Tutte Polynomials of Signed Graphs and Jones Polynomials of Some Large Knots

Yuanan DIAO, Gabor HETYEI and Kenneth HINSON

ABSTRACT

It is well-known that the Jones polynomial of a knot is closely related to the Tutte polynomial of a special graph obtained from a regular projection of the knot. In this paper, we study the Tutte polynomials for signed graphs. We show that if a signed graph is constructed from a simpler graph via k-thickening or k-stretching, then its Tutte polynomial can be expressed in terms of the Tutte polynomial of the original graph, thus enabling us to compute the Jones polynomials for some (special) large non-alternating knots.

Mathematical Subject Classication 2000: 57M25 Keywords: knots, Jones polynomials, Tutte polynomials, Signed graphs. 1. Introduction A central issue in knot theory is to distinguish dierent knots from each other. For this purpose, various knot invariants have been developed and widely studied, among them are several well known knot polynomials such as the Jones polynomials and the Homy polynomials [19, 24]. Although none of the known knot polynomials is a complete knot invariant (a knot invariant is not complete if some distinct knots yield the same knot invariant), they still provide the most powerful tools in this task. Another dicult issue is to tabulate the knots. Traditionally, this is done according to the minimum crossing numbers of knots. For each given crossing number n, one has to go through all possible knot projections with n crossings. So far, knots and links up to 16 crossings have been completely tabulated [21], and alternating knots and links up to 19 crossings have been tabulated [29]. In recent years, knot theory has found many applications in elds such as biology, chemistry and physics. Many applications involve not only the topology, but also the geometry of knots and links. For a sample of such studies, see [1, 2, 6, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18]. One specic question is about the ropelength of a knot. Intuitively, this can be thought of as the minimum length required to tie a knot with a physical exible rope of unit radius (or diameter). For a more rigorous denition, see for example [12, 27]. The importance of this problem is obvious since knots and links are realized by rope-like materials in the real world (from shing net to circular DNA). For knots with a small crossing number, computer simulations may be used to nd the approximate values of the ropelengths. For large knots, this becomes impractical. Some

theoretical asymptotic studies have been carried out in this case and the best known result states that the ropelength of a knot with crossing number n is bounded above by O(n3/2 ) [14]. However, the knots with the longest known ropelengths (constructed in [13]) are realized with ropelengths linear in terms of their crossing numbers. This means that the general ropelength upper bound lies between O(n) and O(n3/2 ). This gap proves to be very hard to close, despite smaller upper bounds have been found for many large knot classes [9, 10] and some preliminary numerical studies indicate the O(n) may not be the universal upper bound [11]. In order to prove that the actual upper bound is less than O(n3/2 ), one needs to come up with new methods other than the one used in [14]. On the other hand, in order to prove that the general upper bound is larger than O(n), one would have to construct classes of knots and prove that they require ropelengths more than the linear order of their crossing numbers. A main diculty in constructing large knots is that if the knots are not alternating, then there are no readily usable tools to determine their crossing numbers in general. Although the breadth of the Jones polynomial provides a lower bound on the crossing number of a knot, the computation of it becomes increasingly dicult as the number of crossings in a knot diagram increases. Currently, for knot diagrams with thousands of crossings, it is simply not possible to compute their Jones polynomials using the existing programs and computers. This motivates the study of this paper. We would like to nd a way to compute the Jones polynomials for some special large non-alternating knots. In doing so, we can obtain a lower bound on the crossing numbers of these knots and hence may be able to use such knots in our ropelength study in the future. It is well-known that the Jones polynomial of a knot can be obtained from the Tutte polynomial of a special graph obtained from a regular projection of the knot [23, 25, 26]. In this paper, we will study the Tutte polynomials for signed graphs. We show that if a signed graph is constructed from a simpler graph via k-thickening or k-stretching, then its Tutte polynomial can be expressed in terms of the Tutte polynomial of the original graph, thus enabling us to compute the Jones polynomials for some (special) large non-alternating knots. In the next section, we will give some preliminaries on Tutte polynomials for signed graphs. In Section 3, we will derive a formula for the Tutte polynomial of a signed graph G when the graph is obtained from a simpler graph via stretching and thickening. In Section 4, we will use the connection between the Tutte polynomials and the Jones polynomials and some examples to show how the Jones polynomials of some non-alternating knots constructed from simpler knots may be computed. 2. Preliminaries In this section, we introduce the concept of Tutte polynomial for signed graph following closely to [25, 26], with some slight modication. This is mainly for the convenience of our reader. A more general and thorough treatment of Tutte polynomials for colored graphs can be found in [3].

