These slides would be paired with “chalk” and discussion, but here are the slides:

# Author Archives: blueollie

# Gaps in my basic knowledge

Yes, mathematics is a huge, huge subject and no one knows everything. And, when I was a graduate student, I could only focus on 1-2 advanced courses at a time, and when I was working on my thesis, I almost had a “blinders on” approach to finishing that thing up. I think that I had to do that, given my intellectual limitations.

So, even in “my area”, my knowledge outside of a very narrow area was weak at best.

Add to this: 20+ years of teaching 3 courses per semester; I’ve even forgotten some of what I once knew well, though in return, I’ve picked up elementary knowledge in disciplines that I didn’t know before.

But, I have many gaps in my own “area”. One of these is in the area of hyperbolic geometry and the geometry of knot complements (think of this way: take a smooth simple closed curve in , add a point at infinity to get (a compact space), now take a solid torus product neighborhood of the knot (“thicken” the knot up into a sort of “rope”) then remove this “rope” from . What you have left over is a “knot complement” manifold.

Now these knot complements fall into one of 3 different types: they are torus knot complements (the knot can live on the “skin” of a torus),

satellite knot complements (the knot can live inside the solid torus that is the product neighborhood of a different, mathematically inequivalent knot,

or the knot complement is “hyperbolic”; it can be given a hyperbolic structure. At least for “most” knots of small “crossing number” (roughly: how many crossings the knot diagram has), are hyperbolic knots.

So it turns out that the complement of such knots can be filled with “horoballs”; roughly speaking, these are the interior of spheres which are “tangent to infinity”; infinity is the “missing stuff” that was removed when the knot was removed from . And, I really never understood what was going on at all.

I suppose that one can view the boundary of these balls (called “horospheres”) as one would view, say, the level planes in ; those planes become spheres when the point at infinity is added.

But the internet is a wonderful thing, and I found a lecture based on the work of Anastasiia Tsvietkova and Morwen Thistlethwaite (who generated the horoball packing photo above) and I’ll be trying to wrap my head around this.

# How can one make a wild knot?

Just a reminder: a knot in is wild if there is no homeomorphism where is a smooth (or p. l.) knot. So, how does one create these things?

This is certainly not an exhaustive list. But the reason I am writing up such a list is I am interested in the following question: for what knots is the following true: there is NO homeomorphism where but there IS a homeomorphism .

Note: the Gordon-Lucke Theorem says that this cannot happen for non-wild knots. That is, tame knots are determined by their complements.

This can happen for some wild knots though. In fact, it is possible for an everywhere wild knot to have a complement which is homeomorophic to a knot with just one wild point.

So, here we go:

1. Infinite product and their limits:

The limit part comes from the following type of construction:

Start with a finite product knot, put a “follow” torus around it, then put in more of the same knot, and a second follow torus which is a satellite of the first knot and repeat this process infinitely often, adding more satellite tori each time.

Then weather or not you get a standard infinite product knot or a knot that is wild at every point depends on how one slides the tori around. In each case, the knot comes from the infinite intersection of the tori.

If the tori are all slid to a single section of the first tori and arranged in order, one gets the classical infinite product. If the knots are “spread out” as one moves to the smaller tori, then one gets the “everywhere wild knot”. See Shilepsky’s paper for details on the second kind of knot and Bothe’s paper for the first kind. I relate the two kinds of knots (thanks for a good referee’s suggestion!) in my paper.

2. Infinite product of tangles.

These are knots like those in the upper right hand corner. Note that these types of knots CAN contain a wild arc in the following sense: given the knot built as the union of two arcs joined at their endpoints, at least one of the arcs is wild. In the infinite product case, the knot is the union of two tame arcs.

I don’t know what the implications of having homeomorphic complements is here.

3. Intersection of a nested set of tori.

Again, I don’t know if these are determined by their complements or not; my guess would be “no”. In my paper, I come up with some invariants for these types of knots.

4. Death spiral knots. (my term for these)

The suggestion for construction is given above. Basically, one starts with the first stage of a type of knot discussed in part 3. But then in the first construction cylinder, one deletes the left most returning arc cylinder (keeps the spanning one). Then cut the torus at the left disk, narrow the cylinder to the left of the left disk, shrink it and glue it to the disk corresponding to the start of the spanning cylinder. Do this in a way that the smaller tori align.

