Invariants of Welded Virtual Knots Via Crossed Module Invariants
of Knotted Surfaces
Louis H. Kauffman
Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science,
University of Illinois at Chicago,
851 South Morgan St., Chicago, IL 60607-7045, USA
kauffman@uic.edu
João Faria Martins∗
Departamento de Matemática,
Instituto Superior Técnico (Universidade Técnica de Lisboa)
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
jmartins@math.ist.utl.pt
September 8, 2021
Abstract
We define an invariant of welded virtual knots from each finite crossed module by considering
crossed module invariants of ribbon knotted surfaces which are naturally associated with them.
We elucidate that the invariants obtained are non-trivial by calculating explicit examples. We
define welded virtual graphs and consider invariants of them defined in a similar way.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 57M25 (primary), 57Q45 (secondary).
Keywords: welded virtual knots, knotted surfaces, crossed module, quandle invariants, Alexander
module.
1 Introduction
Welded virtual knots were defined in [K1], by allowing one extra move in addition to the moves
appearing in the definition of a virtual knot. This extra move preserves the (combinatorial) fun-
damental group of the complement, which is therefore an invariant of welded virtual knots (the
knot group). Given a finite group G, one can therefore define a welded virtual knot invariant HG,
by considering the number of morphisms from the fundamental group of the complement into G.
The Wirtinger presentation of knot groups enables a quandle type calculation of this “Counting
Invariant” HG.
Not a lot of welded virtual knot invariants are known. The aim of this article is to introduce
a new one, the “Crossed Module Invariant” HG , which depends on a finite automorphic crossed
module G = (E,G, ⊲), in other words on a pair of groups E and G, with E abelian, and a left
action of G on E by automorphisms.
The Crossed Module InvariantHG reduces to the Counting Invariant HG when E = 0. However,
the Crossed Module Invariant distinguishes, in some cases, between welded virtual links with the
Also at Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologia, Av. do Campo
Grande, 376, 1749-024, Lisboa, Portugal.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1246v2
same knot group, and therefore it is strictly stronger than the Counting Invariant. We will assert
this fact by calculating explicit examples.
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic crossed module. Note that the Counting Invariant HG
is trivial whenever G is abelian. However, taking G to be abelian and E to be non-trivial, yields
a non-trivial invariant HG , which is, as a rule, much easier to calculate than the Counting In-
variant HG where G is generic group, and it is strong enough to tell apart some pairs of links
with the same knot group. Suppose that the welded virtual link K has n-components. Let
κn = Z[X1,X
1 , . . . ,Xn,X
n ]. We will define a kn-module CM(K), depending only on K, up
to isomorphism and permutations of the variables X1, . . . ,Xn. If G is abelian, then HG simply
counts the number of crossed module morphisms CM(K) → G. We prove in this article that if K
is classical then CM(K) coincides with the Alexander module Alex(K) of K. However, this is not
the case if K is not classical. We will give examples of pairs of welded virtual links (K,K ′) with
the same knot group (thus the same Alexander module) but with CM(K) ≇ CM(K ′). This will
happen when K and K ′ have the same knot group, but are distinguished by their crossed module
invariants for G abelian.
Let us explain the construction of the Crossed Module Invariant HG . Extending a previous
construction due to T. Yagima, Shin Satoh defined in [S] a map which associates an oriented
knotted torus T (K), the “tube of K”, to each oriented welded virtual knot K. The map K 7→ T (K)
preserves knot groups. In the case when K is a classical knot, then T (K) coincides with the torus
spun of K, obtained by spinning K 4-dimensionally, in order to obtain an embedding of the torus
S1 × S1 into S4.
The existence of the tube map K 7→ T (K) makes it natural to define invariants of welded
virtual knots by considering invariants of knotted surfaces. We will consider this construction for
the case of the crossed module invariants IG(Σ) of knotted surfaces Σ, defined in [FM1, FM2].
Here G =
−→ G, ⊲
is a finite crossed module. Note that the invariant IG on a knotted surface
coincides with Yetter’s Invariant (see [Y2, P1, FMP]) of the complement of it. We can thus define
a welded virtual knot invariant by considering HG(K)
= IG(T (K)), where K is a welded virtual
knot.
A straightforward analysis of the crossed module invariant of the tube T (K) of the welded virtual
knot K permits the evaluation of HG(K) in a quandle type way, albeit the biquandle we define is
sensitive to maximal and minimal points, so it should probably be called a “Morse biquandle”.
A proof of the existence of the invariant HG , where G is a finite crossed module, can be done
directly, from the Morse biquandle obtained. In fact all the results of this article are fully inde-
pendent of the 4-dimensional picture, and can be given a direct proof. Moreover, they confirm the
results obtained previously for the crossed module invariants IG of knotted surfaces in S
As we have referred to above, the tube map K 7→ T (K) preserves the fundamental group of the
complements. We prove that HG is powerful enough to distinguish between distinct welded virtual
links with the same knot group. For example, we will construct an infinite set of pairs (Pi, c1(P
i )),
where i is an odd integer, of welded virtual links with the following properties:
1. Pi and c1(P
i ) each have two components for all i.
2. Pi and c1(P
i ) have isomorphic knot groups for each i.
3. Pi and c1(P
i ) can be distinguished by their crossed module invariant for each i.
In fact Pi and c1(P
i ) will be distinguished by their crossed module invariant HG with G = (E,G, ⊲)
being an automorphic crossed module with G abelian. This in particular proves that the Crossed
Module Invariant of knotted surfaces IG defined in [FM1, FM2, FM3] sees beyond the fundamental
group of their complement, in an infinite number of cases.
Figure 1: Classical and virtual crossings.
↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔
Reidemeister-I Move Reidemeister-II Move
Reidemeister-III Move
Figure 2: Reidemeister Moves I, II and III.
We will also give examples of pairs of 1-component welded virtual knots with the same knot
group, but separated by their crossed module invariants. However, we will need to make use of
computer based calculations in this case.
In this article we will propose a definition of Welded Virtual Graphs. The Crossed Module
Invariant of welded virtual links extends naturally to them.
2 An Invariant of Welded Virtual Knots
2.1 Welded virtual knots
Recall that a virtual knot diagram is, by definition, an immersion of a disjoint union of circles into
the plane R2, where the 4-valent vertices of the immersion can represent either classical or virtual
crossing; see figure 1. The definition of an oriented virtual knot diagram is the obvious one. We
say that two virtual knot diagrams are equivalent if they can be related by the moves of figures 2
and 3, as well as planar isotopy. It is important to note that in the oriented case we will need to
consider all the possible orientations of the strands. A virtual knot is an equivalence class of virtual
knot diagrams under the equivalence relation just described; see [K1].
Observe that, as far as virtual knots are concerned, we do not allow the moves shown in figure
4, called respectively the forbidden moves F1 and F2. Considering the first forbidden move F1
in addition to the ones appearing in the definition of a virtual knot, one obtains the notion of a
“welded virtual knot”, due to the first author; see [K1].
2.1.1 The fundamental group of the complement
The (combinatorial) fundamental group of the complement of a virtual knot diagram (the knot
group) is, by definition, generated by all the arcs of a diagram of it, considering the relations
(called Wirtinger Relations) of figure 5 at each crossing. It is understood that in each calculation
of a knot group from a virtual knot diagram we will use either the “Left Handed” or the “Right
Handed” Wirtinger Relation. The final result will not depend on this choice.
↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔
Figure 3: Virtual Reidemeister Moves.
↔ ↔F1 F2
Figure 4: The forbidden moves F1 and F2.
Y Y −1XY
Y Y XY
Figure 5: Wirtinger Relations. The first two are called “Left Handed” and “Right Handed”
Wirtinger Relations, respectively.
In the case of classical knots or links, this does coincide with the fundamental group of the
complement, so we can drop the prefix “combinatorial”. This combinatorial fundamental group is
in fact an invariant of welded virtual knots. This can be proved easily.
2.2 Virtual knot presentations of knotted surfaces
By definition, a torus link1 in S4 is an embedding of a disjoint union of tori S1 × S1 into S4,
considered up to ambient isotopy. A knotted torus is an embedding of a torus S1 × S1 into S4,
considered up to ambient isotopy. The definition of an oriented knotted torus or torus link is the
obvious one.
As proved in [S, Ya, CKS], it is possible to associate an oriented torus link T (K) ⊂ S4, the
“tube of K”, to each oriented welded virtual link K. This correspondence was defined first in [Ya],
for the case of classical knots. The extension to welded virtual knots was completed in [S].
The tube map is very easy to define. Given a virtual link diagram, we define the tube of it by
considering the broken surface diagram obtained by doing the transition of figures 6 and 7. For
the representation of knotted surfaces in S4 in the form of broken surface diagrams, we refer the
reader to [CKS]. The tube of a virtual knot diagram has a natural orientation determined by the
orientation of a ball in S3. It is proved in [S] that if K and L are diagrams of the same welded
virtual knot then it follows that T (K) and T (L) are isotopic knotted surfaces in S4. This defines
the tube of a welded virtual knot.
For calculation purposes, however, it is important to have a definition of the “Tube Map” in
terms of movies. Let D ⊂ R2 be an oriented virtual knot diagram. We can suppose, apart from
planar isotopy, that the projection on the second variable is a Morse function on D. Define a movie
of a knotted surface by using the correspondence of figures 8, 9 and 10. Note our convention of
Not to be confused with the 3-dimensional notion of a torus link.
Figure 6: The tube of a virtual knot at the vicinity of a classical crossing.
Figure 7: The tube of a virtual knot at the vicinity of a virtual crossing.
death of a circle
saddle point
saddle point
birth of a circle
Figure 8: Associating a knotted torus to a virtual knot: edges, minimal and maximal points and
virtual crossings. All circles are oriented counterclockwise. Note that the movies should be read
from bottom to top.
reading movies of knotted surfaces from the bottom to the top. This yields an alternative way for
describing the tube T (K) of the virtual knot K, if we are provided a diagram of it.
It was proved in [S, Ya] that the correspondence K 7→ T (K), where K is a welded virtual knot,
preserves the fundamental groups of the complement (the knot groups).
Given a (classical) link K with n components sitting in the interior of the semiplane {(x, y, z) ∈
R3 : z ≥ 0}, we define the torus spun of K by rotating K 4-dimensionally around the plane {z = 0}.
Therefore, we obtain an embedding of the disjoint union of n tori S1 × S1 into S4. It was shown
in [S] that the torus spun of K is in fact isotopic to the tube T (K) of K.
The correspondence K 7→ T (K) actually sends welded virtual links to ribbon torus links. In
fact, any ribbon torus link is of the form T (K) for some welded virtual knot K. However, it is an
open problem whether the map K 7→ T (K) is faithful; see [CKS, problems (1) and (2) of 2.2.2].
2.2.1 Welded virtual arcs
A virtual arc diagram is, by definition, an immersion of a disjoint union of intervals [0, 1] into
the plane R2, where the 4-valent vertices of the immersion can represent either classical of virtual
crossings. The definition of a welded virtual arc is similar to the definition of a welded virtual knot,
but considering in addition the moves of figure 11; see [S].
A sphere link is, by definition, an embedding of a disjoint union of spheres S2 into S4, considered
up to ambient isotopy. Similarly to ribbon torus links in S4, any ribbon sphere link admits a
Figure 9: Associating a knotted torus to a virtual knot: classical crossing points, first case. All
circles are oriented counterclockwise.
Figure 10: Associating a knotted torus to a virtual knot: classical crossing points, second case. All
circles are oriented counterclockwise.
Figure 11: Moves on welded virtual arc diagrams.
Figure 12: The tube of a welded virtual arc close to the endpoints.
Y Y −1XY XY X−1
e ∂(e)X
Figure 13: Definition of a colouring of a dotted knot diagram.
presentation as the tube T (A), where A is a welded virtual arc. Here T (A) is defined in the same
way as the tube of a welded virtual knot, considering additionally the movies of figure 12 at the
end-points of the arcs of A . Therefore T (A) is an embedding of a disjoint union of spheres S2 into
Suppose that the arc A is classical, and that it sits inside the semiplane {z ≥ 0} of R3, inter-
secting the plane {z = 0} at the end-points of A, transversally. Then in fact T (A) is the spun knot
of A; see [R, S, CKS].
We can define the knot group of a welded virtual arc exactly in the same way as we defined
the combinatorial fundamental group of the complement of a welded virtual knot. As in the case
of welded virtual knots, the map A 7→ T (A) preserves knot groups; see [S].
Suppose that A is a classical arc (with one component) sitting in the semiplane {z ≥ 0} of R3,
intersecting the plane {z = 0} at the end-points of A. Let K be the obvious closure of A. Then it
is easy to see that A and K have the same knot groups. Note that the fact that A is classical is
essential for this to hold. This is also true if A may have some S1 components, even though it is
strictly necessary that A have only one component homeomorphic to [0, 1].
2.3 Crossed module invariants of knotted surfaces
A crossed module (see [B]) G =
−→ G, ⊲
is given by a group morphism ∂ : E → G together
with a left action ⊲ of G on E by automorphisms. The conditions on ∂ and ⊲ are:
1. ∂(X ⊲ e) = X∂(e)X−1,∀X ∈ G,∀e ∈ E,
2. ∂(e) ⊲ f = efe−1,∀e, f ∈ E.
Note that the second condition implies that the subgroup ker ∂ of E is central in E, whereas the
first implies that ker ∂ is G-invariant.
A dotted knot diagram is, by definition, a regular projection of a bivalent graph, in other words
of a link, possibly with some extra bivalent vertices inserted. Let D be a dotted knot diagram,
which we suppose to be oriented. Let also G =
−→ G, ⊲
be a finite crossed module.
Definition 1 A colouring of D is an assignment of an element of G to each arc of D and of an
element of E to each bivalent vertex of D satisfying the conditions of figure 13.
Definition 2 Let D be a knot diagram (without vertices). A dotting of D is an insertion of bivalent
vertices in D, considered up to a planar isotopy sending D to D, setwise. If D is an oriented knot
diagram, let V (D) be the free Q-vector space on the set of all colourings of all dottings of D.
X X X
∂(e)X ∂(fe)X
X ∂(fe)X
e f fe
Figure 14: Relations on colourings.
Y −1⊲e
eXY X−1⊲e−1
Y −1⊲e−1Y −1X⊲e
Figure 15: Relations on colourings.
Consider now the relations of figures 14 and 15. It is straightforward to see that they are local
on the knot diagrams and that they transform colourings into colourings.
Definition 3 Let D be an oriented knot diagram (without vertices). The vector space V(D) is
defined as the vector space obtained from V (D) by modding out by the relations R1 to R6.
Let D and D′ be oriented knot diagrams. If D and D′ differ by planar isotopy, then there exists
an obvious map V(D)→ V(D′). In fact, if D and D′ differ by a Reidemeister move or a Morse move
(in other words a birth/death of a circle or a saddle point), then there also exists a well defined
map V(D)→ V(D′). All this is explained in [FM1]. In figures 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 we display the
definition of these maps for the case of the Reidemeister-II move and the Morse moves, which we
are going to need in this article. The remaining cases of these moves can be dealt with by doing
the transition shown in figure 21, and using the relations R1 to R6. In figure 18, δ is a Kronecker
delta.
Therefore, any movie of an oriented knotted surface Σ can be evaluated to give an element
IG(Σ) ∈ Q.
Theorem 4 The evaluation IG of a movie of an oriented knotted surface defines an isotopy invari-
ant of oriented knotted surfaces.
This is shown in [FM1]. The homotopy theoretical interpretation of the isotopy invariant IG is
discussed in [FM2, FM3, FMP]. The construction of the invariant IG was initially inspired by
Yetter’s Invariant of manifolds; see [Y2, P1, P2].
Actually IG defines an embedded TQFT, in other words, an invariant of link cobordisms con-
sidered up to ambient isotopy fixing both ends.
X XY Y
7−→e f eX⊲fXY X
−1⊲e−1 e
Figure 16: Map assigned to positive Reidemeister-II move.
b X−1⊲b−1X−1⊲aY X−1⊲b7−→
Figure 17: Map assigned to negative Reidemeister-II move.
X Y X ∂(e)X
X ∂(e)X
δ(Y, ∂(e)X)
Figure 18: Map associated to saddle point moves.
1 7−→
Figure 19: Map associated with births of a circle.
x2xn−1
. . .
#Eδ(x1x2...xn−1xn, 1E)
Figure 20: Map associated with deaths of a circle.
←→X ∂(e)X
X−1 X−1∂(e)−1e X
Figure 21: Inversion of strands.
(∂(g)Y,f) (Y,f−1)
(X,e) (X,e−1)
Figure 22: Relations at maximal and minimal points.
(XY X−1,X⊲f) (X,efX⊲f
(X,e) (Y,f)
(X−1Y X,X−1⊲f) (X,X−1⊲f−1ef)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,Y −1⊲e−1ef) (Y
−1XY,Y −1⊲e)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,feY ⊲e−1) (Y XY
−1,Y ⊲e)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f) (X,e)
(X,e) (Y,f)
Figure 23: Relations at crossings.
2.3.1 The case of ribbon knotted torus
As we have seen, if Σ is a ribbon knotted surface, which topologically is the disjoint union of tori
S1 × S1 or spheres S2, then we can represent it as the tube T (K) of welded virtual knot K, in the
first case, or the tube T (A) of a welded virtual arc A, in the second case.
We want to find an algorithm for calculating IG(T (K)), where K is a welded virtual knot,
directly from a diagram of K itself, and analogously for a welded virtual arc A. A careful look at
the definition of the invariant IG together with the definition of the tube map in 2.2 leads to the
following definition:
Definition 5 Let G =
−→ G, ⊲
be a crossed module. Let also D be a welded virtual knot
diagram. Suppose that the projection on the second variable defines a Morse function on D. A
G-colouring2 of D is an assignment of a pair (X, f), where X ∈ G and f ∈ ker ∂, to each connected
component of D minus its set of crossings and extreme points; of an element e ∈ ker ∂ to each
minimal point; and an element g ∈ E to each maximal point, satisfying the conditions shown in
figures 22 and 23.
This should not be confused with the notion of a colouring which was considered in the definition of the invariant
IG , above.
X∈G,e∈ker ∂ X X
∂(g)Y=X
∂(g)Y =X
δ(f,e−1)
Figure 24: Calculation of IG of the tube of a welded virtual knot: minimal and maximal points.
The reason for considering these relation is obvious from figure 24, and figure 25, and its
counterparts for different types of crossings. Note that ker ∂ ⊂ E is central in E. However, for
this calculus to approximate the definition of IG(T (D)), for D a virtual knot diagram, the relation
of figure 26 still needs to be incorporated into the calculations. To avoid needing to involve this
relation, we consider the following restriction on the crossed modules with which we work.
Definition 6 (Automorphic Crossed Module) A crossed module G =
−→ G, ⊲
is called
automorphic if ∂(e) = 1,∀e ∈ E. Therefore, an automorphic crossed module is given simply by two
groups G and E, with E abelian, and a left action ⊲ of G on E by automorphisms.
Definition 7 (Reduced G-Colourings) Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic crossed module.
Let also D ⊂ R2 be a virtual knot diagram, such that the projection on the second variable is a Morse
function on D. A reduced G-colouring of D is given by an assignment of a pair (X, e) ∈ G × E
to each connected component of D minus its set of crossings and extreme points, satisfying the
relations of figures 23 and 27.
The following result is easy to prove by using all the information we provided, and the fact that,
for any knot diagram, the number of minimal points of it equals the number of maximal points.
