|
|
| [Fred Curtis - Feb-May 2001] | |
These working notes were motivated by my horror at the described length and complexity of Haken's 1961 unknot-equivalence algorithm in [Adams94]. [Hass99] indicates no known non-trivial lower bounds to the complexity of the problem at the time of writing. |
[Synopsis] [Chronology / Working] [References]
Deciding if a given knot diagram is the unknot, i.e. deciding if the diagram can be untangled into a simple loop, is part of the harder, more general task of deciding if two knot diagrams represent the same knot. | |||||||
Let
U0
denote
the
trivial
(0-crossing)
diagram
of
the
unknot. Let +I denote addition of a crossing to a knot diagram by a type I Reidemeister move. Let -I denote removal of a crossing by a type I move. Similarly, let +II (-II) denote addition (removal) of a pair of crossings by a type II Reidemeister move. Let III denote a type III Reidemeister move. For a knot diagram D, let D|m denote the set of the diagrams which may result when a move m is applied to D. Let D|M denote the set of the diagrams which may result when a move from the set M is applied to D. Let D|M* denote the set of diagrams which may result when a finite sequence of moves from the set M is applied to D. Examples: all possible diagrams of a knot with diagram K may be written as K|{+I,-I,+II,-II,III}* ; this page is largely concerned with the set of all unknot diagrams U0|{+I,-I,+II,-II,III}*. Write a particular element of D|M* as D|t1|...|tn to mean the result of applying transformations t1,...,tn to D. Each transformation ti consists of a move mi from M plus information to describe where in D|t1|...|ti-1 the move mi should be applied. Principle of Move Transposition (PMT) : If a diagram D|...|T1|T2|... contains two adjacent transformation sequences T1 and T2 which change disjoint regions then the diagram is unchanged by transposing T1 and T2, i.e. D|...|T1|T2|... = D|...|T2|T1|... |
|
Theorem 1: U0|{+I}* = U0|{+I,-I}* [proof]
Theorem 2: U0|{+II}* = U0|{+II,-II}* [proof]
The predicate ArbReduce0 captures the reduction of a diagram to U0 by successive removal of crossings via arbitrary moves from a set M. Define ArbReduce0(S, M) for a set M of crossing-removal moves to mean for any diagram D in the set S,
Theorem 1 implies ArbReduce0(U0|{+I}*, {-I}).
Theorem 2 implies ArbReduce0(U0|{+II}*, {-II}).
Conjecture 6 : ArbReduce0(U0|{+II}*, {-I,-II})
A
Nasty
Unknot
-
Based
on Fig 1.29 from [Adams94]
| Goeritz's unknot
| The
Monster
-
Based
on
file 'monster-init.kps' from [KnotPlot]
| Cousin
It
-
Based
on
file 'ks-init.kps' from [KnotPlot]
| ||||
Nemesis
-
An
unknot
of
Thistlethwaite
|
9th Feb 2001
11th Feb 2001
|
|
12th Feb 2001
13th Feb 2001
14th Feb 2001
16th Feb 2001
Theorem 1: U0|{+I}* = U0|{+I,-I}*Proof:
- U0|{+I}* is a subset of U0|{+I,-I}* since {+I} is a subset of {+I,-I}.
- For any D = U0|t1|t2|...|tn in U0|{+I,-I}*,
- If all ti are +I then D is in U0|{+I}*.
- If least one ti is -I then let tk be the first. U0|t1|t2|...|tk-1 has exactly k - 1 crossings. The crossing removed by tk has either
- exactly one loop, generated by some tj where j < k.
D = U0|t1|...|tj-1|tj|tk|tj+1|...|tk-1|tk+1|...|tn (tk moved by PMT)
= U0|t1|...|tj-1|tj+1|...|tk-1|tk+1|...|tn (tj, tk cancel)- two loops, in which case U0|t1|t2|...|tk-1 has exactly one crossing, so k = 2, U0|t1|t2 = U0 and D = U0|t1|t2|t3|...|tn = U0|t3|...|tn.
In each case, D may be expressed as U0|t'1|...|t'n-2 containing one less -I move. Successive removal of -I moves yields D is in U0|{+I}*.
In each case D is in U0|{+I}*, so U0|{+I,-I}* is a subset of U0|{+I}*
17th Feb 2001
19th Feb 2001
20th Feb 2001
21st Feb 2001
Theorem 2: U0|{+II}* = U0|{+II,-II}*Proof:
- U0|{+II}* is a subset of U0|{+II,-II}* since {+II} is a subset of {+II,-II}.
- For any D = U0|t1|t2|...|tn in U0|{+II,-II}*,
- If all ti are +II then D is in U0|{+II}*.
- If least one ti is -II then let tk be the first. U0|t1|t2|...|tk-1 has exactly 2(k - 1) crossings. The pair of crossings removed by tk were either
- generated by a single +II move tj where j < k.
D = U0|t1|...|tj-1|tj|tk|tj+1|...|tk-1|tk+1|...|tn (tk moved by PMT)
= U0|t1|...|tj-1|tj+1|...|tk-1|tk+1|...|tn (tj, tk cancel)- generated by two distinct +II moves, say ti and tj where i < j < k. Then
D = U0|t1|...|tj-1|tj|tk|tj+1|...|tk-1|tk+1|...|tn (tk moved by PMT - see fig 2.1)
= U0|t1|...|tj-1|tj+1|...|tk-1|tk+1|...|tn (tj, tk cancel - see fig 2.2)In each case, D may be expressed as U0|t'1|...|t'n-2 containing one less -II move. Successive removal of -II moves yields D is in U0|{+II}*.
In each case D is in U0|{+II}*, so U0|{+II,-II}* is a subset of U0|{+II}*
Fig 2.1 - The region affected by tk is shown dashed U0|...|ti U0|...|ti...|tj-1 U0|...|ti...|tj U0|...|ti...|tj...|tk-1 U0|...|ti...|tj...|tk
Fig 2.2 - The region affected by tk is shown dashed U0|...|ti U0|...|ti...|tj-1 U0|...|ti...|tj-1|tj U0|...|ti...|tj-1|tj|tk
= U0|...|ti...|tj-1U0|...|ti...|tj-1|tj|tk|tj+1...|tk-1
= U0|...|ti...|tj-1|tj+1...|tk-1
22nd Feb 2001
23rd Feb 2001
26th Feb 2001
28th Feb 2001
Early Mar 2001
18th Mar 2001
13th Apr 2001
18th Apr 2001
Early May 2001
22nd May 2001
8th Dec 2001
"But where is the ambiguity? Over there, in a box. [...] But is the truth, as Hitchcock observes, in the box? No, there isn't room, the ambiguity has put on weight." -- Monty Python's Flying Circus - Series 2 Episode 11
1:![]() | 2:![]() | 3:![]() | 4:![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|
|
|