arxiv: v2 [math.gt] 9 Oct 2017

Transcription

1 The universal surface undle over the Torelli space has no sections Lei Chen Octoer 11, 2017 arxiv: v2 [math.gt] 9 Oct 2017 Astract For g > 3, we give two proofs of the fact that the Birman exact sequence for the Torelli group 1 π 1(S g) I g,1 I g 1 does not split. This result was claimed y G. Mess in [Mes90], ut his proof has a critical and unrepairale T u g,n T u g,n error which will e discussed in the introduction. Let UI g,n BI g,n (resp. UPI g,n BPI g,n) denote the universal surface undle over the Torelli space fixing n points as a set (resp. pointwise). We also deduce that T u g,n has no sections when n > 1 and that T u g,n has precisely n distinct sections for n 0 up to homotopy. 1 Introduction It is a asic prolem to understand when undles have continuous sections, and the corresponding group theory prolem as to when short exact sequences have splittings. These are equivalent prolems when the fier, the ase and the total space are all K(π, 1)-spaces. In this article, we will discuss the section prolems and the splitting prolems in the setting of surface undles. Here y section we mean continuous section. Let S g,n e a closed orientale surface of genus g with n punctures. Let Mod g,n (resp. PMod g,n ) e the mapping class group of S g,n, i.e. the group of isotopy classes of orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms of S g fixing n points as a set (resp. pointwise). Mod g,n and PMod g,n act on H 1 (S g ; Z) leaving invariant the algeraic intersection numers. Let I g,n (resp. PI g,n ) e the Torelli group (resp. pure Torelli group) of S g,n, i.e. the sugroup of Mod g,n (resp. PMod g,n ) that acts trivially on H 1 (S g ; Z). We omit n when n = 0. The following Birman exact sequence for the Torelli group provides a relationship etween I g,1 and I g ; see [FM12, Chapter 4.2]. point pushing T π g,1 1 π 1 (S g ) I g,1 I g 1. (1.1) The main theorem of this paper is the following: Theorem 1.1 (Nonsplitting of the Birman exact sequence for the Torelli group). For g > 3, the Birman exact sequence for the Torelli group (1.1) does not split. Remark 1.2. Our proof needs the condition g > 3. By [Mes92, Proposition 4], I 2 is a free group. So the Birman exact sequence for I 2 splits. The case g = 3 is open. Let BPI g,n := K(PI g,n, 1) e the pure universal Torelli space fixing n punctures pointwise and let S g UPI g,n T u g,n BPIg,n (1.2) 1

2 e the pure universal Torelli undle. Surface undle (1.2) classifies smooth S g -undle equipped with a asis of H 1 (S g ; Z) and n ordered points on each fier. Since PI g,n fixes n points, there are n distinct sections {T s i 1 i n} of the universal Torelli undle (1.2). Let BI g,n := K(I g,n, 1) e the universal Torelli space fixing n punctures as a set and let T u g,n S g UI g,n BI g,n (1.3) e the universal Torelli undle. This undle classifies smooth S g -undles equipped with a asis of H 1 (S g ; Z) and n unordered points on each fier. Theorem 1.1 says that T u g,0 has no sections. For n 0, we have the following complete answer for sections of (1.3) and (1.2). Theorem 1.3 (Classification of sections for punctured Torelli spaces). The following holds: (1) For n 0 and g > 3, every section of the universal Torelli undle (1.2) is homotopic to T s i for some i {1, 2,..., n}. (2) For n > 1 and g > 3, the universal Torelli undle (1.3) has no continuous sections. Let M g := K(Mod g, 1). As is known, the universal undle over M g : S g UM g M g has no sections. This can e seen from the corresponding algeraic prolem of finding splittings of the Birman exact sequence 1 π 1 (S g ) Mod g,1 Mod g 1. The answer is no ecause of torsion, e.g. see [FM12, Corollary 5.11]. The key fact is that every finite sugroup of Mod g,1 is cyclic. However, this method does not work for torsion-free sugroups of Mod g. For any sugroup G < Mod g, there is an extension Γ G of G y π 1 (S g ) as the following short exact sequence. 1 π 1 (S g ) Γ G G 1. (1.4) We call (1.4) the Birman exact sequence for G since it is induced from the Birman exact sequence. We pose the following open question: Prolem 1.4 (Virtually splitting of the Birman exact sequence). Does the Birman exact sequence for a finite index sugroup of Mod(S g ) always not split? Let the level L congruence sugroup Mod g [L] e the sugroup of Mod g that acts trivially on H 1 (S g ; Z/LZ) for some integer L > 1. Theorem 1.1 implies that a finite index sugroup of Mod g containing I g does not split; in particular, this applies to all the congruence sugroups Mod g [L]. Error in G. Mess [Mes90, Proposition 2] In the unpulished paper of G. Mess [Mes90, Proposition 2], he claimed that there are no splittings of the exact sequence (1.1). But his proof has a fatal error. Here is how the proof goes. Let C e a curve dividing S g into 2 parts S(1) and S(2) of genus p and q, where p, q 2. Let UT S g e the unit tangent undle of genus g surface. Then I g contains a sugroup A, which satisfies the following exact sequence 1 Z π 1 (UT S p ) π 1 (UT S q ) A 1. Mess idea is to prove that the Birman exact sequence for A does not lift. However, in Case a) of Mess proof for [Mes90, Proposition 2], Mess claimed that if the Dehn twist aout C lifts to a Dehn twist aout 2

