Stabilization distance between surfaces

Allison N. Miller; Mark Powell

Stabilization distance between surfaces

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Slice discs can be arbitrarily far apart in stabilization distance.

desk verdict Worth refereeing: the genuinely new content is Theorem C, and the delicate spot is the Proposition 7.8 splitting, which is argued in detail but should be checked line by line. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06701 v3 pith:BA4XZP2K submitted 2019-08-19 math.GT

Allison N. Miller , Mark Powell This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GT MSC 57N1357N65

keywords 1-handlestabilizationdistance2-knotsslicediscsAlexandermoduletwistedhomologymetabelianrepresentationscycliccoversgeneratingrank

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper defines the 1-handle stabilization distance between two surfaces in a 4-manifold and proves that it can take any prescribed value. It first shows that for every nonnegative integer $m$ there are 2-knots in $S^4$ at distance exactly $m$ from the unknot. It then proves that a generalized distance, which ignores connected sums with arbitrary 2-knots, is also unbounded for slice discs of a fixed knot in $S^3$. The main mathematical claim is that even when abelian invariants computed from cyclic covers—namely the kernels of the rational Alexander module maps—coincide, the generalized stabilization distance can still be arbitrarily large, with metabelian twisted homology providing the extra distinguishing power.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rational Alexander module $A_{\mathbb{Q}}(L) = H_1(X_L; \mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])$ of a knot or slice-disc exterior, together with the kernel of the inclusion-induced map $A_{\mathbb{Q}}(J) \to A_{\mathbb{Q}}(D_i)$ for a slice disc $D_i$. A single 1-handle stabilization fits into a short exact sequence $0 \to \mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]/(p) \to A_{\mathbb{Q}}(F_1) \to A_{\mathbb{Q}}(F_2) \to 0$, so the generating rank drops by at most one; comparing the generating ranks of the two kernels and their intersection gives the lower bound in Proposition 6.3. For the second-order distinction, the machinery is metabelian twisted homology with representations $\varphi_\chi \colon \pi_1(X_K) \to \mathbb{Z}/2 \ltimes \mathbb{Z}_n$ factoring through the 2-fold branched cover, with $\mathbb{Z}[\xi_n]$ coefficients, and a splitting theorem (Proposition 7.8) that decomposes the kernel for a satellite slice disc into a piece from the pattern knot plus a conjugate pair of pieces from the companion. The companion is chosen as $J_0 \# -J_0$, whose two standard ribbon discs have equal Alexander-module kernels but different behaviour after tensoring with $\mathbb{Z}[\xi_3]$.

What would settle it

Recompute $A_{\mathbb{Q}}$ for the knot $9_{46}$ and its left/right band slice discs directly from the diagrams in Figure 3: if $A_{\mathbb{Q}}(9_{46})$ is not $\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]/(2t-1) \oplus \mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]/(t-2)$, or if the inclusion maps do not project onto the two displayed summands with kernels $P_1 = \mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]/(t-2)$ and $P_2 = \mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]/(2t-1)$, then the distance claim of Theorem B fails; alternatively, exhibit an explicit sequence of fewer than $n$ stabilizations and 2-knot sums relating the two canonical slice discs of $\#^n 9_{46}$, which the theorem predicts does not exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the 1-handle stabilization distance $d_1(F,F')$—the minimum number of 1-handle stabilizations needed to make two homologous surfaces ambiently isotopic—is unbounded and can be prescribed exactly, in the simplest setting of 2-spheres in $S^4$. For the coarser generalized distance $d_2$, which also allows connected sum with arbitrary 2-knots at zero cost, it claims that for every $m$ there is a knot $J$ in $S^3$ with two slice discs in $D^4$ whose generalized stabilization distance is exactly $m$. It further claims that such pairs exist with the kernels of the inclusion-induced maps on rational Alexander modules equal, so that all abelian cyclic-cover invariants agree; the separation is detected by metabelian twisted homology, specifically representations to $\mathbb{Z}/2 \ltimes \mathbb{Z}_3$ with coefficients in the Eisenstein integers.

