format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Surgery formula for torsions and Seiberg-Witten invariants of 3-manifolds

Vladimir Turaev

Abstract

We give a surgery formula for the torsions and Seiberg-Witten invariants associated with $`Spin^c`$-structures on 3-manifolds. We use the technique of Reidemeister-type torsions and their refinements.

Contents

Introduction

1. Smooth Euler structures on 3-manifolds

2. Torsions of chain complexes

3. Homology orientations of 3-manifolds

4. Combinatorial Euler structures on 3-manifolds

5. The Torres formula for torsions

6. Additivity of torsions

7. The torsion $`\tau `$

8. The Alexander-Conway function and derived invariants

9. A surgery formula for $`\phi `$-torsions

10. A surgery formula for the Alexander polynomial

11. A surgery formula for $`\tau (M)`$ in the case $`b_1(M)1`$

12. A surgery formula for the Seiberg-Witten invariants of 3-manifolds

Appendix 1. A surgery formula for rational homology spheres

Appendix 2. Computation of $`\omega _L^M`$

Appendix 3. Corrections and additions to \[Tu5\], \[Tu6\]

Introduction

In 1976 the author introduced a combinatorial torsion-type invariant, $`\tau `$, of compact PL-manifolds of any dimension (see \[Tu2\]). For a compact 3-manifold $`M`$, the invariant $`\tau (M)`$ lies in the group ring $`[H_1(M)]`$ if $`b_1(M)2`$ and lies in a certain extension of this ring if $`b_1(M)=0,1`$. The study of $`\tau (M)`$ was motivated by its connections with the Alexander-Fox invariants of $`M`$ including the Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$.

The definition of $`\tau `$ contains an indeterminacy so that $`\tau (M)`$ is defined only up to multiplication by $`\pm 1`$ and by elements of $`H_1(M)`$. In \[Tu3\], \[Tu4\] the author introduced a refined version $`\tau (M,e,\omega )`$ of $`\tau (M)`$ depending on the choice of a so-called Euler structure $`e`$ on $`M`$ and a homology orientation $`\omega `$ of $`M`$. The invariant $`\tau (M,e,\omega )`$ has no indeterminacy and $`\tau (M)=\pm H_1(M)\tau (M,e,\omega )`$ for all $`e,\omega `$.

The Seiberg-Witten invariant of a closed oriented 3-manifold $`M`$ with $`b_1(M)1`$ is a numerical function, $`SW=SW(M)`$, on the set of $`Spin^c`$-structures on $`M`$, see for instance \[FS\], \[HL\], \[Li\], \[MT\], \[Mo\], \[MOY\], \[OT\]. This function also depends on the choice of a homology orientation, $`\omega `$, of $`M`$. For a $`Spin^c`$-structure $`e`$ on $`M`$, the integer $`SW(e,\omega )`$ is the algebraic number of solutions, called monopoles, to a certain system of differential equations associated with $`e`$. This number coincides with the 4-dimensional SW-invariant of the $`Spin^c`$-structure $`e\times 1`$ on $`M\times S^1`$.

The invariants $`SW(M)`$ and $`\tau (M)`$ turn out to be equivalent (at least up to sign). The first step in this direction was made by Meng and Taubes \[MT\] (see also \[FS\]) who observed that $`SW(M)`$ determines the Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$. The equivalence between $`SW(M)`$ and $`\tau (M)`$ was established in \[Tu5\], \[Tu6\] where the SW-invariants of $`Spin^c`$-structures on $`M`$ are identified with the coefficients in the expansion of $`\tau (M)`$ as an element of the group ring. This involves an identification of the Euler structures on $`M`$ with the $`Spin^c`$-structures on $`M`$.

The definition of $`\tau `$ is based on the methods of the theory of torsions, specifically, triangulations, chain complexes, etc. The definition of $`SW`$ is analytical. These definitions are not always suitable for explicit computations. The aim of this paper is to give surgery formulas for $`\tau `$ and $`SW`$ suitable for computations.

We first give a surgery description of Euler structures (= $`Spin^c`$-structures) on closed oriented 3-manifolds. To this end we introduce a notion of a charge. A charge on an oriented link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ in $`S^3`$ is an $`m`$-tuple $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)^m`$ such that for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$,

$$k_i1+\underset{ji}{}lk(L_i,L_j)(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})$$
$`(0.a)`$
where $`lk`$ is the linking number in $`S^3`$. We show that a charge $`k`$ on $`L`$ determines an Euler structure, $`e_k^M`$, on any 3-manifold $`M`$ obtained by surgery on $`L`$. Similarly, the orientation of $`L`$ induces a homology orientation, $`\omega _L^M`$, of $`M`$.

Our main formula computes $`\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$ in terms of the framing and linking numbers of the components of $`L`$, and the Alexander-Conway polynomials of $`L`$ and its sublinks. This implies a surgery formula for $`\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$. Thus, the algebraic number of monopoles can be computed (at least up to sign) in terms of classical link invariants.

For the sake of introduction, we state our surgery formula for SW in the case of 3-manifolds with $`b_12`$ obtained by surgery on algebraically split links. Recall that the Alexander-Conway polynomial $`_L`$ of an oriented link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_mS^3`$ with $`m2`$ is a Laurent polynomial, i.e., an element of $`[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}]`$. If $`L`$ is algebraically split, i.e., if $`lk(L_i,L_j)=0`$ for all $`ij`$, then $`_L`$ is divisible by $`_{i=1}^m(t_i^21)`$ in $`[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}]`$. We have a finite expansion

$$_L/\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(t_i^21)=\underset{l=(l_1,\mathrm{},l_m)^m}{}z_l(L)t_1^{l_1}\mathrm{}t_m^{l_m}$$

with $`z_l(L)`$.

Let $`M`$ be a closed oriented 3-manifold with $`b_1(M)2`$ obtained by surgery on a framed oriented algebraically split link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_mS^3`$. Let $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m)`$ be the tuple of the framing numbers of $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_m`$. Denote by $`J_0`$ the set of all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ such that $`f_j=0`$. For a set $`J\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ we denote the link $`_{jJ}L_j`$ by $`L^J`$. Put $`\overline{J}=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}\backslash J`$ and $`|J|=\text{card}(J)`$. Then for any charge $`k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)`$ on $`L`$,

$$\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M)$$
$`(0.b)`$
$$=\underset{J_0J\{1,\mathrm{},m\}}{}(1)^{|J|}\underset{j\overline{J}}{}\text{sign}(f_j)\underset{l^J,lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)}{}z_l(L^J).$$

Here the sum goes over all sets $`J\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ containing $`J_0`$. The sign $`\text{sign}(f_j)=\pm 1`$ of $`f_j`$ is well defined since $`f_j0`$ for $`j\overline{J}`$. The formula $`l^J,lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)`$ means that $`l`$ runs over all tuples of integers numerated by elements of $`J`$ such that $`l_jk_j(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f_j)`$ for all $`jJ`$. By $`|J||J_0|=b_1(M)2`$, the algebraically split link $`L^J`$ has $`2`$ components so that $`z_l(L^J)`$ is a well defined integer. Only a finite number of these integers are non-zero and therefore the sum on the right-hand side of (0.b) is finite. This sum obviously depends only on $`k(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)`$; the Euler structure $`e_k^M`$ also depends only on $`k(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)`$. The precise sign in front of $`SW`$ in (0.b) is unknown to the author. This sign is the same for all charges $`k`$ on $`L`$.

For a link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ which is not algebraically split, the polynomial $`_L`$ can be divided by $`_{i=1}^m(t_i^21)`$ in a certain quotient of $`[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}]`$. This leads to a general surgery formula for an arbitrary $`L`$.

We give also a surgery formula for the Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$. It is simpler than the surgery formulas for $`\tau `$ and $`SW`$, and we establish it first.

The methods of this paper yield similar surgery formulas for the invariants $`\tau ,\mathrm{\Delta },SW`$ of link exteriors in closed oriented 3-manifolds.

The invariants $`\tau ,\mathrm{\Delta },SW`$ are closely related to the Casson-Walker-Lescop invariant of 3-manifolds. We shall discuss these relations and other properties of $`\tau ,\mathrm{\Delta },SW`$ in another place.

The organisation of the paper should be clear from Contents above.

1. Smooth Euler structures on 3-manifolds

1.1. Euler structures on manifolds.  We recall briefly the theory of (smooth) Euler structures on manifolds following \[Tu4\]. By a relative vector field on a compact (smooth) manifold $`M`$ we mean a nonsingular tangent vector field on $`M`$ directed outside $`M`$ on $`M`$ (transversely to $`M`$). Relative vector fields $`u`$ and $`v`$ on $`M`$ are called homologous if for every connected component $`M_0`$ of $`M`$ and a point $`xM_0`$ the restrictions of $`u`$ and $`v`$ to $`M_0\backslash \{x\}`$ are homotopic in the class of nonsingular vector fields on $`M_0\backslash \{x\}`$ directed outside $`M_0`$ on $`M_0`$. The homology class of a relative vector field $`u`$ on $`M`$ is called a (smooth) Euler structure on $`M`$ and denoted by $`[u]`$. The set of Euler structures on $`M`$ is denoted by $`\text{vect}(M)`$. This set is non-void iff for each connected component $`M_0`$ of $`M`$ we have $`\chi (M_0)=0`$. This condition is satisfied for instance if $`M`$ is a compact 3-manifold whose boundary consists of tori.

The group $`H_1(M)`$ acts on $`\text{vect}(M)`$ as follows. (This action as well as the group operation in $`H_1(M)`$ will be written multiplicatively.) Let $`u`$ be a relative vector field on $`M`$. Let $`hH_1(M)`$ be represented by an oriented simple closed curve $`lM\backslash M`$. Let $`V`$ be a regular neighborhood of $`l`$. We endow $`V`$ with coordinates $`(\theta ,r)`$, where $`\theta /2\pi `$ is the coordinate along $`l`$ and $`r`$ is the radial coordinate on the discs transversal to $`l`$. Choose a Riemannian metric on $`V`$ such that the tangent vector fields $`\frac{}{\theta }`$ and $`\frac{}{r}`$ are orthogonal everywhere and the Euclidean norm $`|r|0`$ measures the distance of a point of $`V`$ from $`l`$. We can assume that $`|r|_{|_V}=1`$, and after applying a homotopy to $`u`$ we can assume that $`u_{|_V}=\frac{}{\theta }`$. Then $`h[u]`$ is represented by the relative vector field on $`M`$ which is equal to $`u`$ on $`MV`$ and is equal to $`\mathrm{cos}(|r|\pi )\frac{}{\theta }+\text{sin}(|r|\pi )\frac{}{r}`$ on $`V`$.

If $`\text{vect}(M)\mathrm{}`$ then the action of $`H_1(M)`$ on $`\text{vect}(M)`$ is free and transitive. Thus, for any two relative vector fields $`u,v`$ on $`M`$, there is a unique $`hH_1(M)`$ such that $`[u]=h[v]`$. This $`h`$ is denoted by $`[u]/[v]`$. Clearly, $`[v]/[u]=([u]/[v])^1`$.

For the torus $`T=S^1\times S^1`$, the set $`\text{vect}(T)`$ has a distinguished element defined as follows. Consider a non-singular vector field $`w`$ on $`T`$ whose flow lines are the circles $`x\times S^1`$ with $`xS^1`$. The class $`[w]\text{vect}(T)`$ depends neither on the orientation of the circles nor on the choice of the splitting of $`T`$ as a product of two circles. This follows from the easy observation that $`[w]`$ is invariant under the Dehn twists along $`S^1\times x`$ and $`x\times S^1`$. In fact $`[w]`$ is the only element of $`\text{vect}(T)`$ invariant under all self-homeomorphisms of $`T`$. The formula $`hh[w]`$ defines a natural bijection $`H_1(T)\text{vect}(T)`$. We call a non-singular vector field on $`T`$ canonical if it is homologous to $`w`$.

1.2. The Chern class.  Let $`M`$ be a compact 3-manifold whose boundary consists of tori. For any $`u\text{vect}(M)`$, the Chern class $`c(u)H_1(M)`$ can be defined as follows: consider a non-singular tangent vector field on $`M`$ whose restrictions to all components are canonical; the first obstruction to extending this vector field to $`M`$ transversely to $`u`$ lies in $`H^2(M,M)`$ and $`c(u)H_1(M)`$ is its Poincaré dual. We however shall use a somewhat different definition of $`c(u)`$.

For a relative vector field $`u`$ on $`M`$, we define an opposite vector field as follows. Deforming if necessary $`u`$ in a regular neighborhood $`M\times [0,1]M`$ of $`M=M\times 0`$ we can assume that $`u`$ is tangent to the lines $`x\times [0,1]`$ for $`xM`$ and directed from $`1`$ to $`0`$. Consider the vector field on $`M`$ which is equal to $`u`$ on the complement of $`M\times [0,1]`$ in $`M`$ and is given by the formula $`(x,t)\mathrm{cos}(t\pi )u(x,t)+\text{sin}(t\pi )w(x)`$ on $`M\times [0,1]`$ where $`xM,t[0,1]`$ and $`w`$ is the canonical vector field on the tori forming $`M`$. It is clear that this is a relative vector field on $`M`$. Its class in $`\text{vect}(M)`$ depends only on $`e=[u]`$. We denote this class by $`e^1`$. It follows from definitions that $`(he)^1=h^1e^1`$ for any $`hH_1(M),e\text{vect}(M)`$.

For $`e\text{vect}(M)`$, set $`c(e)=e/e^1`$. We have the identities

$$c(he)=(he)/(h^1e^1)=h^2(e/e^1)=h^2c(e).$$

This formula has useful applications. It implies that the negation is an involution on $`\text{vect}(M)`$. Indeed, we have

$$c(e^1)=c((e^1/e)e)=(e^1/e)^2c(e)=c(e)^2c(e)=c(e)^1$$
$`(1.2.a)`$
and therefore

$$(e^1)^1=(c(e^1))^1e^1=(c(e)^1)^1e^1=c(e)e^1=e.$$

The formula $`c(he)=h^2c(e)`$ shows that the Chern class map $`ec(e):\text{vect}(M)H_1(M)`$ is injective provided $`H_1(M)`$ has no 2-torsion. The formula $`c(he)=h^2c(e)`$ implies also that the class $`c(e)(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})H_1(M;/2)`$ does not depend on $`e`$. This class can be computed as follows.

1.3. Lemma.  Let $`M`$ be a compact orientable 3-manifold whose boundary consists of tori. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ be a compact embedded surface such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and all components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are non-contractible on $`M`$. Then for any  $`e\text{vect}(M)`$ we have

$$c(e)\mathrm{\Sigma }=b_0(\mathrm{\Sigma })(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})$$

where $`c(e)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the intersection number of $`c(e)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ modulo 2 and $`b_0(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the number of components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

This lemma completely determines $`c(e)(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ since the homology classes of surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as in the lemma generate the group $`H_2(M,M;/2)`$ dual to $`H_1(M;/2)`$. We give a proof of this lemma at the end of Sect. 1.

1.4. Example.  A solid torus is the product $`S^1\times D^2`$ where $`S^1`$ is a circle and $`D^2`$ is a closed 2-disc. A solid torus $`\text{Z}=S^1\times D^2`$ endowed with a generator, $`h_\text{Z}`$, of $`H_1(\text{Z})=`$ is said to be directed. In other words, Z is directed if its core circle $`S^1\times pt`$ with $`ptD^2`$ is oriented. Since $`H_1(\text{Z})`$ has no torsion, the Chern class map $`\text{vect}(\text{Z})H_1(\text{Z})`$ is injective. Applying Lemma 1.3 to the meridional disc $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=x\times D^2\text{Z}`$ with $`xS^1`$ we obtain that the image of this map consists of the odd powers of the generator. Thus, on a directed solid torus Z there is a unique Euler structure $`e`$ such that $`c(e)=h_\text{Z}^1`$. We call this $`e\text{vect}(\text{Z})`$ the distinguished Euler structure on Z and denote it by $`e_\text{Z}`$.

1.5. Gluing of Euler structures.  Let $`M`$ be a compact 3-manifold whose boundary consists of tori. Let $`TM\backslash M`$ be a finite system of disjoint embedded 2-tori splitting $`M`$ into two 3-manifolds $`M_0`$ and $`M_1`$. We define now a gluing map

$$:\text{vect}(M_0)\times \text{vect}(M_1)\text{vect}(M).$$
$`(1.5.a)`$
Let $`u_i`$ be a relative vector field on $`M_i`$ for $`i=0,1`$. We can identify a regular neighborhood of $`T`$ in $`M`$ with $`T\times [0,1]`$ so that

$$T=T\times (1/2),T\times [0,1/2]M_0,T\times [1/2,1]M_1.$$

We deform $`u_0`$ so that it is tangent to the lines $`x\times [0,1/2]`$ for $`xT`$ and is directed from $`0`$ to $`1/2`$. Similarly, we deform $`u_1`$ so that it is tangent to the lines $`x\times [1/2,1]`$ for $`xT`$ and is directed from $`1`$ to $`1/2`$. Let $`w`$ be a non-singular tangent vector field on $`T`$ whose restriction to each component of $`T`$ is canonical in the sense of Sect. 1.1. We define a relative vector field $`u_0u_1`$ on $`M`$ as follows: on $`M_0\backslash (T\times [0,1/2])`$ it is equal to $`u_0`$, on $`M_1\backslash (T\times [1/2,1])`$ it is equal to $`u_1`$, at any point $`(x,t)T\times [0,1/2]`$ it equals $`\mathrm{cos}(t\pi )u_0(x,t)+\text{sin}(t\pi )w(x)`$, at any point $`(x,t)T\times [1/2,1]`$ it equals $`\mathrm{cos}(t\pi )u_1(x,t)+\text{sin}(t\pi )w(x)`$. The class $`[u_0u_1]\text{vect}(M)`$ depends only on $`[u_0],[u_1]`$. This yields a well-defined map (1.5.a).

It follows from definitions that for any $`h_iH_1(M_i),e_i\text{vect}(M_i)`$ with $`i=0,1`$,

$$h_0e_0h_1e_1=(\text{in}_0(h_0)\text{in}_1(h_1))(e_0e_1)$$
$`(1.5.b)`$
where $`\text{in}_i`$ is the inclusion homomorphism $`H_1(M_i)H_1(M)`$. As an exercise, the reader may check that

$$(e_0e_1)^1=e_0^1e_1^1$$

(hint: use that $`w`$ is homotopic to $`w`$). This implies that

$$c(e_0e_1)=(e_0e_1)/(e_0e_1)^1$$

$$=(c(e_0)e_0^1c(e_1)e_1^1)/(e_0^1e_1^1)=\text{in}_0(c(e_0))\text{in}_1(c(e_1)).$$

We shall use the gluing of Euler structures in the following setting. Consider a 3-manifold $`M`$ obtained from a compact 3-manifold $`E`$ by gluing $`n`$ directed solid tori $`\text{Z}_1,\mathrm{},\text{Z}_n`$ along $`n`$ tori in $`E`$. Gluing to $`e\text{vect}(M)`$ the distinguished Euler structures on these solid tori we obtain an Euler structure, $`e^M`$, on $`M`$:

$$e^M=ee_{\text{Z}_1}\mathrm{}e_{\text{Z}_n}\text{vect}(M).$$

Clearly,

$$c(e^M)=\text{in}(c(e))\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}h_j^1$$
$`(1.5.c)`$
where $`\text{in}:H_1(E)H_1(M)`$ is the inclusion homomorphism and $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_nH_1(M)`$ are the homology classes of the oriented core circles of $`\text{Z}_1,\mathrm{},\text{Z}_n`$. We have $`(e^M)^1=_{j=1}^nh_j(e^1)^M`$ and $`(he)^M=\text{in}(h)e^M`$ for any $`hH_1(E)`$.

1.6. Charges on links and Euler structures on link exteriors. The Euler structures on link exteriors can be described in terms of charges. Let $`L`$ be an oriented link in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere $`N`$. A charge on $`L`$ is an integer-valued function $`k`$ on the set of components of $`L`$ such that for every component $`\mathrm{}`$ of $`L`$ we have $`k(\mathrm{})1+lk(\mathrm{},L\backslash \mathrm{})(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ where $`lk`$ denotes the linking number in $`N`$.

Consider the exterior $`E`$ of $`L`$ in $`N`$. There is a canonical bijection between the set $`\text{vect}(E)`$ and the set of charges on $`L`$. It is defined as follows. For a component $`\mathrm{}`$ of $`L`$ denote by $`t_{\mathrm{}}H_1(E)`$ the homology class of a meridian of $`\mathrm{}`$. (By a meridian of an oriented knot we always mean a canonically oriented meridian whose linking number with the knot equals $`+1`$). For $`e\text{vect}(E)`$, the Chern class $`c(e)H_1(E)`$ can be uniquely expanded as $`_{\mathrm{}}t_{\mathrm{}}^{k(\mathrm{})}`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ runs over the components of $`L`$ and $`k(\mathrm{})`$. We claim that (i) the function $`\mathrm{}k(\mathrm{})`$ is a charge on $`L`$ and (ii) the resulting map from $`\text{vect}(E)`$ to the set of charges on $`L`$ is bijective. To prove (i), consider a component $`\mathrm{}`$ of $`L`$ and its Seifert surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}N`$ intersecting $`L\backslash \mathrm{}`$ transversely. Then the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}EE`$ satisfies the conditions of Lemma 1.3. Note that $`t_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }=1(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{}^{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ for any component $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ of $`L\backslash \mathrm{}`$. This and Lemma 1.3 imply that

$$k(\mathrm{})c(e)\mathrm{\Sigma }b_0(\mathrm{\Sigma })1+lk(\mathrm{},L\backslash \mathrm{})(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

Claim (ii) is essentially obvious: the injectivity follows from the injectivity of the Chern class map $`c:\text{vect}(E)H_1(E)`$ and the surjectivity follows from the identity $`c(he)=h^2c(e)`$ where $`e\text{vect}(E)`$, $`hH_1(E)`$.

