arXiv:1703.03701v2 [math.GR] 20 Mar 2017

Profinite detection of 3-manifold
decompositions
Henry Wilton∗ and Pavel Zalesskii†
March 21, 2017

Abstract
The profinite completion of the fundamental group of a closed,
orientable 3-manifold determines the Kneser–Milnor decomposition.
If M is irreducible, then the profinite completion determines the Jaco–
Shalen–Johannson decomposition of M .

When trying to distinguish two compact 3-manifolds M, N, in practice the
easiest method is often to compute some finite quotients of their fundamental
groups, and notice that there is a finite group Q which is a quotient of π1 M,
say, but not of π1 N. It would be very useful, both theoretically and in
practice, to know that this method always works. The set of finite quotients
̂ (the inverse limit of the
of a group Γ is encoded by the profinite completion Γ
system of finite quotient groups), and so one is naturally led to the following
question.
Question 0.1. Let M be a closed, orientable 3-manifold. To what extent is
π1 M determined by its profinite completion?
In particular, if M is determined among all compact, orientable 3-manifolds
̂
by π1 M, then M is said to be profinitely rigid. If there are at most finitely
̂
̂
many closed, orientable 3-manifolds N with π
1 M ≅ π1 N , then M is said
∗

Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WB, United Kingdom
†
Department of Mathematics, University of Brası́lia, 70910-9000 Brası́lia, Brazil

1

to have finite genus. More precise versions of Question 0.1 ask which 3manifolds are profinitely rigid, which have finite genus and whether various
̂
properties of M are determined by π
1M .
̂
The results of this paper show that the profinite completion π
1 M detects
both the Kneser–Milnor and the JSJ decompositions of M. This complê
ments our previous results showing that π
1 M detects the geometry of M
[WZ17]. The first theorem concerns the Kneser–Milnor decomposition.
Theorem A. Let M, N be closed, orientable 3-manifolds with Kneser–Milnor
decompositions M ≅ M1 # . . . #Mm #r(S1 ×S2 ) and N ≅ N1 # . . . #Nn #s(S1 ×
̂
̂
̂
S2 ). If π
1 M ≅ π1 N then m = n, r = s, and up to re-indexing, π1 M i is conjugate to π̂
1 N i for each i.
̂
In particular, π
1 M detects whether or not M is irreducible. While this
work was in progress we discovered that a similar result has also been proved
in the pro-p setting by Wilkes, using l2 -cohomology [Wil17, Proposition
6.2.4]. Our proof is different, using the continuous cohomology of the profinite completion, and naturally generalizes to our next theorem, which shows
that the profinite completion detects the JSJ decomposition of M.
Theorem B. Let M and N be closed, orientable, irreducible 3-manifolds,
̂
̂
and suppose π
1 M ≅ π1 N . Then the underlying graphs of the JSJ decompositions of π1 M, π1 N are isomorphic, and corresponding vertex groups have
isomorphic profinite completions.
See Theorem 4.3 for a more precise statement, phrased in terms of profinite Bass–Serre trees. Partial results along the lines of Theorem B have also
been obtained by Wilkes [Wil16].
In [WZ17, Theorem 8.4], it was shown that the profinite completion of
the fundamental group of a closed, orientable 3-manifold M determines the
geometry of M. As an immediate consequence of Theorem B, we can extend
this result to the case with toral boundary.
Corollary C. Let M, N be compact, orientable, irreducible 3-manifolds with
̂
̂
non-empty toral boundaries, and suppose that π
1 M ≅ π1 N. If M is geometric
then N is also geometric, with the same geometry. In particular, N is Seifert
fibred if and only if M is Seifert fibred.
Proof. Let D be the double of M and E be the double of N. Note that
̂
π̂
1 D ≅ π1 E, and also that the isomorphism respects the profinite completions
2

of the boundary subgroups of π1 M and π1 N. The result follows from the
observation that the geometry of M is reflected in properties of the double
D.
Indeed, if M is Seifert fibred then so is D. In this case, if M is homeomorphic to an interval bundle over the torus then D has Euclidean geometry;
otherwise, M and D both have H2 × R geometry. Finally, M is hyperbolic if
and only if D has non-trivial JSJ decomposition, and the boundary tori of
M are the only JSJ tori of D. Combining these facts with Theorem B and
[WZ17, Theorem 8.4], the result follows.
Theorem B shows that the problem of distinguishing 3-manifolds using
their profinite completions can be reduced to the pieces of the JSJ decomposition. The Seifert-fibred case has been resolved by Wilkes [Wilar], building on
work of Hempel [Hem14]: Seifert fibred 3-manifolds are not profinitely rigid,
but do have finite genus, and Wilkes was able to give a complete description
of when two such 3-manifold groups have isomorphic profinite completions;
he was subsequently able to extend this to a complete answer to Question 0.1
for graph manifolds [Wil16]. Sol-manifolds are also well understood: they are
not profinitely rigid [Fun13], but do have finite genus [GPS80]. A definitive
treatment of this case would be a valuable addition to the literature.
The case of hyperbolic 3-manifolds remains an important open problem.
The complement of the figure-eight knot was shown to be profinitely rigid
by Boileau–Friedl [BF15] and by Bridson–Reid [BR15]; see also [BCR16] for
analogous results for Fuchsian groups and [BRW16] for once-punctured-torus
bundles.
Both [BF15] and [BR15] rely on results showing that fibredness is a
profinite invariant in certain contexts, and the question of whether or not
fibredness is a profinite invariant is also an important problem. This is
known to hold for hyperbolic 3-manifolds M with b1 (M) = 1: a proof using
twisted Alexander polynomials was given by Boileau–Friedl [BF15]; topological proofs were given by Bridson–Reid in the case with boundary [BR15],
and by Bridson–Reid–Wilton in the closed case [BRW16]. More generally,
Boileau–Friedl proved that fibredness is an invariant of regular profinite isomorphism. Ueki also recently showed that the profinite completion of a knot
group determines the Alexander polynomial of the knot [Uek17].
The results of this paper are proved by considering profinite Poincaré
Duality groups. The main difficulty in the above theorems is to show that
profinite completions of 3-manifold groups do not admit unexpected splittings
3

