18 views

Uploaded by Sprite090

- Complex Analytic and Differential Geometry - J. Demailly.pdf
- Electricity and Magnetism for Mathematicians.pdf
- Elena Pavelescu- Braids and Open Book Decompositions
- 3160 Cauchy
- Riemet
- 1802_F14_prf_b.pdf
- SphericalCoord Gradient
- For Mule
- Jonathan M. Bloom- Odd Khovanov Homology is Mutation Invariant
- Nathan Ryder- Calculating Knot Polynomials
- Louis Kauffman- From Knots to Quantum Groups (and Back)
- Dieter A. Wolf-Gladrow- Lattice-Gas Cellular Automata and Lattice Boltzmann Models - An Introduction
- F.Y. Wu- Knot theory and statistical mechanics
- David A. Meyer- Knot Invariants and Cellular Automata
- Tatsuya Tsukamoto- A Criterion for Almost Alternating Links to be Non-Splittable
- David A. Meyer- Knot Invariants and the Thermodynamics of Lattice Gas Automata
- Razvan Gelca- Topological quantum Field theory with corners based on the Kauman bracket
- Neil Wright- Invariants of Knots and Links: Zeros of the Jones Polynomial
- Knots and Quantum Gravity
- Reagin Taylor McNeill- Knot Theory and the Alexander Polynomial

You are on page 1of 23

r

X

i

v

:

1

1

1

2

.

0

5

1

9

v

1

[

m

a

t

h

.

G

T

]

2

D

e

c

2

0

1

1

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND

EXACT OPEN BOOKS

SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

Abstract. We show that if a contact open book (, h) on a (2n+1)-manifold M (n 1)

is induced by a Lefschetz bration : W D

2

, then there is a one-to-one correspondence

between positive stabilizations of (, h) and positive stabilizations of . More precisely,

any positive stabilization of (, h) is induced by the corresponding positive stabilization

of , and conversely any positive stabilization of induces the corresponding positive

stabilization of (, h). We dene exact open books as boundary open books of exact

Lefschetz brations, and show that any exact open book carries a contact structure.

Moreover, we prove that there is a one-to-one correspondence (similar to the one above)

between convex stabilizations of an exact open book and convex stabilizations of the

corresponding exact Lefschetz bration. We also show that convex stabilization of exact

Lefschetz brations produces symplectomorphic manifolds.

1. Introduction

In the last decade the correspondence given by Giroux [11], between contact structures

and open book decompositions have led to many developments in understanding the rela-

tions between the contact geometry and the topology of the underlying odd dimensional

closed manifolds. This correspondence is much stronger in dimension three and has been

used as a bridge between four dimensional geometries and topology, leading much progress

in understanding of dierent types of llability and Lefschetz type brations.

One of the main features used in the above correspondence is positive stabilization.

Namely, if we positively stabilize an open book (, h) carrying a contact structure on a

closed 3-manifold M, then the resulting open book still carries . Such stabilizations can

be interpreted as taking the contact connect sum of (M, ) with (S

3

,

st

) where

st

is the

unique tight (Stein llable) contact structure on the 3-sphere S

3

. In terms of open books,

this corresponds to taking the Murasugi sum (or plumbing) of (, h) with the open book

(H

+

,

C

) on S

3

where H

+

is the positive (left-handed) Hopf band and

C

denotes the

right-handed Dehn twist along the core circle C in H

+

.

To get analogous statements for higher dimensions, one can replace (H

+

,

C

) with its

generalization OB, which is an open book carrying the standard contact structure

0

on

(2n+1)-sphere S

2n+1

and obtained from a certain Milnor bration. The pages of OB are

dieomorphic to the closed tangent unit disk bundle T(TS

n

) over S

n

and its monodromy

is the (generalized) right-handed Dehn twist along the zero section (see below). Then

Date: December 5, 2011.

1991 Mathematics Subject Classication. 58D27, 58A05, 57R65.

Key words and phrases. Contact & symplectic structures, open book, Lefschetz bration, stabilization.

The rst author is partially supported by NSF FRG grant DMS- 0905917.

The second author is partially supported by NSF FRG grant DMS-1065910.

1

2 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

one can dene a positive stabilization of an open book (, h) carrying a contact structure

on an (2n + 1)-dimensional closed manifold M

2n+1

by taking the Murasugi sum of

(, h) with OB, along a properly embedded Lagrangian n-ball L in with Legendrian

boundary and a ber in T(TS

n

). Again this amounts to taking the contact connect sum

of (M

2n+1

, ) with (S

2n+1

,

0

) and stabilized open book still carries [11]. In terms of

contact surgery and Weinstein handles, a positive stabilization corresponds to performing

(resp. attaching) a pair of subcritical and critical surgeries (resp. Weinstein handles)

which cancels each other (see [18] for a proof).

One of the missing part of this picture is the relation of such operations to Lefschetz

brations. The aim of the present work is to provide some results to ll this gap. Through

out the paper, the base space of any Lefschetz bration is assumed to be the 2-disk,

and we focus only on the open books which are induced by Lefschetz brations. We

study the open book OB (which is induced by a certain Lefschetz bration /T on the

standard (2n + 2)-ball) in Section 2 where we also recall positive stabilizations of open

books and the characterization of Lefschetz brations. In Section 3, we explicitly dene

a process, called positive stabilization on Lefschetz brations and show that there is a

one-to-one correspondence between positive stabilizations of open books and Lefschetz

brations. Exact open books are introduced in Section 4 as boundaries of exact Lefschetz

brations. After recalling Weinstein handles and isotropic setups briey in Section 5,

we will get a similar correspondence for exact open books and exact Lefschetz brations

in Section 6, where we also dene convex stabilization as an exact symplectic version of

positive stabilization. We remark that any observation we will make here is also true for

dimensions 3 and 4, and so the work done here can be thought as canonical generalizations

of the corresponding 3- and 4-dimensional results to higher dimensions.

2. Preliminaries

2.1. The open book OB and the associated Lefschetz bration /T. Consider the

polynomial P on the complex space C

n+1

(for n 1) given by

P(z

1

, ..., z

n+1

) = z

2

1

+ z

2

2

+ +z

2

n+1

.

It is clear that the only critical point of P occurs at the origin, and so the intersection of

the zero set Z(P) of P with the sphere

S

2n+1

= [z

1

[

2

+[z

2

[

2

+ +[z

n+1

[

2

=

2

,

where > 0 is small enough, is a smooth manifold K of dimension 2n 1. K is a

member of a family known as Brieskorn manifolds introduced in [3]. It is known by [15]

that the complement S

2n+1

1

C via the map

: S

2n+1

K S

1

given by

(z

1

, ..., z

n+1

) =

P(z

1

, ..., z

n+1

)

[P(z

1

, ..., z

n+1

)[

.

Let OB be the open book on S

2n+1

i

S

1

,

the Milnor ber (or the page of OB) F

:=

1

(e

i

) is parallelizable and has the homotopy

type of S

n

[15], and indeed it can be identied with the total space of the tangent bundle

TS

n

of the n-sphere S

n

(e.g. [9], p. 81). By considering the closure

F

as the closed

tangent unit disk bundle T(TS

n

) over S

n

, we can identify the binding K of OB as the

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 3

tangent unit sphere bundle o(TS

n

) over S

n

. For our purposes we identify TS

n

with the

cotangent bundle T

S

n

by using the natural duality, and assume that each page

F

of

OB is dieomorphic to the cotangent unit disk bundle T(T

S

n

), and so the binding K is

dieomorphic to the cotangent unit sphere bundle o(T

S

n

).

Now we dene the function : B

2n+2

D

2

from (2n + 2)-ball

B

2n+2

= [z

1

[

2

+[z

2

[

2

+ +[z

n+1

[

2

2

C

n+1

onto the unit disk D

2

C by restricting P and then normalizing by

2

, that is,

=

1

2

P[

B

2n+2

.

By denition (see [12], for instance) is a local model for a Lefschetz bration over the

unit disk having only one singular ber over the origin. Also regular bers

1

(z), z ,= 0,

are dieomorphic to T(T

S

n

) because is a topological locally trivial bration on D

2

0

[13] (e.g. [9], Chapter 3). Therefore, denes a Lefschetz bration /T on B

2n+2

which

induces the open book OB on the boundary sphere S

2n+1

of /T is the monodromy of OB. According to [8, 12] this monodromy is (up to isotopy)

equal to the right-handed Dehn twist

: T(T

S

n

) T(T

S

n

)

along the vanishing cycle which is the zero section (a copy of S

n

) in T(T

S

n

). To describe

precisely, identify the interior of a page with T

S

n

and write the points in T

S

n

as

(q, p) R

n+1

R

n+1

such that [q[ = 1 and q p. Then

(q, p) =

_

cos g([p[) [p[

1

sin g([p[)

[p[ sin g([p[) cos g([p[)

__

q

p

_

where g is a smooth function that increases monotonically from to 2 on some interval,

and outside this interval g is identically equal to or 2. Observe that is the antipodal

map on the zero section S

n

0 = (q, p) [ [q[ = 1, p = 0, while it is the identity map

for [p[ large. Note that as abstract open book OB is determined by the pair (T(T

S

n

), ).

