This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

On the topology of character varieties of once-punctured torus bundles

Stephan Tillmann and Youheng Yao Stephan Tillmann
School of Mathematics and Statistics F07, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
[email protected]
—–
Youheng Yao
School of Mathematics and Statistics F07, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
[email protected]
Abstract

This paper presents, for the special case of once-punctured torus bundles, a natural method to study the character varieties of hyperbolic 3–manifolds that are bundles over the circle. The main strategy is to restrict characters to the fibre of the bundle, and to analyse the resulting branched covering map. This allows us to extend results of Steven Boyer, Erhard Luft and Xingru Zhang. Both SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character varieties and PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character varieties are considered. As an explicit application of these methods, we build on work of Baker and Petersen to show that there is an infinite family of hyperbolic once-punctured bundles with canonical curves of PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–characters of unbounded genus.

keywords:
3–manifold, punctured torus bundle, character variety
\primaryclass

57M25, 57N10 \makeshorttitle

1 Introduction

The first part of this paper extends results of Boyer, Luft and Zhang [4] concerning the SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) of MφM_{\varphi}, a hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundle over S1S^{1} with monodromy φ\varphi, and we determine its relationship with the PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety X¯(Mφ).\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}). Denote a once-punctured torus fibre by SS and let λ\lambda be the associated longitude, i.e. the boundary of a compact core of SS. The monodromy induces a polynomial automorphism φ¯\coX(S)X(S)\overline{\varphi}\co X(S)\to X(S) and we denote its fixed point set by Xφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S). This is the image of the restriction map r\coX(Mφ)X(S)r\co X(M_{\varphi})\to X(S) (Lemma 11). We are interested in the topology of the Zariski components111Our varieties are affine algebraic sets, and to avoid using the word irreducible in two different ways, we refer to irreducible components of these sets as Zariski components. of X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) that contain the characters of irreducible representations. Each such component is one-dimensional (Proposition 14), and we let Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) denote their union.

Boyer, Luft and Zhang [4] show that the binary dihedral characters in X(Mφ(λ))X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}(\lambda))\subset X(M_{\varphi}) are all simple points of X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}), and they provide an exact count of them. Namely their number is

12|2+tr(φ)|2b1(φ)2\frac{1}{2}|2+\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{*})|-2^{{b_{1}(\varphi)-2}} (1.1)

where b1(φ)=b1(Mφ;2){b_{1}(\varphi)}=b_{1}(M_{\varphi};\mathbb{Z}_{2}) and φ\varphi_{*} represents the automorphism induced by φ\varphi on first homology of S.S. We show that these are the only irreducible characters of MφM_{\varphi} that restrict to reducible characters of SS (12).

Let ε\coπ1(Mφ)2\varepsilon\co\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})\to\mathbb{Z}_{2} be the non-trivial homomorphism that is trivial on π1(S).\pi_{1}(S).

Theorem 1.

Suppose MφM_{\varphi} is a hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundle. Then each Zariski component of Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) is one-dimensional and r\coXirr(Mφ)Xφ(S)r\co X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\to X_{\varphi}(S) is a two-fold branched covering map. The ramification points of rr are simple points, namely the binary dihedral characters in X(Mφ(λ))X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}(\lambda))\subset X(M_{\varphi}). The fibres of rr correspond to the orbits of the action of εH1(Mφ,2).\langle\varepsilon\rangle\leq H^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2}). In particular,

χ(Xirr(Mφ))=2χ(Xφ(S))12|2+tr(φ)|+2b1(φ)2\chi(X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}))=2\chi(X_{\varphi}(S))-\frac{1}{2}|2+\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{*})|+2^{{b_{1}(\varphi)-2}}

where χ\chi denotes the Euler characteristic in the above equation.

Implicit in the above statement is that r(X(Mφ))=r(Xirr(Mφ)).r(X(M_{\varphi}))=r(X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})). This is shown as follows. Let CC be a Zariski component containing only reducible representations. Then CC is equivalent to \mathbb{C} and the restriction of rr to CC is constant. We apply a criterion due to Heusener and Porti [18] to show that CXirr(Mφ),C\cap X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\neq\emptyset, and that each point of intersection is contained on a unique curve in Xirr(Mφ).X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}). Moreover, the intersection point is a smooth point of both curves and the intersection is transverse (Proposition 17).

In our applications, we either use genus bounds that follow from the above theorem (Corollary 20) or well-known results linking genus to the Newton polygon (see Section 5.2). The proof of Theorem 1 is organised as follows. We first show that no ramification point in Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) is the character of a reducible representation (Section 3.4), and then characterise the fibres as orbits of ε\varepsilon and complete the proof with Proposition 19.

The map Xirr(Mφ)X¯irr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\to\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) can be viewed as the quotient map

Xirr(Mφ)Xirr(Mφ)/H1(Mφ,2)X¯irr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\to X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})/H^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})\subseteq\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})

There is a natural splitting H1(Mφ,2)=εHH^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\langle\varepsilon\rangle\oplus H, where HH is the subgroup generated by all homomorphisms that are only non-trivial on π1(S).\pi_{1}(S). We may view HH1(S,2)22.H\leq H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2}. Theorem 1 and the analogous result for projective representation (Proposition 26) imply the following:

Corollary 2.

Suppose MφM_{\varphi} is a hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundle. We have the following commutative diagram of maps whose degrees are indicated in the diagram:

Xirr(Mφ)\textstyle{X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}2b1(φ):1\scriptstyle{2^{{b_{1}(\varphi)}}:1}q1\scriptstyle{q_{1}}r\scriptstyle{r}2:1\scriptstyle{2:1}Xφ(S)\textstyle{X_{\varphi}(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}2b1(φ)1:1\scriptstyle{2^{{b_{1}(\varphi)}-1}:1}q2\scriptstyle{q_{2}}\textstyle{\subset}X(S)\textstyle{X(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}4:1\scriptstyle{4:1}q2\scriptstyle{q_{2}}\textstyle{\cong}3\textstyle{\mathbb{C}^{3}}X¯irr(Mφ)\textstyle{\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}r¯\scriptstyle{\overline{r}}X¯φ(S)\textstyle{\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}\textstyle{\subset}X¯(S)\textstyle{\overline{X}(S)}

Here, each of the maps r,r, q1,q_{1}, q2q_{2} is a branched covering map. The map q1q_{1} is the quotient map associated with the action of H1(Mφ,2)=εH,H^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\langle\varepsilon\rangle\oplus H, and the map q2q_{2} is the quotient map associated with the action of H1(S,2)H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) on X(S).X(S). The map rr is the quotient map associated with the action of ε.\langle\varepsilon\rangle. The orbits of the action of H1(S,2)H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) on Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) are the same as the orbits of HH except when b1(φ)=2b_{1}(\varphi)=2 and one of the coordinate axes (with respect to the natural identification X(S)=3X(S)=\mathbb{C}^{3}) is contained in Xφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S).

The fibres of the map r¯\overline{r} may have size one, two or four, arising from irreducible representations with non-trivial centraliser. The restriction r¯\coX¯X¯φ(S)\overline{r}\co\overline{X}\to\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) to a Zariski component X¯X¯irr(Mφ)\overline{X}\subseteq\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) is of degree one, except for a special situation when b1(φ)=2b_{1}(\varphi)=2 and the degree is two (see Proposition 26).

Corollary 3.

If b1(φ)=1,b_{1}(\varphi)=1, then we have a birational isomorphism X¯irr(Mφ)Xφ(S).\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\cong X_{\varphi}(S).

Proof.

Since H1(M;2)=2H_{1}(M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\mathbb{Z}_{2}, we have H2(π1(M);2)0H^{2}(\pi_{1}(M);\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong 0 and hence every representation into PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) lifts to a representation into SL(2,).\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}). See Section 2.1 for details. Hence we obtain the claimed birational isomorphism from the commutative diagram in Corollary 2 since the fibres of each of the surjective maps q1q_{1} and rr are the orbits of the action of ε.\langle\varepsilon\rangle.

The hypothesis of Corollary 3 is equivalent to φ\varphi_{*} mapping to an element of order three under the natural epimorphism SL(2,)SL(2,2)Sym(3)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})\to\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\operatorname{Sym}(3) (see Section 2.2).

Section 3 also contains a number of interesting facts about X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) and Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) that follow from our set-up. For instance, MφM_{\varphi} always admits an irreducible representation whose restriction to the fibre has image the quaternionic group. If H1(X,2)23H_{1}(X,\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{3}, then this character always lies on one (or three) special line(s) in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S). Section 4 provides analogous results for the PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) and the associated fixed point set X¯φ(S)X¯(S).\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S)\subset\overline{X}(S). We use a dimension bound due to Thurston, for which we provide a proof (Proposition 8) and which is not implied by the dimension bounds in the setting of more general Lie groups due to Falbel and Guilloux [11] and Porti [22].

In Section 5, we apply our techniques to infinite families of once-punctured torus bundles and a number of small examples. We follow the standard convention letting 𝙰,𝙱SL(𝟸,)\tt{A},\tt{B}\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}) correspond to right-handed Dehn twists (see Section 2.2).

First family. Baker and Petersen [2] determined the genera of the character varieties of the family MnM_{n} of once-punctured torus bundles with monodromy φn=𝙰𝙱𝚗+𝟸\varphi_{n}=\tt{A}\tt{B}^{n+2}. We note that b1(φn)=1b_{1}(\varphi_{n})=1 if nn is odd and b1(φn)=2b_{1}(\varphi_{n})=2 if nn is even. In the case where n3n\geq 3 is odd, we show that Xφn(S)X_{\varphi_{n}}(S) is a curve of genus zero, and hence Corollary 3 implies that the genus of X¯irr(Mn)\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{n}) is zero. This agrees with the computation in [2]. See Section 5.3.

Second family. Let NnN_{n} be the once-punctured torus bundle with monodromy ψn=𝙰𝙱𝚗+𝟸𝙰\psi_{n}=\tt{A}\tt{B}^{n+2}A. We note that b1(ψn)=2b_{1}(\psi_{n})=2 if nn is odd and b1(ψn)=3b_{1}(\psi_{n})=3 if nn is even. In the case where n=2k+11n=2k+1\geq 1 is odd, we show that Xψn(S)X_{\psi_{n}}(S) is a curve of genus kk and the genus of X¯irr(Nn)\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(N_{n}) is zero. See Section 5.4.

Third family. Let LnL_{n} be the once-punctured torus bundle with monodromy ωn=𝙰𝟸𝙱𝚗+𝟸𝙰\omega_{n}=\tt{A}^{2}\tt{B}^{n+2}\tt{A}. We note that b1(ωn)=1b_{1}(\omega_{n})=1 if nn is odd and b1(ωn)=2b_{1}(\omega_{n})=2 if nn is even. In the case where n=2k+13n=2k+1\geq 3 is odd, we show that Xωn(S)X¯irr(Ln)X_{\omega_{n}}(S)\cong\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(L_{n}) has n+32\frac{n+3}{2} components, one of which is a curve of genus kk and the others have genus 0.0. The curves of genus kk are all canonical. This answers a question posed by Alan Reid. See Section 5.5.

Small examples. We summarise computational results for monodromies that are short words in 𝙰\tt{A} and 𝙱\tt{B}, or in 𝙰\tt{A} and 𝙱𝟷\tt{B}^{-1}, in Section 5.6. These were executed with Singular [10].

We remark that in all examples produced in this paper, each fixed-point set Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) has the property that there is at most one Zariski component of positive genus and each Zariski component is birationally equivalent to an elliptic or a hyperelliptic curve.

Acknowledgements. Research of the first author is partially supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT170100316). Research of the second author was supported by an Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute (AMSI) Vacation Research Scholarship during the initial stages of this project. The second author thanks Grace Garden for helpful conversations during this time.

2 Preliminaries

This section collects some basic facts about character varieties of 3–manifolds in Section 2.1 and about hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundles in Section 2.2. We also recall facts about mutation in Section 2.3 and the character variety of the free group of rank two in Section 2.4. None of the material in this section is new, and it mainly serves to set up notation. In Section 2.5 we also include a statement and proof of a dimension bound based on [23, Theorem 5.6] in Thurston’s notes. For varieties of representations into SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) this was given by Culler and Shalen [9, Proposition 3.2.1], but we could not find the statement of Proposition 8 for the case of representations into PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) in the literature.

2.1 Basic facts about character varieties

We start by summarising the discussion found in [20, pp.512-513]. Let MM be a compact, connected and orientable 3–manifold. Let R(M)R(M) be the variety of representations of π1(M)\pi_{1}(M) into SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}), and X(M)X(M) be the associated character variety. Similarly, let R¯(M)\overline{R}(M) and X¯(M)\overline{X}(M) be the respective varieties of representations into PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) and their characters.

The quotient map q\coSL(2,)PSL(2,)q\co\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) induces a regular map q\coR(M)R¯(M),q_{\star}\co R(M)\to\overline{R}(M), and its image is a union of topological components of R¯(M).\overline{R}(M). Indeed, R(M)q(R(M))R(M)\to q_{\star}(R(M)) is a regular covering map with group H1(π1(M);2).H^{1}(\pi_{1}(M);\mathbb{Z}_{2}). Following [20], we let Q(M)=R(M)/H1(π1(M);2)q(R(M))R¯(M).Q(M)=R(M)/H^{1}(\pi_{1}(M);\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong q_{\star}(R(M))\subseteq\overline{R}(M).

There also is a regular map q\coX(M)X¯(M),q_{\star}\co X(M)\to\overline{X}(M), and its image is a union of topological components of X¯(M).\overline{X}(M). The fibres over points in the image are again the orbits of the natural action of H1(π1(M);2)H^{1}(\pi_{1}(M);\mathbb{Z}_{2}) on X(M).X(M). Let QX(M)=X(M)/H1(π1(M);2)q(X(M))X¯(M).QX(M)=X(M)/H^{1}(\pi_{1}(M);\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong q_{\star}(X(M))\subseteq\overline{X}(M). However, on the level of character varieties, the action may not be free. The points of X(M)X(M) fixed by h\coπ1(M)2h\co\pi_{1}(M)\to\mathbb{Z}_{2} are characterised by χ(γ)=0\chi(\gamma)=0 for all γπ1(M)\gamma\in\pi_{1}(M) with the property that h(γ)=1.h(\gamma)=-1. This defines an algebraic subset S(h)S(h) of X(M).X(M). Let U(M)U(M) be the Zariski-open set X(M)hS(h).X(M)\setminus\cup_{h}S(h). Then on U(M)U(M) the action of H1(π1(M);2)H^{1}(\pi_{1}(M);\mathbb{Z}_{2}) is free and the quotient map U(M)X¯(M)U(M)\to\overline{X}(M) onto its image is a regular covering map of its image.

To make these general notions explicit, we appeal to the following material from [15]. For each γπ1(M)\gamma\in\pi_{1}(M), there is a regular function τγ\coR(M)\tau_{\gamma}\co R(M)\to\mathbb{C} defined by τγ(ρ)=trρ(γ)\tau_{\gamma}(\rho)=\operatorname{tr}\rho(\gamma) and a regular function Iγ\coX(M)I_{\gamma}\co X(M)\to\mathbb{C} defined by Iγ(χ)=χ(γ).I_{\gamma}(\chi)=\chi(\gamma).

Suppose γ1,,γn\gamma_{1},\ldots,\gamma_{n} generate π1(M),\pi_{1}(M), and consider the m=n(n2+5)6m=\frac{n(n^{2}+5)}{6} functions τγ\tau_{\gamma} as γ\gamma ranges over the set

G={γi,γiγj,γiγjγk 1in,1i<jn,1i<j<kn}G=\{\;\gamma_{i},\;\gamma_{i}\gamma_{j},\;\gamma_{i}\gamma_{j}\gamma_{k}\;\mid\;1\leq i\leq n,1\leq i<j\leq n,1\leq i<j<k\leq n\;\}

Then we obtain a regular map τ\coR(M)m\tau\co R(M)\to\mathbb{C}^{m} defined by

ρ(τγ(ρ))γG\rho\mapsto(\tau_{\gamma}(\rho))_{\gamma\in G}

and it is shown in [15] that there is a natural identification τ(R(M))=X(M).\tau(R(M))=X(M). We therefore use the notation τ\coR(M)X(M)\tau\co R(M)\to X(M) for the natural map.

Projective characters have a similar interpretation, using the fact that the square of the trace of an element in PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) is well defined. Given a representation ρ¯\coπ1(M)PSL(2,),\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(M)\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}), its character is the map

χ¯ρ¯\coπ1(M) defined by γ(trρ¯(γ))2\overline{\chi}_{\overline{\rho}}\co\pi_{1}(M)\to\mathbb{C}\quad\text{ defined by }\quad\gamma\mapsto(\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(\gamma))^{2}

As above, let τ¯\coR¯(M)X¯(M)\overline{\tau}\co\overline{R}(M)\to\overline{X}(M) be the natural map from representations to characters.

Throughout this paper, we make use of the following trace identities. Let AA,BB,CSL(2,)C\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}). Then

trA1=\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}A^{-1}= trA\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}A (2.1)
tr(B1AB)=\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}(B^{-1}AB)= trA\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}A (2.2)
trAtrB=\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}A\operatorname{tr}B= tr(AB)+tr(AB1)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}(AB)+\operatorname{tr}(AB^{-1}) (2.3)
tr(ABC)=\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}(ABC)= trAtr(BC)+trBtr(AC)+tr(C)tr(AB)trAtrBtrCtr(ACB)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}A\operatorname{tr}(BC)+\operatorname{tr}B\operatorname{tr}(AC)+\operatorname{tr}(C)\operatorname{tr}(AB)-\operatorname{tr}A\operatorname{tr}B\operatorname{tr}C-\operatorname{tr}(ACB) (2.4)

Recall that a representation into SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) is irreducible if the only subspaces of 2\mathbb{C}^{2} invariant under its image are {0}\{0\} and 2.\mathbb{C}^{2}. Otherwise, a representation is reducible. If a representation is reducible, then it is conjugate into the upper triangular matrices, and hence there is an abelian representation with the same character. We make frequent use of the following results from [9]:

Lemma 4.

Suppose ρR(M).\rho\in R(M).

  1. 1.

    Then ρ\rho is reducible if and only if χρ(γ)=2\chi_{\rho}(\gamma)=2 for each element γ\gamma of the commutator subgroup of π1(M).\pi_{1}(M).

  2. 2.

    Suppose ρ\rho is irreducible and σR(M)\sigma\in R(M) satisfies χρ=χσ\chi_{\rho}=\chi_{\sigma}. Then ρ\rho and σ\sigma are conjugate and, in particular, σ\sigma is irreducible.

It follows from the above lemma that reducible representations form a closed subset of R(M)R(M), and irreducible representations form an open subset of R(M)R(M) with respect to the Euclidean topology. Moreover, the subset Xred(M)X(M)X^{\text{red}}(M)\subseteq X(M) of all characters of reducible representations is an affine algebraic set, and it is the same as the subset of all characters of abelian representations.

Let Xirr(M)X^{\text{irr}}(M) be the union of those Zariski components of X(M)X(M) that contain at least one (and hence a Zariski-open) subset of irreducible representations. The following is shown in [21, Lemma 3.9(iii)].

Lemma 5.

Suppose χXirr(M)Xred(M).\chi\in X^{\text{irr}}(M)\cap X^{\text{red}}(M). Then each representation with character χ\chi is reducible and there is a non-abelian reducible representation with this character.

The quotient QXirr(M)=Xirr(M)/H1(π1(M),2){QX}^{\text{irr}}(M)=X^{\text{irr}}(M)/H^{1}(\pi_{1}(M),\mathbb{Z}_{2}) is naturally identified with a union of topological components of the union X¯irr(M)\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M) of Zariski-components of X¯(M)\overline{X}(M) containing irreducible representations. The above lemma implies:

Corollary 6.

The map Xirr(M)X¯(M)X^{\text{irr}}(M)\to\overline{X}(M) is a branched covering map onto its image and its ramification points are characters of irreducible or non-abelian reducible representations in the set hS(h).\cup_{h}S(h).

A point of a complex affine algebraic set XX is a simple point if it is contained in a unique Zariski component X0X_{0} of XX and is a smooth point of X0.X_{0}.

Suppose the boundary of MM is a union of pairwise disjoint tori and the interior of MM admits a complete hyperbolic structure of finite volume. Then the holonomy for the complete hyperbolic structure defines a discrete and faithful PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character, which is unique up to complex conjugation (the ambiguity arises from the two different orientations possible on MM). Each Zariski component of X¯(M)\overline{X}(M) containing such a character is called a canonical component. The discrete and faithful characters lift to SL(2,),\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}), and again each Zariski component of X(M)X(M) containing at least one of these lifts is called a canonical component. It is shown in [21, Corollary 3.28] that the discrete and faithful characters are simple points of the canonical components. (The proof in [21] is given in the setting of SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})–characters, but descends to PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–characters.)

We end this section with a general discussion of the obstruction for lifting characters from X¯(M)\overline{X}(M) to X(M)X(M). See [17, §4], [7], [14, §4.5], or [15, §2] for details. Suppose ρ¯R¯(M).\overline{\rho}\in\overline{R}(M). Then ρ¯\overline{\rho} determines a Stiefel-Whitney class w2(ρ¯)H2(π1(M);2).w_{2}(\overline{\rho})\in H^{2}(\pi_{1}(M);\mathbb{Z}_{2}). This is zero if and only if ρ¯\overline{\rho} lifts to a representation ρR(M).\rho\in R(M). Moreover, the class is constant on topological components of R(M).R(M). In the case of interest in this paper, MM is aspherical and has boundary a single torus. Hence it is a K(π1(M),1)K(\pi_{1}(M),1) and so H2(π1(M);2)H2(M;2).H^{2}(\pi_{1}(M);\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong H^{2}(M;\mathbb{Z}_{2}). Moreover, Poincaré-Lefschetz duality implies H2(M;2)H1(M,M;2).H^{2}(M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong H_{1}(M,\partial M;\mathbb{Z}_{2}). In particular, if H1(M;2)=2H_{1}(M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\mathbb{Z}_{2}, then H2(π1(M);2)0H^{2}(\pi_{1}(M);\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong 0 and hence every representation lifts.

2.2 Once-punctured torus bundles

Throughout the remainder of this paper, MφM_{\varphi} denotes a compact core of the hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundle over S1S^{1} with monodromy φ\varphi, and SS denotes a fixed fibre of MφM_{\varphi} with the property that the monodromy is the identity on S.\partial S. For our fundamental groups, we assume that the base point lies in SMφ.\partial S\subset\partial M_{\varphi}. (Note that this notation is a slight variation on the introduction, where we referred to the non-compact manifolds.)

We also denote by φ\varphi the automorphism π1(S)π1(S)\pi_{1}(S)\to\pi_{1}(S) induced by the monodromy (this will cause no confusion in this paper). Let φ\coH1(S)H1(S)\varphi_{*}\co H_{1}(S)\to H_{1}(S) be the induced automorphism on homology. Since MφM_{\varphi} is hyperbolic, the associated monodromy is pseudo-Anosov and we have |trφ|>2.|\operatorname{tr}\varphi_{*}|>2.

The fundamental group of MφM_{\varphi} admits the presentation

π1(Mφ)=t,a,b|t1at=φ(a),t1bt=φ(b)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})=\langle\;t,a,b\;|\;t^{-1}at=\varphi(a),t^{-1}bt=\varphi(b)\;\rangle (2.5)

where tt is a meridian of MφM_{\varphi} (that is, it corresponds to the trace of the base point of π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) under the monodromy) and aa,bb are free generators of π1(S)\pi_{1}(S), chosen such that their commutator is the longitude of MφM_{\varphi} (that is, it corresponds to S\partial S).

We choose the basis of H1(S)H_{1}(S) corresponding to the generators aa,bb of π1(S),\pi_{1}(S), and often implicitly identify φ\varphi_{*} with its corresponding matrix representation, [φ]SL(2,).[\varphi_{*}]\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}). We may write φ\varphi as a product of the automorphisms α\alpha and β\beta induced by the right-handed Dehn-twists about the curves corresponding to aa and bb, since these generate the group of isotopy classes of orientation preserving homeomorphisms of the punctured torus. The automorphisms are defined as follows (where we also include β1\beta^{-1} for convenience):

α . . ={aabbaβ . . ={aab1bbβ1={aabbb\begin{matrix}\alpha\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=\begin{cases}a\rightarrow a\\ b\rightarrow ba\end{cases}&\beta\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=\begin{cases}a\rightarrow ab^{-1}\\ b\rightarrow b\end{cases}&\beta^{-1}=\begin{cases}a\rightarrow ab\\ b\rightarrow b\end{cases}\end{matrix}

This also gives a factorisation of φ\varphi_{*} in terms of the induced maps α\alpha_{*} and β\beta_{*} on homology. We have

𝙰 . . =[α]=(𝟷𝟷𝟶𝟷)and𝙱 . . =[β]=(𝟷𝟶𝟷𝟷)\tt{A}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=[\alpha_{*}]=\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}\qquad\text{and}\qquad\tt{B}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=[\beta_{*}]=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\ -1&1\end{pmatrix}

It is a result of Murasugi (see [8, Proposition 1.3.3]) that MφM_{\varphi} and MψM_{\psi} are homeomorphic if and only if [φ][\varphi_{*}] is conjugate to either [ψ][\psi_{*}] or [ψ1].[\psi_{*}^{-1}]. The matrices 𝙰\tt{A} and 𝙱\tt{B} generate SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}) and satisfy the relations

𝙰𝙱𝙰=𝙱𝙰𝙱,and(𝙰𝙱𝙰)𝟺=𝙸\tt{A}\tt{B}\tt{A}=\tt{B}\tt{A}\tt{B},\qquad\text{and}\qquad(\tt{A}\tt{B}\tt{A})^{4}=I

Using the second relation, we note that any element of SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}) can be written as a word in positive powers of 𝙰\tt{A} and 𝙱\tt{B} by substituting

𝙱𝟷=𝙰(𝙰𝙱𝙰)𝟹𝙰=𝙰𝟸𝙱𝙰𝟸𝙱𝙰𝟸𝙱𝙰𝟸,and𝙰𝟷=𝙱(𝙱𝙰𝙱)𝟹𝙱=𝙱𝟸𝙰𝙱𝟸𝙰𝙱𝟸𝙰𝙱𝟸\tt{B}^{-1}=\tt{A}(\tt{A}\tt{B}\tt{A})^{3}\tt{A}=\tt{A}^{2}\tt{B}\tt{A}^{2}\tt{B}\tt{A}^{2}\tt{B}\tt{A}^{2},\qquad\text{and}\qquad\tt{A}^{-1}=\tt{B}(\tt{B}\tt{A}\tt{B})^{3}\tt{B}=\tt{B}^{2}\tt{A}\tt{B}^{2}\tt{A}\tt{B}^{2}\tt{A}\tt{B}^{2}

Hence any element of SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}) (including the identity and powers of 𝙰\tt{A} or 𝙱\tt{B}) is conjugate to a word of the form

𝙰𝚊𝟷𝙱𝚋𝟷𝙰𝚊𝟸𝙱𝚋𝟸𝙰𝚊𝚗𝙱𝚋𝚗\tt{A}^{a_{1}}\tt{B}^{b_{1}}\tt{A}^{a_{2}}\tt{B}^{b_{2}}\cdots\tt{A}^{a_{n}}\tt{B}^{b_{n}} (2.6)

where n>0n>0 and the aia_{i} and bib_{i} are positive integers. Also note that (𝙰𝙱𝙰)𝟸=𝙸.(\tt{A}\tt{B}\tt{A})^{2}=-I. The manifold MφM_{\varphi} is determined up to homeomorphism by [φ]SL(2,).[\varphi_{*}]\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}).

