4
$\begingroup$

Let $P:=P(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ be a Pretzel link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretzel_link ). For every permutation $\sigma\in S_n$ we can consider the link $$\sigma P:=P(a_{\sigma(1)},\dots,a_{\sigma(n)})$$. If $\sigma=(12\dots n)^k$ for some k then $P$ and $\sigma P$ are equivalent. My questions are:

  • Are there any results related to the general case?

  • Which invariants can be used to distinguish pretzel links which differ only by a permutation of their coefficients?

Note that $\sigma P$ is a mutant of $P$ for every $\sigma\in S_n$. So this problem is related to a more general problem i.e. how to distinguish mutant knots (or links).

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Richard Bedient has proved in 1984 that two Pretzel knots $P$ and $\sigma P$ are equivalent if and only if $\sigma$ is a cyclic permutation, an order reversing permutation, or a composition of both. He computes a particular group constructed from the fundamental group of the complement to distinguish every non-equivalent pair of knots.

Finding invariants is non-obvious since mutant knots have the same Jones (and HOMFLY) polynomial and hyperbolic volume. These particular mutant knots also have the same branched double covering (a Seifert manifold fibering over $S^2$ with singular fibers of order $a_1, \ldots, a_n$). In fact, Bedient was interested in finding families of non-equivalent knots sharing the same branched double covering.

Edit. I missed some quite restricting hypothesis on the coefficients. The theorem holds if the $a_i$'s are distinct and all strictly greater than $1$. Moreover we must have $\sum_i 1/a_i <1$.

As noted by Ian, such a theorem cannot hold in general. For instance, a consecutive pair $(+1,-1)$ can be moved everywhere.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Bruno, I think you have to be slightly careful - if there are coefficients $a_i=+1, a_j=-1$, then they may be inserted anywhere. $\endgroup$
    – Ian Agol
    Nov 22 '10 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ Ian, you are right: there is a strong hypothesis on the coefficients, they are all greater than 1. $\endgroup$ Nov 22 '10 at 20:02

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.