Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Bridge trisections of knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds

Jeffrey Meier and Alexander Zupan
  1. aDepartment of Mathematics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602;
  2. bDepartment of Mathematics, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS October 23, 2018 115 (43) 10880-10886; first published October 22, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717171115
Jeffrey Meier
aDepartment of Mathematics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jeffrey.meier@uga.edu
Alexander Zupan
bDepartment of Mathematics, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Yakov Eliashberg, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved March 2, 2018 (received for review October 9, 2017)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

A common theme in low-dimensional topology is to split a complicated space into simple pieces and to study how these pieces can be glued back together to recover the total space. For example, a bridge splitting of a knotted loop in standard 3D space R3 cuts the loop into two collections of unknotted arcs. In dimension four, the interesting knotted objects are surfaces, and in previous work, the authors merged ideas from bridge splitting and trisection theories to define bridge trisections, novel decompositions of knotted surfaces in standard four-dimensional space R4. In this paper, we define generalized bridge trisections for knotted surfaces in more complicated four-dimensional spaces, offering a different approach to knotted surface theory.

Abstract

We prove that every smoothly embedded surface in a 4-manifold can be isotoped to be in bridge position with respect to a given trisection of the ambient 4-manifold; that is, after isotopy, the surface meets components of the trisection in trivial disks or arcs. Such a decomposition, which we call a generalized bridge trisection, extends the authors’ definition of bridge trisections for surfaces in S4. Using this construction, we give diagrammatic representations called shadow diagrams for knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds. We also provide a low-complexity classification for these structures and describe several examples, including the important case of complex curves inside ℂℙ2. Using these examples, we prove that there exist exotic 4-manifolds with (g,0)—trisections for certain values of g. We conclude by sketching a conjectural uniqueness result that would provide a complete diagrammatic calculus for studying knotted surfaces through their shadow diagrams.

  • trisection
  • knotted surface
  • bridge trisection
  • 4-manifold
  • complex curve

Every knot in S3 can be cut into two trivial tangles (collections of unknotted arcs) in a classical decomposition known as a bridge splitting. This structure provides a convenient measure of complexity, the number of unknotted arcs in each collection, and the smallest number of such arcs in any bridge splitting of a given knot K is the widely studied bridge number of K. It is well-known that the idea of a bridge splitting can be extended to other spaces: Every 3-manifold Y admits a Heegaard splitting, a decomposition of Y into two simple pieces called handlebodies, and given a knot K⊂Y, there is an isotopy of K after which it meets each handlebody in a collection of unknotted arcs.

In dimension four, decompositions analogous to Heegaard splittings cut spaces into not two but three components. Gay and Kirby proved that every smooth, closed, connected, orientable 4-manifold (henceforth, 4-manifold) X admits a trisection, splitting X into three simple 4-dimensional pieces (4-dimensional 1-handlebodies) that meet pairwise in 3D handlebodies and have as their common intersection a closed surface. Similarly, in ref. 1 the authors proved that every smoothly embedded, closed surface (henceforth, knotted surface) K in S4 admits a bridge trisection, a decomposition of the pair (S4,K) into three collections of unknotted disks in 4-balls that intersect in trivial tangles in 3-balls, akin to classical bridge splittings in S3. In this paper, we extend this construction to knotted surfaces in arbitrary 4-manifolds. Given a trisection T splitting a 4-manifold X into X1∪X2∪X3, we say that a knotted surface K⊂X is in bridge position if K∩Xi is a collection of unknotted disks and K∩(Xi∩Xj) is a collection of trivial tangles. Our first result is the following.

Theorem 1.

Let X be a 4-manifold with trisection T. Any knotted surface K in X can be isotoped into bridge position with respect to T.

If K⊂X is in bridge position with respect to a trisection, we call the decomposition (X,K)=(X1,K∩X1)∪(X2,K∩X2)∪(X3,K∩X3) a generalized bridge trisection.

Returning to dimension three, we note that it can be fruitful to modify a bridge splitting of a knot K in a 3-manifold Y so that the complexity of the underlying Heegaard splitting increases while the number of unknotted arcs decreases. This process involves a technical operation called meridional stabilization. We show that there is an analogous operation, which we also call meridional stabilization, in the context of bridge trisections. As a result, we prove the next theorem. (Precise definitions are included in Section 1.) A 2-knot is a knotted surface homeomorphic to S2.

Theorem 2.

Let K be a knotted surface with n connected components in a 4-manifold X. The pair (X,K) admits a (g,k;b,n)–generalized bridge trisection satisfying b=3⁢n−χ⁢(K). In particular, if K is a 2-knot in X, then K can be put in 1-bridge position.

A generalized bridge trisection of the type guaranteed by Theorem 2 is called efficient with respect to the underlying trisection T, since it is the smallest possible b and n for any surface with the same Euler characteristic.

As a corollary to Theorem 1, we explain how these decompositions provide a way to encode a knotted surface combinatorially in a 2D diagram, which we call a shadow diagram. We anticipate that this paradigm in the study of knotted surfaces will open a window to structures and connections in this field.

Corollary 3.

Every generalized bridge trisection of a knotted surface K in a 4-manifold X induces a shadow diagram. Moreover, if K has n components, then an efficient generalized bridge trisection of K induces a shadow diagram with 9n−3χ(K) arcs. In particular, if K is a 2-knot in X, then (X,K) admits a doubly-pointed trisection diagram.

A knot that has been decomposed into a pair unknotted arcs admits a representation called a doubly pointed Heegaard diagram; a doubly-pointed trisection diagram is a direct adaptation of this structure. See Section 2 for further details.

In Section 2, we give shadow diagrams for various examples of simple surfaces in 4-manifolds. First, we give a classification of those 2-knots that can be put in 1-bridge position with respect to a genus one trisection of the ambient 4-manifold. We also study complex curves in complex 4-manifolds, announcing preliminary results related to ongoing work with Peter Lambert-Cole. In particular, we announce the following result, which shows that complex curves in ℂℙ2 have efficient generalized bridge trisections with respect to the genus one trisection of ℂℙ2.

Theorem 4.

Let Cd be the complex curve of degree d in ℂ⁢ℙ2. Then, the pair (ℂ⁢ℙ2,Cd) admits an efficient generalized bridge trisection of genus one.

This theorem can be used to prove the existence of efficient exotic trisections, which in this setting are defined to be (g,0)–trisections of 4-manifolds that are homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic to a standard 4-manifold.

Section 3 contains the proofs of the main theorems and corollaries. In Section 4, we turn our attention to the question of uniqueness of generalized bridge trisections. To this end, we offer the following conjecture.

Conjecture 5.

Any two generalized bridge trisections for a pair (X,K) that induce isotopic trisections of X can be made isotopic after a sequence of elementary perturbation and unperturbation moves.

1. Preliminaries

We will work in the smooth category throughout this paper. All 4-manifolds are assumed to be orientable. Let ν(⋅) denote an open regular neighborhood in an ambient manifold that should be clear from context. A knotted surface K in a 4-manifold X is a smoothly embedded, closed surface, possibly disconnected and possibly nonorientable, considered up to smooth isotopy in X. We will often refer to handlebodies in dimensions three and four; except where a further distinction is appropriate, we will use the term handlebody to refer to ♮g(S1×D2) and the term 1-handlebody to refer to ♮k(S1×B3); by the genus of these objects, we mean g and k, respectively.

A trisection T of a closed 4-manifold X, introduced by Gay and Kirby (2), is a decomposition X=X1∪X2∪X3, where Xi is a 1-handlebody, Hij=Xi∩Xj is a handlebody for i≠j, and Σ=X1∩X2∩X3 is a closed surface. A trisection is uniquely determined by its spine, H12∪H23∪H31, and the spine of a trisection can be encoded with a trisection diagram (α,β,γ), a collection of three cut systems α,β,γ on the surface Σ yielding the three handlebodies H31, H12, H23, respectively. (A “cut system” in a genus g surface Σ is a collection of g pairwise disjoint curves cutting Σ into a planar surface, and attaching 2-handles to Σ along a cut system yields a handlebody.) Sometimes it will be useful to assign a complexity to a trisection T: If g is the genus of the central surface Σ and ki is the genus of the 1-handlebody Xi, we call T a (g;k1,k2,k3)–trisection. In the case that k1=k2=k3, we call T a (g,k)–trisection (with k=k1).

A collection of properly embedded arcs τ={τi} in the handlebody H is trivial if there is an isotopy carrying τ into ∂H. Equivalently, there is a collection of pairwise disjoint disks Δ={Δi}, called bridge disks, such that ∂Δi is the endpoint union of τi and an arc τi′ in ∂H. The arc τi′ is called a shadow of τi. We also call a collection of trivial arcs a trivial tangle. Let L be a link in a 3-manifold Y. A bridge splitting of (Y,L) is a decomposition (Y,L)=(H1,τ1)∪Σ(H2,τ2), where Hi is a handlebody containing a trivial tangle τi and Σ=H1∩H2. It is well known that every pair (Y,L) admits a bridge splitting.

Moving to dimension four, a collection D of properly embedded disks in a 1-handlebody V is trivial if the disks D are simultaneously isotopic into ∂V. Let K be a knotted surface in a closed 4-manifold X.

Definition 6:

A generalized bridge trisection of the pair (X,K) is a decomposition (X,K)=(X1,D1)∪(X2,D2)∪(X3,D3), where X=X1∪X2∪X3 is a trisection, Di is a collection of trivial disks in Xi, and for i≠j, the arcs τij=Di∩Dj form a trivial tangle in Hij.

In ref. 1, the authors proved that every knotted surface in S4 admits a generalized bridge trisection in which the underlying trisection of S4 is the standard genus zero trisection. We will refer to such a decomposition simply as a bridge trisection. The present article extends this theorem to a given trisection of an arbitrary 4-manifold.

Definition 7:

If T is a trisection of X given by X=X1∪X2∪X3, and K is a knotted surface in X such that (X,K)=(X1,K∩X1)∪(X2,K∩X2)∪(X3,K∩X3) is a generalized bridge trisection, we say that K is in bridge position with respect to T.

The union (H12,τ12)∪(H23,τ23)∪(H31,τ31) is called the spine of a generalized bridge trisection. As is the case with trisections, bridge trisections are uniquely determined by their spines. Fortunately, the same is true for generalized bridge trisections. To prove this fact, we need the following lemma.

Lemma 8.

Let V be a 1-handlebody, and let L be an unlink contained in ∂V. Up to an isotopy fixing L, the unlink L bounds a unique collection of trivial disks in V.

Proof:

It is well-known that the statement is true when V is a 4-ball (3). Suppose that D and D′ are two collections of trivial disks properly embedded in V such that ∂D=∂D′=L. Let B denote a collection of properly embedded 3-balls in V cutting V into a 4-ball, and let S=∂B. Since L is an unlink, we may isotope S in ∂V (along with B in V) so that L∩S=∅. Since D is a collection of boundary parallel disks in V, there exists a set of disks D∗⊂∂V isotopic to D via an isotopy fixing L. Choose D∗ so that the number of components of D∗∩S is minimal among all such sets of disks.

We claim that D∗∩S=∅. First, we observe that every embedded 2-sphere S⊂∂V bounds a properly embedded 3-ball in V: If S does not bound a 3-ball in ∂V, then either S is an essential separating sphere, splitting ∂V into two components, each of which is a connected sum of copies of S1×S2, or S is an essential nonseparating sphere, and there is an S1×S2 summand of ∂V in which S is isotopic to {pt}×S2. In either case, we can cap off ∂V with 4-dimensional 3-handles and a 4-handle to obtain a 1-handlebody in which S bounds a 3-ball. However, this capping-off process is unique (4), and thus S bounds a 3-ball in V as well.

To prove the claim, suppose by way of contradiction that D∗∩S≠∅, and choose a curve c of D∗∩S that is innermost in a sphere component of S, so c bounds a disk E in this component such that int(E)∩D∗=∅. Note that c also bounds a subdisk D of a component of D∗, so S=E∪D is a 2-sphere embedded in ∂V. By the above argument, S bounds a 3-ball B that is properly embedded in V; thus, int(B)∩D∗=∅. It follows that there is an isotopy of D∗ through B in V that pushes D onto E. If D∗′ is the set of disks obtained from D∗ by removing D and gluing on a copy of E (pushed slightly off of S), then D∗′ is isotopic to D∗, with |D∗′∩S|<|D∗∩S|, a contradiction.

