arXiv:1802.10107v1 [math.CO] 27 Feb 2018

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA:
MUTATION, SCATTERING AND CLUSTER ALGEBRAS
NATHAN READING
Abstract. An exchange matrix B dominates an exchange matrix B 0 if the
signs of corresponding entries weakly agree, with the entry of B always having
weakly greater absolute value. When B dominates B 0 , interesting things happen in many cases (but not always): the identity map between the associated
mutation-linear structures is often mutation-linear; the mutation fan for B
often refines the mutation fan for B 0 ; the scattering (diagram) fan for B often
refines the scattering fan for B 0 ; and there is often an injective homomorphism
from the principal-coefficients cluster algebra for B 0 to the principal-coefficients
cluster algebra for B, preserving g-vectors and sending the set of cluster variables for B 0 (or an analogous larger set) into the set of cluster variables for B
(or an analogous larger set). The scope of the description “often” is not the
same in all four contexts and is not settled in any of them. In this paper, we
prove theorems that provide examples of these dominance phenomena.

Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Mutation-linear maps
1.2. Mutation fans
1.3. Scattering diagrams
1.4. Ring homomorphisms between cluster algebras
1.5. Related work
2. Mutation-linear algebra
2.1. Partial linear structures
2.2. Mutation-linear structures
2.3. Mutation-linear maps
2.4. Mutation-linear algebra and universal coefficients
2.5. Examples of mutation-linear maps
3. Mutation-linearity and refinement of the mutation fan
3.1. Connecting Phenomenon I and Phenomenon II
3.2. Erasing edges
3.3. The 2 × 2 case
3.4. Acyclic finite type
3.5. Resection of marked surfaces
4. Refinement of scattering fans
4.1. Scattering fans
4.2. Scattering fans refine mutation fans

2
2
4
6
7
10
10
10
12
14
17
17
19
19
20
20
23
25
38
39
40

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 13F60, 52C99; Secondary 05E15, 20F55,
57Q15.
This paper is based upon work partially supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant Numbers DMS-1101568 and DMS-1500949.
1

2

NATHAN READING

4.3. The 2 × 2 case
5. Morphisms of cluster algebras
5.1. General considerations
5.2. The 2 × 2 case
5.3. Acyclic finite type
5.4. Resection of surfaces

41
42
42
44
49
50

Acknowledgments
References

67
67

1. Introduction
An exchange matrix is a skew-symmetrizable integer matrix. Given n × n
exchange matrices B = [bij ] and B 0 = [b0ij ], we say B dominates B 0 if for each i
and j, we have bij b0ij ≥ 0 and |bij | ≥ |b0ij |. This paper explores the consequences
of the dominance relationship between B and B 0 for the mutation-linear algebra,
mutation fans, scattering diagrams, and principal-coefficients cluster algebras associated to B and B 0 .
We present our results by describing several phenomena that often occur when
B dominates B 0 . We call these “phenomena” because the hypotheses are not yet
nailed down and because there are negative examples (where a phenomenon does
not occur). The goal of this paper is to prove theorems that give compelling and
surprising examples of the phenomena.
By providing examples of the phenomena, we wish to establish that something
real and nontrivial is happening, with an eye towards two potential benefits: In
one direction, we anticipate that researchers from the various areas will apply their
tools to find additional examples of the phenomena, necessary and/or sufficient
conditions for the phenomena to occur, and/or additional dominance phenomena.
In the other direction, since the phenomena discussed here concern fundamental
aspects of matrix mutation, the geometry of scattering diagrams, and the commutative algebra of cluster algebras, we anticipate that the phenomena will lead
to insights in the various areas where matrix mutation, scattering diagrams, and
cluster algebras are fundamental.
The rest of the introduction is devoted to describing the phenomena and stating
the main results.
1.1. Mutation-linear maps. The study of mutation-linear algebra was initiated
in [22] and continued in [23, 24, 2]. The “mutation” in “mutation-linear” is matrix
mutation in the sense of cluster algebras. (See [10, Definition 4.2] or Section 2.2.)
To put mutation-linear algebra into context, consider the formulation of (ordinary)
linear algebra as the study of linear relations on a module. For example, the notion
of basis is defined in terms of the existence and non-existence of certain linear
relations.P As another example, aPmap λ : V → V 0 is linear if for every linear
relation i∈S ci vi in V , the sum i∈S ci λ(vi ) is a linear relation in V 0 .
In the same sense, mutation-linear algebra is the study of B-coherent linear
1
n
relations.
P A B-coherent linear relation among vectors in R is a linear relation
i∈S ci vi with the following property: If the vi are placed as coefficient
1Here in the introduction, we sweep a technicality under the rug. See Definition 2.5.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

3

rows under B and the resulting extended exchange matrix is subjected to an arbitrary sequence of mutations to produce new coefficient rows vi0 , then the relation
P
0
B
is shorthand for the mutation-linear
i∈S ci vi = 0 holds. The notation R
n
n
structure on R , meaning the set R together with the collection of B-coherent
linear relations. Mutation-linear algebra is closely tied to cluster algebras. For
example, finding a basis for RB is the same thing as finding a cluster algebra for B
with universal (geometric) coefficients [22, Theorem 4.4]. The key mutation-linear
B
notion in this paper is the notion of a mutation-linear map. A map
P λ from R
B0
to R P is mutation-linear if for every B-coherent linear relation i∈S ci vi , the
sum i∈S ci λ(vi ) is a B 0 -coherent linear relation. A mutation-linear map can be
seen as a defining a functor from the category of geometric cluster algebras with
exchange matrix B, under coefficient specialization, to the same category for B 0 .
(See Section 2.4.)
From the definition of a mutation-linear map, it is not clear whether interesting
mutation-linear maps exist. The first phenomenon points out that they often do.
Phenomenon I (Identity is mutation-linear). Suppose B and B 0 are exchange
matrices such that B dominates B 0 . In many cases, the identity map from RB to
0
RB is mutation-linear.
It is easy to find non-examples of Phenomenon I; the surprise is that the phenomenon occurs as much as it does. A simple non-example is when B comes from
a quiver with three vertices and three arrows, forming a directed cycle, and B 0 is
defined by deleting one arrow from the cycle. On the positive side, we verify the
phenomenon for B acyclic of finite type. We prove the following theorem using
results of [25].
Theorem 1.1. Suppose B is an acyclic exchange matrix of finite type, and suppose
B 0 is another exchange matrix dominated by B. Then the identity map from RB to
0
RB is mutation-linear.
Replacing R with Q in Phenomenon I, we obtain a weaker phenomenon, which we
will call the “rational version” of Phenomenon I. (This rational version is equivalent
to the “integer version,” where R is replaced with Z. See Section 2.3.) We define
a simple operation, called resection, on triangulated surfaces that produces a
dominance relation among signed adjacency matrices. We verify the rational version
of Phenomenon I in the case of resection of some surfaces. Resection and the Null
Tangle Property are defined in Section 3.5. A null surface is a once-punctured
monogon, once-punctured digon, or unpunctured quadrilateral.
Theorem 1.2. Given a marked surface (S, M) with a triangulation T , perform a
resection of (S, M) compatible with T and let T 0 be the triangulation induced by T
on the resected surface (S0 , M0 ). Suppose also that every component of (S, M) and
(S0 , M0 ) either has the Null Tangle Property or is a null surface. Then the identity
0
map from QB(T ) to QB(T ) is mutation-linear.
At the time of writing, the only surfaces known to have the Null Tangle Property
(or defined to be null surfaces) are those whose connected components are of the
following types: a disk with 0, 1, or 2 punctures, an annulus with 0 or 1 punctures,
a sphere with three boundary components and no punctures, a torus with one
puncture and no boundary components, and a sphere with four punctures and no
boundary components. (See [24, Theorem 3.2] for the once-punctured torus, [2,

4

NATHAN READING

Theorem 1.1] for the four-punctured sphere, and [23, Theorem 7.4] for the other
surfaces.) Interestingly, this list is closed under resection. This list includes the
surfaces of finite type—those whose associated cluster algebra is of finite type.
There are no surfaces known (or conjectured) not to have the Null Tangle Property
except the null surfaces.
Work is in progress by Shira Viel [31] to generalize and extend Theorem 1.2 to
the case of orbifolds in the sense of [7].
As another example of Phenomenon I, we say that B 0 = [b0ij ] is obtained from

B = [bij ] by erasing edges if b0ij ∈ 0, bij for every pair i, j. In this case, B
dominates B 0 . The reference to edges refers to a graph on the indices of B with an
edge connecting two indices i and j if and only if bij 6= 0: The edges “erased” are
i—j such that b0ij = 0 6= bij . We can describe B 0 by specifying which edges in the
graph of B are erased to obtain B 0 .
Theorem 1.3. Suppose the indices of B are written as a disjoint union I ∪ J and
suppose B 0 is obtained by erasing all edges of B that connect indices in I to indices
0
in J. Then the identity map from RB to RB is mutation-linear.
 
Our final example of Phenomenon I concerns 2 × 2 exchange matrices B = 0b a0
with ab ≤ 0, and illustrates the subtlety of the phenomenon. The matrix B is
of finite type if and only if ab ≥ −3 and of affine type if and only if ab = −4.
Otherwise, we say B is of wild type. The following theorem completely describes
Phenomenon I for 2 × 2 exchange matrices.
Theorem 1.4. Suppose B and B 0 are 2 × 2 exchange matrices.
0
(1) If B does not dominate B 0 , then id : RB → RB is not mutation-linear.
0
(2) If neither B nor B 0 is wild then id : RB → RB is mutation-linear if and
0
only if B dominates B .
0
(3) If exactly one of B and B 0 is wild, then id : RB → RB is mutation-linear
if and only if either

(a) B 0 = h00 00 , or
i
(b) B 0 = ∓10 ±10 and B dominates B 0 but agrees with B 0 except in one
position.
0
(4) If both B and B 0 are wild, then id : RB → RB is not mutation-linear.

1.2. Mutation fans. The mutation fan FB of an exchange matrix B is a fan
that encodes the piecewise-linear geometry of mutations of B. (See Definition 2.11.)
Given fans F and F 0 with ∪F = ∪F 0 , we say that F refines F 0 if every cone of F
is contained in a cone of F 0 , or equivalently if every cone of F 0 is a union of cones
of F. If the mutation-linear structure RB is sufficiently well-behaved, then the
0
assertion that the identity is mutation-linear from RB to RB is equivalent to the
assertion that the mutation fan FB refines the mutation fan FB 0 (Proposition 3.1).
Specifically, “sufficiently well-behaved” means that RB admits a cone basis in the
sense of Definition 2.17. We are not aware of any B such that RB does not admit a cone basis, and we expect that the following phenomenon is equivalent to
Phenomenon I.
Phenomenon II (Refinement of mutation fans). Suppose B and B 0 are exchange
matrices such that B dominates B 0 . In many cases, the mutation fan FB refines
the mutation fan FB 0 .

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

5

In all of the examples and non-examples described above for Phenomenon I,
a cone basis is known to exist for RB . In particular, our proof of Theorem 1.1
proceeds by proving the following equivalent theorem.
Theorem 1.5. Suppose B is an acyclic exchange matrix of finite type, and suppose
B 0 is another exchange matrix dominated by B. Then the mutation fan FB refines
the mutation fan FB 0 .
We prove Theorem 1.5 by first relating the mutation fan to the Cambrian fan
and then appealing to the analogous refinement theorem for Cambrian fans, proved
in [25].
Remark 1.6. This refinement relation among Cambrian fans was the origin of the
present study of dominance. It was discovered though lattice-theoretic investigations of the weak order [25], following a clue in work of Simion [30]. This is another
example where the lattice theory of the weak order on finite Coxeter groups provides
a guide to discovering much more general phenomena. (Compare [20, 21, 28, 29].)
Given a triangulation T of a marked surface (S, M) having the Null Tangle
Property (or a weaker property called the Curve Separation Property), the rational
part of the mutation fan FB(T ) (Definition 3.2) is a fan FQ (T ) called the rational
quasi-lamination fan. The cones of FQ (T ) are the real spans of shear coordinates
of pairwise compatible collections of certain curves called allowable curves. Since
each of these shear coordinates is an integer vector, each cone of FQ (T ) is a rational
B
cone. Furthermore, we will see that every point
 in Q n is contained in some cone of
n
FQ (T ). Thus if |T | = n, then FQ (T ) ∩ Q = C ∩ Q : C ∈ FQ (T ) is a complete
fan in Qn . We prove Theorem 1.2 by proving the following theorem, which is
equivalent by Proposition 3.3. Since FQ (T ) is the rational part of FB(T ) , the
theorem provides an example of a “rational version” of Phenomenon II.
Theorem 1.7. Given a marked surface (S, M) and a triangulation T with |T | = n,
perform a resection of (S, M) compatible with T to obtain (S0 , M0 ) and let T 0 be
the triangulation of (S0 , M0 ) induced by T . Suppose also that every component of
(S, M) and (S0 , M0 ) either has the Null Tangle Property or is a null surface. Then
FQ (T ) ∩ Qn refines FQ (T 0 ) ∩ Qn .
As in the case of mutation-linear maps, the work of Viel [31] is expected to
generalize and extend this example of Phenomenon II coming from orbifolds.
Proposition 3.1, mentioned above, also says that, independent of any hypothesis
0
on B (e.g. that RB admits a cone basis), if the identity map RB → RB is mutationlinear, then FB refines FB 0 . Thus we obtain the following theorem as a consequence
of Theorem 1.3.
Theorem 1.8. Suppose the indices of B are written as a disjoint union I ∪ J and
suppose B 0 is obtained by erasing all edges of B that connect indices in I to indices
in J. Then FB refines FB 0 .
Finally, the results of [22, Section 9] show that RB admits a cone basis for every
2 × 2 exchange matrix B, so Theorem 1.4 implies the following theorem (in light of
Proposition 3.1 as above).
Theorem 1.9. Suppose B and B 0 are 2 × 2 exchange matrices.
(1) If B does not dominate B 0 , then FB does not refine FB 0 .

6

NATHAN READING

(2) If neither B nor B 0 is wild then FB refines FB 0 if and only if B dominates B 0 .
0
(3) If exactly one
 0 0 of
 B and B is wild, then FB refines FB 0 if and only if either
0
(a) B = h 0 0 , or
i
(b) B 0 = ∓10 ±10 and B dominates B 0 but agrees with B 0 except in one position.
(4) If both B and B 0 are wild, then FB does not refine FB 0 unless B = B 0 .
1.3. Scattering diagrams. The mutation fan is related to the cluster scattering diagram of [14]. We will not give a complete definition of cluster scattering
diagrams here, but will give enough of the definition and quote results that let
us connect them to mutation fans. The (principal coefficients) cluster scattering
diagram Scat(B) associated to an exchange matrix B is a certain collection W
of walls—codimension-1 cones—together with some additional algebraic data that
we will mostly ignore here. (A technical point: The cluster scattering diagram is
defined only up to a notion of equivalence, and we take an equivalence-class representative with minimal support.) In a way that is made more precise in Section 4,
the walls cut the ambient space into convex cones, and these cones, together with
their faces, comprise a complete fan [26, Theorem 3.1] called the (cluster) scattering fan and denoted by ScatFan(B). (As pointed out in [4, Section 3], the
cluster scattering diagram is expected to essentially coincide with the fan defined
by the spherical semi-invariants picture of [17].)
Phenomenon III (Refinement of scattering fans). Suppose B and B 0 are exchange matrices such that B dominates B 0 . In many cases, ScatFan(B) refines
ScatFan(B 0 ).
Most, but not all, of our examples and nonexamples of Phenomenon III come
from the relationship between ScatFan(B) and FB . The most general statement
about that relationship is the following theorem.
Theorem 1.10. The scattering fan ScatFan(B) refines the mutation fan FB for
any exchange matrix B.
A comparison of results of [4, Section 3] and [22, Section 9] shows that when
B is 2 × 2, the scattering fan ScatFan(B) coincides with the mutation fan FB if
and only if B is of finite or affine type. (See [4, Section 3] and [22, Section 9]
and compare [26, Section 6]. See also Theorem 3.7.) When B is of finite type,
both ScatFan(B) and FB are known to coincide with the g-vector fan for B T , so
they coincide. (The fact for ScatFan(B) follows from [14, Lemma 2.10] and [14,
Corollary 5.9]. The transpose is not mentioned in [14], but arises from a difference
in conventions as explained in [26, Remark 4.2]. The fact for mutation fans is
proved in [22, Section 10].)
Conjecture 1.11. Given an exchange matrix B, the scattering fan ScatFan(B)
coincides with the mutation fan FB if and only if either
(i) B is 2 × 2 and of finite or affine type or
(ii) B is n × n for n > 2 and of finite mutation type.
Conjecture 1.11 is suggested by the 2 × 2 and finite-type examples mentioned
above, other small examples, and a characterization of mutation-finiteness given in
[6, Theorem 2.8]: For n > 2, an n × n exchange matrix is mutation finite if and
only if every matrix [bij ] in its mutation class has bij bji ≥ −4 for all i 6= j. (Recall

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

7

also that a 2 × 2 exchange matrix is of finite or affine type if and only if the product
of its two off-diagonal entries is greater than or equal to −4.)
Since ScatFan(B) and FB coincide in finite type as explained above, Theorem 1.5
implies the following example of Phenomenon III.
Theorem 1.12. Suppose B is an acyclic exchange matrix of finite type, and suppose B 0 is another exchange matrix dominated by B. Then the scattering fan
ScatFan(B) refines the scattering fan ScatFan(B 0 ).
Also because ScatFan(B) and FB coincide in finite type, the non-example for
Phenomenon II (where B comes from a cyclically-directed triangle and B 0 is obtained by deleting one arrow) is a non-example of Phenomenon III as well.
More generally, as an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.10, we have the
following result which lets us obtain examples of Phenomenon III from examples of
Phenomenon II.
Theorem 1.13. Suppose that B dominates B 0 and that ScatFan(B 0 ) coincides with
FB 0 . If Phenomenon II occurs for B and B 0 , then Phenomenon III also occurs.
Theorem 1.13 has the following consequence.
Corollary 1.14. Suppose B is an exchange matrix of finite type, and suppose B 0
is another exchange matrix dominated by B such that Phenomenon II occurs. Then
the scattering fan ScatFan(B) refines the scattering fan ScatFan(B 0 ).
Since finite mutation fans coincide with their rational parts, and since non-null
surfaces of finite type have the Null Tangle Property [23, Theorem 7.4], we also
have the following corollary.
Corollary 1.15. Given a marked surface (S, M) of finite type with a triangulation T , perform a resection of (S, M) compatible with T . Let T 0 be the triangulation induced by T on the resected surface (S0 , M0 ). Then ScatFan(B(T )) refines
ScatFan(B(T 0 )).
Our final example of Phenomenon III is a departure from the correspondence
with Phenomenon II. For any 2 × 2 matrix, the full-dimensional rational cones of
the scattering fan coincide with the full-dimensional rational cones of the mutation
fan (because both are known to coincide with the g-vector cones of clusters). In
wild type, the closure of the complement of the full-dimensional rational cones is a
single irrational cone of the mutation fan. It is expected (see [14, Example 1.30])
that every rational ray in this irrational cone is a wall of the scattering diagram.
If this expectation is correct, then in particular every ray in the irrational cone is
a distinct cone of the scattering fan. We call the expectation that every ray in the
irrational cone is a distinct cone of the scattering fan the Discreteness Hypothesis
for the purpose of stating the following theorem, which is proved in Section 4.3.
Theorem 1.16. Suppose B and B 0 are 2 × 2 exchange matrices. Assuming the
Discreteness Hypothesis for 2 × 2 scattering fans, the scattering fan ScatFan(B)
refines the scattering fan ScatFan(B 0 ) if and only if B dominates B 0 .
1.4. Ring homomorphisms between cluster algebras. Another phenomenon
surrounding dominance of exchange matrices is the existence of ring homomorphisms between cluster algebras with different exchange matrices of the same size,
preserving g-vectors. This thought-provoking surprise suggests, in particular, that

8

NATHAN READING

the category of principal-coefficients cluster algebras and g-vector-preserving ring
homomorphisms may reward study. (Or perhaps one should consider a category
with more morphisms, namely ring homomorphism that act linearly on g-vectors.)
We start with the acyclic, finite-type version of the phenomenon. Write A• (B)
for the principal-coefficients cluster algebra associated to B and recall from above
that when B is of finite type, the mutation fan FB coincides with the g-vector fan
for B T . When B is acyclic and of finite type and B dominates B 0 , Theorem 1.5—
applied to B T and (B 0 )T —implies that the set of g-vectors of cluster variables in
A• (B 0 ) is a subset of the set of g-vectors of cluster variables in A• (B). Thus there is
a natural inclusion of the sets of cluster variables, sending each cluster variable for
B 0 to the cluster variable for B having the same g-vector. We will see below, with
additional details, that this inclusion extends to an injective ring homomorphism.
The principal-coefficients cluster algebra for an n×n exchange matrix is a subring
of the ring of Laurent polynomials in indeterminates x1 , . . . , xn , with coefficients
(ordinary) integer polynomials in indeterminates y1 , . . . , yn . The g-vector is a Zn grading of the cluster algebra determined by setting the g-vector of xk equal to the
standard unit basis vector ek and the g-vector of yk equal to the negative of the
k th column of the exchange matrix. A cluster monomial is a monomial in the
cluster variables in some cluster. For each integer vector λ ∈ Zn (still restricting
our attention to finite type), there exists a unique cluster monomial whose g-vector
is λ.
Writing A• (B 0 ) in terms of primed indeterminates x0i and yj0 , we observe that a
ring homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B) is entirely determined by its values on
x01 , . . . , x0n and y10 , . . . , yn0 . Define zk , for each k, to be the cluster monomial whose
th
g-vector
of B minus the k th column of B 0 . We define a set map
 0is the k0 column
0
0
νz on x1 , . . . , xn , y1 , . . . , yn by
(1.1)

