arXiv:1209.1170v4 [math.GT] 6 Jun 2016

Embedding surfaces into S 3 with maximum
symmetry
Chao Wang, Shicheng Wang, Yimu Zhang
and
Bruno Zimmermann

Department of Mathematics
Peking University, Beijing, 100871 CHINA
and
Universita degli Studi di Trieste, Trieste, 34100 Trieste ITALY
Abstract
We restrict our discussion to the orientable category. For g > 1, let
OEg be the maximum order of a finite group G acting on the closed
surface Σg of genus g which extends over (S 3 , Σg ), where the maximum
is taken over all possible embeddings Σg ֒→ S 3 . We will determine OEg
for each g, indeed the action realizing OEg .
In particular, with 23 exceptions, OEg is 4(g + 1) if g 6= k 2 or
√
4( g + 1)2 if g = k 2 , and moreover OEg can be realized by unknotted
embeddings for all g except for g = 21 and 481.

Contents
1 Introduction

2

2 Orbifolds and finite group actions

5

3 Dunbar’s list of spherical 3-orbifolds

10

4 Strategy and outline of finding OEg

15

5 List
of
fibred
2-suborbifolds.

3-orbifolds

containing

allowable
17

6 List of allowable 2-suborbifolds

24

7 Examples

38

1

8 Appendix

1

41

Introduction

Surfaces belong to the most familiar topological subjects to us, mostly because we can see them staying in our 3-space in various manners. The
symmetries of the surfaces have been studied for a long time, and it will be
natural to wonder when these symmetries can be embedded into the symmetries of our 3-space (3-sphere). In particular, what are the orders of the
maximum symmetries of surfaces which can be embedded into the symmetries of the 3-sphere S 3 ? We will solve this maximum order problem in this
paper in the orientable category.
We use Σg (Vg ) to denote the closed orientable surface (handlebody) of
genus g > 1, and G to denote a finite group acting on Σg or on an orientable
3-manifold. The actions we consider are always faithful and orientationpreserving on both surfaces and 3-manifolds. We are always working in the
smooth category. By the geometrization of finite group actions in dimension
3, for actions on the 3-sphere, we can then restrict to orthogonal actions.
Let Og be the maximal order of all finite groups which can act on Σg . A
classical result of Hurwitz states that Og is at most 84(g − 1) [Hu]. However,
to determine Og is still a hard and famous question in general, and there
are numerous interesting partial results.
Let OHg be the maximal order of all finite groups which can act on Vg .
It is a result due to Zimmermann [Zi] that 4(g + 1) ≤ OHg ≤ 12(g − 1), see
also [MMZ], moreover OHg is either 12(g − 1) or 8(g − 1) if g is odd, and
each of them is achieved by infinitely many odd g [MZ]. However, in general
OHg are still not determined either.
In [WWZZ], we considered finite group actions on the pair (S 3 , Σg ), with
respect to an embedding e : Σg ֒→ S 3 . If G can act on the pair (S 3 , Σg ) such
that its restriction on Σg is the given G-action on Σg , we call the action of
G on Σg extendable (over S 3 with respect to e).
Call an embedding e : Σg ֒→ S 3 unknotted, if each component of S 3 \
e(Σg ) is a handlebody, otherwise it is knotted. Similarly, we define an action
of G on Vg to be extendable and the embedding e : Vg ֒→ S 3 to be unknotted
or knotted. For each g, the unknotted embedding is unique up to isotopy of
S 3 and automorphisms of Σg (resp. Vg ).
Let OEg be the maximal order of all finite groups admitting an action
on Σg which is extendable over S 3 w.r.t. e for some e. Let OEgu be the
maximal order of all finite group actions on Σg which is extendable over
S 3 w.r.t. some unknotted embedding. Then we know that 4(g + 1) ≤
OEgu ≤ OHg ≤ 12(g − 1), and there are only finitely many g such that
OEgu = 12(g − 1); moreover, OEgu ≥ 4(n + 1)2 for each g = n2 [WWZZ].

In this paper we will determine OEg for all g > 1 (Theorem 1.1). We
can also determine OEgu and OEgk (Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 1.3), where
2

OEgk denotes the maximal order of finite group actions on Σg which extend
over S 3 w.r.t. all possible knotted embeddings.
Theorem 1.1. The maximal orders OEg are given in the following table.
OEg
12(g − 1)
8(g − 1)
20(g − 1)/3
6(g − 1)
192
7200
√
4( g + 1)2
4(g + 1)

g
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 17, 25, 97, 121, 241, 601
7, 49, 73
16, 19, 361
21, 481
41
1681
g = k2 , k 6= 3, 5, 7, 11, 19, 41
the remaining numbers

Theorem 1.2. The maximal orders OEgu are given in the following table.
OEgu
12(g − 1)
8(g − 1)
20(g − 1)/3
192
7200
√
4( g + 1)2
4(g + 1)

g
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 17, 25, 97, 121, 241, 601
7, 49, 73
16, 19, 361
41
1681
g = k2 , k 6= 3, 5, 7, 11, 19, 41
the remaining numbers

Theorem 1.3. The maximal orders OEgk are given in the following table.
OEgk
12(g − 1)
2400
6(g − 1)
4(g − 1)

g
9, 11, 121, 241
361
2, 3, 4, 5, 21, 25, 97, 481
the remaining numbers

In fact, we will do something more. We will classify all the finite group
actions with order larger than 4(g − 1). And the statements above can be
obtained directly from the following theorem.
Theorem 1.4. For an extendable finite group action G, if |G| > 4(g − 1),
all possible relations between |G| and g are listed in the following table. The
foot index ‘k’ means the action is realized only for a knotted embedding, ‘uk’
means the action can be realized for both unknotted and knotted embeddings.
If the action is realized only for an unknotted embedding, there is no foot
index.
3

|G|
12(g − 1)
8(g − 1)
20(g − 1)/3
6(g − 1) I
6(g − 1) II
24(g − 1)/5
30(g − 1)/7
4n(g − 1)/(n − 2)

g
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9uk , 11uk , 17, 25, 97, 121uk , 241uk , 601
3, 7, 9, 49, 73
4, 16, 19, 361uk
2, 3, 4, 5, 9uk , 11, 17, 25, 97, 121uk , 241uk
{2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 25, 97, 121, 241}uk , 21k , 481k
6, 11, 41, 121
8, 29, 841, 1681
n − 1, (n − 1)2

Here the 6(g − 1) case contains two types, “I” and “II”, we will explain
them in the next section.
Then some interesting phenomena appear: As expected, for all g with
finitely many exceptions we have OEgu > OEgk ; indeed there are only finitely
many g such that OEgu = OEgk and, a little bit surprising, OEgu < OEgk when
g = 21 or 481. Also for some g, OEgk = 12(g − 1).
Our approach relies on the orbifold theory which is founded and studied
in [Th], [Du1], [Du2], [BMP] and [MMZ]. More precisely, the proof of our
main results translates into the problem of finding the so-called allowable
2-orbifolds (Definition 4.1) in certain spherical 3-orbifolds. The strategy of
such an approach will be given in Section 4.
In Section 2, after introducing some basic notions about orbifolds and
finite group actions on manifolds, we present sequences of observations concerning the orbifold pair (S 3 , Σg )/G on both the topological level and the
group theoretical level which are very useful for our later approach. In Section 3 we will describe Dunbar’s list of spherical 3-orbifolds whose underlying
space is S 3 . With the material prepared in Sections 2 and 3, we will be able
to explain why we can transfer the problem of finding OEg into the problem
of finding allowable 2-orbifolds in certain spherical 3-orbifolds and, more importantly, to outline how to get a practical method to find such 2-orbifolds.
(Some people may prefer just read the definitions in Section 4 and skip the
remaining part). In Section 5 we will give the list of 3-orbifolds containing
allowable 2-suborbifolds which turns out to be a small subset of Dunbar’s
list where the singular sets are relatively simple. In Section 6, we will find
all allowable 2-orbifolds in the list of 3-orbifolds provided by Section 5, and
then the main results are derived. We end the paper by some examples.
Acknowledgement. We thank the referee for his sensitivity on orbifold
theory, his aesthetic view on the structure of the paper, which enhance
the paper significantly. The first three authors are supported by grant
No.11371034 of the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Beijing International Center for Mathematical Research.

4

2

Orbifolds and finite group actions

The orbifolds we consider have the form M/H, where M is a n-manifold
and H is a finite group acting faithfully and smoothly on M . For each
point x ∈ M , denote its stable subgroup by St(x), its image in M/H by
x′ . If |St(x)| > 1, x′ is called a singular point and the singular index is
|St(x)|, otherwise it is called a regular point. If we forget the singular set
we get a topological space |M/H| which is called underlying space. M/H
is orientable if M is orientable and H preserves the orientation; M/H is
connected if |M/H| is connected.
We can also define covering spaces and fundamental group for an orbifold. There is a one to one correspondence between orbifold covering spaces
and conjugacy classes of subgroup of the orbifold fundamental group, and
regular covering spaces correspond to normal subgroups. A Van-Kampen
theorem is also valid, see [BMP]. In the following, covering space or fundamental group refers always to the orbifold setting.
Definition 2.1. A discal orbifold (spherical orbifold) has the form B n /H
(S n /H), where B n (S n ) is the n-dimension ball (sphere) and H a finite group
acting orientation-preservingly on the corresponding manifold. A handlebody orbifold has the form Vg /H.
By a classical result for topological actions, |B 2 /H| is a disk, possibly
with one singular point. SO(3) contains only five classes of finite subgroups:
the order n cyclic group Cn , the order 2n dihedral group Dn , the order 12
tetrahedral group T , the order 24 octahedral group O, and the order 60
icosahedral group J. It can be shown that B 3 /H (S 2 /H) belongs to one of
the following five models. The underlying space |B 3 /H| (|S 2 /H|) is the 3ball (the 2-sphere).

n

2 2
n

cyclic

dihedral

3 3

3 4

2

2

tetrahedral

octahedral

3 5
2
icosahedral

Figure 1
By the equivariant Dehn’s lemma, see [MY], it can be shown that a handlebody orbifold is the result of gluing finitely many 3-discal orbifolds along
some 2-discal orbifolds. And such gluing respecting orientations always gives
us a handlebody orbifold.
Like in the manifold case we can say that an orientable seperating 2suborbifold F in an orientable 3-orbifold O is unknotted or knotted, depending on whether it bounds handlebody orbifolds on both sides.
5

It is easy to see that if the underlying space of a handlebody orbifold
is a ball, then the singular set would form an unknotted tree in the ball,
possibly disconnected. Unknotted means that the tree lies in a proper disk
embedded in the ball. For more about handlebody orbifold theory one can
see [MMZ].
Suppose the action of G on Σg is extendable w.r.t. some embedding
e : Σg ֒→ S 3 ; let Γ̃ = {x ∈ S 3 | ∃ g ∈ G, g 6= id, s.t. gx = x}. As locally
there are only five kinds of model, Γ̃ is a graph, possibly disconnected, and
S 3 /G is a 3-orbifold whose singular set Γ = Γ̃/G is a trivalent graph. Each
edge of Γ can be labeled by an integer n > 1 which indicates its singular
index. At each vertex the labels m, q, r of the three adjacent edges should
satisfy 1/m + 1/q + 1/r > 1. The 2-orbifold Σg /G maps to the 2-suborbifold
e(Σg )/G whose singular set e(Σg )/G ∩ Γ consists of isolated points.

