Talk:Tangle (mathematics)

Algebraic tangles

The section titled "Rational and algebraic tangles" doesn't mention algebraic tangles. Perhaps someone who knows about them could add a definition. --Zundark 09:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page doesn't cite any references, and it should! Inquiring minds want to know where is the best place to read about tangles. It should also cite the publication of Conway's original proof of tangle representation by the continued fraction. Safulop (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretzel link irrelevant?

The very first sentence of the lede describes a pretzel link as a "special" kind of link, but then the term "pretzel link" is never mentioned again in the article, except for one mention as an example of where tangles are used. We also never learn what is special about pretzel links. If pretzel links are important to this topic, their definition and relevance should be explained more fully. If they're not, the first sentence of the article should be deleted, or moved to a less prominent position. Mnudelman (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not very developed, so it's likely to mention important topics without covering them. If you can't judge the importance of the topics mentioned yourself, the best way to update the article would be to research them and cover them. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not such a good idea

It's not such a good idea to present the introductory paragraph of the article as the formal definition in full generality.

When you are tempted to do that, it's important to bear in mind that many people coming to this article may not have had anything like the mathematics education that you have had. They may even be children.

Of course, I am not saying that Wikipedia math articles should be written at the level that children can understand. But when possible by all means do write the introductory paragraphs so that, indeed, children (say aged 10 at least) are able to understand it.

(Only when possible! No introduction to sheaf cohomology or higher topos theory will be accessible to 10-year-olds.)

Why? This isn't a textbook; it's an encyclopedia. An article should begin by being as widely accessible as possible, and then add increasingly advanced or obscure parts of the subject, to the extent possible. Start with (say) rational 2-tangles along with an illustration of one (one!) such tangle.

Also: Maybe someone knowledgeable can add a word or two about why anyone might want to study tangles. I mean: Why should tangles be interesting? This too should be widely accessible and belongs near the beginning of the article.

Then the article can go on to be more general. But why confuse 95% of readers from the first word.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:5D92:5240:5A7F:DF46 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Category of tangles" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Category of tangles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § Category of tangles until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]