Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Milnor invariants and thickness of spherical links

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves sharp bounds: higher-dimensional thick links have Milnor invariants at most polynomial in τ^{-1} when a component is a circle, and at most exponential otherwise, with both rates attained.

desk verdict First thickness bounds for higher-dimensional Milnor invariants with a real upper-bound dichotomy, but the exponential sharpness construction is not yet proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02883 v1 pith:DPNELFMX submitted 2025-09-02 math.GT math.DGmath.MG

Rafa{l} Komendarczyk , Robin Koytcheff , Fedor Manin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GTmath.DGmath.MG MSC 57K4555P6257N35
keywords MilnorinvariantslinkthicknessropelengthMasseyproductshigher-dimensionallinkscoisoperimetricinequalitiesBrunnianhomotopyperiods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes the first quantitative bounds connecting the thickness of a higher-dimensional spherical link to the size of its Milnor invariants, the algebraic numbers that detect higher-order linking. For a link of d spheres in S^m satisfying the relevant dimension condition, the main theorem says the top Milnor invariant grows at most like a constant times τ^{-(m+1)(d-1)} when at least one component is one-dimensional, and at most like exp(C τ^{-m}) otherwise; the two-component case is exactly the linking number, bounded by C τ^{-(m+1)}. The estimates are asymptotically sharp: explicit thick links are constructed that realize each growth rate. As an application, the paper answers a previously open question about a family of 2-complexes in R^4 by showing that any embedding of them has exponentially small thickness.

What carries the argument

The proof has three connected engines. Milnor invariants are computed as coefficients of Massey products of Alexander-dual cohomology classes of the link components, turning an invariant into an integral of products of differential forms. These forms are built inductively as primitives, and coisoperimetric inequalities bound the sup-norm of a primitive by the norm of the form times a constant that depends on thickness, volume, and dimension. On a τ-thick submanifold these constants are polynomial or exponential in τ^{-1}, and substituting them into the integral formula yields the upper bounds. Sharpness comes from explicit embeddings whose last component represents a large multiple of an ite

What would settle it

Construct a τ-thick circle in R^3 and measure the largest thickness of a parallel circle that is unlinked with the original. If that thickness is much smaller than a constant times τ², Proposition 5.7 is false and the repeated-index polynomial bound of Theorem B(i) does not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that thickness controls Milnor invariants of higher-dimensional spherical links in a precise, dimension-dependent way. For a d-component link with trivial Milnor invariants on proper subsequences, the top Milnor invariant satisfies three regimes: if some component is S^1, |μ̄| ≤ C τ^{-(m+1)(d-1)}; if d=2, |μ̄| is the linking number and is ≤ C τ^{-(m+1)}; otherwise |μ̄| ≤ exp(C τ^{-m}). The paper constructs links with thickness ε n^{-1} and Milnor invariant n^{(m+1)(d-1)} in the first regime, and links with Milnor invariant 2 n^m in the exponential regime, proving optimality for every combination of dimensions. It also proves a companion theorem for Milnor invariants with

