sign in sign up
<<
Home , Perfect group, William Thurston

arXiv:2006.00374v4 [math.GT] 28 May 2021 ofor So of (2) (1) form curvature the of terms G where bundles χ ( = B H nteohrhn if hand other the On e srcl w ore fisiain inradWo [Mi Wood and Milnor inspiration. of sources two recall us Let ) 2 U h yeblcpae then plane, hyperbolic the , n h xsec fafltcneto o ifrn hie o choices different for connection flat a of existence the and ( τ G st n ult ne hc uvtr em,sc sMaxwe as such terms, curvature which under duality a simul find to to connections Smal i is flat allow present fiber. be the structure of and may topology distortions which violating i topology symmetry bundle, scale given minute fine a nor for the know, resolve to can’t expect cannot we we IR the in living ini an from wander one. must functions transition extent, what to ini vie eas h tutr rusfrtepositiv the for PSL groups e.g. structure obstructions, the th because and avoided classes Bott is the tion as such obstructions wit smooth encounter other close and the from manifo comes general surprise circl The cobording connection. for about is is inequality Theorem Milnor-Wood Mather-Thurston The places. surprising h ahrTuso oods oasemi- a to result cobordism positive Mather-Thurston the the strengthening control of types two adds r elcdb nato hc esrssc “distortions. structure. such theoretic, group measures discrete, which a action renormalizing an by replaced are A 1 eoe h nttnetbundle. tangent unit the denotes ) = BSTRACT B h oiaini olymteaia onain o phys a for foundations mathematical lay to is motivation The i.e. = U S ( 1 B 1 ) sapicpebnl ti elkonta hr sa integra an is there that known well is it bundle principle a is , lsia eut fMlo,Wo,Mte,adTuso pr Thurston and Mather, Wood, Milnor, of results Classical . B OTOLDMTE-HRTNTHEOREMS MATHER-THURSTON CONTROLLED M Σ a a onciniff connection flat a has 2 3 vracoe ufc n tde h eainhpbtent between relationship the studied and surface closed a over G ( 2 = , Ω R PSL ) essU versus B ( | 2 χ a a onciniff connection flat a has χ , R ( ( B IHE FREEDMAN MICHAEL ( B ) .I 1. 1 ) = ) ) n ersnson represents and | ≤ | ntefre aeand case former the in NTRODUCTION s cbrim(s)ad()poiedti bu o,and how, about detail provide (2) and (ssc) -cobordism χ 4 χ 1 π ( ( B τ Z = ) 1 Σ ( Σ Pfaffian )) 0. | = :I aycssw r bet 1 refine (1) to able are we cases many In s: eut r agrta eurdfrthe for required than larger are results e | il ml,srcuegopit larger a into group structure small, tial, χ t uvtr tlre cls h goal The scales. larger at curvature ate btutosfo hr-eltheory Chern-Weil from obstructions h ( oblinVyivrat Contradic- invariant. Godbillion-Vey e ude vrsrae,weesthe whereas surfaces, over bundles e S nti iw uvtr eut from results curvature view, this In ” Ω cl,U,“itrin”o h base the of “distortions” UV, scale, l ( 1 C Σ clporm h hlspyi that is philosophy The program. ical dbnlst nsamtigaflat a admitting ones to bundles ld thscraueo sflt because flat, is or curvature has it f ) 1 i t cino h icea infinity at circle the on action its via ) ll’s | versus h ae nrdcdb ssc, a by introduced base, the n F ∧ 5]Wo1 osdrdcircle considered l58][Woo71] C F dc a oncin in connections flat oduce tutr group structure f 2 ∗ ntelte.Ti paper This latter. the in n Hilbert’s and oml for formula l R eElrclass Euler he dvol R G When . χ ( B ) in 2

In the boundary case, B ∼= τ(Σ), the unit tangent bundle, the local trivialization induced by the flat connection identifies tangent spaces at nearby points x,y H2 by using geodesic flow to match ∈ the unit spheres at both x and y with the ideal circle at infinity. Wood then showed that (2) also holds even if the structure group is relaxed all the way to Homeo+(S1), the group of orientation preserving homeomorphisms of the circle. Similarly but in a vastly more general context the Mather-Thurston Theorem [Thu74a] states that for any smooth X (compact, noncompact, bounded, no boundary, of any finite di- mension) the natural map

(3) BHomeoδ (X) BHomeo(X) → induced by id : Homeoδ (X) Homeo(X) from discrete to compact open topology is an acyclic → map and in particular induces an isomorphism on homology H (;Z). By the Atiyah-Hirzebruch ∗ spectral sequence (3) also induces an isomorphism on bordism so the geometrically minded state- ment, in lowest regularity C0, of the MT theorem is as follows. Assume all have smooth structure.1 Let V p be a p-dimensional manifold, possibly X B

with boundary, and X q a q-dimensional manifold (also may have boundary) and V a fiber bundle with transition functions, i.e. structure group = Homeo(X). The low differentiability form of MT we consider is:

0 Theorem 1 (Mather-Thurston [Thu74a]). Suppose B possesses a C -transverse F0 over a neighborhood N1∂V. Then there is a cobordism (W;V;V ∗) from V to V ∗, constant near ∂V 0 and covered by cobordism of bundles (B;B,B∗), so that B∗ possesses a C -transverse foliation F agreeing with F0 on a smaller N0(∂V ) N1(∂V). If B has structure group Homeo0(X) we may ⊂ arrange that this is also the structure group of B.

Definition 1. We treat as synonymous “C0-transverse foliation,” “topological transverse foliation,” and “topoloigcally flat connection.” But we use these phrases both for the C0 and bilipschitz contexts. Which one is applicable will be clear from the theorem statement; whether they are in the continuous or bilipschitz categories. In the discussion immediately following Theorem 2 of [Thu74b], Thurston refers to work of his, apparently never published, that bilipschitz of any codimension q > 1 on a smooth manifold may be (topologically) isotoped so that each compact portion of each leaf is actually a C∞-submanifold. Later [Cal01], Calegari proved such a smoothing statement for 2D foliations of 3-manifolds. When this principle holds it is only the separation between leaves, as seen in holonomies, that might not be differentiable, and not the leaves themselves. We remind the reader of this claim because, if true, it means that we should not think of bilipschitz foliations as particularly wild, and this, in fact, is the natural category for the constructions in the present paper, despite our choice to make theorem statements in the more familiar C0 category. So the topological foliations we discuss should not be thought of as “wild” objects.

1Manifolds will always be finite dimensional and oriented. CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 3

The original proofs of the M-T theorem hold if “Homeo” and “C0” are both replaced by “bilips- chitz.” Subsequently, Tsuboi [Tsu85] showed that the MT theorem also holds replacing Homeo(X) with once differentiable , C1(X) := Diff1(X), but this is more subtle. Possibly, we could also work in that context, but do not know. We work in the intermediate bilipschitz category, the most natural one for the constructions. We will not change notation but from here forward “Homeo” can always be assumed to be bilipschitz i.e. all statements involving “C0” or “Homeo” can be read literally or with Homeo and C0 everywhere replaced by bilipschitz. If we explicitly state “bilipschitz” it is to highlight that property. We will explore, in several contexts, adding control to the classical Mather-Thurston theorem, X B X B∗

on cobordisms of a general bundle V , to a flat bundle V ∗ . The first refinement is that the cobordism (W;V,V ∗), over the 3-dimensional base V , can always be taken to be a semi-s- cobordism. In higher dimensions the same statement is true after a stabilization by any product of J i spheres ∏ S j , i j 1, with sufficiently many factors J. The individual factors can all be chosen j=1 ≥ as circles or spheres of any dimension. These results depend on the model which we call C1 admitting an interesting π1-representation in the bilipschitz category, so they only apply up to that degree of differentiability. Possibly, fol- lowing [Tsu85] this might be pushed to class C1, but this is presently unclear. One simplification in working with differentiability class C1 is that the classifying space for ≤ bundles and bundles with Haefliger structures2 (that is on the bundle of vertical tangents τ to the original bundle) are homotopy equivalent:

0 0 (4) Γ (X) Γ (X) ≃ BHomeo(X) ∗ ≃ d → d −→ i.e. the homotopy fiber is contractible. Line (4) is most familiar for the fiber space X = Rd but remains true inserting any manifold fiber X [Thu74a], as explained in the footnote. The homotopy equivalence means that although we draw heavily on the theory of foliation, chiefly [Mei20], we only encounter Haeflinger structures within certain proofs and not in theorem statements. Theorems 2, 3, and 4 are geometric refinements of special cases of M-T. Before stating our theorems we need to define a highly refined, directional, type of cobordism called a semi-s-cobordism (ssc). d+1 Definition/Discussion. An absolute semi-s-cobordism (ssc) is a manifold triple (W ;V,V ∗) with W = V V ∗, so that the inclusion inc: V ֒ W is a simple homotopy equivalence. This implies∂ ⊥⊥− → s there is a simple deformation retraction r : W V (so that r incV idV ). In the relative case we → ◦ ≃ allow a common boundary ∂V = ∂V ∗, near which W is assumed to be a product.