The choice of a monodromy as a positive word in 𝙰\tt{A} and 𝙱\tt{B} is not unique, and there also is no simple criterion to ensure that the absolute value of the trace is greater than two. It is well-known (see [16, Proposition 2.1] that if |trφ|>2,|\operatorname{tr}\varphi_{*}|>2, then the conjugacy class of φ\varphi_{*} has a representative of the form

±𝙰𝚊𝟷𝙱𝚋𝟷𝙰𝚊𝟸𝙱𝚋𝟸𝙰𝚊𝚗𝙱𝚋𝚗\pm\tt{A}^{a_{1}}\tt{B}^{-b_{1}}\tt{A}^{a_{2}}\tt{B}^{-b_{2}}\cdots\tt{A}^{a_{n}}\tt{B}^{-b_{n}} (2.7)

where n>0n>0, the aia_{i} and bib_{i} are positive integers, and the sign equals the sign of the trace of φ.\varphi_{*}. This representative is unique up to cyclic permutation of the factors 𝙰𝚊𝚒𝙱𝚋𝚒.\tt{A}^{a_{i}}\tt{B}^{-b_{i}}.

If trφ2,\operatorname{tr}\varphi_{*}\neq 2, then H1(Mφ,)Tor(Mφ,).H_{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z})\cong\mathbb{Z}\oplus\text{Tor}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}). The parity of the trace contains information on the rank of homology with coefficients in 2=/2\mathbb{Z}_{2}=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}. We now describe this in more detail.

The natural homomorphism 2\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{Z}_{2} gives an epimorphism from H1(S)H1(S;2),H_{1}(S)\to H_{1}(S;\mathbb{Z}_{2}), and takes φ\varphi_{*} to a map φ2\coH1(S;2)H1(S;2).\varphi_{2}\co H_{1}(S;\mathbb{Z}_{2})\to H_{1}(S;\mathbb{Z}_{2}). On the level of matrices, [φ][φ2][\varphi_{*}]\mapsto[\varphi_{2}] under the natural epimorphism SL(2,)SL(2,2).\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})\to\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}_{2}). Since SL(2,2)Sym(3)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\operatorname{Sym}(3), the order o(φ2)o(\varphi_{2}) of φ2\varphi_{2} is either one, two or three. If φ2\varphi_{2} is not the identity, then it has order two if tr(φ2)=0\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{2})=0 and order three if tr(φ2)=1.\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{2})=1. In particular, o(α2)=o(β2)=2o(\alpha_{2})=o(\beta_{2})=2 and the word in Equation 2.6 maps to an element of order two if and only if the sum of all exponents is odd.

A direct calculation shows that b1(Mφ;2)=rankH1(Mφ,2)=4o(φ2){1,2,3}b_{1}(M_{\varphi};\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\operatorname{rank}H_{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})=4-o(\varphi_{2})\in\{1,2,3\}. To simplify notation, we write b1(φ)=b1(Mφ;2).{b_{1}(\varphi)}=b_{1}(M_{\varphi};\mathbb{Z}_{2}). The maximal rank three is attained if φ2\varphi_{2} is the identity, and hence for at least one of φ,\varphi, φ2\varphi^{2} or φ3.\varphi^{3}. Hence each once-punctured torus bundle is either 2-fold or 3–fold covered by a once-punctured torus bundle with homology with coefficients in 2\mathbb{Z}_{2} of maximal rank three.

We identify H1(Mφ,2)=Hom(π1(Mφ),2)=H1(Mφ,2),H_{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\operatorname{Hom}(\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}),\mathbb{Z}_{2})=H^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2}), and denote ε\coπ1(Mφ)2\varepsilon\co\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})\to\mathbb{Z}_{2} the homomorphism defined by

ε(t)=1,ε(a)=1,ε(b)=1\varepsilon(t)=-1,\qquad\varepsilon(a)=1,\qquad\varepsilon(b)=1

Let HHom(π1(Mφ),2)H\leq\operatorname{Hom}(\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}),\mathbb{Z}_{2}) be the subgroup consisting of all homomorphisms h\coπ1(Mφ)2h\co\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})\to\mathbb{Z}_{2} satisfying h(t)=1.h(t)=1. Note that HH has rank zero if tr(φ)\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{*}) is odd. In the following, we will make use of the splitting H1(Mφ,2)=εH.H^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\langle\varepsilon\rangle\oplus H.

2.3 Mutation

The once-puctured torus SS admits an orientation preserving involution ι\coSS\iota\co S\to S. If one cuts MφM_{\varphi} along SS and changes the monodromy by ι\iota, one obtains Mιφ.M_{\iota\varphi}. This process is called mutation. We have ι=I\iota_{*}=-I and

ι={aba1b1bbab1a1b1\begin{matrix}\iota=\begin{cases}\;a\rightarrow ba^{-1}b^{-1}\\ \;b\rightarrow bab^{-1}a^{-1}b^{-1}\end{cases}\end{matrix}

It follows from [24, Proposition 1] that there is a birational equivalence between Zariski components of X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) and X¯(Mιφ)\overline{X}(M_{\iota\varphi}) that contain the character of a representation ρ¯\overline{\rho} whose restriction to SS is irreducible and has trivial centraliser. In particular, if one is interested in the topology of generic components of X¯(Mφ),\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}), then one may restrict attention to bundles where the trace of φ\varphi_{*} is positive. Moreover, components where all irreducible representations have non-trivial centraliser can be understood directly (see Section 4.2).

In the case of SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})-character varieties, using the HNN-splitting for the fundamental group as in the proof of [24, Proposition 1], one sees that the restriction maps to the fibre result in the same fixed-point set; that is: Xφ(S)=Xιφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S)=X_{\iota\varphi}(S). However, the topology of the SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})-character varieties may be different. For instance, mutation of the figure eight knot complement (with φ=𝙰𝙱𝟷\varphi_{*}=\tt{A}\tt{B}^{-1}) along the fibre results in the associated sister manifold, and the smooth projective models of their canonical components are a torus and a sphere respectively [24, §3.4].

2.4 The character variety of the free group of rank two

The fundamental group of the once-punctured torus fibre SS is the free group a,b\langle a,b\rangle, and the character variety X(S)X(S) admits the affine coordinate (x,y,z)3,(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{C}^{3}, where

x=τa(ρ)y=τb(ρ)z=τab(ρ)x=\tau_{a}(\rho)\text{, }y=\tau_{b}(\rho)\text{, }z=\tau_{ab}(\rho)

as ρ\rho ranges over R(S)R(S). An elementary calculation, which goes back to classical work of Fricke and Klein, shows that X(S)=3.X(S)=\mathbb{C}^{3}.

Let ρR(S)\rho\in R(S) be an irreducible representation. Up to conjugation, ρ\rho is of the form:

ρ(a)=(s01s1)ρ(b)=(pu0p1)\begin{matrix}\rho(a)=\begin{pmatrix}s&0\\ 1&s^{-1}\end{pmatrix}&\rho(b)=\begin{pmatrix}p&u\\ 0&p^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\end{matrix} (2.8)

where u0u\neq 0.

If ρR(S)\rho\in R(S) is a reducible representation, then ρ\rho is conjugate to one of the following:

ρ(a)=(s00s1)ρ(b)=(pu0p1)\begin{matrix}\rho(a)=\begin{pmatrix}s&0\\ 0&s^{-1}\end{pmatrix}&\rho(b)=\begin{pmatrix}p&u\\ 0&p^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\end{matrix} (2.9)
ρ(a)=(±110±1)ρ(b)=(pu0p1)\begin{matrix}\rho(a)=\begin{pmatrix}\pm 1&1\\ 0&\pm 1\end{pmatrix}&\rho(b)=\begin{pmatrix}p&u\\ 0&p^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\end{matrix} (2.10)

Every point in Xred(S)X^{\text{red}}(S) is the character of a reducible character as in Equation 2.9 with u=0u=0. A representation ρR(S)\rho\in R(S) is reducible if and only if its character satisfies the equation

x2+y2+z2xyz4=0x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}-xyz-4=0

This is a consequence of the first part of Lemma 4. See [9] for details.

A parameterisation of the PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety X¯(S)\overline{X}(S) is described in [17, §4.2] as follows. Since the fundamental group of SS is free in two generators, every character in X¯(S)\overline{X}(S) lifts to X(S)X(S). By studying the invariant functions on X(S),X(S), one obtains an identification

X¯(S){(X,Y,Z,W)4W2=XYZ}\overline{X}(S)\cong\{(X,Y,Z,W)\in\mathbb{C}^{4}\mid W^{2}=XYZ\} (2.11)

where X=τa2,X=\tau_{a}^{2}, Y=τb2,Y=\tau_{b}^{2}, Z=τab2Z=\tau_{ab}^{2} and W=τaτbτab=12(τa2τb2+τab2τab12)W=\tau_{a}\tau_{b}\tau_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}(\tau_{a}^{2}\tau_{b}^{2}+\tau^{2}_{ab}-\tau^{2}_{ab^{-1}}) The four-fold branched covering map X(S)X¯(S)X(S)\to\overline{X}(S) thus has the following description in these coordinates:

X¯(S)(x,y,z)(x2,y2,z2,xyz)X¯(S)\overline{X}(S)\ni(x,y,z)\mapsto(x^{2},y^{2},z^{2},xyz)\in\overline{X}(S) (2.12)

2.5 Thurston’s dimension bound

Based on Thurston [23, Theorem 5.6], Culler and Shalen [9, Proposition 3.2.1]) provided the following result:

Proposition 7 (Thurston).

Let NN be a compact orientable 3-manifold. Let ρ\coπ1(N)SL(2,)\rho\co\pi_{1}(N)\to\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) be an irreducible representation such that for each torus component TT of N\partial N, ρ(im(π1(T)π1(N))){±1}.\rho(\operatorname{im}(\pi_{1}(T)\to\pi_{1}(N)))\not\subseteq\{\pm 1\}. Let R0R_{0} be an irreducible component of R(N)R(N) containing ρ\rho. Then X0=τ(R0)X_{0}=\tau(R_{0}) has dimension s3χ(N),\geq s-3\chi(N), where ss is the number of torus components of N.\partial N.

An analogous statement for representations into PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) is the following:

Proposition 8 (Thurston).

Let NN be a compact orientable 3-manifold. Let ρ¯0\coπ1(N)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}_{0}\co\pi_{1}(N)\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) be an irreducible representation such that for each torus component TT of N\partial N, ρ¯0(im(π1(T)π1(N)))\overline{\rho}_{0}(\operatorname{im}(\pi_{1}(T)\to\pi_{1}(N))) is non-trivial and not isomorphic with 22.\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2}. Let R¯0\overline{R}_{0} be an irreducible component of R¯(N)\overline{R}(N) containing ρ¯\overline{\rho}. Then X¯0=τ¯(R¯0)\overline{X}_{0}=\overline{\tau}(\overline{R}_{0}) has dimension s3χ(N),\geq s-3\chi(N), where ss is the number of torus components of N.\partial N.

The group 22\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2} does not occur as an exclusion in the statement of [23, Theorem 5.6] because Thurston was concerned with holonomies of hyperbolic structures and not arbitrary irreducible representations. Its appearance is rather natural in light of the following observations.

First, abelian subgroups of PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) either have a global fixed point in P1()P^{1}(\mathbb{C}), or they are isomorphic to the Klein four group 22\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2} (and are irreducible but elementary). Up to conjugacy, the latter has the non-trivial elements222Following standard convention, we write elements of PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) not as sets {±C}\{\pm C\} but rather in the form ±C\pm C.

κ1=±(0110)κ2=±(0ii0)κ3=±(i00i)\kappa_{1}=\pm\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ -1&0\end{pmatrix}\qquad\kappa_{2}=\pm\begin{pmatrix}0&i\\ i&0\end{pmatrix}\qquad\ \kappa_{3}=\pm\begin{pmatrix}i&0\\ 0&-i\end{pmatrix} (2.13)

In particular, for representations of μ,λ,\langle\mu,\lambda\rangle\cong\mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z}, the two cases are distinguished by trρ[μ,λ]=2\operatorname{tr}\rho[\mu,\lambda]=2 and trρ[μ,λ]=2,\operatorname{tr}\rho[\mu,\lambda]=-2, with the first equation determining a positive dimensional component in the PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety of \mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z} and the second an isolated point. It also follows that an equivalent requirement on ρ¯0\overline{\rho}_{0} in the statement of Proposition 8 is that

the image of each peripheral torus subgroup is non-trivial and reducible.

Second, each lift of the Klein four group to SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) is isomorphic to the quaternionic group and hence if a peripheral subgroup corresponding to a torus boundary component has this image under a projective representation, then it does not lift. This explains why this case does not appear in Proposition 7.

Proof of Proposition 8.

We follow the wording of the proof of [9, Proposition 3.2.1] closely, and combine this with observations from Thurston’s proof and results stated in [17].

By [17, Corollary 3.3.5], the conclusion is equivalent to the assertion that dimR¯0s3χ(N)+3.\dim\overline{R}_{0}\geq s-3\chi(N)+3. We shall prove this by induction on s.s. First suppose that s=0.s=0. We may assume that N\partial N\neq\emptyset since otherwise χ(N)=0\chi(N)=0 and there is nothing to prove. Now NN has the homotopy type of a finite 2–dimensional CW-complex KK with one 0–cell, and, say, mm 1–cells and nn 2–cells. Thus π1(N)\pi_{1}(N) has a presentation g1,,gmr1==rn=1.\langle g_{1},\ldots,g_{m}\mid r_{1}=\ldots=r_{n}=1\rangle. This presentation gives a natural identification of R¯(N)\overline{R}(N) with an algebraic subset of (PSL(2,))m.(\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}))^{m}.

Suppose ρ¯0(gi)=±Gi.\overline{\rho}_{0}(g_{i})=\pm G_{i}. Then for each rjr_{j} there exists ϵj{±1}\epsilon_{j}\in\{\pm 1\} such that

rj(G1,,Gm)=ϵj(1001)r_{j}(G_{1},\ldots,G_{m})=\epsilon_{j}\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}

Note that if ϵj=1\epsilon_{j}=1 for each j,j, then ρ¯0\overline{\rho}_{0} lifts to a representation to SL(2,).\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}). Now consider the coordinate ring [a1,b1,c1,d1,,am,bm,cm,dm].\mathbb{C}[a_{1},b_{1},c_{1},d_{1},\ldots,a_{m},b_{m},c_{m},d_{m}]. Let R¯0\overline{R}_{0} be the variety with ideal defined by the mm equations aicibidi=1a_{i}c_{i}-b_{i}d_{i}=1 and the 3n3n equations arising from the (1,1),(1,2)(1,1),(1,2) and (2,1)(2,1) entries of the mm matrix equations

rj((a1b1c1d1),,(ambmcmdm))=ϵj(1001)r_{j}\bigg{(}\begin{pmatrix}a_{1}&b_{1}\\ c_{1}&d_{1}\end{pmatrix},\ldots,\begin{pmatrix}a_{m}&b_{m}\\ c_{m}&d_{m}\end{pmatrix}\bigg{)}=\epsilon_{j}\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}

The equations given by the (2,2)(2,2) entries of the above matrix equations are a consequence of the other equations and the multiplicative property of determinants. Our set-up gives a natural algebraic embedding R¯0(PSL(2,))m\overline{R}_{0}\to(\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}))^{m} with image in R¯(N).\overline{R}(N). Hence we may identify R¯0\overline{R}_{0} with a subvariety of R¯(N)\overline{R}(N) containing ρ¯0.\overline{\rho}_{0}. Now

dimR¯04mm3n=3m3n=3χ(K)+3=3χ(N)+3\dim\overline{R}_{0}\geq 4m-m-3n=3m-3n=-3\chi(K)+3=-3\chi(N)+3

gives the desired conclusion.

Now suppose s>0.s>0. Let TT be a torus component of N.\partial N. Since ρ¯0(im(π1(T)π1(N))){1},\overline{\rho}_{0}(\operatorname{im}(\pi_{1}(T)\to\pi_{1}(N)))\not\subseteq\{1\}, there is απ1(N)\alpha\in\pi_{1}(N), represented by a simple closed curve on TT, such that ρ¯0(α)1PSL(2,).\overline{\rho}_{0}(\alpha)\neq 1\in\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}). Since ρ¯0\overline{\rho}_{0} is irreducible, there is γπ1(N)\gamma\in\pi_{1}(N) such that ρ¯0\overline{\rho}_{0} restricted to the subgroup generated by α\alpha and γ\gamma is irreducible.

Following Thurston, we show that γ\gamma can be chosen such that tr2ρ¯0(γ)4.\operatorname{tr}^{2}\overline{\rho}_{0}(\gamma)\neq 4. Hence suppose that tr2ρ¯0(γ)=4.\operatorname{tr}^{2}\overline{\rho}_{0}(\gamma)=4. Since ρ¯0(α)\overline{\rho}_{0}(\alpha) and ρ¯0(γ)\overline{\rho}_{0}(\gamma) have no common fixed point on P1(),P^{1}(\mathbb{C}), it follows that ρ¯0(γ)\overline{\rho}_{0}(\gamma) is parabolic and has a unique fixed point on P1().P^{1}(\mathbb{C}). We may conjugate ρ¯0\overline{\rho}_{0} such that

ρ¯0(γ)=±(1101)andρ¯0(α)=±(abcd)\overline{\rho}_{0}(\gamma)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}\qquad\text{and}\qquad\overline{\rho}_{0}(\alpha)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\ c&d\end{pmatrix}

where c0.c\neq 0. Then

ρ¯0(αγ2n)=±(ab+2nacd+2nc)\overline{\rho}_{0}(\alpha\gamma^{2n})=\pm\begin{pmatrix}a&b+2na\\ c&d+2nc\end{pmatrix}

Hence tr2ρ¯0(αγ2n)=(a+d+2nc)2\operatorname{tr}^{2}\overline{\rho}_{0}(\alpha\gamma^{2n})=(a+d+2nc)^{2} and since c0c\neq 0 we may choose nn such that tr2ρ¯0(αγ2n)\operatorname{tr}^{2}\overline{\rho}_{0}(\alpha\gamma^{2n}) does not equal 4. Now the parabolic ρ¯0(γ2n)\overline{\rho}_{0}(\gamma^{2n}) has the same fixed point on P1()P^{1}(\mathbb{C}) as ρ¯(γ).\overline{\rho}(\gamma). Hence ρ¯0(α)\overline{\rho}_{0}(\alpha) and ρ¯0(γ2n)\overline{\rho}_{0}(\gamma^{2n}) have no common fixed point on P1(),P^{1}(\mathbb{C}), and so the representation restricted to α,γ2n=α,αγ2n\langle\alpha,\gamma^{2n}\rangle=\langle\alpha,\alpha\gamma^{2n}\rangle is irreducible. This completes the argument that we may choose γ\gamma such that tr2ρ¯0(γ)4.\operatorname{tr}^{2}\overline{\rho}_{0}(\gamma)\neq 4.

Choose a base point for the fundamental group of NN based on TT and thus represent γ\gamma by a simple closed curve based at this point. Drilling out a regular open neighbourhood of γ\gamma gives a submanifold MM of NN such that NN is obtained by adding a 2–handle to a genus two boundary component SS of M.M. We may choose a standard basis α,β,γ,δ\alpha^{\prime},\beta^{\prime},\gamma^{\prime},\delta^{\prime} of π1(S)\pi_{1}(S) such that α\alpha^{\prime} and γ\gamma^{\prime} are mapped to α\alpha and γ\gamma under the natural surjection i\coπ1(M)π1(N)i_{*}\co\pi_{1}(M)\to\pi_{1}(N); the 2–handle is attached to SS along a simple closed curve that represents the conjugacy class of δ;\delta; and the relation for π1(S)\pi_{1}(S) is given by [α,β]=[γ,δ].[\alpha^{\prime},\beta^{\prime}]=[\gamma^{\prime},\delta^{\prime}].

The representation ρ¯0=ρ¯0i\coπ1(M)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}^{\prime}_{0}=\overline{\rho}_{0}\circ i_{*}\co\pi_{1}(M)\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) is irreducible since ii_{*} is a surjection. By the induction hypothesis, there is an irreducible component R¯0\overline{R}^{\prime}_{0} of R¯(M)\overline{R}(M) that contains ρ¯0\overline{\rho}^{\prime}_{0} and has dimension

dimR¯0(s1)3χ(M)+3=s3χ(N)+5\dim\overline{R}^{\prime}_{0}\geq(s-1)-3\chi(M)+3=s-3\chi(N)+5

since χ(M)=χ(N)1.\chi(M)=\chi(N)-1. Let WW be the intersection of R¯0\overline{R}^{\prime}_{0} with the subvariety defined by the two equations

tr2ρ¯(δ)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}^{2}\overline{\rho}(\delta^{\prime}) =4\displaystyle=4 (2.14)
trρ¯[γ,δ]\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}[\gamma^{\prime},\delta^{\prime}] =2\displaystyle=2 (2.15)

By [17, §2.4], these are well defined invariant functions on R¯0.\overline{R}^{\prime}_{0}. Then the dimension of each component of WW is at least s3χ(N)+3.s-3\chi(N)+3.

We first show that ρ¯0\overline{\rho}^{\prime}_{0} is contained in W.W. The kernel of ii_{*} is the normal closure of δ\delta^{\prime}, and hence ρ¯0(δ)=1.\overline{\rho}^{\prime}_{0}(\delta^{\prime})=1. This implies tr2ρ¯0(δ)=4\operatorname{tr}^{2}\overline{\rho}^{\prime}_{0}(\delta^{\prime})=4 and trρ¯0[γ,δ]=2.\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}^{\prime}_{0}[\gamma^{\prime},\delta^{\prime}]=2. Hence there is an irreducible component R¯0\overline{R}_{0} of WW that contains ρ¯0.\overline{\rho}^{\prime}_{0}. To obtain the desired conclusion that we can identify R¯0\overline{R}_{0} with a subvariety of R¯(N)\overline{R}(N) it remains to show that all representations ρ¯R¯0\overline{\rho}\in\overline{R}_{0} near ρ¯0\overline{\rho}_{0} satisfy ρ¯(δ)=1.\overline{\rho}(\delta^{\prime})=1.

Hence suppose that for ρ¯R¯0\overline{\rho}\in\overline{R}_{0} near ρ¯0,\overline{\rho}_{0}, we have ρ¯(δ)1.\overline{\rho}(\delta^{\prime})\neq 1. Then ρ¯(δ)\overline{\rho}(\delta^{\prime}) is a non-trivial parabolic. Since trρ¯[γ,δ]=2,\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}[\gamma^{\prime},\delta^{\prime}]=2, it follows that ρ¯(δ)\overline{\rho}(\delta^{\prime}) and ρ¯(γ)\overline{\rho}(\gamma^{\prime}) share a fixed point on P1().P^{1}(\mathbb{C}). Since ρ¯\overline{\rho} is near ρ¯0,\overline{\rho}_{0}, ρ¯(γ)\overline{\rho}(\gamma^{\prime}) is not a parabolic. Hence ρ¯[γ,δ]\overline{\rho}[\gamma^{\prime},\delta^{\prime}] is a non-trivial parabolic that has the same fixed point as ρ¯(δ)\overline{\rho}(\delta^{\prime}) and shares a fixed point with ρ¯(γ).\overline{\rho}(\gamma^{\prime}).

Since [γ,δ]=[α,β][\gamma^{\prime},\delta^{\prime}]=[\alpha^{\prime},\beta^{\prime}] in π1(M),\pi_{1}(M), we have trρ¯[α,β]=±2.\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}[\alpha^{\prime},\beta^{\prime}]=\pm 2. Since ρ¯\overline{\rho} is near ρ¯0,\overline{\rho}_{0}, it follows from our hypothesis on the peripheral subgroups that trρ¯[α,β]=2.\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}[\alpha^{\prime},\beta^{\prime}]=2. Hence ρ¯(α)\overline{\rho}(\alpha^{\prime}) and ρ¯(β)\overline{\rho}(\beta^{\prime}) have a common fixed point on P1().P^{1}(\mathbb{C}). Hence the unique fixed point of the non-trivial parabolic ρ¯[γ,δ]=ρ¯[α,β]\overline{\rho}[\gamma^{\prime},\delta^{\prime}]=\overline{\rho}[\alpha^{\prime},\beta^{\prime}] is in common with both ρ¯(γ)\overline{\rho}(\gamma^{\prime}) and ρ¯(α)\overline{\rho}(\alpha^{\prime}) and thus trρ¯[α,γ]=2.\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}[\alpha^{\prime},\gamma^{\prime}]=2. But this is not possible since ρ¯\overline{\rho} is near ρ¯0\overline{\rho}^{\prime}_{0}, and ρ¯0\overline{\rho}^{\prime}_{0} restricted to the subgroup generated by α\alpha^{\prime} and γ\gamma^{\prime} is irreducible. This is the final contradiction to our hypothesis that ρ¯(δ)1.\overline{\rho}(\delta^{\prime})\neq 1.

Example 9.

The PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety of the Whitehead link complement contains 0–dimensional components that satisfy the condition that all peripheral subgroups have image isomorphic with 22.\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2}. See [25, Appendix C].

Example 10.

