text:
# Distance between toroidal surgeries on hyperbolic knots in the 3-sphere

## 1. Introduction

Let $`K`$ be a knot in the $`3`$-sphere $`S^3`$ and let $`E(K)=S^3\mathrm{Int}N(K)`$ be its exterior. A slope is the isotopy class of an essential simple closed curve on $`E(K)`$. Then the set of slopes is parameterized by $`𝐐\{1/0\}`$ so that $`1/0`$ is the meridian slope as in the usual way (see ). For two slopes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, the distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )`$ between $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is defined to be their minimal geometric intersection number. A slope $`m/n`$ is called integral if $`|n|=1`$, and half-integral if $`|n|=2`$. In other words, an integral slope runs once along the knot, and a half-integral slope runs twice along the knot.

We denote by $`K(\alpha )`$ the closed $`3`$-manifold obtained by $`\alpha `$-Dehn surgery on $`K`$, that is, attaching a solid torus $`V`$ to $`E(K)`$ along $`E(K)`$ in such a way that the slope $`\alpha `$ bounds a disk in $`V`$. A surgery (or slope) is said to be toroidal if the resulting manifold contains an incompressible torus. Thurston showed that if $`K`$ is a hyperbolic knot, then $`K(\alpha )`$ is hyperbolic for all but finitely many slopes $`\alpha `$ . If $`K(\alpha )`$ is not hyperbolic, then it is either reducible, or an atoroidal Seifert fibered manifold, or toroidal, or a counterexample to the Geometrization Conjecture . We focus on the third case. It is known that if $`\alpha `$ is a toroidal slope for a hyperbolic knot, then $`\alpha `$ is integral or half-integral . There are many examples of integral toroidal surgery, and Eudave-Muñoz  constructed an infinite family of hyperbolic knots $`k(\mathrm{},m,n,p)`$ admitting half-integral toroidal surgeries. Recently, Gordon and Luecke  proved that the Eudave-Muñoz knots $`k(\mathrm{},m,n,p)`$ are the only hyperbolic knots with half-integral toroidal surgeries.

In this paper, we consider the distance between toroidal slopes on a hyperbolic knot in $`S^3`$. The figure-eight knot admits exactly three toroidal slopes $`0,4`$ and $`4`$ . Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(4,4)=8`$. If a hyperbolic knot is not the figure-eight knot, then the distance between two toroidal slopes is at most $`5`$ by Gordon . (There are exactly four hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds which admit two toroidal slopes with distance at least $`6`$. They all are obtained from the Whitehead link by some Dehn surgery on one component. Among those, only the figure-eight knot exterior can be embedded in $`S^3`$ by homological reason.) This upper bound $`5`$ is sharp. For example, the Eudave-Muñoz knot $`k(2,1,n,0)`$ ($`n1`$) admits two toroidal slopes $`25n\frac{37}{2}`$ and $`25n16`$ as shown in , where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(25n\frac{37}{2},25n16)=5`$. (When $`n=1`$, $`k(2,1,1,0)`$ is the trefoil.) Notice that one slope is half-integral, and that $`k(2,1,0,0)`$ is the $`(2,3,7)`$-pretzel knot. The purpose of this paper is to show that we can reduce the upper bound when both of toroidal slopes are integral.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`K`$ be a hyperbolic knot in $`S^3`$, which is not the figure-eight knot. If $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are two integral toroidal slopes for $`K`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )4`$.

This is sharp. For example, the twist knot $`C[2n,2]`$ in Conway’s notation with $`n1`$ admits two integral toroidal slopes $`0`$ and $`4`$ . Although it may be too optimistic, there is a possibility that only twist knots and the $`(2,3,7)`$-pretzel knot admit two integral toroidal slopes with distance $`4`$.

###### Corollary 1.2.

If a hyperbolic knot $`K`$ in $`S^3`$ admits two toroidal slopes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )=5`$, then $`K`$ is an Eudave-Muñoz knot.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 1.1, one of $`\alpha ,\beta `$ is half-integral. Then $`K`$ is an Eudave-Muñoz knot by . ∎

Among Eudave-Muñoz knots, only $`k(2,1,n,0)`$ $`(n1)`$ seems to admit two toroidal slopes with distance $`5`$. But this is still an open question.

It is conjectured that a hyperbolic knot in $`S^3`$ admits at most three toroidal slopes  (see also \[14, Problem 1.77 A(5)\]). Our main theorem also gives an upper bound for the number of toroidal slopes.

###### Corollary 1.3.

A hyperbolic knot in $`S^3`$ admits at most $`5`$ toroidal slopes.

###### Proof.

Any Eudave-Muñoz knot $`k=k(\mathrm{},m,n,p)`$ admits at least three non-trivial exceptional slopes $`s1,s\frac{1}{2},s`$, where $`s`$ is an integer determined by $`k`$ . In fact, $`s\frac{1}{2}`$ is the only half-integral toroidal slope for $`k`$ , and $`s1`$ and $`s`$ yield atoroidal Seifert fibered manifolds. Since the distance between two toroidal slopes is at most $`5`$ by , the only possible toroidal slopes for $`k`$ are $`s3,s2,s\frac{1}{2},s+1,s+2`$. But both of $`s3`$ and $`s+2`$ cannot be toroidal by Theorem 1.1. Thus $`k`$ admits at most $`4`$ toroidal slopes.

The figure-eight knot admits three toroidal slopes as stated before. For the other hyperbolic knots, any toroidal slope is integral and the distance between such two slopes is at most $`4`$ by Theorem 1.1. Hence there are at most $`5`$ toroidal slopes. ∎

In Section 2, we prepare the basic tool, a pair of labelled graphs, to show Theorem 1.1. Also, some fundamental properties are shown there. Section 3 is devoted to examine a reduced graph supported in a disk or an annulus. The results will be used in Section 4. Sections 5 and 6 will treat two special cases, and the proof of Theorem 1.1 will be completed. In the last section, we propose some questions concerning toroidal slopes of hyperbolic knots.

## 2. Preliminaries

Throughout this paper, we fix a hyperbolic knot $`K`$ in $`S^3`$, which is not the figure-eight knot. Let $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ be two integral toroidal slopes for $`K`$. By , $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )5`$. We assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )=5`$ to prove Theorem 1.1. Note that $`K(\alpha )`$ and $`K(\beta )`$ are irreducible under this assumption. (For, if $`K(\alpha )`$ is reducible, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )3`$ by . Similarly for $`K(\beta )`$.) Let $`\widehat{S}`$ be an incompressible torus in $`K(\alpha )`$. We may assume that $`\widehat{S}`$ meets the attached solid torus $`V_\alpha `$ in $`s`$ meridian disks $`u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_s`$, numbered successively along $`V_\alpha `$, and that $`s`$ is minimal over all choices of $`\widehat{S}`$. Let $`S=\widehat{S}E(K)`$. Then $`S`$ is a punctured torus properly embedded in $`E(K)`$ with $`s`$ boundary components $`_iS=u_i`$, each of which has slope $`\alpha `$. By the minimality of $`s`$, $`S`$ is incompressible, and then boundary-incompressible in $`E(K)`$. Similarly, we choose an incompressible torus $`\widehat{T}`$ in $`K(\beta )`$ which intersects the attached solid torus $`V_\beta `$ in $`t`$ meridian disks $`v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_t`$, numbered successively along $`V_\beta `$, where $`t`$ is minimal as above. Then we have another incompressible and boundary-incompressible punctured torus $`T=\widehat{T}E(K)`$, which has $`t`$ boundary components $`_jT=v_j`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

The genus of $`K`$ is not one.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`K`$ has genus one. By , if $`r`$ is an integral toroidal slope for $`K`$, then $`|r|=0,1,2`$ or $`4`$. Furthermore, if $`|r|=4`$ then $`K`$ is a twist knot. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )=5`$, either slope is $`4`$ or $`4`$. Thus $`K`$ is a twist knot. But a twist knot does not admit two toroidal slopes with distance $`5`$ . ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

$`\widehat{S}`$ and $`\widehat{T}`$ are separating.

###### Proof.

Assume $`\widehat{S}`$ is non-separating. Then $`\alpha =0`$ by homological reason. Thus $`K(0)`$ contains a non-separating torus $`\widehat{S}`$. But this implies that $`K`$ has genus one \[6, Corollary 8.3\]. Similarly for $`\widehat{T}`$. ∎

Thus $`s`$ and $`t`$ are non-zero and even.

We may assume that $`S`$ intersects $`T`$ transversely. Then $`ST`$ consists of arcs and circles. Since both surfaces are incompressible, we can assume that no circle component of $`ST`$ bounds a disk in $`S`$ or $`T`$. Furthermore, it can be assumed that $`_iS`$ meets $`_jT`$ in $`5`$ points for any pair of $`i`$ and $`j`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5`$ be the points of $`_iS_jT`$, numbered so that they appear successively on $`_iS`$. Then $`a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5`$ also appear successively on $`_jT`$. In particular, two points of $`_iS_jT`$ are successive on $`_iS`$ if and only if they are successive in $`_jT`$.

###### Proof.

This immediately follows from that both slopes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are integral. ∎

In the literature, for example , this fact is stated that the jumping number is one.

Let $`G_S`$ be the graph on $`\widehat{S}`$ consisting of the $`u_i`$ as (fat) vertices, and the arc components of $`ST`$ as edges. Define $`G_T`$ on $`\widehat{T}`$ similarly. Throughout the paper, two graphs on a surface are considered to be equivalent if there is a homeomorphism of the surface carrying one graph to the other. Note that $`G_S`$ and $`G_T`$ have no trivial loops.

For an edge $`e`$ of $`G_S`$ incident to $`u_i`$, the endpoint of $`e`$ is labelled $`j`$ if it is in $`u_iv_j=_iS_jT`$. Similarly, label the endpoints of each edge of $`G_T`$. Thus the labels $`1,2,\mathrm{},t`$ ($`1,2,\mathrm{},s`$, resp.) appear in order around each vertex of $`G_S`$ ($`G_T`$, resp.) repeated $`5`$ times. Each vertex $`u_i`$ of $`G_S`$ has degree $`5t`$, and each $`v_j`$ of $`G_T`$ has degree $`5s`$.

Let $`G=G_S`$ or $`G_T`$. Two vertices of $`G`$ are said to be parallel if their numbers have the same parity, otherwise they are antiparallel. An edge of $`G`$ is a positive edge if it connects parallel vertices. Otherwise it is a negative edge. Possibly, a positive edge is a loop. An endpoint of a positive (negative, resp.) edge around a vertex is called a positive (negative, resp.) edge endpoint.

###### Lemma 2.4 (The parity rule).

An edge $`e`$ is positive in a graph if and only if it is negative in the other graph.

###### Proof.

This can be found in . ∎

###### Lemma 2.5.

There is no pair of edges which are parallel in both graphs.

###### Proof.

This is \[7, Lemma 2.1\]. ∎

If an edge $`e`$ of $`G_S`$ is incident to $`u_i`$ with label $`j`$, the it is called a $`j`$-edge at $`u_i`$. Then $`e`$ is also an $`i`$-edge at $`v_j`$ in $`G_T`$. If $`e`$ has labels $`j_1,j_2`$ at its endpoints, then $`e`$ is called a $`\{j_1,j_2\}`$-edge, or $`j_1j_2`$-edge.

A cycle in $`G`$ consisting of positive edges is a Scharlemann cycle if it bounds a disk face of $`G`$ and all edges in the cycle are $`\{i,i+1\}`$-edges for some label $`i`$. The number of edges in a Scharlemann cycle is called the length of the Scharlemann cycle, and the set $`\{i,i+1\}`$ is called its label pair. A Scharlemann cycle of length two is called an $`S`$-cycle in short.

Let $`e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4`$ be the four parallel positive edges in $`G`$ numbered in order. If $`G`$ has at least four labels, and the middle two edges $`e_2`$ and $`e_3`$ form an $`S`$-cycle, then the cycle defined by $`e_1`$ and $`e_4`$ is called an extended $`S`$-cycle. (There is a notion of an extended Scharlemann cycle of arbitrary length, but this is enough for our purpose.)

