arxiv: v2 [math.gt] 24 Nov 2010

Transcription

1 RATIONAL NOT CONCORDANCE AND HOMOLOGY COBORDISM TIM D. COCHRAN, BRIDGET D. FRANLIN, AND PETER D. HORN arxiv:0.490v2 [math.gt] 24 Nov 200 Abstract. The following is a long-standing oen question: If the zero-framed surgeries on two knots in S 3 are Z-homology cobordant, are the knots themselves concordant? We show that an obvious rational version of this question has a negative answer. Namely, we give examles of knots whose zero-framed surgeries are Q-homology cobordant 3-manifolds, wherein the knots are not Q-concordant (that is not concordant in any rational homology S 3 [0,]). Secifically, ] we rove that, for any ositive integer and any knot, the zero framed surgery on is Z[ -homology cobordant to the zero framed surgery on its (, ±) cables. Then we observe that most knots are not Q-concordant to their (,±) cables.. Introduction A knot is the image of a tame embedding of a circle into S 3. Two knots, 0 S 3 {0} and S 3 {}, are CAT concordant (CAT= SMOOTH or TOPOLOGICAL LOCALLY FLAT) if there exists a roer CAT embedding of an annulus into S 3 [0,] that restricts to the knots on S 3 {0,}. A CAT slice knot is one that is the boundary of a CAT embedding of a 2-disk in B 4. Recall that to any knot,, is associated a closed 3-manifold, M, called the zero framed surgery on, which is obtained from S 3 by removing a solid torus neighborhood of and relacing it with another solid torus in such a way that the longitude of bounds the meridian of the new solid torus. The question of whether two knots, 0 and, are CAT concordant is closely related to the question of whether or not the associated 3-manifolds, M 0 and M, are CAT homology cobordant. For if the knots are concordant via a CAT embedded annulus A then, by Alexander duality, the exterior of A is a homology cobordism relative boundary between the exteriors of the knots. It follows, by adjoining S D 2 [0,], that the zero framed surgeries are homology cobordant (i.e. one does zero framed surgery on the annulus ). The converse is a long-standing oen question: Question.. If M 0 and M are homology cobordant (if necessary also assume that π of the cobordism is normally generated by either meridian) then are 0 and concordant? (See irby s Problem List [20, Problem.9 and remarks]). Note that Question. has a negative answer if knots are assumed to be oriented. Livingston has rovided examles of oriented knots which are not concordant to their reverse [23], though the zero framed surgeries are actually homeomorhic. Evidence for a ositive answer to Question. in the more general case is rovided by the following well-known result. Proosition.2. Suose is a knot and U is the trivial knot. Then the following are equivalent: a. M is CAT homology cobordant to M U via a cobordism V whose π is normally generated by a meridian of. b. M = W, where W is a CAT manifold that is a homology circle and whose π is normally generated by the meridian. c. bounds a CAT embedded 2-disk in a CAT manifold B that is homeomorhic to B 4. d. is CAT concordant to U in a CAT 4-manifold that is homeomorhic to S 3 [0,]. Moreover d a even if U is not assumed to be the trivial knot. In articular the case a d of Proosition.2 in the TOP category yields: Partially suorted by the National Science Foundation DMS Partially suorted by Nettie S. Autry Fellowshi. Partially suorted by NSF Postdoctoral Fellowshi DMS

2 2 TIM D. COCHRAN, BRIDGET D. FRANLIN, AND PETER D. HORN Corollary.3. Question. has a ositive answer in the toological category if one of the knots is the trivial knot. The same is true in the smooth category if B 4 has a unique smooth structure u to diffeomorhism. Proof of Proosition.2. The imlication d a has already been exlained above (and is true for any two knots). Note that M U = S S 2, which is the boundary of the homology circle S B 3. Adjoining the latter to one end of the homology bordism V, rovided by a., yields W which shows a b. Given W from b., add a zero-framed 2-handle to W along the meridian of. The resulting manifold B is a simly-connected homology 4-ball whose boundary is S 3. By Freedman s theorem, B is homeomorhic to B 4. The core of the attached 2-handle is a flat disk whose