format: text

text:
# Quantum Relatives of Alexander Polynomial

## Introduction

### Alexander Polynomial and Conway Function

The Alexander polynomial is one of the most classical topological invariants. It was defined  as early as in 1928. A recent paper by Fintushel and Stern  has again drawn attention to the Alexander polynomial by relating it to the Seiberg-Witten invariants of 4-dimensional manifolds.

The Alexander polynomial can be thought of in many different ways. There are a homological definition via free abelian covering spaces, a definition via Fox’s free differential calculus, a definition via Reidemeister torsion, and a diagrammatical Conway’s definition. See Turaev’s survey . As a matter of fact, Conway  has enhanced the original notion by eliminating an indeterminacy. He introduced also a link invariant which encodes the same information as the enhanced Alexander polynomial, but is more convenient from several points of view. Conway called it a potential function of a link. Following Turaev , we call it the Conway function.111Some authors call it the Alexander-Conway polynomial, see e.g. ,  and . However there are two reasons not to use this term. First, this is not a polynomial even in the sense in which the Alexander polynomial is: this is not a Laurent polynomial, but rather a rational function. Say, for the unknot it is $`\frac{1}{tt^1}`$. Second, there is another invariant deserving the name of Alexander-Conway polynomial. It is a polynomial knot invariant, which was introduced by Conway in the same paper : the Alexander polynomial normalized and represented as a polynomial in $`z=t^{\frac{1}{2}}t^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, where $`t`$ is the original variable. Therefore following Turaev , we use the term of Conway function.

The definitions of the (enhanced) Alexander polynomial and Conway function are given below in Section 7.7. Here let me recall only their formal appearance. For an oriented link $`LS^3`$ with connected components $`L_1`$, …, $`L_k`$ the Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(t_1,\mathrm{},t_k)`$ is a Laurent polynomial in variables $`t_1^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, …, $`t_k^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, and the Conway function $`(L)(t_1,\mathrm{},t_k)`$ is a rational function in variables $`t_1`$, …, $`t_k`$. They are related by formulas $`(L)(t_1,\mathrm{},t_k)=\mathrm{\Delta }_L(t_1^2,\mathrm{},t_k^2),\text{ if }k>1`$ and $`(L)(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_L(t^2)}{tt^1},\text{ if }L\text{ is a knot, i.e. }k=1\text{.}`$

### Alexander Polynomial and Quantum Topology

The intervention of the quantum field theory into the low-dimensional topology, which was initiated in the mid eighties by discovery of the Jones polynomial, added a new point of view on the Alexander polynomial. It was included into series of other quantum polynomial link invariants such as the Jones, HOMFLY and Kauffman polynomials.

Invariants of a topological object which are studied by the quantum topology are presented by explicit formulas inspired by the quantum field theory. A versatility of these formulas allows one to generalize the invariants to wider classes of objects and find counterparts of the invariants for completely different objects. For example, the Jones polynomial was first generalized to colored links, then to trivalent framed knotted graphs, then its counterparts (Reshetikhin-Turaev-Witten invariants) of closed oriented 3-manifolds were discovered, and they were upgraded to TQFT’es, i.e. functors from categories of closed surfaces and their cobordisms with an appropriate additional structures to the category of finite-dimensional vector spaces. The invariant of 3-manifolds (Witten-Reshetikhin-Turaev invariant) was defined technically even as an invariant of 4-manifolds with boundary, see . Although its value depends only of the boundary, the construction deals with the 4-manifold. To some extent the same scheme works for any quantum link polynomial.

However, the quantum theory of the Alexander polynomial has not evolved to the extents which have been achieved by the theory based on the Jones polynomial. Only the very first steps of this program have been made: it has been shown that the Alexander polynomial can be defined via representations of quantum groups. The multivariable Conway function was obtained along the lines of the construction of link invariants related to a quantum group by Jun Murakami , , Rozansky and Saleur  and Reshetikhin . Rozansky, Saleur and Reshetikhin applied this construction to quantum supergroup $`gl(1|1)`$ (i.e., a quantum deformation $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ of the universal enveloping algebra of the superalgebra $`gl(1|1)`$, see Appendix A to ). Murakami did this with the quantum group $`sl(2)`$ at $`q=\sqrt{1}`$. Deguchi and Akutsu  included the Conway function in a family of invariants related to representations of the quantum $`sl(2)`$ at roots of unity, generalized these invariants to colored framed trivalent graphs, and found face state sum models for the generalizations. However the case of the Conway function has not been studied separately from the generalizations.

Thus, the multivariable Conway function was studied by the methods of quantum topology along two lines: based on quantum supergroup $`gl(1|1)`$ by Reshetikhin, Rozansky and Saleur and quantum group $`sl(2)`$ by Jun Murakami, Deguchi and Akutsu, respectively. The $`sl(2)`$ approach was developed up to explicit generalization to colored framed trivalent graphs and face state sum models, although the results were given in the form of quite complicated formulas, which have not been analyzed from a geometric point of view. In the frameworks of $`gl(1|1)`$ approach, a generalization to colored framed trivalent graph has not been considered.

### Results

The goal of this paper is a further development of quantum invariants related to the Alexander polynomial. We make the next two steps in the $`gl(1|1)`$ direction: generalize the (multivariable) Conway function to trivalent graphs equipped with some additional structures (colorings) and find a face state sum presentation for this generalization (and, in particular, the Conway function of classical links). In the $`sl(2)`$ direction the corresponding steps seem to have been done in , but, for the sakes of a subsequent development, we do them all over again from scratch, in effort to get simpler formulas and geometric presentations. In particular, this allows us to compare the results in $`gl(1|1)`$ and $`sl(2)`$ directions.

None of them could be reduced to another one. Colorings used in $`gl(1|1)`$ approach are based on a larger palette. Colorings based on a part of $`gl(1|1)`$-colors can be turned into $`sl(2)`$-colorings, but not all the $`sl(2)`$-colorings can be obtained in this way. Larger palette makes $`gl(1|1)`$ approach somehow more flexible, but leads to more complicated face state sum models. Both directions seem to deserve investigation, since they may be useful for different purposes.

The relatives of the Alexander polynomial studied in this paper are:

* the Reshetikhin-Turaev functors $`𝒯^1`$ and $`𝒯^2`$ based on the irreducible representations of quantum $`gl(1|1)`$ and $`sl(2)`$, respectively,
* a modification $`𝒜^c`$ of $`𝒯^c`$ for $`c=1,2`$,
* invariants $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c`$ of closed colored framed generic graphs similar to the Conway function $``$ of links and, in a sense, generalizing it.

Further steps may be a construction of state sum invariants for shadow polyhedra and, eventually, 4-manifolds. However, there are several obstacles, which make this, at least, not completely straightforward. It is not clear yet, which family of generalizations of the Conway function is more suitable for that.

Although the possibility of the future four-dimensional applications was the main motivation for this work, I believe the results are interesting on their own. The formulas involved in the face model appear to be much simpler than their counterparts even for the Jones polynomial.

### Reshetikhin-Turaev Functors

As it was shown by Reshetikhin and Turaev , the construction of link invariants related to a quantum group is upgraded to a construction of functor from a category, whose morphisms are colored framed generic graphs, to a category of finite-dimensional representations of a quantum group. A restriction of this functor to a subcategory of tangles (graphs consisting of disjoint circles and intervals) is described in  explicitly, while for graphs with trivalent vertices Reshetikhin and Turaev  leave a choice.

As far as I know, in the case of quantum $`gl(1|1)`$ the choice has never been made, although the Reshetikhin-Turaev functor from the category of tangles to the category of representations of quantum $`gl(1|1)`$ and its relation to the Conway function was alluded in several papers, see e.g. Rozansky and Saleur .

In this paper a Reshetikhin-Turaev functor is constructed explicitly, by presenting Boltzmann weights (see Tables 1 and 2) on the whole category of colored framed generic graphs. The choice left by Reshetikhin and Turaev  can be made in many ways, but I believe the one made here deserves a special attention, since the resulted functor $`𝒯^1`$ has special nice properties. For example, the coefficient in skein relation 15 is very simple and the Boltzmann weights are polynomial in powers of $`q`$.

Special features of quantized $`gl(1|1)`$ make the construction interesting and not completely straightforward. Since $`gl(1|1)`$ is a superalgebra, all the formulas change in a peculiar way, which looks strange for anybody but experienced super-mathematician (i.e., a mathematician working with superobjects). In turn, the unusual algebra causes unusual topological features. For example, colorings of graphs involve orientations of 1-strata in more subtle way, and at some vertices a cyclic order of the adjacent 1-strata must also be included into a coloring.

### Modifications of Reshetikhin-Turaev Functor

The obvious polynomial nature of the Boltzmann weights in Tables 1 and 2 and the polynomial nature of the Alexander polynomial suggest a modification of $`𝒯^1`$ which gives rise to a functor $`𝒜^1`$ which acts from almost the same category of colored framed generic graphs to the category of finite-dimensional free modules over some commutative ring $`B`$. For example $`B`$ may be $`[M]`$ where $`M`$ is a free abelian multiplicative group. In this case $`B`$ is the ring of Laurent polynomials. Thus $`𝒜^1`$ is closer to the Alexander polynomial.

Roughly speaking, $`𝒜^1`$ is obtained from $`𝒯^1`$ by eliminating the Planck constant $`q`$ (parameter of the quantum deformation in the quantization $`U_qgl(1|1)`$) by replacing the powers of $`q`$ with independent variables in the Boltzmann weights. The Boltzmann weights for $`𝒜^1`$ are presented in Tables 3 and 4.

The transition from $`𝒯^1`$ to $`𝒜^1`$ does not eliminate the quantum nature together with $`q`$. Although $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ does not act in the $`B`$-modules which are the values of $`𝒜`$ on objects, there is a Hopf subalgebra of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ such that $`𝒜^1`$ can be upgraded to functors from the same category to the categories of modules over this subalgebra.

### Alexander Invariant

The scheme which was used by Rozansky and Saleur  and  for relating the Conway function with the quantum $`gl(1|1)`$ version of the Reshetikhin-Turaev functor for tangles, transforms $`𝒞^1`$ to the Alexander invariant $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ of closed colored framed generic graphs in $`^3`$.

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1`$ assigns to a closed colored framed generic graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`^3`$ an element $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of $`B`$. The coloring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consists of orientation of the 1-strata of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, assigning to each of the 1-strata a multiplicity taken from $`\{tMt^41\}`$ and an integer weight, and fixing a cyclic order of 1-strata adjacent to some vertices. Dependence of the Alexander invariant on the weights, multiplicities and cyclic orders is completely understood and described below. There exist universal multiplicities on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`M=H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma };)`$ such that, for given orientations, the Alexander invariant of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ colored with these orientations, arbitrary cyclic orders, weights and multiplicities can be recovered from the Alexander invariant of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ colored with the same orientations, the universal multiplicities and any cyclic orders and weights. Orientations constitute the most subtle part of colorings. This is demonstrated in case of the 1-skeleton of a tetrahedron considered in Section 7.2. However the Alexander invariant of this graph with any coloring is much simpler than the Jones polynomial of the same graph, which is basically the $`6j`$-symbol and plays an important role in the TQFT based on quantum $`su(2)`$.

For a link $`L`$ colored in an appropriate way,

$$(L)(t_1,\mathrm{},t_k)=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(t_1^2,\mathrm{},t_k^2).$$

Thus $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1`$ can be considered as a generalization of the Conway function to graphs. Exactly as in the transition from the Alexander polynomial to the Conway function, here we have to replace the previous variables by their square roots. Hence, the variables in the Alexander invariant are quartic roots of the variables in the Alexander polynomial. Compare with the relation between the Kauffman brackets and Jones polynomial.

### Face Models

All formulas of quantum topology can be divided roughly into two classes: vertex and face state sums. Face state sums seem to be more versatile. At least, they are more uniform for topological objects of different nature. The formulas in the definition of the Alexander invariant are of the vertex type.

In this paper face state sums representing the Alexander invariant are also obtained. This is done via a version of “transition to the shadow world” invented by Kirillov and Reshetikhin  to obtain a face state sum model for the quantum $`sl(2)`$ invariant of colored framed graphs, generalizing the Jones polynomial. The construction used here is another special version of a more general construction, which I found analyzing Kauffman’s “quantum spin-network” construction  of Turaev-Viro invariants , while presenting this in my UC San Diego lectures in the Spring quarter of 1991. I presented the general construction in several talks, but never published, since in the full generality it looks too cumbersome, while in the special cases, which I knew before this work and in which it looks nice, the result had been already known.

### Thanks

I am grateful to Lev Rozansky for his valuable consultations concerning super-mathematics, $`gl(1|1)`$ and papers  and  and Alexander Shumakovitch for pointing out a mistake in a preliminary version of this paper.

## 1. Geometric Preliminaries on Knotted Graphs

### 1.1. Generic Graphs

By a generic graph we mean a 1-dimensional CW-complex such that each of its points has a neighborhood homeomorphic either to $``$, or half-line $`_+`$, or the union of three copies of $`_+`$ meeting in their common end point. Each generic graph is naturally stratified. Strata of dimension 1 are the connected components of the set of points which have neighborhoods homeomorphic to $``$. The 0-strata of a generic graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the 3-valent and 1-valent vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The former are called internal vertices and the latter end points or boundary points of the graph. The set of boundary points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the complement $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called the interior of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and denoted by $`\mathrm{Int}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. A generic graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with empty boundary is said to be closed. The 1-strata homeomorphic to $``$ are called edges. (Thus a component of a generic graphs may contain no vertex.)

A generic graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is said to be properly embedded into a 3-manifold $`M`$, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$.

### 1.2. Additional Structures on Generic Graphs

Generic graphs embedded in a 3-manifold are usually equipped with various additional structures. The most common of the structures are orientations and framings. An orientation of a generic graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an orientation of all the 1-strata of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a generic graph properly embedded into a 3-manifold $`M`$. An extension of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to an embedded compact surface $`F`$ in which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is sitting as a deformation retract is called a framing of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (in $`M`$), if $`F\mathrm{\Gamma }=F\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and each component of $`FM`$ is an arc containing exactly one boundary point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These arcs comprise a framing of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`M`$. By a framing of a discrete subset of a surface we understand a collection of disjoint arcs embedded in the surface in such a way that each arc contains exactly one point of the subset and each point is contained in one of the arcs.

By an isotopy of a framed generic graph we mean an isotopy of the graph in the ambient 3-manifold extended to an isotopy of the framing. In the case of properly embedded framed generic graph, the isotopy is assumed to be fixed on the intersection with the boundary of ambient manifold.

The notion of framed generic graph generalizes the notion of framed link. Indeed, a collection of circles can be considered as a generic graph, and, if the framing surface is orientable, the framing is defined up to isotopy by a non-zero vector field normal to the circles and tangent to the surface. Recall that usually by a framing of a link one means a non-zero normal vector field on it. In the case when the framing surface is not orientable, it is related in a similar way to a framing with a field of normal lines, rather than normal vectors.

The third additional structure that is involved below is orientation at vertices. A generic graph is said to be oriented at a (trivalent) vertex if the germs of edges adjacent to the vertex are cyclically ordered. We speak here of germs rather than edges, because an edge may be adjacent to a vertex twice and then there are only two adjacent edges (recall that a set of two elements may not be cyclically ordered). If the graph is framed then its orientation at a vertex defines a local orientation of the framing surface at the vertex.

### 1.3. Diagrams

To describe a generic graph in $`^3`$ up to isotopy, one uses a natural generalization of link diagrams. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a generic graph embedded into $`^3`$. A projection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`^2`$ is said to be generic, if

1. its restriction to each 1-stratum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an immersion,
2. it has no point of multiplicity $`3`$,
3. no double point is the image of a vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,
4. at each double point the images of 1-strata intersect each other transversally,
5. at the image of a vertex no two branches of 1-strata are tangent to each other.

It is clear that the term generic is appropriate here in the sense that embedded generic graphs with non-generic projection to $`^2`$ make a nowhere dense set in the space of all embedded generic graphs: by arbitrarily small isotopy one can make any embedded generic graph having generic projection and any generic projection cannot be made non-generic by a sufficiently small isotopy.

To get a description up to isotopy of a generic graph embedded in $`^3`$, one should enhance its generic projection with information which branch is over and which is under the other one at each double point. If it is done by breaking the lower branch, the picture obtained is called a diagram of the graph, like in the case of links.

### 1.4. Strata of Diagram

The image of a generic graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ under a generic projection is a graph embedded in $`^2`$. Its vertices are the double points of the projection and the images of the vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The former are called also crossing points. The natural stratification of this graph is extended to a stratification of $`^2`$ with 2-strata being connected components of the complement of the projection. Strata of this stratification are called strata of the diagram, the 2-strata are also called faces of the diagram.

### 1.5. Moves of Diagrams

Diagrams of isotopic generic graphs embedded in $`^3`$ can be obtained from each other by a sequence of transformations of 5 types shown in Figure 1. Here two transformations are considered of the same type if the modifications happen in disks, which can be mapped to each other by a homeomorphism moving one picture to another one followed maybe by a simultaneous change of all the crossings (this change corresponds to reflection in the plane parallel to the plane of the diagram). The types correspond to the conditions of the definition of generic projection: each of the transformation of Figure 1 can be realized by an isotopy under which exactly one of the conditions is violated exactly once and in the simplest manner. The first 3 transformations are the well-known Reidemeister moves. They do not involve vertices and can be used to obtain diagrams of isotopic links from each other.

### 1.6. Showing Additional Structures on Diagram

Any generic graph with generic projection to $`^2`$ can be equipped with a framing such that the projection to $`^2`$ restricted to the framing is an immersion (recall that the framing is a surface). This framing is unique up to isotopy. It is called black-board framing.

Similarly, a generic graph generically projected to $`^2`$ can be equipped with the black-board orientation at a vertex: counter-clockwise cyclic ordering of the adjacent germs of edges. An arbitrary orientation at vertices can be shown in diagram by circular arrows around the vertices following the cyclic orders. For the sake of simplicity, we will skip all the counter-clockwise arrows.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a framed generic graph with a generic projection to $`^2`$. On each 1-stratum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ one can compare two framings: the black-board and original ones. The difference is an integer or half-integer number. It is the number of (full) right twists which should be added to the black-board framing on the 1-stratum to get the framing involved into the original framing of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. To describe a framed generic graph up to isotopy it is enough to draw its diagram equipped with these numbers assigned to all 1-strata of the graph. Another way to show the difference between the framing and the black-board one is to put on the arc of the diagram the fragment     at a positive half-twist and the fragment     at a negative half-twist. Of course, the isotopy type of a framing is described by the total number of the half-twists on each component. However sometimes, especially when describing changes of a diagram, it is convenient to localize the places where the framing is orthogonal to the plane of the diagram and specify the local behavior of the framing at these places, as the pictures     and     do. By a diagram of framed graph we call a diagram enhanced by the differences between the framing and the black-board framing, which are presented either by the numbers or by pictures of half-twists.

Diagrams of isotopic framed generic graphs can be obtained from each other by a sequence of transformations of 7 types222Up to the same rough equivalence as above, where isotopies of unframed graphs were considered. shown in Figure 2. The first 5 of them are the transformations of Figure 1 equipped with description of behavior of the framing. The last 2 describe emerging and moving of half-twists.

The notion of diagram is extended obviously to generic graphs and framed generic graphs lying in a product of a surface $`P`$ by $``$ or $`[0,1]`$. The diagrams are drawn on $`P`$. To avoid situations when diagrams are not quite understandable, let us agree to assume that the boundary points of graphs are contained over the boundary of $`P`$, there is no double point on the boundary of $`P`$, and framings at the end points of graphs are black-board.

### 1.7. Category of Graphs

Framed graphs gives rise to a category $`𝒢`$ which is defined as follows. Its objects are in one-to-one correspondence with natural numbers. The object corresponding to a natural number $`k`$ is the pair consisting of $`^2`$ and the set $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ of $`k`$ points $`(1,0)`$, $`(2,0)`$, …, $`(k,0)`$ equipped with a framing which consists of small intervals of the $`x`$-axis. A morphism from the $`k`$-th to $`l`$-th object is the isotopy class of a framed generic graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ embedded in $`^2\times [0,1]`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Pi }_k\times 0\mathrm{\Pi }_l\times 1=(^2\times [0,1])\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. A framed generic graph of this sort is called a (framed) $`(k,l)`$-graph. The composition of two morphisms is defined by attaching them one over another. The identity morphism of the object $`(^2,\mathrm{\Pi }_k)`$ is $`(^2\times [0,1],\mathrm{\Pi }_k\times [0,1])`$.

There is another basic operation with framed $`(k,l)`$-graphs, which is called tensor product. The tensor product of a framed $`(k,l)`$-graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by a $`(m,n)`$-graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is an $`(k+m,l+n)`$-graph obtained by placing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ to the left of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

### 1.8. Generators and Relations of the Category

Framed $`(k,l)`$-graphs are represented by diagrams on the strip $`\times [0,1]`$. Applying general position arguments to the diagrams and their deformations under isotopies, one can easily find the natural generators and relations for the category of framed generic graphs described in the following theorems.

###### 1.8.A.

Any morphism of $`𝒢`$ can be presented as a composition of morphisms each of which is a tensor product of an identity morphisms (i. e., the isotopy class of graph $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i\times [0,1]`$ black-board framed) by one of the morphisms shown in Figure 3.

Indeed, by a small isotopy one can make the restriction of the second coordinate to each 1-stratum of the plane projection of the graph to have only isolated nondegenerated critical points. Further, the values of the second coordinate at these points, half-twist signs and vertices of the projection can be made pairwise distinct. After this draw horizontal lines separating from each other the critical points, half-twist signs and vertices. The pieces between the lines next to each other are graphs of the desired types.∎

Similar arguments, but applied to a one-parameter family of graphs and combined with representing some of the elementary relations as consequences of other elementary relations, prove the following theorem.

###### 1.8.B.

Two products of the graphs generating $`𝒢`$ by Theorem 1.8.A are isotopic, iff they can be transformed to each other by a sequence of elementary moves shown in Figure 4.

## 2. Reshetikhin-Turaev Functor Based on $`gl(1|1)`$

### 2.1. Category of Colored Framed Graphs. Objects

Recall that according to Reshetikhin-Turaev’s scheme  the invariants are constructed via a functor from a category of colored framed graphs, whose objects and morphisms are the objects and morphisms of $`𝒢`$ equipped with additional structures (colored), to a category of finite-dimensional representations of some quantum group. Here Reshetikhin-Turaev’s setup has to be slightly modified.

Let $`h`$ be a non-zero complex number. Below we define a category $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$. It is denoted also by $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$, when dependence of $`h`$ is not emphasized. Its objects are finite sequences of triples consisting of two complex numbers, say $`j`$ and $`J`$, and a sign (i. e., $`\delta =+`$ or $``$). The first number must be such that $`2jh\sqrt{1}/\pi `$ is not an integer. The first number is called the multiplicity, the second weight.

