DOCSLIB.ORG

Algebraic Topology Homework 7: Due Wednesday, October 14 Recall That a Meridian of a Solid Torus D × S 1 Is a Curve That Bounds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Algebraic Topology Homework 7: Due Wednesday, October 14 Recall That a Meridian of a Solid Torus D × S 1 Is a Curve That Bounds Algebraic Topology Homework 7: Due Wednesday, October 14 Recall that a meridian of a solid torus D × S1 is a curve that bounds D×(point in S1), while a longitude is a curve of the form (point in D) ×S1. a b Problem 1 Let A = be an integer matrix. The linear transformation L(x) = c d 2 2 2 Ax maps IR to IR , and maps Z2 to Z2. It therefore maps the torus T 2 = IR /Z2 to itself. 2 What is the induced map on π1(T )? (We will eventually show that every continuous map between tori is homotopic to such a linear map.) 2 The generators of π1(T ) are a path γ1 that moves a distance 1 in the horizontal direction and a path γ2 that moves 1 in the vertical direction. The path L∗γ1 clearly moves a in the horizontal direction and b in the vertical direction, and so is homotopic 2 2 to aγ1 + cγ2 (where we are using additive notation for the Abelian group π1(T ) = Z . 2 Likewise, L∗γ2 is homotopic to bγ1 + dγ2. In other words, the induced map L∗ on Z is just multiplication by the integer matrix A. Problem 2. Let X1 and X2 be two solid tori, and identify the boundary of each 2 one with IR /Z2, such that the first coordinate refers to the meridian and the second to the longitude. Let A and L be as in problem 1, only with the extra condition that the determinant of A is ±1. Identify x in the boundary of X1 with L(x) in the boundary of X2, and let Y be the disjoint union of X1 and X2, modulo this identification. Compute π1(Y ) in terms of the matrix elements of A. Let α be the generator of π1(X1) and let β be the generator of π1(X2). Let U be a tubular neighborhood of X1, which is homotopy equivalent to X1, and let V be a tubular neighborhood of X2. The intersection U ∩V deformation retracts onto the common boundary of X1 and X2, and we can take ℓ1 and m1 (the longitude and the meridian of the boundary of X1) to be the generators of π1(U ∩ V ). By van Kampen, π1(Y ) is generated by α,β,ℓ1, m1 with relations from how π1(U ∩ V ) maps to π1(U) and to π1(V ). From the inclusion of U ∩ V into U, we see that ℓ1 is identified with α and m1 is identified with the d identity. From the inclusion of U ∩ V into V we see that ℓ1 is identified with β and m1 c d c is identified with β . We thus have α = β and β = 1, so our group is Zc if c 6= 0 and Z if c = 0. In general Y is the lens space L(c, a), except when c = 0, in which case we get S2 ×S1. 2 2 To see this, recall our construction of L(p, q) in class. In the 3-sphere |z1| + |z2| = 1, 2 2 we had two solid tori, one where |z1| ≤ 1/2, and the other where |z2| ≤ 1/2. After 2πi/p 2πqi/p modding out by our group action, which sends (z1,z2) to (z1e ,z2e ), we still get two solid tori. The longitude ℓ1 and meridian m1 of the first solid torus increase the ′ arguments of z1 and z2 by (2πq /p, 2π/p) and (2π, 0), respectively, while the longitude and meridian of the second increase these values by (2π/p, 2πq/p) and (0, 2π). It’s not ′ ′ hard to see that ℓ1 = q ℓ2 + (1 − qq )/pm2, while m1 = pℓ2 − qm2, so our matrix A a b −q (1 − qq′)/p is = ′ . The fact that we have −q and rather than q is an c d p q artifact of our convention of the direction of our meridian m2. With a different sign choice 1 q (qq′ − 1)/p we would have the matrix ′ . p q 3 Problem 3. Let K be a smoothly embedded knot in S3 (which you can view as IR plus a point at infinity), and let X be a closed ǫ-neighborhood of K. For ǫ small enough, X is a solid torus. Let X′ be another solid torus (viewed abstractly, not as a subset of p r Euclidean space) and let A = be an integer matrix of determinant 1 that maps the q s boundary of X′ to the boundary of X (not the other way around!), where we take the first coordinate to be the longitude and the second to be the meridian. Let X0 be the interior of X, and let Y =(S3 − X) ∪ X′, where we identify the boundary of X and the boundary of X′ via A. Show that, for fixed p and q, different choices of r and s yield the same space Y , up to homeomorphism. This procedure of creating Y from K, p and q is called “p/q Dehn surgery on the knot K”. [Hint: First see if you can prove independence of r for (p, q)=(1, 0).] [The same process can be applied successively to a knot in Y to get Z, to a knot in Z to get another space, and so on. Alternately, we can speak of doing surgery on a link, which is a disjoint collection of knots in S3. For each component of the link, drill out a neighborhood and glue in another solid torus, where the fractions p/q can be different for different components of the link. The Lickorish-Wallace theorem states that every compact, connected oriented 3-manifold can be obtained from S3 by Dehn surgery on an appropriate link. This gives a strong connection (dare I say a link?) between knot theory and the topology of 3-manifolds.] The meridian of a solid torus, viewed as an element of the fundamental group of the boundary, is uniquely defined up to sign. It’s the only generator of π1 of the boundary that bound a disk in the interior. However, there is no canonical choice of the longitude, 1 as ℓ1 + km1 is also a longitude for any integer k. Indeed, on the solid torus D × S with ikθ coordinates (z,θ), the automorphism (z,θ) → (ze ,θ) maps the meridian m1 to m1, but maps ℓ1 to ℓ1 + km1. 