boundary is a coy of S 3. Thus b c. To show c d, merely remove a small 4-ball from B centered at a oint of the 2-disk. Remarkably, Proosition.2 has an analogue for rational homology cobordism. In articular it is related to notions of rational concordance which have also been reviously studied [8, 2, 3, 2, 7] and finally treated systematically by Cha in []. Before stating this analogue, we review some terms. Suose that R Q is a non-zero subring. Recall that a sace X is an R-homology Y means that H (X;R) = H (Y;R). nots 0 and in S 3 are said to be CAT R-concordant if there exists a comact, oriented CAT 4-manifold W, that is an R-homology S 3 [0,], whose boundary is S 3 {0} (S 3 {}), and in which there exists a roerly CAT embedded annulus A which restricts on its boundary to the given knots. We then say that 0 is CAT R-concordant to in W. We say that is CAT R-slice if it is CAT R-concordant to U or, equivalently, if it bounds a CAT embedded 2-disk in an R-homology 4-ball whose boundary is S 3. The latter notion agrees with [2, ] but is what awauchi calls weakly Q-slice [7]. Proosition.4. Suose is a knot in S 3 and R Q is a non-zero subring. Then the following are equivalent: a. M is CAT R-homology cobordant to M U. b. M = W, where W is a CAT manifold that is an R-homology circle. c. is CAT R-slice. d. is CAT R-concordant to U. Moreover d a for any two knots. The roof of Proosition.4 is essentially identical to that of Proosition.2. Proosition.4 suggests that invariants that obstruct knots from being rationally concordant might be deendent only on the rational homology cobordism class of the zero framed surgery. Further evidence for this is by the following observation, which follows immediately from d c of Proosition.4 and Ozsvath- Szabo [24, Theorem.]. Corollary.5. For any R, if M is smoothly R-homology cobordant to M U, then τ() = 0. This suggests the following rational version of Question., which is the question of whether or not a d of Proosition.4 holds for any two knots (for R = Q). Question.6. If M 0 and M are CAT Q-homology cobordant, then are 0 and CAT Q-concordant? Of course by Proosition.4 this question has a ositive answer if one of the knots is the unknot. In this aer, we do not resolve Question., but show that Question.6 has a negative answer. To accomlish this we first rove in Section 2 : [ Proosition 2.. For any knot and any ositive integer, zero framed surgery on is smoothly Z homology cobordant to zero framed surgery on the (,)-cable of (and also to the zero framed surgery on the (, )-cable of ). Then in Section 3 we observe that there are elementary classical invariants that obstruct a knots being toologically rationally concordant to its (, )-cable. Even among toologically slice knots, the τ invariant can be used to obstruct being smoothly rationally concordant to its (,)-cable, and we do so, using work of M. Hedden. Thus in summary we show: Theorem 4.. The answer to Question.6 is No, in both the smooth and toological category. In the smooth category there exist counterexamles that are toologically slice. ] -

3 RATIONAL NOT CONCORDANCE AND HOMOLOGY COBORDISM 3 Thus the answer to Question.6 is decidedly No. In the final section, we formulate a refined version of Question.6, and this refined version, like Question., remains oen. We remark in assing that the analogues of Proosition.2 and Corollary.3 [5, Theorem 5.2,.9] hold for links and have been the basis of recent attemts to resolve the smooth 4-dimensional Poincaré Conjecture [0]. However, Question. has a negative answer for links. Cochran-Orr gave examles in [5, Fig.] [8] of links whose zero surgeries are diffeomorhic but which are not even TOP concordant. There are even such examles with distinct Milnor s µ-invariants. (Consider the link, L m, whose first comonent is an m-twist knot and whose second comonent is a trivial circle linking the m-twisted band. The zero framed surgery on L m is then indeendent of m but the concordance tye of the first comonent is deendent of m!) 2. Rational homology cobordism and cable knots [ Proosition 2.. For any knot and any ositive integer, zero framed surgery on is smoothly Z homology cobordant to zero framed surgery on the (,)-cable of (and