Baker and Petersen [2, Theorem 7.6] give zero-dimensional components in character varieties of once-punctured torus bundles that appear to contradict Proposition 8. A less sophisticated approach than given in [2] shows that these characters indeed lie on one-dimensional components. The presentation for the fundamental group of MnM_{n} with monodromy φn=𝙰𝙱𝚗+𝟸\varphi_{n}=\tt{A}\tt{B}^{n+2} is given in [2, §2.1] as

Γn=α,ββn=α1βα2βα1\Gamma_{n}=\langle\alpha,\beta\mid\beta^{-n}=\alpha^{-1}\beta\alpha^{2}\beta\alpha^{-1}\rangle

where a meridian is the element μ=βα\mu=\beta\alpha and a corresponding longitude is λ=(αβα1)β(αβα1)1β1\lambda=(\alpha\beta\alpha^{-1})\beta(\alpha\beta\alpha^{-1})^{-1}\beta^{-1} (see [2, Lemma 2.3]). Suppose |n|2|n|\geq 2 is even. Then

ρ¯(α)=±(yxn11+x2+n(1x2)(1xn)y)andρ¯(β)=±(x00x1)\overline{\rho}(\alpha)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}-yx^{n}&-1\\ \frac{1+x^{2+n}}{(1-x^{2})(1-x^{n})}&y\end{pmatrix}\qquad\text{and}\qquad\overline{\rho}(\beta)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}x&0\\ 0&x^{-1}\end{pmatrix}

gives a representation of Γn\Gamma_{n} into PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) that does not lift to SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) if

x2+xn=y2xn(1x2)(1xn)x^{2}+x^{n}=y^{2}x^{n}(1-x^{2})(1-x^{n})

Indeed, the above equation is equivalent to the determinant condition for ρ¯(α)\overline{\rho}(\alpha), and it is also a sufficient condition for ρ¯(α)ρ¯(β)nρ¯(α)+ρ¯(β)ρ¯(α)2ρ¯(β)=0\overline{\rho}(\alpha)\overline{\rho}(\beta)^{-n}\overline{\rho}(\alpha)+\overline{\rho}(\beta)\overline{\rho}(\alpha)^{2}\overline{\rho}(\beta)=0 (noting that both summands are independent of the choice of sign).

The alleged isolated points in [2, Theorem 7.6] correspond to the points (x0,y0)(x_{0},y_{0}) satisfying x0n=1x_{0}^{n}=-1 and y0=±12y_{0}=\pm\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} on this curve. At each of these points, the image of the commutator of meridian and longitude has trace equal to two (hence the representation restricted to the peripheral subgroup is reducible) and the image of the meridian has trace ±12(x0+x01)\pm\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x_{0}+x_{0}^{-1}) (hence the representation restricted to the peripheral subgroup is non-trivial since the absolute value of the trace is bounded from above by 2\sqrt{2}). The triple of squares of traces is indeed as stated in [2, Theorem 7.6]

(tr2ρ¯(α),tr2ρ¯(β),tr2ρ¯(αβ))=( 2,(x0+x01)2,12(x0+x01)2)(\;\operatorname{tr}^{2}\overline{\rho}(\alpha),\;\operatorname{tr}^{2}\overline{\rho}(\beta),\;\operatorname{tr}^{2}\overline{\rho}(\alpha\beta)\;)=(\;2,\;(x_{0}+x_{0}^{-1})^{2},\;\frac{1}{2}(x_{0}+x_{0}^{-1})^{2}\;)

We have intentionally used the notation from [2] in this example. With respect to the notation of Equation 2.5, one has t=μ1t=\mu^{-1}, a=β1μβμ1a=\beta^{-1}\mu\beta\mu^{-1} and b=βb=\beta and

π1(Mn)=t,a,b|t1at=a(a1b1)n+2,t1bt=ba\pi_{1}(M_{n})=\langle\;t,a,b\;|\;t^{-1}at=a(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n+2},\;t^{-1}bt=ba\;\rangle

3 Character varieties of once-punctured torus bundles

We continue with the notation introduced in Section 2 and analyse the SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character varieties of once-punctured torus bundles using the restriction to the fibre.

3.1 The restriction map

The fundamental group of a once-punctured torus bundle MφM_{\varphi} with monodromy φ\varphi is

π1(Mφ)=t,a,b|t1at=φ(a),t1bt=φ(b)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})=\langle t,a,b|t^{-1}at=\varphi(a),t^{-1}bt=\varphi(b)\rangle

Throughout, we assume [φ]=(k1k2k3k4)SL(2,)[\varphi_{*}]=\begin{pmatrix}k_{1}&k_{2}\\ k_{3}&k_{4}\end{pmatrix}\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}). Since we restrict our attention to hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundles, we have |trφ|=|k1+k4|>2|\operatorname{tr}\varphi_{*}|=|k_{1}+k_{4}|>2.

As in Section 2.1, X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) admits the affine coordinate (x,y,z,u,v,w,q)(x,y,z,u,v,w,q) in 7\mathbb{C}^{7} where

x=τa(ρ)y=τb(ρ)z=τab(ρ)u=τt(ρ)v=τat(ρ)w=τbt(ρ)q=τabt(ρ)x=\tau_{a}(\rho)\text{, }y=\tau_{b}(\rho)\text{, }z=\tau_{ab}(\rho)\text{, }u=\tau_{t}(\rho)\text{, }v=\tau_{at}(\rho)\text{, }w=\tau_{bt}(\rho)\text{, }q=\tau_{abt}(\rho)

for ρR(Mφ)\rho\in R(M_{\varphi}). Consider the restriction map

r:X(Mφ)\displaystyle r:X(M_{\varphi}) X(S)\displaystyle\to X(S)
(x,y,z,u,v,w,q)\displaystyle(x,y,z,u,v,w,q) (x,y,z)\displaystyle\mapsto(x,y,z)

Each representation ρR(Mφ)\rho\in R(M_{\varphi}) satisfies

ρ(t)1ρ(γ)ρ(t)=ρ(φ(γ))γπ1(S)\rho(t)^{-1}\rho(\gamma)\rho(t)=\rho(\varphi(\gamma))\text{, }\forall\gamma\in\pi_{1}(S)

Taking the traces on both sides,

tr(ρ(γ))=tr(ρ(φ(γ))γπ1(S)\operatorname{tr}(\rho(\gamma))=\operatorname{tr}(\rho(\varphi(\gamma))\text{, }\forall\gamma\in\pi_{1}(S)

Since χρ\chi_{\rho} in X(S)X(S) is uniquely determined by trρ(a)\operatorname{tr}\,\rho(a), trρ(b)\operatorname{tr}\,\rho(b) and trρ(ab)\operatorname{tr}\,\rho(ab), the image of rr satisfies

im(r)Xφ(S) . . ={(trρ(a),trρ(b),trρ(ab))|trρ(a)\displaystyle\operatorname{im}\,(r)\subseteq X_{\varphi}(S)\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=\{(\operatorname{tr}\rho(a),\operatorname{tr}\rho(b),\operatorname{tr}\rho(ab))|\operatorname{tr}\,\rho(a) =trρ(φ(a)),\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\,\rho(\varphi_{*}(a)),
trρ(b)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\rho(b) =trρ(φ(b)),\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(\varphi_{*}(b)),
tr(ρ(ab))\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}(\rho(ab)) =trρ(φ(ab)),ρR(S)}X(S)\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(\varphi_{*}(ab)),\,\rho\in R(S)\}\subseteq X(S)

Since trρ(φ(a))\operatorname{tr}\rho(\varphi_{*}(a)), trρ(φ(b))\operatorname{tr}\rho(\varphi_{*}(b)) and trρ(φ(ab))\operatorname{tr}\rho(\varphi_{*}(ab)) can be written as polynomials with rational coefficients in x=trρ(a)x=\operatorname{tr}\rho(a), y=trρ(b)y=\operatorname{tr}\rho(b) and z=trρ(ab)z=\operatorname{tr}\rho(ab), and since φ\varphi_{*} is an automorphism of the free group in two letters, it follows that there is a polynomial automorphism φ¯\co33\overline{\varphi}\co\mathbb{C}^{3}\to\mathbb{C}^{3} induced by φ\varphi with the property that Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) is the set of fixed points of this polynomial automorphism:

Xφ(S)={(x,y,z)3|(x,y,z)=φ¯(x,y,z)}X_{\varphi}(S)=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{C}^{3}|(x,y,z)=\overline{\varphi}(x,y,z)\}
Lemma 11.

We have im(r)=Xφ(S).\operatorname{im}(r)=X_{\varphi}(S). Moreover, there are at most finitely many reducible characters in Xφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S).

Proof.

By definition, im(r)Xφ(S)\operatorname{im}(r)\subseteq X_{\varphi}(S) and for the first statement, it remains to show that the map is surjective.

If (x,y,z)Xφ(S)(x,y,z)\in X_{\varphi}(S) is the character of an irreducible representation, then (x,y,z)im(r)(x,y,z)\in\operatorname{im}(r) follows from the presentation of the group and the second statement in Lemma 4. We analyse this situation in more detail in Lemma 18.

Hence suppose (x,y,z)Xφ(S)(x,y,z)\in X_{\varphi}(S) is the character of a reducible representation. Since this is also the character of an abelian representation, we may assume that it is the character of the representation ρ\rho defined by

ρ(a)=(s00s1)ρ(b)=(p00p1)\rho(a)=\begin{pmatrix}s&0\\ 0&s^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\qquad\rho(b)=\begin{pmatrix}p&0\\ 0&p^{-1}\end{pmatrix}

Since ρ(φ(a))\rho(\varphi_{*}(a)) can be viewed as a word in these matrices, it is also diagonal. Similarly for ρ(φ(b)).\rho(\varphi_{*}(b)). Hence

ρ(φ(a))=(s100s11)ρ(φ(b))=(p100p11)\rho(\varphi_{*}(a))=\begin{pmatrix}s_{1}&0\\ 0&s_{1}^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\qquad\rho(\varphi_{*}(b))=\begin{pmatrix}p_{1}&0\\ 0&p_{1}^{-1}\end{pmatrix}

Then the three trace conditions defining Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) imply that we have the mutually exclusive cases:

  1. (1)

    (s1,p1)=(s,p)(s_{1},p_{1})=(s,p) or

  2. (2)

    (s1,p1)=(s1,p1)(s_{1},p_{1})=(s^{-1},p^{-1}) with either ss1s\neq s^{-1} or pp1p\neq p^{-1} (equivalently, s±1s\neq\pm 1 or p±1)p\neq\pm 1)

In order to show that (x,y,z)im(r),(x,y,z)\in\operatorname{im}(r), we need to determine TSL(2,)T\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) such that T1ρT=ρφ.T^{-1}\rho T=\rho\varphi_{*}.

In the first case, this is satisfied by T=(m00m1)T=\begin{pmatrix}m&0\\ 0&m^{-1}\end{pmatrix} for arbitrary m.m\in\mathbb{C}^{*}. We note that we have ρ(φ(γ))=ρ(γ)\rho(\varphi_{*}(\gamma))=\rho(\gamma) for all γπ1(S),\gamma\in\pi_{1}(S), and the resulting representation of π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) is abelian and hence reducible.

In the second case, this is satisfied by T=(0110).T=\begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\ 1&0\end{pmatrix}. We note that we have ρ(φ(γ))=ρ(γ)1\rho(\varphi_{*}(\gamma))=\rho(\gamma)^{-1} for all γπ1(S),\gamma\in\pi_{1}(S), and the resulting representation of π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) is irreducible and corresponds to a binary dihedral representation in R(Mφ(λ))R(Mφ)R(M_{\varphi}(\lambda))\subset R(M_{\varphi}) (see [4, Section 4]).

Hence in either case, this shows that (x,y,z)im(r).(x,y,z)\in\operatorname{im}(r).

We now prove the second statement. The monodromy φ=(k1k2k3k4)SL(2,)\varphi_{*}=\begin{pmatrix}k_{1}&k_{2}\\ k_{3}&k_{4}\end{pmatrix}\in SL(2,\mathbb{Z}) satisfies |k1+k4|>2|k_{1}+k_{4}|>2. The pair of eigenvalues of the abelian representation ρ\rho as above satisfies (sk1pk3,sk2pk4)=(s±1,p±1)(s^{k_{1}}p^{k_{3}},s^{k_{2}}p^{k_{4}})=(s^{\pm 1},p^{\pm 1}). This implies that each of ss and pp raised to the power of (k1±1)(k4±1)k2k3(k_{1}\pm 1)(k_{4}\pm 1)-k_{2}k_{3} equals one. There are finitely many solutions unless (k1±1)(k4±1)=k2k3.(k_{1}\pm 1)(k_{4}\pm 1)=k_{2}k_{3}. Using the determinant condition, this is equivalent with k1+k4=2,k_{1}+k_{4}=\mp 2, which contradicts the trace condition for φ.\varphi_{*}. This proves the second statement. ∎

Scholion 12.

The irreducible characters in X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) that map to reducible characters in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) are precisely the characters of the binary dihedral characters in X(Mφ(λ))X(Mφ).X(M_{\varphi}(\lambda))\subset X(M_{\varphi}).

3.2 The origin and the coordinate axes

For α\alpha and β1\beta^{-1}, the induced polynomial automorphisms are

α¯(x,y,z)=(x,z,xzy)andβ1¯(x,y,z)=(z,y,yzx)\overline{\alpha}(x,y,z)=(\;x,\;z,\;xz-y\;)\quad\text{and}\quad\overline{\beta^{-1}}(x,y,z)=(\;z,\;y,\;yz-x\;)

respectively. Given the standard representative φ\varphi_{*} as in Equation 2.7, the associated polynomial automorphism φ¯\co33\overline{\varphi}\co\mathbb{C}^{3}\to\mathbb{C}^{3} induced by φ\varphi factors in terms of ι¯,\overline{\iota}, α¯\overline{\alpha} and β1¯.\overline{\beta^{-1}}.

This implies that the origin (0,0,0)X(S)(0,0,0)\in X(S) is always contained in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) for any Mφ.M_{\varphi}. Restricted to S,S, any representation with this character has image in SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) isomorphic to the quaternionic group, and image isomorphic to the Klein four group under the quotient map to PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) (see Equation 4.4 below).

The examples in Section 5.4 show that the component containing (0,0,0)(0,0,0) in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) may have arbitrarily large genus if b1(φ)3.b_{1}(\varphi)\neq 3. We now show that in the maximal rank case, at least one of the coordinate axes is always contained in Xφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S).

For all x,y,zx,y,z\in\mathbb{C}, we have ι¯(x,y,z)=(x,y,z)\overline{\iota}(x,y,z)=(x,y,z) and

{α¯(x,0,0)=(x,0,0)α¯(0,y,0)=(0,0,y)α¯(0,0,z)=(0,z,0){β1¯(x,0,0)=(0,0,x)β1¯(0,y,0)=(0,y,0)β1¯(0,0,z)=(z,0,0)\begin{matrix}\begin{cases}\overline{\alpha}(x,0,0)=(x,0,0)\\ \overline{\alpha}(0,y,0)=(0,0,-y)\\ \overline{\alpha}(0,0,z)=(0,z,0)\end{cases}&\begin{cases}\overline{\beta^{-1}}(x,0,0)=(0,0,-x)\\ \overline{\beta^{-1}}(0,y,0)=(0,y,0)\\ \overline{\beta^{-1}}(0,0,z)=(z,0,0)\end{cases}\end{matrix}

Denote the xx, yy, and zz coordinate axes in 3\mathbb{C}^{3} by L1,L_{1}, L2L_{2} and L3L_{3} respectively. Then α¯\overline{\alpha} and β1¯\overline{\beta^{-1}} permute these three lines, with a sign change for exactly one of them. Indeed, we may assume that the permutation of the lines corresponds to the permutation of the indices of the lines induced by [α2][\alpha_{2}] and [β2][\beta_{2}] via the isomorphism SL(2,2)Sym(3)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\operatorname{Sym}(3).

Lemma 13.

If H1(Mφ,2)23H_{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{3}, then Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) contains either exactly one or all three of L1L_{1},L2L_{2} and L3L_{3}. Moreover, Xφ2(S)X_{\varphi^{2}}(S) contains all three lines.

Proof.

Since ι¯(x,y,z)=(x,y,z),\overline{\iota}(x,y,z)=(x,y,z), it suffices to restrict to the case where trφ>0.\operatorname{tr}\varphi_{*}>0. We may assume that φ\varphi_{*} is given as in Equation 2.7. Note that H1(Mφ,2)23H_{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{3} is equivalent to o(φ2)=1o(\varphi_{2})=1. Then

Id=[φ2]=[α2]a1[β2]b1[α2]a2[β2]b2[α2]an[β2]bn\text{Id}=[\varphi_{2}]=[\alpha_{2}]^{a_{1}}[\beta_{2}]^{-b_{1}}[\alpha_{2}]^{a_{2}}[\beta_{2}]^{-b_{2}}\cdots[\alpha_{2}]^{a_{n}}[\beta_{2}]^{-b_{n}}

It follows from the description of the action of α2,β2\alpha_{2},\beta_{2} on L1L_{1},L2L_{2} and L3L_{3}, that the induced polynomial automorphism φ¯\overline{\varphi} stabilises each line. Hence, φ¯(Li)=Li\overline{\varphi}(L_{i})=L_{i}. Note that when α¯\overline{\alpha} (resp. β1¯\overline{\beta^{-1}}) permutes the lines, the sign of exactly one line changes. Denote the number of sign changes of LiL_{i} by nin_{i}. We have

{φ¯(x,0,0)=((1)n1x,0,0)φ¯(0,y,0)=(0,(1)n2y,0)φ¯(0,0,z)=(0,0,(1)n3z)\begin{cases}\overline{\varphi}(x,0,0)=((-1)^{n_{1}}x,0,0)\\ \overline{\varphi}(0,y,0)=(0,(-1)^{n_{2}}y,0)\\ \overline{\varphi}(0,0,z)=(0,0,(-1)^{n_{3}}z)\end{cases}

As o(φ2)=1o(\varphi_{2})=1, the number n1+n2+n3=i=1n(ai+bi)n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(a_{i}+b_{i}) is also even. Hence at least one nin_{i} is even and at least one coordinate is fixed by φ¯\overline{\varphi}. We also see that either exactly one nin_{i} is even or all three nin_{i} are even. This proves the first statement. The second statement follows from the observation that

{φ¯2(x,0,0)=((1)2n1x,0,0)=(x,0,0)φ¯2(0,y,0)=(0,(1)2n2y,0)=(0,y,0)φ¯2(0,0,z)=(0,0,(1)2n3z)=)0,0,z)\begin{cases}\overline{\varphi}^{2}(x,0,0)=((-1)^{2n_{1}}x,0,0)=(x,0,0)\\ \overline{\varphi}^{2}(0,y,0)=(0,(-1)^{2n_{2}}y,0)=(0,y,0)\\ \overline{\varphi}^{2}(0,0,z)=(0,0,(-1)^{2n_{3}}z)=)0,0,z)\end{cases}

This completes the proof of the lemma. ∎

If b1(Mφ)=1b_{1}(M_{\varphi})=1, then [φ2][\varphi_{2}] has order 3.3. So φ¯\overline{\varphi} does not stabilise any axis and LiXφ(S)={(0,0,0)}L_{i}\cap X_{\varphi}(S)=\{(0,0,0)\} for each i.i.

We also note that for any φ,\varphi, Xφ6(S)X_{\varphi^{6}}(S) contains all three lines.

As a last observation, we add that (x,0,0)L1(x,0,0)\in L_{1} is a reducible character if and only if x2=4.x^{2}=4. In this case, the extension to π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) is either reducible or binary dihedral according to 12.

3.3 Dimensions and cyclic covers

Proposition 14.

Let MφM_{\varphi} be a hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundle. Then every Zariski component of X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) is one-dimensional.

Proof.

We first note that since H1(Mφ,)Tor(Mφ,)H_{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z})\cong\mathbb{Z}\oplus\text{Tor}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}), every component containing only reducible characters is one-dimensional and of genus zero.

Suppose XX(Mφ)X\subset X(M_{\varphi}) is a component containing the character of the irreducible representation ρR(Mφ).\rho\in R(M_{\varphi}). Since MφM_{\varphi} does not contain a closed essential surface (see [8, 12]), the dimension of XX is at most one.

We now appeal to a result due to Thurston (see Proposition 7) which implies that the dimension of XX is at least one if ρ(π1(M))\rho(\pi_{1}(\partial M)) is not contained in {±I}.\{\pm I\}. Hence suppose that ρ(π1(M))\rho(\pi_{1}(\partial M)) is contained in {±I};\{\pm I\}; such a representation is said to have trivial peripheral holonomy. Since the longitude is a1b1aba^{-1}b^{-1}ab, we note that ρ\rho is reducible if ρ(t)=±I\rho(t)=\pm I and ρ(a1b1ab)=I.\rho(a^{-1}b^{-1}ab)=I. Hence ρ(a1b1ab)=I.\rho(a^{-1}b^{-1}ab)=-I. An elementary calculation setting ρ(a)\rho(a) and ρ(b)\rho(b) as in Equation 2.8 and solving ρ(ab)=ρ(ba)\rho(ab)=-\rho(ba) shows that the resulting representation satisfies trρ(a)=trρ(b)=trρ(ab)=0\operatorname{tr}\rho(a)=\operatorname{tr}\rho(b)=\operatorname{tr}\rho(ab)=0 and hence is unique up to conjugation.

In particular, ρ\rho descends to an abelian irreducible representation ρ¯\coπ1(M)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(\partial M)\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) with ρ¯(t)={±I}\overline{\rho}(t)=\{\pm I\} and image isomorphic to the Klein four group, generated by the image of π1(S).\pi_{1}(S). It follows that H1(Mφ;2)23.H_{1}(M_{\varphi};\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{3}. In particular, Lemma 13 implies that the character of ρ\rho is contained in at least one one-dimensional component containing irreducible representations. ∎

The natural nn–fold cyclic covering MφnMφM_{\varphi^{n}}\to M_{\varphi} gives an embedding of π1(Mφn)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi^{n}}) as a subgroup of index nn in π1(Mφ).\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}). Hence the restriction map induces a regular map X(Mφ)X(Mφn).X(M_{\varphi})\to X(M_{\varphi^{n}}). Example 16 below shows that this may not be surjective. We can say more about this map:

Proposition 15.

The natural nn–fold cyclic covering MφnMφM_{\varphi^{n}}\to M_{\varphi} induces a regular map X(Mφ)X(Mφn)X(M_{\varphi})\to X(M_{\varphi^{n}}) of degree at most two. If nn is odd, then the degree is one. Moreover, the map takes canonical components to canonical components.

Proof.

The first sentence follows directly from [4, Corollary 3.5], and the second from [4, Proposition 3.3]. The last sentence follows since the restriction of a discrete and faithful representation to a subgroup gives a discrete and faithful representation of that subgroup. ∎

We conclude with an example that ties the discussion in this section together and exhibits different behaviours.

Example 16.

Let φ=α2β2.\varphi=\alpha^{2}\beta^{-2}. Then

[φ]=A2B2=(5221)[\varphi_{*}]=A^{2}B^{-2}=\begin{pmatrix}5&2\\ 2&1\end{pmatrix}

and hence H1(Mφ;2)23H1(Mφ2;2).H_{1}(M_{\varphi};\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{3}\cong H_{1}(M_{\varphi^{2}};\mathbb{Z}_{2}). A computation with the set-up in the proof of Proposition 14 shows that X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) contains no characters of representations with trivial peripheral holonomy. Indeed, X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) contains such a component, but it does not lift. This example fits in the family given in [17].

A calculation shows that Xφ(S)=VL3X_{\varphi}(S)=V\cup L_{3}, where VV is an irreducible curve, and X(Mφ)=VL3X(M_{\varphi})=V^{\prime}\cup L^{\prime}_{3} also has two components. The preimage VV^{\prime} of VV is the canonical curve and the preimage L3L^{\prime}_{3} of L3L_{3} has the property that the trace of the meridian is identically zero on it (hence the meridian maps to an element of order four). All binary dihedral characters are contained in L3L^{\prime}_{3} and since they are simple points they are hence not contained in V.V^{\prime}. Since these characters are the only branch points (as will be shown in general), it follows that L3L3L^{\prime}_{3}\to L_{3} is a two-fold branched cover, and VVV^{\prime}\to V is a two-fold unbranched cover.

Now Xφ2(S)Xφ(S)L1L2=VL1L2L3.X_{\varphi^{2}}(S)\supset X_{\varphi}(S)\cup L_{1}\cup L_{2}=V\cup L_{1}\cup L_{2}\cup L_{3}. Hence this is an example where all three lines are contained in the fixed-point set. The preimage in X(Mφ2)X(M_{\varphi^{2}}) of VV is the canonical curve, but the preimage of L3L_{3} has two components L3+L_{3}^{+} and L3L_{3}^{-} that are characterised by whether the trace of the meridian is identically +2+2 or 2-2. The component L3L_{3}^{-} is the image of L3L^{\prime}_{3} under the map X(Mφ)X(Mφ2)X(M_{\varphi})\to X(M_{\varphi^{2}}) since the square of an element of order four has order two. Hence L3+L_{3}^{+} is not contained in the image of the map. We note that each map L3L3L_{3}^{-}\to L_{3} and L3+L3L_{3}^{+}\to L_{3} is one-to-one.

3.4 Reducible characters

Since H1(Mφ,)Tor(Mφ,)H_{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z})\cong\mathbb{Z}\oplus\text{Tor}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}), it follows that Xred(Mφ)X^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi}) consists of finitely many affine lines.

From the set-up in the proof of Lemma 11, we see that the reducible characters in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) that are restrictions of reducible characters in X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) are the same as characters of abelian representations ρ\rho satisfying ρ(φ(γ))=ρ(γ)\rho(\varphi_{*}(\gamma))=\rho(\gamma) for all γπ1(S).\gamma\in\pi_{1}(S). Since the monodromy of MφM_{\varphi} is φ=(k1k2k3k4)SL(2,)\varphi_{*}=\begin{pmatrix}k_{1}&k_{2}\\ k_{3}&k_{4}\end{pmatrix}\in SL(2,\mathbb{Z}) with |k1+k4|>2|k_{1}+k_{4}|>2, all possible pairs (s,p)(s,p) of eigenvalues of ρ(a)\rho(a) and ρ(b)\rho(b) corresponding to a common invariant subspace are determined by

{s=sk1pk3p=sk2pk4\begin{cases}s=s^{k_{1}}p^{k_{3}}\\ p=s^{k_{2}}p^{k_{4}}\end{cases} (3.1)

The (not necessarily distinct) components of Xred(Mφ)X^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi}) corresponding to the finitely many solutions to these equations are given by

Xs,p={(s+s1,p+p1,sp+s1p1,m+m1,sm+s1m1,pm+p1m1,spm+s1p1m1)|m}X_{s,p}=\{\;(s+s^{-1},p+p^{-1},sp+s^{-1}p^{-1},m+m^{-1},sm+s^{-1}m^{-1},pm+p^{-1}m^{-1},spm+s^{-1}p^{-1}m^{-1})\;|\;m\in\mathbb{C}^{*}\;\}

In particular, each component of Xred(Mφ)X^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi}) has image a single point in Xφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S).

The proof of the following proposition is an application of the main result of [18] and generalises the example given in that paper by using fundamental results due to Fox [13]. We thank Michael Heusener and Joan Porti for encouraging correspondence, and refer the reader to [18] for the required definitions of twisted Alexander polynomials.

Proposition 17.

