An elementary proof of Novikov's theorem
Samuel Ranz, Lauran Toussaint

TL;DR
This paper provides a straightforward proof of Novikov's theorem, demonstrating that in a closed 3-manifold with a taut foliation, each leaf's fundamental group injects into the manifold's fundamental group, using foliated branched covers.
Contribution
It introduces a simplified proof of Novikov's theorem employing foliated branched covers, enhancing understanding of foliation properties in 3-manifolds.
Findings
Proof confirms injectivity of leaf fundamental groups
Simplifies previous proofs of Novikov's theorem
Uses foliated branched covers as a key technique
Abstract
Novikov's theorem states that, given a taut (codimension-one) foliation on a closed 3-manifold M, the fundamental group of any leaf injects into the fundamental group of M. We use foliated branched covers to give a simple proof of this result.
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
TopicsGeometric and Algebraic Topology · Advanced Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems · Mathematical Dynamics and Fractals
An elementary proof of Novikov’s Theorem
Samuel Ranz
and
Lauran Toussaint
Abstract.
Novikov’s theorem states that, given a taut (codimension-one) foliation on a closed -manifold , the fundamental group of any leaf injects into the fundamental group of . We use foliated branched covers to give a simple proof of this result.
1. Introduction
Codimension-one foliations111Unless explicitly stated otherwise, we will always assume our foliations to be smooth, coorientable, and codimension-one. are extremely flexible and, apart from the Euler characteristic, do not restrict the topology of the manifolds on which they live [19, 5, 10]. Therefore, it is interesting to consider special classes of foliations. One such class consists of taut foliations, and some of their topological properties are described by Novikov’s theorem [14]. In this note, we provide a new proof of this classical result.
Let us start by recalling the definition:
Definition 1**.**
A codimension-one foliation on a closed, orientable, -manifold is taut if any of the following equivalent conditions hold:
- (i)
There exists a transverse loop intersecting every leaf of . 2. (ii)
For any leaf of there exists a closed transversal intersecting . 3. (iii)
There exists a closed form whose restriction is non-degenerate. 4. (iv)
There is a Riemannian metric on for which the leaves of are minimal surfaces.
For a detailed discussion of this definition we refer the reader to [1, 3]. Taut foliations closely interact with the topology of the ambient manifold, as the following theorem shows.
Theorem** ([14]).**
Let be a taut foliation on a closed, orientable -manifold . Then for any leaf the inclusion induces an injection
[TABLE]
Novikov’s original proof [14], although elementary, is rather delicate. The most recent proofs rely on the theory of minimal surfaces [15, 17, 18, 7], see [1] for an excellent exposition.
In this note we reprove this result using another characterization of taut foliations. In short, a foliated branched cover is a smooth map whose restriction to any leaf of defines a branched cover, see Definition 4 for a more detailed description. The fibers of are closed transversals to . Hence any foliation admitting a branched cover is taut in the sense of Definition 1. The converse can be proven in several ways. An analytical proof is given in [9, Corollary 1.3] while the main theorem of [2] provides a combinatorial proof.
Theorem** ([2]).**
A foliation on a closed -manifold is taut if and only if it admits a foliated branched cover.
In light of this characterisation, Novikov’s theorem is a consequence of the following, which is our main result:
Main Theorem**.**
Let be a foliation on a closed, orientable -manifold which admits a foliated branched cover. Then, for any leaf the inclusion induces an injection
[TABLE]
The proof consists of two steps. First, we show that a foliation admitting a foliated branched cover does not have any vanishing cycles, see Proposition 5. We then follow a standard argument to show that for such foliations the fundamental group of a leaf injects in the fundamental group of the ambient space, see Section 5.
Organization of the paper
The first four sections contain the required preliminaries. In Section 2 we recall Ascoli’s theorem. Section 3 contains the basics on foliated branched covers, including Proposition 5 which is the main ingredient for the proof of Theorem Main Theorem. Section 4 contains the definition of Morse maps into foliations and some properties of their characteristic foliations. The proof of the main theorem, is then given in Section 5.
Acknowledgements
We are deeply indebted to Fran Presas for suggesting the strategy of the proof, his insight and ideas, and for many useful discussions. We are grateful to Álvaro del Pino for his comments on a preliminary draft. We also wish to thank Gaël Meigniez for useful discussions.
The first author is supported by grant BES-2017-081980, project SEV-2015-0554-17-2, of the Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation. The second author is funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) on the project “proper Fredholm homotopy theory” (with project number OCENW.M20.195) of the research programme Open Competition ENW M20-3.
