Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

$\pi_1$-injective bounding and application to 3- and 4-manifolds

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper establishes that every closed oriented 3-manifold can be π1-injectively bounded by a 4-manifold with residually finite fundamental group, and that a finite fundamental group for the 3-manifold can be preserved in the filling.

desk verdict A genuinely new construction with repairable proof slips in the key acyclicity lemma; the main theorems look right and deserve refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08847 v2 pith:7QAGDLL3 submitted 2025-06-10 math.GT

Jianfeng Lin , Zhongzi Wang This is my paper
classification math.GT MSC 57M0557N1057N1320J06
keywords π1-injectiveboundingresiduallyfinitegroupsmappingtelescopeHNNextensions3-manifolds4-manifoldslensspacesminimalindex
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 a strengthening of the classical statement that every closed oriented bounding n-manifold M can be π1-injectively bounded by some compact oriented (n+1)-manifold. Its main theorem (Theorem 1.2) adds control over the filling's fundamental group: if π1(M) is residually finite, the filling can be chosen with residually finite π1; if π1(M) is finite, the filling can be chosen with finite π1. Because every closed oriented 3-manifold bounds and every 3-manifold fundamental group is residually finite, every closed oriented 3-manifold π1-injectively bounds a 4-manifold with residually finite π1. The paper then applies this to show that two lens spaces are π1-isomorphic cobordant exactly when a degree-one map exists between them, that each spherical 3-manifold can be realized as the unique non-free orbit type of a finite group action on a closed simply connected 4-manifold, and that a new numerical invariant—the minimal bounding index Ob(M)—is finite exactly in interesting geometric situations, with explicit values for lens spaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the iterated σ-construction and its infinite mapping telescope. For a space X, σ(X) is built from X×X and X×[0,1] by identifying the diagonal embedding of X with X×{0} and identifying the first-factor copy X×{x0} with X×{1}; this gives a compact CW-complex whose fundamental group is the HNN extension σ(G) of G×G. The maps X→σ(X) are injective on π1 and preserve residual finiteness. The key fact is Proposition 3.5, that the mapping telescope X∞ of the infinite sequence has H∗(X∞)=H∗(point); this is what allows a bordism theorem to fill M with a compact manifold mapping into X∞. Proposition 2.2 is then the surgical tool: given a π1-injective map from a boundary manifold into a K(Γ,1) that extends over a filling, one can do surgeries on the filling so that the extended map becomes a π1-isomorphism, making the boundary inclusion itself π1-injective.