For a charge $`k`$ on $`L`$, denote by $`e_k`$ the unique Euler structure on $`E`$ such that $`c(e_k)=_{\mathrm{}}t_{\mathrm{}}^{k(\mathrm{})}`$. Formula (1.2.a) implies that $`(e_k)^1=e_k`$ where $`k`$ is the charge on $`L`$ defined by $`(k)(\mathrm{})=k(\mathrm{})`$. For any charges $`k,k^{}`$ on $`L`$,

$$e_k^{}=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}t_{\mathrm{}}^{(k^{}(\mathrm{})k(\mathrm{}))/2}e_k.$$

If $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ is ordered then a charge on $`L`$ is just an $`m`$-tuple $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)^m`$ satisfying formula (0.a) for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. For a set $`I\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$, we denote by $`L^I`$ the sublink $`\{L_i\}_{iI}`$ of $`L`$. A charge $`k`$ on $`L`$ induces a charge $`k^I`$ on $`L^I`$ by

$$k^I(\mathrm{})=k(\mathrm{})lk(\mathrm{},L\backslash L^I)=k(\mathrm{})lk(\mathrm{},L^{\overline{I}})$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ runs over the components of $`L^I`$ and $`\overline{I}=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}\backslash I`$. The corresponding map $`\text{vect}(E)\text{vect}(E^I)`$ (where $`E^I`$ is the exterior of $`L^I`$) is described as follows. We can obtain $`E^I`$ from $`E`$ by gluing regular neighborhoods of the components of $`L^{\overline{I}}`$. These regular neighborhoods are directed solid tori: the orientation of their cores is determined by the orientation of $`L`$. Gluing to $`e_k\text{vect}(E)`$ the distinguished Euler structures on these directed solid tori we obtain $`e_{k^I}\text{vect}(E^I)`$, so that in the notation of Sect. 1.5 we have $`e_{k^I}=(e_k)^{E^I}`$. This follows from (1.5.c) applied to the inclusion $`EE^I`$. (Here $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_n`$ are the homology classes of the components of $`L^{\overline{I}}`$ in $`E^I`$.)

1.7. Surgery presentation of Euler structures. Let $`M`$ be a closed 3-manifold obtained by Dehn surgery along an oriented link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere $`N`$. This means that $`M`$ is obtained by gluing $`m`$ directed solid tori $`\text{Z}_1,\mathrm{},\text{Z}_m`$ to the exterior $`E`$ of $`L`$. Consider a charge $`k`$ on $`L`$. Gluing to $`e_k\text{vect}(E)`$ the distinguished Euler structures on $`\text{Z}_1,\mathrm{}\text{Z}_m`$ we obtain an Euler structure $`e_k^M=(e_k)^M`$ on $`M`$. If $`k,k^{}^m`$ are two charges on $`L`$ then $`k^{}k=2h`$ with $`h^m=H_1(E)`$ and $`e_k^{}=he_k,e_k^{}^M=\text{in}(h)e_k^M`$ where $`\text{in}:H_1(E)H_1(M)`$ is the inclusion homomorphism. This implies that $`e_k^{}^M=e_k^M`$ if and only if $`h=(k^{}k)/2\text{Ker}(\text{in})`$. Since $`\text{in}:H_1(E)H_1(M)`$ is surjective we obtain that all Euler structures on $`M`$ have the form $`e_k^M`$ for a charge $`k`$ on $`M`$.

For an integral surgery on $`L`$ determined by a framing of $`L`$, we shall always use the following structure of a directed solid tori on $`\text{Z}_1,\mathrm{},\text{Z}_m`$. Let $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_m`$ be disjoint closed regular neighborhoods of $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_m`$ so that $`E=N\backslash _{i=1}^m\text{Int}(U_i)`$. Let $`\text{Z}_i`$ be the solid tori glued to $`U_iE`$ to form $`M`$ where $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. A meridian of $`L_i`$ lying in $`U_i`$ is a core of $`\text{Z}_i`$. The canonical orientation of this meridian induced by the orientation of $`L_i`$ makes $`\text{Z}_i`$ directed.

As an exercise, the reader may check that $`(e_k^M)^1=e_{2k}^M`$ where $`2k`$ is the charge on $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ defined by $`(2k)_i=2k_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

1.8. Proof of Lemma 1.3. In the case $`M=\mathrm{}`$ Lemma 1.3 is essentially obvious. In this case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{}`$ and the lemma amounts to saying that $`c(e)(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ is a trivial homology class. Since $`M`$ is parallelizable, there is a non-singular vector field $`u`$ on $`M`$ homotopic to $`u`$. Clearly, $`c([u])=1`$ and the claim follows from the equality $`c(e)c([u])(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$.

We now prove Lemma 1.3 in the case where $`M=\text{Z}=S^1\times D^2`$ is a solid torus. Let $`h`$ be a generator of $`H_1(\text{Z})`$. It is an elementary topological exercise to check that $`b_0(\mathrm{\Sigma })h\mathrm{\Sigma }(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$. Therefore it remains to prove that for any relative vector field $`u`$ on Z the class $`c([u])`$ is an odd power of $`h`$. We define two residues $`n_+(u),n_{}(u)/2`$ as follows. Choose a trivialization $`v_1`$ (resp. $`v_2,v_3)`$ of the tangent bundle of $`S^1`$ (resp. of $`D^2`$) inducing the given orientation of $`S^1`$. This induces a trivialization $`(v_1,v_2,v_3)`$ of the tangent bundle of Z. Restricting $`u`$ to the disc $`x\times D^2\text{Z}`$ with $`xS^1`$ and using the trivialization $`(v_1,v_2,v_3)`$ we obtain a map $`f_u`$ from $`D^2`$ to the unit 2-sphere $`S^2^3`$ such that $`f_u(D^2)`$ does not meet the poles $`(\pm 1,0,0)`$ of $`S^2`$. Let $`n_+(u)`$ and $`n_{}(u)`$ be the degrees mod 2 of $`f_u`$ with respect to these poles. They depend only on $`[u]\text{vect}(\text{Z})`$. It is clear that $`n_+(u)n_{}(u)=1`$. A simple calculation shows that $`n_\pm (h^ku)=n_\pm (u)+k(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ for any $`k`$. The restriction of $`v_1`$ to $`\text{Z}`$ is canonical and can therefore be used to describe a vector field representing $`[u]^1`$. On the regular neighborhood of $`\text{Z}`$ used in the definition of $`[u]^1`$, this vector field never belongs to $`_+v_1`$. Therefore $`n_{}(u^1)=n_+(u)=n_{}(u)+1`$. Hence $`[u]^1=h^k[u]`$ with odd $`k`$ and $`c([u])=[u]/[u]^1=h^k`$ is an odd power of $`h`$.

Consider now the general case of Lemma 1.3. The intersection of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with a component $`T`$ of $`M`$ is a system of disjoint simple closed curves homotopic to each other. We glue to $`M`$ a solid torus $`\text{Z}_T`$ along $`T`$ so that the curves forming $`\mathrm{\Sigma }T`$ bound disjoint embedded discs in $`\text{Z}_T`$. Denote the union of these discs by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_T`$. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }T=\mathrm{}`$ then we glue a solid torus $`\text{Z}_T`$ to $`M`$ along $`T`$ in an arbitrary way and set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_T=\mathrm{}`$. Applying this procedure for all components $`T`$ of $`M`$ we obtain a closed 3-manifold $`\widehat{M}`$ and a closed embedded surface $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }(_T\mathrm{\Sigma }_T)\widehat{M}`$. Let $`\widehat{e}`$ be the Euler structure on $`\widehat{M}`$ obtained by gluing $`e`$ with arbitrary Euler structures $`\{e_T\text{vect}(\text{Z}_T)\}_T`$. We have $`c(\widehat{e})=c(e)_Tc(e_T)`$. Therefore

$$c(\widehat{e})\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=c(e)\mathrm{\Sigma }+\underset{T}{}c(e_T)\mathrm{\Sigma }_T(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$
$`(1.8.a)`$
By the results of the previous paragraphs, $`c(\widehat{e})\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=0(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ and

$$c(e_T)\mathrm{\Sigma }_T=b_0(\mathrm{\Sigma }_T)=b_0(\mathrm{\Sigma }T)(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

Substituting this in (1.8.a), we obtain $`c(e)\mathrm{\Sigma }=b_0(\mathrm{\Sigma })(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$.

1.9. Remark. The Euler structures on a closed oriented 3-manifold $`M`$ bijectively correspond to $`Spin^c`$-structures on the tangent vector bundle $`TMM`$ of $`M`$. The $`Spin^c`$-structure corresponding to the class $`[u]`$ of a non-singular vector field $`u`$ on $`M`$ is defined as follows. The 2-dimensional quotient vector bundle $`TM/u`$ is oriented and therefore has the structure group $`U(1)`$. This reduces the structure group of $`TM=(TM/u)u`$ to $`U(1)=U(1)(1)U(2)=Spin^c(3)`$. Similarly, for a compact oriented 3-manifold $`M`$ whose boundary consists of tori there is a bijection of $`\text{vect}(M)`$ on the set of relative $`Spin^c`$-structures on $`M`$, see \[Tu6\].

2. Torsions of chain complexes

2.1. Basic definitions.  Having two bases $`c,c^{}`$ of a finite dimensional vector space, we can expand the vectors of $`c`$ as linear combinations of the vectors of $`c^{}`$. The determinant of the resulting square matrix is denoted by $`[c/c^{}]`$. The bases $`c,c^{}`$ are equivalent if $`[c/c^{}]=1`$.

Let $`C=(C_mC_{m1}\mathrm{}C_0)`$ be a finite dimensional chain complex of length $`m`$ over a field $`F`$. Suppose that for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},m`$ both $`C_i`$ and $`H_i(C)`$ are based, i.e., have a distinguished basis. In this situation one defines the torsion $`\tau (C)`$ as follows (cf. \[Mi1\], \[Mi2\]). Let $`c_i`$ be the given basis in $`C_i`$ and let $`h_i`$ be a sequence of vectors in $`\text{Ker}(_{i1}:C_iC_{i1})`$ whose images under the projection $`\text{Ker}_{i1}H_i(C)`$ form the given basis in $`H_i(C)`$. Let $`b_i`$ be a sequence of vectors in $`C_i`$ such that $`_{i1}(b_i)`$ is a basis in $`\text{Im}_{i1}`$. Then for every $`i`$, the sequence $`_i(b_{i+1})h_ib_i`$ is a basis in $`C_i`$. Set

$$\tau (C)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}[_i(b_{i+1})h_ib_i/c_i]^{(1)^{i+1}}F.$$

The torsion $`\tau (C)`$ depends on the equivalence classes of the given bases in $`C_i,H_i(C)`$ and does not depend on the choice of $`h_i,b_i`$. If $`C`$ is acyclic then the definition of $`\tau (C)`$ simplifies since there is no need to fix a basis in $`H_{}(C)`$.

We shall use a “sign-refined” torsion $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }`$ introduced in \[Tu3\]. Set

$$\alpha _i(C)=\text{dim}C_i+\text{dim}C_{i1}+\mathrm{}+\text{dim}C_0(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})/2,$$

$$\beta _i(C)=\text{dim}H_i(C)+\text{dim}H_{i1}(C)+\mathrm{}+\text{dim}H_0(C)(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})/2,$$

$$N(C)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}\alpha _i(C)\beta _i(C)/2.$$

Set $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C)=(1)^{N(C)}\tau (C)F`$. If $`C`$ is acyclic then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C)=\tau (C)`$.

2.2. Relative torsions.  Let $`C=(C_m\mathrm{}C_0)`$ be a finite dimensional chain complex over a field $`F`$ and let $`C^{}=(C_m^{}\mathrm{}C_0^{})`$ be a chain subcomplex of $`C`$. Suppose that the homology of $`C,C^{}`$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }=C/C^{}`$ are based. (The complexes themselves are not assumed to be based). We define a relative torsion $`\tau (C^{}C)`$ as follows. Denote by $``$ the homology sequence of the pair $`(C,C^{})`$:

$$=(H_m(C^{})H_m(C)H_m(C^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{}H_0(C)H_0(C^{\prime \prime })).$$

Clearly, $``$ is a based acyclic chain complex over $`F`$. Set

$$\tau (C^{}C)=(1)^{\theta (C,C^{})}\tau ()F$$

where

$$\theta (C,C^{})=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}[(\beta _i(C)+1)(\beta _i(C^{})+\beta _i(C^{\prime \prime }))+\beta _{i1}(C^{})\beta _i(C^{\prime \prime })]/2.$$

The relative torsion $`\tau (C^{}C)`$ can be expressed in terms of the torsions of $`C,C^{},C^{\prime \prime }`$. Namely, provide for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},m`$ the vector spaces $`C_i,C_i^{},C_i^{\prime \prime }=C_i/C_i^{}`$ with compatible bases $`c_i,c_i^{},c_i^{\prime \prime }`$ where the compatibility means that $`c_i`$ is equivalent to the basis $`c_i^{}c_i^{\prime \prime }`$ obtained as a juxtaposition of $`c_i^{}`$ with a lift of $`c_i^{\prime \prime }`$ to $`C_i`$. Then (see \[Tu3\], Lemma 3.4.2)

$$\tau (C^{}C)=(1)^{\nu (C,C^{})}\frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C)}{\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^{})\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^{\prime \prime })}$$
$`(2.2.a)`$
where

$$\nu (C,C^{})=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}\alpha _i(C^{\prime \prime })\alpha _{i1}(C^{})/2.$$
$`(2.2.b)`$
If $`C,C^{}`$ are acyclic, then $`\tau (C^{}C)=1`$ and (2.2.a) yields

$$\tau (C)=(1)^{\nu (C,C^{})}\tau (C^{})\tau (C^{\prime \prime }).$$
$`(2.2.c)`$
2.3. Lemma.  Let $`C^1C^2C^3`$ be finite dimensional chain complexes of length $`m`$ over a field $`F`$. Suppose that the homology of the chain complexes $`C^1,C^2,C^3,C^2/C^1,C^3/C^1,C^3/C^2`$ are based. Then

$$\tau (C^1C^3)=\frac{\tau (C^1C^2)\tau (C^2C^3)}{\tau (C^2/C^1C^3/C^1)}.$$
$`(2.3.a)`$
Proof. Choose in each $`C_i^3`$ a basis whose first $`\text{dim}C_i^1`$ vectors lie in $`C_i^1`$ and the next $`\text{dim}C_i^2\text{dim}C_i^1`$ vectors lie in $`C_i^2`$. This basis determines bases in $`C_i^1,C_i^2,C_i^2/C_i^1,C_i^3/C_i^1,C_i^3/C_i^2`$ in the obvious way. By (2.2.a), for any $`1p<q3`$,

$$\tau (C^pC^q)=(1)^{\nu (C^q,C^p)}\frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^q)}{\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^p)\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^q/C^p)},$$

$$\tau (C^2/C^1C^3/C^1)=(1)^{\nu (C^3/C^1,C^2/C^1)}\frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^3/C^1)}{\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^2/C^1)\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^3/C^2)}.$$

Substituting these expressions in (2.3.a) we obtain that (2.3.a) is equivalent to

$$\nu (C^2,C^1)+\nu (C^3,C^1)+\nu (C^3,C^2)+\nu (C^3/C^1,C^2/C^1)=0.$$

This formula follows from (2.2.b) and the equalities $`\alpha _i(C^q/C^p)=\alpha _i(C^q)\alpha _i(C^p)`$ for all $`1p<q3`$. This implies (2.3.a).

3. Homology orientations of 3-manifolds

3.1. Homology orientations  A homology orientation $`\omega `$ of a finite CW-pair $`(X,Y)`$ is an orientation of the vector space $`H_{}(X,Y;)=_{i0}H_i(X,Y;)`$. We denote by $`\omega `$ the opposite orientation.

The exterior, $`E`$, of an oriented link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere $`N`$ has a canonical homology orientation $`\omega _L`$ determined by the basis $`([pt],t_1,\mathrm{},t_m,g_1,\mathrm{},g_{m1})`$ where $`[pt]`$ is the homology class of a point in $`E`$, $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ are the meridional generators of $`H_1(E;)`$, and $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_{m1}`$ are the generators of $`H_2(E;)`$ represented by oriented boundaries of regular neighborhods of $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_{m1}`$, respectively. (We use the “outward vector first” conveniton for the orientation of the boundary. The orientation in the regular neighborhoods is induced by the one in $`N`$). Note that $`\omega _L`$ does not depend on the numeration of the components of $`L`$ and changes sign under inversion of the orientation of a component of $`L`$.

3.2. Induced homology orientations. Let $`M`$ be a 3-manifold obtained by gluing $`m`$ directed solid tori $`\text{Z}_1=S^1\times D_1,\mathrm{},\text{Z}_m=S^1\times D_m`$ to a compact 3-manifold $`E`$. The aim of this section is to show that a homology orientation, $`\omega `$, of $`E`$ induces in a natural way a homology orientation, $`\omega ^M`$, of $`M`$.

Fix an orientation of the 2-discs $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_m`$ and provide each $`\text{Z}_i=S^1\times D_i`$ with orientation obtained as the product of the given orientation of its core and the fixed orientation in $`D_i`$. Clearly,

$$H_2(\text{Z}_i,\text{Z}_i;)=[D_i,D_i],H_3(\text{Z}_i,\text{Z}_i;)=[\text{Z}_i,\text{Z}_i].$$

By excision, the vector space $`H_{}(M,E;)=^{2m}`$ has a basis

$$[D_1,D_1],\mathrm{},[D_m,D_m],[\text{Z}_1,\text{Z}_1],\mathrm{},[\text{Z}_m,\text{Z}_m].$$

Denote the homology orientation of $`(M,E)`$ determined by this basis by $`\omega _{(M,E)}`$. It is easy to check that $`\omega _{(M,E)}`$ depends neither on the choice of orientations in $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_m`$ nor on the numeration of $`\text{Z}_1,\mathrm{},\text{Z}_m`$.

There is a unique homology orientation $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ of $`M`$ such that the torsion of the exact homology sequence of the pair $`(M,E)`$

$$=(H_3(E;)H_3(M;)H_3(M,E;)\mathrm{}H_0(E;)H_0(M;))$$

has a positive sign. It is understood that the torsion is taken with respect to arbitrary bases in $`H_{}(E;),H_{}(M;),H_{}(M,E;)`$ determining the orientations $`\omega ,\stackrel{~}{\omega },\omega _{(M,E)}`$, respectively. (The sign of $`\tau ()\backslash \{0\}`$ depends only on these orientations and does not depend on the choice of the bases). The homology orientation $`\omega ^M`$ of $`M`$ induced by  $`\omega `$ is defined by

$$\omega ^M=(1)^{mb_3(M)+(b_0(E)+b_1(E))(b_0(M)+b_1(M)+m+1)+b_3(E)(b_3(M)+1)}\stackrel{~}{\omega }.$$
$`(3.2.a)`$
The sign on the right-hand side is needed to ensure Lemma 3.3 below.

Clearly $`(\omega )^M=(\omega ^M)`$. If $`m=0`$ then $`M=E`$ and $`\omega ^M=\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega `$. In the case of connected $`E`$, formula (3.2.a) simplifies to

$$\omega ^M=(1)^{mb_3(M)+(b_1(E)+1)(b_1(M)+m)}\stackrel{~}{\omega }$$
$`(3.2.b)`$
We establish two useful properties of induced homology orientations.

3.3. Lemma (transitivity).  Let $`E`$ be a compact 3-manifold whose boundary consists of tori. Let $`ME`$ be obtained by gluing directed solid tori to $`E`$. Let $`M^{}M`$ be obtained by gluing directed solid tori to $`M`$. Then for any homology orientation $`\omega `$ of $`E`$,

$$\omega ^M^{}=(\omega ^M)^M^{}.$$

Proof. Assume that $`M`$ is obtained from $`E`$ by gluing $`p`$ directed solid tori and $`M^{}`$ is obtained from $`M`$ by gluing $`q`$ directed solid tori. Fix a CW-decomposition of $`M^{}`$ such that both $`M`$ and $`E`$ are its CW-subcomplexes. Consider the cellular chain complexes

$$c^1=C_{}(E;)c^2=C_{}(M;)c^3=C_{}(M^{};).$$

We fix orientations of the meridional discs of the solid tori forming $`M^{}\backslash E`$ and provide $`H_{}(c^2/c^1),H_{}(c^3/c^1)`$, $`H_{}(c^3/c^2)`$ with bases as in Sect. 3.2. Let us provide $`H_{}(c^1),H_{}(c^2)`$ with bases determining the homology orientations $`\omega ,\omega ^M`$, respectively. The corresponding relative torsion $`\tau (c^1c^2)\backslash \{0\}`$ depends on the choice of the bases but its sign $`\pm 1`$, denoted $`\tau _0(c^1c^2,\omega ,\omega ^M)`$, depends only on $`\omega ,\omega ^M`$. The definition of $`\omega ^M`$ can be reformulated by saying that

$$\tau _0(c^1c^2,\omega ,\omega ^M)$$

$$=(1)^{\theta (c^2,c^1)+pb_3(M)+(b_0(E)+b_1(E))(b_0(M)+b_1(M)+p+1)+b_3(E)(b_3(M)+1)}.$$

A direct computation shows that

$$\theta (c^2,c^1)$$

$$=pb_3(M)+(b_0(E)+b_1(E))(b_0(M)+b_1(M)+p+1)+b_3(E)(b_3(M)+1)+p(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

This follows from the definition of $`\theta (c^2,c^1)`$ and the following equalities mod 2:

$$\beta _i(c^2/c^1)=\{\begin{array}{cc}p,ifi=2,\hfill & \\ 0,ifi2,\hfill & \end{array}$$

$$\beta _i(c^1)=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_0(E),ifi=0,\hfill & \\ b_0(E)+b_1(E),ifi=1,\hfill & \\ b_3(E),ifi=2,\hfill & \\ 0,ifi3,\hfill & \end{array}\beta _i(c^2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_0(M)=b_0(E),ifi=0,\hfill & \\ b_0(M)+b_1(M),ifi=1,\hfill & \\ b_3(M),ifi=2,\hfill & \\ 0,ifi3.\hfill & \end{array}$$

(Here we use that $`\chi (E)=\chi (E)/2=0`$ and $`\chi (M)=\chi (M)/2=0`$.) Thus, the definition of $`\omega ^M`$ can be reformulated by saying that

$$\tau _0(c^1c^2,\omega ,\omega ^M)=(1)^p.$$
$`(3.3.a)`$
Similarly,

$$\tau _0(c^2c^3,\omega ^M,(\omega ^M)^M^{})=(1)^q,\tau _0(c^1c^3,\omega ,\omega ^M^{})=(1)^{p+q}.$$

It is easy to compute that $`\theta (c^3/c^1,c^2/c^1)=0`$ and $`\tau (c^2/c^1c^3/c^1)=+1`$. Applying Lemma 2.3 and taking signs we obtain that

$$\tau _0(c^1c^3,\omega ,(\omega ^M)^M^{})=\tau _0(c^1c^2,\omega ,\omega ^M)\tau _0(c^2c^3,\omega ^M,(\omega ^M)^M^{})$$

$$=(1)^{p+q}=\tau _0(c^1c^3,\omega ,\omega ^M^{}).$$

Therefore $`(\omega ^M)^M^{}=\omega ^M^{}`$.