The triples $`(j_1,J_1,\delta _1)`$, …, $`(j_k,J_k,\delta _k)`$ comprising an object are convenient to associate with points $`(1,0)`$, …, $`(k,0)`$ of the plane $`^2`$. The object $`\{(j_1,J_1,\delta _1)`$, …, $`(j_k,J_k,\delta _k)\}`$ is to be thought of as the set $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ whose points are colored with the triples $`(j_1,J_1,\delta _1)`$, …, $`(j_k,J_k,\delta _k)`$. The signs $`\delta _1`$, …, $`\delta _k`$ are to be interpreted as orientations of the corresponding points.

In fact, the triples stand for irreducible $`(1|1)`$-dimensional $`U_qgl(1|1)`$-modules. Recall (see Appendix 1, Section 11.4) that irreducible $`(1|1)`$-dimensional $`U_qgl(1|1)`$-modules are numerated by a sign $`\pm `$ and a pair of complex parameters $`(j,J)`$ with $`j\{\pi n\sqrt{1}/2h:n\}`$ and $`J`$. Here $`h`$ is the parameter of quantization (the Planck constant).

### 2.2. Category of Colored Framed Graphs. Morphisms

A morphism of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$

$$\{(i_1,I_1,ϵ_1),\mathrm{}(i_k,I_k,ϵ_k)\}\{(j_1,J_1,\delta _1),\mathrm{}(j_l,J_l,\delta _l)\}$$

is a morphism of $`𝒢`$ (see Section 1.7) equipped with some additional structures described below. Recall that a morphism of $`𝒢`$ is a framed generic graph (see Section 1.1) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ embedded in $`^2\times [0,1]`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Pi }_k\times 0\mathrm{\Pi }_l\times 1=(^2\times [0,1])\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ considered up to ambient isotopy fixed on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Its framing at the end points is parallel to the $`x`$-axis.

The additional structures on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ all together are called $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring. Each of the 1-strata is colored with an orientation and a pair of complex numbers the first of which does not belong to $`\{\pi n\sqrt{1}/2h:n\}`$. These numbers are also called the multiplicity and weight, respectively. The orientations of the edges adjacent to the boundary points are determined by the signs of the points’ colors: the edge adjacent to a point with $`+`$ is oriented at the point upwards (along the standard direction of the $`z`$-axis), otherwise it is oriented downwards. The multiplicity and weight of the edge adjacent to an end point coincide with the corresponding ingredients of the color of this end point. At each of the trivalent vertices the colors of the adjacent edges satisfy to the following

###### 2.2.AAdmissibility Conditions.

Let $`(j_1,J_1)`$, $`(j_2,J_2)`$, $`(j_3,J_3)`$ be the multiplicity and weight components of the colors of three edges whose germs are adjacent to the same vertex and let $`ϵ_i=1`$ if the $`i^{th}`$ of the edges is oriented towards the vertex and $`ϵ_i=1`$ otherwise. Then

(1)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}ϵ_ij_i=0$$

(2)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}ϵ_iJ_i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}ϵ_i$$

A vertex with all the adjacent edges oriented towards it (i. e., $`_{i=1}^3ϵ_i=3`$) or in the opposite direction (i. e., $`_{i=1}^3ϵ_i=3`$) is said to be strong. At each strong vertex the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is oriented. The orientation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at strong vertices is considered a part of the coloring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, together with the orientations, multiplicities and weights of 1-strata.

Equation (1) looks like the Kirchhoff equation on currents. More topological interpretation: the boundary of chain $`j_ie_i`$, where the sum is taken over all the edges $`e_i`$ of the graph (with their orientations) and $`j_i`$ is the first component of the color of $`e_i`$, is the sum of all the boundary points of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ taken with coefficients which are the multiplicities of these points with appropriate signs. In particular, $`j_ie_i`$ is a relative cycle with real coefficients of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ modulo $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so that it defines an element of $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma };)`$.

###### 2.2.A.1 Remark.

In the Reshetikhin-Turaev setup the orientation of an edge could be reversed along with simultaneous change of the numerical component of the color. Here we cannot do this. The orientations are to be thought as inseparable ingredients of the colors. Reversing the orientation of a single 1-stratum cannot be compensated by changes of other components of the coloring.

Orientations at strong vertices are not that significant. Reversing one of them causes multiplication by $`1`$ of the image under the Reshetikhin-Turaev functor, see Section 2.5. Therefore many formulas below apparently do not involve orientations at vertices. Orientations at vertices are hidden by eliminating strong vertices with clockwise orientations. Recall that we have agreed not to show counter-clockwise orientations at vertices in a diagram.

A vertex with odd number of adjacent edges oriented towards it (i. e., $`_{i=1}^3ϵ_i=1`$) is said to be odd. If one thought on weights also as on currents, then (2) would mean that each odd vertex is a source of capacity $`1`$ and an even vertex a sink of capacity $`1`$. In other words, $`J_ie_i`$ involves each odd vertex with coefficient $`1`$ and each even vertex with coefficient $`1`$.

The composition of two morphisms is defined by attaching them one over another. There is another basic operation with morphisms, which is called tensor product. The tensor product of a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a morphism obtained by placing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ to the left of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

There is a natural forgetting functor $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}𝒢`$. Morphisms of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$ mapped by this functor to the generators of $`𝒢`$ generate $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$. Therefore Theorem 1.8.A implies the following.

###### 2.2.BGenerators of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$.

Any morphism of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$ can be presented as a composition of morphisms each of which is a tensor product of an identity morphisms (i. e., the isotopy class of graph $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i\times [0,1]`$ black-board framed and appropriately colored) by one of the morphisms whose underlying graph is shown in Figure 3.

Similarly, Theorem 1.8.B gives relations of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$.

### 2.3. Refined Reshetikhin-Turaev Functor on Objects

Denote by $`_𝓆`$ the category of finite-dimensional modules over the $`q`$-deformed universal enveloping algebra $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ of superalgebra $`gl(1|1)`$. Our goal is to construct a functor $`𝒯^1:𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}_𝓆`$.

For an object $`\{(j_1,J_1,ϵ_1),\mathrm{}(j_k,J_k,ϵ_k)\}`$ of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$, the image under $`𝒯^1`$ is defined to be the tensor product $`(j_1,J_1)_{ϵ_1}\mathrm{}(j_k,J_k)_{ϵ_k}`$ of the irreducible $`(1|1)`$-dimensional $`U_qgl(1|1)`$-modules.

Each of the factors $`(j_i,J_i)_{ϵ_i}`$ is a 2-dimensional vector space with a canonical basis. The vectors $`e_0`$ and $`e_1`$ comprising the basis are distinguished by their nature: $`e_0`$ is a boson, $`e_1`$ a fermion.333Whatever this means! See Appendix 1 for brief explanations. Thus $`(j_1,J_1)_{ϵ_1}\mathrm{}(j_k,J_k)_{ϵ_k}`$ is a complex vector space of dimension $`2^k`$. Its basis consists of vectors $`e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_k}`$, so the basis vectors may be identified with sequences of zeros and ones placed at the points of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$.

### 2.4. Digression: Boltzmann Weights

To describe the images of morphisms under $`𝒯^1`$, one uses geometric interpretation borrowed from statistical mechanics. Recall how this works.

The image under $`𝒯^1`$ of an arbitrary morphism of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$ is a linear map between the corresponding vector space. The map can be presented by a matrix. Elements of the matrix are complex numbers corresponding to the pairs consisting of basis vectors of the two vector spaces. Recall that the basis vectors are interpreted as sequences of the zeros and ones. These zeros and ones are placed at the end points of the colored framed graph representing the morphism. Hence, to define the image of this morphism under $`𝒯^1`$, we need to associate a complex number with any distribution of zeros and ones at the end points of the graph.

Of course, it suffices to define the images of all the generators of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$ (see Figure 3) in such a way that the images would satisfy the relations shown in Figure 4.

For a graph underlying a generator, any distribution of zeros and ones at the end points naturally extends to the adjacent 1-strata of the diagram. The matrix element of the morphism which is the image of the generator of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$ corresponds to such a coloring of 1-strata of the diagram.

We deal now with two colorings: the first one is a $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring, the second one associates zero or one to each 1-stratum of the diagram. These colors stand for basis vectors of the module associated to the $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$-color of the 1-stratum. To distinguish these colorings from each other, we call the first of them (i. e., a $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring) the primary coloring, and the second one, the secondary coloring.

Hence to define the image under $`𝒯^1`$ of the generator of $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$, we need to associate with any such a pair of colorings of the elementary graphs shown in Figure 3 an appropriate complex number. In the statistical mechanics, where this graphical interpretation comes from, these numbers are called Boltzmann weights.

Once Boltzmann weights are known for all the pair of colorings of elementary graphs, the matrix element for the image of an arbitrary morphism of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$ can be calculated as follows: choose a diagram for the corresponding graph, consider all the extensions of the given distributions of zeros and ones at the end points of the graph to secondary colorings of the whole diagram. For each of the secondary colorings make the product of all the Boltzmann weights of its elementary fragments. The sum of the products over all these secondary colorings is the desired matrix element. A secondary coloring in the terminology of statistical mechanics would be called a state (of the graph). Hence the sum of the products is a sum over all the states, or a state sum.

### 2.5. Refined Reshetikhin-Turaev Functor on Morphisms

The Main Theorem of Reshetikhin-Turaev paper  suggests the images for the generators with the six underlying graphs shown on the left hand side of Figure 3. For the right two this should be the Clebsch-Gordan morphisms scaled so that the relations corresponding to the bottom row of Figure 4 were satisfied.

The choice of scaling is not prescribed by the Reshetikhin-Turaev Theorem and, moreover, is not unique. However, properties of the functor depend on the choice which is made here and justify it.

The images of the generators are given below in Tables 1 and 2 by the Boltzmann weights. The secondary colors are shown there as follows. The arcs colored with the boson basis vector $`e_0`$ are shown as dotted arcs, the arcs colored with the fermion basis vector $`e_1`$ are shown in solid. (We follow Kauffman and Saleur .)

The leftmost graph in Figure 3 can be oriented in two ways. If it is oriented from right to left, its image under $`𝒯^1`$ should map $`(j,J)_{}(j,J)_+`$ to $``$. Reshetikhin-Turaev Theorem suggests 444This differs by the sign from Reshetikhin-Turaev due to the framework of supermathematics, see Appendix 1. the pairing  which acts by $`(e_ae_b)(1)^aq^{2ja}\delta _{ab}`$, see Section 11.5. For the same graph with the opposite orientation, Reshetikhin-Turaev Theorem suggests “quantum transposed” pairing  which acts by $`(e_ae_b)q^{2j(1a)}\delta _{ab}`$, see Section 11.5.

The next graph in Figure 3 oriented from right to left is mapped by $`𝒯^1`$ to $`(j,J)_{}(j,J)_+`$. Reshetikhin-Turaev Theorem suggests the co-pairing $`\text{}:1e_0e_0e_1q^{2j}e_1`$ (the minus sign is again due to the superenvironment). For the same graph with the opposite orientation the formula is

$$\text{}:(j,J)_+(j,J)_{}:1q^{2j}e_0e_0+e_1e_1.$$

The next two graphs in Figure 3 are diagrams of neighborhoods of crossing points. At a crossing point where the strings are colored with modules $`M`$ and $`N`$, the Reshetikhin-Turaev Theorem suggests the composition of the action of the universal $`R`$-matrix in the tensor product $`MN`$ and the transposition $`MNNM`$. This composition is calculated in Appendix 1, Section 11.6. The (non-zero) Boltzmann weights are shown in Table 1.

Each of the next two graphs in Figure 3 consists of a single string with a half-twist of the framing. We need to associate with them the action of a square root of $`v^1`$ and $`v`$, respectively, in the module corresponding to the color of the string. $`v`$ acts both in $`(j,J)_+`$ and $`(j,J)_{}`$ as multiplication by $`q^{2jJ}`$, see Section 11.4. Therefore the Boltzmann weights for     and     are $`q^{jJ}`$, and for     and     they are $`q^{jJ}`$.

The last two graphs in Figure 3 are regular neighborhoods of a trivalent vertex. They admit many orientations and the Boltzmann weights heavily depend on them. As it was mentioned above, the weights are Clebsch-Gordan coefficients scaled to make the state sum invariant with respect to the moves shown in the last line of Figure 4. The Clebsch-Gordan morphisms are calculated in Section 11.6.

The proof that the Boltzmann weights give rise to a well-defined functor can be either a reference to the Reshetikhin-Turaev Theorem  and a routine check of invariance with respect to the moves of the bottom row of Figure 4, or a more extensive routine check for the whole set of moves shown in Figure 4. Since either of these proofs is long and straightforward, I left them to the reader.

### 2.6. Symmetry of Boltzmann Weights

The Boltzmann weights of Tables 1 and 2 which involve neither weight components of colors nor clock-wise orientations at strong vertices satisfy a remarkable symmetry. If one reverses orientations of two edges in an entry of Table 2 and switches simultaneously bosons and fermions on them, in the Boltzmann weight each expression of the form $`q^{2j}`$, where $`j`$ is the multiplicity of the arc involved in the change, changes to $`q^{2j}`$.

For example, as the Boltzmann weight at     is $`(q^{2i}q^{2i})q^{2j}`$, the Boltzmann weight at     is $`(q^{2i}q^{2i})(q^{2j})=(q^{2i}q^{2i})q^{2j}`$.

This symmetry allows one to recover the whole Table 2 from its first column. The requirement to change two edges can be replaced by the requirement to preserve the parity of a trivalent vertex.

The Boltzmann weights of Table 1 at points of maxima and minima satisfy a symmetry of the same sort: as the Boltzmann weight at $`\text{}_{(j,J)}`$ is $`q^{2j}`$, the Boltzmann weight at $`\text{}_{(j,J)}`$ is $`q^{2j}`$.

### 2.7. How to Eliminate Planck Constant

All Boltzmann weights of Tables 1 and 2 are linear combinations of powers of $`q`$. The exponents are linear combinations of the multiplicities and products of a multiplicity by a weight. The number $`q`$ never appears without an exponent of this sort.

The Boltzmann weights of Tables 1 and 2 satisfy identically the equations which express invariance of the state sums with respect to the moves of Figure 4. These equations have shape of integer polynomial equations in powers of $`q`$ with exponents $`\pm j_i`$ and $`J_kj_l`$, where $`j_1`$, …, $`j_n`$ are the multiplicities and $`J_1`$, …, $`J_n`$ weights of the colors involved. The equations are satisfied identically for exponents satisfying the admissibility conditions. The latter appear only in the equations corresponding to the moves of two bottom lines in Figure 4. Each of these moves involves a single triple vertex. Hence the admissibility conditions allow one to eliminate multiplicity and weight of one of the edges. After that the equations are satisfied identically by the powers of $`q`$ with algebraically independent exponents.

Replace in them each $`q^{j_i}`$ with $`t_i`$ and restrict ourselves to integer $`J_i`$’s. Since the original equations are satisfied identically by $`j_i`$’s and $`J_i`$’s satisfying the admissibility conditions, the new equations are satisfied identically provided $`t_i`$’s and $`J_i`$’s satisfy the identities corresponding to the admissibility conditions.

This suggests to eliminate $`q`$ by replacing its powers with the new quantities. The substitutes for $`q^{j_i}`$ can be taken from a multiplicative group, but must be different from the fourth roots of 1, and being as independent as the admissibility condition allows. The group may be not fixed once forever, but chosen each time according to the needs. To keep everything polynomial, the range for weights narrows to integers. We shall follow a more general (but less polynomial) solution: take weights from an abelian additive subgroup $`W`$ of $`B`$, which is equipped with pairing $`M\times WM:(t,T)t^T`$ linear in each variable. For admissibility conditions we need to assume that, firstly, $`W`$ contains the unity $`1B`$, and, secondly, $`t^1=t`$ for $`tM`$.

The functors obtained in this way from $`𝒯^1`$ are described from scratch below in the next three sections.

### 2.8. Categories of Colored Framed Graphs

We shall call a 1-palette a quartiple $`P`$ consisting of a commutative associative unitary ring $`B`$, a subgroup $`M`$ of the multiplicative group of $`B`$, a subgroup $`W`$ of the additive group $`B^+`$ of $`B`$ and a (bilinear) pairing $`M\times WM:(m,w)m^w`$. We assume that $`W`$ contains the unity $`1B`$ and that the pairing sends $`(m,1)`$ to $`m`$, i.e., $`m^1=m`$ for any $`mM`$.

In this section for each 1-palette $`P`$ we define a category $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$. Its objects are finite sequences of triples each of which consists of $`tM`$ with $`t^41`$, $`TW`$ and a sign. The first and second elements of the triple are called as in the case of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$: multiplicity and weight. The triples comprising an object are placed at the corresponding points on the line $`^1`$, cf. Section 2.1.

A morphism of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$

$$\{(t_1,T_1,ϵ_1),\mathrm{}(t_k,T_k,ϵ_k)\}\{(u_1,U_1,\delta _1),\mathrm{}(u_l,U_l,\delta _l)\}$$

is a framed generic graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ embedded in $`^2\times [0,1]`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Pi }_k\times 0\mathrm{\Pi }_l\times 1=(^2\times [0,1])\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and additional structures described below. It is considered up to ambient isotopy fixed on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Its framing at the end points is parallel to the $`x`$-axis.

The additional structures on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ all together are called $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring. Each of the 1-strata is colored with an orientation and a pair consisting of an element of $`\{tMt^41\}`$ and an element of $`W`$. The former is called multiplicity, the latter weight. The orientations of the edges adjacent to the boundary points are determined by the signs of the points’ colors as in $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$: the edge adjacent to a point with $`+`$ is oriented at the point upwards (along the standard direction of the $`z`$-axis), otherwise it is oriented downwards. The multiplicity and weight of the edge adjacent to an end point coincide with the corresponding ingredients of the color of this point. At each of the trivalent vertices the colors of the adjacent edges satisfy to the following

###### 2.8.AAdmissibility Conditions.

Let $`(t_1,T_1)`$, $`(t_2,T_2)`$, $`(t_3,T_3)`$ be the multiplicity and weight components of the colors of three edges whose germs are adjacent to the same vertex and let $`ϵ_i=1`$ if the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ of the edges is oriented towards the vertex and $`ϵ_i=1`$ otherwise. Then

(3)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}t_i^{ϵ_i}=1$$

(4)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}ϵ_iT_i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}ϵ_i$$

At each strong vertex the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is oriented. The orientation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at strong vertices is considered a part of the $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, together with the orientations, multiplicities and weights of 1-strata.

Equation (3) means that $`t_ie_i`$, where the sum is taken over all the edges $`e_i`$ of the graph with their orientations and $`t_i`$ is the first component of the color of $`e_i`$, is a relative 1-cycle with real coefficients of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ modulo $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so that it defines an element of $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma };P)`$. This element is called the multiplicity homology class of the coloring.

### 2.9. Functors

Let $`P=(B,M,W,M\times WM)`$ be a 1-palette (see the preceding section). Denote by $`_{}`$ the category of finitely generated free $`B`$-modules. Our goal is to construct a functor $`𝒜^1:𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}_{}`$, which will be called the Alexander functor.

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the $`B`$-module $`BB`$. Denote by $`e_0`$ and $`e_1`$ the natural basis elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For an object $`\{(t_1,T_1,ϵ_1),\mathrm{}(t_k,T_k,ϵ_k)\}`$ of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$, the image under $`𝒜^1`$ is defined to be the tensor product

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_B\mathrm{}_B\mathrm{\Lambda }$$

with $`k`$ factors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This is a free $`B`$-module of rank $`2^k`$. It has a canonical basis consisting of $`e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_k}`$. So, the basis elements may be identified with sequences of zeros and ones placed at the points of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$.

The generating morphisms of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ are just colored generators of $`𝒢`$, like in $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$. Therefore functor $`𝒜^1`$ on morphisms can also be described by presenting Boltzmann weights, as it was done for $`𝒯^1`$ in Tables 1 and 2. The Boltzmann weights for $`𝒜^1`$ are given in Tables 3 and 4. In these tables (as in 1 and 2) a string with $`e_0`$ is shown as dotted arc, and a string with $`e_1`$ as solid arc. The entries of Tables 3 and 4 are obtained from the corresponding entries of Tables 1 and 2: if an edge colored in a table of Section 2.5 with $`(j,J)`$ has a counterpart in the corresponding table of this section colored with $`(t,T)`$ then $`q^j`$ is replaced with $`t`$ and $`J`$ with $`T`$, as it was promised in Section 2.7. Therefore isotopy invariance of state sums based on Boltzmann weights of Tables 1 and 2 implies isotopy invariance of state sums based on Tables 3 and 4.

If $`B=[M]`$ and $`W=`$ then the morphism obtained by $`𝒜^1`$ from a colored framed graph is represented by a matrix whose entries are Laurent polynomials in multiplicities attached to the strings of the graph. Thus it looks closer to the Alexander polynomial than morphisms provided by $`𝒯^1`$. It is even too nice, since we are not allowed to divide by polynomials, which is quite desirable, cf. (14). Therefore we are more interested in the case when $`M`$ is torsion free and $`B`$ the field $`Q(M)`$ of quotients of $`[M]`$.

### 2.10. Still Representations of Hopf Algebra

In definition of $`𝒯^1`$ given in Sections 2.3, 2.5, the action of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ is completely hidden behind the Boltzmann weights, and at first glance is not needed. However if we forgot it completely, the arguments based on irreducibility of representations, like the ones used in the proofs of 5.1.A, 5.1.B and 5.1.C would be impossible.

The target of $`𝒜^1`$ is not yet equipped with a structure which would be a counterpart of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$-representations. In fact, they cannot be equipped with an action of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$. However, $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ contains a Hopf-subalgebra $`U^1`$ (see Section 11.7) such that $`𝒜^1`$ can be upgraded to a functor to the category of modules over this subalgebra.

Now we can redefine the Alexander functor $`𝒜^\mathcal{1}:𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}_{}`$ introduced in Section 2.9 as a functor from the same category $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$, but targeted at the category of finite dimensional modules over $`U^1_{}B`$ which assigns to an object $`\{(t_1,T_1,ϵ_1)`$, …, $`(t_k,T_k,ϵ_k)\}`$ of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ the tensor product

$$U(t_1,T_1)_{ϵ_1}_B\mathrm{}_BU(t_k,T_k)_{ϵ_k},$$

See Section 11.8 On morphisms the functor is defined by the same Boltzmann weights as above.

## 3. Reshetikhin-Turaev Functor Based on $`sl(2)`$

In this section we construct a functor $`𝒯^2`$ similar to the functor $`𝒯^1`$ defined in Section 2. It is a modified special case of a functor introduced by Deguchi and Akutsu in Section 5 of . The functor constructed in  depends on a natural number $`N`$. Our modification is related to the case $`N=2`$.

The choice of scaling of Clebsch-Gordan morphisms used by Deguchi and Akutsu  is based on orthogonality relations. Its disadvantage is that at each vertex one of the adjacent edges is distinguished and has to be directed upwards.

Here I use another scaling. It does not satisfy the orthogonality relations, but eliminate the choice of an edge at each trivalent vertex. Together with a deferent choice of basis vectors in the representations this makes formulas much simpler than in .