It follows that D∗∩S=∅, and we conclude that after isotopy D is contained in the 4-ball W=V∖ν(B). Similarly, we can assume that after isotopy D′ is contained in W. It now follows from ref. 3 that D and D′ are isotopic, as desired. □

Corollary 9.

A generalized bridge trisection is uniquely determined by its spine.

We also observe that we can compute the Euler characteristic of a surface K from the parameters of a generalized bridge trisection. If K⊂X is in bridge position with respect to a trisection T of X, we will set the convention that ci=|K∩Xi| and b=|K∩Hij|=|K∩Σ|/2. The next lemma follows from a standard argument in ref. 1.

Lemma 10.

Suppose that K⊂X is in bridge position with respect to a trisection T. Thenχ(K)=c1+c2+c3−b.

As with trisections, we may wish to assign a complexity to generalized bridge trisections. The most specific designation has eight parameters. If T is a generalized bridge trisection, and the underlying trisection has complexity (g;k1,k2,k3), we say that the complexity of the generalized bridge trisection is (g;k1,k2,k3;b;c1,c2,c3). In the case that k=k1=k2=k3 and c=c1=c2=c3, we say that T is balanced and denote its complexity by (g,k,b,c). Even more generally, a (g,b)-generalized bridge trisection refers to a generalized bridge trisection with a genus g central surface that meets K in 2b points. In Section 2, we classify all (1,1)-generalized bridge trisections. If the underlying trisection is the genus zero trisection of S4, as in ref. 1, we call T a (b;c1,c2,c3)-bridge trisection or a (b,c)-bridge trisection in the balanced case.

2. Examples

Before including proofs in the next section, we present several examples of generalized bridge trisections and shadow diagrams of knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds.

A. Shadow Diagrams

Just as a trisection diagram determines the spine of a trisection, a type of diagram called a triplane diagram determines the spine of a bridge trisection, as shown in ref. 1. Unfortunately, triplane diagrams do not naturally extend from bridge trisections to generalized bridge trisections. Instead, we use a structure called a “shadow diagram.” Let τ be a trivial tangle in a handlebody H. A curve-and-arc system (α,a) determining (H,τ) is a collection of pairwise disjoint simple closed curves α and arcs a in Σ=∂H such that α determines H and a is a collection of shadow arcs for τ. Note that curves in α and arcs in a can be chosen to be disjoint by standard cut-and-paste arguments using compressing disks for H and bridge disks for τ. A shadow diagram for a generalized bridge trisection T is a triple ((α,a),(β,b),(γ,c)) of curve-and-arc systems determining the spine (H31,τ31)∪(H12,τ12)∪(H23,τ23) of T. Since every trivial tangle in a handlebody can be defined by a curve-and-arc system, it is clear that Corollary 3 follows immediately from Theorem 1.

B. The 1-Bridge Trisections

One family which deserves special consideration is the collection of 1-bridge trisections, i.e., (g,1)-generalized bridge trisections. If K has a such a splitting, then it intersects each sector Xi of the underlying trisection in a single disk and each handlebody in a single arc. In this case, we deduce from Lemma 10 that K is a 2-knot, and the generalized bridge trisection is efficient. Shadow diagrams for generalized bridge trisections of this type are particularly simple: A doubly-pointed trisection diagram is a shadow diagram in which each curve-and-arc system contains exactly one arc. In this case, drawing the arc in the diagram is redundant, since there is a unique way (up to admissible slides of the arcs and curves) to connect the two points in the complement of any one of the sets of curves.

In Fig. 1, we depict several doubly pointed diagrams for low-complexity examples. First, we give diagrams for the two simplest complex curves in ℂℙ2, namely, the line ℂℙ1 and the quadric C2. Next, we give diagrams for an S2–fiber in S2×S2 and the sphere C(1,1) in S2×∼S2 representing (1,1)∈ℤ⊕ℤ≅H2(S2×∼S2). (See ref. 5 for formal definitions.) We postpone the justification for these diagrams until Section 3, in which we develop the machinery to make such justification possible.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Some doubly-pointed trisection diagrams. From left to right: (ℂℙ2,ℂℙ1), (ℂℙ2,C2), (S2×S2,S2×{∗}), and (S2×∼S2,C(1,1)).

By results in refs. 1, 6, and 7, any surface with a (0,b)–generalized bridge trisection (i.e., a b-bridge trisection) for b<4 is unknotted in S4. In Section 3, we will prove the following classification result.

Proposition 11.

There are exactly two nontrivial (1,1)–knots (up to change of orientation and mirroring): (ℂ⁢ℙ2,ℂ⁢ℙ1) and (ℂ⁢ℙ2,C2).

On the other hand, there are many 2-knots admitting (3,1)-generalized bridge trisections: Perform three meridional stabilizations (defined in Section 3) on any (4,2)-bridge trisection, of which there are infinitely many (1). We offer the following as worthwhile problems.

Problem 12.

Classify 2-knots admitting (2,1)-generalized bridge trisections and projective planes admitting (1,2)-generalized bridge trisections.

With regard to Problem 12, Fig. 2 shows a (2,1)–shadow diagram for the standard projective (real) plane (ℂℙ2,ℝℙ2) that is the lift of the standard cross-cap in S4 with normal Euler number −2 under the branched double covering. More generally, consider a surface knot (or link) (X,K), and let Xn(K) denote the n-fold cover of X, branched along K. Let K∼n denote the lift of K under this covering.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

The branched double covering projection relating the standard cross-cap (S4,ℙ+) and its cover (ℂℙ2,ℝℙ2).

Proposition 13.

If (X,K) admits a (g;k1,k2,k3;b;c1,c2,c3)–generalized bridge trisection, then (Xn⁢(K),K∼) admits a (g′;k1′,k2′,k3′;b,c1,c2,c3)–generalized bridge trisection, where g′=n⁢g+(n−1)⁢(b−1) and ki′=n⁢ki+(n−1)⁢(ci−1).