For every component Xs0,p0X_{s_{0},p_{0}} of Xred(Mφ)X^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi}), there exists m0m_{0}\in\mathbb{C}^{*} such that Xs,pX_{s,p} intersects Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) at χm0\chi_{m_{0}} where χm0\chi_{m_{0}} is the character of the abelian representation ρm0\rho_{m_{0}} with

ρm0(t)=Diag(m0,m01),ρm0(a)=Diag(s0,s01),ρm0(b)=Diag(p0,p01)\rho_{m_{0}}(t)=\operatorname{Diag}(m_{0},m_{0}^{-1}),\;\rho_{m_{0}}(a)=\operatorname{Diag}(s_{0},s_{0}^{-1}),\;\rho_{m_{0}}(b)=\operatorname{Diag}(p_{0},p_{0}^{-1})

Moreover, χm0\chi_{m_{0}} is contained on exactly one curve CC in Xirr(Mφ),X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}), a smooth point of both Xs0,p0X_{s_{0},p_{0}} and CC and the intersection at χm0\chi_{m_{0}} is transverse. Moreover, if s0,t0{±1},s_{0},t_{0}\in\{\pm 1\}, then m0m_{0} is the square root of a zero of the characteristic polynomial of φ\varphi_{*} and otherwise m0=±1.m_{0}=\pm 1.

Proof.

Let m=m02,m=m_{0}^{2}, s=s02s=s_{0}^{2} and p=p02.p=p_{0}^{2}. With this set up, the remainder of the proof applies verbatim to the PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety. We have a group homomorphism α\coπ1(Mφ)\alpha\co\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})\to\mathbb{C}^{*} with

α(a)=s,α(b)=p,α(t)=m\alpha(a)=s,\;\alpha(b)=p,\;\alpha(t)=m

The pair (s,p)(s,p) satisfies Equation 3.1, that is, the restriction αTor(Mφ,)\alpha\mid_{\text{Tor}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z})} is induced by a group homomorphism h:a,bU(1)h:\langle a,b\rangle\to U(1) such that hφ=hh\circ\varphi=h and h(a)=sh(a)=s and h(b)=p.h(b)=p.

We apply the criterion of deformations of reducible characters in [18, Theorem 1.3]. Fix the canonical splitting H1(Mφ,)Tor(Mφ,)Tor(Mφ,)H_{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z})\cong\mathbb{Z}\oplus\text{Tor}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z})\to\text{Tor}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}) where p(a)=ap(a)=a, p(b)=bp(b)=b and p(t)=0p(t)=0 and an element ψH1(Mφ,)\psi\in H^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}) where ψ(a)=ψ(b)=0\psi(a)=\psi(b)=0 and ψ(t)=1\psi(t)=1. To prove the statement, we only need to show that mm is a simple zero of the twisted Alexander polynomial ΔMφψα\Delta^{\psi_{\alpha}}_{M_{\varphi}}. A direct computation shows that the Jacobian matrix is

JMφ=(t1(a11)t1a1(taφ(a)1)t1a1tbφ(a)t1(b11)t1b1taφ(b)t1b1(tbφ(b)1))J_{M_{\varphi}}=\begin{pmatrix}t^{-1}(a^{-1}-1)&t^{-1}a^{-1}\bigg{(}t\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(a)-1\bigg{)}&t^{-1}a^{-1}t\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(a)\\ t^{-1}(b^{-1}-1)&t^{-1}b^{-1}t\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(b)&t^{-1}b^{-1}\bigg{(}t\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(b)-1\bigg{)}\end{pmatrix}

Each φAut(a,b)\varphi\in\operatorname{Aut}(\langle a,b\rangle) linearly extends to a ring homomorphism of a,b\mathbb{Z}\langle a,b\rangle, also denoted by φ\varphi. Under the abelianisation homomorphism, it also induces a homomorphism φab:[a,b][a,b]\varphi^{\text{ab}}:\mathbb{Z}[a,b]\to\mathbb{Z}[a,b]. The Jacobian of φ\varphi is

Jφ=(aφ(a)bφ(a)aφ(b)bφ(b))J_{\varphi}=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(a)&\frac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(a)\\ \frac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(b)&\frac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(b)\end{pmatrix}

Let JφabJ^{\text{ab}}_{\varphi} denotes its image under the abelianisation homomorphism. By the chain rule [13], Jφ1φ2=φ1(Jφ2)Jφ1J_{\varphi_{1}\varphi_{2}}=\varphi_{1}(J_{\varphi_{2}})J_{\varphi_{1}} for any φ1,φ2Aut(F2)\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2}\in\operatorname{Aut}(F_{2}). Applying the abelianisation homomorphism and taking determinants on both sides, we have

detJφ1φ2ab\displaystyle\det J_{\varphi_{1}\varphi_{2}}^{\text{ab}} =detφ1ab(Jφ2ab)detJφ1ab\displaystyle=\det\varphi_{1}^{\text{ab}}(J_{\varphi_{2}}^{\text{ab}})\det J_{\varphi_{1}}^{\text{ab}}
=φ1ab(detJφ2ab)detJφ1ab\displaystyle=\varphi_{1}^{\text{ab}}(\det J_{\varphi_{2}}^{\text{ab}})\det J_{\varphi_{1}}^{\text{ab}}

We may assume that φ\varphi_{*} is given as in Equation 2.7. Then detJαab=detJβ1ab=1\det J_{\alpha}^{\text{ab}}=\det J_{\beta^{-1}}^{\text{ab}}=1 implies that detJφab=1\det J_{\varphi}^{\text{ab}}=1. Let JφhJ^{h}_{\varphi} denotes the image of JφJ_{\varphi} under the map hh. It is clear that h(Jφab)=Jφhh(J_{\varphi}^{\text{ab}})=J^{h}_{\varphi}. Hence detJφh=1\det J^{h}_{\varphi}=1.
By fundamental formula of free calculus [13], we have

φ(a)1=(aφ(a))(a1)+(bφ(a))(b1)\varphi(a)-1=\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}(a-1)+\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}(b-1)

Applying hh on both sides, we have

(h(aφ(a))1)(s1)+h(bφ(a))(p1)=0(h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}-1)(s-1)+h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}(p-1)=0

since hφ=hh\circ\varphi=h. By symmetry,

(h(bφ(b))1)(p1)+h(aφ(b))(s1)=0(h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(b)\bigg{)}-1)(p-1)+h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(b)\bigg{)}(s-1)=0

Define ψα:π1(Mφ)[x±1]\psi_{\alpha}:\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})\to\mathbb{C}[x^{\pm 1}] where ψα(γ)=α(γ)xψ(γ)\psi_{\alpha}(\gamma)=\alpha(\gamma)x^{\psi(\gamma)}. The Jacobian JMφψαJ^{\psi_{\alpha}}_{M_{\varphi}} is given by (JMφψα)ij=ψα((JMφ)ij)(J^{\psi_{\alpha}}_{M_{\varphi}})_{ij}=\psi_{\alpha}((J_{M_{\varphi}})_{ij}). Since Alexander invariants are obtained from determinants, we may multiply each row by an unit and work with the following matrix:

(1sh(φ(a)a)x1h(bφ(a))x1ph(φ(b)a)xh(bφ(b))x1)\begin{pmatrix}1-s&h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial\varphi(a)}{\partial a}\bigg{)}x-1&h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}x\\ 1-p&h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial\varphi(b)}{\partial a}\bigg{)}x&h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(b)\bigg{)}x-1\end{pmatrix}

We now have the following cases:

  1. 1.

    If h(a)=h(b)=1h(a)=h(b)=1, a direct computation shows that Jφh=φ.J^{h}_{\varphi}=\varphi_{*}. So ΔMφψα\Delta^{\psi_{\alpha}}_{M_{\varphi}} is the characteristic polynomial of φ\varphi_{*}, which has 22 distinct simple zeroes since the trace is distinct from ±2.\pm 2. Hence mm equals one of these roots.

  2. 2.

    If h(a)=1h(a)=1 and h(b)1h(b)\neq 1, from the above equations, we have h(bφ(a))=0h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}=0 and h(bφ(b))=1h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(b)\bigg{)}=1. Combined with detJφh=1\det J^{h}_{\varphi}=1, we have h(aφ(a))=1h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}=1 so ΔMφψα=x1\Delta^{\psi_{\alpha}}_{M_{\varphi}}=x-1. By symmetry, ΔMφψα=x1\Delta^{\psi_{\alpha}}_{M_{\varphi}}=x-1 if h(a)1h(a)\neq 1 and h(b)=1h(b)=1. Hence in each of these cases, m=1.m=1.

  3. 3.

    If h(a)1h(a)\neq 1 and h(b)1h(b)\neq 1, we have

    (h(aφ(a))1)(h(bφ(b))1)=h(bφ(a))h(aφ(b))(h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}-1)(h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(b)\bigg{)}-1)=h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(b)\bigg{)}

    by multiplying the two equations. Rearranging the above equation and substitute detJφh=1\det J^{h}_{\varphi}=1 into it, we have h(aφ(a))+h(bφ(b))=2h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}+h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(b)\bigg{)}=2. Then h(bφ(b))1=1h(aφ(a))h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial b}\varphi(b)\bigg{)}-1=1-h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(a)\bigg{)} and we can rewrite the second equation as

    (h(aφ(a))1)(p1)=h(aφ(b))(s1)(h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(a)\bigg{)}-1)(p-1)=h\bigg{(}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial a}\varphi(b)\bigg{)}(s-1)

    This gives us that the determinant of the first two columns of JMφψαJ_{M_{\varphi}}^{\psi_{\alpha}} is (1p)(x1)(1-p)(x-1). We can perform similar computation for the other two determinants which both have a factor x1x-1. This implies ΔMφψα=x1\Delta^{\psi_{\alpha}}_{M_{\varphi}}=x-1 and m=1.m=1.

This completes the proof. ∎

A direct consequence of the above proposition is that r(X(Mφ))=r(Xirr(Mφ)).r(X(M_{\varphi}))=r(X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})). We now show that there are no ramification points of r\coXirr(Mφ)Xφ(S)r\co X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\to X_{\varphi}(S) at reducible characters contained on Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}).

Consider the action of H1(Mφ,2)H^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2}) on Xred(Mφ)X^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi}). We first characterise the points in Xred(Mφ)X^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi}) with non-trivial stabilisers under this action. Suppose hH1(Mφ,2)h\in H^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2}) with h(t)=ϵt,h(a)=ϵa,h(b)=ϵb.h(t)=\epsilon_{t},h(a)=\epsilon_{a},h(b)=\epsilon_{b}. Then a direct calculation shows that S(h)Xred(Mφ)S(h)\cap X^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi}) consists of all points in Xred(Mφ)X^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi}) satisfying

m2=ϵt,s2=ϵa,p2=ϵbm^{2}=\epsilon_{t},\;s^{2}=\epsilon_{a},\;p^{2}=\epsilon_{b}

In particular, the trace functions take values in {2,0,2}.\{-2,0,2\}.

We now focus on S(ε)S(\varepsilon). Recall that ε(t)=1,ε(a)=ε(b)=1.\varepsilon(t)=-1,\varepsilon(a)=\varepsilon(b)=1. In this case,

m2=1,s2=1,p2=1m^{2}=-1,\;s^{2}=1,\;p^{2}=1

and hence s,p{±1}.s,p\in\{\pm 1\}. If such a character is in the intersection of Xred(Mφ)Xirr(Mφ),X^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi})\cap X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}), then Lemma 5 implies that there is such a character of a non-abelian reducible representation ρ.\rho. Up to conjugacy and the action of ε\varepsilon on R(Mφ),R(M_{\varphi}), we may assume that

ρ(t)=(i00i)ρ(a)=(su0s)ρ(b)=(pv0p)\begin{matrix}\rho(t)=\begin{pmatrix}i&0\\ 0&-i\end{pmatrix}&\rho(a)=\begin{pmatrix}s&u\\ 0&s\end{pmatrix}&\rho(b)=\begin{pmatrix}p&v\\ 0&p\end{pmatrix}\end{matrix}

where s,p{±1}s,p\in\{\pm 1\} and (u,v)(0,0)(u,v)\neq(0,0). Then

(su0s)=ρ(t1at)=ρ(φ(a))=(sk1ϵbk3k3sk1pk31v+k1sk11pk3u0sk1pk3)\begin{pmatrix}s&-u\\ 0&s\end{pmatrix}=\rho(t^{-1}at)=\rho(\varphi(a))=\begin{pmatrix}s^{k_{1}}\epsilon_{b}^{k_{3}}&k_{3}s^{k_{1}}p^{k_{3}-1}v+k_{1}s^{k_{1}-1}p^{k_{3}}u\\ 0&s^{k_{1}}p^{k_{3}}\end{pmatrix}

and

(pv0p)=ρ(t1bt)=ρ(φ(b))=(sk2pk4k4sk2pk41v+k2sk21pk4u0sk2pk4)\begin{pmatrix}p&-v\\ 0&p\end{pmatrix}=\rho(t^{-1}bt)=\rho(\varphi(b))=\begin{pmatrix}s^{k_{2}}p^{k_{4}}&k_{4}s^{k_{2}}p^{k_{4}-1}v+k_{2}s^{k_{2}-1}p^{k_{4}}u\\ 0&s^{k_{2}}p^{k_{4}}\end{pmatrix}

This implies in particular the equations u=sp(k3v+k1u)u=-sp(k_{3}v+k_{1}u) and v=sp(k4v+k2u).v=-sp(k_{4}v+k_{2}u). Now sp=±1sp=\pm 1, and hence these two equations give

transpose[φ](uv)=(k1k3k2k4)(uv)=±(uv)(00)\text{transpose}[\varphi_{*}]\begin{pmatrix}u\\ v\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}k_{1}&k_{3}\\ k_{2}&k_{4}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}u\\ v\end{pmatrix}=\pm\begin{pmatrix}u\\ v\end{pmatrix}\neq\begin{pmatrix}0\\ 0\end{pmatrix}

But then φ\varphi_{*} has eigenvalue ±1\pm 1 and hence tr(φ)=±2,\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{*})=\pm 2, which is a contradiction. This shows that there are no ramification points of r\coXirr(Mφ)Xφ(S)r\co X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\to X_{\varphi}(S) at reducible characters contained on Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}).

3.5 Irreducible characters

The following lemma proves that every irreducible character in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) is the restriction of two distinct irreducible characters in X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}), and hence is not a branch point of r\coX(Mφ)Xφ(S).r\co X(M_{\varphi})\to X_{\varphi}(S). Moreover, Example 16 gives examples where these distinct characters lie in different Zariski components of X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) and where they lie in the same Zariski component.

Lemma 18.

For any irreducible character χρ\chi_{\rho} of SS such that χρXφ(S)\chi_{\rho}\in X_{\varphi}(S), there exists TSL(2,)T\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) such that T1ρ(γ)T=ρ(φ(γ))T^{-1}\rho(\gamma)T=\rho(\varphi_{*}(\gamma)) for all γπ1S\gamma\in\pi_{1}\,S. Moreover, TT is unique up to sign and at least one of trT\operatorname{tr}\,T, tr(ρ(a)T)\operatorname{tr}\,(\rho(a)T), tr(ρ(b)T)\operatorname{tr}\,(\rho(b)T) and tr(ρ(ab)T)\operatorname{tr}\,(\rho(ab)T) is nonzero.

Proof.

Let ρR(S)\rho\in{R}(S) be an irreducible representation with χρXφS\chi_{\rho}\in X_{\varphi}S. We define ρ1R(S)\rho_{1}\in{R}(S) by ρ1(γ)=ρ(φ(γ))\rho_{1}(\gamma)=\rho(\varphi_{*}(\gamma)) for γπ1S\gamma\in\pi_{1}S. According to the definition of Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S), χρ=χρ1\chi_{\rho}=\chi_{\rho_{1}}. Since χρ\chi_{\rho} is the character of an irreducible representation, it follows that ρ\rho and ρ1\rho_{1} are conjugate. Hence there exists TSL(2,)T\in SL(2,\mathbb{C}) such that T1ρT=ρ1T^{-1}\rho T=\rho_{1}. Since χ\chi is irreducible, the centraliser of ρ\rho is ±E,\pm E, where EE is the identity matrix. Hence TT is unique up to sign. This proves the first part of the lemma, and it remains to show that at least one of the stated traces is non-zero.

Up to conjugation, we may assume that

ρ(a)=(s01s1)ρ(b)=(pu0p1)\begin{matrix}\rho(a)=\begin{pmatrix}s&0\\ 1&s^{-1}\end{pmatrix}&\rho(b)=\begin{pmatrix}p&u\\ 0&p^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\end{matrix}

where u0u\neq 0. Since χρXφS\chi_{\rho}\in X_{\varphi}S, we have

ρ(φ(a))=(s1s2s3s+s1s1)ρ(φ(b))=(p1p2p3p+p1p1)\begin{matrix}\rho(\varphi_{*}(a))=\begin{pmatrix}s_{1}&s_{2}\\ s_{3}&s+s^{-1}-s_{1}\end{pmatrix}&\rho(\varphi_{*}(b))=\begin{pmatrix}p_{1}&p_{2}\\ p_{3}&p+p^{-1}-p_{1}\end{pmatrix}\end{matrix}

for some s1,s2,s3,p1,p2,p3.s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}\in\mathbb{C}. Suppose T=(m1m2m3m4)T=\begin{pmatrix}m_{1}&m_{2}\\ m_{3}&m_{4}\end{pmatrix} for some m1,m1,m3,m4,m_{1},m_{1},m_{3},m_{4}\in\mathbb{C}, and that trT=tr(ρ(a)T)=tr(ρ(b)T)=tr(ρ(ab)T)=0\operatorname{tr}\,T=\operatorname{tr}\,(\rho(a)T)=\operatorname{tr}\,(\rho(b)T)=\operatorname{tr}\,(\rho(ab)T)=0 holds. Then, we have

{ 0=m1+m4 0=sm1+m2+s1m4 0=pm1+um3+p1m4 0=spm1+pm2+usm3+(u+s1p1)m4\begin{cases}\;0=m_{1}+m_{4}\\ \;0=sm_{1}+m_{2}+s^{-1}m_{4}\\ \;0=pm_{1}+um_{3}+p^{-1}m_{4}\\ \;0=spm_{1}+pm_{2}+usm_{3}+(u+s^{-1}p^{-1})m_{4}\end{cases}

Note that the equations do not change if one replaces TT with T.-T. From the first three equations, we have m4=m1m_{4}=-m_{1}, m2=(s1s)m1m_{2}=(s^{-1}-s)m_{1} and m3=(p1p)m1um_{3}=\frac{(p^{-1}-p)m_{1}}{u}, which gives

T=m1(1s1sp1pu1)T=m_{1}\begin{pmatrix}1&s^{-1}-s\\ \frac{p^{-1}-p}{u}&-1\end{pmatrix}

Substituting m2,m3,m4m_{2},m_{3},m_{4} into the fourth equation, we have

(u+sp+s1p1s1psp1)m1=0(u+sp+s^{-1}p^{-1}-s^{-1}p-sp^{-1})m_{1}=0

However, this implies the contradiction

detT=(u+sp+s1p1s1psp1)m1u=0\det T=-\dfrac{(u+sp+s^{-1}p^{-1}-s^{-1}p-sp^{-1})m_{1}}{u}=0

Hence at least one of trT\operatorname{tr}\,T,tr(ρ(a)T)\operatorname{tr}\,(\rho(a)T),tr(ρ(b)T)\operatorname{tr}\,(\rho(b)T) and tr(ρ(ab)T)\operatorname{tr}\,(\rho(ab)T) is nonzero. ∎

Proposition 19.

The fibres of r\coXirr(Mφ)Xφ(S)r\co X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\to X_{\varphi}(S) are the orbits of ε\varepsilon and the branch points for rr are contained in the set of reducible characters in Xφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S). Moreover, the ramification points are simple points of Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) and are precisely the binary dihedral characters in X(Mφ(λ))X(Mφ).X(M_{\varphi}(\lambda))\subset X(M_{\varphi}).

Proof.

The action of ε\varepsilon with respect to the affine coordinate (x,y,z,u,v,w,q)(x,y,z,u,v,w,q) in 7\mathbb{C}^{7} is given by the the involution (x,y,z,u,v,w,q)(x,y,z,u,v,w,q).(x,y,z,u,v,w,q)\to(x,y,z,-u,-v,-w,-q). It was shown in Lemma 18 that the preimage under rr of each irreducible character in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) is the orbit under this involution and has precisely two elements. It follows by continuity that each fixed point of ε\varepsilon is a ramification point for r.r. Hence the branch points for rr are contained in the set of reducible characters in Xφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S).

It was shown in Section 3.4 that there are no ramification points of rr in Xred(Mφ)Xirr(Mφ).X^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi})\cap X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}). Hence all ramification points correspond to irreducible characters in Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) that restrict to reducible characters in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) and are fixed by ε.\varepsilon. It was noted in 12 that the irreducible characters Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) that restrict to reducible characters in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) are precisely the binary dihedral characters in X(Mφ(λ))X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}(\lambda))\subset X(M_{\varphi}), and it is an elementary calculation to verify that they satisfy u=v=w=q=0.u=v=w=q=0.

It is shown in [4, Proposition 5.3] that these binary dihedral characters are simple points or X(Mφ).X(M_{\varphi}).

Proof of Theorem 1.

First note that Proposition 17 implies that r(X(Mφ))=r(Xirr(Mφ)).r(X(M_{\varphi}))=r(X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})). The main statement of Theorem 1 is now the content of Propositions 14 and 19. The additional information about the number of branch points follows from [4], but the formula is different. We now justify our formulation. The number of binary dihedral characters in X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) is given by [4, Propositions 5.3 and 4.5] as

12(|2+tr(φ)|ζφ)\frac{1}{2}\big{(}|2+\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{*})|-\zeta_{\varphi_{*}}\big{)}

where ζφ{1,2,4}\zeta_{\varphi_{*}}\in\{1,2,4\} is the order of Hom(coker(φ+1H1(S1×S1),2).\operatorname{Hom}(\,\operatorname{coker}(\varphi_{*}+1_{H_{1}(S^{1}\times S^{1})},\,\mathbb{Z}_{2}). Here, the once-punctured torus is identified with the complement of a point in S1×S1.S^{1}\times S^{1}. A direct calculation shows that

ζφ=4o(φ2)=1b1(φ)=3\displaystyle\zeta_{\varphi_{*}}=4\iff o(\varphi_{2})=1\iff b_{1}(\varphi)=3
ζφ=2o(φ2)=2b1(φ)=2\displaystyle\zeta_{\varphi_{*}}=2\iff o(\varphi_{2})=2\iff b_{1}(\varphi)=2
ζφ=1o(φ2)=3b1(φ)=1\displaystyle\zeta_{\varphi_{*}}=1\iff o(\varphi_{2})=3\iff b_{1}(\varphi)=1

Hence the identity ζφ=23o(φ2)=2b1(φ)1\zeta_{\varphi_{*}}=2^{3-o(\varphi_{2})}=2^{b_{1}(\varphi)-1} gives

12(|2+tr(φ)|ζφ)=12|2+tr(φ)|2b1(φ)2\frac{1}{2}\big{(}|2+\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{*})|-\zeta_{\varphi_{*}}\big{)}=\frac{1}{2}|2+\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{*})|-2^{{b_{1}(\varphi)-2}}

as claimed in Equation 1.1. ∎

The relationship between Euler characteristic and genus of curves gives the following.

Corollary 20.

Suppose Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) and Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) are irreducible, and that Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) is a non-singular affine curve. Let g0g_{0} and g1g_{1} denote the genera of the smooth projective models of Xirr(Mφ)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) and Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) respectively. Then

g0=2g11+e1+e2g_{0}=2g_{1}-1+\frac{e_{1}+e_{\infty}}{2}

where e1=12|2+tr(φ)|2b1(φ)2e_{1}=\frac{1}{2}|2+\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{*})|-2^{{b_{1}(\varphi)}-2} is the number of branch points in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) and ee_{\infty} is number of branch points at ideal points of Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S). In particular, if ii_{\infty} is the total number of ideal points of Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S), then g0g_{0} is bounded by

2g11+e12g02g11+e12+i22g_{1}-1+\frac{e_{1}}{2}\leq g_{0}\leq 2g_{1}-1+\frac{e_{1}}{2}+\frac{i_{\infty}}{2}

4 Projective characters

Following the blueprint of Section 3, we now analyse the PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character varieties of once-punctured torus bundles. We make frequent use of Heusener and Porti [17] and refer the reader to original sources therein.

4.1 The restriction map

Let X¯φ(S)={χρ¯X¯(S)χρ¯=χρ¯φ}\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S)=\{\chi_{\overline{\rho}}\in\overline{X}(S)\mid\chi_{\overline{\rho}}=\chi_{\overline{\rho}\varphi}\}. We first show that the natural restriction map r¯\coX¯(Mφ)X¯(S)\overline{r}\co\overline{X}(M_{\varphi})\to\overline{X}(S) again satisfies im(r¯)=X¯φ(S).\operatorname{im}(\overline{r})=\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S). Recall that we have the four-fold branched covering map X(S)X¯(S)X(S)\to\overline{X}(S) from Section 2.4,

X¯(S)(x,y,z)(x2,y2,z2,xyz)X¯(S)\overline{X}(S)\ni(x,y,z)\mapsto(x^{2},y^{2},z^{2},xyz)\in\overline{X}(S)

Let ρ¯\coπ1(Mφ)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) be a representation. Let T,A,BSL(2,)T,A,B\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) satisfying ρ¯(t)=±T,\overline{\rho}(t)=\pm T, ρ¯(a)=±A,\overline{\rho}(a)=\pm A, ρ¯(b)=±B\overline{\rho}(b)=\pm B. To account for all possible choices of sign, we write φ(a)=φa(a,b)\varphi(a)=\varphi_{a}(a,b) for a fixed word given for φ(a)\varphi(a) in terms of the generators. Similarly for b.b. Then

T1AT\displaystyle T^{-1}AT =εa(A,B)φa(A,B)\displaystyle=\varepsilon_{a}(A,B)\;\varphi_{a}(A,B) (4.1)
T1BT\displaystyle T^{-1}BT =εb(A,B)φb(A,B)\displaystyle=\varepsilon_{b}(A,B)\;\varphi_{b}(A,B) (4.2)

where εa(A,B),εb(A,B){±1}\varepsilon_{a}(A,B),\varepsilon_{b}(A,B)\in\{\pm 1\}. This implies im(r¯)X¯φ(S).\operatorname{im}(\overline{r})\subseteq\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S).

