(Series On Knots and Everything - Vol. 21) Slavik Jablan & Radmila Sazdanović-LINKNOT Knot Theory by Computer-WS

Lin Knot
Knot Theory by Computer

SERIES ON KNOTS AND EVERYTHING
Editor-in-charge: Louis H. Kauffman (Univ. of Illinois, Chicago)
The Series on Knots and Everything: is a book series polarized around the theory of
knots. Volume 1 in the series is Louis H Kauffman’s Knots and Physics.
One purpose of this series is to continue the exploration of many of the themes
indicated in Volume 1. These themes reach out beyond knot theory into physics,
mathematics, logic, linguistics, philosophy, biology and practical experience. All of
these outreaches have relations with knot theory when knot theory is regarded as a
pivot or meeting place for apparently separate ideas. Knots act as such a pivotal place.
We do not fully understand why this is so. The series represents stages in the
exploration of this nexus.
Details of the titles in this series to date give a picture of the enterprise.
Published:
Vol. 1: Knots and Physics (3rd Edition)

by L. H. Kauffman
Vol. 2: How Surfaces Intersect in Space — An Introduction to Topology (2nd Edition)
by J. S. Carter
Vol. 3: Quantum Topology
edited by L. H. Kauffman & R. A. Baadhio
Vol. 4: Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity
by J. Baez & J. P. Muniain
Vol. 5: Gems, Computers and Attractors for 3-Manifolds
by S. Lins
Vol. 6: Knots and Applications
edited by L. H. Kauffman
Vol. 7: Random Knotting and Linking
edited by K. C. Millett & D. W. Sumners
Vol. 8: Symmetric Bends: How to Join Two Lengths of Cord
by R. E. Miles
Vol. 9: Combinatorial Physics
by T. Bastin & C. W. Kilmister
Vol. 10: Nonstandard Logics and Nonstandard Metrics in Physics
by W. M. Honig
Vol. 11: History and Science of Knots
edited by J. C. Turner & P. van de Griend
RokTing - Linknot.pmd 2 9/26/2007, 11:47 AM

Vol. 12: Relativistic Reality: A Modern View
edited by J. D. Edmonds, Jr.
Vol. 13: Entropic Spacetime Theory
by J. Armel
Vol. 14: Diamond — A Paradox Logic
by N. S. Hellerstein
Vol. 15: Lectures at KNOTS ’96
by S. Suzuki
Vol. 16: Delta — A Paradox Logic
by N. S. Hellerstein
Vol. 17: Hypercomplex Iterations — Distance Estimation and Higher Dimensional Fractals
by Y. Dang, L. H. Kauffman & D. Sandin
Vol. 19: Ideal Knots
by A. Stasiak, V. Katritch & L. H. Kauffman
Vol. 20: The Mystery of Knots — Computer Programming for Knot Tabulation
by C. N. Aneziris
Vol. 21: LINKNOT: Knot Theory by Computer
by S. Jablan & R. Sazdanovic
Vol. 24: Knots in HELLAS ’98 — Proceedings of the International Conference on Knot
Theory and Its Ramifications
edited by C. McA Gordon, V. F. R. Jones, L. Kauffman, S. Lambropoulou &
J. H. Przytycki
Vol. 25: Connections — The Geometric Bridge between Art and Science (2nd Edition)
by J. Kappraff
Vol. 26: Functorial Knot Theory — Categories of Tangles, Coherence, Categorical
Deformations, and Topological Invariants
by David N. Yetter
Vol. 27: Bit-String Physics: A Finite and Discrete Approach to Natural Philosophy
by H. Pierre Noyes; edited by J. C. van den Berg
Vol. 28: Beyond Measure: A Guided Tour Through Nature, Myth, and Number
by J. Kappraff
Vol. 29: Quantum Invariants — A Study of Knots, 3-Manifolds, and Their Sets
by T. Ohtsuki
Vol. 30: Symmetry, Ornament and Modularity
by S. V. Jablan
Vol. 31: Mindsteps to the Cosmos
by G. S. Hawkins
Vol. 32: Algebraic Invariants of Links
by J. A. Hillman
Vol. 33: Energy of Knots and Conformal Geometry
by J. O'Hara

Vol. 34: Woods Hole Mathematics — Perspectives in Mathematics and Physics
edited by N. Tongring & R. C. Penner
Vol. 35: BIOS — A Study of Creation
by H. Sabelli
Vol. 36: Physical and Numerical Models in Knot Theory
edited by J. A. Calvo et al.
Vol. 37: Geometry, Language, and Strategy
by G. H. Thomas
Vol. 38: Current Developments in Mathematical Biology
edited by K. Mahdavi, R. Culshaw & J. Boucher
Vol. 39: Topological Library
Part 1: Cobordisms and Their Applications
edited by S. P. Novikov and I. A. Taimanov
Vol. 40: Intelligence of Low Dimensional Topology 2006
edited by J. Scott Carter et al.
Vol. 41: Zero to Infinity: The Fountations of Physics
by P. Rowlands

K(gE Series on Knots and Everything - Vol. 21
LinKnot Knot Theory by Computer
Slavikjablan
Radmila Sazdanovic
The Mathematical Institute, Belgrade, Serbia
>World Scientific
NEW J E R S E Y • L O N D O N • S I N G A P O R E • BEIJING • S H A N G H A I • H O N G K O N G • T A I P E I • C H E N N A I
Published by
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224
USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601
UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Series on Knots and Everything — Vol. 21

LINKNOT
Knot Theory by Computer
Copyright © 2007 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval
system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher.
For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright
Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to
photocopy is not required from the publisher.
ISBN-13 978-981-277-223-7
ISBN-10 981-277-223-5
Printed in Singapore.

August 29, 2007 16:40 World Scientific Book - 9in x 6in ws-book9x6
Preface
Knot theory is a new and rich field of mathematics. Although “real” knots
are familiar to everyone and many ideas in knot theory can be formulated
in everyday language, it is an area abundant with open questions.
One of the main ideas of this book is to avoid obvious classification
of knots and links according to their number of components. For this
reason knots and links are referred to as KLs and treated together whenever
possible.
KLs are denoted by Conway symbols, a geometrical-combinatorial way
to describe and derive KLs. The same notation is used in the Mathematica
based computer program LinKnot that represents an integral part of this
book. LinKnot is not only a supplementary computer program, but the
best and most efficient tool for obtaining almost all of the results presented
in the book, that belong to the field of experimental mathematics.
Hands-on computations using Mathematica or the webMathematica
package LinKnot along with detailed illustrations facilitate better learn-
ing and understanding. The program LinKnot can be downloaded from
the web address http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/linknot/ and used as
a powerful educational and research tool for experimental mathematics– im-
plementation of Caudron’s ideas and the Conway notation enables working
with large families of knots and links. The electronic version of this book
and the program LinKnot that provides webMathematica on-line computa-
tions are available at the address http://math.ict.edu.yu/.
Each knot theory problem described in this book is accompanied with
the corresponding LinKnot function that enables the reader to actively
use the program LinKnot, not only for illustrating some problems, but for
computations and experimentation. LinKnot is software open to future de-
velopment: a reader can change it or add new functions. For the systematic
v
vi LinKnot
and exhaustive derivation of KLs we have accepted the concept proposed

by J.H. Conway and A. Caudron, supported and used in a form adapted
for computer implementation. As a prerequisite for the use of the Conway
notation, the complete list of basic polyhedra up to 20 crossings is given in
the program LinKnot.
The key idea is the “vertical” classification of KLs into well-defined
categories– worlds, subworlds, classes, and families, according to new sets
of recursively computed invariants. Patterns obtained from computing
KL invariants imply the existence of more general KL family invariants
that agree with all proposed conjectures. We strongly believe that the
concept of family invariants will be placed on a firm theoretical founda-
tion in the future. New KL tables, organized according to KL fami-
lies, are given in Appendix A that can be downloaded from the address
http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/Appendix.pdf.
After a short graph-theoretical introduction, we consider different no-
tations for KLs: Gauss, Dowker, and Conway notation, along with their
advantages and disadvantages. All basic KL invariants such as the min-
imum crossing number, minimum writhe, linking number, unknotting or
unlinking number, cutting number, and KL properties such as chirality,
periodicity, unlinking gap, and braid family representatives of KLs are dis-
cussed in Chapter 1.
In Chapter 2 we address two important problems: recognition and gen-
eration of KLs. As recognition criteria we consider KL colorings, KL
groups, and more powerful tools such as polynomial KL invariants. Again,
we try to show that polynomial KL invariants can be recovered from the
Conway notation and recursively computed for KL families.
Chapter 3 contains a short excursion into the history of knot theory
and places an emphasis on the beauty, universality, and diversity of knot
theory through various non-standard applications such as mirror curves,
fullerenes, self-referential systems, and KL automata.
We wish to thank Wolfram Research and ICT for supporting our project,
Professors Mitsuyuki Ochiai and Noriko Imafuji for their cooperation in
the development of the program LinKnot and joint distribution of LinKnot
and Knot2000 (K2K), Dror Bar Natan for joining program LinKnot with
Mathematica package KnotTheory, and Professors Donald Crowe, Louis
Kauffman, Jay Kappraff, Charles Livingston, Jozef Przytycki, and Thomas
Gittings for their advice and suggestions.
Slavik Jablan and Radmila Sazdanović

Contents
Preface v
1. Notation of Knots and Links 1
1.1 Basic graph theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Shadows of KLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.1 Gauss and Dowker code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3 KL diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.4 Reidemeister moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1.5 Conway notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1.6 Classification of KLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
1.7 LinKnot functions and KL notation . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
1.8 Rational world and KL invariants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
1.8.1 Chirality of rational KLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
1.9 Unlinking number and unlinking gap . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1.10 Prime and composite KLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
1.11 Non-invertible KLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
1.11.1 Tangle types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
1.11.2 Non-invertible pretzel knots . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
1.11.3 Non-invertible arborescent knots . . . . . . . . . . 140
1.11.4 Non-invertible polyhedral knots . . . . . . . . . . 142
1.12 Reduction of R-tangles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
1.12.1 KLs with unlinking number one . . . . . . . . . . 148
1.13 Braids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
1.13.1 KLs and braids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
1.14 Braid family representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
1.14.1 Applications of minimum braids and braid family
representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
vii
viii LinKnot
1.15 More KL invariants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

1.16 Borromean links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
2. Recognition and Generation of Knots and Links 195

2.1 Recognition of KLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
2.1.1 Group of KL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
2.2 Polynomial invariants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
2.3 Vassiliev invariants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
2.4 Experimenting with KLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
2.5 Derivation and classification of KLs . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
2.6 Basic polyhedra and polyhedral KLs . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
2.7 Basic polyhedra and non-algebraic tangles . . . . . . . . . 268
2.7.1 Generalized tangles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
2.7.2 n-tangles and basic polyhedra . . . . . . . . . . . 283
2.7.3 Non-algebraic tangle compositions and component
algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
2.8 KL tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
2.8.1 Non-alternating and almost alternating KLs . . . 307
2.9 Projections of KLs and chirality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
2.10 Families of undetectable KLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
2.10.1 Detecting chirality of KLs by polynomial invariants 356
2.11 A dream— new KL tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
3. History of Knot Theory and Applications of Knots and Links 375

3.1 History of knot theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
3.2 Mirror curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
3.2.1 Tamil treshold designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
3.2.2 Tchokwe sand drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
3.2.3 Construction of mirror curves . . . . . . . . . . . 388
3.2.4 Enumeration of mirror curves . . . . . . . . . . . 393
3.2.5 Lunda designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
3.2.6 Polyominoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
3.2.7 KLs and mirror curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
3.2.8 Mirror curves on different surfaces . . . . . . . . . 400
3.2.9 Mirror curves in art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
3.2.10 KLs and self-avoiding curves . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
3.3 KLs and fullerenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
3.3.1 General fullerenes, graphs, symmetry and isomers 427
Contents ix
3.3.2 5/6 fullerenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

3.3.3 Knot theory and fullerenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
3.3.4 Nanotubes, conical and biconical fullerenes and
their symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
3.3.5 Fullerenes on other surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
3.4 KLs and logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
3.5 Waveforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
3.6 Knot automata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
Bibliography 459
Index 475
Chapter 1
Notation of Knots and Links
1.1 Basic graph theory
This basic introduction to graph theory is written according to the books by

R.A. Wilson (2002), N.D. Gilbert and T. Porter (1994), with some changes
in definitions, and certain additions.
We will start with the definition of a graph:
Definition 1.1. A graph G consists of a set of vertices V (G) and a set

of edges E(G), such that each edge is incident with two (not necessarily
distinct) vertices.
A graph G can be denoted by G = G(V, E). Two vertices are adjacent

if there exists an edge join them, and they are the endpoints of the edge.
Two edges are adjacent if they have a common endpoint. An edge which
joins a vertex to itself is called a loop, k edges which join the same pair of
vertices are called k-multiple edges, and the corresponding graph is called a
multigraph. If a multigraph contains only single and 2-multiple (or double)
edges, it is called a 2-graph. A graph is simple if it contains no loops and
multiple edges. A graph without loops is called proper, or reduced graph.
If we distinguish the order of the endpoints of edges, treating them as
ordered pairs of vertices, we obtain oriented graphs (or digraphs).
As usual, we will draw graphs with enlarged (labelled) dots for the
vertices, and straight or curved lines for edges, in such a way that a vertex
and an edge are incident iff they meet in the diagram. The placement of
points in the diagram, and whether the lines representing edges are straight,
curved or have to cross one another in any point other then vertex, is
irrelevant.
Definition 1.2. The valence (or degree) of a vertex is the number of edges
1
2 LinKnot
which are incident to it (in a graph with loops, we usually count a loop-edge
twice). The valence of a vertex v will be denoted d(v).
A vertex of a graph G is single or isolated if its valence is 0. Usually,

a non-oriented graph without isolated vertices will be given by a list of
unordered pairs representing edges. In the case of digraphs, ordered pairs
will represent oriented edges. A graph can also be given by its adjacency
list whose entries are lists, each starting with a vertex followed by vertices
adjacent to it, where the order of adjacent vertices is irrelevant.
Definition 1.3. A graph in which all vertices are k-valent is called a k-

valent graph (or k-regular graph).
Since knots are 1-component links (c = 1), we will use the term “link”
or KL (knot or link) for both knots and links, unless we need to talk about
properties specific to knots only.
A graph is (3, 4)-valent if it contains vertices of valences only 3 or 4.
Four-valent graphs will be extremely important for study of KLs as they
represent KL shadows.
Among the graphs corresponding to five Platonic regular polyhedra, the
tetrahedron, cube and dodecahedron graphs are 3-valent, the octahedron
graph is 4-valent, and the icosahedron graph is 5-valent (Fig. 1.1).
Definition 1.4. A graph is complete if every pair of vertices is adjacent.

A graph is bipartite if the vertices can be partitioned into two disjoint sets
X and Y such that all the edges join a vertex in X to a vertex in Y . A
graph is complete bipartite if it contains all possible edges from a vertex in
X to a vertex in Y .
The complete graph on n vertices is usually denoted Kn , while the

complete bipartite graph on two sets of m and n vertices is denoted Km,n .
For example,
K5 = {{1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 4}, {1, 5}, {2, 3}, {2, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 4}, {3, 5}, {4, 5}},
K3,3 = {{1, 4}, {1, 5}, {1, 6}, {2, 4}, {2, 5}, {2, 6}, {3, 4}, {3, 5}, {3, 6}}.
Definition 1.5. A walk of length n is a sequence v1 e1 v2 e2 ...vn en vn+1 of

vertices vi (1 ≤ i ≤ n + 1) and edges ej (1 ≤ j ≤ n) such that each is
incident to the next.
Notation of Knots and Links 3
Fig. 1.1 (a) Tetrahedron, (b) cube, (c) dodecahedron, (d) octahedron, (e) icosahedron
graph.
A walk is closed if v1 = vn+1 , and open otherwise. A trail is a walk in

which all edges are distinct, a circuit is a closed trail with at least one edge.
A path is a trail in which all vertices are distinct (except v1 and vn+1 if a
trail is closed). A cycle is a circuit with all distinct vertices (except v1 and
vn+1 ). An Euler’s circuit is a walk that uses each edge of a graph exactly
once.
Definition 1.6. Two vertices are connected if there is a walk from one to
the other.
The relation of vertex connectivity is an equivalence relation (reflex-

ive, symmetric and transitive) which partitions a set of vertices V (G) into
equivalence classes called (connected) components of G.
Definition 1.7. A graph is connected if every pair of vertices is connected

(i.e., if all vertices belong to one component).
4 LinKnot
A tree is a connected graph with no cycles.

The vertex connectivity k(G) of a graph G is the minimum number of
vertices that need to be removed together with their incident edges in order
to obtain disconnected or 1-vertex graph (in the case when G can not be
disconnected by removing vertices).
Definition 1.8. A graph is called k-vertex connected (or just k-connected)
if at least k vertices need to be removed in order to disconnect the graph,
or to obtain a 1-vertex graph.
Definition 1.9. A connected graph G is k-edge connected, if at least k
edges need to be removed in order to disconnect the graph. The edge
connectivity of a graph G is the minimum number of edges which need to
be deleted in order to disconnect the graph.
A subgraph G′ = G′ (V ′ , E ′ ) of a graph G = G(V, E) is a graph such
that V ′ ⊂ V , E ′ ⊂ E, and both endpoints of each edge from E ′ belong to
V ′.
Definition 1.10. Two graphs G and G′ are isomorphic (G ≃ G′ ) if there
is a one-to-one correspondence between their vertices and one-to-one cor-
respondence between their edges, which preserves incidence.
If the edge e in G corresponds to the edge e′ in G′ , then the endpoints
of e correspond to the endpoints of e′ .
Definition 1.11. A graph G is plane if it is drawn in plane (or on the
sphere) with no two edges crossing each other, and it is planar if it is
isomorphic to a plane graph.
A simple planar graph can be embedded in ℜ2 so that each edge is a
straight line (for the proof see, e.g., Cromwell, 2004).
Stereographic projection caries plane embeddings to embeddings on a
sphere and vice versa.
Definition 1.12. An embedding of a graph G is a drawing of G on a certain
surface in which the edges do not intersect.
A non-planar graph can be always embedded on some surface, other
then the plane (or sphere). For example, all graphs of polyhedra (Fig. 1.1)
are planar, and the graphs K5 and K3,3 are non-planar.
Definition 1.13. An automorphism of a graph G is any isomorphism of G
to itself.
All automorphisms of a graph G make its automorphism group denoted

as Aut(G).
In every graph drawing, edges are drawn by broken and/or smooth
lines, where the break points or nugatory edge crossings in graphs which
are not plane should not be perceived as vertices. Usually, graph vertices
are labelled and/or denoted by dots.
Definition 1.14. An embedding of a graph induces a map M : the division

of the unbounded surface on which the graph is embedded into disjoint
simply-connected regions called faces. A face with two vertices and two
edges will be called a bigonal face (or just bigon).
The dual D(M ) of a given map M can be constructed in the following

way: in the map M you draw a vertex of D(M ) in the interior of each
region of M (including the exterior region), and you join them by edges,
one edge of D(M ) crossing each edge of M . The graph D(M ) is called the
dual of M . In the case of polyhedra and their corresponding graphs, you
can join up the points in the interior of adjacent faces of a polyhedron P to
obtain the dual polyhedron D(P ). Doing this a second time gets you back
to a polyhedron D(D(P )) isomorphic to P . Different planar embeddings
of a planar graph G may give different dual graphs D(G), so there exist
isomorphic graphs with non-isomorphic duals (Fig. 1.2).
A component of graph G is its maximal connected subgraph, and a
component of map M is its maximal connected submap.
Every embedding can be described by an embedding adjacency matrix.
For each entry, the first vertex is followed by a sequence of its adjacent ver-
tices given in the same (left or right) cyclic order. For the end points, only
the cyclic permutation corresponding to them is important, and not their
particular position in the permutation. For example, a planar embedding
of the octahedron graph (Fig. 1.3)
O = {{1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 5}, {1, 6}, {2, 3}, {2, 4}, {2, 6}, {3, 4}, {3, 5}, {4, 5}, {4, 6}, {5, 6}}
is
{{1, 2, 6, 5, 3}, {2, 3, 4, 6, 1}, {3, 1, 5, 4, 2}, {4, 3, 5, 6, 2}, {5, 3, 1, 6, 4}, {6, 2, 4, 5, 1}}.
After drawing the first vertex 1, we draw its incident edges in the right
cyclic order: {1, 2}, {1, 6}, {1, 5}, {1, 3}, then we continue with the vertex 2
and its adjacent edges in the same right cyclic order: {2, 3}, {2, 4}, {2, 6},
6 LinKnot
Fig. 1.2 Isomorphic graphs (a), (b), and their non-isomorphic duals (a′ ), (b′ ).
Fig. 1.3 The planar embedding of octahedron graph.
{2, 1}, having in mind that {2, 1} is already drawn as {1, 2}, etc., until
using all edges of the graph.
LinKnot function fPlanarEmbGraph gives the planar embedding of
a 3-connected planar graph given by a list of unordered pairs. The output
is a list that consists of the input graph, its planar embedding, and the
faces of the planar embedded graph. The basis of this program is the
external program planarity.exe written by J.M. Boyer (Boyer and Myrvold,
2005). The LinKnot function DrawPlanarEmbGraph draws a planar
embedding of a graph given by a list of unordered pairs, and the function
DrawPlanarEmbKL draws a planar embedding of a KL without multiple
edges. The basis of these functions is the program 3-Dimensional Convex
Drawings of 3-Connected Planar Graphs by M. Ochiai, N. Imafuji and N.
Morimura.
In every plane graph drawn in the plane ℜ2 we visually distinguish an
external face and internal faces placed inside it. In the octahedron plane
graph (Fig. 1.3) the external face is {1, 2, 3}, and other (internal) faces are
placed inside it. Sometimes, especially for the plane graphs obtained from
symmetric polyhedra, it is useful to imagine them on a sphere S 3 .
Theorem 1.1. (Euler’s formula) Every planar map M with v vertices, e

edges, f faces and c components satisfies Euler’s formula:
v − e + f = c + 1.
The term χ = v − e + f obtained from a map on any surface is called the

Euler characteristic of the surface.
Euler’s formula for polyhedra (c = 1) was discovered around 1750 by L.
Euler and first proven by A.M. Legendre in 1794. The interested reader can
find 19 different proofs of Euler’s formula in D. Eppstein’s The Geometry
Junkyard (http://www.ics.uci.edu/∼ eppstein/junkyard/euler/). A few of
them are based on Jordan Curve Theorem, proved by O. Veblen in 1905:
Theorem 1.2. (Jordan Curve Theorem) If c is a simple closed curve in

ℜ2 , then ℜ2 \ c has two components (an “inside” and “outside”), with the c
boundary of each (Jordan, 1887; Veblen, 1905; Hatcher, 2002; Grabowski,
2005).
The complete proof of Jordan Curve Theorem is given in Algebraic

Topology by A. Hatcher (2002), and the computer proof in the proof checker
Mizar required 200 000 lines (Grabowski, 2005).
The most celebrated result about the planarity of graphs is Pontryagin-
Kuratowski’s Theorem. Two graphs G and G′ are isomorphic modulo ver-
′′
tices of degree 2 if G is isomorphic to a graph G obtained from G′ by the
addition or deletion of vertices with just two incident edges:
8 LinKnot
• • ←→ • • •
Theorem 1.3. (Pontryagin-Kuratowski’s Theorem) Let G be a finite

graph. G is planar iff it contains no subgraph isomorphic modulo vertices
of degree 2 to K5 or K3,3 (Kuratowski, 1930).
Short proof of the sufficiency part of this theorem is given by Y.

Makarychev (1997), and the complete proof can be found, e.g., in Graphs
on Surfaces by B. Mohar and C. Thomassen (2001).
The transformations described above are a subdivision and a contraction
of a graph edge. A subdivision of a graph G is a graph obtained from G by
a finite number of the following operations. Let v, w be the vertices of G
which are connected by the edge vw. Introduce a new vertex x and replace
the edge vw by two edges vx and xw, i.e., insert a vertex x in the middle
of an existing edge vw.
Definition 1.15. Replacing two adjacent vertices by a single vertex of a

graph is an operation called elementary contraction. The new vertex is
joined to every other vertex which was joined to one or both original two
vertices. A contraction of G is any graph that can be obtained from G by
a finite sequence of elementary contractions.
The same operations, subdivision and contraction, can be applied on

any line segment AB in ℜ3 replacing it by two line segments AC and CB
or vice versa.
In the language of contraction, Pontryagin-Kuratowski’s Theorem can
be formulated as:
Theorem 1.4. A graph G is planar iff it contains no subgraph which has

K5 or K3,3 as a contraction.
In considering KLs, a special kind of contraction where edges forming a

bigon (Definition 1.14) are contracted simultaneously will play an important
role. We will call such contraction a bigon collapse.
As well as a plane or sphere, we may consider other smooth surfaces,
which can be orientable, and like a sphere have an inside and an outside, or
can be non-orientable, such as the projective plane or Klein bottle. An ori-
entable surface can be thought of as a sphere with g handles (g = 0, 1, 2, . . .),
and the number of handles g is the genus of the surface. For a torus or
“sphere with a handle”, g = 1, for a double torus g = 2, etc. The simplest

non-orientable surface is the projective plane, which may be regarded as a
sphere with antipodes identified, or as a hemisphere with opposite periph-
eral points identified, or as a sphere with a cross-cap. For a non-orientable
surface without boundary, the genus g is given by the formula g = 2 − χ,
and for an orientable surface without boundary by the formula g = 2−χ 2
(see, e.g., Coxeter and Moser, 1980).
Instead of embedding a graph into a plane or sphere, we may try any
any other smooth (orientable or non-orientable) surface. An embedding
of a graph G in a surface can be constructed by the method known as
the Edmonds algorithm, named after J. Edmonds who described it in 1960
(Edmonds, 1960; Gilbert and Porter, 1994).
As an input, the LinKnot function fEdmonds uses unoriented graph
given by the list of unordered pairs (edges) and calculates its embeddings
(given by labelled polygons), the Euler characteristic of the surface and
its genus. From the output, we can draw the corresponding embedding.
For example, for K3,3 given by the list of unordered pairs, the function
fEdmonds gives the result
{{{1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6}, {1, 4, 3, 6, 2, 5}, {1, 5, 3, 4, 2, 6}}, 0, 1}.

Since the surface has Euler characteristic 0 and genus 1, according to
the classification of surfaces, the graph G is embedded on a torus.
Hence, the embedding of the non-planar graph K3,3 on a torus (Fig.
1.4) is given by
{{1, 6, 4, 5}, {2, 6, 4, 5}, {3, 6, 4, 5}, {4, 1, 2, 3}, {5, 1, 2, 3}, {6, 1, 2, 3}}.
In a similar way we obtain the embedding
{{1, 2, 4, 3}, {1, 2, 5, 4}, {1, 3, 2, 5}, {1, 4, 3, 5}, {2, 3, 5, 4}},
of the non-planar graph K5 on a torus.
We can also consider colored (or weighted) graphs:
Definition 1.16. A vertex k-coloring of a graph is a coloring of the vertices

by k colors, and an edge k-coloring is a coloring of the edges by k colors. A
coloring with two colors (usually black and white) will be called a (vertex
or edge) bicoloring.
If the colors are treated as weights assigned to vertices or edges of a

graph, such a graph is a weighted graph.
10 LinKnot
Fig. 1.4 Embedding of the graph K3,3 on a torus.
1.2 Shadows of KLs
Knots have been used for various purposes from prehistoric times till today,
even serving as the basis for mathematical recording systems (e.g., for Inca
quipu). Examples of knots can be found in all ancient civilizations, in
Chinese art, Celtic art, ethnic Tamil and Tchokwe art, in Arabian, Greek
or Smyrnian laces... In contemporary science and art, KLs can be found in
DNA, physics, chemistry, sculpture, etc. Knots in design are the example of
modular structures (Jablan, 2002), since they can be composed from only
five basic pieces (modules) (Fig. 1.5).
Before giving a precise definition of KLs, we can start from an intuitive
description of knotting. Given a piece of string (like shoe laces or yarn)
we tangle it any way we want. A “mathematical” KL is different from
the “real” one since it is closed. A string ends should be glued together.
Moreover, mathematical KLs are made of string with no thickness– just a
closed curve in 3D-space with no self-intersections. A link is a set of several
disjoint tangled knots.
Definition 1.17. A knot is a smooth embedding of a circle S 1 into Euclid-

ean 3-dimensional space ℜ3 (or the 3-dimensional sphere S 3 ), and a c-
component link is a smooth embedding of c disjoint copies of a circle S 1
into ℜ3 (or S 3 ), where the embeddings of circles Si1 are its components
(i = 1, 2, . . . , c).
Fig. 1.5 KLs as modular structures.
Requiring an embedding to be smooth insures that wild knots or links

(Fig. 1.6b) are excluded from the definition, i.e., we work only with tame
KLs. Two more examples of wild embeddings are Alexander’s horned
sphere and Antoine’s necklace. Another way of avoiding problems with
wild knots is using polygonal (piecewise linear) KLs that are finite by na-
ture. R.H. Crowell and R.H. Fox (1965) proved the equivalence of the
smooth-curve and piecewise linear approach.
The main topic of knot theory is classifying KLs. Therefore we introduce
the relation of ambient isotopy.
Two links L and L1 are ambient isotopic iff there is a continuous move-
ment (or deformation) of space S 3 that transforms L into L1 . More pre-
cisely, L and L1 are ambient isotopic if one can be transformed to the
other by a diffeomorphism of the ambient space onto itself, where a dif-
feomorphism is a map between manifolds which is differentiable and has a
differentiable inverse.
In other words, transformation of L to L1 has to be smooth with smooth
inverse, i.e., tearing a thread and regluing, as well as shrinking one part
of a link to a point is not allowed. If we imagine that the curves defining
a link are made of flexible and elastic thread, then the ambient isotopy is
equivalent to allowing the threads to be twisted and moved continuously in
space (cutting and gluing back together is not allowed).
In order to give a precise definition of ambient isotopy we need the
following mathematical background:
12 LinKnot
Definition 1.18. Let X be a non-empty set. A topology on X is a collec-

tion of subsets of X, called open sets, satisfying:
(1) the empty set and X itself are open sets;

(2) an arbitrary union of open sets is an open set;
(3) the intersection of finitely many open sets is an open set.
The set X together with a collection of open sets satisfying the rules
(1), (2), (3) is a topological space.
Definition 1.19. Let X and Y be topological spaces. A function f : X →

Y is continuous if, for every open set V in Y , its origin f −1 (V ) is open in X.
A function f : X → Y which is bijective, continuous, and has a continuous
inverse f −1 : Y → X is called a homeomorphism. A function f : X → Y
which is injective, continuous, and such that the bijection f : X → f (X)
has a continuous inverse is called an embedding.
Definition 1.20. Knots K and K1 are ambient-isotopic if there exists a

continuous function H: ℜ3 × [0, 1] → ℜ3 such that:
(1) h0 = H((x, y, z), 0) is the identity ℜ3 → ℜ3 ,

(2) for all t ∈ [0, 1], ht = H((x, y, z), t) is a homeomorphism ℜ3 → ℜ3 ,
(3) if h1 = H((x, y, z), 1), then h1 (K) = K1 .
Definition 1.20 provides a continuous sequence of homeomorphisms of

ℜ3 from time t = 0 to t = 1. If K and K1 are ambient-isotopic, then knots
ht (K) (t ∈ [0, 1]) represent a continuous deformation from K into K1 . This
definition can be extended to links in a natural way (Gilbert and Porter,
1994).
In order to distinguish KLs we need to know what are the embeddings
of KLs in ℜ3 or S 3 , (i.e., embeddings of homeomorphic images of circles
representing them). Hence, we can try something different: to compare
their complements with regard to ℜ3 (or S 3 ). It is easy to see that if two
links L1 and L2 are ambient isotopic, their complements are homeomorphic.
Also, a link and its mirror image have homeomorphic complements. Does
inverse statement hold?
Theorem 1.5. Two knots K1 and K2 are ambient isotopic iff their com-
plements are homeomorphic (Gordon and Luecke, 1989).
However, this statement is not true for links; according to the famous
Whitehead example, two links that are not ambient isotopic can have home-
omorphic complements (Fig. 1.6a). Whitehead proved that there are infi-
nitely many links with the same complement as the Whitehead link (Fig.
1.6a, left) (Whitehead, 1937; Gordon, 2002).
In order to avoid the necessity of introducing differentiable or smooth
curves, as well to avoid some peculiar cases such as wild KLs (Fig. 1.6b),
we can think about KLs as piecewise linear.
Definition 1.21. A link consisting of c closed polygonal lines in ℜ3 is

called a polygonal link. A link L is called tame if it is ambient isotopic to a
polygonal link, and wild otherwise.
All smooth KLs are tame, and the polygonal (piece-wise linear) knot
theory approach is equivalent to the smooth-curve approach (Crowel and
Fox, 1965; Burde and Zieschang, 1985).
For polygonal KLs a elementary planar isotopy is achieved either by
subdividing an edge AB by the vertex C, or by applying a contraction on
AC and CB. An ambient isotopy for a polygonal KL is a finite sequence
of elementary isotopies.
Fig. 1.6 (a) Different links with homeomorphic complements; (b) wild knot.
14 LinKnot
Having this in mind, we can define a link, or more precisely, a represen-

tation of a link as a collection of c disjoint closed polygonal curves tangled
together in space. Hence, a link is a class of its equivalent representations,
where the equivalence relation is ambient isotopy.
The wild knot (Fig. 1.6b) has a single isolated pathological point, to-
ward which a succession of smaller and smaller knots converges. In a similar
way, wild knots with a finite number of pathological points can be con-
structed, but one can go further and construct a wild knot with an infinite,
and even uncountable set of pathological points that represents the Cantor
continuum (Sossinsky, 2002).
Perhaps the play of shadows on the wall of a cave was the first movie
in the history of mankind– let us do the same with KLs and their ambi-
ent isotopies, i.e., take their shadows. A link shadow L′ is the orthogonal
projection of a link L onto the plane ℜ2 .
Fig. 1.7 Knot shadow.
Let p denote the projection of R3 onto a plane, and L′ = p(L) the

projection of an arbitrary link L. Except in special cases, when L is an
unknot or unlink in general position, curve representing L′ will have at
least finite number intersection points, i.e., double points.
The word “at least” deserves special attention: for every link L we need
to obtain its regular (or generic) shadow– a shadow without catastrophes,
or degenerations (Sossinsky, 2002). An intersection of a generic projection
should be transverse (not tangent).
Definition 1.22. Let L be a polygonal link. Its shadow L′ is regular if the

following conditions are satisfied:
(1) the shadow is a 4-valent (or 4-regular) graph;

(2) if Q′ is a point in L′ , then the inverse image p−1 (Q′ ) ∩ L has at most
two points. If it has two points, they must be the interior points of two
distinct edges of L, and Q′ is the vertex (or crossing) in L′ . In other
words, Q′ can have only one inverse image.
This means that every vertex of a shadow will be 4-valent, two or more
vertices of the polygonal link L can not be projected to the same point,
vertices of L′ can not belong to an interior point of any edge, three or more
points can not be projected to the same point, and projections of different
edges of L or their parts can not coincide in L′ . The forbidden situations
can be removed by a suitable choice of projection plane and/or by slightly
displacing the vertices of the polygonal link L. As with any other graph, a
shadow of a KL can be given by a list of unordered pairs, or by an adjacency
list, but the information from which you can draw regular shadow is given
by the code of planar embedding of its graph.
From the graph theory point of view, link shadow L′ is a 4-valent (or
4-regular) plane graph. The most important question is how much infor-
mation about link L can be obtained from its shadow L′ . As an example,
we will describe how to determine number of components of a link L from
its shadow L′ , according to the following rules:
Component Algorithm
• Choose an arbitrary oriented edge (x, y) in L′ . Choose the middle of the

three remaining edges incident with y and orient it so that its beginning
point is y. Repeat the same rule until closing a component of L′ .
• Choose a new edge and repeat the same procedure until using all edges
of the graph L′ .
Using all edges means that we have traced all components of L′ and
obtained one of the simplest KL invariants– the component number c.
From every 4-valent plane graph L′ there is a link L, such that L′ is its
shadow, and the number of circuits c in L′ obtained by the Component
Algorithm is the number of components of L.
The LinKnot function fComponentNo calculates the number of com-
ponents of any KL.
16 LinKnot
So far, all knot and link tables have been organized according to the
number of components of KLs. In order to make classification of KLs
and find common properties of knots and links, we will try to avoid this
approach as long as possible.
1.2.1 Gauss and Dowker code

C.F. Gauss was the first to consider knots as mathematical entities. Gauss
made codes of immersed curves by assigning letters to the crossing points
of a self-intersecting curve and determined “words” defining a closed curve.
Gauss problem of characterizing codes with planar immersions and repre-
senting projections of knots has an extensive literature and many solutions
(Dehn, 1936; Treybig, 1968; Marx, 1969; Lovász and Marx, 1976; Read and
Rosenstiehl, 1976; de Fraysseix and Ossona de Mendez, 1999).
Giving a labelled plane graph L′ and applying Component Algorithm,
while keeping trace of vertices that were visited, we obtain the Gauss code
of L′ : the list of vertex sequences divided into circuits. For example, from
the graph given by the plane embedding adjacency list
{{1, 2, 2, 3, 4}, {2, 1, 1, 4, 3}, {3, 1, 2, 4, 4}, {4, 3, 3, 2, 1}},
starting from the vertex 1 and the second oriented edge (1,2), we obtain
the Gauss code {{1, 2, 4, 3, 2, 1, 3, 4}}. All edges of the graph are exhausted
in one circuit, so our graph is a shadow of a knot, namely the shadow of
a figure-eight knot (knot 41 in the classical notation, where a symbol of
the form nji denotes ith KL with n crossings and j components, and for
knots the upper index j = 1 is omitted; for knots, this notation is known as
the Alexander-Briggs notation) (Alexander and Briggs, 1926-27; Rolfsen,
1976). Starting from the same vertex by the first oriented edge (1, 2) we
obtain the Gauss code {{1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 1, 4, 3}}, and so on. Notice that Gauss
code is not unique and depends on the choice of the beginning point and
oriented edge incident to it (Fig. 1.8).
From the octahedron graph
{{1, 2, 6, 5, 3}, {2, 3, 4, 6, 1}, {3, 1, 5, 4, 2}, {4, 3, 5, 6, 2}, {5, 3, 1, 6, 4}, {6, 2, 4, 5, 1}},
beginning from 1 and (1, 2), then from 1 and (1, 6), and finally from 2 and
(2, 6) we obtain the Gauss code
{{1, 2, 4, 5}, {1, 6, 4, 3}, {2, 6, 5, 3}},
so it is a shadow of well known 3-component link– Borromean rings 632 (Fig.
1.9).
Fig. 1.8 The Gauss code of figure-eight knot.
The other way round, graph of a KL can be recovered from its Gauss
code. Unoriented edges of KL graph are given by unordered pairs of ad-
jacent numbers in each component of the Gauss code (where the first and
the last number in every component are also adjacent) (see Fig. 1.10).
The Gauss code of a KL is invariant with regard to a change of the
order of components, cyclic rotation and reversing components (if we are
not interested in the orientation of components).
According to the Component Algorithm, for every component we choose
a beginning point, and a first edge which induces the orientation of a whole
component. For a knot shadow with n crossings we have n choices for the
beginning point and 4 choices for direction, total of 4n possibilities. In the
case of links, this number grows with the number of components.
At the beginning of every classification the natural problem arises: to
enumerate all possible objects which can be obtained. Inspired by William
18 LinKnot
Fig. 1.9 The Gauss code of Borromean rings.
Fig. 1.10 Drawing figure-eight shadow from its Gauss code.
Thomson’s (Lord Kelvin’s) vortex theory (1867), his friend P.G. Tait
started with knot tabulation. He established cooperation with the Rev-
erend Thomas Penyngton Kirkman, who spend about 30 years considering
combinatorial problems in graph theory. Kirkman translated knot enumer-
ation to a problem of enumerating 4-regular planar graphs– shadows of
knots. In his first paper sent to Tait in May 1884 Kirkman enumerated
all knot projections with n ≤ 10 crossings. Tait used these tables to ex-
tract different alternating knots with n ≤ 10 crossings. Before publishing
their tables, Tait received an enumeration of knots up to 10 crossings from
C.N. Little, the material from his Ph.D. thesis On Knots, with a Census for
Order 10. After correcting one duplication in his own list, and a duplica-
tion and omission in Little’s, Tait sent the paper to press. In the meantime,
he received Kirkman’s list of 1581 knot projections with n ≤ 11 crossings
but decided that determining different knots is too demanding and retired
from knot tabulation in 1885 (Keller, 2004). T.P. Kirkman (1885a,b) and
P.G. Tait (1876-1885) completed the first knot tables of alternating knots
with n ≤ 10 crossings. Independently, after six years of work, C.N. Little
classified in 1889 non-alternating knots with n ≤ 10 crossings. Tait’s, Kirk-
man’s and Little’s tables of alternating knots are confirmed as complete,
and the only duplicate among 43 non-alternating knots with n = 10 cross-
ings is identified in 1974 (Perko pair). At the time when they finished their
work, after the wide recognition of D. Mendeleev’s periodic table of ele-
ments by scientific community, almost none was interested in knot tables.
After 20 years, mathematicians recovered the subject.
Before trying to repeat and extend Tait’s, Kirkman’s and Little’s results
(now using computers), it will be useful to try to reduce the number of
possibilities by minimizing the number of crossings, and to make the codes
of KLs as concise as possible.
Similar to the definition of a proper (or reduced) graph, a KL
shadow is called proper, or reduced if it has no loops. The Gauss code
{{1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 1}} represents a possible knot shadow (you can recognize
the shadow of a trefoil with a loop) (Fig. 1.11). In order to delete loops
from KL codes, first we need to recognize them. In a Gauss code, the
appearance of the same numbers in adjacent places indicates a loop (where
the first and the last number in any component are treated as adjacent as
well).
Fig. 1.11 The shadow of a trefoil with loop.
From the Gauss code of a KL we can extract another, more concise

code– Dowker code of the KL. In the case of knots, we only need to find
the positions which the same numbers occupy in the Gauss code.
More precisely, information that Gauss code of a knot carries can be
written in a more concise form, obtained in the following way:
20 LinKnot
• each number appears twice in a Gauss code– extract both positions in

an unordered pair;
• each pair contains odd and even number– place odd number in the first
place;
• sort the list of pairs D in the increasing order;
• Dowker code of a knot consists of second elements of all pairs.
As a consequence of the Jordan Curve Theorem (Theorem 1.2), every

crossing in Dowker code is denoted by one odd and one even number. The
list D is sorted according to the first members of ordered pairs, this means,
according to odd numbers. Hence, we don’t need to work with the whole
list, but only with a half of it.
For example, in the Gauss code of the figure-eight knot {{1, 2, 4, 3, 2, 1,
3, 4}} the positions of the number 1 are {1, 6}, the positions of the number 2
are {2, 5}, the positions of the number 3 are {4, 7}, and the positions of the
number 4 are {3, 8}. In every pair we put an odd number at the first position
({1, 6}, {5, 2}, {7, 4}, {3, 8}), and then sort the list of the ordered pairs ob-
tained, so the result is D = {{1, 6}, {3, 8}, {5, 2}, {7, 4}}. By reading every
second member of the ordered pairs from the list D we obtain the Dowker
code {{6, 8, 2, 4}}. Since figure-eight knot has only one component and 4
crossings, we write it’s Dowker code in the form Dow = {{4}, {6, 8, 2, 4}},
where the first part is the number of vertices of the component.
With a minor modification, this construction can be extended to links.
If pairs of numbers of the same oddity appear in some component, rotate
cyclically this component for one place. When parity is fixed for all com-
ponents, after prepending a list with lengths of all components (where the
length of each component is a half of its length in the Gauss code), we
obtain Dowker code of a link.
For example, from the Gauss code of Borromean rings
{{1, 2, 4, 5}, {1, 6, 4, 3}, {2, 6, 5, 3}}, from the unordered pair {1, 5} we im-
mediately conclude that the second component must be rotated one place
to the right, so we obtain {{1, 2, 4, 5}, {3, 1, 6, 4}, {2, 6, 5, 3}}. The parity
is now fixed, so D = {{1, 6}, {3, 8}, {5, 12}, {7, 10}, {9, 2}, {11, 4}}, and the
Dowker code is Dow = {{2, 2, 2}, {6, 8, 12, 10, 2, 4}} (Fig. 1.12).
The same result can be obtained directly from a plane graph of a knot
if we enumerate vertices visited in Component Algorithm by 1, 2,. . ., 2n.
Then, every point of a knot shadow will be denoted by two numbers: one
even and the other odd. After that, we work in the same way as before.
In the case of links we enumerate first one component, then we continue to
Fig. 1.12 The Dowker code of Borromean rings.
enumerate the second, beginning from its point that is visited at the most
once. If the parity is disturbed for some component, we continue from the
next number (that is the same as a cyclic rotation of a component used
before). Applying the same rule until two numbers, one odd and the other
even, are assigned to every crossing, we obtain a Dowker code of a KL (Fig.
1.13a).
Dowker code of a KL is sufficient for drawing its corresponding shadow
(Fig. 1.13b).
Fig. 1.13 (a) Obtaining the Dowker code of figure-eight knot from its shadow; (b)
drawing the shadow from the Dowker code of the same knot.
In order to recognize loops in Dowker codes of knots with n crossings

we need to go one step back and look at the list of ordered pairs: loops
are represented by pairs of successive numbers (where the numbers 1 and
2n are treated as successive as well). However, this criterion can not be
22 LinKnot
applied to links. For example, the Dowker code {{1, 1}, {4, 2}} denotes a
shadow of a Hopf link 221 (2 in Conway notation) without loops.
Now we have all necessary definitions and notions to pursue Kirkman’s
approach to systematic classification and enumeration of all alternating
knot diagrams with n crossings. In solving this problem, Dowker and Gauss
codes will be used.
In order to classify all KLs with n crossings first we create all distinct
permutations of even numbers 2,4, . . ., 2n and all their partitions into 1, 2,
. . ., n parts and obtain all possible Dowker codes with n crossings. Then
we delete from them non-proper codes. The result obtained are all possible
potential Dowker codes of KL shadows with n crossings. We emphasize
“potential” because not all of them are necessarily realizable. For example,
it is impossible to draw the potential Dowker code {{5}, {8, 10, 2, 4, 6}}
(Fig. 1.14a), since it is not planar graph. In fact, it is K5 . Moreover, a
Dowker code can be non-realizable even if its corresponding graph is planar.
For example, to the non-realizable Dowker code {{6}, {4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 2}}
corresponds the (non-realizable) Gauss code {1, 2, 3, 1, 4, 3, 5, 4, 6, 5, 2, 6},
and the planar graph
{{1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 4}, {1, 6}, {2, 3}, {2, 5}, {2, 6}, {3, 4}, {3, 5}, {4, 5}, {4, 6}, {5, 6}}
which is realizable as the link {{2, 2, 2}, {6, 8, 10, 12, 2, 4}}.
A bit strange, but a natural question is: where can a non-realizable
Dowker code be realized? The answer is: on some surfaces other
than plane ℜ2 (or sphere S 2 ). The graph K5 corresponding to the
code {{5}, {8, 10, 2, 4, 6}} can be embedded on a torus, and represents a
shadow of a 3-component link (Fig. 1.14b). One of its Gauss codes is
{{1, 5, 3}, {2, 5, 4}, {1, 2, 3, 4}}, but its Dowker code does not exist (because
Jordan Curve Theorem holds only in ℜ2 or S 2 ). In fact, this Gauss code
represents Borromean rings.
The virtual knot theory introduced by L. Kauffman (Kauffman, 1997,
1999, 2000, 2001; Green, 2004; Manturov, 2002, 2003, 2004; Zin-Justin
and Zuber, 2004; Zinn-Justin, 2006) is a “non-realizable” part of the knot
theory and gives the alternative answer to the question about realizability
of Dowker codes.
By projecting four-valent graphs onto ℜ2 or S 2 , virtual crossings are
intersection points in the projection which are not vertices of the original
graph. For example, graph on a torus with one vertex corresponds to the
Fig. 1.14 (a) An attempt to draw a knot shadow defined by the potential Dowker code
{{5}, {8, 10, 2, 4, 6}}; (b) the result obtained by applying the Component Algorithm on
the embedding of non-planar graph K5 on a torus (that we obtain by identifying opposite
edges of the square); (c) virtual links obtained from Hopf link and Borromean rings.
Hopf link, and Borromean rings can be represented as a five-vertex graph

on a torus. Projection of a Hopf link onto ℜ2 has two vertices, where one
vertex is the image of the vertex of the original graph, and the other is
the “new” virtual vertex. The vertex of the projection corresponding to
the vertex of original graph is called classical, and the other vertices are
virtual. By introducing in classical vertices the relation “over-under”, we
obtain virtual KL-diagrams:
Definition 1.23. A virtual link diagram is a 4-valent plane graph of the

following structure: each vertex has an overcrossing or undercrossing, or is
marked by a virtual crossing.
The equivalence of virtual KLs will be described later, after introducing

generalized Reidemeister moves for virtual KLs (Definition 1.40).
In the spirit of E.A. Abbott’s Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions
(1884) we wonder how would knot and link tables look like if they were
made by people living on torus? Hopf link will be the only one-crossing
link, Borromean rings will belong to five-crossing (and not six-crossing)
links, and many “virtual knots” will be totaly “real” for “Torus-landers”–
they will have only “classical” crossings (Fig. 1.14c).
24 LinKnot
Fig. 1.15 (a) The graph of figure-eight knot; (b) the graph of Borromean rings.
The LinKnot function fDowCodes calculates all Dowker codes of KLs

realizable in the plane ℜ2 (or on the sphere S 2 ). The first step is deriving all
distinct permutations of the set {2, 4, . . . , 2n}. Next, to decide length and
number of components, it makes all partitions of each permutation. Then
it creates the corresponding Dowker codes, and checks their realizability
using Dowker-Thistlethwaite algorithm (Dowker and Thistlethwaite, 1983),
extended to links by H. Doll and J. Hoste (1991).
From a shadow of a KL we can create another plane graph– a graph
of a link, in the following way: first color every other region of the KL
shadow black or white, so that the infinite outermost region is black. In
the checker-board coloring (or Tait coloring) of the plane obtained, put a
vertex at the center of each white region. Then connect any two vertices
that are in regions which share a crossing with an edge containing this
crossing. The result obtained is the graph of the KL corresponding to a
particular KL shadow (Fig. 1.15). There is a one-to-one correspondence

between KL shadows and graphs of KLs.
The LinKnot function fGraphKL calculates and draws a graph of any
given KL. The output is a graph of a KL given by the list of unordered
pairs and its drawing.
1.3 KL diagrams
In order to obtain a KL shadow, we project a 3-D link L onto the plane

ℜ2 . To avoid the loss of the information on three-dimensionality of L,
we need to introduce in each crossing the relation “over-under” and draw
KL shadows. The pictures obtained in this way are link diagrams or link
projections. The notion of a proper shadow can be directly transferred to
a proper diagram (or reduced diagram)– a KL diagram without loops.
Let us now take an arbitrary set of points P1 , P2 ,. . ., Pc belonging to
shadows of distinct components on a diagram L′ of a link L, and move
them each along the corresponding component shadow. If every point Pi
(i = 1, . . . , c), travelling around the component in a fixed direction meets
crossings that alternate between over and under, the diagram L′ is called
an alternating diagram.
Definition 1.24. A link L that has at least one alternating diagram is

called an alternating link (Fig. 1.16). Otherwise, it is a non-alternating
link.
At the beginning of knot theory, all knots were thought to be alter-

nating. The simplest non-alternating knots occur among 8-crossing knots,
and simplest non-alternating link is the 6-crossing link 633 (2, 2, −2) (Figs.
1.17-1.18). If we want to prove that a KL is alternating, we need to find
its alternating diagram. It is, by no means, trivial to prove that this can be
achieved, since there is infinite number of diagrams representing each link.
Among all diagrams of a link L we can distinguish those with a minimal
number of crossings.
Definition 1.25. If n is the least number of crossings in any projection of

L, it is called minimum crossing number (or just crossing number) of L.
Regular (generic) KL-shadows (without splitting points) are already

defined (Definition 1.22) (see also, e.g., Murasugi, 1996, page 26; Sosinsky,
2002, pages 38-39). We will consider only regular proper KL diagrams
26 LinKnot
Fig. 1.16 The projection of Borromean rings.
Fig. 1.17 The first non-alternating knot 819 (3, 3, −2).
(regular KL diagrams without loops): if there is no explicit remark that

some KL diagram is non-proper, the term “diagram of a KL” means “a
regular proper diagram”.
The most important property of alternating diagrams is that they are
minimal: each alternating diagram of a link L is reduced to a minimal num-
ber of crossings. In 1986, L. Kauffman, K. Murasugi and M. Thistlethwaite
used properties of the Jones and Kauffman polynomial to independently
prove the famous Tait’s First Conjecture:
Theorem 1.6. An alternating KL in a reduced alternating projection of

Fig. 1.18 The first non-alternating link 633 (2, 2, −2).
n crossings has crossing number n (Kauffman, 1987b; Murasugi, 1987a,b;

Thistlethwaite, 1987, 1988).
This theorem is now known as Kauffman-Murasugi Theorem. Its proof is
given also in the book Knot Theory and its Applications (Murasugi, 1996,
Theorem 11.5.5), and a new proof based on the notion of atom is given by
V. Manturov (2004, Chapter 15).
In general, it is very difficult to determine the crossing number of a
given KL.
Given a non-alternating projection of a KL with k crossings, can we even
hope to prove that this KL has a projection with fewer than k crossings?
How to find the crossing number n and prove that it is really the minimal
number of crossings for a given link L? In fact, we are able to answer
this question only for a few special special KL classes (such as alternating,
torus, and stellar KLs).
The relation “over-under” can be included in a Gauss code by using
overlined and underlined numbers. In a Gauss code of a KL every number
appears twice. Now it will appear once as overlined, and once as underlined.
In the case of an alternating KL, we will have an alternating sequence “over-
under” (or “under-over”) for each component. For example, to the trefoil
knot diagram corresponds the Gauss code {1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3} or {1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3},
where one of the alternating KL diagrams is always a mirror image of the
other in a mirror reflection plane coinciding with the projection plane ℜ2
(Fig 1.19).
Definition 1.26. A KL is achiral (or amphicheiral) if it is ambient isotopic
to its mirror image. Otherwise it is chiral.
28 LinKnot
Fig. 1.19 Trefoil knot diagram.
Fig. 1.20 The mirror image of the trefoil knot diagram from Fig. 1.19.
Trefoil knot is an example of a chiral knot, and the figure-eight

knot and Borromean rings are achiral. Gauss code of Borromean rings
is {{1, 2, 4, 5}, {3, 1, 6, 4}, {2, 6, 5, 3}} or {{1, 2, 4, 5}, {3, 1, 6, 4}, {2, 6, 5, 3}}.
In translating them to Dowker codes, for a trefoil knot we obtain from
the first Gauss code the list of ordered pairs ({1, 4},{2, 5},{3, 6}}, the
sorted list D = {{1, 4}, {3, 6}, {5, 2}}, and the corresponding Dowker code
{{3}, {4, 6, 2}}. From the second Gauss code we obtain the list of ordered
pairs ({1, 4},{2, 5},{3, 6}}, the sorted list D = {{1, 4}, {3, 6}, {5, 2}}, and
the Dowker code {{3}, {4, 6, 2}}. In the same way, from the Gauss codes of
Borromean rings we obtain the first sorted list divided into components
D = {{{1, 6}, {3, 8}}, {{5, 12}, {7, 10}}, {{9, 2}, {11, 4}}},
and the second divided sorted list

D = {{{1, 6}, {3, 8}}, {{5, 12}, {7, 10}}, {{9, 2}, {11, 4}}},
so the corresponding Dowker codes are {{2, 2, 2}, {6, 8, 12, 10, 2, 4}} and
{{2, 2, 2}, {6, 8, 12, 10, 2, 4}}, respectively. Notice that for alternating dia-
grams all Dowker codes are “lower” or “upper”, meaning that all the num-
bers in the code are underlined or overlined, in contrast to non-alternating
diagrams when some of them will be underlined, and others overlined.
Unless indicated explicitly, all KL projections are considered on a sphere
3
S , and not on the plane.
Definition 1.27. Two KL projections L′ and L′′ are sense-preserving iso-

morphic iff there is an isomorphism of their corresponding graphs preserving
the relation “over-under”.
If the handedness of the projections (“left” or “right”) is irrelevant,

we do not care whether the isomorphism preserves or reverses the relation
“over-under” (Figs. 1.21-1.22). For example, every KL projection and its
mirror image will be isomorphic.
Fig. 1.21 Two non-isomorphic projections of the same knot 75 (Figs. 1.21, 1.22).
The Knot 2000 (K2K) function GetMirrorImageKnot generates P -

data of the mirror image of any KL.
The first tables of knots were made experimentally by Tait, Kirkman
and Little in the second half of XIX century (Tait, 1876/77a,b,c, 1883/84,
1884/85; Kirkman, 1885a,b; Little, 1885, 1890, 1892, 1900). The first book
which contains knot tables is Knotentheorie by K. Reidemeister (1932)
30 LinKnot
Fig. 1.22 Another 7-crossing projection of the knot 75 from Fig. 1.21.
(Fig. 1.23). These tables list knots classified according to their crossing
number. Every knot is presented by one minimal projection and denoted by
ordering number (in the Alexander-Briggs notation, 1926-27). It’s unclear
how Reidemeister selected minimal projections of those knots which have
more then one such. On the list of n-crossing knots, for each n, alternating
knots precede non-alternating knots. Most of the knot theory books closely
follow Reidemeister tables: knot projections are just redrawn, sometimes
turned upside down (e.g., 76 ), and never changed into a different minimal
projection of the same knot. The most influential book containing extensive
tables of KLs, and the first to use Conway notation from his seminal paper
(1970), is D. Rolfsen’s Knots and Links (1976). The only duplicate in his
tables was found by K. Perko (the famous Perko pair, Fig. 1.26), who
also corrected Conway’s eleven crossing knot tables, where four knots were
omitted (Perko, 1974, 1982).
Definition 1.28. The KL notation that follows Alexander-Briggs and Rei-

demeister’s concept will be called the classical notation of KLs, where a
symbol of the form nji denotes ith knot or link with n crossings and j
components, and for knots the upper index j = 1 is omitted.
Although the classical notation does not give algebraic information

about a link, except for the number of crossings and the number of compo-
nents, it is the most commonly used.
The first non-alternating knot diagram, labelled 819 , has 8 crossings. A
possible pair of Gauss codes for this diagram and its mirror image is
{{8}, {1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 3, 5, 8, 7, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7}},
Fig. 1.23 A part of Reidemeister’s tables.
and
{{8}, {1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 3, 5, 8, 7, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7}},
respectively. In the same way, for the first non-alternating link, denoted
633 , Gauss codes can be
{{1, 2, 3, 4}, {4, 3, 5, 6}, {2, 5, 6, 1}}
and
{{1, 2, 3, 4}, {4, 3, 5, 6}, {2, 5, 6, 1}}.
In order to simplify notation, instead of labelling over- and undercross-

ings in a Dowker code we will mark only crossings that differ from a pattern
corresponding to the alternating KL with the same numerical code, and
mark such crossings with a minus sign. In this way, if we don’t need to
distinguish a KL projection from its mirror image, alternating KLs will
32 LinKnot
be denoted by a Dowker code with only positive numbers, and for non-
alternating KLs some entries will be negative. For example, the alternating
projection of the figure-eight knot and its mirror image will have the same
code {{4}, {6, 8, 2, 4}}; the non-alternating projection of the knot 819 (Fig.
1.17) and its mirror image has the code {{8}, {12, 14, 10, −16, 4, 6, 2, −8}}.
Likewise, the code {{2, 2, 2}, {8, −10, 2, 12, 6, −4}} is assigned to the non-
alternating projection of the link 633 (Fig. 1.18) and its mirror image. The
codes obtained will be called DT-codes (where DT comes from Dowker-
Thistlethwaite), or Dowker codes in Knotscape notation (according to the
computer program Knotscape where that notation is used).
It is important to underline that DT-codes essentially differ from a
Dowker code with signs that we will introduce now.
Definition 1.29. A link projection is called oriented if an orientation is

assigned to each component.
Let L′ denote an oriented diagram of a link L. A vertex is negative

(“left”) if it appears in the form shown in Fig. 1.24a, and positive (“right”)
if it appears in the form shown in Fig. 1.24b. Every vertex of L′ belongs to
one of two types mentioned, so we can obtain a vertex-colored KL diagram
by setting “left”-“right” = “black”-“white”. If we label white (positive)
vertices by 1, and black (negative) by −1, we obtain a labelled diagram from
which we can directly read a Gauss code with signs (or simply, Gauss code),
and a Dowker code with signs (or simply, Dowker code). From here and in
the sequel, if there is no other explicit remark, the terms Gauss code and
Dowker code will be used only in the sense: Gauss code and Dowker code
with signs. After introducing signs we have a one-to-one correspondence
between oriented KL projections and their Dowker codes. For example,
it enables us to distinguish knots from Fig. 1.25. If we orient them, the
Dowker code of the first will be {{6}, {4, 6, 2, 10, 12, 8}}, and the Dowker
code of the other {{6}, {4, 6, 2, −10, −12, −8}}.
Definition 1.30. A link is called prime if each of its shadows represents

a graph which is at least 3-edge connected. A link which is not prime is
called a composite link.
In other words, a prime KL can not be represented by some 2-edge

connected shadow. The LinKnot function fPrimeKL checks if a KL is
prime, giving as the output 1 for prime, and 0 for composite KLs. In
a similar way, the function fPrimeGraph tests whether the alternating
Fig. 1.24 (a) A vertex with the sign −1; (b) a vertex with the sign +1.
KL obtained from a graph given by a list of unordered pairs is prime or

composite (the output is 1 for prime, and 0 for a composite KL).
For prime knots, the information contained in a DT-code is sufficient
to draw the corresponding KL projection (or its mirror image). However,
ambiguity occurs in the case of alternating KLs that are not prime. For
example, the two different composite knots in Fig. 1.25 have the same
DT-code {{6}, {4, 6, 2, 10, 12, 8}}.
Fig. 1.25 Two different composite knots with the same Dowker codes.
Introducing signs gives rise to a new invariant of alternating KLs– the

writhe.
34 LinKnot
Definition 1.31. The sum of the signs of the crossing points of a KL

diagram L′ of a link L is called the writhe, and denoted as w(L′ ).
The Second Tait’s conjecture holds for alternating KLs:
Theorem 1.7. If L′ and L′′ are two reduced alternating KL diagrams of

the same link L, then w(L′ ) = w(L′′ ) (Murasugi, 1996, Theorem 11.5.6).
The proof follows directly from the proof of the Kauffman-Murasugi The-
orem (Theorem 1.6), or the Tait’s Flyping Theorem (Theorem 1.11).
The following theorem is the consequence of the Theorem 1.7.
Theorem 1.8. For every achiral alternating knot K, w(K) = 0.
Proof. If D = D(K) is a reduced alternating diagram of achiral alter-

nating knot K, and D∗ = D(K ∗ ) is reduced alternating diagram of its
mirror-image K ∗ , then w(D∗ ) = −w(D). Since K is ambient isotopic to
K ∗ , w(K) = w(D) = w(K ∗ ) = w(D∗ ) = −w(D), so w(D) = −w(D), and
w(D) = w(K) = 0.
Corollary 1.1. Every alternating odd crossing number knot is achiral.
Writhe can be computed with Knot 2000 (K2K) function Writhe

KnotFromPdata. For example, the writhe of the “right” trefoil knot
is 3, the writhe of the left trefoil is −3, and the writhe of the composite
knots in Fig. 1.25 is 6 and 0, respectively, which makes it easy to distinguish
them.
In the case of non-alternating knots, two different minimal projections
of the same knot can have a different writhe. The first such example is the
Perko pair (Fig. 1.26).
Writhe is not an invariant of an oriented link, since changing orientation
of one component changes signs of all its crossings with other components,
while other crossings remain the same. Hence, we need a different invariant
for links– the linking number.
Definition 1.32. Let c1 and c2 be two components of a link L. The linking

number of these two components is the absolute value of the sum of signs
of their crossings divided by 2. The linking number of a link L is the sum
of the linking numbers of all its components.
Theorem 1.9. Linking number of a link is invariant under ambient isotopy

(see, e.g., Murasugi, 1996, Theorem 4.5.1).
Fig. 1.26 Perko pair of knots 3 : −2 0 : −2 0 = 2 1 : −2 0 : −2 0, first with the writhe

w = 8, and the other with w = 10.
Usually, the invariance is checked on link diagrams using combinatorial

moves, called Reidemeister moves (see page 42). The idea of the proof
is the following: a linking number is a link invariant since it is preserved
under Reidemeister moves: Ω1 affects only one component, for Ω2 the sum
of signs of crossings of two different components is 0, so linking number
remains unaffected, and for Ω3 we need to consider all possible orientations
of components and show that the linking number remains preserved.
For example, the linking number of Borromean rings is 0. The LinKnot
function LinkingNo calculates the linking number for any given link. Here
is a brief description of the algorithm.
Take a KL shadow with n crossings. Then sprinkle signs onto vertices
in all possible ways and obtain 2n states of the KL shadow. Each of them
represents a projection of some KL. What will happen if we leave some
vertices of a KL shadow unsigned? In this case one must consider singular
links that differ from true KLs since they contain double points where one
part of the KL cuts another part transversally. Singular KLs are KLs
with intersections. Their projections are called special projections and play
a great role in the construction of Vassiliev invariants. The number of
all special projections which can be obtained from a KL shadow with n
vertices is 3n .
For any KL given by its Conway symbol, the LinKnot function fGen
Sign computes the signs of the crossing points in the order corresponding to
the Dowker code or P -data of a given KL. The function fGaussExtSigns
calculates the Gauss code with signs for a KL projection given by its Con-
way symbol, Dowker code, or P -data. The function fSignsKL calculates
36 LinKnot
the Dowker code with signs of a KL given by its Dowker code in Knotscape
form (or DT-code). For an alternating KL, an input is the Dowker code
without signs, and for a non-alternating KL, an input is the Dowker code
containing only signs of crossings with signs changed with regard to the
corresponding alternating KL. The output is a Dowker code with signs.
The function fKnotscapeDow calculates from a Conway symbol of a KL
its Dowker code in the Knotscape format: Dowker code without signs for
an alternating KL, or Dowker code with signs of changed crossings for a
non-alternating KL.
The most complete, and at the same time, the most concise
code is P-data, which has the same form as a Dowker code. P -
data gives a numerical code, signs of crossing points, and for a non-
alternating KL the information about crossings with relation “over-under”
changed with regard to the corresponding alternating KL. The pro-
gram Knot 2000 (K2K) uses P -data to internally represent a KL. Let
us suppose that we have already computed for some KL its Dowker
code with signs Dow, and its DT-code. For example, for the non-
alternating knot 819 (Fig. 1.17), Dow={{8}, {12, 14, 10, 16, 4, 6, 2, 8}}, and
DT={{8}, {12, 14, 10, −16, 4, 6, 2, −8}}. From Dow we can obtain a list of
ordered pairs, where each crossing is labelled by two numbers: odd and
even. In our example, that list is:
D = {{1, 12}, {3, 14}, {5, 10}, {7, 16}, {9, 4}, {11, 6}, {13, 2}, {15, 8}}.
If in DT the k th number (k = 1, . . ., n) is negative, we need to reverse the
order of the numbers of the k th ordered pair in D, leaving signs in D at
their places. Because the positions of negative numbers in DT are {4, 8},
after reversing the 4th and 8th ordered pair in D, we obtain the list
{{1, 12}, {3, 14}, {5, 10}, {16, 7}, {9, 4}, {11, 6}, {13, 2}, {8, 15}}.
After sorting this list according to the first members of ordered pairs, we
obtain the list
D1 = {{1, 12}, {3, 14}, {5, 10}, {8, 15}, {9, 4}, {11, 6}, {13, 2}, {16, 7}}.
The first part of the P-data is the same as the first part of Dow, and
the second part, called P-word, is the list of the second members of the
ordered pairs from D1 , so P-data={{8}, {12, 14, 10, 15, 4, 6, 2, 7}}. In fact,
P-data is very similar to a Dowker code with signs. The only difference
is that P -data contains odd instead of the corresponding even numbers in
all crossings where the relation “over-under” is changed with regard to the
corresponding alternating KL.
Dowker codes contain all relevant information about a KL diagram, so
can be used as an input for computer programs. Morwen Thistlethwaite
used the Dowker notation to list all prime knots with up to 16 crossings
(Hoste, Thistlethwaite, and Weeks, 1998), and Jim Hoste derived the list
of all links with at the most nine crossings, representing each KL by its
minimal Dowker code (Doll and Hoste, 1991; Cerf, 1998).
Any regular diagram of a KL has a finite number of crossings, and this
number is called the crossing number of the diagram. Given all regular
diagrams of a KL, the crossing number of the regular diagram with the
fewest number of crossings is the crossing number of a KL (Definition
1.25). As we already mentioned, according to Kauffman-Murasugi Theorem
(Theorem 1.6) crossing number of an alternating KL is the crossing number
of its reduced alternating diagram.
Since every KL diagram can be presented with many different se-
quences, there are more sequences then KLs. If we are working with min-
imal diagrams of a KL (where the number of crossings coincides with the
crossing number of the KL) this ratio is finitely many to one. Otherwise,
we have infinitely many sequences for one KL.
The first attempt to minimize the amount of data is a minimization
of Dowker codes. We already mentioned that a Dowker code of a KL
projection is dependent on the choice of the beginning point of each com-
ponent and on its orientation (i.e., on the choice of the first oriented edge).
Among all Dowker codes which correspond to a specific KL projection we
can choose the minimal one. In the case of knots, this means choosing
the minimal permutation among all possible Dowker codes taken without
signs. In the case of links, in order to obtain the minimal Dowker code we
use two criteria in the following order: the length of components (where
shorter components have the priority), and the minimal code (i.e., minimal
permutation criterion).
The simplest, but certainly the slowest minimization algorithm cre-
ates all possible Dowker codes for a given knot projection, sorts them and
chooses the first: the minimal Dowker code of the given projection. In a
similar way, for a link projection one can make all possible choices for begin-
ning points of components and all their orientations, calculate all Dowker
codes and take the minimal one. A more smarter algorithm first sorts com-
ponents according their lengths, then finds an optimal beginning point for
each of them, permute components equivalent with regard to the two cri-
38 LinKnot
teria mentioned above, calculates Dowker codes and chooses the minimal
one. In this way, we can compute the minimal Dowker code for every KL
projection.
Sometimes it is useful to work with weighted graphs of KLs given by a
list of unordered pairs and list of vertex signs instead of Gauss or Dowker
codes. The LinKnot function fGraphInc calculates from a Conway sym-
bol, Dowker code, or P -data of any KL its corresponding graph. An output
is the graph given by edges (as a list of unordered pairs) and by the list of
vertex signs.
The LinKnot function fPlanarEmb calculates the planar embedding
of a prime KL given by a Conway symbol, P -data or Dowker code. An
output is the list that consists of the graph of the input KL, its planar
embedding given by vertex cycles, and the faces of the planar embedded
graph. The basis of this program is the external program planarity.exe
written by J.M. Boyer (Boyer and Myrvold, 2005).
As we already mentioned, every KL shadow is a 4-valent graph. If
we have any polyhedral graph G, we can obtain its corresponding mid-
edge graph M (G) defined by mid-edge points of G by connecting mid-edge
points belonging to adjacent edges of G. Clearly, the result M (G) is always
a 4-valent graph. For example, for the tetrahedron graph
{{1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 4}, {2, 3}, {2, 4}, {3, 4}}
the result is the octahedron graph
{{1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 4}, {1, 5}, {2, 3}, {2, 4}, {2, 6}, {3, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 5}, {4, 6}, {5, 6}}
(Fig. 1.27a). The LinKnot function fMidEdgeGraph gives a mid-edge

graph for any polyhedral graph G given by a list of unordered pairs of
vertices. Every 4-regular graph represents a shadow of a KL, and can be
used to find the corresponding alternating KL diagram given by Dowker
code. The function fKLfromGraph gives the Dowker code in the DT -
form (in Knotscape format) of a KL defined by a given 4-regular graph G.
The corresponding Dowker code with signs can be obtained from it using
the function fSignsKL.
From a signed graph of KL we can recover KL from which it originated
by constructing mid-edge graph, where there exists one-to-one correspon-
dence between bigons in the graph of KL and bigons of the mid-edge graph
(Fig. 1.27b).
Fig. 1.27 (a) Mid-edge graph obtained from tetrahedron graph; (b) figure-eight knot
reconstructed from its graph.
Two other graph functions work with graphs that are not necessarily
4-valent. The function fKLinGraph gives all non-isomorphic KL projec-
tions contained in a given graph G. For example, the graph (Fig. 1.28a)
{{1, 2}, {1, 2}, {1, 4}, {1, 4}, {1, 5}, {2, 3}, {2, 3}, {2, 5}, {3, 4}, {3, 4}, {3, 5}, {4, 5}}
contains two KL graphs: the graph
{{1, 2}, {1, 2}, {1, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 3}, {2, 3}, {3, 4}, {3, 4}}
corresponding to a link 421 (4) and the graph
{{1, 2}, {1, 2}, {1, 4}, {1, 5}, {2, 3}, {2, 5}, {3, 4}, {3, 4}, {3, 5}, {4, 5}}
corresponding to the Whitehead link 521 (2 1 2) (Fig. 1.28b).

The function fAddDig takes a given graph G as an input, and produces
all 4-regular non-isomorphic graphs by replacing single edges by double
(bigonal) edges. For example, from 3-valent graph (Fig. 1.29a)
{{1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 6}, {2, 4}, {2, 6}, {3, 4}, {3, 5}, {4, 5}, {5, 6}}
we obtain two non-isomorphic 4-valent graphs (Fig. 1.29b)

40 LinKnot
Fig. 1.28 KLs in graph.
{{1, 2}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 6}, {2, 4}, {2, 6}, {3, 4}, {3, 4}, {3, 5}, {4, 5}, {5, 6}, {5, 6}}
and
{{1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 3}, {1, 6}, {2, 4}, {2, 4}, {2, 6}, {3, 4}, {3, 5}, {4, 5}, {5, 6}, {5, 6}}.
Fig. 1.29 Graphs derived from 3-valent graph (a) by replacing some single edges by
double edges (b).
1.4 Reidemeister moves
The next step in derivation of all KLs with a given number of crossings is
finding all different (non-isomorphic) minimal projections of a given KL,
i.e., all its different projections with the number of vertices equal to the
crossing number. In the case of alternating KLs it is sufficient to find all
proper non-isomorphic alternating projections of a given KL with a fixed
number of crossings. Non-alternating KLs can be derived from alternating

by crossing changes.
Fig. 1.30 Reidemeister moves for polygonal KLs.
KLs are usually given by their non-minimal projections, so it is neces-

sary to minimize them. There is a finite algorithm based on Haken-Hemion
method (Haken, 1961; Hemion, 1979), described in detail by S. Matveev
(2003), that guarantees a minimization and solves the recognition problem
of KLs. However, it is impossible to implement because of its complexity.
Even its special case, the unknot recognition problem, is NP-hard (where
NP means “non-deterministic polynomial time”) (Hass and Lagarias, 2001),
and the upper bound for the number of Reidemeister moves needed to un-
knot an n-crossing unknot diagram is 2cn , where c = 211 .
However, there are two computer programs attempting to produce best
possible minimizations:
42 LinKnot
• knotfind.c, the part of Knotscape, based on a heuristic algorithm and

restricted to knots;
• the function Reduction KnotLink, written by M. Ochiai and N. Ima-
fuji, and included in the Mathematica-based program Knot 2000 (K2K).
The authors emphasize that this function fails for some classes of links, but
most of its reductions are the optimal ones1 .
Before a more detailed discussion of this problem, we will describe the
elementary steps of a reduction process: Reidemeister moves2 . So far we
had only static images: KL shadows and projections. Now we can make
a movie with ambient isotopy playing the main role. All KLs will be
represented as polygonal KLs, and all the moves that consist of a finite
series of elementary isotopies will be expressed as finite compositions of
Reidemeister moves. The move Ω0 was already introduced as a planar
isotopy. Recall that for a polygonal link a planar isotopy Ω0 is achieved
either by subdividing an edge AB by the vertex C, or contracting AC and
CB. The move Ω0 can be introduced as the elementary planar isotopy
(Fig. 1.30). An ambient isotopy for a polygonal KL is a finite sequence of
elementary isotopies. Reidemeister moves, Ω1 , Ω2 , and Ω3 are illustrated in
Fig. 1.30. We represent Reidemeister moves as polygonal moves, and the
piecewise-linear and the smooth knot theory give the same classification of
KLs (Crowel and Fox, 1965; Burde and Zieschang, 1985). The equivalent
of ambient isotopy of KLs, for knot and link diagrams are Reidemeister
moves. Hence, Reidemeister moves are planar isotopies.
Theorem 1.10. Two diagrams D′ and D′′ of polygonal KLs correspond

to ambient isotopic KLs iff D′ can be transformed into D′′ using a finite
sequence of Reidemeister moves Ω1 , Ω2 , Ω3 (Reidemeister, 1932).
For the elegant proof of this theorem see Kauffman (2004) or Manturov
(2004, Theorem 2.1). The last book (appendix A) contains the proof of the
independence of Reidemeister moves.
1 This holds even for much better heuristic program for reduction of knots knotfind.c
written by M. Thistlethwaite and used as a part of the program Knotscape. Its first
known unsuccessful reduction is for a 40-crossing knot.
2 J.C. Maxwell determined all regions bounded with fewer then four arcs corresponding
to Reidemeister moves. The proof that they suffice to pass between equivalent diagrams
was published by both Reidemeister (1926) and Alexander and Briggs (1926-27) (Hoste,
2006).
Definition 1.33. A link is an equivalence class of link diagrams modulo

Reidemeister moves.
In general, Reidemeister moves can be used for obtaining various dia-

grams of a given KL. In the case of alternating KLs they are not necessary
for a transformation of one minimal diagram to another. Instead, we can
use flypes, moves introduced by P.G. Tait. They are well known from his
Flyping Conjecture (1876/77) (or Tait’s Third conjecture), which became
the Tait’s Flyping Theorem in 1990, when it was proven by W. Menasco
and M. Thistlethwaite (Menasco and Thistlethwaite, 1991, 1993). A nat-
ural way of expressing a flype as a sequence of Reidemeister moves is still
unknown.
Before explaining what a flype is, we need to define a tangle, one of the
fundamental notions in knot theory, introduced by J.H. Conway in 1967
(Conway, 1970).
Fig. 1.31 (a) A tangle, (b) flype; (c) mutation; (d) vertical mutation; (e) horizontal
mutation.
Definition 1.34. A 1-dimensional manifold properly embedded in 3-

dimensional disk is called a tangle (or 2-tangle) if it is composed of two
arcs and any number of circles.
44 LinKnot
The same name, tangle, will be used to denote a projection of a tangle

into 2-dimensional disk.
Intuitively, a tangle (or more precisely, 2-tangle) in a KL projection is
a region in the projection plane ℜ2 (or on the sphere S 3 ) surrounded with
a circle such that the KL projection intersects with the circle exactly four
times. From the intersections, four arcs emerge pointing in the compass
directions NW, NE, SW, SE (Fig. 1.31a).
Definition 1.35. Two tangles are equivalent if one can be transformed
into the other by a sequence of Reidemeister moves provided that four end-
points of the strings are fixed and that the strings belonging to the tangle
remain inside of the circle.
Suppose an alternating KL diagram contains a tangle, as shown in a
Fig. 1.31b. Let us fix four ends a, b, c, d and then rotate this tangle by a
2-fold rotation (half-turn). The twist on the left in Fig. 1.31b is moved to
the right. Such an operation is called a flype.
Theorem 1.11. (Tait’s Flyping Theorem) Suppose that L′ and L′′ are two
reduced alternating diagrams of an alternating link L on the sphere S 3 .
Then we can change L′ into L′′ by performing a finite number of flypes.
According to Theorem 1.7, writhe is an invariant of alternating KL di-
agrams. It is clear that Reidemeister moves Ω2 and Ω3 does not change
a writhe. However, in transition from one minimal diagram of a non-
alternating KL to another sometimes we must use Reidemeister move Ω1
that changes the writhe, increase the number of crossings, and then reduce
the diagram in some of next steps, so writhe can be changed.
An example of two minimal diagrams of the same non-alternating knot
with a different writhe is Perko pair 3 : −2 0 : −2 0 and 2 1 : −2 0 : −2 0 (Fig.
1.26). This example is easy to generalize to KL (sub)families (Definition
1.49) called Perko families: Conway symbols (2k + 1) : −2 0 : −2 0 and
(2k) 1 : −2 0 : −2 0 are two families of minimal diagrams of the same
non-alternating knot with a different writhe. In this family Perko pair
is obtained for k = 1, for k = 2 two diagrams of the knot 12n850 , for
k = 3 two diagrams of the knot 14n26229 , and for k = 4 two diagrams of
the knot 16n965076 given in Knotscape notation. The same holds for the
diagrams 2 (2k) : −2 0 : −2 0 and 2 (2k − 1) 1 : −2 0 : −2 0 of the knots
11n135 , 13n3546 , and 15n114094 obtained for k = 1, 2, 3, respectively. Hence,
for every n ≥ 10 there exists at least one non-alternating knot which has
two minimal diagrams with different writhe. Moreover, if t is any rational
tangle, minimal diagrams t (k + 1) : −2 0 : −2 0 and t k 1 : −2 0 : −2 0 of the

same KL have this property. In all these cases, the writhe of the diagrams
differs by 2.
There are following open questions:
(1) for a given number of crossings n find all non-alternating knots having
at least two minimal diagrams with a different writhe;
(2) how many different values can writhe of an non-alternating knot take
on its minimal diagrams;
(3) is it possible to find two minimal diagrams of the same KL whose
writhes differ by an arbitrary number;
(4) can we transform one minimal diagram of a prime knot to another
minimal diagram with the same writhe using only Reidemeister moves
Ω2 and Ω3 which does not change a writhe?
Definition 1.36. The winding number or Whitney degree of a knot diagram

is total turn of the tangent vector to the curve as one traverses it in the
given direction (Kauffman, 1995a).
In the case of polygonal oriented KL diagrams in each vertex there is

an exterior angle: the angle one must turn to continue to traverse the dia-
gram. The sum of the oriented exterior angles (where the counter-clockwise
orientation is taken as positive) divided by 2π is the winding number of the
diagram.
Only Reidemeister move Ω1 changes winding number.
Theorem 1.12. Two diagrams of a link L are related by a finite sequence of

Reidemeister moves Ω2 and Ω3 (without Ω1 ) iff they have the same writhe
and winding number (Trace, 1983; Cromwell, 2004).
Conjecture 1.1. All minimal diagrams of an oriented prime link L that

have the same writhe have the same winding number and vice versa.
In the case of non-minimal diagrams of composite knots this is not true:

there are two non-minimal diagrams of the same composite knot with the
same writhe and different winding numbers. For transforming one of them
to the other, all Reidemeister moves are necessary, so this is an alternative
proof of the independence of Reidemeister moves (Fig. 1.32) (Hagge, 2005).
Theorem 1.13. The winding number is the invariant of KL subfamilies.

46 LinKnot
This conclusion follows immediately, since winding number remains un-

changed by adding two bigons to any single bigon or chain of bigons. For
example, the winding number of the knot family (2k + 1) (31 , 51 , 71 ,...) is
2, of the family (2k) (2l) it is 0, etc.
Fig. 1.32 Two diagrams of the knot 2 2#8∗ with the same writhe and different winding
number.
Defined in a standard way (Definition 1.31), writhe is the invariant only

of reduced alternating knot diagrams (Theorem 1.7). Hence, Definition
1.31 is not consistent with the other similar definitions of KL invariants
(e.g., crossing number, Definition 1.25; unlinking number, Definition 1.56),
where they are defined as the minimum numbers taken over all KL dia-
grams. This is a good enough reason to try to give a different definition
of writhe. However, an attempt to define the minimum writhe of a link L
as the minimum of the absolute value of writhe, min |w(D(L))| taken over
all diagrams D(L) of the link L results in a trivial invariant: such min-
imum writhe equals zero for all links. Using Reidemeister move Ω1 that
changes writhe by +1 or −1 for every link L we can obtain a diagram with
w = 0. Even the restriction to proper diagrams is not helpful, because by
Reidemeister move Ω2 we can eliminate (or, better to say “hide”) loops,
and preserve w = 0.
Definition 1.37. The minimum writhe of a link L, denoted by wm (L), is

the minimum of the absolute value of writhe, min |w(DL )| taken over all
minimal diagrams Dm (L) of L.
The minimum writhe will be well-defined KL invariant, easy to calculate

for alternating, but hard to calculate for non-alternating KLs.
The Knot 2000 (K2K) function MutationOfTangle calculates the re-
sult of a flype, mutation, vertical, and horizontal mutation applied to some

tangle (Fig. 1.31c,d,e).
Fig. 1.33 2-pass.
Fig. 1.34 Reidemeister moves translated into signed KL graphs.
In the case of non-alternating KLs, in addition to flypes we can intro-

duce a 2-pass: KL transformation where a string is pulled over a tangle (Fig.
1.33). The Reidemeister move Ω3 is a special case of a 2-pass. However,
flypes and 2-passes are not sufficient to go between all minimal diagrams
of a non-alternating KL (Hoste, Thistlethwaite and Weeks, 1998).
Using signs of crossings, we can introduce a signed link graph, where
each edge takes the sign of a vertex it passes through. In this way we have
established one-to-one correspondence between edge-weighted KL graphs
48 LinKnot
and signed KL diagrams. Reidemeister moves Ω1 , Ω2 , Ω3 , can be rep-

resented as local moves I′ , II′ , III′ on signed KL graphs shown on Fig.
1.34.
Two signed plane KL graphs G1 and G2 represent the same link L iff
G1 can be transformed into G2 by some finite sequence of the moves I′ ,
II′ , III′ and their inverses. If G is any signed plane KL graph and G′ is
its plane dual with the signs of the edges multiplied by −1, then the links
L(G) and L(G′ ) are ambient isotopic.
It is easy to notice that Reidemeister moves Ω1 and Ω2 decrease the
number of crossings. At the first glance, it seems that there is a finite
minimization algorithm for non-alternating projections: application of Ω1
move makes them proper, and Ω2 decreases the number of crossings (in
every step by 2). Unfortunately, things are not so simple and straightfor-
ward. Sometimes, in order to minimize a KL projection, it is necessary to
increase the number of crossings and then reduce it by the application of
Ω1 and Ω2 .
Examples of unknot diagrams that can not be minimized without in-
creasing the number of crossings are the Nasty unknot ((−1, 3, 1), −1, −1)
(Adams, 1994), Goeritz’s unknot ((1, 1, 3, −1, −1), −1, −1) (Goeritz, 1934),
or the Monster unknot 3 2 − 1 1 1 2 from R. Sharein’s program KnotPlot
(Fig. 1.35).
Another problem is that we do not know the order in which Reidemeister
moves should be applied: the sequence of moves producing the final result–
a minimal projection.
Usually, we prefer to consider spherical then plane KL diagrams, think-
ing of the sphere as the 1-point compatification of the plane. Without loss of
generality, one can assume that a shadow of KL does not contain this point.
In this case, there appears one more “elementary isotopy” when some edge
of the shadow passes through the infinity. This operation is called the in-
finity change (see, e.g., Manturov, 2004). By the infinity change operation
we can obtain many plane diagrams from spherical diagrams.
The smallest plane diagram that can not be unknotted without increas-
ing the number of crossings is the Nasty unknot (Fig. 1.35a) with n = 7
crossings. However, considered as the diagram on a sphere, after the infinity
change it can be reduced by the Reidemeister move Ω2 (Fig. 1.35b).
Definition 1.38. An unknot (unlink) diagram on a sphere is called hard

diagram if it has the following properties (Kauffman and Lambropoulou,
2006):
Fig. 1.35 (a), (b) Nasty unknot; (c) Goeritz’s unknot; (d) Monster unknot.
(1) there are no simplifying Reidemeister moves Ω1 and Ω2 on the diagram;

(2) there are no Reidemeister moves Ω3 on the diagram.
In a diagram, there is a Reidemeister move Ω3 if it contains a triangle

with one edge forming two overcrossings or two undercrossings. Hence, the
Monster unknot with n = 10 crossings and Goeritz’s unknot with n = 11
crossings are hard unknot diagrams.
Up to signs of crossings, the smallest hard unknot and unlink diagrams
have n = 9 crossings. For n = 9 there are two hard unknot diagrams and
one hard unlink diagram (Fig. 1.36); for n = 10 we recognized six hard
unknot diagrams and five hard unlink diagrams (Fig. 1.37), etc.
For virtual KL diagrams (Definition 1.23) generalized Reidemeister
moves can be introduced.
Definition 1.39. Generalized Reidemeister moves consist of:

50 LinKnot
Fig. 1.36 Hard (a,b) unknot and (c) unlink diagrams with n = 9 crossings.
(1) classical Reidemeister moves related to classical vertices;

(2) virtual versions Ω′1 , Ω′2 , Ω′3 of Reidemeister moves (Fig. 1.38a);
(3) the “semivirtual” version Ω′′3 of the third Reidemeister move (Fig.
1.38a) (Manturov, 2006).
Two virtual diagrams are equivalent if there exists a sequence of gen-

eralized Reidemeister moves transforming one diagram to the other one.
Definition 1.40. A virtual link is an equivalence class of virtual diagrams

modulo generalized Reidemeister moves.
The remaining two versions of the third move (Fig. 1.38b) are forbidden.
Actually, the forbidden move is a very strong one: each virtual knot can be
transformed to another one using all generalized Reidemeister moves and
the forbidden move (Nelson, 2001).
1.5 Conway notation
The Conway notation of KLs, based on the notion of a tangle is introduced

in 1967 (Conway, 1970). The main advantage of Conway symbols is the
amount of important KL properties that are almost directly visible or can
be derived from the codes, like symmetry, recognition of the worlds (Cau-
dron, 1982) to which particular KLs belong, the proof of the equality of
rational KLs using their corresponding continued fractions, etc. For exam-
ple, all rational KLs with an even number of crossings and with symmetric
Fig. 1.37 Hard (a) unknot and (b) unlink diagrams with n = 10 crossings.
(palindromic) Conway symbol are achiral (Theorem 1.20, Theorem 1.22).

J.H. Conway used his approach to derive KLs up to 11 crossings, but
then, unfortunately, divided them according to the number of components.
We would like to bring to light work of A. Caudron (1982) and the po-
52 LinKnot
Fig. 1.38 (a) Generalized Reidemeister moves Ω′1 , Ω′2 , Ω′3 , Ω′′
3 ; (b) forbidden move.
tential of the Conway notation in the search for the universal classification
principle– “periodic table” of KLs. It is very surprising that the Conway
notation, the only geometrical-topological notation that gives complete,
interpretable and understandable information on KLs is still not widely
accepted.
Maybe the main reason why most of knot theory books have only the
classical notation is the non-uniqueness of the Conway notation. Hence, we
need to make a choice of the “standard” Conway symbol of a KL, accord-
ing to the notation introduced in the original Conway’s paper (Conway,
1970) and in the papers and books following it (Caudron, 1982; Rolfsen,
1976; Adams, 1994). Notation becomes more complicated for polyhedral
KLs. We need to specify the symbol of the particular basic polyhedron
and the particular order and orientation of its vertices (Figs. 2.43-2.47).
For example, the same link .2 can be denoted as : 2, : .2, :: 2, :: .2, or even
as 6∗ 2, 6∗ .2, 6∗ : .2, 6∗ :: 2, and 6∗ :: .2, where as the standard symbol we
choose the first of them.
The LinKnot function fClassicToCon gives Conway symbol of a KL
given in the classical notation.
Elementary tangles are shown in Fig. 1.39 and denoted by 0, 1 and −1,
where for alternating KLs 0 and 1 are sufficient. Any tangle can be obtained
from elementary tangles using operations: sum, product, and ramification

defined below (Figs. 1.40-1.41). Given tangles a and b, image of a under
reflection with mirror line NW-SE is denoted by −a, and sum is denoted
by a + b. Product a b is defined as a b = −a + b, and ramification is defined
as (a, b) = −a − b.
Fig. 1.39 The elementary tangles.
Fig. 1.40 A sum and product of tangles.
Fig. 1.41 A ramification of tangles.

54 LinKnot
The tangles 2, 2 1 2, and 2, 2 obtained by applying the operations men-

tioned above are illustrated in Fig. 1.42.
Fig. 1.42 Tangles (a) 2 = 1 + 1; (b) 2 1 2 = (1 + 1) 1 (1 + 1); (c) 2, 2 = (1 + 1), (1 + 1).
Closed tangle can be obtained from a tangle in two ways (without in-
troducing additional crossings): joining in pairs NE and NW, and SE and
SW ends of a tangle we obtain a numerator closure; joining in pairs NE and
SE, and NW and SW ends we obtain a denominator closure (Fig. 1.43a,b).
Fig. 1.43 (a) Numerator closure; (b) denominator closure; (c) basic polyhedron 1∗ .
Definition 1.41. A rational tangle is any finite product of elementary tan-

gles. A rational KL is a numerator closure of a rational tangle.
Rational knots are also known as 2-bridge knots, Viergeflechte, or 4-

plats. O. Simony (1882, 1884) was the first who considered rational KLs
from the mathematical point of view, while their complete classification
was given by H. Schubert (1956). J. Conway noticed the beautiful relation
between rational tangles and continued fractions (Conway, 1970; Kauffman
and Lambropoulou, 2002) (Theorem 1.18).
Definition 1.42. A tangle is algebraic if it can be obtained from elementary

tangles using the operations of sum and product. KL is algebraic if it is a
numerator closure of an algebraic tangle.
For every KL shadow, its basic polyhedron can be identified by collaps-

ing bigons until none of them remains (Fig. 1.44). In fact, most of the basic
polyhedra are geometrical polyhedra– 3-vertex connected 4-regular graphs,
but in the list of basic polyhedra some 2-vertex connected graphs also are
included (e.g., the first of them is 12E). More precisely,
Definition 1.43. A 4-regular, 4-edge-connected, at least 2-vertex con-

nected plane graph is called basic polyhedron.
The basic polyhedron 1∗ is illustrated in Fig. 1.43c, and the other basic
polyhedra with n ≤ 12 crossings in Figs. 2.43-2.47.
Definition 1.44. A link L is algebraic link or 1∗ -link if there exists at least

one shadow of L which can be reduced to the basic polyhedron 1∗ by a finite
sequence of bigon collapses. Otherwise it is a non-algebraic or polyhedral
link.
Definition 1.45. A KL with single bigons, or equivalently, a KL given by

Conway symbol containing only tangles 1, −1, 2, or −2 is called a source
link.
Three operations with tangles: sum, product, and ramification (page 52)
are sufficient for the notation of algebraic KLs. Polyhedral KLs require
special notation.
In addition to the operations used for algebraic KLs we need to know
a symbol of a basic polyhedron P ∗ = nO∗ , where n denotes the number
of vertices, and O the ordering number of a particular basic polyhedron
among those with the same number of vertices. For example, 123∗ is the
third basic polyhedron with n = 12 vertices. A knot or link obtained from a
basic polyhedron P ∗ =nO∗ by substituting tangles t1 , . . ., tk in appropriate
places is denoted by P ∗ t1 . . . tk , where the number of dots between two
successive tangles shows the number of omitted substituents of value 1.
56 LinKnot
For example, 6∗ 2 : 2 : 2 0 means 6∗ 2.1.2.1.2 0.1, and 6∗ 2 1.2.3 2 : −2 2 0

means 6∗ 2 1.2.3 2.1. − 2 2 0.1 (Fig. 1.45).
Fig. 1.44 A link shadow collapsing into the basic polyhedron 6∗ – an octahedron.
Fig. 1.45 Basic polyhedron 6∗ and the knots 6∗ 2.1.2.1.2 0.1 and 6∗ 2 1.2.3 2 : −2, 2 0.
Conway symbols are used for the first time as an alternative notation
in the book Knots and Links by D. Rolfsen (1976), and then by some
other authors (e.g., C.C. Adams, 1994). Notice that in Rolfsen’s tables
some drawings of KLs do not correspond to their Conway symbols. For
example, in the case of the knot 915 , it is clear that from its Conway symbol
2 3 2 2 we obtain the projection with 5, and not with 4 bigons, pretzel knot
819 with the Conway symbol 3, 3, −2 is drawn as 6∗ 2 0. − 2 0. − 1. − 1, etc.
It is interesting that in Conway symbols of all non-alternating polyhe-
dral KLs with n ≤ 10 crossings the symbol . − 1, i.e., a single vertex with
a changed sign never appears, except in the case of the 4-component link
103∗ − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1 :: . − 1 (or 10−∗∗∗ according to Conway’s paper).
The first polyhedral non-alternating knots that can not be expressed by
Conway symbols without . − 1-s are 12-crossing knots
8∗ 2 0.−2.−1.−2 0.2 0, 8∗ 2 0.−2 0.−1.−2 0.2 0, 1212∗ −1.−1.−1.−1.−1.−1
(12n801 , 12n835 , and 12n837 in the Knotscape notation, respectively).
In the program Knot 2000 (K2K), the function GetPdatabyTracking
is used for entering KLs by drawing them in the mouse-tracking window.
The output is P -data of the KL.
Instead of the graphical input, LinKnot function fCreatePData uses
a Conway symbol of KL (given as a Mathematica string) and computes
P -data.
For example, the figure-eight knot 41 is denoted by ”2 2”, knot 95 by
”5 1 3”, link 521 is denoted by ”2 1 2”, link 9221 by ”3 1, 3, 2” (for all of them
a space between tangles denotes a product of tangles), etc. A sequence of k
pluses at the end of the Conway symbol is denoted by +k, and a sequence of
k minuses by + − k (e.g., knot 1076 given in Conway notation as 3, 3, 2 + +
is denoted by ”3, 3, 2 + 2”, and the link 9317 given in Conway notation as
3, 2, 2, 2 − − by ”3, 2, 2, 2 + −2”). The space denoting a product of tangles
is used in the same way in all other symbols. For example, the knot 10133
is denoted by ”2 3, 2 1, 2 + −1”, and the knot 10154 by ”(2 1, 2) − (2 1, 2)”
(with spaces).
The program LinKnot contains the database of basic polyhedra with
at most n = 20 crossings, where every basic polyhedron is represented by
its corresponding alternating KL diagram. For the basic polyhedra with
n < 10 crossings, the standard notation is used (.1, 6∗ , 8∗ , 9∗ , where sym-
bols of polyhedral KLs beginning with a dot correspond to Conway’s basic
polyhedron 6∗∗ or .1). For example, the knot 1095 is denoted by ”.2 1 0.2.2”,
and 10101 by ”2 1..2..2”. For n ≥ 10 in each symbol the first two digits rep-
resent the number of crossings, and the next the ordering number of the
polyhedron (e.g., 101∗, 102∗, 103∗ for n = 10 denoting 10∗ , 10∗∗ , 10∗∗∗ ,
respectively, and 111∗ , 112∗ , 113∗ for n = 11 denoting 11∗ , 11∗∗ , 11∗∗∗ ,
respectively, etc.). For n = 12 basic polyhedra are ordered according to
their list made by A. Caudron (1982), so polyhedra originally denoted with
12A-12L are 121∗ -1212∗. For n > 12 the database of basic polyhedra is
derived from the list of simple 4-regular, 4-edge-connected, but not neces-
sarily 3-vertex connected plane graphs generated by Brendan McKay using
the program plantri written by Gunnar Brinkmann and Brendan McKay
(http://cs.anu.edu.au/∼bdm/plantri/).
58 LinKnot
The data base PolyBase.m contains basic polyhedra up to 16 cross-

ings and downloads automatically when LinKnot is loaded. For n = 12 it
contains 12 basic polyhedra beginning from 121∗ to 1212∗, for n = 13 it con-
tains 19 basic polyhedra from 131∗ to 1319∗, for n = 14 it contains 64 basic
polyhedra from 141∗ to 1464∗, for n = 15 this file contains 155 basic poly-
hedra from 151∗ to 15155∗, and for n = 16 it contains 510 basic polyhedra,
beginning from 161∗ to 16510∗. In order to work with the basic polyhedra
from n = 17 to n = 20 vertices, you need to open an additional database
PolyBaseN.m, for n = 17 to n = 20 (by writing, e.g. <<PolyBase17.m or
Needs[”PolyBase17.m”] for n = 17, etc.). They contain, respectively, 1514
basic polyhedra for n = 17 from 171∗ to 171514∗, 5146 basic polyhedra for
n = 18 from 181∗ to 185146∗, 16966 basic polyhedra for n = 19 from 191∗
to 1916966∗, and 58782 basic polyhedra for n = 20 from 201∗ to 2058782∗.
In the symbols of polyhedral KLs omitted vertices are denoted by a series
of single dots (without using colons as :, :. or ::), and with zeros separated
by a space. For example, the knot 10156 is denoted by ”−3..2..2 0” (with a
series of single dots and 0 separated by a space).
Fig. 1.46 Alternating links (a) 11∗∗∗ 2 ∼ 125∗ ; (b) 136∗ ∼ 1318∗ .
For n ≤ 11 the correspondence between basic polyhedra (source links)

and their corresponding alternating KLs is one-to-one: every alternating
KL corresponding to a basic polyhedron (source link) has exactly one min-

imal projection. However, for n = 12 the 4-component link 11∗∗∗ 2 has
as another minimal projection the basic polyhedron 125∗ (or 12E accord-
ing to Caudron’s list) (Fig. 1.46a), and for n = 13 the 4-component link
(Fig. 1.46b) has the basic polyhedra 136∗ and 1318∗ as its minimal pro-
jections. In both cases, one projection can be obtained from the other by
a single flype, so the corresponding alternating links are equivalent, i.e.,
11∗∗∗ 2 ∼ 125∗ and 136∗ ∼ 1318∗, where the symbol ∼ is used to denote fly-
ping equivalence. Hence, for n ≥ 12 there is no one-to-one correspondence
between basic polyhedra and their corresponding alternating KLs.
1.6 Classification of KLs
Classifications are always given with respect to one or several invariants. We

can use the Component Algorithm to classify KLs according to the number
of components– now we will try to avoid this classification as long as possible
and use other graph-theoretical or combinatorial properties of KLs. For
example, the most universal classification of KLs that contains two classes
of KLs: algebraic and polyhedral KLs is based on bigon collapse.
We will consider only prime KLs given in the Conway notation and
several ways to classify them. One of the most obvious classifications is
into alternating and non-alternating KLs. Each source link (Definition
1.45) induces an alternating KL and every alternating KL can be obtained
from some source link by substituting single bigons by chains of bigons.
All links that can be derived from one source KL by such replacements
form a family (Definition 1.48). KLs will be distributed into disjoint sets,
named worlds (page 63) by A. Caudron: algebraic and polyhedral, and their
subworlds: rational, stellar, etc. Non-alternating KLs will be obtained from
the alternating ones by the corresponding crossing changes.
According to a result of complete bigon collapse, alternating KLs can
be divided into two main worlds: algebraic and polyhedral, but even this
depends from the definition of an algebraic KL. There are two possibilities
for defining algebraic KLs (in Conway sense):
Definition 1.46.
(1) a KL is algebraic if it has a minimal algebraic representation (projec-

tion);
(2) a KL is algebraic if it has an algebraic representation (projection).
60 LinKnot
For example, alternating link .3.2.3.2 with n = 12 crossings has algebraic

projection (4, −3 1) (3, −2 1) with n = 14 crossings, so it will be considered
as polyhedral according to the first, and as algebraic according to the second
definition. From now on, we will work with the first definition, so it will be
considered as polyhedral.
With non-alternating KLs situation is even more complicated: without
introducing additional criteria, we are even not able to distinguish alge-
braic non-alternating KLs from polyhedral ones, because the same non-
alternating KL can have both algebraic and polyhedral minimal represen-
tation. For example, the same non-alternating link can be represented as
(4, −2) (2, 2), or 2 0. − 2. − 2 0. − 2 0. Therefore it will be algebraic, even
though it has polyhedral minimal representation.
Depending from the type of their corresponding graphs (Caudron, 1982),
i.e., depending from the tangle operations used for their derivation, alge-
braic KLs can be rational, stellar, or arborescent. Rational tangles and ra-
tional KLs are obtained using the operation of product, and stellar (pretzel)
KLs are obtained from rational tangles using the operation of ramification.
Finally, composing rational and stellar tangles by the operations of product
and ramification, arborescent KLs are obtained, so we have the complete
stratification of algebraic alternating KLs.
Unfortunately, polyhedral world does not admit similar stratification,
since the basic polyhedra themselves are not ordered. For example, there
are two different (non-isomorphic) basic polyhedra 136∗ and 1318∗ with
n = 13 crossings that are two non-isomorphic diagrams of the same alter-
nating link. Crazy Spider Algorithm (page 286) offers some perspective for
a classification of basic polyhedra, giving possibility to derive families of
basic polyhedra, establish their generic notation and the order based on
the family principle.
If bigons in KL shadows are denoted by colored (bold) lines, we can
distinguish vertices of different valences: 2-valent (where in each vertex
are two colored edges), 3-valent (where in each vertex there is one colored
edge), and 4-valent. A link shadow is called basic if its edge-bicolored graph
is regular. If it is 4-regular, such a graph is a basic polyhedron.
Definition 1.47. Two basic polyhedra or source links are equal iff they
are isomorphic.
It is interesting that the fundamental term “family” (Definition 1.48) is

very hard to find in knot theory books or papers. According to the book
Knots and Surfaces (Farmer and Stanford, 1996), “a family of knots is an
informal term used to describe a list of knots where each successive knot
is obtained from the previous one by a simple process”. The source link 2
(i.e. the Hopf link 221 ) and its family are shown in Fig. 1.47.
Fig. 1.47 Hopf link and its family.
We can immediately recognize a simple pattern: regular periodic dis-

tribution of KLs in the family p (p = 2, 3, . . .), where knots (1-component
links) are obtained for odd p, and 2-component links for even p. In a similar
way, if we consider KLs given by the general Conway symbol p q (i.e., the
family derived from a figure-eight knot 41 , whose Conway symbol is 2 2),
we will obtain links for p = q = 1 (mod 2), and knots in all the other cases.
Every Conway symbol of an alternating KL can be reduced by replacing
all even numbers denoting chains of bigons by 2, all odd numbers greater or
equal to 3 by 3, and all single vertices 1 remain unchanged. KL obtained
in this way is called a generating link.
Definition 1.48. For a link or knot L given in an unreduced3 Conway no-

tation C(L) denote by S a set of numbers in the Conway symbol excluding
numbers denoting basic polyhedra and zeros (denoting the position of tan-
gles in the vertices of polyhedra). For C(L) and an arbitrary (non-empty)
subset S̃ of S the family FS̃ (L) of knots or links derived from L is con-
structed by substituting each a ∈ Sf , a 6= 1, by sgn(a)(|a| + ka ) for ka ∈ N .
3 The Conway notation is called unreduced if in symbols of polyhedral KLs elementary
tangles 1 in single vertices are not omitted.