2In this context, a Haefliger structure is a C0-foliation on τ, the bundle over B of “vertical” tangents, i.e. tangents to the fibers of X, which is transverse to the fibers of τ. It is a theorem of Kister [Kis64] that topological microbundles 0 r are represented by geniune C -category bundles so there is no essential novelty in defining the space Γd(X) for r = 0 0 in the usual manner. We may fix Γd(X) := Bun(TX,ν∗(γ)) // Homeo(X); i.e. the Borel homotopy quotient of bundle 0 maps from tangents to X the bundle ν (γ), ν : BΓ BGLd Haefliger’s map and γ the universal bundle over BGLd. ∗ d → 4 MICHAEL FREEDMAN

Because r is a (simple) homotopy equivalence all the relative groups H∗(W,V;Z[π1(W)]) ∼= 0, so by Lefschetz duality H (W,V ∗;Z[π1(W)]) = 0 so the map r incV : V ∗ V is “almost” itself ∗ ∼ ◦ ∗ → a homotopy equivalence—it would be by Whitehead’s Theorem if (r incV )# : π1(V ) π1(V) ◦ ∗ ∗ 7→ were an isomorphism.3 As it is we have an exact sequence

(5) 1 P π1(V ∗) π1(V) 1 → → → → where H1(W,V ∗;Z[π1(V)]) ∼= 0 implies that P is a perfect group. In this context Quillen’s [Quil71] (which attaches an equal number of 2- and 3-cells to kill a perfect group while leaving homology unchanged), when applied to the degree one + + s map r incV : V V yields V homotopy equivalent to V. In fact, V V since the vanishing ◦ ∗ ∗ → ∗ ∗ ≃ of Wh(W,V) implies the vanishing of the Whitehead obstruction Wh(W,V ∗) by duality [Mil71]. A comment which will soon be useful is that any concantination of ssc

(W;V1,Vl)∗ =(W1;V1,V1∗) (W2;V2,V2∗) (Wl;Vl,Vl∗) V V V V ··· 1∗[= 2 2∗[= 3 [ is itself a ssc. The simplest example of an ssc is obtained by taking a compact contractible manifold Kn and deleting a ball from its interior; W = Kn Bn, with ∂B = V and ∂K = V . \ ∗ s s Warning. It is tempting to denote the Quillen construction by V V, rather than V + V, ∗− ≃ ∗ ≃ because the left boundary V of W is the simpler space, whereas the right boundary V ∗ has been enhanced by a perfect extension. This notation would help keep straight the simple and more elab- orate boundaries of W. Also in the context of manifolds of dimension 5 Quillen’s construction ≥ can be acomplished by an equal number of 1- and 2-surgeries; in that context cells are not be- ing added, removing that justification for the + notation. But such a change seems on par with changing the sign of the electron (clearly too late); so we stick with the + sign. The innovation in Theorem 2 below is that the assumed cobordism of the base is “directional.” There is the problem end V , which a physicist would think of as the IR manifold, and a solution end V ∗, the UV end, in which the fundamental group has been elaborated by a perfect extension over which the solution becomes possible. We hope4 and expect that this will turn out to be a hidden feature of most c-principle theorems where homotopy (h-principle) by itself is inadequate, but the obstructing singularities can be removed by surgery, i.e. by cobordism. Here is the new idea on the c-principle. Holonomy around the boundary of a 2-disk D2 prevents extension of a flat connection over the disk. Traditionally, this has been dealt with by replacing D2 with Sg, a surface of high genus and a single boundary component, a radical change of topology. When the base dimension is 3, it is often possible to hide the additional genus inside a semi-s- ≥ cobordant manifold, requiring only a subtle change in topology. This paper came together during the isolation of COVID-19. But I always felt surrounded by good friends. I acknowledge with pleasure the and physicists who generously shared their thoughts and insights into this project: foremost Sam Nariman for much useful feed- back, as well as Parsa Bonderson, Adam Brown, , Bob Edwards, Yasha Eliashberg, 3 Note that r incV is a degree one map, so (r incV )# is surjective. ◦ ∗ ◦ ∗ 4I thank Yasha Eliashberg for this suggestion, particularly in the context of the Madsen-Weiss theorem. CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 5

Slava Krushkul, Roman Lutchyn, Chaitanya Murthy, Gael Meigniez, Cliff Taubes, and Shmuel Weinberg, as well as anonymous referees.

2. THEOREMS, STATEMENTS, AND CONJECTURES/QUESTIONS We begin with statements that add control of the bordism W beyond the usual MT Theorem. Theorem 2 is actually a special case of theorem 3 but we state it separately since its proof uses the proofof MTonlyas a black box. Theorem 3 is more general but requires looking inside Meigniez’s proof of MT at a high level of detail. Theorem 4, also with a black box proof, provides in a sense one half of the desired (ssc) information on W; the retraction r but not the deformation. Theorem 5 assumes that the data on ∂V is of a highly refined nature, a flat Lie-connection on a G-principal bundle, and makes a homological assumption needed to build a ssc to a flat Lie-connection. Theorem 6 studies the implications for Milnor-Wood when the representation ρ : π1(Σ) PSL(2,R) takes generators close to U(1). → X E

Theorem 2. Suppose dim(V) = 3 and that the fiber bundle B = V has structure group 0 Homeo0(X) and aC -transverse foliation F0 over N1(∂V ), a neighborhood of boundaryV. Then there is a ssc (W;V,V ∗) fromV toV ∗, covered by a Homeo0(X)-bundle (E;E,E∗), constant near 0 ∂V, such thatV ∗ possesses a C -transverse foliation F agreeing with F0 on some smaller neigh- borhood N0(∂V ) N1(∂V ). ⊂ It is helpful to think of Theorem 2, and the others, in the language of problem solving. The initial bundle B over V with foliation F0 near ∂V is the “problem” and the “solution” is the bundle at the opposite end V ∗ of the cobordism, or semi-s-cobordism (ssc), with F0 extending from a germ of ∂V to F over all of V ∗. We think of the poblem as flattening an initial bundle while changing the base as little as possible and the boundary conditions F0 not at all. Given a problem on V, prob, and another manifold without boundary Q we can pose a new stabilized problem, X B Q × prob Q which is the bundle V Q with foliation near ∂V Q = ∂(V Q) defined as the × × × × pull back of F0 under pr : ∂V Q ∂V . Note that the original foliation and its pull back are 1 × → both codimension = q = dim(X). When we speak of a solution to a stabilized problem there is no requirement that the solution has any product structure. Theorem 3. Suppose B has structure group lying within bilipschitz(X), but no assumption of lying within the identity component, and that there is a transverse foliation F0 of class at least bilipschitz over a neighborhood ∂V. This is our problem, prob. If dim(V) = p = 3, then by Theorem 2 prob is J i ssc to a solution of bilipschitz class. If dim(V) = p 4 then for Q = ∏ S j ,i j 1, prob Q is ≥ j=1 ≥ × ssc to a solution of bilipschitz class. The number of factors J is a function of the problem data and can be enormous, but the choice of the factor sphere dimensions i j 1 is completely arbitrary. ≥ Note. When Theorem 3 is restricted p = dim(V) = 3 there is a subtle difference with Theorem 2: the structure group has changed from Homeo0(X) to bilipschitz, since the latter is the lowest differentiability where the methods of [Mei20] apply. 6 MICHAEL FREEDMAN

One may hope that the stabilization in Theorem 3 for p 4 is unnecesary, as we know no ≥ counterexamples. The next theorem solves the initial problem without stabilization but with less control on the cobordism W.

Theorem 4. Suppose dim(V) 3 and B has structure group Homeo(X) (or bilipschitz(X)) and 0 ≥ that there is a C -transverse foliation near ∂V. Then there is a solution, a cobordism (W;V,V ∗) X B∗

covered by bundles to a solution V ∗ with a topologically flat connection, and with W ad- mitting a retraction r : W V,r incV idV . → ◦ ≃ Note. A consequence of the retraction r is the existence of the degree 1 map r incV : V V. ◦ ∗ ∗ → Degree one maps induce a well studied partial on manifolds, e.g. the of the target always injects into the source, and π1(V ) π1(V) is surjective. So as with a ssc, V is the ∗ → “simple” and V ∗ the “complex” end. Also as with ssc, finite composition of retracting cobordisms are also retracting.

The next theorem provides, in the Lie context, a ssc from problem to solution, whenever the homological obstruction vanishes.

Theorem 5. Let G be a simply connected semi-simple Lie group with Lie algebra g. Let (V,Σ) be a compact 3-manifold with boundary Σ, and B a principal G-bundle with a fixed flat g-connection δ A over Σ which is trivial in H2(G ,Z) i.e. bounds a flat principal G-bundle over someV ′, ∂V ′ = Σ. Then there is a ssc (W,V,V ∗) and an extension B of B overW with B∗ over V ∗ possessing a flat g-connection extending A on Σ.

