Twisted torus knots with Horadam parameters

Part 1 is given by Horadam [Horadam1], up to shift in terms that results in a negative on the right side of the equation, accounting for the fact that s = -e.

We prove part 2 by induction. For the base case, we let k=1, so we have H_1^2 + H_1H_0 - H_0^2 = n^2 + mn - m^2, by the definition of \mathcal H. On the other hand \varepsilon_1 = 0 because 1 is odd and \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{0} H_i^2 is an empty sum, so the right side of the equation is also n^2 + mn - m^2. When k=2, we have H_{2}^2 +H_{2}H_{1} - H_{1}^2 = (m+n)^2 + n(m+n)- n^2 = m^2 + 3mn + n^2 on the left of the equation, and \displaystyle (n^2+mn -m^2) + 2\varepsilon_2 s + 2\sum_{i=1}^{1} H_i^2 = n^2 + mn -m^2 + 2m^2 + 2mn -2n^2 + 2n^2 = m^2 + 3mn + n^2 on the right, as expected.

Let s_i = H_{i}^2 +H_{i}H_{i-1} - H_{i-1}^2 for i \ge 1, and suppose the statement is true for s_{k-1} for some k\ge 2. That is, our inductive hypothesis tells us that

Consider s_k = H_{k}^2 +H_{k-1}H_{k} - H_{k-1}^2. Using the definition of \mathcal H, we have that H_{k-1} = H_{k} -H_{k-2} and H_{k} = H_{k-1} + {H_{k-2}}. Then we can rewrite s_k as H_{k}^2 + H_{k-1}^2 + H_{k-1}H_{k-2} - (H_k - H_{k-2})^2 = H_{k-1}^2 + H_{k-1}H_{k-2} -H_{k-2}^2+2H_{k}H_{k-2}. This expression is equal to s_{k-1} + 2 H_k H_{k-2}.

Part 1 tells us that H_{k}^2 +H_{k+1}H_{k} - H_{k+1}^2 = (-1)^{k}s. Using the definition of \mathcal H, we then have that H_{k}H_{k-2} = (-1)^{k-2} s + H_{k-1}^2, so that s_k = s_{k-1} + 2(-1)^{k-2} s + 2H_{k-1}^2. Then, using the inductive hypothesis, we have

If k is even, then k-1 is odd and \varepsilon_{k-1} + (-1)^{k-2} = 1 = \varepsilon_k. If k is odd, then k-1 is even and \varepsilon_{k-1} + (-1)^{k-2} = 0 = \varepsilon_k. Hence, the second part is proven.

The third part of the statement is obtained by adding 2H_{k-1}^2 to both sides of the equation in the previous part of the lemma.

In the proof of Lemma 3, we showed that s_k = s_{k-1} + 2(-1)^{k-2} s + 2H_{k-1}^2. Rearranging, we see that s_k - s_{k-1} = 2(-1)^{k-2} s + 2H_{k-1}^2, so to show the sequence is increasing, it is enough to show that (-1)^{k-2} s + H_{k-1}^2 is positive for all k\ge 3. That is, we want to show that H_{k-1}^2 > (-1)^{k-1}s.

When k is even, this inequality is H_{k-1}^2 > n^2-mn-m^2. Because \mathcal H is an increasing sequence for positive values of m and n, H_{k-1}^2\ge H_1^2 = n^2. Since m and n are positive, n^2-mn-m^2<n^2 \le H_{k-1}^2.

When k is odd, the inequality becomes H_{k-1}^2 > m^2+mn-n^2. Again, \mathcal H is an increasing sequence, so H_{k-1}^2 \ge H_2^2 = m^2 + 2mn +n^2, which is evidently greater than m^2+mn-n^2 for positive values of m and n.

To show that \{t_k \}_{k\ge 1} is increasing, we use the recursion relation for \mathcal H to rewrite t_k = H_{k+1}^2 +H_{k+1}H_{k} + H_{k}^2 as t_k = H^2_k + H_{k}H_{k-1} + H_{k-1}^2 + 2 H_{k+1}H_{k}, which we recognize as t_k = t_{k-1} + 2H_{k+1}H_k. Then t_k - t_{k-1} = 2H_{k+1}H_k, which is at least 2 for all k \ge 2, so \{t_{k}\}_{k\ge1} is increasing.

