# Annular and Boundary Reducing Dehn Fillings

## §0. Introduction

Surfaces of non-negative Euler characteristic, i.e., spheres, disks, tori and annuli, play a special role in the theory of 3-dimensional manifolds. For example, it is well known that every (compact, orientable) 3-manifold can be decomposed into canonical pieces by cutting it along essential surfaces of this kind \[K\], \[M\], \[Bo\], \[JS\], \[Jo1\]. Also, if (as in \[Wu3\]) we call a 3-manifold that contains no essential sphere, disk, torus or annulus simple, then Thurston has shown \[T1\] that a 3-manifold $`M`$ with non-empty boundary is simple if and only if $`M`$ with its boundary tori removed has a hyperbolic structure of finite volume with totally geodesic boundary. For closed 3-manifolds $`M`$, the Geometrization Conjecture \[T1\] asserts that $`M`$ is simple if and only if $`M`$ is either hyperbolic or belongs to a certain small class of Seifert fiber spaces.

Because of their importance, a good deal of attention has been directed at the question of when surfaces of non-negative Euler characteristic can be created by Dehn filling. To describe this, let $`M`$ be a simple 3-manifold, with a torus boundary component $`_0M`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be the isotopy class of an essential simple loop (or slope) on $`_0M`$. Recall that the manifold obtained from $`M`$ by $`\alpha `$-Dehn filling is $`M(\alpha )=MV_\alpha `$, where $`V_\alpha `$ is a solid torus, glued to $`M`$ by a homeomorphism between $`_0M`$ and $`V_\alpha `$ which identifies $`\alpha `$ with the boundary of a meridian disk of $`V_\alpha `$. We are interested in obtaining restrictions on when $`M(\alpha )`$ fails to be simple. Although clearly little can be said in general about a single Dehn filling, if one considers pairs of non-simple fillings $`M(\alpha )`$, $`M(\beta )`$ then it turns out that the distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )`$ between the two slopes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ (i.e., their minimal geometric intersection number) is quite small, and hence a given $`M`$ can have only a small number of non-simple fillings. More precisely, if $`M(\alpha )`$, $`M(\beta )`$ contain essential surfaces $`F_\alpha ,F_\beta `$ of non-negative Euler characteristic, then for each of the ten possible pairs of homeomorphism classes of $`F_\alpha ,F_\beta `$ one can obtain upper bounds on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )`$. In the present paper we deal with the case where $`F_\alpha `$ is an annulus and $`F_\beta `$ is a disk, and prove the following theorem.

###### Theorem 0.1

Let $`M`$ be a simple 3-manifold such that $`M(\alpha )`$ is annular and $`M(\beta )`$ is boundary reducible. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )2`$.

The assumption that $`M`$ is a simple manifold can be replaced by the weaker assumption that it is boundary irreducible and anannular, see Corollary 5.5. The bound is sharp: infinitely many examples of simple 3-manifolds $`M`$ with $`M(\alpha )`$ annular, $`M(\beta )`$ a solid torus, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )=2`$ are given in \[MM2\]. See also \[EW\].

Theorem 0.1 completes the determination of the best possible upper bounds on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )`$ in all ten cases. These are shown in Table 1, where $`S`$, $`D`$, $`A`$ and $`T`$ indicate that the manifold $`M(\alpha )`$ or $`M(\beta )`$ contains an essential sphere, disk, annulus or torus, respectively. References for these bounds are: $`(S,S)`$: \[GL3\] (see also \[BZ\]); $`(S,D)`$: \[Sch\]; $`(S,A)`$: \[Wu3\]; $`(S,T)`$: \[Wu1\], \[Oh\]; $`(D,D)`$: \[Wu2\]; $`(D,T)`$: \[GL4\]; $`(A,A)`$, $`(A,T)`$ and $`(T,T)`$: \[Go\]. Examples showing that the bounds are best possible can be found in: $`(S,S)`$: \[GLi\]; $`(D,D)`$: \[Be\] and \[Ga\]; $`(S,A)`$, $`(D,A)`$ and $`(D,T)`$: \[HM\]; $`(S,T)`$: \[BZ2\]; $`(T,A)`$ and $`(A,A)`$: \[GW\]; $`(T,T)`$: \[T2\] and \[Go\].

Table 1: Upper bounds on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )`$

Here is a sketch of the proof of Theorem 0.1. It has been shown by Qiu \[Qiu\] that $`\mathrm{\Delta }3`$, so we assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$, and try to get a contradiction. Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be an essential annulus and an essential disk in $`M(\alpha )`$ and $`M(\beta )`$, and let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be the intersection of $`A`$ and $`B`$ with $`M`$, respectively. Let $`p,q`$ be the number of boundary components of $`P,Q`$ on the torus $`_0M`$. Denote by $`K_\beta `$ the core of the Dehn filling solid torus $`V_\beta `$ in $`M(\beta )`$.

In Section 2 we consider the special case that $`K=K_\beta `$ is a 1-arch knot, which means that it can be isotoped to a union of two arcs $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, such that $`C_1`$ lies on $`M(\beta )`$, and $`C_2`$ is disjoint from the compressing disk $`B=F_\beta `$ of $`M(\beta )`$. In this case the manifold $`M(\beta )`$ is homeomorphic to a manifold $`X_C`$ obtained by adding a 2-handle to a certain manifold $`X`$ along a curve $`C`$. This changes a Dehn surgery problem to a handle addition problem, and we will use a theorem of Eudave-Muñoz to show that in this case the annulus $`A=F_\alpha `$ can be chosen to intersect the knot $`K_\alpha `$ at most twice, that is, $`p2`$.

As usual, the intersection of $`PQ`$ defines graphs $`G_A,G_B`$ on $`A`$ and $`B`$. In Section 3 the “representing all types” techniques developed in \[GL1–GL4\] is modified to suit the case that the intersection graphs have boundary edges. It will be proved that when $`\mathrm{\Delta }2`$, either $`G_A`$ represents all types, or $`G_B`$ contains a great web. The first possibility is impossible because it would lead to a boundary reducing disk of $`M(\beta )`$ which has less intersection with $`K_\beta `$, hence $`G_B`$ must contain a great web. This great web is then used in Section 4 to show that if $`p3`$ then the knot $`K_\beta `$ is a 1-arch knot. Combined with the result of Section 2, this proves Theorem 0.1 in the generic case that $`p3`$. Finally in Section 5 the case $`p2`$ is ruled out, completing the proof of Theorem 0.1.

The authors would like to thank John Luecke for helpful conversations.

## §1. Preliminaries

Recall that a 3-manifold $`X`$ is boundary reducible if its boundary, denoted by $`X`$, is compressible in $`X`$, in which case a compressing disk of $`X`$ is also called a boundary reducing disk of $`X`$. A surface of non-positive Euler characteristic in $`X`$ is essential if it is incompressible, $``$-incompressible, and is not boundary parallel; a sphere (resp. disk) is essential if it is a reducing sphere (resp. boundary reducing disk.)

Let $`M`$ be a simple 3-manifold, with a torus boundary component $`_0M`$. Let $`\alpha ,\beta `$ be slopes on $`_0M`$ such that $`M(\alpha )`$ is annular and $`M(\beta )`$ is boundary reducible. Let $`A`$ be an essential annulus in $`M(\alpha )`$, and let $`B`$ be an essential disk in $`M(\beta )`$. These give rise to a punctured annulus $`P=AM`$ and a punctured disk $`Q=BM`$ in $`M`$, where $`_0P=P_0M`$ consists of $`p`$ copies of $`\alpha `$, and $`_0Q=Q_0M`$ consists of $`q`$ copies of $`\beta `$. We assume that $`A,B,P,Q`$ are chosen so that $`p`$ and $`q`$ are minimal. Note that $`p,q`$ are positive because $`M`$ is simple. Now isotope $`P`$ and $`Q`$ to minimize $`|PQ|`$, the number of components of $`PQ`$. Then no arc component of $`PQ`$ is boundary parallel in $`P`$ or $`Q`$; no circle component of $`PQ`$ bounds a disk in $`P`$ or $`Q`$; and each component of $`_0P`$ meets each component of $`_0Q`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )`$ points.

Ruifeng Qiu showed in \[Qiu\] that if $`M`$ is a simple manifold, $`M(\alpha )`$ is annular and $`M(\beta )`$ is boundary reducible, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }3`$. Thus to prove Theorem 0.1, we need only rule out the possibility that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$. In this paper except in Section 3, we will assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$, and proceed to get a contradiction. Results in Section 3 have been proved in a broader setting, so they can be used in the future.

Regarding the components of $`_0P`$, $`_0Q`$ as fat vertices, we get graphs $`G_A,G_B`$ in $`A,B`$ respectively, where the edges of $`G_A`$ and $`G_B`$ are the arc components of $`PQ`$ that have at least one endpoint on $`_0M`$. Let $`J=A`$ or $`B`$. An edge of $`G_J`$ is an interior edge if each of its endpoints lies on a vertex of $`G_J`$, and a boundary edge if one of its endpoints lies on a vertex of $`G_J`$ and the other lies on $`J`$. The faces of $`G_J`$ correspond in the usual way to components of $`J\text{Int}N(G_J)`$. A face of $`G_J`$ is an interior face if it does not meet $`J`$; otherwise it is a boundary face. Thus the edges in the boundary of an interior face are interior edges, while the boundary of a boundary disk face contains some boundary edges. Denote by $`\widehat{G}_J`$ the reduced graph of $`G_J`$, in which each parallel family of edges is replaced by a single edge.

Let $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_p`$ be the vertices of $`G_A`$, labeled successively when traveling along the Dehn filling solid torus $`V_\alpha `$. Each $`u_i`$ is given a sign according to whether $`V_\alpha `$ passes $`A`$ from the positive side or negative side at this vertex. Two vertices $`u_i,u_j`$ are parallel if they have the same sign, otherwise they are antiparallel. The vertices $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_q`$ of $`G_B`$ are labeled and signed similarly.

If $`e`$ is an edge of $`G_A`$ with an endpoint on $`u_i`$, then the endpoint is labeled $`j`$ if it is on $`u_iv_j`$. Thus when going around $`u_i`$, the labels of the edge endpoints appear as $`1,2,\mathrm{},q`$ repeated $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ times. The edge endpoints of $`G_B`$ are labeled similarly.

A cycle in $`G_A`$ or $`G_B`$ is a Scharlemann cycle if it bounds a disk with interior disjoint from the graph, and all the edges in the cycle have the same pair of labels $`\{i,i+1\}`$ at their two endpoints, called the label pair of the Scharlemann cycle. A pair of edges $`\{e_1,e_2\}`$ is an extended Scharlemann cycle if there is a Scharlemann cycle $`\{e_1^{},e_2^{}\}`$ such that $`e_i`$ is parallel and adjacent to $`e_i^{}`$.

We use $`N(X)`$ to denote a regular neighborhood of a subset $`X`$ in a given manifold.

###### Lemma 1.1

(Properties of $`G_A`$.)

(1) (The Parity Rule) An edge connects parallel vertices on $`G_A`$ if and only if it connects antiparallel vertices on $`G_B`$.

(2) $`G_A`$ does not have $`q`$ parallel interior edges.

(3) $`G_A`$ contains no Scharlemann cycles.

(4) Each label $`x\{1,\mathrm{},q\}`$ appears at most once among the endpoints of a family $``$ of parallel edges in $`G_A`$ connecting parallel vertices; in particular, $``$ contains at most $`q/2`$ edges.

(5) No pair of edges are parallel on both $`G_A`$ and $`G_B`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

(1) This is on \[CGLS, Page 279\].

(2) If $`G_A`$ contains $`q`$ parallel interior edges, then the core of the Dehn filling solid torus in $`M(\beta )`$ would be a cable knot, in which case $`M`$ contains an essential annulus, contradicting the assumption. See the proof of \[GLi, Proposition 1.3\].

(3) This follows from \[CGLS, Lemma 2.5.2\].

(4) If some label appears twice among the endpoints of a family of parallel edges connecting a pair of parallel vertices, then there is a Scharlemann cycle among this family, contradicting (3). See \[CGLS, Lemma 2.6.6\].

(5) If a pair of edges are parallel on both $`G_A`$ and $`G_B`$, then they cut off a disk on each of $`P`$ and $`Q`$, whose union is an annulus in $`M`$, which is essential because its intersection with $`_0M`$ is a curve intersecting $`\alpha `$ at a single point. This contradicts the assumption that $`M`$ is simple. ∎

###### Lemma 1.2

(Properties of $`G_B`$.)

(1) If $`G_B`$ has a Scharlemann cycle, then $`A`$ is a separating annulus, and $`p`$ is even. Moreover, the subgraph of $`G_A`$ consisting of the edges of the Scharlemann cycle and their vertices is not contained in a subdisk of $`A`$.

(2) If $`p>2`$, then $`G_B`$ has no extended Scharlemann cycle. Any two Scharlemann cycles of $`G_B`$ have the same label pair.

###### Demonstration Proof

(1) This follows from the proof of \[CGLS, Lemma 2.5.2\]. It was shown that using the disk bounded by the Scharlemann cycle one can find another annulus $`A^{}`$ in $`M(\alpha )`$ which has fewer intersections with the Dehn filling solid torus, and is cobordant to $`A`$, so if $`A`$ were nonseparating then $`A^{}`$ would still be essential, which would contradict the minimality of $`p`$. If the subgraph $`G`$ consisting of the edges of a Scharlemann cycle and their end vertices is contained in a disk in $`A`$ then $`A^{}A`$ bounds a connected sum of $`A\times I`$ and a lens space, so $`A`$ being essential implies that $`A^{}`$ is essential, which again contradicts the minimality of $`p`$.

(2) This is \[Wu3, Lemma 5.4(2) – (3)\]. If $`G_B`$ has an extended Scharlemann cycle or two Scharlemann cycles with distinct label pairs, then one can find another essential annulus in $`M(\alpha )`$ having fewer intersection with $`K_\alpha `$, which would contradict the minimality of $`p`$. ∎

## §2. 1-arch knots

Let $`K=K_\beta `$ be the core of the Dehn filling solid torus in $`M(\beta )`$. The knot $`K`$ is a 1-arch knot (with respect to $`B`$) if $`K`$ is isotopic to a union of two arcs $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, such that $`C_1`$ lies on $`M(\beta )`$, and $`C_2`$ is disjoint from a compressing disk $`B`$ of $`M(\beta )`$.