Load-bearing premise

The sharp polynomial exponents for repeated-index Milnor invariants are carried by two claims about doubling a thick embedded sphere—Propositions 5.6 and 5.7—which are stated with end-of-proof boxes but no proof; if the true thickness of a parallel unlinked copy is smaller than claimed, the exponents in Theorem B(i) and the constant in Theorem C degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When at least one component is one-dimensional, the d-component Milnor invariant is O(τ^{-(m+1)(d-1)}), recovering and extending the classical ropelength-based bound.
  • When all components have codimension at least 3, the upper bound jumps to O(exp(C τ^{-m})); the paper's examples with invariant 2 n^m at thickness ε n^{-1} show this exponential rate is the true one.
  • For two components, the invariant is exactly the linking number and obeys |Lk| ≤ C τ^{-(m+1)}, an estimate that serves as a building block for the higher-order cases.
  • Adding a local bilipschitz bound on the embedding restores polynomial growth, so the exponential regime is specific to thickness alone rather than to all geometric complexity measures.
  • The complex-embedding question is settled: the constructed 2-complexes in R^4 are exponentially thin, with thickness at most c^{-l} for some constant c > 1 depending on the linking order.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The repeated-index bounds depend on two doubling claims that are stated without proof; a direct computation of the optimal thickness of an unlinked parallel copy of a thick circle in R^3 would either confirm or break the τ² scale that drives Theorem B(i).
  • The exponential sharpness examples suggest that thickness alone is a weak measure of embedding complexity when components have high codimension; combining thickness with a bounded local bilipschitz constant may be the more natural quantitative setting for further results.
  • The coisoperimetric-integral strategy may extend to other invariants defined by iterated integrals or Massey products, such as higher-order linking invariants or finite-type invariants of higher-dimensional links.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops quantitative bounds relating the thickness (normal injectivity radius) of higher-dimensional spherical links to their Milnor invariants, defined via Massey products. The main result, Theorem A, gives upper bounds for invariants with distinct indices: polynomial in τ^{-(m+1)(d-1)} when at least one component is 1-dimensional, a separate linking-number bound for d=2, and an exponential bound exp(C τ^{-m}) otherwise, with all rates claimed to be asymptotically sharp. Theorem B extends these bounds to repeated indices, with a polynomial bound τ^{-2(m+1)(d-1)} in the codimension-2/1-dimensional case and an exponential bound otherwise. Theorem C applies the machinery to prove that certain Freedman–Krushkal 2-complexes have exponentially small thickness in any embedding into R^4. The paper also develops a detailed homotopy-period and Massey-product framework, including integral formulas and a comparison with Koschorke's invariants.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial contribution: it supplies the first thickness–Milnor-invariant bounds for higher-dimensional links, establishes a polynomial/exponential dichotomy, and resolves a question from Freedman–Krushkal. The proof architecture is coherent and contains useful tools, including explicit coisoperimetric inequalities (Lemmas 6.6, 6.8, 6.9, 6.11), integral formulas for Massey products (Theorem 4.3), and a systematic treatment of homotopy periods. However, several load-bearing assertions are currently not proved, most notably the thickness-scale doubling claims in Propositions 5.6–5.7 and the quantitative embedding of the building block B in the exponential construction of §2.2. These gaps directly affect the main theorems as stated.