The assertion that s_l \neq s_k for l \neq k is nearly an immediate result of Lemma 4, with the exception of the case l=1. That is, we must show that s_1 \neq s_k for k\ge 2. In Remark 1, we noted that the \{s_k\}_{k\ge1} is increasing when m<n, so we need only show that s_1 \neq s_k when m>n.

Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that m>n and there exists a k\ge 2 such that s_k = s_1 = n^2 + mn - m^2. Then we have

Simplifying this equation, we have

The right side of the equation is negative for k\ge 2, but \varepsilon_k s = \varepsilon_k(m^2 + mn - n^2), which is at least zero because m>n.

Since \{s_k\}_{k\ge2} is an increasing integer sequence, to show that the difference between any two terms is greater than 1, we need only show that the difference between consecutive terms is greater than 1. As noted in the proof of Lemma 3, s_k - s_{k-1} = 2((-1)^{k-2} s + H_{k-1}^2) for k\ge 2. In the proof of Lemma 4, we showed that (-1)^{k-2} s + H_{k-1}^2 is positive for k\ge 2, so s_k - s_{k-1} \ge 2 for these values of k.

To finish the proof, we must show that the absolute value of the difference between s_2 and s_1 is at least 2. Since s_2 - s_1 = 2m(m+n) and m and n are positive, this number is always at least 2.

The assertion that t_l \neq t_k for l \neq k is an immediate result of Lemma 4, and the proof that |t_l-t_k| >1 is similar to the proof for \{s_k\}, with the exception that t_k - t_{k-1} = 2H_{k+1}H_k, which is always at least 2.

Let \{q_l, \ldots, q_0\} be the sequence of quotients for the Euclidean algorithm for m and n. Consider two consecutive terms H_j and H_{j+1} of \mathcal H_{m,n} for j \ge 1. Because of the recursion relation for \mathcal H_{m,n}, we know that the ith equation of the Euclidean algorithm for H_{j} and H_{j+1} is

for 0 \le i \le j-1, so the first j terms in the sequence of quotients for H_{j} and H_{j+1} will be 1. If i = j, we have H_2 = n + m, and the next equation in the Euclidean algorithm for H_j and H_{j+1} is

which begins the Euclidean algorithm for m and n. Hence the sequence of quotients for H_{j} and H_{j+1} is \{q_{l + j+1}, \ldots, q_{l+1}, q_l \ldots, q_0\} = \{1, 1, \ldots, 1, q_l \ldots, q_0\}. That is, (m,n) is a maximal pair if and only if (H_j, H_{j+1}) is a maximal pair.

Dean’s Theorem 3.4 [DeanSFSSurgeries] shows that a twisted torus knot of the form K(p, q, r, \pm1) is primitive with respect to H exactly when r \equiv \pm 1 or \pm q \pmod p and primitive with respect to H' exactly when r \equiv \pm 1 or \pm p \pmod q. Since every (m,n;1,1) Horadam twisted torus knot has r = p \pm q, we have r \equiv \pm q \pmod p and r \equiv p \pmod q.

Suppose p, q \ge 2, \gcd(p,q) = 1, and p >2q. The knot K(p,q,p-q,+1) can be visualized as the closure of the braid (\sigma_{p-1} \cdots \sigma_1)^q (\sigma_{p-q-1} \cdots \sigma_1)^{p-q}. We can rewrite (\sigma_{p-1} \cdots \sigma_1)^q as a full twist on the rightmost q strands followed by those q strands passing over the remaining p - q strands, as shown in Figure ?. As above, the switch indicates that p strands both enter and leave the switch, but that the strands of the braid may change from one grouping to another in the switch. In this figure, we have chosen to think of the full twists on strands as a link surgery diagram for the convenience of visualizing changes to the diagram.

In this particular diagram, for example, we can see that the link component around the p-q strands at the bottom can be shifted to appear around the p-q strands at the top of the diagram, as in Figure ?. Additionally, in Figure ?, the link component around the rightmost q strands at the top can be shifted to the bottom. From here, we see that because p-q >q, the link component surrounding the q strands at the bottom can slide through the switch to create the diagram shown in Figure ?. Now, thinking of the closure of this braid, the q strands on the right at the top and the q strands on the right at the bottom can be pulled out, creating a positive full twist to the rightmost q strands at the bottom, as shown in Figure ?