Denition 1 Let G be a graph with edges labelled 1, 2, . . . , n, and let T be a spanning tree of G. An edge e of T is said to be internally active if the label of e is the smallest label of any edge

in G that connects the two components of T \ {e}. e is said to be internally inactive otherwise. On the other hand, an edge f of G \ T is said to be externally active if the label of f is the smallest label of any edge in the unique cycle contained in T {f }. Otherwise, f is said to be externally inactive.

Example 2 Figure 1 shows a graph with six edges and four vertices where a labelling of the edges is given. The edges of a spanning tree T are highlighted in the graph. With respect to the tree T , edges 1, 4 and 5 are internal edges and edges 2, 3 and 6 are external edges. Edge 1 is internally active since it has the smallest label, edge 4 is internally inactive since 4 is larger than 3 in the cycle 134. Edge 5 is also internally inactive since 5 is larger than 2 in the cycle 245. Edge 2 is externally active since 2 is the smallest in the cycle 245. Edge 3 is externally inactive since 3 is larger than 1 in the cycle 134 and edge 6 is apparently externally inactive since 6 is the largest of all the labels.
3

1 6 5

Figure 1: An example of labelled graph with a marked spanning tree.

Let G be a signed (and connected) graph, that is, each edge in G is assigned a + or sign. Let T be a spanning tree of G, for each edge e in G we will then assign one of the following variables to it according to the activities of e (with respect to the tree T ): sign of e + + + + activity internally active internally active externally active externally active internally inactive internally inactive externally inactive externally inactive variable assignment x+ x y+ y A+ A B+ B

Table 1: The variable assignment of an edge with respect to a spanning tree T .

Denition 3 Let G be a connected signed graph. For a spanning tree T r of G, let C(T r) be the product of the variable contributions from each edge of G according to the variable assignment above, then the Tutte polynomial T (G) is dened as the sum of all the C(T r)s over all possible spanning trees of G. Example 4 The graph given in Example 2 is assigned the signs as shown in Figure 2 below.
3

Figure 2: An example of signed and labelled graph with a marked spanning tree.

For the spanning tree shown in the gure, the total contributions of all the edges is easily calculated to be x+ y+ A+ A B+ B . The complete list of the spanning trees of G is given in Figure 3. We leave it for our reader to verify that the Tutte polynomial of G is
2 2 4x+ y+ A+ A B+ B + 2y+ A+ A2 B+ + 2x2 A+ B+ B + 2 2 2 2 + y + A 2 A B + x 2 A B + B + y + y A 2 A + x 2 x B + B + + + + 2 2 3 2 + y + A+ A2 B+ + y + A3 B + x + A2 B+ + x + A2 B+ B . + +

Notice that the Tutte polynomial dened this way is labelling dependent. To remedy the situation, we want to factor the polynomial ring Z[] := Z[A+ , A , B+ , B , x+ , x , y+ , y ] with an appropriate ideal I, such that the formula for T (G) in Z[]/I becomes labelling independent. An exact description of all such ideals (for a larger class of signed graphs) was given by Bollobs a and Riordan [3, Theorem 2]. (Here we state the two-colored version.) Theorem 5 (Bollobs-Riordan) Assume I is an ideal of Z[]. Then the homomorphic ima age of T (G) in Z[]/I is independent of the labelling of the edges of G if and only if det y det x det A + y+ A y A + y+ A y x+ B + x B y det x det det A+ B+ A B A+ B+ A B A + y+ A y I I, for {+, }, and for {+, }.

 




+ 1

2 +

  

Figure 3: The complete set of spanning trees of the graph given in Figure 1.

Bollobs and Riordan denote the ideal generated by the dierences listed in Theorem 5 by a I0 . The homomorphic image of T (G) in Z[]/I0 is the most general signed Tutte polynomial whose denition is independent of the labelling. In Section 4 we describe how to factor Z[] by an ideal properly containing I0 to get the Jones polynomial. To simplify our calculations, we want to replace I0 with a larger ideal I1 in such a way that the eect of certain operations of signed graphs is still describable in terms of Tutte polynomials (as elements of Z[]/I 1 ). We will keep our calculations as simple as possible since we want to obtain a homomorphic image in an integral domain, and send A+ , A , B+ , B , x+ , x , y+ , and y into nonzero entries at the end. Inspired by [3, Corollary 3] we make the following denition. Denition 6 We consider the signed Tutte polynomial to be an element of Z[]/I 1 where I1 is the ideal generated by det x+ B + x B det A+ B+ A B and det A+ B+ A B det A + y+ A y .

