complement of a knot in its surrounding manifold is called the
knot complement, and its rst homology group is quite simple.
Proposition 2.1. If / is a knot in o
3
, then H
1
(o
3
/) = Z and is generated by any meridian.
Proof. Let l be an open tubular neighborhood of / in o
3
, and let \ be the complement of the
closure of a smaller tubular neighborhood. Then l is homotopy equivalent to o
1
, \ is homotopy
equivalent to the knot complement o
3
/, and l \ is homotopy equivalent to a torus o
1
o
1
.
The MayerVietoris sequences gives us the following exact sequence
0 H
1
(l \ ) H
1
(l) H
1
(\ ) 0
which is just
0 Z Z Z H
1
(o
3
/) 0
This implies that H
1
(o
3
/) = Z. Further, note that this map is of the form (i
, ,
), where i and ,
are the inclusions of l \ into l and \ , respectively. The group H
1
(l \ ) = ZZ is generated
by a meridian [j] and longitude [/], and we can choose this longitude such that ,
[j] generates
the second factor.
Given two knots /
1
, /
2
in a manifold o
3
, we say that they are equivalent, or isotopic, if they
are ambiently isotopic. This means that there is a smooth 1parameter family of maps
t
: o
3
o
3
such that
0
= id,
1
(/
1
) = /
2
, and
t
is a dieomorphism for all time t. A knot that is isotopic
to the standardly embedded o
1
in o
3
is called the unknot or the trivial knot.
There is a nice way to visualize a knot / in o
3
. First, move the knot a little if needed so that
it does not pass through the point at innity. Now / is embedded in R
3
. For a generic plane
in R
3
not intersecting /, the projection 1 of / onto is a closed curve with nitely many double
points, and no other types of singularities. We can decorate these double points as an over or
under crossing depending on whether one strand is above another relative to the plane. Such a
projection 1 is called a knot diagram of /. Conversely, given a closed curve 1 in the plane
which is embedded on the complement of nitely many double points and whose double points are
decorated with under or over crossings, we can nd a knot / such that 1 is a projection of /.
Clearly a single knot / can admit many dierent knot diagrams, and so we hope there is a way
to determine when two diagrams correspond to the same isotopy class of knot. It turns out there
are 3 moves one can apply to a knot diagram, called the Reidemeister moves, such that two
knot diagrams 1
1
and 1
2
are the diagrams of two isotopic knots if and only if one can get from
one diagram to the other by the Reidemeister moves (see gure 2.1). We will use 1
1
, 1
2
and 1
3
7
R
1
R
1
R
2
R
2
R
3
Figure 2.1: Reidemeister Moves
+1 1
Figure 2.2: Crossing Signs
to denote these moves. This reduces a lot of knot theory to combinatorial pictures, from which we
can dene a lot of knot invariants.
A slight generalization of a knot is a link. An ncomponent link is a smooth embedding of n
copies of o
1
. All of the above denitions and discussion has a direct generalization to links. Clearly
if two links 1
1
and 1
2
are isotopic, then their number of components must be equal.
One can put an orientation on a knot / by simply choosing a nonvanishing tangent vector eld
on /, or equivalently placing an arrow on any knot diagram of /. A knot has precisely 2 orientations
and an ncomponent link has 2
n
orientations. Given a knot diagram 1 of an oriented knot /, we
can dene the sign of each crossing of 1. We adopt the right hand rule for sign conventions, which
means signs are determined as in gure 2.2. Note that the sign of a crossing is information we get
once we have chosen a knot diagram, not from just a knot. The sum of all the signs of the crossing
of a knot diagram 1 is called the writhe of the diagram, and is denoted by n(1). The writhe of a
knot diagram is not a knot invariant because it is not invariant under 1
1
. It is, however, a ribbon
invariant, but we will not discuss that here.
Let / be a knot in o
3
and 1 a diagram of /. A resolution of a crossing, or a smoothing, is
the process of removing the double point and reconnecting the strands so that there is no crossing.
There are two ways of doing this, called the 0resolution and 1resolution, shown in gure 2.3. Each
8
0resolution
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
crossing
1resolution
Figure 2.3: Ways to resolve a crossing
time one resolves a crossing the number of components of the diagram either stays the same or
increases by one. A resolution of a diagram is the diagram resulting from resolving all crossings,
which is just a nite collection of disjoint circles. Clearly if there are n crossings in the diagram 1,
then there are 2
n
resolutions, which are parameterized by 0, 1
n
. If the knot / has an orientation,
then there is a canonical resolution of 1, called the oriented resolution, where we resolve all the
crossings of sign +1 by a 1resolution and all crossings of sign 1 by a 0resolution.
A Seifert surface for a link 1 in o
3
is a smoothly embedded, compact, connected and orientable
surface 1 in o
3
with boundary such that 1 = 1.
Proposition 2.2 (Seiferts Algorithm). Every link 1 in o
3
has a Seifert surface.
Proof. We can construct the surface explicitly. Choose any orientation on 1 and let 1 be a diagram
for 1. Let 1
so that there is a
disc for each circle, and connect the discs a twisting band for each crossing. The result is a surface
with boundary equal to exactly 1.
Any link has many Seifert surfaces, and Seiferts algorithm almost never produces the surface
of minimal genus. We dene the genus of a link 1 to be the minimum of genera of Seifert surfaces
of 1, and is denoted by p(1). The fourball genus of 1 is the minimum of genera of compact,
connected, oriented and smoothly embedded surfaces in 1
4
whose boundary is 1 1
4
= o
3
, and
is denoted by p
(1).
Lemma 2.1. Let /
1
, /
2
be two knots embedded in o
3
. Then the genus satises p(/
1
#/
2
) = p(/
1
) +
p(/
2
).
Proof. We can think of /
1
and /
2
embedded in the same sphere, but situated far apart. Let 1
1
and
1
2
be Seifert surfaces of minimal genus for /
1
and /
2
, respectively. Then the boundary sum 1
1
;1
2
is a Seifert surface of /
1
#/
2
, and so we have proved
p(/
1
#/
2
) p(/
1
) +p(/
2
)
To prove the other inequality we x a Seifert surface 1 of minimal genus for /
1
#/
2
. We can x
a 2sphere in o
3
so that /
1
#/
2
consists of two points. Then, if the two arcs of /
1
#/
2
between
these two points are labelled
1
and
2
, and we take a small arc in between these two points,
then the curve
1
+ is /
1
and the curve
2
+ is /
2
. By perturbing slightly we can guarantee
that 1 is just a collection of closed curves, as well as the curve . We will perform surgery on
these closed curves one by one to remove these intersections, so that the only intersection points
left is the arc .
9
Let C be one of these closed curves with the additional property that the disc it bounds in
does not contain any of the other closed curves. These ensures that if we push the interior of this
disc a little o of (in either direction) it does not intersect 1. Let
1 be the surface obtained from
1 by cutting out an open annulus around C (so now there are two more boundary components)
and gluing in two discs, each parallel to the disc in bounded by C, and on either side of . The
result is another Seifert surface
1 of /
1
#/
2
. If the curve C does not separate 1, then
1 will have
genus one less that 1 (we just cut open a handle!), which is not possible since 1 is assumed to
have minimal genus. So, we must have that C separates 1, hence
1 consists of a disjoint union of
a 2sphere and a Seifert surface of /
1
#/
2
that has one less intersection with . Repeating this for
all the closed curves in 1 shows that we can assume that and 1 intersect only at the arc .
Now we can take 1
1
to be the closure of the part of 1 outside of the sphere , and 1
2
the closure
of the part of 1 inside the sphere. Then 1
1
and 1
2
are Seifert surfaces of /
1
and /
2
respectively,
hence
p(/
1
) +p(/
2
) p(/
1
#/
2
)
Given disjoint, oriented knots /
1
and /
2
, let 1 be a common projection. We can assign signs to
the double points of 1 just as before, except now the two strands might belong to dierent knots.
The linking number lk(/
1
, /
2
) of /
1
and /
2
is dened to be the sum of the signs of all crossings
where /
1
passes under /
2
. In order to show that this denition is welldened we need to see that
it does not depend on the diagram chosen for /
1
/
2
. It is an easy matter to show that lk(/
1
, /
2
)
is invariant under the Reidemeister moves, hence lk(/
1
, /
2
) is an invariant of the isotopy class of
/
1
/
2
. It is also easy to check that lk(/
1
, /
2
) = lk(/
2
, /
1
) and lk(/
1
, /
2
) = lk(/
1
, /
2
), where
/
1
is the knot /
1
with opposite orientation.
There are two other ways of describing the linking number that will be useful later. Let 1 =
/
1
/
2
be the link with components our knots, and let 1 be a Seifert surface for 1. At each point
on the boundary /
1
in 1 we have a tangent vector that determines the orientation of /
1
and
a vector pointing into the surface. Let n be a vector normal to 1 such that the ordered basis
(, , n) matches with the orientation of o
3
. The normal vector n can be extended to the rest of
the surface 1, and it determines an orientation. We can perturb /
2
slightly if needed so that /
2
intersects 1 transversely in nitely many points. If we assign these points the sign +1 when /
2
s
tangent vector points in the same direct as n and 1 when it points in the opposite direction, then
lk(/
1
, /
2
) is equal to the sum of these numbers.
The second way is to notice that the rst homology of the knot complement H
1
(`/
1
) = Z
is generated by the homology class [j] of any meridian j of /
1
. The other knot /
2
determines a
homology class [/
2
] H
1
(`/
1
), which must be an integer multiple of [j]. The linking number
lk(/
1
, /
2
) is precisely this number, i.e. [/
2
] = lk(/
1
, /
2
) [j].
A framing for a knot / in o
3
is a choice of a normal vector eld along /. If A is a framing of /,
then we can push / a little bit in the direction of A to get a new knot /
)
is called the framing number or framing coecient of A. Conversely, given an integer n we
can nd a parallel /
i
whose endpoints dive straight down to connect to the plane . = c, and let / be the union of
these arcs. Then
1
(o
3
/) is isomorphic to
1
(o
3
/), so we compute the later group. If we take
a curtain below the arc
i
to the plane . = c and then thicken it we get a ball 1
i
. Removing
the 1
i
s from . c yields a simply connected space, so we determine what happens to the
fundamental group when we add the pieces 1
i
i
back. The piece 1
i
i
is just a punctured disc,
so its fundamental group is generated by a loop going around this hole once. Also the piece 1
i
i
intersects the space where we removed all the 1
j
s from . c is just a disc, hence we added
one generator by adding the piece 1
i
i
. Continuing this we get the claim.
UNFINISHED
This presentation of the knot group is called the Wirtinger presentation.
Example 2.1. Consider the diagram of the trefoil knot / shown in gure 2.5 (we label our arcs
by , 1, C and generators of
1
by o, /, c). The Wirtinger representation of the knot group is
1
(o
3
/) = o, /, c : /o = oc, oc = c/, c/ = /o)
We can eliminate a generator from this presentation by seeing that c = /o/
1
, hence another
presentation of the fundamental group is given by
1
(o
3
/) = o, / : /o/ = o/o)
If we set r = o/o and j = /o, then we see that r
2
= o/oo/o = /o/o/o = j
3
, hence yet another
presentation is given by
1
(o
3
/) =
r, j : r
2
= j
3
_
12
2.2 The Alexander Polynomial
We will now construct some classical invariants of knots and links in o
3
. With some work these
invariants can be extended to links in integral homology spheres, as we will see later. These
combinatorial invariants have very interesting relationships with highpowered invariants, like
SeibergWitten invariants and Heegaard Floer homology.
Fix a diagram 1 of a knot 1 in o
3
with n components, and give the link any orientation.
Suppose this diagram has / double points and the oriented resolution of this diagram has c connected
components. Let us compute the Euler characteristic and genus of the Seifert surface 1 constructed
from Seiferts algorithm on 1 (see proposition 2.2). The Euler characteristic of c disjoint discs
is c, and attaching a band to these discs decreases the Euler characteristic by one. Therefore
(1) = c /. On the other hand, an orientable surface of genus p with n boundary components
has Euler characteristic 2 2p n. Setting these two Euler characteristics equal to each other and
solving for p shows that the genus of 1 is
p = 1 +
/ c n
2
(2.1)
One can compute that the rst homology of a surface of genus p with n 1 boundary components
is the free abelian group of rank 2p + n 1 (just look at the handlebody decomposition of such a
surface), therefore, by (2.1), H
1
(1) is free abelian with rank 1 +/ c.
Now, for a general Seifert surface 1 of a link 1 in o
3
, let = (r
1
, . . . , r
) be an ordered
collection of nonintersecting, oriented, closed curves in 1 that form an ordered basis for H
1
(1).
Choose an orientation of 1 by specifying a nowhere zero, normal vector eld n on 1. For each
curve r
i
, let r
+
i
be the curve in o
3
that is r
i
pushed o the surface 1 slightly in the direction of n.
For each pair of curves r
i
, r
+
j
we can compute their linking numbers (they do not intersect), and
so we dene the Seifert matrix of 1 with orientation n to be the matrix [1] = (lk(r
i
, r
+
j
))
i,j=1
.
Of course this matrix depends on our choice of orientation of 1 and basis for H
1
(1), so to include
this dependence in the notation we may sometimes write [1]
,n
. Suppose we have xed our basis
r
1
, . . . , r
are now the pushed o curves relative to n. So, the Seifert matrix with respect to
this orientation is (lk(r
+
i
, r
j
)). This is equal to (lk(r
j
, r
+
i
)) by the symmetry of linking numbers,
which is the transpose of the Seifert matrix computed with respect to n. So, reversing orientations
transposed the Seifert matrix. If we x the orientation, then any two bases of H
1
(1) are related by
an invertible matrix l (invertible over Z means det l = 1), so if and are two bases related
by l, then [1]
= l
T
[1]
l.
However, even if we consider two Seifert matrices and 1 equivalent if they are related by
= l
T
1l, for some invertible l, we do not get a knot invariant. We could just analyze how
Seifert matrices transform under the Reidemeister moves, but a nicer way is to nd a set of moves
that can be performed on Seifert surfaces such that any two Seifert surfaces of a knot are related
by these moves. One such move is called stabilization and it increases the genus of a Seifert surface
by one. Let 1 be a Seifert surface of / embedded in o
3
and T
= 1;T
] is given by
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0
[1]
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
1
0 0 0 0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
or
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0
[1]
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
0
0 0 1 0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
This leads us to dene two operations we can perform on integral matrices. Given an integral,
n n matrix (not necessarily invertible), performing an o
1
move is to change the matrix to
l
T
l for some invertible integral matrix l. Performing an o
2
move is to change the matrix to
the (n + 2) (n + 2) matrix given by
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
1
0 0 0 0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
(2.2)
where the s can be any numbers. We say that two integral matrices are orelated one can be
brought to the other with a nite sequence of o
1
and o
2
moves. An immediate consequence of
proposition 2.4 is
Corollary 2.1. Any two Seifert matrices of a knot are oequivalent.
Therefore the oequivalence class of any Seifert matrix of a knot is an invariant of the knot.
There are simpler or more computable invariants we can derive from the Seifert matrix. Given a
knot /, let o be any Seifert matrix for /. The Laurent polynomial
k
(t) = det
_
t
1/2
o t
1/2
o
T
_
in t
1/2
is called the Alexander polynomial of /. Technically we should call this the Conway
normalization of Alexanders polynomial, as Alexanders original denition used the innite cyclic
covering of the knot complement, and was dened only up to multiplication by a unit. Since the
dimension of o is 2p (where p is the genus of the surface associated to o) we have
k
(t) is actually
a Laurent polynomial in t, and a direct substitution shows
k
(t) =
k
(t
1
). If o is of genus p,
then we can easily see that
k
(t) = t
g
det(o to
T
).
Proposition 2.5. The Alexander polynomial does not depend on the Seifert matrix chosen, hence
is a knot invariant.
14
Proof. If o
k
(t) the Alexander polynomial with respect to o
. If o
= l
T
ol, then we see that
k
(t) = det
_
t
1/2
l
T
ol t
1/2
l
T
ol
_
= (det l)
2
det
_
t
1/2
o t
1/2
o
T
_
=
k
(t)
where the last line follows since det l = 1. On the other hand, if o
t
1/2
o
T
can be written as
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0
t
1/2
o t
1/2
o
T
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
t
1/2
0 0 t
1/2
0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
When computing the determinant of this matrix we can perform a cofactor expansion along the
last column, and then another cofactor expansion along the last row of the resulting matrix, in
which case we see that the determinant of the above is precisely
t
1/2
_
t
1/2
det
_
t
1/2
o t
1/2
o
T
__
=
k
(t)
hence the Alexander polynomial is invariant under the o
2
moves.
We can extend the denition of Alexander polynomial to links in the obvious way, but it will
no longer be independent of the Seifert surface. The problem is that a link 1 with n components
has 2
n
orientations. A Seifert surface 1 for 1 can induce two of these orientations on 1 (and they
are opposite), and conversely we say that a Seifert surface is compatible with an oriented link if the
induced orientation agrees with the links orientation. While it is true that any two Seifert surfaces
compatible with an oriented link are stably equivalent, it is not true that any two Seifert surfaces
of a link are stably equivalent. So, the Alexander polynomial is an invariant of oriented links with
compatible Seifert matrices.
As mentioned above, the Alexander polynomial is not sensitive to the orientation of a knot, i.e.
k
(t) =
k
(t). Unfortunately, the Alexander polynomial is also not sensitive to changing a knot
to its mirror. The mirror of a knot / is the knot / obtained by reecting / through any plane
in R
3
. This is equivalent to changing all over crossings to under crossings (and vice versa) in a
diagram of /.
Proposition 2.6. For any knot /,
k
(t) =
k
(t).
15
Proof. If o is a Seifert matrix of /, then o is a Seifert matrix of /. Let 2: be the order of o.
Then
k
(t) = det
_
t
1/2
o +t
1/2
o
T
_
= det
_
t
1/2
o
T
t
1/2
o
_
= det
_
t
1/2
o t
1/2
o
T
_
=
k
(t
1
) =
k
(t)
There are also scalar invariants of knots that one can derive from Seifert matrices.
Proposition 2.7. If o is the Seifert matrix of some Seifert surface of a knot /, then [ det(o +o
T
)[
is a knot invariant.
Proof. We just have to check that [ det(o + o
T
)[ does not change after applying o
1
and o
2
moves
to o. If we change o by l
T
ol, then clearly
[ det(l
T
ol +l
T
o
T
l)[ = [(det l)
2
det(o +o
T
)[ = [ det(o +o
T
)[
Let o
+o
T
is of the form
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0
o +o
T
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
1
0 0 1 0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
By adding multiples of the last column to the other columns, and multiples of the last row to the
other rows we can bring this matrix into the form
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0 0
o +o
T
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
(2.3)
and the determinant of this matrix is det(o +o
T
). Therefore the absolute value of this determi
nant remains invariant under o
1
and o
2
moves.
We call [ det(o+o
T
)[ the determinant of the knot /, and denote it by det(/). The relationship
between the determinant of / and the Alexander polynomial is clear.
Proposition 2.8. [
k
(1)[ = det(/)
Proof. Let o be any Seifert matrix of / and let 2: be the order of o (the order must be even for
a knot). Then
[
k
(1)[ =
det
_
(1)
1/2
o (1)
1/2
o
T
_
det
_
(1)
1/2
o + (1)
1/2
o
T
_
(1)
m
det(o +o
T
)
16
The Alexander polynomial satises a skein relation, which is closely related to another polyno
mial invariant that is essentially the same as the Alexander polynomial. For an oriented link 1 and
a diagram 1 of 1, choose any crossing in this diagram and let 1
+
denote the diagram resulting
from switching this crossing to a positive crossing, 1
L
+
(t)
L
(t) = (t
1/2
t
1/2
)
L
0
(t)
Further, this relation, along with the normalization
unknot
(t) = 1, uniquely determines the Alexan
der polynomial as a function from oriented links to Z[t
1/2
, t
1/2
].
Proof. Let 1
0
be the Seifert surface for 1
0
constructed from Seiferts algorithm (see proposition 2.2).
We can construct Seifert surfaces 1
for 1
for H
1
(1
0
), then we can get a basis for H
1
(1
of 1
=
_
_
_
_
_
/
1
o
0
.
.
.
/
k1
o
1
o
k1
1
_
_
_
_
_
for some integers o
1
, . . . , o
k
, /
1
, . . . , /
k
, . Writing out the entries of t
1/2
o
t
1/2
o
T
we see that
the last column and row of these matrices are equal, except for the bottomright corner entry
where one matrix has (t
1/2
t
1/2
) and the other has (t
1/2
t
1/2
)( 1). So, if we compute
L
+
(t)
L
(t) by performing a cofactor expansion along the last columns, then the terms from
L
+
(t) will cancel those from
L
L
+
(.)
L
(.) = .
L
0
(.)
The relationship between the Alexander and Conway polynomial is given by
L
(t) =
L
_
t
1/2
t
1/2
_
.
2.3 Knot Signatures and 4Ball Genus
A very important invariant of knots is the signature.
Proposition 2.9. Let be a unit complex number not equal to 1, and let o be a Seifert matrix of
the knot /. Then the signature of the Hermitian matrix (1)o+(1)o
T
over C is an invariant
of the knot.
17
Proof. We just have to check that the signature of (1 )o + (1 )o
T
does not change after
applying o
1
and o
2
moves to o. Clearly the signature is invariant under o
1
moves. Let o
be the
Seifert matrix resulting in applying an o
2
move, then we have (1 )o +(1 )o
T
is congruent to
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0 0
(1 )o + (1 )o
T
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
The signature of this block matrix is the sum of the signatures of the blocks. Since the signature
of the bottomright block is zero, we have that the signature of the above matrix is the signature
of (1 )o + (1 )o
T
, hence the signature is invariant under o
2
moves.
We call the signature of (1 )o + (1 )o
T
the signature of the knot, and denote it by
(/). If = 1, then we just call this the signature of /, and denote it by (/).
For a knot / in o
3
, consider the 4ball 1
4
bounded by o
3
. Let p
(/) = 0. The relationship between signature and slice knots is the following.
Theorem 2.2. If / is a slice knot, then (/) = 0.
We will outline the proof of this theorem in a series of lemmas. Suppose / is a slice knot with
slicing disc 1 1
4
. If 1 is a Seifert surface for / in o
3
, then we can glue together 1 1 to obtain
a closed surface in 1
4
.
Lemma 2.2. The surface 1 1 bounds a smoothly embedded, orientable 3manifold ` in 1
4
with
` o
3
= 1.
Lemma 2.3. Let ` be a compact, orientable 3manifold such that ` is a surface of genus p.
Then the kernel of the map i
: H
1
(`; Q) H
1
(`; Q) induced by the inclusion is of dimension
p.
Proof. We can put the homology and cohomology long exact sequences of the pair (`, `) into
the following commutative diagram
H
2
(`, `; Q)
//
H
1
(`; Q)
i
//
H
1
(`; Q)
H
1
(`; Q)
i
//
H
1
(`; Q)
//
H
2
(`, `; Q)
where the vertical arrows are the Poincare and PoincareLefschetz duality isomorphisms. By the
universal coecient theorem we have that H
1
(`; Q) is dual to H
1
(`; Q), H
1
(`; Q) is dual to
H
1
(`; Q), and i
is dual to i
+ dimker i
= dimimi
+ dimker = dimimi
+ dimimi
= 2 dimimi
hence dimimi
= p, and so dimker i
= p.
Lemma 2.4. There is a basis r
i
over Z for H
1
(`) such that i
(r
j
) = 0 for 1 , p.
18
Proof. We think of H
1
(`) = Z
2g
as sitting inside H
1
(`; Q) = Q
2g
. Let l be the p dimensional
subspace of Q
2g
which is the kernel of the map Q
2g
H
1
(`; Q) induced by the inclusion. We can
take a basis r
1
, . . . , r
g
for this vector space such that r
i
Z
2g
, and so let
l be the Zspan of
these vectors.
As a Zmodule we can write Z
2g
,
l as ,
l 1,
l is free and 1,
l is torsion. The fact that this latter module is torsion means that for
/ 1 there is an integer n such that n/
l, hence n/ l, or simply / l. Thus a Zbasis for 1
also serves as a Qbasis for l. So, the Zbasis we take for H
1
(`) is any extension of a basis for
1 to a full basis for H
1
(`).
Lemma 2.5. Let 1 be a genus p Seifert surface for a slice knot /. Then there is a basis for H
1
(1)
such that the associated Seifert matrix is of the form
o =
_
0 1
Q 1
_
for some p p matrices 1, Q, 1.
Proof. Let 1 be a slicing disc for / in 1
4
so that there is a 3manifold ` with ` = 1 1. Let
r
i
be a Zbasis for H
1
(`) as in the previous lemma so that r
i
= 0 in H
1
(`; Q) for 1 i p.
We can assume that the homology classes r
i
are represented by oriented, closed curves in `, and
we will also write r
i
to denote these curves. For each 1 i p we can nd a nonzero integer n
i
such that n
i
r
i
= 0 in H
1
(`). The class n
i
r
i
can be represented by a closed curve in `, which
we also denote by n
i
r
i
, and it bounds a 2chain in `. This means we can nd maps )
i
: 1
i
1
4
,
where 1
i
is a surface with boundary, such that )
i
(1
i
) = n
i
r
i
. If we push the curve n
i
r
i
o of `
in the normal direction, then we can also pushing the mapping )
i
in this direction. Therefore, for
1 i, ,, p the curves n
i
)
i
and (n
j
)
j
)
+
bound disjoint surfaces in 1
4
, and hence
0 = lk(n
i
)
i
, (n
j
)
j
)
+
) = n
i
n
j
lk()
i
, )
+
j
)
Therefore the upperleft p p block of the Seifert matrix of 1 with respect to the basis r
i
is
zero.
Lemma 2.6. If Q is a nondegenerate quadratic form on an even dimensional space that vanishes
on a subspace of half dimension, then (Q) = 0.
Proof. Suppose the space\ that Q is dened on is of dimension 2p, and let l be a subspace of
dimension p such that Q(n) = 0 for all n l. If \
= 0, hence dim\
+
p and dim\
p. Since we need
dim\
+
+ dim\
1
and /
2
, /
2
are concordant pairs
of knots, then /
1
#/
2
and /
1
#/
2
are concordant. The cobordism can be constructed by splicing
19
together the cylinders connected /
1
to /
1
and /
2
to /
2
. Next we claim that for any knot /, the
knot /#/ is slice. Dene the following subsets of R
4
:
R
3
=
_
(r, j, ., 0) R
4
_
R
3
=
_
(r, j, ., 0) R
4
: . 0
_
R
3
+
=
_
(r, j, ., 0) R
4
: . 0
_
R
2
=
_
(r, j, 0, 0) R
4
_
Arrange the knot /#/ in R
3
so that its intersection with the plane R
2
in R
4
consists of two points
on the band used in the connect sum. Let /
+
denote the intersection of /#/ with R
3
+
, which is just
an arc, so that if /
is the reection of /
+
through R
2
, then /
+
/
;
that is, Y is homeomorphic to the complement of an open tubular neighborhood of 1 in o
3
. There
is a natural identication : 1
1
+
. Take the countable collection Y i (i Z) of copies of
Y , and let /
i
: Y Y
i
be the obvious homeomorphism. Form the space A
by gluing Y
i
to Y
i+1
via the homeomorphism /
i+1
/
1
i
; that is, we glue Y
i
to Y
i+1
by gluing 1
i to 1
+
i + 1
via the map /
i+1
/
1
i
. The obvious projection : A
A, where [
Y
i
: Y
i
A is given by
(r, i) = r, is an innite cyclic covering space of A.
Let t denote the covering transformation of A
whose restriction t[
Y
i
: Y
i
A
is given by
t(r, i) = (r, i + 1). This map induces an isomorphism (which we also denote by t) t : H
1
(A
)
H
1
(A
), turning H
1
(A
) into a Z[t, t
1
]module, called the Alexander module of 1. Of course,
we need to show that this module is independent of the various choices in its construction
Proposition 2.10. If A
and A
and A
) and H
1
(A
.
20
Let : [0, 1] A be any path in A and consider a lift : [0, 1] A
i with algebraic multiplicity zero. Down in A this means that that has zero algebraic
intersection number with 1, which we know is equivalent to and 1 having zero linking number
(which is the sum of the linking numbers with each component of 1). This statement is of course
independent of 1, hence our notion of path lifting is independent of 1, and so these covering spaces
are equivalent.
Next we have to check that any two coverings are equivalent via a tequivariant homeomorphism
in order to ensure that the rst homology Z[t, t
1
]modules are isomorphic. Suppose j
: A
A
is another covering space constructed with a dierent Seifert surface 1
such that j
/ = j. Let be a path in A
/ = j ,
so / is a path in A
from a point o
to its translate t o
) is an invariant of the link, called the Alexander module. Let us connect this
invariant with the Alexander polynomial dened earlier. Given an 1module `, a presentation of
` is an exact sequence
1
1
` 0
where 1 and 1 are free 1modules. If we x bases for 1 and 1 then we get a matrix representation
of , called the presentation matrix of `. The :th elementary ideal of ` is the ideal of 1 generated
by all (: : + 1) (: : + 1) minors of a presentation matrix of `. In particular, the rst
elementary ideal of ` is simply the determinant of any presentation matrix of `. The relationship
between the Alexander polynomial and Alexander module can be stated as the following.
Theorem 2.3. If o is a Seifert matrix for a knot / in o
3
, then to o
T
is a presentation matrix
for H
1
(A
) as a Z[t, t
1
]module.
Proof. In the notation we used when constructing A
, let us write A
= l \ , where l =
i
Y
2i
and \ =
i
Y
2i+1
. We have H
0
(l \ ) =
i
H
0
(1
i
), and the action of t on this group shifts the
summands of Z by one, so we can identify H
0
(l \ ) with Z[t, t
1
] H
0
(1) generated by 1 1.
Similarly, H
0
(l) H
0
(\ ) =
i
H
0
(Y
i
) and so we can identify this with Z[t, t
1
] H
0
(Y ) generated
by 1 1. With these identications we see that the map H
0
(l \ ) H
0
(l) H
0
(\ ) in the
MayerVietoris sequence is given by 1 1 1 1 +t 1, and so is injective. Therefore the map
H
1
(l) H
1
(\ ) H
(
A
i
+ t r
+
i
. However, as elements in
H
1
(o
3
1), the cycles r
+
i
and r
i
can be written as
r
+
i
=
j
:
ji
j
j
r
i
=
j
:
ij
j
j
21
Therefore
1 r
i
+t r
+
i
=
j
(1 :
ij
j
j
+t :
ji
j
j
)
With, with respect to our bases we have that the matrix of the map in the MayerVietoris sequence
is given by to o
T
.
We can change the construction of the innite cyclic cover of the link exterior slightly to obtain
a nite cyclic cover. For an integer / 0, take / copies of Y (the link exterior cut open along a
Seifert surface) by setting Y
i
= Y i (i = 0, 1, . . . , / 1). For the space A
k
by gluing Y
i
to Y
i+1
via the homeomorphism /
i+1
/
1
i
(where all induces are taken modulo /). Then the obvious
projection
k
: A
k
A is a /fold cyclic covering of the link exterior. Note that we have an innite
cyclic covering A
A
k
that maps the points in Y
i
A
identically onto Y
i mod k
. In fact, the
space A
k
is simply the quotient A
t
k
_
.