###### Lemma 2.6.

Let $`\rho `$ be a Scharlemann cycle in $`G_S`$. Then the edges of $`\rho `$ cannot lie in a disk in $`\widehat{T}`$. This also holds for Scharlemann cycles in $`G_T`$.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality, assume that $`\rho `$ has label pair $`\{1,2\}`$. Let $`f`$ be the face of $`G_S`$ bounded by $`\rho `$, and let $`V_{12}`$ be the part of the attached solid torus $`V_\beta `$ between two meridian disks $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. (When $`t=2`$, choose one such that $`f`$ runs on $`V_{12}v_1v_2`$.) Assume that the edges of $`\rho `$ lie in a disk $`D`$ in $`\widehat{T}`$. Then $`N(DV_{12}f)`$ is a lens space minus an open $`3`$-ball. Since $`K(\beta )`$ is irreducible, $`K(\beta )`$ is a lens space. But this contradicts that $`K(\beta )`$ is toroidal. ∎

For the rest of this section, let $`G=G_S`$ or $`G_T`$. Assume that $`G`$ has $`q`$ labels.

###### Lemma 2.7.

Let $`q4`$.

* $`G`$ cannot contain an extended $`S`$-cycle.
* If $`q=4`$, then $`G`$ cannot contain two $`S`$-cycles with disjoint label pairs.
* $`G`$ cannot contain three $`S`$-cycles with mutually disjoint label pairs.
* If there are two $`S`$-cycles with disjoint label pairs $`\{i,i+1\}`$ and $`\{j,j+1\}`$, then $`i`$ and $`j`$ have the same parity.

###### Proof.

(1) is \[1, Lemma 2.10\]. (2) For convenience, we assume $`G=G_S`$. We can assume that $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are $`S`$-cycles with label pairs $`\{1,2\}`$ and $`\{3,4\}`$, respectively. Let $`f_i`$ be the face of $`G_S`$ bounded by $`\rho _i`$, $`i=1,2`$. Denote by $`V_{12}`$ and $`V_{34}`$ the parts of the attached solid torus $`V_\beta `$ lying between two meridian disks $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$, and $`v_3`$ and $`v_4`$, respectively. Then shrinking $`V_{12}`$ radially to its core in $`V_{12}f_1`$ gives a Möbius band $`B_1`$ such that $`B_1`$ is the loop on $`\widehat{T}`$ formed by the edges of $`\rho _1`$. Similarly, $`V_{34}f_2`$ gives another Möbius band $`B_2`$ whose boundary is disjoint from $`B_1`$. Let $`A`$ be an annulus between $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ on $`\widehat{T}`$. Then $`B_1AB_2`$ is a Klein bottle $`\widehat{F}`$ in $`K(\beta )`$, which meets $`V_\beta `$ in two meridian disks (after a perturbation). Then $`F=\widehat{F}E(K)`$ gives a twice-punctured Klein bottle in $`E(K)`$. By attaching a suitable annulus on $`E(K)`$ to $`F`$ along their boundaries, we have a closed non-orientable surface in $`S^3`$, a contradiction. (3) and (4) are \[20, Lemma 1.10\] and \[20, Lemma 1.7\], respectively. ∎

Let $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_q`$ be $`q`$ mutually parallel negative edges in $`G`$ numbered successively, each connecting vertex $`x`$ to $`y`$. Suppose that $`e_i`$ has label $`i`$ at $`x`$ for $`1iq`$. Then this family defines a permutation $`\sigma `$ of the set $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},q\}`$ such that $`e_i`$ has label $`\sigma (i)`$ at $`y`$. In fact, $`\sigma (i)i+r(modq)`$ for some even $`r`$. We call $`\sigma `$ the permutation associated to the family. It is well-defined up to inversion. Note that $`\sigma `$ has at least two orbits by the parity rule, and all orbits of $`\sigma `$ have the same length.

###### Lemma 2.8.

Let $`q4`$.

* Any family of parallel positive edges in $`G`$ contains at most $`q/2+1`$ edges. Moreover, if the family contains $`q/2+1`$ edges, then two adjacent edges on one end form an $`S`$-cycle.
* Any family of parallel negative edges in $`G`$ contains at most $`q`$ edges.

###### Proof.

For convenience, let $`G=G_S`$.

(1) Such a family contains at most $`t/2+2`$ edges \[20, Lemma 1.4\]. Furthermore, if it contains $`t/2+2`$ edges, then the labels can be assumed as in Figure 1(1). Then there are two $`S`$-cycles with disjoint label pairs $`\{1,2\}`$ and $`\{t/2+1,t/2+2\}`$. By the same construction as in the proof of Lemma 2.7(2), we have two Möbius bands $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ and an annulus $`A`$ on $`\widehat{T}`$ as before. In $`\widehat{T}`$, two vertices $`v_i`$ and $`v_{ti+3}`$ are connected by an edge in the family for $`i=3,4,\mathrm{},t/2`$. Hence $`\mathrm{int}A`$ contains an even number of vertices. Then $`B_1AB_2`$ is a Klein bottle which meets $`V_\beta `$ in an even number of meridian disks. This leads to a contradiction as before.

If the family contains $`t/2+1`$ edges, then it contains an $`S`$-cycle \[3, Lemma 2.6.6\]. Since there is no extended $`S`$-cycle by Lemma 2.7(1), the last two edges form an $`S`$-cycle as shown in Figure 1(2), up to relabeling.

(2) Let $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_t,e_1^{}\}`$ be a family of $`t+1`$ parallel negative edges, connecting vertex $`u_j`$ to $`u_k`$. We can assume that $`e_i`$ has label $`i`$ at $`u_j`$ for $`1it`$ and $`e_1^{}`$ has label $`1`$ at $`u_j`$. Let $`\sigma `$ be the permutation associated to the family $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_t\}`$. Thus $`e_i`$ has label $`\sigma (i)`$ at $`u_k`$. For an orbit $`\theta `$ of $`\sigma `$, let $`C_\theta `$ be the cycle in $`G_T`$ consisting of $`e_i`$ for $`i\theta `$. Then $`C_\theta `$ does not bound a disk on $`\widehat{T}`$ \[7, Lemma 2.3\]. Since $`i`$ and $`\sigma (i)`$ have the same parity by the parity rule, $`\sigma `$ has at least two orbits. Thus all cycles corresponding to the orbits of $`\sigma `$ are essential and mutually parallel on $`\widehat{T}`$. Let $`C_1`$ be the cycle corresponding to the orbit containing $`1`$.

Now, consider $`e_1^{}`$. Then $`e_1^{}`$ connects $`v_1`$ and $`v_{\sigma (1)}`$ in $`G_T`$. By Lemma 2.5, it is not parallel to $`e_1`$ in $`G_T`$. Because of the existence of another cycle, the new cycle obtained from $`C_1`$ by exchanging $`e_1`$ by $`e_1^{}`$ bounds a disk in $`\widehat{T}`$. But this is impossible by \[7, Lemma 2.3\] again. ∎

###### Lemma 2.9.

If $`q=4`$, then there are no consecutive $`4`$ families of $`q/2+1`$ parallel positive edges at any vertex of $`G`$.

###### Proof.

If there are such $`4`$ families, then there are two $`S`$-cycles with disjoint label pairs among those, which is impossible by Lemma 2.7(2). ∎

## 3. Reduced graphs on tori

Let $`G=G_S`$ or $`G_T`$, and let $`F`$ be the surface where $`G`$ lies. The reduced graph $`\overline{G}`$ of $`G`$ is the graph obtained from $`G`$ by amalgamating each family of mutually parallel edges into a single edge. Let $`G^+`$ be the subgraph of $`G`$ consisting of all vertices and all positive edges of $`G`$. Then $`\overline{G}^+`$ is also defined similarly. In this section, we examine the reduced graphs $`\overline{G}`$ and $`\overline{G}^+`$. The results here will be used in the next section.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a component of $`\overline{G}^+`$. If there is a disk $`D`$ in $`F`$ such that $`\mathrm{int}D`$ contains $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then we say that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a disk support. Also, if there is an annulus $`A`$ in $`F`$ such that $`\mathrm{int}A`$ contains $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not have a disk support, then we say that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has an annulus support. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has neither a disk nor an annulus support, then we say that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a torus support.

Now, suppose that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a support $`E`$, where $`E`$ is a disk or an annulus. A vertex $`x`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called an outer vertex if there is an arc $`\xi `$ connecting $`x`$ to $`E`$ whose interior is disjoint from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Define an outer edge similarly. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the subgraph of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consisting of all outer vertices and all outer edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. A vertex $`x`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called a cut vertex if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }x`$ has more components than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has an annulus support $`A`$. A vertex $`x`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a pinched vertex if there is a spanning arc of $`A`$ which meets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in only $`x`$. An edge $`e`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a pinched edge if there is a spanning arc of $`A`$ which meets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in only one point on $`e`$. Clearly, both endpoints of a pinched edge are pinched vertices.

We say that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an extremal component of $`\overline{G}^+`$ if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a support which is disjoint from the other components of $`\overline{G}^+`$. Remark that $`\overline{G}^+`$ has at least two components, because $`G`$ has vertices of distinct parities.

###### Lemma 3.1.

$`\overline{G}^+`$ has an extremal component with a disk support or an annulus support.

###### Proof.

There are only three possibilities for the support of a component; a disk, an annulus, or a torus. If there is a component with a torus support, then any other component has an disk support. The conclusion immediately follows from this. ∎

Let $`x`$ be a vertex of $`G`$. Then $`x`$ is called an interior vertex if there is no negative edge incident to $`x`$ in $`G`$. Since $`\overline{G}`$ and $`\overline{G}^+`$ have the same vertex set as $`G`$, we may call a vertex of $`\overline{G}`$ or $`\overline{G}^+`$ an interior vertex when it is an interior vertex of $`G`$. In particular, if $`x`$ is in an extremal component of $`\overline{G}^+`$ with a disk or an annulus support, and it is not an outer vertex, then $`x`$ is an interior vertex.

A vertex $`x`$ is said to be good if all positive edge endpoints around $`x`$ are successive in $`G`$. Thus an interior vertex is good. When $`x`$ is a vertex of an extremal component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`\overline{G}^+`$ with a disk or an annulus support, $`x`$ is good if

* $`x`$ is not a cut vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a disk support; or
* $`x`$ is neither a cut vertex nor a pinched vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has an annulus support.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an extremal component of $`\overline{G}^+`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a disk support, and that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not a single vertex.

* If each interior vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has degree at least $`6`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has two good vertices of degree at most $`3`$.
* If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has no interior vertex, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has two good vertices of degree at most $`2`$.

###### Proof.

These are \[20, Lemma 2.3\] and \[20, Lemma 3.2\]. ∎

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an extremal component of $`\overline{G}^+`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has an annulus support, and that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not a cycle. If each interior vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has degree at least $`6`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a good vertex of degree at most $`4`$.

###### Proof.

First, consider the case that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has no cut vertices.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has no pinched vertex. If any vertex on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has degree at least $`5`$, then take a double of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ along two boundary cycles. Then we have a graph in a torus, whose vertices have degree at least $`6`$, and at least two vertices, coming from the vertices on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, have degree at least $`8`$. Also, the graph has no trivial loop and parallel edges. This is impossible by an Euler characteristic argument. Therefore, some vertex on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has degree at most $`4`$. Clearly, it is a good vertex.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a pinched vertex. Contract each pinched edge into a point if necessary. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ be the resulting graph. By our assumption that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not a cycle, neither is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ . Moreover, any pinched vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ has degree at least $`4`$.