Extensions: Theorem 5 is a special case of what we actually will prove. It is not necessary that the bundle B be a G-principal bundle with flat g-connection near the boundary. Instead all that is required is that the fiber X be a manifold with a point set (not necessarily Riemannian) metric and the monodromy of the topologically flat connection lie in the identity component of the group of isometries I0(X) bilipschitz (X). By classical theorems of Montgomery and Zippin, I0(X) is a ⊂ 0 Lie group and that forms the bridge. Call the extension Theorem 5′. The last theorem (6) quantifies the Milnor-Wood inequality [Mil66,Woo71] for circle bundles over surfaces, by considering the trade-off between adding lots of genus to the base and keeping the transition functions close to U(1) PSL(2,R), and keeping the genus lower and allowing ⊂ transition function (like large boosts from special relativity) which are quite far from rotations. We 1 can keep the transition function within the Lie group PSL(2,R) Homeo0(S ), the embedding via ⊂ the usual representation on the hyperbolic disk model. Consider the problem of imposing a sl(2,R) flat connection on a circle bundle B with Euler class χ(B) over a base surface Σg of genus g. Let gχ(B)(ε) be the smallest genus so that there is a 5 generating set S for π1(Σg) so that B admits a topologically flat connection with representation ρ : π1(Σg) PSL(2,R) so that ρ(S) Nε (U(1)) PSL(2,R), where the ε-neighborhood is defined → ⊂ ⊂

5All generating sets are assumed to be “symmetric” i.e. closed under inverse. CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 7 R 1 used the sup norm. Define g′χ(B)(ε) similarly by replacing PSL(2, ) with Homeo0(S ). Clearly g (ε) g (ε). It seems reasonable in light of [Woo71] to guess that they are actually equal. ′χ(B) ≤ χ(B) N+ Theorem 6. The function gχ(B)(ε), for ε > 0, is defined into the natural numbers union 0, . For ε sufficiently small it obeys the upper bound: 2π χ(B) g | | χ(B) ≤ ε2 + O(ε3) 3 where the error term satisfies O(ε ) , some . ε3 < const. const. > 0 One might ask for a rather strong converse of the form: c χ(B) For sufficiently small ε > 0, g | | , for some c > 0, perhaps with c = 2π. But we χ(B) ≥ ε2+O(ε3) have only been able to prove6 such a statement where the denominator is ε (not ε2), and S is restricted to the standard generators for π1(Σg). So this question is open. Conjecture 2, below, proposes a vast generalization of Theorem 6 to higher dimensions and with the additional feature that when dim(base) 3, the topology of the solution can be controlled ≥ up to ssc. In theorems 2 and 3 we have already seen that it is sometimes possible to “hide” the extensive genus inside a perfect group, suggesting the conjecture may be true. Before stating broad (and optimistic) conjectures, we give the simplest example of what we would like to know, but don’t. S3 S7

Example: Recall the ’t Hooft instanton, also knownas a generalized Hopf fibration S4 with structure group SU(2). We ask if for every sup norm neighborhood N(SU(2)) bilipschitz (S3). ⊂ 0 There is a homology 4-sphere H so that the pull back bundle under the degree one map H S4, → S3 E

3 H admits a topologically flat connection given by ρ : π1(H) bilipschitz (S ) so that for → 0 some generating set S of π1(H), ρ(S) N(SU(2)). This seems to require a new idea, even without ⊂ of the condition on the generating set. Conjecture 1. Theorem 3 holds without stabilization. X B

Conjecture 2. Let (V,∂V) be a manifold of dim(V) 3. Let V be a bundle with structure ≥ group Homeo(X), where X is any manifold with a (point set) metric, and the bundle possessing near ∂V a topologically flat connection F0 with holonomy lying in I(X), the group of isometries of the fiber, and let N be any norm-topology neighborhood of I(X) in Homeo(X). Then there exists

6The proof: The standard surface relator has length 4g and is a composition of 4g elements of Homeo+(S1), each represents to an element ei within ε of some rotation ri,1 i 4g. Estimating rotation numbers as in [Woo71], the ≤ ≤ rotation number of the composition of the ei is within 4gε of the rotation number of the composition of ri, which is trivial. The former rotation number is in the Euler class. 8 MICHAEL FREEDMAN

a ssc (W;V,V ∗), constant near ∂V , covered by a bundle B with structure group Homeo0(X) to B∗ a bundle V possessing a topologically flat connection inducing a representation ρ : π1(V ) ∗ ∗ → Homeo(X), with the property that ρ(S) N for some generating set S for π1(V ). ⊂ ∗ 3. DYNAMICS We use a somewhat more controlled version of the Fisher-Epstein Theorem [Fis60, Eps70]. Proposition 1. The identity component of the homeomorphism group of every manifold is simple. Fisher actually worked under a stability assumption which became redundant in 1969 when Kirby [Kir69] proved all homeomorphisms are stable as part of his work on the Annulus Conjec- ture.7 While adding some control we rely heavily on Fisher’s identities. Again all constructions may be done in the bilipschitz category. We will write the general f Homeo0(X) as a product of conjugates of a single homeomor- 1 ∈ phism h and h , where h = id Homeo0(X) is arbitrary. By choosing the essential support − 6 ∈ supp(h) is near a fine net N X it is also possible to control the support of all conjugators and ⊂ in particular keep them small in the norm topology. Let us take Nε to be a maximal collection ε of points with all distances > 0 and Ui the open cover of ε-balls about Nε . Here is the ≥ 2 { } construction using the concept of fragmentation (see [Nar20]). Since Homeo0(X) is perfect and has the fragmentation property w.r.t. the open cover Ui r { } we may write f = ∏i=1[ai,bi], ai,bi supported in Ui. It suffices to write each [ai,bi] as product 1 ε of conjugates of h and h− . By assumption there is a δ-neighborhood V of N, δ << 2 , so that V h(V) = ∅. Let gi be a radial compression (a homeomorphism) supported near Ui so that ∩ y 1 gi(Ui) Vi, Vi being the component of V containing the ith element of N. Writing x for yxy− , and ⊂gi gi ai for ai and bi for bi , similar to [Tsu08] (see Remark 6.6), we may write an identity expressing 1 the basic [a,b] as a product of two conjugates of h and two conjugates of h− for a 1 total of four conjugates. For convenience set ci = h− aih, and on line (6) we suppress the subscript i for readability to obtain 1 1 1 1 1 1 [a,b] = aba− b− = h(h− ah)h− (ba− b− ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 (6) = h(ch− c− )(cbhc− b− )(bh− b− ) 1 c cb 1 b = h(h− ) (h )(h− ) where in the final equality we have used that c and b commute owing to there having disjoint support. So, restoring the i subscript 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 gi− 1 gi− h− giaigi− hgi gi− h− giaigi− hgib 1 gibigi− (7) [ai,bi] = gi− [ai,bi]gi = h (h− ) h (h− ) This yields

Proposition 2. Let X be a (metric) topological manifold and f Homeo0(X), then f may be ∈ written as a product of conjugates of one homeomorphism h and its inverse. If h has essential

7The 4-dimensional case was completed by Quinn [Quin82] in 1982. CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 9

support ε-close to a net N X, the conjugators, displayed in line (7) are themselves O(ε) in sup- ⊂ norm. If X is a bilipschitz manifold then any f bilipschitz (X) can be similarly written with all ∈ 0 letters now bilipschitz homeomorphisms, with the parallel assertion on sup-norm still holding. 

The “smallness” conclusion of Proposition 2 are not required for the theorems proven in this paper, but are stated as they should be useful in studying Conjecture 2 and the instanton example.

Extension: Each ai and bi above can themselves be factored as on line (7) (being elements of Homeo0(X)), thus f may further be written as a product of commutators of elements which are themselves conjugates of the chosen h. This will be exploited in section 5.

