DOCSLIB.ORG

Surfaces in Seifert Fibered Spaces

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Surfaces in Seifert Fibered Spaces Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Jennifer Schultens University of California, Davis June 26, 2019 Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces We also study submanifolds. E.g., 1-dimensional knots in 3-dimensional space. I will discuss the totality of surfaces in a particular class of 3-manifolds. Rather than giving you a formal definition of manifold, in particular 3-manifold, I will describe some of my favorite examples. General comments Low-dimensional topology concerns the topology of manifolds in 1, 2, 3, and 4 dimensions. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces I will discuss the totality of surfaces in a particular class of 3-manifolds. Rather than giving you a formal definition of manifold, in particular 3-manifold, I will describe some of my favorite examples. General comments Low-dimensional topology concerns the topology of manifolds in 1, 2, 3, and 4 dimensions. We also study submanifolds. E.g., 1-dimensional knots in 3-dimensional space. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Rather than giving you a formal definition of manifold, in particular 3-manifold, I will describe some of my favorite examples. General comments Low-dimensional topology concerns the topology of manifolds in 1, 2, 3, and 4 dimensions. We also study submanifolds. E.g., 1-dimensional knots in 3-dimensional space. I will discuss the totality of surfaces in a particular class of 3-manifolds. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces General comments Low-dimensional topology concerns the topology of manifolds in 1, 2, 3, and 4 dimensions. We also study submanifolds. E.g., 1-dimensional knots in 3-dimensional space. I will discuss the totality of surfaces in a particular class of 3-manifolds. Rather than giving you a formal definition of manifold, in particular 3-manifold, I will describe some of my favorite examples. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Examples of manifolds: Not knot Definition Let K be a knot. The complement of K is 3 C(K) = S − η(K) where η(K) is a regular neighborhood of K. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Not knot Figure: The complement of the unknot Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Not knot Figure: The complement of a knot Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Torus knots Figure: T(2, 3), also known as the trefoill Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Satellite knots I-’ 4 KC sot’? kftco V i2 (Jattant KcV • Figure: Satellite knots Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces A proof can be found in M. Kapovich's \Hyperbolic manifolds and discrete groups". Thurston's theorem Theorem 3 (Trichotomy for knots) Let K be a knot in S . Then exactly one of the following holds: K is a torus knot; K is a satellite knot; K is hyperbolic. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Thurston's theorem Theorem 3 (Trichotomy for knots) Let K be a knot in S . Then exactly one of the following holds: K is a torus knot; K is a satellite knot; K is hyperbolic. A proof can be found in M. Kapovich's \Hyperbolic manifolds and discrete groups". Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Examples of manifolds: 2-fold branched cover 2-fold branched cover of a knot: The 2-fold branched cover of a knot has two points for every point in the knot complement and one point for every point on the knot. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Examples of manifolds: 2-fold branched cover Figure: A Seifert surface Theorem (Seifert) Every knot admits a Seifert surface. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Examples of manifolds: Seifert fibered spaces Seifert fibered spaces are a family of 3-dimensional spaces (3-manifolds) whose members are classified by a finite set of invariants. The structure of these manifolds allows us to concretely describe essential surfaces embedded in them. We are interested in the collection of all surfaces in a given Seifert fibered space. However, we must restrict our attention to essential surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces. The Kakimizu complex of a knot provides an example of how to encode surfaces. We discus the analogous concept for Seifert fibered spaces. We will always assume that curves in surfaces are simple and that surfaces in 3-manifolds are properly embedded. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Fibered solid tori identify after twist Figure: A fibered solid torus Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces The fibered solid torus V (ν; µ) is obtained from the solid cylinder D2 × [0; 1] by gluing D2 × f0g to D2 × f1g after rotating D2 2πν about its center point x by µ . 2 Intervals of the form y × [0; 1] for y 2 D match up to form simple closed curves called fibers. All fibers except the one determined by x × I traverse the torus µ times. The curve x × S1 is called the central fiber. If µ > 1 and ν 6= 0, then the central fiber is called a singular fiber. The other fibers are called regular fibers. If µ = 1 or ν = 0, then the central fiber is also called a regular fiber. Two fibered solid tori are considered equivalent if they are homeomorphic via a fiber preserving homeomorphism. Fibered solid tori Let ν 2 Z and µ 2 N be such that g:c:d:(ν; µ) = 1. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces 2 Intervals of the form y × [0; 1] for y 2 D match up to form simple closed curves called fibers. All fibers except the one determined by x × I traverse the torus µ times. The curve x × S1 is called the central fiber. If µ > 1 and ν 6= 0, then the central fiber is called a singular fiber. The other fibers are called regular fibers. If µ = 1 or ν = 0, then the central fiber is also called a regular fiber. Two fibered solid tori are considered equivalent if they are homeomorphic via a fiber preserving homeomorphism. Fibered solid tori Let ν 2 Z and µ 2 N be such that g:c:d:(ν; µ) = 1. The fibered solid torus V (ν; µ) is obtained from the solid cylinder D2 × [0; 1] by gluing D2 × f0g to D2 × f1g after rotating D2 2πν about its center point x by µ . Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces All fibers except the one determined by x × I traverse the torus µ times. The curve x × S1 is called the central fiber. If µ > 1 and ν 6= 0, then the central fiber is called a singular fiber. The other fibers are called regular fibers. If µ = 1 or ν = 0, then the central fiber is also called a regular fiber. Two fibered solid tori are considered equivalent if they are homeomorphic via a fiber preserving homeomorphism. Fibered solid tori Let ν 2 Z and µ 2 N be such that g:c:d:(ν; µ) = 1. The fibered solid torus V (ν; µ) is obtained from the solid cylinder D2 × [0; 1] by gluing D2 × f0g to D2 × f1g after rotating D2 2πν about its center point x by µ . 2 Intervals of the form y × [0; 1] for y 2 D match up to form simple closed curves called fibers. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces If µ > 1 and ν 6= 0, then the central fiber is called a singular fiber. The other fibers are called regular fibers. If µ = 1 or ν = 0, then the central fiber is also called a regular fiber. Two fibered solid tori are considered equivalent if they are homeomorphic via a fiber preserving homeomorphism. Fibered solid tori Let ν 2 Z and µ 2 N be such that g:c:d:(ν; µ) = 1. The fibered solid torus V (ν; µ) is obtained from the solid cylinder D2 × [0; 1] by gluing D2 × f0g to D2 × f1g after rotating D2 2πν about its center point x by µ . 2 Intervals of the form y × [0; 1] for y 2 D match up to form simple closed curves called fibers. All fibers except the one determined by x × I traverse the torus µ times. The curve x × S1 is called the central fiber. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces The other fibers are called regular fibers. If µ = 1 or ν = 0, then the central fiber is also called a regular fiber. Two fibered solid tori are considered equivalent if they are homeomorphic via a fiber preserving homeomorphism. Fibered solid tori Let ν 2 Z and µ 2 N be such that g:c:d:(ν; µ) = 1. The fibered solid torus V (ν; µ) is obtained from the solid cylinder D2 × [0; 1] by gluing D2 × f0g to D2 × f1g after rotating D2 2πν about its center point x by µ . 2 Intervals of the form y × [0; 1] for y 2 D match up to form simple closed curves called fibers. All fibers except the one determined by x × I traverse the torus µ times. The curve x × S1 is called the central fiber. If µ > 1 and ν 6= 0, then the central fiber is called a singular fiber. Jennifer Schultens Surfaces in Seifert fibered spaces Two fibered solid tori are considered equivalent if they are homeomorphic via a fiber preserving homeomorphism. Fibered solid tori Let ν 2 Z and µ 2 N be such that g:c:d:(ν; µ) = 1. The fibered solid torus V (ν; µ) is obtained from the solid cylinder D2 × [0; 1] by gluing D2 × f0g to D2 × f1g after rotating D2 2πν about its center point x by µ .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oriented Pair (S 3,S1); Two Knots Are Regarded As
    S-EQUIVALENCE OF KNOTS C. KEARTON Abstract. S-equivalence of classical knots is investigated, as well as its rela- tionship with mutation and the unknotting number. Furthermore, we identify the kernel of Bredon’s double suspension map, and give a geometric relation between slice and algebraically slice knots. Finally, we show that every knot is S-equivalent to a prime knot. 1. Introduction An oriented knot k is a smooth (or PL) oriented pair S3,S1; two knots are regarded as the same if there is an orientation preserving diffeomorphism sending one onto the other. An unoriented knot k is defined in the same way, but without regard to the orientation of S1. Every oriented knot is spanned by an oriented surface, a Seifert surface, and this gives rise to a matrix of linking numbers called a Seifert matrix. Any two Seifert matrices of the same knot are S-equivalent: the definition of S-equivalence is given in, for example, [14, 21, 11]. It is the equivalence relation generated by ambient surgery on a Seifert surface of the knot. In [19], two oriented knots are defined to be S-equivalent if their Seifert matrices are S- equivalent, and the following result is proved. Theorem 1. Two oriented knots are S-equivalent if and only if they are related by a sequence of doubled-delta moves shown in Figure 1. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ...
    [Show full text]
  • Lens Spaces We Introduce Some of the Simplest 3-Manifolds, the Lens Spaces
    CHAPTER 10 Seifert manifolds In the previous chapter we have proved various general theorems on three- manifolds, and it is now time to construct examples. A rich and important source is a family of manifolds built by Seifert in the 1930s, which generalises circle bundles over surfaces by admitting some “singular”fibres. The three- manifolds that admit such kind offibration are now called Seifert manifolds. In this chapter we introduce and completely classify (up to diffeomor- phisms) the Seifert manifolds. In Chapter 12 we will then show how to ge- ometrise them, by assigning a nice Riemannian metric to each. We will show, for instance, that all the elliptic andflat three-manifolds are in fact particular kinds of Seifert manifolds. 10.1. Lens spaces We introduce some of the simplest 3-manifolds, the lens spaces. These manifolds (and many more) are easily described using an important three- dimensional construction, called Dehnfilling. 10.1.1. Dehnfilling. If a 3-manifoldM has a spherical boundary com- ponent, we can cap it off with a ball. IfM has a toric boundary component, there is no canonical way to cap it off: the simplest object that we can attach to it is a solid torusD S 1, but the resulting manifold depends on the gluing × map. This operation is called a Dehnfilling and we now study it in detail. LetM be a 3-manifold andT ∂M be a boundary torus component. ⊂ Definition 10.1.1. A Dehnfilling ofM alongT is the operation of gluing a solid torusD S 1 toM via a diffeomorphismϕ:∂D S 1 T.
    [Show full text]
  • MUTATIONS of LINKS in GENUS 2 HANDLEBODIES 1. Introduction
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 127, Number 1, January 1999, Pages 309{314 S 0002-9939(99)04871-6 MUTATIONS OF LINKS IN GENUS 2 HANDLEBODIES D. COOPER AND W. B. R. LICKORISH (Communicated by Ronald A. Fintushel) Abstract. A short proof is given to show that a link in the 3-sphere and any link related to it by genus 2 mutation have the same Alexander polynomial. This verifies a deduction from the solution to the Melvin-Morton conjecture. The proof here extends to show that the link signatures are likewise the same and that these results extend to links in a homology 3-sphere. 1. Introduction Suppose L is an oriented link in a genus 2 handlebody H that is contained, in some arbitrary (complicated) way, in S3.Letρbe the involution of H depicted abstractly in Figure 1 as a π-rotation about the axis shown. The pair of links L and ρL is said to be related by a genus 2 mutation. The first purpose of this note is to prove, by means of long established techniques of classical knot theory, that L and ρL always have the same Alexander polynomial. As described briefly below, this actual result for knots can also be deduced from the recent solution to a conjecture, of P. M. Melvin and H. R. Morton, that posed a problem in the realm of Vassiliev invariants. It is impressive that this simple result, readily expressible in the language of the classical knot theory that predates the Jones polynomial, should have emerged from the technicalities of Vassiliev invariants.