Conversely, let ρ¯\coπ1(S)π1(S)\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(S)\to\pi_{1}(S) such that χρ¯X¯φ(S)\chi_{\overline{\rho}}\in\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S). Suppose ρ¯(a)=±A\overline{\rho}(a)=\pm A and ρ¯(b)=±B,\overline{\rho}(b)=\pm B, where A,BSL(2,).A,B\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}). Since χρ¯=χρ¯φ\chi_{\overline{\rho}}=\chi_{\overline{\rho}\varphi}, the first three coordinates of the corresponding points in X¯(S)\overline{X}(S) imply that there are εa,εb,εab{±1}\varepsilon_{a},\varepsilon_{b},\varepsilon_{ab}\in\{\pm 1\} such that

trA=εatr(φa(A,B)),trB=εbtr(φb(A,B))),trAB=εabtr(φa(A,B))φb(A,B)))\operatorname{tr}A=\varepsilon_{a}\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{a}(A,B)),\qquad\operatorname{tr}B=\varepsilon_{b}\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{b}(A,B))),\qquad\operatorname{tr}AB=\varepsilon_{ab}\operatorname{tr}(\;\varphi_{a}(A,B))\varphi_{b}(A,B)))

Now the fourth coordinate implies that εaεbεab=1\varepsilon_{a}\varepsilon_{b}\varepsilon_{ab}=1 and hence εab=εaεb\varepsilon_{ab}=\varepsilon_{a}\varepsilon_{b}. Hence

trA=tr(εaφa(A,B)),trB=tr(εbφb(A,B))),trAB=tr(εaφa(A,B))εbφb(A,B)))\operatorname{tr}A=\operatorname{tr}(\varepsilon_{a}\varphi_{a}(A,B)),\qquad\operatorname{tr}B=\operatorname{tr}(\varepsilon_{b}\varphi_{b}(A,B))),\qquad\operatorname{tr}AB=\operatorname{tr}(\;\varepsilon_{a}\varphi_{a}(A,B))\cdot\varepsilon_{b}\varphi_{b}(A,B)))

As in the proof of Lemma 11 there is TSL(2,)T\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) with

T1AT=εaφa(A,B)andT1BT=εbφb(A,B)T^{-1}AT=\varepsilon_{a}\;\varphi_{a}(A,B)\qquad\text{and}\qquad T^{-1}BT=\varepsilon_{b}\;\varphi_{b}(A,B)

This shows that χρ¯im(r¯).\chi_{\overline{\rho}}\in\operatorname{im}(\overline{r}). Hence im(r¯)=X¯φ(S)\operatorname{im}(\overline{r})=\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) as claimed.

It follows as in the proof of Lemma 18 that for an irreducible representation ρ¯\coπ1(Mφ)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})

((trρ¯(t))2,(trρ¯(ta))2,(trρ¯(tb))2,(trρ¯(tab))2)(0,0,0,0)(\;(\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(t))^{2},\quad(\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(ta))^{2},\quad(\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(tb))^{2},\quad(\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(tab))^{2}\;)\neq(0,0,0,0) (4.3)

As in Section 3.4, it is easy to show that there are finitely many characters in X¯φ(S)\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) that arise from reducible representations of π1(Mφ).\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}). The proof of Proposition 17 shows that r¯\coX¯irr(Mφ)X¯φ(S)\overline{r}\co\overline{X}^{irr}(M_{\varphi})\to\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) is surjective.

The proof of Corollary 3 and the statement of Proposition 14 now give the following:

Proposition 21.

Suppose MφM_{\varphi} is a hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundle with b1(φ)=1.b_{1}(\varphi)=1. Then we have the following commutative diagram of surjective maps whose degrees are indicated in the diagram:

Xirr(Mφ)\textstyle{X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}2:1\scriptstyle{2:1}q1\scriptstyle{q_{1}}r\scriptstyle{r}2:1\scriptstyle{2:1}Xφ(S)\textstyle{X_{\varphi}(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}1:1\scriptstyle{1:1}q2\scriptstyle{q_{2}}\textstyle{\subset}X(S)\textstyle{X(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}4:1\scriptstyle{4:1}q2\scriptstyle{q_{2}}\textstyle{\cong}3\textstyle{\mathbb{C}^{3}}X¯irr(Mφ)\textstyle{\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}r¯\scriptstyle{\overline{r}}1:1\scriptstyle{1:1}X¯φ(S)\textstyle{\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}\textstyle{\subset}X¯(S)\textstyle{\overline{X}(S)}

In particular, every component of X¯irr(Mφ)\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}) is one-dimensional.

For the bundles with b1(φ)>1,b_{1}(\varphi)>1, we have the following to consider. Let ρ¯\coπ1(S)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(S)\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) be a representation with χρ¯X¯φ(S).\chi_{\overline{\rho}}\in\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S). We call the characters in r¯1(χρ¯)\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}}) extensions of χρ¯,\chi_{\overline{\rho}}, and similar for representations. Any two extensions of ρ¯\overline{\rho} to π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) differ by an element in the centraliser C(im(ρ¯)).C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho})). It is well-known (see [17]) that if ρ¯\overline{\rho} is irreducible then the centraliser C(im(ρ¯))C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho})) is either trivial, or cyclic of order two, or isomorphic to the Klein four group. This is unlike the situation for SL(2,),\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}), where the centraliser of an irreducible representation is always central. In terms of our coordinate system for X¯(S)\overline{X}(S) these possibilities are given in Section 4.2. We start with the following preliminary observation.

Lemma 22.

Suppose χρ,χσXφ(S)\chi_{\rho},\chi_{\sigma}\in X_{\varphi}(S) are in the same H1(S,2)H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2})–orbit, and that χρ\chi_{\rho} is irreducible. If χρ\chi_{\rho} and χσ\chi_{\sigma} are in the same HH–orbit, then q1r1(χρ)=q1r1(χσ).q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\rho})=q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\sigma}). If they are in distinct HH–orbits, then q1r1(χρ)q1r1(χσ).q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\rho})\neq q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\sigma}). Moreover, q1r1(χρ)q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\rho}) and q1r1(χσ)q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\sigma}) are the characters of representations into PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) that agree on π1(S)\pi_{1}(S) and whose image of tt differs by a non-trivial element in the centraliser of the image of π1(S).\pi_{1}(S).

Proof.

Let ρ\coπ1(S)SL(2,)\rho\co\pi_{1}(S)\to\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) be a representation with character χρ.\chi_{\rho}. Then there is hH1(S,2)h\in H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) such that the character of σ(γ)=h(γ)ρ(γ)\sigma(\gamma)=h(\gamma)\rho(\gamma) is χσ.\chi_{\sigma}.

Since χρXφ(S),\chi_{\rho}\in X_{\varphi}(S), there is TSL(2,)T\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) such that T1ρ(γ)T=ρ(φ(γ))T^{-1}\rho(\gamma)T=\rho(\varphi(\gamma)) for all γπ1(S).\gamma\in\pi_{1}(S). In particular, ρ\rho extends to a representation of π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) into SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) by letting ρ(t)=T\rho(t)=T or ρ(t)=T\rho(t)=-T and these are the only extensions according to Lemma 18. Note that these extensions are in the same ε\langle\varepsilon\rangle–orbit.

If hH,h\in H, then h(γ)=h(φ(γ))h(\gamma)=h(\varphi(\gamma)) for all γπ1(S).\gamma\in\pi_{1}(S). Hence

T1σ(γ)T=T1h(γ)ρ(γ)T=h(γ)T1ρ(γ)T=h(γ)ρ(φ(γ))=h(φ(γ))ρ(φ(γ))=σ(φ(γ))T^{-1}\sigma(\gamma)T=T^{-1}h(\gamma)\rho(\gamma)T=h(\gamma)T^{-1}\rho(\gamma)T=h(\gamma)\rho(\varphi(\gamma))=h(\varphi(\gamma))\rho(\varphi(\gamma))=\sigma(\varphi(\gamma))

for all γπ1(S).\gamma\in\pi_{1}(S). So as above, σ\sigma extends to a representation of π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) by letting σ(t)=T\sigma(t)=T or σ(t)=T\sigma(t)=-T. Hence the extensions of ρ\rho are in the same H1(Mφ,2)H^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})–orbit as the extensions of σ.\sigma. This implies q1r1(χρ)=q1r1(χσ).q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\rho})=q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\sigma}).

Suppose there is no hH1(S,2)h\in H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) such that the character of σ(γ)=h(γ)ρ(γ)\sigma(\gamma)=h(\gamma)\rho(\gamma) is χσ.\chi_{\sigma}. Then q1r1(χρ)q1r1(χσ).q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\rho})\neq q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\sigma}). Since q2(χρ)=q2(χσ),q_{2}(\chi_{\rho})=q_{2}(\chi_{\sigma}), we have r¯q1r1(χρ)=q2(χρ)=q2(χσ)=r¯q1r1(χσ).\overline{r}q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\rho})=q_{2}(\chi_{\rho})=q_{2}(\chi_{\sigma})=\overline{r}q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\sigma}). So q1r1(χρ)q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\rho}) and q1r1(χσ)q_{1}r^{-1}(\chi_{\sigma}) are the characters of non-conjugate representations that agree on π1(S).\pi_{1}(S). Hence the conclusion. ∎

4.2 The origin and three coordinate axes (revisited)

Let ρ¯\coπ1(S)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(S)\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) be an irreducible representation. We have C(im(ρ¯))22C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}))\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2} if and only if χρ¯=(0,0,0,0)X¯(S).\chi_{\overline{\rho}}=(0,0,0,0)\in\overline{X}(S). For every φ\varphi, we have (0,0,0)Xφ(S)(0,0,0)\in X_{\varphi}(S) and hence (0,0,0,0)X¯φ(S).(0,0,0,0)\in\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S). Up to conjugation, we may assume

ρ¯(a)=±(0110)=κ1ρ¯(b)=±(0ii0)=κ2ρ¯(ab)=±(i00i)=κ3\overline{\rho}(a)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ -1&0\end{pmatrix}=\kappa_{1}\qquad\overline{\rho}(b)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}0&i\\ i&0\end{pmatrix}=\kappa_{2}\qquad\ \overline{\rho}(ab)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}i&0\\ 0&-i\end{pmatrix}=\kappa_{3} (4.4)

These Möbius transformations represent rotations by π\pi with respective axes [i,i][-i,i], [1,1][-1,1] and [0,],[0,\infty], and we have C(im(ρ¯))=im(ρ¯).C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}))=\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}).

Lemma 23.

If ρ¯\coπ1(S)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(S)\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) is irreducible and |C(im(ρ¯))|=4,|C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}))|=4, then |r¯1(χρ¯)|=2b1(φ)1|\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}})|=2^{b_{1}(\varphi)-1}. Moreover, exactly of the characters in r¯1(χρ¯)\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}}) lifts to X(Mφ).X(M_{\varphi}). For each representation of π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) with character in r¯1(χρ¯),\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}}), the image of the longitude is always trivial; the image of the meridian has order two or four if b1(φ)=2b_{1}(\varphi)=2 and it has order two or is trivial if b1(φ)=3.b_{1}(\varphi)=3.

Proof.

Since (0,0,0)Xφ(S)(0,0,0)\in{X}_{\varphi}(S) is the unique preimage of χρ¯\chi_{\overline{\rho}} in Xφ(S){X}_{\varphi}(S), it follows that any two lifts to SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) of the Klein four group are conjugate in SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}). Hence the uniqueness up to sign in Lemma 18 implies that exactly one of the characters in r¯1(χρ¯)\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}}) lifts to X(Mφ).X(M_{\varphi}).

Note that the image of the longitude is the commutator of κ1\kappa_{1} and κ2\kappa_{2} and hence trivial.

If b1(φ)=3,b_{1}(\varphi)=3, then we have φ(ρ¯(a))=ρ¯(a)\varphi(\overline{\rho}(a))=\overline{\rho}(a) and φ(ρ¯(b))=ρ¯(b)\varphi(\overline{\rho}(b))=\overline{\rho}(b) and hence ρ¯(t)C(im(ρ¯)).\overline{\rho}(t)\in C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho})). This implies that ρ¯\overline{\rho} extends to π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) with ρ¯(t)\overline{\rho}(t) any element in the centraliser. The values taken in Equation 4.3 are (4,0,0,0)(4,0,0,0), (0,4,0,0)(0,4,0,0), (0,0,4,0)(0,0,4,0), (0,0,0,4)(0,0,0,4). Hence, no two of these four extensions are conjugate, but all have image equal to im(ρ¯).\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}). Example 16 shows that the character that lifts depends on φ.\varphi. The four extensions are characterised by ρ¯(t)=1,\overline{\rho}(t)=1, ρ¯(t)=ρ¯(a),\overline{\rho}(t)=\overline{\rho}(a), ρ¯(t)=ρ¯(b),\overline{\rho}(t)=\overline{\rho}(b), and ρ¯(t)=ρ¯(ab)\overline{\rho}(t)=\overline{\rho}(ab) respectively. This proves the claim about the order. We call these representations the four extensions of the Klein four group and denote them respectively by ρ¯0,\overline{\rho}_{0}, ρ¯1,\overline{\rho}_{1}, ρ¯2,\overline{\rho}_{2}, ρ¯3\overline{\rho}_{3} and their characters by χ¯0,\overline{\chi}_{0}, χ¯1,\overline{\chi}_{1}, χ¯2,\overline{\chi}_{2}, χ¯3.\overline{\chi}_{3}. Note that there is a natural action of the Klein four group on these characters defined by κiχ¯0=χ¯i.\kappa_{i}\cdot\overline{\chi}_{0}=\overline{\chi}_{i}.

If b1(φ)=2,b_{1}(\varphi)=2, then φ\varphi interchanges two of ρ¯(a)\overline{\rho}(a), ρ¯(b)\overline{\rho}(b), ρ¯(ab)\overline{\rho}(ab) and fixes the third. Without loss of generality, assume φ(ρ¯(a))=ρ¯(b).\varphi(\overline{\rho}(a))=\overline{\rho}(b). Then a direct calculation shows that ρ¯\overline{\rho} extends to a representation of π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) by letting

ρ¯(t)=±(0iii0),ρ¯(a)=κ1ρ¯(b)=κ2\overline{\rho}(t)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}0&\sqrt{i}\\ i\sqrt{i}&0\end{pmatrix},\qquad\overline{\rho}(a)=\kappa_{1}\qquad\overline{\rho}(b)=\kappa_{2} (4.5)

The remaining extensions are obtained from this by twisting by the elements κi.\kappa_{i}. The above extension is conjugate to the twisted representation tκ3ρ¯(t)t\mapsto\kappa_{3}\overline{\rho}(t) via κ1\kappa_{1}, and their values taken in Equation 4.3 are (0,2,2,0).(0,2,2,0). Similarly, the two representations obtained by twisting ρ¯\overline{\rho} by κ1\kappa_{1} or κ2\kappa_{2} are conjugate via κ1,\kappa_{1}, and their values taken in Equation 4.3 are (2,0,0,2);(2,0,0,2); for instance

tκ1ρ¯(t)=±(ii00i)t\mapsto\kappa_{1}\overline{\rho}(t)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}i\sqrt{i}&0\\ 0&-\sqrt{i}\end{pmatrix}

Hence we obtain two non-conjugate extensions and the order of the meridian is as claimed.

If b1(φ)=1,b_{1}(\varphi)=1, then any extension lifts to SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) and hence any two extensions are conjugate. ∎

Let ρ¯\coπ1(S)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(S)\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) be an irreducible representation. We have C(im(ρ¯))2C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}))\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2} if and only if 0χρ¯L¯i,0\neq\chi_{\overline{\rho}}\in\overline{L}_{i}, where

L¯1\displaystyle\overline{L}_{1} ={(x2,0,0,0)x}X¯(S)\displaystyle=\{(x^{2},0,0,0)\mid x\in\mathbb{C}\}\subset\overline{X}(S) (4.6)
L¯2\displaystyle\overline{L}_{2} ={(0,y2,0,0)y}X¯(S)\displaystyle=\{(0,y^{2},0,0)\mid y\in\mathbb{C}\}\subset\overline{X}(S) (4.7)
L¯3\displaystyle\overline{L}_{3} ={(0,0,z2,0)z}X¯(S)\displaystyle=\{(0,0,z^{2},0)\mid z\in\mathbb{C}\}\subset\overline{X}(S) (4.8)

are the images of the coordinate axes in X(S).X(S). The points (4,0,0,0)(4,0,0,0), (0,4,0,0)(0,4,0,0) and (0,0,4,0)(0,0,4,0) are the only reducible characters on these lines. In R¯(S)\overline{R}(S) we may choose for each L¯i\overline{L}_{i} a curve of representations that have constant centraliser, and such that the curves meet in the representation given in Equation 4.4.

Write (4p2,0,0,0)=(x,0,0,0)L¯1(4p^{2},0,0,0)=(x,0,0,0)\in\overline{L}_{1} and let qq\in\mathbb{C} such that p2+q2=1p^{2}+q^{2}=1. We may then choose

ρ¯1(a)=(qppq)κ1,ρ¯1(b)=κ2,and henceC(im(ρ¯1))=κ1\displaystyle\overline{\rho}_{1}(a)=\begin{pmatrix}q&-p\\ p&q\end{pmatrix}\kappa_{1},\qquad\overline{\rho}_{1}(b)=\kappa_{2},\qquad\text{and hence}\qquad C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}_{1}))=\langle\kappa_{1}\rangle (4.9)

Write (0,4p2,0,0,0)=(0,y,0,0)L¯2(0,-4p^{2},0,0,0)=(0,y,0,0)\in\overline{L}_{2} and let qq\in\mathbb{C} such that p2q2=1p^{2}-q^{2}=1. We may then choose

ρ¯2(a)=κ1ρ¯2(b)=κ2(qppq),and henceC(im(ρ¯3))=κ2\displaystyle\overline{\rho}_{2}(a)=\kappa_{1}\qquad\overline{\rho}_{2}(b)=\kappa_{2}\begin{pmatrix}q&p\\ p&q\end{pmatrix},\qquad\text{and hence}\qquad C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}_{3}))=\langle\kappa_{2}\rangle (4.10)

Let (0,0,(p+p1)2,0)=(0,0,z,0)L¯3.(0,0,(p+p^{-1})^{2},0)=(0,0,z,0)\in\overline{L}_{3}. We may choose

ρ¯3(a)=κ1ρ¯3(b)=κ2(ip00ip1),and henceC(im(ρ¯3))=κ3\displaystyle\overline{\rho}_{3}(a)=\kappa_{1}\qquad\overline{\rho}_{3}(b)=\kappa_{2}\begin{pmatrix}ip&0\\ 0&-ip^{-1}\end{pmatrix},\qquad\text{and hence}\qquad C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}_{3}))=\langle\kappa_{3}\rangle (4.11)
Lemma 24.

Suppose ρ¯\coπ1(S)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(S)\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) is irreducible. If χρ¯im(r¯)\chi_{\overline{\rho}}\in\operatorname{im}(\overline{r}) and |C(im(ρ¯))|=2|C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}))|=2, then |r¯1(χρ¯)|=2|\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}})|=2 and b1(φ)>1.b_{1}(\varphi)>1. Moreover, either no character in r¯1(χρ¯)\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}}) lifts to X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}); or exactly one lifts and b1(φ)=3;b_{1}(\varphi)=3; or two of them lift and b1(φ)=2b_{1}(\varphi)=2.

Proof.

We have 0χρ¯L¯i.0\neq\chi_{\overline{\rho}}\in\overline{L}_{i}. Without loss of generality, we may assume L¯i=L¯3,\overline{L}_{i}=\overline{L}_{3}, and χρ¯=(0,0,z02,0).\chi_{\overline{\rho}}=(0,0,z_{0}^{2},0). Hence

(trρ¯(a))2=(trρ¯(b))2=0(trρ¯(ab))2(\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(a))^{2}=(\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(b))^{2}=0\neq(\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(ab))^{2}

In L3,L_{3}, this character has two pre-images, χ+=(0,0,z0)\chi_{+}=(0,0,z_{0}) and χ=(0,0,z0).\chi_{-}=(0,0,-z_{0}). Recall the action of φ¯\overline{\varphi} on the coordinate axes. If b1(φ)=1,b_{1}(\varphi)=1, then the three axes are in the same orbit under φ¯\overline{\varphi}. Hence z00,z_{0}\neq 0, implies b1(φ)>1.b_{1}(\varphi)>1.

We next show that |r¯1(χρ¯)|=2.|\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}})|=2. Up to conjugation, we have

ρ¯(a)=±(0110),ρ¯(b)=±(0pp10),and henceC(im(ρ¯))=±(i00i)\overline{\rho}(a)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ -1&0\end{pmatrix},\qquad\overline{\rho}(b)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}0&p\\ -p^{-1}&0\end{pmatrix},\qquad\text{and hence}\qquad C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}))=\langle\pm\begin{pmatrix}i&0\\ 0&-i\end{pmatrix}\rangle

where z0=(p+p1){2,0,2}z_{0}=-(p+p^{-1})\notin\{-2,0,2\} since ρ¯\overline{\rho} is reducible if and only if z0=±2z_{0}=\pm 2, and the centraliser has order four if and only if z0=0z_{0}=0. These two cases correspond to the characters (x2,y2,z2,xyz)=(0,0,4,0)(x^{2},y^{2},z^{2},xyz)=(0,0,4,0) and (0,0,0,0)(0,0,0,0) respectively with respect to LABEL:eq:param_overline{X}(S). Assume that ρ¯\overline{\rho} is the restriction of a representation of MφM_{\varphi} with ρ¯(t)=±T\overline{\rho}(t)=\pm T for some

T=(m1m2m3m4)SL(2,)T=\begin{pmatrix}m_{1}&m_{2}\\ m_{3}&m_{4}\end{pmatrix}\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})

We know that |r¯1(χρ¯)||C(im(ρ¯))|=2|\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}})|\leq|C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho}))|=2. Suppose that |r¯1(χρ¯)|=1|\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}})|=1. Then the two possible extensions of the representation of SS to MφM_{\varphi} defined by ρ¯(t)=±T\overline{\rho}(t)=\pm T or ρ¯(t)=±(i00i)T\overline{\rho}(t)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}i&0\\ 0&-i\end{pmatrix}T are conjugate. In particular, their values taken in Equation 4.3 are identical. This gives a system of 44 equations. A direct computation shows that z0{2,0,2}z_{0}\notin\{-2,0,2\} implies that m1=m2=m3=m4=0.m_{1}=m_{2}=m_{3}=m_{4}=0. This is a contradiction. Hence |r¯1(χρ¯)|=2.|\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}})|=2.

If b1(φ)=2,b_{1}(\varphi)=2, then φ¯\overline{\varphi} stabilises one axis and permutes the other two axes. Since z00,z_{0}\neq 0, it preserves L3.L_{3}. We therefore have either φ¯(0,0,z)=(0,0,z)\overline{\varphi}(0,0,z)=(0,0,z) for each zz\in\mathbb{C} or φ¯(0,0,z)=(0,0,z)\overline{\varphi}(0,0,z)=(0,0,-z) for each z.z\in\mathbb{C}. In the second case, χρ¯\chi_{\overline{\rho}} does not have a preimage in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) and hence no character in r¯1(χρ¯)\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}}) lifts to X(Mφ).X(M_{\varphi}). In the first case, the points (0,0,z0)(0,0,z_{0}) and (0,0,z0)(0,0,-z_{0}) are both in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S). Since φ¯\overline{\varphi} stabilises L3L_{3} and permutes L1L_{1} and L2,L_{2}, the group HH is generated by a1,a\mapsto-1, b1b\mapsto-1 and hence the points (0,0,±z0)(0,0,\pm z_{0}) are fixed by HH and thus in distinct HH–orbits. Hence their extensions map to the two distinct characters in r¯1(χρ¯).\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}}).

If b1(φ)=3,b_{1}(\varphi)=3, we also have either φ¯(0,0,z)=(0,0,z)\overline{\varphi}(0,0,z)=(0,0,z) for each zz\in\mathbb{C} or φ¯(0,0,z)=(0,0,z)\overline{\varphi}(0,0,z)=(0,0,-z) for each z.z\in\mathbb{C}. As above, in the second case, neither character in r¯1(χρ¯)\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}}) lifts. In the first case, the points (0,0,z0)(0,0,z_{0}) and (0,0,z0)(0,0,-z_{0}) are in Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) and in the same HH–orbit since H=H1(π1(S),2).H=H^{1}(\pi_{1}(S),\mathbb{Z}_{2}). According to Lemma 22, the extensions of these characters are in the same H1(π1(M),2)H^{1}(\pi_{1}(M),\mathbb{Z}_{2})–orbit and hence have the same image in r¯1(χρ¯)\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}}). So exactly one of the characters in r¯1(χρ¯)\overline{r}^{-1}(\chi_{\overline{\rho}}) lifts and the other does not lift. ∎

The proof of Lemma 24 supplied the missing details for the following:

Corollary 25.

Suppose MφM_{\varphi} is a hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundle. We have the following commutative diagram of maps whose degrees are indicated in the diagram:

Xirr(Mφ)\textstyle{X^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}2b1(φ):1\scriptstyle{2^{{b_{1}(\varphi)}}:1}q1\scriptstyle{q_{1}}r\scriptstyle{r}2:1\scriptstyle{2:1}Xφ(S)\textstyle{X_{\varphi}(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}2b1(φ)1:1\scriptstyle{2^{{b_{1}(\varphi)}-1}:1}q2\scriptstyle{q_{2}}\textstyle{\subset}X(S)\textstyle{X(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}4:1\scriptstyle{4:1}q2\scriptstyle{q_{2}}\textstyle{\cong}3\textstyle{\mathbb{C}^{3}}X¯irr(Mφ)\textstyle{\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}r¯\scriptstyle{\overline{r}}X¯φ(S)\textstyle{\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}\textstyle{\subset}X¯(S)\textstyle{\overline{X}(S)}

Here, each of the maps r,r, q1,q_{1}, q2q_{2} is a branched covering map onto its image. The map q1q_{1} is the quotient map associated with the action of H1(Mφ,2)=εH,H^{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\langle\varepsilon\rangle\oplus H, and the map q2q_{2} is the quotient map associated with the action of H1(S,2)H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) on X(S).X(S). The map rr is the quotient map associated with the action of ε.\langle\varepsilon\rangle. The restriction of q2q_{2} to Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) is the quotient map associated with the action of HH unless b1(φ)=2b_{1}(\varphi)=2 and one of the coordinate axes is contained in Xφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S).

Proof.

If b1(φ)=1b_{1}(\varphi)=1 this is Proposition 21 and there is nothing to prove. If b1(φ)=3,b_{1}(\varphi)=3, we have H=H1(S,2)H=H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) and there also is nothing to prove. Hence suppose b1(φ)=2b_{1}(\varphi)=2 and that Li¯\overline{L_{i}} is the unique coordinate axis in X¯φ(S).\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S). It follows from Lemma 22 and the fact that all characters of representations with non-trivial centraliser are contained on the coordinate axes that if LiL_{i} is not contained in Xφ(S){X}_{\varphi}(S), then q2q_{2} is the quotient map of the HH–action. If LiXφ(S),L_{i}\subset{X}_{\varphi}(S), then for the same reasons, q2q_{2} restricted to Xφ(S)Li¯\overline{X_{\varphi}(S)\setminus L_{i}} is the quotient map of the HH–action. However, restricted to Li,L_{i}, it is the quotient map associated with the sign change on Li,L_{i}, this has degree two. ∎

Proposition 26.

Let MφM_{\varphi} be a hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundle. Let XX be a Zariski component of X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) containing the character of an irreducible representation. If r¯\coXX¯φ(S)\overline{r}\co X\to\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) does not have degree one, then the degree is two and b1(φ)=2b_{1}(\varphi)=2 and XX is the preimage of one of the lines L¯iX¯φ(S).\overline{L}_{i}\subset\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S).

Proof.

