DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1701.03999V1 [Math.GT] 15 Jan 2017 Eeaie Nntignme Favrulko Sflos O Any for Follows: As Knot Virtual a of Number Unknotting Generalized One

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1701.03999V1 [Math.GT] 15 Jan 2017 Eeaie Nntignme Favrulko Sflos O Any for Follows: As Knot Virtual a of Number Unknotting Generalized One VIRTUAL UNKNOTTING NUMBERS OF CERTAIN VIRTUAL TORUS KNOTS MASAHARU ISHIKAWA AND HIROKAZU YANAGI Abstract. The virtual unknotting number of a virtual knot is the minimal number of crossing changes that makes the virtual knot to be the unknot, which is defined only for virtual knots virtually homotopic to the unknot. We focus on the virtual knot obtained from the standard (p, q)-torus knot diagram by replacing all crossings on one overstrand into virtual crossings and prove that its virtual unknotting number is equal to the unknotting number of the (p, q)-torus knot, i.e. it is (p − 1)(q − 1)/2. 1. Introduction The notion of virtual knots was introduced by Kauffman in [7] as a generalization of classical knots. A virtual knot diagram is a diagram obtained from a knot diagram by changing some of crossings into, so-called, virtual crossings. A virtual crossing is depicted by a small circle around the crossing point, for example see Figure 1 below. Two virtual knot diagrams are said to be equivalent if they are related by isotopy of diagrams and generalized Reidemeister moves shown in Figure 2. An equivalence class, or a diagram in this equivalent class, is called a virtual knot. We can also define a virtual knot as an embedding of a circle into a thickened surface. If a virtual knot can be modified into the unknot by generalized Reidemeiter moves and crossing changes then we say that the virtual knot is virtually null-homotopic. Here a crossing change is an operation which replaces an overstand at a classical crossing into an understrand. Remark that there exist virtual knots which cannot be modified into the unknot by only crossing changes. There are several unknotting operations for virtual knots. For example, an operation which replaces a classical crossing of a diagram of a virtual knot by a virtual crossing is called a virtualization∗, and any virtual knot can be modified into the unknot by applying arXiv:1701.03999v1 [math.GT] 15 Jan 2017 virtualizations successively. A forbidden move, introduced by Goussarov, Polyak and Viro [2], is also known as an unknotting operation [6, 13]. A forbidden detour move, which is essentially introduced in [6, 13], is also, see [16]. In [1], Byberi and Chernov introduced the notion of the virtual unknotting number for virtually null-homotopic virtual knots [1]. The virtual unknotting number vu(K) of a virtually null-homotopic virtual knot K is the minimal number of crossing changes needed to modify K into the unknot. They studied virtual unknotting numbers for virtual knots with virtual bridge number one. Recently, in [9], Kaur, Kamada, Kawauchi and Prabhakar introduced the notion of the generalized unknotting number of a virtual knot as follows: For any virtual knot diagram, 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 57M25; Secondary 57M27. Key words and phrases. unknotting number, virtual knot. ∗The terminology “virtualization” is used in [8] for a different operation. 1 2 MASAHARUISHIKAWAANDHIROKAZUYANAGI there exists a sequence of virtualizations and crossing changes such that the virtual knot is modified into a virtual knot diagram virtually homotopic to the unknot. For such a sequence s for a virtual knot K, let vs and cs denote the number of virtualizations and crossing changes in the sequence, respectively. Then the generalized unknotting number U(K) of a virtual knot K is defined by the minimal pair (vs,cs) among such sequences and choices of diagrams of K, where the minimality is defined by the lexicographic order. For example, min{(2, 0), (0, 1)} = (0, 1). In [9], they determined the generalized unknot- ting numbers of virtual knots obtained from the standard (2,p)-torus knot diagrams by changing odd number of classical crossings into virtual crossings, and also those of vir- tual knots obtained from the standard twisted knot diagrams by changing some specific crossings into virtual crossings. In this paper, we study the virtual unknotting