Cosmetic two-strand twists on fibered knots

Carson Rogers

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Cosmetic two-strand twists on fibered knots

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fibered knots in rational homology spheres admit no cosmetic generalized crossing changes, and separating odd-order twists can be cosmetic only for order one.

desk verdict A solid generalization of Kalfagianni's fibered-knot result to rational homology spheres, with one genuinely compressed argument in Corollary 2.4 that looks repairable without affecting the main theorems. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05701 v3 pith:D6P67C2M submitted 2019-08-15 math.GT

Carson Rogers This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GT MSC 57M2557M12

keywords cosmeticsurgeryfiberedknotstwo-strandtwistsgeneralizedcrossingchangesbandMontesinostrickmappingclassgroupsrationalhomologyspheres

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 when adding m positive half-twists to two oppositely oriented strands of a knot K, while leaving the rest of K fixed, produces a knot isotopic to K but in a non-trivial way. It proves that if K is a fibered knot in a rational homology sphere—a 3-manifold with the same rational homology as the 3-sphere—then no even-order twist of this kind (a generalized crossing change) can be cosmetic, meaning non-nugatory yet isotopically undetectable. For odd-order twists, it shows that under a natural 'separating arc' hypothesis the twist can be cosmetic only when it has order one, and then only for at most one of the two signs. Finally, it shows that every cosmetic order-one band surgery on the unknot is weakly nugatory: either it is nugatory, or it is equivalent to an opposite-sign twist along a second twisting circle that bounds a disk in the knot complement. Together these results extend the generalized cosmetic crossing conjecture to all fibered knots in rational homology spheres and sharply constrain the odd-order and band-surgery cases.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-strand n-twist: a local modification inside a 3-ball that adds |n| half-twists to two oppositely oriented strands of a knot, specified by an unknotted twisting circle c and a twisting arc γ. Its key feature is the Montesinos correspondence: in the double cover of the ambient manifold branched along K, the arc γ lifts to a simple closed curve ~γ, and the two-strand n-twist becomes Dehn surgery along ~γ with slope 1/n in the surface framing. The proof's load-bearing identity is Theorem 3.4: when the twist transforms one fiber surface into another, the squared monodromies of the two fibered knots differ by the n-th power of a Dehn twist along a curve α isotopic to ~γ, up to conjugation in the mapping class group. If the two knots are isotopic, that power of a Dehn twist becomes a commutator, so a non-commutator theorem for powers of Dehn twists forces α, and hence the lifted arc, to be trivial. For |n|≥2 Proposition 2.9 converts this into nugatority; for n=±1 the same correspondence yields only the weaker notion of weakly nugatory, which the paper defines and uses to prove Theorem 1.4.

What would settle it

Find a fibered knot in a rational homology sphere together with a non-nugatory twisting circle for which an even-order two-strand twist returns an isotopic knot; that single example would falsify Theorem 1.2, while a search of small fibered knots could turn it up or lend support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that fiberedness imposes a rigid algebraic constraint on any two-strand twist that could secretly preserve the knot. The proof passes to the double cover of M branched over K, where the lifted twisting arc is a knot that undergoes Dehn surgery of slope 1/n. By analyzing the monodromies of the two fibered knots, the paper derives that the n-th power of a Dehn twist along the lifted arc must be a commutator in the mapping class group of the fiber surface; a known non-commutator theorem then forces that arc to be unknotted, and a Montesinos-trick argument converts this into nugatority when |n|≥2. This yields Theorem 1.2 (no cosmetic generalized crossing changes on fibered knots in rational homology spheres) and Theorem 1.3 (under the separating-arc hypothesis, a cosmetic twist must have order ±1, and at most one of the two signs can occur). The order-one case falls outside this argument, and the paper shows by example that it genuinely behaves differently, proving instead via double branched covers that every cosmetic band surgery on the unknot is weakly nugatory (Theorem 1.4).

