Modules and homotopy classes

2011 ◽  
pp. 113-147
Author(s):  
Theodore G. Faticoni
Keyword(s):  
Homotopy Classes

STRUCTURED GROUPS AND LINK-HOMOTOPY

1993 ◽  
Vol 02 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES R. HUGHES
Keyword(s):  
Automorphism Groups ◽  
Original Version ◽  
Theoretic Approach ◽  
Homotopy Classes ◽  
Structure Preserving ◽  
Three Sphere ◽  
Complex Program ◽  
Link Homotopy ◽  
Structured Groups

We study link-homotopy classes of links in the three sphere using reduced groups endowed with peripheral structures derived from meridian-longitude pairs. Two types of peripheral structures are considered — Milnor’s original version (called “pre-peripheral structures” in Levine’s terminology) and Levine’s refinement (called simply “peripheral structures”). We show here that pre-peripheral structures are not strong enough to classify links up to link-homotopy, and that Levine’s peripheral structures, although strong enough to distinguish those classes not distinguished by pre-peripheral structures, are also in all likelihood not strong enough to distinguish all link-homotopy classes. Following Levine’s classification program, we compare structure-preserving and realizable automorphisms, using an obstruction-theoretic approach suggested by work of Habegger and Lin. We find that these automorphism groups are in general different, so that a more complex program for classification by structured groups is required.

The Ninth Homotopy Class of Spatial 3R Serial Regional Manipulators

2006 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Paganelli
Keyword(s):  
Homotopy Class ◽  
Classification Method ◽  
Weak Point ◽  
Homotopy Classes ◽  
Important Notion

Singularities form surfaces in the jointspace of a serial manipulator. Paï and Leu (Paï and Leu, 1992, IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom., 8, pp. 545–559) introduced the important notion of generic manipulator, the singularity surfaces of which are smooth and do not intersect with each other. Burdick (Burdick, 1995, J. Mech. Mach. Theor., 30, pp. 71–89) proposed a homotopy-based classification method for generic 3R manipulators. Through this classification method, it was stated in Wenger, 1998, J. Mech. Des., 120, pp. 327–332 that there exist exactly eight classes of generic 3R manipulators. A counterexample to this classification is provided: a generic 3R manipulator belonging to none of the eight classes identified in (Wenger, 1998, J. Mech. Des., 120, pp. 327–332) is presented. The weak point of the proof given in (J. Mech. Des., 120, pp. 327–332) is highlighted. The counterexample proves the existence of at least nine homotopy classes of generic 3R manipulators. The paper points out two peculiar properties of the manipulator proposed as a counterexample, which are not featured by any manipulator belonging to the eight homotopy classes so far discovered. Eventually, it is proven in this paper that at most four branches of the singularity curve can coexist in the jointspace of a generic 3R manipulator and therefore at most eleven homotopy classes are possible.

Immersions with non-zero normal vector fields

1992 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bang-He Li ◽  
Gui-Song Li
Keyword(s):  
Vector Fields ◽  
Normal Vector ◽  
Homotopy Classes ◽  
Natural Action ◽  
Singularity Method ◽  
One To One ◽  
Regular Homotopy

Let M be a smooth n-manifold, X be a smooth (2n − 1)-manifold, and g:M → X be a map. It was proved in [6] that g is always homotopic to an immersion. The set of homotopy classes of monomorphisms from TM into g*TX, which is denoted by Sg, may be enumerated either by the method of I. M. James and E. Thomas or by the singularity method of U. Koschorke (see [1] and references therein). When the natural action of π1(XM, g) on Sg is trivial, for example, if X is euclidean, the set Sg is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of regular homotopy classes of immersions homotopic to g (see e.g. [4]).

scholarly journals Spaces which Invert Weak Homotopy Equivalences

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 553-558
Author(s):  
Jonathan Ariel Barmak
Keyword(s):  
Empty Space ◽  
Weak Equivalence ◽  
Homotopy Equivalence ◽  
Homotopy Classes ◽  
Cw Complex ◽  
Cw Complexes ◽  
Weak Homotopy ◽  
Weak Homotopy Equivalence

AbstractIt is well known that if X is a CW-complex, then for every weak homotopy equivalence f : A → B, the map f* : [X, A] → [X, B] induced in homotopy classes is a bijection. In fact, up to homotopy equivalence, only CW-complexes have that property. Now, for which spaces X is f* : [B, X] → [A, X] a bijection for every weak equivalence f? This question was considered by J. Strom and T. Goodwillie. In this note we prove that a non-empty space inverts weak equivalences if and only if it is contractible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document