numbers for a certain class of virtual knots obtained from the standard torus knot diagrams by applying virtualizations. Let D(Tp,q) be the standard (p, q)-torus knot diagram, where p is the braid index and p,q > 0. Here we do not care in which side we close the braid since we think of it as a diagram 2 on S . The diagram has q overstrands and we label them by a1, a2,...,aq in a canonical order. Fix an integer n ∈{1,...,q} and virtualize all classical crossings at which ai passes n as an overstrand for i = 1,...,n. We denote the obtained virtual knot by V Tp,q. Note n n that the supporting genus of V Tp,q is at most one and this implies that V Tp,q is virtually null-homotopic, see Remark 3.1. 1 Figure 1. The closure of this braid is V T7,3. The following is our main theorem. 1 Theorem 1.1. The virtual unknotting number of the virtual knot V Tp,q is (p − 1)(q − 1) vu(V T 1 )= . p,q 2 We will prove this theorem by the same method as in [1]: the lower bound is given by the P -invariant and the upper bound is done by demonstrating an unknotting sequence explicitly. At the beginning of this study, we checked the lower bounds of the virtual unknotting numbers for a few virtual knots obtained from the standard torus knot diagrams by applying virtualizations. We may call such knots virtual torus knots. It is well-known that the unknotting number of the (p, q)-torus knot is (p − 1)(q − 1)/2, which was conjectured by Milnor [12] and proved by Kronheimer and Mrowka [10]. Examining a few examples, VIRTUAL UNKNOTTING NUMBERS OF CERTAIN VIRTUAL TORUS KNOTS 3 1 we found that the virtual unknotting number of V Tp,q is exactly same as the unknotting number of the (p, q)-torus knot, which brought us the above theorem. On the other hand, 2 for the virtual knot V Tp,q, we are not sure if the lower bound obtained by the P -invariant attains the virtual unknotting number or not. This will be discussed in Section 5.1. If we choose the virtualization on the standard torus knot diagram randomly, then the obtained virtual knot may not be virtually homotopic to the unknot, see Section 5.2. The authors would like to thank Andrei Vesnin for telling us the result of Kaur, Ka- mada, Kawauchi and Prabhakar. They also thank Shin Sato for telling them the fact mentioned in Remark 3.1 and thank Vladimir Chernov and Seiichi Kamada for helpful comments. The first author is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16K05140. 2. Preliminaries 2.1. Sign at a classical crossing. For a virtual knot diagram D, we assign an orienta- tion to the virtual knot. We say that a classical crossing of D is positive if the understrand passes though the crossing from the right to the left with respect to the overstrand. Oth- erwise, it is said to be negative. The sign sign(c) at a crossing point c is defined to be +1 if it is positive and −1 otherwise. A crossing change changes a positive crossing into a negative one and vice-versa. 2.2. Generalized Reidemeister moves. The local moves of virtual knot diagrams de- scribed in Figure 2 are called generalized Reidemeister moves. The moves R1, R2, R3 are called classical Reidemeister moves. It is known that two classical knot diagrams represent the same knot if and only if these diagrams are related by classical Reidemeister moves. For virtual knots, we have four additional moves VR1, VR2, VR3 and MR. The moves VR1, VR2, VR3 are called virtual Reidemeister moves and the move MR is called a mixed Reidemeister move. By definition, two virtual knot diagrams represent the same virtual knot if and only if these diagrams are related by generalized Reidemeister moves. Two virtual knots are said to be virtually homotopic if they are related by isotopy, gen- eralized Reidemeister moves and crossing changes. If a virtual knot is virtually homotopic to the unknot then we say that it is virtually null-homotopic. 