arxiv: v1 [math.gt] 22 Nov 2018

Transcription

1 SOME REMARKS ON THE CHORD INDEX ZHIYUN CHENG, HONGZHU GAO, AND MENGJIAN XU arxiv: v1 [math.gt] 22 Nov 2018 ABSTRACT. In this paper we disuss how to define a hord index via smoothing a real rossing point of a virtual knot diagram. Several polynomial invariants of virtual knots and links an be reovered from this general onstrution. We also explain how to extend this onstrution from virtual knots to flat virtual knots. 1. INTRODUCTION Suppose we are given a knot diagram K, it is easy to ount the number of rossing points of K. However, this integer (K) is not a knot invariant due to the first and seond Reidemeister moves. Fixing an orientation of K, then eah rossing point ontributes +1 or 1 to the writhe of K. Now the writhe, denoted by w(k), is preserved by the seond Reidemeister move but not the first Reidemeister move. As a natural idea, if we an assign an index (or a weight) to eah rossing point whih satisfies some required onditions, then it is possible that the weighted sum of rossing points gives rise to a knot invariant. One example of this kind of knot invariant is the quandle oyle invariant introdued by J. S. Carter et al. in [4]. Roughly speaking, let X be a finite quandle and A an abelian group. For a fixed oloring C of K by Q and a given 2-oyle φ Z 2 (X; A) one an assoiate a (Boltzmann) weight B(τ;C) to eah rossing point τ. This (Boltzmann) weight B(τ; C) has the following properties: (1) The weight of the rossing point involved in the first Reidemeister move is the identity element; (2) The weights of the two rossing points involved in the seond Reidemeister move are equivalent; (3) The produt of the weights of the three rossing points involved in the third Reidemeister move is invariant under the third Reidemeister move. Now let us extend the sope of our disussion from lassial knots to virtual knots. The preise definition of virtual knots an be found in Setion 2. For virtual knots, motivated by the properties above we also want to find a suitable definition for the (hord) index. The following hord index axioms were proposed by the first author in [6], whih an be regarded as a generalization of the parity axioms introdued by Manturov in [27]. Definition 1.1. Assume for eah real rossing point of a virtual link diagram, aording to some rules we an assign an index (e.g. an integer, a polynomial, a group et.) to it. We say this index satisfies the hord index axioms if it satisfies the following requirements: (1) The real rossing point involved in Ω 1 has a fixed index (with respet to a fixed virtual link); (2) The two real rossing points involved in Ω 2 have the same indies; (3) The indies of the three real rossing points involved in Ω 3 are preserved under Ω 3 respetively; (4) The index of the real rossing point involved in Ω v 3 is preserved under Ωv 3 ; 2010 Mathematis Subjet Classifiation. 57M25, 57M27. Key words and phrases. virtual knot; flat virtual knot; hord index; writhe polynomial. 1

2 2 ZHIYUN CHENG, HONGZHU GAO, AND MENGJIAN XU (5) The index of any real rossing point not involved in a generalized Reidemeister move is preserved under this move. One an easily find that our third ondition is sharper than the 2-oyle ondition in quandle ohomology theory. Thus, some indies satisfying the our hord index axioms an be regarded as speial ases of the quandle 2-oyle. Atually, in [6] we defined a hord index for eah real rossing point of a virtual link diagram with the help of a given finite biquandle. This onstrution extends some known invariants (for example the writhe polynomial defined in [8]) from virtual knots to virtual links. It is still unknown whether this onstrution an be used to define some nontrivial indies on lassial knot diagrams. However, the definition of the (Boltzmann) weight mentioned above is not intrinsi. Atually, it depends on the hoies of a finite quandle Q and a 2-oyle φ. Similarly, the hord index disussed in [6] is not intrinsi. It depends on the hoie of a finite biquandle. The main aim of this paper is trying to introdue some intrinsi hord indies whih satisfy the hord index axioms defined in Definition 1.1. Roughly speaking, for eah real rossing point of a virtual knot diagram K, we assoiate a flat virtual knot/link (see Setion 2 for the definition) to it. This flat virtual knot/link is simply obtained from K by smoothing the rossing point. It turns out that this flat virtual knot/link satisfies the hord index axioms. Let M1 u be the free Z-module generated by the set of all unoriented flat virtual knots. In other words, any element ofm1 u has the form n i K i, where K i is a unoriented flat virtual knot and n i = 0 for only i a finite number of n i Z. Similarly, we use M 2 to denote the free Z-module generated by the set of all oriented 2-omponent flat virtual links. Then by using the flat virtual knot/link-valued hord index we introdue two new virtual knot invariants, whih take values in M1 u and M 2 respetively. The readers are reommended to ompare these invariants with some other flat virtual knots/graphs-valued virtual knot invariants. For example, the polynomial (K) [31] whih takes values in the polynomial algebra generated by nontrivial flat virtual knots, or the sl(3) invariant introdued in [23], whih is valued in a module whose generators are graphs. Many ideas of this paper have their predeessors in the literature. We will explain how to reover some known invariants from our two invariants in detail. It seems a little odd that a virtual knot invariant takes values in a module generated by flat virtual knots/links, sine flat virtual knots/links themselves are not easy to distinguish. To this end, we extend our idea to flat virtual knots and define two flat virtual knot invariants taking values in M 1 and M 2 respetively. Here M 1 an be regarded as the oriented version of M1 u, the reader is referred to Setion 5 for the definition. The key point is that eah nontrivial flat virtual knot will be mapped to a linear ombination of some flat virtual knots/links whih are simpler than the flat virtual knot under onsideration. Several properties of these invariants will be disussed in Setion 5. Throughout this paper we will often abuse our notation, letting K refer to a (virtual) knot diagram and the (virtual) knot itself. Let us begin our journey with a quik review of virtual knots and flat virtual knots. 2. A QUICK REVIEW OF VIRTUAL KNOTS AND FLAT VIRTUAL KNOTS Virtual knot theory was introdued by L. Kauffman in [18], whih an be regarded as an extension of the lassial knot theory. Assume we are given an immersed irle on the plane whih has finitely many transversal intersetions. By replaing eah intersetion point with an overrossing, a underrossing or a virtual rossing we will obtain a virtual knot diagram. We say a pair of virtual knot diagrams are equivalent if they an be onneted by a sequene of generalized Reidemeister moves, see Figure 1. A virtual knot an be onsidered as an equivalene lass of virtual knot diagrams that are equivalent under generalized Reidemeister moves.

