1: \documentclass[12pt]{amsart}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: %\usepackage{tabularx}

4: 

5: \newcommand{\kt}{K_t}

6: \newcommand{\kr}{K_r}

7: \newcommand{\ym}{\mathcal{YM}}

8:  

9: \newcommand{\lcr}{\raisebox{-5pt}{\mbox{}\hspace{1pt}

10:                  \includegraphics{leftcross.eps}\hspace{1pt}\mbox{}}}

11: \newcommand{\ift}{\raisebox{-5pt}{\mbox{}\hspace{1pt}

12:                  \includegraphics{infinity.eps}\hspace{1pt}\mbox{}}}

13: \newcommand{\zer}{\raisebox{-5pt}{\mbox{}\hspace{1pt}

14:                  \includegraphics{zero.eps}\hspace{1pt}\mbox{}}}

15: \newcommand{\rkin}{\raisebox{-7pt}{\mbox{}\hspace{1pt}

16:                  \includegraphics{rightkink.eps}\hspace{1pt}\mbox{}}}

17: \newcommand{\lkin}{\raisebox{-7pt}{\mbox{}\hspace{1pt}

18:                  \includegraphics{leftkink.eps}\hspace{1pt}\mbox{}}}

19: \newcommand{\smst}[1]{\makebox[0pt]{\scriptsize{$#1$}}}

20: \newcommand{\displaystyl}{\displaystyle}

21: \newcommand{\Tet}{\mathrm{Tet}\begin{pmatrix}}

22: \newcommand{\shad}{\mathrm{Shad}}

23: \newcommand{\cS}{\mathcal{S}}

24: %\newcommand{\displaystyl}{}

25: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

26: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

27: \newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}

28: \newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}

29: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}

30: \newtheorem{example}{Example}

31: \newtheorem{scholium}{Scholium}

32: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}  

33: \newtheorem{fact}{Fact}

34: 

35: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{18pt}

36: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{18pt}

37: \setlength{\textwidth}{435pt}

38: 

39: 

40: \title{The Quantum Content of the Normal Surfaces in a Three-Manifold}

41: 

42: \author{Charles Frohman}

43: 

44: \address{Department of Mathematics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

45: 52242, USA}

46: 

47: \email{\tt frohman@math.uiowa.edu}

48: 

49: \author{Joanna Kania-Bartoszynska}

50: 

51: \address{Department of Mathematics, Boise State University, Boise, ID

52: 83725, USA} 

53: 

54: \email{\tt kania@math.boisestate.edu}

55: 

56: 

57: \thanks{This material is based upon work supported by the National

58: Science Foundation under Grant No.0207030  and under Grant No.0204627}

59: \keywords{Turaev-Viro invariants of $3$-manifolds, normal surface,

60: regular spine, quantum 6j-symbol.}

61: \subjclass{57M27}

62: \begin{document}

63: \begin{abstract}

64: 

65: The formula for the Turaev-Viro invariant of a $3$-manifold depends 

66: on a complex parameter $t$. When $t$ is not a root of unity, the formula 

67: becomes an infinite sum. This paper analyzes convergence of this sum  

68: when $t$ does not lie on the unit circle, in the presence of an efficient 

69: triangulation of the three-manifold. The terms of the sum can be indexed by

70: surfaces lying in the three-manifold. The contribution of a surface is 

71: largest when the surface is normal and when its genus is the lowest. 

72: 

73: \end{abstract}

74: \maketitle

75: 

76: \section{Introduction} This paper initiates the study of non-perturbative

77: quantum invariants of three-manifolds $M$  away from roots of unity. 

78: Turaev and Viro \cite{TV} defined  invariants of closed 3-manifolds

79: as  state sums depending on a complex parameter $t$. When $t$ is 

80: a root of unity this sum is finite.

81: At values of $t$ other than roots of unity the formula for

82: the Turaev-Viro invariant becomes an infinite sum. The partial sums

83: could oscillate wildly, so that even after

84: renormalizing the series does not converge. However, we are able to show 

85: that for a

86: special class of spines of some three-manifolds, the oscillation does not

87: occur and there is a limit. 

88: 

89: The key is

90: to see the invariant  as a sum over surfaces in the manifold.

91: An 

92: efficient ideal triangulation \cite{JR} of the manifold is one where

93: the only normal spheres and

94: tori are links of the boundary components of the manifold. Given an efficient

95: ideal triangulation we know what the invariant should be.

96: It is a sum over surfaces carried by a spine dual to the efficient

97: triangulation. 

98: The surfaces contribute to the sum in a way that fits the modern 

99: approach to

100: normal surface theory.

101: The study of normal surfaces \cite{JR} 

102: has been augmented by looking at surfaces that

103: aren't normal, and coming to an understanding of how a surface fails to be

104: normal. 

105: The farther a surface is from being normal, the less it contributes to

106: the sum for the invariant. The higher the genus of a surface the less it

107: contributes. In a very real sense, the Turaev-Viro invariant is a measure of

108: the normal surface theory of $M$.

109: 

110: 

111: In  section \ref{prel}  we broach preliminary concepts 

112: relating to special functions, and to spinal and normal surfaces in an

113: ideal triangulation of a $3$-manifold. This is followed by  section \ref{6jdet}

114: that studies  properties and limiting behavior 

115: of the  

116: $6j$-symbols. Section \ref{norandspi} is concerned with estimates  of

117: the contributions of spinal surfaces to the state sum.

118: The final section proves the result about the convergence of the

119: infinite state sum.

120: 

121: The authors would like to thank Ian Agol, William Jaco, Marc Lackenby, Sergei

122: Matveev, 

123: Dennis Roseman and Hyam Rubinstein for enlightening conversations about normal

124: surface theory.

125: 

126: 

127: \section{Preliminaries}\label{prel}

128: \subsection{Special Functions} The formulas in this section are taken

129: from \cite{KL}, however we use the variable $t$ instead of $A$.

130: Throughout this paper $t$ is a real number with $0<t<1$.

131: There are several functions of $t$  that we will work with. 

132: The first

133: is known as {\em quantized $n$},

134: \begin{equation} [n]=\frac{t^{2n}-t^{-2n}}{t^2-t^{-2}}.\end{equation}

135: The next is just a variation on the first,

136: \begin{equation}\Delta_n=(-1)^n\frac{t^{2n+2}-t^{-2n-2}}{t^2-t^{-2}}=(-1)^n[n+1].\end{equation}

137: There is quantized factorial, defined recursively by $[0]!=1$ and

138: \begin{equation} [n]!=[n][n-1]!.\end{equation}

139: 

140: A triple of nonnegative integers $(a,b,c)$ is admissible if their sum

141: is even and they satisfy every possible triangle inequality.

142: Admissibility is the necessary and sufficient condition for the

143: existence of  a Kauffman triad on $a$, $b$ and $c$.

144: Suppose that $(a,b,c)$ is admissible.

145: Arrange $a$ points, $b$ points and

146: $c$ points on the sides of a triangle.

147:  There exists a system of disjoint

148: proper arcs  joining opposite sides of

149: the triangle having those points as their boundary.

150: Figure \ref{adm} shows the admissible triple

151: $(2,3,3)$. 

152: \begin{figure}

153: \includegraphics{adm.eps}

154: \caption{Admissible triple $(2,3,3)$.}\label{adm}

155: \end{figure}

156: The number of strands running between the family of $a$ points, and the

157: family of $b$ points is $x_1=\frac{a+b-c}{2}$, between the $b$ points and the

158: $c$ points is $x_2=\frac{c+b-a}{2}$, and  between the $a$ points and the $c$

159: points is

160: $x_3=\frac{a+c-b}{2}$. Admissibility is equivalent to the statement that all

161: three functions are nonnegative and integral. We call $x_1$, $x_2$ and

162: $x_3$ the {\em strand numbers} of the triple $(a,b,c)$. 

163: 

164: You can always add two

165: admissible triples and the result will be admissible, but you cannot always

166: subtract them. However, 

167: 

168: \begin{prop}\label{subtract}

169: Suppose that $(a,b,c)$ and $(a',b',c')$ are admissible and

170: $x_i$ and $x'_i$ are the strand numbers corresponding to the two triples.

171: If $x_i\geq x'_i$ for all $i$, then  $(a-a',b-b',c-c')$ is

172: admissible. 

173: \end{prop}

174: 

175: \proof The strand numbers are linear functions of the triples, thus

176: the strand numbers for $(a-a',b-b',c-c')$ are integral and nonnegative.

177: \qed

178: 

179: 

180: If $(a,b,c)$ is an admissible triple, define, \cite{KL}

181: \begin{equation}

182: \theta(a,b,c)=(-1)^{\frac{a+b+c}{2}}\frac{[\frac{a+b+c}{2}+1]!

183: [\frac{a+b-c}{2}]![\frac{a+c-b}{2}]![\frac{b+c-a}{2}]!}{[a]![b]![c]!}.\end{equation}

184: 

185: 

186: 

187: 

188: Suppose that a tetrahedral net has been labeled as in  Figure \ref{tet} 

189: where the letters are nonnegative integers and the triples appearing at each

190: vertex $v$ are admissible. 

191: \begin{figure}

192: %\begin{picture}(56,120)

193: \raisebox{-8pt}{\includegraphics{tet1.eps}

194: \put(-50,16){$a$}

195: \put(-60,49){$b$}

196: \put(5,49){$e$}

197: \put(-23,70){$c$}

198: \put(-15,40){$d$}

199: \put(-40,49){$f$}}

200: %\end{picture}

201: \caption{Tetrahedral net}\label{tet}

202: \end{figure}

203: The tetrahedral coefficient \cite{KL,MV} is the quantity

204: \begin{equation}\text{Tet}\begin{pmatrix} a & b & e \\ c & d &

205: f\end{pmatrix}=\end{equation}

206: \[\frac{\prod_v[x_{v,1}]![x_{v,2}]![x_{v,3}]!}{[a]![b]![c]![d]![e]![f]!}

207: \sum_{s=m}^M

208: \frac{(-1)^s[s+1]!}{[B_1-s]![B_2-s]![B_3-s]![s-A_1]![s-A_2]![s-A_3]![s-A_4]!},

209: \]

210:  where the $B_i$ are half the sums of the labels over the four cycles, the

211:  $A_i$ are half the sums of the labels at each vertex, $m$ is the maximum of

212:  the $A_i$ and $M$ is the minimum of the $B_i$.

213: The $x_{v,i}$ are the

214:  strand numbers of the admissible triple at the vertex $v$.

215: 

216: The {\em unitary $6j$ symbol} \cite{Ro} is the quantity:

217: \begin{equation} \left\{\begin{matrix} a & b & e \\ c & d &

218: f\end{matrix}\right\}_u=\frac{\text{Tet}\begin{pmatrix} a & b & e \\ c & d &

219: f\end{pmatrix}}

220: {\sqrt{\theta(a,d,e)\theta(b,c,e)\theta(a,b,f)\theta(c,d,f)}}.\end{equation}

221: A consequence of admissibility is that the denominator is a square root of a

222: positive number, so the formula is unambiguous.

223: 

224: 

225: Letting $q=t^4$, let $(x;q)_n=\prod_{i=1}^n(1-xq^{i-1})$.

226: We need the following fact \cite{GR}:

227: The function

228: \begin{equation}(x;q)_{\infty}=\prod_{i=1}^{\infty} (1-xq^{i-1})\end{equation} 

229: is well defined when $|q|<1$. In particular, $(q;q)_{\infty}$

230: is well defined.  

231: Notice that 

232: \begin{equation}\label{Delta} 

233: [n]=t^{-2n+2}\frac{1-q^{n-1}}{1-q},

234: \end{equation}

235: and

236: \begin{equation}

237: \Delta_n=(-1)^nt^{-2n}\frac{1-q^n}{1-q},  

238: \end{equation}

239: so that

240: \begin{equation}\label{fact}

241: [n]! = t^{-(n-1)n} \displaystyle\frac{(q;q)_n}{(1-q)^n},

242: \end{equation}

243: and

244: \begin{equation}\theta(a,b,c)= (-1)^{\frac{a+b+c}{2}}\frac{t^{-a-b-c}}{1-q}\  

245: \frac{(q;q)_{\frac{a+b+c}{2}+1}(q;q)_{\frac{a+b-c}{2}}

246: (q;q)_{\frac{b+c-a}{2}}(q;q)_{\frac{a+c-b}{2}}}

247: {(q;q)_a(q;q)_b(q;q)_c}.

