Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Restricted (2+1)-TQFTs supported by thickened and solid tori

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A handful of explicit rational matrices defines a restricted (2+1)-TQFT that separates torus bundles and lens spaces no standard quantum invariant can distinguish.

desk verdict Explicit restricted TQFTs that separate torus bundles and lens spaces that quantum invariants cannot; a credible construction with omitted arithmetic and a deferred proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21373 v1 pith:3OKOOPS4 submitted 2025-05-27 math.GT math.CT

Dušan {DJ}or{j̣ević , Danica Kosanović , Jovana Nikolić , Zoran Petrić This is my paper
classification math.GTmath.CT MSC 57R5657K31
keywords restrictedTQFT3-cobordismstorusbundleslensspacesmappingclassgroupsSL(2Z)representationsTuraev-ViroinvariantsReshetikhin-Turaev
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

A restricted TQFT needs very little data to be highly discriminating. The paper constructs a subcategory of 3-dimensional cobordisms whose objects are tori and whose morphisms are made by gluing thickened tori and solid tori; this subcategory contains every torus bundle and every lens space. Its main theorem says that a functor from this subcategory to vector spaces is completely determined by two invertible matrices obeying the braid relation and a sixth-power relation, together with a pairing, a copairing, and a unit vector. The authors then write down one explicit choice of these data, a 3-dimensional rational representation of $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, and prove that it assigns different numbers to every pair in the infinite Turaev–Viro-inseparable family, to several Reshetikhin–Turaev-inseparable pairs, and to the two lens-space pairs $L(7,1)/L(7,2)$ and $L(65,8)/L(65,18)$. The point is that some of the hardest 3-manifold distinctions are visible already in this small, computable fragment of a (2+1)-TQFT.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing apparatus is the universal $T\beta\varepsilon$-object theorem, Theorem 3.12. A $T\beta\varepsilon$-object is an object $O$ in a symmetric monoidal category carrying an $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$-action $\rho$, a symmetric nondegenerate pairing $\beta$ with copairing $\gamma$, and a unit $\varepsilon$ compatible with the Dehn twist $\rho_{D_a}$; the torus in the cobordism category is the universal such object. The theorem turns every symmetric monoidal functor $\beta\varepsilon\mathrm{MCG} \to \mathrm{Vec}_K$ into concrete matrix data, and conversely guarantees that any such data satisfying the equations defines a unique functor. The specific TQFT $F_3$ is then a 3-dimensional representation of $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, packaged with the vectors $\beta, \gamma, \varepsilon$ that satisfy the relations; once those equations are checked by linear algebra, the universal theorem makes the functor well defined on all of $\beta\varepsilon\mathrm{MCG}$.

What would settle it

One concrete check: in the classification theorem for torus bundles, find two matrices $A,B \in \mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $\mathrm{Bun}_A$ and $\mathrm{Bun}_B$ are orientation-preserving homeomorphic but $B$ is neither conjugate to $A$ nor to $JA^{-1}J$; such a pair would falsify Theorem 1.13 and with it the universal presentation. The same test applies to lens spaces: a homeomorphism $L(p,q) \cong L(p',q')$ whose parameters are not lens-inseparable in the sense of Definition 2.18 would falsify Theorem 2.20.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that the category $\beta\varepsilon\mathrm{MCG}$ of cobordisms generated by cylinders, pairings, copairings, units, and counits on the torus admits a universal presentation: the torus itself is the universal $T\beta\varepsilon$-object. A symmetric monoidal functor out of this category exists and is unique as soon as one chooses matrices $\rho_a, \rho_b \in \mathrm{GL}(n,K)$ satisfying $\rho_a\rho_b\rho_a = \rho_b\rho_a\rho_b$ and $(\rho_a\rho_b)^6 = 1$, plus vectors $\beta, \gamma, \varepsilon$ solving the displayed snake and symmetry equations. The paper constructs $F_3$ from the 3-dimensional $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ representation with eigenvalues $1, 2, 4$, and proves by direct trace computation that $F_3(\mathrm{Bun}_A) = \mathrm{tr}(\rho_A)$ separates the listed pairs: the Turaev–Viro-equivalent families of torus bundles, the classical pair from the conjugacy-separability example, the four explicit Reshetikhin–Turaev-equivalent pairs, and the lens spaces $L(7,1)/L(7,2)$ and $L(65,8)/L(65,18)$. The separation is arithmetic in character: the traces differ by factors of two with odd coefficients, so the numbers cannot coincide.