62 LinKnot
This means that all KLs generated from a source link S by substituting
single bigons by chains of bigons make a family generated from S.
Definition 1.49. All KLs generated from a generating link G by adding

an even number to each number which denotes a chain of bigons make a
subfamily generated from G.
This means that a subfamily will be obtained if all ka from the Definition
1.48 are even.
Theorem 1.14. KLs belonging to the same subfamily have the same num-
ber of components.
The proof of this theorem is trivial, because the addition of any chain
of bigons of an even length to a bigon or chain of bigons does not change
the number of components.
If there is no chance for a confusion, in order to simplify, we will use
the common term “family” for both families and subfamilies.
According to experimental results, various KL invariants will be related
to subfamilies, and will represent some combination of numbers denoting
chains of bigons (integer tangles n or −n) from a general Conway symbol
of a subfamily.
Definition 1.50. Any KL invariant which can be expressed in terms

of chains of bigons (i.e., integer tangles n or −n) belonging to a Con-
way symbol of the subfamily will be called subfamily-dependent invariant.
Subfamily-dependent invariant is linear if it can be expressed by a first-
degree polynomial depending from parameters denoting integer tangles in
the Conway symbol of KL.
Theorem 1.15. Minimum writhe is a linear subfamily-dependent invariant

of alternating KLs, and linking number is a linear subfamily-dependent link
invariant.
The proof of this theorem is trivial as well. In the case of writhe, every
addition of two bigons to a chain of bigons changes writhe by +2 in the case
of positive, or by −2 in the case of negative chain, so knowing the writhe of
the generating alternating knot given by its (minimal) Conway symbol, it
is possible to calculate writhe of any knot belonging to a subfamily derived
from it. In the case of linking number, we need to take in account only
chains of bigons belonging to different components.
Experimental results imply that, at least for certain classes of KLs,

many KL invariants are are subfamily-dependent invariants, and not only
invariants of particular KLs. According to experimental data obtained
using the program LinKnot, we propose the following general conjecture:
Conjecture 1.2. Crossing number, minimum writhe, unlinking number,

u∞ -unlinking number, signature, and genus of a link L are linear subfamily-
dependent KL invariants.
The combinatorial formula for a signature of alternating knot diagrams,

derived by P. Traczyk (2004), supports this conjecture.
Since alternating KLs are easier to work with, we will first consider
alternating KLs, and then non-alternating ones. One of the most powerful
tools in our consideration will be symmetry. Symmetry can be visualized
representing KL diagrams as graphs on a sphere. For every KL diagram
we can distinguish the symmetry group G of its edge-bicolored graph where
double edges are colored (bold) and where the relation “over-under” is not
taken into consideration, and its subgroup G′ of index 2 (or antisymmetry
subgroup G/G′ ), obtained by introducing the relation “over-under”, that
represents the actual symmetry of the KL diagram.
Symmetry groups of alternating KL diagrams, i.e., groups of isometries
that map a KL diagram onto itself, are considered by B. Grünbaum and
G.C. Shephard (1985). From 14 kinds of point groups in ℜ3 (Coxeter and
Moser, 1980), the 8 groups [q], [q]+, [2, q]+, [2+, 2q], [2+, 2q], [2, ∞], [2, q]
and [2, q+], where q is a positive integer, can appear as the symmetry
groups of knot diagrams (Fig. 1.48). In the case of links, all 14 kinds of
point symmetry groups are permitted. Symmetries followed by a change of
some bivalent property (e.g., sign +1 ↔ −1, “black” ↔ “white”) are called
antisymmetries, and corresponding groups are called antisymmetry groups.
In his fundamental work Classification des nœuds et des enlancements,

371 pages published only as a preprint in 1982, A. Caudron introduced
the new classification of KLs. Every link L is completely determined by a
weighted graph GL , and all KLs are divided into several classes: “worlds”,
according to the types of corresponding graphs. A. Caudron introduced
complete set of graph transformations necessary for exhaustive derivation
of KLs and recognition of equivalent KLs (Fig. 1.49d,e).
Definition 1.51. A link L is rational if its graph GL is a line graph, it
belongs to the “stellar world” if its graph contains no cycles and has only
64 LinKnot
Fig. 1.48 A knot shadow with the symmetry group G = [2, 8] and its antisymmetry
subgroup G/G′ = [2, 8]/[2, 8]+ obtained by introducing the relation “over-under”.
one vertex of valence greater than 2, or to the “arborescent world” if its

graph is a tree (Fig. 1.49a,b,c).
In a certain sense, the origin of J. Conway’s and A. Caudron’s con-

cept are the ideas of T.P. Kirkman, used for the exhaustive derivation and
classification of proper KL shadows: systematical introduction of bigons
(that he called “flaps”) and classification of the obtained graphs into solid,
subsolid, and unsolid ones. According to T.P. Kirkman, a solid KL (or a
basic polyhedron in Conway terms) is a diagram containing no bigons, a
subsolid KL (or a source KL in our work) is a diagram which admits no
simple closed curve in the plane cutting it transversely in just two points
(either crossing points or distinct edges), except through the two crossings
of a bigon. Any other diagram is unsolid.
In the existing knot tables only one memory remained from T.P. Kirk-
man’s classification principle: solid knots (or basic polyhedra) are at the
end of the tables. Even this rule is sometimes disturbed: basic polyhedron
9∗ , “solid” knot 940 , is placed between “subsolid” knots 939 (2 : 2 : 2 0) and
941 (2 0 : 2 0 : 2 0) derived from the basic polyhedron 6∗ (Fig. 1.50).
As a principal transformation in the reduction process, T.P. Kirkman
used the removal of bigons (Fig. 1.44): an inverse of a systematical adding
of bigons used for creating families or subfamilies (Fig. 1.47). In this way,
every KL collapses into an irreducible diagram: a solid KL. J. Conway
used the same idea, and A. Caudron improved it, so his “worlds” correspond
to the different “levels of collapsing”, connected with the mentioned graph
properties.
Without using Component Algorithm (or some of its equivalents), from
Fig. 1.49 Graphs corresponding to (a) rational; (b) stellar; (c) arborescent KLs; (d)
four graphs of the same non-alternating knot 2 2, 3, −2; (e) graph transformation rules
(Caudron, 1982).
weighted or any other graphs corresponding to KLs, it is not possible to

directly get the number of components. In every subdivision of KLs ac-
cording to component number, the ordering principle that follows from
graph-theoretical approach will be unavoidably lost. This is partly the case
66 LinKnot
Fig. 1.50 The basic polyhedron 9∗ placed between “subsolid” knots.
even with A. Caudron’s paper, where possibilities for some combinatorial

results based on partition theory remained unexplored.
1.7 LinKnot functions and KL notation
The program Knot 2000 (K2K) was created by Mitsuyuki Ochiai and Noriko
Imafuji from the Graduate School of human culture, Nara Women’s Univer-
sity, Nara, Japan. In 2003 the Mathematica-based program LinKnot written
by Slavik Jablan and Radmila Sazdanović from the Mathematical Institute,
Belgrade, Serbia, was combined with it. LinKnot is compatible with Knot
2000 and provides tools for working with KLs given in Conway notation
with no restriction on the number of crossings. The webMathemathica pro-
gram LinKnot providing on-line computations and the electronic version of
this book is available at the address http://www.math.ict.edu/.
An input for the program K2K is a KL diagram drawn by mouse on
the mouse tracking window (the function GetPdatabyTracking). The
LinKnot function fCreatePData gives the possibility to use a Conway
symbol of a KL as an input. For example, from the Conway symbol of
the non-alternating link K=”111 ∗ 2.2.2. − 2 0.2 0. − 2 0” it calculates the
corresponding P -data
{{14, 3}, {−16, −20, −12, 23, 29, −6, −30, 32, −2, −24, −4, 7, −18, 14, −28, 26, 9}}.
P -data is a list having two entries. The first is a list of the numbers of cross-
ings in each component, and the second is a list of numbers derived from
the KL, called P-word. P -data are the basic input for all K2K functions.
For example, the function ShowKnotfromPdata draws KL dia-

grams as Mathematica graphics (Fig. 1.51 shows the drawing of the non-
alternating 2-component link given by its P −data). Function ShowKnot
byOpengl gives picture rendered by OpenGL, and provides possibility of
rotating it in 3D.
The LinKnot function fCreateGraphics exports data to the program
KnotPlot written by Robert Sharein (http://www.pims.math.ca/knotplot/
download.html). As an input for this function you can use the Conway
notation of KLs as a Mathematica string. The function fCreateGraphics
creates the file graphics.txt that can be loaded in KnotPlot by writing “load
graphics.txt” in the KnotPlot command line. After that, you can work with
it in KnotPlot in the same way as with any KnotPlot image file. Fig. 1.52
shows the PostScript drawing of the alternating 6-component link
K = ”101∗2 1.2 1 0.2 1.2 1 0.2 1.2 1 0.2 1.2 1 0.2 1.2 1 0”
created by the function fCreateGraphics and processed in KnotPlot, be-

fore (Fig. 1.52) and after relaxation and 3D-rotation (Fig. 1.53).
The LinKnot function DowfromPD produces Dowker code of a KL
from P -data.
For every KL diagram one can compute its writhe using the function
WritheKnotFromPdata, and calculate the P -data of its mirror image
using the function GetMirrorImageKnot. For example, for the knot
K = ”2 3 4 5” the writhe of K is w = −10, and its mirror image is given by
the following P -data:
{{14}, {15, −21, −23, −27, −25, −19, −17, 1, −13, −3, −5, −11, −9, −7}}.
Every notation has its advantages and disadvantages. A minimal

Dowker code uniquely defines a KL. Dowker codes or P -data are indis-
pensable as an input into computer programs. However, this type of code
is not convenient for us: we prefer a symbolic notation, containing some
geometrical-topological contents, like Conway notation. We designed the
program LinKnot in attempt to use Conway notation as an input which
enables us to work with infinite classes of KLs: subfamilies, families or
worlds. This is crucial for understanding general properties of KLs extend-
able to these classes (families, worlds), computed in a general form, and
even expressed by general formulas.
68 LinKnot
Fig. 1.51 Drawing of the link 111∗ 2.2.2. − 2 0.2 0. − 2 0 by using the functions fCre
atePData and ShowKnotfromPdata.
Fig. 1.52 Drawing of the link 101∗ 2 1.2 1 0.2 1.2 1 0.2 1.2 1 0.2 1.2 1 0.2 1.2 1 0.
The LinKnot function Dow calculates a Dowker code with signs

for every KL given by its Conway symbol. For example, for the link
K=”111∗2.2.2. − 2 0.2 0. − 2 0” it calculates its Dowker code
{{14, 3}, {16, 20, 12, −22, −34, 6, 30, −32, 2, 24, 4, −8, 18, −14, −10, 28, −26}}.
Fig. 1.53 The same link after a relaxation and rotation.
In addition to LinKnot function fCreatePData we provide the follow-

ing K2K and LinKnot conversion functions:
• K2K conversion functions KnotbyDT and KnotbyDowkerThist

lethwaiteNotation converting DT -notation of knots (in Knotscape
format) into P -data;
• LinKnot conversion functions fPDataFromDow which calculates P -
data for links given in DT -notation and function fKnotscapeDow
which calculates a DT -code for any KL given by its Conway symbol.
1.8 Rational world and KL invariants
The origin (or O-world) is the basic polyhedron 1∗ , the 4-valent graph with
one vertex, a usual symbol of infinity (∞) (Fig. 1.43c). The first, linear
world (or L-world) contains only one source link: the Hopf link 2 (221 in the
classical notation). We use it to derive the family p of alternating KLs,
with KL shadows represented by p-gons with bigonal edges (p ≥ 2). For
odd p we have the infinite series of alternating knots 3, 5, 7, . . . (or 31 , 51 ,
71 , . . .), and for even p the infinite series of alternating 2-component links
70 LinKnot
2, 4, 6, . . . (or 221 , 421 , 621 , . . .) (Fig. 1.47). For n > 1 the members of the
linear world can be included in the next, rational world.
Rational world (or R-world) consists of rational links.
Definition 1.52. A rational KL in Conway notation is given as any se-

quence of natural numbers n1 n2 . . . nk not beginning or ending with 1,
where each sequence is identified with its inverse.
From this definition we can compute the number of rational KLs with
n crossings.
Theorem 1.16. The number of rational KLs with n crossings is given by

the formula
n
2n−4 + 2[ 2 ]−2
which holds for every n ≥ 4.
Proof. Think of n as a linearly ordered set of, say, stars; then choosing a
composition amounts to choosing a subset of the set of n−1 spaces between
the stars. For example,
∗∗ | ∗ | ∗ ∗ ∗ | ∗
(choices of spaces indicated by bars) is the composition 2 1 3 1 of 7.
Suppose that n ≥ 3, and let bn denote the number of compositions of
n with no 1 in either first or last position, and where a composition is
identified with its reverse.
Compositions of n not having 1 as either first or last part correspond
to sets of spaces between n ordered dots not containing either the first or
last space, so there are an = 2n−3 of these.
If sn of these are symmetric (i.e. equal to their reverses) then we have
an − sn an + sn
bn = + sn = .
2 2
Choosing a symmetric composition of n without 1 in first or last place
corresponds to choosing a subset of the set of spaces up to and including
the middle space (if there is one) but excluding the first space. (The rest
of the spaces are determined by symmetry). There are [ n−2 2 ] such spaces,
[ n−2 ]
and thus sn = 2 2 .
Hence
n−2
2n−3 + 2[ 2 ] n−2 n
bn = = 2n−4 + 2[ 2 −1] = 2n−4 + 2[ 2 ]−2 .
2
This simple formula was first derived by C. Ernst and D.W. Sumn-
ers (1987) in another form, and later independently by S. Jablan (1999a,
1999b). For n ≥ 4 we can compute the first 20 numbers of this sequence.
For n = 3 we have one knot, so the sequence is: 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 20, 36,
72, 136, 272, 528, 1056, 2080, 4160, 8256, 16512, 32896, 65792, 131328,
262656, 524800, . . . This sequence is included in On-Line Encyclopedia of
Integer Sequences (http://www.research.att.com/∼njas/sequences/) as the
sequence A005418. The number of rational knots with n crossings (n ≥ 3)
is given by the formula
n (n−1) (mod 2) n
2n−3 + 2[ 2 ]−2 + (−1)(n−1)[ 2 ] (mod 2)
3
(giving the sequence A090596), so we can derive the formula for the number
of rational links with n crossings as well.
The LinKnot function RationalKL calculates the number and Conway
symbols of all rational KLs for a given number of crossings n. The results
are given in the following tables:
n No. Knots No. Links

2 1 2
3 1 3
4 1 22 1 4
5 2 5 32 1 212
6 3 42 312 2112 3 6 33 222
7 7 7 52 43 3 412 3112 232
313 2212 21112
8 12 62 512 44 8 8 53 422
413 4112 332 323 3122 242
3212 3113 31112 21212 211112
2312 2222 22112
n=9
24 Knots
9 72 63 54 522 513
423 4212 4122 41112 342 333
3222 3213 31212 31122 311112 2412
2322 23112 22122 21312 212112 2111112
12 Links
612 5112 432 414 4113 3312
32112 3132 31113 252 22212 221112
72 LinKnot
n = 10
45 Knots
82 712 64 613 6112
532 5212 514 5113 51112
433 4312 4222 42112 4132
4123 4114 41122 41113 352
3412 3313 33112 3232 32212
32113 321112 31312 31222 312112
31132 311122 311113 2512 2422
24112 2332 23122 22312 222112
221212 2211112 212212 2121112 21111112
27 Links
73 622 55 52 3 5122
442 424 4213 412 12 411112
343 3322 3223 321 22 3142
31213 311212 3111112 26 2 23212
231112 22222 221122 214 12 213112
2112112 10
The LinKnot functions RK, R, and RL calculate the number of ratio-

nal knots, rational KLs, and rational links for a given number of crossings
n, respectively.
The LinKnot function RatSourceKLNo calculates the number of ra-
tional source KLs with n crossings according to the general recursive for-
mula:
b[0] = 1, b[1] = 1, b[2n − 2] + b[2n − 1] = b[2n],
b[2n] + b[2n − 1] − f [n − 1] = b[2n + 1],
where f is the Fibonacci sequence given by the recursion
f [0] = 1, f [1] = 1, f [n − 2] + f [n − 1] = f [n].
For n ≥ 4 we obtain the sequence 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 21, 30, 51, 76, 127,
195, 322, 504, 826, 1309, 2135, 3410 . . ., known as the sequence A102526.
Both of these sequences, A005418 and A001224, have been discovered be-
fore, but in a different context, related to “Binary grids” and “Packing a
box with n dominoes”. Rational source KLs are given in the following
table:
n No. KLs
2 1 2
4 1 22
5 2 212
6 2 222 2112
7 2 2212 21112
8 4 2222 21212 22112 211112
9 5 2212 2 22212 212112 221112
2111 112
10 9 2222 2 212212 221122 221212
2221 12 2112112 2121112 2211112
2111 1112
We also have rational generating KLs:
n No. KLs
2 1 2
3 1 3
4 1 2 2
5 2 3 2 2 1 2
6 4 3 3 2 2 2 312 2112
7 6 2 3 2 3 1 3 322 2212 3112
8 11 2 1 1 12 3 2 3 332 2222 2312
3 1 1 3
9 18 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 2 3213 3222
3 3 1 2 2 1 3 12 2 2 1 22 22212 23112
3 1 1 13 3 1 1 22 3 1 2 12 32112 212112
2 2 1 112 3 1 1 112 2 1 1 1112
n = 10
2332 3223 3232 3313 3322
22222 22312 23122 23212 31132
31213 31222 31312 32113 32122
32212 33112 213112 212212 221212
221122 222112 231112 311113 311122
311212 312112 321112 2112112 2121112
2211112 3111112 21111112
No. of KLs: 33
Results in the tables above were computed with the LinKnot function
RatGenSourKL which gives the number and Conway symbols of all ra-
tional source KLs and rational generating KLs with n crossings. We can
recognize a regular distribution of the source links and their corresponding
74 LinKnot
alternating KLs (e.g., of the type 2 . . . 2, where 2 occurs l times, abbrevi-

ated as 2l ; they are knots for even l and 2-component links for odd l) (Figs.
1.54-1.55). In particular, the number of components of rational KLs is
always 1 or 2. The LinKnot function fComponentNo calculates the num-
ber of components of an arbitrary KL, but there are some more elegant
solutions.
Fig. 1.54 Shadows of source links (where exponent l denotes l-fold repetition).
The first solution for rational KLs is given below: take a rational link in
Conway notation and reduce all numbers mod 2. Then apply the following
cancellation rules:
(1) for every sequence of the form xa0 (a ∈ {0, 1}), xa0 = x;
(2) for every sequence of the form xa1 (a ∈ {0, 1}), a1 = 1 − a.
Theorem 1.17. If the Boolean function f satisfies the conditions f (0) = 0,

f (1) = 1, f (xy) = 1 − f (x)f (y), then L is a knot if f (L) = 1, and 2-
component link if f (L) = 0 (Caudron, 1982).
Fig. 1.55 The corresponding alternating source links.
For example, we conclude that 6 2 1 4 4 is a knot, because 6 2 1 4 4 =

0 0 1 0 0 (mod 2), 0 0 1 0 0 = 0 0 1 (Rule 1), 0 0 1 = 0 1 (Rule 2) and
f (0 1) = 1 − f (0)f (1) = 1. On the other hand, 4 5 1 2 3 is a link, since 4 5
1 2 3 = 0 1 1 0 1 (mod 2), 0 1 1 0 1 = 0 1 1 1 = 0 1 0 (Rule 2), 0 1 0 = 0
(Rule 1), and f (0) = 0.
The second solution is actually a trick. Knowing that a generating
KL and all KLs derived from it, which make a subfamily, have the same
number of components (Theorem 1.14), we can calculate the number of
components only for generating KLs and extend this result to all KLs
derived from them. For example, 2 2 is a generating 1-component KL
(i.e., a figure-eight knot), and all KLs belonging to the subfamily (2p) (2q)
(p ≥ 2, q ≥ 2, p ≥ q) will be knots. On the other hand, the generating KL
3 3 is a 2-component link, and all KLs in its subfamily (2p + 1) (2q + 1)
(p ≥ 1, q ≥ 1, p ≥ q) will be 2-component links. This is just the first and
76 LinKnot
simplest property which can be generalized from generating KLs to their

subfamilies.
A link (projection) is oriented if each of its components has an orien-
tation (Definition 1.29). The LinKnot function fOrientedLink calculates
Gauss codes of a link projection given by the Conway symbol, Dowker code,
or P -data. The Gauss codes obtained correspond to different orientations
of components (the first part of the data obtained). The second part gives
the orientations of components (where + is denoted by 1, and − by 0), and
the third part is the (signed) linking number of the corresponding oriented
link.
As we can conclude from their description, all rational KLs are alter-
nating, because their Conway symbols do not contain negative entries. The
product of tangles is the only operation used for obtaining rational KLs.
Including negative elementary tangles into the Conway notation of ratio-
nal KLs gives nothing new, because all rational KLs with mixed signs
can be reduced to Conway symbols containing only positive or negative
entries. For this reduction we use continued fractions. In particular, we
have integer tangles n0 = 1 + . . . + 1 – bigons or chains of bigons, and
rational tangles n1 . . . nk . To a rational tangle n1 n2 . . . nk corresponds the
continued fraction
p 1
r = = nk +
q 1
nk−1 +
1
··· +
1
n2 +
n1
where the rational number r = pq (GCD(p, q) = 1) is the slope of the
rational tangle. A rational knot or link L( pq ) is a knot if p is odd, and link
if p is even.
For rational tangles and rational KLs the following theorem holds:
Theorem 1.18. Two rational tangles are equivalent iff their continued
fractions yield the same rational number (Conway, 1970).
′
Unoriented rational links L( pq ) and L( pq′ ) are ambient isotopic iff:
(1) p = p′ and
(2) either q ≡ q ′ (mod p) or qq ′ ≡ 1 (mod p) (Schubert, 1956).
The proof of the Theorem 1.18 can be found in J.M. Montesinos (1984),
G. Burde and H. Zieschang (1985), or in the papers by J.R. Goldman
and L. Kauffman (1997), and the direct combinatorial proof is given by
L. Kauffman and S. Lambropoulou (2003). For further reading on ratio-

nal tangles and rational KLs we recommend papers by L. Kauffman and
S. Lambropoulou (2002, 2002a).
The LinKnot function RatReduce reduces a rational KL by using con-
tinued fractions. In this way, from any Conway symbol of a rational KL
with entries containing mixed signs (that is a non-alternating rational rep-
resentation of a rational KL) we can obtain its minimal alternating repre-
sentation. For example, from a non-alternating representation of a rational
link given by 2 − 3 1 2 − 7 we obtain its minimal alternating representation
6 1 2 1 2.
The LinKnot function MSigRat calculates the value of a continued
fraction and Murasugi signature (see: Murasugi, 1996, pp. 192) for every
rational KL given by its Conway symbol.
1.8.1 Chirality of rational KLs

Rational KLs are the main class of KLs for which we are able to analyze
various general properties and construct large (infinite) subclasses of KLs
satisfying these properties. Such a property is chirality: a KL is achiral
(or amphicheiral) if its “left” and “right” forms are equivalent, meaning
that one can be transformed to the other by an ambient isotopy (Liang and
Mislow, 1994a, 1994b, 1995). We distinguish chirality of non-oriented and
oriented KLs.
Definition 1.53. An oriented KL is achiral if there is an orientation pre-

serving ambient isotopy transforming the oriented link L into the oriented
mirror image of the link L.
For example, Hopf link 222 (2) is achiral as non-oriented and chiral as an
oriented link.
Theorem 1.19. An oriented knot K is achiral iff it can be represented by

an antisymmetric vertex-bicolored graph on a sphere (Liang and Mislow,
1994b).
For an oriented achiral knot K there exist a symmetry transposing ori-

entations of crossings, i.e., mutually exchanging crossings with the signs
+1 and −1. Its antisymmetries (this means sign-changing symmetries) can
be sense-reversing– rotational antireflection and anti-inversion, or sense-
preserving– 2-antirotation.
78 LinKnot
Fig. 1.56 Antisymmetric 3-D-presentation of the figure-eight knot (2 2 in Conway no-

tation).
For the knot 2 2, the graph symmetry group is G = [2+, 4], and the knot
symmetry group G′ = [2+, 4+] is generated by the rotational reflection,
with the axis defined by the midpoints of colored (i.e., double) edges of the
tetrahedron (Fig. 1.56). If we take into account the signs of crossings, it is
a rotational antireflection. Its effect is preserved in all rational knots with
an even number of crossings which have a mirror-symmetric (palindromic)
Conway symbol.
Theorem 1.20. A rational knot is achiral iff its Conway symbol is mirror-
symmetric and has an even number of crossings (Siebenmann, 1975; Cau-
dron, 1982).
For 4 ≤ n ≤ 12, achiral rational knots (Fig. 1.57) are:
n=4
22
n=6
2112
n=8
44 3113 2222
n = 10
4114 311113 2332 212212 21111112
n = 12
66 5115 4224 3333 2442
321123 312213 222222 22111122 21211212
2111111112
Fig. 1.57 Centro-antisymmetric presentations of achiral rational knots (n ≤ 10).
Definition 1.54. An oriented KL is invertible if it remains the same after

reversing orientations of all its components.
Theorem 1.21. All oriented rational KLs are invertible (Kauffman and
Lambropoulou, 2002a).
No general technique is known for determining if a knot is invertible.
Definition 1.55. A period of a knot projection is the order of rotation that

transforms it to itself. A knot K has a period p if it has a projection with
the period p.
According to this, a knot can have several different periods. For exam-
ple, a trefoil knot has periods 2 and 3. The period of the knot 2 2 is 2, and
the same holds for all rational achiral knots. If the antisymmetry group of
the vertex-bicolored graph corresponding to an achiral oriented projection
80 LinKnot
of a knot K contains at least one sense-reversing antisymmetry, K is in-

vertible achiral knot; otherwise, K is non-invertible. For the invertibility
of achiral knots we have an additional criterion: if a period of achiral knot
is 2, it is invertible; otherwise, it is non-invertible.
The LinKnot function RationalAmphiK calculates the number and
Conway symbols of all rational achiral knots for a given number of crossings
n. The number of achiral knots for n = 2k (k = 1, 2, 3, . . .) yields the
Jacobsthal sequence 0, 1, 1, 3, 5, 11, 21, 43, 85, 171, 341, 683, 1365, 2731,
5461, 10923, 21845, 43691, 87381, 174763, . . . defined recursively with
a[1] = 0, a[2] = 1, 2a[k] + a[k + 1] = a[k + 2]
and given by the general formula
2n − (−1)n
a[n] = .
3
All rational links are 2-component. Since all oriented alternating links
with an even number of components are chiral (Cerf, 1997), there are no
oriented rational achiral links. For 2 ≤ n ≤ 12, achiral non-oriented rational
links are:
n=2
2
n=6
33
n=8
211112
n = 10
55 3223 221122
n = 12
411114 31111113 231132 213312
21122112
n = 14
77 5225 421124 3443
322223 31211213 241142 223322
22122122 2121111212 211111111112
Theorem 1.22. A rational non-oriented link is achiral iff its Conway sym-
bol is mirror-symmetric (palindromic) and has an even number of crossings
(Kauffman and Lambropoulou, 2002).
The LinKnot function RationalAmphiL calculates the number and

Conway symbols of all rational achiral non-oriented links for a given number
of crossings n. For n = 2 (k = 1) there is one achiral non-oriented link:

Hopf link 2 (221 ). Calculating the number of achiral non-oriented rational
links for n = 2k (k = 2, 3, 4, . . .) we again obtain the Jacobsthal sequence.
1.9 Unlinking number and unlinking gap
The question of unknotting and unlinking numbers, or Gordian numbers

is one of the most difficult in knot theory (Wendt, 1937; Nakanishi, 1981;
Kawauchi, 1996; Kohn, 1991, 1993). General formulas for unknotting num-
ber are known only for some special classes of knots. For example, accord-
ing to the famous Milnor conjecture (1968) proved by P.B. Kronheimer and
T.S. Mrowka (1993, 1995), the unknotting number of a torus knot [p, q] is
u = (p−1)(q−1)
2 . In order to calculate unknotting and unlinking numbers,
we need link surgery. In every crossing of a KL it is possible to make a
crossing change: switch an overcrossing to undercrossing or vice versa (Fig.
1.58a).
Fig. 1.58 A crossing change (a) and the Nakanishi-Bleiler example: (b) the minimal
projection of the knot 5 1 4 that requires at least three crossing changes to be unknotted;
(c) the minimal projection of the knot 3 1 2 with the unknotting number 1; (d) non-
minimal projection of the knot 5 1 4 from which we obtain the correct unknotting number
u(5 1 4) = 2.
82 LinKnot
Definition 1.56. The unlinking number u(L) of a link L is the minimal

number of crossing changes required to obtain an unlink from the link L,
where the minimum is taken over all diagrams of L.
The first estimation of the unlinking number follows from the theorem:
Theorem 1.23. Let D(L) be a diagram of link L with n crossings. Making

at most [ n2 ] crossing changes transforms D(L) into a diagram of an unlink
(see, e.g., Adams, 1994; Gilbert and Porter, 1994).
Corollary 1.2. For an n-crossing link L and its unlinking number u(L)
the following inequality holds: u(L) ≤ [ n2 ].
The estimation given in this corollary is a very rough, but still useful.
Definition 1.57. A link L will be called difficult if u(L) = [ n2 ].
Difficult knots are extremely rare, and the question of finding all difficult
KLs with a given number of crossings n is open.
Conjecture 1.3. The only difficult knots belong to the family 2p + 1 in

Conway notation (knots 31 , 51 , 71 ,...).
However, there is more then one family of difficult links, e.g., the family
2p in Conway notation (the links 221 , 421 , 621 ,...), all pretzel links of the form
2k1 , 2k2 , ..., 2kl (l ≥ 3), etc.
There are two different, yet equivalent approaches for obtaining the
unlinking number of a link L (see, e.g., C. Adams, 1994):
(1) according to the classical definition, one is allowed to make a planar iso-
topy after each crossing change and then continue the unlinking process
with the newly obtained projection, until an unlink is obtained;
(2) the standard definition requires all crossing changes to be done simul-
taneously in a fixed projection.
Unfortunately, both definitions are unsuitable for calculations, since

there are infinitely many projections of any KL. From the well known
example of the knot 108 (or 5 1 4 in Conway notation), given by Y. Nakan-
ishi (1983) and S. Bleiler (1984), the restriction to minimal projections is
not allowed. The rational knot 5 1 4 has only one minimal projection (Fig.
1.58b). According to the standard definition, unknotting takes at least
three crossing changes (in the crossings denoted by circles).
On the other hand, making a crossing change in the middle point of the
diagram (Fig. 1.58b) followed by the reduction 5 −1 4 = 3 1 2, we obtain the
minimal projection of the knot 3 1 2 (Fig. 1.58c) that can be unknotted by
one crossing change. Hence, in this case unknotting according the classical
definition, using only minimal projections, gives correct unknotting number
2. The unknotting number can also be obtained from the non-minimal
projection of the knot 5 1 4 (Fig. 1.58d) using the standard definition. As
it was shown by J. Bernhard (1994), the same property holds for the whole
knot family (2k + 1) 1 (2k), k ≥ 2.
Nakanishi-Bleiler example motivated us to define BJ-unlinking number
which is computable due to the algorithmic nature of its definition.
Definition 1.58. For a given crossing v of a diagram D representing link

L, let Dv denote the link diagram obtained from D by switching crossing
v (Fig. 1.58a).
a) The unlinking number u(D) of a link diagram D is the minimal number

of crossing changes on the diagram required to obtain an unlink.
b) The classical unlinking number of a link L, denoted by u(L) can be
defined by u(L) = min u(D) where the minimum is taken over all
D
minimal diagrams D representing L.
c) The BJ-unlinking number uBJ (D) of a diagram D is defined recursively
in the following manner:
(1) uBJ (D) = 0 iff D represents an unlink.
(2) uBJ (D) = 1 + min uBJ (Dv ) where the minimum is taken over all
Dv
minimal diagrams of a link represented by Dv for which the value
is already defined.
d) uM (L) = min u(D) where the minimum is taken over all minimal
D
diagrams D representing L.
e) The BJ-unlinking number uBJ (L) of a link L uBJ (L) = min uBJ (D)
D
where the minimum is taken over all minimal diagrams D representing
L.
J.A. Bernhard (1994) and independently S. Jablan in 1995 (Jablan,

1998), conjectured:
Bernhard-Jablan Conjecture For every link L we have that u(L) =

uBJ (L).
84 LinKnot
This means that we take all minimal projections of a KL, make a cross-
ing change in every crossing, and then minimize all the projections obtained.
The same algorithm is applied to the first, second, . . . k th generation of the
KLs obtained. The BJ-unlinking number is the minimal number of steps
k in this recursive unlinking process.
If BJ-conjecture does not hold for all KLs, it may be true for some
restricted class, e.g., for all rational KLs. Notice that, even if BJ-conjecture
does not hold for all links, BJ-unlinking number is the best computable
upper bound for the unlinking number, since δBJ (L) ≤ δ(L).
Going further in the same direction, we conjecture that unlinking num-
ber is a linear subfamily-dependent KL invariant (Conjecture 1.2).
We illustrate the importance of the conjecture by the following exam-
ple. Consider alternating pretzel knots a, b, c where 1 < a ≤ b ≤ c and
a, b, c are all odd numbers. We show in the following proposition that
uBJ (a, b, c) = a+b
2 . However, the unknotting number of these knots is still
unknown, except for the smallest knots, e.g., 3, 3, 3 with unknotting number
3, computed recently by B. Owens (2005).
Proposition 1.1.
a) for rational knots with the Conway symbol (2m+ 1) 1 (2n+ 1), (m ≥ n)
BJ-unknotting number is uBJ = n + 1;
b) for pretzel knots a, b, c (1 < a ≤ b ≤ c)4 , where a, b, c are odd numbers:
a+b
uBJ (a, b, c) =
2
For mutant KLs, the following lemma holds:
Lemma 1.1. If m(D) is a mutation of a diagram D, then u(D) =

u(m(D)).
Since a flype can be viewed as a special case of mutation, according to

the Tait’s Flyping Theorem (Theorem 1.11) (Menasco and Thistlethwaite,
1991, 1993) and Lemma 1.1, all reduced minimal diagrams of an alternating
KL have the same BJ-unlinking number, so it is sufficient to use only one
minimal diagram.
On the contrary, we need to consider all minimal diagrams of non-
alternating KLs, since two minimal diagrams of the same non-alternating
KL can have different BJ-unknotting numbers, as in the example by
4 Proposition 1.1 also holds for rational knots obtained for a = 1.
A. Stoimenow (2001). Two minimal diagrams of the same 14-crossing knot

14n36750 (in the Knotscape notation), given by the Dowker codes
4 14 18 12 28 26 − 22 2 − 24 10 8 − 16 6 20
and
6 − 10 26 20 − 2 − 18 − 22 28 − 24 8 − 14 − 12 4 16
(Fig. 1.59), give two different BJ-unknotting numbers, 1 and 2, respec-
tively.
Fig. 1.59 Two projections of the knot 1436750 .
K. Murasugi proved the inequality u(K) ≥ |σ(K)| 2 (Murasugi, 1965;

Cromwell, 2004). Because uBJ (L) ≥ u(L), it follows that if BJ-unknotting
number of a knot K is equal to half of the signature, σ(K)
2 , then it is equal to
the unknotting number. In the case of links the same holds if BJ-unlinking
number of a link L is equal to σ(L)+1
2 (Murasugi, 1965). Additional criteria
for checking estimated unlinking numbers are given by P. Kohn (1993).
Unknotting numbers computed according to the BJ-conjecture coin-
cide with all unknotting numbers (n ≤ 10) from the book A Survey of
Knot Theory by A. Kawauchi (Appendix F) (1996) and Kawauchi’s table
updated with reference to recent unknotting number results (Livingston
and Cha, 2005), if in all ambiguous cases (A=1 or 2; B=2 or 3) we take
the bigger number. Hence, if any of these unknotting numbers is smaller
than its maximal estimated value, this will be a counterexample for the
BJ-conjecture. BJ-conjecture holds for all two-component links whose un-
linking numbers were computed by P. Kohn (1993). The complete list of
86 LinKnot
BJ-unknotting numbers for knots with n = 11 and n = 12 crossings com-

puted by the authors, using the program LinKnot, is included in the Table
of Knot Invariants by C. Livingston and J.C. Cha (2005). The most recent
results by B. Owens (2005) and Y. Nakanishi (2005) confirmed the unknot-
ting number u = 3 for the knot 935 , and the unknotting number u = 2 for
the knots 1083 , 1097 , 10105 , 10108 , 10109 , and 10121 computed according to
the BJ-conjecture.
The BJ-conjecture was first introduced by J.A. Bernhard in 1994 and
then independently proposed by S. Jablan in 1995, when it was effectively
used for the calculation of BJ-unknotting numbers of the knots with n ≤ 10
crossings.
LinKnot function UnR calculates BJ-unknotting and BJ-unlinking
numbers of rational KLs, and UnKnotLink calculates BJ-unknotting
(unlinking) numbers of all KLs.
The output of both functions is a sequence of integers between lower
bound coming from signature and upper bound uBJ . If they coincide, we
obtain the value for the unlinking number.
Y. Nakanishi (1996) and A. Stoimenow (2004) proved that the BJ-
conjecture holds for one subclass of rational KLs:
Theorem 1.24. All rational KLs with unlinking number one have an un-
linking number one minimal diagram.
This theorem is the corollary of the Theorem 1.28 and 1.29.
Definition 1.59. The diagram unlinking number uD (L) is the minimal

number of simultaneous crossing changes on D required to obtain a diagram
of an unlink.
Definition 1.60. The BJ-unlinking gap of a diagram D, denoted by

δBJ (D), is the difference δBJ (D) = u(D) − uBJ (D).
Definition 1.61. The BJ-unlinking gap of a link L, denoted by δBJ (L), is

defined by δBJ (L) = uM (L) − uBJ (L) or equivalently δBJ (L) = min δ(D)
D
where D denotes minimal diagram of L.
According to Tait’s First Conjecture (Murasugi 1996, Theorem 11.5.5),

proved independently in 1986 by L. Kauffman, K. Murasugi and
M. Thistlethwaite (Kauffman, 1987b; Murasugi, 1987a,b; Thistlethwaite,

1987, 1988) and known after that as Kauffman-Murasugi Theorem (The-
orem 1.6), a reduced alternating projection is the minimal projection of a
prime alternating KL. In the case of alternating KLs, from this theorem
and Lemma 1.1 it follows that all reduced minimal diagrams of a link L
will have the same unlinking gap δM (L), so a particular value δM (L) will
be the BJ-unlinking gap δBJ (L) of a link L.
According to the experimental results, BJ-unlinking number can be
viewed as the property of a whole family. For example, for all knots p 2,
p 1 1 p, (p + 2) 1 1 p, p 2 1 2, p 1 1 1 2, uBJ = u = 1 and does not depend on
p, while knots of the family p (p = 2k + 1) have uBJ = u = k.
Unlinking number can be generalized to a metric on space of links, where
the distance between links is defined as follows:
Definition 1.62. A distance of a link projection L′1 from a link projection

L′2 is the minimal number of crossing changes in L′1 required to obtain L′2 .
A distance of links L1 and L2 (or Gordian distance), denoted by
d(L1 , L2 ), is the minimal number of crossing changes in L1 required to
obtain L2 , the minimum taken over all projections of L1 and L2 .
Distance of links satisfies all properties of a metric (Darcy and Sumners,

1998):
(1) d(L1 , L2 ) = 0 iff L1 = L2 ;

(2) d(L1 , L2 ) = d(L2 , L1 );
(3) d(L1 , l2 ) ≤ d(L1 , L) + d(L, L2 ).
In particular, for unlinking numbers the following inequality holds:

d(L1 , L2 ) ≤ u(L1 ) + u(L2 ).
Theorem 1.25. For the distance of knots K1 and K2 , the following in-
equality holds: d(K1 , K2 ) ≥ |σ(K1 )−σ(K
2
2 )|
(Murakami, 1985; Kawauchi,
1996).
Computing distances of KLs is a recursive process whose basic step is

finding pairs of KLs with the Gordian distance 1, i.e., all pairs of KLs
where one of them can be obtained from a diagram of the other by one
crossing change. In this case, both diagrams considered are not necessarily
minimal.
Two rational links L1 and L2 have the Gordian distance 1 iff they can
be expressed as L1 = t1 , t2 , ±2, L2 = t1 , t2 , where t1 and t2 are rational
88 LinKnot
tangles with the slopes r1 , r2 , respectively (Dazey and Sumners, 1997;

Torisu, 1998). I. Darcy and D.W. Sumners (1998) computed distances of
oriented knots with at most n = 8 crossings.
We have computed all pairs of mutually different non-oriented knots
with the Gordian distance 1 for n ≤ 9. For n ≤ 9 there are (including
the unknot) 85 prime knots, ordered according to the classical notation
(Rolfsen, 1976). In the following table every knot with n ≤ 9 crossings is
given by its ordering number, classical, and Conway symbol.
(1, 11 , 1)
(2, 31 , 3)
(3, 41 , 2 2)
(4, 51 , 5) (5, 52 , 3 2)
(6, 61 , 4 2) (7, 62 , 3 1 2) (8, 63 , 2 1 1 2)
(9, 71 , 7) (10, 72 , 5 2) (11, 73 , 4 3) (12, 74 , 3 1 3)

(13, 75 , 3 2 2) (14, 76 , 2 2 1 2) (15, 77 , 2 1 1 1 2)
(16, 81 , 6 2) (17, 82 , 5 1 2) (18, 83 , 4 4) (19, 84 , 4 1 3)

(20, 85 , 3, 3, 2) (21, 86 , 3 3 2) (22, 87 , 4 1 1 2) (23, 88 , 2 3 1 2)
(24, 89 , 3 1 1 3) (25, 810 , 2 1, 3, 2) (26, 811 , 3 2 1 2) (27, 812 , 2 2 2 2)
(28, 813 , 3 1 1 1 2) (29, 814 , 2 2 1 1 2) (30, 815 , 2 1, 2 1, 2) (31, 816 , .2.2 0)
(32, 817 , .2.2) (33, 818 , 8∗ ) (34, 819 , 3, 3, −2) (35, 820 , 3, 2 1, −2)
(36, 821 , 2 1, 2 1, −2)
(37, 91 , 9) (38, 92 , 7 2) (39, 93 , 6 3)

(40, 94 , 5 4) (41, 95 , 5 1 3) (42, 96 , 5 2 2)
(43, 97 , 3 4 2) (44, 98 , 2 4 1 2) (45, 99 , 4 2 3)
(46, 910 , 3 3 3) (47, 911 , 4 1 2 2) (48, 912 , 4 2 1 2)
(49, 913 , 3 2 1 3) (50, 914 , 4 1 1 1 2) (51, 915 , 2 3 2 2)
(52, 916 , 3, 3, 2+) (53, 917 , 2 1 3 1 2) (54, 918 , 3 2 2 2)
(55, 919 , 2 3 1 1 2) (56, 920 , 3 1 2 1 2) (57, 921 , 3 1 1 2 2)
(58, 922 , 2 1 1, 3, 2) (59, 923 , 2 2 1 2 2) (60, 924 , 2 1, 3, 2+)
(61, 925 , 2 2, 2 1, 2) (62, 926 , 3 1 1 1 1 2) (63, 927 , 2 1 2 1 1 2)
(64, 928 , 2 1, 2 1, 2+) (65, 929 , .2.2 0.2) (66, 930 , 2 1 1, 2 1, 2)
(67, 931 , 2 1 1 1 1 1 2) (68, 932 , .2 1.2 0) (69, 933 , .2 1.2)
(70, 934 , 8∗ 2 0) (71, 935 , 3, 3, 3) (72, 936 , 2 2, 3, 2)
(73, 937 , 2 1, 2 1, 3) (74, 938 , .2.2.2) (75, 939 , 2 : 2 : 2 0)
(76, 940 , 9∗ ) (77, 941 , 2 0 : 2 0 : 2 0) (78, 942 , 2 2, 3, −2)
(79, 943 , 2 1 1, 3, −2) (80, 944 , 2 2, 2 1, −2) (81, 945 , 2 1 1, 2 1, −2)
(82, 946 , 3, 3, −3) (83, 947 , 8∗ − 2 0) (84, 948 , 2 1, 2 1, −3)
(85, 949 , −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0)
Vertices of the following graph G1 are ordering numbers of knots from

the previous table, and the edges connect knots with the Gordian distance
1 (Fig. 1.60).
G1 = {{2, 1}, {3, 1}, {4, 2}, {5, 1}, {5, 2}, {5, 4}, {6, 1}, {6, 3}, {7, 1}, {7, 2}, {7, 3},
{7, 6}, {8, 1}, {8, 2}, {9, 4}, {10, 1}, {10, 5}, {11, 4}, {11, 5}, {11, 9}, {11, 10}, {12, 2},
{12, 5}, {12, 11}, {13, 2}, {13, 4}, {13, 5}, {13, 9}, {13, 10}, {14, 1}, {14, 2}, {14, 3}, {14, 5},
{14, 10}, {15, 1}, {15, 2}, {15, 3}, {16, 1}, {16, 6}, {17, 2}, {17, 4}, {17, 7}, {18, 6}, {18, 16},
{19, 3}, {19, 6}, {19, 7}, {19, 18}, {20, 7}, {21, 2}, {21, 6}, {21, 7}, {21, 16}, {21, 17},
{21, 19}, {21, 20}, {22, 1}, {22, 2}, {22, 4}, {22, 8}, {23, 2}, {23, 5}, {23, 8}, {23, 22},
{24, 1}, {24, 7}, {24, 19}, {25, 4}, {25, 5}, {25, 8}, {25, 23}, {26, 1}, {26, 5}, {26, 6}, {26, 7},
{26, 16}, {26, 17}, {27, 3}, {27, 6}, {27, 16}, {28, 1}, {28, 3}, {28, 5}, {28, 8}, {28, 22},
{29, 1}, {29, 2}, {29, 3}, {29, 5}, {29, 7}, {29, 17}, {30, 4}, {30, 5}, {31, 2}, {31, 3}, {31, 5},
{31, 8}, {32, 1}, {32, 2}, {32, 7}, {33, 2}, {34, 4}, {34, 13}, {34, 30}, {35, 1}, {35, 5}, {35, 8},
{35, 14}, {35, 25}, {36, 1}, {36, 4}, {36, 7}, {36, 20}, {37, 9}, {38, 1}, {38, 10}, {39, 9},
{39, 11}, {40, 10}, {40, 11}, {41, 5}, {41, 10}, {41, 12}, {42, 4}, {42, 9}, {42, 13}, {43, 2},
{43, 10}, {43, 13}, {44, 2}, {44, 3}, {44, 6}, {44, 14}, {45, 9}, {45, 11}, {45, 13}, {46, 11},
{46, 12}, {47, 4}, {47, 5}, {47, 11}, {47, 14}, {48, 1}, {48, 6}, {48, 10}, {48, 14}, {49, 4},
{49, 11}, {49, 12}, {49, 13}, {50, 1}, {50, 2}, {50, 5}, {50, 6}, {50, 15}, {51, 3}, {51, 5},
{51, 10}, {51, 14}, {52, 13}, {52, 34}, {53, 3}, {53, 7}, {53, 15}, {54, 5}, {54, 10}, {54, 11},
{54, 13}, {55, 1}, {55, 3}, {55, 6}, {55, 15}, {56, 2}, {56, 5}, {56, 7}, {56, 13}, {56, 14},
{57, 1}, {57, 2}, {57, 5}, {57, 12}, {57, 14}, {58, 1}, {58, 7}, {58, 8}, {58, 15}, {59, 4}, {59, 5},
{59, 13}, {60, 1}, {60, 7}, {60, 14}, {60, 35}, {61, 5}, {61, 6}, {61, 7}, {61, 14}, {62, 1},
{62, 2}, {62, 4}, {62, 5}, {62, 7}, {62, 15}, {63, 1}, {63, 2}, {63, 3}, {63, 7}, {63, 8}, {63, 14},
{64, 1}, {64, 8}, {64, 36}, {65, 8}, {65, 14}, {65, 15}, {66, 1}, {66, 6}, {66, 7}, {66, 8}, {67, 2},
{67, 4}, {67, 5}, {67, 8}, {68, 2}, {68, 3}, {68, 5}, {68, 6}, {68, 7}, {68, 15}, {68, 36}, {69, 1},
{69, 2}, {69, 3}, {69, 8}, {69, 14}, {69, 35}, {70, 1}, {70, 2}, {70, 3}, {70, 7}, {70, 15},
{71, 12}, {72, 4}, {72, 13}, {72, 14}, {73, 6}, {73, 15}, {74, 4}, {74, 12}, {74, 13}, {75, 1},
{75, 7}, {75, 12}, {75, 14}, {76, 3}, {76, 36}, {77, 5}, {77, 15}, {78, 1}, {78, 6}, {78, 7},
{78, 15}, {78, 21}, {78, 27}, {78, 32}, {79, 4}, {79, 5}, {79, 7}, {79, 14}, {79, 29}, {80, 1},
{80, 6}, {80, 8}, {80, 14}, {80, 15}, {80, 23}, {80, 31}, {81, 1}, {81, 4}, {81, 5}, {81, 7},
{81, 13}, {81, 14}, {82, 2}, {82, 6}, {82, 15}, {82, 26}, {82, 36}, {83, 2}, {83, 6}, {83, 15},
{84, 2}, {84, 12}, {84, 35}, {85, 4}, {85, 12}}.
The Mathematica function ShortestPath can compute minimal Gor-

dian distances between knots, going only via prime knots and without dis-
tinguishing handness. In particular, the number of edges in a shortest path
from any vertex v to the vertex 1 (denoting the unknot) gives the BJ-
unknotting number of the knot corresponding to the vertex v going only
via prime knots5 .
In the graph G1 , most frequently occurs the unknot (35 times), then
trefoil 3 (31 ) and knot 3 2 (52 ) (31 times each).
The Gordian distance 1 for alternating knots can be achieved only
through non-minimal diagrams. The same holds for distance 1 between
5 Compare with Diao, Ernst, and Stasiak (2006).
90 LinKnot
Fig. 1.60 Graph G1 .
“left” and “right” form of the same knot. Examples of alternating knots
with n crossings (n ≤ 8) and the Gordian distance 1 achieved from the
non-minimal diagrams with n + 1 crossings are:
n=5 (5),(3 2)
n=6 (4 2),(3 1 2)
n=7 (7),(4 3) (7),(3 2 2)
(5 2),(4 3) (5 2),(3 2 2)
(5 2),(2 2 1 2) (4 3),(3 1 3)
(2 3 1 2), (2 1, 3, 2)
n=8 (3, 3, 2), (2 1, 2 1, −2) (3, 3, −2), (2 1, 2 1, 2)
(3, 2 1, −2), (2 1, 3, 2) (5 1 2), (2 2 1 1 2)
(6 2), (2 2 2 2) (4 1 1 2), (2 3 1 2)
(4 1 1 2), (3 1 1 1 2) (4 1 3), (3 1 1 3)
(5 1 2), (3 2 1 2) (6 2), (3 2 1 2)
(3 3 2), (3, 3, 2) (4 1 3), (3 3 2)
(5 1 2), (3 3 2) (6 2), (3 3 2)
(4 4), (4 1 3) (6 2), (4 4)
For example, the shortest path from 3 1 3 to 7 is 3 1 3 → 4 3 → 7 and goes

via non-minimal diagrams with n = 8 crossings (Fig. 1.61).
Fig. 1.61 Transition 3 1 3 → 4 3 → 7 via non-minimal diagrams with n = 8 crossings.
Knots 4 2 (61 ) and 2 3 1 2 (88 ) are examples of knots with the distance
1 from their mirror images (Fig. 1.62).
The LinKnot function AllStatesRational uses a Conway symbol of a
rational KL projection P as an input and makes all possible combinations of
crossing changes on P , i.e., choices of signs ±. The output is the unlinking
number of the fixed projection P , followed by a list of ordered pairs where
each second entry is a rational knot or link L, and the first entry the
minimal number of crossing changes required to obtain L from P . The
function AllStatesRational is very fast, since it is based on continued
fractions. A similar, but much slower function, based on the function Re
ductionKnotLink, can be applied to all KLs. It gives the same output,
where knots or links L are given by their reduced P -data.
The functions AllStatesRational and UnR can be used to illustrate
the Nakanishi-Bleiler example (knot 5 1 4), or similar examples of knots
from the family (2k + 1) 1 (2k), showing that the unknotting number of
the fixed minimal projection of a knot (2k + 1) 1 (2k) is k + 1, and its
BJ-unknotting number is k, so the BJ-unknotting gap is δBJ = 1. We
can also consider links from the family (2k) 1 (2k) (k > 1). A fixed minimal
projection of a link (2k) 1 (2k) can be unlinked with minimum 2k−1 crossing
changes, and BJ-unlinking number, computed by the function UnR, is k,
so the BJ-unlinking gap is k − 1.
92 LinKnot
Fig. 1.62 (a) Transition from 4 2 and (b) from 2 3 1 2 to its mirror image by one crossing
change.
In order to make a more complete and detailed research of unlinking

gap, we wrote some additional LinKnot functions. LinKnot function UnR
FixProj calculates unlinking number uD of a fixed diagram D of a given ra-
tional KL. The additional function fGapRat calculates the BJ-unlinking
number of a given rational link L, the unlinking number of its fixed minimal
projection, detects rational KLs with BJ-unlinking gap, and computes its
value δBJ (L). The calculation of unlinking gaps for rational KLs is very
fast because the functions UnR and fGapRat are based on continued
fractions. Similar, but much slower functions UnKnotLink and fGap,
based on the function ReductionKnotLink, are used for the calculation
of (diagram) unlinking gap for non-rational KL diagrams.
If the BJ-conjecture is not true in general, the list of KLs with unlinking
gap given here will remain correct, but not exhaustive, because for every
KL from that list the unlinking number obtained from a minimal projection
uM (L) is greater than the BJ-unlinking number uBJ (L) which represents
the upper bound for the unlinking number u(L), i.e., uM (L) > uBJ (L) ≥
u(L).
However, in that case our list may not be complete: KLs whose un-
linking number is smaller than the BJ-unlinking number will also have an
unlinking gap.
The following tables contain the Conway symbols of rational knots and
links up to 16 crossings with a non-trivial BJ-unlinking gap, given accord-
ing to the number of crossings and whether they are knots or links. Symbols
given in bold denote the links with the BJ-unlinking gap 2 (the others have
BJ-unlinking gap 1). The first column in each table gives the number of
crossings, second the number of KLs with non-trivial BJ-unlinking gap,
and the third column their list.
n No. of KLs List of all KLs

9 1 Link 414
10 1 Knot 514
1 Knot 4142
11
4 Links 434 614 5132 51113
12 5 Knots 714 534 4143 6132 61113
n = 13
7 Knots
4414 6142 41314 51322 231412
511132 513112
16 Links
6 1 6 634 814 5152 5332
6133 7132 34132 41422 51115
61123 71113 241312 411142 611122
4211113
n = 14
31 Knots
716 734 914 4163 4343
5414 6143 6152 6332 7133
8132 33152 35132 41423 51314
51323 51422 61124 61322 71123
81113 313142 314132 341312 351113
511142 711122 2141312 2411132 4211114
5211113
5 Links
41432 41612 413132 513212 5131112
Among the links with n = 13 crossings we find the first link 6 1 6 with
the BJ-unlinking gap δBJ = 2.
94 LinKnot
n = 15
43 Knots
21314112 2241312 24111312 2411142
241422 321162 331512 33162
341322 4111422 4141113 414132
414222 41433 41514 41613
41712 42111132 4434 451113
45132 4614 5111214 511134
513114 513213 51324 51432
51522 51612 53322 61112112
611232 6131112 61314 613212
61332 6144 6162 6414
711132 713112 8142
63 Links
10 1 4 21413112 23111412 2 31412 2
241512 25111212 251322 3 11152 2
341313 34152 34332 3 51112 2
35133 36132 41111232 41 21111 13
4141212 41442 41622 4 21131 3
421152 4221123 4231113 42414
4311213 43422 441312 511112 4
5111223 5111322 511143 51315
51513 52111122 5211123 5352
54132 5532 611142 61125
61224 61323 61422 6153
6211113 63123 6333 6 36
711123 7 1 1 1 5 711222 71133
71313 7134 7 15 2 7332
811122 81123 8133 8 16
834 91113 9132
n = 16
138 Knots
10 1 1 1 3 10 1 3 2 11 1 4 214111312
214131112 215111212 2231512 231622
232111132 241432 241612 2511232
2611222 31113142 31211152 3124132
31311142 3131422 31411132 31413112
314332 31511122 3214132 323152
3241312 3251113 33111412 331513
33352 334132 3411142 341422
341512 34211113 35111212 351322
35152 35332 3611122 361123
36133 371113 37132 4111423
412111114 413143 4141213 414142
4142122 414223 414232 414322
414412 41443 416122 41623

4183 42111133 4211314 4221124
4311214 43162 43423 4363
441313 51111232 5111224 5111422
512111113 5121115 5141113 5141212
514132 51442 51514 51523
5211313 521152 5221123 5231113
52315 52414 531115 5311213
53323 53422 541312 5434
551113 55132 5614 6111124
6111223 6111322 611143 611233
61225 61315 613213 61324
61333 61423 6145 61513
61522 6 1 63 62111122 6211123
62116 63124 63322 6343
711142 71134 71224 71314
71323 71332 71422 7153
7211113 73123 7333 736
7414 811123 81115 811222
81133 81313 8134 81 5 2
8332 911122 91123 9133
916 934
42 Links
2314132 2314312 231712 235132
241311112 24131212 3111532 3111712
34131112 3413212 413152 4142212
41452 4151113 4152112 41614
41632 417112 41812 43414
43432 43612 51112132 5111332
5111512 5131114 5131132 51312112
5131312 513214 513232 5331112
533212 611121112 61112212 613132
6132112 613312 61432 61612
7131112 713212
First rational knots with the non-trivial unknotting gap δBJ = 2 are
6 1 6 3 and 8 1 5 2 with n = 16 crossings. First non-rational alternating
knots with the BJ-unlinking gap δBJ = 1 appear for n ≥ 12 crossings:
pretzel knot 5, 4, 3 (12a1242 ) and polyhedral knots 6∗ 2.4 0 : 3 0 (12a970 ),
6∗ 2.2 1 0 : 4 0 (12a76 ), and 6∗ 2.2.2.4 0 (12a1153 ).
We will try to explore the effect which 2n-moves (Przytycki, 2006a) (Fig.
1.67a) have on the BJ-unlinking number uBJ , diagram unlinking number
uM , and BJ-unlinking gap δBJ . Applying 2n-moves on an integer tangle
decreases or increases its corresponding parameter in the Conway symbol
for 2n. If we allow applying 2n-moves on an arbitrary subset of elementary
96 LinKnot
tangles of a given link L we get its corresponding families (Definition 1.48).

J.A. Bernhard (1994) and D. Garity (2001) used this approach to obtain
general results for unlinking numbers of the following families of diagrams of
rational knots: (2k+1) 1 (2k) (k ≥ 2) and (2k+1) (2l+1) (2k) (k ≥ 2, l ≥ 0,
k > l) whose diagram unknotting gap is k + l + 1 − (k + l) = 1. Moreover,
two-parameter family of rational link diagrams (2k) 1 (2l) (k ≥ 2, l ≥ 2)
(Garity, 2001) has diagram unlinking number uM = k + l − 1 and unlinking
number u ≤ l, so the unlinking gap of a fixed diagram is at least k − 1 and
can be made arbitrarily large for a sufficiently large k.
In the similar manner, we try to obtain explicit formulas for BJ-
unlinking gap of a family obtained from a rational link with several pa-
rameters, denoted by its Conway symbol. First we consider rational links
containing only 2 or 3 parameters. Proofs of the following statements are
given by R. Sazdanović (Jablan and Sazdanović, 2005a).
Lemma 1.2. For a rational link with the Conway symbol a b, the following
holds:
• if a, b are both odd, then for a link (2m + 1) (2n + 1) we have
uBJ = uM = u = m + n + 1;
• if a is odd and b is even, then for a knot (2m + 1) (2n) we have
uBJ = uM = u = n;
• if a, b are both even, then for a knot (2m) (2n), (m ≥ n) we have
uBJ = uM = n.
Lemma 1.3. For a rational link with the Conway symbol a b c, the follow-
ing holds:
• if a b c = (2k) (2l) (2m), then

uBJ = uM = u = k + m;
• if a b c = (2k + 1) (2l + 1) (2m + 1), (k ≥ m ≥ 1), then
uBJ = uM = l + m + 1;
• if a b c = (2k + 1) (2l) (2m + 1) (k, m ≥ 1) then
uBJ = uM = u = k + l + m + 1;
• if a b c = (2k + 1) (2l) (2m) (k, m ≥ 1) then
uBJ = uM = u = k + m;
• if a b c = (2k) (2l + 1) (2m), (k ≥ m ≥ 1) then

l + k, if l ≤ k, m;
uBJ =
k + m, if k, m ≤ l.
i.e.
uBJ = min(k + m, k + l)
and

 k + m, if 1 ≤ l ≤ k, m;
uM = k + m − 1, if 0 = l ≤ k, m;
k + m, if k, m ≤ l.

• if a b c = (2k + 1) (2l + 1) (2m) (k, m ≥ 1) then

k + min(l, m), if l, m ≤ k or k, m < l;
uBJ =
k + l + 1, if k, l ≤ m;

 k + m, if k, m < l;
uM = k + min(l + 1, m), if l, m ≤ k;
k + l + 1, if k, l ≤ m.

Among the KL families from Lemma 1.3, two of them have non-trivial
BJ-unlinking gap:
Corollary 1.3.
• rational links (2k) (2l + 1) (2m) have non-trivial BJ-gap if k ≥ m ≥ 2
and m ≥ l + 1

m − 1, l = 0;
δBJ =
m − l, l ≥ 1.
• rational knots (2k + 1) (2l + 1) (2m) have non-trivial gap δBJ = 1 if
m ≥ 2 and l + 1 < m < k.
Lemma 1.4. For a rational knot with the Conway symbol (2k) (2m) 1 (2n)
the following holds:
• diagram unlinking number is
uM = n + min(k, m − 1);
98 LinKnot
• BJ-unlinking number is

n, if m ≤ n;
uBJ =
n + min(k, m − n), if m > n.
• BJ-unlinking gap is

min(k, m − 1), if m ≤ n;
δBJ =
min(k, m − 1) − min(k, m − n), if m > n.
The Lemma 1.2 is used to prove the following theorem about a family
of rational knots with an arbitrarily large BJ-unlinking gap6 :
Theorem 1.26. For a rational knot with the Conway symbol

(2k) (2m) 1 (2n) (m, k, n ≥ 0) the following holds:
• diagram unlinking number is

uM = n + min(k, m − 1);
• BJ-unlinking number is

n, if m ≤ n;
uBJ =
n + min(k, m − n), if m > n.
• BJ-unlinking gap is

min(k, m − 1), if k ≤ m;
δBJ =
min(k, m − 1) − min(k, m − n), if m > n.
The main problem for every family is finding necessary and sufficient
conditions (or, simply, conditions) for a specific family to have a non-trivial
unlinking gap.
Knot or link a is a torus KL of type [2, a] and therefore uBJ = uM = u,
so both gap and BJ-unlinking gap are trivial. From Lemma 1.2 it follows
that all rational links with 2 parameters a b have trivial BJ-unlinking gap.
The same holds for all 3-parameter families a b c except two families listed
in Corollary 1.3. Since computations, based on parity of parameters and
symmetries of the links are long and tedious even for 3-parameter families,
for multi-parameter families we give only experimental results.
We choose 68 one-parameter7 families of rational links which contain all
rational links up to 14 crossings with positive BJ-unlinking gap8 . For all
6 S. Bleiler (1984) asked if δ(L) = u (L) − u(L) has an upper bound. Since δ
M BJ (L) ≤
δ(L), Theorem 1.26 provides more examples of links with unbounded δ(L) (compare with
Stoimenow, 2003).
7 One-parameter family is obtained by applying the same 2n-move to all chosen integral
tangles.
8 Compare with the tables, pages 93-95.
families we predict values of BJ-unlinking number uBJ and BJ-unlinking

gap δBJ based on computations for links with less than 48 crossings. Each
family in the following table is given by its Conway symbol; the next en-
try is the number of components followed by experimental results for BJ-
unlinking number uBJ and BJ-unlinking gap δBJ .
Family Comp. No. uBJ δBJ

(1) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 2) 2 k+1 k
(2) (2k + 3) 1 (2k + 2) 1 k+1 1
(3) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 2) (2k) 1 k+1 k
(4) (2k + 2) (2k + 1) (2k + 2) 2 2k + 1 1
(5) (2k + 4) 1 (2k + 2) 2 k+2 k
(6) (2k + 3) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 2 k+1 1
(7) (2k + 3) 1 1 1 (2k + 1) 2 k+1 k
(8) (2k + 5) 1 (2k + 2) 1 k+2 1
(9) (2k + 3) (2k + 1) (2k + 2) 1 2k + 1 1
(10) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 2) (2k + 1) 1 k+1 k
(11) (2k + 4) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 1 k+1 1
(12) (2k + 4) 1 1 1 (2k + 1) 1 k+1 1
(13) (2k + 2) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 2) 1 k+1 1
(14) (2k + 4) 1 (2k + 2) (2k) 1 k+2 k
(15) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 1) 1 (2k + 2) 1 k+1 k
(16) (2k + 3) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) (2k) 1 k+1 1
(17) (2k) (2k + 1) 1 (2k + 2) 1 (2k) 1 k+1 1
(18) (2k + 3) 1 1 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 1 k+1 k
(19) (2k + 4) (2k + 1) (2k + 2) 2 2k + 2 1
(20) (2k + 6) 1 (2k + 2) 2 k+3 k
(21) (2k + 3) 1 (2k + 3) (2k) 2 k+3 1
(22) (2k + 3) (2k + 1) (2k + 1) (2k) 2 2k + 1 1
(23) (2k + 4) 1 (2k + 1) (2k + 1) 2 k+1 1
(24) (2k + 5) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 2 3 1 if k = 1
k+1 2 if k ≥ 2
(25) (2k + 1) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 2 2k + 1 1
(26) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 2) (2k) (2k) 2 2k + 1 k
(27) (2k + 3) 1 1 1 (2k + 3) 2 k+2 k
(28) (2k + 4) 1 1 (2k) (2k + 1) 2 k+1 1
(29) (2k + 5) 1 1 1 (2k + 1) 2 k+1 k
(30) (2k) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 1) 1 (2k) 2 k+1 k
(31) (2k + 2) 1 1 1 (2k + 2) (2k) 2 k+1 1
(32) (2k + 4) 1 1 1 (2k) (2k) 2 k+1 1 if k = 1, 2
k 2 if k ≥ 3
(33) (2k + 2) (2k) 1 1 1 1 (2k + 1) 2 2k 1
(34) (2k + 5) (2k + 1) (2k + 2) 1 2k + 2 1
(35) (2k + 7) 1 (2k + 2) 1 k+3 1
(36) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 4) (2k + 1) 1 k+2 k
(37) (2k + 2) (2k + 1) (2k + 2) (2k + 1) 1 k+2 1
(38) (2k + 3) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 2) 1 k+1 k
100 LinKnot
(39) (2k + 4) 1 (2k + 2) (2k + 1) 1 k+2 k

(40) (2k + 4) 1 (2k + 3) (2k) 1 k+2 1
(41) (2k + 4) (2k + 1) (2k + 1) (2k) 1 2k + 1 1
(42) (2k + 5) 1 (2k + 1) (2k + 1) 1 k+1 1
(43) (2k + 6) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 1 3 1 if k = 1
k+1 2 if k ≥ 2
(44) (2k + 1) (2k + 1) 1 (2k + 3) (2k) 1 2 1 for k = 1
k+2 0 if k ≥ 2
(45) (2k + 1) (2k + 3) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 1 k+1 1
(46) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 2) (2k) (2k + 1) 1 2k + 1 k
(47) (2k + 1) 1 (2k + 1) 1 (2k + 2) 1 k+1 k
(48) (2k + 3) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) (2k + 1) 1 k+1 1
(49) (2k + 3) 1 (2k + 2) (2k) (2k) 1 2k + 1 1
(50) (2k + 4) 1 1 (2k) (2k + 2) 1 k+1 1
(51) (2k + 4) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) (2k) 1 2k 1
(52) (2k + 5) 1 1 (2k) (2k + 1) 1 2 1 if k = 1
3 0 if k ≥ 2
(53) (2k + 6) 1 1 1 (2k + 1) 1 k+2 1
(54) (2k + 1) 1 (2k + 1) 1 (2k + 2) (2k) 1 k+1 k
(55) (2k + 1) 1 (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 1 k+1 1
(56) (2k + 1) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 1) 1 (2k) 1 k+1 k
(57) (2k + 1) (2k + 3) 1 1 1 (2k + 1) 1 k+1 k
(58) (2k + 3) 1 1 1 (2k + 2) (2k) 1 k+1 1
(59) (2k + 5) 1 1 1 (2k) (2k) 1 k+1 1 if k = 1, 2
k 2 if k ≥ 3
(60) (2k) 1 (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 1) 1 (2k) 1 2k 1 if k = 1, 2
2k k if k ≥ 3
(61) (2k) (2k + 2) 1 1 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 1 2k 1
(62) (2k + 2) (2k) 1 1 1 1 1 (2k + 2) 1 2k 1
(63) (2k + 3) (2k) 1 1 1 1 (2k + 1) 1 2k 1
(64) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 2) (2k + 1) (2k) 2 2k + 1 k
(65) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 4) 1 (2k) 2 2k + 1 k
(66) (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 1) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 2 2k + 1 1
(67) (2k + 3) 1 (2k + 1) (2k) 1 (2k) 2 2k + 1 1
(68) (2k + 3) 1 (2k + 1) 1 1 1 (2k) 2 2k + 1 1
The following results (unless explicitly stated otherwise) are based on

the properties of the generating links and experimental results for rational,
pretzel and polyhedral links up to 16 crossings and present a good starting
point for obtaining a better understanding of unlinking number. First, we
present several multi-parameter families of rational links with an arbitrarily
large BJ-unlinking gap– we either give the explicit conditions for a (non-
trivial) gap, or we find a subfamily with this property:
• the family (2k) (2m) 1 (2n) has an arbitrarily large BJ-unlinking gap
(see Theorem 1.26);
• the family (2k + 2) 1 (2k + 2) (2k − 1), (k ≥ 1), starting with the knot
6 1 6 3 has uBJ = k + 1 and δBJ = k;
• the family (4k +4) 1 (2k +3) (2k), (k ≥ 1), starting with the knot 8 1 5 2,
has uBJ = k + 2 and δBJ = k + 1;
• the family (2k + 1) (2l − 1) (2m − 1) (2n − 1) (2p + 1), starting with
the link 5 1 1 1 3, has a subfamily (2k + 1) 1 1 1 (2l + 1) which under the
conditions k ≥ l ≥ 0 has unlinking gap

 0, if k = l = 0;
δ = δBJ = l − 1, if k = l > 0;
l, if k > l > 1.

• every knot family of the form
(2k1 ) . . . (2l − 1) . . . (2k2i+1 )
(k1 , . . . , k2i+1 ≥ 2, l < mini (ki )) and every link family of the form
(2k1 ) . . . (2k2i−1 ) (2l − 1) (2m1 ) . . . (2m2j−1 )
(k1 , . . . , k2i−1 ≥ 2, m1 , . . . , m2j−1 ≥ 2) has members with arbitrarily

large BJ-unlinking gap. In order to show this, it is sufficient to consider
their subfamilies with l = 1 and k1 = k2 = ... = k, where k occurs
j times in total. For every such subfamily BJ-unlinking number is
uBJ = [ 2j ]k and δBJ = k − 1.
Next we consider the family of pretzel knots a, b, c. For the pretzel knots
2k + 1, 2l + 1, 2m + 1 (k ≥ l ≥ m ≥ 1) we proved (Proposition 1.1b) that
uBJ = l + m and δBJ = 0. For the simplicity, since pretzel KLs with three
tangles remain unchanged by a permutation of tangles, we will assume that
in their symbols tangles are given in non-increasing order. For the families
of pretzel KLs with three tangles we have the following:
Theorem 1.27.
• the family 2k + 1, 2l + 1, 2m + 1 has uBJ = uM = l + m and δBJ = 0.

• the family 2k, 2l, 2m has uBJ = uM = u = k + l + m, and therefore
δBJ = 09 ;
• for pretzel knots 2k + 1, 2l, 2m + 1 with (k ≥ m ≥ 1) we have10 :
9 Notice that the linking number guarantees that uBJ = uM = u and δ = δBJ .
10 Notice that in first two cases, l = 1 and k ≥ l > 1, the signature guarantees that
uBJ = uM = u and δ = δBJ .
102 LinKnot
2k + 1, 2l, 2m + 1 uBJ uM δBJ

l=1 m+k m+k 0
k≥l>1 m+k m+k+1 1
l>k≥1 m+k+1 m+k+1 0
• 2k, 2l + 1, 2m (k ≥ m) has uBJ = u = k + l, and δBJ = δ = m − 111 .
The following experimental results, combined with results for rational

links, make calculations complete up to 12 crossings.
Among alternating algebraic non-rational links, the first with positive
BJ-unlinking gap is pretzel link 4, 4, 3 with 11-crossings and δBJ = 1. In
the same class, we have the following seven links with 12-crossings and
δBJ = 1:
2 2 1 1 2, 2, 2 4 1 1, 3, 3 2 1 1, 3 1, 3 1 5, 4, 3
3 1, 3 1, 2 1+ (2 1, 2 1 1 1) (2, 2) (2 1, 2 2) 1 (2, 2)
The next table contains all polyhedral knots with n = 12 crossings

and positive BJ-unlinking gap, together with the one-parameter families
derived from them, followed by the first step of the unknotting process
which reduces them to families of rational, generalized pretzel, or polyhedral
knots12 :
No. Knot Family Reduction δBJ

1 6∗ 2.3 1 : 3 0 6∗ (2k).3 1 : 3 0 6∗ (2k).3 1. − 1.3 0 1
uBJ = 2 uBJ = k k > 1: ≃ (2k − 1) 1 1 1 2 2
k = 1: ≃ 2 1 1 2 2
2 6∗ 2.2 1 0 : 4 0 6∗ (2k).2 1 0 : 4 0 6∗ (2k).2 1 0 : 4 0 : −1 1
uBJ = k + 1 ≃ 3 1 (2k − 1) 2 2
3 6∗ 2.2 2 0 : 3 0 6∗ (2k).2 2 0 : 3 0 6∗ (2k).2 2 0 : 3 0 : −1 1
uBJ = k + 1 ≃ 2 1 (2k − 1), 2 1, 2
4 6∗ 2.4 0 : 3 0 6∗ 2.(2k) 0 : 3 0 (k ≥ 2) 6∗ 2.(2k) 0 : 3 0 : −1 1
uBJ = 2 uBJ = k ≃ (2k) 1 1 2
5 6∗ 2.2.3.3 0 6∗ (2k).2.3.3 0 6∗ (2k).2.3.3 0. − 1 1
uBJ = k + 1 ≃ 2 1 (2k − 1), 2 1, 2
6 6∗ 2.2.2.4 0 6∗ 2.2.2.(2k) 0 (k ≥ 2) 6∗ 2.2.2.(2k) 0. − 1 1
uBJ = 2 uBJ = k ≃ (2k − 1) 1 1 1 1 2
11 Notice that the signature guarantees that uBJ = u and δ = δBJ .

12 The symbol ≃ is used to denote ambient isotopy between two links; for example, in the
first row symbol ≃ means that 6∗ (2k).3 1. − 1.3 0 is ambient isotopic to (2k − 1) 1 1 1 2 2
if k > 1, and 2 1 1 2 2 if k = 1.
7 6∗ 2.2 0.3.3 0 6∗ (2k).2 0.3.3 0 6∗ (2k).2.3.3 0. − 1 1

uBJ = k + 1 ≃ 4 1 (2k − 1) 1 2 or
6∗ (2k).2.3.3 0 : −1
≃ 2 1 (2k − 1), 3, 2
8 6∗ 2.(3, 3) 6∗ (2k).(3, 3) 6∗ (2k).(3, 3) :: −1 1
uBJ = k + 1 k ≥ 2: ≃ 6∗ 2.(2k − 2) : 2 0
k = 1: ≃ 2 1 1 1 2
9 6∗ 2.(3, 2).2 6∗ 2.(2k + 1, 2).2 6∗ 2.(2k + 1, 2).2. − 1 1
uBJ = k + 1 ≃ 2 2 1 (2k)
10 8∗ 2 : 2 : .3 0 8∗ (2k) : 2 : .3 0 8∗ 2 : 2. − 1 : 3 0 1
uBJ = 2 ≃ (2k + 1) 3 2 (see Lemma 1.3.)
Moreover, the following n = 12-crossing links have BJ-unlinking gap13

δBJ = 1:
6∗ 2.2.2 : 2 1 1 0 6∗ 2.2.2 : 2 1 1 6∗ (2 1, 2 2) 6∗ 2.(2, 2) 1 1 6∗ 2.(2, 2), 2 0

6∗ 2.2, (2, 2) 0 6∗ 2.(2, 2).2 1 0 6∗ (2, 2).2 1 :2 6∗ (2, 2) 1.2 : 20
6∗ 2 1 1 : .(2, 2) 0 6∗ 2 1 1 : .(2, 2) 6∗ 2.2 1.2.2 0 : 2 0 8∗ 2 1 : .2 0 : 2 0
The question of finding BJ-unlinking gap of non-alternating links is

much more difficult because of the lack of classification of their minimal
diagrams. For a few classes of non-alternating links partial results can
be obtained using the work of W.B.R. Lickorish and M.B. Thistlethwaite
(1988). Unfortunately, this is not sufficient to find all minimal diagrams
corresponding to non-alternating link families and compute BJ-unlinking
gap for non-alternating links.
For n = 11 there are following non-alternating KL diagrams with un-
linking gap δBJ = 1:
4 1 1, 3, −2 3 2, 3, −3 4, 4, −3 .(3, −2).2 .2.(3, −2)
and for n = 12 their list is following:
5, −3 1, 2 1 −5, 3 1, 2 1 (−4, 2 1) (3, 2) (−4, −2 1) (3, 2) 5, −3 1, 2 1

−5, 3 1, 2 1 (−3, −3) (3, 2 1) (3, 3) (−3, 2 1) 3 : 2 : −4 0 −3 0.2.2 0.3 0
Non-alternating minimal diagrams 4 1 1, 3, −2 and 3 2, 3, −3 (Fig. 1.63)

of the non-alternating knots 11n64 and 11n122 have the unknotting gap
δM = 1. These diagrams can be extended to two-parameter families of
minimal diagrams (2k + 2) 1 1, (2l + 1), (−2m) and (2k + 1) 2, (2r + 1), −3
representing Montesionos knots with the diagram unlinking gap δM = 1.
As A. Stoimenow’s example shows (Fig. 1.59), different minimal projec-
tions of a non-alternating knot can have different projection BJ-unknotting
13 Links in the first 2 rows are 2-component while ones in the last are 3-component.
104 LinKnot
Fig. 1.63 The diagrams (a) 4 1 1, 3, −2; (b) 3 2, 3, −3.
numbers. Two different minimal projections of the knot 1436750 (Fig. 1.59)
can be extended to the two-parameter families of minimal projections
124∗ − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1 : (−1, (−2l)) 0 : (2k − 1) : . − 1
and
8∗ − 2 0 : (2l + 1) 0 : −2 0.(−2k) 0. − 1.2 0
which satisfy the condition l < 2k (Fig. 1.64), where 124∗ denotes the basic
polyhedron 12D from the paper by A. Caudron (1982). The experimental
BJ-unknotting number of the first family of projections is k, and it is the
experimental BJ-unknotting number of the knot family in question. The
second family of projections has the experimental BJ-unknotting number
k + 1.
It is not surprising that some non-minimal diagrams can have a non-
trivial unlinking gap. For example, the 11-crossing non-alternating knot
11n138 has the non-minimal diagram 3 1 1, 3, 3− with the unknotting gap
δM = 1, while the (fixed) minimal diagram 3 1 1, 3, −2 1 gives the unknot-
ting number u = 2 (Fig. 1.65).
The family of non-alternating pretzel links 2k, 2k, −3 (k ≥ 2) is the
candidate for non-alternating link family with an arbitrarily large unlinking
gap (Fig. 1.66).
This family is obtained from the family of rational links 2k 1 2k =
2k, 2k, 1 (k ≥ 2) which is a special case of the family 2k, 2l + 1, 2m (from
the Corollary 1.3 for l = 0, k = m), with arbitrarily large BJ-unlinking gap
Fig. 1.64 Two projections (a) 124∗ − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1 : (−1, (−2l)) 0 : (2k − 1) : . − 1;

(b) 8∗ − 2 0 : (2l + 1) 0 : −2 0.(−2k) 0. − 1.2 0 of the same knot.
Fig. 1.65 (a) Non-minimal diagram 3 1 1, 3, 3−; (b) the minimal diagram 3 1 1, 3, −2 1
of the non-alternating knot 11n138 .
δBJ = k−1. In the similar manner as before, we may obtain that the family
of standard minimal diagrams of pretzel links 2k, 2k, −3 has BJ-unlinking
number k. Furthermore, the unlinking number of the standard diagram of
2k, 2k, −3 is equal to 2k − 1, hence the diagram BJ-unlinking gap is k − 1.
Since the classification of all minimal diagrams of the link family
2k, 2k, −3 is, up to our knowledge, not yet achieved we are not able to
show that the link family 2k, 2k, −3 has an arbitrarily large unlinking gap.
One-parameter family of minimal link diagrams 2k, 2k, −3 can be ex-
tended to a three-parameter family 2k, 2l, −(2m + 1) with an arbitrarily
large diagram BJ-unlinking gap.
106 LinKnot
Fig. 1.66 The family 2k, 2k, −3 of non alternating minimal diagrams with an arbitrarily
large BJ-unlinking gap.
Next we will consider two special classes of rational KLs: KLs with
unknotting (unlinking) number equal to 0 or 1. For rational KLs with un-
knotting (unlinking) number 1, the unknotting (unlinking) number can be
recognized from any minimal projection (Theorem 1.24; Nakanishi, 1996;
Stoimenow, 2004). Every unknotting number one knot is prime (Scharel-
mann, 1985). The general form of knots with unknotting number 1 (The-
orem 1.28) is described by T. Kanenobu and H. Murakami (1986), and
P. Kohn formulated an analogous theorem for links (1991) (Theorem 1.29).
Theorem 1.28. Every rational unknotting number 1 knot can be expressed

by one of the following Conway symbols
c0 c1 . . . cr−1 cr 1 1 (cr − 1) cr−1 . . . c1
c0 c1 . . . cr−1 (cr − 1) 1 1 cr cr−1 . . . c1 ,
where ci ≥ 0 for i = 0, . . . , r and cr ≥ 2 (Kanenobu and Murakami, 1986).
Theorem 1.29. Every rational unlinking number 1 link can be expressed

by one of the following Conway symbols
c0 c1 . . . cr−1 cr 1 1 (cr − 1) cr−1 . . . c1 c0
c0 c1 . . . cr−1 (cr − 1) 1 1 cr cr−1 . . . c1 c0 ,
where ci ≥ 0 for i = 0, . . . , r and cr ≥ 2 (Kohn, 1991).
Theorem 1.24 is the corollary of Theorem 1.28 and 1.29, because a single
crossing change in minimal diagrams from Theorem 1.28 and 1.29 gives the
unknot and unlink.
Moreover, if L is a rational link with a minimal diagram which can
not be unlinked by one crossing change and has a minimal diagram with
unlinking number 2, then u(L) = 2.
The LinKnot function RatKnotGenU1 gives the number and the list
of Conway symbols of all rational knots with the unknotting number 1 with
n crossings, and the function RatLinkU1 gives the same result for rational
links with the unlinking number 1. The number of such knots is given by
the formula
n−2
2[ 2 ] − 1.
The number of rational unlinking number 1 links is 0 for every even n, and
for odd n it is given by the formula
n−7
2[ 2 ] .
In a similar way we can be interested in rational representations of
unknots or unlinks, i.e., KLs with the unknotting (unlinking) number 0.
Theorem 1.30. Every rational unknot can be expressed by one of the fol-
lowing Conway symbols
c0 c1 . . . cr−1 cr (−1) 1 (cr − 1) cr−1 . . . c1
c0 c1 . . . cr−1 (cr − 1) 1 (−1) cr cr−1 . . . c1 ,

where ci ≥ 0 for i = 0, . . . , r and cr ≥ 2.
Theorem 1.31. Every rational unlink can be expressed by one of the fol-
lowing Conway symbols
c0 c1 . . . cr−1 cr (−1) 1 (cr − 1) cr−1 . . . c1 c0
c0 c1 . . . cr−1 (cr − 1) 1 (−1) cr cr−1 . . . c1 c0 ,

where ci ≥ 0 for i = 0, . . . , r and cr ≥ 2.
Proof of these two theorems follows from the proof of Theorem 1.28
(Kanenobu and Murakami, 1986) and Theorem 1.29 (Kohn, 1991).
The LinKnot function RatKnotGenU0 produce, for a given n, a list of
Conway symbols of all rational unknots with n crossings, and the function
108 LinKnot
RatLinkU0 gives the same result for rational unlinks. The number of
rational unknots with n crossings is given by the formula
n−2
2[ 2 ] − 2.
The number of rational unlinks is 0 for every even n, and for odd n it is
given by the formula
n−7
2[ 2 ] .
For example, knot illustrated in Figure 1.67 has the unknotting number
1. Try to find the crossing change that results in unknot. If you don’t be-
lieve that such crossing change exists, you can check its unknotting number
by entering its Conway symbol
321123311232112
in the LinKnot function UnR. In a similar way you can check that the link
3211233 −112321123
from Fig. 1.68 is an unlink.
Another way of checking if a KL is an unknot or unlink is exporting it
to KnotPlot, using the function fCreateGraphics and relax it, so one can
see how a complicated projection reduces to one or several disjoint circles.
Fig. 1.67 Knot 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2.
The ∞-unknotting operation is defined by S. Jablan (1998). Every

crossing of an oriented knot can be resolved by smoothing that preserves
number of components, introducing a “two-sided mirror” as in Fig. 1.69.
This can be repeated until we obtain the unknot. Analogously as we de-
fined unknotting number and BJ-unknotting number (Definition 1.58), it
Fig. 1.68 Unlink 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 -1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 3.
is possible to define the ∞-unknotting number u∞ (K) by the “classical”

and “standard” definition, try to prove that two definitions are equivalent,
define u∞ -number restricted on minimal projections (analogously to the
definition of BJ-unknotting number) and make a Conjecture analogous to
Bernhard-Jablan Conjecture.
Every ∞-change transforms an alternating knot to an alternating knot,
so the set of all alternating knots is closed with regard to ∞-changes. Ac-
cording to Tait’s Flyping Theorem (Theorem 1.11) and Lemma 1.1, all min-
imal projections of an alternating knot give the same result, so for every
alternating knot it is sufficient to use only one minimal projection. In the
case of a non-alternating knot, all its minimal projections must be used,
since two minimal projections can give different u∞ numbers. For example,
two minimal diagrams of the same pretzel knot, 3, 2 1, −2 and −2 − 1, 2 1, 2,
have u∞ diagram numbers 1 and 2, respectively.
The LinKnot function NoSelfCrossNo computes recursively u∞ num-
ber of a knot given by its Conway symbol, Dowker code, or P -data from
minimal projections. For links, it computes the minimal number of steps
necessary to obtain a link without self crossings, i.e., without crossings that
belong to a single component14 .
The u∞ number is a property of a family: for the knot family (2k + 1),
(k ≥ 1), u∞ ((2k + 1)) = 1; for the knot family (2k) 2, (k ≥ 1), u∞ ((2k) 2) =
2; for the knot family ((2k) (2l)), (k, l > 1), u∞ ((2k) (2l)) = 3, etc.
14 A link without self-crossings can be also resolved by smoothing, i.e., reduced to the
unknot.
110 LinKnot
Fig. 1.69 ∞-operation.
From experimental results we conjecture that u∞ number is a linear

subfamily-dependent knot invariant (Conjecture 1.2).
Conjecture 1.4. Knots belonging to subfamily (2k + 1) (31 , 51 , 71 ,...) are
the only knots with u∞ = 1.
An n-move on a KL is a local change illustrated in Fig. 1.70a, where
the remaining part of the KL remains unchanged. We say that two KLs,
L1 and L2 , are n-move equivalent if one can be transformed to the other
by a finite number of n-moves and their inverses (−n)-moves (Przytycki,
2003).
Nakanishi’s Conjectures
(1) Every knot is 4-move equivalent to an unknot.

(2) Any link is 3-move equivalent to a trivial link.
The first conjecture Y. Nakanishi proposed in 1979, and the second in

1981.
The counterexample to the second Nakanishi’s Conjecture is the link
2049953∗. − 1 : . − 1 : . − 1. − 1 ::: −1 :: −1. − 1
with n = 20 crossings (Fig. 1.70b) (Przytycki, 2002). M.K. Dabkowski and

J.H. Przytycki (2002) proved that this link can not be reduced to a trivial
link by 3-moves.
The first Conjecture is proved for algebraic and 3-braid knots (Kirby,
1997; Przytycki, 2003).
For a long time, the simplest potential counterexample to the first
Nakanishi’s Conjecture was the (2, 1)-cable of the trefoil knot with n = 13
Fig. 1.70 (a) n-move; (b) link which can not be reduced to a trivial link by 3-moves;
(c) knot 16101∗ − 1. − 1 : . − 1. − 1 : −1. − 1 :: . − 1 : −2 0.
crossings, unknotted by N. Askitas (1999), given by the non-minimal rep-

resentation with n = 18 crossings
1315∗2 1 0. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1 : .2 0.1.3 0. − 1. − 1. − 1
By two 4-moves, it gives the knot
1315∗ − 2 1 0. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1 : .2 0.1. − 1 0. − 1. − 1. − 1
which reduces to 12-crossing knot 2 0.− 2 − 1.− 2 0.2 1 0. From it, we obtain
the unknot by the following sequence of 4-moves and ambient isotopies
2 0. − 2 − 1. − 2 0.2 1 0 → −2 0.2 − 1.2 0. − 2 1 0 ≃ 2 1 1, 2 1, −2 →

−2 1 1, −2 1, −2 ≃ 3 1 2 → −1 1 2 ≃ 1
However, the first Nakanishi’s Conjecture is still open, and now the
main candidate for the smallest counterexample is the knot
16101∗ − 1. − 1 : . − 1. − 1 : −1. − 1 :: . − 1 : −2 0
(2, 1)-cable of the figure-eight knot with n = 17 crossings proposed by
N. Askitas (Fig. 1.70c) (Askitas, 1999; Przytycki, 2002, 2003).
An unlinking operation can be defined:
112 LinKnot
(1) as a local operation that allows us to untie every KL in finitely many

steps, or
(2) as a local operation that allows us to untie certain KLs in finitely many
steps.
According to the first definition, crossing-changes and smoothing are

unlinking operations, but n-moves (n ≥ 3), or (2, 2)-moves are not. because
they can lead to solutions different than the unknot (or an unlink). For
example, every rational 2-component link is 4-move equivalent to a trivial
link of two components or to a Hopf link 2 (221 ) (Przytycki, 2003, Theorem
1.11).
Accepting the second definition, a minimal number of n-moves required
to obtain a knot or link k (k ≤ [ n2 ]) from a given KL can be defined as n-
move k-unknotting (unlinking) number u(n,k) (L), taken over all projections
of a KL.
In the language of n-moves, unlinking number u(L) is u(2,1) (L). In
the case of u(n,k) (L) we can make a conjecture analogous to Bernhard-
Jablan Conjecture, and work only with minimum projections at all levels
of unknotting (unlinking) process. According to such a Conjecture, the
minimal number of n-moves necessary to obtain a knot or link k (k ≤ [ n2 ])
from a rational KL given by its Conway symbol, for a given parameter n,
can be computed by the LinKnot function NMoveRat.
Except n-moves, there are some other operations on KLs, like (2, 2)-
moves, able to produce the unknot.
J. Conway (1970) defined the transformation a ↔ a 0 as a reflection of a
tangle a in descending diagonal line (Fig. 1.40). This reflection, preserves
1 tangle, i.e., 1 = 1 0. A (2, 2)-move ((−2, −2)-move) is the reflection of the
tangle 2 (−2) followed by the crossing changes. According to this, (2, 2)-
move transforms 2 into −2 0 and vice versa, and −2 into 2 0 and vice versa.
This approach enables us to express (2, 2)-moves in Conway notation.
Together with (2, 2)-moves 2 ↔ −2 0 and −2 ↔ 2 0 (Fig. 1.71a), we will
use (2, 2)-move applied to tangle 1 which transforms it into −2, −1 (Fig.
1.71b). Since 1 = 1 0, the same (2, 2)-move transforms 1 into (−2, −1) 0 and
vice versa. J. Przytycki (2003, Fig. 1.26) used (2, 2)-move 1 → (−2, −1)
for unknotting knot 818 = 8∗ by (2, 2)-moves. In the same way, one can
develop algebra of (2, 2)-moves given in Conway notation, e.g., 1 ↔ −2 − 1,
1 ↔ −2 − 1 0, 3 ↔ (−2, 1), 4 ↔ −2 2, etc.
In attempt to unknot a KL, we can apply sequences of one or several
(2, 2)-moves on the same or equivalent projection.
Fig. 1.71 (a) (2, 2)-move and (−2, −2)-move; (b) (2, 2)-move 1 → (−2, −1).
J. Przytycki proved that every algebraic KL (according to Definition

1.46 (2)) can be reduced to a trivial link by (2, 2)-moves. Hence, in order
to prove that a KL can be unlinked by (2, 2)-moves, it is sufficient to
reduce it by (2, 2)-moves to an algebraic KL. For example, by one (2, 2)-
move knot 818 = 8∗ can be transformed into 8∗ (−2, −1) which reduces to
the algebraic knot 2 2, 2 2, −2, so the knot 818 = 8∗ can be unknotted by
(2, 2)-moves (Przytycki, 2003, Fig. 1.26).
M.K. Dabkowski and J. Przytycki (2002) proved that knots 940 = 9∗
and 949 = −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 can not be unknotted by (2, 2)-moves and
made a guess that they belong to the same (2, 2)-move equivalence class
(Przytycki, 2003). J. Przytycki also proved that every KL with n ≤ 9
crossings is (2, 2)-move equivalent to a trivial link, knot 940 , or 949 (or their
mirror images) (Przytycki, 2002, Lemma 1.8) (Fig. 1.72a).
For n = 9 there are two knots, 9∗ (940 ) and −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 (949 ),
and two links, 2 : 2 : 2 (9240 ) and 2 : −2 0 : −2 0 (9261 ) which can not be
unknotted by (2, 2)-moves. Because the first link can be obtained from the
knot −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 (949 ) by three (2, 2)-moves, and the other by one
(2, 2)-move, we conclude that both of them belong to the same equivalence
class of the knot 949 (Fig. 1.72b).
114 LinKnot
Fig. 1.72 (a) Knots 9∗ (940 ) and −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 (949 ); (b) links 2 : 2 : 2 and
2 : −2 0 : −2 0.
For n = 10 there are two knots, 3 0 : 2 : 2 (10103 ) and −3 : 2 : 2

(10155 ) which can not be unknotted by (2, 2)-moves. From the first, by two
(2, 2)-moves we obtain the knot 3 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 which further reduces to
−2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 (949 ) (Fig. 1.73a). From the second by one (2, 2)-move
we obtain the knot −3 : −2 0 : 2 which also reduces to −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0
(949 ). Hence, we conclude that both knots belong to the equivalence class
of the knot 949 (Fig. 1.73b).
Following tables contain all knots and all alternating links with n ≤ 12
crossings, except the basic polyhedra with n = 12 crossings, which we
have not succeeded to unknot by (2, 2)-moves. All of them belong to two
(2, 2)-move equivalence classes: the class of knot 9∗ (940 ), or to the class
Fig. 1.73 (a) Knots 3 0 : 2 : 2 and 3 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 that reduce to the mirror image of
949 ; (b) knots −3 : 2 : 2 and −3 : −2 0 : 2 that reduce to the mirror image of 949 .
of knot −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 (949 ). For each KL with n crossings is given its

number of components, Conway symbol, and the sequence of (2, 2)-moves
and reductions of the KLs obtained, giving 940 or 949 . Every knot is also
given in Knotscape notation.
n = 11 1 11a297 9∗ 2 0 :::: 2 0 →
9∗ 2 0 ::: . − 2 − 1 0. − 2 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 11 1 11a317 6∗ 3 1.2.2 0 →
6∗ 3 1. − 2 0. − 2 ≃ −3 : 2 : 2 →
−3 : −2 0 : 2 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 11 1 11n133 8∗ 2. − 2 0.2 →
8 − 2 0. − 2 0.2 ≃ 9∗
∗ 940
n = 11 1 11n148 9∗ . − 2 − 1 →
9∗ .1 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 11 2 6∗ 3.2.3 →
6∗ (−2, 1). − 2 0.3 ≃ −3 : 2 : 2 →
−3 : −2 0 : 2 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 11 2 8∗ 2.2.2 →
8∗ − 2 0. − 2 0.2 ≃ 9∗ 940
116 LinKnot
n = 12 1 12a100 6∗ (2 1, 2).2 0 :: 2 0 →
6∗ (−1, 2).2 0 :: 2 0 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 1 12a780 6∗ 2.2.2 1.2 0.2 0 →
6∗ − 2 0.2. − 1.2 0.2 0 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 1 12a907 9∗ 3 :::: 2 0 →
9 3. − 2 − 1 0 ::: . − 2 ≃ 9∗ . − 2 − 1 →
∗
9∗ .1 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 1 12a921 6∗ 3.2.3 1 →
6∗ 3. − 2 0.3 1 ≃ −2 1 0.3.2.2 0 →
1.3. − 2 0.2 0 ≃ −3 : 2 : 2 →
−3 : −2 0 : 2 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 1 12a975 8∗ 2 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 →
8∗ − 2 : −2 : 2 0 : 2 0 ≃ −3 : 2 : 2 →
−3 : −2 0 : 2 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 1 12a1194 8∗ 2.3 0.2 →
8∗ − 2 0.(−2, 1) 0.2 :: . − 2 − 1 0 ≃ 9∗ 2 0 :::: 2 0 →
9∗ 2 0 ::: . − 2 − 1 0. − 2 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 2 6∗ 3 1 1.2.2 0 →
6∗ 3 1 1. − 2 0.2 0 ≃ 3.2.2 0. − 2 1 0 →
3. − 2 0.2 0.1 ≃ −3 : 2 : 2 →
−3 : −2 0 : 2 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 2 6∗ (2, 2+).2 0 :: 2 0 →
6∗ 2 − 1.2 0 :: 2 0 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 2 6∗ (2, 2) 1.2 0 :: 2 0 →
6∗ 2 − 2 1.2 0 :: 2 0 ≃ 3 0 : 2 : 2 →
3 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 2 6∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 →
6∗ 2.2. − 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 ≃ 9∗ . − 4 0 →
9∗ .2 − 2 0.(−2, −1) ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 : .2 →
8 − 2 0. − 2.2 : .2. − 2 − 1 ≃ 9∗
∗ 940
n = 12 2 9∗ (2, 2) →
9 2 − 2 ≃ 8∗ 2. − 2 0.2 →
∗
8∗ − 2 0. − 2 0.2 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 2 9∗ .(2, 2) →
9∗ .2 − 2 ≃ 9∗ . − 2 − 1 →
9∗ .1 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 3 6∗ 2.(2, 2).2 : 2 →
6∗ 2.2 − 2.2 : −2 0 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 3 8∗ 2.2.3 0 →
8∗ − 2 0. − 2 0.3 0 ≃ 9∗ . − 2 − 1 →
9∗ .1 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 3 9∗ .(2, 2) 0 →
9∗ .2 − 2 0. − 2 − 1 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 3 9∗ (2, 2) 0 →
9 2 − 2 0 : −2 − 10 : . − 2 − 1 ≃ 8∗ − 2 − 10 : 2.2.2 →
∗
8∗ 1 : −2 0. − 2 0.2 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 4 6∗ (2, 2).2 0.2.2 0 →
6∗ 2 − 2. − 2.2. − 2 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 1 12n257 2 : (−2, −2 − 1) 0 : −2 0 →
2 : (−2, 1) 0 : −2 0 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 1 12n414 −2 − 1 0.3.2.2 0 →
1.3.2.2 0 ≃ 3 0 : 2 : 2 →
3 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 1 12n611 3.2.2 0. − 2 − 1 0 →
3.2.2 0.1 ≃ 3 0 : 2 : 2 →
3 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 ≃ −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 949
n = 12 1 12n745 8∗ 2.3 0. − 2 0 →
8 − 2 0.(−2, 1) 0.2 : −2 − 1 : −2 − 1 ≃ 9∗ . − 2 − 1 →
∗
9∗ .1 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 1 12n760 ∗
9 : −3 0.2 0 →
9∗ : (2, −1) 0.2 0. − 2 − 1 ≃ 8∗ 2.3 0. − 2 0 →
8∗ − 2 0.(−2, 1) 0.2 : −2 − 1 : −2 − 1 ≃ 9∗ . − 2 − 1
9∗ .1 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 1 12n838 −2. − 2. − 2 0.2.2.2 0 →
2 0.2 0. − 2 0. − 2 0.2. − 2 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 1 12n844 8∗ 2.2 0.2 : . − 2 0 →
8∗ 2. − 2.2 : . − 2 0. − 2 − 1 ≃ 9∗ . − 4 0 →
9∗ .2 − 2 0. − 2 − 1 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 1 12n847 9∗ . − 4 0 →
9∗ .2 − 2 0 ::: . − 2 − 1 ≃ 9∗ 940
n = 12 1 12n887 8∗ 2. − 3.2 →
8∗ − 2 0. − 3.2 ≃ 8∗ 2. − 2 0.2 →
8∗ − 2 0. − 2 0.2 ≃ 9∗ 940
According to the above results, we have the following theorem:
Theorem 1.32. Among all prime knots with n ≤ 12 crossings there are
two knots with n = 9, two with n = 10, four with n = 11, and 15 with
n = 12 crossings which can not be unknotted by (2, 2)-moves. All of them
belong to the equivalence classes of knots 9∗ (940 ) and −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0
(949 ).
Since they do not have common knots for n ≤ 20 crossings, we conjec-

ture that these two equivalence classes are different.
Among all prime non-alternating links up to 11 crossings and prime
alternating links up to 12 crossings (without alternating links corresponding
to basic polyhedra with n = 12 crossings) there are 2 links with n = 9, 2
links with n = 11, and 12 links with n = 12 crossings which can not be
unknotted by (2, 2)-moves. All of them belong to the equivalence classes of
knots 9∗ (940 ) and −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 (949 ).
Among alternating KLs corresponding to basic polyhedra with n = 12
crossings two are algebraic: 125∗ and 1210∗ (or 12E and 12J according to
Caudron). Using (2, 2)-moves we have not succeeded to unlink three of the
118 LinKnot
remaining basic polyhedra with n = 12 crossings: 123∗ (12C), 124∗ (12D),

127∗ (12G), neither to prove that they can not be reduced to an unlink.
We expect that these basic polyhedra are representatives of new classes of
KLs which can not be unlinked by (2, 2)-moves.
Fig. 1.74 Basic polyhedra 12C, 12D, and 12G.
The following tables contain the list of knots with 13 ≤ n ≤ 14 crossings

given in Knotscape notation, which belong to equivalence classes of knots
9∗ (940 ) and −2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 (949 ).
n = 13 13a3773 13a4258 13a4387 13a4457

13n1733 13n1836 13n1992 13n2173 13n2526 13n2688
13n2791 13n3099 13n3695 13n3720 13n4262 13n4505
13n4674 13n4695 13n4696 13n4735 13n4742 13n4771
13n4783 13n4831 13n4870 13n4954 13n5008 13n5031
13n5085
n = 14 14a4634 14a4786 14a15312 14a15589 14a16042 14a16801
14a16965 14a16969 14a17099 14a17382 14a17828 14a18868
14a18975
14n2910 14n8313 14n8730 14n9035 14n9640 14n11899
14n11989 14n13447 14n14577 14n15489 14n15505 14n16174
14n16197 14n16680 14n16682 14n16965 14n17159 14n18301
14n18424 14n18539 14n18590 14n18970 14n19941 14n21745
14n21793 14n21966 14n22187 14n23629 14n23793 14n24016
14n24472 14n24618 14n24678 14n24905 14n24908 14n24937
14n25143 14n25299 14n25414 14n25686 14n25874 14n25967
14n25994 14n26450 14n26505 14n26516 14n26640 14n26808
14n27145 14n27152 14n27188 14n27191 14n27214
n = 13 13a290 13a336 13a2980 13a3760 13a4799

13n712 13n714 13n828 13n877 13n989 13n1102
13n2034 13n2245 13n2305 13n2833 13n3127 13n3231
13n3329 13n3386 13n3507 13n4380 13n2305 13n2833
13n3127 13n3231 13n3329 13n3386 13n3507 13n4380
n = 14 14a4631 14a6031 14a8654 14a8890 14a11240
14n3100 14n3344 14n3888 14n4398 14n4912 14n8499
14n9908 14n10168 14n10262 14n11758 14n12403 14n12463
14n12705 14n13264 14n13495 14n14690 14n14806 14n15591
14n16318 14n16942 14n17138 14n18227 14n19117 14n19871
14n21806 14n23544
1.10 Prime and composite KLs
The program LinKnot gives the opportunity to make experiments with

large series of KLs given in a comprehensive way, in the Conway notation,
and try to discover regularities. At first glance, KLs might seem to be an
unordered, random structure, similar to that of prime numbers. Indeed,
there is some analogy between KLs and numbers: in knot theory we also
have prime KLs. Given any two links L1 and L2 we can define their
composition (connected sum, concatenation, or direct product) denoted by
L1 #L2 , as illustrated in Fig. 1.75. Suppose that a sphere in ℜ3 intersects
a link L in exactly two points. This splits a link L into two arcs. The
endpoints of either of those arcs can be joined by an arc lying on the sphere.
This construction results in two links, L1 and L2 . The links L1 and L2 that
make up the composite link L are called factor links (or simply, factors).
Definition 1.63. A link is called prime if in every decomposition into a

connected sum, one of the factors is unknotted. Otherwise, the link is called
composite.
For knots, the following properties hold:
(1) if K1 = K2 , then for any K, K1 #K = K2 #K;

(2) for any K1 , K2 , K1 #K2 = K2 #K1 (commutativity);
(3) for any K1 , K2 , K3 , (K1 #K2 )#K3 = K1 #(K2 #K3 ) (associativity);
(4) for any K, K#1 = K, where 1 is an unknot (neutral element).
The prime decomposition theorem (Schubert, 1949; Hashizume, 1958)

holds for links:
120 LinKnot
Fig. 1.75 (a) Composition of knots; (b) commutativity.
Theorem 1.33. If L is a link, then there is a decomposition L =

L1 # . . . #Lm where each Li (i = 1, . . . , m) is a prime link. Such a de-
composition is unique up to order.
In the set of natural numbers N with multiplication inverse elements
do not exist. The same holds for KLs: inverse KLs do not exist. One KL
can not cancel out another. That is, for a given KL there is no KL which,
composed with the first, gives the unknot (unlink). A beautiful proof of
the impossibility of knot cancellation is given by J. Conway (Gardner, 1986;
Kauffman, 1995, page 16; Manturov, 2004, Theorem 2.2).
Theorem 1.34. Let K1 be a non-trivial knot. Then for each knot K2 , the
knot K1 #K2 is non-trivial.
Proof. Let us make a direct product of knots K1 and K2 (e.g., a trefoil
and a figure-eight knot) (Fig. 1.76). Put a tube around K1 #K2 so that
a tube is a tubular neighborhood of K1 and engulfs K2 (i.e., construct a
swallow-fallow torus for K1 and K2 ). The intersection of meridional disc
c with K1 #K2 is non-trivial. On the other hand, for the unknot the only
possible tubular neighborhood of the same kind is a torus, and every its
intersection with a meridional disc is trivial. Hence, K1 #K2 is not an
unknot.
The second “speculative” proof of this theorem is given by Sossinsky
(2002) and Manturov (2004), and the third proof based on genus is the
corollary of Theorem 1.39.
Fig. 1.76
Composition of KLs differs from multiplication of natural numbers.

There is more then one way to form the composition of two KLs: a choice
of where we remove an arc from the outside of each projection in order to
get free strands and connect two knots. Since K1 #K2 = K2 #K1 , direct
product is uniquely defined for prime knots, but not for prime links, where
it depends from the choice of a component with removed arc.
Many things about direct product of knots are still unknown. The main
unanswered question is: if c(L) is the crossing number of a knot or link L,
is it true that c(L1 #L2 ) = c(L1 ) + c(L2 )? This problem has been open
for more then 100 years. From the Kauffman-Murasugi Theorem (Theorem
1.6) it follows that the conjecture holds when L1 #L2 is an alternating
KL (Kauffman, 1988). Moreover, old conjecture on unknotting (unlinking)
numbers u(L1 #L2 ) = u(L1 ) + u(L2 ) is still open. It is known that the
inequality u(L1 #L2 ) ≤ u(L1 ) + u(L2 ) holds, and M. Scharlemann (1985)
proved that the conjecture is true in the case u(L1 #L2 ) = 1. For u∞
numbers we also conjecture that u∞ (L1 #L2 ) = u∞ (L1 ) + u∞ (L2 ).
Given a projection of a KL, let us define an overpass to be a sub-arc
of the KL that goes over at least one crossing, but never goes under a
crossing. A maximal overpass is an overpass that can not be made any
longer, so both of its endpoints occur just before they go under a crossing.
The bridge number of a projection is the number of maximal overpasses in
the projection. These maximal overpasses form bridges over the rest of a
link L.
Definition 1.64. The bridge number of L, denoted by b(L), is the least

bridge number of all of the projections of L (see, e.g., Adams, 1994).
122 LinKnot
Theorem 1.35. A knot K has a bridge number 1 iff it is the unknot (see,
e.g., Gilbert and Porter, 1994, Proposition 1.4).
Proof. We accept the convention that the unknot has bridge number 1.
Suppose that k is a knot with the bridge number b(K) = 1 and let D(K)
be a diagram of K with one bridge and the smallest number of crossings
m. Hence, m ≥ 3. No arc of D(K), except the bridge, is an overpass
at any crossing. Therefore, there exist two adjacent crossings that are
endpoints of an underpass. Here we can make a Reidemeister move Ω2 and
reduce number of crossings by 2. This produces either a diagram of unknot,
or a 1-bridge diagram with a number of crossings smaller then m, which
contradicts the choice of m.
Theorem 1.36. For composite knots or links L1 and L2 the following
equality holds: b(L1 #L2 ) = b(L1 ) + b(L2 ) − 1 (Schubert, 1954).
Fig. 1.77 Two-bridge projections of a trefoil 3 and figure-eight knot 2 2.
There are two LinKnot functions dealing with direct product of KLs:
fDToDDirect which computes Dowker code of a direct product of KLs,
and fGenSignDirProd which computes signs of crossings of a direct prod-
uct of KLs in the order corresponding to Dowker code or P -data.
Theorem 1.37. For an oriented link L, there is an orientable, connected
surface S in ℜ3 with boundary L (i.e, S spans L) (Seifert, 1934; Gilbert
and Porter, 1994, Theorem 4.8; Murasugi, 1996, Theorem 5.1.1; Lickorish,
1997, Theorem 2.2; Manturov, 2004, Theorem 2.3).
This theorem was first published by F. Frankl and L. Pontryagin in
1930, and then proved by H. Seifert in 1934. His proof gives an algorithm
for constructing this surface, called Seifert surface.
Proof. Take an oriented projection L′ of a link L and in each cross-

ing, add two directed arcs (x1 , x2 ) and (y1 , y2 ) bypassing the crossing, but
compatible with the orientation (please compare this operation with the
derivation of mirror curves, page 389, Construction 3.1) (Fig. 1.78a). Then
delete all crossings, leaving a set of oriented circles, called Seifert circles
(Fig. 1.78b). Seifert circles obtained may or may not be nested. Two
Seifert circles are nested if one of them is inside the other and if orien-
tations of the two circles coincide. When Siefert circles obtained are not
nested (Fig. 1.78b), the change-of-infinity operation– placing of the ∞-
point inside of the selected Seifert circle, nests the two circles (Fig. 1.78c).
By joining Seifert circles together with half-twisted strips where crossings
used to be, following the orientation of Seifert circles, an oriented surface
S with boundary L is obtained. If the surface is not connected, connect
components together by removing small discs and inserting tubes.
Theorem 1.38. The genus of the Seifert surface S constructed from L is

g = v−s+2
2 , where v is the number of crossings in L′ , and s is the number
of Seifert circles obtained from L (Gilbert and Porter, 1994, Proposition
4.9; Murasugi 1996, Theorem 5.2.1).
Proof. Each Seifert circle (a disk) has Euler characteristic 1. If we add a

rectangle that consists of two oppositely oriented triangles (a half-twisted
strip) between two disks, the number of vertices does not change, the num-
ber of edges increases by 3, and the number of faces increases by 2.
We start with s disks, each contributing 1 to χ(S), and then add v
rectangles, each reducing χ(S) by 1. Hence, χ(S) = s − v, and because s is
orientable, g = v−s+2
2 .
Different projections of L might give different surfaces with different

genus.
Definition 1.65. The genus of a link L is the minimal genus of all ori-
entable surfaces which L spans (see, e.g., Gilbert and Porter, 1994; Mura-
sugi, 1996; Lickorish, 1997; Sossinsky, 2002; Manturov, 2004).
Theorem 1.39. For genus of two links L1 and L2 and their direct product
L1 #L2 , the following equality holds: g(L1 #L2 ) = g(L1 ) + g(L2 ) (Schubert,
1949).
For the proof see, e.g., the books by Murasugi (1996), Lickorish (1997),
or Manturov (2004).
124 LinKnot
Since the unknot has genus zero and all the other knots have genus
greater then zero, Theorem 1.34 (“Knots can not cancel each other”) is a
corollary of the last theorem.
Fig. 1.78 Seifert construction.
Computing knot genus is NP-complete problem, which was solved by

Haken (1961), but the algorithm was too complicated for implementation.
Table of knot invariants by C. Livingston and J.C. Cha (2005) contains
genus for knots with n ≤ 12 crossings. From the following table based on
experimental results15
Family Genus Family Genus

2k + 1 k 2k + 1, 2l + 1, 2m k+l+1
(2k) (2l) 1 (2k + 1, 2l + 1) (2m + 1, 2n + 1) k+l+m+n+1
(2k) (2l + 1) k 6∗ (2k).(2l) k+l+1
(2k + 1) (2l + 1) (2m) k+1 8∗ (2k + 1).(2l + 1).(2m + 1) k+l+m+3
15 The results are obtained using the 3-genus program written by Jake Rasmussen, in-
cluded in the package KnotTheory (Bar Natan, 2006).

we can conjecture that genus of a knot is linear subfamily-dependent in-

variant (Conjecture 1.2).
Another invariant based on Seifert surface is a signature of KL, defined
using Seifert matrix (for the details, see e.g., Murasugi, 1996, Chapter 5).
Definition 1.66. If M is diagonalized Seifert matrix of a link L, the differ-

ence between the number of positive and negative diagonal entries is called
signature of L, and denoted by σ(L).
Theorem 1.40. Signature σ(L) is the invariant of a link L (Seifert, 1934;

Rolfsen, 1976; Murasugi, 1996; Kauffman and Taylor, 1976).
Some of the important properties of signature are:
(1) σ(L1 #L2 ) = σ(L1 ) + σ(L2 ) for every two links L1 , L2 ;

(2) σ(L) = −σ(L− ), where L− is the mirror image of L;
(3) |σ(D+ ) − σ(D− )| ∈ {0, 2}, where D+ and D− are diagrams of a link L
that differ in only one crossing (Fig. 1.58a, Fig 2.7).
The proof of these theorems can be found in Cromwell (2004).

From the second property it follows that every achiral KL has zero
signature. However, some chiral knots have zero signature as well (e.g.,
61 , 77 , 81 , 88 ,...) and, according to experimental results, this holds for the
families of chiral knots (2k) (2l) (k > l), (2k) 1 1 1 (2k), (2k) (2l + 1) 1 (2k),
etc.
Using LinKnot function fSignat it is possible to compute signa-
ture of large series of KLs given in Conway notation in attempt to
find general formulas for signature of (sub)families of KLs. Gen-
eral formulas, based on these computations for KL families derived
from generating KLs with n ≤ 9 crossings, are given in Appendix A
(http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/Appendix.pdf).
We conjecture that signature of KL is a linear subfamily-dependent
invariant (Conjecture 1.2).
1.11 Non-invertible KLs
An orientation of a knot is a choice of direction to travel around the knot.

