text:
# Polynomial splittings of Casson–Gordon invariants

## 1. Introduction

In his classification of the knot concordance groups, Levine  defined the algebraic concordance group, $`𝒢`$, of Witt classes of Seifert matrices and a homomorphism from the knot concordance group, $`𝒞`$, of knots in the $`3`$-sphere $`S^3`$ to $`𝒢`$. Casson and Gordon  proved that the kernel of Levine’s homomorphism $`𝒞𝒢`$, the concordance group of algebraically slice knots, is nontrivial. Gilmer  used the work of  to define a Witt type group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and showed that there are homomorphisms $`𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+𝒢`$. The group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is roughly characterized by the property that a class of knots maps to zero in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ if and only if all of Levine’s invariants and the Casson–Gordon invariants of a representative of the class vanish. However, the definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ used here is modified from the one used by Gilmer to correct for an error in , as described in Section 2.

It follows from Levine’s work  that if the connected sum of two knots with relatively prime Alexander polynomials maps to zero in $`𝒢`$, then so does each knot. We show a similar result for the Casson–Gordon invariants as follows.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ be knots with relatively prime Alexander polynomials in $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$. Suppose that either $`K_1`$ or $`K_2`$ has a non-singular Seifert form. Then if $`K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2`$ is zero in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ then so are both $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$.

To demonstrate the strength of this result we study the family of $`k`$-twisted doubles of a given knot $`K`$, denoted $`D_k(K)`$. This family contains an infinite number of algebraically slice knots and these algebraically slice knots have been the subject of careful study. Casson and Gordon  found the first examples of nontrivial concordance classes in the kernel of Levine’s homomorphism using the family $`D_k(U)`$ where $`U`$ is the unknot. Since then  have found infinite linearly independent families of algebraically slice knots among the knots $`D_k(U)`$. In each case these families were very scarce: roughly one knot was chosen for each prime integer. Theorem 1.1 will yield that for every knot $`K`$ (not just the unknot $`U`$) the set of all algebraically slice knots in the family of knots $`D_k(K)`$ is (with finite exceptions) linearly independent. More precisely:

###### Theorem 1.2.

(a) For any knot $`K`$, all but finitely many algebraically slice twisted doubles of $`K`$ are linearly independent in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and so in $`𝒞`$.

(b) If $`\sigma _r(K)0`$ for all $`r`$, then all algebraically slice twisted doubles of $`K`$ except the untwisted and 2-twisted ones are linearly independent in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and so in $`𝒞`$, where $`\sigma _r`$ denotes the averaged Tristram–Levine signature. In addition, if $`\sigma _r(K)>0`$ for some $`r`$, then all algebraically slice twisted doubles of $`K`$ except the untwisted one are linearly independent in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and so in $`𝒞`$.

###### Corollary 1.3.

(a) All algebraically slice twisted doubles of the unknot except the two known to be slice (untwisted and 2-twisted ones) are linearly independent in the knot concordance group.

(b) There are infinitely many knots $`K`$ for each of which all algebraically slice twisted doubles of $`K`$ except the untwisted one are linearly independent in the knot concordance group.

The full set of knots $`D_k(K)`$ contains knots which are not algebraically slice, representing elements of infinite order, order 2, and order 4 in $`𝒢`$. It has not been possible to prove that this set is linearly independent in $`𝒞`$, but we do have the following theorem, based on recent work of Friedl :

###### Theorem 1.4.

(a) For any knot $`K`$, there is a set $`𝒦`$ containing all twisted doubles of $`K`$ except a finite number of nonnegatively twisted ones such that no nontrivial linear combinations of elements in $`𝒦`$ are ribbon.

(b) If $`\sigma _r(K)0`$ for all $`r`$, then no nontrivial linear combinations of twisted doubles of $`K`$ except those with $`0,1,2`$ twists are ribbon. In addition, if $`\sigma _r(K)>0`$ for $`r=\frac{2}{9},\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{5}`$, then no nontrivial linear combinations of twisted doubles of $`K`$ except the untwisted one are ribbon.

In the past, the construction of independent knots depended on finding knots for which some branched covers had homology groups of order divisible by distinct primes. Such an approach could conceivably work with doubled knots by using high degree covers, but the argument would be far more burdensome than the one we give. A paper in preparation will address another application of Theorem 1.1 that there are examples of linearly independent algebraically slice knots having the same homology on all prime power fold branched covers, in which case no such approach could possibly work, and our approach using the splitting associated with the polynomial is definitely required.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we summarize the modified results of  about the Casson–Gordon invariants on slice knots and ribbon knots to correct for an error in . In Section 3 we prove Theorem 1.1. In Section 4 we state that all algebraically slice twisted doubles of a knot (with finite exceptions) have infinite order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and similar results concerning their ribbonness. We also summarize some facts on the Casson–Gordon invariants of genus 1 knots and the Tristram–Levine signatures of satellite knots and torus knots. In Section 5 we estimate the Casson–Gordon invariants of algebraically slice $`D_k(K)`$ and prove Theorem 1.2 and Corollary 1.3. In Section 6 we estimate the Casson–Gordon invariants of all twisted doubles $`D_k(K)`$ for double branched covers and prove Theorem 1.4.

## 2. Gilmer’s obstructions

In this section we state the modified results of  about the Casson–Gordon invariants on slice knots and ribbon knots to correct for an error in . Conventions of  are followed here rather than those of  since we will use the formula for the Casson–Gordon invariants for genus 1 knots given in .

Let $`K`$ be a knot in the $`3`$-sphere $`S^3`$ with Seifert surface $`F`$ having intersection pairing $`,`$. Let $`i_+:H_1(F)H_1(S^3F)`$ denote the map which pushes a class off in the positive normal direction and let $`i_{}`$ denote the map given by pushing off the other way.

Let $`\theta `$ denote the Seifert pairing, i.e. $`\theta (x,y)=lk(x,i_+y)`$. Let $`A`$ denote the Seifert matrix for $`\theta `$ with respect to some basis $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2g}\}`$ for $`H_1(F)`$. With respect to this basis the intersection form on $`F`$ is then given by the matrix $`A^tA`$. Let $`\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{2g}\}`$ denote the basis for $`H_1(S^3F)`$ such that $`lk(a_i,\alpha _j)=\delta _j^i`$ as in \[14, page 209\]. Then $`i_+`$ with respect to these bases is given by $`A`$. Define $`j:H_1(S^3F)H_1(F)`$ by $`jx,y=lk(x,y)`$, so $`j`$ is given by the matrix $`(AA^t)^1`$ with respect to the above bases.

Following , we define *the associated isometric structure* $`s:H_1(F)H_1(F)`$ by the equation $`\theta (x,y)=sx,y`$. We see that $`s`$ is $`ji_+`$ and is given by the matrix $`G=(AA^t)^1A`$. Note $`s1`$ is given by $`GI=(AA^t)^1AI=(AA^t)^1A^t`$ and is actually $`ji_{}`$. Let $`M^q`$ denote the $`q`$-fold branched cyclic cover of $`S^3`$ along $`K`$. Then Seifert showed that $`G^q(GI)^q`$ is a presentation matrix for $`H_1(M^q)`$ (for a more recent reference, see \[4, lemma 1\]).

We are interested in $`H^1(M^q;/)`$, the set of characters on $`H_1(M^q)`$. Define $`\epsilon ^q`$ to be the endomorphism of $`H_1(F)`$ given by $`s^q(s1)^q`$ and $`N^qH_1(F;/)`$ to be the kernel of $`\epsilon ^q\mathrm{id}_/`$. Gilmer  proved that $`H^1(M^q;/)`$ is isomorphic to $`N^q`$ and the isomorphism can be uniquely constructed up to covering translations. So we may view the Casson–Gordon invariants $`\tau (K,)`$ as a function on $`N^q`$. See  for the definition of the Casson–Gordon invariants. From now on $`q`$ will always denote a power of a prime. For a prime $`p`$, let $`N_p^q`$ denote the $`p`$-primary component of $`N^q`$.

A Seifert form $`\theta `$ on $`H_1(F)`$ is said to be *null-concordant* if there is an $`s`$-invariant direct summand $`Z`$ of $`H_1(F)`$ such that $`Z=Z^{}`$ with respect to the intersection pairing $`,`$. Such a direct summand $`Z`$ is called a *metabolizer* for the isometric structure $`s`$ associated to $`\theta `$.

We say a knot $`K`$ is *slice* if $`K`$ bounds a smoothly embedded 2-disk $`D`$ in the $`4`$-ball $`B^4`$ with $`(B^4,D)=(S^3,K)`$. Knots $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are called *concordant* if $`K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2`$ is slice, where $`K`$ denotes the mirror image of $`K`$ with reversed orientation. The set of concordance classes of knots forms an abelian group under connected sum, called the *knot concordance group* and denoted $`𝒞`$. We remark here that the result all apply in the category of locally flat oriented manifolds and pairs as well.

We say a knot $`K`$ is *ribbon* if $`K`$ bounds a smoothly immersed 2-disc $`f(D^2)`$ in $`S^3`$ for a smooth map $`f:D^2S^3`$ which has the property that each component of self-intersection is an arc $`Af(D^2)`$ for which $`f^1(A)`$ is two arcs in $`D^2`$, one of which lies in the interior of $`D^2`$. It is easy to see that all ribbon knots are slice. There is no known concept of the knot *ribbon* concordance group more along the line of the knot concordance group as defined above. The difficulty is that it is unknown whether the following is true: If knots $`K`$ and $`K\mathrm{\#}J`$ are ribbon, then $`J`$ is ribbon. In fact, this is an equivalent statement of Fox’s conjecture: All slice knots are ribbon.

Gilmer  combined the slicing obstructions of  with those of  in a nontrivial way. Recently Gilmer has announced that there is an error in  (cf. ). However, the following two weaker statements are known to be valid. Note that the first statement has a weaker conclusion: the phrase “all primes $`p`$” is replaced by “all but finitely many primes $`p`$”; the second statement has a stronger hypothesis: “a slice knot $`K`$” is replaced by “a ribbon knot $`K`$.” The first statement directly follows from Gilmer’s original proof if primes $`p`$ are chosen so that $`p`$ do not divide the order of torsion of $`H_1(R)`$ (see  for the definition of $`R`$). The second statement is a corollary of Friedl’s recent work \[2, theorem 8.3 and corollary 8.5\].

###### Theorem 2.1.

(a) If $`F`$ is a Seifert surface for a slice knot $`K`$ then there is a metabolizer $`Z`$ for the isometric structure on $`H_1(F)`$ such that $`\tau (K,N_p^q(Z/))`$ vanishes for all prime powers $`q`$ and all but finitely many primes $`p`$.

(b) If $`F`$ is a Seifert surface for a ribbon knot $`K`$ then there is a metabolizer $`Z`$ for the isometric structure on $`H_1(F)`$ such that $`\tau (K,N_p^q(Z/))`$ vanishes for all prime powers $`q`$ and all primes $`p`$.

We say that a knot $`K`$ has *vanishing Gilmer slice (resp. ribbon) obstruction* if the conclusion of Theorem 2.1(a) (resp. (b)) is satisfied for any Seifert surface $`F`$ of $`K`$. Otherwise, we say that $`K`$ has *nonvanishing* Gilmer slice (resp. ribbon) obstruction.

Gilmer  defined a Witt type group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and a homomorphism from the knot concordance group $`𝒞`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ such that the class of a knot maps to zero if and only if it satisfies the conclusion of Theorem 2.1(b). It became unknown whether the original $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is a group and whether there is a homomorphism $`𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ since the proof of the cancellation lemma of \[4, lemma 5\] had a similar gap.

On the other hand, if the definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is modified so that the class of a knot maps to zero if and only if it satisfies the conclusion of Theorem 2.1(a), then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is a group and there are still homomorphisms $`𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+𝒢`$. For instance, using the notation in \[4, page 12\], the definition of a metabolizer for $`(U,,,s,\tau _p^q)`$ should be modified as done in the conclusion of Theorem 2.1(a), namely, “all primes $`p`$” should be replaced by “all but finitely many primes $`p`$.” With this new definition of metabolizer we can eliminate the gap in the proof of \[4, lemma 5\] and hence this new $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ becomes a group. Throughout this paper, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is this modified one.

## 3. Alexander polynomial and proof of Theorem 1.1

Let $`K`$ be a knot in the $`3`$-sphere $`S^3`$ with Seifert surface $`F`$, Seifert pairing $`\theta `$, and Seifert matrix $`A`$. We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(t)=det(AtA^t)`$, called the *Alexander polynomial of $`K`$ corresponding to the Seifert surface $`F`$*. As is well known, the Alexander polynomial of a knot is uniquely determined up to multiplication by $`\pm t^n`$ in $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$. Observe that the characteristic polynomial for the associated isometric structure $`s`$ to $`K`$ is $`det(xIG)=\pm x^{2g}det(A(1x^1)A^t)=\pm x^{2g}\mathrm{\Delta }_K(1x^1)`$, where $`g`$ is the genus of $`F`$.

To prove Theorem 1.1 we need a generalized notion of Seifert form. Consider integral valued bilinear forms $`\theta `$ on finitely generated free $``$-modules $`H`$. Define the *transpose* of $`\theta `$, denoted $`\theta ^t`$, by $`\theta ^t(x,y)=\theta (y,x)`$ for all $`x`$ and $`y`$ in $`H`$. We say that $`\theta `$ is a *Seifert form* if the form $`\theta \theta ^t`$ is unimodular, i.e. the associated map $`H\text{Hom}(H,)`$, defined by $`x(\theta \theta ^t)(x,)`$, is an isomorphism. A form is called *non-singular* if its associated map is injective.

The notions of isometric structure, metabolizer, and Alexander polynomial extend to (algebraic) Seifert forms. Observe that if $`\theta `$ is a Seifert form on $`H`$, then the rank of $`H`$ must be even. Polynomials in $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$ are said to be *relatively prime* if their greatest common divisor is a unit.