which are not induced by splittings of the underlying group. It is well known
that non-splitting theorems for discrete Poincaré Duality groups follow from
the Mayer–Vietoris sequence. As a result of the work of Agol, Wise et al. on
the Virtual Haken conjecture [Ago13, Wis12], 3-manifold groups are known to
be good in the sense of Serre, meaning that the cohomology of the profinite
completion is isomorphic to the ordinary cohomology (with coefficients in
finite modules). Furthermore, a version of the Mayer–Vietoris sequence is
known for efficient decompositions of profinite completions. The main idea
of the proofs of Theorems A and B is to prove the analogues for profinite
completions of the non-splitting theorems from the discrete case.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Peter Kropholler for explaining the results of
[KR88], and to Michel Boileau and Stefan Friedl for pointing out Corollary C.
This work was completed while the first author was a participant of the Nonpositive curvature, group actions and cohomology programme at the Isaac
Newton Institute, funded by the EPSRC Grant number EP/K032208/1. The
first author is also supported by an EPSRC Standard Grant EP/L026481/1.
The second author was supported by CAPES as part of the ‘Estagio Senior’
programme, and thanks Trinity College and the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics at the University of Cambridge for their
hospitality.

1
1.1

Preliminaries on profinite groups
Profinite trees

A graph Γ is a disjoint union E(Γ) ∪ V (Γ), with two maps d0 , d1 ∶ Γ → V (Γ)
that are the identity on the set of vertices V (Γ). For an element e of the set
of edges E(Γ), d0 (e) is called the initial and d1 (e) the terminal vertex of e.
Definition 1.1. A profinite graph Γ is a graph such that:
(i) Γ is a profinite space (i.e. an inverse limit of finite discrete spaces);
(ii) V (Γ) is closed; and
(iii) the maps d0 and d1 are continuous.
4

Note that E(Γ) is not necessary closed.
A morphism α ∶ Γ Ð→ ∆ of profinite graphs is a continuous map with
αdi = di α for i = 0, 1.
By [ZM88, Prop. 1.7] every profinite graph Γ is an inverse limit of finite
quotient graphs of Γ.
For a profinite space X that is the inverse limit of finite discrete spaces
̂
̂ j ], where [ZX
̂ j ] is the free Z-module
̂
Xj , [[ZX]]
is the inverse limit of [ZX
with basis Xj . For a pointed profinite space (X, ∗) that is the inverse limit
̂
of pointed finite discrete spaces (Xj , ∗), [[Z(X,
∗)]] is the inverse limit of
̂ j , ∗)], where [Z(X
̂ j , ∗)] is the free Z-module
̂
[Z(X
with basis Xj ∖ {∗} [RZ10,
Chapter 5.2].
For a profinite graph Γ define the pointed space (E ∗ (Γ), ∗) as Γ/V (Γ)
with the image of V (Γ) as a distinguished point ∗, and denote the image of
e ∈ E(Γ) by ē.
Definition 1.2. A profinite tree Γ is a profinite graph such that the sequence
δ
ǫ
̂ ∗ (Γ), ∗)]] →
̂ (Γ)]] →
̂→0
0 → [[Z(E
[[ZV
Z

is exact, where δ(ē) = d1 (e) − d0 (e) for every e ∈ E(Γ) and ǫ(v) = 1 for every
v ∈ V (Γ).
If v and w are elements of a profinite tree T , we denote by [v, w] the
smallest profinite subtree of T containing v and w and call it a geodesic.
By definition a profinite group G acts on a profinite graph Γ if we have
a continuous action of G on the profinite space Γ that commutes with the
maps d0 and d1 .
We shall need the following lemma; its proof is contained in the first eight
lines of the proof of [Zal90, Lemma 2.3].
Lemma 1.3. Suppose that a profinite group G acts on a profinite tree T and
does not fix any vertex. Then there exists an open normal subgroup U of G
that is not generated by its vertex stabilizers.
When we say that G is a finite graph of profinite groups we mean that it
contains the data of the underlying finite graph, the edge profinite groups,
the vertex profinite groups and the attaching continuous maps. More precisely, let ∆ be a connected finite graph. The data of a graph of profinite
5

groups (G, ∆) over ∆ consists of a profinite group G(m) for each m ∈ ∆, and
continuous monomorphisms ∂i ∶ G(e) Ð→ G(di (e)) for each edge e ∈ E(∆).
The definition of the profinite fundamental group of a connected profinite graph of profinite groups is quite involved (see [ZM89]). However, the
profinite fundamental group Π1 (G, Γ) of a finite graph of finitely generated
profinite groups (G, Γ) can be defined as the profinite completion of the abstract (usual) fundamental group Πabs
1 (G, Γ) (using here that every subgroup
of finite index in a finitely generated profinite group is open, [NS07, Theorem
1.1]). The fundamental profinite group Π1 (G, Γ) has the following presentation:
Π1 (G, Γ) = ⟨G(v), te ∣ rel(G(v)), ∂1 (g) = ∂0 (g)te , g ∈ G(e),
te = 1 for e ∈ T ⟩;