Clearly I1 properly contains I0 so our Tutte polynomial is labelling independent. Finally, since the Tutte polynomial is labelling independent under our conditions, it is easy to see that we have the following recursive formula T (G) = B T (G\e) + A T (G/e), (1)

where e is any given edge of G with sign , G\e is the graph obtained from G by deleting e and G/e is the graph obtained from G by contracting e.

tu

|} P|

srsr

vw

{ zP Pz{

~ ~P P~~ P

P P P P

jk

xy

P P

P P P P

P P P P

tu



pq

lm

i hP Phi

de Pd P

P P P

no

fg Pf

fgPf Y XP PXY

P Q IP PIQ

P AB

34 xy

vw

#$

%& !"

s rP Prs
5 2

q pP Ppq

e hi dP Ph Pde

bc Pb

`a VP P` PVW W

TU PT

RS PR GH

EF

CD

9@

78

56

12

)0

'( 

3. The Tutte Polynomials of Stretched and Thickened Signed Graphs Denition 7 Let G be a signed graph. The positive (negative) k-stretch of G is the graph G+ (k ) (G (k )) obtained by replacing each positive (negative) edge in G by a path of length k such that each new edge in the path has also positive (negative) sign. The positive (negative) kthickening of G is the graph G+ (k ) (G (k )) obtained by replacing each positive (negative) edge in G by k parallel edges (connecting the same vertices incident to the edge being replaced), such that each new edge in the path is also of positive (negative) sign. For unsigned graphs (corresponding to alternating knots), formulas for the k-thickening and k-stretch may be found in [5][Lemma 6.3.24], [23][(7.2) and (7.3)], and [22][(3.8) and (3.10)]. Our rst result is close to this known case and the proof we present could be used with little change to prove the old result. We could not nd a similar argument in the literature, which is surprising since this proof is closest to Tuttes original reasoning about internal and external activities. Theorem 8 Consider all signed Tutte polynomials as elements of Z . Let G be a connected and signed graph and let us x a labelling of the edges of G. Rene this labelling to labellings of G+ (k ), G+ (k ), G (k ) and G (k ) in such a way that each label associated to an edge e in G is replaced by k consecutive labels of the k edges replacing e in G + (k ), G+ (k ), G (k ) and G (k ). Then T (G+ (k ); A , A+ , B , B+ , x , x+ , y , y+ ) =
k1 T G; A , Ak , B , B+ x+ A+ , x , xk , y , A+ y+ + + + + + xk Ak xk1 Ak1 + + B + x+ x+ A+

(2)

T (G (k ); A , A+ , B , B+ , x , x+ , y , y+ ) =
k1 T G; Ak , A+ , B x A , B+ , xk , x+ , A y + xk Ak xk1 Ak1 B x , y + x A

(3)

T (G+ (k ); A , A+ , B , B+ , x , x+ , y , y+ ) =
k1 k T G; A , A+ y+ B+ , B , B+ , x , B+ x+ + + + y k B k
k1 k1 y+ B+ k A + y+ , y , y + y+ B+

(4)

T (G (k ); A , A+ , B , B+ , x , x+ , y , y+ ) =
k1 k T G; A y B , A+ , B , B+ , B x + y k B k
k1 k1 y B k A y , x + , y , y + y B

(5)

Note that all Tutte polynomials above depend on the labellings chosen, since we have not factored by any relation among our letters. For the sake of convenience for later use, we list the substitutions in the theorem in the following table. Proof. Each positive edge e of G is replaced by a path of k consecutive edges e1 , . . . , ek in G (k ). Consider a xed spanning tree of G+ (k ). This must contain at least k 1 elements
+

x+ y+ A+ B+ x+ y+ A+ B+

xk1 Ak1 k1 A+ y+ + + + A+ B+ x+ x + Ak + xk Ak + B+ x+ A+ +

Positive k-Stretching xk +

x y A B x y A B

Negative k-Stretching xk
k1 A y + xk1 Ak1 B x x A k A xk Ak B x A
k1 k1 y B A y y B k y k k y B A y B k B