Now let z

j

= x

j

+iy

j

for j = 1, ..., n+1. Then with respect to the complex coordinates

z = (z

1

, ..., z

n+1

), the standard Stein structure on C

n+1

(and hence on B

2n+2

) is dened

by the pair

(J

0

,

0

) = (i i, [ z[

2

).

This denes the standard symplectic (indeed Kahler) form

0

= d(d

0

J

0

) =

n+1

j=1

dx

j

dy

j

whose Liouville vector eld

0

(i.e., satisfying /

0

=

0

) is given by

0

=

1

2

n+1

j=1

(x

j

x

j

+y

j

y

j

).

4 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

Then on the boundary sphere S

2n+1

, the 1-form

0

=

0

=

1

2

n+1

j=1

(x

j

dy

j

y

j

dx

j

) =

i

4

n+1

j=1

(z

j

d z

j

z

j

dz

j

)

is a contact form (i.e.,

0

(d

0

)

n

[

S

2n+1

kernel

0

= Ker(

0

) is called the standard contact structure on S

2n+1

.

The compatibility between contact structures and open books is dened as follows:

Denition 2.1 ([11]). We say that a contact structure = Ker() on M is carried by

(or supported by) an open book (B, f) on M (where B is the binding), if the following

conditions hold:

(i) (B, [

TB

) is a contact manifold.

(ii) For every t S

1

, the page X = f

1

(t) is a symplectic manifold with symplectic

form d.

(iii) If

X denotes the closure of a page X in M, then the orientation of B induced by

its contact form [

TB

coincides with its orientation as the boundary of (

X, d).

The open book OB has been studied before, but since it is one of the main building

blocks of the present paper and for completeness, here we discuss its important aspect:

Lemma 2.2. The open book OB carries the standard contact structure

0

on S

2n+1

in-

herited from the standard Stein structure on B

2n+2

.

Proof. The rst condition of compatibility (Denition 2.1) immediately follows from [14]

where they show that the restriction of

0

is a contact form on Brieskorn manifolds, and

so, in particular, on the binding K. To check the second one, consider the vector eld

R =

4i

2

n+1

j=1

z

j

z

j

= R

0

+R

1

; R

0

=

2i

2

n+1

j=1

(z

j

z

j

z

j

z

j

), R

1

=

2i

2

n+1

j=1

(z

j

z

j

+ z

j

z

j

).

Observe that R

0

[

S

2n+1

0

[

S

2n+1

. (That is, we

have (R

0

) = 1,

R

0

d

0

= 0 on S

2n+1

.) The ow of R is computed as

h

t

(z) = (e

4it/

2

z

1

, ..., e

4it/

2

z

n+1

)

which is a 1-parameter group of dieomorphisms h

t

: C

n+1

Z(P) C

n+1

Z(P). Now

consider the bration : C

n+1

Z(P) S

1

given by

(z) =

P(z)

[P(z)[

.

Then h

t

maps each ber

1

(y) dieomorphically onto the ber

1

(e

i

y), and also there

is a dieomorphism

1

(y)

=

1

(y) R as shown in Chapter 9 of [15]. Furthermore, h

t

maps S

2n+1

t

maps

each ber

1

(y) dieomorphically onto the ber

1

(e

i

y), but this means, in particular,

that the Reeb vector eld R

0

[

S

2n+1

that R

1

does not live in TS

2n+1

, the rank of d

0

[

F

is maximal which

is equivalent to saying that d

0

is a symplectic form on F

.

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 5

For the third condition, on TB

2n+2

[

S

2n+1

we compute

0

(

0

, R

0

) = 1, so

0

, R

0

form

a non-degenerate pair with respect to

0

= d

0

. Therefore, for a xed page

F

= z [ (z) = e

i

S

2n+1

K

of the bration , the tangent bundle TB

2n+2

restricted to F

is decomposed as

TB

2n+2

[

F

=

0

TS

2n+1

[

F

=

0

R

0

TF

0

is transverse to S

2n+1

(which is of

contact type) and that R

0

is transverse to F

,

0

[

F

) is a symplectic

submanifold of (B

2n+2

,

0

) and, in particular, that the orientation on F

given by

0

[

F

is

inherited from the orientation on B

2n+2

given by

0

.

Write

=

0

[

K

, F = F

F = K given by the form

(d

)

n1

coincides with the one induced by the orientation

on F given by the volume form (d

0

[

F

)

n

: We showed above that the latter orientation on

F is inherited from the one on B

2n+2

0

,

0

). Note

that the orientation on (S

2n+2

,

0

) given by the volume form

0

(d

0

)

n

is also coming

from this Stein structure. Moreover, the orientation on (K,

:= Ker(

)) (S

2n+1

,

0

)

determined by

(d

)

n1

matches up with the one inherited (as a contact submanifold)

from (S

2n+1

,

0

). Hence, the mentioned two orientations on K must coincide.

2.2. Positive stabilization of open books. We rst recall the plumbing or 2-Murasugi

sum of two contact open books (i.e., open books carrying contact structures): Let (M

i

,

i

)

be two closed contact manifolds such that each

i

is carried by an open book (

i

, h

i

)

on M

i

. Suppose that L

i

is a properly embedded Lagrangian ball in

i

with Legendrian

boundary L

i

i

. By the Weinstein neighborhood theorem each L

i

has a standard

neighborhood N

i

in

i

which is symplectomorphic to (T

D

n

, d

can

) where

can

= pdq

is the canonical 1-form on R

n

R

n

with coordinates (q, p). Then the plumbing or 2-

Murasugi sum (T(

1

,

2

; L

1

, L

2

), h) of (

1

, h

1

) and (

2

, h

2

) along L

1

and L

2

is the open

book on the connected sum M

1

#M

2

with the pages obtained by gluing

i

s together along

N

i

s by interchanging q-coordinates in N

1

with p-coordinates in N

2

, and vice versa. To

dene h, extend each h

i

to

h

i

on the new page by requiring

h

i

to be identity map outside

the domain of h

i

. Then the monodrodmy h is dened to be

h

2

h

1

. Without abuse of

notation we will drop the tilde sign, and write h = h

2

h

1

.

The following terminology was given in [11]. We describe it in a slightly dierent way

so that it ts into the notation of the present paper.

Denition 2.3 ([11]). Suppose that (, h) carries the contact structure = Ker() on a

(2n+1)-manifold M. Let L be a properly embedded Lagrangian n-ball in a page (, d)

such that L is a Legendrian (n 1)-sphere in the binding (, [

). Then

the positive (or standard) stabilization o

OB

[(, h); L] of (, h) along L is the open book

(T(, T(T

S

n

); L, D), h) where D

= D

n

is any ber in T(T

S

n

).

2.3. Characterization of Lefschetz brations. Here we recall the handle decompo-

sition of Lefschetz brations as described in [12]: Let : W D

2

C be a given

Lefschetz bration with a regular ber X

2n

and monodromy h. Consider the base disk as

D

2

= z C : [z[ 2. We may assume that 0 D

2

and the points on D

2

are regular

values and that all the critical values

1

,

2

, ..,

called a normalized Lefschetz bration. Since every Lefschetz bration can be normalized,

6 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

throughout the paper all Lefschetz brations will be assumed to be normalized. Dene

a Morse function F : W [0, 4] R given by F(x) = [(x)[

2

. Then outside of the set

F

1

(0) F

1

(4), F has only nondegenerate critical points of index n + 1 (see [1]). Since

[

i

[ = 1 for all i, the map has no critical values on the set D

t

= z C : [z[ t for

t < 1 and hence

F

1

([0, t]) =

1

(D

t

)

= X D

2

for t < 1.

On the other hand, for t > 1,

1

(D

t

) is dieomorphic to the manifold obtained from

X D

2

by attaching handles of index n + 1, via the attaching maps

j

: S

n

D

n+1

(X D

2

) = X S

1

, j = 1, 2, ..., .

Let

j

:

n+1

be the framing of the j-th handle, where

k

denotes the trivial

bundle of rank k, and denotes the normal bundle of the attaching sphere

j

(S

n

0)

in (X D

2

).

Fact 2.4 ([12]). The embeddings

j

may be chosen so that for each j = 1, 2, ..., there

exists z

j

such that

j

(S

n

0)

1

(z

j

)

= X.

So, set

j

: S

n

X to be the embedding dened by restricting

j

to S

n

0. Let

1

denote the normal bundle of S

n

=

j

(S

n

) in X corresponding to the embedding

j

,

and consider as the normal bundle of

j

(S

n

) in F

1

(1 ). Clearly,

=

1

(as the

normal bundle of X in W is trivial). Let denote the tangent bundle of S

n

.

Fact 2.5 ([12]). For each j = 1, 2, ..., , there exists a bundle isomorphism

j

:

1

such that the framing

j

of the (n + 1)-handle corresponding to

j

coincides with

j

.

That is,

j

is given by the composition

n+1

j

id

1

.

Denition 2.6 ([12]). S

n

=

j

(S

n

) is called a vanishing cycle of . The bundle isomor-

phism

j

:

1

is called a normalization of

j

. The pair (

j

,

j

) is called a normalized

vanishing cycle.

Let T(TS

n

) denote the closed tangent unit disk bundle of S

n

. By the tubular

neighborhood theorem and the canonical isomorphism T(T

S

n

)

= T(TS

n

), we can apply

the right-handed Dehn twist to a tubular neighborhood of

j

(S

n

) in X, and we can

extend , by the identity, to a self-dieomorphism of X which we denote by

(

j

,

j

)

: X

X.

