14 views

Uploaded by Duncan_Vim

- 1006.3313v1
- Solution to exercises , manifolds
- Robert Lipshitz, Ciprian Manolescu and Jiajun Wang- Combinatorial Cobordism Maps in Hat Heegard Floer Theory
- Peter Ozsvath, Andras I. Stipsicz and Zoltan Szabo- Combinatorial Heegaard Floer homology and nice Heegaard diagrams
- An Introduction to RiemannianGeometry
- Gareth a. Jones, David Singerman-Complex Functions_ an Algebraic and Geometric Viewpoint-Cambridge University Press (2012)
- Javaplex Tutorial
- mymathematicalphilosophy
- Bom - Research
- Seminar 8 14.03.78 English Translation With Diagrams
- mathgen-126758839
- International Journal of Mathematical Combinatorics, vol. 2/2015
- USING REVERSE ENGINEERING TO SUPPORT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
- Kenneth L. Baker, John B. Etnyre and Jeremy Van Horn-Morris- Cabling, contact structures and mapping class monoids
- Hisaaki Endo, Thomas E. Mark and Jeremy Van Horn-Morris- Monodromy Substitutions and Rational Blowdowns
- John B. Etnyre and Burak Ozbagci- Invariants of contact structures from open books
- John A. Baldwin- Capping off open books and the Ozsvath-Szabo contact invariant
- Klaus Niederkruger and Chris Wendl- Weak symplectic fillings and holomorphic curves
- Yanki Lekili- Planar open books with four binding components
- YI NI- Sutured Heegaard diagrams for knots

You are on page 1of 58

r

X

i

v

:

1

0

1

0

.

3

4

9

6

v

1

[

m

a

t

h

.

G

T

]

1

8

O

c

t

2

0

1

0

JOINING AND GLUING SUTURED FLOER HOMOLOGY

RUMEN ZAREV

Abstract. We give a partial characterization of bordered Floer ho-

mology in terms of sutured Floer homology. The bordered algebra and

modules are direct sums of certain sutured Floer complexes. The algebra

multiplication and algebra action correspond to a new gluing map on

SFH. It is dened algebraically, and is a special case of a more general

join map.

In a follow-up paper we show that this gluing map can be identied

with the contact cobordism map of Honda-Kazez-Matic. The join map

is conjecturally equivalent to the cobordism maps on SFH dened by

Juhasz.

1. Introduction

Heegaard Floer homology is a family of invariants for 3 and 4manifold

invariants dened by counting pseudo-holomorphic curves, originally intro-

duced by Ozsvath and Szab o. The most simple form associates to an ori-

ented 3manifold Y a graded homology group

HF(Y ) [OS04b, OS04a].

While Heegaard Floer theory for closed 3manifolds has been very suc-

cessful, a lot of the applications involve manifolds with boundary. In [Juh06]

Juhasz introduced sutured Floer homology, or SFH, which generalizes

HF

to sutured manifolds. Introduced by Gabai in [Gab83], they are 3manifolds

with boundary, and some extra structure. In the context of Heegaard Floer

homology, the extra structure can be considered to be a multicurve , called

a dividing set, on the boundary of the 3manifold Y . Sutured Floer homol-

ogy associates to such a pair (Y, ) a homology group SFH(Y, ).

Among other applications, sutured Floer homology has been used to solve

problems in contact topology, via a contact invariant for contact manifolds

with boundary, and a map associated to contact cobordisms, dened by

Honda, Kazez, and Matic in [HKM07, HKM08]. This map has been used by

Juhasz in [Juh09] to dene a map on SFH associated to a cobordism (with

corners) between two sutured manifolds.

A shortcoming of sutured Floer homology is that there is little relationship

between the groups SFH(Y,

1

) and SFH(Y,

2

), where

1

and

2

are two

dividing sets on the same manifold Y . For example one can nd many exam-

ples where one of the groups vanishes, while the other does not. Moreover,

The author was partially supported by NSF grant number DMS-0804121.

1

2 RUMEN ZAREV

the groups SFH(Y

1

,

1

) and SFH(Y

2

,

2

) are not sucient to reconstruct

HF(Y ), where Y = Y

1

Y

2

is a closed manifold.

To overcome these shortcomings, Lipshitz, Ozsvath, and Thurston in-

troduced in [LOT08] a new Heegaard Floer invariant for 3manifolds with

boundary called bordered Floer homology. To a parametrized closed con-

nected surface F they associate a DG-algebra /(F). To a 3manifold Y

with boundary Y

= F they associate an /

module

CFA(Y ) over /(F)

(dened up to /

of the above shortcomings of SFH. On the one hand, given two parametriza-

tions of the surface F, the modules

CFA(Y ) associated to these parametriza-

tions can be computed from each other. On the other hand, if Y

1

and Y

2

are

two manifolds with boundary dieomorphic to F, the group

HF(Y

1

F

Y

2

)

can be computed from

CFA(Y

1

) and

CFA(Y

2

).

The natural question arises: How are these two theories for 3manifolds

with boundary related to each other? Can SFH(Y, ) be computed from

CFA(Y ) be computed from the sutured

homology of Y , and if yes, how?

In [Zar09] we introduced bordered sutured Floer homology, to serve as a

bridge between the two worlds. We used it to answer the rst part of the

above questionto each dividing set on F we can associate a module

CFD() over /(F), such that SFH(Y, ) is simply the homology of the

derived tensor product

CFA(Y )

CFD().

In the current paper we answer the second half of this question. We show

that for a given parametrization of F, the homologies of the bordered algebra

/(F) and the module

CFA(Y ) associated to a 3manifold Y are direct

sums of nitely many sutured Floer homology groups. Moreover we identify

multiplication in H

(/(F)) on H

CFA(Y ))

with a certain gluing map on sutured Floer homology.

1.1. Results. The rst result of this paper is to dene the gluing map dis-

cussed above. Suppose (Y

1

,

1

) and (Y

2

,

2

) are two sutured manifolds. We

say that we can glue them if there are subsets F

1

and F

2

of their boundaries,

where F

1

can be identied with the mirror of F

2

, such that the multicurve

1

F

1

is identied with

2

F

2

, preserving the orientations on

i

. This

means that the regions R

+

and R

We will only talk of gluing in the case when F

i

have no closed components,

and all components of F

i

intersect the dividing sets

i

.

Denition 1.1. Suppose (Y

1

,

1

), (Y

2

,

2

), F

1

and F

2

are as above. The

gluing of (Y

1

,

1

) and (Y

2

,

2

) along F

i

is the sutured manifold (Y

1

F

i

Y

2

,

1+2

). The dividing set

1+2

is obtained from (

1

F

1

)

F

i

(

2

F

2

)

as follows. Along each component f of F

i

the orientations of

1

and

2

disagree. We apply the minimal possible positive fractional Dehn twist along

f that gives a consistent orientation.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 3

}

1

}

2

}

1

F

i

}

2

F

1

F

2

Figure 1. Gluing two solid balls along F = D

2

D

2

, to obtain a solid torus.

The R

+

regions have been shaded.

An illustration of gluing is given in Figure 1. We dene a gluing map

on SFH corresponding to this topological construction.

Theorem 1. Let (Y

1

,

1

) and (Y

2

,

2

) be two balanced sutured manifolds,

that can be glued along F. Then there is a well dened map

F

: SFH(Y

1

,

1

) SFH(Y

2

,

2

) SFH((Y

1

,

1

)

F

(Y

2

,

2

)),

satisfying the following properties:

(1) Symmetry: The map

F

for gluing Y

1

to Y

2

is equal to that for gluing

Y

2

to Y

1

.

(2) Associativity: Suppose that we can glue Y

1

to Y

2

along F

1

, and Y

2

to Y

3

along F

2

, such that F

1

and F

2

are disjoint in Y

2

. Then the

order of gluing is irrelevant:

F

2

F

1

=

F

1

F

2

=

F

1

F

2

.

(3) Identity: Given a dividing set on F, there is a dividing set

), satisfying

the following. For any sutured manifold (Y,

) with F Y and

)

F

(F [0, 1],

)

=

(Y,

F

(,

).

One application of this result is the following characterization of bordered

Floer homology in terms of SFH and the gluing map. Fix a parametrized

closed surface F, with bordered algebra A = /(F). Let F

be F with a

disc removed, and let p, q F

2g(F)

distin-

guished dividing sets on F, which we denote

I

for I 1, . . . , 2g, and

corresponding dividing sets

I

=

I

F

on F

. Let

IJ

be a dividing set

on F

[0, 1] which is

I

along F

0,

J

along F

1, and half of a

negative Dehn twist of p, q [0, 1] along F

[0, 1].

4 RUMEN ZAREV

Theorem 2. Suppose the surfaces F and F

sets

I

,

I

, and

IJ

are as described above. Then there is an isomorphism

H

(A)

I,J{1,...,2g}

SFH(F

[0, 1],

IJ

),

and the multiplication map

2

on H

F

. It maps SFH(F

[0, 1],

IJ

) SFH(F

[0, 1],

JK

) to SFH(F

[0, 1],

IK

), and sends all other summands to 0.

The module

CFA can be similarly described.

Theorem 3. Suppose Y is a 3manifold with boundary Y

= F. There is

an isomorphism

H

CFA(Y )

A

)

I{1,...,2g}

SFH(Y,

I

),

and the action m

2

of H

(A) on H

map

F

. It maps SFH(Y,

I

) SFH(F

[0, 1],

IJ

) to SFH(Y,

J

), and

sends all other summands to 0.

The gluing construction and the gluing map readily generalize to a more

general join construction, and join map, which are 3dimensional analogs.

Suppose that (Y

1

,

1

) and (Y

2

,

2

) are two sutured manifolds, and F

1

and F

2

are subsets of their boundaries, satisfying the conditions for gluing. Suppose

further that the dieomorphism F

1

F

2

extends to W

1

W

2

, where W

i

is

a compact codimension0 submanifold of Y

i

, and W

i

Y

i

= F

i

. Instead

of gluing Y

1

and Y

2

along F

i

, we can join them along W

i

.

Denition 1.2. The join of (Y

1

,

1

) and (Y

2

,

2

) along W

i

is the sutured

manifold

((Y

1

W

1

)

W

i

\F

i

(Y

2

W

2

),

1+2

),

where the dividing set

1+2

is constructed exactly as in Denition 1.1. We

denote the join by (Y

1

,

1

)

W

i

(Y

2

,

2

).

An example of a join is shown in Figure 2. Notice that if W

i

is a collar

neighborhood of F

i

, then the notions of join and gluing coincide. That is,

the join operation is indeed a generalization of gluing. In fact, throughout

the paper we work almost exclusively with joins, while only regarding gluing

as a special case.

Theorem 4. There is a well-dened join map

W

: SFH(Y

1

,

1

) SFH(Y

2

,

2

) SFH((Y

1

,

1

)

W

(Y

2

,

2

)),

satisfying properties of symmetry, associativity, and identity, analogous to

those listed in Theorem 1.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 5

}

1

}

2

}

1

W

i

}

2

J

1

J

2

Figure 2. Join of two solid tori along D

2

[0, 1], to obtain another solid

torus. The R

+

regions have been shaded.

The join map is constructed as follows. We cut out W

1

and W

2

from

Y

1

and Y

2

, respectively, and regard the complements as bordered sutured

manifolds. The join operation corresponds to replacing W

1

and W

2

by an

interpolating piece T J

F,+

. We dene a map between the bordered su-

tured invariants, from the product

BSA(W

1

)

BSA(W

2

) to the bimodule

BSAA(T J

F,+

). We show that for an appropriate choice of parametriza-

tions, the modules

BSA(W

1

) and

BSA(W

2

) are duals, while

BSAA(T J

F,+

)

is the dual of the bordered algebra for F. The map is then an /

version of

the natural pairing between a module and its dual. The proof of invariance

and the properties from Theorems 1 and 4 is purely algebraic. Most of the

arguments involve /

The proofs of Theorems 2 and 3 involve several steps. First, we nd a

manifold whose bordered sutured invariant is the bordered algebra, as a

bimodule over itself. Second, we nd manifolds whose bordered sutured

invariants are all possible simple modules over the algebra. Finally, we

compute the gluing map explicitly in several cases.

1.2. Further implications and speculations. In a follow-up paper [Zar]

we prove that the gluing map map

F

can be identied with the contact

6 RUMEN ZAREV

cobordism map from [HKM08]. This is somewhat surprising as that the

denition of that map uses contact structures and open books, while our

denition uses bordered sutured Floer homology and is purely algebraic.

The equivalence of the two maps also gives a purely contact-geometric in-

terpretation of the bordered algebra.

There is no analog of the join map in the setting of Honda, Kazez, and

Matic. However, there is a natural pair-of-pants cobordism

Z

W

: (Y

1

,

1

) (Y

2

,

2

) (Y

1

,

1

)

W

(Y

2

,

2

),

and we conjecture that the join map

W

is equivalent to the cobordism

map F

Z

W

that Juhasz associates to such a cobordism, by counting pseudo-

holomorphic triangles.

Though Theorems 2 and 3 give a pretty good description of bordered

Floer homology in terms of sutured Floer homology, it is not complete.

For instance, to be able to recover the pairing theorem for bordered Floer

homology, we need to work either with the full bordered DG-algebra /(F),

or with its homology H

(/(F)), considered as an /

H

i

, for i 2 from the DG-

structure on /(F). Theorem 2 only recovers

2

. Similarly, H

CFA(Y )) has

higher actions m

i

, for i 2 by H

m

2

.

We believe that these higher structures can be recovered by a similar

construction. There are maps,

i

, for i 2, dened algebraically, similar

to , of the following form:

i

: SFC(Y

1

) SFC(Y

i

) SFC(Y

1

. . . Y

i

).

Here SFC denotes the chain complex dening the homology group SFH.

The rst term

2

induces the usual join on homology.

Conjecture 5. The following two statements hold:

(1) The collection of maps

i

, for i 2 can be used to recover the

higher multiplications

i

on H

i

of

H

(/(F)) on H

CFA(Y )).

(2) The map

i

can be computed by counting pseudo-holomorphic (i+1)

gons in a sutured Heegaard multidiagram.

Analogs of sutured Floer homology have been dened in settings other

than Heegaard Floer homologyfor instanton and monopole Floer homol-

ogy in [KM10], and for embedded contact homology in [CGHH10]. We

believe that analogs of the join and gluing maps can be used to extend

bordered Floer homology to those settings.

Organization. We start by introducing in more detail the topological con-

structions of the gluing join operations in Section 2. In Section 3 we recall

briey the denitions of the bordered sutured invariants

BSA and

BSD. We

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 7

also discuss how the original denitions involving only arcs can be ex-

tended to diagrams using both arcs, and to some mixed diagrams using

both. Section 3.4 contains computations of several

BSA invariants needed

later.

