text:
# The First Detection of Spatially Resolved Mid-Infrared Scattered Light From a Protoplanetary Disk1footnote 11footnote 1 The data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.

## 1 Introduction

The first step toward planet formation is thought to be the growth of dust grains in protoplanetary disks surrounding young stellar objects. Models suggest that by the T Tauri stage of evolution ($``$ 1 Myr), significant grain growth should have already occurred, with the presence of large bodies expected (e.g., Beckwith, Henning & Nakagawa 2000). Observationally, this has been hard to prove conclusively. Although tentative evidence for grain growth was first suggested in measurements of the thermal emission from these young disks at millimeter wavelengths, grain growth is only one of a handful of possible explanations for the observed flattening of the wavelength dependence of opacity (e.g., Beckwith & Sargent 1991). In principle, the effect of grain growth should be more marked in long wavelength scattered light than in thermal emission, since scattered light is most sensitive to grain sizes on order of the wavelength of observation. The longest wavelength, however, at which resolved scattered light from T Tauri disks has been detected is 2.2 µm (e.g., Cotera et al. 2001; McCabe, Duchêne & Ghez 2002), which only effectively probes grain sizes up to the maximum grain size expected in most model ISM distributions ($``$ 1 µm ; Kim, Martin & Hendry 1994). These experiments, therefore, have not yet been tremendously sensitive to grain growth. At mid-infrared wavelengths, scattered light experiments probe grain sizes roughly an order of magnitude larger than the standard ISM cut-off, as has been successfully demonstrated in observations of a more evolved post-main-sequence nebula (Tuthill et al. 2002). Such experiments applied to the pre-main-sequence stage of evolution potentially offer a powerful way to probe the initial stages of grain growth.

The HK Tau binary system is an ideal candidate for the detection of scattered light at mid-infrared wavelengths. While the primary, HK Tau A, has yet to be spatially resolved at any wavelength, the secondary, HK Tau B, is detected as an extended nebula at optical (Stapelfeldt et al. 1998), near-infrared (Stapelfeldt et al. 1998; Koresko 1998), and millimeter wavelengths (Duchêne et al. 2003). The near-infrared and optical scattered light images are best modelled as light being scattered off the flared outer edges of the upper and lower surfaces of a nearly edge-on, optically thick disk, whereas the millimeter observations probe the dust thermal emission. While there are no existing reports of the detection of spatially resolved mid-infrared scattered light from any protoplanetary disk or debris disk, the advent of 10 meter class telescopes should permit such a detection for HK Tau B. The disk is large ($``$1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5, Stapelfeldt et al. 1998) compared to the mid-infrared diffraction limit of a 10 m telescope ($``$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2 at 10 µm), and the measured lower limit to the line of sight extinction within the disk (Stapelfeldt et al. 1998) suggests that it is optically thick at mid-infrared wavelengths ($`\tau _{11.5\mathrm{\mu m}}>3.7`$, using the ISM extinction law of Rieke & Lebofsky 1985). As such, any competing thermal emission arising in the hot inner disk region is removed from the line of sight. An additional advantage of the HK Tau system is that HK Tau A, located only 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4 away from HK Tau B, provides an instantaneous measurement of the point spread function and an astrometric reference point.

Models of the dust properties of the HK Tau B disk in both the scattering and thermal regime have led to contradictory results (Stapelfeldt et al. 1998; D’Alessio et al. 2001; Duchêne et al. 2003), with evidence for and against the presence of grain growth. While the optical and near-infrared scattered light images are consistent with standard ISM dust size distributions, D’Alessio et al. (2001), using SED fitting constrained by the outer radius of the disk, suggest a grain size distribution that extends up to at least 1 mm. However, Duchêne et al. (2003), in resolving the 1.3 millimeter flux between the two components of the system, limit the maximum grain size to 200 µm, ruling out the presence of millimeter sized particles as predicted by D’Alessio et al. Furthermore, Duchêne et al. find that the thermal millimeter and optical scattered light results are hard to reconcile with a single population of dust grains, leading them to suggest that HK Tau B has a layered disk structure, with the surface layer showing no evidence for 1–3 µm sized grains, assuming a power law size distribution. This latter conclusion can be readily tested; scattered light images at $``$10 µm are by far the most direct probe of the presence of supra-micron sized grains in the surface layer of the disk.

In this paper, we report observations of HK Tau using the Keck 10 m telescope which resolve the disk at 11.8 µm. The observations and data reduction are outlined in §2 and the resulting disk and binary parameters are investigated in §3. We argue that the observed mid-infrared flux is actually scattered light, and, comparing the observations to Monte Carlo scattering simulations, place constraints on the size distribution in §4.

## 2 Observations

On 2002 November 13 (UT), observations of HK Tau ($`\alpha =04^h28^m48.^s85\delta =24\mathrm{°}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}17}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}56}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$, B1950) were made on the W.M. Keck I telescope with the Long Wavelength Spectrometer (LWS, Jones & Puetter 1993) in imaging mode through the SiC filter ($`\lambda _o`$ = 11.78 µm , $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ = 2.34 µm). HK Tau was observed in the standard chop-nod mode, with the chopper running at a frequency of 5 Hz and an amplitude of 10″, which moved the object out of the field of view in the chop beam. We chopped along a position angle of 60, which was chosen to avoid chopping along either the binary position angle or the edge-on disk axis. The chop-nod cycle was repeated 13 times, resulting in a total on-source integration time of 312 seconds. The photometric standard $`\alpha `$ Ari was observed regularly throughout the night, establishing that atmospheric conditions were photometric.

Each chop-nod cycle is combined using the standard ‘double difference’ technique designed to remove the sky and telescope thermal signatures from the data. The final image is the median of 12 of the double differences, shifted using HK Tau A, which is clearly detected in each frame, as a reference point. One frame suffered from chop smearing and was therefore not included in the analysis. A similar procedure is used to analyze $`\alpha `$ Ari and 6 known binary systems in Taurus observed as part of a separate study (McCabe et al. in preparation); the binary stars provide estimates of the LWS plate scale and orientation, measured to be 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$081 $`\pm `$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$002 and -3$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 $`\pm 1^{}`$, respectively.222The chosen binaries range in separation from 2-6″. At the smallest separation, orbital motion from a circular orbit over a 10 year period would correspond to at most a 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$78 change in position angle at the distance to Taurus (d=139 pc). This analysis is therefore unaffected by any potential orbital motion. The resulting point spread function of these observations are nearly diffraction limited (FWHM $``$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$29).

The absolute photometric calibration for the new SiC filter is established using calibrated stellar spectra of $`\alpha `$ Ari and $`\alpha `$ Lyr, which were observed along with $`\alpha `$ Ari on the previous night (Cohen et al. 1992; Cohen et al. 1999). The total flux density expected from these two observed standards is modelled by integrating the calibrated spectra through the transmission profiles of the filter, the model atmosphere above Mauna Kea assuming 1.5 airmasses and 1.6 mm of precipitable water333These ATRANS atmospheric transmission models, with varying values of precipitable H2O and airmass, are available on the Gemini Observatory website,
http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/ObsProcess/obsConstraints/ocTransSpectra.html (Lord 1992), and the quantum efficiency of the LWS detector. The modelled flux densities for $`\alpha `$ Lyr and $`\alpha `$ Ari are 28.3 Jy and 58.6 Jy respectively. The difference between the modelled and observed flux density ratio between these two stars is 6%, which we use as an estimate of the uncertainty in this calibration process.

## 3 Results

Figure 1 shows the final 11.8 µm image, in which two sources are detected with a signal to noise ratio of 63 and 8 respectively. Photometry is carried out on both components using a 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$49 radius circular aperture, resulting in a flux density ratio of 30 $`\pm `$ 4 and an absolute flux density of 208 $`\pm `$ 13 mJy and 6.9 $`\pm `$ 1.0 mJy for the primary and secondary, respectively. A $`\chi ^2`$ fit of a 2 dimensional gaussian to each component, using the n2gaussfit task in IRAF444IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract to the National Science Foundation., is done to provide relative astrometry. Separated by 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$228 $`\pm `$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$056 at a position angle of 170.3°$`\pm `$ 1.2°, the two sources have relative positions in the mid-infrared that are consistent with those of HK Tau A and B at shorter wavelengths (e.g., Leinert et al. 1993; Simon et al. 1995); we therefore conclude that we are detecting mid-infrared emission from both components of the HK Tau binary system.

The most striking aspect of Figure 1 is that the secondary, HK Tau B, is spatially extended. The best $`\chi ^2`$ gaussian fit ($`\chi _{dof}^2`$=0.91 over 0.65 square arcseconds) finds a FWHM of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$50 $`\pm `$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$05 aligned along a position angle of 51°$`\pm `$ 6°. Using the position of HK Tau A, along with the relative plate scale and orientation of the cameras, the mid-infrared image of HK Tau is aligned with the optical WFPC2 image (Stapelfeldt et al. 1998) in the zoomed-in panel in Figure 1. The uncertainty in each direction is 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$047; the WFPC2 platescale and orientation uncertainties are negligible compared to those of LWS (Holtzman et al. 1995), therefore the positional uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty in the LWS platescale and orientation measurements. Comparison with the WFPC2 observations show that the extended mid-infrared emission is aligned along the same position angle of the scattered light disk seen in the visible (51°$`\pm `$ 6° vs. 40°) and is coincident with the northwest nebula to within 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$03 (0.6$`\sigma `$) in the direction perpendicular to the disk. In contrast, the offset between the disk midplane, represented by the center of the dark lane in the WFPC2 images, and the extended mid-infrared flux is significant (0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$146; 3.1$`\sigma `$).