We then have an orbifold covering p : S 3 → S 3 /G and an orbifold
embedding e/G : Σg /G ֒→ S 3 /G. Conversely, if we have an orbifold embedding from a 2-orbifold to a spherical orbifold and the preimage of the
2-suborbifold in S 3 is connected then we find an extendable action of G on
some surface with respect to some embedding.

Definition 2.2. An orientable 2-suborbifold F in an orientable 3-orbifold
O is compressible if either F is spherical and bounds a discal 3-suborbifold
in O, or there is a simple closed curve in F (not meeting the singular set)
which bounds a discal 2-orbifold in O, but does not bound a discal 2-orbifold
in F. Otherwise F is called incompressible.

Lemma 2.3. Any orientable 2-suborbifold F in a spherical orbifold S 3 /G
is compressible.

Proof. |F| is two sided in |S 3 /G|. Since π1 (S 3 /G) = G is finite, π1 (|S 3 /G|)
is also finite. Hence F cuts S 3 /G into two parts O1 , O2 , and p−1 (F) cuts
S 3 into several components M1 , M2 , · · · , Mk , each of which will be mapped
by p to one of the two parts, the components have common boundary will
be mapped to different part.
If F is spherical, p−1 (F) is a disjoint union of 2-spheres. By the irreducibility of S 3 and B 3 , one Mi must be a ball, hence one Oi is a discal
3-suborbifold and we have the result by definition.
Otherwise, F = p−1 (F) is a disjoint union of homeomorphic closed surfaces in S 3 of genus g ≥ 1. Since F is compressible in S 3 we can find an
innermost compressing disk D. Suppose D is in Mi . By the equivariant
Dehn’s Lemma we can find equivariant compressing disks in Mi . Suppose
one of them is D ′ , then all the images of D ′ under the G action will be
disjoint in S 3 . Then it gives a ‘compressing disk’ of F in S 3 /G.
Lemma 2.4. Suppose F is a 2-suborbifold of a spherical orbifold S 3 /G and
|F| is homeomorphic to S 2 .

(1) If F has not more than three singular points then F is spherical and
bounds a discal 3-orbifold.
6

(2) If F has precisely four singular points and the preimage of F in S 3
is connected, then F bounds a handlebody orbifold in S 3 /G.
Proof. As a 2-suborbifold, F should be spherical or has ‘compressing disk’
by Lemma 2.3.
(1) If F has no more than three singular points, every simple closed
curve in F bounds a discal orbifold in F. So F has no ‘compressing disk’
and hence is spherical, and then bounds a discal 3-orbifold.
(2) If F has precisely four singular points, F is not spherical and hence
has a ‘compressing disk’ D. Then ∂D separates F into two discal orbifolds
D1 , D2 , each of which contains two singular points. Now D1 ∪ D and D2 ∪
D are 2-suborbifolds in S 3 /G each of which contains no more than three
singular points; by the above argument each of them bounds a discal 3orbifold.
There are two cases: the discal 3-orbifold bounded by D1 ∪ D (D2 ∪ D)
does not intersect the interior of D2 (D1 ). Then the two discal 3-orbifolds
meet only along D, and the result is clearly a handlebody orbifold; otherwise
for example the discal 3-orbifold, say V , bounded by D1 ∪ D intersects the
interior of D2 . Then D2 is contained in V . Since the preimage of F in S 3 is
connect, the complement of V is also a discal 3-orbifold, and we can replace
V by its complement. Then we will meet the previous case.
Proposition 2.5. Suppose G acts on (S 3 , Σg ). If |G| > 4(g −1), then Σg /G
has underlying space S 2 with four singular points and bounds a handlebody
orbifold, and Σg bounds a handlebody.
In conclusion OEg ≤ OHg ≤ 12(g − 1).
Proof. Σg /G is a 2-suborbifold in S 3 /G whose singular set contains isolated
points a1 , a2 , · · · , ak , with indices q1 ≤ q2 ≤ · · · ≤ qk . Note that |S 3 /G|
and |Σg /G| are both manifolds. Suppose the genus of |Σg /G| is ĝ. By the
Riemann-Hurwitz formula
2 − 2g = |G|(2 − 2ĝ −
we have

k
X
1
(1 − ))
qi
i=1

k
X
1
|G| = (2g − 2)/( (1 − ) + 2ĝ − 2).
qi
i=1

If ĝ ≥ 1 or ĝ = 0, k ≥ 5, then |G| ≤ 4g − 4. Hence ĝ = 0 and k ≤ 4. If
k ≤ 3 then Σg /G bounds a discal orbifold by Lemma 2.4 (1), which leads
to a contradiction (since g > 1 by assumption). Hence k = 4, and by
Lemma 2.4 (2) Σg /G bounds a handlebody orbifold. In this case Σg bounds
a handlebody in S 3 .
By [WWZZ], or see Example 7.1, OEg ≥ 4(g + 1)(> 4(g − 1)). Hence
each Σg in S 3 realizing OEg must bounds a handlebody, therefore we have
OEg ≤ OHg ≤ 12(g − 1).
7

Definition 2.6. Let F be a 2-suborbifold in a spherical orbifold S 3 /G, with
|F| homeomorphic to S 2 and has precisely four singular points a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 .
Supposing q1 ≤ q2 ≤ q3 ≤ q4 for their indices, we call (q1 , q2 , q3 , q4 ) the
singular type of F.
Using the Riemann-Hurwitz formula, it is easy to see:
Lemma 2.7. If |G| > 4(g − 1) then the singular type of Σg /G is one of
(2, 2, 2, n)(n ≥ 3), (2, 2, 3, 3), (2, 2, 3, 4), (2, 2, 3, 5).
Lemma 2.8. The relation between the orders of extendable group actions
and the surface genus for a given singular type is given in the following table:
Type
Order

(2, 2, 2, n)(n ≥ 3)
4n(g − 1)/(n − 2)

(2, 2, 3, 3)
6(g − 1)

(2, 2, 3, 4)
24(g − 1)/5

(2, 2, 3, 5)
30(g − 1)/7

Lemma 2.9. If the singular type of Σg /G is not (2, 2, 3, 3), the handlebody orbifold bounded by Σg /G is as in Figure 2(a); if the singular type
is (2, 2, 3, 3), there are the two possibilities in Figure 2(a) and (b) for this
handlebody orbifold.

(a)

(b)

2

=

3

2

3
2

3

Figure 2
Proof. By the proof of Lemma 2.4, the handlebody orbifold bounded by
Σg /G has underlying space B 3 and singular set a tree like in Figure 2(a) or
two arcs. The indices of the end points of an arc must be the same. Hence if
the singular set contains two arcs, the singular type must be (2, 2, 3, 3).
Note that in the case of Figure 2(a) the handlebody orbifold is a regular
neighborhood of a singular edge. In the case of Figure 2(b) the handlebody
orbifold is a regular neighborhood of a dashed arc, and this dashed arc can be
locally knotted as in the figure. We can also say that a singular edge/dashed
arc is unknotted or knotted, depending on whether the boundary of its
regular neighborhood is unknotted or knotted.
Lemma 2.10. Suppose a finite group G acts on (M, F ), where M is a
3-manifold, with a surface embedding i : F ֒→ M , so we have diagrams:
F

i

// M

π1 (F )

p

p



F/G

î



// M/G

i∗

// π1 (M )

p∗

p∗



π1 (F/G)
8

î∗



// π1 (M/G)

Suppose F/G is connected. Then F is connected if and only if
î∗ (π1 (F/G)) · p∗ (π1 (M )) = π1 (M/G).
Proof. ” =⇒ ” Suppose î∗ (π1 (F/G)) · p∗ (π1 (M )) $ π1 (M/G). We can find
c corresponds to î∗ (π1 (F/G)) · p∗ (π1 (M )). Then
an orbifold covering space M
we have diagram:
F

i

c

// M
②
②
②②
②②
②
|| ②
②

p
M
④== ❉❉❉
❉❉ p̂
④
❉❉
④
❉❉
④
 ④
"" 
î
// M/G
F/G
p

c)), F/G can lift to M
c, and it lifts to a disjoint
Since î∗ (π1 (F/G)) ⊆ p̂∗ (π1 (M
union of copies. Hence F must be disconnected.
” ⇐= ” Suppose F is not connected. Let F1 $ F be a component of
F and G1 its stablilizer in G, that is G1 = {h ∈ G | h(F1 ) = F1 }. Then
F1 /G1 = F/G. Now |π1 (M/G) : p∗ (π1 (M ))| = |G|, and
|î∗ (π1 (F/G)) · p∗ (π1 (M )) : p∗ (π1 (M ))|

= |î∗ (π1 (F/G)) · p∗ (π1 (M ))/p∗ (π1 (M ))|

= |î∗ (π1 (F/G))/î∗ (π1 (F/G)) ∩ p∗ (π1 (M ))|
≤ |î∗ (π1 (F/G)) : î∗ p∗ (π1 (F1 ))|

= |π1 (F/G)/ker î∗ : p∗ (π1 (F1 )) · ker î∗ /ker î∗ |
= |π1 (F1 /G1 ) : p∗ (π1 (F1 )) · ker î∗ |

≤ |π1 (F1 /G1 ) : p∗ (π1 (F1 ))|

= |G1 | < |G|.

