Talk:Knot theory
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Knot theory Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:Article history Template:WikiProject banner shell
- REDIRECT Template:Archives
References
Shouldn't the references use footnotes rather than being inline like they currently are? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Knot Equivalence
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)
Assessment comment
Template:Substituted comment Substituted at 21:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Recent Advance
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)
- That's interesting! I added a mention of this announcement, both here and on Lackenby's page. Turgidson (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Knot Theory in Higher Dimensions
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.110.97 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)