Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 12 references

Strong corks derived from the Akbulut cork

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that two families of cork boundaries are strong corks, including the previously open even cases, and that all nontrivial equivariant sums in these families are strong corks.

desk verdict A solid incremental advance on strong corks that deserves peer review, but the linear-combination theorems depend on an incomplete simple-connectivity argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.02230 v3 pith:GEMS2NQB submitted 2026-01-05 math.GT

Tateaki Mukohara This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GT MSC 57K4057R5857K41
keywords strongcorkAkbulutequivariantconnectedsuminstantonFloerhomologyr_sinvariant3-sphereexotic4-manifoldsSakumaeta-polynomial
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 proves that two known families of corks—one indexed by n, one by m—have strong boundaries, settling the previously open even-n cases, and folds both into a two-parameter family of strong corks. It also proves that any nontrivial equivariant connected sum of members within a fixed row or column of this family is a strong cork. A sympathetic reader would care because a strong cork twist cannot extend over any homology ball, so each member gives a concrete mechanism for constructing absolutely exotic 4-manifolds. The engine is a recent instanton-theoretic invariant r0, whose strict monotonicity along explicit simply connected cobordisms turns a single base computation into infinitely many strong corks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the instanton-theoretic invariant r_s(Y,τ), a real number in (0,∞] associated to an involutive homology sphere. It is monotone under equivariant negative-definite cobordisms with H_1(W;Z_2)=0, and the inequality becomes strict when the cobordism is simply connected. The paper's cobordisms W_{m,n} are obtained by attaching (-1)-framed 2-handles along green unknots to a two-component surgery diagram; a Wirtinger computation for (1,1) and an inductive argument for added half-twists prove they are simply connected. This strict-monotonicity engine, combined with a connected-sum theorem for sequences with strictly decreasing finite r0 and infinite r0 on reverses, produce

What would settle it

Directly compute the fundamental group of W_{1,2} (or W_{2,1}) from the Wirtinger presentation with the extra half-twist; if the group is nontrivial, the strict inequality r0(Z_{m,n+1})<r0(Z_{m,n}) fails and the linear-combination theorem collapses. Such a computation would either confirm the first induction step or locate the missing relator.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.2 states that for every pair of positive integers (m,n), the two-component link surgery (Z_{m,n},τ) is a strong cork, and any nontrivial equivariant connected sum of members with either index fixed is also a strong cork. The (1,1) member is the boundary of the Akbulut cork; setting m=1 recovers the n-indexed family whose odd cases were known and whose even cases were open, while setting n=1 recovers the m-indexed family. The proof computes the instanton-invariant r0 of the base cork, builds explicit equivariant negative-definite cobordisms from later members back to earlier ones, proves these cobordisms are simply connected, and concludes that r0 strictly decreases along the chain.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every cobordism W_{m,n} used in the proof is simply connected; this is checked only for (m,n)=(1,1), with the general case asserted by an inductive reading of one figure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The even-index members of the n-indexed family, which were explicitly left open, are now known to be strong corks.
  • The m-indexed family gives infinitely many new strong corks, all derived from the same base cork by inserting half-twists.
  • Nontrivial equivariant connected sums of members inside a fixed index slice are strong corks, so the cork-twist operation is stable under such sums.
  • Every 1/m surgery on each slice knot K_n, with either of the two involutions, is a strong cork, extending the single-surgery result to all positive surgery coefficients.
  • Each strong cork yields an absolutely exotic pair by the standard consequence cited in the introduction; if the paper is right, the new corks can be embedded to change smooth structures without stabilization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the simple-connectivity induction is formalized for all m,n, the same r0-chain method may resolve the remaining cork families left open in the paper's Question 1.9.
  • Because the two involutions on K_n are shown inequivalent, the same 3-manifold carries two distinct strong-cork structures; comparing their r0 values may reveal whether the invariant detects the difference.
  • The fact that r0 handles even m,n where Heegaard-Floer monotonicity fails suggests instanton-theoretic r_s is the right tool for parity-uniform statements; testing r_s on positron corks would be a natural next step.
  • The inverse-summand remark delimits the connected-sum closure: strong-corkness is not inherited when adding an opposite copy, so understanding precisely which signs preserve strong-corkness could clarify the monoid structure of cork-twist classes.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies two families of corks introduced by Auckly–Kim–Melvin–Ruberman and by Tange, and introduces a two-parameter family (Z_{m,n}, τ) of two-component link surgeries that contains the boundaries of these corks as special cases. The main result, Theorem 1.2, asserts that each (Z_{m,n}, τ) is a strong cork and that any nontrivial equivariant connected sum in either fixed-m or fixed-n family is again a strong cork. The proof uses the instanton-theoretic invariant r_s of Alfieri–Dai–Mallick–Taniguchi and the monotonicity/strictness theorems of ADMT23, together with an explicit computation for the base case (1,1). The paper also proves analogous strong-cork statements for a Heegaard-Floer-theoretic family (Y_{m,n}, σ) (Theorem 1.4), for linear combinations of Y_{1,n} (Theorem 1.5), and for surgeries on strongly invertible knots K_n (Theorem 1.6). Finally, Proposition 1.7 shows that the involutions τ and σ on K_n are not Sakuma equivalent, using Sakuma η-polynomial computations.

