Non-bi-orderability of 62 and 76

arXiv:1512.00372v2 [] 12 Jun 2017

Azer Akhmedov and Cody Martin
ABSTRACT: We prove that the knot groups of 62 and 76 are not biorderable. These are the only two knot groups up to 7 crossings whose
bi-orderability was not known. Our method applies to a very broad class of
knots.1
1. Introduction
Given a knot K ⊂ S3 , the group π1 (S3 \K) is called the knot group of K.
It is well known that every knot group is left-orderable [7, 3]. On the other
hand, not every knot group is bi-orderable; for example, it is not difficult
to see that the knot group of a non-trivial torus knot is not bi-orderable.
Indeed, the fundamental group of the (p, q)-torus knot complement has a
presentation hx, y | xp = y q i where p, q ≥ 2. Thus a power of x commutes
with y, while it is easy to show that x does not commute with y. However,
this is impossible in a bi-orderable group: assume that < is a bi-order in such
a group. Then either xyx−1 > y or xyx−1 < y. Without loss of generality
assume that xyx−1 > y. Then, inductively, we obtain xn yx−n > xn−1 yx1−n
for every natural number n. Taking n = p, we obtain a contradiction.
The well known argument from the previous paragraph shows that the
groups π1 (Klein Bottle) and π1 (Trefoil) are not bi-orderable. On the
other hand, the Figure-8 knot turns out to be bi-orderable. It is possible,
although not easy, to see this directly from the following presentation of the
Figure-8 knot group:
ht, a, b | tat−1 = aba, tbt−1 = abi
In [12] a very interesting criterion (a sufficient condition) has been proved
for the bi-orderability of knots.
Theorem 1.1. Let K be a fibered knot such that all the roots of the Alexander polynomial ∆K (t) are positive and real. Then π1 (K) is bi-orderable.
The unknot, the trefoil knot, and the Figure-8 knot are all fibered. The
Alexander polynomial of the Figure-8 knot is given by ∆(t) = t2 −3t+1 thus
all the roots are indeed real and positive. For the Trefoil knot, however, the
Alexander polynomial equals ∆(t) = t2 − t + 1 which has imaginary roots.
1In

our next publication, we will present a complete characterization of the
bi-orderability of knot groups. This characterization (a necessary and sufficient
condition) does not produce a finite algorithm for deciding the bi-orderabilty of an
arbitrary knot group but at the practical level (possibly with the help of computers)
it is effective in treating a very broad class of knots.
1

2

A major ingredient in the proof of Theorem 1.1 is the involvement of
Seifert-van Kampen Theorem by using the fiberedness of the knot. By far,
not all knots are fibered (although both of the knots 62 and 76 that we treat
in this paper are indeed fibered). In [4] a partial converse to Theorem 1.1
is given which states that if a fibered knot group is bi-orderable then ∆K (t)
has at least one positive real root. In [3], using the results of Chiswell-GlassWilson [2], the bi-orderability and non-bi-orderability of several non-fibered
knots has also been deduced. It has also been asked in [4] if the full converse
of their main result holds, i.e. if the Alexander polynomial of a fibred knot
K has at least one real positive root then is it true that K is bi-orderable?
The result of our paper settles this question in the negative.
In this paper, we involve a Seifert surface technique to obtain nice presentations for the knots 62 and 76 . We borrow this technique from [9] and [6]; it
applies to any knot, and allows to write a knot group as an HNN extension
(of a free group). Moreover, it allows to drop the fiberdness condition on
the knots (this indeed settles another question asked in [4]). Then we use
the concept of subgroups of infinitesimals; we develop this concept (which
is interesting independently) to make it applicable to the knot groups in
question. Our method applies to a very broad class of knots. In the current
paper, we treat only the knots 62 and 76 which were the only two knots up
to crossing number 7 whose bi-orderability was not known.
Given any knot K ⊂ S3 one can find an embedded surface Σ ⊂ S3 which
bounds K. For example, both a disk D2 and a Möbius Band bounds an
unknot, so does any punctured compact surface. In general, there are many
non-homeomorphic surfaces bounding a given knot. One can indeed find
such surfaces with some nice properties. For example, it is always true that
there exists an orientable surface Σ which bounds K. Such a surface Σ is
called a Seifert surface of the knot K. The existence of such surfaces was
first proved by Pontriagin and Frankl in 1930. In 1934, Seifert gave another
proof also providing a rather nice and short algorithm for constructing such
a surface.
Seifert surfaces are never unique since one can always increase the genus
of it without changing the boundary. Within a fixed homeomorphism type,
there is still a rich variety of possibilities for Seifert surfaces; for example, the
isomorphism type of the group π1 (S3 \Σ) may vary depending on the surface.
If this group is free then Σ is called a free Seifert surface or an unknotted
Seifert surface, otherwise it is called a non-free Seifert surface or a knotted
Seifert surface. A Seifert surface may or may not be incompressible. Every
knot admits an incompressible Seifert surface; by Loop Theorem, any Seifert
surface with minimal genus is necessarily incompressible. Also, every knot
admits both free and non-free Seifert surfaces if one allows compressible
surfaces [11]. On the other hand, there exist knots which admit only nonfree incompressible Seifert surfaces [8]. Let us also mention that the Seifert
surface obtained as a result of the Seifert algorithm is always free.

