Universal families of arcs and curves on surfaces

In this proof, we work with arithmetic modulo n and the interval notations are also modulo n: for example [|n-2,2|]=\{n-2,n-1,n,1,2\}.

The proof is based on a random construction. Let us denote by \gamma_{i,j} a simple closed curve separating all the punctures in [|i,j-1|] from the others, and such that \gamma_{i,j} and \gamma_{k,\ell} are disjoint whenever [|i,j-1|] and [|k,\ell-1|] are disjoint, see Figure ?. If i=j we take a simple contractible curve disjoint from all the others.

We set p=c\log^{1/3}n/n^{1/3} and define a random set S \subseteq [|1,n|] by putting each integer in [|1,n|] in S with probability p. Then by Chernoff bounds, the set S has size at most 2cn^{2/3}\log^{1/3}n with probability at least 1-e^{-cn^{2/3}\log^{1/3}n/3}>1/2 for big enough c. We define \Gamma:=\{\gamma_{i,j} \mid (i,j) \in S^2\}. Now \Gamma has size at most 4c^2n^{4/3} \log^{2/3} n with probability at least 1/2.

We now show that there is a nonzero probability that \Gamma realizes all types of pants. Let (k_1,k_2,k_3) be a topological type (thus we have k_1+k_2+k_3=n). For i,j,k three integers in [|1,n|], then the three curves \gamma_{i,j}, \gamma_{j,k} and \gamma_{k,i} bound a pair of pants P_{i,j,k}, which is of type (k_1,k_2,k_3) if and only if j-i=k_1 and k-j=k_2. So for i \in [|1,n|], we denote by X^{k_1,k_2,k_3}_i the random variable indicating the event that (i,i+k_1,i+k_1+k_2) belongs to S, which happens with probability at least p^3 (note that if k_1=0 or k_2=0, the probability is higher). Then by Chernoff bounds, the probability that (k_1,k_2,k_3) is not realized is equal to P(\sum_i X_i^{k_1,k_2,k_3}=0)\leq e^{\frac{-p^3}{2n}}\leq \frac{1}{4n^2} for big enough c. Note that this probability does not depend on (k_1,k_2,k_3), and therefore by the union bound there is a probability at least 1/4 that all types of pants are realized. Since 1/4+1/2<1, with nonzero probability we have the correct bound on the size of \Gamma and it realizes all types of pants, concluding the proof.

The vertices of the polygon \pi_n and the edges in a family E realizing all types of triangles form a graph. It is known (see for example Rivin [rivin]) that any graph with |E| edges has O(|E|^{3/2}) triangles (i.e., cycles of length 3). Therefore, in order to realize \Theta(n^2) types of triangles, the graph must have at least \Omega(n^{4/3}) edges.

The proof follows the same idea as the proof of Lemma 3.2. Any family of edges realizing all triangulations defines a graph with |E| edges. Since the family of edges realizes all types of triangulations, in particular it realizes all types of triangles, 4-cycles, or more generally \ell-cycles. The type of an \ell-cycle C is determined by the tuple (k_1, \ldots, k_\ell) of vertices in each of the connected components of \pi_n \setminus C, and thus there are \Theta(n^{\ell-1}) of them. Now, any graph with |E| edges has at most O(|E|^{\ell/2}) \ell-cycles, and thus |E|=\Omega(n^{\frac{2\ell-1}{\ell}}). The result follows by taking \ell arbitrarily big.

Let T be a trivalent tree with n leaves associated to a pants decomposition P of S_n, in which each internal vertex corresponds to a pair of pants and each edge corresponds to a closed curve in P. For each curve \gamma in P, we say that \gamma bounds i\leq \lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor punctures if its corresponding edge in T separates a sub-tree that has exactly i leaves. We prove the following claim.

Claim. For each i\leq\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor, there exists a trivalent tree T_i with n leaves such that its corresponding pants decomposition contains \lfloor\frac{n}{i}\rfloor curves, each of which bounds i punctures.

Assuming the claim for now, for each i\leq\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor, the existence of such a tree implies that to realize the pants decomposition corresponding to this tree, \lfloor\frac{n}{i}\rfloor closed curves that bound i punctures are needed. This implies that at least \mathlarger{\mathlarger{ \sum}}_{i=2}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor}\lfloor\frac{n}{i}\rfloor closed curves are needed to realize T_is for 2\leq i\leq \lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor and proves the lemma.