3. Upper bound 3.1. Virtual knot (i, j, k). Let i, j and k be integers such that 0 < j and 0 ≤ k < 1 i. We denote by V Bi,j the virtual braid diagram obtained from the braid part of the standard diagram of the (i, j)-torus link by changing all classical crossings on the left- 1 most overstrand into virtual crossings. For example, the braid in Figure 1 is V B7,3. Let Bk be the braid given by σkσk−1 ··· σ2σ1 as shown in Figure 3, where we read the braid words from the left to the right. We denote by (i, j, k) the virtual link diagram obtained 1 as the closure of the product of V Bi,j and Bk. Hereafter, we always assume that (i, j, k) is a virtual knot, that is, it has only one link component. Remark 3.1. It is known by Masuda in [11, Lemma 5.8] that if the supporting genus of a virtual knot is at most one then it is virtually null-homotopic. The proof is done by realizing the virtual knot as a knot on a torus and straightening it in the torus. If it is 4 MASAHARUISHIKAWAANDHIROKAZUYANAGI Îʽ ʽ ʽ Îʾ ʾ ÎÊ¿ Ê¿ ÅÊ Figure 2. Generalized Reidemeister moves. ½ ¾ i : bÖaid iÒdeÜ k Figure 3. The braid Bk. homotopic to a straight line in the torus then the corresponding virtual knot is virtually homotopic to the unknot.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conservation of Complex Knotting and Slipknotting Patterns in Proteins
    Conservation of complex knotting and PNAS PLUS slipknotting patterns in proteins Joanna I. Sułkowskaa,1,2, Eric J. Rawdonb,1, Kenneth C. Millettc, Jose N. Onuchicd,2, and Andrzej Stasiake aCenter for Theoretical Biological Physics, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037; bDepartment of Mathematics, University of St. Thomas, Saint Paul, MN 55105; cDepartment of Mathematics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; dCenter for Theoretical Biological Physics , Rice University, Houston, TX 77005; and eCenter for Integrative Genomics, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Edited by* Michael S. Waterman, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, and approved May 4, 2012 (received for review April 17, 2012) While analyzing all available protein structures for the presence of ers fixed configurations, in this case proteins in their native folded knots and slipknots, we detected a strict conservation of complex structures. Then they may be treated as frozen and thus unable to knotting patterns within and between several protein families undergo any deformation. despite their large sequence divergence. Because protein folding Several papers have described various interesting closure pathways leading to knotted native protein structures are slower procedures to capture the knot type of the native structure of and less efficient than those leading to unknotted proteins with a protein or a subchain of a closed chain (1, 3, 29–33). In general, similar size and sequence, the strict conservation of the knotting the strategy is to ensure that the closure procedure does not affect patterns indicates an important physiological role of knots and slip- the inherent entanglement in the analyzed protein chain or sub- knots in these proteins.
    [Show full text]
  • A Knot-Vice's Guide to Untangling Knot Theory, Undergraduate
    A Knot-vice’s Guide to Untangling Knot Theory Rebecca Hardenbrook Department of Mathematics University of Utah Rebecca Hardenbrook A Knot-vice’s Guide to Untangling Knot Theory 1 / 26 What is Not a Knot? Rebecca Hardenbrook A Knot-vice’s Guide to Untangling Knot Theory 2 / 26 What is a Knot? 2 A knot is an embedding of the circle in the Euclidean plane (R ). 3 Also defined as a closed, non-self-intersecting curve in R . 2 Represented by knot projections in R . Rebecca Hardenbrook A Knot-vice’s Guide to Untangling Knot Theory 3 / 26 Why Knots? Late nineteenth century chemists and physicists believed that a substance known as aether existed throughout all of space. Could knots represent the elements? Rebecca Hardenbrook A Knot-vice’s Guide to Untangling Knot Theory 4 / 26 Why Knots? Rebecca Hardenbrook A Knot-vice’s Guide to Untangling Knot Theory 5 / 26 Why Knots? Unfortunately, no. Nevertheless, mathematicians continued to study knots! Rebecca Hardenbrook A Knot-vice’s Guide to Untangling Knot Theory 6 / 26 Current Applications Natural knotting in DNA molecules (1980s). Credit: K. Kimura et al. (1999) Rebecca Hardenbrook A Knot-vice’s Guide to Untangling Knot Theory 7 / 26 Current Applications Chemical synthesis of knotted molecules – Dietrich-Buchecker and Sauvage (1988). Credit: J. Guo et al. (2010) Rebecca Hardenbrook A Knot-vice’s Guide to Untangling Knot Theory 8 / 26 Current Applications Use of lattice models, e.g. the Ising model (1925), and planar projection of knots to find a knot invariant via statistical mechanics. Credit: D. Chicherin, V.P.
