text:
# Radially infalling brane and moving domain wall in the brane cosmology

## I Introduction

Recently there has been much interest in the phenomenon of localization of gravity proposed by Randall and Sundrum (RS) . RS assumed a single positive tension 3-brane and a negative bulk cosmological constant in the 5D spacetime . They have obtained a 4D localized gravity by fine-tuning the tension of the brane to the cosmological constant. More recently, several authors have studied its cosmological implications. The brane cosmology contains some important deviations from the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmology. One approach is first to assume the 5D dynamic metric (that is, BDL-metric) which is manifestly $`Z_2`$-symmetric. Then one solves the Einstein equation with a localized stress-energy tensor to find the behavior of the scale factor. We call this the BDL approach.

The other $`Z_2`$-symmetric approach starts with a static configuration which is two AdSS5 spaces joined by the domain wall. In this case the embedding into the moving domain wallHere we use the term “moving domain wall” loosely to refer to any 3-brane moving in 5 dimensions. is possible by choosing a normal vector $`n_M`$ and a tangent vector $`u_M`$. The domain wall separating two such bulk spaces is taken to be located at $`r=a(\tau )`$, where $`a(\tau )`$ will be determined by solving the Israel junction condition. Then an observer on the wall will interpret his motion through the static bulk background as cosmological expansion or contraction.

On the other hand, brane cosmology has been studied in the AdS/CFT correspondence. For example, the holographic principle was investigated in a FRW universe with a conformal field theory (CFT) within an AdSS5-bulk theory. In this case the brane is considered as the edge of an AdSS5 space. The brane starts with (big bang) inside the small black hole For the holographic entropy bound in cosmology, one may consider either a universe-size black hole with $`\mathrm{}=r_+`$ or the large black hole with $`\mathrm{}<r_+`$. But for these cases, one cannot choose an appropriate embedding for obtaining the moving domain wall (brane). Hence we do not consider these black holes. ($`\mathrm{}>r_+`$), crosses the horizon, and expands until it reaches maximum size. And then the brane contracts , it falls the black hole again and finally disappears (big crunch). An observer in AdSS5-space finds two interesting moments (two points in the Penrose diagram) when the brane crosses the past (future) event horizon. Authors in ref. insisted that at these times the Friedmann equation controlling the cosmological expansion (contraction) coincides with an universal Cardy formula for the entropy of the CFT on the brane. If the above is true, it seems surprising that the Friedmann equation contains information about thermodynamics of the CFT. However, the Friedmann equation at the position of the horizon is obscure because the embedding of the AdSS5 spacetime to the moving domain wall is apparently singular at these points.

In this paper, we resolve this embedding problem of an AdSS5-black hole spacetime into the moving domain wall by introducing a radially infalling brane (RIB), where the same problem occurs. It turns out that in the case of RIB, an embedding onto the horizon (when the brane crosses the black hole) can be defined because it belongs to a coordinate singularity. Similarly we show that an embedding into the MDW at the horizon is possible. We can define the Friedmann equation at these moments. Hence we can introduce a relation of the CFT/FRW-cosmology on the brane.

For cosmological embedding, let us start with an AdSS5-spacetime ,

$$ds_5^2=g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=h(r)dt^2+\frac{1}{h(r)}dr^2+r^2\left[d\chi ^2+f_k(\chi )^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right],$$
(1)
where $`k=0,\pm 1`$. $`h(r)`$ and $`f_k(\chi )`$ are given by

$$h(r)=k\frac{m}{r^2}+\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2},f_0(\chi )=\chi ,f_1(\chi )=\mathrm{sin}\chi ,f_1(\chi )=\mathrm{sinh}\chi .$$
(2)
In the case of $`m=0`$, we have an exact AdS5-space. However, $`m0`$ generates the electric part of the Weyl tensor $`E_{MP}=C_{MNPQ}n^Nn^Q`$. This means that the bulk spacetime has an small black hole ($`\mathrm{}>r_+`$) with the horizon at $`r=r_+`$, $`r_+^2=\mathrm{}^2(\sqrt{k^2+4m/\mathrm{}^2}k)/2`$. Hereafter we neither consider the universe-size ($`\mathrm{}=r_+)`$ nor large ($`r_+>\mathrm{})`$ black holes because one cannot define their embedding into the moving domain wall.

## II Moving Domain Wall (MDW)

Now we introduce the radial location of a MDW in the form of $`r=a(\tau ),t=t(\tau )`$ parametrized by the proper time $`\tau `$ : $`(t,r,\chi ,\theta ,\varphi )(t(\tau ),a(\tau ),\chi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$. Then we expect that the induced metric of dynamical domain wall will be given by the FRW-type. Hence $`\tau `$ and $`a(\tau )`$ will imply the cosmic time and scale factor of the FRW-universe, respectively. A tangent vector (proper velocity) of this MDW

$$u=\dot{t}\frac{}{t}+\dot{a}\frac{}{a},$$
(3)
is introduced to define an embedding properly. Here overdots mean differentiation with respect to $`\tau `$. This is normalized to satisfy

$$u^Mu^Ng_{MN}=1.$$
(4)
Given a tangent vector $`u_M`$, we need a normal 1-form directed toward to the bulk. Here we choose this as

$$n=\dot{a}dt\dot{t}da,n_Mn_Ng^{MN}=1.$$
(5)
This convention is consistent with the Randall-Sundrum case in the limit of $`m=0`$. Using either Eq.(3) with (4) or Eq.(5), we can express the proper time rate of the AdSS5 time $`\dot{t}`$ in terms of $`\dot{a}`$ as

$$\dot{t}=\frac{\sqrt{\dot{a}^2+h(a)}}{h(a)}.$$
(6)
From the above, it seems that $`\dot{t}`$ is not defined at $`a=a_+`$ because $`h(a_+)=0`$. This also happens in the study of static black hole. Usually one introduces a tortoise coordinate $`r^{}=h^1𝑑r`$ to resolve it. Then Eq.(1) takes a form of $`ds_5^2=h(dt^2dr^2)\mathrm{}`$ and one finds the Kruscal extension. This means that $`r=r_+`$ is just a coordinate singularity. We confirm this from $`R_{MNPQ}R^{MNPQ}=40/\mathrm{}^4+72m^2/r^8`$, which shows that $`r=0`$ $`(r=r_+)`$ are true (coordinate) singularity. Our dynamic situation is different from the static case. Here a convenient coordinate is not a tortoise one $`r^{}`$ but $`r`$ itself. Eq.(6) takes an alternative form of $`h\dot{t}=\sqrt{\dot{a}^2+h}`$, which implies that $`\sqrt{\dot{a}^2+h}=0\dot{a}=0`$ at $`a=a_+`$. Let us study this point more carefully. An explicit form of our tangent vector is given by

$$u^M=(\frac{\sqrt{\dot{a}^2+h(a)}}{h(a)},\dot{a},0,0,0),u_M=(\sqrt{\dot{a}^2+h(a)},\frac{\dot{a}}{h(a)},0,0,0).$$
(7)
On the other hand, the normal vector takes the form

$$n^M=(\frac{\dot{a}}{h(a)},\sqrt{\dot{a}^2+h(a)},0,0,0),n_M=(\dot{a},\frac{\sqrt{\dot{a}^2+h(a)}}{h(a)},0,0,0).$$
(8)
As is emphasized again, two vectors which are essential for the embedding are well defined everywhere, except $`r=r_+`$. But these look like singular vectors at the horizon. Hence two moments when the brane crosses the past (future) event horizons are singular points where one may not define the moving domain wall. This persists in deriving the 4D intrinsic metric and the extrinsic curvature. The first two terms in Eq.(1) together with Eq.(6) leads to

$$h(r)dt^2+\frac{1}{h(r)}dr^2\left(h(a)\dot{t}^2\frac{\dot{a}^2}{h(a)}\right)d\tau ^2=d\tau ^2.$$
(9)
Here one may worry about this connection when $`h(a_+)=0`$. The 4D induced line element is

$`ds_4^2`$ $`=d\tau ^2+a(\tau )^2\left[d\chi ^2+f_k(\chi )^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right]`$ (11)
$`h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$
where we use the Greek indices only for the brane. Actually the embedding of an AdSS5 space to the FRW-universe is a $`2(t,r)1(\tau )`$-mapping. The projection tensor is given by $`h_{MN}=g_{MN}n_Mn_N`$ and its determinant is zero. Hence its inverse $`h^{MN}`$ cannot be defined. This means that the above embedding belongs to a peculiar mapping to obtain the induced metric $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ from the AdSS5 black hole spacetime $`g_{MN}`$ with $`n_M`$. In addition, the extrinsic curvature is defined by