Load-bearing premise

The lower-bound proofs depend on explicit diagrammatic computations: for the knot $9_{46}$ in Figure 3, that its rational Alexander module splits as $\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]/(2t-1) \oplus \mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]/(t-2)$ with the two band discs projecting onto different summands, and for the knot $6_1$ with infection curve $\eta$ in Figure 8, that its Alexander module, kernel, and the splitting in Proposition 7.8 are as computed; if any of these module computations or kernel splittings is wrong, the claimed distances collapse, and Theorem C additionally relies on a linear-algebra existence result quoted without proof in Claim 7.17.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every $m$ there are 2-knots in $S^4$ that require exactly $m$ stabilizations to become unknotted, so the metric $d_1$ is nontrivial even for null-homologous 2-spheres.
For every $m$ there is a slice knot with two slice discs whose generalized stabilization distance is exactly $m$, so the number of slice-disc classes up to 2-knot connected sum is unbounded; for example $\#^k 9_{46}$ has at least $2^k$ such classes.
Abelian invariants—the order and kernel of the rational Alexander module map—do not classify slice-disc pairs up to stabilization, because Theorem C exhibits pairs with equal kernels and arbitrarily large generalized distance.
Metabelian twisted homology distinguishes slice discs obtained from the same fixed metabolising link on a Seifert surface by different choices of bounding discs, detecting a genuinely second-order slicing phenomenon.
The distance $d_1$ is a metric on ambient isotopy classes of fixed-genus surfaces representing a fixed homology class, and the proof of the triangle inequality rearranges stabilizations before destabilizations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The generating-rank inequality in Proposition 6.3 is a general machine: any pair of slice discs whose Alexander-module kernels are complementary free summands should yield distance equal to the common rank, so many knots besides $9_{46}$ with suitable Seifert pairings should give similar examples.
The paper only bounds the distance in Theorem C below by $g$ and above by $4g$; determining the exact distance for these satellite examples would likely require a twisted analogue of the precise upper-bound construction used in Theorem B.
A natural next test is whether the same metabelian technique distinguishes slice discs whose metabelian invariants coincide, or whether still higher-order nilpotent twisted homology is needed; the kernel-splitting pattern suggests an entire hierarchy of slice-disc invariants indexed by solvable quotients.
Because Theorem C's examples have equal rational Alexander kernels, any invariant computed from cyclic covers—orders, torsion, or kernels—cannot certify the lower bound; readers should expect other slice-disc pairs that are abelian-indistinguishable but metabelian-distinguishable, possibly including spun versus non-spun ribbon discs for $K \# -K$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

I basically agree with the reader's verdict: accept, soundness around 8, with the genuinely new content being Theorem B and especially Theorem C. The real result to care about is Theorem C: pairs of slice discs for the same knot with generalized stabilization distance at least m, even when the kernels of the inclusion maps on rational Alexander modules coincide. That shows metabelian twisted homology sees things the abelian theory cannot, and it gives real traction on the slice-disc enumeration problem. The authors also disclose in an 'Added in proof' that Theorem A is due to Miyazaki; keeping it as exposition is fine.

What I like: the lower bounds come from honest invariants, generating ranks of Alexander modules and twisted homology, and the upper bounds from explicit handle additions. There is no parameter fitting anywhere. The proofs of B and C are detailed and mostly checkable. The paper is well organized and honest about what it does not know, e.g., the exact value of d2 in Theorem C is left open.

Soft spots, in proportion. Proposition 7.8 is the load-bearing wall for Theorem C. The stress-test note worries the splitting there is asserted rather than proved. Having read it, I would put it differently: it is a long Mayer-Vietoris diagram chase, and the key identifications are argued, not assumed. The [lambda_J] = 0 step is a standard fact about infinite cyclic covers, and the surjectivity of the restricted character follows from eta generating A(R). It is intricate enough that a referee should check the chase line by line, but it is not a hand-wave. Minor spots: the computations in Examples 5.4 and 7.3 lean on [CP19] for details, though the Seifert matrix data is given; Claim 7.17 uses a linear algebra existence result from [KL05, Thm 6.1] without proof; and Theorem A's upper bound is a fiddly banded-diagram manipulation, but it is illustrated and followable. The citation pattern is healthy.