If there is only one pinched vertex $`x`$, then split $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ at $`x`$ to obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$ having a disk support. Then $`x`$ splits into $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. Let $`V,E,F`$ be the number of vertices, edges and faces of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$ as a graph in a disk. Let $`X`$ be the number of vertices on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$ except $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. Assume that those $`X`$ vertices on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$ have degree at least $`5`$ for a contradiction. Then $`1=VE+F`$, $`5X+\mathrm{deg}(x_1)+\mathrm{deg}(x_2)+6(VX2)2E`$, and $`3F+(X+2)2E`$. (We use $`\mathrm{deg}()`$ to denote the degree of a vertex.) Thus we have $`\mathrm{deg}(x_1)+\mathrm{deg}(x_2)2`$. Since $`\mathrm{deg}(x_1)+\mathrm{deg}(x_2)4`$, this is a contradiction. Hence we see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a vertex of degree at most $`4`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is not a pinched vertex.

If there are more than one pinched vertices in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, then consider two consecutive pinched vertices $`y`$ and $`z`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a subgraph of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ between $`y`$ and $`z`$, which contains no other pinched vertex. Then the same argument as above gives a desired vertex on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Next, assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a cut vertex $`x`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ be the components after splitting along $`x`$. If some $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ has a disk support, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ has two good vertices of degree at most $`3`$ by Lemma 3.2, and one of which is not $`x`$. Thus we have a desired vertex. Otherwise, each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ has an annulus support. Then either $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has no pinched vertex, or $`x`$ is the unique pinched vertex. In the former, taking a double of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ along two boundary cycles gives a contradiction as before, unless some vertex on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has degree at most $`4`$. In the latter, split $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at $`x`$ along a spanning arc of the annulus support meeting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in only $`x`$. Then the same calculation as above gives the conclusion. ∎

Of course, the conclusion of this lemma is true when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has no interior vertex.

###### Proposition 3.4.

If each interior vertex of $`\overline{G}^+`$ has degree at least $`6`$, then $`\overline{G}^+`$ has a vertex of degree at most $`4`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 3.1, $`\overline{G}^+`$ has an extremal component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with a disk or an annulus support. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a single vertex or a cycle, then the result is obvious. Otherwise, it follows from Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3. ∎

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a component of $`\overline{G}^+`$ with an annulus support. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has just two vertices and no interior vertex, then there are five possibilities for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as shown in Figure 2.

###### Proof.

If both vertices are incident to loops, then we have (3) or (4). If only one vertex is incident to a loop, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is (2) or (5). Finally, if there is no loop, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is (1). ∎

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a component of $`\overline{G}^+`$ with an annulus support. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not a cycle. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has just three vertices and no interior vertex, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a good vertex of degree at most $`3`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a block with a disk support, then Lemma 3.2 can be applied to the block and we have a good vertex of degree at most two. Otherwise, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consists of two disjoint cycles, or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a pinched vertex. Also, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has no vertex of degree one.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has two pinched vertices, there is a pinched edge. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is either a cycle or the graph as shown in Figure 3(1). Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not a cycle, the former is impossible. Thus there is a good vertex of degree two.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has only one pinched vertex, then we see that there are five possibilities for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as shown in Figure 3(2)-(6). Hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a good vertex of degree at most $`3`$.

Finally, assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consists of two cycles. Since there is no interior vertex, one cycle contains two vertices, and the other contains one vertex. Notice that any vertex is good. By an Euler calculation, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has at most $`6`$ edges. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains (7) of Figure 3 as its subgraph. If $`z`$ has degree $`4`$, then there are two edges connecting $`z`$ with $`y`$. Then $`x`$ has degree $`3`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a good vertex of degree at most $`3`$. ∎

## 4. The generic case

In this section, we assume that $`s4`$ and $`t4`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Any vertex of the reduced graph $`\overline{G}_T`$ has degree at least $`5`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`v`$ be a vertex of $`\overline{G}_T`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}(v)4`$ in $`\overline{G}_T`$, then $`\mathrm{deg}(v)4s<5s`$ in $`G_T`$ by Lemma 2.8. ∎

### 4.1. Some vertex of $`\overline{G}_T`$ has degree $`5`$

In this subsection, we consider the case where some vertex of $`\overline{G}_T`$ has degree $`5`$, and show that the case is impossible. Let $`v_i`$ be such a vertex.

###### Lemma 4.2.

In $`G_T`$, $`v_i`$ is incident to exactly five families of parallel negative edges, each of which contains $`s`$ edges.

###### Proof.

This immediately follows from Lemma 2.8. ∎

Thus all $`i`$-edges in $`G_S`$ are positive by the parity rule, and there are five positive $`i`$-edges at each vertex of $`G_S`$. Recall that $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ is the subgraph of $`\overline{G}_S`$ consisting all vertices and all positive edges.

###### Lemma 4.3.

Any vertex of $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has degree at least $`5`$.

###### Proof.

This is because two positive $`i`$-edges at any vertex cannot be parallel by Lemma 2.8. ∎

From Proposition 3.4 and Lemma 4.3, $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has an interior vertex of degree at most $`5`$. But the next lemma shows that this is impossible.

###### Lemma 4.4.

$`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has no interior vertex of degree at most $`5`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`u`$ be an interior vertex of $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ of degree at most $`5`$. By Lemma 4.3, $`u`$ has exactly degree $`5`$ in $`\overline{G}_S^+`$. Since each family of parallel positive edges contains at most $`t/2+1`$ edges by Lemma 2.8(1), $`u`$ has degree at most $`5(t/2+1)`$ in $`G_S`$. Hence $`5(t/2+1)\mathrm{deg}(u)=5t`$, and then $`t2`$, a contradiction. ∎

### 4.2. Each vertex of $`\overline{G}_T`$ has degree $`6`$

By the previous subsection 4.1, we know that each vertex of $`\overline{G}_T`$ has degree at least $`6`$. Then an easy Euler characteristic argument shows that each vertex of $`\overline{G}_T`$ has degree exactly $`6`$. (See \[1, Claim 3.2\].)

###### Lemma 4.5.

If $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has an interior vertex, then $`G_S`$ has an $`S`$-cycle with label $`j`$ for any label $`j`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`u_i`$ be an interior vertex of $`\overline{G}_S^+`$. Then only positive edges are incident to $`u_i`$ in $`G_S`$. By the parity rule, all $`i`$-edges in $`G_T`$ are negative.

There are five negative $`i`$-edges at the $`j`$th vertex $`v_j`$ of $`G_T`$, and any two of them are not parallel by Lemma 2.8(2). Thus $`v_j`$ is incident to at most one positive edge in $`\overline{G}_T`$. Hence $`v_j`$ is incident to at least $`5s(s/2+1)=9s/21`$ negative edges. In $`G_S`$, this means that there are at least $`9s/21`$ positive $`j`$-edges.

From an Euler characteristic calculation, $`\overline{G}_S`$ has at most $`3s`$ edges. Since $`9s/21>3s`$, there are two positive $`j`$-edges which are parallel in $`G_S`$. Then they form an $`S`$-cycle with $`j`$ as a label by Lemmas 2.7(1) and 2.8(1). ∎

###### Proposition 4.6.

$`\overline{G}_S^+`$ cannot have an interior vertex.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has an interior vertex. By Lemma 4.5, any of the label set $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},t\}`$ is a label of an $`S`$-cycle in $`G_S`$. If $`t=4`$, then $`G_S`$ has two $`S`$-cycles with disjoint label pairs, which is impossible by Lemma 2.7(2).

Assume $`t6`$. We may assume that $`\{1,2\}`$ is the label pair of an $`S`$-cycle of $`G_S`$. Since $`4`$ is a label of an $`S`$-cycle, either $`\{3,4\}`$ or $`\{4,5\}`$ is the label pair of an $`S`$-cycle. By Lemma 2.7(4), it must be $`\{3,4\}`$. Similarly, we can conclude that $`\{5,6\}`$ is the label pair of an $`S`$-cycle. Thus there are three $`S`$-cycles with mutually disjoint label pairs, which is impossible by Lemma 2.7(3). ∎

###### Lemma 4.7.

Let $`u_i`$ be a vertex of $`\overline{G}_S^+`$. Suppose that some label $`j`$ appears $`k`$ times among negative edge endpoints of $`u_i`$ in $`G_S`$. Then $`k4`$. Furthermore, if $`k=4`$ then $`s=4`$, and if $`k=3`$ then $`s=4`$ or $`6`$.

###### Proof.

By the parity rule, there are $`k`$ positive $`i`$-edges at the vertex $`v_j`$ in $`G_T`$. No two of them are parallel by Lemma 2.8(1). Hence $`k(s/2+1)+(6k)s\mathrm{deg}(v_j)=5s`$.

If $`k=5`$, then $`s10/3`$, a contradiction. Thus we have $`k4`$. The others immediately follow from the inequality. ∎

###### Lemma 4.8.

$`\overline{G}_S^+`$ cannot have a vertex of degree at most one.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`u`$ is a vertex of $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ of degree at most one. Then there are at most $`t/2+1`$ positive edge endpoints at $`u`$ in $`G_S`$. Hence at least $`5t(t/2+1)=9t/21`$ negative edges are incident to $`u`$ successively. Since $`9t/21>4t`$, some label appears five times among negative edge endpoints of $`u`$. This is impossible by Lemma 4.7. ∎

###### Lemma 4.9.

If $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has a vertex $`u_i`$ of degree two, then $`s=4`$, and $`G_T`$ has an $`S`$-cycle with $`i`$ as a label.

###### Proof.

Since there are at most $`2(t/2+1)=t+2`$ positive edge endpoints at $`u_i`$ in $`G_S`$, $`u_i`$ has at least $`4t2`$ negative edge endpoints. Then $`4t2>3t`$, and hence some label $`j`$ appears at least $`4`$ times among negative edge endpoints of $`u_i`$. By Lemma 4.7, $`s=4`$.

Also, $`G_T`$ has $`4t2`$ positive $`i`$-edges. Since $`\overline{G}_T`$ has at most $`3t`$ edges (as seen by an Euler characteristic calculation), some positive $`i`$-edges are parallel in $`G_T`$. Thus $`G_T`$ has an $`S`$-cycle with $`i`$ as a label by Lemmas 2.7(1) and 2.8(1). ∎

###### Proposition 4.10.

$`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has no component with a disk support.

###### Proof.

Assume not. Choose an extremal component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with a disk support. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a good vertex of degree at most two by Lemma 3.2. Hence $`s=4`$ by Lemma 4.9. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has at most two vertices. But this is impossible by Proposition 4.6 and Lemma 4.8. ∎

By Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 4.10, any component of $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has an annulus support and there are at least two components.

###### Lemma 4.11.

$`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has no cycle component.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has a cycle component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. By Lemma 4.9, $`s=4`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains at most two vertices. Recall that $`G_S`$ has vertices $`u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4`$, where $`u_i`$ and $`u_j`$ are parallel if and only if $`ij(mod2)`$.

First, assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains only one vertex. Then we can assume that $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has two loop components (with annulus supports) based on $`u_1`$ and $`u_3`$. By Lemma 4.9, $`G_T`$ has $`S`$-cycles with labels $`1`$ and $`3`$, respectively. Moreover, we can assume that their label pairs are $`\{1,2\}`$ and $`\{2,3\}`$ by Lemma 2.7(2).

Then $`\overline{G}_S`$ contains a subgraph as shown in Figure 4 by Lemma 2.6. By \[20, Lemma 1.9\], $`u_4`$ must lie in the disk region $`D`$ as indicated in Figure 4. Then $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has a component containing both of $`u_2`$ and $`u_4`$. Hence $`u_4`$ has degree two in $`\overline{G}_S^+`$. By Lemma 4.9 again, $`G_T`$ has an $`S`$-cycle with $`4`$ as a label, that is, an $`S`$-cycle with label pair either $`\{3,4\}`$ or $`\{4,1\}`$. In either case, this contradicts Lemma 2.7(2).