Positive k-Thickening
k1 B + x+ +
k1 k1 y+ B+

Negative k-Thickening
k1 B x +

y+ B+ y k B k k y+

A + y+

+ + A+ y+ B+ k B+

Table 2: The variable substitutions in the Tutte polynomial of a signed graph under the kstretching and k-thickening operations. of the set {e1 , . . . , ek }. Let us call a positive edge e of G selected if all elements {e1 , . . . , ek } belong to the spanning tree of G+ (k ), otherwise call it not selected. For negative edges of G (which are also edges of G+ (k )) call an edge selected or not selected depending on whether they belong to our xed spanning tree of G+ (k ). It is easy to see that the selected edges of G must form a spanning tree of G. Conversely, each spanning tree of G+ (k ) may be uniquely determined by making the following sequence of decisions: (i) Select a spanning tree of selected edges in G; (ii) For each unselected positive edge e pick exactly one of {e1 , . . . , ek } to be not a part of the corresponding spanning tree of G+ (k ). The signed Tutte polynomial G+ (k ) is a sum of terms over all spanning trees of G+ (k ). We may group these trees by the selection made in step (i) and thus obtain a sum over the spanning trees of G. Let us x one spanning tree of G and calculate the contribution of each edge e to this sum. It is not hard to verify that negative edges have the same attributes (internal/external and active/inactive) in both G and G+ (k ). Hence when we calculate T (G+ (k )) from T (G) we may leave the negative letters unchanged. The interesting changes occur in the contribution of the positive edges. Consider rst an internally active positive edge in G (contributing a factor of x + to a term in T (G)). This is replaced by k edges, which are all internally active in all corresponding spanning trees G+ (k ). Hence each letter x+ in T (G) needs to be replaced with a term xk in +

T (G+ (k )). Similarly, internally inactive positive edges are replaced with k edges which are all internally inactive in all corresponding spanning trees of G+ (k ). Hence each letter A+ in T (G) needs to be replaced with a term Ak in T (G+ (k )). + Describing the change in the contribution of an external positive edge e is more complex. We have k choices to mark exactly one element of {e1 , . . . , ek } as not part of the spanning tree of G+ (k ) and, correspondingly, each letter B+ and y+ in T (G) will have to be replaced by some sum of k terms to get T (G+ (k )). Assume that e is externally inactive in G, the labels of e1 , . . . , ek increase in this order, and consider the contribution of those spanning trees of G+ (k ) in which ei is missing from the tree. It is easy to see that the edges e1 , . . . , ei1 are internally active, ei is externally inactive, the remaining ei+1 , . . . , ek are internally inactive in ki G+ (k ). Thus we obtain a contribution of xi1 B+ A+ . Summing over i yields that each letter + B+ needs to be replaced with a factor of B+ x+ A+ to get T (G+ (k )). + + Consider nally the change in the contribution of an externally active positive edge of G. This case is similar to the externally inactive one, the only dierence being that e i is externally active in T (G+ (k )) if and only if i = 1. Summing over i yields that each letter y+ needs to
k1 be replaced with a factor of A+ y+ + xk1 Ak1 + + B + x+ x+ A+ xk Ak

to get T (G+ (k )).

The proofs of equations (3), (4) and (5) are similar and are left to the reader. Remark 9 It should be noted that equation (4) is the dual of (2) in the sense that replacing each graph with its dual, while leaving the signs of the edges unchanged, induces replacing k-stretch with k-thickening, swapping the letter x with y and swapping the letter A with B where {, +}. Hence, for planar graphs, equation (4) is also a consequence of (2). In general, one would need to observe that our proof may be repeated without substantial change for matroids. Theorem 8 suggests to consider the following endomorphisms of the polynomial ring Z[]. + The operator k : Z[] Z[] sends the negative letters into themselves, A+ into Ak , B+ into +
k1 + + B+ x+ A+ , x+ into xk , and y+ into A+ y+ + + xk Ak xk1 Ak1 + + B + x+ . x+ A+ + The operator k : Z[] Z[] y k B k
+ + k also sends the negative letters into themselves, and it sends A+ into A+ y+ B+ , B+ into B+ , x+

k1 k into B+ x+ + +y+ B+ A+ y+ , and y+ into y+ . If T (G) Z[] is a signed Tutte polynomial for + + any xed labelling of the edges of G then, by Theorem 8, k (T (G)) is a signed Tutte polynomial + + of T (G (k )) and k (T (G)) is a signed Tutte polynomial of T (G+ (k )). Unfortunately, we may be given a polynomial whose congruence class modulo I1 is T (G) without this polynomial arising as a signed Tutte polynomial for any xed labelling. This will not lead to inconsistency, because of the following fact of algebra.

y k1 B k1

+ + Theorem 10 Let I1 be ideal given in Denition 6. Then the endomorphisms k and k take I1 into itself.

+ + Proof. We show the statement for k only, the proof for k may be obtained by swapping the letter x with y and swapping the letter A with B , where {, +}. It is sucient to + show that k takes the generators of I1 into I1 . Thus we want to show that

det

+ + k (x+ ) k (B+ ) + + k (x ) k (B )

= det

+ + k (A+ ) k (B+ ) + + k (A ) k (B ) xk Ak

= det

+ + k (A+ ) k (y+ ) + + k (A ) k (y )

i.e.,

det

xk B+ x+ A+ + + + x B

xk Ak

= det

Ak B+ x+ A+ + + + A B

= det

Ak Ak1 y+ + + + A y

xk1 Ak1 + + B + x+ x+ A+

holds in Z[]/I1 . The dierence of the rst two determinants is B (xk Ak ) B+ + + which is a multiple of B (x+ A+ ) B+ (x A ) = det x+ B + x B det A+ B+ A B I1 . xk A k xk A k + + + (x A ) = + (B (x+ A+ ) B+ (x A )) x+ A + x+ A +

The dierence of the second and third determinants is

k1 xk A k xk1 A+ + + k1 A + y+ + + B + x+ x+ A + x+ A + k1 B+ xk B+ Ak A+ x+ y+ + Ak y+ B+ xk Ak1 B+ x+ + + + + + = Ak (B y ) A + x+ A + k1 B+ A+ x+ y+ + A+ y+ B+ x+ = Ak (B y ) A A+ + x+ A + k k1 = A+ (B y ) A A+ (B+ y+ )

Ak (B y ) A B+ +

k1 which is the A+ -multiple of

A+ (B y ) A (B+ y+ ) = det

A+ B+ A B

det

A + y+ A y

+ + Corollary 11 The endomorphisms k and k induce endomorphisms of the ring Z[]/I1 .

Example 12 For the two simple signed graphs G and H with the given labelling shown in Figure 4 below, we have T (G) = x+ B + y+ A and T (H) = y+ y . It follows that T (G (k )) =
+

x k B +

k1 (A+ y+

k1 k1 x+ A + B+ x+ )A + x+ A +

and
k1 T (H + (k )) = (A+ y+ +

k1 k1 x+ A + B+ x+ )y . x+ A +

Thus for the signed graphs G and H shown in Figure 4 (under the given labelling), we have T (G ) = xk B + and
k1 T (H ) = (A+ y+ + k1 xm A m xk1 A+ k1 + (A+ y+ + + B+ x+ )Am x A x+ A + k1 k1 m1 x+ A + xm1 A B+ x+ )(Am1 y + B x ). x+ A + x A

(6)

(7)

+ 1 2 G 2 . . .+ . .

H . .. . + .

k k+m .

k+1 k+2 . . . . G

2 1 k k+1 k+m k+2 .. . . . H

Figure 4: Two simple signed graphs and the signed stretches obtained from them. The Tutte polynomials of more complicated graphs obtained from G and H via thickening can be similarly obtained in this manner.

4. Converting the Tutte Polynomials into Jones Polynomials The rst task is to obtain a signed graph from a knot projection. From a knot K, we rst shade the regions in its projection either white or dark in a checkerboard fashion, so that no two dark regions are adjacent, and no two white regions are adjacent. We consider the innite region surrounding the knot projection to be white. Note that as we move diagonally over a knot crossing, we go from a white region to a white region, or from a dark region to a dark region. Next we let the dark regions in our projection correspond to vertices in a planar graph G, and we let the knot crossings correspond to edges in G. So if we can move diagonally over a knot crossing from one dark region to another, then these two dark regions and the crossing will be represented in G as two vertices connected by an edge. Note that we may obtain parallel edges from some knot projections. Now we have our unsigned graph. To obtain the signed version, we look at each crossing in the knot projection. If, after the upper strand passes over the lower, the dark region is to the left of the upper strand, then we denote this

