Summary. As a toy model for the algebraic approach to the construction of, we give a brief introduction to generators, relations and syzygies in a group-theoretical context, and their use in the construction of group representations.
As we have already mentioned, there are many approaches to the
construction of an invariant
satisfying the condition in Equation (2). The
algebraic approach, which is the topic of this article, is to
find some algebraic context within which the set
(or some mild generalization thereof) is finitely presented, and
then to use this finite presentation to define
. Namely, one
would have to make wise guesses
for the values of
on
the generators
of
, so that for each relation
the corresponding values of
would satisfy the
corresponding relation
(two comments: 1. For this
to make sense
must carry the same kind of algebraic
structure as
; 2. The verification of essentiality,
Equation (2), is typically easy).
Let us see what this entails on a toy model. Suppose we want to
find invariants of elements of the set of braids on 4 strands.
One way to proceed is to notice that
carries an algebraic structure, that is, it has an associative product
which makes it a group. Thus we may seek invariants on
with values
in associative algebras, which respect the algebraic structure. Such
creatures are not new on the mathematical scenery; they are usually called
``group representations''. Our approach to finding representations of
would be to make wise guesses for their values
,
and
on the generators
,
and
of
(see Figure 1), so as to satisfy
the relations between the
's. Setting
,
these relations are (again see Figure 1):
![]() |
In our real problem, the construction of
, the target space
is graded, and we will attempt to construct
inductively, degree by
degree. Thus we will be asking ourselves, ``suppose our construction
is done to degree 16; can we extend it to degree 17?''. Let us go back
to the toy model and examine the situation over there. Let
be an
associative algebra and let
be ideals in
(think ``
degrees
and
degrees
'')
so that
(``
''). Suppose we have
which satisfy the equations (3) in
(``done to degree 16''). But equations (3) may fail in
; let
be the errors in when these
equations are considered in
:
We wish to modify the 's so as to satisfy
equations (3) in
(``extend to degree
17''), so we set
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
These are linear equations, and thus to solve our problem, namely to find
's so that
, we need to show that the
triple
is in the image of the linear map
defined by
Our strategy to show that
is to find a second linear map
, whose domain is the target space of
, so that
and so that
. This done we can define the homology group
, and if by some magical means we could prove that it vanishes,
we would use
to determine that
, and our problem
would be solved. We will mention techniques for the computation of the
homology group
in Section 5. For now we only wish
to describe how the map
is found.
To find linear relations between the errors ,
and
, we start with a syzygy for our presentation of the braid
group
-- a closed loop whose vertices are words in the generators
and whose edges are relations. When we perform the replacement
on the vertices of a syzygy, say the one displayed in
Figure 1, we get a loop like such:
Moral. It would be nice to have an algebraic context within which knot theory is finitely presented and within which the syzygies of the presentation are simple to analyze.