Advertisement

Computing Heegaard Genus is NP-Hard

  • David Bachman
  • Ryan Derby-Talbot
  • Eric Sedgwick
Chapter

Abstract

We show that Heegaard Genusg, the problem of deciding whether a triangulated 3-manifold admits a Heegaard splitting of genus less than or equal to g, is NP-hard. The result follows from a quadratic time reduction of the NP-complete problem CNF-SAT to Heegaard Genus ≤g.

References

  1. 1.
    I. Agol, J. Hass, W. Thurston, 3-manifold knot genus is NP-complete, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, New York, 2002), pp. 761–766MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Bachman, Topological index theory for surfaces in 3-manifolds. Geom. Topol. 14(1), 585–609 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Bachman, Stabilizing and destabilizing Heegaard splittings of sufficiently complicated 3-manifolds. Math. Ann. 355(2), 697–728 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Bachman, S. Schleimer, E. Sedgwick, Sweepouts of amalgamated 3-manifolds. Algebr. Geom. Topol. 6, 171–194 (2006) (electronic)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B.A. Burton, J. Spreer, The complexity of detecting taut angle structures on triangulations, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2013 (New Orleans, 2013), 6–8 Jan 2013, pp. 68–183Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B.A. Burton, É.C. de Verdière, A. de Mesmay, On the Complexity of Immersed Normal Surfaces. arXiv:1412.4988, Dec 2014, PreprintGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B.A. Burton, A. de Mesmay, U. Wagner, Finding non-orientable surfaces in 3-manifolds. arXiv:0901.0208, Feb 2016, PreprintGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Gabai, Foliations and the topology of 3-manifolds. III. J. Differ. Geom. 26(3), 479–536 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Haken, Theorie der Normalflächen. Acta Math. 105, 245–375 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Hass, J.C. Lagarias, N. Pippenger, The computational complexity of knot and link problems. J. ACM 46(2), 185–211 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Jaco, J. Hyam Rubinstein, 0-efficient triangulations of 3-manifolds. J. Differ. Geom. 65(1), 61–168 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Jaco, J. Hyam Rubinstein, Layered-triangulations of 3-manifolds. arXiv:math/0603601, Mar 2006, PreprintGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Jaco, E. Sedgwick, Decision problems in the space of Dehn fillings. Topology 42(4), 845–906 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Johannson, Heegaard surfaces in Haken 3-manifolds. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 23(1), 91–98 (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Johannson, Topology and Combinatorics of 3-Manifolds. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1599 (Springer, Berlin, 1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Kobayashi, Classification of unknotting tunnels for two bridge knots, in Proceedings of the Kirbyfest, Berkeley, 1998. Geology and Topology Monographs, vol. 2 (Geometry and Topology in collaboration Publication, Coventry, 1999), pp. 259–290 (electronic)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Kuperberg, Knottedness is in np, modulo GRH. Adv. Math. 256, 493–506 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Lackenby, Some conditionally hard problems on links and 3-manifolds. arXiv:1602.08427 (2016, Preprint)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. Li, Heegaard surfaces and the distance of amalgamation. Geom. Topol. 14(4), 1871–1919 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Li, An algorithm to determine the Heegaard genus of a 3-manifold. Geom. Topol. 15(2), 1029–1106 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Matoušek, E. Sedgwick, M. Tancer, U. Wagner, Embeddability in the 3-sphere is decidable, in Computational Geometry (SoCG’14) (ACM, New York, 2014), pp. 78–84Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Y. Moriah, H. Rubinstein, Heegaard structures of negatively curved 3-manifolds. Commun. Anal. Geom. 5(3), 375–412 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Y. Moriah, J. Schultens, Irreducible Heegaard splittings of Seifert fibered spaces are either vertical or horizontal. Topology 37(5), 1089–1112 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Y. Moriah, E. Sedgwick, Closed essential surfaces and weakly reducible Heegaard splittings in manifolds with boundary. J. Knot Theory Ramif. 13(6), 829–843 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Y. Moriah, E. Sedgwick, The Heegaard structure of Dehn filled manifolds, in Workshop on Heegaard Splittings. Geology and Topology Monographs, vol. 12 (Geometry and Topology in collaboration Publication, Coventry, 2007), pp. 233–263Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Y. Moriah, E. Sedgwick, Heegaard splittings of twisted torus knots. Topol. Appl. 156(5), 885–896, (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. Morimoto, M. Sakuma, Y. Yokota, Examples of tunnel number one knots which have the property “1 + 1 = 3”. Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 119(1), 113–118 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Y. Rieck, Heegaard structures of manifolds in the Dehn filling space. Topology 39(3), 619–641 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Y. Rieck, E. Sedgwick, Finiteness results for Heegaard surfaces in surgered manifolds. Comm. Anal. Geom. 9(2), 351–367 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Y. Rieck, E. Sedgwick, Persistence of Heegaard structures under Dehn filling. Topol. Appl. 109(1), 41–53 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    J.H. Rubinstein, An algorithm to recognize the 3-sphere, in Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Zürich, 1994, vols. 1, 2 (Birkhäuser, Basel, 1995), pp. 601–611Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Scharlemann, A. Thompson, Heegaard splittings of (surface) × I are standard. Math. Ann. 295, 549–564 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Scharlemann, A. Thompson, Thin position for 3-manifolds, in Geometric Topology (Haifa, 1992). Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 164 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1994), pp. 231–238Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. Schleimer, Sphere recognition lies in NP, in Low-Dimensional and Symplectic Topology. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 82 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2011), pp. 183–213Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J. Schultens, The classification of Heegaard splittings for (compact orientable surface) × S 1. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 67(2), 425–448 (1993)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Schultens, R. Weidmann, Destabilizing amalgamated Heegaard splittings. Geo. Topol. Monogr. 12, 319–334 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. Thompson, Thin position and the recognition problem for S 3. Math. Res. Lett. 1(5), 613–630 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. Weeks, Computation of hyperbolic structures in knot theory, in Handbook of Knot Theory (Elsevier B. V., Amsterdam, 2005), pp. 61–480MATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    R. Zentner, Integer homology 3-spheres admit irreducible representations in SL(2,C). Preprint arXiv:1605.08530, May 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Bachman
    • 1
  • Ryan Derby-Talbot
    • 2
  • Eric Sedgwick
    • 3
  1. 1.Pitzer CollegeClaremontUSA
  2. 2.Quest UniversitySquamishCanada
  3. 3.School of ComputingDePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations