text:
# Powersums representing residues mod 𝑝^𝑘 , from Fermat to Waring

## 1 Introduction

The concept of $`closure`$ corresponds to a mathematical operation composing two objects into an object of the same kind. Structure analysis is facilitated by knowing a minimal set of $`generators`$, to find preserved partitions viz. congruences, that allow factoring the closure. For instance a finite state machine decomposition using preserved (state-) partitions, corresponding to congruences of the sequential closure (semigroup) of its state transformations.
A minimal set of $`generators`$ is characterized by $`anticlosure`$. Then each composition of two generators produces a non-generator, thus a new element of the closure. These concepts can fruitfully be used for structure analysis of finite residue arithmetic.

For instance positive integer $`p`$-th powers are closed under multiplication, but no sum $`a^p+b^p`$ yields a $`p`$-th power for $`p>`$2 (Fermat’s Last Theorem, $`FLT`$). Apparently $`p`$-th powers form an efficient set of additive generators. Waring (1770) drew attention to the now familiar representation problem: the sum of how many $`p`$-th powers suffice to cover all positive integers. Lagrange (1772) and Euler showed that four squares suffice . The general problem is as yet unsolved.

Our aim is to show that four $`p`$-th power residues mod $`p^k`$ (prime $`p>`$2, $`k>0`$ large enough) suffice to cover all $`p^k`$ residues under addition. As shown in  the analysis of residues $`a^p+b^p`$ mod $`p^k`$ is useful here, because under modulus $`p^k`$ the $`p`$-th power residues coprime to $`p`$ form a proper multiplicative subgroup $`F_k\{n^p\}`$ mod $`p^k`$ of the group of units $`G_k(.)`$ mod $`p^k`$, with $`|F_k|=|G_k|/p`$. The value range $`F_k+F_k`$ mod $`p^k`$ is studied.

Units group $`G_k`$, consisting of all residues coprime to $`p`$, is in fact known to be cyclic for all $`k>`$0 . There are $`p^{k1}`$ multiples of $`p`$ mod $`p^k`$, so its order $`p^kp^{k1}=(p1)p^{k1}`$ is a product of two coprime factors, hence we have:

(1) $`G_kA_kB_k`$ is a direct product of subgroups, with $`|A_k|=p1`$ and $`|B_k|=p^{k1}`$.

The $`extension`$ subgroup $`B_k`$ consists of all $`p^{k1}`$ residues 1 mod $`p`$. And in $`core`$ subgroup $`A_k`$, of order $`|A_k|=p1`$ independent of $`k`$, each $`n`$ satisfies $`n^pn`$ mod $`p^k`$, denoted as $`n^pn`$. Hence core $`A_k`$ is the extension of Fermat’s Small Theorem ($`FST`$) mod $`p`$ to mod $`p^k`$ for $`k>`$1. For more details see .

By a coset argument the nonzero corepairsums in $`A_k+A_k`$, for large enough $`k`$, are shown to be all distinct in $`G_k`$, apart from commutation (thm2.1). This leads to set $`F_k+F_k`$ of $`p`$-th power pairsums covering almost half of $`G_k`$, the maximum possible in a commutative closure, and clearly related to Fermat’s Last Theorem ($`FLT`$) about the anti-closure of the sum of two $`p`$-th powers.

Additive analysis of the roots of 0 mod $`p^2`$, as sums of three $`p`$-th power residues, via the generative power of divisors of $`p\pm 1`$ (thm3.1), yields our main result (thm3.2): the sum of at most four $`p`$-th power residues mod $`p^k`$ covers all residues, a Waring-for-residues result. Finite semigroup- and ring- analysis beyond groups and fields is essential, due the crucial role of divisors of zero.

## 2  Core increments as coset generators

The two component groups of $`G_kA_k.B_k`$ are residues mod $`p^k`$ of two monomials: the $`core`$ function $`A_k(n)=n^{q_k}(q_k=|B_k|=p^{k1})`$ and $`extension`$ function $`B_k(n)=n^{|A_k|}=n^{p1}`$. Core function $`A(n)`$ has odd degree with a $`q`$-fold zero at $`n`$=0, and is monotone increasing for all $`n`$. Its first difference $`d_k(n)=A_k(n+1)A_k(n)`$ of even degree has a global minimum integer value of 1 at $`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$, and symmetry centered at $`n=1/2`$. Thus integer equality $`d_k(m)=d_k(n)`$ for $`mn`$ holds only if $`m+n=1`$, called 1-complements.

Hence the next definition of a critical precision $`k=K_p`$ for residues with the same symmetric property is relevant for every odd $`p`$, not necessarily prime. Core difference $`d_k(n)`$ is 1 mod $`p`$, so it is referred to as core increment $`d_k(n)`$. To simplify notation, the precision index $`k`$ is sometimes omitted, with $``$ denoting equivalence mod $`p^k`$, especially since core $`A_k`$ has order $`p1`$ independent of $`k`$.

Define critical precision $`K_p`$ as the smallest $`k`$ for which the only equivalences among the core-increments $`d_k(n)`$ mod $`p^k`$ are the above described 1-complement symmetry for $`n`$ mod $`p`$, so these increments are all distinct for $`n=1..(p1)/2`$.

Notice that $`K_p`$ depends on $`p`$, for instance $`K_p`$=2 for $`p7`$, $`K_{11}=3,K_{13}=2`$, and the next $`K_p=4`$ for $`p=73`$. Upperbound $`K_p<p`$ will be derived in the next section (lem3.1c), so no ’Hensel lift’  occurs. Notice that $`|F_k|/|A_k|=p^{k2}`$, sothat $`A_2=F_2=\{n^p\}`$ mod $`p^2`$.

###### Lemma 2.1

Integer core-function $`A_k(n)=n^{p^{k1}}`$ and its increment $`d_k(n)=A_k(n+1)A_k(n)`$
both have period $`p`$ for residues mod $`p^k`$, with:
(a) Odd symmetry $`A_k(m)A_k(n)`$ at complements $`m+n0`$ mod $`p`$,
(b) Even symmetry $`d_k(m)d_k(n)`$ at 1-complements $`m+n1`$ mod $`p`$.
(c) Let $`D_2`$ be the set of distinct increments $`d_2(n)`$ mod $`p^2`$ of $`F_2=A_2`$ for $`0<n(p1)/2`$,
then there are $`|F_k+F_k\backslash 0|=|F_k|.|D_2|=|G_k|.|D_2|/p`$
non-zero $`p`$-th power pairsums mod $`p^k`$ (any $`k>`$1).

* (a) Core function $`A_k(n)n^{q_k}`$ mod $`p^k(q_k=p^{k1},n/`$ 0, -1 mod $`p`$) has $`p1`$ distinct residues for each $`k>`$0, satisfying $`(n^q)^pn^q`$ mod $`p^k`$, with $`A_k(n)n`$ mod $`p`$ due to $`FST`$. Apparently, including $`A_k(0)0`$ we have: $`A_k(n+p)A_k(n)`$ mod $`p^k`$ for each $`k>`$1, with period $`p`$ in $`n`$. And $`A_k(n)`$ of odd degree $`q=q_k`$ has odd symmetry because:
$`A_k(n)(n)^qn^qA_k(n)`$ mod $`p^k`$.

(b) Increment $`d_k(n)A_k(n+1)A_k(n)`$ mod $`p^k`$ also has period $`p`$ because
$`d_k(n+p)(n+p+1)^{q_k}(n+p)^{q_k}(n+1)^{q_k}n^{q_k}d_k(n)`$ mod $`p^k`$.
This yields residues 1 mod $`p`$ in extension group $`B_k`$. It is an even degree polynomial, with leading term $`q_k.n^{q_k1}`$, and even symmetry:
$`d_k(n1)=n^{q_k}(n1)^{q_k}=(n)^{q_k}+(n+1)^{q_k}=d_k(n)`$,
so $`d_k(m)=d_k(n)`$ mod $`p^k`$ for 1-complements: $`m+n=1`$ mod $`p`$.

(c) Write $`F`$ for $`F_k(anyk>1)`$, the subgroup of $`p`$-th power residues mod $`p^k`$ in units group $`G_k`$. Then subgroup closure $`F.F=F`$ implies $`F+F=F.(F+F)=F.(FF)`$, since $`F+F=FF`$ due to $`1`$ in $`F`$ for odd prime $`p>`$2. So non-zero pairsum set $`F+F\backslash 0`$ is the disjoint union of cosets of $`F`$ in $`G`$, as generated by differences $`FF`$. Due to (1): $`G_k=A_k.B_k=F_k.B_k`$, where $`A_kF_k`$, it suffices to consider only differences 1 mod $`p`$, hence in extension group $`B=B_k`$, that is: in $`(FF)B`$.
This amounts to $`|D_2|h=(p1)/2`$ distinct increments $`d_2(n)`$, for $`n=1\mathrm{}h`$ due to even symmetry (b), and excluding $`n`$=0 involving non-core $`A_2(0)`$=0. These $`|D_2|`$ cosets of $`F_k`$ in $`G_k`$ yield: $`|F_k+F_k\backslash 0|=|F_k|.|D_2|`$, where $`|F_k|=|G_k|/p=(p1).p^{k2}`$ and $`|D_2|(p1)/2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For many primes $`K_p=2`$ so $`|D_2|=(p1)/2`$, and Fermat’s $`p`$-th power residue pairsums cover almost half the units group $`G_k`$, for any precision $`k>`$1. But even if $`K_p>2`$, with $`|D_2|<(p1)/2`$, this suffices to express each residue mod $`p^k`$ as the sum of at most four $`p`$-th power residues (thm3.2), as shown in the next section.