Hence î∗ (π1 (F/G)) · p∗ (π1 (M )) $ π1 (M/G).
Remark 2.11. (1) When F is connected, we have î∗ p∗ (π1 (F )) =
î∗ (π1 (F/G)) ∩ p∗ (π1 (M )) and ker(î∗ ) ⊆ p∗ (π1 (F )). If M is simply connected, then F is connected if and only if î∗ is surjective.
(2) If F/G ⊂ S 3 /G bounds handlebody orbifolds on both sides then
clearly î∗ is surjective.
Corollary 2.12. Suppose F is a connected 2-suborbifold with an embedding
î : F ֒→ S 3 /G into a spherical orbifold S 3 /G. Let p−1 (F) = Σ; then Σ is
connected if and only if î∗ is surjective.
Lemma 2.13 (Edge killing). Let (X, Γ) be an orientable 3-orbifold with
underlying space X and singular set a trivalent graph Γ. An edge killing
operation is defined as in Figure 3, where (a, b) denotes the greatest common
divisor of a and b. If via an edge killing operation we get from Γ a new graph
Γ′ , then we have a surjective homomorphism π1 (X, Γ) → π1 (X, Γ′ ).
9

m

m'
r

n

n'

(m,n)

1

(m',n')

m

r

1

1

Figure 3
Proof. Denoting by N (Γ) a regular neighborhood of Γ in X, there is a surjective homomorphism from π1 (X − N (Γ)) to π1 (X, Γ), and we can compute
π1 (X, Γ) from π(X − N (Γ)) by adding relations like xr = 1 [BMP]. The
effect of an edge killing operation on fundamental groups is just adding
relations like x = 1, and then we obtain a presentation of π(X, Γ′ ).
Remark 2.14. This edge killing operation is just a way to get a quotient
group. Using it we can show some î∗ is not surjective. The orbifold (X, Γ′ )
may be not a good one (be covered by a manifold).
Lemma 2.15. Let G be an extendable finite group action with respect to
some embedding e : Σg ֒→ S 3 . If |e(Σg )/G| is homeomorphic to S 2 , then
|S 3 /G| is homeomorphic to S 3 .
Proof. By Corollary 2.12 the homomorphism (e/G)∗ : π1 (Σg /G) →
π1 (S 3 /G) is surjective. By Lemma 2.13, if we kill all the singular edges
we get a surjection π1 (|Σg /G|) → π1 (|S 3 /G|). Hence π1 (|S 3 /G|) is trivial
and |S 3 /G| is homeomorphic to S 3 .

3

Dunbar’s list of spherical 3-orbifolds

In [Du1], [Du2] Dunbar lists all spherical orbifolds with underlying space
S 3 . We list these pictures below and give a brief explanation such that one
can check graphs conveniently. For more information, one should see the
original papers.
Since the underlying space is S 3 , all the information is contained in the
trivalent graphs of the singular sets. Each edge in a graph is labeled by
an integer indicating the singular index of the edge, with the convention
that each unlabeled edge has index 2. If a graph has a vertex such that
the incident edges have labels (2, 3, 3), (2, 3, 4) or (2, 3, 5), the orbifold is
non-fibred. All the non-fibred spherical orbifolds have underlying space S 3
and are listed in Table III. Otherwise the orbifolds are Seifert fibred and are
listed in Table I (the basis of the fibration is a 2-sphere) and Table II (the
basis is a disk).

Table I: Fibred case with base S 2

10

k
g

f

f

01

02

3
a
a

3

a

3

3
07

09

08

3
11

10

3
12

13

Table II: Fibred case with base D 2

11

k

k

m1,n

k≠0

m2,n

k+m1/n+m2/n≠0
15

14

k

k

k

3

n
m,2

m,n

k≠0

k+m/n≠0

k+m/2≠0

16

17

18

k

k

m1,2 m2,2 m3,n

m1,2 m2,3 m3,3

k+m1/2+m2/2+m3/n≠0

k+m1/2+m2/3+m3/3≠0

19

20

k

k

m1,2 m2,3 m3,4

m1,2 m2,3 m3,5

k+m1/2+m2/3+m3/4≠0

k+m1/2+m2/3+m3/5≠0

21

22

In Table I and Table II many graphs have some free or undetermined parameters (just called parameters in the following). These parameters should
satisfy n > 1, 3 ≤ a ≤ 5, f ≥ 1, g ≥ 1, and in Table I we require k 6= 0. The
letter ‘@’ means amphicheiral (there exists an orientation-reversing homeomorphism of the orbifold). If an orbifold is non-amphicheiral, as in the
original paper its mirror image is not presented.
A box with an integer k indicates two parallel arcs with k-half twists,
the over-crossings from lower left to upper right if k > 0, and upper left to
lower right if k < 0. A box with two integer m, n stands for a picture as in
Figure 4 and Figure 5; It satisfies |2m| ≤ n.
12

0,n

n

=

2
2

Figure 4

l,even

...

k1 half-twists

...

...

strut
labelled
g.c.d.(|m|,n)

...

...

k3
halftwists

|m|
=
n

1
1

k1 +
k2 +

...

...
k2...
halftwists

...

1
..

.+

1
kl

l,odd
Figure 5

All the crossing numbers of the horizontal and vertical parts are determined by the unique continued fraction presentation of |m|/n, such that all
ki are positive and kl ≥ 2. All the over-crossings are from lower left to upper
right if m > 0, and from upper left to lower right if m < 0. If the greatest
common divisor (|m|, n) = d > 1, we add a ‘strut’ labeled d in the kl twist
as shown in the picture. If m = 0, we add a ‘strut’ labeled n between two
parallel lines.

13

Table III: Non-fibred case

@

@

@

3
3

3

4

3
3

3

3

3

23

25

24

@

@
3

@

3

3

3

4

5

26

27

28

@
3

3

3

4
3

@

@

3

29

31

32

@

3

3

5

3

4

@

3

@

3

30

33
3

3

3

34
5

3

4

@

@

@

35

37

36
3
3
3

3

3

38

39

14

40

4

Strategy and outline of finding OEg

1. Obtain OEg from allowable 2-suborbifolds in spherical 3orbifolds.
We already know OEg ≥ 4(g + 1) by Example 7.1, or see [WWZZ], hence
to determine OEg we can assume |G| > 4(g − 1).
Definition 4.1. A 2-suborbifold F in a spherical 3-orbifold S 3 /G, with
|G| > 4(g − 1), is called allowable if its preimage in S 3 is a closed connected
surface Σg . A singular edge/dashed arc is called allowable if the boundary
of its regular neighborhood is allowable.
Therefore if G acts on (S 3 , Σg ) and realizes OEg then F = Σg /G ⊂ S 3 /G
must be an allowable 2-suborbifold. We intend to find extendable actions
from allowable 2-suborbifolds in spherical 3-orbifolds and, more weakly, to
find the maximum orders of extendable actions from certain information
about such allowable 2-suborbifolds.
Suppose we have a spherical 3-orbifold S 3 /G and an allowable 2suborbifold F ⊂ S 3 /G. By Proposition 2.5, F has underlying space S 2
with four singular points, and moreover F has a singular type as in the list
of Lemma 2.7. Once we know the singular type of F and the order of G,
we know the genus of the corresponding closed connected surface Σg ⊂ S 3
such that (S 3 , Σg )/G = (S 3 /G, F) by Lemma 2.8. So if we know the singular types of all allowable 2-orbifolds in S 3 /G, then we know all Σg which
admit an extendable action of the group G with |G| > 4(g − 1); in other
words, for a fixed g we know if Σg admits an extendable actions of group G
with |G| > 4(g − 1). Hence if we know the singular types of all allowable
2-orbifolds in all spherical 3-orbifolds S 3 /G, then for a fixed g we know all
finite groups G ⊂ SO(4) such that Σg admits an extendable action of the
group G with |G| > 4(g − 1), and consequently OEg can be determined.
2. List all allowable 2-suborbifolds in spherical 3-orbifolds.
Definition 4.2. A 2-sphere in a spherical 3-orbifold S 3 /G is called candidacy if it intersects the singular graph of S 3 /G in exactly four singular
points of one of the types listed in Lemma 2.7. A singular edge/dashed arc
is called candidacy if the underlying space of the boundary of its regular
neighborhood is candidacy.
Clearly for each allowable 2-suborbifold F ⊂ S 3 /G, |F| ⊂ S 3 /G is a
candidacy 2-sphere. On the other hand, each candidacy 2-sphere is the
underlying space of a non-spherical 2-orbifold F, and we will denote this
candidacy 2-sphere by |F|.

We say that a 2-orbifold î : F ⊂ S 3 /G is π1 -surjective if the induced
map on the orbifold fundamental groups is surjective.

The process of listing all allowable 2-suborbifolds in spherical 3-orbifolds
is divided into two steps:
15

(i) List all spherical 3-orbifolds containing allowable 2-suborbifolds.
Suppose î : F ⊂ S 3 /G is an allowable 2-suborbifold in a spherical 3orbifold. Then the preimage of F must be connected, and by Lemma 2.15
the underlying space of S 3 /G is S 3 . All spherical 3-orbifolds with underlying
space S 3 are listed in Dunbar’s lists provided in Section 3. Below we will
denote spherical 3-orbifolds with underline space S 3 by (S 3 , Γ), where Γ is
the singular set.
Since î : F ⊂ (S 3 , Γ) is allowable, the preimage of F is connected, and
by Corollary 2.12, î is π1 -surjective. Let (S 3 , Γ) be a spherical 3-orbifold
with parameters; we will show that, for each 2-suborbifold î : F ֒→ (S 3 , Γ)
such that |F| is a candidacy 2-sphere and î is π1 -surjective, the parameters
must satisfy certain equations. Then we can determine the parameters and
get a list of spherical 3-orbifold containing allowable 2-suborbifolds which is
a small subset of Dunbar’s list where the singular sets are relatively simple.
Step (i) will be carried in Section 5.
(ii) List all allowable 2-suborbifolds in each spherical 3-orbifold obtained
in Step (i).
How to find such 2-suborbifolds? Indeed this is already the question we
must face in Step (i). Precisely, this question divides into two subquestions:
(a) How to find candidacy 2-spheres |F| in a given spherical 3-orbifold
(S 3 , Γ)?
(b) For each candidacy 2-sphere |F| we find, how to verify if î is π1 surjective?
A simple and crucial fact in solving Question (a) is provided by Proposition 2.5: For each candidacy 2-sphere |F|, the 2-orbifold F must bound a
handlebody orbifold V ; moreover the shape of V is given in Lemma 2.9.
If the singular type is not (2, 2, 3, 3), then V is a regular neighborhood
of a singular edge. In this case we can check all the edges to see whether
the corresponding singular type is contained in the list of Lemma 2.7.

3

3
3

Figure 6
If the singular type is (2, 2, 3, 3), there are two possibilities for the shape
of V . The new one can be thought of as a neighborhood of a regular arc
with its two ends on singular edges labeled 2 and 3 which will be presented
by a dashed arc. If there is such a dashed arc then we can locally knot this
arc in an arbitrary way and obtain infinitely many candidacy 2-spheres, see
Figure 6; in this case we only give one such dashed arc, and this will be the
unknotted one if it exists.
16

For Question (b): If F ⊂ (S 3 , Γ) bounds handlebody orbifolds on both
sides then î∗ is surjective (Remark 2.11 (2)). To verify the π1 -surjectivity of
î : F ⊂ (S 3 , Γ) for the knotted cases, we are still lucky, all π1 -surjective cases
of î : F ⊂ (S 3 , Γ) can be verified by the so-called coset enumeration method,
and all non-π1 -surjective cases can be verified by the edge killing method of
Lemma 2.13, with three exceptions where Lemma 6.4 will be applied.

5

List of fibred 3-orbifolds containing allowable 2suborbifolds.

We will establish the equations (and inequalities) which the parameters in
Dunbar’s list must satisfy in order to contain allowable 2-suborbifolds. We
will solve these equations to get all solutions and redrew the pictures of
the corresponding 3-orbifolds. Since different solutions often give the same
orbifold up to the automorphisms of the orbifold, we will only draw the
graphs of non-homeomorphic orbifolds.
Note first all graphs having parameters are contained in Table I and
Table II.
Suppose |F| ⊂ |(S 3 , Γ)| is a candidacy 2-sphere. Then F ⊂ (S 3 , Γ)
bounds a handlebody orbifold V of given singular type by the discussion in
last section.
To determine the parameters, we divide the discussion into two cases:
Case 1. The singular type is not (2, 2, 3, 3); then V is as in Figure 2(a).
Case 2. The singular type is (2, 2, 3, 3), and V is as in Figure 2(a) or as
in Figure 2(b).
In Case 1, Γ ∩ V has two degree 3 vertices, and F = ∂V has singular
type (2, 2, 2, n), n ≥ 3, (2, 2, 3, 4) or (2, 2, 3, 5). Hence Γ ∩ V must be a label
2 arc adding two ‘strut segments’ with different labels, see Figure 7; (r, s) is
either (2, n), or (3, 4), or (3, 5).
Only graphs 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 in Table II have more than one strut. So
we need only to deal with these five graphs in Case 1.
2

r

2

2

2

2

2

s

Figure 7
The way to determine the parameters was suggested in the last section:
Suppose î : F ⊂ (S 3 , Γ) is π1 -surjective. If we kill these two ‘strut
segments’, we obtain î : F ′ ⊂ (S 3 , Γ′ ) which is also π1 -surjective. Since
17

π1 (F ′ ) = Z2 , it follows |π1 (S 3 , Γ′ )| ≤ 2, therefore Γ′ contains no other ‘strut’
(otherwise π1 ((S 3 , Γ′ )) would not be cyclic), and hence Γ′ is a Montesinos
link labeled by 2. The double branched cover of S 3 over Γ′ must be a 3manifold N with trivial π1 (N ) (and hence N = S 3 , that is to say Γ′ is a
trivial knot by the positive solution of the Smith conjecture). We use the
parameters to compute π1 (N ) and then determine the parameters.

k

m1,n1 m2,n2 m3,n3
Figure 8
For short we present the graphs 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 by a single graph in
Figure 8; the five graphs correspond to the choices (n, n, 1), (2, 2, n), (2, 3, 3),
(2, 3, 4) and (2, 3, 5) for (n1 , n2 , n3 ) (n > 1). Since |2mi | ≤ ni and Γ contains
exactly two ‘struts’ with different labels, we have condition
|2mi | ≤ ni , at least one mi is zero and at least one mi is nonzero. (∗)
Let (|mi |, ni ) = di be the greatest common divisor of |mi | and ni , by the
singular type restrictions we have
{d1 , d2 , d3 } = {1, 2, d}, (d > 2), or {1, 3, 4} or {1, 3, 5}. (∗∗)
Write mi = m′i di , ni = n′i di , then Γ′ is the Montesinos link presented
by Figure 8, with each (mi , ni ) replaced by (m′i , n′i ). By a theorem of Montesinos [BZ, Proposition 12.30], the double branched cover of S 3 over Γ′ is a
Seifert manifold N whose fundamental group has the following presentation:
′

′

′

′

′

′

π1 (N ) = hx, y, z, t | xn1 tm1 = y n2 tm2 = z n3 tm3 = 1,
xyzt−k = 1, [x, t] = [y, t] = [z, t] = 1i

If mi = 0 for some i, then n′i = 1 by definition, and it is easy to see π1 (N )
is an abelian group. Now π1 (N ) is trivial if and only if the determinant of
the presentation matrix is ±1. Hence we have
kn′1 n′2 n′3 + m′1 n′2 n′3 + n′1 m′2 n′3 + n′1 n′2 m′3 = 1.

(1)

or
kn′1 n′2 n′3 + m′1 n′2 n′3 + n′1 m′2 n′3 + n′1 n′2 m′3 = −1.

(1)′

Dividing n′1 n′2 n′3 on both sides and using the facts that |2m′i | ≤ n′i and
m′i = 0 for some i, we have
|k| ≤ 1/n′1 n′2 n′3 + |m′1 |/n′1 + |m′2 |/n′2 + |m′3 |/n′3 < 2
and then k = 0, ±1.
18

Noticing that solutions of (1) and (1)′ have a one to one correspondence
if we change the signs of k and m′i simultaneously. And the corresponding
knot of one solution is the mirror image of the other. Hence we need only
deal with (1).
In (1) since |2m′i | ≤ n′i and one m′i is zero, k can not be −1. Otherwise,
for example assume m′1 = 0 and k = −1, then n′1 = 1 and (1) becomes
−n′2 n′3 + m′2 n′3 + n′2 m′3 = 1.
But since |2m′i | ≤ n′i ,
−2n′2 n′3 + 2m′2 n′3 + 2n′2 m′3 ≤ −2n′2 n′3 + n′2 n′3 + n′2 n′3 = 0.
Now for a given choice of (n1 , n2 , n3 ), We will find all possible solutions
(k, m1 , m2 , m3 ) or (k, m1 , m2 , m3 , n) satisfying (∗), (∗∗) and (1) (or (1)′ ).
Changing signs of a solution will give us a mirror image. Moreover a picture
of a solution with k = 1 always isomorphic to a picture of solution with k = 0
(an illustration is given in Figure 10, the illustrations of remaining cases are
similar). We only draw the graphs of the non-homeomorphic orbifolds:
When (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (2, 3, 3), (2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 5), it is easy since we can
enumerate the possibilities.
If (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (2, 3, 3), then (k, m1 , m2 , m3 ) = (0, 0, ±1, 0), (0, 0, 0, ±1).
We present the picture for the case of (0, 0, 0, 1).

3

Figure 9
If (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (2, 3, 4), then (k, m1 , m2 , m3 ) = (0, 0, 0, ±1), (0, 0, ±1, 0),
(0, ±1, 0, 0) or (±1, ∓1, 0, 0). We present (0, 0, 0, 1), (0, 0, 1, 0), (0, 1, 0, 0)
and (1, −1, 0, 0). It is clear the last two pictures are homeomorphic.

3

4

~
=
3

4

3

Figure 10
19

4

If (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (2, 3, 5), then (k, m1 , m2 , m3 ) = (0, 0, 0, ±1), (0, 0, ±1, 0),
(0, ±1, 0, 0) or (±1, ∓1, 0, 0). We present (0, 0, 0, 1), (0, 0, 1, 0) and (0, 1, 0, 0).

3

5

3

5

Figure 11
When (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (2, 2, n), since m1 and m2 are symmetric, by
(∗), (∗∗) we can assume |m1 | = 1, m2 = 0. Then n′1 = 2, n′2 = 1,
m′1 = m1 , m′2 = 0, d1 = 1, d2 = 2. (1) becomes to
2kn′3 + m1 n′3 + 2m′3 = 1.

