the _ knot complement problem _ , first proposed in 1908 by heinrich tietze ( * ? ? ?
* section  15 ) , asks when a knot in a given @xmath0-manifold is determined by its complement .
it had been open for eighty years until in 1989 gordon and luecke @xcite proved it to be true for every knot in @xmath1 . a first step in this proof was to translate this problem into a problem concerning _
dehn surgery_. in sections  [ section : complement]-[section : proof ] we recall the basic facts about the knot complement problem and dehn surgery .    here
i want to consider the same problem for _ legendrian knots _ in _ contact @xmath0-manifolds_. the main result is a generalization of the result by gordon and luecke , roughly speaking it says the following ( see theorem  [ thm : contact1 ] in section  [ section : contactcomplement ] for the precise statement ) .
[ legendrian knot exterior theorem ] [ main : main1 ] + a legendrian knot in the tight contact structure of @xmath1 is determined by the contactomorphism type of its exterior .
this result implies that all invariants of legendrian knots are actually invariants of the contactomorphism type of its exterior .
the legendrian knot complement problem was also mentioned in @xcite .    in sections  [ section :
contactcomplement]-[section : contactproof ] i recall the definition of _ contact dehn surgery _ and explain how to generalize the proof of gordon - luecke to this setting .
the main ingredient for this is the fact that if there is a non - trivial contact dehn surgery along a legendrian knot in @xmath2 resulting again in @xmath2 , then this legendrian knot has to be a legendrian unknot of a very special type . an easy way to prove this fact ( given in section  [ section : appendix ] ) is looking at all other contact surgeries resulting topologically again in @xmath1 and finding a legendrian knot in its exterior that violates the bennequin inequality after the surgery .
therefore , i present in section  [ section : loss ] a new formula to compute the thurston - bennequin invariant of such legendrian knots in the surgered manifold .
moreover , in section  [ counterexample ] i explain how to do a crossing change in a legendrian knot diagram with help of a contact dehn surgery ( a so called _ contact rolfsen twist _ ) . with that it is easy to construct counterexamples to the legendrian link exterior problem in the tight contact structure of @xmath1 , i.e. two non - equivalent legendrian links with contactomorphic exteriors .
finally , in section  [ topgenmfd ] and [ section : other ] i give a short discussion about the legendrian knot exterior problem in other manifolds .
it turns out that in the topological setting the knot complement problem in a general manifold is equivalent to the non - existence of an
_ exotic cosmetic dehn surgery _ resulting in this manifold . in the contact
setting it is not clear if this equivalence is true .
but in section  [ section : other ] i present examples of legendrian knots in lens spaces not determined by their complements and of _ exotic cosmetic contact dehn surgeries_.
all links are assumed to be tame and considered up to ( coarse ) equivalence .
+ let @xmath3 and @xmath4 be two links in an oriented closed @xmath0-manifold @xmath5 .
then @xmath3 is * ( coarse ) equivalent * to @xmath4 , if there exists a homeomorphism @xmath6 of @xmath5 @xmath7 that maps @xmath3 to @xmath4
. then one writes @xmath8 .     + the ( coarse ) equivalence is a weaker condition than the equivalence of knots up to isotopy . for example
there is a reflection of @xmath1 that maps the left handed trefoil to the right handed trefoil , so this two knots are ( coarse ) equivalent , but one can show that the left handed trefoil is not isotopic to the right handed trefoil ( i.e. there is no such homeomorphism isotopic to the identity ) .
one also can consider the * oriented ( coarse ) equivalence * , that means equivalence where only orientation preserving homeomorphisms of @xmath5 are allowed . in @xmath1
oriented equivalence is equivalent to isotopy ( because in @xmath1 every orientation preserving homeomorphism is isotopic to the identity ) , but in general this is a weaker condition than isotopy .
a first observation is , that if two links @xmath3 and @xmath4 are equivalent , then the complements are homeomorphic .
the following question is called the * link complement problem * ( or for one component links , the * knot complement problem * ) :     + are two links in the same manifold with homeomorphic complements equivalent ?
link complements are non - compact , but often it is much easier to work with compact manifolds .
therefore , pick some regular ( closed ) neighborhood @xmath9 of a link @xmath10 in @xmath5 and call the complement @xmath11 of the interior @xmath12 of these neighborhood the * exterior * of @xmath10 .    the corresponding problem whether the equivalence class of a link is determined by the homeomorphism type of its exterior
is called the * link exterior problem*. ( actually , this was the problem asked by tietze in ( * ? ? ?
* section 15 ) . ) by work of edwards  ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 3 ) this two problems are equivalent .
+ the first counterexample was given in 1937 by whitehead @xcite .
he considered the following two links @xmath3 and @xmath4 in @xmath1 , now called * whitehead links * , see figure  [ fig : whitehead ] .
if one deletes one component out of @xmath3 then the remaining knot is an unknot .
but if one deletes the unknot @xmath13 out of @xmath4 then the remaining knot is a trefoil .
so @xmath3 can not be equivalent to @xmath4 .
but the exteriors of this links are homeomorphic , as one can see as follows : consider the exteriors @xmath14 of the unknot @xmath13 . then cut open this @xmath0-manifold along the seifert disk of the unknot @xmath13 , make a full @xmath15-twist and re - glue the two disks together again .
this is called a * rolfsen twist * and describes a homeomorphism of the link exteriors .    by twisting several times along @xmath13 one
can even get infinitely many non - equivalent links all with homeomorphic exteriors .
the next natural question would be to ask if this holds on the level of knots .
this is the so called knot complement theorem by gordon - luecke @xcite .    [ knot complement theorem by gordon - luecke ] [ thm : gordon - luecke1 ] + let @xmath16 and @xmath17 be two knots in @xmath1 with homeomorphic complements , then @xmath16 is equivalent to @xmath17 .    a starting point for proving this theorem , was to translate it into a problem concerning dehn surgery .
in this section i recall the definition of dehn surgery , which is a very effective construction method for @xmath0-manifolds ( for more information see ( * ? ? ?
* chapter  vi ) or ( * ? ? ?
* chapter  9 ) ) . roughly speaking one cuts out the neighborhood of a knot and glues a solid torus back in a different way to obtain a new @xmath0-manifold .
more precisely :     + let @xmath18 be a knot in a closed oriented @xmath0-manifold @xmath5 . take a non - trivial simple closed curve @xmath19 on @xmath20 and a homeomorphism @xmath21 , such that @xmath22 then define @xmath23 one says that @xmath24 is obtained out of @xmath5 by * dehn surgery * along @xmath18 with * slope *  @xmath19 .
one can easily show that @xmath24 is again a @xmath0-manifold independent of the choice of @xmath21 ( see ( * ? ? ?
* chapter  9.f ) ) .
so to specify @xmath24 one only has to describe the knot @xmath18 ( in the @xmath0-manifold @xmath5 ) together with the slope  @xmath19 . to do this
effectively one observes that there are two special kinds of curves on @xmath25 :    * the * meridian * @xmath26 : a simple closed curve on @xmath27 , that is non - trivial on @xmath27 , but trivial in @xmath28 . * the * longitudes * @xmath29 : simple closed curves on @xmath27 , that are non - trivial on @xmath27 and intersect @xmath26 transversely exactly once .
the curves shall be oriented in such a way , that the pair @xmath30 represents the positive orientation of @xmath27 in @xmath5 .
one can show that the meridian @xmath26 is up to isotopy uniquely determined .
but for the longitudes there are different choices . for a given longitude @xmath29
there are infinitely many other longitudes given by @xmath31 , for @xmath32 .
given such a longitude @xmath29 one can write @xmath19 uniquely as @xmath33     + i want to describe surgeries along the unknot @xmath13 in @xmath1 . in this case
there is a special longitude on @xmath34 .
to see this observe that the exterior @xmath35 is again homeomorphic to a solid torus @xmath36 , this corresponds to the trivial genus-@xmath37 heegaard splitting of @xmath1 ( see for example ( * ? ? ?
* example  8.5 . ) ) .
write @xmath38 then choose the so called * surface longitude * @xmath39 of @xmath40 to be the meridian @xmath41 of @xmath42 ( see for example ( * ? ? ?
