Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 22, 2015 at 7:42 vote accept Mikhail
Jan 21, 2015 at 22:27 comment added Dylan Thurston Mikhail, I'm not seeing the issue with Mosher's lemma. I'll follow Mosher and call the new diagonal $h'$. What you say is correct, but the intersections of $h'$ with $h$ are a subset of the intersections of the old edge $h_{SW}$ with $h$. But the intersections of $h_{SW}$ with $h$ are not counted in the new triangulation.
Jan 21, 2015 at 22:24 comment added Dylan Thurston I strongly suspect, by the way, that it is not possible to do flips that monotonically decrease the total number of intersections between the two triangulations; hence Mosher's weird definition, and also why Lackenby looked at the dual spine.
Jan 21, 2015 at 21:35 comment added Ian Agol A simple proof of this using a triangulation and a dual spine, performing flips to decrease the intersection number, is given in Lemma 6 of this paper of Lackenby: msp.org/gt/2000/4-1/p12.xhtml I think it ought to be possible to make this proof effective to give an algorithm.
Jan 21, 2015 at 15:00 history edited Mikhail CC BY-SA 3.0
added 568 characters in body
Jan 20, 2015 at 22:14 answer added Sam Nead timeline score: 5
Jan 20, 2015 at 17:02 answer added Igor Rivin timeline score: 4
Jan 20, 2015 at 16:39 comment added Mikhail Yes, the reference to the Mosher paper was found in the literature about claster algebras.
Jan 20, 2015 at 15:58 comment added Christian Stump mathoverflow.net/questions/194291
Jan 20, 2015 at 15:56 comment added Jan Grabowski Yoive tagged this as cluster-algebras but have you explored the literature there about cluster algebras associated to surfaces? (There was a not entirely unrelated quested here earlier today, but on mobile I can't very easily find and paste the link. Maybe someone helpful could? The poster was @HughThomas.)
Jan 20, 2015 at 15:36 history asked Mikhail CC BY-SA 3.0