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.5, Propositions 5.6 and 5.7] Both statements end with the end-of-proof box and contain no proof. Proposition 5.6 asserts the existence of a τ-thick double for p < m/2, and Proposition 5.7 asserts a τ^2-thick double with zero linking number for p=1, m=3. These are used in §6.2 in the proof of Theorem 6.1(d) to replace τ by τ^2, yielding the exponent in Theorem B(i), and Theorem C inherits this through §7.2. The paper must supply proofs or a different argument; without them, Theorem B(i) and the application as written are unsupported.
  2. [§2.2, Theorem 2.3] The sharpness of the exponential regime in Theorem A(iii) depends on embedding the block B = T1 \ T' with quantitative control on thickness and enclosing radius. The text only says, for the general case, 'as in the special case, we can embed B as a cobordism between two isometric copies of ∂T1', and for the special case it refers to an isotopy that 'unwraps' the inner torus. No coordinate model, no bound on the enclosing ball, and no reach estimate are provided. If the smallest ball containing such a B-embedding has radius ≫ n^{-1}, then the constructed link's thickness is not ε n^{-1} and the claimed exp(Θ(τ^{-m})) rate in Theorem A(iii) does not follow.
  3. [§2.1, Lemma 2.2] The proof constructs maps f' and f'' and then 'create[s] our map g by connecting the punctured f' and f'' via a movie of this isotopy in S^{p+2}.' It is not shown that the resulting g is an embedding, nor is any thickness control supplied for it. The lemma is used in Lemma 5.2 and Theorem 2.3, so the gap propagates to those arguments. At minimum, the construction needs a precise statement of how injectivity and normal-injectivity bounds are preserved.
  4. [§5.1, Lemma 5.2] The proof of the double's rational triviality says that one can 'modify g on a small ball' by taking a connected sum with an embedding representing the inverse value, 'since such an embedding exists by Lemma 2.2.' Given that Lemma 2.2 is itself only sketched, this step is not established. Since Theorem 5.1 relies on Lemma 5.2 to reduce repeated-index Massey products to the distinct-index case, the foundational treatment of §5 is incomplete as written.
  5. [§7.2, proof of Theorem C] The proof invokes Theorem B(i), whose proof depends on the unproved Propositions 5.6–5.7. The link in question has one S^1 and q+1 S^2 components with distinct indices, so Theorem 6.1(c)/A(i) would suffice and would give the stronger exponent 5(q+1) instead of 10(q+1). The text should either prove the doubling propositions or switch to the distinct-index bound. As written, the application is contingent on the missing doubling estimates.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 2.3 statement] The displayed equality reads '¯µ(1,...,d)=2nm'; this should be 2^{n^m} to match the surrounding text and avoid confusion with the product 2nm.
  2. [§5.1, Lemma 5.2] Typo: 'In either cae' should be 'In either case'.
  3. [§2.2] The notation 'thickness 4 ∼ n−1' uses '∼' with an unexplained subscript; please clarify the intended meaning and ensure the constants are tracked consistently.
  4. [§6.2, Proof of Theorem 6.1(e)] In the derivation of the exponent (2m−5)(d−2), the text says 'two of the p_i will always be missing from the sum in the exponent' without spelling out which two, and the displayed intermediate exponent τ^{m+2d−3} appears before the final τ exponent is obtained. A short explanatory sentence would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; upper bounds are independent geometric estimates and lower bounds are explicit constructions. Two unproved geometric assertions are correctness gaps, not circularity.