###### Theorem 2.1

For $`a,b`$ in core $`A`$ mod $`p^k`$, and $`kK_p`$:
All nonzero pairsums $`a+b`$ mod $`p^k`$ are distinct, apart from commutation, so:
$`|(A+A)\backslash 0|=\frac{1}{2}|A|^2=(p1)^2/2`$.

* Core $`A_k`$ mod $`p^k(anyk>1)`$, here denoted by $`A`$ as subgroup of units group $`G`$, satisfies $`A.AA`$ so the set of all core pairsums can be factored as $`A+AA.(A+A)`$. Hence the nonzero pairsums are a (disjoint) union of the cosets of $`A`$ generated by $`A+A`$. Since $`GA.B`$ with $`B=\{n`$=1 mod $`p`$}, there are $`|B|=p^{k1}`$ cosets of $`A`$ in $`G`$. Then intersection $`D(A+A)B`$ of all residues 1 mod $`p`$ in $`A+A`$ generates $`|D|`$ distinct cosets of $`A`$ in $`G`$.

Due to $`1`$ in core $`A`$ we have $`AA`$ sothat $`A+AAA`$. View set $`A`$ as function values $`A(n)n^{|B|}`$ mod $`p^k`$, with $`A(n)n`$ mod $`p(0<n<p)`$. Then successive core increments $`d(n)=A(n+1)A(n)`$ form precisely intersection $`D`$, yielding all residues 1 mod $`p`$ in $`A+AAA`$. Distinct residues $`d(n)`$ generate distinct cosets, so by definition of $`K_p`$ there are for $`kK_p:|D|=(p1)/2`$ cosets of core $`A`$ generated by $`d(n)`$ mod $`p^k`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Core extensions from $`A_k`$ to $`F_k`$, and their pairsums mod $`p^k`$

Extension group $`B`$ mod $`p^k`$, with $`|B|=p^{k1}`$ has only subgroups of order $`p^e(e=0..k`$-1). So $`GA.B`$ (1) has $`k`$ subgroups $`X^{(e)}`$ that contain core $`A`$, called core extensions, of order $`|X^{(e)}|=(p1).p^e`$, with core $`A=X^{(0)},F=X^{(k2)}`$ and $`G=X^{(k1)}`$.
Now $`p+1`$ generates $`B`$ of order $`p^{k1}`$ in $`G_k`$ \[4, lem2\], and similarly:

(2) $`p^i+1`$ of period $`p^{ki}(i=1..k`$-1) in $`G`$ generate the $`k1`$ subgroups of $`B`$.

Let $`Y^{(e)}B`$, of order $`p^e`$, then all core extensions are cyclic with product structure:

$`X^{(e)}A.Y^{(e)}`$ in $`G(.)`$ where $`|A|`$ and $`|Y^{(e)}|`$ are relative prime.

Using (2) with $`ki=e`$ yields:
(2’) $`Y^{(e)}(p^{ke}+1)^{}\{m.p^{ke}+1\}`$ mod $`p^k`$ (all $`m`$).

As before, using residues mod $`p^k`$ for any $`k>1:D(AA)B`$ contains the set of core increments. Then thm2.1 on core pairsums $`A+A`$ is generalized as follows (lem3.1a) to the set $`X+X`$ of core extension pairsums mod $`p^j(j>`$1), with $`F+F(Fermatsums)`$ for $`j=k2`$.

Extend Fermat’s Small Theorem $`FST:n^{p1}1`$ mod $`p`$ to $`n^{p1}n^{}p+1`$ mod $`p^2`$, which defines the $`FST`$-carry $`n^{}`$ of $`n<p`$. This yields an efficient core generation method (b) to compute $`n^{p^i}`$ mod $`p^{i+1}`$, as well as a proof (c) of critical precision upperbound $`K_p<p`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

.
For core increments $`D_k=(A_kA_k)B_k`$ in $`G_k=A_k.B_k`$ mod $`p^{k>1}`$ (prime $`p>2`$),
$`p`$-th power residues set $`F_k\{n^p\}`$ mod $`p^k`$, and $`X_k`$ any core extension $`A_kX_kF_k`$:
(a) $`X_k+X_kX_k.D_k`$, so core-increments $`D_k`$ generate the $`X_k`$-cosets in $`X_k+X_k`$.
(b) $`[n^{p1}]^{p^{i1}}n^{}.p^i+1`$ mod $`p^{i+1}`$, where $`FST`$-carry $`n^{}`$ of $`n`$ does not depend on $`i`$,
and: $`n^{p^i}[n^{}p^i+1]n^{p^{i1}}`$ mod $`p^{i+1}`$.
(c) For $`k=p`$ : $`|D_p|=(p1)/2`$ mod $`p^p`$, so critical precision $`K_p<p`$.

* (a) Write $`X`$ for $`X_k^{(e)}`$ then, as in theorem 1.1: $`X+X=XX=(XX)X`$. For residues mod $`p^k`$ we seek intersection $`(XX)B`$ of all distinct residues 1 mod $`p`$ in $`B`$ that generate the cosets of $`X`$ in $`X+X`$ mod $`p^k`$. By (2, 2’) core extension $`X=A.Y=A.\{mp^{ke}+1\}`$. Discard terms divisible by $`p`$ (are not in $`B`$) then: $`(X+X)B=(A+A)B=(AA)B=D`$ for each core extension. So $`A+A`$ and $`X+X`$ have the same coset generators in $`G_k`$, namely the core increment set $`D=D_kB_k`$.

(b) Notice successive cores satisfy by definition $`A_{i+1}A_i`$ mod $`p^i`$. In other words, each $`p`$-th power step $`ii+1:[n^{p^i}]^p`$ produces one more significant digit ($`msd`$) while fixing the $`i`$ less significant digits ($`lsd`$). Now $`n^{p1}n^{}p+1`$ mod $`p^2`$ has $`p`$-th power residue $`[n^{p1}]^pn^{}p^2+1`$ mod $`p^3`$, implying lemma part (b) by induction on $`i`$ in $`[n^{p1}]^{p^i}`$.
This yields an efficient core generation method. Denote $`f_i(n)n^{p^i}`$, with $`n<p`$, then:
(3) $`f_i(n)n^{p^i}[n^p]{}_{}{}^{p^{i1}}[n.n^{p1}]{}_{}{}^{p^{i1}}f_{i1}(n).[n^{}p^i+1]`$ mod $`p^{i+1}`$, implying:
(3’) $`f_i(n)f_{i1}(n)`$ mod $`p^i`$, next core msd $`f_{i1}(n)n^{}p^inn^{}p^i/0`$ mod $`p^{i+1}`$.

Notice that by $`FST:f_k(n)n`$ mod $`p`$ for all $`k0`$, and $`0<n<p`$ implies $`n^{}/0`$ mod $`p`$.

(c) In (a) take $`X_k=F_p`$ and notice that $`F_p+F_pF_pF_p`$ mod $`p^p`$ contains $`h`$ distinct integer increments $`e_1(n)=(n+1)^pn^p<p^p`$ ..(4).. which are 1 mod $`p^p`$, hence in $`B_p`$. They generate $`h`$ distinct cosets of core $`A_p`$ in $`G_pA_pB_p`$ mod $`p^p`$, although they are not core $`A_p`$ increments. Repeated $`p`$-th powers $`n^{p^i}`$ in constant $`p`$-digit precision yield increments $`e_i(n)(n+1)^{p^i}n^{p^i}`$ mod $`p^p`$, which for $`i=p1`$ produce the increments of core $`A_p`$ mod $`p^p`$.
Distinct increments $`e_i(n)/e_i(m)`$ mod $`p^p`$ remain distinct for $`ii+1`$, shown as follows.

For non-symmetric $`n,m<p`$ (lem2.1b) let increments $`e_i`$ satisfy:

(5) $`e_i(n)e_i(m)`$ mod $`p^j`$ for some $`j<p`$, and

(5’) $`e_i(n)/e_i(m)`$ mod $`p^{j+1}`$.

Then for $`ii+1`$ the same holds, since $`e_{i+1}(x)=[f_i(x+1)]^p[f_i(x)]^p`$ where $`x`$ equals $`n`$ and $`m`$ respectively. Because in (5, 5’) each of the four $`f_i()`$ terms has form $`bp^j+a`$ mod $`p^{j+1}`$ where the resp. $`a<p^j`$ yield (5), and the resp. msd’s $`b<p`$ cause inequivalence (5’). Then:
(6) $`f_{i+1}()(bp^j+a)^pa^{p1}bp^{j+1}+a^p`$ mod $`p^{j+2}a^p`$ mod $`p^{j+1}`$
which depends only on $`a`$, and not on msd $`bp^j`$ of $`f_i()`$. This preserves equivalence (5) mod $`p^j`$ for $`ii+1`$, and similarly inequivalence (5’) mod $`p^{j+1}`$ because, depending only on the respective $`a`$ mod $`p^j`$, equivalence at $`i+1`$ would contradict (5’) at $`i`$. Cases $`i<j`$ and $`ij`$ behave as follows.
For $`i<j`$ the successive differences $`e_i(n)e_i(m)y_ip^j/0`$ mod $`p^{j+1}`$ . . . (6’) vary with $`i`$ from 1 to $`j1`$, and by (3’) the core residues $`f_i()`$ mod $`p^i`$ settle for increasing precision $`i`$.
So initial inequivalences mod $`p^p`$ (4), and more specifically mod $`p^{j+1}`$ (5), are preserved.
And for all $`ij`$ the differences (6’) are some constant $`cp^j/0`$ mod $`p^{j+1}`$, again by (3’). Hence by induction base (4) and steps (5, 6): core $`A_p`$ mod $`p^p`$ has $`h=(p1)/2`$ distinct increments, so critical precision $`K_p<p`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Apparently $`K_p`$ is determined already by the initial integer increments $`e_1(n)<p^p(0<n<p)`$, as the minimum precision $`k`$ for which non-symmetric $`n,m<p`$ (so $`n+mp1`$) have $`e_1(n)/e_1(m)`$ mod $`p^k`$.
For instance $`p`$=11 has $`K_p=3`$, and mod $`p^3`$ we have $`h=5`$ distinct core increments, in base 11 code: $`d_3(\mathrm{1..9})=\{4a1,711,871,661,061,661,871,711,4a1\}`$ so core $`A_3`$ has the maximal five cosets generated by increments $`d_3(n)`$. Equivalence $`d_2(4)d_2(5)61`$ mod $`p^2`$ implies 661 and 061 to be in the same $`F`$-coset in $`G_3`$. In fact 061.601=661 (base 11) with 601 in $`F`$ mod $`p^3`$, as are all $`p`$ residues of form $`\{mp^2+1\}(p^2+1)^{}`$ mod $`p^3`$.

