When
I was a child, my grandfather’s house had a sun porch/library. Since he was an amateur sailor, a lot of the
books were nautical in nature, but one in particular drew my attention. Called simply The Book of Knots by
Clifford W. Ashley, it illustrated the tying and documented the history and
uses of something like 4000 knots. The
book has passed through the generations, and I now have the book and still
enjoy trying a new knot.
Within
the pages of that book are a few cryptic comments, such as:
…The Law of the Common Divisor is
quite simple. For example, within the
limits of twenty-four leads and twenty-four bights there are 576
combinations. Of these combinations, 240
have a common divisor and cannot be tied as a Turk’s-Head, and 366 have no
common divisor and can be tied. If a
knot is attempted in one cord with dimensions that posses a common divisor, the
working end and the standing end will meet before the desired knot is
complete…(Ashley, p.233)
These
made me ponder the rules governing knots, and develop an interest in knot
theory
My
mother, also a math teacher, likes to quote “everything comes back to
math.” I don’t know if she’s right, but
there is a branch of Mathematics, which deals with knots. Knot theory, technically a branch of
Topology, tries to understand what knots can be tied, if two knots are unique
and all other questions related to knots in space.
The origins of knot theory go back to early attempts to understand atomic structure. The School of Mathematics of the University of Wales, Bangor offers the following information on their website:
…A theory of the atom had to explain:
·
The stability of atoms.
·
The variety of atoms, as shown by the periodic table of
elements.
·
The vibrational properties of atoms, as shown by their
spectral lines.
Lord Kelvin had seen smoke rings of
his physicist friend P.G. Tait, and was impressed by their stability, and
vibrational properties. He had a vision of atoms as vortices in space. How to
explain the variety of atoms? In 1867,
Kelvin presented a paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, in which he wrote:
Models of knotted and linked vortex atoms were presented to the Society, the
infinite variety of which is more than sufficient to explain the allotropies
and affinities of all known matter. So
Tait set about preparing a list of knots, to see if there was a relation with
the elements in the periodic table. The vortex theory of the atom soon
disappeared, but Tait's 10 years of work on his list of knots of up to 10 crossings
and the conjectures he made (some of which have been proved only recently) have
been an inspiration ever since. Further, the idea of relations between knots
and fundamental properties of matter is being shown to have a continuing force.
-
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/cpm/exhib/aether.htm
It is interesting that Science, and Physics in particular, are now returning to this previously abandoned theory for explanations, not of atomic structure, but certain elements of string and quantum theory, statistical mechanics and DNA patterns. We will discuss these applications presently.
Knots,
as perceived in knot theory, are defined a little differently than what might
be shown in the Boy Scout Handbook.
A partial catalog of knots appears in Appendix A.
“A
knot is a closed, one dimensional,
and non-intersecting curve in three dimensional space. From a more mathematical
and set-theoretic standpoint, a knot is a homeomorphism
that maps a circle into three dimensional space and cannot be reduced to the unknot
by an ambient
isotopy.” http://library.thinkquest.org/12295/main.html
The “unknot”, referred to above, is the simplest of the items considered in knot theory. It consists of a single loop, a string with the ends tied together. In knot theory, the ends are generally tied together to avoid questions of what happens at the ends, and to ensure that parts of the knot don’t spill off the ends.
All illustrations from http://www.bangor.ac.uk/cpm/exhib/menu.htm unless otherwise noted.



Unknot Trefoil Figure 8
The next simplest knot is the Trefoil. This three-leafed shape is simply the old Boy Scout “overhand knot”, again with the ends joined. Taking a “figure-8” knot and joining the ends results in a closed figure called, appropriately, a figure-8 knot.
Quantifying
the differences between the unknot and the trefoil, or other knots, is one of
the main objectives of knot theory. The
easiest way to do this is by counting the number of times that a strand crosses
over another strand. In the trefoil,
there are three places where a strand passes over another. Consequently the trefoil has a crossing
number of three. The figure-8 knot has
a crossing number of 4. Appendix A
shows a catalog of knots up to 9 crossings.
We can demonstrate that these knots do exist, by a procedure called tri-coloration. If a knot is tri-colorable, then at every crossing no two strands share the same color. The trefoil at the right is tri-colorable. Since the unknot is not tri-colorable, a theorem of knot theory assures us that the trefoil is unique from the unknot, therefore the set of knots has at least two elements.
Traditionally, it was very difficult to demonstrate that two knots were actually the same knot or unique. The only real option was to take the knot in question, tied in string, and try to twist it, pull it or deform it into the other. As an example of the potential complexity of this task, consider the knots below. The first deforms into the unknot with the right combination of twists and inversions. They are, therefore, the same knot.

In 1928, a J. Alexander developed a technique employing linear algebra and polynomials to further characterize knots. Called the Alexander polynomial, this technique uses a matrix to represent the strands and crossings of the knot. Each crossing is represented by a row, while columns represent strands. Taking the determinant of the matrix, leaving out the last row and column, yields this polynomial.
Determining the elements of the matrix can be tricky, but I find the easiest way is to turn the diagram of the knot as if you were a car driving on the “road” of the knot. This is referred to as orienting the knot. Number the strands as you would come to them. Every time you go over a “bridge”, number that as the next crossing and make a new row of the matrix. For each crossing (row), the strand (column) that is crossing over is filled with 1-t. The strand on the left gets a –1 and the strand on the right gets a t.
For example, let us begin with the trefoil. Starting on the blue strand we would cross over at c1. For the first row of the matrix, strand 1 is crossing over so the first column is filled with 1-t. On the left is strand 2, so the second column is filled with –1. On the right is strand 3, so column 3 gets a t. As we continue “driving” around the knot, we cross under at c3, which we don’t consider, and are now on strand 2. At c2 we form another row. This continues until we arrive at the matrix shown below. Strike the last row and column, and take the determinant.

The Alexander polynomial is useful for determining whether two knots are actually the same or different. Calculating the Alexander polynomial on the knot below shows that it is a disguised trefoil. With a piece of string this is easily seen for the Trefoil, but it can be much more difficult with more complicated knots.



A theorem of knot theory states “If the Alexander polynomial for a knot is computed using two different sets of choices for diagrams and labelings, the two polynomials will differ by a multiple of ±tk, for some integer k. (Livingston, p. 50)”. Since the three polynomials are the same, with the allowed multiple of a power of t, all three of these knots are different versions of the same knot.
Comparing these with the figure-8 knot, the next in complexity, the polynomial is different – not a ±tk multiple of the other polynomials. This assures that the figure-8 knot is fundamentally different from the trefoil, and no amount of twisting or turning or pulling can transform one into the other. This is also obvious since the figure-8 knot is not tri-colorable, while all versions of the trefoil knot are tri-colorable.


The algebraic concept of a group involves elements of a nonempty set and an operation. The elements of the set shall be the knots, some of which are illustrated here. The set of knots has already been shown to be nonempty. The operation shall be “addition” as shown in the figure below.

(It
is understood the figures and comments below are not a proof of anything, but
merely hand waving visualizations of one instance of the property.) Herstein’s definition “a nonempty set G is
said to be a group if in G there is defined an operation *”, requires the
following four points:
a) Closure - a,b Î G Þ a * b Î G.
If we join two or more knots as described above, it is unlikely we will end up with a car or a house or anything else – it’s probably going to be a knot.
b) Associativity – Given a, b, c Î G, then a * (b * c) = (a * b) * c
![]()

c) Existence of an identity - $ a special element e Î G | a * e = e * a = a " a Î G
The identity is the unknot.

K + 0 = K
d) Existence of an inverse - " a Î G $ a special element b Î G | a * b = b * a = e.
Initially I believed this would be a triviality. This necessary property, however, has turned out to be much more elusive than I imagined, even for the relatively simple trefoil. I will not state that such a thing does not exist, but neither can I demonstrate even the simplest case.
After some consideration (and much fiddling with string) I have come to doubt the existence of an inverse for any knot, much less each of them. If an inverse existed, a knot and its inverse would “add” to the identity, the unknot. It stands to reason, then, that I should be able to take an unknot and convert it back into the knot and its inverse. This does not (seem to) happen. QEHW (Quod erat hand waved)
If an inverse existed, we would have
shown the set of knots to form a group under “knot addition.” It would then be a simple matter to further
show that this group would be abelian.
We would need to demonstrate that
e) a * b = b * a " a, b Î G

to have an abelian group.
There are many sideshows in knot theory. A synopsis of some of these follow.
Prime knots
In
determining whether two knots are unique or not, it is necessary to consider
prime knots. Just as prime numbers are
numbers which cannot be broken into smaller factors, prime knots are knots
which cannot be formed by joining simpler knots. The knot shown below is actually two trefoils joined together,
thus it is not a prime knot. The table
of knots which concludes this paper shows all of the prime knots up to nine
crossings.
![]()
Siefert surfaces
Imagining
the surface formed by the edges of the knot leads directly into the questions
addressed in topology. If you mixed up
a bubble solution with dish detergent, and dipped a knot formed by wire into
it, a surface would form showing the Siefert surface of the knot. (Supposedly a little glycerin will
strengthen the bubble surface allowing it to withstand examination)
Links
Links
are knots (including unknots) which are joined together as shown in the figure
below.
![]()
Some other links are shown at the bottom of the table of knots.
Braids
Braiding
patterns are of especial interest to the textile and manufacturing industries.
Pretzel knots are a special type of knot.

