This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

A note on knot Floer thickness and the dealternating number

Linh Truong
Abstract.

In this note, we give a short proof that knot Floer thickness is a lower bound on the dealternating number of a knot. The result is originally due to work of Abe and Kishimoto, Lowrance, and Turaev. Our proof is a modification of the Stipsicz-Szabó approach using Kauffman states to show that thickness bounds the minimal number of bad domains in a knot diagram.

1. Introduction

Alternating knots are knots which admit a diagram in which the crossings alternate between over-passes and under-passes. An intrinsic definition of alternating (i.e. independent of a diagrammatic definition) was given by Greene and Howie [Gre17, How17]. Alternating knots include any T(2,n)T(2,n) torus knot and all prime knots of seven or fewer crossings. Several invariants can obstruct a knot from being alternating, such as degree of the Alexander polynomial [Cro59, Mur58], the thickness of knot Floer homology [OS03], thickness of Khovanov homology [Lee05], and the Heegaard Floer homology of its double branched cover [OS05]. Another obstruction to being alternating is the dealternating number, introduced in [ABB+92].

Definition 1.1.

The dealternating number of a knot KK, denoted dalt(K)\text{dalt}(K), is the minimum number of crossing changes to turn a diagram for KK into an alternating diagram.

Observe that if a knot KK is alternating, then the dealternating number of KK vanishes. Note that if KK has crossing number nn, then 0dalt(K)n/20\leq\text{dalt}(K)\leq n/2.

Recently, Stipsicz-Szabo [SSss] show that the δ\delta-thickness th(K)\text{th}(K) of knot Floer homology provides a lower bound on β(K)\beta(K), the minimal number of bad domains in a diagram for a knot KK. A bad domain is one in which there exists an edge whose two vertices are both under-passes or both over-passes (as opposed to one over- and one under-pass). The invariant β(K)\beta(K) is a measure of how far a knot is from being alternating, since if KK is alternating, then β(K)=0\beta(K)=0. Their proof relies on studying the knot Floer δ\delta-gradings of Kauffman states in a knot diagram, and a similar strategy can be leveraged to show the following theorem.

Theorem 1.2.

th(K)dalt(K)\text{th}(K)\leq\text{dalt}(K).

We remark that an alternative proof of this theorem already exists: Lowrance [Low08] shows the bound th(K)gT(K)\text{th}(K)\leq g_{T}(K), where gT(K)g_{T}(K) denotes the Turaev genus of KK. Furthermore, Abe and Kishimoto [AK10] show gT(K)dalt(K)g_{T}(K)\leq\text{dalt}(K) by using work of Lowrance [Low08] and Turaev [Tur87]. We provide a shorter proof of this result, without referring to the Turaev genus, by modifying the strategy of [SSss].

An analogous result showing the thickness of Khovanov homology bounds the dealternating number is due to Asaeda and Przytycki [AP04] (and was reproven by Champanerkar-Kofman in [CK09]).

The dealternating number of a knot is difficult to compute, and the calculation for torus knot of most braid indices remains open. With Turner’s calculation of the thickness of Khovanov homology for torus knots of braid index three [Tur08], Abe and Kishimoto [AK10] determine the dealternating number for all (3,q)(3,q)-torus knots. For torus knots of braid index 5 or fewer, the dealternating number is computed up to an error of at most two [JLPZ17].

1.1. Acknowledgements

The author thanks András Stipsicz for helpful comments. The author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-2104309.

2. Knot Floer thickness

Let KS3K\subset S^{3} be a knot. The hat version of knot Floer homology HFK^(K)\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}(K) over 𝔽=𝔽2\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{F}_{2} is knot invariant [OS04] which is a finite-dimensional bigraded vector space HFK^(K)=M,AHFK^M(K,A)\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}(K)=\sum_{M,A\in\mathbb{Z}}\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}_{M}(K,A). Here, MM denotes the Maslov grading and AA denotes the Alexander grading. We can collapse the two gradings into a single grading via δ=MA\delta=M-A. This produces the δ\delta-graded invariant HFK^(K)=δHFK^δ(K)\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}(K)=\sum_{\delta}\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}^{\delta}(K), where HFK^δ(K)HFK^(K)\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}^{\delta}(K)\subset\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}(K) is the subspace of homogeneous elements of grading δ\delta\in\mathbb{Z}. The (knot Floer) thickness of KK is the thickness of this finite dimensional δ\delta-graded vector space HFK^(K)\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}(K), which by definition is the largest possible difference between δ\delta-gradings of two non-zero homogeneous elements:

th(K)=max{aHFK^a(K)0}min{aHFK^a(K)0}.\text{th}(K)=\max\{a\in\mathbb{Z}\mid\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}^{a}(K)\neq 0\}-\min\{a\in\mathbb{Z}\mid\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}^{a}(K)\neq 0\}.