$`K_{\tau \tau }=K_{MN}u^Mu^N=(h(a)\dot{t})^1(\ddot{a}+h^{}(a)/2)={\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}+h^{}(a)/2}{\sqrt{\dot{a}^2+h(a)}}},`$ (12)
$`K_{\chi \chi }=K_{\theta \theta }=K_{\varphi \varphi }=h(a)\dot{t}a=\sqrt{\dot{a}^2+h(a)}a,`$ (13)
where prime stands for derivative with respect to $`a`$. We observe that $`K_{\tau \tau }`$ looks like ill-defined as $`\frac{\ddot{a}+h^{}(a)/2}{0}`$, and $`K_{\chi \chi }=K_{\theta \theta }=K_{\varphi \varphi }=0`$ at $`a=a_+`$. As we will see later, this belongs to apparent phenomena. A localized matter on the brane implies that the extrinsic curvature jumps across the brane. This jump is described by the Israel junction condition

$$K_{\mu \nu }=\kappa ^2\left(T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}T_\lambda ^\lambda h_{\mu \nu }\right)$$
(14)
with $`\kappa ^2=8\pi G_5^N`$. For cosmological purpose, we may introduce a localized stress-energy tensor on the brane as the 4D perfect fluid

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(\varrho +p)u_\mu u_\nu +ph_{\mu \nu }.$$
(15)
Here $`\varrho =\rho +\sigma `$ $`(p=P\sigma )`$, where $`\rho `$ $`(P)`$ is the energy density (pressure) of the localized matter and $`\sigma `$ is the brane tension. In the case of $`\rho =P=0`$, the r.h.s. of Eq.(14) leads to a form of the RS case as $`\frac{\sigma \kappa ^2}{3}h_{\mu \nu }`$. From Eqs.(14), one finds the space component of the junction condition

$$\sqrt{h(a)+\dot{a}^2}=\frac{\kappa ^2}{3}\sigma a.$$
(16)
For a single AdSS5, we have the fine-tuned brane tension $`\sigma =3/(\kappa ^2\mathrm{})`$. The above equation leads to

$$H^2=\frac{k}{a^2}+\frac{m}{a^4},$$
(17)
where $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ is the expansion rate. The term of $`m/a^4`$ originates from the electric (Coulomb) part of the 5D Weyl tensor, $`E_{00}m/a^4`$. This term behaves like radiation. Especially for $`k=1`$, we have $`m=\frac{16\pi G_5^NM}{3V(S^3)},M=\frac{a}{\mathrm{}}E,V=a^3V(S^3),G_5^N=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}G_4^N`$. Then one finds a CFT-radiation dominated universe

$$H^2=\frac{1}{a^2}+\frac{8\pi G_4^N}{3}\rho _{CFT},\rho _{CFT}=\frac{E}{V}.$$
(18)
It seems that the equation (16) is well-defined even at $`a=a_+`$. Thus this leads to $`H=\pm 1/\mathrm{}`$ at $`a=a_+`$, which is just the case mentioned in ref.. At this stage, this point is not clear. From Eq.(6), one finds $`\dot{a}^2=0`$ at $`a=a_+`$. This means that $`H^2a^2=0H=0`$ at $`a=a_+`$ because of $`a_+0`$. Naively we find a contradiction. Also, considering the extrinsic curvature expressed in terms of $`a,h(a)`$, the junction condition may not be defined at $`a=a_+`$. To resolve this problem, we introduce a radially infalling brane, where the same situation occurs as in the MDW picture.

## III Radially Infalling Brane (RIB)

A 3-brane action is usually given by the Nambu-Goto action. Here for cosmological purpose, we consider its point particle limit of brane $``$ body. The corresponding action with unit mass on the AdSS5 background space is given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}g_{MN}\frac{dx^M}{d\tau }\frac{dx^N}{d\tau }=\frac{1}{2}\left(h\dot{t}^2\frac{\dot{a}^2}{h}+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ means the angular part. This part is not relevant to our purpose because we consider only radial time-like geodesics.

For time-like geodesics, $`\tau `$ is proper time of the RIB describing the geodesic. The corresponding canonical momenta are

$$p_t=\frac{}{\dot{t}}=h(a)\dot{t},p_a=\frac{}{\dot{a}}=\frac{\dot{a}}{h(a)},\mathrm{}.$$
(20)
$`p_t`$ $`(p_a)`$ correspond to $`u_t=n^a`$ $`(u_a=n^t)`$ in the MDW approach. Hence the apparent singularity at $`a=a_+`$ appears in the RIF picture. We always choose $`2=1`$ by rescaling the affine parameter $`\tau `$ for time-like geodesics. This is just the same as was found in the normalization condition Eq.(6) for the tangent vector $`u^M`$ and normal vector $`n_M`$ in the MDW approach. Here we get an integral of the motion from the fact that $`t`$ is a cyclic coordinate : $`\frac{dp_t}{d\tau }=\frac{}{t}=0`$,

$$p_t=h(a)\dot{t}=\sqrt{\dot{a}^2+h(a)}=E$$
(21)
where $`E`$ is a constant of the motion. The above equation corresponds to Eq.(16) in the MDW approach. On the other hand, $`2=1`$ means

$$\frac{1}{h(a)}(E^2\dot{a}^2)=1.$$
(22)
This is nothing new and corresponds to Eq.(6) in the MDW approach. Different choices of the constant $`E`$ corresponds to different initial conditions. For simplicity, let us make a choice of $`E=1`$, which corresponds to dropping in a RIB from infinity with zero initial velocity. In the limit of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, the situation becomes rather clear. Hence first we consider the geodesic of RIB in the 5D Schwarzschild black hole spacetime.

### A RIB in 5D Schwarzschild space

In the case of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, we find from Eq.(22)

$$\frac{1}{\dot{a}^2}=\frac{a^2}{m}d\tau =\frac{a}{\sqrt{m}}da,$$
(23)
where we take the negative square root because we consider an infalling body into the black hole from the large $`a_0`$ ( $`a_0>>\sqrt{m}`$). This leads to

$$\tau \tau _0=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{m}}(a_0^2a^2)$$
(24)
where the RIB is located at $`a_0`$ at proper time $`\tau _0`$. Any singular behavior does not appear at the Schwarzschild radius $`a=a_+=\sqrt{m}`$ and the RIB falls continuously to $`a=0`$ in a finite proper time. But if we describe the motion of RIB in terms of the Schwarzschild coordinates $`(t,a)`$, then

$$\frac{dt}{da}=\frac{\dot{t}}{\dot{a}}=\frac{a}{\sqrt{m}h(a)}$$
(25)
which is integrated as

$$tt_0=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{m}}\left[a_0^2a^2+m\mathrm{log}\frac{(a_0\sqrt{m})(a_0+\sqrt{m})}{(a\sqrt{m})(a+\sqrt{m})}\right].$$
(26)
In the limit of $`aa_+=\sqrt{m}`$, one has

$$tt_0\frac{\sqrt{m}}{2}\mathrm{log}(a\sqrt{m})\mathrm{}$$
(27)
which means that $`a_+=\sqrt{m}`$ is approached but never passed. The coordinate $`t`$ is useful and physically meaningful asymptotically at large $`a`$ since it corresponds to proper time measured by an observer at rest far away from the origin (that is, $`dt=d\tau `$ when $`a\mathrm{}`$). From the point of view of such an observer, it takes an infinite time for the RIB to reach $`a=a_+`$. On the other hand, from the point of view of the RIB itself, it reaches $`a=a_+`$ and $`a=0`$ within finite proper time. Clearly, the Schwarzschild time coordinate $`t`$ is inappropriate for describing a radially infalling motion.

### B RIB in AdSS5 space

Now we are in a position to study the motion of RIB in the AdSS5 black hole spacetime. In this case, we have

$$\frac{1}{\dot{a}^2}=\frac{a^2\mathrm{}^2}{m\mathrm{}^2a^4}d\tau =\frac{a\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{m\mathrm{}^2a^4}}da$$
(28)
which leads to

$$\tau \tau _0=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left(\mathrm{tan}^1\left[\frac{a_0^2}{\sqrt{m\mathrm{}^2a_0^4}}\right]\mathrm{tan}^1\left[\frac{a^2}{\sqrt{m\mathrm{}^2a^4}}\right]\right)\frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{4}.$$
(29)
Hence it takes finite proper time for a RIB to reach $`a=a_+`$ and $`a=0`$. In order to a simple relation between $`\tau `$ and $`t`$, let us consider the asymptotic form of AdSS5 space with $`k=1`$ :$`lim_a\mathrm{}[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{a^2}ds_5^2]=dt^2+\mathrm{}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2.`$ We find that the proper time $`\tau `$ is equal to the AdSS5 time $`t`$ only when the radius of $`S^3`$ is set to be $`\mathrm{}`$. For a finite $`a`$, the relation becomes quite complicated. Here we have

$$\frac{dt}{da}=\frac{\dot{t}}{\dot{a}}=\frac{a\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{m\mathrm{}^2a^4}}\frac{1}{h(a)}.$$
(30)
We note that integration of Eq.(30) leads to a complicated from for $`tt_0`$. This is related to the presence of a term $`a^2/\mathrm{}^2`$ in $`h(a)`$. Hence the proper time $`\tau `$ is an affine variable which describes time-like geodesic (the motion of RIB) correctly in AdSS5 space. On the other hand, it turns out that the AdSS5 time coordinate $`t`$ is not appropriate for describing the RIB which falls into the Schwarzschild black hole in anti de Sitter space.