Up to smooth isotopy

(

j

,

j

)

Di(X) depends only on the smooth isotopy class of

the embedding

j

and the bundle isomorphism

j

.

Denition 2.7 ([12]).

(

j

,

j

)

is called the right-handed Dehn twist with center (

j

,

j

).

We will make use of the following theorem.

Theorem 2.8 ([12], [8]). The Lefschetz bration : W D

2

is uniquely determined

by a sequence of vanishing cycles (

1

,

2

, ...,

(

1

,

2

, ...,

2

1

Di(X)

where

j

=

(

j

,

j

)

is the right-handed Dehn twist with center (

j

,

j

).

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 7

Remark 2.9. Recall the right-handed Dehn twist : T(T

S

n

) T(T

S

n

) given ex-

plicitly before. With respect to the coordinates (q, p) on R

2(n+1)

consider the canonical

1-form

can

= p dq on T(T

S

n

) R

2(n+1)

. Then one can compute

can

=

can

+[p[d(g([p[))

which implies that the dierence

can

can

is exact. Therefore, is a symplecto-

morphism of the symplectic manifold (T(T

S

n

), d

can

). As a result, if a regular ber X

of a Lefschetz bration : W D

2

equipped with a symplectic structure , then the

monodromy h of is a symplectomorphism of (X, ). That is,

h =

2

1

Symp(X, )

where

j

=

(

j

,

j

)

is the right-handed Dehn twist with center (

j

,

j

) as in Theorem 2.8.

Notation 2.10. For our purposes it is convenient to dene a notation for Lefschetz

brations. Let the quadruple (, W, X, h) denote the Lefschetz bration : W D

2

on

W with a regular ber X and the monodromy h. For instance, according to this notation

we have /T = (, B

2n+2

, T(T

S

n

), ).

For completeness we give the following basic well-known fact as a denition:

Denition 2.11. Let (, W, X, h) be any (normalized) Lefschetz bration. The pairs

(

1

(0), [

W

) and (X, h) are both called the induced open book (or sometimes the

boundary open book) on W.

3. Positive stabilization of Lefschetz fibrations

Now we dene a process on Lefschetz brations as a counterpart of positive stabi-

lization on open books. We will use Weinstein handles introduced in [19]. Using the

symplectization model near convex boundaries, these handles can be glued to symplectic

manifolds along isotropic spheres to obtain new ones, and they give elementary symplectic

cobordisms between contact manifolds. We will briey explain them later.

Denition 3.1. Let (, W, X, h) be a Lefschetz bration which induces a contact open

book on W. Suppose that L (X, ) is a properly embedded Lagrangian n-ball

with a Legendrian boundary L X on a page of the induced open book. Then

the positive stabilization o

LF

[(, W, X, h); L] of (, W, X, h) along L is a Lefschetz bra-

tion (

, W

, X

, h

) described as follows:

(I) X

n

D

n

along the

Legendrian sphere L X.

(II) h

=

(,

)

h where

(,

)

is the right-handed Dehn twist with center (,

)

dened as follows: (S

n

) is the Lagrangian n-sphere S = D

n

0

L

L in

the symplectic manifold (X

= X H,

) where

standard symplectic form on H. If

1

denote the normal bundle of S in X

, then

the normalization

:

1

is given by the bundle isomorphisms

TS

=

TX

/TS =

1

.

8 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

Remark 3.2. W

Also in h

=

(,

)

h, we think of h as an element in Di(X

H. Moreover, the isomorphism TS TX

)

(the core D

n

0 of H is Lagrangian). Finally, note that there is a strong analogy

between o

OB

[(X, h); L] and o

LF

[(, W, X, h); L]. On the one hand, we have

o

OB

[(X, h); L] = (T(X, T(T

S

n

); L, D), h)

which means that we are plumbing the open book (X, h) on a given manifold M with

the open book OB = (T(T

S

n

), ) on S

2n+1

. Therefore, o

OB

[(X, h); L] is an open

book on the connected sum M#S

2n+1

o

LF

[(, W, , , X, h); L] as the result of (informally speaking) Lefschetz plumbing of

(, W, X, h) with /T. Indeed, one can see that o

LF

[(, W, X, h); L] is a Lefschetz bration

on the boundary connect sum W#

b

B

2n+2

W.

We are now ready to prove

Theorem 3.3. Any positive stabilization o

LF

[(, W, X, h); L] of a Lefschetz bration

(, W, X, h) with a contact boundary open book induces the open book o

OB

[(X, h); L]. Con-

versely, if a contact open book (X, h) is induced by a Lefschetz bration (, W, X, h), then

any positive stabilization o

OB

[(X, h); L] of (X, h) is induced by o

LF

[(, W, X, h); L].

Proof. By denition of o

LF

, the ber X

Weinstein n-handle H along L X . Since every ber over D

2

is gaining H, we are

actually attaching a (2n + 2)-dimensional handle

H

= H D

2

= D

n

D

n+2

to W along L W. Say the resulting manifold is

W, that is

W = W H

. By

extending the monodromy h (but calling it still h) trivially over H, we get an extended

Lefschetz bration :

W D

2

on

W, i.e., we get ( ,

W, X

W, X

, h)

is determined by Theorem 2.8. So far what we explained is the content of Stage (I)

in Denition 3.1. In Stage (II), composing the monodromy h with

(,

)

corresponds

to attaching an (2n + 2)-dimensional handle H

index n + 1 to

W along the Lagrangian sphere S in the ber (X

) of ( ,

W, X

, h).

By Theorem 2.8, we know that ( ,

W, X

Lefschetz bration o

LF

[(, W, X, h); L] = (

, W

, X

, h

W

W H

= W H

.

We immediately see that H

, H

attaching sphere of H

= W#

b

B

2n+2

). Therefore, the

open book (X

, h

) induced by o

LF

[(, W, X, h); L] is an open on the original boundary

W. Next we need to see that (X

, h

o

OB

[(X, h); L]. To this end, rst observe that in the plumbing (T(X, T(T

S

n

); L, D), h)

we are embedding a tubular neighborhood N(D) of D in T(T

S

n

) into the page X in such

a way that the intersection N(D)X is a tubular neighborhood of the Legendrian sphere

L( S

n1

). Considering L as the equator of the zero section S

n

0 T(T

S

n

), it is

clear that the part T(T

S

n

) N(D) of T(T

S

n

) which is not mapped into X (during the

plumbing) is the trivial bundle T(T

D

n

)

= D

n

D

n

. Note that the canonical symplectic

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 9

structure on T(T

S

n

) restricts to the standard symplectic structure on T(T

D

n

) which

implies that T(T

S

n

) N(D) is the Weinstein handle H glued to X along L. Hence, the

page of the open book o

OB

[(X, h); L], that is, the resulting page of the plumbing, is X

.

Also if we keep track of the vanishing cycle S

n

0 T(T

S

n

) in the above discussion,

we immediately see that it corresponds to the Lagrangian n-sphere S = C

L

L where

C = D

n

0 is the (Lagrangian) core disk of the Weinstein handle H which means that

the right-handed Dehn twist coincides with

,

described in Denition 3.1. Composing

with h, we get h = h

Thus, o

OB

[(X, h); L] and (X

, h

the rst statement.

For the second statement we basically follow the same steps in a dierent order: If

o

OB

[(X, h); L] is a given stabilization, then by the above discussion we know that the new

page is equal to X

by attaching H

= H D

2

(thickening of H) to W, each ber of gains the handle H,

and we get ( ,

W, X

, h) on

W. Since =

(,

)

, h

=

(,

)

h = h. Therefore, we

have o

OB

[(X, h); L] = (X

, h

corresponds to attaching a Lefschetz handle H

to

W whose normalized vanishing cycle

is (,

). Therefore, we obtain (

, W

, X

, h

) on W

=

W H

that o

OB

[(X, h); L] is induced by o

LF

[(, W, X, h); L].

4. Exact Open Books

We will dene exact open books as boundary open books induced by exact Lefschetz

brations. To this end, recall that a contact manifold (M, ) is called strongly symplec-

tically lled by a symplectic manifold (X, ) if there exist a Liouville vector eld of

dened (at least) locally near X = M such that is transverse to M and

= . Such

a boundary is called convex. An exact symplectic manifold is a compact manifold X with

boundary, together with a symplectic form and a 1-form satisfying = d, such that

[

X

is a contact form which makes X convex. In such a case there is a Liouville vector

eld of such that

form (X, , ). Also the pair (, ) (or sometimes the triple (, , )) will be called an

exact symplectic structure on X.

Let : E

2n+2

D

2

be a dierentiable ber bundle, denoted by (, E), whose bers

are compact manifolds with boundary. The boundary of such an E consists of two parts:

The vertical part

v

E; =

1

(D

2

), and the horizontal part

h

E :=

zD

2

E

z

where

E

z

=

1

(z) is the ber over z D

2

. The following denitions can be found in [16] where

a more general setting is used.