4. THE LOCAL MODELS

They will be C1, C2, C1, C2, and their compositions C1, C2, C 1, and C 2. Both C1 and C2 are homology solid tori and C1 and C2 are fixed cobordisms, rel. boundary, to the standard solid torus 1 2 1 3 S D , so C1 and C2 are homology S D ’s. Both C1 and C2 will come with a homomorphism × × ρi : π1(Ci) (a relevant structure group) for i = 1,2. Ci is the closed complement of certain knot → ki in a homology 3-sphere Σi, and the corresponding homology cobordisms Ci will be the closed slice complements for ki in a corresponding homology 4-ball, Bi. 2 Let P1 and P2 be the Siefert fibered manifolds over S with (2,3,7) and (2,3,5) multiplicities, ^ respectively, describing the (three) exceptional fibers. P1 is an SL(2;R)-manifold whereas P2 is spherical (actually it is the Poincare homology sphere). Let Pi−, i = 1,2, denote the punctured manifold. Let (γ1,∂γ1) be any essential embedded arc in (P1−,∂) and let (γ2,∂γ2) be any embedded arc in (P2−,∂) representing an element of the BI ∼= π1(P2) of order > 2. Note that π1(P1) is torsion free, being an infinite cyclic extension of a hyperbolic triangle group. For i = 1,2, let Σi = Pi# Pi be the connected sum of the homology sphere and its mirror − image, Σi = P− 2 P−, where P− is the punctured homology sphere. The knot ki := γi γi i S − i i ∪ − ⊂ P− 2 P− is slice in the homology 4-ball Bi = P− I, ∂Bi = Σi, with the (slice disk)= γi I. i S − i S ∼ i × × Let C denote the closed complement Σ N k , an integral homology S1 D2, and C the closed S i i ( i) i \ × 1 2 complement (Bi slice disk). We may view Ci as a relative H -cobordism from Ci to S D . C \ ∗ × will be useful in building certain cobordisms W0. (We use the subscript 0 to distinguish these model cobordisms from the general cobordism denoted throughout by W.) There are natural maps:

inc# proj1 (8) [m],[l] π1Ci π1Pi π1Pi π1Pi ∈ −−→ ∗ −−→ α

with α[l] having order > 2 and α[m] trivial, m the meridian of k and l the longitude. π1(Pi) are central extensions of the (2,3,7) and (2,3,5) triangle groups respectively. For i = 1 π1(Pi) is torsion free so the α[l] is merely required to be nontrivial. For i = 2 the aim is to exclude the central element of π1(P2) ∼= BI, the binary icosahedral group. This is easily done by avoiding that element when choosing γ2. 10 MICHAEL FREEDMAN

Given a homology sphere P there is a “spun” homology sphere Q in one higher dimension with π1(P) ∼= π1(Q). Q is an open book with fiber P− and identity monodromy:

p 0 p 1, p P− (9) Q = P− I/ q×s=≡q ×s , q ∈∂P , s,s I=[0,1] × × × ′ ∈ − ′∈ Consequently the preceeding set of examples can be extended to all dimensions: k 3 k Bk Let Pi , k 3, be Pi spun to dim k, i = 1,2, so Pi := Pi. Σi , i are the corresponding doubled ≥ k k homology spheres and homology ball and γi I is still a 2D slice disk in B , with boundary k . × i i k Bk k k k k N Call the closed complements in Σi and i , Ci and Ci respectively. Thus Ci := Σi (ki), and k k k k 2 2 k \ k 2 3 C := B N(γi I). C is an integral homology S D and C is a homology S D i i \ × i − × i − × which may be viewed as a Z-homology cobordism, constant over the boundary, to the standard k 2 2 k S − D . Line 8 continues to hold except that when k > 3, there is no meridional class in π1(Ci ) × k 2 since the meridinal boundary factor is S − , which is simply connected. This explains the capital models. Next we discuss their composition, denoted by the corresponding script letters. Having introduced the superscript k to keep track of the dimension of the model, we will generally omit it in what follows when it is clear from context, for example from the dimension of the manifold being modified. We will use two basic operations to build C from C and C from C. The first is (iterated) longitudinal boundary connected sum, which we call longitudinal sum, for the homology solid tori k 2 2 k 2 1 (in any dimension C :=(S − D )H) with boundary ∼= S − S . (When the dimension k = 3 a × × 1 2 1 1 normal framing specifies the “longitude” and fixes the identification of ∂(S D )H with S S .) × × In general, the sphere Sk 2-factor is the longitude and if I S1 is a fixed interval the longitudinal − ⊂ sum is a gluing

k 2 k 2 C C′ = C C′/S − I ∂C identified via (id k 2 θ) to S − I ∂C′ long ⊥⊥ × ⊂ S − × × ⊂ θ the reflection on I. Similarly:

k 2 k 2 C C′ = C C′/S − I I ∂C identified via (id k 2 θ idI) to S − I I ∂C′ long ⊥⊥ × × ⊂ S − × × × × ⊂ where the last interval factor is normal to C in C. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 for k = 3 in the case of 4-fold iterations. The second way in which we compose homology solid tori is “Bing doubling,” implanting a pair of C’s in a standard Sk 2 D2 along a Bing double of its core, or in dimension k > 3 − × spun Bing doubles (see [Kru18] and our Figure 2). The Bing doubling operation relates easily to group commutators, whereas the first operation relates to group multiplication. We actually require ramified Bing doublings [FQ14], a simple extension corresponding to products of commutators, explained below. In the case that bars are present, the Bing doubling transformation C C , is → not replacement, but the attachment of two homology cobordisms (C,C) along Bing pairs. On the boundary, this attachment agrees with the former operation of replacement. We change capital letters to script to indicate that our models have been composed according to longitudinal sums and Bing doubling. For us the use of these models, particularly the un-barred Ci will be to fill in what Thurston [Thu76] calls holes in foliations, which later morphed into the theory of fissures [Mei20]. CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 11

5. PROOFS For the proof of Theorem 2, the MT Theorem 1 may be treated as a black box; we just need the statement that W exists and then use surgery techniques and the models C1 and C1 to improve W to a ssc while retaining the flat connection over its right end. In contrast, the proof of Theorem 3 requires following in some detail Meigniez’s proof of MT l l [Mei20] and intervening at the correct moment with models C1 and C1, for various dimension l. Proof of Theorem 2. Recall the output of the MT Theorem is a cobordism of X-bundles:

B ֒ B ֓ B → ← ∗ V ֒ W 4 ֓ V → ← ∗ Give W 4 a smooth handle decomposition relative to V and cancel any 0-handles and 4-handles (without changing W ). Since V (and V ∗) may be presumed connected, any 1-handle (and any 3- handle) may be traded for a 2-handle at the expense of modifying W by a trivial 1-surgery. It is easy to modify interior W in this way but we need carry the bundle cobordism B along. This is one of two places the proof will use that the structure group of B and hence B is Homeo0(X). This guarantees that B γ is trivial for any simple closed curve γ (scc) in W, allowing the 1-surgery to be | covered by a relative cobordism of bundles (B;B;B′) over a (5D) cobordism of W . Three handles are dealt with as 1-handles by turning W upside down. At this point we have reduced to the case where W has handles of index 2 only. The attaching regions of these 2-handles determine a framed link L V and dually the 2-handle co-cores determine a framed link L V . Framed surgery ⊂ ∗ ⊂ ∗ along L produces V ∗ from V , and dually framed surgery along L∗ produces V from V ∗. If we could actually do surgery on L∗ and propogate the topologically flat connection across the surgery we would have solved the flattening problem without changing V by a cobordism. This cannot be done, generally, because surgery bounds each framed longitude of L∗ by a disk D which can only be covered by a flat bundle if the holonomy around the longitude, ∂D, is trivial. Traditionally, this problem is approached by replacing D with a genus g surface with circle boundary Sg and exploiting the structure of the boundary. But replacing a disk D with a surface Sg adds homology and is a much coarser modification than replacement by a ssc manifold. While we do need the commutator structure of π1(Sg), in dimension 3, we are able to hide it in a ssc manifold. ≥ So what we do instead is a homologically more subtle replacement: There is a homological version of surgery on L∗ employing the models C1 (and C1) which does propogate the flat connection to V ∗ and changes, in the end, V only slightly, by a ssc. See Fig. 1 to visualize these manipulations, and for a pictorial summary of the proof plan. Next we explain how the models C 1 are constructed to permit an extension of the topologically flat connection (i.e. the representation to Homeo0(X)), and why the cobordisms indicated in Figure 1 and the discussion above, is in fact a ssc. To apply Proposition 2, we need a homomorphism from π1(C1) to Homeo0(X), factoring through a homomorphism ρ : π1(P1) Homeo0(M) so that for some element α π1(P1), ρ(α) → ∈ has the property of h in Proposition 2, that for a fine net , ρ(α) = ∅. Actually we now ∩ construct a ρ so every α = e π1(P1), ρ(α) has this property.∗ ∗ ∗ 6 ∈ 12 MICHAEL FREEDMAN

W has 1-, 2-, and 3-handles 1 3 2 2 3 1 V V ∗ surgery W

now W has only 2-handles

V ∗ V delete dual 2-handles and add cobordisms C 1, indicated as the hatched region

C 1

C 1 now W is a ssc new V ∗ = right boundary

FIGURE 1. C 1 are composition built from several copies of C1

^ As Thurston [Thu74c] observed, π1(P1) is naturally a of PSL(2,R), the universal cover of PSL(2,R). PSL(2,R) is the group of oriented isometries of the hyperbolic plane H2 ^ and acts faithfully on the circle at infinity S1 via M¨obious transformations. Thus PSL(2,R) acts smoothly on the real line R = S1, and taking the end compactification we obtain a continuous (and ^ bi-Lipschitz) action of PSL(2,R) on the closed interval I :=[0,1]. This action is faithful. It is easy e n to promote this action to a representation π1(P1) Homeo(D ;id on ∂). To do so implant this → action on an interval I S1, then suspend and delete a fixed disk; one obtains a faithful action on ⊂ D2. Iterating implantation, suspension, and deletion, one obtains a faithful action on the n-cell Dn. Finally, given the “net” X, we produce h as in section 3 by allowing ρ to act on a small ball ⊂ around each point ∗. We employ such an h to make our construction as local as possible, with ∗ ∈ an eye toward future applications.∗ Then for any α = e π1(P1) the composition ρ(α) 6 ∈ ^ (10) ρ : π1(P1) PSL(2,R) Homeo0(X), α ρ(α) → → 7→

has the property of h in Proposition 2. Note that since π1(P1) is perfect, Thurston’s stability 1 n n theorem says that there is no nontrivial representation π1(P1) Diff (D ,∂D ), so this bilipschitz → category construction cannot be carried out differentiably.