### 3.1. Category of Colored Framed Graphs

The source category for $`𝒯^2`$ is denoted $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ and defined as follows.

An object of $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ is a class of finite sequences of pairs. Each of the pairs consists of a complex number and a sign. The complex numbers are not allowed to be odd integers. In a pair the complex number may be multiplied by $`1`$ with simultaneous change of the sign component of the pair. An object of $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ consists of all the sequences which can be obtained from each other by a sequence of operations like this.

A morphism of $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$

$$\{(A_1,ϵ_1),\mathrm{},(A_k,ϵ_k)\}\{(B_1,\delta _1),\mathrm{},(B_l,\delta _l)\}$$

is a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:kl`$ of category $`𝒢`$ (see Section 1.7) equipped with the additional structure described below.

Each of 1-strata is colored with an orientation and a complex number. The latter is called a weight. It is prohibited to be an odd integer. The orientation of a 1-stratum may be changed with a simultaneous multiplication of the weight by $`1`$. In other words, this is an element $`C`$ of $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },\{vertices\};)`$, that is a 1-chain of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with complex coefficients. This chain must satisfy the following

###### 3.1.AAdmissibility Condition.

The boundary $`C`$ of $`C`$ must involve each trivalent vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with coefficient $`\pm 1`$, boundary vertex $`(i,0)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}k`$ with coefficient $`ϵ_iA_i`$ and boundary vertex $`(i,1)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}l`$ with coefficient $`\delta _iB_i`$, respectively.

To the properties of the weight chain $`C`$, we should add that each 1-stratum is involved in $`C`$ with a coefficient, which cannot be an odd integer.

An internal vertex is called a source if it is involved in $`C`$ with coefficient $`1`$, otherwise it is called a sink. In figures a sink is shown in with a small light disk.

### 3.2. Constructing Reshetikhin-Turaev Functor

Our goal is to construct a functor $`𝒯^2`$ from $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ to the category of finite dimensional representations of Hopf algebra $`U_\sqrt{1}sl(2)`$. For a brief summary on these quantum algebra and its representations used below, see Appendix 2. The image of an object $`\{(A_1,ϵ_1),\mathrm{},(A_k,ϵ_k)\}`$ of $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ is defined as the tensor product $`I(ϵ_1A_1)\mathrm{}I(ϵ_kA_k)`$, see Section 12.4.

Each of the factors $`I(ϵA)`$ is a 2-dimensional vector space with a canonical basis $`e_0`$, $`e_1`$. Thus, $`I(ϵ_1A_1)\mathrm{}I(ϵ_kA_k)`$ has a canonical basis consisting of $`e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_k}`$. The basis vectors of $`I(ϵ_1A_1)\mathrm{}I(ϵ_kA_k)`$ may be identified with sequences of zeros and ones. These zeros and ones are associated with orientation of the corresponding points.

For presentation of the images of morphisms via Boltzmann weights, one has to consider diagrams of graphs representing the morphisms of $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ and coloring of their 1-strata with basis vectors of the representations associated with the colors of the 1-strata. It is convenient to identify these second colors with orientations of 1-strata: if a 1-strata is oriented upwards, it is colored with $`e_0`$, otherwise it is colored with $`e_1`$. The same orientations can be used for presenting of the (underlying) $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring, i. e., coloring with pairs (orientation, weight). Recall that the orientation in this pair can be reversed with simultaneous multiplication of the weight by $`1`$. Therefore, one may use any orientation to specify the $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-color, and it is natural to use the same orientation for both purposes: describing the representation attached to the string and a basis vector chosen in the representation. The weight is shown at the string. The same picture can be used just for $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-colored graph. To emphasize the double usage of orientations, we use light arrowheads.

Hence an edge with upwards light arrowhead and number $`A`$ and an edge with downwards light arrowhead and number $`A`$ denote a string colored with the same primary color $`(\text{upwards orientation},A)`$, which is associated with the same representation $`I(A)`$. The secondary colors are vectors $`e_0`$ and $`e_1`$, respectively, in the first and second case. The same edge with the same orientations and multiplicities, but shown with dark arrowheads is colored with the same primary color (associated with $`I(A)`$), but with no secondary color, i. e., with no basis vector of $`I(A)`$ specified.

The image of a morphism is defined via Boltzmann weights shown in Tables 5 and 6. In these tables and below $`𝒊`$ denotes $`\sqrt{1}`$, while $`𝒊^x`$ denotes $`\mathrm{exp}(\frac{x\pi 𝒊}{2})`$. The Boltzmann weights are found on the basis of the Reshetikhin-Turaev Theorem , similarly to the Boltzmann weights of Tables 1 and 2. The relevant information about the Hopf algebra $`U_𝒊sl(2)`$ and its representations is placed in Appendix 2. One can check directly that the Boltzmann weights of Tables 5 and 6 define a functor from $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ to the category of modules over $`U_𝒊sl(2)`$.

### 3.3. Homological Meaning of Colorings

Presentation of a secondary coloring of a generic graph by orientations of 1-strata suggests a homology interpretation of the secondary coloring as an integer 1-chain, in which any 1-stratum has coefficient $`1`$, if it is taken with the orientation specified by the light arrow. Denote this chain by $`Z`$.

An easy analysis of Table 6 shows that $`Z`$ has a curious property: it completes the weight chain $`C`$ of the corresponding primary coloring to a cycle modulo the boundary of the underlying graph. In other words, $`(C+Z)`$ involves no internal vertices.

This suggests to associate to a secondary color (i. e. a basis vector of $`I(A)`$) the coefficient with which it appears in $`C+Z`$. For a basis vector $`e_i`$ of the representation $`I(A)`$, the complex number $`a=(1)^iA+1`$ is called the charge. A secondary $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring of a generic graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be presented by a 1-chain $`c=C+Z`$ with complex coefficients on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$: each 1-stratum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equipped with the orientation associated with the secondary color and the charge. Hence a secondary coloring defines an element of $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma };)`$. However, it is not defined by this homology class: one has to add the orientations of 1-strata. These orientations are encoded in $`Z`$.

Replacing the weights by charges makes Tables 5 and 6 simpler. See Table 7. The difference between sink and source vertices almost vanishes. Most formulas expressing the Boltzmann weights become simpler. This can be explained by the algebraic nature of charge: it is an Eigenvalue of $`K`$.

The homology class of a secondary coloring reduced modulo 2 depends only on the primary coloring. It belongs to $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma };/2)`$ and can be described directly in terms of the primary coloring by adding 1 to each weight and reducing modulo 2.

It may happen that a diagram of a generic graph with a primary $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring does not admit any secondary coloring. In Figure 5 such a closed generic graph with a primary $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring is shown on the left hand side. This property depends on embedding of the graph. On the right hand side of Figure 5 the same graph, but embedded in a different way is shown with a secondary coloring (to keep evident the relation to the primary coloring, the secondary coloring is presented not by the charges, but by the weights).

Of course, absence of secondary colorings implies that $`𝒯^2`$ maps the (primarily) colored framed graph to the zero morphism.

### 3.4. Algebraization

In this section we do with $`𝒯^2`$ what is done with $`𝒯^1`$ in Sections 2.72.10: we eliminate formal power series. As in the case of $`𝒯^1`$, the most obvious obstacle for this is presence of products in exponents. In the case of $`𝒯^1`$ all the products in exponents are products of a multiplicity and a weight. In formulas: Boltzmann weights involve terms of the form $`q^{jI}`$, where $`j`$ is the multiplicity component of a color and $`I`$ is the weight components of, maybe other, color.

In Table 5 the quadratic part of exponents is made of values of a single parameter, weight, which are complex numbers prohibited to be odd integers. Thus the solution that is used in the case of $`𝒯^1`$ cannot be applied here literally. To rewrite the Boltzmann weights of tables 5 and 6 in a formal algebraic way without exponential function, one may follow the approach indicated below.

The complex parameters are substituted with parameters taken from a commutative ring $`W`$, while the Boltzmann weights are taken from a larger ring $`B`$. Besides the inclusion, $`W`$ and $`B`$ are related by a group homomorphism of the additive group $`W^+`$ of $`W`$ to the multiplicative group $`B^\times `$ of $`B`$.

In the original setup of $`𝒯^2`$, both $`W`$ and $`B`$ are $``$ and the homomorphism $`W^+B^\times `$ is defined by $`A𝒊^A`$.

In our generalization, we use the same exponential notation for the homomorphism $`W^+B^\times `$. This is justified by the condition that $`4W`$ must be mapped by the homomorphism to $`1B`$, i. e. $`𝒊^4=1`$. This condition implies that $`B`$ contains a root of unity of degree 4: this is $`𝒊^1`$, indeed $`(𝒊^1)^4=𝒊^{(41)}=𝒊^4=1`$. This element of $`B`$ is denoted by $`𝒊`$.

Let us call a 2-palette a triple $`P`$ consisting of $`W`$, $`B`$ and the map $`W^+B^\times :A𝒊^A`$ as above:

* $`B`$ is a commutative ring with unity,
* $`W`$ is a subring containing the unity,
* $`W^+B^\times :A𝒊^A`$ is a homomorphism with $`𝒊^4=1`$.

The category $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$ of colored framed graphs replacing $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ looks as follows. Its object is a class of finite sequences of pairs. Each of the pairs consists of an element of $`W`$ and a sign. The former is called the weight of the color. It is not allowed to belong to $`\{xW𝒊^{2x+2}=1\}`$. In a pair, the weight may be multiplied by $`1`$ with simultaneous change of the sign. An object is a class of all the sequences which can be obtained from each other by operations like this applied to the pairs comprising the sequence.

A morphism of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$

$$\{(A_1,ϵ_1),\mathrm{},(A_k,ϵ_k)\}\{(B_1,\delta _1),\mathrm{},(B_l,\delta _l)\}$$

is a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:kl`$ of category $`𝒢`$ equipped with an additional structure called $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring.

Each 1-stratum is colored with an orientation and an element of $`W`$ called the weight of the color. It may not belong to $`\{xW𝒊^{2x+2}=1\}`$. The orientation of a 1-stratum may be changed with simultaneous multiplication of the weight by $`1`$. In other words, this is an element $`C`$ of $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },\{vertices\};W)`$, that is a 1-chain of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with coefficients in $`W`$. This chain must satisfy the following

###### 3.4.AAdmissibility Condition.

The boundary $`C`$ must involve each internal (i. e., trivalent) vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with coefficient $`\pm 1`$, boundary vertex $`(i,0)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}k`$ with coefficient $`ϵ_iA_i`$ and boundary vertex $`(i,1)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}l`$ with coefficient $`\delta _iB_i`$, respectively.

The generalization $`𝒜^2`$ of $`𝒯^2`$ acts from $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$ to a the category of finitely generated free modules over $`B`$. It assigns to the class of sequences $`\{(\pm A_1,\pm )`$,…, $`(\pm A_k,\pm )\}`$ the vector space of dimension $`2^k`$ generated by all the representatives of the class. This is the tensor product (over $`B`$) of $`k`$ copies of a free $`B`$-module of rank 2.

It is not just a $`B`$-module. It admits a natural action of a Hopf algebra $`U^2`$ which can be defined exactly as $`U_𝒊sl(2)`$ (see Section 12.3), but without relation $`K=𝒊^H`$. Namely, $`U^2`$ is the Hopf algebra generated by $`H`$, $`K`$, $`X`$ and $`Y`$ satisfying the relations:

(5)
$$\begin{array}{c}[Y,X]=KK^1,\\ [H,X]=2X,[H,Y]=2Y,\\ KX=XK,KY=YK.\end{array}$$

with co-product defined by

(6) $`\mathrm{\Delta }:U^2`$ $`U^2U^2:`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(H)=H1+1H`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(K)=KK`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(K^1)=K^1K^1`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(X)=XK^1+1X,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y)=Y1+KY,`$
co-unit defined by

(7) $`ϵ:U^2`$ $`[[h]]:`$
$`ϵ(K)=ϵ(K^1)=1,ϵ(H)=ϵ(X)=ϵ(X)=0,`$
and antipode

(8) $`s:U^2`$ $`U^2:`$
$`s(H)=H,`$
$`s(K)=K^1,s(K^1)=K,`$
$`s(X)=XK(=KX),`$
$`s(Y)=K^1Y(=YK^1).`$
In the case of the free $`B`$-module of rank 2 corresponding to $`\{(\pm A,\pm )\}`$, the generators $`H`$, $`K`$, $`X`$ and $`Y`$ act by the following formulas:

(9) $`X:`$ $`(A,+)(𝒊^{A+1}+𝒊^{A+1})(A,),(A,)0`$
$`Y:`$ $`(A,+)0,(A,)(A,+)`$
$`K:`$ $`(A,+)𝒊^{A+1}(A,+)(A,)𝒊^{A1}(A,)`$
$`H:`$ $`(A,+)(A+1)(A,+)(A,)(A1)(A,)`$
Denote this $`U^2_{}B`$-module by $`I_B(A)`$.

In the case of a longer sequence $`\{(A_1,ϵ_1),\mathrm{},(A_k,ϵ_k)\}`$, the corresponding $`B`$-module is considered as the tensor product of the sequence of $`U^2_{}B`$-modules of rank 2 corresponding to the elements of the sequence and the action is defined by via the coproduct of $`U^2`$.

A morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is mapped to the morphism of the corresponding modules defined by the matrix whose entries are constructed as follows. An entry of the matrix corresponds to the choice of signs at the boundary points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Consider all the extensions of these signs to orientations of $`1`$-strata of a diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As in the case of $`𝒯^2`$, the extensions are called secondary colorings. In a diagram the orientations comprising a secondary coloring are shown by light arrowheads, as in the case of $`𝒯^2`$. For each of the extensions, take the product of Boltzmann weights at the vertices and extremal points of the height function in the diagram according to the tables 5 and 6 and sum up the product over all the extensions. If a local picture at a vertex of the diagram does not appear in the tables, assign 0 to the vertex, i. e. disregard the extension.

Of course, $`𝒯^2`$ is a special case of $`𝒜^2`$ with $`W=B=`$.

## 4. Relations Between the Reshetikhin-Turaev Functors

Although at first glance $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$ and $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ seem to be quite different, more careful analysis shows deep similarities and relations between them.

### 4.1. Things to Recolor

There is a subcategory $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ of $`𝒢_{\pi 𝓲/\mathcal{2}}^\mathcal{1}`$ and a natural transformation of $`𝒯^1|_{S𝒢^\mathcal{1}}`$ to $`𝒯^2`$.

An object $`\{(j_1,J_1,ϵ_1),\mathrm{},(j_k,J_k,ϵ_k)\}`$ of $`𝒢_{\pi 𝓲/\mathcal{2}}^\mathcal{1}`$ belongs to $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ if $`j_r+J_r=1`$ for $`r=1,\mathrm{},k`$. A morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`𝒢_{\pi 𝓲/\mathcal{2}}^\mathcal{1}`$ belongs to $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ if for each 1-stratum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the sum of its multiplicity and weight is $`1`$.

This choice is motivated as follows. We want to have a correspondence between $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$\- and $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-colorings which would preserve the Boltzmann weights. Comparison of the first lines of Tables 1 and 5 suggests to assume $`q=𝒊`$ and $`2j=A1`$, i. e. $`j=\frac{A+1}{2}`$. The Boltzmann weights at half-twists suggest $`jJ=\frac{A^21}{4}`$, which together with $`j=\frac{A+1}{2}`$ imply $`J=\frac{1A}{2}`$ and $`j+J=1`$. Of course, this does not pretend to be a proof, but rather a strong indication in favor of the choice made above.

### 4.2. Recoloring

Define a functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:S𝒢^\mathcal{1}𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$. An object $`\{(j_1,J_1,ϵ_1)`$,…, $`(j_k,J_k,ϵ_k)\}`$ of $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ is turned by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $`\{(2j_11,ϵ_1),\mathrm{},(2j_k1,ϵ_k)\}`$. To a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ it assigns the isotopy class of the same oriented framed graphs with weights on 1-strata obtained from the original multiplicities by the same formula: if the multiplicity (in $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring) is $`j`$, the weight (in $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring) is $`2j1`$.

###### 4.2.AConsistency in Admissibility Conditions.

The recoloring converts any morphism of $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ to a morphism of $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$. In other words, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ turns a coloring of a generic graph satisfying Admissibility Conditions 2.2.A and the condition defining $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ (the sum of multiplicity and weight for each 1-stratum is $`1`$) into a coloring satisfying Admissibility Condition 3.1.A.

###### 4.2.BLemma.

Any morphism of $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ has no strong vertices.

###### Proof.

Recall that a vertex is said to be strong if the adjacent edges are oriented either all towards it or in the opposite direction. In notations of Admissibility Conditions 2.2.A, this means that $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2=ϵ_3`$. By Admissibility Conditions (1) and (2), at a strong vertex $`j_1+j_2+j_3=0`$ and $`J_1+J_2+J_3=1`$. Hence $`j_1+j_2+j_3+J_1+J_2+J_3=1`$. On the other hand, $`j_r+J_r=1`$ in $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$, hence $`j_1+j_2+j_3+J_1+J_2+J_3=3`$. ∎

###### Proof of 4.2.A.

By Lemma at each internal vertex at least one of the adjacent edges is directed towards the vertex and at least one outwards. Therefore $`j_1+j_2j_3=0`$, where $`j_1`$, $`j_2`$ and $`j_3`$ are the multiplicities of the edges adjacent to a vertex and numerated appropriately. Then $`|(2j_11)+(2j_21)(2j_31)|=1`$, and hence the vertex is involved with coefficient $`\pm 1`$ into the boundary of the weight chain of the coloring provided by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. ∎

### 4.3. Invariance of Boltzmann Weights Under Recoloring

Categories $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$, $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ and $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ can be enriched by incorporating secondary colorings into objects and morphisms. The enriched categories are denoted by $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}\mathrm{}`$, $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}\mathrm{}`$ and $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}\mathrm{}`$, respectively.

###### 4.3.AConsistency in Boltzmann Weights.

Functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be enhanced to a functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ from $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}\mathrm{}`$ to $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}\mathrm{}`$ in such a way that the Boltzmann weight of $`𝒯^1`$ equals of the Boltzmann weight of $`𝒯^2`$ at the same point after application $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Proof.

The construction looks as follows: the dotted arcs (i. e., colored with bosons) get light arrowhead with the same orientation, while the solid arcs (colored with fermions) change orientation and $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-weight. For example,

$$\text{}\text{ turns into }\text{}.$$

Notice that the $`𝒯^1`$-Boltzmann weight at    is $`(q^{2i}q^{2i})q^{2j}`$, while the $`𝒯^2`$-Boltzmann weight at    is $`𝒊^{2j1}(𝒊^{12i}+𝒊^{2i1})=𝒊^{2j}(𝒊^{2i}𝒊^{2i})`$. Thus the $`𝒯^2`$-Boltzmann weight after the transformation coincides with the $`𝒯^1`$-Boltzmann weight of the original graph. One can easily check this for each of the Boltzmann weights of Tables 1 and 2, except for the weights at strong vertices, which do not appear in $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ by Lemma 4.2.A. Here is another example. This is one of the most complicated entries from Table 1: $`\text{}\text{ turns into }\text{}.`$ (Here we present a secondary $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}\mathrm{}`$-coloring by weights.) The $`𝒯^1`$-Boltzmann weight at    is

$$q^{iJ+jI+ij}(1q^{4i})=q^{i(1j)+j(1i)+ij}(1q^{4i})=q^{2ij}(q^{2i}q^{2i}),$$

while the $`𝒯^2`$-Boltzmann weight at    is

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒊^{\frac{1}{2}((12i)(12j)+(12i)+(12j)+1)}(𝒊^{12i}+𝒊^{2i1})=𝒊^{\frac{1}{2}(4ij+2)}𝒊(𝒊^{2i}𝒊^{2i})=\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒊^{2ij}(𝒊^{2i}𝒊^{2i}).\end{array}$$

Other entries of Tables 1 and 2 can be treated similarly, but the number of necessary checkings can be reduced, if one takes into account the behavior of the Boltzmann weights under the moves of Figure 4. ∎

### 4.4. Functorial Reformulation

Denote by $`Vect()`$ the category of complex vector spaces. Denote by $`(𝒯^1)^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(𝒯^2)^{\mathrm{}}`$ the compositions of $`𝒯^1`$ and $`𝒯^2`$, respectively, with the appropriate forgetting functor to $`Vect()`$.

###### 4.4.ACorollary of 4.3.A.

The functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which maps the subcategory $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ of $`𝒢_{\pi 𝓲/\mathcal{2}}^\mathcal{1}`$ to $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ comprises together with the identity functor of the category $`Vect()`$ a natural transformation of $`(𝒯^1)^{\mathrm{}}|_{S𝒢^\mathcal{1}}`$ to $`(𝒯^2)^{\mathrm{}}`$. In other words,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S𝒢^\mathcal{1}& \stackrel{(𝒯^1)^{\mathrm{}}|_{S𝒢^\mathcal{1}}}{}& Vect()\\ \mathrm{\Phi }& & & & \\ 𝒢^\mathcal{2}& \stackrel{(𝒯^2)^{\mathrm{}}}{}& Vect()\end{array}$$

is a commutative diagram. In particular, for any morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`S𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$

$$(𝒯^2)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Gamma })=(𝒯^1)^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }).\mathit{}$$

Probably, this is a manifestation of a deeper relation between $`U_𝒊gl(1|1)`$ and $`U_𝒊sl(2)`$ and one can get rid of forgetting functors to $`Vect()`$, cf. . However, we do not elaborate this, since it does not seem to have immediate topological corollaries.

### 4.5. Generalization

In this section we generalize the results of Sections 4.1 \- 4.4 replacing Reshetikhin-Turaev functors $`𝒯^1`$ and $`𝒯^2`$ by their generalizations $`𝒜^1`$ and $`𝒜^2`$.

Let $`P`$ be a 1-palette (see Section 2.8, where we defined also $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-colored graphs). Recall that $`P`$ consists of a commutative ring $`B`$, a subgroup $`M`$ of the multiplicative group of $`B`$, a subgroup $`W`$ of the additive group $`B^+`$ of $`B`$ and a (bilinear) pairing $`M\times WM:(m,w)m^w`$. We assume that $`W`$ contains the unity $`1`$ of $`B`$ and that the pairing takes value $`m`$ on $`(m,1)`$.

Furthermore, suppose

* $`W`$ is a subring of $`B`$,
* the pairing $`M\times WM:(m,w)m^w`$ is an action of the multiplicative monoid of $`W`$ and
* $`M`$ contains an element $`𝒊`$ such that $`𝒊^4=1`$, and $`𝒊^2=11`$.

The second assumption means that $`(m^u)^v=m^{uv}`$ for any $`u,vW`$.

Denote by $`Q`$ the triple consisting of the rings $`B`$, $`W`$ and the map $`WB:w𝒊^w`$. The latter is a homomorphism of the additive group of $`W`$ to the multiplicative group of $`B`$, since $`M\times WM:(m,w)m^w`$ is bilinear. Hence $`Q`$ is a 2-palette (see Section 3.4) and one can consider the category $`𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}`$ of $`𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}`$-colored graphs.

This construction of $`Q`$ can be reversed. Given any 2-palette $`Q=(B,W,W^+B^\times :A𝒊^A)`$ (i.e., $`Q`$ consists of a commutative unitary ring $`B`$, its unitary subring $`W`$ and a homomorphism $`W^+B^\times :A𝒊^A`$ such that $`𝒊^4=1`$), one can construct the quartiple $`P`$ consisting of

* the same ring $`B`$,
* the image $`M`$ of the homomorphism $`W^+B^\times `$ defined by formula $`A𝒊^A`$,
* the subring $`WB`$ and
* the pairing $`M\times WM:(𝒊^A,B)𝒊^{AB}`$.

It is clear that this $`P`$ is a 1-palette and satisfies all the conditions imposed on $`P`$ at the beginning of this section. Moreover, if one applies to this $`P`$ the construction described above, the result is the initial 2-palette $`Q`$.

Let $`P`$ be as at the beginning of Section 4.5. Define a subcategory $`S_𝒊𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$. An object $`\{(t_1,T_1,ϵ_1)`$, …, $`(t_k,T_k,ϵ_k)\}`$ belongs to $`S_𝒊𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ if $`𝒊^{1T_r}=t_r`$ for $`r=1,\mathrm{},k`$. A morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ belongs to $`S_𝒊𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ if for each 1-stratum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ its multiplicity $`t`$ and weight $`T`$ are related in the same way: $`𝒊^{1T}=t`$.

Now define a functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P:S_𝒊𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}`$. It turns an object $`\{(t_1,T_1,ϵ_1)`$,…, $`(t_k,T_k,ϵ_k)\}`$ of $`S𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ to $`\{(12T_1,ϵ_1),\mathrm{},(12T_k,ϵ_k)\}`$. To a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`S𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ it assigns the isotopy class of the same oriented framed graphs with charges on 1-strata obtained from the original weights by the same formula: if the original weight (in $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring) is $`T`$, the new weight (in $`𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring) is $`12T`$.

The functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P:S_𝒊𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}`$ generalizes in the obvious sense the functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:S𝒢^\mathcal{1}𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ defined in Section 4.2: if $`B=`$, $`W=`$ $`M=0`$, and $`M\times WM`$ is defined by $`(m,w)m^w`$ then $`S_𝒊𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}=𝒮𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$, $`𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}=𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P=\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

###### 4.5.AConsistency in Admissibility Conditions.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_P`$ transforms a coloring of a generic graph satisfying Admissibility Conditions 2.8.A and the conditions defining $`S_𝐢𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ into a coloring satisfying Admissibility Condition 3.4.A.

###### 4.5.BLemma.

Any morphism of $`S𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ has no strong vertices.

###### Proof.

Recall that a vertex is said to be strong if the adjacent edges are oriented either all towards it or in the opposite direction. In notations of Admissibility Conditions 2.8.A, this means that $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2=ϵ_3`$. By (3) and (4), at a strong vertex $`t_1t_2t_3=1`$ and $`T_1+T_2+T_3=1`$. Belonging to $`S_𝒊𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ means that $`t_i=𝒊^{1T_i}`$. Hence $`t_1t_2t_3=𝒊^{3(T_1+T_2+T_3)}=𝒊^21`$, which contradicts to $`t_1t_2t_3=1`$. ∎

###### Proof of 4.5.A.

By Lemma at each internal vertex at least one of the adjacent edges is directed towards the vertex and at least one outwards. Therefore $`|T_1+T_2T_3|=1`$, where $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ and $`T_3`$ are the weights of the edges adjacent to a vertex numerated appropriately. Then $`|(12T_1)+(12T_2)(12T_3)|=|12|=1`$ and hence the vertex is involved with coefficient $`\pm 1`$ into the boundary of the weight chain of the coloring provided by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. ∎

Denote by $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}\mathrm{}`$, $`S_𝒊𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}\mathrm{}`$ and $`𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}\mathrm{}`$ the categories $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$, $`S_𝒊𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ and $`𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}`$, respectively, enhanced by incorporating secondary colorings to objects and morphisms.

###### 4.5.CConsistency in Boltzmann Weights.

Functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P`$ can be enhanced to a functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P^{\mathrm{}}`$ from $`S_𝐢𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}\mathrm{}`$ to $`𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}\mathrm{}`$ in such a way that the Boltzmann weight of $`𝒜^1`$ equals of the Boltzmann weight of $`𝒜^2`$ at the same point after application $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P^{\mathrm{}}`$.

This is proved like Theorem 4.3.A. Functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P^{\mathrm{}}`$ turns each dotted arc colored with $`(𝒊^{1T},T)`$ into a solid one colored with $`12T`$ without changing orientation, but the arrowhead becomes light. Each solid arc colored with $`(𝒊^{1T},T)`$ changes its orientation and receives weight $`2T1`$. The proof is completed by a straightforward comparing the Boltzmann weights.∎

###### 4.5.DCorollary of 4.5.C.

The functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P`$ which maps the subcategory $`S_𝐢𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$ to $`𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}`$ comprises together with the identity functor of the category $`_{}`$ a natural transformation of $`𝒜^1|_{S𝒢^\mathcal{1}}`$ to $`𝒜^2`$. In other words,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S_𝒊𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}& \stackrel{𝒜^1|_{S𝒢^\mathcal{1}}}{}& _{}\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_P& & & & \\ 𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}& \stackrel{𝒜^2}{}& _{}\end{array}$$

is a commutative diagram. In particular, for any morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`S_𝐢𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$

$$𝒜^2\mathrm{\Phi }_P(\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }).\mathit{}$$

### 4.6. Non-Surjectivity and Surjectivity of Recoloring

As it was observed in Section 3.3, there exist $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-colorings which do not admit any secondary coloring and therefore give rise to morphisms of $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ mapped by $`𝒯^2`$ to the zero morphisms. Obviously, a morphism of $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ which does not admit a secondary coloring, does not belong to the image of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. However, morphisms of this kind are not interesting, especially if we compare $`𝒯^2`$ and $`𝒯^1`$.

###### 4.6.APartial Reversing of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{P}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Any morphism of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}\mathrm{}`$ with a diagram having neither fragment   , nor    belongs to the image of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P^{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Proof.

Graphically the construction which converts a morphism of this kind can be described as follows: it replaces solid arcs by dotted ones, light arrowheads by solid ones; each weight $`A`$ by the pair made of multiplicity $`𝒊^{\frac{A+1}{2}}`$ and weight $`\frac{1A}{2}`$. This construction is inverse to the construction which proves 4.5.C. One can check that fragments of Table 6 are turned to fragments of the first column of Table 4, with the multiplicities of the adjacent edges satisfying Admissibility Conditions 2.8.A. Similarly, all entries of Table 5, besides    and   , are turned into the corresponding entries of Table 3. ∎

The condition of absence of    , nor     cannot be skipped. One can prove that the right hand side graph of Figure 5 does not belong to the image of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{}}`$. Indeed, it is impossible to find appropriate weights. Existence of weights is equivalent to existence of secondary coloring for the graph on the left hand side of Figure 5.

###### 4.6.BReversing $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{P}^{\mathrm{}}`$ on Graphs Without Internal Vertices.

A morphism of $`𝒢_𝒬^\mathcal{2}\mathrm{}`$ with a diagram having no internal vertices belongs to the image of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P^{\mathrm{}}`$. The $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}\mathrm{}`$-coloring is uniquely defined by the underlying orientations of components.

###### Proof.

Each arc of the diagram with weight $`A`$, where the orientation of the secondary color and orientation of the component coincide, has to be replaced by a dotted arc with the same orientation, multiplicity $`𝒊^{\frac{A+1}{2}}`$ and weight $`\frac{1A}{2}`$. Each arc with weight $`A`$ and the orientations opposite to each other has to be equipped with the orientation of the component, multiplicity $`𝒊^{\frac{1A}{2}}`$ and weight $`\frac{A+1}{2}`$. An easy verification shows that each entry of Table 5 transforms to an entry of Table 3. ∎

### 4.7. Conclusion

The results of this section show that $`𝒯^1`$ and $`𝒯^2`$ are closely related, but do not reduce completely to each other. The source category $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$ seems to be wider in several ways than the source category $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ of $`𝒯^2`$. First, colors have more components. Second, admissibility conditions allow more kinds of local pictures. Orientations at vertices in $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ have no counterpart in $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$. At last, the restriction of $`𝒯^1`$ to a comparatively small part of $`𝒢_{\pi 𝓲/\mathcal{2}}^\mathcal{1}`$ can be factored through a map onto an essential part of $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$.

On the other hand, $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$ and $`𝒯^2`$ are essentially simpler than $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$ and $`𝒯^1`$. I have not been able to find a complete reduction of the formers to the latters, and doubt if such a reduction exists. A simpler theory has obvious advantages. Thus we need to consider both.

Generalizations $`𝒜^1`$ and $`𝒜^2`$ of $`𝒯^1`$ and $`𝒯^2`$ are also related to each other. However the conditions on the initial algebraic data under which the relating natural transformation exists are quite hard. This provides an additional reason to treat both theories.

## 5. Skein Principles and Relations

### 5.1. Skein Principles

Since $`𝒜^1`$ and $`𝒜^2`$ map a colored point to an irreducible representation, the Schur Lemma implies the following.

###### 5.1.AColors’ Simplicity.

Let $`c`$ be 1 or 2 and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a morphism of the category $`𝒢_𝒫^𝒸`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Pi }_1\times 0\mathrm{\Pi }_1\times 1`$. Assume that $`B`$ is a field. Then $`𝒜^c(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a multiplication by a constant. The constant is zero, unless the end points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are colored with the same color.∎

###### 5.1.BRestricted Colors’ Completeness.

Let $`c=1`$ or $`2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a morphism of $`𝒢_𝒫^𝒸`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Pi }_2\times 0\mathrm{\Pi }_2\times 1`$. Let the coloring of the end points $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be extended to a coloring of the graph    satisfying the admissibility conditions. Assume that $`B`$ is a field. Then $`𝒜^c(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a linear combination of morphisms which are the images under $`𝒜^c`$ of the graph    equipped with colorings extending the same coloring of the end points and satisfying the admissibility conditions.

In fact, there are at most two terms in the linear combination of 5.1.B.

###### Proof of 5.1.B.

Consider the case $`c=1`$. The case $`c=2`$ differs only in notations. The morphism under consideration is a morphism

$$(u_0,U_0)_{ϵ_0}(v_0,V_0)_{\delta _0}(u_1,U_1)_{ϵ_1}(v_1,V_1)_{\delta _1}.$$

The assumptions on the colors imply that each of the tensor products is a direct sum of two irreducible modules over the algebra $`U^1`$, see Appendix 1, Section 11.8. The morphism under consideration must preserve these decompositions. Therefore it is a linear combination of at most two isomorphisms between the corresponding summands. (If there is no isomorphic summands in the decompositions then the original morphism is trivial.) An isomorphism between the summands of the decompositions can be realized as the image of the graph    colored in the appropriate way. ∎

The restriction on colors of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in 5.1.B makes a profound difference from the case of quantum invariants studied in  and . However, it is necessary. Indeed, by Admissibility Conditions 2.8.A,     does not admit any coloring such that the bottom two end points are colored with $`(t,T_1,+)`$ and $`(t^1,T_2,+)`$.

It is impossible to enlarge the palette to eliminate the restrictions from 5.1.B without sacrificing 5.1.A. Indeed, the tensor product of modules $`(t,T_1)_+`$ and $`(t^1,T_2)_+`$ is not a direct sum of irreducible $`U^1`$-modules.

###### 5.1.CKilling by Splittable Closed Part.

Let $`c=1`$ or $`2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\times [0,1]`$ be a colored framed graph representing a morphism of $`𝒢_𝒫^𝒸`$ and containing a closed nonempty subgraph $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which is separated from the rest of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by a 2-sphere disjoint with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and embedded in $`^2\times [0,1]`$. Then $`𝒜^c(\mathrm{\Gamma })=0`$.

###### Proof.

First, consider the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an endomorphism of the empty sequence. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{}`$, it can be decomposed as $`\text{}\mathrm{\Phi }\text{}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an endomorphism of $`(t,T)_+(t,T)_{}`$ or $`I(A)I(A)`$ for $`c=1`$ and $`c=2`$ respectively. The first operator in this composition, , maps $`B`$ to the invariant irreducible submodule which can be described as $`\mathrm{Ker}X\mathrm{Ker}Y`$ in both cases. Whatever $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is, it takes this subspace to itself (since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ commutes with $`X`$ and $`Y`$). The operator annihilates this subspace. Therefore the whole composition vanishes.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the splitting provides representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Thus $`𝒜^c(\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒜^c(\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }))=𝒜^c(\mathrm{\Sigma })𝒜^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma })=0𝒜^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma })=0`$. ∎

While Theorems 5.1.A and 5.1.B have counterparts in cases of other Reshetikhin-Turaev functors, Theorem 5.1.C is more special. It implies other specific features of theories related to the Alexander polynomial.

### 5.2. First Skein Relations

Although 5.1.A and 5.1.B do not look like skein relations, they obviously imply existence of skein relations. Of course, these relations can be proven independently by a straightforward calculation.

For example, Theorem 5.1.A implies that $`𝒜^1\left(\text{}_{(t,T)}\right)`$ is equal to $`𝒜^1\left(\text{}_{(t,T)}\right)`$ multiplied by a constant. The constant is obvious from the construction of $`𝒜^1`$: it is $`t^T`$. Hence, we have relation

(10)
$$𝒜^1\left(\text{}_{(t,T)}\right)=t^T𝒜^1\left(\text{}_{(t,T)}\right).$$

This can be used to replace any graph by the same graph with the black-board framing.

###### 5.2.ARemoving Loop Relation for $`𝒜^1`$.

(11)
$$𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)=(t^2t^2)𝒜^1\left(\text{}_{(t,T)}\right)$$

for any admissible colorings of the arcs in the middle of the left hand side such that at strong vertices all the orientations are of the same sign.

Proof of 5.2.A is a straightforward calculation. It is facilitated by the following observation. It suffices to calculate both sides with any color at the both end points, since the morphism is scalar. However a choice of the color may facilitate calculations. For example, if the arcs in the middle of the left hand side of (11) are oriented upwards, then the left hand side admits only one coloring with bosonic colors at the end points, and two colorings with fermionic colors. In the bosonic case the Boltzmann weight at the upper vertex is $`1`$ and at the bottom $`t^2t^2`$, see Table 4. Similar calculations prove (11) for other orientations of these arcs. If the arcs constitute an oriented cycle, the choice of the fermionic color at the end points reduces the state sum to a single summand, otherwise the bosonic color does this. ∎

###### 5.2.BJunction Relations for $`𝒜^1`$.

If $`u^4v^41`$, then

(12)
$$\begin{array}{c}𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{u^2v^2u^2v^2}𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)+\\ \hfill \frac{1}{u^2v^2u^2v^2}𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)\end{array}$$

If $`u^4v^41`$, then

(13)
$$\begin{array}{c}𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{u^2v^2u^2v^2}𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)+\\ \hfill \frac{1}{u^2v^2u^2v^2}𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)\end{array}$$

This is proved by a direct calculation. ∎

Relations (12) and (13) are so similar that it would be natural to unite them. The only tool we need for this is the following

Agreements on Hiding Inessentials.

* If the orientations of some edges are not shown in a diagram, the edges are oriented, but in a non-specified way.
* If several diagrams are involved in the same equality and have end points, the edges adjacent to the equally positioned end points are colored (and, in particular, oriented) in the same way in all the diagrams.
* If only the multiplicity of a color is shown, the other ingredients of the color are ignored because they are not important. One may recover them in any way respecting the admissibility conditions. (However, missing orientations at strong vertices are counter-clockwise)
* If a formula involves a sum over colors of an edge without specified orientation, the sum runs over all the colors (and, in particular, orientations) making admissible triples at the end points of the edge with the colors of the adjacent edges.

Under this agreement (12) and (13) unite as follows:

(14)
$$𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)=\underset{(w,W)}{}\frac{1}{w^2w^2}𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)$$

Relation (11),which is already written partially under the agreement, can be rewritten in a more concise form:

(15)
$$𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)=\delta _{s,t}(t^2t^2)𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)$$

### 5.3. First Skein Relations for the Second Functor

In a similar way, but simpler, one can prove the following counterparts of (10), 5.2.A and 5.2.B for $`𝒜^2`$:

(16)
$$𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)=𝒊^{\frac{A^21}{4}}𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)$$

###### 5.3.ARemoving Loop Relation for $`𝒜^2`$.

(17)
$$𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)=(𝒊^{1+A}+𝒊^{1A})𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)$$

for any admissible colorings of the arcs in the middle of the left hand side. ∎

###### 5.3.BJunction Relations for $`𝒜^2`$.

If $`A+B2`$, then

(18)
$$\begin{array}{c}𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{𝒊^{A+B}𝒊^{AB}}𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)+\\ \hfill \frac{1}{𝒊^{A+B}+𝒊^{AB}}𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)\end{array}$$

## 6. Alexander Invariant of Closed Colored Framed Graphs

### 6.1. Definition of Conway Function via Reshetikhin-Turaev Functor

An isotopy class of a $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$-colored framed link can be considered as a morphism of $`𝒢_𝒽^\mathcal{1}`$ from the empty set to itself. The tensor product of the empty family of modules is naturally identified with the ground field $``$, since this is the unity for the tensor multiplication of modules. Thus the isotopy class of a colored framed link defines, via the Reshetikhin-Turaev functor, a complex number depending on $`q`$. In case of other polynomial link invariant, such as the Jones polynomial, this is a way to relate the polynomial and the functor: the analogous function of $`q`$ defined by the functor is the corresponding polynomial.

However, as follows from Theorem 5.1.C, in the case of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ this does not work: the number constructed in this way is identically zero. This is well-known, see , . The standard way to obtain the Conway function from the Reshetikhin-Turaev functor involves an auxiliary geometric construction. One of the strings in the link should be pulled and cut, to convert the link into a tangle connecting $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1\times 0`$ with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1\times 1`$ in $`^2\times [0,1]`$. By 5.1.A, the corresponding morphism is multiplication by a number depending on $`q`$ and the colors of the components. This number divided by $`q^{2j}q^{2j}`$, where $`j`$ is the multiplicity of the cut string’s color, is the value of the Conway function of the original link evaluated at $`q^{j_1}`$, …$`q^{j_n}`$ where $`j_1`$, …, $`j_n`$ are the multiplicities of the link components’ colors, provided the weights of all the colors are zero. See Rozansky and Saleur , , Murakami , Deguchi and Akutsu .

### 6.2. Why It Does Not Matter Where To Cut

Here I show that the Conway functor defines in a similar way an invariant for $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-colored framed graphs in $`R^3`$. The proof is based on the following Lemma.

###### 6.2.ALemma.

Let $`P=(B,M,W,M\times WM)`$ be a 1-palette (see Section 2.8). Assume that $`B`$ is a field. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-colored framed closed generic graph embedded in $`^3`$ such that its projection to $`^2`$ is generic. Let $`D^2`$ be a disk containing all the projection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ except two arcs, $`a`$ and $`b`$, colored with $`(u,U)`$ and $`(v,V)`$, respectively. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ be colored framed graphs which are obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by cutting at $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively, and moving the end points upwards and downwards to a position such that one of them becomes the uppermost and the other one lowermost. While moving, the framing at the end points is kept black-board. See Figure 6. Then $`𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)`$ is multiplication by $`(u^2u^2)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_b)`$ is multiplication by $`(v^2v^2)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$.

###### Proof.

First, assume that these arcs are colored in such a way that the coloring can be extended to an admissible coloring of a planar theta graph containing $`a`$ and $`b`$. By 5.1.B, the common part of all three graphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$, that is the part whose projection is covered by $`D`$, is mapped by $`𝒜^1`$ to a linear combination of the images of two differently colored copies of   . This linear combination looks as follows: $`\alpha 𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)+\beta 𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)`$.

Then

$$𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)=\alpha 𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)+\beta 𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)$$

By (11), $`𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)=𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)=(u^2u^2)𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)`$ and hence

$$𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)=(\alpha +\beta )(u^2u^2)𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right).$$

Thus $`𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)`$ is multiplication by $`(\alpha +\beta )(u^2u^2)`$.

Similarly, $`𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_b)`$ is multiplication by $`(\alpha +\beta )(v^2v^2)`$. This proves the statement: take $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\alpha +\beta `$.

The assumption about the extensibility of the colors over a theta graph was used at the very beginning of the proof. There are situations when it does not hold true. For example, with the orientations as in Figure 6, it can happen that $`u=v^1`$. Then 5.1.B cannot be applied and the fragment of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ covered by $`D`$ cannot be replaced by the linear combination. However in this case one can first make a small kink on one of the arcs, say $`b`$, and then expand $`D`$ to hide under $`D`$ the new crossing point. See Figure 7. Outside $`D`$ we see the arc $`b`$ on the previous place, but oppositely oriented. Now the assumption holds true, so we can apply the arguments above.

The result is not exactly what we desire: we proved a statement in which in place of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ we have a graph isotopic to the graph symmetric to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ with respect to a horizontal line. However, it is easy to show that the symmetry does not change the morphism. This follows from isotopy invariance of the image with respect to $`𝒜^1`$ and application of the following isotopy:   . ∎

Here is a counter-part of Lemma 6.2.A concerning $`𝒜^2`$. It has a similar proof.

###### 6.2.BLemma.

Let $`P=(B,W,W^+B^\times )`$ be a 2-palette (see Section 3.4). Assume that $`B`$ is a field. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-colored framed closed generic graph embedded in $`^3`$ such that its projection to $`^2`$ is generic. Let $`D^2`$ be a disk containing all the projection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ except two arcs, $`a`$ and $`b`$, colored with $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ be colored framed graphs which are obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by cutting $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively, and moving the end points upwards and downwards to a position such that one of them becomes the uppermost and the other one lowermost. While moving, the framing at the end points is kept black-board. Then $`𝒜^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)`$ is multiplication by $`𝐢(𝐢^A+𝐢^A)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`𝒜^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_b)`$ is multiplication by $`𝐢(𝐢^B+𝐢^B)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$. ∎

### 6.3. Definition of Alexander Invariants

Let $`P=(B,M,W,M\times WM)`$ be a 1-palette and $`B`$ be a field. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-colored framed closed generic graph in $`^3`$. Cut $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at a point on any outermost arc $`a`$ of its diagram, where the framing is black-board and move the new end points up and down keeping the framing black-board during the movement. The result represents a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$. Let the color of $`a`$ is $`(t,T)`$. Then $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2t^2}}𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)`$ is multiplication by some element of $`B`$. Denote this element by $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and call it the $`gl(1|1)`$-Alexander invariant of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. By Lemma 6.2.A, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ does not depend of the choice of $`a`$. Of course, it depends on the coloring.

Let $`P=(B,W,W^+B^\times )`$, be a 2-palette and let $`B`$ be a field. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-colored framed closed generic graph in $`^3`$. Cut $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at a point on any outermost arc $`a`$ of its diagram, where the framing is black-board and move the new end points up and down keeping the framing black-board during the movement. The result represents a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$. Let the color of $`a`$ is $`A`$. Then $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒊^{1+A}+𝒊^{1A}}}𝒜^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)`$ is multiplication by some element of $`B`$. Denote this element by $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and call it the $`sl(2)`$-Alexander invariant of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. By Lemma 6.2.B, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ does not depend of the choice of $`a`$. Of course, it depends on the coloring.

When the choice is obvious from the context, we will call $`gl(1|1)`$\- and $`sl(2)`$-Alexander invariants just the Alexander invariant. The Alexander invariant $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is invariant under (ambient) isotopy of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This follows from isotopy invariance of $`𝒜^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)`$ and an obvious construction turning an isotopy of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ into an isotopy of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$.

### 6.4. Vertex State Sum Representation

Geometric operation of cutting and moving the cut points is not necessary if one needs just to calculate $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Instead one can use the following calculation.

First, consider the $`gl(1|1)`$-case. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ be a closed $`𝒢^\mathcal{1}`$-colored graph. Choose its generic projection to $`^2`$. On the boundary of the exterior domain of the diagram choose an arc. Choose for this arc either bosonic or fermionic color and consider all the extensions of this choice to the whole set of 1-strata of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Choose a generic projection of the diagram to a line. For each distribution of bosons and fermions on the 1-strata of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ put according to Tables 3 and 4 the Boltzmann weights at the critical points of the projection and vertices of the diagram and make the product of them. Sum up all the products for all the distributions. If on the selected arc the fermion have been chosen, multiply the sum by $`1`$. If the selected arc is colored with multiplicity $`t`$, divide the result by $`t^2t^2`$. If the orientation of this arc defines the clockwise direction of moving around the diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, multiply by $`t^2`$. Otherwise, multiply by $`t^2`$. The final result is $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

To prove that this is really $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, one can cut $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at a generic point on the chosen arc, move the cut points, and calculate $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ according to the definition applied to this cut. Moving the cut points created two new critical points. To calculate the image of the graph under $`𝒜^1`$, it is sufficient to calculate the image of one of the basis vectors, either boson or fermion, and divide the result by $`t^2t^2`$. The calculation described above does this in terms of Boltzmann weights.

Now consider the $`sl(2)`$-case. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ be a closed $`𝒢^\mathcal{2}`$-colored graph. Choose its generic projection to $`^2`$. On the boundary of the exterior domain of the diagram choose an arc. Put on this arc a light arrowhead defining the clockwise direction of moving around the diagram. Consider all the extensions of this choice of light arrowhead to secondary colorings of the diagram. Choose a generic projection of the diagram to a line. For each distribution of orientations on the 1-strata of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ put according to Tables 5 and 6 the Boltzmann weights at the critical points of the projection and vertices of the diagram and make the product of them. Sum up all the products for all the distributions. If the selected arc is colored with weight $`A`$, divide the sum by $`1+𝒊^{2A}`$. The result is $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

### 6.5. Vanishing on Splittable

As follows from Theorem 5.1.A, the Alexander invariant vanishes on any closed $`𝒢_𝒫^𝒸`$-colored framed graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which can be presented as a union of two closed subgraphs separated from each other by a sphere embedded in $`^3`$.

## 7. Special Properties of $`gl(1|1)`$-Alexander Invariant

### 7.1. First Examples: Unknot and Theta Graph

The $`gl(1|1)`$-Alexander polynomial of the unknot $`U`$ with the 0-framing colored with color $`(t,T)`$ is $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2t^2}}.`$ More generally, for the unknot $`U_k`$ with framing $`k/2`$, $`k`$ colored with $`(t,T)`$,

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(U_k)=\frac{t^{kT}}{t^2t^2}.$$

For any planar theta graph $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with planar framing and arbitrary coloring with counter-clockwise orientations at strong vertices $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Theta })=1`$. This follows from 5.2.A.

### 7.2. $`gl(1|1)`$-Alexander Invariant of Tetrahedron’s 1-Skeleton

Consider now a planar 1-skeleton of a tetrahedron with the planar framing. Denote it by $`\mathrm{T}`$. This graph plays an important role in the face model, see Section 10. Contrary to the case of the theta graph, the $`gl(1|1)`$-Alexander invariant of $`\mathrm{T}`$ depends of orientation, and we have to begin with classification of the orientations.

###### 7.2.AOrientations of $`\mathrm{T}`$.

Up to homeomorphism, there are 4 orientations on $`\mathrm{T}`$. They are classified by the numbers of repulsing and attracting vertices. All the orientations without strong vertices are homeomorphic. All the orientations having both a repulsing and an attracting vertices also comprise one homeomorphism type. There is a single type with one repulsing and no attracting ones, and a single type with one attracting and no repulsing vertices. See Figure 8.∎

###### 7.2.BOrientations Unextendable to Colorings.

If an orientation of $`\mathrm{T}`$ has only one strong vertex then it cannot be extended to an admissible $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring of $`\mathrm{T}`$.

###### Proof.

Indeed, consider the orientation with repulsing and no attracting vertices. Assume that an admissible coloring exists. Denote by $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$, $`T_3`$ the weights of edges adjacent to the repulsing vertex. Let $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$, $`U_3`$ be the weights of the edges opposite to the edges with weights $`I`$, $`J`$, $`K`$, respectively. Assume that the edge with weight $`L`$ is directed towards the end point of the edge with weight $`K`$. See Figure 9.

Then, by Admissibility Condition 4, $`T_1+T_2+T_3=1`$, $`U_1=T_2+U_31`$, $`U_2=T_3+U_11`$, $`U_3=T_1+U_21`$. The sum of all these four equations is $`0=4`$.

Similarly one can prove that the orientation with an attracting and no repulsing vertices cannot be extended to an admissible coloring. ∎

The other two orientations can be extended to colorings.

###### 7.2.CLemma on Characteristic Edge.

For an orientation of $`\mathrm{T}`$ extendable to an admissible $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring, there exists a unique edge such that reversing its orientation turns the orientation of $`\mathrm{T}`$ to an orientation with a repulsing vertex and without an attracting one. ∎

The edge specified by Lemma 7.2.C is said to be characteristic. In Figure 8 the bottom edges in the two leftmost graphs are characteristic. It can be defined also as the only edge connecting two odd vertices, see Section 2.2.

###### 7.2.D$`gl(1|1)`$-Alexander Invariant of $`\mathrm{T}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{T}`$ be an colored planar 1-skeleton of a tetrahedron with planar framing. Then $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{T})`$ is equal to $`t^2t^2`$, where $`t`$ is the multiplicity of the color of the characteristic edge of $`\mathrm{T}`$.

I am not aware about any conceptual proof of 7.2.D. It is proved by a straightforward calculation, and I left it to the reader. To save efforts, I would recommend to choose the edge for the cut in such a way that there is a color extending from this edge uniquely to a coloring of $`\mathrm{T}`$. In the case with no strong vertices, one can take the edge preceding to the characteristic one in the 4-cycle and color it with boson. In the case of two strong vertices, color with boson the edge connecting the strong vertices. In both cases all the four edges meeting the chosen one must be colored with fermion and the disjoint edge with boson. ∎

The calculations of this section demonstrate that the Alexander invariant is much simpler than the Jones polynomial. Indeed, the Jones polynomial for the same elementary graphs are much more complicated. See e. g. .

### 7.3. Functorial Change of Colors

Let $`P_1=(B_1,M_1,W_1,M_1\times W_1M_1)`$ and $`P_2=(B_2,M_2,W_2,M_2\times W_2M_2)`$ be 1-palettes, let $`S`$ be a subring of $`B_1`$ containing $`M_1`$ and $`W_1`$ and $`\beta :SB_2`$ be a ring homomorphism such that $`\beta (M_1)M_2`$, $`\beta (W_1)W_2`$ and $`\beta (m)^{\beta (w)}=\beta (m^w)`$ for any $`mM_1`$ and $`wW_1`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ be a morphism of $`𝒢_{𝒫_\mathcal{1}}^\mathcal{1}`$ such that the multiplicity of each 1-stratum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ does not belong to $`\beta ^1\{tM_2t^4=1\}`$. Then replacing on each 1-stratum the multiplicity and weight with their images under $`\beta `$ (and preserving the other components of the coloring) turns $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ of $`𝒢_{𝒫_\mathcal{2}}^\mathcal{1}`$. Each entry of the matrix representing $`𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ in the standard bases is equal to the image of the corresponding entry of the matrix representing $`𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)`$ under $`\beta `$. This follows immediately from the definition of $`𝒜^1`$.

Assume now that $`B_1`$ in $`B_2`$ are fields. Then there is a similar relation for the Alexander invariant: if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ be a $`𝒢_{𝒫_\mathcal{1}}^\mathcal{1}`$-colored closed framed generic graph in $`^3`$, then replacing the multiplicities and weights of 1-strata of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ with their images under $`\beta `$ turns $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to a $`𝒢_{𝒫_\mathcal{2}}^\mathcal{1}`$-colored graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ is equal to the image of $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)`$ under $`\beta `$.

### 7.4. Universal Colors

As we have seen in Section 7.2, restrictions on the orientations and weights imposed by Admissibility Conditions 2.8.A are quite subbtle. The multiplicities are more straightforward: given orientations and weights, the multiplicities are essentially just a 1-cycle with coefficients in the multiplicative group $`M`$. The only non-trivial condition on this cycle is that it takes on each 1-stratum a value which is not a fourth root of unity, and, in particular, is not 1. This follows from Admissibility Condition (3). For example, a graph consisting of two disjoint circles and a segment, which joins them, does not admit a coloring because any 1-cycle vanishes on the segment.

Among all the 1-cycles on a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with all the coefficient groups there is the universal 1-cycle such that any other 1-cycle can be obtained from this one by a change of coefficients (i. e., as in the previous section). The coefficient group for the universal cycle is $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma };)`$. The universal cycle is constructed as follows. An (oriented) 1-stratum $`e`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be considered as a 1-cocycle of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. (On a 1-chain $`c`$ this 1-cocycle takes value equal to the coefficient with which $`e`$ enters in $`c`$.) It is easy to check that assigning to a 1-stratum the cohomology class defined in this way is a cycle. Denote it by $`u`$.

Let $`M`$ be an abelian group. Fix some $`xH_1(\mathrm{\Gamma };M)`$. Evaluation cohomology classes on $`x`$ defines a homomorphism $`yyx:H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma };)M`$, and $`x`$ is the image of $`u`$ under the homomorphism $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma };H^1(X;Z))H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma };M)`$ induced by $`yyx:H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma };)M`$.

Let $`P=(B,M,W,M\times WM)`$ be a 1-palette with $`W=`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a framed closed generic graph in $`^3`$ equipped with orientations. Let its diagram is equipped with weights satisfying Admissibility Condition (4). If these orientations and weights extends to a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring on the diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, it extends also to the quartiple which is made of

$$B=Q(H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma };)),M=H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma };),W=.$$

Moreover, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ with any $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring such that $`W=`$ can be expressed, in the way shown in Section 6.5, in terms of the Alexander invariant of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with a coloring whose multiplicity component is the universal 1-cycle.

Notice that the Alexander invariant with the universal multiplicities is a ratio of formal linear combinations of cohomology 1-classes of the graph. To avoid confusion of addition in $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and the formal addition, it makes sense to write the addition in $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ as multiplication.

### 7.5. Dependence of the Alexander Invariant on Framings and Weights: Case of Links

Relation (10) describes dependence of $`𝒜^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and thereupon $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of framing. As follows from this relation, if $`T=0`$, the $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ does not change when the framing changes. In the case of link one can choose a coloring such that all the weight components of the colors are zero, eliminating dependence of $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ on framing.

Introduction non-zero weights and framings does not enrich the Alexander invariant: still it can be calculated if the linking matrix and the Alexander invariant of the same link with the zero weights are known. By the linking matrix I mean the matrix comprised of the self-linking numbers (i. e., the framing numbers) and pairwise linking numbers of the components.

These numbers are easy to calculate out of a link diagram. The linking number of two components is one half of the sum of the signs (local writhe numbers) of all the crossing points, where the projections of the components intersect. The self-linking number is the sum of the signs of all the crossing points, where the projection of the component intersects itself, plus one half of the sum of the signs of the half-twists on the projection of the component.

Since several components can be colored with the same color, we need a reduced linking matrix. For a framed colored link $`L`$, denote by $`\mathrm{lk}_L((u,U)(v,V))`$ the sum of linking numbers of all the components of $`L`$ colored with $`(u,U)`$ and all the components colored with $`(v,V)`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{lk}_L((u,U)(u,U))`$ the sum of all the self-linking numbers of the components of $`L`$ colored with $`(u,U)`$ plus the doubled sum all their pairwise linking numbers. To calculate these numbers for a link presented by its diagram, one can use the same rule as above: if $`(u,U)(v,V)`$ then $`\mathrm{lk}_L((u,U)(v,V))`$ is the half of the sum of the signs of all the crossing points where the colors $`(u,U)`$, $`(v,V)`$ meet; $`\mathrm{lk}_L((u,U)(u,U))`$ is the sum of signs of the crossing points where both strings colored with $`(u,U)`$ plus one half of the sum of the signs of the half-twist on strings colored with $`(u,U)`$.

###### 7.5.A.

Let $`L`$ be a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-colored framed link in $`^3`$ and $`L_0`$ the $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-colored framed link obtained from $`L`$ by replacing the weight components of the color with zero. Then

(19)
$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)=\underset{(u,U)}{}u^{2_{(v,V)}V\mathrm{lk}_L((u,U),(v,V))}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_0)$$

###### Proof.

This follows from a straightforward calculation of the contribution made by the weights of colors in the Boltzmann weights. The weights of colors contribute only to the Boltzmann weights at half-twist signs and crossing points. At a positive half-twist of a component colored with $`(u,U)`$ it is $`u^U`$, at a positive crossing point with colors $`(u,U)`$ and $`(v,V)`$ it is $`u^Vv^U`$. The product of all these factors is $`_{(u,U)}u^{2_{(v,V)}V\mathrm{lk}_L((u,U),(v,V))}`$.∎

### 7.6. Dependence of the Alexander Invariant on Weights: General Case

In presence of trivalent vertices, it is impossible to make all the weights of colors equal to zero, since if at a trivalent vertex two of the three adjacent edges are colored with the zero weight, then, due to the admissibility condition, the third one is colored with weight $`\pm 1`$. However, it is possible by a formula similar to (19) to relate the Alexander invariants of a framed graph colored in two ways with colors different only in their weight components.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a framed graph equipped with two $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-colorings with colors different only in their weight components.Denote by $`T_e^k`$ the value of the weight of the $`k`$th (with $`k=1,2`$) coloring taken on a oriented (with the orientation shared by the colorings) 1-stratum $`e`$. Then $`(T_e^1T_e^2)e`$, where $`e`$ runs over the set of 1-strata of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is a 1-cycle with integer coefficients. This follows from the admissibility conditions (4). Let us call this cycle by the weight cycle and denote it by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. Another cycle is made in the same way, but with $`T_e^1T_e^2`$ replaced by the multiplicities (shared by the colors) of 1-strata. Let us call this cycle by the multiplicity cycle and denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$.

Consider a field of lines on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ normal to the framing. Choose on each of these lines a short segment centered at the corresponding point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that the end points of the segments comprise a generic graph $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ which is a two-fold covering space of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Equip $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ with the orientation such that the covering projection maps it to the orientation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ incorporated into the colorings. Equip each 1-stratum of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ with the multiplicity of its image under the projection. The oriented 1-strata of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ equipped with these halves of multiplicities comprise a cycle with coefficients in $`M`$. Denote this cycle by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M`$ It can be thought of as the multiplicity cycle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ pushed away from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in both directions normal to the framing. The cycle $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M`$ is disjoint from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and hence from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. Therefore the linking number $`\mathrm{lk}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M,\mathrm{\Gamma }_W)`$ of this cycle and the weight cycle associated with the pairing $`M\times WM:(m,w)m^w`$ is well-defined. In the case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a link and $`T_e^2=0`$,

$$\mathrm{lk}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M,\mathrm{\Gamma }_W)=\underset{(u,U)}{}u^{2_{(v,V)}V\mathrm{lk}_L((u,U),(v,V))},$$

cf. (19).

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ equipped with the colorings under consideration. Then

(20)
$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)=\mathrm{lk}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M,\mathrm{\Gamma }_W)^1\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)$$

Formula (20) generalizes (19) and is proved similarly.

### 7.7. Relation of the $`gl(1|1)`$-Alexander Invariant to the Conway Function

Recall that for an oriented link $`L`$ with (linearly) ordered connected components $`L_1`$, …, $`L_k`$ the Conway function $`(L)(t_1,\mathrm{},t_k)`$ is a rational function in variables $`t_1`$, …, $`t_k`$ defined by the following axioms (see Turaev ):

###### 7.7.A.

$`(L)`$ does not change under (ambient) isotopy of $`L`$.

###### 7.7.B.

If $`L`$ is the unknot, then $`(L)(t)=(tt^1)^1`$.

###### 7.7.C.

If $`L`$ consists of more than one connected components, then $`(L)`$ is a Laurent polynomial, i. e. $`(L)(t_1,\mathrm{},t_k)[t_1,t_1^1,\mathrm{},t_k,t_k^1]`$.

Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{}(L)`$ the function $`(L)(t,t,\mathrm{},t)`$ of one variable.

###### 7.7.D.

$`\stackrel{~}{}(L)(t)`$ does not depend on the ordering of the connected components of $`L`$.

###### 7.7.EConway Skein Relation.

If $`L_{\text{}}`$, $`L_{\text{}}`$ and $`L_{\text{}}`$ are links coinciding outside a ball and in the ball looking as the subindices in their notations, then

(21)
$$\stackrel{~}{}(L_{\text{}})=\stackrel{~}{}(L_{\text{}})+(tt^1)\stackrel{~}{}(L_{\text{}}).$$

###### 7.7.FDoubling Axiom.

If $`L^{}`$ is a link obtained from a link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_k`$ by replacing the $`L_i`$ by its $`(2,1)`$-cable, then

(22)
$$(L^{})(t_1,\mathrm{},t_r)=(T+T^1)(L)(t_1,\mathrm{},t_{i1},t_i^2,t_{i+1},\mathrm{},t_k)$$

where $`T=t_i_{ji}t_j^{\mathrm{lk}(L_i,L_j)}`$.

###### 7.7.GAlexander Invariant Versus Conway Function.

Let $`M_k`$ be a multiplicative free abelian group generated by $`t_1`$, …, $`t_k`$, let $`B_k`$ be the field $`Q(M_k)`$ of rational functions of $`t_1`$,…, $`t_k`$ with integer coefficients. Denote by $`P_k`$ the quartiple $`(B_k,M_k,,M_k\times :(m,w)m^w)`$. Let $`L`$ be a $`𝒢_{𝒫_𝓀}^\mathcal{1}`$-colored framed link with components $`L_1`$, …, $`L_k`$ colored with multiplicities $`t_1`$, …, $`t_r`$ and zero weights (i. e. $`T_1=T_2=\mathrm{}=T_k=0`$). Then $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)`$ and the Conway function of the same $`L`$ (oriented with the orientation taken from the coloring) are related as follows:

(23)
$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)=(L)(t_1^2,\mathrm{},t_k^2).$$

###### Proof.

It suffices to prove that the Alexander invariant of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-colored framed link with zero weights satisfies the following counterparts for the axioms 7.7.A \- 7.7.F.

###### 7.7.A.bis.

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)`$ does not change under (ambient) isotopy of $`L`$.

###### 7.7.B.bis.

If $`L`$ is the unknot $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-colored with multiplicity $`t`$, then $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)(t)=(t^2t^2)^1`$.

###### 7.7.C.bis.

If $`L`$ consists of more than one connected components $`𝒢_{𝒫_𝓀}^\mathcal{1}`$-colored as in 7.7.G, then $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)`$ is a Laurent polynomial in multiplicities, i. e.

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)[t_1,t_1^1,\mathrm{},t_k,t_k^1].$$

(This is a weakened counterpart of 7.7.C. The true counterpart would be $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)[t_1^2,t_1^2,\mathrm{},t_k^2,t_k^2]`$. However 7.7.C.bis is also sufficient for proving uniqueness of the invariant satisfying the axioms, because in the proof imitating Turaev’s one  it is used anyway in combination with the Doubling Axiom, which allows one to get into the domain of Laurent polynomial by additional doubling.)

Let $`L`$ be a $`𝒢_{𝒫_𝓀}^\mathcal{1}`$-colored framed link as in 7.7.G. Denote by $`L^t`$ the same framed link, but with all the components colored with $`(t,0)`$ and orientations taken from the coloring of $`L`$.

###### 7.7.D.bis.

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^t)(t)=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(L)^1(t,\mathrm{},t)`$.

###### 7.7.E.bis.Conway Skein Relation.

If $`L_{\text{}}`$, $`L_{\text{}}`$ and $`L_{\text{}}`$ are links coinciding outside a ball and in the ball looking as the subindices in their notations, then

(24)
$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_{\text{}}^t)=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_{\text{}}^t)+(t^2t^2)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_{\text{}}^t).$$

###### 7.7.F.bis.Doubling Axiom.

If $`L^{}`$ is a link obtained from a link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_k`$ by replacing the $`L_i`$ by its $`(2,1)`$-cable, then

(25)
$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^{})(t_1,\mathrm{},t_r)=(T+T^1)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)(t_1,\mathrm{},t_{i1},t_i^2,t_{i+1},\mathrm{},t_k)$$

where $`T=t_i^2_{ji}t_j^{2\mathrm{lk}(L_i,L_j)}`$.

As is mentioned above 7.7.A.bis, 7.7.B.bis, 7.7.D.bis holds true.

To prove 7.7.C.bis, observe, first, that for any endomorphism of a one-point object of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$, the image under $`𝒜^1`$ is multiplication by a Laurent polynomial in $`t_1`$, …, $`t_k`$. Indeed, the Boltzmann weights for all the generators of $`𝒢_{𝒫_𝓀}^\mathcal{1}`$ are Laurent polynomials. To calculate $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)`$, one can take $`𝒜^1(L_a)`$ with $`a`$ from different components. Let $`a`$ be an arc on $`L_1`$ and $`b`$ be an arc on $`L_2`$. Then both $`(t_1^2t_1^2)^1𝒜^1(L_a)`$ and $`(t_2^2t_2^2)^1𝒜^1(L_b)`$ are multiplication by $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)`$. The first of these morphisms is a multiplication by an element of $`[M_k]`$ divided by $`t_1^2t_1^2`$, the second a multiplication by an element of $`[M_k]`$ divided by $`t_2^2t_2^2`$. Since $`t_1^2t_1^2`$ and $`t_2^2t_2^2`$ are relatively prime in $`[M_k]`$, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)`$ is an element of $`[M_k]`$.

