The Combinatorial Revolution in Knot Theory Sam Nelson

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Combinatorial Revolution in Knot Theory Sam Nelson The Combinatorial Revolution in Knot Theory Sam Nelson not theory is usually understood to be the study of embeddings of topologi- cal spaces in other topological spaces. Classical knot theory, in particular, is concerned with the ways in which a cir- Kcle or a disjoint union of circles can be embedded in R3. Knots are usually described via knot dia- grams, projections of the knot onto a plane with Figure 1. Knot diagrams. breaks at crossing points to indicate which strand passes over and which passes under, as in Fig- ure 1. However, much as the concept of “numbers” seriously, however, has led to the discovery of has evolved over time from its original meaning new types of generalized knots and links that do of cardinalities of finite sets to include ratios, not correspond to simple closed curves in R3. equivalence classes of rational Cauchy sequences, Like the complex numbers arising from missing roots of polynomials, and more, the classical con- roots of real polynomials, the new generalized cept of “knots” has recently undergone its own knot types appear as abstract solutions in knot evolutionary generalization. Instead of thinking equations that have no solutions among the classi- of knots topologically as ambient isotopy classes cal geometric knots. Although they seem esoteric of embedded circles or geometrically as simple at first, these generalized knots turn out to have R3 closed curves in , a new approach defines knots interpretations such as knotted circles or graphs combinatorially as equivalence classes of knot di- in three-manifolds other than R3, circuit diagrams, agrams under an equivalence relation determined and operators in exotic algebras. Moreover, clas- by certain diagrammatic moves. No longer merely sical knot theory emerges as a special case of the symbols standing in for topological or geomet- new generalized knot theory. ric objects, the knot diagrams themselves have This diagram-based combinatorial approach to become mathematical objects of interest. knot theory has revived interest in a related Doing knot theory in terms of knot diagrams, approach to algebraic knot invariants, applying of course, is nothing new; the Reidemeister moves techniques from universal algebra to turn the date back to the 1920s [21], and identifying knot combinatorial structures into algebraic ones. The invariants (functions used to distinguish differ- resulting algebraic objects, with names such as kei, ent knot types) by checking invariance under the quandles, racks, and biquandles, yield new invari- moves has been common ever since. A recent shift ants of both classical and generalized knots and toward taking the combinatorial approach more provide new insights into old invariants. Much like Sam Nelson is assistant professor of mathematics at Clare- groups arising from symmetries of geometric ob- mont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Uni- jects, these knot-inspired algebraic structures have versity Consortium in Claremont, CA. His email address connections to vector spaces, groups, Lie groups, is [email protected]. Hopf algebras, and other mathematical structures. December 2011 Notices of the AMS 1553 Consequentially, they have potential applications in disciplines from statistical mechanics to bio- chemistry to other areas of mathematics, with many promising open questions. Virtual Knots A geometric knot is a simple closed curve in R3; a geometric link is a union of knots that may be linked together. A diagram D of a knot or link K is a projection of K onto a plane such that no point in D comes from more than two points in K. Every point in the projection with two preimages is then a crossing point; if the knot were a physical rope laid on the plane of the paper, the crossing points would be the places where the rope touches Figure 3. Reidemeister moves. itself. We indicate which strand of the knot goes over and which goes under at a crossing point by drawing the undercrossing strand with gaps. graphs could not be embedded in the plane still Combinatorially, then, a knot or link diagram behaved like knots in certain ways—for instance, is a four-valent graph embedded in a plane with knot invariants defined via combinatorial pairings vertices decorated to indicate crossing informa- of Gauss codes still gave valid invariants when tion. We can describe such a diagram by giving ordinary knots were paired with nonplanar Gauss a list of crossings and specifying how the ends codes. A planar Gauss code always describes a are to be connected; for example, a Gauss code simple closed curve in three-space; what kind of is a cyclically ordered list of over- and under- thing could a nonplanar Gauss code be describing? crossing points with connections determined by Resolving the vertices in a planar four-valent the ordering. See Figure 2. graph as crossings yields a simple closed curve in three-dimensional space.1 To draw nonplanar graphs, we normally turn edge-intersections into crossings, but here all the crossings are already supposed to be present