MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It is well known that if $c(K)=2n+1$, then $u(K)$ is less than $n+1$. It can not be sharper because of the trefoil knot. On the other hand, if $c(K)=2n$, then similarly we have $u(K)$ is less than $n+1$. I think $u(K)=n$ is impossible in this case, i.e. there does not exist a knot $K$ with $c(K)=2n$ and $u(K)=n$. Maybe it is fairly easy, but I have no idea how to deduce it. Any hint is welcome :)

share|cite|improve this question
Related question:… – Ian Agol Oct 9 '12 at 14:03
up vote 2 down vote accepted

You can see the answer in Proposition 2.1 of link text

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much for your response. Given a knot with c(K)=2n, then u(K)\leq a(K)\leq n-1. Although a(K) (the ascending number) is not easy to calculate in general, it works well in this question~ – Zhiyun Cheng Oct 10 '12 at 8:25
Here is another proof inspired from Makoto Ozawa's ascending number. Assume there exists a knot diagram K with c(K)=2n and u(K)=n. By switching each crossing point one can get $2^n$ different knot diagrams totally. We say two diagrams are connected if one diagram can be obtained from the other one by switching one crossing point. If u(K)=n, it is not difficult to conclude that every unknot diagram is isolated. However this is impossible since each ascending diagram is connected to another ascending diagram, and both of them represent unknots. Hence that is a contradiction. – Zhiyun Cheng Oct 10 '12 at 13:25
What a good structural proof! You gave a new view point. – Makoto Ozawa Oct 12 '12 at 0:58

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.