νz (x0k ) = xk
νz (yk0 ) = yk zk

for all k = 1, . . . , n, and extend νz to a ring homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to the
ring of Laurent polynomials in x1 , . . . , xn , with coefficients integer polynomials
in y1 , . . . , yn . The homomorphism νz has a nice reformulation in terms of F polynomials. Define ŷi to be yi xb11i · · · xbnni . As a consequence of [12, Corollary 6.3],
every cluster monomial z is xg11 · · · xgnn times a polynomial Fz in the ŷi , where
(g1 , . . . , gn ) is the g-vector of z. The map νz sends each ŷk0 to ŷk · Fzk .
A priori, it is not clear that the image of A• (B 0 ) under νz is even contained in
A• (B), but surprising things often happen:
Expected Theorem 1.17. Suppose B is an acyclic exchange matrix of finite type,
and suppose B 0 is another exchange matrix dominated by B. Then the map νz is
an injective, g-vector-preserving ring homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B) and
sends each cluster variable in A• (B 0 ) to a cluster variable in A• (B).
We have verified Theorem 1.17 computationally for n × n exchange matrices
with n ≤ 8, thus in particular handling the exceptional types. (See Section 5.3.)
Furthermore, Theorem 1.20, below, in particular verifies the theorem when B is
acyclic of type A or D. We call this an “expected theorem” because work in progress
by Viel [31], already mentioned, is expected to complete the proof of the theorem
by handling types B and C.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

9

To generalize Theorem 1.17 beyond finite type, we need a generalization of the
set of cluster monomials, and a natural choice is the theta functions arising from
scattering diagrams [14]. Due to differences in conventions already mentioned (and
discussed in [26, Remark 4.2]), there is a global transpose, so we work with the
scattering diagram ScatT (B) = Scat(B T ). (The reason we write ScatT (B) is psychological: We think of B as our primary object, so we want to think of the global
transpose not as a modification of B, but rather as a choice of conventions for creating a scattering diagram.) For each integer vector, there is a Laurent polynomial
called a theta function obtained as a sum of monomials arising from broken
lines in ScatT (B). We write zi for the theta function of the vector obtained as the
k th column of B minus the k th column of B 0 and define νz as in (1.1). The cluster
variables are naturally generalized by what we call ray theta functions. There is
one ray theta function for each rational ray of the scattering fan ScatFanT (B) (the
fan defined by ScatT (B)): It is the theta function of the shortest integer vector in
the ray.
Phenomenon IV (Injective homomorphisms). In many cases, when B dominates B 0 , the map νz is an injective, g-vector-preserving ring homomorphism from
A• (B 0 ). In a smaller set of cases, νz sends each ray theta function for B 0 to a ray
theta function for B.
In some infinite types, some of the theta functions are not in the cluster algebra.
The relationship between theta functions and the cluster algebra is complicated
and is discussed at length in [14]. Because of this issue, we have been deliberately
vague about the target of the ring homomorphism in Phenomenon IV.
We now discuss additional instances of Phenomenon IV, beginning with the 2×2
case.
Theorem 1.18. If B and B 0 are 2 × 2 exchange matrices such that B dominates
B 0 , with B of finite or affine type, then both parts of Phenomenon IV occur.
Theorem 1.19. If B and B 0 are 2 × 2 exchange matrices such that B dominates
B 0 , with B 0 of finite type, then νz is an injective, g-vector-preserving ring homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B). Assuming the Discreteness
  Hypothesis,
 νz sends
0 b and B 0 = 0 d with
ray theta functions
to
ray
theta
functions
unless
B
=
c 0
a 0

cd = −3 and 1 6∈ |a|, |b| .
Theorem 1.19 explains why Phenomenon IV references a “smaller set of cases.”
Further understanding of Phenomenon IV in the 2 × 2 case is limited, for now, by
a lack of detailed constructions of scattering diagrams in the “wild” 2 × 2 cases.
We next describe an example of Phenomenon IV from the surfaces model.
Theorem 1.20. Suppose (S, M) is a once-punctured or unpunctured disk and suppose T is a triangulation of (S, M) such that B(T ) is acyclic. If B(T ) dominates
B 0 , then both parts of Phenomenon IV occur.
Theorem 1.20 is precisely the cases of Theorem 1.17 where the Cartan matrix
associated to B is of type A or type D. (For the Cartan matrix associated to B,
see Section 3.4.) In Section 5.4, we prove Theorem 1.20 by observing that every
matrix B 0 dominated by B(T ) can be obtained by a resection and then establishing
Phenomenon IV for each relevant resection. Although in proving some of the cases,
we generalize slightly to handle some of the non-acyclic cases, our treatment of the

10

NATHAN READING

surfaces case suggests that acyclicity, at least in some local sense near the changed
entries in the exchange matrix, is essential to Phenomenon IV. The arguments given
in this paper can be extended to deal with most resections of twice-punctured disks
(surfaces of affine type D), providing a step towards a version of Theorem 1.17
where B is of affine type. The cost is an increase in complexity, and we have not
pursued the extension here. At the end of Section 5.4, we discuss the difficulties
involved in generalizing Theorem 1.20 by allowing more general (S, M).
1.5. Related work. Several other lines of research touch tangentially on the ideas
presented in this paper. The notion of dominance appears in [15, 16] as an integral
part of the definition of seed homomorphisms. In [15, 16], the condition is broader in
the sense that it allows passing to submatrices and/or making a global sign change.
Also, the condition in [15, 16] is applied to extended exchange matrices, not just to
exchange matrices.
Some surface-cutting constructions similar to resection have appeared in [1, 16],
but resection is different because it aims to do something different, namely to construct dominance relations without restricting to submatrices (and without “freezing” variables).
All of the references cited just above are concerned primarily with notions of
morphisms of cluster algebras, but, to the author’s knowledge, the homomorphisms
proposed here do not fit into any category of cluster algebras already proposed. One
category, proposed in [1], features rooted cluster morphisms. These require that initial cluster variables (including “frozen” variables) map to cluster variables or to
integers and disallow exchangeable (“non-frozen”) initial cluster variables mapping
to frozen variables. In our examples, the map restricts to a bijection on (non-frozen)
initial cluster variables, but the frozen variables (which we call coefficients and denote by yi ) may map to other elements of the cluster algebra. In [15], it is shown
that each rooted cluster morphism defines a seed homomorphism, or, loosely speaking, a dominance relationship in the broader sense allowing submatrices and/or a
sign change as above. Other notions of morphisms between cluster algebras include the coefficient specializations of [12, Section 12] and [22, Section 3] and the
quasi-homomorphisms of [13], both of which fix the exchange matrix B.
Plan for the rest of the paper. The rest of this paper is devoted to proving
the theorems stated above that provide examples of dominance phenomena. We
begin by defining mutation-linear algebra and proving or quoting key results in
Sections 2.1–2.2. We then consider the phenomena in the order in which they were
introduced above, except that we consider Phenomena I and II together.
2. Mutation-linear algebra
In this section, we quote definitions and results surrounding mutation-linear algebra, prove some new preliminary results, and discuss some examples of mutationlinear maps.
2.1. Partial linear structures. To put the notion of mutation-linear algebra into
context, we briefly explore a more general notion that we will call a “partial linear
structure.” We do not propose at this time a systematic study of partial linear
structures, primarily because we are aware of only one interesting class of examples (the mutation-linear structures). However, it is hoped that the idea behind
mutation-linear structures will be clarified by this brief foray into greater generality.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

11

To make the notion of partial linear structures completely clear, we first formulate the usual notion of linear algebra entirely in terms of linear relations, saying
exactly nothing surprising in the process.
Let M be a module over a ring R (with
P R having a multiplicative identity 1).
Consider formal expressions of the form i∈S ci xi , where S is some finite indexing
set, each ciPis an element of R, and each xi is an element of M . As usual, the
expression i∈S ci xi is a linear relation on M if it evaluates (using the action
of R on M and the addition operation in M ) to the zero element of M . Say a
linear relation is trivial if it is empty or can be reduced to the empty relation by
repeated applications of combining like terms (i.e. replacing ax + bx by cx where
a + b = c) and deleting terms of the form 0x. Since addition in M is commutative,
we consider linear relations up to commutativity, so that for example c1 x1 + c2 x2
and c2 x2 + c1 x1 are considered to be the same linear relation. Let Rel(M, R) be
the set of linear relations on M with coefficients in R.
A set A ⊆ M is independent (in the usual linear-algebraic sense) if every linear
relation among elements of A is trivial. A set A ⊆ M spans M (in the usual linearalgebraic sense) if, for every element x ∈ M , there exists a linear relation writing x
as a linear combination of elements of A.
Now suppose M is a module over R and M 0 is a module over R0 . A map
λ : M → M 0 induces
a map on formal sums. Specifically, reusing the name λ for
P
P
the induced map, λ
i∈S ci xi is defined to be
x∈S rx λ(x). A map is linear, in
the usual sense, if and only if every linear relation in λ(Rel(M, R)) ⊆ Rel(M 0 , R0 ).
In a partial linear structure, we modify all linear-algebraic constructions by ignoring all linear relations not in some fixed subset of Rel(M, R).
Definition 2.1 (Partial linear structure). A partial linear structure is a triple
(M, R, V) such that M be a module over a ring R (with identity) and V is a subset
of Rel(M, R), satisfying the following conditions:
(i) (Empty relation.) The set V contains the empty relation (the relation
with empty indexing set).
P
(ii) (Irrelevance P
of zeros.) For any x ∈ M , a relation 0x + i∈S ci xi is in V
if and only if i∈S ci xi is in V,
P
(iii) (Combining like terms.)
P If c = a + b in R, then ax + bx + i∈S ci xi is
in V if and only if cx + i∈S
P ci xi is in V.
P
(iv) (Scaling.) If c ∈ R and if i∈S ci xi is in V, then i∈S di xi is in V, where
each di is cci .
P
P
(v) (Formal addition.) If i∈S ci xi and j∈T dj yj are in V, then the formal
P
P
sum i∈S ci xi + j∈T dj yj is in V.
Example 2.2 (The trivial partial linear structure). Taking V0 to be the set
of all trivial relations, we obtain a partial linear structure on (M, R, V0 ). In light
of conditions (i) and (ii) of Definition 2.1, every partial linear structure (M, R, V)
has V0 ⊆ V.
The definition of a partial linear structure easily implies the following properties.
Proposition 2.3. Suppose (M, R, V) is a partial linear structure.
(vi) (Tautology.) V contains all relations
for x ∈ M .
P of the form 1x + (−1)x
P
(vii) (Formal substitution.) If a + i∈S (−ci )xi and da + j∈T dj yj are in
P
P
V, then i∈S (dci )xi + j∈T dj yj is in V.

12

NATHAN READING

We will call the relations in V the valid linear relations. Given a partial linear
structure, new versions of the usual linear-algebraic notions can be obtained by
substituting the set V for the set Rel(M, R) in the definitions. For example, we
define a set A ⊆ M to be independent in (M, R, V) if every valid linear relation
among elements of A is trivial. A set A ⊆ M spans
P (M, R, V) if, for every element
x ∈ M , there exists a valid linear relation x + i∈S (−ci )xi with {xi : i ∈ S} ⊆ A.
A basis for (M, R, V) is an independent spanning set.
Theorem 2.4. If (M, R, V) is a partial linear structure and R is a field, then
(M, R, V) admits a basis.
The proof of Theorem 2.4 follows the usual non-constructive proof of the existence of a basis for an arbitrary vector space, using Zorn’s lemma. This proof, for
the special case of mutation-linear algebra defined in Section 2.2, is given in [22,
Proposition 4.6]. We omit it here.
Given partial linear structures (M, R, V) and (M 0 , R0 , V 0 ), a map λ : M → M 0 is
linear , with respect to the partial linear structures, if the induced map on linear
relations restricts to a map from V to V 0 . That is, the map is linear with respect
to the partial linear structures if every valid linear relation is mapped to a valid
linear relation.
2.2. Mutation-linear structures. We now review the definition of a partial linear structure that we will call a mutation-linear structure. An exchange matrix
is an n × n skew-symmetrizable integer matrix B = [bij ]. Skew-symmetrizability
means that there exist positive integers d1 , . . . , dn with di bij = −dj bji for all
i, j ∈ [n] and implies in particular that bij and bji are either both zero or have
strictly opposite signs. The fundamental notion in mutation-linear algebra is the
notion of a B-coherent linear relation: a linear relation preserved by a family of
piecewise-linear maps, called mutation maps, depending on B. To define B-coherent
linear relations, we first need to define matrix mutation and the mutation maps.
Let R be Z or any subfield of R. In particular, if R is a field, then it contains
Q as a subfield. We call R the underlying ring . Let B̃ be an (n + 1) × n matrix
whose top n rows agree with B and whose (n + 1)st row is a vector in Rn . For each
k = 1, . . . , n, the mutation of B̃ at index k is B̃ 0 = µk (B̃) with entries given by

−bij
if i = k or j = k;
(2.1)
b0ij =
bij + sgn(bkj ) [bik bkj ]+ otherwise.
Here [x]+ means max(0, x). The operation µk is an involution (i.e. µk (µk (B̃)) = B̃).
We also use the symbol µk to denote the map B 7→ µk (B) given by the same formula.
Given a sequence k = kq , . . . , k1 , the notation µk means µkq ◦ µkq−1 ◦ · · · ◦ µk1 . Note
that the sequence k is indexed with the first entry in the sequence
on the right. An

exchange matrix B is called mutation finite if the set µk (B) , where k ranges
over all sequences of indices of B, is finite.
Given B and a sequence k of indices, the mutation map ηkB : Rn → Rn is
defined as follows: Given a ∈ Rn , let B̃ be the (n + 1) × n matrix with B in the
top n rows and a in the bottom row. Then ηkB (a) is defined to be the bottom row
of µk (B̃). This is a piecewise linear homeomorphism from Rn to itself, with inverse
B
ηk1q+1
,...,kq . To see why, it may be helpful to consider the case where k consists of
a single index k. In this case, if a = (a1 , . . . , an ), then ηkB (a) = (a01 , . . . , a0n ) with

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

13

each a0j given by
(2.2)


−ak



aj + ak bkj
0
aj =
 aj − ak bkj


aj

if j = k;
if j 6= k, ak ≥ 0 and bkj ≥ 0;
if j 6= k, ak ≤ 0 and bkj ≤ 0;
otherwise.

When k is the empty sequence, ηkB is the identity map. For a nonempty sequence
k = kq , kq−1 , . . . , k1 , if we define B1 = B and Bi+1 = µki (Bi ) for i = 1, . . . , q, then
(2.3)

B

B

q−1
ηkB = ηkBq ,kq−1 ...,k1 = ηkqq ◦ ηkq−1
◦ · · · ◦ ηkB11

Since the entries of B are integers, the mutation maps on Rn restrict to a map
Rn → Rn for any underlying ring R. These maps also commute with scaling by a
nonnegative element c ∈ R, and have the property that
(2.4)

ηkB (a) = −ηk−B (−a).

Definition 2.5 (B-coherent linear relation). Given a finite set S, vectors
(vi : i ∈
P
S) in Rn , and elements (ci : i ∈ S) of R, the formal expression i∈S ci vi is a
B-coherent linear relation with coefficients in R if the equalities
X
(2.5)
ci ηkB (vi ) = 0, and
i∈S

(2.6)

X

ci min(ηkB (vi ), 0) = 0

i∈S

hold for every sequence k = kq , . . . , k1 of indices. Here min takes the minimum in
each component separately. Since, in particular, (2.5) holds when k is the empty
sequence, a B-coherent linear relationPis in particular a linear relation in the usual
sense. Recall that a linear relation i∈S ci vi is trivial if it is empty or can be
reduced to the empty relation by repeated applications of combining like terms (i.e.
replacing av + bv by cv where a + b = c) and deleting terms of the form 0v.
Example 2.6. It
 to produce linear relations that are not B-coherent. For
 is easy
example, if B = −10 10 , the relation 1 · [ 1 0 ] + 1 · [ −1 0 ] is not B-coherent because
η1B ([ 1 0 ]) = [ −1 1 ] but η1B ([ −1 0 ]) = [ 1 0 ]. On the other hand, one can check that
the relation 1 · [ 1 0 ] + 1 · [ 0 1 ] + (−1) · [ 1 1 ] is B-coherent.
Definition 2.7 (Mutation-linear structure). Given any underlying ring R and any
exchange matrix B, the mutation-linear structure is the partial linear structure
RB = (Rn , R, V) where V is the set of B-coherent relations over R. It is easy to
check that RB is indeed a partial linear structure in the sense of Definition 2.1.
Since RB is a partial linear structure, we can do “mutation-linear algebra” in
R . That is, we can study the notions of basis and of linear maps with respect
to the partial linear structure (Rn , R, V). A set A ⊆ RB is independent if every
B-coherent linear map among elements of A is trivial. The set A isPan spanning
if for every v ∈ Rn , there exists a B-coherent linear relation v − i∈S ci vi with
{vi : i ∈ S} ⊆ A. A basis for RB is a set that is both independent and spanning. Theorem 2.4 implies that, when R is a field, a basis exists for RB . See [22,
Proposition 4.6] for a proof in the mutation-linear case. We have no proof that a
basis exists for ZB for every exchange matrix B, but also we have no example of
an exchange matrix B such that ZB has no basis.
B

14

NATHAN READING

Remark 2.8. A basis for RB is called an “R-basis for B” in [22], and similarly,“Rindependent sets for B” and “R-spanning sets for B,” because the notion of a
mutation-linear structure RB was not explicitly named in [22].
2.3. Mutation-linear maps. Suppose B and B 0 are exchange matrices and con0
sider maps from RB to RB . These are simply maps from Rn to Rm if B is n × n
0
and B 0 is m × m, but we retain the notation RB and RB because the mutation0
B
linear structure is essential in what follows.PA map λ : RP
→ RB induces a map
on formal linear combinations that sends
i∈S ci vi to
i∈S ci λ(vi ). The map
0
λ : RB → RB is mutation-linear if every B-coherent linear relation with coefficients in R is sent by λ to a B 0 -coherent linear relation with coefficients in R. We
first notice that mutation-linear maps commute with nonnegative scaling.
0

Proposition 2.9. Suppose λ : RB → RB is a mutation-linear map. If v ∈ RB
and w = cv for c a nonnegative element of R, then λ(w) = cλ(v).
Proof. Since each mutation map ηkB commutes with nonnegative scaling, the rela0
tion cv+(−1)w is B-coherent. Thus if λ : RB → RB is a mutation-linear map, then
0
cλ(v) + (−1)λ(w) is a B -coherent linear relation. In particular cλ(v) + (−1)λ(w)
is a linear relation, so λ(w) = cλ(v).

We omit the proof of the following easy proposition.
Proposition 2.10. Suppose R0 and R1 are underlying rings with R0 ⊆ R1 . If
0
0
λ : R1B → R1B is mutation-linear and restricts to a map from R0B to R0B , then the
restriction is mutation-linear.
0

On the other hand, given a mutation-linear map λ : ZB → ZB , one can extend
0
λ to a map λ : QB → QB by clearing denominators in the usual way, and λ can
be shown to be mutation-linear as well. In other cases, it is not clear whether
mutation-linear maps can be extended to larger underlying rings.
Definition 2.11 (The mutation fan FB ). To define the mutation fan, we first define
an equivalence relation ≡B on RB by setting a1 ≡B a2 if and only if sgn(ηkB (a1 )) =
sgn(ηkB (a2 )) for every sequence k of indices. Here sgn(a) denotes the vector of
signs (−1, 0, or 1) of the entries of a. The equivalence classes of ≡B are called
B-classes. The closures of B-classes are called B-cones. These are closed convex
cones [22, Proposition 5.4], meaning that they are closed under nonnegative scaling
and addition. The set of B-cones and their faces constitute a complete fan [22,
Theorem 5.13] called the mutation fan. (In this context, a fan is a collection
of convex cones, closed under taking faces, such that the intersection of any two
cones is a face of each. Although we have no examples of B-cones that are not
polyhedral cones, the possibility has not been ruled out. Thus to refer to a “face”
in this definition, we must use the general definition of a face of a convex body,
rather than the more special notion of a face of a polyhedron.)
We point out a helpful fact, which is [22, Proposition 7.1].
Proposition 2.12. F−B = −FB .
The following is part of [22, Proposition 5.5].
Proposition 2.13. For any sequence k of indices, a set C is a B-cone if and only
if ηkB (C) is a µk (B)-cone.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

15

P
The formal expression i∈S ci vi is a B-local linear relation if it is a linear
relation in the usual sense and if {vi : i ∈ S} is contained in some B-cone. The
following is [22, Proposition 5.9].
Proposition 2.14. Every B-local linear relation is a B-coherent linear relation.
A collection of vectors in Rn is sign-coherent if for any k ∈ [n], the k th coordinates of the vectors in the collection are either all nonnegative or all nonpositive.
The following is [22, Proposition 5.30].
Proposition 2.15. A set C ⊆ Rn is contained in some B-cone if and only if the
set ηkB (C) is sign-coherent for every sequence k of indices in [n].
0

Proposition 2.16. If λ : RB → RB is a mutation-linear map and C is any cone
of FB , then the restriction of λ to C ∩ RB is a linear map (in the usual sense) into
some cone of FB 0 .
Proof. We argue the case where C is a B-cone. Since every cone of FB is a face of
some B-cone, the result then follows for arbitrary cones of FB .
Let v and w be elements of C ∩RB and let x = v+w. Then x is in C ∩RB as well.
The linear relation v + w + (−1)x is a B-local linear relation, and thus B-coherent
by Proposition 2.14. Mutation-linearity of λ implies that λ(v) + λ(w) + (−1)λ(x)
is a B 0 -coherent linear relation, and thus in particular a linear relation in the usual
sense. Thus λ(x) = λ(v) + λ(w), and this, together with Proposition 2.9, shows
that the restriction of λ to C ∩ RB is linear.
Suppose for the sake of contradiction that λ does not map C ∩ RB into a B 0 cone. Then in particular, there are two elements v and w of C ∩ RB such that
λ(v) and λ(w) are not contained in a common B-cone. Proposition 2.15 says that
0
0
there exists a sequence k of indices and an index j such that ηkB λ(v) and ηkB λ(w)
0
strictly disagree in the sign of their j th entry. Without loss of generality, ηkB λ(v)
0
has strictly positive j th entry and ηkB λ(w) has strictly negative j th entry. Again,
0
0
let x = v + w. Write hv , hw and hx for the j th entries of ηkB λ(v), ηkB λ(w), and
0
ηkB λ(x), respectively. As above, λ(v) + λ(w) + (−1)λ(x) is a B 0 -coherent linear
0
relation. Thus if the j th entry of ηkB λ(x) is nonnegative, then (2.5) and (2.6) imply
that hv + hw − hx = 0 and hv − hx = 0, so that hw = 0. Similarly, if the j th
0
entry of ηkB λ(x) is negative, then (2.6) implies that hv = 0. In either case, we have
reached a contradiction, because hv and hw strictly disagree in sign.