as vertices in the graph. O1U2O3U1O2U3 Thus we need a new kind of crossing, a virtual crossing which isn’t really there, to resolve the nonvertex edge-intersections in a nonplanar Gauss code graph. To keep the crossing types distinct, we drawa virtual crossing as a circled self-intersection Figure 2. A knot and its Gauss code. with no over-or-under information. See Figure 4. Intuitively, moving a knot or link around in space without cutting or retying it shouldn’t change the kind of knot or link we have. Thus we really want topological knots and links, where two geometric knots are topologically equivalent if one can be continuously deformed into the other. Formally, topological knots are ambient isotopy classes of geometric knots and links. In the 1920s Kurt Reidemeister showed that ambient isotopy of simple closed curves in R3 corresponds to equiv- alence of knot diagrams under sequences of the moves in Figure 3 [21]. In these moves, the portion of the diagram outside the pictured neighborhood remains fixed. The proof that a function defined on knot diagrams is a topological knot invariant Figure 4. Virtual moves. is then reduced to a check that the function value is unchanged by the three moves. It turned out that Reidemeister equivalence In the mid-1990s various knot theorists (e.g., of these nonplanar “knot diagrams” was impor- [11, 14, 17]), studying combinatorial methods of tant in defining and calculating the invariants. computing knot invariants using Gauss codes and similar schemes for encoding knot diagrams, no- 1Actually, we only need R2 × (−ǫ, ǫ)—knots are almost ticed that even the Gauss codes whose associated two-dimensional! 1554 Notices of the AMS Volume 58, Number 11 Since Reidemeister equivalence classes of planar knot diagrams coincide with classical knots, it seemed natural to refer to the generalized equiv- alence classes as “knots” despite their inclusion of nonplanar diagrams. The computations were suggesting that familiar topological knots are a special case of a more general kind of thing, namely Reidemeister equivalence classes of “knot diagrams”which mayor may not be planar. The re- sulting “combinatorial revolution” was a shift from thinking of the diagrams as symbols represent- ing topological objects (ambient isotopy classes of simple closed curves in R3) to thinking of the objects themselves as equivalence classes of dia- Figure 5. A nonclassical virtual knot. grams. To reject these virtual knots on the grounds that they do not represent simple closed curves in R3 would mean throwing away infinite classes of knot invariants, akin to ignoring complex roots Generalized Knots of polynomials on the grounds that they are not Once we have one new type of crossing, it is natural “real” numbers. to consider others, spawning a zoo of new species Virtual crossings and their rules of interaction of generalized knot types. Introducing a new kind were introduced in 1996 by Louis Kauffman [17]. of crossing requires new Reidemeister-style rules of interaction. These rules or moves are deter- Since the virtual crossings are not really there, mined by the desired combinatorial, topological, any strand with only virtual crossings should or geometric interpretation. For example, Figure 6 be replaceable with any other strand with the illustrates how the geometric understanding of same endpoints and only virtual crossings. This virtual knots as knot diagrams drawn on surfaces is known as the detour move; it breaks down into with genus permits some moves while forbidding the four virtual moves in Figure 4. others. Despite their abstract origin, virtual knots do have a concrete geometric interpretation. Virtual crossings can be avoided by drawing nonpla- nar knot diagrams on compact surfaces which 2 may have nonzero genus, providing “bridges”Σ ∼ or “wormholes” that can be used to avoid edge- crossings. A virtual knot is then a simple closed curve in an ambient space of the form × (−ǫ, ǫ) (called a thickened surface or trivial I-bundleΣ ). Vir- tual crossings are not crossings in the classical sense of two strands close together—the strands meeting in a virtual crossing are on opposite sides ∼ of the ambientspaceor “universein which the knot lives”—but are instead artifacts of forcing a knot in a nonplanar ambient space into the plane. This diagrams-on-surfaces approach was introduced Figure 6. Geometric motivation for moves. by Naoko and Seiichi Kamada, who dubbed the results abstract knots in [14]. Other ideas related to virtual knots conceived independently include We’ve seen that virtual crossings represent Vladimir Turaev’s virtual strings [24] and Roger genus in the surface on which the knot diagram is Fenn, Richárd Rimányi, and Colin Rourke’s welded drawn. Flat crossings are classical crossings where braids [8]. we forget which strand goes over and which goes Figure 5 shows the smallest nonclassical virtual under; these are convenient for studying the virtual knot interpreted as a list of labeled crossings structure separately from the classical structure which cannot be realized in the plane, a virtual and can be understood as “shadows” of classical knot diagram and a knot diagram drawn on a crossings.