The Conway Skein Relation 7.7.E.bis. follows easily by comparing the Boltzmann weights at positive and negative crossing points, see the first column of Table 3.

Consider now the Doubling Axiom 7.7.F.bis.. Since the framing does not matter when the weights of colors vanish, we may assume that $`L_i`$ has selflinking number $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and the $`(2,1)`$-cable has selflinking number 2. Under this choice, the $`(2,1)`$-cable $`L_i^{}`$ of $`L`$ can be obtained as the boundary of the framing surface $`F`$ (which is a Möbius band) of $`L_i`$ and its framing as overlapping with $`F`$ along the whole $`L_i^{}`$. Squeezing two parallel arcs of $`L_i^{}`$ along $`F`$ apply Junction Relation 5.2.B

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^{})=(t_i^2t_i^2)^1\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_+)(t_i^2t_i^2)^1\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_{}),$$

where $`L_+`$ is a graph obtained from $`L^{}`$ by squeezing two parallel arcs on $`L_i^{}`$ with the orientation induced by the orientation of $`L_i^{}`$, and $`L_{}`$ the same graph, but with opposite orientation on the new arc. In $`L_+`$ and $`L_{}`$ the new arc has framing along $`F`$ and weight $`1`$. Its multiplicity is $`t_i^2`$ in $`L_+`$, and $`t_i^2`$ in $`L_{}`$.

Expand now the new arcs along $`L_i`$ and apply Removing Loop Relation 5.2.A

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_+)=(t_i^2t_i^2)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^1),\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_{})=(t_i^2t_i^2)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^2)$$

where $`L^1`$ is $`L`$ with $`L_i`$ equipped with multiplicity $`t_i^2`$ and weight $`1`$, and $`L^2`$ is $`L`$ with $`L_i`$ equipped with the opposite orientation, multiplicity $`t_i^2`$ and weight $`1`$. Hence

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^{})=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^1)+\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^2).$$

Further, by (19),

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^1)=(t_i^2)^{2\mathrm{lk}_L(L_i,L_i)}\underset{ji}{}t_j^{2\mathrm{lk}(L_j,L_i)}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_0^1)=t_i^2\underset{ji}{}t_j^{2\mathrm{lk}(L_j,L_i)}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_0^1),$$

where $`L_0^1`$ differs from $`L`$ only by the multiplicity of $`L_i`$, which is $`t_i^2`$. Similarly, by (19),

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^2)=(t_i^2)^{2\mathrm{lk}_L(L_i,L_i)}\underset{ji}{\overset{k}{}}t_j^{2\mathrm{lk}(L_j,L_i)}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_0^2)=t_i^2\underset{ji}{\overset{k}{}}t_j^{2\mathrm{lk}(L_j,L_i)}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_0^2),$$

where $`L_0^2`$ differs from $`L`$ only by the multiplicity of $`L_i`$, which $`t_i^2`$ and orientation of $`L_i`$.

It is easy to see that squaring the multiplicity $`t_i`$ of a link component corresponds to replacing $`t_i`$ with $`t_i^2`$ in all the Boltzmann weights, while simultaneous reversing orientation and reversing the multiplicity of a link component does not change the Boltzmann weights. Therefore $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_0^1)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L_0^2)`$ are obtained from $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)`$ by replacing $`t_i`$ with $`t_i^2`$. This corresponds to replacement $`t_i`$ with $`t_i^2`$ in $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L)`$. The coefficient $`t_i^2_{ji}t_j^{2\mathrm{lk}(L_j,L_i)}`$ equals $`T`$. ∎

## 8. Special Properties of $`sl(2)`$-Alexander Invariant

### 8.1. First Calculations: Unknot and Theta Graph

The $`sl(2)`$-Alexander polynomial of the unknot $`U`$ with the 0-framing colored with color $`A`$ is $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒊^{1+A}+𝒊^{1A}}}.`$ For the unknot $`U_k`$ with framing $`k/2`$, $`k`$ colored with $`A`$,

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(U_k)=\frac{𝒊^{k\frac{A^21}{4}}}{𝒊^{1+A}+𝒊^{1A}}.$$

For any planar theta graph $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with planar framing and arbitrary coloring, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(\mathrm{\Theta })=1`$. This follows from 5.3.A.

### 8.2. $`sl(2)`$-Alexander Invariant of Tetrahedron’s 1-Skeleton

Recall that a planar 1-skeleton of a tetrahedron with the planar framing is denoted by $`\mathrm{T}`$. In a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$ coloring of $`\mathrm{T}`$, two vertices of $`\mathrm{T}`$ are sources and the other two vertices are sinks. Indeed, the augmentation of the 0-cycle $`\text{stocks}\text{sources}`$ is zero since this 0-cycle is the boundary of the weight chain.

###### 8.2.A$`sl(2)`$-Alexander Invariant of $`\mathrm{T}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{T}`$ be an colored planar 1-skeleton of a tetrahedron with planar framing. Then $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(\mathrm{T})`$ is equal to $`𝐢^{1+A}+𝐢^{1A}`$, where $`A`$ is the weight of the edge connecting the two sink vertices of $`\mathrm{T}`$.

It is proved by a straightforward calculation, and I left it to the reader. To save efforts, I would recommend to choose the edge for the cut in such a way that there exists a secondary coloring, i.e. an orientation, of this edge extending uniquely to a secondary coloring of $`\mathrm{T}`$. One can choose an edge connecting a source with a sink and orient it from the source to the sink. ∎

### 8.3. Functorial Change of Colors

Let $`P_1=(B_1,W_1,W_1^+B_1^\times )`$ and $`P_2=(B_2,W_2,W_2^+B_2^\times )`$ be 2-palettes, let $`S`$ be a subring of $`B_1`$ containing $`W_1`$ and $`\beta :SB_2`$ be a ring homomorphism such that $`\beta (W_1)W_2`$ and $`\beta (𝒊^w)=𝒊^{\beta (w)}`$ for any $`wW_1`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ be a morphism of $`𝒢_{𝒫_\mathcal{1}}^\mathcal{2}`$ such that the weight of each 1-stratum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ does not belong to $`\beta ^1\{xW_2𝒊^{2x+2}=1\}`$. Then replacing on each 1-stratum the weight with its image under $`\beta `$ (and preserving the orientation component of the coloring) turns $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ of $`𝒢_{𝒫_\mathcal{2}}^\mathcal{2}`$. Each entry of the matrix representing $`𝒜^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ in the standard bases is equal to the image of the corresponding entry of the matrix representing $`𝒜^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)`$ under $`\beta `$. This follows immediately from the definition of $`𝒜^2`$.

Assume now that $`B_1`$ in $`B_2`$ are fields. Then there is a similar relation for the $`sl(2)`$-Alexander invariant: if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ be a $`𝒢_{𝒫_\mathcal{1}}^\mathcal{2}`$-colored closed framed generic graph in $`^3`$, then replacing the weights of 1-strata of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ with their images under $`\beta `$ turns $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to a $`𝒢_{𝒫_\mathcal{2}}^\mathcal{2}`$-colored graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ is equal to the image of $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)`$ under $`\beta `$.

### 8.4. Effect of Adding Numbers Divisible by 4 to Weights: the Case of a Link

###### 8.4.A.

Let $`L`$ be a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-colored framed link with components $`L_1`$, …, $`L_n`$ colored with weights $`A_1`$,…, $`A_n`$, respectively. Let $`p_1`$, …, $`p_n`$ be integers divisible by 4 and $`L^{}`$ be a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-colored framed link made of the same components $`L_1`$, …, $`L_n`$ as $`L`$ but colored with weights $`p_1+A_1`$,…, $`p_n+A_n`$. Then

(26)
$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(L^{})=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(L)𝒊^{_{i=1}^n_{j=1}^n(1+A_i)p_j\mathrm{lk}(L_i,L_j)}$$

###### Proof.

This follows from a straightforward calculation of the contribution made by change of the weights in the Boltzmann weights. Only the Boltzmann weights at half-twist signs and crossing points are effected. At a positive half-twist of the $`i`$th component the Boltzmann weight is multiplied by $`𝒊^{\frac{A_ip_i}{2}}`$, at a positive crossing point of $`i`$th and $`j`$th components the Boltzmann weight is multiplied by $`𝒊^{\frac{(1+A_i)p_j+(1+A_j)p_i}{2}}`$. The product of all these factors is $`_{i=1}^n𝒊^{_{j=1}^n(1+A_i)p_j\mathrm{lk}(L_i,L_j)}`$.∎

### 8.5. Effect of Adding Numbers Divisible by 4 to Weights: General Case

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a framed graph equipped with two $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-colorings such that on each 1-stratum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ their weights differ by an integer divisible by 4. Denote by $`A_e^k`$ the value of the weight of the $`k`$th (with $`k=1,2`$) coloring taken on a oriented (with the orientation shared by the colorings) 1-stratum $`e`$. Then $`(A_e^1A_e^2)e`$, where $`e`$ runs over the set of 1-strata of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is a 1-cycle with coefficients in $`4`$. This follows from the admissibility conditions (3.1.A). Let us denote it by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. Another cycle is with coefficients in $`M/2`$. This is the weight cycle $`(1+A_e^1)e=(1+A_e^2)emod2`$. Denote it by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$.

Consider a field of lines on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ normal to the framing. Choose on each of these lines a short segment centered at the corresponding point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that the end points of the segments comprise a generic graph $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ which is a two-fold covering space of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Equip $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ with the orientation such that the covering projection maps it to the orientation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ incorporated into the colorings. Equip each 1-stratum of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ with the multiplicity of its image under the projection. The oriented 1-strata of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ equipped with these halves of multiplicities comprise a cycle with coefficients in $`M`$. Denote this cycle by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M`$ It can be thought of as the multiplicity cycle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ pushed away from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in both directions normal to the framing. The cycle $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M`$ is disjoint from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and hence from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. Therefore the linking number $`\mathrm{lk}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M,\mathrm{\Gamma }_W)`$ associated with the multiplication pairing $`M/2\times 4M/4`$ is well-defined. In the case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_n`$ considered in the preceding section,

$$\mathrm{lk}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M,\mathrm{\Gamma }_W)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j+1}{\overset{n}{}}(1+A_i)p_j\mathrm{lk}(L_i,L_j)mod4,$$

cf. (26).

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ equipped with the colorings under consideration. Then

(27)
$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)=𝒊^{\mathrm{lk}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_M,\mathrm{\Gamma }_W)}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)$$

Formula (27) generalizes (26) and is proved similarly.

### 8.6. Relation of the $`sl(2)`$-Alexander Invariant to the Conway Function

###### 8.6.A.

Let $`L`$ be an oriented framed link with components $`L_1`$, …, $`L_n`$ equipped with $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring. Let $`L_i`$ be colored with weight $`A_i`$. Then

(28)
$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(L)=(L)(𝒊^{1+A_1},\mathrm{},𝒊^{1+A_n})𝒊^{_{i,j=1}^n\frac{A_iA_j1}{2}\mathrm{lk}(L_i,L_j)}$$

###### Proof.

Let us construct (cf. Section 4.5) a 1-palette $`R`$ It consists of the ring $`B`$ involved in $`P`$, the image $`M`$ of the homomorphism $`W^+B^\times :A𝒊^A`$, the subring $`WB`$ and the pairing $`M\times WM:(𝒊^A,B)𝒊^{AB}`$. By 4.6.B any secondary $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring of the diagram of $`L`$ is the image of a secondary $`𝒢_{}^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring under $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Q^{\mathrm{}}`$. Hence by 4.5.D $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(L)=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^{})`$, where $`L^{}`$ is the same oriented framed link $`L`$, but equipped with the corresponding $`𝒢_{}^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring. The $`𝒢_{}^\mathcal{1}`$-color of $`L_i`$ includes multiplicity $`𝒊^{\frac{1+A_i}{2}}`$ and weight $`\frac{1A_i}{2}`$. Denote by $`L^0`$ the same link $`L`$ equipped with $`𝒢_{}^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring with the same orientations and multiplicities but zero weights. By 7.5.A,

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^{})=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^0)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝒊^{\frac{1+A_i}{2}\left(2_{j=1}^n\frac{1A_j}{2}\mathrm{lk}(L_i,L_j)\right)}$$

By 7.7.G

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^0)=(L)(𝒊^{1+A_1},\mathrm{},𝒊^{1+A_n})$$

Hence,

(29)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(L)=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^{})=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(L^0)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝒊^{(1+A_i)_{j=1}^n\frac{1A_j}{2}\mathrm{lk}(L_i,L_j)}=\\ \hfill (L)(𝒊^{1+A_1},\mathrm{},𝒊^{1+A_n})𝒊^{_{i,j=1}^n\frac{A_iA_j1}{2}\mathrm{lk}(L_i,L_j)}.\end{array}$$

## 9. Graphical Skein Relations

### 9.1. Another Look of Skein Relations

The Alexander invariant for colored framed generic graphs provides terms in which one can rewrite skein relations of Section 5, and write similar, but more complicated ones.

Notice, first, that since

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1\left(\text{}\right)=\frac{1}{t^2t^2},$$

the skein relations (15) and (14) can be interpreted in the following way:

(30)
$$𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)=\frac{1}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1\left(\text{}\right)}𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)$$

(31)
$$𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)=\underset{(t,T)}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1\left(\text{}\right)𝒜^1\left(\text{}\right)$$

Similarly, since

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\left(\text{}\right)=\frac{1}{𝒊^{1+A}+𝒊^{1A}},$$

the skein relations (15) and (18) can be interpreted in the following way:

(32)
$$𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)=\frac{1}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\left(\text{}\right)}𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)$$

(33)
$$𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)=\underset{A}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\left(\text{}\right)𝒜^2\left(\text{}\right)$$

This more graphical form is used in transition to the face models.

### 9.2. New Relations

The relations of this section are formulated in the graphical form and used in the transition to the face models, too. If we did not interpret the coefficients as the Alexander invariants of the graphs related to the graphs involved, it would be difficult even to formulate those relations. Another advantage of the graphical formulation is that we can unite the relations for $`𝒜^1`$ and $`A^2`$.

###### 9.2.AFlip Relation.

For $`c=1,2`$

(34)
$$𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)=\underset{t}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)$$

provided the colorings satisfy the admissibility condition and the sum runs over nonempty set of colors $`t`$ (i. e., there exists a color $`t`$ involved together with the given colors in an admissible coloring of the graphs in the right hand side of (34)).

###### Proof.

By Theorem 5.1.B, the left hand side of (34) can be presented as the following linear combination:

(35)
$$𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)=\underset{t}{}x_t𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)$$

To find the coefficient at $`𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)`$, adjoin    to the top and    to the bottom of each of the graphs involved in the equality. $`𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)`$ turns into

$$𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\left(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\right)^1\mathrm{id}.$$

By (30), the summand corresponding to color $`p`$ on the right hand side turns into morphism $`x_p\left(𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)\right)^2\mathrm{id}`$, while the other summands annihilate. Hence we obtain

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\left(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\right)^1=x_p\left(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\right)^2$$

and

$$x_p=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)$$

The next skein relation is similar to 9.2.A and admits a similar proof. Moreover, it can be deduced from 9.2.A, (10) and (16).

###### 9.2.BCrossing Relation.

For $`c=1,2`$

(36)
$$𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)=\underset{r}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)$$

provided the colorings satisfy the admissibility condition and the sum runs over nonempty set of colors $`r`$ (i. e., there exists a color $`r`$ comprising together with the other colors an admissible coloring of the graphs in the right hand side of (36)).∎

###### 9.2.CTriangle Relation.

For $`c=1,2`$

(37)
$$𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)𝒜^c\left(\text{}\right)$$

provided the colorings satisfy the admissibility condition.

This also follows from 9.2.A, (10) and (16).∎

### 9.3. Skein Relations for the Alexander Invariants

All the skein relations for $`𝒜^c`$ discussed in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 can be thought of as skein relations for $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c`$. One should just replace $`𝒜^c`$ by $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c`$ and understand $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\text{nonclosed diagram of graph})`$ in the usual way, i. e. as the Alexander invariant of some closed graph whose diagram contains the shown diagram as a fragment, which is the only variable part of the diagram: in the other terms of the relation which involve nonclosed diagram, the unshown parts of the diagrams are assumed to be the same.

## 10. Face State Sums

### 10.1. Colorings of a Diagram

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ be a framed generic closed graph. Fix a diagram for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Let $`P=(B,M,W,M\times WM)`$ be a 1-palette. By a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-color of a 2-strata of the diagram555Recall that a 2-stratum of a diagram is a connected component of the complement in $`^2`$ of the projection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. we will mean an orientation of this 2-stratum, an element $`t`$ of $`M`$ with $`t^41`$ (called the multiplicity of the 2-stratum), and an element $`T`$ of $`W`$ (called its weight).

A $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring of the diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an assignment to each of the 1- and 2-strata of the diagram a color such that

1. at each triple vertex the colors of the adjacent edges satisfy Admissibility Condition 2.8.A,
2. at each crossing point the colors of the opposite edges (which belong to the image of the same 1-stratum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) coincide,
3. for each 1-stratum its color and the colors of the two adjacent 2-strata satisfy the following condition 10.1.A (cf. 2.8.A):

###### 10.1.AAdmissibility of 1-Palette Colors at a 1-Stratum.

Let $`t`$ be the multiplicity and $`T`$ weight components of a 1-stratum’s color, $`(t_1,T_1)`$ and $`(t_2,T_2)`$ the corresponding components of the colors of the adjacent 2-strata, let $`ϵ_i=1`$, if the orientation of the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ adjacent 2-stratum induces the orientation of the 1-stratum and $`ϵ_i=1`$ otherwise. Then

(38)
$$tt_1^{ϵ_1}t_2^{ϵ_2}=1,$$

(39)
$$T+ϵ_1T_1+ϵ_2T_2=ϵ_1ϵ_2.$$

A 1-stratum of a diagram is said to be strong with respect to a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$-coloring of the diagram if the orientations of the adjacent 2-strata both induce the orientation of the 1-stratum (i.e., $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2=1`$ in notations of 10.1.A). One can see that the union of strong 1-strata is a 1-submanifold of the plane. The boundary of this submanifold is the set of images of all strong vertices of the graph. The orientations of strong 1-strata comprise a natural orientation of their union.

Now let $`P=(B,W,W^+B^\times )`$ be a 2-palette. By a $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-color of a 2-strata of the diagram we will mean a pair made of an orientation of this 2-stratum, and an element $`A`$ of $`B\{xW𝒊^{2x+2}=1\}`$ defined up to simultaneous reversing of the orientation and multiplication of $`A`$ by $`1`$. The component of the color belonging to $`B`$ is called the weight of the 2-stratum.

A $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring of the diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an assignment to each of the 1- and 2-strata of the diagram a color such that

1. at each triple vertex the colors of the adjacent edges satisfy Admissibility Condition 3.4.A,
2. at each crossing point the colors of the opposite edges (which belong to the image of the same 1-stratum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) coincide,
3. for each 1-stratum its color and the colors of the two adjacent 2-strata satisfy the following condition 10.1.B (cf. 3.4.A):

###### 10.1.BAdmissibility of 2-Palette Colors at a 1-Stratum.

Let a 1-stratum be colored with weight $`A`$ and let $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ be the weight components of the colors of the adjacent 2-strata. Let $`ϵ_i=1`$, if the orientation of the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ adjacent 2-stratum induces the orientation of the 1-stratum and $`ϵ_i=1`$ otherwise. Then

(40)
$$A+ϵ_1A_1+ϵ_2A_2=\pm 1.$$

The sign in the right hand side of (40) depends on the orientation of the 1-stratum. The orientation for which the sign is plus is said to defined by the $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$-coloring.

A coloring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defines a coloring of the 1-strata of the diagram. A coloring of the diagram extending this one is called a face extension of the coloring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Making a face extension, one should care only about the last of the three conditions from the definitions 10.1.A or 10.1.B of $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{1}`$\- or $`𝒢_𝒫^\mathcal{2}`$ colorings of a diagram.

### 10.2. Alexander Invariant of Colored Strata

Given a diagram $`𝒢_𝒫^𝒸`$-coloring, we associate a $`𝒢_𝒫^𝒸`$-colored framed generic graph to each strata of the diagram.

For a 2-stratum colored with $`u`$ this is    , i. e. an unknot with zero framing colored with $`u`$:

Recall that the Alexander invariant of     is $`(t^2t^2)^1`$ in the case $`c=1`$, $`u=(t,T)`$, and $`(𝒊^{1+A}+𝒊^{1A})^1`$ in the case $`c=2`$, $`u=A`$.

For a 3-valent vertex whose adjacent edges are colored with $`u`$, $`v`$ and $`w`$ and adjacent 2-strata colored with $`r`$, $`s`$ and $`t`$ as shown in Figure 10, this is the 1-skeleton of a tetrahedron embedded in a plane with the planar framing. It is obtained by selecting small arcs of the 1-strata adjacent to the vertex and joining their free end points with three arcs in the plane. The orientations of the 1-strata included in the colors induce orientations on the former three arcs. The orientations of the adjacent 2-strata included into the colors of these 2-strata induce orientations on the latter three arcs as on the boundary of the parts of the 2-strata separated from the vertex by the arcs. See Figure 10. If $`c=1`$ and the initial 3-valent vertex is strong, the orientation at it is inherited by the corresponding vertex of the tetrahedron. At other strong vertices, the tetrahedron is equipped with the counter-clockwise orientation.

For a crossing point of strings colored with $`s`$ and $`t`$ with the adjacent 2-strata colored with $`u`$, $`v`$, $`w`$ and $`r`$ as in Figure 11, this is again the 1-skeleton of a tetrahedron. However this time it is not embedded in the plane of the picture, but presented by a diagram which looks like a square with diagonals and the framing is black-board. The diagram is obtained from a regular neighborhood of the crossing point in the same way as in the case of a 3-valent vertex: select small arcs of the 1-strata adjacent to the crossing point and join their free end points with four arcs surrounding the crossing point in the plane. As above, the orientations of the 1-strata induce the orientations on the former arcs, while the orientations of the adjacent 2-strata induce orientations on the former four arcs in the same way as above: as on the boundary of the parts of the 2-strata separated from the crossing point by the arcs. See Figure 11. At strong vertices the graph is equipped with the counter-clockwise orientation.

The Alexander invariant of this 1-skeleton of tetrahedron differs from the Alexander invariant of the 1-skeleton of tetrahedron corresponding to a 3-valent vertex, because of difference between their framings. The latter is isotopic to the former, but with non-black-board framing:

Thus here the Alexander invariant involves an additional factor. If $`c=1`$ the graph has strong vertices and they do not belong to the same diagonal of the original square diagram, the factor $`1`$ also appears, since the isotopy turns one strong vertex upside down.

We have not associated any graph with 1-strata. This could be done in a natural way, but would not contribute to the state sum, which is our main goal here. The reason is that the graph associated with a 1-stratum should be a flat theta graph and the Alexander invariant of a flat theta graph is equal to 1.