Proof:

It is a standard exercise to show that the n-fold cover of a genus g handlebody branched along a collection of b trivial arcs is a handlebody of genus g′=ng+(n−1)(b−1), with the lift of the original b trivial arcs being a collection of b trivial arcs upstairs. From this, the rest of the proposition follows, once we observe that the trivial disk system (♮k(S1×B3),D) is simply the trivial tangle product (♮k(S1×D2),τ)×I, and that the branched covering respects this product structure. Thus, each piece of the trisection lifts to a standard piece, so the cover is trisected. □

C. Complex Curves in ℂℙ2.

In this subsection, we summarize results that have been obtained in collaboration with Peter Lambert-Cole regarding generalized bridge trisections of complex curves in complex 4-manifolds of low trisection genus (e.g., ℂℙ2, S2×S2, and ℂℙ2#ℂℙ2¯). Let Cd denote the complex curve of degree d in ℂℙ2. Note that Cd is a closed surface of genus (d−1)(d−2)/2.

Theorem 4.

The pair (ℂ⁢ℙ2,Cd) admits a (1,1;(d−1)⁢(d−2)+1,1)-generalized bridge trisection.

In other words, complex curves in ℂℙ2 admit efficient generalized bridge trisections with respect to the genus one trisection of ℂℙ2; each such curve can be decomposed as the union of three disks (c=1). See Fig. 3. Let Xn,d denote the 4-manifold obtained as the n-fold cover of ℂℙ2, branched along Cd, which exists whenever n divides d. When n=d, we have that Xd,d is the degree d hypersurface in ℂℙ3. The next corollary follows from Theorem 4 and Proposition 13.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Two shadow diagrams for C3 in ℂℙ2. The diagram on the left is due to Peter Lambert-Cole, and the diagram on the right is efficient.

Corollary 14.

Xn,d admits an efficient (g,0)-trisection where g=n+(n−1)⁢(d−1)⁢(d−2).

Note that Zp,q,r=pℂℙ2#qℂℙ2¯#rS2×S2 admits as (g,0)-trisection where g=p+q+2r. It had been speculated that an extension of the main theorems of refs. 6 and 7 would show that every manifold admitting a (g,0)-trisection is diffeomorphic to Zp,q,r; however, Corollary 14 gives many interesting counterexamples to this suspicion.

For example, if d is odd and at least five, then Xd,d is homeomorphic, but not diffeomorphic, to Zp,q,0 for certain p,q≥0 (8). Thus, we see that there are pairs of exotic manifolds that are not distinguished by their trisection invariants. We note that Baykur and Saeki have previously given examples of inefficient exotic trisections (9).

3. Proofs

In the first part of this section, we will prove a sequence of lemmas which, taken together, imply Theorem 1. In the second part, we prove Proposition 11, classifying (1,1)-generalized bridge trisections. In the third part, we introduce the notion of meridional stabilization and prove Theorem 2.

A. The Existence of Generalized Bridge Splittings.

Here, we discuss the interaction between handle decompositions and trisections of closed 4-manifolds. We will not rigorously define handle decompositions but direct the interested reader to ref. 5.

Suppose H is a handle decomposition of a 4-manifold X with a single 0-handle and a single 4-handle. Corresponding to H, there is a Morse function h:X→ℝ, equipped with a gradient-like vector field that induces the handle decomposition H. We will suppose that each Morse function is equipped with a gradient-like vector field (which we will neglect to mention henceforth). After an isotopy, we may assume that every critical point of index i occurs in the level h−1(i). Such a Morse function is called self-indexing. For any subset S⊂ℝ, let YS denote X∩h−1(S). Let Z be a compact submanifold of Y{t} for some t, and let [r,s] be an interval containing t. We will let Z[r,s] denote the subset of X obtained by pushing Z along the flow of h during time [r,s]. (For example, if t∈(r,s), this will involve pushing Z up and down the flow.) In particular, if this set does not contain a critical point of h, then Z[r,s] is diffeomorphic to Z×[r,s]. We let Z{t′} denote Z[r,s]∩h−1(t′).

Now, let H be a handle decomposition of X with ni i-handles for i=1,2,3, and let T be the attaching link for the 2-handles, so that T is an n2-component framed link contained in #n1(S1×S2) with Dehn surgery yielding #n3(S1×S2). In addition, let h:X→ℝ be a self-indexing Morse function inducing H. We suppose without loss of generality that T is contained in Y{3/2}=#n1(S1×S2), and we let Σ be a genus g Heegaard surface cutting Y{3/2} into handlebodies H and H′, where a core of the handlebody H contains T.

The following lemma is essentially lemma 14 of ref. 2, in which it is proved in slightly different terms.

Lemma 15.

Let X be a 4-manifold with self-indexing Morse function h, and, using the notation above, consider the setsX1=Y[0,3/2]∪H′[3/2,2],X2=H[3/2,5/2],X3=H′[2,5/2]∪Y[5/2,4].The decomposition X=X1∪X2∪X3 is a (g;n1,g−n2,n3)-trisection with central surface Σ{2}.

Given a self-indexing Morse function h and surface Σ as above, we will let T(h,Σ) denote the trisection described by Lemma 15. The next lemma also comes from ref. 2; it is a restatement of lemma 13 from that work.

Lemma 16.

Given a trisection T of X, there is a self-indexing Morse function h and surface Σ⊂Y{3/2} such that T=T⁢(h,Σ).

Now we turn our focus to knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds. Suppose that K is a knotted surface in X. A Morse function of the pair h:(X,K)→ℝ is a Morse function h:X→ℝ with the property that the restriction hK is also Morse. Note that for any K⊂X, a Morse function h:X→ℝ becomes a Morse function of the pair (X,K) after a slight perturbation of K in X. Expanding upon the previous notation, for S⊂ℝ, we let LS denote K∩h−1(S). Let J be a compact submanifold of L{t} for some t, and let [r,s] be an interval containing t. We will let J[r,s] denote the subset of K obtained by pushing J along the flow of hK during time [s,r]. As above, if this set does not contain a critical point of hK, then J[r,s] is diffeomorphic to J×[r,s].

Saddle points of hK can be described as cobordisms between links obtained by resolving bands: Given a link L in a 3-manifold Y, a band is an embedded rectangle R=I×I such that R∩L=∂I×I. We resolve the band R to get a new link by removing the arcs ∂I×I from L and replacing them with the arcs I×∂I. Note that every band R can be represented by a framed arc η=I×{1/2}, so η meets L only in its endpoints. Let h be a Morse function of the pair (X,K), suppose that all critical points of h and hK occur at distinct levels, and let x∈K be a saddle point contained in the level h−1(t). Then, there is a framed arc η with endpoints in the link L{t−ϵ} with the property that the link L{t+ϵ} is obtained from L{t−ϵ} by resolving the band corresponding to η. We will use this fact in the proof of the next lemma, which is related to the notion of a normal form for a 2-knot in S4 (10, 11).

