Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:02:14.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Skein Homology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Doug Bullock ,
Charles Frohman  and
Joanna Kania-Bartoszyńska
Doug Bullock
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics Boise State University Boise, ID 83725 USA, email: [email protected]
Charles Frohman
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52245 USA, email: [email protected]
Joanna Kania-Bartoszyńska
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics Boise State University Boise, ID 83725 USA, email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A new class of homology groups associated to a 3-manifold is defined. The theories measure the syzygies between skein relations in a skein module. We investigate some of the properties of the homology theory associated to the Kauffman bracket.

Keywords

57M2557M99
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Mathematical Bulletin , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , 01 June 1998 , pp. 140 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Mathematical Society 1998

References

1. Hoste, J. and Przytycki, J., A survey of skeinmodules of 3-manifolds. Knots 90, de Gruyter, 1992, 363–379.Google Scholar
2. Jones, V. F. R., A polynomial invariant for knots via von Neumann algebras. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (1985), 103–111.Google Scholar
3. Kauffman, L., State models and the Jones polynomial. Topology (3) 26 (1987), 395–401.Google Scholar
4. Lofaro, W., The Kauffman Bracket Skein Homology of S3. In process.Google Scholar
5. Przytycki, J. H., Skein modules of 3-manifolds, Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. (1–2) 39 (1991), 91–100.Google Scholar
6. Turaev, V. G., The Conway and Kauffman modules of the solid torus. Zap. Nauchn. Sem. LOMI; English trans. in J. Soviet Math. 167 (1988), 79–89.Google Scholar