3

Figure 1. A Seifert surface of 62 .
Let K ⊂ S3 be a knot, ν(K) be its tubular neighborhood. Following [FSW], let Σ be an incompressible Seifert surface of K and X(K) =
S3 \ν(K). By taking a tubular neighborhood Σ×(−1, 1) we view X(K)\(Σ×
(−1, 1)) as a manifold obtain by cutting along Σ. One can glue the positive
and negative copies Σ × {1} and Σ × {−1} to obtain the original manifold
X(K), thus Seifert-van Kampen Theorem gives us the following presentation:
π1 (X(K)) = hπ1 (X(K)\(Σ × (−1, 1))), t | tx+ t−1 = x− , x+ ∈ π1 (Σ × {1})i
where x− ∈ π1 (Σ × {−1}) is the parallel copy of x+ “on the other side” of
Σ.
The above presentation often turns out to be quite pleasant for computational purposes (even though it takes some work to compute this presentation), especially when compared with the Wirtinger presentation of the

4

knot complement. The presentation of the Figure-8 knot group mentioned
above can be obtained by this technique. Applying it to the Trefoil knot,
one obtains the following well known presentation:
ht, a, b | tat−1 = b, tbt−1 = ba−1 i
We will obtain such presentations for the fundamental groups of the knot
complements of 62 and 76 . Both of these knot groups will have a structure
of a semidirect product Z n F4 .

Figure 2. A Seifert surface of 76 .

2. Subgroup of Infinitesimals
In this section we introduce a very useful notion of a subgroup of infinitesimals and study its properties.

5

Let Γ be a group and < be a left-order in it. For any x ∈ Γ, we let |x| = x
if x > 1 and |x| = x−1 otherwise. For f, g ∈ Γ we will say f is infinitesimal
with respect to g if |f |n < |g| for all n ∈ N. A positive element f is called
dominant if it is not infinitesimal with respect to any other element. If g is
positive and f is infinitesimal with respect to g then we will write f << g. If
neither of f and g is infinitesimal with respect to the other one, then we will
say that f and g are comparable. A left-ordered group is called Archimedean
if any two non-identity elements are comparable. By a theorem of Hölder,
Archimedean groups are Abelian (and hence bi-orderable as well).
For a positive element g ∈ Γ, we let Γg = {x ∈ Γ : x << g}. For an arbitrary left-orderable group Γ, the set Γg may not be very rich with structures,
however for bi-orderable groups we have the following easy proposition.
Proposition 2.1. If Γ is bi-orderable and g is a positive element then Γg
is subgroup of Γ.
Proof. Let x, y ∈ Γg . Then |xy| ≤ max{|x|2 , |y|2 }. Consequently,
|xy|n ≤ max{|x|2n , |y|2n }. Then xy ∈ Γg . Thus the product of any two
elements of Γg still belongs to it. On the other hand, for an arbitrary
x ∈ Γg , we have |x−1 | = |x| hence x−1 ∈ Γg . 
It is easy to see that for an arbitrary element g, the subgroup Γg is
not necessarily normal. However, for finitely generated groups we have the
following very useful result.
Proposition 2.2. Let Γ be a finitely generated bi-orderable group, S be a
finite symmetric generating set of Γ, and g ∈ S be the biggest element of S.
Then Γg is a normal subgroup. Moreover, if S 0 is another finite symmetric
generating set of Γ and g 0 is the biggest element of S 0 then Γg = Γg0 .
Proof. Let x ∈ Γg be a positive element, and u ∈ Γ. Then |u| < g m for
some m ≥ 1.
Assuming the opposite, let uxu−1 ∈
/ Γg . Then there exists a positive
integer n such that uxn u−1 > g 2m+1 . Then xn > g. But then x ∈
/ Γg .
Contradiction.
To prove the second part of the claim, it suffices to observe that there
exists N ≥ 1 such that |g 0 | < |g|N and |g| < |g 0 |N . 
By the same proof, Proposition 2.2 can be generalized to infinitely generated groups where the generating set contains a dominant element.
Proposition 2.3. Let Γ be a bi-orderable group, S be a symmetric generating set of Γ, and g ∈ S be a dominant element. Then Γg is a normal
subgroup. Moreover, if S 0 is another symmetric generating set with a dominant g 0 then Γg = Γg0 .
Proposition 2.2 (Proposition 2.3) shows that the subgroup Γg does not
depend on the choice of the finite generating set (of the generating set which

6

contains a dominant element). We will call this subgroup the subgroup of infinitesimals of Γ, and denote it by I(Γ). Let us also observe that Proposition
2.2 is a special case of Proposition 2.3 since any finite symmetric generating
set contains a dominant element. Moreover, if a bi-ordered group contains a
dominant element then any symmetric generating set also contains a dominant element. The class of bi-orderable groups with a dominant element
contains all finitely generated bi-orderable groups.
We would like to make more observations on the properties of the subgroup of infinitesimals. All these propositions will be stated for bi-ordered
groups with a dominant element. The following proposition follows from
Hölder’s Theorem which states that an Archimedean group is Abelian.
Proposition 2.4. Let Γ be a bi-ordered group with a dominant element.
Then the quotient Γ/I(Γ) is Abelian.
Corollary 2.5. As a corollary we also obtain that I(Γ) ⊇ [Γ, Γ].
The above observations (i.e. Propositions 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and Corollary 2.5)
have been made in [1] but only for a finitely generated groups and also in
a very special setting. Namely, let Γ ≤ Homeo+ (I) such that every nonidentity element has finitely many fixed points. Then we can introduce a
bi-order in Γ as follows: for all f, g ∈ Γ we say f < g if f (x) < g(x) near
zero, i.e. in some interval (0, ). For this particular bi-order, the first named
author has observed in [1] that the claims of the above propositions hold, in
fact, these observations have been much exploited in [1]. We also would like
to remark that the concept of infinitesimals has been used by Farb-Franks
in [5] and this has inspired the first named author to study its properties
further.
Let us also observe the following nice property of the subgroup of infinitesimals.
Proposition 2.6. Let Γ be a bi-ordered group with a dominant element,
and φ : Γ → Γ be an automorphism of Γ which preserves a bi-order in Γ.
Then the restriction φ|I(Γ) is an automorphism of I(Γ). 
Let us recall that an automorphism is said to preserve a left order if
positive elements are mapped to positive elements. Such a property for an
automorphism turns out to be quite useful in many situations. For example,
if a bi-ordered group H acts on a bi-ordered group G with order preserving
automorphisms then one can put a bi-order on the semi-direct product H nG
as follows: let ≺1 , ≺2 be the bi-orders in the groups H, G respectively. An
element of H n G can be written as a pair (h, g). We let (h, g) be positive
iff either 1 ≺1 h or h = 1 and 1 ≺2 g. Since the action of H preserves the
bi-order ≺2 on G, one can check easily that the bi-order on H n G is well
defined.