The last ingredient that we have to introduce here is the twist factor. It is associated to each half-twist sign on a 1-stratum. For $`c=1`$ and a stratum colored with multiplicity $`t`$ and weight $`T`$, this is $`t^T`$, if the half-twist is positive, and $`t^T`$, if it is negative. For $`c=2`$ and a stratum colored with weight $`A`$, this is $`𝒊^{\frac{A^21}{4}}`$, if the half-twist is positive, and $`𝒊^{\frac{1A^2}{4}}`$, if it is negative.

### 10.3. Spot Faces, Shadow Domain and Contour

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ be a framed $`𝒢_𝒫^𝒸`$-colored generic graph. Consider its diagram. Fix several faces of the diagram. They will be referred to as spot faces. Fix colors of the spot faces in such a way that Admissibility Conditions 10.1.A are satisfied for any 1-stratum adjacent to two spot faces.

Let $`C`$ be a smooth 1-dimensional closed submanifold of $`^2`$ which is in a general position with respect to the diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This means that $`C`$ contains no vertex of the diagram, is transversal to its 1-strata and does not pass over the signs     and     of half-twists. Let $`𝒮`$ be an open subset of $`^2`$ with boundary $`C`$. Assume that each of the spot faces intersects $`𝒮`$. The set $`𝒮`$ will be called shadow domain and $`C`$ the contour.

The shadow domain is decomposed to its intersections with strata of the diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Some of the strata have fixed colors. These are all the 1-strata and the intersections of $`𝒮`$ with the spot faces. Denote by $`Col_P(𝒮)`$ the set of all the $`𝒢_𝒫^𝒸`$-colorings of 1- and 2-strata of $`𝒮`$ satisfying all the conditions of Section 10.1 and extending this coloring of 1-strata and spot faces.

Contour $`C`$ and the part of the diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contained in the complement of $`𝒮`$ constitute a diagram of a generic graph. Denote this graph by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C`$. Although its embedding in $`^3`$ is not specified, it is well-defined up to ambient isotopy, since its diagram is given. The black-board framing of $`C`$ together with the framing signs on the part of the diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ define a framing of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C`$.

The intersection points with the diagram divide $`C`$ into arcs, which are 1-strata of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C`$. Each of these 1-strata lies on the boundary of one of the 2-strata of $`𝒮`$. For $`cCol_P(𝒮)`$ assign to each arc of $`C`$ the color of the adjacent 2-stratum of $`𝒮`$. The coloring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C`$ obtained in this way satisfied the admissibility condition. Denote the skein class of this colored framed generic graph by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,c}`$.

### 10.4. State Sums

Denote by $`\tau (𝒮)`$ the product of the twist factors of all the half-twist signs in $`𝒮`$. For $`xCol_P(𝒮)`$ and a stratum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`𝒮`$ denote by $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Sigma },x)`$ the Alexander invariant of the colored framed generic graph associated to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for coloring $`x`$. Denote

$$\tau (S)\underset{xCol_P(𝒮)}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x})\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Sigma },x)^{\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })}$$

by $`Z(𝒮)`$. Here the products are taken over all the strata $`s`$ of $`𝒮`$ and $`\chi `$ is the Euler characteristic.

###### 10.4.AMoving Contour Theorem.

$`Z(𝒮)`$ does not change under an isotopy of $`C`$ in $`^2`$ during which the spot faces remain intersecting the shadow domain and $`Col_P(𝒮)\mathrm{}`$.

In the simplest and most interesting cases by an isotopy of $`C`$ one can shrink the shadow domain to a subset of the spot faces. Then the state sum is reduced to a single term and it is easy to relate it to the Alexander invariant of the original graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

On the other hand, by isotopy of $`C`$ one can make the shadow domain engulfing most of the diagram. Then graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C`$ may become pretty standard and it will be easy to calculate the factors $`\mathrm{\Delta }^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x})`$.

Thus, Theorem 10.4.A provides a way to express the Alexander invariant of an arbitrary colored framed generic graph through state sums involving the well-known Alexander invariants of standard unknotted graphs. The state sum is shaped by a diagram of the original graph.

Theorem 10.4.A is analogous to Kirillov-Reshetikhin theorem  for invariants based on the quantized $`sl(2)`$ (i. e., generalizations of the Jones polynomial). There are though two important points where they differ. First, the terms of the $`sl(2)`$ state sum are more complicated functions of colors. For example, in our state sums the factors corresponding to edges are invisible (since the Alexander invariant of a theta graph is 1). The factors corresponding to other strata are also much simpler in our case. Second, the condition about non-vanishing of the set of colorings does not appear in the $`sl(2)`$ case, while here it is crucial.

###### Proof of 10.4.A.

Under a generic isotopy of $`C`$ the picture changes topologically only when $`C`$ passes through vertices of the diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, through the signs of half-twists or becomes tangent to a branch of the diagram. Therefore we have to check invariance of $`Z(𝒮)`$ only under the moves shown in Figure 12.

Under the first move the set $`Col_P(𝒮)`$ of colorings does not change (in the sense that there is a natural one-to-one correspondence between the colorings before and after the move). Consider the case $`c=1`$. By (10), $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x})`$ for each $`xCol_P(𝒮)`$ is divided by $`t^T`$, where $`t`$ is the multiplicity and $`T`$ the weight of the color of the arc involved in the move. On the other hand, the total twist factor $`\tau (𝒮)`$ of the shadow domain is multiplied by $`t^T`$, since an additional half-twist appeared on it. Therefore $`Z(𝒮)`$ does not change under the first move. Similar arguments prove this in the case $`c=2`$.

To prove invariance with respect to the second move, decompose the sets of colorings before and after the move to the classes of colorings coinciding outside the fragment that changes. Such a class before the move consists of a single coloring, say, $`x`$, while a class after the move contains as many colorings as colors can be put in the new triangle. Denote this color by $`t`$, and the corresponding coloring by $`x_t`$. Let the adjacent strata are colored as shown in Figure 12. The Alexander invariants $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x})`$ for colorings in these classes before and after the move are related by (34) (with $`𝒜^c`$ replaced by $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c`$, see Section 9.3). Applicability of (34) follows from the assumption that $`Col_P(𝒮)\mathrm{}`$ during the movement. Rewrite this relation as follows:

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x})=\underset{t}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x_t}).$$

On the other hand,

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Sigma },x_t)^{\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })}=\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Sigma },x)^{\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)$$

since in the shadow new strata appear, and these strata are:

1. A new trivalent vertex, which contributes $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)`$.
2. New edges without half-twists. They do not contribute.
3. A new triangle colored with $`t`$. It contributes $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)`$.

Therefore

(41)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x})\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Sigma },x)^{\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{t}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}\right)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x_t})\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Sigma },x)^{\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })}\\ \hfill =\underset{t}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x_t})\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Sigma },x_t)^{\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })}\end{array}$$

Invariance with respect to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth moves is proved in the same way as invariance with respect to the second move, but using instead of (34)

* (37) in the case of the third move,
* (36) in the case of the fourth move,
* (31) and (33) in the case of the fifth move, and
* (30) and (32) in the case of the sixth move.

### 10.5. Face State Sums for Alexander Invariant

Moving Contour Theorem 10.4.A does not give an explicit recipe for calculating the Alexander invariant. Here we deduce explicit formulas for this. The formulas depend of choice of spot faces and movement of contour to which Moving Contour Theorem is applied.

Of course, the spot faces are needed for making the state sum finite. In our case they play also a role which does not emerge in the $`sl(2)`$ case: to make the state sum non-zero. For example, if one chooses a single spot face (as it is usual in $`sl(2)`$ case), $`Z(𝒮)`$ vanishes. Indeed, by Moving Contour Theorem, the contour can be made disjoint from the projection of the graph under consideration. This makes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C`$ splittable and annihilates $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_C)`$ by 6.5.

The next possibility for the choice of spot faces is to choose two faces next to each other. This works as follows.

###### 10.5.AFace State Sum at Arc.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ be a $`𝒢_𝒫^𝒸`$-colored framed closed generic graph, let $`e`$ be a 1-stratum of its diagram and $`s`$ be the color of $`e`$. Let $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$ be the 2-strata of the diagram adjacent to $`e`$. Color them with colors $`u`$ and $`v`$ such that the admissibility condition on $`e`$ is satisfied. Denote by $`Col_P(u,v)`$ the set of all the admissible $`𝒢_𝒫^𝒸`$-colorings of the diagram of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which are face extensions of the coloring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and have the colors described above on $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$. Let $`\tau `$ be the product of the twist factors of all the half-twist signs on the diagram. If $`Col_P(u,v)\mathrm{}`$ then

(42)
$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\frac{\tau \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}s\right)}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}u\right)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}v\right)}\underset{xCol_P(u,v)}{}\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Sigma },x)^{\chi (\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }})}$$

where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is bounded in $`^2`$, otherwise $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is obtained by adding to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the point of infinity in the one-point compactificaion $`S^2`$ of $`^2`$.

###### Proof.

First, take for a contour $`C`$ a small circle bounding in $`^2`$ a disk $`𝒮`$, which intersects the diagram only in an arc contained in $`e`$. The disk is the shadow domain. Then $`Col_P(u,v)`$ consists of a single coloring, say $`x`$,

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x})=\frac{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}s\right)}$$

and $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Sigma },x)^{\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma })}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}u\right)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}v\right)`$. Therefore

$$Z(𝒮)=\underset{¯}{\mathcal{\Delta }}^𝒸(\mathcal{\Gamma })\frac{\underset{¯}{\mathcal{\Delta }}^𝒸\left(\text{}𝓊\right)\underset{¯}{\mathcal{\Delta }}^𝒸\left(\text{}𝓋\right)}{\underset{¯}{\mathcal{\Delta }}^𝒸\left(\text{}𝓈\right)}.$$

Now expand $`C`$ till the moment when $`𝒮`$ engulfs the whole diagram. If $`Col_P(u,v)\mathrm{}`$ then we can apply Theorem 10.4.A, and conclude that $`Z(𝒮)`$ does not change. At the final moment, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C,x})=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^c\left(\text{}t\right)`$ where $`t`$ is the color of $`C`$. Therefore,

$$Z(𝒮)=\tau \underset{𝓍𝒞𝓁_𝒫(𝓊,𝓋)}{}\underset{¯}{\mathcal{\Delta }}^𝒸\left(\text{}𝓉\right)\underset{\mathcal{\Sigma }}{}\underset{¯}{\mathcal{\Delta }}^𝒸(\mathcal{\Sigma },𝓍)^{\chi (\mathcal{\Sigma })}=\tau \underset{𝓍𝒞𝓁_𝒫(𝓊,𝓋)}{}\underset{\mathcal{\Sigma }}{}\underset{¯}{\mathcal{\Delta }}^𝒸(\mathcal{\Sigma },𝓍)^{\chi (\overline{\mathcal{\Sigma }})}$$

Comparing with the initial value of $`Z(𝒮)`$, we get the desired result. ∎

## 11. Appendix 1. Quantum $`gl(1|1)`$ and Its Irreducible Representations

### 11.1. Superalgebra $`gl(1|1)`$

Recall that in algebra prefix super- means that the object under consideration is $`_2`$-graded or, at least, is related to a $`_2`$-graded object.

For example, a vector superspace of (super-)dimension $`(p|q)`$ is a $`_2`$-graded vector space $`V=V_0V_1`$ whose $`0`$-summand $`V_0`$ is of dimension $`p`$ and $`1`$-summand $`V_1`$ is $`q`$-dimensional. Denote by $`^{p|q}`$ the superspace $`^p^q`$. The $`0`$-summand of a superspace is called its bosonic part and vectors belonging to it are called bosons, the $`1`$-summand is called fermionic part, its elements are called fermions.

Endomorphisms of a superspace $`^{p|q}`$ comprise a Lie superalgebra, which is denoted by $`gl(p|q)`$. It consists of $`(p|q)\times (p|q)`$-matrices $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)`$. This is a super-algebra, its bosonic part consists of $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ 0& D\end{array}\right)`$, the fermionic part consists of $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& B\\ C& 0\end{array}\right)`$. On bosons and fermions the Lie (super)-brackets are defined as supercommutator $`[X,Y]=XY(1)^{\mathrm{deg}X\mathrm{deg}Y}YX`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}X`$ is 0 if $`X`$ is a boson and 1 if $`X`$ is a fermion. This extends linearly to the whole $`gl(p|q)`$

The supertrace $`\mathrm{str}M`$ of $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)`$ is defined to be $`\mathrm{tr}A\mathrm{tr}D`$. This is a natural bilinear non-degenerate form

$$gl(p|q)\times gl(p|q):(x,y)\mathrm{str}(xy).$$

The Lie super-algebra $`gl(1|1)`$ is generated by the following 4 elements:

(43)
$$E=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

subject to the following relations

(44)
$$\begin{array}{c}\{X,Y\}(=XY+YX)=E,\\ X^2=Y^2=0,\\ [G,X]=X,[G,Y]=Y,\\ [E,G]=[E,X]=[E,Y]=0.\end{array}$$

In fact, these relations define $`gl(1|1)`$.

### 11.2. Quantization

The universal enveloping algebra $`Ugl(1|1)`$ admits a deformation (see P. P. Kulish ) with parameter $`h`$ resulting the quantum superalgebra $`U_qgl(1|1)`$. Only the first of relations (44) changes: its right hand side $`E`$ is replaced by “quantum $`E`$”, that is $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^Eq^E}{qq^1}}`$ with $`q=e^h`$. To make sense of this non-algebraic expression, one adjoins to the algebra formal power series in $`h`$.

Denote

$$q^E=e^{hE}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{h^nE^n}{n!}$$

by $`K`$. Since $`E`$ is central, $`K`$ is central, too.

Algebra $`A`$ of formal power series in $`h`$ generated by $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`E`$ and $`G`$ and satisfying relations

(45)
$$\begin{array}{c}\{X,Y\}=\frac{KK^1}{qq^1},\\ X^2=Y^2=0,\\ [E,X]=0,[E,Y]=0,[E,G]=0,\\ [G,X]=X,[G,Y]=Y.\end{array}$$

can be equipped with a co-product

(46) $`\mathrm{\Delta }:A`$ $`AA:`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)=1E+E1`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)=1G+G1`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(X)=XK^1+1X,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y)=Y1+KY`$
co-unit

(47)
$$ϵ:A:ϵ(X)=ϵ(Y)=ϵ(E)=ϵ(G)=0,$$

and antipode

(48) $`s:A`$ $`A:`$
$`s(E)=E,s(G)=G,s(X)=XK,s(Y)=YK^1`$
so that it turns to a Hopf (super-)algebra. It is denoted by $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ and called quantum supergroup $`U_qgl(1|1)`$.

One can easily check that

(49) $`\mathrm{\Delta }(K)`$ $`=KK,\mathrm{\Delta }(K^1)=K^1K^1,`$
$`s(K)`$ $`=K^1,ϵ(H)=1.`$
### 11.3. $`R`$-Matrix

Recall that a Hopf algebra $`A`$ is said to be quasitriangular if it is equipped with a universal $`R`$-matrix $`R`$ which is an invertible element of $`A^2=AA`$ satisfying the following three conditions:

(50)
$$P\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=R\mathrm{\Delta }(a)R^1\text{ for any }aA$$

(51)
$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{id}_A)(R)=R_{13}R_{23}$$

(52)
$$(\mathrm{id}_A\mathrm{\Delta })(R)=R_{13}R_{12}$$

Here $`P`$ is the permutation homomorphism $`ab(1)^{\mathrm{deg}a\mathrm{deg}b}ba:AAAA`$, $`R_{12}=R1A^3`$, $`R_{13}=(\mathrm{id}P)(R_{12})`$, $`R_{23}=1R`$.

Quantum supergroup $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ is known to be quasitriangular with the universal $`R`$-matrix

(53)
$$R=\left(1+(qq^1)(XY)(KK^1)\right)q^{EGGE}$$

Each quasitriangular Hopf superalgebra has a unique element

$$u=\underset{i}{}(1)^{\mathrm{deg}\alpha _i\mathrm{deg}\beta _i}s(\beta _i)\alpha _i,$$

where $`R=_i\alpha _i\beta _i`$. In $`U_qgl(1|1))`$

$$u=q^{2EG}\left(1+(qq^1)KYX\right).$$

Then

$$s(u)=q^{2EG}\left(1(qq^1)K^1XY\right),$$

cf.  and .

Recall that a universal twist of a quasitriangular Hopf superalgebra $`A`$ is an element $`vA`$ such that $`v^2=us(u)`$. In $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ this means

$$v^2=us(u)=q^{4EG}\left(1+(qq^1)(KYXK^1XY)\right),$$

cf.  and . One can easily check that this equation in $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ has a solution

$$v=q^{2EG}\left(K(qq^1)XY\right).$$

### 11.4. $`(1|1)`$-Dimensional Irreps

By an $`U_qgl(1|1)`$-module (of dimension $`(p|q)`$) we will mean a vector superspace $`V`$ of dimension $`(p|q)`$ equipped with a homomorphism of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ to the superalgebra of endomorphisms of $`V`$ (for instance $`gl(p|q)`$).

This homomorphism is supposed to respect the $`_2`$-grading of the superstructure. In particular, the images of bosonic $`E`$ and $`G`$ map bosons to bosons and fermions to fermions, while the images of fermions $`X`$ and $`Y`$ map bosons to fermions and fermions to bosons.

Recall that a module is said to be cyclic if it is generated as a module by one vector, and irreducible if it does not contain a proper submodule.

There are two families of irreducible $`(1|1)`$-dimensional $`U_ggl(1|1)`$-modules. In each of them the modules are parametrized by two parameters, which are denoted by $`j`$ and $`J`$ and run over $`\{\pi n\sqrt{1}/2h:n\}`$ and $``$ respectively.

The module of the first family corresponding to $`(j,J)`$ is described by the following formulas:

(54) $`(j,J)_+:`$ $`U_qgl(1|1)gl(1|1):`$
$`E\left(\begin{array}{cc}2j& 0\\ 0& 2j\end{array}\right),G\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{J1}{2}& 0\\ 0& \frac{J+1}{2}\end{array}\right),`$
$`X\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ \frac{q^{2j}q^{2j}}{qq^1}& 0\end{array}\right),Y\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$
Recall that $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^nq^n}{qq^1}}`$ is denoted by $`[n]_q`$ and called quantum $`n`$. Hence $`(j,J)_+:X\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ [2j]_q& 0\end{array}\right)`$.

The standard basis vectors in $`^{1|1}`$ are denoted by $`e_0`$ (boson) and $`e_1`$ (fermion). On these vectors the generators of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ act via $`(t,w)_+`$ as follows:

(55)
$$Ee_0=2je_0,Ee_1=2je_1$$

(56)
$$Ge_0=\frac{J1}{2}e_0,Ge_1=\frac{J+1}{2}e_1$$

(57)
$$Xe_0=[2j]_qe_1,Xe_1=0$$

(58)
$$Ye_0=0,Ye_1=e_0$$

One can easily find that $`uU_qgl(1|1)`$ (see Section 11.2) acts in $`(j,J)_+`$ as multiplication by $`q^{2j(J+1)}`$ and $`v`$, as multiplication by $`q^{2jJ}`$. Hence, $`v^1u`$ acts as multiplication by $`q^{2j}`$.

Another family of irreducible $`U_qgl(1|1)`$-modules, denoted by $`(j,J)_{}`$, is obtained from $`(j,J)_+`$ by switching the bosonic and fermionic subspaces. We change also the signs of the parameters in anticipation of 11.5.A.

(59) $`(j,J)_{}:`$ $`U_qgl(1|1)gl(1|1):`$
$`E\left(\begin{array}{cc}2j& 0\\ 0& 2j\end{array}\right),G\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{J+1}{2}& 0\\ 0& \frac{J1}{2}\end{array}\right),`$
$`X\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& [2j]_q\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),Y\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$
Operator $`uU_qgl(1|1)`$ acts in $`(j,J)_{}`$, as multiplication by $`q^{2j(J1)}`$ and $`v`$, as multiplication by $`q^{2jJ}`$, so $`v^1u`$ acts as multiplication by $`q^{2j}`$.

###### 11.4.AClassification of $`(1|1)`$-Dimensional Irreps.

An irreducible $`U_qgl(1|1)`$-module of dimension $`(1|1)`$ is isomorphic to a module of one of the families (54), (59). No module of one of these families is equivalent to a module of another one. ∎

### 11.5. Duality

Recall that for a finite-dimensional $`A`$-module $`V`$, where $`A`$ is a Hopf superalgebra over a field $`k`$, the dual space $`V^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_k(V,k)`$ is equipped with a structure of $`A`$-module by the formula $`(Lc)(v)=c((1)^{\mathrm{deg}L\mathrm{deg}c}s(L)(v))`$, where $`LA`$, $`cV^{}`$, $`vV`$ and $`s`$ is the antipode of $`A`$. This representation is said to be dual to $`V`$.

###### 11.5.ADual $`(1|1)`$-Dimensional Modules.

Modules $`(j,J)_+`$ and $`(j,J)_{}`$ are dual to each other. There is a canonical isomorphism $`(j,J)_+^{}(j,J)_{}`$, which is described by the formulas: $`e^0e_0`$, $`e^1q^{2j}e_1`$, where $`e^i`$ is the generator of $`(j,J)_+^{}`$ from the basis super-dual to the standard basis $`e_0`$, $`e_1`$ of $`(j,J)_+`$, it is defined by $`e^i(e_j)=(1)^{ij}\delta _j^i`$.

The duality allows one to define various pairings and co-pairings. Cf. . First, there is an obvious pairing

(60)
$$\text{}:(j,J)_{}\times (j,J)_+:(x,y)x(y).$$

Here we identify $`(j,J)_{}`$ with $`((j,J)_+)^{}`$ by the isomorphism of 11.5.A. This pairing acts as follows:

$$\text{}:(e_a,e_b)(1)^aq^{2ja}\delta _{ab}.$$

Another pairing is obtained from this one by a “quantum super-transposition”:

(61)
$$\text{}:(j,J)_+\times (j,J)_{}:(x,y)(1)^{\mathrm{deg}x\mathrm{deg}y}y(v^1ux).$$

The factor $`(1)^{\mathrm{deg}x\mathrm{deg}y}`$ appears here because of transposition of $`x`$ and $`y`$ (this is the contribution of super-mathematics). On the basis vectors the pairing acts as follows:

$$\text{}:(e_a,e_b)q^{2j(1a)}\delta _{ab}.$$

There is an obvious (super-) co-pairing

(62)
$$\text{}:(j,J)_+(j,J)_{}:1e_0e_0e_1q^{2j}e_1,$$

and “quantum super-transposed” co-pairing

(63)
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{}:(j,J)_{}(j,J)_+:1\underset{a=0}{\overset{1}{}}(1)^ae_a(u^1ve_a)\hfill \\ \hfill =q^{2j}e_0e_0+e_1e_1.\end{array}$$

### 11.6. Tensor Product $`(i,I)_+(j,J)_+`$

###### 11.6.ALemma. Action of Generators.

Generators $`E`$, $`G`$, $`X`$, $`Y`$ of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ act in $`(i,I)_+(j,J)_+`$ as follows:

(64)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E:& e_0e_02(i+j)(e_0e_0)\hfill \\ & e_1e_12(i+j)(e_1e_1)\hfill \\ & e_0e_12(i+j)(e_0e_1)\hfill \\ & e_1e_02(i+j)(e_1e_0)\hfill \end{array}& \begin{array}{cc}\hfill G:& e_0e_0\frac{I+J2}{2}(e_0e_0)\hfill \\ & e_1e_1\frac{I+J+2}{2}(e_1e_1)\hfill \\ & e_0e_1\frac{I+J}{2}(e_0e_1)\hfill \\ & e_1e_0\frac{I+J}{2}(e_1e_0)\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

$`X:`$ $`e_0e_0[2j]_q(e_0e_1)+q^{2j}[2i]_q(e_1e_0)`$
$`e_1e_10`$
$`e_0e_1q^{2j}[2i]_q(e_1e_1)`$
$`e_1e_0[2j]_q(e_1e_1)`$
$`Y:`$ $`e_0e_00`$
$`e_1e_1(e_0e_1)q^{2i}e_1e_0`$
$`e_0e_1q^{2i}(e_0e_0)`$
$`e_1e_0e_0e_0`$
###### Proof.

