0
$\begingroup$

The torus knot page on Wikipedia contains the following (p,q)-torus knot parametrization:\begin{aligned}x&=r\cos(p\phi )\\y&=r\sin(p\phi )\\z&=-\sin(q\phi )\end{aligned} where\begin{aligned} r=\cos(q\phi )+2\end{aligned} and \begin{aligned} 0<\phi <2\pi\end{aligned}

What motivates the use of the additive inverse of the computed sine function?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The standard torus that a torus knot lies on has a coordinate system given by a longitude $\lambda$ and a meridian $\mu$.

Torus with a longitude and a meridian

The standard torus bounds a solid torus, which has a core circle. Give it an orientation, for example so that it has linking number $+1$ with the oriented $z$-axis. The longitude is a copy of the core circle pushed off to the boundary torus in such a way that the loop bounds a disk in the exterior (capturing the idea that $\lambda$ does not "wrap around" the torus about the minor circumference). The meridian is an oriented loop in the torus that has linking number $+1$ with the core circle and that bounds a disk in the interior of the solid torus (capturing a similar idea of not "wrapping around" longitudinally).

If you look at $\mu$ in the $XZ$ plane, you'll see that it is a circle that is oriented clockwise. That is why there is a minus sign.

Meridian in the XZ plane

I found it helpful to think about \begin{align*} x&= r = \cos(q\phi)+2\\ y&= 0\\ z&=-\sin(q\phi) \end{align*} which is the parameterization while being rotated about the $Z$ axis to keep the parameterized curve on the $XZ$ plane.

Homologically, a $(p,q)$ torus knot is $p[\lambda]+q[\mu]$. That is, it goes $p$ times around in the longitudinal direction while going $q$ times in the meridian direction.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you @Kyle Miller for the visuals; they helped to illustrate your explanation. If the orientation of the red circle were counterclockwise, i.e. if there weren’t a minus sign, would the set of points the equations indicate no longer constitute a torus knot? If the points wouldn’t be a torus knot, which part of the definition of a torus knot would fail to apply to them? $\endgroup$ – bblohowiak Mar 31 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ @bblohowiak It would still be a torus knot (a torus knot is just a knot on a torus). But, it would be the $(p,-q)$ torus knot, which is different from the $(p,q)$ torus knot in general. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Miller Mar 31 at 19:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.