Topology of complements to real affine space line arrangements
Goo Ishikawa, Motoki Oyama

TL;DR
This paper proves that the topological type of the space remaining after removing a real affine line arrangement depends solely on the number of lines and their intersection data, regardless of the ambient space dimension.
Contribution
It establishes that the diffeomorphism type of line arrangement complements is fully determined by simple combinatorial data, extending previous results to all dimensions.
Findings
Diffeomorphism type depends only on line count and intersection data.
Results apply to arrangements in any dimension.
Simplifies classification of line arrangement complements.
Abstract
It is shown that the diffeomorphism type of the complement to a real space line arrangement in any dimensional affine ambient space is determined only by the number of lines and the data on multiple points.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics · Mathematical Dynamics and Fractals · Homotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
††footnotetext: 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 57M25; Secondary 57R45, 57M15, 58K15.
Key Words. trivial handle attachment, height function, space graph complement, open three-manifold.
The first author was supported by JSPS KAKENHI No.15H03615.
Topology of complements to real affine space line arrangements
Goo Ishikawa, Motoki Oyama Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan. e-mail: [email protected] of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan. e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
It is shown that the diffeomorphism type of the complement to a real space line arrangement in any dimensional affine ambient space is determined only by the number of lines and the data on multiple points.
1 Introduction
Let be a real space line arrangement, or a configuration, consisting of affine -lines in . The different lines may intersect, so that the union is an affine real algebraic curve of degree in possibly with multiple points. In this paper we determine the topological type of the complement of , which is an open -manifold. We observe that the topological type is determined only by the number of lines and the data on multiple points of . Moreover we determine the diffeomorphism type of .
Set , the -dimensional closed disk. The pair with , is called an -dimensional handle of index (see [17][1] for instance).
Now take one and, for any non-negative integer , attach to it -number of -dimensional handles of index (), by an attaching embedding such that the obtained -manifold
[TABLE]
is orientable. We call the -ball with trivial -handles of index (Figure 1.)
Note that the topological type of does not depend on the attaching map and is uniquely determined only by the number . The boundary of is the orientable closed surface of genus .
Let be any -line arrangement in . Let denote the number of multiple points with multiplicity , . The vector provides a degree of degeneration of the line arrangement . Set In this paper we show the following result:
Theorem 1.1
The complement is homeomorphic to the interior of -ball with trivial -handles of index .
Corollary 1.2
* is homotopy equivalent to the bouquet .*
The above results are naturally generalised to any line arrangements in .
Let be a line arrangement in and set . Again let denote the number of multiple points of of multiplicity , . Set . Then we have
Theorem 1.3
* is homeomorphic to the interior of -ball with trivially attached -handles of index .*
Thus we see that the topology of complements of real space line arrangements is completely determined by the combinational data, the intersection poset in particular. Recall that the intersection poset is the partially ordered set which consists of all multiple points, the lines themselves and as elements, endowed with the inclusion order. Then the number is recovered as the number of minimal points such that and as the number of maximal points of .
Corollary 1.4
* is homotopy equivalent to the bouquet .*
In particular is a minimal space, i.e. it is homotopy equivalent to a complex such that the number of -cells is equal to its -th Betti number for all .
Even for semi-algebraic open subsets in , homotopical equivalence does not imply topological equivalence in general. However we see this is the case for complements of real affine line arrangements, as a result of Theorem 1.3 and Corollary 1.4.
By the uniqueness of smoothing of corners, and by careful arguments at all steps of the proof of Theorem 1.3, we see that Theorem 1.3 can be proved in differentiable category.
Theorem 1.5
* is diffeomorphic to the interior of -ball with trivially attached -handles of index .*
Note that the relative classification problem of line arrangements is classical but far from being solved ([6] for instance). Moreover it has much difference in differentiable category and topological category. In fact even the local classification near multiple points of high multiplicity , has moduli in differentiable category while it has no moduli in topological category. The classification of complements turns to be easier and simpler as we observe in this paper.
The real line arrangements on the plane is one of classical and interesting subjects to study. It is known or easy to show that the number of connected components of the complement to a real plane line arrangement is given exactly by using the number . This can be derived from Corollary 1.4 by just setting . For example, it can be shown from known combinatorial results for line arrangements on projective plane (see [4] for instance). In fact we prove it using our method in the process of the proof of Theorem 1.3. Therefore Theorem 1.3 and Corollary 1.4 are regarded as a natural generalisation of the classical fact.
Though our object in this paper is the class of real affine line arrangements, it is natural to consider also real projective line arrangements consisting of projective lines in the projective space , or corresponding real linear plane arrangements consisting of -dimensional linear subspaces in . However the topology of complements in both cases are not determined, in general, by the intersection posets, which are defined similarly to the affine case. In fact it is known an example of pairwise transversal linear plane arrangements and in with such that the complements and have non-isomorphic cohomology algebras and therefore they are not homotopy equivalent, so, not homeomorphic to each other ([19], Theorem 2.1).
A linear plane arrangement in is pairwise transverse if and only if the corresponding projective line arrangement is non-singular (without multiple points) in . Non-singular line arrangements in , which are called skew line configurations, are studied in details (see [6, 13, 15, 16] for instance). Moreover, the topology of non-singular real algebraic curves in is studied, related to Hilbert’s 16th problem, by many authors (see [8] for instance). Also refer to the surveys on the study of real algebraic varieties ([5, 14]).
It is natural to consider also complex line arrangements in . The topology of complex subspace arrangements in , in particular, homotopy types of them is studied in detail (see [10, 19] for instance). Then it is known that the intersection poset turns to have much information in complex cases than in real cases. Refer to [12, 20], for instance, on the theory on the homotopy types of complements for general subspace arrangements.
In §2, we define the notion of trivial handle attachments clearly. In §3, we show Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.5 in parallel, using an idea of stratified Morse theory ([3]) in a simple situation. We then realize a deference of topological features between the complements to line arrangements and to knots, links, tangles or general spacial graphs (Remark 3.8). In the last section, related to our results, we discuss briefly the topology of real projective line arrangements and real linear plane arrangements.
The authors thank Masahiko Yoshinaga for his valuable suggestion to turn authors’ attention to real space line arrangements. They thank also an anonymous referee for his/her valuable comments.
2 Trivial handle attachments
First we introduce the local model of trivial handle attachments.
Let . Let be the sphere defined by , and . Let be the vector defined by . Then define an embedding by
[TABLE]
which gives a tubular neighbourhood of in . Set
[TABLE]
which gives a tubular neighbourhood of in . We call the standard attaching map of the handle of index . Note that the embedding extends to the standard handle , which is defined by
[TABLE]
attached to along .
Let be a topological (resp. differentiable) -manifold with a connected boundary .
Let . A coordinate neighbourhood , around in is called adapted if is a homeomorphism of and which maps to .
Now we consider an attaching of several number of handles of index to along . We call a handle attaching map trivial if there exist disjoint adapted coordinate neighbourhoods on such that and is the standard attachment for . (Figure 2)
Then is called the manifold obtained from by attaching standard handles and the topological type of does not depends on the attaching map but depends only on and . Moreover if is a differentiable manifold, the diffeomorphism type of the attached manifold is uniquely determined by the smoothing or straightening of corners (see Proposition 2.6.2 of [17] for instance). Note that the diffeomorphism type of the interior does not change by the smoothing.
Note that, if is a trivial handle attaching map, then is unknotted and is unlinked (see Figure 4). Therefore we can slide the trivial attachment mapping to an embedding into a disjoint union to an arbitrarily small neighbourhoods of any disjoint number points on up to isotopy (cf. Homogeneity Lemma [9]).
Remark 2.1
The assumption that is connected is essential. For example, let . Then we have at least two non-homeomorphic spaces by different attachments of two trivial handles of index (Figure 3).
We see that iterative trivial attachments result a homeomorphic (resp. differentiable) manifold to a simultaneous trivial attachments.
Lemma 2.2
Let be a topological (resp. differentiable) -manifold with connected boundary . Suppose is homeomorphic (diffeomorphic) to a space obtained, from a topological (differentiable) manifold with connected boundary, by attaching number of trivial handles of index . Then the space obtained from by attaching number of trivial handles of index is homeomorphic (diffeomorphic) to the space obtained from by attaching number of trivial handles of index .
See Figure 4 for the case .
Proof of Lemma 2.2. Let be a homeomorphism (resp. a diffeomorphism). Then does not contained in . Then we slide, up to isotopy, the attaching map to such that
[TABLE]
Consider . Then is homeomorphic (resp. diffeomorphic) to .
3 Affine line arrangements
Let .
We consider line arrangements in or more generally consider a subset in which is a union of finite number of closed line segments and half lines. Then may be regarded as a finite graph (with non-compact edges) embedded as a closed set in (Figure 5). Here we admit vertices of valency .