also to the zero framed surgery on the (, )-cable of ). We resent two roofs for the case of the (,)-cable. The second roof also clearly covers the (, ) case. Proof of Proosition 2. for = 2. In this roof we freely use the basic techniques of the calculus of framed links, commonly called irby calculus, that can be used to encode handlebody descritions of 3- and 4- dimensional manifolds [9]. Let M denote the 3-manifold obtained by 0-framed Dehn filling on. Then H (M ) = Z, generated by a meridian of. Consider M [0,]. Attach to M {} a - and a 2-handle according to Figure 2., and call the resulting 4-manifold W. The -handle adds a coy of Z to H, and the 2-handle equates two times a generator of this Z factor with the meridian of, denoted µ. Thus W has the same Z [ 2] -homology as M. ] Figure 2.. Add a - and 2-handle. The bottom boundary of W is M. The to boundary comonent is M (2,). To see this, note that the to boundary comonent is diffeomorhic to the 3-manifold in Figure 2.2(a). To reach the diagram in Figure 2.2(b), slide the green (right-most) handle over the red (left-most) handle twice, as shown (a) Ste one Figure 2.2. Bottom boundary. (b) Ste two Now isotoe the green (right-most) handle in Figure 2.2(b) to arrive at Figure 2.3(a). Isotoe further to arrive at Figure 2.3(b), where the black (small) curve is isotoic to a meridian of. We may use this curve as a heler circle to unlink the red (innermost) curve from the green and then undo crossings of the red curve, arriving at Figure 2.3(c). The 3-manifold described in Figure 2.3(c) is diffeomorhic to M (2,). Thus, W is the disjoint union of M (2,) and M.

4 4 TIM D. COCHRAN, BRIDGET D. FRANLIN, AND PETER D. HORN (a) Ste three (b) Ste four Figure 2.3. Isotoing handles. (c) Ste five The roof for > 2 is similar but requires the attaching circle of the black 2-handle we added to wra times around the -handle and then requires handleslides. Instead of drawing these ictures, we rovide a different roof for the general case. Another roof of Proosition 2.. Let U = U(,) denote the (,)-torus knot and let α denote a ush-off of the meridian of the solid torus on which U(,) lies (so that lk(α,u) = ). Thus in homology [α] = [µ U ]. Recall that the knot (,) is a satellite knot with U(,) as attern and comanion. As such the exterior of (,) decomoses into two ieces, the exterior of and the exterior of U(,) α, glued along the (toral) boundary of ν(α). Thus the 0-framed Dehn filling, M (,), decomoses (along the same torus) into S 3 \ and M U \ν(α). Additionally recall that M decomoses into S 3 \ν() and a solid torus. With these facts in mind, we now construct a 4-manifold E whose boundary is the disjoint union M M U M (,). Begin with the disjoint union of M [0,] and M U [0,]. Identify the solid torus ν(α) {} in M U {} with the solid torus (M \(S 3 int ν()) {} in M [0,]. Do this in such a way that (a arallel ush-off of) α is identified to a meridian of (which is a longitude of the latter solid torus). Then the third boundary comonent of E is (M U \ν(α)) S 3 \ M (,), as claimed. Furthermore, note that under the inclusion mas on homology, (2.) [µ {0}] [µ {}] [α {}] [α {0}] [µ U ], where for the last we use our remark in the first aragrah above. We may analyze the homology of E by the Mayer-Vietoris sequence below H 2 (ν(α)) H 2 (M U ) H 2 (M ) H 2 (E) H (ν(α)) ψ H (M U ) H (M ) H (E) 0 By (2.), ψ is injective with infinite cyclic cokernel. Since H 2 (ν(α)) = 0, this yields the following elementary lemma which may be comared with [6, Lemma 2.5]. Lemma 2.2. The inclusion mas induce the following () an isomorhism H U ;Z)[ = ]) H (E;Z); ( [ (2) an isomorhism H (M ;Z H E;Z ]) ; (3) an isomorhism H 2 (E;Z) = H 2 (M U ;Z) H 2 (M ;Z) Finally, let S = B 4 \ where B 4 is a slice disk for the unknot U(,). Then S is an integral homology circle whose first homology is generated by µ U and whose boundary is M U. Let W be the sace obtained by attaching S to E along M U. W is a 4-manifold with boundary M M (,). Another Mayer-Vietoris argument gives using (3) of Lemma 2.2; and Combining these facts we conclude that H 2 (W;Z) = H 2(E) H 2 (M U ) = H 2 (M ;Z), H (W;Z) = H (E;Z). 0 = H 2 (W,M ;Z[/]) = H (W,M ;Z[/]) = H ( W,M(,) ;Z[/] ).