The above classification of irreducible characters with non-trivial centraliser shows that r¯\coXX¯φ(S)\overline{r}\co X\to\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) has degree one unless L¯iX¯φ(S)\overline{L}_{i}\subset\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) and X=r¯1(L¯i)X=\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{i}) for some i{1,2,3}.i\in\{1,2,3\}. In this case, the degree is two.

The conclusion for b1(φ)=1b_{1}(\varphi)=1 now follows from the description of the action on the lines in the proof of Lemma 13, which gives L¯iX¯φ(S)={(0,0,0,0)}\overline{L}_{i}\cap\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S)=\{(0,0,0,0)\} for each i.i. Alternatively, this follows from the fact that each representation lifts and from the uniqueness up to sign in Lemma 18.

Suppose b1(φ)=3b_{1}(\varphi)=3 and that X=r¯1(L¯i).X=\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{i}). It follows from Lemma 24 that XL¯iX\to\overline{L}_{i} is a 2–fold (possibly branched) cover. Since L¯i\overline{L}_{i}\cong\mathbb{C} and hence is simply connected it follows that the map XL¯iX\to\overline{L}_{i} must have a branch point. Lemma 24 shows that there are only two potential branch points: the Klein four group or the reducible character on L¯i\overline{L}_{i}. It follows from the explicit description of the four extensions in the proof of Lemma 23 and the description of the covering map in the proof of Lemma 24 that the extensions of the Klein four group contained in r¯1(L¯i)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{i}) are not ramification points. Hence it must be the reducible character on L¯i.\overline{L}_{i}. Without loss of generality suppose i=3i=3 and use the parameterisation from Equation 4.11:

ρ¯(a)=±(0110),ρ¯(b)=±(0110)and letC=±(i00i)\overline{\rho}(a)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ -1&0\end{pmatrix},\qquad\overline{\rho}(b)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ -1&0\end{pmatrix}\qquad\text{and let}\qquad C=\pm\begin{pmatrix}i&0\\ 0&-i\end{pmatrix} (4.12)

Since ρ¯(a)=ρ¯(b)\overline{\rho}(a)=\overline{\rho}(b) and both have order two, the hypothesis that b1(φ)=3b_{1}(\varphi)=3 implies that ρ¯(a)\overline{\rho}(a) and ρ¯(t)\overline{\rho}(t) commute. Hence there are two possibilities for ρ¯(t)=Tk\overline{\rho}(t)=T_{k}:

T1=±(m1m2m2m1)orT2=±(m4m3m3m4)T_{1}=\pm\begin{pmatrix}m_{1}&m_{2}\\ -m_{2}&m_{1}\end{pmatrix}\qquad\text{or}\qquad T_{2}=\pm\begin{pmatrix}m_{4}&m_{3}\\ m_{3}&-m_{4}\end{pmatrix} (4.13)

where m12+m22=1m_{1}^{2}+m_{2}^{2}=1 or m32+m42=1.m_{3}^{2}+m_{4}^{2}=-1.

The representation defined by ρ¯1(t)=T1,\overline{\rho}_{1}(t)=T_{1}, ρ¯1(a)=ρ¯1(b)=κ1\overline{\rho}_{1}(a)=\overline{\rho}_{1}(b)=\kappa_{1} satisfies tr[ρ¯1(t),ρ¯1(a)]=2\operatorname{tr}[\overline{\rho}_{1}(t),\overline{\rho}_{1}(a)]=2 and hence is reducible. Indeed, this gives a 1–dimensional family of reducible representations with the quadruple in Equation 4.3 equal to

(4m12,4(1m12),4(1m12),4m12)(4m_{1}^{2},4(1-m_{1}^{2}),4(1-m_{1}^{2}),4m_{1}^{2})

The representation defined by ρ¯2(t)=T2,\overline{\rho}_{2}(t)=T_{2}, ρ¯2(a)=ρ¯2(b)=κ1\overline{\rho}_{2}(a)=\overline{\rho}_{2}(b)=\kappa_{1} satisfies tr[ρ¯2(t),ρ¯2(a)]=2\operatorname{tr}[\overline{\rho}_{2}(t),\overline{\rho}_{2}(a)]=-2 and hence is irreducible. For any choice of m23+m24=1m^{2}_{3}+m^{2}_{4}=-1, the quadruple in Equation 4.3 equals

(0,0,0,0)(0,0,0,0)

Indeed, this has image isomorphic with 22\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2} and lifts to a binary dihedral representation into SL(2,).\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}).

The representations ρ¯1\overline{\rho}_{1} and ρ¯2\overline{\rho}_{2} are related by twisting by CC (and possibly another element of the centraliser of ρ¯(a)\overline{\rho}(a) that fixes the fixed points of ρ¯(a)\overline{\rho}(a)). In particular, the reducible character on L¯i\overline{L}_{i} has exactly two preimages in X=r¯1(L¯i).X=\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{i}). This shows that there are no ramification points. ∎

Examples for the case in Proposition 26 where the degree is two are given in Section 5.4.1. In these examples, one extension of the Klein four character is on this line, and the other extension is on the canonical component.

In the case of maximal rank, we can give a complete picture of the Zariski components that are pre-images of the lines:

Proposition 27.

If H1(Mφ,2)23H_{1}(M_{\varphi},\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{3}, then X¯φ(S)\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) contains all three of L¯1\overline{L}_{1}, L¯2\overline{L}_{2} and L¯3\overline{L}_{3}. Moreover, each line L¯i\overline{L}_{i} has two pre-images L¯i\overline{L}^{\prime}_{i} and L¯i\overline{L}^{\prime\prime}_{i} in X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) that are pairwise disjoint. There is a permutation σSym(4)\sigma\in\operatorname{Sym}(4) such that the labels can be chosen such that χσ(i)L¯i\chi_{\sigma(i)}\in\overline{L}^{\prime\prime}_{i} for i{1,2,3}i\in\{1,2,3\}, and χσ(0)=L¯1L¯2L¯3\chi_{\sigma(0)}=\overline{L}^{\prime}_{1}\cap\overline{L}^{\prime}_{2}\cap\overline{L}^{\prime}_{3} is the only pairwise intersection point of the six preimages and is a character that lifts to SL(2,).\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}). Up to passing to the degree two cover Mφ2M_{\varphi^{2}}, we may assume that σ\sigma is the identity.

Proof.

The fact that X¯φ(S)\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) contains all three of L¯1\overline{L}_{1},L¯2\overline{L}_{2} and L¯3\overline{L}_{3} follows from the observation in the proof of Lemma 13, noting that the sign is now irrelevant, and the fact that irreducible representations of the fibre always extend. We know from Lemma 13 that Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) either contains all three lines L1,L_{1}, L2,L_{2}, and L3L_{3} or it contains exactly one of them.

First assume that Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) contains all three lines. Then X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) contains a character that extends the quaternionic group and is the common intersection of the pre-images L1,L^{\prime}_{1}, L2,L^{\prime}_{2}, and L3L^{\prime}_{3} in X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}) of the three lines. Under the map to the PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety, these map to Zariski components L¯1,\overline{L}^{\prime}_{1}, L¯2,\overline{L}^{\prime}_{2}, L¯3.\overline{L}^{\prime}_{3}. Hence their common intersection is one of the extensions χj\chi_{j} of the Klein four group.

Consider the line L¯3\overline{L}_{3} and the parameterisation given in Equation 4.11 that is consistent with Equation 4.4. Each point in L¯3\overline{L}_{3} has precisely two preimages in X¯(Mφ),\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}), and they are related by the action of κ3.\kappa_{3}. It follows that the preimage r¯1(L¯3)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{3}) either has one or two Zariski components. Since the lifting obstruction is constant on topological components of the character variety and r¯1(L¯3)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{3}) contains two distinct extensions of the Klein four group, namely χj\chi_{j} and κ3χj\kappa_{3}\cdot\chi_{j}, it follows that r¯1(L¯3)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{3}) is a disjoint union of two components L¯3\overline{L}^{\prime}_{3} and L¯3\overline{L}^{\prime\prime}_{3} and we have χjL¯3\chi_{j}\in\overline{L}^{\prime}_{3} and κ3χjL¯3\kappa_{3}\cdot\chi_{j}\in\overline{L}^{\prime\prime}_{3}

The same argument applies to the lines L¯1\overline{L}_{1} and L¯2\overline{L}_{2} where the respective action with respect to the appropriate parameterisations consistent with Equation 4.4 is given by κ1\kappa_{1} and κ2.\kappa_{2}. It now follows from the action of the Klein four group on the characters χ0,\chi_{0}, χ1,\chi_{1}, χ2,\chi_{2}, χ3\chi_{3} that no two of L¯i\overline{L}^{\prime\prime}_{i} and L¯k\overline{L}^{\prime\prime}_{k} have one of these characters in common. This implies that they are pairwise disjoint.

If χjχ0,\chi_{j}\neq\chi_{0}, then the meridian is mapped to an element of order two under the character corresponding to the triple intersection. Hence under the map X¯(Mφ)X¯(Mφ2),\overline{X}(M_{\varphi})\to\overline{X}(M_{\varphi^{2}}), the character χjX¯(Mφ)\chi_{j}\in\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) is mapped to χ0X¯(Mφ2),\chi_{0}\in\overline{X}(M_{\varphi^{2}}), and each preimage of one of the lines L¯i\overline{L}_{i} in X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) is mapped to the corresponding connected component of the preimage of L¯i\overline{L}_{i} in X¯(Mφ2)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi^{2}}) that passes through χ0X¯(Mφ2).\chi_{0}\in\overline{X}(M_{\varphi^{2}}). This completes the proof of the lemma in the case where Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) contains all three lines since κiχ0=χi.\kappa_{i}\cdot\chi_{0}=\chi_{i}.

Now suppose that Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) only contains one of the three lines L1,L_{1}, L2,L_{2}, and L3.L_{3}. Without loss of generality, we may assume this is L1.L_{1}. Then in X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) there is a component L¯1\overline{L}^{\prime\prime}_{1} that lifts to L1.L_{1}. The same argument as above shows that r¯1(L¯1)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{1}) has two disjoint components. Suppose χjL¯1.\chi_{j}\in\overline{L}^{\prime}_{1}. Then κ1χjL¯1.\kappa_{1}\cdot\chi_{j}\in\overline{L}^{\prime\prime}_{1}. Since the lifting obstruction is constant on topological components, r¯1(L¯2)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{2}) and r¯1(L¯3)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{3}) do not pass through κ1χj.\kappa_{1}\cdot\chi_{j}. Then r¯1(L¯2)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{2}) also does not pass through κ2κ1χj=κ3χj,\kappa_{2}\kappa_{1}\cdot\chi_{j}=\kappa_{3}\cdot\chi_{j}, and r¯1(L¯3)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{3}) does not pass through κ3κ1χj=κ2χj.\kappa_{3}\kappa_{1}\cdot\chi_{j}=\kappa_{2}\cdot\chi_{j}. Hence r¯1(L¯2)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{2}) contains χj\chi_{j} and κ2χj;\kappa_{2}\cdot\chi_{j}; and r¯1(L¯3)\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{3}) contains χj\chi_{j} and κ3χj.\kappa_{3}\cdot\chi_{j}. This proves that each extensions of the Klein four group is contained in at least one of the pre-images of the lines L¯i.\overline{L}_{i}. The proof is now completed by the observation in the proof of Proposition 26 that each L¯i\overline{L}_{i} has preimage in X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) consisting of two disjoint Zariski components, each containing one of the two extensions of the Klein four group contained in r¯1(L¯i).\overline{r}^{-1}(\overline{L}_{i}). The last statement now follows as in the previous paragraph. ∎

Remark 28.

In the examples we computed explicitly, it is always that case that χ0=L¯1L¯2L¯3.\chi_{0}=\overline{L}^{\prime}_{1}\cap\overline{L}^{\prime}_{2}\cap\overline{L}^{\prime}_{3}.

Example 29.

We continue the example of φ=α2β2\varphi=\alpha^{2}\beta^{-2} discussed in Example 16. As H1(Mφ;2)32H_{1}(M_{\varphi};\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\mathbb{Z}^{3}_{2}, L¯1L¯2L¯3X¯φ(S)\overline{L}_{1}\cup\overline{L}_{2}\cup\overline{L}_{3}\in\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S). A direct calculation shows that each line in X¯φ(S)\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) is the preimage of two Zariski components in X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) under the map r¯.\overline{r}. Consider the preimages L¯3,\overline{L}_{3}^{\prime}, L¯3\overline{L}_{3}^{\prime\prime} of L¯3.\overline{L}_{3}. Suppose that the component L3X(Mφ)L_{3}^{\prime}\in X(M_{\varphi}) described in Example 16 is the preimage of the component L¯3\overline{L}_{3}^{\prime\prime} in X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}). The values in Equation 4.3 on L¯3\overline{L}_{3}^{\prime\prime} are (0,0,0,4z2)(0,0,0,4-z^{2}). Twisting by the generator of C(im(ρ¯))C(\operatorname{im}(\overline{\rho})), we obtain another component L¯3X¯(Mφ)\overline{L}_{3}^{\prime}\subset\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) where the corresponding values are (4,0,0,z2)(4,0,0,z^{2}). We may choose labels for the preimages of the other lines such that the values taken in Equation 4.3 for L¯1\overline{L}_{1}^{\prime\prime} are (x2,(x22)2,0,0)(x^{2},(x^{2}-2)^{2},0,0), for L¯1\overline{L}_{1}^{\prime} are (4x2,x2(4x2),0,0)(4-x^{2},x^{2}(4-x^{2}),0,0), for L¯2\overline{L}_{2}^{\prime\prime} are (y2,0,(y22)2,0)(y^{2},0,(y^{2}-2)^{2},0), and for L¯2\overline{L}_{2}^{\prime} are (4y2,0,y2(4y2),0)(4-y^{2},0,y^{2}(4-y^{2}),0). Note that L¯1\overline{L}_{1}^{\prime}, L¯2\overline{L}_{2}^{\prime} and L¯3\overline{L}_{3}^{\prime} intersect at the character with trivial peripheral holonomy, and each of the other 33 characters extending the Klein four group is contained in precisely one of L¯1\overline{L}_{1}^{\prime\prime}, L¯2\overline{L}_{2}^{\prime\prime} and L¯3\overline{L}_{3}^{\prime\prime}.

4.3 Dimensions and lifting

As an application of the discussion in the previous section, we have the following:

Proposition 30.

Let MφM_{\varphi} be a hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundle. Then every Zariski component of X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) is at most one-dimensional. Moreover, if {χρ¯}X¯(Mφ)\{\chi_{\overline{\rho}}\}\subset\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) is a zero-dimensional component, then this character does not not lift to SL(2,),\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}), b1(φ)1b_{1}(\varphi)\neq 1, ρ¯(im(π1(T)π1(Mφ)))22,\overline{\rho}(\operatorname{im}(\pi_{1}(T)\to\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})))\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2}, and ρ¯\overline{\rho} is irreducible with trivial centraliser. Moreover, χρ¯\chi_{\overline{\rho}} maps to a character on a one-dimensional component in X¯(Mφ2).\overline{X}(M_{\varphi^{2}}).

Proof.

The same arguments as in the proof of Proposition 14 show that every component containing only reducible characters is one-dimensional and of genus zero, and that that the dimension of each Zariski component of X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) is at most one since MφM_{\varphi} does not contain a closed essential surface. Suppose XX is a Zariski component containing the character of an irreducible representation ρ¯.\overline{\rho}. Proposition 8 implies that the dimension of XX is at least one unless ρ¯(im(π1(T)π1(Mφ)))\overline{\rho}(\operatorname{im}(\pi_{1}(T)\to\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}))) is trivial or isomorphic with 22.\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2}.

If ρ¯(im(π1(T)π1(Mφ)))\overline{\rho}(\operatorname{im}(\pi_{1}(T)\to\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}))) is trivial, then trρ¯(a1b1ab)=±2\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(a^{-1}b^{-1}ab)=\pm 2 since a1b1aba^{-1}b^{-1}ab is the longitude. If the trace equals +2,+2, then ρ¯(a)\overline{\rho}(a) and ρ¯(b)\overline{\rho}(b) have a common fixed point on P1().P^{1}(\mathbb{C}). But since ρ(t)=±I\rho(t)=\pm I this implies that the representation is reducible. Hence trρ¯(a1b1ab)=2.\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(a^{-1}b^{-1}ab)=-2. In this case, ρ¯(a,b)22.\overline{\rho}(\langle a,b\rangle)\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2}. It follows that H1(Mφ;2)23,H_{1}(M_{\varphi};\mathbb{Z}_{2})\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{3}, and that χρ¯=χ0\chi_{\overline{\rho}}=\chi_{0} is the extension of the Klein four group with trivial peripheral holonomy. It now follows from Proposition 27 that this character is contained on a one-dimensional component.

Hence suppose that ρ¯(im(π1(T)π1(Mφ)))22.\overline{\rho}(\operatorname{im}(\pi_{1}(T)\to\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})))\cong\mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus\mathbb{Z}_{2}. In this case, trρ¯(a1b1ab)=0\operatorname{tr}\overline{\rho}(a^{-1}b^{-1}ab)=0 and therefore the representation restricted to π1(S)\pi_{1}(S) is irreducible and has trivial centraliser. Since the Klein four group lifts to the quaternionic group, this representation does not lift to SL(2,).\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}). In particular, b1(φ)1.b_{1}(\varphi)\neq 1. Now under the map to X¯(Mφ2),\overline{X}(M_{\varphi^{2}}), χρ¯\chi_{\overline{\rho}} maps to a character with the property that the peripheral subgroup has image isomorphic with 2.\mathbb{Z}_{2}. Hence Proposition 8 implies that the image lies on a one-dimensional component of X¯(Mφ2).\overline{X}(M_{\varphi^{2}}).

Remark 31.

We do not have examples of once-punctured torus bundles with zero-dimensional components in X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}). The purported examples given in [2, Theorem 7.6] contradict Proposition 8 and a simple description of one-dimensional components containing them is given in Example 10.

Heusener and Porti [17, §4.2] give examples of hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundles that have arbitrarily many one-dimensional Zariski components in X¯(Mφ)\overline{X}(M_{\varphi}) that do not lift to X(Mφ).X(M_{\varphi}). All of these components are of genus zero. We remark that all these examples satisfy b1(φ)=3.b_{1}(\varphi)=3. We give similar examples with b1(φ)=2b_{1}(\varphi)=2 in Section 5.4.1, and it was already remarked that if b1(φ)=1,b_{1}(\varphi)=1, then every representation lifts.

Components containing only reducible characters have an analogous characterisation as given in Section 3.4. Moreover, the proof of Proposition 17 gives the analogous result for the PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety. We state this here for completeness:

Proposition 32.

For every Zariski component XX of X¯red(Mφ)\overline{X}^{\text{red}}(M_{\varphi}), the restriction r¯\coXX¯φ(S)\overline{r}\co X\to\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) is constant and XX¯irr(Mφ).X\cap\overline{X}^{irr}(M_{\varphi})\neq\emptyset. Each character χ¯\overline{\chi} in the intersection is contained on exactly one curve CC in X¯irr(Mφ),\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi}), a smooth point of XX and CC and the intersection at χ¯\overline{\chi} is transverse.

4.4 An algebraic subset

For computations, it is useful to identify X¯φ(S)\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S) with the image of a suitable algebraic subset of X(S)X(S) under the four-fold branched covering map X(S)X¯(S).X(S)\to\overline{X}(S). Let

Xφ1(S)=\displaystyle X_{\varphi}^{1}(S)=\; {(x,y,z)3|(x,y,z)=φ¯(x,y,z)}\displaystyle\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{C}^{3}|(\phantom{-}x,-y,-z)=\overline{\varphi}(x,y,z)\} (4.14)
Xφ2(S)=\displaystyle X_{\varphi}^{2}(S)=\; {(x,y,z)3|(x,y,z)=φ¯(x,y,z)}\displaystyle\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{C}^{3}|(-x,\phantom{-}y,-z)=\overline{\varphi}(x,y,z)\} (4.15)
Xφ3(S)=\displaystyle X_{\varphi}^{3}(S)=\; {(x,y,z)3|(x,y,z)=φ¯(x,y,z)}\displaystyle\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{C}^{3}|(-x,-y,\phantom{-}z)=\overline{\varphi}(x,y,z)\} (4.16)

Note that the intersection of any two of the sets Xφ(S),Xφ1(S),Xφ2(S),Xφ3(S)X_{\varphi}(S),X_{\varphi}^{1}(S),X_{\varphi}^{2}(S),X_{\varphi}^{3}(S) is contained in a coordinate axis. Recall that the natural map q2\coX(S)X¯(S)q_{2}\co X(S)\to\overline{X}(S) is the quotient map of the H1(S,2)H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) action. The definitions imply that

q21(X¯φ(S))=Xφ(S)Xφ1(S)Xφ2(S)Xφ3(S)q_{2}^{-1}(\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S))=X_{\varphi}(S)\cup X_{\varphi}^{1}(S)\cup X_{\varphi}^{2}(S)\cup X_{\varphi}^{3}(S)

For each (x,y,z)q21(X¯φ(S)),(x,y,z)\in q_{2}^{-1}(\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S)), there are A,BSL(2,)A,B\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) with trA=x,trB=y\operatorname{tr}A=x,\operatorname{tr}B=y and trAB=z\operatorname{tr}AB=z and satisfying Equations 4.1 and 4.2, where εa,εb{±1}\varepsilon_{a},\varepsilon_{b}\in\{\pm 1\} are determined by

(εax,εby,εaεbz)=φ¯(x,y,z)(\varepsilon_{a}\;x,\;\varepsilon_{b}\;y,\;\varepsilon_{a}\varepsilon_{b}\;z)=\overline{\varphi}(x,y,z)

The above sets therefore give us a simple way to compute the representations of π1(Mφ)\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi}) into PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}). We now determine redundancies that arise from the action of the elements of H1(S,2)H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) that are not in H.H.

View hH1(S,2)h\in H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) as a homomorphism h\coπ1(S){±1}.h\co\pi_{1}(S)\to\{\pm 1\}. Then hHh\in H if and only if h(a)=h(φ(a))h(a)=h(\varphi(a)) and h(b)=h(φ(b)).h(b)=h(\varphi(b)). Let ρ¯\coπ1(Mφ)PSL(2,)\overline{\rho}\co\pi_{1}(M_{\varphi})\to\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) and use the set up from Equations 4.1 and 4.2. Then ρ¯\overline{\rho} lifts to SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) if and only if there is hH1(S,2)h\in H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) with

h(a)\displaystyle h(a) =h(φ(a))εA\displaystyle=h(\varphi(a))\;\varepsilon_{A}
h(b)\displaystyle h(b) =h(φ(b))εB\displaystyle=h(\varphi(b))\;\varepsilon_{B}

Note that the signs εA\varepsilon_{A} and εB\varepsilon_{B} are uniquely determined by ρ¯\overline{\rho} if H=H1(S,2)H=H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) and otherwise they depend on the choice of the matrixes AA and B.B. The action of hH1(S,2)h\in H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) is given by:

h(x,y,z)(h(a)x,h(b)y,h(ab)z)h\cdot(x,y,z)\mapsto(\;h(a)x,\;h(b)y,\;h(ab)z\;)

This induces a permutation of the sets Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S), Xφ1(S),X_{\varphi}^{1}(S), Xφ2(S),X_{\varphi}^{2}(S), and Xφ3(S).X_{\varphi}^{3}(S). The permutation of the sets is determined by the action on the defining equations:

φ¯(x,y,z)=(h(a)h(φ(a))εAx,h(b)h(φ(b))εBy,h(ab)h(φ(ab))εAεBz)\overline{\varphi}(\;x,\;y,\;z)=(\;h(a)h(\varphi(a))\varepsilon_{A}\;x,\;h(b)h(\varphi(b))\varepsilon_{B}\;y,\;h(ab)h(\varphi(ab))\varepsilon_{A}\varepsilon_{B}\;z\;)

Each set is stabilised by HH1(S,2)H\leq H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) and the complementary elements permute the sets Xφ(S),X_{\varphi}(S), Xφ1(S),X_{\varphi}^{1}(S), Xφ2(S),X_{\varphi}^{2}(S), Xφ3(S).X_{\varphi}^{3}(S).

If b1(φ)=3,b_{1}(\varphi)=3, then H=H1(S,2)H=H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) and hence each of the sets is fixed under this action. In particular, ρ¯\overline{\rho} does not lift if at least one of εA\varepsilon_{A} and εB\varepsilon_{B} equals 1.-1. Define

Xφ(S)=Xφ1(S)Xφ2(S)Xφ3(S)X_{\varphi}^{\perp}(S)=X_{\varphi}^{1}(S)\cup X_{\varphi}^{2}(S)\cup X_{\varphi}^{3}(S)

If b1(φ)=2,b_{1}(\varphi)=2, then the action of H1(S,2)H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) has two orbits, each containing two sets. Let

Xφ(S)=Xφi(S)X_{\varphi}^{\perp}(S)=X_{\varphi}^{i}(S)

where Xφi(S)X_{\varphi}^{i}(S) is one of the sets not in the orbit of Xφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S).

If b1(φ)=1,b_{1}(\varphi)=1, then there is just one orbit and we define Xφ(S)=.X_{\varphi}^{\perp}(S)=\emptyset. This observation can be viewed as an elementary proof of the fact that every representation into PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) lifts to SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) in this case.

These definitions imply that the map

Xφ(S)Xφ(S)X¯φ(S)X_{\varphi}(S)\cup X_{\varphi}^{\perp}(S)\to\overline{X}_{\varphi}(S)

is surjective, and corresponds to the quotient map of the action of H1(S,2)H^{1}(S,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) twisted via φ.\varphi.

5 Examples

This section provides details about the three infinite families of once-punctured torus bundles mentioned in the introduction, as well as the beginnings of a census. We begin by stating some general results that will be used repeatedly. The main ingredients in the proofs are properties of a sequence of Fibonacci polynomials, and determining irreducibility and genus of a plane algebraic curve from the Newton polygon of a defining polynomial.

5.1 The Fibonacci polynomials

This section collects some facts about a family of recursive polynomials, which are used throughout the computation in [2]. The Fibonacci polynomials will be used to compute Xφ(S)X_{\varphi}(S) for our examples.

Definition 33.

For every integer nn, the nn-th Fibonacci polynomial fn(u)f_{n}(u) is defined by the recursive relation

fn(u)=ufn1(u)fn2(u)f_{n}(u)=uf_{n-1}(u)-f_{n-2}(u)

where f0(u)=0f_{0}(u)=0 and f1(u)=1f_{1}(u)=1.

A number of useful properties of fnf_{n} according to [2] are listed below.

Lemma 34.
  1. 1.

    If u=s+s1u=s+s^{-1}, then

    fn(u)={snsnss1, if u±2n,          if u=2(1)n+1n, if u=2f_{n}(u)=\begin{cases}\dfrac{s^{n}-s^{-n}}{s-s^{-1}}\text{, if }u\neq\pm 2\\ n\text{, \hskip 28.45274ptif }u=2\\ (-1)^{n+1}n\text{, if }u=-2\end{cases}
  2. 2.