Now the resulting knot is the set of points that lie in an infinite number of cylinders.

I REALLY don’t know what is happening with the complements here.

# Warm up to the Whitehead contractable 3-manifolds…

Eventually I want to talk about proper knot theory: this is the theory of proper embeddings of the real line into open three manifolds.

Note: a proper embedding is one in which the infinities of the real line go to ends of the manifold; the inverse image of the embedded real line intersect a compact set in the manifold has to have a compact pre image. Example of a non-proper embedding of the real line:

Let ; if is any compact set containing in its interior then is unbounded and therefore not compact.

So it would be helpful to have some nice open manifolds to work with and one of the nicest examples of such gadgets are the Whitehead Manifolds.

This diagram represents three stages of the construction.

Here is the first stage: (imagine thickening the knot inside the torus)

If one keeps iterating these embeddings to get nested solid tori where is situated in as shown, and then one gets which is called the Whitehead continuum. Then is the required manifold.

One can also view this as an increasing union as well: in the “simple” diagram think of the inside torus as stage 1 and the outer torus as stage 2; that is, the inner torus is and the outer is . Now there is a homeomorophism where . Then define (composed times). Then the Whitehead manifold is .

It is well known that is open, contractable, not homeomorphic to and that is homeomorphic to ; there is also a new result by Gabai that says that is the union of two copies of . The eventual goal of this note is to show that is homeomorphic to . To do that, I’ll do a bit of warm up and then work through this paper by Glimm, which can be freely accessed here.

**Warm up: why does a smooth knot unknot in 4-space?**

When we work through the proof that is homeomorphic to we will be using the “4’th dimension” to lift the inner torus so as to unwrap it and then put it back in a trivial fashion (the inner torus would lie in a ball of the outer torus) and a product of these things is easy to visualize. So we need some 4-dimensional intuition to get the pictures clear in our mind.

(to you experts: yes, I know that can be thought of a cellular in and therefore is homeomorphic to , but I am trying to get an intuitive visualization here)

So, let’s see how a knot unknots in . Sure, there is an easy way: let where is identified with the hyperplane in . Now pick a point and let be the cone of from . is a piecewise linear disk but is NOT locally flat (and therefore isn’t a famous “slice disk”) because the link of the cone point is a copy of the knot , but this is enough to show that unknots. But that is not very satisfying; let’s construct a nice locally flat disk instead.

Start with a knot diagram; the knot consists of a finite number of arcs in the plane with a finite number of “overpasses” which leaves the plane but stays in the hyperplane.

Here is a view from the top with the z-axis coming at you and the w-axis just somewhere else. 🙂

Now any p. l. (or smooth) knot can be changed into the unknot by changing a finite number of crossings (the above example: we can get the unknot by changing any of the crossings). The minimum number that have to be changed is called the “unknotting number”; in general this is hard to calculate. But that doesn’t matter for this exercise. That that means for us is that there is a homotopy for which ,

is the unknot and if is the collection of arcs of on the plane, for all . That is, this homotopy keeps the plane arcs fixed and moves the necessary overpasses into underpasses so as to effect the necessary crossing changes. Note: of course, the knot has to pass through itself in ; we do get double points at a certain stage. In fact, we might say this homotopy affects the coordinate; think of a homotopy that drives the “unknotting overpasses” straight down and fixes the rest of the knot. So let’s describe the homotopy (in ) in two parts: and then . Now the ambient isotopy in can be described by for points on (the set of arcs in the plane) and

for and .

So the upshot: this isotopy swings the offending overpasses into the next dimension and then returns them underneath the plane; in the final slice, the knot has been taken to the unknot.

So, what does this have to do with the Whitehead manifold? Look at the simple picture of the first stage: one does exactly the same isotopy described in to change the single crossing into an under crossing; this puts in in a trivial manner; hence we have a homeomorphism from to where the latter is a trivial torus pair (one torus embedded in the larger torus in a geometrically trivial way (the inner torus lies in a ball contained in the larger torus).