What would settle it

Take X=S1 and compute the maps H1(XN)→H1(Xn) along the σ-telescope. Proposition 3.5 predicts that for every d>0 and N>0 there is n>N with the map trivial in degrees 1 through d (Lemma 3.6); in particular the composition S1→σ(S1)→σ2(S1)→... should eventually kill the generator of H1. A direct calculation of e∗ on the generator, using the corrected Künneth decomposition, would either confirm the vanishing or produce a surviving class. The specific identity to test is the equality in Lemma 3.9 asserting e∗=q∗∘(Δ∗−i1∗)=0.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.2: for a closed oriented bounding n-manifold M, the inclusion of M into a bounding (n+1)-manifold can be made π1-injective while keeping the fundamental group of the filling residually finite (when π1(M) is) or finite (when π1(M) is). The proof runs through a sequence of spaces X0=M, Xk=σ(Xk-1), where σ(X) is a quotient of X×X together with X×[0,1] that identifies the diagonal with one end and the first factor with the other; on fundamental groups this is the HNN extension σ(G)=⟨G×G,t | t(g,1)$t^{{-1}}$=(g,g)⟩. The embeddings Xk→Xk+1 are π1-injective and preserve residual finiteness, and the infinite mapping telescope X∞ is shown to have the homology of a point. A bordism theorem then extends the map M→X∞ to a filling W, and a surgery proposition replaces W by one whose map to a finite stage Xn is a π1-isomorphism; since the embedding M→Xn is π1-injective, the boundary inclusion is π1-injective. For finite π1(M), a residual-finiteness lemma embeds π1(M) into a finite quotient, and the same surgery upgrades the filling to one with finite fundamental group.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the claim that the infinite mapping telescope X∞ built from M has no homology except in degree zero. If that homology vanishing fails, the bordism theorem cannot be invoked to produce the filling. As written, the proof of this claim contains a mis-stated Künneth formula in Lemma 3.9 and several asserted equalities in the diagram chase of Proposition 3.8, so this vanishing is the point most in need of verification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every closed oriented 3-manifold π1-injectively bounds a compact oriented 4-manifold with residually finite fundamental group; when π1(M) is finite, the 4-manifold can be chosen with finite fundamental group.
  • Two lens spaces are π1-isomorphic cobordant if and only if there is an orientation-preserving homotopy equivalence (equivalently, a degree-one map) between them.
  • Each spherical 3-manifold other than S3 is realized as the unique non-free orbit type of an almost free finite group action on a closed, simply connected 4-manifold.
  • For a prime p≥5, the minimal bounding index of L(p,q) is the least integer d≥3 dividing p−1; every prime occurs as such a minimal bounding index.
  • If an aspherical 3-manifold has finite minimal bounding index, it is virtually achiral; for hyperbolic Y, Ob(Y)=2 exactly when Y admits an orientation-reversing free involution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The σ-telescope construction is not obviously tied to residual finiteness alone: since σ preserves HNN extensions, the same route might yield fillings with other HNN-stable properties (for instance, being residually a finite p-group) whenever π1(M) has them.
  • Theorem 1.5's criterion suggests a purely number-theoretic description of π1-isomorphic cobordism for all spherical 3-manifolds, whose fundamental groups are finite subgroups of SO(4); the quadratic-residue calculation for lens spaces may be a first case of a more general representation-theoretic formula.
  • The relation between finiteness of Ob and virtual achirality raises the question of whether infinite Ob is actually equivalent to virtual achirality for aspherical 3-manifolds, or whether index bounds can be extracted from the geometry of the group.
  • The explicit manifold W2 for L(5,1) realizes both minimal bounding index and minimal Euler characteristic; constructing analogous examples for other lens spaces would test whether the arithmetic criterion in Theorem 1.6 aligns with minimal Euler characteristic, not just index.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proves Theorem 1.2: if a closed oriented bounding n-manifold M has residually finite fundamental group, then M π1-injectively bounds a compact oriented (n+1)-manifold whose fundamental group is residually finite; if π1(M) is finite, the filling can be chosen with finite fundamental group. The proof builds an infinite mapping telescope X∞ from iterated doubling constructions σ(X), shows X∞ is acyclic, and applies Atiyah's bordism theorem to extend M→X∞ to a filling, then uses a surgery argument to make the extension π1-isomorphic. Applications include: a characterization of π1-isomorphic cobordism of lens spaces in terms of degree-one maps; realizability of each spherical 3-manifold as the unique non-free orbit type of an almost free finite group action on a closed simply connected 4-manifold; the definition and partial computation of the minimal bounding index Ob(Y); and explicit constructions of 4-manifolds bounded by lens spaces and of surface bundles bounding surface bundles.