full rationale

No significant circularity found. The upper bounds in Theorem A/B are proved in §6 from integral formulas for Milnor invariants (Theorem 4.3, Proposition 4.2) together with coisoperimetric inequalities (Lemmas 6.6, 6.8, 6.9, 6.11) that bound primitives by thickness, diameter, and volume. The target invariant appears only as the output of an integral, never as an input to the geometric estimates, so the derivation is not self-referential. The lower-bound constructions are likewise not circular: Theorem 2.1 chooses a loop representing a power of an iterated commutator and then computes the resulting Milnor invariant from the Milnor group; Theorem 2.3 builds a sphere representing a multiple of a Whitehead product and computes the invariant via the independently established pairing in Propositions 3.5 and 4.10. In both cases the thickness εn^{-1} is arranged geometrically, and the large invariant is a consequence of the chosen winding, not an assumed bound. Self-citations such as the third author's [48] (Lemma 6.5) and [9] are external quantitative lemmas, not conclusions imported from the present paper, so they do not raise the circularity score. Two non-circular gaps should be flagged for correctness rather than circularity. First, Propositions 5.6 and 5.7 (§5.5) are stated with end-of-proof boxes but no proof; e.g., 'Proposition 5.7. When p = 1 and m = 3, a τ-thick embedding of S^p in S^m has a double whose linking number with the original embedding is zero, in which the additional component is cτ^2-thick, where c > 0 is a constant. □' These unproved thickness scales are used in the proof of Theorem 6.1(d) and hence in Theorem B(i) and Theorem C's τ^{-10(q+1)} factor, so they are load-bearing but not circular. Second, the sharpness construction for the exponential regime in Theorem 2.3 relies on the informal assertion 'as in the special case, we can embed B as a cobordism between two isometric copies of ∂T_1' without an explicit embedding or reach estimate; this leaves the claimed sharpness of Theorem A(iii) only partially supported. Neither issue makes the derivation reduce to its own inputs, so the circularity score remains 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper's central estimates rest on two imported pillars: classical algebraic topology (Alexander duality, Sullivan minimal models, Hilton-Milnor, Stallings lower central series, Massey products, Porter/Turaev identification with Milnor invariants, Massey normal-bundle triviality, Crowley-Ferry-Skopenkov classification) and quantitative geometry of thick submanifolds (volume/diameter bounds and triangulations of τ-thick submanifolds; coisoperimetric inequalities, one of which is imported from Manin [48]). The paper's own contributions, the doubling propositions and the building-block constructions, are the only ad hoc premises, and two of those propositions are unproved. No numerical constants are fitted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • Degree of the doubling map (base 2) in the exponential construction = 2
    In §2.2, the building block B winds the inner torus twice around the S1 factor, and the telescopes in Theorem 2.3 use degree-2 maps; any integer ≥ 2 would give the same exponential rate with a different constant ε. It is an architectural choice, not fitted to any data.
  • Unspecified constants C(m,d) and ε(m,d) = unspecified
    Theorems A, B and the constructions 2.1/2.3 assert existence of constants depending only on m and d. They are not numerically evaluated and no result depends on their exact value, so they are existential constants rather than fitted parameters.
assumptions (10)
  • standard math Alexander duality and the identification of H^{m-1} of the link complement with duals of components
    Invoked in Theorem 4.3 and Proposition 4.1 to identify Massey products with multiples of v_{1,d}.
  • standard math Sullivan minimal models and the duality between homotopy periods and Whitehead products (Hilton-Milnor theorem)
    External machinery (Sullivan 1977, Hilton 1955, Andrews-Arkowitz 1978, Sinha-Walter 2011/2013) on which Propositions 3.5 and 4.10 rest.
  • standard math Massey product theory and Porter's theorem that Massey products recover classical Milnor invariants
    The higher-dimensional invariant is defined by extending the classical Massey-product definition verbatim; the classical case m = 3 is imported from Porter [60] and Turaev [68].
  • standard math Stallings' theorem on lower central series (1965)
    Bridges π_1 of the complement to free group quotients, used in Propositions 3.3 and 3.4 and in the Freedman-Krushkal application.
  • standard math Massey's theorem on triviality of the normal sphere bundle (1949)
    Guarantees a non-vanishing section used to construct doubles (Lemma 5.2) and framings (Lemma 2.2).
  • standard math De Rham theorem and the second quantitative Poincaré lemma of Manin (2019, Lemma 6.5 here)
    Basis of the coisoperimetric inequalities in Lemma 6.6.
  • standard math Crowley-Ferry-Skopenkov rational classification of links of codimension ≥ 3
    Used in Proposition 5.5 for rational isotopy classification.
  • domain assumption A τ-thick p-submanifold of S^m has volume ≤ C τ^{-(m-p)} and diameter ≤ C τ^{-(m-1)}, and admits a triangulation with O(vol) bilipschitz simplices
    Quantitative geometry of thick submanifolds used in the proof of Theorem 6.1(c) and throughout §6; imported from Whitney triangulation results [72, 3] and elementary volume arguments.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of doubles with prescribed rationally trivial invariants at the stated thickness scales (Propositions 5.6, 5.7, 5.8)
    Propositions 5.6 and 5.7 are asserted without proof and are used to reduce repeated-index bounds to distinct-index bounds.
  • domain assumption The Freedman-Krushkal linking facts for K0 (van Kampen obstruction, [17, Lemma 6]) and the claim that i(w'_q) is nontrivial in Γ_{q+1}/Γ_{q+2}
    External results plus a homotopy-period argument (Proposition 3.4) used in the proof of Theorem 7.2.
invented entities (2)
  • Building block B (complement in the solid torus of a tubular neighborhood of a circle winding twice) independent evidence
    purpose: Doubles the winding number at each nesting step; the engine of the exponential examples in Theorem 2.3.
    B is explicitly defined topologically and its embedding is argued by an isotopy 'movie'; the construction is checkable by any topologist, though the embedding argument is informal.
  • Building block C (solid torus embedded in S^5 linking one of the S^2 summands) independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the 'Seifert surface' intersections that measure the triple linking number in the S2 ⊔ S2 ⊔ S3 example.
    Explicitly constructed as a product of a punctured 2-sphere with a small circle; its role in the linking computation is direct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Milnor invariants and thickness of spherical links." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPNELFMX

@misc{pith2026250902883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Milnor invariants and thickness of spherical links},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPNELFMX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02883}
}
read the original abstract

