<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Geometry and the imagination]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://lamington.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Danny Calegari]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://lamington.wordpress.com/author/dannycaltech/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[4-spheres from fibered&nbsp;knots]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>I was at UC Riverside this past weekend, attending the regional meeting, and giving a talk in a special session on knot theory in memory of the late Xiao-Song Lin. After lunch, I joined in a conversation between Rob Kirby and Mike Freedman on the recent flurry of activity this summer, in which Selman Akbulut <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0136">showed</a> (and his work was further <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1914">extended</a> by Bob Gompf ) that certain infinite families of <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0418125">Cappell-Shaneson manifolds</a> &#8212; smooth <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-manifolds known since <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=679066">Freedman&#8217;s work</a> to be homeomorphic to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^4" title="S^4" class="latex" /> &#8212; are in fact diffeomorphic to the standard smooth <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^4" title="S^4" class="latex" /> (actually, Cappell-Shaneson&#8217;s manifolds have the additional feature that they admit a free <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D%2F2%5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{Z}/2&#92;mathbb{Z}" title="&#92;mathbb{Z}/2&#92;mathbb{Z}" class="latex" /> action, giving rise to fake <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BRP%7D%5E4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{RP}^4" title="&#92;mathbb{RP}^4" class="latex" />&#8216;s, which was actually their original interest). (<strong>Note:</strong> an earlier version of this post falsely implied that Gompf&#8217;s work was done independently of Akbulut&#8217;s, whereas in fact it came later, as Gompf readily acknowledges).</p>
<p>Apparently these constructions had somewhat altered the experts&#8217;s (i.e. Freedman and Kirby) feelings about whether the smooth <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-dimensional Poincaré conjecture is likely to be true. The Cappell-Shaneson manifolds are constructed by doing surgery on certain torus bundles over a circle &#8212; those with monodromy chosen so that the resulting torus bundles have the homology of a <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E1+%5Ctimes+S%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^1 &#92;times S^3" title="S^1 &#92;times S^3" class="latex" />. A suitable surgery, killing the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^1" title="S^1" class="latex" /> factor makes the manifold into homology <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^4" title="S^4" class="latex" />&#8216;s, and also kills the subgroup of the fundamental group normally generated by the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^1" title="S^1" class="latex" /> factor. On the other hand, everything else in the fundamental group &#8220;comes from&#8221; the torus, whose fundamental group is <em>abelian</em>, and therefore the resulting manifold is simply-connected. Since it is a homology <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-sphere, is it therefore a homotopy <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-sphere, and consequently (by Freedman), a topological <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-sphere.</p>
<p>Gompf shows these <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-spheres are standard by showing that a certain move &#8212; which simplifies the monodromy of the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=T%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="T^3" title="T^3" class="latex" /> fiber &#8212; can be realized by a diffeomorphism. The move is an example of what is known to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-manifold topologists as a &#8220;log transform&#8221; (and to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="3" title="3" class="latex" />-manifold topologists as &#8220;Dehn surgery times <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^1" title="S^1" class="latex" />&#8221;). A log transform takes as input a smooth embedded torus. A tubular neighborhood of this torus is a product <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=T%5E2+%5Ctimes+D%5E2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="T^2 &#92;times D^2" title="T^2 &#92;times D^2" class="latex" /> whose boundary is a <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="3" title="3" class="latex" />-torus <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=T%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="T^3" title="T^3" class="latex" />. This tubular neighborhood is removed, and reglued by an automorphism of the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=T%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="T^3" title="T^3" class="latex" /> factor. Usually a log transform will change the topology of the manifold, or at least the smooth structure. But in this case, the surgered torus is contained in a <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=T%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="T^3" title="T^3" class="latex" /> fiber, and the log transform can be shown to be isotopic to the identity, by using the monodromy of the fibration (technically, the monodromy of the fibration produces a once-punctured torus in the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=T%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="T^3" title="T^3" class="latex" /> bundle with boundary on the curve along which the log transform &#8220;twists&#8221;, but after doing surgery to produce the homology <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^4" title="S^4" class="latex" />&#8216;s, this once-punctured torus is &#8220;capped&#8221; to become a smooth disk).</p>