Take a unit vector and define the height function by using Euclidean inner product. Choose so that
(i) is neither perpendicular to any line segments nor half lines in .
(ii) For each , the hyperplane of level contains at most one vertex of .
Note that there exists a union of finite number of great hyperplanes such that any unit vector in satisfies the conditions (i) and (ii).
After a rotation of , we may suppose . We write , where . Set and, for any ,
[TABLE]
Let be the set of vertices of . Set and with .
Though the following lemma is clear intuitively, we give a proof to make sure.
Lemma 3.1
The topological (resp. diffeomorphism) type of is constant on and the topological (diffeomorphism) type of is constant on , , with . Here means itself.
*Proof *: First we treat the case . Take a sufficiently large such that . Consider the cylinder
[TABLE]
Then is a Whitney stratification of . The function is proper and the restriction of to each stratum is a submersion. Now we follow the standard method (the proof of Thom’s first isotopy lemma [11, 7]) to show differentiable triviality of mappings. Note that the flow used in the proof of isotopy lemma is differentiable in each stratum. For any , take a vector field over such that on and on , where is the coordinate on . Then lifts to a controlled vector field over such that tangents to each stratum. We extend to via the retraction and to by letting it [math], and we have an integrable vector field on . By integrating , we have a homeomorphism of and for any and a diffeomorphism of and for any . Note that the differentiable flow of the vector field may not be defined through but it gives a diffeomorphism of and .
Second we treat the case . Consider the quadratic cone in . Supposing after a translation along -axis in necessary, and taking sufficiently large, we have lies inside of the cone . Now set
[TABLE]
and consider the proper map with the Whitney stratification . For any , take a (non-complete) vector field over such that on and on . We lift to a controlled vector filed over and then over . Then, using the integration of , we have a diffeomorphism of and for any , and a diffeomorphism of and for any . In particular we have that for is diffeomorphic to itself.
Remark 3.2
The topological (resp. diffeomorphism) type of (resp. ) is not necessarily constant at . **
We observe the topological change of when moves across a critical value as follows:
Lemma 3.3
Let be a vertex of and let . Let denote the number of edges of which are adjacent to from above with respect to .
Then, for a sufficiently small , the open set is diffeomorphic to the interior of , obtained by an attaching map
[TABLE]
of number of trivial handles of index , provided .
In particular is diffeomorphic to if .
If then is diffeomorphic to the interior of obtained by an attaching map of a (not necessarily trivial) handle of index . (See Figure 6. )
Remark 3.4
In the case , the handle attachment is not necessarily trivial since the core of the attachment does not necessarily bounds a disk. (See Figure 13.) **
Remark 3.5
Note that if denotes the number of edges of which are adjacent to from below with respect to , then the intersection consists of -points in the hyperplane and thus is a punctured hyperplane by -points. **
Remark 3.6
Note that locally in a neighbourhood of each vertex of , the topological equivalence class of the germ of a generic height function is determined only by and , the numbers of branches. This can be shown by using Thom’s isotopy lemma ([7]). **
Proof of Lemma 3.3. For sufficiently small , is a space deleted -half-lines. We may suppose the intersection lies on a line, up to a diffeomorphism of . We delete -small tubular neighbourhoods of the half-lines from the half space, then still we have a diffeomorphic space to . Then we connect the -holes by boring a sequence of canals without changing the diffeomorphism type of complements. See Figures 7 and 8. The boring a canal means, in general dimension, to delete along the line segment connecting the holes.
First let . Then the resulting space is diffeomorphic to . The diffeomorphism is taken to be the identity on and it extends to a diffeomorphism between and . This shows Lemma 3.3 in the case .
Next we teat the case . The topological change from to is give by digging a tunnel, which is, equivalently, given by a handle attaching of index . In fact, we examine the topological change of the complement to
[TABLE]
in when across . Take the closed tube of radius of . Then for the complement , is diffeomorphic to the interior of the half space attached the handle
[TABLE]
along
[TABLE]
The pair is diffeomorphic to where the core corresponds to and . Note that the latter bounds a -dimensional disk , which does not touch the boundary . See Figures 9 and 10.
The same argument works for any . See Figure 10 for the case . Note that complements to “X” and “H” are diffeomorphic. See Figures 10, 11 and 12.
In general, for any , the topological change is obtained by attaching trivial handles of index . See Figure 12.
In the case , contrarily to above, the change of diffeomorphism type is obtained by an attaching not necessarily trivial handle. See Figure 13.