3.4. Lemma.  Let $`E`$ be the exterior of an oriented link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere $`N`$. Let $`E^{}E`$ be the exterior of a non-void sublink $`L^{}`$ of $`L`$. Then $`E^{}`$ is obtained from $`E`$ by gluing directed solid tori and $`(\omega _L)^E^{}=\omega _L^{}`$.

Proof. Lemma 3.3 allows to deduce this lemma by induction from the case where $`L^{}`$ has one component less than $`L`$. We however prefer to give a direct proof in the general case. Assume for concreteness that $`L^{}=L_1\mathrm{}L_n`$ with $`1nm`$. It is clear that $`E^{}`$ is obtained from $`E`$ by gluing $`mn`$ directed solid tori $`\text{Z}_{n+1},\mathrm{},\text{Z}_m`$ which are regular neighborhoods of $`L_{n+1},\mathrm{},L_m`$, respectively. We orient the meridional disc of each $`\text{Z}_i`$ so that its intersection index with $`L_i`$ equals $`+1`$. This yields a basis in $`H_{}(E^{},E)`$ as in Sect. 3.2. The homology $`H_{}(E),H_(E^{})`$ have bases described in Sect. 3.1. The exact homology sequence, $``$, of the pair $`(E^{},E)`$ splits as a concatenation of two short exact sequences

$$H_3(E^{},E)H_2(E)H_2(E^{}),H_2(E^{},E)H_1(E)H_1(E^{})$$

and the inclusion isomorphism $`H_0(E)H_0(E^{})`$. The torsions of these pieces with respect to the choosen bases are equal to $`(1)^{mn+n},(1)^{mn+n}`$ and $`+1`$, respectively. Hence $`\tau ()=+1`$ and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_L=\omega _L^{}`$. The numerical expression appearing in (3.2.b) equals

$$(mn)b_3(E^{})+(b_1(E)+1)(b_1(E^{})+mn)0(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$

Therefore the sign in (3.2.b) is $`+`$ and $`(\omega _L)^E^{}=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_L=\omega _L^{}`$.

4. Combinatorial Euler structures on 3-manifolds

4.1. Combinatorial Euler structures.  In this and the next two subsections we recall the theory of combinatorial Euler structures and their torsions following \[Tu4\]. Let $`X`$ be a finite $`CW`$ space. An Euler chain in $`X`$ is a 1-dimensional singular chain $`\xi `$ in $`X`$ with

$$\xi =\underset{a}{}(1)^{\text{dim}a}\alpha _a$$

where $`a`$ runs over all (open) cells of $`X`$ and $`\alpha _a`$ is a point in $`a`$. For two Euler chains $`\xi ,\eta `$ we define a “quotient” $`\xi /\eta H_1(X)`$ as follows. Let

$$\xi =\underset{a}{}(1)^{\text{dim}a}\alpha _a\text{and}\eta =\underset{a}{}(1)^{\text{dim}a}\beta _a$$

where $`\alpha _a,\beta _aa`$. For each cell $`a`$, choose a path $`\gamma _a:[0,1]a`$ from $`\alpha _a`$ to $`\beta _a`$. Then $`\xi /\eta H_1(X)`$ is the homology class of the singular 1-cycle $`\xi \eta +_a(1)^{\text{dim}a}\gamma _a`$.

We say that two Euler chains $`\xi ,\eta `$ in $`X`$ define the same (combinatorial) Euler structure on $`X`$ if $`\xi /\eta =1`$. The Euler structure represented by $`\xi `$ is denoted by $`[\xi ]`$. The set of Euler structures on $`X`$ is denoted by $`\text{Eul}(X)`$. This set is non-void iff for every connected component $`X_0`$ of $`X`$ we have $`\chi (X_0)=0`$. It is clear that $`\text{Eul}(X)=_{X_0}\text{Eul}(X_0)`$ where $`X_0`$ runs over the components of $`X`$.

The group $`H_1(X)`$ acts on $`\text{Eul}(X)`$: if $`[h]H_1(X)`$ is the homology class of a 1-cycle $`h`$ and $`\xi `$ is an Euler chain on $`X`$ then $`[h][\xi ]=[\xi +h]\text{Eul}(X)`$. If $`\text{Eul}(X)\mathrm{}`$ then this action is free and transitive.

For any cellular subdivision $`X^{}`$ of $`X`$ there is a canonical $`H_1(X)`$-equivariant bijection $`\text{Eul}(X)\text{Eul}(X^{})`$. This allows us to define the set of combinatorial Euler structures $`\text{Eul}(M)`$ for a smooth compact manifold $`M`$. This set is obtained by identification of the sets $`\{\text{Eul}(X)\}_X`$ where $`X`$ runs over the $`C^1`$-triangulations of $`M`$. By \[Tu4\], there is a canonical $`H_1(M)`$-equivariant bijection $`\text{Eul}(M)=\text{vect}(M)`$.

4.2. Torsions of Euler structures.  Let $`X`$ be a finite connected $`CW`$ space with $`\chi (X)=0`$. Let $`F`$ be a field and $`\phi :[H_1(X)]F`$ be a ring homomorphism. For every Euler structure $`e\text{Eul}(X)`$ and every homology orientation $`\omega `$ of $`X`$ we define a torsion $`\tau ^\phi (X,e,\omega )F`$.

Consider the maximal abelian covering $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`X`$ with its induced $`CW`$ structure. The group $`H=H_1(X)`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ via the covering transformations permuting the cells in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ lying over any given cell in $`X`$. A family of cells in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is said to be fundamental if over each cell of $`X`$ lies exactly one cell of this family. Every fundamental family of cells in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ gives rise to an Euler structure on $`X`$: consider a spider in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ formed by arcs in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ connecting a point $`x\stackrel{~}{X}`$ to points in these cells; the arc joining $`x`$ to a point of an odd-dimensional (resp. even-dimensional) cell should be oriented towards $`x`$ (resp. out of $`x`$). Projecting this spider to $`X`$ we obtain an Euler chain in $`X`$ representing an element of $`\text{Eul}(X)`$. It is clear that any Euler structure on $`X`$ arises in this way from a fundamental family of cells in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. We fix a fundamental family of cells $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ corresponding to $`e\text{Eul}(X)`$ in this way.

We orient and order the cells in the family $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ in an arbitrary way. This yields a basis for the cellular chain complex $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X})=C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X};)`$ over $`[H]`$. Consider the induced basis in the chain complex over $`F`$

$$C_{}^\phi (X)=F_{[H]}C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X})$$

where $`[H]`$ acts on $`F`$ via $`\phi `$. If this based chain complex is acyclic, i.e., $`H_{}^\phi (X)=H_{}(C_{}^\phi (X))=0`$, then we can consider its torsion $`\tau (C_{}^\phi (X))F\backslash 0`$. Since the cells of $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ are in bijective correspondence with the cells of $`X`$, the choosen orientation and order for the cells of $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ induce an orientation and an order for the cells of $`X`$. This yields a basis of the cellular chain complex $`C_{}(X;)`$ over $``$. Provide the homology of $`C_{}(X;)`$ with a basis determining the homology orientation $`\omega `$. Consider the sign-refined torsion $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C_{}(X;))\backslash \{0\}`$ of the resulting based chain complex with based homology. We need only its sign $`\pm 1`$ denoted $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(C_{}(X;))`$. Set

$$\tau ^\phi (X,e,\omega )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(C_{}(X;))\tau (C_{}^\phi (X))F\backslash \{0\},ifH_{}^\phi (X)=0,\hfill & \\ 0F,ifH_{}^\phi (X)0.\hfill & \end{array}$$

It turns out that $`\tau ^\phi (X,e,\omega )F`$ does not depend on the auxiliary choices and is invariant under cellular subdivisions of $`X`$. We have

$$\tau ^\phi (X,e,\omega )=\tau ^\phi (X,e,\omega )\text{and}\tau ^\phi (X,he,\omega )=\phi (h)\tau ^\phi (X,e,\omega )$$
$`(4.2.a)`$
for any $`e\text{Eul}(X),hH_1(X)`$,

We shall use the notation $`\tau ^\phi (X,e)`$ for $`\pm \tau ^\phi (X,e,\omega )`$:

$$\tau ^\phi (X,e)=\pm \tau ^\phi (X,e,\omega )=\tau ^\phi (X,e,\pm \omega ).$$

We will view $`\tau ^\phi (X,e)`$ as an element of $`F`$ defined up to multiplication by $`1`$.

The definition of $`\tau ^\phi (X,e,\omega )`$ extends by multiplicativity to the case of a non-connected finite CW space $`X`$. All the connected components of $`X`$ should be homology oriented. Then the torsion corresponding to $`e\text{Eul}(X)`$ and a ring homomorphism $`\phi :[H_1(X)]F`$ is defined as the product of the torsions of the components of $`X`$ corresponding to the restrictions of $`e`$ and $`\phi `$.

In Section 6 we shall need a version $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }^\phi `$ of $`\tau ^\phi `$ which is always non-zero. Assume that the vector space $`H_{}^\phi (X)`$ is endowed with a basis $`b`$ and set

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }^\phi (X,e,\omega ;b)=\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(C_{}(X;))\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C_{}^\phi (X),b)F$$

where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(C_{}(X;))=\pm 1`$ is the same sign as above and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C_{}^\phi (X),b)`$ is the torsion $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }`$ of $`C_{}^\phi (X)`$ corresponding to the basis $`b`$ in homology. The bases in the vector spaces of chains are determined by $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ as above. The torsion $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }^\phi (X,e,\omega ;b)`$ does not depend on the auxiliary choices, never equals $`0`$ and is invariant under cellular subdivisions of $`X`$. If $`H_{}^\phi (X)=0`$ then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }^\phi (X,e,\omega ;\mathrm{})=\tau ^\phi (X,e,\omega )`$.

4.3. Example.  The 2-torus $`T=S^1\times S^1`$ has a canonical Euler structure, $`e_T^{\text{can}}`$, defined as follows. Set $`H=H_1(T)=^2`$. Consider the inclusion $`\mu `$ of the group ring $`[H]`$ into its field of quotients $`Q(H)`$. It is easy to check (using for instance a CW-decomposition of $`T`$ consisting of one 0-cell, two 1-cells and one 2-cell) that the chain complex $`C_{}^\mu (T)`$ is acyclic and for any $`e\text{Eul}(T)`$, $`\tau ^\mu (T,e)=\pm g_e`$ with $`g_eH`$. By (4.2.a), $`g_{he}=hg_e`$ for all $`hH`$. Therefore the formula $`eg_e`$ establishes a bijection $`\text{Eul}(T)H`$ natural with respect to diffeomorphisms $`TT`$. The Euler structure $`e\text{Eul}(T)`$ with $`g_e=1H`$ is denoted $`e_T^{\text{can}}`$. This is the unique Euler structure on $`T`$ invariant under all diffeomorphisms $`TT`$. Therefore under the identification $`\text{Eul}(T)=\text{vect}(T)`$, $`e_T^{\text{can}}`$ corresponds to the class $`[w]`$ described in Sect. 1.1.

One can check using the CW-decomposition of $`T`$ as above, that for any field $`F`$ and any ring homomorphism $`\phi :[H_1(T)]F`$ such that $`\phi (H_1(T))1`$, we have

$$\tau ^\phi (T,e_T^{\text{can}})=\pm 1.$$
$`(4.3.a)`$
4.4. Gluing of combinatorial Euler structures.  Let $`M`$ be a compact 3-manifold whose boundary consists of tori. Let $`TM\backslash M`$ be a finite system of disjoint embedded 2-tori splitting $`M`$ into two 3-manifolds $`M_0,M_1`$. We define a gluing map $`:\text{Eul}(M_0)\times \text{Eul}(M_1)\text{Eul}(M)`$ as follows. Fix a CW-decomposition of $`M`$ so that $`M_0,M_1,T`$ are its CW-subcomplexes. If $`\xi _0,\xi _1`$ are Euler chains on $`M_0,M_1`$, respectively, then we set

$$[\xi _0][\xi _1]=[\xi _0+\xi _1\xi ]\text{Eul}(M)$$

where $`\xi `$ is an Euler chain on $`T`$ representing the canonical Euler structure on each component of $`T`$, cf. Sect. 4.3. Note that $`\xi _0+\xi _1\xi `$ is an Euler chain on $`M`$. It is clear that the gluing operation $``$ satisfies (1.5.b) where $`e_0\text{Eul}(M_0),e_1\text{Eul}(M_1)`$. It can be deduced from definitions that the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{Eul}(M_0)\times \text{Eul}(M_1)& \stackrel{}{}& \text{Eul}(M)\\ =& & =& & \\ \text{vect}(M_0)\times \text{vect}(M_1)& \stackrel{}{}& \text{vect}(M)\end{array}$$

is commutative.

4.5. Lemma.  Let $`M,T,M_0,M_1`$ be the same objects as in Sect. 4.4. Let $`F`$ be a field and $`\phi :[H_1(M)]F`$ be a ring homomorphism such that for every component $`T^{}`$ of $`T`$, we have $`\phi (H_1(T^{}))1`$. Let $`\text{in}_i:[H_1(M_i)][H_1(M)]`$ be the ring homomorphism induced by the inclusion homomorphism $`H_1(M_i)H_1(M)`$ where $`i=0,1`$. Then for any $`e_0\text{Eul}(M_0),e_1\text{Eul}(M_1)`$,

$$\tau ^\phi (M,e_0e_1)=\tau ^{\phi \text{in}_0}(M_0,e_0)\tau ^{\phi \text{in}_1}(M_1,e_1)F/\{\pm 1\}.$$
$`(4.5.a)`$
Proof. Let us assume for simplicity that $`M_0,M_1`$ are connected and $`T`$ is a 2-torus; the general case is similar. Fix a CW-decomposition of $`M`$ so that $`M_0,M_1,T`$ are its CW-subcomplexes. Denote the inclusion homomorphism $`[H_1(T)][H_1(M)]`$ by in. We have the usual short exact sequence of chain complexes

$$0C_{}^{\phi \text{in}}(T)C^{\phi \text{in}_0}(M_0)C^{\phi \text{in}_1}(M_1)C_{}^\phi (M)0.$$
$`(4.5.b)`$
The assumption $`\phi (H_1(T))1`$ implies that $`C_{}^{\phi \text{in}}(T)`$ is acyclic. If $`C_{}^\phi (M)`$ is not acyclic then at least one of the complexes $`C^{\phi \text{in}_0}(M_0),C^{\phi \text{in}_1}(M_1)`$ is not acyclic and both sides of (4.5.a) are equal to 0. Assume that $`C_{}^\phi (M)`$ is acyclic. Then all the complexes involved are acyclic and the torsions in (4.5.a) are non-zero.

We now describe the gluing of combinatorial Euler structures in terms of fundamental families of cells. Let $`\stackrel{~}{T},\stackrel{~}{M}_0,\stackrel{~}{M}_1,\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be the maximal abelian coverings of $`T,M_0,M_1,M`$, respectively. We have a commutative diagram of cellular maps

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{T}& \stackrel{f_0}{}& \stackrel{~}{M}_0\\ f_1& & g_0& & \\ \stackrel{~}{M}_1& \stackrel{g_1}{}& \stackrel{~}{M}.\end{array}$$

Each of these maps is a lift of the corresponding inclusion and is equivariant with respect to the inclusion homomorphism in 1-homology. For instance, the map $`\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ is a lift of the inclusion $`TM_0`$ and is equivariant with respect to the inclusion homomorphism $`H_1(T)H_1(M_0)`$. Choose a fundamental family of cells $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ representing $`e_T^{\text{can}}`$. It is clear that $`f_0(\stackrel{~}{e})`$ is a family of cells in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ such that over each cell of $`TM_0`$ lies exactly one cell of this family. We can add to $`f_0(\stackrel{~}{e})`$ a certain set $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0`$ of cells in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0\backslash f_0(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ so that $`f_0(\stackrel{~}{e})\stackrel{~}{e}_0`$ is a fundamental family of cells in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ representing $`e_0`$. Choose also a fundamental family of cells $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1`$ representing $`e_1`$. Then $`g_0(\stackrel{~}{e}_0)g_1(\stackrel{~}{e}_1)`$ is a fundamental family of cells in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. It follows from definitions that this family represents $`e_0e_1`$.

The families of cells $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$, $`f_0(\stackrel{~}{e})\stackrel{~}{e}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$, and $`g_0(\stackrel{~}{e}_0)g_1(\stackrel{~}{e}_1)`$ determine bases in the chain complexes $`C_{}^{\phi \text{in}}(T),C^{\phi \text{in}_i}(M_i)`$ with $`i=0,1`$, and $`C_{}^\phi (M)`$, respectively. It follows from (4.3.a) and definitions that the corresponding torsions are equal to $`\pm 1`$, $`\tau ^{\phi \text{in}_i}(M_i,e_i)`$ with $`i=0,1`$ and $`\tau ^\phi (M,e_0e_1)`$. These bases in $`C_{}^{\phi \text{in}}(T),C^{\phi \text{in}_0}(M_0)C^{\phi \text{in}_1}(M_1)`$, and $`C_{}^\phi (M)`$ are compatible in the sense of Sect. 2.2 (at least up to sign). Now, formula (2.2.c) implies (4.5.a).

4.6. Duality for torsions. One of the fundamental properties of the Reidemeister torsions is the duality due to Franz \[Fr\] and Milnor \[Mi1\]. We state the duality theorem for torsions of Euler structures on 3-manifolds following \[Tu4\]. Let $`M`$ be a compact orientable 3-manifold whose boundary consists of tori. Let $`F`$ be a field with involution $`f\overline{f}:FF`$ and $`\phi :[H_1(M)]F`$ be a ring homomorphism such that $`\overline{\phi (h)}=\phi (h^1)`$ for any $`hH_1(M)`$. Then for every $`e\text{vect}(M)=\text{Eul}(M)`$,

$$\overline{\tau ^\phi (M,e)}=\tau ^\phi (M,e^1)=\phi (c(e))^1\tau ^\phi (M,e).$$
$`(4.6.a)`$
All torsions here are elements of $`F`$ defined up to multiplication by $`1`$. For closed 3-manifolds formula (4.6.a) is established in \[Tu4\], Appendix B. Here we use this result to prove (4.6.a) in the case $`M\mathrm{}`$. Denote by $`K`$ the double of $`M`$ obtained by gluing two copies of $`M`$ along the identity homeomorphism of the boundaries. Clearly, $`K`$ is a closed orientable 3-manifold. Let $`\psi :[H_1(K)][H_1(M)]`$ be the ring homomorphism induced by the natural folding map $`KM`$ which is the identity on both copies of $`M`$. The restrictions of $`\phi \psi `$ to both copies of $`M`$ are equal to $`\phi `$. Applying (4.6.a) to the Euler structure $`ee`$ on $`K`$ we obtain

$$\overline{\tau ^{\phi \psi }(K,ee)}=\tau ^{\phi \psi }(K,(ee)^1)=\tau ^{\phi \psi }(K,e^1e^1).$$

By Lemma 4.5,

$$\tau ^{\phi \psi }(K,ee)=(\tau ^\phi (M,e))^2,\tau ^{\phi \psi }(K,e^1e^1)=(\tau ^\phi (M,e^1))^2.$$

Thus,

$$\overline{\tau ^\phi (M,e)}^2=(\tau ^\phi (M,e^1))^2$$

and therefore $`\overline{\tau ^\phi (M,e)}=\tau ^\phi (M,e^1)`$.

In Appendix 3 we discuss a more precise version of duality taking into account homology orientations.

5. The Torres formula for torsions

5.1. Lemma.  Let $`E`$ be a compact connected 3-manifold such that $`E`$ consists of tori. Let $`M`$ be a 3-manifold obtained by gluing a directed solid torus Z to $`E`$ and let $`hH_1(M)`$ be the homology class of the core of Z. Let $`F`$ be a field and $`\phi :[H_1(E)]F`$ be a ring homomorphism inducing a ring homomorphism $`\phi ^M:[H_1(M)]F`$. Then for any $`e\text{Eul}(E)`$ and any homology orientation $`\omega `$ of $`E`$,

$$\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega )=(\phi ^M(h)1)\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,e^M,\omega ^M).$$
$`(5.1.a)`$
The condition on $`\phi `$ means that $`\phi `$ maps the homology class of the boundary of the meridional disc of Z to $`1`$. Lemma 5.1 is a version of the Torres identity for the Alexander polynomials of links in $`S^3`$.

We prove Lemma 5.1 in Sect. 5.3 after a few preliminary computations.

5.2. Solid torus re-examined. Let $`\text{Z}=S^1\times D^2`$ be a directed solid torus endowed with a CW-decomposition obtained from a certain CW-decomposition of $`\text{Z}`$ by adjoining two cells: a 2-cell $`a^2=x\times D^2`$ with $`xS^1`$ and a 3-cell $`a^3`$ with interior $`(S^1\backslash \{x\})\times \text{Int}(D^2)`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Z}}=\times D^2`$ be the universal covering of Z with induced CW-decomposition. We shall exhibit a fundamental family of cells in $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Z}}`$ representing the distinguished Euler structure $`e_\text{Z}`$ on Z, cf. Sect. 1.4.

Choose a fundamental family of cells in the maximal abelian covering of $`\text{Z}`$ representing $`e_\text{Z}^{\text{can}}\text{Eul}(\text{Z})`$, cf. Sect. 4.3. Projecting this family to $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Z}}`$ we obtain a family of cells, $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$, in $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Z}}`$ such that over each cell of $`\text{Z}`$ lies exactly one cell of $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$. We lift $`a^2,a^3`$ to cells $`\stackrel{~}{a}^2,\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Z}}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{a}^3=\pm (h1)\stackrel{~}{a}^2`$ modulo 2-cells lying in $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Z}}`$. Here $`h=h_\text{Z}H_1(\text{Z})`$ is the distinguished generator. The family of cells $`\stackrel{~}{e},\stackrel{~}{a}^2,\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Z}}`$ is fundamental and represents a certain Euler structure $`e\text{Eul}(\text{Z})`$. We claim that $`e=e_\text{Z}`$.

We need to check that $`c(e)=h^1`$. One possible proof consists in a combinatorial computation of $`c(e)`$ from a fundamental family of cells (or from an Euler chain) representing $`e`$. We shall use another approach based on (4.6.a). Set $`H=H_1(\text{Z})`$ and consider the inclusion $`\mu `$ of the group ring $`[H]`$ into its field of quotients $`Q(H)`$. We claim that

$$\tau ^\mu (\text{Z},e)=\pm 1/(h1).$$
$`(5.2.a)`$
This would imply the equality $`c(e)=h^1`$ since by (4.6.a),

$$\pm c(e)=\pm \mu (c(e))=\tau ^\mu (M,e)/\overline{\tau ^\mu (M,e)}=\pm (h^11)/(h1)=\pm h^1$$

where the overline denotes the involution in $`Q(H)`$ sending each $`gH`$ to $`g^1`$.