Theorem 8 Let D be a virtual knot diagram, such that the projection on the second variable is a
Morse function on D. Let also G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Consider the
quantity:
HG(D) = #{reduced G-colourings of D}.
Then HG(D) is an invariant of welded virtual knots. In fact:
HG(D) = IG(T (D)).
Here IG is the Crossed Module Invariant of oriented knotted surfaces defined in [FM1].
Exercise 1 Check directly that HG (where G is an automorphic finite crossed module) is an in-
variant of welded virtual knots. Note that together with the moves defining welded virtual knots, we
still need to check invariance under planar isotopy, thus enforcing us to check invariance under the
moves of the type depicted in figure 28, usually called Yetter’s Moves; see [Y1, FY]. It is important
to note that we need to consider all the possible different crossing informations, and, since we are
working in the oriented case, all the possible orientations of the strands.
X−1⊲f
X−1Y X
X−1⊲f
X−1⊲f
X−1Y X
eX−1⊲f−1f
eX−1⊲f−1f
X−1Y X
X−1⊲f
Figure 25: Calculation of IG of the tube T (D) of a welded virtual knot D: the type of crossings
relative to figure 9.
∂(g)X
∂(g)X
∂(g)X
= = =
Figure 26: An identity. Here e ∈ ker ∂.
(Y,e) (Y,e−1)
(X,e) (X,e−1)
Figure 27: Reduced G-colouring at extreme points.
↔ ↔↔ ↔
Figure 28: Sample of Yetter’s moves capturing planar isotopy.
(X,1E) (Y,1E)
Figure 29: Reduced G-colourings of welded virtual arcs at end-points. Here X,Y ∈ G.
Let G =
−→ G, ⊲
be a crossed module. Define π1(G) = coker(∂) and π2(G) = ker ∂, which
is an abelian group. Then π1(G) has a natural left action ⊲
′ on π2(G) by automorphisms. In
particular Π(G) = (π2(G), π1(G), ⊲
′) is an automorphic crossed module. In fact G also determines a
cohomology class k3 ∈ H3(π1(G), π2(G)), called the k-invariant of G.
It is not difficult to extend the invariant HG(D), where D is a welded virtual knot, to handle
non-automorphic crossed modules G, so that HG(D) = IG(T (D)). We do this by incorporating
the relation in figure 26 into the notion of a G-colouring of a virtual knot diagram. However, it is
possible to prove that for any welded virtual knot D and any finite crossed module G we have that
IG(T (D)) equals IΠ(G)(T (D)), apart from normalisation factors. This can be proved by using the
graphical framework presented in this article. Hence, we do not lose generality if we restrict our
attention only to automorphic crossed modules.
Problem 1 Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic crossed module. Find a ribbon Hopf algebra
AG acting on the vector space freely generated by G × E such that HG is the Reshetikhin-Turaev
invariant of knots associated to it (see [RT]), and so that the case of welded virtual knots also follow
from this Hopf algebra framework in a natural way. Note that in the case when E = 0, we can take
AG to be the quantum double of the function algebra on G. The solution to this problem would be
somehow the quantum double of a finite categorical group, and therefore would be of considerable
importance.
2.3.2 The case of welded virtual arcs
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Let also A be a virtual arc diagram. The
notion of a reduced G-colouring of A is totally analogous to the concept of a reduced G-colouring
of a virtual knot diagram, considering that if an arc of A has a free end then it must be coloured
by (X, 1E), where X ∈ G; see figure 29. One can see this from figure 12. We have:
Theorem 9 Let A be a virtual arc diagram. The quantity:
HG(A) =
#{reduced G-colourings of A}
#E#{cups}−#{caps}−#{pointing upwards ends of A}
is an invariant of A as a welded virtual arc. In fact
HG(A) = IG(T (A)).
Therefore, the graphical framework presented in this article is also a calculational device for calcu-
lating the crossed module invariant of spun knots, accordingly to 2.2.1.
The invariant HG of Theorem 9 actually is an invariant of virtual arcs of which some components
may be circles. In fact, it also naturally extends to an invariant of welded virtual graphs, to be
defined in 3.5.2.
Figure 30: Classical and Virtual Hopf links.
(X,e−1)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f−1)
(Y,f) (X,e)
(Y −1XY,Y −1⊲e) (Y,Y −1⊲e−1ef)
Y −1⊲e=e
Y −1XY=X
Y −1⊲e−1ef=f
Figure 31: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the Virtual Hopf Link L.
3 Examples
3.1 Virtual and Classical Hopf Link
3.1.1 Virtual Hopf Link
The simplest non-trivial welded virtual link is the Virtual Hopf Link L, depicted in figure 30. Note
that L is linked since its knot group is {X,Y : XY = Y X} ∼= Z2.
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Let us calculate the crossed module
invariant HG of the Virtual Hopf Link L. This calculation appears in figure 31. From this we can
conclude that:
HG(L) = #{X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|XY = Y X, Y
−1 ⊲ e = e} (1)
= #E#{X,Y ∈ G; e ∈ E|XY = Y X, Y −1 ⊲ e = e}. (2)
Note that the previous equation simplifies to
HG(L) = #E#G#{Y ∈ G; e ∈ E|Y
−1 ⊲ e = e},
when the group G is abelian. On the other hand it is easy to see that if O2 is a pair of unlinked
unknots then we have:
2) = #G2#E2. (3)
From equations (2) and (3), it thus follows that any finite automorphic crossed module (E,G, ⊲)
with G abelian sees the knotting of the Virtual Hopf Link if there exists Y ∈ G and e ∈ E such
that Y −1 ⊲ e 6= e. This is verified in any automorphic crossed module (E,G, ⊲) with ⊲ being a
non-trivial action of G on E.
Consider the automorphic crossed module A = (E = Z3, G = Z2, ⊲) such that 1 ⊲ a = a and
−1 ⊲ a = −a, where a ∈ Z3 and Z2 = ({1,−1},×); see [BM]. Then this crossed module detects the
knottedness of the Virtual Hopf Link L. If fact HA(L) = 6#{Y ∈ Z2; e ∈ Z3|Y
−1 ⊲ e = e} = 24,
whereas HA(O
2) = 36.
3.1.2 The Hopf Link
The Hopf Link H is depicted in figure 30. Note that the fundamental group of the complement of
it is, similarly with the Virtual Hopf Link L, isomorphic with Z2.
(X,e−1)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f−1)
(X,X−1⊲f−1ef)
(X−1Y X,X−1⊲f)
(X−1Y −1XY X,X−1Y −1⊲f−1X−1Y −1X⊲(ef))
(X−1Y X,X−1Y −1⊲fX−1Y −1X⊲(e−1f−1)ef)
X−1Y −1XY X=X
X−1Y X=Y
X−1Y −1⊲f−1X−1Y −1X⊲(ef)=e
X−1Y −1⊲fX−1Y −1X⊲(e−1f−1)ef=f
Figure 32: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the Hopf Link.
Let us calculate the crossed module invariant of the Hopf Link H. To this end, let G = (E,G, ⊲)
be a finite automorphic crossed module. We display the calculation of HG(H) in figure 32. This
permits us to conclude that:
HG(H) = #
X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E
XY = Y X
X−1Y −1 ⊲ f−1X−1Y −1X ⊲ (ef) = e
which particularises to
HG(H) = #
X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E : X−1Y −1 ⊲ f−1Y −1 ⊲ (ef) = e
, (4)
in the case when G is abelian. This is in agreement with the calculation in [FM2].
Let us see that the Hopf Link H is not equivalent to the Virtual Hopf Link L as a welded virtual
link. Consider the automorphic crossed module A = (E = Z3, G = Z2, ⊲) defined above. We have
(note that we switched to additive notation, more adapted to this example):
HA(H) = # {X,Y ∈ Z2; e, f ∈ Z3 : −XY ⊲ f + Y ⊲ (e+ f) = e}
= # {X,Y ∈ Z2; e, f ∈ Z3 : −XY ⊲ f + Y ⊲ f = e− Y ⊲ e} .
In the case Y = 1, we are led to the equation −X ⊲ f + f = 0, which has 4 × 3 solutions in
Z2×Z3×Z3. In the case Y = −1, we get the equation e = 2
−1(X⊲f−f), which has 3×2 solutions
in Z2 × Z3 × Z3. Therefore, we obtain HA(H) = 18.
Therefore, we have proved that the Virtual Hopf Link is not equivalent to the Hopf Link as a
welded virtual link, and also that the Hopf Link is knotted, by using the crossed module invariant.
As we have referred to before, the knot groups of the Hopf Link and the Virtual Hopf Link are
both isomorphic with Z2. Therefore, we have proved that the crossed module invariant HG sees
beyond the fundamental group of the complement of a welded virtual knot.
Since the correspondence K 7→ T (K), where K is a welded virtual link, preserves the funda-
mental groups of the complement we have also proved:
Theorem 10 The Crossed Module Invariant IG of knotted surfaces defined in [FM1, FM2] is pow-
erful enough to distinguish between knotted surfaces Σ,Σ′ ⊂ S4, with Σ diffeomorphic with Σ′,
whose complements have isomorphic fundamental groups, at least in a particular case.
Therefore, one of the main open problems about the Crossed Module Invariant IG of knotted sur-
faces that prevails is whether the invariant IG can distinguish between knotted surfaces whose com-
plements have isomorphic fundamental groups and second homotopy groups, seen as π1-modules,
but have distinct Postnikov invariants k3 ∈ H3(π1, π2). This problem was referred to in [FM2].
Examples of pairs of knotted surfaces like this do exist; see [PS].
Figure 33: The Hopf Arc HA, the Trefoil Knot 31 and the Trefoil Arc 31
(X,e−1)
(X,e)
(Y,f)
(Y,f−1)
(X,X−1⊲f−1ef)(C,X−1⊲f)
(C,C−1X−1⊲fC−1⊲(ef)−1ef)
(B,C−1X−1⊲f−1C−1⊲(ef))
(A,B−1C−1X−1⊲fB−1C−1⊲(ef)−1B−1⊲(ef))
(B,B−1C−1X−1⊲f−1B−1C−1⊲(ef)B−1⊲(ef)−1ef)
C=X−1Y X
B=X−1Y −1XY X
A=Y −1X−1Y XY =Y −1CY
⊲(ef)−1B−1⊲(ef)=e
⊲(ef)B−1⊲(ef)−1ef=f
Figure 34: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the Trefoil Knot 31.
Exercise 2 Consider the Hopf Arc HA depicted in figure 33. Prove that HG(HA) = HG(L), where
L is the Virtual Hopf Link. Here G = (E,G, ⊲) is any finite automorphic crossed module. In fact,
cf. 3.5.1, T (L) is obtained from T (HA) by adding a trivial 1-handle, which explains this identity.
We will go back to this later in 3.5.2.
3.2 Trefoil Knot and Trefoil Arc
The Trefoil Knot 31 and the Trefoil Arc 31
′ are depicted in figure 33.
Let us calculate the crossed module invariant of the Trefoil Knot 31. Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a
finite automorphic crossed module. The calculation of HG(31) appears in figure 34. This permits
us to conclude that:
HG(31) = #
X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E
X−1Y −1X−1=Y −1X−1Y −1
Y −1X−1Y −1⊲fY −1X−1Y −1X⊲(ef)−1Y −1⊲(ef)=e
X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E
X−1Y −1X−1=Y −1X−1Y −1
Y −1X−1Y −1⊲fX−1Y −1⊲(ef)−1Y −1⊲(ef)=e
. (6)
This simplifies to:
HG(31) = #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|X
−3 ⊲ fX−2 ⊲ (ef)−1X−1 ⊲ (ef) = e}, (7)
when G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module with G abelian; see 3.3.2.
Note that the crossed module invariant of the Trefoil Arc 31
′ can also be obtained from this
calculation, by making f = 1E , and inserting the necessary normalisation factors; see 2.3.2. This
yields:
HG(31
′) = #E#
X,Y ∈ G; e ∈ E
X−1Y −1X−1=Y −1X−1Y −1
X−1Y −1⊲e−1Y −1⊲e=e
, (8)
Figure 35: A non trivial welded virtual arc whose closure is trivial.
which simplifies to:
HG(31
′) = #E#{X ∈ G; e ∈ E : X−2 ⊲ e−1X−1 ⊲ e = e}, (9)
whenever G is abelian. This is coherent with the calculation in [FM1, FM2].
Observe that from equations (7) and (9) it follows that (we switch to additive notation):
HG(31) = #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E : X
−3 ⊲ f −X−2 ⊲ (e+ f) +X−1 ⊲ (e+ f) = e}
= #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E : X−2 ⊲
X−1 ⊲ f − e
−X−1 ⊲
X−1 ⊲ f − e
X−1 ⊲ f − e
= HG(31
Thus:
HG(31) = HG(31
′), (10)
whenever G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module with G abelian. An analogous identity
holds for any classical 1-component knot, see 3.3.2.
We will consider the crossed module invariants of the Trefoil Knot and the Trefoil Arc for the
case when G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module with G being a non-abelian group in
3.5.5. In this case the previous identity does not hold.
Let us see that HG detects the knottedness of the Trefoil Knot 31. The crossed module A =
(Z3,Z2, ⊲) defined previously detects it. In fact it is easy to see that HA(31) = 12. On the other
hand, if O is the unknot, we have that HG(O) = #E#G, for any automorphic crossed module
G = (E,G, ⊲). Thus 31 is knotted. Analogously we can prove that the Trefoil Arc 31
′ is knotted.
Exercise 3 Consider the virtual arc A of figure 35. Prove that if G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic
finite crossed module with G abelian then:
HG(A) = #E#{X ∈ G; e ∈ E|X
−2 ⊲ e−1X−1 ⊲ ee−1 = 1}.
Thus the crossed module A = (Z3,Z2, ⊲) defined previously detects that it is knotted. However, it is
easy to show that the closure of A is the trivial welded virtual knot, a fact confirmed by the crossed
module invariant.
3.3 Universal module constructions
Let G be an abelian group. Suppose that G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module, where
E is an abelian group. Consider a welded virtual link K. Suppose that K has n-components S1,
where n is a positive integer. Let κn = Z[X1,X
1 , . . . ,Xn,X
n ] be the ring of Laurent polynomials
on the formal variables X1, . . . Xn. We can assign to K a κn-module, so that HG(K) will satisfy:
HG(K) = #Hom(CM(K),G),
where Hom(CM(K),G) denotes the set of all crossed module morphism CM(K)→ G.
(Y,X⊲f) (X,e+f−X⊲f)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,X−1⊲f) (X,−X−1⊲f+e+f)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,−Y −1⊲e+e+f) (X,Y
−1⊲e)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f+e−Y ⊲e) (X,Y ⊲e)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f) (X,e)
(X,e) (Y,f)(X,e) (X,−e)
(X,e) (X,−e)
Figure 36: Defining relations for the module CM(K).
3.3.1 The definition of the module CM(K)
Definition 11 Let K be a welded virtual link diagram. Suppose that K is an immersion of a
disjoint union of n circles S1 into the plane, each of which is assigned a variable Xi, where i ∈
{1, . . . , n}; in other words, suppose that we have a total order on the set of all S1-components of K.
The module CM(K) is defined as the κn-module generated by all the connected components of K
minus the set of crossings of K and extreme points of K, modding out by the relations of figure 36.
It is understood that any connected component is assigned a pair (X, e), where e ∈ CM(K) is the
module element that the connected components defines, whereas X ∈ {X1, . . . ,Xn} is the labelling
of the S1-component of K in which the connected component is included.
By using the same technique as in Exercise 1 we can prove:
Theorem 12 Let K be a welded virtual link diagram with n S1-components. The isomorphism
class of the κn-module CM(K) depends only on the welded virtual link determined by K, up to
reordering of the S1-components of K. In addition, if G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic finite
crossed module with G abelian we have:
HG(K) = #Hom(CM(K),G).
3.3.2 Relation with the Alexander Module
Let K be a welded virtual link diagram with n S1-components, each labelled with an Xi ∈
{X1, ...,Xn}. We can define the Alexander module Alex(K) of K, defined as the module over
κn with a generator for each connected component of K minus its set of crossings, modulo the re-
lations of figure 37, obtained from the right handed Wirtinger relations of figure 5 by applying Fox
derivatives; see [BZ, Chapter 9], [K2, Chapter XI] or [F]. Therefore, if K is a classical 1-component
knot, then Alex(K) ∼= Z[X,X−1]/ 〈∆(K) = 0〉 ⊕ Z[X,X−1], where ∆(K) denotes the Alexander
polynomial of K; see for example [BZ, 9 C].
Let K be a welded virtual link diagram. The Alexander module Alex(K) depends only on
the knot group of the welded virtual link defined by K, up to isomorphism and reordering of the
S1-components of K.
(X,e)
(Y,f)
(Y,f)
(X,−Y −1⊲f+Y −1⊲e+Y −1X⊲f)) (Y,f)
(X,e)
(X,e)
(Y,f)
Figure 37: Relations at crossings for the Alexander Module Alex(K).
(X,e)
(Y,f)
(Y,f)
(X,−Y −1⊲f+Y −1⊲e+Y −1X⊲f) (Y,X⊲f)
(X,e)
(X,Y −1⊲e)
(Y,f)
Figure 38: Relations at crossings for the module Alex′(K).
The module Alex(K) admits a variant Alex′(K) whose defining relations appear in figure 38.
Note that the κn-module Alex(K) is isomorphic to Alex
′(K) whenever K is a classical link diagram.
The module Alex′(K) is invariant under virtual and classical Reidemeister moves. However,
Alex′(K) is not invariant under the first forbidden move F1; rather it is invariant under the second
forbidden move F2; see subsection 2.1.
Given a virtual link diagram K, we can define the mirror image K∗ of it by switching positive to
negative crossings, and vice-versa, and leaving virtual crossings unchanged. Therefore, the module
Alex′(K∗) depends only on the welded virtual knot defined by K, up to isomorphism and reordering
of the components of K.
Theorem 13 Let K be a welded virtual link diagram. There exists an isomorphism
φ : CM(K)→ Alex′(K∗).
Proof. We can suppose that K is the closure of a virtual braid B; see [KL, Ka]. This avoids
needing to deal with the defining relations of CM(K) at maximal and minimal points. Let b be
a connected component of the braid B minus its set of crossings, defining therefore an element
b ∈ CM(K). The isomorphism φ : CM(K)→ Alex′(K∗) sends b to Z−1 ⊲ b, where Z is the product
of all the elements Xi assigned to the strands of B on the left of b (each belonging to a certain
S1-component of K). The remaining details are left to the reader.
The Alexander module of the Trefoil Knot 31 is the module over Z[X,X
−1] with generators
e and f and the relation X2 ⊲ (e + f) − X ⊲ (e + f) + (e + f) = 0, thus we have Alex(31) =
Z[X,X−1]/
X2 −X + 1 = 0
⊕ Z[X,X−1]. In particular, it follows equation (7).
Let K be a classical 1-component knot. By using Theorem 13, we can prove that for any
automorphic crossed module G = (E,G, ⊲), with G abelian, the invariant HG(K) is determined by
the Alexander module Alex(K) of K, and thus from the Alexander polynomial ∆(K) of K. This is
not the case for non classical links, since the crossed module invariants of the virtual and classical
Hopf links L and H; see subsection 3.1 are different, even though they have isomorphic Alexander
modules. In fact we have:
Alex(H),CM(H),Alex(L) =
Z[X,X−1, Y, Y −1] ⊲ e⊕ Z[X,X−1, Y, Y −1] ⊲ f
〈(X − 1) ⊲ f = (Y − 1) ⊲ e〉
Figure 39: Shin Satoh’s Knot S.
the module over the ring Z[X,X−1, Y, Y −1] with two generators e and f , and the relation (X −
1) ⊲ f = (Y − 1) ⊲ e, whereas
CM(L) =
Z[X,X−1, Y, Y −1] ⊲ e⊕ Z[X,X−1, Y, Y −1] ⊲ f
〈Y ⊲ f = f〉
These last two modules are not isomorphic, as the calculations in subsection 3.1 certify.