The following lemma is a refinement of \[6, proposition 3\]. Its geometrical origins are in the work of  on the knot concordance group. They did not need the splitting of a metabolizer as stated below, while we will need the splitting later.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ be Seifert forms on $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$. Suppose that their Alexander polynomials are relatively prime in $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$ and that either $`\theta _1`$ or $`\theta _2`$ is non-singular. Then if $`\theta _1\theta _2`$ is null-concordant with a metabolizer $`Z`$ for the associated isometric structure, then $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are null-concordant with metabolizers $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ for the associated isometric structures, respectively, such that $`Z_i=ZH_i,i=1,2`$, and $`Z=Z_1Z_2`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the associated isometric structures $`s_i`$ to $`\theta _i`$, $`i=1,2`$. Then $`s_1s_2`$ on $`H=H_1H_2`$ is the associated isometric structure $`s`$ to $`\theta _1\theta _2.`$ Let $`Z_i=ZH_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, and let $`\phi _i(x)=x^{2g_i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta _i}(1x^1)`$, where $`2g_i`$ is the rank of $`H_i`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta _1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta _2}`$ are relatively prime in $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$ and since either $`\theta _1`$ or $`\theta _2`$ is non-singular, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta _1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta _2}`$ are relatively prime in $`[t]`$. Then $`\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2`$ are also relatively prime in $`[x]`$. For, if $`f(x)`$ is a common factor of $`\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2`$, then $`(1t)^df\left(1/(1t)\right)`$, $`d=\mathrm{deg}f`$, is a common factor of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta _1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta _2}`$. Thus there are polynomials $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ in $`[x]`$ and a non-zero integer $`c`$ such that $`u_1\phi _1+u_2\phi _2=c`$.

For $`zZ`$, there are $`z_1H_1`$ and $`z_2H_2`$ with $`z=z_1+z_2`$. As stated right after the definition of the Alexander polynomial, each $`\phi _i`$ is the characteristic polynomial for $`s_i`$, and hence $`\phi _i(s_i)=0`$. Using this and $`s(z_i)=s_i(z_i)`$, we have

$`cz_1`$ $`=`$ $`u_1(s)\phi _1(s)z_1+u_2(s)\phi _2(s)z_1`$
$`=`$ $`u_1(s_1)\phi _1(s_1)z_1+u_2(s_1)\phi _2(s_1)z_1`$
$`=`$ $`u_2(s_1)\phi _2(s_1)z_1`$
$`=`$ $`u_2(s_1)\phi _2(s_1)z_1+u_2(s_2)\phi _2(s_2)z_2`$
$`=`$ $`u_2(s)\phi _2(s)z.`$
Since $`Z`$ is $`s`$-invariant, $`cz_1=u_2(s)\phi _2(s)zZ`$. Since $`Z`$ is a direct summand of $`H`$, this implies $`z_1Z`$, and hence $`z_1Z_1`$. Similarly, $`z_2Z_2`$. So $`Z=Z_1+Z_2`$. This now implies that $`Z=Z_1Z_2`$ since $`H=H_1H_2`$ and $`Z_i=ZH_i`$.

Since $`Z`$ is $`s`$-invariant, each $`Z_i`$ is $`s_i`$-invariant. Since $`H/Z=H_1/Z_1H_2/Z_2`$ is torsion free, each $`Z_i`$ is a direct summand of $`H_i`$. Since the intersection pairing $`,`$ on $`H`$ is unimodular, $`Z_i=Z_i^{}`$ on $`H_i`$. Thus each $`Z_i`$ is a metabolizer for $`s_i`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1..

Let $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ be Seifert surfaces for $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$. Then a boundary connected sum $`F_1\mathrm{}F_2`$ is a Seifert surface for $`K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2`$. Let $`Z`$ be a metabolizer for the isometric structure on $`H_1(F_1\mathrm{}F_2)=H_1(F_1)H_1(F_2)`$ satisfying the conclusion of Theorem 2.1(a) with the exceptional primes $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$, i.e. $`\tau (K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2,N_p^q(Z/))`$ vanishes for all prime powers $`q`$ and all primes $`p`$ except $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$.

Then by Lemma 3.1 there are metabolizers $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ for the isometric structures on $`H_1(F_1)`$ and $`H_1(F_2)`$, respectively, with $`Z=Z_1Z_2`$. Let $`q`$ be a power of a prime. Let $`N=\mathrm{ker}\epsilon ^q\mathrm{id}_/`$ and $`N_i=\mathrm{ker}\epsilon _i^q\mathrm{id}_/`$, where $`\epsilon ^q`$ and $`\epsilon _i^q`$ are the endomorphisms of $`H`$ and $`H_i`$, respectively, as denoted in Section 2. Then since $`\epsilon ^q=\epsilon _1^q\epsilon _2^q`$, $`N=N_1N_2`$, and $`Z=Z_1Z_2`$,

$$N(Z/)=(N_1Z_1/)(N_2Z_2/).$$

Let $`N_p`$ and $`N_{i,p}`$ denote the $`p`$-primary components of $`N`$ and $`N_i`$, respectively. Let $`\chi _1N_{1,p}(Z_1/)`$. Then $`\chi =\chi _10`$ is an element in $`N_p(Z/)`$, where $`0`$ stands for the trivial character in $`N_2(Z_2/)`$. By the additivity of Casson–Gordon invariants \[10, page 335\], for all primes $`p`$ except $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$,

$$0=\tau (K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2,\chi )=\tau (K_1,\chi _1)+\tau (K_2,0).$$

Also, by \[10, corollary B2\] $`\tau `$ is determined by the algebraic concordance class of the knot if the character is trivial. This implies that $`\tau (K_2,0)=0`$ and hence $`\tau (K_1,\chi _1)=0`$. Since $`\chi _1`$ was chosen arbitrarily, we just have found a metabolizer $`Z_1`$ for the isometric structure on $`H_1(F_1)`$ such that $`\tau (K_1,N_{1,p}(Z_1/))`$ vanishes for all prime powers $`q`$ and all primes $`p`$ except $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$, i.e. $`K_1`$ is zero in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$. Similarly, $`K_2`$ is zero in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$. This completes the proof. ∎

The proof given above also works for the Gilmer ribbon obstructions, in which case there are no exceptional primes $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$.

###### Corollary 3.2.

Under the same conditions as in Theorem 1.1, if $`K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2`$ has vanishing Gilmer ribbon obstruction, then so do both $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$.

## 4. Twisted doubles of a knot

In this section we state that all but finitely many algebraically slice twisted doubles of a knot have infinite order in the knot concordance group $`𝒞`$, in fact, in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$. We also state similar results concerning ribbonness in the line of Theorem 2.1(b). The proofs will be given in the next two sections. In preparations, we also summarize some facts on the Casson–Gordon invariants of genus 1 knots and the Tristram–Levine signatures of satellite knots and torus knots.

Let $`K`$ be a knot in the $`3`$-sphere $`S^3`$. Let $`D_k(K)`$ denote the $`k`$-twisted double of $`K`$ as illustrated in Figure 1. Here, $`k`$ may be negative.

The following theorem is due to \[8, corollary 23\].

###### Theorem 4.1.

The $`k`$-twisted double of a knot $`K`$ is:

(a) of infinite order in the algebraic concordance group, $`𝒢`$, if $`k<0`$;

(b) algebraically slice if $`k0`$ and $`4k+1`$ is a perfect square;

(c) of order $`2`$ in $`𝒢`$ if $`k>0`$, $`4k+1`$ is not a perfect square, and every prime congruent to $`3`$ mod $`4`$ has even exponent in the prime power factorization of $`4k+1`$;

(d) of order $`4`$ in $`𝒢`$ if $`k>0`$ and some prime congruent to $`3`$ mod $`4`$ has odd exponent in the prime power factorization of $`4k+1`$.

Immediate corollaries are that $`D_k(K)`$ is algebraically slice if and only if $`k=l(l+1)`$ for an integer $`l0`$ and that $`D_k(K)`$ has infinite order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ if $`k<0`$.

We will further prove the following two theorems. For a nonnegative integer $`n`$ let $`nD_k(K)`$ denote the connected sum of $`n`$ copies of $`D_k(K)`$. The first of the following two theorems concerns the order of algebraically slice $`D_k(K)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$. The second concerns the Gilmer ribbon obstructions of $`nD_k(K)`$ for not only algebraically slice but all twisted doubles $`D_k(K)`$.

###### Theorem 4.2.

(a) For any knot $`K`$, the algebraically slice $`k`$-twisted double $`D_k(K)`$ has infinite order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ for all but finitely many $`k`$.

(b) If $`\sigma _r(K)0`$ for all $`r`$, the algebraically slice $`D_k(K)`$ has infinite order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ for any $`k0,2`$, where $`\sigma _r(K)`$ denotes the averaged Tristram–Levine signature of $`K`$ (details will be given later). In addition, if $`\sigma _r(K)>0`$ for some $`r`$, then $`D_2(K)`$ has infinite order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ as well.

###### Theorem 4.3.

(a) For any knot $`K`$, there is a set $``$ of all integers except a finite number of nonnegative integers such that, for any $`k`$ and any integer $`n0`$, $`nD_k(K)`$ has nonvanishing Gilmer ribbon obstruction.

(b) If $`\sigma _r(K)0`$ for all $`r`$, for any integer $`n0`$ and any integer $`k0,1,2`$, $`nD_k(K)`$ has nonvanishing Gilmer ribbon obstruction. In addition, if $`\sigma _r(K)>0`$ for $`r=\frac{2}{9},\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{5}`$, for any integer $`n0`$, $`nD_1(K)`$ and $`nD_2(K)`$ have nonvanishing Gilmer ribbon obstruction as well.

We devote the remaining two sections to proving these theorems. Before that, we summarize some useful facts in the rest of this section.

### 4.1. Casson–Gordon invariants of a genus $`1`$ knot

We state the work of \[13, theorem 7\] that gives a formula for $`\tau `$ for genus 1 knots in terms of the classical signatures. We remark that  first found the formula for the 2-fold branched cover case and algebraically slice case.

For a knot $`K`$ and a character $`\chi `$, $`\tau (K,\chi )`$ is defined to be an element of the Witt group $`W((t),𝒥)_{}`$, where $`𝒥`$ denotes the involution on $`(t)`$ given by complex conjugation and by the map $`tt^1`$ and $`W((t),𝒥)`$ is the Witt group of finite dimensional hermitian inner product spaces. For details, see . Let $`W()`$ denote the Witt group of finite dimensional inner product spaces over $``$. The signature function $`\sigma :W()`$ is an isomorphism. Also there is a natural map $`W()W((t),𝒥)`$ given by tensoring with $`(t)`$ over $``$. Composing this map with $`\sigma ^1`$ tensored with $``$ gives a homomorphism $`\rho :W((t),𝒥)_{}`$. Note that for each complex number $`\zeta `$ with $`|\zeta |=1`$, there is a homomorphism $`\sigma _\zeta :W((t),𝒥)_{}`$ (see ). It is easy to see that $`\sigma _1\rho `$ is the identity.

For any real number $`r`$, define $`A_r(K)=\left(1e^{2\pi ir}\right)A+\left(1e^{2\pi ir}\right)A^t`$, where $`A`$ is a Seifert matrix of $`K`$, and define $`\sigma _r(K)`$ to be $`\sigma (A_r)`$ if $`A_r`$ is non-singular and elsewhere to be the average of the one-sided limits of $`\sigma (A_r)`$. This $`\sigma _r(K)`$ is a concordance invariant and is equal to the Tristram–Levine signature  of $`K`$ except perhaps at finitely many $`r`$. It is an immediate consequence of the definition that $`\sigma _r(K)=\sigma _{1r}(K)`$. Thus we only need to consider $`\sigma _r(K)`$ for $`0r\frac{1}{2}`$.

The following is due to . The case for $`q=2`$ and the case for algebraically slice knots are due to .

###### Theorem 4.4.

Let $`F`$ be a genus one Seifert surface of a knot $`K`$ and let $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& m\\ \left(m+1\right)& b\end{array}\right)`$ be the Seifert matrix of $`K`$ with respect to a basis $`\{x,y\}`$ of $`H_1(F)`$. Let $`q`$ and $`d`$ be powers of primes, $`s`$ an integer relatively prime to $`d`$, and $`N^q=\mathrm{ker}((G^q(GI)^q)\mathrm{id}_/)H_1(F;/)`$, where $`G=(AA^t)^1A`$. Suppose that $`xs/dN^q`$ and $`da`$. Then the multiplicative inverse, $`m^{}`$, of $`m`$ mod $`d`$ exists and $`xs/d`$ defines a character $`\chi `$ for which

$$\tau (K,\chi )=\rho \underset{i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\left(\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{d}}(J_x)+\frac{2(ds_i)s_ia}{d^2}\sigma _{\frac{i}{q}}(K)\right),$$

where $`J_x`$ is a simple closed curve on $`F`$ representing $`x`$ and, for $`i=0,\mathrm{},q1`$, $`s_i`$ is an integer such that $`0<s_i<d`$ and $`s_i(1+m^{})^is`$ mod $`d`$.

In particular, (a) if $`q=2`$, then

$$\tau (K,\chi )=\rho \left(2\sigma _{\frac{s_0}{d}}(J_x)+\frac{4(ds_0)s_0a}{d^2}\sigma _{\frac{1}{2}}(K)\right).$$

(b) If $`a=0`$, then $`d(m+1)^qm^q`$ implies $`xs/dN^q`$ and

$$\tau (K,\chi )=\rho \underset{i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{d}}(J_x).$$

### 4.2. Satellite knots and torus knots

Let $`K`$ be a knot in $`S^3`$. By an *axis* for $`K`$ of *winding* number $`w`$ we mean an unknotted simple closed curve $`\gamma `$ in $`S^3K`$ having linking number $`w`$ with $`K`$. Let $`V`$ be a solid torus complementary to a tubular neighborhood of $`\gamma `$, with $`K`$ contained in the interior of $`V`$. There is a preferred generator $`v`$ for $`H_1(V)`$, specified by the condition $`lk(v,\gamma )=+1`$. For any knot $`C`$ in $`S^3`$ there is an untwisted orientation-preserving embedding $`h:VS^3`$ taking $`V`$ onto a tubular neighborhood of $`C`$ such that $`C`$ represents $`h_{}(v)`$ in $`H_1(hV)`$. We say that the knot $`h(K)`$, denoted $`C(K)`$, is a *satellite* of $`C`$ with *orbit* $`K`$, *axis* $`\gamma `$, and *winding number* $`w`$.

The following is \[9, theorem 2\].

###### Theorem 4.5.

Let $`C(K)`$ be a satellite of $`C`$ with orbit $`K`$ and winding number $`w`$. Then

$$\sigma _r(C(K))=\sigma _{wr}(C)+\sigma _r(K).$$

Let $`T_{m,n}`$ denote the $`(m,n)`$ torus link. To fix orientation conventions $`T_{2,2}`$ is the positive Hopf link. We will use the work of  on the signatures of $`T_{m,n}`$ to prove the following proposition. For a real number $`z`$, let $`[z]`$ denote the greatest integer that is less than or equal to $`z`$.

###### Proposition 4.6.

Let $`k>0`$ and $`l2`$ be integers and suppose $`0r\frac{1}{2}`$.

(a) If $`r(2d+1)/2(2k+1)`$ for any integer $`d`$,

$$\sigma _r(T_{2,2k+1})=2\left[r(2k+1)+\frac{1}{2}\right].$$

(b) For any integer $`t`$ with $`1tl/2`$, $`\sigma _r\left(T_{l,l1}\right)`$ increases from $`2(t1)^2+2l(t1)`$ to $`2t^2+2(l+1)t2`$ over the interval $`(t1)/lrt/(l+1)`$ and decreases from $`2t^2+2(l+1)t2`$ to $`2t^2+2lt`$ over the interval $`t/(l+1)rt/l`$. In particular, if $`(t1)/lrt/l`$, then

$$2(t1)^2+2l(t1)\sigma _r\left(T_{l,l1}\right)2t^2+2(l+1)t2.$$

###### Proof.

Define $`f_{m,n}(r)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{jump in }\sigma _r(T_{m,n})\text{ at }r\right)`$. Then  showed that if $`m,n>0`$ and $`0r\frac{1}{2}`$,

$$f_{m,n}(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{\left[a/n\right]+\left[b/m\right]}\hfill & \text{if }a,b,mnr,mr,nr\text{ with }mnr=am+bn,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`f_{m,n}(r)`$ is nonzero only if $`r=s/mn`$ for an integer $`s`$ with $`ms`$ and $`ns`$.

To prove (a), let $`m=2`$ and $`n=2k+1`$. Then $`f_{2,2k+1}(r)`$ is nonzero only when $`r=s/2(2k+1)`$ for odd $`s`$ with $`1s2k1`$. Note that $`mnr=s=(ks)(2)+(s)(2k+1)`$. So we have

$$f_{2,2k+1}\left(\frac{s}{2(2k+1)}\right)=(1)^{[ks/(2k+1)]+[s/2]}$$

Write $`s=2d1`$ for $`1dk`$. Then $`[ks/(2k+1)]=d`$ and $`[s/2]=d1`$. Thus

$$f_{2,2k+1}(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }r=(2d1)/2(2k+1)\text{ with }1dk,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`(2d1)/2(2k+1)r`$ if and only if $`dr(2k+1)+\frac{1}{2}`$, we see

$$\sigma _r(T_{2,2k+1})=\underset{d=1}{\overset{\left[r(2k+1)+1/2\right]}{}}2f_{2,2k+1}\left(\frac{2d1}{2(2k+1)}\right)=2\left[r(2k+1)+\frac{1}{2}\right].$$

To prove (b), note first that $`f_{l,l1}=f_{l,l+1}`$ since $`T_{l,l1}`$ is the mirror image of $`T_{l,l+1}`$. Let $`m=l`$ and $`n=l+1`$. For any integer $`s`$ with $`0<s<l(l+1)/2`$, $`ls`$, and $`l+1s`$, we see $`s=(s)(l)+(s)(l+1)`$ and hence

$$f_{l,l1}\left(\frac{s}{l(l+1)}\right)=f_{l,l+1}\left(\frac{s}{l(l+1)}\right)=(1)^{[s/(l+1)]+[s/l]}.$$

Let $`t`$ be an integer with $`1tl/2`$. Note $`(l+1)(t1)<lt<(l+1)t`$. We will consider two cases: If $`(l+1)(t1)<s<lt`$, then $`[s/(l+1)]=t`$ and $`[s/l]=t1`$ and hence $`f_{l,l1}\left(s/l(l+1)\right)=1`$. If $`lt<s<(l+1)t`$, then $`[s/(l+1)]=t`$ and $`[s/l]=t`$ and hence $`f_{l,l1}\left(s/l(l+1)\right)=1`$.

Since the sets $`\{s(t1)/l<s/l(l+1)<t/(l+1)\}`$ and $`\{st/(l+1)<s/l(l+1)<t/l\}`$ have $`lt`$ and $`t1`$ elements, respectively, $`\sigma _r(T_{l,l1})`$ changes by $`2(lt)2(t1)=2l4t+2`$ over the interval $`(t1)/l<r<t/l`$. Incorporating these, we have

$`\sigma _r(T_{l,l1})`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \underset{t^{}=1}{\overset{t1}{}}}(2l4t^{}+2)\hfill & \text{if }r=(t1)/l\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \underset{t^{}=1}{\overset{t1}{}}}(2l4t^{}+2)+2(lt)\hfill & \text{if }r=t/l+1\hfill \end{array}`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}2(t1)^2+2l(t1)\hfill & \text{if }r=(t1)/l\hfill \\ 2t^2+2(l+1)t2\hfill & \text{if }r=t/(l+1).\hfill \end{array}`$
Now (b) follows. ∎

## 5. Algebraically slice twisted doubles

In this section we will estimate the Casson–Gordon invariants of algebraically slice $`D_k(K)`$ and prove Theorem 4.2, Theorem 1.2, and Corollary 1.3.

As mentioned in Section 4, $`D_k(K)`$ is algebraically slice if and only if $`k=l(l+1)`$ for an integer $`l0`$. A Seifert matrix for $`D_{l(l+1)}(K)`$ corresponding to the Seifert surface $`F`$ in Figure 1 is $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& l\left(l+1\right)\end{array}\right)`$. The matrix $`G=(AA^t)^1A`$ associated with the isometric structure $`s`$ is $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& l\left(l+1\right)\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ and has eigenvectors

$`v^+`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}l+1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\text{ corresponding to eigenvalue }l`$
$`v^{}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}\right)\text{ corresponding to eigenvalue }l+1.`$
With rational coefficients, $`G`$ is diagonalizable with respect to the basis $`\{v^+,v^{}\}`$.

For a positive integer $`n`$, let $`nD_{l(l+1)}(K)`$ be the connected sum of $`n`$ copies of $`D_{l(l+1)}(K)`$. We put a subscript $`n`$ on objects corresponding to $`nD_{l(l+1)}(K)`$. For example, $`F_n`$ denotes the Seifert surface of $`nD_{l(l+1)}(K)`$ obtained by boundary connected summing $`n`$ copies of the Seifert surface $`F`$ of $`D_{l(l+1)}(K)`$.

### 5.1. Metabolizer of $`nD_{l(l+1)}(K)`$

Let $`Z_n`$ be a metabolizer of the associated isometric structure of $`nD_{l(l+1)}(K)`$. (It should be remarked that unlike $`F_n`$, $`s_n`$, and $`\theta _n`$, $`Z_n`$ needs not be a direct sum of metabolizers of $`D_{l(l+1)}(K)`$.) Since $`G`$ is diagonalizable with respect to the basis $`\{v^+,v^{}\}`$ with rational coefficients, $`G_n`$ associated with $`s_n`$ is diagonalizable with respect to the basis $`\{v_j^+,v_j^{}\}_{j=1,\mathrm{},n}`$, where $`v_j^\pm =0\mathrm{}v^\pm \mathrm{}0`$ is an eigenvector of $`G_n`$ whose $`j`$-th coordinate is the only nonzero $`v^\pm `$ under the identification of $`H_1(F_n)`$ with the direct sum of $`n`$ copies of $`H_1(F)`$. Note that $`\{v_1^+,\mathrm{},v_n^+\}`$ is a basis for the eigenspace of $`G_n`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`l`$ and $`\{v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_n^{}\}`$ is a basis for the eigenspace of $`G_n`$ corresponding to $`l+1`$.

The following lemma shows that $`Z_n`$ contains an eigenvector of $`G_n`$ for which the Casson–Gordon invariant can be easily estimated as will be shown later.

###### Lemma 5.1.

There are integers $`e\frac{n}{2}`$, $`a>0`$, and $`a_{e+1},\mathrm{},a_n`$ such that $`Z_n`$ contains either $`a(_{j=1}^ev_j^+)+_{j=e+1}^na_jv_j^+`$ or $`a(_{j=1}^ev_j^{})+_{j=e+1}^na_jv_j^{}`$.

###### Proof.

From a basic result of linear algebra, $`Z_n`$ has a basis consisting of eigenvectors of $`G_n`$ since $`Z_n`$ is invariant under $`G_n`$ and $`G_n`$ is diagonalizable over $``$. In particular, $`Z_n=E^+E^{}`$, where $`E^\pm `$ are the eigenspaces of $`G_n`$ restricted to $`Z_n`$. Since the rank of $`Z_n`$ is $`n`$, one of $`E^\pm `$ has rank greater than or equal to $`n/2`$. Suppose that $`E^+`$ has rank $`en/2`$. Using the Gauss-Jordan algorithm and rearranging basis elements, we may assume that a basis for $`E^+`$ consists of vectors of the form $`v_j^++u_j`$, $`1je`$, where $`u_j`$ are linear combinations of $`v_{e+1}^+,\mathrm{},v_n^+`$. Adding these basis elements together we see that $`Z_n/`$ contains a vector $`_{j=1}^ev_j^++_{j=e+1}^nb_jv_j^+`$ for some $`b_{e+1},\mathrm{},b_n`$. Multiplying the vector by a nonzero integer gives a desired vector. The same argument works if rank$`E^{}n/2`$. ∎

### 5.2. Estimation of the Casson–Gordon invariants

We use Theorem 4.4(b) to estimate $`\tau `$ of $`D_{l(l+1)}(K)`$ for the character corresponding to $`v^\pm `$ in this subsection.

To change basis of $`H_1(F)`$ to either $`\{x^+=v^+,y=(1,0)\}`$ or $`\{x^{}=v^{},y=(1,0)\}`$, let

$$P^+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}l+1& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\text{and}P^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}l& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

The Seifert matrices with respect to these bases $`\{x^\pm ,y\}`$ are

$$A^+=(P^+)^tAP^+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& l+1\\ l& 1\end{array}\right)\text{ and }A^{}=(P^{})^tAP^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& l\\ l1& 1\end{array}\right),$$

respectively. Let $`m^+=l1`$ and $`m^{}=l`$. We can apply Theorem 4.4(b) to $`A^\pm `$ with $`x=x^\pm `$ and $`m=m^\pm `$, respectively, since $`a=0`$. Observe that we can choose

$$J_{x^+}=J_x^{}=T_{l,l1}\mathrm{\#}K,$$

as shown in Figure 2 when $`l=3`$. Here, the property $`T_{m,n}=T_{m,n}`$ has been used.

For a prime power $`q`$, a prime $`p`$ dividing $`|(m+1)^qm^q|=(l+1)^ql^q`$, and any integer $`s`$ relatively prime to $`p`$, Theorem 4.4(b) implies that $`x^\pm s/p`$ defines a character. Abusing notation, $`x^\pm s/p`$ will also denote its corresponding character. We have

$$\sigma _1\tau (D_{l(l+1)}(K),x^\pm \frac{s}{p})=\underset{i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{p}}\left(T_{l,l1}\mathrm{\#}K\right),$$

where $`s_i`$ are integers such that $`0<s_i<p`$ and $`s_i(1+(m^\pm )^{})^is`$ mod $`p`$.

Since a connected sum $`K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2`$ can be considered as a satellite of $`K_1`$ with orbit $`K_2`$ and winding number $`1`$, by Theorem 4.5 we have

###### Lemma 5.2.

For any prime power $`q`$, any prime $`p`$ dividing $`(l+1)^ql^q`$, and any integer $`s`$ with $`ps`$,

$$\sigma _1\tau (D_{l(l+1)}(K),x^\pm \frac{s}{p})=\underset{i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\left(\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{p}}\left(T_{l,l1}\right)+\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{p}}\left(K\right)\right),$$

where $`s_i`$ are integers such that $`0<s_i<p`$ and $`s_i(1+(m^\pm )^{})^is`$ mod $`p`$.

Now we need to estimate $`\sigma _r(T_{l,l1})`$.

###### Lemma 5.3.

(a)

$$\sigma _r(T_{l,l1})\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }l1,\hfill \\ 2\hfill & \text{if }l2\text{ and }1/l(l+1)<r\frac{1}{2}.\hfill \end{array}$$

(b) For any constant $`C_0`$, there is an integer $`l_02`$ such that, for any $`ll_0`$, any prime power $`q`$, any prime $`p`$ dividing $`(l+1)^ql^q`$, and any $`m=m^\pm `$, there is an integer $`s`$ such that

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{p}}(T_{l,l1})>qC_0,$$

where $`s_i`$ are integers such that $`0<s_i<p`$ and $`s_i(1+m^{})^is`$ mod $`p`$.

###### Proof.

If $`l=1`$ then $`T_{1,2}`$ is the unknot and $`\sigma _r(T_{1,2})=0`$ for any $`r`$. Now suppose that $`l2`$. From Proposition 4.6(b) $`\sigma _r\left(T_{l,l1}\right)`$ has local minima $`2t^2+2lt`$ at the integers $`t`$ with $`0tl/2`$. Observe that the function $`2t^2+2lt`$ is increasing over $`0tl/2`$ and has $`0`$ at $`t=0`$. Also, a close look at the proof of Proposition 4.6(b) reveals $`f_{l,l1}(1/l(l+1))=1`$ and hence $`\sigma _r(T_{l,l1})2`$ if $`1/l(l+1)<r\frac{1}{2}`$. Now (a) follows.

To show (b), let $`l_0`$ be an integer such that $`l_02`$ and $`\frac{3}{8}l_0^2l_022C_0`$. Let $`ll_0`$, $`q`$ a prime power, and $`p`$ a prime dividing $`(l+1)^ql^q`$. It is easy to see that $`1+(m^\pm )^{}0`$ mod $`p`$. For simplicity, let $`a=1+(m^\pm )^{}`$ and $`e`$ the multiplicative order of $`a`$ mod $`p`$. Then $`e`$ divides $`p1`$ and let $`f=(p1)/e`$. For any integer $`z`$ not divisible by $`p`$, let $`E(z)=\{a^iz/p\}_{i=0,\mathrm{},e1}`$, that is, a coset of the multiplicative group $`/p^{}=/p\{0\}`$ modulo $`a`$. Then there are integers $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_f`$ such that $`_jE(z_j)=/p^{}`$ and $`E(z_j)`$ are all disjoint.