So we obtain a homeomorphism between the pair which is the identity on the boundary and the latter is just a pair of solid tori where lies in a ball in . The reference linked to above (Glimm) shows that such homeomorphisms can be pieced together to yield a homeomorphism and the latter is known to be homeomorphic to .

Basically, the factor gives one enough “room” to unlink the Whitehead type link in the torus.

This best is simply connected; in fact it is contractable. But it has a very weird property: if one, say, constructs a smooth simple closed curve by, say, running along the center line of one of the defining tori, the complement of this curve (the knot group, if you well) is NOT finitely generated! So this beast is NOT .

# Wild Arcs with simply connected complements: two examples.

**We start with this Fox-Artin example:**

As we saw in this previous post: this arc contains just one wild point; hence its complement is simply connected. But we can say more than that: this arc is “cellular”: that means that there is a collection of smooth 3-balls where . That isn’t too hard so see: start by taking a small round 3-ball that encloses the wild point and taking a union of that ball with a tubular neighborhood of the rest of the arc outside of the ball. That first gadget is “almost” a ball; it might have a few handles which can be filled in. Then take a smaller ball around the wild point and repeat the process with a smaller tubular neighborhood…and repeat.

In fact, we can do this with ANY arc that has just one wild point.

Therefore which is homeomorphic to ; hence this wild arc complement is homeomorphic to the complement of a tame arc.

Aside: this shows that arcs are NOT determined by their complements whereas smooth (or p. l. ) knots are.

But this arc is still wild; it has penetration index 3 near the wild point.

**Now consider this example**

This is like the wild Fox-Artin arc talked about in the previous post in this series, except that “one stitch has been missed. It’s complement is simply connected; the proof of this fact is suggested by this diagram:

The small loop represents a generator of the fundamental group; note how it bounds a disk in the complement of the arc.

However the complement is NOT ! There are different ways to see that; here is a fun one:

This shows with a smooth simple closed curve in its complement. Note: is compact (it is a smooth knot). Therefore there are two different ways to use to show that is NOT homeomorphic to :

1. In , every compact set lies inside of some ball . But one can show that there is no ball that contains and misses

2. One can use algebraic topology: the fundamental group of is NOT finitely generated; in , the complement of any smooth knot is finitely generated.

This gives an example of an open, simply connected manifold that is not homemorphic to .

The interested reader can consult the following references for more detail:

R. Daverman and G. Venema: Embeddings in Manifolds, American Mathematics Society Graduate Studies in Mathemtics, Vol. 106, 2009: Section 2.8

T. B. Rushing, Topological Embeddings, Academic Press, (Pure and Applied Mathematics, Volume 52) 1973, Section 2.4.

# Introduction to Wild Arcs: the interesting stuff that can happen

By “arc” I mean a topological embedding of the unit arc into or .

If the embedding is chosen to be smooth or piecewise linear, there isn’t much to do since all such embeddings are ambient isotopic to a standard, boring linear line segment.

But if we even allow for as much as a single wild point, then weird things can happen.

It is probably best to procede with some examples.

1. Not all “wild looking” arcs are wild.

The arc in the upper left hand corner IS wild and the arc in the lower right hand corner (which is supposed to represent an infinite series of trefoil knots, each tied smaller and smaller and converging to a single point) is NOT wild.

I’ll sketch out a proof as to why it is tame: imagine a series of round 3-balls surrounding the “potentially bad” endpoint: arrange these balls so that they are concentric about the endpoint and there is one trefoil knot between the boundaries of each of these balls (as shown)

Denote these balls by

Now for each trefoil between each there is an ambient isotopy which fixes ALL points outside of and inside and removes the trefoil knot; this is called the “lamp chord trick”:

(from R. H. Bing’s book: The Geometric Topology of 3-Manifolds)

The ONLY points that are moved are those between the boundaries of and .

Denote this orientation preserving homeomorphism by .

We can now define a homemorphism of 3-space by if and otherwise.

This takes this arc to a straight arc.

Note: if we took this “almost wild” arc and added even a slight arc “past” the endpoint, then the above procedure would fail. A wild arc that is the union of two tame arc is called *mildly wild*.