Next, assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains just two vertices, $`u_1`$ and $`u_3`$, say. Again, $`G_T`$ has two $`S`$-cycles $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ with label pairs $`\{1,2\}`$ and $`\{2,3\}`$, respectively. Also, $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has another component $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ containing $`u_2`$ and $`u_4`$, otherwise $`u_4`$ has degree two, which leads to a contradiction as above. In fact, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has the form of either (2), (3) or (4) in Figure 2, where $`u_4`$ has degree at least $`3`$. By Lemma 2.6, the edges of $`\rho _i`$ form an essential loop on $`\widehat{S}`$. Then we cannot place the edges of two $`S`$-cycles $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ to satisfy this condition simultaneously. ∎

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an extremal component of $`\overline{G}_S^+`$. It has an annulus support, and it is not a cycle by Lemma 4.11. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a good vertex of degree at most $`4`$ by Lemma 3.3. Let $`u`$ be such a vertex.

###### Lemma 4.12.

$`s=4`$ or $`6`$.

###### Proof.

There are at most $`4(t/2+1)=2t+4`$ positive edge endpoints at $`u`$ in $`G_S`$ by Lemma 2.8(1). Thus $`u`$ has at least $`3t4`$ negative edge endpoints. If $`t>4`$, then $`3t4>2t`$. If $`t=4`$, then there are at most $`3(t/2+1)+t/2=2t+3`$ positive edge endpoints at $`u`$ in $`G_S`$ by Lemma 2.9. Thus $`u`$ has at least $`3t3`$ negative edge endpoints, and note $`3t3>2t`$. Hence, in either case, some label appears at least three times among negative edge endpoints of $`u`$. Then $`s=4`$ or $`6`$ by Lemma 4.7. ∎

Now, we divide the cases.

#### Case 1. $`s=6`$

###### Lemma 4.13.

$`\overline{G}_S^+`$ consists of two components, each of which has three vertices.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ consists of at least two components, each of which has an annulus support. Since there is no cycle in $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ by Lemma 4.11, each component must contain three vertices. ∎

###### Proposition 4.14.

$`s=6`$ is impossible.

###### Proof.

By Lemmas 3.6, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.11, $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ has a good vertex $`u_i`$ of degree $`3`$. Assume $`t8`$. By Lemma 2.8(1), there are at most $`3(t/2+1)`$ positive edge endpoints at $`u_i`$ in $`G_S`$. Thus $`u_i`$ has at least $`7t/23`$ negative edge endpoints. Since $`7t/23>3t`$, some label appears four times among negative edge endpoints of $`u_i`$. Then $`s=4`$ by Lemma 4.7, which is a contradiction.

Assume $`t=6`$. It suffices to consider the case where $`u_i`$ is incident to three families of $`4`$ parallel positive edges. (Otherwise, there are more than $`18(=3t)`$ negative edge endpoints at $`u_i`$, and then some label appears four times there.) Then $`18`$ negative edges are incident to $`u_i`$ successively in $`G_S`$. Thus any label $`j`$ appears exactly three times there. In fact, three occurrences of the label $`j`$ are consecutive among five occurrences of $`j`$ at $`u_i`$. In $`G_T`$, there are three positive $`i`$-edges at $`v_j`$, whose endpoints with label $`i`$ are consecutive at $`v_j`$ among the five occurrences of label $`i`$ by Lemma 2.3. Since no two of the $`i`$-edges are parallel, $`v_j`$ is incident to three families of parallel positive edges containing $`i`$-edges, which are consecutive. Hence $`v_j`$ has at least $`13`$ positive edge endpoints. Thus $`v_j`$ is incident to at least $`4`$ families of parallel positive edges by Lemma 2.8(1). Then $`v_j`$ is incident to at most two families of parallel negative edges. But this implies that $`v_j`$ has at most $`44+62=28`$ edge endpoints, which contradicts that it has degree $`30`$.

Next assume $`t=4`$. In $`G_S`$, $`u_i`$ has at most $`9`$ positive edge endpoints. Hence there are at least $`11`$ negative edges there. Thus some label appears three times among negative edge endpoints of $`u_i`$. A similar argument to the case $`t=6`$ above leads to a contradiction. We have thus shown that the case $`s=6`$ is impossible. ∎

#### Case 2. $`s=4`$

By Lemmas 4.8 and 4.11, $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ consists of two connected components, each of which has the form of Figure 2(2), (3) or (4) by Lemma 3.5.

###### Lemma 4.15.

$`\overline{G}_S^+`$ does not have a component of the form as in Figure 2(2).

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a component of $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ as in Figure 2(2), and let $`u_i`$ be the good vertex of degree two in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As in the proof of Lemma 4.9, some label $`j`$ appears four times among negative edge endpoints of $`u_i`$. In $`G_T`$, there are four positive $`i`$-edges at $`v_j`$. No two of them are parallel. Thus $`v_j`$ is incident to four families of parallel positive edges, each of which contains an $`i`$-edge. Then we see that those four families contain $`3`$ edges respectively, and that $`v_j`$ is incident to two families of $`4`$ parallel negative edges. By Lemma 2.3, the families of positive edge are consecutive. But this contradicts Lemma 2.9. ∎

###### Lemma 4.16.

$`\overline{G}_S^+`$ does not have a component of the form as in Figure 2(3).

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be such a component. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a good vertex $`u_i`$ of degree $`3`$. Assume $`t8`$. As in the first paragraph of the proof of Proposition 4.14, some label $`j`$ appear four times among negative edge endpoints of $`u_i`$. Hence $`v_j`$ has $`4`$ positive $`i`$-edges, which are not mutually parallel. Since $`v_j`$ has degree $`20`$ in $`G_T`$, $`v_j`$ is incident to four families of $`3`$ parallel positive edges and two families of $`4`$ parallel negative edges. Then the four families of parallel positive edges are consecutive by Lemma 2.3. But this contradicts Lemma 2.9.

Assume $`t=6`$. It suffices to consider the case where $`u_i`$ is incident to three families of $`4`$ parallel positive edges. (Otherwise, $`u_i`$ has more than $`18(=3t)`$ negative edge endpoints, and then some label appears four times there.) Then $`u_i`$ is incident to $`4`$ loops and a family of $`4`$ parallel positive non-loop edges. We can assume that the labels at $`u_i`$ are as shown in Figure 5. Let $`u_k`$ be another vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then the situation at $`u_k`$ is the same as $`u_i`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has three $`S`$-cycles with disjoint label pairs, which is impossible by Lemma 2.7(3).

Assume $`t=4`$. If $`u_i`$ is incident to more than $`12`$ negative edges, then some label appears four times among negative edge endpoints of $`u_i`$. This leads to a contradiction as above. Thus $`u_i`$ has at most $`12`$ negative edges, and then there are $`8`$ or $`9`$ positive edge endpoints. If there are $`9`$ positive edge endpoints at $`u_i`$, three loops and a family of three positive non-loop edges are incident to $`u_i`$. But this contradicts the parity rule. Hence $`u_i`$ has exactly $`12`$ negative edge endpoints and $`8`$ positive edge endpoints. The parity rule implies that there are three loops and two non-loop edges. We can assume that the labels at $`u_i`$ as shown in Figure 6. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has two $`S`$-cycles with disjoint label pairs as in Figure 6, which is impossible by Lemma 2.7(2). ∎

###### Proposition 4.17.

$`s=4`$ is impossible.

###### Proof.

By Lemmas 4.15 and 4.16, $`\overline{G}_S^+`$ consists of two components of the form as in Figure 2(4). Let $`u`$ be any vertex of $`G_S`$. Since at most two families of parallel negative edges are incident to $`u`$, there are at most $`2t`$ negative edge endpoints at $`u`$. Thus $`u`$ has at least $`3t`$ positive edge endpoints. Then $`4(t/2+1)3t`$, and so $`t=4`$. Hence $`u`$ has three loops and two families of three parallel positive edges. Then $`G_S`$ has two $`S`$-cycles with disjoint label pairs, which is impossible by Lemma 2.7(2). Thus we have shown that $`s=4`$ is impossible. ∎

## 5. The case that $`s=2`$ and $`t4`$

In this section, we assume $`s=2`$ and $`t4`$, but all arguments can apply to the case that $`t=2`$ and $`s4`$.

The reduced graph $`\overline{G}_S`$ is a subgraph of the graph as shown in Figure 7 \[7, Lemma 5.2\], where the sides of the rectangle are identified to form $`\widehat{S}`$ in the usual way. Here, $`p_i`$ indicates the number of edges in the family of parallel edges. Recall that $`p_1t/2+1`$ and $`p_it`$ for $`i=2,3,4,5`$ by Lemma 2.8.

###### Lemma 5.1.

In $`\overline{G}_S`$, $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ have degree $`6`$. Moreover, $`p_1=t/2`$ or $`t/2+1`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`u_i`$ has degree $`5t`$ in $`G_S`$, the first follows immediately. Also, $`u_i`$ has at least $`t`$ positive edge endpoints. Thus the second follows. ∎

We distinguish two cases.

### Case 1. $`p_1=t/2`$

In this case, $`p_i=t`$ for $`i=2,3,4,5`$. Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be the families of $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ parallel negative edges in $`G_S`$, respectively. We can assume that the labels are as in Figure 8. Let $`\sigma `$ be the associated permutation to $`A`$ such that an edge in $`A`$ has label $`j`$ at $`u_1`$ and label $`\sigma (j)`$ at $`u_2`$. The edges of $`A`$ form disjoint cycles in $`G_T`$ according to the orbits of $`\sigma `$, and such a cycle is essential on $`\widehat{T}`$ \[7, Lemma 2.3\]. By the parity rule, each cycle contains only the vertices of the same sign. Hence there are at least two such cycles. Let $`L`$ be the cycle corresponding to the orbit of $`\sigma `$ containing the label $`1`$.

Note that the four families of negative edges in $`G_S`$ define the same permutation $`\sigma `$.

###### Lemma 5.2.

$`\sigma `$ is not the identity.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`\sigma `$ is the identity. Then each family of parallel negative edges in $`G_S`$ contains a $`\{j,j\}`$-edge for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},t`$. Let $`G(1,t)`$ be the subgraph of $`G_T`$ spanned by the vertices $`v_1`$ and $`v_t`$. Then $`G(1,t)`$ has an annulus support on $`\widehat{T}`$, since $`t4`$. Hence there are two possibilities for $`G(1,t)`$ as shown in Figure 9.

But a jumping number argument will eliminate both configurations as follows. Let $`a`$ be the $`\{1,1\}`$-edge in $`A`$, and let $`a_i`$ be its endpoint at $`u_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. There are two positive $`\{1,t\}`$-loops $`e`$ based on $`u_1`$ and $`f`$ based on $`u_2`$ in $`G_S`$. Let $`e_1`$ and $`f_1`$ be their endpoints with label $`1`$. Around $`u_1`$, $`a_1`$ and $`e_1`$ are not successive among five occurrences of label $`1`$, but $`a_2`$ and $`f_1`$ are successive among five occurrences of label $`1`$ around $`u_2`$. By Lemma 2.3, $`a_1`$ and $`e_1`$ are not successive among five occurrences of label $`1`$ around $`v_1`$, but $`a_2`$ and $`f_1`$ are successive among five occurrences of label $`2`$ around $`v_1`$. But this is not satisfied in both configurations of $`G(1,t)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 5.3.

$`\sigma ^2`$ is the identity. In particular, each orbit of $`\sigma `$ has length two, and $`\sigma (1)=t/2+1`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`a`$ ($`b`$ resp.) be the edge of $`A`$ ($`B`$ resp.) with label $`1`$ at $`u_1`$. Then $`Lb`$ is contained in an annulus on $`\widehat{T}`$. There are two possibilities for $`Lb`$ as shown in Figure 10, where we put $`r=\sigma (1)`$. Note that $`a`$ and $`b`$ have label $`1`$ at $`v_1`$.

For Figure 10(1), there is another edge $`e`$ between $`a`$ and $`b`$. Then $`e`$ is a negative $`\{1,r\}`$-edge in $`G_S`$ with label $`r`$ at $`u_1`$ and label $`1`$ at $`u_2`$. Although $`e`$ need not be in $`A`$, this implies $`\sigma (r)=1`$, because any family of negative edges corresponds to the same permutation $`\sigma `$. Hence $`\sigma ^2`$ is the identity.

