arXiv:0909.0280v3 [math.GT] 22 Dec 2009 rvdta vr ntin every that proved nnt r0fae ensreyon surgery Dehn 0-framed or , eeaie Property Generalized following the rmdlink framed L Property Generalized of converts which dleslides ]frmr eal.Altefaig nalink a on framings the All see component; it details. framed by more another replaced of for gets framing 4] component the with sum framed nected a which in Calculus et se[,Pooiin22) ewl a htalink a that say will We 2.2]). Proposition [9, (see ments Property h el fsot -iesoa adesrcue.Tecl The structures. handle M 4-dimensional smooth of realm the nsgvnb h ensreysoe;se[,Catr n 5 and 4 Chapters [3, see slopes; surgery Dehn If the by given ings tahn ein o tahn -ade to 3-handles attaching for regions attaching yatcig2hnlst h tnadsot 4-ball smooth standard the to 2-handles attaching by onayo opc,oinal,sml once 4-mani connected simply orientable, compact, a of boundary -ade n -ade a earne ocne npis g pairs, in cancel to on arranged structure handle be dard can 3-handles and 2-handles oy4-ball topy M utb lerial nikd hsi u ocasclhom classical to due is this unlinked; algebraically be must knot A 2000 ealta the that Recall eerhspotdb CPPsdcoa Fellowship. Postdoctoral UCOP a by supported Research ato h infiac fteGnrlzdProperty Generalized the of significance the of Part bandb nerlDh ugr nan on surgery Dehn integral by obtained ADENME N IK N GENERALIZED AND LINKS ONE NUMBER HANDLE # = ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics R disagns2Hear pitn,then splitting, Heegaard 2 genus a admits Abstract. . n K ( R X S L ntetresphere three the in 1 ′ if × ⊂ with L S S ti hw hti h xeiro link a of exterior the if that shown is It 2 aifisteteGnrlzdProperty Generalized the the satisfies handleslide 3 ,te the then ), ∂X yields ′ L R R = B IHE .WILLIAMS J. MICHAEL othe to S Conjecture. utb h -rmn,adtecmoet of components the and 0-framing, the be must 4 # S 3 1. Hence . PROPERTY 3 n a Property has If . S ( soeo h ai prtoso h Kirby the of operations basic the of one is Introduction S 2 S 1 n atr fthe of factors 3 L × -component ssi ohave to said is a eeaie Property Generalized has 1 S X 72,57M27. 57M25, 2 K ) ′ hnteei euneo han- of sequence a is there then , sdffoopi to diffeomorphic is osntyield not does fDh ugr nan on surgery Dehn If n L R X R cmoetlink -component eeaiaint ik is links to generalization A . a eeaie Property Generalized has hsyed mohhomo- smooth a yields this ; 0 S L fae . -framed 1 aifigtehypothesis the satisfying L × Property ntetresphere three the in S B 2 4 R L umnssreas serve summands along S R has ojcuele in lies Conjecture 1 Conjecture. × fold sd3-manifold osed B Generalized lgclargu- ological S R L 4 vn stan- a iving L 2 o details. for ] preventing , R adcon- band s n X 3 Chapter [3, aa [2] Gabai . in ihfram- with if -component hnthe then , obtained K S 3 sthe is sthe is 2 MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS

X′ from generating a counterexample to the Smooth Poincar´eConjecture in dimension 4. For more information, see [8, Section 2] and [1, Section 3]. A tunnel number one link in S3 is a link whose exterior is not a handlebody, yet admits a genus 2 which decomposes the exterior into a handlebody and a compression body. Therefore, the exterior of such a link is obtained by attaching a 2-handle to a genus 2 handlebody H along a simple closed curve on ∂H. Proposition 3.1 of [9] asserts that the 1 2 only 2–component tunnel number one link to admit an integral #2(S × S ) surgery is the 2-component unlink. Hence tunnel number one links satisfy the Generalized Property R Conjecture. In this article, we address the conjecture for a larger class of links. A handle number one link in S3 is a link whose exterior is not a compression body, yet admits a genus 2 Heegaard splitting which decom- poses the exterior into compression bodies; this terminology first appeared in [10]; also see [5] and [7] for examples. This generalizes tunnel number one links only insofar as we do not require the Heegaard surface to bound a handlebody on one side. It is easy to see that a handle number one link can have up to four components. It is straightforward to see that a link has handle number one if and only if its exterior has Heegaard genus 2. Our main result below is inspired by [9, Proof of Proposition 3.1], and resolves the Generalized Property R Conjecture for all links with Heegaard genus 2. Main Theorem. Suppose that L ⊂ S3 is an n–component link (n > 1) whose exterior admits a genus 2 Heegaard splitting. If 0–framed surgery on 1 2 L yields #n(S × S ), then • n = 2, and • the components of L are . Consequently L has Generalized Property R. Our notation for Dehn surgery will be the following. Given a link L ⊂ S3 with components L1,...,Ln and corresponding framings r1, . . . , rn ∈ Z, let L(r1, . . . , rn) denote the 3–manifold obtained by Dehn surgery on the framed link L. If all the ri are equal to a particular r ∈ Z, we will refer to L as an r–framed link. Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Martin Scharlemann for helpful conversations.