2. Ascoli’s theorem
We recall here the well-known Ascoli’s theorem. Its main use will be to show that foliated branched covers do not admit vanishing cycles, see Proposition 5.
Let be a topological space and be a metric space, and a subset of the space of continuous functions. Then, is said to be:
- •
equicontinuous at if, given there exists a neighborhood of such that
[TABLE]
for all and . We say is equicontinuous if it is equicontinuous at every .
- •
pointwise precompact if for each the set
[TABLE]
has compact closure.
Theorem 2** (Ascoli’s theorem).**
Let be a topological space, a metric space, and consider endowed with the compact open topology. If a subset is equicontinuous and pointwise precompact, then the closure of is compact.
For a proof of the theorem we refer the reader to [13]. The following observations and examples will be relevant in the next section:
- •
If is compact, then any subset is pointwise precompact.
- •
If is a compact manifold then any two Riemannian metrics are equivalent. Hence, in this case equicontinuity of a subset can be checked with respect to any Riemannian metric on .
- •
Given we denote by
[TABLE]
the family of -th order jets of maps in . Suppose that is equicontinuous and pointwise precompact (with respect to some metric on ). Then, by Theorem 2, any sequence in contains a subsequence converging (in -norm) to a holonomic section (recall that the space of holonomic sections is closed with respect to the -norm, which follows for example from [16, Theorem 7.17]). Therefore, any sequence in contains a subsequence which converges in -norm.
By a foliated bundle we mean a fiber bundle endowed with a flat connection, or equivalently, a foliation on whose leaves are transverse to the fibers of . If and have non-empty boundary we additionally require that . This implies that restricts to a foliated bundle .
Lemma 3**.**
Consider a compact Riemannian manifold , and a foliated bundle. Let , be a family of leafwise maps all lifting the same map . Then, the converge in -norm to a leafwise map lifting .
Proof.
We show that, for any , the family , satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem 2. Since equicontinuity is a local property it suffices to show it at . Suppose . There exist local coordinates around , around the fiber , and around such that
[TABLE]
and the restriction equals
[TABLE]
We endow with the product metric of the standard metrics on and . In these coordinates, each lift equals
[TABLE]
for some . From this description it is clear that (using the product metric) for any the family , , is equicontinuous and precompact at . Indeed, the projection of onto the factor is independent of , while the are contained in a compact set. Since is compact any two metrics are equivalent, so the same is true with respect to the Riemannian metric. Applying Theorem 2 we obtain the desired limit. ∎
3. Foliated branched covers
Definition 4**.**
A foliated branched cover on a closed, orientable, foliated -manifold is a smooth map
[TABLE]
such that is a closed, not necessarily connected, -dimensional submanifold, satisfying the following local model: around each there exist coordinates and a holomorphic chart in which
- •
;
- •
, and where is a curve satisfying .
In other words, a smooth map which restricts to each leaf as a branched cover is a foliated branched cover. The existence of a foliated branched cover imposes strong restrictions on the topology of the foliation. In particular, does not have any vanishing cycles:
Proposition 5**.**
Let be a foliated branched cover. Suppose we are given a family of immersions of the disk , , such that:
- •
the image of is contained in a leaf of ;
- •
for every , the curve , , is transverse to ;
- •
as goes to zero, the restrictions converge (in the -topology) to an immersion , whose image is contained in a leaf .
Then, there exists a map extending .
Proof.
We start by proving the proposition under some extra assumptions, afterwards we will show how to reduce to this special case. So, let us assume for the moment that there exist such that for all :
- •
;
- •
the critical points of are .
For each we define a curve
[TABLE]
into the critical locus of .
By compactness there exists a sequence such that the limit exists. We fix local coordinates around , around , and around in which the foliation equals
[TABLE]
The second hypothesis implies that in these coordinates the curve equals
[TABLE]
with for all positive . Moreover, after reparametrizing we may assume . The foliated branched cover is given by
[TABLE]
as in Definition 4. In particular, this local model implies that exists and is equal to . Note that our additional assumptions above imply that for . It follows that in these coordinates the family equals:
[TABLE]
We endow each with a product Riemannian metric and extend them to a Riemannian metric on the whole of . The first coordinate of the above expression is independent of . As such it is clear that the family of jets , is equicontinuous and precompact at .
The complement is mapped by each into the complement of the critical locus of . Thus, we are in the setup of Lemma 3, and we conclude that and are equicontinuous and precompact at every point in . Applying Theorem 2 we then obtain a -limit . By uniqueness of the limit extends , and its image is contained in a single leaf since is a -limit of leafwise maps.