3 C on S g,1 and C ounds a genus p surface with a puncture and a genus q surface, then there is a lift from π 1 (UT S p ) to π 1 (UT S p,1 ). This is a wrong claim. Actually even A does have a lift. We construct a lift of A as the following. Let PConf 2 (S p ) e the pure configuration space of S p, i.e. the space of 2-tuples of distinct points on S p. Let PConf 1,1 (S p ) = {(x, y, v) x y S g and v a unit vector at x}. We have the following pullack diagram: π 1 (PConf 1,1 (S p )) π 1 (PConf 2 (S p )) (1.5) f J π 1 (UTS p ) π 1 (S p ). The lift of π 1 (UT S p ) should lie in π 1 (PConf 1,1 (S p )) instead of π 1 (UT S p,1 ) as Mess claimed. As long as we can find a lift of f, we will find a section of A to I g,. By the property of pullack diagrams, a section of g can induce a section of f in diagram (1.5). To negate the argument of [Mes90, Proposition 2], we only need to construct a section of g. We simply need to find a self-map of S g that has no fixed point. For example, the composition of a retraction of S p onto a curve c and a rotation of c at any nontrivial angle does not have a fixed point. Therefore Mess proof is invalid and does not seem to e repairale. Strategy of the proof of Theorem 1.1 Let T a e the Dehn twist aout a simple closed curve a on S g. Our strategy is the following: assume that we have a splitting of (1.1). The main result of [Joh83] shows that all ounding pair map i.e. T a T 1 for a pair of nonseparating curves a, that ound a suspace generate I g. Firstly we need to understand the lift of T a T 1. We show that the lift of a ounding pair T a T 1 has to e a ounding pair T a T 1 for a, on S g,1. Moreover, the curve a does not depend on the choice of, i.e. for any other curve c that forms a ounding pair with curve a, the lift of T a T 1 c is T a T 1 c g for the same a. Therefore, we have a lift from the set of isotopy classes of curves on S g to the set of isotopy classes of curves on S g,1. Then we use the lantern relation to derive a contradiction. Our main tool is the canonical reduction system for a mapping class, which in turn uses the Thurston classification of isotopy classes of diffeomorphisms of surfaces. This idea originated from [BLM83]. Acknowledgement The author would like to thank Nick Salter for discussing the content of this paper. She thanks Matt Clay and Dan Margalit for reminding me the fact that I 2 is a free group. Lastly, she would like to extend her warmest thanks to Benson Far for his extensive comments as well as for his invaluale support from start to finish. 2 The proof of Theorem 1.1 Let g > 3. We assume that the exact sequence (1.1) has a splitting which is denoted y φ such that F φ = id. The goal of this section is to prove Theorem 1.1 y contradiction. In all the figures in this section, represents the puncture of S g,1, the genus g surface with one puncture. 3

4 2.1 Background In this susection we discuss some properties of canonical reduction systems and the lantern relation. Let S = S g,p e a surface with oundary components and p punctures. Let Mod(S) (reps. PMod(S)) e the mapping class group (resp. pure mapping class group) of S, i.e. the group of isotopy classes of orientationpreserving diffeomorphisms of S fixing the oundary components pointwise and the punctures as a set (resp. pointwise). By simple closed curves, we often mean isotopy class of simple closed curves, e.g. y preserve a simple closed curve, we mean preserve the isotopy class of a curve. Thurston s classification of elements of Mod(S) is a very powerful tool to study mapping class groups. We call a mapping class f Mod(S) reducile if a power of f fixes a nonperipheral simple closed curve. Each nontrivial element f Mod(S) is of exactly one of the following types: periodic, reducile, pseudo-anosov. See [FM12, Chapter 13] and [FLP12] for more details. We now give the definition of canonical reduction system. Definition 2.1 (Reduction systems). A reduction system of a reducile mapping class h in Mod(S) is a set of disjoint nonperipheral curves that h fixes as a set up to isotopy. A reduction system is maximal if it is maximal with respect to inclusion of reduction systems for h. The canonical reduction system CRS(h) is the intersection of all maximal reduction systems of h. For a reducile element f, there exists n such that f n fixes each element in CRS(f) and after cutting out CRS(f), the restriction of f n on each component is either periodic or pseudo-anosov. See [FM12, Corollary 13.3]. Now we mention three properties of the canonical reduction systems that will e used later. Proposition 2.2. CRS(h n )=CRS(h) for any n. Proof. This is classical; see [FM12, Chapter 13]. For a curve a on a surface S, denote y T a the Dehn twist aout a. For two curves a, on a surface S, let i(a, ) e the geometric intersection numer of a and. For two sets of curves P and T, we say that S and T intersect if there exist a P and T such that i(a, ) 0. Notice that two sets of curves intersecting does not mean that they have a common element. Proposition 2.3. Let h e a reducile mapping class in Mod(S). If {γ} and CRS(h) intersect, then no power of h fixes γ. Proof. Suppose that h n fixes γ. Therefore γ elongs to a maximal reduction system M. By definition, CRS(h) M. However γ intersects some curve in CRS(f); this contradicts the fact that M is a set of disjoint curves. Proposition 2.4. Suppose that h, f Mod(S) and fh = hf. Then CRS(h) and CRS(f) do not intersect. Proof. By conjugation, we have that CRS(hfh 1 ) = h(crs(f)). Since hfh 1 = f, we get that CRS(f) = h(crs(f)). Therefore h fixes the whole set CRS(f). A power of h fixes all curves in CRS(f). By Proposition 2.3, curves in CRS(h) do not intersect curves in CRS(f). We denote the symmetric difference of two sets A, B y A B. Lemma 2.5. Let h, f Mod(S) e two reduced mapping classes such that hf = hf. Then CRS(h) CRS(f) CRS(hf). 4

