Timeline for Why is any one Wirtinger relation a consequence of the remainder? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2016 at 1:31 | comment | added | ThiKu | Why don't you write this up as an answer? | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 20:41 | comment | added | Ronnie Brown | If you look at the knot diagram from above and imagine a loop beneath it and circling it, then the loop is contractible in the space less the knot, but from above in this contraction the loop goes through each crossing. That is how I see it. A more formal proof is probably better using groupoids, but that is not to general taste. | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 14:52 | comment | added | ThiKu | There is nothing unclear about this question. Every crossing of a knot diagram yields one relation for the Wirtinger presentation of the knot group. It seems that one of these relations is redundant and thus can be omitted from the presentation, and the question is asking why. | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 12:47 | history | closed |
Neil Strickland Stefan Waldmann Franz Lemmermeyer Stefan Kohl♦ Alex Degtyarev |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 11:48 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 3, 2016 at 12:47 | |||||
| Oct 3, 2016 at 6:37 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 3, 2016 at 6:41 | |||||
| Oct 3, 2016 at 6:35 | history | asked | user99231 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |