|
|
| Line 43: |
Line 43: |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
====The Reidemeister Move R3==== |
|
====The Reidemeister Move R4==== |
|
To establish the syzygy below, I needed two versions of R4. First: |
|
To establish the syzygy below, I needed two versions of R4. First: |
|
[[Image:06-1350-R4a.png|center]] |
|
[[Image:06-1350-R4a.png|center]] |
| Line 100: |
Line 100: |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
|align=right|(Drawn with [http://asymptote.sf.net/ Asymptote]) |
|
|align=right|(Drawn with [http://asymptote.sf.net/ Asymptote]) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
The functional form of this syzygy is |
|
|
|
|
|
{| align=center |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|<math>\Phi B(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5) = </math> |
|
|
|<math>\rho_3(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_5) + \rho_{4a}(x_1+x_5,x_2,x_3,x_4) + \rho_{4b}(x_1+x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5)</math> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
|<math>- \rho_3(x_1,x_2,x_3+x_4,x_5) - \rho_{4a}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)</math> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
|<math>- \rho_{4b}(x_1,x_3,x_4,x_5) + \rho_3(x_1+x_3,x_2,x_4,x_5).</math> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
Revision as of 18:20, 3 December 2006
The Generators
Our generators are 
, 
, 
and 
:
| Picture
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Generator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Perturbation
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Relations
The Reidemeister Move R3
The picture (with three sides of the shielding removed) is
In formulas, this is
.
Linearized and written in functional form, this becomes
|
|
|
|
|
The Reidemeister Move R4
To establish the syzygy below, I needed two versions of R4. First:
In formulas, this is
.
Linearized and written in functional form, this becomes
|
Second:
In formulas, this is
.
Linearized and written in functional form, this becomes
|
Are these independent, or can they be shown to be equivalent using other relations?
The Syzygies
The "B around B" Syzygy
The picture, with all shielding removed, is
|
|
(Drawn with Inkscape)
(note that lower quality pictures are also acceptable)
|
The functional form of this syzygy is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The " around B" Syzygy
The picture, with all shielding (and any other helpful notations) removed, is
The functional form of this syzygy is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Mathematica Verification
The following simulated Mathematica session proves that for our single relation and single syzygy, 
. Copy paste it into a live Mathematica session to see that it's right!
In[1]:=
|
d1 = {
rho3[x1_, x2_, x3_, x4_] :> bp[x1, x2, x3] + bp[x1 + x3, x2, x4] +
bp[x1, x3, x4] - bp[x1 + x2, x3, x4] - bp[x1, x2, x4] -
bp[x1 + x4, x2, x3]
};
d2 = {
BAroundB[x1_, x2_, x3_, x4_, x5_] :> rho3[x1, x2, x3, x5] +
rho3[x1 + x5, x2, x3, x4] - rho3[x1 + x2, x3, x4, x5] -
rho3[x1, x2, x4, x5] - rho3[x1 + x4, x2, x3, x5] -
rho3[x1, x2, x3, x4] + rho3[x1, x3, x4, x5] +
rho3[x1 + x3, x2, x4, x5]
};
|
In[3]:=
|
BAroundB[x1, x2, x3, x4, x5] /. d2
|
Out[3]=
|
- rho3[x1, x2, x3, x4] + rho3[x1, x2, x3, x5] - rho3[x1, x2, x4, x5]
+ rho3[x1, x3, x4, x5] - rho3[x1 + x2, x3, x4, x5]
+ rho3[x1 + x3, x2, x4, x5] - rho3[x1 + x4, x2, x3, x5]
+ rho3[x1 + x5, x2, x3, x4]
|
In[4]:=
|
BAroundB[x1, x2, x3, x4, x5] /. d2 /. d1
|
Out[4]=
|
0
|