(1)

where T is a maximal subtree of Γ and ∂0 ∶ G(e) Ð→ G(d0 (e)), ∂1 ∶ G(e) Ð→
G(d1 (e)) are monomorphisms.
In contrast to the abstract case, the vertex groups of (G, Γ) do not always
embed in Π1 (G, Γ), i.e., Π1 (G, Γ) is not always proper. However, the edge
and vertex groups can be replaced by their images in Π1 (G, Γ) and after this
replacement Π1 (G, Γ) becomes proper.
The profinite fundamental group Π1 (G, Γ) acts on the standard profinite
tree T (defined analogously to the abstract Bass–Serre tree) associated to it,
with vertex and edge stabilizers being conjugates of vertex and edge groups,
and such that Π1 (G, Γ)/T = Γ [ZM88, Proposition 3.8]. In particular, this
applies to the cases of an amalgamated free product G = G1 ∐H G2 (Γ is an
edge with two vertices) and an HNN-extension G = G1 ∐H (Γ is a loop); if G
is proper and, in the case of an amalgamated free product, G1 ≠ H ≠ G2 , we
say that G splits over H.
Example 1.4. If G = π1 (G, Γ) is the fundamental group of a finite graph of
(abstract) groups then one has the induced graph of profinite completions of
̂ Γ) and a natural homomorphism G = π1 (G, Γ) Ð→
edge and vertex groups (G,
̂ Γ). It is an embedding if π1 (G, Γ) is residually finite. In this case
Π1 (G,
̂ Γ) is simply the profinite completion G.
̂ Moreover, if the edge groups
Π1 (G,
G(e) are separable in G then the standard tree TG naturally embeds in the
standard profinite tree T̂G (see [CB13, Proposition 2.5]). In particular this is
the case if edge groups are finitely generated and G is subgroup separable.

6

1.2

Profinite Poincaré duality groups

In this section we collect the facts about profinite groups that we will need.
The following results are all profinite analogues of well known results in the
setting of discrete groups.
Definition 1.5 ([SW00]). Let p be a prime. A profinite group G of type
p-F P∞ is called a Poincaré duality group at p of dimension n if cdp (G) = n
and
H i (G, Zp [[G]]) = 0,
if i =/ n,
H n (G, Zp [[G]]) ≅ Zp (as abelian groups).
We say that such a group G is a profinite P D n -group at p.
If G is a profinite group with cdp (G) < ∞ and U is an open subgroup
of G, then G is a profinite P D n -group at p if and only if U is a profinite
P D n -group at p.
Our proof relies on the following lemma. In the discrete case, the corresponding result is Strebel’s theorem [Str77]. In the profinite case, this is
Exercise 5(b) on p. 44 of [Ser97].
Lemma 1.6. Let G be a profinite P D n group at p and H a a closed subgroup
of G such that p∞ ∣[G ∶ H]. Then cdp (H) < n.
The following theorem is the profinite analogue of the well known fact
in the discrete setting that P D n groups cannot split over groups of much
smaller cohomological dimension [DD89, Proposition V.7.4].
Theorem 1.7. Let G be a profinite P D n group at every prime p acting on a
profinite tree T with edge stabilizers of cd(Ge ) < n − 1. Then G fixes a vertex.
Proof. By [ZM88, paragraph 2.7],
cd G ≤ sup{cd Gv , cd Ge + 1 ∣ v ∈ V (T ), e ∈ E(T )}.
Suppose that G acts on T without fixing a vertex. We now argue that there
exists p such that p∞ ∣[G ∶ Gv ] for every v ∈ V (Γ), and deduce a contradiction
from Lemma 1.6.
By [Zal90, Lemma 1.5] we may assume that the action of G on T is irreducible (i.e. does not contain proper G-invariant subtrees). If K is the kernel
of the action then G/K acts faithfully on T . Hence by [Zal90, Proposition
2.10 and Lemma 2.7] G/K contains a free pro-p subgroup acting freely on T
and therefore so does G, whence p∞ ∣[G ∶ Gv ] as claimed.
7

We will apply these results to discrete groups Γ such that the cohomology
of Γ is closely intertwined with the cohomology of the profinite completion
̂
Γ – Serre called such groups ‘good’ [Ser97, I.2.6].
Definition 1.8. A discrete group Γ is good (in the sense of Serre) if, for
any finite Γ-module M, the natural map to the profinite completion Γ → ̂
Γ
̂ M) (where the cohomology of
induces an isomorphism H ∗(Γ, M) ≅ H ∗ (Γ,
̂ is defined using the continuous Hom functor).
the profinite group Γ
It has been noticed in various places (eg. [Cav12], [AFW15]; cf. [GJZZ08])
that 3-manifold groups are good. For convenience, we record the result here.
Theorem 1.9. If M is a closed 3-manifold then π1 M is good.
Proof. Since goodness passes to finite extensions, we may assume that M
is orientable. By [WZ10, Proposition 4.3] and the usual Kneser–Milnor and
JSJ decompositions, it suffices to prove that Seifert fibred and hyperbolic
3-manifold groups are good. The Seifert-fibred case is Proposition 4.2 of the
same paper, and the case of closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds follows from the
Virtually fibred conjecture [Ago13], by [GJZZ08, Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3].
The next result is the subject of [KZ08, Theorem 4.1] for P D 3 -groups,
and for general n the proof can be repeated replacing 3 by n.
Theorem 1.10. If Γ is a good P D n group, then ̂
Γ is P D n at every p.
We immediately obtain a profinite non-splitting result for good Poincaré
duality groups.
Corollary 1.11. Let G be P D n group which is good in the sense of Serre.
̂ on a profinite tree with edge stabilizers of cohomological
Then any action of G
dimension n − 2 has a global fixed point.
̂ is a profinite P D n group at p for every p by
Proof. Since G is good, G
Theorem 1.10, so the result follows from Theorem 1.7.
Remark 1.12. The combined hypotheses of goodness and P D n apply to many
examples in dimensions 2 and 3, but are restrictive in higher dimensions.
Combining all of the above results, we obtain the following fact, which
will be extremely useful to us in what follows.

8

Corollary 1.13. If M is a closed, orientable, irreducible 3-manifold then
̂
any action of π
1 M on a profinite tree with procyclic edge stabilizers has a
global fixed point.
Proof. By the Sphere Theorem, irreducible 3-manifolds either have finite
̂
fundamental group or are aspherical. In the first case π
1 M is finite, and the
result follows from [ZM88, Theorem 2.10]. In the second case, π1 M is P D 3 ,
and the result follows from Theorem 1.9 and Corollary 1.11.

2

The Kneser–Milnor decomposition

As a warm-up, we show that the profinite completion of a 3-manifold group
detects its Kneser–Milnor decomposition. As noted above, this result can
also be obtained using methods from l2 -cohomology [Wil17]. Recall that a
closed 3-manifold M is irreducible if every embedded 2-sphere bounds a 3ball; equivalently, π1 M does not admit a non-trivial splitting over the trivial
subgroup.
Proposition 2.1. Suppose that M1 , M2 are closed, orientable 3-manifolds.
̂
̂
If π
1 M 1 ≅ π1 M 2 and M1 is irreducible then so is M2 .
Proof. If M2 were reducible then π1 M2 would act on a tree with trivial edge
̂
̂
stabilizers and without a global fixed point, and π
1 M 1 ≅ π1 M 2 would act on
a profinite tree with trivial edge stabilizers and without a global fixed point.
This contradicts Corollary 1.13.
Non-irreducible 3-manifolds admit non-trivial Kneser–Milnor decompositions. If M is a closed, oriented 3-manifold then the Kneser–Milnor decomposition decomposes M as a connect sum
M ≅ N1 # . . . #Nm #Fr
where each Ni is irreducible and Fr is a connect sum of copes of S 1 × S 2 .
The Ni are uniquely determined, in an appropriate sense. In particular, the
conjugacy classes of the subgroups π1 Ni are unique up to reordering, and the
integer r is also unique. The reader is referred to [AFW15, Theorem 1.2.1]
for details.

9

Theorem 2.2 (Profinite Kneser–Milnor). Consider closed, orientable 3manifolds with Kneser–Milnor decompositions M = N1 # . . . #Nm #Fr and
′
′
M ′ = N1′ # . . . #Nm
′ #Fr ′ , where each Ni and Nj is irreducible and Fr and Fr ′
′
′
̂
̂′
are connect sums of S 1 × S 2 ’s. If π
1 M ≅ π1 M then m = m , r = r , and up to
̂′
̂
reordering, π
1 Ni is conjugate to π1 Ni for each i.
Proof. Let S be the Bass–Serre tree of the corresponding decomposition of
̂
π1 M, and let Ŝ be the corresponding profinite tree for π
1 M on which π1 M
acts with trivial edge stabilizers. By Corollary 1.13, each profinite completion
′
̂
̂
π̂
1 Ni fixes a vertex of S, and hence is conjugate into some π1 Nj . By symmê′
try, each π̂
1 Ni is conjugate into some π1 Nj . Since profinite subgroups cannot
be conjugate to proper subgroups of themselves, it follows that m = m′ and
the profinite completions of the vertex groups are conjugate. Factoring the
normal closures of these subgroups out, we see that F̂r ≅ F̂r′ and hence r = r ′
as claimed.

3

Cusped hyperbolic 3-manifolds

An immediate consequence of Corollary 1.11 is that, for a closed 3-manifold
̂
M, π
1 M does not split over a subgroup of cohomological dimension 0 or 1
(for instance a profinite free group). In this section, we prove some profinite
non-splitting results for hyperbolic manifolds with toral boundary. In the
hyperbolic case, we will need a fact from [WZ17], describing the non-procyclic
abelian subgroups of π̂
1N .
Proposition 3.1. Let N be a finite-volume hyperbolic 3-manifold and A a
closed abelian subgroup of π̂
1 N. If A is not procyclic then A is in the closure
of a peripheral subgroup of π1 N, and this peripheral subgroup is unique up to
conjugacy.
Proof. By [WZ17, Theorem 9.3], A is conjugate into the closure of a peripheral subgroup, and by [WZ17, Lemma 4.5], the conjugacy class of the cusp
subgroup is unique.
In the classical P D n setting, one handles manifolds with boundary using
the theory of P D n pairs [Dic80]. One of the upshots of this theory is that
the fundamental group of an aspherical manifold with aspherical boundary
cannot split over a boundary subgroup, relative to the collection of boundary
10