Significance. If the main theorem and its applications are correct, this is a substantial contribution to the study of π1-injective bounding and to the topology of 3- and 4-manifolds. The paper gives a new proof of Hausmann's theorem and strengthens it by controlling the fundamental group of the filling. The applications to lens-space cobordism, finite group actions, and the minimal bounding index are original and potentially useful. The paper is ambitious and contains many explicit computations, including the construction of a 4-manifold bounded by L(5,1) realizing both Ob(L(5,1)) and the minimal Euler characteristic. However, the central acyclicity argument (Proposition 3.5) contains a false equality in Lemma 3.9 and a genuinely underjustified induction step in Proposition 3.7; as written, the proof of Theorem 1.2 is incomplete. These gaps appear repairable, but they are load-bearing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Lemma 3.9] The equality q∘Δ = q∘i1 is false at the level of maps: in σ(X), the image of Δ is identified with X×{0} and the image of i1 is identified with X×{1}, and the cylinder X×[0,1] supplies a homotopy between these two maps, not an equality. The intended conclusion e∗=0 in H1 can be recovered by using homotopy instead of equality, but the proof as written rests on a false assertion. The Künneth formula in the same lemma also contains a typo: H1(X×X) should be decomposed as (H1(X)⊗Z) ⊕ (Z⊗H1(X)), not Z⊗H1(X×X).
  2. [§3.2, Proposition 3.7] The induction step as written is not valid. The text states that by the induction hypothesis on n−1, the first two maps in the displayed sequence induce trivial maps on Hi for 1≤i≤n, but the induction hypothesis P(n−1) only supplies triviality for 1≤i≤n−1, and it applies to the map X→σ^{3^{n−2}}(X), not to the first map X→σ^{3^{n−1}}(X) displayed in the proof. The second map is σ^{3^{n−1}}(X)→σ^{2·3^{n−1}}(X), which is an embedding of the form Z→σ^{3^{n−1}}(Z) and is not covered by P(n−1). Consequently Proposition 3.7 is unproved as written, and with it the acyclicity of X∞ (Proposition 3.5) is not established. A repair appears possible by applying Proposition 3.8 with A1=X, A2=σ^{3^{n−2}}(X), A3=σ^{2·3^{n−2}}(X) and then composing with the remaining inclusions to σ^{3^{n−1}}(X), but this needs to be written out carefully.
  3. [§6.1, Proposition 6.1 proof] The claim that a semidirect product of residually finite groups is residually finite is false in general (for example, BS(1,2) = Z[1/2]⋊Z is a semidirect product of residually finite groups but is not residually finite). The residual finiteness of π1(W) in the surface-bundle construction therefore does not follow from the stated reason. Since this is part of the conclusion of Proposition 1.12, a correct proof or a precise citation for this specific class of semidirect products is needed.
  4. [§3.2, Proposition 3.8 proof] The proof again uses the equality q3∘Δ3 = q3∘i1, which is only true up to homotopy. The homology conclusion remains valid once the equality is replaced by the homotopy coming from the cylinder in σ(A3). In addition, there are typographical issues in the same proof: 'α3=f1(α2)' should presumably read 'α3=f2(α2)', and the symbol 'α1' is used without definition.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1, Proposition 2.2 proof] The connected sum term 'S^{n−1}×S^1' has dimension n, not n+1, so it cannot be used in the connected sum with the (n+1)-manifold W. The intended term should be S^n×S^1, whose fundamental group contribution is the desired free Z factor; this is a typo but should be corrected.
  2. [§3.3, Theorem 3.11 proof] When applying Proposition 2.2 to the map τ˜n:W→Xn, the target Xn is not a K(π1,1) space. The argument should pass to the classifying space K(π1(Xn),1) by composing with the canonical map Xn→K(π1(Xn),1); the text should make this explicit.
  3. [§4.1, Theorem 4.1 proof] In the step (4)⇒(1), the phrase 'we can require that ef:W→L is a π1-isomorphism' should refer to a map to K(Z_n,1), since L is not aspherical. The subsequent argument is unaffected after replacing L by its K(π1,1) relaxation.
  4. [§4.1, Lemma 4.2 proof] In the converse direction, the notation for the map obtained by connected sum is garbled: the target of the added map should be L(n,q′), not L(n,1), and the degree of p_{n,k} should be chosen consistently with the desired degree d=qq′x^2+nk. Please clarify.
  5. [§5.1, Lemma 5.3 proof] The proof ends with 'This is a contradiction' without explicitly identifying the contradiction. One should state that the hypothesis i∗:H3(J)→H3(G) is trivial means p∗:H3(K~)→H3(K) is zero, which combined with p∗p∗=d·id on H3(K;Q) contradicts the injectivity of p∗ on H3(K;Q).
  6. [General notation] There are several minor notational inconsistencies, e.g., ∂fW for ∂fW, 'eY' for the lift of Y, and 'Σ_{n,1}' with '1 boundary components'. These do not affect the mathematics but should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem 1.2 is derived from independent inputs (Atiyah bordism, Hausmann, Hempel residual finiteness); self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is Theorem 3.11: construct X∞ via σ-embeddings, prove H∗(X∞)=H∗(pt) (Proposition 3.5), invoke Atiyah's Theorem 2.1 to extend M→X∞ to a filling W→X∞, then identify π1(W) with π1(Xn), whose residual finiteness follows from Proposition 3.2, proved using Hempel's Lemma 3.3 on HNN extensions. Each load-bearing theorem is external: Atiyah's generalized homology theory [Ati], Thom/Rokhlin bordism, Hempel's residual finiteness criteria [He], and Hausmann's theorem [Hau] (which is reproved, not assumed). The O_b calculations in Section 5 are derived from group homology and Lemma 5.10, not fitted to the invariant's definition. The paper's self-citations ([SW1], [SW2], [TWWY]) appear only in remarks, context, or as notes that standard calculations also appear there; none is needed for Theorem 1.2, Theorem 1.5, or Theorem 1.10. The referee-visible concern about Proposition 3.7/3.8 is a possible proof gap (the induction hypothesis as stated gives vanishing only up to n−1 and uses a pointwise equality q∘Δ=q∘i1 that is homotopic rather than exact), but a gap or error in a proof is not a circular reduction: the conclusion is not assumed as an input anywhere in the paper. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates in a way that forces the outcome. Hence the paper earns a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is derived from standard theorems in bordism, group theory, and 3-manifold topology; there are no free parameters fitted to data and no invented physical entities. The main new content is the telescoping construction and its applications.