The ropelength of a knot or link is the minimal number of inches of 1-inch-thick rope that it takes to tie it. The relationship of this measurement to knot and link invariants has been studied by various authors. We give the first results of this type for higher-dimensional spherical links, generalizing work of the first author and Michaelides in the classical case. We find optimal asymptotic bounds on their Milnor invariants in terms of thickness, uncovering a dichotomy between a polynomial and an exponential regime. Along the way, we give a detailed treatment of these Milnor invariants and their properties using Massey products. As an application, we resolve a question of Freedman and Krushkal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02883 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the 4–component link obtained in Theorem 2.1 for d = 4, n = 2, m = 3, with thickness τ = εn−1 and ¯µ(1, 2, 3, 4) = n 12. Compo￾nents e1, e2 and e3 are respectively in green, red and yellow, the commutator component g = [e 2 4 1 , [e 2 4 2 , e2 4 3 ]] = [e1, [e2, e3]]2 12 is shown in blue. the connected sum of all these spheres, via tubes of controlled thickness between neighboring spheres, to create … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The building block B is the complement in the solid torus of a neighborhood of the blue curve. a map f : S 3 → S 2 ∨ S 2 that is smooth away from the wedge-point, we can take the linking number of preimages of generic points in the two copies of S 2 . As with Hopf’s original formulation of the Hopf invariant, one sees that this linking number is homotopy invariant and additive; in other words, it defines a homomorph… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. For the Borromean rings shown, we represent the various forms in Theorem 4.3 by their Poincar´e or Lefschetz duals. (These are the only surviving terms since terms of the form ±ω1..kωk+1..ℓωℓ+1..d cancel out, and terms including a ξi for i < d are zero on Nd.) Finally we need to show that the primitives ωi..j and φ l/r i..j exist for all (i, j) ̸= (1, d). We have already remarked that the forms (4.4) and (4.5) are c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The graph K1 0 , immersed in R 2 with one intersection point between nonadjacent edges. The 1-simplex T is in blue, the 0-sphere S1 consists of the two red vertices, and the 1-sphere S2 is the green cycle. 7.1. Exponentially thin n-complexes in R 2n . As a warmup, we s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Komendarczyk and A

    R. Komendarczyk and A. Michaelides, Ropelength, crossing number and finite-type invariants of links , Algebr. Geom. Topol. 19 (2019), no. 7, 3335–3357

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Almgren, Optimal isoperimetric inequalities , Indiana Univ

    F. Almgren, Optimal isoperimetric inequalities , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 35 (1986), no. 3, 451–547

    work page 1986

  3. [2]

    Andrews and M

    P. Andrews and M. Arkowitz, Sullivan ’s minimal models and higher order Whitehead products , Canadian J. Math. 30 (1978), no. 5, 961–982

    work page 1978

  4. [3]

    Boissonnat, S

    J.-D. Boissonnat, S. Kachanovich, and M. Wintraecken, Triangulating submanifolds: an elementary and quantified version of Whitney’s method , Discrete Comput. Geom. 66 (2021), no. 1, 386–434

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Link concordance implies link homotopy

    M. Borodzik, M. Powell, and P. Teichner, Link concordance implies link homotopy , preprint, arXiv:2503.04348 [math.GT], 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Buck and J

    G. Buck and J. Simon, Thickness and crossing number of knots , Topology Appl. 91 (1999), no. 3, 245–257

    work page 1999

  7. [6]

    Cantarella, R

    J. Cantarella, R. B. Kusner, and J. M. Sullivan, Tight knot values deviate from linear relations , Nature 392 (1998), no. 6673, 237–238

    work page 1998

  8. [7]

    , On the minimum ropelength of knots and links , Invent. Math. 150 (2002), no. 2, 257–286

    work page 2002

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    A. J. Casson, Link cobordism and Milnor’s invariant , Bull. London Math. Soc. 7 (1975), 39–40

    1975

  2. [9]

    G. R. Chambers, D. Dotterrer, F. Manin, and S. Weinberger, Quantitative null-cobordism, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 31 (2018), no. 4, 1165–1203, With an appendix by Manin and Weinberger

    2018

  3. [10]

    Crowley, S

    D. Crowley, S. C. Ferry, and M. Skopenkov, The rational classification of links of codimension > 2, Forum Math. 26 (2014), no. 1, 239–269

    2014

  4. [11]

    Y. Diao, C. Ernst, A. P´ or, and U. Ziegler, The ropelengths of knots are almost linear in terms of their crossing numbers, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 28 (2019), no. 14, 1950085, 64

    2019

  5. [12]

    Druet, Sharp local isoperimetric inequalities involving the scalar curvature , Proc

    O. Druet, Sharp local isoperimetric inequalities involving the scalar curvature , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130 (2002), no. 8, 2351–2361

    2002

  6. [13]

