10 ms·
According to the actual paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.24088 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.24088), it has been an open conjecture since at least 1977. The quote
by awanderingmind 1y ago
According to the actual paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.24088 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.24088), it has been an open conjecture since at least 1977. The quote:
> Unknotting number has long been conjectured to be additive under
connected sum; this conjecture is implicit in the work of Wendt, in one
of the first systematic studies of unknotting number [37]. It is unclear
when and where this was first explicitly stated; most references to it
call it an ‘old conjecture’. It can be found in the problem list of Gordon
[13] from 1977 and in Kirby’s list [16].
'Additive' here means that if u(K1) is defined as the unknotting number of the knot K1, and u(K1#K2) the unknotting number of the knots K1 and K2 joined together, then u(K1#K2) = u(K1) + u(K2). It is this that has (assuming the paper is correct) been proven false. A deceptively simple property!
edit: I initially incorrectly had a ≤ sign instead of =
- magicalhippo 1y ago> 'Additive' here means that if u(K1) is defined as the unknotting number of the knot K1, and u(K1#K2) the unknotting number of the knots K1 and K2 joined together, then u(K1#K2) ≤ u(K1) + u(K2). Kinda like the triangle inequality[1] of knots? I recall the triangle inequality was useful for several cases in Uni, if so I guess I can see it might be a similarity useful inequality in knot theory. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_inequality
- awanderingmind 1y agoI incorrectly had a ≤ instead of =, my apologies.
- magicalhippo 1y agoAh, no worries. So strictly additive.