This collection of covering spaces depends only on the link 1 and not on the various choices
used to dene it.
This collection of covering spaces can now be extending to cyclic branched covers
A
k
o
3
of the 3sphere, branched over the link 1. A loop in A lifts to a loop in A
k
if and only if it has
linking number 0 (modulo /) with 1. For a component 1
i
from the link 1, let 1
i
be a tubular
neighborhood. We can identify 1
i
with o
1
o
1
by choosing a meridian j
i
and longitude /
i
of
1
i
such that /
i
links zero times with 1
i
. Then j
k
i
(the /th power of j
i
) and /
i
lift to a loops in
A
k
which identify a torus in A
k
. The restriction of the covering map to this torus gives a /fold
covering of one torus over another which is equivalent to (., n) (., n
k
). We can extend this to
a branched covering o
1
1
2
o
1
1
2
given by (., n) = (., n
k
), where this is branched over the
core circle o
1
0. So, if we glue solid tori into the boundary components of A
k
we obtain a space
A
k
with a natural projection
A
k
o
3
that is a /fold covering branched over 1.
2.5 Applications
Seifert matrices are closely related to the intersection form on a compact, orientable surface. In
tersection forms are dened on any even dimensional manifold, and we give a fuller treatment for
4manifolds in section 6.1, so we will just briey state the facts. For a closed, oriented surface `,
Poincare duality gives us a nondegenerate, antisymmetric, bilinear form Q
M
: H
1
(`) H
1
(`)
Z dened by Q
M
(, ) = ( , [`]). It follows that the matrix representation of Q
M
in any
basis of H
1
(`) has determinant 1. However, we have the following lemma concerning these types
of matrices.
Lemma 2.7. If is the matrix representation of a nondegenerate, antisymmetric bilinear form,
then there is a matrix l such that = l
T
Jl, where J is a block diagonal matrix of copies of
_
0 1
1 0
_
Therefore the matrix of Q
M
with respect to any basis must have determinant +1. There is
a more geometric denition of the intersection form on `. A homology class o H
1
(`) can
be represented by a closed, smoothly embedded 1dimensional submanifold of `, call it C
a
. If
o, / H
1
(`) with representative submanifolds C
a
and C
b
, then perturb them a little so that they
intersect transversely, and let o / be the signed sum of their points of intersection, called the
intersection product. Then one can show that Q
M
(, ) = 11() 11().
22
If ` has one boundary component (i.e. ` is a Seifert surface of some knot), then Q
M
is still a
nondegenerate, antisymmetric, bilinear form, and it can still be expressed in terms of intersections
of homology classes. If ` has more than one boundary component, then Q
M
is an antisymmetric,
bilinear form, and can be dened in terms of intersections, but it is now necessarily degenerate,
and so any matrix representation has zero determinant.
Proposition 2.11. Let 1 be a Seifert surface of a knot / with Seifert matrix o in some basis of
H
1
(1). Then the intersection form of 1 in this basis is precisely o o
T
.
Proof. At a positive crossing of r
i
and r
j
we see that r
+
j
is above r
i
. So we have lk(r
i
, r
+
j
)
contributes +1 at this crossing and lk(r
j
, r
+
i
) does not contribute anything (since we only count
crossings where the rst strand passes under). On the other hand, at a negative crossing of r
i
and r
j
we have that r
+
j
passes below r
i
. Hence lk(r
i
, r
+
j
) contributes nothing at this crossing and
lk(r
j
, r
+
i
) contributes +1. Therefore r
i
r
j
= lk(r
i
, r
+
j
) lk(r
j
, r
+
i
).
Corollary 2.2. If / is a knot, then
k
(1) = 1, and if 1 is a link, then
L
(1) = 0.
Proof. Let 1
k
and 1
L
be Seifert surfaces for / and 1. By proposition 2.11 we have
k
(1) =
det Q
M
= 1 and
L
(1) = det Q
L
= 0.
The Alexander polynomial of the connected sum of two knots has a very simple expression.
Proposition 2.12. If /
1
and /
2
are knots, then
k
1
#k
2
(t) =
k
1
(t)
k
2
(t).
Proof. We can assume that /
1
and /
2
are situated in o
3
far apart, and that 1
1
and 1
2
are Seifert
surfaces for /
1
and /
2
respectively that do not intersect. Then by taking the boundary sum 1
1
;1
2
we get a Seifert surface for /
1
#/
2
. If o
1
and o
2
are the Seifert matrices for 1
1
and 1
2
respectively,
then the Seifert matrix of 1
1
;1
2
is
_
o
1
0
0 o
2
_
We clearly now have
k
1
#k
2
(t) = det(t
1/2
o
1
t
1/2
o
T
1
) det(t
1/2
o
2
t
1/2
o
T
2
) =
k
1
(t)
k
2
(t)
The Alexander polynomial has a clear relationship with the genus of a knot.
Proposition 2.13. For a knot / we have deg
k
(t) p(/).
Proof. If o is a Seifert matrix of order 2: for /, then deg
k
(t) :, hence deg
k
(t) p(/).
Proposition 2.14. If det o ,= 0 for some Seifert matrix o of /, then deg
k
(t) = p(/).
Proof. If o is a Seifert matrix associated to a Seifert surface of genus p, then we can write
k
(t) =
t
g
det(oto
T
). The constant term of the polynomial det(oto
T
) is just det o, which is nonzero
by assumption. Therefore the coecient of t
g
in
k
(t) is nonzero, and so deg
k
(t) = p.
A link 1 is said to be a split link if one can nd an embedded 2sphere in o
3
that separates
some components of 1 from the other components of 1.
Proposition 2.15. If 1 is an oriented, split link 1, then
L
(t) = 0.
23
Proof. Suppose 1 = /
1
/
2
such that /
1
can be separated from /
2
by an embedded 2sphere. Let
1
1
and 1
2
be Seifert surfaces for /
1
and /
2
respectively, and let p
1
and p
2
be the genera of 1
1
and
1
2
respectively. We can constructed a Seifert surface for 1 by taking the connected sum 1
1
#1
2
;
that is, cut small, open discs out of 1
1
and 1
2
and glue in a tube o
1
1. Recall that a surface of
genus p with n boundary components has rst homology of rank 2p +n 1, hence H
1
(1
1
)
= Z
2g
1
and H
2
(1
2
)
= Z
2g
2
. However, H
1
(1
1
#1
2
)
= Z
2g
1
+2g
2
+1
, so this homology group has one extra
generator in addition to the generators coming from 1
1
and 1
2
. This generator can be represented
by the meridian j of the tube o
1
1. This generator does not link with the push os of any of the
generators from 1
1
and 1
2
, hence there is an entire row and column of zeros in the Seifert matrix
of 1
1
#1
2
, and so
L
(t) = 0.
2.6 Knots in other 3Manifolds
Much of what we have said so far can be generalized to 3manifolds other than o
3
. For example,
a knot / in a 3manifold ` is just a smoothly embedded copy of o
1
into `. Unfortunately,
there is no analogous concept of diagram of knots in a general manifold, but any term we dened
before without the use of a diagram can be dened for knots in a manifold. We will work towards
extending other concepts and results to knots in a manifold, but almost always we are going to need
to require that the manifold is an integral homology sphere so that we have the following property.
Proposition 2.16. If ` is a homology sphere and / an embedded knot, then `/ is a homology
circle, that is H
(`/) = H
(o
1
).
Proof. The proof is the same as in proposition 2.1.
Our rst denition of linking number of two oriented, disjoint knots needed a knot diagram,
so we cannot use this denition in a manifold. However, if ` is an integral homology sphere, and
/
1
and /
2
knots in `, proposition 2.16 says that H
1
(`(/
1
)) = Z is generated by [j], where j
is any meridian of (/) (which is just the boundary of any normal crosssection). So, as we did
before, we dene the linking number lk(/
1
, /
2
) to be the integer such that [/
2
] = lk(/
1
, /
2
) [j]. We
can also dene the canonical longitude / of a knot / in ` to be the closed curve in (`(/))
such that lk(/, /) = 0.
Let / be a knot in ` with canonical longitude /, and orient / and / such that the basis (/, /, n)
is the same as the orientation on ` (` is orientable since it is an integral homology sphere),
where n is the inward point normal vector. The choice of meridian j and longitude / gives an
identication : (`(/)) o
1
o
1
. Let j
0
: (`(/)) o
1
be j
0
=
S
1 , where
S
1 is
projection onto the second factor.
Proposition 2.17. Let 1 = `(/) be the knot complement. The projection j
0
: 1 o
1
extends to a map j : 1 o
1
.
Proof. Let i : 1 1 be the inclusion. We claim that j
0
extends to j if and only if the homotopy
class [j
0
] is in the image of the induced map i
: [1, o
1
] [1, o
1
]. Clearly if such an extension
exists then [j
0
] = i
[j]. Conversely, suppose there is some homotopy class of maps [j] such that
[j
0
] = i
: 1 o
1
to be j outside l and H(r, t) on the part of l corresponding to (r, t) 1 1, then
we see that j
is an extension of j
0
.
24
In appendix C we saw that we have a natural isomorphism of groups
[1, o
1
]
= H
1
(1)
since o
1
is a 1(Z, 1) space. The inclusion i induces a map on cohomology, and by naturality of the
above isomorphism, and naturality of the Poincare isomorphisms we get the following commutative
diagram from the long exact sequence of the pair (1, 1)
H
1
(1)
i
//
H
1
(1)
H
1
(1)
PD
OO
//
H
2
(1, 1)
PD
OO
where is the connecting homomorphism. We have that [/] is the Poincare dual of [j
0
], so by
commutativity of the above square we have [j
0
] = 11
1
i
, hence j
0
extends to a
map j by our previous claim.
This proposition can easily be extended to links. One might wonder if the map j
0
is a bration
of the knot complement over o
1
. This is not always true, so it leads to the notion of a bered
knot, and will be discussed later. We can use proposition 2.17 to show that Seifert surfaces exist
for links in integral homology spheres.
Proposition 2.18. Given a link 1 in an integral homology sphere ` there is a smoothly embedded,
compact, orientable and connected surface 1 such that 1 = 1.
Proof. Let j : 1 1
2
be the map constructed in proposition 2.17, where 1 is the link comple
ment in `. We can slightly homotopy j such that it is transverse to a point 1
2
, in which
case 1
= j
1
() is a smoothly embedded submanifold of 1 of codimension 1 (by proposition 1.1)
with boundary contained in 1, hence 1 is a surface. We can connect the boundary of 1
to 1
via annuli contained in the tubular neighborhoods of the link components to get a Seifert surface
1.
25
Handle Anatomy
Attaching map : 1
k
1
n
A
Attaching region 1
k
1
nk
Attaching sphere 1
k
0
Belt sphere 0 1
nk
Core 1
k
0
Cocore 0 1
nk
Belt Sphere
Core
Cocore
Attaching Sphere
Attaching Region
D
nk
D
k
Figure 3.1: Anatomy of an ndimensional /handle
3 Handlebodies
3.1 Handlebody Decompositions
Let A be a smooth ndimensional manifold with boundary. The process of attaching an n
dimensional /handle to A is to form the quotient space A
/, where / is a copy of 1
k
1
nk
,
and where : 1
k
1
nk
A is a smooth embedding. Notice that 1
k
1
nk
is only part of
the boundary of 1
k
1
nk
. Also, the manifold A
: 1
k
1
nk
A are isotopic, then
the resulting manifolds A
/ and A
1
k
0
(where is suitably restricted in the second space), hence attaching a /handle is the same as
attaching a /cell.
The anatomy of a handle is simple and the pieces have intuitive names. The map is called
the attaching map, while 1
k
1
nk
is called the attaching region (and sometimes the image
of this set under ). The subset 1
k
0 is called the core of the handle, and 0 1
nk
the cocore.
The region 1
k
0 the attaching sphere, and 0 1
nk
the belt sphere. Finally, the number
/ is called the index of the handle. See gure 3.1.
Unfortunately this picture is a little misleading since attaching a /handle does not always
look like attaching a ball along two disconnected pieces of its boundary. For example, attaching
26
a 4dimensional 2handle means attaching a copy of 1
2
1
2
along the solid torus o
1
1
2
. The
boundary of 1
2
1
2
is a union of solid tori o
1
1
2
1
2
o
1
that intersect at their boundaries
o
1
o
1
, and this decomposition of o
3
into two solid tori is clearly the genus 1 Heegaard splitting.
An embedding : 1
k
1
nk
A is the same as embedding the trivial normal bundle
of the attaching sphere (1
k
0) into A. Therefore determines, and is determined by, an
embedding
0
: 1
k
0 A of the attaching sphere and an equivalence ) of the normal bundle
0
(1
k
) with the trivial vector bundle 1
k
R
nk
; this is intuitively plausible, but is also the
content of the Tubular Neighborhood Theorem. The embedding
0
is just a knot in A, and the
vector bundle equivalence ) is called a (normal) framing of 1
k
= o
k1
. If the data (
0
, )) and
(
0
, )
/ and A
/ are isotopic.
Fix a framing )
0
for o
k1
, i.e. a vector bundle equivalence
o
k1
R
nk
f
0
//
0
(o
k1
)
o
k1
0
//
0
(o
k1
)
If ) is another framing of o
k1
, then )
1
)
0
: o
k1
R
k
o
k1
R
nk
must map (j, ) to
(j, p(j) ), where p : o
k1
GL(n /) is smooth. Without loss of generality we can assume
that p(j) = 1 for a xed base point j o
k1
. Therefore each framing determines an element of
the group
k1
(G1(n /)), which is isomorphic to
k1
(O(n /)) by the deformation retract of
G1(n/) onto O(n/), and it is even true that the set of framings are in onetoone correspondence
with elements of
k1
(O(n /)). However, the set of framings is not canonically isomorphic to
k1
(O(n /)), since the identication depends on )
0
, but it is a principal homogeneous space for
k1
(O(n /)). Sometimes there is a canonical choice of )
0
, and this will be useful later.
We can get a lot of information about attaching very low index handles and very high index
handles. The attaching sphere for a 0handle 1
0
1
n
is empty, so attaching a 0handle to A is
the same as simply taking the disjoint union of A with 1
n
. The attaching sphere of a 1handle is
a disjoint pair of points, and so if A is connected and nonempty there is a unique isotopy class
of attaching maps (well, except in the case n = 2 and A noncompact, in which case we can also
interchange the two components of the attaching sphere). Further, since
0
(O(n 1)) = Z,2 for
n 2 there are exactly two framings on o
0
, hence there are exactly two manifolds one can obtain
by attaching a 1handle to a 0handle (these are the ndimensional analogs of annulus and Mobius
band).
Similarly, for (n1)handles, with n ,= 2, there is a unique framing of o
n2
since
n2
(O(1)) = 0.
In the case n = 2 we see that (n 1)handles are just 1handles, which were discussed above.
Attaching an nhandle is the same as gluing a copy of 1
n
to A along 1
n
= o
n1
. Since A
is (n 1)dimensional we see that we can only attach 1
n
to boundary components of A that are
dieomorphic to o
n1
. However, due to issues of exotic nspheres and exotic dieomorphisms of
nspheres we can only say that attaching an nhandle is unique in dimensions 6.
The other combinations of / and n, where / is neither small nor close to n, are harder to
understand. If n / 2, then there is only one isotopy class of embeddings o
k1
into (n
1)dimensional manifolds, hence all embeddings can be unknotted. So, the only thing that
controls what we get from attaching a /handle to a 0handle is the framing of an unknotted sphere
in o
n1
, which are of course parameterized by
k1
(O(n /)). Suppose we are attaching a /
handle /
2
= 1
k
1
nk
to a 0handle /
1
= 1
n
such that the attaching sphere is the standardly
embedded, unknotted sphere o
k1
o
n1
. Without loss of generality we can assume that we have
27
an identication /
1
= 1
k
1
nk
and that the attaching map of /
1
is of the form : 1
k
1
nk
1
k
1
nk
1
n
such that
D
k is the identity, and the restriction of to any slice 1
nk
is an orthogonal linear map. Let A be the manifold /
1
/
2
. We claim that there is a canonical map
: A o
k
making A into a 1
nk
bundle. Decompose o
k
as a union of two discs, the upper and
lower hemispheres. Then projects the handle /
1
onto its its rst factor, which is then identied
with the upper hemisphere, and projects /
2
onto its rst factor, which is then identied with the
lower hemisphere. It is clear that this makes A into a 1
nk
bundle, and in fact all 1
nk
bundles
are of this form. Further, consider the framing )
0
corresponding to id
D
k
D
nk. This clearly gives
the trivial bundle A = o
k
1
nk
, and so this is a canonical element to associate to the identity
in O(n /).
If we apply the above discussion to the case / = 2, then we have that 1
n2
bundles over o
2
are classied by Z if n = 4 and by Z,2 if n 4. In this case we can get a canonical identication
of these bundles with Z (n = 4) and Z,2 (n 4) by associating the trivial bundle with 0. For
n = 4, the integer associated to a 1
2
bundle over o
2
is called the Euler number of the bundle. If
n 4, then we denote the nontrivial 1
n2
bundle over o
2
by 1
n2
o
2
, and we also dene the
associated o
n3
bundle over o
2
by o
n3
o
2
= (1
n2
o
2
).
Let A be a compact nmanifold with boundary written as
+
A .
A. If A is oriented give
+
A the induced orientation and
A1 such that
A is identied with
A, or if
i
(.
0
, . . . , .
n1
) = [.
0
: : .
i1
: 1 : .
i
: : .
n1
]
The inverses
i
: l
i
C
n
of these charts are given by
i
([.
0
, . . . , .
n
]) = (.
0
,.
i
, . . . , .
i1
,.
i
, .
i+1
,.
i
, . . . , .
n
,.
i
)
where l
i
consists of all points [.
0
, . . . , .
n
] such that .
i
,= 0.
Let 1 be the unit disc in C, and and let 1
i
=
i
(1 1) (an embedded complex nball
in C1
n
). Every point j C1
n
has a unique representative (.
0
, . . . , .
n
) such that [.
i
[ = 1 for some
0 i n and [.
j
[ 1 for all , (just divide by the coordinate with largest norm), which we will
call the canonical representative of j. It follows that 1
i
covers C1
n
. We also see that j 1
i
if
and only its canonical representative has [.
i
[ = 1, and j 1
i
if and only if [.
j
[ = 1 for some other
, ,= i. From this it follows that two balls 1
i
and 1
j
can intersect only at points in the boundaries
of each ball: j 1
i
1
j
if and only if its canonical representative has [.
i
[ = [.
j
[ = 1 and [.
k
[ 1
for all /. In particular, then ball 1
k
intersects the union
i<k
1
i
at all points whose canonical
representative has [.
k
[ = 1, [.
j
[ = 1 for some 0 , < / and [.
1
/
1
/
1
= 1
k
1
1
n
1
k
1
1
: 1
k
1
1
n
1
k
1
1
n
1
Y = 1
n
2
2
/
2
/
2
= 1
k
2
1
n
2
k
2
2
: 1
k
2
1
n
2
k
2
1
n
2
Then A Y has the following handlebody decomposition
A Y = 1
n
1
1
n
2
1
id
/
1
1
n
2
id
2
1
n
1
/
2
/
1
/
2
Here we are thinking of /
1
1
n
2
as an (n
1
+ n
2
)dimensional /
1
handle since it is just 1
k
1
1
n
1
k
1
1
n
2
(the second two factors are like a (n
1
+ n
2
)ball), and 1
n
1
/
2
is an (n
1
+ n
2
)
dimensional /
2
handle since it is just 1
n
1
1
k
2
1
n
2
k
2
(here the factors are out of order, but
that does not matter). We also think of /
1
/
2
as an (n
1
+n
2
)dimensional (/
1
+/
2
)handle since
it is just 1
k
1
1
n
1
k
1
1
k
2
1
n
2
k
2
, and the attaching region of this handle is
1
k
1
1
n
1
k
1
1
k
2
1
n
2
k
2
1
k
2
1
n
2
k
2
1
k
1
1
n
1
k
1
so the attaching map is
1
id
2
id.
Note that if the handlebody decompositions of A and Y are induced by Morse functions ) and p,
respectively, then the product handlebody decomposition of AY is the same as the decomposition
induced by the Morse function / : AY R dened by /(r, j) = )(r) +p(j). The critical points
(r, j) A Y of / are precisely where d/
(x,y)
= d)
x
+dp
y
= 0, hence d)
x
= 0 and dp
y
= 0 and so
r must be a critical point of ) and j a critical point of p. If the critical point r is of index / and j
of index , then (r, j) is of index / +, for the Hessian is of the form
H
h
(r, j) =
_
_
_
2
f
x
i
x
j
_
0
0
_
2
g
y
i
y
j
_
_
_
=
_
H
f
(r) 0
0 H
g
(j)
_
3.2 Handle Moves
Any manifold admits many dierent handlebody decompositions, so we want to nd a set of moves
that we could perform on handles in order to bring one handlebody presentation into another. First
we show how to add a (/ 1)handle and / in a specic way such that the result manifold does not
change; that is, the handles cancelled each other. Let A be an nmanifold with boundary. Write
1
k
as a union of upper and lower hemispheres, o
k1
= 1
k1
+
S
k2 1
k1
. Attach 1
k
1
nk
to
A via an embedding of 1
k1
1
nk
in A (this is not attaching a /handle). This does not
change the dieomorphism type of A since it is just take the boundary sum of A with an n ball.
We are going to show how to decompose this attached copy of 1
k
1
nk
into a (/ 1)handle
and /handle. Let J be a small neighborhood of 1
k1
+
in 1
k
, so that J = 1
k1
+
1
1
, and let 1
k
0
be the disc left from slicing J o of 1
k
. Then J 1
nk
is a (/ 1)handle attached to A, and
1
k
0
1
nk
is a /handle attached to (AJ 1
nk
). This process of creating a pair of canceling
handles is called handle creation/cancellation.
Sometimes it is possible to nd a (/ 1)handle and /handle that are situated in A so that
they cancel like the above.
Proposition 3.2. A (/ 1)handle / and a /handle /
2
(/
1
/
2
). Let be the image of the attaching sphere of /
1
in A
and 1 the image of the belt sphere in A. We can isotope the attaching map of /
1
, which can also
be thought of as isotoping the attaching sphere and the framing of the attaching sphere, and the
resulting manifold will not change. By isotoping the attaching sphere we are, intuitively, sliding
the handle /
1
around (A /
2
). Now, slide the attaching sphere of /
1
over the handle /
2
until
the attaching sphere of /
1
intersects the belt sphere of /
2
. Since the attaching sphere of /
1
is of
dimension / 1 and the belt sphere of /
2
is of dimension n/ 1, we have that they will intersect
at a point j, and T
p
T
p
1 is a codimension 1 subspace of T
p
(A /
2
). This means there are
two directions we can move past 1 (corresponding to the two components of the complement of
the hyperplane T
p
T
p
1). One direction will slide /
1
back to where we started. If we push
the other way, and continue sliding /
1
until the attaching sphere lies entirely in A, then we get a
new handlebody which is the result of sliding the handle /
1
over /
2
. Without loss of generality
we can also assume that as we slide /
1
over /
2
, the attaching sphere of /
1
stays inside some disc
1
k
pt of /
2
.
We have not change the manifold A /
1
/
2
by sliding the handle /
1
over /
2
(since we just
isotoped the attaching sphere around), but the framing of /
1
might have changed in the process.
For example, gure 3.4 shows that sliding a trivially attached 1handle across a twisted 1handle
results in another twisting.
It turns out these two moves on handlebody decompositions can always determine when two
handlebody decompositions give the same manifold.
Proposition 3.4. For any two relative handlebody decompositions of a compact pair (A,
A)
(with handles attaching in increasing order), it is possible to bring one decomposition into the
other via a nite sequence of creation/cancellation of handle pairs, handle slides, and isotopies of
attaching maps.
32
Figure 3.4: A handle slide that changes the framing of a handle
3.3 The Fundamental Group and Homology of a Handlebody
The combinatorial presentation of a manifold as a handlebody immediately gives a presentation of
the fundamental group of the manifold. Suppose A is a handlebody with unique 0handle, and give
an orientation to the core of each 1handle. We can make the oriented cores 1
1
0 into oriented
loops in A
1
by connecting the end points with an oriented, straight line segment to the origin in
A
0
= 1
n
. These loops are generators of the free group
1
(A
1
, r
0
). As we attach 2handles we
will be adding relations to
1
(A
1
, r
0
) to get
1
(A
2
, r
0
). In particular, express the attaching circle
1
2
0 of a handle in terms of the loops in A
1
to get the relation that attaching this 2handle adds.
Handles of higher index do not add any other relations since their attaching spheres are simply
connected, so in particular
1
(A
2
, r
0
) =
1
(A, r
0
). Note that the above description of
1
(A) is
analogous to the presentation of
1
(A) in terms of a CWdecomposition of a space.
Next we develop a homology theory in terms of handlebodies, which is similar to cellular ho
mology derived from a CWcomplex. For a relative handlebody (A,
A) = H
k
(A
k
, A
k1
), where H
k
(, ) is just regular singular homol
ogy, hence C
k
(A,
A)
C
k1
(A,
k
, and clearly
2
= 0 since
k
,
= 0. If A is oriented,
then there is a more geometric denition of . Let / be a /handle with attaching sphere , and
let 1
i
be the belt sphere of each (/ 1)handle /
i
. Then
k
/ =
i
( 1
i
)/
i
(3.1)
where 1
i
is the intersection number computed in
+
A
k1
. Since ker im we dene
H
k
(A) = ker
k
, im
k+1
, and call this the /th handlebody homology group of A (this term
is not standard). We can get a homology theory H
k
(A,
A; G) = C
k
(A,
A)
Z
G with boundary operator id. We can
33
also dualize this construction to get handlebody cohomology. In particular, set C
k
(A,
A; G) =
Hom(C
k
(A,
A; G) C
k+1
(A,
A; G) = ker
k
, im
k1
. This is called the /th handlebody cohomology
group of A. If there is risk of confusing the handlebody chain and homology groups with other
homology theories (such as singular homology), we may sometimes write them as C
HB
k
(A) and
H
HB
k
(A). Further, if
j=i
o
j
/
j
for some integers o
j
. When we cancel these handles we will add the relations
/ = 0 and /
i
=
j=i
o
j
/
j
to the chain groups. On the other hand, sliding a handle / across a
handle /
.
Example 3.2. Since o
n
has a handlebody decomposition 0handle 1handle, we can easily see
that its handlebody homology is H
k
(o
n
) = Z for / = 0, n and 0 for 0 < / < n. A more interesting
example is writing o
3
as a union of a 0, 1, 2 and 3handle, o
3
= /
0
/
1
/
2
/
3
. The standardly
embedded solid torus A
1
= o
1
1
2
in o
3
is a 0handle 1handle. The attaching circle of the
2handle we attach to A
1
is just the longitude o
1
, where is any point on the boundary
of 1
2
, and let A
2
be the result of this attachment. Then A
2
is just o
2
, and so we attach the
3handle in the only way possible, and the result is A
3
= o
3
.
We have C
i
(A) = Z/
i
). Since there are no (1)handles, we have
0
= 0. The attaching
sphere of /
1
intersects the belt sphere of /
0
at two points, but dierent signs, so
1
(/
1
) = 0. The
attaching sphere of /
2
intersects the belt sphere of /
1
at one point, which we can arrange to have
intersection number +1, hence
2
(/
2
) = /
1
. Finally, the attaching sphere of /
3
intersects the belt
sphere of /
2
at two points, but with dierent signs, so
3
(/
3
) = 0. Taking homology we see again
that H
0
(o
3
) = H
3
(o
3
) = Z and H
1
(o
3
) = H
2
(o
3
) = 0.
Example 3.3. We saw in example 3.1 that C1
n
admits a handlebody decomposition with one
/handle for each even integer / between 0 and 2n. So C
k
(C1
n
) = Z for all even 0 / 2n, and
0 for all other /. This implies that all the dierentials are zero, hence H
k
(C1
n
) = C
k
(C1
n
).
3.4 2Dimensional Handlebodies
Two dimensional handlebodies have simple descriptions since there are so few ways to attach 2
dimensional /handles (/ = 0, 1, 2). The 0 and 2handles are just 2discs, and a 1handle is a band
1 1. The attaching region of this band consists of two disjoint intervals 1 . 1, and there are two
ways to attach the band to a 0handle: without a twist, or with a twist. Once the 1handles are
attached, there is a unique way to attach the 2handles so that we get a closed surface (just ll
the holes!), so we can draw diagrams of 2dimensional handlebodies by just drawing the 0handle
1handles. Some examples of these decompositions are shown in gure 3.5, where the rst image
is R1
2
, the second is T
2
#R1
2
, and the third is T
2
.
3.5 Heegaard Diagrams
Heegaard splittings are an old method for constructing 3manifolds, and we will see that it is equiv
alent to 3 dimensional handlebody. Although we get nice combinatorial pictures for 3 dimensional
handlebodies, called Heegaard diagrams, they were still dicult to use. However, much later,
34
Figure 3.5: Examples of 2dimensional handlebody diagrams
many invariants were built from Heegaard diagrams, including a recent variation of Lagrangian
Floer homology, which provides powerful invariants of 3 and 4manifolds.
We dene a handlebody of genus p to be a 0handle 1handles such that the result is
orientable, i.e. the interior (in the Jordan sense) of an orientable, genus p surface. If H
1
and
H
2
are handlebodies of genus p, then for any orientationreversing homeomorphism : H
1
H
2
of their boundaries, we can form the orientable, compact 3manifold H
1
H
2
. Conversely,
given a 3manifold `, it is always possible to nd a pair of embedded submanifolds H
1
, H
2
, both
homeomorphic to a handlebody of genus p, such that H
1
= H
2
(this is proved below). In either
case we call this a Heegaard splitting, or Heegaard decomposition, of the 3manifold.
Theorem 3.1. Every compact, orientable 3manifold admits a Heegaard splitting.
Proof. We will give two dierent proofs.
The rst proof is more geometric, using the fact that every 3manifold has a triangulation.
Let 1 be a triangular of `, and let 1
and 1
.
Let H
1
be the union of the 3faces in 1
1
2
1
H
2
. Let
1
, . . . ,
g
be the image of the standard circles in (the thin circles in gure 3.6) under
1
, and
1
, . . . ,
g
the image of the standard circles in under
2
. The curves
1
, . . . ,
g
are collectively
known as the curves, and are mutually disjoint, and the curves
1
, . . . ,
g
are collectively known
as the curves, and are also disjoint.
We now have a picture associated to any Heegaard decomposition: its a surface with 2p curves
drawn on it. Many times we will take one of the collections of curves to be the standard curves,
which would mean that
1
or
2
is just the identity, in which case we will not even draw them.
The data of the surface with these 2p embedded curves is called the Heegaard diagram of
the splitting. We would like to know that these embedded curves somehow uniquely determine
the 3manifold obtained from gluing the handlebodies together, but rst we state a small technical
lemma that will be used repeatedly in these notes.
Lemma 3.1. Let A and Y be two nmanifolds with homeomorphic boundaries, and let 7 = A
f
Y
be the space formed by gluing A and Y together along a homeomorphism ) : A Y . If
: A A is any homeomorphism that extends to a homeomorphism : A A, then 7 is
homeomorphism to 7
= A
f
Y .
Proof. There are embeddings of A and Y into 7 by sending a point to its equivalence class in 7.