    F´ elix and S

    Y. F´ elix and S. Halperin, Rational homotopy via Sullivan models and enriched Lie algebras , EMS Surv. Math. Sci. 10 (2023), no. 1, 101–122

    2023

  7. [14]

    F´ elix, S

    Y. F´ elix, S. Halperin, and J.-C. Thomas,Rational homotopy theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 205, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001

    2001

  8. [15]

    Fenn and D

    R. Fenn and D. Rolfsen, Spheres may link homotopically in 4-space, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 34 (1986), no. 1, 177–184

    1986

  9. [16]

    Freedman and V

    M. Freedman and V. Krushkal, Geometric complexity of embeddings in Rd, Geom. Funct. Anal. 24 (2014), no. 5, 1406–1430

    2014

  10. [17]

    M. H. Freedman, V. S. Krushkal, and P. Teichner, van Kampen ’s embedding obstruction is incomplete for 2-complexes in R4, Math. Res. Lett. 1 (1994), no. 2, 167–176

    1994

  11. [18]

    Friedman, A

    G. Friedman, A. Medina-Mardones, and D. Sinha, Foundations of geometric cohomology: from co- orientations to product structures , preprint, arXiv:2212.07482 [math.AT], 2022

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Gadish, Letter-braiding: A universal bridge between combinatorial group theory and topology , preprint, arXiv:2308.13635 [math.GR], 2023

    N. Gadish, Letter-braiding: A universal bridge between combinatorial group theory and topology , preprint, arXiv:2308.13635 [math.GR], 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Gadish, A

    N. Gadish, A. Ozbek, D. Sinha, and B. Walter, Infinitesimal calculations in fundamental groups , preprint, arXiv:2403.20264 [math.AT], 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    C. H. Giffen, Link concordance implies link homotopy , Math. Scand. 45 (1979), no. 2, 243–254

    1979

  15. [22]

    Goldsmith, Concordance implies homotopy for classical links in M 3, Comment

    D.L. Goldsmith, Concordance implies homotopy for classical links in M 3, Comment. Math. Helv. 54 (1979), no. 3, 347–355

    1979

  16. [23]

    T. G. Goodwillie and J. R. Klein, Multiple disjunction for spaces of smooth embeddings, J. Topol. 8 (2015), no. 3, 651–674

    2015

  17. [24]

    T. G. Goodwillie, J. R. Klein, and M. S. Weiss, Spaces of smooth embeddings, disjunction and surgery , Surveys on surgery theory, Vol. 2, Ann. of Math. Stud., vol. 149, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2001, pp. 221–284

    2001

  18. [25]

    3, 509–524

    , A Haefliger style description of the embedding calculus tower , Topology 42 (2003), no. 3, 509–524. 48 RAF A L KOMENDARCZYK, ROBIN KOYTCHEFF, AND FEDOR MANIN

    2003

  19. [26]

    T. G. Goodwillie and M. Weiss, Embeddings from the point of view of immersion theory. II , Geom. Topol. 3 (1999), 103–118

    1999

  20. [27]

    P. A. Griffiths and J. W. Morgan, Rational homotopy theory and differential forms , Progress in Mathe- matics, vol. 16, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, MA, 1981

    1981

  21. [28]

    Gromov, Homotopical effects of dilatation , J

    M. Gromov, Homotopical effects of dilatation , J. Differential Geometry 13 (1978), no. 3, 303–310

    1978

  22. [29]

    Gromov and L

    M. Gromov and L. Guth, Generalizations of the Kolmogorov-Barzdin embedding estimates , Duke Math. J. 161 (2012), no. 13, 2549–2603

    2012

  23. [30]

    Habegger and U

    N. Habegger and U. Kaiser, Link homotopy in the 2-metastable range, Topology 37 (1998), no. 1, 75–94

    1998

  24. [31]

    Haefliger, Differentiable links, Topology 1 (1962), 241–244

    A. Haefliger, Differentiable links, Topology 1 (1962), 241–244

    1962

  25. [32]

    , Knotted (4k − 1)-spheres in 6k-space, Ann. of Math. (2) 75 (1962), 452–466

    1962

  26. [33]

    , Enlacements de sph` eres en codimension sup´ erieure ` a2, Comment. Math. Helv. 41 (1966/67), 51–72

    1966

  27. [34]

    Haefliger and B

    A. Haefliger and B. Steer, Symmetry of linking coefficients , Comment. Math. Helv. 39 (1965), 259–270

    1965

  28. [35]

    M. B. Hastings, Obstructions to classically simulating the quantum adiabatic algorithm , Quantum Inf. Comput. 13 (2013), no. 11-12, 1038–1076, With an appendix by M. H. Freedman

    2013

  29. [36]

    P. J. Hilton, On the homotopy groups of the union of spheres , J. London Math. Soc. 30 (1955), 154–172

    1955

  30. [37]

    J. F. P. Hudson, Concordance, isotopy, and diffeotopy , Ann. of Math. (2) 91 (1970), 425–448

    1970

  31. [38]

    E. R. van Kampen, Komplexe in euklidischen R¨ aumen, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 9 (1933), no. 1, 72–78

    1933

  32. [39]

    Karasev and A

    R. Karasev and A. Skopenkov, Some ‘converses’ to intrinsic linking theorems , Discrete Comput. Geom. 70 (2023), no. 3, 921–930

    2023

  33. [40]

    M. A. Kervaire, An interpretation of G. Whitehead’s generalization of H. Hopf ’s invariant , Ann. of Math. (2) 69 (1959), 345–365

    1959

  34. [41]

    Komendarczyk, R

    R. Komendarczyk, R. Koytcheff, and I. Voli´ c,Diagrams for primitive cycles in spaces of pure braids and string links , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 74 (2024), no. 4, 1745–1807

    2024

  35. [43]

    Koschorke, Higher order homotopy invariants for higher-dimensional link maps , Algebraic topology, G¨ ottingen 1984, Lecture Notes in Math., vol

    U. Koschorke, Higher order homotopy invariants for higher-dimensional link maps , Algebraic topology, G¨ ottingen 1984, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1172, Springer, Berlin, 1985, pp. 116–129

    1984

  36. [44]

    2, 301–324

    , A generalization of Milnor’s µ-invariants to higher-dimensional link maps , Topology 36 (1997), no. 2, 301–324

    1997

  37. [45]

    Koytcheff, Graphing, homotopy groups of spheres, and spaces of long links and knots , Forum Math

    R. Koytcheff, Graphing, homotopy groups of spheres, and spaces of long links and knots , Forum Math. Sigma 13 (2025), paper no. e35, 42pp

    2025

  38. [46]

    Lishak and A

    B. Lishak and A. Nabutovsky, Balanced presentations of the trivial group and four-dimensional geometry , J. Topol. Anal. 9 (2017), no. 1, 15–25

    2017

  39. [47]

    Magnus, Beziehungen zwischen Gruppen und Idealen in einem speziellen Ring , Math

    W. Magnus, Beziehungen zwischen Gruppen und Idealen in einem speziellen Ring , Math. Ann. 111 (1935), no. 1, 259–280

    1935

  40. [48]

    Manin, Plato’s cave and differential forms , Geom

    F. Manin, Plato’s cave and differential forms , Geom. Topol. 23 (2019), no. 6, 3141–3202

    2019

  41. [49]

    W. S. Massey, On the normal bundle of a sphere imbedded in Euclidean space , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1959), 959–964

    1959

  42. [50]

    W. S. Massey and D. Rolfsen, Homotopy classification of higher-dimensional links , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 34 (1985), no. 2, 375–391

    1985

  43. [51]

    Mayer, Topological link invariants of magnetic fields , PhD thesis, Ruhr-Universit¨ at Bochum, Univer- sit¨ atsbibliothek, 2003

    C. Mayer, Topological link invariants of magnetic fields , PhD thesis, Ruhr-Universit¨ at Bochum, Univer- sit¨ atsbibliothek, 2003

    2003

  44. [52]

    Meilhan, Linking number and Milnor invariants , Encyclopedia of knot theory (C

    J.-B. Meilhan, Linking number and Milnor invariants , Encyclopedia of knot theory (C. Adams, E. Flapan, A. Henrich, L. H. Kauffman, L. D. Ludwig, and S. Nelson, eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2021, pp. 817–830

    2021

  45. [53]