5 RATIONAL NOT CONCORDANCE AND HOMOLOGY COBORDISM 5 It the follows from Poincare duality that W is a Z[ ]-homology cobordism between M and M (,). 3. Invariants of rational concordance In this section we will observe that many classical concordance invariants obstruct knots being Q- concordant. This question has been considered in even greater generality in []. From this we deduce that only rarely is a knot Q-concordant to its cable (,). We then observe that the τ-invariant of Oszvath-Szabo and Rasmussen can be used to obstruct smooth Q-concordance (even between toologically slice knots). This is then used, in conjunction with known comutations of τ, to give examles of toologically slice knots which are not Q-concordant to any of of their cables (,). Before beginning we should oint out that there do exist non-slice knots for which is smoothly Q-concordant to (,) for every non-zero. For suose that is a smoothly Q-slice knot that is not a smoothly slice knot. Examles of this are rovided by the figure-eight knot ([,.63][7, Lemma 2.2]), or more generally any (non-slice) strongly negative-amhicheiral knot [7]. Such a knot is Q-concordant to the unknot U. Thus (,) is Q-concordant to the unknot U(,) for any. Thus is Q-concordant to (,). Proosition 3.. Suose is a strongly negative-amhicheiral knot. Then for every non-zero, is Q-concordant to (, ). However, this is rare as the following subsection shows. 3.. Toological Invariants of rational concordance. If is a knot in S 3 and V is a Seifert matrix for then recall the Levine-Tristram ω-signature of, σ (ω), for any ω = is the signature of ( ω)v +( ω)v T. The only exlicit reference we found for the following theorem is [2, Thm..] (see also [8, Theorem.7][5]). Proosition 3.2. [2, Thm..] If 0 is CAT Q-concordant to then for any rime and ω = e 2πik/, σ 0 (ω) = σ (ω). Indeed Cha shows that the ordinary algebraic knot concordance grou embeds into an algebraic Z (2) - concordance grou [, Section 2.2, 4.4] ( see also [8, Theorem.7][5]). Note that, since such values of ω are dense in the circle and since the Levine signature functions of 0 and are constant excet at roots of the Alexander olynomial, Proosition 3.2 imlies that these functions agree for 0 and, excet ossibly at roots of their resective Alexander olynomials. Corollary 3.3. If is CAT Q-concordant to (,) for some >, then is of finite order in the algebraic knot concordance grou. Proof of Corollary 3.3. Assume that is TOP Q-concordant to (, ). Then their signatures agree(excet ossibly at roots of the Alexander olynomials). Suose some Levine-Tristram-signature of were nonzero. Since the ω = 0 signature always vanishes and since the Levine-Tristram signature function is locally constant, ossibly juming only at roots of the Alexander olynomial, we can choose ω so that ω is (or is close to) the first value on the unit circle (smallest argument) for which has non-zero signature (and avoiding roots of the Alexander olynomial). That is we can choose ω so that But it is known by [8] that, Combining this with Proosition 3.2, we see that σ (ω) = 0, and σ (ω ) 0. σ (,) (ω) = σ (ω ). σ (ω ) = σ (ω). This is false for our articular choice of ω above. Hence the signature function of vanishes (excluding roots of the Alexander olynomial). It is known that this is equivalent to being of finite order in the algebraic knot concordance grou [2]. Corollary 3.4. The right-handed trefoil knot, T, is not TOP Q-concordant to T(,) for any >.