3.3.3 Welded virtual arcs
Let A be a welded virtual arc with a single component. The Z[X,X−1]-modules Alex(A),Alex′(A)
and CM(A) defined above can still be assigned to A, considering the analogue of the relations in
figure 29 at the end-points of A, so that the elements of Alex(A),Alex′(A) and CM(A) assigned to
the edges of A incident to its end-points are zero.
Any welded virtual arc A can be obtained as the (incomplete) closure of some braid. Therefore
the proof of Theorem 13 gives an isomorphism φ : CM(A)→ Alex′(A).
Suppose that A is a classical arc sitting in the semiplane {z ≥ 0} of R3, intersecting the plane
{z = 0} at the end-points of A, only. Since A is classical we have Alex(A) = Alex′(A). Let
K be the obvious closure of A. Then Alex(K) = Z[X,X−1]/ 〈∆(K) = 0〉 ⊕ Z[X,X−1], where
∆(K) is the Alexander polynomial of K. Choosing a connected component of K minus its set
of crossings, and sending the generator of Alex(K) it defines to zero yields a presentation of
Z[X,X−1]/ 〈∆(K) = 0〉; see [BZ, Theorem 9.10]. Comparing with the definition of Alex(A), proves
that Alex(A) = Z[X,X−1]/ 〈∆(K) = 0〉.
Therefore it follows that CM(A) ∼= Z[X,X−1]/ 〈∆(K) = 0〉 if A is a classical arc and K is the
closure of A. The discussion above also implies that if G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed
module with G abelian then HG(K) = HG(A) whenever A is a classical 1-component arc and K is
the 1-component knot obtained by closing A. This is not the case if G is not abelian.
Problem 2 Let K be a welded virtual link. What is the algebraic topology interpretation of the
module CM(K) in terms of the tube T (K) ⊂ S4 of K.
3.4 Shin Satoh’s Knot
In [S], Shin Satoh considered the welded virtual link S displayed in figure 39. It is a welded virtual
knot whose knot group is isomorphic with the knot group of the Trefoil Knot 31. It is possible to
prove that S is not equivalent to any classical knot as a welded virtual knot, see [S], thus the Shin
Satoh’s Knot S is not equivalent to the Trefoil. See also 3.5.5.
Let us calculate the crossed module invariant of the Shin Satoh’s Knot S. Let G = (E,G, ⊲)
be a finite automorphic crossed module. We consider in this case that G is an abelian group,
(X,c−1)
(X,c−1)
(X,a)
(X,a)
(X,a−1)
(X,a−1)
(X,b)
(X,c)
(X,b−1)
(X,b−1)
(X,c)
(X,d)
(X,d−1)
(X,d−1)
(X,X−1⊲a−1)
(X,X−1⊲a−1)
(X,X−1⊲aa−1d)
(X,X−1⊲b−1)
(X,X−1⊲(ab)a−1db−1)
(X,X−1⊲d−1)
(X,X−1⊲dX−1⊲b−1d−1)
(X,X−1⊲c−1) (X,X
Figure 40: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the Shin Satoh’s Knot S for G abelian.
which makes the calculations much easier, since we simply need to calculate the Z[X,X−1]-module
CM(S). The case when G is non-abelian is considered in 3.5.5. Figure 40 permits us to conclude
that:
HG(S) = #
X ∈ G; a, b, c, d ∈ E
X−1 ⊲ (ab)a−1db−1 = c−1
X−1 ⊲ d−1 = b−1
X−1 ⊲ c−1 = a−1
X−1 ⊲ cc−1X−1 ⊲ dX−1 ⊲ b−1d−1 = X−1 ⊲ a
X ∈ G; a, d ∈ E
X−1 ⊲ aX−2 ⊲ da−1dX−1 ⊲ d−1 = X ⊲ a−1
aX ⊲ a−1X−1 ⊲ dX−2 ⊲ d−1d−1 = X−1 ⊲ a
The two equations in the final expression are equivalent. We obtain, switching to additive notation:
HG(S) = #
X ∈ G; a, d ∈ E|X−1 ⊲ a− a+X ⊲ a = X−1 ⊲ d− d−X−2 ⊲ d
. (11)
This should be compared with the crossed module invariant of the Trefoil Knot 31, for G abelian:
HG(31) = #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|X
−3 ⊲ f −X−2 ⊲ (e+ f) +X−1 ⊲ (e+ f) = e}
= #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|X−3 ⊲ f −X−2 ⊲ f +X−1 ⊲ f = e−X−1 ⊲ e+X−2 ⊲ e}
= #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|X−2 ⊲ f −X−1 ⊲ f + f = X ⊲ e− e+X−1 ⊲ e}.
Therefore it follows that if G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module with G abelian then:
HG(31) = HG(S). (12)
Figure 41: Adding a trivial 1-handle to a knotted surface. On the top we display the original
movie, and on the bottom the new movie, both read from left to right. A concise description of
this modification is fission saddle, fusion saddle.
We present in the following subsection (see 3.5.1) an alternative proof of this fact, which should
reassure the reader that the calculations in this article are correct, despite this being somehow a
negative example. We will also see below (see 3.5.5) that if we take G to be non-abelian, then we
can prove that the Trefoil Knot is not equivalent to the Shin Satoh’s Knot, by using the crossed
module invariant.
3.5 Welded Virtual Graphs
3.5.1 Crossed module invariants of knotted surfaces obtained by adding trivial 1-
handles
Let Σ ⊂ S4 be a knotted surface which we suppose to be connected. The knotted surface Σ′
obtained from Σ by adding a trivial 1-handle is defined simply as the connected sum Σ′ = Σ#T 2,
where T 2 is a torus S1×S1, trivially embedded in S4. The non-connected case is totally analogous,
but a connected component of Σ must be chosen. A movie of Σ′ is obtained from a movie of Σ
by choosing a strand of the movie of Σ belonging to the chosen component of Σ, and making the
modification shown in figure 41. The straightforward proof of the following theorem is left to the
reader.
Theorem 14 Let G =
−→ G, ⊲
be a finite crossed module. If the oriented knotted surface Σ′
is obtained from the oriented knotted surface Σ by adding a trivial 1-handle then:
(#ker ∂)2
(#E)2
IG(Σ),
thus in particular IG(Σ) = IG(Σ
′) whenever G is automorphic.
The tube T (S) of the Shin Satoh’s Knot S is obtained from the Spun Trefoil (the tube T (3′1) of
the Trefoil Arc 3′1) by adding a trivial 1-handle; see [S] or 3.5.2. This fact together with equation
(10) proves that HG(31) = HG(S), whenever G = (E,G, ⊲) is a finite automorphic crossed module
with G abelian, as already proved by other means; see subsection 3.4. Here 31 is the Trefoil Knot.
3.5.2 Definition of welded virtual graphs
Let K be an oriented virtual graph diagram. Note that K may have some bivalent vertices where
the orientation of an edge of K may change; however, there cannot be a change of orientation of a
strand at a crossing; see figure 42.
Figure 42: A welded virtual graph.
saddle point
Figure 43: The tube of a virtual graph at a 3-valent vertex (movie version). As usual, all circles
are oriented counterclockwise.
Given a virtual graph diagram K, we can define the tube T (K) of it exactly in the same way as
the tube of a virtual link or arc is defined. We consider the type of movie of figure 43 at the 3-valent
vertices. For the broken surface diagram version of this see figure 44. We proceed analogously for
n-valent vertices if n > 3. The 2-valent vertices do not affect the calculation of T (K). On the other
hand 1-valent vertices were already considered in the case of virtual arcs.
It is easy to see that the tube T (K) of a virtual graph is invariant under the moves defining
welded virtual knots and arcs; see subsection 2.1 and 2.2.1. In addition, T (K) is invariant under
the moves shown in figure 45. Note that if a strand in figure 45 is drawn without orientation, then
this means that the corresponding identity is valid for any choice of orientation.
The invariance under the first, second and fifth moves is immediate. The invariance under
the third and forth moves follows from figures 6 and 44, by sliding the cylinder that goes inside
the other cylinder towards the end strand, in the obvious way, as shown in figure 46. It is strictly
necessary that the edges incident to the vertex in cause have compatible orientations in the sense
shown in figure 45. Note that otherwise the crossing informations in the corresponding initial and
final broken surface diagrams in figure 46 would not be compatible.
The invariance of T (K) under the penultimate moves of figure 45 follows from the same argu-
ment that proves invariance under the classical and virtual Reidemeister-I moves.
Definition 15 (Welded Virtual Graph) The moves on oriented virtual graph diagrams of fig-
ure 45, together with the ones defining welded virtual knots and welded virtual arcs define what we
called a “welded virtual graph”.
Note that the moves of figure 47 are not allowed.
If K is a welded virtual graph, then a welded virtual graph K ′ for which the tube T (K ′) of K ′
is obtained from T (K) by adding a trivial 1-handle is obtained from K by choosing a string of K
Figure 44: The tube of a virtual graph at a 3-valent vertex; broken surface diagram version of the
movie of figure 43.
↔ ↔ ↔
Figure 45: Moves defining Welded Virtual Graphs. Notice that the third and forth moves have a
variant for which the direction of each strand is reversed. However, these moves are a consequence
of the remaining.
Figure 46: An identity between broken surface diagrams of knotted surfaces (reverse orientation of
the fourth move of figure 45.)
Figure 47: Fordidden Moves.
K K ′
Figure 48: Adding a trivial 1-handle to a welded virtual graph. On the left we display the original
graph.
Figure 49: Adding a trivial 1-handle to the Hopf Arc yields the Virtual Hopf Link.
(in the correct component) and doing the transition shown in figure 48 (adding a trivial 1-handle
to a welded virtual graph).
For example, consider the Hopf Arc HA defined in Exercise 2. Then adding a trivial 1-handle
to the unclosed component of it yields the Virtual Hopf Link L; see figure 49. Note the usage of
the moves of figure 45.
Let G1 be a welded virtual graph such that, topologically, G1 is the union of circles S
1 and
intervals I = [0, 1]. Suppose that G′1 is obtained from G1 by adding a trivial 1-handle to an I-
component of it. Then we can always use the moves of figure 45 to find a graph G2, equivalent to
G′1 as a welded virtual graph, but so that, topologically, G2 is the union of circles S
1 and intervals
I. This was exemplified above for the case of the Hopf Arc HA, and should be compared with the
method indicated in [S, page 541].
It is a good exercise to verify that adding a trivial 1-handle to the Trefoil Arc yields the Shin
Satoh’s Knot.
3.5.3 The fundamental group of the complement
The (combinatorial) fundamental group of a welded virtual graph complement (the knot group)
is defined in the same way as the knot group of a virtual knot or arc. However, we consider the
relations of figure 50 at the vertices of a graph (the edges incident to a vertex may carry any
orientation). Note that this is in sharp contrast with the classical fundamental group of graph
complements. In fact, we can easily find examples of welded virtual graphs for which the classical
and virtual knot groups are different. The θ-graph which appears in figure 42 is such an example.
It is not difficult to see that the knot group is an invariant of welded virtual graphs. Moreover
the tube map K 7→ T (K) preserves knot groups.
Suppose that the graph K ′ is obtained from K by adding a trivial 1-handle. We can see that the
X X X X
X X X X
. . .
. . .
Figure 50: The relations satisfied by the knot group of a welded virtual graph at a vertex.
(X,e1) (X,e2) (X,en)
(X,f1) (X,f2) (X,fm)
. . .
. . .
e1e2...en=f1f2...fm
Figure 51: Reduced G-colourings of a welded virtual graph diagram at a vertex.
knot groups of K and K ′ are isomorphic, thus also that the fundamental groups of the complements
of the tubes T (K) and T (K ′) in S4 are isomorphic. This can easily be proved directly.
Given an arc A embedded in the upper semiplane {z ≥ 0} of R3, intersecting the plane {z = 0}
at the end points of A, only, there exist two knotted tori naturally associated to A. The first
one is obtained from the tube T (A) of A by adding a trivial 1-handle, and a virtual knot c1(A)
representing it can be easily determined from A using the method indicated in [S] and 3.5.2. In
the second one, one simply closes A in the obvious way, obtaining c2(A), before taking the tube
of it. If A is a classical arc, with only one component, then we have that the fundamental groups
of the complements of the knotted surfaces T (A), T (c1(A)) and T (c2(A)) are all isomorphic. This
also happens if we allow A to have more than one component, as long as all the other components
are diffeomorphic to S1. However, it is necessary that A be classical.
The pairs of welded virtual knots (c1(A), c2(A)), one for each classical 1-component arc A,
provide a family of welded virtual knots with the same knot group. For example if 3′1 is the Trefoil
Arc, then c2(3
1) is the Trefoil Knot 31, whereas c1(3
1) is the Shin Satoh Knot. These two can be
proven to be non-equivalent by using the crossed module invariant; see 3.5.5. See also subsections
3.6 to 3.10 for other analogous examples.
Problem 3 Under which circunstancies are the welded virtual knots c1(A) and c2(A) equivalent?
What to say about their tubes in S4.
3.5.4 Crossed module invariants of welded virtual graphs
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic finite crossed module. The invariant HG of welded virtual
knots, or arcs, extends in a natural way to an invariant of welded virtual graphs K, by considering:
HG(K)
= IG(T (K)),
where IG is the 4-dimensional invariant defined in subsection 2.3. As before, HG(K) can be calcu-
lated directly from a diagram of K.
Definition 16 Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Let K be an oriented
welded virtual graph diagram chosen so that the projection on the second variable is a Morse function
in K. A reduced G-colouring of K is given by an assignment of a pair (X, e) ∈ G × E to each arc
of G minus its set of critical points, crossings and vertices, satisfying the conditions already shown
for virtual knot and arc diagrams, and the relation displayed in figure 51.
We have:
Theorem 17 Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Let also K be an oriented
Figure 52: One type of Yetter’s moves capturing planar isotopy of graph diagrams.
welded virtual graph diagram. The quantity:
HG(K) = #{reduced G colourings of K}#E
#{caps}#E−#{cups}
#E#{pointing upward 1-valent vertices of K}
n-valent vertices v of K
#E1−#{edges of K incident to v from above} (13)
coincides with IG(T (K)), and therefore defines an invariant of welded virtual graphs.
Exercise 4 Check directly that HG is a topological invariant of welded virtual graphs. Together
with the moves of figure 45, as well as the moves defining welded virtual knots and arcs, one still
needs to check invariance under planar isotopy. Planar isotopies of graph diagrams are captured by
Yetter’s moves shown in figure 28, as well as figure 52; see [Y1] and [FY].
Exercise 5 Check directly that HG is invariant under addition of trivial 1-handles, as shown in
figure 48; cf. Theorem 3.5.1.
3.5.5 The Trefoil Knot is not equivalent to the Shin-Satoh’s Knot
We now use the extension of the Crossed Module Invariant to welded virtual graphs to prove that
the Shin Satoh’s Knot S is not equivalent to the Trefoil Knot 31. Let 3
1 be the Trefoil Arc. Recall
that S is obtained from 3′1 by adding a trivial 1-handle, in other words S = c1(3
1); see 3.5.3.
Therefore, whenever G = (E,G, ⊲) is a finite automorphic crossed module we have:
1) = HG(S).
In particular, from equation (8):
HG(S) = HG(3
1) = #E#
X,Y ∈G;e∈E
XY X=Y XY
−XY ⊲e+Y ⊲e=e
, (14)
note that we switched to additive notation. Also, from equation (6):
HG(31) = #
X,Y ∈G;e,f∈E
XY X=Y XY
Y XY ⊲f−XY ⊲(e+f)+Y ⊲(e+f)=e
. (15)
A natural example of a finite automorphic crossed module G = (E,G, ⊲) with G non abelian is
constructed by taking G = GLn(Zp) and E = (Zp)
n. Here GLn(Zp) denotes the group of n × n
matrices in Zp with invertible determinant, where p is a positive integer. The action of GLn(Zp)
in (Zp)
n is taken to be the obvious one. Denote these crossed modules by G(n, p).
Computations with Mathematica prove that HG(n,p)(31) 6= HG(n,p)(S) for example for p =
3, 4, 5, 7 and n = 2; see the following table. This proves that the crossed module invariant dis-
tinguishes the Trefoil Knot from the Shin Satoh’s Knot, even though they have the same knot
group.
Table 1:
knot HG2,2 HG2,3 HG2,4 HG2,5 HG2,7
31 96 4320 24576 132000 2272032
S 96 4752 27648 168000 2765952
(X,e−1)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f−1)
(X−1Y X,X−1⊲f)
(X,X−1⊲f−1ef)
(X−1Y XY −1X,X−1Y ⊲f−1X−1Y X⊲(ef))
(X−1Y X,X−1Y ⊲fX−1Y X⊲(ef)−1ef)
(X−1Y XY −1XY X−1Y −1X,X−1Y XY −1X⊲e−1)
(X−1Y XY −1X,X−1Y ⊲f−1X−1Y X⊲(ef)e−1X−1Y XY −1X⊲e)
(X−1Y XY −1XY X−1Y −1X,X−1Y XY −1X⊲e−1X−1Y ⊲fX−1Y X⊲(ef)−1efY X−1Y ⊲f−1Y X−1Y X⊲(ef)Y ⊲(ef)−1)
(Y X−1Y XY−1,Y X−1Y ⊲fY X−1Y X⊲(ef)−1Y ⊲(ef))
Figure 53: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the Figure of Eight Knot 41.
3.6 Figure of Eight Knot
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Let us calculate the crossed module
invariant HG(41) of the Figure of Eight Knot 41. This calculation appears in Figure 53. This
permits us to conclude that, if G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module, then:
HG(41) = #
X,Y ∈G;e,f∈E
X−1Y XY −1XY X−1Y −1X=Y
X−1Y XY −1X⊲e−1X−1Y ⊲fX−1Y X⊲(ef)−1efY X−1Y ⊲f−1Y X−1Y X⊲(ef)Y ⊲(ef)−1=f
X−1Y XY −1X=Y X−1Y XY −1
X−1Y ⊲f−1X−1Y X⊲(ef)e−1X−1Y XY −1X⊲e=Y X−1Y ⊲f−1Y X−1Y X⊲(ef)Y ⊲(ef)−1
Note that the first pair of equations which appear in the previous formula is equivalent to the
second one. In the case when G is abelian, the previous formula simplifies to (passing to additive
notation):
HG(41) = #
X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|(X2 − 3X + 1) ⊲ e = (−X2 + 3X − 1) ⊲ f
= #E#
X ∈ G; e ∈ E|(X2 − 3X + 1) ⊲ e = 0
as it should, since the Alexander polynomial of the Figure of Eight Knot is ∆(41) = X
2 − 3X + 1;
see 3.3.2.