1 k Now apply this to Dehn surgery on the unknot. If A = , then a longitude of 0 1 X′ is identified with a longitude of X plus k times a meridian (in other words a longitude), while a meridian of X′ is identified with a meridian of X. In other words, replacing X with X′ doesn’t change anything, and we still have a 3-sphere. ′ p r ′ p r Finally, suppose that we have two matrices A = and A = ′ . Since q s q s both matrices have determinant 1, there must be an integer k such that r′ = r + kp and ′ ′ 1 k 1 k s = s + kq, so A = A . We just saw that was just a change in choice of 0 1 0 1 longitude for X′, so the action of A′ is, up to this choice, the same as the action of A. ′ 3 ′ More explicitly, if we get Y1 by gluing X1 to S − X via A and Y2 by gluing X2 to 3 ′ 3 S − X via A , then there is a homeomorphism Y2 → Y1 that is the identity on S − X ′ 1 ′ 1 ikθ and maps X2 = D × S to X1 = D × S by (z,θ) → (ze ,θ). 2 Problem 4. Let Y be obtained from S3 by p/q surgery on the unknot. What is Y when p/q = 0/1? What is Y when p/q = 1/0? For general p/q, compute π1(Y ) in terms of p and q. (This is another way to visualize the Lens space L(p, q), as is the construction of Problem 2) See the solution to problem 2. Recall that S3−X is itself a solid torus, whose longitude is the meridian of X, and whose meridian is the longitude of X. When p/q = 0/1, we are just gluing two solid tori by identifying their longitudes and meridians. This is the union of two disks, all times a circle, in other words Y = S2 × S1. When p/q = 1/0, X and X′ are the same so we are filling in exactly what we removed, and Y = S3. In general, we are q s gluing in two tori as in problem 2, only with the matrix , and π1(Y ) = Z . p r p Page 123, problems 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. For problem 2.2, think about which condition of being a local homeomorphism can fail when restricted to A. 2.1. There was some confusion about what a “basic family” of sets is. This isn’t a standard term, and I can think of two possible meanings: (1) It could mean that the family forms a basis for a topology (although not necessarily the topology that we’re using). In other words, that every point is in some set in the family, and that if U1 and U2 are sets in the family and x ∈ U1 ∩U2, then there is a family member U3 with x ∈ U3 and U3 ⊂ U1 ∩ U2. (2) It could mean that, given any point x and any neighborhood N of x, there is a family member U with x ∈ U ⊂ N.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lens Spaces We Introduce Some of the Simplest 3-Manifolds, the Lens Spaces
    CHAPTER 10 Seifert manifolds In the previous chapter we have proved various general theorems on three- manifolds, and it is now time to construct examples. A rich and important source is a family of manifolds built by Seifert in the 1930s, which generalises circle bundles over surfaces by admitting some “singular”fibres. The three- manifolds that admit such kind offibration are now called Seifert manifolds. In this chapter we introduce and completely classify (up to diffeomor- phisms) the Seifert manifolds. In Chapter 12 we will then show how to ge- ometrise them, by assigning a nice Riemannian metric to each. We will show, for instance, that all the elliptic andflat three-manifolds are in fact particular kinds of Seifert manifolds. 10.1. Lens spaces We introduce some of the simplest 3-manifolds, the lens spaces. These manifolds (and many more) are easily described using an important three- dimensional construction, called Dehnfilling. 10.1.1. Dehnfilling. If a 3-manifoldM has a spherical boundary com- ponent, we can cap it off with a ball. IfM has a toric boundary component, there is no canonical way to cap it off: the simplest object that we can attach to it is a solid torusD S 1, but the resulting manifold depends on the gluing × map. This operation is called a Dehnfilling and we now study it in detail. LetM be a 3-manifold andT ∂M be a boundary torus component. ⊂ Definition 10.1.1. A Dehnfilling ofM alongT is the operation of gluing a solid torusD S 1 toM via a diffeomorphismϕ:∂D S 1 T.
