Automorphisms of the fine 1-curve graph

There are two cases, depending on the genus g. We begin by showing that automorphisms of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g) induce automorphisms of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_\pitchfork(T) (if g=1) or \mathcal{C}^\dagger(S_g) (if g\geq 2).

Case 1: g=1. This is Proposition 5.1.

Case 2: g\geq2. We observe that homeomorphisms preserve intersection number, so any homeomorphism of S_g induces an automorphism of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g).

It remains to show that an automorphism of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g) induces a homeomorphism of S. We reduce this claim to the result of Long–Margalit–Pham–Verberne–Yao that \operatorname{Aut}\mathcal{C}^\dagger(S_g)\cong \operatorname{Homeo}(S_g) via the natural isomorphism. To do this, we show that any automorphism of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g) sends all pairs of vertices corresponding to once-intersecting curves to pairs of curves corresponding to once-intersecting curves.

By Proposition 3.1, automorphisms preserve torus pairs, and by Proposition 4.1, automorphisms preserve pants pairs. Since an edge can only correspond to a torus pair, a pants pair, or a pair of disjoint curves, we conclude that any \varphi \in \operatorname{Aut}\mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g) induces an automorphism of the image of the natural inclusion \mathcal{C}^\dagger(S_g) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g). We apply the theorem of Long–Margalit–Pham–Verberne–Yao to prove that an automorphism of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g) naturally induces a homeomorphism of S_g.

It remains to show that the maps we construct are indeed the inverses of \Phi. For the sake of clarity, we name the maps we use. Let G be \mathcal{C}^\dagger(S_g) if g\geq 2 and \mathcal{C}^\dagger_\pitchfork(T) if g=1. Let \Psi_1:\operatorname{Aut} \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g)\to \operatorname{Aut} G be the map such that \Psi_1(f)=\overline{f} is the automorphism induced by f. We note that f and \overline{f} act the same way on the vertex sets of their corresponding graphs. Let \Psi_2:\operatorname{Aut} G\to \operatorname{Homeo} (S_g) be the map constructed by Le Roux–Wolff [transaut] (if g=1) or Long–Margalit–Pham–Verberne–Yao [fineaut] (if g\geq 2). Let \varphi\in \operatorname{Homeo}(S_g). Then,

Conversely, let f\in \operatorname{Aut} \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g). Then,

We conclude that the natural map \operatorname{Aut} G\to \operatorname{Homeo}(S_g) is an isomorphism.

We will show that a curve u is separating if and only if \operatorname{link}(u) is a join. In fact, we will show that it is a 2-join.

Suppose u is separating. Then no curve in \operatorname{link}(u) can form a torus pair with u and must be either disjoint or form a pants pair with u. Therefore, every curve in \operatorname{link}(u) will lie in the closure of exactly one of the components of S_g\setminus u. Let A and B be the closures of the two components of S_g\setminus u.

We claim that \operatorname{link}(u) is a join with two parts are given by curves contained in A and the curves contained in B. Suppose a and b are curves in \operatorname{link}(u) such that a\subset A and b\subset B. Since |a\cap u|\leq 1 and |b\cap u|\leq 1, and (a\cap b) \subset u, we have that |a\cap b|\leq 1. We conclude that a and b are adjacent in \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g), thus concluding the proof of the claim.

Suppose u is not separating. Then, S_g\setminus u is a single connected component. Let a,b\in \operatorname{link}(u). Then, we can move a off of itself and isotope it to intersect a and b at least twice each and u at most once; call this new curve a'. It follows that a' is adjacent to neither a nor b, so a and b cannot be in different parts of a join. We conclude that \operatorname{link}(u) cannot be a join.

If two curves a,b\in\operatorname{link}(u) lie in the closure of the same component of S_g\setminus u, they must lie in the same part of the join \operatorname{link}(u). It follows that \operatorname{link}(u) is a 2-join. Thus, \varphi(a) and \varphi(b) are in the same part of the join \operatorname{link}(\varphi(u)) and therefore lie in the closure of the same component of S\setminus\varphi(u).

Because u and v are both separating and are either disjoint or form a pants pair, S\setminus(u\cup v) must have three connected components. By a similar argument to Lemma 2.1, \operatorname{link}(u,v) is a 3-join induced by said components. Moreover, the link of a pair of adjacent nonseparating curves or a nonseparating and separating adjacent pair of curves is not a 3-join. This follows directly using the same argument that the link of a nonseparating curve is not a join and from the fact that such pairs will not split a surface into three connected components.

If u and v are homotopic as in Figure ?, then one of the components of S\setminus(u\cup v) is a (possibly pinched) annulus. All essential curves that lie in the (possibly pinched) annulus are separating, so it follows that one of the parts is comprised of separating curves.

If u and v are not homotopic as in Figure ?, then S\setminus(u\cup v) consists of three components, each of which has genus. Therefore, each component supports a nonseparating curve. It follows that all parts of the join contain a nonseparating curve.

The backwards direction follows by definition, so we only need to prove the forwards direction. Let \psi:S^1 \times I \rightarrow S_g be a homotopy as in Lemma 2.4. For each point t_i \in I, choose an interval T_i = [s_i, s'_i] \subseteq I with s_i \neq s'_i that contains t_i such that the set \psi(S^1 \times T_i) is contained in a (possibly pinched) annulus A_i, such that A_i intersects u and v in at most one point each. Since I is compact, there is a finite collection of such intervals T_1,\ldots, T_n whose interiors cover I. By restricting each T_i, we may assume that s'_i = s_{i+1} for all 0 \leq i < n.

Observe that if two separating curves x,y \subseteq S_g are contained in the interior of a (possibly pinched) annulus A, then a curve z\subset \partial A is both adjacent and homotopic to x and y, forming a path of length two between x and y. For each T_i, there are two curves x_i=\psi(S^1\times \{s_i\}) and y_i=\psi(S^1\times \{s'_i\}) given by the restriction of \psi to each endpoint of T_i such that x_i and y_i both each intersect u and v in at most one point, since we have assumed the same for A_i. Hence each x_i and y_i are vertices in \operatorname{link}(u,v). Then each x_i is connected by a path of length 2 in \operatorname{link}(u,v) to y_i. We have chosen the T_i in such way that y_i = x_{i+1} for 0 \leq i < n. Then x_0 = a and y_n = b by construction, so there is a path from x_0 to y_n of length 2n in \operatorname{link}(u,v), such that each vertex of this path is homotopic to a, so the lemma holds.

There are three cases to consider.

Case 1: u and v are on the same side of a. Since a and b are isotopic, u and v must be on the same side of b as well. Choose an annulus A with a \subseteq \partial A such that A is supported on the side of a that does not contain u and v. Then a is homotopic to the other boundary component a' of A, and each curve in this homotopy is disjoint from u and v (besides a itself). Similarly, construct b' adjacent to b. Then a' and b' are disjoint from u and v, so there is a homotopy between a' and b' that consists only of vertices of \operatorname{link}(u,v) disjoint from u and v. Let \psi:S^1 \times I be the resulting homotopy from a to b. Then for any t \in I, there is an annulus A_t containing \psi(S^1 \times \{t\}) that contains \psi(S^1 \times T) for some closed neighborhood of t, and that only intersects u and v each in at most one point, namely either the points of intersection of a with u and v, or the points of intersection of b with u and v, so the lemma holds.

Case 2: u and v are on opposite sides of a, and u and v are disjoint. As in Case 1, it suffices to show that a is homotopic to a' \in \operatorname{link}(u,v) disjoint from u and v via vertices of \operatorname{link}(u,v). Since u and v are disjoint, we can choose closed annuli A_u and A_v such that u \subseteq A_u, v \subseteq A_v, and A_u \cap a, A_v \cap a are each either connected or empty. If A_u \cap a is nonempty, let d_u be the unique subinterval of \partial A_u that connects the two points of intersection a \cap A_u to each other, such that the path A_u \cap a is homotopic rel \partial A_u \cap a to d_u. Let a'' be the curve given by removing a \cap A_u from a and replacing it with d_u. Construct d_v similarly, and let a' be the resulting curve given by removing a'' \cap A = a \cap A and replacing it with d_v. Then a is homotopic to a' and a' is disjoint from u and v. Repeat this same process for b to get b', and then a' and b' are homotopic through vertices disjoint from u and v. Similarly to Case I, this completes the proof of the Lemma in this case.