The value of the crossed module invariant for the Figure of Eight Arc 4′1 (figure 54), for G not
necessarily abelian, can be obtained from equation (16) by making f = 1, and inserting the relevant
normalisation factors. This yields:
1) = #E#
X,Y ∈G;e∈E
X−1Y XY −1XY X−1Y −1X=Y
X−1Y XY −1X⊲e−1X−1Y X⊲e−1eY X−1Y X⊲eY ⊲e−1=1
Figure 54: The Figure of Eight Arc 4′1 and the welded virtual knot c1(4
1) obtained from it by
adding a trivial 1-handle
Consider the welded virtual knot c1(4
1) obtained from the Figure of Eight Arc 4
1 by adding a
trivial 1-handle to it; see 3.5.2. This welded virtual knot appears in figure 54. By using Theorem
14, it thus follows that for any finite automorphic crossed module G we have HG(c1(4
1)) = HG(4
see also 3.5.4. Recall that by the discussion in 3.5.3, the knot groups of the welded virtual knots
41 = c2(4
1) and c1(4
1) are isomorphic.
Consider the crossed modules G(n,p), where p and n are positive integers, obtained from GLn(Zp)
acting on (Zp)
n, defined in 3.5.5. Computations with Mathematica prove that HG(n,p)(c1(4
1)) 6=
HG(n,p)(41) for p = 3 or p = 7; see the following table. This proves that the welded virtual knots
41 = c2(4
1) and c1(4
1) are not equivalent, even though they have the same knot groups.
Table 2:
knot HG2,2 HG2,3 HG2,4 HG2,5 HG2,7
41 48 3024 15360 228000 1876896
1) 48 3456 15360 228000 2272032
3.7 The Solomon Seal Knot
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic finite crossed module. The crossed module invariant of the
(5, 2)-torus knot 51 (the Solomon Seal Knot) is calculated in figure 55. This permits us to conclude
that:
HG(51) = #
X,Y ∈G;e,f∈E
XY XY X=Y XYXY
Y XYXY ⊲fXY XY ⊲(ef)−1Y XY ⊲(ef)XY ⊲(ef)−1Y ⊲(ef)=e
Note that if the crossed module G = (E,G, ⊲) is such that G is abelian, then the previous expression
simplifies to:
HG(51) = #E#
X ∈ G; e ∈ E
∣X4 ⊲ e−X3 ⊲ e+X2 ⊲ e−X ⊲ e+ e = 0
as it should, since the Alexander polynomial of the knot 51 is ∆(51) = X
4 −X3 +X2 −X + 1.
The crossed module invariant of the Solomon Seal Arc 5′1, and the welded virtual knot c1(5
obtained from it by adding a trivial 1 handle, each presented in figure 56, can be obtained from
this calculation by making f = 1, and inserting the remaining normalisation factors. Therefore it
follows that:
1) = #E#
X,Y ∈G;e∈E
XY XYX=Y XY XY
XY XY ⊲e−1Y XY ⊲eXY ⊲e−1Y ⊲e=e
Computations with Mathematica show that HG(n,p)(c1(5
1)) 6= HG(n,p)(51) for n = 2 and p = 5;
see the following table. Therefore the pair (51, c1(51)) is a pair of welded virtual knots with the
same knot group, but distinguished by their crossed module invariant.
(X,e) (Y,f)
(XY X−1,X⊲f)
(X,X⊲f−1ef)
(XY XY −1X−1,XY ⊲f−1XY X−1⊲(ef))
(XY X−1,XY ⊲fXY X−1⊲(ef)−1ef)
(XY XY X−1Y −1X−1,XY X⊲fXY ⊲(ef)−1XY XY −1X−1⊲(ef))
(XY XY −1X−1,XY X⊲f−1XY ⊲(ef)XY XY −1X−1⊲(ef)−1ef)
(XY XY XY −1X−1Y −1X−1,XY XY ⊲f−1XY XY X−1⊲(ef)XY ⊲(ef)−1XY XY X−1Y −1X−1⊲(ef))
(XY XY X−1Y −1X−1,XY XY ⊲fXY XY X−1⊲(ef)−1XY ⊲(ef)XY XY X−1Y −1X−1⊲(ef)−1ef)
(Y XY XY XY −1X−1Y −1X−1Y −1,Y XY XY ⊲fXY XY ⊲(ef)−1Y XY ⊲(ef)XY ⊲(ef)−1Y ⊲(ef))
(XY XY XY −1X−1Y −1X−1,Y XY XY ⊲f−1XY XY ⊲(ef)Y XY ⊲(ef)−1XY ⊲(ef)Y ⊲(ef)−1ef)
Figure 55: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the torus knot 51. In the top two
colourings, we are using the fact that XYXYX = Y XY XY .
Figure 56: The Solomon Seal arc 5′1 and the welded virtual knot c1(5
1) obtained by adding a trivial
1 handle to it.
Table 3:
knot HG2,2 HG2,3 HG2,4 HG2,5 HG2,7
51 24 432 1536 168000 98784
1) 24 432 1536 204000 98784
Figure 57: The 2-bridge knot 52 and the 2-bridge arc 5
3.8 The 2-bridge knot 52 (Stevedore)
We now consider the 2-bridge knot 52 and the 2-bridge arc 5
2, depicted in figure 57. Let us calculate
their crossed module invariant. Suppose that G = (E,G, ⊲) is a finite automorphic crossed module.
The calculation of HG(52) appears in figure 58. From this it follows that:
HG(52) = #
X,Y ∈G;e,f,g∈E
Y X−1Y XY −1XY −1=X−1Y X−1Y XY −1X
Y X−1Y X−1⊲e−1Y X−1Y ⊲(ef)Y X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲(ef)−1Y ⊲(ef)=g−1
Z=Y X−1Y XY −1XY −1
X−1Y X−1⊲eX−1Y ⊲(ef)−1X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲(ef)=gfZ−1⊲f−1
Y=Z−1XZ
Z−1⊲f=e−1gY −1⊲g−1
. (17)
Note that the last two equations in the previous formula follow from the remaining. When G is
abelian, the previous expression reduces to:
HG(52) = #E#{X ∈ G; e ∈ E|2X
2 ⊲ e− 3e+ 2X−1 ⊲ e = 0},
as it should since the Alexander polynomial of the 52 knot is ∆(52) = 2X
2−3+2X−2. The formula
for the crossed module invariant of the arc 5′2 is:
HG(52) = #E#
X,Y ∈G;e,g∈E
Y X−1Y XY −1XY −1=X−1Y X−1Y XY −1X
YX−1Y X−1⊲e−1Y X−1Y ⊲eY X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲e−1Y ⊲e=g−1
Z=Y X−1Y XY −1XY −1
X−1Y X−1⊲eX−1Y ⊲e−1X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲e=g
. (18)
Below there is a table comparing the value of HG(n,p)(52) and HG(n,p)(c1(5
2)), for n = 2 and
p = 2, 3, 4, 5, 7. Here as usual, c1(5
2) is obtained from the welded virtual arc 5
1 by adding a trivial
1-handle to it. In particular it follows that the welded virtual knots 52 = c2(5
2) and c1(5
2) are not
equivalent, even though they have the same knot groups.
Table 4:
knot HG2,2 HG2,3 HG2,4 HG2,5 HG2,7
52 24 864 1536 72000 987840
2) 24 864 1536 84000 1481760
(X,f)
(Y,e) (Y,e
(X,f−1)
(Z,g) (Z,g
(X−1Y X,X−1⊲e)
(X,X−1⊲e−1ef)
(X−1Y XY −1X,X−1Y ⊲e−1X−1Y X⊲(ef))
(X−1Y X,X−1Y ⊲eX−1Y X⊲(ef)−1ef)
(X−1Y X−1Y XY −1X,X−1Y X−1⊲eX−1Y ⊲(ef)−1X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲(ef))
(X−1Y XY −1X,X−1Y X−1⊲e−1X−1Y ⊲(ef)X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲(ef)−1ef)
(Y −1ZY,Y −1⊲g)
(Y,e−1gY −1⊲g−1)
(Z−1XZ,Z−1⊲f−1)
(Z,g−1f−1Z−1⊲f)
Figure 58: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the 2-bridge knot 52.
3.9 The (n, 2)-torus knot
Let n be an odd integer. An analogous calculation as in the case of the Trefoil Knot and the
Solomon Seal Knot proves that the crossed module invariant of the (n, 2)-torus knot Kn has the
following expression (in additive notation):
HG(Kn) = #
X,Y ∈G;e,f∈E
⊲ (e+ f)− f = 0
Here Si = X if i is even and Si = Y if i is odd. On the other hand, the crossed module invariant
of the arc An, obtained from Kn in the obvious way (see subsection 3.7 for the case n = 5) is:
HG(An) = #E#
X,Y ∈G;f∈E
⊲ f − f = 0
In the following table, we compare the value, for each positive odd integer n ≤ 17, of the
crossed module invariants HG(2,3) and HG(2,5) for the pair of welded virtual knots (Kn, c1(An)),
where c1(An) is obtained from An by adding a trivial 1-handle to it. Since the knot groups of
c1(An) and of c2(An) = Kn are isomorphic, this gives some more examples of pairs of 1-component
welded virtual knots with the same knot group, but distinguished by their crossed module invariant.
Table 5:
K3 K5 K7 K9 K11 K13 K15 K17
HG(2,3) 4320 432 432 4320 432 432 4320 432
HG(2,5) 132000 168000 12000 132000 12000 12000 288000 12000
c1(A3) c1(A5) c1(A7) c1(A9) c1(A11) c1(A13) c1(A15) c1(A17)
HG(2,3) 4752 432 432 4752 432 432 4752 432
HG(2,5) 168000 204000 12000 168000 12000 12000 360000 12000
Figure 59: The link P and the associated arc P ′.
3.10 Final examples
Let m be a positive integer. We can define an automorphic crossed module Am = (Zm,Z2, ⊲),
where Z2 = {−1, 1,×}, and the action of Z2 on Zm is 1 ⊲ a = a and (−1) ⊲ a = −a, where a ∈ Zm.
This generalises the crossed module A = A3 defined in subsection 3.1.
Consider the link P , as well as the associated arc P ′, shown in figure 59. Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be
a finite automorphic crossed module with G abelian. An easy calculation shows that:
HG(P ) = #{X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|
− Y −3X−3 ⊲ f + Y −3X−2 ⊲ (e+ f)− Y −2X−2 ⊲ (e+ f) + Y −2X−1 ⊲ (e+ f)
− Y −1X−1 ⊲ (e+ f) + Y −1 ⊲ (e+ f) = e}.
′) = #E#{X,Y ∈ G; e ∈ E|
Y −3X−2 ⊲ e− Y −2X−2 ⊲ e+ Y −2X−1 ⊲ e
− Y −1X−1 ⊲ e+ Y −1 ⊲ e = e}.
In the case of the automorphic crossed modules Am defined above, the previous formulae simplify
to (for each positive integer m):
HAm(P ) = m
2 + 2m#{a ∈ Zm|2a = 0}+m#{a ∈ Zm|6a = 0},
HAm(P
′) = m (m+#{a ∈ Zm|2a = 0}+m+#{a ∈ Zm|6a = 0}) ,
thus HA(P ) = 24 and HA(P
′) = 30. Here as usual A = (Z3,Z2, ⊲).
Let c1(P
′) be the welded virtual link obtained by adding a trivial 1-handle to the unclosed
component of P ′ (see 3.5.3), thus P ′ and c1(P
′) have the same crossed module invariant; see
3.5.4. Hence (P = c2(P
′), c1(P
′)) is a pair of welded virtual links with the same knot group (see
Figure 60: Two virtual links, P = c2(P
′) and c1(P
′), with the same knot group but distinguished
by their crossed module invariant.
3.5.3), but distinguished by their crossed module invariant HG , where G = (E,G, ⊲) is a finite
automorphic crossed module, which can be chosen so that G is abelian. In particular we have
Alex(P ) ∼= Alex(c1(P
′)), but CM(P ) ≇ CM(c1(P
′)); see subsection 3.3.
Exercise 6 Prove directly that P and c1(P
′) have the same knot group and are distinguished by
their crossed module invariant.
Exercise 7 The previous example can be generalised. For each positive odd integer n, let Pn be
the 3-dimensional torus link in S3 with 2n crossings, similar to the link P in figure 59; in other
words, Pn is the (2, 2n)-torus link. Let also P
n be the associated arc, and let c1(P
n) be the welded
virtual link obtained by adding a trivial 1-handle to the unclosed component of P ′n; see figures 59
and 60 for the case n = 6. Prove that for any automorphic crossed module G = (E,G, ⊲), with G
abelian, we have that:
HG(Pn) = #{X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|
−X−nY −n ⊲ f +
(XY )−k ⊲
Y −1 ⊲ (e+ f)− (e+ f)
+ Y −1 ⊲ (e+ f) = e},
n) = #
X,Y ∈ G; e ∈ E
(XY )−k ⊲
Y −1 ⊲ e− e
+ Y −1 ⊲ e = e
Thus if n is odd then we have:
HAm(Pn) = m
2 + 2m#{a ∈ Zm|2a = 0}+m#{a ∈ Zm|2na = 0},
HAm(P
n) = m
m+#{a ∈ Zm|2a = 0}+m+#{a ∈ Zm|2na = 0}
where as usual Am = (Zm,Z2, ⊲) and m is a positive integer. In particular it follows that
HAn(Pn) = 2n
2 + 2n
HAn(c1(P
n)) = HAn(P
n) = 3n
2 + n.
This provides an infinite sequence (Pn, c1(P
n)), where n is an odd integer, of pairs of 2-
component welded virtual links with the same knot group, but distinguished by their crossed module
invariant. This sequence includes not only the previous example, but also the case of the Hopf Link
and the Virtual Hopf Link in subsection 3.1.
= Q1 = Q2 = Q3
Figure61: ThreeVirtualLinkswiththesameknotgroupbutdistinguishedbytheircrossedmodule
invariant.
Note that, taking tubes, the previous example gives an infinite set of pairs of non-isotopic em-
beddings of a disjoint union of two tori S1 × S1 into S4 with the same fundamental group of the
complement, but distinguished by their Crossed Module Invariant IG of [FM1].
Another interesting example is provided by the virtual links Q1, Q2 and Q3 shown in figure 61.
The knot groups of Q1, Q2 and Q3 are all isomorphic to {X,Y,Z : XY = Y X,ZY = Y Z}.
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic crossed module. A simple calculation shows that:
HG(Q1) = #
X,Y,Z ∈ G; e, f, g ∈ E
−Y −1X−1⊲f+Y −1⊲(e+f)=e
−Z−1Y ⊲g+Z−1⊲(−f+g)=−f
HG(Q2) = #
X,Y,Z ∈ G; e, f, g ∈ E
−Y −1X−1⊲f+Y −1⊲(e+f)=e
Z−1⊲f=f
HG(Q3) = #
X,Y,Z ∈ G; e, f, g ∈ E
Y −1⊲e=e
−Z−1Y ⊲g+Z−1⊲g=0
Therefore the crossed module invariant HA, where as usual A = (Z3,Z2, ⊲), separates these Q1, Q2
and Q3.
Acknowledgements
JFM was financed by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal), post-doctoral grant number
SFRH/BPD/17552/2004, part of the research project POCI/MAT/60352/2004 (“Quantum Topol-
ogy”), also financed by FCT, cofinanced by the European Community fund FEDER. LK thanks
the National Science Foundation for support under NSF Grant DMS-0245588.
References
[BM] Barrett J.W; Mackaay M.: Categorical Representations of Categorical Groups, Theory Appl.
Categ. 16 (2006), No. 20, 529–557 (electronic).
[B] Brown R.: Groupoids and Crossed Objects in Algebraic Topology, Homology Homotopy
Appl. 1 (1999), 1–78 (electronic).
[BZ] Burde G.; Zieschang H.: Knots. Second edition. de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, 5.
Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2003.
[CKS] Carter S.; Kamada S.; Saito M.: Surfaces in 4-Space. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sci-
ences, 142. Low-Dimensional Topology, III. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
[FM1] Faria Martins J.: Categorical Groups, Knots and Knotted Surfaces. J. Knot Theory Rami-
fications 16 (2007), no 9, 1181-1217.
[FM2] Faria Martins J.: The Fundamental Crossed Module of the Complement of a Knotted
Surface. To appear in Transactions of the American Mathematical Society.
[FM3] Faria Martins J.: On the Homotopy Type and the Fundamental Crossed Complex of the
Skeletal Filtration of a CW-Complex, Homology Homotopy Appl, Vol. 9 (2007), No. 1,
pp.295-329.
[FMP] Faria Martins J.; Porter T.: On Yetter’s Invariant and an Extension of Dijkgraaf-Witten
Invariant to Categorical Groups, Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 18, 2007, No.
4, pp 118-150.
[F] Fox R.H.: A Quick Trip through Knot Theory. 1962 Topology of 3-manifolds and related
topics (Proc. The Univ. of Georgia Institute, 1961) pp. 120–167 Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.
[FY] Freyd P.J.; Yetter D.N.: Braided Compact Closed Categories with Applications to Low-
Dimensional Topology. Adv. Math. 77 (1989), no. 2, 156–182.
[Ka] Kamada S.: Braid Presentation of Virtual Knots and Welded Knots. Osaka J. Math. Volume
44, Number 2 (2007), 441-458.
[K1] Kauffman L.H.: Virtual Knot Theory. European J. Combin. 20 (1999), no. 7, 663–690.
[K2] Kauffman L.H.: On Knots. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 115. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 1987.
[KL] Kauffman L.H.; Lambropoulou S.: The L-Move and Virtual Braids. J. Knot Theory Rami-
fications 15 (2006), no. 6, 773–811.
[P1] Porter T.: Interpretations of Yetter’s Notion of G-Coloring: Simplicial Fibre Bundles and
Non-Abelian Cohomology, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 5 (1996), no. 5, 687–720.
[P2] Porter T.: Topological Quantum Field Theories from Homotopy n-Types, J. London Math.
Soc. (2) 58 (1998), no. 3, 723–732.
[PS] Plotnick S.P.; Suciu A. I.: k-Invariants of Knotted 2-Spheres, Comment. Math. Helv. 60
(1985), no. 1, 54–84.
[RT] Reshetikhin N.Yu.; Turaev V.G.: Ribbon Graphs and their Invariants Derived from Quan-
tum Groups. Comm. Math. Phys. 127 (1990), no. 1, 1–26.
[R] Roseman D.: Woven Knots are Spun Knots, Osaka J. Math., 11 (1974), 307–312.
[S] Satoh S.: Virtual Knot Presentation of Ribbon Torus-Knots. J. Knot Theory Ramifications
9 (2000), no. 4, 531–542.
[Ya] Yajima T.: On the Fundamental Groups of Knotted 2-Manifolds in 4-Space. J. Math., Osaka
City Univ., 13 (1962) 63–71.
[Y1] Yetter D.N.: Category Theoretic Representations of Knotted Graphs in S3. Adv. Math. 77
(1989), no. 2, 137–155.
[Y2] Yetter D.N.: TQFT’s from Homotopy 2-Types. J. Knot Theory Ramifications 2 (1993), no.
1, 113–123.
	Introduction
	An Invariant of Welded Virtual Knots
	Welded virtual knots
	The fundamental group of the complement
	Virtual knot presentations of knotted surfaces
	Welded virtual arcs
	Crossed module invariants of knotted surfaces
	The case of ribbon knotted torus
	The case of welded virtual arcs
	Examples
	Virtual and Classical Hopf Link
	Virtual Hopf Link
	The Hopf Link
	Trefoil Knot and Trefoil Arc
	Universal module constructions
	The definition of the module CM(K)
	Relation with the Alexander Module
	Welded virtual arcs
	Shin Satoh's Knot
	Welded Virtual Graphs
	Crossed module invariants of knotted surfaces obtained by adding trivial 1-handles
	Definition of welded virtual graphs
	The fundamental group of the complement
	Crossed module invariants of welded virtual graphs
	The Trefoil Knot is not equivalent to the Shin-Satoh's Knot
	Figure of Eight Knot
	The Solomon Seal Knot
	The 2-bridge knot 52 (Stevedore)
	The (n,2)-torus knot
	Final examples

  We define an invariant of welded virtual knots from each finite crossed
module by considering crossed module invariants of ribbon knotted surfaces
which are naturally associated with them. We elucidate that the invariants
obtained are non trivial by calculating explicit examples. We define welded
virtual graphs and consider invariants of them defined in a similar way.