If r A, j Y are in the interior, then the corresponding points in 7 are [r] = r and [j] = j,
whereas if r A, j Y are boundary points, then [r] = r, )(r) and [j] =
_
j, )
1
(j)
_
. Let
A and
Y denote the images of A and Y under these embeddings so that
A
Y is just the set of
equivalence classes with representative in A or Y . We dene a map p : 7 7
on a point . in
A or Y by the following
p(.) =
_
[
1
(r)] .
A
[j] .
Y
where r A and j Y are representatives of .. This map is clearly welldened. In order for it
to be continuous we need [
1
(r)] = [j] in 7
for any . = r, j in
A
Y (i.e. j = )(r)). This is
easy to see for on one side we have
[
1
(r)] = [
1
(r)] =
_
1
(r), )((
1
(r))
_
=
_
1
(r), )(r)
_
36
and on the other side we have
[j] = [)(r)] =
_
1
(r), )(r)
_
Therefore the map is continuous, and now it is clear that it is even a homeomorphism.
Theorem 3.2. The homeomorphism type of the manifold resulting from gluing two handlebodies
together depends only on the image of the standard meridians under the gluing map, hence equal
Heegaard diagrams describe homeomorphic manifolds.
Proof. Suppose we are gluing genus p handlebodies H
1
and H
2
together via a homeomorphism
) : H
1
H
2
. We can glue these handlebodies together in a two step process. First, let
1
, . . . ,
g
denote a small tubular neighborhood of each standard meridian in H
1
(hence these are
annuli), and let 1
1
, . . . , 1
g
denote the thickened discs these annuli bound in H
1
. Then we can rst
attach the discs 1
i
to H
2
via ) to obtain the intermedia space `
f
H
2
depends only on the images of the
i
curves.
We can also dene Heegaard diagrams axiomatically. Let us temporarily say that an Hdiagram
is a surface of genus p and embedded curves
1
, . . . ,
g
,
1
, . . . ,
g
such that the curves are
disjoint and the complement of their union is connected, and similarly for the curves.
Theorem 3.3. An Hdiagram (,
1
, . . . ,
g
,
1
, . . . ,
g
) corresponds to the Heegaard diagram of
some splitting.
Proof. Let
i
,
i
be curves with the above properties. First we claim that cutting along the
curves yields a 2sphere with 2p holes. Suppose that with the curves removed is a surface
of genus / with 2p holes. Then its Euler characteristic would be 2 2/ 2p. On the other
hand, removing circles from surfaces that do not separate the surface does not change the Euler
characteristic, so we should have 22p = 22/2p, hence / = 0, and so
1
, . . . ,
g
is a sphere
with 2p holes.
Since with the removed curves is just a sphere with 2p holes, we can homeomorphically
deform it so that it is in the standard position of a handlebody of genus p with its standard circles
cut out. Now it is easy to nd a handlebody of genus p with homeomorphism of its boundary
onto taking its standard circles to the circles. This can be done for the curves in the same
way.
Therefore Hdiagrams and Heegaard diagrams are equivalent notions, so we will refer to both as
Heegaard diagrams from now on. The condition that the complement of the union of the curves
in is connected is equivalent to saying that the homology classes of
1
, . . . ,
g
span a rank p
submodule of H
1
()
= Z
2g
.
There is also a Morse theoretic way of thinking of Heegaard diagrams. Let ) : ` [0, 3]
be a selfindexing Morse function with unique maximum and minimum, and let H
1
= )
1
[0, 3,2],
H
2
= )
1
[3,2, 3] and = )
1
(3,2). By theorem 3.1 we know that H
1
and H
2
are handlebodies
of the same genus, say p. Let 1
1
, . . . , 1
g
be the index 1 critical points of ), and Q
1
, . . . , Q
g
be the
index 2 critical points. Let
i
consist of the points that ow to 1
i
under
g
), and let
i
consist
of the points that ow to Q
i
under +
g
). Then (
1
, . . . ,
g
,
1
, . . . ,
g
) is a Heegaard diagram
for `.
37
Figure 3.7: Heegaard diagrams of o
1
o
2
, o
3
, R1
3
respectively
Example 3.4. There is only one Heegaard splitting of genus 0. In this case we have a manifold
` expressed as ` = 1
1
1
2
where 1
1
, 1
2
are 3balls. Let : 1
1
o
3
be an embedding of the
rst 3ball onto the upperhemisphere of o
3
. The restriction of to 1
1
= 1
2
can be extended
to a homeomorphism from 1
2
to the lowerhemisphere of o
3
(by Alexanders lemma). Pasting
these homeomorphisms together gives a homeomorphism of ` with o
3
, hence all genus 0 Heegaard
splittings are o
3
.
Example 3.5. The standard Heegaard splitting of o
3
is to take the standardly embedded solid
torus H
1
in o
3
, and let H
2
be the complement of H
1
in o
3
. The gluing map is just the identity.
The standard orientation on o
3
induces orientations on H
1
and H
2
. If we let n denote the outward
pointing normal vector eld on H
1
, then the orientation of H
1
induces an orientation on H
1
by
choosing the equivalence class of bases at a tangent space such that adding n gives the equivalence
class of bases from the induced orientation on H
1
. Do something similar to get an orientation on
H
2
induced by H
2
. Clearly the two orientations induced on H
1
= H
2
are dierent, therefore
the gluing map is orientation reversing. This is why we require the gluing map to be orientation
reversing in our denition of Heegaard splitting.
Example 3.6. We can also classify all genus 1 splittings. All such splittings are given by an
orientation reversing homeomorphism ) : T T, and the isotopy classes of these maps are in
bijective correspondence with integer matrices
=
_
:
j :
_
det = j: +: = 1
so j and are relatively prime or one is 0 and the other is 1. We use here because we required
our gluing homeomorphism to be orientation reversing, so the determinant of this matrix should be
1, which can be written simply as j: +: = 1 with our sign choice. This homeomorphism maps
the meridian j to the curve j + j , i.e. the meridian wraps times around the meridian
and j times around the longitude. Let ` be the manifold resulting from gluing to copies of the
solid torus via ). It is easy to see that ` depends only on the image of j under ) by using an
argument similar to theorem 3.2. Thus, ` is completely determined by the relatively prime pair
of integers (j, ), and we call this space the (j, ) Lens space and denote it by 1(j, ).
The Heegaard diagram of 1(j, ) is just a curve on the torus that wraps times around
the meridian and j times around the longitude. One can prove that 1(j, ) = 1(j, ) and
1(j, ) = 1(j, + nj) for any integer n, so we can assume j 0 and 0 j 1. But, if j = 0
then we are forced to have = 1, and if = 0 we are also forced to have j = 1. In these cases
we have 1(1, n) = o
3
for all integers n and 1(0, 1) = o
1
o
2
, so disregarding these examples
we can assume j 2 and 1 j 1. We also have 1(2, 1) = R1
3
.
Example 3.7. Heegaard diagrams can be quite complicated, for example see gure 3.8. We will
show later that this 3manifold is simply connected.
38
2
Figure 3.8: Heegaard diagram of a simply connected 3manifold
Let us reconcile the above theory of Heegaard splittings of 3manifolds with our general theory of
handlebodies. A handlebody of genus p is a 0handle 1handles such that the result is orientable.
This is just the rst step in building a 3dimensional handlebody, so let us denote it by A
1
. Next we
could attach some 2handles (we certainly cannot attach a 3handle yet, unless p = 0). Attaching a
2handle is completely determined by the image of the attaching sphere 1
2
0 (which we will call
the attaching circle in this case) and the framing of the attaching circle, which are parameterized
by
1
(O(1)) = 0. Therefore, attaching the 2handles is equivalent to specifying a collection of
embedded circles in A
1
, which is just a Heegaard diagram, and let A
2
be the result. If A
2
is a
collection of o
3
s, then there is a unique way to cap these o with 3handles so that the result is
a closed 3manifold. This is precisely the case we draw p embedded curves on A
1
such that the
complement of their union is connected, so such a picture uniquely determines a 3manifold.
Now we see that a Heegaard splitting is simply a 3dimensional handlebody, and a Heegaard
diagram is just a collection of curves drawn on A
1
, we would like to translate our machinery of
handle moves, handlebody homology and computation of fundamental groups into the Heegaard
setting. We start with handle moves. We x A
1
to be the standardly embedded handlebody of
genus p since all the information in a 3dimensional handlebody is in the attaching circles of the
2handles. In the handlebody theory we could isotopy the attaching maps, which just means that
we can isotopy the and curves on the surface of genus p. To create a canceling pair of 1
and 2handles simply increase the genus of A
1
by one (i.e. add a 1handle) and add the attaching
circle that goes once around the longitude of the new 1handle but does not venture into the old
part of A
1
. Attaching the 2 and 3handles to this new Heegaard diagram will give the original
manifold connect summed with o
3
(recall the Heegaard diagram of o
3
, gure 3.7), hence it will be
dieomorphic to the original manifold.
Handle slides are a little more dicult to understand. Sliding the 1handles is very simple, and
does not produce anything interesting since we required A
1
to be orientable, hence allowed only
one type of framing on the 1handles. To get a feeling for sliding 2handles, consider sliding two
handles that are attaching to 1
3
. Figure 3.9 shows how to do this in the obvious way. Here we
sliding the attaching circle of one handle through the disc 1
2
1 of the other handle. A better
way to look at this is just to look at the attaching circles. Then we see that sliding 2handles is
equivalent to taking a parallel of one circle, and forming the banded sum of this circle with the
other attaching circle (see gure 3.10).
Now to slide a 2handle /
1
across another 2handle /
2
in a Heegaard diagram make a parallel
39
Figure 3.9: Sliding 3dimensional 2handles
Figure 3.10: Sliding 3dimensional 2handles
copy of the attaching circle
2
of /
2
and form the band sum of the attaching circle
1
of /
1
with
the parallel of /
2
. If we let denote the band sum of
1
and the parallel of
2
, then note that
1
,
2
, and bound a pair of pants in A
1
. Conversely, if there are two attaching circles
1
,
2
on
A
1
and another curve on A
1
such that does not intersect any other attaching curves and
1
,
2
, and bound a pair of pants, then we can discard any one of these three curves without
changing the resulting 3manifold. See gure 3.11 for a nontrivial example of this.
Next we see how to compute the fundamental group of a 3manifold A from one of its Heegaard
diagrams. Choose a basis r
1
, . . . , r
g
for the free group
1
(A
1
), and let :
i
be the word in r
1
, . . . , r
g
representing the ith attaching circle. Then a presentation of
1
(A) is simply r
1
, . . . , r
g
: :
1
, . . . , :
g
).
Example 3.8. Consider the Heegaard diagram in gure 3.8. Let r
1
denote the standard generator
around the rst hole (counterclockwise orientation) and r
2
the generator around the second hole
(counterclockwise orientation). One can easily check that the curve
1
is represented by the
curve r
3
1
r
2
2
and
2
is represented by the curve r
4
1
r
3
2
. Therefore a presentation for the manifold
` associated to this Heegaard splitting is
1
(`) =
r
1
, r
2
: r
3
1
r
2
2
= r
4
1
r
3
2
= 1
_
. The rst relation
implies that r
3
1
r
3
2
= r
2
, and plugging this into the second relation gives r
1
r
2
= 1. Therefore r
1
and r
2
are inverses in
1
(`), hence 1 = r
3
1
r
2
2
= r
1
and r
2
= 1, and so ` is simply connected.
Now we compute the homology of a 3manifold A from one of its Heegaard diagrams. We
clearly have H
0
(A) = H
3
(A) = Z, C
1
(A) = C
2
(A) = Z
g
(if A has p 1 and 2handles). Further,
1
= 0 since the attaching spheres of the 1handles intersect 1
3
at two points of opposite sign,
and
3
= 0 for similar reasons. Hence all the homology information of A is contained in
2
. Given
40
Figure 3.11: Sliding 3dimensional 2handles
a 2handle /,
2
/ is a linear combination of the one handles /
i
g
i=1
, where the coecient of /
i
is
the intersection number of /s attaching circle with /
i
s belt sphere. The belt sphere of /
i
is just
the meridian that bounds a disc (the nonbolded curves in gure 3.6).
Example 3.9. If we label the left and right 1handles of gure 3.8 by /
1
and /
2
respectively, and
label the 2handle corresponding to the black attaching circle by /
1
and the other 2handle by /
2
,
then a close examination of this diagram shows that
2
/
1
= 3/
1
+ 2/
2
2
/
2
= 4/
1
+ 3/
2
We could also see this by just abelianizing the relations of
1
. As a linear transformation H
2
(A) =
Z
2
Z
2
= H
1
(A) it is invertible since its determinant is +1, therefore
2
is an isomorphism. This
implies that H
1
(A) = 0 = H
2
(A), and so A is a homology sphere. In fact, A is homeomorphic to
o
3
, as can be checked by sliding handles.
3.6 Kirby Diagrams
A Kirby diagram is a diagram we can associate to a 4dimensional handlebody A. We start with
a 4ball 1
4
, and think of its boundary 1
4
= o
3
as R
3
. We attach 1handles to this via
an embedding of 1
3
. 1
3
. There is the issue of framing (there are two framings), but for now let
us choose the framing such that A
1
= ;:o
1
1
3
(here we are attaching : 1handles). We can
represent this in R
3
by drawing 2: disjoint embedded 3balls in R
3
and pairing them
so that when we identify pairs in an orientation reversing manner we get A
1
= ;:o
1
1
3
.
To attaching a 2handle to A
1
we specify a knot in A
1
(the attaching circle) and label it with
a framing. So, a diagram of A
2
consists of : pairs of 3balls and a collection of arcs that either
start and end on the boundary of the 3balls, or form a closed loop. We can specify a framing on
a knot component by a nowhere zero normal vector eld, or equivalently, a parallel knot. Once we
specify which parallel corresponds to 0
1
(O(2)) = Z we can get any other framing by adding
full left or right twists. We will choose the parallel which has linking number 0 with the knot to
be the framing corresponding to 0.
It turns out that there is essentially a unique way to attach 3handles and 4handles so that we
obtain a closed manifold, so our diagram of A can stop here. Things are more complicated when
A ,= , but we will not deal with that now.
(todo: need more on this...)
Example 3.10. Let us nd a Kirby diagram of o
2
o
2
. The 2sphere has the obvious decomposition
o
2
= 1
1
+
, where 1
is a 0handle, 1
+
a 2handle, which we think of as the southern and
northern hemispheres. The attaching map for the 2handle is just the identity. The handlebody
decomposition of o
2
o
2
is just
o
2
o
2
=
0handle
..
1
2handle
..
1
+
1
2handle
..
1
1
+
4handle
..
1
+
1
+
41
First we determine the attaching maps for the 2handles. One is the map
1
: 1
+
1
(1
) dened by
1
(r, j) = (r, j), and the other is the map
2
:
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
2
UNFINISHED
Example 3.11. Let us nd a handlebody decomposition of o
2
o
2
. Recall that this is the boundary
of the nontrivial 1
3
bundle over o
2
.
42
4 Morse Theory
4.1 Morse Functions
We start with a smooth nmanifold ` and a smooth function ) : ` R. Take a chart (r, l),
that is an open set l ` and a homeomorphism r : l R
n
. If we write r in components
r = (r
1
, . . . , r
n
), then we dene the derivative of ) at some point j l with respect to this chart
by
)
r
i
(j) = 1
i
() r
1
)(r(j))
where 1
i
is the regular derivative of ) r
1
: R
n
R in the ith component. Recall that if (j, \ )
is another chart, then the derivative of ) with respect to these two charts on the overlap are related
by
)
j
i
=
n
j=1
)
r
j
r
j
j
i
(4.1)
Another way of saying this is to rst dene the Jacobian matrix of two charts (r, l) and (j, \ ).
This is the matrix whose (i, ,)entry is equal to
x
i
y
j
, and it is denoted by J
x
y
. If we let
f
x
denote
the column vector of derivatives of ), then (4.1) simply says
)
j
= J
x
y
)
r
Since
f
x
i
is just another smooth map from l to R we can take a second derivative with respect to
a chart. The second derivatives calculated with respect to dierent charts are related by
2
)
j
i
j
j
=
2
)
r
k
r
r
k
j
i
r
j
j
(4.2)
As with rst derivatives there is another way of looking at this. Let us dene the Hessian of )
with respect to the chart r be the matrix whose (i, ,)entry is
2
f
x
i
x
j
, and it is denoted by H
x
f
.
Since partial derivatives commute we have that H
x
f
is symmetric. We now see that (4.2) can be
written as
H
y
f
= (J
x
y
)
t
H
x
f
J
x
y
(4.3)
This tells us that even though the Hessian as a matrix is not welldened (i.e. it depends on the
chart), it is welldened as a bilinear form. There is also a nice coordinate free way of describing
the Hessian. Let : (T`) (T
`) (T
`) be any connection on T
p
` by
H
f
(j)(A) =
X
(d)) (4.4)
This does not depend on the choice of connection, for if
is another connection, then the dierence
is tensorial in both arguments and d)
p
= 0, hence
X
(d))
X
(d)) = 0 at j.
Suppose that a point j ` is a critical point of ), i.e. d)
p
= 0. We say that j is a non
degenerate critical point if det H
x
f
(j) is nonzero for some chart r, hence every chart by (4.3).
We dene the index of a critical point j to be the number of negative eigenvalues of the Hessian
at j, which is welldened by (4.3), and is denoted by j(j). Equivalently, we call the critical
point j nondegenerate if H
f
(j) does not have 0 for an eigenvalue, and j(j) is the number of
43
negative eigenvalues of H
f
(j). Finally, we dene a Morse function is a smooth function with all
nondegenerate critical points.
It turns out that Morse functions look very nice around critical points. The Morse lemma gives
a precise statement of this, and will be very important in our discussion of cell decompositions
of spaces via Morse functions. First we recall a basic fact from calculus using the fundamental
theorem.
Lemma 4.1. Let l be a convex subset of R
n
containing 0 and ) : l R a smooth function with
)(0) = 0. Then we can write
)(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) =
n
i=1
r
i
p
i
(r
1
, . . . , r
n
)
for some p
i
: l R with p
i
(0) =
f
x
i
(0).
Proof. For xed r
1
, . . . , r
n
we apply the fundamental theorem of calculus and chain rule to get
)(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) =
_
1
0
d)(tr
1
, . . . , tr
n
)
dt
dt =
_
1
0
n
i=1
r
i
)
r
i
(tr
1
, . . . , tr
n
) dt
So let p
i
(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) =
_
1
0
f
x
i
(tr
1
, . . . , tr
n
) dt, then clearly p
i
(0) =
f
x
i
(0) and we are done.
Lemma 4.2 (Morse Lemma). Let ) : ` R be a smooth function and j ` a nondegenerate
critical point. Then there is a chart j = (j
1
, . . . , j
n
) on a neighborhood l of j such that j
i
(j) = 0
and
) = )(j) (j
1
)
2
(j
)
2
+ (j
+1
)
2
+ + (j
n
)
2
on l, where j is the index of j.
Proof. First note that nding a chart so that ) can be expressed in the above form is equivalent
to nding a chart (r, l) such that on l we have
() r
1
)(t
1
, . . . , t
n
) = t
2
1
t
2
+t
2
+1
+ t
2
n
where t
i
are real numbers. Therefore we can, without loss of generality, assume that ) is dened on
some open set \ of R
n
(say containing zero), and by performing some translations we can assume
j = 0 and )(0) = 0.
Next it is clear that if ) can be represented in the above form for some chart (j, l), then we
have
2
)
j
i
j
j
(j) =
_
2 i = ,, , j
2 i = ,, , j
Therefore the Hessian H
x
f
is already diagonalized in this coordinate system, and clearly has j
negative entries along the diagonal. Therefore j really will be the index of j if we can get ) into
the above form.
Let r = (r
1
, . . . , r
n
) be the standard coordinates on R
n
. By lemma 4.1 we can nd functions
p
i
: \ R such that
)(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) =
n
i=1
r
i
p
i
(r
1
, . . . , r
n
)
44
and p
i
(0) =
f
x
i
(0). However, since j = 0 is assumed to be a critical point we have
f
x
i
(0) = 0, so
we can apply lemma 4.1 to the functions p
i
to obtain functions /
ij
: \ R such that
p
i
(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) =
n
j=1
r
j
/
ij
(r
1
, . . . , r
n
)
and /
ij
(0) =
g
i
x
j
(0) =
2
f
x
i
x
j
(0). Combining the above two expressions yields
)(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) =
n
i,j=1
r
i
r
j
/
ij
(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) (4.5)
If we dene
/
ij
=
1
2
(/
ij
+ /
ji
), then we see that
/
ij
=
/
ji
and yet still ) =
r
i
r
j
/
ij
. Therefore
we can assume that /
ij
= /
ji
. It is also clear that the matrix (/
ij
(0))
ij
is equal to
1
2
H
x
f
.
We now simply mimic the proof of the diagonalization of quadratic forms, applied to (/
ij
), to
show that we can nd coordinates to bring ) into the desired form. By assumption the Hessian is
nonsingular, so (/
ij
(0)) is also nonsingular. Reordering the coordinate system can assume that
/
11
(0) ,= 0, and so by continuity we have that /
11
(0) ,= 0 on some small neighborhood \
of 0.
Let us also assume that /
11
0 on \
R dened by
j
1
=
_
/
11
_
r
1
+
n
i=2
r
i
/
1i
/
11
_
(4.6)
The coordinates (j
1
, r
2
, . . . , r
n
) form a chart (in a possibly smaller neighborhood \
of 0). Squaring
this new coordinate gives
(j
1
)
2
= /
11
_
r
1
+
n
i=2
r
i
/
1i
/
11
_
2
= /
11
_
_
(r
1
)
2
+ 2
n
i=2
r
1
r
i
/
1i
/
11
+
_
n
i=2
r
i
/
1i
/
11
_
2
_
_
= /
11
(r
1
)
2
+ 2
n
i=2
r
1
r
i
/
1i
+
1
/
11
_
n
i=2
r
i
/
1i
_
2
(4.7)
This expression allows us to rewrite (r
1
)
2
as
/
11
(r
1
)
2
= (j
1
)
2
2
n
i=2
r
1
r
i
/
1i
1
/
11
_
n
i=2
r
i
/
1i
_
2
(4.8)
45
Now, using (4.5) and (4.8) we can rewrite ) in coordinates (j
1
, r
2
, . . . , r
n
) as
) = /
11
(r
1
)
2
+ 2
n
i=2
r
1
r
i
/
1i
+
n
i,j=2
r
i
r
j
/
ij
= (j
1
)
2
2
n
i=2
r
1
r
i
/
1i
1
/
11
_
n
i=2
r
i
/
1i
_
2
+ 2
n
i=2
r
1
r
i
/
1i
+
n
i,j=2
r
i
r
j
/
ij
= (j
1
)
2
+
n
i,j=2
r
i
r
j
/
ij
1
/
11
_
n
i=2
r
i
/
1i
_
2
Note that had we assumed /
11
< 0 on \
p
`. The gradient vector eld of ) is the unique vector eld
g
) corresponding to the 1form d) under this isomorphism, hence
p(A,
g
)) = d)(A)
for any vector eld A. In coordinates (r
1
, . . . , r
n
) we can write
g
) =
n
i,j=2
p
ij
)
r
j
r
i
where p
ij
are the components of the inverse metric. It is clear that
g
) vanishes at precisely the
critical points of ).
46
Theorem 4.1. Let [o, /] be an interval that does not contain any critical values and such that
)
1
[o, /] is compact. Then `
a
is dieomorphic to `
b
. In fact, `
a
is a deformation retract of
`
b
.
Proof. First note that the compactness hypothesis would be immediate if we assumed that ` is
compact. Let A be a vector eld given by
A =
g
)
[[
g
)[[
2
on )
1
[o, /], and vanish identically outside some compact set containing )
1
[o, /]. Since this vector
eld has compact support it generates a unique 1parameter group
t
: ` ` of dieomorphisms.
For xed j ` such that
t
(j) lies in )
1
[o, /], the function ) (j) is a map R R, and we can
compute (using the chain rule and denition of
g
))
d)(
t
(j))
dt
= d)(d
t
(d,dt)) = p(d
t
(d,dt),
g
)) =
p(
g
),
g
))
p(
g
),
g
))
= 1
So, the function ) (j) : R 1 is linear; in fact, )(
t
(j)) = t + )(
0
(j)) = t + )(j). So, if we
take a point j with )(j) = o, then )(
ba
(j)) = (/ o) + o = /, hence
ba
maps `
a
into `
b
.
Similarly,
1
ba
=
ab
maps `
b
into `
a
, hence `
b
is dieomorphic to `
a
, and this proves the
rst part of the theorem.
For the second part of the theorem we can construct the deformation retract explicitly. Consider
the homotopy :
t
: `
b
`
b
dened by
:
t
(r) =
_
r )(r) o
t(af(x))
(r) o )(r) /
We clearly have :
0
= id and :
1
is a retract of `
b
onto `
a
, therefore `
a
is a deformation retract
of `
b
.
Theorem 4.2. Let ) : `
n
R be a smooth function with a nondegenerate critical point j of
index j. Let c = )(j) and suppose )
1
[c , c + ] is compact, and contains no critical points of
) other than j. Then for small enough , the manifold `
c+
is dieomorphic to `
c
with an
ndimensional jhandle attached.
Proof. See gure 4.1 for the local behavior of ) around the critical point j. Take a chart (r, l)
around j as in the Morse lemma. Then the lightly shaded region is the set of points (r
1
, . . . , r
n
)
with )(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) c , and the medium shaded region is the set of points with c
)(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) c + . The intersection of the medium shaded region with the (r
1
, . . . , r
)axis is
the set of points (r
1
, . . . , r
) with (r
1
)
2
+ (r
)
2
, hence a jdimensional ball. The intersection
of the medium shaded region with the (r
+1
, . . . , r
n
)axis is the set of points (r
+1
, . . . , r
n
) with
(r
+1
)
2
+ + (r
n
)
2
, hence a (n j)dimensional ball.
The dark region / in the gure consists of the set of points (r
1
, . . . , r
n
) such that
(r
1
)
2
+ + (r
)
2
(r
+1
)
2
(r
n
)
2
and (r
+1
)
2
+ + (r
n
)
2
for suciently small . Clearly this region is dieomorphic to 1
1
n
, and intersects `
c
at
the points 1
1
n
, i.e.
(r
1
)
2
+ + (r
)
2
(r
+1
)
2
(r
n
)
2
= and (r
+1
)
2
+ + (r
n
)
2
47
x
+1
, . . . , x
n
x
1
, . . . , x
f c
f c +
Figure 4.1: Behavior of ) around a critical point
One can now use the gradient ow of ) to show that `
c+
is dieomorphic to `
c
/, hence a
jhandle was attached.
Theorem 4.2 and gure 4.1 also give an explicit description of the attaching spheres of the
handle attached. If the handle / is attached to `
c
to obtain `
c+
, then the attaching sphere of
/ is precisely where the descending manifold of j intersects the boundary of `
c
.
Theorem 4.3. If ) is a Morse function on a manifold `, and if each `
a
is compact, then `
has a handlebody decomposition with one jhandle for each critical point of index j.
4.3 Properties of Gradient Flows
Let us further investigate the properties of ows of gradient vector elds. For this section all of our
manifolds will be closed.
Proposition 4.1. Every function decreases along its negative gradient ow lines.
Proof. Let ) : ` R be C
1
and n : R ` a ow line of
g
). Since ) n is C
1
we have, by
48
the fundamental theorem of calculus, that for any / o
)(n(o)) )(n(/)) =
_
a
b
d
dt
) n(t) dt
=
_
b
a
d)
u(t)
(dn,dt) dt
=
_
b
a
d)
u(t)
(
g
)(n(t))) dt
=
_
b
a
p(
g
)(n(t)),
g
)(n(t))) dt
=
_
b
a
[[
g
)(n(t))[[ dt
0
Therefore )(n(o)) )(n(/)), and so ) decreased along n.
Proposition 4.2. Letting n be a ow line of ), if n() = j or n() = j, then j is a critical
point of ).
Proof. First suppose n() = j (the other case is similar). We have
lim
t
_
t
0
[[dn,dt(:)[[
2
d: = lim
t
()(n(0)) )(n(t))) = )(n(0)) )(j) <
This forces [[dn,dt(t)[[ 0 as t . Therefore
[[
g
)(j)[[ = lim
t
[[dn,dt(t)[[ = 0
and so j is a critical point of ).
Proposition 4.3. If j is a nondegenerate critical point of ), and n is a negative gradient ow
line with n() = j, then there are constants C 0, c 0 and T 0 such that
d(n(t), j) Cc
t
for all t T.
4.4 Existence of Morse Functions
We have proved quite a bit concerning Morse functions, but we have not yet shown that they always
exist. It turns out that not only do they exist, but in some sense, almost all smooth functions satisfy
the Morse property. We will prove this result and show that Morse functions can be chosen with
special properties, such as with separated critical points and selfindexing critical points.
Since most theorems that involve the phrase almost every invoke Sards theorem in some way,
we begin with this result. Recall that a smooth function ) : ` is said to have a critical
point at j ` if rank )
p
< dim, and a point is said to be a critical value of ) if
= )(j) for some critical point j `.
Theorem 4.4 (Sards Theorem). Let ) : R
n
R
m
be a smooth function. The critical values of )
have Lebesgue measure zero in R
m
.
49
Sards theorem gives us an easy proof that Morse functions are numerous on open sets of R
n
.
Proposition 4.4. Let ) : l R be a smooth function on an open set l R
n
. Then there exists
numbers o
1
, . . . , o
n
such that
)(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) = )(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) o
1
r
1
o
n
r
n
has all nondegenerate critical points. Further, the o
i
s can be chosen arbitrary small.
Proof. Dene a function / : l R
n
by
/ =
_
_
_
/
1
.
.
.
/
n
_
_
_ =
_
_
_
f
x
1
.
.
.
f
x
n
_
_
_
Then the Jacobian of / is
J
h
=
_
/
i
r
j
_
=
_
2
)
r
i
r
j
_
which is just the Hessian H
f
of ). So, the critical points of / are precisely where det H
f
= 0. By
theorem 4.4 we can nd a point o = (o
1
, . . . , o
n
) R
n
that is not a critical value of /. In fact,
there are many such points, and we can choose this point as close to 0 as we want. For this point,
dene
) : l R by
)(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) = )(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) o
1
r
1
o
n
r
n
Let j l be a critical point of
), then
0 =
)
r
i
(j) =
)
r
i
(j) o
i
hence /(j) = o. Since o is not a critical value of / we have that j is not a critical point of /, and
so det H
f
,= 0. Since ) and
) dier only by a linear function we have that their Hessians are equal,
so det H
e
f
= det H
f
,= 0, hence j is a nondegenerate critical point of
).
We can use this proposition to prove the more general result
Theorem 4.5. There exists a Morse function on any closed manifold `.
Proof. Start with any smooth function )
0
: ` R. We will make a sequence of small changes to
this function to remove degenerate critical points over open sets.
Let l
i
be a nite open cover of ` by charts, and let
i
: l
i
R be a collection of bump
functions for l
i
. Recall that this means that there is a compact set 1
i
l
i
such that
i
1 on
1
i
, 0 1 on l
i
and
i
0 outside l
i
. Without loss of generality we can assume that 1
i
covers `. Let /
m
= 1
1
1
m
and set 1
0
= .