Let $`P=\{x/p^{}p/4x3p/4\}`$. We will show that there is $`s`$ for which at least half of $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_{q1}`$ belong to $`P`$. Note $`|P|(p1)/2=|/p^{}|/2`$. Since $`\{E(z_j)\}_{j=1,\mathrm{},f}`$ is a partition of $`/p^{}`$, there is $`j`$ such that $`|E(z_j)P||E(z_j)|/2=e/2`$. For simplicity, assume $`j=1`$.

Let $`G=\{(c,d)\times 0cq1\text{ and }0de1\}`$. Define a function $`\varphi :GE(z_1)`$ by $`\varphi (c,d)=a^ca^dz_1`$ mod $`p`$. Since, for each fixed $`c`$, $`\{\varphi (c,d)0de1\}=E(z_1)`$, the function $`\varphi `$ is a $`q`$ to $`1`$ map. Since $`|E(z_1)P||E(z_1)|/2`$, $`|\varphi ^1(E(z_1)P)|q\left(|E(z_1)|/2\right)=|G|/2`$.

For each fixed $`d`$ with $`0de1`$, let $`G_d=\{(c,d)G0cq1\}`$. Then $`\{G_d\}_{d=0,\mathrm{},e1}`$ is a partition of $`G`$ and hence there is an integer $`d_0`$ such that $`|G_{d_0}\varphi ^1(E(z_1)P)||G_{d_0}|/2=q/2`$. Let $`s=a^{d_0}z_1`$ and, for $`i=0,\mathrm{},q1`$, let $`s_i`$ be integers such that $`0<s_i<p`$ and $`s_ia^is`$ mod $`p`$. Then $`\varphi (G_{d_0})=\{s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_{q1}\}/p`$ and at least half of $`s_i`$’s belong to $`P`$.

Note that if $`s_iP`$, then $`\frac{1}{4}s_i/p\frac{3}{4}`$. Let $`t=\left[l/4+1\right]`$. Then $`l/4<tl/4+1`$ and $`(t1)/l\frac{1}{4}s_i/p`$. By Proposition 4.6(b), if $`s_iP`$,

$`\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{p}}(T_{l,l1})`$ $`2(t1)^2+2l(t1)`$
$`>2\left(l/41\right)^2+2l\left(l/41\right)`$ $`\text{since }l/4<t`$
$`=\frac{3}{8}l^2l2`$
$`2C_0`$ $`\text{by the definition of }l_0.`$
Summing these, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}}\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{p}}(T_{l,l1})`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{s_iP}{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{s_iP}{}}\right)\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{p}}(T_{l,l1})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s_iP}{}}\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{p}}(T_{l,l1})`$ by (a)
$`>{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}2C_0=qC_0.`$
This completes the proof. ∎

### 5.3. Homology of prime power fold cyclic branched covers

We need some algebraic background. The *resultant* of two non-constant integral polynomials $`f(t)`$ and $`g(t)`$ is defined as follows: We may factor completely the polynomials $`f`$ and $`g`$ in some extension ring of $``$ as: $`f(t)=a_{i=1}^n(t\alpha _i)`$ and $`g(t)=b_{j=1}^m(t\beta _j)`$. Then the *resultant* of $`f`$ and $`g`$, denoted $`R(f,g)`$, is $`a^mb^n_{i=1}^n_{j=1}^m(\alpha _i\beta _j)`$. It is easy to see that $`R(f,g)=0`$ if and only if $`f`$ and $`g`$ have a common root in a field over $``$. We remark that this is also valid when working modulo a prime $`p`$.

It is known by Fox (see  for a proof) that the order of the homology of the $`n`$-fold cyclic cover of $`S^3`$ branched over a knot $`J`$ is the absolute value of the resultant, $`|R(t^n1,\mathrm{\Delta }_J(t))|`$, of $`t^n1`$ and the Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_J(t)`$ of $`J`$.

###### Proposition 5.4.

For any knot $`K`$ and any integer $`k>0`$, there are infinitely many distinct primes each of which divides $`|H_1(M^q)|`$ for some prime $`q`$, where $`M^q`$ is the $`q`$-fold cyclic cover of $`S^3`$ branched over $`D_k(K)`$.

###### Proof.

The Alexander polynomial of $`D_k(K)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=kt^2+(2k+1)tk`$. Let $`R_n`$ denote $`|R(t^n1,\mathrm{\Delta }_k)|`$.

First, we will show that $`R_{q_1}`$ and $`R_{q_2}`$ are relatively prime for distinct primes $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$. Suppose to the contrary there is a prime $`p`$ dividing both $`R_{q_1}`$ and $`R_{q_2}`$. Then, working modulo $`p`$, for $`j=1,2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ and $`t^{q_j}1`$ have a common root $`r_j`$ in an extension field of the finite field $`𝐅_p`$ of $`p`$ elements.

We claim that the three polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$, $`t^{q_1}1`$, and $`t^{q_2}1`$ have a common root, $`r`$, mod $`p`$. If $`r_1=r_2`$, this is obvious. Suppose $`r_1r_2`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ has two distinct roots $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ mod $`p`$ and hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ must be quadratic over $`𝐅_p`$. In particular, $`k0`$ in $`𝐅_p`$. Thus, $`r_1r_2=(k)/(k)=1`$ or $`r_2=1/r_1`$. So, $`r_2^{q_1}=1/r_1^{q_1}=1`$ mod $`p`$ and $`r_2`$ is a common root, $`r`$, mod $`p`$ of the three polynomials.

Since $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ are distinct primes, there are $`a`$ and $`b`$ such that $`aq_1+bq_2=1`$. So $`r=r^{aq_1+bq_2}=(r^{q_1})^a(r^{q_2})^b1`$ mod $`p`$. This implies that $`1`$ is a root of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ mod $`p`$. However, this is a contradiction since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k(1)=10`$ mod $`p`$. Thus there are no primes $`p`$ dividing both $`R_{q_1}`$ and $`R_{q_2}`$, implying they are relatively prime.

It now suffices to show that $`R_q>1`$ for any large primes $`q`$. We will show that $`R_q\mathrm{}`$ as prime $`q\mathrm{}`$. If $`G`$ is a matrix associated with the isometric structure of $`D_k(K)`$ and $`N^q`$ is the kernel of $`(G^q(GI)^q)\mathrm{id}_/`$ as before, then $`R_q=|det\left(G^q(GI)^q\right)|`$ since $`R_q=|H_1(M^q)|=|N^q|`$. A Seifert matrix for $`D_k(K)`$ corresponding to the Seifert surface in Figure 1 is $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& k\end{array}\right).`$ So $`G=(AA^t)^1A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& k\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right).`$ Let $`u=(1+\sqrt{4k+1})/2`$, $`w=(1\sqrt{4k+1})/2`$, and $`P=\left(\begin{array}{cc}w& u\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right).`$ Then $`P^1GP=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u& 0\\ 0& w\end{array}\right)`$ and $`P^1(GI)P=\left(\begin{array}{cc}w& 0\\ 0& u\end{array}\right)`$. We now see that, for any odd integer $`q`$,

$$P^1(G^q(GI)^q)P=\left(u^q+w^q\right)I$$

and hence $`R_q=(u^q+w^q)^2`$. Since $`|u|>1`$, $`\left|w/u\right|<1`$, and

$$\sqrt{R_q}=|u^q+w^q||u|^q|w|^q=|u|^q\left(1\left|\frac{w}{u}\right|^q\right),$$

$`R_q\mathrm{}`$ as prime $`q\mathrm{}`$. In particular, $`R_q>1`$ for any large primes $`q`$. This completes the proof. ∎

### 5.4. Proofs of Theorem 4.2, Theorem 1.2, and Corollary 1.3

###### Proof of Theorem 4.2..

Let $`=\mathrm{min}_{0<r<1}\sigma _r(K)`$. For $`C_0=2||`$, there is $`l_0`$ satisfying the conclusion of Lemma 5.3(b). Let $`ll_0`$.

Suppose to the contrary that $`n>0`$ and $`nD_{l(l+1)}(K)`$ is zero in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$. Then $`nD_{l(l+1)}(K)`$ has vanishing Gilmer slice obstruction. Use the same notation $`F`$, $`M^q`$, $`N`$, etc. as before for $`D_{l(l+1)}(K)`$ and put a subscript $`n`$ on the objects corresponding to $`nD_{l(l+1)}(K)`$. Let $`Z_n`$ be a metabolizer satisfying the conclusion of Theorem 2.1(a) for the surface $`F_n`$. By Lemma 5.1, $`Z_n`$ contains an integral vector $`v`$ that is either $`a(_{j=1}^ev_j^+)+_{j=e+1}^na_jv_j^+`$ or $`a(_{j=1}^ev_j^{})+_{j=e+1}^na_jv_j^{}`$ for some $`a>0`$ and $`en/2`$. By Proposition 5.4 we can find a prime $`p`$ and an odd prime $`q`$ such that $`p`$ divides $`|H_1(M^q)|`$, $`p`$ does not divide $`a`$, and $`\tau (nD_{l(l+1)}(K),(N_n^q)_p(Z_n/))`$ vanishes, where $`(N_n^q)_p`$ denotes the $`p`$-primary component subgroup of $`N_n^q`$.

Recall that $`N^q\mathrm{ker}((G^q(GI)^q)\mathrm{id}_/)`$. From the proof of Proposition 5.4, $`G^q(GI)^q`$ is the identity matrix multiplied by an integer $`h=|u^q+w^q|=(l+1)^ql^q`$ when $`q`$ is odd and $`k=l(l+1)`$. Thus $`N^q=\{z1/hzH_1(F)\}`$. Since $`N_n^q`$ is the direct sum of $`n`$ copies of $`N^q`$, we have $`N_n^q=\{z_n1/hz_nH_1(F_n)\}`$. Since the prime $`p`$ divides $`|H_1(M^q)|=h^2`$, $`p`$ divides $`h`$ and hence $`z_n1/p(N_n^q)_p`$ for any $`z_nH_1(F_n)`$. In particular, for the vector $`vZ_n`$ chosen above, $`v1/p(N_n^q)_p`$. Moreover, since $`vZ_n`$, $`v1/p(N_n^q)_p(Z_n/)`$ and hence $`\sigma _1\tau (nD_{l(l+1)}(K),v1/p)=0`$.

On the other hand, let $`s`$ be the constant from Lemma 5.3(b) determined by $`l`$, $`p`$, and $`q`$ chosen above together with $`m=m^+`$ or $`m^{}`$ depending on whether $`v=a(_{j=1}^ev_j^+)+_{j=e+1}^na_jv_j^+`$ or $`a(_{j=1}^ev_j^{})+_{j=e+1}^na_jv_j^{}`$. Since $`p`$ was chosen not to divide $`a`$, by multiplying an integer to $`v`$, we may further assume that $`as`$ mod $`p`$. For $`i=0,\mathrm{},q1`$, $`j=e+1,\mathrm{},n`$, let $`s_i`$, $`s_{ij}`$ be integers such that $`0<s_i,s_{ij}<p`$, $`s_i(1+m^{})^ia`$ mod $`p`$, and $`s_{ij}(1+m^{})^ia_j`$ mod $`p`$. Since $`v1/p=_{j=1}^ev_j^\pm a/p+_{j=e+1}^nv_j^\pm a_j/p`$, we have

$$\sigma _1\tau (nD_{l(l+1)}(K),v\frac{1}{p})=\sigma _1\tau (nD_{l(l+1)}(K),\underset{j=1}{\overset{e}{}}v_j^\pm \frac{a}{p}+\underset{j=e+1}{\overset{n}{}}v_j^\pm \frac{a_j}{p}).$$

By the additivity of $`\sigma _1\tau `$, it is equal to

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{e}{}}\sigma _1\tau (D_{l(l+1)}(K),x^\pm \frac{a}{p})+\underset{j=e+1}{\overset{n}{}}\sigma _1\tau (D_{l(l+1)}(K),x^\pm \frac{a_j}{p}),$$

which is, by Lemma 5.2, equal to

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{e}{}}\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{p}}(T_{l,l1})+\underset{i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\sigma _{\frac{s_i}{p}}(K)\right)+\underset{j=e+1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\sigma _{\frac{s_{ij}}{p}}(T_{l,l1})+\underset{i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\sigma _{\frac{s_{ij}}{p}}(K)\right).$$

By Lemma 5.3, we now see that

$$\sigma _1\tau (nD_{l(l+1)}(K),v\frac{1}{p})>eqC_0+nqq(2e||+n)0.$$

Thus $`\sigma _1\tau (nD_{l(l+1)}(K),v1/p)0`$, which is a contradiction. This proves (a).

Next, suppose that $`l2`$ and $`\sigma _r(K)0`$ for all $`r`$. Under the same contradiction hypothesis and notation as above except: let $`s=\left[p/2\right]`$, instead of choosing it from Lemma 5.3(b). Observe that $`1/l(l+1)<\frac{1}{3}s/p\frac{1}{2}`$ and hence $`\sigma _{s/p}(T_{l,l1})2`$ by Lemma 5.3(a). We may assume $`as`$ mod $`p`$ as before. Then we have

$$\sigma _1\tau (nD_{l(l+1)}(K),v\frac{1}{p})=\sigma _{\frac{s_0}{p}}(T_{l,l1})+\text{ other terms }\sigma _{\frac{s}{p}}(T_{l,l1})2.$$

This is a contradiction, completing the proof of the first part of (b).

In addition, suppose that $`\sigma _{r_0}(K)>0`$ for some $`r_0`$. We only need to check the case $`l=1`$. By the definition of the averaged signature $`\sigma _r`$, there are $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ such that $`0<r_1<r_2\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\sigma _r(K)>0`$ for any $`r`$ with $`r_1<r<r_2`$. We can take $`p`$ arbitrary large as above so that $`r_1<s/p<r_2`$ for some integer $`s`$. Apply a similar argument as above. The difference from the previous case is that the role of $`\sigma _{s/p}(T_{l,l1})`$ is switched with that of $`\sigma _{s/p}(K)`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.2..