From here, we use the fact that a full twist on the rightmost q strands followed by the rightmost q strands passing over the leftmost p-2q strands amounts to q single twists (i.e, q copies of \sigma_{p-q-1} \cdots \sigma_1) on all p-q strands. Then Figure ? becomes the closure of (\sigma_{p-q-1} \cdots \sigma_1)^{p} (\sigma_{q-1} \cdots \sigma_1)^{q}, which is also the braid whose closure is K(p-q,p,q,+1). By Lemma 1, this knot is isotopic to K(p, p-q, q, +1).

Suppose p, q\ge 2 are coprime integers with p >q. Using Figure ?, we can think of the knot K(p,q,p+q, -1) as the closure of the braid with one full negative twist on all p+q strands followed by the rightmost p strands passing over the leftmost q strands. This braid has both positive and negative crossings. We use the fact that a full negative twist on all p+q strands can be considered instead as a full twist on the rightmost p strands, a full twist on leftmost q strands and then the rightmost p strands passing under and then over the leftmost q strands. This results in the braid shown in Figure ?. The p strands that pass over the q strands twice can be straightened. Then we move the link components as needed to obtain the diagram in Figure ?.

Now we see that the link component around the q strands can be shifted to the bottom. Since p>q, we can push the link component upward, so that it surrounds the leftmost q strands of the grouping of p strands, as shown in Figure ?. Now we use the braid closure to untwist the leftmost q strands, creating a full negative twist on those strands, to obtain the braid in Figure ?. By converting the negative full twist on q strands followed by the leftmost q strands going over the rightmost p-q strands into q single twists on all p strands, we can see this knot as the closure of the braid (\sigma_{p-1} \cdots \sigma_1)^{p+q} (\sigma_{p-1} \cdots \sigma_{p-q+1})^q. By viewing this braid from behind the page, we can see a braid whose closure is the mirror image of K(p, p+q, q, +1).

Suppose \mathcal H is the (m,n)-Horadam sequence where m and n are positive integers and \gcd(m,n) = 1. The twisted torus knot K(H_{k+3}, H_{k+2}, H_{k+1}, -1) can be considered to be the closure of the braid (\sigma_{H_{k+3} - 1} \cdots \sigma_1)^{H_{k+2}}(\sigma_{H_{k+1}-1} \cdots \sigma_1)^{-H_{k+1}}. Since H_{k+3} = H_{k+2}+ H_{k+1}, we see this braid as in Figure ?, where the top portion of the braid, (\sigma_{H_{k+3} - 1} \cdots \sigma_1)^{H_{k+2}}, is considered to be a full twist on the rightmost H_{k+2} strands followed by those strands passing over the leftmost H_{k+1} strands.

Because H_{k+1} < H_{k+2}, we can slide the link component at the bottom of Figure ? upward to surround the leftmost H_{k+1} strands of the grouping of H_{k+2} strands on the right. From this, we obtain the braid in Figure ?. Now, because we are working with braid closures, we untwist the leftmost H_{k+1} strands to add a full positive twist. Now we have H_{k+1} strands with a full negative twist followed by a full positive twist. These full twists cancel each other, and we are left with the braid shown in Figure ?, which is the braid representing K(H_{k+1}, H_k, H_{k+2}, +1).

Theorem 3 tells us that K(H_{k+2}, H_{k}, H_{k+1}, -1) for H_i \in \mathcal H_{m,n} is a torus knot if and only if (H_{k+2}, H_{k}, H_{k+1}) is of one of the forms (aF_{b+3} - F_{b+2}, aF_{b+1}-F_b, aF_{b+2} - F_{b+1}), with a \ge 2, b \ge 1 and (a,b) \neq (2,1), or (aF_{b+1} + F_{b+2}, aF_{b-1} + F_b, a F_b + F_{b+1}), with a, b \ge 2.