(2)

If k = 0, by (∗) we have m1 = 1, n′3 = 1 − 2m′3 . Let m = |m′3 |,
d = d3 . We have (k, m1 , m2 , m3 , n) = (0, 1, 0, −md, (1 + 2m)d), hence also
(0, −1, 0, md, (1 + 2m)d).
If k = 1, by (∗) we have m1 = −1, n′3 = 1 − 2m′3 . Let m = |m′3 |,
d = d3 . We have (k, m1 , m2 , m3 , n) = (1, −1, 0, −md, (1 + 2m)d), hence also
(−1, 1, 0, md, (1 + 2m)d).
Hence by symmetry and sign changing we have all the solutions:
(k, m1 , m2 , m3 , n) = (0, ±1, 0, ∓md, (1+2m)d), (±1, ∓1, 0, ∓md, (1+2m)d),
(0, 0, ±1, ∓md, (1+2m)d), or (±1, 0, ∓1, ∓md, (1+2m)d), d > 2. We present
(0, 1, 0, −md, (1 + 2m)d), m 6= 0, and (0, 1, 0, 0, n), (n > 2).

label d
n
#crossing

Figure 12
Denote by O the orbifold presented by the left graph in Figure 12. If
we kill the edge which is labeled by d, we obtain an orbifold which is fibred
over D 2 (2, 2, 1 + 2m) with 1 + 2m ≥ 3 [Du1] (the 2-orbifold with base
D 2 and three corner points with labels (2, 2, 1 + 2m). Then after killing the
element presenting the fiber, we obtain a surjection π1 (O) → π1 (D 2 (2, 2, 1 +
2m)). The latter group is non-abelian. But the fundament group of our 2suborbifold, if it exists, would be Z2 × Z2 after killing; this means that we
cannot find an allowable 2-suborbifold in O.

20

When (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (n, n, 1), n′3 = n3 = 1, m′3 = m3 = 0, d3 = 1. And
(1) becomes
kn′1 n′2 + n′1 m′2 + n′2 m′1 = 1
(3).
By (∗∗), {d1 , d2 } = {2, d}, (d > 2), {3, 4} or {3, 5}. By symmetry we can
assume d1 < d2 .
If k = 0, we have
nm2 + nm1 = d1 d2

(4).

When d1 = 2, d2 = d > 2, by (4) we have n = d or n = 2d.
m′2

If n = d, then n′1 = d/2, n′2 = 1, hence by (∗) and (3) we have m′1 = 1,
= 0. Let n′ = d/2 > 1. We have (k, m1 , m2 , n) = (0, 2, 0, 2n′ ), n′ > 1.

If n = 2d, then n′1 = d, n′2 = 2, hence by (∗) and (3) we have m′2 = 1,
1 − 2m′1 = d > 2. Let m = |m′1 |, we have (k, m1 , m2 , n) = (0, −2m, 1 +
2m, 2(1 + 2m)), m > 0.
When d1 = 3, d2 = 4, by (4) we have n = 12. Then n′1 = 4, n′2 = 3,
hence by (∗) and (3) we have m′1 = −1, m′2 = 1. We have (k, m1 , m2 , n) =
(0, −3, 4, 12).
When d1 = 3, d2 = 5, by (4) we have n = 15. Then n′1 = 5, n′2 = 3,
hence by (∗) and (3) we have m′1 = 2, m′2 = −1. We have (k, m1 , m2 , n) =
(0, 6, −5, 15).
If k = 1, we have
n2 + nm2 + nm1 = d1 d2

(5).

When d1 = 2, d2 = d > 2, by (5) we have n = d or n = 2d.
m′1

If n = d, then n′1 = d/2, n′2 = 1, hence by (∗) and (3) we have d/2 = 2,
= −1, m′2 = 0. We have (k, m1 , m2 , n) = (1, −2, 0, 4).

If n = 2d, then n′1 = d, n′2 = 2, hence by (∗) and (3) we have m′2 = −1,
1 − 2m′1 = d > 2. Let m = |m′1 |, we have (k, m1 , m2 , n) = (1, −2m, −1 −
2m, 2(1 + 2m)), m > 0.
When d1 = 3, d2 = 4, by (5) we have n = 12. Then n′1 = 4, n′2 = 3, but
this contradict to (∗) and (3).
When d1 = 3, d2 = 5, by (5) we have n = 15. Then n′1 = 5, n′2 = 3, also
contradict to (∗) and (3).
Now by symmetry and signs changing we list all the solutions when
(n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (n, n, 1).
First the solutions we get above adding sign changing solutions:
(k, m1 , m2 , n) = (0, ±2, 0, 2n′ ), (0, ±2m, ∓(1 + 2m), 2(1 + 2m)),
(0, ±3, ∓4, 12), (0, ±6, ∓5, 15), (±1, ∓2, 0, 4), (±1, ∓2m, ∓(1 + 2m), 2(1 +
2m)).
21

Then the symmetry solutions:
(k, m1 , m2 , n) = (0, 0, ±2, 2n′ ), (0, ∓(1 + 2m), ±2m, 2(1 + 2m)),
(0, ±4, ∓3, 12), (0, ±5, ∓6, 15), (±1, 0, ∓2, 4), (±1, ∓(1 + 2m), ∓2m, 2(1 +
2m)).
Here the parameters satisfies n′ > 1, m > 0. Symmetry solutions give
us the same picture, signs changing solutions give us the mirror picture,
and a solution with k = 1 always has the same picture of a solution with
k = 0. We present (0, −1 − 2m, 2m, 2 + 4m)(m > 0), (0, 0, 2, 2n′ )(n′ > 1),
(0, 4, −3, 12) and (0, 5, −6, 15). Note that each of the corresponding graphs
is isotopic to a simple one as indicated in Figure 13.

2m

'

2m
'
#crossing= n'

#crossing= m

3
4

3

~
=

~
=

5

3
4
3

5

Figure 13
This finishes the discussion for Case 1.
For Case 2, F = ∂V has singular type (2, 2, 3, 3). Hence Γ ∩ V must be
a label 2 arc adding two ‘strut segments’ with label 3, or two arc with labels
2 and 3, see Figure 14.
2
3

2

2
2

3

3

Figure 14
Then the orbifolds we find have the property that if we kill the label 3
‘struts’ or a label 3 singular edge, we get a trivial knot labeled by 2.
By this property, the link cases (no vertices or struts), including Table I
now and also the graphs 14 and 16 in Table II, are easy to handle. Graphs 04,
08, 10, 12, 13 and 14 are ruled out since each of them has only one index.
Graphs 03 and 09 are ruled out since after killing an index 3 component
(intersecting V ), the remaining is not a trivial knot.
For 01 we must have the two singular circle have index 2 and 3. For 05
index a must be 2 and for 06 index a must be 3. For 02 index f must be 3
22

and k is ±1, corresponds to the same orbifold or a mirror image of 05. The
orbifold presented by 16 and 02 are the same.
In Table II, there are two further graphs which possibly contain exactly
one ‘strut’, the graphs 17 and 18. Now 17 is ruled out since after killing the
possible index 3 ‘strut’ (intersecting V ), the remaining is not a trivial knot.
Concerning 18, up to mirror image, the only possible graph is the link on
the upper right hand side of Figure 15, which presents all possible labeled
links; the graph on the lower left hand side comes from 02, 05 and 16, and
the remaining four graphs come from 01, 06, 07 and 11.

3

3

3

Figure 15
Concerning the possible ‘strut’ cases, we still have to consider the five
graphs discussed in Case 1, but the case here is much simpler since the
possible ‘strut’ can only label 3. And after kill one or two label 3 ‘struts’,
we get a trivial knot labeled by 2. Then the case (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (2, 3, 4)
or (2, 2, n) can be ruled out, since after killing the index 3 ‘struts’, the
remaining is not a trivial knot.
We list the solutions and pictures below as in Case 1. Since most of
the solutions present the same graph or a mirror image we only picture the
graphs of non-homeomorphic orbifolds.
If (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (2, 3, 3), then (k, m1 , m2 , m3 ) = (0, ±1, 0, 0), (±1, ∓1, 0, 0),
(±1, ∓1, 0, ∓1), (0, ±1, 0, ∓1), (±1, ∓1, ∓1, 0) or (0, ±1, ∓1, 0). We present
(0, 1, 0, 0) and (0, −1, 0, 1).
3

~
=
3

3

3

Figure 16
If (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (2, 3, 5), (k, m1 , m2 , m3 ) = (±1, ∓1, 0, ∓2) or (0, ±1, 0, ∓2).
We present (0, −1, 0, 2).
23

3

~
=

3

Figure 17
When (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = (n, n, 1), we need to solve equation (3) under the
following conditions:
|2mi | ≤ ni , {d1 , d2 } = {1, 3} or {3, 3}. (∗ ∗ ∗)
m′1

If d1 = d2 = 3, then n′1 = n′2 . By (3), we have n′1 = n′2 = 1. Hence
= m′2 = 0, n = 3, and k = 1. We have (k, m1 , m2 , n) = (1, 0, 0, 3).

If d1 = 1, d2 = 3, then by (4) and (5) we have n = 3. Hence n′1 = 3,
= 1, m′2 = 0. Since |2m′1 | ≤ n′1 , by (3), k = 0, m′1 = 1. And we have
(k, m1 , m2 , n) = (0, 1, 0, 3).
n′2

All the solutions are (k, m1 , m2 , n) = (±1, 0, 0, 3), (0, ±1, 0, 3) or
(0, 0, ±1, 3). We present (1, 0, 0, 3) and (0, 0, 1, 3).
3

~
=
3

3

~
=

3

3
3

Figure 18
This finishes also the possible ‘strut’ cases. Concluding, we have found
all fibered spherical 3-orbifolds in which an allowable 2-suborbifold might
exist.

