format: text

text:
# Exact triangles in monopole homology and the Casson-Walker invariant

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to give a general outline of the problem of the exact triangles in Seiberg–Witten–Floer theory. We present here the most general case, where the problem consists of producing a surgery formula relating the monopole homology of a compact oriented 3–manifold $`Y`$ with an embedded knot $`K`$, and the monopole homologies of some 3–manifolds obtained by Dehn surgery on $`K`$.

In the series of papers    , we studied the problem in the case of an integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$, and the 3–manifolds $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$ obtained by Dehn surgery on $`K`$ with framing $`1`$ and $`0`$, respectively.

The results of     are, at this stage, still to be considered as “work in progress”, where some of the proofs need more rigorous presentations. The main result of that series of papers is that the Seiberg-Witten-Floer homologies of $`Y`$ and of the manifolds $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$ are related by an exact triangle

In this triangle the maps $`w_{}^1,w_{}^0`$ and $`w_{()}`$ are induced by the surgery cobordisms connecting $`Y_1`$ and $`Y`$, $`Y`$ and $`Y_0`$, $`Y_0`$ and $`Y_1`$, respectively, and $`\mu `$ is the surgery perturbation that simulates the effect of Dehn surgery.

In this paper, we explain how, following the same strategy for the proof of the surgery formula which we have introduced in the previous work, we may be able to extend this exact triangle to the more general case of any closed oriented 3-manifold with a smoothly embedded knot.

In the last section of this paper we give a topological application of the kind of arguments that lead to the proof of the “geometric triangles”, namely the surgery formula for monopole homology viewed at the level of generators. We show that a modified version of the Seiberg-Witten invariant agrees with the Casson-Walker invariant, for any closed and oriented rational homology 3-sphere.

Let Y be a closed oriented 3-manifold, with a smooth embedded knot $`K`$, let $`\nu (K)`$ be the tubular neighbourhood of $`K`$ in $`Y`$. Choose an identification of $`\nu (K)`$ with $`D^2\times S^1`$:

$`\nu (K)D^2\times S^1,`$ (1)
where $`K`$ is mapped to the core of the solid torus $`D^2\times S^1`$. Under the identification (1), on the boundary $`T^2`$, we fix a basis $`m,l`$ of $`H_1(T^2,)`$ such that $`l`$ is the longitude (parallel to $`K`$ under the identification (1)) and $`m`$ is the right-handed meridian (intersecting $`l`$ once), the orientation determined by $`ml`$ coincides with the orientation induced from $`Y`$. The corresponding longitude and meridian in the knot complement $`V=Y\backslash \nu (K)`$ are denoted by $`m^{},l^{}`$ respectively. Similarly, let $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`l^{\prime \prime }`$ be the meridian and longitude in the tubular neighbourhood of the knot $`\nu (K)`$. The meridian $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ bounds a disk $`D^2`$ in $`\nu (K)`$, and $`l^{\prime \prime }`$ generates $`H_1(\nu (K),)`$ and parallels to $`K`$. Let $`p`$ and $`q`$ be two relatively prime integers, the Dehn surgery with coefficient $`p/q\{\mathrm{}\}`$ on $`K`$ is the operation of removing $`\nu (K)`$ and gluing in $`D^2\times S^1`$ by an orientation reversing diffeomorphism $`f_{p/q}`$ of $`T^2`$ that satisfies

$$f_{p/q}(m^{\prime \prime })=pm^{}ql^{}.$$

The resulting manifold is denoted by $`Y_{p/q}`$. Note that in general $`Y_{p/q}`$ depends on the choice of the identification (1).

Let $`𝔰`$ be a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure on $`Y`$. We shall see that, with a suitable choice of metrics and perturbation, $`(Y,𝔰)`$ has non-empty monopole moduli space only if $`𝔰|_{\nu (K)}`$ has trivial determinant, hence we shall always assume that the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰`$ is trivial around $`K`$. If $`K`$ represents a trivial homology class in $`H_1(Y,)`$, then there is only one $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure on $`Y`$ which agrees with $`𝔰`$ over $`Y\nu (K)`$ and $`\nu (K)`$. Suppose that $`K`$ represents a torsion element of order $`n`$ in $`H_1(Y,)`$, which means,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|\text{Torsion}(H_1(Y,))|}{|\text{Torsion}(H_1(Y\nu (K),))|}}=n.`$ (2)
In other words, $`n`$ is the minimal positive integer such that $`n[K]`$ is homologous to zero in $`H_1(Y,)`$. Then there exists a $`_n`$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures $`𝔰L_k(k=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ which agree with $`𝔰`$ over $`Y\nu (K)`$ and $`\nu (K)`$, where $`L_k`$ is a complex line bundle whose Euler class is given by $`kPD([K])`$. If $`[K]0`$ in $`H_1(Y,)`$, then there exists a $``$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures $`𝔰L_k(k)`$ which agree with $`𝔰`$ over $`Y\nu (K)`$ and $`\nu (K)`$, where $`L_k`$ is a complex line bundle whose Euler class is given by $`kPD([K])`$.

Let $`Y_1`$ be the $`(+1)`$-surgery on $`K`$, and $`Y_0`$ be the 0-surgery on $`K`$, we can consider separately the following cases.

$``$ First we assume that $`Y`$ is a rational homology 3-sphere with a smoothly embedded knot $`K`$ representing a torsion element of order $`n`$ in $`H_1(Y,)`$ in the sense of (2). Then $`Y_1`$ is a rational homology 3-sphere, and $`Y_0`$ is a rational homology $`S^1\times S^2`$. Let $`𝔰`$ be a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure on $`Y`$, which is trivial on $`\nu (K)`$. Gluing the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures $`s|_{Y\nu (K)}`$ and $`𝔰|_{\nu (K)}`$ along $`T^2`$ via different gauge transformations on $`T^2`$ results in a $`_n`$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures on $`Y`$ and $`Y_1`$, and a $``$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures on $`Y_0`$. Without confusion, thinking $`K`$ as the core of the attaching solid torus $`\nu (K)`$, we denote these structures on $`Y,Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$ all by $`𝔰L_k(kZ),`$ where $`L_k`$ is a complex line bundle of Euler class $`kPD([K])`$. With this notation, it is understood that for $`Y`$ and $`Y_1`$, and with $`n[K]=0`$, there is only a $`_n`$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures. Then, with a careful choice of metrics and perturbations on $`Y,Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$ as in Part I , we will obtain the following exact triangles for the Seiberg-Witten-Floer homologies:

which holds for any fixed choice of $`m`$ and $`p`$ in $`\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, and for a corresponding choice of perturbation, we have

In both cases the homomorphisms $`w_{}^1,w_{}^0`$ and $`w_{}`$ are induced by the surgery cobordisms. These exact triangles generalize the results of Part I-IV   , in the sense that the above exact triangle reduces to the exact triangle for an integral homology 3-sphere when $`n=1`$.

$``$ Now we assume that $`(Y,𝔰)`$ is a closed oriented 3-manifold of $`b_1(Y)>0`$ and with a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰`$. Let $`K`$ be a knot representing a torsion homology class in $`H_1(Y,)`$ of order $`n`$ in the sense of (2). If $`𝔰`$ has non-trivial determinant in the sense that $`c_1(𝔰)0`$ in $`H^2(Y,)`$, then the Seiberg-Witten-Floer homology for $`(Y,𝔰)`$ is $`_2\mathrm{}`$-graded, where $`2\mathrm{}`$ is the multiplicity of $`c_1(𝔰)`$ in $`H^2(Y,)/\text{Torsion}`$, i.e, $`c_1(𝔰)(H_2(Y,)/\text{Torsion})=2\mathrm{}`$. The gluing of the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures corresponding to these three different surgeries gives rise to a $`_n`$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures on $`Y,Y_1`$ and a $``$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures on $`Y_0`$, which we denote by $`𝔰L_k(k),`$ with the convention as before. Then, for any $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰L_k`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ on $`Y`$ and $`Y_1`$, the corresponding Seiberg-Witten-Floer homologies are all $`_2\mathrm{}`$-graded, while for any $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰L_k`$ ($`k`$) on $`Y_0`$, the Seiberg-Witten-Floer homology $`HF_{}^{SW}(Y_0,𝔰L_k)`$ is $`_{\mathrm{}_{[k]}}`$-graded, where $`\mathrm{}_{[k]}`$ is the greatest common factor in $`2\mathrm{}`$ and $`2k`$. Similar to Part IV , the $`_{\mathrm{}_{[k]}}`$-graded homology $`HF_{}^{SW}(Y_0,𝔰L_k)`$ can be lifted to a $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-graded homology $`HF_{()}^{SW}(Y_0,𝔰L_k)`$. For this case, we derive in this paper the following exact triangles:

(7)
which holds for any choice of $`m`$ and $`p`$ in $`\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, and for a corresponding choice of perturbation, we have

(12)
$``$ If $`𝔰`$ is a torsion $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure on $`Y`$, then for any $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, $`HF_{}^{SW}(Y,𝔰L_k,[[t]])`$ and $`HF_{}^{SW}(Y_1,𝔰L_k,[[t]])`$ are $``$-graded with $`[[t]]`$-coefficient. The reduced versions $`HF_{}^{SW}(Y,𝔰L_k)`$ and $`HF_{}^{SW}(Y_1,𝔰L_k)`$ are obtained by setting $`t=0`$. The Seiberg-Witten-Floer homology $`HF_{}^{SW}(Y_0,𝔰L_k)`$ is $`_{2k}`$-graded, and can be lifted to a $``$-graded version, denoted by $`HF_{()}^{SW}(Y_0,𝔰L_k)`$. Then the exact triangles take the same form as (7) and (12).

$``$ The remaining case is when a smoothly embedded knot $`K`$ represents a non-trivial homology class in $`H_1(Y,)`$. Let $`n`$ be the minimal positive integer such that there is a 2-cycle in $`H_2(Y,)`$ intersecting $`K`$ at $`n`$ points. Then the $`0`$-surgery on $`Y`$ along $`K`$ yields $`Y_0`$ satisfying $`b_1(Y_0)=b_1(Y)1`$. More precisely, $`H_1(Y_0,)`$ is obtained by replacing the $``$-component $`[K]`$ of $`H_1(Y,)`$ by $`_n[m^{\prime \prime }]=[l^{}]`$. Notice that $`Y`$ can be thought of as the manifold obtained by $`0`$-surgery on $`m^{}Y\nu (K)Y_0`$, and $`Y_1`$ can be thought as the result of $`(+1)`$-surgery on $`m^{}Y\nu (K)Y_0`$. Since $`m^{}`$ represents a torsion element of order $`n`$ in $`H_1(Y_0,)`$ in the sense of (2), we have the exact triangles for $`(Y,𝔰,K)`$ obtained from the corresponding exact triangles for $`(Y_0,𝔰,m^{})`$ in the form of (7) and (12). Thus, it is enough to establish the exact triangle for a general closed oriented 3-manifold $`Y`$ with a smoothly embedded knot representing a torsion element of order $`n`$ in $`H_1(Y,)`$.

We now summarize the main theorem of this paper.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`(Y,𝔰)`$ be a closed oriented 3-manifold with a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure which is trivial around a smoothly embedded knot $`K`$. Assume that $`K`$ represents a torsion element of order $`n`$ in $`H_1(Y,)`$ in the sense of (2). Assume that the canonical framing of $`K`$ is given by an identification of $`D^2\times S^1`$ with the tubular neighbourhood $`\nu (K)`$ such that $`K`$ is given by $`\{0\}\times S^1`$. Here the parallel simple curve on $`T^2`$ provides the longitude of $`K`$ and the right handed meridian is given by $`(D^2)\times \{pt\}`$. The orientation determined by $`ml`$ coincides with the orientation induced from $`Y`$. Let $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$ be the manifolds obtained, respectively, by $`(+1)`$ and $`0`$ surgery along $`K`$ in $`Y`$. With a careful choice of metrics and perturbations, we obtain the following exact triangle induced by the surgery cobordisms after possible grading shifts:

Here $`𝔰L_k`$ is the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure obtained by tensoring a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰`$ with a complex line bundle $`L_k`$ of Euler class $`kPD([K])`$. Moreover, for any fixed $`m,p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, we have the following more refined version of the exact triangle:

Here again the maps are induced by the surgery cobordisms, possibly after a shift in the grading.