248: \end{equation}

249: 

250: The quantities $\Delta_n$, $\theta(a,b,c)$ and 

251: $\text{Tet}\begin{pmatrix} a & b & e \\ c & d &

252: f\end{pmatrix}$ can be understood as the Kauffman brackets of colored graphs

253: \cite{KL}.

254: 

255: \subsection{Spines and Ideal Triangulations}

256: An {\em ideal triangulation}  \cite{BP} of the compact three-manifold $M$ is a 

257: union of  tetrahedra

258: joined along faces with their vertices removed so that the result is

259: homeomorphic to the interior of $M$.  

260: 

261: A surface is {\em normal} with respect

262: to the triangulation \cite{JR} if it intersects each tetrahedron in 

263: triangles and quadrilaterals (quads) as in Figure \ref{norm1}.

264: \begin{figure}

265: \includegraphics{norm1.eps}

266: \caption{Normal surface intersecting a tetrahedron}\label{norm1}

267: \end{figure}

268: Parameterize normal surfaces by their intersection

269: with the edges of the tetrahedra. Arrange these numbers in a $2\times

270: 3$ array, so that  each column of the array is the number of points of 

271: intersection

272: of the normal surface with two opposite edges of the tetrahedron. More

273: specifically, there is

274: a tetrahedral net dual to the $1$-skeleton of the tetrahedron, lying on the

275: boundary of the tetrahedron, as pictured in Figure \ref{net}. 

276: The intersection of the normal surface with the boundary of the tetrahedron 

277: is a

278: family of circles carried by this net, the number of strands carried by an

279: edge of the net is the intersection number of the normal surface with the edge

280: of the tetrahedron transverse to the particular edge of the net. We form the

281: array of nonnegative integers just as if we were indexing a tetrahedral

282: coefficient, see Figure \ref{tet}, where the label on the edge is the number

283: of strands carried by that edge.  Let

284: $C_1,C_2,C_3$ be the sums of the columns of the array, named so

285: that

286: $C_1\geq C_2 \geq C_3$.

287: \begin{figure}

288: \includegraphics{net.eps}

289: \caption{Dual tetrahedral net}\label{net}

290: \end{figure}

291: 

292: \begin{prop}\label{normalsurface}

293:  An array

294: of nonnegative integers corresponds to a normal surface if and only if

295: the integers assigned to the three edges around each face of the

296: tetrahedron form an admissible triple, and 

297: $C_1=C_2$. 

298: \end{prop}

299: \proof Think of a face of a

300: tetrahedron as a 

301: triangle, and the intersection of the normal surface with the triangle as a

302: system of arcs joining points on the three edges.

303: As we are joining the points on the three sides of the triangle by

304: nonintersecting arcs, the triple around each face must be admissible.

305:  The second condition follows from the fact that the intersection of

306:  a normal surface with any tetrahedron can

307:  only contain triangles and one type of quad. \qed

308: 

309: You cannot necessarily add normal surfaces, because if

310: two normal surfaces have different quads in the same tetrahedron, their double

311: curve sum may  no longer be normal. However, there is always a finite family of

312: normal surfaces so that every normal surface can be written as an integral sum

313: of those surfaces, with nonnegative coefficients.

314: 

315: Letting $\mathbb{N}$ denote the nonnegative integers, a {\em rational

316: cone} is the solution of

317: a family of linear homogeneous equations with integer coefficients

318: in $\mathbb{N}^k$ for some $k$.

319: An element of a rational cone is {\em irreducible} if it cannot be

320: written  as the sum of two elements of the

321: cone in a nontrivial way. It is a classical result that a rational

322: cone has only finitely many irreducible elements and they generate the cone additively. The set of

323: irreducibles is called a {\em Hilbert basis} for the cone.

324: 

325: The normal surfaces form a rational cone. The class of

326: normal surfaces is a subset of a more general class of surfaces, the

327: {\em spinal surfaces}.

328: 

329: 

330: Let \begin{equation}X=\{(x,y,z)\in \mathbb{R}^3| z=0 \ \text{or} \ (z\geq 0 \ \text{and} \

331: x=0) \ \text{or} \ (z\leq 0 \ \text{and} \ y=0) \} .\end{equation}

332: A subset $Y$ of the 3-manifold $M$ is {\em modeled} on $X$ if 

333:  for every 

334: $p \in Y$ there is an open neighborhood  $U$ of $p$, open set

335: $V\subset\mathbb{R}^3$   and

336:  a homeomorphism $\phi: U \rightarrow V$, with

337: $\phi^{-1}(X)=Y \cap U$. There is a decomposition  of $Y$ into 

338: vertices, (open) edges and (open) faces  coming from the natural 

339: decomposition of 

340: $X$ into vertices, edges and faces. 

341: 

342: We say $S \subset M$ is a {\em regular spine} \cite{Ma, Pi} if:

343: \begin{enumerate}

344: \item $S$ is  modeled on $X$.

345: \item $M -S $ is homeomorphic to $\partial M \times [0,1)$.

346: \item $S$ has at least one vertex.

347: \item Every edge of $S$ has a vertex in its closure.

348: \item Every face of $S$ is simply connected.

349: \end{enumerate}

350: 

351: \begin{prop}

352:   Ideal triangulations and regular spines are in one to one correspondence up

353:   to isotopy via duality.

354: \end{prop}

355: \proof

356: For each ideal triangulation there is a regular spine. Put a vertex 

357: in the

358: center of each tetrahedron. Join the vertices in adjacent tetrahedra by edges,

359: and then form faces of the spine that intersect the edges of the triangulation

360: transversely and 

361: are bounded by the edges of the spine. 

362: The intersection of the spine with a tetrahedron is pictured in

363: Figure \ref{spine}.

364: \begin{figure}

365: \includegraphics{spine.eps}

366: \caption{Intersection of the spine with a tetrahedron}\label{spine}

367: \end{figure}

368: Similarly for each regular spine there is an ideal triangulation, so that its

369: six edges intersect the six faces of the spine coming into the vertex 

370: transversely,

371: and each edge intersects exactly one face.\qed

372: 

373: Given a spine $S$ of $M$ and a  simple closed curve 

374: $\kappa \subset \partial M$ there is a possibly singular  annulus

375: $A_{\kappa} \subset M$ having $\kappa$ as one boundary component so that the

376: intersection of $A_{\kappa}$ 

377: with $S$ is the other boundary component of $A_{\kappa}$. 

378: The annulus is constructed by taking the closure of the points lying

379: over $\kappa$ in the 

380: product structure on $M-S$. The singularities of $A_{\kappa}$ come from the

381: fact that the map from $\partial M$ to $S$ given by following the lines of the

382: product structure is two to one along faces.

383: Since there is some ambiguity in the product structure we

384: can choose the annulus $A_{\kappa}$ so that it is in general position with

385: respect to the spine. This means its boundary  misses the vertices of the

386: spine, intersects the edges transversely and its only singular points are

387: transverse double points  occurring in the interior of the faces of the

388: spine.  If $\mathcal{C}$ is a system of disjoint  simple closed curves in 

389: $\partial M$

390: let $A_{\kappa}$, where $\kappa \in C$, be a system of disjoint annuli

391: corresponding to the curves in $C$ that is in general position with respect to

392: the spine $S$. 

393: The union $S(C)=S \cup \left( \cup_{\kappa \in C} A_{\kappa}\right)$ 

394: is called 

395: {\em the augmentation of the spine with respect to $C$}. Except for points on

396: $C$ the augmentation is still modeled on $X$, so it can be decomposed

397: into vertices, edges and faces just as a spine. If the spine is regular

398: then the faces of the augmentation are simply connected except for the

399: annular faces  with one boundary component a curve in $C$.

400: 

401: An {\em admissible coloring} of a spine is an assignment of a nonnegative 

402: integer to each face of the spine so that the integers assigned to the 

403: three faces meeting along each edge form an admissible triple. Given an

404: admissible coloring of the spine there is a {\em spinal surface} built as

405: follows. If the face $f$ carries the integer $u_f$ then take $u_f$ parallel

406: copies of $f$. Along the edges glue the faces together so that they look like

407: the Cartesian product of a triple of arcs at a vertex with an interval. The

408: triple $(2,3,3)$ occurring along an edge is shown in Figure \ref{glue}.

409: \begin{figure}

410: \includegraphics{glue.eps}

411: \caption{Building a spinal surface}\label{glue}

412: \end{figure}

413: So far, the surface constructed intersects the boundary of a small ball at 

414: each vertex in a

415: collection of circles arranged along a tetrahedral net. To finish the

416: construction,  fill in the surface

417: inside each ball with a disk for each circle in the net.

418: 

419: Topologically, the spinal surfaces are those surfaces that intersect the

420: tetrahedra in disks, so that their intersection with any face of a tetrahedron

421: consists of arcs whose endpoints lie in distinct edges of the face.

422: The spinal surfaces form an additive cone, as the sum of two admissible

423: colorings is an admissible coloring. However, Euler characteristic is not

424: always additive under sum. Clearly, spinal surfaces are a larger class

425: than the normal surfaces associated to the dual triangulation.

426: We can identify the normal surfaces inside

427: the spinal surfaces by looking at the tetrahedral net at each vertex. In

428: specific at each vertex we can define the three column sums of the tetrahedral

429: net and order them so that $C_1 \geq C_2 \geq C_3$.

430: \begin{remark}

431: By  Proposition \ref{normalsurface} the surface is normal in the dual

432: ideal triangulation if and only if at each vertex

433: $C_1=C_2$. 

434: \end{remark}

435: 

436: 

437: The spinal surfaces form a rational cone. The proper domain

438: is the Cartesian product of copies of $\mathbb{N}$, one for each strand

439: number. The color on a face is the sum of the two adjacent strand

440: numbers along an edge of the face. The equations defining the cone

441: come from the 

442: requirement that the computed color of a face must be the same no

443: matter what edge of the face you compute it along. Thus we have the

444: following: 

445: \begin{fact}

446: There is a set of primitive spinal surfaces $\{F_i\}$ so that

447: every spinal surface can be written as a nonnegative  sum of the

448: $\{F_i\}$'s.

449: \end{fact}

450: Suppose now that $C$ is a system of disjoint simple closed curves in $\partial

451: M$ and $S(C)$ is an augmentation of the spine with respect to $C$. An

452: admissible coloring of $S(C)$ is defined the same way as an admissible coloring

453: of a spine except that the annular faces can only carry the color $1$. There

454: is once again a correspondence between admissible colorings and surfaces, but

455: now the surfaces have boundary equal to the union of the curves in $C$. 

456: 

457: In order to understand the Euler characteristic of a surface carried by a

458: spine or an augmented spine we need to understand how many circles there are

459: in a colored tetrahedral net.

460: 

461: \begin{prop}

462:   Suppose that a tetrahedral net has column sums $C_1 \geq C_2 \geq C_3$. 

463: The number of circles in the net is $\gcd{(C_1-C_2,C_1-C_3)}/2

464: +C_2+C_3-C_1 $. 

465: \end{prop}

466: 

467: %We need to estimate the Euler characteristic of a spinal surface.

468: 

469: %\begin{theorem}

470: %  If $F$ is a spinal surface, let $u_f$ be the color assigned to the face $f$

471:  % to define $F$, let $C_{v,1}\geq C_{v,2}\geq C_{v,3}$

472: %to be its column sums at each vertex, and let  If $x_F$ is the Euler characteristic of

473: %$F$ then 

474: %\[ x_F\geq \sum_f u_f -\sum_v \frac{1}{4}(C_{1,v}-C_{2,v})(C_{1,v}-C_{3,v})

475: %+C_{1,v}/2.\]

476: %\end{theorem}

477: 

478: %The theorem will follow from the following:

479: 

480: %\begin{lemma}

481:  % Given a tetrahedral net with curves running parallel along each edge so that

482:  % the column sums of the numbers of edges are $C_{1}\geq C_{2}\geq C_{3}$,

483: %then the number of circles in in the net is greater than or equal to

484: %\[ \frac{-1}{4}(C_1-C_2)(C_1-C_3)+\frac{1}{2}(C_2+C_3).\]

485: %\end{lemma}

486: 

487: \proof Unless

488: a tetrahedral net is of the form 

489: \begin{equation} 

490: \begin{pmatrix}

491:   a & b & a+b \\ a & b & a+b 

492: \end{pmatrix}\end{equation}

493: with $a$ and $b$ nonzero

494: then there is always a simple closed curve in the net that is the boundary of

495: one of the faces of the tetrahedron. 