Significance. If correct, the paper establishes strong-corkness for the AKMR and Tange families, including the previously open even-n cases, and provides a new two-parameter family of strong corks. The linear-combination results are a new phenomenon not addressed in earlier work. The arguments are based on established invariants with fixed external base values from ADMT23; no parameters are fitted, and the base-case computations and η-polynomial calculations are explicit. The main weakness is the proof of simple connectivity of the cobordisms W_{m,n}, which is load-bearing for the strict inequalities needed in the linear-combination theorems. The individual strong-cork assertions are more robust because they rely only on non-strict monotonicity, but the stronger claims are not fully supported as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Claim 3.10] The simple-connectivity proof of W_{m,n} is given only for (m,n)=(1,1). The passage 'Even when additional half twists are added...' sketches an induction using Figure 17, but it does not formalize how the two-parameter family of half-twist boxes interacts, nor does it enumerate all relator configurations. Moreover, the cobordism from (Z_{m+1,n},τ) to (Z_{m,n},τ), which is needed for the fixed-n linear-combination result, is dismissed with 'Similarly ... is also simply connected' and no diagram, relators, or induction sketch. Since Theorem 3.8 requires the strict inequalities r_0(Z_{m,n+1})<r_0(Z_{m,n}) and r_0(Z_{m+1,n})<r_0(Z_{m,n}), and since Theorem 3.7 gives strictness only for simply connected cobordisms, the linear-combination claims of Theorem 1.2 are not yet supported. Please provide a complete Wirtinger computation or a rigorous inductive argument for all (m,n), including the fi
  2. [§3.4, Theorem 1.5] The proof of Theorem 1.5 asserts 'Similarly to the proof of Theorem 1.2, there is a simply-connected, equivariant negative-definite cobordism from (Y_{1,n+1},σ) to (Y_{1,n},σ)' without giving the cobordism or its simple-connectivity computation. This is a load-bearing step for the linear-combination statement, so it should be spelled out or explicitly reduced to a verifiable computation.
  3. [§3.4, Theorem 1.6] The proof of Theorem 1.6 relies on the assertion that the cobordism in Figure 19 is simply connected and 'can be proved similarly to [NST19, Theorem 5.12]'. Since this assertion underpins the strict inequalities needed to apply Theorem 3.8, the proof should either include the argument or state explicitly which statement in [NST19] applies and how the present setting specializes to it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 26] The caption contains a typo: 'isopoty' should be 'isotopy'.
  2. [§1.1, Figure 3] The definition of (Z_{m,n},τ) in Figure 3 is not fully described in the text; please state which box or twist count corresponds to m and n, and clarify how the involution τ acts on the diagram.
  3. [§4, Proposition 1.7] The η-polynomial computations are presented via pseudo-fundamental regions and a substitution 'x_i = t^{i-1} - 2t^i + t^{i+1}' without justification. A brief explanation of this substitution or a precise reference to [Sak86, Section 2] would improve readability.
  4. [§2.2, Definition 2.5] The notation 'aZ' for a negative integer a is used in Theorem 1.2; it would help to define it immediately before use, and to specify that connected sums are taken at fixed points of the involution.
