show/hide this revision's text 2 Texified

One of my colleagues (Silver) gave a general purpose talk last week. You can't untie a knot A $A$ by tying another knot B $B$ into the rope.

Proof. First show that the connect-sum of long knots is abelian by sliding A $A$ through B. $B$. Then form the decreasing-in-size connect-sum (AB)(AB)(AB) ... . $(AB)(AB)(AB) \dots$. Regroup: A(BA)(BA) ... . $A(BA)(BA) \dots$. If $AB = 0 --- 0$, i.e. the unknot, then the left-hand grouping is the unknot. The right-hand-grouping is A $A$ since BA=AB=0. $BA=AB=0$. Since A $A$ is a knot, then A=0 -- $A=0$, a contradiction. QED

The nice thing about the argument is that it uses an infinitely long piece of rope, an infinite sequence of knots, and the knots shrink to being infinitesimally small.

show/hide this revision's text 1

One of my colleagues (Silver) gave a general purpose talk last week. You can't untie a knot A by tying another knot B into the rope.

Proof. First show that the connect-sum of long knots is abelian by sliding A through B. Then form the decreasing-in-size connect-sum (AB)(AB)(AB) ... . Regroup: A(BA)(BA) ... . If AB =0 --- the unknot, then the left-hand grouping is the unknot. The right-hand-grouping is A since BA=AB=0. Since A is a knot, then A=0 -- a contradiction. QED

The nice thing about the argument is that it uses an infinitely long piece of rope, an infinite sequence of knots, and the knots shrink to being infinitesimally small.