2
$\begingroup$

This question is moved from math stackexchange which I posted several days ago without an answer.

Background(ignore this paragraph if you know finite type invariants well): Recall that a finite type invariant of degree $n$ is an invariant $V$ such that $V^{(n+1)}=0$ where $V^{(n+1)}$ is the extension of $V$ to $(n+1)$-singular knots. Fix a base field $\mathbb F$ of characteristc $0$. Let $\mathcal V_n$ be the space of type $n$ invariants and $\mathcal K_n$ be the linear space spanned by the complete resolution of $n$-singular knots(these are commone zeros of type $n-1$ invariants), and let $\mathcal V$ and $\mathcal K$ be the corresponding filtered space of finite type invariants and knots. The relations not distinguished by the whole finite type invariants $\mathcal V=\bigcup\mathcal V_n$ is $\bigcap\mathcal K_n=\text{ker} (\mathcal K\to\hat{\mathcal K})$, and Vassiliev conjecture is that $\mathcal K\to\hat{\mathcal K}$ is injective. Note that every finite type invariant factors through the Kontsevich integral $Z:\mathcal K\to\hat{\mathcal A}$, which takes value in the completion of space of chord diagrams mod 1T/4T relations, by a weight system(a function on $\hat{\mathcal A}$ that vanishes on $\bigoplus_{k\geq n}\mathcal A_k$ for some $n$), so the whole finite type invariants are equally powerful as $Z$, and we can show that $\hat Z:\hat{\mathcal K}\cong\hat{\mathcal A}$(because you can show that $Z:\mathcal K/\mathcal K_{n+1}\cong\bigoplus_{k\leq n}\mathcal A_k$), and Vassiliev conjecture is that $Z$ injective.

My question: What is the relation of Vassiliev's conjecture with the following conditions(at least when $\mathbb F=\mathbb R$ so that the limit is defined):

(1) Every invariant factors through a universal finite type invariant, say $\mathcal K\to\hat{\mathcal K}$. As a result, we can write $V$ as $f(\sum_{n}V_n)$, with $f$ a linear functional on $\hat\bigoplus\mathcal V_n$ and $\sum_{n}V_n\in \hat\bigoplus\mathcal V_n$ a formal sum.

(2)[Taylor expansion] Every invariant $V$ has an expansion $V=\sum_n V_n$ of finite type invariants for $V_n$ type $n$.

(3)Every invariant $V$ can be wrtten as $V=\lim_{n\to \infty} V_n$ for $V_n$ type $n$.

(4)[Stone-Weierstrass]Every invariant $V$ can be approximated by finite type invariants pointwise, namely $V=\lim_{n\to \infty} V_n$ for finite type $V_n$(not necassarily type $n$)

(Rmk) I do think Vassiliev conjecture is equivalent to (1), and I don't think it implies (2),(3),(4) even if an invariant $V$ factors through $Z:\mathcal K\to \hat{\mathcal K}=\hat {\mathcal A}=\prod_n \mathcal{A}_n$, here is an annoying problem of convergence. I have no idea of wether (2),(3),(4) implies Vassiliev's conjecture or not.

I doubt (2),(3),might be false: are there known examples of an invariant that cannot expand as power series of finite type invariants or as a limit of finite type invariants? (It's known that coefficients of Jones polynomial satisfies(3),hence (4))

Update This paper shows that (4) is equivalent to the conjecture that finite type invariants separate knots.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ By an invariant do you literally just mean a real valued function defined on knots? There is no way to say anything about things that are that general. For instance, the set of knots is countable, so there is an integer-valued “invariant” that records a knot’s position in an enumeration of all knots. This already gives uncountably many integer-valued “invariants”. $\endgroup$ Commented May 21 at 12:19
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I do mean an invariant takes values in a field like reals, what does "there are uncountably many integer-valued invariants" imply? $\endgroup$
    – Eric Ley
    Commented May 21 at 12:23
  • $\begingroup$ I’m trying to give you a sense of how wild and arbitrarily a knot invariant can be. There is no reason to expect that they have any relation to the combinatorics of a knot diagram. Here’s another invariant: fix an enumeration of knots, and assign to the nth knot the nth digit of pi. $\endgroup$ Commented May 21 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I see, and it looks like both (2) and (3) are false from this viewpoint, but I cannot see a easy rigorous proof. But on the other hand, let's consider a similar case: the functions on $\mathbb Z$, and although they can be very wild and arbitrary, we can approximate them by polynomials pointwise. FTI are anologue of polynomials on set of knots. $\endgroup$
    – Eric Ley
    Commented May 21 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ Be that as it may, I’m extremely skeptical that anything is true in this level of generality. $\endgroup$ Commented May 21 at 12:37

0

You must log in to answer this question.