←back to thread

141 points baruchel | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
argomo ◴[] No.45123645[source]
Maybe the article is dumbing it down too much, but the conclusion seems unsurprising. Why shouldn't a single unknotting do double-duty in some cases?

It feels akin to the classic trick of joining a tetrahedron to a square pyramid: 4 faces + 5 faces == 5 faces total!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rXIzUtLG2jE

replies(5): >>45124043 #>>45124146 #>>45125679 #>>45125739 #>>45126466 #
awanderingmind ◴[] No.45124146[source]
According to the actual paper (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 =

replies(1): >>45124611 #
magicalhippo ◴[] No.45124611[source]
> '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

replies(1): >>45124712 #
awanderingmind ◴[] No.45124712{3}[source]
I incorrectly had a ≤ instead of =, my apologies.
replies(1): >>45128079 #
1. magicalhippo ◴[] No.45128079{4}[source]
Ah, no worries. So strictly additive.