#17030: Knot Theory as a part of GSoC 2014.
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  amitjamadagni      |        Owner:  amitjamadagni
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_review
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-7.2
      Component:  algebraic          |   Resolution:
  topology                           |    Merged in:
       Keywords:                     |    Reviewers:  Miguel Marco, Karl-
        Authors:  Amit Jamadagni,    |  Dieter Crisman, Frédéric Chapoton,
  Miguel Marco                       |  Travis Scrimshaw
Report Upstream:  N/A                |  Work issues:
         Branch:                     |       Commit:
  public/ticket/17030                |  0cce5891b429ea267c45bd89adacff6ebb12e453
   Dependencies:                     |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by fuglede):

 Replying to [comment:171 tscrim]:
 > In that case, I agree. Although this doesn't agree with Seifert's
 construction AFAIK, and for 4+ components, at least by my understanding of
 how you are constructing things, wouldn't give a surface.

 I'm not really constructing anything at all, so I'm not quite sure what it
 is that would not be a surface.

 > In that case the `2 -2` are canceled automatically by the braid group:
 > {{{
 > sage: B = BraidGroup(4)
 > sage: B([1,2,-2])
 > s0
 > }}}

 Yeah, that makes sense. Isn't it a bit unfortunate that one would need to
 understand the `BraidGroup` internals in order to use the knot theory
 module, though? If I just read the documentation in `Link`, then I might
 assume that `[1, -2, -2]` contains knots on all three strands (that's what
 I did anyway).

 > PS - I agree, "disjoint" is not a good word. Perhaps "separable" is a
 better?

 Yes, I believe I've heard "separable" being used in this context as well,
 although I can't seem to find a written source at the moment. The word of
 course already has another meaning in the context of topological spaces,
 but that's not really an issue. In any case, you could always just go with
 "bounds and oriented disconnected surface".

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17030#comment:173>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to