[HN Gopher] Why mathematicians study knots
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Why mathematicians study knots
        
       Author : theafh
       Score  : 106 points
       Date   : 2022-10-31 16:37 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | shagie wrote:
       | One of the problems of old on CodeGolf.SE - Knot or Not -
       | https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/30292/knot-or-n...
       | 
       | I took a crack at it one time (even ordered a back issue of
       | Scientific American -
       | https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-of-kno... )
       | and didn't even get something that had a working internal
       | representation that I could use. It's a hard problem.
        
       | padolsey wrote:
       | Seeing knots as curiosities of topology seems to miss the entire
       | point of knots: to fasten something with varying attributes of
       | tightness, slippage, tension, time, application constraints (E.g.
       | throwing lines from a distance over cleats/bollards) (etc....). I
       | have spent some hobby-level time playing with knots and it's
       | curious to see inherited wisdoms from the sailing world and
       | consider the engineering evolution of a knot being ~perfect for
       | its precise application. It's quite a marvel to see what can only
       | be described as the minimally pure and evolved knots, like the
       | bowline. There are many attributes at play and fun constraints to
       | consider. Seeing knots as fun puzzles in only the topological
       | space doesn't seem to account whatsoever for their tensile
       | characteristics ... which... uhh is the entire reason we use
       | them.
        
         | kazinator wrote:
         | That's like saying mathematicians miss the entire point of
         | numbers, which is to enumerate your head of livestock, or
         | bushels of corn.
        
           | padolsey wrote:
           | Very true. FWIW I'm not an academic by nature so wretchedly
           | practical perhaps and probably impatient with what I see as
           | narrowly applicable studies.
        
         | karmakurtisaani wrote:
         | You can think of the "topological" knot as an abstraction of
         | the physical knot in the sense that you can take away all the
         | physical properties of the knot and still be left with certain
         | structure that captures the "essence" of the knot. This is what
         | mathematics pretty much is. If you want to keep other
         | properties of the rope, that's all cool, but then you start
         | doing physics more than mathematics.
        
           | padolsey wrote:
           | Ah thanks that makes it a bit clearer. I guess I (falsely)
           | see mathematics as the "purer" manifestation of a thing and
           | thus hold it to account to abstract the complete substance of
           | a thing and its properties. But as you say, the physical is
           | of physics and that is where I should look for a more
           | exhaustive abstraction perhaps.
        
       | amluto wrote:
       | I worked on a fun project involving knots once:
       | 
       | https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5127.pdf
       | 
       | This uses knots as a mathematical structure in a quantum
       | cryptosystem. I tried to make the paper accessible without
       | letting it get bogged down in irrelevant details.
        
       | walterlb wrote:
       | I saw "The Ashley Book of Knots" mentioned on another post, and
       | it has some interesting history of knots. Especially that the
       | introduction of books led to sailors spending more time not
       | knotting.
        
       | SoftTalker wrote:
       | I've found that knowing half a dozen common knots has helped me a
       | lot more in day-to-day life than any of the mathematics I ever
       | learned.
        
       | andbberger wrote:
       | always relish a chance to share one of my favorite papers ever
       | 
       | https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~ghrist/preprints/silnikov.pdf
        
       | mattpallissard wrote:
       | Kinda sorta related. I have a copy of ABOK on the coffee table
       | and a half dozen or so 6' lengths of 12 str and polyester
       | climbing line on the shelf.
       | 
       | Not only is it practical to have a handful of knots and hitches
       | memorized, it's a great way to kill some time. When people come
       | over for dinner or drinks, the book and the cord often come out.
        
         | secondcoming wrote:
         | What, you knock your guests out with the book and finish them
         | off with the cord?
        
       | fnordpiglet wrote:
       | Because they are nerds. Duh.
        
         | captainclam wrote:
         | I see this comment getting downvoted, but I agree with the
         | sentiment; it suffices to say that if there a compelling
         | mathematical structure exists, there will be people studying
         | it. I imagine most graph theorists are hardly interested in the
         | applications of their field, they just happen to be studying a
         | structure which has much more intuitive practical applications
         | (social networks, molecules, etc).
        