5 Proof. Suppose that γ CRS(h) and γ / CRS(f). By Corollary 2.4, γ does not intersect CRS(f). The canonical form of f has a component C that contains γ. From fhf 1 = h we know that f permutes CRS(h), e.g. a power of f fixes γ. Since a pseudo-anosov element does not fix any curve, a power of f is the identity on C. Since hfh 1 = f, we know that h permutes the components in the canonical form of f, e.g. h(c) is another component in the canonical form of f. Since f permutes CRS(h), a power of f fixes γ. This shows that C and h(c) intersect, therefore we have that h(c) = C. Suppose that on the component C, the curve γ / CRS(hf). This means that there is a curve γ C such that (hf) n (γ ) = γ for some integer n and i(γ, γ ) 0. A power of f is the identity on C, therefore f fixes γ. However no power of h fixes γ y Proposition 2.3. Therefore, no power of hf fixes γ. This is a contradiction, which shows that γ CRS(hf C ). For any element e Mod(S) such that the action on S can e roken into actions on components {C 1,..., C k }, we have CRS(e C1 )... CRS(e Ck ) CRS(e). Therefore γ CRS(hf C) CRS(hf). Now, we introduce a remarkale relation for Mod(S) that will e used in the proof. Proposition 2.6 (The lantern relation). There is an orientation-preserving emedding of S 0,4 S and let x, y, z, 1, 2, 3, 4 e simple closed curves in S 0,4 that are arranged as the curves shown in the following figure. In Mod(S) we have the relation T x T y T z = T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4. Proof. This is classical; see [FM12, Chapter 5.1]. 2.2 Lifts of ounding pair maps Let {a, } e a ounding pair as in the following figure, i.e. a, are nonseparating curves such that a and ounds a susurface. Denote y T c the Dehn twist aout a curve c. In this susection, we determine φ(t a T 1 ). For two curves c and d, denote y i(c, d) the geometric intersection numer of c and d. For a curve c on S g,1, when we say c is isotopic to a curve c on S g, we mean that c is isotopic to c on S g. 5

6 Figure 2.1: A ounding pair a, Lemma 2.7. Let {a, } e a ounding pair as in Figure 2.1. Up to a swap of a and, CRS(φ(T a T 1 )) can e one of the following two cases. Moreover, either φ(t a T 1 ) = T a T 1 as in case 1 or there exists an integer n such that φ(t a T 1 ) = Ta n 1 n Ta T 1 as in case 2. For a Dehn twist T s aout a separating curve s, there exists a pair of disjoint curves s and s such that they are all isotopic to s and φ(t s ) = Ts n 1 n Ts for some integer n. Figure 2.2: Case 1 Figure 2.3: Case 2 Proof. Let T a T 1 I g e a ounding pair map. Since the centralizer of T a T 1 I g contains a copy of Z 2g 3 as a sugroup of I g, the centralizer of φ(t a T 1 ) I g,1 contains a copy of Z 2g 3 as well. However y [McC82, Theorem 1], the centralizer of a pseudo-anosov element is virtually cyclic group. g > 3 implies that 2g 3 > 3. Therefore φ(t a T 1 ) I g,1 is not pseudo-anosov. For any curve γ on S g,1, denote y γ the same curve on S g. We decompose the proof into the following three steps. Claim 2.8 (Step 1). CRS(φ(T a T 1 )) only contains curves that are isotopic to a or. Proof. Suppose the opposite that there exists γ CRS(φ(T a T 1 )) such that γ is not isotopic to a or. There are two cases. Case 1: γ intersect a and. Since a power of φ(t a T 1 ) fixes γ, a power of T a T 1 fixes γ. By CRS(T a T 1 ) = {a, } and Lemma 2.3, we know that T a T 1 does not fix γ. This is a contradiction. Case 2: γ does not intersect a and. In this case y the change of coordinate principle, we can always find a separating curve c such that i(a, c) = 0, i(, c) = 0 and i(c, γ) 0. Since T a T 1 and T c commute in I g, the two mapping classes φ(t a T 1 ) and φ(t c ) commute in I g,1. This shows that a power of φ(t c ) fixes CRS(φ(T a T 1 )); more specifically a power of φ(t c ) fixes γ. However y Lemma 2.3, no power of T c fixes γ. This is a contradiction. Claim 2.9 (Step 2). CRS(φ(T a T 1 )) must contain curves that are isotopic to a and. Proof. Suppose the opposite that CRS(φ(T a T 1 )) does not contain a curve γ such that γ is isotopic to a. Then y Step 1, CRS(φ(T a T 1 )) either contains one curve isotopic to or two curves and oth 6