2. Proof of the Main Theorem The proof will involve fundamental group calculations. In order to keep our notation as simple as possible, we will adopt the following convention: if M is a connected 3-manifold with basepoint p ∈ M, and γ ⊂ M is a loop, then we will also let γ denote the homotopy class of γ in π1(M,p), possibly under an appropriate change-of-basepoint isomorphism when p∈ / γ. If G is a group and S ⊂ G, let hhSii denote the normal closure of S in G. HANDLE NUMBER ONE LINKS AND GENERALIZED PROPERTY R 3

Proof of the Main Theorem. Let L ⊂ S3 be an n–component link n > 1 whose exterior E(L) admits a genus 2 Heegaard splitting. Therefore, any Dehn surgery on L admits a genus 2 Heegaard splitting. By additivity 1 2 of Heegaard genus under connected sums, we see that #m(S × S ) has Heegaard genus m for any m ∈ N. By assumption, 0–framed Dehn surgery 1 2 on L yields #n(S × S ); so n = 2. Let L1 and L2 be the components of L with respective regular neighbor- 3 hoods N(L1) and N(L2). So L has exterior E(L)= S − (N(L1) ∪ N(L2)). Let ∂1 and ∂2 be the boundary components of E(L), so that ∂i corresponds to Li. Let mi, li be a standard oriented meridian-longitude pair for ∂i for i = 1, 2. Now, if L has tunnel number one, then we are done by [9, Proposition 3.1]. So we may assume that there is a genus 2 Heegaard splitting of E(L) which separates the boundary components. Hence the exterior of L can be realized as E(L)= W ∪α (2-handle) where W is a compression body with ∂−W = ∂1, genus(∂+W )=2, and α is a nonseparating curve on ∂+W . Note that W is obtained by attaching a 1-handle to (torus) × [0, 1] on (torus) × {1}. If we slide the endpoints of the core of the 1-handle together, we obtain a simple closed curve τ which meets (torus) × {1} in one point; we push τ toward ∂−W = (torus) × {0} = ∂1 to meet it in a point p. Give τ an arbitrary orientation and situate the curves m1 and l1 on ∂1 so that m1 ∩ l1 = p; see Figure 1. It is now clear that

π1(W, p) =∼ hm1, l1,τ : m1l1 = l1m1i =∼ (Z ⊕ Z) ∗ Z , π1(E(L),p) =∼ π1(W, p)/hhαii , and 1 2 π1(L(0, 0),p) =∼ π1(E(L),p)/hhl1, l2ii =∼ #2(S × S ) =∼ Z ∗ Z . To simplify notation, the basepoint p ∈ W ⊂ E(L) ⊂ L(0, 0) will be suppressed in fundamental group expressions for the remainder of the proof. We have epimorphisms

φ / / ρ / / π1(W ) / / π1(E(L)) / / π1(L(0, 0)) , where φ is reduction mod hhαii, and ρ is reduction mod hhl1, l2ii. Consider another sequence of epimorphisms

φ / / ρ0 / / π1(W ) / / π1(E(L)) / / π1(E(L))/hhl1ii , where ρ0 is reduction mod hhl1ii. Note that the epimorphism ρ factors through ρ0, that is, there is an epimorphism ρ1 / / π1(E(L))/hhl1ii / / π1(L(0, 0)) , namely reduction mod hhl2ii, so that ρ = ρ1 ◦ ρ0. Since (ρ0 ◦ φ)(l1) = 1, the epimorphism ρ ◦ φ naturally descends to an epimorphism

′ φ / / π1(W )/hhl1ii / / π1(E(L))/hhl1ii . 4 MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS

τ ∂1

p m1

l1

W

Figure 1. The compression body W with curves m1 and l1 on ∂−W = ∂1 and the “tunnel curve” τ. The curves m1, l1, and τ all meet the basepoint p. Note that τ ∪ ∂1 forms a spine for W .

