Framed Blob Monoids

Diego Lobos; Jes\'us Juyumaya

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Framed Blob Monoids

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The framed blob monoid $Bl_{d,n}$ is isomorphic to the abacus blob monoid $Bl_{d,n}$, so every element has a normal form indexed by a matrix and bead exponents, and the monoid cardinality is $d^n$ times a weighted sum of blob-rank counts.

desk verdict Genuinely new counting results for framed blob monoids, but Theorem 4.8 is false for n=1 as stated; repairable by restricting to n≥2. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14125 v1 pith:643PNJFJ submitted 2025-01-23 math.CO math.GR

Jesús Juyumaya , Diego Lobos This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.COmath.GR MSC 20M0520M2005B1005A1903E05

keywords blobmonoidframedabacusindexingmatricesnormalformcardinalityTemperley-Liebdiagramsframization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies the blob monoid, a diagram monoid built from Temperley-Lieb diagrams whose left-exposed arcs may carry a distinguished mark, and two ways of framing it by attaching beads drawn from $\mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$ to its arcs. The central claim is that the framed blob monoid $Bl_{d,n}$, defined by generators and relations, is isomorphic to the abacus blob monoid $Bl_{d,n}$, defined directly by beaded diagrams. From this isomorphism the paper obtains a normal form for every element and an exact count: $|Bl_{d,n}| = d^n \sum_{k=0}^n \Omega^{(n)}_k d^k$, with a second formula expressing the same number in terms of $\chi^{(n)}_k$, the number of Temperley-Lieb diagrams with $k$ arcs exposed on the left. A third construction, the connected framed blob monoid, is also counted and is shown to be a different monoid once $d$ and $n$ are at least 2. The interest is that framing by beads does not destroy the combinatorial control that indexing matrices give over the unframed monoid.

What carries the argument

The central object is the indexing matrix $A$, a 2-row matrix with strictly increasing top row, nondecreasing bottom row, each bottom entry no larger than the top entry above it, and repeated bottom entries only allowed when they are zero; it encodes a normal form $U(A)$ of an element of the blob monoid. Around this skeleton, the matrices $L(A)$ and $R(A)$ record, column by column, what happens when the framing generator $z_j$ crosses $U(A)$ from the left or right: the crossing either commutes, shifts the bead index by 2, identifies $z_j$ with a neighbouring $z_i$, or moves the generator to the other side. The sets $\mathrm{Exp}_L(A)$ and $\mathrm{Exp}_R(A)$ then restrict the allowed bead exponents, so the normal form is finite and the cardinality is a product of powers of $d$. The numbers $\Omega^{(n)}_k$ and $\chi^{(n)}_k$ count the two ingredients of the final formulas, indexing matrices of blob-rank $k$ and Temperley-Lieb diagrams with $k$ exposed left arcs, and they are related by identities such as $\Omega^{(n)}_r=\chi^{(n+r+1)}_{2r+1}$.