We dene the join map in Section 4, on the level of chain complexes. The

same section contains the proof that it descends to a unique map on homol-

ogy. In the following Section 5 we prove the properties from Theorems 1

and 4. Finally, Section 6 contains the statement and the proof of a slightly

more general version of Theorems 2 and 3.

Throughout the paper, we make use of a diagrammatic calculus to com-

pute /

contains a brief description of this calculus, and the necessary algebraic as-

sumptions. Appendix B gives an overview of /

diagrammatic calculus, as they are used in the paper.

Acknowledgments. The author is grateful to his advisor Peter Ozsvath,

and to Robert Lipshitz, Dylan Thurston, and Shea Vela-Vick for many pro-

ductive discussions about this work. Shea Vela-Vick, Robert Lipshitz, and

Peter Ozsvath also gave much appreciated feedback on earlier versions of

this paper. A signicant portion of the work described here was carried out

at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, which kindly hosted the

author as a program associate in the program Homology theories of knots

and links, during the Spring of 2010.

2. Topological preliminaries

We recall the denition of a sutured manifold and some auxiliary notions,

and dene what we mean by gluing and surgery.

Remark. Throughout the paper all manifolds are oriented. We use M to

denote the manifold M with its orientation reversed.

2.1. Sutured manifolds and surfaces.

Denition 2.1. As dened in [Juh06], a balanced sutured manifold is a

pair } = (Y, ) consisting of the following:

An oriented 3manifold Y with boundary.

A collection of disjoint oriented simple closed curves in Y , called

sutures.

They are required to satisfy the following conditions:

Y can be disconnected but cannot have any closed components.

Y is divided by into two complementary regions R

+

() and R

()

such that R

(Y ) = . (R

+

and R

may be disconnected.)

Each component of Y contains a suture. Equivalently, R

+

and R

(R

+

) = (R

).

In [Zar09] we introduced the notion of a sutured surface.

8 RUMEN ZAREV

Denition 2.2. A sutured surface is a pair T = (F, ) consisting of the

following:

A compact oriented surface F.

A nite collection F of points with sign, called sutures.

They are required to satisfy the following conditions:

F can be disconnected but cannot have any closed components.

F is divided by into two complementary regions S

+

() and S

()

such that S

(Y ) = . (S

+

and S

may be disconnected.)

Each component of F contains a suture. Equivalently, S

+

and S

A sutured surface is precisely the 2dimensional equivalent of a balanced

sutured manifold. The requirement (S

+

) = (S

) follows automatically

from the other conditions.

From T = (F, ) we can construct two other sutured surfaces: T =

(F, ), and T = (F, ). In both of T and T, the orientation of the

underlying surface F is reversed. The dierence between the two is that in

T the roles of S

+

and S

Denition 2.3. Suppose T = (F, ) is a sutured surface. A dividing set

for T is a nite collection of disjoint embedded oriented arcs and simple

closed curves in F, with the following properties:

= , as an oriented boundary.

divides F into (possibly disconnected) regions R

+

and R

with

R

= () S

.

We can extend the denition of a dividing set to pairs (F, ) which do not

quite satisfy the conditions for a sutured surface. We can allow some or all

of the components F to be closed. We call such a pair degenerate. In that

case we impose the extra condition that each closed component contains a

component of .

Note that the sutures of a sutured manifold (Y, ) can be regarded as

a dividing set for the (degenerate) sutured surface (Y, ).

Denition 2.4. A partially sutured manifold is a triple } = (Y, , T)

consisting of the following:

A 3manifold Y with boundary and 1dimensional corners.

A sutured surface T = (F, ), such that F Y , and such that the

1dimensional corner of Y is F.

A dividing set for (Y F, ) (which might be degenerate).

Note that a partially sutured manifold } = (Y, , T

1

T

2

) can be thought

of as a cobordism between T

1

and T

2

. On the other hand, the par-

tially sutured manifold } = (Y, , ) is just a sutured manifold, although

it may not be balanced. We can concatenate } = (Y, , T

1

T

2

) and

}

= (Y

, T

2

T

3

) along T

2

= (F

2

,

2

) and T

2

= (F

2

,

2

) to

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 9

+

+

+

(a) The sutured surface T.

+

+

+

(b) A dividing set of T.

T

[0, 1]

(T, )

(c) The cap for .

Figure 3. A sutured annulus T, with a cap associated to a dividing set.

obtain

}

F

2

}

= (Y

F

2

Y

, T

1

T

3

).

We use the term concatenate to distinguish from the operation of gluing of

two sutured manifolds described in Denition 2.10.

A partially sutured manifold whose sutured surface is parametrized by an

arc diagram is a bordered sutured manifold, as dened in [Zar09]. We will

return to this point in section 3, where we give the precise denitions.

An important special case is when Y is a thickening of F.

Denition 2.5. Suppose is a dividing set for the sutured surface T =

(F, ). Let W = F [0, 1], and W

)

whenever p F, and t, t

manifolds

J

J

= (W

, 1, (F 0, 0))

as the caps for T associated to .

Since J

is just a smoothing of J

not distinguish between them. An illustration of a dividing set and a cap

is shown in Figure 3. In this and in all other gures we use the convention

that the dividing set is colored in green, to avoid confusion with Heegaard

diagrams later. We also shade the R

+

regions.

Notice that the sutured surface for J

(Y,

obtain (Y,

Denition 2.6. Suppose T = (F, ) is a sutured surface. An embedding

J } of the partially sutured J = (W,

W

, T) into the sutured } =

(Y,

Y

) is an embedding W Y with the following properties:

F W is properly embedded in Y as a separating surface.

10 RUMEN ZAREV

J

}

} J

T T

Figure 4. Examples of a partially sutured manifold J embedding into the

sutured manifold }, and the complement }J, which is also partially sutured.

W F = Y W.

W

=

Y

W.

The complement Y W also inherits a partially sutured structure. We

dene

} J = (Y W,

Y

W

, T).

The denition of embeddings easily extends to J } where both J =

(W,

W

, T) and } = (Y,

Y

, T

that W is disjoint from a collar neighborhood of F

complement

} J = (Y W,

Y

W

, T

T).

In both cases } is dieomorphic to the concatenation J

F

(} J).

Examples of a partial sutured manifold and of an embedding are given in

Figure 4.

2.2. Mirrors and doubles; joining and gluing. We want to dene a

gluing operation which takes two sutured manifolds (Y

1

,

1

) and (Y

2

,

2

),

and surfaces F Y

1

and F Y

2

, and produces a new sutured manifold

(Y

1

F

Y

2

,

3

). To do that we have to decide how to match up the dividing

sets on and around F and F. One solution is to require that we glue

F R

+

(

1

) to F R

+

(

2

), and F R

(

1

) to F R

(

2

). Then

(

1

F) (

2

F) is a valid dividing set, and candidate for

3

. The

problem with this approach is that even if we glue two balanced sutured

manifolds, the result is not guaranteed to be balanced.

Another approach, suggested by contact topology is the following. We

glue F R

+

to F R

the dividing sets

1

F and

2

F do not match up anymore, we introduce

a slight twist along F. In contact topology this twist appears when we

smooth the corner between two convex surfaces meeting at an angle.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 11

J = (W, , T) J = (W, , T)

T

T

+

+

+

+

Figure 5. A partially sutured manifold J and its mirror J.

It turns out that the same approach is the correct one, from the bordered

sutured point of view. To be able to dene a gluing map on SFH with nice

formal properties, the underlying topological operation should employ the

same kind of twist. However, its direction is opposite from the one in the

contact world. This is not unexpected, as orientation reversal is the norm

when dening any contact invariant in Heegaard Floer homology.

As we briey explained in Section 1, we will also dene a surgery pro-

cedure which we call joining, and which generalizes this gluing operation.

We will associate a map on sutured Floer homology to such a surgery in

Section 4.2.

First we dene some preliminary notions.

Denition 2.7. The mirror of a partially sutured manifold J = (W, , T),

where T = (F, ) is J = (W, , T). Alternatively, it is a partially

sutured manifold (W

, T

: W W

, such that:

F is sent to F

(orientation is reversed).

is sent to

(orientation is preserved).

R

+

() is sent to R

S

+

() is sent to S

Whenever we talk about a pair of mirrors, we will implicitly assume that

a specic dieomorphism between them has been chosen. An example is

shown in Figure 5.

There are two partially sutured manifolds, which will play an important

role.

Denition 2.8. A positive (respectively negative) twisting slice along the

sutured surface T = (F, ) is the partially sutured manifold T J

F,

=

(F [0, 1], , T T) where we identify T with F 0, and T with

F 1. The dividing set is obtained from [0, 1] by applying

1

n

12 RUMEN ZAREV

T T

[0, 1]

(a) T J

F,+

T T

[0, 1]

(b) T J

F,

Figure 6. Positive and negative twisting slices. The dividing sets are [0, 1],

after a fractional Dehn twist has been applied. The R

+

regions have been

shaded.

F

1

2

, containing n points of . (The twists might be dierent for

dierent components.)

Examples of twisting slices are shown in Figure 6.

Denition 2.9. Let }

1

and }

2

be sutured manifolds, and J = (W, , T)

be partially sutured. Suppose there are embeddings J }

1

and J }

2

.

We will call the new sutured manifold

}

1

W

}

2

= (}

1

J)

F

T J

F,+

F

(}

2

J)

the join of }

1

and }

2

along J.

Intuitively, this means that we cut out J and J and concatenate the

complements together. There is a mismatch of R

+

with R

ary, so we introduce a positive twist to x it. An example of gluing was

shown in Figure 2.

Another important operation is gluing.

Denition 2.10. Suppose that }

1

= (Y

1

,

1

, T) and }

2

= (Y

2

,

2

, T) are

two partially sutured manifolds, and

0

is a dividing set for T = (F, ). We

dene the gluing of the sutured manifolds (Y

1

,

1

0

) and (Y

2

,

2

0

)

along (F,

0

) to be the concatenation

}

1

F

T J

F,+

F

}

2

,

and denote it by

(Y

1

,

1

0

)

(F,

0

)

(Y

2

,

2

0

).

An example of gluing was shown in Figure 1. It is easy to see that gluing

is a special case of the join. Recall that the concatenation (Y,

, T)

F

J

0

)

with join along J

0

.

Another useful object is the double of a partially sutured manifold.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 13

Denition 2.11. Given a partially sutured manifold J = (W, , T), where

T = (F, ), dene the double of J to be the be sutured manifold obtained

by concatenation as follows:

D(J) = J

F

T J

F,

F

J.

All the operations we have dened so far keep us in the realm of balanced

sutured manifolds.

Proposition 2.12. If we join or glue two balanced sutured manifolds to-

gether, the result is balanced. The double of any partially sutured manifold

J is balanced.

Proof. There are three key observations. The rst one is that (R

+

)(R

)

is additive under concatenation. The second is that when passing from J

to its mirror J, the values of (R

+

) and (R

for positive and negative twisting slices (R

+

) = (R

).

The operations of joining and gluing sutured manifolds have good formal

properties described in the following proposition.

Proposition 2.13. The join satises the following:

(1) Commutativity: }

1

W

}

2

is canonically dieomorphic to }

2

W

}

1

.

(2) Associativity: If there are embeddings J }

1

, (J J

) }

2

,

and J

J

3

then there are canonical dieomorphisms

(}

1

W

}

2

)

W

}

3

= }

1

W

(}

2

W

}

3

)

= (}

1

}

3

)

WW

}

2

.

(3) Identity: }

W

T(J)

= }.

Gluing satises analogous properties.

Proof. These facts follow immediately from the denitions.

3. Bordered sutured Floer homology

We recall the denitions of bordered sutured manifolds and their invari-

ants, as introduced in [Zar09].

3.1. Arc diagrams and bordered sutured manifolds. Parametriza-

tions by arc diagrams, as described below are a slight generalization of those

originally dened in [Zar09]. The latter corresponded to parametrizations

using only arcs. While this is sucient to dene invariants for all possible

situations, it is somewhat restrictive computationally. Indeed, to dene the

join map we need to exploit some symmetries that are not apparent unless

we also allow parametrizations using arcs.

Denition 3.1. An arc diagram of rank k is a triple : = (Z, a, M) con-

sisting of the following:

A nite collection Z of oriented arcs.

14 RUMEN ZAREV

A collection of points a = a

1

, . . . , a

2k

Z.

A 2to1 matching M: a 1, . . . , k of the points into pairs.

A type: or .

We require that the 1manifold obtained by performing surgery on all the

0spheres M

1

(i) in Z has no closed components.

We represent arc diagrams graphically by a graph G(:), which consists of

the arcs Z, oriented upwards, and an arc e

i

attached at the pair M

1

(i) Z,

for i = 1, . . . , k. Depending on whether the diagram is of or type, we

draw the arcs to the right or to the left, respectively.

Denition 3.2. The sutured surface T(:) = (F(:), (:)) associated to

the arc diagram : is constructed in the following way. The underlying

surface F is produced from the product Z[0, 1] by attaching 1handles along

the 0spheres M

1

(i) 0, for i = 1, . . . , k. The sutures are = Z

1/2, with the positive region S

+

being above, i.e. containing Z 1.

The sutured surface associated to a arc diagram is constructed in the

same fashion, except that the 1handles are attached on top, i.e. at

/

1

(i) 1. The positive region S

+

is still above.

Suppose F is a surface with boundary, G(:) is properly embedded in

F, and = G(:) F are the vertices of valence 1. If F deformation

retracts onto G(:), we can identify (F, ) with T(:). In fact, the embed-

ding uniquely determines such an identication, up to isotopies xing the

boundary. We say that : parametrizes (F, ).

As mentioned earlier, all arc diagrams considered in [Zar09] are of type.

Let : = (Z, a, M) be an arc diagram. We will denote by : the diagram

obtained by reversing the orientation of Z (and preserving the type). We

will denote by : the diagram obtained by switching the typefrom to

, or vice versaand preserving the triple (Z, a, M). There are now four

related diagrams: :, :, :, and :. The notation is intentionally similar

to the one for the variations on a sutured surface. Indeed, they are related

as follows:

T(:) = T(:), T(:) = T(:).

To illustrate that, Figure 7 has four variations of an arc diagram of rank

3. Figure 8 shows the corresponding parametrizations of sutured surfaces,

which are all tori with one boundary component and four sutures. Notice

the embedding of the graph in each case.

Denition 3.3. A bordered sutured manifold } = (Y, , :) is a partially

sutured manifold (Y, , T), whose sutured surface T has been parametrized

by the arc diagram :.

As with partially sutured manifolds, } = (Y, , :

1

:

2

) can be thought

of as a cobordism from T(:

1

) to T(:

2

).