The 11.8 µm flux appears to be slightly shifted from the peak of the visible scattered light disk (see Figure 1). Comparing the disk centers from the gaussian fitting we find an offset of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$105 (2.2$`\sigma `$) along the disk axis. Deeper observations of this system are needed to determine whether this asymmetry is real. The presence of an asymmetry would not be all that unexpected; a number of protoplanetary disks show evidence for some level of scattered light asymmetry. For example, both GG Tau (Silber et al. 2000; McCabe, Duchene & Ghez 2002) and HH 30 (e.g., Burrows et al. 1996) show structure, and HK Tau B itself shows evidence for a non-symmetric scattered light morphology in the southeastern nebula (Stapelfeldt et al. 1998).

## 4 Discussion & Conclusions

### 4.1 Nature of the Emission Process

The nature of HK Tau B’s mid-infrared flux can be established on the basis of the observed morphology. By far the majority of mid-infrared photons from a typical T Tauri star+disk system (e.g., $`>`$90% in the models of Lachaume et al. 2003, and private communication) are emitted thermally from the central 1 AU region of the disk (1 AU = 7 mas at a distance of 139 pc to Taurus; Bertout, Robichon & Arenou 1999). The observed mid-infrared morphology of this edge-on disk therefore depends primarily on the optical depth along the line of sight through the disk. If the disk is optically thin, the observer will see an unresolved point source positioned close to the midplane of the disk. However, if the disk is optically thick, the mid-infrared emission from this region will be totally absorbed, allowing the detection of scattered light from the flared outer edges of the upper and lower surfaces of the disk, a case which applies to the optical and near-infrared images of HK Tau B. 555Thermal emission from the outer edge of the disk is expected to be negligible at these wavelengths as the dust temperature in these regions is $``$10 K (Stapelfeldt et al. 1998; D’Alessio et al. 2001). In this scenario, the mid-infrared flux will be aligned with the scattered light nebulae seen in the optical and near-infrared and may possibly be spatially resolved, depending on the scattering properties of the dust. The observed mid-infrared flux is coincident with the northwest nebula, instead of the disk midplane and is also extended along the same position angle (§3). This indicates that the observed mid-infrared flux is produced by thermally emitted photons originating from the inner disk region being scattered off the flared outer edge of the disk.

### 4.2 Dust Grain Properties

The morphology of the scattered light from the disk is expected to be highly dependent on the properties of the dust population present in the disk. Typical ISM dust models produce highly isotropic scattering in the mid-infrared regime (see, for example, Figures 1 and 2 of Wolfire & Churchwell 1994). As such, to first order one would expect the entire length of each nebula to be seen in scattered light. Alternatively, if the disk contains large grains ($`2\pi a\lambda `$), which are highly forward-throwing, we would see an almost unresolved point-like source in the center of the northwest nebula. The observed scattered light disk morphology is between these two extremes, being clearly resolved but not illuminated across its full extent. This suggests that scattering at 11.8 µm , while not as forward-throwing as that seen in the visible, is not as isotropic as that expected from ISM dust grains either.

We performed Monte Carlo scattering simulations of the disk in order to confirm this qualitative behaviour and to place quantitative limits on the size of grains responsible for the scattered light. The simulations, which are similar to those used in McCabe, Duchêne & Ghez (2002), employ Mathis & Whiffen (1989) dust properties in an $`n(a)a^{3.7}`$ power law grain size distribution. We fix $`a_{min}`$, the minimum grain size in the distribution, to be 0.1 µm and vary the maximum grain size to see how sensitive the scattered light distribution is to the presence of large grains. While $`a_{min}`$ is larger than normally used in a standard ISM grain size distribution, because we are working in the mid-infrared the scattering properties are not at all sensitive to smaller grains, and therefore the simulations are unaffected by this choice. The best fitting disk model for HK Tau B from Stapelfeldt et al. (1998) is used to define the geometry of the disk. The simulations confirm that the scattered light distribution along the northwest nebula, through the value of the dust asymmetry parameter, $`g`$, is very sensitive to the upper limit of the grain size distribution. As expected, models with exclusively sub-micron sized grains yield nebulae with FWHM greater than 1″, while models with a$`{}_{max}{}^{}`$ 5 µm result in an almost unresolved point-like source in the center of the northwest nebula. Models sampling a wide range of $`g`$ values show that the 11.8 µm data are fairly well represented by models with $`g=0.40.55`$. We have assumed here that the disk is symmetric about the minor axis. The effect of the possible asymmetry can be qualitatively estimated by taking the HWHM along each half of the disk axis from the center of the disk and doubling it to find the potential range in FWHM. We find a range of FWHM of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$3–0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7, which increases the range of best fit $`g`$ values to 0.15–0.83.

For a single size dust population, $`g`$ values of 0.4–0.55 at 11.8 µm correspond to grain sizes in the range 2.5–3.2 µm , implying that grains in this size range must exist in the surface of the HK Tau B disk. Including the possibility of a disk asymmetry (with $`g`$ ranging from 0.15–0.83) reduces the minimum grain size from 2.5 µm to $``$1.5 µm. This does not suggest that the mean grain size is this large, but that the 11.8 µm scattering cross-section-weighted mean size is. Only a very small amount of such large grains is needed to achieve this, but these results show that grains of this size must be present in the disk. These grains are significantly larger than those expected in the ISM, implying that grain growth has occurred in the upper surface of this disk. Such large grains are not excluded from extinction fits to dense cloud regions (e.g., $`R_V>`$ 4, Weingartner & Draine 2001), therefore it remains an open question as to whether the large grains are a result of dust evolution within the disk or were already present in the dense cloud from which this system formed.

It should be noted that a single ISM-like power law size distribution extending to $``$2 µm produces $`g`$ values in the optical that are significantly higher than the best-fit $`g`$ found by Stapelfeldt et al. (1998), a model contradiction that has been pointed out by Duchêne et al. (2003). One potential way to reconcile the various wavelength constraints is a more complex size distribution, such as a power law with a gradual fall-off. Such a modified size distribution has already been suggested for ISM grains (e.g., Kim, Martin & Hendry 1994; Weingartner & Draine 2001). The results from observations of this disk at multiple wavelengths also clearly show that analysis of dust scattering from a single wavelength can provide misleading results. A more thorough characterization of the grain properties and disk geometry will require simultaneous modelling of deep images over as wide a range of wavelengths as possible. This study, however, unambiguously shows the need for 1–3 µm grains to be included in any dust model of this system.

The authors thank Randy Campbell and Ron Quick at the Keck Observatory for their help in obtaining these observations and Karl Stapelfeldt and Eric Becklin for stimulating discussions. We also thank the anonymous referee whose excellent comments have added to this work. Support for this work was provided by the Packard Foundation. The authors also wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain.


format: text

text:
# 3-manifolds with planar presentations and the width of satellite knots

## 1. Mathematical preliminaries

Throughout the paper, all manifolds will be orientable and, unless otherwise stated, compact. All embeddings will be locally flat. Since in dimension three there is little topological distinction between smooth manifolds and PL manifolds, and it will be convenient to use ideas and language from both smooth and PL topology, we will do so without apology, leaving it to the reader to make the appropriate translation if a specific structure (smooth or PL) is initially given on the manifold.

###### Definition 1.1.

A planar presentation of a $`3`$-manifold $`(M,M)`$, $`M\mathrm{}`$ is a map $`h:MR`$ so that

1. $`Dh:T_MT_R`$ is always surjective
2. $`h|M`$ is a general position Morse function and
3. for $`t`$ any regular value of $`h|M`$, $`h^1(t)`$ is a planar surface, denoted $`P^t`$.

The motivating source of examples is this: Consider $`S^3R^4`$ and let $`p:R^4R`$ be a standard projection, so $`p|S^3:S^3[1,1]`$ has two critical points in $`S^3`$, typically called the north and south poles. Let $`MS^3`$ be a compact submanifold that does not contain either pole. Then $`h=p|M`$ is a planar presentation of $`M`$.

Consider an index one (i. e. saddle) critical value $`t_\sigma `$ of $`h|M`$. The corresponding critical point is called an upper saddle (resp. lower saddle) if $`P^{t_\sigma ϵ}`$ has one more (resp. one less) circle component than $`P^{t_\sigma +ϵ}`$. If the number of components in $`P^{t_\sigma +ϵ}`$ and $`P^{t_\sigma ϵ}`$ is the same, we say the saddle is nested; otherwise the saddle is unnested. Here is an alternate description: an upper (resp. lower) saddle is nested if and only if the outward normal from $`M`$ points up (resp. down) at the saddle point. (In particular, if $`SS^3`$ is a surface, then a saddle singularity of $`S`$ is a nested saddle for the component of $`S^3S`$ lying just above the singularity if and only if it is unnested for the component of $`S^3S`$ lying just below the saddle.) Similarly, a maximum (resp. minimum) of $`h`$ on $`M`$ is called an external maximum (resp. minimum) of $`h`$ on $`M`$ if the outward pointing normal from $`M`$ points up (resp. down) at the critical point. Other maxima and minima on $`H`$ will be called internal maxima and minima. See Figure 1.

