Transverse link invariants from the deformations of Khovanov \mathfrak{sl}_{3}-homology

Theorem 2 follows immediately by putting together the results concerning the behaviour of \beta_{\omega,\: x_1} under the maps induced by coherent Reidemeister moves and negative first Reidemeister moves, and the computation of the degrees after the definition of \beta_{\omega,x_{i}}.

Before going into the details of the proof, which is quite long, it is worth to schematically describe the idea behind it. We wish to make use of the Mackaay-Vaz classification of the isomorphism types of H_{\omega}^{\bullet}(L,\mathbb{F}) depending on the multiplicity of the roots of \omega (see [Mackaayvaz07]). This classification, as well as its generalisation due to Rose and Wedrich in [RoseWedrich16], is some sort of generalisation of the Chinese remainder theorem (which can be thought as the case L= \bigcirc). In each of the three cases we shall identify the image of the \beta-cycles under the isomorphism which describes the isomorphism type of H^\bullet_{\omega}. This identification will give us the desired result.

If the potential admits distinct roots in \mathbb{F}, then the homology classes of the corresponding \beta_3-invariants are linearly independent by an argument essentially due to Gornik (cf. [Gornik] and [Mackaayvaz07, Section 3]). More precisely, in this case the \beta-cycles are a rescaling of some of the so-called “canonical generators”. Since the independence of the homology classes of the “canonical generators” was proved in [Gornik] and [Mackaayvaz07], the claim follows in this case.

Let us shift to the case when potential \omega has a double root x_1, and a simple root x_2. That is x_{1} = x_3. In [Mackaayvaz07, Theorem 3.18] it was proved that

where L^\prime \subseteq L means that L^\prime ranges among the sub-links of L, and Kh denotes the original (\mathfrak{sl}_2-)Khovanov homology.

Items (1) and (2) in the statement shall follow from a careful inspection of the proof of [Mackaayvaz07, Theorem 3.18]. In order to keep the paper as self-contained as possible, we shall review the crucial steps of the proof.

Let D be an oriented diagram representing an oriented link L. A colouring of D is a function \phi associating to each arc of D (seen as a graph) a root of \omega. A colouring \phi is compatible with a web resolution \underline{w} if we can colour all the thick edges of \underline{w} in such a way that at each vertex the set of colours is the set of roots of \omega. Denote by \mathbb{W}_{\phi}(D) the set of resolutions compatible with a colouring \phi.

Mackaay and Vaz proved that one can associate a sub-complex C_{\omega}^{\bullet}(\phi ,\mathbb{F}) to each colouring \phi. Furthermore, the complex C_{\omega}^\bullet (D,\mathbb{F}) decomposes as the direct sum of these complexes. It turns out that the homology of C_{\omega}^{\bullet}(\phi ,\mathbb{F}) is trivial unless \phi assigns the same colour to all arcs belonging to the same components (proper colouring). Finally, one proves that for such colourings

where L_\phi is the sub-link of L corresponding to the sub-diagram of D obtaned by deleting all arcs whose colour with respect to \phi is x_1. Furthermore, to each \underline{w}\in\mathbb{W}_{\phi}(D) and \phi proper colouring, it is possible to associate a cycle \Sigma_{\phi}(\underline{w})\in T(\underline{w}) called canonical generator(Even though they are not canonically defined!). For each proper colouring \phi the set \{[\Sigma_{\phi}(\underline{w})]\}_{\underline{w}\in\mathbb{W}_{\phi}(D)} generates the \mathbb{F}-vector space H_{\omega}^{\bullet}(\phi ,\mathbb{F}).

Denote by \phi_{i} the colouring of D where all arcs are coloured with x_i, for i\in \{1,2\}. The sub-links associated to \phi_1 and \phi_2 are the whole link L and the empty sub-link \emptyset, respectively. The sub-modules generated by \beta_{\omega,x_{1}}(D) and \beta_{\omega,x_{2}}(D) are contained in C_{\omega}^\bullet (\phi_1,\mathbb{F}) and C_{\omega}^\bullet (\phi_2,\mathbb{F}) respectively. Thus, the homology classes of \beta_{\omega,x_{1}}(D) and \beta_{\omega,x_{2}}(D) are mapped to Kh^{0}(\overline{L},\mathbb{F}) and Kh^{0}(\emptyset,\mathbb{F}) = \mathbb{F}, respectively, by the isomorphism in (?).

