ScalingStacks

3.3. Handle decompositions

Let us now specialize the addition of 3-handles to the case where the initial manifold W=W2W=W_{2} is a union of 00-, 11- and 2-handles. We will then have available to us the description of 𝒮0N​(W2,L,α)\mathcal{S}_{0}^{N}(W_{2};L,\alpha) from Section 3.1.

If we attach a 3-handle to W2W_{2}, in terms of Kirby calculus, the attaching sphere SS can be represented as a surface Σ\Sigma (of genus 00, and disjoint from LL) with boundary some copies of the KiK_{i}’s (the attaching circles for 2-handles). Then SS is the union of Σ\Sigma and (parallel copies of) cores of the 2-handles.

We draw J⊂SJ\subset S as a small unknot away from all KiK_{i}, and let Δ+\Delta_{+} be the small disk it bounds. The other hemisphere Δ−\Delta_{-} is the complement of Δ+\Delta_{+} in SS, and goes over some of the handles. We let

Σ−=Σ∖Δ+⊆Δ−.\Sigma_{-}=\Sigma\setminus\Delta_{+}\subseteq\Delta_{-}.

This is a surface on ∂W1\partial W_{1} whose boundary is the union of JJ and several copies of the KiK_{i}’s. Let si−s^{-}_{i} be the number of copies of KiK_{i} in ∂Σ−\partial\Sigma_{-} that appear with the negative orientation, and si+s^{+}_{i} the number of those with the positive orientation. We form the vectors

s−=(s1−,…,sn−),s+=(s1+,…,sn+).s^{-}=(s^{-}_{1},\dots,s^{-}_{n}),\ \ \ s^{+}=(s^{+}_{1},\dots,s^{+}_{n}).

We proceed to describe the maps ΨI×Y;Δ+,α′\Psi_{I\times Y;\Delta_{+},\alpha^{\prime}} and ΨI×Y;Δ−,α′\Psi_{I\times Y;\Delta_{-},\alpha^{\prime}} in this case. By Theorem 3.2 with notation as in (10), the range ⨁α∈⟨α′⟩𝒮0N​(W2,Z,α)\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}\mathcal{S}_{0}^{N}(W_{2};Z,\alpha) of these maps is identified with the direct sum of cabled skein lasagna modules ⨁α∈⟨α′⟩𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L)\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L). Similarly, their domain is identified with

⨁α∈⟨α′⟩𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L∪J)\displaystyle\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L\cup J) ≅⨁α∈⟨α′⟩𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L)⊗KhRN⁡(J)\displaystyle\cong\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L)\otimes\operatorname{KhR}_{N}(J)
≅⨁α∈⟨α′⟩𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L)⊗ℤ⁡[X]/(XN).\displaystyle\cong\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L)\otimes{\mathbb{Z}}[X]/(X^{N}).

We used here the fact that JJ is split disjoint from all the attaching links for the 2-handles, and therefore each summand that appears in the definition of 𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L∪J)\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L\cup J) splits off a KhRN⁡(J)\operatorname{KhR}_{N}(J) factor; moreover, the equivalence relation is compatible with this splitting.

The map ΨI×Y;Δ+,α′\Psi_{I\times Y;\Delta_{+},\alpha^{\prime}} is now easy to describe. It is induced by capping JJ with a disk, so it only affects the factor KhRN⁡(J)\operatorname{KhR}_{N}(J), in a standard way. Precisely, we have

(11) ΨI×Y;Δ+,α′​(v⊗Xn)={vif ​n=N−1,0if ​n=0,1,…,N−2,\Psi_{I\times Y;\Delta_{+},\alpha^{\prime}}(v\otimes X^{n})=\begin{cases}v&\text{if }n=N-1,\\ 0&\text{if }n=0,1,\dots,N-2,\end{cases}

for all v∈𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L)v\in\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L).

To describe the second map ΨI×Y;Δ−,α′\Psi_{I\times Y;\Delta_{-},\alpha^{\prime}}, consider the diagram

