In a topological space if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point does there exist a simple loop that cannot be contracted also?Are there pairs of highly connected finite CW-complexes with the same homotopy groups?Characterizing the rationalization of spaces.Proving that a space cannot be delooped.Does the holonomy map define a homomorphism $pi_k(X)topi_k-1(Hol(nabla))$?Which homology classes from loop space?When does the free loop space fibration split?Can we algorithmically contract loops in a simply connected space?Is ``factoring through a dendrite loop'' preserved under deletion?Does there exist a Haken manifold where all its incompressible surfaces are non-separating?Approximation of homotopy avoiding a point in $mathbbR^3$

In a topological space if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point does there exist a simple loop that cannot be contracted also?


Are there pairs of highly connected finite CW-complexes with the same homotopy groups?Characterizing the rationalization of spaces.Proving that a space cannot be delooped.Does the holonomy map define a homomorphism $pi_k(X)topi_k-1(Hol(nabla))$?Which homology classes from loop space?When does the free loop space fibration split?Can we algorithmically contract loops in a simply connected space?Is ``factoring through a dendrite loop'' preserved under deletion?Does there exist a Haken manifold where all its incompressible surfaces are non-separating?Approximation of homotopy avoiding a point in $mathbbR^3$













8












$begingroup$


I'm interested in whether one only needs to consider simple loops when proving results about simply connected spaces.



If it is true that:



In a Topological Space, if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point then there exists a simple loop that cannot also be contracted to a point.



then we can replace a loop by a simple loop in the definition of simply connected.



If this theorem is not true for all spaces, then perhaps it is true for Hausdorff spaces or metric spaces or a subset of $mathbbR^n$?



I have thought about the simplest non-trivial case which I believe would be a subset of $mathbbR^2$.



In this case I have a quite elementary way to approach this which is to see that you can contract a loop by shrinking its simple loops.



Take any loop, a continuous map, $f$, from $[0,1]$. Go round the loop from 0 until you find a self intersection at $x in (0,1]$ say, with the previous loop arc, $f([0,x])$ at a point $f(y)$ where $0<y<x$. Then $L=f([y,x])$ is a simple loop. Contract $L$ to a point and then apply the same process to $(x,1]$, iterating until we reach $f(1)$. At each stage we contract a simple loop. Eventually after a countably infinite number of contractions we have contracted the entire loop. We can construct a single homotopy out of these homotopies by making them maps on $[1/2^i,1/2^i+1]$ consecutively which allows one to fit them all into the unit interval.



So if you can't contract a given non-simple loop to a point but can contract any simple loop we have a contradiction which I think proves my claim.



I'm not sure whether this same argument applied to more general spaces or whether it is in fact correct at all. I realise that non-simple loops can be phenomenally complex with highly non-smooth, fractal structure but I can't see an obvious reason why you can't do what I propose above.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$


















    8












    $begingroup$


    I'm interested in whether one only needs to consider simple loops when proving results about simply connected spaces.



    If it is true that:



    In a Topological Space, if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point then there exists a simple loop that cannot also be contracted to a point.



    then we can replace a loop by a simple loop in the definition of simply connected.



    If this theorem is not true for all spaces, then perhaps it is true for Hausdorff spaces or metric spaces or a subset of $mathbbR^n$?



    I have thought about the simplest non-trivial case which I believe would be a subset of $mathbbR^2$.



    In this case I have a quite elementary way to approach this which is to see that you can contract a loop by shrinking its simple loops.



    Take any loop, a continuous map, $f$, from $[0,1]$. Go round the loop from 0 until you find a self intersection at $x in (0,1]$ say, with the previous loop arc, $f([0,x])$ at a point $f(y)$ where $0<y<x$. Then $L=f([y,x])$ is a simple loop. Contract $L$ to a point and then apply the same process to $(x,1]$, iterating until we reach $f(1)$. At each stage we contract a simple loop. Eventually after a countably infinite number of contractions we have contracted the entire loop. We can construct a single homotopy out of these homotopies by making them maps on $[1/2^i,1/2^i+1]$ consecutively which allows one to fit them all into the unit interval.



    So if you can't contract a given non-simple loop to a point but can contract any simple loop we have a contradiction which I think proves my claim.



    I'm not sure whether this same argument applied to more general spaces or whether it is in fact correct at all. I realise that non-simple loops can be phenomenally complex with highly non-smooth, fractal structure but I can't see an obvious reason why you can't do what I propose above.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$
















      8












      8








      8


      1



      $begingroup$


      I'm interested in whether one only needs to consider simple loops when proving results about simply connected spaces.



      If it is true that:



      In a Topological Space, if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point then there exists a simple loop that cannot also be contracted to a point.



      then we can replace a loop by a simple loop in the definition of simply connected.



      If this theorem is not true for all spaces, then perhaps it is true for Hausdorff spaces or metric spaces or a subset of $mathbbR^n$?



      I have thought about the simplest non-trivial case which I believe would be a subset of $mathbbR^2$.



      In this case I have a quite elementary way to approach this which is to see that you can contract a loop by shrinking its simple loops.



      Take any loop, a continuous map, $f$, from $[0,1]$. Go round the loop from 0 until you find a self intersection at $x in (0,1]$ say, with the previous loop arc, $f([0,x])$ at a point $f(y)$ where $0<y<x$. Then $L=f([y,x])$ is a simple loop. Contract $L$ to a point and then apply the same process to $(x,1]$, iterating until we reach $f(1)$. At each stage we contract a simple loop. Eventually after a countably infinite number of contractions we have contracted the entire loop. We can construct a single homotopy out of these homotopies by making them maps on $[1/2^i,1/2^i+1]$ consecutively which allows one to fit them all into the unit interval.