Load-bearing premise

The injectivity half of the universal presentation assumes that equality of connected cobordisms built from tori is completely described by the classical classifications of torus bundles and lens spaces, together with the fact that cylinders are distinct exactly when their homeomorphisms are; if any orientation-sensitive relation is missing from those classifications, the matrix-data description and the well-definedness of $F_3$ collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any restricted (2+1)-TQFT on this subcategory is a finite matrix computation, so distinguishing torus bundles and lens spaces within $\beta\varepsilon\mathrm{MCG}$ becomes a matter of linear algebra once the matrix data are fixed.
  • Because one explicit functor separates pairs invisible to Turaev–Viro and Reshetikhin–Turaev invariants, restricted TQFTs form a genuinely different source of 3-manifold invariants from the standard quantum ones.
  • The same functor $F_3$ separates the homotopy-equivalent but non-homeomorphic lens spaces $L(7,1)$ and $L(7,2)$, showing the invariant detects orientation-sensitive homeomorphism type, not merely homotopy type.
  • The universal presentation reduces the open faithfulness question for (2+1)-TQFTs on this subcategory to the search for matrix data whose assigned linear maps are injective on the normal forms of Theorem 3.12, a concrete algebraic formulation rather than a general mapping-class-group problem.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A complete classification test suggests itself: enumerate all $n$-dimensional matrix data satisfying Corollary 4.1, and check which pairs of torus bundles and lens spaces receive equal values; any pair equal for all such data would be invisible to every restricted TQFT on $\beta\varepsilon\mathrm{MCG}$.
  • The natural next battleground is the class of graph manifolds, which the paper identifies as the enlargement obtained by adding $N_2 \times S^1$; applying the same method there would require a finite presentation of that larger cobordism category before a faithful restricted TQFT could be attempted.
  • The lens-space values produced by $F_2$ and $F_3$ are cyclotomic and rational numbers, so the same functors could be evaluated modulo primes, possibly distinguishing pairs that real or complex traces leave equal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs two symmetric monoidal subcategories of the oriented 3-cobordism category, βMCG (generated by thickened tori: cylinders, pairing/copairing, symmetry) and βεMCG (adding the solid torus unit/counit). The central structural result, Theorem 3.12, gives a universal presentation of these categories in terms of a Tβ- or Tβε-object; Corollary 4.1 translates this into explicit matrix data for functors to Vec_K. The authors then exhibit three explicit functors, F1, F2, and F3. The main theorem (Theorem 4.12) asserts that a 3-dimensional real functor F3 distinguishes all Funar Turaev–Viro-equivalent torus bundles, some Reshetikhin–Turaev-equivalent torus bundles (including a Stebe pair), and two pairs of lens spaces. The proofs combine the universal presentation with explicit trace computations and the classical oriented classifications of torus bundles and lens spaces.