Case 3: u and v are on opposite sides of a, and u and v intersect. Let \delta be the unique point of intersection in u \cap v. Since u and v are on opposite sides of a, we see that \delta \in a. Now, since b is homotopic to a, it must be the case that u and v are on opposite sides of b as well. Therefore, \delta \in b as well. Now, we can think of \delta as a marked point and identify a, b, u, and v with arcs \overline{a},\ \overline{b},\ \overline{u}, and \overline{v}, respectively, based at \delta. We see that \overline{a} and \overline{b} are disjoint from \overline{u} and \overline{v}, since as curves a and b only intersect u and v each at most once. Hence the arcs \overline{a} and \overline{b} are homotopic to each other in the marked surface (S_g, \delta) via a path of arcs disjoint from \overline{u} and \overline{v}. But then this homotopy of arcs is canonically identifies with a homotopy of curves in \operatorname{link}(u,v) that all intersect u and v only at \delta. Let \psi be the resulting homotopy. For any t \in I, there is a pinched annulus A containing \psi(S^1 \times T) for some closed neighborhood t \in T, such that A intersects u and v only at \delta, so the lemma holds.

By Lemma 2.1, \varphi induces an isomorphism between \operatorname{link}^{\operatorname{sep}}(u,v) and \operatorname{link}^{\operatorname{sep}}(\varphi(u), \varphi(v)). Then by Lemma 2.2, \varphi preserves disjoint homotopic separating curves. Hence if d, d' \in \operatorname{link}^{\operatorname{sep}}(u,v) map to the same point in \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}}(u,v), then \varphi(d) and \varphi(d') must map to the same point in \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}}(\varphi(u), \varphi(v)). Therefore the isomorphism \operatorname{link}^{\operatorname{sep}}(u,v) \cong \operatorname{link}^{\operatorname{sep}}(\varphi(u), \varphi(v)) descends to an isomorphism \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}}(u,v) \cong \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}}(\varphi(u), \varphi(v)).

Let u,v be as in the statement of the proposition and let \varphi \in \operatorname{Aut}\mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g). Since \varphi is invertible, it suffices to show that (u,v) a torus pair implies (\varphi(u), \varphi(v)) a torus pair. By Lemma 3.2, Q^{\operatorname{sep}}(u,v) is a cone. Then by Lemma 2.5, Q^{\operatorname{sep}}(\varphi(u), \varphi(v)) is a cone. Therefore (\varphi(u), \varphi(v)) is a torus pair by Lemma 3.2.

We first assume that (u,v) is a torus pair and show that Q^{\operatorname{sep}}(u,v) is a cone. We then assume that (u,v) is not a torus pair, and show that Q^{\operatorname{sep}}(u,v) is not a cone.

Suppose (u,v) is a torus pair. Consider the homotopy class \mathcal{H} of curves in \operatorname{link}(u,v) homotopic to the boundary of the torus that u and v fill. By Lemma 2.3, \mathcal{H} descends to a single point in Q^{\operatorname{sep}}(u,v).

Let a \in \operatorname{link}(u,v)\setminus \mathcal{H} be a separating curve. Then, a is not contained in the torus filled by u\cup v, and therefore is isotopic to a curve a' disjoint from u\cup v. Let b be the boundary of a regular neighborhood of u\cup v disjoint from a'. Thus b\in\mathcal{H} and b is disjoint from—and therefore adjacent to—a'. We therefore have that \mathcal{H} is a cone point of Q^{\operatorname{sep}}(u,v).

Suppose (u,v) is not a torus pair. We must show that there is no cone point of \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}} (u,v). We will do this by ascertaining that for any homotopy class of separating curves in \operatorname{link}(u,v), there is another homotopy class of curves that minimally intersects the first at least twice.

Let a\in\operatorname{link}(u,v) be a separating curve. Because a is separating, there must be at least one genus in each connected component of S_g\setminus a. Therefore, there is a nonseparating curve c that: 1) intersects a and cannot be homotoped to be disjoint from a, and 2) is disjoint from u\cup v.

Consider a representative b of T_{[c]}[a], the Dehn twist of [a] about [c]. The intersection number of [a] and [b] must be at least 2, so |a\cap b|\geq 2. Furthermore, since c and a are disjoint from u and v, we can choose b to be disjoint from u and v as well. Hence, the vertices in \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}} (u,v) corresponding to a and b are not adjacent, and thus the vertex corresponding to a is not a cone point.

We conclude that \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}} (u,v) has no cone points.