As example of lem3.1c, with $`p=11`$ and upto 3-digit precision:
$`\{n^p\}=\{001,5a2,103,274,325,886,937,aa8,609,0aa\}`$
core $`A_3=\{001,4a2,103,974,525,586,137,9a8,609,aaa\}`$
$`e_1(4)=325274=061`$ and
$`e_1(5)=886325=561`$ with $`FST`$-carries: $`4^{p1}=a1,5^{p1}=71,6^{p1}=51`$ so:
$`e_2(4)=525974=661`$ by rule(3) yields: $`5^{p^2}4^{p^2}=[701]5^p[a01]4^p=661`$
$`e_2(5)=586525=061`$ derived by (3) as: $`6^{p^2}5^{p^2}=[501]6^p[701]5^p=061`$
Notice second difference $`e_2(5)e_2(4)=061661=500`$ equals $`e_1(5)e_1(4)=561061=500`$ by lem3.1(c).

With $`|F|=|G|/p`$ and $`|D_k|`$ equal to $`(p1)/2`$ for large enough $`k<p`$, the nonzero $`p`$-th power pairsums cover nearly half of $`G`$. It will be shown that four $`p`$-th power residues suffice to cover not only $`G`$ mod $`p^k`$, but all residues $`Z`$ mod $`p^k`$. In this additive analysis we use:

Notation: $`S_{+t}`$ is the set of all sums of $`t`$ elements in set $`S`$,
and $`S+b`$ stands for all sums $`s+b`$ with $`sS`$.

Extension subgroup $`B`$ is much less effective as additive generator than $`F`$. Notice that $`B\{np+1\}`$ sothat $`B+B\{mp+2\}`$, and in general $`B_{+i}\{np+i\}`$ in $`G`$, denoted by $`N_i`$, the subset of $`G`$ which is $`i`$ mod $`p`$. They are also the (additive-) translations $`N_iB1+i(i<p)`$ of $`B`$. Then $`N_1B`$, while only $`N_0\{n.p\}`$ is not in $`G`$, and $`N_i+N_jN_{i+j}`$, corresponding to addition mod $`p`$.

Coresums $`A_{+i}`$ in general satisfy the next inclusions, implied by $`0A_{+2}A+A`$ :

For all $`i1`$: $`A_{+i}A_{+(2+i)}`$, and $`F_{+i}F_{+(2+i)}`$.

$`F_{+3}`$ covering all non-zero multiples $`mp`$ mod $`p^k(k2)`$ in $`N_0`$ is related to a special result on the number 2 as generator. For instance, a computer scan showed $`2^p/2`$ mod $`p^2(2A_2`$) for all primes $`p<10^9`$ except 1093 and 3511, although inequality does hold mod $`p^3`$ for all primes (shown next). Notice that only 2 divides $`p1`$ for each odd prime $`p`$, so the 2-cycle $`C_2\pm 1`$ is the only cycle common to all cores for $`p>`$2. The generative power of 2 might be related to it being a divisor of $`p1`$ and $`p+1`$ for all $`p>`$2.

Regarding the known unsolved problem of a simple rule to find primitive roots of 1 mod $`p^k`$, consider the divisors $`r`$ of $`p^21=(p1)(p+1)`$ as $`generators`$.
Recall that by (1) units group $`G_kA_kB_k`$ mod $`p^k`$ has core subgroup $`A_k`$ of order $`p1`$, for any precision $`k>0`$, and extension group $`B_k(p+1)^{}`$ of all $`p^{k1}`$ residues 1 mod $`p`$, generated by $`p+1`$ \[4,lem2\]. In fact $`p1`$ generates all $`2p^{k1}`$ residues $`\pm 1`$ mod $`p^k`$, including $`B_k`$.
In multiplicative cyclic group $`G_k`$ of order $`(p1)p^{k1}`$, it stands to reason to look for generators of $`G_k`$ (primitive roots of 1 mod $`p^k`$) among the divisors of such powerful generators as $`p\pm 1`$, or similarly of $`p^21=(p1)(p+1)`$. Given prime structure $`p^21=_ip_i^{e_i}`$ there are $`_i(e_i+1)`$ divisors, forming a lattice, which is not Boolean since factor $`2^2`$ makes $`p^21`$ non-squarefree.

Notice that for each unit $`n`$ in $`G_k`$ we have $`n^{p1}`$ in $`B_k`$, and $`n^{p^{k1}}`$ in core $`A_k`$, while intersection $`A_kB_k1`$ mod $`p^k`$, the single unity of $`G_k`$. No generator $`g`$ of $`G_k`$ can be in core $`A_k`$, since $`|g^{}|=(p1)p^{k1}`$, while the order $`|n^{}|`$ of $`nA_k`$ divides $`|A_k|=p1`$. Hence $`p`$ must divide the order of any non-core residue. If $`n<p^k`$ then $`n`$ can be interpreted both as integer and as residue mod $`p^k`$. It turns out that analysis modulo $`p^3`$ suffices to show that the divisors $`r`$ of $`p\pm 1`$ are outside core, so $`r^p/r`$ mod $`p^3`$: a necessary but not sufficient condition for a primitive root. This amounts to quadratic analysis of an extension of Fermat’s Small Theorem ($`FST`$) on $`p`$-th power residues, including two carry digits (base $`p`$).

###### Theorem 3.1

( divisors of $`p^21`$ )
If $`r>1`$ divides $`p^21`$ then $`r^p/r`$ mod $`p^k(k3)`$.

* $`r^p/r`$ mod $`p^k`$ implies inequality mod $`p^{k+1}`$. With $`A_2F_2\{n^p\}`$ mod $`p^2`$, so each $`p`$-th power is in core $`A_2`$ mod $`p^2`$, it suffices to show $`r^p/r`$ mod $`p^3`$. Factorize $`p^21=rs`$, with positive integer cofactors $`r`$ and $`s`$. Then $`rs1`$ mod $`p^2`$, so opposite signed cofactors $`\{r,s\}`$ or $`\{r,s\}`$ form an inverse pair mod $`p^2`$. Inverses in a finite group $`G`$ have equal order ($`period`$) in $`G`$, with order two automorphism $`nn^1`$. So orders $`|r^{}|`$ and $`|(s)^{}|`$ are equal in $`G_2`$.
Notice $`rs=p^21`$ is not in core $`A_3`$, where $`1`$ mod $`p^3`$ is the only core residue that is $`1`$ mod $`p`$, since the $`p1`$ core residues $`n^{|B_k|}`$ of $`A_k`$ are distinct $`/0`$ mod $`p(FST)`$. In fact $`(rs)^p(p^21)^p1`$ mod $`p^3`$ and no smaller exponent yields this. So $`p^21=rs`$ has order $`2p`$ in $`G_3`$, generating all $`2p`$ residues $`\pm 1`$ mod $`p^2`$, with inverse pair $`\{r^p,s^p\}`$ of equal order in $`G_3`$. Core $`A_3`$ is closed under multiplication, so at most one cofactor of non-core product $`rs`$ can be in core. In fact neither is in core $`A_3`$, so both $`r^{p1}`$ and $`s^{p1}`$ are $`/1`$ mod $`p^3`$, seen as follows.

By $`G_3=A_3B_3(1)`$: each $`nG_3`$ has product form $`nn^{}.n\mathrm{"}`$ mod $`p^3`$ of two components, with $`n^{}`$ in core $`A_3`$ and $`n\mathrm{"}`$ in extension group $`B_3`$. Then $`r^p(s)^p1`$ mod $`p^3`$, where $`r^p`$ and $`s^p`$ as inverse pair in $`G_3`$ have equal order, and each component forms an inverse pair of equal (and coprime) orders in $`A_3`$ and $`B_3`$ respectively. The latter must divide $`|B_3|=p^2`$, and discarding order 1 (both $`r,s`$ cannot be in core, as shown) their common order is $`p`$ or $`p^2`$ \[\*\]. For any unit $`n`$ the order of $`n^p`$ divides that of $`n`$, so $`p`$ dividing the common order of $`r^p`$ and $`s^p`$ implies $`p`$ dividing also those of $`r`$ and $`s`$, hence cofactors $`r`$ and $`s`$ of $`p^21`$ are both outside core $`A_3`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

PS \[\*\]: ”… and discarding order 1 …” fails if $`r^pr`$ mod $`p^2`$, which can occur (e.g. $`p=11,r=3`$). This gap, noted by R. Chapman (see his recent letter to the editor, and my reply), is mended by a proof as given in a short paper ”On primitive roots of unity, divisors of $`p^21`$, and an extension to mod $`p^3`$ of Fermat’s Small Theorem” \- http://arXiv.org/abs/math.GM/0103067 submitted to Computers and Mathematics with Applications.