496: 

497: %If you remove this from the net, the quadratic part of the

498: %right hand side is fixed and the linear part goes down by $1$. Hence the

499: %inequality is proved if we can establish it for nets like the one above.

500: %In this case the number of circles can be seen to be $\gcd{(a,b)}$. Hence

501: %we are trying to prove that 

502: %\[ \gcd{(a,b)}\geq \frac{-1}{4}(2a)(2b)+\frac{1}{2}(2a+2b). \]

503: %Since $\gcd{(a,b)},a,b \geq 1$ we really just need to e show that

504: %\[ 1\geq -ab+a+b\]

505: %on the domain in the plane $a,b\geq 1$. This is a straightforward calculus

506: %problem. \qed

507: 

508: Removing a  curve that bounds a face  does not change

509: $C_1-C_2$ or $C_1-C_3$, but $C_2+C_3-C_1$ is reduced by one. Remove

510: such curves until there are no more curves that bound faces. 

511: The remaining net will be of the form above.

512: If $\gcd{(C_1-C_2,C_1-C_3)}=2$ then the system consists of a single

513: curve. More generally, the number of components

514: is $\gcd{(a,b)}=\frac{\gcd{(C_1-C_2,C_1-C_3)}}{2}$. \qed

515: 

516: From this proof we see that the net is made up of circles that are

517: boundaries of faces along with multiple copies of a single type of circle that

518: appears in a tetrahedral net of type

519: \begin{equation} \begin{pmatrix}

520:   a & b & a+b \\ a & b & a+b 

521: \end{pmatrix}\end{equation}

522: where $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime. Alternatively, the boundary of a

523: simplex with its vertices removed is a four times punctured sphere. Any simple

524: closed curve is either boundary parallel or separates the surface into two

525: pairs of pants. The dearth of disjoint systems of simple closed curves

526: on a pair of pants causes all curves that are not triangles to be

527: parallel. The $a$ and $b$ can be understood in terms of geometric intersection

528: numbers with crosscuts.

529: Name such curves by the pair

530: $(a,b)$ where $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime and $a\leq b$.

531:  For each such

532: pair there are six or three different ways (depending on the

533: symmetries of the particular curve type) of labeling the tetrahedron

534: corresponding to the curve of type $(a,b)$.

535: We say that 

536: two $(a,b)$ curves are

537: {\em non-conflicting} if the curves are parallel in a regular neighborhood of

538: the $1$-skeleton of the tetrahedral net. 

539: 

540: \begin{prop} Euler 

541: characteristic of

542: spinal surfaces is additive when the two surfaces have the same $(a,b)$ types

543: at each vertex and those types are non-conflicting.

544: \end{prop}

545: \proof The surface that corresponds to the sum of the colorings is the

546: disjoint union of the surfaces corresponding to the two colorings. \qed

547: 

548: The type $(0,1)$ is a quad, the type

549: $(1,1)$ corresponds to an almost normal

550: surface \cite{JR}. Further types wind more and more around the 

551: tetrahedral net before closing up. 

552: 

553: 

554: 

555: %The proposition follows from 

556: 

557: %\begin{lemma}

558: % Given a tetrahedral net with curves running parallel along each edge so that

559: % the column sums of the numbers of edges are $C_{1}\geq C_{2}\geq C_{3}$,

560: %then the number of circles in in the net is greater than or equal to

561: %\[ \frac{-1}{4}(C_1-C_2)(C_1-C_3)-\frac{1}{4}(C_2+C_3)-\frac{3}{4}C_1.\]

562: %\end{lemma}

563: 

564: %\proof Notice that $\frac{\gcd{(C_1-C_2,C_1-C_3)}}{2}\geq 1$ so the number of

565: %circles is greater than or equal to $1+C_2+C_3-C_1$. If

566: %\[1+C_2+C_3-C_1 \geq

567: %\frac{-1}{4}(C_1-C_2)(C_1-C_3)-\frac{1}{4}(C_2+C_3)-

568: %\frac{3}{4}C_1,\]

569: %then we will have proved the inequality. 

570: %Putting everything on the left hand side, the inequality to prove is:

571: %\[

572: %\frac{1}{4}(C_1-C_2)(C_1-C_3)+\frac{5}{4}(C_2+C_3)-\frac{1}{4}C_1+1\geq

573: %0.\]

574: %Let $a=(C_1-C_2)/2$ and $b=(C_1-C_3)/2$. The inequality becomes,

575: %\[ (a-1)(b-1)+\frac{3}{4}(C_1+C_2+C_3).\]

576: %As long as $(a-1)(b-1)>0$ the inequality is clear. Since $b\geq a$ we

577: %only need to understand the case when $a=0$. Going back to the formula

578: %in terms of $C_i$ we see that $C_1=C_2$ and the inequality is clear.

579: 

580: \section{$6j$-symbol Details}\label{6jdet}

581: \subsection{Bounding the $6j$-symbols.}

582: 

583: We begin with a universal bound on the size of the unitary

584: $6j$--symbols in terms of their entries.

585: \begin{prop}\label{6jest}

586: Let $C_1\geq C_2\geq C_3$ be the column sums of the unitary $6j$--symbol

587: $\left\{\begin{matrix} a & b & e \\ c & d &f\end{matrix}\right\}_u$ and

588: assume that $0<t<1$.  There exists a function $K(t)>0$ such that 

589: \begin{equation}\label{fundest}

590: \left|\left\{\begin{matrix} a&b&e \\ c&d&f\end{matrix}\right\}_u\right|

591: \leq K(t)t^{\frac{1}{2}(C_1-C_2)(C_1-C_3)+C_1}.

592: \end{equation}

593: \end{prop} 

594: \proof

595: After collecting and canceling terms,

596: $\left|\left\{\begin{matrix} a&b&e \\ c&d&f\end{matrix}\right\}_u\right|$

597: is equal to 

598: \begin{equation}

599: \frac{\sqrt{\prod_v\left|[x_{v,1}]![x_{v,2}]![x_{v,3}]!\right|}}

600: {\sqrt{[\frac{a+d+e}{2}+1]![\frac{b+c+e}{2}+1]![\frac{a+b+f}{2}+1]!

601: [\frac{c+d+f}{2}+1]!}} 

602: \left|\sum_{s= m}^{M}\frac{(-1)^s[s+1]!}

603: {\prod_{i=1}^3[B_i-s]!\prod_{j=1}^4[s-A_j]!}\right|.

604: \end{equation}

605: Using (\ref{fact}) this is further equal to

606: \begin{equation}\label{first}

607: t^p(1-q)^2

608: \sqrt{\frac{\prod_v (q;q)_{x_{v,1}} (q;q)_{x_{v,2}} (q;q)_{x_{v,3}}}

609: {(q;q)_{\frac{a+d+e}{2}+1} (q;q)_{\frac{b+c+e}{2}+1}

610:   (q;q)_{\frac{a+b+f}{2}+1} (q;q)_{\frac{c+d+f}{2}+1}}} \end{equation}

611: \[

612: \left|\sum_{s=m}^M t^{p_s} \frac{1}{1-q}

613: \frac{(-1)^s (q;q)_{s+1}}

614: {\prod_{i=1}^3(q;q)_{B_i-s}\prod_{j=1}^4(q;q)_{s-A_j} }  \right|.

615: \]

616: Here 

617: \begin{equation}\label{p}

618:  p=\frac{1}{2}(-a^2-b^2-c^2-d^2-e^2-f^2 +ae+ad+ab+af +be+bc+bf +ce+cd+cf + de+df)

619: \end{equation}

620: \[+a+b+c+d+e+f

621: \]

622: and 

623: \begin{equation}

624: p_s=6s^2+ a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2+e^2+f^2\end{equation} 

625: \[+ af+ac+ae+fc+fe+ce+be+bd+bf+ed+df+ab+ad+bc+cd\]

626: \[-2s(1+2a+2b+2c+2d+2e+2f).

627: \]

628: After completing the square, $p_s$ is

629: \begin{equation}\label{ps}

630: p_s=6\left(s-\frac{a+b+c+d+e+f+\frac{1}{2}}{3}\right)^2 

631: +\frac{1}{3}(a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2+e^2+f^2)\end{equation}

632: \[- \frac{1}{3}(af+ae+ac+ad+ab+fe+fc+ce+be+bd+bf+ed+df+bc+cd)

633: -\frac{2}{3}(a+b+c+d+e+f)-\frac{1}{6}.

634: \]

635: Combining all the factors of $(1-q)$ outside and the powers of $t$ inside

636: the sum,

637: formula (\ref{first}) can be simplified to

638: \begin{equation}\label{next}

639: (1-q)

640: \sqrt{\frac{\prod_v (q;q)_{x_{v,1}} (q;q)_{x_{v,2}} (q;q)_{x_{v,3}}}

641: {(q;q)_{\frac{a+d+e}{2}+1} (q;q)_{\frac{b+c+e}{2}+1}

642:   (q;q)_{\frac{a+b+f}{2}+1} (q;q)_{\frac{c+d+f}{2}+1}}} 

643: \end{equation}

644: \[

645: \left|\sum_{s=m}^M t^{p'_s}

646: \frac{(-1)^s (q;q)_{s+1}}

647: {\prod_{i=1}^3(q;q)_{B_i-s}\prod_{j=1}^4(q;q)_{s-A_j} }  \right|.

648: \]

649: where

650: \begin{equation}\label{power}

651: p'_s=6\left(s-\frac{a+b+c+d+e+f+\frac{1}{2}}{3}\right)^2 

652: -\frac{1}{6}(a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2+e^2+f^2)\end{equation}

653: \[

654: -\frac{1}{3}(ac+fe+bd)+\frac{1}{6}(ad+ae+de+bc+be+ce+ab+af+bf+cd+cf+df)

655: \]

656: \[+\frac{1}{3}(a+b+c+d+e+f)-\frac{1}{6}.

657: \]

658: The formula (\ref{next})  is the absolute value of an alternating

659: sum from $s=m$ to $s=M$. 

660: Take the quotient whose numerator is the summand

661: at $s+1$ and whose denominator is the summand at $s$, the result is,

662: \begin{equation} (-1)t^{12s-4(a+b+c+d+e+f)+4}

663: \frac{(1-q^{s+2})\prod_{i=1}^3(1-q^{B_i-s})}{\prod_{j=1}^4(1-q^{s+1-A_j}) }.\end{equation}

664: Take the absolute value, with

665: the effect of removing the (-1). In order to see that each one of these

666: quotients is smaller than the last, take the logarithm of the

667: result, giving:

668: \begin{equation}\label{loged}

669:  (12s-4(a+b+c+d+e+f)+4)\log{(t)}+\log(1-q^{s+2})

670: +\sum_{i=1}^3 \log{(1-q^{B_i-s})}

671: -\sum_{j=1}^4 \log{(1-q^{s+1-A_j})}

672: \end{equation}

673: Apply the Taylor series for $\log{(1-x)}$ to get

674: \begin{equation}\label{log}

675:  (12s-4(a+b+c+d+e+f)+4)\log{(t)}+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n}\left(

676: -q^{n(s+2)}-\sum_{i=1}^3q^{n(B_i-s)}+\sum_{j=1}^4 q^{n(s+1-A_j)}

677: \right).

678: \end{equation}

679: As $t<1$ the first term gets smaller as $s$ increases. We analyze 

680: the sum over $n$ in (\ref{log}) term by term. As $n$ gets larger, $q^{n(s+2)}$ gets

681: smaller so $-q^{n(s+2)}$ gets larger. However, for each $i$ and $j$, 

682: $-q^{n(B_i-s)}$

683: and $+q^{n(s+1-A_j)}$ get smaller as $s$ increases. Furthermore the powers of

684:   $q$ appearing in any $q^{n(s+1-A_j)}$ are smaller than in $-q^{n(s+2)}$

685:     which means that the amount any one of them is decreasing is greater than

686:     the amount that $-q^{n(s+2)}$ is increasing, 

687: so each term is getting smaller. Therefore

688:     the sum over all $n$ is getting smaller and the quotients are decreasing.

689: Thus, the absolute value of the sum has a

690: unique maximum. 

691: Since the sum is alternating we  conclude that the absolute value of the

692: summand is less than or

693: equal to the largest term.

