Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 9 references

Quantum enhancement polynomials associated with the canonical two-element tricbracket

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Every quantum enhancement polynomial for the two-element tribracket is a specialization of one of five universal polynomials.

desk verdict Useful classification result for tribracket brackets over integral domains, but Lemma 4.4 as printed misses the authors' own (A(3),B(3)) — a fixable typo that must be corrected before the universality theorem can be used. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15112 v1 pith:QFVISQUQ submitted 2025-01-25 math.GT

Yuya Koda , Yuya Nishimura , Yuka Sakamoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GT MSC 57K1057K1657K12
keywords knotsandlinkstribracketsquantumenhancementpolynomialscountinginvariantsJonespolynomiallinkingnumbersuniversaltribracketbracketsX2colorings
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 quantum enhancement polynomials, link invariants built from colorings of link diagrams by the canonical two-element tribracket $X_2 = \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ with $[a,b,c] = a+b-c$, together with a choice of a tribracket bracket $(A,B)$, a pair of unit-valued maps satisfying a state-sum condition. Its main result is that, when the coefficient ring is an integral domain, every such bracket is obtained from one of five explicitly written universal brackets by a ring homomorphism; hence every quantum enhancement polynomial for $X_2$ is a specialization of one of five universal polynomials. This matters because it reduces an infinite family of invariants to a finite list whose properties can be studied once and for all: the universal polynomials determine every pairwise linking number of sublinks, one of them is strictly stronger than the Jones polynomial on links, and all five collapse to the Jones polynomial on knots. The paper also reports computer calculations for multi-component links with up to 10 crossings, showing that four of the universal polynomials distinguish links that share the same Jones polynomial and linking-number data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the family of five universal tribracket brackets $(A^{(1)},B^{(1)}),\ldots,(A^{(5)},B^{(5)})$, with entries in the Laurent polynomial ring $\mathbb{Z}[x_1^{\pm 1},\ldots,x_5^{\pm 1}]$, written out as explicit $2\times 2\times 2$ tensors of Laurent monomials. These brackets serve as recipes: any tribracket bracket over an integral domain is obtained by substituting the five values $A_{0,0,0}$, $A_{0,0,1}$, $A_{0,1,0}$, $A_{1,0,1}$, and $B_{0,0,0}$ into one of them. The proof machinery is a classification into five types built on the zero-product law: Lemma 4.3 factors quadratic equations such as $(B_{0,0,1} - A_{0,0,0}B_{0,0,0}^{-1}A_{0,0,1})(B_{0,0,1} - A_{0,0,0}^{-1}B_{0,0,0}A_{0,0,1}) = 0$ into two linear alternatives, and Lemma 4.4 eliminates three of the eight combinatorial possibilities, leaving exactly the five types. The distinguished element $w = -x_1^2 x_5^{-1}$ and the element $\delta = -x_1 x_5^{-1} - x_1^{-1} x_5$ are shared by all five universal brackets, which is what makes the degree computations for linking numbers and the specialization to the Jones polynomial work.

