2-systems of arcs on spheres with prescribed endpoints (Q2153820)

Let \(S\) be an \(n\)-punctured sphere with \(n \geq 3\). A \(k\)-system of arcs on \(S\) is a collection \(\mathcal{A}\) of essential simple arcs on \(S\) such that if \(\alpha, \beta \in \mathcal{A}\) then (i) \(\alpha\) is not homotopic to \(\beta\) and (ii) the geometric intersection number of \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) is at most \(k\). \textit{P. Przytycki} [Geom. Funct. Anal. 25, No. 2, 658--670 (2015; Zbl 1319.57016)] proved that the maximum size of a 1-system of arcs on \(S\) joining two prescribed (not necessarily distinct) punctures \(p\) and \(q\) of \(S\) is \(\binom{n-1}{2}\). \textit{A. Bar-Natan} [Groups Geom. Dyn. 14, No. 4, 1309--1332 (2020; Zbl 1470.57029)] showed that the maximum size of a 2-system of arcs on \(S\) starting and ending at a prescribed puncture \(p\) is \(\binom{n}{3}\). Theorem 1.3 in this article shows that Bar-Natan's result holds even when the arcs start and end at two distinct fixed punctures \(p\) and \(q\) of \(S\). More precisely, it shows that the maximum size of a 2-system of arcs on \(S\) joining two prescribed distinct punctures \(p\) and \(q\) of \(S\) is \(\binom{n}{3}\). So together, Bar-Natan's result and Theorem 1.3 of the current article, show that the maximum size of a 2-system of arcs on \(S\) joining two prescribed (not necessarily distinct) punctures \(p\) and \(q\) of \(S\) is \(\binom{n}{3}\). The author gives an explicit example of a 2-system of arcs joining a fixed pair of distinct punctures on \(S\) whose size is \(\binom{n}{3}\) hence proving that the bound in Theorem 1.3 is tight. The proof of Theorem 1.3 is by induction on the number of punctures of \(S\), the base case being \(n=3\). A key Lemma 1.4 in the article is used to control the number of arcs that become homotopic after forgetting a puncture on \(S\). To prove Lemma 1.4, the author uses annular square diagrams and in doing so, proves Theorem 1.5 that asserts that a 1-system annular diagram is either a cycle or has a corner on each of its boundary paths. A direct proof of a result given by the referee of the article which circumvents the need to venture into annular diagrams for the proof of Lemma 1.4 is also included.