To prove (5.2.a) we consider a short exact sequence of acyclic chain complexes

$$0C_{}^{\mu \text{in}}(\text{Z})C_{}^\mu (\text{Z})C_{}^\mu (\text{Z},\text{Z})0$$

where $`\text{in}:[H_1(\text{Z})][H]`$ is the inclusion homomorphism. We orient and order the cells of $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ so that they determine a basis of $`C_{}^{\mu \text{in}}(\text{Z})`$. By (4.3.a), we have $`\tau (C_{}^{\mu \text{in}}(\text{Z}))=\tau ^{\mu \text{in}}(\text{Z},e_\text{Z}^{\text{can}})=\pm 1`$. The cells $`\stackrel{~}{a}^2,\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$ endowed with arbitrary orientations yield a basis for $`C_{}^\mu (\text{Z},\text{Z})=(Q(H)\stackrel{~}{a}^3Q(H)\stackrel{~}{a}^2)`$. The torsion of this chain complex is equal to $`\pm (h1)^1`$. The family $`\stackrel{~}{e},\stackrel{~}{a}^2,\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$ determines a basis in $`C_{}^\mu (\text{Z})`$. By (2.2.c),

$$\tau ^\mu (\text{Z},e)=\pm \tau (C_{}^\mu (\text{Z}))=\pm \tau (C_{}^{\mu \text{in}}(\text{Z}))\tau (C_{}^\mu (\text{Z},\text{Z}))=\pm (h1)^1.$$

5.3. Proof of Lemma 5.1. We fix a CW-decomposition of $`E`$ (such that $`E`$ is a subcomplex) and extend it to a CW-decomposition of $`M`$ by adjoining two cells $`a^2,a^3\text{Z}`$ as in Sect. 5.2. Choose a fundamental family of cells in the maximal abelian covering of $`E`$ representing $`e\text{Eul}(E)`$. Projecting these cells to the maximal abelian covering, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, of $`M`$ we obtain a family of cells, $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$, in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ such that over each cell of $`E`$ lies exactly one cell of $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$. We lift $`a^2,a^3`$ to cells $`\stackrel{~}{a}^2,\stackrel{~}{a}^3\stackrel{~}{M}`$ so that $`\stackrel{~}{a}^3=\pm (h1)\stackrel{~}{a}^2`$ modulo 2-cells lying over $`\text{Z}`$. It is clear that $`\stackrel{~}{e},\stackrel{~}{a}^2,\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$ is a fundamental family of cells in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. As in Sect. 4.5, one can deduce from the results of Sect. 5.2 that this family represents $`e^M=ee_\text{Z}`$. We orient and order the cells belonging to $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ in an arbitrary way. The cell $`a^2`$ is a meridional disc of Z, we orient it in an arbitrary way and lift this orientation to $`\stackrel{~}{a}^2`$. The product orientation of $`\text{Z}=S^1\times a^2`$ induces orientations in $`a^3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$. With these orientations, $`\stackrel{~}{a}^3=(h1)\stackrel{~}{a}^2`$ modulo 2-cells lying over $`\text{Z}`$.

Consider the chain complexes $`C`$, $`C^{}C`$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ defined by

$$C^{}=C_{}^\phi (E),C=C_{}^{\phi ^M}(M),C^{\prime \prime }=C/C^{}.$$
$`(5.3.a)`$
The family of cells $`\stackrel{~}{e},\stackrel{~}{a}^2,\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$ determines bases in $`C,C^{},C^{\prime \prime }`$ in a compatible way. The non-zero part of $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ amounts to the boundary homomorphism $`F\stackrel{~}{a}^3F\stackrel{~}{a}^2`$ sending $`\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$ to $`(\phi ^M(h)1)\stackrel{~}{a}^2`$. Now we consider two cases.

Case $`\phi ^M(h)1`$. In this case $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ is acyclic and $`\tau (C^{\prime \prime })=(\phi ^M(h)1)^1`$. The complexes $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are acyclic or not simultaneously. If they are not acyclic then both sides of (5.1.a) are equal to 0. Assume that they are acyclic. By (2.2.c),

$$\tau (C)=(1)^{\nu (C,C^{})}\tau (C^{})\tau (C^{\prime \prime })=(1)^{\nu (C,C^{})}\tau (C^{})(\phi ^M(h)1)^1.$$
$`(5.3.b)`$
Consider the chain complexes $`c`$, $`c^{}c`$ and $`c^{\prime \prime }`$ defined by

$$c^{}=C_{}(E;),c=C_{}(M;),c^{\prime \prime }=c/c^{}=C_{}(M,E;).$$
$`(5.3.c)`$
The same ordered families of oriented cells as in the previous paragraph determine bases in $`c^{},c,c^{\prime \prime }`$. We provide their homology with bases determining the homology orientations $`\omega ,\omega ^M,\omega _{(M,E)}`$, respectively (cf. Sect. 3.2). By (2.2.a),

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(c)=(1)^{\nu (c,c^{})}\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(c^{})\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(c^{\prime \prime })\tau _0(c^{}c)$$

where the subindex $`0`$ indicates that we consider the signs of the corresponding torsions. Observe that $`\nu (c,c^{})=\nu (C,C^{})`$ and by (3.3.a), $`\tau _0(c^{}c)=1`$. The non-trivial part of $`c^{\prime \prime }`$ amounts to a zero boundary homomorphism $`a^3a^2`$. The oriented cells $`a^2,a^3`$ determine a basis in $`H_{}(c_2^{\prime \prime })=H_{}(M,E;)`$ representing $`\omega _{(M,E)}`$. Hence $`\tau _0(c^{\prime \prime })=1`$, $`N(c^{\prime \prime })=1`$, and

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(c^{\prime \prime })=(1)^{N(c^{\prime \prime })}\tau _0(c^{\prime \prime })=1.$$

We conclude that

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(c)=(1)^{\nu (C,C^{})}\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(c^{}).$$

Multiplying this by (5.3.b), we obtain

$$\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega )=\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(c^{})\tau (C^{})=(\phi ^M(h)1)\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(c)\tau (C)$$

$$=(\phi ^M(h)1)\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,e^M,\omega ^M).$$

Case $`\phi ^M(h)=1`$. We need to show that $`\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega )=0`$ or equivalently that $`H_{}^\phi (E)0`$. Let us assume that $`H_{}(C^{})=H_{}^\phi (E)=0`$ and look for a contradiction. It is clear that $`H_i(C^{\prime \prime })=F`$ for $`i=2,3`$ and $`H_i(C^{\prime \prime })=0`$ for $`i2,3`$. The exact homology sequence of the pair $`(C,C^{})`$ implies that $`H_i(C)=F`$ for $`i=2,3`$ and $`H_i(C)=0`$ for $`i2,3`$. If $`M\mathrm{}`$ then $`M`$ collapses onto a 2-dimensional subcomplex which contradicts $`H_3(C)=F`$. If $`M`$ is closed then it has a CW-decomposition with only one 3-cell. For an appropriate choice of bases in $`C_2,C_3`$, the matrix of the boundary homomorphism $`C_3C_2`$ is then a row $`[\phi ^M(g_1)1,\mathrm{},\phi ^M(g_m)1]`$ where $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_m`$ are the generators of $`H_1(M)`$ dual to the 2-cells. The equality $`H_3(C)=F`$ implies that $`\phi ^M(g_1)=\mathrm{}=\phi ^M(g_m)=1`$ so that $`\phi ^M(H_1(M))=1`$. However, in this case $`H_0(C)=F`$ which is a contradiction.

6. Additivity of torsions

6.1. The setting. Let $`E`$ be a compact connected oriented 3-manifold such that $`E`$ consists of tori. Let $`T`$ be a component of $`E`$ and $`\alpha `$ be an oriented non-contractible simple closed curve on $`T`$. Fix $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$. We can glue a solid torus Z to $`E`$ along $`T`$ so that $`\alpha `$ bounds a meridional disc in Z. The resulting 3-manifold, $`M`$, depends only on $`\alpha `$. The orientation of $`E`$ extends to $`M`$. We make $`\text{Z}=\overline{M\backslash E}`$ directed by first orienting its meridional disc, $`a^2`$, so that $`a^2=\alpha `$ in the oriented category and then orienting the core circle of Z so that the orientation in $`M`$ restricted to Z is $`\epsilon `$ times the product orientation. Thus, the manifold $`M`$ is obtained from $`E`$ by gluing a directed solid torus. We shall denote this manifold by $`M_{E,\alpha ,\epsilon }`$. Note that the manifolds $`M_{E,\alpha ,\pm \epsilon }`$ have the same underlying manifold $`M`$ and differ only by the structure of a directed solid torus on $`\overline{M\backslash E}`$.

Fix a ring homomorphism $`\phi `$ from $`[H_1(E)]`$ to a field $`F`$ such that $`\phi (H_1(T))=1`$. There is a (unique) ring homomorphism $`\phi ^M:[H_1(M)]F`$ whose composition with the inclusion homomorphism $`[H_1(E)][H_1(M)]`$ is equal to $`\phi `$.

6.2. Lemma.  Let $`E,T,\alpha ,\epsilon ,M=M_{E,\alpha ,\epsilon },F,\phi ,\phi ^M`$ be as in Sect. 6.1. Suppose that $`H_{}^{\phi ^M}(M)=0`$. Let $`\widehat{E}E`$ be the regular covering of $`E`$ corresponding to the group $`H_1(E)\phi ^1(1)H_1(E)`$. Then $`T`$ lifts to a torus $`\widehat{T}\widehat{E}`$ and $`\alpha `$ lifts to an oriented simple closed curve $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ on $`\widehat{T}`$ such that their homology classes $`[\widehat{\alpha }]H_1^\phi (E),[\widehat{T}]H_2^\phi (E)`$ form a basis in $`H_{}^\phi (E)`$. (Here the orientation of $`T,\widehat{T}`$ is induced by the one in $`E`$). For any homology orientation $`\omega `$ of $`E`$ and any $`e\text{Eul}(E)`$,

$$\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,e^M,\omega ^M)=\epsilon \tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\widehat{\alpha }],[\widehat{T}]).$$
$`(6.2.a)`$
Proof. We fix a CW-decomposition of $`E`$ (such that $`\alpha `$ and $`T`$ are subcomplexes) and extend it to a CW-decomposition of $`M`$ by adjoining two cells $`a^2,a^3\text{Z}`$ as in Sect. 5.2. We can assume that $`a^2=\alpha `$. We orient $`a^2`$ so that $`a^2=\alpha `$ in the oriented category. We provide $`a^3`$ with the orientation determined by the product orientation in Z. (This orientation in $`a^3`$ depends on $`\epsilon `$). Let $`\stackrel{~}{e},\stackrel{~}{a}^2,\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$ be a fundamental family of ordered oriented cells in the maximal abelian covering $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of $`M`$ constructed as in Sect. 5.3 and representing $`e^M=ee_\text{Z}`$.

Consider the chain complexes $`C,C^{},C^{\prime \prime }`$ defined by (5.3.a). We shall apply to them formula (2.2.a). The family of cells $`\stackrel{~}{e},\stackrel{~}{a}^2,\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$ defines compatible bases in $`C,C^{},C^{\prime \prime }`$ in the usual way. The homology of $`C,C^{},C^{\prime \prime }`$ are provided with bases as follows. By assumption, $`H_{}(C)=H_{}^{\phi ^M}(M)=0`$. Since $`\phi ^M(H_1(\text{Z}))=1`$, the non-trivial part of $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ amounts to a zero homomorphism $`F\stackrel{~}{a}^3F\stackrel{~}{a}^2`$. Hence $`H_i(C^{\prime \prime })=F[\stackrel{~}{a}^i]`$ for $`i=2,3`$. We fix the basis $`[\stackrel{~}{a}^2],[\stackrel{~}{a}^3]`$ in $`H_{}(C^{\prime \prime })`$. Using the exact homology sequence of the pair $`(C,C^{})`$ we obtain that $`H_i(C^{})=0`$ for $`i1,2`$ and $`H_i(C^{})=F[\stackrel{~}{a}^{i+1}]`$ for $`i=1,2`$. We fix the basis $`[\stackrel{~}{a}^2],[\stackrel{~}{a}^3]`$ in $`H_{}(C^{})`$. A direct computation shows that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^{\prime \prime })=\tau (C^{}C)=1`$. Hence

$$\tau (C)=\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C)=(1)^{\nu (C,C^{})}\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^{})\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^{\prime \prime })\tau (C^{}C)$$

$$=(1)^{\nu (C,C^{})}\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^{};[\stackrel{~}{a}^2],[\stackrel{~}{a}^3])$$
$`(6.2.b)`$
where we inserted $`[\stackrel{~}{a}^2],[\stackrel{~}{a}^3]`$ to keep track of the fixed basis in $`H_{}(C^{})=H_{}^\phi (E)`$.

The same argument as in Section 5.3 shows that

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(C_{}(M;))=(1)^{\nu (C,C^{})}\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(C_{}(E;))$$

where the torsions are taken with respect to the bases of chains determined by $`\stackrel{~}{e},a^2,a^3`$ and bases in homology determining the homology orientations $`\omega ,\omega ^M`$. Multiplying by (6.2.b) we obtain,

$$\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,e^M,\omega ^M)=\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(C_{}(M;))\tau (C)$$

$$=\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_0(C_{}(E;))\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }(C^{};[\stackrel{~}{a}^2],[\stackrel{~}{a}^3])=\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\stackrel{~}{a}^2],[\stackrel{~}{a}^3]).$$

It remains to give an interpretation of $`[\stackrel{~}{a}^2],[\stackrel{~}{a}^3]`$ in terms of $`\widehat{E}`$. The complex $`C^{}`$ can be computed from $`\widehat{E}`$. Indeed, a natural projection from the maximal abelian covering $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ of $`E`$ to $`\widehat{E}`$ induces the equalities

$$C^{}=C_{}^\phi (E)=F_{[H_1(E)]}C_{}(\stackrel{~}{E})=F_{[G]}C_{}(\widehat{E})$$

where $`G=H_1(E)/(H_1(E)\phi ^1(1))=\phi (H_1(E))`$ is the group of covering transformations of $`\widehat{E}`$. The assumption $`\phi (H_1(T))=1`$ implies that $`T`$ lifts to a torus $`\widehat{T}\widehat{E}`$. We provide $`\widehat{T}`$ with the orientation induced by the one on $`TE`$. Since the projection $`\widehat{T}T`$ is a homeomorphism, the curve $`\alpha `$ lifts to a curve $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ on $`\widehat{T}`$. Then $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ and $`\widehat{T}`$ represent certain homology classes $`[\widehat{\alpha }]H_1^\phi (E),[\widehat{T}]H_2^\phi (E)`$.

The covering $`\widehat{E}E`$ extends to a covering $`\widehat{M}M`$ with the same group of covering transformations $`G`$. The torus $`\widehat{T}`$ bounds in $`\widehat{M}`$ a solid torus, $`\widehat{\text{Z}}`$, projecting homeomorphically onto Z, and $`\widehat{M}=\widehat{E}_{gG}g\widehat{\text{Z}}`$. There is a covering $`\stackrel{~}{M}\widehat{M}`$ mapping $`\stackrel{~}{a}^2`$ onto a meridional disc of $`\widehat{\text{Z}}`$ bounded by $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ and mapping $`\stackrel{~}{a}^3`$ onto a 3-cell filling in $`\widehat{\text{Z}}`$. Then $`[\stackrel{~}{a}^2]=[\widehat{\alpha }]H_1^\phi (E)`$ and $`[\stackrel{~}{a}^3]=[\widehat{\text{Z}}]=\epsilon [\widehat{T}]H_2^\phi (E)`$. Therefore

$$\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,e^M,\omega ^M)=\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\stackrel{~}{a}^2],[\stackrel{~}{a}^3])=\epsilon \tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\widehat{\alpha }],[\widehat{T}]).$$

6.3. Remark.  The fact that the torsion $`\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\widehat{\alpha }],[\widehat{T}])`$ in Lemma 6.2 does not depend on the choice of $`\widehat{T}`$ follows directly from the obvious equality $`\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;g[\widehat{\alpha }],g[\widehat{T}])=\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\widehat{\alpha }],[\widehat{T}])`$ where $`gG=\phi (H_1(E))`$.

6.4. Lemma.  Let $`E`$ be a compact 3-manifold such that $`E`$ consists of tori. Let $`T`$ be a component of $`E`$. Let $`F`$ be a field and $`\phi :[H_1(E)]F`$ be a ring homomorphism such that $`\phi (H_1(T))=1`$. Let $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$ be oriented non-contractible simple closed curves on $`T`$ such that $`\alpha _1`$ is homological to $`\alpha _2\alpha _3`$. Fix $`\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3=\pm 1`$ and set $`M_i=M_{E,\alpha _r,\epsilon _r}`$ for $`r=1,2,3`$. Then for any $`e\text{Eul}(E)`$ and any homology orientation $`\omega `$ of $`E`$,

$$\epsilon _1\tau ^{\phi ^{M_1}}(M_1,e^{M_1},\omega ^{M_1})$$

$$=\epsilon _2\tau ^{\phi ^{M_2}}(M_2,e^{M_2},\omega ^{M_2})+\epsilon _3\tau ^{\phi ^{M_3}}(M_3,e^{M_3},\omega ^{M_3}).$$
$`(6.4.a)`$
Proof. Let $`\widehat{E}E`$ be the same covering of $`E`$ as in Lemma 6.2 with group of covering transformations $`G=\phi (H_1(E))`$. Let $`\widehat{T}\widehat{E}`$ be a lift of $`T`$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }_1,\widehat{\alpha }_2,\widehat{\alpha }_3`$ be the lifts of $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$ to $`\widehat{T}`$. Consider the elements $`[\widehat{\alpha }_1],[\widehat{\alpha }_2],[\widehat{\alpha }_3]`$ of $`H_1^\phi (E)=H_1(F_{[G]}C_{}(\widehat{E}))`$ represented by $`\widehat{\alpha }_1,\widehat{\alpha }_2,\widehat{\alpha }_3`$, respectively. The assumptions of the lemma imply that $`[\widehat{\alpha }_1]=[\widehat{\alpha }_2]+[\widehat{\alpha }_3]`$.

If all three torsions entering (6.4.a) are equal to $`0`$ then (6.4.a) is obvious. Assume from now on that at least one of these three torsions is non-zero. Then the proof of Lemma 6.2 shows that $`H_i^\phi (E)=0`$ for $`i1,2`$ and $`H_1^\phi (E),H_2^\phi (E)`$ are 1-dimensional vector spaces over $`F`$. Moreover, $`H_2^\phi (E)=F[\widehat{T}]`$. It is easy to see that $`[\widehat{\alpha }_r]0`$ iff $`H_{}^{\phi ^{M_r}}(M_r)=0`$ iff $`\tau ^{\phi ^{M_r}}(M_r,e^{M_r},\omega ^{M_r})0`$. By assumption, at least one of the classes $`[\widehat{\alpha }_1],[\widehat{\alpha }_2],[\widehat{\alpha }_3]`$ is non-zero.

If all three classes $`[\widehat{\alpha }_1],[\widehat{\alpha }_2],[\widehat{\alpha }_3]`$ are non-zero then by Lemma 6.2

$$\epsilon _1\tau ^{\phi ^{M_1}}(M_1,e^{M_1},\omega ^{M_1})=\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\widehat{\alpha }_1],[\widehat{T}])$$

$$=\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\widehat{\alpha }_2],[\widehat{T}])\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\widehat{\alpha }_3],[\widehat{T}])$$

$$=\epsilon _2\tau ^{\phi ^{M_2}}(M_2,e^{M_2},\omega ^{M_2})+\epsilon _3\tau ^{\phi ^{M_3}}(M_3,e^{M_3},\omega ^{M_3})$$

where the second equality follows from the formula $`[\widehat{\alpha }_1]=[\widehat{\alpha }_2]+[\widehat{\alpha }_3]`$. If $`[\widehat{\alpha }_1]=0`$ then $`[\widehat{\alpha }_2]=[\widehat{\alpha }_3]0`$. Then $`\tau ^{\phi ^{M_1}}(M_1,e^{M_1},\omega ^{M_1})=0`$ and

$$\epsilon _2\tau ^{\phi ^{M_2}}(M_2,e^{M_2},\omega ^{M_2})=\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\widehat{\alpha }_2],[\widehat{T}])$$

$$=\tau ^\phi (E,e,\omega ;[\widehat{\alpha }_3],[\widehat{T}])=\epsilon _3\tau ^{\phi ^{M_3}}(M_3,e^{M_3},\omega ^{M_3})$$

which proves (6.4.a). The cases where $`[\widehat{\alpha }_2]=0`$ or $`[\widehat{\alpha }_3]=0`$ are similar.

7. The torsion $`\tau `$

We discuss the “maximal abelian” torsion $`\tau `$ introduced in \[Tu2\], see also \[Tu5\], \[Tu7\].

7.1. Algebraic preliminaries. For a unital commutative ring $`K`$ we denote by $`Q(K)`$ its classical ring of fractions, i.e., the localisation of $`K`$ by the multiplicative system of all non-zerodivisors. The natural map $`KQ(K)`$ is injective.

For a finitely generated abelian group $`H`$, set $`Q(H)=Q([H])=Q([H])`$. This commutative ring splits (uniquely) as a direct sum of fields. This is obvious in the case of finite $`H`$ since then $`[H]`$ is a finite sum of cyclotomic fields so that $`Q(H)=[H]`$. In the general case such a splitting comes from a splitting of $`H`$ as a direct sum of $`\text{Tors}H`$ and the free abelian group $`G=H/\text{Tors}H`$. The ring $`[\text{Tors}H]`$ splits as a sum of cyclotomic fields $`\{K_r\}_r`$. Hence

$$[H]=([\text{Tors}H])[G]=\underset{r}{}K_r[G].$$

Each ring $`K_r[G]`$ is a domain and therefore

$$Q(H)=\underset{r}{}F_r$$
$`(7.1.a)`$
where $`F_r=Q(K_r[G])`$ is the field of fractions of $`K_r[G]`$. A useful fact: for any $`hH`$ of infinite order, the element $`h1[H]`$ is a non-zerodivisor and therefore is invertible in $`Q(H)`$.

One of the summands in (7.1.a) is the field $`Q(H/\text{Tors}H)`$. The projection $`Q(H)Q(H/\text{Tors}H)`$ is induced by the projection $`HH/\text{Tors}H`$. The inclusion $`Q(H/\text{Tors}H)Q(H)`$ maps $`1Q(H/\text{Tors}H)`$ into $`|\text{Tors}H|^1_{h\text{Tors}H}h`$.