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on transferring a closed-surface algebraic fact to surfaces with boundary: a nonzero power of a Dehn twist about a non-trivial curve in a punctured surface cannot equal a commutator, and if that transfer fails the main theorems lose their final step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The generalized cosmetic crossing conjecture—no non-nugatory crossing change can preserve a knot—now holds for every fibered knot in a rational homology sphere, not just in the 3-sphere.
For a fibered knot satisfying the separating-arc hypothesis, a two-strand twist of order greater than one cannot be cosmetic; the only possible cosmetic orders are -1 and 1, and at most one of those two twists can be cosmetic.
Every non-coherent band surgery on the unknot that returns an unknot is weakly nugatory, so the unknot admits no genuinely exotic cosmetic band surgery.
When an even-order twist preserves a fibered knot, the lifted twisting arc must be unknotted in the double branched cover, giving a concrete and checkable obstruction.
Odd-order twists behave differently from even-order ones: cosmetic examples exist on the unknot and the figure-eight knot, so the separating hypothesis in Theorem 1.3 cannot simply be dropped.

Reading between the lines

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

This suggests a sharp test for Question 4.7: a non-weakly-nugatory cosmetic band surgery on any knot would have to be one whose lifted twisting arc is knotted in the double branched cover, since Proposition 4.6 classifies the unknotted-lift case.
One could extend the monodromy-difference analysis to other fibered knots in the order-one case: the discrepancy between squared monodromies is then a product of Dehn twists of mixed signs, and any tool that bounds its commutator length would fill the gap the paper leaves open.
The connect-sum construction spreading the unknot example to every knot means that a large family of 'non-trivial' cosmetic band surgeries degenerates to weakly nugatory; genuinely exotic examples, if any exist, must be sought among knots whose double branched covers are not the 3-sphere.
An algorithmic computation in small mapping class groups—checking which powers of Dehn twists on once-punctured surfaces are commutators—would test the extension step behind Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 directly and independently of the 3-manifold arguments.

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

Colleague,

This is a good paper, and it is more honest than most. Theorem 1.2 extends Kalfagianni's no-cosmetic-generalized-crossing-change result from S^3 to fibered knots in rational homology spheres, and Theorem 1.3 adds a clean statement for odd-order two-strand twists under a separating-arc hypothesis. The proof framework is not radically novel—it uses the Montesinos trick, Ni's product-manifold surgery theorem, Gabai's taut surface theorem, and Kotschick's commutator obstruction—but the scope genuinely widens, and the order-one analysis leading to Theorem 1.4 (every cosmetic band surgery on the unknot is weakly nugatory) is new content, not a repackaging.

The paper deserves credit for flagging its own soft spots. It states plainly that Proposition 2.9 fails at order one, that the Figure-Eight example kills any hope of dropping the separating hypothesis in Theorem 1.3, and that extending the argument to n = ±1 hits a real obstruction in Ni's theorem (the 1-crossing case). That sort of self-assessment is rare and useful.

The main issue is exactly where your stress-test landed: Corollary 2.4. The proof caps S with once-punctured tori and applies Kotschick's closed-surface result, then says "Since alpha is such a curve" to conclude the disk bounded by alpha lies inside S. That step is compressed because alpha was not assumed separating. The missing argument is standard: if alpha were nonseparating, the capped surface would still be nonseparating along alpha, and a nonseparating simple closed curve cannot bound a disk in a closed orientable surface. And once you know alpha separates S, the disk in the capped surface has to be the original disk component, because the added tori raise genus. So Corollary 2.4 is correct as stated, but the proof as printed is missing a paragraph. A referee should ask for it. It is the load-bearing step for concluding that ~gamma is unknotted, and without it Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 lose their final step—so I would not call it minor, but I also see no evidence it is false.

Citation pattern looks fair. The paper cites the relevant prior work by Kalfagianni, Lidman-Moore, Buck-Ishihara-Rathbun-Shimokawa, and Ni; Remark 3.6 even explains what Theorem 3.4 does not do compared with the Buck et al. classification. No invented entities, no suspicious self-citation loops.