Recommended publications
  • Topological Aspects of Biosemiotics
    tripleC 5(2): 49-63, 2007 ISSN 1726-670X http://tripleC.uti.at Topological Aspects of Biosemiotics Rainer E. Zimmermann IAG Philosophische Grundlagenprobleme, U Kassel / Clare Hall, UK – Cambridge / Lehrgebiet Philosophie, FB 13 AW, FH Muenchen, Lothstr. 34, D – 80335 München E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: According to recent work of Bounias and Bonaly cal terms with a view to the biosemiotic consequences. As this (2000), there is a close relationship between the conceptualiza- approach fits naturally into the Kassel programme of investigat- tion of biological life and mathematical conceptualization such ing the relationship between the cognitive perceiving of the that both of them co-depend on each other when discussing world and its communicative modeling (Zimmermann 2004a, preliminary conditions for properties of biosystems. More pre- 2005b), it is found that topology as formal nucleus of spatial cisely, such properties can be realized only, if the space of modeling is more than relevant for the understanding of repre- orbits of members of some topological space X by the set of senting and co-creating the world as it is cognitively perceived functions governing the interactions of these members is com- and communicated in its design. Also, its implications may well pact and complete. This result has important consequences for serve the theoretical (top-down) foundation of biosemiotics the maximization of complementarity in habitat occupation as itself. well as for the reciprocal contributions of sub(eco)systems with respect
    [Show full text]
  • Ph.D. University of Iowa 1983, Area in Geometric Topology Especially Knot Theory
    Ph.D. University of Iowa 1983, area in geometric topology especially knot theory. Faculty in the Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Saint Louis University. 1983 to 1987: Assistant Professor 1987 to 1994: Associate Professor 1994 to present: Professor 1. Evidence of teaching excellence Certificate for the nomination for best professor from Reiner Hall students, 2007. 2. Research papers 1. Non-algebraic killers of knot groups, Proceedings of the America Mathematical Society 95 (1985), 139-146. 2. Algebraic meridians of knot groups, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 294 (1986), 733-747. 3. Isomorphisms and peripheral structure of knot groups, Mathematische Annalen 282 (1988), 343-348. 4. Seifert fibered surgery manifolds of composite knots, (with John Kalliongis) Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 108 (1990), 1047-1053. 5. A note on incompressible surfaces in solid tori and in lens spaces, Proceedings of the International Conference on Knot Theory and Related Topics, Walter de Gruyter (1992), 213-229. 6. Incompressible surfaces in the knot manifolds of torus knots, Topology 33 (1994), 197- 201. 7. Topics in Classical Knot Theory, monograph written for talks given at the Institute of Mathematics, Academia Sinica, Taiwan, 1996. 8. Bracket and regular isotopy of singular link diagrams, preprint, 1998. 1 2 9. Regular isotopy of singular link diagrams, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 129 (2001), 2497-2502. 10. Normal holonomy and writhing number of polygonal knots, (with James Hebda), Pacific Journal of Mathematics 204, no. 1, 77 - 95, 2002. 11. Framing of knots satisfying differential relations, (with James Hebda), Transactions of the American Mathematics Society 356, no.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Math/0307077V4