What would settle it

Construct a tribracket bracket $(A,B)$ with respect to $X_2$ over a commutative ring with zero divisors such as $R = \mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ or $R = \mathbb{F}_2[\varepsilon]/(\varepsilon^2)$, and check whether it equals $(f \circ A^{(i)}, f \circ B^{(i)})$ for one of the five universal brackets and some ring homomorphism $f$; a single bracket not obtainable this way would show Theorem 4.5 does not extend beyond integral domains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the set of tribracket brackets for the canonical two-element tribracket, a priori infinite because the coefficient ring is arbitrary, is finitely generated in a strong sense. Theorem 4.5 states that over any integral domain $R$, a pair of maps $A,B$ is a tribracket bracket with respect to $X_2$ and $R$ if and only if there is a universal bracket $(A^{(i)},B^{(i)})$ for some $i \in \{1,\ldots,5\}$ and a ring homomorphism $f_{A,B} \colon \mathbb{Z}[x_1^{\pm 1},\ldots,x_5^{\pm 1}] \to R$, defined by $x_1 \mapsto A_{0,0,0}$, $x_2 \mapsto A_{0,0,1}$, $x_3 \mapsto A_{0,1,0}$, $x_4 \mapsto A_{1,0,1}$, $x_5 \mapsto B_{0,0,0}$, such that $(f_{A,B} \circ A^{(i)}, f_{A,B} \circ B^{(i)}) = (A,B)$. Consequently, for any link $L$, the quantum enhancement polynomial $\Phi^{(A,B)}_{X_2}(L)$ is the image under $f_{A,B}$ of one of the five universal polynomials $\Phi^{(A^{(i)},B^{(i)})}_{X_2}(L)$. The paper then shows that the five universal polynomials determine the multiset $LK(L)$ of all pairwise linking numbers of sublinks, that $\Phi^{(A^{(5)},B^{(5)})}_{X_2}$ determines the Jones polynomial and is strictly stronger than the Jones polynomial on links, and that on knots each of the five is equivalent to the Jones polynomial. Computations on 1268 multi-component links with up to 10 crossings show that for $i = 1,2,3,4$ the universal polynomials still separate some links with equal $(J, LK)$ data, while no such pair was found for $i = 5$.

Load-bearing premise

The classification assumes the coefficient ring is an integral domain, so a product of two nonzero factors cannot vanish; over rings with zero divisors the five-type dichotomy and therefore the universality theorem are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Over any integral domain, the study of all quantum enhancement polynomials for $X_2$ reduces to five universal polynomials: each $\Phi^{(A,B)}_{X_2}(L)$ is a specialization of one of the five $\Phi^{(A^{(i)},B^{(i)})}_{X_2}(L)$.
  • If two links have equal $\Phi^{(A^{(i)},B^{(i)})}_{X_2}$ for any $i \in \{1,\ldots,5\}$, then their multisets of pairwise linking numbers $LK$ are equal.
  • The universal polynomial $\Phi^{(A^{(5)},B^{(5)})}_{X_2}$ determines the Jones polynomial for links and is strictly stronger than the Jones polynomial on links.
  • For knots, all five universal polynomials are pairwise equivalent and are equivalent to the Jones polynomial.
  • Computations on links with up to 10 crossings show that $\Phi^{(A^{(i)},B^{(i)})}_{X_2}$ for $i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$ distinguishes some links with identical $(J, LK)$ data, while no such distinction was found for $i = 5$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same classification-through-specialization strategy is likely to work for other finite tribrackets and related coloring structures: the set of quantum enhancement polynomials may often be generated by finitely many universal brackets, with the number of generators growing with the size of the coloring set.
  • Because $\Phi^{(A^{(5)},B^{(5)})}_{X_2}$ captures both the Jones polynomial and all linking numbers, the additional distinguishing power of the other four universal polynomials probably comes from how colors distribute across the components of a link; a testable extension is to ask whether they detect Brunnian or non-split structure beyond linking data.
  • The mirror-image behavior studied in Section 3 suggests that, under the commutativity condition of Proposition 3.6, these universal polynomials could serve as chirality-sensitive invariants, although the paper does not claim this.
  • The computational evidence for the conjecture that $\Phi^{(A^{(i)},B^{(i)})}_{X_2}$ is strictly stronger than $(J, LK)$ for $i \le 4$ could be tested against infinite families such as twist links or satellites, which might either confirm the conjecture or produce a counterexample.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes five explicit universal tribracket brackets for the canonical two-element tribracket X2 and proves (Theorem 4.5) that, over any integral domain, every tribracket bracket is a ring-homomorphism specialization of one of the five. It then studies the five universal quantum enhancement polynomials: they determine the multiset of pairwise linking numbers (Corollary 5.4), the fifth determines the Jones polynomial and is strictly stronger than it (Theorem 5.5, Proposition 5.6), while on knots all five are equivalent to the Jones polynomial (Corollary 5.11). The final section reports computations for 1268 links with up to ten crossings and states conjectures comparing the five invariants with each other and with (J, LK).