What would settle it

For $d=2$ and $n=2$, the formula gives $|Bl_{2,2}|=4(2+3\cdot 2+4)=48$ and the connected framed monoid gives $8(2+3/2+1/4)=30$; enumerating all words in the two presentations up to the stated relations should reproduce these numbers. If two distinct indexing matrices $A,A'$ yield equal elements $U(A)=U(A')$ in $Bl_{d,n}$, or if the enumerated count differs from $d^n\sum_{k=0}^n\Omega^{(n)}_k d^k$, the normal form and cardinality theorem collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that attaching a cyclically ordered bead count to each arc of a blob diagram gives a monoid that is still completely controlled by the same finite skeleton: every element of $Bl_{d,n}$ has a unique expression as $\langle\alpha,A\rangle U(A)\langle A,\beta\rangle$, where $A$ is an indexing matrix encoding the underlying blob-diagram word, and $\alpha,\beta$ are bead-exponent vectors supported only on the positions singled out by the matrices $L(A)$ and $R(A)$. The proof that the presented monoid $Bl_{d,n}$ matches the diagrammatic monoid $Bl_{d,n}$ runs through Theorem 4.8, which uses these normal forms to bound the size of $Bl_{d,n}$ by the size of $Bl_{d,n}$. The same counting machinery yields the explicit cardinality formulas and, for the connected framing in which a new generator commutes with the blob generator, a normal form with a different bead-support rule and a different cardinality; equating the two counts shows the connected monoid is not isomorphic to the first for $d\ge 2$ and $n\ge 2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Proposition 4.6, the unproved statement that left or right multiplication by a framing generator on a normal-form element falls into the same four exclusive patterns as in the abacus diagram monoid, is exactly true, and the definitional equality rule for abacus diagrams (same base diagram plus equal bead counts modulo $d$) is compatible with the product.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every element of the framed blob monoid has a unique normal form indexed by a finite matrix and two bead-exponent vectors, giving a direct solution to the word problem for $Bl_{d,n}$.
The two counting formulas force the polynomial identity $\sum_{k=0}^n \Omega^{(n)}_k d^k = \sum_{k=1}^n \chi^{(n)}_k(1+d)^k$ for every $d$, a Catalan-type combinatorial identity.
For $d\ge 2$ and $n\ge 2$, the connected framed blob monoid has a different cardinality from $Bl_{d,n}$, so the two framizations are genuinely different monoids.
The isomorphism between $Bl_{d,n}$ and $Bl_{d,n}$ identifies words in the presented monoid with beaded diagrams, so diagrammatic and algebraic arguments can be used interchangeably on the same object.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The normal form suggests a natural grading on the monoid algebra by total bead count: since the cardinality is a polynomial in $d$ with nonnegative coefficients, one could ask whether it is the Hilbert series of a filtered algebra, a question the paper does not pursue.
The identity $\Omega^{(n)}_r=\chi^{(n+r+1)}_{2r+1}$ is established through Pascal triangles, so a direct bijection between indexing matrices of blob-rank $r$ and Temperley-Lieb diagrams with $2r+1$ exposed arcs is a natural open combinatorial problem.
The same bead-and-normal-form method should transfer to framizations of other diagram monoids with indexing-matrix normal forms, such as planar or Motzkin variants, with analogous cardinality polynomials.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: there is a real result here, and the abacus strategy is sound for n≥2. But the central isomorphism theorem is stated for all positive n, and for n=1 it is false. The presented framed blob monoid Bld,1 is the free product of {1,u0} and C_d, hence infinite for d≥2, while the abacus model has d+d^2 elements. The gap sits in Proposition 4.6, whose proof is only 'analogous' to Proposition 3.9; the case A=[0;0] is not covered there. This is repairable by assuming n≥2 and treating n=1 separately, but as written Corollary 4.7 and Theorem 4.8 need qualification. This is not a manufactured nit: the paper explicitly says d and n are positive integers with no n≥2 restriction.

What is genuinely good: the blob monoid and its framized versions have not been studied systematically before; the abacus model is independently defined and then counted; and the normal form via indexing matrices is a natural extension of the Aicardi–Juyumaya framization recipe. The cardinality formulas d^n sum Omega(n,k)d^k and d^n sum chi(n,k)(1+d)^k are new, and for n≥2 the counting argument is coherent and non-circular. The heavy self-citation in the framization program is contextual rather than load-bearing.

Softer spots: several results are deferred with 'analogous' proofs — Proposition 4.6, Proposition 6.9, Lemma 6.16. That would be acceptable if the analogy were exact, but Proposition 4.6 is precisely where the edge case slips through, so the reader cannot take the analogy on faith. Example 5.14 says chi(9,4)=512; the correct value is 572, obtained by summing Catalan products over Q(9,4). That is a minor arithmetic slip and does not affect Theorem 5.9, but it should be fixed. The paper also does not discuss the n=1 case for the abacus normal form, and a sentence clarifying the intended domain would help.

Bottom line: for n≥2 the central claims look right, and the paper is useful to people working on framizations of knot monoids and on blob algebra combinatorics. As written, the isomorphism theorem is false for n=1, so the paper needs serious revision rather than acceptance. I would still send it to a referee: the core is worth referee time.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the framed blob monoid Bl_{d,n} by generators and relations, and the abacus blob monoid Bl_{d,n} as a diagram monoid obtained by adding beads to Martin-Saleur blob diagrams. The central claims are that these two monoids are isomorphic (Theorem 4.8), that every element has a normal form encoded by an indexing matrix together with left and right exponent vectors, and that the common cardinality is d^n * sum_{k=0}^n Omega(n,k) d^k (Theorem 3.22), equivalently d^n * sum_{k=1}^n chi(n,k)(1+d)^k (Theorem 5.9). A second framization, the connected framed blob monoid Bl^c_{d,n}, is introduced via hook diagrams, and its cardinality is computed in Theorems 6.17 and 6.18, yielding a non-isomorphism result between the two framizations for d >= 2. The paper also develops recurrences and Pascal-triangle identities for the combinatorial numbers Omega(n,k) and chi(n,k).

