Paper detail

On ambiguity in knot polynomials for virtual knots

We claim that HOMFLY polynomials for virtual knots, defined with the help of the matrix-model recursion relations, contain more parameters, than just the usual $q$ and $A = q^N$. These parameters preserve topological invariance and do not show up in the case of ordinary (non-virtual) knots and links. They are most conveniently observed in the hypercube formalism: then they substitute $q$-dimensions of certain fat graphs, which are not constrained by recursion and can be chosen arbitrarily. The number of these new topological invariants seems to grow fast with the number of non-virtual crossings: 0, 1, 1, 5, 15, 91, 784, 9160, ... This number can be decreased by imposing the factorization requirement for composites, in addition to topological invariance -- still freedom remains. None of these new parameters, however, appear in HOMFLY for Kishino unknot, which thus remains unseparated from the ordinary unknots even by this enriched set of knot invariants.

preprint2016arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.