It remains to show we can reduce to the special case above. Let us start by observing that if is a leafwise isotopy of , then proving the proposition for and is equivalent to proving it for and . This implies we can assume that the image of does not contain any critical points of . Indeed, there is a (-small) isotopy making the image of disjoint from the critical points of . We will slightly abuse notation and keep denoting the isotoped family by and .
Next, since we are interested in the limit , we can restrict the family to for arbitrarily small. Since the image of does not contain any critical points of the same is true for for . Therefore, after restricting the family to , there exists a leafwise isotopy taking to a family for which
[TABLE]
Recall from Definition 4 that the critical points of lie on compact curves transverse to and which do not intersect the image of . The family defines a submersion , such that
[TABLE]
Since the critical curves are transverse to their preimages are transverse to the levels and do not intersect the boundary. It follows that the number of critical points of is independent of , and finite by compactness of .
Hence, after reparametrizing (for each ), we can assume that the critical locus of equals for all . As before this allows us to define curves
[TABLE]
into the critical locus of , whose limit we denote by . For each , we fix local coordinates in around , around , and around in which the foliation equals
[TABLE]
and the foliated branched cover is given by:
[TABLE]
Let , be a smooth family of compactly supported diffeomorphisms satisfying for and , for . We perturb on by setting
[TABLE]
By construction we have that agrees with on the complement of the , while on we have:
[TABLE]
Again, abusing notation we continue to denote and by and respectively. Restricting even further if necessary, we can assume that the intersections of the image of with the critical locus of is contained in the union of the . Hence, by the above formula, we have
[TABLE]
It remains to arrange that on the rest of . To this end consider the immersion
[TABLE]
and the subset of its domain. The fibers of the map are transverse to the -factor, and at points in are tangent to the -factor. Hence, there exists a vector field tangent to the fibers of satisfying and . We use its flow to define the maps
[TABLE]
By construction these maps satisfy on the whole of . ∎
4. Morse maps into foliations.
In this section we recall the basic properties of Morse functions into codimension-one foliations, see for example [12]. A smooth function is called Morse if all of its critical points are non-degenerate. It is well-known that Morse functions form an open and dense subset of 222Given smooth manifolds and , we consider to be equipped with the (strong) -topology. In this topology a sequence of functions , , converges to if the derivatives of any order converge uniformly. see for example [11, 6].
Lemma 6**.**
Let be a smooth function which is Morse on a neighborhood of a (possibly empty) closed set . Then there exists a Morse function arbitrarily close to and satisfying .
Consider a cooriented codimension-one foliation on . Around any point there exists an open neighborhood and a submersion such that
[TABLE]
as cooriented distributions. We refer to as a submersion chart for . Suppose is a smooth map. We say that a point is a singularity of tangency of with respect to , if and are not transverse as subspaces of . That is, has a singularity of tangency if and only if has a critical point for some (and hence any) submersion chart around . A singularity of tangency of is non-degenerate if has a non-degenerate critical point at . In this case we define the index of to be the index of .
Definition 7**.**
A map is called Morse if all of its singularities of tangency are non-degenerate. If has non-empty boundary we require the singularities of to be contained in the interior.
Lemma 8**.**
If is compact the following hold:
- •
The set of Morse maps from to is open and dense in .
- •
Suppose is a smooth map which is Morse on a neighborhood of a closed subset . Then there exists a Morse map arbitrarily close to such that .
Proof.
Consider a smooth map . Since is compact, its image can be covered by finitely many submersion charts for . The proof follows from inductively applying Lemma 6 to . ∎
As for Morse functions, the singularities of are isolated and satisfy a local model: Let be the foliation by horizontal hyperplanes in . For , the embedding
[TABLE]
is Morse, and has a index singularity at the origin. Locally, around a singularity of index , any Morse map is equivalent to this model.
Lemma 9**.**
Let be compact and a Morse map. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Cover the image of by submersion charts for . This allows us to define the gradient of on . Using a partition, these local vector fields can be patched together to a vector field on . It is easily checked that for any critical point the index of and the gradient are related by
[TABLE]
As such the result follows from the Poincaré-Hopf theorem, see for example [6]. ∎
We now restrict to and . In this case the pullback defines a singular foliation by lines on , called the characteristic foliation of . To be precise, a leaf of is defined to be the preimage under of a leaf of . On the complement of the critical points of the characteristic foliation is regular, and the singularities of correspond to the critical points of . Their local models are given by Equation 3. The singularity corresponding to a critical point of index [math] or is called a center, while the singularity corresponding to a critical point of index is called a saddle, see also Figure 1.