Who it is for: anyone working on slice discs, 2-knots, or stabilization questions in 4-manifolds. The paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review, asking the referee to check Proposition 7.8 carefully and to ask for a bit more detail on the [KL05] input. Expect minor-to-moderate revisions, not a rewrite.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper defines the 1-handle stabilization distance between surfaces properly embedded in a fixed 4-manifold, together with a generalized distance that also allows connected sum with arbitrary 2-knots at zero cost. It proves three main results: Theorem A, that for every m there are embedded 2-spheres in S^4 at 1-handle stabilization distance exactly m (with an explicit added note that this was first proved by Miyazaki); Theorem B, that for every m there is a knot with two slice discs whose generalized stabilization distance is exactly m, detected by comparing kernels of inclusion-induced maps on rational Alexander modules; and Theorem C, that for every m there is a knot with two slice discs whose rational Alexander-module kernels coincide while the generalized stabilization distance is at least m, detected by metabelian twisted homology with coefficients in the Eisenstein integers. The proofs are built on a common cobordism construction between surface exteriors, generating-rank inequalities for modules over PIDs, explicit computations for the knots 9_46 and 6_1, and a satellite construction with compatible degree-one maps. The algebraic arguments are stated in detail, and the paper is careful to identify which parts depend on previously published results.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper establishes that the generalized stabilization distance between slice discs is unbounded even when the first layer of abelian invariants, namely the kernels of rational Alexander-module maps, coincides. This is a genuine step beyond the Alexander-module method: it shows that metabelian twisted homology can distinguish choices of slice discs that abelian invariants cannot. The examples are explicit and checkable: the knots 9_46 and 6_1 are analyzed via Seifert matrices and handle decompositions, and the claimed distances are derived rather than fitted. The paper also gives credit where credit is due by acknowledging that Theorem A was previously proved by Miyazaki and by framing Theorem A as a pedagogical contrast. The lower-bound strategy via generating rank over PIDs is clean, and the use of a Mayer-Vietoris splitting in Proposition 7.8 is coherent. I do not find the stress-test concern about Proposition 7.8 to be a demonstrated gap: the proof, though compressed, supplies the relevant Mayer-Vietoris diagram and the key identifications are standard consequences of the zero-winding satellite setup.

minor comments (6)

[Section 7.2, proof of Proposition 7.8] The computation of H_1(T^2) as (Z[ξ]/(ξ−1))^{1⊕\bar{1}} and the statement that j_J = 0 because [λ_J] = 0 in H_1(X_J^∞) are highly compressed; a short explicit description of the twisted chain complex of T^2 and of why each deck translate of λ_J bounds a lift of a Seifert surface would make the proof substantially easier to verify.
[Section 7.3, Claim 7.17] The linear-algebra fact imported from [KL05, Theorem 6.1] is not stated in the paper; please state the precise lemma, or quote the theorem, and indicate explicitly how the condition that at least N−m of the χ_i are nonzero follows from the cited argument.
[Section 5, proof of Proposition 5.1] The verification that the banded diagram on the right of Figure 6 represents the standard unknotted torus is carried out visually; a short sentence describing the final cancellation would help. Since the added note already attributes Theorem A to Miyazaki, this part is not essential for novelty, but the exposition would be clearer with one more sentence.
[Example 7.3 and Figure 8] The roles of η, γ, and the genus-one Seifert surface F should be stated explicitly in the caption or text; currently the reader must infer that η is the curve used in Proposition 7.8 and that η generates A(R) as required.
[Notation 7.6 and Proposition 7.8] The notation M^{1⊕\bar{1}} is defined just before Proposition 7.8 and is then used immediately; a one-line reminder of this notation in the statement of Proposition 7.8 would avoid possible confusion.
[Section 1, Added in proof] The paper should mention at the start of the introduction that Theorem A is due to Miyazaki, rather than only in an added note, so that readers are not misled about the novelty of the first theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all main bounds are derived from explicit module computations and external linear algebra.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem A's lower bound uses Proposition 5.2, a short exact sequence derived from the 5-dimensional handle structure of the exterior cobordism; the upper bound is an explicit banded-diagram simplification. Theorem B's distance equality follows from the direct computation of the rational Alexander module of the knot 9_46 and the kernels of the two inclusion maps, which the paper performs via explicit Seifert matrix and handle/kernel arguments; the cited [CP19] computation is corroborating, not load-bearing. Theorem C's main algebraic input is Proposition 7.8, whose splitting is proved by Mayer-Vietoris and diagram chasing in the paper, plus the linear-algebra existence claim quoted from [KL05, Theorem 6.1], an external theorem; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The kernels in Theorem C are explicitly identified via Proposition 7.2 and Proposition 7.8, and the lower bound on generalized stabilization distance is obtained from generating-rank inequalities rather than assumed. I find no step in which an equation or invariant is defined in terms of the target quantity, and no self-citation chain that forces the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard 4-manifold handlebody theory, PID module theory, and a cited linear algebra lemma. No free parameters are fitted; the examples are explicit knots, connected sums, and satellites. No new physical or topological entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Baykur-Sunukjian theorem: any two homologous, properly embedded surfaces in a compact oriented smooth 4-manifold become ambiently isotopic after finitely many 1-handle stabilizations.
Used in Proposition 3.2 to show d1 is finite and hence a metric on each surface class; cited as [BS15].
standard math Classification of finitely generated modules over a PID and the generating rank and order facts in Lemma 4.1.
Used throughout for the lower bounds on stabilization distance via generating rank.
domain assumption Rising water principle and standard handle decompositions for relative cobordisms from [GS99].
Used in Construction 3.1 and Proposition 5.2 to identify H_k(X_T, X_Fi) and the effect of handle additions.
domain assumption Kim-Livingston linear algebra fact: for an abelian group A with Hom(A,F) congruent to F^N, given m elements there is a character vanishing on them with at least N-m nonzero coordinates.
Load-bearing in Claim 7.17 to choose chi with 2g nonzero components; the argument is cited from [KL05, Theorem 6.1] rather than proved.
standard math Shapiro lemma and Kunneth spectral sequence for twisted homology [DK01, Wei94].
Used to compute twisted homology of knot and disc exteriors in Section 7.
domain assumption Livingston's result that any two sets of embedded discs in S^3 capping the unlink are isotopic rel. boundary in D^4 [Liv82].
Used in the proof of the upper bound for Theorem A to argue that the banded diagram surface is unknotted.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stabilization distance between surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BA4XZP2K