subgroups. (This can be deduced from the results of [KR88].) No doubt the
profinite analogue of this statement can be proved by developing the theory
of profinite P D n pairs. We take a quicker route here: we prove the result in
the cusped hyperbolic case, using Dehn filling. First, we need to recall the
definition of an acylindrical splitting.
Definition 3.2. An action of a group Γ on a tree T is k-acylindrical (for
an integer k) if, for every γ ∈ Γ ∖ 1, the subtree fixed by γ is either empty
or of diameter at most k. Likewise, an action of a profinite group G on
profinite tree T̂ is k-acylindrical if the subtree fixed by γ̂ is either empty or
of diameter at most k, for every γ̂ ∈ G. Such an action is called acylindrical
if it is k-acylindrical for some k.
Acylindricity gives useful control over non-cyclic abelian subgroups, via
the following lemma. This was proved in [WZ17, Theorem 5.2]. (The discrete
version of this fact is left as an instructive exercise to the reader.)
Lemma 3.3. If A is an abelian, profinite, non-procyclic group, and A acts
acylindrically on a profinite tree T , then A fixes a vertex.
We are now ready to prove the non-splitting result for hyperbolic manifolds with cusps.
Lemma 3.4. If N is a compact, orientable, hyperbolic 3-manifold with toral
boundary and π̂
1 N acts on a profinite tree T with each edge stabilizer either
procyclic or conjugate into a peripheral subgroup, then π̂
1 N fixes a vertex.
Proof. First, note that if π̂
1 N acts on T without fixed points then, by Lemma
1.3, after passing to a proper open subgroup we may assume that π̂
1 N is not
generated by vertex stabilizers.
Let the family of peripheral subgroups of π1 N be P1 , . . . , Pn . By Thurston’s
hyperbolic Dehn filling theorem, we may choose slopes ci ∈ Pi so that the
resulting Dehn filled manifold N(c1 , . . . , cn ) is a closed, hyperbolic (in particular, aspherical) manifold. Therefore,
̂
π̂
1 N/⟪c1 , . . . , cn ⟫ ≅ π1 N(c1 , . . . , cn )
is a profinite P D 3 group. Since ⟪c1 , . . . , cn ⟫ is generated by vertex stabilizers,
π̂
1 N(c1 , . . . , cn ) acts on a profinite tree ⟪c1 , . . . , cn ⟫/T (see [ZM88, Prop. 2.5])
and still does not fix a vertex. The edge stabilizers of the latter action are
procyclic. This contradicts Corollary 1.11.
11

4

The JSJ decomposition

In this section we show that, as well as the Kneser–Milnor decomposition,
the JSJ decomposition is also detected by the profinite completion. In order
to avoid ambiguity, we start by stating the form of the JSJ decomposition
we consider. In a nutshell, it is the minimal decomposition along tori such
that the complementary pieces are geometric.
Definition 4.1. Let M be a closed, orientable, irreducible 3-manifold which
is not a torus bundle over the circle. Let T ⊆ M be an embedded disjoint
union of essential tori such that the connected components of M ∖T are each
either Seifert fibred or hyperbolic. Such a union T with the smallest number
of connected components is called the JSJ decomposition of M.
The existence of the JSJ decomposition follows from the work of Jaco–
Shalen–Johannson together with Perelman’s proof of the geometrization conjecture; see [AFW15, §1.6, §1.7] for details. The tori are unique up to isotopy.
We follow Wilkes’ elegant terminology [Wil16], and use the term minor to
denote those components of M ∖ T that are homeomorphic to the twisted interval bundle over the Klein bottle; the remaining components we call major.
If two minor components are adjacent then their union is virtually a torus
bundle over a circle, and so admits either Euclidean, Nil- or Sol-geometry,
which contradicts the hypothesis that T was minimal. Therefore, every edge
adjoins at least one major vertex.
The submanifold T induces a graph-of-spaces decomposition of M, and
hence a graph-of-groups decomposition of π1 M and a profinite graph-of̂
groups decomposition of π
1 M (see Example 1.4). The Bass–Serre trees of the
latter are denoted by TM and T̂M , respectively. Crucially, these trees turn
out to be acylindrical, in the sense of Definition 3.2.
Proposition 4.2. For M a closed, orientable, irreducible 3-manifold, the
JSJ tree TM and the profinite JSJ tree T̂M are both 4-acylindrical.
Proof. In [WZ10] the authors showed that the corresponding decomposition
of π1 M is 4-acylindrical and fits into Example 1.4. In [HWZ13], the authors showed with Hamilton that the corresponding profinite decomposition
̂
of π
1 M is proper and also 4-acyindrical (see also [WZ17, Lemma 4.5]).
We are now ready to state our main theorem,
12