6

List of allowable 2-suborbifolds

In this section our main result Theorem 6.1 will be presented and proved.
We are going to give some explanations and conventions before we state
Theorem 6.1.
From now on, an edge always means an edge of Γ, the singular set of
the orbifold; and a dashed arc is always a regular arc with two ends at two
edges of indices 2 and 3.
The primary part of Theorem 6.1 is the list of spherical 3-orbifolds which
have survived after the discussion in Section 5. This contains all the possible
fibered orbifolds in Table I and Table II, and all the non-fibered orbifolds
in Table III. We give each orbifold a label to indicate where it comes from.
For example, the first 3-orbifold in Table V is 15C (or O15C ), which comes
from the orbifold 15 of Table II in Dunbar’s list.
24

We use edges and dashed arcs marked by letters a, b, c . . . to denote 2suborbifolds Fa , Fb , Fc . . . which are the boundaries of the regular neighborhoods of these edges and arcs. We say two edges/dashed arcs are equivalent
if they can be mapped to each other by an index preserving automorphism
of (S 3 , Γ), or the boundaries of their regular neighborhoods are orbifold isotopic to each other. That means up to orbifold automorphism, they present
the same 2-suborbifold. For an allowable 2-suborbifold, we will only mark
one edge/dashed arc in the equivalent class.
For each 3-orbifold in the list, we first give the order of its fundamental
group. Then we list allowable edges/dashed arcs and write down the singular
type of these allowable 2-suborbifold, followed by the corresponding genus
which can be computed by Lemma 2.8. When the singular type is (2, 2, 3, 3),
there are two types denoted by I and II, corresponding to Figure 2(a) and
Figure 2(b), resp.
If the 2-suborbifold is a knotted one we give a foot notation ‘k’ to this
edge or dashed arc. In the type II case, if a dashed arc can be chosen as an
unknotted one, then it can also be chosen as a knotted one, and we add a
foot notation ‘uk’ to this arc.
We first list the fibred orbifolds which can contain allowable 2-suborbifold
of type (2, 2, 3, 3), then the fibred orbifolds that can contain allowable 2suborbifold of the other types, depending on the discussion of section 5.
Notice that these two Tables have no intersection. Finally we list the nonfibred orbifolds.
Theorem 6.1. Up to equivalence, the following table lists all allowable singular edges/dashed arcs except those of type II. In the type II case, if there
exists an allowable dashed arc we give just one such dashed arc, and this will
be unknotted if there exists an unknotted one.
Table IV: Fibred case: type is (2, 2, 3, 3)
3

|G| = 6
auk : II, g = 2

a

|G| = 18
auk : II, g = 4

a

3

02 or 05 or 16

01

|G| = 48
auk : II, g = 9

|G| = 144
auk : II, g = 25

a
3

07

|G| = 720
auk : II, g = 121

a

a

3

18

11

25

3

|G| = 144
auk : II, g = 25

a

|G| = 6
a: I, g = 2
buk : II, g = 2

3

b

a

15A

3

15B

|G| = 144
a: I, g = 25

a
3

|G| = 18
a: I, g = 4

3



3



c

3

20B

20A

|G| = 48
a: I, g = 9
bk : I, g = 9
cuk : II, g = 9

b |G| = 720

3

a: I, g = 121
bk : I, g = 121
cuk : II, g = 121

a
22A

Table V: Fibred case: type is not (2, 2, 3, 3)
|G| = 24
a:(2,2,3,4), g = 6

3

a

a

4

15C

n

a

|G| = 30
a:(2,2,3,5), g = 8

3

5

15D

|G| = 4n
a:(2,2,2,n)
g = n−1

a
n

|G| = 4n2
a:(2,2,2,n)
g = (n − 1)2

19

15E

|G| = 96
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 9
bk :(2,2,2,3), g = 9

b
a
3

3

21A

20C

|G| = 384
a:(2,2,2,4), g = 49

a

3

3

4

21C

21B

b

|G| = 576
a:(2,2,3,4), g = 121

a

4

a

|G| = 288
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 25

a

|G| = 1440
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 121
bk :(2,2,2,3), g = 121

a
b
5

22C

22B

26

|G| = 2400
a:(2,2,2,5), g = 361
bk :(2,2,2,5), g = 361

|G| = 3600
a:(2,2,3,5), g = 841

a


3

22D

Table VI: Non-fibred case
|G| = 96
a: I, g = 17

a
3

3

3

3

3

3

23

|G| = 60
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 6
b: I, g = 11
c ck : II, g = 11


3

24

a
4



|G| = 576
a:(2,2,2,4), g = 73
b: I, g = 97

b

3

c

3

25

c |G| = 48
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 5
b:(2,2,2,4), g = 7
c:(2,2,3,4), g = 11

3



4

27

a
3
3

b

c

3
5

a

d

|G| = 192
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 17
b:(2,2,3,4), g = 41

b

4

|G| = 24
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 3
b: I, g = 5
26 ck : II, g = 5



3

5
3

b |G| = 7200
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 601
a
b:(2,2,3,5), g = 1681

3

29

3

3

|G| = 288
No allowable
2-suborbifold

|G| = 120
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 11
b:(2,2,2,5), g = 19
28 c:(2,2,3,5), g = 29
dk : II, g = 21

30

3

a
32

|G| = 24
a: I, g = 5
buk : II, g = 5

b

31

c
3

a

4

|G| = 1152
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 97

b

3
3

a

33
3

b

34
3

|G| = 12

3

a a: I, g = 3

4

b

|G| = 120
a:(2,2,2,3), g = 11
bk :(2,2,2,3), g = 11
ck : II, g = 21
|G| = 24

a a: I, g = 5

buk : II, g = 3

buk : II, g = 5
36

35

27

3

5

b

|G| = 60

a a: I, g = 11

a

c

3

buk : II, g = 11

38

b

3

a

3

3

d

b

37

|G| = 2880
a, bk , ck :(2,2,2,3)
g = 241
dk : II, g = 481

|G| = 576
a: I, g = 97
buk : II, g = 97

|G| = 1440
a: I, g = 241
bk : I, g = 241
cuk : II, g = 241

b
3

a

40

39

Remark 6.2. From the list it is easy to see when g = 21 or g = 481 the
maximal order can only be realized by a knotted embedding. The orbifolds
corresponding to these situations are O28 , O34 and O38 .
Proof. One can easily check that the list of 3-orbifolds in Theorem 6.1 contains exactly those in Tables I and II which survive after Section 5, and
those in Table III. By the discussion of Section 5, all allowable 2-orbifolds
are contained in one of these 3-orbifolds.
Then we need compute the orders of fundamental groups of these 3orbifolds. There are two infinity sequences of 3-orbifolds, 15E and 19 in the
above list. For these two sequences, we know the group actions on the pair
(S 3 , Σg ) clearly, see Example 7.1 below, also see [WWZZ]. The other finitely
many orders of the fundamental groups can be calculated directly from their
Wirtinger presentations of the graphs (or see proposition 5 in [Du1] for a
presentation) and by using [GAP]. For the non-fibred case, the group orders
can also be got from the group structure, see [Du2].
For the details about how to use the computer software [GAP], one can
see Section 8.
Example 6.3. We give here an example to explain how we get the group
order. This is the orbifold O34 in the above list. It is a non-fibred spherical
orbifold.

x

y
3
-1

x yx
3

zy

x-1yxz

zyx

yxz

z

Figure 19
From Figure 19 we obtain the following presentation of the orbifold fundamental group of O34 :
π1 (O34 ) = hx, y, z | x2 , y 3 , z 2 , (zy)2 , (yxz)2 , (yxzx)3 i
28

We input these generators and relations into [GAP], and the computer uses
the standard procedure (called coset enumeration) to show the group order
is 120.
There is also another way to get this. In [Du2] we know π1 (O34 ) ∼
= J×∗ J,
J

which can map surjectively to J ×∗J J under the two to one homomorphism
SO(4) → SO(3) × SO(3). Hence |π1 (O34 )| = 2 × 60 × 60 ÷ 60 = 120.
Next we will check graph by graph in the above list as following:
Step 1: Up to equivalence, list all candidacy edges (see Definition 4.2).
Step 2: Check whether the edges given in Step 1 is allowable.
Unknotted edges automatically satisfies the surjection condition (Remark 2.11). For knotted edges, we use the so-called coset enumeration
method ([Ro], p. 351, Chapter 11) to verify the surjectivity. For a knotted
allowable edge, we give it a label ‘k’. After these two Steps we can list all
allowable edges.
Step 3: Try to find an unknotted candidacy dashed arc.
If there is one, then the surjection condition is automatically satisfied,
and we labeled the dashed arc by ‘uk’. Otherwise we will prove there is no
unknotted allowable dashed arc.
Step 4: If there is no unknotted allowable dashed arc, then we will try
to find a knotted allowable dashed arc and give it a label ‘k’.
Step 5: If in an 3-orbifold in the list there is no marked dashed arc, we
will proof there is no allowable dashed arc in the orbifold.
After we list all the allowable edges and dashed arcs, the genus can be
computed from the group order and the singular type by Lemma 2.8. And
the proof will be finished.
We firstly check Table IV, then Table V, and finally Table VI.
Orbifolds in Table IV:
01, 02, 06, 07, 11, 18: In these six orbifolds there are no candidacy edges
and the possible unknotted dashed arcs have been marked.
15A: Up to equivalence, there is only one candidacy edge a which is
unknotted, hence allowable. And there is an unknotted allowable dashed
arc b.
15B: Up to equivalence, there is only one candidacy edge a which is
unknotted, hence allowable. For a candidacy dashed arc, one end of it must
lie on an edge labeled 3. Kill this edge, then π1 (F) = Z2 , but π1 ((S 3 , Γ′ )) =
D3 . Hence the dashed arc can not be allowable. There is no allowable
dashed arc.
20A: Up to equivalence, there are two candidacy edges. a is unknotted,
hence allowable. The other one has its two vertices on the same singular
edge labeled 3. Kill this edge, then π1 (F) = Z2 , but π1 ((S 3 , Γ′ )) = D3 .
29

