Cable links of uniformly thick knot types

Hyunki Min; John B. Etnyre; Rima Chatterjee; Thomas Rodewald

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Cable links of uniformly thick knot types

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper classifies Legendrian cable links of uniformly thick knot types, showing every Legendrian realization lies in a stabilization cone of a standard cable and is determined, within a common cone, by its classical invariants.

desk verdict The classification results are substantial, but the paper's headline phenomenon rests on a false dichotomy in Lemma 2.1 and needs repair before the non-isotopy claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03185 v2 pith:2UFQPRAZ submitted 2025-07-03 math.GT math.SG

Rima Chatterjee , John B. Etnyre , Hyunki Min , Thomas Rodewald This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GTmath.SG MSC 57K1057R17

keywords LegendrianknotslinkscableuniformlythickstabilizationconesThurston-Bennequininvarianttwistsurgery

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 extends the classification of Legendrian cable links from uniformly thick, Legendrian simple knots to all uniformly thick knot types, and for sufficiently positive cabling slopes to arbitrary knot types. Its central result describes every Legendrian realization of an $(np,nq)$-cable link as a stabilization of the standard cable of a non-destabilizable Legendrian representative of the underlying knot, and says two such links are isotopic exactly when they lie in the same stabilization cone and have matching classical invariants. A corollary is a new phenomenon: there are stabilized Legendrian links that are smoothly isotopic and component-wise Legendrian isotopic but not Legendrian isotopic, distinguished by contact-geometric rather than holomorphic-curve invariants. The paper also classifies Legendrian knots in most negative cables of twist knots, using Legendrian surgery as a new tool.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stabilization cone $C(\Lambda)$ of a Legendrian link $\Lambda$, the set of all links obtained by stabilizing any components any number of times positively or negatively; within a cone, classical invariants classify the links. For greater-sloped cables the proof shows any cable link has a minimal underlying Legendrian knot $L_{\mathrm{min}}$, and that isotopy between links on the boundaries of standard neighborhoods of $L$ and $L'$ forces the dividing slopes of an interpolating sequence of convex tori to stay in $[\mathrm{tb}(L_{\mathrm{min}}), \infty)$, so every torus still contains a standard neighborhood of $L_{\mathrm{min}}$, giving $L = L'$. For lesser-sloped cables the paper introduces Legendrian surgery as the distinguishing tool: two standard cables from underlying knots with the same rotation number and stabilization behavior are distinct precisely when Legendrian surgery on those knots yields distinct contact manifolds.

What would settle it

Find a non-destabilizable Legendrian realization of the $(4,2)$-cable of the twist knot $K_{-5}$ whose two components lie in the two different cones corresponding to the two maximal representatives of $K_{-5}$; Theorem 1.7 predicts no such link exists. Alternatively, compute Legendrian surgeries on the two maximal representatives of $K_{-6}$ and check whether the resulting contact manifolds are contactomorphic, which would break the slope-$(0,1)$ classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.7: for relatively prime $p$, $q$ with $q/p > \lceil w(K)\rceil$ and $n > 1$, every Legendrian realization of the $(np,nq)$-cable link of a knot type $K$ lies in the cone $C((L_i)_{n(p,q)})$ of the standard cable of some non-destabilizable Legendrian representative $L_i$ of $K$; two such links are Legendrian isotopic exactly when they share the same Thurston-Bennequin invariants and rotation numbers within a common cone, and any permutation of components preserving classical invariants is realizable by a Legendrian isotopy. This removes both the uniform-thickness and Legendrian-simplicity hypotheses that earlier work needed for greater-sloped cables. For uniformly thick $K$ the same structure is obtained for integer lesser-sloped cables and for non-integer lesser-sloped cables, where standard cables are distinguished by Legendrian surgery on the underlying knots. The classification of negative cables of twist knots is carried out as an application.

Load-bearing premise

The detailed counts for cables of twist knots assume that Legendrian surgery on the distinct maximal Thurston-Bennequin representatives of $K_{-2n}$ yields distinct contact manifolds; for slopes in $(0,1)$ the paper verifies this only for $n = 2$, and for negative slopes it imports it from an unreviewed preprint.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

All classification results previously known for greater-sloped cables of uniformly thick, Legendrian simple knots now hold for arbitrary knot types, with no uniformity assumption.
For uniformly thick $K$, all components of a maximum-Thurston-Bennequin realization of an $(np,nq)$-cable link are Legendrian isotopic; when $q/p \geq \lceil w(K)\rceil$ this holds for any $K$.
Pairs of multiply stabilized links exist that are smoothly isotopic and component-wise Legendrian isotopic but not Legendrian isotopic, so link isotopy is strictly finer than smooth type plus component types even after standard holomorphic-curve invariants vanish.
The classification of negative cables of twist knots gives explicit counts: for slopes in $(-m-1,-m)$, there are $2m+4k$ Legendrian knots with maximal Thurston-Bennequin invariant, with $k = \lceil n/2\rceil$.
For non-integer negative cables of twist knots, Legendrian links are classified by their components: two links are isotopic if and only if they are component-wise isotopic.

Reading between the lines

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

If the Legendrian-surgery distinctness hypothesis is verified for all $n$, the twist-knot cable classification becomes unconditional; the slope-$(0,1)$ case currently rests on a single verified example.
The same surgery-based mechanism may classify cables of other non-Legendrian-simple knot families once Legendrian surgeries on their maximal representatives are understood, bypassing the hard problem of enumerating all solid tori in the knot type.
The new non-isotopic stabilized links suggest that a useful invariant for Legendrian links would need to record how components sit in the stabilization cone, not just their individual classical invariants.
Because the greater-sloped classification is hypothesis-free about $K$, it applies to connect sums and other composite knot types, where the required Legendrian classification of the underlying knot is often already known.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Read this one, but know that the main new phenomenon is unsupported as written. The stress-test on Lemma 2.1 is right: the dichotomy in the proof is false. Take p=2, n=2, and let Lambda be obtained from Lmin_2(2,q) by stabilizing each component once positively and once negatively. Then neither S+(Lmin) nor S-(Lmin) is an underlying Legendrian, yet no component is the unstabilized cable and no component is a pure stabilization on the boundary edge. So the proof's "this implies" is a false dichotomy. Theorem 1.7(4) invokes that lemma to get minimal underlying representatives with matching tb and rot; without it, the cone-overlap criterion and the non-isotopy claims in Example 1.8 and Theorem 1.1 lack support. This is not a manufactured concern: it is a concrete counterexample to the lemma as stated.

The paper does real work. The greater-sloped classification for arbitrary knot types removes the Legendrian-simplicity and uniform-thickness hypotheses from earlier results. The integer lesser-sloped classification for uniformly thick knots, the uniform thickness of negative twist knots, and the Legendrian-surgery technique are all genuinely new. The proofs are mostly written in detail, and the use of published prior work is legitimate. There is no parameter fitting or circularity.

There are additional soft spots, though they are less severe than the Lemma 2.1 problem. Theorem 1.19 is explicitly conditional on a distinctness-of-surgeries hypothesis that the authors say they have not verified for n>2; Theorem 1.18 imports a similar distinctness result from the unreviewed preprint [26]. Several cases are left to the reader, including the inside-bypass case in Theorem 1.13, Item (4) of Proposition 4.3, and parts of the Section 5 thickness lemmas. These are the kind of gaps a referee can reasonably ask the authors to fill.

Overall: this paper deserves a serious referee. The potential is real, but the headline phenomenon is not established as written. If Lemma 2.1 can be repaired, or Theorem 1.7(4) proven by another route, the classification results should stand. I would not cite the non-isotopy examples yet, but I would send this to review and ask for the lemma to be fixed or the claims narrowed.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies Legendrian realizations of cable links of uniformly thick but not Legendrian simple knot types, extending prior work of Dalton, Etnyre, and Traynor. Its main theorem (Theorem 1.7) classifies greater-sloped cable links of arbitrary knot types in terms of cones over standard cables of non-destabilizable Legendrian representatives, removing the uniform-thickness and Legendrian-simplicity hypotheses used in earlier work. For uniformly thick knot types, Theorem 1.13 treats integer lesser-sloped cables, while Theorems 1.17 and 1.20 handle non-integer lesser-sloped cables via a new Legendrian-surgery technique. The paper also proves uniform thickness of twist knots (Theorem 1.5) and applies the general theorems to obtain classifications of Legendrian realizations of negative twist knot cables (Theorems 1.15, 1.18, 1.19, 1.21), including the new phenomenon of smoothly isotopic, component-wise isotopic Legendrian links that are not Legendrian isotopic (Theorem 1.1).