3 SOME REMARKS ON THE CHORD INDEX 3 Ω 1 Ω 2 Ω 3 Ω 1 Ω 2 Ω 3 Ω v 3 FIGURE 1. Generalized Reidemeister moves Roughly speaking, there are two motivations to extend the lassial knot theory to virtual knot theory. From the topologial viewpoint, a lassial knot is an embedding of S 1 into R 3 up to isotopies. It is equivalent to replae the ambient spae R 3 with S 2 [0, 1]. A virtual knot is an embedded irle in the thikened losed orientable surfae Σ g [0, 1] up to isotopies and (de)stabilizations [3, 26]. When g = 0, a virtual knot is nothing but a irle in S 2 [0, 1], whih is equivalent to a lassial knot in R 3. Besides of the topologial interpretation, another motivation of introduing virtual knots is to find a planar realization for an arbitrary Gauss diagram (also alled hord diagram). For a given lassial knot diagram, it is well known that there exists a unique Gauss diagram orresponding to it. Atually, one an draw an embedded irle on the plane whih represents the preimage of the knot diagram. Then for eah rossing point we onnet the two preimages with an arrow, direted from the preimage of the overrossing to the preimage of the underrossing. Finally we label a sign on eah arrow aording to the writhe of the orresponding rossing point. However, it is easy to observe that there exist some Gauss diagrams whih annot be realized as a lassial knot diagram. Therefore one has to add some virtual rossing points. Although for a fixed Gauss diagram there are infinitely many virtual knot diagrams orresponding to it, it was proved in [12, 18] that all these virtual knot diagrams are equivalent. Namely, a Gauss diagram uniquely defines a virtual knot. See Figure 2 for an example of the virtual trefoil knot and the orresponding Gauss diagram. Throughout this paper we will use the same symbol to denote a real rossing point and the orresponding hord. + + FIGURE 2. Virtual trefoil knot and its Gauss diagram The importane of the realizations of all Gauss diagrams stems from the Gauss diagram representations of finite type invariants. It was first notied by Polyak and Viro [28] that some finite type invariants of degree 2 and 3 an be expressed in terms of Gauss diagrams. Later this

4 4 ZHIYUN CHENG, HONGZHU GAO, AND MENGJIAN XU result was extended to finite type invariants of all degrees in [12]. More preisely, let A = Z[D], where D D, the set of all Gauss diagrams. Then the Polyak algebra P is defined to be A/R, whereris generated by elements of the form D D if D and D are related by a Reidemeister move. By putting A = 0 for any A P with more than n hords we obtain the trunated Polyak algebra P n. For two Gauss diagrams D 1 and D 2, onsider the pairing { 1 if D < D 1, D 2 >= 1 = D 2 0 if D 1 = D 2 and extend it linearly one obtains an inner produt <,>: A A Z. Then the main result of [12] tells us that any integer-valued finite type invariant of degree n of a (long) knot D an be represented as < A, D > for some A P n. Note that in the world of lassial subdiagram D D knots, not every subdiagram of D makes sense. For this reason, it is more reasonable to study the finite type invariants in the world of virtual knots. Before ontinuing, it would be good to revisit the hord index from the viewpoint of finite type invariant. It is well known that there is no finite type invariant of degree 1 in lassial knot theory. It is quite easy to observe this from the result above. Atually, the Gauss diagram with only one hord is unique, hene the inner produt above just gives the rossing number of knot diagram. Even if using the signed Gauss diagram with one hord, one obtains the writhe of the knot diagram. Neither of them is a knot invariant. The benefit of the hord index is being able to define a finite type invariant of degree 1 by assigning an index to eah hord. This explains the reason why we an define some finite type invariants of degree 1 for virtual knots, see [30] and [13] for some onrete examples. Furthermore, if we an find some nontrivial hord indies for lassial knots, then it is possible that the weighted sum of all rossing points defines a knot invariant, even if the (signed) sum of all rossing points does not. Virtual knots not only have finite type invariants of degree 1, but also finite type invariants of degree 0. This reveals the the non-triviality of flat virtual knots. Roughly, flat virtual knots (whih was named as virtual strings in [31]) an be regarded as virtual knots without over/underrossing informations. More preisely, a flat virtual knot diagram an be obtained from a virtual knot diagram by replaing all real rossing points with flat rossing points. In other words, there are only two kinds of rossing points in a flat virtual knot diagram, flat and virtual. Similarly, by replaing all real rossing points with flat rossing points in Figure 1 one obtains the flat generalized Reidemeister moves. We will use FΩ 1, FΩ 2, FΩ 3, FΩ 1, FΩ 2, FΩ 3 and FΩ3 v to denote them. Then flat virtual knots an be defined as the equivalene lasses of flat virtual knot diagrams up to flat generalized Reidemeister moves. It is evident to notie that if a flat virtual knot diagram has only flat rossing points or virtual rossing points, then it must be trivial. From the geometri viewpoint, flat virtual knots an be seen as immersed urves on an oriented surfae. The readers are referred to [31] for further details of the homotopy lasses and obordism lasses of flat virtual knots. FIGURE 3. Kishino flat virtual knot

