Talk:Knot theory
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theKnot theory article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives:1Auto-archiving period:12 months  |
 | Knot theory is a formerfeatured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check thearchive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than365 days may be automatically archived byLowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Shouldn't the references use footnotes rather than being inline like they currently are? --Eraserhead1 <talk>16:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition given there appears to be wrong. Actually it is defining "isotopy" rather than "ambient isotopy" and it is well-known (see e.g. the first pages of Burde-Zieschang: "Knots") that isotopy does not imply ambient isotopy. (Besides the map would only have to be injective level-wise, and moreover, of course it can not be injective as a map on [0,1] but rather on S^1.)--Kamsa Hapnida (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC) I have replaced that by a correct definition now.--Kamsa Hapnida (talk)12:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment(s) below were originally left atTalk:Knot theory/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Followingseveral discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
History section could use some more references, especially to historically important papers. --Jitse Niesen (talk)05:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Knot definitionThe definition says that a knot is an injective continuous function K:[0,1]->R^3 with K(0)=K(1), but really K isn't injective if K(0)=K(1).— Precedingunsigned comment added by2601:199:301:1691:C4E4:4553:198C:1587 (talk)20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
Last edited at 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC).Substituted at 21:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not(!) my area but I came across this which sounds like a big deal:https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/node/38304
Relates to "unknot" equivalence determination in near polynomial time by M Lackenby.Billymac00 (talk)13:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where to raise this, but the subheader in the article begins to explain how to do it, and then sort of cuts short with "it's very technical". I feel as though this section should be revised, either to be more concise, or more precise. Also, a citation would be nice for those of us who want to learn how its done.— Precedingunsigned comment added by203.211.110.97 (talk)12:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