Significance. If correct, the results constitute a substantial advance: the greater-sloped classification applies without uniform thickness or Legendrian simplicity, the lesser-sloped results introduce Legendrian surgery as a practical tool for cable classifications, and the twist knot applications provide the first classifications in settings where Legendrian simplicity is known to fail. The paper is broadly well-written and makes detailed use of published theorems. However, the correctness of some central claims is contingent on a lemma whose proof is invalid as written, on unverified or unreviewed inputs, and on several technical cases that are explicitly left to the reader. These issues should be resolved before the classification results can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)

[§2, Lemma 2.1] The proof asserts a false dichotomy. It claims that if neither S_+(Lmin) nor S_-(Lmin) is an underlying Legendrian of Λ, then either a component of Λ is (Lmin)_{(p,q)} or two components are pure positive and pure negative stabilizations of it. This is not true. For p > 1 and n = 2, take Λ obtained from (Lmin)_{2(p,q)} by stabilizing each component once positively and once negatively. By Lemma 1.6, any element of C((S_+(Lmin))_{2(p,q)}) has each component stabilized at least p times positively relative to (Lmin)_{2(p,q)}; for p = 2 this means at least two positive stabilizations, so Λ does not lie in that cone, and symmetrically not in C((S_-(Lmin))_{2(p,q)}). Thus neither S_+(Lmin) nor S_-(Lmin) is an underlying Legendrian of Λ. Yet no component of Λ is (Lmin)_{(p,q)} and no two components are pure positive and pure negative stabilizations. The dichotomy is therefore false, and the conclusion that any two minimal underlying Legendrians have the same tb and rot is not proved. Theorem 1.7(4) relies on this lemma, as do the non-isotopy assertions in Example 1.8 and Theorem 1.1; these statements are unsupported until Lemma 2.1 is repaired.
[§1.3, Theorems 1.18 and 1.19] The classifications of negative twist knot cables are conditional in ways that are not fully reflected in the theorem statements. Theorem 1.19 is stated under the explicit assumption that Legendrian surgery on the distinct maximal Thurston-Bennequin representatives of K_{-2n} yields distinct contact manifolds, and the note following the theorem admits that this has only been verified for n = 2. Theorem 1.18 is stated unconditionally, but its proof uses the unreviewed preprint [26] to conclude that Legendrian surgeries on the L^l_j yield distinct contact manifolds. While citing a preprint is acceptable, the theorem statement should either include this dependency or the proof should supply the needed verification. As written, the '2m+4k' enumeration and the counts in Theorem 1.19 rest on inputs that are not established within the paper.
[§3 and §4, proofs left to reader] Several load-bearing arguments are only sketched or left to the reader. In the proof of Theorem 1.13, the inside-bypass case in the discretization argument is dismissed with 'the argument ... is almost identical and left to the reader' (page 20); this inside-bypass case is essential for the non-isotopy of mixed stabilizations that underlies Theorem 1.1. Similarly, Item (4) of Proposition 4.3, which rules out additional relations among stabilizations, is 'left to the reader' (page 24), and Lemma 4.2 is proved by a one-sentence reference to the end of Theorem 1.13. These are not mere routine checks: they are the steps that distinguish the classification. The manuscript should provide complete proofs or at least detailed outlines of these cases.

minor comments (6)