Torus knots are knots that may be
tied around a torus. A couple of
theorems of torus knots are included below.

·
All the
torus knots are prime knots.
·
You can make a torus knot T(p,q) with any numbers p, q
provided they are coprime, i.e. have
no common divisor - so (2,6) will
not do. The pair (15,4) is
interesting because it uses the three prime numbers 2, 3, 5.
Applications
of knot theory
One of the web sites offers this
information on knot theory:
When knot theory was first developed, its major appeal was
in its possible applications to chemistry. Lord Kelvin and chemistry motivated
the early development of knot theory in the 1880's. Kelvin hypothesized that a
substance called ether was what the entire universe was made of and matter
could be explained as knots in the ether; however, we now know that this is not
true. This early interest gave knot theory the impetus that it needed in order
to become a major field of mathematical study.
The first place
for knot theory to find a home was in the biologist's toolkit with applications
to DNA. In 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick discovered that the basic
genetic material of life on earth took the shape of DNA's double helix from
there the possibilities of the marriage of knot theory and Deoxyribonucleic
Acid (DNA) were endless. What was also found was that DNA often becomes
knotted, making it difficult for DNA to carry out its function. There are
enzymes called topoisomerases that can perform topological manipulations on
DNA. Scientists let these enzymes act on circular DNA performing actions like
those illustrated here so that they can then study the function of the enzymes
from the resulting knots in the circular DNA. The circular DNA is used because
if open-ended DNA is used, the knots cannot be observed, as the ends are free.
This is just one of the exciting applications of knot theory in the world of
molecular biology.
-http://library.thinkquest.org/12295/main.html
Another web site,
the Bangor site, referenced below includes some electron microscope images
taken by N.Cozzarelli of these knotted DNA structures, and includes a more
familiar diagram of the knot.


The
Bangor site also reports the following regarding knot theory as related to
string theory and theoretical physics:
Since
1984 a new link between knots and theoretical physics has begun to take form.
The discovery of some new invariants in knot theory took place. These
invariants were discovered by Vaughan Jones who was working in an area of
mathematics closely related to physics. Combining them with aspects of
"string theory", a branch of theoretical physics, has produced a very
rich theory that may one day give a unified description of the four fundamental
forces of nature, gravity, electro-magnetism, and strong and weak interactions
between particles.
My mom likes to say, “everything comes back to math.” Maybe she’s wrong. Maybe everything comes back to knot theory.

To me the simple act of tying a knot
is an adventure in unlimited space. A bit of string affords the dimensional
latitude that is unique among the entities. For an uncomplicated strand is a
palpable object that, for all practical purposes, possesses one dimension only.
If we move a single strand out of the plane, interlacing at will, actual
objects of beauty result in what is practically two dimensions; and if we
choose to direct our strand out of this plane, another dimension is added which
provides an opportunity that is limited only by the scope of our own imagery
and the length of a ropemakers coil.
-The Book of Knots, Clifford W Ashley
·
Knot
Theory - Charles Livingston, Mathematical
Association of America, 1993 -Winthrop Library QA 612.2.L58
·
Introduction
to Knot Theory - Crowell and Fox , Ginn and Company,
1963-Winthrop Library QA 614.5.K6.C74
·
Ashley
Book of Knots - Clifford W. Ashley – York County Library
623.88 – The knot bible, you ought to own a copy, at least go check it out!
·
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/cpm/exhib/menu.htm
- Indispensable primer on knot theory
·
http://www.pims.math.ca/knotplot/
- Page with tons of figures, links, free downloadable software to draw
knots.
·
http://www.c3.lanl.gov/mega-math/workbk/knot/knot.html - Kid level introduction to Knot
Theory. Some fun classroom activities.
The compass turns in circles
and the line runs straight,
like the turning of the years
and the road outside my gate.
The line beckons me onward,
the circles hold me tight.
Lives and paths may intersect,
but angles diverge forever.
White paper and pencil marks
whisper to me things I never knew
about myself and life and fate
and the paths that we must choose.
God is there in glory and might
His universe in grand array,
and yet he too is circumscribed
by the path that He has laid.
Two points do indeed determine a line.
Disdain not these figures and scribblings,
for Geometry is not study.
It is worship