* figure 8.7 . ) ) .
so for surgeries along the unknot in @xmath1 one can write the slope @xmath19 uniquely as @xmath43 .
now i want to show that @xmath44 is homeomorphic to @xmath1 .
therefore , one first considers the so called * trivial dehn surgery * @xmath45 , where one cuts out a neighborhood of the knot and glues it back in the same way as before .
so the manifold is not changing , and in this case it is again @xmath1 .
then the idea is to do again a rolfsen twist along the unknot to obtain a homeomorphism from @xmath46 to @xmath47 .
therefore , consider the diagram that will be specified in the following .
+   +    ( 5,40)*+s^3=``a'';(11,40)*+=``a1 '' ; ( 20,40)*+s^3_u(_1)=``b '' ; ( 32,40)*+:==``b1 '' ; ( 45,40)*+s^1d^2=``c '' ; ( 75,40)*++=``d '' ; ( 102,40)*+t_2=``e'';(115,40)*+/_~=``e1'';(47,35)*+_0=``f '' ; ( 100,35)*+_1=``g'';(47,30)*+_0=``h '' ; ( 100,30)*+_1=``i'';(47,10)*+_0=``j '' ; ( 100,10)*+_1=``k'';(75,20)*+=``k1'';(47,5)*+_0=``l '' ; ( 95,5)*+_1+q_1=``m'';(20,0)*+s^3_u(_1+q_1)=``n'';(34,0)*+:==``n1 '' ; ( 45,0)*+s^1d^2=``o '' ; ( 75,0)*++=``p '' ; ( 102,0)*+t_2=``q'';(115,0)*+/_~=``q1'';@ > _ `` b'';``n'';@->@/_1pc/ _ `` c'';``o'';@->@/^1pc/^h `` e'';``q'';@|->__1 `` f'';``g'';@|- > `` h'';``i'';@|->__2 `` j'';``k'';@|- > `` l'';``m '' ;     +   + first one chooses the gluing maps @xmath48 such that they map the meridians @xmath49 as determined by the slope . by this
the manifolds are fixed , but the maps @xmath48 are not .
there are many possibilities to what a longitude @xmath50 can map , but the homeomorphism type of the resulting manifold is not affected by this . in this example one can choose the maps @xmath48 such that they map @xmath50 to @xmath39 .    to construct a homeomorphism between the two resulting manifolds , one uses on the @xmath36-factor the identity map .
if one finds a homeomorphism @xmath51 of the @xmath42-factor such that the diagram commutes , then this two maps fit together to a homeomorphism of the whole manifolds . for the map
@xmath51 one can choose a @xmath52-fold dehn - twist of the solid torus @xmath42 , i.e. @xmath53 so the diagram gives rise to a homeomorphism between the two manifolds .
+ for all other surgeries along the unknot one computes the homology as @xmath54 so the surgeries from the above example are the only surgeries along the unknot that lead again to @xmath1 .
in fact , these are the only non - trivial surgeries along an arbitrary knot in @xmath1 that yield again @xmath1 , as the following deep theorem shows .    [ surgery theorem by gordon - luecke][thm : gordon - luecke2 ] +
let @xmath18 be a knot in @xmath1 .
if @xmath55 is homeomorphic to @xmath1 for @xmath56 , then @xmath18 is equivalent to the unknot @xmath13 .    see @xcite
the knot complement theorem  [ thm : gordon - luecke1 ] now follows from the surgery theorem  [ thm : gordon - luecke2 ] . the idea is to see a dehn surgery not as cutting out a solid torus and gluing it back in a different way .
now one sees a dehn surgery as cutting out the complement of a solid torus , then doing a homeomorphism of this complement and then glue this complement back in a different way .    to be more precise
choose a homeomorphism @xmath57 and write @xmath58 where the gluing map is @xmath59 .
then consider the surgery along @xmath17 with respect to the composition of maps @xmath60 to determine the homeomorphism type of this new manifold @xmath61 look at the following diagram : +   +    ( 10,40)*+s^3=``a'';(15,40)*+=``a1 '' ; ( 25,40)*+s^3_k_1 ( _ 1)=``b '' ; ( 35,40)*+:==``b1 '' ; ( 45,40)*+s^1d^2=``c '' ; ( 75,40)*++=``d '' ; ( 102,40)*+s^3=``e'';(115,40)*+/_~=``e1'';(47,35)*+_0=``f '' ; ( 100,35)*+_1=``g'';(75,20)*+=``k1'';(47,5)*+_0=``l '' ; ( 94,5)*+r_2=h(_1)=``m'';(25,0)*+s^3_k_2(r_2)=``n'';(35,0)*+:==``n1 '' ; ( 45,0)*+s^1d^2=``o '' ; ( 75,0)*++=``p '' ; ( 102,0)*+s^3=``q'';(115,0)*+/_~=``q1'';@>_f `` b'';``n'';@->@/_1pc/ _ `` c'';``o'';@->@/^1pc/^h `` e'';``q'';@|->__1 `` f'';``g'';@|->^h_1 `` l'';``m '' ;     +   + with similar arguments as in the example in section  [ section : surgery ] this induces a homeomorphism @xmath6 from @xmath62 to @xmath61 and with the surgery theorem  [ thm : gordon - luecke2 ] it follows that @xmath63 is equal to @xmath41 or @xmath17 is equivalent to the unknot @xmath13 .
if @xmath64 , then the surgery @xmath61 is the trivial surgery , so the spines @xmath65 of the new solid tori are equal to the knots @xmath66 . therefore @xmath6 sends @xmath16 to @xmath17 .    in the other case ( @xmath67 )
one does the same thing again but with @xmath16 and @xmath17 reversed , then it follows that @xmath68 . @xmath69
+ exactly the same works also with orientations . the dehn surgery theorem  [ thm : gordon - luecke2 ] also holds for oriented homeomorphism from @xmath55 to @xmath1 and oriented equivalence from @xmath18 to @xmath13 .
then exactly the same proof as before shows that two knots with orientation preserving homeomorphic complements are orientation preserving equivalent . for @xmath1
this is the same as isotopic knots ( see also section  [ section : complement ] ) .
now i want to generalize this proof to the case of * legendrian knots * in the unique tight contact structure @xmath70 on @xmath1 , i.e. the tangent line to the knots lies always in the @xmath71-plane field given by the contact structure ( see @xcite for all basics about contact geometry and legendrian knots ) .
i want to consider legendrian links up to ( coarse ) equivalence like in section  [ section : complement ] and i only consider cooriented contact structures .
+ let @xmath3 and @xmath4 be two legendrian links in a closed contact @xmath0-manifold @xmath72
. then @xmath3 is * ( coarse ) equivalent * to @xmath4 if there exists a contactomorphism @xmath6 of @xmath5 @xmath73 that maps @xmath3 to @xmath4
. then one writes @xmath8 .
+ the ( coarse ) equivalence is in general a weaker condition than the equivalence given by legendrian isotopy ( for example in overtwisted contact structures on @xmath1 ) .
but one can show that in @xmath2 this two concepts are the same ( see ( * ? ? ?
* section  4.3 ) ) .
it is a standard fact that every legendrian knot @xmath18 in a general contact @xmath0-manifold @xmath72 has a so called * standard neighborhood * @xmath28 in @xmath72 which is contactomorphic to @xmath74 with @xmath75-coordinate @xmath76 and cartesian coordinates @xmath77 on @xmath78 .
this contactomorphism maps @xmath18 to @xmath79 ( see ( * ? ? ?
* example  2.5.10 ) ) .
it is easy to show that the boundary of this standard neighborhood is a convex surface . when i write @xmath28 for a legendrian knot @xmath18 , i always mean that @xmath28 is such a standard neighborhood and analogously to section  [ section : complement ] i call the complement @xmath80 of the interior of such a standard neighborhood the * exterior * of the legendrian knot @xmath18 .    but for contact manifolds there is the following problem .
if @xmath81 is contactomorphic to @xmath82 , is then also @xmath83 contactomorphic to @xmath84 ?    again , two equivalent legendrian links have contactomorphic exteriors .
i want to show that for legendrian knots in @xmath2 the converse also holds . but
this time it is not clear if this also holds for the complements .