    [Show full text]
  • CROSSING CHANGES and MINIMAL DIAGRAMS the Unknotting
    CROSSING CHANGES AND MINIMAL DIAGRAMS ISABEL K. DARCY The unknotting number of a knot is the minimal number of crossing changes needed to convert the knot into the unknot where the minimum is taken over all possible diagrams of the knot. For example, the minimal diagram of the knot 108 requires 3 crossing changes in order to change it to the unknot. Thus, by looking only at the minimal diagram of 108, it is clear that u(108) ≤ 3 (figure 1). Nakanishi [5] and Bleiler [2] proved that u(108) = 2. They found a non-minimal diagram of the knot 108 in which two crossing changes suffice to obtain the unknot (figure 2). Lower bounds on unknotting number can be found by looking at how knot invariants are affected by crossing changes. Nakanishi [5] and Bleiler [2] used signature to prove that u(108)=2. Figure 1. Minimal dia- Figure 2. A non-minimal dia- gram of knot 108 gram of knot 108 Bernhard [1] noticed that one can determine that u(108) = 2 by using a sequence of crossing changes within minimal diagrams and ambient isotopies as shown in figure. A crossing change within the minimal diagram of 108 results in the knot 62. We then use an ambient isotopy to change this non-minimal diagram of 62 to a minimal diagram. The unknot can then be obtained by changing one crossing within the minimal diagram of 62. Bernhard hypothesized that the unknotting number of a knot could be determined by only looking at minimal diagrams by using ambient isotopies between crossing changes.
    [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]
  • Coefficients of Homfly Polynomial and Kauffman Polynomial Are Not Finite Type Invariants
    COEFFICIENTS OF HOMFLY POLYNOMIAL AND KAUFFMAN POLYNOMIAL ARE NOT FINITE TYPE INVARIANTS GYO TAEK JIN AND JUNG HOON LEE Abstract. We show that the integer-valued knot invariants appearing as the nontrivial coe±cients of the HOMFLY polynomial, the Kau®man polynomial and the Q-polynomial are not of ¯nite type. 1. Introduction A numerical knot invariant V can be extended to have values on singular knots via the recurrence relation V (K£) = V (K+) ¡ V (K¡) where K£, K+ and K¡ are singular knots which are identical outside a small ball in which they di®er as shown in Figure 1. V is said to be of ¯nite type or a ¯nite type invariant if there is an integer m such that V vanishes for all singular knots with more than m singular double points. If m is the smallest such integer, V is said to be an invariant of order m. q - - - ¡@- @- ¡- K£ K+ K¡ Figure 1 As the following proposition states, every nontrivial coe±cient of the Alexander- Conway polynomial is a ¯nite type invariant [1, 6]. Theorem 1 (Bar-Natan). Let K be a knot and let 2 4 2m rK (z) = 1 + a2(K)z + a4(K)z + ¢ ¢ ¢ + a2m(K)z + ¢ ¢ ¢ be the Alexander-Conway polynomial of K. Then a2m is a ¯nite type invariant of order 2m for any positive integer m. The coe±cients of the Taylor expansion of any quantum polynomial invariant of knots after a suitable change of variable are all ¯nite type invariants [2]. For the Jones polynomial we have Date: October 17, 2000 (561).
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE P-Coloring Of
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE P-Coloring of Pretzel Knots A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Mathematics By Robert Ostrander December 2013 The thesis of Robert Ostrander is approved: |||||||||||||||||| |||||||| Dr. Alberto Candel Date |||||||||||||||||| |||||||| Dr. Terry Fuller Date |||||||||||||||||| |||||||| Dr. Magnhild Lien, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii Dedications I dedicate this thesis to my family and friends for all the help and support they have given me. iii Acknowledgments iv Table of Contents Signature Page ii Dedications iii Acknowledgements iv Abstract vi Introduction 1 1 Definitions and Background 2 1.1 Knots . .2 1.1.1 Composition of knots . .4 1.1.2 Links . .5 1.1.3 Torus Knots . .6 1.1.4 Reidemeister Moves . .7 2 Properties of Knots 9 2.0.5 Knot Invariants . .9 3 p-Coloring of Pretzel Knots 19 3.0.6 Pretzel Knots . 19 3.0.7 (p1, p2, p3) Pretzel Knots . 23 3.0.8 Applications of Theorem 6 . 30 3.0.9 (p1, p2, p3, p4) Pretzel Knots . 31 Appendix 49 v Abstract P coloring of Pretzel Knots by Robert Ostrander Master of Science in Mathematics In this thesis we give a brief introduction to knot theory. We define knot invariants and give examples of different types of knot invariants which can be used to distinguish knots. We look at colorability of knots and generalize this to p-colorability. We focus on 3-strand pretzel knots and apply techniques of linear algebra to prove theorems about p-colorability of these knots.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Polynomial, Finite Type Invariants and Volume of Hyperbolic