For Figure 10(2), suppose that $`\sigma ^2`$ is not the identity. Then $`L`$ contains at least three vertices. Let $`c`$ ($`d`$, resp.) be the edge in $`A`$ ($`B`$, resp.) with label $`r`$ at $`u_1`$. Of course, $`c`$ is contained in $`L`$. Then $`d`$ and $`b`$ are on the same side of $`L`$, because the endpoints of $`c`$ and $`d`$ with label $`r`$ are successive around $`u_1`$. Hence $`d`$ is parallel to $`c`$ in $`G_T`$. Then there is another edge between them, which implies $`\sigma ^2`$ is the identity as above. This is a contradiction. ∎

###### Lemma 5.4.

$`t=4`$. Furthermore, $`G_T`$ has a torus support.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 5.3, $`G_T^+`$ consists of $`t/2`$ components, and hence each component has an annulus support. Let $`G^+(1,t/2+1)`$ be the component of $`G_T^+`$ containing the vertices $`v_1`$ and $`v_{t/2+1}`$. Then it consists of $`8`$ edges, which are split into two families of $`4`$ parallel edges. For, if a family contains $`5`$ edges, then some pair of edges is parallel in $`G_S`$, too. This contradicts Lemma 2.5. Similarly, let $`G^+(t/2,t)`$ be the component of $`G_T^+`$ containing $`v_{t/2}`$ and $`v_t`$. Since $`G_S`$ has two $`\{1,t\}`$-loops and two $`\{t/2,t/2+1\}`$-loops (see Figure 8), the component $`H`$ of $`G_T`$ containing $`G^+(1,t/2+1)`$ and $`G^+(t/2,t)`$ has the form as shown in Figure 11, under the assumption $`t>4`$.

But a jumping number argument will eliminate this configuration as before. Look at the edge $`a`$ in the family of $`A`$ in $`G_S`$. The endpoint of $`a`$ at $`u_1`$ is not adjacent to the endpoint of the $`\{1,t\}`$-loop with label $`1`$ among five occurrences of label $`1`$. But the endpoint of $`a`$ at $`u_2`$ is adjacent to the endpoint of the $`\{t/2,t/2+1\}`$-loop with label $`t/2+1`$ among five occurrences of label $`t/2+1`$. Then we cannot locate the edge $`a`$ in $`H`$ to satisfy Lemma 2.3. Hence $`t=4`$.

Then, $`G_T^+=G^+(1,3)G^+(2,4)`$. In this case, $`H=G_T`$. If $`H`$ has an annulus support, then we have a contradiction as above. Thus $`G_T`$ has a torus support. ∎

Thus $`G_S`$ is uniquely determined, and then there are seven possibilities for $`G_T`$ as shown in Figure 12. Clearly, (1), (2), (5) and (6) contradict the parity rule.

###### Lemma 5.5.

(3) of Figure 12 is impossible.

###### Proof.

The (partial) correspondence between the edges of $`G_S`$ and $`G_T`$ are determined as in Figure 13 by using Lemma 2.3. Let $`V_{12}`$ be the part of $`V_\beta `$ between vertices $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ (disjoint from $`v_3`$ and $`v_4`$). Ten edge endpoints at $`v_1`$ are connected to those at $`v_2`$ by disjoint arcs on the annulus $`\mathrm{cl}(V_{12}v_1v_2)`$. In particular, the consecutive endpoints of $`e`$, $`g`$ and $`c_3`$ at $`v_1`$ are connected to the consecutive ones of $`f`$, $`h`$ and $`c_4`$ at $`v_2`$, respectively. Also, the anticlockwise ordering of the former at $`v_1`$ must determine the clockwise ordering of the latter at $`v_2`$. This contradicts Figure 13. ∎

###### Lemma 5.6.

(7) of Figure 12 is impossible.

###### Proof.

We use the notation of the edges of $`G_S`$ in Figure 13. At $`u_1`$, the endpoints of $`e`$ and $`c_3`$ are adjacent among five occurrences of label $`1`$. By Lemma 2.3, the endpoints of $`e`$ and $`c_3`$ are adjacent among five occurrences of label $`1`$ at $`v_1`$. Then the endpoints of $`h`$ and $`c_3`$ are adjacent among five occurrences of label $`2`$ at $`v_3`$. But this leads to a contradiction, because the endpoints of $`h`$ and $`c_3`$ are not adjacent among five occurrences of label $`3`$ at $`u_2`$. ∎

###### Lemma 5.7.

(4) of Figure 12 is impossible.

###### Proof.

The correspondence between the edges of $`G_S`$ and $`G_T`$ are determined as in Figure 14 by using Lemma 2.3, where $`G_S`$ is the same as in Figure 13. To calculate $`H_1(K(\alpha ))`$, we build up $`K(\alpha )`$ based on $`\widehat{S}V_\alpha `$.

Consider the bigons $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ in $`G_T`$ between $`a_1`$ and $`d_1`$, $`e`$ and $`g`$, respectively. They are on the same side of $`\widehat{S}`$. Let us call this side $``$, the other side $`𝒲`$. Thus $`K(\alpha )=𝒲`$, and $`𝒲=\widehat{S}`$. Let $`V_{12}=V_\alpha `$ and $`V_{21}=V_\alpha 𝒲`$. Let $`F`$ be the genus two closed surface obtained from $`\widehat{S}`$ by tubing along $`V_{12}`$. That is, $`F=(\widehat{S}u_1u_2)H`$, where $`H`$ is the annulus $`\mathrm{cl}(V_{12}u_1u_2)`$. On $`F`$, $`D_1`$ is non-separating, because it runs twice on $`V_{12}`$ in the same direction. Hence surgering $`F`$ along $`D_1`$ gives a torus $`\widehat{S}^{}`$. Furthermore, we see that $`D_2`$ is non-separating on $`\widehat{S}^{}`$. Hence $`=\widehat{S}V_{12}D_1D_2B^3`$, where $`B^3`$ denotes a $`3`$-ball, by the irreducibility of $`K(\alpha )`$. Let $`H_1(\widehat{S}V_{12})=l,m,x=𝐙𝐙𝐙`$, where $`l,m`$ are the cycles on $`\widehat{S}`$ as in Figure 13 and $`x`$ is represented by the core of $`V_{12}`$ directed from $`u_1`$ to $`u_2`$. Then

$$H_1()=l,m,x/D_1,D_2,$$

and $`D_1=2x+l,D_2=2m`$ with suitable orientations.

Similarly, consider the bigon $`E_1`$ between $`d_1`$ and $`b_1`$ and the $`6`$-gon face $`E_2`$ bounded by $`c_1,c_3,g,a_4,a_2,e`$ in $`G_T`$. Then we have $`𝒲=\widehat{S}V_{21}E_1E_2B^3`$. Thus

$$H_1(𝒲)=l,m,y/E_1,E_2,$$

where $`y`$ is represented by the core of $`V_{21}`$ directed from $`u_2`$ to $`u_1`$, and $`E_1=2ylm,E_2=2l+4m`$ with suitable orientations.

Hence $`H_1(K(\alpha ))=l,m,x,y/D_1,D_2,E_1,E_2=𝐙_4𝐙_4`$, which is not cyclic. This is a contradiction. ∎

Thus we have shown that the case $`p_1=t/2`$ is impossible.

### Case 2. $`p_1=t/2+1`$

Since $`p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5=4t2`$, at least two of $`p_i`$ are $`t`$. By the parity rule, $`p_2+p_3`$ and $`p_4+p_5`$ are even. Thus we may assume that $`(p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5)=(t,t,t,t2)`$ or $`(t,t,t1,t1)`$ without loss of generality. Let $`A,B,C`$ and $`D`$ be the families of parallel negative edges of $`G_S`$ with $`p_2,p_3,p_4`$ and $`p_5`$ edges, respectively.

###### Lemma 5.8.

$`(p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5)=(t,t,t1,t1)`$ is impossible.

###### Proof.

Assume $`(p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5)=(t,t,t1,t1)`$. Each edge of $`A`$ has labels with the same parity at its ends by the parity rule. Then any edge of $`C`$ has labels with opposite parities at its ends. This contradicts the parity rule. ∎

Thus we have $`(p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5)=(t,t,t,t2)`$. The labels in $`G_S`$ can be assumed as shown in Figure 15. Let $`\sigma `$ be the permutation associated to $`A`$ as before. Then there is an $`S`$-cycle with label pair $`\{t/2,t/2+1\}`$ among positive loops at vertex $`u_1`$.

###### Lemma 5.9.

$`\sigma `$ is the identity.

###### Proof.

Among the positive loops at vertex $`u_2`$, there is an $`S`$-cycle with label pair $`\{\sigma (1)+t/21,\sigma (1)+t/2\}`$. (All labels are considered modulo $`t`$.) Assume $`\sigma (1)1`$. Then $`\sigma (1)3`$ and odd.

If $`t=4`$, then $`\sigma (1)=3`$, and hence $`G_S`$ has two $`S`$-cycles with label pairs $`\{2,3\}`$ and $`\{4,1\}`$. This is impossible by Lemma 2.7(2).

Assume $`t>4`$. Then we see that $`\sigma ^2`$ is the identity and $`\sigma (1)=t/2+1`$ by Lemma 5.3. (The argument applies here without change.) Hence $`G_S`$ has two $`S`$-cycles with label pairs $`\{t/2,t/2+1\}`$ and $`\{t,1\}`$ respectively. The edges of $`A`$ form cycles of length two on $`\widehat{T}`$, and there are at least four such cycles. In particular, $`v_1`$ and $`v_{t/2+1}`$ lie on the same cycle, and so do $`v_{t/2}`$ and $`v_t`$. But we cannot locate the edges of the above two $`S`$-cycles to satisfy Lemma 2.6 simultaneously. ∎

###### Lemma 5.10.

$`t=4`$.

###### Proof.

Assume $`t>4`$. Then we see that the edges of $`C`$ form two essential cycles on $`\widehat{T}`$. By Lemma 5.9, each vertex of $`G_T`$ is incident to a loop. Thus there would be a trivial loop. ∎

###### Lemma 5.11.

$`t=4`$ is impossible.

###### Proof.

In $`G_T`$, $`v_1`$ and $`v_4`$ are incident to $`3`$ loops, and $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ are incident to two loops. In $`G_S`$, there are two $`S`$-cycles with label pair $`\{2,3\}`$. The edges of them give four edges between $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ in $`G_T`$. Then two endpoints with label $`1`$ of loops at $`v_2`$ cannot be successive among the five occurrences of label $`1`$, which contradicts Lemma 2.3. ∎

Hence the case $`p_1=t/2+1`$ is also impossible.

## 6. The case that $`s=t=2`$

Finally, we consider the case that $`s=t=2`$. Then both $`\overline{G}_S`$ and $`\overline{G}_T`$ are subgraphs of the graph in Figure 7. If $`K(\gamma )`$ contains a Klein bottle, then $`\gamma `$ is a multiple of four . Hence either $`K(\alpha )`$ or $`K(\beta )`$ does not contain a Klein bottle, because $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha ,\beta )=|\alpha \beta |=5`$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $`K(\beta )`$ does not contain a Klein bottle. Also, we use the notation $`p_i`$ for the number of edges in the families of parallel positive or negative edges in $`G_S`$ as in the previous section.

###### Lemma 6.1.

$`1p_13`$ and $`p_i2`$ for $`i=2,3,4,5`$.

###### Proof.

If $`p_14`$, then there are two bigons among loops which lie on the same side of $`\widehat{T}`$. By Lemma 2.5, the four edges of the bigons belong to mutually distinct families of parallel negative edges in $`G_T`$. But this implies that $`K(\beta )`$ contains a Klein bottle (\[11, The proof of Lemma 5.2\]), a contradiction.