Proof of the claim. In a rooted tree, we say that a vertex is internal if it is not the root and not a leaf. Let B_i be any trivalent tree with \lceil\frac{n}{i}\rceil leaves and let L_i be a rooted tree with i leaves in which the root has degree 2 and the internal vertices have degree 3. Let R_i be a rooted tree with n-i\lfloor\frac{n}{i}\rfloor leaves in which the root has degree 2 and the internal vertices all have degree 3. We define a tree T_i as follows: in the case where i divides n, we paste a copy of L_i on each leaf of B_i by identifying the root in L_i with a leaf in B_i. If i does not divide n, we paste a copy of L_i on every leaf of B_i except one, and we paste R_i on the last leaf. We can see that T_i is a trivalent tree with n leaves. Each edge in T_i that corresponds to an edge that used to connect a leaf in B_i separates i leaves in T_i and therefore its corresponding curve in the pants decomposition bounds i punctures. We refer to Figure ? for an illustration.

Let P be a pants decomposition of S_n and T be the tree dual to P. Each internal edge of the tree separates the leaves into two parts and it corresponds to a simple closed curve on S_n that separates the corresponding punctures. Here, we deal with a bigger set of trees than those that are dual to pants decompositions. Denote by {\mathcal T}_n the set of all trees with n leaves and with every internal vertex having degree at most 3. In this proof, we deal with free homotopy classes of curves. Two homotopy classes of curves are said to be disjoint if there exists a representative in each class such that these curves do not intersect each other.

We remove a point from the sphere and consider the punctures on the plane, which we number arbitrarily from 1 to n and consider lined up from 1 to n. For a subset S\subset [n], and for each map f:[n] \setminus S \rightarrow \{above,below\}, we define a homotopy class as follows: the curve \gamma_S^f encompasses the punctures in S, and for each puncture b not in S but within [\min S,\max S], it goes above, respectively below, b, depending on the value of f(b). These homotopy classes are pictured in Figure ?, for S=\{2,6\} and the four possible maps f choosing above or below for the punctures labelled 3, 4 and 5. Note that for punctures not in S and not between the smallest and the largest element of S, there is no choice of "above" or "below" to be made, hence no need to define f. Then we denote by \Gamma_S the union of all the curves \gamma_S^f for all the possible maps f.

Let T\in {\mathcal T}_n and fix a vertex v to be the root of T. We say that a set \Phi_T of homotopy classes of curves recognizes the tree T with respect to v if it satisfies the following properties. The homotopy classes in \Phi_T are pairwise disjoint. If e is an internal edge in T that separates a sub-tree that does not contain the vertex v and that has S as leaves, there exists a homotopy class of curves in \Phi_T that encompasses the punctures in S (intuitively, a virtual leaf attached to the root should correspond to the point at infinity). We say that a set of homotopy classes of curves recognizes a tree T if for any vertex v in T, it recognizes T with respect to v. Then, in order to realize the pants decomposition corresponding to T, it is enough to choose a curve from each homotopy class of curves in \Phi_T such that these curves are pairwise disjoint.

Let \Lambda_{[n]}=\bigcup_{S\subset [n], 1<|S|\leq n-2} \Gamma_S. We first prove that each tree T\in{\mathcal T}_n can be recognized by a set of homotopy classes in \Lambda_{[n]} and then we show that families of curves can be chosen from each homotopy class in \Lambda_{[n]} such that they realize all types of pants decompositions of S_n.

We prove the following claim.

Claim. The set of homotopy classes \Lambda_{[n]} is enough to recognize all trees in {\mathcal T}_n.

Proof of the claim: The proof of the claim is by induction on n. Pick a tree T\in{\mathcal T}_n with a root v. Let S_1,S_2 and S_3 be the set of leaves that belong to each branch of v. We need to recognize the edges adjacent to v that are internal edges in the tree. If all the adjacent edges of v are internal edges, then they correspond to three curves that separate the punctures in S_1,S_2 and S_3 from each other. For S_1 (resp. for S_2) choose the homotopy class of curves \gamma_1 (resp. \gamma_2) in \Gamma_{S_1} (resp. \Gamma_{S_2}) that go above (resp. below) the punctures in [n]\setminus S_1 (resp. [n]\setminus S_2). For S_3, choose the homotopy class of curves \gamma_3 that go below the punctures in S_1 and above the punctures in S_2, see Figure ?. The choice of above and below guarantees that these three homotopy classes are pairwise disjoint.