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 15

e

1

e

2

e

3

(a) : of -type

e

1

e

2

e

3

(b) : of -type

e

1

e

2

e

3

(c) : of -type

e

1

e

2

e

3

(d) : of -type

Figure 7. Four variants of an arc diagram

S

+

S

+

S

+

+

(a) T(:)

S

+

S

+

S

+

+

(b) T(:)

S

S

+

+

+

(c) T(:)

S

S

+

+

+

(d) T(:)

Figure 8. Parametrizations of surfaces by the arc diagrams in Figure 7

3.2. The bordered algebra. We will briey recall the denition of the

algebra /(:) associated to an type arc diagram :. Fix a diagram : =

(Z, a, M) of rank k. First, we dene a larger strands algebra /

is independent of the matching M. Then we dene /(:) as a subalgebra of

/

(Z, a).

Denition 3.4. The strands algebra associated to (Z, a) is a Z/2algebra

/

the following type. Each diagram consists of several embedded oriented arcs

or strands, starting in 0 a and ending in 1 a. All tangent vectors

on the strands should project non-negatively on Z, i.e. they are upward-

veering. Only transverse intersections are allowed.

The diagrams are subjects to two relationsany two diagrams related by

a Reidemeister III move represent the same element in /

diagram in which two strands intersect more than once represents zero.

Multiplication is given by concatenation of diagrams in the [0, 1]direction,

provided the endpoints of the strands agree. Otherwise the product is zero.

The dierential of a diagram is the sum of all diagrams obtained from it by

taking the oriented resolution of a crossing.

16 RUMEN ZAREV

(a) a

1

(b) a

2

(c) a

3

(d) a

4

Figure 9. Four generators of /(:).

We refer to a strand connecting (0, a) to (1, a) for some a a as horizontal.

Notice that the idempotent elements of /

sums of diagrams with only horizontal strands. To recover the information

carried by the matching M we single out some of these idempotents.

Denition 3.5. The ground ring J(:) associated to : is a ground ring,

in the sense of Denition A.1, of rank 2

k

over Z/2, with canonical basis

(

I

)

I{1,...,k}

. It is identied with a subring of the strands algebra /

(Z, a),

by setting

I

=

J

D

J

. The sum is over all J a such that M[

J

: J I

is a bijection, and D

J

is the diagram with horizontal strands [0, 1] J.

For all I 1, . . . , k, the generator

I

is a sum of 2

#I

diagrams.

Denition 3.6. The bordered algebra /(:) associated to : is the subal-

gebra of J(:) /

lowing condition. Suppose M(a) = M(b), and D and D

where D

horizontal arc [0, 1] b. Then contains D as a summand i it contains

D

as a summand.

We use J(:) as the ground ring for /(:), in the sense of Denition B.3.

The condition in Denition 3.6 ensures that the canonical basis elements of

J(:) are indecomposable in /(:).

It is straightforward to check that Denition 3.6 is equivalent to the def-

inition of /(:) in [Zar09].

Examples of several algebra elements are given in Figure 9. The dotted

lines on the side are given to remind us of the matching in the arc diagram

:. All strands are oriented left to right, so we avoid drawing them with

arrows. The horizontal lines in Figure 9b are dotted, as a shorthand for the

sum of two diagrams, with a single horizontal line each. For the elements in

this example, we have a

1

a

2

= a

3

, and a

1

= a

4

.

The situation for arc diagrams of type is completely analogous, with

one important dierence.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 17

(a) /(:) (b) /(:) (c) /(:) (d) /(:)

Figure 10. Four elements in the algebras :, :, :, and :, which corre-

spond to each other.

Denition 3.7. The bordered algebra /(:) associated to a arc diagram

:, is dened in the exact same way as in Denitions 3.6, except that moving

strands are downward veering, instead of upward.

The relationship between the dierent types of algebras is summarized in

the following proposition.

Proposition 3.8. Suppose : is an arc diagram of either or type. The

algebras associated to :, :, :, and : are related as follows:

/(:)

= /(:)

= /(:)

op

,

/(:)

= /(:).

Here A

op

denotes the opposite algebra of A. That is, an algebra with

the same additive structure and dierential, but the order of multiplication

reversed.

Proof. This is easily seen by reecting and rotating diagrams. To get from

/(:) to /(:) we have to rotate all diagrams by 180 degrees. This means

that multiplication switches order, so we get the opposite algebra.

To get from /(:) to /(:) we have to reect all diagrams along the

vertical axis. This again means that multiplication switches order.

An example of the correspondence is shown in Figure 10.

3.3. The bordered invariants. We will give a brief sketch of the deni-

tions of the bordered invariants from [Zar09], which apply for the case of

arc diagrams. Then we discuss the necessary modications when arcs

are involved.

For now assume : = (Z, a, M) is an arc diagram.

Denition 3.9. A bordered sutured Heegaard diagram 1 = (, , , :)

consists of the following:

A compact surface with no closed components.

18 RUMEN ZAREV

A collection of circles

c

and a collection of arcs

a

, which are

pairwise disjoint and properly embedded in . We set =

a

c

.

A collection of disjoint circles , properly embedded in .

An embedding G(:) , such that Z is sent into , preserving

orientation, while

a

is the image of the arcs e

i

in G(:).

We require that

0

(Z)

0

((

c

a

)) and

0

(Z)

0

()

be surjective.

To such a diagram we can associate a bordered sutured manifold (Y, , :)

as follows. We obtain Y from [0, 1] by gluing 2handles to 1

and

c

0. The dividing set is = ( Z) 1/2, and F(:) is a

neighborhood of Z [0, 1]

a

0.

As proved in [Zar09], for every bordered sutured manifold there is a unique

Heegaard diagram, up to isotopy and some moves.

The bordered invariants are certain homotopy-equivalence classes of /

modules (see Appendix B). For a given Heegaard diagram 1, we can form

the set of generators ((1) consisting of collections of intersection points of

.

The invariant

BSA(1)

A(Z)

is a right typeA /

Z/2basis ((1). The ground ring J(:) acts as follows. The only idempotent

in J(:) which acts nontrivially on x ((1) is

I(x)

where I(x) 1, . . . , k

records the arcs which contain a point of x.

The structure map m of

BSA(1) counts certain holomorphic curves in

Int [0, 1] R, with boundary on ( 1 R) ( 0 R). Each

such curve has two types of asymptoticsends at () [0, 1] , and

ends at 0 h where h R is nite. The possible ends at are

in 1-to-1 correspondence with elements of /(:).

The expression m(x, a

1

, . . . , a

n

), y

asymptotics x [0, 1] at , y [0, 1] at +, and a

1

, a

2

, . . . , a

n

at some

nite values h

1

< h

2

< . . . < h

n

.

We write

BSA(}) for the homotopy equivalence class of

BSA(1). (In-

variance was proven in [Zar09].)

The invariant

A(Z)

/(:)

op

, with Z/2basis ((1). (See Appendix B.2 for typeD modules, and

the meaning of upper and lower indices). The ground ring J(:) acts as

follows. The only idempotent in J(:) which acts nontrivially on x ((1)

is

I

c

(x)

where I

c

(x) 1, . . . , k records the arcs which do not contain a

point of x.

The structure map of

BSD(1) counts a subset of the same holomorphic

curves as for

BSA(1). Their interpretation is somewhat dierent, though.

Equivalently,

A(Z)

op

BSD(1) =

BSA(1)

A(Z)

A(Z),A(Z)

op

I, where I is a cer-

tain bimodule dened in [LOT10a].

Again, we write

BSD(}) for the homotopy equivalence class of

BSD(1).

(Invariance was proven in [Zar09].)

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 19

We can also construct invariants

A(Z)

op

BSA(}) and

BSD(})

A(Z)

purely

algebraically from the usual

BSA and

BSD. Indeed, as discussed in Appen-

dix B.6, any right Amodule is a leftA

op

module and vice versa.

If } is bordered by T(:

1

) T(:

2

), we can similarly dene several bimod-

ules invariants for }:

A(Z

1

)

op

BSAA(})

A(Z

2

)

A(Z

1

)

op

BSDA(})

A(Z

2

)

A(Z

1

)

op

BSAD(})

A(Z

2

) A(Z

1

)

op

BSDD(})

A(Z

2

)

For the invariants of diagrams little changes. Suppose : is a type

arc diagram. Heegaard diagrams will now involve arcs as the images

of e

i

G(:), instead of arcs. We still count holomorphic curves in

Int [0, 1] R. However, since there are curves hitting instead of ,

the asymptotic ends at 1h are replaced by ends at 0h,

which again correspond to elements of /(:). The rest of the denition is

essentially unchanged.

The last case is when } is bordered by T(:

1

) T(:

2

), where :

1

is a

diagram of type and :

2

is of type. We can extend the denition of

The ones at which correspond to generators x, y ((1).

1 h (or ends) which correspond to /(:

1

).

0 h (or ends) which correspond to /(:

2

).

Each holomorphic curve will have some number k 0 of ends, and some

number l 0 of ends. Such a curve contributes to the structure map

m

k|1|l

which takes k elements of /(:

1

) and l elements of /(:

2

).

To summarize we have the following theorem.

Theorem 3.10. Let } be a bordered sutured manifold, bordered by T(:

1

)

T(:

2

), where :

1

and :

2

can be any combination of and types. Then

there are bimodules, well dened up to homotopy equivalence:

A(Z

1

)

BSAA(})

A(Z

2

)

A(Z

1

)

BSDA(})

A(Z

2

)

A(Z

1

)

BSAD(})

A(Z

2

) A(Z

1

)

BSDD(})

A(Z

2

)

If }

1

and }

2

are two such manifolds, bordered by T(:

1

) T(:

2

) and

T(:

2

) T(:

3

), respectively, then there are homotopy equivalences

BSAA(}

1

}

2

)

BSAA(}

1

)

A(Z

2

)

BSDA(}

2

),

BSDA(}

1

}

2

)

BSDD(}

1

)

A(Z

2

)

BSAA(}

2

),

etc. Any combination of bimodules for }

1

and }

2

can be used, where one is

typeA for /(:

2

), and the other is typeD for /(:

2

).

The latter statement is referred to as the pairing theorem. The proof of

Proposition 3.10 is a straightforward adaptation of the corresponding proofs

when dealing with only type diagrams. An analogous construction involv-

ing both and arcs in the purely bordered setting is given in [LOT10b].

20 RUMEN ZAREV

3.4. Mirrors and twisting slices. In this section we give two compu-

tations of bordered invariants. One of them relates the invariants for a

bordered sutured manifold J and its mirror J. The other gives the

invariants for a positive and negative twisting slice.

Recall that if J = (W, , T(:)), its mirror is J = (W, , T(:)) =

(W, , T(:)).

Proposition 3.11. Let J and J be as above. Let M

A(Z)

be a repre-

sentative for the homotopy equivalence class

BSA(J)

A(Z)

. Then its dual

A(Z)

M

is a representative for

A(Z)

BSA(J). Similarly, there are homo-

topy equivalences

_

BSD(J)

A(Z)

_

A(Z)

BSD(J),

_

A(Z)

op

BSA(J)

_

BSA(J)

A(Z)

op

,

_

A(Z)

op

BSD(J)

_

BSD(J)

A(Z)

op

.

A similar statement holds for bimodulesif J is bordered by T(:

1

)

T(:

2

), then the corresponding bimodule invariants of J and J are duals

of each other.

Proof. We prove one case. All others follow by analogy. Let 1 = (, , , :)

be a Heegaard diagram for J. Let 1

tained by switching all and curves. (Note that if : was an type

diagram, this turns it into the type diagram :, and vice versa.)

The bordered sutured manifold described by 1

is precisely J. Indeed,

it is obtained from the same manifold [0, 1] by attaching all 2handles on

the opposite side, and taking the sutured surface T also on the opposite side.

This is equivalent to reversing the orientation of W, while keeping the orien-

tations of and Z the same. (Compare to [HKM07], where the

EHinvariant for contact structures on (Y, ) is dened in SFH(Y, +).)

The generators ((1) and ((1

is also a 1to1 correspondence between the holomorphic curves u in the

denition of

BSA(1)

A(Z)

and the curves u

in the denition of

BSA(1

)

A(Z)

.

This is given by reecting both the [0, 1]factor and the Rfactor in the

domain Int [0, 1]R. The asymptotic ends are reversed. The ends

of u are sent to the ends of u

Rscale are reversed. When turning ends to ends, the corresponding

elements of /(:) are reected (as in the correspondence /(:)

= /(:)

op

from Proposition 3.8).

This implies the following relation between the structure maps m of

BSA(1) and m

of

BSA(1

):

m(x, a

1

, . . . , a

n

), y

_

=

(y

, a

op

n

, . . . , a

op

1

), x

_

.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 21

Turning

BSA(1

op

)

op

= /(:), we get the

relation

m(x, a

1

, . . . , a

n

), y

_

=

(a

1

, . . . , a

n

, y

), x

_

.

This is precisely the statement that

BSA(1)

A(Z)

and

A(Z)

BSA(1

) are

duals, with ((1) and ((1

) as dual bases.

A similar statement for purely bordered invariants is proven in [LOT10b].

Proposition 3.12. Let : be any arc diagram, and let A = /(:). The

twisting slices T J

F(Z),

are bordered by T(:) T(:). They have bi-

module invariants

A

BSAA(T J

F(Z),

)

A

A

A

A

,

A

BSAA(T J

F(Z),+

)

A

A

A

A

.

Proof. Since T J

F(Z),

are mirrors of each other, by Proposition 3.11, it is

enough to prove the rst equivalence. The key ingredient is a very convenient

nice diagram 1 for T J

F(Z),

. This diagram was discovered by the author,

and independently by Auroux in [Aur], where it appears in a rather dierent

setting.

Recall from [Zar09] that a nice diagram is a diagram, (, , , :) where

each region of ( ) is either a boundary region, a rectangle, or a

bigon. The denition trivially extends to the current more general setting.

Nice diagrams can still be used to combinatorially compute bordered sutured

invariants.

The diagram is obtained as follows. For concreteness assume that : is

of type. To construct the Heegaard surface , start with several squares

[0, 1] [0, 1], one for each component Z Z. There are three identications

of Z with sides of the squares:

sending Z to the left sides 0 [0, 1], oriented from 0 to 1.

sending Z to the top sides [0, 1] 1, oriented from 1 to 0.

For each matched pair a, b = M

1

(i) a Z, attach a 1handle at

(a, b). Add an arc

a

i

from (a) to (b), and a arc

a

i

from

(a) to

this gives the correct manifold, notice that there are no or circles, so

the manifold is topologically [0, 1]. The pattern of attachment of the

1handles shows that = F(:). It is easy to check that and the arcs are

in the correct positions.

This construction is demonstrated in Figure 11. The gure corresponds

to the arc diagram : from Figure 7c.

Calculations with the same diagram in [Aur] and [LOT10b] show that

the bimodule

BSAA(1) is indeed the algebra A as a bimodule over itself.

While the statements in those cases are not about bordered sutured Floer

homology, the argument is purely combinatorial and caries over completely.