2. An arc that has only one wild point has a simply connected complement, even though the arc is wild.

An example of this is the arc in the upper left and picture. It turns out that if one encloses the “potentially bad” endpoint of the arc by a smooth 2-sphere, that sphere will intersect that arc in at least 3 points. That seems “obvious” but requires proof. And the proof, while not requiring sophisticated techniques (e. g. esoteric algebraic or differential topology), isn’t easy. I know from experience. 🙂

The idea of a sphere surrounding a wild point having to hit the arc in a set number of points is called the “penetration index” of the arc. More on that for a subsequent post; a good reference is: 24), : W. R. Alford and B. J. Ball, Some almost polyhedral wild arcs, Duke Math. J. 30 (1963), 33-38. MR 26 # 1858.

Note: some wild arcs have a wild point with an infinite penetration index.

On the other hand, any closed loop in the complement of the arc bounds a disk that misses the arc. Here is a sketch as to why:

Let be a closed loop (say, a smooth or piecewise linear one) that misses the arc. Two compact sets in a metric space that miss must remain at least some set distance from each other. So enclose the endpoint of the arc by a ball of radius and it is easy to see that bounds a disk that misses that ball. But that disk might hit the arc in a finite number of points. But that is no problem because those points are tame points of the arc; they are outside of the ball that contains the only wild point.

That part of the arc can be enclosed by a tube (called a tubular neighborhood of the arc) that runs to the non-wild endpoint of the arc. That neighborhood can be used to construct “caps” that run around the tame endpoint of the arc; in that way the original disk that bounded can be replaced by a new disk which has “feelers” which push past the tame endpoint of the arc.

Now this proof works for an arc whose wild point is at an endpoint; the same idea works if the solitary wild point is not an end point.

3. There are arcs whose complement is NOT simply connected. Here is an example of one:

Note: the fundamental group of the arc complement maps non-trivially onto a subgroup of the alternating group (the same one you studied in your abstract algebra class).

A good reference for this:

Fox, Ralph H.; Artin, Emil (1948), “Some wild cells and spheres in three-dimensional space”, Annals of Mathematics. Second Series 49: 979–990, ISSN 0003-486X, JSTOR 1969408, MR 0027512

Note: this arc has two wild points.

4. It is possible for two disjoint wild arcs to “link”: that is, be situated in a way so that the arcs are disjoint but also so that there is no sphere which encloses one arc but not the other.

Example: image two copies of the Fox-Artin arc shown above, but in the middle “stitch”, link the two middle strands.

Now if there were a 2-sphere separating the two arcs, it would have to miss each arc (and therefore the 4 wild points) by some distance . So surround each of the 4 wild points with a smooth sphere of radius, say, . Then one can obtain two disjoint graphs; each of these graphs is equal to the respective wild arc outside of the ball bounded by the sphere, and inside the balls we can just connect the non-wild parts of the arcs (the parts outside of the balls) by smooth arcs inside of the balls; hence in a sense, we have approximated the two disjoint wild arcs by two disjoint smooth graphs which are equal to the wild arcs outside of a small neighborhood of the wild points.

It is easy to see (via standard algebraic topology or by classical knot theory techniques) that these two smooth graphs are NOT splittable. Hence the two wild arcs weren’t splittable either.

Note: we have just skimmed the surface of wild arc theory; there is a lot out there.

A good place to start would be the Fox-Artin paper mentioned above along with the two books:

R. Daverman and G. Venema: *Embeddings in Manifolds*, American Mathematics Society Graduate Studies in Mathemtics, Vol. 106, 2009: Section 2.8

T. B. Rushing, *Topological Embeddings*, Academic Press, (Pure and Applied Mathematics, Volume 52) 1973, Section 2.4. The edition I have is out of print; I linked to the newer one.

Note: arcs can be very pathologically embedded in higher dimensions. That doesn’t make sense to me, but check out this paper by D. Wright: (link is to an open access PDF copy)

Abstract. Let A and B be arcs in E^3, Euclidean 3-space. Then A can be

“slipped” off B; i.e., there exists a homeomorphism of ^E3 onto itself,

arbitrarily close to the identity, such that h(A) n B = 0. The purpose of

this note is to show that arcs in E^n (n > 4) do not always enjoy this

property. The examples depend heavily on a recent result of McMillan.1. Introduction. If X and Y are subsets of E^n, Euclidean «-space, we say

that X can be slipped off Y in E ” if for each e > 0 there is an (epsilon)-homeomorphism h: E” -» E” such that h{X) n Y = 0; otherwise, we say X

cannot be slipped off Y. Results of Armentrout [1] and McMillan [5] show that

if A and B are arcs in E^3, then A can be slipped off B. We show that this is

false in higher dimensions by proving the following

Theorem. There exist cellular arcs A and B in E^n (n > 4) such that A

cannot be slipped off B.