Lemma 17.

Suppose X is a 4-manifold equipped with a handle decomposition H, and K is a surface embedded in X. After an isotopy of K, there exists a Morse function of the pair (X,K) such that h is a self-indexing Morse function inducing the handle decomposition H, and index i critical points of hK occur in the level Y{i+1}.

Proof:

Let Γ1 be an embedded wedge of circles containing the cores of the 1-handles, so that ν(Γ1) is the union of the 0-handle and the 1-handles of H. Similarly, let Γ3 be an embedded wedge of circles such that ν(Γ3) is the union of the 3-handles and 4-handle. After isotopy K meets Γ1 and Γ3 transversely; hence K∩Γ1=K∩Γ3=∅, and thus we can initially choose a self-indexing Morse function h:X→ℝ so that ν(Γ1)=Y[0,1+ϵ), ν(Γ3)=Y(3−ϵ,4], and K⊂Y(1+ϵ,3−ϵ). For each minimum point of hK, choose a descending arc avoiding K and the critical points of h and drag the minimum downward within a neighborhood of this arc until it is contained in Y{1}. Similarly, there is an isotopy of K after which all maxima are contained in Y{3}.

It only remains to show that after isotopy, all saddles of hK are contained in Y{2}. Let T be the attaching link for the 2-handles of H, considered as a link in Y{2}. For each saddle point xi in level ti<2, let ηi be the framed arc with endpoints in L{ti}, where 1≤i≤n, so that Lti+ϵ is obtained from Lti−ϵ by resolving the band induced by ηi. Certainly, η1 is disjoint from Lt1−ϵ except at its endpoints. A priori, η2 may intersect the band induced by η1, but after a small isotopy, we may assume that η2 avoids η1 and thus we can push η2 into Y{t1}. Continuing this process, we may push all arcs ηi into Y{t1}, and generically, the graph Lt1−ϵ∪{ηi} is disjoint from T, so the entire apparatus can be pushed into Y{2}. A parallel argument shows that the framed arcs coming from saddles occurring between t=2 and t=3 can be pushed down into Y{2}, as desired. □

We call a Morse function h:(X,K)→ℝ that satisfies the conditions in Lemma 17 a self-indexing Morse function of the pair (X,K). Given such a function, we can push the framed arcs {ηi} corresponding to the saddles of hK into the level Y{3/2}, where the endpoints of {ηi} are contained in L{3/2} and resolving L{3/2} along the bands given by {ηi} yields the link L{5/2}. A banded link diagram for K consists of the union of L{3/2} with the bands given by {ηi}, contained in Y{3/2}, along with the framed attaching link for the 2-handles in X, denoted by T⊂Y{3/2}. As such, a banded link diagram completely determines the knotted surface K⊂X. Let H be the handle decomposition of X determined by h. As above, let Σ be a Heegaard surface cutting Y{3/2} into handlebodies H and H′, where a core of H contains T.

Let Γ=L{3/2}∪{ηi} in Y{3/2}. We will show that Γ may be isotoped to be in a relatively nice position with respect to the surface Σ, from which it will follow that there is an isotopy of K to be in a relatively nice position with respect to the trisection T(h,Σ). An arc η⊂∂H is dual to a trivial arc τi⊂H if there is a shadow τi′ for τi that meets η in one endpoint. Finally, a collection of pairwise disjoint arcs {ηi}⊂∂H is said to be dual to a trivial tangle {τi} if there is a collection of shadows {τ′i} that meet {ηi} only in their endpoints and such that each component of {ηi}∪{τ′i} is simply connected (in other words, this collection contains only arcs, not loops).

We say that Γ is in bridge position with respect to Σ if the link L{3/2} is in bridge positions and in addition, {ηi}⊂Σ with framing given by the surface framing and the arcs {ηi} are dual to the trivial arcs L{3/2}∩H. To clarify, the arc ηi⊂Σ has framing given by the surface framing exactly when the band induced by ηi meets Σ in the single arc ηi. Next, we show that such structures exist, after which we describe how they induce generalized bridge trisections of (X,K).

Lemma 18.

Given a knotted surface K⊂X and a self-indexing Morse function h of the pair (X,K), let Σ, H, H′, T, and Γ be as defined above. There exists an isotopy of Γ in Y{3/2} after which Γ is in bridge position with respect to Σ.

Proof:

This decomposition is similar to the notion of a banded bridge splitting from ref. 1, where the detailed arguments in theorem 1.3 do not make use of the fact that Σ is sphere and thus transfer directly to this setting. We give a brief outline of the proof, but refer the reader to ref. 1 for further details.

Consider cores C⊂H and C′⊂H′, which may be chosen so that T⊂C and both C and C′ are disjoint from Γ. Note that Y{3/2}∖(C∪C′) is diffeomorphic to Σ×(−1,1) and thus there is a natural projection from Y{3/2}∖(C∪C′) onto Σ=Σ×{0}. By equipping this projection with crossing information, we may view it as an isotopy of Γ within Y{3/2}∖(C∪C′). First, if the arcs {ηi} project to arcs that cross themselves or each other, we may stretch L{3/2} and shrink {ηi} so these crossings are slid to L{3/2}, after which the projection of the collection {ηi} is embedded in Σ. (see figure 10 of ref. 1). It may be possible that some surface framing of some arc ηi disagrees with its given framing; in this case, an isotopy of L{3/2} allows ηi to be pushed off of and back onto Σ with the desired framing, as in figure 11 of ref. 1. Thus, we may assume condition (2) of the definition of bridge position of Γ is satisfied.

Now, we push the projection L{3/2} off of Σ so that L{3/2} is in bridge position, fulfilling condition (1) of the definition of bridge position. At this point, it may not be the case that the arcs {ηi} are dual to L{3/2}∩H; however, this requirement may be achieved by perturbing L{3/2} near the endpoints of the arcs {ηi} in Σ, as in figure 12 of ref. 1. □

Lemma 19.