Notes:

1. A generator $`g<p`$ of $`G_2`$, so $`\left|g^{}\right|=\left(p1\right)p`$, also generates $`G_k`$ mod $`p^{k>2}`$ of order $`\left(p1\right)p^{k1}`$ .
2. Cofactors $`r,s`$ in $`rs=p^21=\left(p1\right)\left(p+1\right)`$ have equal period in $`G_3`$, upto a factor of 2, so only $`rp+1`$ need be inspected for periodic analysis. Recall exceptions $`p=1093,3511`$ with $`2^p=2`$ mod $`p^2`$, the only two primes $`p<10^9`$ with this property. Of the 79 primes upto 401 there are seven primes with $`r^pr`$ mod $`p^2`$ for some divisor $`r|p^21`$ and cofactor $`s`$, namely:
$`p\left(r\right):11\left(3\right),29\left(14\right),37\left(18\right),181\left(78\right),257\left(48\right),281\left(20\right),313\left(104\right)`$.
3. A generator $`g`$ of $`G_k`$ is outside core, but $`g|p\pm 1`$ (thm3.1) does not guarantee $`G_kg^{}`$.
4. However, computational evidence seems to suggest the next Conjecture:
At least one divisor $`g|p\pm 1`$ (prime $`p>2`$) generates $`G_k`$, or half of $`G_k`$ with $`1`$ missing:
then complements $`n`$ mod $`p^k`$ yield the other half of $`G_k`$ (e.g. $`p`$=73: $`G_3\pm 6^{}\pm 12^{})`$.
5. Similarly the theorem also holds for divisors of $`p^2+1`$; and for $`r|p^41=\left(p^21\right)\left(p^2+1\right)`$, etc.: $`r|p^{2m}1`$.

For odd prime $`p`$ holds: 2 divides both $`p1`$ and $`p`$+1, and 3 divides one of them, hence:

###### Corollary 3.1

For prime $`p`$ (incl. $`p=2),k3`$ and $`n=2,3`$:
$`n^p/n`$ mod $`p^k`$, and in fact $`\pm \{n,n^1\}`$ mod $`p^k`$ are outside core $`A_{k>2}`$ for every odd prime.

In set notation: quadruple $`Q(r)=\pm \{r,r^1\},r|(p\pm 1)`$ and $`k3`$ imply $`Q(r)A_k=\mathrm{}`$.
Moreopver, the product of $`rA_k`$ with a core element is outside core: $`[Q(r)A_k]A_k=\mathrm{}`$.
Hence 2 is not in core $`A`$ mod $`p^k`$ for any prime $`p>`$2. This relates to $`p1`$ having divisor 2 for all $`p`$, and $`C_2=\{1,1\}`$ as the only common subgroup of $`Z`$(.) mod $`p^k`$ for all primes $`p>`$2. And 2 not in core implies the same for its complement and inverse, $`2`$ and $`\pm 2^1`$.

Notice that $`N_0`$ mod $`p^k`$ consists of all multiples $`mp`$ of $`p`$, and their base $`p`$ code ends on ’0’, so $`|N_0|=p^{k1}`$. In fact $`N_0`$ consists of all divisors of 0, the maximal nilpotent subsemigroup of $`Z(.)`$ mod $`p^k`$, the semigroup of residue multiplication. For prime $`p`$ there are just two idempotents in $`Z(.)`$ mod $`p^k`$: 1 in $`G`$ and 0 in $`N_0`$, so $`G`$ and $`N_0`$ are complementary in $`Z`$, noted $`N_0Z\backslash G`$.

For prime $`p>2`$, consider integer $`p`$-th power function $`F(n)=\{n^p\}`$, with $`F_k`$ denoting set $`F(n)`$ mod $`p^k`$ for all $`n/0`$ mod $`p`$, and core function $`A_k(n)n^{p^{k1}}`$, with core $`A_2F_2`$. Multiples $`mp`$ ($`m/0`$ mod $`p`$) are not $`p`$-th power residues (which are 0 mod $`p^2`$), thus are not in $`F_k`$ for any $`k>`$1. But they are sums of three $`p`$-th power residues: $`mpF_{+3}`$ mod $`p^k`$ for any $`k>`$1, shown next. In fact, due to $`FST`$ we have $`F(n)n`$ mod $`p`$ for all $`n`$, so $`F(r)+F(s)+F(t)r+s+t`$ mod $`p`$, which for a sum 0 mod $`p`$ of positive triple $`r,s,t`$ implies $`r+s+t=p`$.

###### Lemma 3.2

For $`m/0`$ mod $`p`$$`mpF_{+3}`$ mod $`p^{k>1}`$, hence:
Each multiple $`mp`$ mod $`p^{k>1}`$ outside $`F_k`$ is the sum of three $`p`$-th power residues (in $`F_k`$)

* Analysis mod $`p^2`$ suffices, because each $`mp`$ mod $`p^{k>1}`$ is reached upon multiplication by $`F_k`$, due to (.) distributing over (+). Core $`A_k`$ has order $`p1`$ for any $`k>`$0, and $`F_2A_2`$ implies powersums $`F_2+F_2+F_2`$ mod $`p^2`$ to be sums of three core residues.
Assume $`A(r)+A(s)+A(t)mp/0`$ mod $`p^2`$ for some positive $`r,s,t`$ with $`r+s+t=p`$.
Such $`mpA_2`$ generates all $`|A_2.mp|=|A_2|=p1`$ residues in $`N_0\backslash 0`$ mod $`p^2`$. And for each prime $`p>2`$ there are many such coresums $`mp`$ with $`m/0`$ mod $`p`$, seen as follows.

Any positive triple $`(r,s,t)`$ with $`r+s+t=p`$ yields, by $`FST`$, coresum $`A(r)+A(s)+A(t)r+s+tp`$ mod $`p`$, hence with a coresum $`mp`$ mod $`p^2`$. If $`m`$=0 then this solves $`FLTcase_1`$ for residues mod $`p^2`$, for instance the cubic roots of 1 mod $`p^2`$ for each prime $`p1`$ mod 6, see .
Non-zero $`m`$ is the dominant case for any prime $`p>2`$. In fact, normation upon division by one of the three core terms in units group $`G_2`$ yields one unity core term, say $`A(t)1`$ mod $`p^2`$ hence $`t=1`$. Then $`r+s=p1`$ yields $`A(r)+A(s)mp1`$ mod $`p^2`$, where $`0<m<p`$.
There are $`1|D_2|(p1)/2`$ distinct cosets of $`F_2A_2`$ in $`G_2`$ (lem2.1, lem3.1), yielding as many distinct core pairsums $`mp1`$ mod $`p^2`$ in set $`A_2+A_2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For most primes take $`r=s`$ equal to $`h=(p1)/2`$ and $`t=1`$, with core residue $`A(h)h2^1`$ mod $`p`$. Then $`2.A(h)+1mp0`$ mod $`p`$, with summation indices $`h+h+1=p`$. For instance $`p`$=7 has $`A(3)43`$ mod $`7^2`$ (base 7), and $`2A(3)+1=16+1=20`$.

If for some prime $`p`$ we have in this case $`m0`$ mod $`p`$, then $`2.A(h)1`$ mod $`p^2`$, hence $`A(h)h^ph`$ mod $`p^2`$ and thus also $`A(2)2^p2`$ mod $`p^2`$. In such rare cases (for primes $`<10^9`$ only $`p=1093`$ and $`p=3511`$) a choice of other triples $`r+s+t=p`$ exists for which $`A(r)+A(s)+A(t)mp/0`$ mod $`p^2`$, as just shown.
For instance $`2^p2`$ mod $`p^2`$ for $`p`$=1093, but $`3^p=936p+3`$ mod $`p^2`$ sothat instead of $`(h,h,1)`$ one applies $`(r,s,1)`$ where $`r=(p1)/3`$ and $`s=(p1)2/3`$. And $`p=3511`$ has $`3^p21p+3`$ mod $`p^2`$, while $`3|p1`$ allows a similar index triple with coresum $`mp/0`$ mod $`p^2`$.
Lemma 3.2 leads to the main additive result for residues in ring $`Z`$\[+, .\] mod $`p^k`$ :
Each residue mod $`p^k`$ is the sum of at most four $`p`$-th power residues.