We wish to prove the converse of Proposition 2.16, but we will need an additional
hypothesis. (The additional hypothesis are necessary for our proof, but we know
of no counterexample to the converse without the additional hypothesis.)
Definition 2.17. A cone basis for RB is a independent set U in RB such that,
for every B-cone C, the R-linear span of U ∩ C contains Rn ∩ C.
By [22, Proposition 6.4], a cone basis for RB also spans RB , and thus is a basis
for RB . In fact, a stronger property than spanning is easily proved.
Proposition 2.18. Suppose a cone basisP
U exists for RB . Then for every a ∈ RB ,
there exists a B-local linear relation a + i∈S (−ci )vi such that each vi is in U .
Proof. If C is any B-cone containing a, then the
P definition of a cone basis says that
a is a linear combination (in the usual sense) i∈S ci vi of elements of U ∩ C. 

16

NATHAN READING

Remark 2.19. We have no proof that every mutation-linear structure RB has a
cone basis. (Indeed, as mentioned, we have no proof that ZB admits even a basis
for every B.) However, we know of no example of a mutation-linear structure RB
that does not admit a cone basis.
A stronger requirement on a basis is that it be positive. An basis U for RB
n
is
P positive if, for every a ∈ R , there exists a B-coherent linear relation a +
i∈S (−ci )bi such that all of the ci are nonnegative elements of R. Our main use
for positive bases in this paper is the following fact, which allows us to quote results
from other papers where positive bases are constructed. This fact is a part of [22,
Proposition 6.7].
Proposition 2.20. If U is a positive basis for RB , then it is a cone basis for RB .
Remark 2.21. In contrast to the situation for cone bases (as explained in Remark 2.19), there are known examples of mutation-linear structures that do not
admit positive bases. For example, [22, Proposition 9.9] says that when B = 0b a0
with ab < 4, no positive basis exists for ZB or for QB . We know of no example
where RB does not admit a positive basis.
The existence of a cone basis for RB greatly simplifies mutation-linear algebra.
Proposition 2.22. If a cone basis exists for RB , then a linear relation is Bcoherent if and only if it can be reduced to a (possibly empty) formal sum of B-local
relations by a sequence of changes, each of which adds a term with coefficient zero
or un-combines like terms.
Proof. Proposition 2.14 implies that any formal sum of B-local relations is Bcoherent. Deleting a term with coefficient zero or combining like terms preserves
B-coherence, so any linear relation that can be reduced to a formal sum of B-local
relations by adding termsP
and/or un-combining like terms is B-coherent.
On the other hand, let i∈S ci vP
i be a B-coherent linear relation. For each i ∈ S,
write a B-local linear relation vi + j∈Ti (−dij )wij such that each wij is an element
of the cone basis. (We P
can doPthis by Proposition 2.18.) By Proposition 2.3(vii)
(applied several times), i∈S j∈Ti (ci dij )wj is a B-coherent linear relation. Since
the wj are a basis, this relation is trivial, meaning that either it is empty or it
can be reduced to the empty relation by repeated applications of combining like
terms (replacing
bx by cx where a + b = c) and deleting terms of the form 0x.
Pax +P
Therefore also i∈S j∈Ti (−ci dij )wj is trivial.
P
Now, starting again withPthe B-coherent
linear combination i∈S ci vi , we can
P
add in the trivial relation i∈S j∈Ti (−ci dij )wj , by a sequence of additions of
terms withPcoefficient zero
of like terms. The result can be

P and/or un-combinings
rewritten
c
v
+
(−c
d
)w
using
commutativity.
(Recall that we
i
i
i
ij
j
i∈S
j∈Ti
P
consider linear relations up to commutativity.) Each ci vi + j∈Ti (−ci dij )wj is
P
B-local because vi + j∈Ti (−dij )wij is.

We now prove a converse to Proposition 2.16, when a cone basis exists for RB .
0

Proposition 2.23. Suppose RB admits a cone basis. Then λ : RB → RB is
mutation-linear if and only if, for any B-cone C, the restriction of λ to C ∩ RB is
a linear map (in the usual sense) into some B 0 -cone.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

17

Proof. One direction is Proposition
2.16. For the other direction, consider
a BP
P
coherent linear relation R = i∈S ci vi and let λ(R) be the formal sum i∈S ci λ(vi ).
Proposition 2.22 says that R can be reduced to a formal sum of B-local relations by
adding terms with coefficient zero or un-combining like terms. If the corresponding
changes are made to λ(R), by the hypothesis on λ, the result is a formal sum of
B 0 -local linear relations, which is therefore B 0 -coherent by Proposition 2.14. Then
λ(R) is B-coherent because undoing the changes (i.e. recombining like terms and
deleting zero terms) preserves B-coherence.

2.4. Mutation-linear algebra and universal coefficients. It was mentioned
in Section 1 that by [22, Theorem 4.4], finding a basis for RB is the same thing
as finding a cluster algebra for B with universal (geometric) coefficients. We now
elaborate on that remark, and describe how mutation-linear maps figure into the
picture. For more details and background, see [22, Sections 2–4].
For a fixed exchange matrix B, we consider a category GeomR (B) whose objects
are cluster algebras of geometric type over R in the sense of [22, Section 2], all
having the same initial exchange matrix B and all having the same initial cluster.
This notion of geometric type is broader than the usual notion in [12], because it allows extended exchange matrices to have infinitely many coefficient rows, and these
coefficient rows are allowed to have entries in R, which may be larger than Z. The
arrows in GeomR (B) are coefficient specializations, similar to those defined
in [12, Section 12], but with an extra topological requirement necessitated by the
possible infinity of rows. (When there are countably many rows, the requirement
is that the coefficient specialization be continuous in a “formal power series” topology on the coefficient semifield.) Let B be an exchange matrix and let I and K be
arbitrary index sets. Let B̃1 be an extended exchange matrix with exchange matrix
B and coefficient rows (ai : i ∈ I). Let B̃2 be an extended exchange matrix with
exchange matrix B and coefficient rows (bk : k ∈ K). A coefficient specialization
between cluster algebras
P A(B̃1 ) and A(B̃2 ) amounts to a collection of B-coherent
linear relations bk + i∈Sk (−cik )ai , one for each k ∈ K, expressing the coefficient
row bk of B̃ 0 as a B-coherent linear combination of coefficient rows of B̃.
0
Given a mutation-linear map λ : RB → RB , we define a functor from GeomR (B)
0
to GeomR (B ) by sending each extended exchange matrix B̃ with coefficient rows
(ai : i ∈ I) to the exchange matrix B̃ 0 with coefficient rows (λ(ai ) : i ∈ I). A
coefficient specialization between A(B̃1 ) and A(B̃2 ) defined by B-coherent linear
P
relations bk + i∈Sk (−cik )ai is sent to the coefficient specialization A(B̃10 ) and
P
A(B̃20 ) defined by B 0 -coherent linear relations λ(bk ) + i∈Sk (−cik )λ(ai ). The latter linear relations are B 0 -coherent because λ is mutation-linear. Indeed, given an
0
arbitrary map λ : RB → RB , the construction described here yields a functor if
and only if λ is mutation-linear.
2.5. Examples of mutation-linear maps. Phenomenon I considers bijective
mutation-linear maps that are not isomorphisms, because their inverses are not
mutation-linear (unless B 0 = B). By way of contrast, here we mention some examples of mutation-linear maps, specifically mutation-linear isomorphisms, surjections
and injections. We omit the straightforward proofs. In Section 3, we return to the
topic of dominance and discuss Phenomenon I.

18

NATHAN READING

2.5.1. Mutation-linear isomorphisms. The easiest examples of mutation-linear isomorphisms are the mutation maps themselves.
Proposition 2.24. For any exchange matrix B, any underlying ring R and any
sequence k of indices, the mutation map ηkB : RB → Rµk (B) is a mutation-linear
isomorphism.
We mention a few more mutation-linear isomorphisms.
Proposition 2.25. For any exchange matrix B and any underlying ring R, the
antipodal map x 7→ −x is a mutation-linear isomorphism from RB to R−B .
P
Proof.
Given a B-coherent linear map
i∈S ci vi , we show that the expression
P
c
(−v
)
is
(−B)-coherent.
Given
any
sequence
i
i
Pi∈S
P k of integers, the expression
c
η
(−v
)
can
be
rewritten,
using
(2.4),
as
i
k
i
i∈S
i∈S (−ci )ηk (vi ), which is 0 by
P
the B-coherence of i∈S ci vi . Thus the antipodal map is mutation-linear from RB
to R−B . It is self-inverse, and it is also mutation-linear from from R−B to RB . 
Given a permutation π of the indexing set of B = [bij ], let π(B) be [bπ(i)π(j) ]
and let π also denotes the linear map sending eπ(i) to ei , where ei is the vector
with 1 in the ith entry and zeros in the other positions.
Proposition 2.26. For any exchange matrix B and any underlying ring R, the
linear reindexing map π : RB → Rπ(B) is a mutation-linear isomorphism.
Let B = [bij ] and B 0 = [b0ij ] be exchange matrices. Then B 0 is a rescaling of
B if there exists a diagonal matrix Σ = diag(σ1 , . . . , σn ) with positive entries such
σ
that B 0 = Σ−1 BΣ. Equivalently, b0ij = σji bij for all i and j. As verified in [22,
Proposition 7.6], the matrix Σ can always be taken to have integer entries. An
exchange matrix may or may not admit any nontrivial rescaling. More information on rescaling exchange matrices is found in [22, Section 7]. In particular, [22,
Proposition 7.8.4] immediately implies the following fact.
Proposition 2.27. Let B be an exchange matrix and take the underlying ring R to
be a field. Suppose B 0 is a rescaling of B. Write B 0 = Σ−1 BΣ for Σ having entries
0
in R. Then the map v 7→ (vΣ) : RB → RB is a mutation-linear isomorphism.
0

When R = Z, the map v 7→ (vΣ) is still mutation-linear from ZB to ZB . It is
injective, but need not be surjective.
2.5.2. Surjective mutation-linear maps. For any subset I of the indices of B, define
BI to be the matrix obtained from B by deleting row j and column j for all j 6∈ I.
Retain the original indexing of BI , so that it is indexed by I. Let ProjI : RB → RBI
be the usual projection (ignoring the j th coordinate for each j 6∈ I).
Proposition 2.28. Let B be an exchange matrix. For any subset I of the indices
of B, the map ProjI : RB → RBI is mutation-linear.
We also mention an ad hoc construction of a surjective mutation-linear map by
“wrapping”
  matrix

 a “larger” mutation fan around a “smaller” one. The exchange
B = −30 10 has eight maximal cones, while the mutation fan for B 0 = 00 00 has four.
(See Figure 1.) We will see later, combining Theorem 3.5 and Proposition 2.20, that
RB admits a cone basis. One can construct a piecewise-linear branched double-cover
0
λ : RB → RB that maps each cone of FB linearly to a cone of FB 0 and thus is
mutation-linear by Proposition 2.23. This construction admits many variations.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

19

2.5.3. Injective mutation-linear maps. As mentioned above, nontrivial rescalings,
when R = Z are mutation-linear and injective but possibly not bijective. Much
0
stranger injective mutation-linear maps can be found from RB to RB when B is
n × n and B 0 is m × m with n < m. In this case, by Proposition 2.23, one might, for
example, map FB injectively into the n-skeleton of FB 0 , sending each cone linearly
to a cone. A less strange special case is when B = (B 0 )I in the sense of Section 2.5.2,
taking the natural injection into the subspace of RB indexed by I. Results of [22,
Section 8] can be used to show that such an injection is mutation-linear, at least in
the case where (B 0 )I is of finite type.
3. Mutation-linearity and refinement of the mutation fan
In this section, we discuss Phenomena I and II. We begin by observing (in Proposition 3.1), the close connection between Phenomenon I and Phenomenon II. Similarly, in Proposition 3.3, we connect rational versions of the two phenomena. In
the rest of this section, we gather examples of the two phenomena.
3.1. Connecting Phenomenon I and Phenomenon II. A fan F refines a fan
F 0 with ∪F 0 = ∪F if every cone of F contained in a cone of F 0 , or equivalently if
every cone of F 0 is a union of cones of F. The following proposition is an immediate
consequence of Propositions 2.16 and 2.23.
0

Proposition 3.1. If the identity map RB → RB is mutation-linear, then FB re0
fines FB 0 . If RB admits a cone basis, then the identity map RB → RB is mutationlinear if and only if FB refines FB 0 .
In the case of resection of surfaces, where we deal with rational versions of the
phenomena, we need a rational version of Proposition 3.1. In light of Proposition 2.10, for fixed B and B 0 , the statement that the identity map from RB to
0
RB is mutation-linear is equivalent to the statement that the identity map from
0
RB to RB is mutation-linear for any underlying ring R. Thus in particular the
conclusion of Theorem 1.2 is formally weaker than Phenomenon I. We now develop
a geometric formulation of the weaker assertion.
Definition 3.2 (Rational part of a fan). Suppose F and F̃ are fans in Rn satisfying
the following conditions:
(i) Each cone in F̃ is the nonnegative R-linear span of finitely many rational
vectors.
(ii) Each cone in F̃ is contained in a cone of F.
(iii) For each cone C of F, there is a unique largest cone (under containment)
among cones of F̃ contained in C. This largest cone contains Qn ∩ C.
Then F̃ is called the rational part of F. The rational part of a given F might
not exist, but if it exists, it is unique. (See [22, Definition 6.9] for examples of
non-existence and a proof of uniqueness, in the more general context where Q is
replaced by any underlying ring R.)
We have defined the rational part of a real fan to be another real fan. Instead,
n
one
n might want to
o consider the “rational part” of a fan as a fan in Q , by taking
n :
n
n
C ∩ Q C ∈ F̃ . We write F̃ ∩ Q for this fan in Q .

20

NATHAN READING

Proposition 3.3. Suppose that B and B 0 are n × n exchange matrices, that F̃B
is the rational part of FB , and that F̃B 0 is the rational part of FB 0 . If the identity
0
map QB → QB is mutation-linear, then F̃B ∩ Qn refines F̃B 0 ∩ Qn . Assuming
also that QB admits a cone basis, the identity map is mutation-linear if and only if
F̃B ∩ Qn refines F̃B 0 ∩ Qn .
0

Proof. Suppose the identity map QB → QB is mutation-linear. Suppose C̃ is any
cone of F̃B . By definition of the rational part of a fan, there exists a cone C of FB
containing C̃. Proposition 2.16 says that C ∩ Qn is contained in some cone C 0 of
FB 0 . There exists a cone C̃ 0 of F̃B 0 contained in C 0 and containing C 0 ∩ QB . Thus
C̃ ∩ QB ⊆ C̃ 0 . We have shown that F̃B ∩ Qn refines F̃B 0 ∩ Qn .
Assuming now that QB admits a cone basis, suppose conversely that F̃B ∩Qn refines F̃B 0 ∩Qn . Given any B-cone C, there is a cone C̃ of F̃B with C ∩QB ⊆ C̃ ⊆ C.
Since F̃B refines F̃B 0 as fans in QB , there exists a cone of F̃B 0 containing C̃. Since
some cone C 0 of FB 0 contains C̃ 0 , we have satisfied the hypothesis of Proposition 2.23, for λ equal to the identity map, so the identity map is mutation-linear. 
3.2. Erasing edges. We now prove Theorems 1.3 and 1.8. Both theorems suppose
that the indices of B are written as a disjoint union I ∪ J and that B 0 = [b0ij ] is
obtained by erasing all edges of B = [bij ] that connect indices in I to indices in J.
That means that every b0ij = b0ji = 0 for all i ∈ I and j ∈ J and every other entry of
B 0 agrees with the corresponding entry of B. The conclusion of Theorem 1.3 is that
0
the identity map RB → RB is mutation-linear. The conclusion of Theorem 1.8 is
that FB refines FB 0 . We prove Theorem 1.3 directly. Theorem 1.8 then follows
immediately by Proposition 3.1.
The proof of Theorem 1.3 uses the following observation, which follows from
(2.1) and (2.2) and a simple induction. We continue the notation of Section 2.5.2.
Proposition 3.4. Suppose I is a subset of the indices of B and suppose k is a
sequence of indices in I. Then (µk (B))I = µk (BI ). Furthermore, if v ∈ RB , then
ηkBI (ProjI (v)) = ProjI (ηkB (v)).
P
Proof of Theorem 1.3. Suppose i∈S ci vi is a B-coherent linear P
relation. Considering Proposition 3.4 for all sequences k of indices
in
I,
we
see
that
i∈S ci ProjI (vi )
P
is a BI -coherent linear relation. Similarly, i∈S ci ProjJ (vi ) is BJ -coherent.
P
We will show that i∈S ci vi is a B 0 -coherent relation. Each vector x ∈ RB
can be written x = ProjI (x) + ProjJ (x). Since b0ij = 0 whenever i ∈ I and
0
j ∈ J and because BI = BI0 and BJ = BJ0 , we see from (2.2) that ηkB (x) =
0
BI
B
ηk ProjI (x) + ProjJ (x) if k ∈ I and ηkB (x) = ProjI (x) + ηk J ProjJ (x) if k ∈ J.
Let k be any sequence of indices of B, let kI be the subsequence of k consisting
of indices
k consisting of indices in J.
J be the subsequence ofP
P in I,B 0and let kP
Then
ci ηk (vi ) =
ci ηkBII (ProjI (vi )) + i∈S ci ηkBJ (ProjJ (vi )). Since
i∈S
i∈S
P
P
and i∈S ci ProjJ (vi ) is a BJ i∈S ci ProjI (vi ) is a BI -coherent linear relation
P
0
coherent linear relation, we conclude that i∈S ci ηkB (vi ) = 0.

3.3. The 2 × 2 case. In this section, we prove Theorem 1.9, which characterizes
when Phenomenon II occurs for 2 × 2 exchange matrices. As explained in the introduction, results of [22, Section 9] combined with Proposition 3.1 then immediately
imply Theorem 1.4.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

B=

0 0

B=

00



01
−1 0



B=



01
−2 0

21



B=



01
−3 0



Figure 1. Mutation fans FB for 2 × 2 exchange matrices of finite type
 
Suppose B = 0b a0 is a 2 × 2 exchange matrix. We now briefly review the
description of the mutation fan of B given in [22, Section 9]. Since FB is complete
and contained in R2 , we can describe itcompletely

 by listing its rays.
If a = b = 0, then FB has rays ± 10 and ± 01 . Otherwise, there are two
possible sign patterns for B, either a > 0 and b < 0 or a < 0 and b > 0. Figure 1
shows the mutation fans in the case of finite type (i.e. when ab > −4) with the
additional condition that 0 ≤ a ≤ −b.
pictures are
 The
  rays
  occurring

in these

spanned by the vectors ± 10 , ± 01 , −11 , −12 , −23 , and −13 .
The remaining finite type cases can be recovered via two observations: First,
Proposition
  2.12
 says
 that F−B is the antipodal opposite of FB , and second, passing
from 0b a0 to a0 0b reflects the mutation fan through the line x1 = x2 .
In the cases where ab ≤ −4, we define P0 = P1 = 0 and, for m ≥ 2
(
−abPm−1 − Pm−2 if m is even, or
(3.1)
Pm =
Pm−1 − Pm−2
if m is odd.
This is a recursion, given in [26, (6.1)], for the polynomials defined in [22, (9.5)].
The first several values of Pm (a, b) are shown here.
m
Pm

0
1

1
1

2
−ab − 1

3
−ab − 2

4
a2 b2 + 3ab + 1

5
a2 b2 + 4ab + 3

Define, for k ≥ 0, vectors
h
i

k (a,b)
 sgn(a)P
−aPk+1 (a,b)
i
vk = vk (a, b) = h
−bPk (a,b)

 sgn(b)P
(a,b)
k+1

v∞ = v∞ (a, b) =

h

if k is odd.

i
√
2 sgn(a) −ab
√
√
−a( −ab+ −ab−4)

h
i
−bPk+1 (a,b)

 sgn(b)P
k (a,b)
i
wk = wk (a, b) = h
sgn(a)Pk+1 (a,b)


−aP (a,b)
k

w∞ = w∞ (a, b) =

if k is even, or

h

if k is even, or
if k is odd.

i
√
√
−b( −ab+ −ab−4)
√
.
2 sgn(b) −ab

Still assuming ab ≤ −4, the rays of FB are spanned by the vectors:
n    o
± 10 , ± 01 ∪ {vk : k = 0, . . .} ∪ {v∞ } ∪ {wk : k = 0, . . .} ∪ {w∞ } .
It is apparent that a mutation fan FB in R2 refines a mutation fan FB 0 in R2 if
and only if the set of rays of FB 0 is contained in the set of rays of FB . Since the

22

NATHAN READING

Slopes

B


0 1
−1 0



−1



0 1
−2 0



−1, − 12



0 2
−1 0



−2, −1



0 1
−3 0



−1, − 12 , − 23 , − 13



0 3
−1 0



−3, −2, − 32 , −1

Table 1. Relevant slopes of FB for B of finite type, a > 0 and b < 0

s0 , s1 , s2 , s3 . . .

t0 , t 1 , t 2 , t 3 . . .

s∞ = t∞



−1, − 43 , − 32 , − 58 , . . .

− 41 , − 13 , − 38 , − 52 , . . .

− 21


0 2

−2, − 23 , − 34 , − 54 , . . .

− 21 , − 23 , − 34 , − 54 , . . .

−1


0 4

−1, − 34 , − 23 , − 85 , . . .

−4, −3, − 83 , − 25 , . . .