assumptions (9)
  • standard math Atiyah's bordism homology MSO_*(X) is a generalized homology theory admitting an Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence.
    Invoked in Theorems 2.1 and 2.5 to extend boundary maps to fillings when the target has trivial homology or the homology class vanishes.
  • standard math The oriented cobordism groups Omega_q vanish for 1 <= q <= 3, and Omega_3 = 0.
    Used to ensure every closed 3-manifold bounds and to prove the isomorphism MSO_k(X) is isomorphic to H_k(X;Z) for k <= 3 in Theorem 2.5.
  • standard math Hempel's residual finiteness criterion for HNN extensions (Proposition 15.20) and Lemma 15.16 on finite-index subgroups.
    Provides the algebraic engine for Proposition 3.2, which shows sigma(G) inherits residual finiteness from G.
  • standard math Scott and Wall's theorem that the canonical map from a group into an HNN extension is injective.
    Used in Proposition 3.2(1) to prove the embedding e:G to sigma(G) is injective.
  • standard math Mostow rigidity for finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifolds, plus the non-elementary Kleinian group fact that if gamma^2 commutes with J then gamma^2 = g^2.
    Supports Lemma 5.4, which embeds an index-2 group extension into Iso(H^3) for the hyperbolic half of Theorem 1.9(2).
  • standard math The Hayat, Kudryavtseva, Wang, Zieschang theorem describing degrees of pi_1-isomorphic self-maps of lens spaces.
    Used in Lemma 4.2 to compute Diso(L(n,q),L(n,q')).
  • standard math Casson-Gordon lemma: if L(p,q) bounds a rational homology 4-ball then p is a square.
    Used in Section 6.2 to show chi_b(L(5,1)) cannot be 1 and hence equals 2.
  • standard math Daverman's theorem: O_b(Y) = 1 iff Y is S^3 or a connected sum of S^2 x S^1.
    Used in Remark 1.11(3) to observe aspherical 3-manifolds have O_b >= 2.
  • standard math Agol's virtual Haken theorem and Przytycki-Wise virtually special theorems for hyperbolic and mixed 3-manifolds.
    Used in Lemma 5.2 and Corollary 1.13 to obtain Haken covers and surface-bundle covers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\pi_1$-injective bounding and application to 3- and 4-manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7QAGDLL3

@misc{pith2026250608847,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\pi_1$-injective bounding and application to 3- and 4-manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7QAGDLL3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08847}
}
abstract

