Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

3

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 :)

flag	asked Oct 9 at 12:26 czy 93●3

Related question: mathoverflow.net/questions/108312/… – Ian Agol Oct 9 at 14:03

Makoto Ozawa · Accepted Answer · 2012-10-09 14:44:39Z UTC

2

You can see the answer in Proposition 2.1 of link text

answered Oct 9 at 14:44

Makoto Ozawa
116●1

	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~ – czy Oct 10 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. – czy Oct 10 at 13:25
	What a good structural proof! You gave a new view point. – Makoto Ozawa Oct 12 at 0:58

Unknotting number and crossing number

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

1 Answer

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.