−2

B




0 1
−4 0
−2 0
−1 0

Table 2. Some relevant slopes of FB for B of affine type, a > 0
and b < 0

 
 
rays spanned by
± 10 and ± 01 are in every mutation fan, we can ignore these

rays. If B 0 = 00 00 , then FB refines FB 0 for every B. Otherwise, it is apparent
that FB cannot refine FB 0 unless B and B 0 have weakly the same
 sign pattern. By
Proposition 2.12, we need only consider the case where B = 0b a0 with a > 0 and
b < 0 and B 0 has weakly the same sign pattern. Having made this reduction, we
also may as well consider, rather than containment of rays, containment of the set
of slopes of rays. We ignore slopes 0 and ∞ and call the slopes of the remaining
rays the relevant slopes. In finite type, the relevant slopes are shown in Table 1.
For ab ≤ −4 (and continuing with a > 0 and b < 0), the relevant slopes are

− aPk+1 (a,b) if k is even, or
Pk (a,b)
sk (a, b) = P (a,b)
 k+1
if k is odd.
bPk (a,b)
√
√
a( −ab + −ab − 4)
√
s∞ (a, b) = −
2 −ab

 Pk (a,b)
if k is even, or
bPk+1 (a,b)
tk (a, b) =
aP
(a,b)
− k
if k is odd.
Pk+1 (a,b)
√
2 −ab
√
t∞ (a, b) = √
.
b( −ab + −ab − 4)
All of these slopes are negative. The slopes sk increase and limit to s∞ . The slopes
tk decrease and limit to t∞ , and we have s∞ ≤ t∞ . When ab = −4, t∞ and s∞ are
equal and rational, but for ab < −4, t∞ and s∞ are distinct and irrational. Some

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

23

of these slopes are shown in Table 2 for the affine types.
We now prove the characterization of Phenomenon II for 2×2 exchange matrices.
Proof of Theorem 1.9. A brief inspection of Tables 1 and 2 is enough to verify
Theorem 1.9(2) and the non-wild case of Theorem 1.9(1).
We next check Theorem 1.9(3) and the case of Theorem 1.9(1) where exactly one
of B and B 0 is wild. If B 0 is wild and B is not, then FB 0 has two irrational relevant
slopes, while FB has only rational
 relevant slopes, so FB does not refine
  FB 0 . Now
consider the case where B = 0b a0 is wild and B 0 is not. If B 0 = 00 00 , then FB
refines FB 0 . Now consider the case where B 0 = −10 10 . If a > 2 and b < −2, then
√
√
√
2 −ab
a( −ab + −ab − 4)
√
√
< −1 < √
= t∞ ,
s∞ = −
2 −ab
b( −ab + −ab − 4)
and thus −1 is not a relevant slope of FB , so FB does not refine FB 0 . If a = 1,
then s0 (a, b) = −a = −1, so FB refines FB 0 , and similarly if b = −1, then
 0 1t0 (a, b) =
1
0
0 . Next, consider the case where B
=
−1,
so
F
refines
F
=
B
B
−2 0 . Since
b


B 0 dominates −10 10 , by Theorem 1.9(2) we conclude that FB does not refine FB 0
except possibly when a = 1 or b = −1. But if a = 1, then b ≤ −5, so
√
√
√
a( −ab + −ab − 4)
1
2 −ab
√
√
s∞ = −
<− < √
= t∞ ,
2
2 −ab
b( −ab + −ab − 4)
and thus − 12 is not a relevant slope of FB , so FB does not refine FB 0 . If b = −1,
then a ≥ 5, and we check similarly

 that s∞ < −2 < t∞ , so that FB does not refine
FB 0 . The case where B 0 = −10 20 is dealt with by the symmetric
 0 2  Since
 0 1  argument.
0
every other non-wild exchange matrix B dominates either −2 0 or −1 0 , we see
by Theorem 1.9(2) that no non-wild B 0 can have FB refine FB 0 . We have verified
Theorem 1.9(3).
 
 
Finally, suppose B = 0b a0 and B 0 = d0 0c are distinct wild 2 × 2 exchange
matrices. Since FB and FB 0 each have exactly two irrational slopes, for a refinement
relation to exist in either direction, in particular, these two slopes must be the same
in FB as in FB 0 . The conditions that the two slopes are the same in each fan can
be rewritten, after some manipulation, as
p
p
abd − a2 b2 d2 + 4abd2 = bcd − b2 c2 d2 + 4b2 cd
and
p
p
abc + a2 b2 c2 + 4abc2 = acd + a2 c2 d2 + 4a2 cd
We know that these slopes are irrational (in the case ab < −4), so the square roots
in the above equations are all irrational. No two distinct irrational square roots of
integers can differ by a rational number, so the square roots on each side must be
equal, and thus the integers on each side must be equal. That is, abd = bcd and
abc = acd, and therefore a = c and b = d. We have verified Theorem 1.9(4) and
the final case of Theorem 1.9(1).

3.4. Acyclic finite type. An exchange matrix B is acyclic if, after an appropriate
reindexing if necessary, it has the property that bij ≤ 0 whenever i > j. The
exchange matrix B is of finite type if every cluster algebra with B as its initial
exchange matrix has finitely many cluster variables. For details and a classification
of cluster algebras of finite type, see [11]. We now prove Theorem 1.1, which
establishes Phenomenon I when B is an acyclic exchange matrix of finite type.

24

NATHAN READING

The following theorem is [22, Theorem 10.12]. The theorem as stated in [22]
refers to the Standard Hypotheses, as do several other results quoted below. These
are that B has the property that the nonnegative orthant O = (R≥0 )n is a B-cone,
and that each member of a family of related matrices has the same property. It
was conjectured [22, Conjecture 8.1] that every exchange matrix has this property.
That conjecture was shown in [22, Proposition 8.9] to be equivalent to a standard
conjecture often called “sign-coherence of c-vectors,” now a theorem of [14]. Thus
we remove all references to the Standard Hypotheses when we quote from [22].
Theorem 3.5. If RB is a mutation-linear structure such that B is of finite type,
then the g-vectors associated to B T constitute a positive basis for RB .
It will not be necessary here to define the g-vectors. For our purposes, it is
only important that a positive basis exists. The following corollary is immediate
by Propositions 2.20 and 3.1.
Corollary 3.6. If B is an exchange matrix of finite type and B 0 is an exchange
0
matrix of the same size, then the identity map RB → RB is mutation-linear if and
only if FB refines FB 0 .
The following theorem is established as part of the proof of [22, Theorem 10.12],
but is unfortunately not stated separately as a numbered result in [22].
Theorem 3.7. If B is an exchange matrix of finite type, then FB consists of the
g-vector cones associated to B T and their faces.
We can again proceed without defining g-vectors, this time because we merely
wish to concatenate Theorem 3.7 with a theorem below about Cambrian fans.
Starting with an exchange matrix B, if one replaces each 0 on the diagonal with 2
and turns all positive off-diagonal entries negative, the resulting matrix Cart(B) is
a symmetrizable (generalized) Cartan matrix . A Cartan matrix is of finite
type if and only if it is positive definite. By results of [11], Cart(B) is of finite
type if and only if B is acyclic and of finite type. The Coxeter element c associated
to B and the Cambrian fan associated to (Cart(B), c) are defined in many places
(e.g. in [27, Section 4], [28, Section 9], [29, Section 5]), but we leave them undefined
here, because we only use them to continue concatenating results. It is enough to
say that the Cambrian fan is a certain refinement of the Coxeter fan for Cart(B),
the collection of hyperplanes normal to a root system for Cart(B). Specifically,
we construct a root system Φ(Cart(B)) for Cart(B) in a real n-dimensional vector
space V and identify V with Rn by identifying e1 , . . . , en with the simple co-roots.
The following theorem was conjectured in [27, Section 10], where it was proved in
a special case. It was proved in [32, Theorem 1.10] and later as [29, Corollary 5.16].
Theorem 3.8. Suppose B is an acyclic exchange matrix of finite type and let c be
the associated Coxeter element. Then the Cambrian fan associated to (Cart(B), c)
consists of the g-vector cones associated to B and their faces.
Theorems 3.7 and 3.8 combine to say the following:
Theorem 3.9. Suppose B is an acyclic exchange matrix of finite type and let c
be the associated Coxeter element. Then FB T is the Cambrian fan associated to
(Cart(B), c).

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

25

A Cartan matrix A = [aij ] dominates a Cartan matrix A0 = [a0ij ] if aij ≥ a0ij
for all i and j. If is easy to see that if B dominates B 0 , then Cart(B) dominates
Cart(B 0 ). The following is [25, Proposition 1.10].
Proposition 3.10. Suppose A and A0 are symmetrizable Cartan matrices such
that A dominates A0 . If Φ(A) and Φ(A0 ) are both defined with respect to the same
simple roots αi , then Φ(A) ⊇ Φ(A0 ) and Φ+ (A) ⊇ Φ+ (A0 ).
The following theorem, which is [25, Theorem 1.11], relies of Proposition 3.10 as
it applies to the dual root system Φ∨ (A) to Φ(A).
Theorem 3.11. Suppose A and A0 are Cartan matrices such that A dominates A0
and suppose W and W 0 are the associated groups, both generated by the same set S.
Suppose c and c0 are Coxeter elements of W and W 0 respectively that can be written
as a product of the elements of S in the same order. Choose a root system Φ(A)
and a root system Φ(A0 ) so that the simple co-roots are the same for the two root
systems. Construct the Cambrian fan for (A, c) by coarsening the fan determined
by the Coxeter arrangement for Φ(A) and construct the Cambrian fan for (A0 , c0 )
by coarsening the fan determined by the Coxeter arrangement for Φ(A0 ). Then the
Cambrian fan for (A0 , c0 ) is a coarsening of the Cambrian fan for (A, c). Whereas
the codimension-1 faces of the Cambrian fan for (A, c) are orthogonal to co-roots
(i.e. elements of Φ∨ (A)), the Cambrian fan for (A0 , c0 ) is obtained by removing all
codimension-1 faces orthogonal to elements of Φ∨ (A) \ Φ∨ (A0 ).
The orthogonality appearing in Theorem 3.11 and below in Theorem 3.12 is the
standard inner product on Rn defined in terms of the basis of the ei and has nothing
to do with the Euclidean inner products associated to A and A0 .
We wish to translate Theorem 3.11 into a more detailed version of Theorem 1.1.
Theorem 3.9 identifies the Cambrian fan as FB T but by Proposition 2.12, we can
equally well consider the relationship between F−B T and F−(B 0 )T . Passing from
B to −B T corresponds to passing from Cart(B) to Cart(B)T while preserving c,
and transposing the Cartan matrix corresponds to switching the roles of Φ and Φ∨ .
Thus in rewriting Theorem 3.11 as the following theorem, we identify simple roots
with the ei rather than simple co-roots.
Theorem 3.12. Suppose B and B 0 are acyclic exchange matrices of finite type
such that B dominates B 0 and let A = Cart(B) and A0 = Cart(B 0 ). Realize
the root systems Φ(A) and Φ(A0 ) in Rn such that for each i, the simple root αi
for A, the simple co-root αi0 for A0 and the unit basis vector ei all coincide. Each
codimension-1 face of FB is orthogonal to an element of Φ(A), and FB 0 is obtained
from FB by removing all codimension-1 faces orthogonal to roots in Φ(A) \ Φ(A0 ).
Theorem 3.12 completes the proof of Theorem 1.5. Theorem 1.1 follows immediately by Proposition 3.1.
3.5. Resection of marked surfaces. We next show that rational versions of
Phenomena I and II occur in some cases where B is the signed adjacency matrix of a
surface. For the sake of brevity, we refrain from repeating here all of the background
material found in [23]. (See also the seminal works [8, 9] on cluster algebras and
surfaces.) We do, however, give the most basic background. Unjustified assertions
in this basic background are established in [8].

26

NATHAN READING

Let S be a surface obtained from a compact, oriented surface without boundary by deleting a finite collection of open disks whose closures are pairwise disjoint.
Usually, S is required to be connected, but this is merely an “irreducibility” criterion
and is not essential for what we do here. Indeed, since we will consider an operation on S that may disconnect it, we must allow disconnected surfaces. However,
compactness implies that S has finitely many components. The boundaries of the
removed disks are called boundary components. Choose a finite set M of points
in S called marked points. Each boundary component must contain at least one
marked point. The marked points in the interior of S are called punctures. The
marked points on boundary components cut the boundary components into curves
called boundary segments. None of the connected components of (S, M) may
be unpunctured monogons, unpunctured digons, unpunctured triangles, or spheres
with fewer than 4 punctures. Typically, one excludes once-punctured monogons as
well. Here, we allow once-punctured monogons, but in many of the definitions that
follow, we have to single out once-punctured monogons as a special case.
An arc in (S, M) is a curve in S with endpoints in M, with the following restrictions: An arc may not intersect itself, except that its endpoints may coincide.
An arc must be disjoint from M and from the boundary of S, except at its endpoints. An arc may not bound an unpunctured monogon. Finally, we disallow arcs
that define, together with a single boundary segment connecting the endpoints, an
unpunctured digon. We consider arcs up to isotopy relative to M.
Arcs α and γ are incompatible if they intersect in S \ M, and if the intersection
cannot be removed by (independently) isotopically deforming the arcs. If two arcs
are not incompatible, they are compatible. A triangulation of (S, M) is a maximal collection of distinct pairwise compatible arcs. Each (S, M) admits at least
two triangulations, except a once-punctured monogon, which admits exactly one
triangulation, consisting of the unique arc. Every triangulation of a given marked
surface has the same number of arcs. These arcs divide S into triangles, each of
which has 1, 2, or 3 distinct vertices and 2 or 3 distinct sides. A self-folded triangle is a triangle with 2 distinct sides. As a surface in its own right, a self-folded
triangle is a once-punctured monogon with an arc α connecting the vertex of the
monogon to the puncture. From the interior, this appears as a triangle, but two of
the sides of the triangle are α. We call α the fold edge of the self-folded triangle.
The signed adjacency matrix of a triangulation T of (S, M) is a matrix
B(T ) = [bαβ ]α,β∈T indexed by the arcs of T . The definition of the entries bα,β is
complicated by the possible presence of self-folded triangles. If T has no self-folded
triangles, one can simplify what follows by taking πT to be the identity map. In
general however, we define a map πT on the arcs of T , fixing each arc except for the
arcs that are fold edges of self-folded triangles. If α is the fold edge of a self-folded
triangle
P in T , then πT (α) is the other edge of the triangle. The entry bαβ is the
sum ∆ b∆
αβ over all triangles ∆ of T which are not self-folded of the quantities

b∆
αβ




1 if ∆ has sides πT (α) and πT (β) such that πT (α)




is immediately followed by πT (β) in clockwise order.


= −1 if ∆ has sides πT (α) and πT (β) such that πT (α)



is immediately followed by πT (β) in counterclockwise order.




 0 otherwise.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

27

The matrix B(T ) is a skew-symmetric integer matrix, and thus an exchange matrix.
If S has multiple connected components, then B(T ) has a block-diagonal form with
a diagonal block for each component.
Given a surface (S, M), the exchange matrix B(T ) is the zero matrix for some
T if and only if B(T ) is the zero matrix for every T , if and only if every connected
component of (S, M) is a null surface (a once-punctured monogon, once-punctured
digon, or unpunctured quadrilateral).
In general, one considers tagged arcs and tagged triangulations. In this section,
we are primarily interested in the exchange matrices, so we appeal to [8, Proposition 12.3], which says that every exchange matrix arising from a marked surface
can be obtained from an (ordinary) triangulation. Therefore we put off defining
tagged arcs until Section 5.4.
An allowable curve is a curve in S of one of the following forms:
• a closed curve;
• a curve whose two endpoints are unmarked boundary points,
• a curve having one endpoint an unmarked boundary point, with the other
end spiraling (clockwise or counterclockwise) into a puncture, or
• a curve spiraling into (not necessarily distinct) punctures at both ends.
However, an allowable curve may not
• have any self-intersections,
• be contractible in S \ M,
• be contractible to a puncture,
• have two endpoints on the boundary and be contractible to a portion of
the boundary containing zero or one marked points.
• have both endpoints are the same boundary segment and cut out, together
with the portion of the boundary between its endpoints, a once-punctured
disk, or
• have two coinciding spiral points and cut out a once-punctured disk.
We consider allowable curves up to isotopy relative to M.
Essentially, two allowable curves are compatible if they are non-intersecting,
but one kind of intersection is allowed. Suppose two allowable curves are identical
except that, at one (and only one) end of the curve, they spiral opposite directions
into the same point. Then these two curves are compatible unless they are contained
in a component of (S, M) that is a once-punctured monogon. (There are exactly
two allowable curves in a once-punctured monogon, and by convention the two
are incompatible.) A (rational) quasi-lamination is a collection of pairwise
compatible allowable curves and an assignment of a positive rational weight to each
curve. We require the curves in the quasi-lamination to be distinct up to isotopy.
The set of curves that appear in a quasi-lamination L is called the support of L
and written supp(L).
Given a quasi-lamination L and a triangulation T , the shear coordinate of L
with respect to T is a vector b(T, L) =P
(bγ (T, L) : γ ∈ T ) indexed by the arcs γ
in T . We define bγ (T, L) to be the sum λ∈L wλ bγ (T, λ) over the curves λ in L,
where wλ is the weight of λ in L and bγ (T, λ) is defined as follows.
First, suppose γ is contained in two distinct triangles of T ◦ (rather than being the
fold edge of a self-folded triangle). Since λ is defined up to isotopy, we can assume
that each time λ crosses an arc α of T , it does not cross α again in the opposite
direction until it has crossed some other arc β of T . (In the case where λ spirals into

28

NATHAN READING

+1

−1

Figure 2. Computing shear coordinates

a puncture that is incident to only one arc α, is crosses α repeatedly, but always in
the same direction.) The quantity bγ (T, λ) is the sum, over each intersection of λ
with γ, of a number in {−1, 0, 1} that depends on which other arcs (or boundary
segments) λ visits immediately before and after the intersection with γ. (The other
arcs or boundary segments are the other edges of the two triangles containing α.)
Figure 2 shows the situations in which this number is 1 or −1. It is 0 otherwise.
In these pictures, γ is the diagonal of the square and λ0 is the vertical or horizonal
line intersecting the square. The quadrilaterals represented in Figure 2 might have
fewer than 4 distinct vertices and 4 distinct sides. As a concrete example, opposite
sides of the square may be identified to make a torus. Or, one of the triangles may
be self-folded (with folding edge not equal to γ).
Next, consider the case where γ is the fold edge of a self-folded triangle and let
p be the marked point that is incident only to γ and not to any other arc in the
triangulation. If λ spirals into p, then let λ0 be the allowable curve obtained from λ
by reversing the direction of the spiral into p. Otherwise let λ0 = λ. Let γ 0 be the
other edge (besides γ) of the self-folded triangle. Define bγ (T, λ) = bγ 0 (T, λ0 ). We
can do this unless γ is contained in a component of (S, M) that is a once-punctured
monogon, in which case γ 0 is a boundary segment. In this case, we define bγ (T, λ) to
be +1 if λ spirals into the puncture counterclockwise or −1 if it spirals in clockwise.
The following is [23, Theorem 4.4], which is essentially a rephrasing of [9, Theorem 13.6]. (In [23, Theorem 4.4], once-punctured monogons are not allowed, but
the proof for once-punctured monogons is easy.) Recall that, as a set, QB(T ) is Qn
when B(T ) is n × n.
Theorem 3.13. Fix a tagged triangulation T . Then the map L 7→ b(T, L) is a
bijection between rational quasi-laminations and QB(T ) .
A tangle is any collection of allowable curves (with no requirement of compatibility) and an assignment of an integer weights (with no requirement of nonnegativity). The curves must be distinct up to isotopy. A tangle Ξ can be given
shear coordinates b(T, Ξ) just as a quasi-lamination can: as a weighted sum of
the shear coordinates of each curve in Ξ. A null tangle in (S, M) is a tangle Ξ
with b(T, Ξ) = 0 for all tagged triangulations T . (Recall that we have not defined
tagged triangulations. Since we won’t work closely with the Null Tangle Property
in this paper, we can safely continue to put off the definition of tagged triangulations until Section 5.4.) For technical reasons, the definition is different if (S, M)
has no boundary components and exactly one puncture. In that case, a null tangle
is a tangle Ξ such that b(T, Ξ) is the zero vector for all ordinary triangulations T
with all tags plain. A tangle is trivial if all of its curves have weight zero. We say
(S, M) has the Null Tangle Property if every null tangle in (S, M) is trivial.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

29

One point of the Null Tangle Property is that it allows us to construct a positive
basis for QB(T ) using allowable curves. The following is a [23, Theorem 7.3], restricted to ordinary triangulations (as opposed to a tagged triangulations), with a
minor correction (as explained in Remark 3.15, below). Recall that a null surface
is a once-punctured monogon, once-punctured digon, or unpunctured quadrilateral.
Theorem 3.14. Suppose R is Z or Q and let T be a triangulation of (S, M). If
(S, M) is not a null surface, then the following are equivalent:
(i) (S, M) has the Null Tangle Property.
(ii) The shear coordinates of allowable curves form a basis for QB(T ) .
(iii) The shear coordinates of allowable curves form a positive basis for QB(T ) . (By
Proposition 2.20, this is also a cone basis for QB(T ) .)
If (S, M) is a null surface, then it fails (i) and satisfies (ii) and (iii).
Remark 3.15. Theorem 3.14 should be taken as a correction to [23, Theorem 7.3].
Once-punctured monogons are not allowed in [23], and [23, Theorem 7.3] takes a
tagged triangulation T , but [23, Theorem 7.3] should be corrected by dealing separately with the quadrilateral and digon as in Theorem 3.14. The assertions of
Theorem 3.14 for null surfaces are easy exercises. The correction to [23, Theorem 7.3] contradicts [23, Theorem 7.4] for the quadrilateral and digon, but does
so in a way that preserves the truth of [23, Corollary 7.5], and therefore preserves
all of the results of the paper on universal coefficients. The error arose because
the proof of [23, Proposition 7.9] used [23, Proposition 2.3], whose hypotheses rule
out the quadrilateral and digon (despite the assertion in the paragraph before [23,
Proposition 3.5]). The main constructions and results of [23] are all valid, even for
the quadrilateral and digon, but some some auxiliary results are wrong as stated
for the quadrilateral and digon.
We say (S, M) has the Curve Separation Property if, given incompatible allowable curves λ and λ0 , there exists a tagged triangulation T and an arc γ ∈ T such
that bγ (T, λ) and bγ (T, λ0 ) have strictly opposite signs. (Again, for technical reasons, the definition is different if (S, M) has no boundary components and exactly
one puncture. In this case we require that T be an ordinary triangulation.) The
Null Tangle Property implies the Curve Separation Property [23, Corollary 7.14].
Furthermore, it is an easy exercise to check that every null surface satisfies the
Curve Separation Property. (We know of no surfaces that fail the Curve Separation Property, but it remains unproven for surfaces with no boundary components
and exactly one puncture.)
The point of the Curve Separation Property is that is allows us to understand
the rational part of the mutation fan FB . (See Definition 3.2.)
Given a triangulation T of (S, M), the rational
 quasi-lamination fan FQ (T )
is the collection of cones of the form SpanR≥0 b(T, λ) : λ ∈ Λ such that Λ is a
set of pairwise compatible allowable curves. The following is a special case of [23,
Theorem 4.10].
Theorem 3.16. Suppose T is a triangulation of (S, M). Then FQ (T ) is a rational
simplicial fan. It is the rational part of FB(T ) if and only if (S, M) has the Curve
Separation Property.
We now introduce an operation, called resection, on marked surfaces that induces
a dominance relation on signed adjacency matrices.