## 2. The connectivity graph and Fox reimbedding

Throughout this section, $`(M,h)`$ will be a planar presentation, $`s_1<s_2<\mathrm{}<s_n`$ will be the set of critical values at which $`h|M`$ has an unnested saddle or an external maximum or minimum. The points $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_nM`$ will be the corresponding critical points.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Suppose $`M_0`$ is a component of $`M_{i=1}^nP^{s_i}`$. Then for any generic height $`\overline{t}`$, $`P_0=M_0P^{\overline{t}}`$ is connected (possibly empty).

###### Proof.

Choose any two points in $`P_0`$. Since $`M_0`$ is connected, there is an arc $`\alpha M_0`$ that runs between them; a generic such arc will have its critical heights at different levels than $`M`$ does. Since $`\alpha M_0`$, $`\alpha `$ is disjoint from $`\{P^{s_i}\}`$. So for some $`i`$, the height of $`\alpha `$ lies between $`s_i`$ and $`s_{i+1}`$. Let $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ be the critical values (if any) of $`h|M_0`$ between $`s_i`$ and $`s_{i+1}`$ and choose $`\alpha `$ to minimize the number of points in $`T_\alpha =\{t_jh(\alpha )\}`$. If $`T_\alpha `$ is empty, then $`\alpha `$ lies entirely in a region with no critical values, i. e. $`M_0h^1h(\alpha )P_0\times I`$. Project $`\alpha `$ to $`P_0`$ and deduce that the ends of $`P_0`$ lie in the same component of $`P_0`$.

We now show that in fact $`T_\alpha `$ is always empty. For suppose $`t_j`$ is the greatest value (if any) of $`T_\alpha `$ that is greater than $`\overline{t}`$ (or, symmetrically, the lowest value of $`T_\alpha `$ below $`\overline{t}`$). The same argument as above shows that each subarc of $`\alpha `$ that lies above $`P^{t_j}`$ can be projected to lie in $`P^{t_j+ϵ}`$ for any small $`ϵ`$. Since, by assumption, passing through the critical level $`t_j`$ does not connect or disconnect any component of $`P^t`$, in fact such a subarc can then be pushed below $`t_j`$. Once this is done for every subarc of $`\alpha `$ above $`t_j`$, $`T_\alpha `$ is reduced by the removal of $`t_j`$, a contradiction.

We have thereby shown that any two points in $`P_0`$ can be connected by an arc in $`P_0`$, so $`P_0`$ is connected. ∎

###### Definition 2.2.

The connectivity graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`(M,h)`$ is the graph whose vertices correspond to components of $`M_{i=1}^nP^{s_i}`$ and whose edges correspond to components of $`_{i=1}^n(P^{s_i}x_i)`$. An edge corresponding to a component $`P_0`$ of $`P^{s_i}x_i`$ has its ends at the vertices that correspond to the components of $`M_{i=1}^nP^{s_i}`$ that lie just above and below $`P_0`$.

It is an old theorem of Fox \[Fo\] that any compact connected 3-dimensional submanifold $`M`$ of $`S^3`$ can be reimbedded in $`S^3`$ so that the closure of $`S^3M`$ is a union of handlebodies. (This theorem has recently been updated to include other non-Haken $`3`$-manifolds \[Th\].) As described above, let $`p:S^3R`$ be the standard height function and $`MS^3`$ be a $`3`$-manifold in general position with respect to $`p`$. One can refine Fox’s question and ask if $`M`$ can be reimbedded in $`S^3`$ so that the complement is a collection $`H`$ of handlebodies and, furthermore, each horizontal circle in $`M`$ (that is each component of each generic $`P^t`$) bounds a disk in $`H`$. Put another way, the question is whether a Fox reimbedding of $`M`$ can be found so that in the complementary handlebodies a complete collection of meridian disks is horizontal with respect to the original height function on $`M`$.

A first observation is that we may as well assume $`M`$ does not contain the poles. For if $`M`$ contains the north pole, say, let $`t`$ be the highest critical value of $`h=p|M`$ on $`M`$, necessarily the image of a maximum on $`M`$. Alter $`M`$ by simply removing the ball $`h^1(tϵ,\mathrm{})`$. The result does not contain the north pole and (after a tiny isotopy) is homeomorphic to $`M`$ via a homeomorphism that preserves the height function $`h`$ on $`M`$. So, after this initial reimbedding, we may think of the pair $`(M,h)`$ as a planar presentation of $`M`$.

Then the answer is straightforward:

###### Proposition 2.3.

There is a collection of handlebodies $`H`$ so that $`M_{}HS^3`$. Moreover, there is a complete collection of meridian disks for $`H`$ whose boundaries are all horizontal (with respect to $`h`$) in $`M`$ if and only if the connectivity graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`M`$ is a tree.

###### Proof.

The first claim is the central theorem of \[Fo\].

The second claim follows from the central theorem of \[Sc1\]. This says that a collection of $`0`$-framed curves $`CM`$ contains a complete collection of meridians for some complementary handlebody $`H`$ if and only if it has this property: Any properly embedded surface $`S`$ in $`M`$ whose boundary is disjoint from $`C`$ separates $`M`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not a tree then some component $`P_0`$ of some $`P^t`$ is non-separating and clearly such a component can be made disjoint from any finite collection of horizontal circles in $`M`$. If $`M`$ could be imbedded in $`S^3`$ so that the complement consisted of handlebodies $`H`$ in which a complete collection of meridian boundaries were horizontal with respect to $`h`$, then $`P_0`$ could be capped off in $`H`$ by adding disks to $`P_0`$. The result would be a non-separating closed surface in $`S^3`$, and this of course is impossible.

Conversely, suppose $`C`$ is a finite collection of horizontal circles in $`M`$ chosen so large that any horizontal circle in $`M`$ is parallel to an element of $`C`$ in $`M`$. Suppose $`S`$ is a generic non-separating properly embedded surface in $`M`$ with boundary disjoint from $`C`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be a generic simple closed curve in $`M`$ which intersects $`S`$ in an odd number of points. Choose such an $`S`$ to minimize $`|S(_{i=1}^nP^{s_i})|`$, where, as above, $`\{s_i\}`$ is the set of heights of the unnested saddles and of the minima and maxima of $`M`$.

The first observation is that in fact $`S(_{i=1}^nP^{s_i})=\mathrm{}`$. For otherwise, choose an innermost circle $`c`$ of intersection of $`S`$ with a component $`P_0`$ of $`_{i=1}^nP^{s_i}.`$ Here “innermost” means that $`c`$ cuts off from $`P_0`$ a subplanar surface $`P_{}`$ whose boundary consists of $`c`$ and a collection of boundary circles of $`P_0`$. Then replacing a vertical collar of $`c`$ in $`S`$ with two parallel horizontal copies of $`P_{}`$ gives a surface which has fewer components of intersection with $`_{i=1}^nP^{s_i}`$ but which still contains a non-separating component, since the number of intersections with $`\alpha `$ is increased by $`2|\alpha P_{}|`$ and so remains odd. Since the boundary of $`P_{}`$ is horizontal, generically it is disjoint from $`C`$.

So $`S`$ lies in a component of $`M_{i=1}^nP^{s_i}`$ whose closure we denote $`M_0`$. Let $`h(M_0)=[s_i,s_{i+1}]`$, so $`M_0`$ lies in a slice of $`S^3`$ homeomorphic to $`S^2\times [s_i,s_{i+1}]`$. So as not to be distracted by other parts of $`M`$, let $`Q`$ be a $`2`$-sphere and momentarily think of $`M_0`$ as lying in $`Q\times [s_i,s_{i+1}]`$. Since every horizontal cross-section of $`M_0`$ is connected, at any generic height a cross-section of $`QM_0`$ is a collection of disks. In particular, the boundary components of $`S`$ can be capped off in $`Q\times [s_i,s_{i+1}]`$ to give a closed surface $`S_+Q\times [s_i,s_{i+1}]`$.

Now consider how the arcs $`\alpha M_0`$ lie in $`Q\times [s_i,s_{i+1}]`$. Any arc with both ends in $`Q\times (s_i)`$ or both ends in $`Q\times (s_{i+1})`$ can be entirely homotoped in $`Q\times [s_i,s_{i+1}]`$ into that end and so be made disjoint from $`S_+`$. It follows that such an arc intersects $`S`$ an even number of times. Since $`\alpha `$ intersects $`S`$ an odd number of times, it follows that there are an odd number of arcs of $`\alpha M_0`$ that run from the top of $`M_0`$ to the bottom. Then, returning again to $`MS^3`$ there must be an odd number of arcs of $`\alpha M_0`$ that run from the top of $`M_0`$ to the bottom of $`M_0`$ in $`MM_0`$. In particular, there is at least one such arc, so one can construct a closed curve in $`M`$ that intersects the bottom of $`M_0`$ in a single point $`p`$. Hence removing the edge in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponding to the component of $`P^{s_i}x_i`$ in which $`p`$ lies does not disconnect $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since we can remove an edge and not disconnect $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not a tree. ∎

## 3. Unknotted graph complements

###### Definition 3.1.

For $`N`$ a compact $`3`$-manifold and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a finite graph, a proper embedding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ is an embedding so that $`N\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ consists of a collection of valence one vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. These vertices are denoted $``$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The other vertices, some of which may also have valence one, are called interior vertices.

In case $`N=B^3,S^3`$ or $`S^2\times I`$, the pair $`(N\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }),N\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ will be denoted $`(N_\mathrm{\Lambda },P_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and will be called a graph complement with planar part $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Graphs $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ are equivalent if there is a homeomorphism $`(N,\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }))(N,\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}))`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is any graph obtained from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by sliding and isotoping edges rel $``$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ are equivalent graphs.