When , the topological bifurcation occurs just as putting number of disjoint open disks.
Thus we have Lemma 3.3.
First let us apply Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.3 to the case .
For a of sufficiently large , supposing a generic height function is given by as above. Then (resp. ) is diffeomorphic to the half plane (resp. deleted number of half lines. The number of connected components is equal to . By passing a multiple point of multiplicity , then by Lemma 3.3, we see that the number of connected components of (resp. ) increases exactly by . Thus, after passing all multiple points, the number of connected components of , which is homeomorphic to , is given by .
Proof of Theorem 1.5. For a with , (resp. ) is diffeomorphic to the half space (resp. deleted number of half lines. By passing a multiple point of multiplicity , for a sufficiently large , is obtained by attaching number of trivial handles of index , by Lemma 3.3. After passing all multiple points, is diffeomorphic to the space obtained by attaching number of trivial handles of index to the half space deleted number of half lines. Then is diffeomorphic to the interior of with . By Lemma 3.1, for with , is diffeomorphic to . Hence we have Theorem 1.3.
Proofs of Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.1. Theorem 1.3 follows from Theorem 1.5 and Theorem 1.1 follows from Theorem 1.3 by setting .
Remark 3.7
Let be a subset of which is a union of finite number of closed line segments and half lines. Then similarly to the proof of Theorem 1.1 using Lemma 3.3, we see that, if there exists a height function satisfying (i)(ii) such that has no local maximum, then the complement is diffeomorphic to the interior of -ball with trivially attached -handles of index , for some . If is compact, then any height function has a maximum, so non-trivial attachments may occur. **
Remark 3.8
The knot complements have much information than line arrangement complements. For example, it is known that, for knots , if and are homeomorphic, then the pairs and are homeomorphic ([2]). Taking account of it, consider for a line arrangement in and and its one-point compactification . Then the complement is homeomorphic to and to , which depends only on the number , while does not determine the topological type of the pair in general. **
4 Projective line and linear plane arrangements
Let be a real projective line arrangement in the projective space and let be the real linear plane arrangement in corresponding to . Then the complement of is homeomorphic to the link complement times , where is a sphere in centred at the origin. Moreover is a double cover of for the corresponding projective line arrangement in .
Take a projective hyperplane such that intersects transversely to all lines , and that does not pass through any multiple point of . Then identify with the affine space and the affine line arrangement obtained by setting . Take a ball for a sufficiently large radius such that interior of contains all multiple points of and the boundary intersects transversally to all lines . Then the closure of is regarded as a tubular neighbourhood of in . The closure is homeomorphic to the space , where . Let be disjoint points in . Let be a sufficiently small open disk neighbourhood of . Set and . Then is an -dimensional manifold with boundary , which is double covered by a “punctured shell” (see Figure 14).
Thus we observe
Proposition 4.1
The intersection is homeomorphic to the interior of . The complement is homeomorphic to the interior of for an attaching embedding . The homeomorphism class of is determined by the isotopy class of the embedding . The embedding is determined by the intersection of and a hypersphere of sufficiently large radius in .
*Proof *: We see that the intersection of and a hypersphere of sufficiently large radius in is homeomorphic to the sphere deleted -points. Then we have Proposition 4.1 by Theorem 1.3.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] R.E. Gompf, A.I. Stipsicz, 4 4 4 -manifolds and Kirby calculus, Graduate Studies in Math. 20 , Amer. Math. Soc., (1999).
- 2[2] C. Mc A. Gordon, J. Luecke, Knots are determined by their complements, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 20-1 (1989), 83–87.
- 3[3] M. Goresky, R. Mac Pherson, Stratified Morse theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, (1988).
- 4[4] B. Grünbaum, Arrangements and Spreads, Regional Conference Series in Math. 10 , Amer. Math. Soc. (1972).
- 5[5] D.A. Gudkov, The topology of real projective algebraic varieties, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 29-4 (1974), 3–79; transl. Russ. Math. Surveys, 29-4 (1974), 1–79.
- 6[6] J. W. P. Hirschfeld, A configuration of lines in three dimensions, Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc., 18-2 (1972), 105–123.
- 7[7] J.N. Mather, Stratifications and mappings, Dynamical Systems, Academic Press, (1973), pp. 195–232.
- 8[8] G. Mikhalkin, S. Orevkov, Real algebraic knots and links of low degree, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 25 (2016), 1642010, 34 pages.