Significance. The paper's contribution is potentially significant: it gives explicit, finite-dimensional TQFT-like invariants that separate 3-manifolds not separated by the standard quantum invariants, on a subcategory that contains all torus bundles and lens spaces. The universal presentation theorem is a useful structural result in its own right, and the explicit nature of the data is a strength. I have checked the central logical chain: the oriented classifications used in Theorem 1.13 and Theorem 2.20 are stated and proved in the oriented setting, and Lemma A.4's table uses the expected if-and-only-if statements, so I do not see the orientation-convention concern materialize as a gap. The main weaknesses are in the final numerical theorem: the proof of Theorem 4.12 relies on unstated computed quantities, and the statement of the main data theorem contains systematic dimension errors. These are fixable but currently impede verification.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 0.1 and Corollary 4.1] The data types for β_F, γ_F, and τ are stated incorrectly. Since β is a pairing T⊗T→∅ and γ is a copairing ∅→T⊗T, the functor F assigns to them a row vector of length n_F^2 and a column vector of length n_F^2, respectively; the symmetry τ is the tensor swap on K^{n_F^2}. The block matrix [[0,E],[E,0]] in GL(2n_F,K) and the types Mat(2n_F×1,K) and Mat(1×2n_F,K) contradict the examples (for instance, β_F3 has nine entries when n_F=3). Please correct the statement, since as written the equations (4.3)–(4.6) do not type-check.
  2. [Theorem 4.12, proof] The proof that F3 distinguishes the Reshetikhin–Turaev-equivalent torus bundles is incomplete. For the pairs (X_i,Y_i) with i=21,51,53,55, the proof states tr(ρ_Xi)-tr(ρ_Yi)=l_i/2^{2i} and omits the integers l_i; the conclusion requires l_i≠0, which is not established in the text. For the Stebe pair (G,H), the proof gives only 'k1/2^16 ≠ k2/2^44 for some odd integers k1,k2' without supplying those integers or a reproducible computation. Please provide the actual numerical values (or a verifiable computation) and explicitly state that the differences are nonzero.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Corollary 4.1] The statement would be much easier to check if the verification that the listed β, γ, ε satisfy (4.3)–(4.5) for F3 were included or relegated to a supplementary file; the proof currently mentions only (4.6) and (4.7).
  2. [Lemma A.4] The table in Lemma A.4 would benefit from an explicit statement of the direction used in each row; for example, the C0 row uses Theorem 2.20 to pass from equality of cobordisms to lens-inseparability and Proposition 3.10 to return to equality in the formal category. As written, the reader must reconstruct this.
  3. [Introduction] There are minor grammatical slips, e.g., 'and is a congruence subgroups' should be 'and is a congruence subgroup'.
  4. [Theorem 4.8] In the proof of F2, the decomposition of Λ1 and Λ2 is given, but the matrix multiplication leading to the values -ξ and ξ^2-2ξ is not shown; a few intermediate steps would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: explicit matrix data yield computed invariants, and the injectivity step rests on external classical classifications, not on self-citations or fitted target values.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central structural result (Theorem 3.12) is a presentation theorem for the subcategories βMCG and βεMCG: the appendix proves surjectivity by normal forms and injectivity by reducing equality of connected cobordisms to the external classifications of torus bundles (Theorem 1.13, citing Hatcher, Neumann, Funar) and lens spaces (Theorem 2.20, citing Reidemeister), together with standard pseudo-isotopy results and algebraic Tβ-object/Tβε-object relations. The injectivity table in Lemma A.4 does not invoke any invariant to be distinguished; it uses the classical homeomorphism classifications to conclude algebraic equality. The TQFTs F1, F2 and F3 are defined by explicit matrices, and their functoriality