Recall that the action of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ in the tensor product is defined via the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }:U_qgl(1|1)U_qgl(1|1)U_qgl(1|1)`$. One can easily check the formulas above using (46). ∎

###### 11.6.BDecomposition in Generic Case.

Let $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k=i+j`$ be complex numbers which are not of the form $`\pi n\sqrt{1}/2h`$ with $`n`$. Let $`I`$, $`J`$ be arbitrary complex numbers. Then $`(i,I)_+(j,J)_+`$ is isomorphic to

$$(i+j,I+J1)_+(ij,IJ1)_{}.$$

There is an isomorphism

$$(i+j,I+J1)_+(ij,IJ1)_{}(i,I)_+(j,J)_+$$

with matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& \frac{[2j]_q}{[2i+2j]_q}& 0& 1\\ 0& q^{2j}\frac{[2i]_q}{[2i+2j]_q}& 0& q^{2i}\end{array}\right)$$

with respect to the bases $`\{(e_0,0),(e_1,0),(0,e_0),(0,e_1)\}`$ of $`(i+j,I+J1)_+(ij,IJ1)_{}`$ and $`\{e_0e_0,e_1e_1,e_0e_1,e_1e_0\}`$ of $`(i,I)_+(j,J)_+`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the submodule generated by $`e_0e_0`$. Since $`E(e_0e_0)=2(i+j)(e_0e_0)`$ and $`i+j0mod(\pi \sqrt{1}/2h)`$, this is a cyclic $`(1|1)`$-dimensional representation. Since $`Y(e_0e_0)=0`$ and $`e_0e_0`$ is a boson, this is a vector representation. Since $`G(e_0e_0)=(\frac{I+J}{2}1)(e_0e_0)`$, this is $`(i+j,I+J1)_+`$. Choose for its basis $`e_0e_0`$ and $`X(1/[2i+2j]_q)(e_0e_0)=[2j]_q/[2i+2j]_q(e_0e_1)+q^{2j}[2i]_q/[2i+2j]_q(e_1e_0)`$.

Consider now the submodule generated by $`e_1e_1`$. Since $`E(e_1e_1)=2(i+j)(e_1e_1)`$ and $`i+j0mod(\pi \sqrt{1}/2h)`$, this is a cyclic $`(1|1)`$-dimensional representation. Since $`X(e_1e_1)=0`$ and $`e_1e_1`$ is a boson, this is a covector representation. Since $`G(e_1e_1)=(\frac{I+J}{2}+1)(e_1e_1)`$ and $`(j,J)_{}(G)(e_0)=(\frac{J+1}{2})e_0`$ (see (59)), this is $`(ij,IJ1)_{}`$. Take $`e_1e_1`$ and $`Y(e_1e_1)=e_0e_1q^{2i}(e_1e_0)`$ for its basis. ∎

###### 11.6.C.

In representation $`(i,I)_+(j,J)_+`$ with the basis $`e_0e_0`$, $`e_0e_1`$, $`e_1e_0`$, $`e_1e_1`$, the $`R`$-matrix is

$$q^{iJjI}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}q^{i+j}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& q^{ji}& 0& 0\\ 0& q^{ij}(q^{2i}q^{2i})& q^{ij}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& q^{ij}\end{array}\right)$$

###### Proof.

Recall (see (53)) that the universal $`R`$-matrix is

$$R=\left(1+(qq^1)(XY)(KK^1)\right)q^{EGGE}.$$

It is easy to see that $`q^{EGGE}`$ is

$$q^{iJjI}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}q^{i+j}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& q^{ji}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& q^{ij}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& q^{ij}\end{array}\right)$$

Since $`Xe_1=0`$ and $`Ye_0=0`$, out of all the basis vectors only $`e_0e_1`$ is not annihilated by $`XY`$. Further, $`q^{EGGE}(e_0e_1)=q^{iJjI}q^{ji}(e_0e_1)`$ and

$$(XY)(e_0e_1)=[2i]_q(e_1e_0),$$

so

$$(qq^1)(XY)(KK^1)q^{EGGE}(e_0e_1)=q^{iJjI}q^{ij}(q^{2i}q^{2i})(e_1e_0).$$

All together this gives the desired formula. ∎

$`R`$-matrix will be used always composed with the operator of super-transposition

$$P:(i,I)_+(j,J)_+(j,J)_+(i,I)_+$$

with matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

(Here $`1`$ at the right bottom corner is due to super-rule: the transposition exchanges two fermions $`e_1`$ and $`e_1`$ in $`e_1e_1`$ and fermions skew commute.)

(65)
$$\begin{array}{c}PR=q^{iJjI}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}q^{i+j}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& q^{ij}(q^{2i}q^{2i})& q^{ij}& 0\\ 0& q^{ji}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& q^{ij}\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =q^{iJjIij}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}q^{2i+2j}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& q^{4i}1& q^{2i}& 0\\ 0& q^{2j}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\end{array}$$

Similarly one can calculate the corresponding objects related to tensor products $`(i,I)_{}(j,J)_{}`$, $`(i,I)_+(j,J)_{}`$ and $`(i,I)_{}(j,J)_+`$.

### 11.7. A $`q`$-Less Subalgebra

Consider super-subring $`U^1`$ of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ generated by bosons $`K=q^E`$, $`K^1`$, $`F=2G`$ and fermions $`Z=(qq^1)X`$, $`Y`$, see 11.2. This is a superalgebra over $``$ defined by relations:

(66)
$$\begin{array}{c}\{Z,Y\}=KK^1,\\ Z^2=Y^2=0,\\ [K,Z]=0,[K,Y]=0\\ [F,Z]=2Z[F,Y]=2Y.\end{array}$$

The coproduct of $`U_qgl(1|1)`$ induces in $`U^1`$ a coproduct

(67) $`\mathrm{\Delta }:U^1`$ $`U^1U^1:`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(K)=KK`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(K^1)=K^1K^1`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(F)=1F+F1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(Z)=ZK^1+1Z,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y)=Y1+KY.`$
$`U^1`$ has a co-unit

(68)
$$ϵ:U^1:ϵ(F)=ϵ(Y)=ϵ(Z)=0,ϵ(K)=ϵ(K^1)=1$$

and antipode

(69) $`s:U^1`$ $`U^1:`$
$`s(K)=K^1,s(F)=F,s(Z)=ZK,s(Y)=YK^1`$
so that $`U^1`$ is a Hopf (super-)algebra over $``$.

### 11.8. Irreducible Representations of $`U^1`$

Let $`P=(B,M,W,M\times WM)`$ be a 1-palette (see Section 2.8). That is let $`B`$ be a commutative ring , $`M`$ a subgroup of the multiplicative group of $`B`$, and $`W`$ be a subgroup of the additive group of $`B`$ equipped with a (bilinear) pairing $`M\times WM:(m,w)m^w`$ such that $`1W`$ and $`m^1=m`$ for each $`mM`$.

For $`tM`$, $`t^41`$ and $`TW`$ consider the action of $`U^1`$ on $`B^{(1|1)}`$ defined by

(70) $`K\left(\begin{array}{cc}t^2& 0\\ 0& t^2\end{array}\right),`$ $`F\left(\begin{array}{cc}T1& 0\\ 0& T+1\end{array}\right)`$
$`Y\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),Z`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ t^2t^2& 0\end{array}\right).`$
This is an irreducible representation. Denote it by $`U(t,T)_+`$. The dual representation is an action defined as follows in the same space:

(71) $`K\left(\begin{array}{cc}t^2& 0\\ 0& t^2\end{array}\right),`$ $`F\left(\begin{array}{cc}T+1& 0\\ 0& T1\end{array}\right)`$
$`Y\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),Z`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& t^2t^2\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$
It is denoted by $`U(t,T)_{}`$.

###### 11.8.ADuality.

Modules $`(t,T)_+`$ and $`(t,T)_{}`$ are dual to each other. There is a canonical isomorphism $`(t,T)_+^{}(t,T)_{}`$, which is described by the formulas: $`e^0e_0`$, $`e^1t^2e_1`$, where $`e^i`$ is the generator of $`(t,T)_+^{}`$ from the basis super-dual to the standard basis $`e_0`$, $`e_1`$ of $`(t,T)_+`$, it is defined by $`e^i(e_j)=(1)^{ij}\delta _j^i`$. ∎

###### 11.8.BDecomposition of $`(\mathrm{u},\mathrm{U})_+_\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{v},\mathrm{V})_+`$.

Let $`u`$, $`v`$ and $`t=uv`$ belong to $`M\{tMt^4=1\}`$ and $`t^2t^2`$ be invertible in $`B`$. Let $`U,VW`$. Then $`(u,U)_+(v,V)_+`$ is isomorphic to $`(uv,U+V1)_+(u^1v^1,UV1)_{}`$. There is an isomorphism

$$(t,U+V1)_+(t^1,UV1)_{}(u,U)_+(v,V)_+$$

with matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}t^2t^2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& v^2v^2& 0& 1\\ 0& v^2(u^2u^2)& 0& u^2\end{array}\right)$$

with respect to the bases $`\{(e_0,0),(e_1,0),(0,e_0),(0,e_1)\}`$ of the $`B`$-module

$$(t,U+V1)_+(t^1,UV1)_{}$$

and $`\{e_0e_0,e_1e_1,e_0e_1,e_1e_0\}`$ of $`(u,U)_+_B(v,V)_+`$.∎

###### 11.8.CDecomposition of $`(\mathrm{u},\mathrm{U})_{}_\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{v},\mathrm{V})_{}`$.

Let $`u`$, $`v`$ and $`t=uv`$ belong to $`M\{tMt^4=1\}`$ and $`t^2t^2`$ be invertible in $`B`$. Let $`U,VW`$. Then $`(u,U)_{}_B(v,V)_{}`$ is isomorphic to $`(t^1,UV1)_+(t,U+V1)_{}`$. There is an isomorphism

$$(t^1,UV1)_+(t,U+V1)_{}(u,U)_{}_B(v,V)_{}$$

with matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ t^2t^2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& v^2(u^2u^2)& 0& u^2\\ 0& v^2+v^2& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

with respect to the bases $`\{(e_0,0),(e_1,0),(0,e_0),(0,e_1)\}`$ of the $`B`$-module

$$(t^1,UV1)_+(t,U+V1)_{}$$

and $`\{e_0e_0,e_1e_1,e_0e_1,e_1e_0\}`$ of $`(u,U)_{}_B(v,V)_{}`$.

###### 11.8.DDecomposition of $`(\mathrm{u},\mathrm{U})_+_\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{v},\mathrm{V})_{}`$.

Let $`u`$, $`v`$ and $`t=uv^1`$ belong to $`M\{tMt^4=1\}`$ and $`t^2t^2`$ be invertible in $`B`$. Let $`U,VW`$. Then $`(u,U)_+_B(v,V)_{}`$ is isomorphic to $`(t,UV+1)_+(t^1,VU+1)_{}`$. There is an isomorphism

$$(t,UV+1)_+(t^1,VU+1)_{}(u,U)_+_B(v,V)_{}$$

with matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& v^2v^2& 0\\ u^2& 0& v^2(u^2u^2)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& t^2t^2\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

with respect to the bases $`\{(e_0,0),(e_1,0),(0,e_0),(0,e_1)\}`$ of the $`B`$-module

$$(t^1,VU1)_+(t,UV1)_{}$$

and $`\{e_0e_0,e_1e_1,e_0e_1,e_1e_0\}`$ of $`(u,U)_+(v,V)_{}`$. ∎

## 12. Appendix 2. Representations of Quantum $`sl(2)`$ at $`\sqrt{1}`$

### 12.1. Algebra $`sl(2)`$

Recall that Lie algebra $`sl(2)`$ is generated by the following 3 elements:

(72)
$$H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),X^+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),X^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

subject to the following relations

(73)
$$[X^+,X^{}]=H,[H,X^+]=2X^+,[H,X^{}]=2X^{}.$$

In fact, these relations define $`sl(2)`$.

### 12.2. Quantization

The universal enveloping algebra $`Usl(2)`$ admits a deformation resulting the quantum superalgebra $`U_qsl(2)`$. Only the first of relations (73) changes: its right hand side $`H`$ is replaced by “quantum $`H`$”, that is $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^Hq^H}{qq^1}}`$ where $`q=e^h`$. To make sense of this non-algebraic expression, one adjoins formal power series in $`h`$ to the algebra. Denote

$$q^H=e^{hH}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{h^nH^n}{n!}$$

by $`K`$. Thus the deformed system of relations is:

(74)
$$\begin{array}{c}K=q^H,[X^+,X^{}]=\frac{KK^1}{qq^1},\\ [H,X^+]=2X^+,[H,X^{}]=2X^{}.\end{array}$$

The algebra $`A`$ over the field $`[[h]]`$ of formal power series in $`h`$ which consists of formal power series in $`h`$ with coefficients generated by $`H`$, $`X^+`$ and $`X^{}`$ subject to (74) can be equipped with a co-product

(75) $`\mathrm{\Delta }:A`$ $`AA:`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(H)=H1+1H`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(X^+)=X^+1+KX^+,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(X^{})=X^{}K^1+1X^{}`$
co-unit

(76)
$$ϵ:A[[h]]:ϵ(K)=ϵ(K^1)=1,ϵ(H)=ϵ(X^+)=ϵ(X^{})=0,$$

and antipode

(77) $`s:A`$ $`A:`$
$`s(H)=H,s(X^+)=K^1X^+,s(X^{})=X^{}K`$
so that it turns to a Hopf algebra. It is denoted by $`U_qsl(2)`$.

### 12.3. Simplification at square root of $`1`$

Consider $`U_qsl(2)`$ at a special value $`q=\sqrt{1}`$ corresponding to $`h=\frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{2}`$. To abbreviate formulas, but keep letter $`i`$ available for other purposes, let us denote $`\sqrt{1}`$ by $`𝒊`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(a\frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{2})`$ by $`𝒊^a`$.

In case $`q=𝒊`$ the generators may be changed to simplify relations. Indeed, let

$$X=X^{},Y=2X^+\sqrt{1}.$$

Then relations

(78)
$$\begin{array}{c}K=𝒊^H,[Y,X]=KK^1,\\ [H,X]=2X,[H,Y]=2Y,\text{ and hence }KX=XK,KY=YK.\end{array}$$

define the algebra $`U_𝒊sl(2)`$. This is a Hopf algebra with co-product defined by

(79) $`\mathrm{\Delta }:U_𝒊sl(2)`$ $`U_𝒊sl(2)U_𝒊sl(2):`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(H)=H1+1H`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(K)=KK`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(K^1)=K^1K^1`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(X)=XK^1+1X,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y)=Y1+KY,`$
co-unit defined by

(80) $`ϵ:U_𝒊sl(2)`$ $`[[h]]:`$
$`ϵ(K)=ϵ(K^1)=1,ϵ(H)=ϵ(X)=ϵ(X)=0,`$
and antipode

(81) $`s:U_𝒊sl(2)`$ $`U_𝒊sl(2):`$
$`s(H)=H,`$
$`s(K)=K^1,s(K^1)=K,`$
$`s(X)=XK(=KX),`$
$`s(Y)=K^1Y(=YK^1).`$
### 12.4. Family of Modules of Dimension 2

The relations (78) are satisfied by matrices

(82) $`H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a+1& 0\\ 0& a1\end{array}\right),`$ $`K=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒊^{a+1}& 0\\ 0& 𝒊^{a+1}\end{array}\right),`$
$`X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 𝒊^{a+1}𝒊^{a1}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ $`Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$
where $`a`$.

The space of this representation is a two-dimensional vector space over the quotient field of the ring of formal power series $`[[h]]`$. Recall that this field consists of formal Laurent series, i. e. $`[[h]][h^1]`$.

Denote this representation of $`U_𝒊sl(2)`$ by $`I(a)`$. The standard basis vectors in $`\left([[h]][h^1]\right)^2`$ are denoted by $`e_0`$, $`e_1`$. On these vectors the generators of $`U_𝒊sl(2)`$ act via $`I(a)`$ as follows:

(83)
$$He_0=(a+1)e_0,He_1=(a1)e_1$$

(84)
$$Ke_0=𝒊^{a+1}e_0,Ke_1=𝒊^{a+1}e_1$$

(85)
$$Xe_0=(𝒊^{a+1}𝒊^{a1})e_1,Xe_1=0$$

(86)
$$Ye_0=0,Ye_1=e_0$$

This representation is irreducible, unless $`𝒊^{a+1}𝒊^{a1}=0`$, i. e. $`a`$ is an odd integer.

### 12.5. Duality

Recall that for any finite-dimensional representation $`V`$ of a Hopf algebra $`A`$ over a field $`k`$ the dual space $`V^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_k(V,k)`$ is equipped with a structure of $`A`$-module by the formula $`(Tc)(v)=c(s(T)(v))`$, where $`TA`$, $`cV^{}`$, $`vV`$ and $`s`$ is the antipode of $`A`$. This representation is said to be dual to $`V`$.

###### 12.5.ADuality Between $`\mathrm{I}(\mathrm{a})`$ and $`\mathrm{I}(\mathrm{a})`$.

Modules $`I(a)`$ and $`I(a)`$ are dual to each other. There is an isomorphism

$$f:I(a)^{}I(a),$$

which is described by the formulas:

$$f:e^0e_1,f:e^1𝒊^{a1}e_0,$$

where $`e^i`$ is the generator of $`I(a)^{}`$ from the basis dual to the standard basis $`e_0`$, $`e_1`$ of $`I(a)`$, it is defined by $`e^i(e_j)=\delta _j^i`$. ∎

###### 12.5.A.1 Remark.

The dual module $`I(a)^{}`$ can be continuously deformed to $`I(a)`$ in the family of modules $`I(x)`$: the complex numbers $`a`$ and $`a`$ can be connected by a path in $`(2+1)`$.

### 12.6. $`R`$-Matrix

Quantum group $`U_qsl(2)`$ is known to be quasitriangular with the universal $`R`$-matrix

(87)
$$R=q^{HH/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{q^{n(n1)/2}}{[n]_q!}\left((qq^1)X^{}X^+\right)^n$$

In all the representations of $`U_qsl(2)`$ considered in this paper, $`(X^+)^2=(X^{})^2=0`$ and $`q=𝒊`$. Factorization by these relations reduces $`R`$-matrix to

(88)
$$R=𝒊^{HH/2}\left(1+XY\right).$$

###### 12.6.A.

In representation $`I(a)I(b)`$ with the basis $`e_0e_0`$, $`e_0e_1`$, $`e_1e_0`$, $`e_1e_1`$, the $`R`$-matrix is

$$𝒊^{\frac{ab+1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}𝒊^{\frac{a+b}{2}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 𝒊^{\frac{a+b}{2}+1}& 0& 0\\ 0& 𝒊^{\frac{ab}{2}}(𝒊^a+𝒊^a)& 𝒊^{\frac{ab}{2}1}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 𝒊^{\frac{ab}{2}}\end{array}\right)$$

$`R`$-matrix will be used always composed with the operator of transposition

$$P:I(a)I(b)I(b)I(a)$$

with matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

The composition is

$$PR=𝒊^{\frac{ab+1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}𝒊^{\frac{a+b}{2}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 𝒊^{\frac{ab}{2}}(𝒊^a+𝒊^a)& 𝒊^{\frac{ab}{2}1}& 0\\ 0& 𝒊^{\frac{a+b}{2}+1}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 𝒊^{\frac{ab}{2}}\end{array}\right)$$

### 12.7. Tensor Product $`I(a)I(b)`$

###### 12.7.AAction of Generators.

Let $`a`$, $`b`$ be complex numbers. The generators $`H`$, $`K`$, $`X`$ and $`Y`$ act in $`I(a)I(b)`$ as follows:

(89) $`H:`$ $`e_0e_0(a+b+2)(e_0e_0)`$
$`e_1e_1(a+b2)(e_1e_1)`$
$`e_0e_1(a+b)(e_0e_1)`$
$`e_1e_0(a+b)(e_1e_0)`$
$`K:`$ $`e_0e_0𝒊^{a+b}(e_0e_0)`$
$`e_1e_1𝒊^{a+b}(e_1e_1)`$
$`e_0e_1𝒊^{a+b}(e_0e_1)`$
$`e_1e_0𝒊^{a+b}(e_1e_0)`$
$`X:`$ $`e_0e_0𝒊(𝒊^b+𝒊^b)(e_0e_1)+(𝒊^a+𝒊^a)𝒊^b(e_1e_0)`$
$`e_1e_10`$
$`e_0e_1(𝒊^a𝒊^a)𝒊^b(e_1e_1)`$
$`e_1e_0𝒊(𝒊^b+𝒊^b)(e_1e_1)`$
$`Y:`$ $`e_0e_00`$
$`e_1e_1e_0e_1𝒊^{a+1}e_1e_0`$
$`e_0e_1𝒊^{a+1}(e_0e_0)`$
$`e_1e_0e_0e_0`$
###### Proof.

Recall that the action of $`U_𝒊sl(2)`$ in the tensor product is defined via the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }:U_𝒊sl(2)U_𝒊sl(2)`$. One can easily check the formulas above using (79). ∎

###### 12.7.BDecomposition in Generic Case.

Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be complex numbers such that neither $`a`$, nor $`b`$, nor $`a+b+1`$ is an odd integer. Then $`I(a)I(b)`$ is isomorphic to $`I(a+b+1)I(a+b1)`$. There is an isomorphism

$$I(a+b+1)I(a+b1)I(a)I(b)$$

with matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}𝒊^{ab}𝒊^{a+b}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 𝒊(𝒊^b+𝒊^b)& 1& 0\\ 0& 𝒊^b(𝒊^a+𝒊^a)& 𝒊^{a1}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

with respect to the bases

$$\{(e_0,0),(e_1,0),(0,e_0),(0,e_1)\}\text{ of }I(a+b+1)I(a+b1)$$

and

$$\{e_0e_0,e_1e_1,e_0e_1,e_1e_0\}\text{ of }I(a)I(b).$$