as a positive crossing. If the dark region is to the right of the upper strand, we denote it as a negative crossing. Then our signed graph is obtained by marking each edge of G with the same sign as the crossing of K to which it corresponds. See Figure 5 for an example. The following theorem is due to Kauman [25, 26]. Theorem 13 Let G be the graph obtained from a knot diagram D of K as described above, then T (G) equals the Kauman bracket polynomial K under the following variable substitutions: x+ A3 , x A3 , y+ A3 , y A3 A+ A, A A1 , B+ A1 , B A. Furthermore, the Jones polynomial VK (t) of K can be obtained from VK (t) = (A3 )w(K) K by setting A = t 4 , where w(K) is the writhe of the projection D. Using Theorems 8 and 13, we are able to compute the Jones polynomials for some large non-alternating knots. We will demonstrate this by a few examples. We will rst do this for a small knot so we can compare our result with the direct computation result using an existing software. We will then do this for a much larger knot beyond the capacity of the existing programs. Our rst knot is the one shown in Figure 5. In this projection diagram, we see 19 crossings (10 positive and 9 negative with respect to the shaded regions). The corresponding signed graph G of this diagram (using the shaded regions in the gure as the vertices) is shown in the gure as well.
4 + 5 + 6 + 19 + 13 _ 14 _ _ 15
1

(8)

1 2 + 3 + _ _ _ 11 12 10 +

+ + + _ _ _ 16 17 18 9

Figure 5: A 19 crossing knot diagram and its corresponding signed graph G. Denote the edge labelled by 19 in the gure by e. Let G\e be the graph obtained from G by deleting e and let G/e be the graph obtained from G by contracting e, that is, the vertices

1 2 + 3 + _ _ _ 11 12 10 +

4 + 5 + 6 +

+ + + + _ _ _ 16 17 18 9 8 7 13

46

79

13 _ 14 _ _ 15 G\e

1012 _ 1315 G/e

1618

Figure 6: The graphs obtained from the graph G in Figure 5 by deletion and contraction.

incident to e are identied as one single vertex after e is removed. See Figure 6. By the recursive formula (1), we have T (G) = B+ T (G\e) + A+ T (G/e). Notice that G\e and G/e can be obtained by thickening the graphs G and H in Example 12 (for the case of k = 3). This means we need to make the following substitutions in T (G ) and T (H ): A A+ B B+ x x+ y y+
2 2 A (y + y B + B ) = A7 A3 + A, 2 2 A+ (y+ + y+ B+ + B+ ) = A7 A3 + A1 , 3 B = A3 , 3 B+ = A3 , 2 B x + (y + B )A y = A7 A3 A5 , 2 B+ x+ + (y+ + B+ )A+ y+ = A7 A3 A5 , 3 y = A9 , 3 y+ = A9
1

according to Theorems 8 and 13. After substituting t 4 for A in Equation (8) (with w(K) = 1), we obtain VK (t) = t10 (1 4t + 12t2 26t3 + 49t4 74t5 + 96t6 112t7 + 110t8 97t9 + 77t10 47t11 + 23t12 8t13 2t14 + 3t15 t16 + t17 ). This matches the computation result obtained by using Knotscape [20]. Let us now calculate the Jones polynomials for some larger knots constructed in a manner similar to the last example by modifying the knot in Figure 5 into k groups of k positive twists and k groups of k negative twists for some odd positive integer k. (The example we just did is the case k = 3.) Use the facts that the writhe of the knot is 1, K = T (G) = B+ T (G\e) + A+ T (G/e) = A1 T (G\e) + AT (G/e)

and that T (G\e) and T (G/e) can be computed from T (G ) and T (H ) by the following substitutions A A+ B B+
k k y B (A3 )k Ak A , = y B A2 + A2 k y k B+ (A3 )k Ak A+ + , = y+ B + A2 + A2 k B = Ak , k B+ = Ak ,

k1 x B x +

x+ y y+

k1 k1 y B (A3 )k1 Ak1 , A y = Ak+2 + y B A + A5 k1 k1 y+ B + (A3 )k1 A(k1) k1 , A+ y+ = A(k+2) + B+ x+ + y+ B + A1 + A5 k y = A3k , 3 y+ = A3k .

