"Knot theory"의 두 판 사이의 차이

2010년 1월 29일 (금) 06:09 판

Alexander-Conway polynomial, Jones polynomial and Vassiliev invariants
The puzzle on the mathematical side was that these objects are invariants of a three dimensional situation, but one did not have an intrinsically three dimensional definition.
There were many elegant definitions of the knot polynomials, but they all involved looking in some way at a two dimensional projection or slicing of the knot, giving a two dimensional algorithm for computation, and proving that the result is independent of the chosen projection.
This is analogous to studying a physical theory that is in fact relativistic but in which one does not know of a manifestly relativistic formulation - like quantum electrodynamics in the 1930's.

using the Boltzmann weights from the various exactly solvable models, we can discover an infinite series of invariants of knots
so the problem is to find a nice set of Boltzmann weights which give non-trivial invariants

Knot and physics
- Kauffman, 1989
Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial
- Edward Witten, Comm. Math. Phys. Volume 121, Number 3 (1989), 351-399

@@ 1번째 줄: / 1번째 줄: @@
 <h5>introduction</h5>
 * three Reidemeister moves
@@ 25번째 줄: / 23번째 줄: @@
 <h5>knot invariants</h5>
-* Alexander polynomial, Jones polynomial and Vassiliev invariants
+* Alexander-Conway polynomial, Jones polynomial and Vassiliev invariants
 * The puzzle on the mathematical side was that these objects are invariants of a three dimensional situation, but one did not have an intrinsically three dimensional definition.
 * There were many elegant definitions of the knot polynomials, but they all involved looking in some way at a two dimensional projection or slicing of the knot, giving a two dimensional algorithm for computation, and proving that the result is independent of the chosen projection.