Let u and v be adjacent curves in \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g). We must show that if (u,v) is a pants pair, then for any \varphi\in \operatorname{Aut}\mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g), (\varphi(u),\varphi(v)) is also a pants pair. By Lemma 4.2, we may assume that u and v are nonseparating. We prove the proposition with casework.

Case 1. If u and v are homotopic, nonseparating, and form a pants pair, Lemma 4.7 asserts that \varphi(u) and \varphi(u) form a pants pair.

Case 2. If u and v are non-homotopic, nonseparating, and form a pants pair, Lemma 4.9 asserts that \varphi(u) and \varphi(u) form a pants pair.

The case that v is nonseparating. Suppose (u,v) is a pants pair. Let w\in B be a nonseparating curve that intersects u at the point u \cap v. On the other hand, suppose u and v are disjoint. Then any curve w \in B must be disjoint from v.

The case that v is separating and homotopic to u. Suppose (u,v) is a pants pair. Then, we can choose nonseparating curves a\in A and c\in C that intersect u and v at u\cap v, as in Figure ?.

Suppose u and v are disjoint. Then any curve in A is disjoint from any curve in C.

The case that v is separating and not homotopic to u. Suppose (u,v) is a pants pair. Then we can choose nonseparating curves a\in A, b\in B, and c\in C such that they pairwise form pants pairs. An example of such a selection of curves is in Figure ?.

Suppose u and v are disjoint. Take A to correspond to all curves supported in the subsurface bounded by only u and C to correspond to all curves supported in the subsurface bounded by only v. It follows that any a\in A and c\in C are disjoint.

By Proposition 3.1, torus pairs are preserved by automorphisms, and thus the set of disjoint and pants pairs are preserved by automorphisms. Disjoint and pants pairs may be jointly separating or not jointly separating; by Lemma 4.4, being (not) jointly separating is preserved by automorphisms. Finally, jointly separating pairs may be either homotopic or not. Lemma 4.5 ascertains that, within the set of jointly separating pairs, homotopic pairs are preserved by automorphisms of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g). By combining these results, we conclude that nonseparating homotopic pairs are preserved by automorphisms.

We prove the lemma by showing the following: u and v are not jointly separating if and only if there exists a separating curve c such that c separates u and v.

Suppose u and v are jointly separating. In this case, any separating curve c in \operatorname{link}(u,v) would have to lie in a single component of S\setminus(u\cup v); otherwise, c would intersect u or v at least twice. Therefore, any such c does not separate u and v.

Suppose u and v are neither jointly separating nor a torus pair. In this case, there is a separating curve that separates u from v as in Figure ?. To find such a curve, cut S along u and v (retaining the boundaries), and take c to be the separating curve that forms a (potentially pinched) pair of pants with the boundaries arising from u.

By Lemma 2.5, it is enough to show that u and v are homotopic if and only if \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}}(u,v) is not a join.

Suppose u and v are homotopic. Let [a] and [b] be distinct vertices of \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}}(u,v). Then, a and b are necessarily in the same connected component of S\setminus (u\cup v). Let c be a curve in that same component of S\setminus(u\cup v) such that no curve isotopic to c is disjoint from neither a nor b. Then, every curve in the isotopy class [d]=T_{[c]}[a], the Dehn twist of [a] about [c], intersects every curve in the isotopy class of a and every curve in the isotopy class of b at least twice. Choose a representative d of T_{[c]}[a] disjoint from u\cup v. Then we have that [d], a vertex of \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}}(u,v) is neighbors with neither [a] nor [b]. Since this is true for any [a] and [b], we conclude that \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}}(u,v) is not join.

Suppose u and v are not homotopic. Let [a] be a vertex of Q^{\operatorname{sep}}(u,v) and a\in \operatorname{link}(u,v) be an arbitrary representative. Then, a is contained in one connected component of S\setminus (u,v) except possibly for points of intersection with u and v. By pushing a off of itself in the direction away from u and v, we obtain another curve a' with [a']=[a].

We notice that no curve a' homotopic to a is contained in a different connected component of S\setminus (u\cup v) from a, since then a and a' would bound a (potentially pinched) annulus that must contain u or v, a contradiction.

We now conclude that \operatorname{\mathcal{Q}^{sep}}(u,v) is indeed a join, where the parts correspond to equivalence classes of curves contained in each of the components of S\setminus (u\cup v) (potentially except for intersections with u and v).