If a family of parallel negative edges contains three edges in $`G_S`$, then two of them are incident to the same vertex in $`G_T`$. Thus they are also parallel in $`G_T`$, which contradicts Lemma 2.5. Hence $`p_i2`$ for $`i1`$.

Since $`u_1`$ has degree $`10`$ in $`G_S`$, $`2p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5=10`$. Thus $`p_11`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.2.

$`p_1=1`$ is impossible.

###### Proof.

If $`p_1=1`$, then $`p_i=2`$ for $`i1`$ by Lemma 6.1. Then $`G_T`$ has the same form as in Figure 9. But the jumping number argument in the proof of Lemma 5.2 eliminates these configurations again. ∎

###### Lemma 6.3.

$`p_1=2`$ is impossible.

###### Proof.

Assume $`p_1=2`$. Then we can assume that $`p_2+p_3=2`$ and $`p_4+p_5=4`$ by the parity rule. Hence $`p_4=p_5=2`$. If $`p_2=p_3=1`$, then the labels in $`G_S`$ contradicts the parity rule. Thus we can assume that $`p_2=2`$ and $`p_3=0`$. Then there are $`4`$ possibilities for $`G_T`$ as in Figure 16. (As in the proof of Lemma 6.1, a family of parallel negative edges in $`G_T`$ contains at most two edges.) We see that (3) contradicts the parity rule.

(4) can be eliminated by a jumping number argument. In $`G_T`$, there are two negative edges incident to $`v_1`$ with the same label $`1`$. Their endpoints at $`v_1`$ are consecutive among the five occurrences of label $`1`$. But these points are not consecutive at $`u_1`$, which contradicts Lemma 2.3.

To eliminate (1) and (2), note that $`G_S`$ contains two $`S`$-cycles $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ whose faces lie on the same side of $`\widehat{T}`$. From the labeling of $`G_T`$, we can determine the edges of $`\rho _i`$ in $`G_T`$ as in Figure 17 for (1) and Figure 18 for (2). In the former, $`K(\beta )`$ contains a Klein bottle as in the proof of Lemma 6.1, a contradiction. In the latter, it is impossible to connect these edges on $`V_\beta `$ simultaneously (see Figure 18). ∎

###### Lemma 6.4.

$`p_1=3`$ is impossible.

###### Proof.

Assume $`p_1=3`$. Then we can assume that $`(p_2+p_3,p_4+p_5)=(4,0)`$ or $`(2,2)`$. If $`(p_2+p_3,p_4+p_5)=(4,0)`$ then $`p_2=p_3=2`$. The endpoints of two negative edges with label $`1`$ are successive at $`u_1`$ among the five occurrences of label $`1`$. By Lemma 2.3, those points are also successive at $`v_1`$ among the five occurrences of label $`1`$. Then if we put six negative edges between $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$, then there would be a pair of edges which is parallel in both graphs, a contradiction by Lemma 2.5.

If $`(p_2+p_3,p_4+p_5)=(2,2)`$, then there are three possibilities for $`G_S`$ as in Figure 16(1), (2) and (3). Then (3) contradicts the parity rule. If $`G_S`$ is (2), then the labeling of $`G_S`$ implies that $`G_T`$ has two parallel loops at each vertex. Thus $`G_T`$ has two $`S`$-cycles. It is easy to see that their faces lie on the same side of $`\widehat{S}`$. Hence the argument in the proof of Lemma 6.3 works again (with an exchange of roles between $`G_S`$ and $`G_T`$).

For (1), $`G_S`$ and $`G_T`$ are determined as shown in Figure 19. Then we can conclude that $`K(\alpha )`$ contains a Klein bottle as in the proof of Lemma 6.3, but this is not a contradiction.

To eliminate (1), we calculate $`H_1(K(\alpha ))`$ and $`H_1(K(\beta ))`$. First, the (unique) edge correspondence between $`G_S`$ and $`G_T`$ is shown in Figure 19. Let $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ be the bigons between the edges $`c`$ and $`d`$, $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively, in $`G_T`$. Also, let $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ be the $`3`$-gon bounded by $`d,e,h`$ and the $`4`$-gon bounded by $`a,b,c,i`$ in $`G_T`$, respectively. As in the proof of Lemma 5.7, let us call $``$ the side of $`\widehat{S}`$ which contains $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, and call $`𝒲`$ the other side. Then we can see that $`=\widehat{S}V_{12}D_1D_2B^3`$ and $`𝒲=\widehat{S}V_{21}E_1E_2B^3`$, where $`V_{12}=V_\alpha `$ and $`V_{21}=V_\alpha 𝒲`$ as in the proof of Lemma 5.7. Hence

$`H_1()`$ $`=`$ $`l,m,x/D_1,D_2=l,m,x/2x+l,2m,`$
$`H_1(𝒲)`$ $`=`$ $`l,m,y/E_1,E_2=l,m,y/y2ml,3m+l,`$
where $`H_1(\widehat{S})=l,m`$ (see Figure 19), and $`x`$ and $`y`$ are represented by the cores of $`V_{12}`$ and $`V_{21}`$ directed from $`u_1`$ to $`u_2`$, and from $`u_2`$ to $`u_1`$, respectively. By the Mayer-Vietoris sequence,

$$H_1(K(\alpha ))=l,m,x,y/D_1,D_2,E_1,E_2=𝐙_4.$$

This means that $`|\alpha |=4`$.

Similarly, we calculate $`H_1(K(\beta ))`$. Let $`D_1^{}`$ be the bigon between $`a`$ and $`e`$, and $`D_2^{}`$ the $`3`$-gon bounded by $`c,h,j`$ in $`G_S`$. Also, let $`E_1^{}`$ be the bigon between $`a`$ and $`g`$, and $`E_2^{}`$ be the $`3`$-gon bounded by $`c,e,j`$. By using these, we can build up $`K(\beta )`$ as

$$K(\beta )=\widehat{T}V_\beta D_1^{}D_2^{}E_1^{}E_2^{}(\text{two}3\text{-balls}).$$

Then we can show that $`H_1(K(\beta ))=𝐙_{11}`$, which implies $`|\beta |=11`$. This contradicts that $`|\alpha \beta |=5`$. ∎

By Lemmas 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4, the case $`s=t=2`$ is impossible. Hence the proof of Theorem 1.1 is now complete.

## 7. Questions

We ask some questions:

* If a hyperbolic knot admits three toroidal slopes, then is it either the figure-eight knot or the $`(2,3,7)`$-pretzel knot?
* If a hyperbolic knot has two integral toroidal slopes with distance $`4`$, then does at least one toroidal surgery yield a Klein bottle?

## Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the referee for valuable suggestions and comments, and Mario Eudave-Muñoz for pointing out an error in the original manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Chiral susceptibility in canonical spin glass and reentrant alloys from Hall effect measurements

## Abstract

The extraordinary Hall effect coefficients $`R_s(T)`$ of the canonical spin glass alloys $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe8at\%`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Mn8at\%`$ and of an archetype reentrant system $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe18at\%`$ were measured as functions of temperature. The data show a critical cusp-like term superimposed on a smooth background for the spin glasses, and change of sign with temperature for the reentrant. The results can be interpreted consistently by invoking a chiral Hall effect contribution as proposed by Kawamura.

Spin glasses have been intensively studied for more than thirty years, as paradigms for the statistical mechanics of the whole vast family of complex systems. However the origin the spin freezing in the canonical spin glasses, dilute alloys such as $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe`$ or $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐮}Mn`$ where the spins are Heisenberg, has long remained an enigma. Experiments and in particular critical exponent measurements exponents  have shown definitive evidence for a non-zero ordering temperature, while numerical work on Heisenberg spin glasses in dimension three indicated that there was an Edwards-Anderson type of ordering only at zero temperature Tg0  though recent simulations contradict this nakamura:02 . For vector spin glasses there exists a chiral order parameter in addition to the Edwards-Anderson spin parameter and there were early suggestions that chirality might play a role in vector spin glass ordering villain:77 . Kawamura and coworkers kawamura:92 ; hukushima:00 ; imagawa:03a  have made concrete large scale numerical investigations of the chiral driven ordering mechanism which they postulated to explain freezing in Heisenberg spin glasses. In real samples the spin and chiral order are linked through Dzaloshinsky-Moriya (DM) random anisotropy terms which are inevitably present. Magnetic torque experiments on a range of spin glasses have shown in-field transition lines up to high applied fields petit:99 , in excellent agreement with extensive simulations on Heisenberg systems submitted simultaneously to anisotropy and field, where both chiral and spin ordering were monitored hukushima:00 ; imagawa:03b . The robustness of order under applied fields is a clear indication that chirality is a primary ingredient of spin glass ordering in vector systems. The torque measurements were interpreted using the chiral ordering scenario.

In this context it would be of considerable interest to have a complementary direct observation of chirality in the spin glasses. Chirality is a ”hidden” parameter and no technique was known with which to monitor it experimentally, until Kawamura proposed that the Hall effect should present a direct signature of the chiral susceptibility kawamura:03 . On the chiral scenario the extraordinary Hall signal (linked to the sample magnetization rather than the magnetic field) should have a critical term due to chirality. The key point is whether there is critical behaviour of the Hall coefficient $`R_s(T)`$ at the glass temperature $`T_g`$, and accompanying non-linear effects. $`R_s`$ is defined as the ratio of the Hall signal to the magnetization, once corrections have been made for the ordinary Hall term. Careful Hall experiments on spin glasses have been reported mcalister:76 ; barnard:88  but at the time of the measurements no appropriate theoretical framework had been proposed with which the data could be interpreted. We have studied two canonical spin glasses, $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe8at\%`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Mn8at\%`$, and an archetype reentrant system $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe18at\%`$. We observe behaviour for $`R_s(T)`$ clearly indicating a chiral contribution as predicted by Kawamura. These experiments can be considered to be ”direct” observations of chiral susceptibility in canonical spin glasses.

Ingots of the different alloys were prepared by arc melting the constituents under an atmosphere of pure argon. Purities of the starting metals were $`99.9985\%`$ for Au and $`99.99\%`$ for Fe and Mn. Each ingot was rolled to about $`0.5`$ mm and a bar shaped sample was cut out for the magnetization measurements. The remaining material was further rolled to $`25\mu m`$ in the case of $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe`$, and to $`10\mu m`$ , in the case of $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Mn`$. From these foils, samples of $`10mm`$ x $`2mm`$ with 5 projecting contacts were prepared for resistivity and Hall experiments. Each couple of samples of each alloy was sealed in a quartz ampoule under argon and annealed at $`900^{}C`$ for $`1h`$ before quenching into water. A Quantum Design MPMS-XL SQUID magnetometer was used for the magnetic moment measurements. Experiments were performed as functions of the temperature in fixed fields according to the ZFC and FC protocols. The applied fields used ranged from $`\mu _0H=0.015T`$ to $`2T`$. $`T_g`$ values are $`28K`$ and $`24K`$ respectively for the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe8at\%`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Mn8at\%`$ samples. $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe`$ has moderately strong DM anisotropy petit:99  while there appears to be no information published on the anisotropy of $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Mn`$.

The longitudinal and Hall resistivities were measured with an AC technique operating at $`37Hz`$. For the Hall measurements, the signal associated with the longitudinal resistivity was used in a compensation circuit in order to eliminate spurious magnetoresistance contributions. The temperatures were determined in the tranport experiments with a Lake-Shore calibrated carbon-glass thermometer. An RMS current of $`30mA`$ was applied in the Hall experiments, which were performed according both the ZFC and FC protocols. In the ZFC measurements, the sample was cooled in the absence of field to some fixed temperature below $`T_g`$. Then the Hall voltage was recorded while the field was increased in the same order as for the magnetization measurements. After each run sequence, the field was again set to zero and the sample was heated up to a temperature well above $`T_g`$. The cycle re-starts by cooling the sample down to another temperature point. In the FC experiments, the field was kept constant while ramping the sample temperature down gradually to the lowest temperature studied. Since the Hall voltages are quite small in these noble metal spin glasses, special care must be taken in order to subtract the background signals, specially in the FC experiments. Below $`T_g`$ spin glass magnetization is very sensitive to field cycling effects; in the present context it is important to carry out measurements of Hall effect and magnetization under identical experimental protocols. Ideally, in order to probe the initial linear regime Hall experiments should be performed in a very low applied field. In practice with the experimental sensitivity available the minimum field for which exploitable Hall data could be obtained was $`0.015T`$. The experiments were repeated at higher fields also so as to obtain information to be used for identifying the side-jump term and to explore the non-linear behaviour. The relative accuracy of the magnetization is much higher than that of the Hall signal.