Suppose a closed oriented $n$-manifold $M$ bounds an oriented $(n+1)$-manifold. It is known that $M$ $\pi_1$-injectively bounds an oriented $(n+1)$-manifold $W$. We prove that $\pi_1(W)$ can be residually finite if $\pi_1(M)$ is, and $\pi_1(W)$ can be finite if $\pi_1(M)$ is. In particular, each closed 3-manifold $M$ $\pi_1$-injectively bounds a 4-manifold with residually finite $\pi_1$, and bounds a 4-manifold with finite $\pi_1$ if $\pi_1(M)$ is finite. Applications to 3- and 4-manifolds are given: (1) We study finite group actions on closed 4-manifolds and $\pi_1$-isomorphic cobordism of 3-dimensional lens spaces. Results including: (a) Two lens spaces are $\pi_1$-isomorphic cobordant if and only if there is a degree one map between them. (b) Each spherical 3-manifold $M\ne S^3$ can be realized as the unique non-free orbit type for a finite group action on a closed 4-manifold. (2) The minimal bounding index $O_b(M)$ for closed 3-manifolds $M$ are defined, %and bounding Euler charicteristic $\chi_b(M)$. the relations between finiteness of $O_b(M)$ and virtual achirality of aspherical (hyperbolic) $M$ are addressed. We calculate $O_b(M)$ for some lens spaces $M$. Each prime is realized as a minimal bounding index. (3) We also discuss some concrete examples:Surface bundle often bound surface bundles, and prime 3-manifolds often virtually bound surface bundles, $W$ bounded by some lens spaces realizing $O_b$ is constructed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08847 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch picture for σ(X) which is an embedding from X to σ(X). We will repeat this construction several times in our argument. For each group G with unit 1, if we define σ(G) to be an HNN extension of G × G by t: σ(G) = ⟨G × G, t|t(g, 1)t −1 = (g, g), for any g ∈ G⟩, There is also a homomorphism of groups e = β ◦ i2 : G → G × G → σ(G), where i2(g) = (1, g) and β : G × G → σ(G) is the canonical inclusion [ScW]. By Van… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agol, The virtual Haken conjecture , Doc

    I. Agol, The virtual Haken conjecture , Doc. Math. 18 (2013) 1045--1087, with an appendix by I. Agol, D. Groves and J. Manning

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Atiyah, Bordism and cobordism, Proc

    M. Atiyah, Bordism and cobordism, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 57 (1961) 200-208

    work page 1961

  3. [3]

    Atiyah, R

    M. Atiyah, R. Bott, A Lefschetz fixed point formula for elliptic differential operators, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 72 (1966), 245–250

    work page 1966

  4. [4]

    Atiyah, F

    M. Atiyah, F. Hirzebruch, Vector bundles and homogeneous spaces, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. v. III, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1961, Pages 7-38

    work page 1961

  5. [5]

    R. M. Charney, M. W. Davis, Strict hyperbolization, Topology 34 (1995), no. 2, 329-350

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    Cartan; S

    H. Cartan; S. Eilenberg, Homological algebra. With an appendix by David A. Buchsbaum. Reprint of the 1956 original. Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1999. xvi+390 pp

    work page 1956

  7. [7]

    Casson, C

    A. Casson, C. McA. Gordon, Cobordism of classical knots. With an appendix by P. M. Gilmer. Progr. Math., 62, À la recherche de la topologie perdue, 181--199, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1986

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    Daverman, Fundamental group isomorphisms between compact 4 -manifolds and their boundaries

    R. Daverman, Fundamental group isomorphisms between compact 4 -manifolds and their boundaries. Low-dimensional topology (Knoxville, TN, 1992), 31 - 34, Conf. Proc. Lecture Notes Geom. Topology, III, Int. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994

    work page 1992

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    I. Dai, J. Hom, M. Stoffregen, L. Truong, An infinite-rank summand of the homology cobordism group. Duke Math. J. 172 (2023), no. 12, 2365--2432

    2023

  2. [10]

    M. W. Davis, T. Januszkiewicz,

  3. [11]

    Davis, T

    M. Davis, T. Januszkiewicz and S. Weinberger, Relative hyperbolization and aspherical bordisms; An addendum to `Hyperbolization of polyhedra,' J. Differential Geom. 58 (2001), 535-541

    2001

  4. [12]

    Foozwell and H

    B. Foozwell and H. Rubinstein, Four-dimensional Haken cobordism theory, Illinois J. Math. 60 (2016), no. 1, 1-17

    2016

  5. [13]

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

    2012

  6. [14]

    Hatcher, Algebraic topology

    A. Hatcher, Algebraic topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002

    2002

  7. [15]

    Hatcher, Notes on basic 3 -manifold topology

    A. Hatcher, Notes on basic 3 -manifold topology. http://pi.math.cornell.edu/ hatcher/

  8. [16]

    Hayat, E

    C. Hayat, E. Kudryavtseva, S.C. Wang, H. Zieschang, Degrees of self-mappings of Seifert manifolds with finite fundamental groups. Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste 32 (2001), 131-147

    2001

  9. [17]

    Hempel, 3 -manifolds, Princeton University Press and University of Tokyo Press, 1976

    J. Hempel, 3 -manifolds, Princeton University Press and University of Tokyo Press, 1976

    1976

  10. [18]

