MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111435919 · doi:10.1090/s0002-9947-02-03022-2

On the crossing number of positive knots and braids and braid index criteria of Jones and Morton-Williams-Franks

2002· article· en· W2111435919 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Mathematical Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsBraidMathematicsCounterexampleCrossing number (knot theory)Knot (papermaking)ConjectureBraid theoryAlexander polynomialCombinatoricsSkein relationHOMFLY polynomialKnot theoryBraid groupPure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsPolynomialMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We give examples of knots with some unusual properties of the crossing number of positive diagrams or strand number of positive braid representations. In particular, we show that positive braid knots may not have positive minimal (strand number) braid representations, giving a counterpart to results of Franks-Williams and Murasugi. Other examples answer questions of Cromwell on homogeneous and (partially) of Adams on almost alternating knots. We give a counterexample to, and a corrected version of, a theorem of Jones on the Alexander polynomial of 4-braid knots. We also give an example of a knot on which all previously applied braid index criteria fail to estimate sharply (from below) the braid index. A relation between (generalizations of) such examples and a conjecture of Jones that a minimal braid representation has unique writhe is discussed. Finally, we give a counterexample to Morton’s conjecture relating the genus and degree of the skein polynomial.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it