For k = 5, we have VK (t) = + + + t26 (1 6t + 26t2 91t3 + 275t4 737t5 + 1796t6 4021t7 + 8366t8 16284t9 29818t10 51606t11 + 84676t12 132106t13 + 196368t14 278544t15 + 377546t16 489336t17 + 606846t18 720177t19 + 817720t20 887911t21 + 920952t22 911068t23 857489t24 765053t25 + 643579t26 505933t27 + 366267t28 237242t29 + 128459t30 45354t31 11121t32 + 43431t33 56574t34 + 56418t35 48576t36 + 37646t37 26696t38 + 17478t39 10594t40 + 5941t41 3081t42 + 1466t43 637t44 250t45 86t46 + 26t47 6t48 + t49 ).

For k = 7, we have VK (t) = + + + + + + t50 (1 8t + 43t2 183t3 + 666t4 2157t5 + 6370t6 17425t7 + 44654t8 108067t9 248536t10 545847t11 + 1149387t12 2328122t13 + 4548764t14 8593271t15 15728483t16 27941544t17 + 48253003t18 81115378t19 + 132896097t20 212430488t21 331612373t22 505966329t23 + 755122019t24 1103084529t25 + 1578177868t26 2212528476t27 + 3040964638t28 4099238067t29 + 5421525110t30 7037249318t31 8967357925t32 11220302612t33 + 13788073932t34 16642729060t35 + 19733901580t36 22987768175t37 + 26307888783t38 29578176531t39 + 32668072879t40 35439739995t41 37756834115t42 39494183464t43 + 40547500331t44 40842187270t45 + 40340281916t46 39044758086t47 + 37000613964t48 34292527561t49 + 31039223375t50 27385045791t51 23489568932t52 19516242140t53 + 15621197678t54 11943255900t55 + 8596013866t56

 + + +

5662618702t57 + 3193491734t58 1206952613t59 307642091t60 + 1384824407t61 2076750500t62 + 2446499548t63 2561637408t64 + 2488610216t65 2288339306t66 2013210200t67 1705443587t68 + 1396707072t69 1108711902t70 + 854497057t71 640099923t72 + 466343256t73 330533561t74 + 227925671t75 152882699t76 99711533t77 63198913t78 + 38898252t79 23227709t80 + 13441772t81 7528452t82 4074514t83 2126998t84 + 1068635t85 515390t86 + 237854t87 104637t88 + 43667t89 17180t90 + 6321t91 2150t92 + 666t93 183t94 + 43t95 8t96 + t97 ).

For k = 9, the polynomial is too large to list, so we only list a few terms below: VK (t) = t82 (1 10t + 64t2 319t3 + 1345t4 5008t5 + + 20193935024459t97 101497138129454t98 + 5008t156 + 1345t157 319t158 + 64t159 10t160 + t161 ). 5. Ending Remarks and Acknowledgement In the examples of the last section, we computed the Jones polynomials for knots with up to 163 crossings in the diagram. The computation for the 163 crossing example took about 15 minutes on a PC using Maple. Some quick observations from the polynomials of the examples in the last section: The knots constructed this way are non-alternating since the Jones polynomials are not alternating. It follows that the crossing numbers of these knots (at least for the ones we have computed above) are at least 2k 2 since the breadth of the polynomials is 2k 2 1 and the crossing number of a non-alternating knot is strictly larger than the breadth of its Jones polynomial. Notice that starting from a simple signed graph G, there are many dierent ways to obtain a more complicated graph by choosing dierent numbers and orders for the stretching and thickening operations. So knots with structures more complicated than the ones in last section may be constructed. For example, we may replace each positive sequence of the three twists in Figure 5 by 2k1 + 1 consecutive twists and make the total number of such twists to be 2k2 + 1. Similarly, we may replace each negative sequence of the three twists in Figure 5 by 2k 3 + 1 consecutive twists and make the total number of such twists to be 2k4 + 1. This way we obtain a four parameter knot family. Finally, we point out that it is possible to generalize our result so that the positive (negative) edges of G can be replaced by an entire new graph (with both positive and negative edges) using the graph tensor products (see Brylawski [4] and Brylawski and Oxley [5]). This will be done in a future work. Acknowledgement. This work was supported in part by NSF Grant #DMS-0310562 to Y. Diao. G. Hetyei is on leave from the Rnyi Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. e