In magnetic field $`B`$ a sample with magnetization $`\mu _0M`$ shows a Hall resistivity defined through

$$\rho _h=\mu _0R_hH=R_0\mu _0H+R_s\mu _0M$$
(1)
$`R_0`$ is the ”ordinary” Hall coefficient which leads to a term which should vary little with $`T`$. Conventionally $`R_s\mu _0M`$ is known as the ”extraordinary” term. Extrapolations to high temperatures to obtain an estimate of the zero magnetization contribution for the present alloys, and for various other Au based spin glass samples barnard:88 , indicate that for all the dilute alloys $`R_0`$ is close to $`7.10^{11}m^3C^1`$; this is equal to the ”low field” value for the pure metal hurd:72 . In the region of $`T_g`$ for the present alloys the corresponding ordinary contribution to $`R_h`$ is small compared to the magnetic contribution; it has been assumed that $`R_0`$ is temperature independent in all the data analysis. In the magnetization measurements the sample is in the form of a thin plate with the field parallel to the plane so the demagnetization factor is negligible. For the Hall geometry on the other hand the demagnetization factor is necessarily maximum, and when comparing the two sets of data to estimate $`R_s(H,T)`$ it is simple but essential to take the demagnetization correction into account barnard:88 .

Kawamura kawamura:03  showed that in samples with canted spins one can expect a chiral Hall term proportional to the chiral susceptibility. He predicted a chirality-susceptibility linked cusp-like anomaly in $`R_s(T)`$ at $`T=T_g`$ in the low field limit linear regime, possibly accompanied by the onset of a deviation between FC and ZFC curves. (It is important to note that the predictions concern the coefficient $`R_s(T)`$ not the Hall signal $`\rho _h(T)`$ itself, which will have a singularity at $`T_g`$ just because $`M(T)`$ has a singularity). The singularity would be expected to round off at higher fields because of non-linear effects, as is the case for the susceptibility. The strength of the chiral Hall signal can be expected to be linked to the spin-orbit coupling which also gives rise to the DM anisotropy, but neither the sign nor the strength of the predicted term linked to the chirality can be predicted simply as they depend in a complex manner on the electronic structure of both the host material and of the magnetic sites. There will also be standard terms contributing to $`R_s`$ known as the skew-scattering and the side-jump effects which have been studied in detail in conventional ferromagnetic alloys skewsidejump . They too are consequences of spin-orbit coupling, but should contribute a smoothly changing background term to $`R_s(H,T)`$ without any singular behaviour at $`T_g`$. Both depend on the sample resisitivity $`\rho (T)`$; in high resisitivity samples like those studied in the present work the dominating standard term is the side-jump for which $`R_s(T)`$ is proportional to $`\rho ^2(T)`$. $`\rho (T)`$ changes smoothly and only weakly over the range of temperature and field used.

Figure 1 shows $`R_h(T)R_0`$ data corresponding to the FC and ZFC protocols as functions of temperature for the two spin glass samples. In both cases there is a cusp in the ZFC $`R_h(T)`$ near $`T_g`$, accompanied by a splitting between FC and ZFC curves which develops just below $`T_g`$. We transpose the data into the form of $`R_s(T)`$ plots by dividing $`[R_h(T)R_0]B`$ by $`\mu _0M_h(T)`$, where $`\mu _0M_h(T)`$ is the magnetization measured in the SQUID $`\mu _0M(T)`$ corrected for the demagnetization factor, $`M_h(T)=M(T)/(1+M(T))`$. The data for $`R_s(T)`$ under the FC and ZFC protocols for the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Mn`$ spin glasses at a field $`\mu _0H=0.015T`$ are shown in Figure 2. Remarkably the absolute value of $`R_s(T)`$ is minimum near $`T_g`$. The only plausible interpretation would appear to be in terms of two competing contributions to the total signal : a negative background term having a smooth non-critical temperature dependence, and superimposed on it a weaker positive term with a critical maximum near $`T_g`$. To analyse the data we will assume that the background term in $`R_s(T)`$ is dominated by the side-jump contribution and that it remains equal to $`\rho ^2(T)`$ multiplied by a constant over the entire $`T`$ range. The value of the constant is estimated by measuring to temperatures well above $`T_g`$ and extrapolating to infinite $`T`$. The estimated side-jump contribution $`R_s^{sj}`$ for the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe`$ sample is shown in Figure 2; the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Mn`$ side-jump term is of very similar form. Subtracting out the side-jump term obtained this way from the total $`R_s(T)`$ leaves us with a positive difference term. This procedure although necessarily only approximate is the most satisfactory available.

Quoting all $`R_s`$ values in units of $`10^8m^3C^1`$, the side-jump contribution is $`R_s^{sj}4.8`$ in the region near $`T_g`$ for the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe`$ sample, and $`1.9`$ in the same region for the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Mn`$ sample. The difference term $`[R_sR_s^{sj}]`$ peaks in the region of $`T_g`$ at a value of $`+2.8`$ in the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe`$ sample and at $`+1.1`$ for the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Mn`$ sample. In both cases the FC and ZFC $`R_s(T)`$ difference curves separate below $`T_g`$. For both alloys extrapolation suggests that the difference term at these low fields tends to zero or close to zero as $`T`$ tends to zero or to high $`T`$.

We identify the difference term with the chiral term proposed by Kawamura kawamura:03 ; no other Hall effect model has been put forward which predicts a contribution with a critical cusp in $`R_s(T)`$ at $`T_g`$, accompanied by separation between FC and ZFC $`R_s(T)`$ curves below $`T_g`$. Unfortunately, in the present work the lowest fields which could be used do not provide us with strictly low field limit data to test the detailed predictions of kawamura:03 . However the present data suggest that the chiral term cusp would not be sharp even in the low field linear limit before corruption by non-linear effects. It should be noted that the data reported by barnard:88  on nominally the same concentration $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Mn`$ alloy as in the present work but using much lower measuring fields would also show a flat topped cusp extending somewhat above $`T_g`$ if plotted as in Figure 2.

The analysis of the non-linear behaviour of $`R_s(T,H)`$ will be discussed elsewhere.

Many properties of the archetype reentrant alloy $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe18at\%`$ have already been investigated experimentally in great detail reentrant . At this concentration the alloy has a Curie temperature near $`165K`$, and a canting temperature $`T_k`$ near $`75K`$ below which transverse components of the local moments freeze while the overall magnetization is practically conserved reentrant . Static chiral properties should appear in reentrant systems in the region of $`T_k`$ when transverse moments develop kawamura:03  (data on more exotic reentrant systems have been tentatively interpreted invoking a chiral term aito:03 ). As in the spin glasses, one can expect a chiral susceptibility term already above $`T_k`$ and it should be remembered that because the Hall effect is a transport measurement, short time scales are implicity involved. At temperatures close to but above $`T_k`$ there will be rapid transverse magnetization fluctuations, and these are indeed observed in neutron scattering hennion:95 .

For the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐮}Fe18at\%`$ sample, the Hall coefficient $`R_h(T)`$ in a field of $`0.25T`$ is shown in Figure 3. The magnetization for a ferromagnet in the Hall geometry is practically equal to $`\mu _0H`$ (until $`\mu _0M\mu _0H`$) and so independent of $`T`$ below $`T_c`$. In contrast, we find a Hall coefficient $`R_h(T)`$ which varies dramatically with temperature in this sample. It begins negative in the paramagnetic regime and in the high temperature ferromagnetic region, before changing sign to positive near $`T110K`$. As in the spin glass alloys, the temperature dependence can again be understood in terms of competing negative side-jump and positive chiral terms. The former is the only term present when the temperature is high so the time average local moments are all parallel to the total magnetization and therefore there is no chirality; the chiral term should appear as $`T`$ drops and the local moments become canted with respect to the global magnetization allowing chirality. It turns out that in this sample the chiral term dominates for temperatures below about $`110K`$ explaining the sign change. This scenario with a smoothly varying negative side-jump term and a positive chiral term taking over when chirality is permitted is a satisfying confirmation of the interpretation given above for the spin glass data. The data expressed in terms of $`R_s(T)`$ are shown in the inset of Figure 3.

In conclusion, confirming predictions made by Kawamura kawamura:03 , the extraordinary Hall coefficient of canonical spin glass and reentrant systems shows a contribution linked to the onset of ordering in the spin glasses, and with canting in the reentrant alloy. These results can be analysed to provide a direct signature of the chiral susceptibility kawamura:03  in these systems. It is the first time that chiral susceptibility, a fundamental property of all magnetic systems with canted spins, has been identified directly in canonical Heisenberg spin glasses rather than implicitly through its influence on the spin order.


text:
# AstroCat/CVcat: A catalogue on Cataclysmic Variables based on a new framework for online interactive astronomical databases

## 1. AstroCat – a new concept for astronomical catalogues

### 1.1. Motivation

Traditionally, in astronomy the availability of online digital information is excellent with respect to scientific publications (NASA’s *Astrophysics Data System*, *arXiv.org* preprint server) and raw observational data. With the development of the *AstroCat* software we intend to fill the gap between these two categories by enabling astronomers to set up *interactive* astronomical catalogues for reduced and inferred data (Fig. 1).

### 1.2. Objectives

*AstroCat* is a software framework for the implementation of a new type of web-based interactive astronomical catalogues. *AstroCat*-based catalogues are intended to hold information on the physical properties of astronomical objects of a specific class. We provide the possibility to account for fine-grained hierarchical sub-classifications of the selected objects. The information contained in the catalogue should be gathered from trustworthy publications, preferably from refereed papers. The scientific quality control is performed by users who assumed editorial duties. If available, a hyperlink to an electronic version of the referenced publication should be given for each catalogue entry (e.g. via the ADS, the astro-ph preprint server, or online journals like the *Information Bulletin on Variable Stars*). We will also provide the possibility for authors to share reduced data (spectra, light curves, images, etc.) from their publications with the community of users.

Our new concept of astronomical catalogues and the differences to existing catalogues are best characterized by the terms *interactivity*, *up-to-dateness* and *accessibility*:

*Interactivity:* All registered users may contribute to the database content by adding new data. The reliability of the data is ensured by an editorial team which is allowed to modify catalogue entries. We achieve a high level of objectiveness by allowing for several entries per property. We also allow for detailed annotations on the catalogue entries.

*Up-to-dateness:* Most ‘classical’ catalogues are updated only in irregular and/or lengthy intervals. In *AstroCat*-based catalogues all changes to the database are made instantly visible to the users. To ensure the citability of the catalogue, we provide a mechanism for restoring previous states of the catalogue content.

*Accessibility:* The web-based character allows for simple but powerful searching on the database via a web browser. The query results can be formatted in various user-definable styles. We also provide the possibility to retrieve the query results in XML format in order to supply the user with semantically enriched data.

Additional information on the *AstroCat/CVcat* project can be found at our web page111http://astrocat.uni-goettingen.de. At this location, we provide an online discussion forum222http://astrocat.uni-goettingen.de/#discussion where comments on the project can be placed.

## 2. CVcat – the online catalogue on Cataclysmic Variables

*CVcat*, a first version of an online catalogue on Cataclysmic Variables (CVs), was developed by the CV group in Göttingen and presented to the public in August 2001 due to the increasing need in the community of CV researchers for an authoritative, up-to-date, online database of the relevant objects (Kube et al. 2003). In this catalogue some of the concepts of *AstroCat* are already realized. It comprises data from ‘classical’ catalogues on CVs (mainly Ritter & Kolb 2003) as well as additional information compiled manually from numerous publications.