By inspecting the argument in [Mackaayvaz07], it is not difficult to see that the image of the homology class of \beta_{\omega,x_{2}}(D) is non-trivial. It is immediate from the definition of the canonical generators that \beta_{\omega,x_{2}}(D) is (x_1 - x_2)^r\Sigma_{\phi_2}(\underline{w}_{D}) for a certain r, where \underline{w}_D denotes the oriented web resolution of D. Thus, the homology class of \beta_{\omega,x_{2}}(D) generates H_{\omega}^{\bullet}(\phi_2,\mathbb{F}) \cong \mathbb{F}, and this concludes the proof of item (1).

It takes a bit more care to prove that the image of [\beta_{\omega,x_1}(D)] is (a non-zero multiple of) the Plamenevskaya invariant \psi. First notice that \beta_{\omega,x_1}(B) is P\cdot \Sigma_{\phi_1}(\underline{w}_{D}) where

and X_{\gamma} acts on T(\underline{w}_{D}) by adding a dot on the regular region bounding \gamma. This is implied by the equality

which is easily verified. Then, the chain map in [Mackaayvaz07, Equation (17)] which defines the isomorphism between H_{\omega}^{\bullet}(\phi ,\mathbb{F}) and Kh^{-\bullet-lk(L_\phi,\: L\setminus L_\phi)}(\overline{L_{\phi}},\mathbb{F}), behaves as follows

where X \otimes \cdots \otimes X =\widetilde{\psi} belongs to the summand associated to the oriented resolution in the Khovanov chain complex. Since, [\widetilde{\psi}] = \psi, item (2) follows.

Finally, assume the potential \omega has a triple root. Consider the endofunctor \Phi of \mathbf{Foam} described in Figure ?. \Phi translates the local relations \ell_1 associated to the potential (x-x_1)^3 into the local relations \ell_0 associated to the potential x^3. It follows that \Phi induces an equivalence of \mathbb{F}-linear categories between \mathbf{Foam}_{/\ell_1} and \mathbf{Foam}_{/\ell_0}. This equivalence of categories induces an isomorphism between the two complexes C_{\omega}^{\bullet} and C_{x^{3}}^{\bullet}.

Finally, it is immediate to see that this isomorphism sends the \beta_3-invariant to the \psi_3-invariant.

Directly from the definition of s_{\omega_{i}} follows that Equation (4) implies Equation (4). Furthermore, from [LewarkLobb17, Proposition 2.12] it is immediate that Equation (4) implies Equation (4). So it is sufficient to prove (4). We borrow the notation from the proof of Proposition 3. Denote by [y] an homogeneous element of H_{\omega}^{0}(K,\mathbb{F}) such that

It is immediate that \pi_{1}([y])= \pi([\beta_{\omega,Ux_{i}}(B)]), and the latter is a non-trivial multiple of the homology class of the canonical generator \Sigma_{\phi_{i}}(\underline{w}_{D}). Since, the quantum filtration is increasing it follows that

It is easy to prove that the maximum filtered degree of the elements of a basis of a vector space equipped with an increasing filtration does not depend on the chosen basis. Thus, we obtain that

Using the isomorphism induced by the endofunctor of \mathbf{Foam} obtained from the one described in Figure ? by replacing x_1 with x_{i} - x_{j}, it follows that q_{i} = q_{j}; and this concludes the proof.

Our aim is to prove that T(F)(\beta) can be written as follows

where F_{j},\: F_{j}^\prime,\: F_{j}^{\prime\prime},\: F_{j}^{\prime\prime\prime} are of the form shown in Figure ?, and are identical except in a small region where they differ as shown in Figure ?.