## IV Discussion

First let us compare the MDW with the RIB. The equation of MDW with $`k=1`$ is given by

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{a}^2+V(a)_{MDW}=\frac{1}{2}$$
(31)
with its potential $`V(a)_{MDW}=\frac{m}{2a^2}`$. This corresponds to the motion of a point particle with unit mass and a negative energy rolling in a potential $`V_{MDW}`$. Actually the scale factor increases from $`a=0`$ to maximum size, $`V(a_{max})_{MDW}=1/2`$, and recollapses into $`a=0`$. On the other hand, the motion of RIB is given by

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{a}^2+V(a)_{RIB}=0$$
(32)
with a potential $`V(a)_{RIB}=\frac{m}{2a^2}+\frac{a^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}`$. This corresponds to the equation for a particle of unit mass and zero energy rolling in a potential $`V_{RIB}`$. Hence it corresponds to a radially infalling body starting at $`a_0>>a_+`$. Hence it is suggested that the motion of RIF covers half that of MDW. For $`k=0`$ case, the MDW takes the same equation as in the RIB with a slightly different potential. But this does not make a significant change. In this case, the MDW starts at $`a=0`$ and ends up at $`a=\mathrm{}`$. As a reverse process, the RIB starts at $`a=\mathrm{}`$ and ends up at $`a=0`$. Furthermore, at the horizons, the expansion rate of MDW is $`H_{MDW}=\pm 1/\mathrm{}`$ whereas that of RIB is $`H_{RIB}=\pm 1/a_+`$.

However an important difference is that $`H_{RIB}^2=1/\mathrm{}^2+m/a^4`$ is not a kind of Friedmann-like equations. The reason is that as is shown in $`H_{RIB}^2=\mathrm{}`$, the first term of $`1/\mathrm{}^2`$ means that the size of the background AdSS5 space where the RIB moves is always fixed as the spatial curvature of the AdSS5 ($`\mathrm{}`$). On the other hand, the Friedmann-like equation (18) for the MDW means that at each instant the size of universe is given by the spatial curvature (scale factor :$`a`$).

Anyway, it is clear from the analysis of the RIB that a genuine coordinate for the MDW is not the AdSS5 time coordinate $`t`$ but the proper time $`\tau `$. Finally it turns out that the apparent singular behaviors of the normal, tangent vectors, and extrinsic curvature at the horizon belong to coordinate artifacts. Hence Eq.(18) implies a radiation-dominated universe of $`\rho a^4`$. This radiation can be identified with the finite temperature CFT that is dual to the AdSS5 geometry. This prescription is valid when the MDW crosses the horizons. Thanks to this , an universal Cardy formula for the entropy of the CFT can be given by the Friedmann equation at the horizon.

In conclusion, the moving domain wall approach provides us a nice tool to study the brane cosmology including the location of the horizon.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Brain Korea 21 Program, Ministry of Education, Project No. D-0025 and KOSEF, Project No. 2000-1-11200-001-3.


format: text

text:
# Coordination and chemical effects on the structural, electronic and magnetic properties in Mn pnictides

## I Introduction

The renewed interest in diluted magnetic semiconductors  as promising materials for innovative spin–based devices, is motivating studies in many related materials. In fact, the addition of the spin degree of freedom to conventional electronics know–how is paving the way to the appealing field dubbed “spintronics”. In this work, we show results obtained from first principles FLAPW calculations for Mn compounds. In particular, we look at the structurally simple binary compounds, $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$, $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnP}`$, and perform full optimization of the structural parameters in the hexagonal ferromagnetic NiAs phase, as well as for the more simple zincblende structure. We remark that $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ is not stable in the NiAs-phase; however, its equilibrium phase (namely the $`\mathrm{MnP}`$–type) has a crystal structure which slightly distorts from the NiAs. Moreover, while $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ are both ferromagnetic in their equilibrium structure, $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ shows a complex antiferromagnetic helical alignment at low temperatures (below 47K), is ferromagnetic between 47 and 291K and paramagnetic at higher temperatures.

The goal of the present work is to shed light on how i) different coordination (i.e. distorted octahedra in NiAs–type and tetrahedral in zincblende) and ii) different bonding properties (along the series $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$, $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnP}`$) affect the structural, electronic and magnetic properties of these Mn compounds. Moreover, we focus on how well the investigated properties are reproduced within the local spin density (LSD) and generalized gradient approximation (GGA). None of the investigated compounds is stable in the zincblende structure; however, since Mn often substitutes for the group III element in III-V compounds, it is interesting to understand and compare the electronic and magnetic properties of Mn in this coordination. In addition, it is well established that the zincblende diluted Ga1-xMnxAs system is stable for concentrations up to x=7% and recent experiments on the MBE epitaxial growth of MnSb (in the NiAs phase) on GaSb reported the presence of another magnetic phase showing an anomalous Hall effect - attributed to clusters of zincblende (Ga,Mn)Sb.

The paper is organized as follows: in Sect. II we describe few details of the calculation; we discuss results regarding the structural, electronic and magnetic properties on Sect. III, IV A and V, respectively. Finally, we draw our conclusions in Sect. VI.

## II Method

All calculations were performed using the all–electron full–potential linearized augmented plane wave (FLAPW) method within the local spin density approximation to density functional theory. In order to check the accuracy, we performed structural optimizations using both LSD as parametrized by von Barth and Hedin and the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) as proposed by Perdew and Wang. We used the following muffin–tin sphere radii $`R_{Mn},R_{Sb}=2.40a.u.`$, $`R_{As}=2.0a.u.`$, $`R_P=1.9`$ a.u.; well converged LAPW wavefunctions were achieved using a plane–wave cutoff $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=3.0`$ a.u., resulting in about 300 basis functions (in the unit cells described below). Inside the muffin–tin spheres, we used an angular momenta expansion up to $`l_{max}=8`$ for the potential and charge density representations; the same value $`l_{max}=8`$ was used for the wave–function expansion. Integrations over the irreducible Brillouin zone wedge were performed using 24 $`k`$–points according to the Monkhorst–Pack scheme; the accuracy of this mesh has been checked by comparison with results obtained with higher numbers of inequivalent $`k`$points.

## III Structural Results

Our results are summarized in Table I and Table II for the NiAs (space group $`P_{6_3}/mmcD_{6h}^4`$ – No. 194 in the International Tables for X-Ray Crystallography) and the zincblende phase, respectively, and compared with experiments and other calculations. It is clear that GGA gives the best agreement with experiment (available only for $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$) - recovering in both cases the correct volume and shape of the unit cell. On the other hand, LSD severely underestimates the equilibrium volumes (by as much as 20 $`\%`$), so that its use seems not to be very suitable when dealing with equilibrium properties of Mn pnictides. The same features have been previously observed for other compounds containing Mn and in the more studied case of Fe. The equilibrium volumes for the hexagonal structures follow the trend of the anion ionic radii ($`R_{Sb}`$=1.40 Å, $`R_{As}`$=1.20Å, $`R_P`$=1.06Å): we find about a 20% variation along the series which leads to about a 7% variation of the Mn-anion distance. However, due to the different $`c/a`$ ratios, the cell shape also changes: while the volume variaton is considerable, the value of the $`c`$ axis of the cell varies only by 4% from Sb to As and by 1% from As to P. In fact, the vertical size of the cell seems to be almost fixed by the Mn-Mn nearest neighbour distance ($`d_{MnMn}`$= 2.89, 2.84, and 2.68 Å in $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$, $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnP}`$, respectively). Most of the volume variation is therefore due to a shrinking of the cell basal plane which contains the anion (sitting in the middle of the hexagonal 2-dimensional cell) and determines the Mn-anion distance.

It is useful to recall that in its stable equilibrium phase, $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ shows an Mn-Mn distance ($`d_{MnMn}`$= 2.69 Å) that is very close to the one we found: therefore the structure we considered is qualitatively not very far from the equilibrium one. Regarding the magnetic ordering, we note that as expected ferromagnetism is not favoured at small Mn-Mn distances: GGA -LMTO calculations on different bulk Mn phases showed that for characteristic Wigner Seitz radii ($`r_{WS}`$ $``$ 1.4 Å, corresponding to $`d_{MnMn}`$ $``$ 2.8 Å) the most stable alignment is antiferromagnetic; this might confirm the reason why the ferromagnetic NiAs phase is not stable for $`\mathrm{MnP}`$.

Let us now consider the same compounds in the zincblende structure. We think it is worthwhile stressing the relevance of this point, since many of the novel magnetic semiconductors proposed so far are compounds derived by their parent non–magnetic semiconductor in this latter phase, in which even large concentrations (up to 50%) of cations have been substituted by Mn. As a result, the final coordination of the Mn atoms is strictly tetrahedral.