Consider an increasing filtration

$$([H])_0=[H]([H])_1([H])_2\mathrm{}Q(H)$$
$`(7.1.b)`$
where $`([H])_k`$ is the set of $`qQ(H)`$ such that for any $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_kH`$ we have $`q_{i=1}^k(h_i1)[H]`$. We shall need the following easy fact: any ring homomorphism $`\phi `$ from $`[H]`$ to a field $`F`$ such that $`\phi (H)1`$ uniquely extends to a ring homomorphism $`\phi _\mathrm{\#}:_k([H])_kF`$. If $`\text{rank}H2`$ then the filtration (7.1.b) is trivial, i.e., $`([H])_k=[H]`$ for all $`k`$ (see \[Tu5, Lemma 4.1.1\]) and $`\phi _\mathrm{\#}=\phi :[H]F`$.

7.2. Definition of $`\tau `$. Let $`X`$ be a finite connected $`CW`$-space. Set $`H=H_1(X)`$ and denote by $`\phi _r`$ the composition of the inclusion $`[H]Q(H)`$ and the projection $`Q(H)F_r`$ on the $`r`$-th term in the splitting (7.1.a). By Sect. 4.2, for any $`e\text{Eul}(X)`$ and any homology orientation $`\omega `$ of $`X`$, we have a torsion $`\tau ^{\phi _r}(X,e,\omega )F_r`$. Set

$$\tau (X,e,\omega )=\underset{r}{}\tau ^{\phi _r}(X,e,\omega )\underset{r}{}F_r=Q(H).$$

This is a well defined element of $`Q(H)`$. For any $`hH`$, $`\tau (X,he,\omega )=h\tau (X,e,\omega )`$.

7.3. The torsion $`\tau `$ for 3-manifolds. We shall need three basic lemmas concerning the torsion $`\tau `$ for 3-manifolds.

7.3.1. Lemma.  Let $`M`$ be a compact connected orientable 3-manifold whose boundary is empty or consists of tori. Let $`e\text{Eul}(M)`$ and $`\omega `$ be a homology orientation of $`M`$. Set $`H=H_1(M)`$. If $`b_1(M)2`$, then $`\tau (M,e,\omega )[H]`$. If $`b_1(M)=1`$ and $`M\mathrm{}`$, then $`\tau (M,e,\omega )([H])_1`$. If $`b_1(M)=1`$ and $`M=\mathrm{}`$, then $`\tau (M,e,\omega )([H])_2`$.

Lemma 7.3.1 follows from the results of \[Tu5, Section 4\]. Although we shall not need it, note that the inclusion $`\tau (M,e,\omega )Q(H)`$ can be improved also in the case $`b_1(M)=0`$: In this case $`\tau (M,e,\omega )|\text{Tors}H|^1[H]`$.

7.3.2. Lemma.  Let under the conditions of Lemma 7.3.1, $`\phi `$ be a ring homomorphism from $`[H]`$ to a field $`F`$ such that $`\phi (H)1`$ and $`\text{char}F=0`$. Then $`\tau ^\phi (M,e,\omega )=\phi _\mathrm{\#}(\tau (M,e,\omega ))`$.

In the case $`\tau ^\phi (M,e,\omega )0`$ this lemma is contained in \[Tu7, Theorem 13.3\] in a general setting of CW-spaces of any dimension. It remains only to show that if $`\tau ^\phi (M,e,\omega )=0`$, i.e., if $`H_{}^\phi (M)0`$, then $`\phi _\mathrm{\#}(\tau (M,e,\omega ))=0`$. This easily follows from the computations in \[Tu5, Sect. 4.1.2\] and the assumption $`\phi (H)1`$.

7.3.3. Lemma.  Let $`E`$ be a compact connected orientable 3-manifold such that $`E`$ consists of tori and $`b_1(E)2`$. Let $`M`$ be a 3-manifold with $`b_1(M)1`$ obtained by gluing $`m`$ directed solid tori to $`E`$ and let $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_mH_1(M)`$ be the homology classes of the core circles of these solid tori. Let $`\text{in}:[H_1(E)][H_1(M)]`$ be the inclusion homomorphism. Then for any $`e\text{Eul}(E)`$ and any homology orientation $`\omega `$ of $`E`$,

$$\text{in}(\tau (E,e,\omega ))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(h_i1)\tau (M,e^M,\omega ^M).$$
$`(7.3.a)`$
Proof. Consider the splitting $`Q(H_1(M))=_rF_r`$ into a direct sum of fields. Denote the projection $`Q(H_1(M))F_r`$ by $`p_r`$. It suffices to prove that for all $`r`$,

$$p_r(\text{in}(\tau (E,e,\omega )))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(p_r(h_i)1)p_r(\tau (M,e^M,\omega ^M)).$$

Let $`\mu `$ be the inclusion $`[H_1(M)]Q(H_1(M))`$. Applying Lemmas 7.3.2 twice and Lemma 5.1 inductively $`m`$ times we obtain that

$$p_r(\text{in}(\tau (E,e,\omega )))=(p_r\mu \text{in})(\tau (E,e,\omega ))=(p_r\mu \text{in})_\mathrm{\#}(\tau (E,e,\omega ))=\tau ^{p_r\mu \text{in}}(E,e,\omega )$$

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(p_r(h_i)1)\tau ^{p_r\mu }(M,e^M,\omega ^M)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(p_r(h_i)1)p_r(\tau (M,e^M,\omega ^M)).$$

8. The Alexander-Conway function and derived invariants

8.1. The Alexander-Conway function.  Let $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ be an ordered oriented link in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere $`N`$. The Alexander-Conway function $`_L`$ of $`L`$ is a rational function on $`m`$ variables $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ with integer coefficients. Considered up to sign, this function is equivalent to the $`m`$-variable Alexander polynomial of $`L`$. For links in $`S^3`$, the function $`_L`$ was introduced by Conway \[Co\] (see also \[Ha\]); it was extended to links in homology spheres in \[Tu3\]. We recall here the definition of $`_L`$ following \[Tu3, Sect. 4\].

Let $`E`$ be the exterior of $`L`$. The group $`H=H_1(E)`$ is a free abelian group with $`m`$ meridional generators $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$. We have $`[H]=[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}]`$ (the ring of of Laurent polynomials) and $`Q(H)=(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)`$ (the ring of rational functions on $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ with integer coefficients). Denote by $`\mu `$ the inclusion $`[H]Q(H)`$. Choose any Euler structure $`e`$ on $`E`$ and set

$$A_e=A_e(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)=\tau ^\mu (E,e,\omega _L)Q(H)=(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m).$$

It is known (see for instance \[Tu3, Sect. 1.7\]) that $`\overline{A}_e=(1)^mt_1^{\nu _1}\mathrm{}t_m^{\nu _m}A_e`$ where the overbar denotes the involution in $`Q(H)`$ sending each $`t_i`$ to $`t_i^1`$ and $`(\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _m)^m`$ is a charge on $`L`$ in the sense of Sect. 1.6. Then

$$_L=t_1^{\nu _1}\mathrm{}t_m^{\nu _m}A_e(t_1^2,\mathrm{},t_m^2)(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m).$$
$`(8.1.a)`$
Clearly, $`\overline{}_L=(1)^m_L`$. By (4.2.a), $`_L`$ does not depend on the choice of $`e`$.

We introduce a version of $`_L`$ depending on a charge $`k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)^m`$ on $`L`$. Set

$$(L,k)=t_1^{k_1/2}\mathrm{}t_m^{k_m/2}_L(t_1^{1/2},\mathrm{},t_m^{1/2}).$$

Note that although the factors on the right-hand side can lie in $`(t_1^{1/2},\mathrm{},t_m^{1/2})`$, their product $`(L,k)`$ belongs to $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)`$. We claim that

$$(L,k)=\tau (E,e_k,\omega _L).$$
$`(8.1.b)`$
Indeed, the splitting (7.1.a) consists here of only one summand and therefore $`\tau (E,e_k,\omega _L)=\tau ^\mu (E,e_k,\omega _L)=A_{e_k}`$. By (4.6.a),

$$t_1^{\nu _1}\mathrm{}t_m^{\nu _m}=\pm \overline{A}_{e_k}/A_{e_k}=\pm c(e_k)^1=\pm t_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}t_m^{k_m}$$

so that $`\nu _i=k_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Substituting this in (8.1.a) with $`e=e_k`$ we obtain a formula equivalent to (8.1.b).

To end this subsection note that for $`m2`$ both $`_L`$ and $`(L,k)`$ are Laurent polynomials, i.e., belong to $`[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}]`$. If $`m=1`$ then $`_L`$ and $`(L,k)`$ are rational functions on $`t=t_1`$ which can be computed from the Alexander polynomial of $`L=L_1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(t)[t^{\pm 1}]`$ be the Alexander polynomial of $`L`$ normalized (and symmetrized) in the canonical way so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(t^1)=\mathrm{\Delta }_L(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(1)=1`$. Then

$$_L=(tt^1)^1\mathrm{\Delta }_L(t^2),(L,k)=t^{(k+1)/2}(t1)^1\mathrm{\Delta }_L(t)$$
$`(8.1.c)`$
where $`k=k_1`$ is the charge of $`L`$.

8.2. An invariant of sublinks. Let $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ be an $`m`$-component ordered oriented link in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere $`N`$. Let $`L^I=\{L_i\}_{iI}`$ be a sublink of $`L`$ determined by a proper subset $`I\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$. In this subsection we associate with $`(L,L^I)`$ an abelian group $`H=H(L,L^I)`$. For any charge $`k`$ on $`L`$ (see Sect. 1.6), we define an element $`(L,L^I,k)Q(H)`$.

Set $`|I|=\text{card}(I)`$. The group $`H=H(L,L^I)`$ is defined as the quotient of the free (multiplicative) abelian group of rank $`m`$ with generators $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ modulo the following $`|I|`$ relations numerated by $`iI`$:

$$\underset{ji}{}(t_jt_i^1)^{lk(L_i,L_j)}=1$$
$`(8.2.a)`$
where the product goes over all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},m\}\backslash \{i\}`$. The ring $`[H]`$ can be identified with the ring of polynomials on $`m`$ commuting invertible variables $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ subject to (8.2.a). There is a group homomorphism from $`H`$ to the infinite cyclic group sending $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ to the same generator. Therefore each $`t_j`$ has an infinite order in $`H`$ and $`t_j1`$ is a non-zerodivisor in $`[H]`$ invertible in $`Q(H)`$. Set

$$(L,L^I,k)=\left(\underset{iI}{}(t_i1)^1\right)(L,k)Q(H).$$
$`(8.2.b)`$
Here $`(L,k)`$ is viewed as a rational function on $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ representing an element of $`Q(H)`$. In particular, if $`I=\mathrm{}`$, then $`(L,L^I,k)=(L,k)`$.

The group $`H=H(L,L^I)`$ and the element $`(L,L^I,k)Q(H)`$ can be computed from the linking numbers of the components of $`L`$ and $`(L,k)`$. We give a geometric interpretation of $`H`$ and $`(L,L^I,k)`$. Let $`E`$ be the exterior of $`L`$ in $`N`$. Let $`P=P(L,L^I)`$ be the 3-manifold obtained from $`E`$ by gluing directed solid tori $`\{\text{Z}_i\}_{iI}`$ such that the longitude of $`L_i`$ with $`iI`$ determined by the framing number $`lk(L_i,L\backslash L_i)=_{ji}lk(L_i,L_j)`$ bounds a meridional disc in $`\text{Z}_i`$. The core of $`\text{Z}_i`$ is oriented as in Sect. 1.7. The boundary of $`P`$ consists of $`m|I|1`$ tori corresponding to the components of $`L\backslash L^I`$. Identifying $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ with the meridional generators of $`H_1(E)`$ we obtain an identification $`H_1(P)=H`$. We claim that

$$(L,L^I,k)=\tau (P,e_k^P,\omega _L^P)$$
$`(8.2.c)`$
where $`e_k`$ is the Euler structure on $`E`$ determined by $`k`$, $`e_k^P=(e_k)^P`$ is the induced Euler structure on $`P`$ (cf. Sect. 1.5–1.7), $`\omega _L`$ is the homology orientation of $`E`$ determined by the orientation of $`L`$, and $`\omega _L^P=(\omega _L)^P`$ is the induced homology orientation on $`P`$ (cf. Sect. 3.1, 3.2). Indeed, by (7.3.a) and (8.1.b)

$$\left(\underset{iI}{}(t_i1)\right)\tau (P,e_k^P,\omega _L^P)=\tau (E,e_k,\omega _L)=(L,k).$$

This and (8.2.b) yield (8.2.c). This interpretation of $`(L,L^I,k)`$ implies that if $`\text{rank}H2`$ then $`(L,L^I,k)[H]`$. If $`\text{rank}H=1`$ then $`(L,L^I,k)([H])_1`$.

9. A surgery formula for $`\phi `$-torsions

9.1. Setting and notation.  Let $`M`$ be a closed 3-manifold obtained by surgery on a framed oriented link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere $`N`$. Let $`F`$ be a field of characteristic $`0`$. Fix a charge $`k`$ of $`L`$ and consider a ring homomorphism $`\phi ^M:[H_1(M)]F`$ such that $`\phi ^M(H_1(M))1`$. We shall give a surgery formula for the torsion $`\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)F`$ where $`e_k^M=(e_k)^M\text{vect}(M)`$ is induced by the Euler structure $`e_k`$ on the exterior $`E`$ of $`L`$ and $`\omega _L^M=(\omega _L)^M`$ is the homology orientation of $`M`$ induced by the homology orientation $`\omega _L`$ of $`E`$ (see Sect. 3.1).

Recall the notation $`\overline{I}=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}\backslash I`$ for a set $`I\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{}^I(L)=(\mathrm{}_{i,j}^I(L))`$ the symmetric square matrix whose rows and columns are numerated by $`i,jI`$ and whose entries are given by

$$\mathrm{}_{i,j}^I(L)=\{\begin{array}{cc}lk(L_i,L_j),ifij,\hfill & \\ lk(L_i,L_i)+lk(L_i,L^{\overline{I}})=lk(L_i,L_i)+_{l\overline{I}}lk(L_i,L_l),ifi=j.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Here $`lk(L_i,L_i)`$ is the framing number of $`L_i`$.

Denote by $`\phi `$ the composition of $`\phi ^M`$ with the ring homomorphism $`[H_1(E)][H_1(M)]`$ induced by the inclusion $`EM`$. Let $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_mH_1(E)`$ be the homology classes of the meridians of $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_m`$. Set

$$I(\phi )=\{i|\phi (t_i)=1\}\{1,\mathrm{},m\}.$$

For any $`iI(\phi )`$, the homomorphism $`\phi `$ maps the meridian $`t_i`$ and the longitude of $`L_i`$ to $`1F`$. This implies that for a set $`I\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$, not contained in $`I(\phi )`$, the formula $`\{t_i\phi (t_i)F\}_{iI}`$ defines a ring homomorphism $`[H(L^I,L^{II(\phi )})]F`$ (cf. Sect. 8.2). It is denoted $`\phi ^I`$. Recall the notation $`|I|=\text{card}(I)`$.

9.2. Theorem.  Under the assumptions of Sect. 9.1,

$$\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)$$
$`(9.2.a)`$
$$=\left(\underset{i\overline{I(\phi )}}{}(\phi (t_i)1)^1\right)\underset{II(\phi )}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\phi _\mathrm{\#}^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I(\phi )},k^{\overline{I}})).$$

Formula (9.2.a) allows to compute the $`\phi `$-torsion of $`M`$ in terms of the Alexander-Conway polynomials of $`L`$ and its sublinks, and the linking and framing numbers of the components of $`L`$. A curious feature of this formula is a framing-charge separation: the factor $`\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I)`$ does not depend on the charge while the factor $`\phi _\mathrm{\#}^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I(\phi )},k^{\overline{I}}))`$ does not depend on the framing. The product $`_{i\overline{I(\phi )}}(\phi (t_i)1)^1`$ depends neither on the charge nor on the framing.

The terms on the right-hand side of (9.2.a) corresponding to proper subsets $`II(\phi )`$ can be slightly simplified. Observe that

$$\text{rank}H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I(\phi )})|\overline{I}\backslash I(\phi )|=|\overline{I(\phi )}|+|I(\phi )\backslash I|.$$

The assumption $`\phi (H_1(E))1`$ implies that $`|\overline{I(\phi )}|1`$. Therefore for a proper subset $`II(\phi )`$ we have $`\text{rank}H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I(\phi )})2`$ and

$$\phi _\mathrm{\#}^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I(\phi )},k^{\overline{I}}))=\phi ^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I(\phi )},k^{\overline{I}})).$$

The term corresponding to $`I=I(\phi )`$ equals

$$\underset{i\overline{I(\phi )}}{}(\phi (t_i)1)^1(1)^{|I(\phi )|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^{I(\phi )}(L))\phi _\mathrm{\#}^{\overline{I(\phi )}}((L^{\overline{I(\phi )}},k^{\overline{I(\phi )}})).$$

We can replace here $`\phi _\mathrm{\#}^{\overline{I(\phi )}}`$ by $`\phi ^{\overline{I(\phi )}}`$ provided $`|\overline{I(\phi )}|2`$.

If $`I(\phi )=\mathrm{}`$, i.e., if $`\phi (t_i)1`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, then (9.2.a) simplifies to

$$\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\phi (t_i)1)^1\phi _\mathrm{\#}((L,k)).$$
$`(9.2.b)`$
This can be obtained by applying (5.1.a) $`m`$ times followed by Lemma 7.3.2 and (8.1.b):

$$\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\phi (t_i)1)^1\tau ^\phi (E,e_k,\omega _L)$$

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\phi (t_i)1)^1\phi _\mathrm{\#}(\tau (E,e_k,\omega _L))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\phi (t_i)1)^1\phi _\mathrm{\#}((L,k)).$$

Proof of Theorem 9.2. The proof goes by induction on $`m`$. If $`m=1`$ then $`I(\phi )=\mathrm{}`$ and (9.2.a) reduces to (9.2.b) proven above. Assume that for links with $`<m`$ components, Theorem 9.2 is true and prove it for a link $`L`$ with $`m`$ components.

Consider first the case where for any $`iI(\phi )`$ the framing number $`lk(L_i,L_i)`$ is equal to $`_{li}lk(L_i,L_l)`$ (the framing numbers of $`\{L_i|i\overline{I(\phi )}\}`$ may be arbitrary). Then for any non-void set $`II(\phi )`$, the sum of the columns of the matrix $`\mathrm{}^I`$ is $`0`$ so that $`\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))=0`$. Thus, the right-hand side of (9.2.a) contains only one possibly non-zero term corresponding to $`I=\mathrm{}`$. By (8.2.c), this term equals

$$\underset{i\overline{I(\phi )}}{}(\phi (t_i)1)^1\psi _\mathrm{\#}((L,L^{I(\phi )},k))=\underset{i\overline{I(\phi )}}{}(\phi (t_i)1)^1\psi _\mathrm{\#}(\tau (P,e_k^P,\omega _L^P))$$

where $`P=P(L,L^{I(\phi )})`$ is the 3-manifold defined as in Sect. 8.2 and $`\psi =\phi ^\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ is the ring homomorphism $`[H_1(P)]=[H(L,L^{I(\phi )})]F`$ induced by $`\phi `$. By Lemma 7.3.2,

$$\underset{i\overline{I(\phi )}}{}(\phi (t_i)1)^1\psi _\mathrm{\#}(\tau (P,e_k^P,\omega _L^P))=\underset{i\overline{I(\phi )}}{}(\phi (t_i)1)^1\tau ^\psi (P,e_k^P,\omega _L^P).$$

The manifold $`M`$ can be obtained from $`P`$ by gluing directed solid tori corresponding to the components of $`L^{\overline{I(\phi )}}`$. Applying (5.1.a) inductively and using Lemma 3.3, we obtain

$$\underset{i\overline{I(\phi )}}{}(\phi (t_i)1)^1\tau ^\psi (P,e_k^P,\omega _L^P)=\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,(e_k^P)^M,(\omega _L^P)^M)=\tau ^{\phi ^M}(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M).$$

This yields (9.2.a) in this case.

Up to the rest of the proof, we denote the left (resp. right) hand side of (9.2.a) by $`L,\phi ,k_1`$ (resp. $`L,\phi ,k_2`$). We claim that for a framed link $`L^{}`$ obtained from $`L`$ by one negative twist of the framing of a component of $`L^{I(\phi )}L`$,

$$L,\phi ,k_1L,\phi ,k_2=L^{},\phi ,k_1L^{},\phi ,k_2.$$
$`(9.2.c)`$
Hence, formula (9.2.a) holds for $`L`$ if and only if it holds for $`L^{}`$. Together with the result of the previous paragraph this will imply the claim of the theorem.