Denition 4.1 ([16]). An exact symplectic bration (, E, , ) over the disk D

2

is a

dierentiable ber bundle (, E) equipped with a 2-form and a 1-form on E, satisfying

= d, such that

(i) each ber E

z

with

z

= [

Ez

and

z

= [

Ez

is an exact symplectic manifold,

(ii) the following triviality condition near

h

E is satised: Choose a point z D

2

and consider the trivial bration :

E := D

2

E

z

D

2

with the forms ,

which are pullbacks of

z

,

z

, respectively. Then there should be a ber-preserving

dieomorphism : N

N between neighborhoods N of

h

E in E and

N of

h

E

10 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

in

E which maps

h

E to

h

E, equals the identity on N E

z

, and

= and

= .

Denition 4.2 ([16]). An exact Lefschetz bration over D

2

is a tuple (, E, , , J

0

, j

0

)

which satises the following conditions:

(i) : E D

2

is allowed to have nitely many critical points all of which lie in the

interior of E.

(ii) is injective on the set C of its critical points.

(iii) J

0

is an integrable complex structure dened in a neighborhood of C in E such

that is a K ahler form for J

0

.

(iv) j

0

is a positively oriented complex structure on a neighborhood of the set (C) in

D

2

of the critical values.

(v) is (J

0

, j

0

)-holomorphic near C.

(vi) The Hessian of at any critical point is nondegenerate as a complex quadratic

form, in other words, has nondegenerate complex second derivative at each its

critical point.

(vii) (, E C, , ) is an exact symplectic bration over D

2

(C).

Remark 4.3. As pointed out in [16], one can nd an almost complex structure on J on

E agreeing with J

0

near C and a positively oriented complex structure j on D

2

agreeing

with j

0

near (C) such that is (J, j)-holomorphic and (, J)[

Ker ()

is symmetric and

positive denite everywhere. The existence of (J, j) is guaranteed by the fact that the

space of such pairs (J, j) is always contractible, and in particular, always nonempty.

Furthermore, once we xed (J, j), we can modify by adding a positive 2-form on D

2

so

that it becomes symplectic and tames J everywhere on E.

For completeness and our future use, let us summarize the discussion in the last remark

and make additional observations about exact Lefschetz brations in the following lemma.

Lemma 4.4. For any exact Lefschetz bration (, E, , , J

0

, j

0

), there exists an exact

2-form = d on the total space E and a pair (J, j) as in Remark 4.3 such that

(i) is (J, j)-holomorphic and is symplectic and tames J everywhere on E,

(ii) (E, , ) is an exact symplectic manifold with convex boundary (E, [

E

),

(iii) each regular ber (E

z

,

z

,

z

) is an exact symplectic submanifold of (E, , ).

Proof. The rst statement follows by Remark 4.3. More precisely, consider the positive

2-form dr d on D

2

where r is the radial and is the angular coordinates. Then it is

standard to check that the form = +

and also that is (J, j)-holomorphic. For the second one, we have

= +

(dr d) = d +

(d(rd)) = d +d

(rd) = d( +

(rd)),

and so is exact with a primitive = +

(rd). Let 1

z

be the Liouville vector eld

of

z

. By the local triviality condition near

h

E, these 1

z

s glue together (smoothly) and

gives a Liouville vector eld 1 for near

h

E. Now, consider the collar neighborhood N

of

v

E in E which is projected (by ) onto an annular region of the form (1, 1]S

1

D

2

for 0 < < 1. Consider the vector eld r/r in TD

2

[

(1,1]S

1. Taking small enough,

we can nd a lift 1 of r/r which is a vector eld in TE[

N

. Then

(1) = r/r by

denition. Also note that 1 can never be tangent to the bers of in N

because if 1[

p

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 11

were tangent to the ber E

z

over the point z = re

i

D

2

(with r ,= 0) at some point

p E

z

, then this would give the contradiction

0 =

(1[

p

) = r/r[

(r,)

,= 0.

(The rst equality follows from the fact that

1 is transverse to

v

E and is pointing out from the boundary. Now set

= 1 +1.

Clearly, is nonvanishing vector eld in a collar neighborhood of E =

h

E

v

E. Also

along the boundary E, it is transverse and outward pointing. Moreover, it follows from

standard computations that /

eld of and [

E

is a contact form which makes E the convex boundary of the exact

symplectic manifold (E, , ).

For the last part, we simply observe that [

Ez

= [

Ez

=

z

and [

Ez

= [

Ez

=

z

which shows that each regular ber (E

z

,

z

,

z

) is an exact symplectic submanifold of the

total space (E, , ).

Notation 4.5. Since they will not be considered in our discussions, from now on we drop

J

0

and j

0

from our notation. Also we will assume that = d is already modied as in

the proof of Lemma 4.4 and that its Liouville vector eld is already constructed and

given to us. Furthermore, we also want to specify the regular ber and the monodromy

in our notation as before. Therefore, we introduce the following:

Let (, E, , , , X, h) denote an exact Lefschetz bration over the disk D

2

with the

following properties:

(i) The underlying smooth Lefschetz bration is (, E, X, h) with h Symp(X,

X

).

(ii) The Liouville vector eld of is transverse to E and outward pointing.

(iii) (E, , ) is an exact symplectic manifold with convex boundary (E, [

E

).

(iv) (X, [

X

, [

X

) is an exact symplectic submanifold of (E, , ).

Note that any exact Lefschetz bration over the disk D

2

admits such representation.

Denition 4.6. If an open book is induced by an exact Lefschetz bration, then it is

said to be an exact open book.

Theorem 4.7. The exact open book (X, h) induced by a given exact Lefschetz bration

(, E, , , , X, h) caries the contact structure = Ker([

E

) on E.

Proof. We need to show that all three conditions in Denition 2.1 hold. Assuming

(, E, , , , X, h) is normalized (and so z

0

= (0, 0) is a regular value), the binding of

(X, h) is the boundary of the regular ber E

z

0

=

1

(z

0

). We know that (E

z

0

,

z

0

[

Ez

0

)

is the convex boundary of (E

z

0

,

z

0

,

z

0

) which is an exact symplectic submanifold of

(E, , ). Since

z

0

[

Ez

0

= ([

Ez

0

)[

Ez

0

= [

Ez

0

, we conclude that [

Ez

0

is a contact

form on the binding E

z

0

, so the rst condition follows.

For the second one, each regular ber E

z

of (, E, , , , X, h) is an exact symplectic

submanifold of (E, , ) with the symplectic form

z

= [

Ez

= d[

Ez

. In particular, any

page X of the boundary open book (X, h) equips with the symplectic structure d[

X

as

being a regular ber of .

To check the orientation condition, we need to specify the dimensions. Say E has

dimension 2n +2, and so the page X and the binding B have dimensions 2n and 2n 1,

12 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

respectively. For simplicity, write

= [

B

and

= [

X

(= d[

X

). Let R

be the Reeb

vector eld of

and let

the proof, we need to check that at a given point p X = B the orientation on T

p

B

given by the form

p

(d

p

)

n1

coincides with the one induced by the orientation on

T

p

X given by the volume form (

p

)

n

:

Consider the contact structure

:= Ker(

rank 2n 2) of = Ker(), and the decomposition (see [10], for instance)

T

p

B = R

p

.

From their denitions, we have

, R

, R

is a nonde-

generate pairing with respect to

, we get the

decomposition

T

p

X =

p

R

p

.

Choose a symplectic basis u

1

, v

1

, ..., u

n1

, v

n1

for the symplectic subspace (

p

,

p

)

giving the orientation on

p

determined by (

p

)

n1

, that is, we have

(

p

)

n1

(u

1

, v

1

, ..., u

n1

, v

n1

) > 0.

Since (X,

p

(

p

, R

p

) > 0, we get a symplectic basis

p

, R

p

, u

1

, v

1

, ..., u

n1

, v

n1

p

X,

p

) giving the orientation on T

p

X determined by (

)

n

,

equivalently, (

p

)

n

(

p

, R

p

, u

1

, v

1

, ..., u

n1

, v

n1

) > 0. Then the induced orientation on

the subspace T

p

B T

p

X is determined by the oriented basis

R

p

, u

1

, v

1

, ..., u

n1

, v

n1

p

is outward pointing normal direction at p B = X). Now, using the fact

= d

,

it is not hard to see that

p

(d

p

)

n1

(R

p

, u

1

, v

1

, ..., u

n1

, v

n1

) > 0.

In this section we briey recall the isotropic setups and Weinstein handles introduced in

[19]. Using them we will continue to study exact Lefschetz brations in the next section.

5.1. Isotropic setups. Let (M, = Ker()) be a (2n+1)-dimensional contact manifold.

Any subbundle of the symplectic bundle (, d) has a symplectic orthogonal

.

Therefore, if Y is an isotropic submanifold of M, then d[

Y

= 0 (as [

Y

= 0), and so

TY (TY )

from which we obtain the quotient bundle,

CSN(M, Y ) = (TY )

/ TY

which is called the conformal symplectic normal bundle of Y . Moreover, if N(M, Y )

denotes the normal bundle of Y in M, then we have the decomposition

N(M, Y ) = TM[

Y

/ TY

= TM[

Y

/

Y

Y

/(TY )

(TY )

/ TY

= R

Y

T

Y CSN(M, Y )

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 13

where R

Y

is the Reeb vector-eld R of restricted to Y . If we further assume that Y is a

sphere, then R

Y

T

given trivialization of CSN(M, Y ) determines a framing on Y (that is, the trivialization

of the normal bundle N(M, Y )), and the latter can be used to perform a surgery on M

along Y . Moreover, the resulting contact structure on the surgered manifold agrees with

that of M away from Y . Such an elementary surgery can be achieved also by attaching a

Weinstein handle by making use of isotropic setups which we recall next.