Our results obtained using the GGA approximation are reported on Table II. Due to difficulties in stabilizing the cubic phase, experimental data for zincblende MnX compounds are not available; however, an experimental study  focused on a Ga1-xMnxAs system with Mn concentrations up to $`x`$ = 0.07, showed a linear extrapolation at $`x`$ = 1 of the alloy lattice constant (assuming Vegard’s law validity) leading to $`a`$ = 5.87 Å. This differs by 3.7 $`\%`$ from our result for MnAs; however, we must remark that the linear extrapolation may indicate an incorrect value, since the actual experimental lattice constant data are reported only for very small Mn concentrations. Moreover, recent calculations  pointed out significant deviations from Vegard’s rule in GaxMn1-xAs systems. Other first principles calculations of the MnAs lattice constant performed without GGA give $`a`$ = 5.66 Å and $`a`$ = 5.87 Å within a pseudopotential and FLAPW formalism, respectively. The differences with our LDA value (not shown in the tables, $`a`$ = 5.34 Å) are probably to be ascribed to the use of pseudopotential approach in the first case and to a different minimization approach or FLAPW implementation in the second case. It needs to be pointed out, however, that a reliable determination of the equilibrium lattice constant is particularly important for the corresponding magnetic properties. In fact, as explained in detail below, the magnetic moment shows a strong dependence on the volume: an overestimate of the equilibrium zincblende lattice constant may even lead to an incorrect stable half-metallic behaviour. Furthermore, from Table II we note that the equilibrium volume per formula unit (i.e. per MnX pair) scales with the anion ionic radii in both phases, and it is always larger in the zincblende phase (see also Fig. 1). In particular, we remark that while the Mn-anion bond length is very similar in the NiAs and zincblende phase (only 4% larger in the cubic phase), the Mn-Mn nearest neighbour distances are very much larger in the zincblende phase ($`d_{MnMn}`$= 4.36, 3.99, and 3.75 Å for $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$, $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnP}`$, respectively). These large distances favour ferromagnetic alignment and the direct exchange interaction, leading to an enhanced magnetic moment. It is very interesting to note in Table II the very good matching conditions between the MnX zincblende and its Ga–based analogue: this suggests that under non–equilibrium conditions Mn may easily occupy the cation sites, if the growth is achieved on suitable substrates and if solubility problems are overcome.

In order to show the stability of the different phases, the total energy behaviour versus volume/formula–unit is plotted in Fig.1. On the same plots we also report the total magnetic moment as a function of the volume. In all the compounds analyzed, the NiAs–phase is more stable than the zincblende phase by more than 0.7 eV per formula unit. In addition, the zincblende structure shows a larger equilibrium volume with respect to the NiAs phase (30% in MnSb and 25% in MnP) joined by a parallel increase in the magnetic moment per cell. However, the NiAs phase remains the most stable over a large range of pressures showing that even at the most favorable growing conditions for the zincblende phase, the NiAs phase may segregate forming clusters, as found, for example, in the growth of (Ga,Mn)As at Mn concentrations higher than 7 % .

## IV Electronic properties

### A NiAs phase

We now discuss the electronic properties of the MnX compounds in both phases. In Fig.2, we plot the band dispersion for the NiAs phase along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ – A direction. The band dispersion along this line is very similar in all three compounds considered. At high binding energies, we find the anion–$`s`$ derived bands: these states are very little affected by the Mn exchange energy and follow the expected trend in energy related to the atomic s–levels (5s, 4s, and 3s for Sb, As and P, respectively). At energies closer to the Fermi level ($`E_F`$), we find the Mn $`d`$ bands hybridized with the anion–$`p`$ states. Actually, the lower states ($``$ -5.0 eV) in this group are those with higher $`p`$ hybridization (still less than 7-8 %), while the others have Mn $`d`$ character exceeding 48% at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. A somewhat larger hybridization is allowed by symmetry at the A point, reaching about 12% for states well below the Fermi level ($`E_F`$) for the majority spin component (i.e. states with $`A_3`$ symmetry bonding and non-bonding as indicated in Fig. 2 by the solid and dashed bold lines, respectively).

The states crossing $`E_F`$ show high anion $`p`$ character at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (up to 20%), but become entirely Mn $`d`$ states at A. For the minority component we can easily trace the same features, shifted at lower binding energies due to the exchange interaction. This latter determines only a partial and small occupation of the lower non-bonding $`A_3`$ split band for $`k`$–vectors very close to the zone center for $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$, while in $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ we find a complete half-filling of the 4–fold degenerate $`A_3`$ state. Looking at the series Sb, As, P, we can see that the states at $`A`$ denoted by the bold solid lines in Fig. 2 are very close in the Sb compound while their separation increases as we lower the anion atomic number; at the same time we find that the exchange splitting (i.e. the energy separation between corresponding states for the majority and minority component) decreases leading to the partial filling of the higher $`A_3`$ state in $`\mathrm{MnP}`$. Moreover, at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the symmetry allowed $`pd`$ hybridization is seen to increase the band width of the states originating from the lower $`A_3`$ state (bold solid line in Fig. 2) on going from $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ to $`\mathrm{MnP}`$. On the other hand, at the $`A`$ point we find a slightly lower anion $`p`$ component for $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ (7%) compared to $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$(12%), probably related to the smaller sphere used for P.

The picture that emerges from the band structure is the following: while $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ show a very similar $`pd`$ hybridization, the compound with P seems to have a higher hybridization which affects the exchange splitting of the Mn $`d`$ states. This is more clearly seen by inspection of the density of states projected (PDOS) on each atomic site. In Fig. 4, we show the PDOS for $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ (in particular Mn $`d`$ states and anion $`s`$ and $`p`$ states: analogous data for the $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ compound are not reported since they are half-way between the two limiting $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ cases). In $`\mathrm{MnP}`$, we found a broader valence band: the P $`p`$ states start at around -7.5 eV and give rise to two well separated peaks; the feature at lower binding energies ($``$ -3.0 eV) is due to strong hybridization with the Mn $`d`$ states that causes a splitting of the $`d`$ band. These two different features can be traced back to the $`A_3`$ states (see Fig.2) discussed previously (in $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ these states are very close in energy in the majority component while in $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ they are split by about 1.5 eV). The higher hybridization in $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ leads to a broadening of the Mn 4$`d`$ band joined by a smaller effective exchange energy among $`d`$ states and a consequent higher filling of the minority component.

In order to complete the discussion of the electronic properties, we compare our calculated GGA results with available photoemission data and other calculations in Tables III and IV. The agreement between experimental and theoretical data is noticeably improved by the present GGA calculations in $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$, for which there are detailed ARUPS data available; we expect that the same agreement might hold for the other compounds. For $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$, we compare with UPS spectra which, however, are not very detailed; experiments find a broader Mn $`d`$ band with respect to $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ centered around 2 eV, and this is consistent with our calculation. Also, the tail structure observed in the $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ case at 4-6 eV below $`E_F`$ is consistent with our PDOS (not shown) which shows a broadening due to $`pd`$ hybridization in–between $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ case.

For $`\mathrm{MnP}`$, we can compare with recent UPS and IPES data which find (for the real MnP-type structure) a broader Mn $`d`$ band compared to Sb, a small peak at -0.4 eV and broad structures at -2.6, -6.4 and -10 eV. These data match very well the features found in our calculations and shown in Fig.4: very close to $`E_F`$ we find a small feature related to Mn $`d`$ states hybridized with P $`p`$ states corresponding to the band crossing $`E_F`$ and which is very flat at the $`A`$ point (compare with Fig.2). At higher binding energies (from $`E_F`$ down to 3 eV) the Mn $`d`$ contribution is predominant while the feature at 6 eV, according to our results, has to be ascribed to P $`p`$ states. In agreement with our calculations, photoemission experiments find a much smaller $`d`$ exchange split energy (i.e. the energy distance between occupied and unoccupied $`d`$ states) in $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ compared to $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ (about 2 eV and more than 3 eV in $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$, respectively).

We point out that after including relativistic corrections, namely spin–orbit coupling, on $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ (where it is expected to play the most important role), we found that the energy splitting for the bands with higher Mn $`p`$ content was of the order of 0.5 eV. However, the energy levels involved (mainly the Mn $`d`$ states hybridized with Sb $`p`$ states) are at energies far from $`E_F`$ and therefore do not affect effectively the magnetic moment or the exchange interaction among Mn $`d`$ states, as we will see below. Therefore, we did not explicitly consider the spin–orbit coupling on the bands shown, since this would greatly complicate the plots and the discussion of the band structure without really changing the overall physics.

### B Zincblende phase

We now discuss the electronic properties of these same compounds in the zincblende phase. The band structures are reported in Fig. 3 and the main features can once again be related to the different degree of $`pd`$ hybridization. As a general characteristic, in agreement with that already found in similar calculations, we find that at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the lower state is a $`3fold`$ degenerate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{15}`$ state ($`t_{2g}`$) which allows hybridization with $`p`$ states, while the doubly degenerate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ state ($`e_g`$) has entirely Mn $`d`$ character. The states with mainly anion $`p`$ character are above $`E_F`$ and show a very wide dispersion so that in all three compounds they give rise to electron pockets at the zone boundaries (namely at X and L). As expected, the exchange interaction is larger for the non-hybridized $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ states and follows the same trend with hybridization as previously discussed for the NiAs phase: lighter anions have deeper lying $`p`$ levels (and are therefore closer in energy to the Mn 3d states) so that they allow for greater hybridization. In fact, we find that while the $`p`$/$`d`$ occupation ratio is about 0.06 for $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$, it becomes 0.13 in $`\mathrm{MnP}`$. This leads to a broader Mn $`d`$ band and significantly lowers the exchange interaction along the series, as shown in Table V.