The major technical steps required in the proof are described in . Thus, in this paper, we shall address only those issues that are relevant to this general exact triangle, while we refer to the previous papers for the general setting and results.

In the last section of the paper, we show that a suitably modified version of the Seiberg–Witten invariant of a rational homology 3-sphere agrees with the Casson–Walker invariant. For any rational homology 3-sphere $`(Y,𝔰,g)`$ with a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰`$ and a Riemannian metric, the counting of the irreducible Seiberg-Witten monopoles defines the Seiberg-Witten invariant

$$SW_Y(𝔰,g)=\mathrm{\#}\left(_Y^{}(𝔰,g)\right),$$

where each irreducible monopole in $`_Y^{}(𝔰,g)`$ has a natural orientation from the linearization of the Seiberg-Witten equations. As studied in , $`SW_Y(𝔰,g)`$ depends on the metric and perturbation used in the definition, in order to obtain a topological invariant, we can modify $`SW_Y(𝔰,g)`$ by a metric and perturbation dependent correction term as follows. Choose any four manifold $`X`$ with boundary $`Y`$, such that $`X`$ is endowed with a cylindrical-end metric modeled on $`(Y,g_Y)`$. Choose a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰_X`$ on $`X`$ which agrees with $`𝔰`$ on $`Y`$ over the end, and choose a connection $`A`$ on $`(X,𝔰_X)`$ which extends the unique reducible $`\theta _𝔰`$ on $`(Y,𝔰)`$. Then we set

$`\xi _Y(𝔰,g)=Ind_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_A^X){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(c_1(𝔰_X)^2\sigma (X)\right),`$ (21)
where $`Ind_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_A^X)`$ is the complex index of the Dirac operator on $`(X,𝔰_X)`$ twisted with the extending $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ connection $`A`$ and $`\sigma (X)`$ is the signature of $`X`$. By the Atiyah-Patodi-Singer index theorem, $`\xi _Y(𝔰,g)`$ is independent of the choice of $`(X,𝔰_X)`$ and $`A`$, actually, $`\xi _Y(𝔰,g)`$ can be expressed as a combination of the Atiyah-Patodi-Singer eta invariants for the Dirac operator and signature operator on $`(Y,𝔰)`$:

$$\xi _Y(𝔰,g)=\frac{1}{4}\eta _Y^{\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{\theta _𝔰}}(0)\frac{1}{8}\eta _Y^{sign}(0).$$

The modified version of the Seiberg-Witten invariant is defined as

$`\widehat{SW}_Y(𝔰)=SW_Y(𝔰,g)\xi _Y(𝔰,g).`$ (22)
Then we prove the following equivalence between $`\widehat{SW}_Y`$ and the Casson-Walker invariant.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`Y`$ be a rational homology 3-sphere. Then,

$$\underset{𝔰\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y)}{}\widehat{SW}_Y(𝔰)=\frac{1}{2}|H_1(Y,)|\lambda (Y),$$

where $`\lambda (Y)`$ is the Casson-Walker invariant of $`Y`$ (cf. ).

Acknowledgements BLW likes to acknowledge the paper of Ozsváth and Szabó  on the theta divisor and the Casson-Walker invariant which leads to his proof of the equivalence of $`\widehat{SW}_Y`$ and the Casson-Walker invariant, hence proving the conjecture formulated in  on the equivalent between $`\widehat{SW}_Y`$ and their $`\widehat{\theta }`$ invariant for all rational homology 3-sphere. BLW is partially supported by Australia Research Council Fellowship.

## 2 The geometric triangle

In this section, we identify the monopoles on $`Y`$ with monopoles on $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$. Suppose given a smoothly embedded knot $`K`$ in $`(Y,𝔰)`$, which represents a torsion element of order $`n`$ in $`H_1(Y,)`$. We can split $`Y`$ along a torus as in ,

$$Y=V_{T^2}\nu (K).$$

We choose a metric on $`Y`$ with a long cylinder $`[r,r]\times T^2`$, and denote the resulting manifold as

$$Y(r)=V_{T^2}([r,r]\times T^2)_{T^2}\nu (K).$$

We additionally require that the chosen metric on $`Y`$ satisfies the condition of Lemma 3.18 in  in the neighbourhood $`\nu (K)`$ of the knot: it has non-negative scalar curvature, strictly positive away from the boundary. This induces a natural metric on $`Y_0(r)`$. On $`Y_1(r)`$, we need to choose a metric which agrees with the original metric on $`Y(r)`$ when restricted to the knot complement $`V`$. The induced metric from $`Y_1(r)`$ in the torus neighbourhood of $`\nu (K)`$ is the metric described in Lemma 3.21 .

With this choice of the metric, the moduli space of monopoles on $`(Y,𝔰)`$ is non-empty only if $`𝔰|_{\nu (K)}`$ is trivial. Gluing the two $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures $`𝔰|_V`$ and $`𝔰|_{\nu (K)}`$ along $`T^2`$ by a gauge transformation on $`T^2`$ gives rise to a $`_n`$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures on $`Y`$ and $`Y_1`$, and to a $``$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures on $`Y_0`$. The resulting $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures can be classified as the result of tensoring the original $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰`$ with complex line bundles $`L_k(k)`$ whose Euler class is given by $`kPD([K])`$. The gluing theorem for 3-dimensional monopoles and the perturbation $`\mu `$ on $`\nu (K)`$, “simulating the effect of surgery”, provide the decomposition of the moduli space for

$$_{k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}_Y(𝔰L_k).$$

###### Theorem 2.1.

With the choice of perturbations and metrics on $`Y,Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$ described above, we have the following relation between the critical sets of the Chern-Simons-Dirac functional on the manifolds $`Y,Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & _{k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}_Y(𝔰L_k)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}_{Y_1}(𝔰L_k)_k_{Y_0}(𝔰L_k).\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. First we assume that $`Y`$ is a rational homology 3-sphere. When stretching the neck in $`Y(r)`$, as $`r\mathrm{}`$, we get two manifolds, each endowed with an infinite cylindrical end,

$$V(\mathrm{})=V_{T^2}([0,\mathrm{})\times T^2)$$

$$\nu (K)(\mathrm{})=\nu (K)_{T^2}((\mathrm{},0]\times T^2).$$

The Seiberg-Witten monopole moduli space of $`Y(r)`$, for sufficiently large $`r`$, can be described in terms of the moduli spaces of $`V(\mathrm{})`$ and $`\nu (K)(\mathrm{})`$ as analyzed in .

Notice that the moduli spaces of flat connections on $`T^2`$, modulo the subgroups of the gauge transformations on $`T^2`$ which can be extended to the whole manifolds $`V`$ or $`\nu (K)`$, define the following character varieties:

$$\chi _0(T^2,V)=H^1(T^2,)/2nPD([l]),$$

$$\chi _0(T^2,\nu (K))=H^1(T^2,)/2PD([m]).$$

Thus the character variety $`\chi _0(T^2,Y)`$ is $`\chi _0(T^2,Y)=H^1(T^2,).`$ The covering maps between these character varieties are illustrated as follows

where the maps $`\pi _i`$ are the covering maps with fibers as indicated.

Based on the analysis of the space $`_V^{}(𝔰|_V)`$ of irreducible monopoles on a 3-manifold with a cylindrical end modelled on $`T^2`$, as in , we see that the asymptotic limit map defines a continuous map:

$$_V^{}(𝔰|_V)\stackrel{_{\mathrm{}}}{}\chi _0(T^2,V).$$

The reducibles on $`V`$ embed in the character variety $`\chi _0(T^2,V)`$. Then, for a sufficiently large $`r`$, the gluing theorem gives a diffeomorphism:

$$\mathrm{\#}_Y:_V^{}\backslash _{\mathrm{}}^1(U_\theta )\times _{\chi _0(T^2,Y)}\chi (\nu (K))\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{Y(r)}^{}(𝔰L_k),$$

here $`U_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a small neighbourhood of the “bad points” $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in $`\chi _0(T^2,Y)`$ where the twisted Dirac operator on $`T^2`$ has non-trivial kernel, and $`\chi (\nu (K))`$ are the reducible lines in $`\chi _0(T^2,Y)`$. The above fibred product is obtained (cf.) by taking the pullbacks of the images of the boundary value maps under the projections

Let $`(u,v)`$ be the coordinates on $`\chi _0(T^2,Y)H^1(T^2,)`$ corresponding to the holonomy around the longitude $`l`$ and the meridian $`m`$ respectively. In the gluing map $`\mathrm{\#}_Y`$ above, $`\chi (\nu (K))`$ corresponds to the lines $`\{v=2k,k=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. For each line $`\{v=2k\}`$, the image of the gluing map gives a diffeomorphism onto $`_{Y(r)}^{}(𝔰L_k)`$.

For each $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰L_k`$, there is a unique reducible monopole on $`Y(r)`$, which is given by the intersection of $`\chi (V,𝔰)`$, the flat connections on $`(V,𝔰)`$, with the line $`\{v=2k\}`$ in $`\chi _0(T^2,Y)`$:

$$\theta _Y(k)=\{u=u(𝔰)\}\times _{\chi _0(T^2,Y)}\{v=2k\}.$$

Here $`u(𝔰)`$ is the holonomy of the flat connections in $`\chi (V,𝔰)`$ around the longitude $`l^{}`$.

Similarly, we have gluing maps for monopoles on $`Y_1(r)`$ and $`Y_0(r)`$, respectively. In the gluing map $`\mathrm{\#}_{Y_1}`$ for $`_{Y_1(r)}^{}(𝔰L_k)`$,

$$\mathrm{\#}_{Y_1}:_V^{}\backslash _{\mathrm{}}^1(U_\theta )\times _{\chi _0(T^2,Y_1)}\chi (\nu (K))\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{Y_1(r)}^{}(𝔰L_k),$$

$`\chi (\nu (K))`$ is identified with $`vu=2k+1`$. Similarly, we have the gluing map $`\mathrm{\#}_{Y_0}`$ for $`_{Y_0(r)}^{}(𝔰L_k)`$,

$$\mathrm{\#}_{Y_0}:_V^{}\backslash _{\mathrm{}}^1(U_\theta )\times _{\chi _0(T^2,Y_0)}\chi (\nu (K))\underset{k}{}_{Y_0(r)}^{}(𝔰L_k),$$

where $`\chi (\nu (K))`$ is given by $`u=2k`$. For each $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, the reducible monopole for $`(Y_1,𝔰L_k)`$, consists of the unique point

$$\theta _{Y_1}(k)=\{u=u(𝔰)\}\times _{\chi _0(T^2,Y)}\{v=u+2k+1\}.$$

For $`Y_0`$ with a non-trivial $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰L_k`$ ($`k,k0`$), the set of reducibles is empty for any generic perturbation, and for $`𝔰L_0=𝔰`$, it consists of one circle of reducibles $`u=0`$ in the cylinder $`\chi _0(T^2,Y_0)=\chi _0(T^2,V)`$, which can be perturbed away by introducing a small perturbation as in Theorem 6.13 .

Now we apply the perturbation to simulate the effect of Dehn surgery. This amounts to a careful choice of perturbation as in Section 6 , which we now briefly describe.

Choose a compactly supported 2-form $`\mu `$ representing the generator of $`H_{cpt}^2(D^2\times S^1)`$, defined as in Lemma 3.18 , such that we have

$`{\displaystyle _{D^2\times \{pt\}}}\mu =1`$ (23)
for any point on $`S^1`$. Under the isomorphism $`H_{cpt}^2(\nu (K))H_1(\nu (K))`$, given by Poincaré duality, this form corresponds to the generator $`[\mu ]=PD_{\nu (K)}(l)`$. The class of $`\mu `$ in $`H^2(D^2\times S^1)`$ is trivial, and we can write $`\mu =d\nu `$, where $`\nu `$ is a 1-form satisfying $`_{S^1\times \{pt\}}\nu =1`$, i.e. $`\nu =PD_{T^2}(l)`$. Choose on $`\nu (K)`$ a metric as in Lemma 3.18 .