Hence, for every non-oriented knot K, we have two different orientations
and two oriented knots denoted by K ′ and K ′′ .
126 LinKnot
Definition 1.67. A knot K is called invertible (or reversible) if the oriented

knots K ′ and K ′′ are equivalent. Otherwise, it is called non-invertible.
The existence of non-invertible knots was shown by H.F. Trotter (1963),
who discovered non-invertible knot 7, 5, 3 and the whole family of non-
invertible pretzel knots (2p + 1), (2q + 1), (2r + 1) (p 6= q, p 6= r, q 6= r) (Fig.
1.79). The proof of their non-invertibility can also be found in the book An
Introduction to Knot Theory by W.B.R. Lickorish (1997, Theorem 11.11).
Unlike in 1963, now we know that almost all knots are non-invertible
(Murasugi, 1996). The number of non-invertible and invertible knots with
3 ≤ n ≤ 16 crossings is given in the following table (the sequences A052403
and A052402 from the The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences by
N. Sloane):
0 0 0 0 0 1 2 33 187 1144 6919 38118 226581 1309875
1 1 2 3 7 20 47 132 365 1032 3069 8854 26712 78830
The first non-invertible knot from Rolfsen’s knot tables is the knot 817
(.2.2 in the Conway notation). Composing two copies of this knot, two
with matching orientations, and two with different orientations, we get two
distinct composite knots which are not equivalent (Fig. 1.80). A. Kawauchi
(1979) proved that there is no deformation of the knot .2.2 that reverses
its orientation. Thirty six non-invertible knots with up to 10 crossings are
identified by R. Hartley (1983). So far, there is no general technique for
recognizing non-invertible knots.
Fig. 1.79 Non-invertible knot 7, 5, 3.
In recognizing achiral knots, we can use their antisymmetric rigid rep-

resentations in ℜ3 , or on the sphere S 3 . Every KL that has an antisym-
Fig. 1.80 Different composite knots obtained from the knot 817 (.2.2).
metric presentation in ℜ3 , has it on S 3 as well, but not necessarily vice

versa. For example, both presentations of figure-eight knot are antisym-
metric: its non-minimal diagram (Fig. 1.81a) is invariant with regard to
a rotational antireflection of order 4 (i.e., rotational reflection followed by
crossing sign change), and its diagram obtained from a stereographic pro-
jection of S 3 is centro-antisymmetric (Fig. 1.81b). Achiral knot 817 has
remarkable property: it has a centro-antisymmetric presentation coming
from S 3 (Fig. 1.82), but no antisymmetric presentation in ℜ3 . Therefore,
it is a topological rubber glove in ℜ3 (Flapan, 1998, 2000).
The program SnapPea by J. Weeks (whose 2.0 version is also part
of Knotscape) computes knot symmetry group and detects non-invertible
knots.
Beginning from experimental computational results (based on the list
of non-invertible alternating knots with n ≤ 12 crossings) and the idea of
families of knots in Conway notation, we developed a technique for deriving
families of non-invertible knots and determining number of components of
a KL from its Conway symbol. Our main goal was to find the general
method for recognizing non-invertible knots directly from their Conway
128 LinKnot
Fig. 1.81 Antisymmetric presentations of a figure-eight knot 2 2 (41 ) (a) in R3 ; (b) on

S3.
Fig. 1.82 Centro-antisymmetric presentation of knot .2.2 (817 ) on S 3 .
symbols. We succeed for some classes of knots, like alternating pretzel

(stellar) knots, and extended this method to some other classes of algebraic
and polyhedral alternating knots.
L. Kauffman and S. Lambropoulou (2002a) proved that all oriented
rational KLs are invertible (Theorem 1.21). Hence, the first non-invertible
knots belong to stellar (pretzel) knots.
In the following table, for every non-invertible knot with n ≤ 11 cross-
ings is given its corresponding family of non-invertible knots and the con-
ditions for their achirality16 .
16 If the fourth column is empty, this means that the corresponding family contains only
chiral non-invertible knots. Single knot 1082 is the member of family 1).
1) 817 .2.2 .(2p).(2q) p=q

2) 932 .2 1.2 0 .(2p) 1.(2q) 0
3) 933 .2 1.2 .(2p) 1.(2q)
4) 1067 2 2, 3, 2 1 (2p) (2q), (2r + 1), (2s) 1
5) 1079 (3, 2) (3, 2) ((2p + 1), (2q)) ((2r + 1), (2s)) p = r and q = s
6) 1080 (3, 2) (2 1, 2) ((2p + 1), (2q)) ((2r) 1, (2s))
7) 1081 (2 1, 2) (2 1, 2) ((2p) 1, (2q)) ((2r) 1, (2s)) p = r and q = s
1082 .4.2
8) 1083 .3 1.2 .(2p + 1) 1.(2q)
9) 1084 .2 2.2 .(2p) (2q).(2r)
10) 1085 .4.2 0 .(2p).(2q) 0 p 6= q
11) 1086 .3 1.2 0 .(2p + 1).(2q) 0
12) 1087 .2 2.2 0 .(2p) (2q).(2r) 0
13) 1088 .2 1.2 1 .(2p) 1.(2q) 1 p=q
14) 1090 .3.2.2 .(2p + 1).(2q).(2r)
15) 1091 .3.2.2 0 .(2p + 1).(2q).(2r) 0
16) 1092 .2 1.2.2 0 .(2p) 1.(2q).(2r) 0
17) 1093 .3.2 0.2 .(2p + 1).(2q) 0.(2r)
18) 1094 .3 0.2.2 .(2p + 1) 0.(2q).(2r)
19) 1095 .2 1 0.2.2 .(2p) 1 0.(2q).(2r)
20) 1098 .2.2.2.2 0 .(2p).(2q).(2r).(2s) 0
21) 10102 3 : 2 : 20 (2p + 1) : (2q) : (2r) 0
22) 10106 30 : 2 : 20 .(2p + 1) 0.(2q).(2r) 0
23) 10107 .2 1 0 : 2 : 2 0 (2p) 1 0 : (2q) : (2r) 0
24) 10109 2.2.2.2 (2p).(2q).(2r).(2s) p = s and q = r
25) 10110 2.2.2.2 0 (2p).(2q).(2r).(2s) 0
26) 10115 8∗ 2 0.2 0 8∗ (2p) 0.(2q) 0 p=q
27) 10117 8∗ 2 : 2 0 8∗ (2p) : (2q) 0
28) 10118 8∗ 2 : .2 8∗ (2p) : .(2q) p=q
29) 10119 8∗ 2 : .2 0 8∗ (2p) : .(2q) 0
The list of alternating knots with n = 11 crossings, ordered according to

the Knotscape tables and followed by the Conway notation and symmetry
type, can be found in Table of knot invariants by C. Livingston and J.C. Cha
(2005). Among 376 alternating knots (denoted in Table of knot invariants
as “chiral”), there are 123 non-invertible knots. Two knots, 11a53 .2 1.4 0,
and 11a262 .4 1.2 0, are the members of the family 2), and the knots 11a68
.2 1.4, and 11a265 .4 1.2, are the members of the family 3). According to
experimental results, following four knots generate three-parameter families
of non-invertible knots with the additional conditions for non-invertibility:
11a201 4 1, 3, 2 1 (2p) 1, (2q + 1), (2r) 1 p 6= r

11a299 .4.2.2 .(2p).(2q).(2r) p 6= r
11a323 .4.2 0.2 .(2p).(2q) 0.(2r) p 6= r
11a345 4 : 2 : 20 .(2p) : (2q) : (2r) 0 p 6= q
130 LinKnot
The same procedure can be applied to the remaining non-invertible

knots with n = 11 crossings which generate the corresponding families of
non-invertible knots without restrictions on parameters. Notice that in
some families can occur repeated knots (e.g., knot 1082 given by Conway
symbols .4.2 = .2.4, which belongs to the family 1) .(2p).(2q) can be ob-
tained for p = 2 and q = 1, and for p = 1 and q = 2, respectively).
Among 1288 alternating knots with n = 12 crossings, 674 are non-
invertible: 37 achiral and 637 chiral. Among 37 non-invertible achiral
knots (denoted in Table of Knot Invariants as “− amphicheiral”), only
knot 12a1218 .4.4, is obtained from the family 1), two of them are alternat-
ing knots corresponding to the basic polyhedra (12a868 12K, and 12a1188
12B), and all the others are generators of the new families of achiral and
chiral non-invertible knots. Here is their list with the conditions which
parameters need to satisfy in order to obtain achiral non-invertible knots:
12a4 (2 1 1, 2) (2 1 1, 2) ((2p) 1 1, (2q)) ((2r) 1 1, (2s)) p = r, q = s

12a58 (2 1, 2+) (2 1 2+) ((2p) 1, (2q)+) ((2r) 1, (2s)+) p = r, q = s
12a125 (2 2, 2) (2 2 2) ((2p) 2, (2q)) ((2r) 2, (2s)) p = r, q = s
12a268 8∗ 2 1.2 1 8∗ (2p) 1.2(q) 1 p=q
12a273 .2 2.2 2 (2p) (2q).(2r) (2s) p = r, q = s
12a341 2.2 1.2 1.2 (2p).(2q) 1.(2r) 1.(2s) p = s, q = r
12a458 8∗ 2 1 0 : .2 1 0 8∗ (2p) 1 0 : .2(q) 1 0 p=q
12a462 (3, 2+) (3, 2+) ((2p + 1), (2q)+) ((2r + 1), (2s)+) p = r, q = s
12a465 .2 1.2 1.2.2 .(2p) 1.(2q) 1.(2r).(2s) p = q, r = s
12a627 2 1 0.2.2.2 1 0 (2p) 1 0.(2q).(2r).(2s) 1 0 p = s, q = r
12a819 8∗ 3 : .3 8∗ (2p + 1) : .(2q + 1) p=q
12a821 ∗
8 3 0 : .3 0 ∗
8 (2p + 1) 0 : .2(q + 1) 0 p=q
12a887 10∗∗ : 2.2 10∗∗ : (2p).(2q) p=q
12a890 8∗ 3 0.3 0 8∗ (2p + 1) 0.2(q + 1) 0 p=q
12a906 8∗ 2 0.2 0 : .2.2 8∗ (2p) 0.(2q) 0 : .(2r).(2s) p = q, r = s
12a960 10∗∗ : 2 :: .2 10∗∗ : (2p) :: .(2q) p=q
12a990 8∗ 2 0.2.2.2 0 ∗
8 (2p) 0.(2q).(2r).(2s) 0 p = s, q = r
12a1008 .3 1.3 1 .(2p + 1) 1.(2q + 1) 1 p=q
12a1102 10∗∗ : 2 0 :: .2 0 10∗∗ : (2p) 0 :: .(2q) 0 p=q
12a1123 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ (2p) 0.(2q) 0.(2r) 0.(2s) 0 p = s, q = r
12a1124 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0 (2p).(2q).(2r).(2s).(2t) 0.(2u) 0 p = s, q = r, t = u
12a1152 10∗∗ 2 0 :: .2 0 10∗∗ (2p) 0 :: .(2q) 0 p=q
12a1167 10∗∗ : 2 0.2 0 10∗∗ : (2p) 0.(2q) 0 p=q
12a1209 8∗ 3.3 8∗ (2p + 1).2(q + 1) p=q
12a1211 10∗ 2.2 10∗ (2p).(2q) p=q
12a1225 8∗ 2.2.2.2 8∗ (2p).(2q).(2r).(2s) p = s, q = r
12a1229 8∗ 2.2 : .2.2 8∗ (2p).(2q) : .(2r).(2s) p = s, q = r
12a1249 10∗ 2 ::: .2 10∗ (2p) ::: .(2q) p=q
12a1251 10∗∗ 2 :: .2 10∗∗ (2p) :: .(2q) p=q
12a1254 .3.3.2 0.2 0 .(2p + 1).(2q + 1).(2r) 0.(2s) 0 p = q, r = s
12a1260 3.2.2.3 (2p + 1).(2q).(2r).(2s + 1) p = s, q = r

12a1267 3 0.2.2.3 0 (2p + 1) 0.(2q).(2r).(2s + 1) 0 p = s, q = r
12a1280 8∗ .2 : 2 0.2 0 : 2 8∗ .(2p) : (2q) 0.(2r) 0 : (2s) p = s, q = r
Among 637 non-invertible chiral knots, 68 are obtained from the existing
families derived from knots with n = 8 and n = 10 crossings, and 554
are generators of the new families of chiral non-invertible knots without
additional conditions for parameters. In the following table, the remaining
15 chiral non-invertible knots, families of chiral non-invertible knots derived
from them, and non-invertibility conditions are given:
12a76 .4.2 1 0.2 .(2p).(2q) 1 0.(2r) p 6= r

12a192 .4 1.2 1 0 .(2p) 1.(2q) 1 0 p 6= q
12a201 .4.2 1.2 .(2p).(2q) 1.(2r) p 6= r
12a566 4 1, 2 1 1, 2 1 (2p) 1, (2q) 1 1, (2r) 1 p 6= r
12a610 4 : 21 : 2 (2p) : (2q) 1 : (2r) p 6= r
12a735 5, 3, 2 1+ (2p + 1), (2q + 1), (2r) 1+ p 6= q
12a753 5, 2 1 1, 3 (2p + 1), (2q) 1 1, (2r + 1) p 6= r
12a782 21 : 40 : 20 (2p) 1 : (2q) 0 : (2r) 0 q 6= r
12a952 2.4.2 0.2 (2p).(2q).(2r) 0.(2s) q 6= s
12a981 .4.2.2 0.2 0 .(2p).(2q).(2r) 0.(2s) 0 p 6= q
12a984 4:3:2 (2p) : (2q + 1) : (2r) p 6= r
12a988 4 : 2 : 30 (2p) : (2q) : (2r + 1) 0 p 6= q
12a1191 8∗ 4 : 2 8∗ (2p) : (2q) p 6= q
12a1238 3 : 40 : 20 (2p + 1) : (2q) 0 : (2r) 0 q 6= r
12a1240 40 : 30 : 20 (2p) 0 : (2q + 1) 0 : (2r) 0 p 6= r
Every alternating non-invertible knot (except those corresponding to

basic polyhedra) is the generator, or the member of the family of non-
invertible knots. Based on the properties of its generating KL we can
determine if some additional requirements are needed for the whole family
of KLs to be non-invertible. For example, even though the generating
knot 816 .2.2 0 is invertible, the family it generates, .(2p).(2q) 0, contains
only non-invertible KLs, beginning from the knot 1085 .4.2 0, provided that
p 6= q.
1.11.1 Tangle types

Disregarding the sign (+1, −1), there are two elementary tangles, [1] and
[0], where for [0] we can distinguish between two different positions [0] and
[∞] (Kauffman and Lambropoulou, 2002a) (Fig. 1.83).
132 LinKnot
Fig. 1.83 The elementary tangles.
Definition 1.68. A sequence of positive integers separated by space (de-

noting product) and not beginning by 1 will be called R-tangle.
If an R-tangle contains k numbers (k ≥ 1), we say that its length is

k. Algebraic KLs are obtained from R-tangles using three operations–
product, sum, and ramification.
For R-tangles of an odd length the first bigon (or chain of bigons) is
always drawn as horizontal, and for R-tangles of an even length as vertical.
Every R tangle consists of two strands connecting SW-SE and NW-NE ends,
SW-NE and SE-NW ends, or SW-NW and SE-NE ends. According to this,
every tangle will be of the [0]-type, [1]-type, or [∞]-type, respectively.
For every n, there are 2n−2 R-tangles with n crossings. For example,
for n=2 we have an R-tangle 2 of the type [0]; for n = 3 two R-tangles: 3 of
the type [1], and 2 1 of the type [∞]; for n = 4 four R-tangles: 4 and 3 1 of
the type [0], 2 2 of the type [∞], and 2 1 1 of the type [1]. By taking every
number modulo 2, we obtain 0-1 sequences of the length k. Numerator
closures of tangles of the types [1] and [∞] are knots, and the type [0] gives
2-component links.
Recall that the product of tangles a and b is defined as a b = −a + b =
a 0 + b, where a 0 denotes tangle a reflected in SE-NW mirror line. The
next table contains product rules for tangle types:
[0] [0] = [∞] [0] [1] = [∞] [0] [∞] = [∞, ∞] =[∞2 ]
[1] [0] = [1] [1] [1] = [0] [1] [∞] = [∞]
[∞] [0] = [0] [∞] [1] = [1] [∞] [∞] = [∞]
The right multiplications by [0] form a dihedral symmetry group with the
invariant point [1], and the right multiplications by [1] make the cyclic
group of order 3 (Fig. 1.84).
Fig. 1.84 (a) The right multiplications by [0]; (b) right multiplications by [1].
The LinKnot function fTangleType calculates the type of R-tangle,

giving as the result 0,1,or 2 for a tangle of the type [0],[1], or [∞], respec-
tively. The function fMakeType produces all tangles of a given type with
n crossings.
The following table illustrates how to determine type of any R-tangle.
For example, R-tangle 3 5 4 1 3 has 0-1 code 11011, so its type is [0]:
1 11 = [1] [1] 110 = [0] [0] 1101 = [∞] [1] 11011 = [1] [1]
[1] [0] [∞] [1] [0]
In order to simplify notation, in the case of R-tangles the brackets [ ]

will be omitted, and the products of the tangles [0] and [1] will be expressed
as 0-1 sequences. For example, 011 means [0] [1] [1], etc.
For k = 1 there are two sequences: 0 of the type [0] and 1 of the type [1];
for k = 2 four sequences: 00 and 01 of the type [∞], 10 of the type [1], and
11 of the type [0]; for k = 3 eight sequences: 000, 010, 101 of the type [0],
001, 100, 011 of the type [1], and 010, 101 of the type [∞]; for k = 4 sixteen
sequences: 0000, 0001, 0100, 0101, 1010, 1011 of the type [∞], 0010, 1000,
0110, 1101, 1111 of the type [1], and 0011, 1001, 1001, 1100, 0111, 1110
of the type [0], etc. Since every rational KL is obtained as a numerator
closure of an R-tangle not beginning or ending with 1, it can be expressed
as a 0-1 sequence. This means that it contains only tangles of the type [0]
or [1], so as the final result can be obtained only a tangle of the type [1],
[∞], or [0]. It can be only a knot (obtained as a numerator closure from
[1], [∞]), or 2-component link (obtained from [0]). Hence, every rational
KL is a knot, or 2-component link.
134 LinKnot
Stellar (pretzel) tangles are obtained from at least three R-tangles using
the operation of ramification. Pretzel KLs are numerator closures of pretzel
tangles. For denoting the types of pretzel knots double brackets will be also
omitted in the following sense: the type of pretzel knot obtained from R-
tangles of the type [0], [1], [∞], will be concisely denoted as [∞, 1, 0], since
[0]0 = [∞], [1]0 = [1], [∞]0 = [0]. For example, the type of the pretzel
tangle 2, 3, 2 1 will be [[0], [1], [∞]] = [∞, 1, 0].
For pretzel KLs with three R-tangles we have 10 possible sets of
types. [1,1,1], [1,1,∞], [0,0,1], [0,1,∞], [0,0,∞] are knots, [0,1,1], [1,∞,∞],
[0,0,0], [0,∞,∞] 2-component links, and [∞,∞,∞] are 3-component links
(Fig. 1.85). For pretzel KLs with four R-tangles, knots are [0,1,1,1],
[1,1,1,∞], [0,1,1,∞], [0,0,0,1], [0,0,1,∞], [0,0,0,∞], 2-component links
[1,1,1,1], [0,0,1,1], [1,1,∞,∞], [0,1,∞,∞], [0,0,0,0], [0,0,∞,∞], 3-component
links [1,∞,∞,∞], [0,∞,∞,∞], and 4-component links [∞,∞,∞,∞]. In gen-
eral, for pretzel KLs with t R-tangles there are t+2 2 sets of types. Among
them, t + 2 will give knots, 2t − 2 will give 2-component links, and the
number of i-component link types will be t − i + 1 (i = 3, 4, . . . , t).
Fig. 1.85 Types of pretzel knots consisting of three R-tangles.
For pretzel KLs consisting of more then three R-tangles, for the same
type there are several different orders17 of the particular symbols 0, 1, ∞.
For example, for the type [0,1,1,∞] there are two possible orders: [0,1,1,∞]
and [0,1,∞,1], etc.
17 Cyclic permutations of types, where reverse permutations are treated as equal.
In general, the following rules hold: [1,1]=[0], [1, ∞] = [∞], [a, 0] = [a]
for every a (a ∈ {0, 1, ∞}). The set of types [∞, . . . , ∞] where ∞ occurs
k times will be concisely denoted as [∞k ] (k = 1, 2, . . .). Moreover, the
calculation of the reduced types of pretzel KLs is commutative on the
symbols 0, 1, ∞. Using these rules, every set of types can be reduced to
[0], [1], or [∞k ].
The number of components of a pretzel KL of the reduced type [0] is
2, [1] are knots, and [∞k ] k-component links (k = 1, 2, . . .).
For example, [1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,∞,∞] = [1, ∞, ∞] = [∞2 ], so it is a 2-
component link. The symbol [∞k ] represents a tangle of the type [∞] with
k − 1 already closed components. Hence, [∞k ] = [∞k−1 ], where the sub-
script k −1 denotes the number of already closed components. A numerator
closure of [∞k ] = [∞k−1 ] is a k-component link (Fig. 1.86).
Fig. 1.86 Pretzel tangle [∞, ∞, ∞, ∞] = [∞4 ] = [∞3 ] and its numerator closure giving
4-component link.
In order to keep track of the number of already closed components we

use the addition of subscripts denoting the number of closed components.
For example, [0k , ∞l ] = [∞k+l ], [∞k ] [∞l ] = [∞k+l ], [∞k ] [0l ] = [0k+l ], etc..
Knowing that the numerator closure of [1] and [∞] gives one component,
and the numerator closure of [0] gives two components, we conclude that
the numerator closure of [1k−1 ] and [∞k−1 ] is a k-component link, and the
136 LinKnot
numerator closure of [0k−1 ] is a (k + 1)-component link. Therefore, tangle

type calculation gives the number of components of any algebraic KL.
The equality of tangle types is the equivalence relation on R-tangles
with three equivalence classes [0], [1], [∞], whose minimal representatives
are 2, 3, 2 1. Instead of the tangle 1, the tangle 3 is taken as the minimal
representative of the type [1], to avoid ambiguity coming from two different
orientations (“vertical” or “horizontal”) of tangle 1.
We construct families of KLs adding an even number of bigons to al-
ready existing bigons or chains of bigons. Since this addition preserves
tangle type, the number of components will be preserved inside subfami-
lies. In general, the number of components of a KL remains preserved if
we replace any tangle by a tangle of the same type.
1.11.2 Non-invertible pretzel knots

Every alternating pretzel KL is of the form r1 , r2 , . . . , ri , where r1 , r2 ,...,ri
are R-tangles (i ≥ 3). Pretzel knots are obtained as the numerator closures
of the pretzel tangles of the reduced type [1], or [∞]. Hence, non-reduced
types of pretzel KLs can be:
• [0, . . . , 0, 1, . . . 1], where 1 has an odd number, and 0 an arbitrary num-

ber of occurrences;
• [0, . . . , 0, 1, . . . 1, ∞].
The main question is whether it is possible to determine non-invertibility

of pretzel knots according to tangle types. Every pretzel knot can be drawn
as a regular t-gon with vertices denoting R-tangles, called t-diagram. In a
t-diagram vertices by themselves are treated as symmetric, and the mirror
line contains at least one vertex.
Conjecture 1.5. (Non-invertibility criterion for pretzel knots) A pretzel
knot is non-invertible iff its type symbol consists only from 0-s and 1-s, and
its t-diagram is not mirror-symmetric.
We give detailed description of non-invertible pretzel knots with i ≤ 5:
• for i = 3 the types giving knots are [1,1,1], [0,0,1], and all three R-
tangles must be mutually different;
• for i = 4 the types giving knots are [1,1,1,0], [0,0,0,1], and from the
symmetry condition follows that the R-tangles at the first and third
position must be different;
• for i = 5 the types giving knots are [1,1,1,1,1], [0,0,1,1,1], [0,0,0,0,1],

and the symmetry condition can be easily recognized from a t-diagram
(Fig. 1.87).
Fig. 1.87 (a) Non-invertible pretzel knot 5, 3, 3, 2 1; (b) invertible pretzel knot 5, 3, 2 1, 3
with mirror-symmetric t-diagram.
For example, pretzel knots 3, 3, 3, 5, 7 and 3, 3, 5, 3, 7 are non-invertible,

while 3, 5, 5, 3, 7 is invertible, and all have the same type [1,1,1,1,1].
In general, the necessary condition for invertibility of pretzel knots is
that the sum of numbers in knot type must be odd. Sufficiency is deter-
mined, based on symmetry condition, from the t-diagram.
As we underlined in Section 1.11, we can distinguish generating non-
invertible knots and non-invertible knots that are members of already de-
rived families. From every generating non-invertible pretzel knot its cor-
responding family is obtained by the following substitutions, respecting
symmetry conditions:
• every single bigon 2 can be replaced by the chain of bigons (2p);

• chain 3 can be replaced by any odd chain (2p + 1);
• tangle 1 remains unchanged.
For n = 10 crossings there is only one non-invertible pretzel knot:

2 2, 3, 2 1.
For n = 11 there are four of them:
4 1, 2 1, 3 2 3, 2 1, 3 2 1 1, 2 2, 2 1 3 1 1, 3, 2 1
138 LinKnot
For the first knot 4 1, 2 1, 3, its generating knot is 2 1, 2 1, 3 with n = 8

crossings, that satisfies the necessary condition for non-invertibility of pret-
zel knots: its type [0,0,1] consists only from 0-s and 1-s. It contains the
tangles (2p) 1 and (2q) 1, so according to the symmetry condition it gen-
erates the family of non-invertible pretzel knots (2p) 1, (2q) 1, (2r + 1) for
p 6= q. Hence, the first non-invertible knot in this family is 4 1, 2 1, 3.
For n = 11, the four non-invertible knots are divided into two subsets:
4 1, 2 1, 3
2 3, 2 1, 3 2 1 1, 2 2, 2 1 3 1 1, 3, 2 1
The first subset contains the knot 4 1, 2 1, 3 that belongs to the fam-
ily of non-invertible knots (2p) 1, (2q) 1, (2r + 1) with the additional non-
invertibility condition p 6= q, and the knots from the other subset generate
families of non-invertible knots without additional requirements on para-
meters.
For n = 12 there are 17 non-invertible pretzel knots:
4 2, 2 1, 3 2 4, 2 1, 3 4 1, 2 2, 3 2 2, 2 1, 5
2 1 1, 5, 3 2 1 1, 4 1, 2 1
3 1 2, 2 1, 3 2 1 2 1, 2 1, 3 2 1 1 1 1, 2 1, 3 2 3, 22, 3
3 1 1, 2 2, 3 3 2, 2 2, 2 1 2 2 1, 2 2, 2 1 2 1 1, 2 3, 21
3 1 1, 2 1 1, 2 1 2 2 1, 2 1 1, 3 3 2, 2 1 1, 3
divided into three subsets. The first subset contains non-invertible knots
obtained from the previously derived family (2p) 1, (2q) 1, (2r + 1) (p 6= q);
the second subset contains knots belonging to the new families with ad-
ditional symmetry conditions (2p) 1 1, (2q + 1), (2r + 1) (q 6= r), and
(2p) 1 1, (2q) 1, (2r) 1 (q 6= r); every member of the third subset generates
the family of non-invertible knots with no additional conditions for para-
meters.
For n = 13 we have 51 non-invertible knot, divided into the three sub-
sets:
6 1, 2 1, 3 2 5, 2 1, 3 4 3, 2 1, 3 4 1, 2 3, 3
5 1 1, 2 1, 3 3 1 1, 4 1, 3 2 3, 2 1, 5 4 1, 2 1, 5
3 1 1, 2 1, 5 4 1 1, 2 2, 2 1 2 1 1, 4 2, 2 1 2 1 1, 2 4, 2 1
2 1 1, 4 1, 2 2
3 2, 5, 3 2 2 1, 5, 3 2 4, 2 2, 3 4 2, 2 2, 3
4 1 1, 2 1 1, 3 4 1, 3 2, 2 1 2 2 1, 4 1, 2 1
3 1 3, 2 1, 3 3 3 1, 2 1, 3 2 1 2 2, 2 1, 3 2 2 2 1, 2 1, 3
3 2 1 1, 2 1, 3 2 1 1 1 2, 2 1, 3 2 2 1 1 1, 2 1, 3 3 1 2, 2 2, 3
2 1 2 1, 2 2, 3 2 1 1 1 1, 2 2, 3 3 1 1, 2 3, 3 2 2 1, 3 2, 3
2 1 3, 2 1 1, 3 2 3 1, 2 1 1, 3 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1, 3 3 1 1 1, 2 1 1, 3
2 1 3, 2 2, 2 1 2 3 1, 2 2, 2 1 2 1 1 2, 2 2, 2 1 3 1 1 1, 2 2, 2 1
3 2, 2 3, 2 1 2 2 1, 2 3, 2 1 3 1 1, 3 2, 2 1 3 1 2, 2 1 1, 2 1
2 1 2 1, 2 1 1, 2 1 2 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1, 2 1 3 1 1, 2 2 1, 2 1 2 1 1, 2 3, 2 2
3 1 1, 2 1 1, 2 2 2 1 1, 2 1, 3, 3 2 2, 2 1, 2 1, 3
The first subset contains knots from already derived families (with or with-
out additional symmetry conditions). Knots from the second and third
subset are the generators of new families, with and without additional sym-
metry conditions for parameters, respectively.
For n = 13 we have first non-invertible knots, 2 1 1, 2 1, 3, 3 and
2 2, 2 1, 2 1, 3, with four R-tangles, where tangles at the non-adjacent po-
sitions are different, so their t-diagrams are not mirror-symmetric. The
knots that consist of the same R-tangles, 2 1 1, 3, 2 1, 3 and 2 2, 2 1, 3, 2 1,
with the mirror-symmetric t-diagrams, are invertible.
Using LinKnot function fNinvStellar we obtained the following num-
ber of non-invertible pretzel knots with n crossings (n = 10, . . . , 17):
n 10 11 12 13 12 15 16 17
1 4 17 51 155 427 1152 2983
The similar treatment can be applied to non-invertible pretzel knots

with pluses, since every pretzel knot of the form r1 , r2 , . . . , ri with k pluses
can be written as r1 , r2 , . . . , ri , 1, . . . , 1 where 1 occurs k times, and r1 ,
r2 ,...,ri (i ≥ 3) are R-tangles. The symmetry condition will be applied only
to the R-part of the knot, this means, to r1 , r2 , . . . , ri .
The first non-invertible pretzel knot with pluses is 2 1 1, 3, 2 1+ with
n = 11 crossings.
For n = 12 there are five non-invertible pretzel knots with pluses:
2 2, 2 1, 3 + + 2 1, 5, 3+ 3 2, 2 1, 3+
2 2 1, 2 1, 3+ 2 1 1, 2 2, 3+
For n = 13 there are 22 non-invertible knots:
4 1 1, 2 1, 3+ 2 1 1, 4 1, 3+ 2 1 1, 2 1, 5+
4 1, 2 1, 3 + + 2 2, 5, 3+ 4 1, 2 2, 2 1+
140 LinKnot
2 1 1, 2 1, 3 + ++ 2 3, 2 1, 3 + + 3 1 1, 2 1, 3 + + 2 1 1, 2 2, 2 1 + +
2 1 3, 2 1, 3+ 2 3 1, 2 1, 3+ 2 1 1 2, 2 1, 3+ 3 1 1 1, 2 1, 3+
3 2, 2 2, 3+ 2 2 1, 2 2, 3+ 2 1 1, 2 3, 3+ 3 1 1, 2 1 1, 3+
2 3, 2 2, 2 1+ 3 1 1, 2 2, 2 1+ 2 1 1, 3 2, 2 1+ 2 2 1, 2 1 1, 2 1+
divided again into three subsets: knots belonging to already derived fam-
ilies, knots generating new families with additional symmetry conditions,
and knots generating families without additional conditions for parameters.
In order to obtain families of non-invertible pretzel knots with pluses, we
can use the same replacements as in the case of pretzel knots, but also we
can replace every sequence of k pluses with a sequence of the same parity.
The number of components of a pretzel KL with pluses can be computed
using the same rules as for pretzel KLs.
1.11.3 Non-invertible arborescent knots

The simplest class of arborescent KLs giving non-invertible knots is
(r1 , r2 )(r3 , r4 ), where ri (i = 1, . . . , 4) are R-tangles. Using tangle
type calculation, we conclude that knots will be obtained for the follow-
ing (r1 , r2 )(r3 , r4 ) pretzel sets of types: [1, 1] [1, 1], [0, 1] [1, 1], [0, 0] [1, 1],
[1, ∞] [1, ∞], [0, 0] [0, 1], [0, 1] [0, ∞], [0, ∞] [1, ∞], [0, 0] [0, 0], [0, ∞] [0, ∞],
2-component links will be obtained for [1, 1] [1, ∞], [0, 1] [0, 1], [0, 0] [1, ∞],
[0, 1] [∞, ∞], [1, ∞] [∞, ∞], [0, 0] [0, ∞], [0, ∞] [∞, ∞], and 3-component
links for [1, 1] [∞, ∞], [0, 0] [∞, ∞], [∞, ∞] [∞, ∞].
Conjecture 1.6. A knot of the form (r1 , r2 )(r3 , r4 ) is non-invertible iff

r1 6= r2 , and r3 6= r4 ; it is achiral non-invertible iff r1 = r3 and r2 = r4 ,
and chiral non-invertible otherwise.
For n = 10 there are three non-invertible knots of this form. Two

of them are achiral: (3, 2) (3, 2) and (2 1, 2) (2 1, 2), and one is chiral:
(3, 2) (2 1, 2).
For n = 11 there are six of them:
(2 1 1, 2) (2 1, 2) (2 1 1, 2) (3, 2) (2 2, 2) (2 1, 2)
(3, 2 1) (2 1, 2) (2 2, 2) (3, 2) (3, 2 1) (3, 2)
It is clear that achiral non-invertible knots can be obtained only

for (r1 , r2 )(r3 , r4 ) knots with the sets of types [1, 1] [1, 1], [1, ∞] [1, ∞],
[0, 0] [0, 0], [0, ∞] [0, ∞]. The first achiral non-invertible representa-
tives of these types are: (3, 2 1 1) (3, 2 1 1), (3, 2) (3, 2), (2 2, 2 1) (2 2, 2 1),
(2 1, 2) (2 1, 2), respectively.
Now we will consider a more general case: non-invertible knots

of the form (r1 , r2 , . . . , ri )(r1′ , r2′ , . . . , rj′ ). The parts r1 , r2 , . . . , ri and
r1′ , r2′ , . . . , rj′ will be called the pretzel parts of the knot. The term
(r1 , r2 , . . . , ri )(r1′ , r2′ , . . . , rj′ ) is a knot iff the types of the pretzel parts are
[0] [0], [0] [1], [1] [0], [1] [∞], [∞] [1], [∞] [∞]. This means that every pretzel
part may have at most one R-tangle of the type [∞]. The pretzel parts are
treated as ordered sequences of R-tangles, and not as cyclic structures, as
in the case of pretzel KLs. From the symmetry reasons, it is sufficient to
consider only knots of the type [0] [0], [0] [1], [1] [∞], [∞] [∞].
Conjecture 1.7. A knot of the form (r1 , r2 , . . . , ri )(r1′ , r2′ , . . . , rj′ ) of the
type [0] [0], [1] [∞], [∞] [1], [∞] [∞] is non-invertible iff none of its pretzel
parts is mirror-symmetric; it is chiral non-invertible iff i = j and rk = rk′
(k = 1, . . . , i), and chiral non-invertible otherwise. A knot of the type
[0] [1], [1] [0] is chiral non-invertible iff its pretzel part of the type [0] is not
mirror-symmetric.
From KLs obtained as a product of three pretzel tangles, those of the

types [1] [1] [1], [0] [1] [1], [1] [0] [0], [1] [∞] [1], [0] [0] [1], [1] [0] [0], [0] [1] [∞],
[1] [0] [∞], [∞] [0] [1], [∞] [1] [0], [1] [∞] [∞], [∞] [1] [∞], [∞] [∞] [1],
[0] [0] [∞], [∞] [0] [0], [∞] [∞] [∞], are knots. From the symmetry rea-
sons, it is sufficient to consider knots of the type [1] [1] [1], [0] [1] [1],
[1] [∞] [1], [0] [0] [1], [0] [1] [∞], [1] [0] [∞], [1] [∞] [∞], [∞] [1] [∞], [0] [0] [∞],
[∞] [∞] [∞].
For example, a knot of the type [1] [1] [1] will be non-invertible iff the
pretzel tangle in the middle is not mirror-symmetric, or if it is mirror-
symmetric and the first pretzel tangle is different from the last one and
from its reverse. As this example shows, it is still possible to find general
conditions for non-invertibility of certain classes and types of knots, but
the conditions will be more complicated than before, dependent from the
types of knots considered and not only from classes they belong.
A KL of the form (r1 , r2 )(2k − 1)(r3 , r4 ), where ri (i = 1, . . . , 4) are R-
tangles, and k = 1, 2, . . . is a knot iff its type is [1] [1] [1], [0] [1] [1], [1] [1] [0],
[0] [1] [∞], [∞] [1] [0], or [∞] [1] [∞]. From the symmetry reasons, it is suffi-
cient to consider knots of the type [1] [1] [1], [0] [1] [1], [0] [1] [∞], [∞] [1] [∞].
A knot of the type [1] [1] [1], [∞] [1] [∞] is non-invertible iff its pretzel parts
(r1 , r2 ) and (r3 , r4 ) are different, and invertible otherwise. A knot of the
type [0] [1] [∞] is non-invertible iff r1 6= r2 , and invertible otherwise. A
knot of the type [0] [1] [1] is always non-invertible.
A KL of the form (r1 , r2 )(2k)(r3 , r4 ), where ri (i = 1, . . . , 4) are R-
142 LinKnot
tangles, and k = 1, 2, . . . is a knot iff its type is [0] [0] [1], [1] [0] [0], [1] [0] [∞],
[∞] [0] [1], [0] [0] [∞], or [∞] [0] [0]. From the symmetry reasons, it is suffi-
cient to consider knots of the type [0] [0] [1], [1] [0] [∞], [0] [0] [∞]. A knot of
this form is non-invertible iff it does not contain a [∞] tangle, and invertible
otherwise. Hence, all non-invertible knots are of the type [0] [0] [1].
An arborescent KL of the form (r1 , r2 ), r3 , (r4 , r5 ), where ri (i =
1, . . . , 5) are R-tangles, is a knot iff its (pretzel) type is [0, ∞, 0], [0, ∞, 1],
[1, ∞, 1], [0, 1, 0], [1, 1, 1], [∞, 1, 0], [∞, 1, 1], [1, 0, ∞], [0, 0, ∞], [0, 0, 1]. A
knot of the type [0, ∞, 0], [0, ∞, 1], [1, ∞, 1] (with ∞ in the middle) is non-
invertible iff the tangles (r1 , r2 ), (r4 , r5 ) are different. A knot of the type
[0, 1, 0], [1, 1, 1], [∞, 1, 0], [∞, 1, 1] (with 1 in the middle) is non-invertible iff
the tangle (r1 , r2 ) is different from (r4 , r5 ) and from its reverse (r5 , r4 ). A
knot of the type [1, 0, ∞], [0, 0, ∞], [0, 0, 1] (with 0 in the middle) is always
non-invertible.
The next class we consider are KLs of the form p1 , p2 , . . . , pi , where pk
(k = 3, 4, . . .) are pretzel tangles of the form (r1 , r2 , . . . , rj ) (j = 2, 3, . . .).
The result is a knot iff among pk tangles there is an odd number of the
tangles of the pretzel type [1] and an arbitrary number of the tangles of the
pretzel type [∞], or if there is exactly one tangle of the pretzel type [0]. The
simplest case of such knots are those of the form: (r1 , r2 ), (r3 , r4 ), (r5 , r6 ).
They are non-invertible iff they do not contain equal pretzel tangles,
i.e., iff their t-diagram is not mirror-symmetric. For example, knot
(5, 2), (3, 2), (2 1, 2 1) is non-invertible, and (3, 2), (3, 2), (2 1, 2 1) is invert-
ible. Non-invertible knots (3, 4), (3, 2), (2 1, 2 1), (5, 2), (3, 2), (2 1, 2 1) be-
longing to the same family are obtained by breaking symmetry of their
corresponding t-diagrams. In general, a knot of the form p1 , p2 , . . . , pi
is non-invertible iff its t-diagram is not mirror-symmetric. For example,
knots (2 1, 3), (2 1, 3), (3, 2), (3, 2 1), (2 1, 3), (2 1, 3), (2 1, 3), (3, 2 1), (2 1, 5),
(2 1, 3), (2 1, 3), (2 1, 3), (2 1, 5), (4 1, 3) are non-invertible, and (2 1, 3), (3, 2),
(2 1, 3), (3, 2 1) is invertible.
The proposed method can be used for computing symmetry groups of
non-invertible knots, where the results obtained hold for whole classes of
non-invertible knots described above. For example, the symmetry group of
every non-invertible pretzel knot is Z2 .
1.11.4 Non-invertible polyhedral knots

The basic polyhedron 6∗ with two vertices replaced by R-tangles gives knots
of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 or 6∗ r1 .r2 0, where none of the R-tangles is of the type
[0], and 6∗ r1 .r2 = 6∗ r2 .r1 , 6∗ r1 .r2 0 = 6∗ r2 .r1 0. Knot 6∗ r1 .r2 is achiral non-
invertible if r1 = r2 , and chiral non-invertible otherwise. Knot 6∗ r1 .r2 0 is
chiral non-invertible iff r1 6= r2 .
The next step is to substituting three vertices of the same basic polyhe-
dron by R-tangles. All knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 : r3 derived from 6∗ 2.2 : 2
are non-invertible. Knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 : r3 derived from 6∗ 2.2 : 2,
and knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 0 : r3 0 derived from 6∗ 2.2 0 : 2 0 are non-
invertible iff r1 6= r3 . Knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 .r3 0 derived from 6∗ 2.2.2 0
are non-invertible iff r2 6= r3 . Knots of the following forms:
• 6∗ r1 .r2 0.r3 derived from 6∗ 2.2 0.2,

• 6∗ r1 .r2 0 :: r3 0 derived from 6∗ 2.2 0 :: 2 0, and
• 6∗ r1 .r2 .r3 derived from 6∗ 2.2.2
are non-invertible iff they do not contain equal R-tangles. All non-invertible
knots mentioned are chiral with the trivial symmetry group.
The results for knots obtained from the basic polyhedron 6∗ with four
R-tangles are the following:
• knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 .r3 .r4 derived from 6∗ 2.2.2.2 are achiral non-
invertible iff r1 = r4 and r2 = r3 , and chiral non-invertible otherwise;
• knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 : r3 .r4 0 derived from 6∗ 2.2 : 2.2 0 are chiral
non-invertible iff r2 6= r4 , or the tangle types of (r1 ,r3 ) are not ([0],[∞])
or ([∞],[0]), and invertible otherwise;
• knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 .r3 0.r4 derived from 6∗ 2.2.2 0.2 are chiral non-
invertible iff r2 6= r3 , and invertible otherwise;
• knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 .r3 .r4 0 derived from 6∗ 2.2.2.2 0 are always
chiral non-invertible;
• knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 : r3 .r4 derived from 6∗ 2.2 : 2.2 are invertible
achiral iff r1 = r3 and r2 = r4 , non-invertible achiral iff r1 = r2 and r3 =
r4 , invertible iff r1 = r2 or r1 = r4 and r2 = r3 , and chiral non-invertible
otherwise;
• knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 0.r3 .r4 0 derived from 6∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0 are chiral
non-invertible iff r2 6= r3 , and invertible otherwise;
• knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 .r3 0 : r4 derived from 6∗ 2.2.2 0 : 2 are achi-
ral non-invertible iff r1 = r3 and r2 = r4 , and chiral non-invertible
otherwise;
• knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 .r3 : r4 0 derived from 6∗ 2.2.2 : 2 0 are chiral
144 LinKnot
• knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 .r3 : r4 0 derived from 6∗ 2.2.2 : 2 0 are chiral
• knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 0 : r3 0.r4 derived from 6∗ 2.2 0 : 2 0.2 are
invertible iff r1 = r3 and tangle type of (r2 , r4 ) is not ([0],[∞]) or
([∞],[0]), r2 = r4 and tangle type of (r1 , r3 ) is not ([0],[∞]) or ([∞],[0]),
and chiral non-invertible otherwise.
First chiral non-invertible knots with non-trivial symmetry group are

6∗ r1 .r2 0 : r3 0.r4 with r1 = r3 or r2 = r4 , whose symmetry group is Z2 .
Knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 : r3 0.r4 0 derived from 6∗ 2.2 : 2 0.2 0 are invertible
iff r1 = r3 and tangle type of (r2 , r4 ) is not ([0],[∞]) or ([∞],[0]), r2 = r4 and
tangle type of (r1 , r3 ) is not ([0],[∞]) or ([∞],[0]); they are non-invertible
achiral iff r1 = r2 and r3 = r4 , and chiral otherwise. Among the chiral knots
of this form, knots with r1 = r3 or r2 = r4 have the symmetry group Z2 ,
and a trivial symmetry group otherwise. Knots of the form 6∗ r1 .r2 .r3 : r4
derived from 6∗ 2.2.2 : 2 are chiral non-invertible iff r1 6= r3 , and invertible
otherwise.
There is an interesting connection between knots derived from 6∗ 2.2 : 2 0
and 6∗ 2.2 0 : 2 0. For every number of crossings n, source links 6∗ 2.2 : 2 0
and 6∗ 2.2 0 : 2 0 generate the same number of knots, and derived knots
have the same symmetries and invertibility properties. The same holds for
the following pairs of source links: 6∗ 2.2 0 :: 2 0 and 6∗ 2.2.2, 6∗ 2.2.2.2 and
6∗ 2.2.2 0 : 2, 6∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0 and 6∗ 2.2.2 : 2 0, 6∗ 2.2.2 0.2 and 6∗ 2.2.2 : 2
The similar connection exists between 6∗ 2.2 0 : 2 0.2 and 6∗ 2.2 : 2 0.2 0
if we consider only the number of knots derived, the number of chiral non-
invertible knots among them, and their distribution according to the sym-
metry groups (Z2 or trivial).
In the same way, it is possible to find non-invertibility criteria for all
knots derived from different basic polyhedra by substituting vertices with
R-tangles.
The next class of non-invertible polyhedral knots will be obtained by
substituting vertices of a basic polyhedron with pretzel (stellar) tangles. For
example, all knots of the form 6∗ p1 .r1 , where p1 is the pretzel tangle of the
pretzel type [∞], and r1 is R-tangle of the type [0], are chiral non-invertible.
We already mentioned that a pretzel tangle p1 will be of the type [∞] if
it consists of an arbitrary number of R-tangles of the types [1], [∞], and
from exactly one R-tangle of the type [0]. First examples are 11-crossing
chiral non-invertible knots 6∗ (3, 2).2, 6∗ (2, 3).2, 6∗ (2 1, 2).2, and 6∗ (2, 2 1).2.
We conclude that all knots derived from the basic polyhedron 6∗ with one
pretzel tangle p1 and one R-tangle r1 will be chiral non-invertible.

The first class of polyhedral knots with pretzel tangles that requires
symmetry discussion are knots of the form 6∗ p1 .p2 , where p1 , p2 are pretzel
tangles of the types ([∞], [∞]), or ([0],[0]), respectively. If p1 , p2 are pretzel
tangles of different types, [0] and [∞], the corresponding knots are chiral
non-invertible. Knots of the form 6∗ p1 .p2 where p1 , p2 are pretzel tangles of
the types ([∞], [∞]) are achiral non-invertible iff p1 , p2 are mutually palin-
dromic pretzel tangles, and chiral non-invertible otherwise. For example,
the knot 6∗ (3, 2).(2, 3) is achiral non-invertible, and 6∗ (3, 2).(3, 2) is chiral
non-invertible. The same criterion holds for the knots of the same form
6∗ p1 .p2 , where p1 , p2 are pretzel tangles of the types ([0],[0]).
In the same way we can conclude that all knots of the form 6∗ p1 .r1 0,
where p1 is a pretzel tangle, and r1 is R-tangle, are chiral non-invertible.
Knots of the form 6∗ p1 .p2 0, where p1 , p2 are pretzel tangles of different
types [0], [∞], are chiral non-invertible. If the pretzel tangles p1 , p2 are of
the same type ([0],[0]), or ([∞], [∞]), knots of the form 6∗ p1 .p2 0 are chiral
non-invertible iff p1 6= p2 . For example, knot 6∗ (3, 2).(3, 2) 0 is invertible,
and 6∗ (5, 2).(3, 2) 0 is chiral non-invertible.
In general, for every basic polyhedron infinite classes of non-invertible
knots derived from it can be recognized.
Replacement of the tangle of particular reduced type ([0k ], [1k ], or [∞k ])
by a tangle of the same type preserves the number of components. Hence
we have the following main conjecture:
Conjecture 1.8. In every non-invertible knot K, substituting a tangle by

a tangle of the same type, respecting symmetry conditions, gives a non-
invertible knot of the same chirality.
In other words: non-invertibility is a type-dependent and symmetry-

dependent property.
1.12 Reduction of R-tangles
In standard Conway symbols of KLs (Conway, 1970; Rolfsen, 1966) there

are no rational parts of a KLs with mixed signs, since Conway symbols
represent minimal KL diagrams.
For rational tangles and rational KLs holds the Theorem 1.18: two
rational tangles are equivalent iff their continued fractions yield the same
rational number. For every rational KL with mixed signs it is possible to
146 LinKnot
calculate its corresponding continued fraction and express it as a rational

KL with all entries of the same sign. For example, 4 − 3 − 1 1 2 2 − 2
reduces to 3 1 5 1 2, so all rational KLs can be expressed by their rational
reductions.
After rational reductions applied to some non-rational KL, where every
tangle with mixed signs is replaced by its rational reduction, in general,
a KL different from the original KL will be obtained. For example, the
knots 8∗ 4 − 3 − 1 1 2 2 − 2 and 8∗ 3 1 5 1 2 are different.
Every R-tangle with mixed signs has its reduced equivalent, but in gen-
eral this equivalent is not a tangle obtained by rational KL reduction based
on continued fractions. The reason is that in the case of rational KLs we
are working with numerator closures of rational tangles, and here we reduce
open tangles. For example, as the open R-tangle 3 − 2 − 2 1 reduces to
2 1 1 1 1 0, that gives as the numerator closure 2 1 2.
For R-tangles with n = 3 crossings there is one tangle with mixed
signs −2 1 and its equivalent tangle 2 0, where 0 has the standard meaning
according to Conway notation of KLs.
In the following tables are given ordered pairs of R-tangles with mixed
signs and their equivalents for n ≤ 6:
(−3 1, 2 1 0) (−2 2, 2 1) (−2 1 1, 3)

(−2 1 − 1, 1) (−2 − 1 1, 3 0)
(−4 1, 3 1 0) (−3 2, 2 1 1) (−3 1 1, 2 2) (−3 1 − 1, 2 0)

(−3 − 1 1, 4 0) (−2 3, 2 2) (2 − 2 1, 3 0) (−2 2 1, 2 1 1)
(−2 − 2 1, 2 1 1 0) (2 − 1 2, 0) (−2 1 2, 4) (−2 − 12, 3 1)
(2 − 1 1 1, 0) (2 − 1 − 1 1, 2 1 0) (−2 1 1 1, 3 1) (−2 1 − 1 1, 2)
(−2 − 1 1 1, 4) (−2 − 1 1 − 1, 2) (−2 − 1 − 1 1, 2 2 0)
(−5 1, 4 1 0) (−4 2, 3 1 1) (−4 1 1, 3 2)

(−4 1 − 1, 3 0) (−4 − 1 1, 5 0) (−3 3, 2 1 2)
(3 − 2 1, 2 2 0) (−3 2 1, 2 1 1 1) (−3 − 2 1, 3 1 1 0)
(3 − 1 2, 2 0) (−3 1 2, 2 3) (−3 − 1 2, 4 1)
(3 − 1 − 1 1, 2 1 1 0) (−3 1 1 1, 2 2 1) (−3 1 − 1 1, 3)
(−3 1 − 1 − 1, 1) (−3 − 1 1 1, 5) (−3 − 1 1 − 1, 3)
(−3 − 1 − 1 1, 3 2 0) (−2 4, 2 3) (2 − 3 1, 2 1 1 0)
(−2 3 1, 2 2 1) (−2 − 3 1, 2 2 1 0) (2 − 2 2, 3 1)
(−2 2 2, 2 1 2) (−2 − 2 2, 2 1 1 1) (2 − 2 1 1, 4)
(2 − 2 1 − 1, 2) (2 − 2 − 1 1, 2 2 0) (−2 2 1 1, 2 1 1 1)
(−2 − 2 1 1, 2 1 2) (−2 − 2 1 − 1, 2 1 0) (−2 − 2 − 1 1, 2 3 0)
(2 − 1 3, 1) (−2 1 3, 5) (−2 − 1 3, 3 2)
(2 1 − 2 1, 4 0) (2 − 1 2 1, 0) (2 − 1 2 − 1, 0)
(2 − 1 − 2 1, 3 1 0) (−2 1 2 1, 4 1) (−2 1 − 2 1, 0)
(−2 − 1 2 1, 3 1 1) (−2 − 1 − 2 1, 2 1 1 1 0) (2 − 1 1 2, 1)
(2 − 1 − 1 2, 2 1 1) (−2 1 1 2, 3 2) (−2 1 − 1 2, 3)
(−2 − 1 1 2, 5) (−2 − 1 1 − 2, 1) (−2 − 1 − 1 2, 2 2 1)
(2 1 − 1 1 1, 2 0) (2 1 − 1 − 1 1, 3 1 0) (2 − 1 1 1 1, 0)
(2 − 1 1 1 − 1, 0) (2 − 1 1 − 1 1, 2 0) (2 − 1 − 1 1 1, 2 2)
(2 − 1 − 1 1 − 1, 2 0) (2 − 1 − 1 − 1 1, 4 0) (−2 1 1 1 1, 3 1 1)
(−2 1 − 1 1 1, 2 1) (−2 − 1 1 1 1, 4 1) (−2 − 1 1 − 1 1, 2 1)
(−2 − 1 − 1 1 1, 2 3) (−2 − 1 − 1 1 − 1, 2 1) (−2 − 1 − 1 − 1 1, 2 1 2 0)
The general reduction procedure for R-tangles, analogous to the rational

KL reduction is the following: take the R tangle, reverse it, express it as
continued fraction, and compute its corresponding rational tangle. In this
way, it is very easy to reduce any R-tangle with mixed signs.
Hence, there are two possible procedures:
(1) the first is the KL reduction, meaning that every R-tangle (with mixed
signs) can be replaced by its reduced equivalent;
(2) the other is KL extension: each reduced tangle can be replaced by its
unreduced equivalent.
For example, because the reduced equivalent of the tangle −3 1 − 1 − 1

is 1,
−2 1 − 2 − 2 1, 2 − 1 1 1 2 1, 2 1 − 1 4
is the stellar (pretzel) representation of trefoil knot, and
2 − 1 2 2 − 1, 2 − 1 1 1 2 1, 2 1 − 1 4
is the stellar unknot.

Every KL has an infinite number of non-minimal representations, but
is it possible to find a k-crossing representation of a given KL with n
crossings (k > n) for a given k? For example, it is clear that a trefoil
can not be represented as a 4-crossing knot, so its minimal non-alternating
representation has five crossings. There are additional questions of this
type: for which values of k we can represent a trefoil as a k-crossing knot?
Some answers to this and similar questions provides R-tangle equivalence.
Working in Conway notation, it is possible to obtain (sub)families of
R-tangles with mixed signs and their reduced equivalents. For example,
the R-tangle 3 − 1 4 − 1 2 p reduces to p + 3. Hence, instead with particular
KLs, we can work again with KL families.
Conjecture 1.9. All link diagrams belonging to a subfamily of a minimal
non-alternating KL diagram are minimal.
148 LinKnot
If this conjecture is true, the minimality problem, i.e., crossing number

problem can be reduced to computation of crossing numbers for generat-
ing KL diagrams, where every addition of two bigons will change crossing
number by 2.
1.12.1 KLs with unlinking number one

Unlinking number is a kind of problem which can be described to a child,
but even the forefront techniques from different areas of mathematics can
not give an answer. In this section we will address only unknotting number
1 knots and links, new conjectures and results obtained with the help of
computers.
Only rational unlinking number 1 knots and links have been completely
described: they have unlinking number 1 minimal diagrams (Theorem
1.24), and their general form is given in the Theorem 1.28, and Theorem
1.29, respectively.
C.McA. Gordon and J. Luecke (2006) have recently obtained important
results for unknotting number 1 knots
Definition 1.69. An incompressible or essential sphere is a 2-sphere in a

3-manifold that does not bound a 3-ball. An algebraic knot that has an
essential Conway sphere is called large algebraic knot.
Theorem 1.41. Let K be a large alternating algebraic knot with unknotting

number 1. Then K can be unknotted by a crossing change in any alternating
diagram of K (Gordon and Luecke, 2006, Theorem 12.5).
Theorem 1.42. Having unknotting number 1 is invariant under mutation

(Gordon and Luecke, 2006, Theorem 12.5).
M. Eudave-Muñoz (1997), C.McA. Gordon and J. Luecke (2006), and

P. Ozsvath and Z. Szabo (2005), using Heegaard Floer homology, completed
tables of unknotting number 1 knots with n ≤ 11 crossings.
In this section we describe infinite classes of pretzel and arborescent KLs
with unlinking number 1, and conjecture that the only algebraic KLs with
unlinking number 1 are rational KLs, or members of the classes described
in Theorems 1.45-1.51.
t−1 -tangles play the main role in the derivation of KLs with unlinking
number one:
Definition 1.70. R-tangle which can be transformed into a tangle re-

ducible to −1 by one crossing change is called t−1 -tangle.
For example, by a single crossing change the tangle 2 1 1, gives 2 − 1 1 =

−1, 3 1 1 1 gives 3 − 1 1 1 = −1, 2 1 1 2 gives 2 1 − 1 2 = −1, etc.
The following table contains all t−1 -tangles with n ≤ 12 crossings:
n=4 211
n=6 3111 2112
n=8 4 112 31 13 22 1111 211 121
n = 10 5 113 41 14 32 1112 311 122
23 1121 221 131 212 11111 2111 1211
n = 12 6 114 51 15 42 1113 411 123
33 1122 321 132 312 11112 3111 1212
24 1131 231 141 222 11121 2211 1221
213 11211 2121 1311 2112 111111 21111 12111
where bold 1’s represent the crossings that need to be changed in order to
obtain tangle that reduces to −1.
n−4
The number of t−1 -tangles with n crossings is 2 2 for even n (n ≥ 4),
and 0 otherwise. LinKnot function fTanUn1 gives the list of t−1 -tangles
with n crossings (n ≥ 4).
The number of R-tangles l (l ≥ 3) in a pretzel KL is called length of
a pretzel KL. Every alternating pretzel (Montesinos) KL of the length 3
remains the same after any permutation of R tangles, i.e., r1 , r2 , r3 + k =
r1 , r3 , r2 +k = ... = r3 , r2 , r1 +k. The same holds for non-alternating pretzel
KLs of the length 3.
Theorem 1.43. There are no pretzel (Montesinos) KLs of length l > 3

with unlinking number 1.
K. Motegi (1996) gave a proof of this theorem for knots, and I. Torisu
(1998) for links.
We propose the following conjecture:
Conjecture 1.10. For every pretzel (Montesinos) knot or link L of length
l the following inequality holds: u(L) ≥ l − 2.
For pretzel KLs given by their standard diagrams, denoted by
M (k; (p1 , q1 ), ..., (pl , ql )) (pi ≥ 0, GCD(pi , qi ) = 1, i = 1, ..., l), where
(pi , qi ) denotes R-tangle ri of slope pqii , and k is the number of pluses (see,
e.g., Burde and and Zieschang, 1985), I. Torisu (1996) proved the following
theorem:
150 LinKnot
Theorem 1.44. Let K be a Montesinos knot (link L) with l ≥ 3. Then

u(K) = 1 (u(L) = 1) and the unknotting (unlinking) operation is realized
in a standard diagram iff the following condition holds:
• K = M (0; (p, −r), (q, s), (2mn ± 1, 2n2 )), where p, q, r, s, m, n, are
some non zero integers, m and n are coprime, and ps − rq = 1;
• L = M (0; (p, −r), (p, q), (2mn ± 1, 2n2 )), where p, q, m, n, are some
non zero integers, and m and n are coprime.
I. Torisu conjectured that all Montesinos KLs with l ≥ 3 and with

unlinking number 1 are described by this theorem.
A reverted R-tangle r given in Conway notation we denote by r (e.g., if
r = 3 2 1, r = 1 2 3).
Theorem 1.45. All alternating pretzel KLs of the form r1 , r2 , r3 + k, with
the following properties:
• r1 − 1 r2 is a rational unlink;
• r3 k is a t−1 -tangle,
have unlinking number 1.

Proof. If r3 k is a t−1 -tangle, by one crossing change in r3 the pretzel
link r1 , r2 , r3 + k reduces to the rational unlink r1 , r2 , −1 = r1 − 1 r2 .
For example, the unlinking number of the pretzel link 2 1 1, 2, 2 is one,
because 2 1 1 is a t−1 tangle, and 2 − 1 2 is a rational unlink, so it holds the
relation: 2 − 1 1, 2, 2 = −1, 2, 2 = 2 − 1 2 = 1. In the same way, 2 1, 2, 3 1 1 1
is a pretzel knot with unknotting number one, since 3 1 1 1 is a t−1 -tangle,
2 1 −1 2 is a rational unknot, and 2 1, 2, 3 −1 1 1 = 2 1, 2, −1 = 2 1 −1 2 = 1.
For pretzel KLs with pluses, we have the following example: 3 1 1, 2, 2 + 3 is
a 2-component link with unlinking number one, since 3 1 1 3 is a t−1 -tangle
(3 − 1 1 3 = −1), 2 − 1 2 = 1 is unlink, and 3 − 1 1, 2, 2 + 3 = −1, 2, 2 =
2 − 1 2 = 1.
The LinKnot functions fStUnNo1 and fStPlusNo1 compute the num-
ber of pretzel unlinking number 1 KLs with n crossings without and with
pluses. For 8 ≤ n ≤ 20 crossings there are 1, 2, 5, 10, 18, 33, 54, 97, 146,
258, 400, 707, and 1058 KLs with unlinking number 1, respectively, for
each class.
By computing all pretzel KLs and selecting those with unlinking num-
ber 1, we checked that the derivation according to Theorem 1.45 is exhaus-
tive for n ≤ 16.
Theorem 1.46. All alternating KLs of the form (r1 , r2 + k) r3 (r4 , r5 + l),
with the following properties:
• r4 − 1 r5 is a rational unlink;
• the tangles r2 k and r1 1 r3 l are t−1 -tangles,
and all KLs obtained from them by mutation have unlinking number 1.
Proof. If r2 k is a t−1 -tangle, after one crossing change in r2 the ar-

borescent link (r1 , r2 + k) r3 (r4 , r5 + l) reduces to (r1 , −1) r3 (r4 , r5 + l) =
r1 − 1 r3 l, r4 , r5 . Since r1 1 r3 l is a t−1 -tangle, further reduction gives
r1 − 1 r3 l, r4 , r5 = −1, r4 , r5 = r4 − 1 r5 = 1.
For example,
(4 1 1 1 2, 2 2 2 2 2 11 1 2 2 2 + 1) 1 1 1 1 1 (2 1 3 2, 4 1 1 + 3)
is an arborescent alternating knot with unknotting number 1, because
2 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 is a rational knot with unknotting number 1 (2 1 3 2 −
1 1 1 4 = 1), and 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 (2 2 2 2 2 − 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 = −1), and
4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 (4 1 1 1 2 − 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 = −1) are t−1 -tangles. In the
same way, 2-component link
(3 1 1 2 1, 4 2 1 1 12 2 + 3) 3 1 1 (5 2, 5 1 1 + 2)
has the unlinking number 1, where the crossing that need to be changed in
order to unlink it is denoted by bold number 1.
Conjecture 1.11. All algebraic alternating KLs with unlinking number
1 are:
• rational KLs described in Theorems 1.28 and 1.29,

• pretzel KLs described in Theorem 1.45,
• arborescent KLs described in Theorem 1.46.
According to the last conjecture, every alternating algebraic KL with

unlinking number 1 is a knot or a 2-component link.
This extremely restrictive conjecture is based on extensive computations
for different classes of arborescent KLs, made according to the Bernhard-
Jablan Conjecture (page 83) and no counterexample has been found so
far.
Another argument supporting Conjecture 1.11 is based on the structure
of the arborescent world, containing all other worlds (rational, stellar,...) as
152 LinKnot
subworlds. There is natural hierarchy where KLs from a “higher” worlds

are obtained by composing tangles from the lower ones. A nice way to see
the structure of arborescent world is by looking at graphs of KLs (Caudron,
1982). For example, Montesinos KLs are obtained by substituting bigons in
pretzel source links (2, 2, . . .) by R-tangles, arborescent source links of the
form (2, 2, . . .) (2, 2, . . .) are obtained by substituting bigons in the source
link 2 2 by pretzel source links (2, 2, . . .), etc. Hence, the process of unlinking
of a pretzel or arborescent link L with unlinking number 1 always ends with
a rational unlink r1 − 1 r2 = r1 , r2 , −1, where its parts r1 and r2 are nested
in L in the form r1 , r2 .
A link of the form t1 , t2 , ..., tn , where ti (i = 1, 2, ..., n) are arbitrary
algebraic tangles is called generalized pretzel link of the length n. In the
case of pretzel (Montesinos) KLs with unlinking number 1 the maximum
length is 3 (Theorem 1.43). For generalized pretzel parts of arborescent
source links which generate KLs with unlinking number 1, we expect that
maximum length is 2. This implies that all arborescent links with unlinking
number 1 are of the form (r1 , r2 + k) (r3 , r4 + l), or (r1 , r2 + k) r3 (r4 , r5 + l).
The first is a special case of the second form, that is the subject of Theorem
1.46.
Next we consider non-alternating algebraic KLs with unlinking number
1 of the form: r1 , r2 , r3 −, (r1 , r2 + k) (r3 , r4 −), (r1 , r2 + k) r3 (r4 , r5 −),
(r1 , r2 + k) − (r3 , r4 ), and (r1 , r2 + k) r3 − (r4 , r5 ).
Theorem 1.47. All non-alternating pretzel KLs of the form:
(1) r1 , r2 , 2 k− (k ≥ 1), or
(2) r1 , r2 , r3 k 1 l− (k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1), or
(3) r1 , r2 , r3 (k + 1) l−
where r1 − 1 r2 is a rational unlink, and r3 k is a t−1 -tangle, have the

unlinking number 1.
Proof.
(1) After a crossing change in tangle 2, KL of the form r1 , r2 , 2 k− gives:
r1 , r2 , (1, −1) k− = r1 , r2 , 0 k− = r1 , r2 , −1 = r1 − 1 r2 = 1;
(2) after a crossing change in t−1 -tangle r3 k which results in −1, KL
of the form r1 , r2 , r3 k 1 l− reduces to r1 , r2 , −11 l− = r1 , r2 , 0 l− =
r1 , r2 , −1 = r1 − 1 r2 = 1;
(3) after a crossing change in t−1 -tangle r3 k which results in −1, KL of
the form r1 , r2 , r3 (k + 1) l− reduces to r1 , r2 , −1 1 l− = r1 , r2 , 0 l− =
r1 , r2 , −1 = r1 − 1 r2 = 1.

For example,
(1) every knot of the form 4 1 2, 2 1, 2 k −1 (k ≥ 1, r1 −1 r2 = 4 1 2 −1 1 2 =

1) has unknotting number 1 (case 1);
(2) every knot of the form 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1, 7 2 1 1 1 6 1 l − 1 (case 2) or
2 1 1 2, 2 1 1, 7 2 1 1 1 7 l − 1 (case 3), (k = 6, r1 − 1 r2 = 2 1 1 2 − 1 1 1 2 =
1, and r3 k = 7 2 − 1 1 1 6 = −1) has unknotting number 1.
Proofs of the following three theorems are omitted, since they are similar
to the last one.
Theorem 1.48. All non-alternating arborescent KLs of the form:
(1) (r1 , r2 + k) (2 l, k 1−) (k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1), or

(2) (r1 , r2 + k) (r3 m 1 l, k 1−) (k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1, m ≥ 1), or
(3) (r1 , r2 + k) (r3 (m + 1) l, k 1−) (k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1, m ≥ 1),
and their mutants, such that r1 − 1 r2 is a rational unlink, and r3 m is a

t−1 -tangle, have unlinking number 1.

(r1 (m + 1), r2 + k) 1 m r1 l (r3 , r4 −)
(k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1) and their mutants, satisfying the following properties:
• r2 k (k ≥ 1) is a t−1 -tangle,
• r3 − 1 r4 is unlink,
have unlinking number 1.
(1) (r1 , r2 + k) − (2 l, k + 1) (k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1), or

(2) (r1 , r2 + k) − (r3 m 1 l, k + 1) (k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1, m ≥ 1), or
(3) (r1 , r2 + k) − (r3 (m + 1) l, k + 1) (k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1, m ≥ 1),
and their mutants, such that r1 − 1 r2 is a rational unlink, and r3 m is a

t−1 -tangle, have unlinking number 1.
Definition 1.71. Let r1 , r2 be R-tangles. A tangle of the form −r1 0 r2

is called t1 -tangle if reduces to the tangle 1.
154 LinKnot
For example, the tangles −2 − 1 − 2 0 2 1 3, −3 − 2 0 2 2 2, −3 − 2 0 2 3 1

with n = 11 crossings are t1 -tangles.
(1) (r1 , r2 + k) r3 − ((k + 1) r3 , 2 l) (k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1), where r1 − 1 r2 is a

rational unlink, and r2 k is a t−1 -tangle, or
(2) (l 1, r2 + k) r3 − (r4 , r5 ) (k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1), where r4 − 1 r5 is a rational
unlink, r2 k is a t−1 -tangle, and −(l + 1) 0 r3 is a t1 -tangle, or
(3) (r1 l 1, r2 + k) r3 − (r4 , r5 ) (k ≥ 1, l ≥ 1), where r4 − 1 r5 is a rational
unlink, r2 k is a t−1 -tangle, and −r1 − (l + 1) 0 r3 is a t1 -tangle
and all KLs obtained from them by mutation, have unlinking number 1.
The following knots with unknotting number 1 illustrate preceding four

theorems
(2 1 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1 1, 2−)
(5 3 11 4, 2 + 4) 2 2 (2 2 1, 4−)
(2 1 1, 2+) − (3 1 1 2 5, 2)
(4 1 1, 4 3 5 1 + 2) 6 3 4 9 1 − (2 2 1 1, 3 2)
Conjecture 1.12. All algebraic non-alternating KLs with unlinking num-

ber 1 are those constructed according to Theorems 1.47-1.51.
Non-alternating KLs from the preceding four theorems can be used for
the derivation of alternating KLs with unlinking number 2.
Theorem 1.52. Let r1 , r2 , r3 − = r1 , r2 , r3 , −1 be a non-alternating pretzel

knot or link from Theorem 1.47. If r4 is a t−1 -tangle, every KL of the form
r1 , r2 , r3 , r4 obtained by substituting −1 with r4 , and all its mutants have
unlinking number 2.
Analogous substitution of −1 by a t−1 -tangle in pretzel tangles of the

form r1 , r2 − = r1 , r2 , −1 also gives KLs with unlinking number 2.
The LinKnot function fMakePretNaltNo1 computes the number of
non-alternating pretzel unlinking number 1 KLs with n crossings. For
7 ≤ n ≤ 20 crossings we obtained 1, 3, 5, 14, 26, 49, 86, 152, 259, 426, 702,
1121, 1790, and 2852 KLs with unlinking number 1, respectively.
Alternating polyhedral KLs with unlinking number 1 are harder to

derive, because there is no classification of polyhedral KLs.
The only possibility to make some order in the recognition and deriva-
tion of alternating polyhedral KLs with unlinking number 1 is their ex-
haustive detection for each particular basic polyhedron and source links
derived from it.
For example, the basic polyhedron 8∗ gives, respectively, 2, 12, 34, 87,
124, 136, 72, and 30 source links with n = 1, ..., 8 bigons. For n = 1
there are two source links 8∗ 2 0 and 8∗ 2. The family corresponding to 8∗ 2 0
contains single unknotting number 1 knots: 8∗ 2 0 with n = 9 crossings,
8∗ 3 0 with n = 10 crossings, 8∗ 2 2 0 with n = 11 crossings, 8∗ 2 1 2 0, and
8∗ 3 2 0 with n = 12 crossings. For n ≥ 13 we obtain two families of knots
with unknotting number one: 8∗ (n − 11) 1 1 2 0 and 8∗ (n − 11) 2 2 0. It
is interesting that all knots from these families can be unknotted by the
same crossing change: 8∗ (n − 11) 1 1 2 0 : −1 and 8∗ (n − 11) 2 2 0 : −1 are
unknots. The other unknotting 8∗ 2 0 ::: −1 is equivalent to the first from
symmetry reasons.
For the other source link 8∗ 2 and its family, we have single unknotting
number 1 knots: 8∗ 2 1 with n = 10 crossings, 8∗ 2 1 1 with n = 11 cross-
ings, 8∗ 2 1 1 1 with n = 12 crossings, and 8∗ 2 1 1 1 1, 8∗ 3 1 1 1 with n = 13
crossings. For n ≥ 14 we obtain two families of knots with unknotting
number one: 8∗ (n − 12) 1 1 1 1 1 and 8∗ (n − 12) 2 1 1 1. The both can be
unknotted by crossing changes in the same vertex: 8∗ (n − 12) 1 1 1 1 1. − 1,
and 8∗ (n − 12) 2 1 1 1. − 1.
Consider a polyhedral alternating link L in Conway notation, which can
be unlinked by a crossing change in a vertex V that contains a single tangle
1. Vertex V is called V −1 -vertex, and L− is called V −1 -unlink. Substitution
of a V −1 vertex by a t−1 -tangle t or t 0 is called t−1 -substitution.
Theorem 1.53. Let L be an alternating polyhedral V −1 -unlink L. All KLs

obtained by from L− by t−1 -substitution are KLs with unlinking number
one.
For example, 8∗ (n−11) 1 1 2 0 : t, 8∗ (n−11) 1 1 2 0 : t 0, 8∗ (n−11) 2 2 0 :
t, and 8∗ (n − 11) 2 2 0 : t 0 are knots unknotting number 1 knots for an
arbitrary t−1 -tangle t.
The smallest polyhedral alternating unknotting number 1 knot is .2.2
with n = 8 crossings. By one V −1 crossing change it gives the unknot
.2.2 : . − 1 = 1. After substituting −1 in .2.2 : . − 1 with any t−1 -tangle,
we obtain two alternating unknotting number 1 knots. For example, .2.2 :
156 LinKnot
.2 1 1 and .2.2 : .2 1 10 are the smallest polyhedral alternating unknotting

number 1 knots with n = 11 crossings that can be derived from .2.2, and
here are the unknotting sequences: .2.2 : .2 − 1 1 = .2.2 : . − 1 = 1 and
.2.2 : .2 − 1 1 0 = .2.2 : . − 1 = 1. Knots .2.2 : .2 1 1 and .2.2 : .2 1 10 are
obtained by inserting t−1 -tangle into two different positions. However, due
to symmetry of a generating KL, different substitutions can give the same
KL. Since 8∗ 2 0 : 2 1 1 = 8∗ 2 0 ::: 2 1 1, and 8∗ 2 0 : 2 1 1 0 = 8∗ 2 0 ::: 2 1 1 0,
substituting t−1 tangle t = 2 1 1 into −1-vertices of unlinks 8∗ 2 0 : −1 and
8∗ 2 0 ::: −1 (in two different positions each), yields four knots, but only two
distinct ones.
Continuing derivation from .2.2 we obtain:
• .2.2 : .3 1 1 1, .2.2 : .3 1 1 1 0, .2.2 : .2 1 1 2, .2.2 : .2 1 1 2 0 with n = 13

crossings,
• .2.2 : .4 1 1 2, .2.2 : .4 1 1 2 0, .2.2 : .3 1 1 3, .2.2 : .3 1 1 3 0, .2.2 :
.2 2 1 1 1 1, .2.2 : .2 2 1 1 1 1 0, .2.2 : .2 1 1 1 2 1, and .2.2 : .2 1 1 1 2 1 0
with n = 15 crossings, etc.
Conjecture 1.13. Every polyhedral KL with unlinking number one is:
• V −1 -unlink;
• a link derived from some V −1 -unlink by a t−1 -tangle substitution.
Usually, detection and derivation of KLs with unlinking number 1 from

source links with more then one bigon is extremely difficult. For example,
from the following table of unknotting number 1 knots derived from the
source link 8∗ 2 : .2 0 with n = 10 crossings
n = 11 8∗ 3 : .2 0
n = 12 8∗ 2 1 : .2 1 0 8∗ 2 : .2 2 0 8∗ 3 1 : .2 0 8∗ 4 : .2 0
n = 13 8∗ 2 : .3 2 0 8∗ 2 1 : .2 2 0 8∗ 2 2 1 : .2 0 8∗ 5 : .2 0
it is hard to recognize any pattern. In order to find a general criterion for

KLs of the form 8∗ r1 : .r2 0 with unlinking number 1 we need to discuss
many different cases. However, for the class 8∗ (r1 , r2 ) : .2 2 0 the pattern is
easily recognizable: members of this class are KLs with unlinking number
1 if r1 − 1 r2 is a rational unlink, and all of them are V −1 -unlinks which
unlink in the same vertex V , namely 8∗ (r1 , r2 ) : .2 2 0 : −1. In the same
way, all non-alternating KLs of the form 8∗ (r1 , r2 ) : .3 0 have unlinking
number 1 if r1 − 1 r2 is a rational unlink, etc.
We can even obtain some multi-parameter classes of polyhedral KLs

with unlinking number 1. For example, all alternating KLs of the form
6∗ (r1 , r2 + k).l : .l − 1.k − 1 (k ≥ 2, l ≥ 1) have unlinking number 1
if r1 − 1 r2 is a rational unlink, and the same holds for non-alternating
KLs of the form 6∗ − (r1 , r2 ).k 1, or 6∗ − (r1 , r2 ).k 1 0 (k ≥ 1). Hence, for
recognizing patterns in polyhedral KLs with unlinking number 1, we need
a more profound understanding of the polyhedral world. In the same way
as for arborescent KLs, we expect that the maximum length of any pretzel
part of a polyhedral KL with unlinking number one is 2.
We finish this part with the following theorem:
Theorem 1.54. For any number of components c there exist c-component

(non-alternating) link with unlinking number 1.
Proof. We give a simple constructive proof: for c = 1, 2 there is an

infinite number of KLs with unlinking number 1 (e.g., rational ones). For
c = 3 the non-alternating link . − (2, 2) (9321 ) has the unlinking number
one. From it, by recursively adding in each step one component (a circle-
component concentric with a preceding one), we obtain a series of non-
alternating links with unlinking number 1. All of them are V −1 links and
can be unlinked by a single crossing change in the same vertex.
Corollary 1.4. For any c there is an infinite number of non-alternating

c-component links with unlinking number 1.
An infinite collection of such links can be obtained from already con-

structed V −1 -unlinks from Theorem 1.54 by t−1 -substitutions.
For alternating KLs we propose the following conjecture:
Conjecture 1.14. Every alternating link L with c components has un-

linking number u(L) ≥ c − 1 (c ≥ 2).
1.13 Braids
K.F. Gauss was the first to notice that braids can be used to describe
knotting phenomena18 . J.W.H. Alexander in 1923 discovered a remarkable
connection between KLs and closed braids.
18 A drawing of a braid from Gauss notebooks, with strand permutation at each height,
dates between 1814 and 1830 (Przytycki, 2004).

158 LinKnot
A braid is, as a mathematical object, a formal description of what is

meant by braid in everyday language– several strings tangled in a certain
way.
Definition 1.72. An n-strand braid consists of n disjoint arcs running
vertically in ℜ3 space, where the starting points lie on the same horizontal
line (Fig. 1.88). The set of starting points for the arcs must lie exactly
above the set of end-points.
Fig. 1.88 (a) Braid giving as the closure trefoil knot 3; (b) braid giving as the closure
Hopf link 2.
In a similar way as with KLs, the strands of a braid can be rearranged

(without detaching the top and the bottom, and of course without tearing
or reattaching them) to get a braid that looks different, but is isotopic (or
equivalent) to the original braid.
Definition 1.73. Two braids are isotopic iff there is a smooth deformation
with fixed points from the first one to the second one.
As in the case of KLs, the piecewise-linear category and smooth cate-
gory give the same result, but further in the sequel we will use piecewise-
linear drawings. As with KLs, we do not distinguish between isotopic
braids, thinking of them as representations of the same object.
Definition 1.74. A braid is an equivalence class of braids with regard to

braid isotopy.
Braid theory was introduced by E. Artin in 1920s. This theory con-
nects different fields of mathematics: topology, geometry, algebra (group
theory), and algorithmic methods. We obtain the closure of a braid by
joining the upper ends of the strands by arcs to the lower ends (Fig. 1.88).
J.W.H. Alexander proved the theorem:
Theorem 1.55. Every KL can be represented as a closed braid (Alexander,

1923).
Definition 1.75. A product of two braids consists of placing two n-strand

braids end to end, and joining the upper part of the second braid to the
lower part of the first (Fig. 1.89a).
Fig. 1.89 (a) Product of two braids; (b) braid b1 and its inverse b−1
1 .
The product b1 × b2 of any two n-strand braids b1 and b2 is a new

n-strand braid (closedness), any three n-strand braids satisfy the relation
(b1 × b2 ) × b3 = b1 × (b2 × b3 ) (associativity), for every n there is an n-
160 LinKnot
strand unit braid e such that for any braid b with the same number of
strands eb = be = b (the existence of a neutral element), and for each n-
strand braid b there exists an inverse n-strand braid b−1 whose product
with b gives the trivial (unit) n-strand braid e. Let us notice that the braid
diagrams of a braid b and its inverse braid b−1 are mirror-symmetric in a
mirror line containing the joint end of their product b × b−1 (Fig. 1.89b).
Hence, the following theorem holds:
Theorem 1.56. All n-strand braids make a group called a braid group and
denoted by (Bn ,×).
The group (Bn , ×) is not commutative: the product of two braids gen-
erally depends on the order of the factors.
A braid with a single crossing is called an elementary braid. Pictures
representing braids can be algebraically encoded. Moving along a braid
from top to bottom in successive levels, we see that the braid can be rep-
resented as the successive product of elementary braids. If in an n-strand
braid we denote the crossings of the strands si and si+1 , when si over-
crosses si+1 by bi , and by b−1
i when si+1 overcrosses si (i = 1, . . . , n − 1),
we obtain algebraic codes for braids– braid words. Expressed in terms of
braid words, the equivalence relation– isotopy of braids is described by the
following relations:
(1) commutativity for distant braids

bi bj = bj bi for |i − j| ≥ 2, i, j = 1, . . . , n − 1, (1.1),
and
(2) Artin’s relation (or the braid relation)
bi bi+1 bi = bi+1 bi bi+1 , i = 1, . . . , n − 2 (1.2).
Together with trivial relations bi b−1 i = b−1

i bi = e, the relations (1.1)
and (1.2) are sufficient for replacing geometric manipulations related to
isotopy by algebraic calculations. Thus, two braids are isotopic iff the word
representing one of them can be transformed into the word representing the
other by a finite series of replacements satisfying the relations (1.1), (1.2).
In order to simplify the notation, we will use A, B, C, . . . instead of b1 , b2 ,
b3 ,. . ., and a, b, c, . . . instead of b−1 −1 −1 p
1 , b2 , b3 ,. . ., and a stands for a . . . a,
where a letter a occurs p times. For example, ABCd2 C = b1 b2 b3 b−1 −1
4 b4 b3 .
In this way, we use words to denote braids and describe isotopies as word
equivalences.
1.13.1 KLs and braids

In order to use braids in knot theory we need to know more than which
words represent equivalent braids: we need to determine when the closures
of two braids represent the same oriented KL, and how to express KL
isotopies via relations between closed braid words. Two braids are called
Markov equivalent if their closures yield the same oriented KL. Analogously
to Reidemeister moves, we need to consider Markov moves– a set of moves
on braids that give all equivalents of any given closed braid. In a paper
published in 1935, A.A. Markov formulated the theorem, now known as the
Markov’s Theorem (Theorem 1.57). This theorem describes Markov moves
and proves their necessity and sufficiency. In addition to relations between
open braids, we need two more operations for closed braids.
The first of them is called conjugation (Fig 1.84d). It is a multiplica-
tion of a braid word w by b and b−1 , on one and the other side, resulting
in the word bwb−1 or b−1 wb. This operation corresponds to the second
Reidemeister move.
Because none of the operations introduced till now change the number
of strings in a braid, we need the operation called stabilization (Fig. 1.90e),
which enables adding and deleting loops in closed braids. This operation
takes a word w describing an n-strand braid and replaces it with the word
wbn or wb−1n , each of them corresponding to an (n+1)-strand braid. In this
case, the resulting word wbn or wb−1 n corresponds to a braid with one more
strand. We also use the inverse operation, where a word of the form wbn or
wb−1
n is replaced with the single word w, assuming that w does not contain
the letters bn or b−1
n . In this case, the number of strands is decreased by 1.
Two additional Markov moves are visible on a closure of a braid. A

conjugation is a trivial move on a closure of a braid, since closing the braid
bwb−1 or b−1 wb allows b−1 to cancel the effect of b or vice versa. Loops that
appear as the result of closing a braid can be removed using stabilization.
Theorem 1.57. (Markov’s Theorem) The five operations described are suf-
ficient to obtain from one closed braid representation of an oriented KL any
other closed braid representation of the same oriented KL (Birman, 1976).
It is interesting that Markov’s Theorem was not proved by A.A. Markov

(1935), but by J. Birman in 1976.
With Markov moves we have the same problem as with Reidemeister
162 LinKnot
Fig. 1.90 (a) Commutativity of distant braids; (b) Artin’s relation; (c) trivial identity;
(d) conjugation; (e) stabilization; (f) a sequence of Markov moves to get from one closed
braid representation of figure-eight knot the other.
moves. Although they are sufficient for transforming a closed braid to

any of its equivalents, there is no algorithm for finding the corresponding
sequences of Markov moves (Fig. 1.90f). In the language of Markov moves
and braid words, the transformations shown in Fig. 1.90f are BaBac =
BaBa =aBaBaA =aBaB.
A knot or link L can be formed from an infinite number of braids.
Definition 1.76. Within the set of braids from which L is formed there
exist braids that have the least number of strands. Any such braid is called
the minimal braid presentation of L (or simply minimal braid), and its
number of strings is called the braid index of L.
The minimal braid is not unique since many minimal braids representing
a given link L have the same number of strands.
A braid representation corresponding to a given KL can be found us-
ing Vogel’s algorithm (1990). Probably the best explanation of Vogel’s
algorithm, using the geopolitical language from the 1990s that may remain
current till our own days, is given by A. Sossinsky (2002), so we paraphrase
his description. Let us consider a planar map determined by a projection
of a knot or link L. A country in this map is said to be in turmoil if it has
two edges that belong to two different circles labelled with arrows going
in the same direction (Fig. 1.91). In the case of the knot 3 2, only the
region T is in turmoil. An operation called perestroika can be applied to
any country in turmoil. It consists in replacing two faulty edges by two
“tongues”, one of which passes over the other, forming two new crossings.
The aim is to create a new bigonal country (not in turmoil) and several new
countries, some of which (in our example two of them) may be swallowed
up by neighbouring countries. If some non-nested Seifert circles remain,
we apply the change-of-infinity operation. Vogel’s algorithm is repeated as
long as there are regions in turmoil or some non-nested Seifert circles.
Vogel’s algorithm applied to knot 3 2 is illustrated in Fig. 1.91. It can
be used to unroll a KL and obtain its braid representation (Fig. 1.92).
The Knot 2000 (K2K) function GetBraidRep is the implementation
of Vogel’s algorithm. From an input, P -data of a KL, using Reidemeister’s
moves Ω2 it transforms the diagram until obtaining braid representation.
As an external program this function also uses the program Braid-9.0 writ-
ten by A. Bartholomew. In most cases, you can get a shorter braid word
if you first reduce input KL, given by P -data, using the function Reducti
onKnotLink, and then apply the function GetBraidRep. To get the
graphical output– braid diagram for the braid word, one can use the func-
tion ShowBraid. The inverse function KnotFromBraid produces P -data
from an arbitrary braid word.
In order to work with braids using Conway symbols of KLs as an in-
put, first you need to convert the input using the LinKnot function fCre
atePData. After that you can make experiments with KLs and look for
164 LinKnot
Fig. 1.91 Vogel’s algorithm applied on the knot 3 2.
Fig. 1.92 Braid diagram obtained using Vogel’s algorithm.
dependency relations between Conway symbols and braid words. For ex-
ample, every KL of the family p (p = 2, 3, . . .) has a braid word Ap , every
KL of the family p 1 2 (p = 2, 3, . . .) has a braid word Ap bAb, to every
KL of the family p 1 1 q corresponds a braid word Ap bAbq , etc. General
formulas of this kind can be obtained not just for rational KLs, but for all
kinds of KL families.
Braid words can be used for calculating different KL invariants. The
LinKnot function fSeifert calculates the Seifert matrix of a KL given by its
Conway symbol, Dowker code, or P -data. The function fSignat calculates
the signature of a KL given by its Conway symbol, Dowker code, or P -data.

These functions are based on the functions ssmW and SeifertMatrix,
written by S. Orevkov.
1.14 Braid family representatives
T. Gittings (2004) defined, described and generated minimum braids for

knots up to ten crossings and oriented links up to nine crossings. Later he
used them for studying graph trees, amphicheirality, unknotting numbers
and periodic tables of KLs.
According to Alexander’s Theorem (Theorem 1.55), any oriented KL
can be represented as a closed braid. Braid representation is not unique:
every KL has an infinite number of braid representations. Accepting as the
first criterion the minimal number of strands, i.e., the smallest braid index
we obtain minimal braids. For a chosen (minimal) number of strands, the
minimal braid will still be not unique.
T. Gittings (2004, Definition 1) gave the following four restrictions which
insure the uniqueness of minimal braid words:
Definition 1.77. Among the set of braids for any KL, the minimum braid
is the one that has the following properties:
(1) minimum number of braid crossings;

(2) minimum number of braid strands;
(3) minimum braid universe;
(4) minimum binary code for alternating braid crossings.
These criteria are listed in descending order of importance for determin-

ing minimum braids.
A braid universe is an ordered sequence of integers, where the element
i represents an unsigned crossing of the ith and (i + 1)th braid strands. A
braid universe becomes a braid word when to each crossing is assigned a
sign +1 or −1 in the same manner as was done before with KLs. In a
braid word a positive (negative) crossing of the ith and (i + 1)th strands is
represented by ith capital (lower case) letter. A braid is alternating if even
numbered generators have the opposite sign of odd numbered generators.
Therefore, crossings in alternating braids have capitals for the odd letters,
and lower cases for the even letters. The same convention can be applied
to non-alternating braids: a crossing is called alternating if it is capital for
166 LinKnot
an odd letter and lower case for an even letter. A binary code for any
braid can be generated by assigning 0 for an alternating crossing and 1 for
a non-alternating crossing. With the four criteria that define a minimum
braid, there is always a unique minimum for any set of braids (Kawauchi
and Tayama, 2004, 2006; Gittings, 2004).
We will present another approach: after defining braid family repre-
sentatives (BF Rs) we will establish a correspondence between BF Rs and
families of KLs given in the Conway notation. For better understanding of
this correspondence, together with the standard Conway notation, a braid-
modified Conway notation will be introduced and used. First we define a
reduced braid word, describe a general form for all reduced braid words with
s = 2 strands, generate all families of two-strand braid words, and establish
a correspondence between them and families of KLs given in the Conway
notation. Then we consider the same problem for s ≥ 3. Some applications
of minimum braids (Gittings, 2004) and braid family representatives will
be discussed in Subsection 1.14.1. All computations are made using the
program LinKnot.
We use the standard definition of a braid and description of minimum
braids given by T. Gittings (2004). Instead of a . . . a, where a capital or
lower case letter a appears p times, we write ap ; p is the degree of a (p ∈ N ).
It is also possible to work with negative powers, satisfying the relations:
A−p = ap , a−p = Ap . A number of strands is denoted by s, and a length
of a braid word by l.
Definition 1.78. The operation a2 → a applied on any capital or lower

case letter a is called idempotency.
Idempotency can be repeatedly applied to any braid word until a re-

duced braid word is obtained.
Definition 1.79. A reduced braid word is a braid word with degree of every
capital or lower case letter equal to 1.
By an inverse procedure, braid word extension, from every reduced braid

word we obtain all braid words which can be derived from it by assigning
a degree greater or equal to 1 to each letter. In this case, a reduced braid
word plays the role of a generating braid word.
Definition 1.80. A braid word with one or more parameters denoting

degrees greater then one represents a family of braid words. If values of all
parameters are equal to 2, it is called a source braid.
For the minimality of reduced braids we are using the following criteria:

(2) minimum number of braid strands;
(3) minimum binary code for alternating braid crossings.
According to the first and second criterion minimal reduced braids are
the shortest reduced braids with the smallest possible number of different
letters among all equivalent reduced braids representing certain KL. A
binary code for braid crossings can be generated by assigning a zero for
an alternating, and one for a non-alternating crossing. Hence, priority will
be given to alternating braids, and then to braids which are closest to
alternating. Analogous minimality criteria can be applied to source braids.
Definition 1.81. Among the set of all braid families representing the same
KL family, the braid family representative (BF R) is the one that has the
following properties:

(2) minimum reduced braid;
(3) minimum source braid.
These criteria are listed in descending order of importance for determin-

ing BF Rs.
Notice that some members of BF Rs will not be minimum braids, defined
by T. Gittings (2004). For example, the minimum braid of the link .2 1 : 2
(9311 in Rolfsen (1976)) is 9:03-05a AAbACbACb (Gittings, 2004, Table
2). According to the second BF R criterion it will be derived from the
generating minimum braid AbAbACbC corresponding to the link .2 1 (8213 ),
but not from the non-minimum generating braid AbACbACb corresponding
to the same link. Hence, to the three-component link .2 1 : 2 (9311 ) obtained
as the first member of BF R AbAp bACbC for p = 2 corresponds the braid
AbAAbACbC, which is not minimum braid according to the minimum braid
criteria (Gittings, 2004).
The third criterion: minimum source braid, enables us to obtain KLs
of a certain family from a single BF R, and not from several different
BF Rs. For example, applying this criterion, KLs .3.2.2 0, .2.3.2 0 and
.2.2.3 0 belonging to the same KL family .r.p.q 0 will be obtained from the
168 LinKnot
single BF R Ap bAq bAbr . Otherwise, using the minimum braid criteria (Git-
tings, 2004), the knot .3.2.2 0 will be obtained from the family Ap bAbq Abr ,
three-component link .2.3.2 0 will be obtained from Ap bAq bAbr , and the
knot .2.2.3 0 will be obtained from Ap bAq br Ab for p = 3, q = 2, r = 2.
Source braids corresponding to the families Ap bAbq Abr , Ap bAq bAbr and
Ap bAq br Ab are A2 bAb2 Ab2 , A2 bA2 bAb2 and A2 bA2 b2 Ab, respectively, and
the second source braid is minimal. Hence, the representative of the KL
family .r.p.q 0 is BF R Ap bAq bAbr .
According to this, single family of KLs given in the Conway notation
can be associated to every BF R and vice versa.
Notice that families of KLs obtained from BF Rs can overlap on a
finite number of KLs at their beginnings. For example, distinct BF Rs
AbAp bACbC and Ap bCbAbCb, giving KL families .2 1 : p and .p 1 : 2, re-
spectively, for p = 2 will have in common three-component link .2 1 : 2
(9311 ) mentioned above. According to the second BF R criterion, it will
be derived from the minimum generating braid AbAbACbC, and not from
AbACbACb. Hence, BF R AbAp bACbC giving KLs of the form .2 1 : p
starts for p = 2, and Ap bCbAbCb giving KLs of the form for .p 1 : 2 starts
for p = 3. In this way, all ambiguities can be avoided.
Every KL is algebraic if its basic polyhedron is 1∗ or polyhedral oth-
erwise. According to this criterion, all KLs are divided into two main
categories: algebraic and polyhedral. Since the correspondence between
members of a BF R and KLs is one-to-one, we can introduce the following
definition:
Definition 1.82. An alternating BF R is polyhedral iff its corresponding

KLs are polyhedral. Otherwise, it is algebraic. A non-alternating BF R is
polyhedral iff its corresponding alternating BF R is polyhedral. Otherwise,
it will be called algebraic.
Division of non-alternating BF Rs into algebraic and polyhedral does

not coincide with the division of the corresponding KLs (Conway, 1970;
Caudron, 1982; Adams, 1994), because minimum number of braid cross-
ings is used as the first criterion for the BF Rs. Accepting minimum reduced
braid universe (Gittings, 2004) as the first criterion, all KLs derived from
the basic polyhedron .1 will be algebraic, because they can be represented
by non-alternating minimal (but not minimum) algebraic braids. For exam-
ple, alternating knot .2.2 0 (816 ) with the polyhedral braid A2 bA2 bAb can
be represented as the algebraic knot (−3, 2) (3, −2) with the correspond-
ing algebraic braid A3 b2 a2 B 3 . In this case, to the knot 816 corresponds

algebraic braid A3 b2 a2 B 3 that reduces to AbaB, and not A2 bA2 bAb that
reduces to AbAbAb.
Another way to solve the discrepancy is changing the definition of alge-
braic KLs:
Definition 1.83. KL is algebraic if it has an algebraic minimum crossing

number representation.
In this case, all KLs derived from the basic polyhedron .1 (with the
Conway symbols beginning with a dot) will be polyhedral KLs, because
their minimum crossing number representations are polyhedral.
We will consider only BF Rs corresponding to prime KLs.
Every 1-strand BF R is of the form Ap , with the corresponding KL
family p in the Conway notation.
Theorem 1.58. Every reduced BF R with s = 2 is of the form (Ab)n ,

n ≥ 2.
This BF R corresponds to the knot 2 2 and the family of basic polyhedra

.1 = 6∗ , 8∗ , 10∗ , 12∗ (or 12A according to A. Caudron (1982)), etc. For
n ≥ 3 all of them are n-antiprisms. Let us notice that the first member of
this family, the knot 2 2, is not an exception: it is an antiprism with two
bigonal bases.
Theorem 1.59. All algebraic alternating KLs with s = 2 are the members
of the following families:
• p 1 2 with the BF R Ap bAb (p ≥ 1);

• p 1 1 q with the BF R Ap bAbq (p ≥ q ≥ 2);
• p, q, 2 with the BF R Ap bAq b (p ≥ q ≥ 2);
• p, q, r 1 with the BF R Ap bAq br (r ≥ 2, p ≥ q ≥ 2);
• (p, r) (q, s) with the BF R Ap bq Ar bs
(p, q, r, s ≥ 2, p ≥ r, p ≥ s, s ≥ q and if p = s, then r ≥ q).
Minimum braids include one additional braid (Ap bq Abr ) in the case of
algebraic alternating KLs with s = 2.
170 LinKnot
Alternating polyhedral KLs corresponding to BF Rs with s = 2 are

given in the following table. KLs in this table are given in the Conway
notation according to Rolfsen’s book (1976) (for knots with n ≤ 10 and
links with n ≤ 9 crossings). This table can be extended to an infinite list of
antiprismatic basic polyhedra (2n)∗ described by the BF Rs (Ab)n , n ≥ 3
and BF Rs with s = 2 obtained as their extensions.
Table 1
Basic polyhedron .1 = 6∗
Ap bAbAb .p (1) Ap bAbAq br r : p0 : q0 (7)
Ap bAbAbq .p.q (2) Ap bAbq Ar bs p.s.r.q (8)
Ap bAq bAb .p.q 0 (3) Ap bAq bAr bs q 0.p.r 0.s 0 (9)
Ap bAbq Ab .p : q 0 (4) Ap bAq br Abs .p.s.r 0.q 0 (10)
Ap bAq bAbr .r.p.q 0 (5) Ap bAq br As bt p.t.s.r.q (11)
Ap bAq bAr b p:q:r (6) Ap bq Ar bs At bu p.q.r.s.t.u (12)
If we apply minimum braid criteria (Gittings, 2004), there are ten

additional braids corresponding to the basic polyhedron .1 = 6∗ : (1’)
Ap bAbq Abr , (2’) Ap bAq br Ab, (3’) Ap bq AbAbr , (4’) Ap bAq br As b, (5’)
Ap bq AbAr bs , (6’) Ap bq Abr Abs , (7’) Ap bq Ar bAbs , (8’) Ap bq Abr As bt , (9’)
Ap bq Ar bAs bt , (10’) Ap bq Ar bs Abt . Applying BF R criteria, according to
the minimum source braid criterion all KLs obtained from the braids (1’)
and (2’) will be obtained from BF R (5), KLs obtained from (3’) will be
obtained from (7), KLs obtained from (4’) and (6’) will be obtained from
(9), KLs obtained from (5’) and (7’) will be obtained from (8), and KLs
obtained from (8’), (9’) and (10’) will be obtained from (11). Using mini-
mum braid criteria (Gittings, 2004), we need to make analogous additions
to all classes of BF Rs considered.
For the basic polyhedron 8∗ we have:
Basic polyhedron 8∗
Ap bAbAbAb 8∗ p Ap bAq bAbr Abs 8∗ p : q : .r : s
Ap bAbAbAbq 8∗ p.q Ap bAbq Ar bAbs 8∗ p.s : .r.q
Ap bAq bAbAb 8∗ p : q Ap bAq bAr bAs b 8∗ p : s : r : q
Ap bAbAbq Ab 8∗ p : .q Ap bAbAq br As bt 8∗ p.t.s.r.q
Ap bAbAq bAb 8∗ p :: q Ap bAq bAbr As bt 8∗ p.t.s.r : .q
Ap bAq bAbAbr 8∗ p.r :: .q Ap bAq br As bAbt 8∗ p : q.r.s : .t
Ap bAbAq bAbr 8∗ p.r : .q Ap bAq bAr bAs bt 8∗ p.t.s : r : q

Ap bAq bAr bAb 8∗ p : q : r Ap bAq bAr bs Abt 8∗ p.t : s.r : q
Ap bAq bAbr Ab 8∗ p : .r : .q Ap bAbq Ar bs At bu 8∗ p.u.t.s.r.q
Ap bAbAbAq br 8∗ p.r.q Ap bAq bAr bs At bu 8∗ p.u.t.s.r : q
Ap bAbAbq Ar bs 8∗ p.s.r.q Ap bAq br As bAt bu 8∗ p.u.t : s.r.q
Ap bAq bAbAr bs 8∗ p.s.r :: q Ap bAq br As bt Abu 8∗ p : q.r.s.t : u
Ap bAbq Ar bs Ab 8∗ p : .s.r.q Ap bAq br As bt Au bv 8∗ p.v.u.t.s.r.q
Ap bAq br AbAbs 8∗ p.s :: r.q Ap bq Ar bs At bu Av bw 8∗ p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w
Ap bAq bAr bAbs 8∗ p.s : .r : q
Recall that the correspondence between Conway symbols and KLs is

not one-to-one. For example, the same polyhedral knot .p can be given by
: p, : .p, . . ., or even as 6∗ p, 6∗ .p, 6∗ : .p, etc. Therefore, we usually order
them according to the notation introduced in the original Conway’s paper
(1970) and in the papers or books following it (Adams, 1994; Caudron,
1982; Rolfsen, 1976).
In order to obtain better understanding of the correspondence between
BF Rs and Conway symbols of KLs, we introduce the modified Conway
notation, more suitable for denoting KLs obtained from BF Rs. In this
notation the same degree p occurs at the first position of a braid, and as the
first element (chain if bigons) in the Conway symbol of a KL corresponding
to it. Whenever possible, the order of other degrees will be preserved in the
corresponding Conway symbol as well. In this notation we can recognize a
simple pattern for BF Rs derived from the generating minimum braids of
the form (Ab)n : substituting in a given braid every sequence of length k,
containing single letters, by k + 1 dots, we obtain its Conway symbol. In
order to recognize this pattern for KLs derived from basic polyhedra, we
use only one basic polyhedron 6∗ with n = 6 crossings, and not two of them
(.1 and 6∗ ). In this case, Table 1 will look as follows:
Ap bAbAb 6∗ p Ap bAbAq br 6∗ p :: q.r

Ap bAbAbq 6∗ p :: .q Ap bAbq Ar bs 6∗ p : .q.r.s
Ap bAq bAb 6∗ p : q Ap bAq bAr bs 6∗ p : q : r.s
Ap bAbq Ab 6∗ p : .q Ap bAq br Abs 6∗ p : q.r : s
Ap bAq bAbr 6∗ p : q : .r Ap bAq br As bt 6∗ p : q.r.s.t
Ap bAq bAr b 6∗ p : q : r Ap bq Ar bs At bu 6∗ p.q.r.s.t.u
and for the basic polyhedron 8∗ we have:

172 LinKnot
Ap bAbAbAb 8∗ p Ap bAq bAbr Abs 8∗ p : q : .r : s

Ap bAbAbAbq 8∗ p ::: .q Ap bAbq Ar bAbs 8∗ p : .q.r : .s
Ap bAq bAbAb 8∗ p : q Ap bAq bAr bAs b 8∗ p : q : r : s
Ap bAbAbq Ab 8∗ p :: .q Ap bAbAq br As bt 8∗ p :: q.r.s.t
Ap bAbAq bAb 8∗ p :: q Ap bAq bAbr As bt 8∗ p : q : .r.s.t
Ap bAq bAbAbr 8∗ p : q :: .r Ap bAq br As bAbt 8∗ p : q.r.s : .t
Ap bAbAq bAbr 8∗ p :: q : .r Ap bAq bAr bAs bt 8∗ p : q : r : s.t
Ap bAq bAr bAb 8∗ p : q : r Ap bAq bAr bs Abt 8∗ p : q : r.s : t
Ap bAq bAbr Ab 8∗ p : q : .r Ap bAbq Ar bs At bu 8∗ p : .q.r.s.t.u
Ap bAbAbAq br 8∗ p ::: q.r Ap bAq bAr bs At bu 8∗ p : q : r.s.t.u
Ap bAbAbq Ar bs 8∗ p :: .q.r.s Ap bAq br As bAt bu 8∗ p : q.r.s : t.u
Ap bAq bAbAr bs 8∗ p : q :: r.s Ap bAq br As bt Abu 8∗ p : q.r.s.t : u
Ap bAbq Ar bs Ab 8∗ p : .q.r.s Ap bAq br As bt Au bv 8∗ p : q.r.s.t.u.v
Ap bAq br AbAbs 8∗ p : q.r :: s Ap bq Ar bs At bu Av bw 8∗ p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w
Ap bAq bAr bAbs 8∗ p : q : r : .s
Unfortunately, it is not possible to express every family of KLs in the

braid-modified Conway notation.
In the same way, it is possible to derive BF Rs from basic polyhedra
with a higher number of crossings.
Corollary 1.5. All alternating KLs with s = 2 are described by Theorem

1.59 and by an infinite extension of tables for antiprismatic basic polyhedra
(2n)∗ described by the BF Rs (Ab)n , n ≥ 3.
From alternating BF Rs we obtain non-alternating BF Rs by crossing

changes. In this way, from BF Rs derived from the generating minimum
braid (Ab)2 we obtain the following families of non-alternating BF Rs and
corresponding new KL families:
Ap BaB (p − 1) 3 Ap baq br p, (q − 1) 1, −(r + 1)

Ap baq b p, (q − 1) 1, −2 Ap BAq B r p, q, −r 1
Ap BAq B p, q, −2 Ap B q ar B s (−p, r) (q, s)
Ap BaB q (p − 1) 2 q Ap B q Ar B s (p, r) − (q, s)
Ap B q aB r p − 1, q, r+
In the same way, we can derive non-alternating BF Rs with s = 2 from

the generating BF R (Ab)n , n ≥ 3.
The first step towards derivation of BF Rs and corresponding KLs for

s ≥ 3 is the derivation of all different reduced minimum braid words. Here
are the general construction rules for generating minimum braid words:
Definition 1.84. For a given generating minimum braid word W = wL

which ends with a capital or lower case letter L, a replacement of L by a
word w1 in W is called extending by replacement. An addition of the word
w1 to W is extending by addition. The both operations are called extending
operations.
Definition 1.85. Let W = wLs and w1 = Ls+1 Ls Ls+1 be generating

minimum braids with s and s + 1 strings, where Ls denotes sth letter and
Ls+1 denotes (s + 1)th letter. The word extending operations obtained in
this way are, respectively, (s + 1)-extending by replacement, and (s + 1)-
extending by addition.
For example, the first operation applied on AbAb gives AbACbC, and
the other AbAbCbC.
The (s + 1)-extending by replacement is sufficient for constructing gen-
erating minimum braids for a given s, with l = 2s, corresponding to KLs of
the form 2 . . . 2 = 2s , where 2 occurs s times. For 2 ≤ s ≤ 6 as the result we
obtain: AbAb, AbACbC, AbACbdCd, AbACbdCEdE, AbACbdCEdf Ef ,
...
The generating minimum braids for given s, with l = 3s − 2, cor-
responding to KLs of the form 2 1 . . . 1 2 = 2 13s−6 2, where 1 occurs
3s − 6 times, can be obtained using only (s + 1)-extension by addition.
For 3 ≤ s ≤ 6 we obtain: AbAbCbC, AbAbCbCdCd, AbAbCbCdCdEdE,
AbAbCbCdCdEdEf Ef , . . .
In a similar way, from A3 we obtain the series A3 BaB, A3 BaBCbC,
A BaBCbCDcD, A3 BaBCbCDcDEdE . . ., corresponding to the knots
3
3 2, 5 2, 7 2, 9 2, . . .
Starting with w1 = AbAbCbdCd and using the (s + 1)-extension by
replacement, the generating minimum braids with l = 2s+1, corresponding
to KLs of the form 2 2 1 . . . 1 2 = 22 12s−5 2 are obtained for given s.
However, for exhaustive derivation of reduced minimum braids we use
all combinations of (s + 1)-extending operations.
Theorem 1.60. Every generating algebraic minimum braid can be derived

from AbAb by a recursive application of (s + 1)-extending operations.
174 LinKnot
The minimal generating braid words for s ≤ 5 with their corresponding

KLs are given in the following table:
s=1 l=1 A 1
s=2 l=4 AbAb 22
s=3 l=6 AbACbC 222

s=3 l=7 AbAbCbC 21112
s = 4 l = 8 AbACbdCd 2222
s = 4 l = 9 AbAbCbdCd 221112
s = 4 l = 10 AbAbCbCdCd 21111112
s=5 l = 10 AbACbdCEdE 22222

s=5 l = 11 AbAbCbdCdEdE 2221112
s=5 l = 11 AbACbCdCEdE 2211122
s=5 l = 12 AbAbCbCdCEdE 221111112
s=5 l = 12 AbAbCbdCdEdE 211121112
s=5 l = 13 AbAbCbCdCdEdE 21111111112
Generalizations can be made in the case of polyhedral generating mini-
mum braid words as well. We have already considered the infinite class of
generating polyhedral minimum braid words (Ab)n with s = 2. The first
infinite class with s = 3 will be (Ab)n−1 ACbC, with the corresponding KLs
of the form (2n)∗ 2 1 0.
For s = 3 there are two generating alternating algebraic minimum braid
words:
• AbACbC, l = 6, with the corresponding link 2 2 2;

• AbAbCbC, l = 7, with the corresponding knot 2 1 1 1 2,
which generate prime KLs.

From AbACbC we derived 17 alternating BF Rs and their corresponding
families of KLs, given in the following table:
Ap bACbC p122 Ap bAq Cbr C (p, q) (r, 2+)
AbACbp C p, 2, 2+ Ap bq Ar Cbs C (p, r) (q, 2, s)
Ap bACbq C p 1, q, 2+ Ap bq ACbr C s p 1, q, s 1, r
Ap bAq CbC p, q, 2 2 Ap bAq Cbr C s (p, q) (r, s 1+)
Ap bACbC q p121q Ap bAq C r bC s (p, q) 2 (r, s)
Abp ACbq C p, 2, q, 2 Ap bq Ar Cbs C t (p, r) (q, t 1, s)

Ap bq ACbr C p 1, q, r, 2 Ap bAq C r bs C t (p, q), s, (t, r)+
Ap bACbq C r p 1, q, r 1+ Ap bq Ar C s bt C u (p, r), q, (u, s), t
Ap bAq CbC r p, q, r 1 2
The next generating alternating algebraic minimum braid AbAbCbC of
the length 7, with s = 3, gives the following results:
Ap bAbCbC p11112 Ap bq AbCbr C s (p 1, q) 1 (s 1, r)
AbAbCbp C p, 2 1 1, 2 Ap bAq br Cbs C (p, q) 1 r (2, s)
AbAbp CbC 21p12 Ap bAq br CbC s p, q, s 1 1 r 1
Ap bq AbCbC p 1, q, 2 1 1 Ap bAq bC r bC s (p, q) 1 1 1 (r, s)
Ap bAq bCbC p, q, 2 1 1 1 Ap bAq bCbr C s (p, q) 1 1 (r, s 1)
Ap bAbq CbC p11q12 Ap bAbq Cbr C s p 1 1 q, r, s 1
Ap bAbCbC q p11111q Ap bAbC q br C s (p 1 1 1, r) (q, s)
AbAbp Cbq C 2 1 p, q, 2 Ap bq Ar bCbs C (p, r), q, (2, s) 1
Abp AbCbq C (p, 2) 1 (q, 2) Ap bq Abr Cbs C (p 1, q) r (2, s)
Ap bq Ar bCbC (p, r) (q, 2 1 1) Ap bq Ar bCbs C t (p, r), q, (t 1, s) 1
Ap bq Abr CbC p 1, q, 2 1 r Ap bq Abr Cbs C t (p 1, q) r (t 1, s)
Ap bq AbCbr C (p 1, q) 1 (r, 2) Ap bAq br C s bC t (p, q) 1 r 1 (s, t)
Ap bAq bCbr C (p, q) 1 1 (2, r) Ap bAq br Cbs C t (p, q) 1 r (s, t 1)
Ap bAq br CbC p, q, 2 1 r 1 Ap bAq bC r bs C t (p, q) 1 1, (t, r), s
Ap bAq bCbC r p, q, r 1 1 1 1 Ap bAbq C r bs C t (p 1 1 q, s) (r, t)
Ap bAbq Cbr C p 1 1 q, r, 2 Ap bq Ar bs Cbt C (p, r), q, (t, 2) s
Ap bAbq CbC r p11q11r Ap bq Ar bs Cbt C u ((p, r), q) s (u 1, t)
Ap bAbCbq C r p 1 1 1, q, r 1 Ap bq Ar bC s bt C u ((p, r), q) 1 ((u, s), t)
Abp Abq Cbr C (p, 2) q (r, 2) Ap bAq br C s bt C u (p, q) 1 r ((u, s), t)
Ap bq Ar bs CbC (p, r) (q, 2 1 s) Ap bq Ar bs C t bu C v ((p, r), q) s ((u, t), v)
Except AbACbC and AbAbCbC, all generating minimum braids with

s = 3 are polyhedral.
For s = 3 and l ≤ 12, the polyhedral generating braids and their cor-
responding KLs are given in the following table, in the notation for basic
polyhedra with 12 crossings according to A. Caudron (1982):
l=8 AbAbACbC .2 1 l = 11 AbAbAbAbCbC 8∗ 2 1 1

l=8 AbCbAbCb .2 : 2 l = 11 AbAbAbCbCbC 11∗∗∗
l = 11 AbAbACbAbCb 10∗∗ .2 0
l=9 AbAbCbAbC 8∗ 2 0 l = 11 AbAbACbACbC 11∗∗
l=9 AbAbAbCbC .2 1 1 l = 11 AbAbCbACbCb 11∗
l=9 AbACbACbC 9∗
176 LinKnot
l = 10 AbAbAbCbCb .2 1 2 l = 12 AbAbAbAbACbC 10∗ 2 1 0

l = 10 AbAbAbACbC 8∗ 2 1 0 l = 12 AbAbAbACbCbC 12I
l = 10 AbAbACbAbC 9∗ .2 l = 12 AbAbAbCbACbC 12F
l = 10 AbAbCbAbCb 9∗ 2 l = 12 AbAbACbAbCbC 12H
l = 10 AbAbACbCbC 10∗∗∗ l = 12 AbAbCbAbACbC 12G
l = 10 AbAbCbACbC 10∗∗ l = 12 AbAbCbAbCbCb 12D
l = 12 AbCbAbCbAbCb 12C
Generating braid words listed above are used for deriving BF Rs with
no repetitions. For example, for l = 8, the generating minimum braid
AbAbACbC (.2 1) gives 70 BF Rs, and AbCbAbCb (.2 : 2) gives 19 BF Rs.
Overlapping of those families occurs only if all parameters are equal to 2,
i.e., for source braids and source KLs corresponding to them. According to
the minimality criteria, all these source braids belong to the first BF R. The
generating minimum braid AbAbACbC (.2 1) gives the following BF Rs:
Ap bAbACbC .2 1.p 0 AbAp bAC q bC r .p : (q, r)1
AbAp bACbC .2 1 : p AbAp bq ACbr C .p.q.(2, r)
AbAbACbp C .(p, 2) AbAp bq ACbC r .r 1 1.q.p
AbAbACbC p .p 1 1 AbAbp ACbq C r .p.(r 1, q)
AbAbp ACbC .2 1.p AbAbp AC q bC r .p.(r, q) 1
Ap bAq bACbC .2 1.p 0.q Abp Aq br ACbC 2 1.p.r 0.q 0
Ap bAbAq CbC 210 : p0 : q0 Abp Abq ACbr C p : q : (2, r) 0
Ap bAbACbq C .(2, q).p 0 Abp Abq ACbC r q : p : r110
Ap bAbACbC q .q 1 1.p 0 Ap bAq bAr Cbs C (2, s).p 0.r.q 0
Ap bAbq ACbC .q.2 1.p 0 Ap bAq bAr CbC s s 1 1 0 : r 0.q.p 0
Ap bq AbACbC 21 : p : q0 Ap bAq bACbr C s .(s 1, r).p 0.q
AbAp bACbq C .(2, q) : p Ap bAq bAC r bC s (s, r) 1 : p.q 0
AbAp bACbC q .q 1 1 : p Ap bAq br As CbC q.r.s.2 1 0.p
AbAp bq ACbC .2 1.q.p Ap bAq br ACbs C .(s, 2).r.q.p 0
AbAbACbp C q .(q 1, p) Ap bAq br ACbC s .s 1 1.r.q.p 0
AbAbAC p bC q .(q, p) 1 Ap bAbAq Cbr C s (r, s 1) 0 : q 0 : p 0
AbAbp ACbq C .(q, 2).p Ap bAbAq C r bC s (s, r) 1 0 : q 0 : p 0
AbAbp ACbC q .q 1 1.p Ap bAbq Ar Cbs C q.(2, s).r 0.p
Abp Abq ACbC p : q : 210 Ap bAbq Ar CbC s q.s 1 1.r 0.p
Ap bAq bAr CbC .2 1.p 0.q : r Ap bAbq ACbr C s .q.(s 1, r).p 0
Ap bAq bACbr C .q.p 0.(r, 2) Ap bAbq AC r bC s .q.(s, r) 1.p 0
Ap bAq bACbC r .r 1 1.p 0.q Ap bq Ar bACbs C r.q.p.(2, s) 0
Ap bAq br ACbC .2 1.r.q.p 0 Ap bq Ar bACbC s r.q.p.s 1 1 0
Ap bAbAq Cbr C p 0 : q 0 : (r, 2) 0 Ap bq Ar bs ACbC s.r.q.p.210
Ap bAbAq CbC r r110 : q0 : p0 Ap bq AbACbr C s (s 1, r) : p : q 0
Ap bAbACbq C r .p.(r 1, q) 0 Ap bq AbAC r bC s (s, r) 1 : p : q 0
Ap bAbAC q bC r .p.(r, q) 1 0 Ap bq Abr As CbC s.r.q.p.2 1 0
Ap bAbq Ar CbC q.2 1.r 0.p Ap bq Abr ACbs C p 0.(s, 2).q.r 0
Ap bAbq ACbr C .q.(2, r).p 0 Ap bq Abr ACbC s p 0.s 1 1.q.r 0
Ap bAbq ACbC r .q.r 1 1.p 0 AbAp bq ACbr C s .(r, s 1).q.p
Ap bq Ar bACbC r.q.p.2 1 0 AbAp bq AC r bC s .(s, r) 1.q.p

Ap bq AbACbr C p : (r, 2) : q 0 Abp Aq br ACbs C (s, 2).p.r 0.q 0
Ap bq AbACbC r r11 : p : q0 Abp Aq br ACbC s s 1 1.r.p 0.q 0
Ap bq Abr ACbC p 0.2 1.q.r0 Abp Abq ACbr C s q : p : (s 1, r) 0
AbAp bACbq C r .p : (r 1, q) Abp Abq AC r bC s p : q : (r, s) 1 0
The generating minimum braid .2 : 2 gives the following BF Rs:

p
A bCbAbCb .p 1 : 2 Ap bq CbAbC r b .r 1.q 0.p 1
Abp CbAbCb .2.p 0.2 Ap bq Cbr AbCb 2.q 0.r.p 1 0
Ap bq CbAbCb .p 1.q 0.2 Ap bCbAq bC r b .r 1 : (p, q)
Ap bCbAq bCb .(p, q) : 2 Abp CbAbq Cbr 2.p 0.r.2 0.q
Ap bCbAbC q b .p 1 : q 1 Ap bq CbAr bs Cb .(p, r).s 0.2.q 0
Abp CbAbq Cb .p.2 0.q.2 0 Ap bq CbAr bC s b .s 1.q 0.(p, r)
Abp CbAbCbq 2.p 0.q.2 0 Ap bq CbAr bCbs (r, p).q 0.s.2 0
Ap bq CbAr bCb .2.q 0.(p, r) Ap bq CbAbr C s b .p 1.r 0.s 1.q 0
Ap bq CbAbr Cb .p 1.r 0.2.q 0 Ap bq CbAbC r bs p 1.s 0.q.r 1 0
Ap bq CbAbCbr p 1.q 0.r.2 0
In the similar manner, all alternating and non-alternating BF Rs and

their corresponding families of KLs can be derived from generating mini-
mum braid words with s = 3.
For example, the following table contains non-alternating BF Rs with at
most two parameters, derived from the minimum reduced braid AbACbC:
Ap BacBc (p − 1) 3 2 Ap baq CbC p, 2 2, −q
Ap BacBcq (p − 1) 3 1 q Ap BAq cBc p, 2 1 1, −(q − 1) 1
Ap bACB q C p 1, (q − 1) 1, 2 Abp ACB q C p, 2, 2, −q
Ap BacB q c p − 1, q, 2 + + Abp AcB q c p, 2, −q, −2
Ap bACB q C p 1, (q − 1) 1, 2 Abp Acbq c p, q, 2, −2
Ap bACbcq p 1 3 (q − 1) AB p ACB q C p, q, −2, −2
Ap BacBC q (p − 1) 4 (q − 1) AB p ACbq C p, 2, q, −2
From the generating minimum braid word W = (Ab)n (n ≥ 2), that de-
fines the family of basic polyhedra (2n)∗ , by word extension w1 = CbACbC,
we obtain the second family of basic polyhedra 9∗ (AbACbACbC), 10∗∗
(AbAbCbACbC), 11∗∗ (AbAbACbACbC), 12F (AbAbAbCbACbC), etc.
From W = (Ab)n (n ≥ 3), for w1 = CbCbC, we derive the third fam-
ily of basic polyhedra 10∗∗∗ (AbAbACbCbC), 11∗∗∗ (AbAbAbCbCbC), 12I
(AbAbAbACbCbC), etc.
In the same way,
• for W = (Ab)n (n ≥ 1), w1 = CbAbCbAbCb, the family of basic poly-

hedra beginning with 12C (AbCbAbCbAbCb) is obtained;
178 LinKnot
• for W = (Ab)n (n ≥ 2), w1 = CbAbCbCb the family of basic polyhedra

beginning with 12D (AbAbCbAbCbCb) is obtained;
• for W = (Ab)n (n ≥ 2), w1 = CbAbACbC the family of basic polyhedra
beginning with 12G (AbAbCbAbACbC) is obtained;
• for W = (Ab)n (n ≥ 2), w1 = CbAbCbC the family of basic polyhedra
beginning with 12H (AbAbACbAbCbC) is obtained, etc.
Families derived above can be divided into subfamilies according to the

type of extension (replacement or addition) used for their derivation.
Theorem 1.61. For s = 4 generating algebraic minimum braids are:
• AbACbdCd, l = 8, with the corresponding link 2 2 2 2,

• AbAbCbdCd, l = 9, with the corresponding link 2 2 1 1 1 2,
• AbAbCbCdCd, l = 10, with the corresponding knot 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.
All other generating minimum braid words with s = 4 are polyhedral.
For s = 4 and l ≤ 12, the polyhedral generating braids and their corre-
sponding KLs are given in the following table, with the notation for basic
polyhedra with 12 crossings according to A. Caudron (1982):
l = 10 AbAbACbdCd .2 2 1 l = 12 AbAbACbdCdCd 12J
l = 10 AbACbCbdCd .2 1.2 1 l = 12 AbAbACdCbCdC 11∗∗∗ : .2 0
l = 10 AbACbdCbdC .2 1 : 2 1 0 l = 12 AbAbCbAbdCbd 9∗ 2 2
l = 10 AbACdCbCdC .2 2 : 2 l = 12 AbAbCbCdCbCd 8∗ 2 1 1 :: 2 0
l = 12 AbAbCbdCbCdC 8∗ 2 1 1 0 : .2 0
l = 11 AbAbACbCdCd .2 1 1 1 1 l = 12 AbAbCbdCbdCd 9∗ 2 1 1
l = 11 AbAbCbCbdCd .2 1 1.2 1 0 l = 12 AbAbCdCbCdCd 8∗ 2 1 1 1 0
l = 11 AbAbCbdCbdC .2 1 1 : 2 1 l = 12 AbACbAdCbdCd 12L
l = 11 AbAbCdCbCdC .2 1 1 1 : 2 l = 12 AbACbCbCbdCd 8∗ 2 1 0.2 1 0
l = 11 AbACbACbdCd 9∗ 2 1 0 l = 12 AbACbCbdCbCd 9∗ .2 1 : .2
l = 11 AbACbCdCbCd 8∗ 2 1 0 :: 2 0 l = 12 AbACbCbdCbdC 8∗ 2 1 0 : .2 1 0
l = 11 AbACbCdCdCd .2 2 1 1 l = 12 AbACbCdCbCdC 9∗ 2 1 : 2
l = 11 AbACbdCbCdC 8∗ 2 1 : .2 0 l = 12 AbACbCdCbdCd 10∗∗ : 2 1 0
l = 11 AbACdCbCdCd 8∗ 2 2 0 l = 12 AbACbdCbCdCd 10∗∗ .2 1
l = 12 AbACbdCbdCdC 10∗∗ : 2 1
l = 12 AbAbAbACbdCd 8∗ 2 2 1 0 l = 12 AbCbAbCdCbCd 10∗∗ : 2 0 :: .2 0
l = 12 AbAbACbAbdCd 9∗ .2 2 l = 12 AbCbACbdCbCd 10∗∗ 2 0 :: .2 0
The family of basic polyhedra starting from 12J (AbAbACbdCdCd) is

obtained for W = (Ab)n (n ≥ 2), w1 = ACbdCdCd, and the family of basic
polyhedra starting from 12L (AbACbAdCbdCd) is obtained for W = (Ab)n
(n ≥ 1), w1 = ACbAdCbdCd.
1.14.1 Applications of minimum braids and braid family

representatives
A. Caudron (1982) was the first to use graph-theoretical approach to knot
theory. T. Gittings (2004, Conjecture 1) established a mapping between
minimum braids with s strands and trees with s+1 vertices and conjectured
that the number of graph trees of n vertices with alternating minimum
braids is equal to the number of rational KLs with n crossings (see page
70, Theorem 1.16).
KL is achiral (or amphicheiral) if its “left” and “right” forms are equiv-
alent, meaning that one can be transformed to the other by an ambient
isotopy. If an oriented knot or link L can be represented by an antisymmet-
ric vertex-bicolored graph on a sphere, whose vertices with the sign +1 are
white, and vertices with the sign −1 are black, it is achiral. In this case, for
an oriented knot or link L there exists an antisymmetry (sign-changing sym-
metry) switching orientations of vertices, i.e., mutually exchanging vertices
with the signs +1 and −1. In the language of braid words, this means that
its corresponding braid word is antisymmetric (or palindromic): there exists
a mirror antisymmetry transforming one letter to another and vice versa
and changing their case (i.e., transforming capital to lower case letters and
vice versa). For example, the reduced braid words Ab |Ab or ABac |BDcd
are palindromic, where the anti-mirror is denoted by |.
Conjecture 1.15. An oriented KL is achiral iff it can be obtained from a
palindromic reduced braid by symmetric assigning of degrees.
For s = 2 all alternating BF Rs are of the form (Ab)n (n ≥ 2), defining
a series of the basic polyhedra (2n)∗ , beginning with 2 2, .1 = 6∗ , 8∗ , 10∗ ,
12∗ , etc. All of them are achiral KLs, representing a source of other achiral
KLs. From 4:1-01 AbAb (2 2 or 41 ) by symmetric assigning of degrees we
can derive achiral alternating knots with n ≤ 10 crossings: 6:1-02 A2 bAb2
(2 1 1 2 or 63 ), 8:1-05 A3 bAb3 (3 1 1 3 or 89 ), 10:1-017 A3 b2 A2 b3 ((3, 2) (3, 2)
or 1079 ), and one achiral alternating link with n ≤ 9 crossings: 8:3-05a
A2 b2 A2 b2 ((2, 2) (2, 2) or 834 ), etc. In general, from AbAb the following
families of achiral alternating KLs are derived:
Ap bAbp p11p Ap bq Aq bp (p, q) (p, q)
Borromean rings 6:3-02 AbAbAb (.1 = 6∗ or 632 ) are the origin of achi-
ral alternating knots 8:1-07 A2 bAbAb2 (.2.2 or 817 ), 10:1-020 A2 bA2 b2 Ab2
(.2.2.2 0.2 0 or 1099 ), 10:1-022 A2 b2 AbA2 b2 (2.2.2.2 or 10109 ), and of the
link 8:3-04a Ab2 AbA2 b (.2 : 2 0 or 836 ), etc. The following families of achiral
180 LinKnot
alternating KLs are derived from AbAbAb:

Ap bAbAbp .p.p Ap bAq bq Abp .p.p.q 0.q 0
Abp AbAp b .p : p 0 Ap bq Ar br Aq bp p.q.r.r.q.p
Ap bq AbAq bp p.q.q.p
Achiral basic polyhedron AbAbAbAb (8∗ ) is the origin of the following
families of alternating achiral KLs:
Ap bAbAbAbp 8∗ p.p Ap bAbq Aq bAbp 8∗ p.q : .q.p
AbAp bAbp Ab 8∗ p : .p Ap bq Ar bAbr Aq bp 8∗ p.q.r.r.q.p
Ap bq AbAbAq bp 8∗ p.q.q.p Ap bAq br Ar bq Abp 8∗ p.q.q.p : r.r
Ap bAq bAbq Abp 8∗ .p : q.q : p
In the same way, it is possible to derive achiral alternating KLs from
achiral basic polyhedra (Ab)n for n ≥ 5.
From the antisymmetry condition it follows that every palindromic braid
has an even number of strands. For s = 4 and l ≤ 12 palindromic algebraic
generating braids are:
• AbACbdCd, l = 8 with the corresponding achiral link 2 2 2 2,

• AbAbCbCdCd, l = 10, with the corresponding achiral knot
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.
The palindromic polyhedral generating braids are:
• AbACbCbdCd, l = 10, with the corresponding achiral knot .2 1.2 1,

• AbAbACbdCdCd, l = 12, with the corresponding achiral link 12J,
• AbACbAdCbdCd, l = 12, with the corresponding achiral knot 12L,
• AbACbCbCbdCd, l = 12, with the corresponding achiral link
8∗ 2 1 0.2 1 0,
• AbCbAbCdCbCd, l = 12, with the corresponding achiral knot 10∗∗ :
2 0 :: .2 0,
• AbCbACbdCbCd, l = 12, with the corresponding achiral knot 10∗∗ 2 0 ::
.2 0.
From the generating braid AbACbdCd the following families of alter-

nating achiral KLs are derived:
Ap bACbdCdp p1221p Ap bAq C r br dq Cdp (((p, q), r)+) (((p, q), r)+)
AbAC p bp dCd (p, 2+) (p, 2+) Ap bq AC r br dC q dp (q, p 1, r) (q, p 1, r)
Abp AC q bq dC p d (p, q, 2) (p, q, 2) Ap bq Ar C s bs dr C q dp (q, (p, r), s) (q, (p, r), s)
From the same palindromic non-alternating generating braid the follow-

ing families of achiral KLs are obtained:
Ap BacBDcdp pp Ap BacBDcdp 2pp2

AbAcp B p dCd (p, 2) (q, 2) Ap bAcq B q dCdp (p 1, q) (p 1, q)
The family of achiral odd crossing number knots discovered by J. Hoste,
M. Thistlethwaite and J. Weeks (1998) can be extended to the two-
parameter BF R defined by the palindromic braid ABaB q C p BAdcbp cq Dcd
corresponding to the family of non-alternating achiral odd-crossing knots
with n = 7 + 4p + 4q crossings
10∗∗ (−2p) 0. − 1. − 2 0.(2q) : (−2p) 0. − 1. − 2 0.(2q).
T. Gittings (2004) emphasized that in some cases it is possible to calcu-
late unlinking numbers from minimum braids. Unfortunately, this is true
only for KLs with n ≤ 10 crossings, including the link 4 1 4 (924 ) and the
Nakanishi-Bleiler example 5 1 4 (108 ) with an unlinking gap.
Definition 1.86. The minimum braid unlinking gap is the positive differ-
ence between the unlinking number obtained from a minimum braid uB (L)
and BJ-unlinking number uBJ (L) of a link L, i.e.,
δB = uB (L) − uBJ (L) > 0.
The unlinking gap for minimum braids appears for n = 11 crossings.