6 6 TIM D. COCHRAN, BRIDGET D. FRANLIN, AND PETER D. HORN There are other related aers that discuss the question of whether a knot is Z-concordant to its (,)- cable [6][22][4]. The following criteria can be alied even when the knot signatures fail. The first does not seem to aear in the literature although it does follow, for examle, from combining results of the much more general []. The second is imlicit in []. We sketch a roof in order to make a edagogical oint about rational concordance. Proosition 3.5. If 0 is CAT Q-concordant to then for some ositive integer k and for some integral olynomial f, δ 0 ( t k ) δ ( t k ). = f(t)f ( t ), where δ i (t) is the Alexander olynomial of i. Most generally, let Bl (t) denote the nonsingularblanchfield linking form defined on the rational Alexander module of, A Q () H (M ;Q[t,t ]). Then, Proosition 3.6. If 0 is CAT Q-concordant to then for some ositive integer k, where these denote the induced forms on the module Bl 0 (t k ) Bl (t k ), A Q ( i ) Q[t,t ] Q[t,t ] where here the right-hand Q[t,t ] is a module over itself via the ma t t k ; and denotes equality in the Witt grou of such forms (see [][5]). Proof. Suose 0 is CAT Q-concordant to via an annulus, A, embedded in a Q-homology S 3 [0,], W. Let E 0, E and E A denote the exteriors of 0, and A resectively. Then H (E ;Z) torsion = Z for = 0,,A. The comlexity of the concordance is the ositive integer, k, for which the image of the meridian µ i, for i = 0,, under the inclusion-induced ma j i H (E 0 ;Z) j 0 H (E A ;Z) j H (E ;Z) torsion torsion torsion, is ±k times a generator. This was defined in [8, 5] but see also [, 2] and was called the multilicity in [9, age 463]. There is a unique eimorhism φ : π (E A ) Z. This defines a coefficient system on E A and also on E i for i = 0, by setting φ i = φ j i. Then it is well-known that the Alexander modules using these induced coefficient systems are not the ordinary Alexander modules but rather, H (E i ;Z[t,t ]) = A( i ) Z[t,t ] Z[t,t ] where the right-hand Z[t,t ] is a module over itself via the ma t t k. The order of such a module is well-known to be δ i (t k ) where δ i (t) is the order of A( i ). (This tensored u module is the same as the Alexander module of the (k,)-cable of i ). The coefficient system φ also induces Blanchfield linking forms on these modules and these differ from the ordinary Blanchfield form in the analogous manner. If A were an actual concordance then we have the classical result that the kernel, P, of the ma M H (E 0 ;Q[t,t ]) H (E ;Q[t,t ]) H (E A ;Q[t,t ]) is self-annihilating with resect to the ordinary Blanchfield forms. It would then follow (by definition) that the Blanchfield forms are equivalent in the Witt grou. It also would then follow that P is isomorhic to the dual of M/P, quickly yielding the classical result δ 0 (t)δ (t). = f(t)f ( t ), for some olynomial f. In the situation that A is only a Q-concordance, these results are also known (see for examle [9, Theorem 4.4, Lemma 2.4]). The only difference is that the relevant modules and forms are not the ordinary Alexander modules but rather are tensored u as above; and the orders of the relevant modules are not the actual Alexander olynomials of i, but are δ i (t k ). The claimed results follow.