Fix a $`U(1)`$-connection $`A_0`$ representing the trivial connection on $`T^2`$, For any $`U(1)`$-connection $`A`$, define $`T_A`$ to be

$$T_A(z)=i_{\{zD^2\}\times S^1}(AA_0).$$

For any given $`ϵ>0`$, we can choose a function $`\widehat{f}:`$ with the following properties.

(a) $`\widehat{f}`$ is continuously differentiable on $`(1,1)`$ and satisfies the periodicity $`\widehat{f}(t+2)=\widehat{f}(t)`$

(b) the derivative $`\widehat{f}^{}`$ has range $`\widehat{f}^{}(t)[1,1]`$ for all $`t[1,1]`$, and satisfies $`\widehat{f}^{}(1t)=\widehat{f}^{}(1+t)`$ for $`t`$.

(c) the following estimate holds: $`sup_{t[1+ϵ,1ϵ]}|\widehat{f}^{}(t)t|<ϵ.`$

Now, for the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰L_k`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$), consider the function $`f_k^{}(t)=\widehat{f}^{}(t+1)+2k`$ and define a perturbation of the Seiberg-Witten equations on $`(Y,𝔰L_k)`$ in the following way:

$`\{\begin{array}{c}F_A=\sigma (\psi ,\psi )+f_k^{}(T_A)\mu \hfill \\ \begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_A(\psi )=0\hfill \end{array}.`$ (34)
With respect to the chosen metric on $`\nu (K)`$, with sufficiently large positive scalar curvature on the support of $`\mu `$ as specified in Lemma 3.18 , the only solutions of the perturbed monopole equations are reducibles $`(A,0)`$, that satisfy

$`F_A=f_k^{}(T_A)\mu .`$ (35)
In addition to this surgery perturbation, we consider another perturbation of the Seiberg–Witten equations on the tubular neighbourhood $`\nu (K)`$ in $`Y`$, $`Y_1`$, and $`Y_0`$. This perturbation has the effect of producing a global shift in the character variety to avoid the bad points on $`H^1(T^2,)`$ when we deform the unperturbed geometric triangles in $`\chi (T^2)`$ to the perturbed geometric triangles in $`\chi (T^2)`$.

Let $`\mu `$ be a compactly supported 2-form in $`D^2\times S^1`$ satisfying (23). Let $`\eta >0`$ be some small real parameter. Consider an additional perturbation

$`F_A=\sigma (\psi ,\psi )\pm \eta \mu `$ (36)
of the curvature equation on $`\nu (K)`$ inside $`Y`$ and inside $`Y_0`$.

This perturbation has the effect of shifting the asymptotic values by an amount $`\eta `$. We choose the sign so that the line of reducibles on $`\nu (K)Y`$ for $`𝔰L_k`$ becomes $`\{(u,v)|v=2k+\eta \}`$, the line of reducibles on $`\nu (K)Y_1`$ for $`𝔰L_k`$ remains the same $`\{(u,v)|vu=2k+1\}`$, and the line of reducibles on $`\nu (K)Y_0`$ for $`𝔰L_k`$ becomes $`\{(u,v)|u=2k+\eta \}`$.

On $`\nu (K)`$ inside $`Y`$ for $`𝔰L_k`$ we shall consider the perturbed curvature equation

$`F_A=\sigma (\psi ,\psi )+(f_k^{}(T_A\eta )+\eta )\mu .`$ (37)
Therefore, we can partition the moduli spaces for $`(Y,𝔰L_k)`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$) into the union of the moduli spaces for $`(Y_1,𝔰L_k)`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$) and $`(Y,𝔰L_k)`$ ($`k)`$, as in Theorem 6.3 . This completes the proof of the theorem for the case of rational homology 3-sphere $`Y`$ with a knot $`K`$ representing a torsion element of order n in $`H_1(Y,)`$.

For a general 3-manifold $`Y`$ with a smoothly embedded knot $`K`$ representing a torsion element of order n in $`H_1(Y,)`$, the proof is essentially the same as the case of rational homology spheres discussed above, and we omit the details here.

The perturbation can be illustrated as in Figure 1 where $`n=4`$. From now on, we will use the following notations to denote the reducibles lines for $`Y`$, $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$ repectively:

$`\begin{array}{c}L_Y(𝔰_k)=\{(u,v)|v=f_k^{}(u\eta )+\eta \}\\ L_{Y_1}(𝔰_k)=\{(u,v)|v=u+2k+1\}\\ L_{Y_0}(𝔰_k)=\{(u,v)|v=2k+\eta \}.\end{array}`$ (41)
With a more careful study of the perturbed geometric triangles, we have the following decomposition of 3-dimensional monopoles on $`Y`$ under the Dehn surgery.

###### Theorem 2.2.

With the perturbations and metrics on $`Y,Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$ as in Theorem 2.1, and for any fixed $`m,p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, there exists a further perturbation on $`Y`$, such that we have the following relation between the critical sets of the Chern-Simons-Dirac functional on the manifolds $`Y,Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$:

$`_Y(𝔰L_m)=_{Y_1}(𝔰L_m){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p}).`$ (42)
Proof. In the proof of Theorem 2.1, we know that the perturbed Seiberg-Witten monopoles on $`Y,Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$ are given by the following gluing models (here we assume that $`Y`$ is a rational homology 3-sphere):

$$_{Y(r)}^{}(𝔰L_k)_V^{}\backslash _{\mathrm{}}^1(U_\theta )\times _{\chi _0(T^2,Y)}\{v=2k\},$$

$$_{Y_1(r)}^{}(𝔰L_k)_V^{}\backslash _{\mathrm{}}^1(U_\theta )\times _{\chi _0(T^2,Y_1)}\{v=u+2k+1\},$$

$$_{Y_0(r)}^{}(𝔰L_k)_V^{}\backslash _{\mathrm{}}^1(U_\theta )\times _{\chi _0(T^2,Y_0)}\{u=2k\}.$$

Note that the additional perturbation (36) of the curvature equation on $`\nu (K)`$ inside $`Y`$ and inside $`Y_0`$ introduce a shift of coordinates $`(u,v)`$ to $`(u+\eta ,v+\eta )`$. We can introduce these new coordinates, still denoted by $`(u,v)`$. Then the reducible line for $`V`$ is given by $`u=\eta `$ in $`H^1(T^2,)`$.

We will show that there exists a further surgery perturbation on $`Y`$ that suits the purpose of identifying monopoles on $`Y,Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$ as stated in the Theorem. Without loss of the generality, after possible coordinates change, we can assume that $`𝔰L_m=𝔰L_0`$. Fix $`p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$. We will construct a function $`f_0^{}:`$, which depends on a small $`ϵ>0`$, such that, as $`ϵ0`$, the curve $`v=f_0^{}(u)`$ approaches the union of lines

$$L_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)\underset{k}{}L_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})$$

where $`L_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)=\{v=u+1\},L_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})=\{u=2nk+2p\}.`$

We identify $`\chi _0(T^2,V)`$ with the fundamental domain

$$\{u\}\times \{0v<2n\},$$

in $`H^1(T^2,)`$. The asymptotic values $`_{\mathrm{}}(_V^{})\chi _0(T^2,V)`$ can be lifted to $`H^1(T^2,)`$ periodically. Using this $`2n`$–periodicity, we only need to construct a function $`f_0:[1,2n1][0,2n]`$, which depends on $`ϵ`$, such that, for any given $`ϵϵ_0`$, we have

$$\underset{t[1,2n1]\backslash [ϵ,ϵ]}{sup}|f_0^{}(t)t|<ϵ.$$

Such function can be easily constructed as in the proof of Theorem 2.1. Then over $`[2nk1,2nk+2n1]`$, $`f_0^{}(t)`$ is defined to be $`f_0^{}(t)+2nk`$. See Figure 2 where the perturbation is illustrated in the cases with $`n=4,m=p=0`$ and with $`n=4,m=0,p=2`$, respectively. The general case can be proved by a similar method.

## 3 The relative gradings

In the previous section, we have the following decomposition:

$$_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_m)=_{Y_1}(𝔰L_m)\underset{k}{}_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})$$

for any fixed $`m,p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$. Assume that $`Y`$ is a rational homology 3-sphere. First we fix a grading on $`_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)`$ defined in terms of the spectral flow of the linearization operator for the 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equations along a path connecting an irreducible monopole in $`_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)`$ to the unique reducible $`\theta _Y(0)`$ in the configuration space for $`(Y,𝔰L_0)`$. Then the analysis of the relative grading in Part I section 7  can be applied to induce a compatible grading on $`_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)_k_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$ as follows, cf. Proposition 7.3 – Corollary 7.7 in .

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`Y`$ be a rational homology 3-sphere. For any fixed $`p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, the Floer complexes

$$C_{}(Y,𝔰L_0,\mu )=_{a_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)}a,$$

$$C_{}(Y_1,𝔰L_0)=_{a_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)}a,$$

$$C_{}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})=_{a_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})}a,$$

have a compatible relative grading of generators in the following sense.

1. Suppose given two irreducible critical points $`a,b`$ in $`_{Y_1}^{}(𝔰L_0)`$, and the corresponding elements $`a^ϵ,b^ϵ`$ in $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ under the above decomposition (42). Then

$$\mathrm{deg}_{Y,\mu }(a^ϵ)\mathrm{deg}_{Y,\mu }(b^ϵ)=\mathrm{deg}_{Y_1}(a)\mathrm{deg}_{Y_1}(b).$$
2. Suppose given two monopoles $`a,b`$ in $`_{Y_0}^{}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$, and the corresponding elements $`a^ϵ,b^ϵ`$ in $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ under the above decomposition (42). Then

$$\mathrm{deg}_{Y_0,𝔰_k}(a)\mathrm{deg}_{Y_0,𝔰_k}(b)=\mathrm{deg}_{Y,\mu }(a^ϵ)\mathrm{deg}_{Y,\mu }(b^ϵ)\text{ mod }(2nk+2p).$$

Therefore, the grading $`\mathrm{deg}_{Y,\mu }`$ defines a $``$-valued lift of the $`_{2nk+2p}`$-valued relative index on $`_{Y_0}^{}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$ under the decomposition of $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$.

For a general 3-manifold $`(Y,𝔰)`$ with $`b_1(Y)>0`$ and a knot $`K`$ representing a torsion element of order $`n`$, if $`𝔰`$ is a torsion $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure, we know that, for any $`k\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰L_k`$ also has a torsion class $`c_1(𝔰L_k)`$. Thus, after a small perturbation to get rid of the $`(S^1)^{b_1(Y)}`$-family of reducibles, we have a $``$-graded

$$_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_k)_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_k).$$

Then it is easy to see that the results in Part I section 7  hold in this case as well without any substantial change.

Now assume that $`c_1(𝔰)`$ is a non-torsion element, with multiplicity $`2\mathrm{}`$ in $`H^2(Y,)/\text{Torsion}`$. Then, for any $`k\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, the set of generators

$$_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_k)_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_k)$$

is $`2\mathrm{}`$-graded, and so is

$$_{Y_1}^{}(𝔰L_k)_{Y_1}(𝔰L_k).$$

Then for any $`k`$, any non-empty moduli space

$$_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_k)_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_k)$$

is $`_{2\mathrm{}_{[k]}}`$-graded, where $`2\mathrm{}_{[k]}`$ is the maximum common factor of $`2\mathrm{}`$ and $`2k`$. We can choose a relative grading on $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ by the spectral flow of the linearization operator along a path connecting any irreducible monopole in $`_Y^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ to a fixed monopole $`a_0`$ in $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$. Note that this grading is $`2\mathrm{}`$-graded. Then the analysis in Part I section 7 can also be applied to obtain the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.2.

For $`p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ and $`k`$, the Floer complexes $`C_{}(Y,𝔰L_0),C_{}(Y_1,𝔰L_0)`$, and $`C_{}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})`$ have a compatible relative grading of generators in the following sense.

