Bounding Pairs of Dehn Twists are Trivial

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of bounding pairs of Dehn twists on a genus-2 surface, specifically examining why these twists are considered trivial in terms of their effect on homology. Participants explore the implications of Dehn twists, the nature of non-bounding curves, and the relationship between homotopy and homology in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant introduces the concept of a genus-2 surface and defines bounding pairs of Dehn twists, questioning why these maps are trivial.
  • Another participant suggests that the term "trivial" refers to the composition of the twists resulting in the identity in homology, noting that this is true for certain curves on the torus.
  • A different participant argues that the condition of inducing the identity in homology is too broad, as many diffeomorphisms can do so, and introduces the concept of the Torelli group.
  • One participant proposes that the bounding pairs may be homotopically trivial, meaning their composition is homotopic to the identity.
  • Another participant elaborates on the implications of cutting the surface along the bounding pair, discussing the resulting subsurfaces and their genera, and how this relates to the homotopy of the twists.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of "trivial" in the context of Dehn twists and their effects on homology. There is no consensus on whether the identity in homology is sufficient to classify the twists as trivial, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of homotopy versus homology.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific properties of genus-2 surfaces and the behavior of curves within this topology, but the discussion does not resolve the underlying assumptions about the nature of the curves or the definitions of triviality in this context.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
13,106
Hi Again:

Let S_2, be the genus-2 connected, orientable surface, i.e.,

the connected sum of 2 tori (e.g., tori spelling and some other tori)

Consider a pair {C1,C2} of homologous, non-trivial curves, i.e.,

neither C1 nor C2 bounds, but C1-C2 is a (sub)surface in S_2.

Consider now a pair {D1,D2) of Dehn twists about each of C1,C2 ,

but in opposite directions; these Dehn twists about curves like

{C1,C2} are called bounding pairs. Still, for genus g=2, these

maps are trivial. Why is this so?

We clearly have only two classes of nonbounding curves , but I don't see

why , nor in what sense this map is trivial.

Any Ideas?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A Dehn twist is a diffeomorphism T-->T, so it induces an automorphism in homology. I guess what they mean by trivial here is that if you compose two twists as described in the problem, they amount to the identity in homology. This is obviously the case for the torus and with C1, C2 two meridian or two longitudinal curves.

Also, I don't know what you meant by "We clearly have only two classes of nonbounding curves" but note that H_1(T#T)=Z^4, not Z_2.
 
But Quasar, I think you need something stronger than that, since there are many maps
diffeomorphisms, which induce the identity in homology; the collections of all those maps is actually a group called the Torelli group.
 
Bacle said:
But Quasar, I think you need something stronger than that, since there are many maps
diffeomorphisms, which induce the identity in homology; the collections of all those maps is actually a group called the Torelli group.
Stronger than what?
 
I mean that the condition that, if I understood you well, you meant that the BP map
mentioned by WWGD was referred-to as being trivial, because it induced the identity
in homology. The condition that map induce the identity in homology seems too broad to consider that map to be trivial, in the sense that the collection of all maps that induce the identity form a group, so that all these elements are considered different from each other, and, in particular, non-trivial.
 
Then maybe it means that thay are homotopically trivial.. i.e. the composition of the two twists is homotopic to the identity. Again, on T² for the twists relative 2 meridian or longitudinal curves, this is clearly the case.
 
I think I got it, Quasar, you were on the right track:

If you take a bounding pair d1,d2 in a genus-g surface, then after you

cut the surface along d1,d2, you end up with 2 subsurfaces S1,S2, with

respective genus g1,g2, and with g1+g2=g. Then, for the case of g=2,

we end up with two subsurfaces S1,S2, and we have two cases:

1)g1=2, g2=0 .

Then d1,d2 bound a cyclinder (g2=0 ), so that d1,d2 are homotopic, so the

two induce the same Dehn twist.

2)g1= g2=1

Then after the cuts , we get two tori with two boundary components. But if we

glue together two tori along a boundary component, we get a genus-3 surface

( a sort-of connected sum of 3-tori)

I think this works.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K