    [Show full text]
  • A Computation of Knot Floer Homology of Special (1,1)-Knots
    A COMPUTATION OF KNOT FLOER HOMOLOGY OF SPECIAL (1,1)-KNOTS Jiangnan Yu Department of Mathematics Central European University Advisor: Andras´ Stipsicz Proposal prepared by Jiangnan Yu in part fulfillment of the degree requirements for the Master of Science in Mathematics. CEU eTD Collection 1 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor Andras´ Stipsicz for his guidance on writing this thesis, and also for his teaching and helping during the master program. From him I have learned a lot knowledge in topol- ogy. I would also like to thank Central European University and the De- partment of Mathematics for accepting me to study in Budapest. Finally I want to thank my teachers and friends, from whom I have learned so much in math. CEU eTD Collection 2 Abstract We will introduce Heegaard decompositions and Heegaard diagrams for three-manifolds and for three-manifolds containing a knot. We define (1,1)-knots and explain the method to obtain the Heegaard diagram for some special (1,1)-knots, and prove that torus knots and 2- bridge knots are (1,1)-knots. We also define the knot Floer chain complex by using the theory of holomorphic disks and their moduli space, and give more explanation on the chain complex of genus-1 Heegaard diagram. Finally, we compute the knot Floer homology groups of the trefoil knot and the (-3,4)-torus knot. 1 Introduction Knot Floer homology is a knot invariant defined by P. Ozsvath´ and Z. Szabo´ in [6], using methods of Heegaard diagrams and moduli theory of holomorphic discs, combined with homology theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Determining Hyperbolicity of Compact Orientable 3-Manifolds with Torus
    Determining hyperbolicity of compact orientable 3-manifolds with torus boundary Robert C. Haraway, III∗ February 1, 2019 Abstract Thurston’s hyperbolization theorem for Haken manifolds and normal sur- face theory yield an algorithm to determine whether or not a compact ori- entable 3-manifold with nonempty boundary consisting of tori admits a com- plete finite-volume hyperbolic metric on its interior. A conjecture of Gabai, Meyerhoff, and Milley reduces to a computation using this algorithm. 1 Introduction The work of Jørgensen, Thurston, and Gromov in the late ‘70s showed ([18]) that the set of volumes of orientable hyperbolic 3-manifolds has order type ωω. Cao and Meyerhoff in [4] showed that the first limit point is the volume of the figure eight knot complement. Agol in [1] showed that the first limit point of limit points is the volume of the Whitehead link complement. Most significantly for the present paper, Gabai, Meyerhoff, and Milley in [9] identified the smallest, closed, orientable hyperbolic 3-manifold (the Weeks-Matveev-Fomenko manifold). arXiv:1410.7115v5 [math.GT] 31 Jan 2019 The proof of the last result required distinguishing hyperbolic 3-manifolds from non-hyperbolic 3-manifolds in a large list of 3-manifolds; this was carried out in [17]. The method of proof was to see whether the canonize procedure of SnapPy ([5]) succeeded or not; identify the successes as census manifolds; and then examine the fundamental groups of the 66 remaining manifolds by hand. This method made the ∗Research partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1006553.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohomology Determinants of Compact 3-Manifolds
    COHOMOLOGY DETERMINANTS OF COMPACT 3–MANIFOLDS CHRISTOPHER TRUMAN Abstract. We give definitions of cohomology determinants for compact, connected, orientable 3–manifolds. We also give formu- lae relating cohomology determinants before and after gluing a solid torus along a torus boundary component. Cohomology de- terminants are related to Turaev torsion, though the author hopes that they have other uses as well. 1. Introduction Cohomology determinants are an invariant of compact, connected, orientable 3-manifolds. The author first encountered these invariants in [Tur02], when Turaev gave the definition for closed 3–manifolds, and used cohomology determinants to obtain a leading order term of Tu- raev torsion. In [Tru], the author gives a definition for 3–manifolds with boundary, and derives a similar relationship to Turaev torsion. Here, we repeat the definitions, and give formulae relating the cohomology determinants before and after gluing a solid torus along a boundary component. One can use these formulae, and gluing formulae for Tu- raev torsion from [Tur02] Chapter VII, to re-derive the results of [Tru] from the results of [Tur02] Chapter III, or vice-versa. 2. Integral Cohomology Determinants arXiv:math/0611248v1 [math.GT] 8 Nov 2006 2.1. Closed 3–manifolds. We will simply state the relevant result from [Tur02] Section III.1; the proof is similar to the one below. Let R be a commutative ring with unit, and let N be a free R–module of rank n ≥ 3. Let S = S(N ∗) be the graded symmetric algebra on ∗ ℓ N = HomR(N, R), with grading S = S . Let f : N ×N ×N −→ R ℓL≥0 be an alternate trilinear form, and let g : N × N → N ∗ be induced by f.
    [Show full text]
  • MTH 507 Midterm Solutions
    MTH 507 Midterm Solutions 1. Let X be a path connected, locally path connected, and semilocally simply connected space. Let H0 and H1 be subgroups of π1(X; x0) (for some x0 2 X) such that H0 ≤ H1. Let pi : XHi ! X (for i = 0; 1) be covering spaces corresponding to the subgroups Hi. Prove that there is a covering space f : XH0 ! XH1 such that p1 ◦ f = p0. Solution. Choose x ; x 2 p−1(x ) so that p :(X ; x ) ! (X; x ) and e0 e1 0 i Hi ei 0 p (X ; x ) = H for i = 0; 1. Since H ≤ H , by the Lifting Criterion, i∗ Hi ei i 0 1 there exists a lift f : XH0 ! XH1 of p0 such that p1 ◦f = p0. It remains to show that f : XH0 ! XH1 is a covering space. Let y 2 XH1 , and let U be a path-connected neighbourhood of x = p1(y) that is evenly covered by both p0 and p1. Let V ⊂ XH1 be −1 −1 the slice of p1 (U) that contains y. Denote the slices of p0 (U) by 0 −1 0 −1 fVz : z 2 p0 (x)g. Let C denote the subcollection fVz : z 2 f (y)g −1 −1 of p0 (U). Every slice Vz is mapped by f into a single slice of p1 (U), −1 0 as these are path-connected. Also, since f(z) 2 p1 (y), f(Vz ) ⊂ V iff f(z) = y. Hence f −1(V ) is the union of the slices in C. 0 −1 0 0 0 Finally, we have that for Vz 2 C,(p1jV ) ◦ (p0jVz ) = fjVz .