1. Suppose given two irreducible critical points $`a,b`$ in $`_{Y_1}^{}(𝔰L_0)`$, and the corresponding elements $`a^ϵ,b^ϵ`$ in $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$, then

$$\mathrm{deg}_{Y,\mu }(a^ϵ)\mathrm{deg}_{Y,\mu }(b^ϵ)=\mathrm{deg}_{Y_1}(a)\mathrm{deg}_{Y_1}(b),$$

as a $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-valued function.
2. Suppose given two monopoles $`a,b`$ in $`_{Y_0}^{}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$, and the corresponding elements $`a^ϵ,b^ϵ`$ in $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$, then

$$\mathrm{deg}_{Y_0,𝔰_k}(a)\mathrm{deg}_{Y_0,𝔰_k}(b)=\mathrm{deg}_{Y,\mu }(a^ϵ)\mathrm{deg}_{Y,\mu }(b^ϵ)\text{ mod }(2\mathrm{}_{[nk+p]}).$$

Thus, the induced grading $`\mathrm{deg}_{Y,\mu }`$ on $`_{Y_0}^{}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$, under the decomposition (42), defines a choice of a $`_2\mathrm{}`$-valued lifting of the $`_{2\mathrm{}_{[nk+p]}}`$-valued relative index.

In the rest of this section we discuss the induced gradings on the various $`_Y^{}(𝔰L_m)`$, for $`m\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$. Notice that, in the case of a rational homology 3-sphere $`Y`$, the perturbed line $`L_Y(𝔰L_m)`$ is a deformation of the line $`L_Y(𝔰L_0)`$. Along this deformation, the corresponding parameterized reducibles form a path connecting $`\theta _Y(0)`$ to $`\theta _Y(m)`$. As the following Lemma shows, this deformation can be realized as a perturbation of the monopole equations for $`(Y,𝔰L_0)`$.

###### Lemma 3.3.

For any $`m\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, there exists a perturbation $`\mu _m`$ for the Seiberg-Witten monopole equations on $`(Y,𝔰L_0)`$, such that there is a diffeomorphism:

$$_{Y,\mu _m}(𝔰L_0)_Y(𝔰L_m).$$

Moreover, if $`Y`$ is a rational homology 3-sphere, the grading on $`_Y^{}(𝔰L_m)`$ induces a grading on $`_{Y,\mu _m}^{}(𝔰L_0)`$. Under the above identification, the resulting grading differs from the original grading on $`_Y^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ by the wall-crossing formulae studied in  for $`(Y,𝔰L_0)`$. If $`b_1(Y)>0`$, then the induced grading on $`_Y(𝔰L_m)`$ from $`_{Y,\mu _m}(𝔰L_0)`$ agrees with the relative grading on $`_Y(𝔰L_m)`$.

Proof. The first claim follows from the gluing models of the monopoles in $`_Y(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`_Y(𝔰L_m)`$. Then, using the results in , we know that, in the case of the rational homology 3-sphere, the spectral flow of the twisted Dirac operator along the path of reducibles gives the index shift on $`_Y^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`_{Y,\mu _m}^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ according to the wall-crossing formulae derived in . Again by the results of , for $`Y`$ with $`b_1(Y)>0`$, the induced grading from the parametrized spectral flow is same as the original relative index on $`_Y(𝔰L_m)`$.

Thus, Lemma 3.3 provides a consistent way of assigning a choice of absolute grading on the various $`_Y(𝔰L_m)`$. The degree shift of Lemma 3.3 can be described as follows. Let $`\theta _Y(t)`$ be the path of reducibles on $`(Y,𝔰L_0)`$ for the family of perturbations connecting $`_Y^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ to $`_{Y,\mu _m}^{}(𝔰L_0)`$, then the wall crossing formulae in  tell us that the index shift is given by the complex spectral flow

$`SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{\theta _Y(t)}).`$ (51)
## 4 Geometric limits and the holomorphic triangles

### 4.1 Surgery cobordisms

We first briefly describe the surgery cobordisms from $`Y_1`$ to $`Y`$, from $`Y`$ to $`Y_0`$, and from $`Y_0`$ to $`Y_1`$, respectively, as in . The cobordism $`W_1`$, from $`Y_1`$ to $`Y`$, is obtained by removing from the trivial cobordism $`Y_1\times [0,1]`$ an $`S^1\times D\nu (K)\times \{1\}`$, where $`D`$ is a disk, and $`\nu (K)`$ is the tubular neighbourhood of the knot in $`Y_1`$, and then attaching a 2-handle with framing $`1`$. We denote by $`D_1`$ the core disk of the 2-handle in $`W_1`$. Similarly, the cobordism $`W_0`$, form $`Y`$ to $`Y_0`$, is obtained by removing from the trivial cobordism $`Y_0\times [0,1]`$ an $`S^1\times D\nu (K)\times \{0\}`$ and attaching a 2-handle with framing zero. We denote by $`D_0`$ the core disk of the 2-handle in $`W_0`$. Attaching the two-handle has the effect of modifying the boundary component $`Y_1\times \{1\}`$ in the trivial cobordism to the boundary component $`Y\times \{1\}`$ in the non-trivial cobordism $`W_1`$, or, respectively, the boundary component $`Y_0\times \{0\}`$ in the trivial cobordism to the boundary component $`Y\times \{0\}`$ in $`W_0`$. The cobordism $`\overline{W}_2`$ connecting $`Y_0`$ and $`Y_1`$, satisfies the relation

$$\overline{W}=\overline{W}_2\mathrm{\#}^2,$$

where $`\overline{W}`$ is the composite cobordism $`\overline{W}=\overline{W}_0_Y\overline{W}_1`$.

We assume that the 3-manifolds $`Y_1`$, $`Y`$, and $`Y_0`$ are endowed with metrics with a long cylinder $`T^2\times [r,r]`$, as specified in section 2 (see also ). We consider the manifolds $`W_1`$ and $`W_0`$ endowed with infinite cylindrical ends $`Y_1\times (\mathrm{},T_0]`$ and $`Y\times [T_0,\mathrm{})`$, and $`Y_0\times [T_0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`Y\times (\mathrm{},T_0]`$, respectively. As in , we can decompose the cobordisms $`W_i`$ as

$`W_i=V\times _{T^2\times }T^2\times [r,r]\times _{T^2\times }W_i(\nu (K)).`$ (52)
The region $`W_i(\nu (K))`$ has the following property. There is a compact set $`𝒦`$ in $`W_i`$ such that the intersection $`𝒦W_i(\nu (K))`$ is obtained by attaching a 2-handle $`D\times D`$ to the product $`\nu (K)\times [T_0,T_0]`$, and, outside of $`𝒦`$, the region $`𝒦^cW_i(\nu (K))`$ consists of product regions $`\nu (K)\times [T_0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`\nu (K)\times (\mathrm{},T_0]`$, and $`T^2\times [r_0,r]\times [T_0,T_0]`$.

As in , consider an interior point $`x_i`$ contained in the core disk of the 2-handle, $`x_iD_i`$, and we denote by $`\widehat{W}_i`$ the punctured cobordism $`\widehat{W}_i=W_i\backslash \{x_i\}`$. Similarly, we can consider the punctured manifold

$$\widehat{W}_i(\nu (K))=W_i(\nu (K))\backslash \{x_i\}.$$

In the manifolds $`\widehat{W}_i(\nu (K))`$, endowed with an extra asymptotic end of the form $`S^3\times [0,\mathrm{})`$ at the puncture, we can identify a product region

$`𝒱=\nu (K)_{r_0}\times D\times (D_i\backslash \{x_i\}).`$ (53)
Thus, we identify the manifold $`W_i`$ with a connected sum

$$W_i=\widehat{W}_i\mathrm{\#}Q_i,$$

with a long cylindrical neck $`S^3\times [T(r),T(r)]`$, and with $`Q_i`$ a 4-ball, where $`S^3`$ is decomposed as the union of two solid tori in the standard way, $`S^3=\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, with $`\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }D\times S^1`$. Then the product region $`𝒱`$ of (53) in $`W_i`$ identifies the standard solid torus $`\nu `$ in $`S^3`$ with the neighbourhood $`\nu (K)`$ of the knot $`K`$ in $`Y`$. Similarly, there is a product region $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ which identifies the other solid torus $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ in $`S^3`$ with the tubular neighbourhood $`\nu (K)`$ in $`Y_i`$, after the surgery. The resulting punctured cobordism can be written as

$`\widehat{W}_i(r)=(V_r\times )𝒱(r)\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(r).`$ (54)
We now impose a choice of metrics and perturbations for the Seiberg-Witten equations on the cobordisms as in subsection 2.2 of . Then we can adopt the results of  to understand the asymptotic limits of finite energy monopoles, under the splitting of the punctured cobordisms as $`r\mathrm{}`$, as in (54).

### 4.2 Geometric limits and holomorphic triangles

We assume that $`Y`$ and $`Y_1`$ are endowed with the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰L_0`$. The other $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures can be studied analogously.

On the surgery cobordism $`W_1(r)`$, there is a $``$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures whose restrictions to the two ends agree with $`𝔰L_0`$ on $`Y`$ and $`Y_1`$ respectively. We will study the moduli spaces of monopoles on $`W_1(r)`$ with asymptotic values in $`_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)`$ at the two ends, where $`\mu `$ is the surgery perturbation defined by $`f_0^{}`$ as in the proof of Theorem 2.2. In the case $`b_1(Y)>0`$, we only consider the components of minimal energy, as defined in  , among all the possible moduli spaces with different $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures and with the given asymptotic values. In particular, for a rational homology 3-sphere $`Y`$, we only consider the moduli spaces of minimal dimension among the $``$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures.

With this convention understood, we denote by $`^{W_1}(a_1,a)`$ the moduli space with asymptotic values $`a_1_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`a_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)`$. Similarly, we denote by $`^{W_0}(a,a_0)`$ the moduli space with asymptotic values $`a_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`a_0_{Y_0}(L_{nk+p})`$ for $`k`$, for a fixed $`p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$. Under a generic choice of the perturbation, all these moduli spaces $`^{W_1}(a_1,a)`$ and $`^{W_0}(a,a_0)`$ are cut out transversely and of the expected dimension.

The convergence and gluing arguments developed in  can be applied to this case as well, to give the following compactifications of $`^{W_1}(a_1,a)`$ and $`^{W_0}(a,a_0)`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Suppose that $`^{W_1}(a_1,a)`$ is non-empty, then $`^{W_1}(a_1,a)`$ admits a compactification to a manifold with corners, where the codimension $`1`$ boundary strata consist of

$`\begin{array}{c}_{c_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)}^{W_1}(a_1,c)\times \widehat{}_{Y,\mu }(c,a)\\ _{c_1_{Y_1}^{}(𝔰L_0)}\widehat{}_{Y_1}(a_1,c_1)\times ^{W_1}(c_1,a),\end{array}`$ (57)
and with extra components

$`\begin{array}{c}\widehat{}_{Y_1}(a_1,\theta _1)\times U(1)\times ^{W_1}(\theta _1,a)\\ ^{W_1}(a_1,\theta )\times U(1)\times \widehat{}_{Y,\mu }(\theta ,a),\end{array}`$ (60)
when splitting through the reducibles $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta `$ in $`_{Y_1}^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ respectively . We also have the similar compactification for $`^{W_0}(a,a_0)`$.

Now we can describe the geometric limits of monopoles in $`^{W_1}(a_1,a)`$ and $`^{W_0}(a,a_0)`$ when stretching $`r\mathrm{}`$ inside

$$\widehat{W}_i(r)=V_r\times 𝒱(r)\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(r).$$

We only describe the case of $`\widehat{W}_1(r)`$. With similar arguments we have the corresponding geometric limits for $`\widehat{W}_0(r)`$. The proof of the results stated below on these geometric limits follows from the same arguments of .