Since elements of \operatorname{Aut}\mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g) preserve separating links by Lemma 2.2, it is enough to show that w \in \operatorname{Ann}_{\leq1}(u,v) if and only if \operatorname{link}^{\text{sep}}(u,v)\subset \operatorname{link}^{\text{sep}}(w).

Suppose w \in \operatorname{Ann}_{\leq1}(u,v). Let a\in \operatorname{link}^{\text{sep}}(u,v). Since |w\cap (u,v)|\leq 1 and w is in the annulus bounded by u and v while a is not, |a\cap w|\leq 1. We conclude that a\in\operatorname{link}^{\text{sep}}(w).

Suppose w \not\in \operatorname{Ann}_{\leq1}(u,v). Then, w is either (1) in the annulus bounded by u and v and intersects both of them or (2) not in the annulus bounded by u and v.

Suppose w is in case (1), and take any separating curve a\in\operatorname{link}(u,v) disjoint from u\cup v. We can then isotope a to touch u and v at u\cap w and v\cap w, respectively. Thus a\not\in \operatorname{link}(w).

Suppose w is in case (2), and take any separating curve a\in\operatorname{link}(u,v). We can then isotope a to intersect w at least twice, so a\not\in\operatorname{link}(w).

We conclude that \operatorname{link}^{\text{sep}}(u,v)\not\subset \operatorname{link}^{\text{sep}}(w).

The statement follows directly from Lemma 4.8, as torus pairs (Proposition 3.1) and being an element of \operatorname{Ann}_{\leq1}(u,v) (Lemma 4.6) are both preserved by automorphisms of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(S_g).

Suppose (u,v) is a pants pair. Choose a curve \gamma\in \operatorname{link}(u,v) that forms a torus pair with u and v and passes through their point of intersection. Then, \gamma intersects every essential curve contained in \operatorname{Ann}_{\leq1}(u,v) exactly once, and is therefore adjacent to them. A schematic of this situation is pictured on the left in Figure ?.

Suppose u and v are disjoint. Choose any curve \gamma\in\operatorname{link}(u,v) that forms a torus pair with both u and v. Since an interval of \gamma lies in the annulus bounded by u and v, we can choose a curve in \operatorname{Ann}_{\leq1}(u,v) that intersects \gamma at least twice. An example of such a curve is shown on the right in Figure ?.

Suppose that u and v are disjoint. Let \alpha and \beta be as in Lemma 4.10. Then \varphi preserves property (1) of \alpha and \beta by Lemma 4.3, property (2) by Lemma 4.7, and property (3) by Lemma 4.6. Hence \varphi(\alpha) and \varphi(\beta) realize \varphi(u) and \varphi(v) as being disjoint by Lemma 4.10, so the result follows.

Suppose first that u and v are disjoint. Then, there is an annular neighborhood of u disjoint from v. The boundary components of such a neighborhood are the desired curves \alpha and \beta.

Suppose now that such \alpha and \beta exist. Let N be the annulus with boundary components \alpha and \beta. By hypothesis, u \subseteq \text{Int}(N). If u \cap v \neq \emptyset, then v must intersect either \alpha or \beta in two places, which contradicts the assumption that \alpha, \beta \in \operatorname{link}(u,v).

We first note that any homeomorphism of T induces an element of \operatorname{Aut} \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(T). It remains to show that an element of \operatorname{Aut}\mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(T) induces a homeomorphism of S.

We will reduce this claim to the theorem of Le Roux–Wolff [transaut] by showing that any automorphism of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(T) induces an automorphism of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_\pitchfork(T). It suffices to show that for any \varphi \in \operatorname{Aut}\mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(T) and any adjacent curves u and v in \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(T), we have

In particular, we must show that (u,v) is a pants pair if and only if (\varphi(u), \varphi(v)) is a pants pair. By Proposition 5.2, torus pairs are preserved by automorphisms, and by Proposition 5.7, pants pairs are distinguishable from disjoint pairs.

We therefore have that \varphi induces an element of \operatorname{Aut}\mathcal{C}^\dagger_\pitchfork(T). We now invoke Le Roux–Wolff [transaut, Theorem 1.1] that \operatorname{Homeo}(S_g)\cong \operatorname{Aut}\mathcal{C}^\dagger_\pitchfork(S_g) to complete the proof.