694: For any $n$, using $(q;q)_n\leq 1$ in the numerator and

695: $(q;q)_n\geq (q;q)_{\infty}$ in the denominator of (\ref{next})

696: together with 

697: the fact that the power of $t$ is the

698: largest when the exponent is the smallest, the  expression in equation

699: (\ref{next}) is smaller than 

700: \begin{equation}

701: (1-q)

702: \sqrt{\frac{1}{\left((q;q)_{\infty}\right)^4}}

703: t^{\mathrm{min}}

704: \frac{1}{\left((q;q)_{\infty}\right)^7},

705: \end{equation}

706: where ${\mathrm{min}}$ is the smallest value of $p'_s$.

707: Analyzing (\ref{power}) we can see that $p'_s$ is minimal when

708:  $s=M=(C_2+C_3)/2$.

709: Substituting we see that  

710: \begin{equation}

711: p'_s\geq \frac{(C_1-C_2)(C_1-C_3)}{2}+C_1.

712: \end{equation}

713: The final estimate is

714: \begin{equation} 

715: \left|\left\{\begin{matrix} a&b&e \\ c&d&f\end{matrix}\right\}_u\right|

716: \leq

717: \frac{1-q}{\left((q;q)_{\infty}\right)^9}\cdot

718: t^{\frac{(C_1-C_2)(C_1-C_3)}{2}+C_1}. 

719: \end{equation}

720: \qed

721:                                            

722:          

723:          

724: \subsection{ Some  important limits}

725: 

726: Let $\begin{pmatrix} a & b & e \\ c & d & f \end{pmatrix}$ be an admissible

727: labeling of the edges of a tetrahedron. For any nonnegative integer $k$, the

728: labelings 

729: $\begin{pmatrix} a+2k & b+2k & e+2k \\ c+2k & d+2k & f+2k

730: \end{pmatrix}$, 

731:   $\begin{pmatrix} a+2k & b+2k & e \\ c+2k & d+2k & f+2k

732: \end{pmatrix}$, and

733: $\begin{pmatrix} a+2k & b+2k & e \\ c+2k & d+2k & f

734: \end{pmatrix}$ are admissible.

735: 

736: \begin{prop}\label{lim}

737:   Given an admissible labeling

738: $\begin{pmatrix} a & b & e \\ c & d & f \end{pmatrix}$

739:  of a tetrahedral net,

740: the sequences

741: \begin{equation}\label{seq1}

742:  t^{-4k}\left\{ \begin{matrix} a+ 2k & b + 2k & e +2k \\ c + 2k & d +2k & f

743:       +2k \end{matrix} \right\}_u, 

744: \end{equation}

745: \begin{equation}\label{seq2} 

746: t^{-4k}\left\{ \begin{matrix} a+ 2k & b + 2k & e  \\ c + 2k & d +2k & f

747:       +2k \end{matrix} \right\}_u, 

748: \end{equation}

749: and

750: \begin{equation}\label{seq3}

751:  t^{-4k}\left\{ \begin{matrix} a+ 2k & b + 2k & e  \\ c + 2k & d +2k & f

752:        \end{matrix} \right\}_u 

753: \end{equation}

754: are  convergent. 

755: \end{prop}

756: 

757: We will only prove the first limit exists, the other two are similar.

758: The proof is based on the following elementary lemma.

759: 

760: \begin{lemma}\label{altsum}

761:   Suppose that $w(k)_n$ is a sequence of sequences so that for each fixed $k$,

762:   the sequence is alternating and converges to zero, and for fixed $n$ the

763:   sequence is convergent. Suppose further that there exists $N$ so

764:   that, independent of $k$, if $n\geq N$ then $|w(k)_n|\geq |w(k)_{n+1}|$.

765:  The sequence  \begin{equation}w(k)_{\infty}=\sum_{n} w(k)_n\end{equation} 

766: (depending on $k$) is convergent.

767: \end{lemma}

768: 

769: \proof This is an application of the proof of the alternating series test.

770: \qed

771: 

772: \proof (of  Proposition \ref{lim}) 

773: Recall Formula (\ref{next}). The strand numbers increase by $1$ each time $k$

774: increases by $1$ so the $(q;q)_{x_{v,i}}$ all converge to  

775: $(q;q)_{\infty}$ as $k$ goes to infinity. Similarly, the functions in the

776: denominator inside the radical all converge to $(q;q)_{\infty}$. Hence to 

777: prove the convergence we must only understand the quantities inside the sum.

778: 

779: Let $M(k)$, $m(k)$, $A_j(k)$, $B_i(k)$ and $p'(k)_s$ be the quantities

780: in (\ref{next})

781: associated to

782: \begin{equation}\left\{ \begin{matrix} a+ 2k & b + 2k & e +2k \\ 

783: c + 2k & d +2k & f +2k \end{matrix} \right\}_u,\end{equation}

784: as in the proof of Proposition \ref{6jest}. 

785: Let $n=M(k)-s$, and let

786: \begin{equation} w(k)_n=t^{p'(k)_s-4k}

787: \frac{(-1)^s (q;q)_{s+1}}

788: {\prod_{i=1}^3(q;q)_{B_i(k)-s}\prod_{j=1}^4(q;q)_{s-A_j(k)} } \end{equation}

789: for $n\leq M(k)-m(k)$, and $w(k)_n=0$ for $n>M(k)-m(k)$.

790: 

791: As $k$ increases by $1$, the $B_i(k)$ increase by $4$ and the $A_j(k)$ only

792: increase by $3$. So, $M(k)=M(0)+4k$, $m(k)=m(0)+3k$, $B_i(k)=B_i(0)+4k$, and 

793: $A_j(k)=A_j(0)+3k$. When $n=0$, $s=M(k)$ and 

794: \begin{equation}p'(k)_{M(k)}=\frac{(C(k)_1-C(k)_2)(C(k)_1-C(k)_3)}{2}

795:   +C(k)_1,\end{equation} 

796: which increases by $4$ when $k$ increases by $1$, so 

797: $t^{-4k+p'(k)_{M(k)}}$ is a constant.

798: We see that $w(k)_0$ is convergent. A

799: similar analysis

800: shows that for fixed $n$ the sequence $w(k)_n$ is convergent. The series is

801: clearly alternating.

802: 

803: We have already seen that for fixed $k$ the sequence $|w(k)_n|$ can have at 

804: most one

805: maximum, we just need to see that there is a bound on how big $n$ is at that

806: maximum  depending only on $t$, and 

807: $\begin{pmatrix} a & b & e \\ c & d & f \end{pmatrix}$. We do this by

808: looking at $\log{|w(k)_{n}/w(k)_{n+1}|}$ and seeing when it becomes

809: nonnegative. When $n>M(0)-m(0)+k$ then $w(k)_n=0$, so the maximum of

810: $|w(k)_n|$ has already occured. Hence we only need to understand the case when

811: the quotient $w(k)_{n}/w(k)_{n+1}$ is well defined.

812: To this end we substitute into Formula (\ref{loged}) to get,

813: \begin{equation}\label{logthing}

814:  \log{|w(k)_{n}/w(k)_{n+1}|}=

815: (12(M(0)-n)-4(a+b+c+d+e+f)+4)\log{(t)}\end{equation}

816: \[+\log(1-q^{M(0)+4k-n+2})

817: -\sum_{i=1}^4\log{(1-q^{M(0)+k-n+1-A_j(0)})}+\sum_{i=1}^3

818: \log{(1-q^{(B_i(0)-M(0)+n)})}.\]

819: Choose $N$ large enough so that, 

820: \begin{equation}\label{beegtrouble}

821: (12(M(0)-N)-4(a+b+c+d+e+f)+4)\log{(t)} >\end{equation}

822: \[-\log(1-q^{M(0)+4N-N+2})-\sum_{i=1}^3\log(1-q^{M(0)-N+2}).

823: \]

824: Notice that $-\sum_{i=1}^4\log{(1-q^{M(0)+k-n+1-A_j(0)})}>0$. 

825: Inequality (\ref{beegtrouble}) guarantees that the expression

826: (\ref{logthing}) is positive when 

827: $k=N$. 

828: Increasing k in $-\log(1-q^{M(0)+4k-N+2})$

829:  makes it smaller. Thus, by the argument from the proof of

830:  Proposition \ref{6jest}, the sequence $|w_k(n)|$ is monotone decreasing for

831: $n \geq N$. 

832: %Differentiating with respect to $k$ we get

833: %\[ \sum_{j=1}^4

834: %\frac{q^{M(0)+k-n+1-A(0)_j}\log{(q)}}{1-q^{M(0)+k-n+1-A(0)_j}}-

835:  %\sum_{i=1}^3\frac{q^{B(0)_i-M(0)+n}\log{(q)}}{1-q^{B(0)_i-M(0)+n}}.\]

836: %Only the terms corresponding to $A(0)_j$ depend on $k$ and as $k$ gets larger,

837: %they get closer to zero, the other terms add up to a positive number, so there

838: %is a $K$ so that when $k\geq K$ this is

839: %positive. This means that if we choose $N$ so that all the sequences with

840: %$k\leq K$ have $|w(k)_n|$ monotone decreasing for $n\geq N$, it will be true

841: %for all $k\geq K$. 

842: 

843: We have established the criterion for convergence from  Lemma \ref{altsum}.

844: \qed

845: 

846: Let the  limit of the  sequence (\ref{seq1}) from Proposition

847: \ref{lim} be denoted by: 

848: \begin{equation}\label{sixjinf}

849: \left\{\begin{matrix} a & b & e \\ c & d & f \end{matrix}\right\}_{\infty}

850: =\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} t^{-4k}\left\{ \begin{matrix} a+ 2k & b +

851:     2k & e +2k \\ c + 2k & d +2k & f 

852:       +2k \end{matrix} \right\}_u.

853: \end{equation}

854: Similarly, denote the limits of the sequences (\ref{seq2}) and

855: (\ref{seq3}) by 

856: \begin{equation}\label{sixjinf1}

857: \left\{\begin{matrix} a & b & e_0 \\ c & d & f \end{matrix}\right\}_{\infty}

858: =\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}

859: t^{-4k}\left\{ \begin{matrix} a+ 2k & b + 2k & e  \\ c + 2k & d +2k & f

860:       +2k \end{matrix} \right\}_u, 

861: \end{equation}

862: and

863: \begin{equation}\label{sixjinf2}

864: \left\{\begin{matrix} a & b & e_0 \\ c & d & f_0 \end{matrix}\right\}_{\infty}

865: =\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}

866:  t^{-4k}\left\{ \begin{matrix} a+ 2k & b + 2k & e  \\ c + 2k & d +2k & f

867:        \end{matrix} \right\}_u. 

868: \end{equation}

869: 

870: \begin{remark}

871: \begin{equation}

872:  \left\{\begin{matrix} a & b & e \\ c & d & f \end{matrix}\right\}_{\infty}

873: = 

874: (1-q)(q;q)_{\infty} \sum_{u=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{\frac{C_2+C_3}{2}+u} 

875: \end{equation}

876: \[t^{6u^2+2(2C_1-C_2-C_3+1)u+\frac{(C_1-C_2)(C_1-C_3)}{2}+C_1}

877: \frac{1}{(q;q)_u(q;q)_{u+\frac{C_1-C_2}{2}}(q;q)_{u+\frac{C_1-C_3}{2}}}\]

878: 

879: The limits (\ref{sixjinf1}) and (\ref{sixjinf2}) are zero unless $a+c=b+d$.

880: \end{remark}

881: 

882: 

883: 

884: 

885: \section{Normal and Spinal Surfaces}\label{norandspi}

886: \subsection{ Analysis of the contribution of a surface}

887: For the remainder of this paper

888: $M$ will be a compact three-manifold with

889: non-empty connected  

890: boundary. Although the method works for a more general class of manifolds,

891: this assumption simplifies the arithmetic so that the ideas behind the

892: estimates are in the foreground.

893: 

894: \begin{definition} An ideal

895: triangulation $T$ whose only normal  spheres and  tori are the link of a

896: vertex is {\bf efficient}. An ideal triangulation

897: is {\bf $0$-efficient}

898: if and only if the only embedded, normal $2$-spheres are vertex

899: linking. 