Consider elements $`a_i^{(1)}_{Y_1}^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`a_j(ϵ)_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$, which we can write as

$$a_i^{(1)}=[(A_i^{},\psi _i^{})\mathrm{\#}(a_{\mathrm{},i}^{},0)]$$

$$a_j(ϵ)=[(A_j^+(ϵ),\psi _j^+(ϵ))\mathrm{\#}(a_{\mathrm{},j}^+(ϵ),0)],$$

with

$$[A_i^{},\psi _i^{}],[A_j^+(ϵ),\psi _j^+(ϵ)]_V^{}(𝔰L_0|_V)$$

$$a_{\mathrm{},i}^{}L_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0),a_{\mathrm{},j}^+(ϵ)L_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0).$$

###### Theorem 4.2.

(Proposition 3.1 and Remark 6.2 in ) Assume that $`^{W_1(r)}(a_i^{(1)},a_j(ϵ))`$ is non-empty for all sufficiently large $`r`$. Then a family of solutions $`[𝒜_1(r),\mathrm{\Psi }_1(r)]`$ in $`^{W_1(r)}(a_i^{(1)},a_j(ϵ))`$ defines the following geometric limits on $`V_r\times 𝒱(r)\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(r)`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

(a). A finite energy solution $`[𝒜^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{}]^ϵ`$ of the perturbed Seiberg-Witten equations on $`V\times `$, with a radial limit $`a_{\mathrm{}}(ϵ)`$ in $`_{\mathrm{}}(_V^{})\chi _0(T^2,V)`$, and with temporal limits $`[A,\psi ]_1^ϵ`$ and $`[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }]_1^ϵ`$ in $`_{\mathrm{}}^1(a_{\mathrm{}}(ϵ))_V^{}.`$

(b). Two paths $`[A(t),\psi (t)]_1^ϵ`$ in $`_V^{}`$, for $`t[1,0)`$ and $`t(0,1]`$, with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[A(1),\psi (1)]_1^ϵ=[A_i^{},\psi _i^{}],\hfill & & lim_{t0}[A(t),\psi (t)]_1^ϵ=[A,\psi ]_1^ϵ\hfill \\ [A(1),\psi (1)]_1^ϵ=[A_j^+(ϵ),\psi _j^+(ϵ)],\hfill & & lim_{t0+}[A(t),\psi (t)]_1^ϵ=[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }]_1^ϵ\hfill \end{array}$$

These paths induce a continuous, piecewise smooth path $`a_1^ϵ(t)`$ on $`_{\mathrm{}}(_V^{})`$ satisfying $`a_1^ϵ(t)=_{\mathrm{}}\left([A(t),\psi (t)]_1^ϵ\right)`$, with

$$a_1^ϵ(1)=a_{\mathrm{},i}^{}a_1^ϵ(0)=a_{\mathrm{}}(ϵ)a_1^ϵ(1)=a_{\mathrm{},j}^+(ϵ).$$

As $`ϵ0`$, these geometric limits define paths $`[A(t),\psi (t)]`$ and $`a(t)`$ with

$$a(1)=a_{\mathrm{},i}^{},a(0)=a_{\mathrm{}},a(1)=a_{\mathrm{},j}^+,$$

in $`_{\mathrm{}}(_V^{})\chi _0(T^2,V)`$, and $`a_{\mathrm{}}=lim_ϵa_{\mathrm{}}(ϵ)`$.

(c) There is a holomorphic triangle in $`H^1(T^2,)`$ with vertices at

$$a_{\mathrm{},i}^{},\vartheta _1,a_{\mathrm{},j}^+(ϵ)$$

and sides given by parameterized arcs along the lines $`L_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)`$, $`L_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`\{a_1^ϵ(t)\}_{\mathrm{}}(_V^{}).`$ Here we denote $`\vartheta _1=L_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)L_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0).`$

This Theorem shows that the moduli space $`^{W_1(r)}(a_i^{(1)},a_j(ϵ))`$ is characterized by the geometric limits on $`V\times `$ from (a) and the holomorphic triangles in (c). Two typical holomorphic triangles for $`^{W_1(r)}(a_i^{(1)},a_j(ϵ))`$ or $`^{W_0(r)}(a_i(ϵ),a_j^{(0)})`$ are illustrated in Figure 3 where $`n=4,m=k=0`$ and $`p=2`$. Here the points $`\vartheta _i`$ are the intersection points

$$\vartheta _1=L_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)L_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)$$

for $`W_1`$ and

$$\vartheta _0=L_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)L_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})$$

in the case of $`W_0`$. In other words, $`\vartheta _i`$ is the restriction to $`T^2=\nu =\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ of the unique reducible point $`\theta _{S^3}`$ at the puncture in the cobordism.

In order to glue back the geometric limits and the holomorphic triangles, there are some admissible conditions for the geometric limits on $`V\times `$, which are studied in section 6.1, section 6.2 and section 6.3 . As in section 6 , assuming that the element $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$ is away from the bad points in the character variety of $`T^2`$, we denote by $`\widehat{}_{V\times }(a_{\mathrm{}})`$ the balanced energy moduli space of the Seiberg-Witten equations on $`V\times `$ with asymptotic value $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the radial direction. Then we have

$$\widehat{}_{V\times }(a_{\mathrm{}})=\underset{[A,\psi ],[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }]}{}\widehat{}_{V\times }([A,\psi ],[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }],a_{\mathrm{}}),$$

with

$$[A,\psi ],[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }]_{\mathrm{}}^1(a_{\mathrm{}})_V^{}.$$

Each moduli space

$$_{V\times }([A,\psi ],[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }],a_{\mathrm{}}),$$

for a fixed choice of $`[A,\psi ]`$ and $`[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }]`$ in $`_{\mathrm{}}^1(a_{\mathrm{}})`$ in $`_V^{}`$, is a smooth finite dimensional oriented manifold of the expected dimension, where the orientation is given by the corresponding determinant line bundle of the linearization operator for the monopole equations on $`V\times `$.

Remember that we are only considering the components with minimal energy or minimal dimension among all the moduli spaces of finite energy monopoles with fixed asymptotic values. Recall that there is a notion of admissible triples (cf. Definition 6.4 ), which singles out those elements $`([A,\psi ],[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }],a_{\mathrm{}})`$ which arise as part of the geometric limits of solutions in $`^{W_1(r)}(a_1,a)`$ (or $`^{W_0(r)}(a_1,a_0)`$, or $`_{Y(r)\times }(a,b)`$ etc). For example, in the case of $`^{W_1(r)}(a_1,a)`$, with

$$a_1=[(A^{},\psi ^{})\mathrm{\#}(a^{},0)]$$

$$a=[(A^+,\psi ^+)\mathrm{\#}(a^+,0)],$$

an admissible triple $`([A,\psi ],[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }],a_{\mathrm{}})`$ must satisfy the following conditions: there exists a smooth regular parameterization $`a(t)`$, for $`t[1,1]`$ of the path in $`_{\mathrm{}}(_V^{})`$ connecting $`a^{}`$ and $`a^+`$, such that $`a(0)=a_{\mathrm{}}`$, and corresponding smooth paths $`[A(t),\psi (t)]`$ in $`_V^{}`$, for $`t[1,0)`$ and $`t(0,1]`$, satisfying $`_{\mathrm{}}[A(t),\psi (t)]=a(t)`$, and with

$$[A(1),\psi (1)]=[A^{},\psi ^{}]\text{ and }\underset{t0_{}}{lim}[A(t),\psi (t)]=[A,\psi ]$$

$$\underset{t0_+}{lim}[A(t),\psi (t)]=[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }]\text{ and }[A(1),\psi (1)]=[A^+,\psi ^+].$$

By the results of , we know that the possible choices of $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$ and of the admissible data in $`\widehat{}_{V\times }(a_{\mathrm{}})`$ are uniquely determined by the inequivalent holomorphic triangles $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with vertices $`\{a^{},\vartheta _1,a^+\}`$ and sides along the union of Lagrangians $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_\mu `$, with $`\mathrm{}`$ defined by the asymptotic values $`_{\mathrm{}}(_V^{})`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{W_1}(a_1,a)`$ the set of such inequivalent holomorphic triangles. Moreover, under the identification of the choice of admissible triples $`([A,\psi ],[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }],a_{\mathrm{}})`$ with the choice of inequivalent oriented holomorphic triangles in $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{W_1}(a_1,a)`$, the gluing map gives an orientation preserving diffeomorphism

$`\mathrm{\#}_{W_1}:{\displaystyle \underset{([A,\psi ],[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }],a_{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{\Xi }_{W_1}(a_1,a)}{}}_{V\times }([A,\psi ],[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }],a_{\mathrm{}})^{W_1}(a_1,a).`$ (61)
Similarly, there are orientation preserving diffeomorphisms given by the gluing maps for $`W_0(r)`$, $`(Y(r)\times ,𝔰L_0)`$, $`(Y_1(r)\times ,𝔰L_0)`$ and $`(Y_0(r)\times ,𝔰L_{nk+p})`$ defined over the set of admissible triples, which are in turn determined by the corresponding inequivalent oriented holomorphic triangles or holomorphic discs. The corresponding sets are denoted by $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{W_0}(a,a_0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_Y(a,b)`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{Y_1}(a_1,b_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{Y_0}(a_0,b_0)`$, respectively. We summarize all the gluing theorems for the geometric limits and holomorphic triangles (discs) as follows:

###### Theorem 4.3.

Suppose given a pair of monopoles $`a^{(1)},b^{(1)}`$ in $`_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)`$, and a pair of monopoles $`a(ϵ),b(ϵ)`$ in $`_{Y_1,\mu }(𝔰L_0)`$, where the surgery perturbation $`\mu `$ determined by $`f_0^{}`$ depends on a small parameter $`ϵ`$. Suppose given a pair of monopoles $`a^{(0)},b^{(0)}`$ in $`_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$ for some $`k`$ and $`p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$. Then, for sufficiently large $`r`$, the gluing maps give the following orientation preserving diffeomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Xi }_Y(a(ϵ),b(ϵ))}_{V\times }(\mathrm{\Delta })\stackrel{\mathrm{\#}_{Y(r)\times }}{}_{Y\times }(a(ϵ),b(ϵ)),\hfill \\ _{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Xi }_{Y_1}(a^{(1)},b^{(1)})}_{V\times }(\mathrm{\Delta })\stackrel{\mathrm{\#}_{Y_1(r)\times }}{}_{Y_1\times }(a^{(1)},b^{(1)}),\hfill \\ _{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Xi }_{Y_0}(a^{(0)},b^{(0)})}_{V\times }(\mathrm{\Delta })\stackrel{\mathrm{\#}_{Y_0(r)\times }}{}_{Y_0\times }(a^{(0)},b^{(0)}),\hfill \\ _{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Xi }_{W_1}(a^{(1)},a(ϵ))}_{V\times }(\mathrm{\Delta })\stackrel{\mathrm{\#}_{W_1}}{}^{W_1}(a^{(1)},a(ϵ)),\hfill \\ _{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Xi }_{W_0}(a(ϵ),a^{(0)})}_{V\times }(\mathrm{\Delta })\stackrel{\mathrm{\#}_{W_0}}{}^{W_0}(a(ϵ),a^{(0)}),\hfill \end{array}$$

where, for simplicity, we denoted a triple $`([A,\psi ],[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\psi }],a_{\mathrm{}})`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

## 5 Proof of exactness and the surgery triangle

In this section, we will prove the main theorem of this paper. Notice that we only prove the refined exact triangle in Theorem 1.1 for $`m=0`$. The arguments for this case can be adapted to give an analogous proof for $`m0`$.

### 5.1 The chain homomorphisms

Recall that the moduli spaces for $`W_1`$ and $`W_0`$ which we consider are only the components of minimal energy (or dimension). They are smooth and oriented manifolds of the expected dimension, and they can be compactified according to Proposition 4.1. In particular, whenever one such moduli space is 0-dimensional, we have a counting of points with the orientation. Thus, as in , we can define the chain homomorphisms between the Floer chain groups of $`(Y,\mu ,𝔰L_0)`$, $`(Y_1,𝔰L_0)`$ and $`(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})`$ as follows.

###### Definition 5.1.

We define the map $`w_{}^1:C_{}(Y_1)C_{}(Y,\mu )`$ by assigning the matrix elements

$$a,w_{}^1(a_1)=\mathrm{\#}^{W_1}(a,a_1),$$

where the right hand side is a counting of points with the orientation if $`^{W_1}(a,a_1)`$ is 0-dimensional and non-empty, and it is $`a,w_{}^1(a_1)=0`$ otherwise. Similarly, we define the map $`w_{}^0:C_{}(Y,\mu )_kC_{()}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})`$, with the the matrix coefficients

$$a_0,w_{}^0(a)=\mathrm{\#}^{W_0}(a,a_0)$$

if $`^{W_0}(a,a_0))`$ is 0-dimensional and non-empty, and $`a_0,w_{}^0(a)=0`$ otherwise. Here the chain groups $`C_{()}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})`$ are equipped with the lifting of the relative grading on $`_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$ as described in Proposition 3.2.