is checked directly against the data in Corollary 4.1, with equations such as (4.6) and (4.7) verified by computation. Their values on torus bundles are traces of the specified representations (Lemma 4.2), and their values on lens spaces are explicit rational numbers η_F ρ_F,Λ ε_F obtained from the chosen data. No target value of a Turaev–Viro or Reshetikhin–Turaev invariant is used to solve for ρ, β, γ or ε; the distinguishing inequalities are consequences of the computed outputs. The only self-citation ([11], on faithful (1+1) TQFTs) is motivational and not load-bearing. The reader's and skeptic's concerns about orientation conventions in the imported classifications and about the table-style proof of Lemma A.4 are legitimate correctness/rigor risks, but they do not amount to circularity, because the relevant classifications and pseudo-isotopy results are independent external inputs rather than restatements of the paper's conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction is honest: the only free choices are the explicit TQFT data, namely the representation parameters lambda and the matrices beta, gamma, eta, epsilon, and these are fully stated. No hidden parameter is fitted to the target manifolds after the fact. The paper's assumptions are standard classifications and background theorems in 3-manifold topology and representation theory, all cited. No invented entities with independent empirical content are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • F1 Tuba-Wenzl parameter lambda=(1,2) = lambda1=1, lambda2=2
    Selected from Tuba-Wenzl [27, Prop. 2.5] to define the 2-dimensional representation rho_F1; this choice is not forced by external data and shapes all F1 invariants.
  • F1 pairing and copairing beta_F1, gamma_F1 = beta_F1=(2 1 1 -1), gamma_F1=(1/3)(1 1 1 -2)^T
    The paper says 'we search for beta ... pick one possible solution ... choose gamma', so these are hand-picked solutions of equations (4.3)-(4.6), not quantities derived from first principles.
  • F3 Tuba-Wenzl parameter lambda=(1,2,4) = lambda1=1, lambda2=2, lambda3=4
    Selected from Tuba-Wenzl [27, Prop. 2.5] to define the 3-dimensional representation rho_F3; this choice is what gives F3 its distinguishing power.
  • F3 TQFT data beta_F3, gamma_F3, eta_F3, epsilon_F3 = beta_F3=(2 4 1 4 -4 -4 1 -4 2), gamma_F3=(1/36)(8 4 4 4 -1 -4 4 -4 8)^T, eta_F3=(12 12 0), epsilon_F3=(4 1 0)^T
    Explicit matrices chosen and verified to satisfy the Tβε-object axioms in Corollary 4.1; the lens space invariants depend directly on eta_F3 and epsilon_F3.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Presentation SL(2,Z) = <D_a, D_b | D_a D_b D_a = D_b D_a D_b, (D_a D_b)^6 = 1>
    Proposition 1.8; used to express any cylinder as a word in Dehn twists and to prove the Tβ-object identities (3.4)-(3.7).
  • standard math Classification of oriented torus bundles: Bun_A ≅ Bun_B iff A is SL(2,Z)-conjugate to B or to J B^{-1}J
    Theorem 1.13, imported from Hatcher, Neumann, and Funar; used in Corollary 2.12 and in the injectivity table of Lemma A.4.
  • standard math Reidemeister classification of lens spaces: L(p,q) ≅ L(p',q') iff p=p' and q' ≡ q or qq' ≡ 1 mod p
    Theorem 2.20; used to characterize lens-inseparability and in the proof of Lemma 2.21.
  • standard math Tuba-Wenzl classification and construction of SL(2,Z) representations
    The representations rho_F1, rho_F2, rho_F3 are taken from [27, Prop. 2.5]; the paper assumes these matrices satisfy the braid relation and the SL(2,Z) relations.
  • standard math Surface homeomorphisms are isotopic iff pseudo-isotopic
    Theorem 2.4, cited to Milnor and Epstein; used to show Cyl_A = Cyl_B iff A=B in Corollary 2.5.
  • standard math Uniqueness of collars and the g-collar lemma
    Lemma 1.1 and standard collar theorems; used throughout Section 2 to simplify composites of cobordisms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Restricted (2+1)-TQFTs supported by thickened and solid tori." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3OKOOPS4