(12) ⨁α∈⟨α′⟩​𝒮0N​(W1,K⁡(k−,k+)∪L∪J,α){\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\underset{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}{\bigoplus}\mathcal{S}_{0}^{N}(W_{1};K(k^{-},k^{+})\cup L\cup J,\alpha)}⨁α∈⟨α′⟩​𝒮0N​(W1,K⁡(k−+s−,k++s+)∪L,α){\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\underset{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}{\bigoplus}\mathcal{S}_{0}^{N}(W_{1};K(k^{-}+s^{-},k^{+}+s^{+})\cup L,\alpha)}⨁α∈⟨α′⟩​𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L∪J){\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\underset{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}{\bigoplus}\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L\cup J)}⨁α∈⟨α′⟩​𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L){\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\underset{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}{\bigoplus}\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L)}⨁α∈⟨α′⟩​𝒮0N​(W2,L∪J,α){\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\underset{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}{\bigoplus}\mathcal{S}_{0}^{N}(W_{2};L\cup J,\alpha)}⨁α∈⟨α′⟩​𝒮0N​(W2,L,α).{\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\underset{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}{\bigoplus}\mathcal{S}_{0}^{N}(W_{2};L,\alpha).}ΨI×∂W1;Σ−,α′\scriptstyle{\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\Psi_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma_{-},\alpha^{\prime}}}Ψ¯I×∂W1;Σ−,α′\scriptstyle{\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\underline{\Psi}_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma_{-},\alpha^{\prime}}}Φ\scriptstyle{\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\Phi}≅\scriptstyle{\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\cong}Φ\scriptstyle{\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\Phi}≅\scriptstyle{\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\cong}ΨI×Y;Δ−,α′\scriptstyle{\lx@inpgf@ignorespaces\Psi_{I\times Y;\Delta_{-},\alpha^{\prime}}}

Here, in the top row we wrote (k−,k+)(k^{-},k^{+}) for a pair (r−α−,r−α+)(r-\alpha^{-},r-\alpha^{+}) as in Definition 3.1. The vertical maps from the first to the second row are induced by the inclusion of the summands into the cabled skein lasagna module; cf. Definition 3.1. The vertical maps from the second to the third row are the isomorphisms Φ\Phi from Theorem 3.2.

Ignoring the middle dashed arrow for the moment, note that the above diagram commutes. Indeed, by the definition of Φ\Phi in the proof of Theorem 3.2, the vertical compositions (from the first to the third row) are given by attaching cores of the 2-handles to lasagna fillings in W1W_{1}. Note that we are attaching more cores on the right; namely, those in the boundary of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, counted by the vectors s−s^{-} and s+s^{+}. The horizontal cobordism maps (as defined in Section 2.2) are given by attaching the surface Σ−\Sigma_{-} (in the top row) and Δ−\Delta_{-} (in the bottom row). Because Δ−\Delta_{-} is the union of Σ−\Sigma_{-} and the extra cores of 2-handles counted by s−s^{-} and s+s^{+}, the diagram (12) commutes.

Since the bottom vertical arrows in the diagram are isomorphisms, let us now add the middle dashed arrow, given by the map

Ψ¯I×∂W1;Σ−,α′:=Φ−1∘ΨI×Y;Δ−,α′∘Φ.\underline{\Psi}_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma_{-},\alpha^{\prime}}:=\Phi^{-1}\circ\Psi_{I\times Y;\Delta_{-},\alpha^{\prime}}\circ\Phi.

Because (12) commutes, we deduce that this map is induced on the skein lasagna modules by applying the cobordism maps ΨI×∂W1;Σ−,α′\Psi_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma_{-},\alpha^{\prime}} on each summand; this justifies the notation.

Recall that Σ−\Sigma_{-} is the complement of the disk Δ+\Delta_{+} inside Σ\Sigma. Thus, we can write the cobordism maps ΨI×∂W1;Σ−,α′\Psi_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma_{-},\alpha^{\prime}} in terms of the maps ΨI×∂W1;Σ(n∙),α′\Psi_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma(n\bullet),\alpha^{\prime}} associated to the surface Σ\Sigma with nn dots, as in (7):

ΨI×∂W1;Σ−,α′(v⊗Xn)=ΨI×∂W1;Σ(n∙),α′(v).\Psi_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma_{-},\alpha^{\prime}}(v\otimes X^{n})=\Psi_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma(n\bullet),\alpha^{\prime}}(v).

Fixing nn, the maps ΨI×∂W1;Σ(n∙),α′\Psi_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma(n\bullet),\alpha^{\prime}} on various summands in the construction of the skein lasagna module induce a map:

Ψ¯I×∂W1;Σ(n∙),α′:⨁α∈⟨α′⟩𝒮¯0N,α(W1;K,L)→⨁α∈⟨α′⟩𝒮¯0N,α(W1;K,L)\underline{\Psi}_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma(n\bullet),\alpha^{\prime}}\colon\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L)\to\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L)

such that

(13) Ψ¯I×∂W1;Σ−,α′(v⊗Xn)=Ψ¯I×∂W1;Σ(n∙),α′(v).\underline{\Psi}_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma_{-},\alpha^{\prime}}(v\otimes X^{n})=\underline{\Psi}_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma(n\bullet),\alpha^{\prime}}(v).

We are now ready to give a general formula for the skein lasagna module of a four-manifold decomposed into handles in terms of skein lasagna modules of 1-handlebodies. We will phrase it for an arbitrary number of handles.