Two graph complements $`(N_\mathrm{\Lambda },P_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`(N_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})`$ will be called equivalent if they are pairwise homeomorphic. In particular, equivalent graphs have equivalent graph complements.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Suppose $`(M,h)`$ is a planar presentation of a compact manifold $`M`$, $`JR`$ is a proper generic interval, and suppose that in a component $`M^J`$ of $`h^1(J)`$ all saddles are nested. Then $`M^J`$ is homeomorphic to a graph complement with planar part $`h^1(J)M^J.`$

###### Proof.

Since $`M^J`$ is connected and contains no unnested saddles, every generic horizontal cross-section is a connected planar surface, by Lemma 2.1. Since $`J`$ is proper, $`M^J`$ is compact, so we may as well assume $`J`$ is compact (say $`J=[0,1])`$, though we do not know that $`h(M^J)=J`$. We will describe the graph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for which $`M^J`$ is the complement; the details of the homeomorphism then follow from standard Morse theory. See Figure 2.

Suppose first that $`J=h(M^J)`$, so each component of $`h^1(J)M^J`$ is a non-empty connected planar surface. We will describe $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S^2\times I`$. Each (circle) boundary component of $`h^1(\{1\})M^J`$ can be capped off with a disk to give a two sphere; dually, $`h^1(\{1\})M^J`$ can be thought of as obtained from $`S^2\times \{1\}`$ by removing some vertices. These will be vertices in $``$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As $`t`$ descends from $`1`$ through generic values of $`t`$, each boundary component of $`P^t`$ can be capped off by a disk to give a sphere $`S^t`$. This gives an embedding $`P^tS^t`$; dually $`P^t`$ can be obtained from the sphere $`S^t`$ by removing a neighborhood of the center of each disk. As $`t`$ varies, these points form vertical edges in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ incident to those vertices of $``$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that lie at height $`1`$.

Now consider what happens as $`t`$ descends through a critical point of $`h|M`$. Each such critical point corresponds to an interior vertex of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In particular, edges descend from those vertices that correspond to internal maxima (and descend to the vertices that correspond to internal minima). At lower saddles two edges descend into the corresponding vertex and one edge descends from it whereas at upper saddles one edge descends into the corresponding vertex and two edges descend from it. There are no external maxima or minima, for these would necessarily start (or end) a different planar surface, which could never be connected to $`M^J`$ since all saddles are nested.

The argument is little changed if $`h(M_J)J`$. Say $`1h(M^J)`$; then there is an external maximum on $`M^J`$ at height $`t_{max}J`$ and at a generic height just below it the ball $`M^J[t_{max},1]`$ can be thought of as the complement of a radial arc in $`B^3`$, and so as a graph complement in $`B^3`$. The rest of the construction proceeds as above, though now viewed as a construction in a collar $`B^3\times I`$. Ultimately $`M^J`$ is thereby described as a graph complement in $`B^3`$ (or in $`S^3`$ if also $`0h(M^J)`$). ∎

The case when the graph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is planar will be particularly important. Let $`S^1\times I`$ denote the standard vertical cylinder in $`S^2\times I`$.

###### Definition 3.3.

A properly imbedded graph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`N=S^3`$ (resp. $`B^3`$ or $`S^2\times I`$) is unknotted if it lies in $`S^2S^3`$ (resp. $`B^2B^3`$ or $`S^1\times IS^2\times I`$). The pair $`(M_\mathrm{\Lambda },P_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is then called an unknotted graph complement with planar part $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. (Note that the number of components of $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ determines whether the ambient manifold is $`S^3,B^3`$ or $`S^2\times I`$.)

More generally, any graph which is equivalent to an unknotted graph will be called an unknotted graph.

Unknotted graphs are in some sense unique:

###### Proposition 3.4.

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ are unknotted graphs in $`N=S^3,B^3`$, or $`S^2\times I`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}N`$.

Then there is a homeomorphism of pairs $`(N,\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }))(N,\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}))`$ which is the identity on $`\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda })=\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})`$ if and only if the partitions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ defined by the components of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ are the same, and each component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has the same Euler characteristic as the corresponding component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$.

###### Proof.

The existence of such a homeomorphism clearly implies that the partitions and the corresponding Euler characteristics are the same. The difficulty is in proving the other direction. We consider the case $`N=S^2\times I`$, for it is representative (and in fact the most difficult).

It will be convenient to number the $`p`$ components of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (and the corresponding components of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$) in some order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,i=1,\mathrm{},p`$, and then order the points $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(S^2\times \{1\})=\{w_j\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(S^2\times \{0\})=\{v_k\}`$ in some subordinate order, i. e. so that in the ordering all the boundary points of any earlier component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ come before all the boundary points of any later component.

Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an unknotted graph we can assume (up to homeomorphism of the pair $`(N,\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ rel $`\eta ((\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$) that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S^1\times IS^2\times I`$. In a small neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ collapse a forest that is maximal in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ among those not incident to $``$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then each component is the cone on its boundary vertices, wedged with some circles. Each circle (even those that are essential in the vertical cylinder $`S^1\times I`$) can be moved (rel the cone point) in $`S^2\times I`$ until it bounds a tiny disk in $`S^1\times I`$ whose interior is disjoint from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For the purposes of the following argument, these tiny circles can be ignored, since the assumption on Euler characteristic means there will be as many tiny circles on a component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ as there are on the corresponding component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (namely $`1\chi `$). Hence, with no loss of generality, we may assume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$) consist entirely of collections of cones on (corresponding) subsets of vertices. See Figure 3.

Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ contains no circles there is a spanning arc of the cylinder $`S^1\times I`$ that is disjoint from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. After an isotopy in $`S^1\times I`$, we may as well assume the arc is vertical and then break up a neighborhood of this vertical arc into a sequence of $`p`$ vertical strips $`\alpha _i\times IS^1\times I,i=1,\mathrm{},p`$, where each $`\alpha _i\alpha _{i+1},i=1,\mathrm{},p1`$ is a single end point of each.

Now push the first component $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ into a vertical cylinder $`C`$ parallel to $`S^1\times I`$ and, exploiting the fact that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is just a cone on its end points, do this so that the vertices in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ appear in their correct order in a vertical strip in $`C`$. Now move this vertical strip (and so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$) to $`S^1\times I`$ by moving the strip to $`\alpha _1\times I`$. Similarly place the second component $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ in the second strip $`\alpha _2\times I`$ and continue through all of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Call the resulting graph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{c(anonical)}S^1\times I`$ and observe that the process we have described gives a homeomorphism of pairs $`g:(N,\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }))(N,\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^c))`$. Finally, observe that the process is so canonical that if we had done the same process on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ we would have obtained a homeomorphism of pairs $`g^{}:(N,\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}))(N,\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^c))`$ that preserves the orderings. In particular $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ could be taken to be the same on $`\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }))=\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}))`$. Then $`g^1g`$ is the required homeomorphism of pairs. ∎

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is unknotted, then $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has a particularly simple structure:

###### Lemma 3.5.

An unknotted graph complement is a connected sum of handlebodies.

Note: Here we regard a $`3`$-ball as a handlebody of genus $`0`$.

###### Proof.

The case in which the ambient manifold is $`B^3`$ is representative. We have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }B^2B^3`$. In a small neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ collapse a forest that is maximal among all forests not incident to $``$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then each component is the cone on its boundary vertices, wedged with some circles. Each circle can be pushed out of $`B^2`$ (rel its wedge point) and made to bound a tiny disk. Removing such a circle from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has the effect in the graph complement of removing a $`1`$-handle, dual to the tiny disk. In particular, with no loss, we can assume that no such circles arise and so each component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cone on its boundary vertices.

The proof is then by induction on $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{}`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a collection of isolated vertices, so its complement is a connected sum of balls. If any component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has a single boundary vertex, then that component is just an arc with one end on $`B^3`$; removing it from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has no effect on the complement in $`B^3`$. So without loss assume each component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cone on two or more points in $`B^2`$. A path in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ between two such points divides the disk $`B^2`$ into two disks. An outermost such path will cut off a disk $`D`$ from $`B^2`$ whose interior is disjoint from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The disk $`D`$ can be used to $``$-reduce $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the effect on $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the same as if we had removed one of the edges of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ incident to $`D`$. The proof then follows by induction. ∎

We now describe a few situations that guarantee that a graph is unknotted in $`S^2\times I`$. We will be taking the standard height function on $`S^2\times I`$, namely projection to $`I`$. A vertex $`v`$ in a properly embedded graph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S\times I`$ is a $`Y`$-vertex if two or more edges are incident to $`v`$ from above and a $`\lambda `$-vertex if two or more edges are incident to $`v`$ from below. (A vertex may be both a $`\lambda `$-vertex and a $`Y`$-vertex, or neither.)

###### Example 3.6.

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S^2\times I`$ is a properly embedded graph so that

1. the edges in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are all monotonic with respect to the projection $`S^2\times II`$.
2. there are no $`Y`$-vertices.

Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an unknotted graph.

###### Proof.

We first simplify $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ up to graph equivalence. By a small edge-slide arrange that each vertex is incident to at most two edges below; any vertex that is incident to a single edge above and a single edge below can be ignored. If an interior vertex is incident to two edges below, and none above, then add a small vertical edge above. After these initial maneuvers, each interior vertex of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has valence zero, one or three; in the last case, the vertex is a $`\lambda `$-vertex.

