0
$\begingroup$

Considering we have the space-time trajectory of multiple particles (or any objects) in the X-Y-Time coordination system. Given a projection direction, we can obtain the braid form of the space-time trajectory. The figure below illustrates this idea (taken from the paper 'Social Momentum: A Framework for Legible Navigation in Dynamic Multi-Agent Environments' by C Mavrogiannis, etal).

enter image description here

Now, image the trajectory are strings and we can pull them tight while keeping their starting and ending positions unchanged (it is like applying elementary moves on the trajectories), we may or may not be able to straighten all the strings. By straightening the strings I mean making the string a straight line between the starting and ending points. Not able to straighten the strings means that some strings is in contact with at least one other strings. The radius (thickness) of string is neglected.

My first question is, for a space-time trajectory that cannot be straightened, does there always exist a a projection direction parallel to the X-Y plane, such that the corresponding braid form also cannot be straightened? The braid form is a standard form where the starting and ending point are evenly spaced. Braid cannot be straightened meaning that its strings cannot be all straight no matter how many elementary moves and reidemeister moves applied to it.

My second question is, given a braid that cannot be straightened, does there exist a point in time $t_{start}<t_1\leq t_{end}$, such that the braid formed during time $t_{start}$ to $t_{1}$ consists of some sub 2-braid or 3-braid that can be closed to form non-trivial knot/link? Sub 2-braid and 3-braid are braids formed when we only pick the particular 2 or 3 strings from the braid.

The intuition for the second question is, when a bent string in a braid is formed, it gets the bend from first interacting with either one or two other strings. Hence, if we extract the part of the braid from the start to the time when the first bend is formed, the 2 or 3 strings that interacted together should form a non-trivial knot/link.

The questions are long and maybe a bit difficult to understand at first. Really appreciate any input on any questions. Feel free to clarify anything as well. Thank you for reading!

EDIT: to give examples for the second question, the left braid in the figure below is straightenable, while the right braid is not. The right braid closes to be a non-trivial knot.

enter image description here

I have also taken a look at the Brunnian 4-braid, which is not straightenable, and it has a sub 2-braid formed from string 1 and 4 which gives a non-trivial knot at time $t_0$.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The phrase "corresponding braid form" (in the third paragraph) does not make sense. If the particles are not in standard position at the start and the end, then we have to move them to standard position. That involves making choices, which may destroy the given information. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Jan 9, 2023 at 8:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the comment. But to form a braid from the particle trajectories, I think we only need to specify a projection direction in the X-Y plane. Then, from the projected 2-d plot of the trajectories, we can obtain the permutation of the particle at each $t$, which gives us the braid. What I try to say is that the positions of the particles in 3-d is not needed after we have specified a projection direction and obtained the permutation. $\endgroup$
    – Muqing Cao
    Jan 9, 2023 at 8:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have added the projection direction in the first figure to assist the understanding of obtaining braid from space-time trajectory. $\endgroup$
    – Muqing Cao
    Jan 9, 2023 at 10:54
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, thank you for clarifying. I was not correctly taking into account the projection parallel to the $xy$ plane. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Jan 9, 2023 at 14:00

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

The answer to your second question is "no". Non-trivial braids can have braid closures yielding trivial knots (and links). As an example of this, consider the braid $\beta = \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3$. To place this in three space, we use coordinates in $\mathbb{R}^3$. So, let $a = (0, 0, 0)$, $b = (1, 0, 0)$, $c = (2, 0, 0)$, and $d = (3, 0, 0)$. Let $a' = (0, 0, 1)$, $b' = (1, 0, 1)$, $c' = (2, 0, 1)$, and $d' = (3, 0, 1)$. We use these points as the upper and lower ends of the strands. Thus, the given braid in three-space cannot be straightened in three-space, as the four lines would all lie in a plane, and thus cross. The closure of any sub-braid, truncated at any height, of the usual projection (into the $xz$ plane) is an unlink.

Note that if you are willing to isotope the braid before truncation then the answer to the second question becomes "yes" in an uninteresting way. Thus is because a braid $\beta$ is isotopic to the braid $\beta \gamma \gamma^{-1}$ for any $\gamma$. You could then truncate the height to obtain $\beta \gamma$ which will have a non-trivial closure, if you so desire.


Note that truncating at an arbitrary (generic?) height and then taking a closure does not really make sense... To compose, or to close, braids we need the endpoints to be at predetermined locations. With $n$ strands, it is traditional to take the points $(i, 0, 0)$ (and $(i, 0, 1)$) as $i$ ranges from zero to $n-1$. If you really want to deal with physical braids whose endpoints are elsewhere, then I think that the algebra will need much more care.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ I have edited the post to include two more figures, hopefully, it can demonstrate the idea of 'straightenable' better. I am aware of Brunnian braids, and based on my sketch, my hypothesis still holds for Brunnian 4-braid. $\endgroup$
    – Muqing Cao
    Jan 9, 2023 at 10:57
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the clarification. I have edited my answer to your second question. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Jan 9, 2023 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your explanation. In fact, I am more interested in the more general case, where any two trajectories do not completely lie on the same plane. In that case, the problem becomes more complex but interesting I guess. Do you think the answer to the second question is still No? $\endgroup$
    – Muqing Cao
    Jan 9, 2023 at 14:56
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding your concern about truncation, I think I can add a step after the truncation for the strings to move to their standard position without incurring any extra crossings. $\endgroup$
    – Muqing Cao
    Jan 9, 2023 at 14:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hi Sam, thanks for your suggestion, I am quite new here so wasn't aware of this. But it makes total sense to not let the original post evolve into something else...I will revert and post a new one instead. $\endgroup$
    – Muqing Cao
    Jan 13, 2023 at 8:16

Your Answer

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

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