We give a brief summary of this argument. Intersection points in

are of two types:

22 RUMEN ZAREV

:

:

Figure 11. Heegaard diagram for a negative twisted slice T J

F,

.

(a) Dierential.

=

(b) Left action.

=

(c) Right action.

Figure 12. Examples of domains counted in the diagram for T J

F,

. In each

case the domain goes from the black dots to the white dots. Below them we

show the corresponding operations on the algebra.

x

i

a

i

a

i

inside the 1handle corresponding to M

1

(i), for i

1, . . . , k. The point x

i

corresponds to the two horizontal strands

[0, 1] M

1

(i) in /(:).

y

ab

a

M(a)

a

M(b)

, inside the square regions of 1. The point y

ab

corresponds to a strand (0, a) (1, b) (or a b for short) in /(:).

The allowed combinations of intersection points correspond to the allowed

diagrams in /(:), so

BSA(1)

Since 1 is a nice diagram the dierential counts embedded rectangles in

1, with sides on and . The rectangle with corners (y

ad

, y

bc

, y

ac

, y

ad

)

corresponds to resolving the crossing between the strands a d and b c

(getting a c and b d).

The left action m

1|1|0

of A counts rectangles hitting the :part of the

boundary. The rectangle with corners ((a), y

ac

, y

bc

, (b)) corresponds to

concatenating the strands a b and b c (getting a c). The right

action is similar, with rectangles hitting the :part of the boundary.

Some examples of domains in 1 contributing to m

0|1|0

, m

1|1|0

, and m

0|1|1

are shown in Figure 12. They are for the diagram 1 from Figure 11.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 23

= =

M

M

m

M

A MM

A

A

A M M A

A

A M M A

A

Figure 13. Denition of the join map .

4. The join map

In this section we will dene the join and gluing maps, and prove some

basic properties. Recall that the gluing operation is dened as a special case

of the join operation. The gluing map is similarly a special case of the join

map. Thus for the most part we will only talk about the general case, i.e.

the join map.

4.1. The algebraic map. We will rst dene an abstract algebraic map,

on the level of /

modules.

Let A be a dierential graded algebra, and

A

M be a left /

module over

it. As discussed in Appendix B.6, the dual M

A

is a right /

module over

A. Thus

A

(MM

)

A

is an /

bimodule over itself, so is its dual

A

A

A

. We dene a map M M

which is an /

Denition 4.1. The algebraic join map

M

:

A

(M M

)

A

A

A

follows. It is the unique morphism satisfying

(1)

i|1|j

(a

1

, . . . , a

i

, p, q

, , a

1

, . . . , a

j

), a

_

=

m

i+j+1|1

(a

1

, . . . , a

j

, a

, a

1

, . . . , a

i

, p), q

_

,

for any i, j 0, p M, q

, and a

A.

Eq. (1) is best represented diagrammatically, as in Figure 13. Note that

M

is a bounded morphism if and only if M is a bounded module.

As discussed in Appendix B.4, morphisms of /

complexes, where cycles are homomorphisms. Only homomorphisms de-

scend to maps on homology.

Proposition 4.2. For any

A

M, the join map

M

is a homomorphism.

Proof. It is a straightforward but tedious computation to see that

M

= 0

is equivalent to the structure equation for m

M

.

A more enlightening way to see this is to notice that by turning the

diagram in Figure 13 partly sideways, we get a diagram for the homotopy

equivalence h

M

: A

M M, shown in Figure 14. Taking the dierential

M

and turning the resulting diagrams sideways, we get precisely h

M

.

We know that h

M

is a homomorphism and, so h

M

= 0.

The equivalences are presented in Figure 15.

24 RUMEN ZAREV

= h

M

m

M

A A A M

M

A A A M

M

Figure 14. The homotopy equivalence h

M

: A

M M.

+ + + +

A

A

M

M

M

M

m

M

m

M

(a) The dierential

M

which needs to vanish to show that

M

is an /

bimodule homomorphism.

+ + + +

A

h

M

h

M

h

M

h

M

h

M

m

M

m

M

(b) The dierential h

M

of the homotopy equivalence h

M

.

Figure 15. Proof that is a homomorphism, by rotating diagrams.

We will prove two naturallity statements about that together imply

that descends to a well dened map on the derived category. The rst

shows that is natural with respect to isomorphisms in the derived cat-

egory of the DG-algebra A, i.e. homotopy equivalences of modules. The

second shows that is natural with respect to equivalences of derived cat-

egories. (Recall from [Zar09] that dierent algebras corresponding to the

same sutured surface are derived-equivalent.)

Proposition 4.3. Suppose

A

M and

A

N are two /

that there are inverse homotopy equivalences : M N and : N M.

Then there is an /

: M M

N N

,

and the following diagram commutes up to /

homotopy:

M M

M

))

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

N N

N

//

A

.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 25

Proposition 4.4. Suppose A and B are dierential graded algebras, and

B

X

A

and

A

Y

B

are two typeDA bimodules, which are quasi-inverses. That

is, there are /

homotopy equivalences

A

(Y X)

A

A

I

A

,

B

(X Y )

B

B

I

B

.

Moreover, suppose H

(B

) and H

(XA

Z/2).

Then there is a B, Bbimodule homotopy equivalence

X

: X A

.

Moreover, for any /

module

A

M, such that X M is well dened, the

following diagram commutes up to /

homotopy:

X M M

id

X

M

id

X

XM

**

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

X A

X

//

B

.

Notice the condition that X M be well dened. This can be satised

for example if M is a bounded module, or if X is reletively bounded in A

with respect to B. Before proving Propositions 4.3 and 4.4 in Section 4.3,

we will use them to dene the join .

4.2. The geometric map. Suppose that }

1

and }

2

are two sutured mani-

folds, and J = (W, , T) is a partially sutured manifold, with embeddings

J }

1

and J }

2

. Let : be any arc diagram parametrizing the sur-

face T. Recall that J = (W, , T). Also recall the twisting slice

T J

F,+

, from Denition 2.8. The join }

1

W

}

2

of }

1

and }

2

along J was

dened as

}

1

W

}

2

= (}

1

J)

F

T J

F,+

F

(}

2

J).

Let A = /(:) be the algebra associated to :. Let

A

M, U

A

, and

A

V

be representatives for the bordered sutured modules

A

BSA(J),

BSD(}

1

J)

A

, and

A

BSD(}

2

J), respectively such that U M and M

V

are well-dened. (Recall that the modules are only dened up to homotopy

equivalence, and that the product is only dened under some boundedness

conditions.) We proved in Proposition 3.11 that M

A

is a representative

for

BSA(J)

A

, and in Proposition 3.12 that

A

A

A

is a representative for

BSAA(T J

F,+

).

From the K unneth formula for SFH of a disjoint union, and from Theo-

rem 3.10, we have the following homotopy equivalences of chain complexes.

SFC(}

1

}

2

)

= SFC(}

1

) SFC(}

2

)

BSD(}

1

J)

A

BSA(J)

_

BSA(J)

A

BSD(}

2

J)

_

U

A

A

(M M

)

A

A

V.

26 RUMEN ZAREV

SFC(}

1

W

}

2

)

BSD(}

1

J)

A

BSAA(T J

F,+

)

A

BSD(}

2

J)

U

A

A

A

A

A

V.

Denition 4.5. Let }

1

, }

2

and J be as described above. Dene the geo-

metric join map

M

: SFC(}

1

) SFC(}

2

) SFC(}

1

W

}

2

)

by the formula

(2)

M

= id

U

M

id

V

: U M M

V U A

V.

Note that such an induced map is not generally well dened (it might

involve an innite sum). In this case, however, we have made some bound-

edness assumptions. Since U M and M

be bounded, or both of U and V must be bounded. In the former case,

M

is also bounded. Either of these situations guarantees that the sum dening

M

is nite.

Theorem 4.6. The map

M

from Denition 4.5 is, up to homotopy, in-

dependent on the choice of parametrization :, and on the choices of repre-

sentatives M, U, and V .

Proof. First, we will give a more precise version of the statement. Let :

be

any other parametrization of T, with B = /(:

), and let

B

M

, U

B

and

B

V

there are homotopy equivalences and making the following diagram

commute up to /

homotopy:

U M M

//

U A

//

U

.

The proof can be broken up into several steps. The rst step is indepen-

dence from the choice of U and V , given a xed choice for A and M. This

follows directly from the fact id and id are DG-functors.

The second step is to show independence from the choice of M, for xed

A, U, and V . This follows from Proposition 4.3. Indeed, suppose : M

M

M. Then

: M

equivalence

id

U

id

V

: U M M

V U M

V.

By Proposition 4.3,

M

M

(

), which implies

id

U

M

id

V

(id

U

M

id

V

) (id

U

id

V

).

The nal step is to show independence from the choice of algebra A. We

will cut }

1

and }

2

into several pieces, so we can evaluate the two dierent

versions of from the same geometric picture.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 27

T T

J

J

T Q

Figure 16. The various pieces produced by slicing J at two surfaces parallel

to T.

Let T

and T

J

= (W

, T

) and J

= (W

, T

), where J

J.

Let T = J

and Q = J J

topologically F [0, 1].

Parametrize T and T

by :, and T

by :

/(:

) = B. Let

B

X

A

and

A

Y

B

be representatives for

B

BSAD(T)

A

and

A

BSAD(Q)

B

, respectively. Note that Q

F

T is a product bordered sutured

manifold, and thus has trivial invariant

A

BSAD(Q T)

A

A

I

A

. By the

pairing theorem, this implies Y X

A

I

A

. Similarly, by stacking T and Q

in the opposite order we get X Y

B

I

B

.

There are embeddings J

, J

}

1

and J

, J

}

2

and two

distinct ways to cut and glue them together, getting }

1

W

}

2

= }

1

W

}

2

.

This is illustrated schematically in Figure 17.

Let

A

M be a representative for

A

BSA(J

B

(X M) is a representative for

B

BSA(J

). Notice that T J

F

,+

= T

T J

F

,+

T and

B

B

B

and

B

(XA

)

B

are both representatives for

its

BSAA invariant. In particular, they have the same homology. Finally,

let U

B

and

B

V be representatives for

BSD(}

1

J

)

B

and

B

BSD(}

2

J

),

respectively.

The two join maps

M

and

XM

are described by the following equa-

tions.

M

= id

UX

M

id

X

V

:

(U X) M M

(X

V ) (U X) A

(X

V ),

XM

= id

U

XM

id

V

:

U (X M) (M

) V U B

V.

We can apply Proposition 4.4. The boundedness condition can be satised

by requiring that X and Y are bounded modules. There is a homotopy

28 RUMEN ZAREV

}

1

J

T J

T }

2

J

(a) Cutting }

1

and }

2

in two dierent places.

}

1

J

T

T J

F

,+ T }

2

J

.

}

1

J

T J

F

,+ }

2

J

.

Figure 17. Two ways of cutting and pasting to get the join of }

1

and }

2

.

equivalence

X

: X A

B, and a homotopy

XM

X

(id

X

M

id

X

). These induce a homotopy

(id

U

X

id

V

)

M

= id

U

(

X

(id

X

M

id

X

)) id

V

id

U

XM

id

V

=

XM

.

This nishes the last step. Combining all three gives complete invariance.

Thus we can refer to

W

from now on.

4.3. Proof of algebraic invariance. In this section we prove Proposi-

tions 4.3 and 4.4.

Proof of Proposition 4.3. The proof will be mostly diagrammatic. There are

two modules

A

M and

A

N, and two inverse homotopy equivalences, : M

N and : N M. The dualizing functor

A

Mod Mod

A

is a DG-functor.

Thus it is easy to see that

= ( id

N

) (id

M

)

is also a homotopy equivalence. Let H: M M be the homotopy between

id

M

and .

We have to show that the homomorphism

(3)

M

+

N

(

)

is null-homotopic (see Figure 18a). Again, it helps if we turn the diagram

sideways, where bar resolutions come into play. Let h

M

: A

M M and

h

N

: A

N N be the natural homotopy equivalences.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 29

+

m

M

m

N

(a) Representation of Eq. (3).

+

h

M

h

N

+

h

M

H

(c) Null-homotopy of (4).

+

m

M

H

(d) Null-homotopy of (3).

Figure 18. Diagrams from the proof of Proposition 4.3.

Turning the rst term in Eq. (3) sideways, we get h

M

. Turning the second

term sideways we get h

N

(id

A

). Thus we need to show that

(4) h

M

+ h

N

(id

A

)

is null-homotopic (see Figure 18b).

There is a canonical homotopy h

: A

M N between h

M

and

h

N

(id

A

), given by

h

(a

1

, . . . , a

i

, (a

, a

1

, . . . , a

j

, m)) = (a

1

, . . . , a

i

, a

, a

1

, . . . , a

j

, m).

Thus we can build the null-homotopy h

+ H h

M

(see Figure 18c).

Indeed,

( h

) = h

M

+ h

N

(id

A

),

(H h

M

) = id

M

h

M

+ h

M

.

Alternatively, we can express the null-homotopy of the expression (3)

directly as in Figure 18d.

Proof of Proposition 4.4. Recall the statement of Proposition 4.4. We are

given two dierential graded algebras A and B, and three modules

B

X

A

,

A

Y

B

, and

A

M. We assume that there are homotopy equivalences X Y

B

I

B

and Y X

A

I

A

, and that X A

and B

have homologies of

the same rank.

We have to construct a homotopy equivalence

X

: X A

,

and a homotopy

XM

X

(id

X

M

id

X

).

30 RUMEN ZAREV

X

B X A X B

B

(a) Denition of .

= h

X

X

B B B X

X A

B B B X

X A

(b) View as a map B

X X.

Figure 19. Two views of the homotopy equivalence from Eq. (5).

= =

X

m

M

X

m

M

X

m

X

M

B X M M X B

B

B XM MX B

B

B XM MX B

B

Figure 20. Equality of the direct and induced maps for X M.

We start by constructing the morphism . We can dene it by the fol-

lowing equation:

(5)

(

X

)

i|1|j

(b

1

, . . . , b

i

, (x, a

, x

), b

1

, . . . , b

j

), b

_

=

i+j+1|1|1

(b

1

, . . . , b

j

, b

, b

1

, . . . , b

i

, x), (x

, a)

_

.

Again, it is useful to turn it sideways. We can reinterpret

X

as a

morphism of typeAD modules B

X X. In fact, it is precisely the

canonical homotopy equivalence h

X

between the two. Diagrams for

X

and

h

X

are shown in Figure 19. Since the h

X

is a homomorphism, it follows

that

X

is one as well.

Next we show that

XM

is homotopic to

X

(id

X

M

id

X

). They

are in fact equal. This is best seen in Figure 20. We use the fact that

X

and

X

commute with merges and splits.