0NG2

Theorem 3.10. Consider four-manifolds W1⊆W2⊆W3⊆W4W_{1}\subseteq W_{2}\subseteq W_{3}\subseteq W_{4} where

  • •

    W1=♮m​(S1×B3)W_{1}=\natural^{m}(S^{1}\times B^{3}) is the union of mm 1-handles;

  • •

    W2W_{2} is obtained from W1W_{1} by attaching nn two-handles along a framed link KK;

  • •

    W3W_{3} is obtained from W2W_{2} by attaching pp three-handles along spheres S1,…​SpS_{1},\dots S_{p};

  • •

    W4W_{4} is obtained from W3W_{3} by attaching some four-handles.

Consider also a framed link L⊂∂W4L\subset\partial W_{4}. We represent W4W_{4} by a Kirby diagram, viewing K∪LK\cup L as a link in ∂W1\partial W_{1}, and the spheres SiS_{i} in terms of surfaces Σj\Sigma_{j} on ∂W1\partial W_{1} with ∂Σj\partial\Sigma_{j} consisting of some copies of various components of KK (so that SjS_{j} is the union of Σj\Sigma_{j} and the corresponding cores of the 2-handles).

Given

α′∈H2L​(W4,ℤ)≅H2L​(W3,ℤ)≅H2L​(W2,ℤ)/([S1],…,[Sp]),\alpha^{\prime}\in H_{2}^{L}(W_{4};{\mathbb{Z}})\cong H_{2}^{L}(W_{3};{\mathbb{Z}})\cong H_{2}^{L}(W_{2};{\mathbb{Z}})/([S_{1}],\dots,[S_{p}]),

let ⟨α′⟩\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle be the set of all α∈H2L​(W2,ℤ)⊆ℤn\alpha\in H_{2}^{L}(W_{2};{\mathbb{Z}})\subseteq{\mathbb{Z}}^{n} whose equivalence class modulo ([S1],…,[Sp])([S_{1}],\dots,[S_{p}]) is α′\alpha^{\prime}.

Then, the skein lasagna module 𝒮0N​(W4,L,α′)\mathcal{S}_{0}^{N}(W_{4};L,\alpha^{\prime}) is isomorphic to the quotient of the direct sum of cabled skein lasagna modules ⨁α∈⟨α′⟩𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L)\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L) by the relations

(14) Ψ¯I×∂W1;Σj(n∙),α′(v)=0,n=0,1,…,N−2,\underline{\Psi}_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma_{j}(n\bullet),\alpha^{\prime}}(v)=0,\ \ n=0,1,\dots,N-2,

and

(15) Ψ¯I×∂W1;Σj((N−1)∙),α′(v)=v\underline{\Psi}_{I\times\partial W_{1};\Sigma_{j}((N-1)\bullet),\alpha^{\prime}}(v)=v

for all v∈⨁α∈⟨α′⟩𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L)v\in\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\langle\alpha^{\prime}\rangle}\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L) and j=1,…,pj=1,\dots,p.

0NG3

Proof. First, note that the addition of 4-handles does not affect the skein lasagna module, in view of Proposition 3.4. Thus, we can consider W3W_{3} instead of W4W_{4}.

The skein lasagna module of LL viewed in the boundary of ∂W\partial W is given by 𝒮¯0N,α​(W1,K,L)\underline{\mathcal{S}\mkern-3.0mu}\mkern 3.0mu_{0}^{N,\alpha}(W_{1};K,L) according to Theorem 3.2. When we add a 3-handle, we divide by the relations

(16) ΨI×Y;Δ+,α′​(v⊗Xn)=ΨI×Y;Δ−,α′​(v⊗Xn),\Psi_{I\times Y;\Delta_{+},\alpha^{\prime}}(v\otimes X^{n})=\Psi_{I\times Y;\Delta_{-},\alpha^{\prime}}(v\otimes X^{n}),

as proved in Theorem 3.7. In terms of the identifications Φ\Phi from Theorem 3.2, the left hand side of (16) is given by Equation (11), and the right hand side by Equation (13). We thus get relations of the form (14) and (15). The generalization to multiple 3-handles is straightforward. ∎

Theorem 3.10 gives a description of an arbitrary skein lasagna module in terms of skein lasagna modules for links in the boundary of W1=♮m​(S1×B3)W_{1}=\natural^{m}(S^{1}\times B^{3}), and cobordism maps for surfaces in I×∂W1I\times\partial W_{1}. In the next section we will obtain a further reduction to links in S3S^{3} and cobordism maps between them, under the additional constraint of working with field coefficients; see Theorem 4.7.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source collection and HTML conversion remain in progress.

Ciprian Manolescu, Kevin Walker, Paul Wedrich

Original source: arXiv:2206.04616v2