7

Now we would like to prove a modification of the above propositions
which will have an important application to knot groups. We will state this
proposition for semidirect products of Z n G, although it can be stated for
proper HNN extensions as well (the knot groups that we have in mind do
indeed split as semidirect products).
Proposition 2.7. Let G be a bi-ordered group with a dominant element,
φ : G → G be an automorphism of G which preserves the bi-order of G, and
Z n G be the semidirect product corresponding to the action of φ. Then the
groups Z n I(G) and Z n (G/I(G)) are bi-orderable. In particular, if any
two elements of G\[G, G] are comparable then Zn(G/[G, G]) is bi-orderable.
Proof. Let < be a bi-order in G. The restriction of φ to I(G) preserves
the bi-order < in it. Then the bi-orderability of the group Z n I(G) follows
from Proposition 2.6.
For the bi-orderability of the second group Z n (G/I(G)), we define a biorder ≺ in G/I(G) as follows. For any two elements ξ, ζ ∈ G/I(G) let x, y
be the representatives of ξ, ζ respectively. We let ξ ≺ ζ if and only if x < y.
It is an easy check that ≺ is indeed a well defined bi-order in G/I(G).
If any two elements of G/[G, G] are comparable, by Corollary 2.5 we obtain that I(G) = [G, G]. Therefore ≺ is a well defined bi-order in G/[G, G].
Moreover, ≺ is preserved by φ. 
Proposition 2.8. Let Z act on Zd by an automorphism A ∈ GL(d, Q).
a) If Z nA Zd is bi-orderable then A has at least one positive eigenvalue.
b) Let Λ be the set of all eigenvalues of A which are either imaginary
or negative, and VΛ be the eigenspace corresponding to Λ. If Z nA Zd is
bi-orderable then VΛ does not contain a non-zero rational vector.
Proof. In Proposition 4.16 in [3] it is proved that the if all eigenvalues of
A are positive and real then the semidirect product Z n Rd is bi-orderable.
Part a) is a partial converse to this claim, and it might also follow from the
arguments of [12], [3]. We will nevertheless prove it for the case of actions
on Zd (instead of Rd ). Somewhat similar ideas have been used also in the
proof of Proposition 2.2. in [10].
Let ≺ be a bi-order in Z nA Zd , and x1 , . . . , xd be positive generators of
By the bi-orderability, the action of A on Zd preserves the bi-order ≺
on Zd . Without loss of generality, we may also assume that all elements
of Zd \{0} are comparable (otherwise we will concentrate on the semidirect
product ZnA I(Zd ) and proceed by induction; notice that I(Zd ) ∼
= Zr where
r < d). Then there exists a unique vector u = (α1 , . . . , αd ) up to a scalar
multiplication such that all entries are positive and for all i, j ∈ {1, . . . , d},
αj
m
n
d
xm
i ≺ xj iff n < αi . Thus we obtain that for all z = (z1 , . . . , zd ) ∈ Z we
have 0 ≺ z only if z1 α1 + · · · + zd αd ≥ 0. In other words, if 0 ≺ z then
hz, ui ≥ 0 where h., .i denotes the standard dot product in Rd .
Zd .

8

Now, assume that A has a non-positive real eigenvalue λ. Then λ is
negative. Let v = (v1 , . . . , vd ) ∈ Rd be an eigenvector of A with respect to
λ. If the vector v is projectively rational (i.e. it is a scalar multiple of a
vector with all coordinates rational) then λ is rational, and we obtain that
A(M w) = −N w for some integral vector w and natural numbers M and N .
This violates bi-orderability of Z nA Zd since the action of A preserves ≺;
thus we can assume that the vector v is not projectively rational. Then for
every  > 0 there exists a vector z = (z1 , . . . , zd ) ∈ Zd and a scalar c > 1