[§1.1, Theorem 1.11 heading] The heading reads 'Ordered Classificaiton'; this should be 'Ordered Classification'.
[§1, Remark 1.2] The word 'stabiilized' should be 'stabilized'.
[§1, notation for twist knots] In the paragraph defining the elements of L(K_{-2n}), the phrase 'rot(L(t,r)) = r' should be 'rot(L(r,t)) = r'.
[§2, Lemma 2.1 proof] There are two typos in the proof: 'underying' should be 'underlying' and 'conponents' should be 'components'.
[§2, Theorem 1.7 proof] The phrase 'staisfy Conditions (1) and (2)' should read 'satisfy Conditions (1) and (2)'.
[§1.2, Theorem 1.16(1)] The sentence 'Any permutation of the components of Λ are can be realized...' should read 'Any permutation of the components of Λ can be realized...'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's classifications are built from independently published inputs and new convex-geometric/surgical arguments, not from its conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The main classification theorems (1.7, 1.13, 1.17, 1.20) are obtained by combining published external inputs—[8] for Legendrian torus/cable links under stronger hypotheses, [2] for cabled knot types, [16] for Legendrian twist knots, and [13] for Thurston–Bennequin bounds on cables—with the paper's own new ingredients: twisted n-copies, the Legendrian-surgery criterion for distinguishing standard lesser-sloped cables, convex-torus bypass and discretization arguments, and the Section 5 thickness proof. The authors self-cite [2] and [8], but those are peer-reviewed, independently checkable results whose stated assumptions do not include the theorems being proved, so under the review rules they count as real evidence and do not raise the circularity score. The acknowledged limitation around Theorem 1.19 (the distinct-contact-manifolds hypothesis is verified only for n=2, and for n>2 the authors state 'we have not been able to verify that') and the reliance on the unreviewed preprint [26] in Theorem 1.18 are honest assumptions or external-input risks, not definitional circularity. Concerns about Lemma 2.1 raising a false dichotomy in the proof of Theorem 1.7(4) are correctness issues, not circularity: a flawed lemma would not make the claim equivalent to its inputs by construction. No quantity is fitted to data, no parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the classification is not forced by a normalization or by a self-citation chain. Hence the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters: p, q, n, m, k, l are variables in theorem statements, not numbers tuned to data. The paper introduces no empirical constants. The inventions are mathematical definitions (cones, twisted n-copies, standard lesser-sloped cables), not physical entities, so none are listed as invented entities.

assumptions (7)

standard math Classification of tight contact structures on solid tori (Honda [21])
Used throughout to identify standard neighborhoods of Legendrian knots and to argue about dividing slopes on convex tori (e.g., Theorem 1.7 proof, Section 2).
standard math Discretization of isotopy for convex surfaces (Colin [6], Honda [22])
Used to pass from a smooth isotopy of tori to a sequence of bypass attachments in the proofs of Theorem 1.7, Theorem 1.13, and Proposition 4.3.
domain assumption Cabling classification from [2] (Chakraborty-Etnyre-Min)
Provides the formulas tb(L(p,q)) = pq - |p tb(L) - q|, rot(L(p,q)) = q rot(L), and the diamond decomposition D(L(p,q)) used in the greater-sloped cable classification (Section 1.1).
domain assumption Destabilization results for cable links from [8] (Dalton-Etnyre-Traynor), Propositions 7.7 and 7.8
Used in Theorem 1.13 to assert that every Legendrian representative of Kn(1,q) destabilizes to a twisted n-copy of a non-destabilizable representative of K (Section 3).
domain assumption Classification of Legendrian twist knots from [16] (Etnyre-Ng-Vertesi)
Provides the mountain range and stabilization behavior for K_{-2n} used in Theorem 1.15, Example 1.8, and Theorems 1.18-1.19.
domain assumption Distinctness of Legendrian surgery outputs on K_{-2n} from [26] (Wan-Zhou, arXiv preprint)
Theorem 1.18's count of 2m+4k distinct maximal-TB cables relies on this; the paper extends it by a symmetry argument to the left and right representatives.
ad hoc to paper Theorem 1.19 hypothesis: Legendrian surgery on maximal TB representatives of K_{-2n} yields distinct contact manifolds
Stated as an assumption because the paper says the verifiable case n=2 was done in [1] but for n>2 "we have not been able to verify that" (after Theorem 1.19). The theorem is conditional on this.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cable links of uniformly thick knot types." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UFQPRAZ