  5. [Throughout] There are several OCR-type artifacts, e.g. 'spin c-f ixing' and the missing space in 'pseudo-fundamental region'. These should be cleaned up in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation uses external invariants with fixed, independently computed base values.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorem 1.2) is not circular. The strong-cork assertions are obtained by constructing equivariant negative-definite cobordisms from the new families to the already understood case (Z_{1,1},τ) = (S^3_{+1}(946),τ), then applying Theorem 3.7 and Lemma 3.9 from ADMT23. The base value r_0(S^3_{+1}(946),τ)<∞ is an external, fixed input, not fitted to the paper's target predictions. The linear-combination results use Theorem 3.8 with hypotheses checked via the same cobordism constructions. No parameter is fitted and no conclusion is identical to an input by construction. The reliance on [ADMT23] and [DHM20] is genuine prior-work support; although the author's advisor is a coauthor of ADMT23, the present author has no overlapping authorship, and the cited theorems do not depend on the present results. Lemma 3.5 is proved in the paper rather than imported as an ansatz. Two proof-gap concerns are noted but they are correctness issues, not circularity: Claim 3.10 proves simple connectivity of W_{m,n} explicitly only for (1,1) and then asserts the general case by a short diagrammatic induction, and the similar assertion for the fixed-n cobordism is even terser; also, the proof of Theorem 1.5 states without full justification that (Y_{1,n},σ) is equivariantly diffeomorphic to (S^3_{+1}(946),σ) for all n. These would affect the reliability of the proof, not whether the derivation reduces to its own inputs. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted constants: the integers m,n index the construction rather than parameterize a fit. The load-bearing background includes the r_s monotonicity theorem and base-case values from ADMT23, the h_τ monotonicity theorems from DHM20, Freedman's theorem, and Sakuma's η-polynomial invariance. No new theoretical entities are postulated; the cork families are explicitly defined by surgery diagrams.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Freedman's theorem: an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism of the boundary of a compact contractible 4-manifold extends as a homeomorphism over the manifold (Fre82).
    Invoked in Section 1 to frame cork twists: τ extends over W as a homeomorphism but not as a diffeomorphism.
  • domain assumption The instanton-theoretic invariant r_s(Y,τ) is well-defined and monotone under equivariant negative-definite cobordisms; strict monotonicity holds when the cobordism is simply connected (ADMT23, Theorem 3.7).
    Core engine of Theorem 1.2: gives r_0(Z_{m,n})<∞ and the strict inequalities r_0(Z_{m,n+1})<r_0(Z_{m,n}) needed for Theorem 3.8.
  • domain assumption The Heegaard Floer invariants h_τ(Y) and h_{ι∘τ}(Y) are well-defined and monotone under equivariant negative-definite cobordisms (DHM20, Theorems 3.1, 3.2).
    Load-bearing in Theorem 1.4: proves h_{ι∘σ}(Y_{m,n})<0, which certifies Y_{m,n} is a strong cork.
  • domain assumption Theorem 3.8 (ADMT23, Theorem 7.7): a sequence with r_0(Y_1)>r_0(Y_2)>..., r_0(Y_1)<∞, and r_0(-Y_i)=∞ has every nontrivial linear combination a strong cork.
    This is the bridge from individual strong corks to the connected-sum (linear combination) statements in Theorems 1.2, 1.5, 1.6.
  • domain assumption Lemma 3.9 (ADMT23, Lemma 7.1): r_0(S^3_{+1}(946), τ)<∞ and r_s(-S^3_{+1}(946), τ)=∞ for s∈[-∞,0], with τ or σ.
    The Akbulut-cork boundary is the base case; all r_0 inequalities for Z_{m,n} are anchored to this finite value.
  • domain assumption Sakuma's η-polynomial is an invariant of the Sakuma equivalence class of strongly invertible knots (Sak86).
    Used in the appendix (Lemma 4.2) to prove τ and σ are not Sakuma equivalent, establishing Proposition 1.7.
  • standard math Mostow rigidity: for a hyperbolic knot K, the symmetry group of K is isomorphic to the isometry group of S^3\K (Mos68).
    Used in the paragraph after Proposition 1.7 to translate SnapPy's isometry-group computation into a statement about exactly two strong involutions for 1≤n≤5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong corks derived from the Akbulut cork." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GEMS2NQB