Theorem 4.3. If M, M ′ are closed, orientable, irreducible 3-manifolds and
≅
̂
̂′
f ∶π
1 M → π1 M

is an isomorphism, then there is an f -equivariant isomorphism
φ ∶ T̂M → T̂M ′
of the corresponding profinite Bass–Serre trees. In particular, the underlying
graphs of the JSJ decompositions of M and M ′ are isomorphic, as are the
profinite completions of the fundamental groups of the corresponding pieces.
Consider a vertex space N of M. The next three lemmas show that π̂
1N
̂
must act with a fixed point on TM ′ . We start with the hyperbolic case.
Lemma 4.4. Consider N a compact, hyperbolic 3-manifold with (possibly
̂
empty) toral boundary. If π̂
1 N acts acylindrically on a profinite tree S with
abelian edge stabilizers then π̂
1 N fixes a unique vertex.
Proof. If N is closed then every abelian subgroup of π̂
1 N is procyclic [WZ17,
Theorem D] and the result follows from Corollary 1.13.
Suppose therefore that N has non-empty toroidal boundary. By Proposition 3.1 every edge stabilizer is either procyclic or conjugate into a peripheral
subgroup, and therefore π̂
1 N fixes a vertex by Lemma 3.4.
Uniqueness follows from [ZM88, Corollary 2.9], since π̂
1 N is non-abelian
and edge stabilizers are abelian.
We move on to the major Seifert fibred case.
Lemma 4.5. Consider N a compact, major Seifert fibred 3-manifold with
(possibly empty) toral boundary. If π̂
1 N acts acylindrically on a profinite tree
Ŝ with abelian edge groups then π̂
N
fixes a unique vertex.
1
̂2
Proof. The subgroups of π̂
1 N which are isomorphic to Z each fix a vertex
by Lemma 3.3. Thus the maximal procyclic normal subgroup C of π̂
1 N fixes
a vertex.
Suppose on the contrary π̂
1 N does not fix a vertex. By [Zal90, Lemma
̂
̂
1.5], there exists a unique minimal π̂
1 N-invariant subtree D of S , which
̂ which
is infinite. Now by [ZM88, Theorem 2.12], C acts trivially on D,
contradicts the acylindricity of the action.
Uniqueness again follows from [ZM88, Corollary 2.9].
13

The case of minor Seifert-fibred vertex follows immediately from [WZ17,
Theorem 5.2] and [ZM88, Corollary 2.9].
Lemma 4.6. Consider N a compact, minor Seifert fibred 3-manifold with
̂
toral boundary. If π̂
1 N acts acylindrically on a profinite tree S with abelian
̂
edge groups then π1 N fixes a unique vertex.
̂ 2 subgroups of π
̂
We next classify the fixed point sets of Z
1 M . First, we
need an analysis of their normalizers in vertex stabilizers. We start with the
hyperbolic case, in which case normalizers coincide with centralizers.
Lemma 4.7. Let N be a compact, orientable, hyperbolic 3-manifold with
̂2 a subgroup of π̂
(H).
(H) = Cπ̂
toral boundary, and H ≅ Z
̂
1 N. Then Nπ
1N
1N
Proof. By [WZ17, Theorem 9.3], H is conjugate into the closure of a cusp
subgroup, and by [WZ17, Lemma 4.5], that cusp subgroup is malnormal.
The result follows.
We next treat the case of a major Seifert fibred manifold.
Lemma 4.8. Let N be a compact, orientable, major Seifert-fibred 3-manifold
̂2 a subgroup of π̂
with toral boundary, and H ≅ Z
1 N conjugate to the closure of
the fundamental group of a boundary component. Then Nπ̂
(H) = Cπ̂
(H).
1N
1N
Proof. The fundamental group π1 N is torsion-free of the form
1 → Z → π1 N → π1 O → 1
where π1 O is a Fuchsian group and Z is infinite cyclic (and not necessarily
central). Since Seifert-fibred 3-manifold groups are LERF [Sco78, Sco85] we
have a corresponding short exact sequence of profinite completions.
f
̂ → π̂
̂
1→Z
1 N → π1 O → 1

̂ and centralizes it. So f (Ĉ (H)) = C ̂ (f (H))
Then Cπ̂
(H) contains Z
π1 N
π1 O
1N
and f (Nπ̂
(H)) = Nπ̂
(f (H)). Hence it suffices to show that Cπ̂
(f (H)) =
1N
1O
1O
Nπ̂
(f (H)). We may assume that H is the closure of the fundamental
1O
group of a boundary component; then f (H) is the closure of a peripheral
infinite-cyclic subgroup C of π1 O. Since Fuchsian groups are conjugacy separable [FR90] we deduce that every-finite index subgroup of π1 O is conjugacy
(f (H)) by [Min12, Corollary 12.3], and
separable. Then Cπ1 O (C) = Cπ̂
1O
Nπ1 O (C) = Nπ̂
(f (H)) by [CZ13, Lemma 2.3 combined with Theorem 2.14].
1O
But Nπ1 O (C) = Cπ1 O (C), so Cπ̂
(f (H)) = Nπ̂
(f (H)) as required.
1O
1O
14