We denote by T \setminus \{v\} the tree T where we remove v and the three adjacent edges. Let T_i denote the sub-tree in T\setminus \{v\} that corresponds to S_i. Let v_i be the vertex in T_i that used to be connected to v and let it be the root of T_i; v_i has degree 2. The number of leaves in T_i for 1\leq i\leq 3 is less than n and therefore, by the induction hypothesis, we can recognize the edges in T_i by a set \Phi_{T_i} of pairwise disjoint homotopy classes of curves in \Lambda_{[S_i]} with respect to v_i. We can consider these homotopy classes as belonging to \Lambda_{[n]} by making the homotopy classes in \Phi_{T_i} go above or below the punctures in S_i\setminus S in the same way that \gamma_i does. By the way we chose the homotopy classes, they are pairwise disjoint and therefore they recognize the tree T. This finishes the proof of the claim. \hfill\blacksquare

Now, to realize the pants decomposition corresponding to a tree T\in{\mathcal T}_n, it suffices to choose a curve from each homotopy class in \Phi_T, such that these curves are pairwise disjoint. Note that by construction, these homotopy classes are pairwise disjoint. Thus, in order to realize all the types of pants decompositions, it suffices to pick a closed curve for each homotopy class in \Lambda_{[n]} so that the resulting family is in minimal position (one way to do that is for example to fix an arbitrary hyperbolic metric on S_n and pick geodesic representatives for each representative).

We conclude the proof by upper bounding the size of the set \Lambda_{[n]}. Recall that for a set S\subset [n], if i\notin [\min(S),\max(S)] then the curves in \Gamma_S do not need to go above or below the puncture i. Thus we have the following bound.

Note that in the second equation, for a subset S of size i, k counts the number of punctures not in S that belong to [\min(S),\max(S)] and 2^k counts the choices of going below or above these k punctures. The term (n-k-i+1) counts the number of cases for [\min(S),\max(S)] in this case, i.e, the number of cases where \max(S)-\min(S)= i+k-1.

We know that for any subset S of the punctures such that 2\leq|S|\leq n-2, there exists a closed curve in some pants decomposition that separates the punctures in S from those in [n]\setminus S. Therefore we need at least |\{S,[n]\setminus S, 2\leq|S|\leq n-2\}| closed curves to realize all types of pants decompositions of S_n with labelled punctures, which is equal to 2^{n-1}-n-1.

The family consists of taking g simple disjoint closed curves such that cutting along them yields a sphere with 2g punctures. Then we use the family of curves given by Lemma 4.1. This works because any pants decomposition contains g simple disjoint closed curves such that cutting along them yields a sphere with 2g punctures. So we can realize these curves using our cutting curves. After cutting along these g curves, the resulting pants decomposition is one on the sphere with 2g punctures, which can be labelled arbitrarily, and thus can be realized using a subset of the curves given by Lemma 4.1. The labeling will in particular preserve the matching stipulating how to glue back the punctures, and thus our curves will indeed realize the targeted pants decomposition.

Since the curves in Lemma 4.1 are of size at most 3^{2g-1}-g (we refer to the proof of that lemma which provides a bound that is slightly sharper than in the statement of the lemma), the resulting family has size at most 3^{2g-1}.

The homeomorphism class of a pants decomposition is determined by the trivalent graph encoding the adjacencies of the pants. A pants decomposition has 2g-2 curves, and there are, up to terms that are only exponential in g, g^{g} such trivalent graphs on 2g-2 vertices, and thus that many pants decompositions (see for example [guth2011pants, Lemma 1]). Therefore, since any pants decomposition consists of 3g-3 curves, any family of simple closed curves \Gamma realizing them all must satisfy the counting lower bound given by \binom{|\Gamma|}{3g-3}\gtrsim g^g, where we use the \gtrsim notation to hide terms that are only exponential in g. Therefore,

and thus |\Gamma|=\Omega(g^{4/3-\varepsilon}) for any \varepsilon>0.

The dual graph to a pants decomposition of \Sigma_{1,n-2}, is a graph that has only one cycle and in which all vertices have degree three, except n-2 vertices of degree one, which in our case, correspond to the labelled punctures and are labelled. Recall that we call an edge that is not adjacent to a labelled vertex an internal edge. Denote the set of all such graphs by {\mathcal G}. Note that the edges that belong to the cycle in G are non-separating and correspond to curves that are non-separating, but any two such edges together separate G into two sub-trees and therefore correspond to curves that are separating together. Recall that two free homotopy classes are disjoint if there exists a curve in each of them such that these curves do not intersect.