[ legendrian knot exterior theorem ] [ thm : contact1 ] + let @xmath16 and @xmath17 be two legendrian knots in @xmath2 with contactomorphic exteriors . then @xmath16 is equivalent to @xmath17 .     + here
@xmath16 and @xmath17 are understood to be unoriented legendrian knots , because the exterior of a knot can not see its orientation .
but if one fixes an oriented longitude of the knot in its exterior , the same result holds also for oriented legendrian knots .    for legendrian links
the theorem is in general wrong . in section  [ counterexample ]
i will give some examples of legendrian links in @xmath2 that are * not * determined by the contactomorphism type of their exteriors .
to generalize the proof from the first sections to legendrian knots in contact manifolds , i first want to recall the definition of contact dehn surgery along legendrian knots developed by ding and geiges in  @xcite .
+ let @xmath18 be a legendrian knot in a contact @xmath0-manifold @xmath72 .
then there is a distinguished , so called * contact longitude * @xmath29 on @xmath20 , given by pushing @xmath18 in a direction transverse to the contact planes , for example in the direction of the reeb vector field .
when nothing else is said , from now on @xmath29 denotes always this contact longitude .
it is easy to show that for a slope @xmath85 the surgered manifold @xmath24 is determined by the rational number @xmath86 , called the * ( contact ) surgery coefficient * ( see for example ( * ? ? ? * section  9.g ) ) .
sometimes it will be necessary to express the slope @xmath19 with respect to the surface longitude @xmath87 , i.e. @xmath88 , then the rational number @xmath89 is called the * ( topological ) surgery coefficient*. ( recall that the surface longitude for a nullhomologous knot is obtained by pushing the knot into one of its seifert surfaces . ) from now on , depending on the context , i will denote by @xmath19 the slope or the corresponding surgery coefficient .
now one wants to do dehn surgery along legendrian links with respect to this contact longitude .
one can show that the contact structure of the old manifold extends to a contact structure of the resulting manifold .
+ let @xmath18 be a legendrian knot in a contact @xmath0-manifold @xmath72 .
+ ( 1 ) then @xmath24 carries a contact structure @xmath90 , which coincides with the old contact structure @xmath91 on @xmath92 .
+ ( 2 ) for @xmath93 one can choose @xmath90 to be tight on the new glued - in solid torus .
+ ( 3 ) for @xmath94 this tight contact structure on this new solid torus is unique .
+ one says @xmath95 is obtained from @xmath72 by * contact dehn surgery * along the legendrian knot @xmath18 with slope @xmath19 .
[ sketch of proof ] + the neighborhood @xmath28 is chosen such that the boundary is a convex surface .
the germ of a contact structure along a convex surface is determined by some simple data on that surface .
therefore , it is easy to glue contact structures along convex surfaces .
tight contact structures on solid tori with prescribed boundary conditions have been classified by honda @xcite .
in particular , such a contact structure always exists if @xmath93 and is unique if @xmath94 .
but in general there are more possibilities to choose this contact structure , so for other slopes the result of contact dehn surgery is in general not unique . for details see @xcite or @xcite .
+ consider the contact surgery along the legendrian unknot with @xmath96 and surgery coefficient @xmath97 ( see figure  [ fig : exoticsurgery ] ) .
the surgery coefficient @xmath97 corresponds then to the slope @xmath98 , where @xmath29 denotes the contact longitude . by expressing this slope with respect to the surface longitude @xmath39 given by the meridian of the complementary solid torus one gets @xmath99 .
so the resulting manifold is by the example from section  [ section : surgery ] topologically again @xmath1 .
next i want to show that the resulting contact structure is unique and leads again to @xmath70 ( if one requires the contact structure on the new glued - in solid torus to be tight ) . in general a contact dehn surgery with surgery coefficient not of the form @xmath100
is not unique .
but actually in this example it is .
too see this , one first uses the algorithm in ( * ? ? ?
* section  1 ) ( see also @xcite ) to change the contact surgery diagram into contact surgeries along a link with only @xmath101 surgery coefficients ( see figure  [ fig : exoticsurgery ] ) .
observe that different choices of stabilizations lead in general to different contact structures ( and correspond exactly to the different contact structures on the glued - in solid torus ) , but in this case the resulting contact structures are contactomorphic .
the contactomorphism of the resulting manifold is induced by the contactomorphism @xmath102 of the old @xmath2 , that maps one link to the other ( see also  ( * ? ? ?
*  section  9 ) ) .    to see that this contact structure is really @xmath70 ,
it is enough to show that the contact structure is stein fillable . in (
* lemma  4.2 . )
it is shown , that @xmath103-contact dehn surgery along the legendrian unknot with @xmath96 leads to @xmath104 with the unique stein fillable contact structure on it . because @xmath105-contact dehn surgery preserves stein fillability the claim follows .    to prove the legendrian knot exterior theorem  [ thm : contact1 ] i generalize the surgery theorem by gordon - luecke  [ thm : gordon - luecke2 ] .
[ contact dehn surgery theorem][thm : contact2 ] + let @xmath18 be a legendrian knot in @xmath2 . if @xmath106 is contactomorphic to @xmath2 for @xmath56 then @xmath18 is equivalent to a legendrian unknot @xmath107 with @xmath108 and @xmath109 .
+ ( 1 ) the classification of legendrian unknots in @xmath2 by eliashberg - fraser @xcite says , that two such legendrian unknots are equivalent ( with orientations of the knots ) if and only if they have the same @xmath110 and @xmath111 .
of course the exterior of a knot can not see its orientation , which for legendrian knots is given by the sign of @xmath111 .
so the knots @xmath107 are unique up to equivalence ( of unoriented legendrian knots ) .
a front projection of a legendrian unknot of type @xmath107 is shown in figure  [ fig : legendreunknoten ] .
+ ( 2 ) for general slopes the contact structure @xmath90 is not unique .
so one should read theorem [ thm : contact2 ] as follows : if there is a contact structure @xmath90 on @xmath55 , such that @xmath106 is obtained from @xmath72 by contact dehn surgery along @xmath18 with slope @xmath19 and if @xmath106 is contactomorphic to @xmath2 for @xmath56 , then the conclusion holds .
the proof of this contact dehn surgery theorem  [ thm : contact2 ] is given in section  [ section : appendix ] .
the proof of the legendrian knot exterior theorem  [ thm : contact1 ] is now similar to the topological case .
pick a contactomorphism @xmath112 and then consider again the following diagram : +   +    ( 0,40)*+(s^3,_st)=``a'';(8,40)*+=``a1 '' ; ( 24,40)*+(s^3_k_1 ( _ 1),_k_1 ( _ 1))=``b '' ; ( 40,40)*+:==``b1 '' ; ( 52,40)*+(s^1d^2,_1)=``c '' ; ( 75,40)*++=``d '' ; ( 100,40)*+(s^3,_st)=``e'';(114,40)*+/_~=``e1'';(53,35)*+_0=``f '' ; ( 99,35)*+_1=``g'';(75,20)*+=``k1'';(53,5)*+_0=``l '' ; ( 92,5)*+r_2:=h(_1)=``m'';(24,0)*+(s^3_k_2 ( r_2),_k_2 ( r_2))=``n'';(40,0)*+:==``n1 '' ; ( 52,0)*+(s^1d^2,_1)=``o '' ; ( 75,0)*++=``p '' ; ( 100,0)*+(s^3,_st)=``q'';(114,0)*+/_~=``q1'';@>_f `` b'';``n'';@->@/_1pc/ _ `` c'';``o'';@->@/^1pc/^h `` e'';``q'';@|->__1 `` f'';``g'';@|->^h_1 `` l'';``m '' ;     +   + here the contact structure @xmath113 denotes the unique tight contact structure on @xmath36 with convex boundary corresponding to the slope @xmath114 . because the contactomorphisms @xmath115 and @xmath51 on the two factors agree on the boundary convex surfaces , which determine the germ of the contact structures , these two maps glue together to a contactomorphism @xmath6 of the whole contact manifolds . from the contact dehn surgery theorem  [ thm : contact2 ] it follows that @xmath63 is equal to @xmath41 or @xmath17 is equivalent to @xmath107 for some @xmath116 .    if @xmath64 then this is the trivial contact dehn surgery , and so the contactomorphism @xmath6 maps @xmath16 to @xmath17 .    in the other case one makes the same argument with @xmath16 and @xmath17 reversed and concludes that @xmath16 is equivalent to @xmath117 for some @xmath118 . again the classification result of eliashberg - fraser  @xcite implies that @xmath119 is equivalent to @xmath120 if and only if @xmath121 . to show the last statement
one observes that @xmath122 is a solid torus with tight contact structure and convex boundary .
