2-bridge links $L(p/q)$ are described by the continuous fraction expansion $\frac{p}{q}=\left[a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\right]$, where the $a_i$ are the numbers of twists in the boxes below:

Looking at some knot table I've got the impression that a 2-bridge knot has vanishing Chern-Simons invariant if and only if the continued fraction expansion is symmetric in the sense that $$a_1=a_n,a_2=a_{n-1},\ldots.$$ For example $$5/2=\left[2,2\right], 13/5=\left[2,1,1,2\right], 17/4=\left[4,4\right], 25/7=\left[3,1,1,3\right]$$ $$29/12=\left[2,2,2,2\right], 41/9=\left[4,1,1,4\right], \ldots, 149/44=\left[3,2,1,1,2,3\right],\ldots$$ all have vanishing Chern-Simons invariant.

Question: is this true, is it known and what is a citeable reference?

(I would already be happy with the "if"-part, i.e., that all these knots satisfy $CS=0$.)

  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure how relevant this is, but the symmetry property has something to do with having a reversible branched double cover. $\endgroup$ – Marco Golla Mar 20 '15 at 12:42

EDIT: the original answer had a typo the minus sign was missing from: $q^{\pm 1}=-q \mod 2p$

Here is an argument for the forward direction:

Each knot in the list above appears to be amphichiral (i.e. equivalent to it's mirror image under ambient isotopy). If we parametrize 2-bridge knots by $(p,q)$ where $p,q$ both odd, a result of Schubert (also see Theorem 12.6 of Burde and Zieschang's "Knots") states that a 2-bridge knot $(p,q)$ is amphichiral if and only if $q^{\pm 1}=-q \mod 2p$.

Since the Chern-Simons invariant is sensitive to orientation, it vanishes for an amphichiral 2-bridge knot complement (more generally any amphichiral knot complement).

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. The equivalence of the above described symmetry to $q=\pm q^{-1}\ mod\ p$ appears to be a classical fact. $\endgroup$ – ThiKu Mar 25 '15 at 1:36
  • $\begingroup$ One direction is due to Serret sites.mathdoc.fr/JMPA/PDF/JMPA_1848_1_13_A2_0.pdf . I didn't find the Original source for the other direction, but iT is mentioned in arxiv.org/pdf/1406.7571v2.pdf $\endgroup$ – ThiKu Mar 25 '15 at 1:39
  • $\begingroup$ I can not edit your answer, but obviously $2p$ has to be $p$ in the equation. $\endgroup$ – ThiKu Mar 25 '15 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, since we are interested in oriented 2-bridge knots we do want it to be $2p$. Equivalence of unoriented 2-bridge knots only requires congruence mod $p$. $\endgroup$ – Neil Hoffman Mar 25 '15 at 2:12
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I see. So it works just for knots, not for links. $\endgroup$ – ThiKu Mar 25 '15 at 3:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.