In all cases, however, the exchange splitting is higher than in the corresponding NiAs phase showing that the lower coordination greatly favors the $`d`$-$`d`$ interaction leading to a higher magnetic moment, as will be discussed in greater detail below. The band structures for the minority components show that $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ are nearly half–metallic (the occupied portion of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ state is very close to zero) while $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ shows a much larger occupation factor. This is of course of great interest in the design of new semiconducting magnetic materials since it shows that properly grown materials might present very appealing properties, as hinted by the study of Abe et al. on (Ga,Mn)Sb.

We can compare our results for zincblende $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ with a photoemission study performed on cubic $`Ga_{1x}Mn_xAs`$. We find that the main features are nicely reproduced in our calculation for $`x`$=1; in particular, we find a quite broad Mn $`d`$ band centered at around 2.5 eV and features around 5 eV below $`E_F`$ that are related to As $`p`$ – Mn $`d`$ hybridization. Our calculations, however, do not reproduce the satellite state at 6 eV below $`E_F`$ that seems to be related to many-body correlation effects. However, if we look at the exchange splitting for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ state (3.4 eV) we find that it is remarkably close to the Coulomb repulsion value (U= 3.5 $`\pm `$ 1.0 eV) obtained by fitting the experimental data with a configuration interaction (CI) MnAs cluster model. Moreover, an estimate of the $`pd`$ hybridization (the $`pd\sigma `$ = 1.0 $`\pm `$ 0.1 eV parameter fitted in the CI approximation) can be obtained from our calculation by looking at the width of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{15}`$ state at the zone boundary ( 1.16 eV) where the lower split band gains more $`p`$ weight. Although our values are calculated in the very high concentration limit, the agreement with experiment should not be very surprising since the quantities we have been looking at are really characteristic of the Mn-As bond and are therefore expected not to be affected by the presence of Ga.

## V Magnetic properties

The calculated magnetic properties within GGA are reported in Table VI at the equilibrium volume for both phases considered. The corresponding values calculated within LSD are not reported, since the equilibrium volumes are not well reproduced; the LSD calculated magnetic moments at fixed volume were always smaller (about 5%) than the corresponding GGA values. We should remark that the values in Table VI take into account the spin–contribution only; as already mentioned, in fact, spin-orbit inclusion did not significantly affect the total spin magnetic moment (by less than 0.1 $`\mu _B`$ in the Sb case). We also did not consider any orbital contribution to the total magnetic moment or the effect of magnetic anisotropy related to different quantization axes: the effects have been shown to be of the order of 0.04 and 0.02 $`\mu _B`$, for $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$, respectively. We are interested in trends and in understanding how the different coordination may affect the magnetic properties more than in reproducing the exact magnetic behaviour. Moreover, in cubic compounds we expect these effects to play an even smaller role due to symmetry.

As already pointed out, in all structures an opposite magnetic alignment with respect to Mn is present on the anion sites, whose contribution decreases in going from the hexagonal to the cubic structure. This characteristic is confirmed by experimental observations in both $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ and can be traced back to the $`p`$-$`d`$ hybridization. In particular, in $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ the total magnetic moment of 3.5 $`\mu _B`$ with a spherically symmetric magnetic moment of -0.2 $`\mu _B`$ at the Sb site is reported, while in $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ a magnetic moment of 3.4 $`\mu _B`$ per formula unit with -0.23 $`\mu _B`$ on the As sites has been measured by neutron scattering experiments. The situation in $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ is by far more complex due to the particular structure and the non-collinear magnetism found in this compound. Looking at the trends along the series Sb$``$ As $``$ P, Mn shows a higher magnetic moment in the zincblende structure due to the smaller hybridization with the anion $`p`$ states in this symmetry; as we mentioned earlier, only the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{15}`$ state symmetry allows for $`p`$ hybridization, while the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$ symmetry is not compatible with any $`p`$ character. This enhances the exchange interaction for these states, whose minority counterpart is found above $`E_F`$ and is therefore almost entirely unoccupied (e.g. $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$) leading to a nearly half-metallic behaviour.

As a result, we find that there are two different mechanisms that have to be considered when analyzing the trends along the series Sb, As and P: $`i`$) a structural effect related to the decreasing anion size and $`ii`$) a chemical effect which changes the state hybridization. Both contributions result in a reduction of the magnetic properties as the anion becomes smaller; in fact, the smaller size leads to a volume reduction and to a consequent smaller Mn-Mn bond length which increases the $`d`$-$`d`$ overlap and reduces the exchange interaction. At the same time, the $`p`$-$`d`$ hybridization, which is favoured for lighter anions, also lowers the $`d`$-$`d`$ exchange interaction, therefore reducing the resulting magnetic moment. These same contributions are found in both phases and play the same role in both coordinations; however, the zincblende phase is seen to be the most favorable for enhanced magnetic properties since, due to symmetry, it matches both requirements: larger volume and reduced hybridization.

## VI Conclusions

We presented results on the structural and electronic properties of $`\mathrm{MnSb}`$, $`\mathrm{MnAs}`$ and $`\mathrm{MnP}`$ in two different coordinations: hexagonal NiAs and zincblende. Our results show that LSD is not well suited to correctly describe the structural properties of these compounds since it severely underestimates the equilibrium volumes. Moreover, at a fixed volume, the calculated spin contribution to the magnetic moment within LSD is about 5% smaller than the one calculated within GGA.

Comparing our calculated results with available experiments, we found very good agreement for the structural properties as well as for the electronic properties: our findings match very closely photoemission data and ARUPS results, where available. Moreover, from a detailed analysis of these compounds in different phases, we were able to establish that the cubic coordination greatly favours the magnetic alignment leading to quite high magnetic moments due to $`i`$) lower $`p`$-$`d`$ hybridization, and $`ii`$) larger equilibrium volumes.

On the same footing, we found that in the search for suitable compounds with high magnetic alignment, the heavier anions should be preferred since they form compounds with larger volume and lower $`pd`$ hybridization.

## VII Acknowledgements

Work at Northwestern University supported by the NSF (through the Materials Research Center).

a Ref.

b Ref.

c Ref.

a Ref. .

b Ref. .

c Ref. .


text:
# TORUS KNOTS THAT CANNOT BE UNTIED BY TWISTING

> Abstract
>
> We give a necessary condition for a torus knot to be untied by a single twisting. By using this result, we give infinitely many torus knots that cannot be untied by a single twisting.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 57M25; Secondary 57R95Key Words and Phrases. torus knot, twisting, signature, Tristram’s signature

1. Introduction

Throughout this paper, we work in the smooth category. All orientable manifolds will be assumed to be oriented unless otherwise stated. In particular all knots are oriented. For an oriented manifold $`M`$, $`M`$ denotes $`M`$ with the opposite orientation.

Let $`K`$ be a knot in the $`3`$-sphere $`S^3`$, and $`D^2`$ a disk intersecting $`K`$ in its interior. Let $`\omega =|\mathrm{lk}(D^2,L)|`$ and $`n`$ an integer. A $`1/n`$-Dehn surgery along $`D^2`$ changes $`K`$ into a new knot $`K^{}`$ in $`S^3`$. We say that $`K^{}`$ is obtained from $`K`$ by $`(n,\omega )`$-twisting (or simply twisting). (The second author calls an $`(n,\omega )`$-twisting a $`(n,\omega )`$-twisting in his prior papers ,  and .) Then we write $`K^{}\stackrel{(n,\omega )}{}K`$. Let $`𝒯`$ denote the set of knots that are obtained from a trivial knot by a single twisting. Y. Ohyama  showed that any knot can be untied by two twistings. This implies that any knot is obtained from a knot in $`𝒯`$ by a single twisting.

A $`(p,q)`$-torus knot $`T(p,q)`$ is a knot that wraps around the standard solid torus in the longitudinal direction $`p`$ times and the meridional direction $`q`$ times, where the linking number of the meridian and longitude is equal to 1. Note that $`p`$ and $`q`$ are coprime. A torus knot $`T(p,q)`$ $`(0<p<q)`$ is exceptional if $`q\pm 1`$ (mod $`p`$), and non-exceptional if it is not exceptional.

Let $`p(2)`$ be an integer. It is not hard to see that $`T(p,\pm 1)\stackrel{(k,p)}{}T(p,kp\pm 1)`$. Since $`T(p,\pm 1)`$ is a trivial knot, $`T(p,kp\pm 1)`$ belongs to $`𝒯`$. (In , K. Motegi calls $`T(p,kp\pm 1)`$ a trivial example of torus knots that belong to $`𝒯`$.) This implies that any exceptional torus knot belongs to $`𝒯`$. In particular, all of the knots $`T(2,q)`$, $`T(3,q)`$, $`T(4,q)`$ and $`T(6,q)`$ belong to $`𝒯`$. In contrast with this fact, a non-exceptional torus knot that belongs to $`𝒯`$ is not known so far. These facts let us hit on the following.

Conjecture. No non-exceptional torus knot belongs to $`𝒯`$.

This conjecture seems likely to be true. However a non-exceptional torus knot that is not contained in $`𝒯`$ is not known. So we are faced with the following problem before this conjecture.

Problem. Is there a torus knot that is not contained in $`𝒯`$?

In this paper we give a necessary condition for a non-exceptional torus knot to belong to $`𝒯`$, and by using this condition, we give infinitely many non-exceptional torus knots that are not contained in $`𝒯`$. K. Miyazaki and the second author  gave a sufficient condition for a knot not to be contained in $`𝒯`$ and showed that there are infinitely many knots that are not contained in $`𝒯`$. The sufficient condition given in  cannot be applied to torus knots since it contains the condition that the value of the signature is equal to 0. (It is known that the signature of a nontrivial torus knot does not vanish; see Corollary 2.2 and also see  for example.)

For a prime integer $`d`$, let $`\sigma _d(K)`$ be the Tristram’s $`d`$-signature of a knot $`K`$ . Note that $`\sigma _2(K)`$ is the same as the signature $`\sigma (K)`$ in the usual sense , .

Theorem 1.1. Let $`T(p,q)`$ $`(0<p<q)`$ be a non-exceptional torus knot. If $`T(p,q)`$ is obtained from a trivial knot by a single $`(n,\omega )`$-twisting, then (i) $`n=1`$, (ii) $`\omega <q`$, (iii) $`\omega >p`$ if $`\omega `$ is even, and (iv) if $`\omega `$ is divisible by a prime integer $`d`$, then

$$\frac{2[d/2](d[d/2])}{d^2}\omega ^2=\sigma _d(T(p,q))\text{ or }=2\sigma _d(T(p,q)),$$

where $`[x]`$ is the greatest integer not exceeding $`x`$.

Remark 1.2. In , K. Miyazaki and K. Motegi showed that if a non-exceptional torus knot $`T(p,q)`$ $`(0<p<q)`$ is obtained from a trivial knot by a single $`(n,\omega )`$-twisting, then $`|n|=1`$. Thus we eliminate the possibility $`n=1`$.

By using this theorem, we have the following three results.

Theorem 1.3. Let $`p`$ be an odd integer. If $`p9`$, $`p1`$ or $`3`$ $`(`$mod $`8)`$, then $`T(p,p+4)`$ does not belong to $`𝒯`$

Remark 1.4. Let $`p`$ be an odd integer. By the argument similar to that in the proof Theorem 1.3, we see that if $`p7`$, $`p5`$ or $`7`$ (mod 8), and if $`T(p,p+4)`$ is obtained from a trivial knot by a single $`(n,\omega )`$-twisting, then $`n=1`$ and $`\omega =p+2`$.

Theorem 1.5. Let $`r`$ be an even integer.
(1) If $`r4`$, $`2p(r/2+1)^2r/2`$, and $`p1`$ $`(`$mod $`2r)`$, then $`T(p,p+r)`$ does not belong to $`𝒯`$.
(2) If $`r8`$, $`2p(r/21)^2r/2`$, and $`p1`$ $`(`$mod $`2r)`$, then $`T(p,p+r)`$ does not belong to $`𝒯`$.

Example 1.6. Let $`r`$ be an even integer and $`n`$ a positive integer. By the theorem above, we have the following: If $`4r14`$ and $`p=2nr+1`$, or if $`8r20`$ and $`p=2nr1`$, then $`T(p,p+r)`$ does not belong to $`𝒯`$. Note that this contains the case $`p1`$ (mod 8) of Theorem 1.3.

Remark 1.7. Let $`p(5)`$ be an odd integer. By the argument similar to that in the proof of Theorem 1.5, we see that if $`T(p,p+2)`$ is obtained from a trivial knot by a single $`(n,\omega )`$-twisting, then $`n=1`$ and $`\omega =p+1`$.

Since the knots $`T(2,q)`$, $`T(3,q)`$, $`T(4,q)`$ and $`T(6,q)`$ are exceptional, $`T(5,7)`$ is the ‘minimum’ non-exceptional torus knot, i.e., the crossing number of $`T(5,7)`$ is minimum in the crossing numbers of non-exceptional torus knots. By Remark 1.7, if $`T(5,7)`$ is obtained from a trivial knot by a single $`(n,\omega )`$-twisting, then $`n=1`$ and $`\omega =6`$. The authors cannot eliminate the possibility $`(n,\omega )=(1,6)`$. So it is still open if $`T(5,7)`$ belongs to $`𝒯`$ or not. Concerning $`T(5,8)`$, which is the minimum one except for $`T(5,7)`$, we have the following.

Proposition 1.8. $`T(5,8)`$ does not belong to $`𝒯`$.

2. Signatures of torus knots

In this section, we calculate the signatures of torus knots.

Proposition 2.1. Let $`T(p,q)`$ $`(0<p<q)`$ be a torus knot. Then

$$\sigma (T(p,q))=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{[(p1)/2]}{}}\left(\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]\left[\frac{(3p2[p/2]2i)q}{2p}\right]\right)+(p12[p/2])(q1).$$

Proof. By \[6, Proposition 1\], we have $`\sigma (T(p,q))=\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}`$, where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sigma ^+=& \mathrm{\#}\left\{(i,j)\times \right|0<i<p,0<j<q,0<\frac{i}{p}+\frac{j}{q}<\frac{1}{2}\}\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{\#}\left\{(i,j)\times \right|0<i<p,0<j<q,\frac{3}{2}<\frac{i}{p}+\frac{j}{q}<2\}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\sigma ^{}=\mathrm{\#}\left\{(i,j)\times \right|0<i<p,0<j<q,\frac{1}{2}<\frac{i}{p}+\frac{j}{q}<\frac{3}{2}\}.$$

We note that if $`p>0`$ and $`q>0`$, then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0<i/p+j/q<1/2& qi/p<j<(p2i)q/2p,\hfill \\ \hfill 3/2<i/p+j/q<2& (3p2i)q/2p<j<(2pi)q/p,\hfill \\ \hfill 1/2<i/p+j/q<3/2& (p2i)q/2p<j<(3p2i)q/2p,\hfill \\ \hfill (p2i)q/2p0& ip/2,\hfill \\ \hfill (3p2i)q/2pq& ip/2,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`qi/p<0`$, $`(p2i)q/2p<q`$ and $`(2pi)q/pq`$ for $`0<i<p`$. So we have

$$\sigma ^+=\mathrm{\#}\left\{j\right|0<i<\frac{p}{2},0<j<\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\}+\mathrm{\#}\left\{j\right|\frac{p}{2}<i<p,\frac{(3p2i)q}{2p}<j<q\}$$

and

$$\sigma ^{}=\mathrm{\#}\left\{j\right|0<i\frac{p}{2},\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}<j<q\}+\mathrm{\#}\left\{j\right|\frac{p}{2}<i<p,0<j<\frac{(3p2i)q}{2p}\}.$$

Since $`0<(p2i)/p<1`$ for $`0<i<p/2`$, and $`p`$ and $`q`$ are coprime, $`(p2i)q/2p`$ is not an integer for $`0<i<p/2`$. Suppose $`(3p2i)q/2p`$ is an integer for some $`i`$ $`(p/2<i<p)`$. If $`q`$ is odd, then $`(3p2i)/2p`$ is an integer. Since $`1/2<(3p2i)/2p<1`$ for $`p/2<i<p`$, this is absurd. Therefore $`q`$ is even. Then $`p`$ is odd, and hence $`i/p`$ is an integer. This is a contradicton. So $`(3p2i)q/2p`$ is not an integer for $`p/2<i<p`$. It follows from that

$$\sigma ^+=\mathrm{\#}\left\{j\right|0<i<\frac{p}{2},0<j\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]\}+\mathrm{\#}\left\{j\right|\frac{p}{2}<i<p,\left[\frac{(3p2i)q}{2p}\right]<j<q\}$$

and

$$\sigma ^{}=\mathrm{\#}\left\{j\right|0<i\frac{p}{2},\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]<j<q\}+\mathrm{\#}\left\{j\right|\frac{p}{2}<i<p,0<j\left[\frac{(3p2i)q}{2p}\right]\}.$$

This implies that

$$\sigma ^+=\underset{i=1}{\overset{[(p1)/2]}{}}\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]+\underset{i=[p/2]+1}{\overset{p1}{}}\left(q1\left[\frac{(3p2i)q}{2p}\right]\right)$$

and

$$\sigma ^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}\left(q1\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]\right)+\underset{i=[p/2]+1}{\overset{p1}{}}\left[\frac{(3p2i)q}{2p}\right].$$

Thus it is not hard to see that

$$\sigma (T(p,q))=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{[(p1)/2]}{}}\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]2\underset{i=[p/2]+1}{\overset{p1}{}}\left[\frac{(3p2i)q}{2p}\right]+(p12[p/2])(q1).$$

We note that

$$\underset{i=[p/2]+1}{\overset{p1}{}}\left[\frac{(3p2i)q}{2p}\right]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{[(p1)/2]}{}}\left[\frac{(3p2[p/2]2i)q}{2p}\right].$$

This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 2.2. Let $`T(p,q)`$ $`(0<p<q)`$ be a torus knot. Then

$$\sigma (T(p,q))2\left[\frac{p}{2}\right]\left[\frac{q}{2}\right]$$

.