Fix an orientation of $`K`$ so that when traveling along $`K`$ with this orientation one meets the fat vertices $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_q`$ successively. Let $`K[i]`$ be the point $`Kv_i`$, and for $`ij`$, let $`K[i,j]`$ be the oriented arc segment of $`K`$ starting from $`K[i]`$ and ending at $`K[j]`$. Thus $`K=K[i,j]K[j,i]`$.

###### Lemma 2.1

If $`G_A`$ contains $`q`$ parallel boundary edges, then $`K=K_\beta `$ is a 1-arch knot.

###### Demonstration Proof

Without loss of generality we may assume that the interior endpoints of the parallel boundary edges $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_q`$ are successively labeled $`1,\mathrm{},q`$. Let $`D`$ be the disk on $`P`$ cut off by $`e_1`$ and $`e_q`$. Then $`D`$ can be extended into the Dehn filling solid torus $`N(K)`$ to get a disk $`D^{}`$ in $`M(\beta )`$ such that $`D^{}=e_1^{}K[1,q]e_q^{}C_1`$, where $`e_i^{}`$ is an arc on $`B`$ containing $`e_i`$, connecting $`K[i]`$ to the endpoint of $`e_i`$ on $`A`$, and $`C_1=DA`$ lies on $`M(\beta )`$. Now $`K`$ is isotopic to $`C_1(e_1^{}K[q,1]e_q^{})`$ via the disk $`D^{}`$. Let $`C_2=e_1^{}K[q,1]e_q^{}`$. After a slight isotopy one can make $`B`$ disjoint from $`C_2`$, as desired. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2

Suppose $`\widehat{G}_A`$ has a vertex $`u`$ of valency 4, such that one of the four edges of $`\widehat{G}_A`$ incident to $`u`$ is a boundary edge, and the two edges adjacent to it are interior edges. Then either $`G_B`$ contains a Scharlemann cycle, or $`K=K_\beta `$ is a 1-arch knot.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`\widehat{e}_1,\widehat{e}_2,\widehat{e}_3,\widehat{e}_4`$ be the four edges of $`\widehat{G}_A`$ incident to $`u`$, and assume that $`\widehat{e}_2`$ is a boundary edge. By Lemmas 2.1 and 1.1(2) we may assume that each $`\widehat{e}_i`$ represents at most $`q1`$ parallel edges of $`G_A`$. Now each label appears at most twice among the endpoints at $`u`$ of edges represented by $`\widehat{e}_2`$ or $`\widehat{e}_4`$, hence all labels appear on endpoints at $`u`$ of edges represented by $`\widehat{e}_1`$ or $`\widehat{e}_3`$. Suppose $`\widehat{e}_1,\widehat{e}_3`$ connect $`u`$ to $`u^{}`$ and $`u^{\prime \prime }`$, respectively. If both $`u^{}`$ and $`u^{\prime \prime }`$ are antiparallel to $`u`$, then by the parity rule each vertex $`v`$ on $`G_B`$ is incident to an edge connecting it to a parallel vertex, with label $`u`$ at its endpoint at $`v`$. By \[CGLS, Lemmas 2.6.3 and 2.6.2\] this implies that $`G_B`$ contains a great $`u`$-cycle, hence a Scharlemann cycle, and we are done. Also, notice that $`u^{}`$ and $`u^{\prime \prime }`$ cannot both be parallel to $`u`$, otherwise by Lemma 1.1(4) each of $`\widehat{e}_1`$ and $`\widehat{e}_3`$ represents at most $`q/2`$ edges, and since each of $`\widehat{e}_2`$ and $`\widehat{e}_4`$ represents at most $`q1`$ edges, this would contradict the fact that the total valency of $`u`$ in $`G_A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }q=3q`$. (This also takes care of the case that $`\widehat{e}_1=\widehat{e}_3`$ is a loop at $`u`$.) Therefore, we may assume that $`u^{}`$ is parallel to $`u`$, and $`u^{\prime \prime }`$ is antiparallel to $`u`$. Since the total number of edges represented by $`\widehat{e}_1\widehat{e}_2\widehat{e}_3`$ is more than $`2q`$, we can choose $`2q`$ successive edges at $`u`$, forming a subgraph as shown in Figure 2.1. One can now use \[Wu2, Lemma 2.2\] and the proof of \[Wu2, Lemma 3.4\] to show that there is a disk $`D`$ in $`M(\beta )`$ with $`D=K[1,q]\alpha _1C_1\alpha _2`$, where $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ are arcs on the compressing disk $`B`$ connecting $`K[1]`$ and $`K[q]`$ to $`B`$, and $`C_1`$ is an arc on $`M(\beta )`$. As in the proof of Lemma 2.1, this implies that $`K`$ is a 1-arch knot. ∎

Figure 2.1

We need the following result of Eudave-Munõz in the proof of Proposition 2.4. If $`C`$ is a simple loop on the boundary of a 3-manifold $`X`$, denote by $`X_C`$ the manifold obtained by adding a 2-handle to $`X`$ along the curve $`C`$.

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`X`$ be an irreducible, orientable 3-manifold with $`X`$ compressible, and $`C`$ a simple closed curve on $`X`$ such that $`XC`$ is incompressible. Suppose $`X_C`$ contains an essential annulus $`A^{}`$. Then it contains an essential annulus $`A`$ which intersects the attached 2-handle in at most two disks. Furthermore, if $`A^{}`$ is nonseparating, then $`A`$ can be chosen to be disjoint from the attached 2-handle.

###### Demonstration Proof

This is essentially \[Eu, Theorem 1\]. The theorem there says that under the above assumption, either one can find $`A`$ to be disjoint from the attached 2-handle, or after sliding the cocore $`\sigma `$ of the attached 2-handle over itself to get a 1-complex $`\tau `$, one can find an essential annulus $`A`$ which intersects $`\tau `$ at a single point. Moreover, if $`A^{}`$ is nonseparating, then $`A`$ is disjoint from $`\tau `$ (see also \[Jo2, Sch\]). Sliding $`\tau `$ back to $`\sigma `$, we see that $`A`$ is isotopic to an annulus intersecting $`\sigma `$ at most twice. See also the remarks after the statement of Theorem 2 in \[Eu\]. ∎

###### Proposition 2.4

If $`K=K_\beta `$ is a 1-arch knot in $`M(\beta )`$, then $`p2`$, and $`A`$ is a separating annulus in $`M(\alpha )`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

The first part of the proof here is the same as that in the proof of \[Wu2, Proposition 1\]. Suppose $`K`$ is isotopic to $`C_1C_2`$ as in the definition of 1-arch knot. Let $`Y`$ be the manifold obtained by adding a 1-handle $`H_1`$ to $`M(\beta )`$ along two disks centered at $`C_1`$, and let $`C`$ be a simple closed curve on $`Y`$ obtained by taking the union of $`C_1Y`$ and an arc on $`H_1`$. Let $`K^{}`$ be the union of $`C_2`$ and the core of the 1-handle $`H_1`$. Then after adding a 2-handle $`H_2`$ to $`Y`$ along $`C`$ the 1-handle and the 2-handle cancel each other and we get a manifold $`M^{}`$ homeomorphic to the original manifold $`M(\beta )`$, with the knot $`K`$ identified to $`K^{}`$; hence we have a homeomorphism of pairs $`(M(\beta ),K)(M^{},K^{})`$. Let $`W`$ (denoted by $`Q`$ in \[Wu2\]) be the manifold obtained from $`Y`$ by Dehn surgery on $`K^{}`$ along the slope $`\alpha `$. Then $`M(\alpha )`$ is homeomorphic to the manifold $`W_C`$ obtained by adding the 2-handle $`H_2`$ to $`W`$ along the curve $`C`$. It was shown in \[Wu2, Lemmas 1.2 and 1.3\] that $`W`$ is compressible, and $`WC`$ is incompressible in $`W`$ when $`\mathrm{\Delta }2`$.