The Alexander polynomial of $`D_k(K)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=kt^2+(2k+1)tk`$. We will see that all $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ are coprime in $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$. Let $`kl`$ and let $`g`$ be the greatest common divisor of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ in $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$. Then $`g`$ divides $`l\mathrm{\Delta }_kk\mathrm{\Delta }_l=(lk)t`$ that is a unit in $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$. So, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ are relatively prime in $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$ for any distinct pair of integers $`k`$ and $`l`$.

Let $``$ be the set of integers $`l0`$ for which $`D_{l(l+1)}(K)`$ has infinite order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$. Theorem 4.2 implies $``$ contains all but finitely many nonnegative integers. Note that under the hypotheses of (b) $``$ contains all but $`0,1`$ or only $`0`$. Suppose that there are distinct $`l_i`$ such that $`e_1D_{l_1(l_1+1)}(K)\mathrm{\#}e_2D_{l_2(l_2+1)}(K)\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}e_nD_{l_n(l_n+1)}(K)`$ is zero in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ for some integers $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e_iD_{l_i(l_i+1)}(K)}(t)=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{l_i(l_i+1)}\right)^{e_i}`$, all $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e_iD_{l_i(l_i+1)}(K)}(t)`$ are pairwise coprime. Also, note that all $`e_iD_{l_i(l_i+1)}(K)`$ have nonsingular Seifert forms. Applying Theorem 1.1 inductively, each $`e_iD_{k_i}(K)`$ must be zero in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and hence each $`e_i`$ must be $`0`$. This completes the proof. ∎

###### Proof of Corollary 1.3..

Part (a) is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.2(b) since $`\sigma _r(K)=0`$ for any $`r`$ if $`K`$ is the unknot. For part (b), the torus knots $`T_{l,l1}`$ for $`l>1`$ are such examples with $`\sigma _r0`$ for all $`r`$ and $`\sigma _r>0`$ for some $`r`$. ∎

## 6. Non-ribbonness of linear combinations of twisted doubles

In this section we will estimate the Casson–Gordon invariants of all twisted doubles $`D_k(K)`$ for double branched covers and prove Theorem 4.3 and Theorem 1.4.

### 6.1. Estimation of the Casson–Gordon invariants

We estimate the Casson–Gordon invariants of $`D_k(K)`$ for $`k>0`$ in this subsection. Recall from Theorem 4.1 that if $`k0`$, then $`D_k(K)`$ has finite order in the algebraic concordance group $`𝒢`$.

A Seifert matrix for $`D_k(K)`$ corresponding to the Seifert surface in Figure 1 is $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& k\end{array}\right).`$ By changing basis to $`\{x=(1,2),y=(0,1)\}`$, the Seifert matrix changes to the matrix

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 2& 1\end{array}\right)^t\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 2& 1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}4k+1& 2k+1\\ 2k& k\end{array}\right).$$

In this case, $`a=4k+1`$, $`m=(2k+1)`$, and $`b=k`$ following the notation of Theorem 4.4.

We consider only the case $`q=2`$. The map $`\epsilon ^2`$ is represented by the matrix

$$G^2(GI)^2=\left[\left(AA^t\right)^1A\right]^2\left[\left(AA^t\right)^1A^t\right]^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(4k+1)& 2k\\ 2(4k+1)& 4k+1\end{array}\right).$$

Let $`p`$ be a prime dividing $`4k+1`$ and let $`s`$ be an integer with $`0<s<p`$. Note that $`p`$ is odd and $`\epsilon ^2\mathrm{id}_/(xs/p)=0`$ in $`H_1(F)/`$, i.e. $`xs/p`$ is in the kernel of $`\epsilon ^2\mathrm{id}_/`$. Note that $`J_x`$, a simple closed curve on $`F`$ representing $`x=(1,2)`$, can be represented by $`K(T_{2,2k+1})`$, a satellite knot of $`K`$ with orbit $`T_{2,2k+1}`$ as shown in Figure 3. Note $`\sigma _{s/p}(K(T_{2,2k+1}))=\sigma _{2s/p}(K)+\sigma _{s/p}(T_{2,2k+1})`$ by Theorem 4.5.

By Theorem 4.4, $`xs/p`$ defines a character $`\chi _{s/p}`$ and

$$\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{\frac{s}{p}})=2\sigma _{\frac{2s}{p}}(K)+2\sigma _{\frac{s}{p}}(T_{2,2k+1})+\frac{4(ps)s(4k+1)}{p^2}\sigma _{\frac{1}{2}}(D_k(K)).$$

Since $`D_k(K)`$ has finite algebraic order and since $`\sigma _{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is additive under connected sums, $`\sigma _{\frac{1}{2}}(D_k(K))=0`$. Thus, we have

$$\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{\frac{s}{p}})=2\sigma _{\frac{2s}{p}}(K)+2\sigma _{\frac{s}{p}}(T_{2,2k+1})+4\left(\frac{s}{p}\right)\left(1\frac{s}{p}\right)(4k+1).$$

We will show

###### Lemma 6.1.

Let $`=2\mathrm{min}_{0<r<1}\sigma _r(K)`$.

(a) For any $`k3`$,

$$\underset{\chi }{\mathrm{min}}\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi )\frac{4}{4k+1},$$

where $`\chi `$ runs over all prime power characters.

(b) Let $`s`$ be an integer such that $`p=4s\pm 1`$. Then, for any constant $`C_0`$, there is $`k_01`$ such that, for any $`kk_0`$,

$$\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{\frac{s}{p}})>C_0.$$

(c) Suppose that $`0`$. If $`k3`$ then $`\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _r)`$ may have only one non-positive value $`4/(4k+1)`$ at $`r=1/(4k+1)`$, and if we let $`c=(4k+1)/p`$

$$\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{\frac{s}{p}})>\{\begin{array}{cc}cs2\hfill & \text{if }p=4s+1,\hfill \\ csc/22\hfill & \text{if }p=4s1.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Let $`r=s/p`$, where $`0<s<p`$. Since $`\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _r)=\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{1r})`$, it suffices to compute $`\sigma _1\tau `$ for $`\chi _{s/p}`$ when $`1s(p1)/2`$. Then $`1/(4k+1)r2k/(4k+1)`$. For $`1/(4k+1)r2k/(4k+1)`$, let

$$f(r)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _r)2\sigma _{2r}(K)\right)=\sigma _r(T_{2,2k+1})+2r(1r)(4k+1).$$

From Proposition 4.6(a), we have $`2(2k+1)r1\sigma _r(T_{2,2k+1})`$. Let

$$g(r)=2(2k+1)r1+2r(1r)(4k+1)=2(4k+1)r^2+4kr1.$$

Then $`g(r)f(r)`$. Observe that $`g`$ is a quadratic polynomial in $`r`$ with maximum at $`r=k/(4k+1)`$ and that

$$g\left(\frac{s}{4k+1}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }s=2k,\hfill \\ 3/(4k+1)\hfill & \text{if }s=1\text{ and }2k1,\hfill \\ (4k9)/(4k+1)\hfill & \text{if }s=2\text{ and }2k2.\hfill \end{array}$$

To prove (a) and the first part of (c), assume that $`k3`$. Then $`g\left(2/(4k+1)\right)=g\left((2k2)/(4k+1)\right)=(4k9)/(4k+1)>0`$ and hence $`f(r)g(r)>0`$ if $`2/(4k+1)r(2k2)/(4k+1)`$. Now, we will compute $`f(r)`$ when $`r=1/(4k+1)`$, $`(2k1)/(4k+1),`$ and $`2k/(4k+1)`$. By Proposition 4.6(a),

$$\sigma _r(T_{2,2k+1})=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\hfill & \text{if }r=1/(4k+1),\hfill \\ 2k\hfill & \text{if }r=(2k1)/(4k+1),2k/(4k+1).\hfill \end{array}$$

So,

$$f(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2/(4k+1)\hfill & \text{if }r=1/(4k+1),\hfill \\ 2(k2)/(4k+1)\hfill & \text{if }r=(2k1)/(4k+1),\hfill \\ 2k/(4k+1)\hfill & \text{if }r=2k/(4k+1).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`k3`$, $`f(r)`$ can be negative only when $`r=1/(4k+1)`$, and $`f(1/(4k+1))`$ is the minimum. Thus, $`\mathrm{min}_\chi \sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi )=\mathrm{min}_r\left(2\sigma _{2r}(K)+2f(r)\right)4/(4k+1)`$. This proves (a). Assuming $`0`$, we have the first statement of (c).

Next, to prove (b) and the second statement of (c), we compute $`f\left(s/p\right)`$ when $`p=4s\pm 1`$. Let $`c=(4k+1)/p`$. By Proposition 4.6(a) we have

$$\sigma _{\frac{s}{p}}(T_{2,2k+1})=2\left[\frac{s(2k+1)}{p}+\frac{1}{2}\right]=2\left[\frac{cs+1}{2}+\frac{s}{2p}\right]$$

since $`2k+1=(cp+1)/2`$. Observe that $`0<s/(2p)=s/(8s\pm 2)\frac{1}{6}`$ since $`s1`$ and so $`8s\pm 26s`$. Since $`(cs+1)/2`$ is either an integer or an integer plus $`\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\sigma _{s/p}(T_{2,2k+1})=2\left[(cs+1)/2\right]`$. Then

$`f\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{p}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{cs+1}{2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{2s}{p}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{s}{p}}\right)cp`$
$``$ $`(cs+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{2cs(ps)}{p}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{cs(p2s)}{p}}1.`$
If $`p=4s+1`$, then $`(p2s)/p=(2s+1)/(4s+1)>\frac{1}{2}`$. If $`p=4s1`$, then $`s/p=s/(4s1)>\frac{1}{4}`$. Thus we have

$`f\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{p}}\right)`$ $`>`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{cs}{2}}1\hfill & \text{if }p=4s+1,\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{cs}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{4}}1\hfill & \text{if }p=4s1.\hfill \end{array}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{cs}{4}}1.`$
Note $`cs/(4k+1)=s/p=s/(4s\pm 1)\frac{1}{5}`$ or $`cs(4k+1)/5`$. Thus, if $`k`$ is sufficiently large then so is $`cs/41`$. This completes the proof. ∎

### 6.2. Proofs of Theorem 4.3 and Theorem 1.4

###### Proof of Theorem 4.3..

Let $`=2\mathrm{min}_{0<r<1}\sigma _r(K)`$. By Lemma 6.1(b) there is $`k_0>0`$ such that $`\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{s/p})>||+1`$ for any $`kk_0`$. Let $`=\{kk<0\text{ or }kk_0\}`$. We will show that $``$ is a set satisfying the conclusion of (a).

If $`k<0`$ then $`D_k(K)`$ has infinite order in $`𝒢`$ by Theorem 4.1. Thus, for any $`n>0`$, $`nD_k(K)`$ has no metabolizer for the isometric structure and hence has nonvanishing Gilmer ribbon obstruction. From now on, assume $`kk_0`$.

Suppose to the contrary that $`nD_k(K)`$ has vanishing Gilmer ribbon obstruction for a positive integer $`n`$. Then it satisfies the conclusion of Theorem 2.1(b) for $`q=2`$. Let $`F`$ be the Seifert surface for $`D_k(K)`$ as depicted in Figure 1. We take $`F_n`$ as the boundary connected sum of $`n`$ copies of $`F`$ so that $`F_n`$ is a Seifert surface of $`nD_k(K)`$. Then there is a metabolizer $`Z_n`$ for the isometric structure on $`H_1(F_n)`$ such that $`\tau (nD_k(K),(N_n^2)_p(Z_n/))`$ vanishes for all primes $`p`$, where $`(N_n^2)_p`$ is the $`p`$-primary component of the kernel, $`N_n^2`$, of $`\epsilon _n^2\mathrm{id}_/`$.

Since $`\epsilon _n^2`$ is the direct sum of $`n`$ copies of the map $`\epsilon ^2:H_1(F)H_1(F)`$ corresponding to $`D_k(K)`$, $`N_n^2`$ is the direct sum of $`n`$ copies of $`N^2=\mathrm{ker}\left(\epsilon ^2\mathrm{id}_/\right)`$. Note that $`\mathrm{ker}\left(\epsilon ^2\mathrm{id}_/\right)(G^2(GI)^2)^1()=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2k/\left(4k+1\right)\\ 2& 1\end{array}\right)()`$, where $`G`$ is the matrix of the isometric structure on $`H_1(F)`$ with respect to the basis $`\{x,y\}`$ as defined in subsection 6.1. So $`N^2`$ is generated by an element $`(1/(4k+1),0)=x1/(4k+1)`$. Thus every character in $`(N_n^2)_p`$ is a direct sum of characters of the form $`xs/p^e`$ and $`(N_n^2)_p`$ is isomorphic to $`(/p^e)^n`$, where $`p^e`$ is the maximal power of $`p`$ dividing $`4k+1`$. Gilmer \[4, lemma 2\] showed that $`|N_n^2|=|N_n^2(Z_n/)|^2`$ and hence $`|(N_n^2)_p|=|(N_n^2)_p(Z_n/)|^2`$.

Using this and the Gauss-Jordan algorithm, Livingston and Naik \[12, proof of Theorem 1.2\] showed that $`(N_n^2)_p(Z_n/)`$ has an element in $`(/p^e)^n(N_n^2)_p`$ having the first $`nn_0`$ entries equal to $`p^{e1}`$ and all the remaining $`n_0`$ entries divisible by $`p^{e1}`$ for some $`n_0n/2`$. Let $`s`$ be an integer for which $`p=4s\pm 1`$. Multiplying by $`s`$, we see that $`(N_n^2)_p(Z_n/)`$ has an element $`\chi `$ of the form $`(xs/p,\mathrm{},xs/p,xs_1/p,\mathrm{},xs_{n_0}/p)`$, where $`s_i`$ can be any integers. Thus, $`\sigma _1\tau (nD_k(K),\chi )=0`$ by the contradiction hypothesis.

On the other hand, by the additivity of $`\sigma _1\tau `$, we have

$$\sigma _1\tau (nD_k(K),\chi )=(nn_0)\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{\frac{s}{p}})+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_0}{}}\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{\frac{s_i}{p}}).$$

Observe that $`\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{s/p})>||+1>||+4/(4k+1)`$ for any $`kk_0`$. Now by Lemma 6.1(a),

$$\sigma _1\tau (nD_k(K),\chi )>(nn_0)\left(||+\frac{4}{4k+1}\right)+n_0\left(\frac{4}{4k+1}\right)0$$

since $`nn_0n_0`$. So $`\sigma _1\tau (nD_k(K),\chi )>0`$. This is a contradiction, proving (a).