Significance. If the classification is correct, it reduces an infinite family of tribracket brackets for X2 over integral domains to five concrete polynomials, making the quantum enhancement invariants computable and comparable with classical invariants. The paper's main theoretical statements are explicit and falsifiable, the strict-strength example uses Thistlethwaite's link with trivial Jones polynomial in a convincing way, and the computational tables give concrete evidence for the conjectures. The algebraic case-analysis structure is appropriate for the problem. However, the central classification lemma has an indexing error as printed, and the verification of Proposition 4.2 is omitted, so the results are not yet fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Lemma 4.4 and Theorem 4.5] As printed, Lemma 4.4 is inconsistent with Definition 4.1. The universal bracket (A(3),B(3)) has B_{0,0,1}=x_1x_2x_5^{-1}=A_{0,0,0}B_{0,0,0}^{-1}A_{0,0,1} and B_{0,1,0}=x_1^{-1}x_3x_5=A_{0,0,0}^{-1}B_{0,0,0}A_{0,1,0}, with A_{0,1,1}=A_{0,0,0}. This is exactly the mixed case B_{0,0,1}=U and B_{0,1,0}=V. Conditions (1) and (2) of Lemma 4.4 repeat an equality for B_{0,0,1} and contain no condition on B_{0,1,0}, while conditions (3)-(5) all require B_{0,0,1}=A_{0,0,0}^{-1}B_{0,0,0}A_{0,0,1}. Hence (A(3),B(3)), which Proposition 4.2 asserts to be a tribracket bracket, satisfies none of the five conditions. The proof of Lemma 4.4 also invokes Lemma 4.3(4.3-4) with B_{0,0,1} in the hypothesis, whereas (4.3-4) is a statement about B_{0,1,0}. Since Theorem 4.5 rests on this five-type dichotomy, the if-and-only-if is not established as written; the case split should be corrected, namely the two mixed cases B_{0,0,1}=U/B_{0,1,0}=V with A_{0,1,1}=A_{0,0,0} or A_{0,0,0}^3B_{0,0,0}^{-2}, the two mixed cases B_{0,0,1}=V/B_{0,1,0}=U with the same A_{0,1,1} alternatives, and the case B_{0,0,1}=B_{0,1,0}=V with A_{0,1,1}=A_{0,0,0}.
  2. [Section 4, Proposition 4.2] The proof of Proposition 4.2 is omitted entirely: the five pairs are asserted to satisfy Definition 1.3 by 'straightforward verification'. Because the universality theorem and all subsequent comparisons depend on these brackets being genuine tribracket brackets, the paper should provide the verification, for instance a table of substitutions for equations (3a)-(3e) for each of the five pairs or a small computer algebra script. This is particularly important given the incorrect case split in Lemma 4.4, which reduces confidence in unstated finite checks.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says the quantum enhancement polynomials 'can be recovered by five specific polynomials' without mentioning that Theorem 4.5 is proved only over integral domains; please add the qualifier 'over any integral domain' to avoid overstating the scope.
  2. [Appendix B, proof of Proposition 2.2] In the case split for the twist knot, the text reads 'S1 = A and S2 = B, or S1 = A and S2 = A'; the second alternative should be 'S1 = B and S2 = A', otherwise the mixed case is misdescribed.
  3. [Theorem 5.3] In the statement and proof, several occurrences of D2 should be D'_2; for example, the last display writes β(A(j),B(j))(DL′, C(a′, D′1, D2)) instead of β(A(j),B(j))(DL′, C(a′, D′1, D′2)).
  4. [Section 4, proof of Lemma 4.4] The proof of Lemma 4.4 says 'By Lemma 4.3 (4.3-4), if B_{0,0,1} = A_{0,0,0}B_{0,0,0}^{-1}A_{0,0,1}, then B_{0,0,1} = A_{0,0,0}^{-1}B_{0,0,0}A_{0,0,1}'; the hypothesis of (4.3-4) concerns B_{0,1,0}, not B_{0,0,1}. This is part of the same indexing error noted in the major comments, but it should also be corrected in the proof text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the universal brackets and their Jones comparisons are derived from the bracket axioms, with no fitted parameters or self-citation chain.