This strikes me as very non-intuitive; you’d think that higher dimensional space would provide “more room” for maneuver but it also provides more room to introduce pathologies as well.

To see the beast of an arc that Wright is talking about, here is D. McMillan’s article (open access PDF) about an arc that is so pathological, it doesn’t have a neighborhood inside a manifold that embedds in any . Of course, this neighborhood cannot be a manifold because of the Whitney embedding theorem.

# Knots in three space: non-ambient isotopy equivalence classes

Here, our objects will be knots. Now I don’t want to be too pedantic but we do need some precision here. I will NOT worry about orientation as that will not be important for this type of knot theory.

We have two knots, where is, say, the standard circle in the plane and is a embedding (one to one continuous map), and is possibly some other knot.

We say that and are isotopic if there exists an isotopy where and . As usual, we require to be an embedding for all (if we allow for non embeddings, then we have a homotopy, not an isotopy).

**NOTE** it is very common in the literature to denote “ambient isotopy” by “isotopy”; usually it is clear from context what is meant. But beware of this practice.

Now in this setting (isotopy, possibly non-ambient), it IS important to note if the isotopy is smooth, piecewise linear, or merely topological.

1. If we insist that is smooth, then it is a theorem of differential topology that these smooth isotopies of compact sets “can be covered by an ambient isotopy”; that is, given a smooth we can find an ambient isotopy that accomplishes the same deformation. Note: this is only true for compact sets (in our case, knots). This is NOT true for lines in space.

2. If we insist that be piecewise linear (roughly speaking: take polygonal objects to polygonal objects), then the classification of knots is rather boring. Here is why: the following process is the result of a piecewise linear isotopy:

Think of shrinking the local knot with time until it disappears. Now remember that we are working in ; the complement of a piecewise linear ball is another piecewise linear ball on “the other side”.

Now one can find an interesting theory for links (knots with more than one component) using the piecewise linear isotopies; basically it is the usual ambient isotopy classes for links with the “local knots” removed.

3. If we allow for the isotopy to be topological, we CAN get interesting things happening, provided our knots are wild….”very wild”.

Now if the knots in question “pierce a disk” at a point (that is, there is a disk whose boundary links the knot and whose interior touches the knot “honestly”; that is, the knot enters the product neighborhood of the disk in one side and exits it out the other side; (to you experts: the Bing approximation theorem says we can use a disk that is p. l. everywhere but the point of entry).

Now if the knot pierces a disk: we can thicken that disk to “stretch out” the point into a nice, smooth arc, and then we can employ what we did earlier:

So if there is a knot that is NOT isotopic to the unknot (a simple, smooth simple closed curve that projects to a curve with no crossings), that knot has to be wild enough to fail to pierce a disk at any of its points.

Do such beasts exist? Yes; we’ve seen one in the previous post:

One obtains a knot by iterating this knotted solid tori construction over and over again, and taking the intersection. Yes, one does get a knot out this, and yes, this requires proof. R. H. Bing came up with this example: * A Simple Closed Curve Which Pierces no Disk*, J. Math. Pures and Appl. (9) 35, (1956), 339.

You can find that paper reproduced here in Bing’s “complete works.”

**Open Problem**

It is unknown if this example is isotopic to the standard smooth unknot and it is unknown if there is ANY knot that is isotopic to the standard smooth unknot!

Is is known that there ARE simple knots which fail to pierce a disk at any of their points but ARE isotopic to the unknot:

see M. Brinn: *Curves Isotopic to Plane Curves* in *Continua, Decompositions and Manifolds*, Ed. Bing, Eaton, Starbird, University of Texas Press, 1980, pp. 163-166. Note: this article is mostly diagrams.