7 RATIONAL NOT CONCORDANCE AND HOMOLOGY COBORDISM 7 Corollary 3.7. Suose is the 3-twist knot with a negative clas. Then, although is of finite order in the algebraic concordance grou, is not TOP Q-concordant to (,) for any >. Proof. The Alexander olynomial of is δ(t) = 3t 7+3t, whereas the Alexander olynomial of (,) is δ(t ). If were TOP Q-concordant to (,) then by Proosition 3.5, for some ositive k and integral olynomial f(t), δ ( t k) δ ( t k) = ±t g f(t)f ( t ). But δ ( t k) (and thus (δ ( t k) ) is irreducible for any k [, Proosition 3.8]. This contradicts unique factorization if >. Casson-Gordon invariants and higher-order von-neumann signatures should yield higher-order obstructions to Q-concordance Smooth Rational concordance invariants for toologically slice knots. The Ozsvath-Szabo- Rasmussen τ-invariant is an integral-valued knot invariant that is invariant under smooth concordance and additive under connected sum [24]. It is not invariant under toological concordance and therefore may be used in cases where algebraic invariants fail. It is also known that it is an invariant of smooth rational concordance. Proosition 3.8. If is smoothly R-concordant to J then τ() = τ(j). Proof. We are given that and J are connected by a smooth annulus A in a smooth R-homology S 3 [0,], W. Choose an arc in A from to J. By deleting a small neighborhood of this arc from W we arrive at a smooth R-homology 4-ball B. The annulus A is cut oen yielding a 2-disk whose boundary is the knot tye of # J. Thus # J is smoothly R-slice. By [24, Theorem.], τ(# J) = 0, so τ() = τ( J) = τ(j), the last roerty being also established in [24]. 4. The Main Result Theorem 4.. The answer to Question.6 is No, in both the smooth and toological category. In the smooth category there exist counterexamles that are toologically slice. Proof of Theorem 4.. Let T be the trefoil knot, or indeed any knot with some non-zero Levine-Tristram signature. ByProosition2., for any >, M T is (TOPand SMOOTH) Q-homologycobordantto M T(,). But by Corollary 3.4, or more generally by Corollary 3.3, T is neither TOP nor SMOOTH Q-concordant to T(,). Therefore the answer to Question.6 is No. Proosition 3.5 can also be used to give examles that have finite order in the algebraic knot concordance grou. Now consider the smooth category. Let 0 be the untwisted, ositively-clased Whitehead double of the right-handed trefoil knot, and let be the (,)-cable of 0. The Alexander olynomials of 0 and are equal to, and so work of Freedman[] imlies these knots are toologically slice. The zero-framed surgeries on these knots are smoothly Q-homology cobordant by Proosition 2.. If these knots were smoothly Q- concordant then by Proosition 3.8, τ( 0 ) = τ( ). But this is not true. In [3] Hedden roves τ() = whereas in [4, Theorem.2], he shows τ((,)) = τ() =. Thus if, these knots are not smoothly Q-concordant. Therefore there exist toologically slice knots for which the answer to Question.6 is No in the smooth category. 5. Other questions If the knots 0 and were R-concordant via an annulus A in a CAT 4-manifold V, then the meridians µ 0 and µ would be freely homotoic in V A. Hence, uon doing zero-framed surgery on A, one would have that M 0 is CAT R-homology cobordant to M via a 4-manifold W with the additional roerty that the meridional elements are homologous in W, that is (i 0 ) (µ 0 ) = (i ) (µ ) in H (W;Z). The rational homology cobordisms constructed in the roofs of Proosition 2. fail to have this additional roerty. This suggests that the following revised question might be a better analogy to Question.6. Question 5.. If M 0 and M are CAT Q-homology cobordant via a cobordism wherein the meridians are homologous (or freely homotoic), then are 0 and CAT Q-concordant?