In fact, with subgroup $`F\{n^p\}`$ of $`G`$ in semigroup $`Z`$(.) mod $`p^k`$, subsemigroup $`N_0\{mp\}`$ of divisors of zero, and extension group $`BN_1N_0`$+1 in $`G`$, we have :

###### Theorem 3.2

For residues mod $`p^k(k2`$, prime $`p>`$2): $`ZN_0GF_{+3}F_{+4}`$

* Analysis mod $`p^2`$ suffices, by extension lem3.1, and by lem3.2 all non-zero multiples of $`p`$ are $`N_0\backslash 0F_{+3}`$, while $`0F_{+2}`$ because $`1F`$. Hence $`F_{+2}F_{+3}`$ covers $`N_0`$. Adding an extra term $`F`$ yields $`F_{+3}F_{+4}N_0+F`$, which also covers $`A.N_0+AA.(N_0+1)A.BG`$ because $`1A`$ and $`AF`$, so all of $`ZN_0G`$ is covered. $`\mathrm{}`$

Notes:

1. Case $`p=3`$ is easily verified by complete inspection as follows. Analysis mod $`p^3`$ (thm.2) is rarely needed; for instance condition $`2^p/2`$ mod $`p^2`$ holds for all primes $`p<10^9`$ except for the two primes 1093 and 3511. So mod $`p^2`$ will suffice for $`p`$=3; moreover $`FA`$ mod $`p^2`$.
Now $`F\{1,1\}\pm 1`$ sothat $`F+F\{0,\pm 2\}`$. Adding $`\pm 1`$ yields $`F_{+3}\pm \{1,3\}`$, and again $`F_{+4}\{0,\pm 2,\pm 4\}`$, sothat $`F_{+3}F_{+4}`$ indeed cover all residues mod $`3^2`$. Notice that $`F_{+3}`$ and $`F_{+4}`$ are disjoint which, although an exception, necessitates their union in the general statement of thm3.2.
— It is conjectured that $`F_{+3}F_{+4}`$ for $`p>`$6, then $`ZF_{+4}`$ for primes $`p>`$6.
2. For $`p`$=5 again use analysis mod $`p^2`$, and test if $`F.\left(2A\left(h\right)+1\right)`$ covers all nonzero $`m.5`$ mod $`5^2`$ (lem3.2). Again $`FA`$ mod $`p^2`$, implying $`A\left(h\right)F`$. Now core $`AF\left(2^5\right)^{}\{7,1,7,1\}\pm \{1,7\}`$, while $`h2`$ with $`A\left(2\right)7`$, or in base 5 code: $`A\left(2\right)12`$ and $`2A\left(h\right)+130`$. Hence $`F\left(2A\left(h\right)+1\right)\pm \{01,12\}30\pm \{30,10\}`$, indeed covering all four nonzero residues $`5m`$ mod $`5^2`$.

## Conclusions

The application of elementary semigroup concepts to structure analysis of residue arithmetic mod $`p^k`$  is very useful, allowing divisors of zero. Fermat’s inequality and Waring’s representation are about powersums, thus about additive properties of closures in $`Z(.)`$ mod $`p^k`$.

Fermat’s inequality, viewed as anti-closure, reveals $`n^p`$ as a powerful set of additive generators of $`Z(+)`$. Now $`Z(.)`$ has idempotent 1, generating only itself, while 1 generates all of $`Z(+)`$ (Peano).

Similarly, expanding 1 to the subgroup $`F\{n^p\}`$ of $`p`$-th power residues in $`Z(.)`$ mod $`p^k`$, of order $`|F|=|G|/p`$, yields a most efficient additive generator with: $`F_{+3}F_{+4}Z(+)`$ mod $`p^k`$ for any prime $`p>2`$. This is compatible for $`p`$=2 with the known result of each positive integer being the sum of at most four squares.

The concept of $`criticalprecision`$ (base $`p`$) is very useful for linking integer symmetric properties to residue arithmetic mod $`p^k`$, and quadratic analysis (mod $`p^3`$) for generative purposes such as primitive roots. Eventually for binary arithmetic $`p=2:p^21=p+1=3`$ is a semi- primitive root of 1 mod $`2^k`$ for $`k3`$ (thm3.1: note4, : lem2) with useful engineering result .

## References

1. T.Apostol: Introduction to Analytical Number Theory, thm 10.4-6, Springer Verlag 1976
2. E.T.Bell: The development of mathematics (p304-6) McGraw-Hill, 1945
3. N.F.Benschop: ”The semigroup of multiplication mod $`p^k`$, an extension of Fermat’s Small Theorem, and its additive structure” Semigroups and Applications, p7, Prague, July’96.
4. — : ”The triplet structure of arithmetic mod $`p^k`$, Fermat’s Small and Last Theorem, and a new binary number code.” Logic and Architecture Synthesis, p133-140, Grenoble, Dec’96. (also as http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop/199706-1.dvi )
5. A.Clifford, G.Preston: The Algebraic Theory of Semigroups
Vol 1 (p130-135), AMS survey #7, 1961.
6. S.Schwarz: ”The Role of Semigroups in the Elementary Theory of Numbers”,
Math.Slovaca V31, N4, p369-395, 1981.
7. G.Hardy, E.Wright: An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers
(Chap 8.3, Thm 123), Oxford-Univ. Press 1979.
8. N.F.Benschop: Patent US-5923888 Logarithmic multiplier (dual bases 2 and 3) 13jul99.


format: text

text:
# THE SKEIN POLYNOMIAL OF CLOSED 3-BRAIDS This is a preprint. I would be grateful for any comments and corrections!

## 1 Introduction and results

Braids are algebraic objects with a variety of applications. They were defined and studied by Artin \[Ar, Ar2\] and although the connection to knot theory was known by Alexander \[Al\] and Markov \[Ma\], their importance in this context was not recognized until the mid 80’s. On the topological side they were studied by Bennequin \[Be\] in contact geometry and on the algebraic side used to discover the Jones polynomial \[J\] $`V`$ and its generalization, the skein (HOMFLY) polynomial $`P`$ \[H, PT\], and some relations between latter and braid representations were found, as the Morton–Franks–Williams inequality \[Mo, FW\] (henceforth called MWF).

We will use henceforth the variable convention of \[Mo\] for $`P`$: $`v^1P(L_+)vP(L_{})=zP(L_0)`$. Here as usual $`L_{\pm ,0}`$ denote links with diagrams equal except near one crossing, which is resp. positive, negative and smoothed out.

In \[Ru3\], Rudolph studied the topology of knots and links via (braid closures of) representations of the braid groups $`B_n`$ by embedded bands. These “band” representations have been algebraically studied recently in \[BKL\], and before in the 3-strand case by Xu. In \[Xu\], he considered the new generator $`\sigma _3=\sigma _1^1\sigma _2\sigma _1`$ of $`B_3`$ ($`\sigma _{1,2}`$ denoting Artin’s generators), with which $`B_3`$ gains the representation

$$B_3:=\sigma _1,\sigma _2\sigma _3|\sigma _2\sigma _1=\sigma _3\sigma _2=\sigma _1\sigma _3.$$

As in \[Xu\], we set $`\sigma _{i\pm 3}=\sigma _i`$ (i.e., consider the subscript only $`mod3`$) to avoid awkward notation, in which case the relations read $`\sigma _i\sigma _{i1}=\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i`$. We will also sometimes denote a word $`\sigma _{s_1}^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s_k}^{\epsilon _k}`$ ($`\epsilon _i=\pm 1`$) by $`[l_1\mathrm{}l_k]`$, where $`l_i=\epsilon _is_i`$.

Then for any representation of a braid $`\beta B_3`$ as word in $`\sigma _{1,2,3}`$ one obtains a Seifert surface of the closure $`\widehat{\beta }`$ of $`\beta `$ by inserting disks for each braid strand and connecting them by half-twisted bands (the “embedded bands” in Rudolph’s terminology) along each $`\sigma _i^{\pm 1}`$. We will call this construction band algorithm; it has obviously generalizations to higher braid groups. The surfaces thus obtained were studied by Bennequin, who showed in particular:

###### Theorem 1

(Bennequin \[Be\]) For every 3-braid link $`L`$ there exists a band (algorithm) Seifert surface for $`L`$ of maximal Euler characteristic $`\chi (L)`$.

Based on this, Xu gave an algorithm to obtain the shortest word representation of any $`\beta B_3`$ (in $`\sigma _{1,2,3}`$) and thus to calculate $`\chi (\widehat{\beta })`$.

In this paper, we link his method with the skein polynomial and show

###### Theorem 2

For every 3-braid link $`L`$ we have $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)=1\chi (L)`$, where $`\chi (L)`$ is the maximal Euler characteristic of all Seifert surfaces for $`L`$.

Thus we can relate for any 3-braid knot $`K`$ the two inequalities (latter coming from \[Mo\])

$$\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Delta }(K)g(K)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(K)\stackrel{~}{g}(K),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(K)`$ is the Alexander polynomial \[Al2\], $`g(K)`$ is the genus of $`K`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}(K)`$ its canonical genus, i.e. the minimal genus of the canonical Seifert surfaces of all diagrams of $`K`$ (see e.g. \[St2, Ko\]). There are examples, like the knot $`12_{2038}`$ of \[HT\] (a picture may be found in \[St\]), where the first (and very classical, see e.g. \[Ro, exercise 10, p. 208\]) inequality is not exact, thus making the relation between the genus and $`P`$ even more surprising (for this example we have $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$ and $`g=1/2\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP=3`$). Such examples do not occur among the homogeneous knots of Cromwell \[Cr\].

Here are some straightforward and useful consequences of theorem 2:

###### Corollary 1

There is no non-trivial 3-braid link with the skein polynomial of the ($`1,2,3`$-component) unlink(s), and there are only finitely many 3-braid links with the same skein polynomial.

This in particular allows to decide for a given $`P`$ polynomial whether it is the polynomial of a 3-braid link. The general problem whether the MWF bound can be realized among knots of given $`P`$ polynomial was raised by Birman in problem 10.1 of \[Mo2\]. The negative answer was given in \[St3\] by means of a computer example and a braid index inequality of Jones \[J2\], but the problem for specific examples of polynomials, like those of $`9_{42}`$ and $`9_{49}`$ (see problem 10.2 of \[Mo2\]), remained open. Now we can answer Birman’s question negatively also for these two polynomials. By Bennequin’s theorem all 3-braid knots of genus 2 can be easily written down (in fact all they have at most 10 crossings, as will follow from an inequality proved below in proposition 1, and hence are listed in the tables of \[Ro\]), and no one has such a polynomial. (We will later see that in fact for $`9_{49}`$ there is an even faster method to conclude this, just looking at the polynomial.)

It also shows that, inspite of Birman’s examples \[Bi\], later extended by Kanenobu \[K\], the failure of the skein polynomial to distinguish 3-braid links is limited, and series of the type of \[K2\] do not exist among such links.

###### Corollary 2

For any 3-braid link $`L`$, we have $`\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_vP(L)1\chi (L)`$.