The following alternating links given in the Conway notation, followed by
their minimum braids have the minimum braid unlinking gap:
.5.2 A5 bAbAb2 8∗ 3.2 A3 bAbAbAb2
.3.4 A4 bAbAb3 8∗ 3 : 2 A3 bA2 bAbAb
8∗ 4 A4 bAbAbAb 8∗ 2.2 : .2 A2 bAbA2 bAb2
.2.3.3 0 A3 bA3 bAb2 10∗ 2 A2 bAbAbAbAb
For links .5.2, .3.4 the value of the minimum braid unlinking gap is δB = 2,
and for other links from this list δB = 1. Hence, the minimum braid
unlinking number is different from the unlinking number and represents a
new KL invariant.
Periodic tables of KLs can be organized in three ways: according to
families of KLs given in the Conway notation, minimum braids (Gittings,
2004), or BF Rs. Since we have established one-to-one correspondence be-
tween BF Rs and families of KLs in Conway notation, it follows that the
same patterns (with regard to all KL polynomial invariants and KL prop-
erties) will appear in all cases. For example, for every family of KLs is
182 LinKnot
possible to obtain a general formula for Alexander polynomials, with coef-

ficients expressed by numbers denoting integer tangles in Conway symbols,
from their corresponding parameters from minimum braids, or from BF Rs.
Based on experimental results we believe that the same holds not only
for KL polynomials, but for many other properties of KLs: writhe, am-
phicheirality, number of projections, unlinking number, signature, periods,
etc.
1.15 More KL invariants
Rational KLs are easy to distinguish and compare: very fast and simple
function RatReduce (based on two Mathematica functions: Continued
Fraction and FromContinued Fraction) reduces KLs given in the Con-
way notation. To recognize and compare KLs from other KL-worlds, we
need more refined invariants and reduction methods. For alternating KLs,
one can use minimization of Dowker codes.
In the language of the Conway notation, product p q can be expressed as
the ramification (p,1,. . .,1), where 1 occurs q times. The flyping sequence
for a product p q is then: (p,1,. . .,1), (1,p,. . .,1), . . ., (1,1,. . .,p). Using the
same flyping algorithm for Conway symbols, we can obtain all projections
of an alternating KL given by its Conway symbol. The LinKnot function
fProjections, calculates all projections of alternating KLs given in the
Conway notation, their Conway symbols, and the overall number. Further-
more, all non-isomorphic projections of an alternating KL are output of the
function fDiffProjectionsAltKL. Obtained projections can be minimized
using the function MinDowProjAltKL. This whole process is contained
in the function MinDowAltKL which computes the minimal Dowker code
for an alternating KL. Please notice that the function MinDowAltKL
can not compute unique minimal Dowker code of an alternating polyhedral
KL that can be obtained from different basic polyhedra. In this case one
can compute all particular minimal Dowker codes, and take the minimal
one.
Two alternating prime KLs are equal (up to their mirror images) iff
their minimal Dowker codes without signs are equal. This means that
minimal Dowker codes (without signs) are sufficient for comparing two ar-
bitrary alternating knots or links L1 and L2 given by their Conway symbols.
The function SameAltProjKL compares two alternating KL projections
given by their Conway symbols. The result is 1 for isomorphic, and 0 for
non-isomorphic projections. The function SameAltConKL compares two

alternating KLs given by their Conway symbols. The result is 1 for ambient
isotopic, and 0 for non-equivalent KLs.
The function fDiffProjectionsAltKL enables calculating some invari-
ants (or properties) of alternating KLs that depend on all non-isomorphic
projections and to extend these properties from individual projections to
the corresponding KLs. For example, if we find at least one achiral projec-
tion of a KL, we know that KL in question is achiral. This mostly holds
for the functions dealing with symmetry of KLs. In the same way as with
graph automorphisms, we can view KL projections as weighted graphs,
where a weight is a sign of the crossing, and instead of automorphisms
we consider sign-preserving automorphisms. These automorphisms form a
group: the automorphism group of a KL. The order of the automorphism
group Aut(L) of a link L is the number of (sign-preserving) automorphisms
it contains.
The LinKnot function AmphiProjAltKL tests chirality of a given pro-
jection of an oriented alternating KL given by its Conway symbol, Dowker
code, or P -data, and the function AmphiAltKL tests the chirality of
an alternating oriented KL given by its Conway symbol. Both functions
are based on antisymmetric representations of achiral projections. For
example, the projection (2 2, 2) (2 2, 2) of the achiral knot (2 2, 2) (2 2, 2)
is not achiral (Fig. 1.93a), but achirality can be seen on the projec-
tion ((1, 1, 2), 2) ((2, 1, 1), 2) (Fig. 1.93b). Figure 1.93c shows its centro-
antisymmetric representation. Unfortunately, these functions are restricted
to minimal projections of alternating KLs, so they fail to detect achirality
of oriented KLs without antisymmetric minimal projections (e.g., achiral
3-component links 3.2.3 0 : 2, 8∗ 2.2 : 2 0 : .2 0, 8∗ 2 0.2 0 : .2 0.2 0, and
10∗∗ .2 :: .2 with n = 12 crossings, the knot 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.2 1.2 1 0
with n = 18 crossings, etc.).
If a projection of KL is preserved under rotation for 2π p angle, we say
that it has a period p. Notice that a single projection of KL can have
several different periods. For example, trefoil has one minimal projection.
For rotation axis we have two possible choices, the first corresponding to
three-fold, and the second to two-fold rotation (half-turn). Hence, the
periods of the trefoil knot minimal projection are 3 and 2 (Fig. 1.94). The
list of periods of a KL contains periods of all its projections. Since every
KL has infinitely many projections, we are working only with alternating
KLs and their minimal projections.
The LinKnot function PeriodProjAltKL calculates periods of a given
184 LinKnot
Fig. 1.93 (a) Chiral projection of the knot (2 2, 2) (2 2, 2); (b) its achiral projection; (c)
centro-antisymmetric representation of the projection (b).
Fig. 1.94 (a) Projection of a trefoil with the period 3; (b) the same projection showing
the period 2.
projection of an alternating KL given by its Conway symbol, Dowker code,

or P -data, and the function PeriodAltKL calculates the period of a given
alternating KL given by its Conway symbol. The function PeriodAltKL
works only with minimal projections.
The function Symm calculates all automorphisms of an alternating

KL projection given by its Conway symbol, Dowker code, or P -data. The
output contains the list of automorphisms given by permutations, and the
list of the corresponding cycles.
The function MaxSymmProjAltKL finds the most symmetric pro-
jection of an alternating KL given in Conway notation. The output, num-
ber of automorphisms and the most symmetric projection, are computed
over all minimal non-isomorphic projections. For example, among six non-
isomorphic projections of the knot 2 1 1 1 1 1 2, the most symmetric
projection is 2 1 1 1 1 1 2, with the automorphism group of order 2 (Fig.
1.95).
Fig. 1.95 (a) The most symmetric projection of a knot 2 1 1 1 1 1 2; (b) one of its less-
symmetric projections.
The next invariant we consider, defined only for links, is the splitting
number:
Definition 1.87. A splitting number s(L) is the minimum number of cross-

ing changes over all projections of a link L required to obtain a split link,
i.e., a link with split components, not necessarily unknotted.
Comparing splitting number and unlinking number, C. Adams (1996)

gave the example of 2-component link 112∗ .2 0 :: −1. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1
with splitting number 1, and unlinking number 2. A single crossing change
turns it into a split link, changing at the same time one of its unknotted
components into a trefoil, so its unlinking number is greater then splitting
number. We propose a simpler example of the link with the splitting num-
ber 1, and unlinking number 2: the link .2 (or 726 in the classical notation)
(Fig. 1.96). It splits by one crossing change, which turns one of its un-
186 LinKnot
knotted components into a trefoil knot. The next link with this property
is .2.2.2 0, and we propose the family of links .p 1, (p ≥ 2) with the same
property. After a crossing change, circled on the drawing (Fig. 1.97), link
.p 1 splits into an unknot and knot p 2 (obtained from the unknotted com-
ponent which contains the crossing where the change was made). We can
also define a BJ-splitting gap– difference between BJ-unlinking number
and splitting number of a link L.
Instead of analyzing splitting number and splitting gap in great detail,
we rather illustrate it with several interesting experimental results obtained
using the LinKnot function SplittNo that calculates splitting number of
a minimal projection of link given by its Conway symbol, Dowker code, or
P -data.
A family of polyhedral links .(2k), (k ≥ 1) has the BJ-unlinking number
k + 1 and splitting number 1 (see Fig. 1.96 for k = 1), so BJ-splitting
gap is at least k and can be made arbitrarily large. The same results we
obtain for the family .(2k) (2l), (k, l ≥ 1). Moreover, every link of the
form .(2a1 ) (2a2 ) . . . (2an ), (a1 , . . . , an ≥ 1) has the splitting number 1, and
P[ n+1 ]
BJ-unlinking number i=12 a2i−1 .
All our examples with splitting number 1 were 2-component links, so
the question is: is there exists a 3-component link with the splitting number
1? The answer is: probably not!
Fig. 1.96 The link .2 (or 726 ) before (a) and after crossing change (b).
Another similar, but probably weaker invariant is the cutting number:

we cut one component of a link L, but without gluing it again and repeat
the same procedure until we obtain a split link.
Fig. 1.97 (a) The link .8 1 before (a) and after crossing change (b).
Definition 1.88. The minimum number of component breaks necessary to

obtain a split link is the cutting number of a link.
Cutting number is uninteresting for rational links– they are 2-

component links, so their cutting number is always 1. However, it becomes
more interesting for links with more than two components.
1.16 Borromean links
No two elements interlock, but all three do interlock. A three-component

link with this property was named Borromean rings after Borromeos,
an Italian family from the Renaissance, that used them as their family
crest symbolizing the value of collaboration and unity. B. Lindström and
H.O. Zetterström (1991) proved that Borromean circles are impossible:
Borromean rings can not be constructed from three flat circles, but can
be constructed from three triangles. The Australian sculptor J. Robinson
assembled three flat hollow triangles to form a structure (called Intuition),
topologically equivalent to Borromean rings. A cardboard model of Intu-
ition collapses under its own weight, to form a planar pattern. P. Cromwell
recognized the same construction in a picture-stone from Gotland (1995),
and H.S.M. Coxeter (1994) considered these and other symmetric combi-
nations of three and four hollow linked triangles. In geometry, Borromean
rings appear in a regular octahedron, in Venn diagrams, in DNA, and in
other various areas (Fig. 1.98).
188 LinKnot
Fig. 1.98 Borromean rings.
In knot theory Borromean rings are the foremost examples of links hav-
ing two remarkable properties: three mutually disjoint simple closed curves
form a link, yet no two curves are linked. Hence, if any one curve is cut,
the other two are free to separate. In the case of 3-component links these
two properties are inseparable: one follows from the other. In the case of n-
component links (n ≥ 3), n-Borromean links can be defined as n-component
non-trivial links such that any two components form a trivial link. Among
them, those with at least one non-trivial sublink, for which we will keep the
name Borromean links, will be distinguished from Brunnian links in which
every sublink is trivial (Liang and Mislow, 1994c).
It seems surprising that besides the Borromean rings, represented by
the link 632 in Rolfsen notation, no other link with the properties mentioned
above can be found in link tables (Rolfsen, 1976; Adams, 1994). The reason
for this is very simple: all existing knot tables contain only links with at
most 9 crossings. In fact, an infinite number of n-Borromean or n-Brunnian
links exist, and they can be derived as infinite series.
The first infinite series of 3-component links, beginning with the Bor-
romean rings, was discovered by P.G. Tait (1876/77b). Their geometrical
equivalent is a regular octahedron for k = 1, and (3k)-gonal antiprisms for
k ≥ 2. Their corresponding alternating links are achiral 3-Borromean links
(Fig. 1.99).
If we relax the condition that every two components do intersect, an
infinite number of “fractal” Borromean links can be derived from each n-
Borromean link. The construction is simple: it is enough to surround
an even number of the appropriately chosen crossing points of any two
components by circles (Fig. 1.100). However, our consideration will be
restricted to n-Borromean links such that each two components intersect.
Fig. 1.99 Tait’s series of Borromean rings.
Fig. 1.100 “Fractal” Borromean rings.
Another infinite series of 3-Borromean links, starting again from Bor-

romean rings is derived from the family of 2-component links (4n − 2)21 (221 ,
621 , 1021 . . .) by introducing the third component: a circle intersecting oppo-
site bigons (Fig. 1.101a). In a similar way, from the family of 2-component
links (2n)21 (221 , 421 , 621 . . .) we derive an infinite series of 3-component Bor-
romean links without bigons (Fig. 1.101b), that can be used for creating
new series of Borromean links. In a self-crossing point of the oriented com-
ponent, we introduce an even chain of bigons in the appropriate position
(Fig. 1.101c). Notice that the first series of Borromean links with bigons
(Fig. 1.101a) can also be derived from Borromean rings by introducing
identical even chains of bigons in crossing-points of two different compo-
nents. Therefore, we can first get different infinite series of n-Borromean
links without bigons, and then introduce bigons in a way which preserves
the Borromean property.
190 LinKnot
Fig. 1.101 Infinite series of Borromean rings: (a) with bigons; (b) without bigons; (c)
after introducing new chains of bigons.
Tessellations of an (2n + 1)-gonal prism, such that to every ring of

the corresponding graph we add “left” or “right” diagonals (Fig. 1.102),
yield new infinite series. Tessellations and their corresponding links are
denoted by symbols (2n + 1, k), where all compositions of the number k =
(2n + 1)l − 2, are denoted by k, so that every composition is identified with
its inverse. From a tessellation with k rings satisfying the properties stated
above we obtain 2k − 2 + 2[ 2k ]− 1 different (2n+ 1)-Borromean links without
the Brunnian property. All their components are equivalent, and bigons
can be introduced in the same way as before. The same method applied
on “centered” rectangular tessellations gives series of (2n + 1)-Borromean
links (Fig. 1.103).
We can construct Borromean links with an even number of components
and without the Brunnian property. C. Liang and K. Mislow (1994c) pro-
posed two methods for the construction of n-Borromean links with at least
one non-trivial sublink, but they both result in n-Borromean links with
Fig. 1.102 The first infinite series of Borromean links derived from a (2n + 1)-gonal
prism.
some non-intersecting components (n ≥ 4). In the first method, involving

duplication of one or more rings, the duplicate rings are interchangeable
by a continuous deformation. For example, by duplicating one ring in Bor-
romean rings, we obtain a 4-Borromean link, and continuing in the same
manner, n-Borromean links (n = 5, 6, 7, . . .) (Fig. 1.104a). Series depend on
the choice of duplicate rings. The following example illustrates the method,
similar to the one producing “fractal” Borromean rings, which can be used
for constructing Borromean links with an even number of components: in
the link 421 (4) two crossing points are surrounded by non-intersecting circles
(Fig. 1.104b). Adding new non-intersecting circles, Borromean links with
an even number of components are obtained. One open question remains:
are they exist (2n)-Borromean links with no non-intersecting components,
and with all components that are equivalent.
n-component links (n ≥ 4) without non-trivial sublinks were described
by H. Brunn (1892) (Fig. 1.105).
192 LinKnot
Fig. 1.103 The other infinite series of Borromean links derived from a (2n + 1)-gonal
prism.
For a link with ordered components, given by Conway symbol, Dowker

code, or P -data, the LinKnot function fBreakComp calculates P -data
of the link with k th component cut. The function BreakCoAll gives all
KLs obtained by cutting components of a KL given by its Conway symbol,
Dowker code, or P -data. The output is the list of KLs obtained by cutting
each of components, where for a split link the output is {0}. The func-
tion CuttNo computes the cutting number of a link given by its Conway
symbol, Dowker code, or P -data.
The functions GetPdatabyTracking and fFindCon can be used for
recognition of KLs coming from different sciences or ornamental knotwork.
From drawings of KLs we can find their Conway symbols. Using the func-
tion GetPdatabyTracking we obtain as output P -data of an input KL
drawing. For a KL given by its Dowker code, or P -data, the function
fBasicPoly recognizes its corresponding basic polyhedron, and for every
alternating KL with at most 12 crossings given by its Dowker code with
Fig. 1.104 (a) The first and (b) second Liang-Mislow construction.
signs, or by P -data, the function fFindCon gives its Conway symbol. For
example, Tait’s series (Fig. 1.101a) is the family .(2k + 1) : (2k + 1) 0,
(k ≥ 1). The first link in the series of Borromean links without bigons from
Figure 1.100b is the basic polyhedron 1312∗, from which originates the fam-
ily of Borromean links with bigons 1312∗ .(2k + 1) 0, (k ≥ 0) (Fig. 1.101c).
Their cutting number 1 can be checked using the function CuttNo.
Definition 1.89. A torus knot or link [m, n] is a simple closed curve on the
torus which wraps around m times meridianally and n times longitudinally.
Detailed description of torus knots is given by Murasugi (1996), in the
Chapter 7. If the integers m, n are relatively prime, the result is a torus
knot; otherwise, it is a torus link.
For a given torus knot or link [m, n], the function fTorusKL calculates
its P -data, braid word, minimal number of crossings, unknotting num-
ber, number of components, bridge number, Alexander polynomial and
(Murasugi) signature. An infinite series of torus links will be obtained for
GCD(m, n) = 3, where GCD(m, n) is the greatest common divisor for m
and n. All of them are non-alternating links derived from basic polyhe-
dra which are m-gonal antiprisms (m ≥ 3). Making them alternating, we
obtain an infinite series of Borromean links.
The main difference between “real” and “mathematical” KLs is that the
first are open-ended. We can take closed mathematical KLs and turn them
into real KLs by cutting them, fix endpoints, and compute the number of
different (non-isomorphic) classes of obtained real KLs.
For a given projection of a KL given by its Conway symbol, Dowker
194 LinKnot
Fig. 1.105 Brunnean links.
code, or P -data, the function fCuttRealKL computes the number of

“real” cuttings, i.e., the number of cuttings with a different cutting point in
the projection. An output is the number of different “real” cutting classes
with preserved signs, or with preserved or reversed signs.
Chapter 2
Recognition and Generation of Knots

and Links
2.1 Recognition of KLs
According to D.J.A. Welsh (1993), two fundamental algebraic problems

about KLs are:
(1) the unknotting problem– how to decide whether a KL is really knotted

(linked);
(2) the recognition problem– decide if two KLs are ambient isotopic.
These two problems are almost inseparable and closely related with the
problem of minimizing the number of crossings of KLs. In the case of ratio-
nal KLs these problems were solved in a very simple, elegant and fast way
(in the sense of algorithm complexity), using continued fractions. Outside
the rational world various problems arise. For the unknotting problem (and
the unknotting number problem) we propose a finite algorithm based on
Bernhard-Jablan Conjecture.
Trying to solve the recognition problem, we implemented an algorithm
for recognizing alternating KLs given in Conway notation. The LinKnot
function SameAltConKL for two given alternating KLs computes their
minimal Dowker codes and compares them. In case they are equal, the
result is 1, otherwise 0.
Before we begin derivation of KLs from other worlds: stellar (or pris-
matic), arborescent stellar, arborescent generalized, and polyhedral, we will
consider some invariants, mostly polynomial, which will enable us to dis-
tinguish and recognize KLs. Those invariants can be used for eliminating
duplicates that can occur in KL derivation.
R. Fox defined an elementary invariant of KLs, called Fox’s 3-coloring
(Crowel and Fox, 1965). Given an oriented KL, denote each oriented arc
195
196 LinKnot
Fig. 2.1 Relations in a crossing point.
connecting two successive undercrossings by xi (i = 1, 2, . . . , m). Oriented

arcs xi are called generators1 (of the KL group). To each generator we
assign one color from a set of 3 colors.
Definition 2.1. KL diagram is 3-colorable if at each crossing all generators

have the same color, or they all have different colors.
Theorem 2.1. If a link L has at least one 3-colorable diagram, then each
of its diagrams is 3-colorable. The number of 3-colorings is an invariant of
link isotopy (Livingston, 1993, page 33; Manturov, 2004, Theorem 3.5).
Proof. Consider diagrams D and D′ related by a Reidemeister move.

Denote colors by 0,1, and 2. For each coloring, all edges outside the shown
region are colored identically in D and D′ .
In the case of Ω1 only one color can be used, so desired one-to-one
correspondence between colorings is evident (Fig. 2.2a). The same holds
for “one color” cases of Ω2 and Ω3 .
The invariance under Ω2 and one-to-one correspondence between color-
ings is illustrated in Fig. 2.2b.
In the case of Ω3 , the invariance is illustrated in Fig. 2.2c. In this figure
are given four 3-colorings, and all the other can be obtained from them by
permutations of colors.
To each 3-coloring of D corresponds exactly one 3-coloring of D′ ob-
tained from D by applying a Reidemeister move, so if a link L has at least
1 Justification for the name generators will be given later, when introducing the group
of a KL (page 201).
Recognition and Generation of Knots and Links 197
one 3-colorable diagram, all its diagrams are 3-colorable and the number of
3-colorings is invariant under Reidemeister moves.
Three-colorability is one of the simplest methods used in knot theory
to distinguish knots. For example, a trefoil can be distinguished from the
unknot or figure-eight knot, because the first is three-colorable, and two
others are not.
Definition 2.2. KL is perfectly 3-colorable if generators at each crossing

all have different colors.
Fig. 2.2 Invariance of 3-colorings under (a) Ω1 ; (b) Ω2 ; (c) Ω3 .
The 3-coloring can be generalized to k-coloring (k > 3).
Definition 2.3. A link diagram is k-colored if every generator is labelled

by one of the numbers 0,1,2,. . .,k − 1 in such a way that the sum of the
labels of the undercrossings (incoming and outgoing generator) is equal to
twice the label of the overcrossing (passing generator) modulo k in every
crossing.
In other words, if iV , oV , and pV are the labels of the incoming, out-

going, and passing generator in the crossing V, then in every crossing we
198 LinKnot
have the relation iV + oV = 2pV (mod k).
Theorem 2.2. (Labelling theorem) If a diagram of a KL can be labelled

mod k, then every diagram of that KL can be labelled mod k. The number
of k-colorings is an invariant of link isotopy. (Livingston, 1993; Przytycki,
2004, 2006).
If colk (L) denotes the number of k colorings of a link L, then

colk (L1 )colk (L2 ) = k colk (L1 #L2 ) (Przytycki, 2006, Lemma 2.2).
Definition 2.4. The set of different numbers of colors which can be used
for coloring L is called coloring number set of L.
Fox’s k-colorings are special cases of quandles introduced by Joyce and

Matveev (Joyce, 1982; Matveev, 1982). A detailed discussion of quandles
is given in the book Knot Theory (Chapter 5) by V. Manturov (2004).
Definition 2.5. A set Q with a binary operation ◦ satisfying the rules:
(1) a ◦ a = a for all elements of Q;

(2) for every a,b ∈ Q there is a unique element x ∈ Q such that x ◦ a = b;
(3) (a ◦ b) ◦ c = (a ◦ c) ◦ (b ◦ c) for all a, b, c ∈ Q.
is called a quandle.
In any quandle Q, the inverse operation for ◦ is denoted by /, meaning

that element b/a is defined as the unique solution of the equation x ◦ a = b.
In this case, by replacing the second rule from the definition of quandle by
the rule (a ◦ b)/b = a that holds for all elements of Q and treating Q as a
set with two binary operations ◦ and /, we obtain the equivalent definition
of the quandle. For all a, b, c ∈ Q the following identities hold:
(1) (a ◦ b)/c = (a/c) ◦ (b/c);
(2) (a/b) ◦ c = (a ◦ c)/(b ◦ c).
Theorem 2.3. To any group G it is possible to associate a quandle with

Q = G and the quandle operations defined using conjugation in group:
a ◦ b = b−1 ab and a/b = bab−1 .
Proof. In order to prove this theorem it is sufficient to show that the rules
given in the definition of quandle are satisfied after replacements a ◦ b =
b−1 ab and a/b = bab−1 . We will use the equivalent definition of quandle,
i.e., (a ◦ b)/b = a as the second rule. The following identities:
a ◦ a = a−1 aa = a;
(a ◦ b)/b = (b−1 ab)/b = bb−1 abb−1 = a;
(a ◦ b) ◦ c = (b−1 ab) ◦ c = c−1 b−1 abc = c−1 b−1 cc−1 acc−1 bc = (c−1 ac) ◦
−1
(c bc) = (a ◦ c) ◦ (b ◦ c),
hold for any a, b, c ∈ G, where G is arbitrary group.
To relate a quandle with KLs we define the rule of coloring (Fig. 2.3a).
Theorem 2.4. If some diagram of a KL can be colored by elements of a

quandle Q, then this holds for every diagram of that KL. The number of
colorings by elements of any quandle is a link invariant (Manturov, 2004,
Proposition 5.1).
We need to show the invariance of quandle colorings under Reidemeister

moves and one-to-one correspondence between colorings. The sketch of the
proof is given in Fig. 2.3b,c,d.
Fig. 2.3 (a) Rule of coloring and invariance of quandle under (b) Ω1 ; (c) Ω2 ; (d) Ω3 .
200 LinKnot
Definition 2.6. Two non-isotopic knots are equivalent if one can be ob-
tained from the other by changing both the orientation of the ambient space
and that of the knot.
According to this definition, “left” and “right” trefoil are equivalent and
have isomorphic quandles.
Theorem 2.5. The knot quandle is a complete knot invariant (in the sense
of Definition 2.6) (Manturov, 2004).
One of the most important examples is the Alexander quandle, i.e., the
way of obtaining Alexander polynomial (page 211) as a quandle. Let A be
a free module over Laurent polynomial ring (with respect to a variable t)
(Definition 2.10). Then A is a quandle defined by the operations
a ◦ b = ta + (1 − t)b,
1 1
a/b = a + (1 − b).
t t
A knot or link given by its Conway symbol, Dowker code, or P -data is an
input for the LinKnot function fGenerators, which computes generators
with the list of corresponding signs of crossings. The result is a list of
ordered triples containing incoming, outgoing, and passing generator (I
O P = Incoming-Outgoing-Passing, Fig. 2.1) for each crossing, divided
according to the components of the KL.
Fig. 2.4 (a) The link 2, 2, 2 with denoted generators and its colorings with (b) k =
3(2p − 1) colors (p = 1, 2, 3, . . .); (c) k = 2p (p = 1, 2, 3, . . .) colors.
The function fColTest has the same input as fGenerators with the ad-
ditional number k (k ≥ 3) denoting the number of colors used for KL color-
ing. The result is the list of generators, list of their labelling, and the list of
generator colors. For example, the link 2, 2, 2 (or 631 ) is k-colorable if k = 0
(mod 2) or k = 0 (mod 3), so its color set is {2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, . . .}
(Fig. 2.4), where the perfect colorings are obtained for k = 0 (mod 3).
2.1.1 Group of KL
Every finitely-generated group can be given by a presentation: set of gener-
ators x1 , . . . , xm and their relations r1 , . . . , rn . For example, a cyclic group
Cn is given by the set of generators {x1 } and a single relation xn1 = e,
where n is the order of the group Cn , and e is the identity. A dihedral
group is given by the set of generators {x1 , x2 } satisfying the relations
xn1 = x22 = (x1 x2 )2 = e, or by the set of generators {y1 , y2 } satisfying the
relations y12 = y22 = (y1 y2 )n = e. Two presentations are called isomorphic
if one is algebraically equivalent to the other (see, e.g., Coxeter and Moser,
1980). From the first presentation of the dihedral group, by the substi-
tution y1 = x1 x2 we obtain the second. Presentations can be reduced in
order to obtain minimal presentations, i.e., presentations with a minimum
number of generators. For example, the presentation
(x1 , x2 , x3 : x31 = x22 = x23 = x1 x2 x−1
3 = e)
can be reduced to
(x1 , x2 : x31 = x22 = (x1 x2 )2 = e)
which is a minimal presentation of the group D3 .
A Wirtinger presentation of a link group G(L) (or link complement fun-
damental group) can be defined for every knot or link diagram L. The
group G(L) has a presentation G(L) = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xm : r1 , . . . rn ), where
x1 , . . . , xm are generators, r1 , . . . , rn are relations satisfied by generators
in crossing points, and n is a number of crossings. The rule for making
relations is: for each crossing write down the corresponding generator with
the exponent 1 if the arc is entering the crossing and −1 if it is leaving it.
For all crossings do that in the same cyclic order (“left” or “right”). If xi
is an incoming generator, xo is an outgoing, and xp is a passing generator,
we have the relation xi xp x−1 −1
o xp = e (in a “right” cycle order) (Fig. 2.1).
Beginning from a generator other then xi we obtain conjugate relation.
An m-generator presentation obtained in this way can always be reduced
to a minimal presentation. One group can have several isomorphic minimal
202 LinKnot
Fig. 2.5 Generators of the cinquefoil knot 5 (or 51 ).
presentations, as we noticed in the case of dihedral group. For example,

the group of the cinquefoil knot 5 in Conway notation (or 51 in the classical
notation) (Fig. 2.5) has the following presentation
G(5) = (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 : x3 x1 x−1 −1 −1 −1

4 x1 = e, x1 x4 x2 x4 = e,
x4 x2 x−1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
5 x2 = e, x2 x5 x3 x5 = e, x5 x3 x1 x3 = e)
that after a series of reductions results in the minimal presentation
G(5) ≃ (a, b : a5 = b2 ).
Theorem 2.6. Group of a link G(L) is an invariant of ambient isotopy.
This means that if L1 and L2 are ambient isotopic KLs, their corre-
sponding groups G(L1 ) and G(L2 ) will be isomorphic. The inverse state-
ment does not hold: two different KLs can have isomorphic KL-groups
(see, e.g., Crowell and Fox, 1965; Rolfsen 1976). For example, a granny
knot 3#3 and a square knot 3#(−3) have isomorphic groups, with the
same presentation (x, y, z : z −1 xz = xzx−1 , z −1 yz = yzy −1 ). For some
KL families one can explicitly describe their groups (or presentations).
For example, for every knot from the family (2k + 1) the knot group is
G((2k + 1)) = (a, b : a2 b2k+1 ); for every link from the family (2k) it is
G((2k)) = (a, b : abk a−1 b−k ),(k ≥ 1), etc.
The program SnapPea by J. Weeks can be used for computing fun-
damental groups and many other topological properties of KLs (such
as hyperbolic volume, symmetry group, Dirichlet domain, etc.). A con-

version from P -data to data in SnapPea format or vice versa is pro-
vided by Knot2000 (K2K) functions SnapPeaDataFromPLData and
PLDataFromSnapPeaData.
Arf invariant, introduced independently by C. Arf and R.A. Robertello
(1965), is defined for knots (not links) and takes values in the group Z2 . It
is defined using Seifert surface of a knot (Theorem 1.37). For every oriented
knot K we can obtain an orientable connected surface that spans K. Let l
be a band that is a part of the Seifert surface of the knot K.
Definition 2.7. Knots K and K ′ are Arf equivalent if K is obtained from

K ′ by twisting a band l by two full turns.
This means that we add to diagram of l (or delete it from l) a chain of

three bigons that has four half-twists.
Theorem 2.7. Each knot is either Arf equivalent to the unknot or to the
trefoil.
Arf invariant takes value 0 for unknot, and 1 for a trefoil (where “left”
and “right” trefoils are Arf equivalent).
Proof. The sketch of the proof (Kauffman, 1983; Adams, 1994, page 223;
Manturov, 2004) is the following: each Seifert surface can be thought of as a
disc with several bands attached to its boundary. Each band can be twisted
and bands can be knotted. The number of half-turn twists for each band
can be taken to be zero or one according to Arf equivalence. If we put an
orientation on the boundary of Seifert surface, then the two edges of each
band are always oppositely oriented. The Arf equivalence allows to unknot
bands: passing of one band through the other is also Arf equivalence.
Definition 2.8. The passing of one band with oriented edges through one
another is called a pass-move (Fig. 2.6a).
After unknotting bands, we can continue with the reduction of the ob-
tained surface. Since the original Seifert surface was orientable, each band
has an even number of half-twists, so we can lower the number of half
twists in each band until two or zero half-twists remain. Bands with two
half twists can be replaced by a curl. Every band must have another end
of a band between its two ends on the boundary of a disk, so if one of the
ends of each of two distinct bands l1 and l2 lie between the ends of a third
band l3 on the edge of the disk, we can slide the end of l1 along one edge
204 LinKnot
Fig. 2.6 (a) A pass-move; (b) four types of pieces obtained by cutting Seifert surface.
of l2 to move it outside the two ends of l3 . Repeating these steps, we can

make sure that there is at most one end of a band between two ends of
any single band on the edge of the disk. In particular, this means that the
bands match up in pairs and there is an even number of them.
The Seifert surface obtained can be cut into four types of pieces, each
with two bands attached to it. The first two of them (Fig. 2.6b) are the
spannings of an unknot, and the other two of a “left” and “right” trefoil,
so they are pass equivalent. Since the unknot has a role of neutral element
in knot composition, every knot K is pass equivalent to either unknot or
a composition of trefoil knots. Moreover, a composition of two oppositely
oriented trefoils is pass equivalent to an unknot, and each trefoil is pass
equivalent to its mirror image, so we can eliminate pairs of trefoils and
reduce number of trefoils modulo 2. Hence, the final result of reduction is a
single trefoil or unknot. The proof that trefoil and the unknot are not pass
equivalent is given by Kauffman (1983). Hence, each knot is Arf equivalent
(or pass equivalent) to the unknot, or trefoil.
As in the Seifert construction, let us apply to a crossing of K the op-
eration of smoothing that transforms the knot K into a 2-component link
L0 .
Theorem 2.8. If K+ , K− , and L0 are projections that are identical outside
the shown region (Fig. 2.7), the Arf invariants of two knots K+ and K−
are related through the equation:
a(K+ ) ≡ a(K− ) + lk(L0 )(mod Z2 )
where lk(L0 ) is the linking number of the link L0 (see Definition 1.32)
(Adams, 1994; Manturov, 2004).
Arf invariant can be computed from the Alexander polynomial ∆K (t) of

a knot K. Arf (K) = 1 if ∆K (−1) = ±3 (mod 8), and 0 otherwise (Jones,
1985; Lickorish, 1997, Theorem 10.7).
We conjecture that Arf invariant is a subfamily-dependent invariant,
and that for every knot family a general formula for Arf invariant can
be obtained. For example, for the family (2k − 1), Arf ((2p − 1)) = 1
if 2p − 1 = ±3 (mod 8), and 0 otherwise; for the family (2p + 1) (2q),
Arf ((2p + 1) (2q)) = 1 if 4pq + 2q + 1 = ±3 (mod 8), and 0 otherwise; for
the family (2p) (2q), Arf ((2p) (2q)) = 1 if 4pq + 1 = ±3 (mod 8), and 0
otherwise, etc.
Fig. 2.7 Diagrams of regions D+ , D− and D0 .
In addition to 3- and k-colorings and quandle colorings (pages 195-200),

KLs can also be labelled with elements of a group G, which is usually a
symmetric group Sn with the standard presentation
{g1 , . . . , gn } (gi gj )ni,j = E, i, j = 1, . . . , n − 1

where
ni,i = 1, ni,i+1 = 3, ni,j = 2 for i < j + 1,

and gi = (i i + 1).
Definition 2.9. The labelling an oriented KL diagram with elements of a

group G consists of assigning an element of G to each generator xi of the
KL group (page 201), subject to the following two conditions:
(1) Consistency Three generators (I, O, P ) = Incoming-Outgoing-Passing

appear at each crossing V of the diagram. If their labels are group
elements i, o, p, and σ is the sign of the crossing V , then the labels
satisfy the relation pσ op−σ = i;
(2) Generation The labels generate the group G.
206 LinKnot
Once two out of three knot generators I, O, P are labelled, the label on
the third is forced by the consistency condition.
The following theorem holds for KL labeling:
Theorem 2.9. If a diagram of a KL can be labelled with elements from a
group G, then every diagram of the KL can be labelled with the elements
from G, regardless of the choice of orientation (Livingston, 1993).
To prove this theorem it is sufficient to check what happens to the
labelling after performing each Reidemeister move.
The use of labelling is a powerful tool for distinguishing KLs. For ex-
ample, it was very efficiently used by M. Thistlethwaite for the computer
derivation of knots. Among 12965 knots with n ≤ 13 crossings there were
only 5639 different Alexander polynomials. Using labelling from all sub-
groups of S5 , enabled him to reduce the number of unresolved cases to
about a thousand (Thistlethwaite, 1985).
Elements g and g ′ in a group G are called conjugates if there is an
element h ∈ G such that h−1 gh = g ′ . The conjugacy is an equivalence re-
lation, that preserves the cyclic structure of a permutation group G: every
element g and all its conjugates are represented as the products of permu-
tation cycles in the same way. The relation of conjugacy induces partitions
of G into equivalence classes. For example, in S5 there are seven conjugacy
classes, that can be represented by
(1), (1 2), (1 2 3), (1 2 3 4), (1 2 3 4 5), (1 2)(3 4), (1 2)(3 4 5).
If a diagram of an oriented knot can be labelled with elements of a
group G with the labels coming from a conjugacy class C of G, then every
diagram of the same knot can be labelled with the elements from C. In
the case of links, labels on each component of a labelled link belong to the
same conjugacy class.
Using consistency relationships, once a few labels are chosen, the rest
are forced. In practice, we take a knot K and fix a group G that will be
used for knot labelling. After labelling two knot generators in some crossing
by two group generators x and y, the third generator in that crossing will
be labelled by the consistency condition. Hence, each crossing determines
a label on the next arc, forced by the labels that preceded it. Equations
satisfied in G can be read from the labelling of arcs. In this way, the knot
labelling problem is reduced to solving the equations obtained from the
group G.
C. Livingston (1993) proposed an interesting example of knots 4 2 (61 )
and 3, 3, −3 (946 ), that can not be distinguished using colorings, or by
their Alexander polynomials, but are distinguishable by a suitably chosen

labelling.
Fig. 2.8 The labelling of knot 3, 3, −3 using transpositions from S4 .
Let us consider knot 4 2 and its labelling using transpositions from S4 .

By the choice of two labels x and y in any crossing of the knot 4 2, all
the other labels are forced by the consistency relation. Since only two
transpositions from S4 are not enough to generate S4 , we conclude that it
is impossible to construct a labelling of knot 4 2 using transpositions from
S4 . The labelling of the knot 3, 3, −3 using transpositions from S4 (Figure
2.8) proves that knots in question are different.
2.2 Polynomial invariants
Non-empirical recognition of KLs became possible after the introduction of

polynomial invariants. The first of them, Alexander polynomial, was used
by Alexander and Briggs (1926-27) to prove that knots with at most nine
crossings claimed to be distinct in empirically obtained knot tables were
actually distinct. K. Reidemeister completed the rigorous classification of
knots with up to nine crossings in his book Knotentheorie published in
1932. For more than 40 years, Alexander polynomial remained the only
polynomial invariant. The tangle approach was introduced by J. Conway
in 1967, together with a new polynomial invariant, the Conway polynomial,
based on a skein relation. J.W. Alexander knew about the skein relation,
but J. Conway was the first to prove (in 1967) that it can be used for an
axiomatic definition of the polynomial (Conway, 1970). A modification of
the skein relation produced the HOMFLYPT polynomial (1985). Probably
208 LinKnot
the most famous polynomials are Jones and Kauffman polynomial, since
they established connections between knot theory and other branches of
mathematics (algebra of operators, braid theory) and physics (statistical
models and quantum groups). Despite of all these important achievements,
there is one disappointing fact: every polynomial invariant sometimes fails,
meaning that two (or more) different KLs may have equal polynomials.
Even worse: some KLs that are really knotted are impossible to distinguish
from the unknot by some polynomial invariants. For example, there is an
infinite number of non-alternating knots with Alexander polynomial equal
to one, and an infinite number of non-alternating links with a trivial Jones
polynomial. The infinite series of non-trivial non-alternating 2-component
links:
9∗ 3 : −1. − 1.2. − 1. − 1 : −3,

9∗ 5 1 2 : −1. − 1.2. − 1. − 1 : −5 − 1 − 2,
9∗ 5 1 4 1 2 : −1. − 1.2. − 1. − 1 : −5 − 1 − 4 − 1 − 2,
9∗ 5 1 4 1 4 1 2 : −1. − 1.2. − 1. − 1 : −5 − 1 − 4 − 1 − 4 − 1 − 2, etc.,
and 4-component links:
16370∗ . − 2 : −3. − 1 : . − 1. − 1 : . − 1.3 : −2,

16370∗ . − 2 : −5 1 2. − 1 : . − 1. − 1 : . − 1.5 1 2 : −2,
16370∗ . − 2 : −5 1 4 1 2. − 1 : . − 1. − 1 : . − 1.5 1 4 1 2 : −2,
16370∗ . − 2 : −5 1 4 1 4 1 2. − 1 : . − 1. − 1 : . − 1.5 1 4 1 4 1 2 : −2, etc.,
with a trivial Jones polynomial were recently discovered by S. Eliahou,

L. Kauffman and M. Thistlethwaite (2003) (Fig. 2.9).
For every polynomial we can define its coefficient of efficiency in distin-
guishing KLs: the number of different KLs it can recognize as different,
divided by the number of all different KLs with a given number of crossings
n. However, for non-alternating KLs, the exactness of the second number
is impossible to prove using polynomials: it is possible that all existing
polynomial invariants for two different KLs (e.g., mutants) coincide. This
is more likely to happen than one might expect, because some polynomial
invariants are only special cases of more general invariants. For example,
Alexander polynomial can be obtained from Conway polynomial or Jones
polynomial.
Fig. 2.9 Links 9∗ 3 : −1. − 1.2. − 1. − 1 : −3 and 9∗ 5 1 2 : −1. − 1.2. − 1. − 1 : −5 − 1 − 2

with trivial Jones polynomial.
It is possible to construct infinite classes of different KLs that particular

invariant can not distinguish. For example, all KLs obtained from a KL
of the form p1 , p2 , . . . , pn by any permutation of tangles p1 , p2 , . . ., pn can
not be distinguished by any polynomial.
An interesting class of KLs are those with trivial Alexander and Conway
polynomial. We assume that every link with trivial Alexander and Conway
polynomial is a member of a family of links, with trivial Alexander and
Conway polynomial.
For n = 8:
• the 4-component link 2, 2, −2, −2 is a member of the family

2k, 2k, −2k, −2k with trivial Alexander and Conway polynomial.
For n = 9:
• the 3-component link . − (2, 2) that has the non-minimal algebraic 10-
crossing representation (2, −2), (−2, 2), 2 is a member of the family
(2k, −2k), (−2m, 2m), 2n with trivial Alexander and Conway polyno-
mial.
For n = 10:
210 LinKnot
• the 3-component link (3, 2 1) − (2, 2) is a member of the family (2k +

1, 2k 1) − (2, 2);
• the 3-component link 3, 2 1, −2, −2 is a member of the family 2k +
1, 2k 1, −2, −2;
• the 3-component link 3, −2, 2 1, −2 is a member of the family 2k +
1, −2, 2k 1, −2;
• the 4-component link (2, 2) − 2 (2, 2) that has the non-minimal 12-
crossing representation (2, 2−) 2 (2, 2−) is a member of the family
(2, 2−) 2k (2, 2−);
• the 4-component link . − (2, 2) : 2 that has the non-minimal 12-crossing
algebraic representation (2, 2) − 1, 3, (2, −2) is a member of the family
(2, 2) − 1, 2k + 1, (2, −2);
• the 4-component link 103∗ − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1 :: . − 1 that has the non-
minimal 12-crossing algebraic representation (2, −2), −2, 2, (2, −2) is a
member of the family (2, −2), −2k, 2k, (2, −2) with trivial Alexander
and Conway polynomial.
Hence, for n ≤ 10 all links with trivial Alexander and Conway polyno-
mial, except one, are members of the families with the same property. For
the link 2 0. − 2. − 2 0.2 0 we have not succeeded to find its corresponding
family of links with trivial Alexander and Conway polynomial.
Let t1 ,t2 ,. . .,tk and −t1 ,−t2 ,. . .,−tk (k ≥ 2) be rational tangles not be-
ginning nor ending with 1. All pretzel (stellar) links composed from them
have trivial Alexander and Conway polynomial. Such links are:
• 2, 2, −2, −2 for n = 8;
• −3, 3, 2, −2 and −3, 2, 3, −2 for n = 10;
• −4, 4, 2, −2, −4, 2, 4, −2, −3, 3, 3, −3, −3, 3, −3, 3, −2 2, 2 2, 2, −2,
−2 2, 2, 2 2, −2, and 2, 2, 2, −2, −2, −2 for n = 12, etc.
First knots with trivial Alexander and Conway polynomial appear for
n = 11 crossings: famous Kinoshita-Terasaka mutants (Kinoshita-Terasaka
knot . − (3, 2).2 and Conway knot . − (2, 3).2, that also can be written as
.−(2 1, 2).2 0 and .−(2, 2 1).2 0, i.e., knots 11n34 and 11n42 in the Knotscape
notation). Both of them have non-minimal 12-crossing algebraic represen-
tations: (3, −2), (2, −3), 2 and (3, −2), (−3, 2), 2. They are members of the
families of knots with n = 4k + 2l + 1 crossings that have trivial Alexander
and Conway polynomial, given by their non-minimal representations((2k +
1), −2k), (2k, −(2k + 1)), 2l and ((2k + 1), −2k), (−(2k + 1), 2k), 2l, respec-
tively.
Questions such as: is there any non-trivial knot with trivial Jones poly-
nomial, or is there any non-trivial link with trivial Kauffman polynomial,
are still open. The invention of Vassiliev’s invariants brought a new hope
that finite-order invariants will be able to classify KLs. Till now, that hope
is neither realized nor disproved.
Definition 2.10. A Laurent polynomial in some (commutative) variables

x1 , x2 ,. . ., xn is a polynomial in xi ’s and their inverses x−1
i .
Under the term “polynomial” usually we mean Laurent polynomial.

All polynomial invariants are based on a KL surgery and skein relations
(Conway, 1970). The first surgery is a crossing change that turns an over-
crossing to an undercrossing or vice versa (Fig. 1.58a). It is also known as
a flip. Conway’s second surgical operation, called smoothing, is the same as
an ∞-unknotting (unlinking) operation (Fig. 1.69). Both operations were
known and often used by knot theorists well before Conway, and the sec-
ond is crucial in obtaining “mirror curves” (see Subsection 3.2.3). Conway’s
main contribution was showing that skein relation can serve as a basis for
defining a new polynomial invariant– the Conway polynomial. To every
KL diagram D, polynomial ∇(D) is associated. It satisfies the following
identities:
(1) Normalization The polynomial of the unknot (unlink) is equal to 1

∇( ) = 1;
(2) Conway’s skein relation Suppose that three KL diagrams D+ , D− , D0
are identical outside the neighborhood of one crossing, and that in the
crossing they have forms as indicated in Fig. 2.7. Then the Laurent
polynomials of the three KLs are related as follows:
∇(D+ ) − ∇(D− ) = x∇(D0 ).
√
Substituting x in the Conway polynomial by t − √1t yields the Alexan-
der polynomial.
HOMFLYPT is an acronym for the eight researchers working in four
different independent groups, who discovered this polynomial almost at the
same time (in 1984). HOMFLYPT comes from the names: Hoste, Onceanu,
Millett, Freyd, Lickorish, and Yetter, J. Przytycki and P. Traczyk.2
2 The first six of them published their papers together in 1985 (Freyd, Yetter, Hoste,
Lickorish, Millett, Onceanu, 1985), and J. Przytycki and P. Traczyk published their work
somewhat later, because it didn’t arrive by mail on time.
212 LinKnot
The simplest way to define the HOMFLYPT polynomial P (l, m) in two

variables l and m is to use the Conway rules with P in the place of ∇ and
with the modified skein relations
lP (D+ ) − mP (D− ) = P (D0 ).
The HOMFLYPT polynomial (or two-variable Jones polynomial) is more
sensitive than the Conway polynomial, but it is still an incomplete invari-
ant. For example, for two different eleven-crossing mutant knots .2.(3,2)
and .2.(2,3), all their polynomial invariants are equal (Fig. 2.10). In gen-
eral, mutant KLs can not be distinguished by any polynomial invariant.
However, any pair of alternating KLs (including mutants) can easily be
distinguished using the LinKnot function SameAltConKL that compares
minimal Dowker codes. For example, the minimal Dowker code of the knot
.2.(3,2) is
{{11}, {6, 8, −12, 2, 20, −18, −4, −10, 22, −14, 16}},
and the minimal Dowker code of the knot .2.(2,3) is
{{11}, {6, 8, −12, 2, −18, 16, −4, 20, −22, 14, −10}}.
Fig. 2.10 Knots (a) .2.(3,2); (b) .2.(2,3)
In 1984 V. Jones discovered a new polynomial invariant of KLs. He

got the idea from operator algebras, an area of mathematics previously
unrelated to knot theory. In his work on von Neumann algebras he observed
the relations strongly resembling to the algebraic expression of the relations
in braid group (see page 160, Theorem 1.56). The significance of this famous
polynomial extends beyond the scope of knot theory as it is applicable to the
other branches of mathematics (operator algebra, braid theory) and physics

(statistical models and quantum groups) (Jones, 2005). In the case of the
Jones polynomial the first Conway rule V ( ) = 1 remains unchanged, and
the Conway skein relation is replaced by the modified skein relation
1 √ 1
V (D+ ) − tV (D− ) = ( t − √ )V (D0 ).
t t
The Jones polynomial can be obtained from the HOMFLYPT polynomial
1 1
by substituting l by it−1 and m by i(t− 2 − t 2 ).
Conway’s approach is generalized by J. Przytycki and P. Traczyk (Przy-
tycki and Traczyk, 1987; 1987a):
Definition 2.11. An algebra A consisting from a fixed sequence of elements

(constants) a1 , a2 , ..., an and two binary operations ◦ and / is called Conway
algebra if the following conditions are satisfied:
1) Initial conditions:
• an /an+1 = an ;
• an ◦ an+1 = an ;
2) Transposition properties:
• (a/b)/(c/d) = (a/c)/(b/d);
• (a/b) ◦ (c/d) = (a ◦ c)/(b ◦ d);
• (a ◦ b) ◦ (c ◦ d) = (a ◦ c) ◦ (b ◦ d);
3) Inverse operation properties:
• (a ◦ b)/b = a;
• (a/b) ◦ b = a
For each link diagram L let us construct W (L) as follows: denote by

an element of A corresponding to the n-component trivial link, and require
for any Conway triple L+ , L− , L0 the following Conway skein relations to
be satisfied:
W (L+ ) = W (L− ) ◦ W (L0 ),
W (L+ ) = W (L0 ) ◦ W (L− ).

214 LinKnot
Theorem 2.10. For each Conway algebra, there exists a unique function
W (L) on link diagrams that has a value an on the n-component unlink
diagrams and satisfies Conway skein relations. This function is invariant
on oriented links (Manturov, 2004, Theorem 5.3).
Let A be an arbitrary commutative ring with the unit element, a1 ∈ A,

and with invertible elements α, β. Define binary operations ◦ and / with:
x ◦ y = αx + βy,
x/y = α−1 x − α−1 βy,
satisfying the initial conditions:
n−1
an = (β −1 (1 − α)) a1 , n ≥ 1.
The following proposition holds:
Proposition 2.1. For any choice of invertible elements α, β and element

a1 , the ring A with operations ◦ and / defined above, and with the initial
conditions an is a Conway algebra.
Conway algebra provides different realizations:
• let A be a ring of polynomials of variable x with integer coefficients.

Conway polynomial is obtained for α = 1, β = x, a1 = 1 (page 211);
• let A be the ring of Laurent polynomials with integer coefficients in l,
m. HOMFLYPT polynomial is obtained for α = − ml , β = 1l , a1 = 1
(page 211); √
• let A be the ring of Laurent
√ polynomials in t. Jones polynomial is
2 1
obtained for α = t , β = t( t − t ), a1 = 1 (page 212).
√
L. Kauffman defined bracket polynomial in the summer of 1985. The

Kauffman bracket polynomial is the Laurent polynomial uniquely defined
by the following axioms:
(1) h i = 1;
(2) hL ∪ i = (−a2 − a−2 )hLi;
(3) h0i = ah1i + a−1 hHi.
The third rule is the fundamental one. It is analogous to the Conway

skein relation (Fig. 2.7), but significantly different (Fig. 2.11), so KLs
considered by Kauffman are not oriented. Consequently, there is only one
type of crossing (not two of in Conway skein relation), and two possible
ways of smoothing.
In order to prove that all the mentioned polynomials are KL invariants,
we need to show that they are invariant under Reidemeister moves. The
interested reader can find proofs in the books by L. Kauffman (1987a),
C. Adams (1994), K. Murasugi (1996), A. Kawauchi (1996), A. Sossinsky
(2002), and J. Przytycki (2004). Figure 2.12 gives a sketch of the proof
for the invariance of the bracket polynomial with regard to the second and
third Reidemeister moves. In the case of Kauffman bracket polynomial, in
order to have the invariance with regard to the first Reidemeister move we
need an additional “correction factor” given by the equality
X(L) = (−a)−3w(L) h|L|i,
where w(L) is a writhe of L. To define X(L) and w(L) we have to orient
the diagram L. The writhe w(L) is defined to be the sum of signs over all
crossings of L.
The original Jones polynomial can be obtained from X(L) by replacing
1
each a in X(L) by t− 4 .
Fig. 2.11 Kauffman skein relations with labelled regions.
We will try to give an elementary explanation of the connection between

the Kauffman bracket polynomial and statistical models in physics, that is,
theoretical models of regular atomic structures that can adopt a variety of
states, each state being determined by the distribution of spins in atoms.
In the model with two spins, they can be represented by arrows associated
to every atom, pointing up and down, respectively. Four regions of the
projection plane come together at each crossing. Rotate the overstrand
counterclockwise, passing over two of the regions, label them by A, and label
the remaining two regions by B. A two-sided mirror placed in the crossing
216 LinKnot
Fig. 2.12 Invariance of the Kauffman bracket polynomial with regard to the second and
third Reidemeister move.
can have two positions: it can be an A-mirror or B-mirror, inducing an

A-split or B-split (Fig. 2.11b,c). The analogy with “mirror curves” present
in Celtic, Tamil or Tchokwe knot-art is complete (see Chapter 3). A knot
or link projection with n crossings gives 2n possible distributions of mirrors,
this means, 2n possible states of the KL. Every state is a split link with
unknotted components. If |S| is the number of components in a state L′ ,
the bracket polynomial of L′ is (−a2 + a−2 )|S|−1 . The total contribution
to the bracket polynomial by the state S is aA(S) a−B(S) (−a2 − a−2 )|S|−1 ,
where A(S) is the number of A-splits, and B(S) the number of B-splits in S.
The bracket polynomial of a link L will depend on the bracket polynomials
of all the possible states of the projection of L. It will be a sum over all
the possible states given by the formula
X
aA(S) a−B(S) (−a2 − a−2 )|S|−1 .
S
After defining Kauffman bracket, we can prove its invariance under the
second and third Reidemeister moves and show that it is the only bracket
polynomial satisfying the given set of axioms.
Figure 2.13 illustrates all the states of a trefoil knot. Its bracket poly-
nomial will be a7 − a3 − a−5 .
By substituting the coefficients in the axioms for the Kauffman bracket
polynomial by the following terms, we obtain the so called square bracket
polynomial. We get the function, well defined on link diagrams, but not in-
variant under Reidemeister moves. However, this function is worth studying
on graphs. It satisfies the following axioms:
Fig. 2.13 All the states of a trefoil knot.
1
(1) [ ] = q 2 ;
1
(2) [L ∪ ] = q 2 [L];
(3) [0] = q v[1] + [H].
− 12
A square bracket polynomial is not necessarily an invariant of KLs, but

it is related to the dichromatic polynomial ZG (q, v) corresponding to the
graph of a KL (page 24). The dichromatic polynomial is defined by three
axioms:
(1) Z(•) = q
(2) Z(•G) = qZ(G)
(3) Z(
• ) = Z(
–•—
–• •

) + vZ(
–• )
The first rule is just an initial condition for a graph with a single vertex.
According to the second rule, adding new isolated vertex to a graph, causes
the polynomial of the graph to be multiplied by q. The third rule says
that if we pick a particular edge of a graph G, then the polynomial for G
is obtained by adding the polynomial of the graph with that edge deleted
to v times the polynomial of the graph with that edge collapsed down to a
single vertex (see, e.g., Adams, 1994).
The square bracket polynomial [L(G)] and the dichromatic polynomial
ZG (q, v) are connected by the relation:
n
ZG (q, v) = q 2 [L(G)]
where n is the number of vertices of the graph G.

218 LinKnot
LinKnot function fGraphKL produces the graph of a KL given by

its Conway symbol, Dowker code, or P -data. The graph is given as a list
of unordered pairs, followed by a drawing of the graph. For every graph
obtained you can calculate its dichromatic polynomial ZG (q, v).
A coloring of a graph G is an assignment of one of possible z colors to
each vertex of G such that no two adjacent vertices have the same color.
Definition 2.12. The chromatic polynomial of a graph G is a function

of the graph G and of the number of colors z that gives the number of
different colorings of a graph G by z colors (Birkhoff, 1912; Birkhoff and
Lewis, 1946).
Chromatic polynomial of a graph of KL obtained using the Lin-

Knot function fGraphKL can be computed with the Mathematica function
ChromaticPolynomial. For example, the underlying graph of the trefoil
knot is a triangle, so its chromatic polynomial is z(z − 1)(z − 2).
The program Knot 2000 (K2K) provides functions for computing poly-
nomial invariants of KLs from P -data or from a braid word. Depending
on the type, the function SkeinPolynomial computes the Jones polyno-
mial, HOMFLYPT polynomial (or two-variable Jones polynomial), Alexan-
der polynomial by the Conway relation, and the Conway polynomial. In
order to compute polynomial invariants from a braid word, or from the Bu-
rau representation for a braid word, you can use the Knot 2000 functions
JonesPolynomialbyBraid, AlexanderPolynomialbyBurauRep, and
ThreeParallelPolynomialInvariant. The LinKnot function fAlexPoly
calculates the multi-variable Alexander polynomial of a KL from its Con-
way symbol using the Wirtinger presentation of KL. The functions
KauffmanPolynomial and RedKauffmanPolynomial compute Kauff-
man polynomial and reduced Kauffman polynomial of a KL given by P -
data.
Some new constructed polynomial invariants (e.g., quantum invariants,
Khovanov polynomial obtained as a categorification of Jones polynomial
(Shumakovitch, 2004), and Links-Gould invariant (De Wit, Kauffman and
Links, 1999; De Wit, 2000)) are more sensitive then previous. For the
possibility to compute them, special thanks are due to Dror Bar Natan and
David De Wit.
Khovanov polynomial, A2 invariant, and colored Jones polynomial
can be computed with the functions Kh, A2, and ColouredJones
from the program Knot Theory (http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/The
Mathematica Package KnotTheory), which are included in LinKnot.
Links-Gould invariant can be computed using the additional functions

LinksGould and LinksGouldInv from the program Links-Gould Explorer
written by David de Wit (http://www.maths.uq.edu.au/∼ddw/Links–
GouldExplorer/Links–GouldExplorer.htm). The Linknot functions fCon
wayToPD, fKnotscapeDowToPD, fDowkerToPD, and fPdataToPD
are conversion functions from LinKnot to KnotTheory. They convert Lin-
Knot input data (Conway symbols, Dowker codes in Knotscape format,
Dowker codes, and P -data) to P D-notation used by D. Bar Natan. Those
functions enable compatibility of the programs LinKnot and KnotTheory,
so the programs can be used simultaneously.
2.3 Vassiliev invariants
Vassiliev invariants (or finite-order invariants) are the most general invari-
ants, in the sense that many KL-invariants can be deduced from them. In
a crossing change from an overcrossing to an undercrossing Vassiliev intro-
duced an intermediate phase: a catastrophe, when one part of a KL cuts
another part transversely. Besides overcrossings and undercrossings knots
or links have double points, where KL cuts itself. KLs with double points
are called singular. If we denote the set of all singular KLs by F , KLs with-
out special crossings form a subset of F denoted by Σ0 . In the same sense,
the remaining part of the set F can be divided into strata Σ1 , Σ2 , Σ3 ,. . .
consisting of singular KLs with 1,2,3,. . . double points, respectively. With
every crossing change from overcrossing to undercrossing or vice versa, a
KL becomes singular, passing through an intermediate phase– a catastro-
phe. In the same way as for ordinary KLs, we can define an ambient isotopy
for singular KLs:
Definition 2.13. Two singular knots or links L1 and L2 are ambient iso-
topic if there is an orientation-preserving homeomorphism of ℜ3 that sends
L1 to L2 preserving the arrows indicating orientation and the cyclic order
of the branches with double points.
In order to represent ambient isotopy of singular KLs by Reidemeister

moves we need to introduce additional Reidemeister move Ω for special
crossings (Fig. 2.14).
As an equivalent of the skein relation for singular KLs we introduce the
following relation that defines the derivative v ′ of the invariant v:
v ′ (h i) = v(h!i) − v(h"i).
220 LinKnot
Fig. 2.14 Reidemeister move Ω for special crossings.
From this relation we deduce, so called, one-term relation and four-term

relation (Fig. 2.15a). The sketch of the proof of four-term relation is given
in Fig. 2.15b.
Every Vassiliev invariant assigns a numerical value to each KL (in par-
ticular to singular KLs).
Definition 2.14. A singular KL invariant satisfying the preceding relation

is called a Vassiliev invariant of order (at most n) (or of finite type) if for
any singular KL with n + 1 vertices v(L) = 0.
In other words, a Vassiliev invariant of order less or equal to n satisfies

the skein relation for special KLs and vanishes for all KLs with n+1 double
points or more. In particular, if v is of order at most n, but not of order
n − 1, i.e., if there exists a singular KL with exactly n vertices for which
v is non-zero, then v is called a Vassiliev invariant of order (exactly) n.
The set Vn of all Vassiliev invariants of order at most n has a vector space
structure with the inclusions V0 ⊂ V1 ⊂ V2 ⊂ V3 . . .. A Vassiliev invariant
is essentially different from all previously considered KL invariants that
associate a single mathematical entity (number, polynomial, etc.) to a KL.
Instead of considering KLs individually, Vassiliev considered the space of
all KLs, defining the whole space of invariants. The second defining relation
is a choice of the beginning point in the space F , and after that we consider
the position of that point with respect to the stratification in the space F :
F ⊃ Σ0 ∪ Σ1 ∪ Σ2 . . ..
Let v be a Vassiliev invariant of order 0. For any singular knot K,
v(K) = V ( ), and there is essentially one Vassiliev invariant of order 0,
constant for any singular knot. There is no Vassiliev invariant of order
1. The theory becomes non-trivial from the second order onward. Let
us distinguish among the elements of V2 a specific invariant, denoted v0 ,
satisfying the relation v0 ( ) = 0, that is equal to 1 for a trefoil knot with
two special vertices. The calculation of v0 for a trefoil knot 3 (Fig. 2.16)
shows that v0 (3) = 1. Most of the KL invariants are not flexible and
Fig. 2.15 (a) The one-term and four-term relations; (b) the proof of four-term relation.
allow no improvement if they do not detect some property (e.g., Alexander

polynomial can not distinguish left from and there is no way to remedy
it. In the case of a single Vassiliev invariant (which is also not a complete
invariant and can not tell all knots apart) we have a possibility to define
another Vassiliev invariant that distinguishes them, and have an unlimited
number of possibilities to do that. For Vassiliev invariants, the following
Conjecture is still open:
Conjecture 2.1. Finite-order invariants classify KLs; in other words,
for each pair of non-equivalent knots or links L1 and L2 there is a natural
number n ∈ N and an invariant v ∈ Vn such that v(L1 ) 6= v(L2 ) (Sossinsky,
2002, page 104).
The importance of Vassiliev invariants lies in their universality: many
other invariants, including coefficients of the Alexander, Jones and Kauff-
man polynomial can be expressed in terms of Vassiliev invariants or their
limits. However, not all KL invariants can be derived from Vassiliev in-
222 LinKnot
Fig. 2.16 The calculation of a V2 invariant for the trefoil knot.
variants: for example, the crossing number, unknotting (unlinking) number,

braid index, or signature of a KL are not Vassiliev invariants, because they
are not of finite order.
Analogous to the way we considered states of a KL shadow with regard
to overcrossings and undercrossings, we can deal with special projections by
giving three possible choices for every vertex (overcrossing, undercrossing,
or double vertex). For a KL shadow with n vertices, the number of possible
variations is 3n , but this can be considerably reduced using symmetry of a
KL in question.
We can consider Vassiliev invariants in terms of purely geometrical com-
binatorial theory by introducing Gauss diagrams (or chord diagrams) of
the order n (n = 1, 2, 3, . . .).
Definition 2.15. A graph consisting of a circle and n chords joining 2n dif-

ferent points on it is called chord diagram of order n, or shortly n-diagram.
Planar diagrams of oriented knots are characterized by their Gauss dia-

grams. A Gauss diagram of a classical knot projection is an oriented circle
considered as the preimage of the immersed circle with chords connecting
the preimages of each crossing. To mentain information about overcross-
ings and undercrossings, the chords are oriented toward the undercrossing
point and signed in accordance with crossing signs.
Recall that crossing changes do not change the value of an nth -order in-
variant of a KL with n double points. Independent on knotting, it depends
only on the order in which double points appear when tracing KL.
Chord diagrams of singular knots contain only chords corresponding to
double points. In order to draw a Gauss diagram (or chord diagram) of a
singular knot K with n double points we draw a circle and label on it in a
cyclic order all double points visited while tracing our oriented knot K. At
the end, join each pair of points having the same label by a chord.
Definition 2.16. The resulting diagram is called a Gauss diagram (or

chord diagram) of a singular knot K.
Fig. 2.17 The Gauss diagram of the special projection of a trefoil knot with three double
points and one loop.
The Gauss diagram of the special projection of a trefoil knot with three
double points and one loop is given in Fig. 2.17. In the same way as
before, using the one-term relation, we can delete all double points with a
loop and continue to work with proper (or reduced) special projections and
corresponding proper (or reduced) Gauss diagrams. All non-singular knots
have the same diagram– a circle without any chords. In general, many
knots correspond to the same diagram. We can construct all the different
Gauss diagrams Dn of order n (i.e., with n double points) (Fig. 2.18). Then
we can rewrite the one-term relation and four-term relation (Fig. 2.15a) in
the language of chord diagrams (Fig. 2.19a).
Fig. 2.18 Gauss diagrams Dn of order n ≤ 3.

224 LinKnot
Fig. 2.19 (a) The one-term and four-term relations (Fig. 2.15a) in the language of
chord diagrams; (b) the actuality tables for n ≤ 3.
Using the one-term relation, we can reduce the list Dn to one diagram
for n = 2 and two diagrams for n = 3, by eliminating the diagrams d11 ,
d22 , d34 , d35 and reducing d33 to d21 . If we think of Gauss diagrams as
vectors, from the four-term relation we obtain d31 = 2d32 , so dim(D1 ) =
0, dim(D2 ) = 1, dim(D3 ) = 1, etc. Recalling that dim(D0 ) = 1, and
continuing the calculation for n = 3, 4, . . . , 9, we obtain the sequence 1,
0, 1, 1, 3, 4, 9, 14, 27, 44 of the dimensions of the spaces Dn for n =
0, 1, 2, . . . , 9 (Bar Natan, 1995). Denote the space of chord diagrams with n
chords modulo the one-term and four-term relations by An . The main result
of the combinatorial theory of Gauss diagrams and Vassiliev invariants is
expressed in Kontsevich’s theorem:
Theorem 2.11. Kontsevich’s Theorem The vector space Vn /(Vn−1 ) of

nth -order Vassiliev invariants is isomorphic to the space An .
As the final result, for every n we can obtain the actuality table An : the
list of all independent Gauss diagrams with n chords (Fig. 2.19b). As the
value of n increases, the amount of computer resources necessary for the
computation of actuality table grows exponentially.
Vassiliev invariants provide the universal language to talk about quan-
tum invariants. For the study of quantum invariants we recommend

the book Quantum Invariants by T. Ohtsuki (2001) and the papers by
V.G. Drinfeld (1987) and V.G. Turaev (1994).
2.4 Experimenting with KLs
The program LinKnot can also be used for educational purposes. Exper-
imenting with KLs and computing their polynomials, students can guess,
recognize, or rediscover some well known KL properties. For example,
to every alternating KL corresponds an Alexander polynomial with al-
ternating signs. Hence, the Alexander polynomial of any alternating KL
can not be equal to 1, but there are many non-trivial KLs with the
Alexander and Conway polynomials equal to 1. In fact, there are fami-
lies of KLs with this property (see page 209). Many different KLs have
equal Alexander polynomials. Alexander polynomial does not distinguish
a KL from its mirror image. Alexander polynomial satisfies the relation
A(K1 #K2 ) = A(K1 )A(K2 ), and so do Jones and HOMFLYPT polyno-
mials. Jones polynomials of a link L and its mirror image L satisfy the
relation VL (t) = VL (t−1 ). The HOMFLYPT polynomial of L is obtained
by substituting each l in the HOMFLYPT polynomial of L by l−1 . Jones
polynomial (or HOMFLYPT) polynomial of a KL remains the same after
changing orientations of KL components. The bracket polynomial of an
achiral KL must be palindromic, etc.
Despite all nice properties and the increasing sensitivity of the poly-
nomial invariants, they are still useless in some cases. For example, the
non-trivial link
9∗ 3.1. − 1. − 1.2. − 1. − 1.1. − 3
has a trivial Jones polynomial (see page 208), and the same is true for a
whole family of links (Eliahou, Kauffman and Thistlethwaite, 2003).
Even combined together, polynomials sometimes fail in detecting chi-
rality: for instance, Jones, HOMFLYPT, and Kauffman polynomials of the
knots 2 2, 3, −2 (942 ), (2 1, 2+) (3, −2), or 10∗∗ 2 0.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 and their
mirror images are equal, although these knots are chiral. Moreover, this
property holds for the families of alternating chiral KLs 10∗∗∗ p :: .p 0,
10∗∗∗ p :: .p 0 : .q 0.q, 10∗∗∗ p :: .p 0 : .q 0.q, 10∗∗∗ p :: .p 0 : .q.q 0,
10∗∗∗ p : .q 0.q.p 0, 10∗∗∗ p.q 0 : .q : .p 0.r 0.r, 10∗∗∗ p : .q 0.q.p 0 : .r.r 0, etc.
LinKnot can be used for extensive computations which may lead to
interesting discoveries. For example, after computing that the Alexander
226 LinKnot
and Conway polynomial of a non-trivial 15-crossing knot 7, 5, −3 are 1, one

can check some members of the family (2k + 1), 3, −3. The real surprise is
that both Alexander and Conway polynomial are independent of k, so they
remain the same: 2-5t+2t2 and 1 − 2x, respectively. Moreover, all knots in
the family (4k+3), (4k+1), −(2k+1) with n = 10k+5 crossings have trivial
Alexander and Conway polynomials, and this property also holds for a more
general three-parameter family of pretzel knots (2p + 1), (2q + 1), −(2r + 1),
where integers p, q, r satisfy the condition pq = pr + qr + r. It is not
difficult to find a few more families of knots with trivial Alexander and
Conway polynomial:
• ((2p) (q+1), −(q+1)), (−(2p) (q+1), (q+1)), 2r with n = 4p+4q+2r+3

crossings,
• ((2p) 1 (2q), −(2q + 1)), (−(2p) 1 (2q), (2q + 1)), 2r with n = 4p + 8q +
2r + 3 crossings,
or even the family of knots given by their minimal representation
• (2k + 1, −2k), (−(2k + 1), 2k), . . . , (2k + 1, −2k), (−(2k + 1), 2k), 2l
where (2k + 1, −2k), (−(2k + 1), 2k) repeats an arbitrary number of times.
All mutant knots derived from such families also have trivial Alexander and
Conway polynomials. So, maybe there still are some undiscovered proper-
ties of Alexander and Conway polynomial? The important open question
is: why are Alexander and Conway polynomial unable to distinguish knots
belonging to the same family, or even unable to distinguish some families
of knots from the unknot?
In an arbitrary family of KLs, their corresponding polynomials are well
ordered. For example, for the family of knots (2k + 1), (k ≥ 1) we obtain
the sequence of Alexander polynomials 1-t+t2 , 1-t+t2 -t3 +t4 , etc., so for
the knot family (2k + 1) we have the general formula for the Alexander
polynomial
X2k
∆(p) = (−1)i ti .
i=0
Following the same idea, for the knot families that originated from the
general Conway symbol p q, for (m, n ≥ 1, m ≥ n) we obtain
∆((2m) (2n)) = mn − (2mn + 1)t + mnt2
2n−1
X
∆((2m + 1) (2n)) = (m + 1) + (2m + 1) (−1)i ti + (m + 1)t2n
i=1
2m−1
X
∆((2m) (2n + 1)) = (n + 1) + (2n + 1) (−1)i ti + (n + 1)t2m .
i=1
For the knot families derived from the general Conway symbol p 1 q (m, n ≥
1, m ≥ n) we have
∆((2m+1) 1 (2n+1)) = (m+1)(n+1)−(2mn+2m+2n+1)t+(m+1)(n+1)t2
2n+2
X
∆((2m) 1 (2n + 1)) = m + (2m + 1) (−1)i ti + mt2n+3
i=1
2m+2
X
∆((2m + 1) 1 (2n)) = n + (2n + 1) (−1)i ti + nt2m+3 ,
i=1
etc.
For the mentioned family of pretzel knots (2p + 1), (2q + 1), −(2r + 1)
∆((2p + 1), (2q + 1), −(2r + 1)) =
pq − pr − qr − r + (−2pq + 2pr + 2qr + 2r + 1)t + (pq − pr − qr − r)t2 ,

and the Conway polynomial is
∇((2p + 1), (2q + 1), −(2r + 1)) = 1 + (pq − pr − qr − r)x.
For pq = pr + qr + r it follows ∆ = 1 and ∇ = 1.
These particular results imply a more general conclusion: a general
formula for Alexander polynomial one can derive for every family of KLs,
where its coefficients are expressed by parameters from the Conway symbol
of the family.
Before we revisit this question and pose a series of similar questions
about families and the regular distribution of KL invariants (as signatures,
symmetry groups, chirality, unknotting and unlinking numbers, etc.) we
continue with the derivation of KLs in Conway notation, that will enable
us to work with all KLs, and not only the rational ones.
2.5 Derivation and classification of KLs
The first world we have derived is the linear world (or L-world) that consists
of KLs given by a general Conway symbol p (p ≥ 1). For an odd p we obtain
knots, and for an even p two-component links. All knots of the L-world
are periodic with graph symmetry group G = [2, p], and knot symmetry
228 LinKnot
group G′ = [2, p]+, generated by a p-rotation and 2-rotation. For every

knot in this family the unknotting number is u(p) = p−1 2 . Moreover, the
Alexander polynomial ∆(t) for knots, or reduced two-variable Alexander
polynomial ∆(t, t) for 2-component links, is a sign-alternating polynomial
of order p + 1, with all coefficients equal to 1.
The rational world consists of alternating knots and two-component
links.
Theorem 2.12. Every rational link has a two-bridge presentation.
For the proof, see e.g., Cromwell (2004).
Rational KLs are also known as two-bridge KLs (Definition 1.64) since
they all share this property. Because of the connection between rational
KLs and continued fractions, all calculations with rational KLs are sim-
ple (including the recognition of KLs, checking equality, computing BJ-
unknotting and unlinking numbers, etc.)
The next world is the stellar or prismatic world, abbreviated as S-world.
The name stellar, introduced by A. Caudron, comes from the properties of
corresponding graphs, and we propose the more geometrical name pris-
matic. Stellar KLs are also known as pretzel KLs, or Montesinos KLs.
In the S-world we can distinguish the source links of the type 2, 2, . . . , 2
(S-links), from the source links of the type 2, 2, . . . , 2 + k (S + -links), where
+k denotes a sequence of k pluses (k = 1, 2, ...) (Fig. 2.20). Source links
are the base for the derivation of all generating KLs, their corresponding
families, and all different particular KLs belonging to them.
For every even n (n ≥ 6) we have an ( n2 )-component source link
2, 2, . . . , 2. Its shadow is an n-gonal prism with colored lateral edges denot-
ing bigons. The symmetry group of this graph G = [2, n] is generated by
an n-fold rotation, vertical, and horizontal plane reflection (Grünbaum and
Shephard, 1985). Hence, we conclude that every source link 2, 2, . . . , 2 re-
mains invariant after cyclic permutations of bigons (cyclic rotations), where
every permutation is identified with its reverse (because of a vertical reflec-
tion), or if all bigons are reverted (because of a horizontal reflection). We
can obtain all stellar KLs from the source KLs mentioned, substituting
bigons with chains of bigons and using symmetry. In fact, in the source
KLs of the stellar world we replace bigons by rational tangles 3, 4, . . ., from
the linear world (L-world). Because the L-world is a subworld of the ratio-
nal world (R-world), we will continue with the derivation of stellar-rational
KLs, treating stellar-linear KLs as a subworld of the RS-world. In this
way, the whole S-world will be included in the SR-world.
Fig. 2.20 Source links of the stellar world.
The next world is the arborescent world. Its members are multiple
combinations of KLs belonging to the preceding worlds. For example, we
have the following combinations: stellar-rational subworld (S(R)-subworld)
obtained by replacing bigons in stellar source KLs by rational tangles which
do not begin with 1, rational-stellar subworld (R(S)-subworld) obtained by
replacing the first and last bigon in rational source KLs by stellar KLs,
(R(S))(R)-subworld obtained by replacing bigons belonging to stellar parts
of the source KLs in the R(S)-subworld by rational tangles which do not
begin with 1, stellar-stellar subworld (S(S)-subworld) obtained by replacing
bigons in stellar source KLs by stellar KLs, etc. In a certain sense, the
structure of KLs looks like Chinese nested spheres, where every sphere is
placed inside the preceding one.
Definition 2.17. Every additive expression of a natural number n as an

ordered sequence of natural numbers is called a composition of n (or an
ordered partition of n).
Denote by n the set of all compositions of n which do not begin with 1.

For example,
3 is the set {3, 2 1},
230 LinKnot
4 is {4, 3 1 2 2, 2 1 1},
5 is {5, 4 1, 3 2, 3 1 1, 2 3, 2 2 1, 2 1 2, 2 1 1 1}, etc.
From the stellar source links 2, 2, . . . , 2, we derive all KLs of the stellar-
rational subworld (S(R)-subworld) by replacing bigons by R-tangles– ratio-
nal tangles which do not begin with 1. Stellar-rational KLs (or arborescent
stellar KLs, according to Caudron), known also as Montesinos KLs, are
derived from the source links 2, 2, . . . , 2 for 6 ≤ n ≤ 12. They are given in
Table 1.
Table 1
n = 6 2, 2, 2
n = 7 3, 2, 2
n = 8 4, 2, 2 2, 2, 2, 2
3, 3, 2
n = 9 5, 2, 2 3, 2, 2, 2
4, 3, 2
3, 3, 3
n = 10 6, 2, 2 4, 2, 2, 2
5, 3, 2 3, 3, 2, 2
4, 4, 2 3, 2, 3, 2
4, 3, 3
n = 11 7, 2, 2 5, 2, 2, 2 3, 2, 2, 2, 2
6, 3, 2 4, 3, 2, 2
5, 4, 2 4, 2, 3, 2
5, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 2
4, 4, 3
n = 12 8, 2, 2 6, 2, 2, 2 4, 2, 2, 2, 2 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
7, 3, 2 5, 3, 2, 2 3, 3, 2, 2, 2
6, 4, 2 5, 2, 3, 2 3, 2, 3, 2, 2
6, 3, 3 4, 4, 2, 2
5, 5, 2 4, 2, 4, 2
5, 4, 3 4, 3, 3, 2
4, 4, 4 4, 3, 2, 3
3, 3, 3, 3
A pretzel KL a1 , a2 , a3 , . . . remains the same after cyclic permuta-
tion or reversal of its sequence of tangles. Hence, from a symbol 3, 2, 2
we obtain (3, 2, 2) and (2 1, 2, 2), from 4, 2, 2 we obtain (4, 2, 2), (3 1, 2, 2),
(2 2, 2, 2), (2 1 1, 2, 2), from 3, 3, 2 we obtain (3, 3, 2), (3, 2 1, 2) = (2 1, 3, 2)
and (2 1, 2 1, 2), and then eliminate duplicates. In the same way, we obtain
all alternating stellar-rational KLs. Thus, the stellar world is completely
included in the SR-world.
Instead of repeating the derivation of S + links from the source links of
the type 2, 2, . . . , 2 + k, (k = 1, 2, . . .), they can be obtained directly from
the stellar-rational KLs, by adding an appropriate number of pluses. For
n = 7 we add one plus to stellar-rational KLs with 6 crossings, for n = 8
we derive S + links from SR-links with 6 crossings by adding two pluses,
and from SR-links with 7 crossings by adding one plus, etc. In this way, for
every n we derive KLs with k pluses from SR-links with n − k, . . ., n − 2,
n − 1 crossings (n ≥ k + 6, k = 1, 2, . . .).
The LinKnot functions fStellarBasic, fStellar, and fStellarPlus cal-
culate the number and Conway symbols of stellar and stellar-rational KLs
without and with pluses for a given number of crossings n, respectively.
If we try to calculate the number of different classes in the first column
of Table 1 (beginning with series 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 for n ≤ 12), the number
of source KLs, or even the number of all KLs derived from some gener-
ating KL, we encounter different combinatorial problems. For example,
the number of different classes mentioned n above is equal to the coefficient
corresponding to q n−6 in n−1

3 , where r is the Gauss polynomial
(1 − q n ) . . . (1 − q n−r+1 )

n
= .
r (1 − q r ) . . . (1 − q)
These problems belong to the theory of partitions with a given symmetry
group (P -partitions). Let P be a permutation group P on k objects and
n ≥ k be an integer. A natural number ni is assigned to every object ki
(1 ≤ ki ≤ k), where ki=1 ni = n. Two partitions defined by signed (or
P
weighted) objects are equal iff there is a permutation from P transforming

one to another. We want to find and enumerate different P -partitions.
In some special cases, we can reduce problems of P -partitions to classical
partition theory, but in general, this enumeration is an open problem.
We could also analyze families, reflecting a “vertical” structure of every
world.
232 LinKnot
Fig. 2.21 Family p,q,r.
For example, considering source KLs from the second column of Table
1, we obtain the families:
p, q, r (p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2) p 1, q, r (p ≥ 2, q ≥ r ≥ 2)
p q, r, s (p, q ≥ 2, r ≥ s ≥ 2) p 1, q 1, r (p ≥ q ≥ 2, r ≥ 2)
p q 1, r, s (p, q ≥ 2, r ≥ s ≥ 2) p 1 q, r, s (p ≥ q ≥ 2, r ≥ s ≥ 2)
p 1 1 1, q, r (p ≥ 2, q ≥ r ≥ 2) p q, r 1, s (p, q, r, s ≥ 2)
p 1, q 1, r 1 (p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2)
In the family p,q,r we have three-component links for p = q = r = 0
(mod 2), two-component links if exactly one of the numbers p, q, r is odd,
and knots if at least two of them are odd (Fig. 2.21).
Let us consider the knot family (2k + 1), 3, 3, (k ≥ 2). The next table
contains Jones polynomials for the first six knots in this family.
5, 3, 3 1, −2, 3, −4, 5, −5, 6, −4, 4, −3, 1, −1

7, 3, 3 1, −2, 3, −4, 5, −5, 6, −6, 6, −4, 4, −3, 1, −1
9, 3, 3 1, −2, 3, −4, 5, −5, 6, −6, 6, −6, 6, −4, 4, −3, 1, −1
11, 3, 3 1, −2, 3, −4, 5, −5, 6, −6, 6, −6, 6, −6, 6, −4, 4, −3, 1, −1
13, 3, 3 1, −2, 3, −4, 5, −5, 6, −6, 6, −6, 6, −6, 6, −6, 6, −4, 4, −3, 1, 1
15, 3, 3 1, −2, 3, −4, 5, −5, 6, −6, 6, −6, 6, −6, 6, −6, 6, −6, 6, −4, 4, −3, 1, −1
We conjecture that the signature of all knots in this family is is 2, and

unknotting number is 3.
Non-alternating KLs first appear in the SR-world. Here is the list of
non-alternating stellar KLs up to 10 crossings:
n=6
2, 2, 2−
No. of KLs: 1
n=7
3, 2, 2− 2 1, 2, 2−
No. of KLs: 2
n=8
4, 2, 2− 3, 2 1, 2− 3, 3, 2− 2 1, 2 1, 2−
2 2, 2, 2− 2 1 1, 2, 2− 3 1, 2, 2− 2, 2, 2, 2−
2, 2, 2, 2 − −
No. of KLs: 9
n=9
5, 2, 2− 4, 3, 2− 4 1, 2, 2− 4, 2 1, 2−
2 1 1, 3, 2− 3, 3, 3− 2 2, 3, 2− 3, 2 1, 2 1−
2 2, 2 1, 2− 2 1 1, 2 1, 2− 3 2, 2, 2− 23, 2, 2−
3 1 1, 2, 2− 2 2 1, 2, 2− 3 1, 3, 2− 3 1, 2 1, 2−
3, 3, 2 1− 2 1, 2 1, 2 1− 2 1 2,2,2− 2 1 1 1,2,2−
3,2,2,2− 2 1,2,2,2− 3,2,2,2−−
No. of KLs: 23
n = 10
6,2,2− 4,4,2− 5,3,2− 5,2 1,2−
4 1,3,2− 4,3,3− 4,3,2 1− 4,2 1,2 1−
4 1,2 1,2− 4 2,2,2− 2 4,2,2− 4,2 2,2−
4 1 1,2,2− 4,2 1 1,2− 5 1,2,2− 4,3 1,2−
3 2,3,2− 3 2,2 1,2− 3 1 1,3,2− 3 1 1,2 1,2−
2 3,3,2− 2 3,2 1,2− 2 2 1,3,2− 2 2 1,2 1,2−
2 2,2 2,2− 2 2,2 1 1,2− 2 1 1,2 1 1,2− 3 1,3,3−
234 LinKnot
3 1,3,2 1− 3 1,2 1,2 1− 2 2,3,2 1− 2 1 1,3,3−

2 1 1,2 1,2 1− 3 1 2,2,2− 3 1 1 1,2,2− 2 3 1,2,2−
2 1 3,2,2− 2 1 2 1,2,2− 2 1 1 2,2,2− 2 1 1 1 1,2,2−
3 1,2 2,2− 3 1,2 1 1,2− 2 1 2,3,2− 2 1 2,2 1,2−
2 1 1 1,3,2− 2 1 1 1,2 1,2− 2 2,3,3− 2 2,2 1,2 1−
2 1 1,3,2 1− 3 3,2,2− 3 2 1,2,2− 2 2 2,2,2−
2 2 1 1,2,2− 3 1,3 1,2− 4,2,2,2− 3,3,2,2−
3,2 1,2,2− 2 1,2 1,2,2− 3,2,3,2− 3,2,2 1,2−
2 1,2,2 1,2− 3 1,2,2,2− 2 2,2,2,2− 2 1 1,2,2,2−
2,2,2,2,2− 4,2,2,2−− 3,3,2,2−− 3,2 1,2,2−−
3,2,3,2−− 3,2,2 1,2−− 2 2,2,2,2−− 2,2,2,2,2−−
No. of KLs: 72
The principle of their derivation is simple. We add minuses to all al-

ternating stellar and stellar-rational KLs with n crossings according to the
following rule: if an alternating stellar or stellar-rational KL consists of k
rational tangles connected by the operation of ramification (denoted by a
comma) we may add at most [ k2 ] minuses. This means that we add to al-
ternating stellar or stellar-rational KLs formed from three rational tangles
one minus, to KLs consisting of four or five rational tangles we add one or
two minuses, etc. In order to write them as KLs with a minimal number of
crossings, we can write −2 instead of 2−; −2, −2 instead of 2, 2 − −; −2 1
instead of 3−; −3 instead of 2 1−; −2 1, −2 instead of 3, 2 − −, etc.
The same non-alternating KLs can be obtained only when we add k
minuses to a stellar-rational KL expressed by a sequence of the length 2k.
Two KLs of this kind will be equal iff one can be obtained from the other
by the following rules applied to rational tangles that are the parts of those
KLs:
(1) every single rational tangle 2 remains unchanged;

(2) replace every rational tangle p1 p2 . . . pi 1 by p1 p2 . . . (pi + 1);
(3) replace every rational tangle p1 p2 . . . pi (pi ≥ 2) by p1 p2 . . . (pi − 1) 1.
For example, for n = 10, among the KLs consisting of four parts and
with two minuses there are the following pairs of equal KLs:
4, 2, 2, 2 − − = 3 1, 2, 2, 2 − −
2 2, 2, 2, 2 − − = 2 1 1, 2, 2, 2 − −
3, 3, 2, 2 − − = 2 1, 2 1, 2, 2 − −
3, 2, 3, 2 − − = 2 1, 2, 2 1, 2 − −
where the first KL is always the mirror-image of the other.