Since $`M(\beta )`$ is $``$-reducible, by \[Sch\] the manifold $`M(\alpha )=W_C`$ is irreducible. This implies that $`W`$ is irreducible because a reducing sphere in a manifold always remains a reducing sphere after 2-handle additions. Therefore we can apply Lemma 2.3 and conclude that there is an essential annulus $`A`$ in $`M(\alpha )=W_C`$ intersecting the attached 2-handle $`H_2`$ in $`n2`$ disks; moreover, if $`A`$ is nonseparating, then it is disjoint from $`H_2`$. Our goal is to show that $`A`$ also intersects the knot $`K_\alpha `$ in $`M(\alpha )`$ in two or zero points, respectively.

We assume $`n=2`$, the cases $`n=0`$ or $`1`$ are similar. Let $`D_1,D_2`$ be the disks $`AH_2`$, and let $`F`$ be the twice punctured annulus $`A\text{Int}(D_1D_2)`$ in $`W`$. A meridian disk $`D`$ of the 1-handle $`H_1`$ gives rise to a nonseparating essential annulus $`D_0=DX`$ in the manifold $`X=Y\text{Int}N(K^{})=W\text{Int}N(K_\alpha )`$. Let $`F_0=FX`$. Form intersection graphs $`G_D`$ and $`G_F`$ in the usual way, i.e, $`G_F`$ has $`FN(K_\alpha )`$ as fat vertices, $`G_D`$ has a single vertex $`DN(K_\beta )`$, and the edges of $`G_D`$ and $`G_F`$ are the arc components of $`D_0F_0`$ which has at least one endpoint on the fat vertices. See Figure 2.2. Choose $`A`$ and $`F`$ so that $`A_0`$ intersects $`F_0`$ minimally. Then each fat vertex of $`G_F`$ has valency $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$, and the only vertex $`x`$ of $`G_D`$ has valency $`3t`$, where $`t`$ is the number of vertices of $`G_F`$. Note that, since $`A`$ is essential in $`M(\alpha )`$, we have $`tp`$. As usual, there are no trivial loops. Hence each edge of $`G_D`$ connects $`x`$ to $`D`$.

Each of $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ intersects $`D`$ at a single point, which we denote by $`z_1,z_2`$, as indicated by the dark dots in Figure 2.2(a) and (b). They divide $`D`$ into two arcs $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$, one of which, say $`\alpha _1`$, lies in $`N(C)`$, which is the attaching region of the two handle $`H_2`$ above. Hence the interior of $`\alpha _1`$ is disjoint from $`F`$. It follows that all the endpoints of the edges of $`G_D`$ on $`D`$ lie on the arc $`\alpha _2`$, as shown in Figure 2.2(a).

Figure 2.2

Now suppose $`G_F`$ has $`t3`$ vertices. Since each of $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ is adjacent to at most one edge, there is a vertex of $`G_F`$ with two edges connecting it to the same component of $`AF`$. An outermost such vertex has a pair of edges $`a_1,a_2`$ on $`G_F`$, cutting off a region $`B_1`$ on $`F_0`$ which is either a disk, or a once punctured disk containing one of $`D_1,D_2`$, as shown by the two shaded regions in Figure 2.2(b). (If $`B_1`$ contains both $`D_i`$, choose another outermost vertex.) They also cut off a disk $`B_2`$ on $`D_0`$ which, by the property in the last paragraph, has boundary disjoint from $`\alpha _1`$. Therefore, $`B_1B_2`$ is either an annulus or a once punctured annulus in $`X`$, with one boundary component $`\gamma `$ a curve on $`N(K)`$, another a curve on $`XN(K)`$ disjoint from $`C`$, and a possible third curve parallel to $`C`$. After capping off the last component by a disk in the attached 2-handle $`H_2`$, the surface becomes an annulus in $`X_C`$. However, since $`X_C=M`$, and since the boundary component $`\gamma `$ of the annulus on the torus $`N(K)=_0M`$ is an essential curve, (essential because $`\gamma `$ is the union of an arc in $`\alpha `$ and an arc in $`\beta `$, and $`\alpha `$ intersects $`\beta `$ minimally,) this contradicts the fact that $`M`$ is $``$-irreducible and anannular.

When $`n=0`$, since $`tp>0`$, there is a pair of edges which are parallel on both graphs $`G_D`$ and$`G_F`$. As shown above, this would give rise to an essential annulus in $`M`$, which would contradict the simplicity of $`M`$. Hence this case does not happen. In particular, this and Lemma 2.3 show that $`M(\alpha )`$ cannot contain a nonseparating annulus. ∎

## §3. Representing types

Denote by $`𝕢=\{1,\mathrm{},q\}`$ the set of labels of the vertices of $`G_B`$. We have the concept of a q-type etc. from \[GL1\]. An interior face of $`G_A`$ represents a q-type $`\tau `$ if it is a disk and represents $`\tau `$ in the sense of \[GL1\]. We say $`G_A`$ represents  $`\tau `$ if some interior face of $`G_A`$ represents $`\tau `$.

###### Theorem 3.1

$`G_A`$ does not represent all q-types.

###### Demonstration Proof

See \[GL4, Proof of Theorem 2.2\]. The proof works for any essential surface $`F`$ in $`M(\alpha )`$ (in \[GL4\] $`F`$ was a torus). A set of representatives of all q-types contains a set $`𝒟`$ of interior faces of $`G_F`$ which can be used to surger $`Q`$ tubed along the annuli corresponding to the corners of the faces in $`𝒟`$, contradicting the minimality of $`q`$. ∎

A web in $`G_B`$ is a non-empty connected subgraph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`G_B`$ such that all the vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have the same sign, and such that there are at most $`p`$ edge endpoints at vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which are not endpoints of edges in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Note that a web may have boundary edges.

Let $`U`$ be a component of $`BN(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ that meets $`B`$. Then $`D=BU`$ is a disk bounded by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a great web if there is a disk bounded by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ contains all the edges of $`G_B`$ that lie in $`D`$.

###### Remark Remark

If there are no boundary edges, then these definitions coincide with those in \[GL2, Section 2\]. The following is the analog in our present setting of \[GL2, Theorem 2.3\].