∼ Note that W ∪l1 (2-handle) is a punctured genus 2 handlebody; so π1(W )/hhl1ii = Z ∗ Z. In summary, we have a commutative diagram of epimorphisms

φ / / ρ / / (Z ⊕ Z) ∗ Z π1(W ) / / π1(E(L)) / / π1(L(0, 0)) . 6 6 ρ0   ρ1  ′  φ / / Z ∗ Z π1(W )/hhl1ii / / π1(E(L))/hhl1ii Z ∗ Z Since the group Z∗Z is Hopfian (every self-epimorphism is an isomorphism), we must have all isomorphisms in the sequence

′ φ / / ρ1 / / Z ∗ Z π1(W )/hhl1ii / / π1(E(L))/hhl1ii / / π1(L(0, 0)) Z ∗ Z .

We now see that π1(E1) =∼ π1(E(L))/hhl1ii =∼ Z ∗ Z, where E1 is the 3– manifold obtained from E(L) Dehn filling along l1 ⊂ ∂N(L1). By [4, The- orem 5.2], the Prime Decomposition Theorem, and the fact that genus 2 3–manifolds satisfy the Poincar´eConjecture (see [6]), we conclude that 1 2 1 2 E1 =∼ (S × D )#(S × S ) . 1 Furthermore, Dehn filling on E1 along l2 ⊂ ∂N(L2) gives L(0, 0) =∼ (S × 2 1 2 1 2 S )#(S ×S ), so l2 corresponds to a meridian curve in the S ×D connected- summand of E1. Note that this is just the topological realization of the the epimorphisms ρ0 and ρ1. It follows that m2 generates a free factor of π1(E1). Hence π1(E1)/hhm2ii =∼ Z. HANDLE NUMBER ONE LINKS AND GENERALIZED PROPERTY R 5

Let L1(0) denote the 3–manifold obtained by 0–framed Dehn surgery on the knot L1. We see that

π1(L1(0)) =∼ π1(E(L))/hhl1,m2ii =∼ π1(E(L))/hhl1ii/hhm2ii =∼ π1(E1)/hhm2ii =∼ Z . 1 2 By [4, Theorem 5.2], we have that L1(0) =∼ S × S . Applying [2, Corollary 8.3] establishes that L1 must be the unknot. We can similarly establish that L2 is also the unknot; this is accomplished by simply interchanging the roles of L1 and L2 throughout the proof. Finally, the result [9, Proposition 3.2] asserts that any 2–component link containing an unknot has Generalized Property R. This completes the proof. 

References 1. Michael Freedman, Robert Gompf, Scott Morrison, and Kevin Walker, Man and machine thinking about the smooth 4-dimensional Poincar´e conjecture, Preprint. arXiv: math.GT/0906.5177, 2009. 2. David Gabai, Foliations and the of 3-manifolds. III, J. Differential Geom. 26 (1987), no. 3, 479–536. MR MR910018 (89a:57014b) 3. Robert E. Gompf and Andr´as I. Stipsicz, 4-manifolds and Kirby calculus, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 20, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999. MR MR1707327 (2000h:57038) 4. John Hempel, 3-Manifolds, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1976, Ann. of Math. Studies, No. 86. MR MR0415619 (54 #3702) 5. Tsuyoshi Kobayashi, Scharlemann-Thompson untelescoping of Heegaard splittings is finer than Casson-Gordon’s, J. Ramifications 12 (2003), no. 7, 877–891. MR MR2017958 (2004k:57022) 6. John W. Morgan and Hyman Bass (eds.), The Smith conjecture, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 112, Academic Press Inc., Orlando, FL, 1984, Papers presented at the symposium held at Columbia University, New York, 1979. MR MR758459 (86i:57002) 7. Yoav Moriah and Eric Sedgwick, Closed essential surfaces and weakly reducible Hee- gaard splittings in manifolds with boundary, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 13 (2004), no. 6, 829–843. MR MR2088748 (2005i:57023) 8. Martin Scharlemann, Generalized property R and the Schoenflies conjecture, Com- ment. Math. Helv. 83 (2008), no. 2, 421–449. MR MR2390052 (2008m:57058) 9. Martin Scharlemann and Abigail Thompson, Fibered and property 2R, Preprint. arXiv: math.GT/0901.2319, 2009. 10. Eric Sedgwick, Genus two 3-manifolds are built from handle number one pieces, Al- gebr. Geom. Topol. 1 (2001), 763–790 (electronic). MR MR1875617 (2002k:57051)

Department of Mathematics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA E-mail address: [email protected]