Next, assume $`0`$ and $`k3`$. Let $`\chi `$ denote the character as given above again. If $`4k+1`$ is a composite number, i.e. $`(4k+1)/p>1`$, then $`\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi )>0`$ by Lemma 6.1(c) since none of $`s/p`$ and $`s_i/p`$ is $`1/(4k+1)`$. Now assume $`4k+1=p`$. Then $`c=1`$ and $`s=k`$, where $`c`$ and $`s`$ are those in Lemma 6.1(c), and $`\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{k/p})>k2>4/(4k+1)`$. We now have

$$\sigma _1\tau (nD_k(K),\chi )>(nn_0)\frac{4}{4k+1}+n_0\frac{4}{4k+1}0.$$

This proves the first part of (b).

For $`k=1,2`$, an elementary computation shows:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ k& \multicolumn{2}{c}{1}& \multicolumn{4}{c}{2}\\ & & & & & & \\ r\text{}& \frac{1}{5}& \frac{2}{5}& \frac{1}{9}& \frac{2}{9}& \frac{3}{9}& \frac{4}{9}\\ & & & & & & \\ \frac{1}{2}\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _r)\sigma _{2r}(K)\text{}& \frac{2}{5}& \frac{2}{5}& \frac{2}{9}& \frac{10}{9}& 0& \frac{4}{9}\end{array}$$

So if $`\sigma _{2r}(K)>0`$ for $`r=\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{9},\frac{3}{9}`$, then $`\sigma _1\tau (D_k(K),\chi _{s/(4k+1)})`$ are all positive for $`k=1,2`$. Note that $`\sigma _{\frac{6}{9}}(K)=\sigma _{1\frac{1}{3}}(K)=\sigma _{\frac{1}{3}}(K)`$. This completes the proof. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.4..

The exact same proof of Theorem 1.2 works here by applying all the counter-parts for the ribbon case: For instance, Corollary 3.2 instead of Theorem 1.1. ∎

#### Acknowledgements

The author thanks Chuck Livingston for his suggestions and discussions. He also thanks the referee of the first version of the paper for many useful comments.


format: text

text:
# Group actions on one-manifolds, II: Extensions of Hölder’s Theorem

## 1 Introduction

In studying finite group actions on manifolds, one typically relates the algebraic structure of the group, the topology of the manifold, and the topology of the fixed-set of the action. An example of this is Smith theory. In this paper we try to understand, in a very simple case, such relationships for actions of infinite groups. In particular we extend one of the first theorems in this direction: Hölder’s theorem.

Let $`G`$ be a group endowed with an order relation $`<`$ which is both left and right invariant. It is an old theorem of Hölder \[Ho\] that if $`(G,<)`$ is Archimedean, that is for every $`g,hG`$ there exists $`n𝐙`$ with $`g^n>h`$, then $`G`$ must in fact be abelian. It was observed early on that Hölder’s Theorem implies that any group of homeomorphisms of $`𝐑`$ which acts freely must be abelian (see, e.g. \[Gh\] or \[FS\] for a proof). This theorem may be extended to the following.

We denote by $`\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$ the group of homeomorphisms of the real line $`𝐑`$, and by $`\mathrm{Homeo}^+(𝐑)`$ those preserving orientation.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`G<\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$. Suppose that there is a bounded interval $`[c,d]`$ so that $`\mathrm{Fix}(g)[c,d]`$ for every nontrivial $`gG`$. Then $`G`$ is abelian.

It is not possible to weaken the hypothesis in Theorem 1.1 by allowing the interval $`[c,d]`$ to depend on the group element $`g`$: the affine group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated by $`a(x)=x+1`$ and $`b(x)=2x`$ has the property that each element has at most one fixed point, yet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not abelian.

Another variation is to restrict the number but not the location of fixed points.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`G<\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$. If every nontrivial element of $`G`$ has precisely one fixed point, then $`G`$ is abelian.

In fact in this case $`G`$ is conjugate in $`\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$ to a group of homeomorphisms fixing the origin and acting on each side of the origin by multiplication.

Characterizing affine actions. If one allows every nontrivial element of $`G`$ to have at most one fixed point, then a much richer collection of examples appears. For example the affine group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=<a,b:bab^1=a^2>`$ mentioned above acts on $`𝐑`$ with every element having at most one fixed point, yet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not abelian. On the other hand this group is solvable of derived length two, i.e. its commutator subgroup is abelian.

###### Theorem 1.3 (T. Barbot, N. Kovacevic).

Let $`G<\mathrm{Homeo}^+(𝐑)`$. Suppose that every nontrivial element of $`G`$ has at most one fixed point. Then $`G`$ is metabelian and, in fact, isomorphic to a subgroup of the affine group $`\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑)`$.

Theorem 1.3 provides an abstract isomorphism between $`G`$ and an affine group but does not relate the action to the standard action of $`\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑)`$ on $`𝐑.`$ However, using a quasi-invariant measure technique of Plante \[P\] it is not difficult to prove the following.

###### Theorem 1.4 (N. Kovacevic).

Suppose $`G<\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$ is a non-abelian group with the property that every nontrivial element of $`G`$ has at most one fixed point. Then there is a continuous surjective semi-conjugacy from the action of $`G`$ on $`𝐑`$ to a subgroup of the standard action of $`\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑)`$ on $`𝐑.`$

We are indebted to E. Ghys for providing us with some history of these two results. He attributes them both to V.V. Solodov, who apparently never published a proof, but did at least announce a closely related result in Theorem 3.21 of \[S\]. A published proof that a non-abelian group with the property that every nontrivial element of $`G`$ has at most one fixed point must be metabelian was provided by T. Barbot in Theorem 2.8 of \[B\], at least in the case that each fixed point is a topological attractor or a repellor. Using deep results on convergence groups N. Kovacevic published proofs of both these results in \[K\]. She also considered the case that the fixed points are topologically attractors or repellors. It is likely that both Barbot and Kovacevic understood how to deal with the minor generalization to non-hyperbolic fixed points.

It is interesting to note that, prior to all of these results, J. Plante proved a result in \[P\] (and described below) which easily implies Theorem 1.4 if one knows the group $`G`$ is solvable.

In §3.1 we give a proof of Theorem 1.3 which takes Hölder’s Theorem as a starting point, and refines it by trying to reconstruct the “translation subgroup” of $`G`$ as the group of “infinitesimals”. In this way we prove $`G`$ is solvable. Using the existence of a quasi-invariant measure for $`G`$ (established by J. Plante \[P\]) we then conclude the group is isomorphic to a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑).`$

Our main contribution to this study concerns the case when the action is $`C^2`$, in which case we are able to show this semiconjugacy is actually a topological conjugacy. This gives a topological characterization of affine groups among all groups of $`C^2`$ diffeomorphisms of $`𝐑`$. E. Ghys has subsequently informed us that he is also able to prove this using techniques from Sacksteder’s theory of pseudo-groups acting on the line.

###### Theorem 1.5 (Conjugacy).

Suppose $`G<\mathrm{Diff}^2(𝐑)`$ is a non-abelian group with the property that every nontrivial element of $`G`$ has at most one fixed point. Then there exists $`h\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$ with $`hGh^1\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑)`$.

Theorem 1.5 is not true for abelian groups, as can be seen from an example of M. Hirsch \[H\]. In this paper Hirsch gives an example of an analytic action of $`𝐙[1/2]`$ on the line which is semi-conjugate to the standard one, but which has an exceptional minimal set and hence is not topologically conjugate to the standard action.

Actions on $`S^1`$. If $`G`$ is a group of homeomorphisms of the circle $`S^1`$, then the group $`\widehat{G}`$ of lifts to $`𝐑`$ of all elements of $`G`$ is given by the exact sequence

$$1𝐙\widehat{G}G1$$

It follows easily from Hölder’s Theorem that any group of homeomorphisms of $`S^1`$ which acts freely must be abelian. The following is a generalization of this result, allowing elements to have a fixed point.

###### Theorem 1.6.

Let $`G<\mathrm{Homeo}^+(S^1)`$ be torsion-free. If every element of $`G`$ has at most one fixed point, then $`G`$ is abelian. Moreover, either $`G`$ acts freely or $`G`$ has a global fixed point.

Allowing elements of $`G`$ to have at most two fixed points encompasses a much richer collection of examples, for example all subgroups of $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,𝐑)`$.

## 2 Actions by elements with at most one fixed point

In this section we consider a group $`G`$ acting on $`𝐑`$ with the property that each nontrivial element has at most one fixed point. We assume all elements preserve orientation of $`𝐑.`$

### 2.1 Defining the order

###### Lemma 2.1.

Two elements of $`G`$ commute if and only if one of the following conditions is satisfied:

1. The two elements generate a group acting freely on $`𝐑.`$
2. The two elements have a common fixed point.

###### Proof.

If the two elements, $`g`$ and $`h,`$ commute then the fixed point set of one is invariant under the other, so both have a fixed point or neither does. If both do it is a common fixed point. If neither has a fixed point then nothing in the group they generate has a fixed point since the element with a fixed point would also commute with $`g`$ and $`h.`$

Conversely, if $`g`$ and $`h`$ generate a group acting freely, then they commute by Hölder’s theorem. And if $`g`$ and $`h`$ have a common fixed point $`x_0,`$ then they generate a group acting freely on the intervals $`(\mathrm{},x_0)`$ and $`(x_0,\mathrm{}).`$ By Hölder’s theorem again we see they commute. $``$

###### Lemma 2.2.

If $`g,hG`$ and $`g(x_0)=h(x_0)`$ and $`g(x_1)=h(x_1)`$ with $`x_0x_1`$ then $`g=h`$. In other words, the graphs of distinct elements of $`G`$ cross at most once.

###### Proof.

The points $`g(x_0)`$ and $`g(x_1)`$ are two distinct fixed points of $`hg^1`$. It follows that $`hg^1=id.`$ $``$

###### Definition 2.3.

If $`g,hG`$ we say $`g>h`$ provided $`g(x)>h(x)`$ for all sufficiently large $`x,`$ i.e. for all $`x[x_0,\mathrm{})`$ for some $`x_0.`$ We will call $`g`$ positive provided $`g>id`$ and negative provided $`id>g.`$

Since the graphs of distinct elements of $`G`$ cross at most once, it follows that for any distinct $`g,hG`$ either $`g>h`$ or $`h>g`$.

### 2.2 Commensurate elements

###### Definition 2.4.

We say that elements $`h,gG`$ are commensurate if there are $`n,m𝐙`$ such that $`g^n<h<g^n`$ and $`h^m<g<h^m.`$

Note that taking inverses we see that $`g^n<h<g^n`$ implies $`g^n<h^1<g^n`$. It follows that $`h`$ is commensurate with $`g`$ if and only if $`h^1`$ is. It is an easy exercise to see that commensurability is an equivalence relation on $`G`$.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Suppose $`gG`$ is positive and $`hG`$ has a fixed point. Then there exists $`n𝐙`$ such that $`h^n>g`$ and $`h^n<g^1.`$

###### Proof.

Replacing $`h`$ by $`h^1`$ if necessary we may suppose that $`h`$ is positive. By conjugating $`h`$ we may assume that $`0`$ is the fixed point of $`h`$ and that $`h(x)=2x`$ for $`x0`$ and that for $`x<0`$ we either have $`h(x)=2x`$ or $`h(x)=x/2.`$

Suppose first that for all $`x`$ we have $`h(x)=2x.`$ We will show that for large $`n,h^n>g.`$ Note that the graphs of $`g`$ and $`h^n`$ can intersect in at most one point by Lemma 2.2. Hence if $`g(0)=0`$ then the origin is the unique point of intersection of these graphs. Since $`lim_n\mathrm{}h^n(1)=\mathrm{}`$ it follows that for $`n`$ sufficienly large $`h^n(1)>g(1)`$ and hence $`h^n>g.`$ So we have the desired result if $`g(0)=0.`$

If $`g(0)0`$ then $`g(1)>g(0)`$ and since $`lim_n\mathrm{}h^n(1)=\mathrm{}`$ we may choose $`N>0`$ such that $`h^n(1)>g(1)`$ for all $`n>N.`$ Since $`h(0)=0g(0)`$ there is an $`x_n[0,1]`$ with $`h^n(x_n)=g(x_n)`$. Note that the graphs of $`g`$ and $`h^n`$ can intersect in at most one point by Lemma 2.2, so the fact that $`h^n(1)>g(1)`$ implies that $`h^n(x)>g(x)`$ for all $`x>1.`$ Thus $`h^n>g.`$

Similarly if $`g(0)<0`$ there is an $`N`$ such that $`h^N(1)=2^N<g(1)`$ and hence for any $`n>N`$ there is an $`x_n[1,0]`$ which is the unique point of intersection of the graphs of $`h^n`$ and of $`g`$. Since $`h^n(0)>g(0)`$ it follows that $`h^n(x)>g(x)`$ for all $`x>0.`$ So again $`h^n>g.`$

Consider now the case that $`h(x)=x/2`$ for $`x<0.`$ If $`g(0)=0`$ then the argument above remains valid, so we may assume the graph of $`g`$ intersects the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes in distinct points.

Letting $`n`$ go to infinity, the graphs of $`h^n`$ limit on the union of positive $`y`$-axis and the negative $`x`$-axis. Also letting $`n`$ go to negative infinity these graphs limit on the union of positive $`x`$-axis and the negative $`y`$-axis. From this it is easy to see that there exists an $`n𝐙`$ such that the graph of $`h^n`$ intersects the graph of $`g`$ in two points near the two points where the graph of $`g`$ intersects the axes. But this is impossible by Lemma 2.2 $``$

###### Corollary 2.6.

Let $`g,hG`$ be non-trivial. If both $`g`$ and $`h`$ have fixed points then then they are commensurate.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`h`$ and $`g`$ are commensurate if and only if $`h^1`$ and $`g`$ are commensurate. Hence replacing $`h`$ and $`g`$ by their inverses if necessary we can assume both are positive.