Since, for each j, (F_{j}^{\prime\prime\prime} + a_2 F_{j}^{\prime\prime} + a_1 F_{j}^\prime + a_{0}F_{j}) is trivial in \mathbf{Foam}_{/\ell} by (DR), the claim shall follow. To avoid graphical calculus we make use of polynomials. So, let us denote by the monomial A^{r}B^{s}C^{t} the foam (in (\mathbb{R}^{2}\times \{0\} )\times [0,1]) shown in Figure ?, where s, r and t indicate the number of dots in the regions A, B and C respectively. By definition T(F)(\beta) can be written as follows

With this notation we can write the dot permutation relations (DP1), (DP2) and (DP3) described in Proposition 5 as follows:

Since all foam relations are local, and since we are allowed to move the dots inside regions, the formal products above satisfy associativity. Using Relations (?), (?) and (?) we obtain

which is the desired decomposition of T(F)(\beta).

First, notice that the oriented web resolution is bipartite exactly as the oriented resolution; that is, if two arcs in \underline{w}_{D} were connected by a crossing in D, then they belong to different circles in \underline{w}_{D}.

Let \underline{w^\prime} be a web resolution which is obtained from \underline{w}_{D} by replacing a 0-web resolution with a 1-resolution, and denote by E the set of such resolutions. Notice that each \underline{w^\prime} \in E is the disjoint union of circles and a theta web. In particular, we have the following isomorphism of R-modules

where \gamma_{1} = \gamma_{1}(\underline{w^\prime}) and \gamma_{2}= \gamma_{2}(\underline{w^\prime}) are the two circles in \underline{w}_{D} which are merged into the theta web in \underline{w^\prime}, and the circles in \underline{w^\prime} are identified with the corresponding circles in \underline{w}_{D}.

By definition, the differential d_{geo} of the geometric complex is of the form

where each F(\underline{w^\prime}) is a disjoint union of cylinders and a copy of the foam F in Figure ?, and the boundary of F(\underline{w^\prime}) is \underline{w^\prime} \sqcup \underline{w}_{D}. Applying the tautological functor T, we get

and

The statement now follows immediately from Lemma 10.

First, let us point out that

Using the equality a_{2} = a_1^\prime - x_1, we get

where the last equality follows from Equation (Proof).

Notice that \underline{w}_{D_{-}} is mapped to \underline{w}_{D} by \Psi_{1} and that \underline{w}_{D_-} can be identified with \underline{w}_{D} \sqcup \bigcirc. By the Khovanov-Kuperberg circle removal relation, Example 1 and the sphere relation we can identify \Psi_{1\: \vert \underline{w}_{D}} with the map

given by

where \gamma^\prime indicates the circle in \underline{w}_{D_-}\setminus \underline{w}_{D} and

Since in the case of \beta_{\omega, x_1}(D) we have q_\gamma (x) = q_{\gamma^\prime}(x) = [P(x)] = [x^{2} + a_1^\prime x + a_0^\prime] the first part of the statement follows.

Similarly to what has been done with \Psi_1, we can identify \Phi_1 with the map

mapping \bigotimes_{\gamma\in\underline{w}_D} q_{\gamma}(x_{\gamma}) to

where \gamma_{\mathbf{a}} is the circle in \underline{w}_{D} containing the arc \mathbf{a} (see Figure ?) and q_{\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}} = q_{\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}}(x_{\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}}). It is now easy to see that

where the last equality is due to Lemma 12.

First notice that \underline{w}_{D} can be easily identified with \underline{w}_{D^{\prime}}. With this identification we have that \Psi_{2\: \vert T(\underline{w}_{D^\prime})} behaves as the identity map (cf. Figure ?), and the second part of the statement follows. The map \Phi_{2\:\vert T(\underline{w}_{D})} sends T(\underline{w}_{D}) to T(\underline{w}_{D}) \oplus T(\underline{w}^\prime_{D^{\prime}}). More precisely, we have

where F^\prime is the foam drawn in Figure ?. To conclude it suffices to prove that:

This is immediate from Lemma 10, once one notices that the foam F^\prime is the composition of the foam F in Figure ? and a foam G (see Figure ?).

The only thing to prove is that quasi-positive braids are such that 3 \tilde{s}_{\omega,x_{i}}(K) = sl(B)-1. This is true because 3\tilde{s}_{\omega,x_{i}}(K) is a slice torus invariant, and thus its value on quasi-positive braids is exactly sl(B)-1 (see [Lewark14]).