As illustrated in Figure 1, we construct the ssc W as V I W0, where W0, built from a collec- × ∪ ∏ 1 2 tion of C1 (W0 is a disjoint union of C 1), is itself a ssc on N = S D , a neighborhood of L , ∼ × ∗ CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 13

r ) (N ֒ C 1 ֓ C1 (constant on the boundary), so that the new V has the form V =(V N ←−→ ← ∗ ∗ \ ∪ ⊥⊥ C 1) has a topological flat connection agreeing with the restrictions to the flat connection A over ∂(V ). The connection A is trivial on a meridian to L∗ but in general is nontrivial on the framed longitude li. Conventional surgery would bound each li by a disk over which the connection cannot extend flatly (unless the holonomy around li is trivial). This problem is solved by the homology surgery, using C , which we now commence building. 1 2 Since our model cobordism (Ci;Ci,S D ) is a homology product with Z-coefficients, but not × group ring Z[Z] coefficients, we next use a trick, Bing doubling, to isolate each copy of C from the fundamental group, as illustrated in Figure 2. The two components of the Bing double are null homotopic in the ambient solid torus so they and whatever is glued to them lift to the π1(W)-cover: they do not unwrap. This allows us to easily compute homology in that cover. By contrast, when knot complements are unwrapped in a cover additional homology generally appears. For example the 6-fold cyclic cover of the trefoil knot complement is S1 T 2. × Surgery will glue in models schematically as in Fig. 2 but wit− h additional ramifications8:

A pair of copies l = mˆ i i of C1 or their longitudinal sums glue in here

l1 e 7→

m1 mi e 7→ Borromean complement, l2 e 7→ presentation of Borromean m2 group li =[m1,m2], l1 =[m2,mi], l2 =[mi,m1]

FIGURE 2. Picture of a Bing double. li is a longitude of Li L, and drawn here as ⊂ the meridian to the surgery-dual link L∗. The notation has been abbreviated: l1, l2, B B B B m1, and m2 would more precisely be written l1 , l2 , m1 , and m2 to indicate that they label the Bing double. This model exhibits the basic commutator relations but is too simple for our application: we need ramification and internal longitudinal sums, see Figure 4.

For a component l of L∗, the holonomy hol(l) along l, which must extend over C, lies in the m identity component Homeo0(X). Using the extension of Proposition 2, write hol(l) = ∏i=1[ai,bi] 1 and write each ai and each bi as a product of four conjugates, two of h and two of h− . Geomet- rically these 4-fold products translate into longitudinal sums of four copies of C1 (and of C, at the

8Ramification (see [FQ14]) is a technical term for enhancing one Bing pair, as drawn inside the larger solid torus in Figure 2, to k such pairs. Each pair is successively closer to the boundary;look ahead to Figure 3. Note that this differs from taking parallel copies of the components of an unramified Bing double. Ramification corresponds to increasing the genus of the Siefert surface for the loopm ˆ i of Figures 2 and 3. 14 MICHAEL FREEDMAN

level of bordisms). Then the sums are implanted (or attached to at the level of bordisms) to an m-fold ramified Bing pair, with (ai,bi) occupying the two halves of one of the pairs 1 i m. ≤ ≤ This leads us to the ramified version of Fig. 2 (Fig. 3 below) necessary to create the model 1 2 (C 1;C1,S D ) required to extend hol(l) on the meridianm ˆ i of Figures 2 and 3 over C1, the × homology solid torus used to complete homology-surgery. We have used script C1 to denote the longitudinal sums and Bing doubling needed to pass from the base model C1 to the solution to the extension problem. Similarly, we will write C 1 for the corresponding 4D ssc.

mˆ i

m Bing pairs ...

lˆi

“link complement”

FIGURE 3. m-ramified Bing double.

Each Bing pair consists on each side (see Figure 4) of a 4-fold longitudinal boundary connected sum of homology solid tori C1, corresponding to the multiplicities on line (7). The link complement in Fig. 3 is that of a m-ramified Borromean ring. With the addition of the (true) relation lˆ = e to the fundamental group of the link complement (corresponding to the triviality of the A-holonomy along the meridians to the L) the group becomes freely generated by meridinal loops a j and b j to the 2m components in Fig. 3. This is because filling the hole in Fig. 3 results in a 2m-component unlink of solid tori. Notice the presence of the surface relation:

m (11)m ˆ = ∏[ai,bi] i=1

This is what we earlier referenced as the relationship between Bing doubling and the commu- tator structure on ∂Sg, the Siefert surface form ˆ . Thus equation 11 can be implemented geometrically by filling the 2m deleted solid tori in Fig. 3 with four copies each of the model C1, thus realizingm ˆ i on the boundary of a homology solid CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 15

blow-up of cross-section of longitudinal sums

3 longitudinal sums ∗

blow-up of cross section

FIGURE 4

torus C1 with a sufficiently elaborate fundamental group that gi = holA(li) = holA(mˆ i) extends:

π1(C1) Homeo0(X)

(12) ∈ ∈ mˆ i hol(l) To understand how this works we must explain the role on conjugation and inverse. Inverses of 1 0 holonomies are implemented by applying the automorphism − to the torus ∂C1. Up until 0 1 now we have been careless about base points. Holonomies are really− just conjugacy classes until base points are introduced. How does one describe the compos ition of meridinal holonomies g1 and g2 when two solid tori T1 and T2 are summed along a common longitude to form a third?

(13) T = T1 longitude T2 Since in all cases the longitudes represent to the identity, the problem dimensionally reduces to asking what the pinch map p : S1 S1 S1 represents given that the two wedge factors (petals) → ∨ separately represent to g1 and g2 respectively. The answer is that we have considerable choice. By 1 1 reparametrizing the fiber X over the base point of T2, also the base point of S S , by an arbitrary ∨τ element of τ Homeo(X) we can realize any conjugacy class of the form g1g . This key idea, the ∈ 2 “simplicity trick,” undergirds our “designer extension” of arbitrary meridional holonomies.

X Ei

Lemma 1 (Simplicity Lemma). Suppose we have a collection of flat X-bundles Ti over homology-solid tori Ti with a constant holonomy ρi(li) = ρ(l) around a marked longitude li ⊂ ∂Ti and a variable meridianal holonomy ρi(mi) Homeo(X). If ρ(l) = id Homeo(X), there ∈ ∈ X E exists a flat bundle T over a homology-solid torus T, a longitudinal sum drawn from 16 MICHAEL FREEDMAN

Ti , realizing arbitrary holonomy in the normal closure pi(mi) Homeo(X). In general { } hh ii ⊂ c if ρ(l) = id, holonomies in the subgroup generated by elements of the form (ρi(mi)) j can be 6 realized, where the c j are arbitrary elements in the centralizer Z(ρ(l)) Homeo(X). ⊂ Proof. When ρ(l) = id, the preceding discussion suffices. (Note: this is the case used in the present paper.) For general ρ(l) the choice of reparameterizations of the fiber X is necessarily restricted to X Ei

those commuting with ρ(l) as others do not globalize over Ti . 

To complete the proof of Theorem 2 we need to describe W0 (and W ) and verify they are ssc. To build the 4D bordism W0 one must take longitudinal sums of the slice-complement C, ex- tending along an additional interval factor, the longitudinal boundary connected sums of copies of C. These continue to be relative H -cobordisms on (S1 D2,∂). Schematically the cobordism W ∗ × is shown back in Figure 1, where the C 1 are represented as thin hatched strips although, in reality, they are ssc. This completes the construction of W and the extending flat connection on V ∗ = ∂+W. There r r 1 2 r is a retraction W V induced from the construction C 1 S D . To see that W V has the −→ −→ × −→ structure of a semi-s-cobordism, note that Figure 1 describes a product except for the hatched strips, 1 2 1 2 previously denoted by W0. These hatched rectangles are of the form: (C 1;C1,S D ). S D × × is a terminal object 9 in category of three manifolds with boundary S1 S1 and degree one maps, × r 1 2 identity on boundary. Using obstruction theory we construct a relative retraction: C1 S D . 1 2 −→ × While r is not a deformation retraction because π1(C1) = π1(S D ) = Z, it is a homology 6∼ × ∼ isomorphism with integral coefficients. Because the blocks C 1 are glued to Bing doubles and therefore map trivially into π1(W), the inclusion V W induces a Z[π1]-homology isomorphism, π1 = π1(V) = π1(W) (but distinct from → ∼ π1(V ) which is much larger). This shows that V W is a homotopy equivalence. The point ∗ → here, is that triviality of the map π1(C 1) π1(W) means that π1(W) acts on lifts of C 1 only by → permuting blocks. It is actually a simple homotopy equivalence since, lifted to the universal cover, 1 2 the inclusion of the non-product regions, the inclusions: (S D )lifted copy ֒ C lifted copy are all × → Z-homology isomorphisms (see [Mil66] for an introduction to Whitehead torsion). So far we have built W and seen that is a ssc from its initial end V to its final end V ∗, and seen that the original X-bundle over V can be cut and glued to make a flat X-bundle over V ∗. But returning to line (8) we see that the epimorphism α can be used, a block at a time, to extend π1(C1) Homeo0(X) over π1(C 1). This extension, at the group level, gives the extension of the → flat bundle over C1 to a bundle over C 1 which glues up with the initial bundle on the remainder of W (the penultimate W 2-handles) to produce the X-bundle over our final W with all claimed \ properties. 