By Lemma 2.5 there is an $`n`$ such that $`h^n>g.`$ So $`h^n<g^1`$ and we have $`h^n<g^1<g<h^n.`$ The other inequality is similar. $``$

### 2.3 Infinitesimals

###### Definition 2.7.

If $`gG`$ is positive we will define the set $`(g)`$ of elements of $`G`$ which are infinitesimal with respect to $`g`$ by

$$(g)=\{hG|g^1<h^n<g\text{ for all }n𝐙\}.$$

If $`g`$ negative we define $`(g)=(g^1).`$

###### Lemma 2.8.

If $`g,g_1G`$ are commensurate then $`(g)=(g_1).`$ Also if $`h(g)`$ and $`h_1`$ is commensurate with $`h`$ then $`h_1(g).`$

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality we may assume both $`g`$ and $`g_1`$ are positive. Suppose $`k>0`$ and note that $`g^k>g`$ implies immediately that $`(g)(g^k)`$. But also $`(g^k)(g)`$ since otherwise there would be an $`h(g^k)`$ and an $`n>0`$ with either $`h^n>g`$ or $`h^n<g^1`$. This would imply $`h^{nk}>g^k`$ or $`h^{nk}<g^k`$ contadicting the fact that $`h(g^k).`$ We have shown that $`(g)=(g^k).`$

Since $`g`$ and $`g_1`$ are commensurate there is a $`k>0`$ such that $`g^k>g_1>g_1^1>g^k.`$ From this it is immediate that $`(g_1)(g^k)=(g).`$ Since $`g`$ and $`g_1`$ were arbitary positive elements we conclude that $`(g)=(g_1).`$

To prove the second assertion of the lemma, suppose $`h_1`$ is commensurate with $`h`$ and $`h(g).`$ We may assume both $`h`$ and $`h_1`$ are positive. Then there exists $`k>0`$ such that $`h^k<h_1^1<h_1<h^k`$. It follows that $`g^1<h^{nk}<h_1^n<h_1^n<h^{nk}<g`$ for any $`n>0`$ and hence $`h_1(g).`$ $``$

We note that whenever $`g`$ and $`g_1`$ both have fixed points they are commensurate by Corollary 2.6 and hence $`(g)=(g_1)`$ by Lemma 2.8, so we can make the following definition.

###### Definition 2.9.

We define $`,`$ the infinitesimals of $`G,`$ to be $`(g)`$ if $`G`$ contains a non-trivial element $`gG`$ which has a fixed point, and by $`=G`$ if $`G`$ acts freely.

###### Proposition 2.10.

$``$ is a normal abelian subgroup of $`G`$ which acts freely on $`𝐑.`$

###### Proof.

First we note that if $`G`$ acts freely then the result is immediate from Hölder’s theorem and the definitions.

Hence we may assume that $`G`$ contains a non-trivial positive element $`g`$ with a fixed point. Clearly we may assume there is a non-trivial element $`h(g).`$

Since $`h`$ if and only if $`h^1`$ we need only show $``$ is closed under multiplication in order to show it is a subgroup. If $`h_1,h_2`$ we must show $`h_1h_2.`$ We may, without loss of generality assume both are positive and that $`h_2>h_1`$. It follows that $`h_1h_2<h_2^2`$ and hence that $`(h_1h_2)^n<id<(h_1h_2)^n<h_2^{2n}<g`$ for all $`n>0.`$ So for all $`n`$ we have $`(h_1h_2)^n<g`$ and consequently $`g^1<(h_1h_2)^n.`$ So $`h_1h_2.`$

We note that Lemma 2.5 implies that any non-trivial element of $``$ is fixed point free, so $``$ acts freely and by Hölder’s theorem it is abelian.

The fact that $``$ is normal follows from the observation that $`h(g)`$ and $`aG`$ implies $`a^1ha(a^1ga).`$ But as $`g`$ and $`a^1ga`$ both have fixed points they are commensurate by Corollary 2.6 and hence $`(a^1ga)=(g)=`$ by Lemma 2.8. $``$

### 2.4 At most one fixed point implies solvable

The following result of T. Barbot appears as Theorem 2.8 of \[B\]. It was apparently known to Solodov.

###### Theorem 2.11.

Let $`G<\mathrm{Homeo}^+(𝐑)`$. Suppose that every nontrivial element of $`G`$ has at most one fixed point. Then $`G`$ is solvable with derived length at most two.

Since $``$ is a normal Abelian subgroup it suffices to prove that $`G/`$ is Abelian since that implies that $`[G,G].`$ If $`G`$ acts freely then $`G=`$ and the result is obvious, so we may assume there exists $`gG`$ which has a fixed point and that $`=(g).`$

We define an order $``$ on $`G/`$ by $`ab`$ if and only if $`ab^1`$ is positive and not in $``$. To see this is well defined we must show that $`ab^1>id`$ and $`ab^1`$ implies that $`(ah_1)(bh_2)^1>id`$ and $`(ah_1)(bh_2)^1,`$ for any $`h_1,h_2.`$

But $`(ah_1)(bh_2)^1=ab^1h`$ for some $`h`$ since $``$ is normal. Clearly $`ab^1`$ implies that $`ab^1h.`$ So $`(ah_1)(bh_2)^1.`$

Also the fact that $`ab^1`$ implies $`ab^1`$ is commensurate with $`g`$. Hence $`=(g)=(ab^1)`$ by Corollary 2.6. Thus $`ab^1>h^n`$ for all $`n`$ and in particular for $`n=1`$. This implies $`ab^1h>id.`$ We have shown the order $``$ on $`G/`$ is well defined.

We also observe that this order is both left and right invariant. To see this note that if $`b_2b_1`$ then $`ab_2ab_1`$ since $`ab_1b_2^1a^1`$ is a conjugate of $`b_1b_2^1`$ and hence positive and not in $`.`$ This proves left invariance; right invariance is similar.

We next wish to show $`G/`$ is Archimedian with respect to the order $`.`$ Suppose $`a`$ and $`b`$ are positive elements of $`G/`$, i.e. $`a`$ and $`b`$. Then neither $`a`$ nor $`b`$ is in $``$ so they are both commensurate to $`g`$ and hence commensurate to each other. We conclude that there exists $`k>0`$ such that $`a^k>b.`$ Then $`a^kb^1`$ is positive and if $`a^kb^1`$ then $`a^{k+1}b^1`$ is positive and not in $`.`$ We have shown that in either case $`a^{k+1}b.`$ So $`G/`$ is Archimedian and hence Abelian by Hölder’s theorem. $``$

### 2.5 Proof of Theorem 1.2

As before there exists a total order $`<`$ on $`G`$. Since every element of $`G`$ has a fixed point, by Lemma 2.5 we have $`=\{id\}.`$ Hence $`GG/`$ is abelian by Theorem 2.11.

### 2.6 Proof of Theorem 1.1

As above we get a total order $`<`$ on $`G`$. Given $`g,hG`$ their graphs do not cross each other to the right of $`b`$. Hence to prove $`g>h`$ for $`g,hG`$ it is enough to prove $`g(x_0)>h(x_0)`$ for any single point $`x_0>b`$. By Hölder it is enough to check that, given $`h,gG`$, $`h^n>g`$ for some $`n𝐙`$. By replacing $`h`$ with $`h^1`$ if necessary, we may assume that $`h`$ is positive. But then, for any fixed $`x_0>b`$, we have $`h^n(x_0)\mathrm{}`$, so given $`g(x_0)`$ simply pick $`n`$ big enough that $`h^n(x_0)>g(x_0)`$, which will imply $`h^n>g`$.

### 2.7 Proof of Theorem 1.6

If $`G`$ does not act freely then there is an $`hG`$ with a fixed point. Call this fixed point $`\mathrm{}`$ and conjugate so $`h(x)=x+1`$ on $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).`$

Let $`g`$ be another element of $`G`$. We want to show $`g(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{}`$ is a global fixed point. If not, consider the graph of $`g`$ on $`𝐑=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).`$ There is $`x_0𝐑`$ such that $`g(x_0)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`y_0𝐑`$ such that $`g(\mathrm{})=y_0.`$

This means the graph of $`g`$ has a vertical asymptote at $`x=x_0`$ and a horizontal asymptote at $`y=y_0`$. The graph is monotonically increasing on $`(\mathrm{},x_0)`$ where it is entirely above the line $`y=y_0`$ and it is monotonically increasing on $`(x_0,\mathrm{})`$ where it is entirely below the line $`y=y_0`$. That is, with respect to the axes centered at $`(x_0,y_0)`$ the graph lies in the second and fourth quadrants.

The line $`y=xn`$ is the graph of $`h^n`$. It intersects the horizontal asymptote at $`(y_0+n,y_0)`$ and the vertical asymptote at $`(x_0,x_0n)`$. Define $`L_n(x)=h^n(x)=xn.`$

For $`n`$ large we claim that the graph of this line must intersect the graph of $`g`$ in at least two points. To see this choose a point $`(x_1,y_1)`$ below the graph of $`g`$ and with $`x_1>x_0`$. Then $`(x_1,y_1)`$ is above the graph of $`y=L_n(x)`$ for a sufficiently large $`n.`$

Thus for small $`ϵ`$ we have

$`g(x_0+ϵ)`$ $`<L(x_0+ϵ),`$
$`L(x_1)`$ $`<g(x_1),\text{ and}`$
$`g(y_0+n)`$ $`<L(y_0+n).`$
Hence the graphs intersect in at least one point in $`(x_0,x_1)`$ and at least one point in $`(x_1,y_0+n)`$.

Since we have found two points where $`h^n(x)=g(x)`$ we have found two fixed points of $`h^ng`$ and hence contradicted our hypothesis. The contradiction arose from assuming that $`\mathrm{}`$ was not a fixed point of $`g`$. Since $`g`$ was arbitrary we have shown that $`\mathrm{}`$ is a global fixed point (under the assumption that one non-trivial element has a fixed point). Since $`\mathrm{}`$ is a global fixed point we can consider $`G`$ as a free action on $`𝐑=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$. By Hölder’s theorem it is abelian.

## 3 Quasi-invariant measures

A basic property of groups of homeomorphisms of $`𝐑`$ which act freely (beyond being abelian) is that they have an invariant Borel measure. This follows from the fact that the quotient space of $`𝐑`$ formed by identifying orbits of a single element $`h`$ of $`G`$ is homeomorphic (or diffeomorphic if $`h`$ is a diffeomorphism) to $`S^1`$ and the quotient group $`G/<h>`$ acts on this $`S^1`$. This action has an invariant Borel probability measure which may be lifted to $`𝐑`$ to give an invariant Borel measure $`\mu `$ for $`G`$ which is finite on compact sets and infinite on all of $`𝐑.`$

The following result of J. Plante (Theorem 4.7 of \[P\]) asserts that this can be extended to a quasi-invariant measure for certain solvable groups.

###### Theorem 3.1 (J. Plante).

Suppose $`G<\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$ is solvable, and its nontrivial elements have isolated fixed points. Then there exists a $`G`$-quasi-invariant measure $`\mu `$ which is finite on compact sets.

A measure is $`G`$ quasi-invariant if for each $`gG`$ the measure $`g_{}(\mu )`$ is equal to $`A(g)\mu `$ for some positive real number $`A(g)`$. The function $`A:G𝐑^+`$ is a homomorphism to the multiplicative group $`𝐑^+`$. The measure $`\mu `$ is invariant under the subgroup which is the kernel of $`A.`$

If one has an invariant measure $`\mu `$ for a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$ it is useful to consider the translation number which was discussed by J. Plante in \[P\]. In our context this is just the rotation number for circle homeomorphisms obtained by quotienting $`𝐑`$ by an element of $`H`$.

Suppose $`H`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$ which preserves a Borel measure $`\mu `$ that is finite on compact sets. Fix a point $`x𝐑`$ and for each $`fG`$ define

$$\tau _\mu (f)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mu ([x,f(x)))\hfill & \text{if }x<f(x)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }x=f(x)\text{ }\hfill \\ \mu ([f(x),x))\hfill & \text{if }x>f(x)\hfill \end{array}$$

The function $`\tau _\mu :G𝐑`$ is called the translation number. The following properties observed by J. Plante in \[P\] are easy to verify.

###### Proposition 3.2.

The translation number $`\tau :G𝐑`$ is independent of the choice of $`x𝐑`$ used in its definition. It is a homomorphism from $`G`$ to the additive group $`𝐑.`$ For any $`fG`$ the set $`\mathrm{Fix}(f)\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`\tau _\mu (f)=0.`$

If $`G`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$ with the property that every non-trivial element has at most one fixed point then we can combine the homomorphisms $`\tau `$ and $`A`$ from \[P\] to obtain a homomorphisms to the affine group $`\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑).`$

###### Lemma 3.3.

Suppose $`G<\mathrm{Homeo}(𝐑)`$ is a non-abelian group with the property that every nontrivial element has at most one fixed point. If $`\mu `$ is a $`G`$-quasi-invariant measure which is finite on compact sets, then a nontrivial element $`g`$ has exactly one fixed point if and only if $`A(g)1`$.

###### Proof.

If $`A(g)=1`$ then $`\mu `$ is $`g`$-invariant and $`\tau _\mu (g)`$ is well defined. If $`\tau _\mu (g)0`$ then $`g`$ has no fixed points by Proposition 3.2. If $`\tau _\mu (g)=0`$ then for each $`x𝐑,\mu ([x,g^n(x)))`$ is bounded as a function of $`n`$. This implies $`g`$ has infinitely many fixed points and hence must be the trivial element.

Suppose now that $`A(g)=\alpha 1`$. Replacing $`g`$ by $`g^1`$ if necessary, we may assume $`0<\alpha <1`$. We will show that the assumption that $`g`$ has no fixed points leads to a contradiction. Let $`x𝐑`$ and assume without loss of generality that $`g(x)<x`$ for all $`x𝐑`$, so $`lim_n\mathrm{}g^n(x)=\mathrm{}.`$ Then

$$\mu ([g^n(x),x])\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\mu ([g^{i+1}(x),g^i(x)])\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha ^i\mu ([g(x),x])=\frac{\mu ([g(x),x])}{1\alpha }.$$

Hence for every $`x,\mu ((\mathrm{},x])`$ is finite. But this is not possible, as follows. Since $`G`$ is non-abelian, there is an element $`h`$ in the kernel of $`A`$. The element $`h`$ has the property that $`lim_n\mathrm{}h^n(x)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`h`$ preserves the measure $`\mu `$. Thus

$$\mu ((\mathrm{},x])=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu ((h^{i+1}(x),h^i(x)])=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n\mu ((h(x),x]),$$

which imples that for every $`x`$ that $`\mu ((\mathrm{},x])`$ is either $`0`$ or infinite, a contradiction.