Pick a circle $`C`$ in $`S^2\times \{1\}`$ that contains all the vertices of $``$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that lie in $`S^2\times \{1\}`$. As $`t[0,1]`$ descends, the monotonicity of edges means that, until another vertex of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is encountered, the cross-section $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(S^2\times \{t\})`$ is a collection of points moving by isotopy in $`S^2`$. Extend the isotopy to all of $`S^2`$ to get a continuously varying circle $`C_tS^2\times \{t\}`$ that contains all of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(S^2\times \{t\})`$. When a valence one vertex (or an isolated vertex) is encountered, it can be easily added to or deleted from $`C_t`$, as appropriate, depending on whether the edge incident to the vertex is incident from below or from above.

So we only need to worry about $`\lambda `$-vertices. As $`t`$ passes through the level of such a vertex (which we have arranged to lie in $`C_t`$), a single point in $`C_t`$ simply splits in two and we may incorporate the arc between the two points as part of $`C`$. Continue the process down to $`t=0`$. Now, in a standard argument, the continuously varying family of circles $`C_t`$ bounds a continuously varying family of disks in $`S^2`$ and so there is a height-preserving isotopy of $`C_t`$ to the standard $`S^1\times I`$. ∎

The fact that, in the proof, the original circle $`C`$ was ours to choose immediately leads to these additional examples:

###### Example 3.7.

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S^2\times I`$ is a properly embedded graph and there is a generic height $`tI`$ so that

1. the edges in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are all monotonic with respect to the projection $`S^2\times II`$.
2. There are no $`\lambda `$-vertices above $`t`$
3. There are no $`Y`$-vertices below $`t`$

Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an unknotted graph.

###### Proof.

Apply the argument of Example 3.6 separately to $`S^2\times [0,t]`$ and (upside down) to $`S^2\times [t,1]`$, starting with a circle in $`S^2\times \{t\}`$ that contains all points in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(S^2\times \{t\}).`$ See Figure 4. ∎

More generally

###### Example 3.8.

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S^2\times I`$ is a properly embedded graph so that

1. there is a generic level sphere $`S^2\times \{t\}`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ intersects $`S^2\times [t,1]`$ in an unknotted graph
2. the edges in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[0,t]`$ are all monotonic with respect to the projection to $`[0,t]`$
3. There are no $`Y`$-vertices in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[0,t]`$.

Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an unknotted graph.

###### Proof.

Apply the argument of Example 3.6 separately to $`S^2\times [0,t]`$ starting with the circle in $`S^2\times \{t\}`$ which is the base of the vertical cylinder in $`S^2\times [t,1]`$ on which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(S^2\times [t,1])`$ lies. ∎

The next two examples simply reinterpret earlier examples in light of Lemma 3.2.

###### Example 3.9.

Suppose $`(M,h)`$ is a planar presentation of a manifold $`M`$ and for an interval $`J`$, $`M^J`$ is a component of $`h^1(J)`$. Suppose all saddles in $`M^J`$ are nested and that all lower saddles occur at higher levels than all the upper saddles do. Then the pair $`(M^J,P^J)`$ is an unknotted graph complement.

Suppose $`(M,h)`$ is a planar presentation of a manifold $`M`$ and $`M^{[a,c]}`$ is a component of $`h^1([a,c])`$. We will use the following notation: for $`J`$ a subinterval of $`[a,c]`$ let $`M^J=M^{[a,c]}h^1(J)`$ and for $`t[a,c]`$ let $`Q^t=M^{[a,c]}P^t`$.

###### Example 3.10.

Suppose $`(M,h)`$ is a planar presentation of a manifold $`M`$ and $`M^{[a,c]}`$ is a component of $`h^1([a,c])`$.

Suppose that for some $`b[a,c]`$

1. $`Q^b`$ is connected
2. the pair $`(M^{[b,c]},Q^bQ^c)`$ is an unknotted graph complement.
3. all saddles in $`M^{[a,b]}`$ are nested upper saddles.

Then $`M^{[a,c]}`$ is an unknotted graph complement.

It would be useful to know that if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1B_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2B_2`$ are unknotted graphs in $`3`$-balls $`B_i`$, and we are given some identification of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, that we could find some way to attach $`B_1`$ to $`B_2`$ consistent with that identification so that the resulting graph is unknotted. Ultimately we will succeed (see Lemma 4.1) but first we observe that the most obvious way to try to prove this fact is doomed to fail. Specifically, it may be impossible to match up the boundary of a disk in $`B_1`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ to the boundary of a disk in $`B_2`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ in a manner that preserves the identification of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$.

To see that this is impossible, take the following simple example: let each $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ be three copies of a cone on three points, so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ is nine points. Identify $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ so that the resulting graph is the complete bipartite graph $`K_{3,3}`$. If one could identify the boundary of a disk containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ with the boundary of a disk containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ in a way consistent with the identification of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, we would have found an embedding of $`K_{3,3}`$ into the $`2`$-sphere, which is famously impossible.

Yet there is a way to attach $`B_1`$ to $`B_2`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ is an unknotted embedding of $`K_{3,3}`$ in $`S^3`$; the argument above merely shows that, in order to demonstrate that such an embedding is unknotted, edges will need to be slid over edges, inevitably across the sphere $`B_i`$. In other words, the demonstration that there is an unknotted embedding of $`K_{3,3}`$ is inevitably a bit harder than one might at first expect.

It will be extremely useful to demonstrate that any bipartite graph has an unknotted embedding in $`S^3`$, via a construction much as above. That is the goal of the following lemma. Recall that a bipartite graph with vertex sets $`A`$ and $`B`$ is a graph so that each edge has one end among the vertices of $`A`$ and the other end among the vertices of $`B`$. We will show that any bipartite graph can be imbedded in a very controlled way into a cube so that the embedded graph is unknotted: that is, after some edge slides the graph can be made to lie in a plane. Some details of its structure will be crucial in the discussion of braid equivalence in Section 4.

###### Lemma 3.11.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a finite bipartite graph, with vertex sets $`A`$ and $`B`$. Then there is an embedding of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the cube $`I\times [1,1]\times I`$ so that:

1. $`A=\{(i/|A|,1,0),i=0,\mathrm{}|A|1\}`$
2. $`B=\{(j/|B|,1,0),j=0,\mathrm{}|B|1\}`$
3. Each edge in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is monotonic with respect to the $`y`$-coordinate. That is, each edge projects to $`[1,1]`$ with no critical points.
4. The edges may be isotoped and slid over each other (perhaps destroying the bipartite structure) in the cube, so that afterwards the resulting graph lies entirely in the face $`I\times [1,1]\times \{0\}`$.

Moreover, given a specific edge $`e`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, such an embedding can be found so that $`e=\{0\}\times [1,1]\times \{0\}`$ and $`e`$ never moves during the isotopy.

Note that the last numbered condition implies that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an unknotted graph. (Technically, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is unknotted only in a larger cube, for the given cube contains $`e`$ in a face and so does not contain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a proper subgraph.)

###### Proof.

We will assume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is connected; if not, the following argument can be carried out in each component separately.

Place the designated edge $`e`$ as described. Denote its ends by $`a_0=(0,1,0)`$ and $`b_0=(0,1,0)`$. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-distance between two vertices in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will mean the number of edges in the shortest path between them. With no loss, order the indices of the remaining vertices $`a_i,1i|A|1`$ of $`A`$ subordinate to their $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-distance from $`a_0`$, i. e. so that, for any pair of indices $`i_1`$ and $`i_2`$, if $`a_{i_1}`$ is closer in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`a_0`$ than $`a_{i_2}`$ is, then $`i_1<i_2`$. (We do not care how vertices are ordered among those that are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-equidistant from $`a_0`$.) Similarly order the indices of the remaining vertices $`b_j,1j|B|1`$ of $`B`$ subordinate to their $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-distance from $`a_0`$. After this reordering, place each $`a_i`$ at the point $`(i/|A|,1,0)`$ and each $`b_j`$ at the point $`(j/|B|,1,0)`$.

At each vertex of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ add a vertical (i. e. $`z`$-parallel) arc of length $`1`$. That is, attach to each $`(i/|A|,1,0)`$ the arc $`\{(i/|A|,1)\}\times [0,1]`$ and to each $`(j/|B|,1,0)`$ the arc $`\{(j/|B|,1)\}\times [0,1]`$. In order to simplify somewhat the description of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the edges of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will originally be placed so that they are horizontal (i. e. parallel to the $`xy`$ plane) with ends on these vertical arcs. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is then finally recovered from the simplified description by collapsing the vertical arcs $`\{(i/|A|,1)\}\times [0,1]`$ and $`\{(j/|B|,1)\}\times [0,1]`$ back down to $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively.

Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be the maximal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-distance of any vertex in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from $`a_0`$. We will place the edges of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in a sequence of $`\mathrm{}`$ stages; the edges placed at the $`k^{th}`$ stage lie near the horizontal square $`I\times [1,1]\times \{k/\mathrm{}\}`$. Specifically, at the $`k^{th}`$ stage select all edges of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which have the property that their most $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-distant end is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-distance $`k`$ from $`a_0`$. (The other end of each selected edge must then be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-distance $`k1`$ from $`a_0`$.) If there are $`p`$ such edges, select a sequence of $`p`$ horizontal planes whose height (i. e. $`z`$-coordinate) is near $`k/\mathrm{}`$ and place each edge in a separate horizontal plane, as a linear edge connecting the appropriate $`a_i`$ to the appropriate $`b_j`$, with parallel edges on adjacent horizontal planes. The linear embedding ensures that each edge is monotonic in the $`y`$-coordinate, a fact that is unchanged when the vertical arcs $`\{(i/|A|,1)\times [0,1]`$ and $`(j/|B|,1)\}\times [0,1]`$ are collapsed to $`A`$ and $`B`$ to create $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We have thereby described an embedding of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ into the cube that clearly satisfies the first three requirements. See Figure 5

It remains to describe how the edges of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be slid and isotoped, without moving the vertices $`A,B`$ or the edge $`e`$, so that afterwards the resulting graph lies entirely in the face $`I\times [1,1]\times \{0\}`$. The description of this sliding mimics the $`k`$ stages of the construction of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and we will describe them in the graph above as if we had not collapsed the vertical arcs, but also mostly focusing on the $`xy`$ coordinates.

At the first stage of the construction above, exactly those edges with one end on $`a_0`$ are added, near the horizontal plane $`z=1/\mathrm{}`$. By our choice of ordering of the $`b_j`$, the other ends of these edges lie exactly on the vertices $`b_0,\mathrm{},b_q`$, for some $`q0`$. (If any two of these edges are parallel, slide one over the other to form a tiny circle which we may henceforth ignore). Then, if $`q>0`$ the rightmost edge, i. e. that connecting $`a_0`$ to $`b_q=(q/|B|,1)`$ may be slid over the edge connecting $`a_0`$ to $`b_{q1}`$ until instead it is just the straight interval between $`b_{q1}`$ and $`b_q`$, i. e. the interval $`[q1,q]\times \{1\}`$. Continue in this manner until all the edges but $`e`$ have been slid to the line $`y=1`$ to constitute the single interval $`[0,q]\times \{1\}`$, still in the plane $`z=1/\mathrm{}`$. See Figure 6. Now slide all these edges up vertically to height just below $`z=2/\mathrm{}`$ and begin the second stage.

Because of our ordering of the $`a_i`$, there is a $`p1`$ so that the vertices $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_p`$ constitute exactly the ends in $`A`$ of edges included at the second stage. Moreover the other end of each such edge lies among the $`b_0,\mathrm{},b_q`$ which, after the slides we have done on the edges of the first stage, all lie on the $`L`$-shaped graph $`e([0,q]\times \{1\})`$. This $`L`$-shaped graph gives a way, much as above, of sliding the edges added at the second stage until they are either tiny circles (henceforth ignored) or constitute the straight line from $`a_0`$ to $`a_p`$, i. e. the line $`[0,p]\times \{1\}\times 2/\mathrm{}`$. See Figure 6. Now slide this whole graph vertically up until it is near the plane $`z=3/\mathrm{}`$ and continue the process. By the time we have reached the $`\mathrm{}^{th}`$ stage, the graph consists (now at height $`z=1`$) of arcs in the lines $`y=\pm 1`$ that contain all the vertices, together with the original edge $`e`$ between $`a_0`$ and $`b_0`$ (and some tiny circles), all of which then lie in the square $`I\times [1,1]\times \{1\}`$. Now collapse the vertical direction, bringing the graph down to $`I\times [1,1]\times \{0\}`$. This process (when reinterpreted as slides on the actual embedding of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, in which the vertical arcs do not appear) verifies the last numbered condition. ∎

## 4. Braid equivalence and unknotted graphs

Suppose $`(M,h)`$ is a planar presentation and $`tR`$ is a regular value of $`h`$. Cut $`M`$ along $`P^t`$ and reattach the two copies of $`P^t`$ by an orientation preserving homeomorphism $`P^tP^t`$ that is the identity on the circles $`P^t`$. The result is a possibly new manifold $`M^{}`$ and a planar presentation $`h^{}:M^{}R`$. Note that $`h^{}|M^{}=h|M`$. The two planar presentations $`(M,h)`$ and $`(M^{},h^{})`$ are called braid equivalent. More generally, two planar presentations $`(M,h)`$ and $`(M^{},h^{})`$ are called braid equivalent if one is obtained from the other by a finite sequence of such operations, called braid moves.

Under such braid moves, many more $`3`$-manifolds with planar presentation can be made unknotted graph complements. The following lemma illustrates why. The setting is this: Suppose $`N_A`$ and $`N_B`$ are each homeomorphic to either $`B^3`$ or $`S^2\times I`$ and $`P_A`$ (resp. $`P_B`$) is a sphere component of the boundary of $`N_A`$ (resp $`N_B)`$. Let $`N`$ be obtained from identifying $`P_A`$ with $`P_B`$ (so in particular $`N`$ is also homeomorphic to either $`B^3`$ or $`S^2\times I`$). Suppose further that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ is a properly embedded graph that is in general position with respect to $`P`$; let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A=\mathrm{\Lambda }N_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B=\mathrm{\Lambda }N_B`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

If both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ are unknotted graphs, then there is a homeomorphism $`\varphi :P_AP_B`$ such that

1. $`\varphi `$ is the identity on the points $`\mathrm{\Lambda }P_A`$ and
2. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ is an unknotted graph in $`N_A_\varphi N_B`$.

###### Proof.

The case in which both $`N_A`$ and $`N_B`$ are copies of $`S^2\times I`$ is representative (and in fact the most difficult) and it will be convenient to take $`N_A=S^2\times [2,0]`$ and $`N_B=S^2\times [0,2]`$.

Construct an abstract bipartite graph $`G`$ with vertex sets $`A`$ and $`B`$ as follows: There is a vertex in $`A`$ (resp $`B`$) for every component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ (resp $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$). There is an edge for every point $`c`$ in $`P_A\mathrm{\Lambda }=P_B\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Identify the ends of the edge corresponding to $`c`$ to the points in $`A`$ and $`B`$ corresponding to the components in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ on which $`c`$ lies. Imbed $`G`$ in the cube $`I\times [1,1]\times I`$ as described in Lemma 3.11 and embed the cube in $`S^2\times [2,2]`$ with the $`xz`$ square cross-section of the cube lying in the $`S^2`$ factor and the $`y`$-coordinate of the cube projecting to the interval factor in $`S^2\times [1,1]S^2\times [2,2]`$.

For each vertex $`v`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(S^2\times \{2\})`$ add a monotone edge $`e_vS^2\times [2,1]`$ to $`G`$ with one end of $`e_v`$ on $`v`$ and the other end on the vertex in $`A`$ corresponding to the component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ on which $`v`$ lies. Similarly, add a monotone edge in $`S^2\times [1,2]`$ for each vertex in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(S^2\times \{2\})`$, with one edge on the vertex and the other on the appropriate vertex in $`B`$. Call the resulting graph $`G_+`$. See Figure 7.

The graph $`G_+`$ as embedded, has three important properties:

* It follows from Lemma 3.11 that $`G_+`$ is an unknotted graph in $`N`$.
* It follows from Proposition 3.4 and Example 3.7 that, perhaps after adding some tiny circles to $`G_+`$, $`G_+N_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ are equivalent unknotted graphs, via an equivalence that is the identity near $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$.
* Similarly, perhaps after adding some tiny circles to $`G_+`$, $`G_+N_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ are equivalent unknotted graphs via an equivalence that is the identity near $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$.

Let $`g_A:P_AP_A`$ and $`g_B:P_BP_B`$ be the homeomorphisms given by the latter two equivalences. Let $`\varphi =g_Bg_A^1:P_AP_B`$. Then the construction $`N_A_\varphi N_B`$ changes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to a graph equivalent to $`G_+`$, which is unknotted. ∎

This has as an immediate corollary, analogous to Example 3.10. Suppose $`(M,h)`$ is a planar presentation of a manifold $`M`$ and $`M^{[a,c]}`$ is a component of $`h^1([a,c])`$. We again will use the following notation: for $`J`$ a subinterval of $`[a,c]`$ let $`M^J=M^{[a,c]}h^1(J)`$ and for $`t[a,c]`$ let $`Q^t=M^{[a,c]}P^t`$.

###### Corollary 4.2.

Suppose $`(M,h)`$ is a planar presentation of a manifold $`M`$ and $`M^{[a,c]}`$ is a component of $`h^1([a,c])`$.

Suppose that for some $`b[a,c]`$

1. $`Q^b`$ is connected
2. the pair $`(M^{[b,c]},Q^bQ^c)`$ is an unknotted graph complement.
3. all saddles in $`M^{[a,b]}`$ are nested.

Then $`M^{[a,c]}`$ is braid-equivalent to an unknotted graph complement.

###### Proof.

The proof is by induction on the number of critical points of $`h`$ on $`M`$ that occur in $`M^{[a,b]}`$. If there are none then of course $`M^{[a,c]}M^{[b,c]}`$ and there is nothing to prove. If the highest singularity in $`M^{[a,b]}`$ is a maximum or a minimum (necessarily an internal max or min since $`Q^b`$ is connected and all saddles in $`M^{[a,b]}`$ are nested) then for $`t`$ just below the corresponding critical value, $`M^{[t,c]}`$ is a standard graph complement and we are done by induction. Similarly, if the highest critical value in $`[a,b]`$ is a (nested) upper saddle then apply Example 3.10 to complete the inductive step.