900: \end{definition}

901: The $0$-efficient triangulations were studied in \cite{JR}. In particular,

902: it is shown there that any triangulation of a closed, orientable

903: irreducible $3$-manifold can be modified to a $0$-efficient

904: triangulation, or it can be shown that the $3$-manifold is one of

905: $S^3$, ${\mathbb R}P^3$ or $L(3,1)$. It is also shown that any

906: triangulation of a compact, orientable, irreducible and boundary

907: irreducible $3$-manifold with non-empty boundary can be modified to a

908: $0$-efficient triangulation. In the announced sequel to \cite{JR}

909: authors explore the concept of {\bf $1$-efficient manifolds}. They show that

910: the triangulations of irreducible, atoroidal, closed $3$-manifolds can

911: be obtained so that in addition to being $0$-efficient,  any

912: embedded normal torus is of a very special form or the $3$-manifold is

913: $S^3$, a lens space or a small Seifert fiber space.

914: 

915: Assume that $M$ has an efficient triangulation $T$.

916: Suppose that $S$ is the spine dual to $T$.  

917: Let $F$ be a surface carried by $S$. It is induced by an admissible

918: coloring of the 

919: spine. Let  $u_f$ denote the color assigned to the  

920: face $f$.

921: At each edge $e$ the three faces sharing that edge carry colors 

922: $a_e$, $b_e$ and $c_e$.

923: At each vertex there is a corresponding coloring of a tetrahedral net,

924: $ \left(\begin{matrix}a_v & b_v & e_v \\c_v & d_v & f_v

925:   \end{matrix}\right)$. 

926: Denote the column sums at vertex $v$ by $C_{1,v}\geq C_{2,v}\geq C_{3,v}$.

927: 

928: We can form the three strand numbers at each edge: 

929: $x_{e,1}=\frac{a_e+b_e-c_e}{2}$, $x_{e,2}=\frac{c_e+b_e-a_e}{2}$  and 

930: $x_{e,3}=\frac{a_e+c_e-b_e}{2}$. 

931: These are in fact linear functionals on the

932: space of spinal surfaces.  There is an arbitrariness to the choice of

933: which function is which, so fix this choice along each edge once and for

934: all. 

935: Similarly, at each vertex

936: we can form three linear functionals $S_{1,v}$, $S_{2,v}$ and $S_{3,v}$

937: corresponding to the column sums of the tetrahedral net at the

938: vertex. 

939: \begin{definition} If $C$ is a (possibly empty) set of simple closed

940: curves on the boundary of $M$, let $\mathcal{S}(C)$ denote the set

941: of spinal surfaces with respect to an augmentation of the spine

942: corresponding to $C$. 

943: For brevity, let $\mathcal{S}= \mathcal{S}(\emptyset)$.

944: A {\bf sector} $\mathcal{F}$ is determined  by fixing the

945: order of the values of the $S_{i,v}$ at each vertex (that is, deciding

946: which of the $S_{i,v}$'s is the largest column sum, $C_{1,v}$, etc.). 

947: \end{definition}  

948: Specifying these orderings  at all vertices breaks the space of 

949: spinal surfaces into $6^{\#v}$

950: sectors. 

951: Given any infinite sequence of spinal surfaces we can find a

952: subsequence that lives in one sector, because there are only finitely

953: many sectors.

954: 

955: \begin{prop}\label{subsurf}

956:   Suppose that the spinal surface $F$ lies in the sector $\mathcal{F}$.

957: Then every connected component of $F$ lies in the same sector.

958: \end{prop}

959: 

960: \proof Recall that the intersection of a spinal surface with a tetrahedron

961: consists of triangles along with one family of disks having a particular curve

962: type $(a,b)$. The triangles contribute the same to each column of the corresponding

963: symbol so any restriction on the sector comes from the curve type. Since all

964: components of $F$ are made up of a subset of the components of the

965: intersection of $F$ with each tetrahedron, they lie in any sector that

966: $F$ lies in (and maybe some other sectors too.) \qed 

967: \begin{definition}

968: A spinal surface $F$ is {\bf $k$-peelable} if $k$ is the maximum

969: non-negative integer such that $F$ can be written as

970: $F=F'+k\cdot\partial M$.

971: Use $\mathcal{S}_k(C)$

972: to denote the set of all surfaces in $\mathcal{S}(C)$ that are $k$-peelable.

973: Similarly, use $\mathcal{F}_k(C)$ to denote the $k$-peelable surfaces

974: in the sector $\mathcal{F}(C)$.

975: \end{definition}

976: 

977: There is a one-to-one correspondence between $\mathcal{S}_0$ and

978: $\mathcal{S}_{k}$ for any $k\geq 0$ given by $u_f\rightarrow u_f+2k$

979: for every $f$. Furthermore, this correspondence preserves sectors.

980: 

981: \begin{prop}

982: A spinal  surface is in $\cS_0$ 

983: if and only if some $x_{v,i}=0$. 

984: \end{prop}

985: 

986: \proof This follows from  Proposition \ref{subtract} (on being able

987: to subtract admissible triples). \qed 

988: 

989: Consequently, a spinal surface is $k$-peelable if and only if   

990: the minimum over all strand numbers $x_{v,i}$ is equal to $k$.

991: 

992: 

993: 

994: 

995: Let $Q:\mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$

996: be the function that assigns to each surface $F$,

997: \begin{equation}\label{Q} 

998: Q(F)= \sum_f -2u_f +

999: \sum_v \frac{1}{2}(C_{1,v}-C_{2,v})(C_{1,v}-C_{3,v})+C_{1,v}.

1000: \end{equation}

1001: 

1002: \begin{prop} \label{cont}

1003: \begin{itemize}

1004: \item[{\bf(i)}] 

1005: $\displaystyle{ {-2\chi(F)}\leq Q(F)}$

1006: \item[{\bf(ii)}]  The function $Q(F)$ is super additive on any

1007: sector. That is, for any surfaces $F$, $F'$ lying in the same sector, if

1008: $C_{i,v}$ are the column sums corresponding to $F$ and $C'_{i,v}$ are the

1009: column sums corresponding to $F'$ then

1010: \begin{equation} Q(F+F')=Q(F)+Q(F')+

1011: (C_{1,v}-C_{2,v})(C'_{1,v}-C'_{3,v})/2+(C'_{1,v}-C'_{2,v})

1012: (C_{1,v}-C_{3,v})/2\end{equation}

1013: \[\geq Q(F)+Q(F')\]

1014: \item[{\bf(iii)}]  $Q(F)$ is bounded below on $\mathcal{S}_0$.

1015: \item[{\bf(iv)}]  The level sets of $Q(F)$ on $\mathcal{S}_0$ are finite.

1016: \item[{\bf(v)}]  The cardinality of the level sets of $Q$  on $\mathcal{S}_0$

1017:   grows at most polynomially in the level.

1018: \end{itemize}

1019: \end{prop}

1020: 

1021: \proof

1022: \begin{itemize}

1023: 

1024: \item[{\bf(i)}]  The Euler characteristic of the surface $F$ corresponding to the

1025: coloring $u_f$ is

1026: \begin{equation} \sum_f u_f -\sum_e \frac{a_e+b_e+c_e}{2}+\sum_v 

1027: \gcd{(C_{1,v}-C_{2,v},C_{1,v}-C_{3,v})}/2

1028: +C_{2,v}+C_{3,v}-C_{1,v} \end{equation}

1029: Because each edge has exactly two ends we can redistribute the sum to

1030: eliminate the sum over the edges. This yields,

1031: \begin{equation}\label{eq1}  

1032: \sum_f u_f+\sum_v 

1033: \gcd{(C_{1,v}-C_{2,v},C_{1,v}-C_{3,v})}/2

1034: +\frac{1}{2}C_{2,v}+\frac{1}{2}C_{3,v}-\frac{3}{2}C_{1,v}.

1035: \end{equation}

1036: Comparing (\ref{eq1}) to the right hand side of the inequality from

1037: item {\bf(i)} 

1038: we see that it is enough

1039: to show that for each vertex $v$,

1040: \begin{equation}\label{eq2}

1041: -\gcd{(C_{1,v}-C_{2,v},C_{1,v}-C_{3,v})}-C_{2,v}-C_{3,v}+3C_{1,v} \leq 

1042: \frac{1}{2}(C_{1,v}-C_{2,v})(C_{1,v}-C_{3,v})

1043: +C_{1,v}.

1044: \end{equation}

1045: In the case that $C_{1,v}-C_{2,v}=0$ this reduces to 

1046: $C_{1,v}\leq C_{1,v}$ thus the proposition is true. Assume that

1047: $C_{1,v}-C_{2,v}>0$. The triples at each vertex are admissible so

1048: $C_{1,v}-C_{2,v} \leq C_{1,v}-C_{3,v}$ are even and positive. Hence,

1049: $\gcd{(C_{1,v}-C_{2,v},C_{1,v}-C_{3,v})}\geq 2$. Substituting this in

1050: (\ref{eq2})

1051: and putting everything on the right side, the inequality is equivalent to:

1052: \begin{equation} \frac{1}{2}(C_{1,v}-C_{2,v}-2)(C_{1,v}-C_{3,v}-2)\geq 0.\end{equation}

1053: Since we are assuming $C_{1,v}-C_{2,v}\geq 2$ and

1054: $C_{1,v}-C_{3,v}\geq 2$ this is true. 

1055: 

1056: \item[{\bf(ii)}]  This is a direct computation from the formula. 

1057: 

1058: In what follows we would like to use this formula, to that end we write it

1059: more compactly as follows. Letting

1060: $F$ and $F'$ be surfaces in the same sector with

1061: $\delta_v=C_{1,v}-C_{2,v}$, $\gamma_v=C_{1,v}-C_{3,v}$ being  associated with

1062: $F$ and  $\delta_v'=C_{1,v}'-C_{2,v}'$, $\gamma_v'=C_{1,v}'-C_{3,v}'$ being associated

1063: with $F'$, we have,

1064: \begin{equation} Q(F+F')= Q(F)+Q(F')+\sum_v \frac{\delta_v\gamma_v'+\delta_v'\gamma_v}{2}.\end{equation}

1065: 

1066: 

1067: \item[{\bf(iii)}] Since there are only

1068: finitely many sectors, if  $Q$ is bounded below on each

1069: sector, then it is bounded below on $\mathcal{S}_0$.

1070: So assume we are working in a particular sector.

1071: Suppose that $Q$ is not bounded below.

1072: Starting with a surface with $Q<0$ we demonstrate the existence of

1073: another surface of a particular

1074: form with smaller $Q(F)$.

1075: We then bound $Q$ below on surfaces of that form.

1076: 

1077: Suppose that $Q(F)<0$. Decompose $F$ as a union

1078: $F_p$  of components with positive Euler characteristic 

1079: and a union $F_n$ components with negative Euler

1080: characteristic. 

1081: Since $Q(F)<0$, the surface $F_p$ is nonempty.

1082: By super-additivity we have that $Q(F)\geq

1083: Q(F_p)+Q(F_n)$. Since $Q(F_n)\geq 0$ this implies that $Q(F_p)\leq

1084: Q(F)$. Since $F_p$ is a subsurface of $F$, by Proposition

1085: \ref{subsurf} it is in the same sector. 

1086: So we can assume that we are working with a surface all of whose

1087: components are spheres.

1088: 

1089: Next assume that $F$ has $\delta_v\geq 4$ for some $v$. Our estimate that

1090: $Q(F)\geq -2\chi(F)$ tells us that if  $F$ has

1091: a single component then $Q(F)\geq -4$. Using the fact that $\delta_v\geq 4$

1092: for some vertex allows us to improve this to $Q(F)\geq -2$  Assume that

1093: $F$ is not connected. We can 

1094: then

1095: write $F=F_1+F_2$ where the $F_i$ are from $\mathcal{S}_0$, and $F_2$ is

1096: connected and has nonempty intersection with a small ball about $v$.  We use

1097: $\delta_{v,1}$, $\delta_{v,2}$ to denote the differences between the largest 

1098: column and second

1099: largest column of these two surfaces at the vertex $v$, and $\gamma_{v,1}$ and

1100: $\gamma_{v,2}$ to describe the difference between the largest column

1101: and the smallest 

1102: column. Note, 

1103: $\delta_v=\delta_{v,1}+\delta_{v,2}$ and

1104: $\gamma_v=\gamma_{v,1}+\gamma_{v,2}$. 

1105: The super-additivity formula gives

1106: \begin{equation}Q(F)=Q(F_1+F_2)=Q(F_1)+Q(F_2)+

1107: \sum_v \frac{\delta_{v,1}\gamma_{v,2}+\delta_{v,2}\gamma_{v,1}}{2}.\end{equation}

1108: Since $\delta_{v,1}+\delta_{v,2}\geq 4$ it follows that $Q(F_1)\leq Q(F)$ and 

1109: it has

1110: smaller $\delta_v$. Replace the surface $F$ with the surface $F_1$ and

1111: continue until all $\delta_v\leq 2$.