    ISSN 1472-2739 (on-line) 1472-2747 (printed) 1111 Algebraic & Geometric Topology Volume 4 (2004) 1111–1123 ATG Published: 25 November 2004 Alexander polynomial, finite type invariants and volume of hyperbolic knots Efstratia Kalfagianni Abstract We show that given n > 0, there exists a hyperbolic knot K with trivial Alexander polynomial, trivial finite type invariants of order ≤ n, and such that the volume of the complement of K is larger than n. This contrasts with the known statement that the volume of the comple- ment of a hyperbolic alternating knot is bounded above by a linear function of the coefficients of the Alexander polynomial of the knot. As a corollary to our main result we obtain that, for every m> 0, there exists a sequence of hyperbolic knots with trivial finite type invariants of order ≤ m but ar- bitrarily large volume. We discuss how our results fit within the framework of relations between the finite type invariants and the volume of hyperbolic knots, predicted by Kashaev’s hyperbolic volume conjecture. AMS Classification 57M25; 57M27, 57N16 Keywords Alexander polynomial, finite type invariants, hyperbolic knot, hyperbolic Dehn filling, volume. 1 Introduction k i Let c(K) denote the crossing number and let ∆K(t) := Pi=0 cit denote the Alexander polynomial of a knot K . If K is hyperbolic, let vol(S3 \ K) denote the volume of its complement. The determinant of K is the quantity det(K) := |∆K(−1)|. Thus, in general, we have k det(K) ≤ ||∆K (t)|| := X |ci|. (1) i=0 It is well know that the degree of the Alexander polynomial of an alternating knot equals twice the genus of the knot.
    [Show full text]
  • Results on Nonorientable Surfaces for Knots and 2-Knots
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research Papers in Mathematics Mathematics, Department of 8-2021 Results on Nonorientable Surfaces for Knots and 2-knots Vincent Longo University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mathstudent Part of the Geometry and Topology Commons Longo, Vincent, "Results on Nonorientable Surfaces for Knots and 2-knots" (2021). Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research Papers in Mathematics. 111. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mathstudent/111 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mathematics, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research Papers in Mathematics by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. RESULTS ON NONORIENTABLE SURFACES FOR KNOTS AND 2-KNOTS by Vincent Longo A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Major: Mathematics Under the Supervision of Professors Alex Zupan and Mark Brittenham Lincoln, Nebraska May, 2021 RESULTS ON NONORIENTABLE SURFACES FOR KNOTS AND 2-KNOTS Vincent Longo, Ph.D. University of Nebraska, 2021 Advisor: Alex Zupan and Mark Brittenham A classical knot is a smooth embedding of the circle S1 into the 3-sphere S3. We can also consider embeddings of arbitrary surfaces (possibly nonorientable) into a 4-manifold, called knotted surfaces. In this thesis, we give an introduction to some of the basics of the studies of classical knots and knotted surfaces, then present some results about nonorientable surfaces bounded by classical knots and embeddings of nonorientable knotted surfaces.
    [Show full text]
  • On L-Space Knots Obtained from Unknotting Arcs in Alternating Diagrams
    New York Journal of Mathematics New York J. Math. 25 (2019) 518{540. On L-space knots obtained from unknotting arcs in alternating diagrams Andrew Donald, Duncan McCoy and Faramarz Vafaee Abstract. Let D be a diagram of an alternating knot with unknotting number one. The branched double cover of S3 branched over D is an L-space obtained by half integral surgery on a knot KD. We denote the set of all such knots KD by D. We characterize when KD 2 D is a torus knot, a satellite knot or a hyperbolic knot. In a different direction, we show that for a given n > 0, there are only finitely many L-space knots in D with genus less than n. Contents 1. Introduction 518 2. Almost alternating diagrams of the unknot 521 2.1. The corresponding operations in D 522 3. The geometry of knots in D 525 3.1. Torus knots in D 525 3.2. Constructing satellite knots in D 526 3.3. Substantial Conway spheres 534 References 538 1. Introduction A knot K ⊂ S3 is an L-space knot if it admits a positive Dehn surgery to an L-space.1 Examples include torus knots, and more broadly, Berge knots in S3 [Ber18]. In recent years, work by many researchers provided insight on the fiberedness [Ni07, Ghi08], positivity [Hed10], and various notions of simplicity of L-space knots [OS05b, Hed11, Krc18]. For more examples of L-space knots, see [Hom11, Hom16, HomLV14, Mot16, MotT14, Vaf15]. Received May 8, 2018. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 57M25, 57M27.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conway Knot Is Not Slice