By Lemma 5.6, (u,v) is a torus pair if and only if there is a curve w such that (u,v,w) are of type necklace. Lemma 5.3 asserts that the property of being of necklace type is indeed combinatorial, and therefore is preserved by automorphisms of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(T).

We conclude that torus pairs are preserved by automorphisms of \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(T).

The forward direction is given by Lemma 2.8 of Le Roux–Wolff. The proof applies because all edge relations in \mathcal{C}^\dagger_\pitchfork(T) still exist in \mathcal{C}^\dagger_1(T).

The reverse direction follows from Lemma 5.5.

The cases (1,1,1), (1,1,0), and (0,0,0) are all accounted for in Le Roux–Wolff; (1,0,0) does not apply in the torus case. The remainder of the cases arise from replacing some 0’s with P’s.

Case 1: (1,1,P). In this case, we have two homotopic, touching curves and a third curve that forms a torus pair with them. There are two subcases: whether the three curves intersect at one point or at 3 distinct points.

Case 1a: one point of intersection. To create a fourth curve adjacent to all three that intersects all components of T\setminus\{a,b,c\}, we push the third curve off of itself. A schematic of this configuration is shown in Figure ?.

Case 1b: three points of intersection. The difficulty here is that T\setminus\{a,b,c\} has 3 connected components, so pushing the third curve will no longer work. In particular, a curve that satisfies the conditions of the lemma must form a torus pair with each of a, b, and c. A schematic of this configuration is shown in Figure ?, along with a curve d that satisfies the condition of the lemma.

Case 2: variants of (0,0,0): (P,0,0), (P,P,0), and (P,P,P). In all of these configurations, all of a,b,c are homotopic, and thus form (possibly pinched) annuli. A curve d transverse to a,b, and c that does not cross any of the touching points satisfies the hypotheses of the lemma. A schematic of these configurations, along with a curve d that satisfies the hypotheses of the lemma, is shown in Figure ?.

If adjacent curves a and b are disjoint or form a pants pair, then by definition, there is no third curve c such that (a,b,c) is a necklace clique.

Alternately, if a and b are a torus pair, then up to homeomorphism, they are the (1,0) and (0,1) curves on the torus. These curves, along with some (1,1) curve, form a necklace clique. A schematic of this configuration appears in Figure ?.

Property (3') follows from the definitions of torus pairs.

Proposition ? ascertains that automorphisms preserve the set of pants and disjoint pairs. Without loss of generality, we may assume that (u,v) is a pants or disjoint pair.

By Proposition 5.2, we can distinguish whether adjacent curves on a torus are homotopic, which is precisely when they are not a torus pair. Define the homotopic link of (u,v), denoted by \operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v), to be the subgraph of \operatorname{link}(u,v) induced by curves homotopic to u and v. We will prove the theorem by showing that (u,v) is a pants pair if and only if \operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v) is a join.

Suppose (u,v) is a pants pair. Then, u and v bound a pinched annulus. Any curve in \operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v) is contained in this pinched annulus or in its complement (possibly intersecting u and v). Let w\in \operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v) be contained in the pinched annulus. Then, w must intersect both u and v at u\cap v, and thus does not intersect them elsewhere. Let x\in \operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v) be contained in the complement of the pinched annulus. If x\cap (u\cup v) is nonempty, then |w\cap x|=1 if x\cap u\cap v\neq \emptyset and |w\cap x|=0 otherwise. We conclude that x and w are adjacent in \operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v), which is therefore a join with parts defined by the subsurfaces of T bounded by u and v.

Suppose (u,v) is a disjoint pair. We will show that \operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v) is not a join by showing that no possible partition exists. We have that u and v bound two annuli with boundary, A and B, and every curve in \operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v) is contained in precisely one of the two annuli.

First, we claim that curves contained in the same annulus cannot be in different parts of the partition. Let a_1,a_2\in \operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v) be contained in A. Then, there exists a curve a_3\in\operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v) contained in A that intersects a_1 and a_2 at least two times each, and is therefore adjacent to neither.

Thus, the only possible partition for a join is into two parts, each corresponding to curves contained in one of A or B. However, there is a curve a contained in A that intersects each of u and v once, and a curve b contained in B that intersects u and v at a\cap u and a\cap v, respectively. Therefore, a and b are not adjacent.

We conclude that there is no possible partition of \operatorname{link}^{\text{hom}}(u,v) into a join.