Hence it is not allowable. Similarly, for a candidacy dashed arc, one end
of it must lie on one edge labeled 3. Kill this edge, then π1 (F) = Z2 , but
π1 ((S 3 , Γ′ )) = D3 . We know there is no allowable dashed arc.
20B, 22A: There are two candidacy edges a and b. a is unknotted. We
also give an unknotted candidacy dashed arc c. Hence a and c are allowable.
We need [GAP] to check that the knotted edge b is also allowable.
For 20B,

a

z

3

zx-1y

b
zxz-1

c

y-1zy
y

x

-1

y x

Figure 20
π1 (O20B ) = hx, y, z|y −1 zyzx−1 z −1 , z 2 , (y −1 x)2 , y 3 i.
For b in 20B, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fb )) = hz, y −1 x, yzyz −1 y −1 i.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O20B ) : i∗ (π1 (Fb ))] = 1, so b
is allowable.
For 22A,

3 zx

a

z

-1

y

c

y-1zx-1z-1y

b

zxz-1

y
x

y-1x

Figure 21

π1 (O22A ) = hx, y, z|y −1 zx−1 z −1 yzx−1 zxz −1 , z 2 , (y −1 x)2 , y 3 i.
For b in 22A, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fb )) = hz, y −1 x, (zxz −1 y −1 z)y(zxz −1 y −1 z)−1 i.
30

By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O22A ) : i∗ (π1 (Fb ))] = 1, so b
is allowable.
Orbifolds in Table V:
By the discussion in Section 5, orbifolds in Table V contains no allowable
edges/dashed arcs of type (2, 2, 3, 3), hence contains no allowable dashed arc.
We need only list all allowable edges.
15C, 15D, 15E: Up to equivalence, there is only one candidacy edge a
which is unknotted, hence allowable.
19, 21A, 21C, 22D: Up to equivalence, there are two candidacy edges.
a is unknotted, hence allowable. The other one has its two vertices on the
same labeled 3 singular edge, hence has type (2, 2, 3, 3) and is not allowable
by the discussion in Section 5.
20C, 22B, 22C: Up to equivalence, there are two candidacy edges. a
is unknotted, hence allowable. b is knotted, we need [GAP] to check it is
allowable.
For 20C,
y-1xz-1xz-1x-1zx-1

b

xz-1xz-1x-1zx-1

a
y-1xz-1

3
y-1x

xz-1x-1zx-1

y
x

z
xzx

-1

Figure 22

π1 (O20C ) = hx, y, z|x2 , z 2 , y 3 , (y −1 x)2 , (y −1 xz −1 )2 , (y −1 xz −1 xz −1 x−1 zx−1 )2 i.
For b in 20C, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fb )) = hxz −1 x−1 zx−1 , y −1 xz −1 , (xz −1 x−1 )y(xz −1 x−1 )−1 i.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O20C ) : i∗ (π1 (Fb ))] = 1, so b
is allowable.
Below in Figure 23 and 24 we have used the relation x2 = z 2 = 1 to
simplify the notations.
For 22B,

31

y-1 !"#x

x

b

a

x
x
 x

3

y-1xz-1

y

xzx-1
x

y-1x

z

Figure 23

π1 (O22B ) = hx, y, z|x2 , y 3 , z 2 , (y −1 x)2 , (y −1 (xz)5 x)2 , (y −1 xz −1 )2 i.
For b in 22B, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fb )) = hy −1 (xz)5 x, y −1 xz −1 , (xzxz)y(xzxz)−1 i.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O22B ) : i∗ (π1 (Fb ))] = 1, so b
is allowable.
For 22C,
)*+,-x

y-1./012x

a
b

$%&'(x

5

xzx-1
y-1xz-1

y
x

z

y-1x

Figure 24

π1 (O22C ) = hx, y, z|x2 , y 2 , z 2 , (y −1 x)2 , (y −1 (xz)3 x)2 , (y −1 xz −1 )5 i.
For b in 22C, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fb )) = hy, y −1 (xz)3 x, (xzxz)y −1 x(xzxz)−1 i.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O22C ) : i∗ (π1 (Fb ))] = 1, so b
is allowable.
21B: There are two classes of candidacy edges, {a, a′ } and {b, c}. a is
unknotted, hence allowable. To see b is not allowable, kill a and a′ , then
π1 (F) = Z2 , but π1 ((S 3 , Γ′ )) is D3 .
32

a'
a
b c

b

c

4

Figure 25
Orbifolds in Table VI:
25, 27: All candidacy edges are unknotted and have been marked as in
the orbifold, up to equivalence. For a candidacy dashed arc, one end of
it must lie on some edge labeled 3. Kill this edge, then π1 (F) = Z2 , but
π1 ((S 3 , Γ′ )) = D3 . Hence there is no allowable dashed arc.
24, 26, 28: All candidacy edges are unknotted and have been marked as
in the orbifold, up to equivalence. For a candidacy dashed arc corresponding
to a 2-suborbifold F, the other side of F, containing four vertices, can not be
a handlebody orbifold. Hence there is no unknotted allowable dashed arc.
Then we need [GAP] to check that ck in 24 and 26, dk in 28 are knotted
allowable dashed arcs.
For 24,

xz

3
yz-1

xyz-1x-13
x
xy

z

y

3

Figure 26
π1 (O24 ) = hx, y, z|x3 , y 2 , z 2 , (xz)2 , (xy)3 , (yz −1 )3 i.
For c in 24, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fc )) = hxy, zi.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O24 ) : i∗ (π1 (Fc ))] = 1, so c
is allowable.
For 26,

33

3
xz

3

z
yz-1

xyz-1x-1
x

y

xy

Figure 27
π1 (O26 ) = hx, y, z|x3 , y 2 , z 2 , (xz)3 , (xy)2 , (yz −1 )2 i.
For c in 26, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fc )) = hxz, yi.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O26 ) : i∗ (π1 (Fc ))] = 1, so c
is allowable.
For 28,

3
xz

5

z
yz-1

xyz-1x-1
x

y

xy

Figure 28
π1 (O28 ) = hx, y, z|x5 , y 2 , z 2 , (xz)3 , (xy)2 , (yz −1 )2 i.
For d in 28, the corresponding subgroup is
i ∗ (π1 (Fd )) = hxz, yi.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O28 ) : i∗ (π1 (Fd ))] = 1, so d
is allowable.
31: There is no candidacy edge. By killing one labeled 3 edge and the
labeled 2 arc, it is easy to see there is no allowable dashed arc.
32, 35, 36, 37, 39: Up to equivalence, there is only one candidacy edge a
which is unknotted, hence allowable. And there is an unknotted allowable
dashed arc b.
33: There are three classes of candidacy edges, {a, a′ }, {b, d} and e.
a is unknotted, hence allowable. For b, we kill d, then π1 (F) = Z2 , but
34

π1 ((S 3 , Γ′ )) is D3 . For e, we kill f , then π1 (F) is trivial, but π1 ((S 3 , Γ′ )) is
Z2 . Hence b and e are not allowable. For a candidacy dashed arc, one end
of it must lie on e. Kill e, then π1 (F) = Z2 , but π1 ((S 3 , Γ′ )) = D2 . Hence
there is no allowable dashed arc.

e

b
a

3

a'
4

f

d
Figure 29

34: There are three classes of candidacy edges, {a, a′ }, {b, d} and e.
a is unknotted, hence allowable. For e, we kill f , then π1 (F) is trivial,
but π1 ((S 3 , Γ′ )) is Z2 . Hence e is not allowable. This graph contains four
vertices, hence there is no unknotted allowable dashed arc. Then we need
[GAP] to check that the knotted edge b and the knotted dashed arc c are
allowable.

c
e

b

3

a'

a 3

f

d
Figure 30
By Example 6.3, we have known that

π1 (O34 ) = hx, y, z | x2 , y 3 , z 2 , (zy)2 , (yxz)2 , (yxzx)3 i.
For b, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fb )) = hyxz, x, zyi.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O) : i∗ (π1 (Fb ))] = 1, so b is
allowable.
For c, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fc )) = hx, yi.
Also by [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O) : i∗ (π1 (Fc ))] = 1, so
c is allowable.
35

38: All the 6 edges are candidacy. a and a′ are equivalent. They are
unknotted, hence allowable. Since the graph contains four vertices, there is
no unknotted allowable dashed arc. Then we need [GAP] to check that b,
c and d are allowable. They are all knotted. We also need [GAP] to check
that e and f are not allowable.
y-1z-1xzy

f
y-1z-1x-1zyxzy

e
a
3
y-1z-1x-1zyxzx-1

xzx-1

d

b

zy

c
3

x

z

a'

y
xy

Figure 31

π1 (O38 ) = hx, y, z|x2 , y 2 , z 3 , (xy)2 , (zy)2 , (y −1 z −1 x−1 zyxzx−1 )3 i.
For b in 38, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fb )) = hxy, x, y −1 z −1 x−1 zyxzyi.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O38 ) : i∗ (π1 (Fb ))] = 1, so b
is allowable.
For c in 38, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fc )) = hxzx−1 , y −1 z −1 xzy, xyx−1 i.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O38 ) : i∗ (π1 (Fc ))] = 1, so c
is allowable.
For d in 38, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fd )) = hxzx−1 , xyi.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O38 ) : i∗ (π1 (Fd ))] = 1, so d
is allowable.
For e in 38, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fe )) = hy −1 z −1 x−1 zyxzy, xy, (y −1 z −1 xzy)−1 y(y −1 z −1 xzy)i.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O38 ) : i∗ (π1 (Fe ))] = 4, so e
is not allowable.
36

For f in 38, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Ff )) = hy −1 z −1 xzy, xzx−1 , (zy)−1 y(zy)i.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O38 ) : i∗ (π1 (Ff ))] = 5, so f
is not allowable.
40: There are only two candidacy edges a and b. And there is a candidacy
dashed arc c. a and c are unknotted, hence both allowable. b is knotted, we
need [GAP] to check it is allowable.