The only remaining case is when the highest critical point is a lower saddle, i. e. it suffices to consider the case in which the only critical point in $`M^{[a,b]}`$ is a single nested lower saddle. But even in the more general case that all saddles in $`M^{[a,b]}`$ are nested lower saddles, the proof is an immediate consequence of Lemma 4.1 and Example 3.9 with the latter applied to $`M^{[a,b]}`$, which has no upper saddles. ∎

We hope next to understand what happens to planar presentations of unknotted graph complements at unnested saddles. So let $`a`$ be a critical value with corresponding critical point $`x_0`$, an unnested saddle. For small $`ϵ`$, let $`M^{[aϵ,a+ϵ]}`$ be the component of $`h^1([aϵ,a+ϵ])`$ that contains $`x_0`$. Then for, say, a lower saddle, $`P^{a+ϵ}`$ intersects $`M^{[aϵ,a+ϵ]}`$ in two connected planar surfaces denoted $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ and $`P^{aϵ}`$ intersects $`M^{[aϵ,a+ϵ]}`$ in a single connected planar surface $`P_3`$. The roles of $`\pm ϵ`$ are reversed for an upper saddle. We will be interested only in the case in which each $`P_i`$ separates $`M`$. The component of $`MP_i`$ not containing the saddle point will be denoted $`M_i`$. See Figure 8.

One situation is easy to understand:

###### Lemma 4.3.

If $`(M_1,P_1)`$ and $`(M_2,P_2)`$ are unknotted graph complements in $`B^3`$, then so is $`(Minterior(M_3),P_3)`$, the component of the complement of $`P_3`$ that contains both $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$.

###### Proof.

For this proof, a useful model of an unknotted graph in $`B^3`$ is this: In a cube $`I\times I\times I`$, let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a subgraph of the square $`I\times I\times \{1/2\}`$ with a single boundary vertex on the top $`I\times \{1\}\times \{1/2\}`$ and the rest on the bottom $`I\times \{0\}\times \{1/2\}`$. (Here projection to the $`y`$-coordinate models height $`h`$). Then the complement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the cube is an unknotted graph complement with planar part on the bottom of the box, namely $`(I\times \{0\}\times I)\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Note that the sides of the box are not in the planar part but rather it is much as if the vertex of $``$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at the top of the box is stretched over the top and all sides of the box. See Figure 9.

The effect of passing through an unnested lower saddle is to take two such boxes (each containing one $`P_i`$ on its bottom) and glue the side $`\{1\}\times I\times I`$ of one to the side $`\{0\}\times I\times I`$ of the other, obtaining a graph complement with planar part the boundary sum of the original two planar parts. The result is again a cube with the same sort of graph deleted, with the sole difference that now there are two boundary vertices of the graph on the top of the box. But since the top of the box is entirely disjoint from the planar part of the graph complement, up to graph complement equivalence, nothing is changed by sliding one top boundary vertex to the other along the top arc $`I\times \{(1,1/2)\}`$, and then sliding an end of one edge down the end of the other, after which there is again a single boundary vertex on the top. In particular, the result is again an unknotted graph complement in the cube. ∎

A much harder situation to analyze is this:

###### Lemma 4.4.

If $`(M_3,P_3)`$ and $`(M_2,P_2)`$ are unknotted graph complements, then the pair $`(Minterior(M_1),P_1)`$ is braid equivalent to an unknotted graph complement.

###### Proof.

The initial difficulty is to determine a good model for what we are trying to show, analogous to the model in Lemma 4.3. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A,\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ be unknotted graphs in the $`3`$-ball whose complements give $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ respectively. Inspired by the model above (with the $`y`$-coordinate again modelling the height function $`h`$, but this time for an unnested upper saddle) choose two cubes $`C_2,C_3`$ in $`R^3`$, as follows (see Figure 10:

1. $`C_2=[0,1]\times [2,0]\times [1,1]`$
2. $`C_3=[0,2]\times [0,2]\times [1,1]`$.

Let $`C_{}=C_2C_3`$, which is itself homeomorphic to a $`3`$-ball.

Construct an abstract bipartite graph $`G`$ with vertex sets $`A`$ and $`B`$ as follows: There is a vertex in $`A`$ (resp $`B`$) for every component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ (resp $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$). There is an edge for every component $`c`$ of $`P_2`$. Identify the ends of such an edge to the points in $`A`$ and $`B`$ that represent the components of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ on which $`c`$ lies. Imbed $`G`$ in the cube $`I\times [1,1]\times IC_{}`$ as described in Lemma 3.11 with the special edge $`e`$ chosen to be that which corresponds to the boundary component of $`P_2`$ which is incident to the saddle singularity. (Notice that $`e`$ lies on the face $`\{0\}\times I\times I`$ of $`C_{}`$.)

The vertices of $`B`$ are strung out along the interval $`I\times \{1\}`$ in the $`xy`$ plane, with all but the vertex of $`e`$ lying in the interor of $`C_{}`$. Add edges to $`G`$ that connect these vertices of $`B`$ linearly to the corresponding vertices in the interval $`\{1\}\times [1,2]`$ in the $`xy`$ plane. Explicitly, add an edge $`e_j,j=1,\mathrm{},|B|1`$ that connects the point $`b_j=(j/|B|,1,0)B`$ to the point $`(1,2j/|B|,0)`$. Next add edges that connect these points linearly to a collection $`B^{}`$ of points in the line $`[1,2]\times \{(0,0)\}C_3`$. This collection $`B^{}`$ is chosen so that each point in $`B^{}`$ corresponds to a boundary component of $`P_1`$, other than the one containing the saddle singularity. Equivalently, each point $`b^{}B^{}`$ corresponds to a vertex in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ that doesn’t also naturally correspond to a vertex in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$. Such a boundary vertex lies on a component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ to which a vertex $`b_j`$ has been assigned; append a linear edge in $`[1,2]\times [0,2]\times [1,1]`$from the other end of $`e_j`$ to $`b^{}`$. (We pick the ordering of $`B^{}`$ in the interval $`[1,2]\times \{(0,0)\}`$ so that these edges do not intersect.) Finally, append an appropriate number of tiny circles to $`GC_2`$ and $`GC_3`$ so that each component has the same Euler number as the corresponding component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$. Let $`G_+`$ be the graph in $`C_{}`$ given by this construction. Note that it is a proper graph in $`C_{}`$ whose planar part $`P_{}`$ we take to be $`([1,2]\times \{0\}\times [1,1])\eta (G_+`$), i. e. the complement of $`G_+C_2`$ in the bottom face of $`C_3`$. See Figure 10.

Let $`P_{xz}R^3`$ denote the plane $`y=0`$. The graph $`G_+`$ has been constructed to have these properties:

1. For $`i=2,3`$, the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=G_+C_i`$ is unknotted, with planar part $`(P_{xz}C_i)\eta (G_+)`$, by Example 3.6.
2. Each component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ (resp $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$) is homeomorphic to a corresponding component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$ (resp $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$) so that the homeomorphisms agree, where they are simultaneously defined, namely on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$.
3. The graph $`G_+C_{}`$ is unknotted by Lemma 3.11.

The first two properties guarantee (via Proposition 3.4) that there is a homeomorphism of pairs $`(M_i,P_i)(C_i\eta (G_+),(P_{xz}C_i)\eta (G_+))`$. In particular, much as in Lemma 4.1, $`M_3`$ can be cut off from $`M`$ and reattached so that the pair $`(Minterior(M_1),P_1)`$ becomes pairwise homeomorphic to $`(C_{}\eta (G_+),P_{})`$. But since $`G_+`$ is unknotted, the latter is an unknotted graph complement. Hence $`(Minterior(M_1),P_1)`$ is braid equivalent to a standard graph complement. ∎

## 5. Heegaard reimbedding

###### Theorem 5.1.

Suppose $`(M,h)`$ is a planar presentation of a $`3`$-manifold with connectivity graph a tree. Then $`(M,h)`$ is braid-equivalent to an unknotted graph complement.

###### Proof.

If the connectivity graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a vertex (i. e. all saddles are nested) the result follows easily from Corollary 4.2. So we will assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has at least one edge. In that case, Lemma 4.1 demonstrates that the proof of the theorem will follow from the proof of the following relative version. ∎

###### Proposition 5.2.

Suppose $`(M,h)`$ is a planar presentation of a $`3`$-manifold and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is its connectivity graph. Suppose $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an edge such that a component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the complement of $`\gamma `$ is a tree. Let $`P_\gamma M`$ be the planar surface corresponding to $`\gamma `$ and $`M_0M`$ be the component of $`MP_\gamma `$ that corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. Then $`(M_0,P_\gamma )`$ is braid equivalent to an unknotted graph complement.

###### Proof.

The proof will be by induction on the number of edges in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. Let $`v`$ be the vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ that is incident to $`\gamma `$ and, in the terminology of Lemma 2.1, let $`M_v`$ be the component of $`M_{i=1}^nP^{s_i}`$ corresponding to $`v`$, with $`h(M_v)=[s_i,s_{i+1}]`$. We will assume that the unnested saddles at heights $`s_i`$ and $`s_{i+1}`$ both involve the particular component $`M_v`$, since the argument is easier if either or both do not.