full rationale

None of the paper's central claims reduces to its inputs by construction. Definition 4.1 presents five explicit Laurent-polynomial brackets, and Theorem 4.5's classification is proved from Lemma 4.3 and Lemma 4.4, which are algebraic consequences of Definition 1.3 over integral domains; the homomorphism f_{A,B} is defined from the given bracket, not fitted to any output invariant. The comparisons in Section 5 are one-way specializations: in Theorem 5.5, a ring homomorphism collapses all A(5)-values to x and B(5)-values to x^{-1}, recovering the Kauffman bracket, so Phi determines Jones, not the reverse. Proposition 5.6's strictness uses Thistlethwaite's link with trivial Jones polynomial as an external, independently established example, and the Phi values are obtained by direct computation in Appendix C. Corollary 5.11 is a derived equivalence for knots from the trivial/checkerboard coloring structure, not an assumption. The only prior-work citations ([1], [2]) supply the original definition and Reidemeister invariance of quantum enhancement polynomials; they are not the authors' own and are not used to forbid alternatives. One non-circularity caveat: as printed, Lemma 4.4 omits the case B_{0,0,1}=A_{0,0,0}B_{0,0,0}^{-1}A_{0,0,1}, B_{0,1,0}=A_{0,0,0}^{-1}B_{0,0,0}A_{0,1,0}, A_{0,1,1}=A_{0,0,0}, which is realized by the paper's own (A(3),B(3)); the proof also appears to misstate (4.3-4). This is a correctness gap in the classification theorem, not a circular reduction, and it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard tribracket bracket theory from [1], the integral domain assumption for the classification, and the external LinkInfo and Thistlethwaite results. The five universal brackets are new objects but are explicitly constructed and tested against known invariants.

free parameters (1)
  • x1, x2, x3, x4, x5 (universal bracket coordinates)
    Definition 4.1 introduces the five universal brackets as Laurent polynomials in five indeterminates; by Theorem 4.5 the image values (A000, A001, A010, A101, B000) parameterize every tribracket bracket over an integral domain. These are structural variables, not fitted to experimental data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Theorem 1.5 of Aggarwal, Nelson, and Rivera [1]: beta(A,B)_X(DL,C) is invariant under X-colored Reidemeister moves.
    The paper uses this to define quantum enhancement polynomials as link invariants; proof is not reproduced.
  • standard math The tribracket bracket defining equations (Definition 1.3) characterize the allowed (A,B) pairs.
    Definition imported from [1]; all arguments in Sections 3-4 start from these equations.
  • standard math Thistlethwaite's 3-component link has Jones polynomial equal to that of the unlink [9].
    Used in Proposition 5.6 to prove strict strength of Phi(5); the Jones equality is an external established result.
  • domain assumption LinkInfo database [4] correctly enumerates all links with up to 10 crossings and their invariants.
    Section 6 computational results depend on this external database.
  • domain assumption R is an integral domain.
    Theorem 4.5 and Lemmas 4.3-4.4 require cancellation for the quadratic factorizations; the paper does not claim the classification over rings with zero divisors.
invented entities (1)
  • Universal tribracket brackets (A(1),B(1))...(A(5),B(5)) independent evidence
    purpose: Parameterize all tribracket brackets over integral domains and define the universal quantum enhancement polynomials Phi(A(i),B(i)).
    Explicit new algebraic objects in Definition 4.1; Theorem 4.5 proves they cover all cases, and Section 6 computes their invariants for 1268 links, giving falsifiable comparisons with Jones and linking number data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum enhancement polynomials associated with the canonical two-element tricbracket." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QFVISQUQ