The LinKnot function fStellarNalt calculates the number and Conway
symbols of all non-alternating stellar-rational KLs with a given number of
crossings n.
The next subworld is the rational-stellar R(S)-subworld. In the same
way as before, we can derive KLs with pluses directly from KLs with-
out them by adding an appropriate number of pluses in certain positions.
Therefore, we will first consider the derivation of rational-stellar (or ar-
borescent generalized, according to Caudron) KLs without pluses. As the
basis of the derivation of rational-stellar (RS-links) we use rational source
KLs and source links 2, . . . , 2 from the stellar world, including the link 2, 2.
Then we substitute the first and last bigon in every rational source KL by a
stellar source link. By k we denote all rational tangles that can be obtained
from k (as all compositions of the number k). For example, 2 gives {2, 1 1},
3 gives {3, 2 1, 1 2, 1 1 1}, 4 gives {4, 3 1, 2 2, 1 3, 2 1 1, 1 2 1, 1 1 2, 1 1 1 1}, etc.
Fig. 2.22 Rational-stellar source links.
The list of rational-stellar source KLs (Fig. 2.22) for n ≤ 12 is given in

Table 2:
236 LinKnot
Table 2
n = 8 (2, 2) (2, 2)
n = 9 (2, 2) 1 (2, 2)
n = 10 (2, 2, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2) 2 (2, 2)
n = 11 (2, 2, 2) 1 (2, 2) (2, 2) 3 (2, 2)
n = 12 (2, 2, 2) (2, 2, 2) (2, 2, 2) 2 (2, 2) (2, 2) 4 (2, 2)

(2, 2, 2, 2) (2, 2)
As before, the main tool in derivation of KLs from source KLs is sym-
metry. Therefore, among the source KLs from the first column of Table 2
we distinguish links with the graph symmetry group G = [2+ , 4] ((2, 2)(2, 2)
and (2, 2, 2)(2, 2, 2)), links with the symmetry group G = [2] ((2, 2, 2)(2, 2),
(2, 2, 2, 2)(2, 2), etc.), and delete duplicates. For example, from symmetry
reasons, it is clear that (2, 2) 2 1 (2, 2) = (2, 2) 1 2 (2, 2), etc.
In the same way, we continue with the derivation of S(R)-links, by
substituting bigons that belong to stellar parts of rational-stellar source
KLs by rational tangles which do not begin with 1, denoted by k.
RSR-links derived are given in the following table:
Table 3
n = 8 (2, 2) (2, 2)
n = 9 (3, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2) 1 (2, 2)
n = 10 (2, 2, 2) (2, 2) (3, 3) (2, 2)

(3, 2) (3, 2) (2, 2) 2 (2, 2)
(4, 2) (2, 2) (3, 2) 1 (2, 2)
n = 11 (5, 2) (2, 2) (3, 2, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2) 3 (2, 2) (2, 2, 2) 1 (2, 2)

(4, 3) (2, 2) (2, 3, 2)(2, 2) (3, 2) 2 (2, 2)
(4, 2) (3, 2) (2, 2, 2) (3, 2) (4, 2) 1 (2, 2)
(3, 3)(3, 2) (3, 3) 1 (2, 2)
(3, 2) 1 (3, 2)
(3, 2) 1 (2, 3)
n = 12 (2, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2)

(2, 2, 2) (2, 2, 2)
(2, 2, 2, 2) (2, 2)
(4, 2) (4, 2) (4, 2, 2) (2, 2) (5, 2) 1 (2, 2) (3, 2, 2) 1 (2, 2)
(3, 3)(3, 3) (2, 4, 2) (2, 2) (4, 3) 1 (2, 2) (2, 3, 2) 1 (2, 2)
(6, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2, 2) (4, 2) (4, 2) 1 (3, 2) (2, 2, 2) 1 (3, 2)

(5, 3)(2, 2) (3, 3, 2)(2, 2) (4, 2) 1 (2, 3) (2, 2, 2) 2 (2, 2)
(5, 2) (3, 2) (3, 2, 3) (2, 2) (4, 2) 2 (2, 2)
(4, 4)(2, 2) (3, 2, 2)(3, 2) (3, 3) 2 (2, 2)
(4, 3)(3, 2) (2, 3, 2)(3, 2) (3, 2) 2 (3, 2)
(4, 2)(3, 3) (2, 2, 2)(3, 3) (3, 2) 2 (2, 3)
(3, 2) 3 (2, 2)
(2, 2) 4 (2, 2)
where we need to eliminate duplicates, e.g.,

(2, 2) 2 1 (2, 2) = (2, 2) 1 2 (2, 2), (2, 2) 3 1 (2, 2) = (2, 2) 1 3 (2, 2), etc.
All centro-antisymmetric KLs derived from 3-component link
(2, 2) (2, 2) (or 834 ) inherit 2-antirotation, hence they are all achiral.
For example, for n ≤ 12 we have following achiral knots:
(3, 2) (3, 2) (2 1, 2) (2 1, 2) (2 2, 2) (2 2, 2)
(2 1 1, 2) (2 1 1, 2) (3, 3) (3, 3) (2 1, 2 1) (2 1, 2 1).
All of them are non-invertible (Fig. 2.23). From (2, 2) (2, 2) we also derive
3-component achiral links (4, 2) (4, 2) and (3 1, 2) (3 1, 2). Hence, (2, 2) (2, 2)
generates an infinite series of achiral KLs of the form (p, q) (p, q) (p, q ≥ 2)
composed from two identical terms (p, q).
Fig. 2.23 Centro-antisymmetric presentations of achiral knots (3, 2) (3, 2) and

(2 1, 2) (2 1, 2).
From the source KLs without pluses we directly obtain the correspond-
ing KLs with pluses. For example, from the source link without pluses
(2, 2) (2, 2) we obtain source links with pluses:
(2, 2+) (2, 2) for n = 9,
(2, 2 + +) (2, 2), (2, 2+) (2, 2+) for n = 10,
(2, 2 + +) (2, 2+) for n = 11,
(2, 2 + +) (2, 2 + +) for n = 12, etc.
238 LinKnot
Among them, for n ≤ 12 following KLs are achiral:

(2, 2+) (2, 2+), (3, 2+) (3, 2+), (2 1, 2+) (2 1, 2+), (2, 2 + +) (2, 2 + +),
etc.
Their common origin is the achiral 3-component link (2, 2) (2, 2) whose
achirality is preserved under symmetric addition of pluses. It generates
the families of achiral KLs of the form (p, q + k) (p, q + k) (p, q ≥ 2, k ≥ 1).
Fig. 2.24 Some (S(R))(S) source links.
The third subworld of the arborescent world is the stellar-stellar sub-

world (S(S)-subworld). We obtain the source KLs substituting bigons in
the source KLs of the stellar world (Table 1) by stellar tangles of the form
2, . . . , 2, where the number 2 appears at least two times. KLs obtained by
this replacement must contain at least two stellar tangles.
Instead of these substitutions, since stellar world is contained in the
stellar-rational world, we can make analogous substitutions beginning from

the S(R)-world. As the result, for n ≤ 12 we obtain (S(R))(S)-links (Fig.
2.24) given in Table 4:
Table 4
n = 10 (2, 2), (2, 2), 2
n = 11 (2, 2) 1, (2, 2), 2
n = 12 (2, 2), (2, 2), (2, 2) (2, 2), 2, (2, 2), 2

(2, 2, 2), (2, 2), 2 (2, 2), (2, 2), 2, 2
(2, 2)2, (2, 2), 2
(2, 2) 1 1, (2, 2), 2
(2, 2) 1, (2, 2) 1, 2
In the same manner, replacing the first bigon in the S-tangle (2, 2) of
the source link (2, 2), (2, 2), 2 by the tangle (2, 2), we obtain the first source
link of the next subworld ((2, 2), 2), (2, 2), 2 (or ((2, 2), 2)((2, 2), 2) in a more
symmetric form) (Fig. 2.25).
From the source KLs derived we obtain remaining KLs of this world
by using rational compositions r, r, and adding pluses.
Fig. 2.25 The link ((2, 2), 2), (2, 2), 2 = ((2, 2), 2) ((2, 2), 2).
The choice of the steps in the proposed derivation and the stratifica-
tion of the worlds is made to maximally avoid overlapping and occurrence
of duplicates. Can we be sure that no duplicates remained and that the
derivation is exhaustive? The answer to the first question gives the graph-
theoretical approach used by A. Caudron (1982) (see page 65, Fig. 1.49).
To solve the problem of possible duplicates we can use graph-transformation
240 LinKnot
method developed by the same author, and also the LinKnot function
SameAltConKL which compares two alternating KLs and determines
their equality. For example, for the two source links ((2, 2), 2), (2, 2), 2 and
((2, 2), 2) ((2, 2), 2) shown in Fig. 2.25 the result is: yes, they are equal.
With non-alternating KLs given in Conway notation, the situation is
somewhat different. In principle, it is possible to implement exhaustive
derivation algorithms for all non-alternating algebraic KLs (similar to that
used for the derivation of non-alternating KLs of the stellar world).
From the alternating KLs belonging to the arborescent world for n = 8
we obtain the following non−alternating KLs:
n=8
(2,2) (2,2−) (2,2) −(2,2)
No. of KLs: 2
n=9
(3,2−) (2,2) (3,2) (2,2−) (2 1,2−) (2,2) (2 1,2) (2,2−)
(2,2+) (2,2−) (2,2+) −(2,2)
No. of KLs: 6
n = 10
(4,2) (2,2−) (2,2) (4,2−) (4,2) −(2,2) (3,3) (2,2−)
(3,3−) (2,2) (3,2 1) (2,2−) (2 1,3−) (2,2) (2 1,2 1) (2,2−)
(2 1,2 1−) (2,2) (3,2) (2 1,2−) (2 1,2) (3,2−) (2 2,2) (2,2−)
(2 2,2−) (2,2) (2 1 1,2) (2,2−) (2 1 1,2−) (2,2) (3,2) (3,2−)
(2 1,2) (2 1,2−) (3,3) −(2,2) (3,2 1) −(2,2) (2 1,2 1) −(2,2)
(3,2) −(2 1,2) (3 1,2) −(2,2) (2 2,2) −(2,2) (2 1 1,2) −(2,2)
(3,2) −(3,2) (2 1,2) −(2 1,2) (2,2,2) (2,2−) (2,2,2−) (2,2)
(2,2,2−) (2,2−) (2,2,2−−) (2,2) (2,2,2) −(2,2) (2,2) 2 (2,2−)
(2,2) −2 (2,2) (2,2) 2 −(2,2) (2,2),2,(2,2−) (2,2),−2,(2,2)
(2,2),2,−(2,2) (3,2+) (2,2−) (2 1,2+) (2,2−) (2,2+) (3,2−)
(2,2+) (2 1,2−) (3,2+) −(2,2) (2 1,2+) −(2,2) (2,2+) −(3,2)
(2,2+) −(2 1,2) (2,2++) (2,2−) (2,2++) −(2,2) (2,2,2) (2,2−−)
No. of KLs: 48
In order to represent them as KLs with a minimal number of crossings, we

can write −2 instead of 2−; −2, −2 instead of 2, 2 − −, −21 instead of 3−,
2 1− as −3 etc.. For example, pretzel knot 2 1, 4, 3− is given by minimal
representations −3, 4, 3 = 2 1, −3 1, 3 = 2 1, 4, −2 1.
Derivation of KLs in Conway notation is inseparable from KL classifi-
cation: families (or even classes) of KLs could be described by their general
symbols.
For the derivation of alternating KLs we can use general guidelines. For
example, every rational KL is defined by a sequence of natural numbers,
which do not begin or end with 1, where every sequence is identified with
its reverse. Every alternating stellar (pretzel) KL consisting from three
rational tangles is given by the following Conway symbols, where t1 , t2 , t3
are mutually different R-tangles:
t1 , t1 , t1 t1 , t1 , t2 t1 , t2 , t3
Nine possible Conway symbols of pretzel KLs consisting of four R-tangles

are given by:
t1 , t1 , t1 , t1 t1 , t1 , t1 , t2 t1 , t1 , t2 , t2 t1 , t2 , t1 , t2 t1 , t1 , t2 , t3
t1 , t2 , t1 , t3 t1 , t2 , t3 , t4 t1 , t2 , t4 , t3 t1 , t3 , t2 , t4
From five R-tangles we obtain 28 pretzel KLs, from six 144, from seven
832, from eight 5942, etc.
From the source link (2, 2) (2, 2) we obtain 9 arborescent KLs:
(t1 , t1 ) (t1 , t1 ) (t1 , t1 ) (t1 , t2 ) (t1 , t1 ) (t2 , t2 ) (t1 , t2 ) (t1 , t2 ) (t1 , t1 ) (t2 , t3 )
(t1 , t2 ) (t1 , t3 ) (t1 , t2 ) (t3 , t4 ) (t1 , t3 ) (t2 , t4 ) (t1 , t4 ) (t2 , t3 )
Because of symmetry, the same holds for the source link (2, 2+) (2, 2+).
From the source link (2, 2+) (2, 2) we obtain 16 KLs, and the same holds
for (2, 2 + +) (2, 2):
(t1 , t1 +) (t1 , t1 ) (t1 , t1 +) (t1 , t2 ) (t1 , t2 +) (t1 , t1 ) (t1 , t1 +) (t2 , t2 )

From (2, 2, 2) (2, 2) we obtain 76 arborescent KLs, etc.
2.6 Basic polyhedra and polyhedral KLs
Polyhedral world or P -world is significantly different from the previous

ones. The main task and the first problem is the derivation of the basic
polyhedra: 4-valent, 4-edge connected, at least 2-vertex connected graphs
without bigons (Definition 1.43).
This problem was solved for n ≤ 12 crossings by T.P. Kirkman (1885a,b)
with one omission: the basic polyhedron 12E. Kirkman derived basic poly-
hedra by eliminating all bigons in KL diagrams. For the derivation he
used KL diagrams which satisfy the following necessary condition: each
242 LinKnot
Fig. 2.26 Kirkman’s method for the derivation of basic polyhedra.
diagram contains at most three bigons belonging to the same face. Elim-
inating bigons is achieved by inscribing a triangle to this face, with the
vertices belonging to the face edges (e.g., coinciding with their midpoints)
(Fig. 2.26). Table 5 contains KL projections with n crossings satisfying
this necessary condition, Dowker codes of the derived basic polyhedra, and
their list (Figs. 2.27-2.28).
Table 5
n=3 3 462 6∗
n=5 212 6 8|2 10 4 8∗
n=6 312 4 8 10 12 2 6 9∗
6∗ 6 8|10 12|2 4 9∗
n=7 2 1 1 1 2′ 4 8 10 12 2 14 6 10∗ , 10∗∗

.2 6 8|10 12 14 2 4 10∗∗ , 10∗∗∗
n=8 31112 4 10 12 14 2 16 8 6 11∗

2 1 2 1 2′ 4 10 12 14|8 2 16 6 11∗∗
2 1 2 1 2′′′ 8 10 14|2 16 4 6 12 11∗
.3 6 8|12 14 16|10 2 4 11∗ , 11∗∗
.21 6 8|10 14 12 16 2 4 11∗ , 11∗∗
.2.20 6 8 14 12 4 16 2 10 11∗ , 11∗∗∗
8∗ 6 8 10 12 14 16 2 4 11∗ , 11∗∗
3#2 1 2 11∗∗
n=9 31212 4 12 10 16 14 2 18 6 8 12D

2 1 3 1 2′ 4 10 12 14 18 2 16 6 8 12D
2111112 4 10 12 14 2 18 16 8 6 12A, 12B, 12F
2 1 1 1 1 1 2′′′ 4 12 10 16 18 2 8 6 14 12B, 12F

2 1, 2 1, 2 1 8 12 16|2 18 4 10 6 14 12G
.4 6 8|12 14 16 18 2 4 10 12E
.3 1 6 8|10 14 16 18 2 4 12 12J, 12L
.2 2 6 8|16 14 12 18 2 4 10 12E
.2 1 1 6 8|12 14 18|16 2 4 10 12B, 12H, 12I, 12J, 12K
.3.20 8 10 12|14 2 16 18 6 4 12D
.2 1.2′ 4 8 14 12 2 16 18 10 6 12B, 12F, 12H
2:2:2 8 12 16|2 14 4 18 6 10 12C
.(2, 2) 10 12|14 18|6 16 8 2 4 12I
8∗ 2 8 10 12|6 14 16 18 2 4 12B, 12F, 12G, 12H, 12I
8∗ 20 6 8 10 16 14 18 4 2 12 12F, 12I, 12K
9∗ 6 16 14 12 4 2 18 10 8 12D, 12H, 12L
2 1 2#1#3 12E
6∗ #3 12J
Complete results were obtained by T.P. Kirkman for n ≤ 8. For n = 9

two links from which basic polyhedra with n = 12 crossings can be derived
were omitted by Kirkman, but even his incomplete list is sufficient for
the derivation of all basic polyhedra with n ≤ 12 crossings. The missing
basic polyhedron 12E is the only polyhedron that can be derived from the
projection of the link .2 2, denoted by Kirkman as 9 Bn. Maybe his omission
was deliberate: the polyhedron 12E is the only 2-vertex connected graph,
and all the others are 3-vertex connected (Fig. 2.29). It is also the first
basic polyhedron with two different projections: one with, and the other
without a bigon. The alternating link obtained from the basic polyhedron
12E by a flype, the second projection of 12E, is the link 11∗∗∗ 2 (Fig. 1.46a).
Hence, some KLs that can be derived from the basic polyhedron 12E can
be derived from the basic polyhedron 11∗∗∗ .
The complete list of the basic polyhedra with n = 12 crossings was
obtained by A. Caudron (1982) by composing hyperbolic tangles, and we
refer to his list and notation (Fig. 2.28, Figs. 2.46-2.47).
Our idea is to generalize Kirkman’s method: in order to eliminate bigons
in the KL diagrams we introduce not only triangular, but also p-gonal
faces (p > 3). In this way we can derive all basic polyhedra with 6 ≤ n ≤
12 vertices from the KLs belonging to the L-world or from their direct
products (Fig. 2.30). This method has a particularly nice description by
the corresponding partitions:
6∗ =3+3 8∗ =4+4 9∗ = 6∗ + 3 =3+3 + 3
10∗ =5+5 10∗∗ =4+3 + 3 10∗∗∗ =4+3 + 3
11∗ = 8∗ + 3 =4+3 + 3 11∗ = 8∗ + 3 =4+3 + 3 11∗∗ = 8∗ + 3 =4+3 + 3
11∗∗∗ =3#3+5 12A =6+6 12B =3#3+3 + 3
244 LinKnot
Fig. 2.27 Basic polyhedra with n ≤ 11 crossings.
12C = 8∗ + 4 =4+4 + 4 12D = 9∗ + 3 =3+3 + 3 + 3 12E =6+3 + 3

12F =5+3 + 4 12G =5+3 + 4 12H = 9∗ + 3 =3+3 + 3 + 3
12I = 5 + 3 + 4 12J = 3#3+3 + 3 12K = 3#3+3 + 3
12L = 9∗ + 3 =3+3 + 3 + 3
where bold numbers denote the corresponding links p (p ≥ 3) from the

L-world. For the larger values of n, the question of completeness of this
derivation remains open.
Conjecture 2.2. All basic polyhedra can be derived from diagrams of KLs
belonging to L-world (KLs given by Conway symbol n, n ≥ 2, denoted in
Fig. 2.28 Basic polyhedra with n = 12 crossings.
classical notation as 221 , 31 , 421 , 51 ,...) and their direct products, by recursive
inscribing of p-gons (p ≥ 3).
The program LinKnot contains basic polyhedra up to n ≤ 20 crossings

246 LinKnot
Fig. 2.29 The missing basic polyhedron 12E.
(see page 57). Lists of basic polyhedra with 12 ≤ n ≤ 20 crossings were first
introduced in the program LinKnot (in the form of databases with more
than 80 000 KLs) and we hope that the proposed notation will become a
standard for denoting basic polyhedra with a large number of crossings.
The first basic polyhedron is the octahedron 6∗ or .1, with the graph
symmetry group G = [3, 4] of order 48, generated by the 4-rotation
S = (1)(2, 3, 5, 6)(4),
2-rotation
T = (1, 3)(2, 5)(4, 6)
and inversion
Z = (1, 4)(2, 5)(3, 6)
(Fig. 2.31). It is a 3-component alternating link, the famous Borromean
rings, the first non-trivial Brunnian 3-component link, with the link sym-
metry group G′ = [3+ , 4]. Introducing orientation results in the antisym-
metry group that contains a rotational antireflection, which means that
Borromean rings are achiral. This is the only basic polyhedron given by
two symbols: 6∗ or .1 (Conway, 1970).
From the basic polyhedron 6∗ (or .1) we derive source links by replacing
its vertices by bigons. First we make all different symmetry choices of n − 6
vertices (7 ≤ n ≤ 12), i.e., all different vertex bicolorings of the octahedron.
The number of vertex bicolorings can be computed using the Polya Enu-
meration Theorem (PET) (Pólya, 1937; Harary and Palmer, 1973; Pólya
and Read, 1987). For G = [3, 4],
1 6
ZG = (t + 3t41 t2 + 9t21 t22 + 6t21 t4 + 7t32 + 6t2 t4 + 8t23 + 8t6 ),
48 1
and the coefficients of
ZG (x, 1) = 1 + x + 2x2 + 2x3 + 2x4 + x5 + x6
Fig. 2.30 The generalization of Kirkman’s method.
give, respectively, the number of different choices of n − 6 vertices for 6 ≤

n ≤ 12. For 7 ≤ n ≤ 12, these vertex bicolorings are:
{1}; {1, 2}, {1, 4}; {1, 2, 3}, {1, 2, 4}; {1, 2, 4, 5}, {1, 2, 3, 4}; {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6},
and here are the corresponding source links

248 LinKnot
Fig. 2.31 The basic polyhedron 6∗ .
.a, .a.b, .a : b, .a.b.c, a : b : c, .a.b.c.d, a.b.c.d, a.b.c.d.e, a.b.c.d.e.f ,

given in Conway notation. Next thing is making one of two possible substi-
tutions in every chosen vertex (2 or 2 0, Fig. 2.32a,b), based on symmetry
of the vertex bicolored octahedron (Fig. 2.32c). In terms of colorings, this
is the other bicoloring: bicoloring of the chosen vertices. For n ≤ 12, the
source KLs obtained from 6∗ by the vertex substitutions are given in Table
6. Among them, for n = 11, there is the 3-component link 2.2 0.2.2 0.2,
omitted by A. Caudron (1982) (Fig. 2.33). The complete list of obtained
source KLs is given in Table 6.
Table 6
n = 7 .2 n = 11 2.2.2.2.2
2.2.2.2.2 0
n = 8 .2.2 2.2.2.2 0.2
.2.2 0 2.2.2.2 0.2 0
2.2 0.2.2.2 0
.2 : 2 2 0.2.2.2.2 0
.2 : 2 0 2.2 0.2.2 0.2
n = 9 .2.2.2 2:2:2 n = 12 2.2.2.2.2.2

.2.2.2 0 2 : 2 : 20 2.2.2.2.2.2 0
.2.2 0.2 2 : 20 : 20 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0
20 : 20 : 20 2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0
2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0
n = 10 .2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0
.2.2.2.2 0 2.2.2.2 0 2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0
.2.2.2 0.2 0 2.2.2 0.2
.2.2 0.2.2 0 2.2.2 0.2 0
2.2 0.2.2 0
2 0.2.2.2 0
2 0.2.2 0.2 0
Fig. 2.32 Derivation of source KLs from the basic polyhedron 6∗ .
If we want to avoid the ambiguity of notation that results from two

different symbols .1 and 6∗ used for the same basic polyhedron, we can use
only 6∗ . In this case, the KLs from the first column of Table 6 will be:
.2 = 6∗ 2 .2.2 = 2.2 .2.2 0 = 2.2 0

.2 : 2 = 2 : .2 0 .2 : 2 0 = 2 : .2 .2.2.2 = 2.2 : 2 0
.2.2.2 0 = 2.2 : 2 .2.2 0.2 = 2.2 0 : 2 0 .2.2.2.2 = 2.2 : 2 0.2 0
.2.2.2.2 0 = 2.2 : 2.2 0 .2.2.2 0.2 0 = 2.2 : 2.2 .2.2 0.2.2 0 = 2.2 0 : 2 0.2
250 LinKnot
Fig. 2.33 The link 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 omitted by A. Caudron.
The polyhedral rational subworld (P (R)-subworld) of the P -world con-

sists of the KLs obtained by replacing bigons in the source KLs by rational
tangles not beginning with 1. Derivation of KLs is completely determined
by partitions of number of crossings and the symmetries of the source KL,
i.e., partitions with the given permutation group P . Two permutation
groups are equivalent iff their permutation representations are isomorphic.
Equivalent permutation groups produce the same number of P -partitions.
Hence, we will classify source KLs from Table 6 with respect to the P -
equivalence, and then derive generating KLs from one representative of
each class. For 7 ≤ n ≤ 11, we have the following classes:
.2 with P ≃ {(1)};
.2.2, .2.20, .2:2, .2:2 0 with P ≃ {(1, 2)};
.2.2.2, .2.20.2, 2:2:2 0, 2:2 0:2 0 with P ≃ {(1, 3)(2)};
.2.2.20 with P ≃ {(1)(2)(3)};
2:2:2, 20:2 0:2 0 with P ≃ {(1, 2, 3)};
.2.2.2.2, .2.20.2.20 with P ≃ {(1, 2, 4, 5)};
2.2.2.20 with P ≃ {(1)(2)(4)(5)};
.2.2.20.20, with P ≃ {(1, 2)(4, 5), (1, 4)(2, 5)};
2.2.2.2, 20.2.2.20 with P ≃ {(1, 4)(2, 3)};
2.2.20.2, .2.2.2.20, 2.2.20.20, 2.20.2.20, 20.2.20.20 with
P ≃ {(1)(2, 3)(4)};
2.2.2.2.2, 2.2.2.20.20, 2.20.2.2.20 with P ≃ {(1, 2)(3)(4, 5)};
2.2.2.2.20, 2.2.2.20.2 with P ≃ {(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)};
20.2.2.2.20, 2.20.2.20.2 with P ≃ {(1, 2)(3)(4, 5), (1, 5)(2, 4)(3)}.
Taking the first element as a representative of each class, we obtain the
list of P (R)-links (Table 7) derived from these representatives for 7 ≤ n ≤
12. We can obtain the complete list of P (R)-links derived from 6∗ (or .1)
for 7 ≤ n ≤ 12 directly from Table 7, using the isomorphism mentioned
above and working with source links for n = 12 (Table 6). After that, by
replacing every k by the corresponding rational compositions we obtain all
such KLs. The symbol k ⋄ has the similar meaning as k, and it is used to
denote partitions that are not mutually equivalent according to symmetry.
For example,
.4 ⋄ .4 ⋄ denotes .2 2.2 2 and .2 2.2 1 1 (=.2 1 1.2 2),
.3 ⋄ .3 ⋄ denotes .3.3, .3.2 1 (= .2 1.3) and .2 1.2 1,
3 ⋄ : 3 ⋄ : 3 ⋄ denotes 3 : 3 : 3, 3 : 2 1 : 2 1 (= 2 1 : 3 : 2 1 = 2 1 : 2 1 : 3)
and 2 1 : 2 1 : 2 1, etc.
Table 7
n = 7 .2
n = 8 .3 .2.2
n = 9 .4 .3.2 .2.2.2 .2.2.2 0 2:2:2
n = 10 .5 .4.2 .3.2.2 .3.2.2 0 3:2:2

.3 ⋄ .3 ⋄ .2.3.2 .2.3.2 0
.2.2.3 0
n = 11 .6 .5.2 .4.2.2 .4.2.2 0 4:2:2

.4.3 .2.4.2 .2.4.2 0 3⋄ : 3⋄ : 2
.3.3.2 .2.2.4 0
.3 ⋄ .2.3 ⋄ .3.3.2 0
.3.2.3 0
.2.3.3 0
n = 12 .7 .6.2 .5.2.2 .5.2.2 0 5:2:2

.5.3 .2.5.2 .2.5.2 0 4:3:2
.4 ⋄ .4 ⋄ .4.3.2 .2.2.50 3⋄ : 3⋄ : 3⋄
.4.2.3 .4.3.2 0
.3.4.2 .4.2.3 0
.3 ⋄ .3.3 ⋄ .3.4.2 0
.3.2.4 0
.2.4.3 0
.2.3.4 0
.3.3.3
252 LinKnot
n = 10 .2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 0 .2.2.2 0.2 0 2.2.2.2 2.2.2 0.2
n = 11 .3.2.2.2 3.2.2.2 0 .3.2.2 0.2 0 3.2.2.2 3.2.2 0.2

2.3.2.2 0 2.3.2.2 2.3.2 0.2
2.2.3.2 0 2.2.2 0.3
2.2.2.3 0
n = 12 .4.2.2.2 4.2.2.2 0 .4.2.2 0.2 0 4.2.2.2 4.2.2 0.2

.3.3.2.2 2.4.2.2 0 .3 ⋄ .3 ⋄ .2 0.2 0 2.4.2.2 2.4.2 0.2
.3 ⋄ .2.3 ⋄ .2 2.2.4.2 0 .3 ⋄ .2.3 ⋄ 0.2 0 3.3.2.2 2.2.2 0.4
2.2.2.4 0 .3 ⋄ .2.2 0.3 ⋄ 0 3.2.3.2 3.3.2 0.2
3.3.2.2 0 3 ⋄ .2.2.3 ⋄ 3.2.2 0.3
3.2.3.2 0 2.3 ⋄ .3 ⋄ .2 2.3 ⋄ .3 ⋄ 0.2
3.2.2.3 0 2.3.2 0.3
2.3.3.2 0
2.3.2.3 0
2.2.3.3 0
n = 11 2.2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2.2 0 20.2.2.2.2 0
n = 12 3.2.2.2.2 3.2.2.2.2 0 3 0.2.2.2.2 0

2.3.2.2.2 2.3.2.2.2 0 20.2.3.2.2 0
2.2.3.2.2 2.2.3.2.2 0
2.2.2.3.2 0
2.2.2.2.3 0
The next basic polyhedron 8∗ is a 4-antiprism, with the graph symmetry

group G = [2+ , 8] of order 16, generated by the rotational reflection
S̃ = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
and reflection
R = (1, 3)(5, 7)(4, 8)(2)(6)
containing its axis (Fig. 2.34). We can use PET to find the number of
different symmetry choices of the vertices (i.e., vertex bicolorings of 8∗ ). In
this case,
1 8
ZG = (t + 4t21 t32 + 5t42 + 2t24 + 4t8 ),
16 1
and the coefficients of
ZG (x, 1) = 1 + x + 4x2 + 5x3 + 8x4 + 5x5 + 4x6 + x7 + x8
represent, respectively, the number of choices of n − 8 vertices for 8 ≤ n ≤
16. For 9 ≤ n ≤ 12, these choices are:
{1}; {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 4}, {1, 5};
{1, 2, 3}, {1, 2, 4}, {1, 2, 5}, {1, 3, 5}, {1, 4, 7};
{1, 2, 3, 4}, {1, 2, 3, 5}, {1, 2, 3, 6}, {1, 2, 4, 5},
{1, 2, 4, 6}, {1, 2, 4, 7}, {1, 2, 5, 6}, {1, 3, 5, 7}
corresponding, respectively, to the source KLs of the form
8∗ a; 8∗ a.b, 8∗ a : b, 8∗ a : .b, 8∗ a :: b;
8∗ a.b.c, 8∗ a.b : c, 8∗ a.b : .c, 8∗ a : b : c, 8∗ a : .b : .c;
8∗ a.b.c.d, 8∗ a.b.c : d, 8∗ a.b.c : .d, 8∗ a.b : c.d,
8∗ a.b : c : d, 8∗ a : b.c : d, 8∗ a.b : .c.d, 8∗ a : b : c : d,
given in the Conway notation. The coefficients of
ZG (x, x, 1) = 1 + 2x + 12x2 + 34x3 + 87x4 + 124x5 + 136x6 + 72x7 + 30x8
give the number of different source KLs derived from 8∗ for 8 ≤ n ≤ 16. We
can divide all the obtained vertex bicolorings into equivalence classes, with
regard to their symmetry groups, and then consider only their representa-
tives. According to this, for n = 9 we have the representative 8∗ a giving 2
source links; for n = 10 the representative 8∗ a.b (8∗ a : b, 8∗ a : .b, 8∗ a :: b)
giving 3 source links; for n = 11 two representatives: 8∗ a.b.c (8∗ a : b : c,
8∗ a : .b : .c) giving 6 source links and 8∗ a.b : c (8∗ a.b : .c) giving 8 source
links; for n = 12 five representatives: 8∗ a.b.c.d (8∗ a.b : c.d, 8∗ .a : b.c : d)
giving 10 source links, 8∗ a.b.c : d (8∗ a.b : c : d) giving 16 source links,
8∗ a.b.c : .d giving 12 source links, 8∗ a : b : c : d giving 6 source links, and
8∗ a.b : .c.d giving 7 source links, where the other members of equivalence
classes are given in parentheses. The list of source links derived from these
representatives is given in Table 8:
254 LinKnot
Table 8
n = 9 8∗ 2 n = 11 8∗ 2.2.2 8∗ 2.2:.2
8∗ 2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 : .2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 0 : .2
n = 10 8∗ 2.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 : .2
8∗ 2.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0 : .2 0
8∗ 2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 : .2 0
8∗ 2 0.2 0 : .2
8∗ 2 0.2 0 : .2 0
n = 12 8∗ 2.2.2.2 8∗ 2.2.2:2 8∗ 2.2.2:.2 8∗ 2:2:2:2 8∗ 2.2:.2.2

8∗ 2.2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 : 2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 : .2 0 8∗ 2 : 2 : 2 : 2 0 8∗ 2.2 : .2.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0 : 2 8∗ 2.2.2 0 : .2 8∗ 2 : 2 : 2 0 : 2 0 8∗ 2.2 : .2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 : 2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 : .2 8∗ 2 : 2 0 : 2 : 2 0 8∗ 2.2 0 : .2.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2.2 : 2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0 : .2 0 8∗ 2 : 2 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 8∗ 2.2 0 : .2 0.2
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0 : 2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 : .2 0 8∗ 2 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 8∗ 2.2 0 : .2 0.2 0
8∗ 2 0.2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 : 2 0 8∗ 2 0.2.2 0 : .2 8∗ 2 0.2 0 : .2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2.2 : 2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 : .2
8∗ 2 0.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0 : 2 8∗ 2 0.2.2 0 : .2 0
8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2.2 0 : 2 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 : .2 0
8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 : 2 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0 : .2
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0 : 2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0 : .2 0
8∗ 2 0.2.2 0 : 2 0
8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 : 2 0
8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0 : 2
8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0
In the similar way we obtain P (R)-links derived from 8∗ . For n = 9 we

have the representative 8∗ 2 (8∗ 2 0) with P ≃ {(1)}; for n = 10 two represen-
tatives: 8∗ 2.2 (8∗ 2 0.2 0) with P ≃ {(1, 2)} and 8∗ 2.2 0 with P ≃ {(1)(2)};
for n = 11 two representatives: 8∗ 2.2.2 (8∗ 2.2 0.2, 8∗ 2 0.2.2 0, 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0)
with P ≃ {(1, 3)(2)}, and 8∗ 2.2.2 0 (8∗ 2.2 0.2 0, and all source links de-
rived from 8∗ 2.2 : .2) with P ≃ {(1)(2)(3)}, where the other members of
equivalence classes are given in parentheses. The permutation groups P
are already considered in the derivation of source links from 6∗ , so it will
not be repeated.
For every even n ≥ 8 (n = 2k) there is an k-antiprism, the basic poly-
hedron of the form n∗ = (2 × k)∗ (Conway, 1970; Grünbaum and Shephard,
1985) with the graph symmetry group G = [2+, n] of order 2n generated
by rotational reflection S̃ and reflection R, so all the results obtained for
8∗ can be generalized to k-antiprisms.
The graph symmetry group G = [2, 3] of order 12, corresponding to the
basic polyhedron 9∗ is generated by the 3-rotation
S = (1, 4, 7)(2, 5, 8)(3, 6, 9)
and two reflections,
R = (1)(2, 8)(3, 6)(4, 7)(5)(9)
containing the rotation axis and
R1 = (1, 9)(2)(3, 4)(5)(6, 7)(8)
perpendicular to it (Fig. 2.35). Hence,
1 9
ZG = (t + 4t31 t32 + 3t1 t42 + 2t33 + 2t3 t6 ),
12 1
the coefficients of
ZG (x, 1) = 1 + 2x + 6x2 + 12x3 + 16x4 + 16x5 + 12x6 + 6x7 + 2x8 + x9
represent, respectively, the number of different symmetry choices of n − 9
vertices for 9 ≤ n ≤ 18, and the coefficients of
ZG (x, x, 1) = 1+4x+20x2+76x3 +202x4+388x5 +509x6 +448x7 +228x8 +4x9
the number of source KLs derived from 9∗ for 9 ≤ n ≤ 18. For n ≤ 12, these
vertex choices are divided into symmetry equivalence classes and given by
their representatives. For n = 10 we have one representative 9∗ a ({1}, {2})
generating 2 source links; for n = 11 two representatives: 9∗ a.b ({1, 2},
({1, 5}) generating 4 source links, 9∗ a : b ({1, 3}, {1, 4}, {1, 9}, {2, 5})
generating 3 source links; for n = 12 three representatives: 9∗ a.b.c ({1, 2, 3},
{1, 2, 4}, {1, 2, 8}, {1, 2, 9}, {1, 4, 6}, {1, 5, 9}) generating 6 source links,
9∗ a.b : .c ({1, 2, 5}, {1, 2, 6}, {1, 3, 4}, {1, 4, 5}) generating 8 source links,
9∗ a : .b : .c ({1, 4, 7}, {2, 5, 8}) generating 4 source links. The list of the
source links derived from these representatives is given in Table 9:
Table 9
n = 10 9∗ .2 n = 12 9∗ 2.2.2 9∗ 2.2:.2 9∗ 2:.2:.2
9∗ .2 0 9∗ 2.2.2 0 9∗ 2.2 : .2 0 9∗ 2 : .2 : .2 0
9∗ 2.2 0.2 9∗ 2.2 0 : .2 9∗ 2 : .2 0 : .2 0
n = 11 9∗ 2.2 9∗ 2:2 9∗ 2.2 0.2 0 9∗ 2 0.2 : .2 9∗ 2 0 : .2 0 : .2 0
9∗ 2.2 0 9∗ 2 : 2 0 9∗ 2 0.2.2 0 9∗ 2.2 0 : .2 0
9∗ 2 0.2 9∗ 2 0 : 2 0 9∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0 9∗ 2 0.2 : .2 0
9∗ 2 0.2 0 9∗ 2 0.2 0 : .2
9∗ 2 0.2 0 : .2 0
The KLs of the P (R)-subworld derived from 9∗ are obtained by re-

placing bigons in the source KLs by R-tangles which do not begin with 1.
256 LinKnot
Using the symmetry equivalents, we reduce the derivation to the derivation

from the corresponding representatives. For n = 10 we have the represen-
tative 9∗ 2 (9∗ 2 0) with P ≃ {(1)}; for n = 11 two representatives: 9∗ 2 : 2
(9∗ 2 0 : 2 0) with P ≃ {(1, 2)}, 9∗ 2.2 (9∗ 2 : 2 0, and all source links derived
from 9∗ 2.2) with P ≃ {(1)(2)}. Their permutation groups P have already
been considered.
The next member (2 × 5)∗ of the infinite class (2 × k)∗ is the basic
polyhedron 10∗ – 5-antiprism, with the graph symmetry group G = [2+ , 10]
of order 20, generated by the rotational reflection
S̃ = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
and by reflection
R = (1)(2, 5)(3, 4)(6)(7, 10)(8, 9)
(Fig. 2.36). According to PET,
1 10
ZG = (t + 6t52 + 5t21 t42 + 4t25 + 4t10 ),
20 1
ZG (x, 1) = 1 + x + 5x2 + 8x3 + 16x4 + 16x5 + 16x6 + 8x7 + 5x8 + x9 + x10 ,
ZG (x, x, 1) = 1 + 2x + 15x2 + 56x3 + 194x4 + 428x5
+728x6 + 800x7 + 636x8 + 272x9 + 78x10

(10 ≤ n ≤ 20). For n = 11 we have the representative 10∗ a ({1})
generating 2 source links 10∗ 2, 10∗ 2 0; for n = 12 the representative
Fig. 2.37 The basic polyhedron 10∗∗ .
10∗ a.b ({1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 6}, {1, 7}, {1, 9}) generating 3 source links 10∗ 2.2,
10∗ 2.2 0, 10∗ 2 0.2 0. Taking for n = 11 the representative 10∗ 2 (10∗ 2 0) with
P ≃ {(1)}, we can obtain for n ≤ 12 all links derived from 10∗ .
The graph symmetry group G = [2, 2]+ of order 4 corresponds to the
basic polyhedron 10∗∗ (Fig. 2.37). This group is generated by two perpen-
dicular 2-rotations
S = (1, 6)(2, 7)(3, 8)(4, 9)(5, 10)
and
S1 = (1, 6)(2, 5)(3, 4)(7, 10)(8, 9).
According to PET,
1 10
ZG = (t + t21 t42 + 2t52 ),
4 1
ZG (x, 1) = 1+3x+15x2 +32x3 +60x4 +66x5 +60x6 +32x7 +15x8 +3x9 +x10 ,
ZG (x, x, 1) = 1 + 6x + 53x2 + 248x3 + 874x4 + 2040x5
+3432x6 + 3872x7 + 2956x8 + 1296x9 + 288x10

(10 ≤ n ≤ 20). For n = 11 we have one representative 10∗∗ a generating 2
source links 10∗∗ 2 and 10∗∗ 20; for n = 12 we have one asymmetric represen-
tative 10∗∗ a.b of the equivalence class consisting of eight 2-vertex choices,
generating 4 source links 10∗∗ 2.2, 10∗∗ 2.2 0, 10∗∗ 20.2, 10∗∗ 20.2 0 and one
symmetric representative 10∗∗ a : b of the equivalence class that consists
of seven 2-vertex choices, generating 3 source links 10∗∗ 2 : 2, 10∗∗ 2 : 2 0,
10∗∗ 20 : 2 0.
258 LinKnot
Fig. 2.38 The basic polyhedron 10∗∗∗ .
The graph symmetry group G = [2, 4] of order 16 corresponds to the

basic polyhedron 10∗∗∗ (Fig. 2.38). This group is generated by the 4-
rotation
S = (1)(2, 3, 4, 5)(6, 7, 8, 9)(10),
by the reflection
R = (1)(2, 3)(4, 5)(6, 7)(8, 9)(10)
containing the rotation axis, and by the reflection
R1 = (1, 10)(2, 6)(3, 7)(4, 8)(5, 9)
perpendicular to it. For the basic polyhedron 10∗∗∗ , the formula
1 10
ZG = (t + 2t21 t24 + 3t21 t42 + 2t61 t22 + 6t52 + 2t2 t24 ),
16 1
and
ZG (x, 1) = 1 + 2x + 8x2 + 13x3 + 25x4 + 25x5 + 25x6 + 13x7 + 8x8 + 2x9 + x10
gives the number of different vertex bicolorings of n − 10 vertices of 10∗∗∗
for 10 ≤ n ≤ 20. Because the axis of 4-rotation contains two vertices of
10∗∗∗ , we can not use PET to obtain the number of source KLs derived from
10∗∗∗ . For n = 11 we have two representatives of equivalence classes: 10∗∗∗ a
({1}) giving 1 source link 10∗∗∗ 2, and 10∗∗∗ .a ({2}) giving 2 source links
10∗∗∗ .2, 10∗∗∗ .2 0; for n = 12 we have three representatives of equivalence
classes: 10∗∗∗ a.b ({1, 2}, {1, 6}) generating 2 source links, 10∗∗∗ 2.2 and
10∗∗∗ 2.2 0, 10∗∗∗ .a : b ({2, 4}, {1, 10}, {2, 6}, {2, 8}) generating 2 source
links 10∗∗∗ .2 : 2 and 10∗∗∗ .2 : 2 0, 10∗∗∗ .a.b ({2, 3}, {2, 7}) generating 3
source links 10∗∗∗ .2.2, 10∗∗∗ .2.2 0, 10∗∗∗ .2 0.2 0. For n = 12, from 10∗∗∗ 2 we
derive the generating link 10∗∗∗ 3, from 10∗∗∗ .2 the generating link 10∗∗∗ .3,
and from 10∗∗∗ .2 0 the generating link 10∗∗∗ 3.
The graph symmetry group G = [1] of order 2 corresponds to the basic
polyhedron 11∗ (Fig. 2.39). This group is generated by the reflection
R = (1, 5)(2, 4)(3)(6, 10)(7, 9)(8)(11).
According to PET,
1 11
ZG = (t + t31 t42 ),
2 1
ZG (x, 1) = 1 + 7x + 31x2 + 89x3 + 174x4 + 242x5 + 242x6
+174x7 + 89x8 + 31x9 + 7x10 + x11 ,
ZG (x, x, 1) = 1 + 14x + 120x2 + 688x3 + 2700x4 + 7496x5 + 14944x6
+21312x7 + 21320x8 + 14256x9 + 5728x10 + 1088x11 ,

so we have the number of vertex choices and the number of source KLs
derived from 11∗ for 11 ≤ n ≤ 22. For n = 12 there are 7 vertex choices,
each giving 2 source links.
The graph symmetry group G = [2] of order 4, generated by two mutu-
ally perpendicular reflections
R = (1, 11)(2)(3, 4)(5)(6, 7)(8)(9, 10)
260 LinKnot
Fig. 2.40 The basic polyhedron 11∗∗ .
and
R1 = (1, 10)(2, 8)(3, 6)(4, 7)(5)(9, 11)
corresponds to the basic polyhedron 11∗∗ (Fig. 2.40). According to PET,
1 11
ZG = (t + 2t1 t52 + t31 t42 ),
4 1
ZG (x, 1) = 1+4x+18x2+47x3 +92x4 +126x5+126x6 +92x7 +47x8 +18x9 +4x10 +x11 ,
ZG (x, x, 1) = 1 + 8x + 65x2 + 354x3 + 1370x4 + 3788x5 + 7512x6
+10736x7 + 10700x8 + 7208x9 + 2880x10 + 576x11 .

For n = 12, from each of 4 vertex choices, we derive 2 source links.
The graph symmetry group G = [2] generated by perpendicular reflec-
tions
R = (1)(2, 3)(4)(5, 6)(7, 9)(8)(10, 11)
and
R1 = (1)(2, 10)(3, 11)(4, 8)(5, 7)(6, 9)
corresponds to the basic polyhedron 11∗∗∗ (Fig. 2.41). Since the per-
mutation representations of graph symmetry groups of 11∗∗ and 11∗∗∗ are
isomorphic, we obtain the same enumeration result, and particular KLs can
be mapped from one basic polyhedron to the other using this isomorphism.
Fig. 2.41 The basic polyhedron 11∗∗∗ .
Next subworld of the P -world is the P RS-subworld. KLs of this kind

are obtained by replacing bigons in source KLs of the P -world by RS-
tangles. The symmetry rules determining such substitutions are the same
as in the P R-subworld.
The representatives of source KLs derived from 6∗ are:
.2 .2.2 .2.2.2 .2.2.2 0 2:2:2
.2.2.2.2 .2.2.2.2 0 .2.2.2 0.2 0 2.2.2.2 2.2.2 0.2
The generating P RS-links derived from them are given in Table 10:
Table 10
n = 9 .(2, 2)
n = 10 .(3, 2) .(2, 2).2

.(2, 2)1
.(2, 2+)
n = 11 .(2, 2, 2) .(3, 2).2 .(2, 2).2.2 .(2, 2).2.2 0 (2, 2) : 2 : 2

.(4, 2) .(2, 3).2 .2.(2, 2).2 .2.(2, 2).2 0
.(3 ⋄ , 3 ⋄ ) .(2, 2).3 .2.2.(2, 2) 0
.(3, 2)1 .(2, 2+).2
.(2, 2)2
.(3, 2+)
.(2, 2+)1
.(2, 2 + +)
n = 12 .(3, 2, 2) .(2, 2, 2).2 .(3, 2).2.2 .(3, 2).2.2 0 (3, 2) : 2 : 2

.(2, 2, 2)1 .(4, 2).2 .(2, 3).2.2 .(2, 3).2.2 0 (2, 2) : 3 : 2
.(2, 2, 2+) .(2, 4).2 .2.(3, 2).2 .2.(3, 2).2 0 (2, 2)1 : 2 : 2
.(5, 2) .(3 ⋄ , 3 ⋄ ).2 .(2, 2).3.2 .2.(2, 3).2 0 (2, 2+) : 2 : 2
.(4, 3) .(3, 2)1.2 .(2, 2).2.3 .2.2.(3, 2) 0
.(4, 2)1 .(2, 3)1.2 .3.(2, 2).2 .2.2.(2, 3) 0
.(3 ⋄ , 3 ⋄ )1 .(2, 2)2.2 .(2, 2)1.2.2 .(2, 2)1.2.2 0
262 LinKnot
.(3, 2)2 .(3, 2).3 .2.(2, 2)1.2 .2.(2, 2)1.2 0

.(2, 2)3 .(2, 3).3 .(2, 2+).2.2 .2.2.(2, 2)1 0
.(4, 2+) .(2, 2).4 .2.(2, 2+).2 .(2, 2).3.2 0
.(3 ⋄ , 3 ⋄ +) .(2, 2).(2, 2) .(2, 2).2.3 0
.(3, 2+)1 .(3, 2+).2 .3.(2, 2).2 0
.(2, 2+)2 .(2, 3+).2 .2.(2, 2).3 0
.(3, 2 + +) .(2, 2+).3 .3.2.(2, 2) 0
.(2, 2 + +)1 .(2, 2 + +).2 .2.3.(2, 2) 0
.(2, 2+).2.2 0
.2.(2, 2+).2 0
.2.2.(2, 2+) 0
n = 12 .(2, 2).2.2.2 .(2, 2).2.2.2 0 .(2, 2).2.2 0.2 0 (2, 2).2.2.2 (2, 2).2.2 0.2
.2.(2, 2).2.2 0 2.(2, 2).2.2 2.(2, 2).2 0.2
.2.2.(2, 2).2 0 2.2.2 0.(2, 2)
.2.2.2.(2, 2) 0
In the same way, from the representatives 8∗ 2, 8∗ 2.2 and 8∗ 2.2 0 (Ta-
ble 8) for n = 11 we derive the generating link 8∗ (2, 2), and for n = 12
the generating links 8∗ (3 ⋆ , 2), 8∗ (2, 2)1, 8∗ (2, 2+), 8∗ (2, 2).2, 8∗ (2, 2).2 0,
8∗ 2.(2, 2) 0. From the representative 9∗ 2 (Table 9) for n = 12 we derive the
generating link 9∗ (2, 2).
For n = 12 there exist 12 basic polyhedra (Caudron, 1982), illustrated
in Fig. 2.28, given in 3D-form showing their symmetry, not always directly
visible from their graphs or Schlegel diagrams.
Fig. 2.42 The basic polyhedra 1413∗ and 1451∗ .
As we have seen, the basis of derivation for every class of KLs are source
KLs. In the case of polyhedral world, from every basic polyhedron we first
derive source KLs, and then continue the derivation by different tangle
substitutions. For the basic polyhedra that do not have rotation axes of
order 4 incident with some vertices, we used the PET (Polya Enumeration
Theorem) for the computation of the number of source KLs. If such a

4-rotation exists, it interchanges two possible positions of a bigon (2 and
2 0), so the application of the PET is not possible. For n ≤ 14, the basic
polyhedra with such 4-rotation are 6∗ , 10∗∗∗ , 1413∗ and 1451∗ (Figs. 2.31,
2.38, 2.42). For all the other basic polyhedra with n ≤ 14 crossings we
computed the number of source KLs, given in Table 11, where the first
datum is the ordering number of the polyhedron, followed by the number
of source KLs generated from it, with 1,2,. . ., n bigons.
Table 11
B.P. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
8∗ 2 12 34 87 124 136 72 30
9∗ 4 20 76 202 388 509 448 228 74
10∗ 2 15 56 194 428 728 800 636 272 78
10∗∗ 6 53 248 874 2040 3432 3872 2956 1296 288
11∗ 14 120 688 2700 7496 14944 21312 21320 14256 5728 1088
11∗∗ 8 65 354 1370 3788 7512 10736 10700 7208 2880 576
11∗∗∗ 8 65 354 1370 3788 7512 10736 10700 7208 2880 576
121∗ 12 138 880 3990 12672 29648 50688 63480 56320 33888 12288 2080
122∗ 2 12 54 206 596 1356 2256 2836 2504 1568 576 144
123∗ 4 34 178 746 2260 5219 8792 11032 9772 2208 436
124∗ 2 18 84 368 1096 2573 4304 5451 4776 2960 1056 224
125∗ 12 138 880 3990 12672 29648 50688 63480 56320 33888 12288 2080
126∗ 14 139 900 4000 12752 29688 50848 63560 56480 33968 12352 2112
127∗ 14 139 900 4000 12752 29688 50848 63560 56480 33968 12352 2112
128∗ 12 138 880 3990 12672 29648 50688 63480 56320 33888 12288 2080
129∗ 5 22 65 139 218 252 218 139 65 22 5 1
1210∗ 6 75 440 2025 6336 14904 25344 31860 28160 17040 6144 1072
1211∗ 4 34 172 738 2224 5170 8704 10932 9680 5920 2176 430
1212∗ 6 41 196 746 2130 4697 7772 9668 8642 5465 2132 462
131∗ 10 92 612 2955 10486 27776 55392 82948 92200 73760 40448 13520 2208
132∗ 16 167 1178 5800 20752 55192 110224 165256 183600 146928 80288 26816 4224
133∗ 16 167 1178 5800 20752 55192 110224 165256 183600 146928 80288 26816 4224
134∗ 10 92 612 2955 10486 27776 55392 82948 92200 73760 40448 13520 2208
135∗ 16 167 1178 5800 20752 55192 110224 165256 183600 146928 80288 26816 4224
136∗ 14 162 1156 5750 20652 54992 109984 164856 183280 146528 80064 26656 4160
137∗ 14 162 1156 5750 20652 54992 109984 164856 183280 146528 80064 26656 4160
138∗ 14 162 1156 5750 20652 54992 109984 164856 183280 146528 80064 26656 4160
139∗ 26 312 2288 11440 41184 109824 219648 329472 366080 292864 159744 53248 8192
1310∗ 14 162 1156 5750 20652 54992 109984 164856 183280 146528 80064 26656 4160
1311∗ 16 167 1178 5800 20752 55192 110224 165256 183600 146928 80288 26816 4224
1312∗ 10 92 612 2955 10486 27776 55392 82948 92200 73760 40448 13520 2208
1313∗ 16 167 1178 5800 20752 55192 110224 165256 183600 146928 80288 26816 4224
1314∗ 26 312 2288 11440 41184 109824 219648 329472 366080 292864 159744 53248 8192
1315∗ 26 312 2288 11440 41184 109824 219648 329472 366080 292864 159744 53248 8192
1316∗ 16 167 1178 5800 20752 55192 110224 165256 183600 146928 80288 26816 4224
1317∗ 26 312 2288 11440 41184 109824 219648 329472 366080 292864 159744 53248 8192
1318∗ 14 162 1156 5750 20652 54992 109984 164856 183280 146528 80064 26656 4160
1319∗ 14 126 792 3589 12154 31240 61168 90856 100848 81392 45472 15808 2688
141∗ 10 107 768 4126 16236 48518 110464 193212 257296 257520 187264 94016 28992 4320
142∗ 16 190 1480 8062 32152 96296 219968 384824 512992 513088 373120 186784 57472 8320
143∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
144∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
145∗ 16 190 1480 8062 32152 96296 219968 384824 512992 513088 373120 186784 57472 8320
146∗ 16 190 1480 8062 32152 96296 219968 384824 512992 513088 373120 186784 57472 8320
147∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
148∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
149∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
1410∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1411∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
1412∗ 8 102 740 4073 16076 48288 109984 192692 256496 256880 186560 93616 28736 4224
1414∗ 12 128 876 4503 17244 50684 114304 198888 264304 264712 193216 97856 30784 4704
1415∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1416∗ 18 199 1512 8156 32352 96696 220608 385704 514112 514128 374144 187392 57856 8448
1417∗ 8 102 740 4073 16076 48288 109984 192692 256496 256880 186560 93616 28736 4224
1418∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1419∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
1420∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
1421∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1422∗ 18 199 1512 8156 32352 96696 220608 385704 514112 514128 374144 187392 57856 8448
1423∗ 18 199 1512 8156 32352 96696 220608 385704 514112 514128 374144 187392 57856 8448
264 LinKnot
1424∗ 8 102 740 4073 16076 48288 109984 192692 256496 256880 186560 93616 28736 4224
1425∗ 16 190 1480 8062 32152 96296 219968 384824 512992 513088 373120 186784 57472 8320
1426∗ 16 190 1480 8062 32152 96296 219968 384824 512992 513088 373120 186784 57472 8320
1427∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1428∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
1429∗ 18 199 1512 8156 32352 96696 220608 385704 514112 514128 374144 187392 57856 8448
1430∗ 18 199 1512 8156 32352 96696 220608 385704 514112 514128 374144 187392 57856 8448
1431∗ 16 190 1480 8062 32152 96296 219968 384824 512992 513088 373120 186784 57472 8320
1432∗ 18 199 1512 8156 32352 96696 220608 385704 514112 514128 374144 187392 57856 8448
1433∗ 8 102 740 4073 16076 48288 109984 192692 256496 256880 186560 93616 28736 4224
1434∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1435∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1436∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1437∗ 18 199 1512 8156 32352 96696 220608 385704 514112 514128 374144 187392 57856 8448
1438∗ 16 190 1480 8062 32152 96296 219968 384824 512992 513088 373120 186784 57472 8320
1439∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1440∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1441∗ 16 190 1480 8062 32152 96296 219968 384824 512992 513088 373120 186784 57472 8320
1442∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1443∗ 16 190 1480 8062 32152 96296 219968 384824 512992 513088 373120 186784 57472 8320
1444∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
1445∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1446∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1447∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
1448∗ 6 60 398 2112 8198 24447 55472 97009 129048 129254 93984 47322 14624 2244
1449∗ 2 21 116 623 2348 7044 15850 27836 36848 37088 26816 13648 4160 687
1450∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
1452∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1453∗ 8 102 740 4073 16076 48288 109984 192692 256496 256880 186560 93616 28736 4224
1454∗ 10 107 768 4126 16236 48518 110464 193212 257296 257520 187264 94016 28992 4320
1455∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
1456∗ 14 189 1456 8050 32032 96236 219648 384664 512512 512848 372736 186592 57344 8256
1457∗ 8 102 740 4073 16076 48288 109984 192692 256496 256880 186560 93616 28736 4224
1458∗ 28 364 2912 16016 64064 192192 439296 768768 1025024 1025024 745472 372736 114688 16384
1459∗ 14 145 1012 5079 19132 55148 123008 212312 281440 282048 207232 106144 33920 5248
1460∗ 6 49 252 1069 3500 9314 19604 32888 42942 43299 32464 17568 6144 1176
1461∗ 24 274 1976 10050 38024 109896 245376 423744 561920 562944 413696 211456 67584 10240
1462∗ 18 175 1152 5550 20340 57714 127488 218868 289568 290280 214208 110592 36096 5760
1463∗ 10 107 768 4126 16236 48518 110464 193212 257296 257520 187264 94016 28992 4320
1464∗ 10 107 768 4126 16236 48518 110464 193212 257296 257520 187264 94016 28992 4320
Obtained combinatorial results can serve for a double check of computer

derivation of source KLs from basic polyhedra.
In order to work with KLs or for further derivation of polyhedral KLs
from source KLs, their number is not enough– the complete list is needed.
To obtain this list, we can use an external LinKnot program with the func-
tions fForSourceLinks and fSourceDow. The first function creates all
possible Conway symbols of source KLs that can be derived from a basic
polyhedron. The other function computes the Dowker codes of all source
links derived before, and takes only the first representatives of classes of
equal source links. For example, all the source links 6∗ 2, 6∗ .2, 6∗ : 2, 6∗ : .2,
6∗ :: 2, 6∗ :: .2, 6∗ 2 0, 6∗ .2 0, 6∗ : 2 0, 6∗ : .2 0, 6∗ :: 2 0, 6∗ :: .2 0 are isomor-
phic, so we take the first of them, the source link 6∗ 2, as the representative.
All source KLs derived from the basic polyhedron 6∗ (or .1) are given in
Table 6. The source links with n ≤ 12 crossings (i.e., with at the most four
bigons) derived from the basic polyhedron 8∗ are given in Table 8. For the
basic polyhedron 8∗ and for 12 ≤ n ≤ 16 crossings we use the LinKnot
external function fSourceDow to obtain the following source links: 124
source KLSs with 5 bigons
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0:2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2:2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0:2 8∗ 2.2 0:2 0.2 0:2
8∗ 2.2 0:2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2:2 0.2
8∗ 2.2 0.2:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0:2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2:2:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0:2.2 0:2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2:2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2:2
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2:2.2 0.2
8∗ 2.2:2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2 0.2
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0:.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0:.2
8∗ 2.2.2 0:.2.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0:2:.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0::2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:.2
8∗ 2.2.2:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2:2:2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2:2.2 0 8∗ 2:2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:2 8∗ 2.2:2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2:2:2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:2
8∗ 2.2.2 0:2:2 8∗ 2.2.2:2:2 0 8∗ 2.2:2:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2:2.2:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0::2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2 0:2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:.2 0.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0:2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2 0.2.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2:.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0::2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2:2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0:.2
8∗ 2.2 0:2:2:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2:2 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0:2
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:.2 8∗ 2.2:2.2 0:2 8∗ 2:2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2:2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0:2:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2:2:2
8∗ 2.2:2.2:2 8∗ 2.2.2:2:2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2 0:2 0.2
8∗ 2.2 0.2:2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2::2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2:2.2
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2:2 0.2 8∗ 2.2:2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2:2 0.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2:2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2
8∗ 2.2.2 0:2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0::2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2 0:2
8∗ 2.2 0:2 0.2:2 8∗ 2.2:2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 8∗ 2.2.2:2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0:2 0.2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2.2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0:.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0::2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2:2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0:2
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2:2 0.2
136 source KLs with 6 bigons:

8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0:2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2:2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2 0.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0:2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:2.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0:2.2 0.2 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0:2.2 0
8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2
8∗ 2.2:2.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2:2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2 0.2.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:2.2
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2:.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
8∗ 2.2.2.2 0:2.2 8∗ 2.2:2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:2
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2:2 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0:2 8∗ 2.2.2:2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:2:2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2:2.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2 0.2.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0:2 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0:2
266 LinKnot
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2
8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2:2.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0:2.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2:2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0:2 8∗ 2.2.2:2.2 0.2
8∗ 2:2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2:2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2:2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:2:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2:2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2:2.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:2.2 0 8∗ 2.2:2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2:2.2.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0:2.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0:2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2:.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0:2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2:2 0.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0:2.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2:2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2
8∗ 2.2.2.2:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0:2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0:.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0:2 0.2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2:2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0:2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0:2:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0:.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0:2 0.2 8∗ 2.2:2 0.2.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2:2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0:2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2:2 8∗ 2.2 0.2:2.2 0.2
8∗ 2.2.2:2.2.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0:.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0:2:2 0
72 source KLs with 7 bigons:

8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2:2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2
8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2.2
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0:2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2.2
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2:2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2:2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0:2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0:2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2:2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0:2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0.2
and 30 source KLs with 8 bigons:

8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0
8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0.2.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 0.2.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0.2.2 0
As we already computed using the PET (see Table 10), from the basic
polyhedron 8∗ we derive 2 source KLs with 1 bigon, 12 with 2 bigons, 34
with 3 bigons, 87 with 4 bigons, 124 with 5 bigons, 136 with 6 bigons, 72
with 7 bigons, and 30 source KLs with 8 bigons. We can use these results
to continue with the derivation of KLs belonging to the P (R)-subworld and
to all other subworlds for larger values of n substituting bigons by R-tangles
etc).
Using the external LinKnot programs for the derivation of polyhedral
source KLs we can try to fill in the missing data in Table 10, for the
basic polyhedra 10∗∗∗ , 1413∗, and 1451∗. The main obstacles for derivation
are the size of input data: 2n source KLs for a basic polyhedron with
n crossings, and the complexity of algorithm for finding representatives
of classes of non-equivalent source KLs. So far, we were able to get the
following source KLs from the basic polyhedron 10∗∗∗ : 2 source KLs with
1 bigon, 18 with 2 bigons, 66 with 3 bigons, and 237 with 4 bigons.
The LinKnot function fGenKL generates all different alternating KLs
with n crossings from a given source KL by rational tangle substitutions.
For example, from each of P -equivalent source links 2.2.20.2, .2.2.2.20,
2.2.20.20, 2.20.2.20, 20.2.20.20 we obtained 6, 27, 100, 334, 1032, 3020, KLs
with n = 11, . . . , 16 crossings, respectively.
We are interested not only for particular polyhedral KLs with a given
number of crossings, but for their general classes, derived, e.g., from the
basic polyhedron 6∗ .
From the source link 6∗ 2 we derive 6∗ t1 ; from the source links 6∗ 2.2,
6 2.2 0, 6∗ 2 : .2 0, 6∗ 2 : .2 we obtain, respectively:
∗
6∗ t1 .t1 6∗ t1 .t2
6∗ t1 .t1 0 6∗ t1 .t2 0
6∗ t1 : .t1 0 6∗ t1 : .t2 0
6∗ t1 : .t1 6∗ t1 : .t2
From the source links 6∗ 2.2 0.2, 6∗ 2.2 : 2 0, 6∗ 2.2 0 : 2 0, 6∗ 2.2.2 0, 6∗ 2.2 :
2, 6∗ 2.2 0 :: 2 0, 6∗ 2.2.2 we obtain, respectively:
6∗ t1 .t1 0.t1 6∗ t1 .t1 0.t2 6∗ t1 .t2 0.t3

6∗ t1 .t1 : t1 0 6∗ t1 .t1 : t2 0 6∗ t1 .t2 : t1 0 6∗ t1 .t2 : t3 0
6∗ t1 .t3 : t2 0 6∗ t2 .t1 : t3 0
268 LinKnot
6∗ t1 .t1 0 : t1 0 6∗ t1 .t1 0 : t2 0 6∗ t1 .t2 0 : t1 0 6∗ t1 .t2 0 : t3 0

6∗ t1 .t3 0 : t2 0 6∗ t2 .t1 0 : t3 0
6∗ t1 .t1 .t1 0 6∗ t1 .t1 .t2 0 6∗ t2 .t1 .t1 0 6∗ t1 .t2 .t3 0
6∗ t2 .t1 .t3 0 6∗ t3 .t1 .t2 0
6∗ t1 .t1 : t1 6∗ t1 .t1 : t2 6∗ t1 .t2 : t1 6∗ t2 .t1 : t1
6∗ t1 .t2 : t3 6∗ t1 .t3 : t2 6∗ t2 .t1 : t3 6∗ t2 .t3 : t1
6∗ t3 .t1 : t2 6∗ t3 .t2 : t1
6∗ t1 .t1 0 :: t1 0 6∗ t1 .t1 0 :: t2 0 6∗ t1 .t2 0 :: t3 0
6∗ t1 .t1 .t1 6∗ t1 .t1 .t2 6∗ t1 .t2 .t1 6∗ t1 .t2 .t3
6∗ t1 .t3 .t2 6∗ t2 .t1 .t3
Source link 6∗ 2.2.2.2 0 generates 47 classes, 6∗ 2.2 : 2.2 0, 6∗ 2.2.2 0.2,

6 2.2 0.2.2 0, 6∗ 2.2.2 : 2 0, and 6∗ 2.2.2 : 2 generate 27 classes each, 6∗ 2.2.2.2
∗
and 6∗ 2.2.2 0 : 2 generate 25 classes each, 6∗ 2.2 2.2 generates 14 classes,

6∗ 2.2 0 : 2 0.2 and 6∗ 2.2 : 2 0.2 0 generate 9 classes each.
Source links 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0, 6∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 generate 246 classes each,
6 2.2.2 0.2.2, 6∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0, 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2 generate 126 classes each, and
∗
6∗ 2.2.2.2 0 : 2 0, 6∗ 2.2 0.2.2 0.2 generate 66 classes each.

Source link 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 0 generates 814 classes, 6∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2.2 0 gen-
erates 420, 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0 generates 412, 6∗ 2.2.2.2 0.2 0.2 0 generates 217,
6∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0, 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 generate 144 classes each, and 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2
generates 78 classes.
KLs mentioned above are all P R-classes which can be derived from the
basic polyhedron 6∗ .
2.7 Basic polyhedra and non-algebraic tangles
Basic polyhedra were considered first by T.S. Kirkman (who called them
“solid knots”) (1885a,b), then by J. Conway (1970), and A. Caudron (1982).
In the first part of his paper (June 2, 1984) T.S. Kirkman wrote:
“Of solid knots we are not treating. If the apparent dignity of knots
so maintains itself as to make a treatise on these n-acra desirable, it will
be no difficult thing to show in a future memoir how to enumerate and
construct them to any value of n without omission or repetition. The
beginner can amuse himself with the regular 8-hedron, which is trifilar, or
with the unifilar of eight crossings made by drawing within a square askew,
and filling up with eight triangles.”
and in its Postcript (September 1, 1984):
“As it is a brief matter, it may be worth the wile to show how all solid
knots can be constructed without omission and repetition.”
Fig. 2.43 The basic polyhedra 6∗ , 8∗ , and 9∗ .
A century after, the “missing” basic polyhedron 12E with n = 12 cross-

ings was discovered by A. Caudron (1982). A. Caudron derived basic poly-
hedra with n ≤ 12 crossings by combining non-algebraic (hyperbolic) tan-
gles.
Every basic polyhedron is a 4-regular, 4-edge connected, at least 2-
vertex connected graph without bigons (Definition 1.43). Polyhedral KLs
can be derived from basic polyhedra by substituting vertices by algebraic
tangles. Unfortunately, some kind of a data base is unavoidable: for each
basic polyhedron we need to know the order of vertices and orientation of
tangles. This info is similar to the classical knot tables, but now for basic
polyhedra (Figs. 2.43-2.47). In the program LinKnot the list (data base)
of basic polyhedra is extended to n ≤ 20 crossings.
Applying flypes to basic polyhedra with n ≤ 11 crossings and source
links derived from them gives nothing new. For n ≤ 11 there is one-
to-one correspondence between basic polyhedra and their corresponding
alternating KLs.
Unfortunately, this does not hold for the basic polyhedra with n ≥
12 crossings. This probably explains the “mystery of the missing basic
polyhedron” 12E: among the basic polyhedra with n ≤ 12 crossings, 12E
is the only basic polyhedron which is a two vertex-connected graph and
270 LinKnot
Fig. 2.44 The basic polyhedra 10∗ , 10∗∗ , and 10∗∗∗ .
the first basic polyhedron with two different projections. It has two non-
isomorphic alternating diagrams– its other projection is the link 11∗∗∗ 2
(Fig. 2.48).
Definition 2.18. A non-algebraic tangle (or hyperbolic tangle) is a tangle

that can not be obtained from elementary tangles 0, 1 and −1 by using
three operations (page 52), sum, product, and ramification.
We can consider two infinite series of non-algebraic tangles. The first

series is 5⋆ , 8⋆1 , 11⋆1 , 14⋆1 , 17⋆1 , . . . with n = 3k + 2 crossings, giving the link
2 1 2 and the basic polyhedra 8∗ , 11∗∗ , 141∗ , 171225∗, . . . as the numerator
closures. The second is 7⋆ , 9⋆1 , 11⋆2 , 13⋆1 , . . . with n = 2k + 5 crossings. They
are illustrated in Fig 2.49. Let 5⋆ and 7⋆ (Fig. 2.49) denote non-algebraic
tangles with n = 5 and n = 7 crossings, respectively. The numerator
closures of the products 5⋆ 1, 7⋆ 1, 9⋆1 1 are the basic polyhedra 6∗ , 8∗ , 10∗ ,
respectively.
We can distinguish elementary basic polyhedra and composite basic poly-
hedra:
Definition 2.19. A basic polyhedron is called elementary basic polyhe-

dron if it contains at most one non-algebraic tangle, and composite basic
polyhedron if it contains at least two non-algebraic tangles.
Fig. 2.45 The basic polyhedra 11∗ , 11∗∗ , and 11∗∗∗ .
In this way, for example, the basic polyhedron 10∗∗∗ can be represented
as 5⋆ 5⋆ , 11∗∗∗ as 5⋆ 1 5⋆ , etc. Applying flypes to the basic polyhedra with
n ≤ 11 crossings yields nothing new– they have only one minimal alternat-
ing diagram. The first exception, basic polyhedron 12E, can be denoted
by 5⋆ , 1, 5⋆ , 1 (Fig. 2.48a). If we apply one flype, we obtain another pro-
jection 5⋆ 2 5⋆ , corresponding to the link 11∗∗∗ 2 (Fig. 2.48b). There is a
complete analogy between the first rational link 2 2 2, that has two projec-
tions, and the first basic polyhedron 12E, expressed as 5⋆ 2 5⋆ , with the
same property. In the same way, we can obtain other basic polyhedra hav-
ing more then one minimal alternating diagram, e.g., 1318∗ and 136∗ that
are two non-isomorphic projections of 5⋆ 1 1 1 5⋆ (Fig. 2.50), where 1318∗
corresponds to the projection 5⋆ 1 1 1 5⋆. Some KLs can be derived from
both, but there are KLs that can be derived only from one, but not from
some other projection of the same basic polyhedron. For example, the link
125∗ 2 0 ::: 2 0 = 5∗ , 2, 5∗ , 2 can not be obtained from the basic polyhedron
11∗∗∗ (this means, from 11∗∗∗ 2).
Among the basic polyhedra with n = 12 crossings, tree are composite:
12E = 5⋆ , 1, 5⋆ , 1 ∼ 5⋆ 2 5⋆ = 11∗∗∗ 2, 12I = 7⋆ 5⋆ , and 12J = 5⋆ 1 1 5⋆.
For n = 13 composite basic polyhedra are: 131∗ = 8⋆1 5⋆ , 135∗ = 8⋆2 5⋆ ,
1318∗ = 5⋆ 1 1 1 5⋆ ∼ 136∗ , 139∗ = 7⋆ , 1, 5⋆ , 1313∗ = 7⋆ 1 5⋆ ∼ 1311∗,
1319∗ = 5⋆ 1, 1, 5⋆, 1 ∼ (5⋆ , 1) 2 5⋆ = 1210∗2. In other words, the links
272 LinKnot
Fig. 2.46 The basic polyhedra 12A-12F .
12E ∼ 11∗∗∗ 2, 1318∗ ∼ 136∗ , 1313∗ ∼ 1311∗, and 1319∗ ∼ 1210∗2 have
two different minimal diagrams each. All other KLs corresponding to the
basic polyhedra with n ≤ 13 crossings have a single alternating diagram.
In order to derive all composite basic polyhedra with n ≤ 15 crossings,
21 hyperbolic tangles (Fig. 2.51) we need: one with n = 5, one with n = 7,
two with n = 8, six with n = 9, and eleven with n = 10 crossings. Non-
algebraic tangles with n = 11 crossings are given in Fig. 2.52. Among basic
polyhedra with n = 14 crossings, there are 27 composite polyhedra, 18 of
their corresponding KLs permit flypes, and among them 15 will have more
then one minimal projection. Links associated to the basic polyhedra with
n = 14 crossings satisfy following equalities: 1429∗ ∼ 1430∗, 1434∗ ∼ 1445∗,
1435∗ ∼ 1439∗, 1455∗ ∼ 1456∗ ∼ 1458∗, 1463∗ ∼ 1464∗, and the links 1459∗
- 1464∗ have other projections that contain bigons. Among 76 composite
basic polyhedra with n = 15 crossings, 59 of their corresponding alternating
Fig. 2.47 The basic polyhedra 12G-12L.
KLs permit flypes, and among 257 composite basic polyhedra with n = 16
crossings, 201 of their corresponding alternating KLs permit flypes.
Representations of composite basic polyhedra can be used for deter-
mining properties of their corresponding alternating KLs. For example,
KLs corresponding to the “palindromic” basic polyhedra 10∗∗∗ = 5⋆ 5⋆ ,
12J = 5⋆ 1 1 5⋆ , 1420∗ = 7⋆ 7⋆ , 16160∗ = 7⋆ 1 1 7⋆ are achiral from the same
reason as their analogous rational KLs from the class p p, where p is an
arbitrary tangle. The same holds for all “palindromic” basic polyhedra of
the form p′ p′ , where p′ is any non-algebraic tangle.
274 LinKnot
Fig. 2.48 (a) The basic polyhedron 12E; (b) the source link 11∗∗∗ 2.
Basic polyhedra representations are not unique: the same composite

basic polyhedron (e.g., 16268∗) can be represented by different hyperbolic
tangle decompositions (Fig. 2.53).
As we have seen, for n ≥ 13 two or more different basic polyhedra
(e.g., 1318∗ and 136∗) can be obtained as non-isomorphic projections of the
same alternating KL, so even the term “basic polyhedron of an alternating
KL” must be reconsidered. For example, the Conway symbols 125∗ 2 0 and
11∗∗∗ 2 1 represent the same alternating link. In the same way, 136∗ 2 =
1318∗2, etc. The same holds for source KLs with n ≥ 12 crossings: two or
more mutually non-isomorphic source links can be projections of the same
alternating KL. For example, two non-isomorphic source links 11∗∗∗ .2 and
11∗∗∗ :: 2 are two different projections of the same alternating link (Fig.
2.54). The same property holds for source links derived from the basic
polyhedra 12E, 12J,. . . In order to avoid ambiguity, instead of defining
a basic polyhedron and source link as a graph, it is possible to define it
as an alternating KL corresponding to this graph and introduce extended
Conway notation for composite basic polyhedra.
The LinKnot functions fProdTangles and fSumTangles calculate P -
data of the product and sum of non-algebraic tangles (denoted by m5∗ ,
m7∗ , m81∗ − m82∗ , m91∗ − m96∗ , m101∗ − m1011∗, m111∗ − m1138∗)
composed with algebraic tangles placed in the basic polyhedron obtained
by the product or sum.
Fig. 2.49 Infinite classes of non-algebraic tangles (a) starting from 5⋆ ; (b) starting from
7⋆ .
The LinKnot function fCompositePoly detects composite basic poly-

hedra, and the function fPolyFlype finds those with the corresponding
KLs that permit flypes.
From the works of J. Conway (1970) and A. Caudron (1982) it is known
that the basic polyhedra 6∗ and 10∗∗∗ , and some classes of alternating
KLs derived from them are algebraic (according to Definition 1.46, (2)),
i.e., they have non-minimal algebraic representations. For example, this
holds for the basic polyhedron 6∗ and all alternating KLs of the form
276 LinKnot
Fig. 2.50 The basic polyhedra 136∗ and 1318∗ .
.t1 , .t1 .t2 , .t1 : t2 , .t1 .t2 .t3 , .t1 .t2 .t3 .t4 where ti (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) are algebraic
tangles (with or without zeros after the tangles). This property of the basic
polyhedra 6∗ and 10∗∗∗ is based on the fact that the non-algebraic tangle
5∗ (Fig. 2.51) has the algebraic representation ((2, −2), −2) 1, so the basic
polyhedron 6∗ can be represented in the form 5∗ , 1, i.e., as the algebraic
link ((2, −2), −2)1, 1. In the same way, 10∗∗∗ can be represented as 5∗ 5∗ ,
i.e., as the algebraic link (((2, −2), −2) 1) (((2, −2), −2) 1).
Definition 2.20. A representation of a basic polyhedron obtained from an

algebraic KL diagram by replacing its elementary tangles 1 by 5∗ is called
5∗ -representation.
Definition 2.21. Collapse of the non-algebraic alternating tangle 5∗ into

the elementary tangle 1 is called 5∗ -collapse.
A 5∗ -collapse can be visualized in a simple way: a circular component

is deleted, and the central crossing changes the sign (switches from an
overcrossing to undercrossing) (Fig. 2.55).
Theorem 2.13. Alternating link L corresponding to a basic polyhedron is

algebraic if it can be reduced to a KL with an algebraic representation by
5∗ -collapses.
Since we have the algebraic representation of the tangle 5∗ , the proof

follows immediately.
Since the algebraic representation ((2, −2), −2)1, 1 of the tangle 5∗ per-
mits the variation of three parameters, it is clear that algebraic alternating
KLs derived from the basic polyhedron 6∗ can have at most four algebraic
tangles. For example, if t,t1 ,t2 ,t3 are algebraic tangles and n1 ,n2 ,n3 are
Fig. 2.51 Non-algebraic tangles with n ≤ 10 crossings.
n-tangles, alternating KLs of the form

.t1 n1 .t2 n2 0.t3 n3 0.t
have the algebraic representation
((t1 (n1 + 1), −t3 − (n3 + 1)), −t2 − (n2 + 1)) 1, t
Algebraic representations of the basic polyhedra 6∗ and 10∗∗∗ and al-
ternating algebraic KLs with n ≤ 11 crossings derived from them are given
by A. Caudron (1982). They can easily be generalized for biger values of n.
An example is the basic polyhedron 11∗∗∗ , alternating KLs derived from
it, and their algebraic representations. If t,t1 ,...,t6 are algebraic tangles and
278 LinKnot
Fig. 2.52 Non-algebraic tangles with n = 11 crossings.
n1 ,...,n6 are n-tangles, alternating KLs of the form

113∗ t 0 : t1 n1 0.t2 n2 0.t3 n3 : .t4 n4 0.t5 n5 0.t6 n6
have the algebraic representation
((t3 (n3 + 1), −t1 − (n1 + 1)), −t2 − (n2 + 1)) 1, t,
((t6 (n6 + 1), −t5 − (n5 + 1)), t4 − (n4 + 1)) 1
Fig. 2.53 Two different decompositions of the basic polyhedron 16268∗ .
Fig. 2.54 The source links 11∗∗∗ .2 and 11∗∗∗ :: 2.
Fig. 2.55 5∗ -collapse.
For example, the alternating knot
113∗ (2 1, 3) 0 : 3 0.7 2 0.4 : .(3, 2) 3 0.3 0.4
with n = 41 crossings has the algebraic representation
((5, −4), −7 − 3) 1, (2 1, 3), ((5, −4), −(3, 2) − 4) 1
with n = 45 crossings.
280 LinKnot
Fig. 2.56 Basic polyhedra with n ≤ 13 crossings which have algebraic representations.
The following list contains the basic polyhedra with n ≤ 13 cross-

ings which have an algebraic representation, each given with its 5∗ -
representation (Fig. 2.56).
n=6 6∗ 5∗ 1
n = 10 10∗∗∗ 5∗ 5∗
n = 11 11∗∗∗ 5∗ 1 5∗
n = 12 125∗ 5∗ , 1, 5∗ , 1
1210∗ 5∗ 1 1 5∗
n = 13 136∗ (5 , 1) 1 (5∗ , 1)
∗
1318∗ 5∗ 1 1 1 5∗
1319∗ (1, 5∗ , 1) (5∗ , 1)
The following table contains basic polyhedra with 14 ≤ n ≤ 16 crossings

which have 5∗ -representations and offer a possibility for further derivation
of alternating KLs having an algebraic representation.
n = 14 1414∗ 1451∗ 1455∗ 1456∗ 1458∗ 1460∗ 1461∗

1463∗ 1464∗
n = 15 157∗ 1543∗ 1548∗ 1551∗ 1552∗ 1553∗ 15115∗
15130∗ 15134∗ 15138∗ 15146∗ 15147∗ 15152∗ 15153∗
15154∗ 15155∗
n = 16 16145∗ 16162∗ 16181∗ 16221∗ 16256∗ 16272∗ 16298∗
16339∗ 16347∗ 16369∗ 16373∗ 16377∗ 16380∗ 16381∗
16384∗ 16388∗ 16391∗ 16393∗ 16402∗ 16428∗ 16431∗
16432∗ 16437∗ 16442∗ 16448∗ 16451∗ 16452∗ 16456∗
16457∗ 16461∗ 16464∗ 16465∗ 16473∗ 16484∗ 16491∗
16492∗ 16494∗ 16495∗ 16496∗ 16498∗ 16500∗ 16501∗
16502∗ 16503∗ 16504∗ 16509∗
Among them, one of the most interesting is the basic polyhedron 1451∗,
Fig. 2.57 (a) A nested collapsing: basic polyhedra 1451∗ and 10∗∗∗ ; (b) knot
1451∗ : 3.2.2.2.2 0 :: .2 0 : 2 0 with n = 22 crossings and its algebraic representation
((2, −3), −(((4, −3), −3) 1) − 1) 1, ((3, −3), −3) 1 with n = 28 crossings.
which reduces into the basic polyhedron 10∗∗∗ by one 5∗ -collapse. The next
two 5∗ -collapses reduce it to a Hopf link, so this is an example of a nested
5∗ -collapsing (Fig. 2.57a). The knot 1451∗ : 3.2.2.2.2 0 :: .2 0 : 2 0 with n =
22 crossings and its algebraic representation ((2, −3), −(((4, −3), −3) 1) −
1) 1, ((3, −3), −3) 1 with n = 28 crossings is illustrated in Fig. 2.57b.
An example of a double 5∗ -collapse is the alternating knot K = 16442∗ :
.2 0 :: 2 ::: .2.2 0 with n = 20 crossings, given by the algebraic representation
with n = 26 crossings (Fig. 2.58a)
((2, (−1, −1, −(((2, −3), −3) 1))), (−1, −1, −(((2, −3), −3) 1))) 1, 1
Its basic polyhedron 16442∗ is 5∗ -collapse reducible to the knot 6∗ 2.2 = .2.2
(Fig. 2.58b), which has the algebraic representation ((2, −3), −3) 1, 1=
((2, (−1, −1, −1)), (−1, −1, −1)) 1, 1. The algebraic representation of K
282 LinKnot
Fig. 2.58 (a) Knot K = 16442∗ : .2 0 :: 2 ::: .2.2 0 and its algebraic representation; (b)
basic polyhedron 16442∗ which by two 5∗ -collapses reduces to .2.2.
is obtained replacing the last −1 in both tangles (−1, −1, −1) by

−(((2, −3), −3) 1).
2.7.1 Generalized tangles

Generalized n-tangles with 2n instead of 4 (n = 2) emerging arcs are men-
tioned in Conway’s paper (1970) without a further elaboration. The same
holds for Murasugi (1996, page 172): after defining n-tangles (called there
(n, n)-tangles) and giving an example of a (3,3)-tangle, the author contin-
ued to work exclusively with 2-tangles (or (2,2)-tangles). Even examples of
particular n-tangles (n ≥ 3) and their use is hard to find. However, we are
very familiar with an elementary 3-tangle: it is the standard illustration
of the third Reidemeister move (Fig. 2.59). A. Caudron (1982) used hy-
perbolic n-tangles for the construction of basic polyhedra, and H. Moriuchi
(2004) enumerated theta-curves (i.e., non-algebraic 2-tangles) with up to 7
crossings. Non-algebraic 2-tangles with n ≤ 11 crossings are considered in

preceding section.
Fig. 2.59 Third Reidemeister move as a 3-tangle.
Generalized tangles will be used for extending Conway notation to non-

algebraic tangles and basic polyhedra, describing non-algebraic tangle types
and type-algebra for computing the number of components of non-algebraic
KLs.
2.7.2 n-tangles and basic polyhedra

Every n-tangle will be denoted by a regular 2n-gon with 2n arcs emerging
from its vertices. For every n-tangle we can distinguish 2n possible positions
obtained rotating the tangle by the angle πk n (k = 0, 1, . . . , 2n − 1), and
2n positions of the tangle obtained by a mirror-reflection in a horizontal
reflection line and then rotated by the angle πk n (k = 1, . . . , 2n − 1) (Fig.
2.60).
Fig. 2.60 Positions of 3-tangle.
A closure of n-tangle is obtained by joining the remaining free arcs in

pairs, without introducing new crossings.
For 2-tangles there are two closures: numerator and denominator (N
284 LinKnot
and D) closure, and for 3-tangles there are two basic types of closures: a
closure where only adjacent vertices are joined (A-closure), and a closure
where two opposite vertices are joined (O-closure) (Fig. 2.61).
Since the result of a closure depends on a position of a 3-tangle, for every
3-tangle there are two possible A-closures and three possible O-closures.
The number of closures, i.e., the number of ways of joining 2n points on a
circle by n non-intersecting chords is known as Catalan number (or Segner
number). For n ≤ 10 Catalan numbers (the sequence A000108 from On-
Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences) are
n 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10
Catalan no. 2 5 14 42 132 429 1430 4862 16796
2n!
In general, Catalan number is given by the formula C(n) = n!(n+1)! .
LinKnot function fAllClosures gives the list of all closures of a n-tangle
(n ≥ 3).
Fig. 2.61 A- and O-closures of 3-tangle.
Fig. 2.62 Elementary non-algebraic 3-tangles |2| and |3|.
An elementary n-tangle with n − 1 vertices (Fig. 2.62) is denoted by

|n − 1| or |1 1 . . . 1|, where 1 occurs n − 1 times. As the basic position
of elementary tangle we take the one where one strand is horizontal and
remaining n−1 strands are vertical. An elementary n-tangle |n−1| induces a
coordinate system of concentric regular 2n-gons and corresponding regions
(Fig. 2.63), where the first lower middle or right region with two vertices
is denoted by 1, and other regions (from 1 to 2n) are given in a clockwise
order. Every n-tangle placed in this coordinate system can be denoted by
|t1 t2 . . . tn−1 | (tn )r1 (tn+1 )r2 . . . (tn+k−1 )rk , where ti (i = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1)
is an algebraic tangle placed in the corresponding vertex of |n − 1| (in
the order from the right to the left), and tj rj−n+1 (rj−n+1 ∈ {1, . . . , 2n},
j = n, . . . , n + k − 1, k = 1, 2, . . .) is an algebraic tangle tj placed in the
region rj−n+1 , between k th and (k + 1)th concentric regular 2n-gon (at the
k th level). Since our primary interest is the derivation of basic polyhedra
we start adding with algebraic tangles 1 in such a way that no bigons are
created. Therefore, all pairs of adjacent regions must have different indexes.
If all algebraic tangles are 1, in order to simplify notation, instead of 1rj−n+1
we write just rj−n+1 . (Figure 2.64).
In the initial state, all (potential) algebraic tangles have the same ori-
entation (Fig. 2.65). In our notation the symbol 0 has the same meaning
as in the Conway notation for polyhedral KLs.
Fig. 2.63 Coordinate system of the tangle |2|.

286 LinKnot
Fig. 2.64 Tangle |2| 1 2 3 2 5.
Fig. 2.65 Orientation of algebraic tangles in the coordinate system.
From every open region two arcs emerge, and adjacent regions share
the same arc. We can distinguish open regions with one, two, or more
vertices, and denote their type by 1,2,3, respectively. Placing new 1-tangle
in an open region changes its type and the types of adjacent regions. If its
original type was 1, the addition of new 1-tangle is forbidden, because a
bigon will be obtained. If the type of a region is 2 or 3, it will be changed to

1, and types of its adjacent regions increase by 1. The process of weaving
non-algebraic n-tangles, followed by the changes of the types of open regions
is illustrated in Fig. 2.66.
Thus we obtain non-algebraic n-tangles without bigons. Note that ob-
tained tangles are not necessarily different, i.e., a tangle may be obtained
in different ways.
Fig. 2.66 Change of the types of regions.
A closure of an n-tangle is a basic polyhedron, if connecting free arcs

yields no bigons. Notice that joining free arcs either closes a region, or
merges two regions into one. This means that the region type of a closed
region must be greater then 2, and the sum of region types of the two joined
regions must be greater then 2.
In the case of 3-tangles and A-closures we need three non-adjacent re-
gions of the type 3, and for an O-closure two opposite regions of the type 3
and a pair of opposite regions with the sum of region types greater then 2.
In both cases we close regions of the type 3 by connecting emerging arcs.
The closure giving a basic polyhedron is unique (up to symmetry).
The main purpose of the Crazy Spider Algorithm described above is the
derivation of basic polyhedra, and as a side result we get all non-algebraic
288 LinKnot
n-tangles without bigons (Fig. 2.64).

The introduction of 2n-gonal coordinate system gives new notation for
n-tangles derived from the elementary n-tangle |n − 1| and for the basic
polyhedra obtained as their closures.
Fig. 2.67 Basic polyhedron 9∗ given by the minimal code |2| 1 2 1 3 2 1 2.
Fig. 2.68 Basic polyhedron 12C given by the code |3| 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 3.
For the exhaustive derivation of basic polyhedra with a given number

of crossings n there are two possibilities:
• derive all basic polyhedra from k-tangles with fixed k (k ≥ 3), suffi-
ciently large to obtain all basic polyhedra with n crossings;
• for every polyhedron find minimal k such that it can be derived from
the basic k-tangle and for this k find its minimal representation.
Definition 2.22. Minimal code of basic polyhedron is the code obtained

from its minimal representation corresponding to the minimal n.
Together with the basic polyhedra which are prime KLs, our algorithm
produces non-prime basic polyhedra that should be deleted from the lists of
basic polyhedra. The first of them is 6∗ #6∗ with the code |4| 1 3 4 3 2 1 2 4.
In the set of different codes describing the same basic polyhedron, the
minimal code is taken as the symbol of the basic polyhedron. The list
of minimal codes and their corresponding 9 basic polyhedra with n ≤ 11
crossing is given in the following table:
|2| 1 2 1 2 6∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 8∗
|2| 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 9∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 10∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 10∗∗
|3| 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 10∗∗∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 11∗
|2| 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 2 1 11∗∗
|3| 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 11∗∗∗
Among them, composite basic polyhedra 10∗∗∗ and 11∗∗∗ are derived
from the elementary 4-tangle |3|.
The list of minimal codes and their corresponding 12 basic polyhedra
with n = 12 crossings is given in the following table
|2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 12A |2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 12B

|2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 12F |2| 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 12K
|2| 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 12D |2| 1 2 1 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 12L
|2| 1 2 1 6 1 2 3 2 1 2 12H |3| 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 12G
|3| 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 12C |3| 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 12I
|3| 1 5 4 3 4 3 2 8 7 12E |3| 1 6 7 6 5 4 3 2 3 12J
The list of 19 basic polyhedra with n = 13 crossings is given in the

following table. Every basic polyhedron is represented by its minimal code
and its symbol from the LinKnot data base of basic polyhedra.
290 LinKnot
|2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 133∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1312∗

|2| 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1310∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 2 1 1316∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1314∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 1317∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 1 1315∗ |2| 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 138∗
|2| 1 2 1 6 1 6 1 2 1 2 1 137∗ |3| 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 132∗
|3| 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 134∗ |3| 1 2 3 2 1 3 8 7 6 7 135∗
|3| 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 139∗ |3| 1 2 3 2 3 6 8 7 6 7 131∗
|3| 1 2 6 7 6 5 4 3 2 3 1313∗ |3| 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 2 3 1311∗
|3| 1 8 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 3 136∗ |3| 1 8 1 8 1 2 3 2 1 2 1319∗
|4| 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 1318∗
The following table contains the list of 64 basic polyhedra with n = 14

crossings, given by their minimal codes:
|2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1449∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 148∗

|2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 1410∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 1433∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 1450∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1442∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 1437∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 1 3 6 5 4 3 2 3 1432∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 1 6 1 2 3 2 1 2 1421∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 1441∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 2 1418∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 1426∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 1444∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 1419∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 6 5 4 3 2 3 1412∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 1 2 143∗
|2| 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 2 1427∗ |2| 1 2 1 2 3 4 6 5 4 3 2 3 1453∗
|2| 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1443∗ |2| 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 4 3 2 1 2 1428∗
|2| 1 2 1 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 2 1 1454∗ |2| 1 2 1 3 2 1 6 1 2 1 2 1 1452∗
|2| 1 2 1 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 2 1416∗ |2| 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 1415∗
|2| 1 2 1 6 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 144∗ |2| 1 2 1 6 1 5 6 5 4 3 2 3 141∗
|2| 1 2 1 6 1 6 1 2 3 2 1 2 1411∗ |3| 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 1447∗
|3| 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 149∗ |3| 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 146∗
|3| 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 145∗ |3| 1 2 1 2 1 3 4 3 2 3 2 1438∗
|3| 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 1417∗ |3| 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 3 2 1413∗
|3| 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 142∗ |3| 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 5 1448∗
|3| 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1431∗ |3| 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 4 3 2 3 147∗
|3| 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 8 7 6 7 1446∗ |3| 1 2 3 2 1 3 6 8 7 6 7 1436∗
|3| 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1457∗ |3| 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 8 1 2 1 1429∗
|3| 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 8 7 6 7 1424∗ |3| 1 2 3 2 3 2 6 8 7 6 7 1423∗
|3| 1 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 1 3 2 1425∗ |3| 1 2 6 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 1420∗
|3| 1 2 6 7 6 5 4 3 2 3 2 1440∗ |3| 1 5 4 3 2 5 6 8 7 6 7 1430∗
|3| 1 5 4 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 2 1462∗ |3| 1 5 4 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 2 1459∗
|3| 1 6 7 6 5 4 3 2 3 2 3 1422∗ |3| 1 6 7 6 5 4 3 4 3 2 3 1434∗
|3| 1 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 3 2 3 1445∗ |3| 1 6 8 7 6 5 4 3 4 3 2 1435∗
|3| 1 8 1 2 7 6 5 4 3 2 3 1439∗ |3| 1 8 7 6 8 7 6 5 4 3 4 1458∗
|3| 1 8 7 8 7 6 5 4 3 4 3 1461∗ |4| 1 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 4 1455∗
|4| 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1451∗ |4| 1 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 5 1463∗
|4| 1 3 2 4 3 2 1 3 2 4 1414∗ |4| 1 3 4 3 2 3 2 1 2 4 1456∗
|4| 1 6 5 4 5 4 3 2 1 2 1460∗ |5| 1 2 1 2 4 3 5 4 5 1464∗
A reader familiar with BF Rs can recognize a similarity of coordinate

basic polyhedra notation and their corresponding minimal braid words:
6∗ (Ab)3
8∗ (Ab)4
9∗ AbACbACbC
10∗ (Ab)5
10∗∗ AbAbCbACbC
... ...
The main difference between Crazy Spider Algorithm and BF Rs is that

BF Rs can be used only to recognize certain families of basic polyhedra,
while Crazy Spider Algorithm is an algorithm for exhaustive derivation of
basic polyhedra.
Composite basic polyhedra (starting from 10∗∗∗ ) can be represented as
the compositions of non-algebraic tangles. The first of them, 10∗∗∗ is 5∗ 5∗ ,
the product of two hyperbolic tangles |2| 1 2 1. In the same way, 11∗∗∗ is
5∗ 1 5∗ , 12E is 5∗ , 1, 5∗ , 1=5∗ 2 5∗ ∼ 11∗∗∗ 2, 12I is 7∗ 5∗ , 12J is 5∗ 1 1 5∗, etc.
Unfortunately, codes denoting basic polyhedra are not unique and their
number grows very fast as the number of crossings increases.
For the minimization of codes and decreasing their number we use com-
mutativity of vertices belonging to non-adjacent regions, with the require-
ment that no bigons are created.
For example, the code |3| 1 2 3 5 4 5 2 1 2 is minimized to |3| 1 2 3 2 1 2 5 4 5.
Instead of minimizing all possible codes according to rules mentioned, it is
possible to construct in advance all minimized codes, and then choose the
minimal among them.
LinKnot function fBasicTan gives all minimized closed n-tangles with
k crossings, and the function fBasicPolyTan gives all basic polyhedra with
k crossings derived from n-tangles for fixed n.
Now we will consider families of minimal representations of basic poly-
hedra. The first family consists of n-antiprismatic basic polyhedra (2n)∗
(n = 3, 4, . . .), given by the minimal code |2| (1 2)n−1 , where (1 2)n−1 stands
for 1 2 . . . 1 2, with 1 2 repeated n − 1 times. Every other minimal code of a
basic polyhedron derived from a n-tangle (n ≥ 3) is of the form |n − 1| sk0 s,
where sk0 is an alternating sequence 1 2 . . . of the length k (k ≥ 1), and s is
a sequence of numbers ri (ri ∈ {1, 2, . . . , 2n}, i = 1, 2, . . .) denoting regions,
which do not begin with 1 or 2.
Definition 2.23. A family of basic polyhedra derived from s consists of all

292 LinKnot
basic polyhedra of the form |n − 1| sk0 s obtained for a fixed s, and can be
denoted by (n,s,k).
Basic polyhedra belonging to a (n,s,k)-family for fixed n and s are al-

ways obtained by the same closure. For example, for s = 3 2 1 2 and k ≥ 3
is obtained the family |2| sk0 s that consists from the basic polyhedra 9∗ ,
10∗∗ , 11∗ , 12B,... given by the minimal codes |2| 1 2 1 3 2 1 2, |2| 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2,
|2| 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2, |2| 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2,...; for s = 6 1 2 1 2 1 and k ≥ 1 is ob-
tained the family |2| s02k+1 s, beginning with the basic polyhedron 11∗∗ given
by the code |2| 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 2 1, etc. The series sk0 is the k-antiprismatic belt
of the basic polyhedron (Fig. 2.69), and s is a 3-tangle. Idea of KL families
can be extended to families of basic polyhedra and their properties, e.g., in
the family |2| sk0 s beginning with 9∗ every basic polyhedron obtained for
k = 1 (mod 3) is a two-component link, and knot otherwise (Fig. 2.70).
Fig. 2.69 Even and odd antiprismatic belt of a basic polyhedron.
The proposed (n,s,k)-construction can be extended to the two-

parameter families of the form |n − 1| sk0 s sl1 derived from a sequence s,
where s is a sequence of the maximal length, beginning and ending by a
number greater then 2, sk0 is defined as before, and sl1 is an alternating
sequence of the numbers 1 and 2 of the length l, beginning with 1 or 2. To
distinguish these two cases, the first sequence will be denoted by a positive,
and the other by negative l. Such families can be denoted by (n,s,k,l),
and the sequence s is called a generating sequence. In this construction
basic polyhedra belonging to the same (n,s,k,l)-family can be obtained by
different closures.
Using the first, (n,s,k)-construction, all basic polyhedra with at most
16 crossings obtained from an elementary 3-tangle can be derived from the
following set of generating s-sequences given in the lexicographic order.
Fig. 2.70 The family |2| sk0 3 2 1 2 (k ≥ 3) beginning with the basic polyhedron 9∗ .
3 6
323 343 616
3213 3216 3243 3654 6123
32123 32143 32323 32343 32654
34323 34343 34543 34654 36543
61213 61216 61616
321213 321216 321243 321323 321343
321616 323213 323243 323654 324323
324343 324543 324654 326543 343213
343243 343543 343654 345654 346543
365454 365654 612123 612323 612343
612543 612654 615654 616123 616543
3212123 3212143 3212343 3212654 3213213
3213243 3213654 3214323 3214543 3214654
3216123 3216543 3232143 3232343 3232654
3234543 3234654 3236543 3243213 3243243
3243543 3243654 3246543 3265434 3432123
3432143 3432543 3432654 3434543 3435654
3454543 3454654 3456543 3465654 3654354
3654543 6121213 6123213 6123243 6123543
6156543 6165654 6546543
32121213 32121243 32123213 32123243 32123654
32124543 32126543 32143213 32143243 32143654
32145654 32146543 32161213 32165654 32432123
61212123 61213213 61215654 61216123 61216543
61234543 61546543 61565654 61612123 61616123
61654543 65465654
294 LinKnot
In the same way, generating s-sequences for n = 4, 5, 6, . . . can be derived.

The s-sequence corresponding to the n-antiprismatic basic polyhedra (2n)∗
(n = 3, 4, . . .) is denoted by (0).
If we accept the (n,s,k,l)-minimality criterion, this list can be minimized
by deleting the s-sequences 3 2 1 3, 3 2 1 4 3, 3 2 6 5 4, 6 1 2 1 3, 3 2 1 2 1 3,
3 2 1 3 4 3, 3 2 3 2 1 3, 3 2 4 6 5 4, 3 4 3 2 1 3, 6 1 2 6 5 4, 3 2 1 2 1 4 3, 3 2 1 2 6 5 4,
3 2 1 3 2 1 3, 3 2 1 4 5 4 3, 3 2 3 2 1 4 3, 3 2 3 2 6 5 4, 3 2 4 3 2 1 3, 3 4 3 2 1 4 3,
3 4 3 2 6 5 4, 6 1 2 1 2 1 3, 6 1 2 3 2 1 3, 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 3, 3 2 1 2 3 2 1 3, 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 3,
3 2 1 6 1 2 1 3, 6 1 2 1 3 2 1 3, and adding the s-sequences 6 1 6 5 4, 3 2 1 6 5 4,
3 2 1 2 3 2 3, 6 1 2 1 3 2 3.
In this case the minimality criterion is the minimal length of the generat-
ing sequence s and the lexicographic order. The use of (n,s,k,l)-construction
instead of (n,s,k)-construction results in certain differences with regard to
the preceding tables. For the generating sequences s = 3 and s = 6 the re-
sults are the same as before, but the basic polyhedron 12D=(3,(3, 2, 3),3,4)
will be obtained from a shorter sequence s = 3 2 3 as |2| 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 2,
and not from the sequence s = 3 2 1 3 as |2| 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 2. In the same
way, from s = 3 4 3 we obtain two basic polyhedra with 12 crossings
12K=(3,(3, 4, 3),4,−3), 12H=(3,(3, 4, 3),2,−5), etc., so (n,s,k,l)-minimality
criterion is more economical for the notation of basic polyhedra.
Using (n,s,k,l)-minimality criterion, the tables of the basic polyhedra
remain the same for n = 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 crossings, but for the basic polyhedra
with n = 12 crossings we have a new table
(3,(0),12,0) 12A (3,(3),4,−5) 12F
(3,(3),6,−3) 12B (3,(3,2,3),3,4) 12D
(3,(3,4,3),2,−5) 12H (3,(3,4,3),4,−3) 12K
(3,(3,2,4,3),3,−3) 12L (4,(3,2,3),2,4) 12I
(4,(3,2,4,3),4,1) 12G (4,(5,4,3,4,3),1,−3) 12E
(4,(3,2,1,3,2,3),3,0) 12C (4,(8,7,6,5,6,5),1,2) 12J
and for n = 13 crossings the table

(3,(3),5,−5) 1312∗ (3,(3),7,−3) 133∗
(3,(6),5,5) 1316∗ (3,(3,2,3),4,4) 1314∗
(3,(3,2,3),5,−3) 1310∗ (3,(3,4,3),4,−4) 1315∗
(3,(6,1,6),3,5) 137∗ (3,(3,2,1,6),3,4) 1317∗
(3,(6,1,2,3),3,4) 138∗ (4,(3,2,3),2,−5) 139∗
(4,(3,2,3),5,2) 132∗ (4,(3,2,1,2,3),4,−1) 134∗
(4,(3,2,4,3,2,3),2,2) 131∗ (4,(6,5,4,3,2,3),2,−2) 135∗
(4,(8,1,8,1,2,3),1,−3) 1319∗ (4,(5,4,3,2,1,2,5),1,2) 1311∗
(4,(8,7,6,5,4,3,4),1,−2) 1313∗ (4,(8,7,6,5,4,3,4),1,2) 136∗
(5,(3,2,4,3,4),1,−3) 1318∗
Analogous (n,s,k,l)-tables can be obtained for n = 14, 15, . . .

The members of two-parameter family of the basic polyhedra obtained
from the s-sequence s = 3 as the closures of 3-tangles, are given in the
following table:
(3,(3),3,−3) = 9∗ (3,(3),4,−3) = 10∗∗

(3,(3),5,−3) = 111∗ (3,(3),4,−5) = 12F
(3,(3),6,−3) = 12B (3,(3),5,−5) = 1312∗
(3,(3),7,−3) = 133∗ (3,(3),6,−5) = 1410∗
(3,(3),8,−3) = 148∗ etc.;
the following family is obtained from s = 6
(3,(6),3,5)= 112∗ (3,(6),5,5) = 1316∗

etc.;
and the following family is obtained from s = (3, 2, 3)
(3,(3,2,3),3,4) = 12D (3,(3,2,3),4,4) = 1314∗

(3,(3,2,3),5,−3) = 1310∗ (3,(3,2,3),4,−5) = 1426∗
(3,(3,2,3),5,4) = 1442∗ (3,(3,2,3),6,−3) = 1433∗
etc.
2.7.3 Non-algebraic tangle compositions and component

algebra
In the set of n-tangles we introduce several operations under the common
name– compositions.
Definition 2.24. A composition of two n-tangles is a n-tangle obtained

by joining in pairs n adjacent arcs emerging from the first tangle with n
adjacent arcs emerging from the other.
Note that the set of all n-tangles (n ≥ 2) is closed under compositions.

For example, in the set of 2-tangles we have three operations: sum, product,
and ramification resulting in a new 2-tangle.
The concept of tangle composition can be extended to the set of tangles
that consists from n1 -, n2 -,...,nm -tangles (ni ≥ 2, i ∈ {1, 2, . . . m}), where
the number of joined arcs is chosen in such a way that every tangle obtained
by a composition has 2ni free arcs (i.e., so that a set of ni -tangles is closed
under tangle composition). We will consider only 2-tangles and 3-tangles.
296 LinKnot
The graph consisting of a regular 2n-gon and n chords joining its distinct
vertices is called a chord diagram of order n, or shortly n-diagram. Let the
symmetry group G act on a chord diagram.
Definition 2.25. Two n-diagrams are equivalent iff there exists an element
of the group G that transforms one to another.
Definition 2.26. The set of n-diagrams quotient by the equivalence rela-

tion coming from the action of identity group G is called the complete set
of n-diagrams, or the set of positions of n-diagrams. If G is the dihedral
group G = Dn of the order 2n we get the set of basic n-diagrams.
Main goal of this section is to determine number of components of KLs

obtained as a closure of a composition of n-diagrams (Fig. 2.71).
Fig. 2.71 The composition of two 3-diagrams.
First introduce n-tangle types. Vertices in every n-tangle can be substi-

tuted by algebraic tangles. There are three basic types of algebraic tangles,
[1]k , [0]k , and [∞]k , where k is the number of internal closed components.
From every n-tangle we obtain its corresponding n-diagrams (or Gauss
n-diagrams). The number of chord diagrams can be computed combinato-
rially. The number of the basic chord diagrams for n = 3, . . . 11 is given in
the following table (Khruzin, 2000).
n 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
5 17 79 554 5283 65346 966156 16411700 3127002217
The five diagrams obtained for n=3 and 17 diagrams obtained for n = 4
are illustrated in Fig. 2.72 and denoted, respectively, by 3.1-3.5 and 4.1-
4.17.
In order to make compositions of n-diagrams and count the number

of components we use the complete set of chord diagrams and closures of
n-tangles.
For example, the basic chord diagrams 3.1-3.5 have, respectively,
1, 3, 2, 3, 6 possible positions (Fig. 2.73). Among all basic chord diagrams
for n = 3, 4, only one diagram, 4.17, has the left and right form and the
maximal number of 16 possible positions.
Fig. 2.72 The basic 3- and 4-diagrams.
The set of n-diagrams is closed with regard to n-tangle compositions

modulo internal closed components. For example, the composition of the
chord diagram 3.3 with itself gives the same chord diagram with one addi-
tional closed internal component (Fig. 2.74), denoted by 3.31 . Hence, we
can work in the complete set of n-diagrams and their compositions, and
keep the record of the internal closed components by adding subscripts.
298 LinKnot
Fig. 2.73 The set of 3-diagrams.
Fig. 2.74 The occurrence of an internal closed component.
The complete set of n-diagrams with the operation of n-tangle com-

position is the non-commutative monoid – a non-commutative semigroup
with the neutral element, known as Brauer semigroup (Wilcox, 2006). The
neutral element is the n-diagram with horizontal parallel chords (e.g., 3.4,
4.9). This set has (2n − 1)!! elements, where (2n − 1)!! is the odd factorial
number (2n − 1)!! = 1 · 3 · . . . (2n − 1). The number of n-diagrams is given
by the sequence A001147 from the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences by
N. Sloane: 1, 3, 15, 105, 945, 10395, . . . and can be easily computed from the
general formula. For n = 3 the minimal set of generators of the complete
set of 3-diagrams consists from three diagrams without connected adjacent

vertices (e.g., the diagram 3.1 from Fig. 2.72, and two positions of the
diagram 3.2 from Fig. 2.73). For n > 3 we start from the basic n-diagrams
without connected adjacent vertices (e.g., the diagrams 4.1-4.7 for n = 4,
etc.) From this set we can choose different minimal sets of generators, each
consisting from appropriately chosen positions of three different basic dia-
grams. For example, we can use the diagrams from Fig. 2.75a for n = 4,
or the diagrams from Fig. 2.75b for n = 5.
Theorem 2.14. For every n (n ≥ 2) the minimal set of generators consists

from three diagrams (Radović, 2006).
For n = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 . . . the number of basic n-diagrams is

1, 2, 7, 36, 300, 3218, 42335, 644808, . . ., given by the sequence A007474 from
the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences by N. Sloane (Bar Natan, 1995). The
LinKnot function ListOfOneFactors, written by T. Bertok and corrected
by the authors, gives as the result all basic n-diagrams without connected
adjacent vertices. The function MultTan multiplies n-diagrams. The func-
tion fGenSet checks if a given set of diagrams is the generator set of the
complete set of n-diagrams.
Fig. 2.75 Minimal sets of generators for (a) 4-diagrams; (b) 5-diagrams.
If the elements of the complete set of 3-diagrams are denoted by 1-15

(Fig. 2.73), the following multiplication table is obtained (subscripts denote
internal closed components):
300 LinKnot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 7 2 10 13 8 9 1 5 6 3 12 11 4 14 15
2 2 21 15 14 14 15 2 14 15 15 2 2 14 141 151
3 13 12 4 7 8 15 3 14 6 1 2 11 10 5 9
4 10 11 7 3 14 9 4 5 15 13 12 2 1 8 6
5 9 12 12 9 51 9 5 5 91 5 12 121 12 5 9
6 8 11 8 11 8 61 6 81 6 11 111 11 6 8 6
7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
8 6 11 11 6 81 6 8 8 61 8 11 111 11 8 6
9 5 12 5 12 5 91 9 51 9 12 121 12 9 5 9
10 4 11 13 1 5 15 10 14 9 7 2 12 3 8 6
11 11 111 6 8 8 6 11 8 6 6 11 11 8 81 61
12 12 121 9 5 5 9 12 5 9 9 12 12 5 51 91
13 3 12 1 10 14 6 13 8 15 4 11 2 7 5 9
14 15 2 2 15 141 15 14 14 151 14 2 21 2 14 15
15 14 2 14 2 14 151 15 141 15 2 21 2 15 14 15
Since every basic polyhedron or polyhedral KL is the composition of n-

tangles, previous results can be used for finding the number of components
of any polyhedral KL. By substituting vertices in n-tangle by algebraic
tangle types we obtain n-tangle types. Unfortunately, the correspondence
between n-diagrams and n-tangle types is not one-to-one: different n-tangle
types can give the same n-diagram. For n = 3, the set of different tangle
types can be easily described: in every vertex of the 3-tangle (Fig. 2.76)
a “vertical” or “horizontal” mirror can be placed. As the result, follow-
ing ten 3-tangle types are obtained: (1, 1, 1), (1, ∞, 1), (∞, ∞, ∞), (0, 1, 0),
(0, ∞, 0), (1, 0, 1), (∞, 0, ∞), (∞, 1, ∞), (0, 1, ∞), (0, 0, 0). Furthermore,
they will give five distinct basic 3-diagrams without internal closed compo-
nents: (1, 1, 1), (1, ∞, 1), (∞, ∞, ∞), (∞, 1, ∞), (1, 0, 1), and (0, 0, 0) with
an internal closed component.
This means that the basic 3-diagram 3.3 can be obtained from three
tangle types: (∞, ∞, ∞), (0, 1, 0) and (0, ∞, 0), the diagram 3.4 can be
obtained from (1, 0, 1) and (∞, 0, ∞), and the diagram 3.5 can be obtained
from (∞, 1, ∞) and (0, 1, ∞).
For n > 3 things become more complicated. From the basic n-diagram
that consists of main diagonal chords (the diagrams 3.1, 4.1, etc.), consid-
ering the chords as strands, we obtain n-tangle without multiple crossings,
where every strand (chord) intersects each other exactly once. This tan-
gle has n2 vertices. All basic n-diagrams can be obtained from this one,
by substituting vertices with the elementary algebraic tangles of the types
[1], [0], [∞], i.e., by placing two-sided mirrors in the vertices, and delet-
ing repeated diagrams. Again, different n-tangle types can give the same
basic n-diagram, so the correspondence between n-tangle types and basic
n-diagrams is many-to-one.
For computing the number of components we will use basic n-diagrams,
their different positions and compositions.
Fig. 2.76 3-tangle and different chord diagrams obtained from it.
Let us give a simple example how one can see that Borromean rings, i.e.,
the basic polyhedron 6∗ is a three-component link. We take its represen-
tation as the composition of two 3-tangles, compute the type of the tangle
composition, make its closure, and the conclusion is obvious: Borromean
rings are the three-component link (Fig. 2.77). Moreover, we get that
every vertex substitution in the basic polyhedron 6∗ , where all substitutes
are algebraic tangles of the type [1] gives a three-component link.
This method– tangle-type computation, enables us to determine the
number of components of any polyhedral KL.
The number of components of a basic polyhedron (i.e., its corresponding
alternating KL) is not the property of a single basic polyhedron, but of the
family of basic polyhedra and depends from family parameters.
The same holds for some other KL invariants, like signature or BJ-
unknotting (unlinking) number. This can be illustrated by the example of
the one-parameter family of basic polyhedra |2| sk0 s (k ≥ 3, s = 3 2 1 2),
starting with the basic polyhedron 9∗ . For k = 3, . . . , 21 we obtained the
302 LinKnot
Fig. 2.77 Composition of 3-tangles and Borromean rings obtained as its closure.
following table, where the second column gives the ordering number of the
basic polyhedron from the LinKnot data base (for k ≤ 14), the third column
the number of components, the fourth column the signature, and the fifth
column BJ-unknotting (unlinking) number of the basic polyhedron (see
page 83).
k BP σ u
3 9∗ 2 2
4 10∗∗ 2 1
5 11∗ 1 0
6 12B 1 0
7 133∗ 3 1
8 148∗ 2 0
9 1510∗ 3 2
10 1625∗ 3 1
11 17455∗ 2 0
12 182675∗ 2 0
13 195031∗ 3 1
14 2031002∗ 3 0
15 3 2
16 4 1
17 3 0
18 3 0
19 4 1
20 4 0
21 4 2
In the table above one can recognize the following patterns:
• the number of components is 2 for k = 1 (mod 3), and 1 otherwise;

• the signature is 1 for k = 1 (mod 3), 0 for k = 2 (mod 3) or k = 0
(mod 6), and 2 otherwise;
• BJ-unknotting (unlinking) number is k for k = 0 (mod 6), k + 1 for
k = 2 (mod 6) or k = 5 (mod 6), and k + 2 otherwise.
Connections between the families of basic polyhedra and KL invariants

(e.g., polynomial) are an open field for research.
Another interesting question is the connection between braid family
representatives (Gittings, 2004; Jablan and Sazdanović, 2005b) and new
basic polyhedra notation introduced.
With the new notation of basic polyhedra and canonical orientation
of algebraic tangles substituting their vertices (Fig. 2.65), instead of the
tables (or data base) of basic polyhedra, we hope to be able to establish
hierarchical order in the world of polyhedral KLs, in the same way as it is
established for algebraic KLs (rational, stellar, arborescent, etc.)
2.8 KL tables
The first (and still the best program) for knot theory is Knotscape with the
tables of knots with n ≤ 16 crossings, giving possibility to compute their
various invariants (Alexander, Jones, HOMFLYPT and Kauffman polyno-
mials, hyperbolic invariants, signature, symmetries, etc.) There are several
sources on the Internet providing knot data bases, containing polynomials
of knots and some other knot invariants. Almost all of them are based
on Hoste-Thistlethwaite Knotscape tables of knots (using only a part of
them: knots with n ≤ 11 or n ≤ 12 crossings). The best available source of
that kind is the Table of Knot Invariants by C. Livingston and J.C. Cha
(http://www.indiana.edu/ knotinfo/) which contains knots with n ≤ 12
crossings (and not links), providing a reader the most complete compu-
tational results for various knot invariants and some possibilities for in-
teractive computation. More possibilities for interactive use provides Knot
Atlas by Dror Bar Natan (http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/). Knot At-
las contains the tables of knots with n ≤ 11 crossings and links with n ≤ 11
crossings, which can be used for further computations in the Mathematica-
based program Knot Theory. Excellent program is R. Scharein’s Knot-
Plot (http://www.pims.math.ca/knotplot/), which has a superb graph-
304 LinKnot
ics. The program Knotilus by S. Rankin (http://srankin.math.uwo.ca/cgi-

bin/retrieve.cgi/html/start.html) contains the largest tables of alternating
knots with n ≤ 22 crossings and provides wide possibilities for manipulat-
ing with Gauss codes and virtual knots. All the programs and data bases
mentioned are based on the classical notation of KLs and their Dowker and
Gauss codes.
LinKnot uses Conway notation, and the idea of families, classes and
worlds of KLs (rational, stellar,...), which makes its data bases (e.g., basic
polyhedra) easy to manipulate and extend. For a KL given in Conway
notation, e.g., 6∗ 2.3, we can recognize the family 6∗ (2k).(2l + 1) it belongs
to. We can take a basic polyhedron or source link from a data base and
derive polyhedral KLs. Hence, LinKnot data bases are the source of infinite
classes of KLs.
The program LinKnot (K2KC) includes the data base KnotLinkBase.m
of KLs given in Conway notation as Mathematica strings. This data base
contains the complete lists of alternating KLs with n ≤ 12 crossings, and
lists of non-alternating KLs with n ≤ 10 crossings, as well as the list of non-
alternating knots with n = 11 crossings. There are two functions working
with the lists and particular elements of these data bases: NumberOfKL
and GetKnotLink. As an input, the function NumberOfKL uses the
Mathematica string. To choose a list of alternating KLs with k crossings,
you need to write the string ”ak” where a stands for alternating KLs,
and k is a number of crossings. For a list of non-alternating KLs with
k crossings you need to write ”nk”, where the letter ”n” stands for “non-
alternating”, and k is the number of crossings. The list ”n11” contains only
non-alternating knots with n = 11 crossings. The output of the function
NumberOfKL is the number of alternating (non-alternating) KLs with
a specified number of crossings. Input of the function GetKnotLink is a
Mathematica string ”aN” or ”nN”, where N is an integer that represents
the number of the desired KL in the list. As the output, the function Get
KnotLink returns the corresponding Conway symbol that can be used for
further calculations. The structure of the database KnotLinkBase.m cor-
responds to the classification of KLs proposed by A. Caudron (1982): the
“worlds” or their “subworlds” (e.g., rational, stellar, arborescent, poly-
hedral, etc.) in the file KnotLinkBase.nb are denoted by different colors.
Generating KLs (whose Conway symbols contain only single vertices and
chains of 2 or 3 bigons), are given in the second part of a particular list
of alternating aN or non-alternating nN (N = 1, 2, . . . , 12) KLs in the
file KnotLinkBase.m and emphasized with different colorings. A family of
KLs can be obtained from each generating link by adding 2 to the chains
of bigons. For example, from the generating rational link 3 1 2 with n = 6
crossings we obtain 5 1 2 and 3 1 4 for n = 8, then 7 1 2, 5 1 4, and 3 1
6 for n = 10, etc. As we pointed out many times, all important properties
of KLs (including their Dowker codes, polynomial invariants, minimum
braids, signatures, unlinking numbers, linking numbers, symmetry proper-
ties, etc.) are well ordered according to families.
Unfortunately, the data base KnotLinkBase.nb is perhaps the weakest
part of the program LinKnot, since it is created manually and probably
contains some errors or misprints.
Recall that the most of knot tables that are currently in use are based
on the more then 100 year old results of T.P. Kirkman (1885a,b), P.G. Tait
(1876/77a,b,c, 1883/84, 1884/85), and C.N. Little (1885, 1890, 1892, 1900),
and have been corrected several times. Computer derivations of KLs have
only appeared in the last few decades and are mostly restricted to knots
(Thistlethwaite, 1999), and links with a low number of crossings given in
Dowker notation (Doll and Hoste, 1991; Cerf, 1998). Based on recent re-
sults obtained by the program LinKnot, it is reasonable to expect that soon
it will be possible to derive KLs in Conway notation by computer, or at
least alternating KLs. We are able to generate all rational and stellar KLs
and all alternating KLs obtained from some source link– the only restric-
tion on the number of crossings is coming from computer limitations. As
it was already explained, derivation of alternating KLs is basically a series
of tangle substitutions made in previously generated source KLs, mostly
based on specific partitions or compositions of numbers. Symmetry plays
an important role in reducing the number of possibilities and recognizing
in advance possible repetitions and duplicates of KLs. Since we have no
general algorithmic solution for implementation of symmetry and its numer-
ous particular cases in a computer program for KL derivation, sometimes
is necessary to create all possible Conway symbols, and then select those
with different minimal Dowker codes computed by the LinKnot function
MinDowAltKL.
Non-alternating KLs of the polyhedral world represent a bigger prob-
lem, because the same non-alternating KL can be generated from different
basic polyhedra. For example, the Conway symbols 8∗ 2 : −2 0 and 9∗ − 2 0
represent the same non-alternating knot (Fig. 2.78). We can derive non-
alternating KLs given by Conway symbols, using the following algorithm:
(1) in a Conway symbol of a KL make all combinations of bigon chains

306 LinKnot
(including single vertices) with different signs;

(2) reduce every KL with the K2K function Reduction KnotLink;
(3) calculate different polynomial invariants of reduced KLs and delete
repeated ones.
Fig. 2.78 Two different representations of the same non-alternating knot 8∗ 2 : −2 0 =

9∗ − 2 0.
In practice, the K2K function Reduction KnotLink fails for some

classes of KLs, so we need to use polynomial invariants to ensure that we
have obtained a new non-alternating KL with n crossings (not the already
derived one, or an alternating or non-alternating KL with a lower number
of crossings). Unfortunately, even polynomials fail to distinguish some pairs
(classes) of KLs, so we use all available KL invariants to ensure that we
have obtained correct results.
In the computer program for the derivation of non-alternating KLs in
Dowker notation, M. Thistlethwaite used the following criteria:
(1) First filter contains some reduction procedures used in the initial gen-
eration of KLs;
(2) Polynomials are used at the next stage – they can be quickly computed,
although they are not very powerful at distinguishing KLs. They divide
KLs into relatively small equivalence classes;
(3) Now we introduce more powerful invariants, like homomorphisms of
the KL group or those arising from hyperbolic structure (if it exists).
Finally, one has to work hard to show that the groups of diagrams that
haven’t been distinguished so far, actually do represent the same KL.
Following the work of J. Conway (1970) and A. Caudron (1982) we

propose another approach, using symmetry, graph theory and combina-
torics. We try to establish a hierarchy of different representations of non-
alternating KLs, criteria for getting one-to-one correspondence between
KLs and Conway symbols, and find an algorithm for exhaustive derivation
of non-alternating KLs.
2.8.1 Non-alternating and almost alternating KLs

The list of non-alternating KLs with n ≤ 11 crossings is given by J.H. Con-
way (1970) and A. Caudron (1982). In The Knot Book (1994) C.C. Adams
introduced the idea of almost alternating KLs.
Definition 2.27. A projection of a KL is called almost alternating if one

crossing change can make it alternating. A non-alternating KL is called
almost alternating if it has an almost alternating projection.
For all KLs with n ≤ 11 crossings, with the exception of four of them,
we succeeded in finding their minimal almost alternating representations.
In their corresponding Conway symbols the sign +− denotes the crossing
change from a1 , ..., an + to a1 , ..., an −, and 1− denotes the crossing change
from +1 to −1.
Generally, the problem of finding minimal almost alternating represen-
tations is a difficult problem with a lot of open questions.
The minimality of almost alternating KL-representations can be proven
using graph-theoretical argumentation (Caudron, 1982), but for most of
them we have only empirical tools: construct all almost alternating repre-
sentations with a fixed number of crossings and choose the first correspond-
ing to a given non-alternating KL. Whenever it was possible, we requested
that the minimal almost alternating representation has to belong to the
same family (class, subworld,. . .) of the non-alternating KL.
For n ≤ 9 all the sources (Conway, 1970; Caudron, 1982; Adams, 1994;
Rolfsen, 1976) agree on the number of non-alternating knots: there are 3
non-alternating knots for n = 8, and 8 for n = 9. For n = 10 in Conway
(1970) and Rolfsen (1976) one knot was repeated (Perko pair, 10162 =
10161 ), i.e.,
2 1 : −2 0 : −2 0 = 3 : −2 0 : −2 0
After this correction, for n = 10 there are 42 non-alternating knots. For n =
11 crossings, 182 non-alternating knots are given in Conway’s paper, where
308 LinKnot
the knots −2 1 0 : 3 : 2, 8∗ − 2 1 0 : .2 and 8∗ − 3 0 :: 2 0 are missing. The

complete list, containing 185 knots, is given by A. Caudron and confirmed
by computer derivation.
For non-alternating links with n ≤ 9 crossings all the sources agree:
there is one 3-component link for n = 6, two 2-component links for n = 7,
8 non-alternating links for n = 8 (two 2-component, four 3-component, and
two 4-component links), and 28 non-alternating links for n = 9 (nineteen
2-component, and nine 3-component links) (Conway, 1970; Caudron, 1982;
Rolfsen, 1976; Doll and Hoste, 1991; Cerf, 1998). These results are con-
firmed by the computer derivation (Doll and Hoste, 1991; Cerf, 1998). For
n = 10 the only sources are works by J.H. Conway (1970) and A. Cau-
dron (1982). They need to be corrected according to the computer derived
list of non-alternating links with n = 10 crossings, recently completed by
M. Thistlethwaite, who obtained 113 non-alternating links. Derivation of
links with n ≤ 10 crossings represented by braids with at most four strands
(Kawauchi and Tayama, 2006) confirmed Caudron’s corrections (Caudron,
1982, page 114) of Conway’s results (Conway, 1970).
Since an algebraic link that has exactly one negative sign in its Conway
notation has an almost alternating projection (Adams, 1994, pp. 140, Ex-
ercise 5.32), we can directly conclude that all but 18 of the non-alternating
knots in the list of 11-crossing prime knots given in the Conway notation
are almost alternating, and for those 18 we will try to find their almost
alternating minimal representations.
The general derivation rules exist for stellar and arborescent non-
alternating KLs, and the same holds for almost alternating representations
of stellar and arborescent non-alternating KLs. All stellar non-alternating
KLs of the form a1 , . . . , ai −, i = 3, 4, . . . can be directly derived from the
KLs of the form a1 , . . . , ai + by replacing + by −. Non-alternating arbores-
cent KLs of the form (a1 , a2 ) (a3 , a4 −) are given by the almost alternating
minimal representation (a1 , a2 ) (a3 , a4 +− ). Almost alternating representa-
tions of some non-alternating polyhedral KLs can also be obtained in a
direct way. Remaining non-alternating KLs that can not be represented
directly are given in the following tables.
For n = 8 we have the following results:
8310 (2, 2) − (2, 2) (2, 2) (3 1− , 2) 843 2, 2, 2, 2 − − 2, 2, 2, 3 1−
Two links from this table are given by minimal 10-crossing almost alter-
nating representations, and all the other non-alternating KLs with n = 8
crossings are given by their minimal 9-crossing almost alternating represen-
tations.
For n = 9 we have the following results:

947 8∗ − 2 0 8∗ 2 1− 949 −2 0 : 2 : 2 2 1− : 2 : 2
9259 (3, 2) − (2, 2) (3, 2)(3 1− , 2) 9260 (2 1, 2) − (2, 2) (2 1, 2)(3 1− , 2)
9261 2 : −2 0 : −2 0 2 0.1− .2.2 : 2 0 9320 .(2, 2−) .(2, 2+− )
9317 3, 2, 2, 2 − − 3, 2, 2, 3 1− 9319 (2, 2+) − (2, 2) (2, 2+)(3 1− , 2)
9321 . − (2, 2) .(2, 3 1− )
From 42 non-alternating knots for n = 10, thirty nine of them can be

given by an almost alternating minimal 11-crossing representations, and
only three of them, 10152 , 10153 and 10154 , have 12-crossing minimal al-
most alternating representations. They are given in the following table,
which does not include non-alternating knots represented in general form
as a1 , a2 , a3 − = a1 , a2 , a3 +− or (a1 , a2 ) (a3 , a4 −) = (a1 , a2 ) (a3 , a4 +− ).
10152 (3, 2) − (3, 2) (3, 2)(3 1− , 2 1) 10153 (3, 2) − (21, 2) (3, 2)(3 1− , 3)
10154 (21, 2) − (21, 2) (2 1, 2)(3 1− , 3) 10155 −3 : 2 : 2 2 1 1− 0 : 2 : 2
10156 −3 : 2 : 2 0 2 1 1− 0 : 2 : 2 0 10157 −3 : 2 0 : 2 0 2 1 1− 0 : 2 0 : 2 0
10158 −3 0 : 2 : 2 2 1 1− : 2 : 2 10159 −3 0 : 2 : 2 0 2 1 1− : 2 : 2 0
10160 −3 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 2 1 1− : 2 0 : 2 0 10161 3 : −2 0 : −2 0 2 0.1− .2.2 : 2 1 0
10162 −3 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 3 : 2 1− : 2 10163 8∗ − 3 0 8∗ 2 1 1−
10164 8∗ 2 : −2 0 8∗ 2 : 2 1− 10165 8∗ 2 : . − 2 0 8∗ 2 : .2 1−
For n = 11 we have 64 non-alternating stellar knots of the form

a1 , a2 , a3 − or a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 −, with a minimal 12-crossing almost alternat-
ing representation of the form a1 , a2 , a3 +− or a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 +− . Then we
have 18 non-alternating arborescent knots of the form (a1 , a2 )(a3 , a4 −) or
(a1 , a2 +)(a3 , a4 −), with a minimal 12-crossing almost alternating represen-
tation of the form (a1 , a2 )(a3 , a4 +− ) or (a1 , a2 +)(a3 , a4 +− )3 .
In the same way, the following eight 11-crossing non-alternating knots
are obtained from their 12-crossing minimal almost alternating representa-
tions.
.(3, 2−).2 .(3, 2+− ).2 .(2 1, 2−).2 .(2 1, 2+− ).2
.2.(3, 2−) .2.(3, 2+− ) .2.(2 1, 2−) .2.(2 1, 2+− )
.(3, 2−).20 .(3, 2+− ).20 .(2 1, 2−).20 .(2 1, 2+− ).20
.2 0.(3, 2−) .2 0.(3, 2+− ) .2 0.(2 1, 2−) .2 0.(2 1, 2+− )
Among 11-crossing non-alternating knots, three stellar and ten arbores-

cent knots have 13-crossing minimal almost alternating representations:
3, 3, 3, 2 − − 3, 3, 3, 3 1− 3, 3, 2 1, 2 − − 3, 3, 2 1, 3 1−
3, 2 1, 3, 2 − − 3, 2 1, 3, 3 1− (2 2, 2) − (3, 2) (2 2, 2)(3 1− , 2 1)
(2 2, 2) − (2 1, 2) (2 2, 2)(3 1− , 3) (2 1 1, 2) − (3, 2) (2 1 1, 2)(3 1− , 2 1)
(2 1 1, 2) − (2 1, 2) (2 1 1, 2)(3 1− , 3) (3, 2 1) − (3, 2) (3, 2 1)(3 1− , 2 1)
(3, 2 1) − (2 1, 2) (3, 2 1)(3 1− , 3) (3, 2+) − (3, 2) (3, 2+)(3 1− , 2 1)
(3, 2+) − (2 1, 2) (3, 2+)(3 1− , 3) (2 1, 2+) − (3, 2) (2 1, 2+)(3 1− , 2 1)
(2 1, 2+) − (2 1, 2) (2 1, 2+)(3 1− , 3)
3 In all following tables, such trivial derivations are omitted.
310 LinKnot
In the same way, from the following 13-crossing minimal almost alter-
nating representations we obtain the next six non-alternating knots:
. − (3, 2).2 .(3 1− , 2 1).2 . − (2 1, 2).2 .(3 1− , 3).2
.2. − (3, 2) .2.(3 1− , 2 1) .2. − (2 1, 2) .2.(3 1− , 3)
. − (3, 2).2 0 .(3 1− , 2 1).2 0 .2 0. − (3, 2) .2 0.(3 1− , 2 1)
Finally, from 76 non-alternating polyhedral knots, 74 of them are given

by almost alternating minimal 12-crossing representations, but we did not
manage to obtain almost alternating representations for the remaining two
knots, 2 0. − 3. − 2 0.2 and 2 0. − 2 1. − 2 0.2
−2 2 : 2 : 2 2 1 1 1− 0 : 2 : 2 −2 2 0 : 2 : 2 0 2 1 1 1− : 2 : 2 0
−2 2 : 2 0 : 2 0 2 1 1 1− 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 −2 2 : −2 0 : −2 0 2 2 0 : 2 1− : 2
2 2 : −2 0 : −2 0 2 1 1 0.2 0.1− .2.2 −2 1 1 : 2 : 2 2 2 1− 0 : 2 : 2
−2 1 1 0 : 2 : 2 0 2 2 1− : 2 : 2 0
−2 1 1 : 2 0 : 2 0 2 2 1− 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 −2 1 1 : −2 0 : −2 0 2 1 1 0 : 2 1− : 2
−4 0 : 2 : 2 3 1 1− : 2 : 2 −4 : 2 : 2 0 3 1 1− 0 : 2 : 2 0
−4 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 3 1 1− : 2 0 : 2 0 −4 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 4 : 2 1− : 2
−3 1 0 : 2 : 2 4 1− : 2 : 2 −3 1 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 4 1− : 2 0 : 2 0
−3 1 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 3 1 : 2 1− : 2 −2 1 1 0 : 2 : 2 2 2 1− : 2 : 2
−2 1 1 : 2 : 2 0 2 2 1− 0 : 2 : 2 0 −2 1 1 0 : 2 0 : 2 0 2 2 1− : 2 0 : 2 0
−2 1 1 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 2 1 1 : 2 1− : 2 −3 0 : 2 1 : 2 2 1 1− : 2 1 : 2
−3 0 : 2 1 : −2 0 2 0 : 2.2 1.1− .2 1 0 −3 0 : 2 1 0 : 2 2 1 1− : 2 1 0 : 2
−2 1 0 : 3 : 2 3 1− : 3 : 2 −2 1 0 : 3 0 : 2 3 1− : 3 0 : 2
−2 1 0 : −3 0 : −2 0 2 1 : 3 : 2 1− −2 1 0 : 2 1 : 2 3 1− : 2 1 : 2
−2 1 0 : −2 1 0 : −2 0 2 1 : 2 1 : 2 1− 2. − 2 1.2.2 2.3 1− 0.2.2
2.2 1. − 2.2 2.2 1.2 1− 0.2 2. − 3.2.2 0 2.2 1 1− 0.2.2 0
2.3. − 2.2 0 2.3.2 1− 0.2 0 20.3. − 2.2 2 0.3.2 1− 0.2
2. − 3. − 2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.1− .3 2. − 2 1. − 2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0.1− .2 1
2.2. − 2.2.2 0 2.2.2 1− 0.2.2 0 2.2. − 2.2 0.2 0 2.2.2 1− 0.2 0.2 0
2.2 0. − 2.2.2 0 2.2 0.2 1− 0.2.2 0 8∗ − 4 0 8∗ 3 1 1−
8∗ − 3 1 0 8∗ 4 1− 8∗ − 2 1 1 0 8∗ 2 2 1−
8∗ − 3 0.2 0 8∗ 2 1 1− .2 0 8∗ 3 : −2 0 8∗ 3 : 2 1−
8∗ − 2 1 0 : 2 8∗ 3 1− : 2 8∗ − 3 0 : 2 0 8∗ 2 1 1− : 2 0
8∗ 3 0 : −2 0 8∗ 3 0 : 2 1− 8∗ − 2 1 0 : 2 0 8∗ 3 1− : 2 0
8∗ 2 1 0 : −2 0 8∗ 2 1 0 : 2 1− 8∗ − 3 0 : .2 0 8∗ 2 1 1− : .2 0
8∗ − 2 1 0 : .2 0 8∗ 3 1− : .2 0 8∗ 3 0 :: −2 0 8∗ 3 0 :: 2 1−
8∗ 3 :: −2 0 8∗ 3 :: 2 1− 8∗ 2 1 :: −2 0 8∗ 2 1 :: 2 1−
8∗ 2. − 2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 1− .2 8∗ 2. − 2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 1− .2 0
8∗ 2.2 0. − 2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 1− 8∗ 2 : 2 : −2 0 8∗ 2 : 2 : 2 1−
8∗ 2 : 2 0 : −2 0 8∗ 2 : 2 0 : 2 1− 8∗ 2 : −2 0 : 2 0 8 ∗ 2 : 2 1− : 2 0
8∗ 2 0 : −2 0 : 2 0 8 ∗ 2 0 : 2 1− : 2 0 8∗ 2 0 : 2 0 : −2 0 8∗ 2 0 : 2 0 : 2 1−
8∗ 2 : . − 2 0 : .2 8∗ 2 : .2 1− : .2 8∗ 2 : .2 : . − 2 0 8∗ 2 : .2 : .2 1−
8∗ − 2 1 0 : .2 8∗ 3 1− : .2 8∗ − 3 0 :: 2 0 8∗ 2 1 1− :: 2 0
9∗ . − 3 9∗ .2 1 1− 0 9∗ . − 2 1 9∗ .3 1− 0
9∗ 2. − 2 9∗ 2.2 1− 0 9∗ 2 0. − 2 9∗ 2 0.2 1− 0
9∗ .2 : . − 2 9∗ .2 : .2 1− 0 9∗ . − 2 : . − 2 8∗ 2 0.2 0.1− .2 0.2 0
9∗ .2 0 : . − 2 9∗ .2 0 : .2 1− 0 10∗ − 2 0 10∗ 2 1−
10∗∗ − 2 0 10∗∗ 2 1−
2 0. − 3. − 2 0.2 ? 2 0. − 2 1. − 2 0.2 ?
In conclusion, for n ≤ 11 there are only two non-alternating 11-crossing

knots, 2 0. − 3. − 2 0.2 and 2 0. − 2 1. − 2 0.2, whose almost alternating
representations we did not determined (see Adams, 1994, Unsolved ques-
tion, page 140, Fig. 5.54) (Fig. 2.79), but we are sure that, if they ex-
ist, they must have more then 16 crossings. Knowing one of them, the
other follows immediately. For one of the knots from Adams’ question,
9∗ . − 2 : . − 2, we obtained 12-crossing minimal non-alternating representa-
tion 8∗ 2 0.2 0.1−.2 0.2 0.
Fig. 2.79 The 11-crossing knots 2 0. − 3. − 2 0.2 and 2 0. − 2 1. − 2 0.2.
Completing the tables derived by J. Conway (1970) and A. Caudron

(1982), one can search for almost alternating representations of non-
alternating links given in the Conway notation for n ≥ 10.
2.9 Projections of KLs and chirality
A knot or link can have more then one minimal diagram. Every minimal
diagram of an alternating KL can be obtained from any other minimal
diagram of the same KL by a finite series of flypes (Theorem 1.11). If
a bigon is denoted by a bold line, an elementary flype can be illustrated
as in Fig. 2.80b. Flype diagrams (or vertex-bicolored diagrams) of KLs
are obtained in the following way: after collapsing every chain of bigons
with both ends incident to the same vertex into a black point, new bigons
obtained by the collapse are denoted by bold lines. In vertex-bicolored
diagrams, transition from one projection to another by a flype is represented
by a mutual place exchange of differently colored vertices connected by a
bold edge. For example, the transition from one minimal projection of the
link 2 2 2 to the other projection ((1, 2, 1), 1, 1) of the same link, expressed
in the language of flype diagrams, is illustrated in Fig. 2.80b. This basic
flyping algorithm can be applied only to algebraic tangles. Non-isomorphic
projections of KLs with n ≤ 9 crossings and their corresponding flype
diagrams are given in Figs. 2.81 and 2.82.
312 LinKnot
Families of knots obtained by addition/collapse of bigon chains (i.e.,

n-moves), are considered by M. Thistlethwaite (1985) in his survey article,
which gives a brief account of the work of P.G. Tait, T.P. Kirkman, and
C.N. Little.
Fig. 2.80 (a) A flype; (b) an elementary flype and its vertex-colored interpretation; (c)
flype diagrams of the link 2 2 2.
A KL is achiral iff it is ambient isotopic to its mirror image (Definition

1.26). For every achiral diagram D of an oriented KL, the writhe w(D)
is equal to 0 (Theorem 1.8). Hence, w(D) = 0 is a necessary (but not
sufficient, and very weak) condition for the achirality of oriented KLs.
First chiral alternating knot with the writhe equal to 0 is 4 1 3 with n =
8 crossings. From 26 alternating knots with n = 10 crossings and with
zero writhe, 14 are achiral, and 12 are chiral: 2 1 0 : 2 : 2 0, 2 2 1 1 1 1 2,
2 2, 2 1, 2+, 2 3, 3, 2, 3 0 : 2 0 : 2 0, 3 1 1, 3, 2, 3 1 1 3 2, .3.2 0.2, 3 : 2 0 : 2 0,
.3.2.2 0, 4 1 1 1 3, and 4 1, 3, 2.
Next we introduce two polynomial invariants of alternating KL pro-
jections, in order to distinguish alternating KL projections and determine
their chirality.
Let us consider an oriented alternating KL diagram D with generators
g1 , . . . , gn . In every vertex of D there are three generators: passing gener-
ator gi , and incoming and outgoing generators gj , gk , respectively. If ǫ(V )
is the sign of the crossing V , then aii = ǫ(V )t, aij = 1, aik = −1, and
dD (t) = det(aij ). For example, for the achiral figure-eight knot 2 2 (or 41 ):
Fig. 2.81 Projections of algebraic alternating source KLs with n ≤ 8 crossings and
their corresponding vertex-bicolored flype diagrams.

t 1 −1 0

0 −t 1 −1
dD (t) = = t4 − 2t2 .
−1 0 t 1

1 −1 0 −t
314 LinKnot
Fig. 2.82 Projections of polyhedral source KLs with n ≤ 9 crossings and their corre-
sponding vertex-bicolored flype diagrams.
In order to prove next theorem we need to define a permutation matrix:
Definition 2.28. A permutation matrix is a binary matrix that has exactly

one entry 1 in each row and each column, and zeros elsewhere.
Theorem 2.15. If dD′ (t) 6= dD′′ (t), two oriented alternating knot diagrams
D′ and D′′ are non-isomorphic (Jablan, 1995).
Proof. Let D′ and D′′ denote two isomorphic alternating knot diagrams,
and A′ and A′′ their corresponding matrices. If D′ and D′′ are isomorphic,
there exists a permutation matrix P such that P A′ P −1 = A′′ . From the re-
lations: |P A′ P −1 | = |A′′ |, |P A′ P −1 | = |P ||A′ ||P −1 | = |P ||A′ | |P1 | = |A′ | =
|A′′ |, |A′ | = |A′′ |, it follows that dD (t) = det(aij ) is the invariant of alter-
nating knot diagrams.
The projection invariant obtained is not a complete invariant of alter-

nating knot diagrams, meaning that two non-isomorphic diagrams can give
the same polynomial.
The polynomial dD (t) = cn tn + · · · + c1 t has the following properties:
(1) for every alternating knot projection D, the degree of dD (t) is n, |cn | =
1 and |c1 | = |w(D)|, where w(D) is the writhe of D;
(2) dD (t) and dD (−t) correspond to obverse (mirror-symmetric) knot dia-
grams;
(3) for n = 0 (mod 2), a change of the orientation results in a change
of dD (t) to dD (−t), and for n = 1 (mod 2) in a change of dD (t) to
−dD (−t).
Notice that the matrix defined above is a signed KL generator adjacency

matrix, so its determinant remains invariant (up to the sign) with regards
to any permutation of columns or rows. This means that we can always
transform A′ into the matrix with all diagonal entries equal to t or −t.
Hence, |cn | = 1 and the coefficient c1 is the sum of diagonal entries, so
|c1 | = |w(D)|. The proof of the second and third property is trivial.
According to (2) and (3), in the set of all polynomials dD (t) we may
distinguish even polynomials (dD (t) = dD (−t)), containing only even de-
grees of t, corresponding to achiral knot projections, and odd polynomials
(dD (t) = −dD (−t)), containing only odd degrees of t, which are invariant
under the change of orientation. As with every polynomial invariant, the
projection polynomial dD (t) sometimes fails to detect isomorphism of knot
projections or achirality. For example, for n = 10 from 364 non-isomorphic
projections of alternating knots it recognizes 363 of them as different, and
sometimes fails to detect achirality (this means, sometimes yields an even
polynomial d(t) for a chiral knot projection).
The following table contains polynomials dD (t) for all different projec-
316 LinKnot
tions of knots with n ≤ 7 crossings. A symbol of a knot in the classic

notation is in the first column, followed by the Conway symbol of the cor-
responding projection, minimal Dowker code and the projection polynomial
dD (t) given by the sequence of its coefficients in descending order.
31 3 462 1 0 3
41 22 4682 1 0 −2 0
51 5 6 8 10 2 4 1 0 5 0 5
52 32 4 8 10 2 6 1 0 1 0 5
61 42 4 8 12 10 2 6 1 0 −4 −2 3 2
62 312 4 8 10 12 2 6 1 0 1 −1 −3 2
63 2112 4 8 10 2 12 6 1 0 2 0 3 0
71 7 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 1 0 7 0 14 0 7
72 52 4 10 14 12 2 8 6 1 0 −3 0 −2 0 7
73 43 6 10 12 14 2 4 8 −1 0 −1 0 8 0 7
74 313 6 10 12 14 4 2 8 1 0 −4 0 2 0 7
75 322 4 10 14 12 2 6 8 −1 0 −2 1 4 0 7
7′5 ((1, 3, 1), 1, 1) 4 10 12 14 2 8 6 −1 0 −3 0 4 0 7
76 2212 4 8 12 2 14 6 10 1 0 −1 −1 −1 −2 3
7′6 (((1, 2, 1), 1), 1, 1) 4 8 12 10 2 14 6 −1 0 0 −1 3 −1 3
77 21112 4 8 10 12 2 14 6 1 0 −1 −1 −1 −2 3
7′7 ((((1, 2), 1), 1), 1, 1) 4 8 12 14 2 6 10 −1 0 0 −1 3 −1 3
The LinKnot function fDiffProjectionsAltKL calculates all non-

isomorphic projections of an alternating KL given by its Conway symbol.
Flypes (Theorem 1.11) make the computation of all minimal diagrams

of an alternating KL significantly easier than for non-alternating KLs.
One minimal non-alternating KL diagram can originate from very different
sources. A minimal non-alternating algebraic KL diagram can be obtained
from different polyhedral alternating KL diagrams by an appropriate choice
of crossing changes. For example, non-alternating knot 2 1, 2 1, −2 can be
obtained from different projections of 2 1, 2 1, 2, but also from minimal di-
agrams of .2.2 or .2.2 0. Hence, three non-alternating knots with n = 8
crossings have the following minimal diagrams, given by the Knotscape
Dowker codes:
2 1, 2 1, −2
{{8}, {4, 8, −12, 2, 14, −6, 16, 10}}
{{8}, {4, 8, −14, 2, 12, 16, −6, 10}}
{{8}, {4, 8, −14, 2, 12, 16, −6, 10}}
{{8}, {4, 8, 12, 2, −14, −16, 6, −10}}
{{8}, {6, 8, 12, 14, 4, −16, 2, −10}}
{{8}, {−6, 8, 14, −12, 4, 16, −2, 10}}
3, 2 1, −2
{{8}, {6, 8, 12, 2, −14, −16, 4, −10}}
{{8}, {4, 8, 12, 2, −14, 6, −16, −10}}
{{8}, {4, 8, 14, 2, −12, −16, 6, −10}}
{{8}, {4, 8, −12, 2, 14, 16, −6, 10}}
{{8}, {−6, 8, 12, −14, 4, 16, −2, 10}}
{{8}, {6, 8, 14, 12, 4, −16, 2, −10}}
{{8}, {6, 8, −10, 12, 14, −16, 2, −4}}
3, 3, −2
{{8}, {6, 8, −12, 2, 14, 16, −4, 10}}
{{8}, {−4, −8, 12, −2, 14, 16, 6, 10}}
{{8}, {6, −8, −12, 14, −4, 16, −2, 10}}
{{8}, {−6, 8, −14, 12, 4, 16, −2, 10}}
{{8}, {6, −8, 10, −12, 14, −16, 2, −4}}
For n = 9 crossings we have the following non-alternating knots:

2 2, 3, −2 with seventeen, 2 1 1, 3, −2 with fourteen, 2 2, 2 1, −2 with seven-
teen, 2 1 1, 2 1, −2 with fourteen, 3, 3, −3 with eight, 2 1, 2 1, −3 with four,
−2 0 : −2 0 : −2 0 with two, and 8∗ − 2 0 with two minimal diagrams.
The projection polynomial dD (t) can be also computed for link projec-
tions. In this case, the result is a polynomial of the form:
dD (t) = cn tn + · · · + ck tk ,
where n is the number of crossing points, and k is the number of link com-
ponents. For every link, |cn | = 1. If ai are link components, aii = w(ai ),
and |ck | = |det(aij )|, where aij =lk(ai , aj ) is the linking number of the
components ai , aj . In order to increase the selectivity of this polyno-
mial, one can use different variables for generators belonging to different
components. For example, Borromean rings have projection polynomial
dD (x, y, z) = x2 y 2 z 2 , which implies that their components are interchange-
able, and that Borromean rings are (probably) achiral.
A similar polynomial AD (t), introduced somewhat earlier by C. Liang
and Y. Jiang (1982), is effectively used by C. Liang and K. Mislow (1994a)
for recognition of achiral knots. In that polynomial, tǫ(V ) stands instead
of ǫ(V )t from the preceding polynomial, and aij = s if the vertices i, j
are connected with multiplicity s (s = 0, 1, 2). For achiral knot projections
AD (t) = AD (t−1 ). For example, the achiral knot 2 2 (or 41 ) has
AD (t) = AD (t−1 ) = −4t2 + 8t − 3 + 8t−1 − 4t−2 .
As C. Liang and K. Mislow pointed out, achirality is the result of antisym-
metry (vertex sign-changing symmetry), where a rotational antireflection
produces invertible achiral knots, and a single 2-antirotation produces non-
invertible achiral knots. Hence, achiral knots will be the members of KL
families with preserved antisymmetry.
318 LinKnot
The LinKnot functions JablanPoly and LiangPoly calculate above

mentioned polynomial invariants for a KL projection given by its Conway
symbol, Dowker code, or P -data.
Fig. 2.83 Achiral knots with n = 12 crossings from the work of M.G. Haseman.
Achiral knots with n = 12 crossings were derived by M.G. Haseman

(1918). In her original work, all of them except one (H59 = H60 ) are shown
by their centro-antisymmetric presentations (Fig. 2.83). After correction
for the knot 10. 2 2 2 2 2 2 (shortly written as 26 ), and identification of 7
duplicates (Thistlethwaite, 1985), the complete list contains 54 knots. They
are given by Conway symbols showing their (anti)symmetry:
01. 62 16. = 13. 31. 12K 46. 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0
02. 5 12 5 17. (2 2, 2)2 32. 8∗ 2.2.2 0 :: .2 0 47. 3 0.2.2.3 0
03. (3, 3)2 18. 2 42 2 33. 8∗ .2 1.2 1 48. 8∗ 3 : .3
04. 3 2 12 2 3 19. 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0 34. 8∗ 2.2 : .2 0.2 0 49. 8∗ 3 0 : .3 0
05. 34 20. 2 0.2 1.2 1.2 0 35. 10∗∗ 2 0 :: .2 0 50. .2 2.2 2
06. (2 1, 2 1)2 21. 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0 36. = 20. 51. = 50.
07. 3 1 22 1 3 22. 12L 37. 8∗ 2 1 0 : .2 1 0 52. .3.3.2 0.2 0
08. 22 14 22 23. 10∗∗ : 2 0 :: .2 0 38. .4.4 53 10∗ 2.2
09. 2 18 2 24. 10∗ 2 0 :: .2 0 39. .3 1.3 1 54. = 40.
10. 26 25. 8∗ 2 : 2 0.2 0 : 2 40. 8∗ 2.2 : .2.2 55. 10∗∗ : 2 0.2 0
11. 4 22 4 26. 8∗ 2.2.2.2 41. 8∗ 3.3 56. 10∗∗ : 2.2
12. 2 1 2 12 2 1 2 27. 2.2 1.2 1.2 42. 8∗ 3 0.3 0 57. = 45.
13. (2 1 1, 2)2 28. .2 1.2 1.2.2 43. 10∗ 2 ::: .2 58. 12B
14. (3, 2+)2 29. 3.2.2.3 44. 10∗∗ : 2 :: .2 59. .2 1.2.2 1 0.2 0
15. (2 1, 2+)2 30. .3.3.2.2 45. 10∗∗ 2 :: .2 60. = 59.
61. = 6.
In the case of the P -world for n ≤ 12, we will restrict the discussion of
achirality to the basic polyhedra and alternating KLs generated from them
as families. We conjecture that alternating achiral KLs can only be derived
from achiral basic polyhedra or achiral source KLs by an arrangement of
tangles preserving achirality of a generating KL.
We already mentioned that some more sensitive polynomial invariants
(e.g., Jones, Kauffman or HOMFLYPT polynomials) are able to recognize
chiral KLs, but not always.
The origin of polyhedral achiral knots will be achiral basic polyhedra
with a symmetry group G which contains rotational antireflection, antiro-
tation of order 2, or anti-inversion. The first achiral basic polyhedron is
6∗ (Borromean rings). For n ≤ 12 we obtain from it the following achiral
knots:
n=8
.2.2
n = 10
.2 1.2 1 .2.2.2 0.2 0 2.2.2.2
320 LinKnot
n = 12
.4.4 .3 1.3 1 .2 2.2 2 .3.3.2.2 .2 1.2 1.2.2
.3.3.2 0.2 0 .2 1.2.2 1 0.2 0 3.2.2.3 2.2 1.2 1.2 3 0.2.2.3 0
2 0.2 1.2 1.2 0 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0
For 6∗ , G = [3, 4] and G′ = [3+ , 4], so the achiral knots derived from it
will contain antirotation or rotational antireflection. In this way, from 6∗
we derive non-invertible achiral knots (e.g., .2.2, .2.2.2.2, etc.), as well as
invertible ones (e.g., .2.2.2 0.2 0).
The invertible achiral knot 8∗ with the antireflection corresponds to the
basic polyhedron 8∗ . The following achiral knots are derived from the basic
polyhedron 8∗ :
n = 10
8∗ 2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 : .2
n = 12
8∗ 3.3 8∗ 2 1.2 1 8∗ 3 0.3 0 8∗ 3 : .3 8∗ 3 0 : .3 0
8∗ 2 1 0 : .2 1 0 8∗ .20 : 2.2 : 20 8∗ 2.2.2.2 8∗ 20.20.20.20 8∗ 2.20.20.2
8∗ 2.2 : .2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0 : .2 0.2 0
Some of the obtained achirals are invertible (e.g. 8∗ , etc.), and others
are not (e.g., 8∗ 2 0.2 0, 8∗ 2 : .2, etc.).
The achiral invertible knot 10∗ corresponds to the basic polyhedron 10∗ .
The following achiral knots with n = 12 crossings are derived from 10∗ :
10∗ 2 ::: .2, 10∗ 2 0 ::: 2 0, 10∗ 2 :::: .2
From the basic polyhedron 10∗∗ we derive achiral knots:
n = 12
10∗∗ 2 :: .2 10∗∗ 2 0 :: .2 0 10∗∗ : 2.2 10∗∗ : 2 0.2 0 10∗∗ : 2 :: .2
10∗∗ : 2 0 :: .2 0
Finally, for n = 12 we have three achiral knots corresponding to the

basic polyhedra 12B (122∗), 12K (1211∗), and 12L (1212∗).
The axis of 2-antirotation is projected in the perpendicular projection
plane into the center of antisymmetry. Each of the achiral knots mentioned,
except the knot .2 1.2.2 1 0.2 0, contains 2-antirotation and admits one or
several centro-antisymmetric projections, i.e., has a discernible antisymme-
try (Liang and Mislow, 1994a). For the exceptional knot .2 1.2.2 1 0.2 0 =
H59 = H60 , where the second and third symbol corresponds to the nota-
tion from M. Haseman tables of achiral knots, the achirality is the result
of anti-inversion, and none of its projections is centro-antisymmetric. The

corresponding projection polynomials
dH59 (t) = t12 − 4t8 + 2t6 − t4 − 6t2 ,
dH60 (t) = t12 − 4t8 − 2t6 + 3t4 + 2t2 ,

with the property dD (t) = dD (−t), reveal this concealed antisymmetry.
The same holds for symmetric projection polynomials:
A(H59 (t)) = −4t−6 − 6t−5 + 49t−4 + 18t−3 − 113t−2 + 68t−1 − 19 +
68t − 113t2 + 18t3 + 49t4 − 6t5 − 4t6 ,
A(H60 )(t) = 108t−4 −204t−3−340t−2 +594t−1−19+594t−340t2−204t3+108t4,

with the property AD (t) = AD (t−1 ). This concealed antisymmetry is vis-
ible on the corresponding vertex-bicolored graphs on a sphere (Fig. 2.84).
Fig. 2.84 Achiral knot H59 = H60 and two its vertex-antisymmetric 3D-presentations,
based on the anti-inversion.
Still, there is no simple criterion for the recognition of achiral knots,

even for alternating ones. One of the attempts was Kauffman Conjecture
(Kauffman, 1990a; van Mill and Reed, 1991):
Conjecture 2.3. Let K be an achiral alternating knot. Then there exists
a reduced alternating diagram D of K, such that G(D) is isomorphic to
G∗ (D), where G(D) is a checkerboard-graph of D and G∗ (D) its dual.
The counterexample to the preceding conjecture, knot (2 1, 3) 1 1 (3, 2 1),
was found by Dasbach and Hougardy (1996). They proved that none of the
eight graphs corresponding to different embeddings of this knot is isomor-
phic to its dual.
322 LinKnot
The same knot is an example of how difficult it can be to find an anti-

symmetric drawing that shows concealed antisymmetry, e.g., the achirality
of the projection (2 1, 3) 1 1 (3, 2 1). Achirality of this projection can be
explained by the presence of the rotational antireflection, i.e., by purely
geometrical antisymmetry arguments (Fig. 2.85). As we concluded many
times before for different KL properties, achirality is a property of fam-
ilies. For example, from the knot (2 1, 3) 1 1 (3, 2 1) we derive family of
achiral knots ((2m) 1, (2n + 1)) 1 1 ((2n + 1), (2m) 1), (m, n ≥ 1).
Fig. 2.85 The antisymmetric presentation of the achiral knot (2 1, 3) 1 1 (3, 2 1).
The LinKnot function AmphiProjAltKL tests the achirality of a pro-

jection of an alternating oriented KL given by its Conway symbol, Dowker
code, or P -data, and the function AmphiAltKL tests the achirality of an
alternating oriented KL given by its Conway symbol. As in all cases men-
tioned before, this applies only to minimal projections. As the best tool for
recognizing chirality you can use the program SnapPea by J. Weeks.
In the same way as with achiral alternating knots, we can work with
achiral alternating oriented links. The first of them is the basic polyhedron
6∗ , famous Borromean rings. For n = 8 crossings we have stellar achi-
ral 4-component link 2, 2, 2, 2 that generates two families of achiral links:
(2m), (2m), (2n), (2n) and (2m), (2n), (2m), (2n), (m, n ≥ 1); arborescent
achiral 3-component link (2, 2)(2, 2) that generates the family of achiral
links ((2m), (2n)) ((2m), (2n)), (m, n ≥ 1); and polyhedral 3-component
link .2 : 2 0 that generates the family of achiral links .(2m) : (2m) 0 (m ≥ 1).
For n = 10 we have the beginnings of four new families of achiral links: 3-
component achiral link (2, 2+) (2, 2+) that generates the family of achiral
links ((2m), (2n) + (2p)) ((2m), (2n) + 2p), (m, n, p ≥ 1); 3-component achi-
ral link .3.3 that generates the family of achiral links .(2m + 1).(2m + 1),
(m ≥ 1); 3-component achiral link .3 : 30 that generates the family of achi-
ral links .(2m + 1) : (2m + 1) 0; and 3-component achiral link 8∗ 2.2 that
generates the family of achiral links 8∗ (2m + 1).(2m + 1), (m ≥ 1). For
n = 12, together with the links belonging to the families already mentioned
(4, 4, 2, 2; 4, 2, 4, 2; (4, 2) (4, 2); (2, 2 + +) (2, 2 + +), and 4. : 4 0), we have
the first elements of new families of achiral links:
Generating link Family Comp.

No.
3 1, 2, 3 1, 2 (2m + 1) 1, (2n), (2m + 1) 1, (2n) (m, n ≥ 1) 4
(3 1, 2) (3 1, 2) ((2m + 1) 1, (2n)) ((2m + 1) 1, (2n)) (m, n ≥ 1) 3
(2, 2, 2) (2, 2, 2) ((2m), (2n), (2p)) ((2m), (2n), (2p)) (m, n, p ≥ 1) 5
((2, 2), 2) ((2, 2), 2) (((2m), (2n), (2p)) (((2n), (2m)), (2p)) (m, n, p ≥ 1) 3
(2, 2), (2, 2), (2, 2) ((2m), (2m)), ((2m), (2m)), ((2m), (2m)) (m ≥ 1) 5
.2 1 1.2 1 1 .(2m) 1 1.(2m) 1 1 (m ≥ 1) 3
.2 1 : 2 1 1 0 .(2m) 1 : (2m) 1 1 0 (m ≥ 1) 3
.2 2 : 2 2 0 .(2m) (2n) : (2m) (2n) 0 (m ≥ 1) 3
2.3.3.2 (2m).(2n + 1).(2n + 1).(2m) (m, n ≥ 1) 3
.3.2.3 0.2 0 .(2m + 1).(2n).(2m + 1) 0.(2n) 0 (m, n ≥ 1) 3
2.2.2.2.2.2 (2m).(2n).(2p).(2p).(2n).(2m) (m, n, p ≥ 1) 3
8∗ 2 1 0.2 1 0 8∗ (2m) 1 0.(2m) 1 0 (m ≥ 1) 3
8∗ .2 : 2.2 : 2 8∗ .(2m) : (2n).(2n) : (2m) (m, n ≥ 1) 3
and two achiral basic polyhedra 121∗ (12A) and 1210∗ (12J).
In the same way, we can try to find achiral non-alternating KLs. It is
interesting that in the existing knot tables for n ≤ 10 there are no non-
alternating achiral knot. The first non-alternating achiral knot 1211∗ − 1. −
1. − 1 :: −1. − 1. − 1 has n = 12 crossings (Fig. 2.86).
We give the list of achiral non-alternating knots with n = 14 crossings
and their corresponding families, and the analogous lists of achiral non-
alternating links with n = 10 crossings, but we can not guarantee that our
lists are complete.
For n = 14 we have the following non-alternating achiral knots and the
families of achiral knots generated from them4 :
Generating link Family

((−2 − 1, 2), 2) (2, (−2 − 1, 2)) ((−(2m) − 1, (2n)), (2p)) ((2p), (−(2m) − 1, (2n)))
((2 1, 2), −2) (−2, (2 1, 2)) (((2m) 1, (2n)), −(2p)) (−(2p), ((2m) 1, (2n)))
(2, −2 − 1) 1 1 1 1 (−2 − 1, 2) ((2m), −(2n) − 1) 1 1 1 1 (−(2n) − 1, (2m))
(−2, 2 1) 1 1 1 1 (2 1, −2) (−(2m), (2n) 1) 1 1 1 1 ((2n) 1, −(2m))
4 All parameters are greater or equal to 1.
324 LinKnot
Fig. 2.86 Non-alternating achiral knot 1211∗ − 1. − 1. − 1 :: −1. − 1. − 1 with n = 12

crossings.
(−2, −2 − 1) 1 1 1 1 (−2 − 1, −2) (−(2m), −(2n) − 1) 1 1 1 1 (−(2n) − 1, −(2m))

(−2 − 1, 3) 1 1 (−2 − 1, 3) (−(2m) − 1, (2n + 1)) 1 1 (−(2m) − 1, (2n + 1))
.(−2 − 1, 2).(2, −2 − 1) .(−(2m) − 1, (2n)).((2n), −(2m) − 1)
.(2 1, −2).(−2, 2 1) .((2m) 1, −(2n)).(−(2n), (2m) 1)
.(−2 − 1, 2).(2, −2 − 1) .(−(2m) − 1, (2n)).((2n), −(2m) − 1)
8∗ 2 0. − 2 − 1 0. − 2 − 1 0.2 0 8∗ (2m) 0. − (2n) − 1 0. − (2n) − 1 0.(2m) 0
8∗ − 2 0. − 2. − 1. − 2 0.2 0.2 : 2 0 8∗ − (2m) 0. − (2n). − 1. − (2p) 0.(2m) 0.(2n) : (2p) 0
10∗∗ : −2 − 10 :: . − 2 − 1 0 10∗∗ : −(2m) − 10 :: . − (2m) − 1 0
10∗∗ − 2 − 1 0 :: . − 2 − 1 0 10∗∗ − (2m) − 1 0 :: . − (2m) − 1 0
10∗∗ − 2 0.2 0 :: −2 0.2 0 10∗∗ − (2m) 0.(2n) 0 :: −(2m) 0.(2n) 0
10∗∗ 2 0. − 2. − 1. − 1. − 2.2 0 102∗ (2m) 0. − (2n). − 1. − 1. − (2n).(2m) 0
10∗∗ − 2 0.2 : .2. − 2 0 102∗∗ − (2m)0.(2n) : .(2n). − (2m)0
10∗∗∗ . − 2 0. − 2 : −2. − 2 0 10∗∗∗ . − (2m) 0. − (2n) : −(2n). − (2m) 0
128∗ . − 2 : . − 1. − 1. − 1. − 2 0. − 1 128∗ . − (2m) : . − 1. − 1. − 1. − (2m) 0. − 1
128∗ . − 2 ::: −2 0 128∗ . − (2m) ::: −(2n) 0
128∗ . − 2 0 : . − 1. − 1. − 1. − 2. − 1 128∗ . − (2m) 0 : . − 1. − 1. − 1. − (2m). − 1
1211∗ − 2 0 ::: −2 0 1211∗ − (2m) 0 ::: −(2n) 0
1211∗ . − 2 0 ::: −2 0 1211∗ . − (2m) 0 ::: −(2m) 0
1212∗ . − 2 ::::: −2 0 1212∗ . − (2m) ::::: −(2m) 0
and the non-alternating achiral knot 1428∗ : . − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1 :

. − 1.
Families of achiral knots from the preceding table are derived from their
generating knots. If we permit a substitution of elementary tangles 1 and
−1, we expect that from every achiral KL can be derived an infinite class
of achiral KLs. For example, from the non-alternating knot 1428∗ : . − 1. −
1. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1 : . − 1 can be obtained the class of achiral KLs of
the form
1428∗t1 .t2 .t3 . − t4 . − t5 . − t6 . − t6 . − t7 . − t7 . − t4 .t3 .t2 . − t5 .t1 ,
where each tangle ti can also be replaced by ti 0 (i = 1, 2, . . . , 7). Unfortu-

nately, obtained KLs are too large for a systematic experimental check.
The first non-alternating achiral link is the 4-component link 10−∗∗∗ ,
or more precisely 10∗∗∗ − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1 :: . − 1, i.e., the basic polyhedron
10∗∗∗ turned by suitable crossing changes into the non-alternating link (Fig.
2.87). It generates the following families:
• the non-alternating 4-component links 10∗∗∗ − (2m + 1). − (2n + 1). −

(2p + 1). − (2q + 1).(2n + 1).(2m + 1).(2q + 1).(2p + 1). − (2r + 1).(2r + 1),
(m, n, p, q, r ≥ 1);
• the non-alternating achiral 2-component links 10∗∗∗ − (2m). − (2n). −
(2p). − (2q).(2n).(2m).(2q).(2p). − (2r).(2r), (m, n, p, q, r ≥ 1);
• the non-alternating achiral 2-component links 10∗∗∗ −(2m) −1.−(2n) −
1. − (2p) − 1. − (2q) − 1.(2n) 1.(2m) 1.(2q) 1.(2p) 1. − (2r) − 1.(2r) 1,
(m, n, p, q, r ≥ 1), etc..
An infinite collection of achiral KLs can be derived from non-alternating

achiral link 10−∗∗∗ by any tangle substitution of the form 10∗∗∗ − t1 . − t2 . −
t3 . − t4 .t2 .t1 .t4 .t3 . − t5 .t5 , where ti are arbitrary tangles (i = 1, 2, . . . , 5),
and each of them can be also substituted by ti 0.
Fig. 2.87 Non-alternating achiral 4-component link 10∗∗∗ − 1. − 1. − 1. − 1 :: . − 1 with

n = 10 crossings.
Since every (anti)symmetric structure can be obtained from another

(anti)symmetric structure by a series of symmetric replacements, the origins
of achiral KLs are lower level achirals. For example, polyhedral achiral
326 LinKnot
alternating KLs originate from achiral basic polyhedra and can be obtained
by symmetric tangle substitutions.
Every palindromic rational knot with an even number of crossings is
achiral, and the same statement holds for rational links (Theorem 1.20,
Theorem 1.22). We hope that the more general statement holds: every
algebraic alternating KL of the symmetric (palindromic) form p p is achiral,
where p is any algebraic tangle, and we suppose that all achiral alternating
algebraic KLs can be described in this way.
For achiral alternating polyhedral KLs, origins are achiral basic poly-
hedra (Fig. 2.88). Their list for n ≤ 16 is:
n=6
6∗
No. of basic polyhedra: 1
n=8
8∗
n = 10
10∗ 10∗∗ 10∗∗∗
n = 12
121∗ 122∗ 127∗ 128∗ 1210∗ 1211∗ 1212∗
n = 14
144∗ 147∗ 148∗ 149∗ 1411∗ 1412∗ 1413∗ 1417∗
1419∗ 1420∗ 1428∗ 1433∗ 1444∗ 1447∗ 1449∗ 1450∗
1453∗ 1455∗ 1456∗ 1458∗ 1460∗
n = 16
162∗ 167∗ 1617∗ 1621∗ 1623∗ 1625∗ 1632∗ 1639∗
1643∗ 1646∗ 1647∗ 1648∗ 1649∗ 1651∗ 1674∗ 1680∗
1685∗ 1686∗ 1689∗ 1692 ∗ 1697∗ 16110∗ 16113∗ 16128∗
16132∗ 16133∗ 16142∗ 16150∗ 16156∗ 16160∗ 16175∗ 16204∗
16206∗ 16223∗ 16226∗ 16227∗ 16230∗ 16234∗ 16235∗ 16239∗
16242∗ 16256∗ 16263∗ 16270∗ 16273∗ 16280∗ 16282∗ 16284∗
16285∗ 16286∗ 16293∗ 16327∗ 16346∗ 16347∗ 16351∗ 16360∗
16361∗ 16367∗ 16369∗ 16374∗ 16377∗ 16380∗ 16384∗ 16388∗
16391∗ 16393∗ 16402∗ 16412∗ 16416∗ 16419∗ 16428∗ 16429∗
16431∗ 16437∗ 16442∗ 16451 ∗ 16461∗ 16494∗
Fig. 2.88 The achiral basic polyhedron 162∗ .
Instead of selecting achiral KLs from complete lists of KLs with a

given number of crossings, we can derive them from achiral basic polyhedra.
First, we select alternating achiral source links derived from achiral basic
polyhedra, and then make tangle substitutions preserving achirality.
As the first filter, we used the equality of Kauffman polynomials com-
puted for each source KL and its mirror image, and for final selection the
program SnapPea by J. Weeks.
There are 9 achiral source KLs derived from the basic polyhedron 6∗ :
6 2 : .2, 6∗ 2.2, 6∗ 2.2.2 0 : 2, 6∗ 2.2 : 2 0.2 0, 6∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0, 6∗ 2.2 : 2.2,
∗
6∗ 2.2.2.2, 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0, 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2. Two classes of achiral KLs, 6∗ p.p :

q.q and 6∗ p.q : p.q, are derived from 6∗ 2.2 : 2.2; 6∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0 generates
6∗ p.p.q 0.r.r.q 0 and 6∗ p.q.r 0.p.q.r 0; 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 generates 6∗ p.p.q.r.r.q
and 6∗ p.q.r.p.q.r, and all other source KLs generate one class each. In-
stead of the term “family” here we use more general term “class”, because
p, q, r, . . ., are arbitrary tangles, and not only chains of bigons.
Hence, from the basic polyhedron 6∗ the following classes of achiral
alternating KLs are obtained:
6∗ p.p 6∗ p : .p
6∗ p.q.p 0:q 6∗ p.p : q 0.q 0 6∗ p.p : q.q
6∗ p.q : p.q 6∗ p.q.q.p
6∗ p.p.q 0.r.r.q 0 6∗ p.q.r 0.p.q.r 0 6∗ p.q.q.p.r 0.r 0
6∗ p.q.r.p.r 0.q 0 6∗ p.p.q.r.r.q 6∗ p.q.r.p.q.r
From the basic polyhedron 8∗ the following classes of achiral alternating

KLs are derived:
328 LinKnot
8∗ p : .p 8∗ p 0.p 0 8∗ p 0 : .p 0
8∗ p.p
8∗ p.p : .q 0.q 0 8∗ p.p.q 0 :: .q 0 8∗ p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0

8∗ p.q.q.p 8∗ p.p : .q.q 8∗ p.q : .q.p
8∗ p : q 0.q 0 : p 8∗ p 0.p 0 : q 0 : .q 0
8∗ p.q 0 : .q 0.p 8∗ p.q 0.q 0.p 8∗ p 0.p 0 : .q 0.q 0
8∗ p 0.q 0 : .q 0.p 0 8∗ p.p : q 0 : .q 0 8∗ p.p : q : .q
8∗ p.q 0.q 0.p : r 0.r 0 8∗ p.p.q 0 : r 0.r 0 : q 0 8∗ p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0 : r 0.r 0
8∗ p.p : q.r 0.r 0.q 8∗ p.p.q 0.r : .r.q 0 8∗ p.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p
8∗ p.q.r.r.q.p 8∗ p.q.q.p : r.r 8∗ p.p.q 0.r 0 : .r 0.q 0
8∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p 0 8∗ p.q.q.p.r 0 : .r 0 8∗ p.p : q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0
8∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p 8∗ p.p.q 0 : r.r : q 0 8∗ p.q.q.p : r 0.r 0
8∗ p.q 0.q 0.p.r 0 : .r 0
8∗ p.p.q 0.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0.q 0 8∗ p.p.q 0.r 0.s.s.r 0.q 0 8∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p.s 0.s 0
8∗ p.q.q.p.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0 8∗ p.q.r.r.q.p.s 0.s 0 8∗ p.q.q.p.r 0.s.s.r 0
8∗ p 0.p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0.q 0 8∗ p.q 0.q 0.p.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0 8∗ p.p.q 0.r.s 0.s 0.r.q 0
8∗ p.p.q.r.s.s.r.q
From the basic polyhedron 10∗ the following classes of achiral alternat-
ing KLs are derived:
10∗ p 0 :: .p 0 10∗ p 0 : .p 0 10∗ p 0.p 0

10∗ p ::: .p 10∗ p : .p 10∗ p.p
10∗ p 0 : q 0 : .p 0 : q 0 10∗ p 0 : q 0 : .q 0 : p 0 10∗ p 0.p 0 :: q 0.q 0

10∗ p 0.q 0 :: p 0.q 0 10∗ p 0.p 0 : .q 0 : .q 0 10∗ p 0.q 0 : .q 0.p 0
10∗ p 0.p 0 : q 0 :: .q 0 10∗ p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0 10∗ p : q 0 : .q 0 : p
10∗ p : q 0.q 0 : p 10∗ p.q 0 :: .q 0.p 10∗ p.q 0 : .q 0.p
10∗ p.q 0.q 0.p 10∗ p : q 0 : .p : q 0 10∗ p.q 0 :: p.q 0
10∗ p : .p : .q 0.q 0 10∗ p.p :: q 0.q 0 10∗ p.p : .q 0 : .q 0
10∗ p.p : q 0 :: .q 0 10∗ p.p.q 0 ::: .q 0 10∗ p : q : .p : q
10∗ p : q : .q : p 10∗ p.p :: q.q 10∗ p.q :: p.q
10∗ p.p : .q : .q 10∗ p.q : .q.p 10∗ p.p : q :: .q
10∗ p.q.q.p
10∗ p 0.p 0 : q 0 : r 0.r 0 : q 0 10∗ p 0.q 0 : r 0 : p 0.q 0 : r 0 10∗ p 0.q 0 : r 0.r 0 : q 0.p 0
10∗ p 0.q 0.r 0 : .p 0.q 0.r 0 10∗ p 0.q 0.r 0 : .r 0.q 0.p 0 10∗ p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0 : .r 0.r 0
10∗ p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0 : r 0 : .r 0 10∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p 0 10∗ p : q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0 : p
10∗ p.q 0 : r 0.r 0 : q 0.p 10∗ p.q 0.r 0 : .r 0.q 0.p 10∗ p.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p
10∗ p : q 0.q 0 : p : r 0.r 0 10∗ p : q 0.r 0 : p : q 0.r 0 10∗ p.q 0 : .q 0.p : r 0.r 0
10∗ p.q 0 : .q 0.p.r 0 : .r 0 10∗ p.q 0 : .r 0.p.q 0 : .r 0 10∗ p.q 0 : r 0 : p.q 0 : r 0
10∗ p.q 0.r 0 : .p.q 0.r 0 10∗ p.q 0.q 0.p : .r 0.r 0 10∗ p.q 0.q 0.p : r 0 : .r 0
10∗ p.q 0.q 0.p.r 0 :: .r 0 10∗ p.q 0.q 0.p : r : .r 10∗ p.q 0 : r : p.q 0 : r
10∗ p.q 0.r : .p.q 0.r 10∗ p.q 0.r : .r.q 0.p 10∗ p.p : .q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0
10∗ p.p : q 0 : r 0.r 0 : q 0 10∗ p.p : q 0.r 0 : .r 0.q 0 10∗ p.p.q 0 : .r 0.r 0 : .q 0
10∗ p.p.q 0 : r 0 : .r 0 : q 0 10∗ p.p.q 0.r 0 :: .r 0.q 0 10∗ p.q : r 0.r 0 : q.p
10∗ p.q.r 0 : .r 0.q.p 10∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p 10∗ p.p : q 0 : r.r : q 0
10∗ p.q : r 0 : p.q : r 0 10∗ p.p : q 0.r : .r.q 0 10∗ p.p.q 0 : .r.r : .q 0
10∗ p.q.r 0 : .p.q.r 0 10∗ p.p.q 0 : r : .r : q 0 10∗ p.p.q 0.r :: .r.q 0
10∗ p.p : .q.r 0.r 0.q 10∗ p.p : q : r 0.r 0 : q 10∗ p.p : q.r 0 : .r 0.q
10∗ p.q.q.p : .r 0.r 0 10∗ p.q.q.p : r 0 : .r 0 10∗ p.q.q.p.r 0 :: .r 0
10∗ p.p : q : r.r : q 10∗ p.q : r : p.q : r 10∗ p.q : r.r : q.p
10∗ p.q.r : .p.q.r 10∗ p.q.r : .r.q.p 10∗ p.q.q.p : .r.r
10∗ p.q.q.p : r : .r 10∗ p.q.r.r.q.p
10∗ p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0 : r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0 10∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0 : p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0
10∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p 0 : s 0.s 0 10∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0.q 0.p 0
10∗ p.q 0.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0.q 0.p 10∗ p.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p : s 0.s 0
10∗ p.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p.s 0 : .s 0 10∗ p.q 0.r 0 : s 0.p.q 0.r 0 : s 0
10∗ p.q 0.r 0.s 0 : p.q 0.r 0.s 0 10∗ p.q 0.q 0.p : r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0
10∗ p.q 0.q 0.p.r 0 : s 0.s 0 : r 0 10∗ p.q 0.q 0.p.r 0.s 0 : .s 0.r 0
10∗ p.q 0.q 0.p : r.s 0.s 0.r 10∗ p.q 0.r 0.s : p.q 0.r 0.s
10∗ p.q 0.r.s 0.s 0.r.q 0.p 10∗ p.q 0.r.s 0 : p.q 0.r.s 0
10∗ p.p : q 0.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0.q 0 10∗ p.p.q 0 : r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0 : q 0
10∗ p.p.q 0.r 0 : s 0.s 0 : r 0.q 0 10∗ p.p.q 0.r 0.s 0 : .s 0.r 0.q 0
10∗ p.q.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0.q.p 10∗ p.p.q 0 : r 0.s.s.r 0 : q 0
10∗ p.q.r 0 : s 0.p.q.r 0 : s 0 10∗ p.p.q 0.r 0 : s.s : r 0.q 0
10∗ p.q.r 0.s 0 : p.q.r 0.s 0 10∗ p.p.q 0.r 0.s : .s.r 0.q 0
10∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p : s 0.s 0 10∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p.s 0 : .s 0
10∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p : s.s 10∗ p.p : q 0.r.s 0.s 0.r.q 0
10∗ p.p.q 0 : r.s 0.s 0.r : q 0 10∗ p.p.q 0.r : s 0.s 0 : r.q 0
10∗ p.p.q 0.r.s 0 : .s 0.r.q 0 10∗ p.q.r 0.s.s.r 0.q.p
10∗ p.q.r 0.s : p.q.r 0.s 10∗ p.p.q 0.r : s.s : r.q 0
10∗ p.p : q.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0.q 10∗ p.q.r.s 0.s 0.r.q.p
10∗ p.q.r.s 0 : p.q.r.s 0 ∗
10 p.q.q.p : r 0.s 0.r 0.r 0
10∗ p.q.q.p.r 0 : s 0.s 0 : r 0 10∗ p.q.q.p.r 0.s 0 : .s 0.r 0
10∗ p.q.q.p : r 0.s.s.r 0 10∗ p.q.q.p.r 0 : s.s : r 0
10∗ p.q.q.p.r 0.s : .s.r 0 10∗ p.q.q.p : r.s 0.s 0.r
10∗ p.q.r.r.q.p : s 0.s 0 10∗ p.q.r.r.q.p.s 0 : .s 0
10∗ p.q.q.p : r.s.s.r 10∗ p.q.r.s : p.q.r.s
10∗ p.q.q.p.r.s : s.r 10∗ p.q.r.s.s.r.q.p
330 LinKnot
10∗ p 0.p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0.r 0.q 0 10∗ p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0.r 0.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0.r 0
10∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p 0.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0 10∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0.t 0.p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0.t 0
10∗ p.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0 10∗ p.q 0.r 0.s 0.t 0.p.q 0.r 0.s 0.t 0
10∗ p.q 0.q 0.p.r 0.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0.r 0 10∗ p.q 0.r.s 0.t 0.p.q 0.r.s 0.t 0
10∗ p.p.q 0.r 0.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0.r 0.q 0 10∗ p.p.q 0.r 0.s 0.t.t.s 0.r 0.q 0
10∗ p.q.r 0.s 0.t 0.p.q.r 0.s 0.t 0 10∗ p.p.q 0.r 0.s.t 0.t 0.s.r 0.q 0
10∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0 10∗ p.p.q 0.r.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0.r.q 0
10∗ p.p.q 0.r.s 0.t.t.s 0.r.q 0 10∗ p.q.r 0.s.t 0.p.q.r 0.s.t 0
10∗ p.q.r 0.s.s.r 0.q.p.t 0.t 0 10∗ p.q.r.s 0.t 0.p.q.r.s 0.t 0
10∗ p.q.q.p.r 0.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0.r 0 10∗ p.q.q.p.r 0.s 0.t.t.s 0.r 0
10∗ p.q.q.p.r 0.s.t 0.t 0.s.r 0 10∗ p.q.q.p.r 0.s.t.t.s.r 0
10∗ p.q.r.s.t 0.p.q.r.s.t 0 10∗ p.q.r.r.q.p.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0
10∗ p.q.r.r.q.p.s 0.t.t.s 0 10∗ p.q.r.s.s.r.q.p.t 0.t 0
10∗ p.p.q.r.s.t.t.s.r.q 10∗ p.q.q.p.r.s.t.t.s.r
10∗ p.q.r.r.q.p.s.t.t.s 10∗ p.q.r.s.t.p.q.r.s.t
From the basic polyhedron 10∗∗ the following classes of achiral alternat-
ing KLs are derived:
10∗∗ : p 0 :: .p 0 10∗∗ : p 0.p 0 10∗∗ .p 0 :: .p 0

10∗∗ .p 0 : .p 0 10∗∗ p 0 :: .p 0 10∗∗ : p :: .p
10∗∗ : p.p 10∗∗ .p :: .p 10∗∗ .p : .p
10∗∗ p :: .p
10∗∗ : p 0.p 0 :: q 0.q 0 10∗∗ : p 0.q 0 :: p 0.q 0 10∗∗ .p 0 : .p 0 : .q 0.q 0

10∗∗ .p 0 : .p 0 : q 0 : .q 0 10∗∗ .p 0 : .q 0 : p 0 : .q 0 10∗∗ .p 0 : q 0 : .p 0 : q 0
10∗∗ .p 0.q 0 :: p 0.q 0 10∗∗ .p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0 10∗∗ p 0 : q 0 : .p 0 : q 0
10∗∗ p 0 : q 0.q 0 : p 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0 :: p 0.q 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0 : .q 0.p 0
10∗∗ .p 0 : .p 0 : .q.q 10∗∗ .p 0 : q : .p 0 : q 10∗∗ .p 0.q :: p 0.q
10∗∗ p 0 : q : .p 0 : q 10∗∗ p 0.q :: p 0.q 10∗∗ .p 0.q.q.p 0
10∗∗ p 0 : q.q : p 0 10∗∗ p 0.q : .q.p 0 10∗∗ .p.q 0.q 0.p
10∗∗ p : q 0.q 0 : p 10∗∗ p.q 0 : .q 0.p 10∗∗ : p.q 0 :: p.q 0
10∗∗ .p : .q 0 : p : .q 0 10∗∗ .p : q 0 : .p : q 0 10∗∗ .p.q 0 :: p.q 0
10∗∗ p : q 0 : .p : q 0 10∗∗ p.q 0 :: p.q 0 10∗∗ : p.p :: q 0.q 0
10∗∗ .p : .p : .q 0.q 0 10∗∗ .p : .p : q 0 : .q 0 10∗∗ : p.p :: q.q
10∗∗ : p.q :: p.q 10∗∗ .p : .p : .q.q 10∗∗ .p : .p : q : .q
10∗∗ .p : .q : p : .q 10∗∗ .p : q : .p : q 10∗∗ .p.q :: p.q
10∗∗ .p.q.q.p 10∗∗ p : q : .p : q 10∗∗ p : q.q : p
10∗∗ p.q :: p.q 10∗∗ p.q : .q.p
10∗∗ .p 0.q 0 : r 0 : p 0.q 0 : r 0 10∗∗ .p 0.q 0.r 0 : .p 0.q 0.r 0 10∗∗ .p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0 : .r 0.r 0
10∗∗ .p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0 : r 0 : .r 0 10∗∗ p 0 : q 0.q 0 : p 0 : r 0.r 0 10∗∗ p 0 : q 0.r 0 : p 0 : q 0.r 0
10∗∗ p 0.q 0 : .q 0.p 0 : r 0.r 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0 : .q 0.p 0.r 0 : .r 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0 : .r 0.p 0.q 0 : .r 0
10∗∗ p 0.q 0 : r 0 : p 0.q 0 : r 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r 0 : .p 0.q 0.r 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p 0
10∗∗ .p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0 : .r.r 10∗∗ p 0.q 0 : .q 0.p 0 : r.r 10∗∗ .p 0.q 0.r : .p 0.q 0.r
10∗∗ p 0.q 0 : r : p 0.q 0 : r 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r : .p 0.q 0.r 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r.r.q 0.p 0
10∗∗ .p 0.q : r 0 : p 0.q : r 0 10∗∗ .p 0.q.r 0 : .p 0.q.r 0 10∗∗ p 0 : q.r 0 : p 0 : q.r 0
10∗∗ p 0.q : .r 0.p 0.q : .r 0 10∗∗ p 0.q : r 0 : p 0.q : r 0 10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0 : .p 0.q.r 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.r 0.q.p 0 10∗∗ .p 0.q.q.p 0 : .r 0.r 0 10∗∗ .p 0.q.q.p 0 : r 0 : .r 0
10∗∗ p 0 : q.q : p 0 : r 0.r 0 10∗∗ p 0.q : .q.p 0 : r 0.r 0 10∗∗ p 0.q : .q.p 0.r 0 : .r 0
10∗∗ .p 0.q.r : .p 0.q.r 10∗∗ .p 0.q.q.p 0 : .r.r 10∗∗ p 0 : q.q : p 0 : r.r
10∗∗ p 0 : q.r : p 0 : q.r 10∗∗ p 0.q : .q.p 0 : r.r 10∗∗ p 0.q : .q.p 0.r : .r
10∗∗ p 0.q : .r.p 0.q : .r 10∗∗ p 0.q : r : p 0.q : r 10∗∗ p 0.q.r : .p 0.q.r
10∗∗ p 0.q.r.r.q.p 0 10∗∗ p.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p ∗∗
10 .p : q 0.r 0 : p : q 0.r 0
10∗∗ .p.q 0 : r 0 : p.q 0 : r 0 10∗∗ .p.q 0.r 0 : .p.q 0.r 0 10∗∗ .p.q 0.q 0.p : .r 0.r 0
10∗∗ .p.q 0.q 0.p : r 0 : .r 0 10∗∗ p : q 0.q 0 : p : r 0.r 0 10∗∗ p : q 0.r 0 : p : q 0.r 0
10∗∗ p.q 0 : .q 0.p : r 0.r 0 10∗∗ p.q 0 : .q 0.p.r 0 : .r 0 10∗∗ p.q 0 : .r 0.p.q 0 : .r 0
10∗∗ p.q 0 : r 0 : p.q 0 : r 0 10∗∗ p.q 0.r 0 : .p.q 0.r 0 10∗∗ .p.q 0.q 0.p : .r.r
10∗∗ .p.q 0.q 0.p : r : .r 10∗∗ p.q 0 : .q 0.p : r.r 10∗∗ .p.q 0 : r : p.q 0 : r
10∗∗ .p.q 0.r : .p.q 0.r 10∗∗ p.q 0 : r : p.q 0 : r 10∗∗ p.q 0.r : .p.q 0.r
10∗∗ p.q 0.r.r.q 0.p 10∗∗ .p : .p : q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0 10∗∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p
10∗∗ .p : .p : q 0.r.r.q 0 10∗∗ .p : q.r 0 : p : q.r 0 10∗∗ .p.q : r 0 : p.q : r 0
10∗∗ .p.q.r 0 : .p.q.r 0 10∗∗ p : q.r 0 : p : q.r 0 10∗∗ p.q : .r 0.p.q : .r 0
10∗∗ p.q : r 0 : p.q : r 0 10∗∗ p.q.r 0 : .p.q.r 0 10∗∗ .p.q.q.p : .r 0.r 0
10∗∗ .p.q.q.p : r 0 : .r 0 10∗∗ p : q.q : p : r 0.r 0 10∗∗ p.q : .q.p : r 0.r 0
10∗∗ p.q : .q.p.r 0 : .r 0 10∗∗ .p.q : r : p.q : r 10∗∗ .p.q.r : .p.q.r
10∗∗ .p.q.q.p : .r.r 10∗∗ .p.q.q.p : r : .r 10∗∗ p : q.q : p : r.r
10∗∗ p : q.r : p : q.r 10∗∗ p.q : .q.p : r.r 10∗∗ p.q : .q.p.q : .r
10∗∗ p.q : .r.p.q : .r 10∗∗ p.q : r : p.q : r 10∗∗ p.q.r : .p.q.r
10∗∗ p.q.r.r.q.p
10∗∗ .p 0.q 0.q 0.p 0 : r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0 10∗∗ .p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0 : p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r 0 : s 0.p 0.q 0.r 0 : s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0 : p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p 0 : s 0.s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p 0.s 0 : .s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p 0 : s.s 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.s : p 0.q 0.r 0.s
10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r : s 0.p 0.q 0.r : s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r.s 0 : p 0.q 0.r.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r.r.q 0.p 0 : s 0.s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r.r.q 0.p 0.s 0 : .s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r.s : p 0.q 0.r.s 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r.r.q 0.p 0 : s.s
10∗∗ .p 0.q.r 0.s 0 : p 0.q.r 0.s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q : r 0.s 0.p 0.q : r 0.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0 : s 0.p 0.q.r 0 : s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.s 0 : p 0.q.r 0.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.r 0.q.p 0 : s 0.s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.r 0.q.p 0.s 0 : .s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.r 0.q.p 0 : s.s 10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.r 0.q.p 0.s : .s
10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0 : s.p 0.q.r 0 : s 10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.s : p 0.q.r 0.s
10∗∗ .p 0.q.q.p 0 : r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0 10∗∗ p 0.q : .q.p 0.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0
10∗∗ .p 0.q.q.p 0 : r 0.s.s.r 0 10∗∗ .p 0.q.r.s 0 : p 0.q.r.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q : .q.p 0.r 0.s.s.r 0 10∗∗ p 0.q : r.s 0.p 0.q : r.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r : s 0.p 0.q.r : s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q.r.s 0 : p 0.q.r.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r : s.p 0.q.r : s 10∗∗ p 0.q.r.s : p 0.q.r.s
10∗∗ p 0.q.r.r.q.p 0 : s 0.s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q.r.r.q.p 0.s 0 : .s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r.r.q.p 0 : s.s 10∗∗ p 0.q.r.r.q.p 0.s : .s
10∗∗ p.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p : s 0.s 0 10∗∗ p.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p.s 0 : .s 0
332 LinKnot
10∗∗ p.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p : s.s 10∗∗ .p.q 0.r 0.s 0 : p.q 0.r 0.s 0
10∗∗ p.q 0.r 0 : s 0.p.q 0.r 0 : s 0 10∗∗ p.q 0.r 0.s 0 : p.q 0.r 0.s 0
10∗∗ .p.q 0.q 0.p : r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0 10∗∗ .p.q 0.q 0.p : r 0.s.s.r 0
10∗∗ .p.q 0.q 0.p : r.s 0.s 0.r 10∗∗ .p.q 0.r 0.s : p.q 0.r 0.s
10∗∗ p.q 0.r 0.s : p.q 0.r 0.s 10∗∗ .p.q 0.r.s 0 : p.q 0.r.s 0
10∗∗ p.q 0.r : s 0.p.q 0.r : s 0 10∗∗ p.q 0.r.s 0 : p.q 0.r.s 0
10∗∗ p.q 0.r.r.q 0.p : s 0.s 0 10∗∗ p.q 0.r.r.q 0.p.s 0 : .s 0
10∗∗ p.q 0.r.r.q 0.p : s.s 10∗∗ p.q 0.r.s : p.q 0.r.s
10∗∗ .p.q.r 0.s 0 : p.q.r 0.s 0 ∗∗
10 p.q : r 0.s 0.p.q : r 0.s 0
10∗∗ p.q.r 0 : s 0.p.q.r 0 : s 0 10∗∗ p.q.r 0.s 0 : p.q.r 0.s 0
10∗∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p : s 0.s 0 10∗∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p.s 0 : .s 0
10∗∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p : s.s 10∗∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p.s : .s
10∗∗ .p.q.r 0.s : p.q.r 0.s 10∗∗ p.q.r 0 : s.p.q.r 0 : s
10∗∗ p.q.r 0.s : p.q.r 0.s 10∗∗ .p.q.r.s 0 : p.q.r.s 0
10∗∗ p.q : r.s 0.p.q : r.s 0 10∗∗ p.q.r : s 0.p.q.r : s 0
10∗∗ p.q.r.s 0 : p.q.r.s 0 10∗∗ .p.q.q.p : r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0
10∗∗ q.p : .p.q.r 0.s 0.s 0.r 0 10∗∗ .p.q.q.p : r 0.s.s.r 0
10∗∗ p.q : .q.p.r 0.s.s.r 0 10∗∗ .p.q.q.p : r.s 0.s 0.r
10∗∗ p.q.r.r.q.p : s 0.s 0 10∗∗ q.r.s.s.r.q.p 0 : .p 0
10∗∗ .p.q.q.p : r.s.s.r 10∗∗ p.q.r : s.p.q.r : s
10∗∗ p.q.r.s : p.q.r.s 10∗∗ p.q.q.p.r.s : s.r
10∗∗ p.q.r.r.q.p.s : .s
10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p 0.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0.t 0.p 0.q 0.r 0.s 0.t 0
10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r.s 0.t 0.p 0.q 0.r.s 0.t 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r.r.q 0.p 0.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r.r.q 0.p 0.s 0.t.t.s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q 0.r.s.t 0.p 0.q 0.r.s.t 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.s 0.t 0.p 0.q.r 0.s 0.t 0 10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.r 0.q.p 0.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.q 0.q.p 0.s 0.t.t.s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.r 0.q.p 0.s.t 0.t 0.s
10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.s 0.t.p 0.q.r 0.s 0.t 10∗∗ p 0.q.r 0.s.t 0.p 0.q.r 0.s.t 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r.s 0.t 0.p 0.q.r.s 0.t 0 10∗∗ p 0.q.r.s 0.t.p 0.q.r.s 0.t
10∗∗ p 0.q.r.s.t 0.p 0.q.r.s.t 0 10∗∗ p 0.q.r.r.q.p 0.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0
10∗∗ p 0.q.r.r.q.p 0.s 0.t.t.s 0 10∗∗ p 0.q.r.r.q.p 0.s.t 0.t 0.s
10∗∗ p 0.q.r.r.q.p 0.s.t.t.s 10∗∗ p 0.q.r.s.t.p 0.q.r.s.t
10∗∗ p.q 0.r 0.r 0.q 0.p.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0 10∗∗ p.q 0.r 0.s 0.t 0.p.q 0.r 0.s 0.t 0
10∗∗ p.q 0.r.s 0.t 0.p.q 0.r.s 0.t 0 10∗∗ p.q 0.r.r.q 0.p.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0
10∗∗ p.q 0.r.r.q 0.p.s 0.t.t.s 0 10∗∗ p.q 0.r.s.t 0.p.q 0.r.s.t 0
10∗∗ p.q.r 0.s 0.t 0.p.q.r 0.s 0.t 0 10∗∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0
10∗∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p.s 0.t.t.s 0 10∗∗ p.q.r 0.r 0.q.p.s.t 0.t 0.s
10∗∗ p.q.r 0.s 0.t.p.q.r 0.s 0.t 10∗∗ p.q.r 0.s.t 0.p.q.r 0.s.t 0
10∗∗ p.q.r.s 0.t 0.p.q.r.s 0.t 0 10∗∗ p.q.r.s 0.t.p.q.r.s 0.t
10∗∗ p.q.r.s.t 0.p.q.r.s.t 0 10∗∗ p.q.r.r.q.p.s 0.t 0.t 0.s 0
10∗∗ p.q.r.r.q.p.s 0.t.t.s 0 10∗∗ p.q.r.r.q.p.s.t 0.t 0.s
10∗∗ p.q.r.r.q.p.s.t.t.s 10∗∗ p.q.r.s.t.p.q.r.s.t
In the above lists containing classes of achiral alternating KLs derived

from the basic polyhedra 6∗ , 8∗ , 10∗ , and 10∗∗ it is possible to recognize
symmetry patterns and regular distribution of the classes.
Achiral basic polyhedron 10∗∗∗ is atypical and more difficult to handle:

it is the first basic polyhedron which can be obtained as a product of two
non-algebraic tangles (10∗∗∗ = 5⋆ 5⋆ ) (Fig. 2.89) and P ET (Polya Enumer-
ation Theorem) can not be used for calculating the number of source KLs
derived from it.
Fig. 2.89 The achiral basic polyhedron 10∗∗∗ expressed as the product of two non-
algebraic tangles 5⋆ .
First surprise comes as the result of of the chirality tests using Kauff-
man polynomial and the program SnapPea: 2-component link 10∗∗∗ 2 :: .2 0
recognized by Kauffman polynomials as achiral is chiral. All other polyno-
mials presumably able to detect chirality, Jones and HOMFLYPT polyno-
mial, fail as well. All chiral KLs that can not be recognized as chiral by any
of polynomials mentioned will be called non-detectable chiral KLs. More-
over, chiral link 10∗∗∗ 2 :: .2 0 generates an infinite class of non-detectable
chiral KLs of the form 10∗∗∗ p :: .p 0. The same property holds for chiral
source KLs 10∗∗∗ 2 :: .2 0 : .2 0.2, 10∗∗∗ 2 :: .2 0 : .2.2 0, 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 0 : .2 : 2 0,
10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0, 10∗∗∗ 2.2 : .2 0 : .2 0, 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 0 : .2 : 2 0.2.2 0, etc.,
and infinite classes of chiral KLs 10∗∗∗ p :: .p 0 : .q 0.q, 10∗∗∗ p :: .p 0 : .q.q 0,
10∗∗∗ p : p 0 : .q : q 0, 10∗∗∗ p : q 0 : .q : p 0, 10∗∗∗ p.q 0 : .q : .p 0,
10∗∗∗ p : q : .p 0 : q 0, 10∗∗∗ p : q : .q 0 : p 0, 10∗∗∗ p.q : .q 0 : .p 0,
10∗∗∗ p : q 0 : .q : p 0.r.r 0, etc.
By different substitutions in the same achiral source KL we can obtain
classes of achiral KLs and non-detectable chiral KLs. For example, source
knot 10∗∗∗ 2 : .2 0.2.2 0 generates an infinite class of achiral KLs 10∗∗∗ p :
.q 0.p.q 0 and an infinite class of non-detectable chiral KLs 10∗∗∗ p : .q 0.q.p 0;
source knot 10∗∗∗ 2.2 0 : .2 : .2 0 generates an infinite class of achiral KLs
10∗∗∗ p.q 0 : .p : .q 0 and an infinite class of non-detectable chiral KLs
10∗∗∗ p.q 0 : .q : .p 0, etc.
334 LinKnot
However, there are non-detectable source KLs that do not generate

infinite classes of non-detectable chiral KLs, for example 10∗∗∗ 2.2 ::: 2 0.2,
10∗∗∗ 2.2 :: 2 0 : .2, 10∗∗∗ 2.2 :: .2 : 2, 10∗∗∗ 2.2 : .2 :: 2, etc.
Next tables contain classes of achiral KLs with at most two parameters
obtained from the basic polyhedron 10∗∗∗ :
10∗∗∗ p ::: p 10∗∗∗ p :: p

10∗∗∗ :::: p.p 0 10∗∗∗ p : p 0
10∗∗∗ p : p 0 : q 0 : q 10∗∗∗ p : q 0 : q 0 : p 10∗∗∗ p : .q 0.p.q 0

10∗∗∗ p : p 0 : q : q 0 10∗∗∗ p : q 0 : p : q 0 10∗∗∗ p.q 0 : .p : .q 0
10∗∗∗ p ::: p : q 0.q 10∗∗∗ p :: p :: q 0.q 10∗∗∗ p : q : p : q
10∗∗∗ p : q : q : p 10∗∗∗ p.q :: q.p 10∗∗∗ p.q : .p : .q
10∗∗∗ p.p.p.p 10∗∗∗ p ::: p : q.q 0 10∗∗∗ p :: p :: q.q 0
Fig. 2.90 (a) Diagram of the achiral source knot 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.2.2 0; (b) the
achiral knot 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.2 1.2 1 0 without antisymmetric minimal projection.
Among classes of achiral KLs derived from source KLs with four bigons
there is one exceptional one-parameter class: the class of links 10∗∗∗ p.p.p.p.
A 2-parameter class 10∗∗∗ p : p : .p 0 : p 0.q.q 0 is the origin of a very
interesting subclass: class of knots with no minimal antisymmetric (i.e.,
achiral) diagram. For n ≤ 16 all achiral alternating knots have an achiral
minimal diagram. The first knot without it is 18-crossing achiral knot
10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.2 1.2 1 0. A simple explanation of this phenom-
enon is the following: source knot 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.2.2 0 has an
antisymmetric minimal diagram (Figs. 2.90a, 2.91a). Its achirality is
the result of the rotational antireflection of order 4 (Fig. 2.91b). The
achiral knot 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.2 1.2 1 0 has only one minimal dia-
gram, 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.(2, 1).(2, 1) 0 which is chiral (Fig. 2.90b).
Fig. 2.91 (a) Achiral source knot 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.2.2 0; (b) its 3-D antisymmetric
representation with the visible rotational antireflection of order 4.
However, since tangles 2 1 and 1 2 are flype-equivalent, knot 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 :

.2 0 : 2 0.2 1.2 1 0 can be represented simultaneously by four diagram states:
10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.(2, 1).(2, 1) 0, 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.(2, 1).(1, 2) 0,
10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.(1, 2).(2, 1) 0, and 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.(1, 2).(1, 2) 0.
So, this “dynamic” flyping antisymmetry is compatible with the rota-
tional antireflection of order 4 and results in the achirality of the knot
10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.2 1.2 1 0 (Fig. 2.92). However, its “static”, fixed
diagram is chiral. The same property holds for an infinite class of KLs
10∗∗∗ p : p : .p 0 : p 0.q.q 0, where q is a symmetric tangle (e.g., (2, 2)), or
a tangle that is flype-equivalent to its reverse (e.g., 2 1 = 1 2). Otherwise,
KLs obtained are chiral (e.g., the knot 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 : .2 0 : 2 0.(3, 2).(3, 2) 0 is
chiral).
The following table contains the remaining classes of achiral KLs de-
rived from the basic polyhedron 10∗∗∗ :
10∗∗∗ p : q 0 : q 0 : p : r.r 0 10∗∗∗ p : .q 0.p.q 0 : .r 0.r 10∗∗∗ p.q 0 : .p : .q 0.r 0.r

10∗∗∗ p : .q 0.p.q 0 : .r.r 0 10∗∗∗ p : q 0 : p : q 0 : r.r 0 10∗∗∗ p.q 0 : .p : .q 0.r.r 0
10∗∗∗ p.q 0.r : r.q 0.p 10∗∗∗ p.q 0.r : p : r.q 0 10∗∗∗ p : p : .p 0 : p 0.p 0.p
10∗∗∗ p.q.r 0 : r 0.q.p 10∗∗∗ p : p : .p 0 : p 0.p.p 0 10∗∗∗ p.q : r 0.p.r 0 : q
10∗∗∗ p.q.r 0 : p : r 0.q 10∗∗∗ p.q : r 0 : q.p.r 0 10∗∗∗ p : q : p : q : r 0.r
10∗∗∗ p : q : q : p : r 0.r 10∗∗∗ p.q :: q.p : r 0.r 10∗∗∗ p.q : .p : .q.r 0.r
10∗∗∗ p.q.r : p : r.q 10∗∗∗ p.q.r : r.q.p 10∗∗∗ p : q : p : q : r.r 0
10∗∗∗ p : q : q : p : r.r 0 10∗∗∗ p.q :: q.p : r.r 0 10∗∗∗ p.q : .p : .q.r.r 0
336 LinKnot
Fig. 2.92 Dynamic antisymmetric 3-D representation of the achiral knot 10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 :
.2 0 : 2 0.2 1.2 1 0 with the rotational antireflection of order 4 preserved since tangles 2 1
and 1 2 are flype-equivalent.
10∗∗∗ p.q 0.r.s 0.p.s 0.r.q 0 10∗∗∗ p.q 0.r : r.q 0.p : s 0.s
10∗∗∗ p.q 0.r : r.q 0.p : s.s 0 10∗∗∗ p.q 0.r : p : r.q 0.s 0.s
10∗∗∗ p.q 0.r : p : r.q 0.s.s 0 10∗∗∗ p.q.r 0.s 0.p.s 0.r 0.q
10∗∗∗ p.q.r 0 : r 0.q.p : s 0.s 10∗∗∗ p.q.r 0 : r 0.q.p : s.s 0
10∗∗∗ p.q : r 0.p.r 0 : q.s 0.s 10∗∗∗ p.q.r 0 : p : r 0.q.s 0.s
10∗∗∗ p.q : r 0.p.r 0 : q.s.s 0 10∗∗∗ p.q.r 0 : p : r 0.q.s.s 0
10∗∗∗ p.q : r 0 : q.p.r 0.s 0.s 10∗∗∗ p.q : r 0 : q.p.r 0.s.s 0
10∗∗∗ p.q.r.s 0.p.s 0.r.q 10∗∗∗ p.q.r.s 0.r.q.p.s 0
10∗∗∗ p.q.r : p : r.q.s 0.s 10∗∗∗ p.q.r : r.q.p : s 0.s
10∗∗∗ p.q.r.s.p.s.r.q 10∗∗∗ p.q.r : p : r.q.s.s 0
10∗∗∗ p.q.r : r.q.p : s.s 0
10∗∗∗ p.q 0.r.s 0.p.s 0.r.q 0.t 0.t 10∗∗∗ p.q 0.r.s 0.p.s 0.r.q 0.t.t 0
10∗∗∗ p.q.r 0.s 0.p.s 0.r 0.q.t 0.t 10∗∗∗ p.q.r 0.s 0.p.s 0.r 0.q.t.t 0
10∗∗∗ p.q.r.s 0.p.s 0.r.q.t 0.t 10∗∗∗ p.q.r.s 0.p.s 0.r.q.t.t 0
10∗∗∗ p.q.r.s 0.r.q.p.s 0.t 0.t 10∗∗∗ p.q.r.s 0.r.q.p.s 0.t.t 0

10∗∗∗ p.p.p.p.p 0.p 0.p 0.p 0.q.q 0 10∗∗∗ p.q.r.s.p.s.r.q.t.t 0
10∗∗∗ p.q.r.s.r.q.p.s.t.t 0
In the preceding table there are three 2-parameter classes of achi-

ral KLs: 10∗∗∗ p : p : .p 0 : p 0.q 0.q, 10∗∗∗ p : p : .p 0 : p 0.q.q 0, and
10∗∗∗ p.p.p.p.p 0.p 0.p 0.p 0.q.q 0. Also, there are non-detectable links of the
same kind like 10∗∗∗ p.p.p.p.q : q 0.
The following tables contain KLs up to n = 12 crossings obtained from

the families of KLs mentioned before. Our results agree with the known
results for achiral alternating knots with n ≤ 12 crossing, and achiral alter-
nating links with n ≤ 8 crossings. Moreover, we hope that this symmetry
approach can be extended to all achiral KLs.
n=2
2
n=4
22
n=6
33 2112 6∗
n=8
44 2222 3113 211112 (2, 2) (2, 2) 6∗ 2.2 6∗ 2 : .2 8∗
n = 10
55 2332 3223 4114 212212
221122 311113 21111112 (2, 2+) (2, 2+) (3, 2) (3, 2)
(2 1, 2) (2 1, 2) (2, 2) 1 1 (2, 2) 6∗ 3.3 6∗ 2 1.2 1 6∗ 3 : .3
6∗ 2 1 : .2 1 6∗ 2.2.2.2 6∗ 2.2 : 2.2 6∗ 2.2.2 0 : 2 6∗ 2.2 : 2 0.2 0
8∗ 2.2 8∗ 2 : .2 8∗ 2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0 : .2 0 10∗
10∗∗ 10∗∗∗
n = 12
66 2442 3333 4224
5115 213312 222222 231132
312213 321123 411114 21122112
21211212 22111122 31111113 2111111112
(4, 2) (4, 2) (3, 3) (3, 3) (3, 2 1) (3, 2 1) (3, 2+) (3, 2+)
(3, 2) 1 1 (2, 3) (3 1, 2) (3 1, 2) (2 2, 2) (2 2, 2) (2, 2, 2) (2, 2, 2)
(2, 2 + +) (2, 2 + +) (2, 2) 2 2 (2, 2) ((2, 2), 2) ((2, 2), 2) (2, 2+) 1 1 (2, 2+)
(2, 2) 1 1 1 1 (2, 2) (2 1, 2 1) (2 1, 2 1) (2 1, 2+) (2 1, 2+) (2 1, 2) 1 1 (2, 2 1)
(2 1 1, 2) (2 1 1, 2) 6∗ 4.4 6∗ 3 1.3 1 6∗ 2 2.2 2
6∗ 2 1 1.2 1 1 ∗
6 (2, 2).(2, 2) 6∗ 4 : .4 6∗ 3 1 : .3 1
6∗ 2 2 : .2 2 6∗ 2 1 1 : .2 1 1 6∗ (2, 2) : .(2, 2) 6∗ 3.2.2.3
6∗ 2.3.3.2 6∗ 2 1.2.2.2 1 6∗ 2.2 1.2 1.2 6∗ 3.3 : 2.2
6∗ 3.2 : 3.2 6∗ 2 1.2 1 : 2.2 6∗ 2 1.2 : 2 1.2 6∗ 3.2.3 0 : 2
6∗ 2.3.2 0 : 3 6∗ 2 1.2.2 1 0 : 2 6∗ 2.2 1.2 0 : 2 1 6∗ 3.3 : 2 0.2 0
6∗ 2 1.2 1 : 2 0.2 0 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2.2 6∗ 2.2.2.2.2 0.2 0 6∗ 2.2.2 0.2.2.2 0
8∗ 3.3 8∗ 2 1.2 1 8∗ 3 : .3 8∗ 2 1 : .2 1
8∗ 3 0.3 0 8∗ 2 1 0.2 1 0 8∗ 3 0 : .3 0 8∗ 2 1 0 : .2 1 0
8∗ 2.2.2.2 8∗ 2.2 : 2 : .2 8∗ 2.2 : .2.2 8∗ 2.2.2 0 :: .2 0
8∗ 2.2 : 2 0 : .2 0 8∗ 2.2 : .2 0.2 0 8∗ 2.2 0.2 0.2 8∗ 2.2 0 : .2 0.2
8∗ 2 : 2 0.2 0 : 2 8∗ 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 8∗ 2 0.2 0 : 2 0 : .2 0 ∗
8 2 0.2 0 : .2 0.2 0
10∗ 2.2 10∗ 2 : .2 10∗ 2 ::: .2 10∗ 2 0.2 0
338 LinKnot
10∗ 2 0 : .2 0 10∗ 2 0 :: .2 0 10∗∗ : 2 0 :: .2 0 10∗∗ : 2 0.2 0

10∗∗ .2 0 :: .2 0 10∗∗ .2 0 : .2 0 10∗∗ 2 0 :: .2 0 10∗∗ : 2 :: .2
10∗∗ : 2.2 10∗∗ .2 :: .2 10∗∗ .2 : .2 10∗∗ 2 :: .2
10∗∗∗ 2 : 2 0 10∗∗∗ :::: 2.2 0 10∗∗∗ 2 :: 2 10∗∗∗ 2 ::: 2
121∗ 122∗ 127∗ 128∗
1210∗ 1211∗ 1212∗
For future derivation, one may check achirality of all rational, stel-
lar, arborescent and polyhedral alternating source KLs using Kauffman
polynomials computed for a KL and its mirror image, the LinKnot func-
tions AmphiProjAltKL and AmphiAltKL and the program SnapPea
by J. Weeks, and then systematically derive classes of achiral KLs.
Fig. 2.93 Achiral oriented link 8∗ . − 2 0.2 0. − 2 0 with n = 11 crossings.
Fig. 2.94 Antisymmetric presentation 123∗ − 2 0. − 1. − 1.2 0 : . − 2 0. − 1. − 1.2 0 with

n = 16 crossings of the achiral oriented link 8∗ . − 2 0.2 0. − 2 0 with n = 11 crossings.
Fig. 2.95 Achiral knot 10∗∗ 2 0 : 2 0. − 2. − 1.2 0 : 2 0. − 2. − 1 with n = 15 crossings.
Fig. 2.96 Antisymmetric representation 10∗∗ − 2 0. − 1. − 2 0.2 : −2 0. − 1. − 2 0.2 with

n = 16 crossings of the achiral knot 10∗∗ 2 0.2 : −2 0 : 2 0. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 2 0 with n = 15
crossings.
P.G. Tait conjectured that every achiral KL must have an even number
of crossings, so neither P.G. Tait nor M.G. Haseman considered the possibil-
ity of the existence of achiral knots with an odd crossing number. However,
this Tait’s Conjecture was disproved (see Hoste, Thistlethwaite, and Weeks,
1998). The first oriented achiral non-alternating link 8∗ . − 2 0.2 0. − 2 0 with
n = 11 crossings was discovered in 1998 (Liang, Mislow and Flapan, 1998).
The achiral non-alternating knot 10∗∗ 2 0.2 : −2 0 : 2 0.−1.−1.−1.−2 0 with
n = 15 crossings was found by M. Thistlethwaite, who also recognized few
repetitions in Haseman’s tables. However, Tait’s Conjecture about achiral
KLs holds for alternating KLs: there is no alternating achiral KL with an
odd number of crossings (Corollary 1.1).
340 LinKnot
The non-alternating achiral oriented link 8∗ . − 2 0.2 0. − 2 0 with n = 11

crossings (Fig. 2.93) has a non-minimal antisymmetric representation
123∗ − 2 0. − 1. − 1.2 0 : . − 2 0. − 1. − 1.2 0
with n = 16 crossings (Fig. 2.94), that shows its achirality. The non-
alternating achiral knot
10∗∗ 2 0.2 : −2 0 : 2 0. − 1. − 1. − 1. − 2 0
with n = 15 crossings (Fig. 2.95) has a non-minimal antisymmetric repre-

sentation
10∗∗ − 2 0. − 1. − 2 0.2 : −2 0. − 1. − 2 0.2
with n = 16 crossings (Fig. 2.96). This property can be extended to a

family of achiral knots with an odd number of crossings. From the anti-
symmetric representation
10∗∗ − 2 0. − 1. − 2 0.2 : −2 0. − 1. − 2 0.2
of the knot
10∗∗ 2 0 : 2 0. − 2. − 1.2 0 : 2 0. − 2. − 1
we derive the three-parameter family
10∗∗ (−2p) 0. − 1.(−2q) 0.(2r) : (−2p) 0. − 1.(−2q) 0.(2r)
of achiral knots with n = 2p + 2q + 2r + 9 crossings. For example, the

non-minimal chiral antisymmetric representation
10∗∗ − 4 0. − 1. − 6 0.8 : −4 0. − 1. − 6 0.8
with n = 40 crossings can be reduced to the achiral knot with n = 39

crossings given by the Dowker code
{{39}, {8, −32, −34, 64, −62, −60, −66, 42, 40, 38, −68, −70, 44, 46, 48, 50,
−4, −6, 24, 18, 16, 142, 6, 28, 30, 36, −72, −74, −76, −12, −10, −78}}.
2.10 Families of undetectable KLs
A conversion of Conway symbols, Dowker codes, and P -data to P D

(planar diagrams), which are the main input for the program KnotThe-
ory is provided by LinKnot functions fConwayToPD, fKnotscapeDow
ToPD, fDowkerToPD, and fPdataToPD. The minimum braid words
corresponding to KLs can be computed by the function BR. The func-
tion fBraidW gives the corresponding braid word, and the function
fPDfromBW computes P D from a given braid word.
We will consider the set of polynomial invariants P , where P is Alexan-
der, Conway, Jones, Khovanov5, A2, Links-Gould, HOMFLYPT, Kauff-
man, and colored Jones polynomial. In our research, Khovanov, A2, and
colored Jones polynomials are computed using the functions Kh, A2, and
ColouredJones from the program KnotTheory (http://katlas.math.
toronto.edu/wiki/The Mathematica Package KnotTheory), and Links-
Gould invariants are computed using the functions LinksGould
and LinksGouldInv from the program Links-Gould Explorer writ-
ten by David de Wit (http://www.maths.uq.edu.au/∼ ddw/Links–Gould
Explorer/Links–GouldExplorer.htm), included in LinKnot.
One of the main questions about every polynomial invariant is whether
or not there exists a P -unknot (unlink), i.e., a nontrivial knot (link) L
with the trivial polynomial P (L). For example, Alexander and Conway
unknots and Jones unlinks exist (Eliahou, Kauffman and Thistlethwaite,
2003). There are entire families of KLs with these properties. The ex-
istence problem for Jones unknots is open; it has been shown that Jones
unknots must be non-alternating (Murasugi, 1987a,b) with at least n = 18
crossings (Dasbach and Hougardy, 1997). For the remaining P -invariants
the question about P -unknot is open as well.
Definition 2.29. Two non-isotopic knots or links L1 and L2 are called

P -undetectable if P (L1 ) = P (L2 ) for some polynomial invariant P .
There are infinitely many pairs of P -undetectable KLs with the same
or different number of crossings, and there is an infinite number of unde-
tectable KLs for any polynomial invariant P (see, e.g., Kanenobu, 1986;
Przytycki, 1995; Watson, 2004). L. Watson showed that an arbitrary tan-
gle T can be extended to produce diagrams of two distinct knots that can
not be distinguished by the Jones polynomial. For a prime tangle T , the
5 The function Kh computes Khovanov polynomial (Shumakovitch, 2004). In the same
sense, we will use the term “Links-Gould polynomial” (De Wit, 2000).
342 LinKnot
resulting knots are prime non-mutant. (Watson, 2006a).

Moreover, according to experimental results, there are families of KLs
that can not be detected by certain polynomial invariant P : P (L) is the
same for all KLs from such a family F . For example, for every knot from
the family (2k + 1), 3, −3 the Alexander polynomial is 2-5t+2t2 and the
Conway polynomial is 1 − 2x.
Notice that families of KLs need to be disjoint. For example, 2p 2p will
be considered as one-parameter family, and 2p 2q as two-parameter family
with p 6= q.
For families of alternating KLs, we propose the following conjecture:
Conjecture 2.4. For every two alternating non-isotopic KLs L1 and L2
belonging to the same family F , P (L1 ) 6= P (L2 ) for every polynomial in-
variant P .
With non-alternating KLs, the situation is different.
Definition 2.30. A family F of non-alternating KLs will be called P -

undetectable if P (L) is the same for any link L from F .
If a polynomial from P can recognize as different any two non-isotopic

KLs from F , we will call this family P -detectable.
Since Alexander polynomial is obtained from the Conway polynomial
from the same skein relation by a change of variable, the two polynomials
carry identical information. Hence, every Alexander-undetectable family is
Conway-undetectable and vice versa.
K. Kanenobu (1986) found an infinite class of knots with the same Jones-
and/or HOMFLYPT-polynomial (Fig. 2.97).
All KLs of the form K(p, q) = 6∗ − 2. − 2.p 0.2.2.q 0 are Jones-
undetectable iff |p − q| = const, where const is an arbitrary con-
stant. K(p, q) and K(p′ , q ′ ) are Jones-, HOMFLYPT- (and Khovanov-
undetectable) iff |p − q| = |p′ − q ′ |, p = p′ (mod 2), and q = q ′ (mod 2).
Kanenobu’s examples can be reconstructed in the framework of S. Eli-
ahou, L. Kauffman, and M. Thistlethwaite (2003), and this was done by
L. Watson (2005). Watson also gave a construction of infinite families of dis-
tinct knots with identical Khovanov homology (2006). K. Luse and Y. Rong
(2006) constructed a new class of Jones- and HOMFLYPT-undetectable
knots (Fig. 2.98). Kanenobu’s knots can be obtained from this class for
a = 1, t1 = 2p, t2 = 2q.
We extended their construction to the family F of the form L(x, y) =
6∗ − a. − b.t1 x 0.b.a.t2 y 0, where are a, b are fixed positive integers, t1 and
Fig. 2.97 Distinct non-mutant knots 41 #41 and 3 1 1 3, obtained from 6∗ − 2. −

2.p 0.2.2.q 0 for p = q = 0 and p = q = 1, with identical Jones, but different HOM-
FLYPT polynomials.
Fig. 2.98 The family 6∗ t1 . − 2.2 0. − t2 .(2a). − (2a) 0.
t2 are arbitrary fixed tangles, and x, y are integers (Fig. 2.99). This family
has the following properties:
(1) all KLs from F are Alexander- and Conway-undetectable for every x,
y with x = y (mod 2);
(2) all KLs from F are Jones-undetectable for every x, y satisfying the
condition |x − y| = const, for arbitrary constant const;
(3) the links L(x, y) and L(x′ , y ′ ) from F are Jones-, Khovanov-,
HOMFLYPT-, A2-, and Links-Gould-undetectable iff |x−y| = |x′ −y ′ |,
x = x′ (mod 2), and y = y ′ (mod 2).
344 LinKnot
Fig. 2.99 The family 6∗ − a. − b.t1 x 0.b.a.t2 y 0.
Fig. 2.100 The family 8∗ − a. − b. − c. − t1 x 0.c.b.a.t2 y 0.
All undetectable KLs obtained are Kauffman- and colored Jones-

detectable. KLs obtained are achiral for t1 = t2 , and chiral otherwise.
The following table contains a summary of the previous results where

plus or minus means that given polynomial invariant does or does not dis-
tinguish KLs from a given family:
Invariant (1) (2) (3)

Alexander − − −
Conway − − −
Jones + − −
Khovanov + + −
HOMFLYPT + + −
A2 + + −
Links-Gould + + −
Kauffman + + +
Colored Jones + + +
The following knots are obtained for

a = b = 2, (x, y) ∈ {(2, 6), (2, 2), (3, 3), (4, 4), (5, 5)} :
K1 = 6∗ − 2. − 2.2 0.2.2.6 0 K2 = 6∗ − 2. − 2.2 0.2.2.2 0

K3 = 6∗ − 2. − 2.3 0.2.2.3 0 K4 = 6∗ − 2. − 2.4 0.2.2.4 0
K5 = 6∗ − 2. − 2.5 0.2.2.5 0
All of them are Alexander and Conway-undetectable; K1 can be recog-

nized as different from the other four knots by all remaining polynomial
invariants from P ; K2 and K3 , or K4 and K5 can be distinguished by
HOMFLYPT, A2 or Links-Gould invariant, but they do not distinguish K2
from K4 , or K3 from K5 . The five of them can be distinguished by the
Kauffman polynomial or by the colored Jones polynomial.
Fig. 2.101 Undetectable knots 10∗ − 2. − 2. − 2. − 2.3 2 0.2.2.2.2.3 2 0 and 10∗ − 2. − 2. −

2. − 2.3 4 0.2.2.2.2.3 4 0 from the family 10∗ − a. − b. − c. − d.t1 x 0.d.c.b.a.t2 y 0.
Let us consider the family of antiprismatic basic polyhedra 6∗ , 8∗ , 10∗ ,

12A (121∗ ), 1449∗, . . . Several P -undetectable families can be derived from
each of these basic polyhedra.
346 LinKnot
Here is the list of families we have obtained, where x and y are para-
meters, and all other tangles are fixed (Figs. 2.99-2.100):
(1) the families

6∗ − a. − b.t1 x 0.b.a.t2 y 0;
6∗ − a.b.t1 x 0. − b.a.t2 y 0;
(2) the families
8∗ − a. − b. − c. − t1 − x 0.c.b.a.t2 y 0,
8∗ − a. − b.c. − t1 − x 0. − c.b.a.t2 y 0,
8∗ − a.b. − c. − t1 − x 0.c. − b.a.t2 y 0;
(3) the families
10∗ − a. − b. − c. − d.t1 x 0.d.c.b.a.t2 y 0,
10∗ − a. − b.c.d.t1 x 0. − d. − c.b.a.t2 y 0;
(4) the families
121∗ − a. − b. − c. − d. − e. − t1 − x 0.e.d.c.b.a.t2 y 0,
121∗ − a. − b. − c. − d.e. − t1 − x 0. − e.d.c.b.a.t2 y 0,
121∗ − a. − b. − c.d. − e. − t1 − x 0.e. − d.c.b.a.t2 y 0,
121∗ − a. − b. − c.d.e. − t1 − x 0. − e. − d.c.b.a.t2 y 0,
121∗ − a. − b.c. − d.e. − t1 − x 0. − e.d. − c.b.a.t2 y 0,
121∗ − a. − b.c.d. − e. − t1 − x 0.e. − d. − c.b.a.t2 y 0,
121∗ − a.b. − c.d. − e. − t1 − x 0.e. − d.c. − b.a.t1 y 0.
(5) the families
1449∗ − a. − b. − c. − d. − e. − f.t1 x 0.c.t2 y 0.f.b.a.d.e,
1449∗ − a. − b. − c. − d.e. − f.t1 x 0.c.t2 y 0.f.b.a.d. − e,
1449∗ − a. − b.c.d. − e. − f.t1 x 0. − c.t2 y 0.f.b.a. − d.e,
1449∗ − a. − b.c.d.e. − f.t1 x 0. − c.t2 y 0.f.b.a. − d. − e,
1449∗ − a.b. − c. − d.e.f.t1 x 0.c.t2 y 0. − f. − b.a.d. − e,
1449∗ − a.b.c.d. − e.f.t1 x 0. − c.t2 y 0. − f. − b.a. − d.e,
Notice that all the families of P -undetectable KLs obtained from

the antiprismatic basic polyhedra (2k)∗ (k = 3, 4, 5, . . .) are of the form
(2k)∗ w.t1 x 0.w′ .t2 y 0, where w and w′ are palindromic words of the form
a.b . . . with the antisymmetric distribution of signs6 .
The following P -undetectable families are obtained from the basic poly-
hedron 10∗∗∗ (Fig. 2.102):
6 According to the Conway notation, the basic polyhedron 1449∗ from LinKnot data
base is 14∗ , i.e., (2n)∗ for n = 7.

Fig. 2.102 The family 10∗∗∗ − a. − b.b 0.a 0. − c 0. − d 0.d.c. − t1 − x 0.t2 y 0.
10∗∗∗ − a. − b.b 0.a 0. − c 0. − d 0.d.c. − t1 − x 0.t2 y 0,

10∗∗∗ − a.b. − b 0.a 0. − c 0.d 0. − d.c. − t1 − x 0.t2 y 0,
10∗∗∗ − a. − b.b 0.a 0. − c. − d.d 0.c 0. − t1 − x 0.t2 y 0,
10∗∗∗ − a.b. − b 0.a 0. − c.d. − d 0.c 0. − t1 − x 0.t2 y 0
with the same properties.
In particular, for Jones unknot we need to search only in Jones-
undetectable families with t1 = t2 .
Conjecture 2.5. Families of P -undetectable KLs can be derived from
every achiral basic polyhedron.
Achiral basic polyhedra with n = 12 crossings are: 12A (121∗ ), 12B
(122∗ ), 12J (1210∗), 12K (1211∗ ), and 12L (1212∗).
Conjecture 2.6. All algebraic alternating KL families are detectable by
any polynomial invariant P . Algebraic non-alternating KL families can be
only Alexander- and Conway-undetectable.
Another type of undetectable knots was discovered by Dunfield, Garo-
ufalidis, Shumakovitch and Thistlethwaite (2006). In their paper Behavior
of knot invariants under genus 2 mutation knots with the same colored
Jones, HOMFLYPT, and Kauffman polynomials, signature and hyperbolic
volume are considered. These knots also have equal Alexander polynomial
and the A2 invariant.
348 LinKnot
The authors proved the following proposition:
Proposition 2.2. There exist knots with the same colored Jones polynomi-
als (for all colors), HOMFLYPT and Kauffman polynomials, volume and
signature, but different Khovanov (and reduced Khovanov) homology.
Definition 2.31. Two knots are almost mutant or algebraically mutant if

they have the same HOMFLYPT and Kauffman polynomials, signature,
and hyperbolic volume.
Fig. 2.103 Cabled tangle T (1, n).
Among pairs almost mutant non-alternating knots with n ≤ 16 crossings

the authors found pairs with different Khovanov homology. There is one
pair of such non-alternating 14- crossing knots, four pairs for n = 15, and
27 pairs for n = 16 crossings, in total 32 pairs of knots with at most n ≤ 16
crossings. For n ≤ 15 the authors recognized a pattern: all five pairs of
knots are cabled mutant knots with the same closure: tangle T (1, 2) (Fig.
2.103). Authors noticed that many pairs for n = 16 consist of cabled mutant
knots, but have not verified this pattern for all pairs. In the following table
those 32 pairs of knots are given in Knotscape notation and denoted by
(1)-(32),
n
(1) 14n n
22185 ,1422589 (12) 16n n
332130 ,16707045 (23) 16n
822219 ,16822229
n
(2) 15n
57606 ,15n
57436 (13) 16n
337388 ,16n
697474 (24) 16n
878609 ,16944604
(3) 15n
115375 ,15n
51748 (14) 16n
472161 ,16n
635329 (25) n n
16884231 ,14884268
(4) 15133697 ,14n
n
135711 (15) 16564024 ,14n
n
564036 (26) 16n n
885298 ,16885312
n
(5) 15n
148673 ,15151500 (16) 16n n
564059 ,16564068 (27) n n
16885305 ,16885319
(6) 16n n
257474 ,16293658 (17) 16n
789164 ,16n
797712 (28) 16n n
885467 ,16885968
n
(7) 16n
258027 ,16n
380926 (18) 16n
789206 ,16n
797688 (29) 16n
890470 ,16 944600
n n n n n n
(8) 16258035 ,16359938 (19) 16809314 ,16850490 (30) 16937845 ,16947557
n
(9) 16n n
261803 ,16300395 (20) n
16809334 ,16850512 (31) n n
16939163 ,16945493
(10) 16262535 ,16n
n
300387 (21) 16n n
812818 ,16850972 (32) 16n n
943082 ,14943119
(11) 16n n
306846 ,16307597 (22) 16n
820956 ,16n
820968
where the bar above the number of crossings means the mirror image of the
corresponding knot.
In order to generalize their results, we described ten classes of KLs,
given in Conway notation and enumerated by I-X, containing 32 mentioned
pairs of Khovanov-detectable almost mutant knots. Most of them are cabled
mutants, but few of them (3,9,10,21,24,29) are obtained by a more general
method: inserting tangles in the top crossings of the tangle T (1, n).
A non-alternating representation of KL is called non-reducible if it can
not be reduced to a KL with a lower number of crossings.
Conjecture 2.7. All non-reducible KLs from the classes I-X with arbi-
trary tangles a,b,..., x,y are almost mutant KLs with different Khovanov
polynomials.
In other words, the pair-classes are equivalence classes of almost mutant
KLs detectable by Khovanov homology.
Before describing particular classes, we will explain common construc-
tion principle: the tangle T = T (1, n) is rotated around vertical 2-axis,
giving the tangle T ′ . By composing T and T ′ with an arbitrary (n + 1)-
tangle T1 , we obtain two KLs (T, T1 ) and (T ′ , T1 ). If the tangle T1 consists
from 2-tangles a,b,..., and x and y are tangles placed in the top crossings
of T and T ′ , by appropriate choice of signs and positions of the constitut-
ing tangles a, b,...,x,y we obtain a class-pair of almost mutant KLs with
distinct Khovanov homology. All other “non-appropriate” choices giving
non-reducible KLs result in completely undetectable almost mutant KLs.
The pair-classes I-X are derived from four basic polyhedra, 112∗ , 127∗ ,
132∗ , and 137∗ .
112∗ − 1. − 1.b 0.2 0. − a. − c. − 2 0.1.y.1. − x 0

112∗ 1.1.b 0. − 2 0. − a. − c.2 0. − 1. − x 0. − 1.y I
112∗ − 1. − 1.b 0.2 0. − a 0. − c. − 2 0.1.y.1. − x 0
112∗ 1.1.b 0. − 2 0. − a 0. − c.2 0. − 1. − x 0. − 1.y II
112∗ − 1. − 1.b 0.2 0. − a. − c 0. − 2 0.1.y.1. − x 0
112∗ 1.1.b 0. − 2 0. − a. − c 0.2 0. − 1. − x 0. − 1.y III
112∗ − 1. − 1.b.2 0.a 0. − c 0. − 2 0.1.y.1. − x 0
112∗ 1.1.b. − 2 0.a 0. − c 0.2 0. − 1. − x 0. − 1.y IV
112∗ − 1. − 1.b 0.2 0. − a. − c. − 2 0.1.y 0.1. − x
112∗ 1.1.b 0. − 2 0. − a. − c.2 0. − 1. − x. − 1.y 0 V
127∗ c.a. − b.d. − 1.2. − 2 0. − 1.1.1.y. − x 0
127∗ c.a. − b.d.1. − 2.2 0.1. − 1. − 1. − x.y 0 VI
127∗ − c.a.b. − d. − 1.2. − 2 0. − 1.1.1.y. − x 0
127∗ − c.a.b. − d.1. − 2.2 0.1. − 1. − 1. − x.y 0 VII
350 LinKnot
128∗ − 1. − x 0. − 1.2 0.a. − b 0.c. − 2 0.d 0.1.y 0.1

128∗ 1. − y 0.1. − 2 0.a. − b 0.c.2 0.d 0. − 1.x 0. − 1 VIII
132∗ d.1.e.b.c. − 2.1.x 0. − a 0.2 0. − 1. − y. − 1
132∗ d. − 1.e.b.c.2. − 1. − y 0. − a 0. − 2 0.1. − x.1 IX
137∗ − x 0.y 0. − 1. − 1. − a.d.1.1.2.b.e.c. − 2
137∗ y 0. − x 0.1.1. − a.d. − 1. − 1. − 2.b.e.c. − 2 X
The above-mentioned 32 knots are the members of infinite pair-classes

of almost mutant KLs detectable by Khovanov polynomial.
In the following table there are given values of tangles a,b,c,...,x,y for
these 32 pairs.
a b c d e x y
I 1 2 1 1 1 (1)
I 1 21 1 1 1 (2)
VI 1 2 1 1 2 1 (3)
II 2 2 1 1 1 (4)
I 1 2 2 1 1 (5)
VI 1 21 1 1 1 1 (6)
I 1 22 1 1 1 (7)
I 21 2 1 1 1 (8)
I 1 21 1 2 1 (9)
II 2 2 1 2 1 (10)
II 2 21 1 1 1 (11)
VI 2 2 1 1 1 1 (12)
VI 1 2 1 2 1 1 (13)
VI 1 2 2 1 1 1 (14)
III 1 21 2 1 1 (15)
III 1 2 21 1 1 (16)
I 1 31 1 1 1 (17)
I 1 4 1 1 1 (18)
I 3 2 1 1 1 (19)
II 3 2 1 1 1 (20)
IV 2 1 2 2 1 (21)
VIII 1 2 1 2 1 1 (22)
IX 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 (23)
I 1 2 2 2 1 (24)
I 1 3 2 1 1 (25)
III 1 3 2 1 1 (26)
III 1 2 3 1 1 (27)
I 1 2 3 1 1 (28)
V 1 2 2 2 1 (29)
X 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 (30)
II 2 2 2 1 1 (31)
VII 1 2 2 1 1 1 (32)
The pair-classes are not disjoint. For example, the knot (1) can also be
obtained in the class II, or III for b = 2.
All classes I-X are constructed in the same way, as a closure of tangle
T (1, 2) by an antiprismatic k-belt consisting from k triangles (k = 1, 2, ...)
(Fig. 2.69). However, instead of antiprismatic belt, arbitrary (n + 1)-tangle
T1 can be used (see, e.g., the pair-class derived from the basic polyhedron
171312∗, Fig. 2.106). The same tangle T (1, n) and (n + 1)-tangle T1 used
as its closure can result in different basic polyhedra, according to different
pairing of free strands (e.g., the classes VI and VIII). Representing the pair-
classes I-X by KL diagrams with labelled tangles a,b,c,...,x,y, we obtain
five diagrams, corresponding to the class-pairs I-V,VI-VII,VIII,IX, and X,
respectively (Fig. 2.104).
Fig. 2.104 Diagrams of classes I-X with labelled tangles a,b,c,...,x,y.
Figure 2.105 shows the knot pair (9) with x = 2, that can not be derived
as a pair of cabled mutant knots, without introducing tangle x in the top
crossing of the generating tangle T (1, 2).
Following the same pattern, we can derive almost mutant KLs de-
tectable by Khovanov polynomial from other basic polyhedra with a higher
number of crossings. For example, we derived the following pair-classes:
352 LinKnot
Fig. 2.105 Knot pair (9).
1411∗f.d 0. − y. − 1.e. − b. − c.x. − 1.2 0. − a.1.1. − 2 0
1411∗f.d 0.x.1.e. − b. − c. − y. − 1. − 2 0. − a. − 1. − 1.2 0

from the basic polyhedron 1411∗,
156∗ 1.y 0.1. − 2. − 1. − x 0. − f. − g 0.2. − 1. − c 0.d.e. − a. − b
156∗ − 1. − x 0. − 1.2.1.y 0. − f. − g 0. − 2.1. − c 0.d.e. − a. − b

from 156∗ ,
1680∗f.h. − g.e.d. − 2.1.y 0.c.b.2 0.1. − x.a 0. − 1. − 1
1680∗f.h. − g.e.d.2. − 1. − x 0.c.b. − 2 0. − 1.y.a 0.1.1

from 1680∗, etc. From the basic polyhedron 171312∗ we derived the pair-
classes
171312∗ − 1. − y 0. − 1.1. − e.x.1.1. − 2.d. − c 0.1. − 1.2 0. − b 0.a. − 1
171312∗1.x 0.1. − 1. − e. − y. − 1. − 1.2.d. − c 0. − 1.1. − 2 0. − b0.a.1

that contain tangle T (1, 3) (Fig. 2.106).
The construction of almost mutant Khovanov-detectable pair-classes
can be extended using tangles T (k, n) (k > 1) (Fig. 2.107). For example,
the following pair-classes are obtained from the basic polyhedron 1912169∗
and tangle T (2, 2)
1912169∗ − 1. − 1. − y. − 1.2 0.c 0. − v 0. − 1.2. − a. − b 0.u.1. − 2 0. − 2 0.1.x.1.1
Fig. 2.106 Diagram of the pair-class derived from the basic polyhedron 171312∗ .
1912169∗1.1.x.1. − 2 0.c 0.u.1. − 2. − a. − b 0. − v. − 1.2 0.2 0. − 1. − y. − 1. − 1

giving, e.g., for b = 2, c = 2 and a = d = x = y = u = v = 1 Khovanov-
detectable almost mutant knots
{{25}, {6, 12, −22, 20, −30, 2, 46, −40, −34, 10, 50, −4,
−48, 42, 36, −8, 28, −18, 32, 26, −16, 38, −24, 14, −44}}
and
{{25}, {6, −12, 24, 22, −32, 20, −4, −48, 42, 36, 8, 2, 46, −40, −34,
−10, −38, 18, −30, −44, 16, −28, 50, −14, 26}}.
The open question is: are there some other constructions resulting in
Khovanov-detectable almost mutant KLs.
Polynomials are determined via LinKnot and the function Kh from
KnotTheory program. Hyperbolic volumes of knots are computed via
Knotscape, and those of links via SnapPea (possibly with an insufficient pre-
cision). For example, Khovanov-detectable almost mutant links obtained
in the class I for b = 3, a = c = x = y = 1 have equal multi-variable
Alexander polynomials and, conjecturally, the same volume (approximately
12.6684303...) (Fig. 2.108).
354 LinKnot
Fig. 2.107 (a) Diagram of the pair-class derived from the basic polyhedron 1912169∗ ;
(b) Khovanov-detectable almost mutant knots obtained from it for for b = 2, c = 2 and
a = d = x = y = u = v = 1.
Fig. 2.108 Khovanov-detectable almost mutant links obtained from pair-class I for b =
3, a = c = x = y = 1.
We expect that two Khovanov-detectable almost mutant KLs can have

different unknotting numbers. The best potential candidate to prove this
is the pair (9). The unknotting number of the first knot from this pair,
16n261803 , is 2, and BJ-unknotting number of the other knot, 16n300395 , is 3
(Fig. 2.109). The same conclusion can be obtained if one succeeds to prove
that the unknotting number of any of the following knots: 16n258027 (the fist
from the pair (7)), 16n635329 (the second from (14)), 16n789206 (the first from
(18)), or 16n812818 (the first from (21)) is 3.
For n ≤ 16 almost mutant knots always have the same number of cross-
ings (Dunfield, Garoufalidis, Shumakovitch and Thistlethwaite, 2006), but
for larger values of n is possible to obtain almost mutant knots with dif-
Fig. 2.109 Try to prove that the unknotting number of this knot, 16n
300395 , is 3.
ferent number of crossings. For example, the following pair of 19-crossing

knots is obtained from the pair-class I, for a = 3, b = 1, c = 2, x = 2, y = 3
{{19}, {−18, 24, −36, 14, 38, −28, 6, 8, −22, 30, −2, −16, −32, −34, −10, 20, −26, −4, 12}}
{{19}, {20, 24, −36, −12, 28, −38, −6, 22, 2, −30, 14, 16, −32, −34, 10, −18, −26, −4, −8}},
Knotscape reduces the first knot to 18 crossings:
{{18}, {−6, −10, −24, −32, −2, −18, 20, 36, 34, −26, 28, 14, −4, −12, 22, 16, −8, 30}},
and the second to 17 crossings:
{{17}, {6, 10, −20, 14, 2, −30, 8, 28, 24, 32, −4, 16, 18, 34, −12, 22, 26}}.
All polynomial invariants (Alexander, Conway, Jones, HOMFLYPT,

colored Jones (for all colors), Kauffman, A2, and Khovanov polynomial),
signature, hyperbolic volume (23.4165685828), and even BJ-unknotting
numbers (3) are equal for these two knots. The question is: what will
happen with reducible KLs from the pair-classes I-X, or other pair-classes
constructed in the analogous manner? In certain cases, both almost mutant
knots can be reduced to the same number of crossings and recognized by
Khovanov polynomial (e.g., 18-crossing knots from pair-class VI obtained
for a = 3, b = 2, y = 2 that reduce to 17-crossing knots). Is it possi-
ble to find a pair of almost mutant KLs with different crossing numbers,
detectable by Khovanov polynomial?
356 LinKnot
2.10.1 Detecting chirality of KLs by polynomial invariants

A KL is achiral (or amphicheiral) if it is ambient isotopic to its mirror
image. Otherwise, it is chiral (Definition 1.26).
An oriented link L is achiral if there is an ambient isotopy transforming
it into its mirror image L∗ and preserving the orientation of components
(Definition 1.53).
We will consider n-colored Jones polynomial (n ≥ 3) and the set of
polynomial invariants P : Jones, Khovanov, HOMFLYPT, and Kauffman
polynomial, and compare their ability to detect chiral KLs. HOMFLYPT
polynomial is used only for detecting chiral knots and links with an odd
number of components.
Definition 2.32. A chiral link is called chiral P -undetectable if P (L) =

P (L∗ ), where L∗ is the mirror image of the link L. Otherwise, it is called
chiral P -detectable.
For chiral P -undetectable links, instead of terms: Jones-, Khovanov-,

HOMFLYPT-, and Kauffman-undetectable KLs, we will use concise terms:
J-, Kh-, H-, and K-undetectable, respectively.
Examples of chiral undetectable knots can be found in different sources,
e.g., a traditional example of chiral knot 2 2, 3, 2− (942 ) which is H-
undetectable (Adams, 1994, page 179; Flapan, 2000, page 48). The best
source for K- and H-undetectable chiral knots is the paper by C. Liang and
K. Mislow (1994a). Their list contains the following chiral undetectable
knots: 2 2, 3, 2− (942 ), 2 2, 2 1, 2+ (1071 ), .2.(2 2, 2) 0 (12126 ), .2.(2, 2 2) 0
(12132 ), .2 1 1 1.2 (12214 ), 8∗ 2 1 1 0 : .2 0 (12222 ), and 9∗ 2 1 0.2 (12697 ), that
are undetectable by all mentioned polynomial invariants, except 2 2, 3, 2−
(942 ) which is Kh-detectable. Their chirality can be detected by n-colored
Jones polynomial (n ≥ 3).
Definition 2.33. A mutation which transforms achiral knot or link L into

a chiral knot or link L′ is called chiral mutation.
Since all polynomial invariants are unaffected by mutation, obtained

link L′ can not be recognized as chiral by any polynomial invariant.
At the beginning we need to underline that all P -undetectable KLs that
we considered are 3-colored Jones-detectable, so we propose the following
main conjecture:
Conjecture 2.8. All chiral KLs are 3-colored Jones-detectable (up to a
chiral mutation).
Chirality problem is completely solved for rational KLs: a rational knot

is achiral iff its Conway symbol is mirror-symmetric (palindromic) and has
an even number of crossings (Siebenmann, 1975; Caudron, 1982) (Theorem
1.20).
All rational links are 2-component. Since all oriented alternating links
with an even number of components are chiral (Cerf, 1997), there are no
oriented rational achiral links.
A rational non-oriented link is achiral iff its Conway symbol is mirror-
symmetric (palindromic) and has an even number of crossings (Kauffman
and Lambropoulou, 2002) (Theorem 1.22).
Chiral rational KLs are the only class of chiral KLs which are P -
detectable by all mentioned polynomial invariants.
Theorem 2.16. Every alternating pretzel (Montesinos) KL is chiral.
First surprise occurs for alternating pretzel KLs: for n = 8 we have

J-undetectable 3-component link 3 1, 2, 2, and for n = 10 first J-, Kh-, and
H-undetectable knot 4 1, 3, 2, and the J- and Kh-undetectable 2-component
link 2 1 1, 3 1, 2. Knot 4 1, 3, 2 is the beginning of the family of J-, Kh-, and
H-undetectable pretzel knots (k + 2) 1, 3, k (k ≥ 2). For an odd n there are
no chiral P -undetectable alternating pretzel KLs.
Notice that for H-polynomial only KLs with an odd number of compo-
nents are taken into account.
Number of P -undetectable alternating chiral pretzel KLs for 8 ≤ n ≤ 16
is the following :
J- Kh- H-
n=8 1 1
n = 10 2 2 1
n = 12 11 4 5
n = 14 30 20 10
n = 16 65 32 23
It is well known that writhe and signature of every achiral alternating

knot is equal to 0, so this can be used as the first (but very weak) achirality
criterion. Most of P -undetectable knots satisfy this property. However,
for n = 12 there is a J- and H-undetectable knot 2 5, 3, 2 with writhe and
signature equal 2.
Alternating chiral pretzel KLs are completely detectable by Kauffman
polynomial.
358 LinKnot
Theorem 2.17. Every alternating pretzel (Montesinos) KL with pluses is

chiral.
First alternating chiral K-undetectable knot is 2 2, 2 1, 2+ (also unde-

tectable by all other polynomials). For pretzel KLs with pluses (n ≤ 16),
we have the following results:
J- Kh- H- K-
n = 10 1 1 1 1
n = 12 2 2 1 1
n = 14 7 6 3 4
n = 16 21 17 4 5
Among chiral P -undetectable alternating pretzel KLs with pluses, knots

2 1 1 1 1 1, 2 2, 2+, 2 2 2 2, 2 1, 2+ with n = 14, and 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2 2, 2+,
2 2 1 2, 2 1 2 1, 2+ with n = 16 can not be recognized as chiral by any P .
Theorem 2.18. Every non-alternating pretzel KL with an odd crossing

number is chiral.
The next class of KLs considered are non-alternating pretzel KLs. The
first chiral J- and H-undetectable 3-component link 4, 2, 2− with n = 8
crossings is followed by chiral P -undetectable KL with an odd number
of crossings, which are Kh-detectable. Chiral knot 2 2, 3, 2− (942 ) is K-
undetectable (the phenomenon called “ 942 syndrome” by C. Liang and
K. Mislow, 1995), but Kh-detectable. For 8 ≤ n ≤ 16 we have the following
results:
J- Kh- H- K-
n=8 1 1
n=9 2 1 1
n = 10 3 1
n = 11 3 1 1
n = 12 14 3 6
n = 13 6 3 4
n = 14 40 7 11
n = 15 14 6 5
n = 16 83 22 27
From the experimental results, we conjecture that K-polynomial always

detects non-alternating chiral pretzel links with an even number of cross-
ings, and Kh-polynomial always detects non-alternating chiral pretzel KLs
with an odd number of crossings. We also conjecture that there is a one-to-

one correspondence between alternating chiral K-undetectable KLs with
2n crossings and non-alternating chiral K-undetectable KLs with 2n − 1
crossings (n ≥ 5).
A non-alternating pretzel links of the length l with k minuses can be
given by its non-minimal representation of the form r1 , r2 , ..., rl +−k, where
ri (1 ≤ i ≤ l) are R-tangles.
Definition 2.34. Two R-tangles of the form r = −r0 p and r = r0 (p−1) 1,

where r0 is a R-tangle and p ≥ 2 are called opposite R-tangles.
For example, 2 1 = −3, 2 1 3 = −2 1 2 1 = −2 − 1 − 2 − 1. A

minimal representation of a pretzel KL with k minuses can be ob-
tained by substituting k R-tangles by their opposites. For example,
2 2, 4 1, 2 2 1, 3, 2, 2 + −3 = −2 1 1, −5, −2 3, 3, 2, 2 = 2 2, −5, −2 3, −2 1, 2, 2
= ... = 2 2, 4 1, 2 2 1, −2 1, −2, −2.
Every standard projection of a pretzel link of length 2l (l ≥ 2) can
be represented by a regular (2l)-gon with vertices denoting its R-tangles,
called pretzel link (2l)-diagram.
Definition 2.35. A (2l)-diagram is antisymmetric if there exist a cen-

tral antisymmetry (anti-inversion) or mirror antireflection which transforms
each vertex ri into ri (1 ≤ i ≤ l), tangle 2 into tangle −2 and vice versa,
and does not contain a pair of opposite tangles other then 2, −2.
Conjecture 2.9. A non-alternating pretzel link is achiral iff it has an

antisymmetric (2l)-diagram.
Non-alternating links 3, 2, 2 1, 2, 2, 2 + −3 = 3, 2, −3, 2, −2, −2 with a
mirror-antisymmetric diagram, and 3, 2, 2, 2 1, 2, 2+−3 = 3, 2, 2, −3, −2, −2
with a centro-antisymmetric diagram (Fig. 2.110) are both achiral. In
the same way, non-alternating pretzel links L1 = 2 1, 3 1, 4 1, 3, 4, 5 + −3
= −3, −4, −5, 3, 4, 5 with a centro-antisymmetric (2l)-diagram, and L2 =
2 1, 3, 3 1, 5, 4 1, 4 + −3 = −3, 3, −4, 5, −5, 4 with a mirror-antisymmetric
(2l)-diagram are achiral (Fig. 2.111a). The link L3 = 2 1, 4 1, 3, 4, 5, 3 1+−3
= −3, −5, 3, 4, 5, −4, a mutant of L1 is also chiral, since its antisymmetry
axis contains opposite R-tangles 5 and −5 (Fig. 2.111b).
If the proposed Conjecture holds, a pretzel link of the length 4 is achiral
iff it consists from two pairs of opposite R-tangles.
Non-detectable chiral KLs occur in almost all classes of algebraic KLs.
For example, for n = 12 we have J- and Kh-undetectable alternating chiral
360 LinKnot
Fig. 2.110 Link 3, 2, −3, 2, −2, −2 with a mirror-antisymmetric diagram, and

3, 2, 2, −3, −2, −2 with a centro-antisymmetric diagram.
Fig. 2.111 (a) Achiral links −3, −4, −5, 3, 4, 5 with a centro-antisymmetric diagram,
and −3, 3, −4, 5, −5, 4 with a mirror-antisymmetric diagram; (b) diagram of chiral link
−3, −5, 3, 4, 5, −4.
3-component link (2, 4) (3, 3), for n = 16 J-, H-, and Kh-undetectable knots
(2 1 2 1 1, 2) (3, 2), (2, 5) (3, 4), and J- and Kh-undetectable 2-component
links (2, 3 1) (3, 4 1), (3 1 2, 2) (4, 2). All of them are K-detectable.
In the class of K-, H-, and Kh-undetectable alternating knot
(2, 2 1+) (3, 3 1+) with n = 14 crossings, for every even n ≥ 16 we have
chiral P -undetectable KLs, which are undetectable by any P -polynomial.
The situation is similar with non-alternating algebraic KLs. For ex-
ample, for n = 12 there is non-alternating J-, H- and Kh- undetectable
3-component link (2, 2) (6, 2−), for n = 13 J- and Kh-undetectable 2-
component link (2, 2 1) (2 3, 3−), for n = 14 the same class contains 12 J-,
6 H-, and 5 Kh-undetectable chiral KLs. Those five KLs can be detected
as chiral only by K-polynomial.
All P -polynomials fail in the case of chiral knot (2 1, 2+) (3, 2−) with
n = 11 crossings, etc.
In the case of alternating polyhedral KLs we have infinite classes of

chiral KLs undetectable for all P -polynomials:
• 6∗ 2.2 1 1, 6∗ 2.2 1 1 1 1, 6∗ 2.2 1 1 1 1 1 1, 6∗ 2 1 1.2 1 1 1 1,...