    Hausmann, On the homotopy of nonnilpotent spaces

    J-C. Hausmann, On the homotopy of nonnilpotent spaces. Math. Z. 178 (1981), no. 1, 115-123

    1981

  11. [19]

    Weinberger

    J-C, Hausmann , S. Weinberger. Caractéristiques d'Euler et groupes fondamentaux des variétés de dimension 4 (in French). Comment Math Helv, 1985, 60: 139-144

    1985

  12. [20]

    D. M. Kan, W. P. Thurston, Every connected space has the homology of a K(π,1)

  13. [21]

    W. B. R. Lickorish, A representation of orientable combinatorial 3 -manifolds, Ann. of Math. , 76 (1962) 531-540

    1962

  14. [22]

    Liu and H

    Y. Liu and H. Sun, Toward and after virtual specialization in 3-manifold topology. Surveys in differential geometry 2020. Surveys in 3-manifold topology and geometry, 215-252, Surv. Differ. Geom., 25, Int. Press, Boston, MA

    2020

  15. [23]

    Maclachlan, A

    C. Maclachlan, A. Reid, The arithmetic of hyperbolic 3 -manifolds. 2003, Springer-Verlag New York Inc

    2003

  16. [24]

    Mumford, Abelian Quotients of the Teichmuller Modular Group, Journal d'Analyse, 1967, 28, pp

    D. Mumford, Abelian Quotients of the Teichmuller Modular Group, Journal d'Analyse, 1967, 28, pp. 227-244

    1967

  17. [25]

    Ontaneda, Riemannian hyperbolization,

    P. Ontaneda, Riemannian hyperbolization,

  18. [26]

    Powell, Two theorems on the mapping class group of a surface

    J. Powell, Two theorems on the mapping class group of a surface . Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 68(3): 347-350, 1978

    1978

  19. [27]

    Przytycki, D

    P. Przytycki, D. Wise, Mixed 3 -manifolds are virtually special. J. Amer. Math. Soc.31(2018), no.2, 319–347

    2018

  20. [28]

    Rolfsen, Knots and links

    D. Rolfsen, Knots and links. Corrected reprint of the 1976 original. Mathematics Lecture Series, 7. Publish or Perish, Inc., Houston, TX, 1990. xiv +439 pp. ISBN: 0-914098-16-0

    1976

  21. [29]

    Rokhlin, New results in the theory of 4 -dimensional manifolds

    V. Rokhlin, New results in the theory of 4 -dimensional manifolds. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 84 (1952), 221-224

    1952

  22. [30]

    Scott, The geometries of three manifolds, Bull

    P. Scott, The geometries of three manifolds, Bull. London Math. Soc. , 15 (1983) 401-487

    1983

  23. [31]

    Scott, C

    P. Scott, C. T. C. Wall, Topological methods in group theory. Homological group theory , (Proc. Sympos., Durham (1979), 137--203), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 36, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge-New York, 1979

    1979

  24. [32]

    H. B. Sun, Z. Z. Wang, Minimum Euler Characteristics of 4 -manifolds with 3 -manifold groups. Science China Mathematics, (2023), volume 66, pages 2325-2336

    2023

  25. [33]

    H. B. Sun, Z. Z. Wang, Maps from 3 -manifolds to 4 -manifolds that induce isomorphisms on _1 , To appear in Journal of Topology and Analysis. arXiv:2108.05784 [math.GT]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Thom, Quelques propriétés globales des variétés différentiables, Comment

    R. Thom, Quelques propriétés globales des variétés différentiables, Comment. Math. Helv. , 28 (1954) 17-86

    1954

  27. [35]

    Tian, S.C

    Y. Tian, S.C. Wang, Z.Z. Wang and H. Yin, Achirality of commensurable class of geometric 3 -manifolds and Stevenhagen Conjecture, Preprint, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Thurston, Three dimensional manifolds, Kleinian groups and hyperbolic geometry , Bull

    W. Thurston, Three dimensional manifolds, Kleinian groups and hyperbolic geometry , Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 (1982) 357-381

    1982

  29. [37]

    Wise , From riches to raags: 3 -manifolds, right-angled Artin groups, and cubical geometry , CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, 117

    D. Wise , From riches to raags: 3 -manifolds, right-angled Artin groups, and cubical geometry , CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, 117. Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providenc...

    2012

Pith tools

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