Thus, Lemma 9 immediately implies the following:
Corollary 10**.**
Suppose is Morse. Then, the number of centers of the characteristic foliation is one more than the number of saddles. In particular, it has at least one center singularity.
5. Proof of the main theorem
In light of Proposition 5 it suffices to show that if does not have any vanishing cycles, then for any leaf there is an injection . This is a classic result which can be found in many places in the literature, see for example [3, Proposition 9.2.5], or [1, Theorem 4.35], except Lemma 11 below which is sometimes not explicitely stated. We include it here for completeness.
Suppose we are given a foliated manifold and a leafwise curve which is contractible in . We start by fixing an immersed capping disk as in the following lemma:
Lemma 11**.**
Consider a foliated manifold and a leafwise curve which is contractible in . Then, there exists an immersion satisfying:
- (i)
, and is leafwise homotopic (inside ) to . 2. (ii)
* is transverse to .*
Proof.
By a -small leafwise homotopy we can assume is immersed. Slightly pushing it off, transverse to , we obtain an immersed cylinder transverse to . Since any homotopy of stays contractible in , we find a smooth map extending the immersed cylinder. That is, , and is an immersion transverse to .
The Smale-Hirsch immersion theorem [8], see also [4, Theorem 8.2.1], implies that to find our desired immersion , it suffices to find an injective bundle map covering , and such that agrees with at points in .
The differential of defines a bundle map covering the identity. Using that the disk is contractible we fix a framing of such that (implying ), and
[TABLE]
where denote polar coordinates on . In the above framing can be interpreted as family of orthonormal -frames
[TABLE]
As such, the existence of is equivalent to defining the zero class in , which in turn is equivalent to the rotation number of being odd.
Let be a contractible neighborhood of , and extend the framing over . Let be an immersed curve with , , and . Then, is leafwise homotopic (though not through immersed curves) to the immersed curve which has rotation number . Thus, we can assume that has odd rotation number implying that an injective bundle map covering exists. Applying the Smale-Hirsch immersion theorem relative to the boundary gives the desired immersion . ∎
The induced characteristic foliation is tangent to the boundary . By compactness it contains finitely many center and saddle singularities. After slightly perturbing if necessary, we may assume that each of the leaves of contains at most one singularity. For each center singularity , let be the maximal set satisfying:
- •
contains and is saturated.
- •
Each leaf of contained in bounds an immersed disk in the corresponding leaf of .
The local model of a center singularity shows that is non-empty, and it follows from local Reeb stability that is open. Since is topologically a disk, the boundary , is a closed (not necessarily immersed) curve contained in a leaf of .
Now there are several possibilities. First, assume that has only one singularity which is necessarily a center. In this case is contained in a non-singular leaf of and hence itself immersed. That is, is a vanishing cycle giving a contradiction by Proposition 5.
Next, suppose that has more than one center. The previous argument shows that for each center the corresponding curve is singular. Since each leaf of contains at most one singular point, so does , and this singularity is a saddle. By Corollary 10 there must be at least two centers and for which the boundaries and share the same saddle, and thus intersect in a point. There are two possible configurations, depicted in Figure 1 below.
In the first case, the union bounds a simply connected domain in the corresponding leaf of . In the second case, suppose without loss of generality that , and denote the saddle singularity by . Then, the closed curve bounds a disk in the corresponding leaf of . Thus, in both cases, can be replaced by for which the induced characteristic foliation has one less center singularity. Hence we can inductively reduce to the case that has only one center, which we considered above.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] D. Calegari. Foliations and the geometry of 3-manifolds . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
- 2[2] D. Calegari. Taut foliations leafwise branch cover S 2 superscript 𝑆 2 S^{2} . Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 21(5):2523–2541, 2021.
- 3[3] A. Candel and L. Conlon. Foliations. II , volume 23 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000.
- 4[4] Y. Eliashberg and N. Mishachev. Introduction to the h ℎ h -principle , volume 48 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002.
- 5[5] H. Eynard-Bontemps. On the connectedness of the space of codimension one foliations on a closed 3-manifold. Invent. Math. , 204(2):605–670, 2016.
- 6[6] V. Guillemin and A. Pollack. Differential topology . Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1974.
- 7[7] J. Hass. Minimal surfaces in foliated manifolds. Comment. Math. Helv. , 61(1):1–32, 1986.
- 8[8] M. W. Hirsch. Immersions of manifolds. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 93:242–276, 1959.