@misc{pith2026250521373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Restricted (2+1)-TQFTs supported by thickened and solid tori},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3OKOOPS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21373}
}
abstract

A faithful $(1+1)$ TQFT has recently been constructed, but the existence of a faithful $(2+1)$ TQFT remains an open question, that subsumes the hard problem of linearity of mapping class groups of surfaces. To circumvent the latter problem we construct a subcategory of the category of 3-cobordisms, containing disjoint unions of tori and simplest cobordisms between them. On this we define TQFTs that are able to distinguish pairs of torus bundles and lens spaces, previously shown not to be distinguishable by quantum invariants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The right-handed Dehn twists on a and b. We will also make use of the homeomorphisms (1.2) E :=  1 0 0 1  , J :=  0 1 1 0  , where J is orientation reversing. We have J 2 = E and for P ̸= Q in {Da, Db}: (1.3) JP ±J = Q ∓. Remark 1.7. If A, Ab ∈ SL(2, Z) have the same first column, then Ab = A(Da) m for some m ∈ Z. If A, Ab ∈ SL(2, Z) have the same first row, then Ab = (Db) mA for some m ∈ Z. The proofs follow fr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A diagrammatic proof of (3.5), with red ρ O Da and blue ρ O Db [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2016.06.003

    C.\ Blanchet, F.\ Costantino, N.\ Geer and B.\ Patureau-Mirand , Non-semi-simple TQFTs , Reidemeister torsion and Kashaev 's invariants , Advances in Mathematics , vol.\ 301 (2016) pp.\ 1--78. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2016.06.003

    doi:10.1016/j.aim.2016.06.003 2016

  2. [2]

    4 (2014) pp.\ 1005--1053

    F.\ Costantino, N.\ Geer and B.\ Patureau-Mirand , Quantum invariants of 3-manifolds via link surgery presentations and non-semi-simple categories , Journal of Topology 7 , no. 4 (2014) pp.\ 1005--1053. http://doi.org/10.1112/jtopol/jtu006

    doi:10.1112/jtopol/jtu006 2014

  3. [3]

    D. B. A.\ Epstein , Curves on 2-manifolds and isotopies , Acta Mathematica , vol.\ 115 (1966) pp.\ 83--107. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02392203

    doi:10.1007/bf02392203 1966

  4. [4]

    B.\ Farb and D.\ Margalit , A primer on mapping class groups , Princeton Mathematical Series , 49 , Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ , 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    M.\ De Renzi, A. M.\ Gainutdinov, N.\ Geer, B.\ Patureau-Mirand and I.\ Runkel , Mapping class group representations from non-semisimple TQFTs , Communications in Contemporary Mathematics 25 (2023) no. 1, ID 2150091, 52 pp. http://doi.org/10.1142/S0219199721500917

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219199721500917 2023

  6. [6]

    9, pp.\ 2121--2166

    C.\ Dong, X.\ Lin and S.-H.\ Ng , Congruence property in conformal field theory , Algebra Number Theory 9 (2015) no. 9, pp.\ 2121--2166. http://doi.org/10.2140/ant.2015.9.2121

    doi:10.2140/ant.2015.9.2121 2015

  7. [7]

    T.\ Fomenko and S

    A. T.\ Fomenko and S. V.\ Matveev , Algorithmic and Computer Methods for Three-Manifolds , Mathematics and Its Applications 425 , Springer Nature, 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2023.09.015

    D.\ Fosse , An explicit decomposition formula of a matrix in GL2(Z) , Journal of Algebra 637 (2024) pp.\ 230-242. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2023.09.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2023.09.015 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    http://doi.org/10.2140/gt.2013.17.2289

    L.\ Funar , Torus bundles not distinguished by TQFT invariants , Geometry & Topology , vol.\ 17 (2013) pp.\ 2289-2344. http://doi.org/10.2140/gt.2013.17.2289

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    L.\ Funar , On mapping class groups and their TQFT representations , 2023 preprint available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02883

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    1, pp.\ 391--399

    S.\ Gajovi\'c, Z.\ Petri\'c and S.\ Telebakovi\'c Oni\'c , A faithful 2-dimensional TQFT , Homology, Homotopy and Applications 22 (2020) no. 1, pp.\ 391--399. https://doi.org/10.4310/HHA.2020.v22.n1.a22

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    A.\ Hatcher , Notes on Basic 3-Manifold Topology , available at https://pi.math.cornell.edu/ hatcher/3M/3Mdownloads.html

  5. [13]

    L. C.\ Jeffrey , Chern-Simons-Witten invariants of lens spaces and torus bundles, and the semiclassical approximation , Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol.\ 147 (1992) pp.\ 563-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02097243

    1992 doi

  6. [14]

    2, pp.\ 229--321

    A.\ Juh\'asz , Defining and classifying TQFTs via surgery , Quantum Topology 9 (2018) no. 2, pp.\ 229--321. https://doi.org/10.4171/QT/108

