Eliminating higher-multiplicity intersections. III. Codimension 2

• Published in: Israel journal of mathematics Vol. 245; no. 2; pp. 501 - 534
• Main Authors: Avvakumov, Sergey, Mabillard, Isaac, Skopenkov, Arkadiy B., Wagner, Uli
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Jerusalem The Hebrew University Magnes Press 01.10.2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Algebra; Analysis; Applications of Mathematics; Criteria; Embedding; Group Theory and Generalizations; Intersections; Mathematical and Computational Physics; Mathematics; Mathematics and Statistics; Theoretical
• ISSN: 0021-2172; 1565-8511
• DOI: 10.1007/s11856-021-2216-z

We study conditions under which a finite simplicial complex K can be mapped to ℝ d without higher-multiplicity intersections. An almost r -embedding is a map f : K → ℝ d such that the images of any r pairwise disjoint simplices of K do not have a common point. We show that if r is not a prime power and d ≥ 2 r + 1, then there is a counterexample to the topological Tverberg conjecture, i.e., there is an almost r -embedding of the ( d +1)( r − 1)-simplex in ℝ d . This improves on previous constructions of counterexamples (for d ≥ 3 r ) based on a series of papers by M. Özaydin, M. Gromov, P. Blagojević, F. Frick, G. Ziegler, and the second and fourth present authors. The counterexamples are obtained by proving the following algebraic criterion in codimension 2: If r ≥ 3 and if K is a finite 2( r − 1)-complex, then there exists an almost r -embedding K → ℝ 2 r if and only if there exists a general position PL map f : K → ℝ 2 r such that the algebraic intersection number of the f -images of any r pairwise disjoint simplices of K is zero. This result can be restated in terms of a cohomological obstruction and extends an analogous codimension 3 criterion by the second and fourth authors. As another application, we classify ornaments f : S 3 ⊔ S 3 ⊔ S 3 → ℝ 5 up to ornament concordance. It follows from work of M. Freedman, V. Krushkal and P. Teichner that the analogous criterion for r = 2 is false. We prove a lemma on singular higher-dimensional Borromean rings, yielding an elementary proof of the counterexample.