Introduction
Welded virtual knots were defined in [K1], by allowing one extra move in addition to the moves
appearing in the definition of a virtual knot. This extra move preserves the (combinatorial) fun-
damental group of the complement, which is therefore an invariant of welded virtual knots (the
knot group). Given a finite group G, one can therefore define a welded virtual knot invariant HG,
by considering the number of morphisms from the fundamental group of the complement into G.
The Wirtinger presentation of knot groups enables a quandle type calculation of this “Counting
Invariant” HG.
Not a lot of welded virtual knot invariants are known. The aim of this article is to introduce
a new one, the “Crossed Module Invariant” HG , which depends on a finite automorphic crossed
module G = (E,G, ⊲), in other words on a pair of groups E and G, with E abelian, and a left
action of G on E by automorphisms.
The Crossed Module InvariantHG reduces to the Counting Invariant HG when E = 0. However,
the Crossed Module Invariant distinguishes, in some cases, between welded virtual links with the
Also at Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologia, Av. do Campo
Grande, 376, 1749-024, Lisboa, Portugal.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1246v2
same knot group, and therefore it is strictly stronger than the Counting Invariant. We will assert
this fact by calculating explicit examples.
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic crossed module. Note that the Counting Invariant HG
is trivial whenever G is abelian. However, taking G to be abelian and E to be non-trivial, yields
a non-trivial invariant HG , which is, as a rule, much easier to calculate than the Counting In-
variant HG where G is generic group, and it is strong enough to tell apart some pairs of links
with the same knot group. Suppose that the welded virtual link K has n-components. Let
κn = Z[X1,X
1 , . . . ,Xn,X
n ]. We will define a kn-module CM(K), depending only on K, up
to isomorphism and permutations of the variables X1, . . . ,Xn. If G is abelian, then HG simply
counts the number of crossed module morphisms CM(K) → G. We prove in this article that if K
is classical then CM(K) coincides with the Alexander module Alex(K) of K. However, this is not
the case if K is not classical. We will give examples of pairs of welded virtual links (K,K ′) with
the same knot group (thus the same Alexander module) but with CM(K) ≇ CM(K ′). This will
happen when K and K ′ have the same knot group, but are distinguished by their crossed module
invariants for G abelian.
Let us explain the construction of the Crossed Module Invariant HG . Extending a previous
construction due to T. Yagima, Shin Satoh defined in [S] a map which associates an oriented
knotted torus T (K), the “tube of K”, to each oriented welded virtual knot K. The map K 7→ T (K)
preserves knot groups. In the case when K is a classical knot, then T (K) coincides with the torus
spun of K, obtained by spinning K 4-dimensionally, in order to obtain an embedding of the torus
S1 × S1 into S4.
The existence of the tube map K 7→ T (K) makes it natural to define invariants of welded
virtual knots by considering invariants of knotted surfaces. We will consider this construction for
the case of the crossed module invariants IG(Σ) of knotted surfaces Σ, defined in [FM1, FM2].
Here G =
−→ G, ⊲
is a finite crossed module. Note that the invariant IG on a knotted surface
coincides with Yetter’s Invariant (see [Y2, P1, FMP]) of the complement of it. We can thus define
a welded virtual knot invariant by considering HG(K)
= IG(T (K)), where K is a welded virtual
knot.
A straightforward analysis of the crossed module invariant of the tube T (K) of the welded virtual
knot K permits the evaluation of HG(K) in a quandle type way, albeit the biquandle we define is
sensitive to maximal and minimal points, so it should probably be called a “Morse biquandle”.
A proof of the existence of the invariant HG , where G is a finite crossed module, can be done
directly, from the Morse biquandle obtained. In fact all the results of this article are fully inde-
pendent of the 4-dimensional picture, and can be given a direct proof. Moreover, they confirm the
results obtained previously for the crossed module invariants IG of knotted surfaces in S
As we have referred to above, the tube map K 7→ T (K) preserves the fundamental group of the
complements. We prove that HG is powerful enough to distinguish between distinct welded virtual
links with the same knot group. For example, we will construct an infinite set of pairs (Pi, c1(P
i )),
where i is an odd integer, of welded virtual links with the following properties:
1. Pi and c1(P
i ) each have two components for all i.
2. Pi and c1(P
i ) have isomorphic knot groups for each i.
3. Pi and c1(P
i ) can be distinguished by their crossed module invariant for each i.
In fact Pi and c1(P
i ) will be distinguished by their crossed module invariant HG with G = (E,G, ⊲)
being an automorphic crossed module with G abelian. This in particular proves that the Crossed
Module Invariant of knotted surfaces IG defined in [FM1, FM2, FM3] sees beyond the fundamental
group of their complement, in an infinite number of cases.
Figure 1: Classical and virtual crossings.
↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔
Reidemeister-I Move Reidemeister-II Move
Reidemeister-III Move
Figure 2: Reidemeister Moves I, II and III.
We will also give examples of pairs of 1-component welded virtual knots with the same knot
group, but separated by their crossed module invariants. However, we will need to make use of
computer based calculations in this case.
In this article we will propose a definition of Welded Virtual Graphs. The Crossed Module
Invariant of welded virtual links extends naturally to them.
2 An Invariant of Welded Virtual Knots
2.1 Welded virtual knots
Recall that a virtual knot diagram is, by definition, an immersion of a disjoint union of circles into
the plane R2, where the 4-valent vertices of the immersion can represent either classical or virtual
crossing; see figure 1. The definition of an oriented virtual knot diagram is the obvious one. We
say that two virtual knot diagrams are equivalent if they can be related by the moves of figures 2
and 3, as well as planar isotopy. It is important to note that in the oriented case we will need to
consider all the possible orientations of the strands. A virtual knot is an equivalence class of virtual
knot diagrams under the equivalence relation just described; see [K1].
Observe that, as far as virtual knots are concerned, we do not allow the moves shown in figure
4, called respectively the forbidden moves F1 and F2. Considering the first forbidden move F1
in addition to the ones appearing in the definition of a virtual knot, one obtains the notion of a
“welded virtual knot”, due to the first author; see [K1].
2.1.1 The fundamental group of the complement
The (combinatorial) fundamental group of the complement of a virtual knot diagram (the knot
group) is, by definition, generated by all the arcs of a diagram of it, considering the relations
(called Wirtinger Relations) of figure 5 at each crossing. It is understood that in each calculation
of a knot group from a virtual knot diagram we will use either the “Left Handed” or the “Right
Handed” Wirtinger Relation. The final result will not depend on this choice.
↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔
Figure 3: Virtual Reidemeister Moves.
↔ ↔F1 F2
Figure 4: The forbidden moves F1 and F2.
Y Y −1XY
Y Y XY
Figure 5: Wirtinger Relations. The first two are called “Left Handed” and “Right Handed”
Wirtinger Relations, respectively.
In the case of classical knots or links, this does coincide with the fundamental group of the
complement, so we can drop the prefix “combinatorial”. This combinatorial fundamental group is
in fact an invariant of welded virtual knots. This can be proved easily.
2.2 Virtual knot presentations of knotted surfaces
By definition, a torus link1 in S4 is an embedding of a disjoint union of tori S1 × S1 into S4,
considered up to ambient isotopy. A knotted torus is an embedding of a torus S1 × S1 into S4,
considered up to ambient isotopy. The definition of an oriented knotted torus or torus link is the
obvious one.
As proved in [S, Ya, CKS], it is possible to associate an oriented torus link T (K) ⊂ S4, the
“tube of K”, to each oriented welded virtual link K. This correspondence was defined first in [Ya],
for the case of classical knots. The extension to welded virtual knots was completed in [S].
The tube map is very easy to define. Given a virtual link diagram, we define the tube of it by
considering the broken surface diagram obtained by doing the transition of figures 6 and 7. For
the representation of knotted surfaces in S4 in the form of broken surface diagrams, we refer the
reader to [CKS]. The tube of a virtual knot diagram has a natural orientation determined by the
orientation of a ball in S3. It is proved in [S] that if K and L are diagrams of the same welded
virtual knot then it follows that T (K) and T (L) are isotopic knotted surfaces in S4. This defines
the tube of a welded virtual knot.
For calculation purposes, however, it is important to have a definition of the “Tube Map” in
terms of movies. Let D ⊂ R2 be an oriented virtual knot diagram. We can suppose, apart from
planar isotopy, that the projection on the second variable is a Morse function on D. Define a movie
of a knotted surface by using the correspondence of figures 8, 9 and 10. Note our convention of
Not to be confused with the 3-dimensional notion of a torus link.
Figure 6: The tube of a virtual knot at the vicinity of a classical crossing.
Figure 7: The tube of a virtual knot at the vicinity of a virtual crossing.
death of a circle
saddle point
saddle point
birth of a circle
Figure 8: Associating a knotted torus to a virtual knot: edges, minimal and maximal points and
virtual crossings. All circles are oriented counterclockwise. Note that the movies should be read
from bottom to top.
reading movies of knotted surfaces from the bottom to the top. This yields an alternative way for
describing the tube T (K) of the virtual knot K, if we are provided a diagram of it.
It was proved in [S, Ya] that the correspondence K 7→ T (K), where K is a welded virtual knot,
preserves the fundamental groups of the complement (the knot groups).
Given a (classical) link K with n components sitting in the interior of the semiplane {(x, y, z) ∈
R3 : z ≥ 0}, we define the torus spun of K by rotating K 4-dimensionally around the plane {z = 0}.
Therefore, we obtain an embedding of the disjoint union of n tori S1 × S1 into S4. It was shown
in [S] that the torus spun of K is in fact isotopic to the tube T (K) of K.
The correspondence K 7→ T (K) actually sends welded virtual links to ribbon torus links. In
fact, any ribbon torus link is of the form T (K) for some welded virtual knot K. However, it is an
open problem whether the map K 7→ T (K) is faithful; see [CKS, problems (1) and (2) of 2.2.2].
2.2.1 Welded virtual arcs
A virtual arc diagram is, by definition, an immersion of a disjoint union of intervals [0, 1] into
the plane R2, where the 4-valent vertices of the immersion can represent either classical of virtual
crossings. The definition of a welded virtual arc is similar to the definition of a welded virtual knot,
but considering in addition the moves of figure 11; see [S].
A sphere link is, by definition, an embedding of a disjoint union of spheres S2 into S4, considered
up to ambient isotopy. Similarly to ribbon torus links in S4, any ribbon sphere link admits a
Figure 9: Associating a knotted torus to a virtual knot: classical crossing points, first case. All
circles are oriented counterclockwise.
Figure 10: Associating a knotted torus to a virtual knot: classical crossing points, second case. All
circles are oriented counterclockwise.
Figure 11: Moves on welded virtual arc diagrams.
Figure 12: The tube of a welded virtual arc close to the endpoints.
Y Y −1XY XY X−1
e ∂(e)X
Figure 13: Definition of a colouring of a dotted knot diagram.
presentation as the tube T (A), where A is a welded virtual arc. Here T (A) is defined in the same
way as the tube of a welded virtual knot, considering additionally the movies of figure 12 at the
end-points of the arcs of A . Therefore T (A) is an embedding of a disjoint union of spheres S2 into
Suppose that the arc A is classical, and that it sits inside the semiplane {z ≥ 0} of R3, inter-
secting the plane {z = 0} at the end-points of A, transversally. Then in fact T (A) is the spun knot
of A; see [R, S, CKS].
We can define the knot group of a welded virtual arc exactly in the same way as we defined
the combinatorial fundamental group of the complement of a welded virtual knot. As in the case
of welded virtual knots, the map A 7→ T (A) preserves knot groups; see [S].
Suppose that A is a classical arc (with one component) sitting in the semiplane {z ≥ 0} of R3,
intersecting the plane {z = 0} at the end-points of A. Let K be the obvious closure of A. Then it
is easy to see that A and K have the same knot groups. Note that the fact that A is classical is
essential for this to hold. This is also true if A may have some S1 components, even though it is
strictly necessary that A have only one component homeomorphic to [0, 1].
2.3 Crossed module invariants of knotted surfaces
A crossed module (see [B]) G =
−→ G, ⊲
is given by a group morphism ∂ : E → G together
with a left action ⊲ of G on E by automorphisms. The conditions on ∂ and ⊲ are:
1. ∂(X ⊲ e) = X∂(e)X−1,∀X ∈ G,∀e ∈ E,
2. ∂(e) ⊲ f = efe−1,∀e, f ∈ E.
Note that the second condition implies that the subgroup ker ∂ of E is central in E, whereas the
first implies that ker ∂ is G-invariant.
A dotted knot diagram is, by definition, a regular projection of a bivalent graph, in other words
of a link, possibly with some extra bivalent vertices inserted. Let D be a dotted knot diagram,
which we suppose to be oriented. Let also G =
−→ G, ⊲
be a finite crossed module.
Definition 1 A colouring of D is an assignment of an element of G to each arc of D and of an
element of E to each bivalent vertex of D satisfying the conditions of figure 13.
Definition 2 Let D be a knot diagram (without vertices). A dotting of D is an insertion of bivalent
vertices in D, considered up to a planar isotopy sending D to D, setwise. If D is an oriented knot
diagram, let V (D) be the free Q-vector space on the set of all colourings of all dottings of D.
X X X
∂(e)X ∂(fe)X
X ∂(fe)X
e f fe
Figure 14: Relations on colourings.
Y −1⊲e
eXY X−1⊲e−1
Y −1⊲e−1Y −1X⊲e
Figure 15: Relations on colourings.
Consider now the relations of figures 14 and 15. It is straightforward to see that they are local
on the knot diagrams and that they transform colourings into colourings.
Definition 3 Let D be an oriented knot diagram (without vertices). The vector space V(D) is
defined as the vector space obtained from V (D) by modding out by the relations R1 to R6.
Let D and D′ be oriented knot diagrams. If D and D′ differ by planar isotopy, then there exists
an obvious map V(D)→ V(D′). In fact, if D and D′ differ by a Reidemeister move or a Morse move
(in other words a birth/death of a circle or a saddle point), then there also exists a well defined
map V(D)→ V(D′). All this is explained in [FM1]. In figures 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 we display the
definition of these maps for the case of the Reidemeister-II move and the Morse moves, which we
are going to need in this article. The remaining cases of these moves can be dealt with by doing
the transition shown in figure 21, and using the relations R1 to R6. In figure 18, δ is a Kronecker
delta.
Therefore, any movie of an oriented knotted surface Σ can be evaluated to give an element
IG(Σ) ∈ Q.
Theorem 4 The evaluation IG of a movie of an oriented knotted surface defines an isotopy invari-
ant of oriented knotted surfaces.
This is shown in [FM1]. The homotopy theoretical interpretation of the isotopy invariant IG is
discussed in [FM2, FM3, FMP]. The construction of the invariant IG was initially inspired by
Yetter’s Invariant of manifolds; see [Y2, P1, P2].
Actually IG defines an embedded TQFT, in other words, an invariant of link cobordisms con-
sidered up to ambient isotopy fixing both ends.
X XY Y
7−→e f eX⊲fXY X
−1⊲e−1 e
Figure 16: Map assigned to positive Reidemeister-II move.
b X−1⊲b−1X−1⊲aY X−1⊲b7−→
Figure 17: Map assigned to negative Reidemeister-II move.
X Y X ∂(e)X
X ∂(e)X
δ(Y, ∂(e)X)
Figure 18: Map associated to saddle point moves.
1 7−→
Figure 19: Map associated with births of a circle.
x2xn−1
. . .
#Eδ(x1x2...xn−1xn, 1E)
Figure 20: Map associated with deaths of a circle.
←→X ∂(e)X
X−1 X−1∂(e)−1e X
Figure 21: Inversion of strands.
(∂(g)Y,f) (Y,f−1)
(X,e) (X,e−1)
Figure 22: Relations at maximal and minimal points.
(XY X−1,X⊲f) (X,efX⊲f
(X,e) (Y,f)
(X−1Y X,X−1⊲f) (X,X−1⊲f−1ef)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,Y −1⊲e−1ef) (Y
−1XY,Y −1⊲e)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,feY ⊲e−1) (Y XY
−1,Y ⊲e)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f) (X,e)
(X,e) (Y,f)
Figure 23: Relations at crossings.
2.3.1 The case of ribbon knotted torus
As we have seen, if Σ is a ribbon knotted surface, which topologically is the disjoint union of tori
S1 × S1 or spheres S2, then we can represent it as the tube T (K) of welded virtual knot K, in the
first case, or the tube T (A) of a welded virtual arc A, in the second case.
We want to find an algorithm for calculating IG(T (K)), where K is a welded virtual knot,
directly from a diagram of K itself, and analogously for a welded virtual arc A. A careful look at
the definition of the invariant IG together with the definition of the tube map in 2.2 leads to the
following definition:
Definition 5 Let G =
−→ G, ⊲
be a crossed module. Let also D be a welded virtual knot
diagram. Suppose that the projection on the second variable defines a Morse function on D. A
G-colouring2 of D is an assignment of a pair (X, f), where X ∈ G and f ∈ ker ∂, to each connected
component of D minus its set of crossings and extreme points; of an element e ∈ ker ∂ to each
minimal point; and an element g ∈ E to each maximal point, satisfying the conditions shown in
figures 22 and 23.
This should not be confused with the notion of a colouring which was considered in the definition of the invariant
IG , above.
X∈G,e∈ker ∂ X X
∂(g)Y=X
∂(g)Y =X
δ(f,e−1)
Figure 24: Calculation of IG of the tube of a welded virtual knot: minimal and maximal points.
The reason for considering these relation is obvious from figure 24, and figure 25, and its
counterparts for different types of crossings. Note that ker ∂ ⊂ E is central in E. However, for
this calculus to approximate the definition of IG(T (D)), for D a virtual knot diagram, the relation
of figure 26 still needs to be incorporated into the calculations. To avoid needing to involve this
relation, we consider the following restriction on the crossed modules with which we work.
Definition 6 (Automorphic Crossed Module) A crossed module G =
−→ G, ⊲
is called
automorphic if ∂(e) = 1,∀e ∈ E. Therefore, an automorphic crossed module is given simply by two
groups G and E, with E abelian, and a left action ⊲ of G on E by automorphisms.
Definition 7 (Reduced G-Colourings) Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic crossed module.
Let also D ⊂ R2 be a virtual knot diagram, such that the projection on the second variable is a Morse
function on D. A reduced G-colouring of D is given by an assignment of a pair (X, e) ∈ G × E
to each connected component of D minus its set of crossings and extreme points, satisfying the
relations of figures 23 and 27.
The following result is easy to prove by using all the information we provided, and the fact that,
for any knot diagram, the number of minimal points of it equals the number of maximal points.
Theorem 8 Let D be a virtual knot diagram, such that the projection on the second variable is a
Morse function on D. Let also G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Consider the
quantity:
HG(D) = #{reduced G-colourings of D}.
Then HG(D) is an invariant of welded virtual knots. In fact:
HG(D) = IG(T (D)).
Here IG is the Crossed Module Invariant of oriented knotted surfaces defined in [FM1].