5 SOME REMARKS ON THE CHORD INDEX 5 Let K be a virtual knot diagram, we an define a flat virtual knot diagram F(K) by replaing all real rossing points of K with flat rossing points. It is not diffiult to see that the flat virtual knot represented by F(K) does not depend on the hoie of the diagram K. In other words, if K and K are related by a sequene of generalized Reidemeister moves, then F(K) and F(K ) are related by a sequene of orresponding flat generalized Reidemeister moves. We shall all F(K) a shadow of K and say K overlies F(K). Conversely, if a flat virtual knot diagram K has n flat rossing points, then there are totally 2 n virtual knot diagrams overlying K. A simple but important fat is, if K is a nontrivial flat virtual knot then all these 2 n virtual knot diagrams represent nontrivial virtual knots. Moreover, if a flat virtual knot diagram has the minimal number of flat rossing points then all the virtual knots overlying it realize the minimal real rossing number. Figure 3 provides an illustration of the Kishino flat virtual knot, whih is known to be nontrivial [22]. Therefore all the 16 Kishino virtual knot diagrams overlying it represent nontrivial virtual knots. This explains why the investigation of flat virtual knots is important but not easy in general. 3. TWO VIRTUAL KNOT INVARIANTS 3.1. AnM1 u -valued virtual knot invariant. Let K be a virtual knot diagram and a real rossing point of it. We want to assoiate a unoriented flat virtual knot K to whih satisfies the hord index axioms defined in Definition 1.1. There are two kinds of resolution of the rossing point, see Figure 4 (here ould be a positive or a negative rossing). We use 0-smoothing to denote the resolution whih preserves the number of omponents and 1-smoothing to denote the other one. After applying 0-smoothing at we will get another virtual knot, whih is unoriented even if K is oriented. We use K to denote this unoriented virtual knot and use K to denote the shadow of it, i.e. K = F(K ). 0-smoothing 1-smoothing FIGURE 4. Two resolutions of Theorem 3.1. K satisfies the hord index axioms. Proof. It suffies to show that K satisfies the five requirements in Definition 1.1. (1) If is a rossing point appearing in Ω 1, after performing 0-smoothing at, it is easy to observe that K = F(K) without onsidering the orientation, whih is a fixed element in M1 u. (2) Consider the two rossing points in Ω 2, say 1 and 2. As illustrated in Figure 5, in both ases the hord indies K 1 and K 2 are equivalent as flat virtual knots. (3) Assume K and K are related by one Ω 3 move, we use 1, 2, 3 to denote the three rossing points in K and use 1, 2, 3 to denote the orresponding rossing points in K. It is easy to see that K 1 = K 1, K 2 = K 2 and K 3 = K 3 from Figure 6. (4) For Ω3 v, there exist two possibilities: in one ase two hord indies are the same, in the other ase one hord index an be obtained from the other one by two FΩ 2 -moves. (5) If a rossing point is not involved in the move, then the two hord indies are related by a flat version of this move.

6 6 ZHIYUN CHENG, HONGZHU GAO, AND MENGJIAN XU K 1 K2 K1 K2 FIGURE 5. Resolutions of rossing points in Ω K K 1 K2 K K K 1 K 2 K 3 FIGURE 6. Resolutions of rossing points in Ω 3 Theorem 3.2. Let K be a virtual knot, then F(K) = w() K w(k)f(k) M1 u is a virtual knot invariant. Here F(K) should be understood as the shadow of K without the orientation, the sum runs over all the real rossing points of K, and w(), w(k) denote the writhe of and K respetively. Proof. Notie that K = F(K) if is the rossing point involved in Ω 1 and the writhes of the two rossing points involved in Ω 2 are distint. The result follows diretly from the hord index axioms. Obviously, if K is a lassial knot, then F(K) = 0. Atually, sine any flat virtual knot diagram with one or two flat rossing points represent the unknot. It follows that if the number of real rossing points of K is less than or equal to 2, we also have F(K) = 0. Proposition 3.3. Let K be a virtual knot diagram. If F(K) is a minimal flat rossing number diagram, then all minimal real rossing number diagrams of K have the same writhe. Proof. As we mentioned in end of Setion 2, if F(K) is a minimal flat rossing number diagram then K must realizes the minimal number of real rossing points. Notie that any flat knot K has fewer flat rossing number than F(K), it follows that the oeffiient of F(K) in F(K) equals w(k). Choose another minimal real rossing number diagram K whih represents the same virtual knot as K. Note that F(K) and F(K ) represent the same flat virtual knot, then the oeffiients of them must be the same. It follows that w(k) = w(k ). Corollary 3.4. Let K be a minimal flat rossing number diagram of a flat virtual knot. If the number of flat rossing points in K equals n, then the 2 n virtual knot diagrams overlying K represent at least n+1 distint virtual knots.

7 SOME REMARKS ON THE CHORD INDEX 7 Proposition 3.5. Let K be an oriented virtual knot diagram, if we use r(k) to denote the diagram obtained from K by reversing the orientation, and use m(k) to denote the diagram obtained from K by swithing all real rossing points, then we havef(r(k)) = F(K) andf(m(k)) = F(K). Proof. Notie that as a unoriented flat virtual knot we have F(r(K)) = F(m(K)) = F(K). On the other hand, the unoriented flat virtual knots r(k) and m(k) are equivalent to K, but the writhe of is preserved in r(k) but hanged in m(k). Remark 3.6. It is well known that the onneted sum operation is not well defined in virtual knot theory. In fat, the result of a onneted sum depends on the plae where the operation is taken. However, we an still talk about the onneted sum of two virtual knot diagrams. Let K 1 and K 2 be two separate virtual knot diagrams and K 1 K 2 the onneted sum of them with a fixed plae where the onneted-sum is taken. Aording to the definition of F(K), we have F(K 1 K 2 ) = K 1 K 2 w() K1 K 2 w(k 1 K 2 )F(K 1 K 2 ) = K 1 K 2 w() K1 K 2 w(k 1 )F(K 1 ) F(K 2 ) w(k 2 )F(K 1 ) F(K 2 ) =( K 1 w() K 1 w(k 1 )F(K 1 )) F(K 2 )+F(K 1 ) ( K 2 w() K 2 w(k 2 )F(K 2 )) =F(K 1 ) F(K 2 )+ F(K 1 ) F(K 2 ) where all the onneted sum mentioned above are taken at the same plae. Here we want to remark that the equality F(K 1 K 2 ) = F(K 1 ) F(K 2 )+ F(K 1 ) F(K 2 ) does not hold for virtual knots in general. This is beause even if two flat virtual knot diagrams are equivalent up to flat generalized Reidemeister moves, after taking the onneted sum with another flat virtual knot diagram they may represent different flat virtual knots, see the following example. It means that F(K) an be used to show the fat that the onneted sum operation is not well defined for virtual knots. Note that as a speialization, the writhe polynomial W K (t) (see Example 3.16 for the definition) is additive with respet to onneted sum [8]. Example 3.7. Let K be the virtual knot desribed in Figure 7. Diret alulation shows that F(K) = Kishino+4U 5F(K), where Kishino denotes the Kishino flat virtual knot depited in Figure 3 and U denotes the unknot. Sine Kishino is nontrivial, we onlude that F(K) = 0. Notie that K an be regarded as the onneted sum of two virtual trefoil knots, butf evaluated on the virtual trefoil knot equals zero. FIGURE 7. A virtual knot K with nontrivial F Remark 3.8. The invariantf(k) an be easily extended to an invariant of n-omponent virtual links (n 2). For this purpose, it suffies to redefinem1 u to be the free Z-module generated by all unoriented flat virtual links. Now the the hord index of a self-rossing point is a unoriented