    [Show full text]
  • KNOTS and SEIFERT SURFACES Your Task As a Group, Is to Research the Topics and Questions Below, Write up Clear Notes As a Group
    KNOTS AND SEIFERT SURFACES MATH 180, SPRING 2020 Your task as a group, is to research the topics and questions below, write up clear notes as a group explaining these topics and the answers to the questions, and then make a video presenting your findings. Your video and notes will be presented to the class to teach them your findings. Make sure that in your notes and video you give examples and intuition, along with formal definitions, theorems, proofs, or calculations. Make sure that you point out what the is most important take away message, and what aspects may be tricky or confusing to understand at first. You will need to work together as a group. Every member of the group must understand Problems 1,2, and 3, and each group member should solve at least one example from problem (4). You may split up Problems 5-9. 1. Resources The primary resource for this project is The Knot Book by Colin Adams, Chapter 4.3 (page 95-106). An Introduction to Knot Theory by Raymond Lickorish Chapter 2, could also be helpful. You may also look at other resources online about knot theory and Seifert surfaces. Make sure to cite the sources you use. 2. Topics and Questions As you research, you may find more examples, definitions, and questions, which you defi- nitely should feel free to include in your notes and/or video, but make sure you at least go through the following discussion and questions. (1) What is a Seifert surface for a knot? Describe Seifert's algorithm for finding Seifert surfaces: how do you find Seifert circles and how do you use those Seifert
    [Show full text]
  • CROSSCAP NUMBERS of PRETZEL KNOTS 1. Introduction It Is Well
    CROSSCAP NUMBERS OF PRETZEL KNOTS 市原 一裕 (KAZUHIRO ICHIHARA) 大阪産業大学教養部 (OSAKA SANGYO UNIVERSITY) 水嶋滋氏 (東京工業大学大学院情報理工学研究科) との共同研究 (JOINT WORK WITH SHIGERU MIZUSHIMA (TOKYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY)) Abstract. For a non-trivial knot in the 3-sphere, the crosscap number is de¯ned as the minimal ¯rst betti number of non-orientable spanning surfaces for it. In this article, we report a simple formula of the crosscap number for pretzel knots. 1. Introduction It is well-known that any knot in the 3-sphere S3 bounds an orientable subsurface in S3; called a Seifert surface. One of the most basic invariant in knot theory, the genus of a knot K, is de¯ned to be the minimal genus of a Seifert surface for K. On the other hand, any knot in S3 also bounds a non-orientable subsurface in S3: Consider checkerboard surfaces for a diagram of the knot, one of which is shown to be non-orientable. In view of this, similarly as the genus of a knot, B.E. Clark de¯ned the crosscap number of a knot as follows. De¯nition (Clark, [1]). The crosscap number γ(K) of a knot K is de¯ned to be the minimal ¯rst betti number of a non-orientable surface spanning K in S3. For completeness we de¯ne γ(K) = 0 if and only if K is the unknot. Example. The ¯gure-eight knot K in S3 bounds a once-punctured Klein bottle S, appearing as a checkerboard surface for the diagram of K with minimal crossings. Thus γ(K) · ¯1(S) = 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Knots of Genus One Or on the Number of Alternating Knots of Given Genus
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 129, Number 7, Pages 2141{2156 S 0002-9939(01)05823-3 Article electronically published on February 23, 2001 KNOTS OF GENUS ONE OR ON THE NUMBER OF ALTERNATING KNOTS OF GIVEN GENUS A. STOIMENOW (Communicated by Ronald A. Fintushel) Abstract. We prove that any non-hyperbolic genus one knot except the tre- foil does not have a minimal canonical Seifert surface and that there are only polynomially many in the crossing number positive knots of given genus or given unknotting number. 1. Introduction The motivation for the present paper came out of considerations of Gauß di- agrams recently introduced by Polyak and Viro [23] and Fiedler [12] and their applications to positive knots [29]. For the definition of a positive crossing, positive knot, Gauß diagram, linked pair p; q of crossings (denoted by p \ q)see[29]. Among others, the Polyak-Viro-Fiedler formulas gave a new elegant proof that any positive diagram of the unknot has only reducible crossings. A \classical" argument rewritten in terms of Gauß diagrams is as follows: Let D be such a diagram. Then the Seifert algorithm must give a disc on D (see [9, 29]). Hence n(D)=c(D)+1, where c(D) is the number of crossings of D and n(D)thenumber of its Seifert circles. Therefore, smoothing out each crossing in D must augment the number of components. If there were a linked pair in D (that is, a pair of crossings, such that smoothing them both out according to the usual skein rule, we obtain again a knot rather than a three component link diagram) we could choose it to be smoothed out at the beginning (since the result of smoothing out all crossings in D obviously is independent of the order of smoothings) and smoothing out the second crossing in the linked pair would reduce the number of components.