###### Theorem 3.2

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Delta }2`$. Let $`L`$ be a subset of q, and $`\tau `$ be a non-trivial $`L`$-type such that

(i) all elements of $`C(\tau )`$ have the same sign, and

(ii) all elements of $`A(\tau )`$ have the same sign.

If $`G_A(L)`$ does not represent $`\tau `$ then $`G_B`$ contains a web $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that the set of vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a subset of either $`C(\tau )`$ or $`A(\tau )`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Regard $`G_A(L)`$ as a graph in $`S^2`$, by capping off the boundary components of $`A`$ with two additional fat vertices $`v_1,v_2`$.

Define a directed graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau )`$ as follows. The vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the fat vertices of $`G_A(L)`$ plus $`v_1,v_2`$, together with dual vertices of $`G_A(L)`$ (one in the interior of each face of $`G_A(L)`$.) The edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ join each dual vertex to the fat vertices in the boundary of the corresponding face. The edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are oriented as follows: If an edge $`e`$ has an endpoint on a vertex of $`G_A(L)`$, then it is oriented according to the type $`\tau `$, (as in \[GL1\], where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)^{}`$); if $`e`$ has an endpoint on $`v_1`$ or $`v_2`$, orient $`e`$ so that no dual vertex in a boundary face of $`G_A(L)`$ is a sink or source of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. See Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1

By Glass’ index formula (see \[Gl\]) applied to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we have

$$\underset{\text{vertices}}{}I(v)+\underset{\text{faces}}{}I(f)=\chi (S^2)=2.$$

Assume $`G_A(L)`$ does not represent $`\tau `$. Then no dual vertex in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a sink or source. Hence

$$\underset{v\text{ dual}}{}I(v)0.$$

Let

$`c(\tau )=\text{\# clockwise switches (= \# anticlockwise switches) of }\tau `$   
$`c(v_i)=\text{\# clockwise switches (= \# anticlockwise switches) at }v_i\text{}i=1,2`$   
For $`v`$ a vertex of $`G_A(L)`$, we have

$$I(v)=1\mathrm{\Delta }c(\tau ).$$

Also,

$$I(v_i)=1c(v_i),i=1,2.$$

Therefore, the number of switch edges, including all switch boundary edges, is at least

$`{\displaystyle I(f)}`$ $`2+p(\mathrm{\Delta }c(\tau )1)+(c(v_1)1)+(c(v_2)1)`$ $``$   
$`=p(\mathrm{\Delta }c(\tau )1)+c(v_1)+c(v_2)`$   
Since the number of switch edge endpoints is twice the number of switch edges, this is also a lower bound for the number of (say) clockwise switch edge endpoints. The total number of clockwise switches is $`p\mathrm{\Delta }c(\tau )+c(v_1)+c(v_2)`$, so the number of clockwise switches that are not endpoints of clockwise switch edges is at most $`p`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }2`$, the right hand side of (\*) is positive. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a component of the subgraph of $`G_B`$ consisting of the edges corresponding to the clockwise switch edges of $`G_A(L)`$. Then at most $`p`$ edge endpoints at vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ do not belong to edges of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a web, as described. ∎

The following is the analog of \[GL2, Theorem 2.5\].

###### Theorem 3.3

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Delta }2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be either (i) a web in $`G_B`$, or (ii) the empty set. In case (i), let $`D`$ be a disk bounded by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and in case (ii), let $`D=B`$. Let $`L`$ be the set of vertices of $`G_B\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that lie in $`D`$. Then either $`G_B`$ contains a great web or $`G_A(L)`$ represents all $`L`$-types.

###### Demonstration Proof

Basically, this follows from the proof of \[GL2, Theorem 2.5\]. We indicate briefly how this goes.

We prove the result by induction on $`|L|`$.

Let $`\tau `$ be an $`L`$-type. We show that if $`G_A(L)`$ does not represent $`\tau `$ then $`G_B`$ contains a great web. There are two cases.

CASE 1. $`\tau `$ is trivial. Proceed as in \[GL2, Proof of Theorem 2.5\]. Let $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ be a component of the subgraph of $`G_B`$ consisting of vertices $`J`$, all interior edges with both endpoints on vertices in $`J`$, and all boundary edges with one endpoint on a vertex in $`J`$.

(a) $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is a web. Argue as in \[GL2\], with “faces” meaning “interior faces”.

(b) $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is not a web. Again the argument in \[GL2\] remains valid. More precisely, since $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is not a web, there are more than $`p`$ edges of $`G_B`$ connecting a vertex of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ to an antiparallel vertex. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the subgraph of $`G_A`$ consisting of the vertices of $`G_A`$ together with those edges. Note that these are interior edges of $`G_A`$, connecting parallel vertices. Applying Euler’s formula to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a graph in $`A`$, gives

$$VE+\chi (f)=0.$$

Therefore

$$\chi (f)=EV>pp=0.$$

Hence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has a disk face, which must be an interior face. This face then contains a face of $`G_A(L)`$ representing the trivial type.

CASE 2. $`\tau `$ is non-trivial. Here the argument in \[GL2\] goes through essentially without change, (using Theorem 3.2), where we always interpret “face” as “interior face”. In particular, \[GL2, Lemmas 2.4 and 2.6\] carry over in this way. ∎

Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 (in case (ii)) imply:

###### Corollary 3.4

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }2`$, then $`G_B`$ contains a great web. ∎

## §4. The generic case

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a great web in $`G_B`$ given by Corollary 3.4, and let $`D`$ be a disk bounded by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the property in the definition of a great web. Let $`x`$ be a label of the vertices of $`G_A`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ be the subgraph of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ consisting of all vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and all edges in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with an endpoint labeled $`x`$. Let $`V`$ be the number of vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A ghost endpoint of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an endpoint, at a vertex of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, of an edge of $`G_B`$ which does not belong to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A ghost endpoint of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ is a ghost endpoint of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ labeled $`x`$. (It is called a ghost label in \[GL2\].) By the definition of a web, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has at most $`p`$ ghost endpoints.

By a monogon we mean a disk face with one edge in its boundary, and by a bigon we mean a disk face with two edges in its boundary.

###### Lemma 4.1

(Cf. \[GL2, Lemma 4.2\]) If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ has at least $`3V2`$ edges then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ contains a bigon in $`D`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the graph in $`S^2`$ obtained from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ by regarding $`B`$ as a vertex. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has $`V+1`$ vertices, $`E`$ edges (= number of edges of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$), and the faces of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are the faces of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ in $`D`$ together with an additional face $`f_0`$. Note that $`f_0`$ is not a monogon. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ contains no bigon in $`D`$.

First suppose $`f_0`$ is not a bigon. Then $`2E3F`$, where $`F=\chi (f)`$ summed over all faces of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Also,

$$(V+1)E+F=2.$$

Hence

$$1=VE+FVE+\frac{2E}{3}=V\frac{E}{3},$$

giving $`33VE`$, i.e, $`E3V3`$, contrary to assumption.

Now suppose $`f_0`$ is a bigon; see Figure 4.1. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ has at most one ghost endpoint. Therefore $`E3V1`$. Also, Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ has no bigon in $`D`$, we have

$$2E3F1.$$

Hence, as before,

$$1=VE+FVE+\frac{2E+1}{3}=V\frac{E}{3}+\frac{1}{3}.$$

Therefore $`33VE+1`$, implying $`E3V2`$, a contradiction. ∎

Figure 4.1

###### Remark Remark

One can show that the conclusion of Lemma 4.1 still holds if we only assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ has at least $`3V3`$ edges, but Lemma 4.1 will suffice for our purposes.