Proof. Suppose $`p`$ is odd. Then, by Propositon 2.1,

$$\sigma (T(p,q))=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}\left(\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]\left[\frac{(2p2i+1)q}{2p}\right]\right).$$

Since

$$\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]\left[\frac{(2p2i+1)q}{2p}\right]=\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}+\frac{(p+1)q}{2p}\right]\left[\frac{(p+1)q}{2p}\right],$$

we have

$$\sigma (T(p,q))(p1)\left[\frac{(p+1)q}{2p}\right](p1)\left[\frac{q}{2}\right]=2\left[\frac{p}{2}\right]\left[\frac{q}{2}\right].$$

Suppose $`p`$ is even. Note that $`q`$ is odd. Then, by Propositon 2.1,

$$\sigma (T(p,q))=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{p/21}{}}\left(\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]\left[\frac{(2p2i)q}{2p}\right]\right)q+1.$$

Since

$$\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]\left[\frac{(2p2i)q}{2p}\right]=\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}\right]\left[\frac{(p2i)q}{2p}+\frac{pq}{2p}\right]\left[\frac{q}{2}\right],$$

we have

$$\sigma (T(p,q))2(p/21)\left[\frac{q}{2}\right]q+1=\frac{(p2)(q1)}{2}q+1=2\left[\frac{p}{2}\right]\left[\frac{q}{2}\right].$$

This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 2.3. Let $`p(>0)`$ be an odd integer and $`r`$ $`(2r<p)`$ an even integer, and $`T(p,p+r)`$ a torus knot. Then

$$\sigma (T(p,p+r))=\frac{(p1)(p+r+1)}{2}+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{r/2}{}}\left(\left[\frac{(2i1)p}{2r}\right]\left[\frac{(2i1)p+r}{2r}\right]\right)$$

Proof. By Proposition 2.1, we have

$$\sigma (T(p,p+r))=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}\left(\left[\frac{(p2i)(p+r)}{2p}\right]\left[\frac{(2p2i+1)(p+r)}{2p}\right]\right).$$

Note that

$$\left[\frac{(p2i)(p+r)}{2p}\right]=\frac{(p2i1)}{2}+\left[\frac{(r+1)}{2}\frac{ri}{p}\right].$$

Since

$$\left[\frac{(r+1)}{2}\frac{ri}{p}\right]=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{r}{2}\hfill & 0<i\frac{p}{2r},\hfill \\ \frac{r}{2}1\hfill & \frac{p}{2r}<i\frac{3p}{2r},\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \frac{(r3)p}{2r}<i\frac{(r1)p}{2r},\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \frac{(r1)p}{2r}<i\frac{p1}{2},\hfill \end{array}$$

we have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}\left[\frac{(r+1)}{2}\frac{ri}{p}\right]=\left[\frac{p}{2r}\right]+\left[\frac{3p}{2r}\right]+\mathrm{}+\left[\frac{(r1)p}{2r}\right].$$

Meanwhile, we have

$$\left[\frac{(2p2i+1)(p+r)}{2p}\right]=pi+\left[r+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(2i1)r}{2p}\right].$$

Note that if $`p>2r`$, then

$$\left[r+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(2i1)r}{2p}\right]=\{\begin{array}{cc}r\hfill & 0<i\frac{p+r}{2r},\hfill \\ r1\hfill & \frac{p+r}{2r}<i\frac{3p+r}{2r},\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \frac{r}{2}+1\hfill & \frac{(r3)p+r}{2r}<i\frac{(r1)p+r}{2r},\hfill \\ \frac{r}{2}\hfill & \frac{(r1)p+r}{2r}<i\frac{p1}{2},\hfill \end{array}$$

and if $`(r<)p<2r`$, then

$$\left[r+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(2i1)r}{2p}\right]=\{\begin{array}{cc}r\hfill & 0<i\frac{p+r}{2r},\hfill \\ r1\hfill & \frac{p+r}{2r}<i\frac{3p+r}{2r},\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \frac{r}{2}+2\hfill & \frac{(r5)p+r}{2r}<i\frac{(r3)p+r}{2r},\hfill \\ \frac{r}{2}+1\hfill & \frac{(r3)p+r}{2r}<i\frac{p1}{2}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This implies

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}\left[r+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(2i1)r}{2p}\right]=\left[\frac{p+r}{2r}\right]+\left[\frac{3p+r}{2r}\right]+\mathrm{}+\left[\frac{(r1)p+r}{2r}\right]+\frac{r(p1)}{4},$$

if $`p>2r`$, and

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}\left[r+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(2i1)r}{2p}\right]=\left[\frac{p+r}{2r}\right]+\left[\frac{3p+r}{2r}\right]+\mathrm{}+\left[\frac{(r3)p+r}{2r}\right]+\frac{(r+2)(p1)}{4},$$

if $`p<2r`$. If $`p<2r`$, then since $`p`$ is odd,

$$\frac{(r+2)(p1)}{4}\frac{r(p1)}{4}=\frac{p1}{2}=\left[\frac{p+1}{2}\frac{p}{2r}\right]=\left[\frac{(r1)p+r}{2r}\right].$$

Thus we have the required equation. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 2.4. Let $`p=2nr\pm 1(>0)`$ be an integer, $`r`$ $`(2r<p)`$ an even integer, and $`T(p,p+r)`$ a torus knot. Then

$$\sigma (T(p,p+r))=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(p1)(p+r+1)}{2}\hfill & \text{ if }p=2nr+1,\hfill \\ \frac{(p1)(p+r+1)}{2}r\hfill & \text{ if }p=2nr1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. We note that $`[(2i1)p/2r]=(2i1)n`$ and $`[((2i1)p+r)/2r]=(2i1)n`$ for $`0<ir/2`$ if $`p=2nr+1`$, and $`[(2i1)p/2r]=(2i1)n1`$ and $`[((2i1)p+r)/2r]=(2i1)n`$ for $`0<ir/2`$ if $`p=2nr1`$. This and Proposition 2.3 complete the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 2.5. Let $`p(>0)`$ be an odd integer and $`T(p,p+4)`$ a torus knot. Then

$$\sigma (T(p,p+4))=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(p1)(p+5)}{2}\hfill & \text{ if }p1\text{, or }3\text{ }(\text{mod }8),\hfill \\ \frac{(p1)(p+5)}{2}4\hfill & \text{ if }p5\text{, or }7\text{ }(\text{mod }8).\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. Since $`\sigma (T(1,5))=0`$, $`\sigma (T(3,7))=8`$, we may assume that $`p>4`$. By combining Proposition 2.3 and the following, we complete proof.

$$\left[\frac{p}{8}\right]+\left[\frac{3p}{8}\right]\left[\frac{p+4}{8}\right]\left[\frac{3p+4}{8}\right]=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }p1\text{, or }3\text{ (mod 8)},\hfill \\ 2\hfill & \text{ if }p5\text{, or }7\text{ (mod 8). }\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

3. Proofs of Theorems 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and Proposition 1.8

Similar results to the following two lemmas, Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, are mentioned in several articles , , , , , , etc. The first lemma is a spacial case of \[3, Lemma 4.4\]. The second one is proven by combining \[9, Example 2\] and the proof of \[9, Lemma 2.3\].

Lemma 3.1. Let $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ be knots. Let $`M`$ be a twice punctured $`\epsilon CP^2`$. If $`K_1\stackrel{(\epsilon ,\omega )}{}K_2`$, then there exists an annulus $`A`$ in $`M`$ such that $`(M,A)(S^3,K_1)(S^3,K_2)`$ and $`A`$ represents a homology element $`\omega \gamma `$, where $`|\epsilon |=1`$ and $`\gamma `$ is a standard generator of $`H_2(M,M;)`$ with the intersection number $`\gamma \gamma =\epsilon `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 3.2. Let $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ be knots. Let $`M`$ be a twice punctured $`S^2\times S^2`$. If $`K_1\stackrel{(2n,\omega )}{}K_2`$, then there exists an annulus $`A`$ in $`M`$ such that $`(M,A)(S^3,K_1)(S^3,K_2)`$ and $`A`$ represents a homology element $`\omega \alpha n\omega \beta `$, where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are standard generators of $`H_2(M,M;)`$ with $`\alpha \alpha =\beta \beta =0`$ and $`\alpha \beta =1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following theorem is originally due to O.Ya. Viro . It is also obtained by letting $`a=[d/2]`$ in the inequality of \[1, Remarks(a) on p-371\] by P. Gilmer.