(1). Then 0 < ||cAv − Az|| <  (2).
such that 0 < ||cv − z|| < ||A||+1
Without loss of generality, we may assume that 0 ≺ z. Then hz, ui ≥ 0, i.e.
the angle between z and u is not obtuse. If hv, ui > 0 (or if hv, ui < 0) then
for sufficiently small , the inequalities (1) and (2) imply that z and Az
cannot be both positive which is again a contradiction. Thus hv, ui = 0, i.e.
an eigenvector corresponding to a negative eigenvalue is orthogonal to u.
Similarly, in the case of an imaginary eigenvalue, we obtain that the
corresponding eigenvector must be orthogonal to u (we leave this as an
exercise to the reader).
Thus the eigenspace VΛ is orthogonal to u. Now part a) follows immediately (since u is a non-zero vector, VΛ is a proper subspace of Rd ). If VΛ
contains a non-zero rational vector w, let V (w) be the minimal A-invariant
Q-subspace of V containing w, and VZ (w) be the subgroup of all integral
vectors of V (w). Then Z n VZ (w) is bi-orderable. But this contradicts part
a) since the acting automorphism, when restricted to VΛ , has no positive
eigenvalue. 
Remark 2.9. Indeed, we also prove that if A ∈ GL(d, Q) is an integral
matrix then a semidirect product Z nA Zd is bi-orderable provided A has
at least one positive eigenvalue, and no (d − 1)-dimensional eigenspace of A
contains a non-zero rational vector.
To point out further immediate corollaries of the proof, let us recall the
Rational Form Theorem that for any matrix A ∈ GL(d, Q), there exists a
decomposition Qd = V1 ×· · ·×Vr into irreducible components corresponding
to the factorization of the characteristic polynomial of A. Thus the matrix
A has a decomposition into r blocks corresponding to the restriction of the
map A to the subspaces V1 , . . . , Vr . A vector x ∈ V can be written uniquely
as x = x1 + · · · + xk where k ≤ r, xi ∈ Vni for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k and n1 , . . . , nk
are all distinct. We will call the vector xi and irreducible component of x.
The matrix A can be canonically written as a matrix of r irreducible blocks
corresponding to the subspaces V1 , . . . , Vr .
Now we observe the following immediate but very important corollary of
Proposition 2.8 and Rational Form Theorem which provides a classification
of all bi-orderable semidirect products Z n Zn .

9

Theorem 2.10. Let Z act on Zd by an automorphism A ∈ GL(d, Q). Then
the group Z nA Zd is bi-orderable if and only if all irreducible blocks of the
matrix A over the rationals possesses a positive real eigenvalue.
Proposition 2.8 and Rational Form Theorem have another immediate
corollary which we state in the following very useful lemma
Lemma 2.11. Let V be a bi-ordered Abelian group, T : V → V be an
order-preserving automorphism, V0 ≤ V be a T -invariant subgroup of finite
index such that V /V0 ∼
= Zd for some d ≥ 1, and x ∈ V \V0 such that x is
comparable to T x. Let also A ∈ GL(d, Q) be the matrix representing the
map T : V /V0 → V /V0 induced by T , and x ∈ V /V0 be the image of x in the
quotient V /V0 . If A consists of a single irreducible block over the rationals
then the restriction of T : V /V0 → V /V0 possesses a positive real eigenvalue.
In the remainder of this section, we would like to introduce the following
very useful notion of a completion of a free bi-ordered group. Let G be a
free group with a bi-order <. We’ll introduce a completion G of G. Our
main goal is to extend the group G to include “the limits” of sequences
of type f n gf −n , n ≥ 1 (notice that these sequences are always monotone
and bounded). Inductively, we will build a sequence of linearly ordered sets
Gn , n ≥ 0 such that
i) G0 = G;
ii) Gn ⊆ Gn+1 , for all n ≥ 0;
iii) the linear order on G0 coincides with <;
iv) for all n ≥ 0, the linear order on Gn+1 is an extension of the linear
order on Gn ;
v) for all n ≥ 0, a multiplication of some elements of Gn is defined in
Gn , moreover, in Gn+3 , a multiplication between any two elements of Gn is
defined, i.e. Gn Gn ⊆ Gn+3 .
vi) for all n ≥ 0, a multiplication in Gn+1 is an extension of the multiplication in Gn .
Indeed, we will use the following very specific extension of the group
operation and the linear order: let G0 = G, S (0) be the set of all sequences in
G0 of the form (f n gf −n )n≥1 . Notice that all sequences in S (0) are monotone
and bounded, moreover, a constant sequence (g, g, . . . ) belongs to S (0) for
all g ∈ G0 . Thus we may view elements of G0 as constant sequences hence
as elements of S (0) .
We will build a sequence of sets An , n ≥ 0 such that for all n ≥ 1 a
multiplication between any two element of An−1 is defined and the following
conditions hold:

10

1) for all n ≥ 0, An = Ωn t ∆n where Ωn is a set of infinite sequences of
elements from An−1 for all n ≥ 1, and ∆n is a set of infinite sequences of
elements from Ωn for all n ≥ 0.
2) for all n ≥ 1, An−1 is a subset of Ωn where every element of An−1 is
viewed as a constant sequence in Ωn .
3) for all n ≥ 0, Ωn is a subset of ∆n where every element of Ωn is viewed
as a constant sequence in ∆n .
4) for all n ≥ 1, An−1 An−1 ⊆ An .
We let Ω0 = G0 , ∆0 = S (0) , and A0 = Ω0 t ∆0 . Assume now the sets
Ai , 0 ≤ i ≤ n are all defined such that conditions 1)-4) hold up to the index
n. We will define An+1 as follows:
Let
Ω+ = {(f gk )k≥1 | f ∈ An−1 , (gk )k≥1 belongs to An }, and
Ω− = {(gk f )k≥1 | f ∈ An−1 , (gk )k≥1 belongs to An }.
Notice that since f ∈ An−1 and gk ∈ An−1 , ∀k ≥ 1, by condition 4), the
multiplications are already defined in An . We let Ωn+1 = Ω+ ∪ Ω− .
For any two sequences a = (ak )k≥1 and b = (bk )k≥1 in An , for all m ≥ 1,
we define abm as a sequence (ak bm )k≥1 (thus abm belongs to Ωn+1 ). Then
we define ab as the sequence (abk )k≥1 , and a ? b as the sequence (ak b)k≥1 .
Then we let
∆n+1 = {ab | a, b ∈ An } ∪ {a ? b | a, b ∈ An } and An+1 = Ωn+1 t ∆n+1 .
Notice that on the set An+1 all conditions 1)-4) still hold thus we may
proceed by induction.
We now let B2n = Ωn , B2n+1 = ∆n for all n ≥ 0. On the sets Bn , n ≥ 0
we will introduce equivalence relations and denote the set of equivalence
classes of Bn by Gn . Then on Gn we will introduce a linear order. We do
this as follows:
First, on G0 = B0 = G, G1 = B1 where the bi-order on G0 coincides with
the bi-order < on B0 = G, and the bi-order on G1 is defined as follows: G1 =
B1 = ∆0 consists of bounded monotone sequences of the form (f n gf −n )n≥1 ;
we let this sequence be positive iff g is positive.
Assume now the equivalence classes G0 , . . . , Gn−1 of B0 , . . . , Bn−1 are all
defined for some n ≥ 2. Then on the set Bi , 2 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 we can also define
a partial order (by abuse of notation we still denote it by <) by letting x < y
for x, y ∈ Bi iff [x] < [y] where [x], [y] ∈ Gi represent equivalences classes of
elements in x and y respectively.
Then on the set Bn , n ≥ 1 we introduce the following equivalence relation:
the elements f¯ = (fn )n≥1 , ḡ = (gn )n≥1 of Bn (which are sequences in Bn−1 )
are called equivalent if the following conditions hold:

11

1) if either both f¯ = (fn )n≥1 , ḡ = (gn )n≥1 are non-decreasing or both are
non-increasing then there exists N ≥ 1 such that for all k ≥ N there exists
p, q, r, s such that p < q, r < s, and fp ≤ gk ≤ fq , gr ≤ fk ≤ gs .
2) if f¯ is non-decreasing and ḡ is non-increasing then there exists at most
one ω ∈ Gn such that fi ≤ ω ≤ gj , for all i, j ≥ 1.
3) if f¯ is non-increasing and ḡ is non-decreasing then there exists at most
one ω ∈ Gn such that gi ≤ ω ≤ fj , for all i, j ≥ 1.
We have already defined Gn as the set of equivalence classes of Bn . One
can check that for all a, b ∈ An , the elements ab and a ? b of An+1 will belong
to the same equivalence classes thus they represent the same elements of Gn .
Therefore, for a, b ∈ Gn , we can denote the multiplication simply by ab. In
the sequel, by abuse of notation we will still write the elements of Gi , i ≥ 1
as sequences of elements of Bi−1 representing these elements; our discussion
will not depend on the choices of representatives of equivalence classes.
Now it remains to show the extension of the bi-order < in G0 ∪ G1 to all
Gn , n ≥ 2. We will extend it inductively as follows: assume now that the it
is defined on all Gi , 0 ≤ i ≤ n for some n ≥ 1 such that for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1,
on Gi+1 it is an extension of the bi-order on Gi , and all elements of Gi+1
consists of bounded monotone sequences of Gi . Inductively, we extend the
order < on Gn to Gn+1 as follows: let f¯ = (fn )n≥1 , ḡ = (gn )n≥1 be elements
of Gn as monotone sequences in Gn−1 . We say f¯ < ḡ in one of the following
cases:
i) both f¯, ḡ are non-decreasing and there exists k ≥ 1 such that gk > fn
for all n ≥ 1;
ii) both f¯, ḡ are non-increasing and there exists k ≥ 1 such that fk < gn
for all n ≥ 1;
iii) f¯ is non-decreasing, ḡ is non-increasing, and fi < gj for all i, j ≥ 1;
iv) f¯ is non-increasing, ḡ is non-decreasing, and there exists k ≥ 1 such
that fk < gk .
By the way we defined the sets An , n ≥ 0, all elements of Gn+1 will
consists of bounded monotone sequences thus we may proceed by induction.
Thus both the multiplication and the the order < is extended to the
whole union ∪n≥0 Gn . We aslo define the inverse of an element f¯ = (fn )n≥1
inductively as f¯−1 = (fn−1 )n≥1 . One can check that ∪n≥0 Gn becomes a biordered group. We denote this group by G(1) (let us also denote G by G(0) ).
Then we take a set S (1) of all sequences in G(1) of the form (f n gf −n )n≥1 ,
and repeat the process again to obtain a bi-ordered group G(2) , and so on.
The union ∪n≥0 G(n) becomes a bi-ordered group. We denote it with G, and
call it the completion of G.
We would like to end this section with the following useful notion.

12

Definition 2.12. Let G be a group with a bi-order <. Two elements f, g ∈
G are called weakly comparable if there exists h ∈ G such that f and ghg −1
are comparable.
Often times an automorphism of a bi-orderable group sends an element
of a group to another element which is not comparable to it. This turns out
to be a serious issue in the situation interesting to us; fortunately, we will
be able to establish a weak comparability which will be sufficient for our
purposes.