@misc{pith2026250115112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum enhancement polynomials associated with the canonical two-element tricbracket},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QFVISQUQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15112}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum enhancement polynomials are invariants for oriented links, defined in association with an algebraic structure called a tribracket. In this paper, we focus on the particular case of the canonical two-element tribracket. We prove that, in that case, the quantum enhancement polynomials can be recovered by five specific polynomials, which we refer to as the universal quantum enhancement polynomials. After presenting several notable properties of these polynomials, we show that they are strictly stronger than the Jones polynomial. Furthermore, we provide computational results for links with up to 10 crossings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15112 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The rule for a region coloring around each vertex. ColX(DL). The cardinality of ColX(DL) is called the X-coloring number of the diagram DL. We define a map clC : C(DL) → X3 by clC(c) = (xc, yc, zc), where xc, yc, zc are the colors of the regions around c ∈ C(DL) as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. k half-twists. Recall that for an integer q, the (unoriented) link T(2, q) shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The standard diagram of the (2, q)-torus link T(2, q). Proposition 2.1. Let R be an arbitrary commutative ring, (A, B) a tribracket bracket with respect to X2 and R, and q an arbitrary integer. Then, the quantum enhancement polynomial Φ (A,B)X2(T(2, q)) of an oriented T(2, q) is given as follows, where we set n = 1 if q = 0 or the sign of every crossing of the standard diagram of oriented T(2, q) is positive, and n … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The standard diagram of the q-twist knot TW (q). otherwise. The proof is provided in the Appendix. Let q be an integer. The (unoriented) knot TW (q) shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the coloring C(0, {D1}, {D2, D3}) of a diagram of a 3-component link. D1 D2 D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 1 1 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The case where Di , Dj ∈ D1. Di , Dj ∈ D2, then the regions around c are colored as shown in either case in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The case where Di , Dj ∈ D2. Dj ∈ D1 and Di ∈ D2, then the regions around c are colored as in either case in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The case where Di ∈ D1 and Dj ∈ D2, or Dj ∈ D1 and Di ∈ D2. satisfies the relation shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Colors of the regions around c. Corollary 3.2. Let DL be a diagram of an n-component link L. Then, the number of X2-colorings of DL is 2 n+1. In particular, if L is a knot, then the number of X2-colorings of DL is four, consisting of two trivial X2-colorings and two ch…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Colors of the regions around vertices of |DL|. Proof. By Proposition 3.1, there exists a decomposition (D1, D2) of {D1, . . . , Dn} and an element a ∈ X2 such that C = C(a, D1, D2). The horizontal segments in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Colors of the regions around ci and ci+1. (3.5-b) For any integer i (m′ + 1 ≤ i ≤ m), the regions around ci are colored as in either of the models shown Figures 6 and 7 up to over/under information. We first show that the equality s(ci)(clC(ci))sign(ci) = s(ci)(clC (c…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Local models of colorings by C(a, D1, D2) at crossings of C(D1, D2). • If a crossing c ∈ C(DL) is colored as shown on the leftmost or second-from-left in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Thistlethwaite’s link. Proposition 5.1, for any a ∈ X2, the degx2 of each monomial of β (A(i) ,B(i) ) X2 (DL, C(a, D1, D2)) is −2. Therefore, we have Φ(A(i) ,B(i) ) X2 (L) ̸= Φ(A(i) ,B(i) ) X2 (O). □ The quantum enhancement polynomial of a 3-component trivial link O i…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The links L8a20{0; 0} and L8a20{1; 0}. invariants Φ(A(i) ,B(i) ) X2 , J and LK for those links are as follows: • J(L8a20{0; 0}) = J(L8a20{1; 0}) = −t − 9 2 +t − 7 2 −3t − 5 2 −t − 1 2 −t 1 2 −3t 5 2 +t 7 2 −t 9 2 • LK(L8a20{0; 0}) = LK(L8a20{1; 0}) = {−2, −2, −2, −2, …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: An X2-coloring of the standard diagram of T(2, q), where q is odd. Next, suppose that q is even. Consider first the case where T(2, q) is oriented so that nq ≥ 0. In this case, we have: ks = ( |q| − |s −1 (A)| if |s −1 (A)| ̸= |q|, 2 if |s −1 (A)| = |q|, [PITH_FULL_I…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: ; denote the coloring by Ca,b,c. Then, for each a, b, c ∈ X2, we have: β (A,B) X2 (D, Ca,b,c) = w −q X s∈S(D) δ ks Y c∈C(D) s(c)(a, b, c) n , which simplifies to: β (A,B) X2 (D, Ca,b,c) = w −q   A n |q| 2 a,b,cA n |q| 2 a,c,bδ 2 + |q| X2 i=1 |q| X2 j=1 |q| 2 i |…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: ; denote the coloring by Ca,b,c. Then, for each a, b, c ∈ X2, we have: β (A,B) X2 (D, Ca,b,c) = w q X s∈S(D) δ ks Y c∈C(D) s(c)(a, b, c) n = w q   B n |q| 2 a,b,cB n |q| 2 a,c,bδ 2 + |q| X2 i=1 |q| X2 j=1 |q| 2 i |q| 2 j  B ni a,b,cB nj a,c,bA n( |q| 2 −i) a,b,…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: An X2-coloring of the standard diagram of TW (q). For each state s ∈ S(D), set ms A = |{c ∈ C(D) \ {c1, c2} | s(c) = A}|. Consider first the case where S1 = A and S2 = A. In this case, we have ks = ( ms A + 1 if ms A ̸= 0, 3 if |s −1 (A)| = 0, and therefore, β (A,B) X…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