therefore , one can compute @xmath123 also as half the number of intersection points of the seifert disk of @xmath107 with the dividing set of the convex boundary ( see ( * ? ? ? * theorem  2.30 ) ) . because the seifert disks of @xmath107 and @xmath117 are both given by the @xmath78-factors of the exterior solid tori and because the exteriors are contactomorphic
, the number of intersection points stays the same .
to prove the contact dehn surgery theorem [ thm : contact2 ] one first determines with the surgery theorem by gordon - luecke [ thm : gordon - luecke2 ] all surgeries that lead again to @xmath1 .
the main problem is then that there are always many different choices for extending the contact structure over the new glued - in solid torus . but a very simple proof can be given by finding some new legendrian knots in the exteriors of the surgery knots , that violates the bennequin inequality in the new contact manifold . for doing this
i want to present in this section a formula for computing the thurston - bennequin invariant of a legendrian knot in a surgered manifold .
the main problem when doing this , is that the thurston - bennequin invariant is only defined for nullhomologous ( or rationally nullhomologous ) knots and a surgery in general destroys this property .
but as long as the resulting manifold is a homology sphere ( or a rationally homology sphere ) every knot has to be nullhomologous ( or rationally nullhomologous ) . in this case formulas for computing the new thurston - bennequin invariants out of the old ones and out of the algebraic surgery dates are given in ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  6.6 ) , ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  2 ) and ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  6.4 ) .    here
i first want to give an easy ( and easy to check ) condition ( out of the algebraic surgery data ) when such a knot is nullhomologous in the new manifold .
if this is the case i secondly show how to compute out of this dates the new thurston - bennequin invariant .
+ let @xmath124 be an oriented link ( where the choice of orientation is not important ) . and
let @xmath5 be the @xmath0-manifold obtained out of @xmath1 by dehn surgery along @xmath10 with topological surgery coefficients @xmath125 , for @xmath126 . denote by @xmath127 an oriented knot in @xmath1 and @xmath5 depending on the context . for simplicity
write the linking numbers as @xmath128 , for @xmath129 .
set also @xmath130 the matrix @xmath131 is a generalization of the linking matrix , because for @xmath132 the matrix @xmath131 is the linking matrix .
the knot @xmath133 is called * nullhomologous * in @xmath5 if @xmath134=0\in h_1(m;\mathbb{z})$ ] .
one can show ( see for example ( * ? ? ?
* page  123 ) ) that this is equivalent to the existence of a seifert surface for the knot , so the surface longitude for a knot is defined if and only if the knot is nullhomologous .    with the following lemma one can decide from the algebraic surgery data if such a knot is nullhomologous in the surgered manifold .
[ nullhomologous knots ] + @xmath133 is nullhomologous in @xmath5 if and only if there exists an @xmath135 such that @xmath136 .     + it is easy to compute the homology of @xmath5 ( see for example ( * ? ? ?
* proposition  5.3.11 ) ) as @xmath137 where the generators of the @xmath138-factors are given by right - handed meridians @xmath139 corresponding to the components @xmath140 .
next i express @xmath133 as a linear combination of the @xmath139 .
one can show that the coefficients are the linking numbers @xmath141 , i.e. @xmath142=\sum_{i=1 } ^n l_{i0}\mu_i.\end{aligned}\ ] ] so @xmath133 is nullhomologous if and only if one can express @xmath134=\sum l_{i0}\mu_i$ ] as a linear combination of the relations , i.e. if there exists integers @xmath143 , @xmath126 , such that @xmath144 by comparing the coefficients and by writing the corresponding equations in vector form one sees that this is true if and only if there exists a vector @xmath135 such that @xmath136 .
now assume @xmath133 is a legendrian link in @xmath145 . and let @xmath91 be a contact structure on @xmath5 that coincides with @xmath70 outside a tubular neighborhood of @xmath10 .
for example if @xmath10 is also a legendrian link in @xmath2 and @xmath72 is the result of a contact dehn surgery along @xmath10 .
but it is important to notice that the setting here is a more general one , one can also use contact surgery along transversal knots or surgery along a knot that is not adapted to the contact structure .    here
all surgery coefficients are understood to be topological surgery coefficients , i.e. with respect to the surface longitude @xmath87 which has linking number zero with the knot .
( so if one has a legendrian surgery diagram one first has to change the contact surgery coefficients to topological surgery coefficients , for example with the formula @xmath146 . )
[ computing the thurston - bennequin invariant ] + if @xmath133 is nullhomologous in @xmath5 , then one can compute the new thurston - bennequin number @xmath147 of @xmath133 in @xmath72 from the old one @xmath148 of @xmath133 in @xmath2 as @xmath149 where @xmath150 is a vector given by the formula from the previous lemma .
+ let @xmath87 be the surface longitude of @xmath133 in @xmath1 , i.e. @xmath151 . and
let @xmath152 be the contact longitude of @xmath133 in @xmath2 .
then @xmath148 is given by @xmath153 because the contact longitude is defined by the contact structure along @xmath133 and the contact structure does not change near @xmath133 by doing the surgery along @xmath10 the contact longitude @xmath152 represents also the contact longitude in @xmath72 . but in general the surface longitude @xmath87 changes . since the knot @xmath133 is nullhomologous in @xmath5 , there is a unique @xmath154 such that @xmath155 ( this is the new surface longitude ) .
then @xmath147 is given by @xmath156 putting this together leads to @xmath157 so the only thing left is to compute @xmath6 . as in the proof of the previous lemma one
computes the homology of @xmath158 as @xmath159 and expresses @xmath87 as @xmath160 so @xmath161 is zero in @xmath162 if and only if there exists integers @xmath163 , @xmath164 , such that @xmath165 by comparing the coefficients this is equivalent to the existence of a vector @xmath166 such that @xmath167 if one chooses for @xmath168 a solution @xmath150 from the first lemma the formula follows .
[ computing @xmath110-numbers with this formulas ] + ( 1 ) consider the surgery diagram from figure  [ fig : computing - tb - ex1 ] ( i ) .
the old thurston - bennequin invariant of @xmath133 is @xmath169 . and
because the surgery along the unknot @xmath3 with topological framing @xmath170 leads again to @xmath1 the knot @xmath133 is again nullhomologous in the new manifold .
this can be checked also with the formula from above . for @xmath150 one
gets the equation @xmath171 . and therefore @xmath172 .
observe again that this result does not depend on the explicit contact structure chosen for the surgery .
+ ( 2 ) consider the surgery diagram from figure  [ fig : computing - tb - ex1 ] ( ii ) .
again the surgery leads to @xmath1 so the resulting knot is again nullhomologous .
the new thurston - bennequin invariant can be computed as follows . for @xmath150 one
gets the equation @xmath173 . and therefore @xmath174 .
in the next section we will see that the contact surgery theorem is an easy corollary out of these two examples .
+ ( 3 ) there are also examples where the solution @xmath175 of @xmath176 is not unique . but the result of @xmath177 , of course , is not affected by this .
for example consider the surgery diagram from figure  [ fig : computing - tb - ex3 ] ( i ) .
first one has to check if the knot @xmath133 is again nullhomologous in the surgered manifold . for this
, one has to look if there exists a solution @xmath178 of @xmath179 two obvious solutions are @xmath180 so the new knot is nullhomologous and the new thurston - bennequin invariant can be computed out of the old one as follows @xmath181 observe that this result does not depend on the choice of @xmath150 .
+ [ subsection : computtingrationallytb ] this results can be easily generalized to rationally nullhomologous knots .
a knot @xmath133 in @xmath5 is called * rationally nullhomologous * if there exists a natural number @xmath182 such that @xmath183=0\in h_1(m;\mathbb{z})$ ] . for
rationally nullhomologous legendrian knots in contact @xmath0-manifolds one can generalize the thurston - bennequin invariant to the so called * rational thurston - bennequin invariant * @xmath184 ( see for example ( * ? ? ?