3. Non-bi-orderability of π1 (62 )
Let K ⊂ S3 represent the knot 62 . In Figure 1, we have shown the picture
of the Seifert surface Σ of the knot 62 . Let K denote the boundary of this
surface. In Figure 3, we have chosen the base point for π1 (S3 \K) and make
some convenient choices for the generators of π1 (S3 \K) and π1 (Σ × {1}). In
the figure, the loops α, β, γ, δ generate π1 (Σ × {1}), and the loops x, a, b, c
generate π1 (S3 \K).
We obtain a presentation
ht, α, β, γ, δ | tαt−1 = α− , tβt−1 = β− , tγt−1 = γ− , tδt−1 = δ− i
where α− , β− , γ− , δ− are the loops on Σ × {−1} parallel to α, β, γ, δ respectively. By computing these loops we obtain the following presentation for
the knot group 62 :
Γ = ht, x, a, b, c | ta−1 t−1 = xb, txat−1 = x, tbt−1 = c−1 , tct−1 = abci
Both of the subgroups generated by a−1 , xa, b, c and xb, x, c−1 , abc coincide
with the free group generated by x, a, b, c hence the group Γ by the above
presentation can be given as a semidirect product Z n F4 where the acting
group Z is generated by t, and the free group F4 is generated by x, a, b, c.
Let G be a subgroup of Γ generated by x, a, b and c (thus G is isomorphic
to F4 ). Let us assume that Γ has a bi-order <. Then this bi-order can be
restricted to G and the conjugation by t preserves this bi-order in G. Notice
that the quotient Γ/[G, G] is isomorphic to ZnM Z4 where the automorphism
is given by the matrix


2 1 0 0
 0 0 0 1 

M =
 1 1 0 -1 
0 0 1 1

13

Figure 3. A Seifert surface of 62 . Blue loops represent
the generators of the fundamental group of the surface,
while the red loops represent the generators of the fundamental group of complement of the surface.
The characteristic polynomial det(M − λI) of this matrix equals f (λ) =
λ4 − 3λ3 + 3λ2 − 3λ + 1 which has exactly two positive real roots and no
rational roots. 2
2It

is not accidental that this polynomial coincides with the Alexander polynomial of the knot. One can involve the rational root test to show that it does not
have a rational root. To see why it does not have four real roots, first, notice that
the second derivative f 00 (λ) = 12λ2 − 18λ + 6 has exactly two roots: λ1 = 21 and
λ2 = 1, and it is negative in the interval ( 12 , 1) . On the other hand, in this interval,
f (λ) = λ4 − λ3 + 2(λ2 − λ3 ) + (λ2 − λ) − 2λ + 1 < 0. If f (λ) has four real roots
then, since f (0) > 0, it has either three roots in (0, 12 ) and one root in (1, ∞), or

14

Since f (λ) has no rational root, any two elements of G\[G, G] are comparable. Then by Proposition 2.7 the quotient Γ/[G, G] must be bi-orderable.
The conditions of Proposition 2.8 are not met, and we do not obtain a contradiction at this level; since M does not have a rational eigenvalue, by
Remark 2.9, the quotient Γ/[G, G] is indeed bi-orderable.
Now we consider the central series Gn , n = 0, 1, 2, . . . of G defined as
follows: G0 = G, Gn+1 = [Gn , Gn ], for all n ≥ 0. Each of the subgroups
Gn is invariant under the conjugation by t. Thus t acts on all quotients
Gn /Gn+1 . We have already studied this action for n = 0; now, let us study
it for n = 1. Let
u = [x, a], v = [x, b], w = [x, c], ξ = [a, b], y = [a, c], z = [b, c].
By abusing the notation we will denote the images of the elements u, v, w, ξ, y, z
in the quotient G1 /G2 by the same letters. In the group G1 /G2 we have a
conjugation by t given as
tut−1 = v −1 , tvt−1 = w−2 z −1 , twt−1 = u2 v 2 w2 ξ −1 z,
tξt−1 = wz, tyt−1 = u−1 v −1 w−1 ξz −1 , tzt−1 = yz,
thus the t-conjugation acts by an automorphism given by a matrix


0 −1 0
0 0 0
 0
0 −2 0 0 −1 


 2
2
2 −1 0 1 

.
N =
0
1
0 0 1 
 0

 −1 −1 −1 1 0 −1 
0
0
0
0 1 1
The characteristic polynomial of the matrix N equals p(λ) = λ6 − 3λ5 +
− 12λ3 + 8λ2 − 3λ + 1. It has a double root λ1 = λ2 = 1, and 4
other imaginary roots λ3 , λ4 , λ5 and λ6 . Let E1 be the two-dimensional real
eigenspace corresponding to the eigenvalue 1, and E2 be the 4-dimensional
real eigenspace corresponding to the eigenvalues λ3 , λ4 , λ5 and λ6 . The subspace E2 contains a non-zero rational vector, moreover, it does not contain
a proper A-invariant subspace V such that V contains a non-zero rational
vector. Thus if the semidirect product Z n (G1 /G2 ) was bi-orderable where
the action is given by the t-conjugation then we would obtain a contradiction by Theorem 2.10. However, the bi-order < does not necessarily induce
a bi-order on G1 /G2 which is preserved by the t-conjugation.
8λ4

To resolve this issue we would like to consider two cases:
Generic Case: Let us first assume that none of the elements u, v, w, ξ, y, z
are weakly comparable.
it has one root in (0, 12 ) and three roots in (1, ∞). By Rolle’s Theorem, one can
deduce that f 00 must have a root in the interval (0, 12 ) ∪ (1, ∞). Contradiction.