Given a knot diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D} for KK, we can define knot Floer homology as the homology of a chain complex, whose construction [OS03] we recall here. Choose an edge ee in the diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D}. Associated to the marked diagram (𝒟,e)(\mathcal{D},e), the chain complex C𝒟,eC_{\mathcal{D},e} has an underlying (M,A)(M,A)-bigraded vector space generated over 𝔽\mathbb{F} by the Kauffman states (described in the next paragraph) of (𝒟,e)(\mathcal{D},e). By [OS03], there exists a boundary map :C𝒟,eC𝒟,e\partial:C_{\mathcal{D},e}\to C_{\mathcal{D},e} of (M,A)(M,A)-bidegree (1,0)(-1,0) with the property that the homology H(C𝒟,e,)H_{*}(C_{\mathcal{D},e},\partial) is isomorphic to the knot Floer homology HFK^(K)\widehat{\mathrm{HFK}}(K) of KK [OS04] (as a bigraded vector space).

Let cr(𝒟)\text{cr}(\mathcal{D}) denote the set of crossings in the diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D} for the knot KK. Denote the set of domains which do not contain the edge ee on their boundary by Dome(𝒟)Dom_{e}(\mathcal{D}). A Kauffman state xx is a bijection x:cr(𝒟)Dome(𝒟)x:\text{cr}(\mathcal{D})\to Dom_{e}(\mathcal{D}) such that for each crossing ccr(𝒟)c\in\text{cr}(\mathcal{D}), the domain x(c)x(c) is one of the (at most four) domains meeting at cc. Equivalently, a Kauffman state is a choice of a corner in each domain of the diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D} that is not adjacent to the special marked edge ee, such that no two corners belong to the same crossing in cr(𝒟)\text{cr}(\mathcal{D}). Given a Kauffman state xx, we will denote the crossing associated to the domain x(c)x(c) by cxc_{x}. The Maslov, Alexander, and δ\delta gradings of a Kauffman state are computed by adding the local contributions at each crossing; see Figure 1 for the δ\delta-grading.

12\frac{1}{2}12\frac{1}{2}0  0  
12-\frac{1}{2}12-\frac{1}{2}0  0  
Figure 1. Local contribution to the δ\delta-grading

Every Kauffman state xx associates to each crossing a domain, which contributes to the δ\delta-grading of xx according to this illustration.

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

Suppose 𝒟\mathcal{D} is a non-alternating diagram for the knot KK. Let cr(𝒟)\text{cr}(\mathcal{D}) denote the set of crossings of 𝒟\mathcal{D}. Choose a special marked edge ee in the diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D} with respect to which the Kauffman states will be defined.

As observed in the proof of [SSss, Proposition 2.1], the δ\delta-grading of a Kauffman state xx is given by

δ(x)=14wr(𝒟)+ccr(𝒟)f(cx)\delta(x)=-\frac{1}{4}\text{wr}(\mathcal{D})+\sum_{c\in\text{cr}(\mathcal{D})}f(c_{x})

where cxc_{x} denotes the marked corner (determined by xx) of the crossing cc, and f(cx){14,14}f(c_{x})\in\{\frac{1}{4},-\frac{1}{4}\}. Here, wr(𝒟)\text{wr}(\mathcal{D}) denotes the writhe of the diagram. Note that ccr(𝒟)f(cx)\sum_{c\in\text{cr}(\mathcal{D})}f(c_{x}) is expressed as a sum of ff-values over crossings in the diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D}, but via the bijection xx, we will also find it useful below to view this as a sum of ff-values over all domains in Dome(𝒟)Dom_{e}(\mathcal{D}).

Choose a set of nn crossings c1,,cnc_{1},\dots,c_{n} in the diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D} such that after changing these crossings, the new diagram is alternating. We call each cic_{i} a fixable crossing. (Note that there is more than one choice of a set of fixable crossings for a diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D}.) Call the remaining crossings in cr(𝒟){c1,,cn}\text{cr}(\mathcal{D})\setminus\{c_{1},\dots,c_{n}\} the static crossings.

Let xx be a Kauffman state of 𝒟\mathcal{D}. Note that given a domain DDome(𝒟)D\in Dom_{e}(\mathcal{D}), the domain DD has exactly one corner marked (chosen) by xx.

We call a domain good if it is not bad. After changing all the fixable crossings, each domain will be good. In a good domain, all corners have the same ff-value aD{14,14}a_{D}\in\{\frac{1}{4},-\frac{1}{4}\}, where aDa_{D} depends on the domain DD [SSss]. Also, note that after changing a crossing, the ff-value at that crossing is multiplied by 1-1. Thus, given a domain DD in the original diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D}, the static corners all have the same ff-value aDa_{D}, whereas the fixable corners all have the same ff-value aD-a_{D}.

Let xx and yy be Kauffman states in the diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D}. Let DDome(𝒟)D\in Dom_{e}(\mathcal{D}) be a domain which contributes to the δ\delta-gradings δ(x)\delta(x) and δ(y)\delta(y) (that is, DD is not adjacent to the special marked edge ee). The contributions to δ(x)\delta(x) and δ(y)\delta(y) from the writhe are the same, and we are interested in the difference

|δ(x)δ(y)|=|ccr(𝒟)f(cx)ccr(𝒟)f(cy)|.|\delta(x)-\delta(y)|=|\sum_{c\in\text{cr}(\mathcal{D})}f(c_{x})-\sum_{c\in\text{cr}(\mathcal{D})}f(c_{y})|.