<p>The point of this blog post is to show how to construct many, many other smooth <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-manifolds which are topological <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-spheres, and for which Gompf&#8217;s method of showing they are standard does not work. Are these manifolds counterexamples to the smooth <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-dimensional Poincaré conjecture? I am really not the person to ask.</p>
<p>The construction takes as input a fibered knot &#8212; i.e. a knot <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=K&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="K" title="K" class="latex" /> in the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="3" title="3" class="latex" />-sphere <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^3" title="S^3" class="latex" /> whose complement fibers over a circle. In other words, there is a fibration <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S+%5Cto+S%5E3+-+K+%5Cto+S%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S &#92;to S^3 - K &#92;to S^1" title="S &#92;to S^3 - K &#92;to S^1" class="latex" />, where <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S" title="S" class="latex" /> is a (minimal genus) <em>Seifert surface</em> for the knot <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=K&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="K" title="K" class="latex" />. The fibration of spaces gives rise to a short exact sequence of fundamental groups (in general, one gets a long exact sequence of homotopy groups, but the spaces <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%2C+S%5E3-K%2CS%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S, S^3-K,S^1" title="S, S^3-K,S^1" class="latex" /> are all <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=K%28%5Cpi%2C1%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="K(&#92;pi,1)" title="K(&#92;pi,1)" class="latex" />&#8216;s &#8212; i.e. their homotopy groups in dimension other than <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="1" title="1" class="latex" /> all vanish). Since <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S" title="S" class="latex" /> has boundary, the fundamental group of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S" title="S" class="latex" /> is free and finitely generated of rank <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=2g&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="2g" title="2g" class="latex" />, where <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g" title="g" class="latex" /> is the genus. The fundamental group of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^1" title="S^1" class="latex" /> is <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{Z}" title="&#92;mathbb{Z}" class="latex" />. So one exhibits <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28S%5E3+-+K%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(S^3 - K)" title="&#92;pi_1(S^3 - K)" class="latex" /> as an HNN extension of a free group, where the meridian <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=m&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="m" title="m" class="latex" /> acts by conjugation on the free group <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28S%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(S)" title="&#92;pi_1(S)" class="latex" /> by some automorphism <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cphi%3A%5Cpi_1%28S%29+%5Cto+%5Cpi_1%28S%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;phi:&#92;pi_1(S) &#92;to &#92;pi_1(S)" title="&#92;phi:&#92;pi_1(S) &#92;to &#92;pi_1(S)" class="latex" />.</p>
<p>Since <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=K&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="K" title="K" class="latex" /> is a knot in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^3" title="S^3" class="latex" />, the homology of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E3-K&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^3-K" title="S^3-K" class="latex" /> is equal to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{Z}" title="&#92;mathbb{Z}" class="latex" /> in dimension <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="1" title="1" class="latex" />. Moreover, since putting <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=K&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="K" title="K" class="latex" /> back in recovers <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^3" title="S^3" class="latex" />, it follows that the fundamental group <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28S%5E3-K%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(S^3-K)" title="&#92;pi_1(S^3-K)" class="latex" /> is normally generated by the meridian (which also generates the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{Z}" title="&#92;mathbb{Z}" class="latex" /> in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_1" title="H_1" class="latex" />). For the moment everything is <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="3" title="3" class="latex" />-dimensional, but there is a trick to promote this to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" /> dimensions. In place of the surface <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S" title="S" class="latex" />, consider the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="3" title="3" class="latex" />-manifold <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M_%7B2g%7D+%3D+%5C%23_%7Bi%3D1%7D%5E%7B2g%7D+S%5E2+%5Ctimes+S%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M_{2g} = &#92;#_{i=1}^{2g} S^2 &#92;times S^1" title="M_{2g} = &#92;#_{i=1}^{2g} S^2 &#92;times S^1" class="latex" />. In other words, <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M_%7B2g%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M_{2g}" title="M_{2g}" class="latex" /> is obtained by doubling a handlebody of genus <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=2g&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="2g" title="2g" class="latex" />. The fundamental group <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28M_%7B2g%7D%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(M_{2g})" title="&#92;pi_1(M_{2g})" class="latex" /> is free of rank <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=2g&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="2g" title="2g" class="latex" />. Now one builds a <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M" title="M" class="latex" /> bundle over <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^1" title="S^1" class="latex" /> with monodromy <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cphi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;phi" title="&#92;phi" class="latex" />; call this <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-manifold <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=W_%5Cphi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="W_&#92;phi" title="W_&#92;phi" class="latex" />. The existence of such a manifold depends on being able to realize any automorphism of a free group by a homeomorphism of a doubled handlebody; one way to see this is to observe that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctext%7BAut%7D%28F%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;text{Aut}(F)" title="&#92;text{Aut}(F)" class="latex" /> is generated by Nielsen moves &#8212; interchanging generators, replacing generators by their inverses, and replacing generators <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=x%2Cy&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="x,y" title="x,y" class="latex" /> by <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=xy%2C+y&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="xy, y" title="xy, y" class="latex" />. These moves are all realizable by homeomorphisms of doubled handlebodies, the last by a &#8220;handle slide&#8221;.</p>
<p>Now, observe that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28W_%5Cphi%29+%3D+%5Cpi_1%28S%5E3+-+K%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(W_&#92;phi) = &#92;pi_1(S^3 - K)" title="&#92;pi_1(W_&#92;phi) = &#92;pi_1(S^3 - K)" class="latex" />, and is normally generated by a loop <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cgamma+%5Cin+W_%5Cphi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;gamma &#92;in W_&#92;phi" title="&#92;gamma &#92;in W_&#92;phi" class="latex" /> representing the circle direction. Moreover, <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_1%28W_%5Cphi%29+%3D+H_1%28S%5E3-K%29+%3D+%5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_1(W_&#92;phi) = H_1(S^3-K) = &#92;mathbb{Z}" title="H_1(W_&#92;phi) = H_1(S^3-K) = &#92;mathbb{Z}" class="latex" />. To compute <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_2" title="H_2" class="latex" />, observe that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_2%28M%29+%3D+%28H_1%28M%29%29%5E%2A&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_2(M) = (H_1(M))^*" title="H_2(M) = (H_1(M))^*" class="latex" /> by Poincaré duality. If the action of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cphi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;phi" title="&#92;phi" class="latex" /> on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_1%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_1(M)" title="H_1(M)" class="latex" /> (a free abelian group of rank <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=2g&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="2g" title="2g" class="latex" />) is represented by a matrix <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=A&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="A" title="A" class="latex" />, then the action on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_2%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_2(M)" title="H_2(M)" class="latex" /> is represented by the transpose <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=A%5ET&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="A^T" title="A^T" class="latex" />. The fact that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_1%28W_%5Cphi%29%3D%5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_1(W_&#92;phi)=&#92;mathbb{Z}" title="H_1(W_&#92;phi)=&#92;mathbb{Z}" class="latex" /> is equivalent to the fact that the first homology of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M" title="M" class="latex" /> dies in the bundle; i.e. <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cdet%28A+-+%5Ctext%7BId%7D%29%3D%5Cpm+1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;det(A - &#92;text{Id})=&#92;pm 1" title="&#92;det(A - &#92;text{Id})=&#92;pm 1" class="latex" />; hence <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cdet%28A%5ET+-+%5Ctext%7BId%7D%29+%3D+%5Cpm+1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;det(A^T - &#92;text{Id}) = &#92;pm 1" title="&#92;det(A^T - &#92;text{Id}) = &#92;pm 1" class="latex" />, and for the same reason, the second homology of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M" title="M" class="latex" /> dies in the bundle, and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_2%28W_%5Cphi%29%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_2(W_&#92;phi)=0" title="H_2(W_&#92;phi)=0" class="latex" />. By (<img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-dimensional) Poincaré duality, <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_3%28W_%5Cphi%29+%3D+%5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_3(W_&#92;phi) = &#92;mathbb{Z}" title="H_3(W_&#92;phi) = &#92;mathbb{Z}" class="latex" />, and we see that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=W_%5Cphi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="W_&#92;phi" title="W_&#92;phi" class="latex" /> is a homology <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E1+%5Ctimes+S%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^1 &#92;times S^3" title="S^1 &#92;times S^3" class="latex" />.</p>