9 1 2 Explicitly to construct the degree one map (C1,∂) (S D ,∂), recall K = ker(H1(∂C1;Z) H1(C1;Z)) = Z → × → ∼ (a consequence of Lefschitz duality and the sequences for pairs). Consequently, we find a 1-submanifold in ∂C1 2 1 2 bounding a 2-submanifold ∆ C1. Map ∆ degree one to D S D and then extend (degree one) (C1 ∆,∂) 1 2 2 ⊂ ∗× ⊂ × \ → (S D D ,∂). Note that ∂(C1 ∆) is connected, making the extension degree one. More generally, higher × \∗× \ genus handle bodies are also terminal objects in the corresponding sense. CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 17

As we go beyond dim(V) = 3 the strategy which proved Theorem 2 will not work. It is true that we may use our models C 1 to “homologically” remove relative 2-handles from the V ∗ end of a cobordism (W;V,V ∗). But because they are only deleted in a homological sense, the attaching regions of the 3-handles do not reach the new V ∗ and we are stuck: We do not see spherical classes in the modified V ∗ to surger.

Proof of Theorem 3. The plan is to follow Meigniez’s proof of MT via quasi-complementary foli- ations up to its final step [Mei20]. In this proof, the problem is now not just a bundle but also a Haefliger structure on that bundle. Meigniez treats a range of smoothness from C1 to C∞, and states that his results will later be extended to the bilipschitz category in a subsequent paper. The problem is solved (the Haefliger structure made “regular” so that it induces a foliation) up to singularities X B along certain “fissures” Σi in the total space B of V . In briefest outline here is the setup we borrow from [Mei20] with line numbers referring to X B π that paper. V p is endowed with a Haefliger structure Γ, that is a (germ of a) foliation F Rq τ Z of dimension q on B transverse to the fibers of τ, where τ is the bundle of vertical tangents in B. If the zero section Z were transverse to F , pulling back F to B would flatten the X B

original bundle V p . The approach is to exploit the tools Thurston from the 70s to modify F to maintain its defining property while making it as close as possible to transverse to the zero section Z. Meigniez denotes the non-transverse locus by ∂Σ for boundary (total fissure core) [Prop 4.21]. Since we only address the boundary, we shorten the terminology to total fissure and denote it by Σ, and its components fissures by Σi. They enjoy various technical properties (see Definitions 3.2 through 3.8) specifying exactly how transversality between F and Z fails on Σ. The total fissure Σ B is a (p 2)-dimensional submanifold of many components. There is some freedom ⊂ − in choosing the topology of its components Σi (see his Remark 3 and our comments below). Each component π-projects 1-1 to V p (see Claim 4.15 and Property IV in proof of Theorem 1.8, page 50), but the projection restricted to all of Σ is merely an immersion. The punch line of his proof is to resolve the transversality obstruction by doing a generalized surgery to V along a sequence of codimension 2-submanifolds obtained by projecting the sequence of fissures Σi to B. These { } generalized surgeries allow little control over the topology of the cobordism W. Our approach is to replace the projected fissure components with the models of type C 1, from our collection. This allows much more control of W. We realize W as a ssc, but the cost is we must dimensionally stabilize W to match the topology of the successive fissures to that of our models. A richer supply of models could yield a stronger result. 18 MICHAEL FREEDMAN

When the regularity is less than or equal to class C1, as we have noted in section 1, the bundle B can be augmented, without making essential choices, to a Haefliger structure γ with normal bundle the vertical tagents, τ. If V has boundary, γ is required to be regular near ∂V . γ is, by definition, a foliation F on τ, which is transverse to fibers. γ is called regular if it is also transverse to Z(B), the zero-section of τ. Using a fine K of the total space of τ, and many ingenious adapta- tions of Thurston’s constructions [Thu76], control of F w.r.t. K is gradually obtained. Although it is not possible to homotop γ to full regularity i.e. to make the Haefliger structure everywhere transverse to the fiber, this is achieved in the complement of the total fissure Σ a dimension p 2 − embedded submanifold Σ B, p = dim(V ). (See Fig. 6 of in [Mei20] where our Σ is called the ⊂ [fissure core] M 1) = ∂Σ. We have no need of the part of Σ in the interior of the cobordisms W ∩ × so we have simplified the notation slightly, calling the “projected boundary of the fissure” simply the “fissure”. Also in [Mei20] our B is written M.) From the simplicial, actually “prismatic,” struc- ture K, it is deduced that 1) the components of Σ all have small diameter 2) the topology of each component can be separately controlled to be either S1 Sp 3 or the (p 2)-torus (S1)p 2, and 3) × − − − individually each component of Σ π-projects 1-1 as embedded submanifolds of V , which we still l call the fissures, πΣi, and Σ := i=1 Σi. If the fissures πΣ were pairwise disjoint, the replacement device we describe next would prove i S a stronger version of Theorem 3 without the stabilizing manifold Q. The replacement models (see our section 3) we know how to build require a fissure πΣi to have spherical factors i.e. have the form M Sk for some closed manifold M and 1 k p 3. It is possible that with more powerful × ≤ ≤ − machinery for building replacement models with more general boundary conditions, Thm. 3 might still be proven without stabilization. A priori, it may seem that Meigniez’s fissure models are just what is needed as each contains a circle factor. The difficulty comes from the apparently unavoidable crossing of (projected) fissures πΣi πΣ j = ∅ V, and the structure of his final induction. Although [Mei20] and this paper heal ∩ 6 ⊂ the initial fissure πΣ1 (πΣl in [Mei20]) by replacing its neighborhood with different models, in our case C1, in both cases there is a degree one map (called “a” in the last paragraphs before the end of section 5 [Mei20]) from the replacement to what is replaced. Since we will not reference the bundle B again, let us simplify notation and drop the π from πΣ. A generic argument based on Thom transversality for which Meigniez credits Poenaru (see Lemma 3.12) allows Σi, i > 1, to be “pulled” through the replacement C1, and become the new (projected) fissures for a cobordant problem over a modified V , called V ∗. These new fissures, Σ2′ ,...,Σl′, are still individually embedded in V ∗, still small when measured by the natural retraction back to V , but their topology may now be quite complicated, with no circle factor present. Since the replacement model in [Mei20] is factor 2 preserving, Σi D is replaced with Σi Sg, where Sg is the genus g surface with one boundary × × component. The loss of control on the topology of Σ , i 2, presents no problem for him, the i′ ≥ old Sg model still suffices, and indeed he is not trying to control the topology of the cobordism W anyway. Because our replacement models C k require an Sk factor, 1 k p 2, we resort to 1 ≤ ≤ − crossing with (any) such factor to augment Σ V to Σ Sk V Sk,2 j l, a stabilized ′j ⊂ ∗ ′j × ⊂ ∗ × ≤ ≤ problem. k k Proceeding then in l steps, healing first Σ1 V to get V , healing Σ S V S to get Σ ⊂ ∗ 2′ × ⊂ ∗ × 3′ × Sk′ V Sk′ we end up building, after stabilizing by a product of l 1 spheres, a composition ⊂ ∗∗ × − CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 19

of l ssc W. W is seen to be a ssc by composing retractions. The result is an ssc from the original problem stabilized by Q, a product of (l 1)-spheres, to a solution over V∗···∗. − l-times The reason stabilization is not necessary in Thm. 3 when p = dim(V) = 3, is in that case all Σi V are circles and project pairwise disjointly by general position. | {z } ⊂ Having described the relation with [Mei20] here are some further details of our construction. 1 p 3 First, for concreteness, assume we choose S S − for the topology of Σ1. The initial replace- 2 k × ment of Σ1 D with our model C is via the cobordism (which we built as a slice complement) × 1 C k W1 := 1. Σ2′ is some (p 2)-submanifold of V ∗ but we do not know its topology. Crossing every- k1 − k1 k1 2 thing now with S , the new fissure is Σ2′ S , its neighborhood is Σ2′ S D with boundary × k +1× × k1 1 C k1+1 C 1 k1+1 1 Σ2′ S S . We have in our stockpile a model 1 , with a ssc 1 to D S . Now cross × × k1 × this model with Σ2′ and glue the result to V ∗ times S to form the next chamber, W2. So far we have built