1112: 

1113: Suppose  $F$ is a surface in $\mathcal{F}_0$  with all $\delta_v\leq 2$. Since

1114: there are no normal spheres in $\mathcal{F}_0$ each sphere making up $F$ has

1115: some $\delta_v=2$. Since $\delta_v$ is additive this means that there are no 

1116: more

1117: spheres in $F$ than there are vertices in the spine. Hence $Q$ is bounded

1118: below by $-4(\text{\# vertices})$.

1119: 

1120: 

1121: \item[{\bf(iv)}] It is enough to prove that the intersection of any level set

1122:   with any sector is finite.

1123: Suppose that $F_i$ is an infinite sequence of

1124: spinal surfaces in a sector with $Q(F_i)=c$. If necessary we can pass to a

1125:   subsequence so 

1126: that  the strand numbers of the surfaces $F_i$ are

1127: monotone increasing. There are two cases. 

1128: 

1129: {\bf Case 1} If the $C_{v,1}-C_{v,2}=\delta_v$ stay

1130: bounded then we can further refine the sequence so that all these numbers are

1131: constant. As the strand numbers are monotone increasing we can subtract the

1132: first term of the sequence from every subsequent term to get a new

1133: sequence of  spinal 

1134: surfaces which are normal. The

1135: values of $Q(F_i)$ are bounded  

1136: below (by item {\bf(iii)}), hence there is an infinite sequence of surfaces

1137: with 

1138: the same Euler characteristic. Since these surfaces all  have some

1139: strand number 

1140: $0$, and the triangulation is efficient  they can be written as a sum of a 

1141: finite list of normal surfaces so

1142: that none of the surfaces has positive or zero Euler characteristic.

1143: This is a contradiction, as

1144: their Euler characteristic is increasing. 

1145: 

1146: 

1147: {\bf Case 2} If some $C_{v,1}-C_{v,2}=\delta_v$ is unbounded we refine

1148: the sequence

1149: so that the $\delta_v$ are monotone increasing and the strand numbers are 

1150: monotone

1151: increasing. Let $v$ be a vertex where  the $\delta_v$ are unbounded, and assume

1152: that the first surface in the sequence has $\delta_v>0$. If not, just start

1153: later. Subtracting the first surface from every surface in the

1154: sequence

1155: the super-additivity formula informs us that this is

1156: a sequence of surfaces in $\mathcal{S}_0$ such that $Q$ is not bounded

1157: below. This contradicts item $({\bf iii)}$.

1158: 

1159: \item[{\bf(v)}]  

1160: If $V$ is a finite dimensional free $\mathbb{Z}$-module and $v_i$ is

1161: a basis, we can define $N:V \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ by

1162: \begin{equation} N(\sum_i c_i v_i)=\sum_i |c_i|.\end{equation}

1163: The cardinality of the set of elements in $V$ with $N(v)\leq n$ is

1164: less than or equal to a 

1165: polynomial in $n$. Fixing a sector $\mathcal{F}$ there is a finite family of

1166: surfaces $F_i$ that generate the surfaces in $\mathcal{F}$ as an integer cone.

1167: As there are only finitely many surfaces $F$ with $Q(F)\leq0$, there is an

1168: integer $K$ so that for any $\sum_i c_i F_i$, if some $c_i\geq K$ then

1169: $Q(\sum_i c_i F_i)>0$. Let $S_j$ be the set of all surfaces $\sum_i c_i F_i$,

1170: so that some $c_i$ is between  $K$ and $2K$ and the 

1171: other $c_i$ are between $0$ and $K-1$. It is clear that all but finitely many

1172: surfaces in

1173: $\mathcal{S}$ can be written as a positive sum of these surfaces. Form

1174: a free $\mathbb{Z}$-module with basis $v_j$

1175: corresponding to the $S_j$ and define

1176: a map from the nonnegative integer sums of the $v_j$ to $\mathcal{S}$ by

1177: sending the $v_j$ to the $S_j$. This map is onto all but a finite subset

1178: of $\mathcal{F}$. Also,

1179: \begin{equation} N(\sum_i c_j v_j)\leq Q(\sum_j c_jS_j),\end{equation}

1180: so the level set $Q(S)=n$ is the image of a subset of $V$ contained inside the

1181: set $N(v)\leq n$. Therefore the level sets of $Q$ grow at most polynomially in $n$.

1182: 

1183: \end{itemize} \qed

1184: 

1185: Now suppose that $C$ is a system of simple closed curves on $\partial M$.

1186: We consider colorings of an augmentation of the spine corresponding to

1187: $C$. Let $\chi (f)$ denote the Euler characteristic of the face $f$.

1188: Note that $\chi (f)=1$ if $f$ is an open disk, and  $\chi(f)=0$ if $f$ is

1189: an annulus.

1190: 

1191: The space of surfaces corresponding to admissible colorings of the augmented

1192: spine is much like the space of spinal surfaces, except you can't add two

1193: augmented colorings. However, you can add an augmented coloring and any

1194: coloring of the original spine. We can divide the space of colorings of the

1195: augmented spine into sectors just like we did for spinal surfaces, and we can

1196: define $k$-peelable. Let $\mathcal{F}(C)$ be the surfaces in a

1197: sector coming from 

1198: colorings of an augmentation of the spine,

1199: and denote by $\mathcal{F}$ the corresponding sector in space of

1200: spinal surfaces associated to the original spine. Use  

1201: $\mathcal{F}(C)_k$ to denote the  $k$-peelable surfaces in that sector.

1202: Define $Q$ from the space of surfaces

1203: corresponding to admissible colorings of the augmented spine to the counting

1204: numbers by,

1205: \begin{equation}\label{newQ} 

1206: Q(F)= \sum_f -2 \chi (f) u_f +

1207: \sum_v \frac{1}{2}(C_{1,v}-C_{2,v})(C_{1,v}-C_{3,v})+C_{1,v}.

1208: \end{equation}

1209: 

1210: 

1211: \begin{prop}\label{aug}

1212: \begin{itemize}

1213: \item[{\bf(i)}]  $ {-2x_F}\leq Q(F)$

1214: \item[{\bf(ii)}]  The function $Q(F)$ is super additive on sectors.

1215:  If

1216: $C_{i,v}$ are the column sums corresponding to $F \in \mathcal{F}(C)$

1217:  and $C'_{i,v}$ are the 

1218: column sums corresponding to $F'\in \mathcal{F}$ then

1219: \begin{equation} Q(F+F')=Q(F)+Q(F')+

1220: (C_{1,v}-C_{2,v})(C'_{1,v}-C'_{3,v})/2+(C'_{1,v}-C'_{2,v})(C_{1,v}-C_{3,v})/2\end{equation}  

1221: \[\geq Q(F)+Q(F').\]

1222: \item[{\bf(iii)}]  $Q(F)$ is bounded below on $\mathcal{S}(C)_k$.

1223: \item[{\bf(iv)}]  The level sets of $Q(F)$ on $\mathcal{S}(C)_k$ are finite.

1224: \item[{\bf(v)}]  The cardinality of the level sets of $Q$  on $\mathcal{S}(C)_k$ grows

1225: at most polynomially in the level.

1226: \end{itemize}

1227: \end{prop}

1228: 

1229: \proof The proof is an extension of the proof of  Proposition \ref{cont}. The

1230: first two parts follow directly from the formula for $Q$. 

1231: 

1232: The third part we

1233: argue  as follows. First get the estimate on $\mathcal{S}(C)_0$

1234: by working in sectors. 

1235: Given a surface $F \in \mathcal{F}(C)_0$ it can be written as a sum

1236: of a surface $F_1$ such that each of its components has nonempty boundary and

1237: a surface $F_2$ each

1238: component of which is closed. From Proposition \ref{cont} we have a lower

1239: bound for $Q(F_2)$, from inequality {\bf(i)}  we

1240: can bound $Q(F_1)$ below 

1241: by $-2$ times the number of components in $C$. By super-additivity we have

1242: bounded $Q$ from below on $\mathcal{F}(C)_0$. 

1243: 

1244: To bound $Q$ below on $\mathcal{S}(C)_k$ use the one-to-one correspondence

1245: between surfaces in $\mathcal{S}(C)_k$ and surfaces in $\mathcal{S}(C)_0$

1246: obtained by adding $k$ copies of $\partial M$. Once again we bound the value

1247: of $Q$ on $k$ parallel copies of the boundary using the inequality from

1248: item {\bf(i)} 

1249: and then use the bound on $\mathcal{S}(C)_0$ and super-additivity

1250: on sectors.

1251: 

1252: The proofs of items {\bf(iv)}  and {\bf(v)}  are completely analogous

1253: to the proofs in  Proposition \ref{cont}.

1254: \qed 

1255: 

1256: 

1257: 

1258: \subsection{Summing Over  $k$-peelable Surfaces}

1259:  Let $C$ be a system of simple closed curves in $\partial M$,  let

1260: $S$ be a spine that is dual to an efficient triangulation of $M$

1261: and let $S(C)$ be an augmentation of $S$ with respect to $C$. 

1262: Given a coloring  $F$  of the augmented spine $S(C)$  let the $u_f$,

1263: $a_e$, $b_e$, $c_e$, $a_v$, $b_v$, $c_v$, $d_v$, $e_v$, $f_v$ and $\chi(f)$ be

1264: defined as before. 

1265: Also, let $\chi(e)=1$ if the edge $e$ has some vertex in its closure and 

1266: let $\chi(e)=0$ otherwise ($\chi(e)$ is the Euler characteristic of the

1267: edge $e$).

1268: \begin{definition}

1269: The contribution of $F$ is defined to be

1270: \begin{equation} E(F)=\frac{\prod_f \Delta_{u_f}^{\chi(f)} \prod_v \Tet a_v & b_v & e_v \\

1271: c_v & d_v & f_v \end{pmatrix}}{\prod_e \theta(a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi(e)}}.\end{equation}

1272: \end{definition}

1273: Notice that faces 

1274: and edges of the spine contribute to $E(F)$ unless they are annular

1275: or belong to the simple closed curves on the boundary respectively. 

1276: Each vertex is an endpoint of four edges and each edge

1277: that counts in the contribution of a surface has two ends. We can thus

1278: collect the tetrahedral coefficient at each vertex with the thetas to

1279: reparse this product as

1280: \begin{equation}\label{reparse} 

1281: E(F)= \prod_f \Delta_{u_f}^{\chi(f)}\prod_v \left\{ 

1282:     \begin{matrix}

1283:      a_v & b_v & e_v \\

1284: c_v & d_v & f_v 

1285:     \end{matrix}\right\}_u.

1286: \end{equation} 

1287: 

1288: There is a map $S(C)_0 \rightarrow S(C)_k$ that adds $k$ copies of the

1289: boundary of $M$ (as a union of triangles near the vertex). This map is one to one

1290: and onto. If the largest color corresponding to $F$ is $N$ then the largest

1291: color corresponding to $F+k\partial M$ is $N+2k$.

1292: We define 

1293: \begin{equation}\label{Ek}

1294: E_k(F)=E(F+k\partial M).

1295: \end{equation}

1296: Since

1297: $\chi(M)=\#f-\#v$,

1298: \begin{equation}\label{kpeel}Q(F+k\partial

1299: M)=Q(F)-4k\chi(M).\end{equation}

1300: Using results of Proposition \ref{lim} about limits of $6j$ symbols we have,

1301: \begin{prop}\label{Es}

1302: For every surface $F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_0$, the limit

1303: \begin{equation}\label{Einf}

1304: \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}t^{4k\chi(M)}E_k(F)

1305: \end{equation}

1306:  exists. When $C=\emptyset$, it is equal to

1307: \begin{equation}\label{limeinf}

1308: E_{\infty}(F)= 

1309: \prod_f (-1)^{u_f}

1310: \frac{t^{-2u_f}}{1-q}

1311: \prod_{v}\left\{  \begin{matrix}

1312:      a_v & b_v & e_v \\

1313: c_v & d_v & f_v 

1314:     \end{matrix}\right\}_{\infty}. 

1315: \end{equation}

1316: \end{prop}

1317: 

1318: \proof

1319: 

1320: Assume first that $C=\emptyset$, thus $\chi(f)=1$ for all $f$.