We will use an induction argument to remove degenerate critical points from /
m
. Clearly )
0
has no degenerate critical points in /
0
, so let us assume that )
m1
has been constructed with
no degenerate critical points in /
m1
. Let r : l
m
R
n
be a chart for l
m
, then )
m1
r
1
:
r(l
m
) R is a function dened on an open set of R
n
. By proposition 4.4 we can nd small vector
o = (o
1
, . . . , o
n
) such that
)
m1
r
1
(r
1
, . . . , r
n
) o
1
r
1
o
n
r
n
50
has only nondegenerate critical points. We can extend this function to all of ` by multiplying by
the bump function, so we dene
)
m
(j) =
_
)
m1
(j) o r(j)
m
(j) j l
m
)
m1
(j) j , supp
m
This is a welldened smooth function on ` since
m
0 on the overlap of l
m
and the complement
of supp
m
. Now )
m
does not have any degenerate critical points on 1
m
, and since )
m1
did not
have any degenerate critical points on /
m1
it follows that )
m
is a Morse function on /
m
. This
completes the proof by induction.
The proof of theorem 4.5 actually shows a little more. Since we could pick the numbers o
1
, . . . , o
n
very small at each stage we could actually show that the constructed Morse function is C
2
close to
the initial function )
0
, hence there is a Morse function close to any smooth function.
(note: Other theorems to prove)
Theorem 4.6. There is a Morse function ) : ` R on any closed manifold ` such that if
j, ` are critical points, then )(j) )() if and only if j(j) j().
Such Morse functions are called selfindexing, and clearly the image of ` under ) is precisely
[0, n], where n is the dimension of the manifold.
51
5 Kirby Calculus
5.1 Surgery on Links
We have seen that Heegaard diagrams provide a nice combinatorial picture for 3manifolds, even if
they are a little unwieldy to work with. This is mostly due to the fact that selfhomeomorphisms
of high genus surfaces are dicult to understand. We will now present another combinatorial
method of constructing 3manifolds, called surgery on links. It has the advantage that we now only
need to understand selfhomeomorphisms of the torus, but the disadvantage that we now need to
understand links better.
Given a 3manifold `, let / be an embedded knot in ` and (/) a tubular neighborhood,
which is homeomorphic to 1
2
o
1
. Surgery on this knot is the proccess of cutting out the tubular
neighborhood and gluing it back in. Since `(/) has boundary homeomorphic to o
1
o
1
we
can nd a homeomorphism : (1
2
o
1
) (`(/)) and form the quotient space `
k,
=
(`(/))
(1
2
o
1
), which we call the Dehn surgery on / via , or simply surgery on
/ since we are not going to discuss more general surgeries. The construction generalizes to links
by performing it on each link component. Every closed, orientable 3manifold can be obtained by
such a construction applied to ` = o
3
, as we will see later.
Proposition 5.1. A surgery `
k,
is completely determined by the image of 1
2
under .
Proof. The solid torus 1
2
o
1
can be attached in two steps. Let J be a small segment of o
1
containing . Then we can start by attaching 1
2
J to `(/). This leaves 1
2
J
c
to be
attached along its boundary, which is just a 3ball being attached along a 2sphere. There is only
one way to attach this piece since every orientation preserving homeomorphism of o
2
is isotopic to
the identity.
So now a surgery can be described by a knot / and a curve on (`(/)), which is where the
meridian will be mapped under the attaching map. We can come up with a more combinatorial
description of this curve, or more specically, closed curves on the torus. Let and be the
meridian and longitude of the torus T
2
= o
1
o
1
so that
1
(T
2
) = Z Z is generated by []
and []. For j, integers let = j + denote a curve in the homotopy class j[] + [], i.e.
wraps j times around the meridian and times around the longitude. We have the following
characterization of these curves.
Proposition 5.2.
1. If a curve in the homotopy class j[] + [] has no selfintersections, then either j and
are relatively prime, or one of them is 0 and the other 1.
2. If two closed curves on the torus are homotopic and without selfintersections, then they are
isotopic.
Therefore isotopy classes of curves on T
2
are in onetoone correspondence with pairs of relatively
prime integers.
Let us apply this to a knot / in o
3
. Let j be a canonical meridian of (/), and let / be the
canonical longitude of (/). Recall that this means that lk(/, /) = 0. Choose orientations on j and
/ such that the ordered basis (j, /, n) matches the orientation of o
3
, where n is the outward pointing
normal to (/). If we glue a solid torus 1
2
o
1
into o
3
(/) via : 1
2
o
1
(`(/)),
then we know must map the meridian 1
2
to a curve jj + /, for some relatively prime
52
integers j, (or possibly one equal to 0 and the other 1). Therefore a surgery can now be described
simply by a knot and an extended rational number j, Q . This is also called rational
surgery. If = 1, then the surgery is called an integral surgery. We call the rational number
j, the framing index of /, or simply the framing. This discussion applies equally well to knots
embedded in an integral homology sphere.
Here is a simple proposition relating surgeries to Heegaard splittings, as well as a powerful
corollary.
Proposition 5.3. Let )
1
, )
2
: H H
for i = 1, 2. Then `
2
is obtained from `
1
by an integral surgery along a knot / `
1
isotopic to c.
Proof. Let / be a knot in H obtained from pushing c a little H. Connect a tubular neighborhood
(/) of / to H via an annulus
= o
1
1 such that o
1
0 corresponds to a longitude /
on
(/) and o
1
1 corresponds to c. There is a selfhomeomorphism of H(/) that is the
result of cutting H(/) along , performing a full twist on one of the rims, and then gluing the
rims back together. Clearly is just an extension of
c
to H(/), but also its restricted to the
torus (/) is a Dehn twist around /
. Let `
i
= (H(/))
f
i
H
, i.e. `
i
is `
i
with a solid
torus removed. Then `
1
and `
2
are homeomorphic via the map
/(r) =
_
(r) r H(/)
r r H
, where H, H
. Then )
1
2
)
1
is an orientation preserving homomeomorphism of a surface of genus p, hence by the DehnLickorish
theorem ((todo: do this theorem)) we have )
1
= )
2
c
1
cn
, where
c
i
is a Dehn twist around
a simple, closed curve c
i
. Therefore by proposition 5.3 we have that ` is a sequence of integral
surgeries on knots in o
3
, or equivalently an integral surgery on a link.
A surgery diagram for o
3
is a link diagram with each component labeled with an element of
Q. The canonical longitude of a knot / can be drawn in a diagram by just drawing a parallel
copy of the knot next to / such that its linking number with / is 0. However, take note that the
rst Reidemeister move will change this canonical longitude, so one needs to be careful. We will
now explain the subtleties of this situation.
Consider the case of integral surgeries on knots in o
3
, so let / be a knot with integral framing
n. This framing uniquely determines (up to isotopy) a longitude / of / such that lk(/, /), which
is the curve we glue the meridian to when we perform the surgery. What is the meaning of the
Reidemeister moves in a surgery diagram? It is clear that performing 1
2
and 1
3
moves does
not change the manifold resulting from performing surgery on the knot, so we will continue calling
these moves 1
1
and 1
2
on surgery diagrams. However, performing an 1
1
move makes the longitude
53
Figure 5.1: Belt Trick
Figure 5.2: Ribbon Reidemeister I
wrap one more time around the knot. This is the socalled belt trick, and is shown in gure 5.1.
This means that the framing of the knot will need to change by 1, depending on which way you
twist. This move on surgery diagrams will be called 1
1
due to its equivalent interpretation as a
Reidemeister move for ribbons, and is shown in gure 5.2. The inverse of the rst 1
1
is called
adding a left twist, and the inverse of the other 1
1
move is called adding a right twist. Now two
surgery diagrams related by a nite number of 1
1
, 1
2
and 1
3
moves give homeomorphic manifolds,
but does the converse hold? Unfortunately no, but there are two more moves one can add, called
Kirby moves, for which the converse holds. This is discussed in section 5.2.
Example 5.1. The 1,0 = surgery on the unknot in o
3
results in o
3
again since we are just
cutting out an unknotted, solid torus and gluing it back in the same way. Performing a 0surgery
on the unknot means to cut out an unknotted, solid torus H from o
3
and glue it back in such that
the meridian wraps once around the longitude. However, this longitude is precisely the meridian of
the the solid torus o
3
H, so this surgery is really just gluing two solid tori together so that their
meridians are identied, hence this is o
1
o
2
.
More generally, a surgery on the unknot in o
3
with surgery coecient j, (j and relatively
prime or one equal to 0 and the other 1) results in 1(j, ). This is because we cut out an unknotted,
solid torus H from o
3
and glue it back it so that the meridian wraps j times around the longitude
and times around the meridian. However, Hs meridian is precisely o
3
Hs longitude, and Hs
longitude is precisely o
3
Hs meridian, hence we are just gluing together two solid tori so that
the meridian of one gets wrapped j times around the longitude and times around the meridian
of the other torus. This is precisely the Heegaard splitting description of 1(j, ). Compare this
with example 3.6. We can also nd a surgery diagram for 1(j, ) that has only integral surgery
coecients. See gure 5.3.
Let /
i
, 1 i n, denote the components of a surgery diagram of some link, let /
i
be framed
by j
i
,
i
and let ` be the 3manifold resulting from performing this surgery. If we let 1 =
o
3
((/
1
) (/
n
)) be the knot complement, then H
1
(1) = Z
n
and is generated by the
54
Figure 5.3: Surgery diagrams for o
1
o
2
, 1(j, ) and 1(j 1, )
meridians j
i
of the link. When we glue in a solid torus o
1
1
2
so that 1
2
is wrapped j
i
times around the meridian of /
i
and
i
times around the longitude, when add a relation to H
1
(1).
Namely, we add the relation j
i
j
i
+
i
i
= 0, where
i
is the canonical longitude of /
i
, since we
are essentially lling this curve with a disc. The longitudes can be expressed as a relation in terms
of the j
i
s. Since lk(/
i
,
i
) = 0 we have that
i
bounds a surface 1
i
(i.e. a Seifert surface) in
o
3
(/
i
) (but not necessarily in 1). Cut a small disc out of 1
i
at each intersection point of a
dierent component /
j
with 1
i
, and orient it positively if the intersection is positive and negatively
if the intersection is negative. Since /
j
and 1
i
intersect lk(/
i
, /
j
) times (counted with sign), we
have
i
=
j=i
lk(/
i
, /
j
)j
j
. We have proved the following.
Proposition 5.4. For a surgery diagram with components /
1
, . . . , /
n
and framings j
1
,
1
, . . . , j
n
,
n
,
the rst homology of this surgery is the free abelian group on n generators modulo the relations
j
i
j
i
+
i
i=j
lk(/
i
, /
j
)j
j
= 0.
Corollary 5.1. For a surgery diagram with components /
1
, . . . , /
n
and integral framings j
1
, . . . , j
n
,
let be the linking matrix of this link with respect to any orientation. Then the rst homology of
this surgery is isomorphic to Z
n
, im.
Corollary 5.2. If the linking matrix has det = 1, then the surgery is a homology sphere. In
particular, a surgery on any knot with framing 1 is a homology sphere.
5.2 Kirby Moves
We now describe two basic moves that can be performed on surgery diagrams that do not change
the resulting surgered manifold. If a link 1 can be written as 1 = 1
1
1
2
, where 1
1
and 1
2
are
links that can be separated by a ball, then clearly a surgery on 1 is dieomorphic to the connected
sum of the surgeries on each 1
1
and 1
2
. So, if we add an unknotted, unlinked component to any
link 1 with framing 1, surgery on this new link is the connected sum of the surgery on 1 and the
surgery on the unknot with framing 1, which is just o
3
, hence the manifold is unchanged. The
addition or removal of an unknotted, unlinked component with framing 1 from a surgery diagram
is called the rst Kirby move (1
1
).
Next, suppose our link 1 is expressed as 1 = /
1
/
2
, where /
1
and /
2
are knots with framing
n
1
and n
2
, and are not necessarily unlinked. Let / be a longitude of /
2
dening its framing (i.e.
lk(/
2
, /) = n
2
), and let /
1
be the connected sum of /
1
with / along a band disjoint from 1 and /,
and let 1
= /
1
/
2
. We then give /
1
the framing n
1
+n
2
+2 lk(/
1
, /
2
), where the linking number
is computed with respect to the orientations on /
1
and /
2
that induce an orientation on /
1
(there
are only two, and both have the same linking number). Then surgery on 1 gives the same manifold
as surgery on 1
, but we will wait to show this until later. This process of adding the component
/
1
to /
2
, sometimes also called sliding /
1
across /
2
, is the second Kirby move (1
2
). Note that
55
Figure 5.4: Separating an unknotted component from a strand
the link 1
1
. Amazingly these two moves
are enough to get between any two surgery diagrams of the same manifold.
Theorem 5.2 (Kirby). Two manifolds presented as a surgery on some links are orientation pre
servingly homeomorphic if and only if one link can be obtained from the other via a nite sequence
of 1
1
and 1
2
moves.
We shall now develop many secondary moves from 1
1
and 1
2
that are easier to apply directly.
Example 5.2. Suppose there is an unknotted component of 1 with framing 1 that is linked once
with a single strand from another component of 1 with framing n. We claim that we can separate
the unknotted component from the rest of the link, in which case the framing of the linked stranded
changes by 1. See gure 5.4 for the case of the unknot framed by 1, where the bolded curves are
the components of the link and the nonbolded curve is the longitude of the unknot determining its
framing. Note that the linking number of the vertical strand with the unknotted component is +1,
so the framing of the vertical strand changes to n 1 + 2 1 = n + 1. The framing of this strand
does not change from the 2nd frame to the 3rd because the two 1
1
moves performed cancel each
other out. The case where the unknot is framed by +1 is similar.
Example 5.3. Suppose now there is an unknotted component of 1 with framing 1 that is linked
once with two strands from other components of 1. All the steps are shown in gure 5.5. We can
see that separating this unknotted component resulted in a full right twist in the two strands. If
the two strands belong to two dierent link components, then each of their framings will increase
by 1, and if they belong to the same component, the framing will increase by 2.
Example 5.4. The general picture of the previous two examples is that if we can nd an unknotted
component of 1 with framing 1 that is linked once with / strands, then we can separate the unknot
from these strands by adding a full left/right twist in the strands, and changing their framings
accordingly. This type of move (see gure 5.6) is called the FennRourke move. There is another
name for this operation due to its relation to the 4manifold theory of Kirby calculus. If we use
the rst Kirby move to introduce an unknotted, unlinked component with framing 1, we say that
we have performed a blowup operation. Conversely, if we nd an unknotted component with
framing 1 that links some strands once, then the operation of sliding the unknotted component
o the strands and using 1
1
to discard it is called the blowdown operation.
Example 5.5. Suppose our link 1 can be written as 1 =
n
i=0
1
i
such that 1
0
is the unknot with
framing 0 and links with only 1
1
once (the other 1
i
s are free to link with 1
1
in any way). We claim
that we can use 1
2
moves to change any crossing of some component 1
i
(i 1) passing under
1
1
to an over crossing. By changing all such crossings to over crossings we would have completely
separated 1
0
1
1
from all of
n
i=2
1
i
, and we would have completely unknotted 1
1
.
56
Figure 5.5: Separating an unknotted component from two strands
Figure 5.6: Separating an unknotted component from many strands
Suppose a strand of 1
i
crosses underneath 1
1
. We can isotopy 1
0
along 1
1
so that it is close to
this crossing (in a diagram we only need 1
1
and 1
2
moves). Sliding 1
i
over 1
0
and then applying
1
1
and 1
2
allows us to change this crossing to an over crossing (see gure 5.7). If i 1, then the
framing of 1
i
does change from this Kirby move since 1
0
has framing 0 and 1
i
is not not linked
with 1
0
. However, if i = 1, then the framing of 1
1
is changed to n
1
+ 2 lk(1
0
, 1
1
), where n
1
is the
framing of 1
1
.
Once all the crossings have been changed so that 1
0
1
1
is separated from the rest of the link
and 1
1
is unknotted to become 1
1
, we are left to deal with a Hopf link 1
0
1
1
with one component
framed by 0 and the other by some integer, say j. By sliding 1
1
over 1
0
like we did above we see
that the framing of 1
1
changes by 2, so doing this repeatedly we can reduce this to the case when
the Hopf link is framed by 0 and 1, or 0 and 0. Performing surgery on either of these links just
gives o
3
, so we can remove them entirely. In the end, we have separated 1
0
1
1
from the rest of
1 and cancelled it.
Example 5.6. There is a simple way of expressing a surgery on the connected sum of two knots
/
1
#/
2
and the surgery on each knot separately. Suppose /
1
and /
2
have framings j and respec
tively, and are linked once by a 0framed unknot /
0
. If we slide /
1
over /
2
to get /
1
, then we see
that /
0
now only links /
2
. So, applying the move in example 5.6 allows us to separate /
0
/
2
from
/
1
and cancel it. The knot that is left, /
1
, is precisely /
1
#/
2
with framing j + . See ??. (todo:
make this pic)
A graph embedded in the plane with vertices
i
decorated by elements j
i
Q induces a
surgery diagram in the following way. Place an unknotted, unlinked circle /
i
at each vertex
i
and
57
Figure 5.7: Changing under crossings to over via a 0framed unknot
frame it by j
i
. If two vertices are connected by an edge, then link the corresponding circles once.
If the graph is a tree, then there is a unique way to do this. These surgery tries provide a simply
way to express surgery diagrams that are composed of unknotted components linked together in
the simplest way.
We have seen that a surgery on any knot with framing 1 results in an integral homology sphere.
There is a particular homology sphere that is ubiquitous in low dimensional topology called the
Poincare sphere. We will dene it to be the space obtained by surgery on the lefthand trefoil with
framing 1.
Example 5.7. We will show that the Poincare sphere is homeomorphic to performing surgery on
the 1
8
Dynkin diagram where each vertex is framed by 2. We blow down this diagram three
times by adding 3 unknotted components with framings +1 and sliding them over the 3 ends of the
diagram. Then we blow up 8 times to remove all components with framing 1. At this point we
have 3 components with framing 3, 2 and 5 linked to a component with framing 1. Blowing this
up we get two components with framing 2 and 4 linked to a component with framing 1. Blowing
up again gives a component of framing 3 linked with a component of framing 1, and a nal blow of
gives a single knot with framing 2. Performing a few 1
1
moves gives the trefoil with framing 1.
(todo: make pic)
5.3 The Rational Calculus
Now we will extend our moves on integral surgeries to rational surgeries. The rst move we
will consider is called a Rolfsen twist. Recall that the lens spaces 1(j, ) and 1(j, + nj) are
homeomorphic for any integer n; that is, the surgeries on the unknot with rational coecients
p
q
and
p
np+q
are homeomorphic. We will describe how to explicitly visualize this homeomorphic, which
will then lead us to a new move on rational surgeries.
Let H be the standardly embedded solid torus in o
3
and T its boundary torus. We can construct
1(j, ) by a j, surgery on the unknot in o
3
, which is equivalent to gluing two solid tori together
via a map ) : T T that maps the meridian j to the curve j + j/, where / is the longitude. If
: T T is a right Dehn twist around j, then each time the curve j+j/ intersects j (which is j
times) the curve (j +j/) picks up another intersection with /, hence (j +j/) = ( +j)j +j/.
Since extends to a homeomorphism of the solid torus H that T bounds we have that it also
extends to a homeomorphism of H
f
H and H
f
H by our gluing lemma (lemma 3.1). This
shows explicitly that 1(j, ) is homeomorphic to 1(j, j + ). We can generalize this construction
by letting be an nfold Dehn twist around j (where it is a right twist if n 0 and a left twist if
n < 0), in which case we get an explicit homeomorphism of 1(j, nj + ) with 1(j, ). If : = j,,
then we can also rephrase this as the : surgery on the unknot is homeomorphic to the
1
n+
1
r
surgery
58
n
r =
p
q
n 1
1
1+
1
r
=
p
p+q
Figure 5.8: The Rolfsen Twist
on the unknot for any n.
We can now describe the Rolfsen twist. Suppose we have a rationally framed link in o
3
such
that one component / is framed with an integer n and is linked once with an unknotted component
l which has any rational framing : = j,. We claim that surgery on this link is equivalent to
surgery on the link formed by changing /s framing to n1 and ls framing to
p
p+q
=
1
1+
1
r
. We
will show this by mimicking the above arguments to describe an explicit homeomorphism between
the spaces.
First we remove a tubular neighborhood l of l from o
3
to obtain the space A, and let
) : l A be the gluing homeomorphism for the surgery on l; that is, ) maps the meridian
of l to times around the meridian and j times around the longitude of A. Let be the
homeomorphism of A that cuts the space open along a disc 1 A such that 1 is the longitude
on l, performs a full right twist, then glues everything back, and is the identity outside a small
ball containing 1. Now glue l back into A via the map ). Then clearly this surgery is equivalent
to the original surgery, except now l is framed by
p
p+q
and / is framed by n + 1.
It turns out that the Rolfsen twists are nearly enough to get between any rational surgery
diagrams for the same 3manifold.
Theorem 5.3. If two 3manifolds presented as a rational surgery diagram are orientation preserv
ingly dieomorphic, then one diagram can be brought into the other via a nite sequence of Rolfsen
twists and adding/removing a knot component with framing .
Let us look at many examples using these rational calculus moves.
Example 5.8.
Proposition 5.5. We can convert any rational surgery diagram 1 for a 3manifold into an integral
surgery diagram 1
[o
2
], so
every homology class H
2
(`) has a corresponding classifying map ) : o
2
` such that
)
[o
2
] = . Since dim` = 4 we have that ) can be slightly homotoped so that ) is an immersion
with nitely many isolated double points. Locally, a double point looks like two planes in R
4
intersecting at a point 1. We can cut a small disc out of each plane around 1 and connect the
planes with a cylinder that misses 1. Performing this operation on each double point of )(o
2
) we
get a smoothly embedded surface in ` representing .
So, for a 4manifold ` and two homology classes o, / H
2
(`), let 1
a
, 1
b
` be smoothly
embedded, oriented surfaces representing o and / respectively. We can slightly deform the embed
dings, if necessary, so that 1
a
and 1
b
intersect transversally in a nite collection of points. Assign
a sign of 1 to each intersection point j depending on whether or not the induced orientation on
T
p
1
a
T
p
1
b
from 1
a
and 1
b
agrees with T
p
`. We call the sum of these numbers the intersection
product of o and /, and denote it by o /. Then
Proposition 6.1. Q
M
(, ) = 11() 11()
If we x a basis c
1
, . . . , c
k
of H
2
(`), then we call the matrix [Q
M
] = c
i
c
j
ij
the matrix form
of Q
M
. It is clearly symmetric.
Example 6.1. Let ` = o
2
o
2
, then H
2
(`) is generated by o = o
2
j
0
and / = r
0
o
2
for
some base point (r
0
, j
0
) `. We can slightly deform o to be completely disjoint from the original
o, hence o o = 0, and similarly / / = 0. We cannot deform o so that it is disjoint from /, but
60
o and / clearly intersect transversally at one point, and by choosing orientations appropriately we
have o / = 1. Therefore the matrix form of Q
M
with respect to the basis o, / is
[Q
M
] =
_
0 1
1 0
_
Example 6.2. We will see soon that the intersection form on C1
2
is (1) and on C1
2
is (1).
More generally, the intersection form on the 1
2
bundle over o
2
with Euler number n is just (n).
Example 6.3. An easy application of the MayerVietoris sequence shows that H
2
(`#)
=
H
2
(`) H
2
(), and so Q
M#N
= Q
M
Q
N
.
If ` is a compact, oriented, connected and simply connected 4manifold with boundary, then
H
2
(`) and H
2
(`, `) are still torsion free, and so PoincareLefschetz duality gives us a non
degenerate pairing Q
M
: H
2
(`) H
2
(`, `) Z dened by Q
M
(, ) = ( , [`, `]). If
` is an integral homology sphere, then H
2
(`, `) = H
2
(`), and so Q
M
is a symmetric, non
degenerate pairing of H
2
(`) with itself. In terms of intersections of surfaces, we can still dene the
intersection product : H
2
(`) H
2
(`) Z in the usual way, and if ` is an integral homology
sphere we still have Q
M
(, ) = 11() 11(). There is a converse to the nondegeneracy of Q
M
.
Proposition 6.2. The intersection form Q
M
on a compact, oriented, connected and simply con
nected 4manifold ` with boundary is nondegenerate if and only if ` is an integral homology
sphere.
Proof. If ` is a disjoint union of integral homology spheres, then we have already seen that Q
M
is nondegenerate by PoincareLefschetz duality.
Suppose Q
M
is nondegenerate. Since ` is simply connected we have H
1
(`) = 0 by the
universal coecient theorem, hence H
3
(`, `) = 0 by PoincareLefschetz duality. A part of the
long exact sequence of the pair (`, `) looks like
0 H
2
(`)
i
H
2
(`)
j
H
2
(`, `) H
1
(`) 0
So we have i
= 0 if and only if H
2
(`) = 0. If imi
and / H
2
(`) we have o / = 0 since we can move any surface representing / so
that it does not intersect the boundary at all. But, Q
M
is assume to be nondegenerate, so we do
not allow this to happen, hence imi
= 0, and so H
2
(`) = 0. Finally, this implies H
1
(`) = 0,
therefore ` is an integral homology sphere.
Intersection forms are very important in 4dimensional topology. In fact, they nearly classify all
simply connected 4manifolds by a theorem of Freedman. So, it will be useful to recall some basic
facts of nondegenerate, symmetric, bilinear forms Q : Z
n
Z
n
Z. We say that two such forms
Q
1
, Q
2
are isomorphic if there is an isomorphism : Z
n
Z
n
such that Q
1
(r, j) = Q
2
((r), (j)).
The rank of Q is dened to be n. If we think of Q as a bilinear form over R, then we can diagonalize
over the reals and there will be /
+
positive values and /
. We call
Q a denite form if /
= 0 or /
+
= 0, and call Q an indenite form otherwise. We say that Q is
even if Q(r, r) = 0 mod 2 for all r, and otherwise we say Q is odd.
There is a nice relationship between surgeries on links and intersection forms on cobordisms
of surgeries. First we will consider a fourth way of dening the linking number of two disjoint,
oriented knots (see the other three denitions in section 2.1). For disjoint, oriented knots /
i
and /
j
61
in o
3
, let 1
i
and 1
j
be Seifert surfaces with their induced orientations. We can push the interiors
of these surfaces into the 4ball 1
4
that bounds o
3
so that 1
i
o
3
= /
i
and 1
j
o
3
= /
j
. Then,
perturbing 1
i
and 1
j
slightly so that they intersect transversely if necessary, one can compute that
lk(/
i
, /
j
) = 1
i
1
j
.
Let A be a 4dimensional 2handlebody; that is, a 4manifold that can be decomposed as 0
handle 2handles 4handle. This is equivalent to specifying a link 1 = /
1
/
n
in 1
4
with /
i
framed by an integer j
i
. For each component /
i
, let 1
i
denote a surface of /
i
embedded
in 1
4
= o
3
, then we can push this surface a little bit into 1
4
to obtain a surface
1
i
such that
1
i
o
3
=
1
i
= /
i
. Let G
i
be the core disc of /
i
, then by gluing
1
i
and G
i
together along /
i
we
obtain a closed, oriented, smoothly embedded surface
i
in A. Put any orientation on /
i
, then we
get induced orientations on
1
i
and G
i
, hence
i
also gets an induced orientation.
Proposition 6.3. The surfaces
1
, . . . ,
n
form a basis for H
2
(A).
Proof. First consider the space obtained from attaching one 2handle Y = 1
4
(1
2
1
2
). Let
be a small open neighborhood of (1
2
1
2
), and let l = 1
4
and \ = (1
2
1
2
) . Then
l is homotopy equivalent to 1
4
, \ is homotopy equivalent to 1
2
1
2
, and l \ is homotopy
equivalent to o
1
1
2
. The MayerVietoris sequence gives the following exact sequence.
H
2
(l) H
2
(\ ) H
2
(Y )
H
1
(l \ ) H
1
(l \ )
which implies that the connecting homomorphism : H
2
(Y ) H
1
(l \ ) is an isomorphism,
where clearly H
1
(l\ )
= Z. To understand the generator of H
2
(Y ) let us recall how the connecting
homomorphism is dened. A cycle c 7
2
(Y ) can be expressed as c = n + with n C
2
(l) and
C
2
(\ ). This implies n = , hence n 7
1
(l \ ), and so we dene [c] = [n].
The attaching sphere knot / of the 2handle is the generator of H
1
(l \ ), so we need to
determine what element of H
2
(Y ) gets mapped to /. By our description of we see that can
be represented by a 2chain in l and a 2chain in \ whose boundaries are /. Therefore we can
take these chains to be the Seifert surface of / pushed into 1
4
and the core disc of the 2handle
1
2
1
2
, and so is can be represented by gluing these surfaces together.
Repeating this argument for each 2handle in A we get a set of n generators of H
2
(A), which
we know to be of rank n from its handlebody homology, therefore these generators form a basis.
We call the basis
,
. . . ,
n
the canonical basis of H
2
(A). Let us compute the matrix of the
intersection form with respect to this canonical basis. First we compute the self intersection number
i
i
. Translate the core disc G
i
to a parallel disc G
i
in the boundary 1
2
1
2
. This new disc
will intersect the boundary of 1
4
at a longitude of /
i
, call it /
i
, with linking number lk(/
i
, /
i
) = j
i
.
Isotope the Seifert surface 1
i
to a new surface 1
i
such that 1
i
= /
i
, and then push this surface
into 1
4
to obtain
1
i
such that
1
i
o
3
=
1
i
= /
i
and so that
1
i
and
1
i
intersect transversally.
By gluing
1
i
to G
i
we obtain a closed surface
i
that represents the same homology class as , and
clearly
i
= (
1
i
G
i
) (
1
i
G
i
) = 1
i
1
i
= lk(/
i
, /
i
) = j
i
Repeating this argument for two dierent components /
i
and /
j
, shows that
i
j
= lk(/
i
, /
j
).
So, we have proved the following.
Proposition 6.4. The intersection form of a 2handlebody in the canonical basis is equal to the
linking matrix of the associated link.
62
D
4
D
2
D
2
Figure 6.1: Surgery Cobordism
Let ` = A, i.e. ` is the result of performing the surgery on the link 1 in o
3
. We saw in
corollary 5.1 that H
1
(`) could be computed as Z
n
, im[1], where [1] is the linking matrix of 1. As
a corollary we now have
Corollary 6.1. Let A be a 2handlebody with intersection form Q
X
. Then H
1
(A) is nite if and
only det Q
X
,= 0, in which case [H
1
(A)[ = [ det Q
X
[.
6.2 Kirby Calculus Reinterpreted
Kirby calculus is essentially a 4dimensional technique, and so we take another look at the Kirby
moves. To bring Kirby calculus into the 4dimensional world we show that surgeries on manifolds
induce cobordisms. Recall that two compact, oriented, smooth nmanifolds `
1
and `
2
are said
to be cobordant if there is a compact, oriented, smooth (n + 1)manifold \ such that \ =
`
1
.`
2
, where `
1
is `
1
with the opposite orientation. A manifold ` is said to be cobordant
to zero if it is cobordant to the empty manifold, i.e. \ = `.
Proposition 6.5. The manifold resulting from any surgery on any knot in o
3
is cobordant to zero.