Thus we conclude that $`g`$ has a fixed point. Since $`A(g)1`$ it is not the identity, so it has exactly one fixed point. $``$

### 3.1 Proof of Theorem 1.3

We define a function $`\nu :𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐑`$ by

$$\nu (x_0,x_1)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mu ([x_0,x_1))\hfill & \text{if }x_0<x_1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }x_0=x_1\hfill \\ \mu ([x_0,x_1))\hfill & \text{if }x_0>x_1\hfill \end{array}$$

Then define $`\varphi :G\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑)`$ by $`\varphi (g)(x)=ax+b`$, where $`a=A(g)`$ and $`b=\nu (0,g(0)).`$

If $`g_1,g_2G`$ then

$$\varphi (g_1g_2)=A(g_1)A(g_2)x+\nu (0,g_1g_2(0)).$$

But

$`\nu (0,g_1g_2(0))`$ $`=\nu (0,g_1(0))+\nu (g_1(0),g_1g_2(0))`$
$`=\nu (0,g_1(0))+A(g_1)\nu (0,g_2(0)).`$
So

$`\varphi (g_1g_2)`$ $`=A(g_1)(A(g_2)x+\nu (0,g_2(0))+\nu (0,g_1(0))`$
$`=\varphi (g_1)\varphi (g_s).`$
To see that $`\varphi `$ is injective, observe that if $`g`$ is in the kernel of $`\varphi `$ then $`A(g)=1`$ and $`\varphi (g)(x)=x+\nu (0,g(0))=x+\tau _\mu (g)`$, so that $`\tau _\mu (g)=0.`$ Now if $`G`$ is abelian then the theorem is clearly true, so suppose $`G`$ is non-abelian. From Proposition 3.2 we conclude that $`g`$ has a fixed point and from Lemma 3.3 that it has more than one. Hence $`g=id`$ and $`\varphi `$ is injective.

### 3.2 Proof of Theorem 1.4

$`G`$ is solvable by Theorem 1.2. Hence by Theorem 3.1 there is a $`G`$-quasi-invariant measure $`\mu `$.

Define $`\theta (x)=\nu (0,x).`$ It was observed by J. Plante (see the remark after 4.6 of \[P\]) that in this case $`\theta `$ is a semi-conjugacy, as the following calculation shows.

$`\theta (g(x))`$ $`=\nu (0,g(x))`$
$`=\nu (0,g(0))+\nu (g(0),g(x))`$
$`=\nu (0,g(0))+A(g)\nu (0,x)`$
$`=A(g)((\theta (x))+\nu (0,g(0))`$
$`=\varphi (g)(\theta (x)).`$
Hence $`\theta (g(x))=\varphi (g)(\theta (x))`$ for all $`x𝐑`$ and $`gG.`$

## 4 $`C^2`$ actions

In this section we prove that the semi-conjugacy in Theorem 1.4 is actually a topological conjugacy in the case that $`G`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Diff}^2(𝐑)`$.p

###### Definition 4.1.

If $`f:𝐑𝐑`$ is a diffeomorphism and $`J`$ is an interval in $`𝐑`$ then we define the distortion of $`f`$ on $`J`$ by

$$\mathrm{Dist}(f,J)=\underset{x,yJ}{sup}\mathrm{log}\frac{|Df(x)|}{|Df(y)|}.$$

The following lemma is well known; a proof can be found in Chapter I, §2 of \[dMvS\]. We use the notation $`|J|`$ to denote the length of an interval $`J.`$

###### Lemma 4.2.

If $`f:𝐑𝐑`$ is a $`C^2`$ diffeomorphism of $`𝐑`$ and the function $`\mathrm{log}|Df(x)|`$ is Lipschitz with Lipschitz constant $`C`$, then for all $`n>0,`$

$$\mathrm{Dist}(f^n,J)C\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}|f^i(J)|.$$

We will also need the following lemma. This result and the proof we give are extracted from a part of the proof a result of A. Schwartz as presented by de Melo and van Strien in Theorem 2.2 of Chapter I, §2 from \[dMvS\].

###### Lemma 4.3.

Suppose $`g:𝐑𝐑`$ is a $`C^2`$ diffeomorphism and $`\mathrm{log}|Dg(x)|`$ is Lipschitz with a uniform Lipschitz constant $`C,`$ and suppose $`J𝐑`$ is a closed interval with the property that

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|g^i(J)|1.$$

Then there is a $`\delta >0`$ such that any closed interval $`L`$ which contains $`J`$ and has length $`|L|<(1+\delta )|J|`$ has the property that

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|g^i(L)|2.$$

###### Proof.

Choose $`\delta `$ so $`0<\delta <\mathrm{min}\{|J|,\mathrm{exp}(2C)\}`$. We will prove by induction that $`|g^n(L)|2|g^n(J)|`$ for any $`n0.`$ This is clear for $`n=0.`$ Assume inductively that $`|g^k(L)|2|g^k(J)|`$ for any $`k<n.`$

We know by Lemma 4.2 and the induction hypothesis that

$$\mathrm{Dist}(g^n,L)C\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}|g^i(L)|2C\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}|g^i(J)|2C.$$
(1)
Also by the mean value theorem there is a point $`x_nJ`$ such that $`|Dg^n(x_n)|=|g^n(J)|/|J|.`$ Therefore by equation (1) for every $`yL`$

$$|Dg^n(y)|\mathrm{exp}(2C)|Dg^n(x_n)|\mathrm{exp}(2C)\frac{|g^n(J)|}{|J|}.$$

Using the mean value theorem again and the fact that $`(|L||J|)/|J|<\delta `$, we see

$`|g^n(L)|`$ $`|g^n(J)|+\underset{yL}{sup}|Dg^n(y)|(|L||J|)`$
$`|g^n(J)|+\mathrm{exp}(2C){\displaystyle \frac{|g^n(J)|}{|J|}}(|L||J|)`$
$`(1+\delta \mathrm{exp}(2C))|g^n(J)|`$
$`2|g^n(J)|.`$
This completes the induction step, so $`|g^n(L)|2|g^n(J)|`$ for all $`n0.`$ The fact that $`_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}|g^i(L)|2`$ then follows from the fact that $`_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}|g^i(J)|1.`$ $``$

### 4.1 Proof of Theorem 1.5

Theorem 1.5 Suppose $`G<\mathrm{Diff}^2(𝐑)`$ is a non-abelian group with the property that every nontrivial element of $`G`$ has at most one fixed point. Then the function $`\theta :𝐑𝐑`$ defined by $`\theta (x)=\nu (0,x)`$ is a topological conjugacy from the action of $`G`$ on $`𝐑`$ to the standard action of $`\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑)`$ on $`𝐑.`$

###### Proof.

In Theorem 1.4 we showed the function $`\theta :𝐑𝐑`$ defined by $`\theta (x)=\nu (0,x)`$ is a surjective semi-conjugacy. It suffices to prove that $`\theta `$ is one-to-one. Note that if $`\mu `$ is the $`G`$-quasi-invariant measure provided by Theorem 3.1, then $`\theta _{}(\mu )`$ is Lebesgue measure on $`𝐑`$, the unique quasi-invariant measure for the standard action of $`\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑)`$ on $`𝐑.`$ The function $`\theta `$ is monotonic so $`\theta ^1(y)`$ consists of either a single point or a closed interval. If it is an interval $`[x_0,x_1]`$ then $`\mu ([x_0,x_1])=0`$. The endpoints $`x_0,x_1`$ are in the support of $`\mu `$ but the interior $`(x_0,x_1)`$ is disjoint from the support of $`\mu .`$

We note that any interval $`[x_0,x_1]=\theta ^1(y)`$ must be wandering. That is, we must have $`g([x_0,x_1])[x_0,x_1]=\mathrm{}`$ for all non-trivial $`gG.`$ This is because if $`g([x_0,x_1])[x_0,x_1]\mathrm{}`$ the fact that $`\theta `$ is a semi-conjugacy implies $`g([x_0,x_1])=[x_0,x_1]`$ so $`g`$ would have two fixed points $`x_0`$ and $`x_1`$.

Thus it suffices to show that the action of $`G`$ has no wandering intervals of the form $`\theta ^1(y)`$. Of course to do this we need only do it for a subgroup of $`G`$. In the proof of Theorem 1.3 we showed that the function $`\varphi :G\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑)`$ defined by $`\varphi (g)(x)=ax+b`$, where $`a=A(g)`$ and $`b=\nu (0,g(0)),`$ is an injective homomorphism. In particular if $`A(h)=1`$ then $`\varphi (h)(x)=x+\tau _\mu (h).`$ Since we are assuming $`G`$ is not abelian, $`A:G𝐑^+`$ is not trivial and neither is its kernel. Hence we will focus on a subgroup $`G_0`$ generated by two non-trivial elements, $`g`$ with $`A(g)>1,`$ and $`h`$ with $`A(h)=1`$ and $`\tau _\mu (h)0`$. Replacing $`h`$ by $`h^1`$ if necessary, we may assume $`h(x)>x`$ for all $`x`$.

Consider the quotient space of $`𝐑`$ by the action of $`h`$. There is a $`C^2`$ diffeomorphism from this quotient to $`S^1`$. We lift this diffeomorphism to a $`C^2`$ diffeomorphism of $`𝐑`$ and use it to conjugate our $`G`$ action to a $`C^2`$ action on $`𝐑`$ for which $`h(y)=y+1.`$ We know $`\varphi (h)=x+c`$ for some $`c>0`$ but composing $`\varphi `$ with an inner automorphism of $`\mathrm{Aff}(𝐑)`$ (i.e. an affine change of co-ordinates) we may assume $`\varphi (h)=x+1`$ and $`\varphi (g)=\lambda x`$ for some $`\lambda >1.`$

We first consider the case that $`\lambda `$ is irrational. Let $`f=ghg^1`$. Since $`h`$ is in the kernel of $`A`$, a normal abelian subgroup, we have that $`f`$ commutes with $`h`$. We also have that $`\varphi (f)=x+\lambda `$. Hence $`f`$ is the lift of a $`C^2`$ diffeomorphism of the circle $`S^1`$ with irrational rotation number. By Denjoy’s theorem this circle diffeomorphism has a dense orbit from which it follows that if $`H`$ is the group generated by $`h`$ and $`f`$ then the set $`H(x)`$ is dense in $`𝐑`$ for any $`x`$. Hence $`H`$ has no wandering intervals at all.

Thus we may assume $`A(g)=p/q`$ is rational. Note that $`A(g)=p/q`$ implies $`gh^q=h^pg`$ or $`g(y+q)=g(y)+p.`$ Differentiating we see that for all $`y𝐑`$ we have $`Dg(y+q)=Dg(y)`$ and $`D^2g(y+q)=D^2g(y)`$. In particular $`Dg(y)`$ and the derivative of $`\mathrm{log}Dg(y)`$ are periodic and hence uniformly bounded.

We now want to show by contradiction that $`G_0`$ has no wandering intervals of the form $`\theta ^1(y)`$. Suppose $`J=[x_0,x_1]=\theta ^1(y)`$ is a wandering interval. Then for every non-trivial $`gG_0,\varphi (g)(y)y`$ because otherwise $`g(\theta ^1(y))=\theta ^1(y)`$ and the endpoints of this $`g`$ invariant interval would be two fixed points for $`g.`$

We can conclude, in particular, that the elements $`y_n=\varphi (g)^n(y)mod(1)=\varphi (g^n)(y)mod(1)`$ are all distinct, where $`ymod(1)`$ denotes $`y`$ minus the greateset integer in $`y`$. This is because otherwise $`g(J)`$ would equal $`J`$ for some $`gG.`$ It follows that the intervals $`J_n=\theta ^1(y_n)`$ are all pairwise disjoint.

Since $`\theta `$ is a semiconjugcay and is $`h`$-equivariant, $`\theta (x+n)=\theta (x)+n`$ for all $`n𝐙`$. As $`\theta `$ is monotonic and $`\theta ^1(n)=n`$ for all $`n𝐙`$, we have $`\theta ^1([n,n+1])=[n,n+1]`$. In particular $`\theta ^1([0,1])=[0,1],`$ so since $`J_k=\theta ^1(y_k)`$ and $`y_k[0,1]`$ we have $`J_k[0,1]`$ for all $`k>0.`$ Recall that $`|J_k|`$ denotes the length of $`J_k`$ and observe that $`J_k=g^k(J)n_k`$ for some integer $`n_k`$, so $`|J_k|=|g^k(J)|.`$ Hence

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|g^k(J)|=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|J_k|1,$$

as the intervals $`J_k`$ are pairwise disjoint and all in $`[0,1].`$

Let $`\delta >0`$ be the value provided by Lemma 4.3 and choose an interval $`L`$ which contains $`J`$ in its interior and has length $`|L|<(1+\delta )|J|.`$ Define $`L^{}=\theta (L)`$ and note that it is a non-trivial closed interval with $`y=\theta (J)`$ in its interior. We may shrink $`L^{}`$ slightly so that $`\theta ^1`$ of each endpoint is a single point (because $`\theta ^1(x)`$ is a non-trivial interval for at most countably many values of $`x.`$) We redefine $`L`$ to be $`\theta ^1`$ of this shrunken $`L^{}`$ and note that $`L=\theta ^1(L^{})=\theta ^1(\theta (L)).`$ It follows that $`g^n(L)=\theta ^1(\lambda ^nL^{})`$ for all $`n>0.`$

We observe that from Lemma 4.3 that

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|g^k(L)|2.$$
(2)
But $`\theta (g^k(L))=\lambda ^kL^{}`$ and for $`k`$ sufficiently large $`\lambda ^k|L^{}|>2`$ which implies there is an interval $`[m,m+1]\lambda ^kL^{},`$ with $`m𝐙.`$ This means that

$$[m,m+1]=\theta ^1([m,m+1])\theta ^1(\lambda ^kL^{})=g^k(L).$$

Hence $`|g^k(L)|1`$ for $`k`$ sufficiently large. This clearly contradicts equation (2) above. We conclude that the semi-conjugacy $`\theta `$ is one-to-one and hence a homeomorphism. $``$

Benson Farb:
Dept. of Mathematics, University of Chicago
5734 University Ave.
Chicago, Il 60637
E-mail: farb@math.uchicago.edu

John Franks:
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern University
Evanston, IL 60208
E-mail: john@math.northwestern.edu