           | ska wrote:
           | > there will be people studying it.
           | 
           | "people studying something" == "nerds" ?
           | 
           | [edit: i was probably too offhand about that, but what I
           | meant is that the fact that people are engaged in something
           | like this misses at least the conventional usage of "nerd",
           | if wasn't obvious]
        
             | actually_a_dog wrote:
             | No, "people studying abstract mathematical structures" ==
             | "nerds." I say this as a proud nerd.
        
               | ska wrote:
               | Having known a ton of mathematicians, I'm not at all
               | convinced this holds (although it undoubtedly is a
               | subset)
        
             | klyrs wrote:
             | As a mathematician with a passing interest (read: no
             | results or publications) in knot theory, yeah, we're nerds
             | and proud.
        
             | fnordpiglet wrote:
             | Yes. Nerds are people who show more than normal interest in
             | non-mainstream subjects like Beyonces haircut.
        
       | mungoman2 wrote:
       | Interesting topic, but I don't find the answer to the headline in
       | the text.
        
         | MonkeyClub wrote:
         | You're sort of right.
         | 
         | In one sense, the answer is right there in the subtitle:
         | 
         | > knot theory has driven many findings in math and beyond.
         | 
         | The article then proceeds with mentions of possible
         | applications in Chemistry, "to understand the makeup of matter"
         | (and makes no mention of protein folding overall - is knot
         | theory not used there?).
         | 
         | But other than that, the paper is just a gentle introduction to
         | knots, with little to no direct relation to the title.
         | 
         | Perhaps an editor thought a "Why ..." title was better/more
         | clickbaity?
        
           | gilleain wrote:
           | > protein folding overall - is knot theory not used there?
           | 
           | To my knowledge, no. There has been some analysis done on
           | knots in folded proteins:
           | 
           | https://www.umass.edu/microbio/chime/knots/index.htm
           | 
           | (particularly by Prof. Taylor) but this is not the same as
           | using knot theory for analysing the folding process or for
           | predicting folds.
        
         | forgotpwd16 wrote:
         | The answer is in the concluding paragraph.
         | 
         | >It began as an applied area of mathematics, with Thomson
         | attempting to use knots to understand the makeup of matter. As
         | that idea faded, it became an area of pure mathematics, a
         | branch of the intriguing and still unpractical domain of
         | topology.
         | 
         | Basically because they're interesting. A better headline
         | will've been something like "knot landscape in mathematics"
         | since it covers the knot theory history and advancements.
        
       | PIENIKAKKA123 wrote:
       | IN hackin roblox
        
       | mathgenius wrote:
       | The article seems to be implying that mathematicians study knots
       | because there's lots of fun to be had. This is partly true, but
       | there's other more profound reasons. For example: higher
       | dimensional algebra. The "usual" algebra is just one dimensional,
       | but people have noticed that in many cases this is just a
       | projection (shadow) of higher dimensional systems, where the
       | symbols can interact in more than just a linear direction. And
       | once you get to three dimensions hey presto your algebra can get
       | knotted!
        
         | macrolocal wrote:
         | Also, knot complements are an important class of 3-manifolds.
        
         | taliesinb wrote:
         | I would love to have some pointers to the higher dimensional
         | algebra you're referring to.
        
           | shagie wrote:
           | https://youtu.be/EBWP1POPc2A and the associated knot theory
           | from that university -
           | https://www.youtube.com/c/MathatAndrews/search?query=knot
        
       | izhak wrote:
       | As for knots - they say there is a significant interception in
       | the center of the venn diagram of shibarists, scouts and
       | climbers, not that sure about mathematicians though
        
         | klyrs wrote:
         | I'm amused at the notion of a mathematical "shibarist" (I don't
         | know Japanese but I understand that -ka might be the proper
         | suffix). You've got some kinkster who wants to get tied up, but
         | the knot nerd keeps trying to compute invariants...
        
       | xeonmc wrote:
       | Artists do too.
        
         | jagged-chisel wrote:
         | But not for the same reasons
        
           | ska wrote:
           | Are you so sure? They are similar reasons, at least in part.
        
           | ok_dad wrote:
           | Mathematicians are half-artist, I think. Or, vice-versa.
        
         | jansan wrote:
         | Sailors and climbers too.
        
           | adolph wrote:
           | And Dons, really kept 3's Company together and Mayberry
           | loosened up
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-31 23:00 UTC)