Timeline for What is the state of the art for algorithmic knot simplification?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2022 at 7:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ with https://arxiv.org/abs/
|
|
| Apr 11, 2017 at 23:36 | history | edited | Sam Nead | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo fix
|
| Oct 10, 2013 at 8:20 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Hi Daniel, sorry I was going from memory of a conversation with Ben. I had not read that paper. The reference I meant to give is this one: arxiv.org/abs/1110.6080 It's a little orthogonal to your question since it's using Pachner moves on closed manifold triangulations rather than unknot complements, but I believe Ben did similar experiments on knot complements getting essentially the same results -- they're just not written up. But for closed manifolds this is very much an annealing type result. | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 6:14 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | Thanks for this! Could you explain a bit more how this method can be viewed as a variation on simulated annealing? Simulated annealing is a probabilistic method- were there any probabilistic steps in the preprint to which you linked? | |
| Oct 7, 2013 at 14:05 | history | answered | Ryan Budney | CC BY-SA 3.0 |