A quintuple of the form (P, , , M, Y ) is called an isotropic setup if (P, ) is a sym-

plectic manifold, is a Liouville vector eld, M is a hypersurface transverse to (hence

a contact manifold), and Y is an isotropic submanifold of M. The following proposition

is the basic tool enabling us to attach Weinstein handles.

Proposition 5.1 ([19]). Let (P

1

,

1

,

1

, M

1

, Y

1

), (P

2

,

2

,

2

, M

2

, Y

2

) be two isotropic se-

tups. Suppose that a given diomorphism Y

1

Y

2

is covered by a symplectic bundle

isomorphism

CSN(M

1

, Y

1

) CSN(M

2

, Y

2

).

Then there exist neighborhoods U

j

of Y

j

in M

j

and an isomorphism of isotropic setups

: (U

1

,

1

[

U

1

,

1

[

U

1

, M

1

U

1

, Y

1

) (U

2

,

2

[

U

2

,

2

[

U

2

, M

2

U

2

, Y

2

)

which restricts to the given map Y

1

Y

2

, and induces the given bundle isomorphism.

5.2. Weinstein handles. Denote the coordinates on R

2n+2

= R

2(n+1)

by

(x

0

, y

0

, x

1

, y

1

, ..., x

n

, y

n

)

and consider the standard symplectic structure on R

2n+2

as

0

=

n

j=0

dx

j

dy

j

.

We will focus on two special Weinstein handles that we need for the present paper.

Namely, let H

n

and H

n+1

be the (2n + 2)-dimensional Weinstein handles in R

2n+2

with

indexes n and n + 1, respectively. These handles are dened as follow: Consider

n

=

x

0

2

x

0

y

0

2

y

0

+

n

j=1

_

2x

j

x

j

+y

j

y

j

_

,

n+1

=

n

j=0

_

2x

j

x

j

+y

j

y

j

_

which are the negative gradient vector elds of the Morse functions

f

n

=

x

2

0

4

+

y

2

0

4

+

n

j=1

_

x

2

j

1

2

y

2

j

_

, f

n+1

=

n

j=0

_

x

2

j

1

2

y

2

j

_

respectively. We have the contractions

k

=

0

, for k = n, n + 1, given as

n

=

x

0

2

dy

0

+

y

0

2

dx

0

+

n

j=1

(2x

j

dy

j

y

j

dx

j

) ,

n+1

=

n

j=0

(2x

j

dy

j

y

j

dx

j

)

from which we compute that /

0

= d(

0

) =

0

. Therefore,

n

,

n+1

are both

Liouville vector elds of

0

. Next, consider the unstable manifold

E

k

= x

0

= = x

n

= y

0

= = y

nk

= 0,

14 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

and the hypersurface X

= f

1

k

(1) which is of contact type. The pull back of

k

on E

k

o

k1

= E

k

,

k

[

X

). Similarly,

we have the stable manifold E

2n+2k

+

= y

nk+1

= = y

n

= 0 and the hypersurface

X

+

= f

1

k

(1) intersecting each other along the ascending sphere

S

2n+1k

= E

2n+2k

+

X

+

which is a submanifold of the contact manifold (X

+

,

k

[

X

+

).

R

2n+2k

R

k

X

= f

1

k

(1)

X

= f

1

k

(1)

S

k1

S

k1

ow of

k

Figure 1. Weinstein handle H

k

(shaded) and the ow of

k

transverse to H

k

.

The Weinstein handle H

k

is the region bounded by a neighborhood (which can be

taken arbitrarily small) of the descending sphere o

k1

in X

manifold S

2n+1k

D

k

depicted in Figure 1. It follows (see [19]) that we can choose

in such a way that

k

is everywhere transverse to the boundary H

k

. Now we state the

main theorem of [19] which tells us, in particular, when we can attach Weinstein handles

and how the symplectic structure extends over the handle.

Theorem 5.2 ([19]). Let Y be an isotropic sphere in the contact manifold M with a

trivialization of CSN(M, Y ). Let M

surgery along Y . Then the elementary cobordism P from M to M

obtained by attaching

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 15

a Weinstein handle to M[0, 1] along a neighborhood of Y carries a symplectic structure

and a Liouville vector eld which is transverse to M and M

induced on M is the given one, while that on M

spheres where the surgery takes place.

One important fact about gluing symplectic manifolds is not mentioned rigorously

before (at least in [19]). For our purposes it is convenient to state it as a lemma:

Lemma 5.3. Gluing two exact symplectic manifolds using an isomorphism of isotropic

setups results in an exact symplectic manifold.

Proof. Let (P

1

,

1

,

1

) and (P

2

,

2

,

2

) be two exact symplectic manifold, and suppose

that (as in Proposition 5.1) there exists an isomorphism of isotropic setups

: (U

1

,

1

[

U

1

,

1

[

U

1

, M

1

U

1

, Y

1

) (U

2

,

2

[

U

2

,

2

[

U

2

, M

2

U

2

, Y

2

)

which restricts to a given map Y

1

Y

2

, and induces a given bundle isomorphism

CSN(M

1

, Y

1

) CSN(M

2

, Y

2

).

Let P be the manifold obtained by gluing (P

1

,

1

,

1

) and (P

2

,

2

,

2

) using the isomor-

phism . This exactly means that along the gluing region we are gluing

i

s,

i

s (and so

i

s) together using . Therefore, on the gluing region either of (

1

,

1

,

1

) or (

2

,

2

,

2

)

denes an exact symplectic structure. Observe that on P P

2

(resp. on P P

1

) the triple

(

1

,

1

,

1

), (resp. (

2

,

2

,

2

)) denes an exact symplectic structure. Hence, P equips

with the exact symplectic structure which we write as (

1

2

,

1

2

,

1

2

).

6. Convex Stabilizations

Our observation via isotropic setups and Weinstein handles is the fact that we can

perform certain positive stabilizations, which will be called convex stabilizations, on

exact Lefschetz brations. Convex stabilizations will be dened explicitly at the end of

the section where a summary of results and some corollaries are also presented in this

new terminology. The main theorem of this section is

Theorem 6.1. Any positive stabilization of an exact Lefschetz bration along a properly

embedded Legendrian disk is also an exact Lefschetz bration.

Proof. Let (, E, , , , X, h) be a given exact Lefschetz bration. We have already

checked in the proof of Theorem 3.3 that a positive stabilization o

LF

[(, E, X, h); L] of

the underlying Lefschetz bration (, E, X, h) is an another Lefschetz bration which we

denoted by (

, E

, X

, h

(, , ) extends over the handles H

, H

, E

, X

, h

) so

that we get an exact symplectic structure (

) on E

.

At this point one should ask why the Legendrian disk L given on a page X of the

boundary exact open book (which carries = Ker([

E

) by Theorem 4.7) is also La-

grangian on the page (X, d) (so that o

LF

[(, E, X, h); L] makes sense). We can check

this as follows: From the basic equality

d(u, v) = /

u

(v) /

v

(u) +([u, v])

16 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

we immediately see that d(u, v) = 0 for all u, v TL (see Chapter III in [2] for a discus-

sion on integrable submanifolds of contact structures). This shows that L is Lagrangian

on the page (X, d).

Consider the 2n-dimensional Weinstein handle H (of index n) used in Denition 3.1

and in the proof of Theorem 3.3. Taking the coordinates on R

2n

H as (x

1

, y

1

, ..., x

n

, y

n

),

we can symplectically embed H into H

n

by the map

(x

1

, y

1

, ..., x

n

, y

n

) (0, 0, x

1

, y

1

, ..., x

n

, y

n

).

Indeed, we can trivially ber H

n

over D

2

with bers dieomorphic to H by constructing

it in a dierent way as follows: Our new model for H

n

will be H D

2

. Consider the

standard symplectic form

H

=

n

j=1

dx

j

dy

j

on H whose Liouville vector eld

H

, the

corresponding Morse function f

H

and the contraction

H

=

H

are

H

=

n

j=1

_

2x

j

x

j

+y

j

y

j

_

, f

H

=

n

j=1

_

x

2

j

y

2

j

2

_

,

H

=

n

j=1

(2x

j

dy

j

y

j

dx

j

) .

Let (r, ) be the radial and the angle coordinates on D

2

-factor in H D

2

. If pr

1

(resp.

pr

2

) denotes the projection onto H-factor (resp. D

2

-factor), then, similar to the proof of

Lemma 4.4, the modication

0

:= pr

1

(

H

) +pr

2

(rdr d)

is a symplectic form on the total space H

n

= HD

2

of the bration pr

2

: H

n

D

2

, and

indeed is equivalent to the standard symplectic form

0

. Considering

H

and r/2 /r

as vector elds in T(H D

2

) = TH TD

2

, it is straightforward to check that

0

:=

H

r/2 /r

is the Liouville vector eld of

0

(satisfying /

0

0

=

0

) which gives the contraction

0

:=

0

0

=

H

r

2

/2 d.

