Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:16:40.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Localising Dehn's lemma and the loop theorem in 3-manifolds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2004

I. R. AITCHISON
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia. e-mail: [email protected]@ms.unimelb.edu.au
J. HYAM RUBINSTEIN
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia. e-mail: [email protected]@ms.unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

We give a new proof of Dehn's lemma and the loop theorem. This is a fundamental tool in the topology of 3-manifolds. Dehn's lemma was originally formulated by Dehn, where an incorrect proof was given. A proof was finally given by Papakyriakopolous in his famous 1957 paper where the fundamental idea of towers of coverings was introduced. This was later extended to the loop theorem, and the version used most frequently was given by Stallings.

We have shown that hierarchies for Haken 3-manifolds could be understood by a ‘local version’ of Dehn's lemma and the loop theorem. Developing the idea further enables us here to give a new proof of the classical theorems of Papakyriakopoulos, which do not use towers of coverings. A similar result was obtained by Johannson, with the added assumption that the 3-manifold in question was Haken. Our approach means that no extra hypotheses are necessary. Our method uses the concept of boundary patterns of hierarchies, as developed by Johannson. Marc Lackenby has independently produced a very similar proof in his lecture notes.

Note that the more difficult sphere theorem [4, 10, 25] can then be deduced using Dehn's lemma and the loop theorem, plus the PL theory of minimal surfaces. Other applications, like the important result that a covering of an irreducible 3-manifold is irreducible, then follow also by PL minimal surface theory.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2004 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)