    Table of Contents for the Handbook of Knot Theory William W. Menasco and Morwen B. Thistlethwaite, Editors (1) Colin Adams, Hyperbolic Knots (2) Joan S. Birman and Tara Brendle, Braids: A Survey (3) John Etnyre Legendrian and Transversal Knots (4) Greg Friedman, Knot Spinning (5) Jim Hoste, The Enumeration and Classification of Knots and Links (6) Louis Kauffman, Knot Diagramitics (7) Charles Livingston, A Survey of Classical Knot Concordance (8) Lee Rudolph, Knot Theory of Complex Plane Curves (9) Marty Scharlemann, Thin Position in the Theory of Classical Knots (10) Jeff Weeks, Computation of Hyperbolic Structures in Knot Theory arXiv:math/0307077v4 [math.GT] 26 Nov 2004 A SURVEY OF CLASSICAL KNOT CONCORDANCE CHARLES LIVINGSTON In 1926 Artin [3] described the construction of certain knotted 2–spheres in R4. The intersection of each of these knots with the standard R3 ⊂ R4 is a nontrivial knot in R3. Thus a natural problem is to identify which knots can occur as such slices of knotted 2–spheres. Initially it seemed possible that every knot is such a slice knot and it wasn’t until the early 1960s that Murasugi [86] and Fox and Milnor [24, 25] succeeded at proving that some knots are not slice. Slice knots can be used to define an equivalence relation on the set of knots in S3: knots K and J are equivalent if K# − J is slice. With this equivalence the set of knots becomes a group, the concordance group of knots. Much progress has been made in studying slice knots and the concordance group, yet some of the most easily asked questions remain untouched.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Knot Theory and the Knot Group
    AN INTRODUCTION TO KNOT THEORY AND THE KNOT GROUP LARSEN LINOV Abstract. This paper for the University of Chicago Math REU is an expos- itory introduction to knot theory. In the first section, definitions are given for knots and for fundamental concepts and examples in knot theory, and motivation is given for the second section. The second section applies the fun- damental group from algebraic topology to knots as a means to approach the basic problem of knot theory, and several important examples are given as well as a general method of computation for knot diagrams. This paper assumes knowledge in basic algebraic and general topology as well as group theory. Contents 1. Knots and Links 1 1.1. Examples of Knots 2 1.2. Links 3 1.3. Knot Invariants 4 2. Knot Groups and the Wirtinger Presentation 5 2.1. Preliminary Examples 5 2.2. The Wirtinger Presentation 6 2.3. Knot Groups for Torus Knots 9 Acknowledgements 10 References 10 1. Knots and Links We open with a definition: Definition 1.1. A knot is an embedding of the circle S1 in R3. The intuitive meaning behind a knot can be directly discerned from its name, as can the motivation for the concept. A mathematical knot is just like a knot of string in the real world, except that it has no thickness, is fixed in space, and most importantly forms a closed loop, without any loose ends. For mathematical con- venience, R3 in the definition is often replaced with its one-point compactification S3. Of course, knots in the real world are not fixed in space, and there is no interesting difference between, say, two knots that differ only by a translation.