Note that

H

is transverse to

h

H

n

= H D

2

and r/2 /r is transverse to

v

H

n

=

H S

1

, and so

0

is everywhere transverse to H

n

. It follows that each ber

H

z

:= pr

1

2

(z) H (z D

2

)

is an 2n-dimensional Weinstein handle (of index n) and equips with the exact symplectic

form

0

z

:=

0

[

Hz

with the primitive

0

z

:=

0

[

Hz

and whose Liouville vector eld

0

z

:=

0

[

Hz

is transverse to H

z

and satises

0

z

0

z

=

0

z

.

As a result, we obtain a trivial (no singular bers) Lefschetz bration (pr

2

, H

n

, H, id)

over D

2

. One should note that this is not an exact Lefschetz bration because neither

H

n

nor H

z

is convex, but it can be glued to an exact Lefschetz bration along the

convex part, which we will denote by

CX

H

n

, of its boundary to construct a new exact

Lefschetz bration as we will see below. To describe

CX

H

n

, we rst observe that the

boundary of H is decomposed into its convex and concave parts as

H =

CX

H

CV

H

where

CX

H o

n1

D

n

is the tubular neighborhood of descending sphere o

n1

in the

hypersurface f

1

H

(1) from which

H

points outward, and

CV

H =

H

S

n1

D

n

is

the connecting manifold from which

H

points inward. Then we get the decomposition

H

n

= (H D

2

) (H S

1

) = (

CX

H D

2

) (

CV

H D

2

) (H S

1

)

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 17

from which we deduce that

CX

H

n

=

CX

H D

2

and

CV

H

n

= (

CV

H D

2

) (H S

1

).

An easy way to understand this decomposition is given schematically in Figure 2.

x

0

y

0

H

CV

H D

2

CX

H D

2

H

R

2n

CV

H

H

H

CX

H

D

2

r/2 /r

H S

1

ow of

0

=

H

r/2 /r

Figure 2. A schematic picture of the convex and concave parts of H

n

and the ow of

0

=

H

r/2 /r in R

2n

R

2

Lemma 6.2. The handle H

n

. Moreover, the exact

symplectic structure (, , ) on E extends over the handle H

n

.

Proof. We will replace the handle H

= HD

2

used in the proof of Theorem 3.3 with the

Weinstein handle H

n

= H D

2

. Here we do the replacement in such a way that the new

ber

E

z

X

over z D

2

is obtained from the ber X = E

z

by attaching the Weinstein

handle H

z

along the Legendrian sphere S

z

:= S

n1

E

z

which we consider as a copy of

the boundary L of the Legendrian (and so Lagrangian) ball L of the stabilization. More

precisely, we proceed as follows:

As S

z

is Legendrian in (E

z

,

z

), its conformal symplectic normal bundle CSN(E

z

, S

z

)

is zero (i.e., has rank zero). Similarly, the descending sphere o

n1

z

is Legendrian in

(

CX

H

z

,

0

z

) and so CSN(

CX

H

z

, o

n1

z

) is also zero. Therefore, by Proposition 5.1, we

can nd neighborhoods U

z

of o

n1

z

in H

z

and V

z

of S

z

in E

z

and an isomorphism of

isotropic setups

z

: (U

z

,

0

z

[

Uz

,

0

z

[

Uz

,

CX

H

z

U

z

, o

n1

z

) (V

z

,

z

[

Vz

,

z

[

Vz

, E

z

V

z

, S

z

)

which restricts to the map f

z

: o

n1

z

S

z

given in stage (I) of Denition 3.1. (Here f

z

is the embedding of the attaching sphere of H

z

.) Now using Theorem 5.2 we attach each

18 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

H

z

to corresponding E

z

using the isomorphism

z

and obtain the new ber X

equipped

with exact symplectic structure

(

z

,

z

,

z

) := (

z

z

0

z

,

z

z

0

z

,

z

z

0

z

).

(Note that

z

z

0

z

= d(

z

z

0

z

) and we use Lemma 5.3 to obtain this structure.)

Next, we x a copy of S

z

0

E

z

0

(with z

0

intD

2

) of the Legendrian sphere L

in a xed regular ber E

z

0

. Since z

0

is a regular value of , we may assume that E

z

0

is the binding of the (exact) open book induced by . Since this open book carries

the contact structure = Ker() on E (which we know by Theorem 4.7), the binding

(E

z

0

,

z

0

:= Ker(

z

0

)) is a contact submanifold manifold of (E, ), and so

z

0

is a

subbundle of ([

Ez

0

, d[

Ez

0

) and we have (see for instance [10])

TE[

Ez

0

= TE

z

0

(

z

0

)

where (

z

0

)

= CSN(E, E

z

0

) is the symplectically orthogonal complement of

z

0

in

([

Ez

0

, d[

Ez

0

). ((

z

0

)

z

0

in

E.) The latter equality implies that CSN(E, E

z

0

) can be identied with the classical

normal bundle N(E, E

z

0

) of E

z

0

in E. But we know, by denition of open books,

that the binding has a trivial normal bundle, so CSN(E, E

z

0

) = E

z

0

D

2

. Then from

the inclusions S

z

0

E

z

0

E we have

CSN(E, S

z

0

) = CSN(E, E

z

0

)[

Sz

0

CSN(E

z

0

, S

z

0

) = S

z

0

D

2

.

(Recall CSN(E

z

0

, S

z

0

) is zero as S

z

0

is Legendrian in E

z

0

.)

For o

n1

, we follow not the same but similar lines: We x a copy o

n1

z

0

CX

H

z

0

in a

xed ber H

z

0

(with z

0

intD

2

). The restriction of

0

z

0

onto

CX

H

z

0

is a contact form

making

CX

H

z

0

convex, and o

n1

z

0

is Legendrian in (

CX

H

z

0

,

0

z

0

[

CX

Hz

0

). So we have

CSN(

CX

H

z

0

, o

n1

z

0

) = 0.

Also (

CX

H

z

0

,

0

z

0

[

CX

Hz

0

) is a contact submanifold manifold of (

CX

H

n

,

0

[

CX

Hn

). Then

from the inclusions o

n1

z

0

CX

H

z

0

CX

H

n

we see that

CSN(

CX

H

n

, o

n1

z

0

) = CSN(

CX

H

n

,

CX

H

z

0

)[

S

n1

z

0

CSN(

CX

H

z

0

, o

n1

z

0

) = o

n1

z

0

D

2

.

Now we will show that all the above individual attachments are indeed pieces of the

attachment of the Weinstein handle H

n

to E along S

z

0

by nding an isotropic setup which

agrees with each individual ber-wise gluing. To this end, note that we have the map

f

z

0

: o

n1

z

0

S

z

0

given in stage (I) of Denition 3.1. Dene the map

: CSN(

CX

H

n

, o

n1

z

0

) = o

n1

z

0

D

2

S

z

0

D

2

= CSN(E, S

z

0

)

by the rule

(p, z) = (f

z

0

(p), z).

Clearly, is a bundle map and covers f

z

0

, and so by Proposition 5.1, we can nd neigh-

borhoods U of o

n1

z

0

in H

n

and V of S

z

0

in E and an isomorphism of isotropic setups

n

: (U,

0

[

U

,

0

[

U

,

CX

H

n

U, o

n1

z

0

) (V, [

V

, [

V

, E V, S

z

0

)

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 19

which restricts to f

z

0

and the bundle map . We may assume that

CX

H

n

U =

CX

H

n

,

that is,

n

attaches H

n

to E along the whole convex part

CX

H

n

=

CX

H D

2

of its

boundary. Now consider the boundaries

CX

H

n

=

CX

H

z

0

D

2

and

h

E =

_

zD

2

E

z

= E

z

0

D

2

.

For each z D

2

, by attaching H

z

to E

z

using

z

, we glue

CX

H

z

0

z

CX

H

n

with

E

z

0

z

h

E and also we map o

n1

z

onto S

z

by f

z

. Therefore, attaching all H

z

s to

E

z

s along

z

s denes a smooth map o

n1

z

0

D

2

S

z

0

D

2

which is identity on the

D

2

-factor and maps o

n1

z

0

onto S

z

0

via f

z

0

, and so it coincides with . Hence, we conclude

that overall eect of attaching all H

z

s to E

z

s using

z

s on E is equivalent to attaching

Weinstein handle H

n

to E using

n

.

By Lemma 5.3 we know that the resulting manifold

E := E

n

H

n

has an exact

symplectic structure ( , , ) obtained by gluing those on E and H

n

. In other words,

( , , ) = (

n

0

,

n

0

,

n

0

).

Also, clearly, extends over H

n

and we get a Lefschetz bration :

E D

2

with regular

ber X

and monodromy h (original h which is trivially extended over H). To check that

( , , ) restricts to (

z

,

z

,

z

) on each new regular ber

E

z

X

, we proceed as follows:

For each z D

2

, by taking U

z

(resp. V

z

) small enough, we can guarantee that the union

_

zD

2

U

z

_

resp.

_

zD

2

V

z

_

lies in the collar neighborhood of

CX

H

n

(resp.

h

E) where we have the local triviality

condition (as described in the denition of exact symplectic bration). By using these local

trivialities, we combine all the exact symplectic structures (

z

z

0

z

,

z

z

0

z

,

z

z

0

z

)

together, and surely the resulting structure must be (

n

0

,

n

0

,

n

0

) because

(

z

,

z

,

z

)s (resp. (

0

z

,

0

z

,

0

z

)s) patch together and give (, , ) (resp. (

0

,

0

,

0

)).

