1
$\begingroup$

The Alexander polynomial/Conway potential can be computed as the quantum invariant associated to (a certain quotient of) $\mathcal U_q(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$ for $q = i$. More generally this works for $q = \xi = e^{\pi i / r}$ a primitive $2r$th root of unity. The $r = 2$ case gives the Alexander polynomials, while $r > 2$ are known as ADO invariants [1] or colored Alexander invariants (with $r$ the color.) Another reference is [2].

EDIT: Based on Noah's comments, I'll be a little more specific about the construction. At $q = \xi$ a $2r$th root of unity, the elements $K^r, E^r, F^r$ become central. For the ADO invariants we want representations of $$\mathcal A = \mathcal{U}_\xi(\mathfrak{sl}_2)/(K^r - t, E^r, F^r)$$ where $t$ is an indeterminate (which will become the variable of the Alexander polynomial.) The $r$th ADO invariant of a link is the Reshetikhin-Turaev invariant assigning each strand to an $r$-dimensional representation of $\mathcal A$. (Actually, the quantum dimensions vanish, so you need a slight generalization of the RT construction. Also, there are multiple non-isomorphic $r$-dimensional irreps, but they are very closely related.)

There are few references computing examples of these invariants. In particular, I'm curious to know if anyone's computed a skein relation for them.

  1. Y. Akustu, T. Deguchi, T. Ohtsuki, Invariants of colored links, J. Knot Theory Ramifications1 (1992) 161184.
  2. Cristina Ana-Maria Anghel, A topological model for the coloured Alexander invariants arXiv:1906.04056
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You won’t get a simple skein theory beyond the first and maybe second. But if you allow a lot of vertices then there’s Kauffman-Lins. $\endgroup$ Dec 4, 2019 at 0:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ By "Kauffman-Lins" do you mean something like decomposing tensor products into direct sums of irreps and using these to get a graphical calculus? You wind up with a lot of sums over labeled vertices, but the braiding should at least act on each type of vertex in a relatively simple way. $\endgroup$ Dec 4, 2019 at 2:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, that’s what I meant. There’s a book that does it in full detail. You’ll have to be careful about the usual Temperley-Lieb vs quantum sl_2 sign issue. press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691036403/… $\endgroup$ Dec 4, 2019 at 2:53
  • $\begingroup$ Does the recoupling theory there work directly? I'd think the fact that $K^r$ doesn't act by $1$ would mess things up, but I suppose it's not that hard to modify their theory to account for this. It's been a while since I've looked at that book. $\endgroup$ Dec 4, 2019 at 2:56
  • $\begingroup$ On more thought I think I just don’t understand the construction you have in mind well enough. $\endgroup$ Dec 4, 2019 at 16:15

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.