    [Show full text]
  • Prospects in Topology
    Annals of Mathematics Studies Number 138 Prospects in Topology PROCEEDINGS OF A CONFERENCE IN HONOR OF WILLIAM BROWDER edited by Frank Quinn PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 1995 Copyright © 1995 by Princeton University Press ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Annals of Mathematics Studies are edited by Luis A. Caffarelli, John N. Mather, and Elias M. Stein Princeton University Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources Printed in the United States of America by Princeton Academic Press 10 987654321 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Prospects in topology : proceedings of a conference in honor of W illiam Browder / Edited by Frank Quinn. p. cm. — (Annals of mathematics studies ; no. 138) Conference held Mar. 1994, at Princeton University. Includes bibliographical references. ISB N 0-691-02729-3 (alk. paper). — ISBN 0-691-02728-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Topology— Congresses. I. Browder, William. II. Quinn, F. (Frank), 1946- . III. Series. QA611.A1P76 1996 514— dc20 95-25751 The publisher would like to acknowledge the editor of this volume for providing the camera-ready copy from which this book was printed PROSPECTS IN TOPOLOGY F r a n k Q u in n , E d it o r Proceedings of a conference in honor of William Browder Princeton, March 1994 Contents Foreword..........................................................................................................vii Program of the conference ................................................................................ix Mathematical descendants of William Browder...............................................xi A. Adem and R. J. Milgram, The mod 2 cohomology rings of rank 3 simple groups are Cohen-Macaulay........................................................................3 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamics, and Invariants
    k k On Groups Gn and Γn: A Study of Manifolds, Dynamics, and Invariants Vassily O. Manturov, Denis A. Fedoseev, Seongjeong Kim, Igor M. Nikonov A long time ago, when I first encountered knot tables and started un- knotting knots “by hand”, I was quite excited with the fact that some knots may have more than one minimal representative. In other words, in order to make an object simpler, one should first make it more complicated, for example, see Fig. 1 [72]: this diagram represents the trivial knot, but in order to simplify it, one needs to perform an increasing Reidemeister move first. Figure 1: Culprit knot Being a first year undergraduate student (in the Moscow State Univer- sity), I first met free groups and their presentation. The power and beauty, arXiv:1905.08049v4 [math.GT] 29 Mar 2021 and simplicity of these groups for me were their exponential growth and ex- tremely easy solution to the word problem and conjugacy problem by means of a gradient descent algorithm in a word (in a cyclic word, respectively). Also, I was excited with Diamond lemma (see Fig. 2): a simple condition which guarantees the uniqueness of the minimal objects, and hence, solution to many problems. Being a last year undergraduate and teaching a knot theory course for the first time, I thought: “Why do not we have it (at least partially) in knot theory?” 1 A A1 A2 A12 = A21 Figure 2: The Diamond lemma By that time I knew about the Diamond lemma and solvability of many problems like word problem in groups by gradient descent algorithm.
    [Show full text]
  • Knot Theory and the Alexander Polynomial
    Knot Theory and the Alexander Polynomial Reagin Taylor McNeill Submitted to the Department of Mathematics of Smith College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors Elizabeth Denne, Faculty Advisor April 15, 2008 i Acknowledgments First and foremost I would like to thank Elizabeth Denne for her guidance through this project. Her endless help and high expectations brought this project to where it stands. I would Like to thank David Cohen for his support thoughout this project and through- out my mathematical career. His humor, skepticism and advice is surely worth the $.25 fee. I would also like to thank my professors, peers, housemates, and friends, particularly Kelsey Hattam and Katy Gerecht, for supporting me throughout the year, and especially for tolerating my temporary insanity during the final weeks of writing. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Defining Knots and Links 3 2.1 KnotDiagramsandKnotEquivalence . ... 3 2.2 Links, Orientation, and Connected Sum . ..... 8 3 Seifert Surfaces and Knot Genus 12 3.1 SeifertSurfaces ................................. 12 3.2 Surgery ...................................... 14 3.3 Knot Genus and Factorization . 16 3.4 Linkingnumber.................................. 17 3.5 Homology ..................................... 19 3.6 TheSeifertMatrix ................................ 21 3.7 TheAlexanderPolynomial. 27 4 Resolving Trees 31 4.1 Resolving Trees and the Conway Polynomial . ..... 31 4.2 TheAlexanderPolynomial. 34 5 Algebraic and Topological Tools 36 5.1 FreeGroupsandQuotients . 36 5.2 TheFundamentalGroup. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 40 ii iii 6 Knot Groups 49 6.1 TwoPresentations ................................ 49 6.2 The Fundamental Group of the Knot Complement . 54 7 The Fox Calculus and Alexander Ideals 59 7.1 TheFreeCalculus ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • How Can We Say 2 Knots Are Not the Same?