Let \theta be a simple closed curve that is non-separating on \Sigma_{1,n-2}, as in Figure ?. Denote by \Sigma' the surface obtained by cutting along \theta: this is a sphere with n punctures, among which n-2 are our labelled punctures. As in the proof of Lemma 4.1, we think of these n punctures as being lined up, and we consider, for each S a subset of the labelled punctures and for each map f:[n-2]\setminus S \rightarrow \{above,below\}, a curve \gamma^f_{S} which encompasses the punctures in S and goes above or below the other punctures as specified by S. Gluing back the surface \Sigma' along \theta, these curves together define a family of free homotopy classes \Gamma_S on \Sigma_{1,n-2}.

Note that by construction, \theta is disjoint from \gamma_S^f for any S\subset[n-2] and choice of f. Now, for each curve \gamma_S^f where f always maps to above, we want to define an alternate curve that additionally goes around the handle following \theta. Formally: using a path going above all of the punctures, we base all these curves at a point b located somewhere on \theta and consider the curves obtained by concatenating the curves \gamma^f_S and \theta. This yields a second family of free homotopy classes which we denote by \Theta_S. We refer to Figure ? for the depiction of a curve \gamma_S^f in red and its corresponding curve in \Theta_S in blue.

We say that a set \Phi_G of free homotopy classes of curves recognizes a graph G\in {\mathcal G} if it satisfies the following properties.

• The homotopy classes in \Phi_G are pairwise disjoint.

• For each internal edge e in G that is separating a tree that contains the subset S of the labelled vertices, there exists a homotopy class of curves in \Phi_G that cuts the surface into a sphere containing the punctures in S and a genus one surface containing the punctures in [n-2]\setminus S.

• Let e and e' be a pair of edges that separate a tree from G containing the labelled vertices in S. Then there exist two homotopy classes of non-separating curves in \Phi_G corresponding to e and e' that together separate the surface into a sphere that contains the punctures in S and a sphere containing the punctures in [n-2]\setminus S.

In order to realize the pants decomposition corresponding to G, it is enough to choose a curve from each homotopy class of curves in \Phi_G such that these curves are pairwise disjoint.

Let \Lambda=\bigcup_{S\subset [n-2]} (\Gamma_S\cup \Theta_S). As in the proof of Lemma 4.1, we first prove that the set of homotopy classes in \Lambda are enough to recognize every graph in {\mathcal G}.

Claim. The set of homotopy classes \Lambda recognizes all graphs in {\mathcal G}.

For every graph G\in{\mathcal G}, we proceed as follows. We fix a vertex v in the cycle and let e=vw be one of its adjacent edges that belongs to the cycle. The edge e is non-separating and we realize this edge for every graph G\in{\mathcal G} by the curve \Theta_\emptyset=\theta, see Figure ?.

Let T be the tree that we obtain by removing e from G and let v be the root of T. Note that T is almost trivalent; only the vertices incident to e (v and w) are of degree two. We recognize the edges in T by the homotopy classes in \bigcup_{S\subset [n-2]} \Gamma_S as in the proof of Lemma 4.1 and with the following additional considerations:

• In the proof of Lemma 4.1, during the induction step where one removes a vertex to obtain three subtrees, an arbitrary choice was made to select that the curves in one subtree were going above the other punctures, the curve in another subtree were going below and the curves in the last subtree were between. Here, this choice is no longer arbitrary, and we enforce the fact that for each edge in the cycle of G except e, the choice is made so that the corresponding curve goes above the remaining punctures. This is pictured in Figure ?.

• If w is adjacent to a labeled vertex i, the edge iw is not internal and does not need to be recognized. We recognize the other edge adjacent to w by a homotopy class in \Gamma_{\{i\}} (note that in the proof of Lemma 4.1 we did not need the homotopy classes of curves that separated a single puncture). Otherwise both edges adjacent to w are recognized with the same homotopy class as the case where these two edges are replaced by one edge.

Now, denote by \phi_r the homotopy class of curves associated to the edge r in T. We recognize the edges in G as follows. If r is an edge in G that does not belong to the cycle in G, we recognize it by \phi_r; otherwise, we recognize it by the corresponding homotopy class in \Theta_S that is the concatenation of \phi_r and \theta. Denote these curves together with \Theta_\emptyset=\theta by \Phi_G. We still need to prove that these homotopy classes are disjoint and that they indeed recognize the edges in G.