30

NATHAN READING

−→
α

pα
α

Figure 3. Resection of a surface
Definition 3.17 (Resecting a surface at an arc). The resection operation on surfaces is illustrated in Figure 3. Suppose α is an arc in (S, M) connecting marked
points p1 and p2 . Place a new marked point pα in the interior of S close to α. Draw
a curve in S connecting p1 to p2 and forming a digon with pα in its interior, but
containing no other marked points. Draw two more curves inside the digon, one
connecting p1 to pα and the other connecting p2 to pα . This cuts the digon into
two triangles. Remove the interior of the one that does not have α as an edge. If
p1 is on a boundary segment, then resulting surface must be cut at the point p1
in order to satisfy the requirement that the boundary components be circles. In
this case p1 becomes two marked points. Similarly, if p2 is on a boundary segment,
then the surface must be cut at the point p2 . The resulting marked surface is a
resection of (S, M) at α, and accordingly we use the verb “resect” and the noun
“resection” to describe passing from (S, M) to the resected surface. The resected
surface S0 may be disconnected even if S is connected.
Typically, there are two possible resections at α, one for each side of α. However,
we disallow any resections that leave a connected component that is an unpunctured
triangles, because unpunctured triangles are disallowed in the definition of a marked
surface.
Definition 3.18 (Resection at a collection of arcs). More generally, a resection
of (S, M) is a marked surface obtained by performing any collection of resections
at arcs, including possibly resecting the same arc on both sides. This is well-defined
up to isotopy as long as the arcs in question are compatible and the resections are
not disallowed as described above.
Definition 3.19 (Resection compatible with a triangulation). Fix a triangulation T
of (S, M). A resection of (S, M) is compatible with T if
• Each arc that is resected is an arc of T .
• For each arc α that is resected, the point pα is placed in the interior of a
triangle of T bounded by α and the new curves that define the resection
never leave the interior of that triangle except possibly at their endpoints.
• If an arc α that is resected has an endpoint at a puncture q, then either
both endpoints of α are at q or at least one more arc β with an endpoint at
q is resected. In the latter case, we require that pα and pβ are in different
triangles of T .
These requirements imply in particular that a resected arc α may not be the fold
edge of a self-folded triangle of T . Equivalently, a resected arc α is contained in
two distinct triangles of T . The resection must also satisfy the requirements of
Definition 3.17 by not cutting off an unpunctured triangle.
Definition 3.20 (Triangulation induced on the resected surface). If (S0 , M0 ) is a
resection of (S, M) that is compatible with T , then each arc in T is also an arc

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

31

α
α

−→

β
γ

α

α
β
γ



α

β

p

=

γ

p

γ

β

β

γ

0 2 −2
−2 0 2
2 −2 0

α



α
β
γ



β

γ

0 1 −1
−1 0 2
1 −2 0



Figure 4. An example of resection
α

α

γ

−→

γ

α

=

β
γ

p

β

β
p

α

α
β
γ



β

γ

0 1 −1
−1 0 2
1 −2 0

α



α
β
γ



β

γ

0 1 −1
−1 0 1
1 −1 0



Figure 5. Another example of resection
in (S0 , M0 ). These arcs cut (S0 , M0 ) into triangles, defining a triangulation T 0 of
(S0 , M0 ) called the triangulation induced on (S0 , M0 ) by T .
Example 3.21. Figures 4 and 5 show two examples of resection (at a single arc)
compatible with a triangulation, showing the induced triangulation in each case.
The signed adjacency matrix of each triangulation is also shown. In Figure 4, the
surface is a torus with one puncture, obtained by identifying opposite edges of a
square. The puncture is the point at the corners of the square. In Figure 4, the
resection is at α, and in Figure 5, the resection is at γ.
Remark 3.22. The marked points and the arcs in a triangulation T define a graph
(which is not necessarily simple, in that it can have multiple edges and loops).
Choosing a resection compatible with T is equivalent to choosing an edge-induced
subgraph and then orienting the subgraph. (We take the convention that, moving
along the edge with the orientation, the new point pα is on the right.) Definition 3.19
in particular requires that any leaf (degree-1 vertex) of the subgraph must be on
the boundary of S, and also, together with Definition 3.17 makes some restrictions
on how the subgraph may be oriented.

32

NATHAN READING

β

δ

β

δ

−→

α
γ

ǫ

α
γ

ǫ

Figure 6. An illustration for the proof of Proposition 3.23
γ

γ

α
β
δ

−→

α
β
δ

Figure 7. Another illustration for the proof of Proposition 3.23
Proposition 3.23. Given a marked surface (S, M) with a triangulation T , perform
a resection of (S, M) compatible with T and let T 0 be the triangulation induced by T
on the resected surface. Then B(T ) dominates B(T 0 ).
Proof. We will prove two assertions that together amount to a version of the proposition with weaker hypotheses.
First, if α is an arc in T not incident to the puncture in a once-punctured digon
and T 0 is the triangulation obtained by resecting at α according to the rule in the
second bullet point in Definition 3.19, then B(T ) dominates B(T 0 ). The part of T
right around α is illustrated in Figure 6. Since α is not incident to the puncture
in a once-punctured digon, β 6= δ and γ 6= , and α is distinct from the other four
arcs. The signed adjacency matrix B(T 0 ) is obtained from B(T ) as follows. If β
is an arc (rather than a boundary segment), then decrease the αβ-entry by 1 and
increase the βα-entry by 1. If γ is an arc, then increase the αγ-entry by 1 and
decrease the γα-entry by 1.
Second, if α and β are distinct arcs in T , both incident to the puncture in a
once-punctured digon and T 0 is the triangulation obtained by resecting at α and
at β according to the rule in the second bullet point in Definition 3.19 and with
pα and pβ in different triangles of T , then B(T ) dominates B(T 0 ). The situation is
illustrated in Figure 7. The αβ entry in the signed adjacency matrix is 0 before and
after resection. The arcs δ and γ do not coincide, because if they do, the unresected
surface is a sphere with only 3 punctures. Thus if γ is an arc, resection decreases the
absolute value of the βγ and γβ entries by 1, and if δ is an arc, resection decreases
the absolute value of the αδ and δα entries by 1. (If neither γ nor δ is an arc, then
the signed adjacency matrix is unchanged.)

Remark 3.24. Not every exchange matrix dominated by B(T ) can be obtained by
resecting the associated surface (even for the broader class of resections allowed in
the proof of Proposition 3.23). Not even every skew-symmetric exchange matrix
dominated by B(T ) can be obtained. This is because, in some cases, resection must
change four entries of B(T ). Specifically, in the labelling shown in Figure 6, when
neither β nor γ is a boundary segment, the entries bαβ , bαγ , bβα , and bγα are all

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

33

changed. In this case, it is impossible to change only the entries bαβ and bβα , even
though the result would be an exchange matrix dominated by B(T ).
Our next task is to prove Theorems 1.2 and 1.7, starting with the latter. Recall
from the introduction that FQ (T ) is the fan whose cones are the real spans of shear
coordinates of collections of pairwise compatible allowable curves. Theorem 1.7
supposes that T is a triangulation of (S, M), that (S0 , M0 ) and T 0 are the marked
surface and triangulation obtained from T by a resection compatible with T , and
that every component of (S, M) and (S0 , M0 ) either has the Null Tangle Property
or is a null surface. The conclusion of the theorem is that FQ (T ) ∩ Qn refines
FQ (T 0 ) ∩ Qn .
Proof of Theorem 1.7. Theorem 3.13 says that L 7→ b(T, L) is a bijection between
rational quasi-laminations and Qn and that L0 7→ b(T 0 , L0 ) is a bijection between
rational quasi-laminations and Qn . Thus there is a bijection sending each rational
quasi-lamination L on (S, M) to a rational quasi-lamination L0 on (S0 , M0 ) such
that b(T, L) = b(T 0 , L0 ).
For each C ∈ FQ (T ), the set C ∩ Qn is the set of shear coordinates of all nonnegative rational weightings on some collection Λ of pairwise-compatible allowable
curves in (S, M). We prove the theorem by showing that, for each such Λ, there
is a collection Λ0 of pairwise-compatible allowable curves in (S0 , M0 ) such that for
any nonnegative rational weighting on Λ, there is a nonnegative rational weighting
on Λ0 giving the same shear coordinates. Thus C ∩ Qn is contained in the cone of
FQ (T 0 ) consisting of shear coordinates of nonnegative rational weightings on Λ0 .
We can almost, but not quite, construct Λ0 by resecting at one arc at a time;
we will need to appeal to the third condition in Definition 3.19. We consider a
resection at α. Let αβγ be the triangle where the point pα is placed in the process
of resecting at α. The situation is illustrated in Figure 8. Notice that α cannot
coincide with β or with γ, because if so, α has an endpoint incident to only one arc
and resecting at α violates the third condition in Definition 3.19. However, possibly
β and γ coincide, so that this is a self-folded triangle. We will leave this possibility
to the end of the proof. Until then, we are free to compute shear coordinates at α,
β, and γ without invoking the special rule for shear coordinates on the fold edge of
a self-folded triangle.
Assume as in the definition of shear coordinates that pairwise compatible isotopy
representatives of the curves in Λ have been chosen so that no curve crosses an arc
and then immediately doubles back to cross in the opposite direction. Consider
all intersections of the curves in Λ with the triangle αβγ. A single curve in the
quasi-lamination may intersect this triangle many times, and even infinitely many
times if it spirals into a vertex of the triangle.
In the first step of constructing Λ0 from Λ, we only alter the curves inside the
triangle. Up to isotopy of curves in (S, M), we can assume that no curve connecting α and β (inside the triangle) separates the point p from the arc γ. The same
statement holds with α, β, and γ cyclically permuted. Thus we can assume that p
is situated with respect to the curves as illustrated in the left picture of Figure 8.
Furthermore, we can assume that the curves intersect the new boundary component
as illustrated in the middle picture of Figure 8. In particular, the boundary component does not intersect any of the curves connecting β to γ. Now remove from each
curve its intersection with the new boundary component, as illustrated in the right
picture of Figure 8. This cuts many curves in Λ into smaller pieces. The result is a

34

NATHAN READING

β
α

β
α

p
γ

β
α

p
γ

p
γ

Figure 8. The identity map in terms of quasi-laminations

Figure 9. Replacing a bad curve with two compatible allowable curves

collection Λ0 of curves that may not be a quasi-lamination because it may contain
some curves that are not allowable and because we have not yet checked that the
curves are pairwise compatible. However, if we let each piece inherit a weight from
the original weighted collection and allow ourselves to compute shear coordinates
of the new weighted collection, including the bad curves, we obtain again the shear
coordinates of the original collection.
Since the curves in Λ are pairwise compatible, and because we chose pairwise
compatible isotopy representatives such that no curve crosses an arc and then immediately doubles back to cross in the opposite direction, each bad curve that occurs
fits one of the following two descriptions:
• It has two endpoints on a boundary segment and is contractible to a portion
of the boundary containing one marked point.
• It has both endpoints on the same boundary segment and, together with the
portion of the boundary between its endpoints, it cuts out a once-punctured
disk.
The first type of bad curve can occur infinitely many times when one or more curves
in Λ spirals around an endpoint of α. Since each such curve has all shear coordinates
zero, we can we delete all such curves from the collection without changing the shear
coordinates. The second type of bad curve makes a nonzero contribution to the
shear coordinates of the collection. We replace each such bad curve by two curves
that start on the same boundary component as the bad curve and spiral around
the puncture that the bad curve encloses. The two are identical except for spiraling
opposite ways into the puncture. The total of the shear coordinates of these two
curves equals the shear coordinates of the bad curve. Furthermore, they are are
allowable, are compatible, and, since the original set λ is pairwise compatible, are
compatible with the remaining curves. Figure 9 represents the bad curve (solid)
and the two allowable curves (dashed) that replace it.
It is possible that distinct curves in the new collection may coincide up to isotopy.
In this case, we delete repetitions of curves and adjust weights accordingly. All of

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

β
α

35

β
α

p
γ

β
α

p

p

γ

γ

Figure 10. A problem ruled out by Definition 3.19

α

p

β

α

p

β

Figure 11. The identity map on quasi-laminations for β = γ
these modifications have preserved the shear coordinates of the weighed collection.
Call the new collection Λ0 .
It remains only to show that the curves in Λ0 are pairwise compatible. If all
curves in Λ are pairwise non-intersecting, then all curves in Λ0 are pairwise nonintersecting and therefore pairwise compatible. Recall, however, that two allowable
curves that intersect are compatible if and only if they are identical expect for
spiraling in the opposite direction at exactly one of their endpoints. Consider two
such curves in Λ. If they spiral into a point other than an endpoint of α, then they
are cut into one or more curves in Λ0 that remain compatible. If they spiral into
an endpoint of α, but not just after passing through the triangle αβγ, then they
are cut into infinitely many pieces, most of which are discarded, and the remaining
pieces are non-intersecting. However, if they pass through the triangle αβγ just
before spiraling into an endpoint of α (and if we forget the third condition in
Definition 3.19), then the resulting non-discarded pieces may intersect, as illustrated
in the left two pictures of Figure 10. However, the third condition in Definition 3.19
requires that some other arc incident to the endpoint of α is also resected, so this
problem never occurs. See the right picture of Figure 10.
Recall that we left the case where β and γ coincide to the end of the proof. In
this case, we can’t compute shear coordinates at β = γ without invoking the special
rule for fold edges of self-folded triangles. The resection cuts off a once-punctured
digon (the self-folded triangle), triangulated by the single arc β = γ. The other
triangle (besides the self-folded αβγ) having α as an edge is not self-folded, because
if so, (S, M) is a three-times-punctured sphere. Thus the situation is as pictured
in Figure 11. In the left picture of the figure, the curves that come from below
and spiral counterclockwise into the puncture contribute positively to the shear
coordinate of β with respect to T . The curves that come from below, go around

36

NATHAN READING

the puncture, and return downwards also contribute positively. Curves that come
from above and spiral clockwise (not pictured) or curves that come from above,
go around the puncture and return upwards (also not pictured) would contribute
negatively. (Curves from below that spiral clockwise and curves from above that
spiral counterclockwise contribute zero.)
We place the point p as shown in the figure (or similarly if instead there are
curves from above that go around the puncture and return upwards). By the
same construction outlined above, we construct a pairwise compatible collection
of allowable curves in the components of (S0 , M0 ) aside from the once-punctured
monogon cut off by the resection. The construction leaves some pieces of curves in
the once-punctured monogon, as indicated in the right picture of Figure 11. There
are 7 types of curves, and we need to distinguish them according to their behavior
in the digon of T from which the monogon was cut.
First, there are 4 types of curves with spirals: two spiral directions, with curves
originating from the top or bottom of the digon. We delete curves from below that
spiral clockwise and curves from above that spiral counterclockwise, and retain the
other two types. (Since the original collection of curves was pairwise compatible, at
most one of the other two types is present.) Second, there are 3 types of curves that
enter the monogon, cross β, and leave the digon. The first type come from curves
that cross the digon from top to bottom; we delete these. The second type come
from curves that come from the bottom of the digon, go around the puncture, and
exit the bottom of the digon. We replace each such curve with a new curve (with
the same weight) that enters the monogon and spirals counterclockwise into the
puncture. The third type come from curves that come from the top of the digon,
go around the puncture, and exit the top of the digon. Each of these is replaced with
a curve that enters the monogon and spirals clockwise into the puncture. Again,
we delete repetitions of curves and adjust weights accordingly.
These weighted curves, together with the curves we constructed outside of the
monogon, are pairwise compatible and have the same shear coordinates as the
original weighed collection. This is the desired new collection Λ0 .

Recall that, under the same hypotheses as Theorem 1.7, Theorem 1.2 asserts
0
that the identity map QB → QB is mutation-linear.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. By Theorem 3.14 and Proposition 2.20, QB(T ) admits a cone
basis. Theorem 3.16 says that FQ (T ) is the rational part of FB(T ) and FQ (T 0 ) is
0
the rational part of FB(T 0 ) . By Proposition 3.3, the identity map QB → QB is
mutation-linear.

Example 3.25. We illustrate the shear-coordinate-preserving bijection from rational quasi-laminations in a surface to rational quasi-laminations in a resected surface
for the simplest nontrivial resection: Resecting an arc in a triangulated pentagon.
The resection is shown in Figure 12. The quasi-laminations of the pentagon are
represented in the left column of Figure 13. Each is given by two curves, each
with a weight (labeled a or b in the figure). The right column shows the image of
each quasi-lamination under the bijection. The five rows represent the five maximal
cones in the mutation fan for the pentagon. The mutation fan for the union of two
squares has four maximal cones, one of which is the union of two cones of the fan
for the pentagon.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

−→

37

=

Figure 12. A resection of the pentagon

a

7→

a

7→

a b

7→

b

b

b

a
b

b
a

b
a

7→

b
a

7→

b

a b

b
a

b

a

Figure 13. The bijection between quasi-laminations on the pentagon and quasi-laminations on the union of two squares

38

NATHAN READING

Figure 14. The mutation fan for the once-punctured torus
The proof of Theorem 1.2 works because the bijection on quasi-laminations is
simple in the forward direction (the direction we described). Specifically, the curves
appearing in the quasi-lamination L0 depend only on the curves in L. By contrast,
in the inverse direction, weights on curves in L0 must be taken into account in order
to determine what curves appear in L. For example, it seems nearly hopeless to
describe the inverse maps in the following example, which continues Example 3.21.
Example 3.26. Figures 14, 15, and 16 show the mutation fans associated to the
three triangulated surfaces of Example 3.21. Each figure is a projection of a fan in
R3 obtained as follows: The intersection of the fan with a sphere about the origin
is a decomposition of the sphere, which is projected stereographically to the plane
to produce the picture shown. Each figure is projected in the same way, making
visible the refinement relationship guaranteed by Theorem 1.2. (The figures are
placed so that paging through the electronic version of this paper highlights the
relationship.)
4. Refinement of scattering fans
In this section, we review the definition of the scattering fan and discuss examples
of Phenomenon III. Recall that Theorem 1.12 establishes Phenomenon III for acyclic
finite type and that Corollary 1.15 establishes Phenomenon III for surfaces of finite
(not necessarily acyclic) type. It was explained in the introduction how both of these
follow from cases of Phenomenon II in light of Theorem 1.10, the assertion that the
scattering fan refines the mutation fan. In this section, we validate these results by
proving Theorem 1.10. We also establish an additional example of Phenomenon III,
namely the 2 × 2 case, by proving Theorem 1.16.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

39

Figure 15. The mutation fan for an annulus

4.1. Scattering fans. We will not define the scattering fan completely, but instead, we will indicate what kind of an object it is and quote results that describe
its important properties. Scattering fans are fans defined by scattering diagrams,
as we now describe. For more on scattering diagrams, see [14], or for an exposition
more suited to the goals of this paper, see [26]. We work with principal coefficients,
so that the initial data for a scattering diagram amounts to an exchange matrix.
A scattering diagram D is a collection of walls. Each wall is a pair (d, fd ),
where d is a codimension-1 rational cone in Rn , normal to a nonzero vector with
nonnegative entries and fd is a formal power series in n variables with constant term
1. The scattering diagram may have infinitely many walls, but for each k ≥ 1 only
finitely many walls have nonzero coefficients on terms of degree d with 0 < d ≤ k.
To each sufficiently generic path γ in Rn , we associate the sequence of walls crossed
by γ, and using this sequence and the exchange matrix B, we define a certain
automorphism of a larger formal power series ring (in 2n variables). (Some issues
arise when D is infinite, but these are resolved using the finiteness requirement for
each k and taking a limit.) A scattering diagram is consistent if the automorphism
arising from a path depends only on the endpoints of the path. Two scattering
diagrams D and D0 are equivalent if any (sufficiently generic) path defines the
same automorphism with respect to both scattering diagrams. We only care about
scattering diagrams up to equivalence.
Given a scattering diagram D and a normal vector n, the rampart associated
to n is the union of all walls of D that are normal to n. Given p ∈ Rn , let RamD (p)
be the set of ramparts of D containing p. We say points p and q in Rn are Dequivalent if there is a path from p to q on which RamD ( · ) is constant. The

40

NATHAN READING

Figure 16. The mutation fan for a hexagon
closures of D-equivalence classes are called D-cones. Let Fan(D) be the set of all
D-cones and their faces. This is a complete fan [26, Theorem 3.1].
The (principal coefficients) cluster scattering diagram Scat(B) associated
to an exchange matrix B is defined to be the unique (up to equivalence) consistent
scattering diagram satisfying certain conditions. We won’t give full details, but one
of the conditions is that each coordinate hyperplane in Rn , paired with a specific
formal power series (in fact a very simple polynomial) determined by B, is a wall
of Scat(B). The other condition uses B to place limits on the other walls that
can appear. We write ScatFan(B) for Fan(Scat(B)), the (principal coefficients)
scattering fan for B.
4.2. Scattering fans refine mutation fans. Our proof of Theorem 1.10 consists
of a simple observation about mutation fans and a rephrasing of a result of [14] on
scattering diagrams. First, the observation.
Proposition 4.1. Consider a family of fans in RB , with one fan EB 0 for each B 0
obtained as µk (B) for some sequence k of indices. Suppose that each cone of each
EB 0 is a sign-coherent set. Suppose also that, for each B 0 , each sequence k, and each
0
cone C of EB 0 , the set ηkB (C) is contained in a cone of Eµk (B 0 ) . Then ScatFan(B)
refines the mutation fan FB .
Proof. Let C be a cone of EB . By hypothesis, for any sequence k, the set ηkB (C) is
contained in some cone of Eµk (B) and thus ηkB (C) is sign-coherent. Now Proposition 2.15 says that C is contained in some B-cone.

Since each coordinate hyperplane is a wall of Scat(B) by definition, each cone of
ScatFan(B) is contained in some closed coordinate orthant of RB . The following
result is [26, Corollary 4.5].