* definition  6.2 ) or ( * ? ? ?
* section  2  and  3 ) , for the fact that this is in general well defined see ( * ? ? ?
* section  5 ) ) .
with the same notation as from the first sections one gets the following generalizations of these results .
[ computing the rationally thurston - bennequin invariant ] + ( 1 ) @xmath133 is rationally nullhomologous in @xmath5 if and only if there exists a natural number @xmath182 and a vector @xmath135 such that @xmath185 . +
( 2 ) if @xmath133 is rationally nullhomologous in @xmath5 then one can compute the new rationally thurston - bennequin number @xmath186 of @xmath133 in @xmath72 from the old one @xmath148 of @xmath133 in @xmath2 as follows @xmath187     + the proofs are similar to the ones in the foregoing subsections .
for the first part one has to change the condition @xmath134=0 $ ] to @xmath183=0 $ ] and do the same computations again .
the second part works similar .
if @xmath133 is only rationally nullhomologous in @xmath5 , then the thurston - bennequin numbers are related as follows ( see also ( * ? ? ?
* proof of lemma  2 ) ) .
@xmath188 then same computations as in the first part lead to the result .
[ computing @xmath110-numbers of rationally legendrian unknots in lens spaces ] this formula for computing the rational thurston - bennequin invariant is very useful to calculate @xmath184 in lens spaces .
for example , consider the surgery diagram from figure  [ fig : computing - tb - ex3 ] ( ii ) .
the @xmath189-surgery along @xmath3 leads to the lens space @xmath190 . to check
if the knot @xmath133 is nullhomologous one has to solve the equation @xmath191 .
for @xmath192 this equation has no solution in @xmath138 and therefore @xmath133 is not nullhomologous in the surgered manifold . but ( for @xmath193 ) the equation @xmath194 has a solution , for example @xmath195 and @xmath196 .
so @xmath133 is rationally nullhomologous in @xmath190 .
the rationally thurston - bennequin invariant is computed as follows @xmath197 observe again that the result is independent of the chosen solution @xmath150 and independent of the chosen contact structure on the new glued - in solid torus .
+ one can also study the same problem for a surgery in a general contact manifold ( not on @xmath2 ) .
this is motivated by ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  6.4 ) .
consider now @xmath198 an oriented nullhomologous link in some contact @xmath0-manifold @xmath199 .
denote by @xmath72 some result of contact surgery along @xmath10 and by @xmath200 an oriented nullhomologous legendrian knot in @xmath199 and @xmath72 , depending on the context .
then one gets exactly the same formulas as before .
the only part changing in the proof is that the homologies are different , for example @xmath201 for more details see ( * ? ? ?
* proof of lemma  6.4 ) .
if one has a surgery diagram with also @xmath37-handles included , then one can use the above methods as well .
the first possibility is to change all @xmath37-handles into @xmath202-surgeries along unknots and the second possibility is to think of the surgery diagram as a surgery diagram in @xmath203 ( represented by @xmath116 @xmath37-handles ) and then use the above extension .    in further work @xcite there
will also appear a formula like this for the rotation number , that generalizes the formulas from ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  6.6 ) , ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  2 ) and ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  6.4 ) , together with a similar formula for the self - linking number of transversal knots .
let @xmath18 be a legendrian knot in @xmath2 such that @xmath106 is again a contact @xmath1 ( with any contact structure ) for @xmath56 . from the ( topological ) surgery theorem  [ thm : gordon - luecke2 ] it follows , that @xmath18 is topologically equivalent to an unknot @xmath13 .
( so i will write @xmath13 instead of @xmath18 . ) in the example from section  [ section : surgery ] and the following remark i explained that the topological surgery coefficient ( with respect to the surface longitude @xmath39 ) has to be of the form @xmath170 , for @xmath204 .
now i want to show that every resulting contact structure @xmath205 is overtwisted if @xmath13 is not coarse equivalent to an unknot of the form @xmath107 .
to do this i will show that in the resulting contact @xmath0-spheres there exists legendrian knots that can not be realized in @xmath70 .    for this
, one considers the first two examples from subsection [ subsection : computtingtb ] . by doing a rolfsen twists along @xmath13
one sees that the legendrian knot @xmath133 from the first example remains an unknot in the new surgered manifold . for @xmath206 one
gets @xmath207 ( independent of the choice of the contact structure on the new glued - in solid torus ) .
according to the bennequin inequality this knot can not lie in a tight contact structure .
so for @xmath206 it is not possible to have a non - trivial contact surgery from @xmath2 to itself .    for @xmath208 one looks at the second example from subsection [ subsection : computtingtb ] .
in figure [ fig : proofofcontactsurgerytheorem21 ] it is shown ( again by doing a rolfsen twist ) that @xmath133 becomes in the new surgered manifold a negative @xmath209-torus knot @xmath210 . in (
* section  1 ) it is shown that the maximal @xmath110-number of such a knot in @xmath2 is given by @xmath211 , which is smaller than @xmath212 . for @xmath13
not coarse equivalent to an legendrian unknot of the form @xmath107 this example can be realized as a contact surgery along a legendrian knot , which proves the result .
the next natural question is if there exists ( like in the topological case ) legendrian links not determined by the contactomorphism type of their exteriors . if one wants to generalize the examples of whitehead one needs a contact analogon of a rolfsen twist . in the example from section  [ section : contactsurgery ] i gave a contact surgery from @xmath2 to @xmath2 .
topologically this surgery represents a @xmath103-dehn surgery along an unknot .
deleting such components from contact surgery diagrams leads to a contact analogon of a @xmath105-rolfsen twist .
but it is not clear how the rest of the diagram changes then .
+ figure  [ fig : rolfsentwist ] shows two moves for contact dehn surgery diagrams .
there , @xmath10 is an arbitrary legendrian link with surgery coefficients @xmath101 , that can go arbitrarily often through the unknot ( even one knot several times is allowed ) .
+ of course one can do such a contact rolfsen twist more than once , this corresponds to doing @xmath213-contact dehn surgeries along @xmath116 legendrian push - offs of the unknot .
it is easy to see that this is the same as doing a single contact dehn surgery along the unknot with contact surgery coefficient @xmath214 .
+ first of all one observes that the first row in figure  [ fig : rolfsentwist ] maps to the second row under the contactomorphism @xmath102 .
so it is enough to prove the second row .    for this
, one observes that one can put the whole legendrian link @xmath10 together with the legendrian unknot @xmath13 on the pages of an abstract open book for @xmath2 ( see for example ( * ? ? ? * proof of theorem  5.5 ) ) .
a part of this abstract open book is shown in figure  [ fig : rolfsenopenbook ] .
the page is pictured in gray and a part of the monodromy is described as a right handed dehn twist along the blue curve .
one has to read the red curve in the open book , as necessarily many parallel copies .
observe that the abstract open book determines the contact manifold only up to contactomorphism , as the surgery diagram does .
next one constructs from this an abstract open book for the surgered manifold as explained in @xcite .
first , one puts the legendrian link @xmath10 together with the legendrian unknots @xmath215 and @xmath216 from the @xmath217-surgery diagram on the page of an abstract open book for @xmath2 .
this is shown in figure  [ fig : rolfsenproofneu ] on the upper right side .
the additional stabilization of the legendrian unknot @xmath216 corresponds to a stabilization of the open book as shown in ( * ? ? ?
* figure 1 and 2 ) .
the monodromy of the open book for @xmath2 is given by right handed dehn twists along the blue curves .
the monodromy of the surgered manifold is obtained by composing this old monodromoy with right handed dehn twists along the @xmath105-surgery knot and left handed dehn twists along the @xmath103-surgery knot ( see ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 8) ) .
two dehn twists cancel each other and one gets the open book in the bottom right corner of figure  [ fig : rolfsenproofneu ] .
that open book represents the surgery diagram of the once stabilized legendrian link @xmath10 shown in the bottom left corner of figure  [ fig : rolfsenproofneu ] .
observe also that the topological surgery coefficients of @xmath10 change exactly as prescribed by the topological rolfsen twists .
