Consider the following function on the torus . We imagine it standardly embedded in , and
somewhat tilted, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: A height function on the torus. Shown to its right are some sublevel sets.
Now consider the height function on it. We can consider the sub-level sets . As we pass through
, changes from being empty to being a disk. After we pass , we get something that looks like an
annulus. After passing through , looks like a punctured torus, and after passing through , is the
entire torus. If we just think about the diffeomorphism type of the , we can interpret this example
as follows: at , we added a disk, at we added a band onto the boundary of the disk, and at we
capped off the boundary of the disk.
Figure 2:The handles that are added as we raise the sublevel sets on the torus.
So by looking at this function on our torus, we have gotten a description of the torus in terms of
disks in bands. Morse theory gives a similar description for any smooth manifold for any
sufficiently nice function . From now on our manifolds will be smooth, finite dimensional, and
compact. When we do Morse theory, they will also be closed.
Suppose that we have a -manifold with boundary . To attach a-handle on is to add a copy
of that is attached along the part of the boundary to the rest of the manifold via
some diffeomorphism . The handle comes with a core, which is , and a cocore, . Up to
homotopy type, adding a -handle is the same as adding in a -cell. The attaching map
is an embedding of the trivial disk bundle of on . This is a framedknot in . An
knot in a -manifold is an embedded of . For it to be framed simply means we have
fixed some trivialization of its normal bundle in . We only are about the framing up to
homotopy, and so the group acts simply and transitively on the homotopy classes of
framings.
Figure 3: Breakdown of the parts of a -handle.
For example, when , adding a -handle is to add in a disjoint disk, to add a -handle is to add a
band, and to add a -handle is to attach a disk along a circle on the boundary. Above we saw
that the height function on the torus gave a handle decomposition of the torus, or a
description of the torus given by adding handles one by one to an empty manifold. There is
only one way to frame a or -handle on a surface, and two ways for a -handle, since
.
We can make a handle decomposition for . We can cover it by three disks that are
attached along their boundary as follows: will be the disk of points in such that ,
. We can first add in , and then add in . To find the attaching map, the two strips
on the boundary of , are attached to the two strips on , . Note that the framing on
this attaching map has different orientation on different parts of the boundary, and
we get a Möbius band. The last caps off the boundary of the Möbius band with a
disk.
Exercise 1.0.1.Find a handle decomposition forand.
2. Handle moves
One can change a handle decomposition by certain moves to not actually change the
diffeomorphism type of the manifold. There are three moves that can get between any two handle
decompositions of a manifold.
The first move is to change the order in which any two handle decompositions are added by
adding two handles that are disjoint, we can switch the order in which we attach them.
We can also isotope the attaching maps of any of the handles without changing the
manifold. Finally, we can add or remove handles that cancel each other. What this means is
the following: Suppose we have a -handle attached along an unknotted (isotopic to
a standard embedding) whose framing extends to a framing of an embedded disk
on the boundary that it bounds. Then a neighborhood of the handle and this disk is
diffeomorphic to as we are gluing together bundles together in a trivial way along
their boundaries (for a -handle, choose any ball along the boundary to add in as the
neighborhood). Now we can view as , and glue in a -handle such that the cocore is
glued along the direction, and the core is glued via the identity map to . Then we
get , so adding in the -handle and -handle is equivalent to connect summing with a
ball. Thus another move we can do is to add or remove such pairs of cancelling and
-handles.
Suppose that we have a manifold to which we first attach an -handle and then a -handle, where
. If we can push the boundary of the core of the -handle off of the boundary of the cocore of the
-handle, by changing what we call the -handle to something smaller, we can make the handles
disjoint. Indeed we can always do this, since the cocore of the -handle is dimension and the
dimension of the boundary of the core of the -handle is and so the sum of the dimensions is
strictly less than . Thus if there are finitely many handles, we can isotope them to attach them in
order of increasing index. We can say more. First suppose we have a -manifold built only out if
and -handles, we can represent it via a drawing where The -handles are circles that represent
their boundary, and the -handles are bands attached between the -cells. An example is
below:
There are moves on this graph that we can do to go between any two representations of the
same manifold. If there are is a -handle with only band, we can add or remove such a pair of
handles (this corresponds to cancelling the handles). If two bands are next to each other on
the cyclic ordering, we can slide one across the other (this is an isotopy), as shown
below:
Figure 4: The handle slide move on a graph representing a manifold consisting of and
-handles.
Note that we can always do these moves to reduce the number of -handles to the number of
connected components.
