|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
I have revised the article thoroughly, adding several pictures and incorporating material from the old linking coefficient article. The material on self-linking number has been moved to a separate article. Jim 03:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC) This article doesn't seem to include the linking of two simple closed curves in 3-manifolds other than the 3-sphere. In general, such linking numbers will be fractions, or simply undefined, depending on the homology of the curves. I'm not sure of the source of this learning, having received it by word of mouth from Ralph Fox. -- Ken Perko 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (email@example.com)
One sentence under Generalizations reads as follows:
"In algebraic topology, the cup product is a far-reaching algebraic generalization of the linking number, with the Massey products being the algebraic analogs for the Milnor invariants."
To the best of my knowledge, cup products (of cohomology classes) in manifolds are not directly relevant to any linking numbers. Rather, they are dual to the intersection pairing on homology.
(It is true that the intersection of homology classes can be used in the definition of linking number. But the intersection of homology classes is definitely not the same as linking number per se.
Could I add a small snippet about how the Linking number relates to DNA?
Hello there, my name is Martin Lubell, and I'm starting with my Masters program in Bioinformatics at Johns Hopkins University. In our Molecular Biology of the Gene class, we are also beginning to learn how to edit Wikipedia articles. I was wondering if you would allow me to add a section on how the Linking Number relates to DNA. Thank you, m a r t i n MartinLubell (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Martin. You are welcome to add a section on anything that is relevant to the page. Moreover, you don't need to ask permission - Wikipedia encourages new editors to be bold! Anything you write can be reverted if the worst comes to the worst, though I'm sure that won't be necessary! 2001:630:E4:42F9:1:5643:9330:D77E (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)