@misc{pith2026190806701,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stabilization distance between surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BA4XZP2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06701}
}

abstract

Define the 1-handle stabilization distance between two surfaces properly embedded in a fixed 4-dimensional manifold to be the minimal number of 1-handle stabilizations necessary for the surfaces to become ambiently isotopic. For every nonnegative integer $m$ we find a pair of 2-knots in the 4-sphere whose stabilization distance equals $m$. Next, using a generalized stabilization distance that counts connected sum with arbitrary 2-knots as distance zero, for every nonnegative integer $m$ we exhibit a knot $J_m$ in the 3-sphere with two slice discs in the 4-ball whose generalized stabilization distance equals $m$. We show this using homology of cyclic covers. Finally, we use metabelian twisted homology to show that for each $m$ there exists a knot and pair of slice discs with generalized stabilization distance at least $m$, with the additional property that abelian invariants associated to cyclic covering spaces coincide. This detects different choices of slicing discs corresponding to a fixed metabolising link on a Seifert surface.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06701 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An embedded surface Σ (left) is stabilized by addition of a 1- handle, resulting in Σ1 (right). result of Baykur-Sunukjian [BS15] states that any two embedded surfaces in W representing the same second homology class become isotopic after finitely many 1-handle stabilizations. In this paper, we analyze the minimal number of 1-handle additions required to make two surfaces with the same genera isotopic. We call this … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A surface Σ with ball B as in Definition 2.1, pre-stabilization. A trivial 1-handle stabilization does not change the fundamental group of the complement of the surface, so frequently there will be no sequence of trivial stabilizations relating two given surfaces. On the other hand, any two homologous surfaces become isotopic after adding finitely many 1-handles [BS15]. Definition 2.2. Define the 1-handle stabilizat… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The knot R “ 946 has slice discs D1 (left band) and D2 (right band). right of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: A ‘band-swim’ move preserves the isotopy class of a surface presented by a banded knot diagram. The banded diagram on the far left of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Simplifying a banded knot diagram for D Y Σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Further simplifications of the banded knot diagram for D Y Σ, resulting in the standard diagram for an unknotted torus (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: A cross section of XJ near its boundary. Note that the grey region represents νpJq and is therefore not part of XJ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The knot R “ 61 with a genus 1 Seifert surface F, a 0-framed curve γ on F, and an infection curve η (left) and the satellite knot RηpJq (right). essential 0-framed curve on FJ (that, in a mild abuse of notation, we also call γ) is isotopic to the knot J when thought as…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Maciej Borodzik and Mark Powell, Embedded M orse T heory and R elative S plitting of C obordisms of M anifolds , J. Geom. Anal. 26 (2016), no. 1, 57--87. 3441503

2016
[2]

İnanç Baykur and Nathan Sunukjian, Knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds and stabilizations, Journal of Topology 9 (2015), no

R. İnanç Baykur and Nathan Sunukjian, Knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds and stabilizations, Journal of Topology 9 (2015), no. 1, 215--231

work page 2015
[3]

Andrew Casson and Cameron Gordon, On slice knots in dimension three, Algebraic and geometric topology (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., 1976), Part 2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1978, pp. 39--53. 81g:57003

work page 1976
[4]

, Cobordism of classical knots, \`A la recherche de la topologie perdue, Birkh\"auser Boston, Boston, MA, 1986, With an appendix by P. M. Gilmer, pp. 181--199. 900 252

work page 1986
[5]

Anthony Conway and Mark Powell, Enumerating homotopy ribbon slice discs, ar X iv:1902.05321, 2019

arXiv 1902
[6]

35, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001

Jim Davis and Paul Kirk, Lecture notes in algebraic topology, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 35, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001. MR1841974 (2002f:55001)

work page 2001
[7]