1321: Given a surface $F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_0$  and  $k>0$, 

1322: use (\ref{reparse}) together with (\ref{Delta})

1323: to express  

1324: \begin{equation}\label{firste}

1325: E_k(F)=\prod_{f} (-1)^{-u_f-2k}t^{-2u_f-4k} \frac{1-q^{u_f+2k}}{1-q}  

1326: \prod_v t^{4k}t^{-4k}

1327: \left\{ 

1328:     \begin{matrix}

1329:      a_v+2k & b_v+2k & e_v+2k \\

1330: c_v+2k & d_v+2k & f_v+2k 

1331:     \end{matrix}\right\}_u.

1332: \end{equation}

1333: Since $\chi(M)=\#f-\#v$, equation (\ref{firste}) can be rewritten as

1334: \begin{equation}\label{seconde}

1335: t^{-4k\chi(M)}\prod_f (-1)^{u_f}t^{-2u_f}\frac{1-q^{u_f+2k}}{1-q} 

1336: \prod_v t^{-4k} 

1337: \left\{  \begin{matrix}

1338:      a_v+2k & b_v+2k & e_v+2k \\

1339: c_v+2k & d_v+2k & f_v+2k 

1340:     \end{matrix}\right\}_u.

1341: \end{equation}

1342: By Proposition \ref{lim}, along with the fact that

1343: $\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1-q^{u_f+2k}}{1-q}=\frac{1}{1-q}$,  

1344: limit  (\ref{Einf}) exists and is

1345: given by the formula (\ref{limeinf}).

1346: 

1347: In the case when $C\neq\emptyset$ the argument is similar. The product

1348: in (\ref{firste}) must be taken over all faces $f$ with $\chi(f)\neq

1349: 0$ and for some of the vertices $v$ we need to consider the limit of 

1350: sequences (\ref{seq2}) or (\ref{seq3}) instead of the sequence

1351: (\ref{seq1}) as in equation (\ref{seconde}).

1352:    

1353: 

1354: 

1355: \qed

1356: 

1357: Let $\mathcal{S}(C)_k^N$ be the subset of $\mathcal{S}(C)_k$

1358:  where the largest color $u_f$ is less than or equal to $N$ and let

1359: $\mathcal{S}(C)_k^{T(N)}$ be the subset of $\mathcal{S}(C)_k$

1360: where the largest $u_f$ is greater than $N$, the {\em tail} of the set.

1361: Clearly, 

1362: \begin{equation}\mathcal{S}(C)_k=\mathcal{S}(C)_k^N\cup \mathcal{S}(C)_k^{T(N)}.\end{equation}

1363: 

1364: \begin{lemma}\label{tail}

1365:   For every $\epsilon >0$ there is $N$ so that for all $k$,

1366: \begin{equation} 

1367: \sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^{T(N+2k)}} |E(F)|< t^{-4k \chi(M)} \epsilon,

1368: \end{equation}

1369: where $\chi(M)$ is the Euler characteristic of the manifold $M$.

1370: 

1371: Moreover, 

1372: for every $i\geq 0$, the limit 

1373: \begin{equation}\label{Fki}

1374: \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}t^{4k\chi(M)}\sum_{F \in

1375:   \mathcal{S}(C)_k^{k+i}} |E(F)|

1376: \end{equation}  

1377: exists.

1378: 

1379: \end{lemma}

1380: 

1381: 

1382: \proof 

1383: Using (\ref{reparse})

1384:  along with the estimate from Proposition

1385: \ref{6jest}, we see that, 

1386: \begin{equation} |E(F)| \leq D(t,M,C) t^{Q(F)},\end{equation}

1387: where $D(t,M,C)$ is a number that only depends on $t$, the manifold $M$ and

1388: the augmentation of the spine corresponding to $C$. From Proposition \ref{aug}

1389: the function $Q(F)$ is bounded below by some $Q_0 \in \mathbb{Z}$,

1390: and has finite level sets, so that the

1391: level set where $Q$ takes on the value $n$ has its cardinality bounded above

1392: by a polynomial $p(n)$. Comparing with 

1393: \begin{equation} \sum_{n\geq Q_0} p(n)t^n,\end{equation}

1394: the series 

1395: \begin{equation}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_0} |E(F)|\end{equation}

1396: is absolutely summable. This means that for each $\epsilon>0$ there is

1397: $N$ so that 

1398: \begin{equation} \sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_0^{T(N)}} D(t,M,C) t^{Q(F)}<  \epsilon.\end{equation}

1399: Using equation (\ref{kpeel})

1400: we have

1401: \begin{equation} \sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^{T(N+2k)}} D(t,M,C) t^{Q(F)}<  

1402: t^{-4k\chi(M)}\epsilon.\end{equation} 

1403: 

1404: Combining the above argument with Proposition \ref{Es} yields the

1405: existence of the limit (\ref{Fki}).

1406: \qed

1407: 

1408: 

1409: \begin{remark}\label{restatedlemma}

1410:   The first part of this lemma can be restated as follows: for every 

1411: $\epsilon>0$ there exists $N$ so that independent of $k$,

1412: \begin{equation} \sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_0^{T(N)}} 

1413: t^{4k\chi(\partial M)} |E_k(F)|<\epsilon.\end{equation}

1414: 

1415: \end{remark}

1416: 

1417: 

1418: 

1419: 

1420: 

1421: 

1422: \begin{prop}\label{THEZ}

1423: Let 

1424: \begin{equation}

1425: Z_k(M)=\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k} E(F)=

1426: \sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_0} E_k(F),

1427: \end{equation}

1428: and

1429: \begin{equation}

1430: |Z|_k(M)=\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k} |E(F)|=

1431: \sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_0} |E_k(F)|=.

1432: \end{equation}

1433: For each $k$, $Z_k(M)$ and $|Z|_k(M)$ are well defined.

1434: Moreover, the limits 

1435: $Z_{\infty}(M)=\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} t^{4k\chi(M)}Z_k(M)$

1436: and $|Z|_{\infty}(M)=\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} t^{4k\chi(M)}|Z|_k(M)$

1437: exist.

1438: \end{prop}

1439: 

1440: \proof

1441: The well defined part of the proposition follows directly from Lemma

1442: \ref{tail}.

1443: 

1444: In order to prove convergence of $Z_k(M)$,

1445: choose $\epsilon >0$. There exists $N$ so that for all $k$

1446: \begin{equation} \sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^{T(N+2k)}} D(t,M,C) t^{Q(F)}<  

1447: t^{-4k\chi(M)}\epsilon/4.\end{equation}

1448: By Proposition \ref{Es} there is a $K$ so that if $k_1,k_2>K$ then

1449: \begin{equation} | t^{4k_1\chi(M)}\sum_{F \in\mathcal{S}(C)_{k_1}}^NE(F)- 

1450: t^{4k_2\chi(M)}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_{k_2}}^NE(F)|<\epsilon/2.\end{equation}

1451: This means that

1452: \begin{equation} |t^{4k_1\chi(M)}Z_{k_1}(M)-t^{4k_2\chi(M)}Z_{k_2}(M)|\leq \end{equation}

1453: \[ | t^{4k_1\chi(M)}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_{k_1}}^NE(F)- 

1454: t^{4k_2\chi(M)}\sum_{F \in\mathcal{S}(C)_{k_2}}^NE(F)|+\]

1455: \[|t^{4k_1\chi(M)}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_{k_1}^{T(N+2k_1)}}E(F)|+

1456: |t^{4k_2\chi(M)}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_{k_2}^{T(N+2k_2)}}E(F)|\leq\]

1457: \[ \epsilon/2 +\epsilon/4+\epsilon/4.\] As the sequence is Cauchy it

1458: converges. The same proof works for $|Z|_{\infty}$. \qed

1459: 

1460: \section{The Invariant Sums}

1461: In the section we analyze the sum of contributions of all spinal

1462: surfaces in the three-manifold $M$ with an efficient triangulation.

1463: 

1464: Given any integer $r\geq 3$,  all the

1465: special functions, $\Delta_n$, $\theta(a,b,c)$,

1466: $\text{Tet}\begin{pmatrix} a & b & e \\ c & d &

1467: f\end{pmatrix}$, are well defined for $t=e^{\frac{\pi i}{2r}}$

1468: whenever $a,b,c,d,e,f\leq r-1$ and the 

1469: condition $a+b+c\leq 2r-4$ is added to the definition of

1470: admissibility. Given a system $C$ of disjoint simple closed curves in

1471: $\partial M$ and  an augmentation $S(C)$ of the spine dual to the

1472: triangulation of $M$,

1473: the (finite) sum over all $r$-admissible colorings of the faces

1474: of $S(C)$,

1475: \begin{equation}\label{turvir}

1476: \sum_{\text{$r$-admissible colorings of $S(C)$}}

1477:   \frac{\prod_ f\Delta_{u_f}^{\chi(f)} \prod_v \Tet a_v & b_v & e_v \\

1478:     c_v & d_v & f_v 

1479: \end{pmatrix} } {\prod_e \theta(a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi(e)}},

1480: \end{equation}

1481: is a coefficient (corresponding to $C$) of a vector-valued invariant

1482: associated to $M$ by the topological quantum field theory underlying

1483: the Turaev-Viro invariant of $M$ at level $r$. Our idea is the extend

1484: the invariant away from the roots of unity. The first major step is to

1485: analyze the convergence of the infinite sums like (\ref{turvir}),

1486: where $t=e^{\frac{\pi i}{2r}}$ is replaced by any $0<t<1$ and the

1487: colorings are admissible.

1488: 

1489: 

1490: 

1491: 

1492: \begin{theorem}

1493: Let $S(C)^N$ denote the set of admissible colorings of $S(C)$

1494: with all $u_f\leq N$.

1495: \begin{itemize}

1496: \item[{\bf(i)}]   If the Euler characteristic of $M$ is negative then

1497: \begin{equation}\label{bigen}

1498:  \sum_{\text{admissible colorings $u_f$ of $S(C)$}}

1499:   \frac{\prod_ f\Delta_{u_f}^{\chi(f)} \prod_v \Tet a_v & b_v & e_v \\

1500:     c_v & d_v & f_v 

1501: \end{pmatrix} } {\prod_e \theta(a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi(e)}}

1502: \end{equation}

1503: converges absolutely.

1504: \item[{\bf(ii)}] If $\chi(M)=0$ then

1505: \begin{equation}\label{knotcomp} 

1506: \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{N}

1507: \sum_{S(C)^N}

1508:   \frac{\prod_{f}\Delta_{u_f}^{\chi(f)} \prod_v \Tet a_v & b_v & e_v

1509:     \\ c_v & d_v & f_v 

1510: \end{pmatrix}}{\prod_e \theta(a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi(e)}}

1511: \end{equation}

1512: exists and is equal to $Z_{\infty}(M)=\sum_{F\in S_0(C)}E_{\infty}(F)$

1513: which converges  absolutely. 

1514: \item[{\bf(iii)}] 

1515: If $\chi(M)=1$ then

1516: \begin{equation}\label{sphere} 

1517: \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} t^{8N}

1518: \sum_{S(C)^{2N}}

1519:   \frac{\prod_{f}\Delta_{u_f}^{\chi(f)} \prod_v \Tet a_v & b_v & e_v

1520:     \\ c_v & d_v & f_v 

1521: \end{pmatrix}}{\prod_e \theta(a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi(e)}}

1522: \end{equation}

1523: exists. 

1524: Given a spinal surface $F$, let $m(F)$ denote the least even number

1525: greater than or equal to the  maximal

1526: color corresponding to $F$.

1527: The limit (\ref{sphere}) is equal to the sum of the absolutely

1528: convergent series: 

1529: \begin{equation}\label{spherelim}

1530: \frac{1}{1-q} 

1531: \sum_{F\in S_0(C)}

1532: t^{4m(F)}

1533: E_{\infty}(F).

1534: \end{equation} 

1535: \end{itemize}

1536: \end{theorem}

1537: 

1538: \proof 

1539: \begin{itemize}

1540: \item[{\bf(i)}]

1541: We need to show that the sequence of partial sums of the absolute

1542: values of the  series

1543: (\ref{bigen}) converges, that is,  

1544: \begin{equation} \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}

1545: \sum_{S(C)^N}

1546:  \left| \frac{\prod_{f}\Delta_{u_f}^{\chi(f)} \prod_v \Tet a_v & b_v & e_v

1547:     \\ c_v & d_v & f_v 

1548: \end{pmatrix}}{\prod_e \theta(a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi(e)}}\right|\end{equation}

1549: exists.