    [Show full text]
  • A Computation of Knot Floer Homology of Special (1,1)-Knots
    A COMPUTATION OF KNOT FLOER HOMOLOGY OF SPECIAL (1,1)-KNOTS Jiangnan Yu Department of Mathematics Central European University Advisor: Andras´ Stipsicz Proposal prepared by Jiangnan Yu in part fulfillment of the degree requirements for the Master of Science in Mathematics. CEU eTD Collection 1 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor Andras´ Stipsicz for his guidance on writing this thesis, and also for his teaching and helping during the master program. From him I have learned a lot knowledge in topol- ogy. I would also like to thank Central European University and the De- partment of Mathematics for accepting me to study in Budapest. Finally I want to thank my teachers and friends, from whom I have learned so much in math. CEU eTD Collection 2 Abstract We will introduce Heegaard decompositions and Heegaard diagrams for three-manifolds and for three-manifolds containing a knot. We define (1,1)-knots and explain the method to obtain the Heegaard diagram for some special (1,1)-knots, and prove that torus knots and 2- bridge knots are (1,1)-knots. We also define the knot Floer chain complex by using the theory of holomorphic disks and their moduli space, and give more explanation on the chain complex of genus-1 Heegaard diagram. Finally, we compute the knot Floer homology groups of the trefoil knot and the (-3,4)-torus knot. 1 Introduction Knot Floer homology is a knot invariant defined by P. Ozsvath´ and Z. Szabo´ in [6], using methods of Heegaard diagrams and moduli theory of holomorphic discs, combined with homology theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Determining Hyperbolicity of Compact Orientable 3-Manifolds with Torus
    Determining hyperbolicity of compact orientable 3-manifolds with torus boundary Robert C. Haraway, III∗ February 1, 2019 Abstract Thurston’s hyperbolization theorem for Haken manifolds and normal sur- face theory yield an algorithm to determine whether or not a compact ori- entable 3-manifold with nonempty boundary consisting of tori admits a com- plete finite-volume hyperbolic metric on its interior. A conjecture of Gabai, Meyerhoff, and Milley reduces to a computation using this algorithm. 1 Introduction The work of Jørgensen, Thurston, and Gromov in the late ‘70s showed ([18]) that the set of volumes of orientable hyperbolic 3-manifolds has order type ωω. Cao and Meyerhoff in [4] showed that the first limit point is the volume of the figure eight knot complement. Agol in [1] showed that the first limit point of limit points is the volume of the Whitehead link complement. Most significantly for the present paper, Gabai, Meyerhoff, and Milley in [9] identified the smallest, closed, orientable hyperbolic 3-manifold (the Weeks-Matveev-Fomenko manifold). arXiv:1410.7115v5 [math.GT] 31 Jan 2019 The proof of the last result required distinguishing hyperbolic 3-manifolds from non-hyperbolic 3-manifolds in a large list of 3-manifolds; this was carried out in [17]. The method of proof was to see whether the canonize procedure of SnapPy ([5]) succeeded or not; identify the successes as census manifolds; and then examine the fundamental groups of the 66 remaining manifolds by hand. This method made the ∗Research partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1006553.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohomology Determinants of Compact 3-Manifolds
    COHOMOLOGY DETERMINANTS OF COMPACT 3–MANIFOLDS CHRISTOPHER TRUMAN Abstract. We give definitions of cohomology determinants for compact, connected, orientable 3–manifolds. We also give formu- lae relating cohomology determinants before and after gluing a solid torus along a torus boundary component. Cohomology de- terminants are related to Turaev torsion, though the author hopes that they have other uses as well. 1. Introduction Cohomology determinants are an invariant of compact, connected, orientable 3-manifolds. The author first encountered these invariants in [Tur02], when Turaev gave the definition for closed 3–manifolds, and used cohomology determinants to obtain a leading order term of Tu- raev torsion. In [Tru], the author gives a definition for 3–manifolds with boundary, and derives a similar relationship to Turaev torsion. Here, we repeat the definitions, and give formulae relating the cohomology determinants before and after gluing a solid torus along a boundary component. One can use these formulae, and gluing formulae for Tu- raev torsion from [Tur02] Chapter VII, to re-derive the results of [Tru] from the results of [Tur02] Chapter III, or vice-versa. 2. Integral Cohomology Determinants arXiv:math/0611248v1 [math.GT] 8 Nov 2006 2.1. Closed 3–manifolds. We will simply state the relevant result from [Tur02] Section III.1; the proof is similar to the one below. Let R be a commutative ring with unit, and let N be a free R–module of rank n ≥ 3. Let S = S(N ∗) be the graded symmetric algebra on ∗ ℓ N = HomR(N, R), with grading S = S . Let f : N ×N ×N −→ R ℓL≥0 be an alternate trilinear form, and let g : N × N → N ∗ be induced by f.
    [Show full text]
  • MTH 507 Midterm Solutions
    MTH 507 Midterm Solutions 1. Let X be a path connected, locally path connected, and semilocally simply connected space. Let H0 and H1 be subgroups of π1(X; x0) (for some x0 2 X) such that H0 ≤ H1. Let pi : XHi ! X (for i = 0; 1) be covering spaces corresponding to the subgroups Hi. Prove that there is a covering space f : XH0 ! XH1 such that p1 ◦ f = p0. Solution. Choose x ; x 2 p−1(x ) so that p :(X ; x ) ! (X; x ) and e0 e1 0 i Hi ei 0 p (X ; x ) = H for i = 0; 1. Since H ≤ H , by the Lifting Criterion, i∗ Hi ei i 0 1 there exists a lift f : XH0 ! XH1 of p0 such that p1 ◦f = p0. It remains to show that f : XH0 ! XH1 is a covering space. Let y 2 XH1 , and let U be a path-connected neighbourhood of x = p1(y) that is evenly covered by both p0 and p1. Let V ⊂ XH1 be −1 −1 the slice of p1 (U) that contains y. Denote the slices of p0 (U) by 0 −1 0 −1 fVz : z 2 p0 (x)g. Let C denote the subcollection fVz : z 2 f (y)g −1 −1 of p0 (U). Every slice Vz is mapped by f into a single slice of p1 (U), −1 0 as these are path-connected. Also, since f(z) 2 p1 (y), f(Vz ) ⊂ V iff f(z) = y. Hence f −1(V ) is the union of the slices in C. 0 −1 0 0 0 Finally, we have that for Vz 2 C,(p1jV ) ◦ (p0jVz ) = fjVz .
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in Low-Dimensional Topology
    Problems in Low-Dimensional Topology Edited by Rob Kirby Berkeley - 22 Dec 95 Contents 1 Knot Theory 7 2 Surfaces 85 3 3-Manifolds 97 4 4-Manifolds 179 5 Miscellany 259 Index of Conjectures 282 Index 284 Old Problem Lists 294 Bibliography 301 1 2 CONTENTS Introduction In April, 1977 when my first problem list [38,Kirby,1978] was finished, a good topologist could reasonably hope to understand the main topics in all of low dimensional topology. But at that time Bill Thurston was already starting to greatly influence the study of 2- and 3-manifolds through the introduction of geometry, especially hyperbolic. Four years later in September, 1981, Mike Freedman turned a subject, topological 4-manifolds, in which we expected no progress for years, into a subject in which it seemed we knew everything. A few months later in spring 1982, Simon Donaldson brought gauge theory to 4-manifolds with the first of a remarkable string of theorems showing that smooth 4-manifolds which might not exist or might not be diffeomorphic, in fact, didn’t and weren’t. Exotic R4’s, the strangest of smooth manifolds, followed. And then in late spring 1984, Vaughan Jones brought us the Jones polynomial and later Witten a host of other topological quantum field theories (TQFT’s). Physics has had for at least two decades a remarkable record for guiding mathematicians to remarkable mathematics (Seiberg–Witten gauge theory, new in October, 1994, is the latest example). Lest one think that progress was only made using non-topological techniques, note that Freedman’s work, and other results like knot complements determining knots (Gordon- Luecke) or the Seifert fibered space conjecture (Mess, Scott, Gabai, Casson & Jungreis) were all or mostly classical topology.
    [Show full text]
  • Topological Surgery and Its Dynamics
    TOPOLOGICAL SURGERY AND ITS DYNAMICS SOFIA LAMBROPOULOU, STATHIS ANTONIOU, AND NIKOLA SAMARDZIJA Abstract. Topological surgery occurs in natural phenomena where two points are selected and attracting or repelling forces are applied. The two points are connected via an invisible `thread'. In order to model topologically such phenomena we introduce dynamics in 1-, 2- and 3-dimensional topological surgery, by means of attracting or repelling forces between two selected points in the manifold, and we address examples. We also introduce the notions of solid 1- and 2-dimensional topological surgery, and of truncated 1-, 2- and 3-dimensional topological surgery, which are more appropriate for modelling natural processes. On the theoretical level, these new notions allow to visualize 3-dimensional surgery and to connect surgeries in different dimensions. We hope that through this study, topology and dynamics of many natural phenomena as well as topological surgery may now be better understood. Introduction The aim of this study is to draw a connection between topological surgery in dimensions 1, 2 and 3 and many natural phenomena. For this we introduce new theoretical concepts which allow to explain the topology of such phenomena via surgery and also to connect topological surgeries in different dimensions. The new concepts are the introduction of forces, attracting or repelling, in the process of surgery, the notion of solid 1- and 2-dimensional surgery and the notion of truncated 1-, 2- and 3-dimensional surgery. Topological surgery is a technique used for changing the homeomorphism type of a topolog- ical manifold, thus for creating new manifolds out of known ones.
    [Show full text]
  • HOMEOMORPHISMS on a SOLID TORUS to If
    HOMEOMORPHISMS ON A SOLID TORUS d. R. McMillan, jr. 1. Introduction. An orientable 3-manifold with boundary can be represented as a solid torus H ("cube with handles") plus a disjoint collection of 3-cells attached to the boundary of H along annuli.1 Hence, a natural (but difficult) approach to the study of such 3- manifolds is to associate with each a system of disjoint simple closed curves in the boundary of a solid torus. It would be useful (e.g., in proving that two 3-manifolds are homeomorphic) to have conditions under which one such system of curves is topologically equivalent to another. A special case of this problem is considered here. Let H be a solid torus of genus » and let / and J* be two collections of « disjoint simple closed curves in the boundary of H. The result is that if each of the collections "generates" TiiH) (see §2), then the collections are topologically equivalent. Some care must be exercised in producing the homeomorphism, since not every homeomorphism on the bound- ary of H which throws one collection onto the other can be extended to if. 2. Preliminaries. Two simplicial complexes will be called equivalent if they have rectilinear subdivisions which are isomorphic complexes. An n-cell in-sphere) is a complex equivalent to an «-simplex (bound- ary of an M+ 1-simplex, respectively). If the closed star of each vertex in the complex M is equivalent to an »-cell, then M is by definition an n-manifold. The union of those simplexes of M each of whose links is not a sphere is the boundary of M (Bd M) and the interior of M (Int M) is M—Bd M.
    [Show full text]
  • Dehn Surgery, Rational Open Books and Knot Floer Homology
    DEHN SURGERY, RATIONAL OPEN BOOKS, AND KNOT FLOER HOMOLOGY MATTHEW HEDDEN AND OLGA PLAMENEVSKAYA Abstract. By recent results of Baker–Etnyre–Van Horn-Morris, a rational open book decomposition defines a compatible contact structure. We show that the Heegaard Floer contact invariant of such a contact structure can be computed in terms of the knot Floer homology of its (rationally null-homologous) binding. We then use this description of contact invariants, together with a formula for the knot Floer homology of the core of a surgery solid torus, to show that certain manifolds obtained by surgeries on bindings of open books carry tight contact structures. 1. Introduction Dehn surgery is the process of excising a neighborhood of an embedded circle (a knot) in a 3-dimensional manifold and subsequently regluing it with a diffeomorphism of the bounding torus. This construction has long played a fundamental role in the study of 3-manifolds, and provides a complete method of construction. If the 3-manifold is equipped with extra structure, one can hope to adapt the surgery procedure to incorporate this structure. This idea has been fruitfully employed in a variety of situations. Our present interest lies in the realm of 3-dimensional contact geometry. Here, Legendrian (and more recently, contact) surgery has been an invaluable tool for the study of 3-manifolds equipped with a contact structure (i.e. a completely non-integrable two-plane field). For a contact surgery on a Legendrian knot, we start with a knot which is tangent to the contact structure, and perform Dehn surgery in such a way that the contact structure on the knot complement is extended over the surgery solid torus [DGS].