9 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aggarwal, L., Nelson, S., and Rivera, P., Quantum enhancements via tribracket brackets, Mediterr. J. Math. 18 (2021), no. 1, Paper No. 10, 13 pp

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Aggarwal, L., Nelson, S., and Rivera, P., Correction to: Quantum enhancements via tribracket brackets, Mediterr. J. Math. 21 (2024), no. 1, Paper No. 23, 2 pp

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Elhamdadi, M., Nelson, S., Quandles—an introduction to the algebra of knots, Stud. Math. Libr., 74 American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    and Moore, A.H., Linkinfo: Table of link invariants, URL: link- info.math.indiana.edu, Jul

    Livingston, C. and Moore, A.H., Linkinfo: Table of link invariants, URL: link- info.math.indiana.edu, Jul. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Nelson, S., A survey of quantum enhancements, Springer Proc. Math. Stat., 284, Springer, Cham, 2019, 163–178

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    258 (2019), 474–512

    Nelson, S., Oshiro, K., and Oyamaguchi, N., Local biquandles and Niebrzydowski’s tribracket theory, Topology Appl. 258 (2019), 474–512

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Niebrzydowski, M., On some ternary operations in knot theory, Fund. Math. 225 (2014), no. 1, 259–276

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Carter, J.S., Jelsovsky, D., Kamada, S., Langford, L., Saito, M., State-sum invariants of knotted curves and surfaces from quandle cohomology, Electron. Res. Announc. Amer. Math. Soc. 5 (1999), 146–156

    work page 1999

Show all 9 references
  1. [9]

    Knot Theory Ramifications 10 (2001), no

    Thistlethwaite, M., Links with trivial Jones polynomial, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 10 (2001), no. 4, 641–643. TRIBRACKET BRACKETS AND QUANTUM ENHANCEMENTS 31 Appendix A. The quantum enhancement polynomials for torus links T (2, q). Proof of Proposition 2.1. Let D be the sta...

    2001

Pith tools

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