Proof. Let / be a knot in o
3
with tubular neighborhood (/), and let : (o
1
1
2
) (`(/))
be the attaching map that determines the surgery on /. Let c be the image of any meridian 1
2
under so that c is a curve in (/). There is a dieomorphism : 1
2
1
2
(/) such that
(1
2
0) = / and (1
2
) = c, where is some point on the boundary of the 2disc.
Let \ be the manifold resulting from attaching the 2handle 1
2
1
2
to the the 4ball 1
4
via
: 1
2
1
2
(/) 1
4
.
The boundary of the 4ball has changed by attaching this 2handle. The part of the boundary
of 1
4
outside of (/) (which is the knot complement) have remained boundary points, and all the
points in (/) have now become interior points of `. The free part 1
2
1
2
of the boundary of
the 2handle have now become boundary points of ` (see gure 6.1). This means we have removed
a solid torus from ` and glued in another solid torus. In fact, the solid torus was glued in by a
dieomorphism that maps the meridian 1
2
to the curve c, hence this is just performing
the surgery on / determined by . Therefore we have constructed a cobordism from the surgered
manifold to the empty manifold, and so it is cobordant to zero.
Corollary 6.2. Every closed, oriented 3manifold is cobordant to zero.
63
M
[0, 1]
N(k)
D
2
D
2
Figure 6.2: Surgery Cobordism
Proof. By proposition 6.5 we have that every surgery on o
3
is cobordant to zero. But, by theo
rem 5.1 every closed, oriented 3manifold is a surgery on o
3
, hence every such manifold is cobordant
to zero.
Example 6.4. We saw earlier that 1
2
bundles over o
2
are canonically parameterized by Z by
attaching a 4dimensional 2handle along an unknotted circle in 1
4
. Let 1
n
denote this 4manifold
with boundary, and since 1
n
is the result of performing a surgery on the unknot with framing n,
we see that 1
n
= 1(n, 1). In particular 1
0
is the trivial bundle o
2
1
2
. We also saw that C1
2
is a union of a 0, 2 and 4handle, and the 2handle is attached to the 0handle along an unknotted
circle. So, which of the 4manifolds 1
n
corresponds to C1
2
1
4
, i.e. C1
2
without its 4handle? In
C1
2
the 2handle 1
2
1
2
is attached to 1
4
= 1
2
1
2
via the map : 1
2
1
2
(1
2
1
2
)
dened by (., n) = (., .n). By xing a . and restricting [n[ = 1 we see that a longitude of
o
1
1
2
is wrapped once around the meridian and once around the longitude of o
1
1
2
. So, when
we attach this handle the boundary changes by performing a surgery on the unknot with framing
+1, hence C1
2
1
4
is dieomorphic to 1
1
. We also have 1
1
is dieomorphic to C1
2
1
4
.
A slight generalization of the construction in proposition 6.5 gives an explicit cobordism between
any manifold and any surgery on that manifold.
Corollary 6.3. Any integral surgery on any 3manifold ` is cobordant to `.
Proof. Mimic the construction in proposition 6.5 by attaching a 2handle to the component `1
of the 4manifold ` 1. After the handle is attached one component will be ` and the other
component will be the result of the sugery (see gure 6.2).
For a framed link 1, let \
L
denote the 4dimensional cobordism of the surgery on 1 with
zero, i.e. \
L
= 0handle a 2handle for each component of 1. This association of a 4manifold
with boundary to any framed link is what allows us to recast Kirby calculus as a 4dimensional
theory. In fact, this is the way Kirby calculus was originally described. The rst Kirby move
added an unknotted, unlinked component to 1 with framing 1 to get the link 1
. On the level
of 4manifolds this amounts to \
L
being dieomorphic to \
L
#C1
2
or \
L
#C1
2
, depending on
the framing of the added unknot. This follows from example 6.4 where we saw that 1
1
= C1
2
1
4
and 1
1
= C1
2
1
4
.
64
Next, we claim that performing the second Kirby move on two components of 1 is equivalent
to sliding one handle correspond to one component across the handle corresponding to the other
component. Since this whole operation is technically taking place in a 4dimensional manifold it
is dicult to picture it. Figures 3.9 and 3.10 showed how to slide 3dimensional 2handles over
each other, and the idea in 4dimensions is similar. Let us attach two 2handles /
1
, /
2
to the 4ball
1
4
with attaching circles /
1
, /
2
and framings n
1
, n
2
and let A = 1
4
/
1
/
2
. To slide /
1
over
/
2
we need to nd a disc parallel to the core of /
2
and then isotope the attaching circle of /
1
through this disc. We can take any disc parallel to the core, say 1
2
j where j ,= 0. The
boundary of this disc is precisely where it intersects the 3sphere, which is at a longitude /
2
of /
2
such that lk(/
2
, /
2
) = n
2
, i.e. its a longitude determined by the framing. As we saw in gure 3.10,
isotoping the attaching circle of /
1
through this disc is the same as form the banded sum of the
attaching circle with the boundary of the disc, so the attaching circle of /
1
after sliding across /
2
is the connect sum of /
1
with /
2
along some band disjoint from /
1
and /
2
. We could compute the
framing of this handle after the slide directly, or appeal to proposition 6.4. Namely, let
1
,
2
be the
canonical basis of H
2
(A), then after a handle slide this canonical basis has changed to
1
+
2
,
2
.
The framing on /
1
after the slide is
(
1
+
2
) (
1
+
2
) =
1
1
+
2
2
+ 2
1
2
= n
1
+n
2
+ 2 lk(/
1
, /
2
)
In example 5.5 we saw how an unknotted component with framing 0 that links one other strand
exact once allows us to separate and cancel those two components from the rest of the link. What
really happened is that we were able to separate the 0framed unknot and the linked component
from the rest of the link, and then we could completely unknot that linked component so that we
were left with a Hopf link with one component framed by 0 and the other framed by some integer
n. By repeatedly sliding handles we arrived at a Hopf link framed by 0 and 0, or 0 and 1 depending
on the parity of n. The 4manifolds corresponding to these framed Hopf links are o
2
o
2
and
o
2
o
2
respectively. So, example 5.5 has the following two immediate corollaries.
Corollary 6.4. Let ` be a 4dimensional handlebody and let /
0
, /
1
be attaching circles of two 2
handles such that /
1
lies entirely in 1
4
and /
0
is a 0framed meridian of /
1
. Finally, let be the
handlebody with all the handles of ` except for /
1
and /
2
. Then ` is dieomorphic to #o
2
o
2
if the framing coecient of /
1
is even, and otherwise ` is dieomorphic to #o
2
o
2
.
Corollary 6.5. If ` is a 2handlebody with odd intersection form, then `#o
2
o
2
is dieomor
phic to `#o
2
o
2
.
Proof. Since Q
M
is odd we must have that any matrix representation of Q
M
has an odd number of
the diagonal. In particular, if we take the matrix representation with respect to the canonical basis
of H
2
(`) we see that some 2handle has odd framing, so let / denote the attaching circle for this
handle. Form `#o
2
o
2
by adding a Hopf link /
1
/
2
, both framed as 0, and slide /
1
over / to
obtain /
1
. Then /
1
has odd framing and is linked once by /
2
, so we can separate them from the rest
of the link, and reduce it until it is a Hopf link framed by 0 and 1, hence we have `#o
2
o
2
.
65
7 Morse Homology
7.1 The MorseSmale Condition and Moduli Spaces of Flow Lines
Let ) : A R be a Morse function on a closed, Riemannian ndimensional manifold (A, p)
with the LeviCivita connection
. The metric p and connection
will be used for background
computations, and is not really signicant. The set of critical points of ) of index i will be denoted
by crit
i
()), and we set crit()) =
i
crit
i
()). Recall that at a critical point j crit()), the tangent
space T
p
A splits as a direct sum 1
T
p
A1
+
T
p
A, where 1
T
p
A and 1
+
T
p
A denote the negative
and positive eigenspaces of the Hessian H
f
at j and dim1
T
p
A = j(j). A negative gradient ow
line is a curve n : R A such that dn,dt =
g
) n. Since A is compact,
g
) generates a
1parameter group of dieomorphisms
t
: A A, i.e
t
is a dieomorphism for all t R such
that
s+t
=
s
t
,
0
= id and for xed point j A we have
d
t
(j)
dt
=
g
)(
t
(j))
For a critical point j crit(j) we dene the ascending and descending manifolds to be
A(j) =
_
r A : lim
t
t
(r) = j
_
D(j) =
_
r A : lim
t
t
(r) = j
_
These sets consist of points that ow to critical points in forward or backward time respectively.
The ascending manifold is sometimes called the stable manifold and the descending manifold is
sometimes called the unstable manifold. A study of the dynamics of the negative gradient ow
allows one to prove the following important statement.
Proposition 7.1. If j crit
i
()), then D(j) and A(j) are smoothly embedded discs of dimension
i and n i respectively. Further, T
p
D(j) = 1
T
p
A and T
p
A(j) = 1
+
T
p
A.
We will not prove this because it is not useful in our route to dening Morse homology. A pair
(), p) is said to be MorseSmale if ) is a Morse function such that for every pair of critical points
j, crit()) the ascending and descending manifolds intersect transversely D(j) A(). Since
codimension is additive under transverse intersections we have dimD(j) A() = j(j) j(). We
do not yet know such pairs even exist (they do, in fact, in abundance), but we immediately get the
following lemma.
Lemma 7.1. If (), p) is a MorseSmale pair on A, then a nonconstant ow line of
g
) from j
to has j(j) j().
Proof. Since (), p) is MorseSmale we have D(j) A() is a manifold of dimension j(j) j(). If
j(j) < j(), then this manifold is empty, hence there are no ow lines from j to . If j = , then
this is a 0dimensional manifold whose points correspond to constant ow lines. Therefore if there
is a nonconstant ow line from j to we must have j(j) j().
Example 7.1. If we stand the torus T
2
vertically with the induced metric from its embedding in
R
2
, and let ) : T
2
R be the height function, then ) does not satisfy the MorseSmale condition.
If we let j, , :, : denote the critical points of ) such that )(j) )() )(:) )(:), then we
can see that D() does not intersect A(:) transversely. Unfortunately this type of failure of the
66
MorseSmale condition is common for obvious choices of Morse functions, which tend to have
many symmetries. We can perturb ) a little so that it satises the MorseSmale condition (for
example, slightly tilt T
2
o its vertical axis), but sometimes it is better to consider a more relaxed
requirement than MorseSmale, such as the MorseBott condition.
Example 7.2. Consider the at torus T
2
= R
2
,Z
2
with the smooth function ) : T
2
R dened
by )(r, j) = cos(2r)+cos(2j). This function is clearly well dened, and the critical points are at
the equivalence classes of (0, 0), (1,2, 0), (0, 1,2), (1,2, 1,2) R
2
. It is easy to compute the Hessian
at these critical points and see that they are nondegenerate, so ) is a Morse function. It is also
easy to see that all the ascending and descending manifolds intersect transversally, so ) satises
the MorseSmale condition.
There is another way of discussing the MorseSmale condition that is better suited for innite
dimensional generalizations of Morse homology. For two critical points j, crit()), let /
f
(j, )
be the moduli space of ow lines from j to , i.e.
/
f
(j, ) =
_
n : R A :
dn
dt
=
g
)(n(t)), n() = j, n() =
_
We will show how to put a topology on this set momentarily. This set carries a free R action given
by precomposition with translation: (: n)(t) = n(t + :). Let
/
f
(j, ) denote the quotient of
/
f
(j, ) by this action, which we call the moduli space of unparameterized gradient ow lines.
There is an obvious isomorphism between D(j) A() and /
f
(j, ) as sets since any ow line is
uniquely determined by its initial condition, so we would like to know that /
f
(j, ) is actually a
manifold.
To pursue this we need to develop signicant functional analysis machinery. Let (
p,q
be the
subset of \
1,2
loc
(R, A) such that if n (
p,q
, then
1. n() = j and n() =
2. There is an 1 < 0 suciently negative such that n(, 1] is contained in a coordinate chart
around j and n[
(,R]
\
1,2
((, 1], A).
3. There is an 1 0 suciently positive such that n[1, ) is contained in a coordinate chart
around j and n[
[R,)
\
1,2
([1, ), A).
Then (
p,q
is a Banach manifold modeled on \
1,2
(R, R
n
). Let
E
: c (
p,q
be the Banach bundle
over (
p,q
dened by
c =
_
uCp,q
n 1
2
(n
TA)
The pullback bundle n
+
g
) n)
where n
is the weak derivative of n. Technically 1 depends on the Morse function ), metric p and
the points j, , but we omit this from the notation. If we let 0
E
denote the zero section of c (
p,q
,
then we have the following:
Proposition 7.2. 1
1
(0
E
) = /
f
(j, )
67
Proof. If n 1
1
(0
E
), then n
=
g
) n. Since
g
) and n are continuous, we have n
is
continuous, hence n
A A. Let
e
E
:
c /
k
(
p,q
be the Banach bundle that is the pullback of c (
p,q
along
the projection /
k
(
p,q
(
p,q
. In particular,
c can be written as
c =
_
(g,u)A
k
Cp,q
(p, n) 1
2
(n
TA)
So, the characteristic ber of
c is 1
2
(R, R
n
). We dene a section
1 : /
k
(
p,q
c of this bundle
by
1(p, n) = (p, n, n
+
g
) n). This section depends only on ), but we do not include this in the
notation. Then the most important proposition we want to prove is the following.
Proposition 7.3. The section
1 is transverse to the zero section:
1 0
e
E
. Further, if : /
k
(
p,q
/
k
is the projection onto the second factor, then the restriction of to :
1
1
(0
e
E
) /
k
is
Fredholm of index j(j)j(), i.e. d
(g,u)
is Fredholm of index j(j)j() at each (p, n)
1
1
(0
e
E
).
The immediate corollary of the this proposition is that a generic p /
k
is a regular value of
the restricted map , hence
1
(p) is a nite dimensional submanifold of dimension j(j) j().
Clearly
1
(p) = /
f
(j, ), where this moduli space is taken with respect to p, therefore we have
the following.
Corollary 7.1. The moduli space of ow lines /
f
(j, ) from j to for a MorseSmale pair is
a (j(j) j())dimensional submanifold of (
p,q
. The moduli space of unparameterized ow lines
/
f
(j, ) is a (j(j) j() 1)dimensional manifold.
Proposition 7.3 will actually follow reasonably easily from the fact about the vertical dierential
11
u
of the section constructed for the rst Banach bundle c (
p,q
is Fredholm.
Proposition 7.4. For each n 1
1
(0
E
), the vertical dierential 11
u
: T
u
(
p,q
c
u
is Fredholm
of index j(j) j().
So, now we will work to prove proposition 7.4. The rst thing we can do is introduce coordinates
on our manifolds and bundles so that we can write the vertical dierential in a nicer way. To
put coordinates on (
p,q
x n (
p,q
and a small open set l around n. Let (TA) be a small
enough convex, tubular neighborhood of the zero section of TA so that the exponential map exp :
(TA) A is dened, where this is the exponential map with respect to the background metric
p and LeviCivita connection
oating around. This exponential map induces coordinates on (
p,q
in the following way. Let n (
p,q
and take another curve (
p,q
close to n. Then there is a unique
68
u
U C
p,q
0
(U) W
1,2
(u
TX)
(U) L
2
(u
TX)
E
U
Figure 7.1: Trivializing c (
p,q
section () \
1,2
(n
TA) (i.e. a \
1,2
vector eld along n) such that (t) = exp(n(t), ()(t)).
So, for a small neighborhood l around n we have a chart : l \
1,2
(n
TA) = T
u
(
p,q
with
(n) = 0.
Next we trivialize
E
: c (
p,q
over l. For l we can dene the bundle map 1
v
u
:
n
TA
TA) of
the section 1 as
1() =
_
, (1
v
u
)
1
_
exp(n, )
+
g
) exp(n, )
__
Computing the vertical dierential 11
u
: (l) 1
2
(n
s=0
1(:(t))
=
d
d:
s=0
_
(1
v
u
)
1
_
exp(n(t), :(t))
+
g
)(exp(n(t), :(t))
__
=
(t)
_
n
(t) +
g
)(n(t))
_
=
(t)
n
(t) +
(t)
(
g
)(n(t)))
where the second from last line follows from the fact that any connection can be recovered from par
allel translations along its geodesics. Also, since the connection is torsion free we have
(t)
n
(t) =
(t)
(t), so
11
u
() =
u
+
(
g
)(n))
If we trivialize n
s=t
(:)
t
(t)
where C
k
(R, End(R
n
)) is dened by
t
(\ ) =
V
(
g
)(n(t))). By (4.4) we have
= H
f
(j)
= H
f
()
69
With this set up we will see that proposition 7.4 follows from a more general proposition concerning
spectral ows (see [4]). Before stating this proposition we recall the denition of spectral ow, at
least for the special case we need. Let C
b
(R, End(R
n
)) be a bounded path of operators on R
n
such that
are symmetric and do not have zero as an eigenvalue. Then we dene the spectral
ow of the path to be the number of eigenvalues of
s
that change from negative to positive as
: ranges from to . We denote this integer by SF(), and clearly in this special case we have
SF() = dim1
+
(
) dim1
+
(
)
Proposition 7.5. Let C
b
(R, End(R
n
)) such that
and
(H
f
(j)) dim1
(H
f
())
= j(j) j()
and this nishes the proof proposition 7.4. Let us see how to use proposition 7.4 to prove proposi
tion 7.3.
Proof of proposition 7.3. Our derivation of the local expression of the vertical dierential 11
u
at
n 1
1
(0
E
) can be slightly adapted to give the following local expression for the vertical dierential
1
1
(g,u)
: T
(g,u)
(/
k
(
p,q
) T
(g,u,0)
c at a point (p, n)
1
1
(0
e
E
):
1
1
u
(, ) = 11
u
() +
(
g
)(n))
where
1
1
(0
e
E
) T
g
/
k
of the restric
tion of to
1
1
(0
e
E
). We claim that the kernel of d
(g,u)
is isomorphic to the kernel of 11
u
. We
have that
T
(g,u)
1
1
(0
e
E
) = (1
1
(g,u)
)
1
(T
(g,u)
0
e
E
)
which can be written as
T
(g,u)
1
1
(0
e
E
) =
_
(, ) T
g
/
k
T
u
(
p,q
: 11
u
() +
(
g
)(n)) = 0
_
(7.1)
using our coordinates. We clearly have d
(g,u)
(, ) = , hence
ker d
(g,u)
=
_
(0, ) T
g
/
k
T
u
(
p,q
: 11
u
() = 0
_
= ker 11
u
70
Next we claim that the cokernel of d
(g,u)
is isomorphic to the cokernel of 11
u
. (todo: do this).
Finally, we show that the image of d
(g,u)
is closed. Using our coordinates and (7.1), the image
of d
(g,u)
can be written as
d
(g,u)
_
T
(g,u)
1
1
(0
e
E
)
_
=
_
T
g
/
k
: 11
u
() +
(
g
)(n)) = 0 for some T
u
(
p,q
_
=
_
T
g
/
k
:
(
g
)(n)) im11
u
_
So, we see that imd
(g,u)
is the preimage of im11
u
under the map
(
g
)(n)). This map is
continuous, and 11
u
is closed since it is Fredholm, therefore imd
(g,u)
is closed.
Proposition 7.6. A generic C
k
function ) : A R (/ 2) is Morse.
Proof. We clearly want to use the SardSmale theorem somehow, and in fact we will use theo
rem E.3. In order to use this we need to formulate a Banach bundle such that the zero section cor
responds to what we want. In particular, let : T C
k
(A)A be the Banach bundles that is the
pullback of the cotangent bundle T
x
A. Consider the section : : C
k
(A)A T given by :(), j) = d)
p
T
p
A.
Let (), r)
1
(0
F
) and let us compute the vertical dierential 1:
(f,x)
: T
(f,x)
(C
k
(A)A) T
x
A
at (), r). Note that since C
k
(A) is a linear space we have T
f
C
k
(A) is naturally isomorphic to
C
k
(A), so we describe how 1:
(f,x)
acts on a pair (/, \ ) C
k
(A) T
x
A.
1:
(f,p)
(/, \ ) = d/(A) +
V
(d))
UNFINISHED
7.2 The Compactness and Gluing Theorems
The space of unparameterized ow lines
/
f
(j, ) is not always compact; for example, in gure 7.2
we see a sequence of ow lines (the thin curves) on the deformed sphere that converge to a broken
curve (the bolded curve). A broken ow line from j to is a sequence of critical points :
1
=
j, :
2
, . . . , :
k1
, :
k
= crit()) and curves
1
, . . . ,
k1
in A such that
i
is a ow line from :
i
to :
i+1
. However, there is a canonical compactication of
/
f
(j, ) to a manifold with corners
by adding broken ow lines. There are two parts to this compactication process. The rst
part (called the compactness result) consists of identifying how a sequence can fail to converge in
/
f
(j, ), trying to get a reasonable object out of a diverging sequence, and then adding these
points to
/
f
(j, ) to get a compact space. The second part (called the gluing result) consists
of showing that a broken ow line can be slightly perturbed to an honest ow line so that our
compactication is a manifold with corners.
Recall that a second countable, Hausdor space A is said to be a smooth nmanifold with
corners if every point r A has an open neighborhood l
and homeomorphism
: l
R
nk
[0, )
k
(for some 0 / n) such that the transition functions
/
f
(j, )
k
=
_
r
1
, . . . , r
k
crit(f)
p, r
1
, . . . , r
k
, q distinct
/
f
(j, :
1
)
/
f
(:
1
, :
2
)
/
f
(:
k1
, :
k
)
/
f
(:
k
, )
In particular, if / = 1, then as oriented manifolds we have
/
f
(j, ) =
_
r crit(f)
p, r, q distinct
(1)
(p)+(r)+1
/
f
(j, :)
/
f
(:, )
The two most important special cases of this theorem are when j() = j(j) 1, in which case
/
f
(j, ) is a compact 0manifold (hence a nite collection of points), and when j() = j(j) 2,
in which case
/
f
(j, ) has a compactication to a 1manifold with boundary
/
f
(j, ) such that
/
f
(j, ) consists of just once broken ow lines:
/
f
(j, ) =
_
rcrit
(p)1
(f)
/
f
(j, :)
/
f
(:, )
72
7.3 The Morse Complex
We can now dene the Morse complex
1
associated to a MorseSmale pair (), p). Let C`
i
(), p)
be the Z,2 vector space generated by the critical points of index i
C`
i
(), p) :=
pcrit
i
(f)
Z,2 j)
We can dene this complex with Z coecients if we work harder and dene orientations on the
moduli spaces /
f
(j, ). It is simpler to work with Z,2 coecients for now, and we will discuss
orientation issues later. The dierential : C`
i
(A) C`
i1
(A) counts the number of ow lines
between critical points. Specically, if j crit
i
()), then
(j) =
qcrit
i1
(f)
#
/
f
(j, )
and extend linearly to C`
i
()). The count #
/
f
(j, ) is of course done modulo 2 (at least until
we can dene orientations).
Proposition 7.7. = 0
Proof. First recall that the number of points in the boundary of a 1manifold is zero when counted
modulo 2. For j crit
i
()) we can easily compute
(j) =
_
_
rcrit
i1
(f)
#/
f
(j, :) :
_
_
=
rcrit
i1
(f)
#/
f
(j, :) (:)
=
qcrit
i2
(f)
_
_
rcrit
i1
(f)
#/
f
(j, :) #/
f
(:, )
_
_
So, the coecient of crit
i2
()) in (j) is precisely #/
f
(j, ), which is zero since it is a
compact 1dimensional manifold.
We dene the Morse homology H`
(), p), ).
7.4 A Natural Isomorphism between Morse and Singular Homology
We would like to show that the homology groups do not depend on our choice of Morse function
or metric. There are many ways of doing this, but the rst way we will consider is to show
that H`
(), p) is naturally isomorphic to some other known homology theory, such as singular
homology, which of course implies that H`
d
where C
i
(A) and
i1
(A). We clearly have
2
= 0 since d
2
= 0. The homology of this
chain complex will be denoted by H
c
i
(A), and it is naturally isomorphic to singular homology.
There is a natural compactication of D(j), for j crit()), that is similar to theorem 7.1 by
adding broken ow lines.
Proposition 7.8. There is a natural compactication of D(j) to a smooth manifold with corners
D(j), whose codimension / stratum is
D(j)
k
=
_
q
1
, . . . , q
k
crit(f)
p, q
1
, . . . , q
k
distinct
/
f
(j,
1
)
/
f
(
1
,
2
)
/
f
(
k1
,
k
) D(
k
)
In particular, for / = 1 we have
D(j) =
_
p=qcrit(f)
(1)
(p)+(q)+1
/
f
(j, ) D()
as oriented manifolds. Further, the projections of D(j) onto the last factor D(
k
) patch together to
form a smooth map c : D(j) A whose restriction to D(j) is the inclusion.
The compactied spaces D(j) are homeomorphic to a closed ball of dimension j(j), and so the
maps c : D(j) A give A a CWstructure with one cell of dimension i for each critical point of
index i. A consequence of this is that (A) is equal to
i
(1)
i
c
i
where c
i
= #crit
i
()).
We now dene maps 1 : C`
i
(A) C
c
i
(A) and : C
c
i
(A) C`
i
(A) that are chain homotopy
inverses of each other. For j crit
i
()) we have D(j) is a closed disc of dimension i.
UNFINISHED
7.5 Direct Invariance of Morse Homology
Now we will show that H`
,
0
) and (C
1
,
1
). Take any path of pairs = ()
t
, p
t
) : t 1 from ()
0
, p
0
)
to ()
1
, p
1
). Two things to note: the pairs ()
t
, p
t
) do not have to be MorseSmale for all t (in fact,
it may be impossible), and such a path is always possible as all functions ` R are homotopic
and any two metrics can be connected by a straight line of metrics. We will show how such a path
(with some simple requirements) induces a chain map
: C
0
C
1
.
74
Let \
t
denote the negative gradient vector eld of )
t
with respect to p
t
, and dene the vector
eld \
on 1 A by
\
= (t + 1)t(t 1)
t
+\
t
(7.2)
Since the two components of this vector eld are gradient like vector elds, we can dene critical
points, ow lines, ascending and descending manifolds in the regular way. In particular, the rst
coordinate of \
are precisely
crit
i
(\
) = 0 crit
i1
()
0
) 1 crit
i
()
1
) (7.3)
We will say that the path is admissible if the ascending and descending manifolds of the critical
points of \
intersect transversely. Just as almost all pairs (), p) are MorseSmale we also have
that almost all paths of pairs are admissible.
For critical points 1, Q of \
we dene /
from 1 to Q, and
/
((0, j), (1, )) by adding broken ow lines that pass through one intermediate critical points of
index i. These points correspond to eq. (7.3), and so we have
crit
i
(f
1
)
))
/
((1, :
), (1, ))
Note that a ow line between two points in the 0 A slice must stay in that slice for all time,
and similarly for the 1 A slice. The ow lines in the these slices correspond to the ows of )
0
and )
1
in A, so we have
((1, :
), (1, )) =
/
f
1
(:
, )
For j crit
i
()
0
) and crit
i
()
1
) we have j((0, j)) = i+1 and j((0, )) = i, hence
/
: C
0
i
C
1
i
on j crit
i
()
0
) by
(j) =
qcrit
i
(f
1
)
#
(where
/
0
//
C
0
i1
C
1
i
1
//
C
1
i1
Proof. We will use the idea from the proof of proposition 7.7 by showing the coecient of
crit
i
()
1
) in (
0
(j) =
rcrit
i1
(f
0
)
qcrit
i1
(f
1
)
#
/
f
0
(j, :) #
(j) =
crit
i
(f
1
)
qcrit
i1
(f
1
)
#
)) #
/
f
1
(:
, )
(7.4)
Now it is clear that the coecient of crit
i1
()
1
) in (
is
a chain map.
We now have that admissible paths induce maps on Morse homology
: H`
()
0
, p
0
)
H`
()
1
, p
1
). If we take to be the constant path at a MorseSmale pair (), p), then we expect the
induced map
to be the identity. This is indeed the case, as is shown in the following proposition.
Proposition 7.10. Let be the constant path at the MorseSmale pair (), p). Then is admissible
and
= id
Proof. Let \ be the vector eld on [0, 1] A induced by the constant path , i.e. \ = (t +
1)t(t 1)
t
g
). Since the vector eld (t + 1)t(t 1)
t
on [0, 1] is directed from 0 to 1, we
have that the descending manifold of a critical point (0, j) of \ is D(0, j) = [0, 1) D(j) and the
ascending manifold of a critical point (1, ) is A(1, ) = (0, 1] A(). These submanifolds clearly
76
intersect transversally. On the other hand, the ascending manifold of (0, j) is just 0 A(j) and
the descending manifold of (1, ) is just 1 D(), which do not intersect at all. Therefore \ is
admissible.
For j, crit
i
()), a ow from (0, j) to (1, ) in [0, 1] A projects to a ow from j to in the
0 A slice. This implies j = since there are no ows between critical points of equal index,
unless it is the constant ow. Therefore
(j) = j.
Next, we would like to know that
, and two
vertices, call them and n. Such a space is sometimes called a digon. If
1
,
2
are two paths
between pairs ()
0
, p
0
) and ()
1
, p
1
), then a homotopy is just a family of pairs = ()
d
, p
d
) : d 1
such that when restricted to c it coincides with
1
and when restricted to c
it coincides with
2
.
This means that ()
v
, p
v
) = ()
0
, p
0
) and ()
w
, p
w
) = ()
1
, p
1
).
Put a metric p on 1 such that the length of the edges is 1, and let
) : 1 R be a smooth
function with only two critical points, one at of index 2 and one at n of index 0. Further, assume
that the negative gradient vector eld
\ =
e g
on 1A by \
=
\ +\
d
,
where \
d
is the negative gradient vector eld of )
d
with respect to p
d
. Note that these constructions
are just a higher dimensional version of what we constructed to dene \
. We see that \
restricted
to the slices c A and c
1
and \
2
, respectively. We can
again dene critical points, ow lines, ascending and descending manifolds of \
are precisely
crit
i
(\
) = crit
i2
()
0
) +n crit
i
()
1
)
For critical points 1, Q of \
let /
from 1 to Q, and
(1, Q) the moduli space of unparameterized ow lines. For any admissible family we have
that /
) = crit
i1
()
0
) n crit
i+1
()
1
)
But, we also have boundary points coming from those ow lines which stay in the cA and c
A
for all time. These ow lines are in correspondence with
/
1
((, j), (n, )) and
/
2
((, j), (n, )),
77
hence
1
((, j), (n, ))
/
2
((, j), (n, ))
_
rcrit
i1
(f
0
)
_
r
crit
i+1
(f
1
)
))
/
((n, :
), (n, ))
Note that the ow lines in 1 A that stay in the A slice correspond to the ows in A with
respect to ()
0
, p
0
), and similarly for ow lines in the nA slice, so in the above boundary we have
((n, :
), (n, )) =
/
f
1
(:
, )
Let us dene the map H
: C`
i
()
0
, p
0
) C`
i+1
()
1
, p
1
) on j crit
i
()
0
) by
H
(j) =
qcrit
i+1
(f
1
)
#
1
and
2
are chain homotopic.