7 isotopic to. After cutting CRS(φ(T a T 1 )), we have a component C that is not a punctured annulus. C homeomorphic to the complement of in S g. If φ(t a T 1 ) is pseudo-anosov on C, then the centralizer of φ(t a T 1 ) C at most contains one copy of Z y [McC82, Theorem 1]. Comining with T of Z 3 as a sugroup. This contradicts the fact that the centralizer of φ(t a T 1 and T, the centralizer of φ(t a T 1 as a sugroup ecause 2g 3 > 3. Here we need to use g 4. Therefore φ(t a T 1 contradicts the fact that T a T 1 is not identity on C. Claim 2.10 (Step 3). Either φ(t a T 1 ) = T a T 1 φ(t a T 1 ) = Ta n 1 n Ta T 1 as in case 2. ) at most contains one copy ) contains a sugroup Z 2g 3 ) is identity on C. This as in case 1 or there exists an integer n such that Proof. Suppose that φ(t a T 1 ) is pseudo-anosov on a component C after cutting out CRS(φ(T a T 1 )) from S g,1. Since g(c) 1, there exists a separating curve s on C such that φ(t s ) commutes with φ(t a T 1 ). Therefore φ(t a T 1 ) fixes CRS(φ(T s )), which is either one curve or two curves isotopic to s. Thus a power of φ(t a T 1 ) fixes curves on C, which means that φ(t a T 1 ) is not pseudo-anosov on C. Therefore, φ(t a T 1 ) is not pseudo-anosov on each of the components. By the canonical form of a mapping class, a power of φ(t a T 1 ) is a product of Dehn twists aout CRS(φ(T a T 1 )). By the fact that φ(t a T 1 ) is a lift of T a T 1, the lemma holds. The same argument works for T s the Dehn twist aout a separating curve s. When n = 0 or n = 1, we have that (T a ) n (T a ) 1 n T = T a 1 T or (T a ) n (T a ) 1 n T = T a 1 T. Therefore, we can comine the results to get that φ(t a T 1 ) = (T a ) n (T a ) 1 n T. In φ(t a T 1 ) = (T a ) n (T a ) 1 n T, denote (T a ) n (T a ) 1 n y the a component of φ(t a T 1 ). Notice that y symmetry, the component of φ(t a T 1 ) could also e a product of Dehn twists. In the following lemma, we will prove that the a component of φ(t a T 1 ) does not depend on the choice of. Lemma For two ounding pairs {a, } and {a, c}, the a component of φ(t a T 1 ) is the same as the a component of φ(t a Tc 1 ). Proof. If, c are disjoint, φ(t a T 1 CRS(φ(T a T 1 However φ(t a T 1 ))φ(t a T 1 curves that are isotopic to or c. ) and φ(t a T 1 ) commute. By Lemma 2.5, we have c )) CRS(φ(T a Tc 1 ) 1 ) CRS(φ(T a T 1 ))φ(t a Tc 1 ) 1 ). c ) 1 = φ(t c T 1 ), we have that CRS(φ(T a T 1 ))φ(t a Tc 1 ) 1 ) only contains So CRS(φ(T a T 1 )) CRS(φ(T a Tc 1 ) 1 ) does not contain curves iso- ) and φ(t a T 1 ) are the same so that they can topic to a. This shows that the a components of φ(t a T 1 cancel each other through multiplication. When, c intersect, there are a series of curves { 1 =, 2,..., n = c} such that i( i, i+1 ) = 0 and i(a, i ) = 0 for all 1 i n 1. This fact can e deduced from the connectivity of the complex of homologous curves, e.g. see [Put08]. Therefore, the a components of φ(t a T 1 c ) and φ(t a T 1 ) are the same. c We denote y the capital letter A the suset of curves in CRS(φ(T a T 1 )) that are isotopic to a. By Lemma 2.11, A only depends on the curve a. It can e a one-element set or a two-element set. Lemma If i(a, ) = 0, then A is disjoint from B. 7

8 Proof. Suppose that a, are nonseparating. The case of separating curves are the same. If a, ound, then y Lemma 2.7, A and B are disjoint. If a, do not ound, then there are curves c, d such that they form the following configuration. g 4 is needed here. Since φ(t a Tc 1 ) and φ(t T 1 d ) commute, their canonical reduction systems do not intersect y Corollary 2.4. Therefore A and B are disjoint. 2.3 A nonsplitting lemma for the raid group Let D n e an n-punctured 2-disk. The n-strand pure raid group is denoted y P B n, i.e. the pure mapping class group of D n fixing the n punctures pointwise. In this susection, we prove a nonsplitting lemma for the raid group that will e used in the proof of Theorem 1.1. Lemma Let F : P B 4 P B 3 e the forgetful map forgetting the 4th punctures. There is no homomorphism G : P B 3 P B 4 such that Dehn twists map to Dehn twists, the center maps to the center and F G = id. Proof. Suppose the opposite that we have G : P B 3 P B 4 such that Dehn twists map to Dehn twists, the center maps to the center and F G = id. Let c e a simple closed curve on D 3 and we call c the lift on D 4 such that G(T c ) = T c. In the figure elow, the lantern relation gives T a T T c = T d P B 3. Therefore we have T a T T c = T d P B 4. Because G maps the center to the center, d is the oundary curve of D n. Since a,, c do not intersect d, we have that T a, T, T c commute with T d. If i(a, ) > 2, then T a T is pseudo-anosov on some suspace of D 4 y Thurston s construction, e.g. see [Che17a, Proposition 2.13]. Therefore, T a T = T d T 1 c is not a multitwist. So i(a, ) = 2. Every curve in D n surrounds several points. For example, a D 3 surrounds 2 points. There are several cases we need to concern aout the numer of surrounding points. 8

