How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
A metabolizer forces Levine–Tristram signatures to vanish
Statement
Assume full AC. Let be a smooth oriented knot, let be a connected compact smooth oriented Seifert surface of genus , and let be the positive-push Seifert matrix in an ordered integral basis. Suppose the integral Seifert lattice has a rank- direct summand on which vanishes identically. For every with , the Levine–Tristram signature is zero. The assertion concerns only points away from Alexander roots; no value at a root is asserted here.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Full AC, a knot Seifert matrix of size , a rank- direct-summand metabolizer , and with .
Full AC is the choice axiom stated by the knot Seifert-pairing convention; the finite-dimensional Hermitian argument below is choice-free. The Axiom of Choice
In an ordered integral basis, . Seifert pairing and matrix of an oriented knot
A metabolizer is a rank- direct summand with for every . Metabolic Seifert forms and algebraic knot concordance
The determinant differs from by a Laurent unit. The Seifert determinant is the knot Alexander polynomial
The matrix is Hermitian, and its signature is the value . Levine–Tristram Hermitian form and signature
The nonroot Levine–Tristram signature is independent of the chosen surface and basis. Seifert stabilization preserves the Levine–Tristram signature
Proof
If , the Hermitian matrix is empty and has signature by [F4]. Suppose . Choose an integral basis of and extend it by a basis of a complementary summand of . In this basis, and , where , , and the upper-left block is zero because vanishes on .
Write . Transposition and factoring from the rows give . By [F3], since and the Laurent unit is nonzero at ; the reciprocal identity gives . Since and , the Hermitian matrix is nonsingular.
If , then . Nonsingularity from step 2.1 forces ; because is a square matrix, it is invertible.
For the Hermitian form with matrix in step 1.1, make the invertible coordinate change . This cancels the lower-right term and leaves . The further change reduces it to the form with matrix . Its -dimensional subspaces and have eigenvalues and , respectively, so its signature is zero. Invertible congruence preserves positive and negative indices, and [F4] identifies this matrix signature with the signature of the chosen matrix; [F5] identifies it with .
Depends on
Used by
- The trefoil fails both algebraic sliceness tests Counterexample
Dependency tree · two levels
32 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Charles Livingston, A Survey of Classical Knot Concordance (standard reference, not scraped)
- Anthony Conway, The Levine–Tristram Signature: A Survey (standard reference, not scraped)