1550: Notice that 

1551: \begin{equation}\sum_{S(C)^N}

1552: \left|  \frac{\prod_{f}\Delta_{u_f}^{\chi(f)} \prod_v \Tet a_v & b_v & e_v

1553:     \\ c_v & d_v & f_v 

1554: \end{pmatrix}}{\prod_e \theta(a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi(e)}}\right|=\end{equation}

1555: \[\sum_k 

1556: \sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^N} |E(F)|<

1557: \sum_k |Z|_k(M).\]

1558: Proposition \ref{THEZ} implies that the series $\sum_k|Z|_k(M)$

1559: converges by comparison with the series $\sum_kt^{-4k\chi(M)}$.

1560: 

1561: \item[{\bf(ii)}]

1562: First, regroup the finite sum in (\ref{knotcomp}) according to

1563: $k$-peelable surfaces. That 

1564: is, use the fact that $S(C)^N$ is a disjoint union of subsets

1565: $S(C)_k^N$ with $k=0,\dots ,N$ (since $\mathcal{S}(C)_k^N$ is empty for

1566: $k>N$). Thus,

1567: \begin{equation}\label{regroup}

1568: \frac{1}{N}

1569: \sum_{S(C)^N}

1570:   \frac{\prod_{f}\Delta_{u_f}^{\chi(f)} \prod_v \Tet a_v & b_v & e_v

1571:     \\ c_v & d_v & f_v 

1572: \end{pmatrix}}{\prod_e \theta(a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi(e)}}=

1573: \frac{1}{N}

1574: \sum_{k=0}^{N}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^N} E(F).

1575: \end{equation}

1576: %Given $\epsilon>0$ we need to find $n$ so that for all $N>n$

1577: %\[\left|Z_{\infty}(M)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N

1578: %\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^N} E(F)\right|<\epsilon

1579: %\]

1580: By Proposition \ref{THEZ} we can find $K$ so that for all $k>K$ we

1581: have 

1582: \begin{equation}\label{zbound}

1583: |Z_k(M)-Z_{\infty}(M)|<\frac{\epsilon}{4}.\end{equation}

1584: By Lemma \ref{tail} there exists $n_1$ so that for all $k$

1585: \begin{equation}\label{kbound}

1586: |Z_k(M)-\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^{n_1+k}}

1587: E(F)|<\frac{\epsilon}{4}.\end{equation}

1588: Combining these, we get that for all $k>K$, all $n_0\geq n_1$

1589: 

1590: \begin{equation}|Z_{\infty}(M)-\sum_{F\in\mathcal{S}(C)_k^{k+n_0}}E(F)|<\frac{\epsilon}{2}.\end{equation}

1591: Therefore, each of the $N-K-n_1-1$ terms of the sum

1592: \begin{equation}\sum_{k=K+1}^{N-n_1}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^N} E(F)\end{equation}

1593: is at most $\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ away from $Z_{\infty}(M)$. Since

1594: $ \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\frac{N-K-n_1-1}{N}=1$ to finish the proof

1595: it suffices to show that the first $K+1$ terms and the last $n_1$ terms inside the

1596: outer sum on the right hand side of (\ref{regroup}) are

1597: bounded regardless of the value of $N$.

1598: For the first $K+1$ terms notice that  by (\ref{kbound})

1599: \begin{equation}|\sum_{k=0}^K\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^N} E(F)|<K(\frac{\epsilon}{4}+B),\end{equation}

1600: where $B=\text{max}(|Z_0(M)|,|Z_1(M)|,\dots |Z_K(M)|)$.

1601: The fact that the last $n_1$ inner sums 

1602: \begin{equation}|\sum_{k=N-n_1}^N\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^N} E(F)|\end{equation}

1603: are bounded

1604: regardless of $N$ follows from the fact that for every $i$

1605: the limit 

1606: \begin{equation}\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{S}(C)_k^{k+i}} E(F)\end{equation}

1607: exists (see Lemma \ref{tail}).

1608: 

1609: \item[{\bf(iii)}]

1610: Absolute convergence of the sum (\ref{spherelim}) follows from the existence of the

1611: universal bound on $|E_{\infty}(F)|$ for $F \in S_0(C)$. Since

1612: $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}t^{4k}E_k(F)=E_{\infty}(F)$, this in turn

1613: follows from a universal bound on $|t^{4k}E_k(F)|$ 

1614: for $F \in S_0(C)$. 

1615: By letting

1616: $\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}$ in Remark

1617: \ref{restatedlemma} we see that except for finitely many surfaces $F \in S_0(C)$,

1618: $t^{4k}E_k(F)<\frac{1}{2}$. Since each of the sequences $t^{4k}E_k(F)$

1619: is convergent for the remaining surfaces, the quantities $|t^{4k}E_k(F)|$ 

1620:  are universally bounded for all surfaces $F \in S_0(C)$.

1621: 

1622: 

1623: Our goal is to show that the sequence

1624: \begin{equation}\label{finsum} 

1625:  t^{8N}\sum_{F \in

1626:     \mathcal{S}(C)^{2N}} E(F)

1627: \end{equation} 

1628: converges to  the sum (\ref{spherelim}). The first step is

1629: to rewrite the 

1630: finite sum in (\ref{finsum}) so that it is a sum over $0$-peelable

1631: surfaces. We 

1632: get,

1633: \begin{equation} 

1634: \sum_{F \in \cS_0(C)}\sum_{k=0}^{2N-m(F)} t^{8N}E_k(F).

1635: \end{equation}

1636: The largest part of this sum is at the end, so we change variables to put

1637: the largest part at the beginning. Let $i=2N-m(F)-k$. Substitution,

1638: along with splitting off an appropriate power of $t$, yields:

1639: \begin{equation}\label{refinsum} 

1640: \sum_{F \in \cS_0(C)}\sum_{i=0}^{2N-m(F)}t^{4m(F)+4i}

1641:  t^{8N-4m(F)-4i}E_{2N-m(F)-i}(F).\end{equation}

1642: From Remark \ref{restatedlemma} there exists $K_0$ so that, for all

1643: $i\geq K_0$,

1644: \begin{equation}  

1645: \sum_{F \in \cS_0(C)^{T(K_0)}}t^{4i\chi(M)}E_i(F)<\frac{\epsilon (1-q)}{4}, 

1646: \end{equation} thus

1647: \begin{equation}  \sum_{F \in \cS_0(C)^{T(K_0)}}\frac{t^{4m(F)}}{1-q}

1648: E_i(F)<\frac{\epsilon

1649:   }{4}.\end{equation}

1650: Estimating based on summing the geometric series $\sum_i t^{4i}=\frac{1}{1-q}$

1651: we can truncate the sum (\ref{refinsum})  using any $K\geq K_0$  as follows and remain within 

1652: $\epsilon/4$ of the

1653: original sum.

1654: \begin{equation}\label{firstrunc} 

1655: \sum_{F \in \cS_0(C)^{K}}\sum_{i=0}^{2N-m(F)}t^{4m(F)+4i}

1656:  t^{8N-4m(F)-4i}E_{2N-m(F)-i}(F).\end{equation}

1657: Since by Proposition \ref{aug} the function $Q(F)$ is bounded below on

1658: $\cS_0(C)$ there exists $B$

1659: so that for all $F$, $N$ and $i$

1660: \begin{equation} t^{8N-4m(F)-4i}E_{2N-m(F)-i}(F)<B.\end{equation}

1661: From the elementary theory of the geometric series there exists

1662: $I$ so that for all $F\in \cS_0(C)^{K}$,

1663: \begin{equation} 

1664: \sum_{i\geq I}^{2N-m(f)} t^{4m(F)+4i} B <\epsilon/4.\end{equation}

1665: This means we can truncate the  sum (\ref{firstrunc}) again as follows and

1666: remain within $\epsilon/4$ of 

1667: the original sum:

1668: \begin{equation}\label{secontruc}

1669:  \sum_{F \in \cS_0(C)^{K}}\sum_{i=0}^{I}t^{4m(F)+4i}

1670:  t^{8N-4m(F)-4i}E_{2N-m(F)-i}(F).\end{equation}

1671: Using the fact that for any $F$, and for any fixed $i$,

1672: \begin{equation} 

1673: \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}

1674: t^{8N-4m(F)-4i}E_{2N-m(F)-i}(F)=E_{\infty}(F),

1675: \end{equation}

1676: together with the fact that the number of terms of the sum

1677: (\ref{secontruc})  is bounded

1678: independent of 

1679: $N$, we can choose $N$ so large that the sum (\ref{secontruc}) is

1680: within $\epsilon/4$ of

1681: \begin{equation}\label{penultimate} 

1682: \sum_{F \in \cS_0(C)^{K}}\sum_{i=0}^{I}t^{4m(F)+4i}

1683:  E_{\infty}(F),\end{equation}

1684: leaving us within $\frac{3\epsilon}{4}$ of the original sum

1685: (\ref{finsum}). Using the 

1686: absolute convergence of $\sum_{F \in \cS_0(C)} t^{4m(F)}E_{\infty}(F)$,

1687: and the fact that the bound $B$ is still valid for $E_{\infty}(F)$,

1688: we can choose $I$ large enough to make this last sum (\ref{penultimate}) 

1689: within $\epsilon/4$ of 

1690: \begin{equation} 

1691: \sum_{F \in \cS_0(C)}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}t^{4m(F)+4i}

1692:  E_{\infty}(F).\end{equation}

1693: Summing the geometric series yields the final result. \qed

1694: 

1695: 

1696: \end{itemize}

1697: 

1698: \begin{thebibliography}{9999}

1699: \bibitem{BP} R. Benedetti, C. Petronio, {\em Branched Standard Spines of

1700:     Three-Manifolds}, Lecture Notes in Math 1653, Springer-Verlag,

1701:   Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1997.

1702: 

1703: \bibitem{BFK}  D. Bullock, C. Frohman, J. Kania-Bartoszynska, {\em

1704:     Understanding the Kauffman Bracket Skein Module}, J. Knot Theory

1705: Ramifications 8 (1999), no. 3, 265--277.

1706: 

1707: \bibitem{nefeli} D. Bullock, C. Frohman, J. Kania-Bartoszynska, {\em

1708:     The Yang-Mills measure in the Kauffman bracket skein module},

1709:   Comment. Math. Helv. {\bf 78} (2003) 1-17

1710: 

1711: \bibitem{ob} C. Frohman, J. Kania-Bartoszynska, {\em A Quantum

1712:     Obstruction to Embedding},   

1713: Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.  {\bf 131}, (2001), 279-293.

1714: 

1715: 

1716: \bibitem{GR} G. Gasper, M. Rahman, {\em Basic Hypergeometric Series},

1717:   Cambridge University Press, 1990.

1718: 

1719: \bibitem{JR} W. Jaco, H. Rubinstein, {\em 0-Efficient Triangulations of

1720:     Three-Manifolds}, xxx.lanl.gov/math.GT/0207158.

1721: 

1722: \bibitem{KL} L. H. Kauffman and S. Lins, {\em Temperley-Lieb

1723: recoupling theory and invariants of $3$-manifolds}, Ann.\ of Math.\

1724: Studies {\bf 143}, Princeton University Press, 1994.

1725: 

1726: \bibitem{Ma} S.V. Matveev, {\em Transformations of Special Spines and the

1727:     Zeeman Conjecture}, Math. USSR-Izv. {\bf 31} (1988), 423-434.

1728: 

1729: \bibitem{MV} G. Masbaum, P. Vogel, {\em 3-valent graphs and the Kauffman 

1730: bracket.},

1731: Pacific J. Math. {\bf 164} (1994) 361-381.

1732: 

1733: 

1734: \bibitem{Pi} R. Pergallini, {\em Standard Moves for Standard Polyhedra and

1735:     Spines}, Rendicotti Circ. Mat. Palermo {\bf 37} suppl. 18 (1988), 391-414.

1736: 

1737: \bibitem{Ro} J. Roberts, {\em Classical $6j$-Symbols and the

1738:     Tetrahedron}, Geometry and Topology, {\bf 3} (1999), pages 21--66.

1739:   

1740: \bibitem{TV} V.~G. Turaev and O.~Y. Viro,

1741: {\it State sum invariants of 3-manifolds and quantum 6j-symbols}\/,

1742: Topology, {\bf 31} (1992), 866--902.

1743: 

1744: \end{thebibliography}

1745: \end{document}

1746: 

1747: 

1748: