The Jones Polynomial

KnotTheory`/Navigation  The Mathematica Package KnotTheory` Acknowledgement Setup Naming and Enumeration Presentations Planar Diagrams Some further details Gauss Codes DT (Dowker-Thistlethwaite) Codes Braid Representatives MorseLink Presentations Arc Presentations Conway Notation Graphical Input Graphical Output Drawing Planar Diagrams How does it work? Drawing MorseLink Presentations Drawing Braids Structure and Operations Invariants Invariants from Braid Theory Three Dimensional Invariants The Alexander-Conway Polynomial The Multivariable Alexander Polynomial The Determinant and the Signature The Jones Polynomial How is the Jones polynomial computed? The Coloured Jones Polynomials The A2 Invariant Quantum knot invariants The HOMFLY-PT Polynomial The Kauffman Polynomial Finite Type (Vassiliev) Invariants Khovanov Homology Heegaard Floer Knot Homology R-Matrix Invariants Extras Included with KnotTheory` Drawing with TubePlot Standalone_TubePlot Using the LinKnot package WikiLink QuantumGroups` Lightly Documented Features A Sample KnotTheory` Session Further Usage Example Prime Links with a Non-Prime Component "Rubberband" Brunnian Links Identifying Knots within a List Cabling Burau's Theorem Further Knot Theory Software KnotPlot Knotscape Xknots Extending/Modifying KnotTheory` Bugs How to Edit this Manual...

(For In[1] see Setup)

In Naming and Enumeration we checked that the knots 6_1 and 9_46 have the same Alexander polynomial. Their Jones polynomials are different, though:

The Jones polynomial attains values on the knots and links known to KnotTheory`:

How is the Jones polynomial computed?

The Jones polynomial is so simple to compute using Mathematica that it's worthwhile pause and see how this is done, even for readers with limited prior programming experience. First, recall (say from Kauffman) the definition of the Jones polynomial using the Kauffman bracket Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \la\cdot\ra} :

Failed to parse (unknown function "\la"): {\displaystyle \la\emptyset\ra=1; \qquad \la\bigcirc L\ra = (-A^2-B^2)\la L\ra; \qquad \la\slashoverback\ra = A\la\hsmoothing\ra + B\la\smoothing\ra; } Failed to parse (unknown function "\la"): {\displaystyle J(L) = \left.(-A^3)^{w(L)}\frac{\la L\ra}{\la\bigcirc\ra}\right|_{A\to q^{1/4}}, }

here $A$ is a commutative variable, $B=A^{-1}$, and $w(L)$ is the {\em writhe} of $L$, the difference $n_+-n_-$ where $n_+$ and $n_-$ count the positive ($\overcrossing$) and negative ($\undercrossing$) crossings of $L$ respectively.

\index{trefoil} Just for concreteness, let us start by fixing $L$ to be the trefoil knot (see Figure~\ref{fig:PDTrefoil}):

\begin{figure} \htmlimage{} \centering{

 \includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/PDTrefoil.eps}

} \caption{

 {\tt PD[X[1,4,2,5], X[3,6,4,1], X[5,2,6,3]]} and
 {\tt P[1,4] P[1,5] P[2,4] P[2,6] P[3,5] P[3,6]}.

} \label{fig:PDTrefoil} \end{figure}

Our first task is to perform the replacement $\la\slashoverback\ra \to A\la\hsmoothing\ra + B\la\smoothing\ra$ on all crossings of $L$. By our conventions (see Section~\ref{subsec:PD}) the edges around a crossing $X_{abcd}$ are labeled $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$: $\v^c_d\text{\large$\slashoverback$}\v_a^b$. Labeling $\hsmoothing$ and $\smoothing$ in the same way, $\v^c_d\text{\large$\hsmoothing$}\v_a^b$ and $\v^c_d\text{\large$\smoothing$}\v_a^b$, we are lead to the symbolic replacement rule $X_{abcd}\to AP_{ad}P_{bc}+BP_{ab}P_{cd}$. Let us apply this rule to $L$, switch to a multiplicative notation and expand:

In the above expression the product {\tt P[1,4] P[1,5] P[2,4] P[2,6] P[3,5] P[3,6]} represents a path in which {\tt 1} is connected to {\tt 4}, {\tt 1} is connected to {\tt 5}, {\tt 2} is connected to {\tt 4}, etc. (see Figure~\ref{fig:PDTrefoil}). We simplify such paths by repeatedly applying the rules $P_{ab}P_{bc}\to P_{ac}$ and $P^2_{ab}\to P_{aa}$:

To complete the computation of the Kauffman bracket, all that remains is to replace closed cycles (paths of the form $P_{aa}$ by $-A^2-B^2$, to replace $B$ by $A^{-1}$, and to simplify:

We could have, of course, combined the above four lines to a single very short program, that compues the Kauffman bracket from the beginning to the end:

We will skip the uninteresting code for the computation of the writhe here; it is a linear time computation, and if that's all we ever wanted to compute, we wouldn't have bothered to purchase a computer. For our $L$ the result is $-3$, and hence the Jones polynomial of $L$ is given by

\begin{figure} \htmlimage{} \centering{

 \includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/L11a548.eps}

} \caption{

 The link \hlink{../Links/11a548.html}{L11a548}.

} \end{figure}

%<* InOut@"Timing[KB0[PD[Link[11, Alternating, 548]]]]"; *>

At merely 3 lines of code, our program is surely nice and elegant. But at <* time1=Out[0]1,1 *> seconds for an 11 crossing link, it is very slow:

<* InOut[0] *> \vskip 6pt

Here's the much faster alternative employed by {\tt KnotTheory`}:

(So on the link \hlink{../Links/11a548.html}{L11a548} \verb"KB1" is $<*time1*>/<*time2=Out[0]1,1*>\sim<*Round[time1/time2]*>$ times faster than \verb"KB0".)

The idea here is to maintain a ``computation front, a planar domain which starts empty and gradualy increases until the whole link diagram is enclosed. Within the front, the rules defining the Kauffman bracket, Equation~\eqref{eq:KBDef}, are applied and the result is expanded as much as possible. Outside of the front the link diagram remains untouched. At every step we choose a crossing outside the front with the most legs inside and ``conquer it --- apply the rules of~\eqref{eq:KBDef} and expand again. As our new outpost is maximally connected to our old territory, the length of the boundary is increased in a minimal way, and hence the size of the ``web within our front remains as small as possible and thus quick to manipulate.

In further detail, the routine \verb"KB1[pd, inside, web]" computes the Kauffman bracket assuming the labels of the edges inside the front are in the variable {\tt inside}, the already-computed inside of the front is in the variable {\tt web} and the part of the link diagram yet untouched is {\tt pd}. The single argument \verb"KB1[pd]" simply calls \verb"KB1[pd, inside, web]" with an empty {\tt inside} and with {\tt web} set to 1. The three argument \verb"KB1[pd, inside, web]" finds the position of the crossing maximmally connected to the front using the somewhat cryptic assignment

\begin{verbatim}

 pos = First[Ordering[Length[Complement[List @@ #, inside]]& /@ pd]]}

\end{verbatim}

\noindent \verb"KB1[pd, inside, web]" then recursively calls itself with that crossing removed from {\tt pd}, with its legs added to the {\tt inside}, and with {\tt web} updated in accordance with~\eqref{eq:KBDef}. Finally, when {\tt pd} is empty, the output is simply the value of {\tt web}.