9 Figure 2.4: Case 1 Figure 2.5: Case 2 Figure 2.6: Case 3 Case 1: a ounds 2 points and ounds 2 points. Then we have T a T = T e T 1 c y the lantern relation as is shown in Figure 2.4. We also have the relation T a T = T d T 1 c from the lift of the relation T a T T c = T d P B 3. However CRS(T d T 1 c ) = {c } = CRS(T e T 1 c ) = {e, c }. This is a contradiction. Case 2: a ounds 2 points and ounds 3 points. Then we have T a T = T d T e T 1 c lantern relation as is shown in Figure 2.5. However #CRS(T d T e T 1 c ) = 2 > 1 = #CRS(T 1 d Tc contradiction. Case 3: a ounds 3 points and ounds 3 points. Then we have T a T = T d T e T 1 c lantern relation as is shown in Figure 2.6. We have #CRS(T d T e T 1 c ) = 2 > 1 = #CRS(T 1 d Tc contradiction. y the ). This is a y the ). This is a 2.4 Proof of Theorem 1.1 In this proof, we do a case study on the possiilities of φ(t a Te 1 ) for a ounding pair map T a Te 1. Case 1 is when the a component is not a single Dehn twist. We reach a contradiction y the lantern relation. Case 2 is when the component of every curve is a single Dehn twist, we use Lemma 2.13 to cause contradiction. Proof of Theorem 1.1. We reak our discussion into the following two cases. Case 1: there is a ounding pair map T a T 1 e such that φ(t a T 1 e ) = (T a ) n (T a ) 1 n T 1 where n 0, 1. There exist curves, c, d such that a,, c, d form a 4-oundary disk as Figure 2.7. We need g > 3 here. e Figure 2.7: On S g Figure 2.8: On S g,1 9

10 There are two more curves f, g such that we have the lantern relation T a Te 1 T T 1 f T c Tg 1 T d = 1. The lifts {, c, d, f, g } of {, c, d, f, g} do not intersect a, a as in Figure 2.8. After applying φ, we have (T a ) n (T a ) 1 n T 1 e T 1 Tf T c Tg 1 T d = 1. Since T a T 1 e T 1 Tf T c T 1 g T d = 1 y the lantern relation on S g,1, we have (T a ) n (T a ) 1 n = T a. It means that n = 1, which contradicts our assumption on n. This proof also works for the Dehn twist T s aout a separating curve s. Case 2: for any ounding pair map T a T 1 e, we have φ(t a T 1 ) = T a T 1 e e and for any Dehn twist T s aout a separating curve s, we have φ(t s ) = T s Let S g,p e a genus g surface with p punctures and oundary components. In this case, firstly we want to locate. Let us decompose the surface into pair of pants as the following Figure 2.9. Figure 2.9: A decomposition Figure 2.10: possiility 1 Figure 2.11: possiility 2 The location of can e either in a pair of pants where all three curves are nonseparating like A or one of them is separating like B. Suppose without loss of generality that lands on A or B. If lands on A, we use Figure 2.10 to find four curves a,, c, d and if lands on B, we use Figure 2.11 to find four curves a,, c, d. The curves a,, c, d that we find satisfy the following properties: 1) d is separating and a c d ounds a 4-oundary sphere S S 4 0 S g. 2) The lifts a,, c, d are 4 disjoint simple closed curves on S g,1 such that d is separating and a c d ounds a 4-oundary sphere with in S S 4 0,1 S g,1. See the following figures. Figure 2.12: On S g Figure 2.13: On S g,1 Claim Let W e the sugroup of I g generated y ounding pair maps with curves on S. Let W e the sugroup of I g,1 generated y ounding pair maps with curves on S such that one of the curves lies in a,, c. We have that W = P B 3 and W = P B4. 10