Finally, we need to show that

X

is a homotopy equivalence. We will do

that by constructing a right homotopy inverse for it. Combined with the

fact that the homologies of the two sides have equal rank, this is enough to

ascertain that it is indeed a homotopy equivalence.

Recall that X Y I. Thus there exist morphisms of typeAD B, B

bimodules f : I XY , and g: XY I, and a null-homotopy H: I I

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 31

of id

I

g f. Note that g

: I

is a map of typeDAmodules,

and (

B

I

B

)

=

B

I

B

.

Let

Y

: Y B

A be dened analogous to

X

. Construct the

homomorphism

= (id

X

Y

id

X

) (f id

B

id

Y

id

X

) (id

I

id

B

g

):

I B

I X A

.

We need to show that

X

is homotopic to id

B

, or more precisely to

the canonical isomorphism : I B

I B

. A graphical representation

of

X

is shown in Figure 21a. It simplies signicantly, due to the

fact that B is a DG-algebra, and

B

only has two nonzero terms. The

simplied version of

X

is shown in Figure 21b. As usual, it helps to

turn the diagram sideways. We can view it as a homomorphism B

I I

of typeAD B, Bbimodules. As can be seen from Figure 21c, we get the

composition

(6) g (h

X

id

Y

) (id

B

f) = g h

XY

(id

B

f): B

I I.

On the other hand, the homomorphism : I B

I B

, if written

sideways, becomes the homotopy equivalence h

I

: B

I I. See Figure 22

for the calculation. In the second step we use some new notation. The caps

on the thick strands denote a map Bar B K to the ground ring, which

is the identity on B

0

, and zero on B

i

for any i > 0. The dots on the I

strands denote the canonical isomorphism of I B

I and B

as modules

over the ground ring.

Finding a null-homotopy for +

X

is equivalent to nding a null-

homotopy B

I I of h

I

+g h

XY

(id

B

f). There is a null-homotopy

f

: B

I B

X Y of f h

I

+ h

XY

(id

B

f). Recall that H was

a null-homotopy of id

I

+g f. Thus we have

(H h

I

+g

f

) = (id

I

h

I

+g f h

I

)

+ (g f h

I

+g h

XY

(id

B

F)

= h

I

+g h

XY

(id

B

F),

giving us the required null-homotopy.

To nish the proof, notice that if

X

is homotopic to id

B

, then it

is a quasi-isomorphism, i.e. a homomorphism whose scalar component is a

quasi-isomorphism of chain complexes. Moreover, when working with Z/2

coecients, as we do, quasi-isomorphisms of /

coincide with homotopy equivalences.

In particular we have that (

X

)

0|1|0

= (

X

)

0|1|0

0|1|0

induces an

isomorphism on homology (in this case the identity map on homology). In

particular induces an injection, while

X

induces a surjection. Combined

with the initial assumption that B

and X A

have homologies of

equal rank, this implies that (

X

)

0|1|0

and

0|1|0

induce isomorphisms on

homology. That is,

X

and are quasi-isomorphisms, and so homotopy

32 RUMEN ZAREV

B

f

g

B B

I

B

B

B

I

B B

B

(a) Before simplication.

B

f

g

B B

I

B

B

B

I

B B

B

(b) After simplication.

B

f

g

B B B B

I

B

B

I

B

B

(c) Written sideways.

Figure 21. Three views of

X

: I B

I B

.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 33

= =

I

h

I

B I B I B

B

B I B I B

B

B I B I B

B

B B B I

I B

Figure 22. The equivalence of the morphism and h

I

.

equivalences. This concludes the proof of Proposition 4.4, and with it, of

Theorem 4.6.

5. Properties of the join map

In this section we give some formulas for the join and gluing maps, and

prove their formal properties.

5.1. Explicit formulas. We have abstractly dened the join map

W

in

terms of

BSA(W)

but so far have not given any explicit formula for it.

Here we give the general formula, as well as some special cases which are

somewhat simpler.

If we want to compute

W

for the join }

1

W

}

2

, we need to pick a

parametrization by an arc diagram :, with associated algebra A, and repre-

sentatives U for

BSD(}

1

)

A

, V for

A

BSD(}

2

), and M for

A

BSA(J). Then

we know SFC(}

1

) = U M, SFC(}

2

) = M

V , and SFC(}

1

W

}

2

) =

U A

W

is

W

= id

U

M

id

V

: U M M

V U A

V.

In graphic form this can be seen in Figure 23a.

This general form is not good for computations, especially if we try to

write it algebraically. However

W

has a much simpler form when M is a

DG-type module.

Denition 5.1. An /

module M

A

is of DG-type if it is a DG-module,

i.e., if its structure maps m

1|i

vanish for i 2. A bimodule

A

M

B

is of

DG-type if m

i|1|j

vanish, unless (i, j) is one of (0, 0), (1, 0) or (0, 1) (i.e. it

is a DG-module over AB).

A typeDA bimodule

A

M

B

is of DG-type if

1|1|j

vanish for all j 2. A

typeDD bimodule

A

M

B

is of DG-type if

1|1|1

(x) is always in AX 1+

1 X B (i.e. it is separated). All type Dmodules M

A

are DG-type.

The product of any combination of DG-type modules is also DG-type.

All modules

BSA,

BSD,

BSAA, etc., computed from a nice diagram are of

DG-type.

34 RUMEN ZAREV

Proposition 5.2. Let the manifolds }

1

, }

2

, and J, and the modules U,

V , and M be as in the above discussion. If M is DG-type, the formula for

the join map

W

simplies to:

(7)

W

(u mn

v) =

m

M

(a, m), n

_

u a

v,

where the sum is over a Z/2basis for A. A graphical representation is given

in Figure 23b.

Finally, an even simpler case is that of elementary modules. We will see

later that elementary modules play an important role for gluing, and for the

relationship between the bordered and sutured theories.

Denition 5.3. A typeA module

A

M (or similarly M

A

) is called elemen-

tary if the following conditions hold:

(1) M is generated by a single element m over Z/2.

(2) All structural operations on M vanish (except for multiplication by

an idempotent, which might be identity).

A typeD module

A

M (or M

A

), is called elementary if the following

conditions hold:

(1) M is generated by a single element m over Z/2.

(2) (m) = 0.

Notice that for an elementary module M = 0, m we can decompose m

as a sum m =

1

m+ +

k

m, where (

i

) is the canonical basis of the ground

ring. Thus we must have

i

m = m for some i, and

j

m = 0 for all i ,= j.

Therefore, elementary (left) modules over A are in a 1to1 correspondence

with the canonical basis for its ground ring.

We only use elementary typeA modules in this section but we will need

both types later.

Remark. For the algebras we discuss, the elementary typeA modules are

precisely the simple modules. The elementary typeD modules are the those

A

M for which A M

A

Mod is an elementary projective module.

Proposition 5.4. If

A

M = m, 0 is an elementary module corresponding

to the basis idempotent

M

, then the join map

W

reduces to

(8)

W

(u mm

v) = u

M

v.

Graphically, this is given in Figure 23c.

Moreover, in this case, SFC(}

1

) = U M

= U

M

U and SFC(}

2

) =

M V

=

M

V V as chain complexes.

Proposition 5.2 and Proposition 5.4 follow directly from the denitions of

DG-type and elementary modules.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 35

U

V

m

M

U

U

V

V

M M

A

(a) The general case.

m

M

U

U

V

V

M M

A

(b) M of DG-type.

M

U

U

V

V

M M

A

(c) M elementary.

Figure 23. Full expression for join map in three cases.

5.2. Formal properties. In this section we will show that the join map

has the formal properties stated in Theorem 1. A more precise statement of

the properties is given below.

Theorem 5.5. The following properties hold:

(1) Let }

1

and }

2

be sutured and J be partially sutured, with embeddings

J }

1

and J }

2

. There are natural identications of the

disjoint unions }

1

}

2

and }

2

}

1

, and of of the joins }

1

W

}

2

and }

2

W

}

1

. Under this identication, there is a homotopy

W

W

.

(2) Let }

1

, }

2

, and }

3

be sutured, and J

1

and J

2

be partially sutured,

such that there are embeddings J

1

}

1

, (J

1

J

2

) }

2

, and

J

2

}

3

. The following diagram commutes up to homotopy:

SFC(}

1

}

2

}

3

)

W

1

//

W

2

W

1

W

2

++

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

SFC(}

1

}

2

}

3

)

W

2

SFC(}

1

}

2

}

3

)

W

1

//

SFC(}

1

}

2

}

3

)

(3) Let J be partially sutured. There is a canonical element [

W

] in

the sutured Floer homology SFH(T(J)) of the double of J. If

is any representative for [

W

], and there is an embedding J },

then

(9)

W

(, ) id

SFC(Y)

: SFC(}) SFC(}).

Proof. We will prove the three parts in order.

For part (1), take representatives U

A

for

BSD(}

1

J),

A

V for

BSD(}

2

J), and

A

M for

BSA(J). The main observation here is that we can turn

left modules into right modules and vice versa, by reecting all diagrams

along the vertical axis (see Appendix B.6). If we reect the entire diagram

for

M

, domain and target chain complexes are turned into isomorphic ones

and we get a new map that is equivalent.

The domain U

A

A

MM

A

V becomes V

A

op

A

opM

M

A

op

A

op

U,

and the target U

A

A

A

A

V becomes V

A

op

A

op(A

)

op

A

op

A

op

U.

36 RUMEN ZAREV

Notice that V

A

op

is

BSD(}

2

J),

A

opU is

BSD(}

1

J), and

A

opM

is

BSA(J). In addition (A

)

op

= (A

op

)

M

is completely

symmetric, when we reect it, we get

M

. Everything else is preserved, so

reecting

W

gives precisely

W

. This nishes part (1).

For part (2), the equivalence is best seen by working with convenient

representatives. Pick the following modules as representatives: U

A

for

BSD(}

1

J

1

),

A

X

B

for

BSDD(}

2

(J

1

J

2

)),

B

V for

BSD(}

1

),

A

M for

BSA(J

1

) and

B

N for

BSD(J

2

). We can always choose M, N, and X to

be of DG-type in the sense of Denition 5.1. Since X is of DG-type, taking

the product with it is associative. (This is only true up to homotopy in

general). Since M and N are DG-type, we can apply Proposition 5.2 to get

formulas for

W

1

and

W

2

. The two possible compositions are shown in

Figures 24a and 24b.

To compute

W

1

W

2

, notice that (U V )

A,B

op

represents

BSDD((}

1

}

3

)(J

1

J

3

)),

A,B

op

X represents

BSDD(}

2

(J

1

J

2

)), and

A,B

op(M

N

BSAA(J

1

J

2

). To compute the

join map, we need to convert them to single modules. For typeDD mod-

ules, this is trivial (any A, Bbimodule is automatically an A Bmodule

and vice versa). For typeAA modules, this could be complicated in gen-

eral. Luckily, it is easy for DG-type modules. Indeed, if P

A,B

is DG-type,

the corresponding ABmodule P

AB

is also DG-type, with algebra action

m

1|1

(, a b) = m

1|1|0

(, a) m

1|0|1

(, b) = m

1|0|1

(, b) m

1|1|0

(, a).

In the denition of bimodule invariants in [Zar09], the procedure used to

get

BSAA from

BSA, and

BSDD from

BSD is exactly the reverse of this

construction.

Thus, we can see that (U V )

AB

op

represents

BSD((}

1

}

3

) (J

1

J

3

)),

AB

op

X represents

BSD(}

2

(J

1

J

2

)), and

AB

op(M N

)

represents

BSA(J

1

J

2

). It is also easy to check that

A

A

B

op(B

op

)

B

op

=

AB

op(AB

op

)

AB

op.

We can see a diagram for

W

1

W

2

in Figure 24c. By examining the

diagrams, we see that the three maps are the same, which nishes part (2).

Part (3) requires some more work, so we will split it in several steps. We

will dene

M

for a xed representative M of

BSD(J). We will prove that

[

M

] does no depend on the choice of M. Finally, we will use a computa-

tional lemma to show that Eq. (9) holds for

M

.

First we will introduce some notation. Given an /

module

A

M over

A = /(:), dene the double of M to be

(10) T(M) = M

(

A

I

A

A

A

I

A

) M.

Note that if M =

BSA(J), then T(M) =

BSA(J)

BSDD(T J

F,

)

M

T(M)

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 37

m

M

m

N

U M MX N N V

U A X B V

(a)

W2

W1

m

M

m

N

U M MX N N V

U A X B V

(b)

W1

W2

m

M

m

N

UV MN

N X

UV AB

op

X

(c)

W1W2

Figure 24. Three ways to join }

1

, }

2

, and }

3

.

=

M

1

M

A

I

A

A

A

I

A

M M

A

I

A

A

A

I

A

M

Figure 25. The diagonal element

M

.

as follows. Pick a basis (m

1

, . . . , m

k

) of M over Z/2. Dene

(11)

M

=

k

i=1

m

i

( 1 ) m

i

.

It is easy to check that this denition does not depend on the choice of

basis. Indeed there is a really simple diagrammatic representation of M,

given in Figure 25. We think of it as a linear map from Z/2 to T(M). It

is also easy to check that

M

= 0. Indeed, writing out the denition of

M

, there are are only two nonzero terms which cancel.

The proof that [

M

] does not depend on the choices of A and M is very

similar to the proof of Theorem 4.6, so will omit it. (It involves showing

independence from M, as well as from A via a quasi-invertible bimodule

A

X

B

.)

Lemma 5.6. Let A be a dierential graded algebra, coming from an arc

diagram :. There is a homotopy equivalence

c

A

:

A

I

A

A

A

I

A

A

A

A

A

I

A

,

given by

(c

A

)

1|1|0

_

a

b

_

=

_

b if a is an idempotent,

0 otherwise.

38 RUMEN ZAREV

= c

A

1

A

I

A

A

A

I

A

A

A

I

A

A

A

I

A

A

A

A

I

A

A

A

I

A

Figure 26. The cancellation homotopy equivalence c

A

: I A

I A I.

Here we use to denote the unique element with compatible idempo-

tents in the two versions of I. (Both versions have generators in 1to1

correspondence with the basis idempotents.)

Remark. As we mentioned earlier, one has to be careful when working with

typeDD modules. While and

are usually associative by themselves,

and with each other, this might fail when a DDmodule is involved, in which

case we only have associativity up to homotopy equivalence. However, this

could be mitigated in two situations. If the DDmodule is DG-type (which

fails for

A

I

A

), or if the typeA modules on both sides are DG-type, then

true associativity still holds. This is true for A and A

, so the statement of

the lemma makes sense.

Proof of Lemma 5.6. Note that we can easily see that there is some homo-

topy equivalence (I A

BSDD(T J

F,+

)

BSAA(T J

F,

)

BSDA(T J

F,+

T J

F,

),

while the right side is

BSDA(T [0, 1]), and those bordered sutured mani-

folds are the same. The diculty is in nding the precise homotopy equiv-

alence, which we need for computations, in order to cancel A

and A.