We have (H_{k+2}, H_{k}, H_{k+1}) of the form (aF_{b+3} - F_{b+2}, aF_{b+1}-F_b, aF_{b+2} - F_{b+1}) if and only if H_k = G_b and H_{k+1} = G_{b+1} for some b \ge 1 where G_b, G_{b+1} \in \mathcal H_{-1, a}. Since G_b, G_{b+1} \in \mathcal H_{-1, a}, we have \mathcal H_{G_b, G_{b+1}} is a subsequence of \mathcal H_{-1, a}, and Lemma 6 tells us that this is possible if and only if (G_b, G_{b+1}) is a maximal pair. Further because (G_b, G_{b+1}) = (H_k,H_{k+1}), (G_b, G_{b+1}) is a maximal pair if and only if (H_k,H_{k+1}) is a maximal pair. Finally, because H_k, H_{k+1} \in \mathcal H_{m,n}, Lemma 7 tells us that (H_k,H_{k+1}) is a maximal pair if and only if (m,n) is a maximal pair.

If (H_{k+2}, H_{k}, H_{k+1}) is of the form (aF_{b+1} + F_{b+2}, aF_{b-1} + F_b, a F_b + F_{b+1}) with a,b \ge 2, the proof is similar, except that we must first note that the bth term in \mathcal H_{a,1} is the same as G_{b-1} \in \mathcal H_{1, a+1}. One can see this by using the definition of the Fibonacci sequence, along with Lemma 2: aF_{b-1} + F_b = aF_{b-1} + (F_{b-1} + F_{b-2}) = F_{b-2} +(a+1)F_{b-1}.

Dean [DeanSFSSurgeries] shows that a twisted torus knot K(p,q,r, \pm 1) is primitive/primitive if and only if r \equiv \pm 1 or \pm q \pmod p and r \equiv \pm 1 or \pm p \pmod q. We have four cases to consider.

1. r \equiv \pm q \pmod p and r \equiv \pm p \pmod q

2. r \equiv \pm 1 \pmod p and r \equiv \pm p \pmod q

3. r \equiv \pm q \pmod p and r \equiv \pm 1 \pmod q

4. r \equiv \pm 1 \pmod p and r \equiv \pm 1 \pmod q

Here, we assume that p>q, as Lemma 1 tells us that K(p,q,r,\pm 1) and K(q,p,r,\pm1) are the same knot. We can recover the case where q>p.

In Case ?, we have r = kq + \varepsilon p = lp + \delta q, where \varepsilon = \pm 1, \delta = \pm 1, and k and l are nonzero integers. (Neither k nor l can be zero because p and q are relatively prime and p,q \ge 2.) Because r \le p + q, we have the requirement lp + \delta q \le p+q. Because p>q, lp + \delta q > (l-1) p. This means (l-1)p < p+q. Since p+ q < 2p, we have l < 3. On the other hand, r is positive, so p>q tells us that l \ge 1. Then l \in \{1, 2\}.

When l = 1, r = p + \delta q = kq + \varepsilon p, so (1-\varepsilon) p = (k - \delta) q. If \varepsilon = 1, then k = \delta and p and q are independent of each other. This gives us the set of triples (p, q, p + \delta q), which are Types ? and ? from the statement of the theorem. If \varepsilon = -1, then q = 2 and p = k - \delta. In this case r = k + \delta, so we have the triple (k- \delta, 2, k + \delta), which is a special case of Type ? or ?, depending on the value of \delta.

When l = 2, r = 2 p + \delta q = kq + \varepsilon p. The requirement that r \le p + q forces \delta = -1, so we have 2p - q = k q + \varepsilon p. Then (2- \varepsilon) p = (k+1) q. Since 2- \varepsilon \in \{1, 3\} and q \ge 2, we have \varepsilon = -1, q = 3, p= k+1 and r = 2k - 1. Revisiting the requirement that r \le p + q, we have 2k-1 \le k+4, so k \le 5. Since p > q, we also have k \ge 3. This provides the three triples (4,3,5), (5, 3, 7), and (6, 3, 9), but the triple (6,3,9) has \gcd(p,q) = 3. The triples (4,3,5) and (5, 3, 7) are special cases of Type ? with j=1.

In Case ?, r = kq + \varepsilon p = lp + \delta, where \varepsilon = \pm 1, \delta = \pm 1, and k and l are integers. The requirement that r \ge 2 provides the restriction that l be a positive integer. Since r \le p+q, we have l \le 2, so that l \in \{1,2\}.