[ counterexamples to the legendrian link complement problem ] + with this contact rolfsen twist one can give counterexamples to the legendrian link complement problem .
but it is not as easy as in the topological setting .
the main point there was that the new glued - in solid tori is again a tubular neighborhood of the spine of this torus .
this is not the case in the contact setting .    to see this ,
consider a legendrian knot @xmath18 in a contact @xmath0-manifold @xmath72 and the result of contact surgery along this knot @xmath95 .
then the slope of the new glued - in solid torus is @xmath19 .
but if this new glued - in solid torus would be the standard neighborhood of a legendrian knot then the slope would be of the form @xmath218 .
so for general @xmath19 this is not the case .
therefore , one looks at the contact surgery diagram with one @xmath103-surgery along @xmath215 and one @xmath105-surgery along @xmath216 . the new glued - in solid tori are again in a canonical way standard neighborhoods of the legendrian spines @xmath219 and @xmath220 . from the proof of the lemma it follows that this spines @xmath219 and @xmath220 lie in the resulting surgery diagram as shown in figure  [ fig : rolfsentwistmitseele ] .
+ ( 1 ) consider the two legendrian links @xmath221 and @xmath222 in @xmath2 as depicted in figure  [ fig : counterexample1 ] .
these two links are not equivalent because their triples of @xmath110-numbers are different : @xmath223 ; @xmath224 .
but their exteriors are contactomorphic , as one can see as follows .
one does a @xmath103-surgery along @xmath215 and a @xmath105-surgery along @xmath216 .
the resulting manifold is again @xmath2 , in which the legendrian knot @xmath10 looks now like @xmath225 in figure  [ fig : counterexample1 ] on the right .
so in the exteriors of @xmath226 and @xmath227 the legendrian knots @xmath10 and @xmath225 are the same .     + ( 2 ) one can also get examples with different topological types and the same @xmath110-numbers . for that consider the legendrian links in figure  [ fig : counterexample2 ] similar to the whitehead links as in the example from section  [ section : complement ] . in the left legendrian link in figure  [ fig : counterexample2 ] all three knots are unknots , but in the right link the knot @xmath225 is non - trivial , so they can not be equivalent .
but their exteriors are contactomorphic with the same argument as in the foregoing example .
+ ( 3 ) by doing contact dehn surgeries corresponding to an @xmath116-fold rolfsen twist , for @xmath208 , one gets in both foregoing examples infinitely many different legendrian links with contactomorphic exteriors .
instead of looking at legendrian knots in @xmath2 one can also look at legendrian knots in general contact @xmath0-manifolds and study the legendrian knot exterior problem for these knots . before studying the contact case in the next section ,
i first recall some basic facts about this problem in the topological setting .    of course
, one can transfer this problem in an arbitrary manifold to a problem concerning dehn surgery like before in the proof of theorem  [ thm : gordon - luecke1 ] .
+ let @xmath18 be a knot in a @xmath0-manifold @xmath5 , such that there is no non - trivial dehn surgery along @xmath18 resulting again in @xmath5 .
then the equivalence type of @xmath18 is determined by the diffeomorphism type of its complement .    but
to proof the hypothesis of this lemma turns out to be very difficult and in general , both , the conclusion and the hypothesis of the lemma are not true . to see this ,
consider the following counterexample ( see also @xcite ) .
[ two non - equivalent knots with the same complements ] + consider two different dehn surgeries along the unknot @xmath13 in @xmath1 with the ( topological ) surgery coefficients @xmath228 and @xmath229 , leading to the lens spaces @xmath230 and @xmath231 . by the classification of lens spaces ( * ? ? ?
* exercise  5.3.8 .
( b ) ) this two lens spaces are orientation preserving homeomorphic and the homeomorphism is given by interchanging the two solid tori ( see also ( * ? ? ?
* section  2 ) ) .    from this dehn surgery example
it is easy to find two non - equivalent knots with the same exteriors . for this write
+   +    ( 0,5)*+l(5,2)=``a'';(10,5)*+=``a1 '' ; ( 24,5)*+s^3_u ( r_i)=``b '' ; ( 39,5)*+:==``b1 '' ; ( 52,5)*+s^1d^2=``c '' ; ( 70,5)*++=``d '' ; ( 90,5)*+s^3=``e'';(104,5)*+/_~=``e1'';(52,0)*+_0=``f '' ; ( 89,0)*+r_i=``g'';@|- > `` f'';``g '' ;     +   + and consider the knots @xmath232 the knots @xmath16 and @xmath17 given as the spines of the new glued - in solid tori represents the spines of the genus-1 heegaard splitting of @xmath230 . as tubular neighborhood of @xmath66 one chooses the whole new glued - in solid tori @xmath36 , therefore the exterior is in both cases @xmath233 .
it remains to show that these two knots are not equivalent .
therefore , assume that there is an orientation preserving homeomorphism @xmath234 by restricting @xmath6 to the complementary solid tori @xmath235 one gets a homeomorphism @xmath236 which sends the slope @xmath237 to the slope @xmath238 .
but such a map can not exists because all orientation preserving homeomorphisms of solid tori are isotopic to dehn twists along meridians .
so @xmath16 is not orientation preserving equivalent to @xmath17 in @xmath230 .    with the same methods as above it is easy to show ( see @xcite ) that if @xmath16 and @xmath17 are the cores of the two solid tori in the standard heegaard splitting of @xmath190 , then they have homeomorphic complements , but there is an orientation preserving ( reversing ) homeomorphism of @xmath190 sending @xmath16 to @xmath17 if and only if @xmath239 ( @xmath240 ) .
the key point in the foregoing examples is that there is a so called * exotic cosmetic surgery * , that means two surgeries along the same knot resulting in the same manifold but with different slopes , such that there is no homeomorphism of the knot exterior mapping one slope to the other ( see @xcite ) .
one can show that every knot in a given @xmath0-manifold is determined by its complement if and only if this manifold can not be obtained by exotic cosmetic surgery from another manifold .
[ thm : cosmetic ] + the following two claims are equivalent .    1 .
let @xmath16 and @xmath17 be knots in a closed @xmath0-manifold @xmath5 with homeomorphic complements .
then @xmath16 is equivalent to @xmath17 .
2 .   let @xmath241 be a knot in a closed @xmath0-manifold @xmath242 , such that @xmath243 and @xmath244 are both homeomorphic to @xmath5 ( for @xmath245 ) .
then there exists a homeomorphism of the knot exterior @xmath246 mapping one slope to the other .     + ( 1 ) the statement holds in the oriented and unoriented case .
+ ( 2 ) one can take the manifold @xmath242 to be homeomorphic to @xmath5 , this explains the name cosmetic surgery .
[ proof of theorem  [ thm : cosmetic ] ] + the proof of @xmath247 works exactly as in the foregoing example .
the implication @xmath248 is similar to the proof of theorem  [ thm : gordon - luecke1 ] .
so the study of the knot complement problem is equivalent to the study of exotic cosmetic surgeries . in the topological
setting some is known , but much remains open . beside the discussed knot complement theorem for knots in @xmath1 , gabai showed in @xcite that knots in @xmath104 ( or more generally in a connected sum of arbitrary @xmath249- or @xmath250-bundles over @xmath75 ) are determined by their complements .
but in general manifolds this will not hold .
building up on work by mathieu @xcite , rong classified in @xcite all knots in @xmath0-manifolds with seifert fibered complements , that are not determined by their complements .
this knots are given by the spines of the solid tori in the standard heegaard splitting of some special lens spaces @xmath190 as described at the beginning of this section or as exceptional fibers of index @xmath71 in special seifert fibered manifolds .
but all this homeomorphisms sending one of the exceptional fibers to another one have to be orientation reversing .
later matignon @xcite proved that all non - hyperbolic knots in atoroidal irreducible seifert fibered @xmath0-manifolds are determined by their complements ( except the cores of the standard heegaard splittings in lens spaces ) .    for hyperbolic knots
there is until now only one counterexample . in @xcite bleiler ,
hodgson and weeks construct two non - equivalent hyperbolic knots in @xmath251 with orientation reversing homeomorphic complements .
they also give very good reasons for the conjecture that all knots in hyperbolic @xmath0-manifolds are determined by their oriented complements .
