7
$\begingroup$

Let $L(p,q)$ be the lens space, that is $L(p,q)=S^3/\mathbb{Z}_p$.

Here, $\mathbb{Z}_p$ acts on $S^3$ by $(z_1,z_2)\mapsto (\rho z_1,\rho^q z_2)$, $ \rho=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{p}}$.

It is well known that

$L(p,q)$ and L(p',q') are diffeomorphic if and only if p'=p, q'=\pm q^{\pm1} (mod $p$).

In A. Hatcher's note page 39-42, there is a proof of the above classification theorem of lens space using the uniqueness of Heegaard torus in Lens space up to isotopy. But I have some misunderstandings with his argument when I following it line by line.

Where can I find the original proof of classification of Lens space by using uniqueness of Heegaard torus up to isotopy?

Note : I know that there is a proof that uses whitehead torsion of lens space and its invariance under the homeomorphism which I already familiar sufficiently.

  • 1
    FYI: these classification proofs for lens spaces all tend to use rather interesting, delicate techniques. There aren't a whole lot of them in the literature, either. So they function as a sort of "benchmark" for mathematical technology. At least, that's how I view them.2011-04-09

1 Answers 1

7

The proof that Hatcher presents is due to Bonahon and Otal. The reference is here:

MR0663085 (83f:57008) Bonahon, Francis; Otal, Jean-Pierre Scindements de Heegaard des espaces lenticulaires. (French. English summary) [Heegaard splittings of lens spaces] C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 294 (1982), no. 17, 585–587. 57N10

If I recall, I believe Hatcher's write-up is similarly detailed to Bonahon and Otal's argument. And there are steps missing in both presentations but they're readily filled.