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    N.\ Karpenkov , Geometry of continued fractions , second edition, Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics, 26 , Springer, Berlin, 2022

    O. N.\ Karpenkov , Geometry of continued fractions , second edition, Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics, 26 , Springer, Berlin, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    S.\ Mac Lane , Natural associativity and commutativity , Rice University Studies, Papers in Mathematics , vol.\ 49 (1963) pp.\ 28--46

    1963

  9. [17]

    S.\ Mac Lane , Categories for the Working Mathematician , second edition, Springer, Berlin, 1998

    1998

  10. [18]

    https://doi.org/10.2140/agt.2006.6.1331

    D.\ McCullough , Homeomorphisms which are Dehn twists on the boundary , Algebraic & Geometric Topology , vol.\ 6.3 (2006) pp.\ 1331-1340. https://doi.org/10.2140/agt.2006.6.1331

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    J.\ Milnor , Lectures on the h-cobordism theorem , Princeton University Press, 1965

    1965

  12. [20]

    L.\ Müller and L.\ Woike , The Dehn Twist Action for Quantum Representations of Mapping Class Groups , to appear in Journal of Topology , 2023 preprint available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16020

    2023

  13. [21]

    W. D.\ Neumann , A calculus for plumbing applied to the topology of complex surface singularities and degenerating complex curves , Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , vol.\ 268 (1981) pp.\ 299-344. https://doi.org/10.2307/1999331

    1981 doi

  14. [22]

    D.\ Neumann , Graph 3-manifolds, splice diagrams, singularities , Singularity theory , (2007) pp.\ 787--817, World Sci

    W. D.\ Neumann , Graph 3-manifolds, splice diagrams, singularities , Singularity theory , (2007) pp.\ 787--817, World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ

    2007

  15. [23]

    4, 29 pp

    J.\ Nikoli\' c, Z.\ Petri\' c and M.\ Zeki\' c , A diagrammatic presentation of the category 3Cob , Results in Mathematics , vol.\ 79 (2024) no. 4, 29 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-024-02201-8

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    V.\ Prasolov and A

    V. V.\ Prasolov and A. B.\ Sosinski , Knots, Links, Braids and 3-Manifolds , Translations of Mathematical Monographs 154, American Mathematical Society, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Y.\ Reshetikhin and V

    N. Y.\ Reshetikhin and V. G.\ Turaev , Invariants of 3 -manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups , Inventiones Mathematicae 103 (1991) no. 3, pp. 547--597. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01239527

    1991 doi

  18. [26]

    F.\ Stebe , Conjugacy separability of groups of integer matrices , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , vol.\ 32 (1972) pp.\ 1--7

    P. F.\ Stebe , Conjugacy separability of groups of integer matrices , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , vol.\ 32 (1972) pp.\ 1--7. https://doi.org/10.2307/2038292

    1972 doi

  19. [27]

    Pacific Journal of Mathematics , vol.\ 197 , (2001) no

    I.\ Tuba and H.\ Wenzl , Representations of the Braid Group B_3 and of SL(2,Z) . Pacific Journal of Mathematics , vol.\ 197 , (2001) no. 2, pp.\ 491-–510. https://doi.org/10.2140/pjm.2001.197.491

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    G.\ Turaev , Quantum invariants of knots and 3-manifolds , De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, 18 , de Gruyter, Berlin, 1994

    V. G.\ Turaev , Quantum invariants of knots and 3-manifolds , De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, 18 , de Gruyter, Berlin, 1994

    1994

  21. [29]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-9383(67)90008-0

    F.\ Waldhausen , Gruppen mit Zentrum und 3-dimensionale Mannigfaltigkeiten , Topology , vol.\ 6 (1967) pp.\ 505–-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-9383(67)90008-0

    1967 doi

  22. [30]

    F.\ Waldhausen , Eine Klasse von 3-dimensionalen Mannigfaltigkeiten. I, II. , Inventiones Mathematicae , vol.\ 3 (1967) pp.\ 308--333; vol.\ 4 (1967) pp.\ 88--117. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01402956

    1967 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.