11 Proof. W only acts nontrivially on S = S0. 4 After gluing punctured disks to the oundaries a, and c, there is a homomorphism µ : W P B 3. Since every closed curve inside S0,3 1 is isotopic to one of the oundary components, every ounding pair map of W maps to a Dehn twist in P B 3 under f. It is clear that φ is surjective. If f ker(µ) as a mapping class on S, then f is either trivial or equal to a product of Dehn twists on a,, c. However, we claim that a nontrivial product of Dehn twists on a,, c is not in Torelli group, which shows that µ is injective. Suppose the opposite that f = Ta m T nt c l I g and l 0. Let a, e two curves and denote y I(a, ) the algeraic intersection numer of a and. For x H 1 (S g ; Z), we have that Ta m T nt c(x) l = mi(a, x)a + ni(, x) + li(c, x)c + x. The fact that Ta m T nt c l is in I g implies that mi(a, x)a+ni(, x)+li(c, x)c = 0 for any x. Since a, are independent, there exists an element x such that I(x, a) = 0 and I(x, ) = 1. Since a c separate implying that a + + c = 0, we have that I(c, x) = 1. This contradicts mi(a, x)a + ni(, x) + li(c, x)c = n lc = 0 ecause, c are independent and l 0. For the same reason W = P B 4. The lifts of elements in W is inside W and F : W W is the forgetful map forgetting the puncture F : P B 4 P B 3. To conclude the proof of the theorem we only need to apply Lemma 2.13 that there is no splitting of F satisfying our assumption. 3 Torelli spaces with punctures In this section, we discuss the section prolem for the universal Torelli undle with punctures. 3.1 Translation to a group theoretical prolem We first translate the section prolem of the universal Torelli surface undle into a group-theoretic statement. As is discussed in [Che17, Chapter 2.1], we have the following correspondence when g > 1: { Conjugacy classes of representations ρ : π 1 (B) Mod g } { Isomorphism classes of } oriented S g -undles over B. (3.1) Let f : E B e a surface undle determined y ρ : π 1 (B) Mod g. Let f : π 1 (E) π 1 (B) e the map on the fundamental groups. By the property of pullack diagrams, finding a splitting of f is the same as finding a homomorphism p that makes the following diagram commute, i.e. π g,1 p = ρ. π 1 (E) f π 1 (B) p ρ Mod g,1 π g,1 Mod g. (3.2) We have the following correspondence: { } { } Homotopy classes of continuous Homomorphisms p satisfying diagram (3.2) up to sections of S g E f B conjugacy y an element in Ker(π g,1 ). (3.3) = π 1 (S g ) By the correspondence (3.3), we can translate Theorem 1.3 into the following group-theoretic statement. T π g,n T π g,n T p g,n,i Let PI g,n Ig and I g,n I g e the forgetful maps forgetting the punctures. Let I g,n Modg,1 11

12 e the forgetful homomorphism forgetting the fixed points {x 1,..., ˆx i,..., x n }. Let P B n (S g ) (resp. B n (S g )) e the n-strand surface raid group, i.e. the fundamental group of the space of ordered (resp. unordered) n distinct points on S g. By the generalized Birman exact sequence (see e.g. [FM12, Theorem 9.1]), we have that Ker(T π g,n ) = P B n (S g ) and Ker(T π g,n) = B n (S g ). See [Che17, Chapter 2.1] for more details. We will prove the following proposition in the next susection. Proposition 3.1. For g > 1 and n 0. The following holds: 1) Every homomorphism p satisfying the following diagram is either conjugate to a forgetful homomorphism T p g,n,i y an element in PI g,n or factors through T π g,n, i.e. there exists f such that p = f T π g,n. T π 1 P B n (S g ) g,n PI g,n I g 1 (3.4) R p 1 π 1 (S g ) Mod g,1 π g,1 Mod g 1. = 2) For n > 1, every homomorphism p satisfying the following diagram factors through T π g,n, i.e. there exists f such that p = f T π g,n T π 1 B n (S g ) g,n I g,n I g 1 (3.5) R p 1 π 1 (S g ) Mod g,1 π g,1 Mod g 1. = Proof of Theorem 1.3 assuming Proposition 3.1. By Theorem 1.1, the short exact sequence π g,1 1 π 1 (S g ) I g,1 Ig 1 has no section. Therefore Proposition 3.1 implies Theorem The proof of Proposition 3.1 The top exact sequence of diagram (3.4) gives us a representation ρ T : I g Out(P B n (S g )). The following lemma descries a property of ρ T. Let p i : P B n (S g ) π 1 (S g ) e the induced map on the fundamental groups of the forgetful map forgetting all points except the ith point. Lemma 3.2. Let h > 1. For any surjective homomorphism φ : P B n (S g ) F h, there exists an element t I g such that t(ker(φ)) Ker(φ). Proof. By Theorem [Che17, Theorem 1.5], any homomorphism φ : P B n (S g ) F h factors through some p i. Thus we only need to deal with the case n = 1. We will prove the lemma y contradiction. Suppose the opposite that there exists a surjective homomorphism φ : π 1 (S g ) F h such that for any element e I g, we have e(ker(φ)) = Ker(φ). Since φ is surjective, the induced map on H 1 (, Z) is also surjective. Suppose that a 1, a 2,..., a h π 1 (S g ) such that φ(a 1 ),..., φ(a h ) generate F h. Since the cup product H 1 (F h, Z) H 1 (F h, Z) cup H 2 (F h, Z) is trivial, the image of φ : H 1 (F h ; Z) H 1 (S g ; Z) is an isotropic suspace with dimension at most g. Thus we can find π 1 (S g ) such that φ() = 1 and [] 0 H 1 (S g ; Z). 12