First, we need to show that c

A

is a homomorphism. This is best done

graphically. The denition of c

A

is represented in Figure 26. The notation

we use there is that

A

I

A

is a jagged line, without a direction, since I is its

own dual.

A

I

A

is represented by a dashed line. As before the line can start

or end with a dot, signifying the canonical isomorphism given by .

We need to show that c

A

= 0. Note that by denition c

A

only has a

1[1[0term. On the other hand on I A

1[1[1terms, while on I has only a 1[1[1term.

Thus only four terms from the denition of c

A

survive. These are shown

in Figure 27. Expanding the denition of on I A

I A in terms of

the operations of I, A, and A

Figure 28. The terms in Figures 28a28d correspond to Figure 27a, while

those in Figures 28e28g correspond to Figures 27b27d, respectively. Six

of the terms cancel in pairs, while the one in 28b equals 0.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 39

1|1|0

c

A

(a)

1

c

A

(b)

2

c

A

I

(c)

1|1|1

c

A

(d)

Figure 27. Nontrivial terms of c

A

.

2

1

(a)

1

1

1

(b)

2

1

1

(c)

1

1

1

(d)

1

1

(e)

2

1

(f)

2

1

(g)

Figure 28. Elementary terms of h.

Showing that c

A

is a homotopy equivalence is somewhat roundabout.

First we will show that the induced map

id

A

c

A

: A (

A

I

A

A

A

I

A

A) A

A

I

A

= A

is a homotopy equivalence. It is easy to see that the map is

(id

A

c

A

)

0|1|0

(a b

c) =

_

a c if b is an idempotent,

0 otherwise.

In particular, it is surjective. Indeed, id

A

c

A

(a 1

1) = a for

all a A. Thus the induced map on homology is surjective. But the source

and domain are homotopy equivalent for topological reasons (both represent

BSAA(T J

F,

)). This implies that id

A

c

A

is a quasi-isomorphism, and a

homotopy equivalence. But (I A

I) A I and A(I A

I) I for

topological reasons, so A is an equivalence of derived categories. Thus,

40 RUMEN ZAREV

= = =

1

1

1

1

1

1

A A A

I

I

IAIM

IAIM

IM

m

M

m

M

A A

M

M

cA

I M I M I M I M

A I M A I M A I M A I M

Figure 29. Proof that

M

(,

M

) id.

c

A

itself must have been a homotopy equivalence, which nishes the proof

of the lemma.

We will now use Lemma 5.6, to show that for any } there is a homo-

topy

W

(,

M

) id

SFC(Y)

. Let c

A

be the homotopy equivalence from the

lemma. There is a sequence of homomorphisms as follows.

I M

id

IM

M

I M T(M)

= I M M

I AI M

id

I

M

id

IAIM

I A

I AI M

c

A

id

IM

I M

The composition of these maps is shown in Figure 29. As we can see from

the diagram, it is equal to id

I

id

M

. If U =

BSD(} J), then by applying

the functor id

U

to both homomorphisms, we see that

(id

U

c

A

id

IM

)

M

(id

SFC(Y)

M

) = id

SFC(Y)

,

which is equivalent to Eq. (9).

5.3. Self-join and self-gluing. So far we have been talking about the join

or gluing of two disjoint sutured manifolds. However, we can extend these

notions to a self-join or self-gluing of a single manifold. For example if there

is an embedding (JJ) }, then we can dene the self-join of } along

J to be the concatenation

}

W,

= (Y (J J))

FF

T J

F,+

= }

WW

T(J).

It is easy to see that if J and J embed into dierent components of },

this is the same as the regular join.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 41

Similarly, we can extend the join map to a self-join map

W,

: SFC(}) SFC(}

WW

T(J)) SFC(}

W,

),

by setting

W,

=

WW

(,

W

).

Again, if J and J embed into disjoint components of },

W,

is, up

to homotopy, the same as the regular join map

W

. This follows quickly

from properties (2) and (3) in Theorem 5.5.

6. The bordered invariants in terms of SFH

In this section we give a (partial) reinterpretation of bordered and bor-

dered sutured invariants in terms of SFH and the gluing map . This is a

more detailed version of Theorem 2.

6.1. Elementary dividing sets. Recall Denition 2.3 of a dividing set.

Suppose we have a sutured surface T = (F, ) parametrized by an arc

diagram : = (Z, a, M) of rank k. We will dene a set of 2

k

distinguished

dividing sets.

Before we do that, recall the way an arc diagram parametrizes a sutured

surface, from Section 3.1. There is an embedding of the graph G(:) into

F, such that Z = (Recall Figure 8). We will rst dene the elementary

dividing sets in the cases that : is of type. In that case the image of Z

is a push-o of S

+

into the interior of F. Denote the regions between S

+

and Z by R

0

. It is a collection of discs, one for each component of S

+

. The

images of the arcs e

i

G(:) are in the complement F R

0

.

Denition 6.1. Let I 1, . . . , k. The elementary dividing set for T

associated to I is the dividing set

I

constructed as follows. Let R

0

be the

region dened above. Set

R

+

= R

0

_

iI

(e

i

) F.

Then

I

= (R

+

) S

+

.

If : is of type, repeat the same procedure, substituting R

for R

+

and

S

for S

+

. For example the region R

0

consists of discs bounded by S

Z.

Examples of both cases are given in Figure 30.

We refer to the collection of

I

for all 2

k

many subsets of 1, . . . , k

as elementary dividing sets for :. The reason they are important is the

following proposition.

Proposition 6.2. Let : be an arc diagram of rank k, and let I 1, . . . , k

be any subset. Let

I

be the idempotent for A = /(:) corresponding to

horizontal arcs at all i I, and let

I

c be the idempotent corresponding to

the complement of I. Let J

I

be the cap associated to the elementary dividing

set

I

.

Then the following hold:

42 RUMEN ZAREV

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

(a) type diagram.

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

(b) type diagram.

Figure 30. Elementary dividing sets for an arc diagram. In each case we

show the arc diagram, its embedding into the surface, and the dividing set

{2,3}

. The shaded regions are R

+

.

A A B B

Figure 31. Heegaard diagram 1 for the cap J

2,3

corresponding to the di-

viding set from Figure 30a.

A

BSD(J) is (represented by) the elementary typeD module for

I

.

A

BSA(J) is (represented by) the elementary typeA module for

I

c .

Proof. The key fact is that there is a particularly simple Heegaard diagram

1 for J

I

. For concreteness we will assume : is a type diagram, though

the case of a type diagram is completely analogous.

The diagram 1 = (, , , :) contains no circles, exactly one arc

a

i

for each matched pair M

1

(i), and k#I many circles. Each circle has

exactly one intersection point on it, with one of

a

i

, for i / I. This implies

that there is exactly one generator x ((1), that occupies the arcs for I

c

.

This implies that

BSD(J

I

) and

BSA(J

I

) are both x, 0 as Z/2modules.

The actions of the ground ring are

I

x = x for

BSD(J

I

) and

I

c x = x for

BSA(J

I

). This was one of the two requirements for an elementary module.

The connected components of ( ) are in 1to1 correspondence

with components of R

+

. In fact each such region is adjacent to exactly

one component of Z. Therefore, there are only boundary regions and

no holomorphic curves are counted for the denitions of

BSD(J

I

) and

BSA(J

I

). This was the other requirement for an elementary module, so

the proof is complete. The diagram 1 can be seen in Figure 31.

We will dene one more type of object. Let T be a sutured surface

parametrized by some arc diagram :. Let I and J be two subsets of

1, . . . , k. Consider the sutured manifold J

I

T J

F,

J

J

. Since

J

I

and J

J

are caps, topologically this is F [0, 1]. The dividing set can

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 43

be described as follows. Along F 0 it is

I

0, along F 1 it is

J

1, and along F [0, 1] it consists of arcs in the [0, 1] direction with

a partial negative twist.

Denition 6.3. Let

IJ

denote the dividing set on (F [0, 1]), such that

(F [0, 1],

IJ

) = J

I

T J

F,

J

J

.

6.2. Main results. The main results of this section are the following two

theorems. We will give the proofs in the next subsection.

Theorem 6.4. Let T be a sutured surface parametrized by an arc diagram

:. The homology of A = /(:) decomposes as the sum

(12) H

(A) =

I,J{1,...,k}

I

H

(A)

J

=

I,J{1,...,k}

H

(

I

A

J

),

where

(13)

I

H

(A)

J

= SFH(F [0, 1],

IJ

).

Multiplication

2

descends to homology as

H

=

(F,

J

)

: SFH(F [0, 1],

IJ

) SFH(F [0, 1],

JK

)

SFH(F [0, 1],

IK

) ,

(14)

and is 0 on all other summands.

Theorem 6.5. Let } = (Y, , T) be a bordered sutured manifold where T

parametrized by :. Then there is a decomposition

H

BSA(Y )

A

_

=

I{1,...,k}

H

BSA(})

_

I

=

I{1,...,k}

H

BSA(Y )

I

_

,

(15)

where

(16) H

BSA(Y )

_

I

= SFH(Y,

I

).

Moreover, the m

1|1

action of A on

BSA descends to the following action

on homology:

(17) m

H

=

(F,

I

)

: SFH(Y,

I

)SFH(F I,

IJ

) SFH(Y,

J

),

and m

H

= 0 on all other summands.

Similar statements hold for left Amodules

A

BSA(}), and for bimodules

A

BSAA(})

B

.

Theorem 6.4 and 6.5, give us an alternative way to think about bordered

sutured Floer homology, or pure bordered Floer homology. (Recall that as

shown in [Zar09], the bordered invariants

CFD and

CFA are special cases

of

BSD and

BSA.) More remarkably, as we show in [Zar], H

(A),

H

, and

m

H

can be expressed in purely contact-geometric terms.

44 RUMEN ZAREV

For practical purposes, A and

BSA can be replaced by the /

algebra

H

module H

theorem will still hold. This is due to the fact that (using Z/2coecients),

an /

We would need, however, the higher multiplication maps of H

(A), and

the higher actions of H

(A) on H

H

and m

H

that we just

computed are only single terms of those higher operations. (Even though A

is a DG-algebra, H

6.3. Proofs. In this section we prove Theorems 6.4 and 6.5. Since there is

a lot of overlap of the two results and the arguments, we will actually give a

combined proof of a mix of statements from both theorems. The rest follow

as corollary.

Combined proof of Theorem 6.4 and Theorem 6.5. First, note that Eq. (12)

and Eq. (15) follow directly from the fact that the idempotents generate the

ground ring over Z/2.

We will start by proving a generalization of Eq. (13) and Eq. (16). The

statement is as follows. Let T and T

by the arc diagrams : and :

of rank k and k

and B = /(:

). Let } = (Y, , T T

and let M =

A

BSAA(})

B

.

Fix I 1, . . . , k and J 1, . . . , k

. Let J

I

and J

J

be the respective

caps associated to the dividing sets

I

on T and

J

on T

. Then the

following homotopy equivalence holds.

(18)

I

BSAA(})

J

SFC(Y,

I

J

).

The proof is easy. Notice that the sutured manifold (Y,

I

J

) is just

J

I

}J

J

. By the pairing theorem, SFC(Y,

I

J

)

BSD(J

I

)

BSAA(})

BSD(J

J

). But by Proposition 6.2,

BSD(J

I

) = x

I

, 0 is the

elementary module corresponding to

I

, while

BSD(J

J

) = y

J

, 0 is the

elementary idempotent corresponding to

J

. Thus we have

BSD(J

I

)

BSAA(})

BSD(J

J

) = x

I

BSAA(}) y

J

=

I

BSAA(})

J

.

Eq. (13) follows from Eq. (18) by substituting the empty sutured sur-

face = (, ) for T. Its algebra is /() = Z/2, so

Z/2

BSAA(})

B

and

BSA(})

B

can be identied.

Eq. (16) follows from Eq. (18) by substituting T(:) for both T and T

,

and T J

F,

for }. Indeed,

BSAA(T J

F,

) /(:), as a bimodule over

itself, by Proposition 3.12.

Next we prove Eq. (17). Let U

A

be a DG-type representative for

BSA(})

A

,

and let M

I

be the elementary representative for

A

BSA(J

I

). Since both are

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 45

DG-type, we can form the associative product

U

A

I

A

M

I

BSA(Y )

BSD(J

I

)

SFC(Y,

I

).

Similarly, pick M

J

to be the elementary representative for

A

BSA(J

J

). We

also know that

A

A

A

is a DG-type representative for

A

BSAA(T J

F,

)

A

.

We have the associative product

M

I

A

I

A

A

A

I

A

M

J

BSD(J

I

) A

BSD(J

J

)

SFC(F [0, 1],

IJ

).

Gluing the two sutured manifolds along (F,

I

) results in

} T J

F,+

T J

F,

J

J

= } J

J

= (Y,

J

),

so we get the correct manifold.

The gluing map can be written as the composition of

M

I

: (U I) M

I

M

I

(I A I M

J

)

(U I) A

(I AI M

J

),

id

U

c

A

id

IM

J

: U (I A

I A) I M

J

U I M

J

,

where c

A

is the homotopy equivalence from Lemma 5.6.

Luckily, since M

I

is elementary,

M

I

takes the simple form from Propo-

sition 5.4. In addition, since U and M

J

are DG-type, id hid is also very

simple. As can be seen in Figure 32, the composition is in fact

u x

I

c x

I

c

a x

J

c m

1|1

(u, a) x

J

c.

Since x

I

c corresponds to

I

, this translates to the map

(F,

I

)

: (U

I

) (

I

A

J

) U

J

,

(u

I

) (

I

a

J

). m(u, a)

J

Note that even though we picked a specic representative for

BSA(})

A

,

the group H

H

of H

on this choice. Finally, Eq. (14) follows by treating A as a right module over

itself.

Appendix A. Calculus of diagrams

This appendix summarizes the principles of the diagrammatic calculus we

have used throughout the paper. First we describe the algebraic objects we

work with, and the necessary assumptions on them. Then we describe the

diagrams representing these objects.

46 RUMEN ZAREV

=

id

UI

MI

id

IAIMJ

id

U

c

A

id

IMJ

m

U

I

1

U I

M

I

M

I I A I

M

J U I

M

I

M

I I A I

M

J

U I M

J

U I M

J

Figure 32. The gluing map

MI

on SFC(Y,

I

) SFC(F [0, 1],

IJ

),

followed by the chain homotopy equivalence id c

A

id.

A.1. Ground rings. The two basic objects we work with are a special class

of rings, and bimodules over them. We call these rings ground rings.

Denition A.1. A ground ring K is a nite dimensional Z/2algebra with

a distinguished basis (e

1

, . . . , e

k

) such that multiplication is given by the for-

mula

e

i

e

j

=

_

e

i

if i = j,

0 otherwise.