This completes the proof of Lemma 6.2.

So far we have constructed an exact Lefschetz bration ( ,

E, , , , X

, h) on

E := E

n

H

n

,

in other words, we extended (, , ) over the handle H

by showing that H

can be

replaced by H

n

. Next, we want to extend ( , , ) over H

by showing that H

can be

replaced by the Weinstein handle H

n+1

.

Remark 6.3. Although Weinstein handles are attached along the convex part of their

boundaries (according to the convention of present paper which coincides with the one

in [19]), we actually need to reverse the direction of the Liouville vector eld of the

Weinstein handle when it is being attached to a convex boundary of a symplectic manifold.

Otherwise it is impossible to match the Liouville directions of the symplectizations used

in the gluing. Since we have attached H

n

to E along the whole

CX

H

n

by matching

0

=

H

+r/2 /r with , we have to now consider

CV

H

n

= (

CV

H D

2

) (H S

1

)

as a subset of the convex part of the boundary

E.

20 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

Lemma 6.4. The Lefschetz handle H

n+1

.

Proof. Recall that H

is attach to

E along the Lagrangian n-sphere S on a page (X

, d [

X

)

of the boundary exact open book (X

= Ker( [

E

)

on

E. Say S

E

0

( X

) for some

0

S

1

= D

2

. From its construction (given in

Denition 3.1) and the notation introduced above, S is the union

S = L

f

0

D

of the Lagrangian n-disk L (E

0

,

0

= d

0

) and the Lagrangian core disk D( D

n

)

of the 2n-dimensional Weinstein handle (H

0

, d

0

0

). Note that H

0

H is the ber (over

0

S

1

) of the trivial bration H S

1

. By assumption L is Legendrian in (

E,

). On

the other hand, the contact form [

E

restricts to a contact form

:= ( [

E

)[

HS

1 = (

0

0

)[

HS

1 =

0

[

HS

1 =

d

2

H

=

d

2

+

n

j=1

(2x

j

dy

j

+y

j

dx

j

)

on a convex part H S

1

E. Observe that the core disk D H

0

= H

0

is given

by the set

x

1

= x

2

= = x

n

= 0, =

0

(constant),

and so clearly

1

,

)

(

E, [

E

). Therefore, the n-sphere S is also Legendrian in (

E, [

E

) which implies

that CSN(

E, S) = 0. Moreover, we also have CSN(

CX

H

n+1

, o

n

) = 0 as o

n

is Leg-

endrian in (

CX

H

n+1

,

n+1

[

CX

H

n+1

) by denition. Then by Proposition 5.1, we can nd

neighborhoods U

of o

n

in H

n+1

and V

of S in

E and an isomorphism of isotropic setups

n+1

: (U

,

0

[

U

,

n+1

[

U

,

CX

H

n+1

U

, o

n

) (V

, [

V

, [

V

,

E V

, S)

which restricts to the embedding : o

n

S determined by Denition 3.1. Now by

Theorem 5.2 attaching H

n+1

to

E using

n+1

results in an exact symplectic manifold

E

:=

E

n+1

H

n+1

equipped with the exact symplectic data

(

) = (

n+1

0

,

n+1

n+1

,

n+1

n+1

).

Again we may assume that

CX

H

n+1

U

=

CX

H

n+1

, that is,

n+1

attaches H

n+1

to

CX

H

n+1

of its boundary. Note that the step we just

explained replaces H

n+1

. From the bundle isomorphisms

= TS

= T

S (T

E/

)[

S

we see that the framings on the normal bundle N(

E, S) which are used to attach H

and

H

n+1

coincide, and so attaching H

and H

n+1

are topologically the same. Therefore, we

know by Theorem 2.8 that when we add H

n+1

to ( ,

E, , , , X

underlying topological Lefschetz bration ( ,

E, X

, h) over H

n+1

and get the Lefschetz

bration

o

LF

[(, E, X, h); L] = (

, E

, X

,

(,

)

h)

where

(,

)

is the right-handed Dehn twist described in Denition 3.1. The proof of

Lemma 6.4 is now complete.

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 21

To be able to say that we have constructed an exact Lefschetz bration

(

, E

, X

,

(,

)

h)

on E

) restricts to an

exact symplectic structure on every new regular ber E

z

. Note that this time we are

not changing the dieomorphism type of the regular ber, that is E

z

E

z

X

. The

Weinstein handle H

n+1

is attached to

E along the neighborhood

E V

N(

E

0

, S) [0, 1]

of the attaching sphere S

E

0

in

E where we identify the interval [0, 1] with a closed

arc in S

1

pt such that 0 <

0

< 1. Consider the mapping torus

X

of the open book (X

, h) on

E and the inclusion

N(

E

0

, S) [0, 1] X

[0, 1].

Observe that attaching H

n+1

to

E along the attaching region N(

E

0

, S) [0, 1] results in

a new mapping torus

X

[0, 1]/(x, 0) ((

(,

)

h)(x), 1)

for the open book (X

,

(,

)

h) on the new boundary (E

:= Ker(

[

E

)) obtained

from the corresponding elementary (contact) surgery on (

E,

) along the Legendrian

sphere S. To get this new mapping torus, we are just gluing two copies of X

equipped

with the exact symplectic structure (

X

, d

X

,

X

) using the symplectomorphism

(,

)

h Symp(X

,

X

).

Therefore, attaching H

n+1

does not change the exact symplectic structures of regular

bers. But of course, it does change the structure of the Lefschetz bration: Relative to

:

E D

2

, the new Lefschetz bration

: E

=

E H

n+1

D

2

has one more critical

point (and so one more singular ber) located at the origin in the Weinstein handle H

n+1

.

We conclude that (

) restricts to

(

z

,

z

,

z

) = (

z

,

z

,

z

)

on each regular ber E

z

E

z

X

of

(

, E

, X

,

(,

)

h) as claimed. This nishes the proof of Theorem 6.1.

We have the following consequence of Theorem 6.1:

Corollary 6.5. Any positive stabilization of an exact open book along a properly embedded

Legendrian disk is also an exact open book.

Proof. By denition if (X, h) is an exact open book, then there exist an exact Lefschetz

bration (, E, , , , X, h) which induces (X, h) on the boundary. Let L be any properly

embedded Legendrian (and so Lagrangian) disk in (X, ). Then by Theorem 3.3 we know

that the stabilization o

OB

[(X, h); L] is induced by o

LF

[(, E, X, h); L]. Then Theorem 6.1

implies that there exists an exact Lefschetz bration (

, E

, X

, h

) whose under-

lying topological Lefschetz bration is o

LF

[(, E, X, h); L]. In particular, o

OB

[(X, h); L]

is induced by an exact Lefschetz bration (

, E

, X

, h

by denition.

22 SELMAN AKBULUT AND M. FIRAT ARIKAN

After all, the following denitions make sense and t into the frame very well.

Denition 6.6. (i) A convex stabilization o

C

LF

[(, E, , , , X, h); L] of an exact

Lefschetz bration (, E, , , , X, h) is dened to be the positive stabilization

o

LF

[(, E, X, h); L] where L is a properly embedded Legendrian disk on X.

(ii) A convex stabilization o

C

OB

[(X, h); L] of an exact open book (X, h) is dened to

be the positive stabilization o

OB

[(X, h); L] where L is a properly embedded Leg-

endrian disk on X.

The theorem that we state next can be considered as the exact symplectic version of

Theorem 3.3. It summarizes some of the results that we have shown in the language of

convex stabilizations. The proof is a straight forward combination of previous statements

and denitions, and so will be omitted.

Theorem 6.7. o

C

LF

[(, E, , , , X, h); L] induces the (exact) open book o

C

OB

[(X, h); L].

Conversely, if an (exact) open book (X, h) is induced by (, E, , , , X, h), then any

convex stabilization o

C

OB

[(X, h); L] of (X, h) is induced by o

C

LF

[(, E, , , , X, h); L].

Combining the results we get so far, we know that a convex stabilization of an exact

Lefschetz bration produces an another exact Lefschetz bration on a manifold which has

the same dieomorphism type with the original one. One can see that these manifolds

are, indeed, symplectomorphic:

Theorem 6.8. Let (E

C

LF

[(, E, , , , X, h); L], Then

(E

H

n

, H

n+1

C

LF

[(, E, , , , X, h); L] is a symplectically canceling pair.

Proof. We have already observed in the proof of Theorem 3.3 that H

n

, H

n+1

is a can-

celing pair in smooth category (as the belt sphere of H

n

intersects the attaching sphere

of H

n+1

transversely once). Moreover, Lemma 3.6b in [6] (see also Lemma 3.9 in [18])

implies that two Weinstein handles form a symplectically canceling pair if they form a

canceling pair in smooth category and their Morse-index dierence is one. As a result,

we conclude that H

n

, H

n+1

is a canceling pair in symplectic category as well.

As an immediate corollary, we have

Corollary 6.9. Let (resp.

) induced

by the exact symplectic structure of (, E, , , , X, h) (resp. (

, E

, X

, h

) =

o

C

LF

[(, E, , , , X, h); L]). Then (E, ) is contactomorhic (E

).