    [Show full text]
  • Knot Genus Recall That Oriented Surfaces Are Classified by the Either Euler Characteristic and the Number of Boundary Components (Assume the Surface Is Connected)
    Knots and how to detect knottiness. Figure-8 knot Trefoil knot The “unknot” (a mathematician’s “joke”) There are lots and lots of knots … Peter Guthrie Tait Tait’s dates: 1831-1901 Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) ? Knots don’t explain the periodic table but…. They do appear to be important in nature. Here is some knotted DNA Science 229, 171 (1985); copyright AAAS A 16-crossing knot one of 1,388,705 The knot with archive number 16n-63441 Image generated at http: //knotilus.math.uwo.ca/ A 23-crossing knot one of more than 100 billion The knot with archive number 23x-1-25182457376 Image generated at http: //knotilus.math.uwo.ca/ Spot the knot Video: Robert Scharein knotplot.com Some other hard unknots Measuring Topological Complexity ● We need certificates of topological complexity. ● Things we can compute from a particular instance of (in this case) a knot, but that does change under deformations. ● You already should know one example of this. ○ The linking number from E&M. What kind of tools do we need? 1. Methods for encoding knots (and links) as well as rules for understanding when two different codings are give equivalent knots. 2. Methods for measuring topological complexity. Things we can compute from a particular encoding of the knot but that don’t agree for different encodings of the same knot. Knot Projections A typical way of encoding a knot is via a projection. We imagine the knot K sitting in 3-space with coordinates (x,y,z) and project to the xy-plane. We remember the image of the projection together with the over and under crossing information as in some of the pictures we just saw.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in Low-Dimensional Topology
    Problems in Low-Dimensional Topology Edited by Rob Kirby Berkeley - 22 Dec 95 Contents 1 Knot Theory 7 2 Surfaces 85 3 3-Manifolds 97 4 4-Manifolds 179 5 Miscellany 259 Index of Conjectures 282 Index 284 Old Problem Lists 294 Bibliography 301 1 2 CONTENTS Introduction In April, 1977 when my first problem list [38,Kirby,1978] was finished, a good topologist could reasonably hope to understand the main topics in all of low dimensional topology. But at that time Bill Thurston was already starting to greatly influence the study of 2- and 3-manifolds through the introduction of geometry, especially hyperbolic. Four years later in September, 1981, Mike Freedman turned a subject, topological 4-manifolds, in which we expected no progress for years, into a subject in which it seemed we knew everything. A few months later in spring 1982, Simon Donaldson brought gauge theory to 4-manifolds with the first of a remarkable string of theorems showing that smooth 4-manifolds which might not exist or might not be diffeomorphic, in fact, didn’t and weren’t. Exotic R4’s, the strangest of smooth manifolds, followed. And then in late spring 1984, Vaughan Jones brought us the Jones polynomial and later Witten a host of other topological quantum field theories (TQFT’s). Physics has had for at least two decades a remarkable record for guiding mathematicians to remarkable mathematics (Seiberg–Witten gauge theory, new in October, 1994, is the latest example). Lest one think that progress was only made using non-topological techniques, note that Freedman’s work, and other results like knot complements determining knots (Gordon- Luecke) or the Seifert fibered space conjecture (Mess, Scott, Gabai, Casson & Jungreis) were all or mostly classical topology.
    [Show full text]