Pretzel knots with unknotting number one (Q357222)

The unknotting number of a knot is the minimal number of times the knot must be passed through itself (that is, the number of crossing changes needed) to change the knot to the unknot. Work of \textit{T. Kobayashi} [Kobe J. Math. 6, No. 1, 53--62 (1989; Zbl 0688.57007)] and \textit{M. Scharlemann} and \textit{A. Thompson} [Comment. Math. Helv. 64, No. 4, 527--535 (1989; Zbl 0693.57004)] gives a simple criterion to determine whether a \(3\)-strand pretzel knot \(P(p,q,r)\) with \(p,q,r\) odd has unknotting number \(1\). In this paper the authors consider the remaining \(3\)-strand pretzel links that are knots -- those of the form \(P(p,q,2m)\) for \(p,q\) odd. The first result is that if such a knot \(P(p,q,2m)\), for \(m\neq 0\), has unknotting number \(1\) then, up to reflection, \(m>0\) and \(p+q\in\{-2,0,2,4\}\). In the cases \(p+q=-2\) and \(p+q=0\) they pinpoint exactly which knots have unknotting number \(1\). The results obtained lead the authors to conjecture that all \(3\)-strand pretzel knots with unknotting number \(1\) are \(2\)-bridge knots except for \(P(3,-3,2)\) and its reflection. A number of different approaches are needed in the proofs. The restriction on the value of \(p+q\) is achieved by considering the knot signature. The analysis of the case \(p+q=-2\) uses a version of the Montesinos Theorem and a strengthening of Donaldson's Diagonalisation Theorem by \textit{J. Greene} [On closed 3-braids with unknotting number one; \url{arxiv:0902.1573v1} (2009)], applied using a smooth \(4\)-manifold given by plumbing \(2\)-disc bundles over \(S^2\). For the case \(p+q=0\), a bound on the unknotting number by \textit{Y. Nakanishi} [Math. Semin. Notes, Kobe Univ. 9, 99--108 (1981; Zbl 0481.57002)] using the Alexander module is used to reduce to the case \(m=1\). The proof is completed by careful calculation of the Heegaard Floer homology correction terms defined by \textit{P. Ozsváth} and \textit{Z. Szábo} [Adv. Math. 173, No. 2, 179--261 (2003; Zbl 1025.57016)]. Finally the authors note that these methods are not sufficient to address the remaining cases \(p+q=2\) and \(p+q=4\).