@misc{pith2026250703185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cable links of uniformly thick knot types},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UFQPRAZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03185}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we study Legendrian realizations of cable links of knot types that are uniformly thick but not Legendrian simple, extending prior work of Dalton, the second author, and Traynor. This leads to new phenomena, such as stabilized Legendrian links that are smoothly isotopic and component-wise Legendrian isotopic, but are not Legendrian isotopic. In our study, we establish new results for cable links whose cabling slope is sufficiently negative. We will also show how to classify Legendrian knots in (most) negative cables of twist knots. This is done by introducing a new technique to the study of cables based on Legendrian surgeries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03185 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The twist knot Tn where the box contains n positive half=twists if n > 0 and |n| negative half twists if n < 0. We note that the understanding of cables with slopes q/p ∈ (tb(K), ⌈w(K)⌉] seems difficult as we know in this range there are “Legendrian large” cables, that is cables with Thurston-Bennequin invariant larger than pq. Such cables will prevent the sort of analysis done here, and in addition, we know very l… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The mountain range for K−5 on the left. There are two Legendrian representatives when (rot,tb) = (0, −3) and one for all other points in the diagram. On the right is the mountain range for (K−5)(2,1). The peak of the mountain range is (0, −5). The colors of the dots indicate the diamonds of the Legendrian representatives of K−5. Specifically, there are two Legendrian representatives L 1 and L 2 with (rot,tb) = (0, −… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** We note that nL is an (n, n tb(L))-cable of L. L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The mountain range for K−2n. The peak of the mountain range is (0, 1). where tb(L(r,t) ) = t,rot(L(t,r) ) = r and the L(r,t) are determined by their classical invariants, tb(L i (±(t−1)),t) = t,rot(L i (±(t−1),t) ) = ±(t−1), and the L i (±(t−1),t) are distinct for dif…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Legendrian tangles used to define standard Legendrian lesser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The mountain range for K(p,q) where K is a −2n-twist knots and q/p ∈ (−m − 1, −m). Any point (r, t) with r + t odd in the red region is realized by a unique Legendrian knot, while in the black region is realized by k Legendrian knots, where k is as in Theorem 1.18. The…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The (p, q)-cables of K−2n where the (r, t) with r + t odd in the upper region have l = ⌈ n 2 2 ⌉ Legendrian representatives, such pairs in the regions on the right and left have k = ⌈ n 2 ⌉ Legendrian representatives, and such pairs in the bottom region have a unique L…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: A sphere that intersects Kn at four points. any even number of dividing curves with any rational slope. Then, we obtain the complement of Kn by removing the neighborhood from S 3 . Now the sphere decomposes the complement of Kn into two genus 2 handlebodies H1 and H2.…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The 4-punctured sphere S. The boundary, ∂D1, of the disk D1 in H1 is shown on the left. If n is even, then ∂D2 is the image of the horizontal curve on the right after n 2 Dehn twists along the curve U. If n is odd, then ∂D2 is the image of the diagonal curve on the ri…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Three types of dividing sets in P1 and P2. Left: null type; middle: horizontal type; right: vertical type. Pi run from the punctures to Ui ; the horizontal type occurs when some dividing curves in Pi run from Ui to itself, separating two punctures; and the vertical ty…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Left: dividing set in P1 and P2. Right: dividing set in S\(P1∪P2) with slope s = 1 6 . The slope is positive since it is twisted in a right-handed way along U. a bypass that can be attached to S. We will use this bypass to modify the dividing set on S. According to th…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Left: A dividing set on S of the vertical type with s = −1 and γ1 is the purple arc in ∂D1 that intersects the dividing curves in more than four points. Right: γ2 is the purple arc in ∂D2. Now, assume s > −1 and n is even. Then the purple arc γ2 in the second drawing …