    If n0n\neq 0, the degree of fn(u)f_{n}(u) is |n|1|n|-1.

  3. 3.

    fn(u)f_{n}(u) is divisible by uu if and only if nn is even. If n0n\neq 0, fn(u)f_{n}(u) is not divisible by u2u^{2}.

  4. 4.

    For any integer nn, fn(u)f_{n}(u), fn+1(u)fn(u)f_{n+1}(u)-f_{n}(u), fn+1(u)+fn(u)f_{n+1}(u)+f_{n}(u) and fn+2(u)fn(u)f_{n+2}(u)-f_{n}(u) are separable except for f0(u)=0f_{0}(u)=0.

  5. 5.

    fn+2(u)fn+1(u)=0f_{n+2}(u)-f_{n+1}(u)=0 and fn+1(u)fn(u)=0f_{n+1}(u)-f_{n}(u)=0 do not have a common root.

Proof.

Part (1) follows from the defining relation. Parts (2), (3) and (4) follow from [2, Lemmas 4.3, 4.4 and 4.11]. A direct calculation using (1) results in (5). ∎

5.2 Genus and the Newton Polygon

A classical link between the Newton polygon and the genus of an irreducible algebraic curve is known as Baker’s formula:

Theorem 35 (Baker [1]).

Suppose that F(x,y)=0F(x,y)=0 defines an irreducible algebraic curve XX in 2\mathbb{C}^{2}. The genus of XX is at most the number of lattice points in the interior of the Newton polygon of F.F.

Khovanskiĭ [19] showed that one generically has equality instead of an upper bound. We use a version of this result as implied by Beelen and Pellikaan [3]. A polynomial F(x,y)[x,y]F(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}[x,y] is said to be nondegenerate with respect to its Newton polygon if for every edge γ\gamma of its Newton Polygon with the corresponding polynomial FγF_{\gamma}, the ideal generated by FγF_{\gamma}, xFγxx\frac{\partial F_{\gamma}}{\partial x} and yFγyy\frac{\partial F_{\gamma}}{\partial y} has no zero in (/{0})2(\mathbb{C}/\{0\})^{2}.

Corollary 36 (Beelen-Pellikaan).

Suppose that F(x,y)=0F(x,y)=0 defines an irreducible algebraic curve XX in 2\mathbb{C}^{2}. If FF is nondegenerate with respect to its Newton polygon and it is smooth at every point (x,y)X(x,y)\in X where xy0xy\neq 0, then the genus of its nonsingular model is equal to the number of lattice points in the interior of its Newton polygon.

Proof.

We show that this is implied by [3, Theorem 4.2]. The only statement that requires proof is that the smoothness hypothesis implies that the singular points of the homogeneous curve with equation F(x,y,z)=0F^{*}(x,y,z)=0 are among (0:0:1),(0:0:1), (0:1:0)(0:1:0) and (1:0:0),(1:0:0), where FF^{*} denotes the homogenisation of F.F. If SS is a singular point other than the three points, it is not in the line of infinity and corresponds to a singular point s=(x,y)Xs=(x,y)\in X such that xy0xy\neq 0. This contradicts the smoothness condition. ∎

We will also appeal to the following result [5, Lemma 5.1]. The authors thank Michael Joswig for pointing them to this reference.

Lemma 37 (Castryck-Voight [5]).

Suppose that F(x,y)=0F(x,y)=0 defines an irreducible algebraic curve XX in 2\mathbb{C}^{2}. Assume that FF is nondegenerate with respect to its Newton polygon, and that there are at least two lattice points in the interior of the Newton polygon of F.F. Then XX is hyperelliptic if and only if the interior lattice points of the Newton polygon are collinear.

5.3 The family MnM_{n}

The genera of the Zariski components of the SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})– and PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character varieties of the infinite family of once-punctured torus bundles MnM_{n} with monodromies φn=ABn+2\varphi_{n}=AB^{n+2} were determined by Baker and Petersen [2, Theorem 5.1] via a birational isomorphism between Xirr(Mφn)X^{irr}(M_{\varphi_{n}}) and a family of hyperelliptic curves. In this section, we compute the corresponding varieties Xφn(S)X_{\varphi_{n}}(S). Note that tr(φn)=n\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{n})=-n and MnM_{n} is hyperbolic if n3n\geq 3 or n3n\leq-3. For computational simplicity, we only consider the case when n3n\geq 3 and nn is odd, and so b1(φn)=1.b_{1}({\varphi_{n}})=1.

The corresponding family of framings φn\varphi_{n} admit the following form:

φn={aa(a1b1)n+2bba{\varphi_{n}}=\begin{cases}a\rightarrow a(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n+2}\\ b\rightarrow ba\end{cases}

By a direct computation as in Lemma 11, the binary dihedral characters for X(Mn)X(M_{n}) are as follows.

Fact 38.

For every odd integer n3n\geq 3, the ramification points of rr are

(β2k+β2k,βk+βk,βk+βk,0,0,0,0)(\beta^{-2k}+\beta^{2k},\beta^{k}+\beta^{-k},\beta^{k}+\beta^{-k},0,0,0,0)

where β=e2πin2\beta=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{n-2}}, β2k1\beta^{2k}\neq 1 and k=0,1,,n3k=0,1,...,n-3. There are n32=12|n2|12=12|trφn+2|2b1(φn)2\frac{n-3}{2}=\frac{1}{2}|n-2|-\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}|\operatorname{tr}\varphi_{n}+2|-2^{{b_{1}({\varphi_{n}})-2}} such binary dihedral characters in total, which agrees with Equation 1.1.

5.3.1 Topology of Xφn(S)X_{\varphi_{n}}(S)

In this subsection, we compute the fixed point set Xφn(S)X_{\varphi_{n}}(S). Substituting the automorphism φn\varphi_{n} into the definition of Xφn(S)X_{\varphi_{n}}(S) in Section 3.1, we obtain the following 3 equations

trρ(a)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\rho(a) =trρ(a(a1b1)n+2)\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(a(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n+2})
trρ(b)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\rho(b) =trρ(ba)\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(ba)
trρ(ab)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\rho(ab) =trρ(a(a1b1)n+1)\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(a(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n+1})

The second equation gives y=zy=z. Define polynomials Pn(x,y,z)=trρ(a(a1b1)n)P_{n}(x,y,z)=\operatorname{tr}\rho(a(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n}) for nn\in\mathbb{Z}. Using the trace identities in Section 2, PnP_{n} satisfies the recursive relation Pn(x,y,z)=zPn1(x,y,z)Pn2(x,y,z)P_{n}(x,y,z)=zP_{n-1}(x,y,z)-P_{n-2}(x,y,z) with P0(x,y,z)=xP_{0}(x,y,z)=x and P1(x,y,z)=yP_{1}(x,y,z)=y. Then Xφn(S)X_{\varphi_{n}}(S) is generated by Pn+2x,Pn+1zP_{n+2}-x,P_{n+1}-z and yzy-z. Recall the Fibonacci polynomial fnf_{n} in Section 5.1. We observe that

Pn(x,y,z)=yfn(z)xfn1(z), for nP_{n}(x,y,z)=yf_{n}(z)-xf_{n-1}(z)\text{, for }n\in\mathbb{Z} (5.1)

To simplify the defining equations of Xφn(S)X_{\varphi_{n}}(S), we use the idea of Buchberger’s algorithm [6] which is used to compute the Groebner basis of an ideal of a polynomial ring. Denote Xn+2=Pn+2x=Pn+2P0X_{n+2}=P_{n+2}-x=P_{n+2}-P_{0}, Xn+1=Pn+1P1X_{n+1}=P_{n+1}-P_{1}. We compute the S-polynomial of the first two polynomials recursively to summarise Xn+2X_{n+2} and Xn+1X_{n+1} into one single polynomial.

Lemma 39.

Define Xi+2=zXi+1XiX_{i+2}=zX_{i+1}-X_{i} for i0i\geq 0. When n=2k+1n=2k+1 is a positive odd integer, Xn+2,Xn+1=Pk+2Pk+1\langle X_{n+2},X_{n+1}\rangle=\langle P_{k+2}-P_{k+1}\rangle. When n=2kn=2k is a positive even integer, Xn+2,Xn+1=Pk+2Pk\langle X_{n+2},X_{n+1}\rangle=\langle P_{k+2}-P_{k}\rangle.

Proof.

Using induction, we can prove that Xi=PiPn+2iX_{i}=P_{i}-P_{n+2-i} for 0in+20\leq i\leq n+2. Since Xi+2X_{i+2} is a linear combination of Xi+1X_{i+1} and XiX_{i}, Xi+2\langle X_{i+2}, Xi+1Xi+1,XiX_{i+1}\rangle\subseteq\langle X_{i+1},X_{i}\rangle. By definition, Xi+1\langle X_{i+1}, XiXi+2,Xi+1X_{i}\rangle\subseteq\langle X_{i+2},X_{i+1}\rangle. Thus, Xi+2\langle X_{i+2}, Xi+1=Xi+1,XiX_{i+1}\rangle=\langle X_{i+1},X_{i}\rangle.

Hence when n=2k+1n=2k+1,

Xn+2,Xn+1\displaystyle\langle X_{n+2},X_{n+1}\rangle ==Xk+2,Xk+1=Pk+2Pk+1\displaystyle=...=\langle X_{k+2},X_{k+1}\rangle=\langle P_{k+2}-P_{k+1}\rangle

The even case follows analogously. ∎

When nn is odd, Xφn(S)=V(Pk+2Pk+1,yz)X_{\varphi_{n}}(S)=V(\langle P_{k+2}-P_{k+1},y-z\rangle). Under the restriction (x,y,z)(x,y)(x,y,z)\mapsto(x,y), Xφn(S)X_{\varphi_{n}}(S) is homeomorphic to its image, denoted by UnU_{n}. Note that Un=V(pk+2pk+1)U_{n}=V(\langle p_{k+2}-p_{k+1}\rangle) where pn(x,y)=Pn(x,y,y)p_{n}(x,y)=P_{n}(x,y,y). Combining this with Equation 5.1, UnU_{n} is generated by

gk(x,y)pk+2pk+1=y(fk+2(y)fk+1(y))x(fk+1(y)fk(y))g_{k}(x,y)\coloneqq p_{k+2}-p_{k+1}=y(f_{k+2}(y)-f_{k+1}(y))-x(f_{k+1}(y)-f_{k}(y))

By Lemma 34, the Newton polygon of gkg_{k} is shown in Figure 1.

yyxx(1,0)(0, 1)(2, 0)(1, 1)(k, 0)(k, 1)(k+2,0)γ1\gamma_{1}γ2\gamma_{2}γ4\gamma_{4}γ3\gamma_{3}
Figure 1: Newton polygon of gkg_{k}
Lemma 40.

gk(x,y)g_{k}(x,y) is irreducible in [x,y]\mathbb{C}[x,y] for any positive integer kk.

Proof.

If gk(x,y)g_{k}(x,y) is reducible, then we can factorise it into gk(x,y)=sk(x,y)tk(x,y)g_{k}(x,y)=s_{k}(x,y)t_{k}(x,y), where tk,skt_{k},s_{k} are non-constant polynomials in [x,y]\mathbb{C}[x,y]. Since gk(x,y)g_{k}(x,y) is linear in xx, without loss of generality, we assume that tk(x,y)=tk(y)t_{k}(x,y)=t_{k}(y) and sk(x,y)=xs(1)k(y)+s(2)k(y)s_{k}(x,y)=x\;s^{(1)}_{k}(y)+s^{(2)}_{k}(y), where s(i)k(y)s^{(i)}_{k}(y) and tk(y)t_{k}(y) are polynomial in [y]\mathbb{C}[y]. Then

{y(fk+2(y)fk+1(y))=s(2)k(y)tk(y)(fk+1(y)fk(y))=s(1)k(y)tk(y)\begin{cases}y(f_{k+2}(y)-f_{k+1}(y))=s^{(2)}_{k}(y)t_{k}(y)\\ -(f_{k+1}(y)-f_{k}(y))=s^{(1)}_{k}(y)t_{k}(y)\end{cases}

Since tk(y)t_{k}(y) is non-constant, by the fundamental theorem of algebra, tn(y)=0t_{n}(y)=0 has a solution α\alpha\in\mathbb{C}. Lemma 34 tells us that fk+1(y)fk(y)f_{k+1}(y)-f_{k}(y) has a nonzero constant term, which implies that α0\alpha\neq 0. Then α\alpha is a common zero of fk+2(y)fk+1(y)f_{k+2}(y)-f_{k+1}(y) and fk+1(y)fk(y)f_{k+1}(y)-f_{k}(y). This contradicts Lemma 34 (5). Hence gk(x,y)g_{k}(x,y) is irreducible. ∎

Lemma 41.

For n=2k+13n=2k+1\geq 3, there is no singular point in Un=V(gk)U_{n}=V(g_{k}) and gkg_{k} is nondegenerate.

Proof.

Suppose (x,y)(x,y) is a singular point. Then

{y(fk+2(y)fk+1(y))x(fk+1(y)fk(y))=0gkx(x,y)=fk+1(y)fk(y)=0\begin{cases}y(f_{k+2}(y)-f_{k+1}(y))-x(f_{k+1}(y)-f_{k}(y))=0\\ \frac{\partial g_{k}}{\partial x}(x,y)=f_{k+1}(y)-f_{k}(y)=0\end{cases}

This clearly contradicts Lemma 34 (5). The nondegeneracy condition for edges γ1\gamma_{1} and γ3\gamma_{3} in Figure 1 is obvious. For the edge γ2\gamma_{2}, Fγ2(x,y)=y(fk+2(y)fk+1(y))F_{\gamma_{2}}(x,y)=y(f_{k+2}(y)-f_{k+1}(y)). Suppose that (x,y)(/{0})2(x,y)\in(\mathbb{C}/\{0\})^{2} is a common zero of Fγ2F_{\gamma_{2}}, xFγ2xx\frac{\partial F_{\gamma_{2}}}{\partial x} and yFγ2yy\frac{\partial F_{\gamma_{2}}}{\partial y}. This results in

{fk+2(y)fk+1(y)=0fk+2(y)fk+1(y)=0\begin{cases}f_{k+2}(y)-f_{k+1}(y)=0\\ f_{k+2}^{\prime}(y)-f_{k+1}^{\prime}(y)=0\end{cases}

There is no such y0y\neq 0 satisfying the above two equations by Lemma 34 (1). In detail, it is clear that y=±2y=\pm 2 are not zeros. When y±2y\neq\pm 2, the first equation implies that p2k+3+1=0p^{2k+3}+1=0 and p1p\neq-1 given y=p+p1y=p+p^{-1}. Using change of variable formula dfndp=dfndydydp\frac{df_{n}}{dp}=\frac{df_{n}}{dy}\frac{dy}{dp}, the second equation implies that

pk(k(p+1)(p2k+31)12p+2p2k+3+p2k+4)(p21)(1+p)2=0\dfrac{p^{-k}(k(p+1)(p^{2k+3}-1)-1-2p+2p^{2k+3}+p^{2k+4})}{(p^{2}-1)(1+p)^{2}}=0

Since y0y\neq 0,

k(p+1)(p2k+31)12p+2p2k+3+p2k+4=0k(p+1)(p^{2k+3}-1)-1-2p+2p^{2k+3}+p^{2k+4}=0

Combining the above equation with p2k+3=1p^{2k+3}=-1 implies p=1p=-1, which is a contradiction. The nondegeneracy condition for edge γ4\gamma_{4} can be checked using a similar argument. ∎

Proposition 42.

If n=2k+13n=2k+1\geq 3, then the variety X¯irr(Mφ)Xφn(S)\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(M_{\varphi})\cong X_{\varphi_{n}}(S) is irreducible and a curve of genus 0.

Proof.

By Lemma 40 and Lemma 41, gk(x,y)g_{k}(x,y) satisfies assumptions in Corollary 36, which implies that the genus of UnU_{n} is 0. As UnXφn(S),U_{n}\cong X_{\varphi_{n}}(S), this proves the statement by Corollary 3. ∎

According to the Newton polygon Figure 1 and the theory of Puiseux expansions, there are kk ideal points such that x,ycx\rightarrow\infty,y\rightarrow c (a nonzero constant) and one ideal point such that x,yx\rightarrow\infty,y\rightarrow\infty. Hence there are k+1=n+12k+1=\frac{n+1}{2} ideal points. Since the number n32\frac{n-3}{2} of branch points is positive if n>3,n>3, the variety Xirr(Mn)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{n}) is also irreducible, and the same can be confirmed by direct calculation if n=3.n=3. Hence Corollary 20 implies:

Theorem 43.

Suppose that gng_{n} denote the genus of Xirr(Mn)X^{\text{irr}}(M_{n}). When nn is a positive odd integer and n3n\geq 3, gng_{n} is bounded by

n74gnn32\frac{n-7}{4}\leq g_{n}\leq\frac{n-3}{2}

Baker and Petersen [2, Theorem 5.1] show that gn=n32g_{n}=\frac{n-3}{2} for nn odd. So there are n1n-1 branch points in total. Hence in addition to the n32\frac{n-3}{2} branch points at the binary dihedral characters in X(Mφ(λ))X(Mφ)X(M_{\varphi}(\lambda))\subset X(M_{\varphi}), there are n+12\frac{n+1}{2} branch points at ideal points. In particular, every ideal point is a branch point (and in the case n=3n=3 these are the only branch points).

5.4 The family NnN_{n}

Let NnN_{n} be the once-punctured torus bundle with monodromy ψn=ABn+2A\psi_{n}=AB^{n+2}A. Note that tr(ψn)=2n2\operatorname{tr}(\psi_{n})=-2n-2 and NnN_{n} is hyperbolic when n1n\geq 1 or n3n\leq-3. The corresponding family of framings ψn\psi_{n} admit the following form

ψn={aa(a1b1)n+2bba2(a1b1)n+2{\psi_{n}}=\begin{cases}a\rightarrow a(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n+2}\\ b\rightarrow ba^{2}(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n+2}\end{cases}

We restrict to n=2k+11n=2k+1\geq 1 odd and hence b1(ψn)=2.b_{1}(\psi_{n})=2.

The corresponding fixed-point set Xψn(S)X_{\psi_{n}}(S) is generated by the following equations

trρ(a)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\rho(a) =trρ(a(a1b1)n+2)\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(a(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n+2})
trρ(b)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\rho(b) =trρ(ba2(a1b1)n+2)\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(ba^{2}(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n+2})
trρ(ab)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\rho(ab) =trρ(a(a1b1)n+2ba2(a1b1)n+2)\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(a(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n+2}ba^{2}(a^{-1}b^{-1})^{n+2})

Using the trace identities in Section 2, the above equations can be simplified to x=Pn+2(x,y,z)x=P_{n+2}(x,y,z), y=Pn+1(x,y,z)y=P_{n+1}(x,y,z) and z=xyzz=xy-z, where PnP_{n} is defined by Equation 5.1. Then Xψn(S)=V(Pn+2x,Pn+1y,xy2z)X_{\psi_{n}}(S)=V(\langle P_{n+2}-x,P_{n+1}-y,xy-2z\rangle). By Lemma 39, Xψn(S)=V(Pk+2Pk+1,xy2z)X_{\psi_{n}}(S)=V(\langle P_{k+2}-P_{k+1},xy-2z\rangle) when n=2k+1n=2k+1.

If x=0,x=0, then z=0z=0 by second equation, and then 0=Pk+2Pk+1=y(fk+2(z)fk+1(z))0=P_{k+2}-P_{k+1}=y(f_{k+2}(z)-f_{k+1}(z)) which implies y=0y=0 by Lemma 34 (3). In particular, there is a unique point in Xψn(S)X_{\psi_{n}}(S) where x=0.x=0.

When x0x\neq 0, we substitute y=2zxy=\frac{2z}{x} into Pk+2(x,y,z)Pk+1(x,y,z)=0P_{k+2}(x,y,z)-P_{k+1}(x,y,z)=0 and multiply by xx on both sides, giving

hk(x,z)2(fk+2(z)fk+1(z))z(fk+1(z)fk(z))x2=0h_{k}(x,z)\coloneqq 2(f_{k+2}(z)-f_{k+1}(z))z-(f_{k+1}(z)-f_{k}(z))x^{2}=0

Define the variety VnV_{n} as the variety in 2\mathbb{C}^{2} generated by hk[x,z]h_{k}\in\mathbb{C}[x,z]. Then XφnSX_{\varphi_{n}}S and VnV_{n} are birational via rational maps

r1:XψnSVn(x,y,z)(x,z)\displaystyle\begin{aligned} r_{1}:X_{\psi_{n}}S&\dashrightarrow V_{n}\\ (x,y,z)&\rightarrow(x,z)\end{aligned} r2:VnXψnS(x,z)(x,2zx,z)\displaystyle\begin{aligned} r_{2}:V_{n}&\dashrightarrow X_{\psi_{n}}S\\ (x,z)&\rightarrow(x,\frac{2z}{x},z)\end{aligned}
zzxx(1,0)(0, 2)(2, 0)(1, 2)(k, 0)(k, 2)(k+2,0)
Figure 2: Newton polygon of hk(x,z)h_{k}(x,z)
Lemma 44.

hk(x,z)h_{k}(x,z) is an irreducible polynomial in [x,z]\mathbb{C}[x,z] for every positive integer kk.

Proof.

If hk(x,z)h_{k}(x,z) is reducible, then we can factorise it into hk(x,z)=sk(x,z)tk(x,z)h_{k}(x,z)=s_{k}(x,z)t_{k}(x,z), where tk,skt_{k},s_{k} are non-constant polynomials in [x,z]\mathbb{C}[x,z]. Then the Newton polygon of hk(x,z)h_{k}(x,z) is the Minkowski sum of the Newton polygons of sk(x,z)s_{k}(x,z) and tk(x,z)t_{k}(x,z). The Newton polygon of hn(x,z)h_{n}(x,z) is shown in Figure 2. Travelling along the boundary of the Newton polygon, we obtain the boundary vector sequence

v(gk)=((1,2),(1,0),,(1,0),(1,1),(1,1),(1,0),,(1,0))v(g_{k})=\bigg{(}(1,-2),(1,0),...,(1,0),(-1,1),(-1,1),(-1,0),...,(-1,0)\bigg{)}

where the number of repetitions of (1,0)(1,0) and (1,0)(-1,0) in v(hk)v(h_{k}) are k+1k+1 and kk respectively. The sequence v(hk)v(h_{k}) can be partitioned into two disjoint nonempty subsequences v(sk)v(s_{k}) and v(tk)v(t_{k}), each of which sums to zero. Given (1,2)(1,-2), (1,1)(-1,1) and (1,1)(-1,1) are the only three vectors with nonzero second components, they must be in the same sequence. Without loss of generality, we assume that they are in v(sk)v(s_{k}). Noting that hkh_{k} has no linear term in xx, we may write tk(x,z)=tk(z)t_{k}(x,z)=t_{k}(z) and sk(x,z)=x2s(1)k(z)+s(2)k(z)s_{k}(x,z)=x^{2}s^{(1)}_{k}(z)+s^{(2)}_{k}(z), where s(i)k(z)s^{(i)}_{k}(z) and tk(z)t_{k}(z) are polynomials in [z]\mathbb{C}[z]. Hence

{2(fk+2(z)fk+1(z))z=s(2)k(z)tk(z)(fk+1(z)fk(z))=s(1)k(z)tk(z)\begin{cases}2(f_{k+2}(z)-f_{k+1}(z))z=s^{(2)}_{k}(z)t_{k}(z)\\ -(f_{k+1}(z)-f_{k}(z))=s^{(1)}_{k}(z)t_{k}(z)\end{cases}

The remainder of the proof is analogous to the proof of Lemma 40, where one obtains a contradiction to Lemma 34 (5). ∎

Lemma 45.

When n=2k+11n=2k+1\geq 1, hkh_{k} is nondegenerate and there is no singular point in Vn=V(hk)V_{n}=V(h_{k}).

Proof.

The proof is almost identical to Lemma 41. ∎

Combining Lemmas 44 and 45 with Corollary 36 and Lemma 37 implies:

Lemma 46.

The curve VnXφ(S)V_{n}\cong X_{\varphi}(S) is hyperelliptic of genus kk for each n=2k+13n=2k+1\geq 3.

5.4.1 PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety

Since nn is odd, b1(ψn)=2b_{1}(\psi_{n})=2. If a representation ρ¯R¯(Nn)\overline{\rho}\in\overline{R}(N_{n}) lifts to SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}), then it generically has 44 lifts. Let X¯0(Nn)\overline{X}_{0}(N_{n}) be the subvariety of X¯irr(Nn)\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(N_{n}) consisting of the characters of all PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–representations that lift to representations into SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}). By Corollary 2, X0¯(Nn)q2(Xψn(S))\overline{X_{0}}(N_{n})\cong q_{2}({X}_{\psi_{n}}(S)). We have the following proposition.

Proposition 47.

For every positive odd integer n=2k+1n=2k+1, the subvariety X¯0(Nn)\overline{X}_{0}(N_{n}) is birational to the affine line.

Proof.

Since X¯0(Nn)\overline{X}_{0}(N_{n}) is birational to q2(Xφn(S))q_{2}({X}_{\varphi_{n}}(S)), it suffices to show that the latter has genus 0.

Take a homomorphism hHom(π1(Nn),2)h\in\operatorname{Hom}(\pi_{1}(N_{n}),\mathbb{Z}_{2}). A direct calculation shows that either (h(a),h(b))=(1,1)(h(a),h(b))=(1,1) or (h(a),h(b))=(1,1)(h(a),h(b))=(-1,-1) since nn is odd. Hence q2(Xφn(S))q_{2}({X}_{\varphi_{n}}(S)) is the quotient of Xφn(S){X}_{\varphi_{n}}(S) by the involution (x,y,z)(x,y,z).(x,y,z)\rightarrow(-x,-y,z).