recently ichihara and jong @xcite found examples of knots in hyperbolic manifolds with orientation reversing homeomorpic complements .
all together this leads to the still open oriented knot complement conjecture in general manifolds :     + if @xmath16 and @xmath17 are knots in a closed oriented @xmath0-manifold @xmath5 with orientation preserving homeomorphic complements ( not homeomorphic to @xmath36 ) , then the knots are orientation preserving equivalent .    with theorem [ thm : cosmetic ] and the following remark
this is equivalent to the cosmetic surgery conjecture formulated in @xcite :     + exotic cosmetic surgeries ( not resulting in a lens space ) are never orientation preserving ( or * truly * ) cosmetic .
many of the mentioned results rely on the classification of all dehn surgeries in a solid torus resulting again in a solid torus by berge @xcite and gabai @xcite .
but in the last years also heegaard floer homology turned out to be a very useful tool to study such questions .
for example , wang @xcite showed that there are no exotic dehn surgeries along seifert genus-@xmath37 knots in @xmath1 .
the same holds for non - trivial algebraic knots in @xmath1 by @xcite .
finally , in @xcite and @xcite it is shown that knots in @xmath10-space homology spheres are determined by their complements .
in particular , knots in the poincar sphere are determined up to orientation preserving equivalence by the oriented homeomorphism types of their complements .
as far as i know , nothing is known about this in the contact setting .
the question is which results from the topological setting generalize to the contact setting and where are the differences . in the foregoing section
i presented examples of non - equivalent knots in lens spaces with homeomorphic exteriors .
the first interesting question is if one can generalize this examples to the contact setting .
[ non - equivalent legendrian knots with the same complements ] + consider a legendrian knot @xmath18 with @xmath252 .
a standard neighborhood of @xmath18 is given by @xmath253 the surface longitude is given by @xmath254 and the contact longitude by @xmath218 .
take two copies @xmath255 and @xmath256 of this standard neighborhood and glue them together along their boundaries to obtain the lens space @xmath190 as follows : +   +    ( 20,10)*+l(p , q)=``a'';(30,10)*+==``a1 '' ; ( 40,10)*+v_1=``c '' ; ( 60,10)*++=``d '' ; ( 80,10)*+v_2=``e'';(95,10)*+/_~=``e1'';(40,5)*+_1=``f '' ; ( 80,5)*+-q_2+p_2,=``g'';(40,0)*+_1=``h '' ; ( 80,0)*+r_2+s_2,=``i'';@|- > `` f'';``g '' ; @|- > `` h'';``i '' ;     +   + where @xmath257 .
it is a standard fact that the contact structures on the solid tori fit together to a contact structure in the new lens space @xmath190 if the gluing map sends the contact longitude of @xmath258 to the contact longitude of @xmath259 .
this leads to the conditions @xmath260 and @xmath261 . putting this together
it follows that @xmath262 .
in particular , it follows that if a contact lens space is obtained by gluing together two standard neighborhoods of legendrian knots , then the lens space is of the form @xmath263 .
but in this case the spines @xmath16 and @xmath17 of the heegaard tori are topologically equivalent , as was explained in the foregoing section .
( 20,10)*+l(p , p-1)=``a'';(32,10)*+==``a1 '' ; ( 40,10)*+v_1=``c '' ; ( 60,10)*++=``d '' ; ( 80,10)*+v_2=``e'';(95,10)*+/_~=``e1'';(40,5)*+_1=``f '' ; ( 80,5)*+(1+pn)_2+p_2,=``g'';(40,0)*+_1=``h '' ; ( 80,0)*+-pn^2_2+(1-pn)_2.=``i'';@|- > `` f'';``g '' ; @|- > `` h'';``i '' ;     +   + this gluing map sends the contact longitude of @xmath258 to the contact longitude of @xmath259 and leads therefore to a contact structure on the lens space . the legendrian knots @xmath16 and @xmath17 represent the spines of the heegaard tori in this lens space .
therefore they both have order @xmath264 in @xmath265 .
the extended seifert longitude @xmath63 of @xmath17 is given by @xmath266 ( it is nullhomologous in the exterior of @xmath17 and @xmath267 . )
so one computes @xmath268 to compute @xmath269 one first computes the inverse gluing map as : +   +    ( 20,10)*+l(p , p-1)=``a'';(32,10)*+==``a1 '' ; ( 40,10)*+v_2=``c '' ; ( 60,10)*++=``d '' ; ( 80,10)*+v_1=``e'';(95,10)*+/_~=``e1'';(40,5)*+_2=``f '' ; ( 80,5)*+(1-pn)_1-p_1,=``g'';(40,0)*+_2=``h '' ; ( 80,0)*+pn^2_1+(1+pn)_1.=``i'';@|- > `` f'';``g '' ; @|- > `` h'';``i '' ;     +   + then one sees that the extended seifert longitude of @xmath16 is given by @xmath270 and so @xmath271 so the rational thurston - bennequin invariants are different , therefore @xmath16 and @xmath17 are not legendrian isotopic and then also not coarse equivalent .
so in contrast to the topological case one gets obvious counterexamples to the legendrian knot exterior conjectures exactly in the lens spaces @xmath263 .
it would be interesting if one can generalize the examples from this section to a general classification result in lens spaces .      a first step to study the legendrian knot exterior problem in general contact manifolds
would be a generalization of theorem  [ thm : cosmetic ] .
the generalization of the implication @xmath248 one can prove similarly to the proof of theorem  [ thm : contact1 ] .
+ let @xmath18 be a legendrian knot in a contact manifold @xmath72 , such that there is no non - trivial contact dehn surgery along @xmath18 resulting again in @xmath72 .
then the equivalence type of @xmath18 is determined by the contactomorphism type of its exterior .
but the other implication does not generalize .
the problem is again that the new glued - in solid torus is in general not a standard neighborhood of a legendrian knot as explained in section  [ counterexample ] .
so it is not directly clear if exotic cosmetic contact surgeries leads to counterexamples to the legendrian knot exterior problem .
but their existence is interesting in its own .
the following example was obtained earlier by geiges and onaran ( see also @xcite ) .    [ exotic contact surgeries ] + consider the two different contact dehn surgeries along the legendrian unknot @xmath13 with @xmath96 in @xmath2 with respect to the contact surgery coefficients @xmath272 and @xmath273 ( see figure [ fig : lensspace ] ) . by expressing the surgery coefficients with respect to the surface
longitude @xmath39 given by the meridian of the complementary solid torus one sees that the resulting manifolds are topologically the manifolds from the example from the foregoing section , so the homeomorphic lens spaces @xmath230 and @xmath231 .
the next thing i want to show is that the two contact surgeries are unique and represent the same contact manifold .
therefore one uses the same approach as in the example in section  [ section : contactsurgery ] . the same argument as in that example shows that the two surgery diagrams both represent a unique contact structure @xmath91 on @xmath230 .
the from the algorithm ( * ? ? ?
* section 1 ) resulting @xmath217-contact surgery diagrams are shown in figure [ fig : lensspace ] in the middle ( for both contact surgeries is only one of the two possible stabilizations drawn ) .
both surgery diagrams contain only @xmath105-contact surgeries , so the resulting contact structures have to be tight .
but the classification of tight contact structures on lens spaces ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 2.1 ) says that on @xmath230 there are two non - contactomorphic tight contact structures , so in this case this is not enough to conclude that these surgery diagrams represent the same contact manifold .    to show that the contact structures of the two different surgeries are really contactomorphic one changes the contact dehn surgery diagrams into compatible open book decompositions ( for details see for example @xcite ) .
the resulting open books are shown in figure [ fig : lensspace ] on the right .
all colored curves represent right - handed dehn twists , the blue ones correspond to the monodromy of the open book decomposition of @xmath2 and the red and orange curves represent the dehn twists corresponding to the same colored legendrian links .
all dehn twists together represent the monodromy of @xmath274 . by interchanging the holes , these two open books are the same , and therefore represent the same contact manifolds .
these cosmetic contact surgeries are exotic because the corresponding topological cosmetic surgeries are exotic ( i.e. there is no homeomorphism of the exterior of the unknot that maps one slope to the other ) .    with exactly the same methods one can get many other examples of this kind . for example
, by contact dehn surgery along @xmath13 with contact surgery coefficients @xmath275 and @xmath276 one gets contactomorphic contact structures on the lens spaces @xmath277 and @xmath278 .