Proof . The identity \[LM, proposition 21\] implies that $`\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_vP(L)\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)`$ for any link $`L`$. (I’m grateful to H. Morton for pointing this out to me.) $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 2 is a recent result of Dasbach–Mangum \[DM\], a special case of a long-standing problem of Morton \[Mo2\]. Their proof is slightly less involved than ours of theorem 2, but the ‘$``$’ part of our equality follows rather easily (see lemma 1) so that we simplify the Dasbach–Mangum proof (in particular we will not need the Scharlemann–Thompson result \[ST\]).

###### Remark 1

In \[Mo\], Morton remarks that some knots with $`2g<\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP`$ exist. Since one of the 11 crossing knots with unit Alexander polynomial, $`11_{409}`$ (denoted accoring to \[HT\]), is such a knot (it has $`g=2`$ by \[Ga, figure 5 below\], $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP=6`$ by \[LM, p. 111\] and braid index 4, see \[LM, figure 26\]), the ‘$``$’ inequality in theorem 2 is not true for 4-braids. The problem of an example of a knot with the contrary inequality $`2g>\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP`$ is less straightforward to solve, and an example was given only in \[St3\]. I have not investigated whether 4-braid examples exist.

## 2 The proof of theorem 2

We start with the easy part of theorem 2, the inequality ‘$``$’.

###### Lemma 1

For every 3-braid link $`L`$ we have $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)1\chi (L)`$.

Proof . Because of theorem 1, it suffices to prove that for $`L=\widehat{\beta }`$ we have

$$\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)\text{len}(\beta )2,$$
(1)
where $`\text{len}(\beta )`$ is the length of $`\beta `$ as word in $`\sigma _{1,2,3}`$.

We proceed by induction on $`\text{len}(\beta )`$ (outer induction) and for fixed value of $`\text{len}(\beta )`$ on the crossing number $`c(\beta )`$ of $`\beta `$, or equivalently by the number of letters $`\sigma _3^{\pm 1}`$ (inner induction). In case $`\sigma _3^{\pm 1}`$ does not occur or $`\text{len}(\beta )1`$, the inequality follows from \[Mo\], or is straightforward to verify. Otherwise consider a letter $`\sigma _3^{\pm 1}`$ in $`\beta `$. If it is followed by another letter $`\sigma _3^{\pm 1}`$, then we apply the skein relation on one of the band crossings, use (outer) induction assumption on $`L_0`$, and switch the second band reverse to the first one, getting through by outer induction. Else $`\sigma _3^{\pm 1}`$ is followed by $`\sigma _2^{\pm 1}`$ or $`\sigma _1^{\pm 1}`$. Again applying the skein relation on one of the band crossings, we can switch it so that the subword of the 2 letters reduces to one of the same length (two), but without occurrence of $`\sigma _3^{\pm 1}`$, so we are done by the inner induction. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2

Not only lemma 1, but in fact also the inequality (1) (with ‘$`2`$’ replaced by ‘$`3`$’) is not true for 4-braids, since the above quoted knot $`11_{409}`$ has a 7-band 4-braid representation: $`[(232)(121)2(232)(121)32]`$. (Here – and only here! – $`\sigma _3=[3]B_4`$ does not refer to the element $`[121]B_3`$.)

The use of $`\sigma _{1,2,3}`$ and Bennequin’s result can be applied also for the following useful inequality.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`c_3(K)`$ be the minimal crossing number of a 3-braid representation of a 3-braid knot or link $`K`$. Then

$$c_3(K)5/3\left(3\chi (K)\right).$$
(2)
In particular if $`K`$ is a knot

$$c_3(K)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\frac{5}{3}\left(g(K)+1\right)\text{or}g(K)\frac{3}{10}c_3(K)1.$$
(3)
Proof . Consider a minimal length (in $`\sigma _{1,2,3}`$) word representation for $`\beta B_3`$ with $`\widehat{\beta }=K`$, and among such word representations one of minimal crossing number (that is, minimal number of letters $`\sigma _3^{\pm 1}`$), up to cyclic permutations. Every (maximal) subword $`\sigma _3^k`$, $`k\{0\}`$ of $`\beta `$ must be (cyclically) followed by $`\sigma _2^1`$ or $`\sigma _1`$ and preceded by $`\sigma _2`$ or $`\sigma _1^1`$, otherwise the first or last copy of $`\sigma _3^{\pm 1}`$ can be eliminated by a relation, preserving the word length of $`\beta `$. Since $`\sigma _3^k=\sigma _1^1\sigma _2^k\sigma _1`$, from each subword $`\sigma _3^k`$ only one copy of $`\sigma _3^{\pm 1}`$ contributes three to the minimal crossing number of a ($`\sigma _{1,2}`$-word) representation of $`\beta `$ (the others contribute $`1`$), (2) follows from Bennequin’s result. For knots this is equivalent to the second inequality of (3), the first inequality follows by the remark that $`2c_3(K)`$ for knots $`K`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For $`g=1`$ we get from (3) $`c6`$, thus obtaining Xu’s list of $`3_1`$, $`4_1`$ and $`5_2`$ as the only genus 1 3-braid knots. For $`g=2`$ we get $`c10`$. The knots are in fact $`3_1\mathrm{\#}(!)3_1`$, $`5_1`$, $`6_2`$, $`6_3`$, $`7_3`$, $`7_5`$, $`8_{20}`$ and $`8_{21}`$ (compare the discussion after corollary 1). There are three 12 crossing knots of genus 3, and still one 16 crossing knot of genus 4, so that (3) is exact in these cases.

We obtain from theorem 2 as corollary:

###### Corollary 3

If for the crossing number $`c(K)`$ of a knot $`K`$ it holds

$$c(K)>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\frac{5}{6}\left(\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(K)+2\right),$$

then $`K`$ is not a closed $`3`$-braid.

It can already be expected from the proof of lemma 1 that the inequality $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)1\chi (L)`$ should be fairly sharp. However, by computer check it turned out to be sharp without any exception up to 18 bands, thus leading me to the investigation of theorem 2.

To carry out the rest of the proof of theorem 2, we need to recall some of the work in \[Xu\]. There a fast algorithm to get any $`\sigma _{1,2,3}`$ word-representation of $`\beta B_3`$ into one of minimal length (and thus to calculate $`\chi (\widehat{\beta })`$) is given.

We recall this algorithm as it will be important in the proof.

1. Move all $`\sigma _i^1`$ to the left using $`\sigma _i\sigma _j^1=\sigma _{i+1}^1\sigma _{j+1}`$. Thus $`\beta =L^1R`$ with $`L`$ and $`R`$ positive.
2. As long as $`L`$ or $`R`$ contain some subword $`\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i`$, this subword can be moved to their beginning, giving $`\beta =L^1[21]^kR`$ with $`L`$ and $`R`$ positive and non-decreasing.
3. Applying $`[21]^1\sigma _{i+1}=\sigma _i^1`$ and $`\sigma _i^1[21]=\sigma _{i1}`$ and cyclic reductions, one of the 3 factors in $`L^1[21]^kR`$ can be eliminated.

Although this may not be evident from the algorithm, we remark that Bennquin’s result implies that the minimal length of $`\beta B_3`$ is conjugacy invariant, and thus whether a word can be reduced by Xu’s algorithm or not is invariant under cyclic permutations of its letters.

Proof of theorem 2. Since we need to consider only one of two mirror images for $`L`$, we may assume at one point in our proof for every case that $`\beta B_3`$ with $`\widehat{\beta }=L`$ has non-negative exponent sum $`e(\beta )`$.

By Xu’s algorithm, each $`\beta B_3`$ can be written in one of the two forms

1. $`[21]^kR`$ or $`L^1[21]^k`$ ($`k0`$), or
2. $`L^1R`$,

where $`L`$ and $`R`$ are positive words with (cyclically) non-decreasing indices (i.e. each $`\sigma _i`$ is followed by $`\sigma _i`$ or $`\sigma _{i+1}`$). Since the form (B) must be cyclically reduced, we may assume that $`L`$ and $`R`$ do not start or end with the same letter.

If $`\beta `$ is of type (A) (we call this case “strongly quasipositive” conforming to Rudolph \[Ru, Ru2\]), then by the mirroring argument we may assume $`e(\beta )>0`$, and then have from \[Mo\] and theorem 1

$$1\chi (\widehat{\beta })=e(\beta )2\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_vP\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP,$$
(4)
and thus the reverse inequality to lemma 1.

Thus we need to consider only the case (B).

A fair part of our argument will go like this: We choose a band (crossing) in $`\beta =\beta _\pm `$ and apply the skein relation at this crossing, expressing the polynomial of $`L=L_\pm =\widehat{\beta }`$ by those of $`L_0=\widehat{\beta }_0`$ and $`L_{}=\widehat{\beta }_{}`$. (Here $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _{}`$ are obtained by deleting resp. reversing the band in $`\beta `$ we consider.) Then we show that only one of $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _{}`$ contributes to the coefficient $`[P(L)]_{z^{1\chi (L)}}`$ of $`z^{1\chi (L)}`$ in $`P(L)`$. Because of lemma 1 for this it suffices to show that the other one is not of Xu’s minimal (word length) types (A) and (B). This way we lead back inductively the case of $`L`$ to some simple cases.

We have

$$\beta =L^1R\text{ with }R=\underset{j=0}{\overset{l}{}}\sigma _{i+j1}^{k_j}\text{ and }L=\underset{j=0}{\overset{l^{}}{}}\sigma _{i^{}+j1}^{k_j^{}},$$
(5)
with $`ii^{}`$ and $`i+li^{}+l^{}mod3`$.