15

Let us observe that in the group G = G0 , for any θ ∈ {u, v, w, ξ, y, z} and
−1
−1
n ≥ 1, we have tn θt−n = g1,n ω1 g1,n
. . . gk,n ωk gk,n
where
ωi ∈ {u, u−1 , v, v −1 , w, w−1 , ξ, ξ −1 , y, y −1 , z, z −1 }
and gi,n ∈ G for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k (here, k depends on n, so we will also write
−1
k = k(n)). The conjugate gj,n ωj gj,n
, 1 ≤ j ≤ k(n) will be called a term of
tn θt−n corresponding to ωj . We will call an element of G1 admissible if it
can be represented by a reduced non-trivial word W in the alphabet
{u, u−1 , v, v −1 , w, w−1 , ξ, ξ −1 , y, y −1 , z, z −1 }
such that for all ωi in the alphabet, if tW t−1 has a term corresponding to
ωi then it has no term corresponding to ωi−1 .
Now, let us make an observation that, for all ωi from the alphabet, if tθt−1
has a term corresponding to ωi then it has no term corresponding to ωi−1 ,
i.e. each of letters ωi are admissible elements. 3 Recall that two elements
f, g ∈ G are called weakly comparable if g and hf h−1 are comparable for
some h ∈ G.
Considering any seven different positive values of the exponent m, by
pigeonhole principle, we can claim that for some
ω ∈ {u, u−1 , v, v −1 , w, w−1 , ξ, ξ −1 , y, y −1 , z, z −1 },
and for two of those seven values of m, there exists i ∈ {1, . . . , k(m)} such
that all terms of tm ωt−m not corresponding to ω is infinitesimal with respect
−1
to the term gi,m ωgi,m
. Let p, q be these two desired values of the exponent
m. Then, by replacing the t-conjugation with a tr g-conjugation if necessary,
−1
for some g ∈ G (more precisely, for g = gi,p
gi,q ), we may and will assume
n
−n
that all the conjugates t ωt , n ∈ Z are comparable where r = |p − q| ≤ 6.
In the quotient G1 /G2 ∼
= Z6 , the images of all the conjugates tn ωt−n , n ∈
Z generate the entire quotient G1 /G2 . Then we can find an element η =
η(u, v, w, ξ, y, z) ∈ G1 such that, in the quotient G1 /G2 , the image of η
belongs to the 4-dimensional irreducible component isomorphic to Z4 .
Let H be the subgroup of G1 generated by the subset S = {tn ηt−n | n ∈ Z}
of all conjugates of η. All elements of S are comparable to each other. Let
us observe that a conjugation by an element g ∈ G induces an identity map
in the quotient G1 /G2 . Then all elements of [H, H] are infinitesimal with
respect to all elements of S, and we obtain that the semidirect product Z n
(H/I(H)) is bi-orderable, where the action is given by the t-conjugation. By
Proposition 2.4 the group H/I(H) is Abelian. Let L = H ∩ G2 . Notice that
3It

follows by the action of t on G1 /G2 that, in the group G = G0 , the element
tut−1 will have only one term, and it corresponds to v −1 ; the element tvt−1 has
two terms corresponding to w−1 and one term corresponding to z −1 ; the element
twt−1 has two terms corresponding to each of u, v, w, one term corresponding to
ξ −1 , and one term corresponding to z, and so on.

16

L is invariant under the t-conjugation, and H/L ∼
= Z4 . Let T : H/I(H) →
H/I(H) denotes the map induced by the t-conjugation. Let also L0 be
the image of L in H/I(H). Then we apply Lemma 2.11 by taking V =
H/I(H), V0 = L0 and x = η to obtain a contradiction.
Non-generic Case: Some two of the elements u, v, w, ξ, y, z are weakly
comparable.
To treat this case first we choose a positive element η = η(u, v, w, ξ, y, z) ∈
G1 such that, in the quotient G1 /G2 , the image of η belongs to the 4dimensional irreducible component isomorphic to Z4 . Without loss of generality let us assume that T (η) ≤ η. The sequence (η n )n≥1 is increasing
in G. If it is not bounded then η ≤ T −1 (η) < η n for some n ≥ 1. Thus
T −1 (η) (hence also T (η)) is comparable with η. Then we again let H be
the subgroup of G1 generated by the subset S = {tn ηt−n | n ∈ Z} of all
conjugates of η, and proceed as in the Generic Case.
Thus we may assume that (η n )n≥1 is bounded. Let us denote this sequence by ω. Although it is not necessarily an element of G we can define “a conjugation” by it which we denote by Iω , namely, for all x ∈ G
let Iω (x) denotes the sequence (η n xη −n )n≥1 . Notice that this sequence is
bounded and monotone hence it can be viewed as an element of G. In the
completion G of G, we will have η(Iω T (η))η −1 = Iω T (η), and more generally, η(Iω T )n (η)η −1 = (Iω T )n (η). Now, by replacing the map T (i.e. the
t-conjugation) with Iω T , and denoting the new map still with T , we can
assume that all the elements T n (η), n ∈ Z commute. Then we obtain a contradiction to the bi-orderability as in the Generic Case. Namely, let again
H be the subgroup of G1 generated by the subset {T n η | n ∈ Z}. It is not
necessarily true any more that all these elements are comparable but H is
Abelian now. Let again L = H ∩ G2 . Then we can apply Lemma 2.11 by
taking V = H, V0 = L and x = η to obtain a contradiction.
Remark 3.1. Let us point out that treating the generic case separately
was not necessary. We nevertheless wanted to point out that unless we are
unlucky (i.e. if we are in non-generic case), there is no need for the notion
of a completion of a bi-ordered group.
4. Non-bi-orderability of π1 (76 )
In this section we will compute a presentation for the knot group of 76 .
In Figure 2, we have shown a picture of the Seifert surface Σ of the knot 76 .
Let K denotes the boundary of this surface. In Figure 3, choosing a base
point for π1 (S3 \K) and making some convenient choices for the generators
of π1 (S3 \K) and π1 (Σ × {1}), we obtain a presentation for the fundamental
group π1 (S3 \K). In the figure, the loops α, β, γ, δ generate π1 (Σ × {1}), and
the loops a, b, c, d generate π1 (S3 \K).