Proof. Let = ()
d
, p
d
) : d 1 be an admissible homotopy between
1
and
2
. We claim that
H
+H
1
+
2
then
1(j) = 0 for all j crit()). We show this by realizing the coecient of crit
i
()
1
) in 1(j), where
j crit
i
()
0
), as the number of boundary components of
/
0
(j) =
rcrit
i1
(f
0
)
qcrit
i
(f
1
)
#
/
f
0
(j, :) #
1
H
(j) =
crit
i+1
(f
1
)
qcrit
i
(f
1
)
#
)) #
/
f
1
(:
, )
Let us x j crit
i
()
0
) and crit
i
()
1
), then j((, j) = i+2 and j((n, )) = i, so
/
1
(j) is precisely #
1
((, j), (n, )), and similarly for the coe
cient of in
2
(j). Now it is clear that the coecient of in 1(j) is precisely #
depends only on the homotopy class of the path . However, all paths
between any two pairs are homotopic (since C
does not even depend on . This means that just by virtue of the construction of Morse
homology we always get a natural map
: H`
()
0
, p
0
) H`
()
1
, p
1
) for any MorseSmale pairs
()
0
, p
0
) and ()
1
, p
1
). We want to show that this naturally dened map is an isomorphism, which
means that Morse homology depends only on A.
78
D
(X, f
1
, g
1
)
(X, f
0
, g
0
)
p
q
r
r
v
w
Figure 7.4: Counting ow lines from (, j) to (n, ) in 1 A
In order to show this we need composition of paths
2
1
(where
1
s ending point is
2
s
starting point) to correspond to composition of induced maps
1
is chain homotopic to
on T A by \
=
\ + \
d
, where \
d
=
g
d
)
d
. We can dene the critical
points, ow lines, ascending and descending manifolds of \
intersect transversely.
The critical points of index i of \
are precisely
crit
i
(\
) = n crit
i2
()
u
) crit
i1
()
v
) n crit
i
()
w
)
For critical points 1, Q of \
let /
(1, Q) the moduli space of unparameterized ow lines. For any admissible family we have
that /
) = n crit
i1
()
u
) crit
i
()
v
) n crit
i+1
()
w
)
79
But, we also have boundary points coming from those ow lines that stay in the c
uw
A slice for
all time. These ow lines correspond to
/
1
((n, j), (n, )), hence
1
((n, j), (n, ))
_
rcrit
i1
(fu)
_
r
crit
i+1
(fw)
))
/
((n, :
), (n, ))
_
scrit
i
(fv)
((n, :
), (n, )) =
/
fw
(:
, )
Further, the ows from (n, j) to (, :) must stay in the c
uv
A slice and similarly for ows from
(, :) to (n, ), so we have
1
((n, j), (, :))
2
((, :), (n, ))
See gure 7.5.
We dene G
: C`
i
()
u
, p
u
) C`
i+1
()
w
, p
w
) on j crit
i
()
u
) by
G
(j) =
qcrit
i+1
(fw)
#
1
is chain homotopic to
1
.
Proof. Let = ()
d
, p
d
) : d T be an admissible family between
1
,
2
and
2
1
. We claim
that the map G
1
and
1
, i.e. if we set
1 =
w
G
+ G
1
+
1
, then the coecient of crit
i
()
w
) in 1(j) is zero
for all j crit
i
()
u
).
We can easily compute
G
u
(j) =
qcrit
i
(fw)
rcrit
i1
(fu)
#
/
fu
(j, :) #
w
G
(j) =
qcrit
i
(fw)
crit
i+1
(fw)
#
)) #
/
fw
(:
, )
1
(j) =
qcrit
i
(fw)
scrit
i
(fv)
#
1
((n, j), (, :)) #
2
((, :), (n, ))
Now it is clear that the coecient of crit
i
()
w
) in 1(j), where j crit
i
()
u
), is precisely
#
s
T
Figure 7.5: Counting ow lines from (n, j) to (n, ) in T A
Combining propositions 7.10 to 7.12 we get invariance of Morse homology.
Corollary 7.2. For any two MorseSmale pairs ()
0
, p
0
) and ()
1
, p
1
), the Morse homologies H`
()
0
, p
0
)
and H`
()
1
, p
1
) are naturally isomorphic.
7.6 Orientations on Moduli Spaces
There are (at least) two ways to introduce orientations on our moduli spaces /
f
(j, ) and
/
f
(j, )
so that we can dene the Morse complex with Z coecients. One way is geometric and technically
the simplest way to dene orientations, but it does not generalize to the innite dimensional ver
sions of Morse homology. The other way is very technical and uses high powered machinery from
functional analysis, but also has obvious interpretations in the innite dimensional setting. We will
give a supercial description of both of these orientations, and explain why they should give the
same end result.
For the geometric orientations we must assume that our Riemannian manifold (A
n
, p) is ori
ented. Let us also x a Morse function ) on A so that (), p) is a MorseSmale pair. We stated
in proposition 7.1 that the ascending manifold A(j) and descending manifold D(j) of a critical
point j crit
i
()) are smoothly embedded discs of dimension i and ni, respectively. Let us dene
M
f
(j, ) to be the intersection D(j) A(), which is a submanifold of dimension j(j) j(). We
get an R action on M
f
(j, ) via the 1paremeter group of dieomorphisms
t
: A A generated
by
g
): for t R and r M
f
(j, ) we dene t r =
t
(r). This action is free and smooth, so
M
f
(j, ) = M
f
(j, ),R is a (j(j) j() 1)dimensional manifold.
Proposition 7.13. The map : /
f
(j, ) M
f
(j, ) dened by (n) = n(0) is a dieomorphism,
and for each t R the following diagram commutes
/
f
(j, )
t
//
/
f
(j, )
M
f
(j, )
t
//
M
f
(j, )
where t on the horizontal arrows denotes the R action on the respective spaces. In particular,
M
f
(j, ) is dieomorphic to
/
f
(j, ).
Let us put an arbitrary orientation on T
p
D(j) for all j crit()). Since T
p
D(j)T
p
A(j) = T
p
A,
and T
p
A is oriented by assumption, we get an induced orientation on T
p
A(j). These orientations
81
at j uniquely extend to coherent orientations on all of A(j) and D(j), and so now all ascending
and descending submanifolds are oriented. Now the spaces M
f
(j, ) get an induced orientation, as
described in section 1, so we can orient /
f
(j, ) by requiring the isomorphism in proposition 7.13
to be orientation preserving.
UNFINISHED
7.7 Applications
The Morse inequalities are set of nice results that put topological restrictions on a space according
to what type of Morse functions the space admits, and they nearly come for free with the denition
of Morse homology. It was these inequalities that inspired Floer to dene his innite dimensional
generalization of Morse homology in order to prove the Arnold conjecture. Since H`
(), p) is
isomorphic to H
(1)
i
#crit
i
()) for any Morse function ) on A. The Morse inequalities strengthen this
quite a bit.
First we need to prove a general result concerning nitely generated chain complexes.
Theorem 7.2 (EulerPoincare Theorem). Take any nitely generated chain complex
0 C
n
n
C
n1
n1
2
C
1
1
C
0
0
and let H
i
= H
i
(C
). Then
n
i=0
(1)
i
rank C
i
=
n
i=0
rank H
i
Proof. At each i = 0, . . . , n we have a short exact sequence
0 ker
i
C
i
i
im
i
0
hence rank C
i
= rank ker
i
+ rank im
i
. We also have a short exact sequence
0 im
i+1
ker
i
H
i
0
hence rank ker
i
= rank im
i+1
+rank H
i
. There is a common rank ker
i
in each of the equations
we derived from these short exact sequences, and solving for it gives
rank ker
i
= rank C
i
rank im
i
= rank im
i+1
+ rank H
i
Therefore
n
i=0
(1)
i
(rank C
i
rank im
i
) =
n
i=0
(1)
i
(rank im
i+1
+ rank H
i
)
On the left side we have that rank im
i
appears with sign (1)
i+1
, and on the right rank im
i
appears with sign (1)
i1
, hence they cancel and we are left with
n
i=0
(1)
i
rank C
i
=
n
i=0
(1)
i
rank H
i
82
Theorem 7.3 (Morse Inequalities). Let ) : A
n
R be a Morse function. Let c
i
= #crit
i
()) be
the number of critical points of index i, and let /
i
= rank H
i
(A) be the ith Betti number of A.
Then
c
k
c
k1
+ + (1)
k
c
0
/
k
/
k1
+ + (1)
k
/
0
(7.5)
for all 0 / n.
Proof. We have rank H`
i
(), p) = rank H
i
(A) = /
i
and rank C`
i
(), p) = #crit
i
()). Since
H`
i
(), p) is a subquotient of C`
i
(), p), we clearly have c
i
/
i
. Let 0 / n, and let (C
)
denote the chain complex (C`
) truncated at /:
0 C
k
C
k1
C
1
C
0
0
The chain complex (C
i=0
(1)
i+k
rank C
i
=
k
i=0
(1)
i+k
rank H
i
(C
) (7.6)
The inserted signs (1)
k
are necessary so that the last term (i = /) in the sums are nonnegative.
The homology of the chain complex (C
) in all gradings
except possibly the last, so we have rank H
i
(C
) = /
i
for all 0 i / 1. For the last
term we have H
k
(C
) = ker
k
, hence H
k
(C`
) is a quotient of H
k
(C
), and so we have
/
k
rank H
k
(C
k
(X)
. The de Rham operator d :
k
(A)
k+1
(A) has a formal
adjoint :
k
(A)
k1
(A), which can be dened by = (1)
kn+n+1
d. We dene the
Laplace operator :
k
(A)
k
(A) by = d + d. This operator has discrete spectrum, and
decomposes
k
(A) into eigenspaces
k
(A) =
R
1
k
where 1
k
=
_
k
(A) : =
_
The fundamental theorem of Hodge theory is the following.
Theorem 7.4 (Hodges Theorem). 1
k
0
= H
k
dR
(A)
83
So, we can think of (1
0
, d) has a nite dimensional chain complex (the dierential happens to
be zero) that computes the homology of the innite dimensional chain complex (
(A), d). We
clearly have d(1
k
) 1
k+1
d
1
1
d
d
1
n
0
However, this sequence is exact. To see this, let 1
k
_
=
1
d =
1
=
1
=
therefore is exact. This means that the homology of the complex (1
0
0, let
0
=
0
1
k
That is,
0
consists of all the eigenforms of with eigenvalue less than or equal to
0
. Now,
the restriction of d to
0
gives a nite dimensional complex (
0
, d), and since this complex is a
direct sum of exact sequences (when (0,
0
]) and a sequence with homology equal to de Rham
homology (when =
0
), we have
H
0
, d) = H
dR
(A)
If we have chosen
0
large enough so that there is an eigenvalue of in (0,
0
], then we have re
placed the innite dimension complex (
0
, d)
without changing the homology.
We now repeat these same ideas with a slight variation of Hodge theory. For a xed Morse
function ) : A R and real parameter t we dene the operator d
t
:
k
(A)
k+1
(A) by
d
t
= c
ft
dc
ft
that is, we conjugate the de Rham operator by the linear isomorphism c
ft
. The function )
will remained xed in our discussion, but we will be taking t to be large soon, so we only put t in our
notation. We clearly have d
2
t
= 0, and this operator has the formal adjoint
t
:
k
(A)
k1
(A)
dened by
t
= c
ft
c
ft
and so we dene the Laplacian
t
= d
t
t
+
t
d
t
. We can also dene the homology groups H
t
(A) =
ker d
t
, imd
t
, but the isomorphism
k
k
given by c
ft
descends to an isomorphism
H
dR
(A)
= H
t
(A), so this homology theory does not give us anything new. Like before we get an
eigenspace decomposition
k
(A) =
R
1
k
(t) where 1
k
(t) =
_
k
(A) :
t
=
_
We also have a Hodgelike theorem that says 1
k
0
(t)
= H
k
dR
(A). Also like before, for 0 we have
an exact sequence
0 1
0
(t)
dt
1
1
(t)
dt
dt
1
n
(t) 0
So, if for xed
0
0 we dene
k
0
(t) =
0
1
k
0
(t), d
t
) has the same homology as (
0
(t) become independent of t, and so let us write (
0
(), d
)
to denote this stabilized chain complex. In fact, Witten shows that
dim
k
0
() = #crit
k
()) = c
k
As we saw in theorem 7.3, whenever we have a nite dimensional complex whose chain groups
correspond to critical points of a Morse function, and whose homology computes the homology
of A, then we get the Morse inequalities for free. So, we have proved the Morse inequalities by
considering a variation of Hodge theory.
Now let us see the physical ideas behind the above results. Using the denition of d
t
and
t
,
one can easily compute that these operators act on a /form
k
(A) by
d
t
= d +td)
t
= ti
df
i
= i
x
i
and
i
= dr
i
,
then one can show that
t
can be written as
t
= +t
2
[[d)[[
2
+t
n
i=1
2
)
r
i
r
j
[
i
,
j
]
As t gets large we expect the eigenforms of this operator to be increasingly concentrated at the
critical points of ). This leads us to look around the critical points. If j crit()), then we can
choose normal coordinates (r, l) around j such that ) is of the form
) = )(j) +
n
i=1
i
(r
i
)
2
+O(r
3
)
where the
i
s are the eigenvalues of the Hessian of ) at j. In these coordinates, if we ignore terms
of order 3 and above, then Laplacian
t
can be approximated by
t
=
n
i=1
_
2
(r
i
)
2
+t
2
2
i
(r
i
)
2
+t
i
[
i
,
i
]
_
This looks like a simple harmonic oscillator, plus some other operator. Recall that for o 0, the
simple harmonic oscillator
H =
d
2
dr
2
+o
2
r
2
has spectrum (2/ + 1)o : / = 0, 1, . . .. So, let us write our approximation of the Laplacian as
t
=
n
i=1
(H
i
+t
i
1
i
)
where H
i
=
2
,(r
i
)
2
+ t
2
i
(r
i
)
2
and 1
i
= [
i
,
i
]. The H
i
s commute with themselves,
the 1
i
s commute with themselves, and the H
i
s commute with the 1
j
s. Therefore the spec
trum of
t
is the sum of the spectrum of the H
i
s and 1
i
s. The spectral of H
i
is given by
(2
i
+ 1)t[
i
[ :
i
= 0, 1, . . .. One can easily compute that
1
i
dr
i
1
dr
i
k
=
_
+dr
i
1
dr
i
k
i i
1
, . . . , i
k
dr
i
1
dr
i
k
i , i
1
, . . . , i
k
85
so the eigenvalues of this operator are just +1s and 1s. In fact, the number of +1 eigenvalues is
precisely /. Now, the spectrum of
t
can be written as the set
_
t
n
i=1
((2
i
+ 1)[
i
[ +n
i
i
) :
i
= 0, 1, . . .
n
i
= 1
#n
i
= +1 = /
_
What choice of
i
and n
i
give zero? If we rewrite the summand as 2
i
[
i
[ + [
i
n
i
[ + n
i
i
, then
we see that we are forced to have
i
= 0 and n
i
= sign(
i
). Therefore, there is exactly one zero
eigenvalue of
t
, and all other eigenvalues blow up to since they are proportional to t. Further,
associated eigenform is a /form, where
/ = #n
i
= +1 = #
i
< 0 = j(j)
So, at each critical point j crit()), we are able to associate a j(j)form such that
t
= 0.
Since
t
is only an approximation of
t
, we do not necessarily have that
t
= 0. Therefore, the
number of /forms which satisfy
t
= 0 at some critical point of index / (i.e. the number of
critical points of index /) is greater than or equal to the number of /forms with = 0 (i.e. the
/th Betti number of A). This proves the weak Morse inequalities.
86
8 Heegaard Floer Homology
8.1 Construction for 3Manifolds
The Morse homology discussed in the previous section has inspired variations that usually go under
the heading of Floertype theories. These theories start with some dierential equation (in Morse
homology this was the negative gradient ow equation), then one forms a graded group freely
generated by some points in a space or some other objects, and then one denes a dierential
to count the number of solutions to the dierential equation that start at one point and end at
another. Hopefully the dierential squares to zero so that one can dene the homology groups, and
hopefully the homology groups do not depend on the various choices used in the construction of
this homology theory. We now follow this plan to build a homology theory for 3manifolds from
Heegaard diagrams.
General Idea
First, we will give a general idea of the object we are trying to construct. The details in this
construction are very dicult, like it was for Morse homology, requiring a lot of machinery from
analysis and symplectic geometry. Let (,
1
, . . . ,
g
,
1
, . . . ,
g
) be a genus p Heegaard diagram
for a 3manifold Y , and assume the and curves are in general position so that they intersect
transversally. Let us also x a base point . in the complement of the and curves. We can
form the symmetric product Sym
g
() of , dened to be the quotient of
g
under the action
of o
g
permuting the components of
g
, i.e. Sym
g
() consists of ptuples of unordered points of
. Even though o
g
does not act freely on , we do have that Sym
g
() is a smooth manifold, and
in fact a complex structure j on induces a complex structure Sym
g
(j) on Sym
g
().
Since the curves never intersect each other (and similarly for the curves), we have that the
products
T
=
1
g
T
=
1
g
are smoothly embedded submanifolds of Sym
g
(), and T
and T
.
Let D C denote the unit disc, and let c
1
= D Re(.) 0 and c
2
= D Re(.) 0.
For two intersection points x, y T
and n(c
2
) T
. Let
2
(x, y) denote the homotopy classes of Whitney discs from x to y.
We dene a function n
z
:
2
(x, y) Z to be the algebraic intersection number of a disc
: D Sym
g
() with the submanifold \
z
. For a Whitney disc , let /() denote the moduli
space of pseudoholomorphic representatives of , i.e. the set of representatives n : D Sym
g
()
of that satises the CauchyRiemann equation
n
:
+i
n
t
= 0
If we introduce the proper perturbations of our set up, then /() will be a smooth manifold, and
we denote its dimension by j(). There is a natural free R acts on this space, and so we denote
the quotient by
/() = /(),R.
87
With these denitions we can give an intuitive (but slightly incorrect) denition of Heegaard
Floer homology. Let
C1(, ) be the Abelian group freely generated by the points in T
.
We dene a dierential
:
C1(, )
C1(, ) on x T
by
x =
yTT
2
(x,y)
nz()=0
()=1
/() y
That is, we are counting the number of pseudoholomorphic discs between two points in Sym
g
().
One can show that
2
= 0, so we can dene the homology groups
H1(, ). One can also show
that
H1(, ) does not depend on the Heegaard diagram or complex structures chosen in order
to dene it, hence
H1(, ) is a topological invariant. Now we work to properly dene these
homology groups.
Morse Functions and Pointed Heegaard Diagrams
Let us x a Heegaard diagram (,
1
, . . . ,
g
,
1
, . . . ,
g
) for our 3manifold Y , where is a surface
of genus p. Recall that this means we attach a 2handle for each and curve, the result being a
3manifold with boundary two disjoint 2spheres, and so we attach two 3handles in the only way
possible. So, the and curves determine handlebodies l
0
and l
1
of genus p such that l
0
l
1
= .
We also have the following Morse theoretic picture of this set up. Let ) : Y [0, 3] be a self
indexing Morse function with p critical points of index 1, denote them by 1
1
, . . . , 1
g
, and hence p
critical points of index 2, denote them by Q
1
, . . . , Q
g
. Then l
0
= )
1
[0, 3,2], l
1
= )
1
[3,2, 3] and
= )
1
(3,2), and the attaching circles can be dened by
i
= A(1
i
) and
i
= D(Q
i
) .
We say that a Morse function is compatible with a Heegaard diagram if the Heegaard diagram is
equal to the induced Heegaard diagram from the Morse function.
We can make this Heegaard diagram into a pointed Heegaard diagram by choosing a base
point . in the complement of the and curves. We can consider pointed Heegaard moves
on pointed Heegaard diagrams by requiring that isotopies of attaching circles never pass through
., and the pair of pants dening a handle slide is not allowed to contain ..
The Algebraic Topology of Symmetric Products
Let 1 denote the fat diagonal in Sym
g
(); that is, 1 consists of those ordered ptuples of points in
such that at least points are equal. The embedded tori T
and T
in Sym
g
(). For a complex structure
j on , we get an induced complex structure Sym
g
(j) on Sym
g
() by requiring the quotient map
:
g
Sym
g
() to be holomorphic, where
g
is given the product complex structure j
g
. The
homotopy and homology groups of Sym
g
() in low dimensions is stated in the following lemmas.
Lemma 8.1. If is a genus p surface, then
1
(Sym
g
())
= H
1
(Sym
g
())
= H
1
().
Proof. One can show that
1
(Sym
g
()) is abelian, so that gives the rst isomorphism. For a xed
point r , the inclusion r r Sym
g
() induces an isomorphism H
1
()
H
1
(Sym
g
()) on homology. To construct the inverse of this map we take a generic loop : o
1
Sym
g
(). If we pullback the p!fold branched cover :
g
Sym
g
() along we get a p!fold
88
branched cover j :
o
1
o
1
such that the following commutes
o
1
e
//
p
o
1
//
Sym
g
()
The space
o
1
is a disjoint union of circles and has a natural o
g
action on it such that is equivariant.
Let
o
1
=
o
1
,o
g
, and let :
o
1
be the map induced by
1
, where
1
:
g
is the
projection onto the rst factor. Then the map H
1
(Sym
g
()) H
1
() given by [] [
o
1
] is the
inverse map.
Recall that the fundamental group
1
of a space naturally acts on the higher homotopy groups
n
. Let
n
denote the quotient of
n
by the action of
1
.
Lemma 8.2. If is a surface of genus p 1, then
2
(Sym
g
())
= Z. Further, if p 2, then
1
(Sym
g
()) acts trivially on
2
(Sym
g
()), so
2
(Sym
g
())
= Z for p 2.
Proof. The isomorphism
2
(Sym
2
())
= Z is given by counting the algebraic intersection number
of a sphere with the subvariety rSym
g1
() for generic r. We can nd an explicit generator. The
hyperelliptic involution on gives rise to a sphere o
0
Sym
2
(), and so let o = o
0
r
3
r
g
Sym
g
(). Then o maps to 1 under the above isomorphism.
Lemma 8.3. The rst Chern class c
1
of Sym
g
() satises c
1
, [o]) = 1.
Lemma 8.4.
H
1
(Sym
g
())
H
1
(T
) H
1
(T
=
H
1
()
[
1
], . . . , [
g
], [
1
], . . . , [
g
])
= H
1
(Y )
Proof. Since the inclusion of into Sym
g
() induces an isomorphism on rst homology, we see
that the subgroup of H
1
() generated by the curves gets maps to H
1
(T
) in H
1
(Sym
g
()), and
similarly for the curves, and so the rst isomorphism follows. The second isomorphism is obvious
since we building Y from by lling the and curves with discs.
There is a Morse theoretic interpretation of intersection points x T
. Let ) be a
Morse function compatible with our Heegaard diagram with critical points 1
1
, . . . , 1
g
of index 1
and critical points Q
1
, . . . , Q
g
of index 2. If x = r
1
, . . . , r
g
such that r
i
i
(i)
(for some
permutation o
g
), then we have r
i
/(1
i
) T(Q
(i)
), hence r
i
can be identied with an
unparameterized, gradient ow line from 1
i
to Q
(i)
. The intersection point x can therefore be
identied with a ptuple of ow lines from index 1 critical points to index 2 critical points, which
we will denote by
x
.
The tori T
and T
in Sym
g
() have a nice compatibility with the complex structure Sym
g
(j)
induced by j. First, recall the denition of a totally real submanifold of a complex manifold. If
1 7 is a submanifold of the complex manifold (7, J), then we say that 1 is totally real if
T
p
1 JT
p
1 = 0 for all j 1, i.e. the tangent spaces of 1 do not contain any Jcomplex lines. It
is clear that the tori T
, T
and T
i
and j
i
i
(i)
,
for some permutation o
g
. Take a pair of paths o : [0, 1] T
, / : [0, 1] T
that start at x
and end at y. The dierence o / is a loop in Sym
g
(), and hence determines a homology class.
This element vanishes if and only if there is a Whitney disc connecting x to y. Unfortunately, this
homology class depends on the paths o and /, but we can remove this dependence in the following
way. The path o can be written as o(t) = (o
1
(t), . . . , o
g
(t)), where o
i
: [0, 1]
i
, hence any other
paths [0, 1] T
diers from o by winding around the curves some number of times. The ways
this winding can occur is parameterized by H
1
(T
)
= Z
g
. Similar statements hold for the curve
/ and the curves. So, by modding the subgroups H
1
(T
) and H
1
(T
) out of H
1
(Sym
g
()) the
homology class of o / does not depend on o or /, and so the image of this homology class under
the isomorphisms in lemma 8.4 in H
1
(Y ) is denoted by c(x, y).
There is also a way of computing this homology class on . Note that a curve o : [0, 1] T
can be thought of as a ptuple of subarcs of the curves such that the boundary (as a 1chain)
is o = j
1
+ + j
g
r
1
r
g
. There is a similar description for a path / : [0, 1] T
and
the curves, hence the dierence o / is a 1cycle in . This cycle depends on the paths used
to dene it, but only up to additional windings around and curves, hence it is a welldened
element of H
1
(), [
1
], . . . , [
g
], [
1
], . . . , [
g
]). The image of this homology class in H
1
(Y ) under
the isomorphism in lemma 8.4 is equal to c(x, y) that we dened above.
Clearly
2
(x, y) is empty if and only if c(x, y) ,= 0. Further, for x, y, z T
we have the
additive relation c(x, y) +c(y, z) = c(x, z), so we can dene an equivalence relation on T
by
x y if c(x, y) = 0.
The set
2
(x, y) is not a group, but has a natural
2
(Sym
g
()) action given by splicing a sphere
onto a Whitney disc:
:
2
(Sym
g
())
2
(x, y)
2
(x, y)
We can also splice a disc from x to y with a disc from y to z to get a disc from x to z, giving a
map
:
2
(y, z)
2
(x, y)
2
(x, z)
This splicing action makes (x, x) into a group. The algebraic intersection map n
z
is clearly additive
with respect to these splicing actions: n
z
( ) = n
z
() +n
z
().
Since it is dicult to visualize discs in Sym
g
() we would like a way of representing them on
the surface . Recall that the function n
w
:
2
(x, y) Z counts the intersection of the subvariety
n Sym
g
() with a disk
2
(x, y). Let 1
1
, . . . , 1
m
denote the closures of the components of
1
g
1
g
, and choose a point .
i
in the interior of each 1
i
. For a Whitney
disc n : D Sym
g
() we dene the domain of to be the form linear combination
T(n) =
m
i=1
n
z
i
(n)1
i
If n
z
i
() 0 for all i, then we write T() 0. This association does not depend on the points .
i
,
and clearly depends only on the homotopy class of n, hence we get a welldened map on
2
(x, y).
Domains are additive with respect to the splicing action dened above:
T( ) = T() +T()
T(o ) = T() +
1
i
90
For
2
(x, y), we can think of T() as a 2chain on in the following way. Let n be a
representative of , then the restriction n[
e
1
can be thought of as a curve from x to y contained in
T
, and n[
e
2
can be thought of as a curve from y to x contained in T
i
n
z
i
(n)(n[
e
1
+n[
e
2
)
A 2chain of the form 1 =
o
i
1
i
is said to be a periodic domain if the boundary T is a sum of
and curves and such that if 1
i
is the component containing ., then o
i
= 0 (i.e. n
z
(1) = 0).
For x T
, a class
2
(x, y) is called periodic if n
z
() = 0. For such a class we have T()
is periodic. The set of periodic classes at x will be denoted by T
x
.
Proposition 8.1. If p 1, then there is an isomorphism
2
(x, x)
= Z H
1
(Y )
where T
x
is identied with H
1
(Y ), and the splitting is given by n
z
(). If x, y T
such
that c(x, y) = 0, then
2
(x, y)
= Z H
1
(Y )
as
2
(Sym
g
()) T
x
torsors.
Spin
c
Structures
We now introduce Spin
c
structures into our set up. We use Turaevs formulation of Spin
c
structures
on 3manifolds in terms of homology classes of unit vector elds. We say that two unit vector elds
\
1
and \
2
are homologous if they are homotopic through unit vector elds in the complement of
nitely many 3balls in Y . A Spin
c
structure on Y is a choice of homology class of nonvanishing
vector elds, and the set of Spin
c
structures on Y is denoted by Spin
c
(Y ). Recall the following fact
about orientable 3manifolds.
Lemma 8.5. All closed, orientable 3manifolds are parallelizable.
Proof. Let A be a closed, orientable 3manifold. If we can nd two linearly independent sections
of TA, then TA can be split as a 2plane bundle plus a line bundle, which must be orientable and
hence trivial. The rst obstruction to nding two linearly independent sections is the second Stiefel
Whitney class, which by the Wu formula is given by n
2
= n
2
1
= 0. The only other obstruction lives
in the cohomology of Y with coecients in
2
(\
2
(R
3
)) = 0, hence vanishes.
Since TY is trivial we now x an orthonormal trivialization . This trivialization gives us a one
to one correspondence between unit vector elds \ on Y and maps )
V
: Y o
2
. Fix a generator
j H
2
(o
2
) and dene the map
: Spin
c
(Y ) H
2
(Y ) by
(\ ) = )
V
(j).
Lemma 8.6.
(\
1
) =
(\
2
). Let )
V
1
, )
V
2
:
Y o
2
be the maps corresponding to \
1
and \
2
. By assumption these maps are homotopic on
the complement of 3ball in Y . UNFINISHED
91
If \
1
and \
2
are unit vector elds on Y , then we can look at the dierence
(\
1
, \
2
) =
(\
1
)
(\
2
) H
2
(Y )
We have removed the trivialization from the notation because this dierence does not depend
on it. For if
1
,
2
are two trivializations of TY , then there is a map p : Y oO(3) such that
1
(\
p
) = p(j)
2
(\
p
) for all vectors \
p
in T
p
Y . So, if we take two trivializations , p , then the
dierence satises
g
(\ )
(\ ) = p
(n)
where n is the generator of H
2
(oO(3); Z,2) = Z,2, so the dierence does not depend on trivial
izations. So, for xed \ Spin
c
(Y ) the onetoone correspondence (, ) : Spin
c
(Y ) H
2
(Y )
makes Spin
c
(Y ) into an ane space over H
2
(Y ). For \
1
, \
2
Spin
c
(Y ) we will write \
1
\
2
as a
short hand for (\
1
, \
2
).
Now let ) be a Morse function on Y compatible with our Heegaard diagram Recall that an
intersection point x T
Spin
c
(Y )
Lemma 8.7. For x, y T
we have :
z
(y) :
x
(x) = PD(c(x, y)).
Therefore :
z
(x) = :
z
(y) if and only if x can be connected to y by a Whitney disc. If s Spin
c
(Y )
is represented by a vector eld \ , then we let s be the Spin
c
structure represented by \ . The
rst Chern class of Spin
c
structures is a map c
1
: Spin
c
(Y ) H
2
(Y ) dened by c
1
(s) = s s. This
is just the rst Chern class of the 2plane bundle over Y given as the orthogonal complement of a
vector eld \ representing s.
Analytic SetUp of the Moduli Spaces
Our denition of the moduli space of pseudoholomorphic representatives is not going to be sucient
in order to ensure that the spaces /() are smooth manifolds. We need to introduce suitable
perturbations to the objects involved, which we do now. The quotient map
:
g
Sym
g
()
is an honest covering map over Sym
g
() 1. Let us x a Kahler structure (j, ) on the surface ;
that is, j is complex structure on and is a nondegenerate 2form on such that j tames . The
2form
0
=
g
on
g
induces a Kahler form
(
0
) on Sym
g
() 1. Let us x a collection of
points .
i
1
g
1
g
, with one .
i
in each component, and an open set
\ Sym
g
() with
_
.
i
Sym
g1
() 1
_
\ Sym
g
()
and such that the closure \ does not intersect the tori T
and T
(
0
) over Sym
g
() \ , and J
92
agrees with Sym
g
(j) over \ . The space of (j, , \ )nearly symmetric, almost complex structures
will be denoted by (j, , \ ). The tameness condition gives us that the tori T
and T
are totally
real, which is used for energy bounds and Gromov compactness.