The first application of the skein relation argument is that we can make induction on the $`k_j`$ and $`k_j^{}`$, thus being left just with the cases where all $`k_j=k_j^{}=1`$, in which case $`L`$ and $`R`$ get the simpler form

$$R=(\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _{i+2})^k\alpha \text{ and }L=(\sigma _i^{}\sigma _{i^{}+1}\sigma _{i^{}+2})^k^{}\alpha ^{}$$
(6)
with $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ of length $`2`$. Again we can assume modulo mirror images, that $`R`$ is not shorter than $`L`$, i.e. $`\beta =L^1R`$ with $`L`$ and $`R`$ as in (6) has $`e(\beta )0`$ (it may originate from a braid in (5) with negative exponent sum!).

Now consider the case where $`6e(\beta )`$ and use the representation theory of $`P`$ on 3-braids (see \[J2\]). Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=[121]`$ be the square root of the center generator of $`B_3`$ \[Ch\]. Define $`\beta ^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/3e(\beta )}\beta ^1`$ to be the dual of $`\beta `$ (clearly $`\beta ^{}=\beta `$). Then, as observed in \[Bi, proof of proposition 2\], $`\widehat{\beta }`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }^{}`$ have the same polynomial, because they have the same (normalized) Burau trace and the same exponent sum. But for $`\beta `$ as in (5) we have because of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2\sigma _{i+1}^1\sigma _i^1\sigma _{i1}^1=\sigma _i^3`$ that

$$\beta ^{}=\gamma \sigma _i^{k_i}\sigma _j^{k_j}\gamma ^{},$$
(7)
where $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ have length at most 2, $`ij`$ and $`k_ik_j0`$, and are thus left with showing that for such words $`\beta ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(\widehat{\beta }^{})=\text{len}(\beta ^{})2`$. Again by the skein induction argument on the $`k_i`$ and $`k_j`$ this can be reduced to the cases where $`\beta ^{}`$, and hence $`\beta `$, have small crossing number, and they checked directly.

Now consider the case where $`e(\beta )1,2mod6`$. We apply the skein relation at the rightmost letter/band in $`\beta `$. Then one of $`\beta _0`$ or $`\beta _{}`$ have $`6e`$. It suffices to show that the other one is not minimal (and apply lemma 1). For this one checks that either $`\beta _0`$ is not cyclically reduced (starts and ends with opposite letters), or that when permuting the rightmost (negative) letter of $`\beta _{}`$ to the left, the word $`L`$ in (5) is not increasing (and hence $`\beta _{}`$ can be reduced by Xu’s algorithm). For example for $`\beta =[21321231231]`$ we get $`\beta _{}[12132123123]`$ (‘$``$’ meaning equality up to conjugacy).

If $`e(\beta )3,4,5mod6`$, then apply the same argument at most 3 times, getting back to the $`6e`$ case (except in the cases where $`R`$, and hence $`L`$, are short, and which can be checked directly). Since any $`6e`$ word is reduced, and every pair $`(\beta _0,\beta _{})`$ contains one reducible word, it will indeed be the $`6e`$ braid wo which the argument recurs rather than some of its neighbors.

This completes the proof of theorem 2. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3

There is an alternative way to proceed with the proof after (6), namely to remark that in the application of the skein relation at every second stage it is $`\beta _0`$ that is of Xu’s form, and then to work by induction on the word length. Thus the representation theoretic argument can be avoided. However, the proof did not appear (to me) more elegant without it, and also, there are some insights which this argument explains better (in particular the cases of trivial Alexander polynomial, see question 2), so I consider it not inappropriate.

The representation theory also shows that $`P(\widehat{\beta })`$ for $`\beta B_3`$ can be calculated in time $`O(c(\beta ))`$ (see \[MS\]), and thus we have an even faster algorithm than the (quadratic) one of Xu to calculate $`\chi (\widehat{\beta })`$.

###### Corollary 4

For $`\beta B_3`$, $`\chi (\widehat{\beta })`$ can be calculated in $`O(c(\beta ))`$ steps.

## 3 Further applications

We can even say a little more that theorem 2. Since throughout the proof, $`L_+`$ inherited its maximal coefficient from $`L_{}`$ or $`L_0`$ (up to multiplication with units in $`[v,v^1]`$) and duality does not alter the polynomial, we see that in fact we can determine what maximal ($`z`$-)coefficients skein polynomials of $`3`$-braid links can have by checking some simple cases. We have the following result (note that it somewhat depends on the convention for $`P`$ chosen!):

###### Theorem 3

Let $`L`$ be a $`3`$-braid link. Then $`[P(L)]_{z^{1\chi (L)}}`$ is up to units $`\pm v^k`$, $`k`$ one of $`1\pm v^2`$ or $`1`$, except for the 3 component unlink (where it is $`(1v^2)^2`$). If $`L`$ is a knot or 3 component link, then $`[P(L)]_{z^{1\chi (L)}}v^k(1+v^2)`$.

Proof (sketch). This is, as remarked, basically a repetition of the proof of theorem 2. In the strongly quasipositive case (which there could be dealt with immediately) the skein and duality arguments can be applied similarly, leaving us with a braid of the form $`(\sigma _2\sigma _1)^k\sigma _1^l\alpha ^{}`$ with $`\alpha ^{}`$ having small length. By skein argument induction, $`l`$ can be reduced to $`1`$. For the first factor use now $`(\sigma _2\sigma _1)^3=\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _2^2\sigma _1\sigma _2`$, and apply the skein argument on the ‘$`\sigma _2^2`$’ in the middle until you get $`k`$ small. The rest for the first statement is to compute the polynomial for some simple words.

To show that $`(1v^2)^2`$ occurs only for the 3-component unlink, we need to verify this among the small words and to observe that the procedure of inductively simplifying the braid in the proof of theorem 2 at no stage gives the trivial (empty) word (for this $`ij`$ in (7) is needed).

For the second statement, consider $`\widehat{\beta }=L`$ for $`\beta `$ of odd connectivity (i.e. even exponent sum) and the signs in the skein relations. It follows from the skein relation that expressing $`P(L_\epsilon )`$ for $`|\epsilon |=1`$ by $`P(L_\epsilon )`$ and $`P(L_0)`$, latter’s coefficients are $`+1`$ except for the one of $`P(L_0)`$ when $`\epsilon =`$. Thus we need to take care only when we switch negative crossings. When reducing the $`k_j^{}`$ in (5), we can maintain sign at the cost of leaving possibly one of them equal to 2. Denote by $`w`$ the subword of $`L`$ made up of this generator square. Then, a possible mirroring (to get in (6) $`R`$ to be not shorter than $`L`$) does not alter the sign of $`[P(L)]_{z^{1\chi (L)}}`$. When mirroring puts $`w`$ into $`R`$, the generator square has positive sign and can be reduced. Then, after going over to $`\beta ^{}`$, (except for the few small length cases where $`R`$ is short) we switch negative crossings only when reducing the negative one of $`k_i`$ and $`k_j`$ in (7). Then we just choose to reduce it by steps of $`2`$, thus preserving connectivity of the closure and sign of $`[P(L)]_{z^{1\chi (L)}}`$. If $`w`$ remains in $`L`$ (in which case we don’t apply mirroring), reduce it as well, but then in $`\beta ^{}`$ in (7) reduce the negative one of $`k_i`$ and $`k_j`$ first by one, thus canceling the negation. Checking some simple cases (just of odd connectivity) shows the result up to mirroring. Since mirroring does not negate $`[P(L)]_{z^{1\chi (L)}}`$ when the connectivity is odd (or equivalently $`2e(\beta )`$), the result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can say something on the cases where $`1\pm v^2`$ in the above theorem occurs as maximal coefficient. We rephrase this using the relation to the Conway polynomial $`(K)`$ \[Co\] and Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }(K)`$ (in the normalization $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t^1)=\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=(t^{1/2}t^{1/2})=P(1,t^{1/2}t^{1/2}).$$
(8)
###### Proposition 2

If for a 3-braid link $`L`$, $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}(L)<\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)`$ or $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}(K)=\pm 2`$, then $`L`$ is (the closure of) a strongly quasipositive 3-braid.

Proof . Again check the small length cases and apply the previous type of induction. $`\mathrm{}`$

A small application of this is

###### Corollary 5

Any homogeneous braid index 3 link $`L`$ is fibered or positive.

Proof . Theorem 3 shows from (8) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(L)`$ has leading coefficient $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, $`1`$ or $`2`$, since $`2\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Delta }(L)=\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)`$ by \[Cr\]. If the leading coefficient is $`\pm 1`$, then $`L`$ is fibered (see \[Cr, corollary 5.3\]). Otherwise, it is strongly quasipositive, and lemma 1 and (4) imply $`\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_vP(L)=\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)`$. Then apply \[Cr, theorem 4\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

We will in the next section have to say much more about alternating links.

Some other worth remarking consequences follow now from the work of Rudolph \[Ru2\]. For simplicity, call the Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }(K)`$ of a knot $`K`$ maximally monic, if its leading coefficient is $`\pm 1`$ (monicness) and its degree equal to $`g(K)`$ (maximality). A classical result states that fibered knots have such Alexander polynomials. Here we obtain:

###### Corollary 6

Any achiral or slice braid index 3 knot has maximally monic Alexander polynomial.

Proof . For slice knots this follows from proposition 2 and \[Ru2\]. For achiral knots use theorem 3 and that $`[P(K)]_{z^{1\chi (K)}}`$ is self-conjugate. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the slice case neither maximality nor monicness need to hold for 4-braids, as show (slice) knots like $`8_8`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ 11 crossing knot $`11_{409}`$. In the achiral case the situation is unclear since there may exist no achiral braid index 4 knot (see \[St3\]).