Notice that on $`W_1`$ there is a $``$-family of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures which agree with $`𝔰L_0`$ when restricted to the two ends. From Lemma 4.1 in , the choice of components with minimal energy and dimension essentially excludes other $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures when we consider the moduli space $`^{W_1}(a_1,a)`$ with fixed asymptotic values $`a_1_{Y_1}^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`a_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$.

In the case of $`b_1(Y)>0`$ and $`c_1(𝔰L_0)`$ is non-torsion, when both $`_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)`$ are $`_2\mathrm{}`$-graded, with $`2\mathrm{}`$ the multiplicity of $`c_1(𝔰L_0)`$ in $`H^2(Y,)/\text{Torsion}`$, then Proposition 3.2 ensures that there exists a compatible grading on $`_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)`$ and a $`_2\mathrm{}`$–lifting of the relative grading on any $`_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$. For those $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures $`𝔰L_0`$ with torsion $`c_1(𝔰L_0)`$, the corresponding Floer homology is defined to be

$$HF_{}^{SW}(Y,𝔰L_0,[[t]])|t=0,$$

as described in . Then it is easy to see that the choice of components with minimal energy and dimension makes $`w_{}^1`$ and $`w_{}^0`$ well-defined.

Then, with the help of the compactifications in Proposition 4.1, the proofs of Lemma 4.3 and Lemma 4.4 in  go through without any substantial change to give the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 5.2.

1. The maps $`w_{}^i`$ are chain homomorphisms.
2. Suppose given $`a_1`$ in $`_{Y_1}^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`a_0`$ in $`_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$, such that the relative index induced from $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ as in Proposition 3.2 is zero, then the composite map $`w_{}^0w_{}^1`$ is given by

$$w_{}^0w_{}^1(a_1),a_0=\mathrm{\#}^W(a_1,a_0).$$

Here we use the same convention on the choice of the moduli spaces for $`W=W_1\mathrm{\#}_YW_0`$.

Thus, we have obtained a sequence of chain complexes induced by the surgery cobordisms:

$$0C_{}(Y_1,𝔰L_0)\stackrel{w_{}^1}{}C_{}(Y,\mu ,𝔰L_0)\stackrel{w_{}^0}{}_kC_{()}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})0,$$

for any fixed $`p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$. We shall prove that this sequence is exact and that the corresponding exact triangle is the surgery triangle, namely the connecting homomorphism is also defined via a surgery cobordism. The gluing Theorem 4.3 for the admissible geometric limits on $`V\times `$ and the corresponding holomorphic triangles (or discs) will play a crucial role in the proof of these statements.

### 5.2 Proof of exactness

We first prove that $`w_{}^1`$ is injective and $`w_{}^0`$ is surjective, then we show that as in , $`w_{}^0w_{}^1=0`$. This, together with the specific properties of the maps $`w_{}^1`$ and $`w_{}^0`$ will be sufficient to prove the exactness in the middle term of the sequence:

$$0C_{}(Y_1,𝔰L_0)\stackrel{w_{}^1}{}C_{}(Y,\mu ,𝔰L_0)\stackrel{w_{}^0}{}_kC_{()}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})0.$$

We can partition the moduli space $`_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)`$ according to the decomposition (42) of Theorem 2.2,

$$_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)_{Y_1}^{}(𝔰L_0)\underset{k}{}_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p}),$$

where $`\mu `$ represents the surgery perturbation determined by $`f_0^{}`$ as in the proof of Theorem 2.2. Here $`f_0^{}`$ depends on a small parameter $`ϵ>0`$. That is, we identify $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ with a collection of points

$`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)=\{a_i^{(1)}(ϵ)\}_{i=1,\mathrm{}r}\{a_j^{(0)}(ϵ)\}_{j=r+1,\mathrm{},s},`$ (62)
so that, as we let $`ϵ0`$, the points $`\{a_i^{(1)}(ϵ)\}_{i=1,\mathrm{}r}`$ get identified with the corresponding elements $`\{a_i^{(1)}\}_{i=1,\mathrm{}r}`$ in $`_{Y_1}^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ and, similarly, the points $`\{a_j^{(0)}(ϵ)\}_{j=r+1,\mathrm{},s}`$ get identified with the corresponding elements $`\{a_j^{(0)}\}_{j=r+1,\mathrm{},s}`$ in $`_k_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$.

###### Lemma 5.3.

The coefficients of the maps $`w_{}^1`$ and $`w_{}^0`$ satisfy

1. $`a_i^{(1)}(ϵ),w_{}^1(a_j^{(1)}=\delta _{ij}`$;
2. $`a_i^{(0)},w_{}^0(a_j^{(0)}(ϵ)=\delta _{ij}`$.

Thus, $`w_{}^1`$ is injective and $`w_{}^0`$ is surjective.

Proof. Using the gluing Theorem 4.3, we can describe the moduli space $`^{W_1}(a_i^{(1)},a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))`$ for two monopoles $`a_i^{(1)},a_j^{(1)}(ϵ)`$ of relative index $`0`$. With our convention on the choice of components for these moduli spaces, we know that $`^{W_1}(a_i^{(1)},a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))`$ is zero-dimensional, if non-empty, and obtained as the gluing of the admissible geometric limits on $`V\times `$ and the corresponding holomorphic triangles.

As we let $`ϵ0`$, it is easy to see that the holomorphic triangles degenerate to certain holomorphic discs, and the admissible geometric limits on $`V\times `$ for $`^{W_1}(a_i^{(1)},a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))`$ are identified with the admissible geometric limits on $`V\times `$ for $`_{Y_1\times }(a_i^{(1)},a_j^{(1)})`$. Since the relative index of $`a_i^{(1)},a_j^{(1)}`$ is zero, $`_{Y_1\times }(a_i^{(1)},a_j^{(1)})`$, being a zero-dimensional moduli space of minimal energy, is empty unless $`a_i^{(1)}=a_j^{(1)}`$, in which case $`_{Y_1\times }(a_i^{(1)},a_i^{(1)})`$ consists of a unique solution. This proves that

$$a_i^{(1)}(ϵ),w_{}^1(a_j^{(1)}=\delta _{ij}.$$

Similarly, we obtain $`a_i^{(0)},w_{}^0(a_j^{(1)}(ϵ)=\delta _{ij}.`$

Now we prove the exactness in the middle term. We proceed as in  to show that $`w_{}^0w_{}^1=0`$, which, together with Lemma 5.3 is sufficient to establish the exact triangle. Again, we will use heavily the gluing theorem 4.3 to analyze the moduli spaces on the cobordisms. The following Lemma is the direct consequence of the results of Lemma 5.2 and Lemma 5.3.

###### Lemma 5.4.

Suppose given $`a_i^{(1)}_{Y_1}(𝔰L_0)`$ and $`a_j^{(0)}(ϵ)_{Y,\mu }(𝔰L_0)`$ which corresponds to $`a_j^{(0)}_k_{Y_0}(𝔰L_{nk+p})`$. The coefficients of the composition map $`w_{}^0w_{}^1`$ satisfy

$$a_j^{(0)},w_{}^0w_{}^1(a_i^{(1)})=a_j^{(0)}(ϵ),w_{}^1(a_i^{(1)})+a_j^{(0)},w_{}^0(a_i^{(1)}(ϵ)).$$

Since the coefficient $`a_j^{(0)}(ϵ),w_{}^1(a_i^{(1)})`$ is given by the counting of monopoles in $`^{W_1}(a_i^{(1)},a_j^{(0)}(ϵ))`$ with the orientation, and $`a_j^{(0)},w_{}^0(a_i^{(1)}(ϵ))`$ is given by the counting of monopoles in $`^{W_0}(a_i^{(1)}(ϵ),a_j^{(0)})`$ with the orientation, the gluing Theorem 4.3, for the admissible geometric limits on $`V\times `$ and the corresponding holomorphic triangles, yields the following Lemma (cf. Theorem 6.9 ).

###### Lemma 5.5.

For small enough $`ϵ`$ and large $`rr_0`$, there is an orientation reversing diffeomorphism

$$^{W_1(r)}(a_i^{(1)},a_j^{(0)}(ϵ))^{W_0(r)}(a_i^{(1)}(ϵ),a_j^{(0)}).$$

Hence, we have $`w_{}^0w_{}^1=0`$.

The Lemma corresponds to the fact that, in the two cases, the same triangles are counted with the reverse orientation.

With these Lemmata at hand, the arguments in Section 6.5  yield the following exact triangle for any $`p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$:

(67)
After a possible shift of relative index, we obtain the general exact triangle for any $`m,p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$:

This completes the proof of our main result, Theorem 1.1, except for the claim that the connecting homomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{()}`$ are induced by the surgery cobordism connecting $`Y_0`$ to $`Y_1`$. We shall discuss this statement in the next subsection.

### 5.3 The surgery triangle

To give a precise description of the connecting homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{()}`$, we need to study the discrepancy between the boundary operator $`_Y`$ of the Floer complex $`C_{}(Y,𝔰L_0,\mu )`$ and the operator $`_{Y_1}_k_{Y_0,k}`$ on

$$C_{}(Y_1,𝔰L_0)\underset{k}{}C_{()}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p}).$$

Let us identify again the points of $`_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)`$ as in (62) with

$$_{Y,\mu }^{}(𝔰L_0)=\{a_i^{(1)}(ϵ)\}_{i=1,\mathrm{}r}\{a_j^{(0)}(ϵ)\}_{j=r+1,\mathrm{},s}.$$

Then we have the following Lemma which gives the connecting homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{()}`$.

###### Lemma 5.6.

Suppose given a cycle in $`_ix_ia_i^{(0)}`$ in $`C_{()}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})`$. The image of $`_ix_ia_i^{(0)}`$ under the connecting homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\underset{i}{}x_ia_i^{(0)})=\underset{i,j}{}x_i\mathrm{\#}\left(_{Y\times }(a_i^{(0)}(ϵ),a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))\right)a_j^{(1)}.$$

Proof. (Lemma 7.1, Lemma 7.2 in ) Using the diagram chasing, Lemma 5.3 and Lemma 5.5, we see that we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & _{Y,\mu }(_ix_ia_i^{(0)}(ϵ))\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{i,j}x_i\mathrm{\#}\left(_{Y\times }(a_i^{(0)}(ϵ),a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))\right)a_j^{(1)}(ϵ)\hfill \\ & & _{i,j,k}x_i\mathrm{\#}\left(_{Y\times }(a_i^{(0)}(ϵ),a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))\right)\mathrm{\#}(^{W_0}(a_j^{(1)}(ϵ),a_k^{(0)})))a_k^{(0)}(ϵ)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{i,j}x_i\mathrm{\#}\left(_{Y\times }(a_i^{(0)}(ϵ),a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))\right)a_j^{(1)}(ϵ)\hfill \\ & & +_{i,j,k}x_i\mathrm{\#}\left(_{Y\times }(a_i^{(0)}(ϵ),a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))\right)\mathrm{\#}(^{W_1}(a_j^{(1)},a_k^{(0)})(ϵ)))a_k^{(0)}(ϵ).\hfill \end{array}$$

By comparing this expression with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & w_{}^1(_ix_i\mathrm{\#}\left(_{Y\times }(a_i^{(0)}(ϵ),a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))\right)a_j^{(1)})\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _jx_j\mathrm{\#}\left(_{Y\times }(a_j^{(0)}(ϵ),a_i^{(1)}(ϵ))\right)a_i^{(1)}(ϵ)\hfill \\ & & +_{i,j,k}x_i\mathrm{\#}\left(_{Y\times }(a_i^{(0)}(ϵ),a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))\right)\mathrm{\#}\left(^{W_1}(a_j^{(1)},a_k^{(0)}(ϵ))a_k^{(0)}(ϵ)\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\underset{i}{}x_ia_i^{(0)})=\underset{i,j}{}x_i\mathrm{\#}(_{Y\times }(a_i^{(0)}(ϵ),a_j^{(1)}(ϵ))a_j^{(1)}.$$

This completes the proof.

In next proposition, we show that the connecting homomorphism in the exact sequence can also be described as a map $`w_{()}`$, induced by a surgery cobordism $`\overline{W}_2`$ connecting $`Y_0`$ to $`Y_1`$, which satisfies $`W_1\mathrm{\#}_YW_0=W_2\mathrm{\#}\overline{^2}`$. The resulting diagram

$$C_{}(Y_1,𝔰L_0)\stackrel{w_{}^1}{}C_{}(Y,𝔰L_0,\mu )\stackrel{w_{}^0}{}_kC_{()}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})\stackrel{w_{()}}{}C_{}(Y_1,𝔰L_0)[1]$$

is therefore a distinguished triangle, the surgery triangle.

###### Proposition 5.7.

(Proposition 7.3 ) The connecting homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{()}`$ in the exact triangle is given by the following expression,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{()}(\underset{i}{}x_ia_i^{(0)})=w_{()}(\underset{i}{}x_ia_i^{(0)}),$$

for any cycle $`_ix_ia_i^{(0)}`$ in $`_kC_{()}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})`$ for any fixed $`p\{0,\mathrm{},n1\},`$ where

$$w_{()}:_kC_{()}(Y_0,𝔰L_{nk+p})C_{}(Y_1,𝔰L_0)[1]$$

is the homomorphism defined by counting solutions in the zero-dimensional components of the moduli spaces

$$^{\overline{W}_2}(a_j^{(0)},a_i^{(1)}),$$

over the cobordism $`\overline{W}_2`$.

Proof. The argument is exactly the same as in the proof of Proposition 7.3 in , therefore we shall omit the proof here.

## 6 Seiberg–Witten and Casson–Walker invariant

In this section, we derive the relation between the topologically invariant version of the Seiberg-Witten invariant and the Casson-Walker invariant for rational homology 3-spheres. Together with the equivalence between the Casson-Walker invariant and the theta invariant introduced by Ozsváth and Szabó in , our result proves their conjecture relating the Seiberg-Witten invariant and their theta invariant.

Let Y be a rational homology 3-sphere with a smoothly embedded knot $`K`$ representing a torsion element of order $`n`$ in $`H_1(Y,)`$,

$$\frac{|H_1(Y,)|}{|\text{Torsion}(H_1(Y\nu (K),))|}=n,$$

and endowed with the canonical framing $`(m,l)`$ in a fixed identification: $`\nu (K)D^2\times S^1`$. Let $`p`$ and $`q`$ be relatively prime integers. The Dehn surgery with coefficient $`p/q\{\mathrm{}\}`$ on $`K`$ gives rise to another closed manifold $`Y_{p/q}`$.

Denote by $`\mathrm{Spin}^c(V)`$ the set of equivalence classes of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures on $`V=Y\backslash \nu (K)`$ with trivial restriction to the boundary $`T^2`$. Then, for any $`Y_{p/q}`$, there is a surjective map:

$$\iota _{Y_{p/q}}:\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y_{p/q})\mathrm{Spin}^c(V),$$

where, for any $`𝔰\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y_{p/q})`$, $`\iota _{Y_{p/q}}(𝔰)`$ is given by the restriction to $`VY_{p/q}`$. The fiber of $`\iota _{Y_{p/q}}`$ is given by a cyclic group generated by the Poincaré dual of the core of $`Y_{p/q}\backslash V`$. Formally, for $`\iota _Y(𝔰)`$ with $`𝔰\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y)`$, we identify the fiber of $`\iota _Y`$ with the following set of $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures

$$\iota _Y^1(\iota _Y(𝔰)=\underset{m=0,\mathrm{},n1}{}\{𝔰L_m|c_1(L_m)=mPD([K])H^2(Y,)\}.$$

Similarly the fiber of $`\iota _{Y_{p/q}}`$ is given by

$$\underset{m=0,\mathrm{},np1}{}\{𝔰L_m|c_1(L_m)=mPD([K])H^2(Y_{p/q},)\},$$

and the fiber of $`\iota _{Y_0}`$ is given by

$$\underset{m}{}\{𝔰L_m|c_1(L_m)=mPD([K])H^2(Y_0,)\}.$$

Here we use the same notation $`𝔰`$ on $`Y_{p/q}`$ ($`Y`$, or $`Y_0`$) as the corresponding $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure obtained by gluing $`𝔰\mathrm{Spin}^c(V)`$ with the trivial $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure on $`\nu (K)`$ by the trivial gauge transformation on $`T^2`$. We hope this notation will not cause any confusion.

Assume that $`V`$ and $`\nu (K)`$ are equipped with a metric with a cylindrical end modeled on $`T^2`$. Let $`𝔰`$ be a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure on $`Y`$. By the result of  on the moduli space of finite energy monopoles on $`(V,\iota _Y(𝔰))`$, we know that the irreducible part, denoted $`_V^{}(𝔰)`$, is a smooth, oriented 1-dimensional manifold. The asymptotic values along the cylindrical end define a continuous map:

$$_{\mathrm{}}:_V^{}(𝔰)\chi _0(T^2,V),$$

where $`\chi _0(T^2,V)`$ is a $`\times _n`$-covering of the character torus $`\chi (T^2)`$. Sometime it is convenient to compose the above asymptotic value map with this covering map and define a boundary value map:

$`_{\mathrm{}}:_V^{}(𝔰)\chi (T^2).`$ (68)
Notice that the reducible part $`\chi (V)`$ of the moduli space on $`(V,\iota _Y(𝔰))`$ is an embedded circle $`\chi (V)\chi _0(T^2,V)`$ under the asymptotic value map. This becomes a circle of multiplicity $`n`$ in $`\chi (T^2)`$. There is a “bad point” in $`\chi (T^2)`$, given by the flat connections such that the corresponding twisted Dirac operator has a non-trivial kernel. We can endow $`\chi (T^2)`$ with a coordinate system $`(u,v)`$ defined by the holonomy around the longitude $`l`$ and the meridian $`m`$, respectively, so that the bad point corresponds to $`(u,v)=(1,1)`$. The reducible circle $`\chi (V)`$, with the holonomy around the longitude $`l`$ of order $`n`$, is given by $`u=u(𝔰)`$, with $`u(𝔰)\{0,2/n,\mathrm{},2(n1)/n\}`$. After a suitable perturbation, and a corresponding shift of coordinates, as discussed in , we can assume that the bad point does not lie on any of these $`n`$ possible circles $`u=u(𝔰)`$ of reducibles $`\chi (V)`$.

From the result in , we know that, under the map $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ in (68), the boundary points $`(_V^{}(𝔰))`$ are either mapped to the bad point in $`\chi (T^2)`$ or mapped to the reducible circle $`u=u(𝔰)`$ on $`\chi (T^2)`$.

Let $`\chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q})`$ be the reducible circle on $`\nu (K)Y_{p/q}`$, which maps to a closed curve on $`\chi (T^2)`$ with slope $`p/q`$ in the $`(u,v)`$-coordinates: parallel to $`pv=qu`$. Looking at the induced Spin structure on $`T^2Y_{p/q}`$, we know that the curve $`\chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q})`$ goes through $`(0,1)`$ if $`q`$ is odd or goes through $`(0,0)`$ if $`q`$ is even, cf.. Again, after a suitable perturbation as in (36), and the corresponding shift of coordinates, we can assume that this $`p/q`$-curve is away from the bad point on $`\chi (T^2)`$ and does not meet $`u=u(𝔰)`$ along the coordinate line $`v=0`$. Then we know that $`u=u(𝔰)`$ intersects $`\chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q})`$ inside $`\chi (T^2)`$ at $`p`$ points, which are denoted by $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _p`$, ordered according the orientation of $`u=u(𝔰)\chi (T^2)`$. They can be lifted to $`pn`$ points in $`\chi _0(T^2,V)`$. We denote these points by $`\theta _1^{(k)},\mathrm{},\theta _p^{(k)}`$, ($`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$) according to the order. Denote by $`\theta _0`$ the intersection point of $`u=u(𝔰)`$ with $`v=0`$ in $`\chi (T^2)`$. This can be lifted to $`n`$-points $`\theta _0^{(0)},\theta _0^{(1)},\mathrm{},\theta _0^{(n1)}`$ on $`\chi _0(T^2,V)`$. Moreover, we can assume that the map $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ in (68) is transverse to the curves $`u=u(𝔰)`$, $`v=0`$ and $`\chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q})`$, by a suitable perturbation of the Seiberg-Witten equations on $`V`$ as in . We can also assume that the image $`_{\mathrm{}}_V^{}(𝔰)`$ does not meet the points $`\theta _0,\theta _1,\mathrm{}\theta _p`$ in $`\chi (T^2)`$, again by suitable perturbation, as discussed in .

Let $`I`$ be any open interval in

$$\chi (V)=\{u=u(𝔰)\}\chi _0(T^2,V).$$

We denote by $`SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_I^V)`$ the complex spectral flow of Dirac operator on $`V`$ twisted with the path of reducible connections $`I`$ on $`V`$. From the analysis in  and , we know that

$`\mathrm{\#}\left(_{\mathrm{}}|_{_V^{}(𝔰)}\right)^1(I)=SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_I^V).`$ (77)
For convenience, we define

$`SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{[\theta _i,\theta _j]}^V)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{[\theta _i^{(k)},\theta _j^{(k)}]}^V).`$ (94)
With this notation understood, we can state the following proposition relating the Seiberg-Witten invariants on $`Y_{p/q}`$, $`Y`$ and $`Y_0`$.

###### Proposition 6.1.

Consider generic compatible small perturbations of the Seiberg-Witten equations on $`Y_{p/q}`$, $`Y`$ and $`Y_0`$, such that the map $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ as in (68) is transverse to the curves $`u=u(𝔰)`$, $`v=0`$ and $`\chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q})`$ and misses the points $`\theta _0,\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _p`$ in $`\chi (T^2)`$. Then we have the following relation:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & _{k=0}^{pn1}SW_{Y_{p/q}}(𝔰L_k,g_{Y_{p/q}})\hfill \\ & =\hfill & p_{k=0}^{n1}SW_Y(𝔰L_k,g_Y)+q_kSW_{Y_0}(𝔰L_k)\hfill \\ & & +_{i=1}^pSF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{[\theta _0,\theta _i]}^V).\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. By the gluing theorem for 3-dimensional monopoles as in , we have

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{pn1}{}}_{Y_{p/q}}^{}(𝔰L_k)=_V^{}(𝔰)\times _{\chi (T^2)}\chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q}),$$

where $`\chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q})`$ is the $`p/q`$-curve on $`\chi (T^2)`$. Thus, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{pn1}{}}}SW_{Y_{p/q}}(𝔰L_k,g_{Y_{p/q}})=\mathrm{\#}\left(_V^{}(𝔰)\times _{\chi (T^2)}\chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q})\right).`$ (95)
Notice that the set $`\{\theta _1^{(k)},\mathrm{},\theta _p^{(k)}:k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ consists of the unique reducible monopole for each $`(Y_{p/q},𝔰L_k)`$.

Similarly, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}SW_Y(𝔰L_k,g_Y)=\mathrm{\#}\left(_V^{}(𝔰)\times _{\chi (T^2)}\{v=0\}\right).`$ (96)
Here the reducible set consists of $`\{\theta _0^{(0)},\theta _0^{(1)},\mathrm{},\theta _0^{(n1)}\}.`$

In order to avoid the circle of reducibles on $`(Y_0,𝔰L_0)`$, we need to introduce a small perturbation such that $`\chi (\nu (K)Y_0)`$ on $`\chi (T^2)`$ is a small parallel shifting of $`u=u(𝔰)`$ such that the bad point is not contained in the narrow strip bounded by these two parallel curves. We denote this small shift of $`u=u(𝔰)`$ by $`u=u(𝔰)+\eta `$, where $`\eta `$ is a sufficiently small positive number. This can be achieved by a perturbation of the equations as in . Then we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}SW_{Y_0}(𝔰L_k)=\mathrm{\#}\left(_V^{}(𝔰)\times _{\chi (T^2)}\{u=u(𝔰)+\eta \}\right).`$ (97)
In order to compare the three countings in (95) – (97), we need to choose an oriented 2-chain $`C`$ in $`\chi (T^2)`$ whose boundary 1-chain is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q})p\chi (\nu (K)Y)q\chi (\nu (K)Y_0)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q})p\{v=0\}q\{u=u(𝔰)+\eta \},\hfill \end{array}$$

and such that $`C`$ does not contain the bad point in $`\chi (T^2)`$. Then, counting the boundary points of $`_{\mathrm{}}^1(C)`$, as a 0-chain, we obtain

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& & \mathrm{\#}(_{\mathrm{}}^1(\chi (\nu (K)Y_{p/q}))\hfill \\ & =\hfill & p\mathrm{\#}\left(_{\mathrm{}}^1(\{v=0\})\right)+q\mathrm{\#}\left(_{\mathrm{}}^1(\{u=u(𝔰)+\eta \})\right)\hfill \\ & & +\mathrm{\#}\left(_{\mathrm{}}_{(_V^{}(𝔰))}\right)^1(C).\hfill \end{array}`$ (101)
As $`C`$ does not contain the bad points, we know that the possible points of $`_{\mathrm{}}((_V^{}(𝔰)))C`$ all lie on the curve $`u=u(𝔰)`$, away from the points $`\theta _0,\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _p`$. It is easy to see that $`C`$ covers the intervals of $`u=u(𝔰)`$ between two consecutive points $`\theta _i`$ with different multiplicities: the multiplicities are $`p,p1,\mathrm{},1,0`$, for the intervals

$$[\theta _0,\theta _1],[\theta _1,\theta _2],\mathrm{},[\theta _{p1},\theta _p],[\theta _p,\theta _0],$$

respectively. By the identity (77) and the definition (94), we know that

$`\mathrm{\#}\left(_{\mathrm{}}|_{(_V^{}(𝔰))}\right)^1(C)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{[\theta _0,\theta _i]}^V).`$ (110)
Combining all the identities in (95), (96), (97), (101) and (110), we obtain the proof of the proposition.