We will now describe a more convenient model for Whitney discs. Since the unit disc in C with
two boundary points removed can be holomorphically identied with the innite strip [0, 1] iR,
we redene D to be this innite strip. Then
2
(x, y) consists of the homotopy classes of maps n
from D into Sym
g
() such that n(1 R) T
, n(0 R) T
/
Js
() =
/
Js
()
R
Lemma 8.8. If n /
Js
() is a J
s
holomorphic disc, then T(n) 0.
Proof. Since J
s
is (j, , \ )nearly symmetric, we have that J
s
is an honest complex structure in
a neighborhood of each .
i
Sym
g1
(). Therefore the disc n must intersect these subvarieties
nonnegatively.
Now we can set up the necessary Banach manifolds and vector bundles to show that /
Js
()
is a smooth manifold. For a vector bundle 1 over [0, 1] R and let j, 0 be real numbers and
/ 0 an integer. We can put a weighted Sobolev norm on the space of sections of 1 dened by
[[[[
W
p,k
=
k
j=0
_
[0,1]R
(j)
(: +it)
c
(t)
d: dt
where : R R is some smooth function with (t) = [t[ for [t[ 1. The space of sections for
which this norm is nite is denoted by \
k,p
(1).
For j 2 let B
, n(0 R) T
.
2. The curve n converges to the points x and y as t exponentially in the sense that there
is T 0 and functions
\
p,1
([0, 1] (, T], T
x
Sym
g
())
+
\
p,1
([0, 1] [T, ), T
y
Sym
g
())
such that for all t T we have
n(: it) = exp
x
(
([0, 1] R, R
2g
), and the tangent space
at n B
(x, y) is precisely
T
u
B
(x, y) =
_
\
p,1
(n
T Sym
g
()) : (1, t) T
, (0, t) T
_
93
For form the Banach vector bundle
E
: c B
(x,y)
n 1
p
(n
T Sym
g
())
which has characteristic ber 1
p
([0, 1] R, R
2g
). We dene a section 1 : B
([0, 1] R, R
2g
) 1
p
([0, 1] R, R
2g
)
11
u
() =
:
+J
s
t
+ (
v
J(:))
n
t
This is a Fredholm operator, and so /
Js
(x, y) is a nite dimensional submanifold of B
(x, y). In
fact, the Fredholm index of 11
u
acting on the unweighted space ( = 0) is precisely the Maslov
index of n. Clearly the components of B
2
(x, y), and the Fredholm index of 11
u
is constant on each of these components.
Theorem 8.1. Fix a Heegaard diagram (, , ), with and curves intersecting transversally,
and x data (j, , \ ). Then for generic path J
s
of (j, , \ )nearly symmetric, almost complex struc
tures we have /
Js
(x, y) is a smooth manifold.
Denition of
H1
For simplicity we will restrict to the case /
1
(Y ) = 0 so that H
1
(Y )
= H
2
(Y ) are nite.
Fix a pointed Heegaard diagram (, , , .) for Y such that the and curves intersect
transversally, and choose a Spin
c
structure s Spin
c
(Y ). We also x a generic complex structure
j on and a generic path J
s
of nearlysymmetric almost complex structures on Sym
g
(). Let
such that :
z
(x) = s. We give
this vector space a relative Zgrading by
gr(x, y) = j() 2n
z
()
where is any homotopy class in
2
(x, y). Since any other disc
2
(x, y) must be of the form
= /o we have
j( /o) 2n
z
( /o) = j() +/j(o) 2 (n
z
() +/n
z
(o)) = j() 2n
z
() + 2/ 2/
therefore gr(x, y) is independent of the chosen. We dene the dierential :
C1(, , s)
C1(, , s) by
x =
yTT
sz(y)=s
2
(x,y)
()=1
nz()=0
#
/() y
The second sum actually consists of at most one term since there is at most one Whitney disc
2
(x, y) such that j() = 1 and n
z
() = 0. Technically depends on J
s
, and so we may
sometimes write
Js
. Note that if y has nonzero coecient in x, then
gr(x, y) = j() 2n
z
() = 1
so lowers the grading by 1.
94
Theorem 8.2.
2
= 0
Now we have that (
C1(, , s), ) is a chain complex, and so we can dene its homology groups,
which we denote by
H1(, , s). We also dene
H1(, ) =
sSpin
c
(Y )
H1(, , s)
8.2 Invariance of Heegaard Floer Homology
8.2.1 Independence of Complex Structures
Theorem 8.3. Let Y be a closed oriented 3manifold with xed Spin
c
structure s. Then the
homology group
H1(Y, , , s) is independent of the complex structure j on and the path J
s
.
Proof. Let us x a complex structure j on and take two paths J
s,0
, J
s,1
of (, j, \ )nearly sym
metric almost complex structures, and connect them via a path J : [0, 1] R (, j, \ ) such
that J
s,t
= J
s,0
for t 0 and J
s,t
= J
s,1
for t 1. For a Whitney disc
2
(x, y) we dene the
moduli space of timedependent holomorphic representatives by
/
Js,t
() =
_
n : [0, 1] R Sym
g
() :
n
du
ds
+J
s,t
du
dt
= 0
_
We dene the map
Js,t
:
_
C1(, , s),
J
s,0
_
C1(, , s),
J
s,1
_
by
Js,t
(x) =
yTT
sz(y)=s
2
(x,y)
()=0
nz()=0
#/
Js,t
() y
This map is welldened, so we have to show that it is a chain map and induces an isomorphism on
homology. To see that
Js,t
is a chain map we look at the boundary components of a compact 1
dimensional space, namely /
Js,t
() when j() = 1. Composing
Js,t
with the boundary operators
we see that
Js,t
J
s,0
(x) =
Js,t
yTT
sz(y)=s
2
(x,y)
()=1
nz()=0
#
/
J
s,0
() y
=
y,zTT
sz(y)=sz(z)=s
2
(x,y)
2
(y,z)
()=1
(
)=0
nz()=nz(
)=0
#
/
J
s,0
() #/
Js,t
(
) z
95
J
s,1
Js,t
(x) =
J
s,1
yTT
sz(y)=s
2
(x,y)
(
)=0
nz(
)=0
#/
Js,t
(
) y
=
y,zTT
sz(y)=sz(z)=s
2
(x,y)
2
(y,z)
(
)=0
()=1
nz(
)=nz()=0
#/
Js,t
(
) #
/
J
s,1
() z
By Gromovs compactness we see that for
2
(x, z) with j() = 1 we have that /
Js,t
() can
be compactied to a 1dimensional manifold /
Js,t
() with boundary
/
Js,t
() =
_
_
/
J
s,0
() /
Js,t
(
)
_
_
_
_
=
/
Js,t
(
)
/
J
s,1
()
_
_
where the unions are over those homotopy classes of discs such that j(
Js,t
J
s,0
J
s,1
Js,t
)(x). Therefore
Js,t
is a chain map.
To show that the induced map on homology is an isomorphism we show that
Js,t
J
s,1t
is
chain homotopic to the identity map. To dene the chain homotopy we take a path J
s,t,
between
the juxtaposition (in the t coordinate) J
s,1t
J
s,t
path and the path J
s
(constant in t). We dene
the moduli space of this path to be
/
Js,t,
() =
_
[0,1]
/
Js,t()
()
This is a manifold of dimension j() + 1, and it already has some boundary components corre
sponding to the = 0 and = 1 ends. In particular,
/
Js,t,
() = /
J
s,1t
() /
Js,t
() /
Js
() (8.1)
We dene the proposed chain homotopy
H
Js,t,
:
_
C1(, , s),
J
s,0
_
C1(, , s),
J
s,0
_
by
H
Js,t,
(x) =
yTT
sz(y)=s
2
(x,y)
()=1
nz()=0
#/
Js,t,
() y
Clearly this map is of degree 1. We want to check that the coecient of z in (
J
s,0
H
Js,t,
+
H
Js,t,
J
s,0
+
Js,t
J
s,1t
+id)(x) is zero by relating it to the number of boundary components
in a compact 1dimensional manifold. The 1dimensional manifold /
Js,t,
() (with
2
(x, z)
and j() = 0) can be compactied by adding broken ows. The boundary of this compactication
has three forms: two of these correspond to the boundary components of /
Js,t,
() as shown in
(8.1), and now we get an additional form from once broken ows. These broken ows are of the
form
_
_
/
J
s,0
() /
Js,t,
(
)
_
_
_
_
=
/
Js,t,
(
)
/
J
s,0
()
_
_
96
where the union is over homotopy classes of discs with j() = 1 and j(
) = 1. It is now clearly
that the boundary components of the compactication of /
Js,t,
() correspond to the coecient
of z in the chain homotopy formula, and hence is zero.
8.2.2 Independence of Isotopies of Attaching Circles
Now we need to check that the homology groups
H1(, , s) are invariant under Heegaard moves
in our diagram (, , ). Due to the construction of the chain complex
C1(, , s) we can only
consider pointed moves (those moves which never cross the xed base point . ), so we need to
make sure that pointed moves generate all moves.
Proposition 8.2. Any two Heegaard diagrams (, , , .) and (
, .
, .) such that one can be obtained from the other via a pointed isotopy
of the attaching circles. Then
H1(, , )
=
H1(,
)
Proof. If the two Heegaard diagrams are isotopic via pointed isotopies that keep the and curves
transverse at all times, then this is equivalent to varying the metric (or equivalently the complex
structure) on , which we does not change the homology groups by theorem 8.3.
So, we need to consider isotopies that introduce new intersection points between the and
curves. We need to do this in a controlled manner, and the way we do this is via exact Hamiltonian
ows, so let us recall this machinery. Fix a Hamiltonian H
t
: A R such that H
t
= 0 for t , [0, 1].
This gives rise to a 1parameter family of Hamiltonian vector elds A
t
dened by
(A
t
, ) = dH
t
Now this generates a 1parameter family of dieomorphisms
t
: A A such that
d
t
dt
= A
t
Let us apply this to a special Hamiltonian. Take a smooth bump function / : R such that
supp / is a small neighborhood of a point on
1
and let ) : R [0, 1] be smooth with supp ) (0, 1).
The dene the Hamiltonian H
t
(r) = )(t)/(r) so that the corresponding 1parameter family of
dieomorphisms
t
moves a small piece of
1
a little bit, but leaves everything else xed.
97
We now use the isotopies to introduce a pair of canceling intersection points. Suppose
1
is
slightly isotoped via an exact Hamiltonian ow to intersect with
1
transversally in an extra pair
of canceling points. We can assume this isotopy is supported in (
2
g
.). The isotopy
t
of induces an isotopy of the torus T
in Sym
g
() in the obvious way.
We can now dene Whitney discs with dynamic boundary conditions. In particular, a
t

Whitney disc from x T
to y
1
(T
) T
is a map n : D Sym
g
() satisfying (here we
are thinking of D as [0, 1] R)
n(1 +it)
t
(T
), for all t R
n(0 +it) T
, for all t R
n(: i) = x
n(: +i) = y
Let
t
2
(x, y) denote the set of homotopy classes of such discs, and let /
t
() be the moduli space
of pseudoholomorphic representatives of
t
2
(x, y). The reason we use these exact Hamiltonian
ows to move the curves is that one can prove that we still have energy bounds on holomorphic
discs, and so we can still form the Gromov compactications.
We can now dene a chain map
t
:
C1(, )
C1(
, )
by the formula
t
(x) =
y
1
(T)T
t
2
(x,y)
nz()=0
()=0
#/
t
() y
UNFINISHED
8.2.3 Independence of Handle Slides
In order to prove invariance under handle slides we need to introduce Whitney triangles and gener
alize all of our results about Whitney discs to triangles. A Heegaard triple diagram of genus p is a
genus p surface with three ptuples , , of homologically independent curves in . These curves
determine genus p handlebodies l
, l
, l
and 3manifolds Y
= l
, Y
= l
, Y
=
l
with boundary A
= Y
and edges c
, c
, c
where c
i
connects
j
to
k
and i ,= ,, i ,= /. If we thicken up by , then we can glue on the
pieces c
i
l
i
via
A
=
()
(c
(c
(c
)
(c
) (c
), (c
) (c
), (c
) (c
)
The corners of this manifold can naturally be smoothed out.
For x T
, y T
, z T
) = x, n(
) = y, n(
) = z and n(c
) T
, n(c
) T
, n(c
)
T
. Let
2
(x, y, z) denote the homotopy classes of such maps.
There is an obstruction in the rst homology group of A
, T
, T
) +H
1
(T
) +H
1
(T
= H
1
(A
)
is welldened, and we denote it by c(x, y, z). We have that
2
(x, y, z) is nonempty if and only
if c(x, y, z) = 0. We can also dene the map n
z
:
2
(x, y, z) Z to be the algebraic intersection
number of a triangle with the subvariety . Sym
g1
(). The splicing action of discs can be
extended to splice a disc and a triangle together. In particular, if
2
(x, y) and
2
(y, z, w),
then we can splice these together to get a triangle
2
(x, z, w). Clearly n
z
is additive with
respect to this splicing action: n
z
( ) = n
z
() +n
z
().
We can also extend the denition of domain of a Whitney disc to Whitney triangles. In particu
lar, T() is a 2chain in consisting of the formal linear combinations of the regions ().
Such a linear combination is said to be a triplyperiodic domain if the coecient of the region con
taining . is zero and its boundary is a sum of , and curves. The triple (, , , , .) is said
to be weakly admissible if every nonzero triplyperiodic domain has both positive and negative
coecients.
(todo: blah blah blah ... more to do on the above)
If (, , , ) is a weaklyadmissible Heegaard triple, then we construct the map
:
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(, )
by counting pseudoholomorphic triangles:
(x y) =
zTT
2
(x,y,z)
nz()=0
()=0
#/() z (8.2)
If we give
C1(, )
is a chain
map. To verify this we need to show the following
(x y) +
)
(x y) +
)
(x y) = 0
for all x T
and y T
. This holds because there are three types of ends in the moduli
space /() when j() = 1 that correspond to splicing a disc onto one of the three vertices of the
triangle.
Let
1
denote the induced map on homology. These maps satisfy an important associative
law, which we state now. For this we take a Heegaard quadruple (, , , , , .) and so we get four
maps
)
,
)
,
,
)
,
)
,
1
,
1
,
1
() ) =
1
(
1
())
This is shown by constructing a chain homotopy between the various compositions via counting
pseudoholomorphic rectangles. In particular, we can develop the theory of Whitney rectangles
n : Sym
g
() in the obvious way, and dene the set of homotopy classes of such rectangles by
2
(x, y, z, w). If is a homotopy class of Whitney rectangles, then /() will denote the space of
pseudoholomorphic representatives. We can now dene the map
:
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(, )
99
by counting pseudoholomorphic rectangles:
(x y z) =
wTT
2
(x,y,z,w)
nz()=0
()=0
#/() w
We claim this map determines a chain homotopy between the maps
)
( ) ) and
(
)
(x y z) +
((x y z)) +
)
(x y) z) +
)
(x
)
(y z)) = 0
Note that (x y z) = x y z +x y z +x y z, so the above expands to
(x y z) +
(x y z)+
(x y z) +
(x y z)+
(x y) z) +
)
(x
)
(y z)) = 0
The coecient of w in these six terms correspond to the six types of ends of the moduli space
/(), where
2
(x, y, z, w) is a rectangle with j() = 1. In particular, the rst four terms
correspond to splicing a disc onto one of the four corners of the rectangle, and the last two terms
correspond to the rectangle degenerating into two triangles meeting at a vertex in two dierent
ways.
We could continue these constructions to discuss pseudoholomorphic :gons, and their asso
ciative laws, but now we will discuss the handle slide invariance of Floer homology. First we look
at two model calculations that will be used in constructing the isomorphisms.
Example 8.1. . Take the standard Heegaard diagram for #po
1
o
2
: = 1# #1 is the pfold
connected sum of the torus 1, and
i
,
i
are curves supported in the ith factor that bound discs
in the solid genus p handlebody (i.e. they are meridians) and intersect transversally in a pair of
canceling points. Let . be a base point far from the and curves. Orient these curves in
the same direction and label the positive and negative intersection points of
i
and
i
by n
i
.
We claim that, up to grading shifts,
H1(, )
= H
(T
g
). There are 2
g
intersect points in
T
i
. In
particular, for an integer 1 i p, take x, y T
such that r
i
= n
+
i
, j
i
= n
i
and r
j
= j
j
for
all , ,= i. The curves
i
and
i
bound two discs in , call them 1
1i
and 1
2i
, and let
1
,
2
2
(x, y)
be discs with T(
1
) = 1
1i
and T(
2
) = 1
2i
. It is clear that j(
1
) = j(
2
) = 1. Clearly, if
1
,
2
2
(y, x) are discs with T(
1
) = 1
1i
and T(
2
) = 1
2i
, then j(
1
) = j(
2
) = 1.
Now for any x, y T
and
2
(x, y) with n
z
() = we can nd the precise value of
j(). Recall that we can think of these discs as a products of the standard discs from r
i
to j
i
in . Let j(x) denote the number of n
+
i
s in x. Then of course we can assume r
i
= n
+
i
and
j
i
= n
+
i
for i j(x), hence we have j() = j(x) j(y). This gives us the relative gradings,
gr(x, y) = j(x) j(y), hence the generators are partitioned into p gradings. If we give the lowest
relative grading an absolute grading of 0, then we see that there are precisely
_
g
i
_
generators in
grading i.
Finally, we claim that = 0, which completes the proof of our claim. For any x T
i
and r
j
= j
j
for , ,= i. As we saw before there are exact two discs connecting
these points, and #
=
_
n
+
1
, . . . , n
+
g
_
.
We will use
i
.
We claim that, up to grading shifts,
H1(, )
= H
(T
g
).
UNFINISHED
With these model calculations out of the way we can now prove handle slide invariance. Fix
a Heegaard diagram (, , ) for Y , let be a ptuple of attaching circles such that
1
is a
handle slide of
1
across
2
and
i
(i 1) is a small perturbation of
i
intersecting in a pair
of canceling points, and is another ptuple of attaching circles that are small perturbations of
the curves such that they intersect at a pair of canceling points. Then the Heegaard diagrams
(, , ), (, , ), (, , ) all describe Y , and the diagrams (, , ), (, , ), (, , ) all de
scribe #po
1
o
2
. Let
) is a quasi
isomorphism, and the associativity law gives us
1() = 1
)
= 1
( 1
))
= 1
(1
))
The last line is a composition of two isomorphisms, 1
) and 1
), which
was checked in our model calculations, hence 1 is an isomorphism. This concludes the proof of
invariance under handle slides.
8.2.4 Independence of Stabilizations
Theorem 8.5. Let (, , , .) be a pointed Heegaard diagram for Y , and let (#1,
, .) be a
stabilization, where 1 is a torus and
=
g+1
,
=
g+1
with
g+1
,
g+1
homologically
independent curves on 1 intersecting once. Then
H1(, )
=
H1(,
g+1
, ,
g+1
)
Proof. We can arrange this stabilization such that the torus 1 is glued to along a region contained
in the component of () containing the base point .. Let c #1 be the intersection point
of
g+1
and
g+1
, and let
=
g+1
and
=
g+1
. Let .
= T
, .
). If x, y T
and x
= x c , y
= y c, then for
101
2
(x, y) with n
z
() = 0 and
2
(x
, y
) with n
z
(
H1(Y
0
)
b
F
0
//
H1(Y
1
)
b
F
1 z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
H1(Y )
b
F
bbD
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
(8.3)
There is a considerable amount of machinery we need to set up before we can prove this. First
we need to construct special Heegaard diagrams for Y, Y
0
and Y
1
. In fact, we claim there is a
pointed Heegaard multidiagram (, , , , , .) such that
1. The Heegaard diagrams (, , ), (, , ), (, , ) describe Y, Y
0
, Y
1
respectively.
2. The curves
i
,
i
,
i
, for i = 1, . . . , p 1, are small isotopic translates of each other that
pairwise, transversally intersect in a pair of canceling points.
3. The curve
g
is isotopic to the juxtaposition of
g
and
g
.
Note that the last two conditions imply that (, , ), (, , ), (, , ) are all Heegaard diagrams
of #(p1)o
1
o
2
. To construct these special Heegaard diagrams take a selfindexing Morse function
) on Y / with one index 0 critical point, p index 1 critical points and (p 1) index 2 critical
points, and set = )
1
(3,2). Recall that the attaching circles have the following description. The
curves are precisely where the ascending manifolds of index 1 critical points intersect , and
the curves are where the descending manifolds of index 2 critical points intersect . We ll the
missing torus in Y / by adding a 2handle in three dierent ways, and then adding the 3handle
in the unique way to obtain a closed manifold. First we attaching a 2handle with attaching circle
j, thus obtaining Y . Next we attach a 2handle with attaching circle /, obtaining Y
0
. Finally, we
attach a 2handle with attaching circle j+/, obtaining Y
1
. Flowing these attaching circles down to
the surface gives us the circles
g
,
g
,
g
respectively. Let
i
and
i
be small isotopies of
i
(for
i = 1, . . . , p 1) so that these curves pairwise intersect transversally at a pair of canceling points.
We have now constructed the Heegaard multidiagram (, , , , ) with the proposed properties.
Label the intersection points of the , and curves as in example 8.1
j
i
=
i
i
i
=
i
i
n
i
=
i
i
Also, the curves
g
,
g
,
g
pairwise intersect in exactly one point, so let
j
g
=
g
g
g
=
g
g
n
g
=
g
g
102
Recall the intersection points
=
_
j
+
1
, . . . , j
+
g1
, j
g
_
,
=
_
+
1
, . . . ,
+
g1
,
g
_
and
=
_
n
+
1
, . . . , n
+
g1
, n
g
_
are cycles in the top grading of
H1(, ),
H1(, ) and
H1(, ) respectively.
Recall that we have the following chain maps from counting pseudoholomorphic triangles
:
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(, )
:
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(, )
:
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(, )
:
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(, )
and their induced maps
1
,
1
,
1
,
1
on homology. Let
/
( ) ) and
)
(
)
1 =
1
1
0
=
1
1
1
=
1
)
First we show that any composition of consecutive maps in this sequence is zero. If
C1(, ),
then one composition looks like
1
0
1() =
1
) =
1
(
1
))
where we used the associativity law in the last equality. So, if we can show that
1
) = 0,
then we will have shown that this rst composition is zero. We can do this directly by examining
the Heegaard triple (, , , ).
We think of this diagram as the rst p 1 torus summands in having three meridian inter
secting pairwise in a pair of canceling points j
i
,
i
, n
i
(the curves being
i
,
i
,
i
, i = 1, . . . , p 1,
of course), and in the last summand we have three straight curves intersecting pairwise in one point
(the curves being
g
,
g
,
g
). Let us examine each of these summands as a model calculation.
Suppose 1 is a torus with three curves , , isotopic to a meridian and such that they pairwise
intersect in a pair of intersecting points j
, n
k
of triangles
connecting j, and n such that n
z
(
k
) =
k(k1)
2
. To this we lift to the universal cover of 1, which
is R
2
. The lifts of , , become the lines r = i , j = i , and
_
j = r +i +
1
2
_
, for i Z. Then
we can take
+
k
to be the triangle bounded by
_
r = 0, j = 0, j = r +/ +
1
2
_
and
k
to be the
triangle bounded by
_
r = 0, j = 0, j = r / +
1
2
_
. Further, for each of these triangles there is a
unique holomorphic representative, and so j(
k
) = 0.
Now let us go back to our original situation. We can think of = 1
1
# #1
g
as a sum of tori
with the curves
i
,
i
,
i
supported in 1
i
. Then the situations in the rst p 1 summands of is
identical to the rst example we examined above, and the situation in the last summand of is
103
identical to the last example we examined above. Since the base point . is placed away from
the curves we can see that there are exactly two homotopy classes
of triangles from
and
such that n
z
(
) = 0 = j(
) and T(
).
Consider the quantity
)
, which
is 0 mod 2. Therefore
)
) = 0.
We can use completely symmetrical arguments to show that the other two compositions
1
1
1
0
and
1
0
1 are both zero, therefore the surgery triangle is a chain complex. In order to show that
this chain complex has trivial homology we will use a slightly technical framework in homolog
ical algebra. So, we take a moment to provide the necessary homological background for these
constructions.
Homological Algebra Background
Let (
1
,
1
) and (
2
,
2
) be chain complexes of Z,2 vector spaces. We are not assuming these
complexes are graded even though it would be easy to introduce the proper grading conventions.
If )
1
:
1
2
is a chain map, then we can construct the mapping cone of )
1
, denoted by
(`()
1
), ). This is the chain complex with chain group equal to
1
2
and dierential dened
by the matrix
=
_
1
0
)
1
2
_
It is easy to check that
2
= 0.
Proposition 8.3. The obvious maps in the sequence
0
2
`()
1
)
1
0
are chain maps and this sequence is exact. Further, the connecting morphism in the associated long
exact sequence is precisely )
1
.
Proof. The maps in the sequence are dened by (/) = (0, /) and (o, /) = o, which clearly makes
the sequence exact. It is easy to see that these maps are also chain maps. For the second part of
the proposition let us recall how the connecting morphism is constructed in general.
Suppose we have a short exact sequence of chain complexes
0 (,
A
)
f
(1,
B
)
g
(C,
C
) 0
We dene a map : H(C,
C
) H(,
A
) in the following way. If c C such that
C
c = 0, then
since p is surjective we can nd / 1 such that p(/) = c. But then 0 =
C
c =
C
p(/) = p(
B
/),
and since im) = ker p there is an element o such that )(o) =
B
/. Finally we see that
0 =
2
B
/ =
B
)(o) = )(
A
o), and since ) is injective this implies that
A
o = 0. So, we dene
104
([c]) = [o]. It is easy to see that this is a well dened map and gives us an exact sequence
H(,
A
)
f
//
H(1,
B
)
g
zzu
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
H(C,
C
)
ddI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Now applying this construction to our mapping cone short exact sequence we see that for o
1
,
([o]) is dened by nding an element (/, c) `()
1
) such that o = (/, c) = / (so (o, 0) will do just
ne), then nding an element d
2
such that (0, d) = (d) = (o, 0) = (
1
o, )
1
(o)) = (0, )
1
(o))
(so d = )
1
(o) will do just ne). Therefore ([o]) = [)
1
(o)], and this proves the proposition.
Proposition 8.4. The mapping cone is functorial and satises a naturality condition. Specically,
if )
1
:
1
2
and p
1
: 1
1
1
2
are two chain maps between chain complexes, and we have maps
1
,
2
such that the following diagram
1
f
1
//
1
1
g
1
//
1
2
(8.4)
commutes up to homotopy, then there is an induced map `(
1
,
2
) : `()
1
) `(p
1
). Further,
the short exact sequences associated to the cones `()
1
) and `()
2
) t into a commutative (up to
homotopy) diagram
0
//
2
//
`()
1
)
//
M(
1
,
2
)
1
//
//
0
0
//
1
2
//
`(p
1
)
//
1
1
//
0
Proof. We clearly want to dene the induced map `(
1
,
2
) by `(
1
,
2
)(o
1
, o
2
) = (
1
(o
1
),
2
(o
2
)).
It is easy to see that this map has the necessary properties.
Proposition 8.5. Let (
i
,
i
)
iZ
be a collection of chain complexes and let )
i
:
i
i+1
be a
chain map for each i Z satisfying
1. The composition )
i+1
)
i
is chain nullhomotopic via H
i
:
i
i+2
2. the map.
i
:= )
i+2
H
i
+H
i+1
)
i
:
i
i+3
is a quasiisomorphism.
Then, H(`()
i
))
= H(
i+2
).
Proof. First we see that
i
is a chain map; that is,
i+3
i
=
i
i
. Messing with the compositions
we easily see
i
= )
i+2
H
i
i
+H
i+1
)
i
i
= )
i+2
i+2
H
i
+)
i+2
)
i+2
)
i
+H
i+1
i+1
)
i
=
i+3
)
i+2
H
i
+
i+3
H
i+1
)
i
=
i+3
i
105
We dene a map
i
: `()
i
)
i+2
by
i
(o, /) = H
i
(o) + )
i+1
(/) and a map
i
:
i
`()
i+1
)
by
i
(o
i
) = ()
i
(o
i
), H
i
(o
i
)). It is easy to check that these maps are chain maps, and we have
i+1
i
=
i
. Consider the following diagram
i
f
i
//
=
i+1
i+1
//
=
`()
i
)
i+1
//
i
f
i
//
i+1
i+1
i
f
i
//
i+1
f
i+1
//
i+1
i+2
f
i+2
//
i+2
i+3
f
i+3
//
=
i+4
=
i+3
f
i+3
//
i+4
i+4
//
`()
i+3
)
i+3
//
i+3
f
i+3
//
i+4
All the maps in this diagram are chain maps, and all but two squares are immediately seen to
commute. For the other two we can easily dene chain homotopies between the two dierent
compositions, so all the squares commute up to homotopy. If we pass two homology we see that
the top and bottom rows are exact, and the compositions of the columns (except for the middle
composition) are isomorphisms, so it follows by the ve lemma that
i+2
i
is also an isomorphism.
The fact that
i
i1
=
i1
and
i+2
i
are quasiisomorphisms implies that
i
is an isomorphism,
and hence
i
is also a quasiisomorphism. Therefore H(`()
i
))
= H(
i+2
).
Back to the Surgery Exact Sequence
We will now see that proposition 8.5 implies the surgery exact sequence. To do this we take
an innite family of , , curves, denoted by
(i)
,
(i)
,
(i)
, that are generic exact Hamiltonian
perturbations of the , , curves, and assume
(0)
= ,
(0)
= ,
(0)
= . Then let
3i
=
C1(,
(i)
),
3i+1
=
C1(,
(i)
) and
3i+2
=
C1(,
(i)
). Note that
3i
,
3i+1
,
3i+2
are the
Floer complexes for Y, Y
0
and Y
1
respectively. We dene the maps )
i
:
i
i+1
by counting
pseudoholomorphic triangles as before. The fact that )
3i+1
)
3i
, )
3i+2
)
3i+1
, )
3i+3
)
3i+2
are chain
nullhomotopic comes from counting holomorphic rectangles, and the homotopies are given by
H
3i
:=
(i)
(i)
(i) (
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i) )
H
3i+1
:=
(i)
(i)
(i+1) (
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i+1) )
H
3i+2
:=
(i)
(i+1)
(i+1) (
(i)
(i+1)
(i+1)
(i+1) )
So we need to verify the second hypothesis of proposition 8.5. First we show that
i
is quasi
isomorphic to
i+3
via a closest point map.
Proposition 8.6. For a small perturbation
)
dened by
)
)
induces an isomorphism on homology.
106
Proof. We assume that the perturbation is taken so that
i
and
i
intersect in a pair of canceling
points. The idea is to approximate ) =
)
).