In a similar way we get

###### Corollary 7

There are only finitely many braid index 3 knots $`K`$ of given unknotting number $`u(K)`$, whose Alexander polynomial is not maximally monic. (For unknotting number 1 this is just the knot $`5_2`$.)

Proof . Use that by \[Ru2\], $`u(K)g(K)`$ for strongly quasipositive $`K`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

This is certainly not true, already for $`u(K)=1`$, without the condition on the Alexander polynomial, an example being the rational knots with Conway notation $`(n11n)`$, $`n`$.

Finally we remark that theorem 3 also gives another (and much more straightforward) way to see that $`9_{49}`$ (and any other knot with such polynomial) is not a 3-braid knot. Unfortunately, this simple criterion does not always work, as shows the polynomial of $`9_{42}`$. This can always be decided as discussed after corollary 1, but for higher $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP`$ the process of generating the whole list of knots becomes tedious, so that our work here does not render obsolete examples like the one in \[St3\].

## 4 Alternating links of braid index 3

A final, and main, application of our method is to complete the description of alternating links of braid index 3. Murasugi \[Mu\] described the rational ones among them. Our result easily implies his.

###### Theorem 4

Ler $`L`$ be an alternating braid index 3 link. Then (and only then) $`L`$ is

1. the connected sum of two $`(2,k)`$-torus links (with parallel orientation), or
2. an alternating 3-braid link (i.e. the closure of an alternating 3-braid, including split unions of a $`(2,k)`$-torus link and an unknot and the 3 component unlink), or
3. a pretzel link $`𝒫(1,p,q,r)`$ with $`p,q,r1`$ (oriented so that the twists corresponding to $`p,q,r`$ are parallel).

Proof . We know from \[Cr\] that for an alternating link $`L`$, $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}(L)=\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)`$, and thus for braid index $`b(L)3`$ we have from proposition 2 that $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}(L)\{1,1,2\}`$.

In case $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}(L)=\pm 1`$, $`L`$ is fibered by \[Mu2\] (or see \[Cr, corollary 5.3\]), and then by \[Mu, theorem A(2)\] any alternating diagram of $`L`$ has $`b(L)3`$ Seifert circles. This gives the cases a) and b). (The split cases are easy since $`b`$ is additive under split uniton.) Since it is known from \[Mu3\] that case a) includes all composite links of braid index 3, we may henceforth assume that $`L`$ be prime, and also non-split.

Assume now that $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}(L)=2`$. We know from proposition 2 that $`L=\widehat{\beta }`$ with $`\beta B_3`$ strongly quasipositive. By lemma 1 and (4) we have $`\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_vP(L)=\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)`$, and then it follows from \[Cr, theorem 4\] (see also \[N\]) that any homogeneous (in particular, alternating) diagram of $`L`$ is positive. Thus $`L`$ has a special alternating diagram $`D`$.

For every such diagram $`D`$ we consider the Seifert graph $`G(D)`$, with vertices corrsponding to Seifert circles and egdes to crossings (see \[Cr, §1\]). $`G`$ is connected, planar and bipartite, hence every cycle in $`G`$ has even length (possibly $`2`$, since $`G`$ may have multiple edges). For every such $`G`$ we can contrarily construct a special alternating diagram $`D(G)`$ with $`G(D(G))=G`$ (which depends on the planar embedding of $`G`$ only modulo flypes). It follows from \[Cr\] (see corollary 2.2 and the proof of theorem 5, p. 543) that if $`G^{}`$ is obtained from $`G`$ by deleting an edge, then $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}(D(G^{}))\mathrm{max}\text{cf}(D(G))`$. (Here deleting an edge $`e`$ means deleting one single edge in a multiple one. If $`e`$ is single and its deletion disconnects the graph, then if one of the 2 new components is a single vertex, this vertex is deleted as well, while if both components contain edges, the deletion of $`e`$ is prohibited.)

If $`G`$ is a cycle graph of length $`2k`$ like

$$\text{ }\text{}\text{ },$$

then $`D(G)`$ depicts the $`(2,2k)`$-torus link $`T_k`$ with reverse orientation, and $`(T_k)=kz`$. Therefore, if $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}(D(G))=2`$, $`G`$ cannot contain a cycle of length $`>4`$.

Since we excluded composite links, we may assume that in $`G=G(D)`$ there is no vertex connected (by a possibly multiple edge) to only one single other vertex. Then we replace in $`G`$ every multiple edge by a single one. We obtain a graph $`\widehat{G}`$ (called sometimes reduced Seifert graph), in which each vertex has valency $`2`$ and there are no multiple edges. By \[BZ, proposition 13.25\] (see also \[Cr, St4\]), $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}(D(\widehat{G}))=1`$ iff $`\widehat{G}`$ is a tree, and in this case $`\widehat{G}`$ would have to be one single vertex, which is uninteresting.

Therefore, $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}(D(\widehat{G}))=2`$ and $`\widehat{G}`$ still contains a cycle. We know from $`G`$ that any cycle in $`\widehat{G}`$ has length $`4`$. We wish to show that there is only one such cycle.

Assume there were two, call them $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. If $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ have $`1`$ vertex in common, then by deleting edges from $`\widehat{G}`$ we can obtain a graph $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ consisting of $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ joined by a (possibly trivial) path.

But $`D(\stackrel{~}{G})=T_2\mathrm{\#}T_2`$, and $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}(T_2\mathrm{\#}T_2)=4`$. If $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ have two neighbored vertices in common, then $`G`$ has a subgraph

and a cycle of length $`6`$. Thus either $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ have 3 vertices in common or two vertices which are opposite (not neighbored). In both cases $`G`$ contains the subgraph

This corresponds to the $`(2,2,2)`$-pretzel link (oriented so that the clasps are reverse) with $`=3z^2`$.

Therefore, $`\widehat{G}`$ contains only one cycle (of length 4), and must be only this cycle. This shows that $`D`$ is a diagram of the $`(p,q,r,s)`$-pretzel link (with parallel twists) $`𝒫(p,q,r,s)`$. Since for $`p=1`$ we have $`𝒫(1,q,r,s)=\widehat{}[1^q2^s3^r]`$, it remains to show that $`L=𝒫(p,q,r,s)`$ has braid index $`4`$ for $`p,q,r,s>1`$. Using MWF and $`\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_vP(L)=\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(L)=1\chi (L)`$, it suffices to show that $`\mu (L):=\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_vP(L)=7\chi (L)`$. For this, we verify it for $`p=q=r=s=2`$ and inductively use the skein relation, noticing that the signs of the $`z`$-coefficients of $`[P(L^{})]_{v^{\mu (L^{})}}`$ are for $`L^{}=L_{}`$ and $`L^{}=L_0`$ the same as for $`L^{}=𝒫(2,2,2,2)`$, and thus their contributions to $`P(L_+)`$ do not cancel. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4

K. Murasugi pointed out that an alternative proof of the conclusion $`L`$ special alternating and $`\mathrm{max}\text{cf}\mathrm{\Delta }_L=2L=𝒫(p,q,r,s)`$ was given in lemma 4.3 of \[Mu5\].

By \[Ka, Mu, Th\], each alternating 3-braid knot will have even crossing number. The theorem now shows:

###### Corollary 8

Prime alternating braid index 3 knots, which are not closures of alternating 3-braids, have odd crossing number.

Also we have

###### Corollary 9

Each alternating braid index 3 link is an alternating 3-braid link or is positive.

###### Remark 5

The braid representations of 3-braid links were described in \[BM\], but since braids have (at least so far) proved of little use in the study of combinatorial (diagrammatic) properties of their closures, the methods there are unlikely to approach such kind of results.

## 5 Problems

Here are some open questions one can ask. For example, one is the following question, suggested by computer experiment, in which braid index 3 knots of at most 16 crossings were identified in the tables of \[HT\] and all were found to accord to the following conjectured rule (the same experiment pointed me to theorem 4).

###### Question 1

Does any non-alternating braid index 3 knot have even crossing number?

Another problem which is possible to pursue by the methods of this paper, but which involves some technical difficulties is

###### Question 2

Does for any 3-braid link $`K`$ with $`(K)0`$ hold $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}(K)\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(K)2`$? Are the only 3-braid links $`K`$ with $`(K)=0`$ the split unions of $`(2,k)`$-torus links and an unknot and links of the form $`\widehat{}\left([123]^{2k}\right)`$?

The proof should go similarly to theorem 2, but more care must be taken.

The origin of the investigations of this paper came from the attempt to compare the two estimates for $`\stackrel{~}{g}(K)`$ given by $`g(K)`$ and $`1/2\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(K)`$. Now it was shown that they are equally good, but I do not know whether they are always sharp.

###### Question 3

Is for any 3-braid knot $`K`$, $`g(K)=\stackrel{~}{g}(K)`$?

Since, as mentioned, $`2\stackrel{~}{g}(K)=\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_zP(K)`$ for $`K`$ of $`12`$ crossings, the answer is positive at least up to genus 3.

A final question concerns a possible generalization of Bennequin’s result.

###### Question 4

Does any knot have a minimal genus Seifert surface constructed by the band algorithm on a minimal strand representation?

It has been mentioned by Birman and Menasco that knots lacking the requested property should exist. However, I was unable to find (by computer) a concrete example. In \[Ru3\], Rudolph showed that any Seifert surface is isotopic to some band algorithm surface (for a possibly non-minimal strand representation).

This question will be answered in a joint paper with M. Hirasawa \[HS\].

Acknowledgement. I would wish to thank to L. Rudolph, H. Morton and K. Murasugi for helpful remarks and discussions and to M. Hirasawa for his collboration in examining question 4.