Exercise 1 Check directly that HG (where G is an automorphic finite crossed module) is an in-
variant of welded virtual knots. Note that together with the moves defining welded virtual knots, we
still need to check invariance under planar isotopy, thus enforcing us to check invariance under the
moves of the type depicted in figure 28, usually called Yetter’s Moves; see [Y1, FY]. It is important
to note that we need to consider all the possible different crossing informations, and, since we are
working in the oriented case, all the possible orientations of the strands.
X−1⊲f
X−1Y X
X−1⊲f
X−1⊲f
X−1Y X
eX−1⊲f−1f
eX−1⊲f−1f
X−1Y X
X−1⊲f
Figure 25: Calculation of IG of the tube T (D) of a welded virtual knot D: the type of crossings
relative to figure 9.
∂(g)X
∂(g)X
∂(g)X
= = =
Figure 26: An identity. Here e ∈ ker ∂.
(Y,e) (Y,e−1)
(X,e) (X,e−1)
Figure 27: Reduced G-colouring at extreme points.
↔ ↔↔ ↔
Figure 28: Sample of Yetter’s moves capturing planar isotopy.
(X,1E) (Y,1E)
Figure 29: Reduced G-colourings of welded virtual arcs at end-points. Here X,Y ∈ G.
Let G =
−→ G, ⊲
be a crossed module. Define π1(G) = coker(∂) and π2(G) = ker ∂, which
is an abelian group. Then π1(G) has a natural left action ⊲
′ on π2(G) by automorphisms. In
particular Π(G) = (π2(G), π1(G), ⊲
′) is an automorphic crossed module. In fact G also determines a
cohomology class k3 ∈ H3(π1(G), π2(G)), called the k-invariant of G.
It is not difficult to extend the invariant HG(D), where D is a welded virtual knot, to handle
non-automorphic crossed modules G, so that HG(D) = IG(T (D)). We do this by incorporating
the relation in figure 26 into the notion of a G-colouring of a virtual knot diagram. However, it is
possible to prove that for any welded virtual knot D and any finite crossed module G we have that
IG(T (D)) equals IΠ(G)(T (D)), apart from normalisation factors. This can be proved by using the
graphical framework presented in this article. Hence, we do not lose generality if we restrict our
attention only to automorphic crossed modules.
Problem 1 Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic crossed module. Find a ribbon Hopf algebra
AG acting on the vector space freely generated by G × E such that HG is the Reshetikhin-Turaev
invariant of knots associated to it (see [RT]), and so that the case of welded virtual knots also follow
from this Hopf algebra framework in a natural way. Note that in the case when E = 0, we can take
AG to be the quantum double of the function algebra on G. The solution to this problem would be
somehow the quantum double of a finite categorical group, and therefore would be of considerable
importance.
2.3.2 The case of welded virtual arcs
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Let also A be a virtual arc diagram. The
notion of a reduced G-colouring of A is totally analogous to the concept of a reduced G-colouring
of a virtual knot diagram, considering that if an arc of A has a free end then it must be coloured
by (X, 1E), where X ∈ G; see figure 29. One can see this from figure 12. We have:
Theorem 9 Let A be a virtual arc diagram. The quantity:
HG(A) =
#{reduced G-colourings of A}
#E#{cups}−#{caps}−#{pointing upwards ends of A}
is an invariant of A as a welded virtual arc. In fact
HG(A) = IG(T (A)).
Therefore, the graphical framework presented in this article is also a calculational device for calcu-
lating the crossed module invariant of spun knots, accordingly to 2.2.1.
The invariant HG of Theorem 9 actually is an invariant of virtual arcs of which some components
may be circles. In fact, it also naturally extends to an invariant of welded virtual graphs, to be
defined in 3.5.2.
Figure 30: Classical and Virtual Hopf links.
(X,e−1)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f−1)
(Y,f) (X,e)
(Y −1XY,Y −1⊲e) (Y,Y −1⊲e−1ef)
Y −1⊲e=e
Y −1XY=X
Y −1⊲e−1ef=f
Figure 31: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the Virtual Hopf Link L.
3 Examples
3.1 Virtual and Classical Hopf Link
3.1.1 Virtual Hopf Link
The simplest non-trivial welded virtual link is the Virtual Hopf Link L, depicted in figure 30. Note
that L is linked since its knot group is {X,Y : XY = Y X} ∼= Z2.
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Let us calculate the crossed module
invariant HG of the Virtual Hopf Link L. This calculation appears in figure 31. From this we can
conclude that:
HG(L) = #{X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|XY = Y X, Y
−1 ⊲ e = e} (1)
= #E#{X,Y ∈ G; e ∈ E|XY = Y X, Y −1 ⊲ e = e}. (2)
Note that the previous equation simplifies to
HG(L) = #E#G#{Y ∈ G; e ∈ E|Y
−1 ⊲ e = e},
when the group G is abelian. On the other hand it is easy to see that if O2 is a pair of unlinked
unknots then we have:
2) = #G2#E2. (3)
From equations (2) and (3), it thus follows that any finite automorphic crossed module (E,G, ⊲)
with G abelian sees the knotting of the Virtual Hopf Link if there exists Y ∈ G and e ∈ E such
that Y −1 ⊲ e 6= e. This is verified in any automorphic crossed module (E,G, ⊲) with ⊲ being a
non-trivial action of G on E.
Consider the automorphic crossed module A = (E = Z3, G = Z2, ⊲) such that 1 ⊲ a = a and
−1 ⊲ a = −a, where a ∈ Z3 and Z2 = ({1,−1},×); see [BM]. Then this crossed module detects the
knottedness of the Virtual Hopf Link L. If fact HA(L) = 6#{Y ∈ Z2; e ∈ Z3|Y
−1 ⊲ e = e} = 24,
whereas HA(O
2) = 36.
3.1.2 The Hopf Link
The Hopf Link H is depicted in figure 30. Note that the fundamental group of the complement of
it is, similarly with the Virtual Hopf Link L, isomorphic with Z2.
(X,e−1)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f−1)
(X,X−1⊲f−1ef)
(X−1Y X,X−1⊲f)
(X−1Y −1XY X,X−1Y −1⊲f−1X−1Y −1X⊲(ef))
(X−1Y X,X−1Y −1⊲fX−1Y −1X⊲(e−1f−1)ef)
X−1Y −1XY X=X
X−1Y X=Y
X−1Y −1⊲f−1X−1Y −1X⊲(ef)=e
X−1Y −1⊲fX−1Y −1X⊲(e−1f−1)ef=f
Figure 32: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the Hopf Link.
Let us calculate the crossed module invariant of the Hopf Link H. To this end, let G = (E,G, ⊲)
be a finite automorphic crossed module. We display the calculation of HG(H) in figure 32. This
permits us to conclude that:
HG(H) = #
X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E
XY = Y X
X−1Y −1 ⊲ f−1X−1Y −1X ⊲ (ef) = e
which particularises to
HG(H) = #
X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E : X−1Y −1 ⊲ f−1Y −1 ⊲ (ef) = e
, (4)
in the case when G is abelian. This is in agreement with the calculation in [FM2].
Let us see that the Hopf Link H is not equivalent to the Virtual Hopf Link L as a welded virtual
link. Consider the automorphic crossed module A = (E = Z3, G = Z2, ⊲) defined above. We have
(note that we switched to additive notation, more adapted to this example):
HA(H) = # {X,Y ∈ Z2; e, f ∈ Z3 : −XY ⊲ f + Y ⊲ (e+ f) = e}
= # {X,Y ∈ Z2; e, f ∈ Z3 : −XY ⊲ f + Y ⊲ f = e− Y ⊲ e} .
In the case Y = 1, we are led to the equation −X ⊲ f + f = 0, which has 4 × 3 solutions in
Z2×Z3×Z3. In the case Y = −1, we get the equation e = 2
−1(X⊲f−f), which has 3×2 solutions
in Z2 × Z3 × Z3. Therefore, we obtain HA(H) = 18.
Therefore, we have proved that the Virtual Hopf Link is not equivalent to the Hopf Link as a
welded virtual link, and also that the Hopf Link is knotted, by using the crossed module invariant.
As we have referred to before, the knot groups of the Hopf Link and the Virtual Hopf Link are
both isomorphic with Z2. Therefore, we have proved that the crossed module invariant HG sees
beyond the fundamental group of the complement of a welded virtual knot.
Since the correspondence K 7→ T (K), where K is a welded virtual link, preserves the funda-
mental groups of the complement we have also proved:
Theorem 10 The Crossed Module Invariant IG of knotted surfaces defined in [FM1, FM2] is pow-
erful enough to distinguish between knotted surfaces Σ,Σ′ ⊂ S4, with Σ diffeomorphic with Σ′,
whose complements have isomorphic fundamental groups, at least in a particular case.
Therefore, one of the main open problems about the Crossed Module Invariant IG of knotted sur-
faces that prevails is whether the invariant IG can distinguish between knotted surfaces whose com-
plements have isomorphic fundamental groups and second homotopy groups, seen as π1-modules,
but have distinct Postnikov invariants k3 ∈ H3(π1, π2). This problem was referred to in [FM2].
Examples of pairs of knotted surfaces like this do exist; see [PS].
Figure 33: The Hopf Arc HA, the Trefoil Knot 31 and the Trefoil Arc 31
(X,e−1)
(X,e)
(Y,f)
(Y,f−1)
(X,X−1⊲f−1ef)(C,X−1⊲f)
(C,C−1X−1⊲fC−1⊲(ef)−1ef)
(B,C−1X−1⊲f−1C−1⊲(ef))
(A,B−1C−1X−1⊲fB−1C−1⊲(ef)−1B−1⊲(ef))
(B,B−1C−1X−1⊲f−1B−1C−1⊲(ef)B−1⊲(ef)−1ef)
C=X−1Y X
B=X−1Y −1XY X
A=Y −1X−1Y XY =Y −1CY
⊲(ef)−1B−1⊲(ef)=e
⊲(ef)B−1⊲(ef)−1ef=f
Figure 34: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the Trefoil Knot 31.
Exercise 2 Consider the Hopf Arc HA depicted in figure 33. Prove that HG(HA) = HG(L), where
L is the Virtual Hopf Link. Here G = (E,G, ⊲) is any finite automorphic crossed module. In fact,
cf. 3.5.1, T (L) is obtained from T (HA) by adding a trivial 1-handle, which explains this identity.
We will go back to this later in 3.5.2.
3.2 Trefoil Knot and Trefoil Arc
The Trefoil Knot 31 and the Trefoil Arc 31
′ are depicted in figure 33.
Let us calculate the crossed module invariant of the Trefoil Knot 31. Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a
finite automorphic crossed module. The calculation of HG(31) appears in figure 34. This permits
us to conclude that:
HG(31) = #
X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E
X−1Y −1X−1=Y −1X−1Y −1
Y −1X−1Y −1⊲fY −1X−1Y −1X⊲(ef)−1Y −1⊲(ef)=e
X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E
X−1Y −1X−1=Y −1X−1Y −1
Y −1X−1Y −1⊲fX−1Y −1⊲(ef)−1Y −1⊲(ef)=e
. (6)
This simplifies to:
HG(31) = #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|X
−3 ⊲ fX−2 ⊲ (ef)−1X−1 ⊲ (ef) = e}, (7)
when G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module with G abelian; see 3.3.2.
Note that the crossed module invariant of the Trefoil Arc 31
′ can also be obtained from this
calculation, by making f = 1E , and inserting the necessary normalisation factors; see 2.3.2. This
yields:
HG(31
′) = #E#
X,Y ∈ G; e ∈ E
X−1Y −1X−1=Y −1X−1Y −1
X−1Y −1⊲e−1Y −1⊲e=e
, (8)
Figure 35: A non trivial welded virtual arc whose closure is trivial.
which simplifies to:
HG(31
′) = #E#{X ∈ G; e ∈ E : X−2 ⊲ e−1X−1 ⊲ e = e}, (9)
whenever G is abelian. This is coherent with the calculation in [FM1, FM2].
Observe that from equations (7) and (9) it follows that (we switch to additive notation):
HG(31) = #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E : X
−3 ⊲ f −X−2 ⊲ (e+ f) +X−1 ⊲ (e+ f) = e}
= #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E : X−2 ⊲
X−1 ⊲ f − e
−X−1 ⊲
X−1 ⊲ f − e
X−1 ⊲ f − e
= HG(31
Thus:
HG(31) = HG(31
′), (10)
whenever G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module with G abelian. An analogous identity
holds for any classical 1-component knot, see 3.3.2.
We will consider the crossed module invariants of the Trefoil Knot and the Trefoil Arc for the
case when G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module with G being a non-abelian group in
3.5.5. In this case the previous identity does not hold.
Let us see that HG detects the knottedness of the Trefoil Knot 31. The crossed module A =
(Z3,Z2, ⊲) defined previously detects it. In fact it is easy to see that HA(31) = 12. On the other
hand, if O is the unknot, we have that HG(O) = #E#G, for any automorphic crossed module
G = (E,G, ⊲). Thus 31 is knotted. Analogously we can prove that the Trefoil Arc 31
′ is knotted.
Exercise 3 Consider the virtual arc A of figure 35. Prove that if G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic
finite crossed module with G abelian then:
HG(A) = #E#{X ∈ G; e ∈ E|X
−2 ⊲ e−1X−1 ⊲ ee−1 = 1}.
Thus the crossed module A = (Z3,Z2, ⊲) defined previously detects that it is knotted. However, it is
easy to show that the closure of A is the trivial welded virtual knot, a fact confirmed by the crossed
module invariant.
3.3 Universal module constructions
Let G be an abelian group. Suppose that G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module, where
E is an abelian group. Consider a welded virtual link K. Suppose that K has n-components S1,
where n is a positive integer. Let κn = Z[X1,X
1 , . . . ,Xn,X
n ] be the ring of Laurent polynomials
on the formal variables X1, . . . Xn. We can assign to K a κn-module, so that HG(K) will satisfy:
HG(K) = #Hom(CM(K),G),
where Hom(CM(K),G) denotes the set of all crossed module morphism CM(K)→ G.
(Y,X⊲f) (X,e+f−X⊲f)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,X−1⊲f) (X,−X−1⊲f+e+f)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,−Y −1⊲e+e+f) (X,Y
−1⊲e)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f+e−Y ⊲e) (X,Y ⊲e)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f) (X,e)
(X,e) (Y,f)(X,e) (X,−e)
(X,e) (X,−e)
Figure 36: Defining relations for the module CM(K).
3.3.1 The definition of the module CM(K)
Definition 11 Let K be a welded virtual link diagram. Suppose that K is an immersion of a
disjoint union of n circles S1 into the plane, each of which is assigned a variable Xi, where i ∈
{1, . . . , n}; in other words, suppose that we have a total order on the set of all S1-components of K.
The module CM(K) is defined as the κn-module generated by all the connected components of K
minus the set of crossings of K and extreme points of K, modding out by the relations of figure 36.
It is understood that any connected component is assigned a pair (X, e), where e ∈ CM(K) is the
module element that the connected components defines, whereas X ∈ {X1, . . . ,Xn} is the labelling
of the S1-component of K in which the connected component is included.
By using the same technique as in Exercise 1 we can prove:
Theorem 12 Let K be a welded virtual link diagram with n S1-components. The isomorphism
class of the κn-module CM(K) depends only on the welded virtual link determined by K, up to
reordering of the S1-components of K. In addition, if G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic finite
crossed module with G abelian we have:
HG(K) = #Hom(CM(K),G).
3.3.2 Relation with the Alexander Module
Let K be a welded virtual link diagram with n S1-components, each labelled with an Xi ∈
{X1, ...,Xn}. We can define the Alexander module Alex(K) of K, defined as the module over
κn with a generator for each connected component of K minus its set of crossings, modulo the re-
lations of figure 37, obtained from the right handed Wirtinger relations of figure 5 by applying Fox
derivatives; see [BZ, Chapter 9], [K2, Chapter XI] or [F]. Therefore, if K is a classical 1-component
knot, then Alex(K) ∼= Z[X,X−1]/ 〈∆(K) = 0〉 ⊕ Z[X,X−1], where ∆(K) denotes the Alexander
polynomial of K; see for example [BZ, 9 C].
Let K be a welded virtual link diagram. The Alexander module Alex(K) depends only on
the knot group of the welded virtual link defined by K, up to isomorphism and reordering of the
S1-components of K.
(X,e)
(Y,f)
(Y,f)
(X,−Y −1⊲f+Y −1⊲e+Y −1X⊲f)) (Y,f)
(X,e)
(X,e)
(Y,f)
Figure 37: Relations at crossings for the Alexander Module Alex(K).
(X,e)
(Y,f)
(Y,f)
(X,−Y −1⊲f+Y −1⊲e+Y −1X⊲f) (Y,X⊲f)
(X,e)
(X,Y −1⊲e)
(Y,f)
Figure 38: Relations at crossings for the module Alex′(K).
The module Alex(K) admits a variant Alex′(K) whose defining relations appear in figure 38.
Note that the κn-module Alex(K) is isomorphic to Alex
′(K) whenever K is a classical link diagram.
The module Alex′(K) is invariant under virtual and classical Reidemeister moves. However,
Alex′(K) is not invariant under the first forbidden move F1; rather it is invariant under the second
forbidden move F2; see subsection 2.1.
Given a virtual link diagram K, we can define the mirror image K∗ of it by switching positive to
negative crossings, and vice-versa, and leaving virtual crossings unchanged. Therefore, the module
Alex′(K∗) depends only on the welded virtual knot defined by K, up to isomorphism and reordering
of the components of K.
Theorem 13 Let K be a welded virtual link diagram. There exists an isomorphism
φ : CM(K)→ Alex′(K∗).
Proof. We can suppose that K is the closure of a virtual braid B; see [KL, Ka]. This avoids
needing to deal with the defining relations of CM(K) at maximal and minimal points. Let b be
a connected component of the braid B minus its set of crossings, defining therefore an element
b ∈ CM(K). The isomorphism φ : CM(K)→ Alex′(K∗) sends b to Z−1 ⊲ b, where Z is the product
of all the elements Xi assigned to the strands of B on the left of b (each belonging to a certain
S1-component of K). The remaining details are left to the reader.
The Alexander module of the Trefoil Knot 31 is the module over Z[X,X
−1] with generators
e and f and the relation X2 ⊲ (e + f) − X ⊲ (e + f) + (e + f) = 0, thus we have Alex(31) =
Z[X,X−1]/
X2 −X + 1 = 0
⊕ Z[X,X−1]. In particular, it follows equation (7).
Let K be a classical 1-component knot. By using Theorem 13, we can prove that for any
automorphic crossed module G = (E,G, ⊲), with G abelian, the invariant HG(K) is determined by
the Alexander module Alex(K) of K, and thus from the Alexander polynomial ∆(K) of K. This is
not the case for non classical links, since the crossed module invariants of the virtual and classical
Hopf links L and H; see subsection 3.1 are different, even though they have isomorphic Alexander
modules. In fact we have:
Alex(H),CM(H),Alex(L) =
Z[X,X−1, Y, Y −1] ⊲ e⊕ Z[X,X−1, Y, Y −1] ⊲ f
〈(X − 1) ⊲ f = (Y − 1) ⊲ e〉
Figure 39: Shin Satoh’s Knot S.
the module over the ring Z[X,X−1, Y, Y −1] with two generators e and f , and the relation (X −
1) ⊲ f = (Y − 1) ⊲ e, whereas
CM(L) =
Z[X,X−1, Y, Y −1] ⊲ e⊕ Z[X,X−1, Y, Y −1] ⊲ f
〈Y ⊲ f = f〉
These last two modules are not isomorphic, as the calculations in subsection 3.1 certify.