8 8 ZHIYUN CHENG, HONGZHU GAO, AND MENGJIAN XU n-omponent flat virtual link, and the hord index of a mixed-rossing point is a unoriented (n 1)-omponent flat virtual link AnM 2 -valued virtual knot invariant. Let K be a virtual knot diagram and a real rossing point of K. We plan to use the 1- smoothing operation to define an oriented 2-omponent flat virtual link L suh that it also satisfies the hord index axioms defined in Definition 1.1. Reall that M 2 is the free Z-module generated by all the oriented 2-omponent flat virtual links. Performing 1-smoothing at transforms the virtual knot K into an oriented 2-omponent virtual link. We use L to denote this oriented virtual link and use L to denote the shadow of it, whih lies in M 2. Then we have the following result. Theorem 3.9. L satisfies the hord index axioms. Proof. Analogous to the proof of Theorem 3.1, it suffies to hek that L satisfies all the five onditions in Definition 1.1. (1) If is a rossing point involved in Ω 1, then after the operation we see that L = F(K) U, whih is a fixed element ofm 2, see Figure 8. 1-smoothing 1-smoothing FIGURE 8. Resolution of the rossing point in Ω 1 (2) Let 1, 2 be the two rossing points in Ω 2. It is easy to find that for eah ase we have L 1 = L 2, see Figure L 1 L2 L1 L2 FIGURE 9. Resolutions of the two rossing points in Ω 2 (3) For Ω 3, let us denote the three rossing points before the move by 1, 2, 3, and use 1, 2, 3 to denote the orresponding rossing points after the move, see Figure 10. Applying 1-smoothing for eah of them, it follows evidently that L i = L for all 1 i 3. i (4) As before, there are two possibilities aording to the orientations of the strands in Ω v 3 : in one ase the two hord indies are the same, and in the other ase one hord index an be obtained from the other one by two FΩ 2 -moves. (5) If does not appear in the move, then the two hord indies an be onneted by one flat version of the move.

9 SOME REMARKS ON THE CHORD INDEX K L 1 L2 L K L 1 L 2 L 3 FIGURE 10. Resolutions of the three rossing points in Ω 3 Similar to Theorem 3.2, this hord index also provides us a virtual knot invariant. Theorem Let K be a virtual knot, then L(K) = w() L w(k)(f(k) U) M 2 defines a virtual knot invariant. Here F(K) denotes the shadow of K, the sum runs over all the real rossing points of K and w(), w(k) denote the writhe of and K respetively. Remark Here eah L should be understood as a unordered 2-omponent flat virtual link. Aording to Figure 8, one an observe that there does not exist a preferred order on the two omponents of L. The following proposition follows diretly from the definition of L(K). Proposition Let K be an oriented virtual knot diagram, if we use r(k) to denote the diagram obtained from K by reversing the orientation, and m(k) denotes the diagram obtained from K by swithing all real rossing points, then we havel(r(k)) = r(l(k)) andl(m(k)) = L(K). It is evident thatl(k) = 0 if K is a lassial knot. But unlikef(k), whih vanishes on virtual knots with two real rossing points, L(K) is able to distinguish the virtual trefoil knot from the unknot. Note that up to some symmetries, the virtual trefoil knot is the only one whih has real rossing number two. Example Consider the virtual trefoil knot K in Figure 2. We havel(k) = 2 HL 2(U U), here HL denotes the flat virtual Hopf link whih an be obtained from the lassial Hopf link diagram by replaing the two real rossing points with one virtual rossing point and one flat rossing point. As before, U means the unknot. In order to prove L(K) = 0, it suffies to show that HL is nontrivial. To this end, let us onsider the flat linking number of a unordered 2-omponent flat virtual link. Suppose L = K 1 K 2 is a unordered 2-omponent flat virtual link. Denote C K 1 K 2 to be the set of all flat rossing points between K 1 and K 2. Replaing all the flat rossing points in C K 1 K 2 with a real rossing point suh that at eah rossing point the over-strand belongs to K 1, then we an define the flat linking number as lk( L) = C K 1 K 2 w(), where w() means the writhe of the real rossing point. Clearly, this definition does not depend on the order of K 1 and K 2, and it is invariant under all flat generalized Reidemeister moves. Obviously, lk( HL) = 1 and it follows that L(K) = 0.

10 10 ZHIYUN CHENG, HONGZHU GAO, AND MENGJIAN XU 1 3 L 1 L 2 2 K 4 L 3 L 4 FIGURE 11. A virtual knot K with nontrivial L Example Consider the virtual knot K illustrated in Figure 11, whih is a variant of the Kishino virtual knot. Diret alulation shows that L(K) = L 1 L 2 L 3 + L 4 = 0. The last inequality follows from the fat that neither of { L i } 1 i 4 is trivial, and any pair of them are inequivalent. One way to see this is to extend the writhe polynomial from virtual knots to virtual links, whih an be found in the forthoming paper [32]. Remark We remark that there is no diffiulty in extending this invariant L(K) to an invariant of virtual links. One just needs to make some suitable modifiations on the definition of M Geometri interpretations of F(K) and L(K). In this subsetion we give a geometri interpretation for F(K). Reall that eah virtual knot an be onsidered as an embedded urve in Σ g [0, 1], or equivalently, a knot diagram on Σ g. By ignoring the over/underrossing information of eah rossing point, we an realize eah flat virtual knot as a generi immersed losed urve on Σ g. Here we follow the onstrution of abstrat knots, whih is known to be equivalent to the set of virtual knots [17], to onstrut a knot diagram on a losed oriented surfae. Let K be a virtual knot diagram and F(K) the shadow of K. Consider F(K) as an abstrat 4-valent graph as follows. If the number of flat rossing points equals zero, then the graph is just a irle. Otherwise, the set of verties onsists of all flat rossing points and eah vertex has valeny four. By ignoring all the virtual rossing points, we obtain a abstrat 4-valent graph from F(K). In partiular, this is a 4-valent planar graph if there is no virtual rossing points. If there exist some virtual rossing points, this is an immersed 4-valent graph in the plane. After thikening verties into disjoint small disks and thikening eah edge into a ribbon onneting the orresponding two disks we obtain a ompat oriented immersed surfae in R 2, or an embedded surfae in R 3. Let us use Σ K to denote this surfae and Σ g the losed surfae obtained from Σ K by attahing disks to the boundaries of Σ K. It is evident to find that if the number of flat rossing points equals n and the number of boundaries of Σ K equals m, then the genus g of Σ g is equal to m n It is worth noting that this is the minimum genus among all the surfaes in whih Σ K is embeddable. Replaing eah flat rossing point with the original real rossing point of K yields a knot diagram on the losed surfae Σ g. Let us still use K to denote the knot diagram on Σ g. Choose a rossing point, we an perform the 0-smoothing on the surfae. After that, we obtain another unoriented knot diagram K and the orresponding shadow K. Now the invariantf(k) = w() K w(k)f(k) an be regarded as a linear ombination of some unoriented flat virtual knot diagrams on Σ g. Similarly, one an also onsider the invariant L(K) in this way. The benefit of this geometri interpretation

11 SOME REMARKS ON THE CHORD INDEX 11 is, for some speialization (for instane the Example 3.16 below), the invariant an be defined in terms of the homologial intersetion form H 1 (Σ g ) H 1 (Σ g ) Z Some speial ases of F(K) and L(K). In Subsetion 3.1 and 3.2, we introdued two virtual knot invariants valued in M u 1 and M 2 respetively. Combining them with a onrete flat virtual knot/link invariant we obtain a onrete and sometimes muh more usable virtual knot invariant. In this subsetion we show that several invariants appeared in the literature in reent years an be regarded as speial ases of our invariants defined in Subsetion 3.1 and Subsetion 3.2. Example The first example is the writhe polynomial W K (t) introdued by the first and seond author in [8], whih generalizes the index polynomial defined by Henrih in [13] and the odd writhe polynomial defined by the first author in [5]. The writhe polynomial was also independently defined (with different names) by Dye in [10], Kauffman in [20], Im, Kim, Lee in [15], and Satoh, Taniguhi in [29]. The key point of the definition of the W K (t) is the hord index Ind() introdued in [5], whih assigns an integer to eah real rossing point of a virtual knot diagram and satisfies the hord index axioms in Definition 1.1. Here we follow the approah of Folwazny and Kauffman [11] with a little modifiations. Assume K is a virtual knot diagram and is a real rossing point of it. By applying the 1- smoothing operation to we will get a 2-omponent virtual link L = K 1 K 2. The order of these two omponents is arranged as follows: onsider the rossing point in Figure 4, if is positive then we all the omponent on the left side K 1 and the omponent on the right side K 2 ; onversely, if is negative then we use K 1 to denote the omponent on the right side and use K 2 to denote the omponent on the left side. Consider all the real rossing points between K 1 and K 2, whih an be divided into two sets C 12 and C 21. Here C 12 denotes the set of real rossing points where the over-strands belong to K 1 and C 21 those the over-strands belong to K 2. Now we an define the index of as Ind() = w() w() C 12 C 21 and the writhe polynomial as W K (t) = w()t Ind() w(k). Aording to the definition of the index, it is evident that Ind() is invariant under the rossing hange of any real rossing point of L. Hene it is an invariant of L, and W K (t) is a speialization of L(K). As we mentioned before, the writhe polynomial an be topologially defined via the homologial intersetion of the supporting surfae Σ g. As an appliation, by using this topologial interpretation Boden, Chrisman and Gaudreau proved that the writhe polynomial is a onordane invariant of virtual knots. See [2] for more details. Example The seond example onerns a sequene of 2-variable polynomial invariants L n K (t, l) reently introdued by Kaur, Prabhakar and Vesnin in [24]. We will show that this sequene of polynomial invariants ombines some information of F(K) andl(k). Let K be a virtual knot diagram and a real rossing point of K. Assume the writhe polynomial W K (t) = a n t n, it is known that W K (t) W K (t 1 ) is a polynomial invariant of F(K), n see for example [6, 24, 31]. Now W K (t) W K (t 1 ) has the form n (a n a n )t n, and the oeffiient of t n equals a n a n, whih is alled the n-th dwrithe in [24], is also a flat virtual knot invariant. Following [24], let us use J n (K) to denote a n a n. Now we an assign an index t Ind() l J n(k ) to, as before here K is referred to the (unoriented) virtual knot obtained from

12 12 ZHIYUN CHENG, HONGZHU GAO, AND MENGJIAN XU K by applying 0-smoothing at. In order to alulate J n (K ) one needs to hoose an orientation for K, but the abstrat value guarantees that the index is well defined. It is worth noting that this index also satisfies the hord axioms, and if a rossing point is involved in Ω 1 then the index equals l Jn(K). Now the polynomials L n K (t, l) are defined as below L n K (t, l) = w()t Ind() l J n(k ) w(k)l Jn(K). Some examples are given in [24] to show that L n K (t, l) an distinguish two virtual knots with the same writhe polynomial. As we mentioned above, Ind() is a flat virtual knot invariant of L and J n (K ) is a flat virtual knot invariant of K, hene L n K (t, l) an be viewed as a mixture of some information oming fromf(k) andl(k). We end this subsetion with a non-example. We will give an index type virtual knot invariant and prove that this index annot be obtained fromf(k) or L(K). Example Before the disovery of Ind(), it was first noted by Kauffman that the parity of Ind() plays an important role in virtual knot theory [19]. Later Manturov proposed the parity axioms in [27] and proved that the parity projetion P 2 whih maps a virtual knot diagram to another virtual knot diagram is well defined. Here the projetion P 2 is defined as follows: assume we have a virtual knot diagram K, then we an assign an index Ind() to a real rossing point (see Example 3.16). After replaing all the real rossing points that have odd indies with virtual rossing points, we obtain a new virtual knot diagram P 2 (K). The key point is that, if K and K are related by finitely many generalized Reidemeister moves, so are P 2 (K) and P 2 (K ). It means that P 2 defines a well defined projetion from virtual knots to virtual knots. This projetion an be easily generalized to a sequene of projetions P n for any nonnegative integer n. Let K be a virtual knot diagram, we define P n (K) to be the virtual knot diagram obtained from K by replaing all real rossing points whose indies are not multiples of n with virtual rossing points. From the viewpoint of Gauss diagram, one just leaves all the hords whose indies are multiples of n and delete all other hords. It was proved that in Ω 3 the index of one rossing point equals the sum of the indies of the other two rossing points [7]. With this fat, it is not diffiult to observe that P n provides a well defined projetion from the set of virtual knots to itself. For example, P 1 = id and P 2 oinides with Manturov s parity projetion mentioned above. Now eah P n (K) an be regarded as a virtual knot invariant of K, and all {P n (K)} together provides a sequene of virtual knot invariants. Note that for eah K, only finitely many of{p n (K)} are nontrivial. For example, if K is a lassial knot, then P n (K) = K for any nonnegative integer n. For a given virtual knot invariant f, the sequene { f(p n (K))} gives rise to a family of virtual knot invariants. In partiular, one an onsider P nk P nk 1 P n1 (K) for any nonnegative sequene (n 1,, n k ). As another example, the ase of f = W K (t) was disussed by Im and Kim in [14]. Let us onsider W P0 (K)(t). We are planning to show that the index of this invariant, denotes by Ind 0 (), annot be reovered from K or L. First, we need to reinterpret W P0 (K)(t) as an index type polynomial. Let K be a virtual knot diagram and C 0 (K) the set of real rossing points with index zero. We use G(K) to denote the Gauss diagram of K and use G 0 (K) to denote the Gauss diagram obtained by removing all hords with nonzero indies. Choose a rossing point C 0 (K), we will also use the same symbol to denote the orresponding hord in G 0 (K). Let +, be the two endpoints of the hord, suh that the hord is direted from + to. For any other hord in G 0 (K), we also assoiate±1 to the endpoints of it suh that+1( 1) orresponds to the overrossing (underrossing) point. Now + and divides the big irle of G 0 (K) into two open ars, one is direted from + to and the other one is direted from to +. Let us use ĉ + and ĉ + to denote these two open ars respetively. Now the hords in C 0 (K) whih have nonempty intersetions with an be divided into two sets C and C, where C

13 SOME REMARKS ON THE CHORD INDEX 13 0-smoothing 1-smoothing virtualization at 0-smoothing 1-smoothing FIGURE 12. Virtualization at G(K) G(K ) FIGURE 13. G(K) and G(K ) (C ) if and only if + ĉ + (ĉ + ) and ĉ + (ĉ + ). Now the index Ind 0 () an be defined as Ind 0 () = C w( ) C w( ). One an hek that this definition oinides with the index (in the sense of Example 3.16) of in the virtual knot orresponding the G 0 (K). It follows that W P0 (K)(t) = w()(t Ind0() 1). C 0 (K) In order to show that Ind 0 () annot be reovered from K or L, it suffies to onstrut two virtual knot diagrams K and K, suh that there exist two real rossing points K, K whih satisfy K = K, L = L but Ind 0 () = Ind 0 ( ). The key observation is that K and L are both preserved under a virtualization at, see Figure 12. We remark that the virtualization operation was first used by Kauffman to onstrut infinitely many nontrivial virtual knots with unit Jones polynomial. Although the virtualization operation at preserves both K and L, it usually hanges the indies of other rossing points and hene hanges Ind 0 (). As a onrete example, onsider the two Gauss diagrams G(K) and G(K ) depited in Figure 13. One an easily find that K = K and L = L, but Ind 0 () = 1 = 0 = Ind 0 ( ). The main reason why Ind 0 () annot be reovered from K or L is that the notion of hord index is twie used in the definition of Ind 0 (). This idea was first used by Turaev in flat virtual knot theory [31] and later by M.-J. Jeong in the definition of zero polynomial for virtual knots [16]. Reently the zero polynomial was extended to a transendental funtion invariant of virtual knots in [7].

14 14 ZHIYUN CHENG, HONGZHU GAO, AND MENGJIAN XU 4. NEW INVARIANTS REVISITED FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF FINITE TYPE INVARIANT Reall that a finite type invariant (also alled Vassiliev invariant) of degree n is a (virtual) knot invariant valued in an abelian group whih vanishes on all singular knots with k singularities provided that k n+1. More preisely, for a given abelian group A, if f : K A is a virtual knot invariant whih assoiates eah virtual knot with an element of A. Then we an extend f from virtual knots to singularities virtual knots via the following reursive relation f n (K) = f n 1 (K + ) f n 1 (K ), here K + (K ) is obtained from K, a singular virtual knot with n singularities, by replaing a singular point with a positive (negative) rossing point. In partiular, we set f (0) = f as the initial ondition. Now we say f is a finite type invariant of degree n if f (n+1) (K) = 0 for any singular virtual knot K with n+1 singularities, and there exists a singular virtual knot K with n singularities whih satisfies f (n) (K) = 0. For lassial knots, this definition oinides with the definition given by Birman and Lin in [1]. We would like to remark that for virtual knots there exists another kind of finite type invariants. We refer the reader to [12] for more details. The main result of this setion is the following: Theorem 4.1. Both F(K) and L(K) are finite type invariants of degree one. Proof. We first prove that F(K) is a finite type invariant of degree one. For this purpose, we need to show that F (2) vanishes on any singular virtual knot with two singularities and there is a singular virtual knot with one singularity whih has nontrivial F (1). Let K be a virtual knot diagram and 1, 2 be two real rossing points. Without loss of generality, we assume that w( 1 ) = w( 2 ) = +1. We use K + (K + ) to denote the virtual knot diagram obtained from K by swithing 1 ( 2 ), and use K to denote the diagram obtained from K by swithing both 1 and 2. Obviously, K ++ = K. What we need to do is proving that F(K ++ ) F(K + ) F(K + )+F(K ) = 0. One omputes F(K ++ ) F(K + ) F(K + )+F(K ) =( ( = w() K ++ w(k ++ )F(K ++ )) ( w() K + w(k + )F(K + )) w() K + w(k + )F(K + ))+( w() K w(k )F(K )) w() K++ w() K+ w() K + + w() K =( K K ++ 2 ) ( K + 1 K + 2 ) ( K K + 2 )+( K 1 K 2 ) =( K ++ 1 K 1 )+( K ++ 2 K 2 )+( K + 1 K + 1 )+( K + 2 K + 2 ) = =0 On the other hand, onsider the Kishino virtual knot K whih is obtained from the Kishino flat virtual knot in Figure 3 by replaing all flat rossing points with positive rossing points. Denote the positive rossing point on the top left of K by. We still use K + to denote K and use

15 SOME REMARKS ON THE CHORD INDEX 15 K to denote the diagram after swithing. Then we have F(K + ) F(K ) =( w() K + w(k + )F(K + )) ( w() K w(k )F(K )) =(4U 4 Kishino) (2U 2 Kishino) =2U 2 Kishino =0 For L(K), by mimiking the proof of F(K), one an also prove that L (2) (K) vanishes on any singular virtual knot with two singular points. On the other hand, as a speialization of L(K), we know that the writhe polynomial W K (t) is a finite type invariant of degree one [6,10]. Hene there exists a singular virtual knot with one singular point whih has nontrivial L(K). As a onrete example, one an onsider the singular virtual trefoil, whih an be obtained from the virtual trefoil in Figure 2 by replaing one real rossing point with a singular point. The proof of the theorem above tells us that if a hord index of a rossing point is preserved when one swithes any other rossing point, then this hord index annot provide a nontrivial invariant for lassial knots. Sine for lassial knots, there is no finite type invariant of degree one. We know that the writhe polynomial is a finite type invariant of degree one. However, one an use the notion of hord index to define an elaborate virtual knot invariant whih is of degree two. See [9] for an example. We have shown that the writhe polynomial W K (t) an be reovered from L(K). At present, we have no idea whether it is possible to define a finite type invariant of higher degree whih takes values in M u 1 or M FROM FLAT VIRTUAL KNOTS TO FLAT VIRTUAL KNOTS In Setion 3 we introdued two virtual knot invariants F(K) andl(k), whih take values in M u 1 andm 2 respetively. However, in general it is still not easy to distinguish two elements in M u 1 or M 2. To this end, in this setion we extend the main idea of Setion 3 from virtual knots to flat virtual knots. It turns out that we an define two invariants for flat virtual knots, whih take values in M 1 and M 2 respetively. Here M 1 denotes the free Z-module generated by all oriented flat virtual knots, and as before, M 2 is referred to the free Z-module generated by all oriented 2-omponent flat virtual links. Given an oriented flat virtual knot diagram K, similar to virtual knots, we an define a Gauss diagram G( K) orresponding to K. At first glane, sine there is no over/underrossing information we an just onnet the two preimages of eah flat rossing with a hord. So unlike the Gauss diagrams of virtual knots, now there is no diretions or signs on eah hord. However, we an still assign a diretion to eah hord as follows: replae eah flat rossing point with a positive rossing point and then add an arrow to eah hord in G( K), direted from the preimage of the overrossing to the preimage of the underrossing. Now we obtain a Gauss diagram G( K) of whih eah hord has a diretion but no signs. The following result is well-known, see for example [31]. Lemma 5.1. Eah G( K) orresponds to a unique flat virtual knot K. Proof. Adding a positive sign to eah hord of G( K) gives us a Gauss diagram G(K) of a positive virtual knot diagram K. By replaing all the positive rossing points of K with flat rossing points we will obtain a flat virtual knot K. However, G(K) orresponds to infinitely many

16 16 ZHIYUN CHENG, HONGZHU GAO, AND MENGJIAN XU different virtual knot diagrams. We need to show that the shadow of them give rise to the same flat virtual knot. Atually, hoose another virtual knot diagram K whih also orresponds to G(K). It is known that K and K an be onneted by finitely many Ω 1, Ω 2, Ω 3 and Ωv 3 moves. It follows that the shadows F(K) and F(K ) an be onneted by a sequene of FΩ 1, FΩ 2, FΩ 3, FΩv 3 moves. This ompletes the proof. Although there is no signs on flat rossing point, we an use the sign of the index to make up for that. More preisely, for a given flat virtual knot diagram K, let us onsider the positive virtual knot diagram over it, say K +. Now we an use the index of Example 3.16 to assign an integer Ind() to eah positive rossing point of K +. For the original flat rossing point (for simpliity here we use the same symbol) in K, we define the writhe of the flat rossing point as follows { Ind() if Ind() = 0; w() = sgn(ind()) = Ind() 0 if Ind() = 0. With the help of writhe on eah flat rossing points, one an similarly define the writhe of a flat virtual knot as w( K) = w(), where the sum runs over all flat rossing points. Lemma 5.2. w( K) is a flat virtual knot invariant. Proof. It is suffiient to notie that the flat rossing point involved in FΩ 1 has writhe zero, the two flat rossing points involved in FΩ 2 have opposite writhes and the writhe of eah flat rossing point in FΩ 3 is preserved under FΩ 3. It is worth pointing out that it is possible that even if two flat virtual knot diagrams are related by a FΩ 3 move, the orresponding positive virtual knot diagrams annot be onneted by a Ω 3 move. However, in this ase the writhe of eah flat rossing point is still preserved. Obviously, the writhe of the flat rossing point in FΩ3 v is also preserved under FΩ3 v. The proof is finished. Example 5.3. As an example, let us onsider the flat virtual knot K p,q (p, q N) whose lattielike Gauss diagram onsists of p parallel horizontal hords direted from left to right and q parallel vertial hords direted from top to bottom, suh that eah horizontal hord and eah vertial hord have one intersetion point. Clearly, every horizontal hord has index q and every vertial hord has index p. Thus, if p = q we have w( K p,q ) = p+q = 0 and therefore K p,q is nontrivial. We remark that if p = q then w( K p,q ) = 0, but in this ase the flat virtual knot K p,q is also nontrivial [31]. Remark 5.4. Replaing the writhe with index, one an define Ind( K) = Ind(). It turns out that Ind( K) also defines an invariant for flat virtual knots. Atually, this is a trivial invariant, i.e. Ind( K) = 0 for any flat virtual knot K. One an easily onlude this from the definition of Ind(). Now we want to enhane the invariant w( K) to a weighted sum by assoiating a hord index to eah flat rossing point of K. Let be a flat rossing point of K. Similar as before, we an perform 0-smoothing or 1-smoothing to resolve this flat rossing point to get a unoriented flat virtual knot K or an oriented 2-omponent flat virtual link L. In partiular, for K now we fix an orientation on it, see Figure 14. We define F( K) = w() K M 1 and L( K) = w() L M 2. Theorem 5.5. F( K) and L( K) are both flat virtual knot invariants.

17 SOME REMARKS ON THE CHORD INDEX 17 w() > 0 w() < 0 FIGURE 14. The orientation of K Proof. The proof of Lemma 5.2 told us the behavior of the writhe of eah flat rossing point under the flat generalized Reidemeister moves. Notie that if the writhe of a flat rossing point equals zero, then it has no ontribution to F( K) or L( K), although Figure 14 did not tell us how to assoiate an orientation to K in this ase. The rest of the proof is a routine hek of the flat versions of Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 in Setion 3. We leave the details to the reader. Corollary 5.6. If w( K) = 0, then both F( K) and L( K) are nontrivial. Proposition 5.7. Suppose F( K) = n a i K i (a i = 0), then K i = K for any 1 i n. i=1 Proof. If K is a unknot, then we have F( K) = 0 = K. If K is nontrivial, we hoose a minimal diagram of it, i.e. one of the diagrams whih realizes the minimal flat rossing number. Aording to the definition of F( K), eah K i has stritly fewer flat rossing points, hene it annot be equivalent to K. This proposition says that the map F turns an oriented flat virtual knot K into a linear ombination of simpler flat virtual knots. Therefore sometimes we an use known nontrivial flat virtual knots to dedue that some more omplex flat virtual knots are nontrivial. In partiular, if a flat virtual knot K has flat rossing number n+2, then we have F n ( K) = F F( K) = 0. Here F should be understood as a linear map F : M 1 M 1 by extending linearly. For a given flat virtual knot K, assume F( K) = n a i K i (a i = 0), now let us fous on these i=1 { K i } 1 i n for a moment. Let K, K be two virtual knot diagrams whih represent the same virtual knot, and we use G(K), G(K ) to denote the orresponding Gauss diagrams of them. If one hooses a Gauss sub-diagram of G(K), say G(K ), i.e. G(K ) is obtained from G(K) by deleting some hords. In general, it is possible that none of the Gauss sub-diagrams of G(K ) represents the same virtual knot as G(K ). In order to see this, onsider a nontrivial virtual knot and hoose a minimal real rossing number diagram of it, say K. By performing the first Reidemeister move we obtain another diagram K with one more real rossing point. It is obvious that G(K ) is a Gauss sub-diagram of G(K). However, no sub-diagram of G(K ) represents K sine K is minimal. Nevertheless, if we onsider some speial Gauss sub-diagram of G(K), for example G(P n (K)) (see Example 3.18), then for any other Gauss diagram whih represents the same virtual knot as G(K), we an always find a sub-diagram of it suh that this sub-diagram represents the same virtual knot as G(P n (K)). In other words, G(P n (K)) is an essential sub-diagram of G(K). For flat virtual knots, some similar projetions were disussed by Turaev in [31]. Come bak to F( K) = n i=1 a i K i (a i = 0), it is worth notiing that eah G( K i ) an be regarded as an essential twisted sub-diagram of G( K). Here the reason why we use the word twisted is that eah G( K i ) an be obtained from G( K) by removing a hord and

18 18 ZHIYUN CHENG, HONGZHU GAO, AND MENGJIAN XU then performing a half-twist on the left or right semiirle. The hoie of left side or right side depends on the writhe of the removed hord. Some more essential and (more ompliated) twisted sub-diagrams an be obtained by onsidering F n. Example 5.8. Reall the definition of K p,q in Example 5.3. Let p = n 3 and q = 1, one obtains U k K 2i 1,1 k K 1,2i 1 = k K 2i 1,1 k K 1,2i 1 U if n = 2k F( K n,1 ) = i=1 i=1 i=2 i=2 U k K 2i,1 k K 1,2i = k K 2i,1 k K 1,2i if n = 2k+1 i=0 i=1 i=1 i=1 It is worth pointing out that in this example we have F 2 ( K n,1 ) = 0. One an easily extend these two invariants from flat virtual knots to (ordered) flat virtual links with a little modifiations on the definition of M i (i = 1, 2). Atually, the index of a selfflat rossing point an be defined similarly as above. For a flat rossing point between different omponents, one an assign a sign to it in a similar way as what we did when we introdue the flat linking number in Example On the other hand, if w() is replaed by Ind() then one obtains two other flat virtual knot invariants F( K) = Ind() K and L( K) = Ind() L. Even if we always have Ind( K) = Ind() = 0, from Example 5.8 we see that F( K n,1 ) = 0 if n 3. The example below suggests that L( K) an be nontrivial when n = 2. a b K La Lb = L FIGURE 15. A nontrivial flat virtual knot K Example 5.9. Consider the flat virtual knot K (= K 2,1 in the sense of Example 5.3) in Figure 15. Denote the three flat rossing points by a, b,, respetively. Replaing them with positive rossing points one finds that Ind(a) = 2, Ind(b) = Ind() = 1. Therefore L( K) = 2 L a L b L = 2 L a 2 L b, sine here we have L b = L. By simply alulating the flat linking number we find that lk( L a ) = 2 but lk( L b ) = 1. Hene L( K) = 0. Comparing with L( K), whih atually used the notion of hord index for two times, sometimes L( K) an tell us some immediate information of the flat virtual knot K. For instane, if L( K) = n b j K j, then obviously n b j provides us a lower bound for the number of flat rossing points of K. Consider the example above, we have L( K) = L a 2 L b. Thus, the flat rossing j=1 j=1 number of K is exatly three. Surely, this also an be onluded from the fat that there is no flat virtual knot with flat rossing number two. Proposition Let K be a flat virtual knot diagram and r( K) the diagram obtained from K by reversing the orientation, then F(r( K)) = r( F( K)) and L(r( K)) = r( L( K)).