Now we check (9.2.c). Assume for concreteness that $`mI(\phi )`$ and that $`L^{}=L_1\mathrm{}L_{m1}L_m^{}`$ is obtained from $`L`$ by one negative twist of the framing of $`L_m`$. Consider the closed 3-manifold, $`W`$, obtained by surgery on $`N`$ along the framed link $`L^{\overline{m}}=L_1\mathrm{}L_{m1}`$. The framed oriented knots $`L_m,L_m^{}`$ lie in $`W`$ and differ only by the framing. These knots have the same exterior in $`W`$, which we denote by $`V`$. It is clear that $`V`$ is a 2-torus bounding a regular neighborhood of $`L_m`$ in $`W`$ which can be identified with a regular neighborhood of $`L_m`$ in $`N`$. Let $`\alpha _1V`$ (resp. $`\alpha _2V`$) be a longitude of $`L_m`$ (resp. of $`L_m^{}`$) determined by the framing. Let $`\alpha _3V`$ be a meridian of $`L_m`$. By assumption, $`\alpha _1`$ is homological to $`\alpha _2\alpha _3`$ in $`V`$. In the notation of Sect. 6.1 we have $`M=M_{V,\alpha _1,1}`$ (the sign $`1`$ appears because the orientation of $`M`$ induced from the one in $`N`$ is opposite to the product orientation in the directed solid torus $`M\backslash V`$; see Sect. 1.7 and 6.1 for the distinguished orientations of the core and meridional disc). Set $`M^{}=M_{V,\alpha _2,1}`$. Observe that $`M_{V,\alpha _3,+1}=W`$. As in Sect. 1.7, the manifold $`V`$ is obtained from the exterior $`E`$ of $`L`$ by gluing $`m1`$ directed solid tori. Set $`e=(e_k)^V\text{vect}(V)`$ and provide $`V`$ with homology orientation $`\omega =(\omega _L)^V`$. Denote by $`\phi ^V`$ the ring homomorphism $`[H_1(V)]F`$ induced by $`\phi `$; this homomorphism is the composition of the inclusion homomorphism $`[H_1(V)][H_1(M)]`$ with $`\phi ^M`$. By Lemma 6.4,

$$\tau ^{(\phi ^V)^M}(M,e^M,\omega ^M)=\tau ^{(\phi ^V)^M^{}}(M^{},e^M^{},\omega ^M^{})\tau ^{(\phi ^V)^W}(W,e^W,\omega ^W).$$
$`(9.2.d)`$
By definition of $`\phi ^V`$, we have $`(\phi ^V)^M=\phi ^M`$. By definition of $`e_k^M`$, we have $`e^M=e_k^M`$. By Lemma 3.3, $`\omega ^M=((\omega _L)^V)^M=\omega _L^M`$. Thus the left-hand side of (9.2.d) equals $`L,\phi ,k_1`$. The manifold $`M^{}`$ is obtained by surgery on $`N`$ along $`L^{}`$ and similarly

$$\tau ^{(\phi ^V)^M^{}}(M^{},e^M^{},\omega ^M^{})=L^{},\phi ,k_1.$$

Consider now the exterior $`E^{\overline{m}}`$ of $`L^{\overline{m}}=L_1\mathrm{}L_{m1}`$ in $`N`$, the ring homomorphism $`\psi :[H_1(E^{\overline{m}})]F`$ induced by $`\phi `$, the charge $`k^{\overline{m}}`$ on $`L^{\overline{m}}`$ induced by $`k`$ as in Sect. 1.6 and the homology orientation $`\omega _{L^{\overline{m}}}`$ of $`E^{\overline{m}}`$ nduced by the orientation of $`L^{\overline{m}}`$. We claim that

$$\tau ^{(\phi ^V)^W}(W,e^W,\omega ^W)=L^{\overline{m}},\psi ,k^{\overline{m}}_1.$$
$`(9.2.e)`$
Indeed, the manifold $`W`$ is obtained by surgery on $`N`$ along $`L^{\overline{m}}`$ and hence by gluing directed solid tori to $`E^{\overline{m}}`$. It follows from definitions that $`(\phi ^V)^W=\psi ^W`$ (both homomorphisms map a meridional generator $`t_iH_1(W)`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{},m1`$ to $`\phi (t_i)`$). The remarks of Sect. 1.6 imply that $`(e_{k^{\overline{m}}})^W=((e_k)^V)^W=e^W`$. Lemmas 3.3 and 3.4 imply that $`(\omega _{L^{\overline{m}}})^W=((\omega _L)^V)^W=\omega ^W`$. Hence

$$\tau ^{(\phi ^V)^W}(W,e^W,\omega ^W)=\tau ^{\psi ^W}(W,(e_{k^{\overline{m}}})^W,(\omega _{L^{\overline{m}}})^W)=L^{\overline{m}},\psi ,k^{\overline{m}}_1.$$

Now formula (9.2.d) can be rewritten as

$$L,\phi ,k_1L^{},\phi ,k_1=L^{\overline{m}},\psi ,k^{\overline{m}}_1.$$
$`(9.2.e)`$
We claim that similarly

$$L,\phi ,k_2L^{},\phi ,k_2=L^{\overline{m}},\psi ,k^{\overline{m}}_2.$$
$`(9.2.f)`$
Indeed, it is clear that $`I(\psi )=I(\phi )\backslash \{m\}`$ so that the complement of $`I(\phi )`$ in $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ coincides with the complement of $`I(\psi )`$ in $`\{1,\mathrm{},m1\}`$. Hence the factors $`_{i\overline{I(\phi )}}(\phi (t_i)1)^1`$ which appear in the three terms of (9.2.f) are identically the same. For a set $`II(\phi )`$ not containing $`m`$, the corresponding summands in $`L,\phi ,k_2,L^{},\phi ,k_2`$ do not depend on the framing of the $`m`$-th component and therefore are equal. Consider the summand on the right-hand side of (9.2.a) corresponding to a set $`II(\phi )`$ containing $`m`$. The matrices $`\mathrm{}^I(L)`$ and $`\mathrm{}^I(L^{})`$ coincide except at the $`(m,m)`$-entry where $`\mathrm{}_{m,m}^I(L)=\mathrm{}_{m,m}^I(L^{})+1`$. It is easy to see that

$$\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L^{}))=\text{det}(\mathrm{}^J(L^{\overline{m}}))$$

where $`J=J_I=I\backslash \{m\}I(\psi )`$. The determinant $`\text{det}(\mathrm{}^J(L^{\overline{m}}))`$ is exactly the determinant appearing in $`L^{\overline{m}},\psi ,k^{\overline{m}}_2`$ in the summand corresponding to $`J`$. The factor $`\phi _\mathrm{\#}^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I(\phi )},k^{\overline{I}}))`$ is the same for both links $`L,L^{}`$ and is equal to $`\psi _\mathrm{\#}^{\stackrel{~}{J}}(((L^{\overline{m}})^{\stackrel{~}{J}},(L^{\overline{m}})^{\stackrel{~}{J}I(\psi )},(k^{\overline{m}})^{\stackrel{~}{J}}))`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{J}=\{1,\mathrm{},m1\}\backslash J=\overline{I}`$. Clearly, $`(1)^{|I|}=(1)^{|J|}`$. Since the formula $`IJ_I=I\backslash \{m\}`$ establishes a bijective correspondence between sets $`II(\phi )`$ containing $`m`$ and subsets of $`I(\psi )`$, these equalities yield (9.2.f). Formulas (9.2.e), (9.2.f) and the induction assumption $`L^{\overline{m}},\psi ,k^{\overline{m}}_1=L^{\overline{m}},\psi ,k^{\overline{m}}_2`$ imply (9.2.c). This accomplishes the proof of the theorem.

10. A surgery formula for the Alexander polynomial

10.1. The refined Alexander polynomial.  Let $`M`$ be a closed connected 3-manifold with $`b_1(M)1`$. Set $`G=H_1(M)/\text{Tors}H_1(M)`$. The Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$ of $`\pi _1(M)`$ is defined using a finite presentation of $`\pi _1(M)`$ and the Fox differential calculus (see \[CF\]). This polynomial is an element of the group ring $`[G]`$ defined up to multiplication by $`\pm G`$. The theory of torsions allows to introduce a refinement $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e,\omega )`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$ depending on an Euler structure $`e\text{vect}(M)`$ and a homology orientation $`\omega `$ of $`M`$. We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e,\omega )`$ as follows. Denote by $`Q(G)`$ the field of fractions of the domain $`[G]`$. Denote by $`\mu `$ the composition of the projection $`[H_1(M)][G]`$ with the inclusion $`[G]Q(G)`$. Set $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e,\omega )=\tau ^\mu (M,e,\omega )Q(G)`$. It follows from \[Tu1\] that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e,\omega )`$ is a refinement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$ in the following sense. If $`b_1(M)2`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e,\omega )[G]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)=\pm G\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e,\omega )`$. If $`b_1(M)=1`$ and $`M`$ is orientable then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e,\omega )(t1)^2[G]`$ for any generator $`t`$ of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)=\pm G(t1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e,\omega )`$. A similar formula holds for non-orientable $`M`$ (see \[Tu1\]) but we shall not need it.

10.2. Theorem (a surgery formula for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e,\omega )`$).  Let $`M`$ be a closed 3-manifold with $`b_1(M)1`$ obtained by surgery on a framed oriented link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere $`N`$. Let $`k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)`$ be a charge on $`L`$. Let $`[[t_1]],\mathrm{},[[t_m]]G=H_1(M)/\text{Tors}H_1(M)`$ be represented by the meridians of $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_m`$, respectively. Set

$$I_0=\{i|[[t_i]]=1\}\{1,\mathrm{},m\}.$$
$`(10.2.a)`$
Then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)$$
$`(10.2.b)`$
$$=\underset{i\overline{I_0}}{}([[t_i]]1)^1\underset{II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\mu _\mathrm{\#}^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0},k^{\overline{I}}))$$

where $`\mu _\mathrm{\#}^{\overline{I}}:([H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0})])_1Q(G)`$ is the natural extension of the ring homomorphism $`\mu ^{\overline{I}}:[H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0})][G]`$ sending the generator of $`H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0})`$ represented by the meridian of $`L_i`$ to $`[[t_i]]G`$, for all $`i\overline{I}`$.

Formula (10.2.b) is obtained by a direct application of Theorem 9.2 to the ring homomorphism $`\mu `$ defined in Sect. 10.1. Note that all $`[[t_i]]1[G]`$ with $`i\overline{I_0}`$ are non-zero and therefore invertible in $`Q(G)`$. We have

$$\text{rank}H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0})|\overline{I}\backslash (\overline{I}I_0)|=m|I_0|b_1(M)1.$$
$`(10.2.c)`$
Hence $`(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0},k^{\overline{I}})([H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0})])_1`$ and (10.2.b) makes sense.

If $`m|I_0|2`$, then $`(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0},k^{\overline{I}})[H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0})]`$, and (10.2.b) can be rewritten in a slightly simpler form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)$$
$`(10.2.d)`$
$$=\underset{i\overline{I_0}}{}([[t_i]]1)^1\underset{II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\mu ^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0},k^{\overline{I}})).$$

This applies in particular if $`b_1(M)2`$.

If $`m|I_0|=1`$ then it may happen that $`\text{rank}H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0})=1`$. In this case we do need $`\mu _\mathrm{\#}^{\overline{I}}`$. We shall see now that this can happen for only one entry, namely the one corresponding to $`I=I_0`$. We begin with a lemma which will be proven in Sect. 10.5.

10.3. Lemma. Assume that $`I_0`$ consists of all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ except a certain $`n`$. Then the framing number of $`L_n`$ is $`0`$ and $`lk(L_n,L_i)=0`$ for all $`in`$. For sets $`IJI_0`$, we have $`\text{rank}H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})=1`$ if and only if $`I=J=I_0`$.

Using this lemma we can reformulate (10.2.b) in the case $`I_0=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}\backslash \{n\}`$. Set $`t=[[t_n]]G`$. By assumption, $`t1`$ and therefore $`t1`$ is invertible in $`Q(G)`$. It follows from Theorem 10.2, Lemma 10.3, and (8.1.c) that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=(t1)^1\underset{II_0,II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\mu ^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_0},k^{\overline{I}}))$$

$$+(1)^m\text{det}(\mathrm{}^{I_0}(L))t^{(k_n+1)/2}(t1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}(t)$$
$`(10.2.e)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}`$ is the canonically normalized Alexander polynomial of $`L_n`$ (see Sect. 8.1) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}(t)[G]`$ is obtained by computing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}`$ on $`t`$. By definition of a charge, the integer $`k_n+1=k_n+1lk(L_n,L\backslash L_n)`$ is even.

10.4. Special cases. We describe two cases where (10.2.b) simplifies. If $`m2`$ and all $`[[t_1]],\mathrm{},[[t_m]]`$ are non-trivial elements of $`G`$ then $`I_0=\mathrm{}`$ and the sum on the right-hand side of (10.2.b) has only one term. We obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}([[t_i]]1)^1[[(L,k)]]$$

where for a Laurent polynomial $`[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}]`$ we denote by $`[[]]`$ the element of $`[G]`$ obtained from $``$ by the substitution $`t_i[[t_i]]G`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

Consider now the case where $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_mN`$ is an algebraically split link. This means that $`lk(L_i,L_j)=0`$ for all $`ij`$ where $`lk`$ is the linking number in $`N`$. A charge $`k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)`$ on $`L`$ is just an $`m`$-tuple of odd integers. It follows easily from the Torres formula (5.1.a) and definitions that the Laurent polynomial $`(L,k)`$ is divisible by $`_{i=1}^m(t_i1)`$ in $`[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}]`$. Set

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L,k)=(L,k)/\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(t_i1)[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}].$$

Let $`M`$ be a 3-manifold obtained by surgery along $`L`$ endowed with certain framing numbers $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_m`$. The set $`I_0`$ defined by (10.2.a) is computed by $`I_0=\{i=1,\mathrm{},m|f_i0\}`$. Clearly, $`b_1(M)=m|I_0|`$. If $`b_1(M)2`$ then (10.2.d) implies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\underset{iI}{}f_i[[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})]].$$

If $`b_1(M)=1`$ then $`I_0`$ consists of all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ except a certain $`n`$ and (10.2.e) implies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{II_0,II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\underset{iI}{}f_i[[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})]]$$

$$+(1)^m\left(\underset{in}{}f_i\right)t^{(k_n+1)/2}(t1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}(t)$$

where $`t=[[t_n]]G`$. In particular, if $`L`$ is a knot with framing number $`0`$ and charge $`k`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=t^{(k+1)/2}(t1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_L(t)`$.

10.5. Proof of Lemma 10.3. By assumption, $`[t_i]\text{Tors}H_1(M)`$ for all $`in`$ and $`[t_n]H_1(M)`$ is an element of infinite order. Therefore the group $`H_1(M)/\{[t_i]=1|in\}`$ is infinite. Since $`(lk(L_i,L_j))_{i,j}`$ is a presentation matrix for $`H_1(M)`$ with respect to the generators $`[t_1],\mathrm{},[t_m]`$, this implies that $`lk(L_n,L_i)=0`$ for all $`i`$. If $`I=J=I_0`$ then $`H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})=H(L_n,\mathrm{})=`$. Conversely, assume that $`IJI_0`$ and $`\text{rank}H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})=1`$. The group $`H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})`$ is generated by $`\{t_i\}_{i\overline{I}}`$ modulo the relations

$$\underset{i\overline{I}}{}(t_it_r^1)^{lk(L_i,L_r)}=1$$

numerated by $`r\overline{I}J`$. By the first part of the claim, these relations do not involve the generator $`t_n`$. Hence $`H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})`$ splits as a product of the infinite cyclic group generated by $`t_n`$ and a group $`H^{}`$ generated by $`t_i`$ with $`i\overline{I}\backslash \{n\}=I_0\backslash I`$. If $`II_0`$ then there is an epimorphism $`H^{}`$ sending all $`t_i`$ with $`iI_0\backslash I`$ to $`1`$. Then $`\text{rank}H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})=\text{rank}H^{}+12`$ which contradicts our assumptions. Thus, $`I=I_0`$ and therefore also $`J=I_0`$.

11. A surgery formula for $`\tau (M)`$ in the case $`b_1(M)1`$

11.1. Setting and notation.  Let $`M`$ be a closed 3-manifold obtained by surgery on a framed oriented link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere $`N`$. Let $`k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)`$ be a charge on $`L`$. Set $`H=H_1(M)`$. We shall need the following notation.

For any $`aQ(H)`$ we define the reduced inverse $`a_{\text{red}}^1`$ as follows. Recall that $`Q(H)`$ splits as a direct sum of fields, $`Q(H)=_rF_r`$. There is a unique expansion $`a=_ra_r`$ with $`a_rF_r`$ for all $`r`$. Set $`a_{\text{red}}^1=_{r,a_r0}a_r^1`$ where $`a_r^1F_r`$ is the inverse of $`a_r`$ in $`F_r`$. Clearly, if $`a`$ is invertible in $`Q(H)`$ then $`a_{\text{red}}^1=a^1`$. The reduced inverse is defined for all elements of $`Q(H)`$. For instance, $`0_{\text{red}}^1=0`$. If $`t`$ is an element of $`H`$ of infinite order then $`(t1)_{\text{red}}^1=(t1)^1`$. If $`t`$ is an element of $`H`$ of finite order $`n1`$ then a simple computation shows that

$$(t1)_{\text{red}}^1=\frac{1+2t+3t^2+\mathrm{}+nt^{n1}}{n}\frac{n+1}{2}\frac{1+t+\mathrm{}+t^{n1}}{n}$$

$$=\frac{(1n)+(3n)t+(5n)t^2+\mathrm{}+(n1)t^{n1}}{2n}.$$

Let $`[t_1],\mathrm{},[t_m]H=H_1(M)`$ be represented by the meridians of $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_m`$, respectively. Set

$$I_0=\{i|[t_i]\text{Tors}H\}\{1,\mathrm{},m\}$$

(this is equivalent to (10.2.a)). For any sets $`IJI_0`$ we define an additive homomorphism from $`[H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})]`$ to $`[H]`$ called transfer. The image of $`a[H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})]`$ under the transfer is denoted $`a^{\text{tr}}`$. By additivity, it suffices to define $`a^{\text{tr}}`$ for $`aH(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})`$. Consider the group $`H_J=H/\{[t_j]=1|jJ\}`$. Let $`p`$ be the projection $`HH_J`$. Sending each $`t_i`$ with $`i\overline{I}`$ to $`p([t_i])H_J`$, we obtain a group homomorphism, $`q:H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})H_J`$. For $`aH(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})`$ we set $`a^{\text{tr}}=|\text{Ker}p|^1_{hp^1q(a)}h[H]`$ where $`|\text{Ker}p|=\text{card}(\text{Ker}p)`$ and the addition on the right-hand side is the one in the group ring $`[H]`$. The sum on the right-hand side is finite: the inclusion $`JI_0`$ ensures that $`\text{Ker}p`$ is finite. The transfer $`[H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})][H]`$ is multiplicative but in general not a ring homomorphism since $`1^{\text{tr}}=|\text{Ker}p|^1_{h\text{Ker}p}h`$.

We give now a surgery formula for $`\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$ in the case $`b_1(M)1`$, see Appendix 1 for the case $`b_1(M)=0`$.

11.2. Theorem.  If  $`m|I_0|2`$, then

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)$$
$`(11.2.a)`$
$$=\underset{IJI_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}.$$

If $`I_0`$ consists of all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ except a certain $`n`$, then

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)$$
$`(11.2.b)`$
$$=\underset{IJI_0,II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}$$

$$+(1)^m\frac{\text{det}(\mathrm{}^{I_0}(L))}{|\text{Tors}H|}\left(\underset{h\text{Tors}H}{}h\right)[t_n]^{(k_n+1)/2}([t_n]1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}([t_n])$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}`$ is the canonically normalized Alexander polynomial of $`L_n`$ (see Sect. 8.1) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}([t_n])[H]`$ is obtained by computing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}`$ on $`[t_n]`$.

Proof. Consider first the case $`m|I_0|2`$. The sum on the right-hand side of (11.2.a) goes over all subsets $`I,J`$ of $`I_0`$ such that $`IJ`$. By (10.2.c), we have $`\text{rank}H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})2`$ so that $`(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}})[H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})]`$ and its transfer $`((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}`$ is a well defined element of $`[H]Q(H)`$.

Denote by $`\phi _r`$ the composition of the inclusion $`[H]Q(H)`$ and the projection $`Q(H)F_r`$ on the $`r`$-th term in the splitting $`Q(H)=_rF_r`$. Set

$$I_r=I(\phi _r)=\{i|\phi _r([t_i])=1\}\{1,\mathrm{},m\}$$

and $`\tau _r=\tau ^{\phi _r}(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)F_r`$. Note that $`I_rI_0`$ for all $`r`$ and therefore $`|\overline{I}_r||\overline{I}_0|2`$. For $`IJI_0`$, set $`\phi _r^{\overline{I}}=(\phi _r)^{\overline{I}}:[H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})]F_r`$ (cf. Sect. 9.1). We have

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{r}{}\tau _r$$

$$=\underset{r}{}\underset{II_r}{}\underset{i\overline{I_r}}{}(\phi _r([t_i])1)^1(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\phi _r^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}I_r},k^{\overline{I}}))$$

$$=\underset{IJI_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1\underset{r,J=I_r}{}\phi _r^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))$$

$$=\underset{IJI_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1\underset{r,JI_r}{}\phi _r^{\overline{I}}((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}})).$$

Here the first equality is the definition of $`\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$. The second equality follows from Theorem 9.2. The third equality is a tautology (the projections of both sides to each $`F_r`$ are equal). The fourth equality follows from the fact that the terms on the right-hand side corresponding to proper subsets $`JI_r`$ are equal to $`0`$. Indeed for $`iI_r\backslash J`$, the projection of $`[t_i]1`$ and hence of $`([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1`$ to $`F_r`$ is equal to $`0`$. Therefore $`([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1\text{Im}(\phi _r^{\overline{I}})=0`$. The theorem now follows from the next claim.

Claim. For any sets $`IJI_0`$ and any $`a[H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})]`$,

$$\underset{r,JI_r}{}\phi _r^{\overline{I}}(a)=a^{\text{tr}}.$$

Proof. By additivity, it suffices to consider the case where $`aH(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})`$. Let $`H=H_1(M)`$ and $`H_J,p,q`$ be the same objects as in Sect. 11.1. Since $`\text{Ker}p`$ is a subgroup of $`\text{Tors}H`$, the epimorphism $`p`$ extends to a ring epimorphism $`\stackrel{~}{p}:Q(H)Q(H_J)`$. Moreover, the splitting of $`Q(H_J)`$ into a direct sum of fields is obtained from the splitting of $`Q(H)`$ by quotienting out all $`F_r`$ such that $`\phi _r(\text{Ker}p)1`$. Note that $`\phi _r(\text{Ker}p)=1`$ if and only if $`JI_r`$. Thus

$$Q(H_J)=\underset{r,\phi _r(\text{Ker}p)=1}{}F_r=\underset{r,JI_r}{}F_r.$$

For each $`r`$ such that $`JI_r`$, the composition of $`\stackrel{~}{p}:Q(H)Q(H_J)`$ with the projection $`\psi _r:Q(H_J)F_r`$ is equal to the projection $`Q(H)F_r`$.

The identity $`_r\phi _r(h)=h`$ for all $`hH`$ implies that

$$a^{\text{tr}}=|\text{Ker}p|^1\underset{hp^1q(a)}{}h=|\text{Ker}p|^1\underset{r}{}\phi _r(\underset{hp^1q(a)}{}h).$$

Observe that if $`\phi _r(\text{Ker}p)1`$ then $`\phi _r(_{hp^1q(a)}h)=0`$. Therefore

$$a^{\text{tr}}=|\text{Ker}p|^1\underset{r,\phi _r(\text{Ker}p)=1}{}\phi _r(\underset{hp^1q(a)}{}h)$$

$$=|\text{Ker}p|^1\underset{r,JI_r}{}\psi _r\stackrel{~}{p}(\underset{hp^1q(a)}{}h)=\underset{r,JI_r}{}\psi _r(q(a))=\underset{r,JI_r}{}\phi _r^{\overline{I}}(a)$$

where the last formula follows from the definition of $`\phi _r^{\overline{I}}=(\phi _r)^{\overline{I}}`$.

The proof of (11.2.b) is similar with a separate analysis of the term corresponding to $`I=J=I_0`$ using Lemma 10.3.

11.3. Remarks.  1. It follows from Lemma 10.3 that $`\text{det}(\mathrm{}^{I_0}(L))/|\text{Tors}H|=\pm 1`$ in (11.2.b). This sign will also appear in Appendix 2.