3.3.3 Welded virtual arcs
Let A be a welded virtual arc with a single component. The Z[X,X−1]-modules Alex(A),Alex′(A)
and CM(A) defined above can still be assigned to A, considering the analogue of the relations in
figure 29 at the end-points of A, so that the elements of Alex(A),Alex′(A) and CM(A) assigned to
the edges of A incident to its end-points are zero.
Any welded virtual arc A can be obtained as the (incomplete) closure of some braid. Therefore
the proof of Theorem 13 gives an isomorphism φ : CM(A)→ Alex′(A).
Suppose that A is a classical arc sitting in the semiplane {z ≥ 0} of R3, intersecting the plane
{z = 0} at the end-points of A, only. Since A is classical we have Alex(A) = Alex′(A). Let
K be the obvious closure of A. Then Alex(K) = Z[X,X−1]/ 〈∆(K) = 0〉 ⊕ Z[X,X−1], where
∆(K) is the Alexander polynomial of K. Choosing a connected component of K minus its set
of crossings, and sending the generator of Alex(K) it defines to zero yields a presentation of
Z[X,X−1]/ 〈∆(K) = 0〉; see [BZ, Theorem 9.10]. Comparing with the definition of Alex(A), proves
that Alex(A) = Z[X,X−1]/ 〈∆(K) = 0〉.
Therefore it follows that CM(A) ∼= Z[X,X−1]/ 〈∆(K) = 0〉 if A is a classical arc and K is the
closure of A. The discussion above also implies that if G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed
module with G abelian then HG(K) = HG(A) whenever A is a classical 1-component arc and K is
the 1-component knot obtained by closing A. This is not the case if G is not abelian.
Problem 2 Let K be a welded virtual link. What is the algebraic topology interpretation of the
module CM(K) in terms of the tube T (K) ⊂ S4 of K.
3.4 Shin Satoh’s Knot
In [S], Shin Satoh considered the welded virtual link S displayed in figure 39. It is a welded virtual
knot whose knot group is isomorphic with the knot group of the Trefoil Knot 31. It is possible to
prove that S is not equivalent to any classical knot as a welded virtual knot, see [S], thus the Shin
Satoh’s Knot S is not equivalent to the Trefoil. See also 3.5.5.
Let us calculate the crossed module invariant of the Shin Satoh’s Knot S. Let G = (E,G, ⊲)
be a finite automorphic crossed module. We consider in this case that G is an abelian group,
(X,c−1)
(X,c−1)
(X,a)
(X,a)
(X,a−1)
(X,a−1)
(X,b)
(X,c)
(X,b−1)
(X,b−1)
(X,c)
(X,d)
(X,d−1)
(X,d−1)
(X,X−1⊲a−1)
(X,X−1⊲a−1)
(X,X−1⊲aa−1d)
(X,X−1⊲b−1)
(X,X−1⊲(ab)a−1db−1)
(X,X−1⊲d−1)
(X,X−1⊲dX−1⊲b−1d−1)
(X,X−1⊲c−1) (X,X
Figure 40: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the Shin Satoh’s Knot S for G abelian.
which makes the calculations much easier, since we simply need to calculate the Z[X,X−1]-module
CM(S). The case when G is non-abelian is considered in 3.5.5. Figure 40 permits us to conclude
that:
HG(S) = #
X ∈ G; a, b, c, d ∈ E
X−1 ⊲ (ab)a−1db−1 = c−1
X−1 ⊲ d−1 = b−1
X−1 ⊲ c−1 = a−1
X−1 ⊲ cc−1X−1 ⊲ dX−1 ⊲ b−1d−1 = X−1 ⊲ a
X ∈ G; a, d ∈ E
X−1 ⊲ aX−2 ⊲ da−1dX−1 ⊲ d−1 = X ⊲ a−1
aX ⊲ a−1X−1 ⊲ dX−2 ⊲ d−1d−1 = X−1 ⊲ a
The two equations in the final expression are equivalent. We obtain, switching to additive notation:
HG(S) = #
X ∈ G; a, d ∈ E|X−1 ⊲ a− a+X ⊲ a = X−1 ⊲ d− d−X−2 ⊲ d
. (11)
This should be compared with the crossed module invariant of the Trefoil Knot 31, for G abelian:
HG(31) = #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|X
−3 ⊲ f −X−2 ⊲ (e+ f) +X−1 ⊲ (e+ f) = e}
= #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|X−3 ⊲ f −X−2 ⊲ f +X−1 ⊲ f = e−X−1 ⊲ e+X−2 ⊲ e}
= #{X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|X−2 ⊲ f −X−1 ⊲ f + f = X ⊲ e− e+X−1 ⊲ e}.
Therefore it follows that if G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module with G abelian then:
HG(31) = HG(S). (12)
Figure 41: Adding a trivial 1-handle to a knotted surface. On the top we display the original
movie, and on the bottom the new movie, both read from left to right. A concise description of
this modification is fission saddle, fusion saddle.
We present in the following subsection (see 3.5.1) an alternative proof of this fact, which should
reassure the reader that the calculations in this article are correct, despite this being somehow a
negative example. We will also see below (see 3.5.5) that if we take G to be non-abelian, then we
can prove that the Trefoil Knot is not equivalent to the Shin Satoh’s Knot, by using the crossed
module invariant.
3.5 Welded Virtual Graphs
3.5.1 Crossed module invariants of knotted surfaces obtained by adding trivial 1-
handles
Let Σ ⊂ S4 be a knotted surface which we suppose to be connected. The knotted surface Σ′
obtained from Σ by adding a trivial 1-handle is defined simply as the connected sum Σ′ = Σ#T 2,
where T 2 is a torus S1×S1, trivially embedded in S4. The non-connected case is totally analogous,
but a connected component of Σ must be chosen. A movie of Σ′ is obtained from a movie of Σ
by choosing a strand of the movie of Σ belonging to the chosen component of Σ, and making the
modification shown in figure 41. The straightforward proof of the following theorem is left to the
reader.
Theorem 14 Let G =
−→ G, ⊲
be a finite crossed module. If the oriented knotted surface Σ′
is obtained from the oriented knotted surface Σ by adding a trivial 1-handle then:
(#ker ∂)2
(#E)2
IG(Σ),
thus in particular IG(Σ) = IG(Σ
′) whenever G is automorphic.
The tube T (S) of the Shin Satoh’s Knot S is obtained from the Spun Trefoil (the tube T (3′1) of
the Trefoil Arc 3′1) by adding a trivial 1-handle; see [S] or 3.5.2. This fact together with equation
(10) proves that HG(31) = HG(S), whenever G = (E,G, ⊲) is a finite automorphic crossed module
with G abelian, as already proved by other means; see subsection 3.4. Here 31 is the Trefoil Knot.
3.5.2 Definition of welded virtual graphs
Let K be an oriented virtual graph diagram. Note that K may have some bivalent vertices where
the orientation of an edge of K may change; however, there cannot be a change of orientation of a
strand at a crossing; see figure 42.
Figure 42: A welded virtual graph.
saddle point
Figure 43: The tube of a virtual graph at a 3-valent vertex (movie version). As usual, all circles
are oriented counterclockwise.
Given a virtual graph diagram K, we can define the tube T (K) of it exactly in the same way as
the tube of a virtual link or arc is defined. We consider the type of movie of figure 43 at the 3-valent
vertices. For the broken surface diagram version of this see figure 44. We proceed analogously for
n-valent vertices if n > 3. The 2-valent vertices do not affect the calculation of T (K). On the other
hand 1-valent vertices were already considered in the case of virtual arcs.
It is easy to see that the tube T (K) of a virtual graph is invariant under the moves defining
welded virtual knots and arcs; see subsection 2.1 and 2.2.1. In addition, T (K) is invariant under
the moves shown in figure 45. Note that if a strand in figure 45 is drawn without orientation, then
this means that the corresponding identity is valid for any choice of orientation.
The invariance under the first, second and fifth moves is immediate. The invariance under
the third and forth moves follows from figures 6 and 44, by sliding the cylinder that goes inside
the other cylinder towards the end strand, in the obvious way, as shown in figure 46. It is strictly
necessary that the edges incident to the vertex in cause have compatible orientations in the sense
shown in figure 45. Note that otherwise the crossing informations in the corresponding initial and
final broken surface diagrams in figure 46 would not be compatible.
The invariance of T (K) under the penultimate moves of figure 45 follows from the same argu-
ment that proves invariance under the classical and virtual Reidemeister-I moves.
Definition 15 (Welded Virtual Graph) The moves on oriented virtual graph diagrams of fig-
ure 45, together with the ones defining welded virtual knots and welded virtual arcs define what we
called a “welded virtual graph”.
Note that the moves of figure 47 are not allowed.
If K is a welded virtual graph, then a welded virtual graph K ′ for which the tube T (K ′) of K ′
is obtained from T (K) by adding a trivial 1-handle is obtained from K by choosing a string of K
Figure 44: The tube of a virtual graph at a 3-valent vertex; broken surface diagram version of the
movie of figure 43.
↔ ↔ ↔
Figure 45: Moves defining Welded Virtual Graphs. Notice that the third and forth moves have a
variant for which the direction of each strand is reversed. However, these moves are a consequence
of the remaining.
Figure 46: An identity between broken surface diagrams of knotted surfaces (reverse orientation of
the fourth move of figure 45.)
Figure 47: Fordidden Moves.
K K ′
Figure 48: Adding a trivial 1-handle to a welded virtual graph. On the left we display the original
graph.
Figure 49: Adding a trivial 1-handle to the Hopf Arc yields the Virtual Hopf Link.
(in the correct component) and doing the transition shown in figure 48 (adding a trivial 1-handle
to a welded virtual graph).
For example, consider the Hopf Arc HA defined in Exercise 2. Then adding a trivial 1-handle
to the unclosed component of it yields the Virtual Hopf Link L; see figure 49. Note the usage of
the moves of figure 45.
Let G1 be a welded virtual graph such that, topologically, G1 is the union of circles S
1 and
intervals I = [0, 1]. Suppose that G′1 is obtained from G1 by adding a trivial 1-handle to an I-
component of it. Then we can always use the moves of figure 45 to find a graph G2, equivalent to
G′1 as a welded virtual graph, but so that, topologically, G2 is the union of circles S
1 and intervals
I. This was exemplified above for the case of the Hopf Arc HA, and should be compared with the
method indicated in [S, page 541].
It is a good exercise to verify that adding a trivial 1-handle to the Trefoil Arc yields the Shin
Satoh’s Knot.
3.5.3 The fundamental group of the complement
The (combinatorial) fundamental group of a welded virtual graph complement (the knot group)
is defined in the same way as the knot group of a virtual knot or arc. However, we consider the
relations of figure 50 at the vertices of a graph (the edges incident to a vertex may carry any
orientation). Note that this is in sharp contrast with the classical fundamental group of graph
complements. In fact, we can easily find examples of welded virtual graphs for which the classical
and virtual knot groups are different. The θ-graph which appears in figure 42 is such an example.
It is not difficult to see that the knot group is an invariant of welded virtual graphs. Moreover
the tube map K 7→ T (K) preserves knot groups.
Suppose that the graph K ′ is obtained from K by adding a trivial 1-handle. We can see that the
X X X X
X X X X
. . .
. . .
Figure 50: The relations satisfied by the knot group of a welded virtual graph at a vertex.
(X,e1) (X,e2) (X,en)
(X,f1) (X,f2) (X,fm)
. . .
. . .
e1e2...en=f1f2...fm
Figure 51: Reduced G-colourings of a welded virtual graph diagram at a vertex.
knot groups of K and K ′ are isomorphic, thus also that the fundamental groups of the complements
of the tubes T (K) and T (K ′) in S4 are isomorphic. This can easily be proved directly.
Given an arc A embedded in the upper semiplane {z ≥ 0} of R3, intersecting the plane {z = 0}
at the end points of A, only, there exist two knotted tori naturally associated to A. The first
one is obtained from the tube T (A) of A by adding a trivial 1-handle, and a virtual knot c1(A)
representing it can be easily determined from A using the method indicated in [S] and 3.5.2. In
the second one, one simply closes A in the obvious way, obtaining c2(A), before taking the tube
of it. If A is a classical arc, with only one component, then we have that the fundamental groups
of the complements of the knotted surfaces T (A), T (c1(A)) and T (c2(A)) are all isomorphic. This
also happens if we allow A to have more than one component, as long as all the other components
are diffeomorphic to S1. However, it is necessary that A be classical.
The pairs of welded virtual knots (c1(A), c2(A)), one for each classical 1-component arc A,
provide a family of welded virtual knots with the same knot group. For example if 3′1 is the Trefoil
Arc, then c2(3
1) is the Trefoil Knot 31, whereas c1(3
1) is the Shin Satoh Knot. These two can be
proven to be non-equivalent by using the crossed module invariant; see 3.5.5. See also subsections
3.6 to 3.10 for other analogous examples.
Problem 3 Under which circunstancies are the welded virtual knots c1(A) and c2(A) equivalent?
What to say about their tubes in S4.
3.5.4 Crossed module invariants of welded virtual graphs
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic finite crossed module. The invariant HG of welded virtual
knots, or arcs, extends in a natural way to an invariant of welded virtual graphs K, by considering:
HG(K)
= IG(T (K)),
where IG is the 4-dimensional invariant defined in subsection 2.3. As before, HG(K) can be calcu-
lated directly from a diagram of K.
Definition 16 Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Let K be an oriented
welded virtual graph diagram chosen so that the projection on the second variable is a Morse function
in K. A reduced G-colouring of K is given by an assignment of a pair (X, e) ∈ G × E to each arc
of G minus its set of critical points, crossings and vertices, satisfying the conditions already shown
for virtual knot and arc diagrams, and the relation displayed in figure 51.
We have:
Theorem 17 Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Let also K be an oriented
Figure 52: One type of Yetter’s moves capturing planar isotopy of graph diagrams.
welded virtual graph diagram. The quantity:
HG(K) = #{reduced G colourings of K}#E
#{caps}#E−#{cups}
#E#{pointing upward 1-valent vertices of K}
n-valent vertices v of K
#E1−#{edges of K incident to v from above} (13)
coincides with IG(T (K)), and therefore defines an invariant of welded virtual graphs.
Exercise 4 Check directly that HG is a topological invariant of welded virtual graphs. Together
with the moves of figure 45, as well as the moves defining welded virtual knots and arcs, one still
needs to check invariance under planar isotopy. Planar isotopies of graph diagrams are captured by
Yetter’s moves shown in figure 28, as well as figure 52; see [Y1] and [FY].
Exercise 5 Check directly that HG is invariant under addition of trivial 1-handles, as shown in
figure 48; cf. Theorem 3.5.1.
3.5.5 The Trefoil Knot is not equivalent to the Shin-Satoh’s Knot
We now use the extension of the Crossed Module Invariant to welded virtual graphs to prove that
the Shin Satoh’s Knot S is not equivalent to the Trefoil Knot 31. Let 3
1 be the Trefoil Arc. Recall
that S is obtained from 3′1 by adding a trivial 1-handle, in other words S = c1(3
1); see 3.5.3.
Therefore, whenever G = (E,G, ⊲) is a finite automorphic crossed module we have:
1) = HG(S).
In particular, from equation (8):
HG(S) = HG(3
1) = #E#
X,Y ∈G;e∈E
XY X=Y XY
−XY ⊲e+Y ⊲e=e
, (14)
note that we switched to additive notation. Also, from equation (6):
HG(31) = #
X,Y ∈G;e,f∈E
XY X=Y XY
Y XY ⊲f−XY ⊲(e+f)+Y ⊲(e+f)=e
. (15)
A natural example of a finite automorphic crossed module G = (E,G, ⊲) with G non abelian is
constructed by taking G = GLn(Zp) and E = (Zp)
n. Here GLn(Zp) denotes the group of n × n
matrices in Zp with invertible determinant, where p is a positive integer. The action of GLn(Zp)
in (Zp)
n is taken to be the obvious one. Denote these crossed modules by G(n, p).
Computations with Mathematica prove that HG(n,p)(31) 6= HG(n,p)(S) for example for p =
3, 4, 5, 7 and n = 2; see the following table. This proves that the crossed module invariant dis-
tinguishes the Trefoil Knot from the Shin Satoh’s Knot, even though they have the same knot
group.
Table 1:
knot HG2,2 HG2,3 HG2,4 HG2,5 HG2,7
31 96 4320 24576 132000 2272032
S 96 4752 27648 168000 2765952
(X,e−1)
(X,e) (Y,f)
(Y,f−1)
(X−1Y X,X−1⊲f)
(X,X−1⊲f−1ef)
(X−1Y XY −1X,X−1Y ⊲f−1X−1Y X⊲(ef))
(X−1Y X,X−1Y ⊲fX−1Y X⊲(ef)−1ef)
(X−1Y XY −1XY X−1Y −1X,X−1Y XY −1X⊲e−1)
(X−1Y XY −1X,X−1Y ⊲f−1X−1Y X⊲(ef)e−1X−1Y XY −1X⊲e)
(X−1Y XY −1XY X−1Y −1X,X−1Y XY −1X⊲e−1X−1Y ⊲fX−1Y X⊲(ef)−1efY X−1Y ⊲f−1Y X−1Y X⊲(ef)Y ⊲(ef)−1)
(Y X−1Y XY−1,Y X−1Y ⊲fY X−1Y X⊲(ef)−1Y ⊲(ef))
Figure 53: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the Figure of Eight Knot 41.
3.6 Figure of Eight Knot
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be a finite automorphic crossed module. Let us calculate the crossed module
invariant HG(41) of the Figure of Eight Knot 41. This calculation appears in Figure 53. This
permits us to conclude that, if G = (E,G, ⊲) is an automorphic crossed module, then:
HG(41) = #
X,Y ∈G;e,f∈E
X−1Y XY −1XY X−1Y −1X=Y
X−1Y XY −1X⊲e−1X−1Y ⊲fX−1Y X⊲(ef)−1efY X−1Y ⊲f−1Y X−1Y X⊲(ef)Y ⊲(ef)−1=f
X−1Y XY −1X=Y X−1Y XY −1
X−1Y ⊲f−1X−1Y X⊲(ef)e−1X−1Y XY −1X⊲e=Y X−1Y ⊲f−1Y X−1Y X⊲(ef)Y ⊲(ef)−1
Note that the first pair of equations which appear in the previous formula is equivalent to the
second one. In the case when G is abelian, the previous formula simplifies to (passing to additive
notation):
HG(41) = #
X ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|(X2 − 3X + 1) ⊲ e = (−X2 + 3X − 1) ⊲ f
= #E#
X ∈ G; e ∈ E|(X2 − 3X + 1) ⊲ e = 0
as it should, since the Alexander polynomial of the Figure of Eight Knot is ∆(41) = X
2 − 3X + 1;
see 3.3.2.
The value of the crossed module invariant for the Figure of Eight Arc 4′1 (figure 54), for G not
necessarily abelian, can be obtained from equation (16) by making f = 1, and inserting the relevant
normalisation factors. This yields:
1) = #E#
X,Y ∈G;e∈E
X−1Y XY −1XY X−1Y −1X=Y
X−1Y XY −1X⊲e−1X−1Y X⊲e−1eY X−1Y X⊲eY ⊲e−1=1
Figure 54: The Figure of Eight Arc 4′1 and the welded virtual knot c1(4
1) obtained from it by
adding a trivial 1-handle
Consider the welded virtual knot c1(4
1) obtained from the Figure of Eight Arc 4
1 by adding a
trivial 1-handle to it; see 3.5.2. This welded virtual knot appears in figure 54. By using Theorem
14, it thus follows that for any finite automorphic crossed module G we have HG(c1(4
1)) = HG(4
see also 3.5.4. Recall that by the discussion in 3.5.3, the knot groups of the welded virtual knots
41 = c2(4
1) and c1(4
1) are isomorphic.