    How can we say 2 knots are not the same? SHRUTHI SRIDHAR What’s a knot? A knot is a smooth embedding of the circle S1 in IR3. A link is a smooth embedding of the disjoint union of more than one circle Intuitively, it’s a string knotted up with ends joined up. We represent it on a plane using curves and ‘crossings’. The unknot A ‘figure-8’ knot A ‘wild’ knot (not a knot for us) Hopf Link Two knots or links are the same if they have an ambient isotopy between them. Representing a knot Knots are represented on the plane with strands and crossings where 2 strands cross. We call this picture a knot diagram. Knots can have more than one representation. Reidemeister moves Operations on knot diagrams that don’t change the knot or link Reidemeister moves Theorem: (Reidemeister 1926) Two knot diagrams are of the same knot if and only if one can be obtained from the other through a series of Reidemeister moves. Crossing Number The minimum number of crossings required to represent a knot or link is called its crossing number. Knots arranged by crossing number: Knot Invariants A knot/link invariant is a property of a knot/link that is independent of representation. Trivial Examples: • Crossing number • Knot Representations / ~ where 2 representations are equivalent via Reidemester moves Tricolorability We say a knot is tricolorable if the strands in any projection can be colored with 3 colors such that every crossing has 1 or 3 colors and or the coloring uses more than one color.
    [Show full text]
  • Altering the Trefoil Knot
    Altering the Trefoil Knot Spencer Shortt Georgia College December 19, 2018 Abstract A mathematical knot K is defined to be a topological imbedding of the circle into the 3-dimensional Euclidean space. Conceptually, a knot can be pictured as knotted shoe lace with both ends glued together. Two knots are said to be equivalent if they can be continuously deformed into each other. Different knots have been tabulated throughout history, and there are many techniques used to show if two knots are equivalent or not. The knot group is defined to be the fundamental group of the knot complement in the 3-dimensional Euclidean space. It is known that equivalent knots have isomorphic knot groups, although the converse is not necessarily true. This research investigates how piercing the space with a line changes the trefoil knot group based on different positions of the line with respect to the knot. This study draws comparisons between the fundamental groups of the altered knot complement space and the complement of the trefoil knot linked with the unknot. 1 Contents 1 Introduction to Concepts in Knot Theory 3 1.1 What is a Knot? . .3 1.2 Rolfsen Knot Tables . .4 1.3 Links . .5 1.4 Knot Composition . .6 1.5 Unknotting Number . .6 2 Relevant Mathematics 7 2.1 Continuity, Homeomorphisms, and Topological Imbeddings . .7 2.2 Paths and Path Homotopy . .7 2.3 Product Operation . .8 2.4 Fundamental Groups . .9 2.5 Induced Homomorphisms . .9 2.6 Deformation Retracts . 10 2.7 Generators . 10 2.8 The Seifert-van Kampen Theorem .
    [Show full text]
  • CATEGORIFICATION in ALGEBRA and TOPOLOGY
    CATEGORIFICATION in ALGEBRA and TOPOLOGY List of Participants, Schedule and Abstracts of Talks Department of Mathematics Uppsala University . CATEGORIFICATION in ALGEBRA and TOPOLOGY Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden September 6-11, 2006 Supported by • The Swedish Research Council Organizers: • Volodymyr Mazorchuk, Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University; • Oleg Viro, Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University. 1 List of Participants: 1. Ole Andersson, Uppsala University, Sweden 2. Benjamin Audoux, Universite Toulouse, France 3. Dror Bar-Natan, University of Toronto, Canada 4. Anna Beliakova, Universitt Zrich, Switzerland 5. Johan Bjorklund, Uppsala University, Sweden 6. Christian Blanchet, Universite Bretagne-Sud, Vannes, France 7. Jonathan Brundan, University of Oregon, USA 8. Emily Burgunder, Universite de Montpellier II, France 9. Paolo Casati, Universita di Milano, Italy 10. Sergei Chmutov, Ohio State University, USA 11. Alexandre Costa-Leite, University of Neuchatel, Switzerland 12. Ernst Dieterich, Uppsala University, Sweden 13. Roger Fenn, Sussex University, UK 14. Peter Fiebig, Freiburg University, Germany 15. Karl-Heinz Fieseler, Uppsala University, Sweden 16. Anders Frisk, Uppsala University, Sweden 17. Charles Frohman, University of Iowa, USA 18. Juergen Fuchs, Karlstads University, Sweden 19. Patrick Gilmer, Louisiana State University, USA 20. Nikolaj Glazunov, Institute of Cybernetics, Kyiv, Ukraine 21. Ian Grojnowski, Cambridge University, UK 22. Jonas Hartwig, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden 2 23. Magnus Hellgren, Uppsala University, Sweden 24. Martin Herschend, Uppsala University, Sweden 25. Magnus Jacobsson, INdAM, Rome, Italy 26. Zhongli Jiang, BGP Science, P.R. China 27. Louis Kauffman, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA 28. Johan K˚ahrstr¨om, Uppsala University, Sweden 29. Sefi Ladkani, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel 30.