Who is this for? Low-dimensional topologists working on cosmetic crossings, band surgery, or fibered knots. A serious referee should engage with it, primarily to demand the missing argument in Corollary 2.4 and to check the details of Proposition 4.6's local isotopy. The main theorems look true, and even if the unknot band-surgery result is less exciting than it sounds, the paper's contribution is real. I would send it out.

Best,

[You]

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies cosmetic two-strand twists on knots in rational homology spheres, generalizing generalized crossing changes and non-coherent band surgery. The main results are Theorem 1.2, stating that fibered knots in rational homology spheres admit no cosmetic generalized crossing changes, and Theorem 1.3, stating that under a separating-arc hypothesis a two-strand twist can be cosmetic only for n=±1 and at most once. The proofs pass to the double branched cover and combine Ni's classification of Dehn surgeries on product manifolds, Gabai's taut surface theorem, and Kotschick's commutator obstruction, with the technical core in Theorem 3.4. The second half introduces the notion of weakly nugatory two-strand twists, shows that a cosmetic order-one twist on the unknot must be weakly nugatory (Theorem 1.4), and discusses examples showing that the hypotheses of Theorem 1.3 are sharp.

Significance. The paper is a substantial contribution to the study of cosmetic surgeries and crossing changes. If the results hold, Theorem 1.2 resolves the generalized cosmetic crossing conjecture for all fibered knots in rational homology spheres, generalizing Kalfagianni's result for S^3. Theorem 1.3 is a new and sharp restriction on odd-order twists, and the examples make it clear that the separating hypothesis is necessary. The introduction of weakly nugatory twists and the proof that cosmetic band surgery on the unknot is weakly nugatory answer a natural question left open by prior work. The proofs are well-structured and rely on deep external theorems, and the paper is transparent about the limitations of its methods (see Section 4.3 and the discussion after Theorem 1.4).

major comments (1)

[2.2, Corollary 2.4] The proof of Corollary 2.4 is incomplete in a load-bearing way. After capping S to obtain a closed surface Ŝ and applying Theorem 2.3, the proof asserts 'Since α is such a curve' (meaning separating) without having established that α is separating. The needed observation is that a curve that is null-homotopic in a closed orientable surface is separating, and that attaching once-punctured tori along the boundary of S preserves the separation property of a curve in Int(S); without this, the conclusion that α bounds a disk in S does not follow. In addition, Theorem 2.3 applies only when the capped surface has genus at least 2, so the case where S is a disk (where Ŝ is a torus) requires a separate argument. This gap is the final step in the proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, so it must be repaired.

minor comments (4)

[4.2, statement of Theorem 1.4] The heading 'Theorem 1.3 1.' should read 'Theorem 1.4'.
[Definition 4.4] The phrase 'c′ intersectsc' should be 'c′ intersects c'.
[4.2, proof of Proposition 4.6] The equality μ′ = μ ± λ is asserted without explaining that it follows from Δ(μ′, λ) = 1, which was established in the proof of Proposition 2.9; a brief justification would improve clarity.
[3, proof of Theorem 1.3] The statement that 'the two-strand −1 and 1-twists determined by the same twisting circle are related by a standard crossing change' is terse; it is the 2-twist on either knot that is the crossing change, and spelling this out would aid the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proofs reduce to external theorems and explicit constructions, not to their own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external results and does not fit parameters or rename targets as predictions. Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 1.3 are proved by combining the Montesinos trick, Gabai's taut-surface result, Ni's classification of Dehn surgeries in product manifolds, Kotschick's commutator-length theorem (as extended by Kalfagianni), and the uniqueness of fiber surfaces. The final step invokes Corollary 2.4 to convert a commutator equation into triviality of a curve, then Proposition 2.9 to upgrade unknottedness to nugatory; neither of these assumes the desired theorem. The notion 'weakly nugatory' is introduced as a classification device after the main theorems, and Theorem 1.4 is established from Gordon-Luecke plus Proposition 4.6 rather than being baked into a definition. The examples of Section 4.1 are explicit diagrams used to show that hypotheses cannot be removed, not predictions obtained from the theorems. The only load-bearing soft spot is the compressed inference in Corollary 2.4 that a curve bounding a disk in the capped surface must already bound a disk in the original surface; this is a missing topological justification, not a circular step, and it does not amount to assuming the conclusion. No self-citation chain supplies the central claim. Accordingly, the paper warrants a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no empirical parameters and no new geometric objects beyond the formal definition of weakly nugatory, which is a property, not an entity. All analytic content is carried by standard theorems in 3-manifold topology and mapping class groups. The proof chain is long but each link is either proven or explicitly delegated to a cited external theorem.