Let us x an area for on and an intersection point x
0
T
, and dene
T : T
R
by
T(x) = /(T()) n
z
() /()
where
2
(x, x
0
) and /(1) denotes the area of a region. This is clearly welldened. If
/
1
(Y
) 0, then we need to require that /(1) = 0 for any periodic domain, which is possibly
to nd such an area form for any weakly admissible diagram. We can also assume that the signed
between the curves
i
and
i
is zero. For ,
C1(, ) we will write <
if
max
xTT
TT
T(x
)
We can repeat this construction to get a ltration on
C1(,
0
.
If the
i
is suciently close to
i
, then for each x T
and T
,
which we can extend to a linear isomorphism
:
C1(, )
C1(,
)
Of course this map is not necessarily a chain map, but we claim that the chain map ) can be
written as ) = + /, where / :
C1(, )
C1(,
) are isomorphic.
There is a unique triangle
0
2
(x,
i
. This triangle admits a unique holomorphic representative, so #/(
0
) =
0. We now dene the map / :
C1(, )
C1(,
) by
/(x) =
#/() (x)
where the sum is over all
2
(x,
for the
(0)
curves for what follows. We
have the following maps
= )
) :
C1(, )
C1(,
)
)
0
= )
) :
C1(, )
C1(, )
)
2
= )
) :
C1(, )
C1(,
)
H
0
= /
) :
C1(, )
C1(, )
H
1
= /
) :
C1(, )
C1(,
)
107
We want to show that )
2
H
0
+H
1
)
0
is chain homotopic to
0
. This comes from the associative
law for pseudoholomorphic rectangles. The associative law for rectangles states that for a Heegaard
multidiagram (, , , , ,
() ) +
)
() )+
()
() ) +
)
())+
(
)
())
(8.5)
is nullhomotopic as a map
G :
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(,
)
C1(,
)
The nullhomotopy is given by counting pseudoholomorphic pentagons. In particular, for the
Heegaard multidiagram (, , , , ,
:
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(, )
C1(,
)
C1(,
)
by counting pseudoholomorphic pentagons
1
(x y z w) =
pTT
2
(x,y,z,w,p)
nz()=0
()=0
#/() p
We claim that 1
+1
)
dened by
1 = 1
)
For
C1(, ) we have
1
) +1
) = G(
)
and by denition of G we have
G(
) =
) +
)
)+
( )
) +
)
))+
))
We can easily see that the rst term in this expansion is precisely H
1
)
0
(), the second term is
precisely )
2
H
0
(), the third and fth terms are zero, and nally we claim the fourth term is
identied with
0
(). It clearly suces to show that
) =
1
=
C1(, )
C1(, ) and
2
=
C1(, ). The short exact sequence
0
C1(, ) `()
0
)
C1(, ) 0
leads to a long exact sequence
H1(, )
//
H(`()
0
))
zzu
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
H1(, )
ddI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This is the surgery exact sequence.
Z,2Gradings
We can introduce Z,2gradings in
C1(, ) and the homology groups, and the surgery exact
sequence is homogenous with respect to these gradings.
A Few Simple Applications
8.4 The Absolute Q Grading
If Y is a rational homology sphere, then the relative Z grading on
H1(Y ) can be lifted to an
absolute Q grading. Let \ be the cobordism from o
3
to Y by adding : 2handles to 1
4
.
UNFINISHED
8.5 Heegaard Floer Knot Homology
The Construction
We can also construct an invariant of knots in 3manifolds from Heegaard Floer homology. Let /
be a knot in a closed, oriented 3manifold Y . First we need to come up with a Heegaard diagram
for Y that somehow encodes information about our knot /. To do this let us rst x a Heegaard
diagram (, ,
0
) for the knot complement Y /, where is a ptuple of curves and
0
is a
(p 1)tuple of curves. If j / is a meridian of /, then (, , ) is a Heegaard diagram for Y ,
where =
0
j. Let us place to base points ., n very close to j, but on opposite sides,
and away from the rest of the and curves. We can connect n to . with a small arc
1
that
crosses j transversally in one point, and we can connect . to n with an arc
2
supported in the
complement of the curves in (which is topologically just a disc). Then the curve
1
2
(as it
sits in o
3
) is ambiently isotopic to /, and if / is oriented it will inherit an orientation.
We will use the base point n to dene the regular Floer chain complex
C1(, , n) (i.e. the
dierential counts discs that miss n Sym
g1
()), whose homology we know consists of a single
copy of Z,2. Recall that we can lift the relative grading on these Floer chain groups to absolute
gradings on homology. In this absolutely graded theory, the Floer homology of o
3
is supported in
degree 0 and the Floer homology of o
1
o
2
is supported in degrees
1
2
. Let
C1
i
(, , n) denote
the subgroup of
C1(, , n) generated by homogeneous elements of
C1(, , n) of degree i.
109
Next, we use the base point . to dene a ltration on the graded group
C1(, , n). Dene
the function T : (T
)
2
Z acting on x, y T
by
T(x, y) = n
z
() n
w
()
for any disc
2
(x, y). This function can be lifted to a unique function T : T
Z with
the following two properties:
1. T(x, y) = T(x) T(y)
2. #x T
: T(x) = i #x T
: T(x) = i mod 2
Finally we dene the ltration T
on
C1(, , n) by letting T
j
C1(, , n)
C1(, , n) be the
subgroup generated by x with T(x) ,. This ltration has the following nice properties:
1. The ltration is decreasing: T
j
C1(, , n) T
j+1
C1(, , n).
2. T
C1(, , n) =
C1(, , n) and for small
enough , we have T
j
C1(, , n) = 0.
3. The ltration respects the absolute grading: T
j
C1
i
(, , n)
C1
i
(, , n).
4. The dierential :
C1(, , n)
C1(, , n) respects the ltration:
_
T
j
C1(, , n)
_
T
j
C1(, , n).
All of this information implies numerous things. First of all, we can construct the associated
bigraded vector space
C11
i
(, , ., n, ,) := T
j
C1
i
(, , n),T
j1
C1
i
(, , n)
The dierential on
C1
(, , n) descends to a dierential on
C11
(, , ., n, ), and so we can
dene the homology of this complex, which is a bigraded vector space
H11
(, , ., n, ). Fur
ther, by the fundamental theorem of spectral sequences, we have that there is a spectral sequence
_
1
r
p,q
, d
r
_
of homological type with 1
2
=
H11(, , ., n) and converging to 1
=
H1(o
3
).
It turns out this entire spectral sequence is an invariant of the knot, and will be useful later for
dening additional scalar invariants.
This bigraded homology group turns out to be a topological invariant of the knot /, and so we
write
H11
i
(Y, /, ,) to denote the homology groups.
Proposition 8.7. If (, ,
0
, j) and (
0
, j
C1(, ),
J
s,0
) (
C1(, ),
s,1
) by counting timedependent pseudoholomorphic discs. Since
the ltrations on both of these complexes are precisely the same ....
Js,t
(x) =
yTT
2
(x,y)
()=0
nz()=0
#/
Js,t
() y
UNFINISHED
Extension to Links
Now we explain how to extend the above construction to links. Let 1 be an :component link in Y ,
and let j
i
,
i
m1
i=1
be a set of points in 1 such that if we identify j
i
with
i
in 1 we get a connected
graph. We can think of these points as (:1)embedded 0spheres. Let \ be any nullcobordism
of Y , and let (Y ) be the boundary of the 4manifold obtained by attaching (: 1) 1handles
whose attaching spheres are precisely j
i
,
i
. Clearly (Y ) is dieomorphic to Y #(:1)o
1
o
2
.
Then we can connect (: 1) bands to 1 in (Y ) that start at j
i
, end at
i
and run through the
core of the ith 1handle, thus obtaining a knot (1) in (Y ). The isotopy class of this knot in
(Y ) depends only on the isotopy class of 1 in Y .
We now dene the Floer homology of a link 1 in Y as the Floer homology of (1) in (Y ), i.e.
H11(Y, 1) :=
H11((Y ), (1)). In order to get absolute gradings in
H11 for a link, recall the
following absolute grading of the Floer homology of #:o
1
o
2
(with i Z):
H1
i
(#:o
1
o
2
) =
_
_
(Z,2)
(
m
i+m/2
)
: even and :,2 i :,2
(Z,2)
(
m
i+m/21/2
)
: odd and :,2 i
1
2
:,2
0 otherwise
That is, the Floer homology of #:o
1
o
2
is the homology of the :torus T
m
with gradings shifted
so that the homology is symmetric with respect to grading 0.
Exact Sequences for
H11
We can use the surgery exact sequence discussed from theorem 8.6 to derive exact sequences for
the knot homology invariant. Fix an oriented knot / in o
3
, and let be a knot in o
3
disjoint from
/ such that lk(/, ) = 0. The surgery exact sequence provides us with maps
1 :
H1(o
3
)
H1(o
3
0
())
1
0
:
H1(o
3
0
())
H1(o
3
1
())
1
1
:
H1(o
3
1
())
H1(o
3
)
111
that t into an exact triangle. Further, the map
1
0
and
1
1
are homogenous maps of degree 1,2,
whereas the map
1 is a sum of homogenous maps which do not increase the grading. It can be
shown that the chain maps on
C1 that induce the above maps respect the ltrations on
C1, and
hence the surgery exact sequence passes to an exact sequence in knot Floer homology:
H11(o
3
0
(), /)
b
F
0
//
H11(o
3
1
(), /)
b
F
1 xxp
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
H11(o
3
, /)
b
F
ffN
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Example 8.3. We can use the above surgery sequence for knot Floer homology to make some simple
computations. Let 1 be the Borromean link in o
3
, and let 1(:, n) be the knot in 1(:, 1)#1(n, 1)
obtained as one of the components of 1 after doing surgery on the other two components with
framing : and n. For example, 1(:, ) is the unknot in 1(:, 1) for any :, and 1(1, 1) is the
righthanded trefoil in o
3
. We will compute later that the knot Floer homology of the righthanded
trefoil is precisely
H11
i
(o
3
, 1(1, 1), ,) =
_
Z,2 (i, ,) = (2, 1), (1, 0), (0, 1)
0 otherwise
Now we will compute
H11(o
1
o
2
, 1(0, 1)). UNFINISHED
For an oriented link 1 in o
3
, let 1
+
, 1
, 1
0
denote the oriented links that are the same as
1 except in the vicinity of a crossing, in which case 1
+
, 1
, 1
0
have that crossing changed to a
positive, negative or oriented smoothing, respectively. If 1 has : components, then 1
+
and 1
sitting in o
3
0
()
= o
1
o
2
is isotopic to
the link in o
1
o
2
obtained by attaching a 1handle to o
3
near the smoothing in 1
0
, and then
connecting the two components of 1
0
near the smoothing with a compatibly oriented band going
through the 1handle.
An Euler Characteristic Calculation
The skein exact sequences for Floer knot homology allow us to compute the Euler characteristic of
H11
23
connecting r
2
to r
3
intersects n negatively, hence )(r
2
, r
3
) = 1. And by additivity of this
grading we have )(r
1
, r
3
) = 2. The symmetry property this grading is supposed to have implies
that )(r
1
) = 1, )(r
2
) = 0, )(r
3
) = 1. Finally, we compute the homology of (
C11(, , ., n),
k
).
However, none of the discs connecting the intersection points miss the points . and n, hence the
dierentials are zero. Therefore
H11(, , ., n) = r
1
, r
2
, r
3
), and the gradings look like
H11
ij
1 0 1
2 r
1
)
1 r
2
)
0 r
3
)
It is clear that the Euler characteristic of this bigraded vector space is just the Alexander polyno
mial:
k
(t) = t
1
1 +t.
113
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
x
5
x
2
x
3
x
5
x
1
z
w
x
4
Figure 8.2: A Heegaard diagram for the gure eight knot
The Figure Eight Knot
Figure 8.2 shows a Heegaard diagram for o
3
that is compatible with the gure eight knot. Let us
rst gure out the relative gradings on these generators with respect to the base point n. There
is a disc connecting r
1
to r
2
and it intersects n positively, so gr(r
1
, r
2
) = 1. The obvious disc
connecting r
2
to r
3
does not intersect n, and so gr(r
2
, r
3
) = 1. The obvious disc connecting r
3
to r
4
has orientations reversed, and so its Maslov index is 1 and intersects n negatively, hence
gr(r
3
, r
4
) = 1. Finally, the disc from r
4
to r
5
has orientations reversed and does not intersect n, so
gr(r
4
, r
5
) = 1. To pin down the absolute grading we compute the homology of (
C1(, , n), ).
The dierentials can easily be computed as
r
1
= r
4
r
2
= r
3
r
3
= 0
r
4
= 0
r
5
= r
5
Therefore ker = r
3
, r
4
, r
1
+r
5
) and im r
3
, r
4
), hence
H1(, , n) = r
1
+r
5
). This means
that r
1
and r
5
are in grading zero, and so gr(r
2
) = 1, gr(r
3
) = 0 and gr(r
4
) = 1.
Next we compute the relative Alexander gradings. If we just use the discs we used in computing
the Maslov grading then we see that the relative Alexander gradings are the same as the relative
Maslov gradings. In order for the symmetry property to hold for the maslov gradings we must
have )(r
1
) = )(r
3
) = )(r
5
) = 0, )(r
2
) = 1 and )(r
4
), hence the Alexander gradings are precisely
the Maslov gradings. Further, the dierential
k
on
C11(, , ., n) is zero, so we have computed
H11:
H11
ij
1 0 1
1 r
2
)
0 r
1
, r
3
, r
5
)
1 r
4
)
It is clear that the Euler characteristic of this bigraded vector space is the Alexander polynomial
of the gure eight:
k
(t) = t
1
3 +t.
114
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
x
5
x
6
x
7
x
2
x
3
x
5
x
6
x
7
x
1
z
w
x
4
Figure 8.3: A Heegaard diagram for the knot 5
2
A Knot with 5 Crossings
Figure 8.3 shows a Heegaard diagram for o
3
that is compatible with the 5
2
knot (a gure eight
knot with an extra twist). Let us rst gure out the relative gradings on these generators with
respect to the base point n. There is a disc connecting r
1
to r
2
that does not intersect n, so we
have gr(r
1
, r
2
) = 1, and similarly gr(r
2
, r
3
) = 1. However, the disc connecting r
3
to r
4
passes
through n positively, and so gr(r
3
, r
4
) = 1. Continuing this we can easily compute
gr(r
1
, r
2
) = 1 gr(r
2
, r
3
) = 1 gr(r
3
, r
4
) = 1
gr(r
4
, r
5
) = 1 gr(r
5
, r
6
) = 1 gr(r
6
, r
7
) = 1
Next we compute the homology of (
k
on
C11(, , ., n) is trivial since all discs intersect either . or n, and so we have computed
H11:
H11
ij
1 0 1
0 r
1
, r
5
)
1 r
2
, r
4
, r
6
)
2 r
3
, r
7
)
It is clear that the Euler characteristic of this bigraded vector space is the Alexander polynomial
of the 5
2
knot:
k
(t) = 2t
1
3 + 2t.
UNFINISHED
116
A Homotopy Groups
Let us assume that we are working in the nice category of Hausdor, compactly generated, non
degenerately based spaces. For based spaces (A, r
0
) and (Y, j
0
), let )
1
, )
2
: A Y be maps (not
necessarily based) and n : 1 Y a path. We say that )
1
and )
2
are freely homotopic along n
if there is a homotopy 1 : A 1 Y from )
1
to )
2
such that 1(r
0
, t) = n(t) for all t 1, and we
denote this by )
1
u
)
2
. That is, although we are allowing the base point of A to move during the
homotopy, we are restricting it to move along a specic path. If )
1
and )
2
are based maps, then n
is necessarily a loop. Here is a simple lemma to show this denition makes sense.
Lemma A.1.
1. For any map )
1
: A Y and path n : (1, 0) (Y, )
1
(r
0
)) there is a map )
2
: A Y such
that )
1
u
)
2
.
2. If )
1
u
)
2
, )
1
v
)
3
and n rel 0, 1, then )
1
const
)
3
.
3. If )
1
u
)
2
and )
2
v
)
3
, then )
1
vu
)
3
.
Proof.
1. By denition of nondegenerately based we have that (A, r
0
) is a bration. Therefore the
homotopy extension problem )
1
n : A 0 r
0
1 Y can be solved to give a map
1 : A 1 Y with the desired properties.
2.
This lemma gives us an action of
1
(Y, j
0
) on the based homotopy classes [A, Y ]
: for [)]
[A, Y ]
and [n]
1
(Y, j
0
), let [n][)] = [p], where p is any map such that )
u
p. This is welldened
by the above lemma.
Proposition A.1. If Y is path connected, then the forgetful map [A, Y ]
[A, Y ] descends to a
bijection [A, Y ]
,
1
(Y, j
0
) [A, Y ]. If Y is simply connected, then the forgetful map is bijective.
117
B Duality Theorems
Theorem B.1 (Poincare Duality). If ` a closed, oriented nmanifold with fundamental class
[`] H
n
(`; Z), then the homomorphism
11 : H
p
(`; Z) H
np
(`; Z)
dened by [`] is an isomorphism.
This isomorphism is called the Poincare isomorphism. It is natural in the sense that if
) : ` is a map of closed, oriented manifolds such that )
H
p
(; Z)
PD
//
f
OO
H
np
(; Z)
The duality isomorphism leads to a bilinear pairing
H
p
(`; Z) H
np
(`; Z) Z
which is nondegenerate
We can drop the orientability assumption and get a Z,2form of Poincare duality.
Theorem B.2. If ` is a closed nmanifold with a Z,2orientation given by [`] H
n
(`; Z,2),
then the homomorphism
11 : H
p
(`; Z,2) H
np
(`; Z,2)
dened by [`] is an isomorphism.
We can also extend these duality theorems to manifolds with boundary.
Theorem B.3 (PoincareLefschetz Duality). Let ` be a compact, oriented nmanifold with bound
ary with fundamental class [`, `] H
n
(`, `; Z). Then the homomorphisms
11 : H
p
(`, `; Z) H
np
(`; Z)
11 : H
p
(`; Z) H
np
(`, `; Z)
given by capping homology classes with [`, `] are isomorphisms.
Finally, a more general form of duality is Alexander duality.
Theorem B.4 (Alexander Duality). Let A be a closed subset of o
n
which is a CW complex. Then
H
i
(o
n
A)
=
H
ni1
(A)
118
C Cohomology with Homotopy
There is a way of dealing with cohomology classes in terms of homotopy classes of maps. Recall
that an EilenbergMacLane space of type (G, n) (where G is abelian if G 2) is a CWcomplex
1(G, n) such that
i
(1(G, n)) = G if i = n and 0 otherwise. Hurewiczs theorem implies that
H
i
(1(G, n)) = 0 for all i < n and H
n
(1(G, n)) = G, and so the exact sequence from the universal
coecient theorem gives a natural isomorphism
H
n
(1(G, n); G)
= Hom(H
n
(1(G, n)), G)
= Hom(G, G)
Let H
n
(1(G, n); G) denote the cohomology class associated to id : G G in the above
isomorphisms. Then each homotopy class of map ) : A 1(G, n) gives a cohomology class
)
H
n
(A; G). This association turns out to be a natural isomorphism of abelian groups
[A, 1(G, n)]
= H
n
(A; G)
where [A, 1(G, n)] is given the canonical group structure from the Hgroup structure on 1(G, n) =
1(G, n 1). Naturality of the isomorphism means that for any map ) : A Y the following
diagram commutes
[A, 1(G, n)]
oo
H
n
(A; G) H
n
(Y ; G)
f
oo
where )
denotes the induced map both on the homotopy class of maps and on cohomology.
In the special case of n = 2 and G = Z we get another view of cohomology. The 2nd degree co
homology H
2
(A; Z) is isomorphic to [A, 1(Z)] = [A, C1
, and so [A, C1
A.
119
D Homeomorphisms of Surfaces
When constructing combinatorial pictures of 3manifolds it will be useful to know something about
selfhomeomorphisms of surfaces. We will be gluing together manifolds with boundary equal to a
surface of genus p along a selfhomeomorphism of that surface, so in particular we only need to
know selfhomeomorphisms of surfaces up to isotopy. This motivates the denition of the mapping
class group. For any manifold `, let Homeo(`) denote the group of orientation preserving, self
homeomorphisms of `, and let Homeo
0
(`) denote the normal subgroup of Homeo(`) that are
isotopic to the identity. The quotient H(`) = Homeo(`), Homeo
0
(`) is called the mapping class
group of `.
The structure of H(`) is usually quite complicated, but in the case of the torus we have a
simple description of its mapping class group, and for a general surface we have an explicit set of
generators. Let be a surface of genus p, and let c be an embedded circle in . Associated to this
curve there are 2 elements of H(), which are inverses of each other, called the Dehn twists along c.
Take a small tubular neighborhood (c) of c in . Since (c) is an annulus, let : (c) be
a homeomorphism onto the standard annulus = . : 1 [.[ 2 such that (c) = . : [.[ = 2.
Then dene the homeomorphism
c
: by
(r) =
_
r r , (c)
1
_
(r) c
2i((x)1)
_
r (c)
This determines an element of H(), and had we twisted in the other direction we would have
gotten the inverse to the above element. Further Dehn twists around isotopic curves are isotopic.
There is a standard family of 3p embedded curves on a surface of genus p, label them by
i
,
i
,
j
for i = 1, . . . , p and , = 1, . . . , p 1.
Theorem D.1 (DehnLickorish). The group H(`) is generated by Dehn twists along the curves
i
,
i
,
i
.
Theorem D.1 gives us an explicit description of the mapping class group of the torus. Let
T = o
1
o
1
be the 2torus. Let j = o
1
1 and = 1 o
1
be the standard meridian and
longitude on T. A homeomorphism ) : T T induces an isomorphism )
:
1
(T)
1
(T), where
1
(T) = ZZ is generated by j and . Every automorphism of ZZ is given by an integervalued
matrix whose determinant is 1. If ) is orientation preserving, then the matrix representation of
)
has determinant +1. Further, isotopic homeomorphisms induce the same map on homology,
hence we have a homomorphism
: H(T) SL(2, Z) (D.1)
Proposition D.1. The map is an isomorphism.
Proof. We will only show the surjective part of this proposition. Any matrix SL(2, Z) can be
reduced to the identity by composing with elementary transformations. Over the integers these
transformations are of the form
_
1 1
0 1
_ _
1 0
1 1
_
Under the isomorphism (D.1) these matrices correspond to Dehn twists around j and , which we
know generates H(T) by theorem D.1. Therefore is surjective.
120
E Some Analysis
Let \ and \ be Banach spaces and ) : \ \ a map. We say that ) is a dierentiable at a point
\ if there is a bounded linear map d)
v
: \ \ such that
lim
h0
[[)( +/) )() d)
v
(/)[[
[[/[[
= 0
We call d)
v
the derivative of ) at . If d)
v
exists for all \ we obtain a map d) : \ 1(\, \),
where 1(\, \) is the Banach space of bounded linear maps \ \ given the operator norm: for
1 1(\, \) we set [[1[[ = sup [[1()[[ : \, [[[[ 1. Since 1(\, \) is another Banach space
we can discuss the dierentiable properties of d). In general, we say that ) is of class C
1
if ) is
dierentiable and d) is continuous (i.e. bounded), and inductively say that ) is of class C
k
if d) is
of class C
k1
.
A C
k
Banach manifold modeled on a Banach space \ is a topological space A with a cover
l
: l
(l
) such that
for any two charts (r
, l
) and (r
, l
) we have that r
r
1
: r
(l
) r
(l
) is
C
k
as a map between open sets of the Banach space 1. If we speak of just Banach manifolds, and
leave out its C
k
class, then we take the manifold to be C
:
1
(l
) l
we have
: (l
)\ (l
x
d:
x
: T
x
A 1
x
(we use a capital 1 for the vertical dierential and a lower case d for the
regular dierential). The following result is very useful.
Theorem E.3. Let A and Y be separable Banach manifolds, 1 A Y a Banach bundle, and
: : A Y 1 a smooth section. If for each (r, j) :
1
(0
E
) we have
1. The vertical dierential 1:
(x,y)
: T
(x,y)
(A Y ) 1
(x,y)
is surjective.
2. The vertical dierential 1:
(x,y)
restricted to T
y
Y is Fredholm of index /.
Then for generic r Y , the set j Y : :(r, j) = 0 is a /dimensional submanifold of Y . Further,
the restriction of 1:
(x,y)
to T
y
Y is surjective.
Proof. By the rst condition on : we already have that :
1
(0
E
) is a Banach submanifold of AY
by the inverse function theorem. Let : A Y A be the projection onto the rst factor.
Let (r, j) A Y such that :(r, j) = 0. Then, as we remarked before, the tangent space at
(r, j, 0) in 1 splits as T
(x,y,0)
1 = T
x
A T
y
Y 1
(x,y)
, and so the vertical dierential is given by
1:
(x,y)
=
(x,y)
d:
(x,y)
, where
(x,y)
is the projection of T
(x,y,0)
onto 1
(x,y)
.
UNFINISHED
For a region l R
n
we dene 1
p
(l) to be the space of functions ) : l R such that
[[)[[
p
:=
__
U
[)[
p
_
1/p
<
If ) 1
p
([o, /]) we say that p 1
p
([o, /]) is the weak derivative of ) if for every C
1
([o, /])
with (o) = (/) = 0 we have
_
b
a
)
=
_
b
a
p
More generally, if ) 1
p
(l) and is a multiindex, then we say that p 1
p
(l) is the th weak
derivative of ) if for every C
1
c
(l) we have
_
U
)1
= (1)

_
U
p
where 1
=

x
1x
k
is the th dierential operator. Weak derivatives are unique (up to a
set of measure zero), and if a function is already dierentiable then its weak derivative is equal
to its regular derivative. Therefore we also denote the weak derivative by 1
), or just )
for
l R. We can further generalize this ideal to functions in 1
p
(l, R
n
) by dening weak derivatives
for each component. The subset of 1
p
(l, R
n
) with / weak derivatives in 1
p
(l, R
n
) is denoted by
\
k,p
(l, R
n
).
Proposition E.1. If ) \
1,2
(l, R
n
) (l R) such that )
is continuous, then ) C
1
(l).
122
Proof. For a xed o l dene p : l R
n
by
p(r) =
_
x
a
)
(t) dt
Since )
= )
k
(t) = det(t
1/2
o t
1/2
o
T
) = det((t
1/2
o t
1/2
o
T
)) =
k
(t)
Exercise F.3.
k
1
#k
2
(t) =
k
1
(t)
k
2
(t)
Proof. If 1
1
, 1
2
are Seifert surfaces for /
1
, /
2
respectively, then 1
1
;1
2
is a Seifert surface for /
1
#/
2
.
We clearly have H
1
(1
1
;1
2
)
= H
1
(1
1
) H
1
(1
2
), so if we pick bases = r
1
, . . . , r
2g
and =
j
1
, . . . , j
2g
for H
1
(1
1
) and H
1
(1
2
) we can take their union to get a basis for H
1
(1
1
;1
2
). Further,
the pushos of the basis elements do not link the the elements, and viceversa, so the Seifert
matrix o with respect to this basis is o
1
o
2
, where o
i
is the Seifert matrix of 1
i
. Therefore
k
1
#k
2
(t) =
k
1
(t)
k
2
(t).
Exercise F.4. If / is a knot then
k
(1) = 1, and if 1 is a link with more than one component
then
L
(1) = 0.
Proof. If o is a Seifert matrix of some Seifert surface of / with respect to some basis, then
k
(1) =
det(o o
T
). The (i, ,)entry of o o
T
is lk(r
i
, r
+
j
) lk(r
j
, r
+
i
) = lk(r
i
, r
+
j
) +lk(r
i
, r
j
) = r
i
r
j
.
So, o o
T
is the matrix of the intersection pairing : H
1
(1) H
1
(1) Z in the basis r
i
, which
we know is a nondegenerate, antisymmetric form, and so it is a direct sum of matrices
_
0 1
1 0
_
in some basis. The determinant of this matrix is clearly 1, and so it follows
k
(1) = 1.
We can repeat the same arguments for a link 1 with more than one component, except now we
claim the intersection pairing : H
1
(1) H
1
(1) Z is degenerate. If 1 is a Seifert surface for
1, then there is a nontrivial 1cycle going once around one of the boundary components of 1
(since 1 has more than one connected components). However, every embedded curve in 1 can be
isotoped to completely miss the boundary of 1, hence the intersection product of with any other
cycle is zero, hence the intersection pairing is degenerate. It follows that so the determinant of any
matrix representation is 0, hence
L
(t) = 0.
124
Exercise F.5. The Alexander polynomial is zero for any split link.
Proof. If /
1
and /
2
are knots in o
3
that can be separated by a closed 3ball, then 1
1
#1
2
is a Seifert
surface for /
1
/
2
, where 1
1
, 1
2
are Seifert surfaces for /
1
, /
2
respectively. If r
i
and j
i
are
bases for 1
1
and 1
2
respectively, then r
i
, j
j
, j is a basis for 1
1
#1
2
, where j is a meridian of the
tube used to connected 1
1
and 1
2
. This meridian does not link with any of the pushos of the
r
i
s and j
i
s, and viceversa, therefore there is an entire column of zeros in t
1/2
o t
1/2
o
T
, and so
k
1
k
2
(t) = 0.
Exercise F.6. Let 1 be an oriented link, and let 1
+
, 1
, 1
0
denote the links obtained from 1 be
changing a xed crossing to a positive crossing, a negative crossing, or resolving the crossing in an
oriented fashion. Then we have the skein relation
L
+
(t)
L
(t) = (t
1/2
t
1/2
)
L
0
(t)
Proof.
Exercise F.7.
1. (/) = (/)
2. (/
1
#/
2
) = (/
1
) +(/
2
)
3. (/) is even for knots /
4. If /
1
and /
2
are concordant, then (/
1
) = (/
2
).
Proof.
1. If o is a Seifert matrix for /, then o is a Seifert matrix for /, so
/ = (o o
T
) = ((o +o
T
)) = (o +o
T
) = (/)
2. If o
1
, o
2
are Seifert matrices for /
1
, /
2
, then o
1
o
2
is a Seifert matrix for /
1
#/
2
, and so the
result follows.
3. First we claim that det(o +o
T
) ,= 0 so that o +o
T
has no zero eigenvalues. The Alexander
polynomial can be written as
k
(t) = o
0
+o
1
(t+t
1
)+ +o
n
(t
n
+t
n
), and since
k
(1) = 1
we must have o
0
is odd, and hence det(/) = det(o +o
T
) is odd. Since the number of positive
eigenvalues plus the number of eigenvalues of o + o
T
is equal to 2p, it follows that their
dierence is even.
4. Recall that /
1
and /
2
are said to be concordant if .....
Exercise F.8. For a knot / we have sign(
k
(1)) = (1)
(k)/2
.
Proof. We have
k
(1) = det(o +o
T
) for some Seifert matrix o of /, and the sign of this is
125
References
[1] R. Bott. Morse theory indomitable. Publications mathematiques de lI.H.
E.S., (68):99114,
1988.
[2] Peter Ozsvath and Zoltan Szabo. On the heegaard oer homology of branched doublecovers.
arXiv:math/0309170v1 (math.GT), 2003.
[3] Peter Ozsvath and Zoltan Szabo. Lectures on heegaard oer homology. Clay Mathematics
Proceedings, 2005.
[4] J. Robbin and D. Salamon. The spectral ow and the maslov index. Bull. London Math Soc.,
27:133, 1995.
126