17

We obtain a presentation
ht, α, β, γ, δ | tαt−1 = α− , tβt−1 = β− , tγt−1 = γ− , tδt−1 = δ− i.
Here, the loops α, β, γ, δ generate π1 (Σ × {1}), and the loops a, b, c, d generate π1 (S3 \K); α− , β− , γ− , δ− are the loops on Σ×{−1} parallel to α, β, γ, δ
respectively. One can compute these loops and obtain a presentation
ht, a, b, c, d | tat−1 = ab, tb−1 ac−1 t−1 = b−1 , tct−1 = b−1 d−1 , tdt−1 = cdi
for the knot group Γ of 76 . Thus, again Γ is isomorphic to a semi-direct
product Z n F4 where the acting group Z is generated by t, and the free
group F4 is generated by a, b, c, d.

Figure 4. A Seifert surface of 76 . Blue loops represent
the generators of the fundamental group of the surface,
while the red loops represent the generators of the fundamental group of complement of the surface.

18

Interestingly, the case of the knot 76 is algebraically identical to case of
the knot 62 . Indeed, the presentation of Γ can also be written as
ht, a, b, c, d | tat−1 = ab, tbt−1 = abdb2 , tct−1 = b−1 d−1 , tdt−1 = cdi,
from where it is easy to compute that the quotient Γ/[G, G] is isomorphic
to Z nM Z4 where the acting automorphism is given by the matrix


1 1 0 0
 1 3 −1 0 

M =
 0 0 0 1 .
0 1 −1 1
By computing the characteristic polynomial of this matrix we obtain
f (λ) = λ4 − 5λ3 + 7λ2 − 5λ + 1. This polynomial4 has two positive irrational real roots of multiplicity 1, and two imaginary irrational roots. By
Remark 2.9 the group Z n G/[G, G] is indeed bi-orderable; thus, as in the
case of 62 , we do not obtain a contradiction at this level. However, considering the derived series Gn , n = 0, 1, 2, . . . of G, we will look at the action
of Z on G1 /G2 . To compute this action, let
[a, b] = u, [a, c] = v, [a, d] = w, [b, c] = x, [b, d] = y, [c, d] = z.
Let also H be the subgroup of G1 generated by these six elements. Thus
the quotient H/[H, H] is isomorphic to Z6 generated by u, v, w, x, y, z. Then
we have
tut−1 = u2 wy, tvt−1 = u−1 w−1 y −1 , twt−1 = vwxy,
txt−1 = u−1 w−1 y −2 , tyt−1 = vwx3 y 3 z −1 ,
Thus the action is given by an integral matrix

2 0 1
0
1
 −1 0 −1 0 −1

 0 1 1
1
1
N =
 −1 0 −1 0 −2

 0 1 1
3
3
0 0 0 −1 −1

tzt−1 = x−1 y −1 z.
0
0
0
0
−1
1





.




The characteristic polynomial of this matrix has a double root equal to 1,
and 4 other imaginary roots. The 4-dimensional eigenspace corresponding
to the 4 imaginary roots contains a non-zero rational vector. Thus the
situation is identical to the case of the knot 62 and we conclude that 76 is
also non-bi-orderable.
Acknowledgment: We are grateful to Dale Rolfsen and Adam Clay for
their very close interest and for bringing up several references to our attention.
4Again,

it is not accidental that this polynomial coincides with the Alexander
polynomial of 76

19

References
[1] A. Akhmedov. Extension of Hölder’s Theorem in Diff 1+ (I). to appear in
Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems.
[2] I. M. Chiswell, A. M. W. Glass, J. S. Wilson. Residual nilpotence and
ordering in one-relator groups and knot groups. Preprint, available via
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0994
[3] A. Clay and D. Rolfsen. Ordered Groups and Topology, Preprint, available via
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.05088.pdf
[4] A. Clay and D. Rolfsen. Ordered groups, eigenvalues, knots, surgery and Lspaces. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 152 (2012), no.1, 115-129, MR
2860419
[5] B. Farb and J.Franks. Groups of homeomorphisms of one-manifolds II: Extension of Hölder’s Theorem. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003) no.11,
4385-4396.
[6] S. Friedl, D. S. Silver and S. G. Williams. Splittings of the knot groups to
appear in Mathematische Annalen.
[7] J. Howie and H. Short. The band sum problem, J.London Math. Soc. (2) 31,
(1985) no.3, 571-576.
[8] H. C. Lyon. Knots without unknotted incompressible spanning surfaces. Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 35, (1972) 617-620.
[9] X. S. Lin. Representations of knot groups and twisted Alexander polynomials.
Acta Mathematica Sinica. English Series. 17, no.3, (2001) 361-380
[10] P. A. Linnel, A. Rhemtulla, D. Rolfsen. Invariant group orderings and Galois
conjugates. Journal of Algebra. bf 319, Issue 12, 4891-4898.
[11] M. Ozawa. Synchronism of an incompressible non-free Seifert surface for a
knot and an algebraically split closed incompressible surface in the knot complement. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 128, Number 3, (1999) 919-922.
[12] B. Perron and D. Rolfsen. On orderability of fibered knot groups Math. Proc.
Cambridge Philos. Soc. 152 (2003), no.1, 147-153, MR 1990838
Azer Akhmedov, Department of Mathematics, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND, 58102, USA
E-mail address: azer.akhmedov@ndsu.edu
Cody Martin, Department of Mathematics, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND, 58102, USA
E-mail address: cody.martin@ndsu.edu