̂2 subgroups of π
̂
Next, we classify the possible fixed subtrees for Z
1M .
̂2 of π
̂
̂
Lemma 4.9. Consider the action of a subgroup H ≅ Z
1 M on TM . One
of the following holds.
(i) The fixed point set of H is a vertex with Seifert-fibred stabilizer.
(ii) The fixed point set of H consists of exactly one edge.
(iii) The fixed subtree of H consists of exactly two edges; the central vertex has a minor Seifert fibred stabilizer, and the other two vertices are
major.
Furthermore, if the centralizer Cπ̂
(H) is properly contained in the normal1M
izer Nπ̂
(H), then we are in case (i) or case (iii).
1M
Proof. By Lemma 3.3 and Proposition 4.2, H fixes a non-empty subtree.
Recall that every edge adjoins a major vertex, and that every minor vertex
adjoins exactly two edges. If H stabilizes an edge e and an adjacent major
vertex v then, by Lemmas 4.7 and 4.8, e is the unique edge incident at v
stabilized by H. It follows that the fixed tree of H is of one of the three
claimed forms.
We now prove that, in case (ii), Nπ̂
(H) = Cπ̂
(H). Indeed, Nπ̂
(H)
1M
1M
1M
preserves the fixed subtree of Cπ̂
(H),
and
so
if
H
fixes
a
unique
edge,
1M
Nπ̂
(H)
is
contained
in
an
edge
stabilizer,
hence is abelian, and so Nπ̂
(H) =
1M
1M
(H).
Cπ̂
1M
We now have enough information to construct a map φ. To start with, it
will only be a map of abstract, unoriented graphs.
Lemma 4.10. Consider closed, orientable, irreducible 3-manifolds M, M ′ ,
̂
̂′
and let f ∶ π
1 M → π1 M be an isomorphism. Then there exists an f equivariant morphism of graphs
φ ∶ T̂M → T̂M ′ .
Note that, here, we only claim that φ is a map of abstract, non-oriented
graphs. This map may in principle send edges to either edges or vertices.
̂
̂
̂ ̂
Proof. For brevity, we write G = π
1 M and S = TM ′ , and let G act on S via
̂ 2 . Let u1 , u2 be the adjacent
f . Let e be an edge of T̂M with stabilizer Ge ≅ Z
15

vertices of T̂M . Lemmas 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 together guarantee the existence of
unique vertices v1 , v2 of Ŝ such that Gui ⊆ Gvi for both i.
We claim that v1 and v2 are either equal or adjacent. Suppose therefore
that v1 , v2 are at distance greater than 2 (possibly infinite). Then Ge stabilizes the geodesic [v1 , v2 ] (see [ZM88, Cor 2.9]) and therefore, by Lemma 4.9,
v1 , v2 are at distance precisely two, are both adjacent to a minor vertex w,
and CG (Ge ) is properly contained in NG (Ge ). Therefore, by Lemma 4.9, e is
adjacent to a minor vertex; without loss of generality, we may assume that
u1 is major, Gu1 ⊆ Gv1 , and that u2 is minor and Gu2 ⊆ Gv2 . But Gw also
normalizes Ge , so Gw ⊆ Gu2 ⊆ Gv2 . This implies that Gw stabilizes an edge,
which is absurd because edge stabilizers are abelian. Therefore, v1 and v2
are either equal or adjacent. If they are equal to a vertex v, we set φ(e) = v.
If they are adjacent, we set φ(e) to be the image of the unique edge joining
̂ which is
them. This completes the construction of the map φ ∶ T̂M → S,
equivariant by construction.
We are now ready to complete the proof of the main theorem.
Proof of Theorem 4.3. Applying Lemma 4.10 twice, we obtain maps of graphs
φ ∶ T̂M → T̂M ′ , ψ ∶ T̂M ′ → T̂M ,
where φ is f -equivariant and ψ is f −1 -equivariant. Equivariance implies that
gψ ○ φ(x) = ψ ○ φ(gx)
̂
̂
for all g ∈ π
1 M and x ∈ TM , whence the stabilizer of x is contained in the
stabilizer of ψ ○ φ(x). Since vertex-stabilizers stabilize unique vertices, it
follows that ψ○φ is equal to the identity on vertices, and hence on the whole of
T̂M . In particular, φ and ψ induce isomorphisms of the finite quotient graphs
̂
̂
̂ ′ ̂′
π
1 M/TM and π1 M /TM ; we may therefore choose consistent orientations on
these graphs, which lift to equivariant orientations on the profinite trees T̂M
and T̂M ′ , which are respected by φ and ψ; this also implies continuity of φ
and ψ.

References
[AFW15]

Matthias Aschenbrenner, Stefan Friedl, and Henry Wilton. 3manifold groups. Series of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2015.
16

[Ago13]

Ian Agol. The virtual Haken conjecture. Doc. Math., 18:1045–
1087, 2013. With an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason
Manning.

[BCR16]

M. R. Bridson, M. D. E. Conder, and A. W. Reid. Determining Fuchsian groups by their finite quotients. Israel J. Math.,
214(1):1–41, 2016.

[BF15]

Michel Boileau and Stefan Friedl. The profinite completion
of 3-manifold groups, fiberedness and the Thurston norm.
arXiv:1505.07799, 2015.

[BR15]

Martin R. Bridson and Alan W. Reid. Profinite rigidity, fibering,
and the figure-eight knot. arXiv:1505.07886v1, 2015.

[BRW16]

Martin R. Bridson, Alan W. Reid, and Henry Wilton. Profinite
rigidity and surface bundles over the circle. arXiv:1610.02410,
2016.

[Cav12]

Will Cavendish. Finite-Sheeted Covering Spaces and Solenoids
over 3-manifolds. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2012. Thesis
(Ph.D.)–Princeton University.

[CB13]

Owen Cotton-Barratt. Detecting ends of residually finite groups
in profinite completions. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.,
155(3):379–389, 2013.