    THE CONWAY KNOT IS NOT SLICE LISA PICCIRILLO Abstract. A knot is said to be slice if it bounds a smooth properly embedded disk in B4. We demonstrate that the Conway knot, 11n34 in the Rolfsen tables, is not slice. This com- pletes the classification of slice knots under 13 crossings, and gives the first example of a non-slice knot which is both topologically slice and a positive mutant of a slice knot. 1. Introduction The classical study of knots in S3 is 3-dimensional; a knot is defined to be trivial if it bounds an embedded disk in S3. Concordance, first defined by Fox in [Fox62], is a 4-dimensional extension; a knot in S3 is trivial in concordance if it bounds an embedded disk in B4. In four dimensions one has to take care about what sort of disks are permitted. A knot is slice if it bounds a smoothly embedded disk in B4, and topologically slice if it bounds a locally flat disk in B4. There are many slice knots which are not the unknot, and many topologically slice knots which are not slice. It is natural to ask how characteristics of 3-dimensional knotting interact with concordance and questions of this sort are prevalent in the literature. Modifying a knot by positive mutation is particularly difficult to detect in concordance; we define positive mutation now. A Conway sphere for an oriented knot K is an embedded S2 in S3 that meets the knot 3 transversely in four points. The Conway sphere splits S into two 3-balls, B1 and B2, and ∗ K into two tangles KB1 and KB2 .
    [Show full text]
  • Transverse Unknotting Number and Family Trees
    Transverse Unknotting Number and Family Trees Blossom Jeong Senior Thesis in Mathematics Bryn Mawr College Lisa Traynor, Advisor May 8th, 2020 1 Abstract The unknotting number is a classical invariant for smooth knots, [1]. More recently, the concept of knot ancestry has been defined and explored, [3]. In my research, I explore how these concepts can be adapted to study trans- verse knots, which are smooth knots that satisfy an additional geometric condition imposed by a contact structure. 1. Introduction Smooth knots are well-studied objects in topology. A smooth knot is a closed curve in 3-dimensional space that does not intersect itself anywhere. Figure 1 shows a diagram of the unknot and a diagram of the positive trefoil knot. Figure 1. A diagram of the unknot and a diagram of the positive trefoil knot. Two knots are equivalent if one can be deformed to the other. It is well-known that two diagrams represent the same smooth knot if and only if their diagrams are equivalent through Reidemeister moves. On the other hand, to show that two knots are different, we need to construct an invariant that can distinguish them. For example, tricolorability shows that the trefoil is different from the unknot. Unknotting number is another invariant: it is known that every smooth knot diagram can be converted to the diagram of the unknot by changing crossings. This is used to define the smooth unknotting number, which measures the minimal number of times a knot must cross through itself in order to become the unknot. This thesis will focus on transverse knots, which are smooth knots that satisfy an ad- ditional geometric condition imposed by a contact structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Unknotting Sequences for Torus Knots
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by RERO DOC Digital Library Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. (2010), 148, 111 c Cambridge Philosophical Society 2009 111 doi:10.1017/S0305004109990156 First published online 6 July 2009 Unknotting sequences for torus knots BY SEBASTIAN BAADER Department of Mathematics, ETH Zurich,¨ Switzerland. e-mail: [email protected] (Received 3 April 2009; revised 12 May 2009) Abstract The unknotting number of a knot is bounded from below by its slice genus. It is a well- known fact that the genera and unknotting numbers of torus knots coincide. In this paper we characterize quasipositive knots for which the genus bound is sharp: the slice genus of a quasipositive knot equals its unknotting number, if and only if the given knot appears in an unknotting sequence of a torus knot. 1. Introduction The unknotting number is a classical measure of complexity for knots. It is defined as the minimal number of crossing changes needed to transform a given knot into the trivial knot [14]. An estimate of the unknotting number is usually difficult, even for special classes of knots such as torus knots. It is the content of the Milnor conjecture, proved by Kronheimer and Mrowka [7], that the unknotting number of torus knots coincides with another classical invariant of knots, the slice genus. The slice genus g∗(K ) of a knot K is the minimal genus among all oriented surfaces smoothly embedded in the 4-ball with boundary K . In general, the slice genus of a knot K provides a lower bound for its unknotting number u(K ): u(K ) g∗(K ).
    [Show full text]