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

41

Proposition 4.2. For any sequence k of indices, the mutation map ηkB is a piecewise linear isomorphism from ScatFan(B) to ScatFan(µk (B)).
We see that ScatFan(B) satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition 4.1. Thus the
proof of Theorem 1.10 is complete.
4.3. The 2 × 2 case. We now prove Theorem 1.16, which says that in the 2 × 2
case, there is a refinement relation among scattering diagrams if and only if there is
a corresponding dominance relation among exchange matrices. We make use of the
background from [22, Section 9] (already quoted
in Section 3.3) on the mutation

fan FB for a 2 × 2 exchange matrix B = 0b a0 . The Discreteness Hypothesis in the
statement of Theorem 1.16 is the assertion that, for ab < −4, every slope weakly
between s∞ (a, b) and t∞ (a, b) is a relevant slope (in the sense of Section 3.3) for
the scattering fan ScatFan(B).
 
 
Proof of Theorem 1.16. Suppose B = 0b a0 and B 0 = d0 0c are 2 × 2 exchange
matrices. In neither is wild, then since the scattering fan coincides with the mutation fan in the non-wild 2 × 2 case, Theorem 1.9(2) implies that ScatFan(B)
refines ScatFan(B 0 ) if and only if B dominates B 0 . If B 0 is wild and B is not,
then ScatFan(B 0 ) has many irrational relevant slopes, while ScatFan(B) has only
rational slopes, so ScatFan(B) does not refine ScatFan(B 0 ).
If neither is of finite type, we first show that dominance is necessary for refinement. Indeed, suppose that B does not dominate B 0 , so that either a < c or b > d.
If a < c, then the smallest relevant slope of ScatFan(B) is s0 (a, b) = −a, while
the smallest relevant slope of ScatFan(B 0 ) is s0 (c, d) = −c. Thus in particular the
smallest relevant slope of ScatFan(B 0 ) is not a relevant slope of ScatFan(B), so
ScatFan(B) does not refine ScatFan(B 0 ). Similarly, if b > d, then the two largest
relevant slopes are t0 (a, b) = 1b and t0 (c, d) = d1 , and thus ScatFan(B) does not
refine ScatFan(B 0 ).
Continuing in the case where neither B nor B 0 is of finite type, we show that
dominance is sufficient for refinement. It is enough to consider two cases: the case
where c = a and d = b + 1 and the case where c = a − 1 and d = b. First, consider
the case where c = a and d = b + 1. In this case, s0 (a, b) = −a = −c = s0 (c, d). If
a > 1, then one can show that s∞ (a, b) < s1 (c, d) and t0 (c, d) < t∞ (a, b). (Using
the fact that a > 0 and b < b + 1 < 0, both of these inequalities can be shown
to be equivalent to (1 − a)b > a, which holds because a > 1 and b < −1.) Now
the Discreteness Hypothesis implies that every relevant slope of ScatFan(B 0 ) is a
relevant slope of ScatFan(B) as desired.
−ab−2
If on the other hand, a = 1, then s2 (a, b) = −a −ab−1
= −b−2
b+1 and s1 (c, d) =
−cd−1
1
1
= −a(b+1)−1
= −b−2
d
b+1
b+1 . Furthermore, t1 (a, b) = −a −ab−1 = b+1 and t0 (c, d) =
1
b+1 . To complete the proof in the case where a > 1, we show that s∞ (a, b) < s2 (c, d)

and t1 (c, d) < t∞ (a, b). (Both equations are shown to be equivalent to b < −4,
which holds because a = 1 and a(b + 1) ≤ −4.) Again the Discreteness Hypothesis
now implies that every relevant ray of ScatFan(B 0 ) is a relevant ray of ScatFan(B).
In the case where c = a − 1 and d = b, we argue similarly or appeal to symmetry.
We have proven the theorem in the case where both B and B 0 are non-wild and
in the case where both B and B 0 are of infinite type. It thus remains to prove
the theorem in the case where one is of finite type and the other is of wild type.
If B is of finite type and B 0 is of wild type, then B does not dominate B 0 and

42

NATHAN READING

ScatFan(B) does not refine ScatFan(B 0 ) because the latter has irrational relevant
slopes while the former does not. Finally, suppose B is of wild type and B 0 is of
finite type. If B dominates B 0 , then there is an exchange matrix B 00 of affine type
such that B 00 dominates B 0 and B dominates B 00 . Concatenating the results we
have proved, we see that ScatFan(B) refines ScatFan(B 0 ). If B = 0b a0 does not
dominate B 0 = d0 0c , then there are two possibilities: Either a < c or b > d. Notice
that in every case (as shown in Table 1), the smallest relevant slope of ScatFan(B 0 )
is −c. The smallest relevant slope of ScatFan(B) is s0 (a, b) = −a. Thus if a < c,
ScatFan(B) does not refine ScatFan(B 0 ). Similarly, the largest relevant slope of
ScatFan(B 0 ) is d1 and the largest relevant slope of ScatFan(B) is 1b . Thus also if
b > d, ScatFan(B) does not refine ScatFan(B 0 ). We have checked that in every
2 × 2 case, ScatFan(B) refines ScatFan(B 0 ) if and only if B dominates B 0 .

5. Morphisms of cluster algebras
In this section, we prove results and describe computer verifications that provide
examples of Phenomenon IV.
5.1. General considerations. Let B be an n × n exchange matrix and let x =
x1 , . . . , xn and y = y1 , . . . , yn be indeterminates. Let L stand for Z[x±1 , y] =
±1
Z[x±1
1 , . . . , xn , y1 , . . . , yn ], the ring of Laurent polynomials in x with coefficients
integer polynomials in y. Let K stand for the field of rational functions in x and y.
A seed is a pair (B̃, (v1 , . . . , vn )), where B̃ is a 2n × n integer matrix (an
extended exchange matrix ) whose top n rows are an exchange matrix and
(v1 , . . . , vn ) is an ordered n-tuple of elements of K. The tuple (v1 , . . . , vn ) is called
a cluster . (This is a special case of the definition of a seed of geometric type
[12].) Given a seed (B̃, (v1 , . . . , vn )) and k ∈ {1, . . . , n}, we can mutate to obtain
a new seed µk (B̃, (v1 , . . . , vn )) = (B̃ 0 , (v10 , . . . , vn0 )), where B̃ 0 = µk (B̃) is described
in (2.1), vi0 = vi for i 6= k, and vk is described by the exchange relation
(5.1)

vk vk0 =

n
Y
i=1

[bik ]+

vi

n
Y
i=1

[b(n+i)k ]+

yi

+

n
Y
i=1

[−bik ]+

vi

n
Y

[−b(n+i)k ]+

yi

,

i=1

where the bik are entries of Bt and [b]+ means
 max(0, b).
We take as an initial seed the pair BI , (x1 , . . . , xn ) , where B is an exchange
matrix and I is the identity matrix. A cluster variable with
to this

 respect
initial seed is an entry in a cluster that can be obtained from BI , (x1 , . . . , xn )
by an arbitrary sequence of mutations. Typically there are infinitely many cluster
variables. If not, then B is of finite type. The principal coefficients cluster
algebra A• (B) is the subring of K generated by all cluster variables. Different
authors have chosen different conventions about whether the variables y are inverted
in A• (B). Very importantly to what follows, we chose above not to invert the y
and thus, by the Laurent Phenomenon [10, Theorem 3.1], the cluster algebra A• (B)
is a subring of L. Write Var• (B) for the set of cluster variables in A• (B).
Consider a Zn -grading of L = Z[x± , y] given by setting the degree of each xk to
be the standard basis vector ek and setting the degree of each yk to be the negative
of the k th column of B. If an element x of L is homogeneous with respect to this
grading, then its Zn -degree is called the g-vector of x. Each cluster variable in
A• (B) is homogeneous in this grading and thus has a g-vector [12, Proposition 6.1].

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

43

To consider homomorphisms, we need another cluster algebra, which we will
construct just as above, but with primes on every symbol. Thus B 0 is an n0 × n0
matrix, L0 is the ring of Laurent polynomials in x0 = x01 , . . . , x0n0 with coefficients
polynomials in y0 = y10 , . . . , yn0 0 . Also, A• (B 0 ) is the cluster algebra with initial
exchange matrix B 0 , initial cluster x0 and principal coefficients (in y0 ) at B 0 , with
y0 not inverted, Var• (B 0 ) is the set of cluster variables of A• (B 0 ), etc.
Given a set map ν from x0 , y0 to L, there is a unique ring homomorphism from
0
L to K agreeing with ν on x0 , y0 . We reuse the symbol ν for the homomorphism.
Given a Laurent polynomial p ∈ L0 , we obtain ν(p) by replacing each x0i and yj0
by ν(x0i ) and ν(yj0 ) respectively in any expression for p as a rational function of x0
and y0 . The following observation is immediate from the definition of A• (B 0 ).

Proposition 5.1. Suppose ν : x0 , y0 → L is a set map and reuse the symbol ν
for the extension to a ring homomorphism from L0 to K. If ν(Var• (B 0 )) ⊂ A• (B),
then ν restricts to a ring homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B).

Given a set map ν : Var• (B 0 ) ∪ {y} → A• (B), each exchange relation in A• (B 0 )
is mapped to a equation (valid or not) relating elements of A• (B).

Proposition 5.2. Suppose ν is a set map from Var• (B 0 ) ∪ y0 to A• (B). If ν
maps every exchange relation of A• (B 0 ) to a valid relation in A• (B), then ν extends
to a ring homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B).

Proof. Restrict the set map ν to x0 , y0 and consider the extension of ν to a ring
homomorphism ν : L0 → F . Suppose z 0 is a cluster variable in A• (B 0 ). Then z 0 is in
L0 . We claim that ν(z 0 ) = ν(z 0 ). We argue by induction on the smallest number k
of mutation steps required to obtain z 0 from the initial cluster x0 . Given a sequence
of k mutations producing z 0 from x0 , the last mutation defines an exchange relation
writing z 0 in terms of the yi and in terms of cluster variables wi0 that can be reached
from x0 in fewer mutations. Since ν maps each exchange relation to a valid relation,
we obtain an expression for ν(z 0 ) in terms of the quantities ν(wi0 ). By induction,
each wi has ν(wi0 ) = ν(wi0 ). Thus ν(wi0 ) can be obtained from any expression for
wi0 by replacing each x0i and yj0 by ν(xi ) and ν(yj ). We have found an expression
for z 0 such that replacing each x0i and yj0 by ν(xi ) and ν(yj ) yields ν(z 0 ). Therefore
ν(z 0 ) = ν(z 0 ).
Since we know that ν sends every cluster variable of A• (B 0 ) to an element of
A• (B), we have verified the hypotheses of Proposition 5.1 and obtained a homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B). Furthermore, this homomorphism agrees with

the given set map from Var• (B 0 ) ∪ y0 to A• (B).
We will often use the following criterion to checking that νz is injective.
Proposition 5.3. Suppose B dominates B 0 . If there is at most one index k such
that there exists i with bik < b0ik ≤ 0, then the homomorphism νz is injective.
Proof. Up to reindexing, we may as well assume that n is the unique index such
that there exists i with bin < b0in ≤ 0. (If there is no pair ik such that bik < b0ik ≤ 0,
then an easier version of the following argument works.) For all k < n, we can take
zk to be a cluster monomial, specifically, a monomial in the initial cluster
h variables
i
∂ ν(x0i )
0
0
x1 , . . . , xn . Writing xn+i for yi and xn+i for yi , the Jacobian matrix
is
∂xj
upper-triangular. The first n diagonal entries are 1. The next n−1 diagonal entries
are (possibly trivial) monomials in x1 , . . . , xn . The last diagonal entry is ∂y∂ (yn zn ),
n

44

NATHAN READING

which is not zero because yn is not a factor of zn . (This is immediate from the
definition in either the theta-function case or the surfaces case.) The Jacobian
determinant is the product of these diagonal entries, and is therefore not zero.
Non-vanishing of the Jacobian determinant is a well-known criterion for injectivity
(see, for example, [5, Theorem 2.2]).

5.2. The 2 × 2 case. We now prove Theorems 1.18 and 1.19, which provide examples of Phenomenon IV in the 2 × 2 case. Although there is some overlap in the
two theorems, we prove them mostly separately, The advantage is that we prove
Theorem 1.18 (almost) entirely using the basic definition of cluster variables, with
(almost) no theta functions (and without the need for the Discreteness Hypothesis).
Theorem 1.18 starts with a 2 × 2 exchange matrix B of finite or affine type and
another 2 × 2 exchange matrix B 0 dominated by B and asserts that νz is an injective ring homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B), preserving g-vectors and taking
each ray theta function in ScatFanT (B 0 ) to the theta function for the same ray in
ScatFanT (B). We will see that Theorem 1.18 reduces to the following proposition.
Proposition 5.4. Under the hypotheses of Theorem 1.18, the map νz sends each
cluster variable of A• (B 0 ) to a cluster variable of A• (B) or, in the case where B is
of affine type, possibly to the theta function of the limiting ray.
When B is of affine type, the only ray theta function that is not a cluster variable
is the ray theta function for the limiting ray. Furthermore, since B 0 is strictly
dominated by B, it is of finite type, so all of its ray theta functions are cluster
variables. Thus Proposition 5.4 verifies that νz takes each ray theta function in
ScatFanT (B 0 ) to the theta function for the same ray in ScatFanT (B). Necessarily,
each zk is a power of a cluster variable with g-vector [ ±1 0 ]or [ 0 ±1 ]. Assuming
Proposition 5.4, Proposition 5.1 implies that the map νz is a ring homomorphism
from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B) preserving g-vectors and Proposition 5.3 implies that νz is
injective. We have verified that Proposition 5.4 implies Theorem 1.18.
0
To prove Proposition
  5.4, we can, by symmetry (transposing
  both B and B ),
assume that B = a0 0b with a < 0 and b > 0 and B 0 = 0c d0 with c ≤ 0 and
d ≥ 0. Furthermore, if B dominates B 0 , which dominates B 00 and we check the
proposition for B and B 0 , and also check it for B 0 and B 00 , then in particular the
map from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B) will take the cluster variables of A• (B 0 ) with g-vectors
[ ±1 0 ] and [ 0 ±1 ] to the cluster variables of A• (B) with the same g-vectors. Thus
the composition of the maps from A• (B 00 ) to A• (B 0 ) and from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B)
will coincide with the map directly from A• (B 00 ) to A• (B), and will affect cluster
variables of A• (B 00 ) as desired. In light of these facts and Theorem 1.9, we need to
check the following cases.
 
 
Case 1: B 0 =  00 00 and B = a0 0b . 
Case 2: B 0 =  −10 10  and B =  −10 0b .
Case 3: B 0 =  −10 10  and B =  a0 01 .
Case 4: B 0 =  −10 20  and B =  −10 30 .
Case 5: B 0 =  −10 20  and B =  −20 20 .
Case 6: B 0 =  −20 10  and B =  −30 10 .
Case 7: B 0 =  −20 10  and B =  −20 20 .
Case 8: B 0 =  −10 30  and B =  −10 40 .
Case 9: B 0 = −30 10 and B = −40 10 .

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

45

We define cluster variables indexed by integers, starting with x1 and x2 and
defining the remaining xi so that each pair xi , xi+1 forms a cluster. In particular,
each xi is related to xi+2 by the exchange relation 5.1.
Since we are assuming that a < 0 and b > 0, we have the following formulas for
cluster variables:
(5.2)

xb1 y2 + 1
x2
−a
x y1 + 1
= 0
x1
b
x + y2
= −1
x0
−a
x + y1 y2−a
= −2
x−1

x0 =

(5.3)

x−1

(5.4)

x−2

(5.5)

x−3

(5.6)

x−4 =

(5.7)
(5.8)
(5.9)

xb−3 + y1b y2−ab−1
x−2
y1 + x−a
2
x3 =
x1
y b y2 + xb3
x4 = 1
x2
y1−ab−1 y2−a + x−a
4
x5 =
x3

In fact, all of these formulas except the formulas for x−4 and x5 are valid under
the weaker assumption that a ≤ 0 and b ≥ 0. Thus, since we also have c ≤ 0 and
d ≥ 0, those formulas hold for cluster variables x0i with −3 ≤ i ≤ 4, replacing a by
c, replacing b by d, and replacing each xj by x0j in the formulas.
We will use the notation x∞ (a, b) for the ray theta function of the limiting
ray when ab = −4. A simple scattering diagram computation (quoted later as
Proposition 5.18) in ScatT (B) yields the following formulas.
(5.10)
(5.11)
(5.12)

y1 + y1 y2 x21 + x22
x1 x2
x41 y12 y2 + x22 + 2x2 y1 + y12
x∞ (−1, 4) =
x21 x2
2 2
y1 y2 x1 + y1 + 2y1 y2 x1 + x42
x∞ (−4, 1) =
x1 x22
x∞ (−2, 2) =

(The formula for x∞ (−2, 2) is the subject of [4, Example 3.8], but note that due
to the global transpose, we switch the indices 1 and 2 to relate (5.10) to [4, Example 3.8].)
The proof of Proposition 5.4 (and thus Theorem 1.18) follows from a sequence
of lemmas that describe where νz sends various cluster variables. In each case,
the lemma follows from a computation that can be checked by hand or with a
computer-algebra system. In every case, z1 = xc−a
and z2 = xb−d
0
1 .
 


Lemma 5.5. If B = a0 0b and B 0 = 0c d0 with a ≤ c ≤ 0 and b ≥ d ≥ 0, then
νz (x00 ) = x0 and νz (x0−1 ) = x−1 .

46

NATHAN READING

 
Lemma 5.5
is enough for Case 1 because for B 0 = 00 00 , the cluster variables in

A• (B 0 ) are x0−1 , x00 , x01 , x02 . Lemma 5.5 also reduces the checking for other cases.
 
 
Lemma 5.6. If B = a0 0b and B 0 = a0 d0 with b ≥ d ≥ 0, then νz (x03 ) = x3 .
 
 
Lemma 5.7. If B = a0 0b and B 0 = 0c 0b with a ≤ c ≤ 0, then νz (x0−2 ) = x−2 .


When B 0 = −10 10 , the only cluster variable not accounted for in Lemma 5.5 is
x0−2 = x03 . Thus Cases 2–3 are handled
 0by
 Lemmas 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7.
2
The cluster variables for B 0 = −1
accounted for by Lemma 5.5 are
 0 not

x0−2 and x03 . In Case 4, where B = −10 30 , the variable x03 is accounted for by
Lemma 5.6. The variable x−2 is accounted for by the following lemma, and we are
finished with Case 4.
h
i


Lemma 5.8. If B = −10 d+1
and B 0 = −10 d0 with d ≥ 1, then νz (x0−2 ) = x−3 .
0
In Case 5, the variable x0−2 is accounted for by Lemma 5.7, and we complete the
verification of Case 5 by proving the following lemma.




Lemma 5.9. If B = −20 20 and B 0 = −10 20 , then νz (x03 ) = x∞ (2, −2).


Similarly, the cluster variables for
B 0 = −20 10 not accounted for by Lemma 5.5

are x0−2 and x03 . In Case 6, B = −30 10 , so x0−2 is accounted for by Lemma 5.7.
The following lemma finishes Case 6 by accounting for x03 .
0 1
 0 1
0
0
Lemma 5.10. If B = c−1
0 and B = c 0 with c ≤ −1, then νz (x3 ) = x4 .
In Case 7, the variable x03 is accounted for by Lemma 5.6, and we complete the
case with the following lemma.




Lemma 5.11. If B = −20 20 and B 0 = −20 10 , then νz (x0−2 ) = x∞ (2, −2).




In Case 8, when B 0 = −10 30 and B = −10 40 , the only cluster variables in
A• (B 0 ) not accounted for by Lemmas 5.5, 5.6, and 5.8 are x0−3 and x04 . The following
two lemmas account for these.




Lemma 5.12. If B = −10 40 and B 0 = −10 30 , then νz (x04 ) = x5 .




Lemma 5.13. If B = −10 40 and B 0 = −10 30 , then νz (x0−3 ) = x∞ (4, −1).




Finally, in Case 9, when B 0 = −30 10 and B = −40 10 , Lemmas 5.5, 5.7 and 5.10
account for all of the cluster variables except x0−3 and x04 . We complete the case
with the following two lemmas.




Lemma 5.14. If B = −40 10 and B 0 = −30 10 , then νz (x0−3 ) = x−4 .




Lemma 5.15. If B = −40 10 and B 0 = −30 10 , then νz (x04 ) = x∞ (1, −4).
We have completed the proof of Proposition 5.4 and thus of Theorem 1.18. We
now turn to Theorem 1.19. This theorem again starts with a 2 × 2 exchange
matrix B dominating B 0 , this time with B 0 of finite type. It asserts that νz is an
injective, g-vector-preserving ring homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B) and that,
under certain conditions reproduced below in Proposition 5.16, and assuming the
Discreteness Hypothesis, νz sends ray theta functions to ray theta functions. We
will see that Theorem 1.19 reduces to the following proposition.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

47

Proposition 5.16. If B and B 0 are 2×2 exchange matrices such that B dominates
B 0 , with B 0 of finite type, then νz takes every cluster variable of A• (B 0 ) to a theta
function for B plus an element of A• (B). In fact,
variable
 νz takes every
 cluster

of A• (B 0) to a theta function for B unless B = a0 0b and B 0 = 0c d0 with cd = −3
and 1 6∈ |a|, |b|
Suppose we have proven Proposition 5.16. It is not true in general that every
ray theta function for B is an element of A• (B), but combining [3, Theorem 1.18],
[14, Theorem 0.12], and [14, Proposition 0.14], we see that it is true in this case.
Thus in particular νz takes every cluster variable of A• (B 0 ) to an element of A• (B).
We apply Proposition 5.1 to see that νz is a ring homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to
A• (B) preserving g-vectors. Again, Proposition 5.3 implies that νz is injective.
To prove the assertion about ray theta functions mapping to ray theta functions,
first note that, since B 0 is of finite type, all of its ray theta functions are cluster
variables. Thus Proposition 5.16 verifies (except in the excluded cases) that νz
takes each ray theta function in ScatFanT (B 0 ) to the theta function for the same
ray in ScatFanT (B). Since we assume the Discreteness Hypothesis, Theorem 1.16
implies that these theta functions are in fact ray theta functions. We see that
Proposition 5.16 implies Theorem 1.19.
To prove Proposition 5.16, again
 by
 the symmetry of transposing both
 B
 and
B 0 , we can continue to take B = a0 0b with a < 0 and b > 0 and B 0 = 0c d0 with
c ≤ 0 and d ≥ 0 and cd ≥ −3. We need to check six cases:
 
Case 1: B 0 =  00 00 .
Case 2: B 0 =  −10 10 .
Case 3: B 0 =  −10 20 .
Case 4: B 0 =  −20 10 .
Case 5: B 0 =  −10 30 .
Case 6: B 0 = −30 10 .
We write ϑ[m1 ,m2 ] for the theta function with respect to B associated to the integer
vector [m1 , m2 ]. We write ϑ0[m1 ,m2 ] for the theta function with respect to B 0 . In
each of the six cases, the cluster variables x0−1 , x00 , x01 , x02 , are sent (according to
Lemma 5.5 and by definition) by νz to x−1 , x0 , x1 , x2 , which in turn are ϑ[±1,0] and
ϑ[0,±1] . This observation completes Case 1 and leaves from 1 to 4 remaining cluster
variables to check in the other cases. For convenience, we call these remaining
cluster variables diagonal cluster variables here. We handle the remaining
cases in several lemmas, some of which are slightly more general: Unless explicitly
stated, the lemmas do not need the assumption that cd ≥ −3.
The lemmas are proved using the following theta function computations, which
are [26, Proposition 6.14], [26, Proposition 6.16], and [26, Example 6.18]. As before,
the notation [b]+ means max(0, b).
Proposition 5.17. If −b ≤ m1 ≤ 0 and m2 ≥ 0, then
−m
X1 −m1 
[−m −ai]+ [m2 +ai]+
1
ϑ[m1 ,m2 ] = xm
y1i x0 2
x2
.
1
i
i=0
Proposition 5.18. If m1 < −b and 0 ≤ m2 < −a, then
 
−m
m2 
X1 X
−m1 − bj
m2 i j −m2 −ai m1 +bj
1 m2
ϑ[m1 ,m2 ] = xm
x
+
y1 y2 x0
x1
.
1
2
i
j
i=1 j=0

48

NATHAN READING

Proposition 5.19. If a = −3 and b = 1, then
−2
−1
3
2 3 −2
ϑ[−2,3] = x−2
1 x2 + 2y1 x1 + 3y1 y2 x1 + y1 x0 x1 .