13 It is clear that [] and {a 1,..., a h } are linearly independent. Let π 0 = π 1 (S g ), and π n+1 = [π n, π 0 ], we have the following exact sequence. 1 π 1 /π 2 π 0 /π 2 π 0 /π 1 1 Let H := H 1 (S g ; Z). Let ω = g j=1 a j j. We know that π 1 /π 2 = 2 H/Zω, where the identification is given y [x, y] x y. Notice that I g acts trivially on oth π 1 /π 2 and π 0 /π 1 ut nontrivially on π 0 /π 2. The action is measured y the Johnson homomorphism τ : I g Hom(H, 2 H/Zω); see [Joh80] for more details. Let t I g. For x H, let x π 0 e a lift of x, i.e. x maps x under the map π 0 H. The Johnson homomorphism is defined y τ(t)(x) = t( x) x 1 π 1 /π 2. It is standard to check that τ(t) does not depend on the choice of lift x. Johnson [Joh80, Theorem 1] proved that the image τ(i g ) = 3 H/H Hom(H, 2 H/Zω). Therefore there exists t I g such that τ(t)() = a 1 a 2. By the definition of the Johnson homomorphism, we have that t() 1 = [a 1, a 2 ]T, where T π 2. Since φ() = 1, we have that φ(t()) = 1 y the assumption that t(ker(φ)) = Ker(φ). As a result, φ([a 1, a 2 ])φ(t ) = 1. Let F 1 h = [F h, F h ] and F n+1 h = [F n h, F h]. We have that φ(π n ) F n h, which implies that φ(t ) F 2 h. However φ([a 1, a 2 ]) 1 F 1 h /F 2 h. This contradicts the fact that φ([a 1, a 2 ]) = φ(t ) 1. We need the following lemma from [HT85, Lemma 2.2]. Lemma 3.3. For g > 1, a pseudo-anosov element of Mod(S g,n ) does not fix any nonperipheral isotopy class of curves including nonsimple curves. Now we have all the ingredients to prove statement 1) in Proposition 3.1. Proof of 1) in Proposition 3.1. For any p : PI g,n I g,1, we have that for e PI g,n and x P B n (S g ), R(exe 1 ) = p(e)r(x)p(e) 1. Denote y C e the conjugation y e in any group. This induces the following diagram: P B n (S g ) C e P B n (S g ) (3.6) R π 1 (S g ) R C p(e) π 1 (S g ). By [Che17, Theorem 1.5], a homomorphism R : P B n (S g ) π 1 (S g ) either factors through a forgetful homomorphism or has cyclic image. We reak our discussion into the two cases. Case 1: Image(R) = Z In this case, the image is generated y x π 1 (S g ). By diagram (3.6), C p(e) preserves Image(R) for any e. It is known that I g contains pseudo-anosov elements; see [FM12, Corollary 14.3]. By Lemma 3.3, a pseudo-anosov element does not preserve Image(R). Therefore R does not extend to p. Case 2: R factors through a forgetful homomorphism p i and does not have cyclic image In this case, we have a homomorphism S : π 1 (S g ) π 1 (S g ) such that R = S p i. If S is a surjection, y the same reason as in the proof of [Che17, Theorem 2.4], we know that p is conjugate to p i. If S is not a 13

14 surjection, then Image(S) is a noncyclic free group. By Lemma 3.2 and diagram 3.6, we know R does not extend to p. To prove statement 2) in Proposition 3.1, we need the following lemma. Lemma 3.4. For n > 1, the image of any homomorphism B n (S g ) π 1 (S g ) is a free group. Proof. Suppose that there exists a homomorphism Φ : B n (S g ) π 1 (S g ) such that the image is not a free group. Then Image(Φ) = π 1 (S h ) where h g. After precomposing with the emedding i : P B n (S g ) B n (S g ), we have a homomorphism Φ P B n (S g ) π 1 (S g ) with image a nontrivial finite index sugroup. By Theorem [Che17, Theorem 5], the map Φ factors through some p i, ut there is no surjection from π 1 (S g ) to a nontrivial finite index sugroup of π 1 (S g ). This is a contradiction. By the classification of sugroups of π 1 (S g ), the image of any homomorphism B n (S g ) π 1 (S g ) is a free group. Proof of 2) in Proposition 3.1. By Claim 3.4, we know that R is not a surjection. Therefore, the image of R is either cyclic or a noncyclic free group. For the cyclic image case, we use the same argument as in the proof of 3.1 to show that R does not extend to p. In the case of noncyclic free group, y Lemma 3.2, we know that R does not extend to p as well. 3.3 A nonsplitting statement In this susection, we will prove the following corollary using Theorem 1.3. Corollary 3.5. For g > 1 and m > n, the forgetful map F g,m,n : PI g,m PI g,n forgetting the last m n points does not have a section. Proof. We only need to show that the n sections of the undle T u g,n have nontrivial self-intersection. Then we cannot find n + 1 disjoint sections on T u g,n. We restrict our attention to the sugroup P B n (S g ) of PI g,n. Let PConf n (S g ) e the space of n-tuples of distinct points on S g. Since PConf n (S g ) = K(P B n (S g ), 1), we have that PConf n (S g ) is a suspace of BPI g,n. The undle on PConf n (S g ) is the trivial undle PConf n (S g ) S g P n PConfn (S g ) with n sections s i (x 1,..., x n ) = (x 1,..., x n, x i ). By Poincaré duality, the section is represented y a class in H 2 (PConf n (S g ) S g ; Z). So the self-intersection of a section is a class in H 4 (PConf n (S g ) S g ; Z). Let p i (x 1,..., x n ) = x i e the projection of PConf n (S g ) to S g. We have the following pullack diagram such that s i is the pullack of the diagonal section for the trivial undle P 1. (p PConf n (S g ) S i,id) g S g S g (3.7) P n J PConf n (S g ) S g. Since s i is the pullack from the trivial undle P 1, the self-intersection of s i is the pullack of the corresponding class γ in H 4 (S g S g ; Z). Let [S g ] (resp. [S g S g ]) e the fundamental class of S g (resp. S g S g ). It is classical that the class is γ = (2 2g)[S g S g ]. By the Gysin homomorphism, p! (p i, id) (2 2g)[S g S g ] = (2 2g)p i [S g ] H 2 (PConf n (S g ); Z) which is nonzero y the computation in [Che17, Lemma 3.4]. P 1 14