Stefan Friedl, Eta invariants as sliceness obstructions and their relation to C asson- G ordon invariants , Algebr. Geom. Topol. 4 (2004), 893--934 (electronic). MR2100685 (2005j:57016)

work page 2004
[8]

Gompf and Andr \'a s I

Robert E. Gompf and Andr \'a s I. Stipsicz, 4 -manifolds and K irby calculus , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 20, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999. 1707327 (2000h:57038)

1999

Show all 21 references

[9]

Chris Herald, Paul Kirk, and Charles Livingston, Metabelian representations, twisted A lexander polynomials, knot slicing, and mutation , Math. Z. 265 (2010), no. 4, 925--949. 2652542 (2011g:57006)

2010
[10]

Andr\' a s Juh\' a sz and Ian Zemke, Distinguishing slice disks using knot F loer homology , ar X iv:1804.09589, 2018

2018 arXiv
[11]

, Stabilization distance bounds from link F loer homology , ar X iv:1810.09158, 2018

2018 arXiv
[12]

3, 635--661

Paul Kirk and Charles Livingston, Twisted A lexander invariants, R eidemeister torsion, and C asson- G ordon invariants , Topology 38 (1999), no. 3, 635--661. 2000c:57010

1999
[13]

, Concordance and mutation, Geom. Topol. 5 (2001), 831--883 (electronic). MR1871406 (2002j:57016)

2001
[14]

Se-Goo Kim and Charles Livingston, Knot mutation: 4-genus of knots and algebraic concordance, Pacific J. Math. 220 (2005), no. 1, 87--105. 2195064

2005
[15]

Letsche, An obstruction to slicing knots using the eta invariant, Math

Carl F. Letsche, An obstruction to slicing knots using the eta invariant, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 128 (2000), no. 2, 301--319. 1735303 (2001b:57017)

2000
[16]

W. B. Raymond Lickorish, An introduction to knot theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 175, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. 1472978

1997
[17]

Charles Livingston, Surfaces bounding the unlink, Michigan Math. J. 29 (1982), no. 3, 289--298. 674282

1982
[18]

Katura Miyazaki, On the relationship among unknotting number, knotting genus and A lexander invariant for 2 -knots , Kobe J. Math. 3 (1986), no. 1, 77--85. 867806

1986
[19]

Bernard Perron, Pseudo-isotopies de plongements en codimension 2 , Bull. Soc. Math. France 103 (1975), no. 3, 289--339. 0394701 (52 \#15500)

1975
[20]

Swenton, On a calculus for 2-knots and surfaces in 4-space, J

Frank J. Swenton, On a calculus for 2-knots and surfaces in 4-space, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 10 (2001), no. 8, 1133--1141. 1871221

2001
[21]

Weibel, An introduction to homological algebra, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol

Charles A. Weibel, An introduction to homological algebra, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 38, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. 1269324 (95f:18001)

1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Maciej Borodzik and Mark Powell, Embedded M orse T heory and R elative S plitting of C obordisms of M anifolds , J. Geom. Anal. 26 (2016), no. 1, 57--87. 3441503

2016

[2] [2]

İnanç Baykur and Nathan Sunukjian, Knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds and stabilizations, Journal of Topology 9 (2015), no

R. İnanç Baykur and Nathan Sunukjian, Knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds and stabilizations, Journal of Topology 9 (2015), no. 1, 215--231

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Andrew Casson and Cameron Gordon, On slice knots in dimension three, Algebraic and geometric topology (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., 1976), Part 2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1978, pp. 39--53. 81g:57003

work page 1976

[4] [4]

, Cobordism of classical knots, \`A la recherche de la topologie perdue, Birkh\"auser Boston, Boston, MA, 1986, With an appendix by P. M. Gilmer, pp. 181--199. 900 252

work page 1986

[5] [5]

Anthony Conway and Mark Powell, Enumerating homotopy ribbon slice discs, ar X iv:1902.05321, 2019

arXiv 1902

[6] [6]

35, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001

Jim Davis and Paul Kirk, Lecture notes in algebraic topology, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 35, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001. MR1841974 (2002f:55001)

work page 2001

[7] [7]

Stefan Friedl, Eta invariants as sliceness obstructions and their relation to C asson- G ordon invariants , Algebr. Geom. Topol. 4 (2004), 893--934 (electronic). MR2100685 (2005j:57016)

work page 2004

[8] [8]

Gompf and Andr \'a s I

Robert E. Gompf and Andr \'a s I. Stipsicz, 4 -manifolds and K irby calculus , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 20, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999. 1707327 (2000h:57038)

1999