When l = 1, we have kq + \varepsilon p = p + \delta, so (1-\varepsilon) p = kq - \delta. This forces \varepsilon = -1 so that 2p = kq - \delta and k \ge 1. Since 2p is even, we have that k and q are both odd, so we let k = 2i+1 for some nonnegative integer i and q = 2j+1 for some positive integer j. Since 2p = kq - \delta, we have p = 2ij + i + j + \frac{1-\delta}{2} and r = p + \delta = 2ij + i + j + \frac{1+\delta}{2}. This is Type ?.

When l = 2, kq + \varepsilon p = 2p + \delta. We have r = 2p + \delta \le p+ q, so p \le q - \delta. Since p>q, this means \delta = -1, p = q+1, and r = 2q+1. This produces the triple (q+1, q, 2q+1), a special case of Type ?.

In Case ?, r = kq + \varepsilon = lp + \delta q, where \varepsilon = \pm 1, \delta = \pm 1, and k and l are integers. The requirement that r \ge 2 provides the restriction that l be a nonnegative integer and k \ge 1. Since r \le p+q, we have l \le 2, so that l \in \{0, 1,2\}.

When l = 0, the two expressions for r reveal that kq + \varepsilon = \delta q, which is impossible, as it would require q to be 1, contradicting our assumptions. When l = 1, kq + \varepsilon = p + \delta q. Then we have p = (k - \delta ) q + \varepsilon and r = kq + \varepsilon. The triple ((k - \delta ) q + \varepsilon, q, kq + \varepsilon) is a special case of Type ? or ?, depending on the value of \delta.

When l = 2, r = kq + \varepsilon = 2p + \delta q. Since r \le p+q, we have \delta = -1. Using the two expressions for r, we have 2p = (k+1)q + \varepsilon. Then we know that k+1 and q are both odd, so we write k = 2i and q = 2j + 1 for some positive integers i and j. Then p = 2ij + i + j + \frac{1+\varepsilon}{2} and r = 4ij + 2i +\varepsilon. Since r \le p + q, we need 4ij + 2i +\varepsilon \le 2ij + i + 3j + \frac{1+\varepsilon}{2} +1, which can be rearranged as i(2j + 1) \le 3j+1 + \frac{1-\varepsilon}{2}. If i \ge 2, i(2j+1) \ge 4j+4, which is strictly greater than 3j+1 + \frac{1-\varepsilon}{2} for all values of j. Then i = 1, and we have p = 3j+1 + \frac{1+\varepsilon}{2} and r = 4j + 2 + \varepsilon. These are the triples that make up Type ?.

In Case ?, r = kq + \varepsilon = lp + \delta, where \varepsilon = \pm 1, \delta = \pm 1, and k and l are integers. The requirement that r \ge 2 provides the restriction that both k and l are positive. Since r \le p+q, we have l \le 2, so that l \in \{1,2\}.

When \varepsilon = \delta, we have kq = lp. Since p and q are relatively prime, this means l = \mu q and k = \mu p for some positive integer \mu. Then r = \mu p q + \varepsilon. Because q \ge 2, if \mu \ge 2 or q \ge 3, then r \ge 3p + \varepsilon > p+ q. Then \mu = 1 and q = 2. The requirement that r \le p+q can only hold then when 2p+ \varepsilon \le p + 2, which means \varepsilon = -1 and p = 3. Thus, we have the triple (3, 2, 5), which is a special case of Type ?.

Now suppose \varepsilon = - \delta, so kq + \varepsilon = lp - \varepsilon. When l = 1, p= kq + 2\varepsilon, and r = kq + \varepsilon. Because p has the same parity as kq, the requirement that p and q are relatively prime forces q to be odd. Then we can write q = 2j + 1 for some positive integer j, and we have the examples of Type ?.

When l = 2, r = 2p - \varepsilon. Since r \le p+q and p >q, we must have that \varepsilon = 1. Since 2p -1 \le p+q, we have p \le q+1. That is, p = q+1 and r = 2q+1, so we have the triple (q+1, q, 2q+1), which is a special case of Type ?.

This completes the proof.

Dean [DeanSFSSurgeries] indicates that the hyper-Seifert fibered twisted torus knots are those that have the |m|>1 and r \equiv \pm 1 or \pm q \pmod p. In other words, Theorem 4 also lists the values (p,q,r) for which K(p,q, r, m, \pm1), with |m|>1, is a primitive/hyper-Seifert twisted torus knot.