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The list of attaching arcs in P1 and P2 that cannot be slid outside of P1 ∪ P2 when P1 and P2 are either horizontal or vertical. Lemma 5.3. If P1 and P2 are of null type, then U can be destabilized or N can be thickened. Proof. The only attaching arc for a bypass that…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: A dividing set on S of the horizontal type with s = 0. Lemma 5.5. If P1 and P2 are of vertical type, then one of the following holds: (1) U can be destabilized, or (2) there exists a bypass that thickens the neighborhood of Kn. Proof. It is straightforward to verify t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[26]

Negative contact surgery on legendrian non-simple knots, 2024

Shunyu Wan and Hugo Zhou. Negative contact surgery on legendrian non-simple knots, 2024. arXiv:2405.00855. DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS , OHIO STATE UNIVERITY , COLUMBUS , OH Email address: chatterjee.198@osu.edu, rchattmath@gmail.com SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS , GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY , ATLANTA , GA Email address: etnyre@math.gatech.edu Email address: t...

work page arXiv 2024
[1]

Effect of Legendrian surgery

Fr ´ed´eric Bourgeois, Tobias Ekholm, and Yasha Eliashberg. Effect of Legendrian surgery. Geom. Topol., 16(1):301–389, 2012. With an appendix by Sheel Ganatra and Maksim Maydanskiy

work page 2012
[2]

Etnyre, and Hyunki Min

Apratim Chakraborty, John B. Etnyre, and Hyunki Min. Cabling Legendrian and transverse knots. J. Differential Geom., 126(1):1–48, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Legendrian hopf links in L(p, 1), 2024

Rima Chatterjee, Hansj ¨org Geiges, and Sinem Onaran. Legendrian hopf links in L(p, 1), 2024. arXiv:2409.02582

work page arXiv 2024
[4]

Differential algebra of Legendrian links

Yuri Chekanov. Differential algebra of Legendrian links. Invent. Math., 150(3):441–483, 2002

work page 2002
[5]

Legendrian torus knots in S1 × S2

Feifei Chen, Fan Ding, and Youlin Li. Legendrian torus knots in S1 × S2. J. Knot Theory Ramifications , 24(12):1550064, 14, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Chirurgies d’indice un et isotopies de sph `eres dans les vari ´et´es de contact tendues

Vincent Colin. Chirurgies d’indice un et isotopies de sph `eres dans les vari ´et´es de contact tendues. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math., 324(6):659–663, 1997

work page 1997
[7]

Classification of tight contact structures on surgeries on the figure-eight knot

James Conway and Hyunki Min. Classification of tight contact structures on surgeries on the figure-eight knot. Geom. Topol., 24(3):1457–1517, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 26 references

[8]

Etnyre, and Lisa Traynor

Jennifer Dalton, John B. Etnyre, and Lisa Traynor. Legendrian torus and cable links. J. Symplectic Geom., 22(1):11–108, 2024

2024
[9]

Legendrian helix and cable links.Commun

Fan Ding and Hansj ¨org Geiges. Legendrian helix and cable links.Commun. Contemp. Math., 12(3):487–500, 2010

2010
[10]

Topologically trivial Legendrian knots

Yakov Eliashberg and Maia Fraser. Topologically trivial Legendrian knots. J. Symplectic Geom. , 7(2):77– 127, 2009

2009
[11]

Etnyre and Ko Honda

John B. Etnyre and Ko Honda. Knots and contact geometry. I. Torus knots and the figure eight knot. J. Symplectic Geom., 1(1):63–120, 2001

2001
[12]

Etnyre and Ko Honda

John B. Etnyre and Ko Honda. On connected sums and Legendrian knots. Adv. Math., 179(1):59–74, 2003

2003
[13]

Etnyre and Ko Honda

John B. Etnyre and Ko Honda. Cabling and transverse simplicity. Ann. of Math. (2) , 162(3):1305–1333, 2005

2005
[14]

Etnyre, Douglas J

John B. Etnyre, Douglas J. LaFountain, and B ¨ulent Tosun. Legendrian and transverse cables of positive torus knots. Geom. Topol., 16(3):1639–1689, 2012

2012
[15]

Etnyre, Hyunki Min, and Anubhav Mukherjee

John B. Etnyre, Hyunki Min, and Anubhav Mukherjee. Non-loose torus knots. arXiv:2206.14848

arXiv
[16]