Without loss of generality we will assume that the planar surface corresponding to the edge $`\gamma `$ is at the bottom of $`M_v`$, i. e. near height $`s_i`$. Consider first the saddle $`x_+`$ at height $`s_{i+1}`$. Let $`Q`$ be the connected planar surface $`M_vP^{(s_{i+1}ϵ)}`$ and $`M_Q`$ be the component of $`MQ`$ that contains $`x_+`$. If $`x_+`$ is an upper (unnested) saddle then $`Q`$ corresponds to an edge in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and so by inductive assumption the pair $`(M_Q,Q)`$ is braid equivalent to an unknotted graph complement. See Figure 11a. If $`x_+`$ is a lower saddle then the two contiguous components of $`h^1(s_{i+1}+ϵ)`$ each represent edges in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`(M_Q,Q)`$ is again an unknotted graph complement by inductive assumption combined with Lemma 4.3. See Figure 11b. So in any case, $`(M_Q,Q)`$ is braid equivalent to an unknotted graph complement.

Now consider the saddle $`x_{}`$ at height $`s_i`$. See Figure 12. If it’s a lower saddle, then the planar surface $`P^{s_i+ϵ}M_v`$ is $`P_\gamma `$, the planar surface corresponding to the edge $`\gamma `$ and the proposition follows from Corollary 4.2. If the saddle $`x_{}`$ is an upper saddle, then $`P_\gamma `$ is one of the two connected planar surfaces in $`P^{s_iϵ}`$ contiguous to the saddle. Let $`P_\gamma ^{}`$ be the other one, with corresponding edge $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, and let $`P`$ be the connected planar surface $`M_vP^{s_i+ϵ}`$. Now by inductive assumption, the component of $`M_0P_\gamma ^{}`$ not containing $`x_{}`$ is an unknotted graph complement and by Corollary 4.2 so is the component of $`M_0P`$ not containing $`x_{}`$. Then the proposition follows from Lemma 4.4.

###### Corollary 5.3.

Suppose $`NS^3`$, $`p:S^3R`$ is the standard height function, $`N`$ contains both poles, and the connectivity graph of $`S^3N`$ is a tree (so in particular $`S^3N`$ is connected). Then there is an embedding $`f:NS^3`$ so that

1. $`p=pf`$ on $`N`$, i. e. $`f`$ preserves height and
2. $`S^3f(N)`$ is a connected sum of handlebodies.

###### Proof.

It follows from Theorem 5.1 that $`M=S^3N`$ is braid-equivalent to a connected sum of handlebodies. We will show that a braid move on $`M`$ defines a reimbedding of $`N`$.

Let $`S^t`$ be the $`2`$-sphere $`p^1(t)`$ and $`P^t=S^tN=S^tM`$. Then a braid move of $`M`$ at a generic level $`t`$ is given by cutting $`M`$ open along $`P^t`$ and then reattaching $`P^t`$ to itself by a homeomorphism $`\varphi :P^tP^t`$ that is the identity on $`P^t`$. In particular, the homeomorphism $`\varphi `$ extends via the identity on $`S^2P^t`$ to a self-homeomorphism of $`S^2`$. But any (orientation preserving) self-homeomorphism of the sphere is isotopic to the identity, so in fact there is a level-preserving self-homeomorphism $`S^2\times [tϵ,t+ϵ]`$ that is the identity on one end and the extended $`\varphi `$ on the other. Use this self-homeomorphism to redefine the embedding of $`N`$ in the region $`h^1[tϵ,t+ϵ]`$. The effect on the complement $`M`$ is to do the original braid move. ∎

###### Corollary 5.4.

Suppose $`p:S^3R`$ is the standard height function and $`HS^3`$ is a handlebody for which horizontal circles constitute a complete collection of meridian disk boundaries. Then there is a reimbedding $`f:HS^3`$ so that

1. $`p=pf`$ on $`N`$, i. e. $`f`$ preserves height and
2. $`H(S^3H)`$ is a Heegaard splitting of $`S^3`$.

###### Proof.

As noted before Proposition 2.3, we may as well assume that $`H`$ contains both poles. The condition on horizontal disks guarantees, via Proposition 2.3, that the connectivity graph of $`S^3H`$ is a tree. Then Corollary 5.3 says there is a height-preserving reimbedding of $`H`$ so that $`S^3H`$ is a connected sum of handlebodies. But since $`H`$ is connected, $`S^3H`$ is in fact simply a handlebody. ∎

## 6. Knot width

For standard definitions about knots in $`S^3`$, see \[BZ\], \[L\] or \[R\].

###### Definition 6.1.

As above, let $`p:S^3R`$ be the standard height function and let $`S^t`$ denote $`p^1(t)`$, a sphere if $`|t|<1`$. Let $`KS^3`$ be a knot in general position with respect to $`p`$ and $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_n`$ be the critical values of $`h=p|K`$ listed in increasing order; i.e., so that $`c_1<\mathrm{}<c_n`$. Choose $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_{n1}`$ so that $`c_i<r_i<c_{i+1},i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$. The width of K with respect to $`h`$, denoted by $`w(K,h)`$, is $`_i|KS^{r_i}|`$. The width of K, denoted by $`w(K)`$, is the minimum of $`w(K^{},h)`$ over all knots $`K^{}`$ isotopic to $`K`$. We say that $`K`$ is in thin position if $`w(K,h)=w(K).`$

We note as an aside that there is an alternative way to calculate width, inspired by a comment of Clint McCrory. For the levels $`r_i`$ described above, call $`r_i`$ a thin level of $`K`$ with respect to $`h`$ if $`c_i`$ is a maximum value for $`h`$ and $`c_{i+1}`$ is a minimum value for $`h`$. Dually $`r_i`$ is a thick level of $`K`$ with respect to $`h`$ if $`c_i`$ is a minimum value for $`h`$ and $`c_{i+1}`$ is a maximum value for $`h`$. Since the lowest critical point of $`h`$ is a minimum and the highest is a maximum, there is one more thick level than thin level.

###### Lemma 6.2.

Let $`r_{i_1},\mathrm{},r_{i_k}`$ be the thick levels of $`K`$ and $`r_{j_1},\mathrm{},r_{j_{k1}}`$ the thin levels. Set $`a_{i_l}=|KS^{r_{i_l}}|`$ and $`b_{j_l}=|KS^{r_{j_l}}|`$. Then

$$w(K)=2\underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_{i_l}^22\underset{l=1}{\overset{k1}{}}b_{j_l}^2.$$

###### Proof.

This can be proven by a direct computation and repeated use of the Gauss Summation Formula. It is illustrated in Figure 13. Each dot represents two points of intersection with a regular level surface between two critical level surfaces. For instance, the dots in Figure 13 represent the case in which the critical values, listed from the highest to the lowest are a maximum, maximum, maximum, maximum, minimum, minimum, maximum, maximum, minimum, minimum, maximum, maximum, maximum, minimum, minimum, minimum, minimum, minimum. ∎

###### Corollary 6.3.

Suppose $`K`$ is a knot in an unknotted solid torus $`WS^3`$. Suppose $`f:WS^3`$ is a knotted embedding and $`K^{}=f(K)`$. Then $`w(K^{})w(K)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`p:S^3R`$ be the standard height function. Isotope $`K^{}`$ so as to minimize its width with respect to this height function and let $`H`$ denote the image of $`f(W)`$ after this isotopy. Each generic $`2`$-sphere $`S^t=p^1(t)`$ intersects $`H`$ in a collection of circles, each of them unknotted since they all lie in $`S^t`$. By standard Morse theory, there must be a generic value of $`t`$ for which one of the circles $`cHS^t`$ is essential in $`H`$ and that circle can’t be a longitude, since $`H`$ is a knotted torus. Hence $`c`$ must be a meridian circle. It follows from Corollary 5.4 that there is a reimbedding $`g`$ of $`H`$ in $`S^3`$ that preserves height but after which $`H`$ is unknotted. The reimbedding is defined via braid moves on $`M=S^3H`$; after perhaps adding a number of Dehn twists to one of the braid moves near a meridinal boundary component of $`P^t=MS^t`$, we can take this reimbedding to preserve a longitude of $`H`$. So in particular, $`g(K^{})`$ is isotopic to $`K`$ in $`S^3`$ and still has the width of $`K^{}`$. ∎

Corollary 6.3 can be applied to composite knots, via the following standard construction. Let $`K=K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2`$ be a composite knot with decomposing sphere $`S`$. Then $`S^3\eta (KS)`$ has two components. Each of these components is a torus, called a swallow-follow torus. Each of these tori bounds a solid torus in $`S^3`$ that contains $`K`$ ; the torus $`T_1`$ whose core is parallel to $`K_1`$ is said to follow $`K_1`$ and swallow $`K_2`$. Similarly, the other torus $`T_2`$ follows $`K_2`$ and swallows $`K_1`$. The torus $`T_1`$ exhibits $`K`$ as a satellite knot of $`K_1`$ with pattern $`K_2`$, and symmetrically for $`T_2`$. Therefore, when Corollary 6.3 is applied to each $`T_i`$ in turn, we get

###### Corollary 6.4.

For any two knots $`K_1,K_2`$,

$$w(K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2)max\{w(K_1),w(K_2)\}\frac{1}{2}(w(K_1)+w(K_2)).$$

Of course the construction can be iterated to give

###### Corollary 6.5.

$`w(K_1\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}K_n)max\{w(K_1),\mathrm{},w(K_n)\}\frac{1}{n}(w(K_1)+\mathrm{}+w(K_n)).`$

###### Proof.

For each $`K_i`$ there is a torus that swallows $`K_i`$ and follows the connected sum of the remaining summands. ∎

It remains to find examples, if any, of knots whose widths degenerate under connected sum, i.e. knots for which $`max\{w(K_1),w(K_2)\}w(K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2)<(w(K_1)+w(K_2))2`$.