Significance. The abacus model is a genuinely independent diagrammatic construction, and the cardinality formulas are parameter-free and structurally coherent: the formula d^n * sum Omega(n,k) d^k is obtained by counting normal forms, and the alternative formula in terms of exposed arcs checks out for small n. The paper also supplies explicit normal forms and combinatorial recurrences, which are useful for the framization program and for comparing framizations. At the same time, several load-bearing proofs are deferred as 'analogous', and one boundary case, n=1, makes the main isomorphism false as stated. The useful part of the contribution is therefore conditional on completing the missing proofs and restricting the main theorem appropriately.

major comments (4)

[§4, Def. 4.1 and Thm 4.8] As stated, Theorem 4.8 is false for n=1, which is included in the standing assumption that d and n are positive integers (Section 2.1). For n=1, Definition 4.1 gives generators u0 and z1 with only u0^2 = u0 and z1^d = 1; relations (4.2)-(4.4) are vacuous or do not connect z1 with u0. Hence Bl_{d,1} is the free product of the two-element monoid {1,u0} and the cyclic group C_d, which is infinite for d >= 2, whereas the abacus blob monoid Bl_{d,1} has d + d^2 elements: one vertical arc without a blob carries d bead counts, and one with a blob splits into two components carrying d^2 bead counts. The epimorphism Phi : Bl_{d,1} -> Bl_{d,1} therefore cannot be injective. The theorem and the cardinality consequences need a restriction to n >= 2 plus a separate treatment of n=1.
[§4, Prop. 4.6 and Cor. 4.7] The proof of Proposition 4.6 is omitted ('Analogous to the proof of Proposition 3.9'), but this is not a routine transcription: in the framed monoid the single-column commutations of Lemmas 4.4 and 4.5 do not cover the product z1 u0 corresponding to A = [0;0]. Proposition 4.6(i)(a) handles that case by keeping z1 on the left, and it is not shown that this exceptional case is compatible with the induction steps that prove the other cases in Proposition 3.9. Since Corollary 4.7 and the upper bound |Bl_{d,n}| <= |Bl_{d,n}| in Theorem 4.8 rest on the exhaustiveness of the six cases, a complete proof of Proposition 4.6 is load-bearing; the current 'completely analogous' references do not establish it.
[§6, Lemma 6.16, Thms 6.17-6.18, Cor. 6.19] Lemma 6.16 is stated without proof and the reference 'Cf. Proposition 3.19' is not a proof; the connected formula |L'_0(A)| + |R'_0(A)| = n - r + 1 differs from the abacus identity n + r in the sign of r, so the analogy is only qualitative. Theorem 6.17, Theorem 6.18, the isomorphism of Corollary 6.19, and the non-isomorphism conclusion of Remark 6.20 all depend on this lemma. The omitted proof must account for the new generator z0 and for the fact that in the hook model blobbed arcs do not split into two bead-carrying components, which changes the counting; the present text asserts rather than proves this.
[§3, Def. 3.1] The equality rule for d-abacus blob diagrams is introduced as a declaration ('we declare that two abacus blob diagrams are equal...'), but the paper never proves that this relation is a congruence for the concatenation product. All subsequent normal-form and cardinality statements are statements about equivalence classes under this rule, so a well-definedness check is necessary. In particular, if bead counts on corresponding components are equal modulo d before concatenation, one must show they remain so after deleting loops and sliding beads; this is plausible but not automatic, and it is not included in the text.

minor comments (5)

[Theorems 5.9 and 6.18] The word 'cardilnality' should be 'cardinality' in both statements.
[Proof of Cor. 3.14] The text contains 'Proposition ,3.9' with a spurious comma before the number.
[Prop. 4.6(i)(a)] The displayed expression 'z1U[0 0]U[...]' lacks a matrix separator and is difficult to parse; it should be typeset as z1 U([0;0]) U(...) or with an explicit horizontal concatenation.
[Just before Lemma 3.17] The notation L(A) and R(A) is overloaded: Definition 3.10 uses these names for certain 3 x n matrices, while immediately before Lemma 3.17 they are redefined as sets of pairs. This makes Section 3 unnecessarily confusing.
[Definition 3.2] The local relations are displayed as '= k =' rather than as explicit equations; a redrawn figure or explicit equations would make the definition readable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the cardinality is derived from an independent diagram count, not from the statement being proved.