    [Show full text]
  • Knot Group Epimorphisms DANIEL S
    Knot Group Epimorphisms DANIEL S. SILVER and WILBUR WHITTEN Abstract: Let G be a finitely generated group, and let λ ∈ G. If there 3 exists a knot k such that πk = π1(S \k) can be mapped onto G sending the longitude to λ, then there exists infinitely many distinct prime knots with the property. Consequently, if πk is the group of any knot (possibly composite), then there exists an infinite number of prime knots k1, k2, ··· and epimorphisms · · · → πk2 → πk1 → πk each perserving peripheral structures. Properties of a related partial order on knots are discussed. 1. Introduction. Suppose that φ : G1 → G2 is an epimorphism of knot groups preserving peripheral structure (see §2). We are motivated by the following questions. Question 1.1. If G1 is the group of a prime knot, can G2 be other than G1 or Z? Question 1.2. If G2 can be something else, can it be the group of a composite knot? Since the group of a composite knot is an amalgamated product of the groups of the factor knots, one might expect the answer to Question 1.1 to be no. Surprisingly, the answer to both questions is yes, as we will see in §2. These considerations suggest a natural partial ordering on knots: k1 ≥ k2 if the group of k1 maps onto the group of k2 preserving peripheral structure. We study the relation in §3. 2. Main result. As usual a knot is the image of a smooth embedding of a circle in S3. Two knots are equivalent if they have the same knot type, that is, there exists an autohomeomorphism of S3 taking one knot to the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Notation and Basic Facts in Knot Theory
    Appendix A Notation and Basic Facts in Knot Theory In this appendix, our aim is to provide a quick review of basic terminology and some facts in knot theory, which we use or need in this book. This appendix lists them item by item (without proof); so we do no attempt to give a full rigorous treatments; Instead, we work somewhat intuitively. The reader with interest in the details could consult the textbooks [BZ, R, Lic, KawBook]. • First, we fix notation on the circle S1 := {(x, y) ∈ R2 | x2 + y2 = 1}, and consider a finite disjoint union S1. A link is a C∞-embedding of L :S1 → S3 in the 3-sphere. We denote often by #L the number of the disjoint union, and denote the image Im(L) by only L for short. If #L is 1, L is usually called a knot, and is written K instead. This book discusses embeddings together with orientation. For an oriented link L, we denote by −L the link with its orientation reversed, and by L∗ the mirror image of L. • (Notations of link components). Given a link L :S1 → S3, let us fix an open tubular neighborhood νL ⊂ S3. Throughout this book, we denote the complement S3 \ νL by S3 \ L for short. Since we mainly discuss isotopy classes of S3 \ L,we may ignore the choice of νL. 2 • For example, for integers s, t ∈ Z , the torus link Ts,t (of type (s, t)) is defined by 3 2 s t 2 2 S Ts,t := (z,w)∈ C z + w = 0, |z| +|w| = 1 .
    [Show full text]