@misc{pith2026260102230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong corks derived from the Akbulut cork},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GEMS2NQB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.02230}
}
abstract

We prove that the boundaries of the corks introduced by Auckly, Kim, Melvin, and Ruberman and by Tange are strong corks. Furthermore, we prove that any nontrivial linear combination of them yields a strong cork, and we construct a larger family of strong corks that generalizes them. These results rely on the instanton-theoretic invariant \(r_s\) introduced by Alfieri, Dai, Mallick, and Taniguchi.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.02230 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ]. Note that (C(1), τ ) corresponds to the Akbulut cork. This family of corks (C(m), τ ) was used to produce many examples of finite order corks in [Tan16] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (C(m), τ ). To the best of the author’s knowledge, it is unknown whether the boundaries of these corks are strong. In this paper, we address this question for specific families of corks. The families of strong corks constructed in this paper are derived from the Akbulut cork; the first member of each family is given by the boundary of the Akbulut cork. 1.1. Main results. First, we construct an infinite family of str… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Equip Zm,n with the indicated involution τ . Then (Zm,n, τ ) is a strong cork. Furthermore, any nontrivial linear combination of elements in either {(Zm,n, τ )}m∈N (fixing n) or {(Zm,n, τ )}n∈N (fixing m) yields a strong cork. Specifically, for any sequence of integers (a1, a2, · · · , ak) ̸= (0, 0, · · · , 0), the equivariant connected sums (a1Z1,n#a2Z2,n# · · · #akZk,n, τ ) and (a1Zm,1#a2Zm,2# · · · #akZm,k, τ ) a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (25 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Zm,n, τ ) For m = 1 and odd n, it is shown in [DHM20, Theorem 1.12] and [ADMT23, Theorem 1.5] that (Z1,n, τ ) is a strong cork. However, linear combinations of these corks are not discussed in these papers. When m = 1, (Z1,n, τ ) coincides with the boundary (∂Cn, τ ) …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Ym,n, σ). The proof of Theorem 1.4 relies on the non-triviality of hι◦σ(Σ(2, 2m+1, 4m+3)), where Σ(2, 2m+1, 4m+3) is a Brieskorn homology sphere equipped with the involution σ displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Y1,n, σ). Theorem 1.6. For n ∈ N, let Kn be the strongly invertible slice knot displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: (Kn, τ ). Right: (Kn, σ). When n = 1, the first member of the family Kn is K1 = 946, and (S 3 +1(K1), τ ) is the boundary of the Akbulut cork. In the case where n is odd and the involution is τ , Theorem 1.6 was established in [ADMT23]. The following proposition …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bn = S 3 −1 (T2,2n+1) = Σ(2, 2n + 1, 4n + 3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 946 = P(−3, 3, −3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The operation in Lemma 3.5, where the central unknot has framing −1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The operation in Lemma 3.5, where the central unknot has framing +1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The case where the central linking between the red and black components is positive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The case where the central linking between the red and black components is negative. 