If , we still represent such a manifold with a graph instead of a drawing, where the edges
(-handles) are labelled , to say whether the -handles are attached in an orientation preserving or
reversing way onto the -handles. Now our moves are as follows: If there is a leaf on the graph, we
can remove that edge and vertex. If there are two edges who meet at a common vertex, we can
slide one of the edges so that instead it meets at another vertex, and have this new edge have the
orientation that is the product of the orientation of the two edges. Finally, one can switch the
orientation of of a vertex, which will change the sign of each edge once for every time it is incident
to that vertex.
Exercise 2.0.1.Show that any graph representing a connected manifold of dimensioncanbe changed via these moves to havevertex and at mostnegative edge.
3. Morse theory
Every manifold admits a handle decomposition. To do this, we will consider smooth
functions on our manifold , and try to analyze them as we did in the example of the
torus. We say that a critical point of is a point at which . At any critical point, there is
a symmetric bilinear form on the tangent space, called the Hessian. It is defined as
follows: given two tangent vectors at the critical point , We can extend them to vector
fields locally, and define .To see this is symmetric, , and from definition this doesn’t
depend on , so it doesn’t depend on either. To write the bilinear form down, we can pick
local coordinates , and choose , so that is given by the matrix of partial derivatives of
.
As a symmetric bilinear real form, the Hessian is determined by its rank, nullity, and index. If
the Hessian is a map , its adjoint is a map , and the dimension of the kernel of this is the nullity.
We say that a symmetric bilinear form is negative definite if for . The index is the dimension of
the largest subspace on which is negative definite. After an appropriate choice of basis if has
rank , index , and nullity , will look like . We say that a critical point is nondegenerate if
the Hessian at that point is nondegenerate, meaning that its nullity is . Then since
the rank is just the dimension of the manifold, the index is the only invariant of the
Hessian.
An example of a degenerate critical point is the function on at the origin, or the function on ,
which is degenerate along the axes.
Figure 5: Functions with degenerate critical points. Note that degenerate critical points can
be non-isolated, such as in .
Here is an example of a nondegenerate critical point. Consider the function as a function on .
Then the origin is a critical point, and its Hessian is given by , so is nondegenerate. In fact this is
the local behavior of any example. The following lemma can be proved via elementary
means:
Lemma 3.1 (Morse Lemma).Supposeis a smooth function onandis a nondegeneratecritical point of. Then there is a local chart nearsendingtoin an open subset ofsuchthat on this chartis given by.
Corollary 3.2.Nondegenerate critical points are isolated.
A Morse function on a compact manifold is a function such that all critical points are
nondegenerate. Our function on the torus was a Morse function, and shown below are two Morse
functions on , interpreted as height functions again:
Figure 6: Some Morse functions on a sphere.
Exercise 3.2.1.Find a Morse function on. Given a triangulation of a manifold, can youimagine a Morse function such that the center of the-simplicies are the indexcritical points?What about for a handle decomposition (of which a simplicial complex is a special case)?
We can use Morse functions to get handle decompositions of our manifold. To do this given
a Morse function , as in our first example, we consider to be the sub-level set of at
.
Theorem 3.3.Ifis a function on, andsuch that there are no critical points in, thenthe manifoldis diffeomorphic to the manifold, and the inclusion mapis a homotopyequivalence.
Proof.Only the idea of the proof will be given here. First, we give a metric to the manifold,
so that we can take the gradient of the function . We can multiply the gradient vector field
by a function that is on but that vanishes outside of , where is small enough to not contain
any critical points. Then by flowing the manifold down, the level set will flow through level
sets since we have normalized to have speed . Then it will eventually reach the level set ,
giving the desired diffeomorphism. This flow is also a deformation retraction of onto .
Figure 7:□
Thus in order to see how is built up through its sub-level sets,we only need to examine what
happens at critical points. By a similar argument to above, this is a local argument, and we only
need to look at our local model from the Morse lemma. From the diagram below, we can see that
as we pass through an index critical point, the only thing that changes is that we have added a
-handle. Shown below is the handle in our local model.
Figure 8:
Thus if we have a Morse function, we get a handle decomposition of our manifold by building it
up out of level sets. Fortunately not only do Morse functions exist, but they are also generic, and
any function can be approximated on its partial derivatives by Morse functions. Here is an
example of a theorem giving their genericity:
Theorem 3.4.Supposeis a compact submanifold. Then the set of points on which thefunctionis Morse onhas full measure.
