Table of Contents for the Handbook of Knot Theory William W. Menasco and Morwen B. Thistlethwaite, Editors (1) Colin Adams, Hyperbolic knots (2) Joan S. Birman and Tara Brendle, Braids: a survey (3) John Etnyre, Legendrian and transversal knots (4) Greg Friedman, Knot spinning (5) Jim Hoste, The enumeration and classification of knots and links (6) Louis Kauffman, Knot Diagrammatics (7) Charles Livingston, A survey of classical knot concordance (8) Lee Rudolph, Knot theory of complex plane curves (9) Marty Scharlemann, Thin position in the theory of classical knots (10) Jeff Weeks, Computation of hyperbolic structures in knot theory arXiv:math/0411115v2 [math.GT] 7 Nov 2004 Knot theory of complex plane curves Lee Rudolph 1 Department of Mathematics & Computer Science and Department of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester MA 01610 USA Abstract The primary objects of study in the “knot theory of complex plane curves” are C-links: links (or knots) cut out of a 3-sphere in C2 by complex plane curves. There are two very different classes of C-links, transverse and totally tangential. Transverse C-links are naturally oriented. There are many natural classes of examples: links of singularities; links at infinity; links of divides, free divides, tree divides, and graph divides; and—most generally—quasipositive links. Totally tangential C-links are unoriented but naturally framed; they turn out to be precisely the real-analytic Legendrian links, and can profitably be investigated in terms of certain closely associated transverse C-links. The knot theory of complex plane curves is attractive not only for its own internal results, but also for its intriguing relationships and interesting contributions else- where in mathematics. Within low-dimensional topology, related subjects include braids, concordance, polynomial invariants, contact geometry, fibered links and open books, and Lefschetz pencils. Within low-dimensional algebraic and analytic geo- metry, related subjects include embeddings and injections of the complex line in the complex plane, line arrangements, Stein surfaces, and Hilbert’s 16th problem. There is even some experimental evidence that nature favors quasipositive knots. Key words: Arrangement, braid, braid monodromy, braided surface, Chisini’s statement, C-link, Hilbert’s 16th problem, Jacobian conjecture, knot, labyrinth, link, link at infinity, link of indeterminacy, Milnor map, Milnor’s question, monodromy, plane curve, quasipositivity, singularity, Thom conjecture, Thurston–Bennequin invariant, unknotting number, Zariski conjecture 2000 MSC: Primary 57M25, Secondary 14B05, 20F36, 32S22, 32S55, 51M99 Email address: [email protected] (Lee Rudolph). 1 During the preparation and completion of this survey, the author was partially supported by the Fonds National Suisse and by a National Science Foundation Interdisciplinary Grant in the Mathematical Sciences (DMS-0308894). Foreword In the past two decades, knot theory in general has seen much progress and many changes. “Classical knot theory”—the study of knots as objects in their own right—has taken great strides, documented throughout this Handbook (see the contributions by Birman and Brendle, Hoste, Kauffman, Livingston, and Scharlemann). Simultaneously, there have been extraordinarily wide and deep developments in what might be called “modern knot theory”: the study of knots and links in the presence of extra structure, 2 for instance, a hyperbolic metric on the knot complement (as in the articles by Adams and Weeks) or a contact structure on the knot’s ambient 3-sphere (as in the article by Etnyre). In these terms, the knot theory of complex plane curves is solidly part of modern knot theory—the knots and links in question are C-links, and the extra structures variously algebraic, analytic, and geometric. “Some knot theory of complex plane curves” (Rudolph, 1983d) was a broad view of the state of the art in 1982. Here I propose to look at the subject through a narrower lens, that of quasipositivity. §1 is devoted to general nota- tions and definitions. §2 is a treatment of braids and braided surfaces tailored to quasipositivity. 3 General transverse C-links are constructed and described in §3, while §4 is a brief look at the special transverse C-links that arise from complex algebraic geometry “in the small” and “in the large”—to wit, links of singularities and links at infinity. 4 Totally tangential C-links are constructed and described in §5. The material in §§3–5 is related to other research areas in §6. In §7 I give some fairly explicit, somewhat programmatic suggestions of directions for future research in the knot theory of complex plane curves. Original texts of some motivating problems in the knot theory of complex plane curves are collected in an Appendix. This survey concludes with an index of definitions and notations and a bibliography. Open questions are dis- tributed throughout. 