15 4 Another proof of Theorem 1.1 We want to point out here that the punctured case can help us with the case of no punctures, i.e. Proposition 3.1 can give us another proof of Theorem 1.1. Notice that the proof of Proposition 3.1 does not depend on Theorem 1.1. Let I g,p e the Torelli group of S g,p, i.e. the sugroup of Mod g,p that acts trivially on H 1 (S g ; Z). Second proof of Theorem 1.1. Again let g > 3. We assume that the exact sequence (1.1) has a splitting which is denoted y φ such that F φ = id. By Lemma 2.7, the image φ(t s ) of T s the Dehn twist aout a separating curve s is Ts n 1 n Ts where s and s are curves on S g,1 that are isotopic to s. Let UT S g e the unit tangent undle of genus g surface. Let s e a separating curve that separates S g into two parts C 1 = S 1 p and C 2 = S 1 q such that p, q 2. The comination of torelli groups of C 1 and C 2 gives us a sugroup G of I g satisfying the following short exact sequence. 1 (Ts,Ts ) 1 Z I 1 p I 1 q G 1 The disk pushing sugroup is π 1 (UT S p ) I 1 p, i.e. see [FM12, Page 118]. The disk pushing sugroups of C 1 and C 2 give us a sugroup A of G satisfying the following short exact sequence. 1 Z Claim 4.1. φ(t s ) = T s for a curve s on S g,1 that is isotopic to s. (Ts,T 1 s ) π 1 (UT S p ) π 1 (UT S q ) A 1 (4.1) Proof. We have already proved this result in the proof of Theorem 1.1, Case 1. Here we give another proof using the Euler class. By Lemma 2.7, we have that φ(t s ) = Ts n 1 n Ts. We only need to prove that CRS(φ(T s)) only contains one curve. Suppose the opposite that CRS(φ(T s )) contains two curves s and s such that they are isotopic to s. Then φ(a) is in the centralizer of of φ(t s ). The centralizer φ(t s ) is the sugroup of I g,1 that fixes s and s. Since φ(a) also satisfies the fact that it maps to A after forgetting. We know that φ(a) π 1 (UT S p ) π 1 (UT S q ). Since y computation, dimh 2 (UT S p UT S q ; Q) = dimh 2 (S p S q ; Q) = dimh 2 (A; Q), we know that the Euler class of (4.1) is nonzero. Therefore (4.1) does not split which proves the claim. Since T s commutes with each element of G, we have that T s commutes with each element of φ(g). Therefore, φ(g) is a sugroup of the centralizer of T s. The centralizer C Ig,1 (T s ) of T s is the sugroup of I g,1 that fixes s. Since the two components of S g s are not homeomorphic, any element in C Ig,1 (T s ) has to fix the two components. Therefore C Ig,1 (T s ) satisfies the following exact sequence 1 Z I 1 p I 1 q,1 C Ig,1 (T s ) 1. Therefore we have a section of F : I 1 q,1 I 1 q which maps T s to T s. This section gives a section of F q,2,1 in the following commutative diagram. 1 Z I 1 q,1 PI q,2 1 (4.2) 1 Z I 1 q F F q,2,1 I q,

16 However, we already prove that F q,2,1 does not have a section in Corollary 3.5, this implies that F does not have a section. The statement follows. References [BLM83] J. Birman, A. Luotzky, and J. McCarthy. Aelian and solvale sugroups of the mapping class groups. Duke Math. J., 50(4): , [Che17a] L. Chen. Section prolems for configuration spaces of surfaces. Pre-print, [Che17] L. Chen. The universal n-pointed surface undle only has n sections. Journal of Topology and Analysis, pages 1 17, doi: /S [FLP12] A. Fathi, F. Laudenach, and V. Poénaru. Thurston s work on surfaces, volume 48 of Mathematical Notes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, Translated from the 1979 French original y Djun M. Kim and Dan Margalit. [FM12] B. Far and D. Margalit. A primer on mapping class groups, volume 49 of Princeton Mathematical Series. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, [HT85] M. Handel and W.P. Thurston. New proofs of some results of nielsen. Advances in Mathematics, 56(2): , [Joh80] D. Johnson. An aelian quotient of the mapping class group I g. Math. Ann., 249(3): , [Joh83] D. Johnson. The structure of the Torelli group. I. A finite set of generators for I. Ann. of Math. (2), 118(3): , [McC82] J.D. McCarthy. Normalizers and centralizers of pseudo-anosov mapping classes. Pre-print, [Mes90] G. Mess. Unit tangent undle sugroups of the mapping class groups. MSRI Pre-print, [Mes92] G. Mess. The Torelli groups for genus 2 and 3 surfaces. Topology, 31(4): , [Put08] A. Putman. A note on the connectivity of certain complexes associated to surfaces. Enseign. Math. (2), 54(3-4): , Dept. of Mathematics, University of Chicago chenlei@math.uchicago.edu 16