By construction, the curves \phi_r are pairwise disjoint, and so are their counterparts in \Theta_S. The remaining disjointnesses follows from the first additional consideration above: the curves in \phi_r when r belongs to the cycle all go above the punctures that they did not encompass, and thus they can be safely concatenated with \theta while still being disjoint from all the other curves in \Phi_G.

Finally, recognizing the edges not in the cycle follows the same argument as in the case without genus. For pairs of edges in the cycle, the union of the corresponding pair of curves forms a homology cycle that separates the corresponding punctures as desired. This finishes the proof of the claim. \hfill\blacksquare

To conclude, it now suffices to pick a curve in each homotopy class of \Lambda, such that they are altogether in minimal position. For each G, the curves originating from \Phi_G are pairwise disjoint and therefore realize the pants decomposition corresponding to G. Therefore, the total family of curves realizes all types of pants decompositions.

Finally, we provide an upper bound the size of the family \Lambda. The family \Theta_S consists of only one curve for each choice of S, and thus, reusing the bound from Lemma 4.1, we obtain

The dual graph to a pants decomposition of \Sigma_{2,n-4} is a graph with cyclomatic number two (i.e., there are two edges so that removing them yields a tree) in which all vertices have degree three except n-4 vertices of degree one; these vertices correspond to the labelled punctures and are labelled. Let us denote all such graphs with {\mathcal G}. These graphs have either two disjoint cycles or two cycles that share at least one or more edges, see Figure ?. Note that in this case the edges that belong to the cycles are non-separating and therefore correspond to non-separating closed curves on the surface. Also, if the cycles are disjoint, the edges that belong to the path connecting the cycles are separating the graph into two sub-graphs with one cycle each and therefore correspond to separating closed curves that cut the surface into two genus one surfaces.

Fix a base point b which we intuitively consider next to the puncture n-4, as depicted in Figure ?. We consider a family of simple closed curves \theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3,\psi, \omega based at b as pictured in Figure ?: the curves \theta_i are non-separating and pairwise disjoint, the curve \psi is also non-separating and only crosses \theta_1 once, and the curve \omega is separating the handle formed by \theta_1 and \psi from the rest of the surface.

Denote by \Sigma' the surface we obtain by cutting along a curve in \theta_1 and a curve in \theta_2. The surface \Sigma' is a sphere with n punctures among which n-4 are labelled. For a subset S of the labelled punctures, let \Gamma'_S be the homotopy classes of separating curves that encompass the punctures in S and remain either above or below the rest of the punctures as defined in the proof of Lemma 4.1. Let \Gamma_S be the homotopy classes of closed curves on \Sigma_{2,n-4} that we obtain from \Gamma'_S by gluing back the surface along \theta_1 and \theta_2. Note that by construction, \theta_i for 1\leq i\leq 3 and \omega are disjoint from \Gamma_S for S\subset[n-4].

Define \Omega_S to be the concatenation of curves in \Gamma_S with \omega; these curves are separating. Finally, define \Theta^i_S to be the concatenation of curves in \Gamma_S with the \theta_i for i=1,2,3; these curves are not separating.

In the proof of Lemma 6.1, we introduced a notion for a set of curves recognizing a graph. Here we provide a more intricate variant of this notion in the genus 2 setting. We say that a set \Phi_G of based homotopy classes of curves recognizes a graph G\in {\mathcal G}, if it satisfies the following properties.

• The free homotopy classes in \Phi_G are pairwise disjoint.

• For each internal edge e in G that is separating a tree that contains the subset S of the labelled vertices, there exists a homotopy class of curves in \Phi_G that cuts the surface into a sphere containing the punctures in S and a genus two surface containing the punctures in [n-4]\setminus S.

• Let e and e' be a pair of edges that separate a tree from G containing the labelled vertices in S. Then there exist two homotopy classes of non-separating curves in \Phi_G corresponding to e and e' that together separate the surface into a sphere that contains the punctures in S and a genus one surface containing the punctures in [n-4]\setminus S.

• If an edge separates the graph into two sub-graphs with one cycle such that one contains the vertices in S and the other contains the vertices in [n-4]\setminus S, then there exists a homotopy class in \Phi_G that separates the surface into two surfaces of genus one such that one contains the punctures in S and the other contains the punctures in [n-4]\setminus S.

In order to realize the pants decomposition corresponding to G, it is enough to choose a curve from each homotopy class of curves in \Phi_G such that these curves are pairwise disjoint.

