3
$\begingroup$

For a subring $R⊂ \mathbb Q$, a knot $K⊂S^3$ is called $R$-slice if there exists an embedded disk $D$ in an $R$-homology $4$-ball $B$ such that $∂(B,D) = (S^3,K)$, see [Definition 1.3, KW16]. We say $K$ is rationally (resp. integrally) slice if $R= \mathbb Q$ (resp. $= \mathbb Z$).

In terms of crossing, the minimal example of rationally slice knot seems (probably is) figure-eight knot $4_1$, see [Theorem 4.16, Cha07].

A knot $K ⊂ S^3$ is slice if it bounds a smoothly embedded disk $D^2$ in the $4$-ball $B^4$. Again in terms of crossing, the minimal example of slice knot is unknot $0_1$.

My question is that is there any minimal example of integrally slice knot?

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Both $6_1$ and $3_1 \# m(3_1)$ are smoothly slice (as is the unknot), and I claim that all other knots of at most seven crossings are not integrally slice. This will follow from two claims: first, if $K$ is integrally slice then $\frac{\Delta_K''(1)}{2}$ is even; and second, if $K$ is alternating and rationally slice then its signature is zero. (Note that $8_3$ satisfies both of these but is not smoothly slice; I don't know whether it is integrally slice.)

The key observation is that if $K$ is integrally slice, then $S^3_1(K)$ must be integrally homology cobordant to $S^3$. To see this, we take a slice disk bounded by $K$ in a homology ball, and we remove a ball about some point on the disk to get a concordance from $U$ to $K$ inside a homology cobordism from $S^3$ to itself. Performing a 1-surgery along this cylinder gives us the desired homology cobordism.

From here, filling in the $S^3$ end with a ball gives us a smooth homology ball bounded by $S^3_1(K)$. Thus $S^3_1(K)$ has vanishing Rohklin invariant, or equivalently its Casson invariant is even, and the surgery formula for the latter says that $\frac{\Delta_K''(1)}{2}$ must be even.

For the second claim, $S^3_1(K)$ is rationally homology cobordant to $S^3$, so its Heegaard Floer d-invariant must be zero. When $K$ is alternating, this was computed to be $2\min(0,-\lceil -\sigma(K)/4\rceil)$ for alternating $K$ by Ozsváth and Szabó (arXiv:0209149, corollary 1.5), so we must have $\sigma(K) \geq 0$. But the same argument applies to the mirror $m(K)$, with signature $-\sigma(K)$, so in fact $K$ must have signature zero.

$\endgroup$

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.