Recall that Xψn(S)X_{\psi_{n}}(S) is birational to its restriction VnV_{n}. Let V¯n\overline{V}_{n} be the variety corresponding to the identification of VnV_{n} under the involution (x,z)(x,z)(x,z)\rightarrow(-x,z). Letting (X,Z)=(x2,z)(X,Z)=(x^{2},z), V¯n\overline{V}_{n} is generated by

h¯k(X,Z)2(fk+2(Z)fk+1(Z))Z(fk+1(Z)fk(Z))X\overline{h}_{k}(X,Z)\coloneqq 2(f_{k+2}(Z)-f_{k+1}(Z))Z-(f_{k+1}(Z)-f_{k}(Z))X

The genus of V¯n\overline{V}_{n} is seen to be 0 by a simple modification of the argument of Proposition 42. ∎

For each irreducible PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–representation ρ¯\overline{\rho} which does not lift, we may choose T,A,BSL(2,)T,A,B\in\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) with the properties ρ¯(t)={±T},\overline{\rho}(t)=\{\pm T\}, ρ¯(a)={±A},\overline{\rho}(a)=\{\pm A\}, ρ¯(b)={±B}\overline{\rho}(b)=\{\pm B\} and

T1AT\displaystyle T^{-1}AT =ψn(A)\displaystyle=-\psi_{n}(A)
T1BT\displaystyle T^{-1}BT =ψn(B)\displaystyle=\psi_{n}(B)

Using the convention from Equation 4.14, the traces of these representatives under the restriction map rr are contained in the set:

Xψn2(S)\displaystyle X_{\psi_{n}}^{2}(S) ={(x,y,z)3|(x,y,z)=ψn¯(x,y,z)}\displaystyle=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{C}^{3}|(-x,y,-z)=\overline{\psi_{n}}(x,y,z)\}
=V(Pn+2+x,Pn+1y,xy)\displaystyle=V(P_{n+2}+x,P_{n+1}-y,xy)

This implies that the components of Xψn2(S)X_{\psi_{n}}^{2}(S) are:

L3={(0,0,z)z}\displaystyle L_{3}=\{(0,0,z)\mid z\in\mathbb{C}\} (5.2)
Cξ={(0,y,ξ)y} where ξ is a root of fk+2(z)fk+1(z)=0\displaystyle C_{\xi}=\{(0,y,\xi)\mid y\in\mathbb{C}\}\text{ where }\xi\text{ is a root of }f_{k+2}(z)-f_{k+1}(z)=0 (5.3)
Cζ={(x,0,ζ)x} where ζ is a root of fk+1(z)fk(z)=0\displaystyle C_{\zeta}=\{(x,0,\zeta)\mid x\in\mathbb{C}\}\text{ where }\zeta\text{ is a root of }f_{k+1}(z)-f_{k}(z)=0 (5.4)

For each of the components CzXψn2(S)C_{z}\subset X_{\psi_{n}}^{2}(S), the map X¯(Nn)r¯1q2(Cz)X¯ψn(S)\overline{X}(N_{n})\supset\overline{r}^{-1}q_{2}(C_{z})\to\overline{X}_{\psi_{n}}(S) is a birational equivalence onto its image since the irreducible characters in Equations 5.3 and 5.4 arise from PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–representations of π1(S)\pi_{1}(S) with trivial centraliser.

Points in Xψn(S)X_{\psi_{n}}(S) satisfy 2z=xy,2z=xy, and none of the roots ξ\xi or ζ\zeta equal zero. Hence the only point in Xψn(S)Xψn2(S)X_{\psi_{n}}(S)\cap X_{\psi_{n}}^{2}(S) is (0,0,0),(0,0,0), and the existence of this intersection point is due to the fact that we are not working with X¯(Nn),\overline{X}(N_{n}), but with X¯ψn(S).\overline{X}_{\psi_{n}}(S). The two representations of NnN_{n} predicted by Lemma 23 are given by letting

ρ¯(a)=±(0110)ρ¯(b)=±(i00i)\overline{\rho}(a)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ -1&0\end{pmatrix}\qquad\qquad\overline{\rho}(b)=\pm\begin{pmatrix}i&0\\ 0&-i\end{pmatrix}

and

T1=±(i21212i2)T2=ρ¯(a)T1=±(12i2i212)T_{1}=\pm\begin{pmatrix}\frac{-i}{\sqrt{2}}&\frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}&\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\end{pmatrix}\qquad\qquad T_{2}=\overline{\rho}(a)\;T_{1}=\pm\begin{pmatrix}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}&\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{pmatrix}

Then ρ¯\overline{\rho} extends to a representation into PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}) by letting either ρ¯=T1\overline{\rho}=T_{1} or ρ¯=T2,\overline{\rho}=T_{2}, and the former lifts to SL(2,)\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) whilst the latter doesn’t. Denote the characters in X¯(Nn)\overline{X}(N_{n}) of the 22 extensions as χ1¯\overline{\chi_{1}} and χ2¯\overline{\chi_{2}}. According to the discussion in Section 2.1, χ1¯\overline{\chi_{1}} and χ2¯\overline{\chi_{2}} are on different topological components of X¯(Nn).\overline{X}(N_{n}). Note that χ1¯\overline{\chi_{1}} is in X0¯(Nn)\overline{X_{0}}(N_{n}) while χ2¯\overline{\chi_{2}} is in r¯1q2(L3)\overline{r}^{-1}q_{2}(L_{3}).

For the component L3Xψn2(S)L_{3}\subset X_{\psi_{n}}^{2}(S), we follow the same parametrisation of L3¯\overline{L_{3}} in Equation 4.11. For any point (0,0,(p+1p)2,0)L3¯(0,0,(p+\frac{1}{p})^{2},0)\in\overline{L_{3}}, a direct computation shows that it extends to 22 characters in X¯(Nn)\overline{X}(N_{n}) where the quadruples in Equation 4.3 are (2pn+21pn+2,0,0,2pn+41pn+4)(2-p^{n+2}-\frac{1}{p^{n+2}},0,0,2-p^{n+4}-\frac{1}{p^{n+4}}) and (2+pn+2+1pn+2,0,0,2+pn+4+1pn+4)(2+p^{n+2}+\frac{1}{p^{n+2}},0,0,2+p^{n+4}+\frac{1}{p^{n+4}}). Thus r¯1q2(L3)L3¯\overline{r}^{-1}q_{2}(L_{3})\to\overline{L_{3}} is a 22-fold branched cover with the only ramification point χ2¯\overline{\chi_{2}}.

5.5 The family LnL_{n}

Let LnL_{n} be the once-punctured torus bundle with monodromy ωn=A2Bn+2A\omega_{n}=A^{2}B^{n+2}A. Note that tr(ωn)=3n4\operatorname{tr}(\omega_{n})=-3n-4 so LnL_{n} is hyperbolic when nn is positive. When nn is odd, b1(ωn)=1b_{1}(\omega_{n})=1 and hence X¯irr(Ln)Xωn(S)\overline{X}^{irr}(L_{n})\cong X_{\omega_{n}}(S) according to Corollary 3. We now show:

Theorem 48.

Suppose n=2k+13n=2k+1\geq 3 is odd. The PSL(2,)\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})–character variety X¯irr(Ln)\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(L_{n}) consists of k+2k+2 components. The canonical curve X¯0(Ln)X¯irr(Ln)\overline{X}_{0}(L_{n})\subset\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(L_{n}) is birationally equivalent to a hyperelliptic curve of genus kk while all the other Zariski components are birational to the affine line.

We remark that if n=1n=1, then X¯irr(Ln)\overline{X}^{\text{irr}}(L_{n}) has 33 components, each of genus zero.

The framing ωn\omega_{n} of LnL_{n} is

ωn={aa(a2b1)n+2bba3(a2b1)n+2{\omega_{n}}=\begin{cases}a\rightarrow a(a^{-2}b^{-1})^{n+2}\\ b\rightarrow ba^{3}(a^{-2}b^{-1})^{n+2}\end{cases}

Then Xωn(S)X_{\omega_{n}}(S) is generated by

trρ(a)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\rho(a) =trρ(a(a2b1)n+2)\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(a(a^{-2}b^{-1})^{n+2})
trρ(b)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\rho(b) =trρ(ba3(a2b1)n+2)\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(ba^{3}(a^{-2}b^{-1})^{n+2})
trρ(ab)\displaystyle\operatorname{tr}\rho(ab) =trρ(a(a2b1)n+2ba3(a2b1)n+2)\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\rho(a(a^{-2}b^{-1})^{n+2}ba^{3}(a^{-2}b^{-1})^{n+2})

Using the trace identities in Section 2, the second equation is trρ(b)=trρ(a(a2b1)n+1)\operatorname{tr}\rho(b)=\operatorname{tr}\rho(a(a^{-2}b^{-1})^{n+1}) and the third equation is given by z=xyzx+yz=xy-zx+y. Let Qn(x,y,z)trρ(a(a2b1)n)Q_{n}(x,y,z)\coloneqq\operatorname{tr}\rho(a(a^{-2}b^{-1})^{n}). We have Q0=x,Q1=zQ_{0}=x,Q_{1}=z and Qn=(xzy)Qn1Qn2Q_{n}=(xz-y)Q_{n-1}-Q_{n-2}. Note that the third equation is equivalent to (yz)(x+1)=0(y-z)(x+1)=0 and hence naturally splits the variety Xωn(S)X_{\omega_{n}}(S) into the union of two algebraic sets as follows.

Xωn(S)=V(Qn+2x,Qn+1y,x+1)V(Qn+2x,Qn+1y,yz)X_{\omega_{n}}(S)=V(\langle Q_{n+2}-x,Q_{n+1}-y,x+1\rangle)\cup V(\langle Q_{n+2}-x,Q_{n+1}-y,y-z\rangle)

We denote the two algebraic sets in this union by RnR_{n} and WnW_{n} respectively.

Lemma 49.

Each canonical component of Xirr(Ln)X^{irr}(L_{n}) is contained in the preimage of WnW_{n}.

Proof.

We only need to show that each discrete and faithful character χρ0Xirr(Ln)\chi_{\rho_{0}}\in X^{irr}(L_{n}) is not in the preimage of RnR_{n}. Clearly ρ0\rho_{0} is not binary dihedral, so we can write ρ0(a)\rho_{0}(a) and ρ0(b)\rho_{0}(b) as in Equation 2.8. If x=1x=-1, a simple calculation shows that ρ0(a)\rho_{0}(a) is of order 3, which contradicts the faithfulness of ρ0\rho_{0} since aa has infinite order in π1(Mωn).\pi_{1}(M_{\omega_{n}}).

We will analyse WnW_{n} and RnR_{n} separately. Before doing so, we define a family of auxiliary polynomials Qn[x,y,z]Q_{n}^{\prime}\in\mathbb{C}[x,y,z], which follow the same recursive relation as QnQ_{n} but with Q0=xQ_{0}^{\prime}=x and Q1=yQ_{1}^{\prime}=y. When n=2k+1n=2k+1 is odd, a similar argument as in Lemma 39 shows that

Qn+2Q0,Qn+1Q1=Qk+2Qk+1,Qk+1Qk+2\langle Q_{n+2}-Q_{0}^{\prime},Q_{n+1}-Q_{1}^{\prime}\rangle=\langle Q_{k+2}-Q_{k+1}^{\prime},Q_{k+1}-Q_{k+2}^{\prime}\rangle

In addition, we observe that

Qn=zfn(xzy)xfn1(xzy) and Qn=yfn(xzy)xfn1(xzy)Q_{n}=zf_{n}(xz-y)-xf_{n-1}(xz-y)\quad\text{ and }\quad Q_{n}^{\prime}=yf_{n}(xz-y)-xf_{n-1}(xz-y)

5.5.1 The canonical component

Under the map (x,y,z)(x1,y)(x,y,z)\mapsto(x-1,y), WnW_{n} is birationally equivalent with its image, denoted by Wn2W_{n}^{\prime}\subset\mathbb{C}^{2}. As QnQ_{n} and QnQ_{n}^{\prime} coincide when y=zy=z, WnW_{n}^{\prime} is generated by the single element qk+2(x,y)qk+1(x,y)[x,y]q_{k+2}(x,y)-q_{k+1}(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}[x,y], where

qn(x,y)=yfn(xy)(x+1)fn1(xy)q_{n}(x,y)=yf_{n}(xy)-(x+1)f_{n-1}(xy)

Let 𝒲n\mathcal{W}_{n} be the variety in 2\mathbb{C}^{2} generated by the polynomial

rk(x,y)y2(fk+2(x)fk+1(x))(x+y)(fk+1(x)fk(x))\displaystyle r_{k}(x,y)\coloneqq y^{2}(f_{k+2}(x)-f_{k+1}(x))-(x+y)(f_{k+1}(x)-f_{k}(x))

There exists a birational isormorphism between WnW_{n}^{\prime} and 𝒲n\mathcal{W}_{n} via

r1:Wn𝒲n(x,y)(xy,y)\displaystyle\begin{aligned} r_{1}:W_{n}^{\prime}&\rightarrow\mathcal{W}_{n}\\ (x,y)&\rightarrow({xy},y)\end{aligned} r2:𝒲nWn(x,y)(xy,y)\displaystyle\begin{aligned} r_{2}:\mathcal{W}_{n}&\rightarrow W_{n}^{\prime}\\ (x,y)&\rightarrow(\frac{x}{y},y)\end{aligned}
Lemma 50.

rk(x,y)r_{k}(x,y) defined as above is an irreducible polynomial in [x,y]\mathbb{C}[x,y] for every positive odd integer n=2k+13n=2k+1\geq 3.

Proof.

If rk(x,y)r_{k}(x,y) is reducible, then we can factorise it into rk(x,y)=sk(x,y)tk(x,y)r_{k}(x,y)=s_{k}(x,y)t_{k}(x,y), where tn,snt_{n},s_{n} are non-constant polynomials in [x,y]\mathbb{C}[x,y]. The Newton polygon of rkr_{k} is shown in Figure 3. The boundary vector sequence of rk(x,y)r_{k}(x,y) is

v(rk)=((1,0),,(1,0),(0,1),(0,1),(1,0),(1,0),,(1,0),(0,1),(1,1))v(r_{k})=\bigg{(}(1,0),...,(1,0),(0,1),(0,1),(-1,0),(-1,0),...,(-1,0),(0,-1),(1,-1)\bigg{)}

where the number or repetitions of of (1,0)(1,0) and (1,0)(-1,0) in the sequence are kk and k+1k+1 respectively. Given (0,1)(0,1), (0,1)(0,1), (0,1)(0,-1) and (1,1)(1,-1) are the only vectors with nonzero horizontal component, there are two cases to split v(rk)v(r_{k}) into two disjoint nonempty subsequences v(sk)v(s_{k}) and v(tk)v(t_{k}), each of which sums to zero.

  1. 1.

    All the four vectors with nonzero horizontal component are in the same subsequence. Without loss of generality, let sk(x,y)=sk(x)s_{k}(x,y)=s_{k}(x) and tk(x,y)=y2t(2)k(x)+yt(1)k(x)+t(0)k(x)t_{k}(x,y)=y^{2}t^{(2)}_{k}(x)+yt^{(1)}_{k}(x)+t^{(0)}_{k}(x). Then

    {fk+2(x)fk+1(x)=t(2)k(x)sk(x)(fk+1(x)fk(x))=t(1)k(x)sk(x)x(fk+1(x)fk(x))=t(0)k(x)sk(x)\begin{cases}f_{k+2}(x)-f_{k+1}(x)=t^{(2)}_{k}(x)s_{k}(x)\\ -(f_{k+1}(x)-f_{k}(x))=t^{(1)}_{k}(x)s_{k}(x)\\ -x(f_{k+1}(x)-f_{k}(x))=t^{(0)}_{k}(x)s_{k}(x)\\ \end{cases}

    This is impossible due to Lemma 34 (5).

  2. 2.

    Hence (1,1)(1,-1),(0,1)(0,1) belong to one sequence, and (0,1)(0,1),(0,1)(0,-1) belong to the other sequence. Let rk(x,y)=(a(x)y+b(x))(c(x)y+d(x))r_{k}(x,y)=(a(x)y+b(x))(c(x)y+d(x)) where a,b,c,da,b,c,d are polynomials in [x]\mathbb{C}[x]. Then

    {fk+2(x)fk+1(x)=a(x)c(x)(fk+1(x)fk(x))=a(x)d(x)+b(x)c(x)x(fk+1(x)fk(x))=b(x)d(x)\begin{cases}f_{k+2}(x)-f_{k+1}(x)=a(x)c(x)\\ -(f_{k+1}(x)-f_{k}(x))=a(x)d(x)+b(x)c(x)\\ -x(f_{k+1}(x)-f_{k}(x))=b(x)d(x)\end{cases}

    Without loss of generality, take a root α\alpha of fk+1(x)fk(x)f_{k+1}(x)-f_{k}(x) which is also a root of b(x)b(x). The third equation and Lemma 34 (4) imply d(α)0d(\alpha)\neq 0. The first equation and Lemma 34 (5) imply a(α)0a(\alpha)\neq 0. But this gives a contradiction to the second equation.

Hence rk(x,y)r_{k}(x,y) is irreducible. ∎

Remark 51.

When n=1n=1, W1=V(q2q1)=V(y+1)V(xyx1)W_{1}=V(q_{2}-q_{1})=V(y+1)\cup V(xy-x-1). Both components have genus 0.

xxyy(0,0)(1,0)(k+1,0)(k+1,2)(0,1)γ1\gamma_{1}γ2\gamma_{2}γ4\gamma_{4}γ3\gamma_{3}γ5\gamma_{5}
Figure 3: The Newton polygon of rkr_{k}
Lemma 52.

When n=2k+13n=2k+1\geq 3, rkr_{k} is nondegenerate and there is no singular point in Vn=V(rk)V_{n}=V(r_{k}). Hence VkV_{k} is a hyperelliptic curve of genus k.k.

Proof.

The proof is straight forward using the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma 41. ∎

5.5.2 Other components

When n=2k+1n=2k+1, Rn=V(Qk+2Qk+1,Qk+1Qk+2,x+1)R_{n}=V(Q_{k+2}-Q_{k+1}^{\prime},Q_{k+1}-Q_{k+2}^{\prime},x+1) is birationally equivalent with its image, denoted by RnR_{n}^{\prime}, under the restriction (x,y,z)(y,z)(x,y,z)\mapsto(y,z). The variety RnR_{n}^{\prime} is generated by qk+2qk+1q_{k+2}^{\prime}-q_{k+1} and qk+2qk+1q_{k+2}-q_{k+1}^{\prime}, where

qn(y,z)\displaystyle q_{n}(y,z) =zfn(zy)+fn1(zy)\displaystyle=zf_{n}(-z-y)+f_{n-1}(-z-y)
qn(y,z)\displaystyle q_{n}^{\prime}(y,z) =yfn(zy)+fn1(zy)\displaystyle=yf_{n}(-z-y)+f_{n-1}(-z-y)

By a direct computation using the definition of fnf_{n},

Rn={(1,1)}V(fk+2(yz)+fk+1(yz))R_{n}=\{(-1,-1)\}\cup V(f_{k+2}(-y-z)+f_{k+1}(-y-z))

The point (1,1,1)(-1,-1,-1) is already contained in WnW_{n} while the second algebraic set gives us k+1k+1 components

{(x,y,z)y+z+α=0,x+1=0}\{(x,y,z)\mid y+z+\alpha=0,x+1=0\}

as α\alpha ranges over the k+1k+1 distinct roots of fk+2(u)+fk+1(u)=0f_{k+2}(u)+f_{k+1}(u)=0. All these components are birationally equivalent with affine lines.

5.6 Experimental results

As stated in Section 2.2, the choice of a monodromy as a positive word in 𝙰\tt{A} and 𝙱\tt{B} is not unique. Also, there is no simple criterion to ensure that the absolute value of the trace is greater than two. We list in Table 1 below the shortest words with this property. The computations were executed with Singular [10] using the following code template, and #Xφ(S)\#X_{\varphi}(S) denotes the number of Zariski components of Xφ(S).X_{\varphi}(S). The map m below represents φ¯\overline{\varphi} and is given as a composition of maps alpha and betainv.

ring r=0,(x,y,z),dp;
map alpha=r,x,z,xz-y;
map betainv=r,z,y,yz-x;
map m = [composition of alpha and betainv];
ideal I = m[1]-x,m[2]-y,m[3]-z;
def S = absPrimdecGTZ(I);
setring S;
absolute_primes;
Table 1: Short words in 𝙰\tt{A} and 𝙱\tt{B} giving hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundles
φ\varphi_{*} tr(φ)\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{*}) o(φ2)o(\varphi_{2}) #Xφ(S)\#X_{\varphi}(S) genera
A2B3A^{2}B^{3} 4-4 2 1 0
A3B2A^{3}B^{2} 4-4 2 1 0
AB5AB^{5} 3-3 3 1 0
A2B4A^{2}B^{4} 6-6 1 2 0,0
A3B3A^{3}B^{3} 7-7 3 3 0,0,0
A4B2A^{4}B^{2} 6-6 1 2 0,0

The representative

±Aa1Bb1Aa2Bb2AanBbn\pm A^{a_{1}}B^{-b_{1}}A^{a_{2}}B^{-b_{2}}\cdots A^{a_{n}}B^{-b_{n}}

where n>0n>0, the aia_{i} and bib_{i} are positive integers, and the sign equals the sign of the trace of φ,\varphi_{*}, allows us to build up a census of examples more efficiently. As explained in Section 2.3, if one is only interested in the topology of the fixed-point set, then it suffices to restrict to the case of positive trace. We summarise our computational results in Table 2.

Table 2: Short words in AA and B1B^{-1} giving hyperbolic once-punctured torus bundles
φ\varphi_{*} tr(φ)\operatorname{tr}(\varphi_{*}) o(φ2)o(\varphi_{2}) #Xφ(S)\#X_{\varphi}(S) genera
AB1AB^{-1} 3 3 1 0
AB2AB^{-2} 4 2 1 0
A2B1A^{2}B^{-1} 4 2 1 0
AB3AB^{-3}. 5 3 1 0
A2B2A^{2}B^{-2} 6 1 2 0,0
A3B1A^{3}B^{-1} 5 3 1 0
AB1AB1AB^{-1}AB^{-1} 7 3 3 0,0,0
AB4AB^{-4} 6 2 2 0,0
A2B3A^{2}B^{-3} 8 2 1 1
A3B2A^{3}B^{-2} 8 2 1 1
A4B1A^{4}B^{-1} 6 2 2 0,0
AB1AB2AB^{-1}AB^{-2} 10 2 3 0,0,0
AB1A2B1AB^{-1}A^{2}B^{-1} 10 2 3 0,0,0
AB5AB^{-5} 7 3 1 0
A2B4A^{2}B^{-4} 10 1 2 1,0
A3B3A^{3}B^{-3} 11 3 2 1,0
A4B2A^{4}B^{-2} 10 1 2 1,0
A5B1A^{5}B^{-1} 7 3 1 0
AB1AB3AB^{-1}AB^{-3} 13 3 3 1,0,0
AB1A2B2AB^{-1}A^{2}B^{-2} 15 3 1 2
AB1A3B1AB^{-1}A^{3}B^{-1} 13 3 3 1,0,0
AB2AB2AB^{-2}AB^{-2} 14 1 5 0,0,0,0,0
AB2A2B1AB^{-2}A^{2}B^{-1} 15 3 1 2
AB1AB1AB1AB^{-1}AB^{-1}AB^{-1} 18 1 7 0,0,0,0,0,0,0

References

  • [1] Henry Frederick Baker. Examples of applications of Newton’s polygon to the theory of singular points of algebraic functions. Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc., 15:403–450, 1893.
  • [2] Kenneth L. Baker and Kathleen L. Petersen. Character varieties of once-punctured torus bundles with tunnel number one. Internat. J. Math., 24(6):1350048, 57, 2013.
  • [3] Peter Beelen and Ruud Pellikaan. The Newton polygon of plane curves with many rational points. Des. Codes Cryptogr., 21(1-3):41–67, 2000. Special issue dedicated to Dr. Jaap Seidel on the occasion of his 80th birthday (Oisterwijk, 1999).
  • [4] Steven Boyer, Erhard Luft, and Xingru Zhang. On the algebraic components of the SL(2,){\rm SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) character varieties of knot exteriors. Topology, 41(4):667–694, 2002.
  • [5] Wouter Castryck and John Voight. On nondegeneracy of curves. Algebra Number Theory, 3(3):255–281, 2009.
  • [6] David A. Cox, John Little, and Donal O’Shea. Ideals, varieties, and algorithms. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, fourth edition, 2015. An introduction to computational algebraic geometry and commutative algebra.
  • [7] Marc Culler. Lifting representations to covering groups. Adv. in Math., 59(1):64–70, 1986.
  • [8] Marc Culler, William Jaco, and J. Hyam Rubinstein. Incompressible surfaces in once-punctured torus bundles. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 45(3):385–419, 1982.
  • [9] Marc Culler and Peter B. Shalen. Varieties of group representations and splittings of 33-manifolds. Ann. of Math. (2), 117(1):109–146, 1983.
  • [10] Wolfram Decker, Gert-Martin Greuel, Gerhard Pfister, and Hans Schönemann. Singular 4-2-1 — A computer algebra system for polynomial computations. http://www.singular.uni-kl.de, 2021.
  • [11] E. Falbel and A. Guilloux. Dimension of character varieties for 3-manifolds. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 145(6):2727–2737, 2017.
  • [12] William Floyd and Allen Hatcher. Incompressible surfaces in punctured-torus bundles. Topology Appl., 13(3):263–282, 1982.
  • [13] Ralph H. Fox. Free differential calculus. I. Derivation in the free group ring. Ann. of Math. (2), 57:547–560, 1953.
  • [14] William M. Goldman and John J. Millson. The deformation theory of representations of fundamental groups of compact Kähler manifolds. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (67):43–96, 1988.
  • [15] Francisco González-Acuña and José María Montesinos-Amilibia. On the character variety of group representations in SL(2,𝐂){\rm SL}(2,{\bf C}) and PSL(2,𝐂){\rm PSL}(2,{\bf C}). Math. Z., 214(4):627–652, 1993.
  • [16] François Guéritaud. On canonical triangulations of once-punctured torus bundles and two-bridge link complements. Geom. Topol., 10:1239–1284, 2006. With an appendix by David Futer.
  • [17] Michael Heusener and Joan Porti. The variety of characters in PSL2(){\rm PSL}_{2}(\mathbb{C}). Bol. Soc. Mat. Mexicana (3), 10(Special Issue):221–237, 2004.
  • [18] Michael Heusener and Joan Porti. Deformations of reducible representations of 3-manifold groups into PSL2(){\rm PSL}_{2}(\mathbb{C}). Algebr. Geom. Topol., 5:965–997, 2005.
  • [19] Askold G. Hovanskiĭ. Newton polyhedra, and the genus of complete intersections. Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen., 12(1):51–61, 1978.
  • [20] John W. Morgan and Peter B. Shalen. Degenerations of hyperbolic structures. III. Actions of 33-manifold groups on trees and Thurston’s compactness theorem. Ann. of Math. (2), 127(3):457–519, 1988.
  • [21] Joan Porti. Torsion de Reidemeister pour les variétés hyperboliques. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 128(612):x+139, 1997.
  • [22] Joan Porti. Dimension of representation and character varieties for two and three-orbifolds. arXiv:2009.03124, 2020.
  • [23] William P Thurston. The geometry and topology of three-manifolds. http://msri.org/publications/books/gt3m/, 1978.
  • [24] Stephan Tillmann. Character varieties of mutative 3-manifolds. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 4:133–149, 2004.
  • [25] Stephan Tillmann. Tropical varieties associated to ideal triangulations: the Whitehead link complement. In Characters in low-dimensional topology, volume 760 of Contemp. Math., pages 293–339. Amer. Math. Soc., [Providence], RI, [2020] ©2020.
\Addresses