###### Lemma 4.2

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ contains a bigon in $`D`$ for at least $`2p/3`$ labels $`x`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

(Cf. \[GL2, Theorem 4.3\]). By Lemma 4.1, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ does not contain a bigon in $`D`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ has at most $`3V3`$ edges. Since the vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ are all parallel, by the parity rule no edge of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ has both endpoints labeled $`x`$, so among the endpoints of edges of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$, at most $`3V3`$ are labeled $`x`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$, this means that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ has at least 3 ghost endpoints. Since the total number of ghost endpoints in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is at most $`p`$ by the definition of a great web, there can be at most $`p/3`$ such labels $`x`$. Hence for at least $`2p/3`$ labels $`x`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ does contain a bigon in $`D`$. ∎

Note that a boundary bigon in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ gives $`p+1`$ parallel boundary edges in $`G_B`$.

In the remainder of this section, we assume that $`p3`$.

###### Lemma 4.3

For some label $`x`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ contains a boundary bigon.

###### Demonstration Proof

A bigon face of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ in $`D`$ is either a boundary bigon or an interior bigon. The latter is either an order 2 Scharlemann cycle in $`G_B`$, or contains an extended Scharlemann cycle. The second is impossible by Lemma 1.2(2). When $`p`$ is odd, the first is also impossible (Lemma 1.2(1)), and when $`p`$ is even, any two Scharlemann cycles have the same label pair (Lemma 1.2(2)). Hence, by Lemma 4.2, the number of labels $`x`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ contains a boundary bigon is at least

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}2p/32\times 3/3=2,\hfill & p\text{ odd;}\hfill \\ 2p/322\times 4/32=2/3,\hfill & p\text{ even.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence there is at least one label $`x`$ with the stated property. ∎

###### Corollary 4.4

(a) Every vertex of $`G_A`$ has a boundary edge incident to it.

(b) $`G_A`$ has a vertex with two non-parallel boundary edges.

###### Demonstration Proof

(a) By Lemma 4.3, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ contains a boundary bigon for some $`x`$, which gives rise to $`p+1`$ parallel boundary edges in $`G_B`$. Hence each label of $`𝕡=\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$ appears at the endpoint of some boundary edge of $`G_B`$, and the result follows.

(b) By Lemma 1.1(5), the two boundary edges in a boundary bigon of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ are nonparallel on $`G_A`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.5

$`\widehat{G}_A`$ has no vertex of valency at most 3.

###### Demonstration Proof

$`G_A`$ has at most $`q1`$ parallel interior edges by Lemma 1.1(2), and at most $`q1`$ parallel boundary edges by Lemma 2.1, Proposition 2.4, and the assumption that $`p3`$. Since the total valency of each vertex of $`G_A`$ is $`3q`$, the result follows. ∎

###### Corollary 4.6

$`\widehat{G}_A`$ has no vertex with two boundary edges going to the same component of $`A`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Consider an outermost such vertex, with $`E`$ the corresponding subdisk of $`A`$. Doubling $`E`$ along the two boundary edges in question and applying \[CGLS, Lemma 2.6.5\] gives a vertex in the interior of $`E`$ of valency at most 3, contradicting Lemma 4.5. ∎

###### Lemma 4.7

$`\widehat{G}_A`$ has a vertex $`v`$ of valency 4, such that no two boundary edges of $`\widehat{G}_A`$ at $`v`$ have endpoints adjacent on $`v`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

By Corollaries 4.4(b) and 4.6, $`\widehat{G}_A`$ has at least one vertex with two boundary edges going to different components of $`A`$. Cut $`A`$ along all such pairs of edges; we get a certain number ($`1`$) of disk regions. If there are no vertices in the interior of any of these regions, then every vertex of $`\widehat{G}_A`$ satisfies the conclusion of the lemma; (recall that there is no vertex of valency $`3`$ by Lemma 4.5). So consider a region with a non-zero number of vertices in its interior; see Figure 4.2(a). Note that each vertex $`v`$ in the interior of the region is incident to exactly one boundary edge, hence we need only show that some $`v`$ has valency 4.

Figure 4.2

If the number of vertices in the interior of the region is 1 or 2, the result is obvious. So suppose there are at least 3 such vertices. Delete $`v_2`$ and all edges incident to it, and push $`v_1`$ inwards and attach a boundary edge to it, as shown in Figure 4.2(b). Applying assertion (\*) in the proof of Lemma 2.6.5 in \[CGLS\] to the resulting graph, we conclude that there is a vertex $`vv_1`$ of valency at most 3. Since there is at most one edge joining $`v`$ to $`v_2`$, $`v`$ has valency at most 4 (hence exactly 4) in the original graph $`\widehat{G}_A`$. ∎

###### Proposition 4.8

Theorem 0.1 is true if $`p3`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`v`$ be the vertex of valency 4 given by Lemma 4.7. Since we have assumed $`p3`$, by Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4, $`G_B`$ contains a Scharlemann cycle. Suppose the Scharlemann cycle has label pair $`\{1,2\}`$. Then by Lemma 1.2(1), $`p`$ is even, hence $`p4`$, and the edges of the Scharlemann cycle are not contained in a disk on $`A`$. Thus in $`\widehat{G}_A`$ there are two edges connecting $`v_1`$ to $`v_2`$, as shown in Figure 5.1(b). They separate the two boundary components of the annulus $`A`$, so no other vertex is incident to two edges going to different boundary components of $`A`$. It follows from Corollary 4.6 that the only possible vertices of $`\widehat{G}_A`$ with two boundary edges are $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. Since there are no Scharlemann cycles on any other label pair, and no extended Scharlemann cycles (Lemma 1.2(2)), the only labels $`x`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_x`$ has a bigon in $`D`$ are $`1`$ and $`2`$. Hence by Lemma 4.2, we have $`2p/32`$, i.e. $`p3`$. But we have just shown that $`p4`$, which is a contradiction. ∎

## §5. The case that $`p2`$

After Proposition 4.8, it remains to consider the case that the graph $`G_A`$ on the annulus $`A`$ has at most two vertices. In this section we will consider this remaining case, and complete the proof of Theorem 0.1. As before, we assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$.

###### Lemma 5.1

If $`p2`$, then $`p=2`$, and the two vertices of $`G_A`$ are antiparallel.

###### Demonstration Proof

First assume $`p=1`$. Then $`A`$ is a nonseparating annulus in $`M(\alpha )`$. The reduced graph $`\widehat{G}_A`$ consists of one vertex, at most one loop, and at most two boundary edges. By Lemma 1.1(4) the number of endpoints of loops is at most $`q`$. Since the total valency of the vertex is $`3q`$, there exist $`q`$ parallel boundary edges. By Lemma 2.1 $`K_\beta `$ is a 1-arch knot. However, by Proposition 2.4 in this case $`M(\alpha )`$ contains no nonseparating annulus, a contradiction.