full rationale

The central derivation computes |Bld,n| by first counting the abacus diagram monoid Bld,n directly (Theorem 3.22) and then proving an isomorphism Φ: Bld,n → Bld,n (Theorem 4.8). The count of Bld,n is self-contained: it uses the diagram equality rule (Definition 3.1) and the normal form Corollary 3.14, proved from Lemmas 3.7/3.8 and Proposition 3.9, all internal to the diagram monoid. The framed monoid's cardinality is not an input; the isomorphism proof bounds |Bld,n| from above via Corollary 4.7, which is asserted as 'completely analogous' to the abacus normal form, with Proposition 4.6 left unproved ('Analogous to the proof of Proposition 3.9'). That is an incompleteness and a potential correctness gap—indeed for n=1 the presented monoid appears infinite while the abacus monoid is finite, suggesting Theorem 4.8 as stated is false. However, an unproved analogy is not circular: no equation in the derivation is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to the authors' framization program (e.g., [3]) are contextual and not load-bearing for the cardinality computation. The two counting formulas (Theorems 3.22 and 5.9) are independent derivations from the same diagram set and are equated in Corollary 5.11 as a combinatorial identity, not as a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No fitted free parameters appear; the formulas are exact counts. The axioms are the usual diagrammatic and standard combinatorial facts. The new algebraic structures are the paper's subject matter rather than ad hoc explanatory entities.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Two abacus blob diagrams are equal iff their base diagrams are equal and the number of beads on each component is congruent modulo d (Definition 3.1).
This equality rule is a modeling choice that defines the abacus monoid; it is not derived from the generators.
standard math Every element of the blob monoid admits the normal form Ui1,j1...Uip,jp (Proposition 2.3), with proof 'analogous' to [12, Lemma 4.1.2].
The normal form is imported from prior literature on Temperley-Lieb and Jones monoids rather than proved internally.
domain assumption The concatenation product of blobbed TL-diagrams with loop erasure and blob merging is associative and defines a monoid (Section 2.4).
Standard diagrammatic algebra argument; the paper does not prove associativity explicitly.
standard math The number of indexing matrices is binom(2n,n) and the number of positive indexing matrices is the Catalan number Cn (Remark 2.5).
Elementary counting of the matrix conditions, stated without proof.

invented entities (3)

Blob monoid Bln
purpose: Monoidal specialization of the blob algebra; the subject of the paper.
Introduced in Definition 2.1 by generators and relations; it is a new algebraic object, not an empirical entity.
Abacus blob monoid Bld,n
purpose: Diagrammatic model with beads used to compute cardinality and normal forms.
Defined in Definition 3.2 as a diagram monoid; serves as the counting model.
Connected framed blob monoid Bl^c_{d,n}
purpose: Second framization of the blob monoid with a commuting framing generator z0.
Defined in Definition 6.1; shown non-isomorphic to Bld,n by cardinality.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Framed Blob Monoids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/643PNJFJ

@misc{pith2026250114125,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Framed Blob Monoids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/643PNJFJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14125}
}