    [Show full text]
  • Three-Dimensional Manifolds Michaelmas Term 1999
    Three-Dimensional Manifolds Michaelmas Term 1999 Prerequisites Basic general topology (eg. compactness, quotient topology) Basic algebraic topology (homotopy, fundamental group, homology) Relevant books Armstrong, Basic Topology (background material on algebraic topology) Hempel, Three-manifolds (main book on the course) Stillwell, Classical topology and combinatorial group theory (background material, and some 3-manifold theory) §1. Introduction Definition. A (topological) n-manifold M is a Hausdorff topological space with a countable basis of open sets, such that each point of M lies in an open set n n n homeomorphic to R or R+ = {(x1,...,xn) ∈ R : xn ≥ 0}. The boundary ∂M of M is the set of points not having neighbourhoods homeomorphic to Rn. The set M − ∂M is the interior of M, denoted int(M). If M is compact and ∂M = ∅, then M is closed. In this course, we will be focusing on 3-manifolds. Why this dimension? Because 1-manifolds and 2-manifolds are largely understood, and a full ‘classifica- tion’ of n-manifolds is generally believed to be impossible for n ≥ 4. The theory of 3-manifolds is heavily dependent on understanding 2-manifolds (surfaces). We first give an infinite list of closed surfaces. Construction. Start with a 2-sphere S2. Remove the interiors of g disjoint closed discs. The result is a compact 2-manifold with non-empty boundary. Attach to each boundary component a ‘handle’ (which is defined to be a copy of the 2-torus T 2 with the interior of a closed disc removed) via a homeomorphism between the boundary circles. The result is a closed 2-manifold Fg of genus g.
    [Show full text]
  • 3-Manifolds of S1-Category Three Dongxu Wang
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2013 3-Manifolds of S1-Category Three Dongxu Wang Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES 3-MANIFOLDS OF S1-CATEGORY THREE By DONGXU WANG A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Mathematics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2013 Dongxu Wang defended this dissertation on Apri 4, 2013. The members of the supervisory committee were: Wolfgang Heil Professor Directing Thesis Xufeng Niu University Representative Eric P. Klassen Committee Member Eriko Hironaka Committee Member Warren D. Nichols Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with the university requirements. ii To my parents, who always support what I am doing now iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I want to express my deep gratitude to my major professor Wolfgang Heil. With his help, for the first time I began to enjoy mathematics research. His patience and guidance has been proved invaluable. His knowledge and experience have helped me a lot in these years. I am greatly indebted to professor Sergio Fenley. His passion and enthusiasm with topology inspired me so much. I am thankful to him for being so kind and welcoming. I discussed many topics with him, which enlarged my knowledge about this subject. I would like to thank professor Eric Klassen for his help during these years.
    [Show full text]
  • Tight Contact Structures on the Solid Torus
    Tight contact structures on the solid torus Jessica Zhang • October 18, 2020 Mentor: Zhenkun Li • MIT PRIMES Conference Informally, contact geometry is concerned with contact structures, which are geometric structures defined on odd-dimensional spaces. It helps us better understand and prove results in low-dimensional topology, but many fundamental questions still remain unanswered. Open question Can we classify the contact structures on a given 3-manifold? Introduction: Why do we care? Jessica Zhang Tight contact structures on the solid torus Page 1 of 13 It helps us better understand and prove results in low-dimensional topology, but many fundamental questions still remain unanswered. Open question Can we classify the contact structures on a given 3-manifold? Introduction: Why do we care? Informally, contact geometry is concerned with contact structures, which are geometric structures defined on odd-dimensional spaces. Jessica Zhang Tight contact structures on the solid torus Page 1 of 13 Open question Can we classify the contact structures on a given 3-manifold? Introduction: Why do we care? Informally, contact geometry is concerned with contact structures, which are geometric structures defined on odd-dimensional spaces. It helps us better understand and prove results in low-dimensional topology, but many fundamental questions still remain unanswered. Jessica Zhang Tight contact structures on the solid torus Page 1 of 13 Introduction: Why do we care? Informally, contact geometry is concerned with contact structures, which are geometric structures defined on odd-dimensional spaces. It helps us better understand and prove results in low-dimensional topology, but many fundamental questions still remain unanswered.
    [Show full text]