3

b
3
y

a

yz

3

c

x

xyzx-1

xy

Figure 32

π1 (O40 ) = hx, y, z|x2 , y 3 , z 3 , zx−1 z −1 = xyzx−1 i.
For b in 40, the corresponding subgroup is
i∗ (π1 (Fb )) = hy, z, (xyzx−1 )−1 x(xyzx−1 )i.
By [GAP], the computer can show that [π1 (O40 ) : i∗ (π1 (Fb ))] = 1, so b
is allowable.
23, 29, 30: All the candidacy edges are unknotted and have been marked
as in the orbifold, up to equivalence. We use Lemma 6.4 below to show there
is no allowable dashed arc.
The fundamental groups of these three orbifolds are the finite groups
T ×C3 T, O ×D3 O and J × J of SO(4), see [Du2] for the notations. They
can be mapped surjectively to T ×C3 T , O ×D3 O, J × J under the 2 to 1
map SO(4) → SO(3) × SO(3). For a possible dashed arc, the fundamental
group of a regular neighborhood is generated by an order 2 element and an
order 3 element. Then notice that T ∼
= A4 , O ∼
= S4 , J ∼
= A5 , by Lemma
6.4, any two such elements in the groups T ×C3 T , O ×D3 O, J × J cannot
generate the whole group. Hence there is no allowable dashed arc.
Lemma 6.4. Let S be one of the permutation groups A4 , S4 , A5 . Let H
be a subgroup of S × S such that the restrictions to H of the two canonical
projections of S × S to S are both surjective. If H is not isomorphic to S
then an order 2 element and an order 3 element in H cannot generate H.
37

Proof. Let (x, x′ ) and (y, y ′ ) be order 2 and order 3 elements in H which
generate H. Since the two projections restricted to H are surjective, both x
and x′ have order 2, and both y and y ′ have order 3; moreover the subgroups
generated by x, y and also by x′ , y ′ are both equal to S. One can check now
by explicit computations in each of the three groups that the map x 7→ x′ ,
y 7→ y ′ gives an isomorphism of S to itself. Hence H is isomorphic to S.
Now we proof our main results.
Proof. Theorem 1.4 follows from Theorem 6.1; Theorem 1.1 and Theorem
1.2 follow from Theorem 1.4, with some elementary arithmetic.
Note that 4n(g − 1)/(n − 2) will be 12(g − 1) when n = 3 and 8(g − 1)
√
when n = 4; also, 4n(g − 1)/(n − 2) will be 4( g + 1)2 when g = (n − 1)2
and 4(g + 1) when g = n − 1.
Only the last two rows of the tables in Theorems 1.1 contain infinitely
many genera, corresponding to the orbifolds 15E and 19 in Theorem 6.1, or
just corresponding to Examples 2.1 in [WWZZ].
To derive Theorem 1.3 we notice that by Example 7.1 we have OEgk ≥
4(g − 1). And by Theorem 1.4, we know all cases with |G| > 4(g − 1). Then
we reach Theorem 1.3.
Comment: We define two actions of a finite group G to be equivalent
if the corresponding groups of homeomorphisms of (S 3 , Σg ) are conjugate
(i.e., allowing isomorphisms of G). By the proof of Theorem 6.1 and the
tables above, we have: There are only finitely many types of actions of G
on (S 3 , Σg ) such that |G| > 4(g − 1) and the handlebody orbifold bounded
by Σg /G is not of type II. In particular there are only finitely many types
of actions of G on (S 3 , Σg ) realizing OEg for g 6= 21, 481.

7

Examples

Example 7.1. Consider S 3 = {(z1 , z2 ) ∈ C2 | |z1 |2 + |z2 |2 = 1} as the unit
2jπi
2kπi
sphere in C2 . Let aj = (e m , 0), bk = (0, e n ), here j = 0, 1, . . . , m − 1,
k = 0, 1, . . . , n − 1. Join each aj and bk by a shortest geodesic arc in S 3 , we
get a two-parted graph Γ ∈ S 3 with m + n vertices and mn edges. Hence
χ(Γ) = m + n − mn. A regular neighborhood of Γ in S 3 is a handlebody of
genus g = (m − 1)(n − 1), we denote its boundary by Σg . See Figure 33 for
m = n = 3 and g = 4.

38

b2

a0
b0

a2

a0

b0

a1

b1

a1

Γ

b1

a2

b2

Figure 33
Then there is a group G ∼
= (Zm × Zn ) ⋊ Z2 acting on (S 3 , Σg ) given by:
x : (z1 , z2 ) 7→ (e

2πi
m

z1 , z2 ),

y : (z1 , z2 ) 7→ (z1 , e

2πi
n

z2 ),

t : (z1 , z2 ) 7→ (z̄1 , z̄2 ).
When m = 2, g = n − 1, G ∼
= Dg+1 × Z2 acts on (S 3 , Σg ). This gives an
extendable group action of order 4(g + 1), corresponding to orbifold 15E in
the list of Theorem 6.1.
When m = n, g = (n − 1)2 , there is another action of order 2:
s : (z1 , z2 ) 7→ (z2 , z1 ).
So there is a larger group G = hx, y, s, ti ∼
= (Zn × Zn ) ⋊ (Z2 × Z2 ) acting
√
on (S 3 , Σg ). This gives an extendable group action of order 4( g + 1)2 ,
corresponding to orbifold 19 in the list of Theorem 6.1.
The following picture shows how the orbifolds can be obtained.

S3

n

n

m

2:1

mn:1

m

~
=

n
m

~
=

2:1
m=n

n

Figure 34

39

n

Example 7.2. If in the orbifold 15E We choose a dashed arc connecting a
vertex with incident edges labeled (2, 2, 2) and an edge of index 2. We can
knot this arc in an arbitrary way. The boundary of a regular neighborhood
of the arc is a knotted 2-suborbifold, and its preimage in S 3 is connected.
This gives us an order 4(g − 1) extendable (Dg−1 ⊕ Z2 )-action on Σg , with
respect to a knotted embedding.

g-1

Figure 35
Example 7.3. Figure 37 shows a knotted handlebody of genus g = 11 which
is invariant under a group action of order 120 of S 3 , corresponding to edge
c in 34 (Table VI). All points are colored by their distance from the origin.
The group is isomorphic to A5 × Z2 , where we consider the alternating
group A5 as the orientation preserving symmetry group of the 4-dimensional
regular Euclidean simplex, and Z2 is generated by −id on E 4 . Let the 4simplex be centered at the origin of E 4 and inscribed in the unit sphere
S 3 . The radial projection of its boundary to S 3 gives a tesselation of S 3
by 5 tetrahedra invariant under the action of A5 . We present one of these
tetrahedron in Figure 36.
A

O
M
D
B
E

NF
C

Figure 36
Imagine the figure has spherical geometry. O is the center of the tetrahedron, F is the center of triangle △BCD, E is the middle points of BC,
M is the middle points of BO, N is the middle points of EF . The orbit of
the geodesic M N under the group action of A5 joins to a graph in S 3 ; note
that this graph is invariant also under −id on S 3 . Projecting to E 3 , Figure
37 shows this graph and the boundary surface of the regular neighborhood
of the projected image(by [Mathematica]).

40

Figure 37

8

Appendix

In this section we give a very brief introduction on how to use the computer
to examining the proofs given in Section 6.
One can download the GAP software in the “download” section in
http://www.gap-system.org/
and in the “Installation” section it shows how to run GAP on your
computer. On the same webpage, in “Documentation→Manuals” section,
you can get all the details about how to use all the functions in GAP.
For example here we will explain how to input the data in Example 6.3
into GAP. In the command line window of GAP, type
f:=FreeGroup("x", "y", "z");
x:=f.1;
y:=f.2;
z:=f.3;
G:=f/[x^2, y^3, z^2, (z*y)^2, (y*x*z)^2, (y*x*z*x)^3];
to input the orbifold’s fundamental group into GAP. Then simply type
41

Size(G);
then GAP will show that this group order is 120. Then you can use
u:=G.1;
v:=G.2;
w:=G.3;
H:=GroupWithGenerators([v*u*w, u, w*v]);
to input the subgroup standing for the arc orbifold into GAP. Then use
Index(G, H);
GAP will show that this is equal to 1.
All the usage of functions such as “FreeGroup”, “GroupWithGenerators”, ... can be found in “Documentation→Manuals→Reference” in GAP’s
homepage.

References
[BMP]

M. Boileau, S. Maillot, J. Porti, Three-dimensional orbifolds and
their geometric structures, Panoramas et Synthses 15. Socit Mathmatique de France, Paris 2003.

[BZ]

G. Burde, H. Zieschang, Knots. De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics 5. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin 1985.

[Du1]

W.D. Dunbar, Geometric orbifolds, Rev. Mat. Univ. Complut.
Madrid 1 (1988), 67-99

[Du2]

W.D. Dunbar, Nonfibering spherical 3-orbifolds, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 341 (1994), 121-142.

[Hu]

A. Hurwitz, Über algebraische Gebilde mit eindeutigen Transformationen in sich, Math. Ann. 41 (1893), 403-442

[MZ]

A. Miller, B. Zimmermann, Large groups of symmetries of handlebodies, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 106 (1989), 829-838

[MMZ]

D. McCullough, A. Miller, B. Zimmermann, Group actions on handlebodies, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 59 (1989), 373-416

[MY]

W. H. Meeks, S. T. Yau, The equivariant Dehns lemma and loop
theorem, Comment. Math. Helv. 56 (1981), 225-239

[Ro]

J. Rotman, An Introduction to the Theory of Groups, SpringerVerlag, New York 1995

[Th]

W. P. Thurston, The geometry and topology of three-manifolds,
Lecture Notes Princeton University 1978

42

[WWZZ] C. Wang, S. C. Wang, Y. M. Zhang, B. Zimmermann, Extending finite group actions on surfaces over S 3 . Topology Appl. 160
(2013), no. 16, 2088-2103.
[Zi]

B.Zimmermann,
Über Homöomorphismen n-dimensionaler
Henkelkörper und endliche Erweiterungen von Schottky-Gruppen,
Comment. Math. Helv. 56 (1981), 474-486.

[GAP]

The GAP Group, GAP — Groups, Algorithms, and Programming,
Version 4.4.12; 2008 (http://www.gap-system.org)

[Mathematica] Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica, Version 6.0, Champaign, IL (2007).

43