8 8 TIM D. COCHRAN, BRIDGET D. FRANLIN, AND PETER D. HORN Of course the answer is yes if one of the knots is the trivial knot. One can revise the question in a different way. Following awauchi [7], one can define 0 and to be strongly Q-concordant if they are Q-concordant via an annulus A in a 4-manifold V such that the comlexity of the concordance is (see Section 3). This requires not only that the meridians are homologous, but also that they generate H (V A) modulo torsion. Corresondingly one can say that M 0 and M are strongly CAT Q-homology cobordant if they are CAT Q-homology cobordant via 4-manifold W such that the merdians are are homologous and generate H (W;Z) modulo torsion. Question 5.2. If M 0 and M are strongly CAT Q-homology cobordant, then are 0 and strongly CAT Q-concordant? By using the techniques of Proosition.4 one can show that Question 5.2 also has a ositive answer if one of the knots is the trivial knot. Both of these questions are oen as of this time. References [] Jae Choon Cha. The structure of the rational concordance grou of knots. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 89(885):x+95, [2] Jae Choon Cha and i Hyoung o. Signatures of links in rational homology sheres. Toology, 4(6):6 82, [3] Jae Choon Cha and i Hyoung o. Signature invariants of covering links. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 358(8): (electronic), [4] Jae Choon Cha, Charles Livingston, and Daniel Ruberman. Algebraic and Heegaard-Floer invariants of knots with slice Bing doubles. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 44(2):403 40, [5] T. D. Cochran and. E. Orr. Not all links are concordant to boundary links. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), 23():99 06, 990. [6] Tim D. Cochran, Shelly Harvey, and Constance Leidy. not concordance and higher-order Blanchfield duality. Geom. Tool., 3:49 482, [7] Tim D. Cochran, Shelly Harvey, and Constance Leidy. 2-torsion in the n-solvable filtration of the knot concordance grou. Proc. of London Math. Soc., 200. first ublished online August, 200 doi:0.2/lms/dq020. [8] Tim D. Cochran and ent E. Orr. Not all links are concordant to boundary links. Ann. of Math. (2), 38(3):59 554, 993. [9] Tim D. Cochran, ent E. Orr, and Peter Teichner. not concordance, Whitney towers and L 2 -signatures. Ann. of Math. (2), 57(2):433 59, [0] Michael Freedman, Robert Gomf, Scott Morrison, and evin Walker. Man and machine thinking about the smooth 4-dimensional Poincaré conjecture. Quantum Tool., (2):7 208, 200. [] Michael H. Freedman and Frank Quinn. Toology of 4-manifolds, volume 39 of Princeton Mathematical Series. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 990. [2] Patrick M. Gilmer. Link cobordism in rational homology 3-sheres. J. not Theory Ramifications, 2(3): , 993. [3] Matthew Hedden. not Floer homology of Whitehead doubles. Geom. Tool., : , [4] Matthew Hedden. On knot Floer homology and cabling ii. Int. Math. Res. Not., 2: , [5] Jonathan A. Hillman. Alexander ideals of links, volume 895 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Sringer-Verlag, Berlin, 98. [6] Akio awauchi. On links not cobordant to slit links. Toology, 9(4):32 334, 980. [7] Akio awauchi. Rational-slice knots via strongly negative-amhicheiral knots. Commun. Math. Res., 25(2):77 92, [8] C. earton. The Milnor signatures of comound knots. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 76():57 60, 979. [9] Robion irby. A calculus for framed links in S 3. Invent. Math., 45():35 56, 978. [20] Robion irby. Problems in low-dimensional toology. In Geometric toology (Athens, GA, 993), volume 2 of AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., ages Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 997. [2] J. Levine. not cobordism grous in codimension two. Comment. Math. Helv., 44: , 969. [22] R. A. Litherland. Cobordism of satellite knots. In Four-manifold theory (Durham, N.H., 982), volume 35 of Contem. Math., ages Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 984. [23] Charles Livingston. nots which are not concordant to their reverses. Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2), 34(35): , 983. [24] Peter Ozsváth and Zoltán Szabó. not Floer homology and the four-ball genus. Geom. Tool., 7: (electronic), 2003.

9 RATIONAL NOT CONCORDANCE AND HOMOLOGY COBORDISM 9 Deartment of Mathematics, Rice University, P.O. Box 892, Houston, TX address: cochran@math.rice.edu URL: htt://math.rice.edu/~cochran Deartment of Mathematics, Rice University, P.O. Box 892, Houston, TX address: bridget.franklin@rice.edu URL: htt://math.rice.edu/~bf2 Deartment of Mathematics, Columbia University, 2990 Broadway, New York, NY address: dhorn@math.columbia.edu URL: htt://math.columbia.edu/~dhorn