2. As an exercise, the reader may deduce Theorem 10.2 from Theorem 11.2. Hint: use the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$ is the image of $`\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$ under the projection $`Q(H)Q(H/\text{Tors}H)`$ and that all summands corresponding to $`JI_0`$ are annihilated by this projection.

11.4. Special cases.  We discuss two special cases of Theorem 11.2. We use the notation of Sect. 11.1. For a Laurent polynomial $`[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}]`$, we denote by $`[]`$ the element of $`[H]`$ obtained from $``$ by the substitution $`t_i[t_i]H`$ where $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Here is the simplest case of (11.2.a): if all $`[t_1],\mathrm{},[t_m]`$ have infinite order in $`H`$ then $`I_0=\mathrm{}`$ and (11.2.a) yields

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}([t_i]1)^1[(L,k)].$$
$`(11.4.a)`$
Consider now the case where $`L`$ is algebraically split. Let $`f_i`$ be the framing number of $`L_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. For $`iI_0=\{i=1,\mathrm{},m|f_i0\}`$, the element $`[t_i]H`$ has order $`|f_i|=\text{sign}(f_i)f_i`$ where $`\text{sign}(f_i)=\pm 1`$ is the sign of $`f_i`$. Set

$$s_i=\text{sign}(f_i)(1+[t_i]+[t_i]^2+\mathrm{}+[t_i]^{|f_i|1})[H].$$

Assume first that $`b_1(M)=m|I_0|2`$. As we show below, formula (11.2.a) can be rewritten in this case as follows:

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}(\underset{iI}{}s_i)[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})].$$
$`(11.4.b)`$
Here $`k^{\overline{I}}`$ is just the restriction of $`k`$ to $`L^{\overline{I}}=_{i\overline{I}}L_i`$. The assumption $`b_1(M)2`$ ensures that $`L^{\overline{I}}`$ has $`2`$ components for any $`II_0`$ so that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})`$ is a Laurent polynomial on $`\{t_i\}_{i\overline{I}}`$ and $`[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})]`$ is a well defined element of $`[H]`$. The sum on the right-hand side of (11.4.b) contains a term corresponding to $`I=\mathrm{}`$ and equal to $`[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L,k)]`$. The other terms correspond to proper sublinks of $`L`$. For instance, if $`f_i=0`$ for all $`i`$ then $`I_0=\mathrm{}`$ and we obtain a formula $`\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L,k)]`$ equivalent to (11.4.a). If $`I_0`$ has only one element $`i`$ then (11.4.b) gives

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L,k)]s_i[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{i}},k^{\overline{i}})]$$

where $`\overline{i}=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}\backslash i`$. If $`I_0`$ has two elements $`i,j`$ then (11.4.b) gives

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L,k)]s_i[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{i}},k^{\overline{i}})]s_j[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{j}},k^{\overline{j}})]+s_is_j[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{\{i,j\}}},k^{\overline{\{i,j\}}})].$$

Let us deduce (11.4.b) from (11.2.a). Observe that for $`IJI_0`$,

$$\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))=\underset{iI}{}f_i.$$

It follows from definitions that $`(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}})=_{i\overline{J}}(t_i1)\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})`$. Hence

$$((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}=\underset{jJ}{}\sigma _j\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})]$$

where

$$\sigma _j=|f_j|^1(1+[t_j]+\mathrm{}+[t_j]^{|f_j|1})=f_j^1s_j.$$
$`(11.4.c)`$
Formula (11.2.a) yields then

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)$$
$`(11.4.d)`$
$$=\underset{IJI_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\underset{iI}{}f_i\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1\underset{jJ}{}\sigma _j\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})].$$

Observe that for $`i\overline{I}_0`$, we have $`([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1([t_i]1)=([t_i]1)^1([t_i]1)=1`$. If $`iI_0`$ then $`([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1([t_i]1)=1\sigma _i`$: both sides are mapped to $`0`$ by any character of $`\text{Tors}H`$ mapping $`t_i`$ to $`1`$ and are mapped to $`1`$ by all other characters of $`\text{Tors}H`$. Therefore the right-hand side of (11.4.d) can be rewritten as

$$\underset{IJI_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\underset{iI}{}f_i\underset{jJ}{}\sigma _j\underset{iI_0\backslash J}{}(1\sigma _i)[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})]$$

$$=\underset{II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\underset{iI}{}f_i\left(\underset{J,IJI_0}{}\underset{jJ}{}\sigma _j\underset{iI_0\backslash J}{}(1\sigma _i)\right)[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})].$$

The sum over $`J`$ obviously equals to $`_{iI}\sigma _i`$. Therefore

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\underset{iI}{}f_i\underset{iI}{}\sigma _i[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})].$$

Substituting $`\sigma _i=f_i^1s_i`$ we obtain (11.4.b).

Assume now that $`L`$ is algebraically split and $`b_1(M)=m|I_0|=1`$. Let $`n`$ be the only element of $`\overline{I_0}`$. Then (11.2.b) can be similarly rewritten as follows:

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{II_0,II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\underset{iI}{}s_i[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})]$$
$`(11.4.e)`$
$$+(1)^m\left(\underset{iI_0}{}s_i\right)[t_n]^{(k_n+1)/2}([t_n]1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}([t_n]).$$

12. A surgery formula for the Seiberg-Witten invariants of 3-manifolds

12.1. Torsion versus SW-invariants.  Let $`M`$ be a closed, connected, oriented 3-manifold with homology orientation $`\omega `$. Set $`H=H_1(M)`$. Assume first that $`b_1(M)2`$. The Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`M`$ is a $``$-valued function $`eSW(e,\omega )`$ on $`\text{vect}(M)`$, see for instance \[MT\]. This function has a finite support. Note that usually one considers the SW-invariants of $`Spin^c`$-structures on $`M`$; by \[Tu5\], the set of $`Spin^c`$-structures on $`M`$ can be identified with $`\text{vect}(M)=\text{Eul}(M)`$. The SW-invariant is computed from the torsion $`\tau `$ as follows. Every element $`a[H]`$ expands uniquely as a finite sum $`_{hH}a_hh`$ with $`a_h`$. By \[Tu6\] (see also Appenidx 3), $`\tau (M,e,\omega )[H]`$ for any $`e\text{vect}(M)`$ and

$$SW(e,\omega )=\pm (\tau (M,e,\omega ))_1$$
$`(12.1.a)`$
where $`1`$ is the neutral element of $`H`$ and the sign $`\pm `$ does not depend on $`e`$. Together with (11.2.a) this implies the following formula for $`\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$ in the setting of Sect. 11.1:

$$\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{IJI_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\left(\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}\right)_1$$

where the sum runs over all subsets $`I,J`$ of $`I_0`$ such that $`IJ`$. This formula computes $`\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$ in terms of the Conway polynomials of $`L`$ and its sublinks, and the linking and framing numbers of the components of $`L`$.

Assume now that $`b_1(M)=1`$. Choose an element $`tH`$ whose projection to $`H/\text{Tors}H=`$ is a generator. An element $`gH`$ is said to be $`t`$-positive (resp. $`t`$-negative) if $`gt^K\text{Tors}H`$ with $`K>0`$ (resp. with $`K<0`$). The Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`M`$ is a $``$-valued function $`eSW(e,\omega ,t)`$ on $`\text{vect}(M)`$ depending on $`t(\text{mod}\text{Tors}H)H/\text{Tors}H`$. It is computed from $`\tau (M,e,\omega )`$ as follows. Let $`Q`$ be the subring of $`Q(H)`$ generated by $`[H]`$ and elements $`(g1)^1`$ where $`g`$ runs over elements of $`H`$ of infinite order. Using the formula $`(g1)^1=1gg^2\mathrm{}`$ for $`t`$-positive $`g`$ and the formula $`(g1)^1=g^1(g^11)^1=g^1+g^2+\mathrm{}`$ for $`t`$-negative $`g`$ we can uniquely expand any $`aQ`$ as a formal series $`a^t=_{hH}a_h^th`$ with $`a_h^t`$. The support of the map $`ha_h^t:H`$ is essentially $`t`$-positive in the sense that it meets the set of $`t`$-negative elements of $`H`$ in a finite set. Theorem 11.2 or the results of \[Tu5, Sect. 4.2\] show that $`\tau (M,e,\omega )Q`$. It follows from \[Tu6\] (cf. Appendix 3 of the present paper) that

$$\pm SW(e,\omega ,t)=(\tau (M,e,\omega ))_1^{t^1}=(\tau (M,e^1,\omega ))_1^t.$$
$`(12.1.b)`$
Recall that $`(e_k^M)^1=e_{2k}^M`$, cf. Sect. 1.7. Combining this with Theorem 11.2 we obtain the following formulas for $`\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M,t)`$ in the setting of Sect. 11.1. If $`m|I_0|2`$ (and $`b_1(M)=1`$), then

$$\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M,t)$$

$$=\underset{IJI_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\left(\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}\right)_1^{t^1}$$

$$=\underset{IJI_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\left(\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},(2k)^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}\right)_1^t.$$

Note that $`(2k)^{\overline{I}}=2+(k^{\overline{I}})`$. If $`I_0`$ consists of all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ except a certain $`n`$, then $`t=[t_n]H`$ projects to a generator of $`H/\text{Tors}H`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}(t)=_lz_lt^l`$ be the canonically normalized Alexander polynomial of $`L_n`$. Then

$$\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M,t)$$

$$=\underset{IJI_0,II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\left(\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}\right)_1^{t^1}$$

$$+(1)^m\frac{\text{det}(\mathrm{}^{I_0}(L))}{|\text{Tors}H|}(z_{(k_n3)/2}+2z_{(k_n5)/2}+3z_{(k_n7)/2}+\mathrm{})$$

$$=\underset{IJI_0,II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\left(\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},(2k)^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}\right)_1^t$$

$$+(1)^m\frac{\text{det}(\mathrm{}^{I_0}(L))}{|\text{Tors}H|}(z_{(k_n3)/2}+2z_{(k_n5)/2}+3z_{(k_n7)/2}+\mathrm{}).$$

12.2. The case of algebraically split links.  The surgery formula for $`SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$ can be made quite explicit when the link $`L`$ is algebraically split. Observe first that for an algebraically split link with $`m2`$ components $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ in a homology sphere, the Laurent polynomial $`_L`$ is divisible by $`_{i=1}^m(t_i^21)`$ in $`[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}]`$. Thus we have a finite expansion

$$_L(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)/\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(t_i^21)=\underset{l=(l_1,\mathrm{},l_m)^m}{}z_l(L)t_1^{l_1}\mathrm{}t_m^{l_m}$$

where $`z_l(L)`$.

Assume that a 3-manifold $`M`$ is obtained by surgery on a framed oriented algebraically split link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere. Let $`k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)`$ be a charge on $`L`$. Let $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m)`$ be the tuple of the framing numbers of $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_m`$. Denote by $`J_0`$ the subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ consisting of all $`j`$ such that $`f_j=0`$. Note that $`|J_0|=b_1(M)`$. As usual we distinguish two cases $`b_1(M)2`$ and $`b_1(M)=1`$.

12.2.1. Case $`b_1(M)2`$.  We claim that

$$\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M)$$
$`(12.2.a)`$
$$=\underset{J_0J\{1,\mathrm{},m\}}{}(1)^{|J|}\underset{i\overline{J}}{}\text{sign}(f_i)\underset{l^J,lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)}{}z_l(L^J).$$

To see this, we analyze the terms of (11.4.b) giving rise to entries of the neutral element in $`\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$. By definition (see Sect. 8.1 and 10.4),

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L,k)=(L,k)/\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(t_i1)=t_1^{k_1/2}\mathrm{}t_m^{k_m/2}_L(t_1^{1/2},\mathrm{},t_m^{1/2})/\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(t_i1)$$

$$=\underset{l=(l_1,\mathrm{},l_m)^m}{}z_l(L)t_1^{(k_1+l_1)/2}\mathrm{}t_m^{(k_m+l_m)/2}[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_m^{\pm 1}].$$

Similar formulas hold for $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})`$ where $`I`$ runs over subsets of $`I_0=\overline{J_0}`$. We substitute these formulas into (11.4.b) and use the obvious fact that a monomial $`t_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}t_m^{n_m}`$ represents $`1H_1(M)`$ iff $`n_i`$ is divisible by $`f_i`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. This implies that $`1H_1(M)`$ appears in $`\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)`$ with coefficient

$$\underset{II_0}{}(1)^{|I|}\underset{iI}{}\text{sign}(f_i)\underset{l^{\overline{I}},lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)}{}z_l(L^{\overline{I}}).$$

Setting here $`I=\overline{J}`$ we obtain

$$(1)^{m1}\underset{J_0J\{1,\mathrm{},m\}}{}(1)^{|J|}\underset{i\overline{J}}{}\text{sign}(f_i)\underset{l^J,lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)}{}z_l(L^J).$$

This and the results of \[Tu6\] mentioned in Sect. 12.1 imply (12.2.a).

The right-hand side of (12.2.a) contains two distinguished terms corresponding to $`J=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and to $`J=J_0`$. The term corresponding to $`J=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ equals $`(1)^m_{l^m,lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)}z_l(L)`$. The term corresponding to $`J=J_0`$ equals

$$(1)^{b_1(M)}(\underset{j\overline{J}_0}{}\text{sign}(f_j))z_{k^{J_0}}(L^{J_0})$$

where $`k^J=\{k_j\}_{jJ}`$ for any set $`J\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$. For example, if all $`f_j`$ are equal to zero, then $`J_0=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and

$$SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\pm z_k(L).$$
$`(12.2.b)`$
If $`J_0`$ consists of all indices $`1,\mathrm{},m`$ except a certain $`i`$, i.e., $`J_0=\overline{i}=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}\backslash i`$ then (12.2.a) gives

$$\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{l^m,lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)}{}z_l(L)\text{sign}(f_i)z_{k^{\overline{i}}}(L^{\overline{i}}).$$
$`(12.2.c)`$
The condition $`lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)`$ means here that $`l_j=k_j`$ for $`ji`$ and $`l_ik_i(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f_i)`$. If $`J_0=\overline{\{i,j\}}`$ is the complement of two indices $`i,j`$ then (12.2.a) gives

$$\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{l^m,lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)}{}z_l(L)\text{sign}(f_i)\underset{l^{\overline{i}},lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)}{}z_l(L^{\overline{i}})$$

$$\text{sign}(f_j)\underset{l^{\overline{j}},lk(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)}{}z_l(L^{\overline{j}})+\text{sign}(f_i)\text{sign}(f_j)z_{k^{\overline{\{i,j\}}}}(L^{\overline{\{i,j\}}}).$$

12.2.2. Case $`b_1(M)=1`$.  Let $`n`$ be the only element of $`J_0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}(t)=_lz_lt^l`$ be the normalized Alexander polynomial of $`L_n`$. Then it follows similarly from (11.4.e) that

$$\pm SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M,[t_n])$$

$$=\underset{nJ\{1,\mathrm{},m\},|J|2}{}(1)^{|J|}\underset{i\overline{J}}{}\text{sign}(f_i)\underset{l^J,l2k(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f)}{}z_l(L^J)$$

$$\underset{in}{}\text{sign}(f_i)(z_{(k_n3)/2}+2z_{(k_n5)/2}+3z_{(k_n7)/2}+\mathrm{}).$$

12.3. Examples.  1. Let a 3-manifold $`M`$ be obtained by surgery along an oriented knot $`L=L_1S^3`$ with framing $`0`$. Then for any odd integer $`k`$,

$$SW(e_k^M,\omega _L^M,[t_1])=\pm (z_{(k_n3)/2}+2z_{(k_n5)/2}+3z_{(k_n7)/2}+\mathrm{})$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}(t)=_lz_lt^l`$.

2. Consider the Borromean link $`L=L_1L_2L_3`$. It is algebraically split, $`z_l(L)=0`$ for all $`l0`$ and $`z_0(L)=\pm 1`$ where the sign depends on the orientation of $`L`$. All 2-component sublinks of $`L`$ are trivial and have a zero Alexander-Conway polynomial. Therefore if $`M`$ is obtained by surgery on $`L`$ with framing numbers $`(f,0,0)`$ then formulas (12.2.b), (12.2.c) show that there is an Euler structure on $`M`$ with SW-invariant $`\pm 1`$ and all other Euler structures on $`M`$ have a zero SW-invariant. This was previously known for $`f=0`$ where $`M=S^1\times S^1\times S^1`$.

Appendix 1. A surgery formula for rational homology spheres

We discuss here an analogue of Theorem 11.2 in the case where $`M`$ is a rational homology sphere, i.e., $`b_1(M)=0`$. We use the notation of Sect. 11.1. It is clear that $`I_0=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and $`Q(H)=[H]`$ where $`H=H_1(M)`$. For every $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, we define $`\sigma _i[H]`$ by (11.4.c) where $`f_i1`$ is the order of $`[t_i]H`$. For sets $`IJ\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$, set $`rk(I,J)=\text{rank}H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})`$.

The arguments of Sect. 11 apply here with the following changes. One of the summands in the splitting of $`[H]`$ into a direct sum of fields corresponds to the augmentation homomorphism $`\phi _0:[H]`$ which maps $`H`$ to $`1`$. Clearly, $`H_{}^{\phi _0}(M)=H_{}(M;)0`$ so that $`\tau ^{\phi _0}(M)=0`$. This allows us to proceed as in the proof of Theorem 11.2 involving only $`r`$ such that $`\phi _r(H)1`$. This leads to the condition $`J\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ or equivalently $`|J|m1`$ in the formulas below.

The second subtlety comes from the fact that the expression $`((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}`$ is defined only if $`rk(I,J)2`$. Note that $`rk(I,J)|\overline{J}|1`$. We can have $`rk(I,J)=1`$ only when $`J=\overline{n}=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}\backslash \{n\}`$ for a certain $`n=1,\mathrm{},m`$. For a set $`IJ=\overline{n}`$ three cases may occur: (i) $`rk(I,J)2`$; (ii) $`rk(I,J)=1`$ and $`IJ`$, and (iii) $`I=J`$. In the second case

$$([t_n]1)(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}})[H(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J})]$$

and we can set

$$((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}=([t_n]1)_{\text{red}}^1(([t_n]1)(L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}[H].$$

Then the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 11.2 show that

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=$$

$$\underset{IJ\{1,\mathrm{},m\},|I|m2,|J|m1}{}(1)^{|I|}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^I(L))\underset{i\overline{J}}{}([t_i]1)_{\text{red}}^1((L^{\overline{I}},L^{\overline{I}J},k^{\overline{I}}))^{\text{tr}}$$

$$+(1)^m\underset{n=1}{\overset{m}{}}\text{det}(\mathrm{}^{\overline{n}}(L))(\underset{in}{}\sigma _i)[t_n]^{(k_nlk(L_n,L^{\overline{n}})+1)/2}(([t_n]1)_{\text{red}}^1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}([t_n]).$$

In the case where $`L`$ is algebraically split and its components have non-zero framings $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_m`$, we obtain

$$\tau (M,e_k^M,\omega _L^M)=\underset{I\{1,\mathrm{},m\},|I|m2}{}(1)^{|I|}\underset{iI}{}s_i[\stackrel{ˇ}{}(L^{\overline{I}},k^{\overline{I}})]$$

$$+(1)^m\underset{n=1}{\overset{m}{}}\left(\underset{in}{}f_i\sigma _i\right)[t_n]^{(k_n+1)/2}(([t_n]1)_{\text{red}}^1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_n}([t_n]).$$

Appendix 2. Computation of $`\omega _L^M`$

Canonical homology orientation.  Every closed oriented 3-manifold $`M`$ has a canonical homology orientation $`\omega _M`$ determined by an arbitrary basis in the vector space $`H_0(M;)H_1(M;)`$ followed by the Poincaré dual basis in $`H_2(M;)H_3(M;)`$. Clearly, $`\omega _M=(1)^{b_0(M)+b_1(M)}\omega _M`$. The aim of this appendix is to compute the homology orientation $`\omega _L^M=(\omega _L)^M`$ of $`M`$ which appears above via $`\omega _M`$. It is obvious that $`\omega _L^M=\pm \omega _M`$ and we shall compute the sign $`\pm `$ in this formula. We begin with a purely algebraic definition.

Sign of the determinant as a torsion.  Let $`B`$ be a symmetric $`(m\times m)`$-matrix over $``$ with $`m=1,2,..`$. Let $`b`$ be the symmetric bilinear form on $`^m`$ determined by $`B`$. Quotienting $`^m`$ by the annihilator $`\text{Ann}(b)`$ we obtain a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form on $`^m/\text{Ann}(b)`$. It can be represented with respect to a basis of $`^m/\text{Ann}(b)`$ by a non-degenerate symmetric matrix. The sign of its determinant does not depend on the choice of the basis. This sign is denoted by $`\text{det}_0(B)`$. If $`B`$ is non-degenerate then $`\text{det}_0(B)=\text{sign}(\text{det}(B))`$.

We can interpret $`\text{det}_0(B)`$ in terms of torsions as follows. Consider the sequence of vector spaces and linear homomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C=(\text{Ann}(b)^m& \stackrel{\text{ad}(b)}{}& (^m)^{}(\text{Ann}(b))^{})\end{array}$$

where $`\text{ad}(b):^m(^m)^{}=\text{Hom}(^m,)`$ is adjoint to $`b`$ and the homomorphism $`(^m)^{}(\text{Ann}(b))^{}`$ is obtained by restricting linear functionals on $`^m`$ to $`\text{Ann}(b)`$. Clearly, $`C`$ is an acyclic chain complex. We provide $`\text{Ann}(b),^m`$ with arbitrary bases and provide $`(\text{Ann}(b))^{},(^m)^{}`$ with dual bases. It follows from definitions that the sign $`\tau _0(C)=\pm 1`$ of the corresponding torsion $`\tau (C)`$ depends only on $`b`$ and does not depend on the choice of bases in $`\text{Ann}(b),^m`$. Choosing these bases so that the one in $`^m`$ extends the one in $`\text{Ann}(b)`$ we easily compute that

$$\tau _0(C)=(1)^{(m+1)\text{dim}(\text{Ann}(b))}\text{det}_0(B).$$
$`(2.a)`$
Lemma.  Let $`M`$ be a closed 3-manifold obtained by surgery on a framed oriented link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_m`$ in an oriented 3-dimensional integral homology sphere $`N`$. Let $`\omega _M`$ be the canonical homology orientation of $`M`$ determined by the orientation of $`M`$ induced by the one in $`N`$. Let $`B`$ be the symmetric linking matrix $`[lk(L_i,L_j)]_{i,j=1}^m`$ where $`lk(L_i,L_i)`$ is the framing number of $`L_i`$. Then

$$\omega _L^M=(1)^{b_1(M)+m+1}\text{det}_0(B)\omega _M.$$
$`(2.b)`$
Proof. We shall use the symbols $`E,U_i,\text{Z}_i`$ introduced in Sect. 1.7. Let $`D_i`$ be the meridional disc of $`\text{Z}_i`$. We orient $`D_i`$ so that $`D_iU_i`$ is homological to $`L_i`$ in $`U_i`$. As in Sect. 3.2, we provide $`H_{}(M,E;)`$ with the basis

$$d_1=[D_1,D_1],\mathrm{},d_m=[D_m,D_m],z_1=[\text{Z}_1,\text{Z}_1],\mathrm{},z_m=[\text{Z}_m,\text{Z}_m].$$

Note that the product orientation in $`\text{Z}_i`$ used to define $`z_i`$ is opposite to the orientation induced from the one in $`M`$.