3.2. Proof of Theorem 1.4. The following lemma provides useful equivariant operations that will be used in the constructions below. These operations were used in [AKMR14, Theorem 4.2]…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: By Theorem 3.2 (1), hι◦σ(Ym,n) ≤ hι◦σ(Ym,1) < 0. Therefore, it follows from Theorem 3.1 that Ym,n is a strong cork. Moreover, if Y ′ m,n is constructed from Ym,n by introducing any number of symmetric pairs of negative full twists, then Y ′ m,n admits a sequence of in…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The interchanging (−1, −1)-cobordism from (Ym,1, σ) to (Bm, σ) used in the proof of Theorem 1.4, obtained by attaching (−1)-framed 2-handles along the green unknots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The spinc -conjugating (−1)-cobordism from (Ym,n+1, σ) to (Ym,n, σ) used in the proof of Theorem 1.4, obtained by attaching (−1)-framed 2-handles along the green unknot Lemma 3.9. [ADMT23, Lemma 7.1] Let Y = S 3 +1(946) equipped with the indicated involutions τ and σ …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The equivariant negative-definite cobordism Wm,n from (Zm,n+1, τ ) to (Zm,n, τ ) used in the proof of Theorem 1.2, obtained by attaching (−1)-framed 2-handles along the green unknot. Claim 3.10. This cobordism Wm,n from (Zm,n+1, τ ) to (Zm,n, τ ) is simply connected …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The cobordism W1,1 and the Wirtinger presentation of the surgery link for Z1,2. Proof. First, we verify the case where m, n = 1. The generators of π1(W1,1) are x1, · · · , x5, y1, · · · , y5 as indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: By Claim 3.10, we have r0(Zm,n+1, τ ) < r0(Zm,n, τ ). Considering Wm,n to be the cobordism from (−Zm,n, τ ) to (−Zm,n+1, τ ), we obtain ∞ = r0(−Z1,1, τ ) ≤ r0(−Zm,1, τ ) ≤ r0(−Zm,2, τ ) ≤ · · · ≤ r0(−Zm,n, τ ) ≤ · · · . Thus, r0(−Zm,n, τ ) = ∞. Therefore, any nontrivi…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The interchanging (−1, −1)-cobordism from (Zm,n+2, τ ) to (Zm,n, τ ). Remark 3.12. (Zm,n#(−Zm,n), τ ) is not a strong cork, but τ does not extend over any contractible 4- manifold bounded by Zm,n#(−Zm,n). If τ were to extend over some contractible 4-manifolds W that Z…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The simply-connected, equivariant negative-definite cobordism from (S 3 1/m+1(Kn), τ ) to (S 3 1/m(Kn), τ ) used in the proof of Theorem 1.6, obtained by attach￾ing (−1)-framed 2-handles along the green unknot. Remark 3.13. Theorem 1.4 cannot immediately be proved by …
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Left: (Kn, τ ). Right: The intermediate step to obtain the pseudo-fundamental region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Left: The pseudo-fundamental region of (Kn, τ ) where n is odd. Indices are assigned to the arcs according to Sakuma’s algorithm. Starting with 0, the index is increased by 1 if the arc starts from the right, and decreased by 1 if it starts from the left. At each cros…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Left: The pseudo-fundamental region of (Kn, τ ) where n is even. Right: A detail of one of the full twists in the box on the left. Next, we compute the η-polynomial η(Kn,σ)(t) of (Kn, σ). The case where n is odd: Via the process in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Left: (Kn, σ). Right: The intermediate step to obtain the pseudo-fundamental region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Left: The pseudo-fundamental region of (Kn, σ) where n is odd. Right: A detail of one of the full twists in the box on the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Left: The pseudo-fundamental region of (Kn, σ) where n is even. Right: A detail of one of the full twists in the box on the left. The case where n is even [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The isopoty of Kn used in the proof of Lemma 4.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_26.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    [Akb91] Selman Akbulut,A fake compact contractible 4-manifold, Journal of Differential Geometry33(1991), 335–356