assumptions (6)

standard math Equivalence of minimum genus, fiber surface, and isotopy for null-homologous knots in rational homology spheres (Proposition 2.1, built from Kobayashi [16] and Waldhausen [24]).
Used repeatedly to identify a minimum-genus Seifert surface as a fiber surface, so the deck transformations of the twisted surface remain fiber surfaces.
standard math Montesinos trick correspondence: a two-strand n-twist lifts to Dehn surgery along the lifted twisting arc with slope 1/n in the surface framing (Lemma 2.8, refining Lidman-Moore [18]).
This bridges the knot-twist operation to Dehn surgery in the cyclic double branched cover, the main technical gateway for the proofs.
standard math Ni's classification of Dehn surgeries on knots in product manifolds (Theorem 2.5 of [20]).
Forces the surgery curve to be a 0-crossing knot and identifies the surgery slope with n in the proof of Theorem 3.4.
standard math Kotschick's result, as used by Kalfagianni: powers of Dehn twists along nontrivial curves are not commutators in mapping class groups of closed surfaces of genus at least 2 (Theorem 2.3 of [14], from [17]).
Provides the final contradiction in the proof of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, turning a commutator equation into the conclusion that the Dehn twist curve is homotopically trivial.
standard math Gabai's taut surface theorem: at most one filling slope can make a taut surface fail to be taut (Corollary 2.4 of [7]).
Used in Proposition 3.3 to show that both K and K' have minimum-genus Seifert surfaces after an even-order twist, hence that the surfaces are fiber surfaces.
standard math Gordon-Luecke theorem: knots in S3 are determined by their complements (Theorem 2 of [11]).
Used in Section 4.2 to conclude that a knot in S3 admitting a non-trivial Dehn surgery yielding S3 is the unknot, so the lifted twisting arc is unknotted.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmetic two-strand twists on fibered knots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6P67C2M

@misc{pith2026190805701,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmetic two-strand twists on fibered knots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6P67C2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05701}
}