2 Some observers have also detected “postmodern knot theory”: the study of extra structure in the absence of knots. 3 Consult Birman and Brendle for a deeper and broader account of braid theory. 4 One consequence of this survey’s bias towards quasipositivity is a de-emphasis of other aspects of the knot theory of links of singularities and links at infinity; the reader is referred to Boileau and Fourrier (1998) (who include sections on both these topics), to the discussions of singularities and their higher-dimensional analogues by Durfee (1999, §2) and Neumann (2001, §1), and of course to the extensive literature on both subjects—particularly links of singularities—referenced in those articles. ii Contents 1 Preliminaries 1 1.1 Sets and groups 1 1.2 Spaces 3 1.3 Smooth maps 5 1.4 Knots, links, and Seifert surfaces 11 1.5 Framed links; Seifert forms 17 1.6 Fibered links, fiber surfaces, and open books 17 1.7 Polynomial invariants of knots and links 18 1.8 Polynomial and analytic maps; algebraic and analytic sets 20 1.9 Configuration spaces and spaces of monic polynomials 23 1.10 Contact 3-manifolds, Stein domains, and Stein surfaces 26 2 Braids and braided surfaces 29 2.1 Braid groups 29 2.2 Geometric braids and closed braids 30 2.3 Bands and espaliers 30 2.4 Embedded bandwords and braided Seifert surfaces 33 2.5 Plumbing and braided Seifert surfaces 36 2.6 Labyrinths, braided surfaces in bidisks, and braided ribbons 37 3 Transverse C-links 41 3.1 Transverse C-links are the same as quasipositive links 42 3.2 Slice genus and unknotting number of transverse C-links 42 3.3 Strongly quasipositive links 43 3.3.1 S-equivalence and strong quasipositivity 44 3.3.2 Characterization of strongly quasipositive links 45 iii 3.3.3 Quasipositive annuli 45 3.3.4 Quasipositive plumbing 46 3.3.5 Positive links are strongly quasipositive 48 3.3.6 Quasipositive pretzels 48 3.3.7 Links of divides 49 3.4 Non-strongly quasipositive links 50 4 Complex plane curves in the small and in the large 51 4.1 Links of singularities as transverse C-links 51 4.2 Links at infinity as transverse C-links 52 5 Totally tangential C-links 53 6 Relations to other research areas 55 6.1 Low-dimensional real algebraic geometry; Hilbert’s 16th problem. 55 6.2 The Zariski Conjecture; knotgroups of complex plane curves 55 6.3 Keller’s Jacobian Problem; embeddings and injections of C in C2 56 6.4 Chisini’s statement; braid monodromy 56 6.5 Stein surfaces 57 7 The future of the knot theory of complex plane curves 58 7.1 Transverse C-links and their Milnor maps. 58 7.2 Transverse C-links as links at infinity in the complex hyperbolic plane. 58 7.3 Spaces of C-links 59 7.4 Other questions. 59 Acknowledgements 61 A And now a few words from our inspirations 62 A.1 Hilbert’s 16th Problem (1891, 1900) 62 A.2 Zariski’s Conjecture (1929) 62 iv A.3 Keller’s Jacobian Problem (1939) 63 A.4 Chisini’s Statement (1954) 63 A.5 Milnor’s Question (1968) 64 A.6 The Thom Conjecture (c. 1977) 64 List of Figures 66 References 67 Index of Definitions and Notations 82 v 1 Preliminaries Terms being defined are set in this typeface; mere emphasis is indicated thus. A definition labelled as such is either of greater (local) significance, or non- standard to an extent which might lead to confusion; labelled or not, poten- tially startling definitions and notations are flagged with the symbol in the margins of both the text and the index. The end or omission of a proof is signalled by 2. Both A := B and B =: A mean “A is defined as B”. The symbol =∼ is reserved for a natural isomorphism (in an appropriate category). 1.1 Sets and groups The set of real (resp., complex) numbers is R (resp., C); write z 7→ z for complex conjugation C → C, and Re (resp., Im) for real part (resp., imaginary part) C → R. For x ∈ R, let R≥x := {t ∈ R : t ≥ x}, R>x := {t ∈ R : t > x}, R≤x := {t ∈ R : t ≤ x}, R<x := {t ∈ R : t < x}. Let C± := {w ∈ C : ± Im w ≥ 0}. Let N := Z ∩ R≥0 and N>0 := N ∩ R>0. For n ∈ N, let n := {k ∈ N>0 : k ≤ n}. Denote projection on the ith factor of a cartesian Rn Cn product by pri. The Euclidian norm on or is k·k. For u, v in a real vectorspace, [u, v] is {(1 − t)u + tv : 0 ≤ t ≤ 1}. Let X be a set. Denote the identity map X → X by idX , and the cardinality of X by card(X). A characteristic function on X is an element of {0, 1}X; for ,Y ⊂ X, let cY֒→X : X → {0, 1} denote the characteristic function of Y in X so cY֒→X (x)=1 for x ∈ Y , cY֒→X (x)=0 for x ∈ X \ Y .