All theta function computations in the lemmas below use Proposition 5.17 unless
otherwise stated. We use νz (x00 ) = x0 (Lemma 5.5) throughout the proofs. Most
of the lemmas below have essentially the same proof. The only subtlety in most of
the lemmas is to notice that they are not subject to the complications occurring
in Lemma 5.24. Thus after the first of these lemmas, we omit the proofs that are
b−d
essentially the same. Again, in every case, z1 = xc−a
0  and z2 = x1 .
0
1
The only diagonal cluster variable for B 0 = −1 0 has g-vector [−1, 1] and this
equals ϑ0[−1,1] . The following lemma thus completes Case 2.
 
 
Lemma 5.20. If B = a0 0b and B 0 = 0c d0 with a ≤ c ≤ −1 and b ≥ d ≥ 1, then
νz (ϑ0[−1,1] ) = ϑ[−1,1] .

Proof. We compute ϑ0[−1,1] = (x01 )−1 x02 + y10 (x00 )−1−c , so that νz (ϑ0[−1,1] ) equals

x−1
x2 + y1 x−1−a
= ϑ[−1,1] .

1
0


When B 0 = −10 20 , there is exactly one diagonal cluster variable not covered by
Lemma 5.20, with g-vector [−2, 1]. The following lemma completes Case 3.
 
 
Lemma 5.21. If B = a0 0b and B 0 = 0c d0 with a ≤ c ≤ −1 and b ≥ d ≥ 2, then
νz (ϑ0[−2,1] ) = ϑ[−2,1] .


When B 0 = −20 10 , the one diagonal cluster variable not covered by Lemma 5.20
has g-vector [−1, 2]. The following lemma completes Case 4.
 
 
Lemma 5.22. If B = a0 0b and B 0 = 0c d0 with a ≤ c ≤ −2 and b ≥ d ≥ 1, then
νz (ϑ0[−1,2] ) = ϑ[−1,2] .


When B 0 = −10 30 , the diagonal cluster variables have g-vectors [−1, 1], [−2, 1],
[−3, 1], and [−3, 2]. The first two of these are covered by Lemmas 5.20 and 5.21,
and the other two are covered by the following two lemmas, where we also encounter
the first excluded case of Theorem 1.19.
 
 
Lemma 5.23. If B = a0 0b and B 0 = 0c d0 with a ≤ c ≤ −1 and b ≥ d ≥ 3, then
νz (ϑ0[−3,1] ) = ϑ[−3,1] .
 


Lemma 5.24. If B = a0 0b and B 0 = −10 d0 with a ≤ −1 and b ≥ d ≥ 3, then
(
ϑ[−3,2]
if a = −1, or
0
νz (ϑ[−3,2] ) =
b−3
ϑ[−3,2] + 3y1 y2 x−2−a
x
if a ≤ −2.
0
1

Proof. We compute ϑ0[−3,2] = (x01 )−3 (x02 )2 + 3y10 x02 + 3(y10 )2 + (y10 )3 x00 , so that
−1−a
2
νz (ϑ0[−3,2] ) = x−3
x2 + 3y12 x0−2−2a + y13 x0−2−3a ).
1 (x2 + 3y1 x0

We also compute
ϑ[−3,2] = x−3
1

3  
X
3 i [−2−ai]+ [2+ai]+
y x
x2
i 1 0
i=0

(
2
2
3
x−3
1 (x2 + 3y1 x2 + 3y1 + y1 x0 )
=
−2−a
2
x−3
+ 3y12 x0−2−2a + y13 x0−2−3a )
1 (x2 + 3y1 x0

if a = −1, or
if a ≤ −2.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

49

We see that if a = −1 then νz (ϑ0[−3,2] ) = ϑ[−3,2] and if a ≤ −2 then νz (ϑ0[−3,2] ) −
ϑ[−3,2] is
−1−a
−2−a b−3
3y1 x−3
x2 − x−2−a
) = 3y1 x−2−a
x−3
x1 . 
1 (x0
0
0
1 (x0 x2 − 1) = 3y1 y2 x0


01
0
This completes Case 5, leaving only Case 6: B = −3 0 . In this case, the
g-vectors of diagonal cluster variables are [−1, 1], [−1, 2], [−1, 3], and [−2, 3]. Lemmas 5.20 and 5.22, together with the following two lemmas, take care of Case 6 and
thus complete the proof of Proposition 5.16 and thus Theorem 1.19.
 
 
Lemma 5.25. If B = a0 0b and B 0 = 0c d0 with a ≤ c ≤ −3 and b ≥ d ≥ 1, then
νz (ϑ0[−1,3] ) = ϑ[−1,3] .
 


Lemma 5.26. If B = a0 0b and B 0 = −30 10 with a ≤ −3 and b ≥ 1, then
(
ϑ[−2,3]
if b = 1, or
0
νz (ϑ[−2,3] ) =
ϑ[−2,3] + 3y1 y2 x0−3−a xb−2
if b ≥ 2.
1

Proof. Proposition 5.19 says that
ϑ0[−2,3] = (x01 )−2 (x02 )3 + 2y10 (x01 )−2 + 3y10 y20 (x01 )−1 + (y10 )2 (x00 )3 (x01 )−2 , so
−3−a −2
3
νz (ϑ0[−2,3] ) = x−2
x1 + 3y1 y2 x0−3−a xb−2
+ y12 x0−3−2a x−2
1 x2 + 2y1 x0
1
1 .

If b = 1, then (since the case where a = −3 is a tautology) we can apply Proposition 5.18 to compute
 
2 X
3 
X
2−j
3 i j −3−ai −2+j
−2 3
ϑ[−2,3] = x1 x2 +
y y x
x1
i
j 1 2 0
i=1 j=0
−3−a −2
3
2 −3−2a −2
= x−2
x1 + 3y1 y2 x−3−a
x−1
x1
1 x2 + 2y1 x0
0
1 + y1 x0

= νz (ϑ0[−2,3] ).
If b ≥ 2, then we can apply Proposition 5.17 to compute
−3−a
3
ϑ[−2,3] = x−2
+ y12 x0−3−2a ) = νz (ϑ0[−2,3] ) − 3y1 y2 x−3−a
x1b−2 . 
1 (x2 + 2y1 x0
0

5.3. Acyclic finite type. In this section, we point out a simplification in the
description of the map νz in the cases where B is acyclic. (Recall the definition
of acyclic from Section 3.4.) We then describe how the simpler description of νz
allows for shortcuts in the computations that verify Theorem 1.17 (Phenomenon IV
for acyclic finite-type exchange matrices) up to 8 × 8 matrices. The following easy
observation is a well-known feature of the acyclic case.
Proposition 5.27. Suppose B is an acyclic exchange matrix. Then for each
i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, there exists a cluster variable ai with g-vector −ei . For each
k ∈ {1, . . . , n}, there exists a cluster containing ai if bik > 0 and containing xi
if bik < 0.
Here ei is the ith standard unit basis vector in Rn . Recall that the g-vector is
the Zn -grading of A• (B) such that the g-vector of xk is ek and the g-vector of yk
is the negative of the k th column of B. A cluster monomial is a monomial in
the cluster variables in some cluster.
Using Proposition 5.27, we prove the following fact, which lets us factor the map
νz in the acyclic case. Our notation νz does not explicitly show the dependence on
0
B and B 0 . We temporarily make the notation more explicit by writing νzB ,B .

50

NATHAN READING

Proposition 5.28. Suppose B is acyclic and dominates B 0 , which dominates B 00 .
00
0
0
If νzB ,B sends cluster variables of A• (B 00 ) to cluster variables of A• (B 0 ) and νzB ,B
sends cluster variables of A• (B 00 ) to cluster variables of A• (B 0 ), then the compoνz
νz
A• (B) sends cluster variables of A• (B 00 ) to cluster
A• (B 0 ) −→
sition A• (B 00 ) −→
00
variables of A• (B). This composition equals νzB ,B : A• (B 00 ) → A• (B).
Proof. The first statement is immediate. Proposition 5.27 implies that the elements
00
0
00
0
ziB ,B in the definition of νzB ,B are cluster monomials, and similarly for the
0
0
0
elements ziB ,B in the definition of νzB ,B . Furthermore, νzB ,B acts on the cluster
00
0
monomials ziB ,B simply by mapping each cluster variable to the corresponding
cluster variable.

Suppose B is an acyclic exchange matrix of finite type, and that B dominates B 0 .
Theorem 1.17 asserts that νz is an injective, g-vector-preserving ring homomorphism from A• (B 0 ) to A• (B), sending each cluster variable in A• (B 0 ) to a cluster
variable in A• (B). To verify the theorem, we first reduce to the case of an irreducible exchange matrix B. (An exchange matrix is reducible if it can be written
in block-diagonal form with more than one block.) Furthermore, we will see that it
is enough to check the special case where B dominates B 0 but they differ either in
exactly one position or they differ in that B has ±1 in a pair of symmetric positions
where B 0 has zero. To check the special case, we need only check that νz sends
each cluster variable to a cluster variable and then apply Propositions 5.1 and 5.3.
If we have checked the special case, then in general, we can find a sequence of
exchange matrices, starting at B 0 and ending at B such that each two adjacent
matrices in the sequence belong to the special case. Proposition 5.28 ensures that,
0
composing the maps νz at each step in the sequence, we obtain the map νzB ,B ,
which therefore has the desired properties.
We have verified the special case computationally (and thus we deduce the general case) for exchange matrices B that are 8 × 8 or smaller. Recall that acyclic
exchange matrices of finite type are exactly those such that Cart(B) is a Cartan
matrix of finite type. Since we have proved the theorem up to 8 × 8 exchange
matrices, the theorem is proved whenever Cart(B) is of exceptional finite type (E,
F, or G). Below, we prove the theorem in types A and D using the surfaces model.
Work in progress by Viel [31], already mentioned, is expected to complete the proof
of Theorem 1.17 by handling types B and C.
5.4. Resection of surfaces. In this section, we give more background on the
surfaces model (building on Section 3.5) and prove Theorem 1.20.
A tagged arc is an arc that does not cut out a once-punctured monogon and
that has each endpoint incident to a puncture marked (or “tagged”) either notched
or plain, with the condition that if both ends of the arc are at the same puncture,
they must have the same tagging. Two tagged arcs are compatible if either (1)
the corresponding untagged arcs are distinct and compatible and the two arcs have
the same tagging at any endpoint they have in common, or (2) both correspond
to the same untagged arc, which has two distinct endpoints and is not contained
in a component of (S, M) that is a once-punctured monogon, and the taggings of
the two tagged arcs disagree at exactly one endpoint. (The two tagged arcs in
a once-punctured monogon are not compatible.) A tagged triangulation is a
maximal collection of pairwise compatible tagged arcs. Each tagged triangulation

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

51

has the same number of tagged arcs. The operation of reversing all taggings at a
given puncture sends a tagged triangulation to a tagged triangulation. By iterating
this operation, we can remove all notched taggings except that some punctures are
incident to two tagged arcs with opposite taggings at that puncture (compatible
as in (2) above). When notches have been thus maximally removed, the resulting
tagged triangulation corresponds to an ordinary triangulation as follows: Each arc
without notches becomes an ordinary arc. Each arc with a notch (necessarily only
on one end) becomes a loop with endpoints at the unnotched end, tracing around
the tagged arc. This loop becomes the non-fold edge of a self-folded triangle, as
shown in Figure 17.

−→
Figure 17. The last step in making an ordinary triangulation
from a tagged triangulation
Passing from a tagged triangulation to an ordinary triangulation as described
above does not change the associated exchange matrix [8, Definition 9.6]. Thus in
proving statements about exchange matrices arising from surfaces, we may as well
assume that T is an ordinary triangulation, but we pass freely between T and the
corresponding tagged triangulation as in Figure 17.
The definition of shear coordinates can be extended to define shear coordinates
of a quasi-lamination L with respect to a tagged triangulation T . To compute
b(T, L), we perform the operation of reversing all taggings at a given puncture
until as many notches are removed as possible. For each reversal of taggings, the
quasi-lamination L is also altered by reversing the directions of all spirals into
that puncture, obtaining a new quasi-lamination L0 . The new tagged triangulation
corresponds to an ordinary triangulation T 0 as in Figure 17. The shear coordinate
bγ (T, L) for a tagged arc γ in T is defined to be the shear coordinate bγ 0 (T 0 , L0 ),
where γ 0 is the arc in T 0 corresponding to γ.
In a marked surface (S, M) with tagged triangulation T , the cluster variables
in A• (B(T )) are in bijection with tagged arcs. (In fact, when S has no boundary
and |M| = 1, the cluster variables are in bijection with the tagged arcs having only
plain tags, but we will not need to consider that case in this paper.) We write xγ
for the cluster variable associated to a tagged arc γ.
The coefficients yi can be identified with the certain allowable curves obtained
from the arcs in the triangulation T . Specifically, if γ is a tagged arc in T , then
the elementary lamination Lγ associated to γ is a curve that agrees with γ
except very close to the endpoints. If γ has an endpoint that is on a boundary
component, then as one follows Lγ toward the endpoint, it misses the endpoint
by veering slightly to the right. If γ is tagged plain at a puncture, then Lγ again
misses to the right and then spirals counterclockwise into the puncture. If γ is
tagged notched at a puncture,
then Lγ misses to the left and spirals clockwise. We

write LT for the set Lγ : γ ∈ T of elementary laminations associated to T . It is
easily verified that, for each tagged arc γ in T , the shear coordinates of Lγ are 1 in
the γ position and 0 elsewhere.

52

NATHAN READING

Since cluster variables are in bijection with tagged arcs, elements of A• (B(T ))
can be represented (non-uniquely) as sums of terms, each term being a monomial
in the xα for tagged arcs α (tagged plain when (S, M) is a once-punctured surface
with no boundary components) times a monomial in the LT .
The tagged arcs are also in bijection with non-closed allowable curves, and we
write κ for this bijection. Explicitly, the bijection κ is described as follows: Suppose
γ is a tagged arc. As a curve, κ(γ) agrees with γ except very close to the endpoints.
If γ has an endpoint that is on a boundary component, then as one follows κ(γ)
toward the endpoint, it misses the endpoint by veering slightly to the left. If γ
is tagged plain at a puncture, then κ(γ) again misses to the left and then spirals
clockwise into the puncture. (Thus the map κ is like the map taking γ to the elementary lamination Lγ , except with right and left reversed.) If γ is tagged notched
at a puncture, then κ(γ) misses to the right and spirals counterclockwise. The
map κ induces a bijection from tagged triangulations to maximal sets of pairwisecompatible non-closed allowable curves (which are in turn in bijection with maximal
cones in the rational quasi-lamination fan FQ (T )).
In [23, Proposition 5.2], it is shown that for a tagged arc γ, the g-vector of the
cluster variable xγ is −b(T, κ(γ)), the negative of the shear coordinates of κ(γ)
with respect to T . Suppose (S, M) is a marked surface with a triangulation T ,
suppose (S0 , M0 ) is obtained by a resection compatible with T , and suppose T 0 is
the triangulation induced by T . Supposing also that every component of (S, M)
and (S0 , M0 ) either has the Null Tangle Property or is a null surface, Theorem 1.7
implies that every rational ray of rational quasi-lamination fan FQ (T 0 ) is also a ray
of FQ (T ). Since rational rays of the rational quasi-lamination fan are spanned by
the shear coordinates of allowable curves, we see that for every allowable curve λ0
in (S0 , M0 ), there is a (unique) allowable curve λ in (S, M) such that b(T, λ) =
b(T 0 , λ0 ).
Our goal is to prove Theorem 1.20, and accordingly we now restrict our attention
to the case where (S, M) is a once-punctured or unpunctured disk and T is a
triangulation such that B(T ) is acyclic. (Thus also (S0 , M0 ) is a union of oncepunctured or unpunctured disks and B(T 0 ) is acyclic.) This simplifies the situation
considerably, not least because in this case there are no closed allowable curves. In
particular, the allowable curves are in bijection with the tagged arcs by the map
κ described above. We define a map χ on tagged arcs by letting χ send a tagged
arc γ 0 in (S0 , M0 ) to the tagged arc γ in (S, M) such that κ(γ 0 ) and κ(γ) have the
same shear coordinates. Equivalently, χ sends γ 0 to the tagged arc γ such that
the g-vector of the cluster variable xγ in A• (B(T )) equals the g-vector of xγ 0 in
A• (B(T 0 )). Accordingly, we re-use the symbol χ for the map on cluster variables
in A• (B(T )) sending x0γ to xχ(γ 0 ) for a tagged arc γ 0 in (S0 , M0 ). Furthermore, we


extend χ to a map on Var• (B(T 0 )) ∪ y0 by letting it agree with νz on y0 .
One can check that the requirement that B(T ) is acyclic implies that (1) every
triangle of T has at least one edge on the boundary or has two edges inside a oncepunctured digon that has an edge on the boundary and (2) the puncture is contained
in a once-punctured digon of T , with one side of the digon being a boundary edge.
To prove Theorem 1.20, we do not need to check every possible resection. Instead,
since every resection gives a dominance relation and since Theorem 1.20 is an
assertion about matrices dominated by B(T ), it is enough to check every matrix
dominated by B(T ). Furthermore, by Proposition 5.28, we need only check for

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

53

each pair bαβ = −bβα = ±1 of entries in B(T ), that the theorem holds when B 0
is obtained by setting bαβ and bβα to zero. To accomplish this, it is enough to
consider three cases:
Case 1. (S0 , M0 ) is obtained by resecting a single arc α ∈ T with two distinct
endpoints, both on the boundary, the point pα used to construct the resection is
in a triangle of T having exactly one edge on the boundary, the component of
(S0 , M0 ) containing the arc α is an unpunctured disk, and the other component is
a once-punctured or unpunctured disk.
Case 2. (S0 , M0 ) is obtained by resecting an arc α ∈ T that is the non-fold edge of
a self-folded triangle in T , the self-folded triangle is contained in a once-punctured
digon with exactly one edge on the boundary, the point pα is in the self-folded
triangle, the component of (S0 , M0 ) containing α is an unpunctured disk, and the
other component is a once-punctured monogon.
Case 3. (S0 , M0 ) is obtained by resecting two arcs incident to the puncture in a
once-punctured digon of T , with one side of the digon being a boundary edge, one
component of (S0 , M0 ) is an unpunctured disk with at least 5 boundary points, and
the other is an unpunctured quadrilateral. (The resection must be as pictured in
Figure 7, or the mirror image of that figure.)
We prove each case separately. In fact, in each case, we prove a proposition
that establishes more cases of Phenomenon IV than are covered in Theorem 1.20.
Specifically, in each case, we prove a proposition that makes no requirement of
acyclicity. The hypotheses on will imply, however, that the resection does not erase
any edges (in the sense of Theorem 1.3) that are contained in oriented cycles.
In each case, the outline is as follows:
(1) Explicitly describe the map χ on tagged arcs. (In every case, χ maps each
tagged arc in T 0 to the corresponding tagged arc in T , and we won’t mention
these cases separately in each proof.)
n
o

(2) Explicitly describe the map χ (i.e. νz ) on y0 = L0ζ : ζ ∈ T 0 . Here
L0ζ means the elementary lamination in (S0 , M0 ) as opposed to in (S, M).
Recall that νz (L0ζ ) = Lζ zζ , where zζ is the cluster monomial whose g-vector
is the ζ-column of B(T ) minus the ζ-column of B(T 0 ).
(3) Check that χ takes every exchange relation in A• (B(T 0 )) to an exchange
relation in A• (B(T )).
(4) Conclude by Proposition 5.2 that χ extends
to a ring homomorphism.

(Since χ agrees with νz on Var• (B(T 0 )) ∪ y0 , it coincides with νz .)
(5) Apply Proposition 5.3 to conclude that νz is injective.
We begin with the following proposition, which in particular proves Theorem 1.20
in Case 1.
Proposition 5.29. Suppose (S, M) is a once-punctured or unpunctured disk and
suppose (S0 , M0 ) and T 0 are obtained from (S, M) and T by a resection compatible
with T , along a single arc α with distinct endpoints, both on the boundary. Suppose also that the point pα used to construct the resection is in a triangle of T
having exactly one edge on the boundary and that the puncture in (S0 , M0 ) is in the
component not containing the arc α. Then both parts of Phenomenon IV occur.