We provide $`H_{}(E;)`$ with the basis $`([pt],t_1,\mathrm{},t_m,g_1,\mathrm{},g_{m1})`$ as in Sect. 3.1. Finally, we provide $`H_{}(M;)`$ with a basis $`[pt],h,h^{},[M]`$ where $`h`$ is a basis in $`H_1(M;)`$ and $`h^{}`$ is the Poincaré dual basis in $`H_2(M;)`$. The choosen bases determine the orientations $`\omega _L`$, $`\omega _M`$, $`\omega _{(M,E)}`$ in $`H_{}(E;)`$, $`H_{}(M;)`$, $`H_{}(M,E;)`$, respectively. Let $``$ be the exact homological sequence of the pair $`(M,E)`$ as in Sect. 3.2. Consider its torsion with respect to the choosen bases $`\tau ()\backslash \{0\}`$. Let $`\tau _0=\text{sign}\tau ()=\pm 1`$. In the notation of Sect. 3.2 we have $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_L=\tau _0\omega _M`$. Then

$$\omega _L^M=(1)^{mb_3(M)+(b_1(E)+1)(b_1(M)+m)}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_L=(1)^{(m+1)b_1(M)+m}\tau _0\omega _M.$$
$`(2.c)`$
We compute $`\tau _0`$. The inclusion homomorphism $`H_2(E;)H_2(M;)`$ is zero and therefore $``$ splits as a concatenation of three acyclic chain complexes

$$H_0(E;)H_0(M;),H_3(M;)H_3(M,E;)H_2(E;),$$

$$H_2(M;)H_2(M,E;)H_1(E;)H_1(M;).$$

Therefore $`\tau _0=\epsilon _1\epsilon _2\epsilon _3`$ where $`\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ are the signs of the torsions of these three chain complexes, respectively. The inclusion isomorphism $`H_0(E;)H_0(M;)`$ is given by the unit $`(1\times 1)`$-matrix and hence $`\epsilon _1=+1`$. The inclusion homomorphism $`H_3(M;)H_3(M,E;)`$ maps $`[M]`$ to $`(z_1+\mathrm{}+z_m)`$ and the boundary homomorphism $`H_3(M,E;)H_2(E;)`$ maps $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_m`$ to $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{m1},q_1+\mathrm{}+q_{m1}`$, respectively. Now it is easy to compute that $`\epsilon _2=1`$. Using the basis $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_m`$ we can identify $`H_2(M,E;)`$ with $`^m`$. We identify $`H_1(E;)`$ with $`(^m)^{}=\text{Hom}(^m,)`$ so that the basis $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ is dual to $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_m`$. With respect to these bases, the boundary homomorphism $`:H_2(M,E;)H_1(E;)`$ is presented by the matrix $`B=[lk(L_i,L_j)]_{i,j=1}^m`$ and therefore equals $`\text{ad}(b)`$ where $`b`$ is the symmetric bilinear form on $`^m`$ determined by $`B`$. This allows us to identify $`H_2(M;)=\text{Ker},H_1(M;)=\text{Coker}`$ with $`\text{Ann}(b),(\text{Ann}(b))^{}`$, respectively. Under our choice of orientations, the integral intersection index of $`D_i`$ with $`t_j`$ is equal to $`\delta _i^j`$ where $`\delta _i^j`$ is the Kronecker symbol. Therefore the intersection pairing between $`H_2(M;)`$ and $`H_1(M;)`$ is equal to $`1`$ times the Kronecker pairing between $`\text{Ann}(b)`$ and $`(\text{Ann}(b))^{}`$. By formula (2.a), we have

$$\epsilon _3=(1)^{b_1(M)}(1)^{(m+1)b_1(M)}\text{det}_0(B)=(1)^{mb_1(M)}\text{det}_0(B).$$

Hence $`\tau _0=(1)^{mb_1(M)}\text{det}_0(B)`$. Substituting this in (2.c) we obtain (2.b).

Corollaries.  We can rewrite Theorems 9.2, 10.2, 11.2 replacing $`\omega _L^M`$ with $`\omega _M`$ and simultaneously inserting on the right-hand side the factor $`(1)^{b_1(M)+m+1}\text{det}_0(B)`$.

Appendix 3. Corrections and additions to \[Tu5\], \[Tu6\]

Corrections and additions to \[Tu5\].  Let $`M`$ be a compact connected oriented 3-manifold whose boundary is either void or consists of tori. Fix a homology orientation $`\omega `$ of $`M`$. In the case $`b_1(M)=1`$ we fix also an element $`tH=H_1(M)`$ whose projection to $`H/\text{Tors}H=`$ is a generator. Following \[Tu5\], we define a numerical torsion function $`T_\omega `$ on the set of Euler structures on $`M`$. In the case $`b_1(M)=1`$ this function depends on $`t(\text{mod}\text{Tors}H)H/\text{Tors}H`$ and is denoted $`T_{\omega ,t}`$. Let $`e\text{vect}(M)`$. If $`b_1(M)2`$ then in the notation of Sect. 12.1, $`T_\omega (e)=(\tau (M,e,\omega ))_1`$. If $`b_1(M)=0`$ then $`T_\omega (e)=(\tau (M,e,\omega ))_1`$. If $`b_1(M)=1`$ then $`T_{\omega ,t}(e)=(\tau (M,e,\omega ))_1^t`$. Clearly, $`T_\omega =T_\omega `$.

The torsion function $`T`$ in \[Tu5\] coincides with $`T_\omega `$ under the following two restrictions on $`\omega ,t`$. If $`M=\mathrm{}`$ then $`\omega =\omega _M`$ should be the canonical homology orientation of $`M`$ (see Appendix 2). If $`M\mathrm{}`$ and $`b_1(M)=1`$ then $`t=t(\omega )`$ should be chosen so that $`\omega `$ is determined by the basis $`([pt],t)`$ in homology.

Several inaccuracies occured in \[Tu5\] in the case of closed $`M`$ with $`b_1(M)=1`$. Their source is a mistake in the duality formulas in \[Tu5, Sect. 2.7, 3.4\]. In these formulas instead of $`c(e)(=e/e^1)`$ should be $`(c(e))^1`$. As a result, in a few formulas the sign should be inverted. We give here the correct formulas. For $`e\text{vect}(M)`$ denote by $`K_t(e)`$ the unique integer $`K`$ such that $`c(e)t^K\text{Tors}H`$. Set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{h\text{Tors}H}h[H]`$. In Theorem 4.2.3 of \[Tu5\] we should have

$$\tau _t(M,e)=\tau (M,e,\omega _M)+\frac{K_t(e)+2}{2}(1t)^1\mathrm{\Sigma }(1t)^2\mathrm{\Sigma }[H].$$
$`(3.a)`$
On p. 690, line 11 from below should be written $`\tau _{t^1}(M,e)=\tau _t(M,e)(K_t(e)/2)`$. On p. 691, line 18 from above should be written $`r=(K2)/2`$. On p. 694, lines 3 and 6 should be $`T_t(e)=q_t^e(1)K_t(e)/2`$ and $`T_{t^1}(e)=T_t(e)+K_t(e)/2`$ (where the torsion functions $`T_t,T_{t^1}`$ correspond to $`\omega =\omega _M`$).

We state here the duality property for $`T_\omega `$. Let $`e\text{vect}(M)`$. If $`b_1(M)1`$ then

$$T_\omega (e)=(1)^{b_0(M)}T_\omega (e^1).$$
$`(3.b)`$
If $`b_1(M)=1`$ then

$$T_{\omega ,t}(e)=(1)^{b_0(M)}T_{\omega ,t^1}(e^1).$$
$`(3.c)`$
These equalities result from the formula, proven below,

$$\overline{\tau (M,e,\omega )}=(1)^{b_0(M)}\tau (M,e^1,\omega )$$
$`(3.d)`$
where the overbar denotes the involution in $`Q(H)`$ sending any $`hH`$ to $`h^1`$. It is clear that (3.d) implies (3.b) for $`b_1(M)1`$. Let us check (3.c). If $`M=\mathrm{}`$ then replacing if necessary $`\omega `$ by $`\omega `$ we can assume that $`\omega =\omega _M`$. By (3.a), (3.d),

$$\tau (M,e^1,\omega )=\overline{\tau (M,e,\omega )}=\overline{\tau _t(M,e)}\frac{K_t(e)+2}{2}(1t^1)^1\mathrm{\Sigma }+(1t^1)^2\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$

Therefore

$$T_{\omega ,t^1}(e^1)=(\overline{\tau _t(M,e)})_1\frac{K_t(e)+2}{2}+1=(\tau _t(M,e))_1\frac{K_t(e)}{2}=T_{\omega ,t}(e).$$

If $`M\mathrm{}`$ then the proof is similar using that by \[Tu5\], Theorem 4.2.1,

$$\tau (M,e,\omega )(1t(\omega ))^1\mathrm{\Sigma }[H].$$
$`(3.e)`$
As an exercise, the reader can prove that if $`b_1(M)=1`$ and $`M\mathrm{}`$ then $`T_{\omega ,(t(\omega ))^1}(e)=T_{\omega ,t(\omega )}(e)1`$.

Proof of (3.d).  In the case $`M=\mathrm{}`$, formula (3.d) follows from the results of \[Tu4\], Appendix B combined with the computation of signs in \[Tu3\], Appendix. We give here a proof in the case where $`b_1(M)1`$ and $`M`$ is possibly non-void. This covers all possible cases since in our setting $`b_1(M)1`$ whenever $`M\mathrm{}`$.

We first establish (3.d) when $`M=E`$ is the exterior of a link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_mS^3`$. Let $`k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)`$ be a charge on $`L`$. The key fact is the equality $`\overline{}_L=(1)^m_L`$ (see Sect. 8.1). We have

$$\overline{\tau (E,e_k,\omega _L)}=\overline{(L,k)}=t_1^{k_1/2}\mathrm{}t_m^{k_m/2}_L(t_1^{1/2},\mathrm{},t_m^{1/2})$$

$$=(1)^mt_1^{k_1/2}\mathrm{}t_m^{k_m/2}_L(t_1^{1/2},\mathrm{},t_m^{1/2})=(1)^m(L,k)$$

$$=(1)^m\tau (E,e_k,\omega _L)=(1)^m\tau (E,(e_k)^1,\omega _L).$$

We claim that if (3.d) holds for a 3-manifold $`E`$ with $`b_1(E)2`$ then it holds for a 3-manifold $`M`$ with $`b_1(M)1`$ obtained from $`E`$ by gluing $`m`$ directed solid tori whose cores represent elements of infinite order, $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_mH_1(M)`$. Indeed, let $`e\text{vect}(E)`$ and $`\omega `$ be a homology orientation of $`E`$. Let $`\text{in}:[H_1(E)][H_1(M)]`$ be the inclusion homomorphism. Assume first that $`m=1`$ and set $`h=h_1`$. By Lemma 7.3.3, $`\tau (M,e^M,\omega ^M)=(h1)^1\text{in}(\tau (E,e,\omega ))`$. Hence

$$\overline{\tau (M,e^M,\omega ^M)}=(h^11)^1\overline{\text{in}(\tau (E,e,\omega ))}$$

$$=(h^11)^1\text{in}(\overline{\tau (E,e,\omega )})=h(h1)^1(1)^{b_0(E)}\text{in}(\tau (E,e^1,\omega ))$$

$$=(1)^{b_0(M)}h(h1)^1\text{in}(c(e)^1)\text{in}(\tau (E,e,\omega ))$$

$$=(1)^{b_0(M)}h\text{in}(c(e)^1)\tau (M,e^M,\omega ^M)$$

$$=(1)^{b_0(M)}h\text{in}(c(e)^1)c(e^M)\tau (M,(e^M)^1,\omega ^M).$$

It remains to observe that $`c(e^M)=\text{in}(c(e))h^1`$ (cf. (1.5.c)). The case $`m>1`$ is similar.

Now we can accomplish the proof of (3.d) in the case $`b_1(M)1`$. The argument given in \[Tu5\], Sect. 3.9 shows that there is a framed link $`LM`$ (with $`2`$ components) whose components represent elements of infinite order in $`H_1(M)`$ and such that the exterior, $`E`$, of $`L`$ in $`M`$ is homeomorphic to the exterior of a link in $`S^3`$. The arguments above imply that (3.d) holds for $`E`$ and therefore for $`M`$.

Corrections and additions to \[Tu6\].  In \[Tu6\], Sect. 1 the definition of the distinguished Euler structure on a directed solid torus should be the same as in the present paper. Thus, on the last line of \[Tu6\], Sect. 1.3 instead of $`c(s_t)=t`$ should be $`c(s_t)=t^1`$. The excision formula in \[Tu6\], Sect. 2.3 should look like

$$\text{in}_{}(v(E))=\pm \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(1[L_i]^1)v(M).$$
$`(3.f)`$
The corresponding changes should be implemented in the corollaries of this formula in \[Tu6\], Sect. 3. However, all the statements in \[Tu6\], Sect. 2 and 3 remain valid.

In \[Tu6\], Sect. 4.2 it is claimed that the torsion function satisfies all the axioms stated in \[Tu6\], Sect. 2. Here we give more details. Let $`𝒮`$ be the class of triples $`(M,\omega ,e)`$ where $`M`$ is a compact connected oriented 3-manifold with $`b_1(M)1`$ whose boundary is either void or consists of tori, $`\omega `$ is a homology orientation on $`M`$, and $`e`$ is an Euler structure (= relative $`Spin^c`$-structure) on $`M`$. In the case $`M=\mathrm{}`$ we assume that $`\omega =\omega _M`$ is induced by the orientation of $`M`$. In the case $`b_1(M)=1,M=\mathrm{}`$ the manifold $`M`$ is assumed to be endowed with a homology class $`t(M)H=H_1(M)`$ whose projection to $`H/\text{Tors}H`$ is a generator. We define a $``$-valued function $`v`$ on $`𝒮`$ by

$$v(M,\omega ,e)=\{\begin{array}{cc}T_\omega (e^1),ifb_1(M)2,\hfill & \\ T_{\omega ,t}(e^1),ifb_1(M)=1\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(3.g)`$
where $`t=t(M)`$ in the case $`b_1(M)=1,M=\mathrm{}`$ and $`t=t(\omega )`$ in the case $`b_1(M)=1,M\mathrm{}`$. We claim that $`v`$ satisfies the axioms stated in \[Tu6\], Sect. 2. By the uniqueness, $`v`$ coincides with the Seiberg-Witten function $`SW:𝒮`$ at least up to sign depending only on the underlying 3-manifold. Combining this with (3.b), (3.c) we obtain (12.1.a), (12.1.b).

Before discussing the properties of $`v`$ we comment on the relations between $`v`$ and $`\tau `$. Assume first that $`b_1(M)2`$. For any $`e\text{vect}(M)`$, $`gH`$,

$$(\tau (M,e,\omega ))_g=(g^1\tau (M,e,\omega ))_1=(\tau (M,g^1e,\omega ))_1$$

$$=v(M,(g^1e)^1,\omega )=v(M,ge^1,\omega ).$$

Hence $`\tau (M,e,\omega )=_{gH}v(M,ge^1,\omega )g`$. The formal expression

$$v(M)=\underset{e\text{vect}(M)}{}v(M,e,\omega )e[\text{vect}(M)]$$

can therefore be computed as follows. Fix $`e_0\text{vect}(M)`$. Then

$$v(M)=\underset{e\text{vect}(M)}{}v(M,e,\omega )e=\underset{gH}{}v(M,ge_0^1,\omega )ge_0^1=\tau (M,e_0,\omega )e_0^1.$$

Similarly, if $`b_1(M)=1`$ then $`(\tau (M,e,\omega ))^t=_{gH}v(M,ge^1,\omega )g`$ and

$$v(M)=\underset{e\text{vect}(M)}{}v(M,e,\omega )e=(\tau (M,e_0,\omega ))^te_0^1[[\text{vect}(M)]]$$

where $`t`$ is as in (3.g).

The function $`v`$ satisfies Axioms 1 - 4 stated in \[Tu6\], Sect. 2. Axiom 1 (topological invariance) is obvious. Axiom 2 (first part) consists in the finiteness of the support of $`v`$ for any $`M`$ with $`b_1(M)2`$. This follows from the inclusion $`\tau (M,e,\omega )[H_1(M)]`$. Axiom 2 (second part) claims that the support of $`v`$ is essentially $`t`$-positive for any $`M`$ with $`b_1(M)=1`$ where $`t`$ is as in (3.g). This follows from (3.a) and (3.e). Axiom 3 amounts to the excision formula (3.f) provided $`b_1(E)2`$. Here $`\text{in}_{}`$ is an additive homomorphism of abelian groups $`[\text{vect}(E)][\text{vect}(M)]`$ sending any $`e\text{vect}(E)`$ to $`e^M\text{vect}(M)`$ in the notation of Sect. 1.5. We check (3.f). Assume first that $`b_1(M)2`$. Fix a homology orientation $`\omega `$ in $`E`$ and $`e_0\text{vect}(E)`$. Note that $`\pm v(E)`$ does not depend on the choice of $`\omega `$. Let in denote the inclusion homomorphism $`[H_1(E)][H_1(M)]`$. By Lemma 7.3.3,

$$\pm \text{in}_{}(v(E))=\pm \text{in}_{}(\tau (M,e_0,\omega )e_0^1)=\pm \text{in}(\tau (M,e_0,\omega ))(e_0^1)^M$$

$$=\pm \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}([L_i]1)\tau (M,e_0^M,\omega ^M)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}[L_i]^1(e_0^M)^1=\pm \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(1[L_i]^1)v(M).$$

In the case $`b_1(M)=1`$ the proof is similar using that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}([L_i]1)\tau (M,e_0^M,\omega ^M)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}([L_i]1)(\tau (M,e_0^M,\omega ^M))^t.$$
$`(3.h)`$
Formula (3.h) follows from (3.a) (resp. from (3.e)) if $`M=\mathrm{}`$ and $`m2`$ (resp. if $`M\mathrm{}`$). If $`b_1(M)=1,M=\mathrm{}`$ and $`m=1`$ then the assumption $`b_1(E)2`$ implies that $`[L_1]\text{Tors}H_1(M)`$. Then $`[L_1]1`$ annihilates $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so that (3.h) also follows from (3.a). Finally, Axiom 4 follows from the fact that for the exteriors of links in $`S^3`$, the torsion $`\tau `$ coincides with the Milnor torsion \[Mi1\] which is equivalent to the Alexander polynomial.

References

\[Co\] J. Conway, An enumeration of knots and links, and some of their algebraic properties, 1970 Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra (Proc. Conf., Oxford, 1967) Pergamon, Oxford, 329–358.

\[CF\] R. Crowell and R. Fox, Introduction to knot theory. Graduate Texts in Math. 57. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, (1977).

\[FS\] R. Fintushel and R.J. Stern, Knots, links, and $`4`$-manifolds, Invent. Math. 134 (1998), 363–400.

\[Fr\] W. Franz, Torsionsideale, Torsionsklassen und Torsion, J. Reine Angew. Math. 176 (1937), 113–124.

\[Ha\] R. Hartley, The Conway potential function for links, Comment. Math. Helv. 58 (1983), 365–378.

\[HL\] M. Hutchings and Y.-J. Lee, Circle-valued Morse theory, Reidemeister torsion, and Seiberg-Witten invariants of 3-manifolds, Topology 38 (1999), no. 4, 861–888.

\[Li\] Y. Lim, Seiberg-Witten invariants for $`3`$-manifolds in the case $`b_1=0`$ or $`1`$, Pacific J. Math. 195 (2000), 179–204.

\[MT\] G. Meng and C.H. Taubes, $`\underset{¯}{SW}=`$ Milnor torsion, Math. Research Letters 3 (1996), 661–674.

\[Mi1\] J. Milnor, A duality theorem for Reidemeister torsion, Ann. of Math. 76 (1962), 137–147.

\[Mi2\] J. Milnor, Whitehead torsion, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 72 (1966), 358–426.

\[Mo\] J.W. Morgan, The Seiberg-Witten equations and applications to the topology of smooth four-manifolds. Math. Notes 44, Princeton Univ. Press (1996),

\[MOY\] T. Mrowka, P. Ozsváth, and B. Yu, Seiberg-Witten monopoles on Seifert fibered spaces, Comm. Anal. Geom. 5 (1997), no. 4, 685–791.

\[OT\] C. Okonek, A. Teleman, Recent developments in Seiberg-Witten theory and complex geometry. Several complex variables (Berkeley, CA, 1995–1996), 391–428, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 37, Cambridge Univ. Press (1999).

\[Tu1\] V.G. Turaev, The Alexander polynomial of a three-dimensional manifold, Mat. Sb. 97:3 (1975), 341-359; English transl.: Math. USSR Sb. 26:3 (1975), 313–329.

\[Tu2\] V.G. Turaev, Reidemeister torsion and the Alexander polynomial, Mat. Sb. 101:2 (1976), 252–270; English transl.: Math. USSR Sb. 30:2 (1976), 221–237.

\[Tu3\] V.G. Turaev, Reidemeister torsion in knot theory, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 41:1 (1986), 97–147; English transl.: Russian Math. Surveys 41:1 (1986), 119–182.

\[Tu4\] V.G. Turaev, Euler structures, nonsingular vector fields, and torsions of Reidemeister type, Izvestia Ac. Sci. USSR 53:3 (1989); English transl.: Math. USSR Izvestia 34:3 (1990), 627–662.

\[Tu5\] V.G. Turaev, Torsion invariants of $`Spin^c`$-structures on 3-manifolds, Math. Research Letters 4 (1997), 679–695.

\[Tu6\] V.G. Turaev, A combinatorial formulation for the Seiberg-Witten invariants of 3-manifolds, Math. Research Letters, 5 (1998) 583–598.

\[Tu7\] V.G. Turaev, Introduction to Combinatorial Torsions, Birkhäuser (2001).

Institut de Recherche Mathématique Avancée, Univ. Louis Pasteur - C.N.R.S., 7 rue René Descartes, F-67084 Strasbourg, France

Max-Planck Institut für Mathematik, Vivatsgasse 7, D-53111 Bonn, Germany