Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

From the theory of finite type invariants of knots comes the concept of $n$-triviality. A knot is said to be $n$-trivial if there is some projection of the knot and $n$ pairwise-disjoint sets of crossings $S_1,S_2,\ldots,S_n$, such that changing the crossings in every nontrivial subset of $S=\{S_1,\ldots, S_n\}$ turns the knot into the unknot.

An easy example is the trefoil knot with a three-crossing projection. Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ each contain just one crossing from this projection. Than changing $S_1$, $S_2$ or $S_1\cup S_2$ yields the unknot.

This notion of $n$-triviality is quite interesting because Goussarov first proved that a knot is $n$-trivial if and only if all finite type invariants vanish up to degree $n-1$. My question is about generalizing this notion to $\omega$-triviality. For this purpose, it is probably better to regard the crossing changes in $S_i$ as homotopies supported in neighborhoods of arcs connecting the knot to itself (finger moves.) Then one can define a knot to be $\omega$-trivial if there is a pairwise disjoint collection $\{S_1,S_2,....\}$ where each $S_i$ is a set of finger moves on $K$, such that doing any nonempty subcollection $\{S_i: i\in J\}$ for $\emptyset\neq J\subset \mathbb N$, of the finger moves gives you the unknot.

Question: If a knot is $\omega$-trivial, must it be the unknot?

A knot which is $\omega$-trivial would have vanishing finite type invariants of all degrees, so it shouldn't exist, but this question should be a lot easier than the question of whether finite type invariants detect knottedness. Does anybody have any ideas on this question?

share|improve this question
    
Habiro (in talks, perhaps not in print) has asked this question for links, where C_n-moves take the place of crossing-changes. –  Daniel Moskovich Oct 10 '10 at 19:55

1 Answer 1

I would guess that you would need to understand the transfinite lower central series of the mapping class group. A knot complement which could not be distinguished from a solid torus by any finite lower central series quotient of the mapping class group Torelli group of a Heegaard surface would be n-trivial for all n, which if I'm not mistaken follows from work of [a subset of] Ted Stanford, Habiro, and Garoufalidis-Goussarov-Polyak. I don't see offhand why such an example could not exist.
Therefore, I think this question is open, and I can't see why it would be easy.

share|improve this answer
    
I assume you mean the lower central series of the Torelli group here. I agree that an example such as you describe would be n-trivial for all $n$. But I was hoping that the extra geometric content of $\omega$-triviality would make this an easier question to tackle than the obviously difficult question of whether a knot could be $n$-trivial for all $n$. –  Jim Conant Oct 10 '10 at 13:34
    
corrected- thanks. I don't have any ideas on how the extra geometric content might be used. –  Daniel Moskovich Oct 10 '10 at 15:40
    
Yeah, I agree it's probably a hard question. –  Jim Conant Oct 10 '10 at 19:46

Your Answer

 
discard

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.