abstract

Let $K$ be a knot in a rational homology sphere $M$. This paper investigates the question of when modifying $K$ by adding $m>0$ half-twists to two oppositely-oriented strands, while keeping the rest of $K$ fixed, produces a knot isotopic to $K$. Such a two-strand twist of order $m$, as we define it, is a generalized crossing change when $m$ is even and a non-coherent band surgery when $m=1$. A cosmetic two-strand twist on $K$ is a non-nugatory one that produces an isotopic knot. We prove that fibered knots in $M$ admit no cosmetic generalized crossing changes. Further, we show that if $K$ is fibered, then a two-strand twist of odd order $m$ that is determined by a separating arc in a fiber surface for $K$ can only be cosmetic if $m=\pm 1$. After proving these theorems, we further investigate cosmetic two-strand twists of odd orders. Through two examples, we find that the second theorem above becomes false if `separating' is removed, and that a key technical proposition fails when the order equals 1. A closer look at an order-one example, an instance of cosmetic band surgery on the unknot, reveals it to be nearly trivial in a sense that we name `weakly nugatory'. We correct the technical proposition to obtain a means of using double branched covers to show that certain band surgeries are weakly nugatory. As an application, we prove that every cosmetic band surgery on the unknot is of this type.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05701 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Instances of two-strand twists which act on a Seifert surface F for K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The Dehn surgery in Σ(K) corresponding to the two-strand 2-twist shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Realizing a change in a gluing map by an n-fold left Dehn twist via Dehn surgery. On the right side, the surgery curve intersects the annulus A × {1} in an arc which wraps around the annulus n times. forming V0 ∪T n γe (Fe) V1 by gluing V0 to V1 via T ±n γe h, we can f…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A cosmetic two-strand −1-twist on the unknot in S 3 . Example 4.1. Consider the two-strand −1-twist on the unknot K shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: An instance of trivial non-coherent band surgery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: A cosmetic two-strand −5-twist on the figure-eight knot, performed along a non-separating arc in its fiber surface. I = [0, 1] so that K ∩ b = I × {0, 1}. Let K0 denote the knot obtained from K by performing surgery along b. The isotopy class of the twisting circle c i…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Realizing the effect of a two-strand −1-twist by instead performing a +1-twist along a different twisting circle. The relationship between c 0 and c can be made more precise. For one, we can view c 0 as being embedded on the boundary of the ball B in which the original…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Isotoping the unknot K from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The curves and arcs involved in the discussion surrounding Definition 4.4 , and the proof of Proposition 4.6. satisfied for a two-strand n-twist on K with |n| > 1, then the twist is actually nugatory. Note that, as in the example preceding this definition, condition (…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: A chirally cosmetic two-strand −(2n + 1)-twist on a twist knot admitting a standard diagram with n + 2 crossings. The second operation denoted by ∼ is an isotopy. Question 4.7. Does there exist a non-trivial knot in S 3 admitting a cosmetic two-strand ±1-twist (i.e. b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

C. Balm, S. Friedl, E. Kalfagianni, and M. Powell , Cosmetic crossings and Seifert matrices , Comm. Anal. Geom., 20 (2012), pp. 235–253

work page 2012
[2]

C. J. Balm and E. Kalfagianni, Knots without cosmetic crossings, Topology Appl., 207 (2016), pp. 33–42

work page 2016
[3]

D. Buck, K. Ishihara, M. Rathbun, and K. Shimokawa , Band surgeries and crossing changes between ﬁbered links, J. Lond. Math. Soc., 94 (2016), pp. 557–582

work page 2016
[4]

Burde and H

G. Burde and H. Zieschang, Knots, de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 2003

work page 2003
[5]

A. L. Edmonds, A topological proof of the equivariant dehn lemma, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 297 (1986), pp. 605–615

work page 1986
[6]

Farb and D

B. Farb and D. Margalit , A Primer on Mapping Class Groups , Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012

work page 2012
[7]

Gabai, Foliations and the topology of 3-manifolds

D. Gabai, Foliations and the topology of 3-manifolds. II , J. Diﬀ. Geom., 26 (1987), pp. 461–478

work page 1987
[8]

Gonz´alez-Acuna, Open books , Lecture notes, University of Iowa, (1975)

F. Gonz´alez-Acuna, Open books , Lecture notes, University of Iowa, (1975)

work page 1975

Show all 24 references

[9]

C. M. Gordon, Knots whose branched cyclic coverings have periodic homology, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 168 (1972), pp. 357–370

1972
[10]

Ser., 15 (2009), pp

, Dehn surgery and 3-manifolds , Low dimensional topology, IAS/Park City Math. Ser., 15 (2009), pp. 21–71

2009
[11]

C. M. Gordon and J. Luecke , Knots are determined by their complements , J. Amer. Math. Soc., 2 (1989), pp. 371–415

1989
[12]

Ichihara, I

K. Ichihara, I. D. Jong, and H. Masai, Cosmetic banding on knots and links, Osaka J. Math, 55 (2018), pp. 731–745

2018
[13]