an easy consequence of the contact dehn surgery theorem [ thm : contact2 ] is that the only possible candidates for legendrian knots in @xmath2 admitting a ( non - trivial ) contact surgery resulting again in @xmath2 are the legendrian unknots of type @xmath107 .    that cosmetic contact surgeries along such knots really exists was shown in the example in section  [ section : contactsurgery ] .
it is also possible to show that every legendrian unknot of type @xmath107 admits ( infinitely many ) cosmetic contact surgeries resulting again in @xmath2 . by computing explicitly the @xmath279-invariants ( see @xcite ) of all other contact surgeries one can show that these are the only cosmetic contact surgeries from @xmath2 to @xmath2 .
moreover , in section [ counterexample ] i showed that all topological examples of links not determined by their complements , where one does a composition of @xmath105-rolfsen twist along unknot components , works also for the contact case .
but in the topological category there are also examples that do not arise in this way .
teragaito @xcite and ichihara @xcite construct , building up on unpublished work of berge , links in @xmath1 with no unknot components , such that non - trivial dehn surgery along that link leads again to @xmath1 .
similar to the arguments in theorem [ thm : cosmetic ] this leads to links not determined by their complements .
gordon proves in @xcite that for every such link ( not determined by its complement , but without unknot components ) there exists only finitely many other links with homeomorphic complements .
finally in @xcite the reverse question is considered .
they study links that * are * determined by their complements .
i would like to thank sebastian durst , hansjrg geiges , mirko klukas and sinem onaran for reading earlier versions of this article and for many useful discussions and suggestions .
part of this work was supported by the dfg graduiertenkolleg 1269 `` global structures in geometry and analysis '' .
r. avdek , contact surgery and supporting open books , _ algebr .
_ * 13 * ( 2013 ) , 1613 - 1660 .
k. baker and j. grigsby , grid diagrams and legendrian lens space links , _ j. symplectic geom . _ * 7 * ( 2009 ) , 415 - 448 .
j. berge , the knots in @xmath280 which have nontrivial dehn surgeries that yield @xmath280 , _ topology appl .
_ * 38 * ( 1991 ) , 1 - 19 .
s. bleiler , c. hodgson and j. weeks , cosmetic surgery on knots , in _ proceedings of the kirbyfest _ , 23 - 34 ,
geometry and topology monographs * 2 * , coventry ( 1999 ) .
j. conway , transverse surgery on knots in contact 3-manifolds , preprint available on : + http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7077 f. ding and h. geiges , symplectic fillability of tight contact structures on torus bundles , _ algebr .
_ * 1 * ( 2001 ) , 153 - 172 .
f. ding and h. geiges , a legendrian surgery presentation of contact @xmath0-manifolds , _ math .
cambridge philos .
* 136 * ( 2004 ) , 583 - 598 .
f. ding and h. geiges , the diffeotopy group of @xmath104 via contact topology , _ compos .
_ * 146 * ( 2010 ) , 1096 - 1112 .
f. ding , h. geiges and a. i. stipsicz , surgery diagrams for contact @xmath0-manifolds , _ turkish j. math .
_ * 28 * ( 2004 ) , 41 - 74 .
s. durst and m. kegel , computing rotation and self - linking numbers , preprint s. durst , m. kegel and m. klukas , computing the thurston - bennequin invariant in open books , preprint j. edwards , concentricity in @xmath0-manifolds , _ trans .
* 113 * ( 1964 ) , 406 - 423 .
y. eliashberg and m. fraser , topologically trivial legendrian knots , _ j. symplectic geom . _
* 7 * ( 2009 ) , 77 - 127 .
j. etnyre , convex surfaces in contact geometry : class notes , lecture notes available on : http://people.math.gatech.edu/~etnyre/preprints/papers/surfaces.pdf j. etnyre and k. honda , knots and contact geometry i : torus knots and the figure eight knot , _ j. symplectic geom . _ * 1 * ( 2001 ) , 63 - 120 .
j. etnyre , legendrian and transversal knots , in : _ handbook of knot theory _ ( w. menasco and m. thistlethwaite , eds . ) ,
elsevier , amsterdam ( 2005 ) , 105 - 185 d. gabai , foliations and the topology of @xmath0-manifolds ii , _ j. differential geom .
_ * 26 * ( 1987 ) , 461 - 478 .
d. gabai , surgery on knots in solid tori , _ topology _ * 28 * ( 1989 ) , 1 - 6 .
f. gainullin , heegaard floer homology and knots determined by their complements , preprint available on : http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06180 h. geiges , _ an introduction to contact topology _ , cambridge stud .
adv . math .
* 109 * ( cambridge university press , 2008 ) .
h. geiges and s. onaran , legendrian rational unknots in lens spaces , _
j. symplectic geom . _ * 13 * ( 2015 ) , 17 - 50 . r. e. gompf and a. i. stipsicz , _ @xmath281-manifolds and kirby calculus _ ,
* 20 * ( american mathematical society , providence , ri , 1999 ) .
c. gordon , links and their complements , in : `` topology and geometry : commemorating sistag '' , 71 - 82 , contemp . math . * 314 * ( american mathematical society , 2002 ) .
c. gordon and j. luecke , knots are determined by their complements , _
* 2 * ( 1989 ) , 371 - 415 .
k. honda , on the classification of tight contact structures i , _ geom .
* 4 * ( 2000 ) , 309 - 368 .
k. ichihara , on tunnel number one links with surgeries yielding the @xmath0-sphere , _ osaka j. math . _
* 47 * , number 1 ( 2010 ) , 189 - 208 .
k. ichihara and i. jong , cosmetic banding on knots and links , preprint available on : + http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01542 m. kegel , kontakt - dehn - chirurgie entlang legendre - knoten , bachelorarbeit , universitt zu kln ( 2011 ) , available online : http://www.mi.uni-koeln.de/~mkegel/downloads.html p. lisca , p. ozsvth , a. i. stipsicz and z. szab , heegaard floer invariants of legendrian knots in contact three - manifolds , _ j. eur . math .
soc . _ ( jems ) * 11 * ( 2009 ) , 1307 - 1363 .
y. mathieu , closed @xmath0-manifolds unchanged by dehn surgery , _ j. knot theory ramifications _ * 1 * ( 1992 ) , 279 - 296 .
d. matignon , on the knot complement problem for non - hyperbolic knots , _ topology appl . _
* 157 * ( 2010 ) , 1900 - 1925 .
h. matsuda , m. ozawa and k. shimokawa on non - simple reflexive links , _
j. knot theory ramifications _ * 11 * ( 2002 ) , 787 - 791 .
b. zbaci an open book decomposition compatible with rational contact surgery , _ proceedings of gkova geometry - topology conference _ ( 2005 ) , 175 - 186 .
v. v. prasolov and a. b. sossinsky , _ knots , links , braids and @xmath0-manifolds _ , transl .
* 154 * ( american mathematical society , providence , 1997 ) .
h. ravelomanana , exceptional cosmetic surgeries on @xmath1 , preprint available on : + http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.00238 h. ravelomanana , knot complement problem for @xmath10-space @xmath282 , preprint available on : http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.00239 d. rolfsen , _ knots and links _ , mathematics lecture series * 7 * ( publish or perish , berkeley , 1976 ) .
y. rong , some knots not determined by their complements , in : `` quantum topology '' , ser .
knots everything * 3 * , ( world sci .
publishing , river edge , nj , 1993 ) , 339 - 353 .
m. teragaito , links with surgery yielding the @xmath0-sphere , _ j. knot theory ramifications _ * 11 * ( 2002 ) , 105 - 108 . h. tietze , ber die topologischen invarianten mehrdimensionaler mannigfaltigkeiten , _ monatshefte fr mathematik und physik _ * 19 * ( 1908 ) , 1 - 118 .
j. wang , cosmetic surgeries on genus one knots , _ algebr .
_ * 6 * ( 2006 ) , 1491 - 1517 . j. h. c. whitehead , on doubled knots ,
_ j. london math .
* 12 * ( 1937 ) , 63 - 71 .