    Milnor, Link groups, Ann

    J. Milnor, Link groups, Ann. of Math. (2) 59 (1954), 177–195. MILNOR INV ARIANTS AND THICKNESS OF SPHERICAL LINKS 49

    1954

  46. [54]

    A symposium in honor of S

    , Isotopy of links , Algebraic geometry and topology. A symposium in honor of S. Lefschetz, Prince- ton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1957, pp. 280–306

    1957

  47. [55]

    Milnor and J

    J. Milnor and J. Stasheff, Characteristic classes, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. No. 76, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1974

    1974

  48. [56]

    Monroe and D

    J. Monroe and D. Sinha, Linking of letters and the lower central series of free groups , Comm. Algebra 50 (2022), no. 9, 3678–3703

    2022

  49. [57]

    Morgan and D

    F. Morgan and D. L. Johnson, Some sharp isoperimetric theorems for Riemannian manifolds , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 49 (2000), no. 3, 1017–1041

    2000

  50. [58]

    with thick ropes

    A. Nabutovsky, Non-recursive functions, knots “with thick ropes”, and self-clenching “thick” hyperspheres , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 48 (1995), no. 4, 381–428

    1995

  51. [59]

    Nabutovsky and S

    A. Nabutovsky and S. Weinberger, Algorithmic unsolvability of the triviality problem for multidimensional knots, Comment. Math. Helv. 71 (1996), no. 3, 426–434

    1996

  52. [60]

    Porter, Milnor’s ¯µ-invariants and Massey products , Trans

    R. Porter, Milnor’s ¯µ-invariants and Massey products , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 257 (1980), no. 1, 39–71

    1980

  53. [61]

    Portnoy, Sparse maps, preprint, arXiv:2407.05137 [math.MG], 2024

    E. Portnoy, Sparse maps, preprint, arXiv:2407.05137 [math.MG], 2024

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Sinha and B

    D. Sinha and B. Walter, Lie coalgebras and rational homotopy theory, I: graph coalgebras , Homology Homotopy Appl. 13 (2011), no. 2, 263–292

    2011

  55. [63]

    , Lie coalgebras and rational homotopy theory II: Hopf invariants , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 365 (2013), no. 2, 861–883

    2013

  56. [64]

    Skopenkov, The band connected sum and the second Kirby move for higher-dimensional links , preprint, arXiv:2406.15367 [math.GT], 2024

    A. Skopenkov, The band connected sum and the second Kirby move for higher-dimensional links , preprint, arXiv:2406.15367 [math.GT], 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Skopenkov, Suspension theorems for links and link maps , Proc

    M. Skopenkov, Suspension theorems for links and link maps , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 137 (2009), no. 1, 359–369

    2009

  58. [66]

    Stallings, Homology and central series of groups , J

    J. Stallings, Homology and central series of groups , J. Algebra 2 (1965), 170–181

    1965

  59. [67]

    Sullivan, Infinitesimal computations in topology , Inst

    D. Sullivan, Infinitesimal computations in topology , Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. (1977), no. 47, 269–331 (1978)

    1977

  60. [68]

    V. G. Turaev, The Milnor invariants and Massey products , Zap. Nauˇ cn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (LOMI) 66 (1976), 189–203, 209–210, Studies in topology, II

    1976

  61. [69]

    Abstracts of lectures and reports, Institute of Mathematics of the BSSR Academy of Sciences, Minsk, 1979, p

    , Invariants of links of codimension greater than two , VII All-Union Topology Conference, 7–9 June 1977. Abstracts of lectures and reports, Institute of Mathematics of the BSSR Academy of Sciences, Minsk, 1979, p. 182

    1977

  62. [70]

    Walter, Lie algebra configuration pairing , preprint, arXiv:1010.4732 [math.RA], 2010

    B. Walter, Lie algebra configuration pairing , preprint, arXiv:1010.4732 [math.RA], 2010

    2010 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Weiss, Embeddings from the point of view of immersion theory

    M. Weiss, Embeddings from the point of view of immersion theory. I , Geom. Topol. 3 (1999), 67–101

    1999

  64. [72]

    Whitney, Geometric integration theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1957

    H. Whitney, Geometric integration theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1957

    1957

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.