Now assume $`p=2`$ and the two vertices of $`G_A`$ are parallel. Then again $`A`$ is nonseparating in $`M(\alpha )`$. The reduced graph $`\widehat{G}_A`$ is a subgraph of one of the two graphs shown in Figure 5.1, depending on whether or not $`\widehat{G}_A`$ has a loop. Since the two vertices are parallel, by Lemma 1.1(4) each family of parallel interior edges contains at most $`q/2`$ edges, hence in both cases there is a family of at least $`q`$ parallel boundary edges. As above, this implies that $`K_\beta `$ is a 1-arch knot, hence contradicts Proposition 2.4 and the fact that $`A`$ is nonseparating. ∎

Figure 5.1

We may now assume that $`p=2`$ and the two vertices of $`G_A`$ are antiparallel. Suppose $`W`$ is a submanifold of $`M(\alpha )`$ containing $`K_\alpha `$. We use $`_iW`$ to denote the closure of $`WM(\alpha )`$, which is the frontier of $`W`$ in $`M(\alpha )`$, and call it the interior boundary.

If $`D`$ is a disk embedded (improperly) in $`M(\alpha )`$ such that $`DW=D_iW`$ is a single arc $`C`$ on the boundary of $`D`$, and $`DC`$ lies on $`M(\alpha )`$, then the pair $`(WN(D),K_\alpha )`$ is homeomorphic to $`(W,K_\alpha )`$, with $`_i(WN(D))`$ identified to $`_iW`$ cut along the arc $`C`$. This observation will be useful in the proof of Lemma 5.4.

For the purpose of this section, we define an extremal component of a subgraph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`G_B`$ to be a component $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ such that there is an arc $`\gamma `$ cutting $`B`$ into $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$, with $`B_1\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$.

###### Lemma 5.2

If $`p=2`$ and the two vertices of $`G_A`$ are antiparallel, then each vertex of $`G_B`$ is incident to a boundary edge. In particular, each face of $`G_B`$ is a disk.

###### Demonstration Proof

The reduced graph $`\widehat{G}_A`$ is a subgraph of that shown in Figure 5.1(a) or (b). In case (b), each of the interior edge of $`\widehat{G}_A`$ represents at most $`q`$ edges of $`G_A`$, hence each label appear at most four times at endpoints of interior edges. It follows that each vertex of $`G_B`$ is incident to at least two boundary edges.

In case (a), consider the edge endpoints at a vertex $`v`$ of $`G_A`$. Let $`s`$ be the number of boundary edges at $`v`$, and let $`t`$ be the number of loops based at $`v`$. Observe that if $`s<q`$ but $`s+2t>q`$ then some label would appear twice among the endpoints of the parallel loops, which would contradict Lemma 1.1(4). If $`s+2tq`$, then the two nonloop edges of $`\widehat{G}_A`$ would represent $`3q(s+2t)2q`$ edges, which would contradict Lemma 1.1(2). Therefore we must have $`sq`$, which implies that each vertex of $`G_B`$ is incident to a boundary edge.

If some face $`f`$ of $`G_B`$ is not a disk, then the vertices inside of a nontrivial loop in $`f`$ would have no boundary edges, which would contradict the above conclusion. ∎

###### Lemma 5.3

Suppose $`p=2`$ and the two vertices of $`G_A`$ are antiparallel. Then there is a vertex $`v_0`$ of $`\widehat{G}_B`$ with the following properties.

(1) $`v_0`$ has valency 2 or 3 in $`\widehat{G}_B`$, and belongs to a single boundary edge $`e`$ of $`\widehat{G}_B`$.

(2) If the valency of $`v_0`$ is 3, then the face opposite to the boundary edge is an interior face.

(3) One of the two faces of $`\widehat{G}_B`$ containing $`e`$ intersects $`B`$ in a single arc.

###### Demonstration Proof

By Lemma 5.2 each vertex of $`G_B`$ belongs to a boundary edge. Consider an extremal component $`C`$ of $`G_B`$, and let $`\widehat{C}`$ be its reduced graph. Let $`\widehat{C}^{}`$ be its corresponding component in $`\widehat{G}_B`$. Note that $`\widehat{C}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{C}`$ are almost identical, except that one of the vertices $`v^{}`$ of $`\widehat{C}^{}`$ may have two parallel boundary edges, in which case $`\widehat{C}`$ can be obtained from $`\widehat{C}^{}`$ by amalgamating these two edges together.

Note that $`\widehat{C}`$ must have at least two vertices, for otherwise, since $`C`$ is extremal, the vertex would have 6 parallel boundary edges in $`G_B`$, two of which would also be parallel on $`G_A`$ because $`\widehat{G}_A`$ has at most four boundary edges, which would then contradict Lemma 1.1(5). Hence each vertex of $`C`$ is incident to at least one interior edge and one boundary edge, so the valency of each vertex of $`\widehat{C}`$ is at least 2. Modify $`\widehat{C}`$ as follows. If some vertex $`v`$ of $`\widehat{C}`$ satisfies condition (1) but not (2), add a boundary edge to $`v`$ in the face opposite to the boundary edge at $`v`$. Having done this for all $`v`$, we get a graph $`\widehat{C}^{\prime \prime }`$, which is still a reduced graph, with at least one boundary edge incident to each vertex. Now using (\*) in the proof of \[CGLS, Lemma 2.6.5\] and arguing directly when $`\widehat{C}^{\prime \prime }`$ has only two or three vertices, we see that $`\widehat{C}^{\prime \prime }`$ contains at least two vertices, each of which has valency 2 or 3 in $`\widehat{C}^{\prime \prime }`$ and belongs to a single boundary edge of $`\widehat{C}^{\prime \prime }`$. At least one of these two vertices, say $`v_0`$, is not the vertex $`v^{}`$ above, hence it has property (1) when considered as a vertex in $`\widehat{G}_B`$. By the definition of $`\widehat{C}^{\prime \prime }`$, $`v_0`$ automatically has property (2). To prove (3), notice that if both faces containing $`e`$ intersect $`B`$ in more than one arc, then $`C`$ would not be an extremal component. ∎

###### Lemma 5.4

If $`p=2`$, and the two vertices of $`G_A`$ are antiparallel, then $`M`$ is a union of tori.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`W_0`$ be a regular neighborhood of $`AK_\alpha `$. Since $`K_\alpha `$ intersects $`A`$ in two points of different signs, $`_iW_0`$ has two components $`F_b,F_w`$, each being a twice punctured torus. The annulus $`A`$ cuts $`W_0`$ into two components $`W_0^b`$ and $`W_0^w`$ (with $`W_0^bF_b`$), which will be called the black region and the white region, respectively. If $`E`$ is a disk face of $`G_B`$ or more generally a disk in $`M(\alpha )`$, then $`E`$ is said to be black (resp. white) if $`EW_0`$ lies in the black (resp. white) region.