We can view each summation on the right-hand side as a sum over domains DDome(𝒟)D\in Dom_{e}(\mathcal{D}) via the bijections with cr(𝒟)\text{cr}(\mathcal{D}) given by xx and yy. Let cxc_{x}, respectively cyc_{y}, denote the crossing associated to the domain DD by xx, respectively yy. The domain DD falls into exactly one of four categories:

  1. (1)

    cxDc_{x}\in D is a static crossing, cyDc_{y}\in D is a fixable crossing;

  2. (2)

    cxDc_{x}\in D is a fixable crossing, cyDc_{y}\in D is a static crossing;

  3. (3)

    cxDc_{x}\in D and cyDc_{y}\in D are both fixable crossings;

  4. (4)

    cxDc_{x}\in D and cyDc_{y}\in D are both static crossings.

In cases (1) and (2), the ff-values at this domain DD for xx and yy differ by at most 12\frac{1}{2}. The maximum number of possible domains of the diagram 𝒟\mathcal{D} that fall into case (1) is bounded above by the number of fixable crossings nn. Similarly, the number of possible domains in case (2) is bounded above by nn. In cases (3) and (4), the contributions to the δ\delta-grading of xx and yy are the same for the domain DD. Thus, summing over all domains in Dome(𝒟)Dom_{e}(\mathcal{D}), we see

|δ(x)δ(y)|12n+12n+0+0=n.|\delta(x)-\delta(y)|\leq\frac{1}{2}n+\frac{1}{2}n+0+0=n.

If we take the maximum of the left-hand side of this inequality over all pairs of homogeneous elements x,yC𝒟,eδx,y\in C_{\mathcal{D},e}^{\delta}, we see immediately th(K)n\text{th}(K)\leq n. Taking the minimum nn, over all choices of a set of fixable crossings in a diagram and over all diagrams for KK, gives the bound th(K)dalt(K)\text{th}(K)\leq\text{dalt}(K). ∎

References

  • [ABB+92] Colin C. Adams, Jeffrey F. Brock, John Bugbee, Timothy D. Comar, Keith A. Faigin, Amy M. Huston, Anne M. Joseph, and David Pesikoff, Almost alternating links, Topology Appl. 46 (1992), no. 2, 151–165. MR 1184114
  • [AK10] Tetsuya Abe and Kengo Kishimoto, The dealternating number and the alternation number of a closed 3-braid, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 19 (2010), no. 9, 1157–1181. MR 2726563
  • [AP04] Marta M. Asaeda and Józef H. Przytycki, Khovanov homology: torsion and thickness, Advances in topological quantum field theory, NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem., vol. 179, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2004, pp. 135–166. MR 2147419
  • [CK09] Abhijit Champanerkar and Ilya Kofman, Spanning trees and Khovanov homology, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 137 (2009), no. 6, 2157–2167. MR 2480298
  • [Cro59] Richard Crowell, Genus of alternating link types, Ann. of Math. (2) 69 (1959), 258–275. MR 99665
  • [Gre17] Joshua Evan Greene, Alternating links and definite surfaces, Duke Math. J. 166 (2017), no. 11, 2133–2151, With an appendix by András Juhász and Marc Lackenby. MR 3694566
  • [How17] Joshua A. Howie, A characterisation of alternating knot exteriors, Geom. Topol. 21 (2017), no. 4, 2353–2371. MR 3654110
  • [JLPZ17] Kaitian Jin, Adam M. Lowrance, Eli Polston, and Yanjie Zheng, The Turaev genus of torus knots, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 26 (2017), no. 14, 1750095, 28. MR 3735396
  • [Lee05] Eun Soo Lee, An endomorphism of the Khovanov invariant, Adv. Math. 197 (2005), no. 2, 554–586. MR 2173845
  • [Low08] Adam M. Lowrance, On knot Floer width and Turaev genus, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 8 (2008), no. 2, 1141–1162. MR 2443110
  • [Mur58] Kunio Murasugi, On the genus of the alternating knot. I, II, J. Math. Soc. Japan 10 (1958), 94–105, 235–248. MR 99664
  • [OS03] Peter Ozsváth and Zoltán Szabó, Heegaard Floer homology and alternating knots, Geom. Topol. 7 (2003), 225–254. MR 1988285
  • [OS04] by same author, Holomorphic disks and knot invariants, Adv. Math. 186 (2004), no. 1, 58–116. MR 2065507
  • [OS05] by same author, On the Heegaard Floer homology of branched double-covers, Adv. Math. 194 (2005), no. 1, 1–33. MR 2141852
  • [SSss] András I. Stipsicz and Zoltán Szabó, A note on thickness of knots, Geometry and Topology, Springer, Cham, in press.
  • [Tur87] V. G. Turaev, A simple proof of the Murasugi and Kauffman theorems on alternating links, Enseign. Math. (2) 33 (1987), no. 3-4, 203–225. MR 925987
  • [Tur08] Paul Turner, A spectral sequence for Khovanov homology with an application to (3,q)(3,q)-torus links, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 8 (2008), no. 2, 869–884. MR 2443099