• 6∗ 2 1 1.2.2.2, 6∗ 2 1 1 1 1.2.2.2, 6∗ 2 1 1 1 1.2.2.2 1 1,...
• 6∗ 2.(2, 2 2) 0, 6∗ 2.(2, 2 2 2 2) 0, 6∗ 2.(2, 2 2 2 2 2 2) 0,...
• 8∗ 2 0 : .2 1 1 0, 8∗ 2 0 : .2 1 1 1 1 0, 8∗ 2 0 : .2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,...
• 9∗ 2 1 0.2, 9∗ 2 0.2 1 1 1, 9∗ 2 1 1 1 0.2 1 1, 9∗ 2 1 1 0.2 1 1 1 1 1,...
In general, we conclude that among all P -polynomials, Kauffman poly-

nomial gives the best results in detection of chiral KLs. The list of alter-
nating chiral K-undetectable Montesinios KLs and arborescent KLs of the
form (r1 , r2 +) (r3 , r4 +), where r1 ,r2 ,r3 , and r4 are R-tangles is given in the
following tables.
Table 12
n = 10 2 2, 2 1, 2+
n = 12 2 1 1 1, 2 2, 2+
n = 14 2 1 1 1 1 1, 2 2, 2+ 2 1 1 1 2, 2 1, 2 1+ 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1, 2 1+
2 2 2 2, 2 1, 2+
n = 16 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2 2, 2+ 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1 1, 2 1 1+ 2 2 1 2, 2 1 2 1, 2+
2 2 2 1 1, 2 2, 2 1+ 2 2 2 2, 2 1 1 1, 2+
n = 18 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2 2, 2+ 2 1 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1+ 2 1 1 1 1 1 2, 2 1 1 1, 2 1+
2 1 1 1 1 2, 2 1 1 1 1, 2 1+ 2 2 2 1 1, 2 1 1 1, 2 2+ 2 2 2 2, 2 1 1 1 1 1, 2+
2 2 2 2 2 2, 2 1, 2+
n = 20 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2 2, 2+ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1+ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2 2 2 2, 2+
2 1 1 1 1 2, 2 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1 1+ 2 1 1 2 1 1, 2 2 1 1 1, 2 2+ 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1, 2 1+
2 2 2 1 1, 2 1 1 1 1 1, 2 2+ 2 2 2 2 2 2, 2 1 1 1, 2+
n = 16 (2 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1 1 1, 2+)
n = 18 (2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2+) (2 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1 1 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1, 2+)
(2 1 1 1, 2 1 1+) (2 1 1, 2 1+)
n = 20 (2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2+) (2 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1, 2+)
(2 1 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1+) (2 1 1, 2 1+)
n = 22 (2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2+) (2 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1, 2+)
(2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1+) (2 1 1, 2 1+) (2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1 1 1, 2+)
(2 1 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1+) (2 1 1 1, 2 1 1+) (2 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1 1+) (2 1 1 1 1, 2 1+)
n = 24 (2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2+) (2 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1, 2+)
(2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1+) (2 1 1, 2 1+) (2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2+) (2 1 1 1 1 1, 2+)
(2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1+) (2 1 1 1, 2 1 1+) (2 1 1 1 1 1, 2 1 1 1 1+) (2 1 1 1 1, 2 1+)
The following table contains alternating chiral K-undetectable KLs of the

form 6∗ r1 .r2 :
n= 12 6∗ 2 1 1 1 1.2
n= 14 6∗ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 6∗ 2 1 1 1 1.2 1 1
n= 16 6∗ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 6∗ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 1 1
n= 18 6∗ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 6∗ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 1 1 6∗ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 1 1 1 1
362 LinKnot
Chiral non-alternating pretzel K-undetectable KLs, which can be de-

tected by Khovanov polynomial are given in the next table. There is one-to-
one correspondence between alternating chiral K-undetectable KLs with
2n crossings and non-alternating chiral K-undetectable KLs with 2n − 1
crossings (n ≥ 5), based on opposite R-tangles and their reversals (see
Table 12 and the next table).
n=9 2 2, 3, 2−
n = 11 2 1 2, 2 2, 2−
n = 13 2 1 1 1 2, 2 2, 2− 2 1 1 1 1 1, 3, 3− 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1, 3−
2 2 2 2, 3, 2−
n = 15 2 1 1 1 1 1 2, 2 2, 2− 2 1 1 2, 2 1 2, 2 1 1− 2 1 2 2, 3 1 2, 2−
2 2 2 1 1, 2 2, 3− 2 2 2 2, 2 1 2, 2−
n = 17 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2, 2 2, 2− 2 1 1 1 2, 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1− 2 1 1 1 1 1 2, 2 1 2, 3−
2 1 1 1 1 2, 2 1 1 1 1, 3− 2 2 2 1 1, 2 1 2, 2 2− 2 2 2 2, 2 1 1 1 2, 2−
2 2 2 2 2 2, 3, 2−
n = 19 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2, 2 2, 2− 2 1 1 1 1 1 2, 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1− 2 1 1 1 1 1 2, 2 2 2 2, 2−
2 1 1 1 1 2, 2 1 1 1 1, 2 1 2− 2 2 1 1 2, 2 1 2 1 1, 2 2− 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2, 2 1 1, 3−
2 2 2 1 1, 2 1 1 1 2, 2 2− 2 2 2 2 2 2, 2 1 2, 2−
All considered chiral KLs can be detected as chiral (up to a chiral

mutation) by n-colored Jones polynomial with n ≥ 3 colors.
An example of chiral mutation for alternating knots is a chiral knot
10∗∗∗ 2 :: .2 0 : .2 0.2 (Fig. 2.112a) obtained by chiral mutation from achiral
knot 10∗∗∗ .2 0 :: 2 0 : .2 0.2 (Fig. 2.112b). This knot is chiral undetectable
for all polynomial invariants, including colored Jones polynomial.
Fig. 2.112 (a) Chiral knot 10∗∗∗ 2 :: .2 0 : .2 0.2; (b) achiral knot 10∗∗∗ .2 0 :: 2 0 : .2 0.2.
Chirality of hyperbolic KLs can be completely detected using the pro-

gram SnapPea by G. Weeks (http://geometrygames.org/SnapPea/).
A knot is called strongly achiral if it admits an embedding into

S 3 pointwise fixed by the (orientation-reversing) involution (x, y, z) →
(−x, −y, −z).
Two additional statements about achiral knots, based on Conway poly-
nomial, are the following:
• suppose that K is an achiral knot. Then there is a polynomial F ∈

Z4 [z 2 ] such that F 2 = C(z)C(iz)C(z 2 ) ∈ Z4 [z 2 ] (Conant, 2006);
• Conway polynomial of a strongly achiral knot must decompose as
φ(z)φ(−z) (Hartley and Kawauchi, 1979).
The first is conjecture by J. Conant (2006), proved for n ≤ 14 crossings,

and the other is theorem proved by Hartley and Kawauchi (1979). If we
use them as chirality criteria, the first can not detect chiral rational knot
5 2 (72 ) with C(z) = 1 + 3z 2 for which F 2 = (1 + z 4 )2 . Taken together,
they can not detect chiral rational knot 8 2 (101 ), for which F 2 = 1, and
C(z) = (1 − 2z)(1 + 2z), or any chiral Montesinos knot from the family
(2k) 1, (2k + 1), 2+. After this discouraging result, comes a real surprise:
both criteria are able to detect as chiral all aforementioned P -undetectable
alternating knots! Unfortunately, this is not sufficient to accept them as
reliable chirality criteria, since they fail for significant number of knots
belonging to different worlds, even for rational or alternating pretzel knots.
2.11 A dream— new KL tables
We hope that future KL tables will follow the vertical structure (fami-
lies of KLs), and not the minimal crossing number of KLs (“horizon-
tal” structure). The concept of new KL tables, given in Appendix A
(http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/Appendix.pdf), is now still restricted
to generators of KL families with n ≤ 9 crossings, but we hope that very
soon will be extended to generating KLs with a larger number of crossings.
An (almost) complete derivation of alternating knots with n ≤ 11 cross-

ings and non-alternating knots with n ≤ 10 crossings was given in the
papers by P.G. Tait, T.P. Kirkman, and C.N. Little, at the end of 19th
century. In knot theory books, the first classical knot tables appeared in
K. Reidemeister’s book Knotentheorie (1932). All other similar tables are
mostly copies of Reidemeister’s tables with some minor changes in knot
projections. Standard knot tables contain knots with n ≤ 10 crossings,
364 LinKnot
and the only tables containing links with n ≤ 9 crossings are given by
D. Rolfsen (1976). Tables can be found in the books by D. Rolfsen (1976),
G. Burde and H. Zieschang (1985), L.A. Kauffman (1987a), C. Adams
(1994), A. Kawauchi (1996), K. Murasugi (1996), and V. Manturov (2004).
All knot tables contain polynomial knot invariants: Alexander polyno-

mials, Jones polynomials (Adams, 1994), Kauffman polynomials (Kauff-
man, 1987a), and data about some other knot invariants and properties–
hyperbolic volumes (Adams, 1994), signatures (Burde and Zieschang,
1985), unknotting numbers (Kawauchi, 1996), chirality and invertibil-
ity (Burde and Zieschang, 1985; Kawauchi, 1996), symmetry groups
of knots (Kawauchi, 1996), etc. The Table of Knot Invariants by
C. Livingston and J.C. Cha (http://www.indiana.edu/ knotinfo/) and
Knot Theory by D. Bar Natan (http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/
The Mathematica Package KnotTheory) give a survey of knot invariants,
including some of the most recent ones (e.g., Khovanov polynomial, etc.)
Knots are usually denoted by their ordering numbers in the classical
notation as
31 , 41 , 51 , 52 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 71 - 77 , 81 - 821 , 91 - 949 , 101 - 10166 ,
without any common “vertical” ordering principle connecting knots with n
and n + 1 crossings. The classical notation gives no information about a
KL (except its place in knot tables), but it has been used up to the present
time in most knot theory books.
All knots up to n = 8 crossings are alternating, and non-alternating
knots appear for n ≥ 8:
819 - 821 , 942 - 949 , 10124 - 10166 , etc.
The development of computers stimulated new approach to KL tabula-
tion, based on Dowker codes. All knots with n ≤ 16 crossings (Dowker and
Thistlethwaite, 1983) were derived by constructing all permutations of n
even numbers, checking their realizability as knot projections, and finding
minimal Dowker codes. Since Dowker code depends on a projection and the
choice of a beginning point, the mapping between knots and their Dowker
codes is one-to-many. In order to have a unique correspondence it is nec-
essary to find a minimal Dowker code for each knot. Hence, in Knotscape
tabulation every knot is given by its minimal Dowker code and the signs of
crossings (that are omitted for alternating knots). Dowker codes (or their
equivalents: Gauss codes, P -data, etc.) are indispensable in every com-
puter program working with KLs, but not very useful in attempt of KL
classification.
Using computer enumeration and Dowker algorithm, M.B. Thistleth-

waite (by using the program Knotscape, http://www.math.utk.edu/
∼
morwen/), and H. Doll and J. Hoste (1991), obtained tables of knots
with n ≤ 16 crossings and tables of links with n ≤ 9 crossings. A similar
program for deriving knot projections with n ≤ 10 crossings was developed
by S. Jablan and V. Veličković in 1995. S. Rankin, O. Flint and J. Scher-
mann (2004, 2004a) derived alternating knots up to n ≤ 23 crossings. Still
unpublished results of M. Thistlethwaite contain alternating link tables up
to n = 19 crossings, and non-alternating up to n = 12 crossings.
Comparing the computer enumeration results for alternating KLs ob-
tained in 1990-ties, that contained about 2 million of KLs, with the present
ones, with over 6 billion KLs tabulated, we can conclude that greatest
gain in tabulation resulted partly from progress in computer performances,
but mainly from the more efficient algorithms. Using the basic tabulation
scheme of J.A. Calvo (1997), KL realizability test is unnecessary, and signif-
icant savings are achieved by inductively generating n-crossing alternating
diagrams from the k-crossing diagrams, where k < n. J. Conway (1970)
used a similar idea: substituting vertices of basic polyhedra by chains of
bigons in two possible positions. Calvo applied this recursive method not
only to basic polyhedra, but to all KLs with k crossings. Using Calvo’s
algorithm, no testing of Dowker codes for realizability, primality or nu-
gatory crossings is ever required. The main problem, redundancy among
the diagrams produced, is solved by flyping algorithms (also described by
J.A. Calvo), based on the general flype structure of reduced prime alter-
nating diagrams (Hoste, 2006).
S. Rankin, O. Flint and J. Schermann (2004, 2004a) considered four
diagrammatic operations, called D, ROTS, T, and OTS (Fig. 2.113) and
their effect on prime alternating knot diagrams. D and ROTS are first used
to build n + 1-crossing diagrams from n-diagrams by vertex substitutions,
and then T and OTS are repeatedly applied to the obtained collection
until new knots appear. In order to make process efficient and avoid the
redundancy, the authors made a careful analysis of the flype cycle structure
of a knot and introduced a refined knot encoding scheme that contains this
information.
Continuing the “geometrical” line (Kirkman-Conway-Caudron) and the
classification of KLs proposed by S. Jablan (1999a,b), we introduced new
KL tables, ordered according to KL families. We strongly believe that
Conway notation and new KL tables based on the concept of families reflect
structural properties of KLs. The main advantage is the possibility to
366 LinKnot
Fig. 2.113 Diagrammatic operations D, ROTS, T, and OTS.
extend properties of individual KLs to infinite classes of KLs and obtain

general results (e.g., general formulas for polynomial and other subfamily-
dependent KL invariants).
New tables for prime knots with n ≤ 8 crossings were completed in 2002,
and now we extend this result to all KLs with n ≤ 9 crossings (Appendix
A, http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/Appendix.pdf).
In the first version of new knot tables, based on knot families (Fig.
2.114) every family is defined by its general Conway symbol, i.e., Conway
symbol with parameters denoting chains of bigons.
Conway symbols of knots with n ≤ 10 crossings are given in the “Nota-
tion” subsection for each family, followed by the classical notation. The list
of their particular Alexander polynomials is followed by a general formula
for the Alexander polynomials of the family.
The symmetry group, symmetry type, signature, and BJ-unknotting
number of every family are determined in general form. All the correspond-
ing data are first computed for individual knots with n ≤ 19 crossings using
the program LinKnot. The obtained results are extrapolated to the whole
families in order to derive general formulas for the Alexander polynomials,
symmetry groups, symmetry types, signatures, and BJ-unknotting num-
bers.
General Alexander polynomials derived in this way coincide with the
formulas for general Alexander polynomials of the family p (p = 2k + 1)
and subfamilies p 2, p 1 2 (p = 2k + 1), proved by A. Cavicchiolli, B. Ruini
and F. Spaggiari (2001). All the general formulas in new knot tables be-
long to the realm of experimental mathematics: these results are estimated,
extrapolated and conjectured, and they need to be proved or disproved.
As an example, we are giving Dowker codes and the Jones polynomials
for the knot family p, p = 2k + 1. The reader can find analogous complete
Fig. 2.114 The family p q (2 ≤ p ≤ 5, 2 ≤ q ≤ 5, p ≥ q).
tables for knots with n ≤ 7 crossings at the addresses:

http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/
http://members.tripod.com/vismath7/knotab/
Knot family: 2k + 1
Notation:
3 31
5 51
7 71
9 91
368 LinKnot
Dowker codes:
3 4 6 2
5 6 8 10 2 4
7 8 10 12 14 2 4 6
9 10 12 14 16 18 2 4 6 8
11 12 14 16 18 20 22 2 4 6 8 10
13 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2 4 6 8 10 12
15 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
17 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
19 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Alexander polynomials:
3 [1 −1
5 [1 −1 1
7 [1 −1 1 −1
9 [1 −1 1 −1 1
11 [1 −1 1 −1 1 −1
13 [1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1
15 [1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1
17 [1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1
19 [1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1
2k
X
∆(p) = (−1)i ti
i=0
Jones polynomials:
3 1 4 1 0 1 −1
5 2 7 1 0 1 −1 1 −1
7 3 10 1 0 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1
9 4 13 1 0 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1
11 5 16 1 0 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1
13 6 19 1 0 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1
15 7 22 1 0 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1
17 8 25 1 0 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1
19 9 28 1 0 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1
Symmetry group: D1
Symmetry type: chiral, invertible.
Signature: 2k
Unknotting number: k
The concept of new knot tables, based on knot families, can be naturally
extended to links. Working with the program LinKnot we succeeded to
extend new knot tables to all KLs with n ≤ 9 crossings. Tables given in the
Appendix A (http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/Appendix.pdf) contain
generating KLs for every family of KLs, the Conway symbol of the family
with conditions for parameters, the number of components, the Alexander
polynomial given by general formula, general formulas for the number of
different projections (only for alternating KLs), general formulas for BJ-
unknotting (BJ-unlinking) numbers and signatures, data about period(s)
of KLs, achirality, and BJ-unlinking gap.
The concept of new KL tables is based on the notion of generating KLs
and families originating from them. Hence, one of the possible future goals
is a search for new KL invariants that will be able to recognize families.
New “family” invariants have to be preserved by Reidemeister moves and n-
moves, since all members of some family can be obtained from a generating
KL by a sequence of n- moves. Unfortunately, the transition from one
family member to another is only possible at the level of minimal canonical
Conway symbols. In this way we have obtained KL tables given in the
Appendix A, that consist only of generating KLs, families derived from
them, and parametric data about families (i.e., the KL properties and
invariants in a general form). Computational results imply that Alexander
polynomials of two alternating KLs from the same family must be different–
therefore all we need for distinguishing alternating KLs would be their
family and Alexander polynomial. The solution is even simpler if we restrict
our attention to alternating KLs given in Conway notation– we can use a
minimal Dowker code (obtained directly from the Conway symbols by the
LinKnot function MinDowAltKL). This function gives minimal Dowker
code for all alternating KLs, except for those derived from basic polyhedra
permitting flypes. If a projection of a basic polyhedron permits flypes, we
are not able to compute the minimal Dowker codes for all alternating KLs
derived from this basic polyhedron.
Definition 2.36. A family of KL diagrams is obtained in the following

way: consider three KL diagrams Dn , Dn+1 , and Dn+2 of the same link L,
where every diagram is obtained from the preceding one by adding a bigon
to the same single bigon or chain of bigons. Outside the region containing
370 LinKnot
the chain of bigons, diagrams are identical.
Diagrams D+ , D− , and D0 (Fig. 2.7) are related by Conway skein

relation.
Introducing orientation of a KL, every chain of bigons becomes parallel
or antiparallel (Fig. 2.115).
Fig. 2.115 Chain of bigons (a) after crossing change (b); (c) antiparallel case; (d) parallel
case.
In a chain of bigons, transformation D+ → D− is equivalent to the

transformation Dn+2 → Dn . Depending on two possible cases, parallel or
antiparallel, D0 = Dn+1 or D0 = L0 = const, where L0 is a constant KL
called KL of difference.
Theorem 2.19. Conway polynomial is defined by recursive relations be-

tween KLs that belong to the same family.
Proof. Conway polynomial is defined by skein relation
∇(D+ ) − ∇(D− ) = x∇(D0 )

In the antiparallel case, it gives the recursive relation
∇(Dn+2 ) − ∇(Dn ) = x∇(L0 )

and in the parallel case the recursive relation
∇(Dn+2 ) − ∇(Dn ) = x∇(Dn+1 ).

Hence, in both cases Conway polynomials of successive KLs belonging to
the same family satisfy recursive relations.
The same line of reasoning can be extended to all polynomial invariants
based on skein relations, so we propose the following conjecture:
Conjecture 2.10. All polynomial invariants based on skein relations are
defined by recursive relations between KLs that belong to the same family.
Fig. 2.116 Subfamily 2k with antiparallel orientation.
Fig. 2.117 Subfamily 2k + 1 with parallel orientation.
Let us consider the simplest family of KLs, denoted by Conway symbol

n (n ∈ N ). For n = 2k we obtain the subfamily of links 2k (2, 4, 6,...) that
can be used as the simplest example of the antiparallel case (Fig. 2.116).
372 LinKnot
Fig. 2.118 Subfamily (2k) 2 with antiparallel orientation.
For this subfamily, the following relation holds: Dn+2 = 2k + 2, Dn = 2k,

and the link of difference is the unlink 1. For every n (n = 2k),
∇(D+ ) − ∇(D− ) = ∇(Dn+2 ) − ∇(Dn ) = x∇(L0 ),
i.e.,
∇(2k + 2) − ∇(2k) = x∇(1) = x.
Hence, general formula for Conway polynomial of the subfamily 2k is
∇(2k) = kx (Kauffman, 1987a, page 23).
Conway polynomials of the knots with parallel orientation, belonging
to the subfamily 2k + 1 (3, 5, 7,...) (Fig. 2.117) satisfy recursive relation:
∇(0) = 1, ∇(2k + 1) = x∇(2k) + ∇(2k − 1).
General formula for the Conway polynomial of the subfamily 2k + 1 is
k
X k + i 2i
∇(2k + 1) = 1 + x .
i=1
2i
This method can be applied to an arbitrary subfamily of KLs, for ex-

ample, the subfamily (2k) 2 (Fig. 2.118). This subfamily has antiparallel
orientation with Dn+2 = (2k + 2) 2, Dn = (2k) 2, and the link of difference
is Hopf link 2. For every k
∇(D+ ) − ∇(D− ) = ∇(Dn+2 ) − ∇(Dn ) = x∇(L0 ),
i.e.,
∇((2k + 2) 2) − ∇((2k) 2) = x∇(2).
Hence, general formula for the Conway polynomial of the subfamily (2k) 2
is ∇((2k) 2) = 1 − (2k − 1)x2 .
In the antiparallel case computations of Conway polynomial are fairly

simple, unlike in parallel case where complicated recursions can occur, es-
pecially for multi-parameter subfamilies.
The same line of reasoning can probably be extended from Conway poly-
nomial (Theorem 2.19) to all polynomial invariants based on skein relations:
Alexander polynomial, Jones polynomial, A2 invariant, Links-Gould invari-
ant, and Khovanov polynomials.
For example, for the subfamily (2k) 2 Alexander polynomials of the suc-
cessive members (2k + 2) 2 and (2k) 2 will differ by the constant polynomial
1 − 2x + x2 , and for Jones polynomial by x2k (1 − x − x3 + x4 ). Since the
Alexander polynomial of the knot 2 2 is 1−3x+x2, and its Jones polynomial
is 1 − x + x2 − x3 + x4 , the general formula for the Alexander polynomial of
this family is 1 − 3x + x2 + (k − 1)(1 − 2x + x2 ), and the general formula for
Pk
the Jones polynomial is 1 − x + x2 − x3 + x4 + i=2 (1 − x − x3 + x4 )x2i−2 .
This is the way how estimated general formulas for Alexander poly-
nomials of KL families given in Appendix A (http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/
vismath/Appendix.pdf) are computed.
Based on the obtained results, we strongly believe that all properties of
KLs belonging to each particular family are well-ordered, and that it is pos-
sible to extend the particular results to a general form. So far this principle
can be applied to all polynomials based on skein relation (Conway, Alexan-
der, Jones,...), symmetry properties, signatures, BJ-unknotting numbers,
braid family representatives, Dowker codes, etc.
One of the main and the most intriguing open questions is Bernhard-
Jablan Conjecture (see page 83). For all KLs that we tested, BJ-unlinking
numbers uBJ (L) obtained according to it coincide with the unlinking num-
bers determined using other methods.
The most interesting conjectures indicated by the results obtained are
that crossing number, minimum writhe, unlinking number, u∞ -unlinking
number, signature, and genus of a link L are linear subfamily-dependent
KL invariants (Conjecture 1.2), and that for every minimal link diagram
of a non-alternating KL, all link diagrams belonging to its subfamily are
minimal (Conjecture 1.9).
This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3
History of Knot Theory and

Applications of Knots and Links
3.1 History of knot theory
The discovery of knots probably predates that of fire or wheel. Ropes, cords,
and knots needed to secure them played an important role in the early tech-
nological development. The main reason for the lack of discovery of such
artifacts is that they have been made from organic materials (vegetable
fibres, sinews, thongs, hair, etc.), thus subject to decay. However, even cer-
tain wild gorillas are able to make complete knots, primarily Granny and
Reef knots, so that the beginning of knot tying most likely preceded the
evolution of mankind. The indirect testimony for an early use of cordage
and knots are perforated objects, beads or pendants, dating some 300 000
years ago, and spherical stones found in Africa and China (about 500 000
years old), probably used as bola weights in hunting. More recently bows
and arrows that required well-made cordage and secure knots, as well as Pa-
leolithic figurine in soft limestone from Kostenki (Russia, 24 000 B.C.) show
belts made from multiple twined flexible elements. Some actual Neolithic
knots are preserved in North Zealand and Denmark. Sophisticated plaits
made with strips of date palm leaf originate from Ancient Egypt (Turner
and Van De Griend, 1995). Arrangements of knots served as a basis for
mathematical recording systems in the Peruvian quipus or Zuñi knots from
the New Mexico, where the knots functioned as symbolic and mnemonic
devices. Various examples of knot-art can be found in all ancient civiliza-
tions, in Japanese and Chinese art, Celtic art, ethnic Tamil and Tchokwe
art, in Arabian, Greek or Smyrnian laces... Celts made extensive use of
knot-work pictures created for decorative and religious purposes (G. Bain,
1973; I. Bain, 1990). Their art required a high level of mathematics, to
geometrically create knotted curves even with zoomorphic ornaments.
375
376 LinKnot
In his essay on orthopedic knots, a Greek physician named Heraklas

(first century A.D.) described and explained, giving step-by-step instruc-
tions, eighteen ways to tie orthopedic slings. This essay, that survived
because it was included (without drawings) in Medical Collections by Orib-
asius of Pergamum, was recovered, reillustrated, and translated to Latin
during the Renaissance. It is the oldest testimony of a scientific application
of knots (Przytycki, 2004).
The idea to consider knots from the point of view of combinatorial topol-
ogy (this means, Analysis Situs or Geometria Situs, the term introduced by
G.W. Leibnitz in 16791) was first proposed by A.T. Vandermonde (1771).
Describing braids, nets, or knots fashioned by craftsmans, he emphasized
that there the questions of measurement are not important, but those of po-
sition, the manner in which the threads are interlaced. C.F. Gauss was the
first to consider knots as mathematical entities. One of his oldest documents
is a sheet of paper dated 1794, containing thirteen sketches of knots with
names in English, probably an excerpt he copied from some English book.
Gauss formulated the “crossing problem”, by assigning letters to crossings
of a self-intersecting curve, trying to determine “words” describing a closed
curve (page 16), and defined a linking number (1833) by giving its ana-
lytical definition– the Gauss integral2 . Another sketch from his notebooks
is a drawing of a braid with strand permutation coding (Przytycki, 2004).
Gauss’ work was continued by J.B. Listing, credited with the first usage of
the word “topologie” in 1836. He represented knots, closed space curves,
by their projections (diagrams) and made an attempt to derive and classify
all projections up to 7 crossings (1847). Listing defined minimal or reduced
diagrams of knots, diagrams with a minimal number of crossings (Definition
1.25), and proposed the first invariant named Complexions-Symbol for knots
with minimal diagrams. Although his Complexions-Symbol had too many
serious defects to be acceptable as a knot invariant, it posed a challenge
to other researchers to try to find better invariants. Listing showed that
the figure-eight knot, called Listing knot in honor of his accomplishment
in knot theory, is equal to its mirror image (i.e., that figure-eight knot is
achiral), recognized that the left trefoil is different from the right trefoil
knot (i.e., that trefoil knot is chiral), and introduced a writhe, sum of all
crossing signs in knot diagram (Definition 1.31).
1 The first application of geometria situs dates from 1736: it is L. Euler’s solution of the
famous Köningsberg bridges problem, that represents the beginning of graph theory.
2 H.K. Brunn observed in 1892 that the linking number of two-component link, consid-
ered by Gauss, can be read from a diagram of the link (Definition 1.32).
History of Knot Theory and Applications of Knots and Links 377
The main inspiration for enumerations of knots come from Sir William
Thomson (Baron Kelvin of Largs). In attempt to make a classification of
chemical elements, in the mid-1860s he announced his model of the atom,
called “vortex theory”. After Helmholtz’s paper (1858) on vortex motion,
based on an experiment with vortex smoke rings, Kelvin developed the the-
ory of particles as tiny topological twists, i.e., knots in the ether (1867). He
believed that the variety of chemical elements can be explained by the kinds
of different knots. He also thought that the ability of atoms to transform
into each other, transmutation, was related to the cutting and recombin-
ing of knots. This theory was taken seriously until the wide acceptance of
Mendeleev’s periodic system of elements by the scientific community.
Vortex theory inspired P.G. Tait to start with the enumeration and clas-
sification of knotted structures and solve the census problem. For this, he
developed Scheme-method, a representation of reduced knot diagrams by
codes (already known to Gauss) and the Partition method (Turner and Van
De Griend, 1995), an improvement of Listing’s attempt. In collaboration
with the Reverend T.P. Kirkman and C.N. Little, they succeeded in making
a list of all alternating knots up to 11 crossings. The derivation of knots with
10 crossings took them six years to complete. Tait also considered some of
the fundamental problems in knot theory: chirality (Definition 1.26) and
unknotting number (or Gordian number, called by Tait “beknottedness”)
(Definition 1.56), and introduced the graph of a knot (page 24). He made
a few conjectures on alternating knots, e.g., that the minimal number of
crossings of an alternating KL is always realized in an alternating diagram
(Kauffman-Murasugi Theorem, Theorem 1.6), and that two minimal dia-
grams of the same oriented alternating KL have the same writhe (Theorem
1.7). His famous Flyping Conjecture was recently proved by Menasco and
Thistlethwaite (1991, 1993), about 100 years after it was formulated (The-
orem 1.11). Kirkman’s geometrical system for the systematic derivation of
knot projections (4-valent planar graphs) was closely related to the enumer-
ation of basic polyhedra and, at the same time, represented a geometrical
method for classifying knot projections. Kirkman derived the census of
1581 plane curves with 11 crossings from which Little distinguished 357
different alternating knots. Little also considered the derivation of non-
alternating knots, and in addition to the flype (page 44), introduced a
2-pass: a KL transformation where a string is simply pulled over a tangle
(page 47). After six years of work, Little produced a catalogue consisting
of 43 non-alternating knots with n = 10 crossings and 551 drawings of their
various minimal projections (with few omissions). The only serious error in
378 LinKnot
his tables was the duplication discovered by K. Perko in 1974 (Fig. 1.26).
Little observed that the writhe of a reduced knot diagram is invariant with
respect to flypes and 2-passes, and proposed that it is a knot invariant, but
it is not: the first known counterexample is Perko pair. Little erroneously
believed that just two kinds of moves, flypes and 2-passes, are sufficient to
pass between all minimal diagrams of the same knot3 . After Tait, Kirk-
man and Little, pertaining to knot tabulation, almost nothing important
happened for a century, until the works of J.H. Conway and A. Caudron in
1970-80s, and the computer derivation of KLs.
The principal problem in knot enumeration is deciding when two knots
are ambient isotopic (Definition 1.20). Two KLs are isotopy equivalent if
one of them can be transformed to the other by pushing and pulling, but not
cutting, its string(s). The problem of isotopy, known as the Knot problem,
became the main problem in knot theory.
Closely connected to the knot problem is the problem of achirality, am-
bient isotopy of a KL to its mirror image (Definition 1.26). Thirty years
after Tait’s first results in enumeration of achiral knots with n ≤ 10 cross-
ings, M.G. Haseman in her dissertation partially extended knot tables, and
described achiral knots with n ≤ 12 crossings. Tait conjectured that every
achiral KL must have an even number of crossings. Therefore neither Tait
nor Haseman considered the possibility of the existence of achiral knots with
an odd crossing number. The first oriented achiral link 8∗ .−2 0.2 0.−2 0 with
n = 11 crossings was discovered in 1998 (Liang, Mislow and Flapan, 1998).
The achiral non-alternating knot 10∗∗ 2 0.2 : −2 0 : 2 0.−1.−1.−1.−2 0 with
n = 15 crossings was found by M. Thistlethwaite, who also recognized sev-
eral duplicates in Haseman’s tables. However, the Tait’s Conjecture about
achiral KLs holds for alternating KLs: there is no alternating achiral KL
with an odd number of crossings (Corollary 1.1).
After the empirical phase, the emphasis in the theory of knots turned
away from enumeration toward attempts to prove the completeness of knot
lists and to show that they do not contain repetitions. The first steps in
the development of the required mathematical apparatus were made by
H. Poincaré, who introduced several topological objects and tools, e.g.,
the concept of the complex and its fundamental group. The first proof of
the existence of non-trivial knots is given by H. Tietze in 1908, using the
fundamental group of knot complement (or knot group). W. Wirtinger in
3 In the derivation of non-alternating knots and in the knot minimization program
knotfind.c (the part of Knotscape) M. Thistlethwaite used 13 different diagrammatic
moves (Hoste, Thistlethwaite and Weeks, 1998).
1905 outlined a method of finding a presentation of knot group, called now

the Wirtinger presentation (page 201). M. Dehn proved in 1914 that the
oriented trefoil is not isotopic to its mirror image, i.e., that trefoil knot is
chiral. The study of the fundamental group of a knot complement and the
knot complement itself was one of the main topics of research in knot theory
for the next 50 years, culminating in 1988 in the proof of Tietze conjecture
(1908) stating that a knot is determined by its complement (Theorem 1.5,
Gordon and Luecke, 1989).
In the 1930s, after the discovery of the first polynomial knot invariant
by J.W. Alexander, knot theory became a branch of topology, leaving its
roots, geometry.
Using Betti numbers and torsion coefficients, J.W. Alexander and
G.B. Briggs (1926-27) distinguished all knots with n ≤ 9 crossings, ex-
cept three pairs which were resolved five years later by K. Reidemeister.
L-polynomial (normalized Alexander polynomial) was used as a tool for
distinguishing knots. In Reidmeister’s book Knotentheorie (1932), each
knot is represented by one minimal projection. All books about knot the-
ory follow Reidmeister’s book: knot projections were merely redrawn and
never changed into a different minimal projection of the same knot. Reide-
meister introduced Reidemeister moves (Theorem 1.10), three fundamental
local transformations of a KL diagram sufficient to represent any ambient
isotopy at the level of projections.
Since links have a higher degree of complexity, they were rarely consid-
ered. The complete list of non-oriented links for n ≤ 9 crossings, based on
the paper by J. Conway (1970), can be found only in the book Knots and
Links by D. Rolfsen (1976).
Soon after Reidemeister’s book appeared, H. Seifert introduced an al-
gorithm to construct a special surface whose boundary is a KL (Theorem
1.37). This surface, named after Seifert, can be used to study KLs and
their invariants.
After Alexander, progress in the study of knots can be referred to as “era
of knot invariants”. Fundamental groups could not be used to distinguish
the Reef Knot (3#3) from the Granny Knot (3# − 3). H. Seifert proved in
1934 that they are different, since their complements are non-isomorphic.
Also, different diagrams of equivalent knots can yield different presentations
of the knot group. Since there is no general algorithm enabling us to decide
whether two presentations represent isomorphic groups, mathematicians
continued to search for a simpler invariant.
The long history of polynomial knot invariants began with the discov-
380 LinKnot
ery of the Alexander polynomial in 1928. This polynomial was able to

distinguish 76 out of 84 knots with n ≤ 9 crossings. There are several
interesting properties of Alexander polynomial: every alternating knot has
an alternating Alexander polynomial (proved by K. Murasugi in 1958); the
Alexander polynomial of a composite knot is the product of the Alexander
polynomials of its prime factors. Alexander also discovered a relationship
between the polynomials of three oriented knots whose projections are iden-
tical except in a neighborhood of one fixed crossing (later introduced by
J. Conway as the skein relation, which plays fundamental role in developing
recursive definitions of knot invariants). In spite of the early discovery of
this recursive relation, it was not used prior to Conway’s approach. As a
result, Alexander polynomials were calculated by means of determinants
till 1970. Alexander polynomial can not distinguish a knot from its mirror
image, and its power to distinguish different knots considerably decreases
as the number of crossings increases.
In 1923 Alexander proved the theorem that every KL can be obtained
as closure of a braid, and inspired E. Artin to introduce the braid group
(1925). A.A. Markov gave equivalence moves for closed braids. Markov
theorem (proved by J. Birman) was used to express Knot problem in purely
algebraic terms, through the classification of Markov classes, i.e., as the
Algebraic link problem.
Establishing connection between knot group presentations (Wirtinger
presentations) and Alexander polynomials was facilitated by the discovery
of free differential calculus by R.H. Fox. After introducing bridge num-
ber (Definition 1.64), H. Schubert proved in 1949 that any KL can be
decomposed uniquely as a connected sum (or direct product) of prime KLs
(Theorem 1.33).
J.H. Conway in 1967 introduced a fundamentally new idea. After intro-
ducing the basic concept of a tangle (proposed earlier by Tait), a portion of
a knot diagram with four free-end strands, he gave a concise generic geo-
metrical notation for describing KLs in terms of their construction from
tangles. He discovered a remarkable connection between rational KLs and
continued fractions, and defined skein relations which made possible a re-
cursive computation of polynomial KL invariants. Using skein relations
(page 211), polynomial KL invariants can be computed recursively, by a
kind of “unknotting process” which reduces the number of crossings in each
step. J. Conway checked and extended the knot tables of Tait, Kirkman
and Little.
The first attempt to classify KLs in certain larger classes (called worlds)
came from A. Caudron. In his fundamental work, a 361-page preprint Clas-

sification des nœuds et des enlancements published in 1982, he corrected
and extended Conway’s results, and made the first “periodic tables” of
KLs. His results marked the end of the hand calculation era.
In 1982 H. Dowker and M. Thistlethwaite computerized the derivation
of all knot diagrams using Dowker algorithm. Until now, knot tables were
extended by M. Thistlethwaite, J. Hoste, and G. Weeks up to n = 19
crossings.
Every knot in their tables, included in the program Knotscape for n ≤ 16
crossings, is denoted by its minimal Dowker code. S. Rankin, O. Flint
and J. Schermann (2004, 2004a) derived alternating knots up to n = 23
crossings. Their tables contain, for example, 25182878921 alternating knots
with n = 23 crossings (Rankin, 2006).
H. Doll and J. Hoste (1991) tabulated oriented links up to n = 9
crossings (Cerf, 1998). In his unpublished results, M. Thistlethwaite made
computer tabulation of alternating links with n ≤ 19 crossings and non-
alternating links with n ≤ 12 crossings. The most complete information
about the present state of computer KL tabulation is given in the paper
The enumeration and classification of knots and links by J. Hoste (2006).
Today, with the development of computers, the notation and enumera-
tion of KLs is very similar with the situation occurring in different struc-
tures with hardly recognizable ordering principles: prime numbers, poly-
ominoes etc., resisting attempts of classification. Following the line of Kirk-
man, Conway and Caudron, we have attempted to present a consistent
geometrical, combinatorial and graph-theoretical approach to the deriva-
tion and classification of KLs.
One of our main ideas was to avoid standard classification of KLs ac-
cording to number of components and number of crossings. We hope that
this goal is, at least partially, achieved by implementing the Conway no-
tation into our computer program LinKnot. Links have always played a
subordinated secondary role to knots. The name of the program itself
(proposed by R. Sazdanović) underlines the important role given to the
links in this program. It is primarily dedicated to an experimental work
with a large series of KLs (i.e., families) and derivation of new conjectures.
Therefore, the program LinKnot is a tool for experimental mathematics.
In the 1980s V. Jones discovered new polynomial and established con-
nections between von Neumann algebras, statistical mechanics, braid the-
ory and knot invariants (Jones, 2005). Jones began with two statistical
models, Ising model and Potts model, studying their corresponding parti-
382 LinKnot
tion functions. Hence, Jones did not only introduced a refined invariant for
distinguishing and analyzing KLs, but related knot theory to other fields
of mathematics and theoretical physics, in particular statistical mechanics
and quantum field theory. This revolutionary discovery was followed by
new more powerful polynomials: HOMFLYPT and Kauffman polynomial.
However, none of these polynomials is a complete invariant, able to distin-
guish all KLs, or to completely recognize chirality. Khovanov homology
(Khovanov, 1997, 2001), which categorifies one-variable Jones polynomial
is a strictly stronger invariant then the Jones polynomial itself (Bar Natan,
2002; Manturov, 2004).
The introduction of Vassiliev’s invariants gave rise to the hope that a
complete KL invariant can be found. Working in the space of knots, Vas-
siliev invariants are essentially different from all other previously mentioned
KL invariants: instead of associating to each KL an mathematical quan-
tity or polynomial, they assign to a KL a numerical value depending on a
set of initial conditions. Many of the invariants introduced before, such as
Alexander, Jones, and Kauffman polynomials, are Vassiliev invariants. On
the other hand, none of the classical KL invariants: the minimal crossing
number, unknotting (unlinking) number, signature, bridge number, braid
index and genus of a KL, are Vassiliev invariants.
The initial interest in knot theory was stimulated by Kelvin’s theory of
atomic structure (1867). By the turn of the century, after scientific confir-
mation of Mendeleev’s periodic tables, it was clear that Kelvin’s theory was
incorrect. Chemists were no longer interested in classifying knots. However,
topologists continued to study knots.
The focus of chemists turned towards attempts to synthesize molecular
KLs. The first pair of linked rings in a form of the Hopf link, a catenane,
was synthesized by H. Frisch and E. Wasserman in 1961. The first mole-
cular knot, a trefoil made out of 124 atoms was produced by C. Dietrich-
Bushecker and J.-P. Sauvage in 1989. They refer to stereochemical topology,
synthesis, characterization, and analysis of topologically interesting molec-
ular structures (Flapan, 2000).
Construction of numerous KLs become possible after the synthesis of
first molecular Möbius ladder with three rungs by D. Walba, R. Richards
and R.C. Haltiwanger in 1982, and addition of twists to the Möbius ladders
managed by Q.Y. Zheng in 1990 (Fig. 3.1). In fact, after breaking the
rungs, Möbius multi-strand twisted ladders became a molecular closed braid
representation of a KL.
In the 1950s F.H.C. Crick and J.D. Watson unravelled the double helix
Fig. 3.1 Obtaining Hopf link from twisted Möbius ladders.
structure of DNA. A molecule of DNA can also take the form of a ring and
become knotted. In the process of recombination, a DNA knot is temporar-
ily broken, physically changed, and then reconnected. In the 1970s it was
discovered that an enzyme, topoisomerase, is responsible for this process.
The first electron microscope pictures of knotted DNA were produced in
1985 (Wasserman, Dungan and Cozzarelli, 1985). The linking number and
its splitting into average writhe W r and twist T w is used as a basic tool
to analyze the geometry of supercoiled DNA. C. Ernst and D.W. Sumners
(1990, 1999) reconstructed the actions of enzyme (TN3 Resolvase) by solv-
ing tangle equations. Distances of rational knots and links were calculated
by I.K. Darcy and D.W. Sumners (2000).
Mathematical models or descriptions of large particle systems, such as
the Ising and Potts model, or Yang-Baxter equation, give rise to knot in-
variants generated by partition function.
Different applications of knot theory in physics, chemistry, and biology
are considered in books by L. Kauffman (1991), C. Adams (1994), K. Mura-
sugi (1996), E. Flapan (2000), and in the collection of papers edited by
D.W. Sumners (1993). In this book we will try to emphasize the beauty,
universality and diversity of knot theory through its various, non-standard
applications to ornamental art, fullerenes, self-referential systems, and KL
automata.
3.2 Mirror curves
Before proceeding to the detailed discussion of applications of knot the-

ory to ornamental art, we shall first describe the construction of mirror
curves. Start with any connected edge-to-edge tiling of a part of a plane
by polygons.
384 LinKnot
Connect the midpoints of adjacent edges to obtain a 4-regular graph:

every vertex is incident to four edges, called steps.
Every closed path in this graph, where each step appears only once, is
called a component. A mirror curve is the set of all components. Since the
graph is 4-valent, at each vertex we have three choices of edges to continue
the path: to choose the left, middle, or right edge. If the middle edge is
chosen the vertex is called a crossing. Every mirror curve can be converted
into a knotwork design by introducing the relation “over-under”.
The name “mirror curves” can be justified by visualizing them on a rec-
tangular square grid RG[a, b] of dimensions a, b (a, b ∈ N ), whose sides are
mirrors, and additional internal two-sided mirrors are placed between the
square cells, coinciding with an edge, or perpendicular to it at its midpoint.
In this grid, a ray of light, emitted from one edge-midpoint at an angle of
45◦ , will close a component after a series of reflections. Beginning from a
different edge-midpoint, and continuing until the whole step graph is used,
we trace a mirror curve. This construction can be extended to any con-
nected part of a regular triangular, square or hexagonal tessellation, this
means to any polyiamond, polyomino or polyhexe, respectively.
3.2.1 Tamil treshold designs

“During the harvest month of Margali (mid-December to mid-January), the
Tamil women in South India used to draw designs in front of the thresholds
of their houses every morning. Margali is the month in which all kinds
of epidemics were supposed to occur. Their designs serve the purpose of
appeasing the god Siva who presides over Margali. In order to prepare
their drawings, the women sweep a small patch of about a yard square
and sprinkle it with water or smear it with cow-dung. On the clean, damp
surface they set out a rectangular reference frame of equidistant dots. Then
the curve(s) forming the design is (are) made by holding rice-flour between
the fingers and, by a slight movement of them, letting it fall out in a closed,
smooth line, as the hand is moved in the desired directions. The curves are
drawn in such a way that they surround the dots without touching them.”
(Gerdes, 1989).
The (culturally) ideal design is composed of a single continuous line.
Names given to designs formed of a single “never-ending” line are normally
pavitram, meaning “ring” and Brahma-mudi or “Brahma’s knot” (Fig. 3.2).
The purpose of the pavitram is to scare giants, evil spirits, or devils away.
Is it not strange that a design composed of two or several superimposed
Fig. 3.2 Tamil designs.
closed paths, is nevertheless called pavitram? Maybe designs formed of

a few never-ending lines are just degraded versions of single closed path
figures? Is it always possible to construct a similar design, but made out of
only one line? Yes, minor changes transform some imperfect, multi-linear
designs into the ideal ones.
3.2.2 Tchokwe sand drawings

“The Tchokwe people of northeast Angola are well known for their beautiful
decorative art. When they meet, they illustrate their conversations by
drawings on the ground. Most of these drawings belong to a long tradition.
They refer to proverbs, fables, games, riddles, etc. and play an important
role in the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the other.”
(Gerdes, 1990)
“...Just like the Tamils of South India, the Tchokwe people invented a
similar mnemonic device to facilitate the memorization of their standard-
ized drawings. After cleaning and smoothing the ground, they first set out
with their fingertips an orthogonal net of equidistant points. The number
of rows and columns depends on the motif to be represented. Applying
their method, the Tchokwe drawing experts reduce the memorization of a
whole design to that of mostly two numbers and a geometric algorithm.
386 LinKnot
Most of their drawings display bilateral and/or rotational (90◦ or 180◦ )

symmetries. The symmetry of their pictograms facilitates the execution of
a drawing. This is important, as the drawings have to be executed smoothly
and continuously. Any hesitation or stopping on the part of the drawer is
interpreted by the audience as an imperfection and lack of knowledge, and
assented with an ironic smile.” (Gerdes, 1990)
Tchokwe sand drawings called sona (singular: lusona) played an im-
portant role in transmitting knowledge and wisdom from one generation to
the next. Young boys enjoyed making sand drawings with their fingers and
in stories about them. They have learned how to make simple drawings and
their meaning during the period of intensive schooling, the mukanda initia-
tion rites. The more difficult sona were only known by the story tellers, who
were real akwa kuta sona (those who know how to draw), highly estimated
and forming a part of an elite in Tchokwe society (Gerdes, 1993).
Fig. 3.3 Tchokwe sand drawings.

“Leonardo spent much time in making a regular design of a series of

knots so that the cord may be traced from one end to the other, the whole
filling a round space...” (Bain, 1973).
Fig. 3.4 Leonardo’s Concatenation.
Two of the greatest painters-mathematicians: Leonardo and Dürer were

interested in constructing knot designs, closely related to mirror curves
(Bain, 1973). They knew and very effectively used the fact that for a
rectangular square grid RG[a, b] of dimensions a, b, where a and b are
relatively prime, mirror curve is always a single closed curve uniformly
covering the rectangle.
Moreover, there is one more beautiful geometrical property: mirror
curves can be obtained using only a few different prototiles. In particu-
lar, only three prototiles are sufficient for construction of all mirror curves
with internal mirrors incident to the cell-edges of a regular triangular tiling,
five for square (Fig. 3.5), and 11 for hexagonal regular tiling (Jablan, 1995).
Using the combinations of polygons from 11 uniform Archimedean
tilings (Grünbaum and Shephard, 1986), or prototiles producing an im-
pression of space structures and colored prototiles, we may obtain artistic
interlacing patterns, examples of modular design: the use of a few initial
388 LinKnot
Fig. 3.5 Knot design obtained from a uniform tiling.
elements (modules - prototiles) for creating an infinite collection of designs.

The mirror curves obtained from Archimedean tilings resemble the optical
phenomenon: change in direction of a light ray which transfers from one to
the other physical environment.
3.2.3 Construction of mirror curves

“The imitation of the three-dimensional arts of plaiting, weaving and bas-
ketry was the origin of interlaced and knotwork interlaced designs. There
are few races that have not used it as a decoration of stone, wood and metal.
Interlacing rosettes, friezes and ornaments are to be found in the art of most
people surrounding the Mediterranean, the Black and Caspian Seas, Egyp-
tians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Moors, Persians, Turks, Arabs, Syrians,
Hebrews and African tribes. Their highlights are Celtic interlacing knot-
works, Islamic layered patterns and Moorish floor and wall decorations.”
(Bain, 1973)
The common geometrical construction principle of these designs, dis-
covered by P. Gerdes, is the use of (two-sided) mirrors incident to the edges
of a square, triangular or hexagonal regular plane tiling, or perpendicular
to the edges in their midpoints (Gerdes, 1990, 1996, 1997, 1999). In the
ideal case, after the series of consecutive reflections, the ray of light reaches
its beginning point, defining a single closed curve. In other cases, the result
consists of several closed curves. For example, the following mirror-schemes
(Fig. 3.6) correspond to the Celtic designs from G. Bain’s book Celtic Art
(1973).
Can we find a mathematical principle behind constructing a perfect
Fig. 3.6 Celtic knot designs.
curve– single line placed uniformly in a regular tiling. How can we arrange
generating mirror sets and classify curves obtained? In principle, any poly-
omino (polyiamond or polyhexe) (Golomb, 1994) with mirrors on its bor-
der, and two-sided mirrors between cells or perpendicular to the internal
cell-edges in their midpoints, can be used for creating perfect curves.
We propose the following construction from a polyomino (polyiamond
or polyhexe):
Construction 3.1. First, construct all different curves in a polyomino con-

taining lines that connect different cell-edge midpoints until the polyomino
is uniformly covered by k curves. Then, in order to obtain a single curve,
place internal mirrors and use “curve surgery”, according to the following
rules:
(1) any mirror placed in a crossing point of two distinct curves connects
them in one curve;
(2) depending on the position of a mirror, a mirror placed into a self-
390 LinKnot
crossing point of an (oriented) curve either does not change the number
of curves, or breaks the curve in two closed curves (Fig. 3.7).
In every polyomino we may place k −1, k, k +1,. . ., 2A− P2 internal two-

sided mirrors, where A is the area and P is the perimeter of the polyomino.
Placing the minimal number of mirrors k − 1, we need to obtain a single
curve, and to preserve this property when we add other mirrors.
Fig. 3.7 A mirror placed in a crossing point of (a) two different curves; (b) one curve.
In the case of a rectangular square grid RG[a, b] of dimensions a, b,

the initial number of curves, obtained without internal mirrors is k =
GCD(a, b) (GCD– greatest common divisor), so in order to obtain a sin-
gle curve, the possible number of internal two-sided mirrors is k − 1, k,. . .,
2ab − a − b. According to the rules for placing internal mirrors, we propose
the following algorithm for creating mono-linear designs: in every step one
of k − 1 internal mirrors is placed in a crossing point belonging to different
curves. After this, when the curves are combined and transformed into a
single line, we can add other mirrors according to the rules described in
Construction 3.1, taking care about the number of curves (Fig. 3.8).
Fig. 3.8 The successive introduction of internal mirrors in the RG[2, 2] that preserves
a single curve.
P. Cromwell (1993) used symmetry of mirror curves for the classification

of the Celtic frieze designs, and P. Gerdes (1989, 1995) for the reconstruc-
tion of Tamil designs. Looking to the ornamental art, at the first glance
it seems that symmetry is the mathematical basis for the construction
and possible classification of perfect curves (Gerdes, 1989, 1990; Cromwell,
1993). The existence of asymmetric curves suggests another approaches.
The first approach is the geometrical, symmetry-oriented one:
Definition 3.1. Two mirror curves are equal iff there is a similarity trans-
forming one into the other.
In other words, one mirror curve can be obtained from the other by
a combined action of proportionality and isometry. Instead of considering
equality of curves, we may consider the equality of mirror arrangements
defined in the same way. In Subsection 3.2.4 we will try to find the number
of different perfect curves (i.e., their corresponding mirror arrangements)
which can be derived from RG[a, b] for a given number of mirrors m (m =
k − 1, k, . . . , 2ab − a − b).
Definition 3.2. A transformation S of the Euclidean n-dimensional space

E n is called isometry if for every two points X, Y and their images X ′ =
S(X), Y ′ = S(Y ) holds XY ∼ = X ′Y ′.
A figure f is any non-empty subset of points of space.
Definition 3.3. A figure is called invariant with regard to a transformation

S if S(f ) = f , and S is called a symmetry of f .
Theorem 3.1. Symmetries of a figure form a group called symmetry group

of f and denoted Gf (see, e.g., Grünbaum and Shephard, 1986; Martin,
1980; Jablan, 2002).
Isometric symmetry groups of the space E n can be classified according

to a sequence of maximal proper (sub)spaces invariant with respect to the
action of transformations of the groups in question. Symmetry groups of
friezes G21 , bands G321 , plane ornaments G2 , and layers G32 can be used
for the classification of knot-work patterns. Isometric symmetry groups
will be denoted according to the crystallographic notation (or Hermann
and Maugin notation).
Theorem 3.2. There exist exactly 7 symmetry symmetry groups of friezes,

31 symmetry groups of bands, 17 symmetry groups of plane ornaments,
392 LinKnot
Fig. 3.9 Celtic friezes with the same symmetry group of bands p1a1.
Fig. 3.10 Celtic friezes with the same symmetry group of bands p121.
and 80 symmetry groups of layers (see, e.g., Shubnikov and Koptsik, 1974;
Coxeter and Moser, 1980; Grünbaum and Shephard, 1986; Martin, 1980;
Jablan, 2002).
Definition 3.4. The fundamental region of a symmetry group of an object

or pattern is the smallest part of the pattern, which, based on the symmetry,
determines the whole object or pattern.
In all symmetry-oriented classifications of interlaced patterns, i.e., in-

finite knotwork patterns (e.g., in Cromwell (1993) or in Grünbaum and
Shephard, 1986), symmetry is used as the only criterion for the classifi-
cation. Linear knotwork patterns are classified according to 7 symmetry
groups of friezes, or 31 symmetry groups of bands (Washburn and Crowe,
1988; Grünbaum and Shephard, 1980, 1983, 1986) without taking in ac-
count their topological or knot-theoretical properties. In the same way,
plane symmetry patterns are classified according to 17 symmetry groups
of ornaments or 80 symmetry groups of layers. In all these cases we have
an asymmetric fundamental region multiplied by symmetries belonging to
the symmetry group, without taking in consideration that the fundamental
region can be any asymmetric tangle with its particular knot-theoretical
properties. For example, according to the symmetry oriented classification,

two bands (Fig. 3.9) will be considered as equivalent because their symme-
try group is p1a1, in spite of the fact that the first is based on the tangle
2 1 giving as the numerator closure Hopf link 221 (2), and the other is the
direct product of knots 2 1 1 2.
For the classification of infinite symmetric interlaced patterns we pro-
pose the following two criteria:
(1) isometric symmetry group of the pattern;

(2) tangle belonging to a fundamental region.
These criteria are not always sufficient, and we also need to consider other
knot-theoretical properties such as whether a pattern represents prime or
composite KL arrangement.
In the case of an n-tangle (n = 2, 3, ...) representing a fundamental
region, it is possible to construct all its closures and use them for a further
classification. For example, by joining left and right ends of the tangles (Fig.
3.10) that are the basic elements of two friezes with the same symmetry
p121 we obtain links 3#2 and 2 1 2, 2, 2+, respectively.
This classification, proposed by S. Jablan and Lj. Radović in 2001, is
similar to the approach proposed earlier by I. Emery (1995).
3.2.4 Enumeration of mirror curves

In this section we will investigate the enumeration of different monoloinear
curves (i.e. the corresponding mirror arrangements) which can be derived
from a rectangular square grid RG[a, b] of dimensions a, b, covered by k
curves, for a given number of mirrors m (m = k − 1, k, . . . , 2ab − a − b).
Unfortunately, the general solution of this problem is far: placing every
new internal mirror changes the whole structure. It behaves like a kind
of Game of Life or cellular automata, where a local change results in the
global change.
So far, we have only a few combinatorial results based on the P ET
(Pólya Enumeration Theorem) (Harary and Palmer, 1973), obtained for
particular cases by S. Jablan, and generalized by G. Baron.
The following list gives the number of perfect curves obtained from a
rectangular grid RG[a, b], k = GCD(a, b) with the minimal number k − 1
of two-sided internal mirrors incident to the cell-edges, where t = (ab −
a
LCM (a, b)) : (k(k − 1)) = 4xy (LCM – least common multiple), x = 2k ,
b
y = 2k .
394 LinKnot
Fig. 3.11 Different arrangements of edge-incident mirrors in RG[6, 3] giving a single

curve.
(I) If only k − 1 edge-incident mirrors are placed in RG[a, b], such that
a 6= b, the number of perfect curves is
k−3 k−1
(1) (4k)k−2 tk−1 + 2(4k) 2 t 2 for k odd;
k−2 k−2
(2) (4k)k−2 tk−1 + (4k) 2 zt 2 , with z = x for a ≡ 0 (mod 2k), b ≡ k
(mod 2k), and z = x + y, for a ≡ b ≡ k (mod 2k), for k even.
(II) the number of perfect curves for k − 1 edge-incident or edge-

perpendicular mirrors, and a 6= b is
k−3 k−1
(1) 2(8k)k−2 tk−1 + 4(8k) 2 t 2 for k odd;
k−2 k−2
(2) 2(8k)k−2 tk−1 + 2(8k) 2 zt 2 , with z = x for a ≡ 0 (mod 2k), b ≡ k
(mod 2k), and z = x + y for a ≡ b ≡ k (mod 2k), for k even.
For a = b, we have to put t = 1, z = 1, divide the numbers by 2, and get

the following results
(i) the number of perfect curves for k − 1 only edge-incident mirrors is
k−3
(1) 22k−5 k k−2 + 2k − 3k 2 for k odd;
k−2
(2) 8k 2k−5 k k−2 + 2k − 3k 2 for k even;
(ii) the number of perfect curves for k − 1 edge-incident or edge-

perpendicular mirrors is
k−3
(1) (8k)k−2 + 2(8k) 2 for k odd;
k−2
(2) (8k)k−2 + (8k) 2 for k even.
Even for relatively small RGs (e.g., with a = 6, b = 3), and minimal
number of mirrors (k−1 = 2), the number of the different curves obtained is
large. For example, there are 52 different arrangements of two edge-incident
mirrors in a rectangle 6 × 3 producing perfect curves. Among them, only 8
are symmetric– 4 mirror-symmetric and 4 point-symmetric (Fig. 3.11).
3.2.5 Lunda designs

Lunda design is obtained from a mirror curve by numbering small squares
in the order in which a curve passes through and then reducing all num-
bers modulo 2. The result is a 0-1 sequence, i.e., “black”-“white” mosaic
(Gerdes, 1997, 1999). Lunda designs have the local equilibrium property:
the sum of the integers on every two border unit squares with the joint
vertex is the same (Fig. 3.12a), and the sum of the integers in the four
unit squares between two arbitrary neighboring grid points is always twice
the previous sum (Fig. 3.12b). This gives the global equilibrium property:
the sums in all rows are equal, and the same holds for the columns. Local
and the resulting global equilibrium property hold even if the reduction is
made modulo 4.
In particular, enumerating a regular curve (with the mirrors incident
to the grid edges) and reducing all the numbers modulo 4, we obtain
four-colored Lunda designs, where every vertex is orderly surrounded by
numbers 0,1,2,3 and the disposition of the sequences around the points is
alternately clockwise and anti-clockwise.
The correspondence between monolinear mirror-curves (i.e., the corre-
sponding arrangements of mirrors) and Lunda designs is many-to-one, so
the same Lunda design can originate from different mirror arrangements
(Fig. 3.12c). Classification of mirror arrangements according to Lunda
designs they produce is an open question.
3.2.6 Polyominoes
A plane region without “holes”, formed by n edge-to-edge adjacent squares
is called a polyomino (Golomb, 1994). If instead of squares we use n equilat-
396 LinKnot
Fig. 3.12 (a) Possible border situations; (b) possible situations between vertical and
horizontal neighboring grid points; (c) Lunda designs.
eral triangles or n regular hexagons, we obtain, respectively, polyiamonds

or polyhexes. We will restrict our discussion to polyominoes (although it
also can be applied to polyiamonds and polyhexes). For polyominoes not
having a reflective symmetry, we may distinguish or not their “left” and
“right” form. Hence, we have two possible equality criteria for polyominoes:
(1) considering only the shape (without distinguishing “left” or “right”

form);
(2) considering both shape and orientation.
So far, there is no formula for calculating the number of different poly-

ominoes. The number of various polyominoes is computed for n ≤ 15
(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Polyomino.html).
Fig. 3.13 Polyominoes in 0-1 notation.
In a polyomino with the borders consisting of mirrors, in every bor-

der cell we can place two-sided mirrors perpendicular to the internal edges
in their midpoints. After a series of reflections, the ray of light will “de-
scribe” a shape called closed Dragon curve (or self-avoiding curve). If we
denote a reflection in a border mirror by 0, and a reflection in an internal
mirror by 1, we have 0-1 words (or symbols) for polyominoes (Fig. 3.13),
where these words are cyclically equivalent. For n = 1 we will have only
one polyomino 0000, for n = 2 the polyomino 00010001, for n = 3 two
polyominoes: 000101000101 and 000100100011, for n = 4 five of them:
0001010100010101, 0001010001100011, 001001001001, 0001001100010011,
and 0001001010001011, etc.
From their binary symbols we can make conclusions about the sym-
metry: every reversible word denotes a polyomino with a sense-reversing
symmetry (it does not have “left” and “right” form); irreversible symbols
correspond to the polyominos appearing in the “left” and “right” form (e.g.,
0001001100010011, or 0001001010001011).
398 LinKnot
We can translate these symbols (or binary numbers) into hexadecimal

numbers and assign one number to each polyomino, in order to establish
one-to-one correspondence between the numbers and polyominoes. For ex-
ample, this number can be the minimum of all cyclic-equivalent symbols
(e.g. to the polyomino 00010001 correspond cyclically equivalent symbols
00100010, 01000100, 10001000 and the minimum of them is 00010001 = 11
in the hexadecimal system). Hence, we have a notation for polyominoes
where exactly one number corresponds to every polyomino, and vice versa.
Open question is: find the general algebraic form of the number determining
a polyomino? Namely, some numbers will determine “open polyominoes”,
“hollow polyominoes” or “overlapping polyominoes”, that are not included
in our definition, and other will determine “real” polyominoes.
Every (n + 1)-omino can be derived from some n-omino by adding a
single square to it. The addition operation is a positional one, i.e., the
result depends on the position where the new square is added. We have the
following addition rules:
(1) a0 + 0000 = a10001 (1-edge contact);

(2) a0110 + 0000 = a1001 (2-edge contact);
(3) a0110110 + 0000 = a1010 (3-edge contact), where a never ends with 1.
These rules can be efficiently used for the computer enumeration of poly-
ominoes. In each step we need to derive (n + 1)-minoes from n-minoes by
adding a square, then check the equality of obtained polyominoes and make
the list of all (n + 1)-minoes. The main problem are “undesired” edge con-
tacts (e.g., contacts in parallel edges, producing “hollow” and “overlapping”
polyominoes).
3.2.6.1 Lunda polyominoes and Lunda animals

Polyominoes (either black or white) appearing in Lunda designs will be
called Lunda polyominoes (Gerdes, 1996). The possible shape of Lunda
polyominoes is restricted by the local equilibrium condition for Lunda de-
signs. Therefore, some polyominoes are inadmissible (e.g., 001001001001).
On the other hand, Lunda polyominoes also include “hollow” polyominoes.
In his book Lunda geometry: Designs, Polyominoes, Patterns, Sym-
metries P. Gerdes (1996) introduced the concept of Lunda-animals and
obtained the first approximation of the total number of different Lunda
n-ominoes.
Lunda-animal is a Lunda m-omino with a unit square at one of its ends,
representing a head. A Lunda-animal walks in such a way that after each

step the head occupies a new unit square, and every other cell occupies the
position previously taken by the preceding cell. In other words, two subse-
quent positions of a Lunda-animal have a Lunda (m−1)-omino in common.
How many different positions p5 (n) of a Lunda 5-omino are possible after n
steps? P. Gerdes proved that: pm (n) = f (n+3) for m = 1, 2, 3, . . . , 8, where
f (n) is the famous Fibonacci sequence 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, . . . given by
the recurrence formula: f (0) = 0, f (1) = 1, f (n+ 1) = f (n)+ f (n− 1). It is
interesting that for every Lunda m-omino for m < 9 the result is the same,
so pm (n) = f (n+3) for 1 ≤ m ≤ 8. From m = 9 onwards, pm (n) < f (n+3).
Finding the general formula for pm (n) is an open problem.
3.2.7 KLs and mirror curves

Now let us take a look of the classification of mirror curves through knot
theory glasses! Every mirror curve can be simply transformed into an inter-
lacing knotwork design, that is, into a projection of some alternating knot.
Such curves appear in the history of ornamental art, more frequently as
knotworks, then as plane curves. Even the name Brahma-mudi (Brahma’s
knot) denoting Tamil curves refers us to knots. Therefore, the classification
of mirror curves goes via proper reduced minimal knot projections.
Two projections or knot diagrams are equal if they are isotopic as
graphs, where the isotopy ensures that relations “over”-“under” are pre-
served. In order to classify our curves, treated as knot projections, we can
use the invariants of KL projections (page 312).
The rectangular square grid RG[2, 2] is the minimal RG from which we
can derive some non-trivial alternating KLs (different from the unknot)–
the trefoil knot 31 (or 3 in the Conway notation) and the 2-component link
221 (or 2) (Fig. 3.14). From RG[3, 2] we obtain the knots 74 , 62 , 31 #31 , 51 ,
52 , 41 and 31 (or 3 1 3, 3 1 2, 3#3, 5, 3 2, 2 2, and 3 in the Conway notation),
where different mirror-arrangements may give the same projection.
Is it possible to derive every knot projection from some RG with a large
enough number of crossings? What is the upper bound for this number?
Which knot projections can be obtained from a particular RG? Which
mirror-arrangements in some RG give the same knot projection? Find the
minimal RG for a given knot! Can you obtain several non-isomorphic pro-
jections of some knot from the same RG? These and many other problems
connected with mirror curves represent an open field for research.
400 LinKnot
Fig. 3.14 Hopf link 211 (2) and trefoil knot 31 (3) in RG[2, 2].
3.2.8 Mirror curves on different surfaces

The construction of mirror curves is independent from the metric properties
or the geometry of the surface, so the same principle of construction can
be applied to any tiling (e.g., on a sphere) (Gerdes, 1996, 1999) or in the
hyperbolic plane (Dunham, 2000; Sazdanović and Sremčević, 2002a,b).
Algorithm 3.1 Let us consider any edge-to-edge tiling of a part of an

arbitrary surface. First connect midpoints of adjacent edges to obtain a
4-regular mid-edge graph with k components. Using the rules for adding
two-sided mirrors, it can be converted in a single mirror curve in a finite
number of steps (Fig. 3.15).
It is easy to prove that this simple algorithm is finite. If k = 1, we have

a single mirror curve, so no additional two-sided mirrors are needed. If the
number of components is k (k ≥ 2), we place first two-sided mirror in the
crossing of two different curves, connect them and obtain k −1 components.
Continuing in the same way, a single mirror curve will be obtained after
introducing k − 1 mirrors. Our game becomes more interesting if we allow
adding mirrors in self-crossing points of the same component. This move
can either preserve the number of curves or increase it by 1, so we can end
up with a single or multi-component curve.
Open question is: find a general formula for the number k of curves for
any tiling, before mirrors are placed.
From mirror curves on different surfaces we could obtain the corre-
sponding Lunda designs. All non-isomorphic Lunda designs on a regular
octahedron are given in Fig. 3.16. Try to enumerate non-isomorphic Lunda
designs obtained from regular polyhedra!
Fig. 3.15 Construction of a single mirror curve from the tiling (a) by connecting edge
mid-points (b), tracing components (c) and introducing a mirror (d).
3.2.9 Mirror curves in art

Let us consider mirror curves from different cultures, distant in space and
time, and try to discover some common principles used for construction of
mirror curves. We will compare mirror curves from Tamil art, Tchokwe
sand drawings and Celtic art, try to discover the common properties of
the constructions used, and establish some hierarchy with regard to their
complexity. As the final result, we will describe a kind of algorithmic ap-
proach used by these cultures for the construction of knotwork designs and
compare it with similar approaches used in knot theory.
At the beginning of knotwork art, every culture probably used plates–
rectangular square grids RG[a, b] of dimensions a, b (a, b ∈ N ) without
internal mirrors4. Plates have been recognized as the basis of all Celtic
knotworks by the antiquarian J. Romilly Allen whose twenty years’ work is
summarized in the book Celtic Art in Pagan and Cristian Times (1904).
The initial number of mirror curves for plates without internal mirrors is
k = GCD(a, b) (GCD– greatest common divisor), so a single curve is ob-
4 A cylinder seal from Ur, Mesopotamia, representing a snake with interlacing coil dates
from 2600-2500 B.C. (Przytycki, 2004, Fig. 1.3)

402 LinKnot
Fig. 3.16 Lunda designs on the octahedron. Small triangles in uppermost right corners
show the coloring of an outside region.
Fig. 3.17 KLs obtained from RG[a, 2] for a = 3, 4, 5.
tained iff a, b are mutually prime numbers. From the knot theory point
of view, every single-curve plate, turned into an alternating knot by in-
troducing the relation “over-under”, represents a Lissajous knot (Bogle,
Hearst, Jones and Stoilov, 1994). The infinite series of plates, obtained
for an arbitrary a (a ≥ 3) and b = 2, consists of the rational KLs of the
form 3 1 3, 3 1 2 1 3, 3 1 2 1 2 1 3, 3 1 2 . . . 2 1 3 (Fig. 3.17). Notice that for
every odd b we obtain a knot, and for every even b a 2-component link.
Fig. 3.18 KLs obtained from RG[a, 3] for a = 3, 4.
The number of different projections of these KLs is: 1, 4, 13, 68, 346,. . .,
respectively, but in knotworks, only one of them– the most symmetric, is
used for each a. Most symmetric projections can be found and drawn us-
ing the LinKnot function MaxSymmProjAltKL. For a = 3 we have the
projection 3 1 3, for a = 4 the projection (((1, (3, 1), 1), 1), 1, 1, 1), for a = 5
the projection (((1, ((1, (3, 1), 1), 1), 1), 1), 1, 1, 1), for a = 6 the projection
(((1, ((1, ((1, (3, 1), 1), 1), 1), 1), 1), 1), 1, 1, 1) etc. The sequence 1, 4, 13, 68,
346,. . . is not included in the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences; in fact, it
is possible to obtain many new infinite sequences defined by numbers of
different projections of specific classes of KLs. For an arbitrary a (a ≥ 3)
and b = 3 we obtain plates with polyhedral KLs: for a = 3 we have 3-
component link 8∗ 2 : 2 : 2 : 2, for a = 4 the knot 1312∗ : 2 0 ::: 2 0.2.2 0, etc.
(Fig. 3.18).
Definition 3.5. Any monolinear mirror curve placed in some polyomino

without internal mirrors is called a plate design.
Let us now describe four general rules for combining plate designs
and/or mirror curves. The first three rules are given by P. Gerdes (1999),
and the fourth is proposed by S. Jablan. We will restrict our consideration
to mirror curves placed in polyominoes with square cells.
Construction rules:
(1) The first rule defines a combination of two mirror curves that share
one edge of an open cell on their borders (Fig. 3.19a). Such a composition
corresponds to the direct product of KLs, and it was probably one of the
most exploited constructions in knotwork art. For given mirror curves M1
and M2 , this kind of direct product we will call ×-direct product and denote
404 LinKnot
Fig. 3.19 Rules for composing plate designs and mirror curves.
it by M1 × M2 . If we combine two mirror curves in this way, first with c1 ,

and the other with c2 components, the result is a new mirror curve with
c1 + c2 − 1 components. Hence, the ×-direct product of two 1-component
mirror curves is a new 1-component mirror curve. This idea was used, for
example, in the Tchokwe design from Fig. 3.20 and in many Celtic friezes.
As a particular application of the first rule, we can add a single square
to the border of any monolinear mirror curve. This transformation corre-
sponds to adding an external loop to a KL diagram. It does not change
the number of components and can be repeated, since it has a decorative
function in knotwork art. For example, the Tamil (unknot) design from Fig.
3.2a is created by a series of external loop additions, beginning from the
RG[1, 1]; the knot design from Fig. 3.2b by adding loops to the RG[4, 3];
and the knot design from Fig. 3.2c by adding loops to the RG[5, 3]. The
same construction is used for Tchokwe designs (Fig. 3.3a).
(2) The second rule is the one defining the direct product K1 #K2 in
knot theory (Fig. 3.19b). In the language of mirror curves M1 and M2 , it
means that we cut one external edge of each mirror-curve M1 and M2 , and
reconnect them again to obtain a new mirror-curve, that will be denoted
by M1 k M2 .
Fig. 3.20 × and k direct product in Sona drawings.
Fig. 3.21 Rule 3 in Sona drawings.
(3) The third rule is restricted to plate designs: two monolinear plate
designs whose overlapping contains exactly two cells will give a new mono-
linear plate design. The schematic interpretation of the third rule is given
in Fig. 3.19c.
406 LinKnot
Fig. 3.22 A multiple application of the Rule 4 in Tamil drawing.
Fig. 3.23 Algorithm for creating monolinear symmetric mirror curves.
In order to introduce the fourth rule we need to define new operation,

addition. The addition of a plate design P1 to plate design P2 is an edge-
to-edge identification of their border cells belonging to rectilinear borders
(Fig. 3.19d). In the same way, we can add a plate design P1 to some mirror
curve M placed in some polyomino.
(4) The fourth rule is: an RG[a, b] for which b|a, added to any monolin-
ear mirror curve M (or monolinear plate design P2 ) along the edge b, will
Fig. 3.24 Basic elements of Celtic knotworks.
Fig. 3.25 Celtic tangles.
give a monolinear design (Fig. 3.19d). In particular, any square RG added

to a monolinear design gives a new monolinear design.
Rule 4 can be applied to mirror curves: we can add a mirror curve M2 to
a monolinear mirror curve M1 in such a way that every curve contact point
along edge b of the polyomino in which M2 is placed belongs to a different
component of M2 . The new mirror curve M1 + M2 will be monolinear.
These four rules are sufficient for creating monolinear plate designs and
extend the monolinearity from RGs to plate designs (Figs. 3.20-3.22).
For the further derivation of monolinear mirror curves from monolin-
ear plate designs we can use the rules described in the Subsection 3.1.3
for adding internal mirrors, illustrated in Fig. 3.7. Since symmetry is de-
sirable visual property, in knotwork art symmetric mirror curves prevail
over asymmetric ones. This means that most of the mirror arrangements
are not aesthetically appealing: as we mentioned before, only 8 out of 52
two-mirror arrangements from RG[6, 3] are symmetrical.
For a construction of symmetric mirror curves we propose the following
408 LinKnot
Fig. 3.26 Celtic knots, friezes and plane knotwork ornaments.
algorithm. Let a symmetric monolinear plate design P be given. We place

an internal mirror in some crossing A of P and trace an oriented mirror
curve M . Now we have two possibilities:
(1) if P is not completely covered by M , choose a not self-crossing point

on M , symmetric to A and put a mirror symmetric to the mirror in A
(Fig. 3.23a1). If a symmetric point with this property does not exist,
rotate the mirror in A for 90◦ around its midpoint and then place the
mirror symmetric to it (Fig. 3.23a2 );
(2) if P is completely covered by M , place a new mirror symmetric to
the mirror in A (Fig. 3.23b1 ). If monolinearity is destroyed, rotate
the mirror in A for 90◦ around its midpoint and then place the mirror
symmetric to it (Fig. 3.23b2 ).
This algorithm is applied until the maximum number of internal mirrors

that preserve monolinearity is used.
This approach will be used to explain the construction of different mir-
ror curves occurring in Tamil, Tchokwe and Celtic knotworks. We already
explained and illustrated knotwork designs that represent a single mono-
linear RG, which were derived from a single monolinear RG by adding a
series of external loops, as well as designs obtained as a ×-direct product
of monolinear RGs (Rule 1).
Fig. 3.27 Celtic circle and square knot designs.
The first rule, ×-direct product, is very frequently used in Celtic knot-
work art for the construction of friezes, as well as the k-direct product
(Rule 2). Both of them are the standard tools for obtaining translational
repetitive structures: friezes or even plane symmetry groups.
Applying the second rule actually connects two monolinear RGs in their
corners, i.e., it is the k-direct product of the corresponding knots. Another
possibility is using (more or less) “open” RGs and their k-direct product.
Although we obtain the same composite KLs, in the visual sense obtained
patters will be different. The ×-direct product was used in Celtic knot art
as well, mainly for the construction of frieze knotworks (or bordures).
In order to analyze Celtic knotworks based on k-direct product first we
need to insert some internal mirrors perpendicular to the edges in basic
(monolinear) RGs, in order to obtain parts or “tangles” of Celtic knot-
works with an appropriate placement of incoming and outgoing strands.
The possible choices for their positions are two top (or bottom) corners of
an elementary RG, two diagonal (ascending or descending) corners, or all
four corners forming a tangle. In the first case we place internal mirrors
perpendicular to “vertical” and “horizontal” edges of border cells, form-
ing an L-shape form (Fig. 3.21). Furthermore, cutting the long edge(s) of
the design and reconnecting them, we obtain different frieze designs (direct
410 LinKnot
Fig. 3.28 (a) k-direct product in the Tchokwe design; (b,c) the application of Rule 3 in
Tchokwe designs.
Fig. 3.29 Derivation of Celtic monolinear cross knot design from plate design obtained
using the Rule 4.
products of basic KLs) with incoming and outgoing strands appropriately

placed (Fig. 3.25). The other possibility is creating “tangles” from RGs
(Fig. 3.25) and composing them into a chain (or a closed circle) (Fig. 3.26-
3.27). In the case of Tchokwe sand drawings a similar strategy was used in
order to obtain “open” RGs that can be composed by k-direct (Fig. 3.28a)
or ×-direct product (Fig. 3.3b) in larger knotworks.
Fig. 3.30 Celtic monolinear knot cross design.
Fig. 3.31 Celtic mirror curves.
The third rule was one of the favorite rules in the construction of
Tchokwe sand drawings. A whole series of “social” monolinear plate de-
signs representing a leopard with cubs (Fig. 3.21a), a design called kambava
wamulivwe that represents an animal called kambava that died inside a rock
(Fig. 3.28b), or lusona drawing called tambwe that represents a lion (Fig.
3.28c) is composed in this way.
The fourth rule offers the highest degree of freedom and often gives
symmetric plates in knotwork art (Fig. 3.29). Various designs can be
obtained by adding along edge b any RG(a, b) with the property b|a, or
square RG, in a symmetric or asymmetric way to a monolinear plate design.
In this way, we can create perfect curves of a desired shape.
Creating a variety of monolinear plate designs opens the door to artis-
412 LinKnot
Fig. 3.32 Celtic monolinear design with broken symmetry.
Fig. 3.33 Construction of Celtic monolinear knot design (b) by breaking the symmetry
of the two-component symmetric design (a).
tic creativity and play: there is a huge number of ways for introducing
internal edge-incident and edge-perpendicular mirrors in order to preserve
monolinearity (Figs. 3.30-3.33).
Together with the remarkable example of a monolinear cross knot design
(Fig. 3.30), another interesting example is a complex monolinear design

(Figs. 3.32-3.33). Because the symmetric version of the same design (Fig.
3.33a) is a two-component knot design, the Celtic master constructed an
almost symmetric monolinear design by breaking symmetry (Fig. 3.33b).
Fig. 3.34 (a) Tchokwe sand drawings; (b) the geometric construction of the correspond-
ing basic polyhedra.
Fig. 3.35 Torus knot [12,5].

414 LinKnot
Fig. 3.36 Michelangelo’s plaza.
Fig. 3.37 Celtic circular knot-designs and basic polyhedra.
In the preceding chapter we investigated various properties of basic poly-

hedra and their families (page 295). Several families of basic polyhedra
appear in knotwork. The family of basic polyhedra starting with 8∗ , up
to 162∗, yields monolinear designs in Tchokwe sand drawings (Fig. 3.34a).
These series can be obtained from the shadows of torus knots of the form
[4, b], GCD(4, b) = 1. Construction of these basic polyhedra is inspired by
a pattern from nature– the cobweb of a large spider, a series of inscribed
squares (Fig. 3.34b).
Fig. 3.38 (a) A tangle T , its numerator N (T ), and denominator closure D(T ); (b) the
pair of links (2 1 2, 2 1 2) obtained as the numerator and denominator closure of the Celtic
tangle; (c) the closure of the tangle 3; (d) the bands (p121,3) and (p121,5).
In the same way we can obtain different basic polyhedra derived from
shadows of torus knots [a,b], GCD(a, b) = 1. They represent the same
geometric structure: a series of inscribed n-gons (n ≥ 3).
Similar infinite series of basic polyhedra inspired by patterns from na-
ture, such as the growth patterns of certain plants, can be found in art-
works. For example, a shadow of the torus knot [12,5] (Fig. 3.35) appears
in Michelangelo’s plaza (Fig. 3.36).
Celtic masters used friezes without bigons to construct basic polyhedra
(Fig. 3.37b) by identifying opposite sides of friezes. This method has quite
a general character and can be used for creating other circular knot designs
(Fig. 3.27, 3.37a).
In order to classify complex periodic knotworks (e.g., Celtic friezes or
plane ornaments from Fig. 3.26, or laces), we will recognize basic patterns–
tangles, equivalent to fundamental regions and combine two approaches:
the theory of symmetry and knot theory. First we determine the symmetry
group, and then add the information about tangles. For this description,
416 LinKnot
friezes or plane symmetry groups are treated as 3-D objects, by taking

into consideration the relation “over-under”. Their symmetry groups can
be found among 31 symmetry groups of bands, or 80 symmetry groups of
layers. However, bands or layers that have the same symmetry group can
be, visually and topologically, very different. They can be composed of dif-
ferent generating elements, repeated according the same symmetry rules.
Therefore, together with the symmetry classification, we can use the clas-
sification of their “building blocks”, tangles (Fig. 3.38a). Using numerator
and denominator closures (N (T ), D(T )), from the Celtic tangles from the
upper row of the Fig. 3.25 we obtain the ordered pairs of alternating KLs:
(2 1 2, 2 1 2) (Fig. 3.38b), (3, 2 2), (1, 3), (8∗ , 2 1 2 1 2), (2 1 1 1 2, 3#3),
(2 1 1 1 2, 2 2 1 2), and (3#3, 2 1 2). Similarly, tangles with two open ends
can be closed (Fig. 3.38c).
In order to distinguish knotwork symmetry patterns, we will use the
notation consisting of a symbol of the symmetry group and closure(s) of
the tangle. For example, two bands with the same symmetry group p121
have the symbols (p121,3) and (p121,5) (Fig. 3.38d). In order to obtain
more precise classification, instead of KLs obtained as closures, we can use
their projections.
3.2.10 KLs and self-avoiding curves

This part of the work is inspired by a series of sculptures titled Viae Globi,
created by Carlo Sequin (2001) (Fig. 3.39), and by a conversation with
Haresh Lalvani, who proposed to identify vertices of a polygon, in particular
two vertices of a triangle in order to obtain “a triangle with two vertices”
(Fig. 3.40). This simple idea is a part of his extensive unpublished work.
Using this idea in knot theory, we have established correspondence between
KL shadows with n crossings and 2n-gons with n pairs of collapsed points.
The unicursal curves related to knot theory, atoms and d-diagrams are
considered in papers by V. Manturov (2000a, 2000b) and his book Knot
Theory (Manturov, 2004, Chapter 15).
Given KL shadow can be transformed into a single closed mirror curve
by placing a two-sided mirror in an appropriate position in every vertex
(Fig. 3.7). This mirror curve is a self-avoiding path, dividing the plane
ℜ2 or surface of a sphere S 2 into two regions, interior and exterior, which
are equivalent on a sphere. Figure 3.41 shows two self-avoiding curves
derived from Borromean rings (represented as a Schlegel diagram of an
octahedron), and a self-avoiding curve derived from the fullerene C60 by
Fig. 3.39 Sculpture Lombard by Carlo Sequin.
Fig. 3.40 Triangle with two vertices.
the mid-edge truncation. The number and type of mirrors necessary to

convert any minimal KL shadow of a given KL into a self-avoiding curve is
an invariant of a KL. For both self-avoiding curves derived from Borromean
rings, the number of mirrors is {3, 3}.
Let us number points where a self-avoiding curve touches mirrors: for
n mirrors there will be 2n points. We can pair points corresponding to
the same mirror and think of a self-avoiding curve is an 2n-gon with n
pairs of identified vertices. This fact will be used to establish connection
between self-avoiding curves and chord diagrams. In order to avoid loops,
we never identify adjacent points. If we denote points belonging to internal
mirrors by underlined numbers, and overline numbers belonging to exter-
nal mirrors, the self-avoiding curve (Fig. 3.42) can be denoted by the code
418 LinKnot
Fig. 3.41 (a) Two self-avoiding curves derived from Borromean rings; (b) self-avoiding
curve derived from the fullerene C60 by the mid-edge truncation.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Analogously to Gauss codes, this code will

depend from a beginning point and orientation. In order to have one-to-
one correspondence between self-avoiding curves and codes we will define
short codes and for every curve choose the minimal code as the represen-
tative. If we think of the exterior and interior of a curve as equivalent,
then a code and its dual (the code with inverted underlinings and overlin-
ings) are considered to be the same. In the same way as with Gauss and
Dowker codes, the proposed codes for self-avoiding curves can be written
in a more concise form. First, we can write our code as a sorted list of
ordered pairs {{1, 4}, {2, 11}, {3, 6}, {5, 8}, {7, 10}, {9, 12}}. If we agree to
replace every pair of overlined numbers by the same numbers without over-
linings, to replace every pair of underlined numbers by these numbers in
opposite (descending) order, and sort the obtained list, the result is the list
{{1, 4}, {5, 8}, {6, 3}, {9, 12}, {10, 7}, {11, 2}}. The list of second elements
in each pair gives the short code {4, 8, 3, 12, 7, 2}. The complete code can be
recovered from the short code by reversing the procedure described above.
A different agreement: replacing every pair of overlined numbers by these
numbers in opposite (descending) order, every pair of underlined numbers
by the same pair of numbers and sort the obtained list, gives the dual
list {{2, 11}, {3, 6}, {4, 1}, {7, 10}, {8, 5}, {12, 9}}, and the dual short code
{11, 6, 1, 10, 5, 9}.
Every self-avoiding curve can be graphically interpreted by a chord di-
agram: a regular 2n-gon, where points belonging to internal mirrors are
connected by full, and points belonging to external mirrors by broken diag-
onal lines (or by black and white lines). For example, the first self-avoiding
curve from Fig. 3.41a will be described by the chord diagram from Fig.
Fig. 3.42 (a) Coding of the first self-avoiding curve from Fig. 3.41a and its chord
diagram; (b) chord diagram of the second self-avoiding curve from Fig. 3.41a and its
dual.
3.42a, or by its dual obtained by inverse bicoloring, where full (black) lines
are replaced by broken (white) lines and vice versa. In the both cases (Fig.
3.42) chord diagrams are equal to their duals, i.e., they are self-dual. From
every chord diagram we can easily obtain a code of the corresponding self-
avoiding curve and vice versa, and to recover an original KL from which
the curve is derived. Two stages of the recovering are illustrated in Fig.
3.43.
Fig. 3.43 Recovering a self-avoiding curve from its chord diagram.

420 LinKnot
In order to derive and enumerate all self-avoiding curves with n mir-

rors, one should first derive all different non-colored chord diagrams, and
then impose the appropriate coloring. The following rule holds for non-
colored chord diagrams: every vertex belongs to exactly one diagonal
(chord). In fact, we are searching for all different minimal sets of diag-
onals that span a regular 2n-gon, where sets that can be obtained one
from another by symmetries of 2n-gon are considered to be the same.
For n = 2, 3, . . . , 7 we obtain, respectively 1, 2, 7, 29, 176, 1788 such
sets. The sequence obtained is A003437 from the On-line encyclopedia of
integer sequences (http://www.research.att.com/∼njas/sequences/), which
represents the number of unlabeled Hamiltonian circuits on n-octahedron
(Singmaster, 1975). An n-octahedron is the complete n-partite graph
K2,2,...,2 (n pairs of opposite vertices with edges connecting each vertex
to every other vertex except its opposite). Singmaster notes that such a
Hamiltonian cycle can be viewed as a way of seating n couples around a
circular table so that no man is next to his wife. The number of cases is
given by the following formula (Pratt, 1996):
n n
2n k
X (−1)k k [ 2n−k ]2 (2n − k)!
.
2n n!
k=0
Chord diagrams derived for n = 2, 3, 4 are given in Fig. 3.44. Among all
chord diagrams we can distinguish 2-vertex connected graphs (containing
the edges of an 2n-gon as well), corresponding to non-prime KLs, and
others, 3-connected, corresponding to prime KLs.
For coloring of chord diagrams we have the rule: every two diagonals
crossing each other must have different colors. A chord diagram will be
colorable iff it is planar. The other, purely visual, criterion for colorability
is the following: a chord diagram is colorable iff crossings of its diagonals
do not form a polygon with an odd number of edges, and three or more
diagonals do not have a common point (Fig. 3.45). Coloring of a (colorable)
chord diagram represents a projection of a polyhedron enclosed in an 2n-
gon, with proper visibility of all edges.
In the case of 2-vertex connected chord diagrams, coloring is not unique:
from the same uncolored chord diagram we can obtain several different col-
ored diagrams (Fig. 3.44). KL shadows, their corresponding self-avoiding
curves and colored chord diagrams for n = 2, 3, 4 are given in Fig. 3.46,
and for n = 5 in Fig. 3.47. In the case of 3-vertex connected chord di-
agrams, a coloring is completely forced by the coloring of one edge: by
Fig. 3.44 Chord diagrams for n = 2, 3, 4.
Fig. 3.45 Non-colorable chord diagrams.
choosing its color we can obtain only one colored chord diagram, or its
dual. Hence, in the case of 3-vertex connected planar diagrams, an un-
colored chord diagram provides a complete information about the cor-
responding self-avoiding curve. Every uncolored chord diagram can be
given as a list of unordered pairs of numbers denoting chords. For ex-
ample, the uncolored chord diagram from the Fig. 3.48a can be denoted as
{{1, 3}, {2, 6}, {4, 9}, {5, 8}, {7, 10}}. The same figure illustrates its bicol-
oring (a), the reconstruction of its corresponding self-avoiding curve (b-e),
and KL shadow obtained (f).
422 LinKnot
Fig. 3.46 KL shadows, self-avoiding curves, and colored chord diagrams obtained for
n = 2, 3, 4.
Restricting our attention to 3-vertex connected planar chord diagrams

corresponding to prime KLs, for n = 2, 3, . . . , 8 we obtain, respectively,
1, 1, 3, 7, 33, 148, 923 chord diagrams corresponding to self-avoiding
curves derived from prime KLs. For n = 2 we have one chord diagram
{{1, 3}, {2, 4}}, and for n = 3 one diagram {{1, 3}, {2, 5}, {4, 6}}. For n = 4
there are three diagrams, given in the following table:
{{1, 3}, {2, 5}, {4, 7}, {6, 8}}, {{1, 3}, {2, 6}, {4, 8}, {5, 7}}
{{1, 4}, {2, 7}, {3, 6}, {5, 8}}
For n = 5, the seven chord diagrams are given in the following table:
Fig. 3.47 KL shadows, self-avoiding curves, and colored chord diagrams obtained for
n = 5.
Fig. 3.48 (a) Uncolored chord diagram and its bicoloring; (b-e) reconstruction of its
corresponding self-avoiding curve; (f) the corresponding KL shadow.
{{1, 3}, {2, 5}, {4, 7}, {6, 9}, {8, 10}} {{1, 3}, {2, 5}, {4, 8}, {6, 10}, {7, 9}}
{{1, 3}, {2, 5}, {4, 9}, {6, 8}, {7, 10}} {{1, 3}, {2, 6}, {4, 9}, {5, 7}, {8, 10}}
{{1, 3}, {2, 6}, {4, 9}, {5, 8}, {7, 10}} {{1, 3}, {2, 7}, {4, 10}, {5, 9}, {6, 8}}
{{1, 4}, {2, 8}, {3, 7}, {5, 10}, {6, 9}}
424 LinKnot
Fig. 3.49 Chord diagrams and self-avoiding curves corresponding to prime KLs for
n = 6.
For n = 6, thirty three chord diagrams and their corresponding self-

avoiding curves given by mirror placements are illustrated in Fig. 3.49.
Different shadows of the same KL can give different self-avoiding curves,
as in the case of the link 2 2 2.
Fig. 3.50 Three pairs of equal self-avoiding curves (a) shown as shapes (b) and their
chord diagrams (c).
Fig. 3.51 KL families and chord diagrams of self-avoiding curves.
Visual recognition of self-avoiding curves, either direct or from shapes

(colored plane regions defined by self-avoiding curves) (Fig. 3.50b), is com-
plicated even for a small number of mirrors, but it is almost immediate
from chord diagrams (Fig. 3.50c).
It is interesting to mention a possible connection between shapes origi-
nating from self-avoiding curves and some biological forms.
From every KL shadow can be derived one or several self-avoiding
curves. Some conclusions about original KLs can be made based on the
chord diagrams of their corresponding self-avoiding curves. For example,
to every diagonal connecting two vertices separated by one vertex, and to
every pair of parallel adjacent diagonals corresponds a bigon in the original
KL shadow; diagrams without them correspond to basic polyhedra. In
this way, we can follow a process of bigon collapsing (see page 8) directly
in chord diagrams.
426 LinKnot
Among all chord diagrams, we can distinguish antisymmetric diagrams,

preserved under opposite coloring of chords. In respect to self-avoiding
curves, this means that the external region is equivalent to the internal
one. Such diagrams are called self-dual. For example, for n = 6, eleven
among 33 chord diagrams are self-dual.
Idea of families of KLs again plays an important role– we will con-
sider families of KLs, their corresponding chord diagrams and self-avoiding
curves. Chord diagrams corresponding to the same family can be visually
recognized (Fig. 3.51).
Fig. 3.52 Via tori that can be obtained by identifying opposite sides of the rectangle.
Self-avoiding curves can be embedded on different surfaces, so together

with Viae Globi on a sphere S 3 , we can consider Viae Tori on a torus
(introduced in analogy to Sequin’s Viae Globi), or on any other surface
(Fig. 3.52).
For a given number n the LinKnot function fDiffViae derives all dif-
ferent self-avoiding curves with n mirrors that can be obtained from prime
KLs with n crossings. The other way around, the LinKnot function fVia
ToKL finds basic prime KL of every self-avoiding curve given by its (un-
colored) chord diagram.
3.3 KLs and fullerenes
Among the chemical elements, carbon C is the basis of all life. A whole
branch of chemistry, organic chemistry, is devoted to the study of C-C
bonds and different molecules originating from them. Carbon is the only
known 4-valent element able to produce long homoatomic stable chains or
different 4-valent nets. Another candidate is silicon, whose homoatomic
chemistry is rapidly developing.
In addition to long-known diamond and graphite, a new form of car-

bon, the fullerene C60 , was first synthesized by H.W. Kroto, R.F. Curl and
R.E. Smalley in 1985. Along with its structure, that of a spherical closed
pentagonal/hexagonal monoatomic shell, it has the remarkable property
of rotational symmetry of order 5 (which according to Barlow’s crystallo-
graphic restriction theorem is forbidden in crystallographic space or plane
symmetry groups) and the highest possible, icosahedral, point-group sym-
metry. Since the discovery of C60 , different fullerenes (e.g., C70 , C76 , C78 ,
C82 , C84 , etc.) have been synthesized, opening a new field for research of
potentially different possible fullerene structures from point of view of geom-
etry, graph theory, or topology. The most complete discussion of fullerenes
is given by P.D. Fowler and D.E. Manolopoulos (1995).
Definition 3.6. Fullerene is a 3-planar graph with pentagonal and hexa-

honal faces.
Theorem 3.3. Every fullerene has exactly 12 pentagonal faces. For every
even n ≥ 24 there exists at least one fullerene Cn (Grünbaum and Motzkin,
1963; Voytekhovsky and Stepenshchikov, 2005).
Chemical fullerenes are obtained from fullerene graphs by substituting

vertices with carbon atoms.
3.3.1 General fullerenes, graphs, symmetry and isomers

Since carbon is 4-valent, there are four possible vertex configurations shown
in Fig. 3.53a, denoted as 31, 22, 211 and 1111. The configurations 31 and 22
are obtained by adding carbon atom(s) between any two others connected
by a double bond (Fig. 3.53b). Therefore, we can restrict our consideration
to the remaining two non-trivial cases: 211 and 1111. On the other hand,
deleting 31 and 22 vertices we obtain a reduced 4-valent graph, where at
most one double bond (bigon), which can be denoted by colored (bold)
edge, occurs in each vertex (Fig. 3.53a).
First, we can consider all 4-valent graphs on a sphere. In chemistry,
vertices of type 1111 are only theoretically acceptable. In knot theory,
4-valent graphs on a sphere with all vertices of the type 1111 are basic
polyhedra. If all the vertices of such 4-valent graph are of the type 211,
such graph we will be called a general fullerene. Every general fullerene
can be derived from a basic polyhedron by a vertex bifurcation, this means,
by substituting vertices with bigons in one of two possibile positions (2 and
428 LinKnot
2 0) (Fig. 3.53c). In knot theory, general fullerenes are polyhedral source

links.
An edge-colored 3-valent graph (with bold edges denoting bigons),
unique up to isomorphism, can be assigned to every general fullerene.
Hence, we have two complementary ways for the derivation of general
fullerenes: the vertex bifurcation method applied to basic polyhedra, and
the edge-coloring method applied to 3-valent graphs, where each vertex has
exactly one colored edge. For every general fullerene we can describe its
geometrical structure (i.e., the positions of C atoms) by a non-colored 3-
valent graph, while its chemical structure (i.e., positions of C atoms and
their double bonds) is described by the corresponding edge-colored 3-valent
graph. Likewise, for every general fullerene we can distinguish two symme-
try groups: a symmetry group G corresponding to the geometrical structure
and its subgroup G′ corresponding to the chemical structure. Therefore,
we will distinguish geometrical and chemical isomers. For example, for C60 ,
G = G′ = [3, 5] = Ih = S5 of order 120 (Coxeter and Moser, 1980), but
for C80 with the same G, G′ is always a proper subgroup of G, and its
chemical symmetry is lower than the geometrical. Hence, the first fullerene
with G = G′ = [3, 5] = Ih = S5 after C60 is C180 , then C240 , etc.
Without restrictions on the number of edges of fullerene faces, 7 general
fullerenes can be obtained from the first (nontrivial) basiv polyhedron 6∗ ,
i.e., regular octahedron {3, 4}. From the basic polyhedron 8∗ with v = 8 we
derive 30, and from the basic polyhedron 9∗ we obtain 4 general fullerenes,
etc. In fact, this list of general fullerenes derived from basic polyhedra is
identical with the list of source links with the maximal number of bigons
derived from basic polyhedra (see the Section 2.5).
3.3.2 5/6 fullerenes

Among general fullerenes we can distinguish the class consisting of 5/6
fullerenes having only pentagonal and hexagonal faces. If n5 is the number
of pentagons, and n6 the number of hexagons, from the relation 3v = 2e and
the Euler theorem it follows that n5 = 12. Hence, the first 5/6 fullerene
will be C20 with n6 = 0, the regular dodecahedron {5, 3}. It has two
non-isomorphic edge-colorings, resulting in two chemically different isomers
of the same geometrical dodecahedral form (Fig. 3.54a). The first basic
polyhedron generating 5/6 fullerenes is the one with v = 10 vertices. For
v = 10, there are three basic polyhedra, but only 10∗ and 10∗∗ generate 5/6
fullerenes, each only one of them (Fig. 3.54b,c). On the other hand, they
Fig. 3.53 (a) The four possible vertex configurations; (b) the addition of carbon atom(s)
between two others connected by a double bond; (c) the introduction of bigons in 1111
vertices.
generate, respectively, 78 and 288 general fullerenes. Their number is equal

to the number of source links with the maximal number of bigons derived
from the basic polyhedra 10∗ and 10∗∗ in the Section 2.5. There are two
mutually dual methods for the derivation of fullerenes:
(1) edge-coloring of a 3-regular graph, with one colored edge in each vertex;
(2) introducing bigons in every vertex of a 4-regular graph.
This provides a double check of the obtained results. The duality of these
methods is illustrated in the example of two C20 chemical isomers, both
derived from the same geometrical dodecahedral form with G = [3, 5] =
Ih = S5 of order 120. However, the first has G′ = D5d = [2+, 10] =
D5 × C2 of order 20, and the other G′ = [2, 2]+ = D2 of order 4 (Fig.
3.54a,b). In this case, the symmetry of chemical isomers derived by the
vertex bifurcation is preserved from their generating basic polyhedra (Fig.
3.54b).
For the enumeration of general fullerenes (i.e., source links derived from
basic polyhedra in the Section 2.5) we used the Polya Enumeration Theorem
(PET), applied to basic polyhedra, knowing their automorphism groups (see
430 LinKnot
Fig. 3.54 (a) Two non-isomorphic edge colorings of the regular dodecahedron; (b) 5/6
fullerene derived from 10∗ ; (c) 5/6 fullerene derived from 10∗∗ .
Section 2.5), but its application to 5/6 fullerenes is not possible. The same
restriction holds for the other derivation method, because of the condition
that in every vertex exactly one edge of a 3-regular graph must be colored.
The 3-valent graphs with n < 13 vertices and their edge-colorings producing
4-valent graphs are considered by A.Yu. Vesnin (1991).
Similarly, we can prove that 5/6 fullerenes with 22 atoms can not exist,
and there are seven 5/6 fullerenes C24 with the same geometrical form
and G = D6d = [2+, 12] = D12 (Fig. 3.55). Often, chemical symmetry
group G′ is not sufficient for distinguishing chemical isomers. They can be
distinguished using polynomial invariants of KL projections (see Section
2.8).
3.3.3 Knot theory and fullerenes

The function fKLfromGraph converts any 4-valent graph into the cor-
responding alternating KL projection and calculates its Dowker code in
the Knotscape format. From this Dowker code, the function fPDataFrom
Dow computes P -data. For example, from the graph
G = {{1, 2}, {2, 3}, {3, 4}, {4, 5}, {1, 5}, {6, 7}, {7, 8}, {7, 8}, {8, 9}, {9, 10},
Fig. 3.55 Seven 5/6 fullerenes C24 with the same geometrical form.
{10, 11}, {10, 11}, {11, 12}, {12, 13}, {13, 14}, {14, 15}, {15, 16}, {16, 17},
{16, 17}, {19, 20}, {17, 18}, {18, 19}, {19, 20}, {6, 20}, {20, 21}, {21, 22},
{22, 23}, {23, 24}, {24, 25}, {25, 26}, {26, 27}, {27, 28}, {28, 29}, {29, 30},
{30, 31}, {31, 32}, {32, 33}, {33, 34}, {34, 35}, {35, 36}, {36, 37}, {37, 38},
{38, 39}, {39, 40}, {21, 40}, {7, 22}, {8, 25}, {10, 26}, {11, 29}, {13, 30},
{14, 33}, {16, 34}, {17, 37}, {19, 38}, {40, 41}, {41, 42}, {42, 43}, {43, 44},
{44, 45}, {45, 46}, {46, 47}, {47, 48}, {48, 49}, {49, 50}, {50, 51}, {51, 52},
{52, 53}, {53, 54}, {54, 55}, {41, 55}, {24, 44}, {27, 45}, {28, 47}, {31, 48},
{32, 50}, {35, 51}, {36, 53}, {39, 54}, {55, 56}, {56, 57}, {57, 58}, {58, 59},
{59, 60}, {56, 60}, {13, 14}, {1, 9}, {1, 9}, {2, 12}, {2, 12}, {3, 15}, {3, 15},
{4, 18}, {4, 18}, {5, 6}, {5, 6}, {21, 40}, {22, 23}, {24, 25}, {26, 27}, {28, 29},
{30, 31}, {32, 33}, {34, 35}, {36, 37}, {38, 39}, {41, 42}, {44, 45}, {47, 48},
{50, 51}, {53, 54}, {55, 56}, {43, 57}, {43, 57}, {46, 58}, {46, 58}, {49, 59},
{49, 59}, {52, 60}, {52, 60}, {23, 42}}
of the fullerene C60 , we obtain the Dowker code of the corresponding link
in the Knotscape format
432 LinKnot
{{3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3}, {28, 36, 10, 18, 42, 6, 48, 24,

12, 54, 30, 16, 60, 2, 22, 4, 72, 66, 68, 78, 8, 74, 84, 14, 82, 90, 20, 88, 64, 26, 34,
96, 58, 32, 38, 102, 40, 44, 106, 112, 50, 46, 118, 56, 52, 62, 100, 116, 70, 108, 92,
114, 76, 98, 120, 80, 104, 94, 86, 110}}
with the carbon rings as the components.