Jang, X.-S

B. Jang, X.-S. Lin, S. Wang, and Y.-Q. Wu , Achirality of knots and links , Topol. Appl., 119 (2002), pp. 185–208

2002
[14]

Kalfagianni, Cosmetic crossing changes of ﬁbered knots, J

E. Kalfagianni, Cosmetic crossing changes of ﬁbered knots, J. Reine Angew. Math., 669 (2012), pp. 151– 164. Page 22 of 22 COSMETIC TWO-STRAND TWISTS ON FIBERED KNOTS

2012
[15]

Kirby, Problems in low dimensional manifold theory , in Algebraic and Geometric Topology, Part 2, Proc

R. Kirby, Problems in low dimensional manifold theory , in Algebraic and Geometric Topology, Part 2, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. XXXII, Providence, RI, 1978, Amer. Math. Soc., pp. 273–312

1978
[16]

Kobayashi, Fibered links and unknotting operations, Osaka Journal of Mathematics, 26 (1989), pp

T. Kobayashi, Fibered links and unknotting operations, Osaka Journal of Mathematics, 26 (1989), pp. 699– 742

1989
[17]

Kotschick, Quasi-homomorphisms and stable lengths in mapping class groups , Proc

D. Kotschick, Quasi-homomorphisms and stable lengths in mapping class groups , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 132 (2004), pp. 3167–3175

2004
[18]

Lidman and A

T. Lidman and A. Moore , Cosmetic surgery in L-spaces and nugatory crossings , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 369 (2017), pp. 3639–3654

2017
[19]

A. H. Moore and M. Vazquez, Recent advances on the non-coherent band surgery model for site-speciﬁc recombination, arXiv:1810.0875, (2018)

2018
[20]

Ni, Dehn surgeries on knots in product manifolds , J

Y. Ni, Dehn surgeries on knots in product manifolds , J. Topol., 4 (2011), pp. 799–816

2011
[21]

Rolfsen, Knots and links, vol

D. Rolfsen, Knots and links, vol. 346, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2003

2003
[22]

Schultens, Introduction to 3-manifolds , vol

J. Schultens, Introduction to 3-manifolds , vol. 151 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Amer. Math. Soc., 2014

2014
[23]

Torisu, On nugatory crossings for knots , Topology App., 92 (1999), pp

I. Torisu, On nugatory crossings for knots , Topology App., 92 (1999), pp. 119–129

1999
[24]

Waldhausen, On irreducible 3-manifolds which are suﬃciently large, Ann

F. Waldhausen, On irreducible 3-manifolds which are suﬃciently large, Ann. of Math., 87 (1968), pp. 56– 88

1968

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

C. Balm, S. Friedl, E. Kalfagianni, and M. Powell , Cosmetic crossings and Seifert matrices , Comm. Anal. Geom., 20 (2012), pp. 235–253

work page 2012

[2] [2]

C. J. Balm and E. Kalfagianni, Knots without cosmetic crossings, Topology Appl., 207 (2016), pp. 33–42

work page 2016

[3] [3]

D. Buck, K. Ishihara, M. Rathbun, and K. Shimokawa , Band surgeries and crossing changes between ﬁbered links, J. Lond. Math. Soc., 94 (2016), pp. 557–582

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Burde and H

G. Burde and H. Zieschang, Knots, de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 2003

work page 2003

[5] [5]

A. L. Edmonds, A topological proof of the equivariant dehn lemma, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 297 (1986), pp. 605–615

work page 1986

[6] [6]

Farb and D

B. Farb and D. Margalit , A Primer on Mapping Class Groups , Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Gabai, Foliations and the topology of 3-manifolds

D. Gabai, Foliations and the topology of 3-manifolds. II , J. Diﬀ. Geom., 26 (1987), pp. 461–478

work page 1987

[8] [8]

Gonz´alez-Acuna, Open books , Lecture notes, University of Iowa, (1975)

F. Gonz´alez-Acuna, Open books , Lecture notes, University of Iowa, (1975)

work page 1975