k1 (14) W1 S W2 × ∪ Sequentially build W:

k1 kl 1 k2 kl 1 kl 1 (15) W = W1 S S − W2 S ×···× − Wl 1 S − Wl × ×···× ∪ × ∪···∪ − × ∪ Each chamber is a ssc by the argument used in Theorem 2, so the composition W is as well. C k To complete the proof we must check that the replacements 1 can be engineered to solve the representation extension problem. In the stabilization direction, Sk, even if we chose k = 1, the holonomy is trivial owing to the product form of stabilization. A nice feature of [Mei20] is that he allows us to choose arbitrarily any nontrivial fiber X ho- lonomy φ (see his Theorem A′) around the normal circle to Σi. So at first it looks like the tech- nology of bounded simplicity does not need to be invoked. However, there could be a small gap. In the proofs of [Mei20], “any” means any nontrivial C1- in the identity com- 1 k ponent Diff0(X). However, our simplest models C1 produce holonomy h (as in Thm. 2 proof), h bilipschitz (X). ∈ 0 In private communications, I have learned Meigniez’s result does hold in the bilipschitz cat- egory (details to appear), so using this we can avoid the more complicated replacement used in the proof of Theorem 2 and build C1 and C 1 as a straightforward Bing double of a pair ((C1,C1′ );(C1,C1′ )), and demand from [Mei20] Theorem A′of section 3 that the fissures be built with normal holonomy =[α ,α ], the commutator of two models with different choice of h so C1 C1′ as not to commute, see our section 3 on dynamics. However, as an alternative to relying on Meigniez’s recent extension to the bilipschitz category, the next paragraph does supply the details needed to pass from a model with normal holonomy in bilipschitz(X) or even in Homeo(X) to fissures with holonomy in C1. We employ the same tricks, longitudinal sums and iterated Bing doubles, used to prove Theo- rem 2. The failure of transversality across each fissure Σi is confined in the vertical (X) coordinate q q to a ball Di X, which we write simply as D . What is necessary is to express a (any) nontriv- ⊂ 1 q ial element θ = id Diff0(D ,∂) as a product of commutators of products of conjugates of the 6 ∈ q q bilipschitz homeomorphism h : D D ,id q , as in the proof of Thm. 2, which acts on that ball → |∂D 20 MICHAEL FREEDMAN ^ Dq X via a faithful action of ∆(2,3,7). ⊂ K Jk Jk ak j bk j q θ = ∏ ∏(h±) , ∏(h±) for akj,bkj Homeo0(D ,∂), 1 k K k=1 " j=1 j=1 # ∈ ≤ ≤

This formula models the construction of an composition (C 1,C1) of the simple model (C1,C1) along the lines summarized in Figures 3 and 4. The model (C 1,C1) solves the stabilize clef- replacement problem allowing the cobordisms Wi to be built.  Proof of Theorem 4. The proof is entirely formal. It uses the Mather-Thurston theorem [McD80] and an induction over a handle decomposition of V . Let H be a relative handle decomposition of V. It is trivial to reduce to the discrete structure δ group Homeo (X) over ∂V H0 H1, over the boundary and the 0- and 1-handles. We call this 0 ∪ ∪ reduction a solution over the 1-handles. Now consider a 2-handle h2. By M-T, on h2 relative to the solution over its attaching region ∂+(h2), the bundle over h2 is bordant, rel ∂ (h2),toa solution − over a surface k2, and a small thickening of k2, where the structure group will also be discrete. 2 2 p 2 Observe that (h2,∂h2) (D ,∂D ) D enjoys the universal extension property of accepting ≃ × − degree one maps:

Σ2 deg 1 D2 → →

֒ ֒ (16) deg 1 2 2 ∂Σ ∂D , D = core(h2)

Apply this property to the relative surface k2. This retracts k2, where the solution has so far been built, from ∂V 0-handles 1-handles N( k2’s), back to ∂V 0, 1, 2-handles. ∪ ∪ ∪ ∪ ∪ Now if h3 is a 3-handle, its attaching region now receives maps from a union of solutions k2 (one k2 for every facet of the attaching map of h3 to the lower index handles). In fact, the just constructed cobordisms over the (cores of the) 2-handles fit together with core(h3) to define a flattening problem over ∂V 0, 1, 2, 3-handles (solvable again by MT). Its solution k3 again has a ∪ universal property: M3 deg 1 D3 → →

, ֒ ֒ ∂M3 deg 1 ∂D3 and so maps degree1 to h3 (see the schematic in Figure 5 which has been reduced by one dimension for legibility). i δ The new problem h3 ( ib ) is bordent via b4 to the solution k3, i.e. a reduction to Homeo (X). ∪ ∪ 3 0 So far we have described how to construct a cobordism, with retraction, over the 2 and 3-handles. Proceed in the same way, handle by handle, to build W as a union of the bordisms bd. The desired retraction to V is a composition of a union of the universal degree one maps to the handle- cores of H . 

Next we turn to Theorem 5′, whose initial data include a more specialized structure over ∂V . The proof of Theorem 5′has an ad hoc, cut and glue, aspect that does not obviously bring a bundle cobordism along with it. However, at the end it can be “backfilled” using elementary homotopy theory. CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 21

k3 is the solution to the flattening problem over the 3-handle h3

k3

2 k2

3 h k h2 3 h3 2 2 1 2 k2 1 h2

i i i FIGURE 5. Bordisms b3 between h2 and k2 are shaded.

Proof of Theorem 5′. Finally we use our second set of models C2 and C2. The starting point is the presumed extension of the flat g-connection over V ′, ∂V ′ = Σ. As is now familiar, there is some framed linke L V so that V = V /S (L ). Because we need to propogate the connection A across ′ ⊂ ′ ′ ′ the surgeries, they should not be standard but will be based on these homology models. From line (8) by using the composition: inj π1(C2) π1(P2) ֒ BI (17) → → mˆ α(mˆ ), order α(mˆ ) > 2 7→ where BI denotes the binomial icosahedral group. It is well known that every compact, simply-connected, semi-simple Lie group G contains a copy of SU(2) (see [Hum98]), thus for any such G line (17) extends to line (18) = inj inj π1(C2) π1(P2) ∼ BI ֒ SU(2) ֒ G (18) → −→ → → α(mˆ ) maps to a non-central element g G. ∈ We need to find an inclusion, SU(2) ֒ G, which normally generates G, so that g, above, will → also normally generate G. G admits a decomposition, canonical up to permutation, into a direct sum of J simple Lie groups. Pick an SU(2) subgroup for each factor of G and let ∆ be the diagonal within Cartesian product of these : J (19) SU(2) ∼= ∆ ∏ SU(2) j G ⊂ j=1 ⊂ The normal closure of ∆ in G does not lie in any product factor, as ∆ does not. This means that the normal closure ∆ G = G. h i But α(mˆ ) normally generates any SU(2) in which it lies (since it is not central). Thus under the composition

π1(C2) π1(P2) BI ∆ G → → → → ∈ ∈ mˆ g mˆ maps to g normally generating G. 22 MICHAEL FREEDMAN

Now the simplicity trick, essential to Theorem 2, allows us to build C2 from C2 along the pattern illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. Since G is a semi-simple Lie group, it is perfect so the general element f G can be written first as a product of commuters: ∈ (20) f =[am,bm] [a1,b1] ··· 1 and then a’s (and b’s) can be further written as products of conjugates of g and g− . This leads the of Fig. 3 (with ramification = m) and a pattern similar to Fig. 4 with the multiplicities of 1 longitudinal boundary connected sums being the number of conjugates of g and g− need to express ai, bi,1 i m. ≤ ≤ These representation extensions ensure the flat extension of A over V ∗. The semi-s-cobordisms W0 and W are now constructed precisely as in the proof of Theorem 2. In this case all the has been done inside G; it was not necessary to make an enlargement to Homeo0(G). The construction so far has built a bundle only over ∂W = V Σ I V , flat on Σ I V , ∪ × ∪ ∗ × ∪ ∗ but we do not yet have a G-bundle over W. The hypothesis that π1(G) ∼= 0 enables us to fill in the bundle over W by obstruction theory. The possible obstructions lie in:

(21) Hk+1(W,∂W;πk(BG)) = Hk(V,Σ;πk 1(G)) ∼ − using that W is ssc and ΩBG G. But since dimV = 3, we may restrict to k 3, a range in which ≃ ≤ the coefficient groups vanish. Thus the bundle over ∂W always extends over W.  Proof of Theorem 6. Following [Mil58] and [Woo71], up to sign, Euler class χ(B) may be written as: 1 ^ (22) χ(B) = p− φg(Γ1,...,Γ2g) Z = ker(PSL(2,R) PSL(2,R)) | | ∈ → where we are using part of the fibration sequence for a universal covering space

p ^ 1 Z = π0(fiber) PSL(2,R) PSL(2,R) 1 → ∼ −→ → → ^ and Γ1,...,Γ2g are (arbitrary) lifts to PSL(2,R) of

γ1 = ρ(a1), γ2 = ρ(b2),...,γ2g = ρ(bg) PSL(2,R) ∈ images of the usual generators, a1,b1,...,ag,bg , for π1(Σg) under some representation ρ : { } π1(Σg) PSL(2,R) inducing B. These generators satisfy the familiar relation indicated on line → (22).