Finally, as an application, we verify a well-known result for the class of exact open

books and their convex stabilizations. Namely,

Corollary 6.10. Let be a contact structure carried by an exact open book (X, h). Then

any convex stabilization o

C

OB

[(X, h); L] of (X, h) carries .

Proof. By assumption, there exist an exact Lefschetz bration (, E, , , , X, h) which

induces (X, h) on the boundary. Note that, by Theorem 4.7, (, , ) induces on

E. Theorem 6.7 implies that o

C

OB

[(X, h); L] is induced by o

C

LF

[(, E, , , , X, h); L].

STABILIZATIONS VIA LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS AND EXACT OPEN BOOKS 23

Moreover, again by Theorem 4.7, we know that o

C

OB

[(X, h); L] carries the contact structure

induced by the exact symplectic structure on o

C

LF

[(, E, , , , X, h); L]. Now the proof

follows from Corollary 6.9.

References

[1] A. Andreotti and T. Frankel, The second Lefschetz theorem on hyperplane section, Global Analysis,

Princeton University Press (1969), 1-20.

[2] D. Blair, Contact Manifolds in Riemannian Geometry, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 509, Springer-

Verlag, 1976.

[3] E. Brieskorn, Beispiele zur Dierentialtopologie von Singularitaten, Invent. Math. 2 (1966), 1-14.

[4] K. Cieliebak and Y. Eliashberg Symplectic geometry of Stein manifolds (Incomplete draft) (2008)

[5] Deligne and Katz, Groupes de Monodromie en Geometrie Algebrique, Lecture Notes in Math. 340,

Springer-Verlag.

[6] Y. Eliashberg, Symplectic geometry of plurisubharmonic functions, Gauge theory and symplectic

geometry (Montreal, PQ, 1995), NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., vol. 488, Kluwer

Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1997, With notes by Miguel Abreu, pp. 4967. MR 1461569 (98g:58055)

[7] Y. Eliashberg and M. Gromov, Convex Symplectic Manifolds, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure

Mathematics, vol. 52, Part 2, 135162 (1991).

[8] Deligne and Katz, Groupes de Monodromie en Geometrie Algebrique, Lecture Notes in Math. 340,

Springer-Verlag.

[9] A. Dimca Singularities and Topology of Hypersurfaces, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

[10] H. Geiges, Contact geometry, Handbook of dierential geometry. Vol. II, 315382, Elsevier/North-

Holland, Amsterdam, 2006.

[11] E. Giroux, Geometrie de contact: de la dimension trois vers les dimensions superieures, Proceedings

of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. II (Beijing), Higher Ed. Press, (2002), pp.

405414. MR 2004c:53144

[12] A. Kas, On the handlebody decomposition associated to a Lefschetz bration, Pasic Jornal of Math.

(1980) vol. 89, No. 1, 89-104

[13] T. Le D ung, Some remarks on the relative monodromy, Real and complex singularities (Oslo 1976),

Sijtho and Noordho, Amsterdam, 1977, pp. 397-403.

[14] R. Lutz, C. Meckert Structures de contact sur certaines sph`eres exotiques, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris

Ser. A-B 282 (1976), no. 11, Aii, A591A593

[15] J. Milnor, Singular Points of Complex Hypersurfaces, Princeton Univ. Press, 1968.

[16] P. Seidel, A long exact sequence for symplectic Floer cohomology, Topology 42 (2003), p. 1003-1063.

(arXiv:math/0105186v2)

[17] I. Torisu, Convex contact structures and bered links in 3-manifolds, Internat. Math. Res. Notices

(2000), no. 9, 441454. MR MR1756943 (2001i:57039)

[18] O. Van Koert, Lecture notes on stabilization of contact open books, (arXiv:1012.4359v1)

[19] A. Weinstein, Contact surgery and symplectic handlebodies, Hokkaido Math. J. 20 (1991), no. 2,

241251.

Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, Lansing MI, USA

E-mail address: akbulut@math.msu.edu

Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, Bonn, GERMANY

E-mail address: arikan@mpim-bonn.mpg.de

- Complex Analytic and Differential Geometry - J. Demailly.pdfUploaded byraul_carrascov
- Electricity and Magnetism for Mathematicians.pdfUploaded byjon
- Elena Pavelescu- Braids and Open Book DecompositionsUploaded byCore0932
- 3160 CauchyUploaded byStelios Kondos
- RiemetUploaded byNicarlitos
- 1802_F14_prf_b.pdfUploaded by15kla
- SphericalCoord GradientUploaded bystephenbankes
- For MuleUploaded byRamo Kiss

- Jonathan M. Bloom- Odd Khovanov Homology is Mutation InvariantUploaded bySprite090
- Nathan Ryder- Calculating Knot PolynomialsUploaded bySprite090
- Louis Kauffman- From Knots to Quantum Groups (and Back)Uploaded bySprite090
- Dieter A. Wolf-Gladrow- Lattice-Gas Cellular Automata and Lattice Boltzmann Models - An IntroductionUploaded bySprite090
- F.Y. Wu- Knot theory and statistical mechanicsUploaded bySprite090
- David A. Meyer- Knot Invariants and Cellular AutomataUploaded bySprite090
- Tatsuya Tsukamoto- A Criterion for Almost Alternating Links to be Non-SplittableUploaded bySprite090
- David A. Meyer- Knot Invariants and the Thermodynamics of Lattice Gas AutomataUploaded bySprite090
- Razvan Gelca- Topological quantum Field theory with corners based on the Kauman bracketUploaded bySprite090
- Neil Wright- Invariants of Knots and Links: Zeros of the Jones PolynomialUploaded bySprite090
- Knots and Quantum GravityUploaded byabdelrahman_elabany
- Reagin Taylor McNeill- Knot Theory and the Alexander PolynomialUploaded bySprite090
- R. Ball and M. L. Mehta- Sequence of invariants for knots and linksUploaded bySprite090
- G. Masbaum and P. Vogel- 3-Valent Graphs and the Kauffman BracketUploaded bySprite090
- Richard H. Crowell and Ralph H. Fox- Introduction to Knot TheoryUploaded bySprite090
- Jonathan Williams- The h-Principle for Broken Lefschetz FibrationsUploaded bySprite090
- R. Inanc Baykur- Topology of Broken Lefschetz Fibrations and Near-Symplectic 4-ManifoldsUploaded bySprite090
- Nikos Apostolakis, Riccardo Piergallini and Daniele Zuddas- Lefschetz Fibrations Over the DiskUploaded bySprite090
- Kenta Hayano- On Genus-1 Simplified Broken Lefschetz FibrationsUploaded bySprite090
- Robert Lipshitz, Peter S. Ozsvath and Dylan P. Thurston- Computing HF by Factoring Mapping ClassesUploaded bySprite090
- David T. Gaya and Robion C. Kirby- Fiber-connected, indefinite Morse 2-functions on connected n-manifoldsUploaded bySprite090
- Martin Scharlemann- An Overview of Property 2RUploaded bySprite090
- Denis Auroux- Lefschetz pencils and the symplectic topology of complex surfacesUploaded bySprite090
- S. Chmutov, S. Duzhin and J. Mostovoy- Introduction to Vassiliev Knot InvariantsUploaded bySprite090
- Jeremy Van Horn-Morris- Constructions of Open Book DecompositionsUploaded bySprite090
- Robert Lipshitz, Peter S. Ozsvath and Dylan P. Thurston- Bordered Floer homology and the branched double cover IUploaded bySprite090
- Motoo Tange- On Nash’s 4-sphere and Property 2RUploaded bySprite090
- B. Ozbagci and A. I. Stipsicz- Surgery on contact 3-manifolds and Stein surfacesUploaded bySprite090
- Liam Thomas Watson- Knots, Tangles and Braid ActionsUploaded bySprite090

- John Kalliongis and Chichen M. Tsau- Seifert Fibered Surgery Manifolds of Composite KnotsUploaded byJupwe
- Ends of ComplexesUploaded byigorljub
- The Abel Prize 2008-2012Uploaded byMir Sver
- Stavros Garoufalidis, Mikhail Goussarov and Michael Polyak- Calculus of clovers and finite type invariants of 3–manifoldsUploaded byMopadDeluxe
- Structure of Three-ManifoldsUploaded byElle
- Motoo Tange- The link surgery of S^2 x S^2 and Scharlemann's manifoldsUploaded byDuncan_Vim
- Fintushel R., Stern R. J. - Surgery on Null Homologous Tori and Simply Connected 4-Manifolds With b+ = 1(2008)(15)Uploaded byBlade Darkman
- Martin Scharlemann- An Overview of Property 2RUploaded bySprite090
- Computers, rigidity, and moduliUploaded bysapinedamo
- Akbulut LecturesUploaded byChris Hays
- Young Li and Jiajun Wang- The Support Genus of Certain Legendrian KnotsUploaded bySprite090
- SMM Topological Invariants of Stratified Spaces (Banagl 2007)Uploaded byJobian Gutierrez
- CarvingUploaded bypuggod
- Topology Books - Allen HatcherUploaded byNiflheim
- Richard Mandelbaum- 4-Manifolds and the Calculus of LinksUploaded byOkomm
- B. Ozbagci and A. I. Stipsicz- Surgery on contact 3-manifolds and Stein surfacesUploaded bySprite090
- Martin Scharlemann and Abigail Thompson- Fibered Knots and Property 2RUploaded bySprite090