Suppose that K is a knotted surface in X, with self-indexing Morse function h of the pair (X,K) and Σ, H, H′, T, and Γ as defined above. Suppose further that Γ is in bridge position with respect to Σ, push the arcs {ηi} slightly into the interior of H. Let X1, X2, and X3 be defined as in Lemma 15, and define Di=K∩Xi. Then(X,K)=(X1,D1)∪(X2,D2)∪(X3,D3)is a generalized bridge trisection of (X,K).

Proof:

By Lemma 15, the underlying decomposition X=X1∪X2∪X3 is a trisection, and thus we must show that Di is a trivial disk system in Xi and Di∩Dj is a trivial tangle in the handlebody Xi∩Xj.

Let τ=L{3/2}∩H and τ′=L{3/2}∩H′, so that each of τ and τ′ is a trivial tangle in H and H′, respectively. We note that by construction, D1=L[1,3/2]∪τ′[3/2,2], D2=τ[3/2,5/2], and D3=L[5/2,3]∪τ′[2,5/2]. Thus, there is a Morse function of the pair (X1,D1) that contains only minimal, so that D1 is a collection of trivial disks in X1. Similarly, (X3,D3) contains only maxima, so that D3⊂X3 is a collection of trivial disks as well. We also note that D1∩D3=τ′{2}, a collection of trivial arcs in X1∩X3, and D1∩D2=τ{3/2}∪(∂τ)[3/2,2], a collection of trivial arcs in X1∩X2.

It only remains to show that D2 is a collection of trivial disks in X2, and D2∩D3 is a collection of trivial arcs in X2∩X3. However, this follows immediately from lemma 3.1 of ref. 1; although the proof of lemma 3.1 is carried out in the context of the standard trisection of S4, it can be applied verbatim here. □

Proof of Theorem 1:

By Lemma 16, there exists a self-indexing Morse function h:X→ℝ and Heegaard surface Σ⊂Y{3/2} such that T=T(h,Σ). Applying Lemma 17, we have that there is an isotopy of K after which h:(X,K)→ℝ is a self-indexing Morse function of the pair. Moreover, by Lemma 18, there is a further isotopy of K after which the graph Γ induced by the saddle points of hK is in bridge position with respect to Σ. Finally, the decomposition defined in Lemma 19 is a generalized bridge trisection of (X,K), completing the proof. □

We note that as in lemma 3.3 and remark 3.4 from ref. 1, this process is reversible; in other words, every bridge trisection of (X,K) can be used to extract a handle decomposition of K within X. The proof of lemma 3.3 applies directly in this case, and when we combine it with Lemma 16 above, we have the following:

Proposition 20.

If T is a (g;k1,k2,k3;b;c1,c2,c3)-generalized bridge trisection of (X,K), then there is a Morse function h of the pair (X,K) such that h has k1 index one critical points, g−k2 index two critical points, and k3 index three critical points; and hK has c1 minima, b−c2 saddles, and c3 maxima.

We can now justify the diagrams in Fig. 1. By Proposition 20, a 1-bridge trisection will give rise to a banded link diagram without bands corresponding to a Morse function h of the pair (X,K) such that hK has a single minimum and maximum. From the shadow diagrams in Fig. 1, we extract banded link diagrams, shown directly beneath each shadow diagram. In each case, the black curve in Fig. 1 bounds a disk (the minimum of hK) in the 4-dimensional 0-handle and a disk (the maximum of hK) in the union of the 2-handles with the 4-handle. For example, in the first and third figure, we see that the 2-knot is the union of a trivial disk in the 0-handle, together with a cocore of a 2-handle. The second figure is a well-known description of the quadric. See subsection above. The fourth figure can be obtained by connected summing the first figure with its mirror.

B. Classification of (1,1)-Generalized Bridge Trisections.

In this subsection, we prove Proposition 11, classifying (1,1)-generalized bridge trisections.

Proof of Proposition 11:

Suppose that (X,K) admits a (1,1)-generalized bridge trisection T. Then c1=c2=c3=1, χ(K)=2, and K is a 2-sphere. In addition, by Proposition 20, there is a self-indexing Morse function h on (X,K) so that hK has one minimum, one maximum, and no saddles. If h has no index two critical points, then (X,K) is the double of a trivial disk in a 4-ball or 1-handlebody; thus, K is unknotted. If any one ki=1, then after permuting indices, we may assume that the induced h has no index two critical points. Thus, the only remaining case is k1=k2=k3=0, and so X=ℂℙ2 or ℂℙ¯2.

We will only consider the case X=ℂℙ2; parallel arguments apply by reversing orientations. Let h be a self-indexing Morse function for T, so that Y{3/2} is diffeomorphic to S3, L{3/2} is an unknot we call C, and T is a (+1)-framed unknot disjoint from C in Y{3/2}. In addition, attaching a 2-handle to T yields another copy of S3, in which C remains unknotted. In other words, C is an unknot in S3 that is still unknotted after (+1)-Dehn surgery on T. There are three obvious links C∪T that satisfy these requirements: a two-component unlink, a Hopf link, and the torus link T(2,2). The first of these three corresponds to the unknotted 2-sphere. The next two correspond to ℂℙ1 and C2, respectively. We claim no other links C∪T of this type exist.

Consider T as a (nontrivial) knot in the solid torus S3∖ν(C). Since C remains unknotted after (+1)-surgery on T, it follows that T is a knot in a solid torus with a solid torus surgery. Let ω denote the linking number of C and T, so that ω is also the winding number of T in S3∖ν(C). By ref. 12, one of the following holds: ω=1 and T∪C is the Hopf link, ω=2 and T∪C is the torus link T(2,2), or ω≥3 and the slope of the surgery on T is at least four. The third case contradicts the assumption that the surgery slope is one, completing the proof. □

Remark 21:

A similar argument invoking (13) can be used to show that the only nontrivial 2-knots in S4, ℂ⁢ℙ2, ℂ⁢ℙ¯2, or S1×S3 admitting a (2,1)-generalized bridge trisection are ℂℙ1 and C2, as above.

