3 added 970 characters in body

Here "reduced" refer to the so-called handle reduction algorithm introduced by Dehornoy.

So far I remember, this algorithm does not provide a normal form, therefore I agree that the statement is false: two reduced word may represent the same braid even if they are different. Indeed, it can be checked with the following Java applet: http://www.math.unicaen.fr/~tressapp/index.html (it applies handle reduction the other way as you does, i.e. it pushes handles to the left, so in that case the reduction will produce the same word. But if you swap $b_1$ and $b_3$ you still get isotopic braid, and now the applet will tell you that the words are already reduced).

The true statement is that a word represent the trivial braid if and only if its reduction is the empty word. Of course it still solve the word problem: checking if $w_1,w_2$ represent the same braid is the same as checking if $w_1w_2^{-1}$ represents the trivial braid.

Edit. For the sake of completeness let me recall why not leading to a normal form is not a negative point against this algorithm.

1. When you use normal forms, testing equality is trivial, but multiplication and inversion are hard because you have to normalize the result each time. So it's somehow better to apply algebraic operation only at the word level, and to apply the algorithm only when you want to test equality.
2. Of course you can still do it with a normal form algorithm. But since you ask less, you can hope to find a more efficient algorithm. Indeed, handle reduction is strongly believed to be of quadratic complexity, and is without any doubt the most efficient solution to the word problem in the braid group.
3. Maybe the most important things is that handle reduction actually leads to a left (or right) ordering on the braid group, and to a bi-ordering on the pure braid group, which has quite a lot of group-theoretic consequences.
2 deleted 13 characters in body

Here "reduced" refer to the so-called handle reduction algorithm introduced by Dehornoy.

So far I remember, this algorithm does not provide a normal form, therefore I agree that the statement is false: two reduced word may represent the same braid even if they are different. Indeed, it can be checked with the following Java applet: http://www.math.unicaen.fr/~tressapp/index.html (it applies handle reduction the other way as you does, i.e. it pushes handles to the left, so in that case the reduction will produce the same word. But if you swap $b_1$ and $b_3$ you still get isotopic braid, and now the applet will tell you that the words are already reduced).

The true statement is that a word represent the trivial braid if and only if its reduction is the empty word. Of course it is still enough to solve the word problem: checking if $w_1,w_2$ represent the same braid is the same as checking if $w_1w_2^{-1}$ represents the trivial braid.

1

Here "reduced" refer to the so-called handle reduction algorithm introduced by Dehornoy.

So far I remember, this algorithm does not provide a normal form, therefore I agree that the statement is false: two reduced word may represent the same braid even if they are different. Indeed, it can be checked with the following Java applet: http://www.math.unicaen.fr/~tressapp/index.html (it applies handle reduction the other way as you does, i.e. it pushes handles to the left, so in that case the reduction will produce the same word. But if you swap $b_1$ and $b_3$ you still get isotopic braid, and now the applet will tell you that the words are already reduced).

The true statement is that a word represent the trivial braid if and only if its reduction is the empty word. Of course it is still enough to solve the word problem: checking if $w_1,w_2$ represent the same braid is the same as checking if $w_1w_2^{-1}$ represents the trivial braid.