<p>A tubular neighborhood of the loop <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cgamma&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;gamma" title="&#92;gamma" class="latex" /> is a product <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E1+%5Ctimes+D%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^1 &#92;times D^3" title="S^1 &#92;times D^3" class="latex" />, since <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=W_%5Cphi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="W_&#92;phi" title="W_&#92;phi" class="latex" /> is orientable. The boundary of this is <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E1+%5Ctimes+S%5E2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^1 &#92;times S^2" title="S^1 &#92;times S^2" class="latex" />. So we drill out <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cgamma&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;gamma" title="&#92;gamma" class="latex" /> and glue in a product <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=D%5E2+%5Ctimes+S%5E2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="D^2 &#92;times S^2" title="D^2 &#92;times S^2" class="latex" /> to produce <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=W_%5Cphi%27&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="W_&#92;phi&#039;" title="W_&#92;phi&#039;" class="latex" />. Drilling out <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cgamma&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;gamma" title="&#92;gamma" class="latex" /> does not affect the fundamental group, by Seifert van-Kampen, and the fact that the inclusion <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E1+%5Ctimes+S%5E2+%5Cto+S%5E1+%5Ctimes+D%5E3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^1 &#92;times S^2 &#92;to S^1 &#92;times D^3" title="S^1 &#92;times S^2 &#92;to S^1 &#92;times D^3" class="latex" /> is an isomorphism on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1" title="&#92;pi_1" class="latex" />. On the other hand, filling in a <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=D%5E2+%5Ctimes+S%5E2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="D^2 &#92;times S^2" title="D^2 &#92;times S^2" class="latex" /> has the effect of killing the meridian <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=m&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="m" title="m" class="latex" />, and therefore (by the discussion above), killing <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1" title="&#92;pi_1" class="latex" /> completely; i.e. <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=W_%5Cphi%27&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="W_&#92;phi&#039;" title="W_&#92;phi&#039;" class="latex" /> is simply-connected. Hence <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_1%28W_%5Cphi%27%29+%3D+H_3%28W_%5Cphi%27%29%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_1(W_&#92;phi&#039;) = H_3(W_&#92;phi&#039;)=0" title="H_1(W_&#92;phi&#039;) = H_3(W_&#92;phi&#039;)=0" class="latex" />. Drilling out a circle and gluing back a sphere increases Euler characteristic by <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="2" title="2" class="latex" />; since the rank of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_1" title="H_1" class="latex" /> and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_3&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_3" title="H_3" class="latex" /> have both gone down by <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="1" title="1" class="latex" />, it follows that the rank of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_2%28W_%5Cphi%27%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_2(W_&#92;phi&#039;)" title="H_2(W_&#92;phi&#039;)" class="latex" /> is still <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="0" title="0" class="latex" />, and since the fundamental group is trivial, <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_2%28W_%5Cphi%27%29%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_2(W_&#92;phi&#039;)=0" title="H_2(W_&#92;phi&#039;)=0" class="latex" />. So <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=W_%5Cphi%27&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="W_&#92;phi&#039;" title="W_&#92;phi&#039;" class="latex" /> is a smooth, simply-connected homology sphere, which is to say, a smooth <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="4" title="4" class="latex" />-manifold which is topologically <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^4" title="S^4" class="latex" />.</p>
<p>Back in June, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5177">Freedman-Gompf-Morrison-Walker</a> described a way to use Rasmussen&#8217;s <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=s&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="s" title="s" class="latex" />-invariant to detect exotic <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^4" title="S^4" class="latex" />&#8216;s, and proposed trying this invariant out on the Cappell-Shaneson examples (see Scott Morrison&#8217;s post about that <a href="http://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/man-and-machine-thinking-about-spc4/">here</a>). Is it feasible to compute the invariants on these new examples?</p>
<p><strong>(Corrected Update 11/10:)</strong> Some ways of doing this construction give standard <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^4" title="S^4" class="latex" />&#8216;s, some give <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S^4" title="S^4" class="latex" />&#8216;s that are not obviously standard. And there are other variations on this construction arising from &#8220;non-geometric&#8221; automorphisms of free groups that are also not obviously standard. These examples are also not obviously the same as other known potential counterexamples to the smooth Poincare conjecture. So the conclusion seems to be that they deserve further study. <strong>(Added 11/15:)</strong> <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=933305">This paper</a> by Aitchison-Silver discusses a closely related construction.</p>
]]></html></oembed>