C. Meridional Stabilization.

Consider a link L in a 3-manifold Y, equipped with a (g,b)-bridge splitting (Y,L)=(H1,τ1)∪(H2,τ2), where b≥2. Fix a trivial arc τ′∈τ2, and let H1′=H1∪ν(τ′)¯ and H2′=H2∖ν(τ′). In addition, let τi′=L∩Hi′, so that τ1′=τ1∪τ′ and τ2′=τ2∖τ′. Then the decomposition (Y,L)=(H1′,τ1′)∪(H2′,τ2′) is a (g+1,b−1)-bridge splitting which is called a meridional stabilization of the given (g,b)-splitting. (See ref. 14, for example.)

In this subsection, we will extend meridional stabilization to a similar construction involving generalized bridge trisections to prove Theorem 2. Let T be a generalized bridge trisection for a connected knotted surface K⊂X with complexity (g;k1,k2,k3;b;c1,c2,c3), and assume that c1≥2. Since K is connected, there exists an arc τ′∈τ23 with the property that the two endpoints of τ′ lie in different components of D1. Define (X1′,D1′)=(X1∪ν(τ′)¯,D1∪(ν(τ′)¯∩K)) and (Xj′,Dj′)=(Xj∖ν(τ′),Dj∖ν(τ′)) for j=2,3, and let T′ be the decomposition(X,K)=(X1′,D1′)∪(X2′,D2′)∪(X3′,D3′).We say that the decomposition T′ is obtained from T via meridional 1-stabilization along τ′. We define meridional i-stabilization similarly for i=2 or 3. Observe that the assumption that K is connected is slightly stronger than necessary; the existence of the arc τ′∈τjk connecting two disks in Di is necessary and sufficient. Notably, T′ is a generalized bridge splitting for (X,K), which we verify in the next lemma. Fig. 4 shows the local picture of a meridional 1–stabilization.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

A sample meridional 1-stabilization along τ′ (light green, top right). Meridional stabilization increases the genus of the central surface by one, and a new compressing curve is shown for each handlebody in the bottom half of the figure.

Lemma 22.

The decomposition T′ of (X,K) is a generalized bridge trisection of complexity (g+1;k1+1,k2,k3;b−1;c1−1,c2,c3).

Proof:

Since τ′⊂∂Xj for j=2 and 3, we have that (Xj′,Dj′)≅(Xj,Dj). Let X′=ν(τ′)¯∩(X2∪X3) and D′=ν(τ′)¯∩(D2∪D3). Then X′ is a topological 4-ball intersecting X1 in two 3-balls in ∂X1; i.e., X′ is a 1-handle. It follows that X1′ is obtained from X1 by the attaching a 1-handle, so X1′≅♮k1+1(S1×B3). Similarly, D′ is a band connecting disks D1 and D2 in D1. Since these disks are trivial, we can assume without loss of generality that D1 and D2 have been isotoped to lie in ∂X1, and since D′ is boundary parallel inside X′, the disk D′=D1∪D′∪D2 is boundary parallel in X1′. It follows that D1′=D1∖(D1∪D2)∪D′ is a trivial (c1−1)–disk system.

It remains to verify that the 3D components of the new construction are trivial tangles in handlebodies. Observe that for {j,k}={2,3}, the decomposition (∂Xj,∂Dj)=(H1j′,τ1j′)∪(Hjk′,τjk′) is a 3D meridional stabilization of (∂Xj,∂Dj)=(H1j,τ1j)∪(Hjk,τjk). Thus, τij′ is a trivial (b−1)-strand tangle in the genus g+1 handlebody Hij′, as desired. □

We can now prove Theorem 2, which implies Corollary 3 as an immediate consequence.

Proof of Theorem 2:

Start with a generalized bridge trisection of (X,K). If there is a spanning arc τ′ of the type that is necessary and sufficient for a meridional stabilization, then we perform the stabilization. Thus, we assume there are no such spanning arcs. If Di contains ci disks, then since there are no τ′–type arcs in τjk for i,j,k distinct, it follows that the ci disks belong to distinct connected components of K. Thus, ci=n, and χ(K)=c1+c2+c3−b=3n−b, so that b=3n−χ(K). □

4. Uniqueness of Generalized Bridge Trisections

In general, the types of splittings discussed in this article are not unique up to isotopy, but a guiding principle is that two splittings for a fixed space become isotopic after some number of generic operations, such as the meridional stabilization operation defined above. For example, any two Heegaard splittings for a fixed 3-manifold Y become isotopic after some number of stabilization operations (15, 16), and any two bridge splittings for K⊂Y with a fixed underlying Heegaard splitting become isotopic after some number of perturbation operations (17, 18). In dimension four, stabilization for a trisection T of a 4-manifold X can be viewed as taking the connected sum of T and the standard genus three trisection of S4, and Gay and Kirby proved that any pair of trisections for X become isotopic after some number of trisections (2). The purpose of this section is to define perturbations for generalized bridge trisections and lay out steps toward a proof of a corresponding uniqueness theorem in this setting.

Let L be an n-component unlink in Y=#k(S1×S2). The standard bridge splitting of L is defined to be the connected sum of the standard genus k Heegaard splitting of Y with the standard (classical) n–bridge splitting of L (the connected sum of n copies of the 1-bridge splitting of the unknot). The first ingredient we will need to define perturbation is the following proposition, which uses a result in ref. 19 and follows from a proof identical to that of proposition 2.3 in ref. 1.

Proposition 23.

Every bridge splitting of an unlink L in #k(S1×S2) is isotopic to some number of perturbations and stabilizations performed on the standard bridge splitting.

Consider a bridge trisection T for a knotted surface K⊂X, with components notated as above. Proposition 23 implies the key fact that K admits a shadow diagram ((α,a),(β,b),(γ,c)) such that a pair of collections of arcs, say a and b for convenience, do not meet in their interiors, and in addition, the union a∪b cuts out a collection of embedded disks D∗ from the central surface Σ. Choose a single component D∗ of these disks together with an embedded arc δ∗ in D∗ which connects an arc a′∈a to an arc b′∈b. Note that D∗ is a trivialization of the disks D1⊂X1 bounded by τ31∪τ12 in ∂X1=H31∪H12, so that we may consider δ∗ and D∗ to be embedded in the surface K. In addition, there is an isotopy of D∗ in ∂X1 pushing the shadows a∪b onto arcs in τ31∪τ12, making D∗ transverse to Σ and carrying δ∗ to an embedded arc in ∂X1 that meets the central surface Σ in one point.