Since the acceptance of *CVcat* in the CV community is good, we decided to re-implement the catalogue with additional features providing more flexibility and convenience to the users. For that purpose, we started to develop the *AstroCat* framework which is not only designed for the re-implementation of *CVcat*, but can also be used for the installation of catalogues covering different astronomical fields.

Up to now, *CVcat* is used by $``$150 registered users and can be accessed at http://www.cvcat.org. The upgrade to the *AstroCat*-based version is planned for January 2004. A non-interactive demonstration of the new version can already be found at http://astrocat.uni-goettingen.de/cvcat-demo/.

## 3. Target Group

*AstroCat* is especially suited to set up databases used by relatively small research communities (several hundred users). Since all catalogue entries should be approved by editors, we estimate the maximum number of objects that can be handled properly to be several thousands. The possibility to comment on catalogue entries is particularly useful if extensive calculations and/or non-standard methods are required to derive the respective object properties.

## 4. Technical Realization

The catalogue data is held in a PostgreSQL database management system. The communication between the database and the webserver (Apache) is controlled by PHP scripts. Queries to and results from the database are handled internally in an XML dialect, *AstroCatML*333http://astrocat.uni-goettingen.de/#astrocatml, for which an XML Schema can be found on our web page. A schematic view of the data flow in *AstroCat* can be found in Fig. 2.

## 5. Outlook

After the completion of *CVcat* we plan to transfer the new concept to a different field of astronomical research by installing a catalogue on extrasolar planets *(EPcat)* based on the *AstroCat* software. Furthermore, we will provide a registry where the metadata of all *AstroCat*-based catalogues can be stored, in order to establish interoperability mechanisms between catalogues, e.g. simultaneous searches. It is also intended to integrate the information provided by the catalogues based on *AstroCat* in the global network of Virtual Observatories.

## 6. Partners

*AstroCat/CVcat* is funded by the *Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft* (project number LIS 4 - 554 95 (1) SUB Göttingen). The project is realized in collaboration with the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek (SUB), Göttingen, in the framework of *Virtuelle Fachbibliothek Astronomie*. *CVcat* will be hosted at the SUB after completion.

## References

Kube, J., Gänsicke, B. T., Euchner, F. & Hoffmann, B. 2003, A&A, 404, 1159

Ritter, H. & Kolb. U. 2003, A&A, 404, 301


text:
# The beginning of the Universe

## Abstract

In this brief essay we consider the concept of beginning in cosmology. It can be applied to the Universe as a whole, as well as to various epochs in the cosmic history and major structures as we can see them today.

One of the most astonishing discoveries of the 20th Century was Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of the Universe. Since time immemorial, people had shared a view of space and time as unchanging and independent of matter. Such a fixed space with a river of time, both unaffected by physical bodies, had been the stage for Newtonian mechanics. However, Hubble’s discovery in the nineteen-twenties had come at the right time. In 1916, Einstein had published his General Theory of Relativity, and few years later Friedmann had found solutions of Einstein’s equations corresponding to an expanding Universe. Cosmic space and time became related to matter; the geometrical properties of space and its temporal evolution became inseparable from the material content of the Universe and its large scale structure.

Cosmic expansion is of tremendous importance for studies of the BEGINNING of the Universe and the formation of the bodies and structures we observe. Since cosmic space expands, it follows that everything was closer together many epochs ago. As all cosmic objects have some fixed physical size, it is clear that there must have been some epoch in cosmic history, eons ago, when it was not possible for galaxies to exist as independent, individual structures. At earlier epochs, not even stars could exist; earlier still, even individual atoms would not fit into the much smaller spatial volumes; before that, even atomic nuclei would have been too large, and so on.

The concept of the BEGINNING of the Universe as a specific event in the past is deeply rooted in many religions and was discussed by the ancient philosophers. However, Hubble’s discovery suggested something profoundly different. In mythology, the BEGINNING of the Universe was a one-time event, resulting in a world ”ready to use”, similar to what we see today. The expansion of space, however, proves that the Universe must have evolved, since it was impossible for organised structures (such as atoms, molecules, planets, stars and galaxies) to exist from the very BEGINNING.

Another profound consequence of the Universe having a BEGINNING is that, due to its finite age and the finite maximum speed at which energy, information or interaction can be transferred, (i.e., the speed of light), the observable, causally-connected part of the Universe must be finite, regardless of the overall structure or geometry of space. This finite volume is surrounded by the cosmic horizon. Nothing from behind the horizon can have influenced anything which we can see or experience.

Reversing (as a thought experiment) cosmic expansion and extrapolating backward in time, we can estimate the age of the Cosmos from its current expansion rate. The age of the Universe is the time which has passed since space and matter started to expand as a result of the Big Bang the BEGINNING. It is not an easy task, as the expansion is constantly being slowed by the combined self-gravity of all matter in the Universe. To know the rate of this deceleration we need to know the amount and form of matter in the Cosmos. The best present-day estimate for the age of the Universe is $`13.7\times 10^9`$years. How far back in time we extrapolate is really a matter of taste. As we go closer and closer to the Big Bang, the physical conditions in the Universe were more and more extreme. It is clear that, at some point, the physical theories we know must break down. However, we can safely discuss processes in the primeval cosmic plasma a few seconds after the Big Bang. The conditions there were not that different from what we can study in nuclear reactors today. Even a mere fraction of a second after the BEGINNING, the physical conditions in the Universe (i.e. the density and temperature) are still familiar, as they are similar to what we can produce in particle accelerators.

There is, however, a definite limit to the extrapolation of known physics back to the BEGINNING of the cosmic history. Approximately 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, at the so-called Planck time, the mass density of the Universe is thought to approach roughly $`10^{93}`$ g cm<sup>-3</sup>. Contained within the causally connected part of the Universe is then a Planck mass, roughly $`10^5`$ g. An object of such mass would be a quantum black hole, with an event horizon close to both its own Compton length (the distance over which a particle is quantum mechanically ”fuzzy”) and the size of the cosmic horizon at the Planck time. Under such extreme conditions, space-time cannot be treated as a classical continuum and must be given a quantum interpretation.

We still do not understand the properties of the Universe at the very BEGINNING. No existing theory can describe the initial singularity and no theory can explain why the Big Bang had to happen. Many researchers put much hope in the formulation of a so called final theory or theory of everything . Some of them believe that string theory may be the best starting point for the formulation of such a theory.

The BEGINNING of the Universe is only the ultimate starting point in the history of cosmic ”beginnings”. A series of early phase transitions created the initial density fluctuations, which later served as the seeds of cosmic structure-superclusters, clusters and galaxies. It was the BEGINNING of structure formation. In inflationary models, the universe starts with very close to zero nett baryon number; at the BEGINNING, there was as much matter as antimatter. An excess of matter can only be generated from this initial situation after inflation under the following conditions: the baryon number is violated; the C (charge) and CP (charge-parity) symmetries are violated; the universe was not in thermal equilibrium for a period during bariogenesis. As the CP symmetry violation is known from laboratory physics, we believe that we understand why the Universe is made of matter rather then a mixture of matter and antimatter. All this happened in a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

We are made of chemical elements. Our bodies and everything around us is made of baryonic ”stuff”, organized in molecules which are themselves composed of atoms. The atomic form of matter was created in several processes during cosmic evolution. The lightest isotopes, those of hydrogen, helium and lithium, were created during the first three minutes after the BEGINNING. Later it was too cold and the density was too low for hierarchical build up of more complex atomic nuclei. The process of primordial nucleosynthesis was interrupted and resumed only after the first stars had formed. To explain the observed abundances of the light elements in the Universe, it was postulated that, at the BEGINNING, the Universe must have been hot. Matter and radiation were in thermal equilibrium. The existence of the remnant radiation, which today has cooled to just $`2.7`$ Kelvin, was predicted. The discovery of this relict radiation in the microwave domain in the nineteen-sixties was a major turning point in the history of cosmology. The expansion of the Universe, the abundances of the light elements, and the existence and properties of the microwave relict radiation are the fundamental observational facts supporting the Big Bang scenario.

The BEGINNING of the formation of heavier chemical elements started in stars just few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This process has been continuing throughout the whole of cosmic history, altering the chemical content of galaxies. Because looking deep into space we are looking into the remote past (due to the finite speed of light), we can actually observe the process of structure formation and the chemical evolution of galaxies.

Galaxies and clusters of galaxies formed from the initial density fluctuations as a result of gravitational instability. They came into existence in the Universe soon after the Big Bang, less than $`10^9`$ years after the BEGINNING. Most stars were formed when the Universe was five times younger then today.

In the last ten years we have discovered planets beyond our Solar System. Today we know of more than one hundred extrasolar planets. We observe protoplanetary disks and we are becoming increasingly convinced that planet formation is a natural part of the process of stellar formation, and that planets should not be uncommon in the Universe. The estimated age of the Earth is only slightly less than the age of the Sun. Our planet, as well as the Sun and other planets in the Solar System, was formed from the same protostellar nebula, some $`4.5\times 10^9`$ years ago. Thus the BEGINNING of our planetary system and our own planet took place when the Universe was approximately three times younger than it is today.

Life started on the Earth soon after the planet cooled enough for complex molecules to form. The BEGINNING of life is estimated to have occurred about $`3.5\times 10^9`$ years ago.

Scientists from the Copernicus Astronomical Center in Warsaw have taken an active role in this process of revealing cosmic evolution. The process of stellar evolution was studied (among others) by Professors Bohdan Paczyński (now at Princeton University) and Józef Smak. Recently, Professor Janusz Kaluzny measured the age of the one of oldest known stars in the Universe. Professor Roman Juszkiewicz has contributed to the understanding of the fluctuations in the relict microwave background, galaxy formation and created original methods of measuring the mean density of matter in the Universe. The author of this article has studied clouds of intergalactic matter and has estimated the intensity of the ionising ultraviolet background radiation, which played an important role in the structure formation epoch. Krzysztof Górski (now at JPL, Pasadena) and Radosław Stompor (now at UC, Berkeley) have made important contributions into the investigation of the relict microwave radiation. Ewa Łokas and Michał Chodorowski contributed to the theory of the galaxy formation. Aleksander Wolszczan, who discovered the first extrasolar planets, started his career at the Copernicus Center in the nineteen-eighties. Professor Miroslaw Giersz studied the structure and stability of the globular clusters systems hosting the oldest stars. Currently, Professor Michal Rozyczka and his group are developing numerical simulations to study in detail the process of planet formation.

Physical cosmology is a relatively young science. It only started after Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of the Universe, Einstein’s formulation of General Relativity and the discovery of the microwave background. Yet within only a few decades, people were able to measure the size of the Universe, its age, chemical composition and put into chronological order major events in cosmic history. This process of discovery still continues. In the last few years, observations of distant supernovae (exploding stars which for a couple of days outshine their host galaxy) at the edge of the observable Universe, and measurements of the temperature fluctuations of the microwave relict radiation have proved that the Universe is filled with some strange, nonbarionic forms of matter and energy. About one third of the whole material content of the Cosmos is in the form of dark matter-nonbarionic particles forming massive halos around galaxies and clusters of galaxies. About two thirds is in the form of dark energy even more mysterious than dark matter causing the acceleration of cosmic expansion.

Many physicists consider dark energy, acting against gravity to accelerate the expansion of space, the biggest unsolved problem in physics. It is being speculated that dark energy is related to the properties of the physical vacuum. Solutions to this problem will most probably require a new, deeper physical theory of the fundamental properties of matter. Quite unexpectedly, studies of the largest accessible scales the Universe as a whole have revealed something of extreme importance about the nature of fundamental processes. The presence of dark energy in Cosmos may be the result of processes which took place almost at the very BEGINNING of the Universe.