References
[1] G. Arteca, Scaling regimes of molecular size and self-entanglements in very compact proteins, Physics Review E. 51 (1995), 26002610. [2] G. Arteca, Self-similarity in entanglement complexity along the backbones of compact proteins, Physics Review E. 56 (1997), 45164520. [3] B. Bollobs and O. Riordan, A Tutte Polynomial for Coloured Graphs, Combinatorics, a Probability and Computing 8 (1999), 4593. [4] T. Brylawski, The Tutte Polynomial I: General theory, in: Matroid Theory and its Applications, ed. A. Barlotti, Liguori Editore, S.r.I, 1982, 125275. [5] Brylawski and Oxley, The Tutte Polynomial and its Applications, Matroid Applications (ed. N. White), Cambridge University Press (1992), 123225. [6] J. Calvo and K. Millett, Minimal Edge Piecewise Linear Knots, Ideal Knots, Ser. Knots Everything 19, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ (1998), 107128. [7] J. Cantarella, R.B. Kusner and J.M. Sullivan, On the minimum ropelength of knots and links, Invention Mathematicae 150(2) (2002), 257286. [8] Y. Diao, The Knotting of Equilateral Polygons in R3 , Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramications 4(2) (1995), 189196. [9] Y. Diao and C. Ernst, Hamiltonian Cycles and Ropelengths of Conway Algebraic Knots, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramications 15 (2006), 121142. [10] Y. Diao and C. Ernst, Ropelengths of Closed Braids, Topology and its Applications, 154 (2007), 491501. [11] Y. Diao, C. Ernst, R. Kavuluru and U. Ziegler, Numerical Upper Bounds on Ropelengths of Large Physical Knots, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 39 (2006), 48294843. [12] Y. Diao, C. Ernst and E.J. Janse van Rensburg, Thicknesses of Knots, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 126 (1999), 293310. [13] Y. Diao, C. Ernst and M. Thistlethwaite, The linear growth in the length of a family of thick knots, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramications 12 (2003), 709715. [14] Y. Diao, C. Ernst and X. Yu, Hamiltonian Knot Projections and Lengths of Thick Knots, Topology and its Applications 136 (2004), 736. [15] Y. Diao, N. Pippenger and D.W. Sumners, On random knots, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramications 3(3) (1994), 419429. [16] M. Doi and S.F. Edwards, The theory of polymer dynamics, Oxford University Press, 1986.

[17] S.F. Edwards, Statistical Mechanics with Topological Constraints I, Proc. Phys. Soc. 91 (1967), 513519. [18] S.F. Edwards, Statistical Mechanics with Topological Constraints II, Journal of Physics A (Proc. Phys. Soc.) 1 (1968), 1528. [19] P. Freyd, D. Yetter, J. Hoste, W.B.R. Lickorish, K. Millett, A. Oceanu, A new polynomial invariant for knots and links, Bulletin (New Series) of the American Mathematical Society 12 (1985), 239246. [20] J. Hoste and M. Thistlethwaite, Knotscape, a software designed for computing various knot invariants, available at http://www.math.utk.edu/morwen/knotscape.html. [21] J. Hoste, M. Thistlethwaite and J. Weeks, The First 1,701,936 Knots, Mathematics Intelligencer 20 (1998), 3348. [22] S. Huggett, On tangles and matroids, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramications 14 (2005), 919929. [23] F. Jaeger, D.L. Vertigan and D.J.A. Welsh, On the Computational Complexity of the Jones and Tutte Polynomials, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 108 (1990), 3553. [24] V.F.R. Jones, A Polynomial Invariant for Knots via Von Neumann Algebras, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 12 (1985), 103111. [25] L.H. Kauman, New Invariants in the Theory of Knots, American Mathematical Monthly 95(3) (1988), 195242. [26] L.H. Kauman, A Tutte Polynomial for Signed Graphs, Discrete Applied Mathematics 25 (1989), 105127. [27] R. Litherland, J. Simon, O. Durumeric, and E. Rawdon, Thickness of Knots, Topology and its Applications, 91(3) (1999), 233244. [28] M.B. Thistlethwaite, On the Kauman Polynomial of an Adequate Link, Invention Mathematicae 93 (1988), 285296. [29] M.B. Thistlethwaite, Prime Unoriented Alternating Links to 19 Crossings, avaible at http://www.math.utk.edu/morwen/png/link stats.png. [30] W.T. Tutte, A contribution to the Theory of Chromatic polynomials, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 6 (1954), 8091. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, UNC Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA ydiao@uncc.edu, ghetyei@uncc.edu, kehinson@uncc.edu