Consider the crossed modules G(n,p), where p and n are positive integers, obtained from GLn(Zp)
acting on (Zp)
n, defined in 3.5.5. Computations with Mathematica prove that HG(n,p)(c1(4
1)) 6=
HG(n,p)(41) for p = 3 or p = 7; see the following table. This proves that the welded virtual knots
41 = c2(4
1) and c1(4
1) are not equivalent, even though they have the same knot groups.
Table 2:
knot HG2,2 HG2,3 HG2,4 HG2,5 HG2,7
41 48 3024 15360 228000 1876896
1) 48 3456 15360 228000 2272032
3.7 The Solomon Seal Knot
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic finite crossed module. The crossed module invariant of the
(5, 2)-torus knot 51 (the Solomon Seal Knot) is calculated in figure 55. This permits us to conclude
that:
HG(51) = #
X,Y ∈G;e,f∈E
XY XY X=Y XYXY
Y XYXY ⊲fXY XY ⊲(ef)−1Y XY ⊲(ef)XY ⊲(ef)−1Y ⊲(ef)=e
Note that if the crossed module G = (E,G, ⊲) is such that G is abelian, then the previous expression
simplifies to:
HG(51) = #E#
X ∈ G; e ∈ E
∣X4 ⊲ e−X3 ⊲ e+X2 ⊲ e−X ⊲ e+ e = 0
as it should, since the Alexander polynomial of the knot 51 is ∆(51) = X
4 −X3 +X2 −X + 1.
The crossed module invariant of the Solomon Seal Arc 5′1, and the welded virtual knot c1(5
obtained from it by adding a trivial 1 handle, each presented in figure 56, can be obtained from
this calculation by making f = 1, and inserting the remaining normalisation factors. Therefore it
follows that:
1) = #E#
X,Y ∈G;e∈E
XY XYX=Y XY XY
XY XY ⊲e−1Y XY ⊲eXY ⊲e−1Y ⊲e=e
Computations with Mathematica show that HG(n,p)(c1(5
1)) 6= HG(n,p)(51) for n = 2 and p = 5;
see the following table. Therefore the pair (51, c1(51)) is a pair of welded virtual knots with the
same knot group, but distinguished by their crossed module invariant.
(X,e) (Y,f)
(XY X−1,X⊲f)
(X,X⊲f−1ef)
(XY XY −1X−1,XY ⊲f−1XY X−1⊲(ef))
(XY X−1,XY ⊲fXY X−1⊲(ef)−1ef)
(XY XY X−1Y −1X−1,XY X⊲fXY ⊲(ef)−1XY XY −1X−1⊲(ef))
(XY XY −1X−1,XY X⊲f−1XY ⊲(ef)XY XY −1X−1⊲(ef)−1ef)
(XY XY XY −1X−1Y −1X−1,XY XY ⊲f−1XY XY X−1⊲(ef)XY ⊲(ef)−1XY XY X−1Y −1X−1⊲(ef))
(XY XY X−1Y −1X−1,XY XY ⊲fXY XY X−1⊲(ef)−1XY ⊲(ef)XY XY X−1Y −1X−1⊲(ef)−1ef)
(Y XY XY XY −1X−1Y −1X−1Y −1,Y XY XY ⊲fXY XY ⊲(ef)−1Y XY ⊲(ef)XY ⊲(ef)−1Y ⊲(ef))
(XY XY XY −1X−1Y −1X−1,Y XY XY ⊲f−1XY XY ⊲(ef)Y XY ⊲(ef)−1XY ⊲(ef)Y ⊲(ef)−1ef)
Figure 55: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the torus knot 51. In the top two
colourings, we are using the fact that XYXYX = Y XY XY .
Figure 56: The Solomon Seal arc 5′1 and the welded virtual knot c1(5
1) obtained by adding a trivial
1 handle to it.
Table 3:
knot HG2,2 HG2,3 HG2,4 HG2,5 HG2,7
51 24 432 1536 168000 98784
1) 24 432 1536 204000 98784
Figure 57: The 2-bridge knot 52 and the 2-bridge arc 5
3.8 The 2-bridge knot 52 (Stevedore)
We now consider the 2-bridge knot 52 and the 2-bridge arc 5
2, depicted in figure 57. Let us calculate
their crossed module invariant. Suppose that G = (E,G, ⊲) is a finite automorphic crossed module.
The calculation of HG(52) appears in figure 58. From this it follows that:
HG(52) = #
X,Y ∈G;e,f,g∈E
Y X−1Y XY −1XY −1=X−1Y X−1Y XY −1X
Y X−1Y X−1⊲e−1Y X−1Y ⊲(ef)Y X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲(ef)−1Y ⊲(ef)=g−1
Z=Y X−1Y XY −1XY −1
X−1Y X−1⊲eX−1Y ⊲(ef)−1X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲(ef)=gfZ−1⊲f−1
Y=Z−1XZ
Z−1⊲f=e−1gY −1⊲g−1
. (17)
Note that the last two equations in the previous formula follow from the remaining. When G is
abelian, the previous expression reduces to:
HG(52) = #E#{X ∈ G; e ∈ E|2X
2 ⊲ e− 3e+ 2X−1 ⊲ e = 0},
as it should since the Alexander polynomial of the 52 knot is ∆(52) = 2X
2−3+2X−2. The formula
for the crossed module invariant of the arc 5′2 is:
HG(52) = #E#
X,Y ∈G;e,g∈E
Y X−1Y XY −1XY −1=X−1Y X−1Y XY −1X
YX−1Y X−1⊲e−1Y X−1Y ⊲eY X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲e−1Y ⊲e=g−1
Z=Y X−1Y XY −1XY −1
X−1Y X−1⊲eX−1Y ⊲e−1X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲e=g
. (18)
Below there is a table comparing the value of HG(n,p)(52) and HG(n,p)(c1(5
2)), for n = 2 and
p = 2, 3, 4, 5, 7. Here as usual, c1(5
2) is obtained from the welded virtual arc 5
1 by adding a trivial
1-handle to it. In particular it follows that the welded virtual knots 52 = c2(5
2) and c1(5
2) are not
equivalent, even though they have the same knot groups.
Table 4:
knot HG2,2 HG2,3 HG2,4 HG2,5 HG2,7
52 24 864 1536 72000 987840
2) 24 864 1536 84000 1481760
(X,f)
(Y,e) (Y,e
(X,f−1)
(Z,g) (Z,g
(X−1Y X,X−1⊲e)
(X,X−1⊲e−1ef)
(X−1Y XY −1X,X−1Y ⊲e−1X−1Y X⊲(ef))
(X−1Y X,X−1Y ⊲eX−1Y X⊲(ef)−1ef)
(X−1Y X−1Y XY −1X,X−1Y X−1⊲eX−1Y ⊲(ef)−1X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲(ef))
(X−1Y XY −1X,X−1Y X−1⊲e−1X−1Y ⊲(ef)X−1Y X−1Y −1X⊲(ef)−1ef)
(Y −1ZY,Y −1⊲g)
(Y,e−1gY −1⊲g−1)
(Z−1XZ,Z−1⊲f−1)
(Z,g−1f−1Z−1⊲f)
Figure 58: Calculation of the crossed module invariant of the 2-bridge knot 52.
3.9 The (n, 2)-torus knot
Let n be an odd integer. An analogous calculation as in the case of the Trefoil Knot and the
Solomon Seal Knot proves that the crossed module invariant of the (n, 2)-torus knot Kn has the
following expression (in additive notation):
HG(Kn) = #
X,Y ∈G;e,f∈E
⊲ (e+ f)− f = 0
Here Si = X if i is even and Si = Y if i is odd. On the other hand, the crossed module invariant
of the arc An, obtained from Kn in the obvious way (see subsection 3.7 for the case n = 5) is:
HG(An) = #E#
X,Y ∈G;f∈E
⊲ f − f = 0
In the following table, we compare the value, for each positive odd integer n ≤ 17, of the
crossed module invariants HG(2,3) and HG(2,5) for the pair of welded virtual knots (Kn, c1(An)),
where c1(An) is obtained from An by adding a trivial 1-handle to it. Since the knot groups of
c1(An) and of c2(An) = Kn are isomorphic, this gives some more examples of pairs of 1-component
welded virtual knots with the same knot group, but distinguished by their crossed module invariant.
Table 5:
K3 K5 K7 K9 K11 K13 K15 K17
HG(2,3) 4320 432 432 4320 432 432 4320 432
HG(2,5) 132000 168000 12000 132000 12000 12000 288000 12000
c1(A3) c1(A5) c1(A7) c1(A9) c1(A11) c1(A13) c1(A15) c1(A17)
HG(2,3) 4752 432 432 4752 432 432 4752 432
HG(2,5) 168000 204000 12000 168000 12000 12000 360000 12000
Figure 59: The link P and the associated arc P ′.
3.10 Final examples
Let m be a positive integer. We can define an automorphic crossed module Am = (Zm,Z2, ⊲),
where Z2 = {−1, 1,×}, and the action of Z2 on Zm is 1 ⊲ a = a and (−1) ⊲ a = −a, where a ∈ Zm.
This generalises the crossed module A = A3 defined in subsection 3.1.
Consider the link P , as well as the associated arc P ′, shown in figure 59. Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be
a finite automorphic crossed module with G abelian. An easy calculation shows that:
HG(P ) = #{X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|
− Y −3X−3 ⊲ f + Y −3X−2 ⊲ (e+ f)− Y −2X−2 ⊲ (e+ f) + Y −2X−1 ⊲ (e+ f)
− Y −1X−1 ⊲ (e+ f) + Y −1 ⊲ (e+ f) = e}.
′) = #E#{X,Y ∈ G; e ∈ E|
Y −3X−2 ⊲ e− Y −2X−2 ⊲ e+ Y −2X−1 ⊲ e
− Y −1X−1 ⊲ e+ Y −1 ⊲ e = e}.
In the case of the automorphic crossed modules Am defined above, the previous formulae simplify
to (for each positive integer m):
HAm(P ) = m
2 + 2m#{a ∈ Zm|2a = 0}+m#{a ∈ Zm|6a = 0},
HAm(P
′) = m (m+#{a ∈ Zm|2a = 0}+m+#{a ∈ Zm|6a = 0}) ,
thus HA(P ) = 24 and HA(P
′) = 30. Here as usual A = (Z3,Z2, ⊲).
Let c1(P
′) be the welded virtual link obtained by adding a trivial 1-handle to the unclosed
component of P ′ (see 3.5.3), thus P ′ and c1(P
′) have the same crossed module invariant; see
3.5.4. Hence (P = c2(P
′), c1(P
′)) is a pair of welded virtual links with the same knot group (see
Figure 60: Two virtual links, P = c2(P
′) and c1(P
′), with the same knot group but distinguished
by their crossed module invariant.
3.5.3), but distinguished by their crossed module invariant HG , where G = (E,G, ⊲) is a finite
automorphic crossed module, which can be chosen so that G is abelian. In particular we have
Alex(P ) ∼= Alex(c1(P
′)), but CM(P ) ≇ CM(c1(P
′)); see subsection 3.3.
Exercise 6 Prove directly that P and c1(P
′) have the same knot group and are distinguished by
their crossed module invariant.
Exercise 7 The previous example can be generalised. For each positive odd integer n, let Pn be
the 3-dimensional torus link in S3 with 2n crossings, similar to the link P in figure 59; in other
words, Pn is the (2, 2n)-torus link. Let also P
n be the associated arc, and let c1(P
n) be the welded
virtual link obtained by adding a trivial 1-handle to the unclosed component of P ′n; see figures 59
and 60 for the case n = 6. Prove that for any automorphic crossed module G = (E,G, ⊲), with G
abelian, we have that:
HG(Pn) = #{X,Y ∈ G; e, f ∈ E|
−X−nY −n ⊲ f +
(XY )−k ⊲
Y −1 ⊲ (e+ f)− (e+ f)
+ Y −1 ⊲ (e+ f) = e},
n) = #
X,Y ∈ G; e ∈ E
(XY )−k ⊲
Y −1 ⊲ e− e
+ Y −1 ⊲ e = e
Thus if n is odd then we have:
HAm(Pn) = m
2 + 2m#{a ∈ Zm|2a = 0}+m#{a ∈ Zm|2na = 0},
HAm(P
n) = m
m+#{a ∈ Zm|2a = 0}+m+#{a ∈ Zm|2na = 0}
where as usual Am = (Zm,Z2, ⊲) and m is a positive integer. In particular it follows that
HAn(Pn) = 2n
2 + 2n
HAn(c1(P
n)) = HAn(P
n) = 3n
2 + n.
This provides an infinite sequence (Pn, c1(P
n)), where n is an odd integer, of pairs of 2-
component welded virtual links with the same knot group, but distinguished by their crossed module
invariant. This sequence includes not only the previous example, but also the case of the Hopf Link
and the Virtual Hopf Link in subsection 3.1.
= Q1 = Q2 = Q3
Figure61: ThreeVirtualLinkswiththesameknotgroupbutdistinguishedbytheircrossedmodule
invariant.
Note that, taking tubes, the previous example gives an infinite set of pairs of non-isotopic em-
beddings of a disjoint union of two tori S1 × S1 into S4 with the same fundamental group of the
complement, but distinguished by their Crossed Module Invariant IG of [FM1].
Another interesting example is provided by the virtual links Q1, Q2 and Q3 shown in figure 61.
The knot groups of Q1, Q2 and Q3 are all isomorphic to {X,Y,Z : XY = Y X,ZY = Y Z}.
Let G = (E,G, ⊲) be an automorphic crossed module. A simple calculation shows that:
HG(Q1) = #
X,Y,Z ∈ G; e, f, g ∈ E
−Y −1X−1⊲f+Y −1⊲(e+f)=e
−Z−1Y ⊲g+Z−1⊲(−f+g)=−f
HG(Q2) = #
X,Y,Z ∈ G; e, f, g ∈ E
−Y −1X−1⊲f+Y −1⊲(e+f)=e
Z−1⊲f=f
HG(Q3) = #
X,Y,Z ∈ G; e, f, g ∈ E
Y −1⊲e=e
−Z−1Y ⊲g+Z−1⊲g=0
Therefore the crossed module invariant HA, where as usual A = (Z3,Z2, ⊲), separates these Q1, Q2
and Q3.
Acknowledgements
JFM was financed by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal), post-doctoral grant number
SFRH/BPD/17552/2004, part of the research project POCI/MAT/60352/2004 (“Quantum Topol-
ogy”), also financed by FCT, cofinanced by the European Community fund FEDER. LK thanks
the National Science Foundation for support under NSF Grant DMS-0245588.
References
[BM] Barrett J.W; Mackaay M.: Categorical Representations of Categorical Groups, Theory Appl.
Categ. 16 (2006), No. 20, 529–557 (electronic).
[B] Brown R.: Groupoids and Crossed Objects in Algebraic Topology, Homology Homotopy
Appl. 1 (1999), 1–78 (electronic).
[BZ] Burde G.; Zieschang H.: Knots. Second edition. de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, 5.
Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2003.
[CKS] Carter S.; Kamada S.; Saito M.: Surfaces in 4-Space. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sci-
ences, 142. Low-Dimensional Topology, III. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
[FM1] Faria Martins J.: Categorical Groups, Knots and Knotted Surfaces. J. Knot Theory Rami-
fications 16 (2007), no 9, 1181-1217.
[FM2] Faria Martins J.: The Fundamental Crossed Module of the Complement of a Knotted
Surface. To appear in Transactions of the American Mathematical Society.
[FM3] Faria Martins J.: On the Homotopy Type and the Fundamental Crossed Complex of the
Skeletal Filtration of a CW-Complex, Homology Homotopy Appl, Vol. 9 (2007), No. 1,
pp.295-329.
[FMP] Faria Martins J.; Porter T.: On Yetter’s Invariant and an Extension of Dijkgraaf-Witten
Invariant to Categorical Groups, Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 18, 2007, No.
4, pp 118-150.
[F] Fox R.H.: A Quick Trip through Knot Theory. 1962 Topology of 3-manifolds and related
topics (Proc. The Univ. of Georgia Institute, 1961) pp. 120–167 Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.
[FY] Freyd P.J.; Yetter D.N.: Braided Compact Closed Categories with Applications to Low-
Dimensional Topology. Adv. Math. 77 (1989), no. 2, 156–182.
[Ka] Kamada S.: Braid Presentation of Virtual Knots and Welded Knots. Osaka J. Math. Volume
44, Number 2 (2007), 441-458.
[K1] Kauffman L.H.: Virtual Knot Theory. European J. Combin. 20 (1999), no. 7, 663–690.
[K2] Kauffman L.H.: On Knots. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 115. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 1987.
[KL] Kauffman L.H.; Lambropoulou S.: The L-Move and Virtual Braids. J. Knot Theory Rami-
fications 15 (2006), no. 6, 773–811.
[P1] Porter T.: Interpretations of Yetter’s Notion of G-Coloring: Simplicial Fibre Bundles and
Non-Abelian Cohomology, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 5 (1996), no. 5, 687–720.
[P2] Porter T.: Topological Quantum Field Theories from Homotopy n-Types, J. London Math.
Soc. (2) 58 (1998), no. 3, 723–732.
[PS] Plotnick S.P.; Suciu A. I.: k-Invariants of Knotted 2-Spheres, Comment. Math. Helv. 60
(1985), no. 1, 54–84.
[RT] Reshetikhin N.Yu.; Turaev V.G.: Ribbon Graphs and their Invariants Derived from Quan-
tum Groups. Comm. Math. Phys. 127 (1990), no. 1, 1–26.
[R] Roseman D.: Woven Knots are Spun Knots, Osaka J. Math., 11 (1974), 307–312.
[S] Satoh S.: Virtual Knot Presentation of Ribbon Torus-Knots. J. Knot Theory Ramifications
9 (2000), no. 4, 531–542.
[Ya] Yajima T.: On the Fundamental Groups of Knotted 2-Manifolds in 4-Space. J. Math., Osaka
City Univ., 13 (1962) 63–71.
[Y1] Yetter D.N.: Category Theoretic Representations of Knotted Graphs in S3. Adv. Math. 77
(1989), no. 2, 137–155.
[Y2] Yetter D.N.: TQFT’s from Homotopy 2-Types. J. Knot Theory Ramifications 2 (1993), no.
1, 113–123.
	Introduction
	An Invariant of Welded Virtual Knots
	Welded virtual knots
	The fundamental group of the complement
	Virtual knot presentations of knotted surfaces
	Welded virtual arcs
	Crossed module invariants of knotted surfaces
	The case of ribbon knotted torus
	The case of welded virtual arcs
	Examples
	Virtual and Classical Hopf Link
	Virtual Hopf Link
	The Hopf Link
	Trefoil Knot and Trefoil Arc
	Universal module constructions
	The definition of the module CM(K)
	Relation with the Alexander Module
	Welded virtual arcs
	Shin Satoh's Knot
	Welded Virtual Graphs
	Crossed module invariants of knotted surfaces obtained by adding trivial 1-handles
	Definition of welded virtual graphs
	The fundamental group of the complement
	Crossed module invariants of welded virtual graphs
	The Trefoil Knot is not equivalent to the Shin-Satoh's Knot
	Figure of Eight Knot
	The Solomon Seal Knot
	The 2-bridge knot 52 (Stevedore)
	The (n,2)-torus knot
	Final examples
