Let $M$ be a 3-manifold (the case I am interested is $M$ closed orientable connected hyperbolic); suppose $\pi_1 (M)$ is isomorphic to the fundamental group of a (closed orientable connected) surface (let's say of genus $g \geq 2$). Is $M$ necessarily a product $S \times I$ for some interval $I\subseteq \mathbb{R}$?
2026-05-11 04:06:55.1778472415
A 3-manifold with fundamental group isomorphic to a surface group.
1.4k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in SURFACES
- Surface by revolution
- A new type of curvature multivector for surfaces?
- Regular surfaces with boundary and $C^1$ domains
- Hyperplane line bundle really defined by some hyperplane
- 2D closed surface such that there's always a straight line to a point?
- parametrized surface are isometric if all corresponding curves have same length
- Klein bottle and torus in mod $p$ homology
- How can I prove that the restricted parametrization of a surface in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ ia a diffeomorphism?
- A diffeomorphism between a cylinder and a one-sheeted hyperboloid
- Involution of the 3 and 4-holed torus and its effects on some knots and links
Related Questions in GEOMETRIC-TOPOLOGY
- Finite covers of handlebodies?
- CW complexes are compactly generated
- Constructing a fat Cantor Set with certain property
- Homologically zero circles in smooth manifolds
- Labeled graphs with unimodular adjacency matrix
- Pseudoisotopy between nonisotopic maps
- A topological question about loops and fixed points
- "Continuity" of volume function on hyperbolic tetrahedra
- Example of path connected metric space whose hyperspace with Vietoris topology is not path connected?
- What is the pushout of $D^n \longleftarrow S^{n-1} \longrightarrow D^n$?
Related Questions in FUNDAMENTAL-GROUPS
- Help resolving this contradiction in descriptions of the fundamental groups of the figure eight and n-torus
- $f$ has square root if and only if image of $f_*$ contained in $2 \mathbb Z$
- Homotopic maps between pointed sets induce same group homomorphism
- If $H \le \pi_1(X,x)$ is conjugate to $P_*(\pi_1(Y, y))$, then $H \cong P_*(\pi_1(Y, y'))$ for some $y' \in P^{-1}(x)$
- Calculating the fundamental group of $S^1$ with SvK
- Monodromy representation.
- A set of generators of $\pi_1(X,x_0)$ where $X=U\cup V$ and $U\cap V$ path connected
- Is the fundamental group of the image a subgroup of the fundamental group of the domain?
- Showing that $\pi_1(X/G) \cong G$.
- Fundamental group of a mapping cone
Related Questions in LOW-DIMENSIONAL-TOPOLOGY
- Getting a self-homeomorphism of the cylinder from a self-homeomorphism of the circle
- Does $S^2\times[-1,1]$ decompose as $B^3\#B^3$
- Homologically zero circles in smooth manifolds
- Can we really move disks around a compact surface like this?
- Why is this not a valid proof of the Poincare Conjecture?
- Regarding Surgery and Orientation
- Can a one-dimensional shape have volume?
- The inside of a closed compact surface $\sum_g$
- How do you prove that this set is open?
- Understanding cobordisms constructed from a Heegaard triple
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
geometry
circles
algebraic-number-theory
functions
real-analysis
elementary-set-theory
proof-verification
proof-writing
number-theory
elementary-number-theory
puzzle
game-theory
calculus
multivariable-calculus
partial-derivative
complex-analysis
logic
set-theory
second-order-logic
homotopy-theory
winding-number
ordinary-differential-equations
numerical-methods
derivatives
integration
definite-integrals
probability
limits
sequences-and-series
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
If $M$ is a connected closed (i.e. compact without boundary) 3-dimensional manifold, then $\pi_1(M)$ cannot be isomorphic to $\pi_1(S)$, where $S$ is an orientable surface of genus $\ge 2$. You can see this by first noting that $\pi_2(M)=0$ (otherwise, by the sphere theorem, $M$ is a nontrivial connected sum which will imply that $\pi_1(M)$ is a nontrivial free product, which is not the case). Then you observe that $\pi_k(M)=0, k\ge 3$ since the universal cover $\tilde M$ of $M$ is noncompact (here you use that $S$ has positive genus, which implies that the fundamental group is infinite): Thus, $H_k(M)=0$ for all $k\ge 2$. Now, use Hurewicz theorem to conclude that $\pi_k(M)=0$ for all $k\ge 3$.
Thus, $M$ would be homotopy equivalent to $S$ (they have isomorphic fundamental groups and contractible universal covers; now, use Whitehead's theorem). However, $H_3(M)\ne 0$ while $H_3(S)=0$. Contradiction.
What one may ask is about topological classification of compact orientable 3-dimensional manifolds such that $\pi_1(M)\cong \pi_1(S)$. You can still have manifolds of the form: $S\times I$ minus some disjoint open balls. However, such manifolds which are reducible, meaning that there exists a tame 2-sphere in $M$ which does not bound a balls.
It is a theorem (I think, due to Stallings), that if, $M$ is assumed to be oriented, $S$ is oriented, and $M$ is irreducible then, it indeed is homeomorphic to $S\times I$. You can find a proof of this in Hempel's book "3-manifolds". The key is that in this situation there exists a proper homotopy-equivalence $h: M\to S\times I$, i.e., a homotopy equivalence which is a homeomorphism on the boundary. One then proves that such $h$ is homotopic (rel. boundary) to a homeomorphism.
If one allows for connected boundary of $M$, or for nonorientable $M$ or $S$, then the conclusion is that $M$ is homeomorphic to an $I$-bundle over $S$.
Edit. Here is a construction of an open 3-manifold which is homotopy-equivalent to a closed surface $S$ but is not homeomorphic to an interval bundle over $S$. Start with an open contractible 3-dimensional manifold $W$ which is not homeomorphic to $R^3$, say, the Whitehead manifold. Embed (properly and smoothly) a ray $\rho$ into $W$ and then remove a small open tubular neighborhood of $\rho$ from $W$. The result is a contractible manifold with boundary $X$; $\partial X$ is homeomorphic to the open disk $D^2$. Now, take $M=S\times I$, pick an disk $D\subset \partial M$ and glue $M$ to $X$ identifying $\partial X$ and $D$ homeomorphically. Lastly, remove the remaining boundary from the result of gluing. You obtain an open 3-dimensional manifold $N$ which is homotopy-equivalent to $S$ but not homeomorphic to an open interval bundle over $S$. The reason is that $N$ is not "tame". Proving non-tameness of $N$ requires some work to prove (by appealing to its "fundamental group at infinity"); the proof is basically the same as the one showing that $W$ is not tame.