Such a basis for K is called a canonical basis.

The canonical basis elements are uniquely determined by the property

that e

i

cannot be written as a sum u + v, where u and v are nonzero and

u v = 0. Each element of K is an idempotent, while 1

K

= e

1

+ + e

k

is

an identity element.

We consider only nite dimensional bimodules

K

M

L

over ground rings K

and L, and collections (

K

M

iL

)

iI

where I is a countable index set (usually

I = 0, 1, 2, . . ., or some Cartesian power of the same), and each M

i

is a

nite-dimensional K, Lbimodule. It is often useful to think of the collection

(M

i

) as the direct sum

iI

M

i

, but that sometimes leads to problems, so

we will not make this identication.

There are some basic properties of bimodules over ground rings as dened

above.

Proposition A.2. Suppose K, L, and R are ground rings with canonical

bases (e

1

, . . . , e

k

), (e

1

, . . . , e

l

), and (e

1

, . . . , e

r

), respectively.

A bimodule

K

M

L

is uniquely determined by the collection of Z/2

vector spaces

e

i

M e

j

, i 1, . . . , k, j 1, . . . , l,

which we will call the components of M.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 47

A K, Lbilinear map f : M N is determined by the collection of

Z/2linear maps

f[

e

i

Me

j

: e

i

M e

j

e

i

N e

j

.

The tensor product (

K

M

L

)

L

(

L

N

R

) has components

e

i

(M

L

N) e

j

=

l

p=1

(e

i

M e

p

)

Z/2

(e

p

N e

j

).

The dual

L

M

K

of

K

M

L

has components

e

i

M

j

= (e

j

M e

i

)

,

and the double dual (M

is canonically isomorphic to M.

Proof. These follow immediately. The fact that M

= M is due to the fact

the fact that each component is a nite dimensional vector space.

Finally, when dealing with countable collections we introduce the follow-

ing conventions. For consistency we can think of a single module M as a

collection (M

i

) indexed by the set I = 1.

Denition A.3. Let K, L, and M be as in Proposition A.2.

An element of (M

i

)

iI

is a collection (m

i

)

iI

where m

i

M

i

.

A bilinear map f : (

K

M

iL

)

iI

(

K

N

j

L

)

jJ

is a collection

f

(i,j)

: M

i

N

j

(i, j) I J.

Equivalently, a map f is an element of the collection

Hom

K,L

((M

i

)

iI

, (N

j

)

jJ

) = (Hom(M

i

, N

j

))

(i,j)IJ

.

The tensor

K

(M

i

)

L

L

(N

j

)

R

is the collection

((M N)

(i,j)

)

(i,j)IJ

= (M

i

N

j

)

(i,j)IJ

.

The dual ((M

i

)

iI

)

is the collection (M

i

)

iI

.

Given bilinear maps f : (M

i

) (N

j

) and g: (N

j

) (P

p

), their

composition g f : (M

i

) (P

p

) is the collection

(g f)

(i,p)

=

jJ

g

(j,p)

f

(i,j)

.

Note that the composition of maps on collections may not always be

dened due to a potentially innite sum. On the other hand, the double

dual (M

i

)

i

).

48 RUMEN ZAREV

A.2. Diagrams for maps. We will use the following convention for our

diagram calculus. There is a TQFT-like structure, where to decorated planar

graphs we assign bimodule maps.

Proposition A.4. Suppose K

0

, K

1

, . . . , K

n

= K

0

are ground rings, n 0,

and

K

i1

M

iK

i

are bimodules, or collections of bimodules. Then the following

Z/2spaces are canonically isomorphic.

A

i

= M

i

M

i+1

M

n

M

1

M

i1

/ ,

B

i,j

= Hom

K

i

,K

j

(M

i

M

1

M

n

M

j+1

, M

i+1

M

j

),

C

i,j

= Hom

K

j

,K

i

(M

j

M

i+1

, M

j+1

M

n

M

1

M

i

),

for 0 i j n, where the relation in the denition of A

i

is k x x k,

for k K

i1

.

Proof. The proof is straightforward. If all M

i

are single modules, then we are

only dealing with nite-dimensional Z/2vector spaces. If some of them are

collections, then the index sets for A

i

, B

i,j

and C

i,j

are all the same, and any

individual component still consists of nite dimensional vector spaces.

This property is usually referred to as Frobenius duality. Our bimodules

behave similar to a pivotal tensor category. Of course we do not have a real

category, as even compositions are not always dened.

Denition A.5. A diagram is a planar oriented graph, embedded in a disc,

with some degree1 vertices on the boundary of the disc There are labels as

follows.

Each planar region (and thus each arc of the boundary) is labeled by

a ground ring K.

Each edge is labeled by a bimodule

K

M

L

, such that when traversing

the edge in its direction, the region on the left is labeled by K, while

the one on the right is labeled by L.

An internal vertex with all outgoing edges labeled by M

1

, . . . , M

n

, in

cyclic counterclockwise order, is labeled by an element of one of the

isomorphic spaces in Proposition A.4.

If any of the edges adjacent to a vertex are incoming, we replace the

corresponding modules by their duals.

When drawing diagrams we will omit the bounding disc, and the boundary

vertices. We will usually interpret diagrams consisting of a single internal

vertex having several incoming edges M

1

, . . . , M

m

on top, and several

outgoing edges N

1

, . . . , N

n

on the bottom, as a bilinear map in Hom(M

1

M

m

, N

1

N

n

). See Figure 33 for an example.

Under some extra assumptions, discussed in Section A.3, a diagram with

more vertices can also be evaluated, or interpreted as an element of some set,

corresponding to all outgoing edges. The most common example is having

two diagrams T

1

and T

2

representing linear maps

M

f

1

//

N

f

2

//

P.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 49

F

F

F

M

1

M

2

M

3

M

4

M

5

M

2

M

3

M

4

M

5

M

1

M

1

M

5

M

4

M

3

M

2

Figure 33. Three equivalent diagrams with a single vertex. The label F is

interpreted as an element of A

1

= M

1

M

5

/ , B

1,4

= Hom(M

1

M

5

, M

2

M

3

M

4

), and C

1,4

Hom(M

4

M

3

M

2

, M

5

M

1

), respectively.

=

D

F G

H

M N P M N P

Q R

S

Figure 34. Evaluation of a complex diagram.

Stacking the two diagrams together, feeding the outgoing edges of T

1

into

the incoming edges of T

2

, we get a new diagram T, corresponding to the

map f

2

f

1

: M P. More generally, we can contract along all internal

edges, pairing the elements assigned to the two ends of an edge. As an

example we will compute the diagram D in Figure 34. Suppose the values

of the vertices F, G, and H are as follows:

F =

i

m

i

q

i

s

i

M QS,

G =

j

s

j

r

j

p

j

S

,

H =

k

q

k

n

k

r

k

Q

N R.

Then the value of D is given by

D =

i,j,k

q

i

, q

k

_

Q

s

i

, s

j

_

S

r

k

, r

j

_

R

m

i

n

k

p

j

M N P

.

Edges that go from boundary to boundary and closed loops can be in-

terpreted as having an identity vertex in the middle. As with individual

vertices, we can rotate a diagram to interpret it as an element of dierent

spaces, or dierent linear maps.

Note that the above construction might fail if any of the internal edges

corresponds to a collection, since there might be an innite sum involved.

The next section discusses how to deal with this problem.

50 RUMEN ZAREV

A.3. Boundedness. When using collections of modules we have to make

additional assumptions to avoid innite sums. We use the concept of bound-

edness of maps and diagrams.

Denition A.6. An element (m

i

)

iI

of the collection (M

i

)

iI

is called

bounded if only nitely many of its components m

i

are nonzero. Equiv-

alently, the bounded elements of (M

i

) can be identied with the elements of

i

M

i

.

For a collection (M

i,j

)

iI,jJ

there are several dierent concepts of bound-

edness. An element (m

i,j

) is totally bounded if it is bounded in the above

sense, considering I J as a single index-set. A weaker condition is that

(m

i,j

) is bounded in J relative to I. This means that for each i I, there are

only nitely many j J, such that m

i,j

is nonzero. Similarly, an element

can be bounded in I relative to J.

Note that f : (M

i

) (N

j

) is bounded in J relative to I exactly when f

represents a map from

i

M

i

to

j

N

j

. In computations relatively bounded

maps are more common than totally bounded ones. For instance the identity

map id: (M

i

) (M

i

) and the natural pairing , : (M

i

)

(M

i

) K are

not totally bounded, but are bounded in each index relative to the other.

To be able to collapse an edge labeled by a collection (M

i

)

iI

in a diagram,

at least one of the two adjacent vertices needs to be labeled by an element

relatively bounded in the Iindex. For a given diagram D we can ensure

that it has a well-dened evaluation by imposing enough boundedness con-

ditions on individual vertices. (There is usually no unique minimal set of

conditions.) Total or relative boundedness of D can also be achieved by a

stronger set of conditions. For example, if all vertices are totally bounded,

the entire diagram is also totally bounded.

Appendix B. /

In this section we will present some of the background on /

algebras

and modules, and the way they are used in the bordered setting. A more

thorough treatment is given in [LOT10a].

As in Appendix A, we always work with Z/2coecients which avoids

dealing with signs. Everything is expressed in terms of the diagram calculus

of Appendix A. As described there, all modules are nite dimensional,

although we also deal with countable collections of such modules. There is

essentially only one example of collections that we use, which is presented

below.

B.1. The bar construction. Suppose K is a ground ring and

K

M

K

is a

bimodule over it.

Denition B.1. The bar of M is the collection

Bar M = (M

i

)

i=0,...,

,

of tensor powers of M.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 51

Bar M Bar M Bar M

Bar M Bar M M Bar M Bar M Bar M Bar M

(a) Split maps.

Bar M Bar M Bar M

Bar M Bar M M Bar M Bar M M Bar M

(b) Merge maps.

Figure 35

There are two important maps on the bar of M.

Denition B.2. The split on Bar M is the map s: Bar M Bar M

Bar M with components

s

(i,j,k)

=

_

id: M

i

(M

j

) (M

k

) if i = j +k,

0 otherwise.

The merge map Bar M Bar M Bar M is similarly dened.

Merges and splits can be extended to more complicated situations where

any combination of copies of Bar M and M merge into Bar M, or split from

Bar M. All merges are associative, and all splits are coassociative.

Like the identity map, splits and merges are bounded in incoming indices,

relative to outgoing, and vice versa. To simplify diagrams, we draw merges

and splits as merges ans splits of arrows, respectively, without using a box

for the corresponding vertex (see Figure 35).

B.2. Algebras and modules. The notion of an /

algebra is a general-

ization of that of a dierential graded (or DG) algebra. While the algebras

that arise in the context of bordered Floer homology are only DG, we give

the general denition for completeness. We will omit grading shifts.

Denition B.3. An /

bimodule

K

A

K

, together with a collection of linear maps

i

: A

i

A,

i 1, satisfying certain compatibility conditions. By adding the trivial map

0

= 0: K A, we can regard this as a map = (

i

): Bar A A. This

induces a map : Bar A Bar A, given by splitting Bar M into three copies

of itself, applying to the middle one, and merging again (see Figure 36a).

The compatibility condition is = 0, or equivalently = 0 (see

Figure 36b).

The algebra is unital if there is a map 1: K A (which we draw as a

circle labeled 1 with an outgoing arrow labeled A), such that

2

(1, a) =

2

(a, 1) = a, and

i

(. . . , 1, . . .) = 0 if i ,= 2.

The algebra A is bounded if is bounded, or equivalently if is relatively

bounded in both directions.

Notice that a DG-algebra with multiplication m and dierential d is just

an /

algebra with

1

= d,

2

= m, and

i

= 0 for i 3. Moreover,

DG-algebras are always bounded.

52 RUMEN ZAREV

=

(a) in terms of .

= 0

= 0

(b) Compatibility conditions.

Figure 36. Denition of /

algebras

Since DG-algebras are associative, there is one more operation that is

specic to them.

Denition B.4. The associative multiplication : Bar A A for a DG-

algebra A is the map with components

i

(a

1

a

i

) =

_

a

1

a

2

a

i

i > 0,

1 i = 0.

There are two types of modules: typeA, which is the usual notion of

an /

typeDA, etc. These can be extend to tri-modules and so on. We describe

several of the bimodules. Other cases can be easily deduced.

Suppose A and B are unital /

respectively. We use the following notation. A typeA module over A will

have A as a lower index. A typeD module over A will have A as an upper

index. Module structures over the ground rings K and L are denoted with

the usual lower index notation.

Denition B.5. A typeAA bimodule

A

M

B

consists of a bimodule

K

M

L

over the ground rings, together with a map m = (m

i|1|j

): Bar A M

Bar B M. The compatibility conditions for m are given in Figure 37.

The bimodule M is unital if m

1|1|0

(1

A

, m) = m

0|1|1

(m, 1

B

) = m, and

m

i|1|j

vanishes in all other cases where one of the inputs is 1

A

or 1

B

.

The bimodule can be bounded, bounded only in A, relatively bounded in A

with respect to B, etc. These are dened in terms of the index sets of Bar A

and Bar B.

Denition B.6. A typeDA bimodule

A

M

B

consists of a bimodule

K

M

L

over the ground rings, together with a map = (

1|1|j

): MBar B AM.

This induces another map = (

i|1|j

): MBar B Bar AM, by splitting

Bar B into i copies, and applying imany times (see Figure 38a). The

compatibility conditions for and are given in Figure 38b.

The bimodule M is unital if

1|1|1

(m, 1

B

) = 1

A

m, and

1|1|i

vanishes

for i > 1 if one of the inputs is 1

B

.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 53

m

m

A

m

B

m

+ + = 0

Figure 37. Structure equation for a typeAA module.

.

.

.

=

.

.

.

.

.

.

(a) in terms of .

+ + = 0 = 0

B

B

A

(b) Structure equation for a typeDA module.

Figure 38

+ + = 0

A

B

A

B

Figure 39. Structure equation for a typeDD module.

Again, there are various boundedness conditions that can be imposed.

TypeDD modules only behave well if the algebras involved are DG, so

we only give the denition for that case.

Denition B.7. Suppose A and B are DG-algebras. A type DDmodule

A

M

B

consists of a bimodule

K

M

L

over the ground rings, together with a

map

1|1|1

: M A M B satisfying the condition in Figure 39.

We omit the denition of one-sided typeA and typeD modules, as they

can be regarded as special cases of bimodules. TypeA modules over A

can be interpreted as typeAA bimodules over A and B = Z/2. Similarly,

typeD modules are type DAmodules over Z/2.