read the original abstract

We introduce and study blob and framed blob monoids. In particular, several realizations of these monoids are given. We compute the cardinality of the framed blob monoid and derive some combinatorial formulas involving this cardinality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14125 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** On the left is U i 0 and on the right is U i j with 0 6= j < i. Example 2.8. For n = 6 and A = 3 4 5 0 0 3 , we have U(A) = U 3 0 U 4 0 U 5 3 . Then: U(A) = = Example 2.9. For the diagrams of (2.6), we have D = U 1 2 5 6 0 0 2 5 , D′ = U 0 1 3 5 6 0 0 0 4 6 and DD′ = U 1 2 5 6 0 0 4 6 . Remark 2.10. Note that the number of blobbed arcs in the element U(A) corresponds to the blob-rank … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The product αβ. Recall that the Jones monoid can be realized as the submonoid of Cn formed by the planar partitions having only blocks of cardinality 2. The elementary tangle Ui , where i ∈ [1, n − 1], is the partition with blocks: {i, i + 1, i′ ,(i + 1)′} and {k, k′} for k 6= i. Cf. [17, Section 2]. Ui = · · · · · · 1 ′ n ′ i ′ 1 i n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The elementary tangle Ui . 2.5.2. Motzkin blob monoid. Define U0 as the partition of Cn formed by the blocks {1}, {1 ′}, and {i, i′} with i 6= 1. U0 = · · · 1 ′ 2 ′ 3 ′ n ′ 1 2 3 n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The diagram for U0. The Motzkin blob monoid, denoted M (1) n , is defined as the submonoid of Cn generated by U0, U1, . . . , Un−1. Theorem 2.13. The map ui 7→ Ui defines a monoid isomorphism Bln → M (1) n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Martin-Saleur blob diagram D of (2.6) as an element of M (1) 9 . 2.5.3. Hook blob monoid. To define the hook blob monoid, we need the following notation. Denote by Cn the partition monoid of the set [1, n]∪[1′ , n′ ]∪ {0, 0 ′}. Note that each partition P ∈ Cn defines a…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: hook-diagram for U0 The hook blob monoid Hn is defined as the submonoid of Cn generated by U0 , U1 , . . . , Un . The diagram associated to any element of Hn will be called hook-diagram. Theorem 2.15. The map ui 7→ Ui defines a monoids isomorphism from Bln to Hn [PITH…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The 3-abacus blob diagram D◦ . diagram D of (2.6). Finally, we declare that two abacus blob diagrams are equal if their base diagrams are equal and the number of beads (modulo d) at each corresponding component of arcs are the same. This fact will be used explicitly or…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The diagrams of z k i and z k i , respectively. Definition 3.2. The abacus blob monoid Bld,n, is the monoid formed by the d-abacus blob diagrams, on n points, with the usual product by concatenation, and the following rules: (i) Loops, containing or not a decoration (b…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The diagram of the generators zi , u0 and ui , respectively. Lemma 3.4. The elements zi ’s, and ui ’s ∈ Bld,n satisfy, respectively, the defining relations of C n d and Bln,, together with the following relations: ziui = zi+1ui , uizi = uizi+1, (3.2) u0zi = ziu0 if i 6…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Example for the digramm of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The elements zi , g0, ui ∈ Hd,n. Analogously to Notation 1, we set ζ α = z α0 0 z α1 1 · · ·z αn n for α := (α0, α1, . . . , αn) ∈ (Z/dZ) n+1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Switchable Exchange Bias Resulting from Correlated Domain Structures in Orthogonally Coupled Antiferromagnet/Ferromagnet van der Waals Heterostructures
cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors claim that CrSBr induces stripe-like magnetic domains in Fe3GeTe2, producing robust, switchable exchange bias up to 132 K despite perpendicular easy axes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Aicardi, D

F. Aicardi, D. Arcis, J. Juyumaya, Brauer and Jones tied monoids , Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 227, (2023), 107161

work page 2023
[2]

Aicardi, Francesca; Arcis, Diego; Juyumaya, Jes´ us Ramiﬁed inverse and planar monoids, Mosc. Math. J. 24 (2024), no. 3, 321–355

work page 2024
[3]

Aicardi, J

F. Aicardi, J. Juyumaya, P. Papi Framization and Deframization , arXiv:240510809

work page
[4]

Al Harbat, C

S. Al Harbat, C. Gonz´ alez, D. Plaza, Type ˜C Temperley-Lieb algebra quotients and Catalan combinatori cs, J. Comb. Theory A, 180:105411, 5, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

A. Cox, J. Graham, P. Martin (2003), The blob algebra in positive characteristic , Journal of Algebra, 266(2), 584-635

work page 2003
[6]

tom Dieck , Symmetriche und Br¨ ucken and Knotentheorie zu den Dynkin-D iagrammen vom Typ B , J

T. tom Dieck , Symmetriche und Br¨ ucken and Knotentheorie zu den Dynkin-D iagrammen vom Typ B , J. Reine Angew. Math , 451,(1994) 71-88. 32 J. JUYUMAYA AND D. LOBOS

work page 1994
[7]

Elias, G

B. Elias, G. Williamson, Soergel calculus, Representation Theory 20 (2016), 295-374

work page 2016
[8]

Framization of a Temperley-Lieb algebra of type B , J

Flores, M.; Goundaroulis, D. Framization of a Temperley-Lieb algebra of type B , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 224 (2020), no. 6, 106273, 29 pp

work page 2020

Show all 23 references

[9]

Pure Appl

Flores, Marcelo; Juyumaya, Jes´ us; Lambropoulou, Soﬁa , A framization of the Hecke algebra of type B , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 222 (2018), no. 4, 778–806

2018
[10]

Goundaroulis, Dimos; Juyumaya, Jes´ us; Kontogeorgis, Aristides; Lambropoulou, Soﬁa, Framization of the Temperley-Lieb algebra, Math. Res. Lett. 24 (2017), no. 2, 299–345