Let \Lambda= \bigcup_{S\subset [n-4]} (\Gamma_S\cup \Theta^1_S\cup\Theta^2_S\cup\Theta^3_S\cup \Omega_S). We first prove that the homotopy classes in \Lambda are enough to recognize all graphs in {\mathcal G}. Then we show that we can choose a curve from each homotopy class in \Lambda such that these curves realize all types of pants decompositions of \Sigma_{2,n-4}.

Claim. The set of homotopy classes \Lambda is enough to recognize all graphs in {\mathcal G}.

We consider two different cases for the proof of this claim.

The case where the cycles in G are not disjoint. In this case, there exist exactly two vertices v and w such that all their adjacent edges are non-separating and belong to the cycles, see left picture in Figure ?. By removing one of these vertices from G, let us say w, we obtain a tree; denote this tree by T. Consider the vertex v to be the root of T and proceed as in Lemma 4.1 to recognize the edges of T with homotopy classes in \bigcup_{S\subset [n-4]} \Gamma_S. Number the branches of T at v by 1,2 and 3 (there might only exist 2 branches or even one). As in Lemma 6.1, we have the power to choose the homotopy classes corresponding to the edges that belong to the cycles and are in branch 1 to go above everything else. Likewise, we ensure that the cycles corresponding to branch 2 go below everything else, and finally that the edges corresponding to branch 3 go inbetween the cycles of branches 1 and 2. Let \Phi_T be the set of homotopy classes of curves that recognize T. We denote the curves in \Phi_T that recognize the edge r in T by \phi_r.

In order to recognize G, we proceed as follows. If r is an edge in G that does not belong to any cycle in G, we recognize it by \phi_r; otherwise we recognize it by a homotopy class of curves that is the concatenation of \phi_r with \theta_i if it belongs to the branch i in T for 1\leq i\leq 3. We recognize the edges adjacent to w by the curves \Theta^1_\emptyset=\theta_1, \Theta^2_\emptyset=\theta_2 and \Theta^3_\emptyset=\theta_3. Denote these homotopy classes of curves by \Phi_G. Now, these free homotopy classes can be realized by disjoint curves as the choices of above/below in the three branches have been specifically designed so that concatenating those curves with \theta_1, \theta_2 and \theta_3 can still be done while preserving disjointedness: see Figure ?.

The case where G has two disjoint cycles. Choose the vertex v in a cycle of G such that it belongs to the path that connects the two cycles. Remove an edge r_1 from the other cycle and an edge r_2 adjacent to v from the cycle that v belongs to. We recognize r_1 by \theta_1 and r_2 by \theta_2 in Figure ?. The graph G\setminus \{r_1,r_2\} is a tree which we denote by T. Let v be the root of T and proceed as in Lemma 4.1 to realize T. We choose the homotopy classes that recognize the edges in the path that connect the two cycles and the edges in the cycle that contains r_1 such that they go above the other punctures. For the edges in the cycle that contains r-2, we choose homotopy classes that go below the rest of the punctures. Let \Phi_T be the set of homotopy classes of curves that recognize T. We denote the homotopy class in \Phi_T that recognizes the edge r in T, by \phi_r.

In order to recognize G, we proceed as follows. If r is an edge in G that does not belong to any cycle in G nor the path connecting the two cycles, we realize it by \phi_r. If r belongs to the same cycle as v in G, we concatenate \phi_r with \theta_2 and if it belongs to the other cycle, we concatenate it with \theta_1. If r belongs to the path connecting the two cycles, r is recognized by the concatenation of \phi_r with \omega. These curves together with \Theta^1_\emptyset=\theta_1 and \Theta^2_\emptyset=\theta_2 recognize G; we denote the set containing these curves by \Phi_G. As before, the choices of above and below in the homotopy classes have been specifically designed to ensure that the homotopy classes can be realized with disjoint curves, see Figure ?.

This finishes the proof of the claim. \hfill\blacksquare

As in the proofs of the previous lemmas, it now suffices to pick a closed curve in each homotopy class and \Lambda so that the resulting is in minimal position. By construction, for any type of pants decomposition with dual graph G, the curves in \Phi_G are pairwise disjoint and realize this type of pants decomposition. Altogether, the curves that we chose realize all types of pants decompositions.

Finally, we provide an upper bound on the size of \Lambda. Note that in our construction, it suffices to consider curves in \Theta^1_S and \Omega_S which go above the punctures they do not encompass, and curves for \Theta^2_S which go below the punctures they do not encompass. However, for \Theta^3_S, as for \Gamma_S, we need to consider all possible choices of above and below for the punctures they do not encompass. This yields the follow bound.