B.3. Tensor products. There are two types of tensor products for /

. It is gen-

erally hard to work with, as M

N is innite dimensional over Z/2 even

when M and N are nite dimensional. This is bad for computational rea-

sons, as well as when using diagramsit violates some of the assumptions

54 RUMEN ZAREV

= + +

m

M

N

m

M

m

N

B

(a)

A

M

B

B

N

C

= + +

N

M

m

N

B

1 1

(b)

A

M

B

B

N

C

Figure 40. Structure maps for two types of

products.

of Appendix A. Nevertheless, we do use it in a few places throughout the

paper.

Throughout the rest of this section assume that A, B, and C are DG-

algebras over the ground rings K, L, and P, respectively.

Denition B.8. Suppose

A

M

B

and

B

N

C

are two typeAA bimodules. The

derived tensor product (

A

M

B

)

B

(

B

N

C

) is a typeAA bimodule

A

(M

N)

B

dened as follows. Its underling bimodule over the ground rings is

K

(M

N)

P

= (

K

M

L

)

L

_

i=0

L

B

L

i

_

L

(

L

N

P

)

= M

L

Bar B

L

N.

Here were slightly abusing notation in identifying Bar B with a direct sum.

The structure map as an /

M

N

, as shown

in Figure 40a.

Similarly, we can take the derived tensor product of a DA module and

an AA module, or a DA module and an AD module. The former is demon-

strated in Figure 40b.

The other type of tensor product is the square tensor product . It is

asymmetric, as it requires one side to be a typeD module, and the other

to be a typeA module. The main advantage of over

is that M N is

nite dimensional over Z/2 whenever M and N are. Its main disadvantage

is that M N is only dened subject to some boundedness conditions on

M and N.

Denition B.9. Suppose

A

M

B

is a typeAA bimodule and

B

N

C

is a type

DA bimodule, such that at least one of M and N is relatively bounded in

B. The square tensor product (

A

M

B

)

B

(

B

N

C

) is a typeAA bimodule

A

(M N)

C

dened as follows. Its underlying bimodule over the ground

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 55

= m

MN

m

M

N

(a)

A

M

B

B

N

C

=

MN

M

N

(b)

A

M

B

B

N

C

=

MN

m

M

N

C

(c)

A

M

B

B

N

C

=

MN

M

N

C

(d)

A

M

B

B

N

C

Figure 41. Structure maps for the four types of products.

rings is

K

(M N)

P

= (

K

M

L

)

L

(

L

N

P

),

and its structure map is m

MN

as shown in Figure 41a.

There are three other combinations depending on whether the modules

are of type D or A with respect A and C. All combinations are shown in

Figure 41.

B.4. Morphisms and homomorphisms. There are two dierent notions

of morphisms when working with /

natural one is that of homomorphisms, which generalize chain maps. How-

ever, if we work only with homomorphisms, too much information is lost.

For this reason we also consider the more general morphisms. These gen-

eralize linear maps of chain complexes, which do not necessarily respect

dierentials.

Denition B.10. A morphism f : M N between two bimodules M and

N of the same type is a collection of maps of the same type as the struc-

ture maps for M and N. For example, f :

A

M

B

A

N

B

has components

f

i|1|j

: Bar A M Bar B N. The spaces of morphisms are denoted by

A

Mor

B

(M, N), etc.

Suppose A and B are DG-algebras. The bimodules of each type, e.g.

A

Mod

B

, form a DG-category, with morphism spaces

A

Mor

B

, etc. The

dierentials and composition maps for each type are shown in Figures 42

and 43, respectively.

Denition B.11. A homomorphism f : M N of bimodules is a mor-

phism f which is a cycle, i.e., f = 0. A null-homotopy of f is a morphism

H, such that H = f. The space of homomorphisms up to homotopy is

denoted by

A

Hom

B

, etc.

Notice that the homomorphism space

A

Hom

B

(M, N) is exactly the ho-

mology of

A

Mor

B

(M, N). This gives us a new category of bimodules.

56 RUMEN ZAREV

= + + +

f

m

M f

A

B

f

m

N f f

(a) TypeAA.

= + + +

f f

f

f

f

A

A

B

(b) TypeDA.

= + + +

f f

f

f f

A

B

A

B

A

B

(c) TypeDD.

Figure 42. Dierentials of the dierent types of morphisms.

=

gf

f

g

(a) TypeAA.

=

gf

g

f

A

(b) TypeDA.

=

gf

g

f

A

B

(c) TypeDA.

Figure 43. Compositions of the dierent types of morphisms.

Having homomorphisms and homotopies allows us to talk about homo-

topy equivalences of modules. For example, if

A

M

B

is a bimodule, then

A

M M M

B, via canonical homotopy equivalences. For example,

there is h

M

: A

M M, which we used in several places.

JOINING AND GLUING SFH 57

= f id

N

f

N

(a)

= id

M

f

m

M

N

f

P

(b)

=

f

id

N

f

(c)

Figure 44. Three types of induced maps on tensor products.

=

A M A

op

M A

op

M

B M B

op

M B

op

M

m

M

m

M m

op

M

Figure 45. Passing from

A

Mod

B

to

B

op Mod

A

op

by reection.

B.5. Induced morphisms. Suppose f : M N is a bimodule morphism.

This induces morphisms

f

id: M

P N

P f id: M P N P,

whenever the tensor products are dened. The main types of induced mor-

phisms are shown in Figure 44. The functors id and

id are DG-functors.

That is, they preserve homomorphisms, homotopies, and compositions.

B.6. Duals. There are two operations on modules, which can be neatly

expressed by diagrams. One is the operation of turning a bimodule

A

M

B

into a bimodule

B

opM

A

op. (Similarly, typeDA bimodules become typeAD

bimodules, etc.) Diagrammatically this is achieved by reecting diagrams

along the vertical axis. See Figure 45 for an example.

The other operation is dualizing modules and bimodules. If

A

M

B

has

an underlying bimodule

K

M

L

over the ground rings, then its dual

B

M

A

has an underlying bimodule

L

M

K

= (

K

M

L

)

. Diagrammatically this is

achieved by rotating diagrams by 180 degrees. Again, there are variations

for typeD modules. See Figure 46 for an example.

Since the structure equations are symmetric, it is immediate that both

of these operations send bimodules to bimodules, as long as we restrict to

modules nitely generated over Z/2.

58 RUMEN ZAREV

=

A M

A

M A M

B M

B

M B M

m

M

m

M

m

M

A

Mod

B

to

B

Mod

A

by rotation.

This gives equivalences of the DG-categories

A

Mod

B

=

B

op Mod

A

op

=

_

B

Mod

A

_

op

,

etc. One can check that both constructions extend to tensors, induced

morphisms, etc.

References

[Aur] Denis Auroux, Fukaya categories of symmetric products and bordered

Heegaard-Floer homology, J Gokova Geometry Topology (to appear),

arXiv:1001.4323.

[CGHH10] Vincent Colin, Paolo Ghiggini, Ko Honda, and Michael Hutchings, Sutures

and contact homology I, 2010, arXiv:1004.2942.

[Gab83] David Gabai, Foliations and the topology of 3-manifolds, J. Dierential Geom-

etry 18 (1983), 445503.

[HKM07] Ko Honda, William Kazez, and Gordana Matic, The contact invariant in su-

tured Floer homology, 2007, arXiv:0705.2828.

[HKM08] , Contact structures, sutured Floer homology and TQFT, 2008,

arXiv:0807.2431.

[Juh06] Andras Juhasz, Holomorphic discs and sutured manifolds, Algebraic & Geo-

metric Topology 6 (2006), 14291457, arXiv:math.GT/0601443.

[Juh09] , Cobordisms of sutured manifolds, 2009, arXiv:0910.4382.

[KM10] Peter Kronheimer and Tomasz Mrowka, Knots, sutures, and excision, J Dif-

ferential Geometry 84:2 (2010), 301364, arXiv:0807.4891.

[LOT08] Robert Lipshitz, Peter Ozsvath, and Dylan Thurston, Bordered Heegaard Floer

homology: Invariance and pairing, 2008, arXiv:0810.0687.

[LOT10a] , Bimodules in bordered Heegaard Floer homology, 2010,

arXiv:1003.0598.

[LOT10b] , Heegaard Floer homology as morphism spaces, 2010,

arXiv:1005.1248.

[OS04a] Peter Ozsvath and Zolt an Szabo, Holomorphic disks and three-manifold in-

variants: Properties and applications, The Annals of Mathematics 159 (2004),

no. 3, 11591245, arXiv:math/0105202.

[OS04b] , Holomorphic disks and topological invariants for closed three-

manifolds, The Annals of Mathematics 159 (2004), no. 3, 10271158,

arXiv:math/0101206.

[Zar] Rumen Zarev, Equivalence of gluing maps for SFH, in preparation.

[Zar09] , Bordered Floer homology for sutured manifolds, 2009,

arXiv:0908.1106.

Department of Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

E-mail address: rzarev@math.columbia.edu

- 1006.3313v1Uploaded byLuis Fernando Hernandez
- Solution to exercises , manifoldsUploaded bythomaszoy zoy
- Robert Lipshitz, Ciprian Manolescu and Jiajun Wang- Combinatorial Cobordism Maps in Hat Heegard Floer TheoryUploaded byCore0932
- Peter Ozsvath, Andras I. Stipsicz and Zoltan Szabo- Combinatorial Heegaard Floer homology and nice Heegaard diagramsUploaded byCore0932
- An Introduction to RiemannianGeometryUploaded bysamuelfsj1472
- Gareth a. Jones, David Singerman-Complex Functions_ an Algebraic and Geometric Viewpoint-Cambridge University Press (2012)Uploaded byChayanneCruzGomez
- Javaplex TutorialUploaded byphonon77
- mymathematicalphilosophyUploaded byapi-315909237
- Bom - ResearchUploaded bythatupiso
- Seminar 8 14.03.78 English Translation With DiagramsUploaded bySophie Hekmat
- mathgen-126758839Uploaded byVukhob
- International Journal of Mathematical Combinatorics, vol. 2/2015Uploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- USING REVERSE ENGINEERING TO SUPPORT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIESUploaded byJuan Manuel Rodríguez González

- Kenneth L. Baker, John B. Etnyre and Jeremy Van Horn-Morris- Cabling, contact structures and mapping class monoidsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Hisaaki Endo, Thomas E. Mark and Jeremy Van Horn-Morris- Monodromy Substitutions and Rational BlowdownsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- John B. Etnyre and Burak Ozbagci- Invariants of contact structures from open booksUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- John A. Baldwin- Capping off open books and the Ozsvath-Szabo contact invariantUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Klaus Niederkruger and Chris Wendl- Weak symplectic fillings and holomorphic curvesUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Yanki Lekili- Planar open books with four binding componentsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- YI NI- Sutured Heegaard diagrams for knotsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Ryosuke Yamamoto- Open books supporting overtwisted contact structures and the Stallings twistUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- John B. Etnyre and Burak Ozbagci- Open Books and PlumbingsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- David Shea Vela-Vick- Applications of Ozsvath-Szabo Invariants to Contact GeometryUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Mustafa Korkmaz and Burak Ozbagci-On section of elliptic fibrationsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- David Shea Vela-Vick- On the transverse invariant for bindings of open booksUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Andy Wand- Factorizations of Diffeomorphisms of Compact Surfaces with BoundaryUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Katura Miyazaki- Nonsimple, Ribbon Fibered KnotsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Stephan Schonenberger- Determining symplectic fillings from planar open booksUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Selman Akbulut- An infinite family of exotic Dolgachev surfaces without 1- and 3- handlesUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Kenneth L. Baker, John B. Etnyre and Jeremy Van Horn-Morris- Cabling, contact structures and mapping class monoidsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- R. Matveyev- A Decomposition of Smooth Simply Connected h-Cobordant 4-ManifoldsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Selman Akbulut- Nash Homotopy Spheres are StandardUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Peter Ozsvath and Zoltan Szabo- A cube of resolutions for knot Floer homologyUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Philip J.P. Ording- On Knot Floer Homology of Satellite (1, 1) KnotsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Matthew Hedden- On Knot Floer Homology and Cabling IIUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- James Conant, Rob Schneiderman and Peter Teichner- Milnor Invariants and Twisted Whitney TowersUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Motoo Tange- The link surgery of S^2 x S^2 and Scharlemann's manifoldsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Selman Akbulut- Cappell–Shaneson’s 4–dimensional s–cobordismUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Matthew Hedden- On knot Floer homology and cablingUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Matthew Hedden- Some remarks on cabling, contact structures, and complex curvesUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Rob Schneiderman- Simple Whitney Towers, Half-Gropes and the Arf Invariant of a KnotUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Eaman Eftekhary- Longitude Floer homology and the Whitehead doubleUploaded byDuncan_Vim

- Unguru State of the Art ISIS 1979Uploaded byMichael N. Fried
- Thomas Finney - Chapter 13 (www.myUET.net.tc).pdfUploaded bykamilbisma
- BC0033 MATHEMATICS PAPER 2Uploaded bySeekEducation
- Homework Problems on Differential EquationsUploaded byAamod Garg
- 09-330Spring Break PracticeSolsUploaded byJeoff Libo-on
- אלגוריתמים- הרצאה 4 | Dynamic ProgrammingUploaded byRon
- MTH101CalculusAndAnalyticalGeometryCompleteHandoutsfromLectureno.1toLectureno.45bywww.virtualians.pk.pdfUploaded byAftab Ahmad
- Monografia 2 2003 CBPF Vectores y Tensores.pdfUploaded byErick Ntl Tlv
- A Multigrid Tutorial (With Corrections)Uploaded byAlejandro Galindo
- Software for Algebraic GeometryUploaded byJustin Carden
- IRE 1st & 2nd Batch Admission Test SolutionUploaded byRahmat Ullah
- Solution Set Math IIUploaded byChristian Lazatin Sabadisto
- Dimesion Finita Falso VerdaderoUploaded byFernandoFierroGonzalez
- Math10 Functions and Its Graph(6)Uploaded byIan Chan
- Section 5 (PreCalculus)Uploaded byRodrigo Valdecantos
- int iii dividing polynomials 1Uploaded byapi-301445833
- Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville-Deep Learning [pre-pub version]-MIT Press (2016).pdfUploaded byDH
- Section a Introduction to Inner Product SpacesUploaded byAsk Bulls Bear
- SLP.pdfUploaded bySamima Sabnam
- TUM MSCE Interview Questions.docUploaded byAsad Malik
- 4037_w10_qp_22Uploaded bymstudy123456
- math 170- project part 2 (1)Uploaded byapi-241908362
- Math SyllabusUploaded byraki_sg
- Power Method TheoryUploaded byAndrew Liang
- EDO-9th-Boyce Cap11 Resolução.pdfUploaded byDiegoGonçalves
- Ch 01.pdfUploaded byNicholas Taranto
- JSU paper 1-Form 1Uploaded bysurayaothman
- 2013 HAHS 2U Trial (With Solutions)Uploaded byHad Moe
- 0610206v3.pdfUploaded byahmed3423
- CTDTUploaded byDamir Ribic