Suppose $`D`$ is a compressing disk of $`F_b`$ in $`M(\alpha )\text{Int}W_0`$. If $`D`$ is a nonseparating curve on $`F_b`$, then after adding the 2-handle $`N(D)`$ to $`W_0`$, the surface $`F_b`$ becomes an annulus. If $`D`$ is separating on $`F_b`$, then it is not parallel to a boundary curve of $`F_b`$ because $`F_b`$ is parallel to $`A`$ and $`A`$ is incompressible in $`M(\alpha )`$; thus $`D`$ must cut $`F_b`$ into a once punctured torus and a thrice punctured sphere, and after adding the 2-handle $`N(D)`$ the surface $`F_b`$ becomes the union of a torus $`S_1`$ and an annulus $`S_2`$. Since $`M`$ is simple, $`S_1`$ either is boundary parallel or bounds a solid torus, and $`S_2`$ must be boundary parallel, because $`S_2`$ is parallel to $`A`$ and $`A`$ is incompressible, which implies that $`S_2`$ is incompressible. In any case, we have shown that if $`F_b`$ is compressible in $`M(\alpha )\text{Int}W_0`$ then there is a component $`C_b`$ of $`M(\alpha )\text{Int}W_0`$ such that $`C_bW_0=F_b`$ and $`C_bM(\alpha )`$ is either an annulus or the union of an annulus and a torus. Similarly for $`F_w`$. In particular, if both $`F_b`$ and $`F_w`$ are compressible in $`M(\alpha )\text{Int}W_0`$, then $`M(\alpha )`$ is a union of tori, and we are done. From now on, we will assume that $`F_w`$ is incompressible in $`M(\alpha )\text{Int}W_0`$ and show that this will lead to a contradiction. Note that the assumption implies that $`G_B`$ has no interior white face: For, by Lemma 5.2 all faces of $`G_B`$ are disks, and since $`G_A`$ has no trivial loops, the boundary of an interior face is always an essential curve on $`_iW_0`$; hence an interior white face would give rise to a compressing disk of $`F_w`$ in $`M(\alpha )\text{Int}W_0`$.

Let $`v_0`$ be a vertex of $`G_B`$ given by Lemma 5.3. By Lemma 5.3(1), $`v_0`$ has valency 2 or 3 in $`\widehat{G}_B`$. First assume that $`v_0`$ has valency 2 in $`\widehat{G}_B`$. Then the interior edge $`e`$ of $`\widehat{G}_B`$ incident to $`v_0`$ must represent exactly two edges of $`G_B`$: It cannot represent more than two edges, otherwise there would be two interior faces of different colors, contradicting the fact that $`G_B`$ has no interior white face. It cannot represent only one edge of $`G_B`$, otherwise $`v_0`$ would have five parallel boundary edges, which would contradict Lemma 1.1(5) because $`\widehat{G}_A`$ has at most four boundary edges. Thus the part of $`G_B`$ near $`v_0`$ is as shown in Figure 5.2, where $`f`$ is the interior (black) face bounded by the two edges represented by $`e`$.

Now assume that $`v_0`$ has valency 3 in $`\widehat{G}_B`$. Then by Lemma 5.3(2) the face $`f`$ of $`\widehat{G}_B`$ opposite to the boundary edge at $`v_0`$ is an interior face. Thus $`f`$ is a black face, and each of the interior edges of $`\widehat{G}_B`$ incident to $`v_0`$ represents only one edge of $`G_B`$ as otherwise there would be a white interior face. Hence again the part of $`G_B`$ near $`v_0`$ is as shown in Figure 5.2.

Consider the white boundary faces $`D_0,D_1,D_2`$ as shown in Figure 5.2. By Lemma 5.3(3), we may assume that $`D_1`$ intersects $`B`$ in a single arc. Let $`C_i`$, $`i=0,1`$, be the arc $`D_iF_w`$. Then $`C_0,C_1`$ are essential arcs on $`F_w`$. Moreover, since $`C_0`$ intersects a meridian of $`K_\alpha `$ exactly once, while $`C_1`$ intersects it at least twice, they are nonparallel. Recall that $`_i(W_0N(D_0D_1))`$ is obtained from $`_iW_0`$ by cutting along $`C_0C_1`$. Since $`C_0`$ and $`C_1`$ are nonparallel, they cut $`F_w`$ into one or two annuli, which must be boundary parallel because we have assumed that $`F_w`$ is incompressible and $`M`$ is simple. It follows that the whole surface $`F_w`$ is boundary parallel. Now a meridian disk of $`N(K_\alpha )`$ in the white region corresponds to a disk in $`M(\alpha )`$ intersecting the curve $`K_\alpha `$ in a single point, which gives rise to an essential annulus in $`M`$, contradicting the fact that $`M`$ is anannular. ∎

Figure 5.2

Proof of Theorem 0.1. By Proposition 4.8, we may assume that $`p2`$. By Lemmas 5.1 and 5.4, $`M`$ is a union of tori. Since $`M(\beta )`$ is $``$-reducible, either it is reducible or it is a solid torus. In the first case the result follows from \[Wu3, Theorem 5.1\]. So we assume that $`M(\beta )`$ is a solid torus. In particular, $`M(\alpha )`$ is a single torus $`T`$. The boundary of the annulus $`A`$ cuts $`T`$ into two annuli $`A_1,A_2`$. If some $`AA_i`$ is an essential torus in $`M(\alpha )`$ then $`M(\alpha )`$ is toroidal, so the result follows from \[GL4\]. If each $`AA_i`$ is inessential, then it bounds a solid torus (note that it cannot be boundary parallel, otherwise $`A`$ would be boundary parallel). It follows that $`M(\alpha )`$ is a Seifert fiber space with orbifold a disk with two singular points. It was shown in \[MM1, Theorem 1.2\] that if $`M(\alpha )`$ is a Seifert fiber space and $`M(\beta )`$ is a solid torus then $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$. This completes the proof of Theorem 0.1. ∎

In the proof of Theorem 0.1, we assumed that the manifold $`M`$ is simple. However, the conditions that $`M`$ is irreducible and atoroidal can be removed from the assumptions.

###### Corollary 5.5

Suppose $`M`$ is anannular and boundary irreducible. If $`M(\alpha )`$ is annular and $`M(\beta )`$ is boundary reducible, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )2`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

First assume that $`M`$ is irreducible but toroidal. Since $`M`$ is anannular, by the canonical splitting theorem of Jaco-Shalen-Johannson (see \[JS, p. 157\]) there is a set of essential tori $`𝒯`$ cutting $`M`$ into a manifold $`M^{}`$ such that each component of $`M^{}`$ is either a Seifert fiber space or a simple manifold. If the component $`X`$ containing the boundary torus $`_0M`$ is Seifert fibered, then it contains an essential annulus consisting of Seifert fibers, with both boundary components on $`_0M`$, so $`M`$ would be annular, contradicting our assumption. So assume $`X`$ is simple. Since $`M(\beta )`$ is boundary reducible, by looking at a boundary reducing disk $`B`$ which has minimal intersection with $`𝒯`$, one can see that $`X(\beta )`$ must be boundary reducible. Similarly one can show that $`X(\alpha )`$ is either boundary reducible or annular. Applying Theorem 0.1 and \[Wu2, Theorem 1\] to $`X`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }2`$.

If $`M`$ is reducible, split along a maximal set of reducing spheres to get an irreducible manifold $`M^{}`$. By an innermost circle argument one can show that $`M^{}(\alpha )`$ is annular and $`M^{}(\beta )`$ is boundary reducible, so the result follows from that for irreducible manifolds. ∎