[CZ13]

S. C. Chagas and P. A. Zalesskii. Hereditary conjugacy separability of free products with amalgamation. J. Pure Appl. Algebra,
217(4):598–607, 2013.

[DD89]

Warren Dicks and M. J. Dunwoody. Groups acting on graphs,
volume 17 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.

[Dic80]

Warren Dicks. Groups, trees and projective modules, volume 790
of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 1980.

[FR90]

Benjamin Fine and Gerhard Rosenberger. Conjugacy separability of fuchsian groups and related questions. In Combinatorial
group theory (College Park, MD, 1988), volume 109 of Contemp.
Math., pages 11–18. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1990.
17

[Fun13]

Louis Funar. Torus bundles not distinguished by TQFT invariants. Geom. Topol., 17(4):2289–2344, 2013. With an appendix
by Funar and Andrei Rapinchuk.

[GJZZ08]

F. Grunewald, A. Jaikin-Zapirain, and P. A. Zalesskii. Cohomological goodness and the profinite completion of Bianchi groups.
Duke Math. J., 144(1):53–72, 2008.

[GPS80]

F. J. Grunewald, P. F. Pickel, and D. Segal. Polycyclic groups
with isomorphic finite quotients. Ann. of Math. (2), 111(1):155–
195, 1980.

[Hem14]

John Hempel. Some 3-manifold groups with the same finite quotients. arXiv:1409.3509, 2014.

[HWZ13]

Emily Hamilton, Henry Wilton, and Pavel A. Zalesskii. Separability of double cosets and conjugacy classes in 3-manifold
groups. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2), 87(1):269–288, 2013.

[KR88]

P. H. Kropholler and M. A. Roller. Splittings of Poincaré duality
groups. II. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 38(3):410–420, 1988.

[KZ08]

Dessislava H. Kochloukova and Pavel A. Zalesskii. Profinite and
pro-p completions of Poincaré duality groups of dimension 3.
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 360(4):1927–1949, 2008.

[Min12]

Ashot Minasyan. Hereditary conjugacy separability of rightangled Artin groups and its applications. Groups Geom. Dyn.,
6(2):335–388, 2012.

[NS07]

Nikolay Nikolov and Dan Segal. On finitely generated profinite
groups. I. Strong completeness and uniform bounds. Ann. of
Math. (2), 165(1):171–238, 2007.

[RZ10]

Luis Ribes and Pavel Zalesskii. Profinite groups, volume 40 of
Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A
Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys
in Mathematics]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 2010.

18

[Sco78]

Peter Scott. Subgroups of surface groups are almost geometric. Journal of the London Mathematical Society. Second Series,
17(3):555–565, 1978.

[Sco85]

Peter Scott. Correction to: “Subgroups of surface groups are
almost geometric”. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 32(2):217–220,
1985.

[Ser97]

Jean-Pierre Serre. Galois cohomology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1997. Translated from the French by Patrick Ion and revised by
the author.

[Str77]

R. Strebel. A remark on subgroups of infinite index in Poincaré
duality groups. Comment. Math. Helv., 52(3):317–324, 1977.

[SW00]

Peter Symonds and Thomas Weigel. Cohomology of p-adic analytic groups. In New horizons in pro-p groups, volume 184 of
Progr. Math., pages 349–410. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA,
2000.

[Uek17]

Jun Ueki. The profinite completions of knot groups determine
the Alexander polynomials. arXiv:1702.03836, 2017.

[Wil16]

Gareth Wilkes. Profinite detection of JSJ decompositions of 3manifolds. arXiv:1605.08244, 2016.

[Wil17]

Gareth Wilkes. Profinite Properties of 3-Manifold Groups. PhD
thesis, University of Oxford, 2017.

[Wilar]

Gareth Wilkes. Profinite rigidity for Seifert fibre spaces. Geom.
Dedicata, to appear.

[Wis12]

D. T. Wise. The structure of groups with a quasi-convex hierarchy. Preprint, http://goo.gl/3ctNvX, April 2012.

[WZ10]

Henry Wilton and Pavel Zalesskii. Profinite properties of graph
manifolds. Geometriae Dedicata, 147(1):29—45, 2010.

[WZ17]

Henry Wilton and Pavel Zalesskii. Distinguishing geometries
using finite quotients. Geom. Topol., 21(1):345–384, 2017.

19

[Zal89]

P. A. Zalesskii. Geometric characterization of free constructions
of profinite groups. Akademiya Nauk SSSR. Sibirskoe Otdelenie.
Sibirskii Matematicheskii Zhurnal, 30(2):73–84, 226, 1989.

[Zal90]

P. A. Zalesskii. Profinite groups, without free nonabelian
pro-p-subgroups, that act on trees. Matematicheskii Sbornik,
181(1):57–67, 1990.

[Zal92]

P. A. Zalesskiı̆. Open subgroups of free profinite products. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Algebra, Part 1
(Novosibirsk, 1989), volume 131 of Contemp. Math., pages 473–
491. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1992.

[ZM88]

P. A. Zalesskii and O. V. Mel’nikov. Subgroups of profinite groups acting on trees.
Matematicheskii Sbornik,
135(177)(4):419—439, 1988.

[ZM89]

P. A. Zalesskii and O. V. Mel’nikov. Fundamental groups of
graphs of profinite groups. Algebra i Analiz, 1(4):117—135, 1989.

20