2017
[11]

Tom Halverson; Ram, Arun Partition algebras European J. Combin. 26 (2005), no. 6, 869-921

2005
[12]

Jones, Index of subfactors , Invent

V. Jones, Index of subfactors , Invent. Math., 72 (1983), 1-25

1983
[13]

Juyumaya, S

J. Juyumaya, S. Lambropoulou p− adic framed braids , Topology and its Applications, 154 (2007), 1804- 1826

2007
[14]

Juyumaya, S

J. Juyumaya, S. Lambropoulou p− adic framed braids II , Advances in Mathematic, 234(2) (2013), 149-191

2013
[15]

Knots Everything, 56 World Scientiﬁc Publishing Co

Juyumaya, Jes´ us; Lambropoulou, Soﬁa, On the framization of knot algebras , Ser. Knots Everything, 56 World Scientiﬁc Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2 015, 297–333. ISBN: 978-981-4630-61-0
[16]

K. Ko, L. Smolinsky, The framed braid group and 3-manifolds. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 115 (1992), no. 2, 541-551

1992
[17]

Kudryavtseva; V

G. Kudryavtseva; V. Mazorchuk On presentations of Brauer-type monoids, Cent. Eur. J. Math. 4 (3) (2006) 403-434

2006
[18]

Abel Lacabanne, Loic Poulain d’Andecy Framization of Schur-Weyl duality and Yokonuma-Hecke type algebras, arXiv:2312.14796, 2023

2023 arXiv
[19]

Lau and D

K. Lau and D. FitzGerald. Ideal structure of the Kauﬀman and related monoids. Commun Algebra, 34(7):2617-2629, 2006

2006
[20]

Lobos, D

D. Lobos, D. Plaza S. Ryom-Hansen, The Nil-blob algebra: An incarnation of type ˜A1 Soergel calculus and of the truncated blob algebra , J. Algebra 570 (2021), 297-365

2021
[21]

P. P. Martin, Temperley-Lieb algebras for non planar statistical mechan ics-The partition algebra construc- tion, J. Knot theory and its Ramiﬁcations, 3, No.1 (1994), 51-82

1994
[22]

P. P. Martin, H. Saleur, The blob algebra and the periodic Temperley-Lieb algebra , Lett. Math. Phys. 30 (1994), 189-206

1994
[23]

Melvin, N.B

P. Melvin, N.B. Tuﬁllaro, Templates and framed braids. Phys. Rev. A (3) 44 (1991), no. 6, R3419-R3422. IMUV, Universidad de V alpara´ıso, Gran Breta ˜na 1111, 2340000 V alpara´ıso, Chile. Email address : juyumaya@uv.cl IMUV, Universidad de V alpara´ıso, Gran Breta ˜na 1111, 23...

1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aicardi, D

F. Aicardi, D. Arcis, J. Juyumaya, Brauer and Jones tied monoids , Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 227, (2023), 107161

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Aicardi, Francesca; Arcis, Diego; Juyumaya, Jes´ us Ramiﬁed inverse and planar monoids, Mosc. Math. J. 24 (2024), no. 3, 321–355

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Aicardi, J

F. Aicardi, J. Juyumaya, P. Papi Framization and Deframization , arXiv:240510809

work page

[4] [4]

Al Harbat, C

S. Al Harbat, C. Gonz´ alez, D. Plaza, Type ˜C Temperley-Lieb algebra quotients and Catalan combinatori cs, J. Comb. Theory A, 180:105411, 5, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

A. Cox, J. Graham, P. Martin (2003), The blob algebra in positive characteristic , Journal of Algebra, 266(2), 584-635

work page 2003

[6] [6]

tom Dieck , Symmetriche und Br¨ ucken and Knotentheorie zu den Dynkin-D iagrammen vom Typ B , J

T. tom Dieck , Symmetriche und Br¨ ucken and Knotentheorie zu den Dynkin-D iagrammen vom Typ B , J. Reine Angew. Math , 451,(1994) 71-88. 32 J. JUYUMAYA AND D. LOBOS

work page 1994

[7] [7]

Elias, G

B. Elias, G. Williamson, Soergel calculus, Representation Theory 20 (2016), 295-374

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Framization of a Temperley-Lieb algebra of type B , J

Flores, M.; Goundaroulis, D. Framization of a Temperley-Lieb algebra of type B , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 224 (2020), no. 6, 106273, 29 pp

work page 2020