    [ADMT23] Antonio Alfieri, Irving Dai, Abhishek Mallick, and Masaki Taniguchi,Involutions and the Chern-Simons filtration in instanton Floer homology, Preprint, arXiv:2309.02309 (2023), 2023, to appear in Journal of Differential Geometry. [Akb91] Selman Akbulut,A fake compact contractible 4-manifold, Journal of Differential Geometry33(1991), 335–356. [Akb1...

    arXiv 2023

  2. [7]

    [Kan22] Sungkyung Kang,One stabilization is not enough for contractible 4-manifolds, Preprint, arXiv:2210.07510 (2022),

    arXiv 2022

  3. [9]

    [KMT24] ,Exotically knotted closed surfaces from Donaldson’s diagonalization for families, Preprint, arXiv:2409.07287 (2024),

    arXiv 2024

  4. [10]

    [LLP23] Adam Simon Levine, Tye Lidman, and Lisa Piccirillo,New constructions and invariants of closed exotic 4-manifolds, Preprint, arXiv:2307.08130 (2023),

    arXiv 2023

  5. [11]

    [L W19] Andrew Lobb and Liam Watson,A refinement of khovanov homology, Geometry & Topology (2019)

    [LRS18] Jianfeng Lin, Daniel Ruberman, and Nikolai Saveliev,On the frøyshov invariant and monopole lefschetz number, Journal of Differential Geometry (2018). [L W19] Andrew Lobb and Liam Watson,A refinement of khovanov homology, Geometry & Topology (2019). [Mat95] Rostislav Matveyev,A decomposition of smooth simply-connected$h$-cobordant 4-manifolds, Jour...

    arXiv 2018

  6. [1245]

    [HP20] Kyle Hayden and Lisa Piccirillo,New curiosities in the menagerie of corks, Preprint, arXiv:2005.08928 (2020),

    arXiv 2005

  7. [2015]

    STRONG CORKS DERIVED FROM THE AKBULUT CORK 21 [Yas25] ,Corks, exotic 4-manifolds and genus functions, Preprint, arXiv:2501.18584 (2025),

    arXiv 2025

  8. [2020]

    [HKM23] Kyle Hayden, Sungkyung Kang, and Anubhav Mukherjee,One stabilization is not enough for closed knotted surfaces, Preprint, arXiv:2304.01504 (2023),

    arXiv 2023

Show all 12 references
  1. [2022]

    [KMT23] Hokuto Konno, Abhishek Mallick, and Masaki Taniguchi,From diffeomorphisms to exotic phenomena in small 4-manifolds, Preprint, arXiv:2304.05997 (2023),

    2023 arXiv

  2. [2023]

    J.166(2017), no

    [HM17] Kristen Hendricks and Ciprian Manolescu,Involutive Heegaard Floer homology, Duke Math. J.166(2017), no. 7, 1211–1299. [HMZ17] Kristen Hendricks, Ciprian Manolescu, and Ian Zemke,A connected sum formula for involutive heegaard floer homology, Selecta Mathematica24(2017), 1183 –

    2017

  3. [2024]

    Topol.21(2017), no

    [Gom17] Robert Gompf,Infinite order corks, Geom. Topol.21(2017), no. 4, 2475–2484. [Hay20] Kyle Hayden,Exotically knotted disks and complex curves, Preprint, arXiv:2003.13681 [math.GT] (2020),

    2017 arXiv

  4. [2025]

    Dunfield, Matthias Goerner, and Jeffrey R

    [CDGW] Marc Culler, Nathan M. Dunfield, Matthias Goerner, and Jeffrey R. Weeks,SnapPy, a computer program for studying the geometry and topology of3-manifolds, Available athttp://snappy.computop.org(DD/MM/YYYY). [CFcHS96] Cynthia L. Curtis, Michael H. Freedman, Wu chung Hsiang...

    1996 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.