The Seiberg-Witten invariant for any rational homology 3-sphere depends on metric and perturbation (cf.). We now consider the correction term (21) as defined in the introduction. We have the following proposition relating the correction terms for $`Y_{p/q}`$ and $`Y`$.

###### Proposition 6.2.

1. For any rational homology 3-sphere $`Y`$ with a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰`$ and a Riemannian metric $`g_Y`$,

$$\widehat{SW}_Y(𝔰)=SW_Y(𝔰,g_Y)\xi (𝔰,g_Y)$$

is a well-defined topological invariant.
2. For any relatively prime integers $`p`$ and $`q`$, a positive integer $`n`$, and $`u\{0,2/n,\mathrm{},2(n1)/n\}`$, we have that

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{pn1}{}}\xi _{Y_{p/q}}(𝔰L_k,g_{Y_{p/q}})p\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\xi _Y(𝔰L_k,g_Y)\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{[\theta _0,\theta _i]}^V)$$

is independent of the manifold $`Y`$ and depends only on $`p,q,n`$, and $`u(𝔰)\{0,2/n,\mathrm{},2(n1)/n\}.`$

Proof. Claim (1) follows from the wall-crossing formulae in  and the Atiyah-Patodi-Singer index theorem. The proof of claim (2) is analogous to the proof of Proposition 7.9 in . We adapt their arguments to our situation. We write the standard surgery cobordism between $`S^3`$ and the Lens space $`L(p,q)`$ as

$$W(S^3,L(p,q))=\left([0,1]\times S^1\times D^2\right)_{[0,1]\times S^1\times S^1}X_{p/q},$$

Then the surgery cobordism between $`Y`$ and $`Y_{p/q}`$ can be identified as

$$W_{p/q}=\left([0,1]\times V\right)_{[0,1]\times S^1\times S^1}X_{p/q}.$$

We fix a metric on $`W_{p/q}`$ which respects the product structure $`[0,1]\times V`$ and $`[0,1]\times S^1\times S^1`$, and agrees with $`g_Y`$ and $`g_{Y_{p/q}}`$ on the boundaries $`Y`$ and $`Y_{p/q}`$, respectively.

For a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰L_i^{(m)}`$ in $`\{𝔰L_k:k=0,\mathrm{},pn1\}`$ on $`Y_{p/q}`$, whose reducible monopole corresponds to $`\theta _i^{(m)}`$ (with $`i\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$ and $`m\{0,\mathrm{}n1\}`$), we consider the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰L_m`$ on $`Y`$ whose reducible monopole is $`\theta _0^{(m)}`$. Then we claim that

$`\xi _{Y_{p/q}}(𝔰L_i^{(m)},g_{Y_{p/q}})\xi _Y(𝔰L_m,g_Y)SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{[\theta _0^{(m)},\theta _i^{(m)}]}^V)`$ (119)
is independent of $`Y`$ and depends only on $`p,q,n`$ and on $`u(𝔰)\{0,2/n,\mathrm{},2(n1)/n\}.`$

To prove this claim, we choose a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`\stackrel{~}{𝔰}`$ on $`W_{p/q}`$ whose restriction to $`Y`$ and $`Y_{p/q}`$ is given by $`𝔰L_m`$ and $`𝔰L_i^{(m)}`$, respectively, and such that $`c_1(\stackrel{~}{𝔰})^2=1`$. On $`(W_{p/q},\stackrel{~}{𝔰})`$, we choose a connection $`A`$, whose restriction to $`V\times [0,1]`$ is the path of reducibles connecting $`\theta _0^{(m)}`$ to $`\theta _i^{(m)}`$ along the curve $`\chi (V)\chi _0(T^2,V)`$. Then we have

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& & \xi _{Y_{p/q}}(𝔰L_i^{(m)},g_{Y_{p/q}})\xi _Y(𝔰L_m,g_Y)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & Ind_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_A^{W_{p/q}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_1(\stackrel{~}{𝔰})^2\sigma (W_{p/q})}{8}}\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & Ind_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_A^{W_{p/q}})\hfill \\ & =\hfill & Ind_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_A^{[0,1]\times V})+Ind_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_A^{X_{p/q}})\hfill \end{array}`$ (156)
where the third equality follows from the splitting principle for the index, as the Dirac operator has no kernel on the various boundaries and corners . Notice that we have

$$Ind_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_A^{[0,1]\times V})=SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{[\theta _0^{(m)},\theta _i^{(m)}]}^V),$$

and the connection $`A|_{X_{p/q}}`$ extends to connection $`A_0`$ on $`W(S^3,L(p,q))`$ by a flat connection, whose index on $`[0,1]\times S^1\times D^2`$ satisfies

$$Ind_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_{A_0}^{[0,1]\times S^1\times D^2})=0.$$

In fact, we can choose the metric on $`W(S^3,L(p,q))`$ with a positive scalar curvature metric on $`[0,1]\times S^1\times D^2`$. Therefore, we have

$$Ind_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_A^{X_{p/q}})=Ind_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_{A_0}^{W(S^3,L(p,q))}),$$

which depends only on $`p,q,n`$ and $`u(𝔰)`$, and so does the quantity

$`\xi _{Y_{p/q}}(𝔰L_i^{(m)},g_{Y_{p/q}})\xi _Y(𝔰L_m,g_Y)SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{[\theta _0^{(m)},\theta _i^{(m)}]}^V).`$ (165)
When summing the identity (165) over $`i\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$ and $`m\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, notice that the term $`\xi _Y(𝔰L_m,g_Y)`$ is independent of $`i\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$, hence we obtain the proof of the claim (2) by using the definition (94).

With these two propositions in place, we now have the following surgery formula for the modified version of the Seiberg-Witten invariant.

###### Theorem 6.3.

Given any two relatively prime integers $`p`$ and $`q`$, a positive integer $`n`$ and $`u\{0,2/n,2(n1)/n\}`$, there is a rational valued function $`s(p,q,n,u)`$, depending only on $`p,q,n`$ and $`u`$, satisfying the following property. Let $`Y`$ be a rational homology 3-sphere with a smoothly embedded knot and a canonical framing $`(m,l)`$ such that $`\nu (K)D^2\times S^1`$. Assume that $`K`$ represents a torsion element of order $`n`$ in $`H_1(Y,)`$. Let $`𝔰`$ be a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure on $`Y`$. Then we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & _{k=0}^{pn1}\widehat{SW}_{Y_{p/q}}(𝔰L_k)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & p_{k=0}^{n1}\widehat{SW}_Y(𝔰L_k)+q_kSW_{Y_0}(𝔰L_k)\hfill \\ & & +s(p,q,n,u).\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. Following from Proposition 6.2, we know that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{pn1}{}}}\xi _{Y_{p/q}}(𝔰L_k,g_{Y_{p/q}})p{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\xi _Y(𝔰L_k,g_Y){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}SF_{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}_{[\theta _0,\theta _i]}^V)`$ (174)
depends only on $`p,q,n`$ and $`u=u(𝔰)\{0,2/n,\mathrm{},2(n1)/n\}`$. We denote this term by $`s(p,q,n,u)`$. By subtracting (174) from the surgery formula for the Seiberg-Witten invariants in Proposition 6.1, we obtain the proof of this theorem.

Now we can establish the equivalence between the modified version of the Seiberg-Witten invariant $`\widehat{SW}`$ and the Casson-Walker invariant for rational homology 3-spheres.

###### Theorem 6.4.

For any rational homology 3-sphere $`Y`$, we have

$$\underset{𝔰\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y)}{}\widehat{SW}_Y(𝔰)=\frac{1}{2}|H_1(Y,)|\lambda (Y)$$

where $`\lambda (Y)`$ is the Casson-Walker invariant.

Proof. We first derive the surgery formula for the invariant $`_{𝔰\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y)}\widehat{SW}_Y(𝔰)`$ from Theorem 6.3 and the Seiberg-Witten invariant for $`Y_0`$ (a rational homology $`S^1\times S^2`$, i.e., $`b_1(Y_0)=1`$) (see  ):

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& & _{𝔰\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y_{p/q})}\widehat{SW}_{Y_{p/q}}(𝔰)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & p_{𝔰\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y)}\widehat{SW}_Y(𝔰)+q_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}a_jj^2+|H_1(Y,)|s(p,q,n)\hfill \end{array}`$ (177)
where $`s(p,q,n)=_us(p,q,n,u)/n`$ and $`a_j`$ is the coefficient of the symmetrized Alexander polynomial of $`Y_0`$,

$$A(t)=|\text{Torsion}(H_1(Y_0,))|+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_j(t^j+t^j)$$

normalized such that

$$A(1)=|\text{Torsion}(H_1(Y_0,))|.$$

Set $`\overline{\lambda }(Y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|H_1(Y,)|\lambda (Y)`$ as the normalized Casson-Walker invariant. Then the surgery formula in  for $`\overline{\lambda }(Y)`$ can be expressed as (cf. ):

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\lambda }(Y_{p/q})\hfill & =\hfill & p\overline{\lambda }(Y)+q_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}a_jj^2\hfill \\ & & +|H_1(Y,)|\left({\displaystyle \frac{q(n^21)}{12n^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ps(p,q)}{2}}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (180)
Here $`s(p,q)`$ is the Dedekind sum of relatively prime integers $`p`$ and $`q`$ (cf. ). Comparing (177) and (180), we only need to show that

$`s(p,q,n)={\displaystyle \frac{q(n^21)}{12n^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ps(p,q)}{2}}.`$ (181)
Since $`s(p,q,n)`$ is independent of the manifold $`Y`$, we can choose some examples that can be computed explicitly, and use them to identify the coefficient $`s(p,q,n)`$. The Lens space $`L(p,q)`$ can be obtained by a $`p/q`$-surgery on an unknot in $`S^3`$. The calculation of Nicolaescu  for $`L(p,q)`$ gives us that

$$\underset{𝔰\mathrm{Spin}^c(L(p,q))}{}\widehat{SW}_{L(p,q)}(𝔰)=\frac{ps(p,q)}{2}.$$

This implies that (181) holds for $`n=1`$. Now we can prove (181) by induction on $`n`$. This is exactly the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 7.5 in  on the equivalence of their theta invariant and the Casson-Walker invariant. The example is the Seifert manifold $`M(n,1;n,1;q,p)`$, obtained by $`p/q`$ surgery on a knot of order $`n`$ in $`L(n,1)\mathrm{\#}\overline{L(n,1)}`$. By Kirby calculus it is possible to show that $`M(n,1;n,1;q,p)`$ can be obtained as $`(n)`$-surgery on a knot in the Lens space $`L(pnq,q)`$, and can be obtained as a sequence of surgeries on knots of order less than $`n`$, see the proof of Theorem 7.5 in  for details.

Matilde Marcolli

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

marcolli@mpim-bonn.mpg.de

Bai-Ling Wang

Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia.

bwang@maths.adelaide.edu.au