In particular, we get the following:
Theorem 3.5.Any smooth compact manifold has a handle decomposition.
Much of the earlier discussion about how we can move between two handle decompositions can
be described in terms of Morse theory. Namely, we can view them as ways of changing the Morse
function on our manifold . For example, the fact that handles can be isotoped to be added in terms
of increasing index is equivalent to the existence of a self-indexing Morse function, or one
where all the critical point of index happen on .
4. Applications
Now that we know that any manifold has a handle decomposition, lets classify connected compact
manifolds of dimension with boundary. A -manifold will looks like a connected graph where every
vertex has degree . There are only two of these, namely and . To classify -manifolds, it suffices to
classify closed ones, i.e without boundary, since the boundary will be a bunch of circles, and we can
cap off circles with a -handle in a unique way. Then we can recover our manifold with boundary by
removing a certain number of open disks. To draw them, we need only to draw the
and -handles, since the -handles can then be added in a unique way. As was noted
earlier, we can assume there is only -handle. The -handles are all bands attached to
this, where every band may or may not have a half twists. If a band has a half twist,
the rest of the bands can be slid over it to isolate the band from the rest as shown
below:
Figure 9:It is demonstrated above how to realize as a summand of a non-orientable surface
.
We have showed then that this has decomposed our manifold as a connected sum with an as a
component. Now lets assume that all the bands are orientation preserving. If any band is
isolated from the rest of the diagram, it can be cancelled, as it is a cancelling -handle and
-handle. If there is a -handle that doesn’t contain any handles inside of the the place it is
attached, but isn’t isolated, its attaching must be linked to the attaching of some
other band. Then as shown below, we can isotope the rest of the bands away from these
two:
Figure 10:Above it is shown how to separate a torus from other components of a surface
.
We will be left with an isolated part of the diagram that corresponds to taking a connected sum
with a torus.
Thus we can keep simplifying our manifold into a connected sum of and s. Finally, the last step
of the calculation is to prove the following relation among which can be done via handle
slides:
Exercise 4.0.1..
We have then proved:
Theorem 4.1.Every compact surface is obtained as a connected sum ofs or a connectedsum ofs, with some open disks removed.
Morse theory is however sometimes more powerful than just the handle decompositions it
gives. Part of the reason for this is that a Morse function comes with a gradient flow,
namely the flow from the vector field that is the gradient of the function . This is the flow
that we use to show that the diffeomorphism type doesn’t change away from critical
points.
One application of the gradient flow is a key ingredient to a proof of the Poincaré-Hopf
theorem. Say we have a compact manifold with a vector field on it with isolated zeros. Then
at each zero, we can remove a ball to get a manifold which has a boundary that is a
lot of copies of . Each of these s has a framing (i.e a unit outward pointing normal
vector at each point.If the neighborhoods are small enough, the vector field will not
vanish on the boundary. If we locally trivialize the tangent bundle near each zero of
before we remove the balls, we can send each boundary component to by sending each
point to the unit vector in that corresponds to in the trivialization. Then the degree
of this map at each boundary component is called the index of the zero of the vector
field.
Figure 11:Some zeroes of vector fields on surfaces. From left to right, the indices are .
It doesn’t in particular depend on the trivialization, which follows from the fact that the space of
trivializations has two contractible components corresponding to different orientations, and also
from the fact that switching orientation flips both the orientation of the domain and codomain of
the maps from to .
Now it is not too hard to show that this doesn’t depend on the choice of vector field. Namely let
be a compact -manifold with boundary in . The Gauss map is the map from to sending a point to
its unit normal vector. If we have a vector field with isolated zeroes on , then we first
observe that the degree of the Gauss map is the sum of the indices of the zeroes of the
vector field, since we can remove balls around the zeroes to get a cobordism from to
the spheres around each . The Gauss map on this cobordism shows that the sum of
the indices is the same. Finally, for a manifold , we can embed in some , and extend
a vector field on it to a tubular neighborhood in such a way that as it gets closer to
the boundary, it gets closer to the outward normal. Then the Gauss map agrees with
the sum of the indices of the original vector field, but isn’t dependent on the vector
field.
Finally, since each critical point amounts to adding a -handle, the Euler characteristic is the sum
over all the critical points of where is the index. However, this is also the sum of the indices of the
zeroes of the gradient flow vector field. To verify this, by the Morse lemma, it only suffices to do
the following computation:
Exercise 4.1.1.The index of the gradient flow for the functionatis given by