Polynomial invariants of KL projections can be applied to alternating
KL projections corresponding to fulleren isomers and efficiently used for
their recognition. The LinKnot functions JablanPoly and LiangPoly
calculate these invariants (see page 312). For example, let us show that
two isomers of C20 (Fig. 3.54b,c) are different. After converting their
(chemical5 ) Schlegel diagrams into alternating KL diagrams, denoting their
generators, and calculating the corresponding projection polynomials, we
obtain
dD ′ (t) = t20 − 10t18 + 45t16 − 120t14 + 200t12 − 197t10 + 105t8 − 40t6 + 25t4 − 10t2 ,
dD ′′ (t) = t20 − 10t18 + 45t16 − 120t14 + 208t12 − 250t10 + 217t8 − 130t6 + 49t4 − 10t2 ,
proving their difference. Using the same multivariable invariant for link
projections, we can distinguish seven non-isomorphic diagrams obtained
from the fullerene C24 (Fig. 3.55). The same results can be obtained using
the Liang polynomial.
All 4-valent (chemical) Schlegel diagrams of fullerenes can be converted
into alternating KL diagrams. For example, two chemical isomers of C20
will give knots, and from 7 isomers of C24 we obtain four knots, one 3-
component, one 4-component and one 5-component link. Among the links
obtained, two of them (3-component and 5-component link) contain a min-
imal possible component: hexagonal carbon ring. Notice that C60 consists
only of regularly arranged hexagonal carbon rings, which is maybe the ad-
ditional reason for its stability (Fig. 3.56). Therefore, it will be interesting
to consider the infinite class of 5/6 fullerenes with this property, called per-
fect fullerenes. Some perfect fullerenes were modelled with hexastrips6 by
P. Gerdes (1998). Similar structures, buckling patterns of shells and spher-
ical honeycomb structures have been considered by different authors (e.g.,
T. Tarnai (1989)).
5 Schlegeldiagrams with bigons denoting double bonds.
6 “Framed tangle” from Gauss’ notebook represents a weaving with hexastrips (Przy-
tycki, 2004, Fig. 3.5).
Fig. 3.56 Derivation of C60 from C20 and carbon rings in C60 .
Fig. 3.57 Non-perfect and perfect (C180 ) fullerenes.
Let us describe how to obtain perfect fullerenes from any 5/6 fullerene.
Given 5/6 fullerene in geometrical form (i.e., by a 3-valent graph), apply
mid-edge-truncation and vertex bifurcation in all vertices of the obtained
triangular faces, transforming them into hexagons with alternating bigonal
edges. For example, from C20 , connecting the midpoints of all adjacent
434 LinKnot
Fig. 3.58 Fullerenes C70 and C80 .
edges we obtain the 3/5 fullerene covered by connected triangular net and
pentagonal faces preserved from C20 . Then we place bigons in all vertices
of the truncated polyhedron, to turn all triangles into hexagonal faces. In
this way, we derive C60 (in its chemical form) from C20 (Fig. 3.56).
Mid-edge-truncation can be applied to any 5/6 (geometrical) fullerene,
giving a new perfect (chemical) fullerene formed by carbon rings. Simi-
larly, from a 5/6 fullerene with v vertices we can always derive new perfect
5/6 fullerenes with 3v vertices (Fig. 3.58). Moreover, symmetry of the
generating fullerene is preserved. According to the theorem by Grünbaum
and Motzkin (1963), for every non-negative n6 6= 1, there exists a 3-valent
convex 5/6 polyhedron having n5 = 12 pentagonal and n6 hexagonal faces.
Hence, from the infinite class of 3-valent 5/6 polyhedra with v = 20 + n6
vertices, we obtain the infinite class of perfect fullerenes with v = 60 + 3n6
vertices. Perfect fullerenes satisfy two important stability conditions:
(1) the isolated pentagon rule (IPR);

(2) the hollow pentagon rule (HPR).
The IPR rule means that there are no adjacent pentagons, and HPR
means that all pentagons are “holes”, i.e., every pentagon has only external
double bonds. The first 5/6 fullerene satisfying IPR is C60 , and it also
Fig. 3.59 Fullerenes obtained for different values of n6 .
satisfies HPR. The IPR is well known as the stability criterion: all fullerenes
of lower order (less than 60) are unstable, because they do not satisfy IPR.
On the other hand, C70 satisfies IPR, but not HPR (Fig. 3.58).
The same holds for C80 (Fig. 3.58), which has the same icosahedral geo-
metrical symmetry as C60 , but since HPR can not be satisfied, its symmetry
will be reduced due to edge-coloring. Therefore we conclude that only per-
fect fullerenes with G = G′ = [3, 5] = Ih = S5 , satisfying both IPR and
HPR, are C60 , C180 , C240 , etc. We need also to notice that for n6 = 0, 2, 3
there are always exactly one 3-valent 5/6 polyhedron (i.e., the geometrical
form of C20 , C24 , C26 ), but for some larger values (e.g. n6 = 4, 5, 7, 9)
there are several geometrical isomers of generating fullerenes, and conse-
quently, the same number of derived perfect fullerenes (Fig. 3.59). Hence,
considering fullerene isomers, we can distinguish geometrical isomers, that
436 LinKnot
is, different geometrical forms of some fullerene treated as 3-valent 5/6

polyhedra, and chemical isomers– different arrangements of double bonds,
obtained from the same 3-valent graph by its edge-coloring.
3.3.4 Nanotubes, conical and biconical fullerenes and their

symmetry
In this section, Bohm symbols will be used for denoting different categories
of symmetry groups, (Bohm and Dornberger-Schiff, 1966). The first sub-
script n in a symbol Gnst... represents the maximal dimension of space in
which the transformations of the symmetry group act, while the following
subscripts st . . . represent the maximal dimensions of subspaces remaining
invariant under the action of transformations of the symmetry group, which
are properly included in each other.
General fullerenes belong to the category of point symmetry groups G30 .
The category G30 consists of seven polyhedral symmetry groups without
invariant planes or lines: [3, 3] or Td , [3, 3]+ or T , [3,4] or Oh , [3, 4]+ or
O, [3+, 4] or Th , [3,5] or Ih , [3, 5]+ or I, and from seven infinite classes of
point symmetry groups with the invariant plane (and the line perpendicular
to it in the invariant point): [q] or Cqv , [q]+ or Cq , [2+, 2q+] or S2q ,
[2, q+] or Cqh , [2, q]+ or Dq , [2+, 2q] or Dqd , [2, q] or Dqh , belonging to
the subcategory G320 (Coxeter and Moser, 1980). The point symmetry
groups G30 were mentioned when we were talking about symmetry of KL
diagrams (see page 63). For the groups of the subcategory G320 , in the case
of rotations of order q > 2, the invariant line (i.e., the rotation axis) may
contain 0, 1 or 2 vertices of a general fullerene.
Therefore, from the topological point of view, among all general
fullerenes with a geometrical symmetry group G belonging to G320 we can
distinguish cylindrical fullerenes (nanotubes), conical and biconical ones.
Symmetry group of polyhedral 5/6 fullerenes G can be only [3, 3] (Td ),
[3, 3]+ (T ), [3, 5] (Ih ), or [3, 5]+ (I), since their topological structure (n5 =
12) is incompatible with the octahedral symmetry group [3, 4] (Oh ) or its
polyhedral subgroups. In the case of nanotubes (or cylindrical fullerenes)
we have infinite classes of 5/6 fullerenes with the geometrical symmetry
group [2, q] (Dqh ) and [2+, 2q] (Dqd ), and the same chemical symmetry.
The first infinite class of cylindrical nanotubes C30 , C50 , C70 ,. . . with G =
G′ = D5h is obtained from a cylindrical 3/4/5 four-valent graph with two
pentagonal bases, 10 triangular and 5(2k + 1) quadrilateral faces (k =
0, 1, 2, . . .) and with the same symmetry group (Fig. 3.60). The infinite
Fig. 3.60 Cylindrical nanotubes.
Fig. 3.61 C70 isomers with the same geometrical structure.
class of nanotubes C30 , C50 , C70 ,. . . is obtained by the vertex bifurcation,

preserving symmetry, where C70 is the first nanotube satisfying IPR. The
geometrical structure of C70 admits different edge colorings (i.e., chemical
isomers). Starting from arbitrary two chemical isomers and reducing the
length of bigon chains we obtain different source links. The example of two
438 LinKnot
Fig. 3.62 Isomers of C70 .
Fig. 3.63 Fullerenes C36 , C60 , C84 .
different C70 isomers with the same geometrical structure (Fig. 3.61) and
the same G and G′ , shows that symmetry is not sufficient for distinguishing
fullerene isomers, so we need additional tools (see the Subsection 3.2.3). In
the same way, from 4-valent graphs with two hexagonal bases, 12 triangular
and 6(2k + 1) quadrilateral faces (k = 0, 1, 2, . . .) we obtain the infinite class
of fullerenes C36 , C60 , C84 ,. . . with the symmetry group G = G′ = D6h (Fig.
3.63).
Fig. 3.64 Fullerenes C20 , C40 ; C24 and C48 .
Fig. 3.65 Fullerene C40 obtained from two C20 .
The next series of symmetry groups [2+, 2q] (Dqd ) with q = 5, 6 can
be obtained in the same way, from 4-valent graphs with q-gonal bases, 2q
triangular and 2kq quadrilateral faces (k = 1, 2, . . . for q = 5; k = 0, 1, 2, . . .
for q = 6) (Fig. 3.64). As the limiting case, for q = 5 and k = 0, we obtain
C20 with the icosahedral symmetry group G and G′ = D5d . C20 can be
used as a building block of the whole class of nanotubes C40 , C60 , C80 ,. . .
with G = D5d , (Fig. 3.65). Nanotubes C48 , C72 , C96 ,. . . can be obtained
in the same way, by “gluing” the pentagonal bases, from the fullerene C24
(q = 6, k = 0) (Fig. 3.65).
The geometrical structure of the nanotube class with G = Dqd (q = 5, 6)
permits the edge coloring that preserves symmetry, so there always exist
isomers with G = G′ .
If 3-rotation axis contains the opposite vertices of a fullerene, we have
440 LinKnot
Fig. 3.66 Fullerenes C26 and C56 .
biconical fullerenes (e.g., C26 , C56 ) with G = D3h , G = D3d , respectively

(Fig. 3.66). After the edge coloring, symmetry must be disturbed, and for
the biconical fullerenes G′ is always a proper subgroup of G. For example,
for C26 (Fig. 3.66), G = D3h , G′ = C2v .
Fig. 3.67 Fullerene C42 .
Fullerene representatives of other symmetry groups from the category

G320 can be constructed in the same manner: biconical C32 with G = D3 ,
biconical C38 or conical C34 with G = C3v , conical C46 with G = C3
(Boo, 1992), or the infinite class of cylindrical fullerenes C42 , C48 , C54 ,. . .
with G = D3 (Fig. 3.67). In general, edge coloring of 3-valent graphs
changes symmetry of all conical or biconical fullerenes mentioned, so their
geometrical symmetry is always higher than the chemical.
All nanotubes, conical and biconical fullerenes described in this sub-

section can be analyzed by converting them to corresponding alternating
KLs, where the geometrical symmetry properties can be related with the
corresponding symmetries of KLs.
3.3.5 Fullerenes on other surfaces

Different regular homoatomic carbon plane nets are discussed by T. Bal-
aban (1989). They can be derived in the same way as the general
fullerenes: by introducing bigons in the vertices of 4-valent graphs or by
an edge-coloring of a 3-valent graph, resulting in a 4-valent graph. For
example, we can start from the square regular tessellation {4, 4} (Fig.
3.68a), Archimedean tiling (3, 6, 3, 6) (Fig. 3.68b) or 2-uniform tiling
(3, 42 , 6; 3, 6, 3, 6) that are all 4-valent (Grünbaum and Shephard, 1986),
and place bigons in their vertices, or from the regular tiling {6, 3} that is
3-valent and color its edges. Similarily, perfect plane nets can be derived
from arbitrary 3-valent tilings.
Fig. 3.68 Nets derived from 4-regular tilings.

442 LinKnot
Fig. 3.69 Tessellation on torus.
Fig. 3.70 Perfect fullerene with 8-gonal holes on a double torus.
Fig. 3.71 The infinite perfect 6/7 fullerene in H 2 with heptagonal holes.
The necessary condition for general fullerenes on other surfaces follows

from the Euler theorem v − e + f = 2 − 2g, where g is the genus of the
surface. Since genus of torus is g = 1, under 5/6 restriction we obtain that
for 3-valent graphs number of pentagonal faces is n5 = 0. Hence, we can
only get the regular tessellation {6, 3}, consisting of b2 + bc + c2 hexagons
(b ∈ N , c ∈ N ) (Coxeter and Moser, 1980). This tessellation is obtained

by identifying opposite sides of the rectangle (Fig. 3.69).
Perfect hexagonal fullerenes on torus can be derived from a finite {6, 3}
tessellation. The proposed approach can be extended to double, triple, etc.
torus with g = 2, 3, . . . Similar transformations of carbon nets from one
surface to the other (e.g., from a plane to a cylinder, and then to torus)
can perhaps explain how certain fullerenes are formed and describe the way
they grow (Kroto, 1989).
Allowing heptagons or octagons for faces, from the relationship 2e = 3v
and the Euler formula, it follows that n5 − n7 − 2n8 = 12(1 − g). For a
sphere without octagons, n5 − n7 = 12, and for a torus without octagons
n5 = n7 (Mackay and Terrones, 1993).
General fullerenes with a higher degree of symmetry can be obtained
from various vertex-transitive structures (e.g., uniform polyhedra, stellated
regular and semi-regular polyhedra or infinite polyhedra) (Mackay and Ter-
rones, 1993).
Perfect fullerenes with q-gonal holes on a double torus (g = 2) (Fig.
3.70, q = 8 (Bilinski, 1985)) can be derived from different uniform 4-valent
polyhedra of the type (3, q, 3, q) (q = 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 18), using regular vertex-
bifurcation of triangular faces, which transforms them into hexagons. In the
same way, the uniform tessellations of the type (4, q, 4, q), (q = 5, 6, 8, 12) or
(5,10,5,10) on a double torus may result in different finite general fullerenes.
Interesting classes of infinite general fullerenes with non-euclidean plane
symmetry groups can be derived from the tessellations of the hyperbolic
plane H 2 . For example, from the uniform tessellation (3,7,3,7) we derive
the infinite perfect 6/7 fullerene in H 2 with heptagonal holes (Fig. 3.71)
(Mackay and Terrones, 1993).
3.4 KLs and logic
Building set theory on intuitive concepts of membership and collection leads

to paradoxes due to misussage of self-membership (or self-reference). One
of them is the famous Russell paradox. The Russell set is defined to be the
set of all sets that are not members of themselves. X is a member of X
exactly when X is not a member of X (Kauffman, 1995). In the language
of mathematical logic, this means that pp = 1, where p denotes ¬p, and 1
stands for “True”.
The sentence “This statement is false” is an example of a similar para-
444 LinKnot
dox based on self-reference, which implies the logical equation p = p (Epi-

menides paradox).
Whitehead and Russell (1927) posed the problem in terms of self-
membership (or self-reference), and avoided it by prohibiting mixing differ-
ent levels of discourse.
In Gödel-Bernays set theory these paradoxes are solved by making a
distinction between set and class, i.e., by introducing a hierarchy of levels.
A class is a set if it is a member of another class. In this system the
Russell class is R = {X|X ∈ / Xand X is a set}, so R is a class, but not
a set. This concept accepts self-membership, or self-reference. Namely, a
self-reference can be used as a tool for creating interesting ascending chains
of membership.
Definition 3.7. Let us denote the empty set by a line segment − . A finite
expression E in line segments is well-formed if:
(1) E is empty set, or

(2) E = F G, where F and G are well-formed.
A finite ordered multi-set S is an expression in the form S = T , where

T is any well-formed expression. It follows that T = A1 A2 . . . An , where
n ∈ N , and each Ai (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) is a finite ordered multi-set. The terms
Ai are the members of S. In this way, we obtain different multi-sets, e.g.,
S = − − − − , where the members of S are −, −, − − , respectively. The
term S can be encoded by a sequence 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1, where 0 stands
for left, and 1 for right ends of line segments. Somewhat more complex
encoding is shown in Fig. 3.72.
Fig. 3.72 Encoding a bracket arrangement by 0-1 code.
Two finite ordered multi-sets are equal iff they have the same members
in the same order, i.e., iff their 0-1 encodings are identical. An isomorphic
visual interpretation of S can be obtained by taking rectangles instead of

line segments (Fig. 3.73). Ordered finite multi-sets are isomorphic to the
class of rooted planar tries, by graphical dualities illustrated in Fig. 3.74.
A depth of a level to which a member belongs, directly visible from S, can
be obtained by counting nodes from the root of tree.
Fig. 3.73 A visual interpretation of S by rectangles (Kauffman, 1994).
Overlining can be extended to infinite sets S represented by line segment

arrangements which satisfy two rules:
(1) each arrangement S has a single top line segment, and

(2) the collection of line segments overlined by that top line segment is a
disjoint union of the members of S.
Any finite or infinite collection of line segments in which there is no

ambiguity in any pair of line segments that one is overlined by the other or
not is a form. From every form S we can obtain S by the operation called
overlining, and for every two forms F1 and F2 we can define their product
(or juxtaposition) as F1 F2 . For example, an infinite collection of forms can
be created as − , − , − − , − − − , . . .
Some interesting infinite forms can be created from recursive systems of
equations. For example, a successive use of rules A = − B, B = A gives
−
−
−
− − − −
A= B= A= A= -...
The simplest recursive form F = F , beginning from F = − , results in
the sequence of natural numbers − , − , − , − , . . . Recursive form F = F F
can be called Fibonacci form because the number of line segments at depth
n is nth Fibonacci number.
If F (n) denotes the number of line segments (or number of nodes in the
corresponding rooted tree) at depth n of the form F , for any two forms F1
and F2 holds:
446 LinKnot
Fig. 3.74 (a) Line segment interpretation of Fibonacci form; (b) rooted tree as its dual.
(1) (F1 F2 )(n) = F1 (n) + F2 (n) and

(2) F (n) = F (n − 1).
For the Fibonacci form F = F F , F (0) = F (1) = 1 and F (n) = F (n −

2)+F (n−1). Defining the growth rate as µ(F ) = limn→∞ FF(n+1)
(n) , we obtain √
that the growth rate of the Fibonacci form is the golden ratio ϕ = 5−1
2
Many fractals, in particular L-systems (Lindenmayer systems), can be
described by recursive forms. For example, the structure of Koch fractal
can be expressed by a recursive form K = KKKK.
Definition 3.8. A lattice is an algebraic structure (L, ∧, ∨) consisting from

a set L and two algebraic operations ∧ and ∨ (“meet” and “join”, or “and”
and “or”), such that for any a, b, c ∈ L hold:
(1) a ∧ a = a, a ∨ a = a (idempotent laws),

(2) a ∧ b = b ∧ a, a ∨ b = b ∨ a (commutativity laws),
(3) (a ∧ b) ∧ c = a ∧ (b ∧ c), (a ∨ b) ∨ c = a ∨ (b ∨ c) (associativity laws),
(4) a ∨ (a ∧ b) = a, a ∧ (a ∨ b) = a (absorption laws).
Definition 3.9. A Boolean algebra is a lattice (B, ∧, ∨) that satisfies four

additional properties:
(1) there exists an element 0 ∈ B that a ∨ 0 = a for all a ∈ B (lower

bound),
(2) there exists an element 1 ∈ B that a ∧ 1 = a for all a ∈ B (upper
bound),
(3) for all a, b, c ∈ B, (a ∧ b) ∨ c = (a ∨ c) ∧ (b ∨ c) (distributivity law)
(4) for every a ∈ B there exists an element ¬a in B such that a ∧ ¬a = 0
and a ∨ ¬a = 1 (complement law).
Instead of using classical Boolean algebra with only two discrete values
0 and 1, we can consider more general algebra whose values belong to
the continuous set [0, 1], and construct a new model of polyvalent Boolean
algebra called the square-free polynomial model. We define p ∧ q and ¬p in
the following way: p ∧ q = pq, ¬p = 1 − p.
Definition 3.10. A square-free polynomial is any polynomial in which a
degree of each variable is 1.
Introducing the idempotent law p2 = p for all variables, we model a
polyvalent Boolean algebra on the continuous interval [0, 1], with square-
free polynomials, standard polynomial multiplication, and idempotency.
This model is very similar to a Boolean ring, but ¬p is defined as ¬p = 1−p,
and not as ¬p = 1 + p. In this way the structure of standard truth tables
is preserved and extended to the set [0, 1].
A concept of square-free polynomials is implicitly given in the original
works of G. Boole (2003).
De Morgan laws imply p ∨ q = p + q − pq, and we can check if our
model is consistent with regard to the whole set of axioms. The following
equalities are obtained by straightforward computations:
a ∧ a = a2 = a, a ∨ a = a + a − a2 = a + a − a = a (idempotency),
a ∧ b = ab = ba = b ∧ a, a ∨ b = a + b − ab = b + a − ba = b ∨ a
(commutativity),
(a ∧ b) ∧ c = (ab)c = a(bc) = a ∧ (b ∧ c), (a ∨ b) ∨ c = (a + b − ab) + c −
(a + b − ab)c = a + b − ab + c − ac − bc + abc = a + b + c − bc − ab − ac + abc =
a + (b + c − bc) − a(b + c − bc) = a ∨ (b ∨ c) (associativity),
a ∨ (a ∧ b) = a + ab − a2b = a + ab − ab = a, a ∧ (a ∨ b) = a(a + b − ab) =
a + ab − a2 b = a + ab − ab = a (absorption),
2
a ∨ 0 = a + 0 − a0 = a, a ∧ 1 = a1 = a (lower and upper bound),

(a ∧ b) ∧ c = (ab)c = a(bc) = (a ∨ c) ∧ (b ∨ c) (distributivity),
a ∧ ¬a = a(1 − a) = a − a2 = a − a = 0, a ∨ ¬a = a + (1 − a) − a(1 − a) =
a + 1 − a − a + a2 = a + 1 − a − a + a = 1 (complement).
448 LinKnot
Hence, our model is compatible with Boolean logic.

In order to simplify notation, we denote ¬p by p, p ∧ q by pq, and
continue to work in the line segment notation. This is a model of Spencer-
Brown calculus of indications, based on one symbol q, where this symbol
is replaced with a single line segment (Spencer-Brown, 1969). Hence, two
forms of equality will be expressed as:
−− −
(1) = (form of condensation), and
(2) − = (form of cancellation).
An unmarked state appears in the form of cancellation. These two rules

can be replaced with a a = a and a = a.
Here are examples of visual proofs in calculus of expressions that
Spencer-Brown calls the primary arithmetics, expressed in the line segment
notation:
− −
− − − − − − −
e= −− (1) = − (2) = − − (2) = − (2) = − (2) =
Denoting ¬p by p, and p ∧ q by pq, using the line segment notation
and square-free polynomials, and interpreting unmarked state as 0, various
tautologies are almost obvious. For example,
p p = (1 − p)p = p − p2 = p − p = 0,
pr qr = 1 − (1 − pr)(1 − qr) = pr + qr − pqr2 = pr + qr − pqr =
(p + q − pq)r = (1 − (1 − p)(1 − q))r = p qr.
The proposed method is very powerful, used even in proofs of more
complex tautologies, e.g., a crosstransposition
q r p r x r y r = r pq rxy .
The left side gives:
qrprxryr =
1 − (1 − (1 − q)(1 − r))(1 − (1 − p)(1 − r))(1 − (1 − x)r)(1 − (1 − y)r) =
1 − pq − pr − qr + 4pqr − r2 + 3pr2 + 3qr2 − 6pqr2 + 2r3 − 3pr3 − 3qr3 +
4pqr3 − r4 + pr4 + qr4 − pqr4 − pqrx − pr2 x − qr2 x + 3pqr2 x − r3 x + 2pr3 x +
2qr3 x − 3pqr3 x + r4 x − pr4 x − qr4 x + pqr4 x − pqry − pr2 y − qr2 y + 3pqr2 y −
r3 y + 2pr3 y + 2qr3 y − 3pqr3 y + r4 y − pr4 y − qr4 y + pqr4 y − pqr2 xy − pr3 xy −
qr3 xy + 2pqr3 xy − r3 xy + pr4 xy + qr4 xy − pqr4 xy =
1 − pq + pqr − rxy.
The right side results in:

r pq rxy =
(1 − (1 − r)pq)(1 − rxy) =
1 − pq + pqr − rxy + pqrxy − pqr2 xy =
1 − pq + pqr − rxy,
so this proves the tautology.
Duality (De Morgan laws) holds for ∧ and ∨, after replacing 0 by 1
and vice versa, and each variable p by its inverse p. For example, a dual
tautology for the crosstransposition
q∨r∨p∨r∨x∨r∨y∨r = r∨p∨q∨r∨x∨y
can be proved in the similar way, working with p = 1−p and p∨q = p+q−pq.
All proofs and calculations hold in the continuous set [0, 1], i.e., in the
polyvalent Boolean logic.
In order to simplify further computations, we can calculate square-free
polynomials corresponding to other logic operations and work with them
in the same way as before. For example, p ⇒ q = 1 − p + pq, p ⇔ q =
1 − p − q + 2pq, p ⊻ q = p + q − 2pq, etc.
The Sheffer stroke NAND, p|q = pq, which can be algebraically ex-
pressed as p|q = 1 − pq will be the most interesting for future use in logical
gates. Operations (¬, ∧), or (¬, ∨) are a base of Boolean polyvalent logic:
all logical operations can be expressed in terms of (¬, ∧), or (¬, ∨). Sheffer
operation NAND (| or ↑ in his original notation) and its dual, Lukasiewicz’s
operation NOR (↓), are single-operation logical bases.
After computing square-free polynomial P corresponding to a compli-
cated logical expression L, we are interested to find from P the logical
expression L′ = L′ (P ), which is the simplification of L. It is sufficient to
take all possible values of variables belonging to P from the discrete set
{0, 1} and write the corresponding conjuctive or disjunctive normal form
(CNF or DNF). For example, from P = 1 − p + pq, by taking (p, q) values
from the set {(0, 0), (0, 1), (1, 0), (1, 1)} we obtain DNF ¬p ∨ q.
3.5 Waveforms
After interpreting the marked state − as 1, and unmarked state as 0, we can

introduce a waveform arithmetic, based either on the discrete set {0, 1}, or
continuous set [0, 1]. Treating f = f as a recursive form defined on the
set {0, 1}, and taking successive substitutions of f in its equivalent form
450 LinKnot
f = 1 − f , we obtain a sequence with the period two, 0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 . . .. On

the other hand, the equation f = 1 − f has the fixed point f = 21 of the
recursion f = f in the continuous set [0, 1]. It is a solution of Liar paradox
in polyvalent logic.
In order to generate sequences of period greater than 2, it is nec-
essary to apply recursions on more then one variable. The recur-
sion T (x, y) = (y, x y) produces a sequence with the period three
(0,0),(1,1),(0,1),(0,0),(1,1),(0,1). . . in the discrete set {0, 1}2 (Fig. 3.75).
Solving the system of equations x = 1 − y and y = 1 − (1 − x)y obtained
from x = y and y = x y, gives the fixed point (x, y) = (1 − ϕ, ϕ) on the
[0, 1]2 , where ϕ denotes the golden ratio.
Fig. 3.75 Three periods of the sequence (0,0),(1,1),(0,1). . ..
Duality holds for periodic sequences generated by recursions, and for

their fixed points as well. Solving the dual recursion T (x, y) = (y, x ∨ y)
for a fixed point, we obtain the result (x, y) = (ϕ, 1 − ϕ), which can also be
obtained from the previous result by duality.
Similarly, the recursion T (x, y, z) = (xz, xyz, xyz x y z) generates a
periodic sequence with the period five, (0,1,0), (1,1,0), (1,0,1), (0,1,1),
(1,1,1), (0,1,0), (1,1,0), (1,0,1), (0,1,1), (1,1,1), (0,1,0), (1,1,0), (1,0,1),
(0,1,1),
√ (1,1,1)
√ . . . on a discrete set {0, 1}3. Its fixed point (x, y, z) =
3+ 2 3− 2 √
( 7 , 2 , 2 − 2) that belongs to the [0, 1]3 is obtained by solving the
system of equations x = 1 − xz, y = 1 − xy + xyz, z = 1 − y + xy + yz − 2xyz.
The dual recursion T (x, y, z) = (x ∨ z, x ∨ y ∨ z, x ∨ y ∨ z x ∨ y ∨ z) gener-
ates again a dual periodic sequence with the period five on {0, 1}3. Solving
the system of equations x = 1 − x − z + xz, y = z − xz − yz + xyz,
z = 1 − x − y √+ xy √− z + 2xz + yz − 2xyz we obtain the dual fixed point
4− 2 2−1 √
(x, y, z) = ( 7 , 2 , 2−1), that belongs to [0, 1]3 . In some cases, a set
of fixed points of a recursive operator can be the whole interval [0, 1]. For
example, the set of fixed points of the operator T (x, y) = (y, x) is (x, 1 − x),
x ∈ [0, 1]. This operator produces a stable state for every y = 1 − x, and a
periodic sequence with the period 2 otherwise.
L.H. Kauffman and F.J. Varela (1980) described an algorithm for pro-
ducing recursive operators which generate periodic sequences of a desired
period. Let a periodic sequence of period p with n variables be given, where
2n−2 < p ≤ 2n . The condition 2n−2 < p implies no variable is constant.
Usually, we are trying to express all periodic sequences with a minimal
number of variables n. A period of such a sequence can be represented in
the form of an n × p array. For example, the sequence of period p = 5 with
n = 3 variables considered before, can be represented as
xyz
010
110
101
011
111
For every 0 in h-column we are associate its preceding row to h, where
h is a variable denoting the head of a column (h = x, y, z). Notice that
the last column is the preceding for the first, since we are working with
cyclic order. In the x-column, 0 appears in the first and fourth row, so the
fifth and third row will be associated to x, i.e., x = (1 1 1)(1 0 1). In the
y-column, 0 appears in the third row, so we associate the second row to y
and obtain y = (1 1 0). In the z-column 0 appears in the first and second
row, so we associate the last and first row to z and obtain z = (1 1 1)(0 1 0).
Replacing every 1 by h, and every 0 by h, and overlining each n-tuple,
we obtain x = xyz xyz, y = xyz, z = xyz xyz, which gives the recursive
operator T (x, y, z) = (xyz xyz, xyz, xyz xyz). Using the square-free poly-
nomial method, we reduce obtained terms, and look for fixed points. Hence,
T (x, y, z) = (xyz xyz, xyz, xyz xyz) = T (1√− xz, √ 1 − xy + xyz, 1 − y + xy +
√
yz − 2xyz). Its fixed point (x, y, z) = ( 3+7 2 , 3−2 2 , 2 − 2) which belongs
to [0, 1]3 we obtain in the same way as before, by solving the system of
equations x = 1 − xz, y = 1 − xy + xyz, z = 1 − y + xy + yz − 2xyz.
Now that we have an algorithm for deriving all sequences with a
given period p, we need tools for distinguishing different sequences: non-
isomorphic, not mutually reverse, and not mutually dual sequences. It
is obvious that two sequences given by a cyclic permutation of rows in
the array will be equal. Also, sequences that are the same up to a per-
mutation of variables can be identified. Two dual sequences, where one
452 LinKnot
can be obtained from the other by replacing 0 by 1 and vice versa are
equivalent as well. Cyclically equivalent sequences will have the same
fixed points; sequences with permuted variables will have fixed points per-
muted in the same way; dual sequences will have dual fixed points from
the set [0, 1]n , where n is the number of variables. Representatives of
equivalence classes of periodic sequences are called basic sequences. For
p = 2 and n = 1 we have one basic sequence 0,1,0,1. . . defined by the
operator T (x) = x, with no fixed points on a discrete set {0, 1} and
one fixed point x = 12 on the interval [0, 1]. This sequence embodies
the Liar paradox. For p = 2 and n = 2 we obtain two basic sequences:
(0,0),(1,1). . ., defined by the operator T (x, y) = (xy, xy) = (1 − xy, 1 − xy),
with the fixed point (x, y) = (ϕ, ϕ) on [0, 1]2 , and (0,1),(1,0). . ., defined
by T (x, y) = (xy, xy) = (1 − x + xy, 1 − y + xy), with the fixed point
(x, y) = (1, 1).
For p = 3, the minimal number of variables n is n = 2. From
the set (0,0), (0,1), (1,0), (1,1) we can produce 24 different sequences
of period 3. Each of them satisfies the necessary condition that no
variable is constant. Taking one representative from each equivalence
class, we obtain three basic sequences of period 3: (0,0),(0,1),(1,0). . .,
(0,0),(0,1),(1,1). . ., and (0,0),(1,1),(0,1). . . The first is defined by the op-
erator T (x, y) = (x y xy, xy xy) = (y, xy xy) = T (y, 1 − x − y + 2xy),
the second by T (x, y) = (xy x y, xy) = T (x + y − 2xy, 1 − xy), and
the third by T (x, y) = xy xy = y xy. The fixed points of the first are
(x, y) = (1, 1) and (x, y) = ( 12 , 12 ), of the second (x, y) = ( 12 , 23 ), and of the
third (x, y) = (1 − ϕ, ϕ).
For p = 4, the minimal number of variables n is n = 2, and we
obtain three basic sequences: (0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(1,1). . . with T (x, y) =
(xy xy, xy xy) = (xy xy, y) = (x + y − 2xy, 1 − y); (0,0),(0,1),(1,1),(1,0). . .
with T (x, y) = (x y xy, xy xy) = (y, x) = (y, 1 − x); (0,0),(1,1),(0,1),(1,0). . .
with T (x, y) = (xy xy, xy xy) = (x, xy xy) = (1 − x, 1 − x − y + 2xy). All
of them can not be stabilized for any pair of values from the discrete set
{0, 1}2, and in [0, 1]2 they have the same fixed point ( 12 , 12 ). The same line
of reasoning can be applied to basic periodic sequences with higher periods
and compute their number. For example, for n = 3 there are 45 sequences
of the period p = 4, 160 for p = 5, 382 for p = 6, 840 for p = 7, 840 for
p = 8, etc.
T 2 (x) = xm n m n = xm n = T (x) can be obtained by iterating from
an infinite self-referential form T (x) = xm n with two fixed parameters m
and n. Moreover, we obtain T (x) = T 2 (X) = T 3 (x) = . . ., which implies

x⋄ = . . . m n m n. This form contains a copy of itself, so x⋄ = x⋄ m n. As
the result, every point 1−n+x0mn, where x0 is an initial state (x0 ∈ [0, 1]),
will be the fixed point of T .
The LinKnot function fBoolean calculates square-free polynomial of
a given logic formula. The function fKauffAlg produces all different pe-
riodic sequences of the period p with n variables according to Kauffman
algorithm. The function fDiffSeq produces all different periodic sequences
of the period p with n variables, giving as the output their complete list,
where every periodic sequence is given by one period, Kauffman code, and
the corresponding square-free polynomials. The function fBalanced cal-
culates stable (balanced) states of a given periodic sequence.
3.6 Knot automata
A class of circuit automata based on knot theory is considered by Kauffman

(1994). The basic circuit element for these automata has an equation of
the form z = xRy or z = xLy with box depictions as shown in Fig. 3.76.
These equations correspond to “left” or “right” crossings of a KL, i.e., to
the crossings with the sign 1 or −1, respectively. Translated into equations,
Reidemeister moves (Fig. 3.77) become:
(1) aRa = a, aLa = a;

(2) (aRb)Lb = a, (aLb)Rb = a;
(3) (aRb)Rc = (aRc)R(bRc), (aLb)Lc = (aLc)L(bLc).
The resulting algebraic structure, a quandle (Definition 2.5), can be

obtained from different solutions of the equations defined by Reidemeister
moves. The simplest example of a quandle is the structure aRb = aLb =
2b − a, where a and b are elements of an additive abelian group G. In the
case of a trefoil knot automaton (Fig. 3.78) the feedback loop forces the
conclusion 3(b − a) = 0. Hence, 3 must divide the order of G in order for
the trefoil automaton to have any balanced states. If G = ({0, 1, 2}, +3) is
the abelian group with addition modulo 3, for a = 1, b = 2 we obtain a
stable state of the trefoil automaton, i.e., the three-coloring of a trefoil. It
distinguishes a trefoil from the unknot, or from the figure-eight knot.
If the values of the knot automaton lie in a module over the ring Z[t, t−1 ],
then for aRb = ta + (1 − t)b, aLb = sa + (1 − s)b with s = t−1 we obtain the
454 LinKnot
Fig. 3.76 Right and left crossing relations (Kauffman, 1994).
Fig. 3.77 Reidemeister moves translated to the language of knot automata (Kauffman,
1994).
Alexander polynomial of a KL. The quandle considered earlier, defined by

aRb = aLb = 2b − a, is a particular case (t = −1) of this general solution.
In a digital circuit model the basic element is a NAND gate, or a sim-
ple inverter. For input p it produces p, and p1 p2 . . . pn gives as the out-
put p1 p2 . . .. NOR gates work in the same way, producing p for p, and
p1 ∨ p2 ∨ . . . for p1 ∨p2 ∨. . .. In a circuit diagram, a state is the edge-coloring
of the directed graph in which the colors are chosen from the discrete set
{0, 1}. All edges emanating from a given inverter have the same color in a
given state. If z = p1 p2 . . . denotes the equation that defines the operation
of a given inverter, a state is called balanced if the equation z = p1 p2 . . . is
satisfied at every inverter in the diagram. For example, the circuit defined
by equations x = y and y = x has exactly two balanced states in the dis-
Fig. 3.78 Trefoil knot automaton (Kauffman, 1994).
crete set {0, 1}. In general, if we take values from continuous interval [0, 1],
all the values (x, y) = (x, 1 − x) (x ∈ [0, 1]) give balanced states of this
circuit. A transition consists of reassigning the value of z for the outgoing
edges z of one inverter that is unbalanced. Transition may or may not
result in a balanced state (Kauffman, 1994).
The equation x = x describes the circuit that embodies the Liar para-
dox. In bivalent Boolean logic, it has no solutions for a balanced state, so
it demands a polyvalent logic in order to achieve a stable state. Such a
solution is x = 12 . In a similar way, the automaton defined by equations
x = y, y = x y (Fig. 3.79) has no stable states for the discrete values from
the set {0, 1}, yet stabilizes for (x, y) = (1 − ϕ, ϕ) from the continuous set
[0, 1]2 .
Fig. 3.79 Automaton x = y, y = x y.
A reductor with 6 gates and 13 leads proposed by G. Spencer-Brown

is an example of automaton with an input z to the system (Fig. 3.80).
456 LinKnot
For z = 0 it has two balanced states for (a, b, c, d, e, f ): A = (1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1)

and C = (1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0), and two balanced states B = (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1) and
D = (0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1) for z = 1. The alternating sequence of input val-
ues z = 0, 1, 0, 1 . . . produces a sequence of states A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D . . .
of the period 4. In the extended set [0, 1] for z = 0 the system has an
infinite number of stable points determined by the parametric equation
(a, b, c, d, e, f ) = (1, 1, c, 1 − c, c, 1 − c), and for z = 1 we have one additional
fixed point (a, b, c, d, e, f ) = (ϕ, ϕ, ϕ, ϕ, ϕ, ϕ). In general case, we can take
any z ∈ [0, 1] as an input z and obtain a system of equations with two
parameters z and c. This system has a continuum of solutions. Kauffman
(1994) conjectured that a determinate (asynchronous) reductor with less
than six inverters does not exist.
Fig. 3.80 Minimal reductor with 6 gates.
Every circuit that has more then one stable state in the discrete set of
values {0, 1}, has a continuum of stable states (i.e., fixed points) in [0, 1],
defined by resulting parametric equations. On the other hand, a circuit
with no stable states in the set {0, 1}, always has a stable state in the
extended set [0, 1], i.e., in polyvalent logic.
The principle of duality holds for automata with NAND and NOR gates:
a system remains unchanged with regard to stable states if all NAND gates
are replaced by NOR gates or vice versa. This holds also for automata that
contain NAND and AND, or NOR and OR gates.
The LinKnot function fAutoSigInp calculates stable states of an au-
tomaton given by a list of outgoing edges, signs of vertices, and inputs in
vertices. For vertices with the sign 1 the operation NAND is used, while for
vertices with sign −1 the operation AND. The result is a list of edge color-
ings corresponding to stable states and a list of stable states according to
gates (see Kauffman, 1994), with values taken from the discrete set {0, 1}.
If the list of signs is empty, it is treated as (1, ..., 1), and computations are
made with NAND gates in all vertices of a graph. Inputs in vertices can
be included by giving the corresponding list of vertices. Because only an
input 0 produces a change in NAND or AND gates, all inputs are treated
as 0.
The function fAutoKL calculates stable states of an automaton ob-
tained from a KL given in Conway notation, followed by a list of signs of
vertices, and inputs in vertices.
The logical operation NAND is used in vertices with the sign 1, and
AND in vertices with the sign −1. The result is the oriented graph cor-
responding to a given KL, the list of edge colorings corresponding to its
stable states, and the list of stable states ordered according to gates (see
Kauffman, 1994). If the list of signs of a given KL is empty, the original list
of the signs of a given KL is used for the computation. Inputs in crossings
are the same as for the function fAutoSigInp.
Fig. 3.81 Figure-eight knot automaton.
The function fAutoKL can be used for analyzing the behavior of KLs
with regard to stable states, this means, their edge colorings with two col-
ors 0 and 1, compatible with the requirements of NAND and AND logical
gates. For example, an automaton obtained from the figure-eight knot 2 2
(or 41 ) with the signs 1 in all crossings (i.e., with NAND gates in all cross-
ings), defined by equations x = yz, y = xu, z = yu, u = xz, has no stable
states in the discrete set {0, 1}. The corresponding operator T (x, y, z, u) =
(yz, xu, yu, xz) generates the periodic sequence (0,0,0,0),(1,1,1,1). . . for
(x, y, z, u) ∈ {(1, 1, 1, 1), (1, 1, 0, 0), (0, 0, 1, 1)} and for every other initial
458 LinKnot
state (x, y, z, u) with more than two zeros. In all other cases, it gener-
ates the sequence of the period eight (0,1,1,0),(1,1,1,1),(0,1,0,1),(1,1,0,1),
(1,0,0,1),(1,0,1,1),(1,0,1,0),(1,1,1,0). . . Using the original signs of the knot
2 2 (this means, NAND gates in the crossings with the sign 1, and AND
gates in the crossings with the sign −1), we obtain the stable state
(x, y, z, u) = (1, 1, 0, 0) (Fig. 3.81a). The mirror image −2 − 2 of the same
knot gives the same result, showing that the figure-eight knot is achiral.
For a figure-eight knot with all signs equal to 1, we have the stable state
(x, y, z, u) = (ϕ, ϕ, ϕ, ϕ) on the set [0, 1]4 (Fig. 3.81b), where ϕ denotes
golden ratio. A figure-eight knot with the signs −1 in all vertices (this
means, with AND gates in all vertices) has two stable states, where all
edges are labelled by 0, or all edges are labelled by 1. On the other hand,
a trefoil 3 has no stable states with NAND gates in all crossings, but its
mirror image −3 with AND gates in all crossings has two stable states from
the discrete set {0, 1}, where all edges are colored by 0, or by 1. This shows
that the trefoil knot is chiral.
July 29, 2007 19:40 World Scientific Book - 9in x 6in bibliographyfinal
Bibliography
Abbott, E.A. (1884), Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, Princeton Uni-

versity Press, Princeton, 1991.
Adams, C.C. (1994) The Knot Book, Freeman, New York.
Adams, C.C. (1996) Splitting versus unlinking, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 5,
295–299.
Aitchison, I.R. and Rubinstein, J.H. (1992) Combinatorial cubings, cusps and
the dodecahedral knots, in Collection: Topology ’90 (Columbus, OH, 1990),
Ohio St. Univ. Res. Publ. 1, 17–26, de Greyter, Berlin.
Alexander, J.W. (1923) A lemma on systems of knotted curves, Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci. USA, 9, 93–95.
Alexander, J.W. (1928) Toplological invariants of knots and links, Trans. Am.
Math. Soc., 30, 275–306.
Alexander, J.W. and Briggs, G.B. (1926-27) On types of knotted curves, Annals
of Mathematics, 28, 562–586.
Allen, J.R. (1904) Celtic Art in Pagan and Cristian Times, Methuen and Co.,
London.
Andrews, G.E. (1976) The Theory of Partitions, Addison-Wesley, Reading
(Mass.).
Aneziris, C. (1997) Computer programming for knot tabulation, Series on Knots
and Everything 20, World Scientific, Singapore.
Artin, E. (1925) Theorie der Zöpfe, Hamburg Abh., 4, 47–72.
Artin, E. (1947) Theory of braids, Ann. of Math., 48, 101–126.
Ascher, M. (1988a) Graphs in Culture: a Study in Ethnomathematics I, in His-
toria Mathematica, Vol. 15, 201–227, New York.
Ascher, M. (1988b) Graphs in Cultures II, in Archive for History of Exact Sci-
ences, Berlin, 39, 1, 75–95.
Ascher, M. (1991) Ethnomathematics: A Multicultural View of Mathematical
Ideas, Brooks & Cole, Pacific Grove (Ca).
Ashley, C.W. (1944) The Ashley Book of Knots, Doubleday, New York.
Askitas, N. (1999) A note on 4-equivalence, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 8, 3,
261–263.
459
460 LinKnot
Atiyah, M.F. (1990) The Geometry and Physics of Knots, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Bain, G. (1973) Celtic Art – the Methods of Construction, Dower, New York.
Bain, I. (1990). Celtic Knotwork, Constable, London.
Balaban, A.T. (1989) Carbon and its nets, in Symmetry: Unifying Human Un-
derstanding 2, (Ed. I. Hargittai), 397–416, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New
York.
Bar Natan, D. (1995) On the Vassiliev Knot Invariants, Topology, 34, 423–472.
Bar Natan, D. (2002) On Khovanov’s categorification of the Jones polynomial,
Algebraic and Geometric Topology, 2, 16, 337–370.
Bar Natan, D. (2006) KnotTheory,
http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/The Mathematica Package KnotTheory
Barrett, C. (1970) Op-art, Studio Vista, London.
Berge, C. (1985) Graphs, 3rd ed., North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Bernhard, J.A. (1994) Unknotting numbers and their minimal knot diagrams, J.
Knot Theory Ramifications, 3, 1, 1–5.
Bilinski, S. (1985) Die quasiregulären Polyeder vom Geschelcht 2, Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche
Klasse, Band 194, 1–3.
Birkhoff, G.D. (1912) A deretminant formula for the number of ways of coloring
a map, Ann. of Math., 2, 14, 42–46.
Birkhoff, G.D. and Lewis, D.C. (1946) Chromatic polynomials, Trans. Am. Math.
Soc., 60, 355–451.
Birman, J.S. (1976) Braids, Links and Mapping Class Groups, Ann. of Math.
Studies 82, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Birman, J. (1993) New point of view in knot theory, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 28,
253–287.
Bleiler, S.A. (1984) A note on unknotting number, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.,
96, 469–471.
Bogle, M.G.V., Hearst, J.E., Jones, V.F.R. and Stoilov, L. (1994) Lissajous Knots,
J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 3, 2, 121–140.
Bohm, J. and Dornberger-Schiff, K. (1966) The nomenclature of crystallographic
symmetry groups, Acta Crystallogr., 21, 1004–1007.
Boo, W.O.J. (1992) An Introduction to Fullerene Structures, J. Chem. Education,
69, 8, 605–609.
Boole, G. (2003) The laws of thought, Prometheus Books, New York.
Boyer, J.M. and Myrvold, W. (2005) On the Cutting Edge: Simplified O(n)
Planarity by Edge Addition, Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications,
8, 3, 241–273.
Broersma, H.J., Duijvestijn, A.J.W. and Göbel, G. (1993) Generating All 3-
Connected 4-Regular Planar Graphs from the Octahedron Graph, Journal
of Graph Theory, 17, 5, 613–620.
Brunn, H. (1892) Über Verkettung, Sitzungberichte der Bayerischer Akad. Wiss.
Math-Phys., 22, 77–99.
Burde, G. and Zieschang, H. (1985) Knots, Walter de Greyter, Berlin, New York.
Bibliography 461
Calvo, J.A. (1997) Knot Enumeration Through Flypes and Twisted Splices, J.
Knot Theory Ramifications, 6, 6 , 785–798.
Calvo, J.A., Millett, K.C. and Rawdon, E.J. (Eds.) (2002) Physical Knots: Knot-
ting, Linking and Folding Geometric Objects in ℜ3 , AMS Special Session on
Physical Knotting and Unknotting, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 21-22, 2001,
Americal Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.
Caudron, A. (1982) Classification des nœuds et des enlancements, Public. Math.
d’Orsay 82. Univ. Paris Sud, Dept. Math., Orsay.
Cavichiolli, A., Ruini, B. and Spaggiari, F. (2001) On a conjecture of M.J. Dun-
woody, Algebra Colloquium, 8, 2, 169–218.
Cerf, C. (1997) Nullification writhe and chirality of alternating links, J. Knot
Theory Ramifications, 6, 5, 621–632.
Cerf, C. (1998) Atlas of Oriented Knots and Links, Topology Atlas Invited Con-
tributions, 3, 2, 1–32, http://at.yorku.ca/t/a/i/c/31.htm.
Cerf, C. (2001) Topological chirality of knots and links, in Chemical Topology,
Mathematical Chemistry, Vol. 6 (Eds. D. Bonchev and D.H. Roovray), Gor-
don and Breach Publishers, New York, 1–34.
Conant, J. (2006) Chirality and the Conway polynomial,
arXiv:math.GT/0503648v1.
Conway, J. (1970) An enumeration of knots and links and some of their related
properties, in Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra, Proc. Conf.
Oxford 1967 (Ed. J. Leech), 329–358, Pergamon Press, New York.
Conway, J.H. and Gordon, C.McA. (1983) Knots and Links in Spatial Graphs, J.
Graph Theory, 7, 445–453.
Coxeter, H.S.M. (1994) Symmetrical combinations of three and four hollow tri-
angles, Math. Intelligencer, 16, 3, 25–30.
Coxeter, H.S.M. and Moser, W.O.J. (1980) Generators and Relations for Discrete
Groups, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Cromwell, P.R. (1993) Celtic knotwork: mathematical art, The Math. Intelli-
gencer, 15, 1, 36–47.
Cromwell, P. (1995) Borromean triangles in Viking art, Math. Intelligencer, 17,
1, 3–4.
Cromwell, P. (2004) Knots and links, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cromwell, P., Beltrami, E. and Rampichini, M. (1998) The Borromean rings,
Math. Intelligencer, 20, 53–62.
Crowell, R.H. and Fox R.H. (1965) Knot Theory, Blaisdell Publishing Company,
New York, Toronto, London.
Dabkowski, M.K. and Przytycki, J.H. (2002) Burnside obstructions to the
Montesinos-Nakanishi 3-move conjecture, Geometry and Topology, 6, 335–
360.
Darcy, I.K. and Sumners, D.W. (1998) Applications of toppology to DN A, in
Knot Theory (Eds. V.F.R. Jones et all), Banach Center Publ. 42, Polish
Acad. Sci., Inst. Math., Warszawa.
Darcy, I.K. and Sumners, D.W. (2000) Rational tangle distances of knot and
links, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 128, 497–510.
462 LinKnot
Dasbach, O.T. and Hougardy, S. (1996) A conjecture of Kauffman on am-

phicheiral alternating knots, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 5, 629–635.
Dasbach, O.T. and Hougardy, S. (1997) Does the Jones polynomial detect un-
knottedness, J. Experimental Math., 6, 51–56.
Dazey I. and Sumners, D.W. (1997) A strand passage metric for topoisomerase
action, in: Proceedings of Knots 96 (Ed. S. Suzuki), 267–278, World Scien-
tific, Singapore.
de Fraysseix, H. and Ossona de Mendez, P. (1999) On a Characterization of Gauss
Codes, Discrete and Computational Geometry, 22, 2, 287–295.
De Wit, D. (2000) Automatic evaluation of the Links-Gould invariant for all prime
knots of up to 10 crossings, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 9, 3, 311–339.
De Wit, D., Kauffman, L.H. and Links, J.R. (1999) On the Links-Gould invariant
of links, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 8, 2, 165–199.
Dehn, M. (1914) Die beiden Kleeblattschlingen, Math. Annalen, 75, 1–12.
Dehn, M. (1936) Über Kombinatorische Topologie, Acta Math., 67, 123–168.
Diao, Y., Ernst, C. and Stasiak, A. (2006) A Partial Ordering of Knots Through
Diagrammatic Unknotting,
http://www.math.uncc.edu/preprint/2006/2006 12c.pdf
Doll, H. and Hoste, J. (1991) A tabulation of oriented links, Mathematics of
Computation, 57, 196, 747–761.
Dowker, C.H. and Thistlethwaite, M.B. (1982) On the classification of knots,
C.R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada, 4, 129–131.
Dowker, C.H. and Thistlethwaite, M.B. (1983) Classification of knot projections,
Topology Appl., 16, 19–31.
Drinfeld, V.G. (1987) Quantum groups, Proceedings of the International Congress
of Mathematicians (Berkeley, 1986) (Providence, RI), Vol. 1, Amer. Math.
Soc., 798–820.
Dunfield, N.M., Garoufalidis, S., Shumakovitch, A. and Thistlethwaite, M. (2006)
Behaviour of knot invariants under genus 2 mutation,
Dunham, D. (2000) Hyperbolic Celtic Knot Patterns, in Bridges: Mathematical
Connections in Art, Music, and Science, Conference Proceedings, 13–23.
Edmonds, D. (1960) A combinatorial representation of polyhedral surfaces, Not.
Am. Math. Soc., 7, 646.
Eliahou, S., Kauffman, L.H. and Thistlethwaite, M.B. (2003) Infinite families of
links with trivial Jones polynomial, Topology, 42, 155–169.
Emery, I. (1995) The Primary Structures of Fabrics, Watson-Guptill Publica-
tions/Whitney Library of Design, The Textile Museum, Washington, D.C.
Edmonds, D. (1960) A combinatorial representation of polyhedral surfaces, Not.
Am. Math. Soc., 7, 646.
Epstein, D. (2006) The Geometry Junkyard,
http://www.ics.uci.edu/∼ eppstein/junkyard/polytope.html
Ernst, C. and Sumners, D.W. (1987) The growth of number of prime knots, Math.
Proc. Cambridge Math. Soc., 102, 303–315.
Ernst, C. and Sumners, D.W. (1990) A calculus for rational tangles; applications
to DN A recombination, Math. Proc. Cambridge Math. Soc., 108, 489–515.
Bibliography 463
Ernst, C. and Sumners, D.W. (1999) Solving tangle equations arising in DN A

recombination model, Math. Proc. Cambridge Math. Soc., 126, 23–36.
Eudave-Muñoz, M. (1997) Non-hyperbolic manifolds obtained by Dehn surgery
on hyperbolic knots, in Geometric Topology, Ed. W.H. Kazez, Studies in
Advanced Mathematics 2, 1, American Math. Soc. and International Press,
35–61.
Farmer, D.W. and Stanford, T.B. (1996) Knots and Surfaces, American Mathe-
matical Society, Providence.
Fiedler, T. (2001) Gauss Diagram Invariants for Knots and Links, Kluwer Acad-
emic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London.
Flapan, E. (1987) Rigid and non-rigid achirality, Pacific Journal of Mathematics,
129, 1, 57–66.
Flapan, E. (1998) Topological Rubber Gloves, J. Math. Chem., 23, 31–49.
Flapan, E. (2000) When Topology Meets Chemistry: A Look at Molecular Chem-
istry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fontinha, M. (1983) Desenhos na areiados Quiocos do Nordeste de Angola, Inst.
de Invest. Cientif. Tropical, Lisboa.
Fowler, P.D. and Manolopoulos, D.E. (1995) An Atlas of Fullerenes, Oxford Uni-
versity Press, Oxford.
Freyd, P., Yetter, D., Hoste, J., Lickorish, W.B.R., Millett, K.C. and Onceanu,
A. (1985) A new polynomial invariant of knots and links, Bull. Am. Math.
Soc., 12, 103–111.
Gardner, M. (1986) Knotted Doughnuts, W.H. Freeman, New York.
Gardner, M. (1991) Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions, Penguin Books, Lon-
don.
Garity, D. (2001) Unknotting Numbers are not Realized in Minimal Projections
for a Class of Rational Knots, Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste, Suppl. 2,
Vol. 32, 59–72.
Gauss, K.F. (1833) Zur mathematischen Theorie der electrodynamischen Wirkun-
gen, Werke, Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenchafter zu Göttingen, 5,
602–629.
Gerdes, P. (1989) Reconstruction and extension of lost symmetries, Comput.
Math. Appl., 17, 4–6, 791–813 (also in Symmetry: Unifying Human Un-
derstanding II, Ed. I. Hargittai).
Gerdes, P. (1990) On ethnomathematical research and symmetry, Symmetry: Cul-
ture and Science, 1, 2, 154–170.
Gerdes, P. (1991) Lusona– Geometrical Recreations of Africa, African Mathemat-
ical Union and Higher Pedagogical Institute’s faculty of Sciences, Maputo.
Gerdes, P. (1993) Geometria Sona. Instituto Superior Pedagógico Moçambique,
Maputo.
Gerdes, P. (1994). Sona Geometry, Instituto Superior Pedagógico Moçambique,
Maputo.
Gerdes, P. (1995) Extensions of a reconstructed Tamil ring-pattern, in The Pat-
tern Book: Fractals, Art and Nature, (Ed. C. Pickower), World Scientific,
Singapore, 377–379.
464 LinKnot
Gerdes, P. (1996) Lunda Geometry– Designs, Polyominoes, Patterns, Symmetries,

Universidade Pedagógica Moçambique, Maputo.
Gerdes, P. (1997) On mirror curves and Lunda designs. Comput. & Graphics, 21,
3, 371–378.
Gerdes, P. (1998) Molecular Modeling of Fullerenes with Hexastrips, Chem. In-
telligencer, 1, 40–45.
Gerdes, P. (1999) Geometry from Africa: Mathematical and Educational Explo-
rations, Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
Gilbert, N.D. and Porter, T. (1994) Knots and Surfaces, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, New York, Tokio.
Gittings, T. (2004) Minimum braids: a complete invariant of knots and links,
arXiv:math/0401051v1.
Goeritz, L. (1934) Bemerkungen zur knotentheorie, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Ham-
burg, 10, 201–210.
Goldman, J.R. and Kauffman, L.H. (1997) Rational Tangles, Advances in Applied
Math., 18, 300–332.
Golomb, S. (1994) Polyominoes, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Gordon, C.McA. (2002) Links and Their Complements, Contemp. Math., 314,
71–82.
Gordon, C.McA. and Luecke, J. (1989) Knots are determined by their comple-
ments, J. Amer. Math. Soc., 2, 371–415.
Gordon, C.McA. and Luecke, J. (2006) Knots with unknotting number 1 and
essential Conway spheres, arXiv:math.GT/0601265v1.
Grabowski, A. (2005) Culmination of a Complete Proof of the Jordan Curve The-
orem, http://markun.cs.shinshu-u.ac.jp/mizar/jordan/jordancurve-e.html
Green, J. (2004) A table of virtual knots,
http://www.math.toronto.edu/∼ drorbn/Students/GreenJ/
Grünbaum, B. and Motzkin, T.S. (1963) The number of hexagons and the sim-
plicity of geodesics on certain polyhedra, Can. J. Math., 15, 744–751.
Grünbaum, B. and Shephard, G.C. (1980) Satins and Twills: An Introduction to
the Geometry of Fabrics, Mathematics Magazine, 53, 3, 139–161.
Grünbaum B. and Shephard G.C. (1983) Tilings, Patterns, Fabrics and Related
Topics in Discrete Geometry, Jber. d. Dt. Math.-Verein, 85, 1–32.
Grünbaum, B. and Shephard, G.C. (1985) Symmetry groups of knots, Mathemat-
ics Magazine, 58, 3, 161–165.
Grünbaum, B. and Shephard, G.C. (1986) Tilings and Patterns, W.H. Freeman,
New York.
Hagge, T. (2005) Every Reidemeister move is needed for every knot type, Pro-
ceedings of Amer. Math. Soc., 134, 1, 295–301.
Haken, W. (1961) Theorie der Normalflachen, Acta Math., 105, 245–375.
Hashizume, Y. (1958) On the uniqueness of the decomposition of a link, Osaka
Math. J., 10, 283–300.
Hass, J. and Lagarias J.C. (2001) The number of Reidemeister moves
Needed for Unknotting, J. Amer Math. Soc, 14, 2, 399–428,
Bibliography 465
Helmholtz, H. (1858) Über Integrale der hydrodynamischen Gleichungen, Welche

den Wirbelbewenungen entsprechen, Crelle’s Journal für Mathematik, 55,
25–55.
Hemion, G. (1979) On the Classification of Homeomorphisms of 2-Manifolds and
the Classification of 3-Manifolds, Acta Math., 142, 123–155.
Harary, F. and Palmer, E. (1973) Graphical Enumeration, Academic Press, New
York, London.
Hartley, R. and Kawauchi, A. (1979) Polynomials of amphicheiral knots, Math.
Annalen, 243, 1, 63–70.
Hartley, R. (1983) Identifying non-invertible knots, Topology, 22, 2, 137–145.
Haseman, M.G. (1918) On knots with a census of the amphicheirals with twelve
crossings, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 52, 235–255.
Haseman, M.G. (1920) Amphicheiral knots, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 52, 597–602.
Hatcher, A. (2002) Algebraic Topology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Holden, A. (1983) Orderly Tangles, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Hoste, J. (2006) The enumeration and classification of knots and links,
http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/∼ jhoste/HosteWebPages/downloads/Enumera-
tion.pdf
Hoste, J., Thistlethwaite, M., and Weeks, J. (1998) The first 1,701,936 knots,
Math. Intalligencer, 20, 33–48.
Imafuji, N. and Ochiai, M. (2002) Computer Aided Knot Theory Using Mathe-
matica and MathLink, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 11, 6, 945–954.
Jablan, S.V. (1992) Periodic antisymmetry tilings, Symmetry: Culture and Sci-
ence, 3, 3, 281–291.
Jablan, S.V. (1995) Mirror generated curves, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 6,
2, 275–278.
Jablan, S.V. (1998) Unknotting number and ∞-unknotting number of a knot,
Filomat (Niš) 12, 1, 113–120.
Jablan, S.V. (1999) Are Borromean Links so Rare?, Forma, 14, 4, 269–277.
Jablan, S.V. (1999a) Geometry of links, Novi Sad J. Math., 29, 3, 121–139.
Jablan, S.V. (1999b) Ordering knots, Visual Mathematics 1, 1,
http://members.tripod.com/vismath/sl/index.html
Jablan, S.V. (2002) Symmetry, Ornament and Modularity, Series on Knots and
Everything 30, World Scientific, Singapore.
Jablan, S.V. (2002a) New knot tables, Filomat (Niš), 15, 2, 141–152
(http://members.tripod.com/modularity/knotab/index.html).
Jablan, S. and Sazdanović, R. (2003) LinKnot,
http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/linknot/
Jablan, S. and Sazdanović, R. (2005a) Unlinking number and unlinking gap,
arXiv:math/0503270v1.
Jablan, S. and Sazdanović, R. (2005b) Braid family representatives,
Jaworski, J. and Stewart, I. (1976) Get Knotted, Pan Books, London.
Jones, V. (1985) A Polynomial Invariant for Knots via von Neumann Algebras,
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 12, 103–111.
466 LinKnot
Jones, V.F.R. (1987) Hecke algebra representations of braid groups and link poly-
nomials, Ann. of Math., 126, 335–388.
Jones, V.F.R. (1989) On knot invariants related to some statistical mechanical
models, Pacific J. Math., 137, 311–334.
Jones, V.F.R. (2005) The Jones polynomial,
http://math.berkeley.edu/∼ vfr/jones.pdf
Jordan, M.C. (1887) Cours d’analyse, Tome 3, L’École Polytechnique, Gauthier-
Villars, Paris.
Joyce, D. (1982) A Classifying Invariant of Knots, The Knot Quandle, J. Pure
Appl. Alg. 23, 37–65.
Kanenobu, T. (1986) Infinitely many knots with the same polynomial invariant,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 97, 1, 158–162.
Kanenobu, T. and Murakami, H. (1986) Two-bridge knots with unknotting num-
ber one, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 98, 499–502.
Kauffman, L.H. (1983) Combinatorics and knot theory, Contemporary Mathemat-
ics, 20, 181–200.
Kauffman, L.H. (1987a) On Knots, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Kauffman, L.H. (1987b) State models and the Jones polynomial, Topology, 26,
395–407.
Kauffman, L.H. (1988) New invariants in the theory of knots, Amer. Math. Mon.,
March, 195–242.
Kauffman, L.H. (1990) An invariant of regular isotopy, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
318, 417–471.
Kauffman, L.H. (1990a) Problems in Knot Theory, Open Problems in Topology
(Eds. J. van Mill and G.M. Reed), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North
Holland, 487–522.
Kauffman, L.H. (1991) Knots and physics, World Scientific, Singapore.
Kauffman, L.H. (1994) Knot automata, IEEE Computer Society Press Reprint,
328–333.
Kauffman, L.H. (1995) Knot logic, in Knots and Applications (Ed. L. Kauffman),
World Scientific, 1–110.
Kauffman, L.H. (1995a) Hopf algebras and invariants of 3-manifolds, Journal of
Pure and Appl. Algebra, 100, 73–92.
Kauffman, L.H. (1997) Virtual knots, Talks at MSRI Meeting, January 1997 and
AMS Meeting, at University of Maryland, College Park, March 1997.
Kauffman, L.H. (1999) Virtual Knot Theory, European J. Comb., 20, 663–690.
Kauffman, L.H. (2000) A Survey of Virtual Knot Theory, Knots in Hellas ’98,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Knot Theory and its Ram-
ifications (Eds. C.McA. Gordon, V.F.R. Jones, L.H. Kauffman, S. Lam-
bropoulou, J.H. Przytycki), World Scientific, Singapore, New Jersey, Lon-
don, Hong Kong, 143–202.
Kauffman, L.H. (2001) Detecting virtual knots, Atti. Sem. Math. fis., Univ. Mod-
ena, Supplemento al Vol. IL, 241–282.
Kauffman, L.H. (2004) Knot diagrammatics, arXiv:math.GN/0410329v5.
Kauffman, L.H. and Lambropoulou, S. (2003) On the classification of rational
tangles, arXiv:math.GT/0311499v2.
Bibliography 467
Kauffman, L.H. and Lambropoulou, S. (2002) On the classification of rational

knots, arXiv:math.GT/0212011v2.
Kauffman, L.H. and Lambropoulou, S. (2002a) Classifying and applying rational
knots and rational tangles, AMS Contemporary Mathematics Series, 304,
223–259.
Kauffman, L.H. and Lambropoulou, S. (2006) Hard knots and collapsing tangles,
Kauffman, L. and Taylor, L. (1976) Signature of Links, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
216, 351–365.
Kauffman, L.H. and Varela, F.J. (1980) Form dynamics, J. Social and Biol.
Struct., 3, 171–206.
Kawauchi, A. (1979) The invertibility problem on amphicheiral excellent knots,
Proc. Jpn. Acad., Series A, 55, 399–402.
Kawauchi, A. (1996) A Survey of Knot Theory, Birkhäuser, Basel, Boston, Berlin.
Kawauchi, A. and Tayama I. (2004) Enumerating the prime knots and links by
a canonical order, Proceedings of the First East Asian School of Knots,
Links, and Related Topics, http://knot.kaist.ac.kr/2004/proceedings.php,
307–316.
Kawauchi, A. and Tayama I. (2006) Enumerating prime links by a canonical
order, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 5, 2, 217–237.
Keller, M.T. (2004) Knot theory: history and applications with a connection to
graph theory, http://www.math.gatech.edu/∼ keller/thesis-final.pdf
Khinchin, A.Ya. (1994) Continued Fractions, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Khovanov, M. (1997) A categorification of the Jones polynomial, Duke Math. J,
101, 3, 673–707.
Khovanov, M. (2001) A functor-valued invariant of tangles, Algebraic and Geo-
metric Topology, 2 (2002) 665-741, arXiv:math/0103190v2.
Khruzin, A. (2000) Enumeration of chord diagrams, arXiv:math.CO/0008209v1.
Kirby R. (1997) Problems in low-dimensional topology; Geometric Topology, in
Proceedings of the Georgia International Topology Conference, (Ed. W.H.
Kazez), Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Vol. 2, part 2, AMS/IP, 35–473.
Kirkman, T.P. (1885a) The enumeration, description and construction of knots
of fewer than ten crossings, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, 32, 281–309.
Kirkman, T.P. (1885b) The 364 unifilar knots of ten crossings, enumerated and
described, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, 32, 483–491.
Kohn, P. (1991) Two-bridge links with unlinking number one, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc., 113, 1135–1147.
Kohn, P. (1993) Unlinking two component links, Osaka J. Math., 30, 741–752.
Kohno, T. (Ed.) (1989) New Developments in Knot Theory, World Scientific,
Singapore, New Jersey, London, Hong Kong.
Kontsevich, M. (1993) Vassiliev’s knots invariants, in I.M. Gel’fand seminar:
Providence, R.I., Amer. Math. Soc., Adv. Sov. Math., 16, 2, 137–150.
Kronheimer, P.B. and Mrowka, T.S. (1993) Gauge Theory for Embedded Sur-
faces. I., Topology, 32, 773–826.
Kronheimer, P.B. and Mrowka, T.S. (1995) Gauge Theory for Embedded Sur-
faces. II., Topology, 34, 37–97.
468 LinKnot
Kroto, H.W. (1989) CB 60 Buckminsterfullerene, other fullerenes and the icospiral

shell, in Symmetry: Unifying Human Understanding 2, (Ed. I. Hargittai),
417–423, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York.
Kuratowski, K. (1930), Sur le problème des courbes gauches en topologie, Fund.
Math., 15, 271–283.
Liang, C., Cerf, C. and Mislow, K. (1996) Specification of chirality for links and
knots, Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, 19, 241–263.
Liang, C. and Jiang, Y. (1982) The Chirality of Ground DNA Knots and Links,
J. Theor. Biol., 158, 231–243.
Liang, C. and Mislow, K. (1994a) On amphicheiral knots, Journal of Mathematical
Chemistry, 15, 1–34.
Liang, C. and Mislow, K. (1994b) A left-right classification of topologically chiral
knots, Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, 15, 35–62.
Liang, C., Mislow, K. (1994c) On Boromean links, J. Math. Chemistry, 16, 27–35.
Liang, C. and Mislow, K. (1995) Topological chirality and achirality of links,
Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, 18, 1–24.
Liang, C., Mislow, K. and Flapan E. (1998) Amphicheiral links with an odd
crossing number, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 7, 87–91.
Lickorish, W.B.R. (1997) An Introduction to Knot Theory, Springer-Verlag, New
York, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Lickorish, W.B.R. and Millett, K.C. (1987) A polynomial invariant of oriented
links, Topology, 26, 107–141.
Lickorish, W.B.R. and Thislethwaite, M.B.(1988) Some links with non-trivial
polynomials and their crossing-numbers, Comment. Math. Helvetici, 63,
527–539.
Lindström, B. and Zeterström, H.O. (1991) Borromean circles are impossible,
Amer. Math. Monthly, 98, 340–341.
Listing, J.B. (1847) Vorstudien zur Topologie, Götinger Studien (Abtheilung 1),
1, 811–875.
Little, C.N. (1885) On knots, with a census of order ten, Trans. Conn. Acad. Sci.,
18, 374–378.
Little, C.N. (1890) Non-alternate ± knots of orders eight or nine, Trans. Roy.
Soc. Edinburgh, 35, 663–664.
Little, C.N. (1892) Alternate ± knots of order 11, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh,
36, 253–255.
Little, C.N. (1900) Non-alternate ± knots, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, 39, 771–
778.
Livingston, C. (1993) Knot Theory, The Mathematical Association of America,
Washington, DC.
Livingston, C. and Cha J.C. (2005) Table of knot invariants,
http://www.indiana.edu/∼ knotinfo/
Lovász L. and Marx, M.L. (1976) A forbidden structure characterization of Gauss
codes, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 82, 1, 121–122.
Luse, K. and Rong, Y. (2006) Examples of knots with the same polynomials, J.
Knot Theory Ramifications, 15, 6, 749–759.
Bibliography 469
Mackay, A.L. and Terrones, H. (1993) Hypothetical graphite structures with neg-
ative gaussian curvature, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London A, 343, 113–127.
Makarychev, Y. (1997) A Short Proof of Kuratowski’s Graph Planarity Criterion,
The Journal of Graph Theory, 25, 129–131.
Manturov, V.O. (2000a) Bifurcations, atoms and knots, Moscow Univ. Math.
Bul., 1, 3–8.
Manturov, V.O. (2000b) The bracket semigroup of knots, Mathematical Notes,
67, 4, 571–581.
Manturov, V.O. (2002) On invariants of virtual links, Acta Applicandae Mathe-
maticae, 72, 3, 295–309.
Manturov, V.O. (2003) Multivariable polynomial invariants for virtual knots and
links, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 12, 8, 1131–1144.
Manturov, V.O. (2004) Knot Theory, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton,
London, New York, Washington, DC.
Markov, A.A. (1935) Über de freie Aquivalenz geschlossener Zöpfe, Recqueil Math-
ematique Moscou, 1, 73–78.
Markov, A.A. (1945) Foundations of the algebraic theory of braids, Trudy math.
inst. Steklov, 16, 3-54 (in Russian).
Martin, G.E. (1980) Transformation Geometry, Springer-Verlag, New York, Hei-
delberg, Berlin.
Marx, M.L. (1969) The Gauss realizability problem, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 22,
610–613.
Matveev, S.V. (1982) Distributivnye gruppoidy v teorii uzlov, Mat. Sbornik, 119,
1, 78–88 (in Russian).
Matveev, S.V. (2003) Algorithmic topology and classification of 3-manifolds,
Springer-Verlag, New York, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Menasco, W.W. and Thistlethwaite, M.B. (1991) The Tait flyping conjecture,
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 25, 2, 403–412.
Menasco, W.W. and Thistlethwaite, M.B. (1993) The classification of alternating
links, Annals of Mathematics, 138, 1, 113–171.
Milnor, J.W. (1968) Singular points of complex hypersurfaces, Annals of Mathe-
matics Studies 61, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Mohar, B. and Thomassen C. (2001) Graphs on Surfaces, Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press, Baltimore.
Montesinos, J.M. (1984) Revetements ramifies des nœuds, Espaces fibres de
Seifert et scindaments de Heegaard, Publicaciones del Seminario Mathe-
matico Gercia del Galdeano, Serie II, Seccion 3.
Moriuchi, H. (2004) An enumeration of theta-curves with up to seven crossings,
http://knot.kaist.ac.kr/2004/proceedings/MORIUCHI.pdf
Motegi, K. (1996) A note on unlinking numbers of Montesinos links, Rev. Mat.
Univ. Complut. Madrid, 9, 1, 151–164.
Murakami, H. (1985) Some Metrics on Classical Knots, Math. Ann., 270, 35–45.
Murasugi, K. (1958) On the Alexander polynomial of the alternating knot, Osaka
Math. J., 10, 181–189.
Murasugi, K. (1965) On a certain numerical invariant of link types, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc., 117, 387–422.
470 LinKnot
Murasugi, K. (1987a) Jones polynomials and classical conjectures in knot theory,

Topology, 26, 187–194.
Murasugi, K. (1987b) Jones polynomials and classical conjectures in knot theory
II, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 102, 317–318.
Murasugi, K. (1996) Knot Theory and its Applications, Birkhäuser, Boston,
Basel, Berlin.
Nakanishi, Y. (1981) A note on unknotting number, Math. Sem. Notes Kobe
Univ., 9, 99–108.
Nakanishi, Y. (1983) Unknotting numbers and knot diagrams with the minimum
crossings, Math. Sem. Notes Kobe Univ., 11, 257–258.
Nakanishi, Y. (1994) On generalized unknotting operations, J. Knot Theory Ram-
ifications, 3, 2, 197–209.
Nakanishi, Y. (1996) Unknotting number and knot diagram, Rev. Mat. Univ.
Complut. Madrid, 9, 2, 359–366.
Nakanishi, Y. (2005) A note on unknotting number, II J. Knot Theory Ramifica-
tions, 14, 1, 3–8.
Nelson, S. (2001) Unknotting virtual knots with Gauss diagram forbidden moves,
J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 10, 6, 931–935.
Ochiai, M. and Imafuji, N. (2007) Knot2000 (K2K) Computer Aided Knot The-
ory, http://amadeus.ics.nara-wu.ac.jp/ ochiai/freesoft.html
Ohtsuki, T. (2001) Quantum Invariants. A Study of Knots, 3-Manifolds and Their
Sets, World Scientific, Series on Knots and Everything, Vol. 29, New Jersey,
London, Singapore, Hong Kong.
Owens, B. (2005) Unknotting information from Heegaard Floer homology,
Ozsváth, P. and Szábo, Z. (2005) Knots with unknotting number one and Hee-
gaard Floer homology, Topology, 44, 705–745.
Prasolov, V. and Sossinsky, A. (1997) Knots, Links, Braids and 3-Manifolds,
American Mathematical Society, Providence.
Perko K.A., Jr. (1974) On the classification of knots, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,
45, 252–266.
Perko K.A. (1982) Primality of certain knots, Topology Proceedings, 7, 109–118.
Person, L., Dynne, M., DeNinno, J., Guntel, B. and Smith, L. (preprint, 2002)
Colorings of rational, alternating knots and links.
Pólya, G. (1937) Kombinatorische Anzahlbestimmungen für Gruppen, Graphen
und chemische Verbindungen, Acta Math., 68, 145–254.
Pólya, G. and Read, R.C (1987) Combinatorial Enumeration of Groups, Graphs,
and Chemical Compounds, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Polyak, M. and Viro, O. (1994) Gauss diagram formulae for Vassiliev invariants,
Int. Math. Research Notes, 11, 445–453.
Pratt, R. (1996) The complete catalog of 3-regular diameter-3 planar graphs,
http://citeseer.ifi.unizh.ch/pratt96complete.html.
Przytycki, J.H. (1995) Search for different links with the same Jones’ type poly-
nomials: Ideas from graph theory and statistical mechanics, Banach Center
Publications, 34, Warszawa 121–148, arXiv:math.GT/0405447v1.
Bibliography 471
Przytycki, J.H. (2002) Skein module deformations of elementary moves on links,

in Invariants of knots and 3-manifolds, Kyoto 2001, Geometry and Topology
Monographs, 4, 313–335.
Przytycki, J.H. (2003) From 3-moves to Lagrangian tangles and cubic skein
modules, KNOTS in Poland 2003: The mini-semester on Knot The-
ory and its Ramifications July 7-27, Stefan Banach International Math-
ematical Center Warsaw (July 7-13) and Bedlewo (July 14-27), Poland,
Przytycki, J.H. (2004) Knots: from combinatorics of knot diagrams to combina-
torial topology based on knots, arXiv:math.GT/0512630v1.
Przytycki, J.H. (2006) 3-coloring and other elementary invariants of knots,
Przytycki, J.H. (2006a) tk moves on links, arXiv:math.GT/0606633v1.
Przytycki, J.H. and Traczyk, P. (1987) Invariants of links of Conway type, Kobe
J. Math., 4, 115-139.
Przytycki, J.H and Traczyk, P. (1987a) Conway algebras and skein equivalence
of links, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 100, 4, 744-748.
Radović, Lj. (2006) Private communication.
Rankin, S. (2006) Knotilus, http://knotilus.math.uwo.ca/
Rankin, S., Flint, O. and Schermann, J. (2004) Enumerating the Prime Alternat-
ing Knots, Part I, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 13, 1, 57–100.
Rankin, S., Flint, O. and Schermann, J. (2004a) Enumerating the Prime Alter-
nating Knots, Part II, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 13, 1, 101–150.
Read, R.C. and Rosenstiehl, P. (1976) On the Gauss Crossing Problem, Colloq.
Math. Soc. Janos Bolyai, 18; Combinatorics, Keszthely, Hungary, 843–876.
Reidemeister, K. (1926) Elementare Begründung der Knotentheorie, Abhandlun-
gen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Hamburgischen Universität, 5,
24–32.
Reidemeister, K. (1932) Knotentheorie, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Robertello, R.A. (1965) An invariant of knot cobordism, Comm. Pure. Appl.
Math., 18, 543–555
Rolfsen, D. (1976) Knots and Links, Publish & Perish Inc., Berkeley (American
Mathematical Society, AMS Chelsea Publishing, 2003).
Santos, E. Dos (1970) Contribuição para o estudo das pictografias e ideogramas
dos Quiocos, in Estudos sobre a etnologia do ultramar português, Vol. 2,
17–131, Lisboa.
Santos, E. Dos (1993) Sobre a matemática dos Quiocos de Angola, in Garcia de
Orta, Vol. 8, 257–271, Lisboa.
Sazdanović, R. and Sremčević, M. (2002a) Tessellations of the Euclidean, Elliptic
and Hyperbolic Plane, Symmetry: Art and Science, 2, 299–303.
Sazdanović, R. and Sremčević, M. (2002b) Tessellations of the Euclid-
ean, Elliptic and Hyperbolic Plane, MathSource, Wolfram Research,
http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/MathSource/4540/
Scharein, R.G. (1998a) KnotPlot Site, http://knotplot.com
Scharein, R.G. (1998b) Interactive Topological Drawing, Ph.D. Thesis, Depart-
ment of Computer Science, The University of British Columbia.
472 LinKnot
Scharlemann, M. (1985) Unknotting number one knots are prime, Invent. Math.,
82, 37–55.
Schubert, H. (1949), Die eindeutige Zerlegbarkeit eines Knotens in Primknoten,
S.-B. Heidelberger Akad. Wiss. Math.-Nat. Kl., 57–104.
Schubert, H. (1954) Über eine numerische Knoteninvariante, Math. Zeit., 61,
245–288.
Schubert, H. (1956) Knoten mit zwei Brücken, Math. Zeit., 65, 133–170.
Seifert, H. (1934) Über das Geschlecht von Knoten, Math. Ann., 110, 571–592.
Seguin, C.H. (2001) Viae Globi – Pathways on a Sphere, Proc. Mathematics and
Design Conference, Geelong, Australia, July 3-5, 366–374.
Shubnikov, A.V. and Koptsik, V.A. (1974) Symmetry in science and art, Plenum
Press, New York, London.
Shumakovitch, A. (2004) Torsion of the Khovanov homology,
Siebenmann, L. (1975) Exercices sur les nœuds rationnels, Orsay (unpublished).
Simony, O. (1882) Über eine Reihe neuer Thatsachen aus dem Gebeite der Topolo-
gie, Math. Annalen, 19, 110–120.
Simony, O. (1884) Über eine Reihe neuer Thatsachen aus dem Gebeite der Topolo-
gie, Math. Annalen, 24, 253–280.
Singmaster, D. (1975) Number of unlabeled Hamiltonian circuits on n-
octahedron, J. Combinatorial Theory, Ser. B, 19, 1, 1–4.
Sossinsky, A. (2002) Knots– Mathematics with Twist, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge (Mass.).
Spencer-Brown, G. (1969) Laws of Form, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London.
Stanley, R.P. (1986) Enumerative Combinatorics, Wadsworth Inc., Monterey
(California).
Sumners, D.W. (1988) The knot enumeration problem, Studies in Physical and
Theorethical Chemistry, 57, 67–82.
Sumners, D.W. (1990) Untangling DNA, Mathematical Intelligencer, 12, 3, 71–
80.
Sumners, D.W. (Editor) (1993) New Scientific Applications of Geometry and
Topology, Proceedings of Symposia on Applied Mathematics, American
Mathematical Society, Vol. 45.
Stoimenow, A. (2001) Some examples related to 4-genera, unknotting numbers,
and knot polynomials, Jour. London Math. Soc., 63, 2, 487–500.
Stoimenow, A. (2003) On the unknotting number of minimal diagrams, Mathe-
matics of Computation, 72, 244, 2043–2057.
Stoimenow, A. (2004) On unknotting numbers and knot triviadjacency, Mathe-
matica Scandinavica 94, 2, 227–248.
Stoimenow, A. (2005) Square numbers, spanning trees and invariants of achiral
knots, Communications in Analysis and Geometry, 13, 3, 591–631.
Tait, P.G. (1876/77a) On knots, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 9, 97, 306–317.
Tait, P.G. (1876/77b) On links, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 9, 98, 321–332.
Tait, P.G. (1876/77c) On knots I, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 28, 145–190.
Tait, P.G. (1883/84) On knots II, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 32, 327–342.
Tait, P.G. (1884/85) On knots III, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 32, 493–506.
Bibliography 473
Tarnai, T. (1989) Buckling Patterns of Shells and Spherical Honeycomb Struc-

tures, in Symmetry: Unifying Human Understanding 2, (Ed. I. Hargittai),
639–652, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York.
Thistlethwaite, M.B. (1985) Knots tabulations and related topics, in Aspects of
Topology, (Eds. I.M. James and E.H. Kronheimer), 1–76, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Thistlethwaite, M.B. (1987) A Spanning Tree Expansion of the Jones Polynomial,
Topology, 27, 7, 297–309.
Thistlethwaite, M.B. (1988) Kauffman’s Polynomial and Alternating Links,
Topology, 27, 311–318.
Thistlethwaite, M.B. (1998) On the structure and scarcity of alternating links
and tangles, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 7, 7, 981–1004.
Thistlethwaite, M. (1999) Knotscape 1.01,
http://www.math.utk.edu/∼ morwen/knotscape.html
Thomson, W.H. (1867) Hydrodynamics, Proceedings R. Soc. Edin., 6, 94–105
(also in Knots and Applications, Ed. L. Kauffman, World Scientific, Singa-
pore, New Jersey, London, Hong Kong, 111–192).
Tietze, H. (1908) Über die topologichen Invarianten mehrdimensionaler Mannig-
faltigkeiten, Monatshefte für Mathematik and Physik, 19, 1–118.
Torisu, I. (1998) The determination of the pairs of two bridge knots or links with
Gordian distance one, Proceedings of Amer. Math. Soc., 126, 5, 1565–1571.
Trace, B. (1983) On the Reidemeister moves of a classical knot, Proceedings of
Amer. Math. Soc., 89, 4, 722–724.
Traczyk, P. (2004) A combinatorial formula for the signature of alternating dia-
grams, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 184, 311–316.
Treybig, L.B. (1968) A characterization of the double point structure of the pro-
jection of a polygonal knot in regular position, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
130, 223–247.
Trotter, H.F. (1963) Non-invertible knots exist, Topology, 2, 275–280.
Trotter, H.F. (1969) Computations in knot theory, in Computational Problems in
Abstract Algebra, Proc. Conf. Oxford 1967 (Ed. J. Leech), 359–364, Perga-
mon Press, New York.
Turaev, V.G. (1994) Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manifolds, de Gruyter
Studies in Mathematics, 18, Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin.
Turner J.C. and Van De Griend P. (Eds.) (1995). History and Science of Knots,
Series on Knots and Everything 11, World Scientific, Singapore.
Vandermonde, A.T. (1771) Remarques sur les problèmes de situation, Memoirés
de l’Academie Royale des Sciences (Paris), 566–574.
van Mill, J. and Reed, G. (1991) Open Problems in Topology, Topology Appl.,
42, 301–307.
Vassiliev, V.A. (1990) Cohomology of knot spaces, in Theory of singularities and
its applications, Amer. Math. Soc., Translations of Math., 98.
Veblen, O. (1905) Theory on plane curves in non-metrical analysis situs, Trans-
actions of the American Mathematical Society, 6, 83-98.
Vesnin, A.Yu. (1991) Cubical graphs and generaton of alternating links, Math.
methods in chem. inform., 140, 63–86 (in Russian).
474 LinKnot
Vogel, P. (1990) Representation of links by braids: A new algorithm, Comment.

Math. Helvetici, 65, 104–113.
Voytekhovsky, Y.L. and Stepenshchikov, D.G. (2005) On the Motzkin-Grünbaum
theorem, Acta Cryst., A61, 584–585.
Washburn, D. and Crowe, D.W. (1988) Symmetries of Culture, University of
Washington Press, Seattle.
Wasserman, S., Dungan, J. and Cozzarelli, N. (1985) Discovery of a predicted
DNA knot substantiates a model for site-specific recombination, Science,
229, 171–174.
Watson, L.T. (2004) Knots, Tangles and Braid Actions,
http://www.cirget.uqam.ca/∼ liam/mythesis.pdf
Watson, L. (2005) Knots that cannot be distinguished by the Jones polynomial:
New examples, http://www.cirget.uqam.ca/∼ liam/cv.pdf
Watson, L. (2006) Knots with identical Khovanov homology,
Watson, L. (2006a) Any tangle extends to non-mutant knots with the same Jones
polynomial, J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 15, 9, 1153–1162.
Weeks, G. (2004) Snappea 3.0, http://geometrygames.org/SnapPea/
Welsh, D.J.A. (1993) Complexity: Knots, Colourings and Counting, London
Math. Soc., Lecture Note Ser. 186, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wendt, H. (1937) Die Gordische Auflösung von Knoten, Math. Zeit., 42, 680–696.
Whitehead, J.H.C (1937) On doubled knots, J. Lond. Math. Soc., 12, 63–71.
Whitehead, A.N., and Russell, B.A.W. (1925/27) Principia Mathematica, Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, 3 Vols.
Wilson, R.A. (2002) Graphs, Colourings and the Four-Color Theorem, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Wilcox, S. (2006) Cellularity of Twisted Semigroup Algebras of Regular Semi-
groups, http://hdl.handle.net/2123/720
Wirtinger, W. (1905) Über die Verzweigungen bei Funktionen von Zwei
Veränderlichen, Jahresbericht d. Deutschen Mathematiker Vereinigung, 14,
517.
Zaslavsky C. (1973) Africa Counts: Number and Pattern in African Culture,
Weber & Schmidt, Boston.
Zinn-Justin, P. and Zuber J.-B. (2004) Matrix Integrals and the Generalizations
and Counting of Virtual Tangles and Links, J. Knot Theory Ramifications,
13, 3, 325–355.
Zinn-Justin, P. (2006) The alternating virtual link database,
http://ipnweb.in2p3.fr/∼ lptms/membres/pzinn/virtlinks/
July 29, 2007 19:40 World Scientific Book - 9in x 6in indexfinal
Index
2-pass, 47, 377 FromContinued Fraction, 182

BF R, 168 GetBraidRep, 163
DT -code, 69 GetKnotLink, 304
KL, 2 GetMirrorImageKnot, 67
P -data, 36, 66 GetPdatabyTracking, 57, 66, 192
P -word, 37 JablanPoly, 318, 432
R-tangle, 145 JonesPolynomialbyBraid, 218
∞-unknotting number, 121 Kh, 219, 341, 353
n-diagram, 296 KnotFromBraid, 163
n-move, 110 KnotbyDT, 69
n-octahedron, 420 KnotbyDowkerThistlethwaite
n-tangle, 282, 283 Notation, 69
elementary, 284 LiangPoly, 318, 432
t−1 -tangle, 149 LinkingNo, 35
LinksGould, 341
fGraphKL, 25 LinksGouldInv, 341
A2, 219, 341 ListOfOneFactors, 299
AlexanderPolynomialby MSigRat, 77
BurauRep, 218 MaxSymmProjAltKL, 185, 403
AllStatesRational, 91 MinDowAltKL, 182, 305
AmphiAltKL, 183, 322, 338 MinDowProjAltKL, 182
AmphiProjAltKL, 183, 322, 338 MultTan, 299
BR, 341 MutationOfTangle, 47
BreakCoAll, 192 NMoveRat, 112
ChromaticPolynomial, 218 NoSelfCrossNo, 109
ColouredJones, 219, 341 NumberOfKL, 304
ContinuedFraction, 182 PLDataFromSnapPeaData, 203
CuttNo, 192, 193 PeriodAltKL, 184
Dow, 68 PeriodProjAltKL, 183
DowfromPD, 67 PrimeGraph, 32
DrawPlanarEmbGraph, 7 PrimeKL, 32
DrawPlanarEmbKL, 7 R, 72
475
476 LinKnot
RK, 72 fConwayToPD, 219, 341

RL, 72 fCreateGraphics, 67
RatGenSourKL, 73 fCreatePData, 57, 66, 69, 164
RatKnotGenU0, 107 fCuttRealKL, 194
RatKnotGenU1, 107 fDToDDirect, 122
RatLinkU0, 108 fDiffProjectionsAltKL, 182, 183,
RatLinkU1, 107 316
RatReduce, 77, 182 fDiffSeq, 453
RatSourceKLNo, 72 fDiffViae, 426
RationalAmphiK, 80 fDowCodes, 24
RationalAmphiL, 80 fDowkerToPD, 219, 341
RationalKL, 71 fEdmonds, 9
ReductionKnotLink, 42, 91, 163, fFindCon, 193
306 fForSourceLinks, 264
SameAltConKL, 183, 195, 212 fGap, 92
SameAltProjKL, 182 fGapRat, 92
SeifertMatrix, 165 fGaussExtSigns, 35
ShowBraid, 163 fGenKL, 267
ShowKnotbyOpengl, 67 fGenSet, 299
ShowKnotfromPdata, 67 fGenSign, 35
SkeinPolynomial, 218 fGenSignDirProd, 122
SnapPeaDataFromPLData, 203 fGenerators, 200
SplittNo, 186 fGraphInc, 38
Symm, 185 fGraphKL, 218
ThreeParallelPolynomial fKLfromGraph, 38, 430
Invariant, 218 fKLinGraph, 39
UnKnotLink, 86 fKauffAlg, 453
UnR, 86, 91, 108 fKnotscapeDow, 36, 69
UnRFixProj, 92 fKnotscapeDowToPD, 219, 341
WritheKnotFromPdata, 34, 67 fMakeType, 133
fAdd Dig, 39 fMidEdgeGraph, 38
fAlexPoly, 218 fOrientedLink, 76
fAllClosures, 284 fPDataFromDow, 69, 430
fAutoKL, 457 fPdataToPD, 219, 341
fAutoSigInp, 456, 457 fPlanarEmb, 38
fBalanced, 453 fPlanarEmbGraph, 7
fBasicPoly, 192, 193 fProdTangles, 274
fBasicPolyTan, 291 fProjections, 182
fBasicTan, 291 fSeifert, 165
fBoolean, 453 fSignat, 125, 165
fBraidW, 341 fSignsKL, 35, 38
fBreakComp, 192 fSourceDow, 264
fClassicToCon, 52 fStPlusNo1, 150
fColTest, 201 fStUnNo1, 150
fComponentNo, 15, 74 fStellar, 231
fCompositePoly, 275 fStellarBasic, 231
Index 477
fStellarNalt, 235 BF R, 168

fStellarPlus, 231 alternating, 25
fSumTangles, 274 ambient isotopy, 12, 42, 202, 378
fTangleType, 133 for singular KLs, 219
fTorusKL, 193 amphicheiral, 27
fViaToKL, 426 antiprism, 169, 193, 252
antiprismatic belt, 292
Knotscape, 42 antisymmetric presentation, 127
Knot Atlas, 304 antisymmetry, 63, 77, 127, 237
Knot2000, 34, 36, 42, 57, 66, 69, concealed, 321
163, 203, 218 discernible, 321
KnotLinkBase.m, 304 arborescent knot, 64
KnotPlot, 67, 304 non-invertible, 140
KnotTheory, 218, 341, 353 Arf
Knotilus, 304 equivalent, 203
Knotscape, 32, 36, 42, 127, 304, 365, invariant, 203
381 associativity, 160
LinKnot, 6, 9, 15, 24, 25, 35, 57, 66, automaton, 453
67, 71, 77, 80, 86, 91, 107, 109,
119, 122, 165, 182, 186, 192, 200, balanced state, 455
212, 218, 231, 235, 245, 264, 304, basic polyhedron, 55, 57, 241, 245,
316, 338, 381, 403, 453, 456 262, 268, 428
Links-Gould Explorer, 219, 341 achiral, 326
Mathematica, 42, 182 antiprismatic, 345
string, 57, 67, 305 code, 289
OpenGL, 67 minimal, 289
PET, 247 composite, 270
PolyBase.m, 58 derivation, 288
SnapPea, 127, 203, 322, 327, 353 elementary, 270
Table of Knot Invariants, 304 family, 292
plantri, 58 generating sequence, 292
list, 246
2-bridge knot, 55 notation, 288
3-coloring, 196 source link, 263, 264
Bernhard-Jablan Conjecture, 83, 195
achiral, 27, 28, 77, 126, 130, 183, bigon, 5, 39, 55, 64, 189, 241, 263,
237, 312, 317, 333, 376, 378, 463 264, 311, 428
actuality table, 224 collapse, 8, 55, 59, 64
adjacency Boolean
list, 2 algebra, 446
adjacent, 1 logic, 448
Alexander polynomial, 211 Borromean
trivial, 209 links, 188
algebra rings, 16, 20, 28, 187
Conway, 213 boundary, 122
algebraic, 55 Brahma-mudi, 399
478 LinKnot
braid, 157, 163 number, 198

alternating, 166 perfect, 197
closed, 159 commutativity
closure, 158 distant braids, 160
elementary, 160 complement, 12
group, 160 Complexions-Symbol, 376
index, 163 component, 3, 10, 59, 74, 384
isotopic, 158 number, 62, 66, 74, 296
isotopy, 160 Component algorithm, 15, 17
minimal, 163 composition, 119, 229
minimal presentation, 163 tangle, 295
product, 159 conditions, 98
relation, 160 conjugacy
universe, 166 class, 206
word, 160 conjugate, 206
braid family representative, 166, 303 conjugation, 161, 198
braid word connected sum, 119
extension, 166 consistency, 205
generating, 166 continued fraction, 76, 195
Brauer semigroup, 299 contraction, 8
bridge, 121, 122 elementary, 8
number, 121, 122 conversion, 69
two-bridge, 228 Conway
Brunnian links, 190 notation, 51, 52, 307, 381
Burau representation, 218 symbol, 35, 50
Conway algebra, 213
Catalan number, 284 Conway notation, 51, 52, 307, 381
catastrophe, 219 braid modified, 166
catenane, 382 Conway polynomial, 207
checker-board coloring, 24 trivial, 209
chiral, 27, 28, 183, 376–378 Crazy Spider Algorithm, 288
non-detectable, 333 crossing, 384
chirality number, 25, 121
detection, 318 problem, 376
chord diagram, 222, 296, 418 virtual, 23
chromatic polynomial, 218 curve
circle, 12 monolinear, 393, 408
class, 444 self-avoiding, 397, 416
classical definition, 82 cutting number, 187
classical notation, 16, 30, 52 cycle, 3
classification, 59
closedness, 160 De Morgan law, 447
closure, 283 denominator
coloring, 197 closure, 54
k-coloring, 197 derivation, 234, 264, 306, 364
3-coloring, 196 diagram, 25
Index 479
alternating, 25 experimenting, 225

crossing number, 37 extending operation, 173
generator, 299
hard, 48 face, 5
isomorphic, 315 factor
minimal, 26, 147 link, 119
proper, 25 families
reduced, 25 undetectable, 342
Schlegel, 262 family, 59, 61, 62, 83, 87, 109, 231,
vertex-bicolored, 311 305, 366, 381
virtual, 23, 50 P -undetectable, 342
dichromatic polynomial, 217, 219 Alexander-undetectable, 342
diffeomorphism, 11 Conway-undetectable, 342
digital circuit model, 454 of basic polyhedra, 291
digraph, 1 of braid words, 166
DNA, 383 Fibonacci
dot, 58 form, 446
Dow, 36 number, 445
Dowker algorithm, 365, 381 sequence, 72
Dowker code, 19, 32, 37, 364, 368 flip, 211
from P -data, 67 flype, 43, 44, 182, 271, 377
minimal, 37, 182, 212, 381 diagram, 311
realizable, 22 Flyping Conjecture, 377
with signs, 32 fullerene, 427
Dowker notation, 305 5/6, 430
Dragon curve, 397 biconical, 440
DT-code, 32 general, 427
dual, 5 perfect, 434
duplicates, 239 function
continuous, 12
edge, 1
coloring, 9 gap, 93
connected, 32 conditions, 98
connectivity, 4 Gauss
Edmonds algorithm, 9 code, 16, 27, 32
elementary isotopy, 42 with signs, 32
embedding, 4, 12 diagram, 222, 296
adjacency matrix, 5 general formula, 366
equilibrium generating link, 250
global, 395 generation, 205
local, 395 generator, 196, 200
Euler’s genus, 123
characteristic, 7 graph, 1, 2, 217
circuit, 3 k-regular, 2
formula, 7 k-valent, 2
experimental mathematics, 366, 381 4-valent, 15
480 LinKnot
automorphism, 4 polynomial, 207, 379

bipartite, 2 quantum, 225
coloring, 218 subfamily-dependent, 62, 205
complete, 2 linear, 63
complete bipartite, 2 Vassiliev, 220
isomorphic, 4 inverse, 160
mid-edge, 38 inverter, 454
non-planar, 4 invertible, 80, 126
of link, 25 isolated pentagon rule, 434
oriented, 1 isomer
planar, 4, 8, 24 chemical, 436
proper, 1 isomorphic, 29
reduced, 1 isotopy
simple, 1 elementary, 13
vertex-bicolored, 77
weighted, 9 Jacobstahl sequence, 80
grid Jones polynomial, 212
rectangular square, 387, 390 Jordan Curve Theorem, 7
group, 160, 201
automorphism, 5 Kauffman
cyclic, 201 Conjecture, 321
dihedral, 201 Kauffman algorithm, 451
fundamental, 378 Kauffman polynomial, 214
isomorphic, 202 Kauffman-Murasugi Theorem, 27, 87,
of link, 201 121
presentation, 201, 380 Khovanov detectable, 349
isomorphic, 201 Kirkman’s method, 243
minimal, 201 knot, 10
relation, 201 2-bridge, 55
symmetric, 205 achiral, 34, 179
non-alternating, 323
Hamiltonian circuit, 420 almost alternating, 307
hard diagram, 48 almost mutant, 347
hexastrip, 432 alternating, 305
hollow pentagon rule, 434 arborescent, 148
homeomorphism, 12 art, 375
HOMFLYPT polynomial, 212 classification, 59
homoathomic, 426 derivation, 377
design, 387
idempotency, 166, 447 diagram, 376
immersion distance, 383
planar, 16 enumeration, 19, 377
incident, 1 equivalent, 200
infinity change, 48 graph, 377
invariant, 182, 306, 364 invariant, 379
finite-order, 219, 221 Kinoshita-Terasaka, 210
Index 481
large algebraic, 148 graph

Lissajous, 403 signed, 47
Listing, 376 group, 201
mathematical, 10 Montesinos, 228
molekular, 382 non-algebraic, 55
Montesinos, 228 non-alternating, 25, 233, 240, 305,
Neolithic, 375 307, 308
non-alternating, 25, 233, 240, 305, oriented, 76
307, 308 polygonal, 13, 42
othopedic, 376 polyhedral, 55, 60
Paleolithic, 375 prime, 32, 119
pretzel, 148 projection, 25
prime, 119, 380 rational, 54, 64, 70, 128
problem, 378 generating, 73
projection, 376 number, 70
rational real, 10, 193
number, 71 shadow
real, 10, 193 basic, 60
singular, 219 singular, 35, 219
table, 19, 29, 304, 305, 363, 378 source, 55, 73, 228, 246
virtual, 22 stellar, 64
wild, 11, 14 table, 363, 381
knotwork, 410 tame, 13
Kontsevich’s theorem, 224 virtual, 22
wild, 13
labelling, 198, 205 linking number, 34, 62, 204, 376, 383
theorem, 198 load, 67
lattice, 446 logic, 443
length loop, 1, 19, 25
pretzel link, 149 Lunda design, 395, 400
line segment arrangement, 445 Lunda-animal, 399
link, 10, 379
achiral, 28, 179, 237, 323 Möbius ladder, 382
algebraic, 55, 60, 64, 169 map, 5
almost alternating, 307 Markov’s
alternating, 25, 305 move, 161
ambient isotopic, 11 theorem, 380
Borromean, 188 mid-edge graph, 38
Brunnian, 188 mid-edge-truncation, 434
chiral, 28 minimality
classification, 59, 63 of reduced braids, 167
composite, 32, 119 minimization, 48, 195
diagram, 25 minimum braid, 165
distance, 87 minimum crossing number, 25
generating, 61, 366 minimum writhe, 46, 62
genus, 123 minus, 57
482 LinKnot
mirror overpass, 121

curve, 216, 384, 388
art, 401 pair
number, 393 ordered, 2
image, 27, 67 unordered, 2
module, 10 pair-class, 349
monoid, 299 paradox
monolinear, 409 Russel, 443
Montesinos partition, 231, 243
knot, 149 P -partition, 231
link, 149 Partition-method, 377
multigraph, 1 pass-move, 203
mutant, 210 path, 3
mutation, 47 pavitram, 384
period, 79, 183, 451
Nakanishi-Bleiler example, 83, 91 periodic sequence, 450
NAND, 449, 456 Perko pair, 19, 34, 378
nanotube, 436 permutation, 22, 205
net, 441 matrix, 314
neutral element, 160 physic, 383
non-algebraic statistical model, 215
tangle, 270 plait, 375
non-alternating, 25 planar isotopy, 42
non-invertible, 80, 126 plane, 8
achiral, 128, 140 plate, 403
arborescent knot, 140 combine
chiral, 131 rules, 404
families, 129 combining, 403
polyhedral knot, 143 plus, 57, 235, 237
pretzel knot, 136 point group, 63
NOR, 449 Polya Enumeration Theorem, 247,
normal form 263, 333, 429
conjuctive, 449 polygonal
disjunctive, 449 link, 42
normalization, 211 polyhedral
notation BF R, 168
Alexander-Briggs, 16 polyhedral knot, 59
classical, 16, 30, 52 non-invertible, 143
number of components, 296 polyhedron
numerator basic, 55, 57, 241, 245, 262, 268,
closure, 54 428
regular, 2
octahedron, 187, 246 polynomial
operation, 270 Alexander, 207, 211, 226, 368, 380
orientation, 125 general formula, 227
overlining, 445 trivial, 209, 226
Index 483
chromatic, 218 problem, 195

Conway, 208, 211, 226 recursion, 370, 450
trivial, 209, 226 recursive form, 445
dichromatic, 217 reduction, 145, 306
HOMFLYPT, 207, 211, 382 rational, 146
Jones, 208, 213, 232, 368, 381 reductor, 455
colored, 218 Reidemeister move, 42, 161, 215,
trivial, 208 379, 453
two-variable, 212 for special crossings, 219
Kauffman, 208, 382 for virtual KLs, 50
bracket, 214, 215 relation
Khovanov, 218 equivalence, 3
Laurent, 211 four-term, 220
Liang, 432 one-term, 220
square bracket, 216 representative, 253
square-free, 447 reversible, 126
polyomino, 384, 389, 396 rigid representation, 126
Lunda, 398
Pontryagin-Kuratowski’s Theorem, 7 sand drawing, 386
presentation Scheme-method, 377
centro-antisymmetric, 319 Schlegel diagram, 432
pretzel Seifert
link, 134, 150 surface, 122, 203
pretzel knot Seifert circle, 123, 163
non-invertible, 136 nested, 123
prime, 32, 119 Seifert matrix, 165
prime decomposition self-avoiding curve, 416
theorem, 120 self-reference, 444
prism, 190, 228 self-referential form, 453
projection, 25, 182 set, 12, 444
isomorphic, 29, 182, 315 empty, 444
minimal, 40, 48, 82, 311 multi-set, 444
non-isomorphic, 182 open, 12
oriented, 32 theory, 443
polynomial, 315 shadow
special, 35 generic, 14
prototile, 387 proper, 19
realizable, 22
quandle, 198, 453 reduced, 19
Alexander, 200 regular, 14
quantum invariant, 219, 225 Sheffer stroke, 449
quipu, 10, 375 signature, 125, 165, 366
Murasugi, 77
ramification, 53, 182 skein relation, 208, 211, 213, 380
realizable, 22 smoothing, 211
recognition, 195 solid, 64
484 LinKnot
solid knot, 268 closure, 283

sona, 386 composition, 295
source braid, 167 equivalent, 44
source link, 55, 62, 248, 251, 253, 263 generalized, 282
space, 57 hyperbolic, 269, 270, 272
special integer, 54
crossing, 219 non-algebraic, 269, 270, 272
projection, 219 product, 53, 57
sphere, 8 rational, 54, 76
essential, 148 reduction, 145
spin, 215 stellar, 134
splitting substitution, 55
gap, 186 sum, 53
number, 185, 186 type, 132, 296
stabilization, 161 tangle-type computation, 301
standard definition, 82 tautology, 449
state, 216 Tchokwe, 385
stellar tessellation, 443
tangle, 134 theta-curve, 282
step, 384 tiling, 384, 400
subdivision, 8 uniform, 387
subfamily, 62 topoisomerase, 383
subfamily-dependent invariant, 62 topological space, 12
subgraph, 4 topology, 12
sublink, 191 torus, 9, 22
subsolid, 64 knot, 193
subworld, 59 link, 193
sum trail, 3
connected, 119 tree, 4
surface, 8, 22, 122, 400, 443 trefoil, 28, 220
boundary, 9 twist, 383
genus, 9
non-orientable, 8 undetectable, 341
orientable, 8 P -undetectable, 341
surgery, 81, 211 HOMFLYPT-undetectable, 344
symmetry, 63, 231, 391 Jones-undetectable, 344
group, 439 Khovanov-undetectable, 344
unknot, 107
table, 16, 29, 305 P -unknot, 341
knot, 304 unknotting
periodic, 381 gap, 93
Tait coloring, 25 problem, 195
Tait’s Flyping Theorem, 43, 44, 84 unknotting number, 81, 121, 354,
Tamil, 384 366, 377
tangle, 43, 132, 380 ∞-, 121
algebraic, 55 BJ-unknotting number, 85
Index 485
one, 106, 148 linear, 69, 227

unlink, 48, 107 polyhedral, 241
P -unlink, 341 prismatic, 228
unlinking rational, 70, 228
gap, 93 stellar, 228
operation, 112 stratification, 239
unlinking gap, 93, 181 subworld, 304
conditions, 98 polyhedral-rational, 250
unlinking number, 81, 121, 302, 366 rational-stellar, 235
BJ-unlinking number, 85 stellar-rational, 230, 231
one, 106, 148, 149 stellar-stellar, 238
unsolid, 64 writhe, 33, 44, 67, 376
average, 383
valence, 1 minimum, 46, 62
Vassiliev invariant, 35, 211, 219, zero, 312
220, 382
conjecture, 221 zero, 58
vertex, 1
coloring, 9
connected, 3
connectivity, 4
isolated, 2
negative, 32
positive, 32
sign, 32
single, 2
valence, 1
via, 416
virtual
diagram, 50
link, 49
virtual crossing, 23
virtual knot, 22, 49
Vogel’s algorithm, 163
vortex theory, 377
walk, 2
closed, 3
open, 3
Whitney degree, 45
wild knot, 11
winding number, 45
Wirtinger presentation, 201
word, 16
world, 50, 59, 195, 304, 381
arborescent, 64, 229

(Series On Knots and Everything - Vol. 21) Slavik Jablan & Radmila Sazdanović-LINKNOT Knot Theory by Computer-WS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Series On Knots and Everything - Vol. 21) Slavik Jablan & Radmila Sazdanović-LINKNOT Knot Theory by Computer-WS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lin Knot

Knot Theory by Computer

Editor-in-charge: Louis H. Kauffman (Univ. of Illinois, Chicago)

Vol. 1: Knots and Physics (3rd Edition)

RokTing - Linknot.pmd 2 9/26/2007, 11:47 AM

RokTing - Linknot.pmd 3 9/26/2007, 11:47 AM

RokTing - Linknot.pmd 4 9/26/2007, 11:47 AM

LinKnot Knot Theory by Computer

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Series on Knots and Everything — Vol. 21

RokTing - Linknot.pmd 1 9/26/2007, 11:47 AM

and exhaustive derivation of KLs we have accepted the concept proposed

Slavik Jablan and Radmila Sazdanović

1.15 More KL invariants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

2. Recognition and Generation of Knots and Links 195

3. History of Knot Theory and Applications of Knots and Links 375

3.3.2 5/6 fullerenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

Notation of Knots and Links

1.1 Basic graph theory

This basic introduction to graph theory is written according to the books by

Definition 1.1. A graph G consists of a set of vertices V (G) and a set

A graph G can be denoted by G = G(V, E). Two vertices are adjacent

A vertex of a graph G is single or isolated if its valence is 0. Usually,

Definition 1.3. A graph in which all vertices are k-valent is called a k-

Definition 1.4. A graph is complete if every pair of vertices is adjacent.

The complete graph on n vertices is usually denoted Kn , while the

Definition 1.5. A walk of length n is a sequence v1 e1 v2 e2 ...vn en vn+1 of

Notation of Knots and Links 3

A walk is closed if v1 = vn+1 , and open otherwise. A trail is a walk in

The relation of vertex connectivity is an equivalence relation (reflex-

Definition 1.7. A graph is connected if every pair of vertices is connected

A tree is a connected graph with no cycles.

Notation of Knots and Links 5

All automorphisms of a graph G make its automorphism group denoted

Definition 1.14. An embedding of a graph induces a map M : the division

The dual D(M ) of a given map M can be constructed in the following

Fig. 1.3 The planar embedding of octahedron graph.

Notation of Knots and Links 7

Theorem 1.1. (Euler’s formula) Every planar map M with v vertices, e

The term χ = v − e + f obtained from a map on any surface is called the

Theorem 1.2. (Jordan Curve Theorem) If c is a simple closed curve in

The complete proof of Jordan Curve Theorem is given in Algebraic

Theorem 1.3. (Pontryagin-Kuratowski’s Theorem) Let G be a finite

Short proof of the sufficiency part of this theorem is given by Y.

Definition 1.15. Replacing two adjacent vertices by a single vertex of a

The same operations, subdivision and contraction, can be applied on

Theorem 1.4. A graph G is planar iff it contains no subgraph which has

In considering KLs, a special kind of contraction where edges forming a

Notation of Knots and Links 9

“sphere with a handle”, g = 1, for a double torus g = 2, etc. The simplest

{{{1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6}, {1, 4, 3, 6, 2, 5}, {1, 5, 3, 4, 2, 6}}, 0, 1}.

Definition 1.16. A vertex k-coloring of a graph is a coloring of the vertices

If the colors are treated as weights assigned to vertices or edges of a

Fig. 1.4 Embedding of the graph K3,3 on a torus.

1.2 Shadows of KLs

Definition 1.17. A knot is a smooth embedding of a circle S 1 into Euclid-

Notation of Knots and Links 11

Fig. 1.5 KLs as modular structures.

Requiring an embedding to be smooth insures that wild knots or links

Definition 1.18. Let X be a non-empty set. A topology on X is a collec-

(1) the empty set and X itself are open sets;

Definition 1.19. Let X and Y be topological spaces. A function f : X →

Definition 1.20. Knots K and K1 are ambient-isotopic if there exists a