(23) φg :=[a1,b1]...[ag,bg] = 1 The idea is that in the Lie algebra sl(2,R) we have generators and bracket structure constants:

(24) [E,F]Lie = H, [E,H]Lie = 2E, [F,H]Lie = 2F − where E and F are boosts and H infinitesimally generates rotation. Exponentiating and applying the group theoretic bracket we find

2 (25) [eεE,eεF ] = eε H + O(ε3)

3 where O(ε3) is an error term, O(ε ) constant. ε3 ≤ CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 23

This suggests attempting to build ρ according to the formula

εE εF (26) ρ(ai) = e , ρ(bi) = e , 1 i g ≤ ≤ This is close, but will not actually obey the relation (23) because of the error term on line 25, and a less serious integrality issue. So this choice of ρ is not a representation. To fix this problem, we would like to make some small adjustment to eεE and eεF so that their 2 (group) commutator is exactly a rotation quite close to eε H . This kind of problem is typically approached by an application of the inverse function theorem. As a first step, we collect infini- tesimal information. Of course, the bracket on sl(2,R), which we write as a bilinear R3 (since R3 R ∼= SL(2, ) as a vector space), has zero differential:

(27) b :=[ , ] : R3 R3 R3 is rank 0 at ((0,0,0),(0,0,0)) · · × → but let us fix the vector v = ε 1 (E + F + H) in the first factor so that the linear map √3

0 1 2 ε (28) L :=[v, ] : R3 R3, given by 1 0 2 · → √ − − 3 22 0

− is non-singular. Thus for sufficiently small ε > 0, every element z of SL(2,R) within the operator norm ball Bcε2 (id), for some constant c > 0, is realized as

(29) z =[v,w], for some w Bε (id) ∈ This is already enough information to complete the proof if 2π were replaced in Theorem 6 by an arbitrary positive constant. But to obtain the more refined statement we need the following identity from line (95) of [CW13] which follows from the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula. We write it for skew-Hermitian matrices where in the original context it was for Hermitian.

ε3 ε4 (30) log[eεA,eεB] = ε2[A,B] + [A + B,[A,B]] + ([A,[B,[A,B]]]/2+ group 2 3! [A + B,[A + B,[A,B]]])+ O(ε5)

We will use line (30) to explicitly solve the problem of writing an ε2-small rotation as a com- mutator of small ε-small (near) boosts up to an error of order ε5. This tiny error can then be patched using line (29). An alternate approach would be to use an untruncated version of line (30) and solve exactly for near boosts commuting to a rotation. This surely can be done, but some tech- nical work would be needed to show that the resulting asymptotic expansion for the near boosts has a positive radius of convergence. The present course avoids this technicality. As an ansatz, write the near boosts in the form E′ = E + bH and F′ = F + bH. Plugging E′ = A and F′ = B into line (30) we can compute the coefficients for the right-hand side of (30) 24 MICHAEL FREEDMAN

2 2 2 ε cEE + ε cF F + ε cHH as:

3 5 2 3 cE = 2b +(1 + b)ε + 6b b ε + O(ε ) − 3 (31)   cF = cE , and − cH = 1 + O(ε)

The total differential of cE

2 5 2 3 7 (32) dcE = 18b ε + ε + 2 db + 12b b ε + 1 dε − 3 − 3       so at b = 0 = ε, cE may be fixed at 1 while: db 1 (33) = dε −2 ε=0

implying, by the inverse function theorem, that for sufficiently small ε, b can be chosen to make

εE εF 2 5 (34) log[e ′ ,e ′ ]group = ε H + O(ε ) : εE′ εF′ Thus αε′ 2 =[e ,e ]group satisfies 5 (35) α′ 2 α 2 = O(ε ) || ε − ε || 2 2 2 cos(ε ) sin(ε ) where α 2 is the rotation of ε radians U(1) SL(2,R). ε sin(ε2) cos(ε2) ∈ ⊂ − Now return to line (26) and modify our provisional definition of the representation ρ by setting

εE εF (36) ρ(ai) = e ′ , ρ(bi) = e ′ , 1 i g, and ρ(ag 1) = v, ρ(bg 1) = w ≤ ≤ + + where g = 2πχ(B) + O(ε 1) and v and w are as on lines (27–29), with w chosen to ensure that, ⌊ ε2 ⌋ − referring to line (22)

1 εE εF εE εF (37) χ(B) = p− φg 1(e ′ ,e ′ ,...,e ′ ,e ′ ,v,w) | | | + | g pairs g g g g ^ e e where indicates a lift to PSL(2,R). | {z } 2 It is possible to find the requisite w in line (29) because: (A) the number of products g = O(ε− ) O 5 1 (B) eache factor deviates from a rotation by (ε ), meaning αε′ 2 = βαε2 = αε2 (αε−2 βαε2 ) where 5 1 1 5 O 2 S 2 O β = (ε ) and (C) since αε is an isometry of , αε−2 βαε = β = (ε ). By (C) we may || || || || || || 2 pull all errors β through to the left side of the composition to obtain O(ε− ) error factors each of size O(ε5) resulting in a total error of size O(ε3), small enough to be corrected using line (29) by the proper choice of w Bε (id). This completes the proof of Theorem 6.  ∈ CONTROLLEDMATHER-THURSTONTHEOREMS 25

REFERENCES [Cal01] Danny Calegari, Leafwise smoothing laminations, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 1 (2001), no. 1, 579–587. [CW13] Andrew Childs and Nathan Wiebe, Product formulas for exponentials of commutators, J. Math. Phys. 54 (2013), no. 6, 062202. [Eps70] David Epstein, The simplicity of certain groups of homeomorphisms, Compos. Math. 22 (1970), no. 2, 165– 173. [Fis60] Gordon Fisher, On the group of all homeomorphismsof a manifold, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 97 (1960), no. 2, 193–212. [FQ14] Michael Freedman and Frank Quinn, Topology of 4-manifolds, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 39, Press, 2014. [Hum98] James Humphreys, Linear algebraic groups, Graduate texts in , vol. 21, Springer, 1998. [Kir69] , Stable homeomorphisms and the annulus conjecture, Ann. Math. 89 (1969), no. 3, 575–582. [Kis64] James Kister, Microbundles are fibre bundles, Ann. Math. 80 (1964), no. 1, 190–199. [Kru18] Vyacheslav Krushkal, Sticky cantor sets in Rd, J. Topol. Anal. 10 (2018), no. 2, 477–482. [McD80] Dusa McDuff, The homology of some groups of diffeomorphisms, Comment. Math. Helv. 55 (1980), 97– 129. [Mei20] Ga¨el Meigniez, Quasi-complementary foliations and the Mather-Thurston theorem (2020), available at 1808.02377. To appear. [Mil58] , On the existence of a connection with curvature zero, Comment. Math. Helv. 32 (1958), 215– 223. [Mil66] , Whitehead torsion, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 72 (1966), no. 3, 358–426. [Mil71] , Introduction to algebraic K-theory, Studies, vol. 72, Princeton University Press, 1971. [Nar20] Sam Nariman, Thurston’s fragmentation, non-abelian Poincare duality and c-principles (2020), available at arXiv/2011.04156. [Quil71] , The spectrum of an equivariant cohomology ring: I, Ann. Math. 94 (1971), no. 3, 549–572. [Quin82] Frank Quinn, Ends of maps. III. dimensions 4 and 5, J. Differ. Geom. 17 (1982), no. 3, 503–521. [Thu74a] William Thurston, Foliations and groups of diffeomorphisms, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 80 (1974), no. 2, 304– 307. [Thu74b] , The theory of foliations of codimension greater than one, Comment. Math. Helv. 49 (1974), no. 1, 214–231. [Thu74c] , A generalization of the Reeb stability theorem, Topology 13 (1974), 347–352. [Thu76] , Existence of codimension-one foliations, Ann. Math. 104 (1976), no. 2, 249–268. [Tsu85] Takashi Tsuboi, On the homology of classifying spaces for foliated products (1985), 37–120. [Tsu08] , On the uniform perfectness of diffeomorphism groups, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. 52 (2008), 505–524. [Woo71] John Wood, Bundles with totally disconnected structure group, Comment. Math. Helv. 46 (1971), 257–273.

MICHAEL FREEDMAN, MICROSOFT RESEARCH, STATION Q, AND DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, UNIVER- SITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA, SANTA BARBARA, CA 93106,