Let Δ be a rectangular neighborhood of δ∗ in D∗, and consider the isotopy of K, supported in Δ, which pushes δ∗⊂K away from X1 in the direction normal to ∂X1. Let K′ be the resulting embedding, which is isotopic to K. The next lemma follows from the proof of lemma 6.1 in ref. 1.

Lemma 24.

The embedding K′ is in (b+1)-bridge position with respect to the trisection X=X1∪X2∪X3, and if ci′=|K′∩Xi|, then c1′=c1+1, c2′=c2, and c3′=c3.

We call the resulting bridge trisection an elementary perturbation of T, and if T′ is the result of some number of elementary perturbations performed on T, we call T′ a perturbation of T. Work in ref. 1 also makes clear how to perturb via a shadow diagram. View the rectangle Δ as being contained in Σ, and parameterize it as Δ=δ∗×I. Now, crush Δ to a single arc c′=∗×I that meets δ∗ transversely once. Considering the arc c′ as a shadow arc for the third tangle, the result is a shadow diagram for the elementary perturbation of T. See Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

An illustration (at the level of the shadow diagram) of an elementary 1-perturbation of a generalized bridge splitting.

In ref. 1, the authors prove that any two bridge trisections for a knotted surface (S4,K) are related by a sequence of perturbations and unperturbations. In the setting of generalized bridge trisections, we have the following conjecture.

Conjecture 25.

Any two generalized bridge trisections for (X,K) with the same underlying trisection for X become isotopic after a finite sequence of perturbations and unperturbations.

The proof of the analogous result for bridge trisections in ref. 1 requires a result of Swenton (20) and Kearton-Kurlin (21) that states that every one-parameter family of Morse functions of the pair ht:(S4,K)→ℝ such that ht:S4→ℝ is the standard height function can be made suitably generic. Unfortunately, a more general result does not yet exist for arbitrary pairs (X,K); however, we remark that Conjecture 25 would follow from such a result together with an adaptation of the proof in ref. 1.

Acknowledgments

We thank Rob Kirby for posing the question that inspired this paper; Peter Lambert-Cole for his interest in this work and for graciously sharing his beautiful shadow diagrams for complex curves in ℂℙ2; and John Baldwin for inquiring about a trisection diagram for K3, which sparked a sequence of realizations that led to Theorem 4 and its corollaries. J.M. is supported by NSF Grants DMS-1400543 and DMS-1758087; and A.Z. is supported by NSF Grant DMS-1664578 and NSF-Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research Grant OIA-1557417.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: jeffrey.meier{at}uga.edu
  • Author contributions: J.M. and A.Z. designed research, performed research, and wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

Published under the PNAS license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Meier J,
    2. Zupan A
    (2017) Bridge trisections of knotted surfaces in S4. Trans Am Math Soc 369:7343–7386.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Gay D,
    2. Kirby R
    (2016) Trisecting 4-manifolds. Geom Topol 20:3097–3132.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Livingston C
    (1982) Surfaces bounding the unlink. Mich Math J 29:289–298.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Laudenbach F,
    2. Poénaru V
    (1972) A note on 4-dimensional handlebodies. Bull Soc Math France 100:337–344.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Gompf RE,
    2. Stipsicz AI
    (1999) 4-Manifolds and Kirby Calculus, Graduate Studies in Mathematics (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI), Vol 20.
  6. ↵
    1. Meier J,
    2. Schirmer T,
    3. Zupan A
    (2016) Classification of trisections and the generalized property R conjecture. Proc Am Math Soc 144:4983–4997.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Meier J,
    2. Zupan A
    (2017) Genus-two trisections are standard. Geom Topol 21:1583–1630.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Donaldson SK
    (1990) Polynomial invariants for smooth four-manifolds. Topology 29:257–315.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Baykur RI,
    2. Saeki O
    (2017) Simplifying indefinite fibrations on 4–manifolds. arXiv:1705.11169.
  10. ↵
    1. Kawauchi A,
    2. Shibuya T,
    3. Suzuki S
    (1982) Descriptions on surfaces in four-space. I. Normal forms. Math Sem Notes Kobe Univ 10:75–125.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Kawauchi A (1990); trans Kawauchi A (1996) [A Survey of Knot Theory] (Birkhäuser, Basel). Japanese.
  12. ↵
    1. Gabai D
    (1990) 1-bridge braids in solid tori. Topol Appl 37:221–235.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Scharlemann M
    (1990) Producing reducible 3-manifolds by surgery on a knot. Topology 29:481–500.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Zupan A
    (2015) Uniqueness of higher genus bridge surfaces for torus knots. Math Proc Cambridge Philos Soc 159:79–88.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Reidemeister K
    (1933) Zur Dreidimensionalen Topologie (Abh Math Sem Univ, Hamburg), Vol 9, pp 189–194.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Singer J
    (1933) Three-dimensional manifolds and their Heegaard diagrams. Trans Am Math Soc 35:88–111.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Hayashi C
    (1998) Stable equivalence of Heegaard splittings of 1-submanifolds in 3-manifolds. Kobe J Math 15:147–156.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Zupan A
    (2013) Bridge and pants complexities of knots. J Lond Math Soc 87:43–68.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Bachman D,
    2. Schleimer S
    (2005) Distance and bridge position. Pac J Math 219:221–235.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Swenton FJ
    (2001) On a calculus for 2-knots and surfaces in 4-space. J Knot Theory Ramif 10:1133–1141.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Kearton C,
    2. Kurlin V
    (2008) All 2-dimensional links in 4-space live inside a universal 3-dimensional polyhedron. Algebr Geom Topol 8:1223–1247.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Bridge trisections of knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Bridge trisections of knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds
Jeffrey Meier, Alexander Zupan
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Oct 2018, 115 (43) 10880-10886; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1717171115

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Bridge trisections of knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds
Jeffrey Meier, Alexander Zupan
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Oct 2018, 115 (43) 10880-10886; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1717171115
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Physical Sciences
  • Mathematics
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 115 (43)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • 1. Preliminaries
    • Definition 6:
    • Definition 7:
    • 2. Examples
    • 3. Proofs
    • 4. Uniqueness of Generalized Bridge Trisections
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Venus flytrap captures a fly.
Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490