Theorem 3.3. (P.M. Gilmer , O.Ya. Viro ) Let $`M`$ be a compact, oriented, once punctured $`4`$-manifold, and $`K`$ a knot in $`M`$. Suppose that $`K`$ bounds a properly embedded, oriented surface $`F`$ in $`M`$ that represents an element $`\xi H_2(M,M;)`$. If $`\xi `$ is divisible by a prime integer $`d`$, then we have

$$\left|\frac{2[d/2](d[d/2])}{d^2}\xi \xi \sigma (M)\sigma _d(K)\right|\mathrm{dim}H_2(M;_p)+2\mathrm{genus}(F).\mathrm{}$$

The following is a well known result for $`d=2`$  . J.H. Przytycki showed it in . Here we show it by using Theorem 3.3.

Lemma 3.4. Let $`K_+`$ and $`K_{}`$ be knots. If $`K_{}`$ is obtained from $`K_+`$ by changing a positive crossing into negative one, then for any prime integer $`d`$

$$\sigma _d(K_{})2\sigma _d(K_+)\sigma _d(K_{}).$$

Proof. It is not hard to see that $`K_+\stackrel{(1,0)}{}K_{}`$. This implies that $`K_+\mathrm{\#}(\overline{K_+})\stackrel{(1,0)}{}K_{}\mathrm{\#}(\overline{K_+})`$, where $`\overline{K_+}`$ is the refrected inverse of $`K_+`$. Since $`K_+\mathrm{\#}(\overline{K_+})`$ is a slice knot, by Lemma 3.1, there is a 2-disk in once punctured $`CP^2`$ bounded by $`K_{}\mathrm{\#}(\overline{K_+})`$ that represents the zero element. By Theorem 3.3, we have $`|1\sigma _d(K_{}\mathrm{\#}(\overline{K_+}))|1`$, so we have $`|1\sigma _d(K_{})+\sigma _d(K_+)|1`$. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 3.5. Let $`T(p,q)`$ $`(0<p<q)`$ be a torus knot. If $`T(p,q)`$ is neither a trivial knot nor $`T(2,3)`$, then $`\sigma _d(T(p,q))4`$ for any prime integer $`d`$.

Proof. In , J.H. Przytycki and K. Taniyama showed that, except for connected sums of pretzel knots $`P(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ ($`p_1p_2p_3`$ is odd), a positive knot can be deformed into $`T(2,5)`$ by changing some positive crossings to be negative, where a positive knot is a knot that has a diagram with all crossings positive. Since $`T(p,q)`$ is a prime, positive knot and $`\mathrm{genus}(T(p,q))\mathrm{genus}(P(p_1,p_2,p_3))=1`$, $`T(2,5)`$ is obtained from $`T(p,q)`$ by changing some positive crossings. Since $`\sigma _d(T(2,5))=4`$ for any prime integer $`d`$ (\[17, Lemma 3.5\]), by Lemma 3.4, we have the conclusion. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Note that $`p5`$ since $`T(p,q)`$ is non-exceptional. In , K. Miyazaki and K. Motegi showed that if a non-exceptional torus knot is obtained from a trivial knot by a single $`(n,\omega )`$-twisting, then $`|n|=1`$. We may assume that $`T(p,q)`$ is obtained from a trivial knot by a single $`(\epsilon ,\omega )`$-twisting, where $`|\epsilon |=1`$. By Lemma 3.1, there is a 2-disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in a punctured $`\epsilon CP^2`$, $`M`$, such that $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })(S^3,T(p,q))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ represents $`\omega \gamma H_2(M,M;)`$. If $`\omega `$ is divisible by a prime integer $`d`$, by Theorem 3.3,

$$\left|\frac{2\epsilon [d/2](d[d/2])}{d^2}\omega ^2+\epsilon \sigma _d(T(p,q))\right|1.$$

By Propositon 3.5, $`\sigma _d(T(p,q))4`$. This gives condition (i), i.e., $`\epsilon =1`$. So we have

$$\left|\frac{2[d/2](d[d/2])}{d^2}\omega ^2+1\sigma _d(T(p,q))\right|1.$$

This implies

$$\frac{\sigma _d(T(p,q))}{2}\frac{[d/2](d[d/2])}{d^2}\omega ^21\frac{\sigma _d(T(p,q))}{2}.$$

Since $`\omega `$ is divisible by $`d`$, $`[d/2](d[d/2])\omega ^2/d^2`$ is an integer. This and the fact that $`\sigma _d(T(p,q))`$ is even (\[17, Lemma 2.16\]) give condition (iv). It is known that $`T(p,q)`$ bounds an orientable surface in $`S^3`$ with genus $`(p1)(q1)/2`$. Therefore we have a closed, orientable surface with genus $`(p1)(q1)/2`$ in $`CP^2`$ that represents $`\omega \gamma `$. Thom Conjecture, which is solved by P. Kronheimer and T. Mrowka , implies

$$\frac{(\omega 1)(\omega 2)}{2}\frac{(p1)(q1)}{2}.$$

Since $`p1<q2`$, we have (ii) $`\omega <q`$. Suppose that $`\omega `$ is even. By condition (iv), $`\omega ^22\sigma (T(p,q))`$. Since $`q1p+1`$, by Corollary 2.2,

$$\omega ^2\{\begin{array}{cc}(p1)(p+1)>(p1)^2\hfill & \text{ if }p\text{ is odd},\hfill \\ p(p+1)>p^2\hfill & \text{ if }p\text{ is even}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus we have $`\omega >p1`$ if $`p`$ is odd, and $`\omega >p`$ if $`p`$ is even. Since $`\omega `$ is even, we have condition (iii). $`\mathrm{}`$

To prove Theorems 1.3, 1.5 and Proposition 1.8, we need the following theorem.

Theorem 3.6. (K. Kikuchi ) Let $`M`$ be a closed, oriented simply connected $`4`$-manifold with $`b_2^+(M)3`$ and $`b_2^{}(M)3`$. Let $`\xi `$ be a characteristic element of $`H_2(M;)`$. If $`\xi `$ is represented by a $`2`$-sphere, then $`\xi \xi =\sigma (M)`$, where $`b_2^+(M)`$ $`(`$resp. $`b_2^{}(M))`$ is the rank of positive $`(`$resp. negative$`)`$ part of the intersection form of $`M`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 1.5. (1) If $`T(p,p+r)`$ is obtained from a trivial knot by an $`(n,\omega )`$-twisting, then by Theorem 1.1, $`n=1`$ and $`\omega >p`$ if $`\omega `$ is even.

Suppose $`\omega `$ is even. Then by Theorem 1.1 and Proposition 2.4, $`(p1)(p+r+1)=\omega ^2,\omega ^24`$. Hence we have $`(p+r/2+\omega )(p+r/2\omega )=(r/2+1)^2`$ or $`(r/2+1)^24`$. Since $`r4`$,

$$0<\left(\frac{r}{2}+1\right)^24\left(p+\frac{r}{2}+\omega \right)\left(p+\frac{r}{2}\omega \right)\left(\frac{r}{2}+1\right)^2.$$

This is absurd because $`p+r/2+\omega >2p+r/2(r/2+1)^2r/2+r/2=(r/2+1)^2`$.

Suppose $`\omega `$ is odd. Set $`p=2nr+1`$ $`(n1)`$. Then we have $`O\stackrel{(1,\omega )}{}T(p,p+r)\stackrel{(1,p)}{}T(p,r)T(r,2nr+1)\stackrel{(2n,r)}{}T(r,1)O`$. By Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, there is a 2-sphere in $`CP^2\mathrm{\#}CP^2\mathrm{\#}S^2\times S^2`$ that represents a characteristic element $`\omega \overline{\gamma }+p\gamma +r\alpha +nr\beta `$. By Theorem 3.6, $`\omega ^2+p^2+2nr^2=0`$. (Note that $`\omega ^2=p^2+2nr^2>p^2`$.) Hence we have $`(p+r/2+\omega )(p+r/2\omega )=(r/2+1)^21`$. This is absurd because $`r4`$, $`\omega >p`$ and $`2p(r/2+1)^2r/2`$

(2) By the argument similar to above, we have the conclusion. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 1.3. The case that $`p1`$ (mod 8) is a special case of Theorem 1.5; see Example 1.6. Suppose that $`p3`$ (mod 8). Set $`p=8n+3`$ $`(n1)`$. Then we have $`O\stackrel{(1,\omega )}{}T(p,p+4)\stackrel{(1,p)}{}T(p,4)T(4,8n+3)\stackrel{(2n,4)}{}T(4,3)T(3,4)\stackrel{(1,3)}{}T(3,1)O`$. By the argument similar to that in the proof of Theorem 1.5, we have the conclusion. (Here we use Proposition 2.5 instead of Proposition 2.4.) $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 1.8. Since $`\sigma (T(5,8))=20`$ and $`T(5,8)\stackrel{(1,5)}{}T(5,3)\stackrel{(1,5)}{}T(5,2)T(2,5)\stackrel{(2,2)}{}T(2,1)O`$. By the argument similar to that in the proof of Theorem 1.5, we have the conclusion. $`\mathrm{}`$