54

NATHAN READING

p1
α̃

γ
γ̃
β

s

resect

−−−→

α

p1

pα
β

p2

r

γ

s

p1

q1

α

q2

p2

q1

p1
ζ′

χ

←
−

pα

ζ

p1

χ

←
−

γ
p2

p2

q1

s

ζ

r

q2

p2

r

ζ′

r

p1

γ
pα
p2

Figure 18. Illustrations of the map χ on tagged arcs, Case 1
Proof. We use the labels shown in the first row of Figure 18. Some of the arcs in
T , and the corresponding arcs in T 0 , are shown and labeled. For generality, neither
β nor γ is pictured as a boundary segment, although by hypothesis exactly one of
them them is a boundary segment.
Given a tagged arc ζ 0 in (S0 , M0 ), we explicitly describe ζ = χ(ζ 0 ). If neither
endpoint of ζ 0 is pα or q2 , then ζ is obtained from ζ 0 by the natural inclusion
(preserving taggings) taking (S0 , M0 ) minus the triangle p1 p2 pα into (S, M). If
an endpoint of ζ 0 is pα , then we delete the part of ζ 0 contained in the triangle
p1 p2 pα and include what remains of ζ 0 into (S, M) The included arc is attached to
the point r that is closest to p2 (moving from p2 while keeping the surface on the
right), as illustrated at the second row of Figure 18. The curves κ(ζ 0 ) and κ(ζ) are
shown dotted in the figure. If an endpoint of ζ 0 is at q2 , then there are two cases,
depending on whether β or γ is a boundary segment. If γ is a boundary segment,
then ζ is the inclusion of ζ 0 . If β is a boundary segment, then the inclusion of ζ 0
is cut where it crosses β, the piece incident to p2 is discarded, and the remaining
piece is connected to s, the point that is closest to p1 , moving from p1 keeping the
surface on the right. (This case is illustrated in the third row of Figure 18. In the
pictures, the curves ζ, χ(ζ), ζ 0 , and χ(ζ 0 ) are shown “dangling” because they might
end at the boundary or at the marked point.)
n
o

We next describe explicitly the map χ (or νz ) on y0 = L0ζ : ζ ∈ T 0 by
describing the elements zζ . As before, r ∈ M is the marked point closest to p2 along
the boundary and s ∈ M is the marked point closest to p1 along the boundary. If
β is a boundary segment, then γ̃ = γ and zα = xγ and zγ = xα̃ . If γ is a boundary
segment, then zα = xγ̃ and zβ = xα .
We now show that χ takes every exchange relation of A• (B(T 0 )) to an exchange
relation in A• (B(T )). We can deal with such an exchange relation without having to

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

55

ν
α
γ̃

ν

χ

δ

←
−

δ̃

pα

µ

α

µ

r

Figure 19. Arcs in exchange relations, Case 1
pin down whether β or γ is a boundary segment, because in any case, neither L0β nor
L0γ is involved in the exchange relation. If neither of the tagged arcs being exchanged
is α, then L0α is also not involved. Mapping the exchange relation to (S, M) by χ,
we obtain precisely the exchange relation that exchanges the corresponding arcs in
(S, M). If one of the arcs being exchanged is α, then the situation is as illustrated
in the right picture of Figure 19. The exchange relation is
Y
Y
s0 0
s0 0
x0α x0δ = x0µ
(L0ζ )[bα (T ,Lζ )]+ + x0ν
(L0ζ )[−bα (T ,Lζ )]+ ,
ζ∈T 0

ζ∈T 0

where Ts0 is any triangulation of (S0 , M0 ) containing the arcs α and whichever of µ
and ν are not boundary segments. (If µ and/or ν is a boundary segment, then we
set xµ and/or xν equal to 1.) We have bα (Ts0 , L0α ) = 1. Since the allowable curves
in LT 0 are pairwise compatible, no curve ζ ∈ L0T 0 has bα (Ts0 , L0ζ ) < 0. Thus we can
rewrite the exchange relation as
Y
s0 0
x0α x0δ = x0µ L0α
(L0ζ )[bα (T ,Lζ )]+ + x0ν .
ζ∈T 0 \{α}

Applying χ and remembering that L0β and L0γ do not appear in the product, we
obtain the formal relation
Y
[bα (Ts 0 ,L0ζ )]+
xα xδ̃ = xµ xγ̃ Lα
Lζ
+ xν .
ζ∈T 0 \{α}

Take Ts to be a triangulation of (S, M) agreeing with Ts0 on the inclusion of the right
component of (S0 , M0 ) minus the triangle p1 p2 p into (S, M) and containing γ 0 . We
see that bα (Ts0 , L0ζ ) = bα (Ts, Lζ ) for every ζ ∈ T 0 , so that the relation becomes
Y [b (Ts ,L )]
ζ +
xα xδ̃ = xµ xγ̃
Lζ α
+ xν ,
ζ∈T

which is an exchange relation in A• (B(T )), as illustrated in the left picture of
Figure 19.
To assist in considering further cases, we recast the above treatment pictorially.
The top row of Figure 20 shows the exchange relation in (S0 , M0 ) in the case where
one of the arcs being exchanged is α, with each element x0ζ represented by the arc ζ.
Aside from L0α (shown dotted), the elementary laminations involved in the relation
are not shown. The next row of the figure shows the analogous representation of
the image of the relation under χ.
Now consider an exchange relation in the component of (S0 , M0 ) not containing p.
First suppose that β is a boundary segment. If neither tagged arc being exchanged is incident to p2 , then L0γ does not appear in the exchange relation and
χ acts by inclusion on the tagged arcs involved in the exchange relation and acts

56

NATHAN READING

ν
δ
α

=

+

L′α
µ

χ↓

χ↓

χ↓
ν

α
δ̃

=

γ̃

+

Lα
µ

r

r

r

=

Lγ′

+

r

χ↓

χ↓

=

Lα

α̃

Lβ′

=

χ↓

χ↓

+

+

χ↓

=

Lβ′

χ↓

+

Figure 20. The action of χ on some exchange relations, Case 1
trivially on each elementary lamination in the exchange relation. The result is an
exchange relation in A• (B(T )). If one of the tagged arcs being exchanged is incident
to p2 , then L0γ appears in the exchange relation if and only if the other arc being
exchanged is incident to r. When the other arc being exchanged is not incident to
r, as χ moves the endpoints of arcs at p2 to s, the exchange relation is taken to an

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

57

exchange relation in A• (B(T )). (The exchange relation in A• (B(T )) still does not
involve Lγ , and also does not involve Lζ for any arc ζ from the other component of
S0 .) When the other arc being exchanged is incident to r, as χ moves the endpoints
of arcs at p2 to s, the exchange relation picks up a factor xα̃ in one of its right-side
terms, as illustrated in the third and fourth rows of Figure 20. (In (S0 , M0 ) the
boundary segment β is positioned relative to the exchange relation exactly where
α̃ is positioned relative to the exchange relation in (S, M).) In all of these cases
where β is a boundary segment, there are various forms the exchange relations can
take, depending on how the exchanged arcs are positioned relative to the puncture
and the boundary. (For example, one or more of the arcs appearing on the right
side may be a boundary segment, thus disappearing from the relation. Or, one
of the arcs on the right side may be replaced by a pair of arcs to the puncture
coinciding except for opposite taggings at the puncture. The latter happens when
the two arcs being exchanged share an endpoint.) These details are preserved when
χ is applied. We see (as illustrated in the fourth row of Figure 20 that χ maps the
exchange relation in A• (B(T 0 )) to an exchange relation in A• (B(T )).
Next, suppose γ is a boundary segment. If neither tagged arc being exchanged
is incident to p2 , then Lβ does not appear in the exchange relation and χ acts by
inclusion on the tagged arcs involved in the exchange relation and acts trivially
on each elementary lamination in the exchange relation. The result is again an
exchange relation in A• (B(T )). If one of the tagged arcs being exchanged is incident
to p2 , then Lγ appears in the exchange relation if and only if the other arc being
exchanged is incident to p1 . This time, χ does not move the endpoints of arcs at
p2 , but again χ takes the exchange relation to an exchange relation in A• (B(T )),
as illustrated in the fifth and sixth rows of Figure 20.
The rest of the proof follows the outline given above. (We can apply Proposition 5.3 because of the hypothesis that either β or γ is a boundary segment.) 
The following proposition proves Theorem 1.20 in Case 2, again relaxing the
global requirement of acyclicity.
Proposition 5.30. Suppose (S, M) is a once-punctured disk and (S0 , M0 ) is obtained by resecting an arc α ∈ T that is the non-fold edge of a self-folded triangle
in T that is in turn contained in a once-punctured digon having exactly one edge
on the boundary. Suppose also that the point pα is in the self-folded triangle. Then
both parts of Phenomenon IV occur.
Proof. We describe χ on tagged arcs. The situation is shown in the first row of
Figure 21, where again for generality neither γ nor β is pictured as a boundary arc,
although by hypothesis, one of them is. The point labeled r is the closest marked
point to p (in that direction) on the boundary.
A tagged arc ζ 0 in the component of (S0 , M0 ) containing α is mapped into (S, M)
by the natural inclusion unless it has an endpoint at p1 or pα . If ζ 0 has an endpoint
at p1 or pα , then the inclusion is extended to p or r or the puncture, tagged plain or
notched there. The details depend also on whether β or γ is a boundary segment,
as illustrated in the second through fifth rows of Figure 21. (In the fifth row, if β
and ζ 0 share an endpoint, then ζ is an arc from r to the puncture, tagged plain.)
There are two tagged arcs in the once-punctured monogon. The one that is
tagged plain maps into (S, M) by the natural inclusion and remains tagged plain

58

NATHAN READING

γ̃

r
α

δ

p1
γ

p

γ

resect

α̃

−−−→

δ

pα

q

α
β

β
p2

ζ
p

γ

ζ′

pα

q

γ

ζ
p

χ

←
−

γ

χ

←
−

ζ′

q
γ

ζ′

r

χ

←
−

p

pα

q

ζ

β

β

r

β

β

χ

←
−

p

pα

q

ζ′

ζ

r
ζ
p

χ

←
−

ζ′
q

Figure 21. Illustrations of the map χ, Case 2

at the puncture. The one that is tagged notched maps to an arc from r to the
puncture, still tagged notched, as shown in the last row of Figure 21.
If β is a boundary segment, then zγ = xδ and zδ = xγ̃ . If γ is a boundary
segment, then γ̃ = β, so that zβ = xα̃ and zδ = xγ̃ = xβ .
We now show that χ takes every exchange relation of A• (B(T 0 )) to an exchange
relation in A• (B(T )). The only exchange relation in the once-punctured monogon
is shown in Figure 22. In either case (whether β or γ is a boundary segment), χ
sends this exchange relation to an exchange relation as illustrated in Figure 22.

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

=

59

+
′

Lδ

χ↓

χ↓

r

χ↓

r

=

γ̃

+

Lδ

Figure 22. The exchange relation in the monogon, Case 2

Lα′

=

χ↓

+

χ↓

=

=

χ↓

χ↓

+

Lα

Lγ′

+

χ↓

=

χ↓

Lγ

+

Figure 23. Exchange relations, Case 2 (β a boundary segment)

60

NATHAN READING

Lγ′

=

χ↓

+

χ↓

=

χ↓

Lγ

=

Lα′ Lγ′

χ↓

+

+

χ↓

=

χ↓

Lγ
Lα

+

Figure 24. More exchange relations, Case 2 (β a boundary segment)
Now suppose β is a boundary segment and consider an exchange relation in the
component containing α. The elementary lamination L0δ does not participate in the
exchange relation. There are four cases, based on whether L0α and (independently)
L0γ participate in the exchange relation. We observe that L0α participates if and
only if an arc incident to pα is exchanged with an arc incident to p1 . Similarly, L0γ
participates if and only if exactly two of p1 , pα , and p2 occur as endpoints of the
two arcs being exchanged.
The cases where neither L0α nor L0γ appears is easy. The remaining cases are
illustrated in Figures 23 and 24.
Finally, suppose γ is a boundary segment and consider an exchange relation
in the component containing α. Again, L0δ does not participate in the exchange
relation, and we break into cases based on whether L0α and L0β participate in the
exchange relation. Again, L0α participates if and only if an arc incident to pα is
exchanged with an arc incident to p1 . We observe that L0γ participates if and only
if exactly two of s, p1 , and pα , occur as endpoints of the two arcs being exchanged,
where as before s is the marked point closest to p1 . Again, the case where neither
L0α nor L0β appears is easy, and the remaining cases are illustrated in Figures 25
and 26.
The rest of the proof follows the outline given above.


DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

s

61

s
Lα′

=

χ↓

s

+

χ↓

s

χ↓
s

s

=

+

Lα

s

s

Lβ′

=

χ↓

s

+

χ↓

s

χ↓

s

s

=

Lβ

s

+

s
Lα′

=

χ↓

+

Lβ′

χ↓

s

χ↓

s

=

s
Lβ

Lα

+

Figure 25. Exchange relations, Case 2 (γ a boundary segment)
Finally, we prove a proposition that covers Case 3.

62

NATHAN READING

s

s

=

s

+

Lβ′

χ↓

χ↓

s

χ↓

s

s

=

+

Lβ

Figure 26. More exchange relations, Case 2 (γ a boundary segment)

s

p1
α
p2

resect

−−−→

γ

p1

q1

δ

q3 α
q2

β
p3

pα

p2

pβ

β

γ

p3

s
ζ

χ

←
−

ζ′

ζ

χ

←
−

ζ′

Figure 27. Illustrations of the map χ on tagged arcs, Case 3a
Proposition 5.31. Suppose (S, M) is a once-punctured disk with at least 3 marked
points on the boundary with triangulation T . Suppose (S0 , M0 ) is obtained by a
resection compatible with T , resecting two arcs incident to the puncture in a oncepunctured digon of T , with one of the edges of the digon being a boundary segment.
Then both parts of Phenomenon IV occur.
Proof. There are two cases, depending on which of the two arcs in the digon is cut
off from the rest of the disk. We will refer to the case where α is cut off as Case 3a
and refer to the other case as Case 3b. The situation is illustrated in Figure 27,
which also, along with Figures 28 and 29, also illustrates the map χ on tagged arcs.
(To see why this resection cuts off a quadrilateral, refer back to Figure 7. Cases 3a

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

63

ζ

χ

←
−
ζ′

χ

←
−

ζ′

ζ

Figure 28. More illustrations of the map χ on tagged arcs, Case 3a

p1
ǫ

p1

α
p2

resect

−−−→

γ

β
p3

q2
q1 β
q3

pα

α

pβ

p2

γ
p3

ζ

χ

←
−
ζ′

ζ

χ

←
−

ζ′

χ

←
−
ζ

ζ′

Figure 29. Illustrations of the map χ on tagged arcs, Case 3b
and 3b correspond to which of the arcs δ or γ in Figure 7 is a boundary segment.)
In Case 3a, the element zα is xδ and zγ is xα . In Case 3b, zβ is xγ and zγ is x .
In Case 3a, χ takes the unique exchange relation involving arcs in the quadrilateral component to an exchange relation in A• (B(T )), as illustrated in Figure 30.
An exchange relation in A• (B(T 0 )) involves L0β if and only if it exchanges an arc

64

NATHAN READING

=

Lα′

χ↓

+

χ↓

s

χ↓

s
Lα

=

+

=

Lβ′

χ↓

+

χ↓

=

Lβ

χ↓

+

Figure 30. Exchange relations, Case 3a
with endpoint p2 and an arc with endpoint pβ . An exchange relation involves L0γ if
and only if exactly two of p1 , p2 , and pβ occur as endpoints of the two arcs being
exchanged. In each case, χ maps the exchange relation to an exchange relation, as
illustrated in Figure 31.
Similarly, in Case 3b, χ maps the unique exchange relation in the quadrilateral to
an exchange relation, as illustrated in Figure 32. An exchange relation in A• (B(T 0 ))
involves L0α if and only if it exchanges an arc with endpoint p1 and an arc with
endpoint pα . An exchange relation involves L0γ if and only if exactly two of p1 , pα ,
and p2 occur as endpoints of the two arcs being exchanged. Again, χ takes each
exchange relation to an exchange relation, as illustrated in Figure 33.
Again, the proof concludes as outlined above.

This completes the proof of Theorem 1.20.
It appears that there exists a generalization of Theorem 1.20 beyond the surfaces
of finite type. In particular, the surfaces of affine type (the unpunctured annulus
and the twice-punctured disk) should yield to arguments like those given here. One
difficulty with such generalizations is the further proliferation of cases; some way of
arguing more generally would help. But there are also some theoretical difficulties
that arise because, outside of finite type, we are forced to consider cluster-algebra

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

=

+

Lγ′

χ↓

65

χ↓

=

χ↓

+

Lγ

=

L′γ

χ↓

+

χ↓

=

+

Lγ

=

χ↓

χ↓

Lβ′

L′γ

+

χ↓

=

Lβ Lγ

χ↓

+

Figure 31. More exchange relations, Case 3a
elements associated to closed allowable curves in addition to tagged arcs. First, and
most easily dealt with, there is currently no generalization of [23, Proposition 5.2],
giving the g-vector of such closed-curve elements in terms of shear coordinates.
(Such a generalization should follow easily from [19, Proposition 6.2] in the case
where (S, M) has no punctures, and we hope soon to provide a full generalization.)

66

NATHAN READING

=

+

Lβ′

χ↓

χ↓

=

χ↓

+

Lβ

Lα′

=

+

χ↓

χ↓

χ↓

Lα

=

+

Lα′

=

Lγ′

χ↓

+

χ↓

=

Lα

Lγ

χ↓

+

Figure 32. Exchange relations, Case 3b
Second, and more seriously, outside of the finite-type case, the map χ may map a
tagged arc to a closed allowable curve. Thus χ cannot map exchange relations to
exchange relations in every case, but one would have to show that, instead, χ maps
some exchange relations to skein relations [19, 18]. (See [19, Appendix A] for an
in-depth discussion of the difficulties associated with skein relations.)

DOMINANCE PHENOMENA

=

χ↓

Lγ′

67

+

χ↓

=

χ↓

+

Lγ

=

χ↓

Lγ′

+

χ↓

=

Lγ

χ↓

+

Figure 33. More exchange relations, Case 3b
Acknowledgments. The author thanks Man Wai “Mandy” Cheung, Salvatore
Stella, and Shira Viel for helpful conversations.
References
[1] I. Assem, G. Dupont, and R. Schiffler, On a category of cluster algebras. J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 218 (2014), no. 3, 553–582.
[2] E. Barnard, E. Meehan, N. Reading, and S. Viel, Universal geometric coefficients for the
four-punctured sphere. To appear in Ann. Comb.
[3] A. Berenstein, S. Fomin, A. Zelevinsky, Cluster algebras. III. Upper bounds and double Bruhat
cells. Duke Math. J. 126 (2005) no. 1, 1–52.
[4] M. W. Cheung, M. Gross, G. Muller, G. Musiker, D. Rupel, S. Stella, and H. Williams, The
greedy basis equals the theta basis: a rank two haiku. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 145 (2017),
150–171.
[5] R. Ehrenborg and G.-C. Rota, Apolarity and canonical forms for homogeneous polynomials.
European J. Combin. 14 (1993), no. 3, 157–181.
[6] A. Felikson, M. Shapiro, and P. Tumarkin, Cluster algebras of finite mutation type via unfoldings. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2012 no. 8, 1768–1804.
[7] A. Felikson, M. Shapiro, and P. Tumarkin, Cluster algebras and triangulated orbifolds. Adv.
Math. 231 (2012), no. 5, 2953–3002.
[8] S. Fomin, M. Shapiro, and D. Thurston, Cluster algebras and triangulated surfaces. I. Cluster
complexes. Acta Math. 201 (2008), no. 1, 83–146.

68

NATHAN READING

[9] S. Fomin and D. Thurston, Cluster algebras and triangulated surfaces. Part II: Lambda
lengths. Preprint, 2008. (arXiv:1210.5569)
[10] S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky, Cluster algebras. I. Foundations. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 (2002),
no. 2, 497–529.
[11] S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky, Cluster algebras II: Finite type classification. Invent. Math. 154
(2003), 63–121.
[12] S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky, Cluster Algebras IV: Coefficients. Compos. Math. 143 (2007),
112–164.
[13] C. Fraser, Quasi-homomorphisms of cluster algebras. Adv. in Appl. Math. 81 (2016), 4077.
[14] M. Gross, P. Hacking, S. Keel, and M. Kontsevich, Canonical bases for cluster algebras.
Preprint, 2014. (arXiv:1411.1394)
[15] Min Huang, Fang Li, and Yichao Yang On Structure of cluster algebras of geometric type I:
In view of sub-seeds and seed homomorphisms. Preprint, 2015. arXiv:1509.01050
[16] Min Huang and Fang Li, On structure of cluster algebras of geometric type, II: Green’s
equivalences and paunched surfaces. Pure Appl. Math. Q. 11 (2015), no. 3, 451–490.
[17] K. Igusa, K. Orr, G. Todorov, and J. Weyman, Picture groups of finite type and cohomology
in type An . Preprint, 2016. (arXiv:1609.02636)
[18] G. Musiker and L. Williams, Matrix formulae and skein relations for cluster algebras from
surfaces. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2013, no. 13, 2891–2944.
[19] G. Musiker, R. Schiffler, and L. Williams, Bases for cluster algebras from surfaces. Compos.
Math. 149, (2013) 217–263.
[20] N. Reading, Cambrian lattices. Adv. Math. 205 (2006) no. 2, 313–353.
[21] N. Reading, Clusters, Coxeter-sortable elements and noncrossing partitions. Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 359 (2007), no. 12, 5931–5958.
[22] N. Reading, Universal geometric cluster algebras. Math. Z. 277 no. 1–2 (2014), 499–547.
[23] N. Reading, Universal geometric cluster algebras from surfaces. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
366 (2014), 6647–6685.
[24] N. Reading, Universal geometric coefficients for the once-punctured torus. Sém. Lothar. Combin. B71e (2015), 30 pp.
[25] N. Reading, Lattice homomorphisms between weak orders. Preprint, 2017.
[26] N. Reading, Scattering diagrams and scattering fans. Preprint, 2017.
[27] N. Reading and D. E. Speyer, Cambrian fans. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 11 no. 2, 407-447.
[28] N. Reading and D. E. Speyer, Sortable elements in infinite Coxeter groups Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 363 (2011) no. 2, 699-761.
[29] N. Reading and D. Speyer, Combinatorial frameworks for cluster algebras. Int. Math. Res.
Notices. 2016 no. 1 (2016), 109–173.
[30] R. Simion, Noncrossing partitions, Formal power series and algebraic combinatorics (Vienna,
1997). Discrete Math. 217 (2000), no. 1-3, 367–409.
[31] S. Viel, Work in progress, 2017.
[32] S. Yang and A. Zelevinsky Cluster algebras of finite type via Coxeter elements and principal
minors, Transformation Groups 13 (2008), no. 3–4, 855–895.