Etnyre, Lenhard L

John B. Etnyre, Lenhard L. Ng, and Vera V´ertesi. Legendrian and transverse twist knots. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 15(3):969–995, 2013

2013
[17]

Exceptional Legendrian torus knots

Hansj ¨org Geiges and Sinem Onaran. Exceptional Legendrian torus knots. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (22):8786–8817, 2020

2020
[18]

Legendrian Hopf links

Hansj ¨org Geiges and Sinem Onaran. Legendrian Hopf links. Q. J. Math., 71:1419–1459, 2020

2020
[19]

Positive twist knots and thickenings

Whitney George. Positive twist knots and thickenings. J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 22(9):1350046, 20, 2013. CABLE LINKS OF UNIFORMLY THICK KNOT TYPES 33

2013
[20]

Positive twist knots and the uniform thickness property.J

Whitney George and Mark Myers. Positive twist knots and the uniform thickness property.J. Knot Theory Ramifications, 29(8):2050058, 14, 2020

2020
[21]

On the classification of tight contact structures

Ko Honda. On the classification of tight contact structures. I. Geom. Topol., 4:309–368 (electronic), 2000

2000
[22]

Gluing tight contact structures

Ko Honda. Gluing tight contact structures. Duke Math. J., 115(3):435–478, 2002

2002
[23]

Kazez, and Gordana Mati ´c

Ko Honda, William H. Kazez, and Gordana Mati ´c. Tight contact structures on fibered hyperbolic 3- manifolds. J. Differential Geom., 64(2):305–358, 2003

2003
[24]

Generating family invariants for Legendrian links of unknots

Jill Jordan and Lisa Traynor. Generating family invariants for Legendrian links of unknots. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 6:895–933, 2006

2006
[25]

The contact mapping class group and rational unknots in lens spaces

Hyunki Min. The contact mapping class group and rational unknots in lens spaces. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (15):11315–11342, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

Negative contact surgery on legendrian non-simple knots, 2024

Shunyu Wan and Hugo Zhou. Negative contact surgery on legendrian non-simple knots, 2024. arXiv:2405.00855. DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS , OHIO STATE UNIVERITY , COLUMBUS , OH Email address: chatterjee.198@osu.edu, rchattmath@gmail.com SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS , GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY , ATLANTA , GA Email address: etnyre@math.gatech.edu Email address: t...

work page arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Effect of Legendrian surgery

Fr ´ed´eric Bourgeois, Tobias Ekholm, and Yasha Eliashberg. Effect of Legendrian surgery. Geom. Topol., 16(1):301–389, 2012. With an appendix by Sheel Ganatra and Maksim Maydanskiy

work page 2012

[3] [2]

Etnyre, and Hyunki Min

Apratim Chakraborty, John B. Etnyre, and Hyunki Min. Cabling Legendrian and transverse knots. J. Differential Geom., 126(1):1–48, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [3]

Legendrian hopf links in L(p, 1), 2024

Rima Chatterjee, Hansj ¨org Geiges, and Sinem Onaran. Legendrian hopf links in L(p, 1), 2024. arXiv:2409.02582

work page arXiv 2024

[5] [4]

Differential algebra of Legendrian links

Yuri Chekanov. Differential algebra of Legendrian links. Invent. Math., 150(3):441–483, 2002

work page 2002

[6] [5]

Legendrian torus knots in S1 × S2

Feifei Chen, Fan Ding, and Youlin Li. Legendrian torus knots in S1 × S2. J. Knot Theory Ramifications , 24(12):1550064, 14, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [6]

Chirurgies d’indice un et isotopies de sph `eres dans les vari ´et´es de contact tendues

Vincent Colin. Chirurgies d’indice un et isotopies de sph `eres dans les vari ´et´es de contact tendues. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math., 324(6):659–663, 1997

work page 1997

[8] [7]

Classification of tight contact structures on surgeries on the figure-eight knot

James Conway and Hyunki Min. Classification of tight contact structures on surgeries on the figure-eight knot. Geom. Topol., 24(3):1457–1517, 2020

work page 2020