      So if you can't contract a given non-simple loop to a point but can contract any simple loop we have a contradiction which I think proves my claim.



      I'm not sure whether this same argument applied to more general spaces or whether it is in fact correct at all. I realise that non-simple loops can be phenomenally complex with highly non-smooth, fractal structure but I can't see an obvious reason why you can't do what I propose above.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I'm interested in whether one only needs to consider simple loops when proving results about simply connected spaces.



      If it is true that:



      In a Topological Space, if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point then there exists a simple loop that cannot also be contracted to a point.



      then we can replace a loop by a simple loop in the definition of simply connected.



      If this theorem is not true for all spaces, then perhaps it is true for Hausdorff spaces or metric spaces or a subset of $mathbbR^n$?



      I have thought about the simplest non-trivial case which I believe would be a subset of $mathbbR^2$.



      In this case I have a quite elementary way to approach this which is to see that you can contract a loop by shrinking its simple loops.



      Take any loop, a continuous map, $f$, from $[0,1]$. Go round the loop from 0 until you find a self intersection at $x in (0,1]$ say, with the previous loop arc, $f([0,x])$ at a point $f(y)$ where $0<y<x$. Then $L=f([y,x])$ is a simple loop. Contract $L$ to a point and then apply the same process to $(x,1]$, iterating until we reach $f(1)$. At each stage we contract a simple loop. Eventually after a countably infinite number of contractions we have contracted the entire loop. We can construct a single homotopy out of these homotopies by making them maps on $[1/2^i,1/2^i+1]$ consecutively which allows one to fit them all into the unit interval.



      So if you can't contract a given non-simple loop to a point but can contract any simple loop we have a contradiction which I think proves my claim.



      I'm not sure whether this same argument applied to more general spaces or whether it is in fact correct at all. I realise that non-simple loops can be phenomenally complex with highly non-smooth, fractal structure but I can't see an obvious reason why you can't do what I propose above.







      at.algebraic-topology gn.general-topology homotopy-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 7 hours ago









      user64494

      2,1219 silver badges18 bronze badges




      2,1219 silver badges18 bronze badges










      asked 8 hours ago









      Ivan MeirIvan Meir

      1413 silver badges5 bronze badges




      1413 silver badges5 bronze badges























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          17












          $begingroup$

          Here is an example of topological space $X$, embeddable as compact subspace of $mathbfR^3$, that is not simply connected, but in which every simple loop is homotopic to a constant loop.



          Namely, start from the Hawaiian earring $H$, with its singular point $w$. Let $C$ be the cone over $H$, namely $C=Htimes [0,1]/Htimes0$. Let $w$ be the image of $(w,1)$ in $C$. Finally, $X$ is the bouquet of two copies of $(C,w)$; this is a path-connected, locally path-connected, compact space, embeddable into $mathbfR^3$.



          enter image description here



          It is classical that $X$ is not simply connected: this is an example of failure of a too naive version of van Kampen's theorem.



          However every simple loop in $X$ is homotopic to a constant loop. Indeed, since the joining point $win X$ separates $Xsmallsetminusw$ into two components, such a loop cannot pass through $w$ and hence is included in one of these two components, hence one of the two copies of the cone $C$, in which it can clearly be homotoped to the sharp point of the cone.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$










          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
            $endgroup$
            – YCor
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
            $endgroup$
            – Ivan Meir
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
            $endgroup$
            – YCor
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
            $endgroup$
            – Ivan Meir
            4 hours ago


















          4












          $begingroup$

          Every finite simplicial complex is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite space. Therefore there are finite spaces with nontrivial loops; and these are obviously not embedded.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$

















            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "504"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f337942%2fin-a-topological-space-if-there-exists-a-loop-that-cannot-be-contracted-to-a-poi%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            17












            $begingroup$

            Here is an example of topological space $X$, embeddable as compact subspace of $mathbfR^3$, that is not simply connected, but in which every simple loop is homotopic to a constant loop.



            Namely, start from the Hawaiian earring $H$, with its singular point $w$. Let $C$ be the cone over $H$, namely $C=Htimes [0,1]/Htimes0$. Let $w$ be the image of $(w,1)$ in $C$. Finally, $X$ is the bouquet of two copies of $(C,w)$; this is a path-connected, locally path-connected, compact space, embeddable into $mathbfR^3$.



            enter image description here



            It is classical that $X$ is not simply connected: this is an example of failure of a too naive version of van Kampen's theorem.



            However every simple loop in $X$ is homotopic to a constant loop. Indeed, since the joining point $win X$ separates $Xsmallsetminusw$ into two components, such a loop cannot pass through $w$ and hence is included in one of these two components, hence one of the two copies of the cone $C$, in which it can clearly be homotoped to the sharp point of the cone.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$










            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
              $endgroup$
              – YCor
              5 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
              $endgroup$
              – Ivan Meir
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
              $endgroup$
              – YCor
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
              $endgroup$
              – Ivan Meir
              4 hours ago















            17












            $begingroup$

            Here is an example of topological space $X$, embeddable as compact subspace of $mathbfR^3$, that is not simply connected, but in which every simple loop is homotopic to a constant loop.



            Namely, start from the Hawaiian earring $H$, with its singular point $w$. Let $C$ be the cone over $H$, namely $C=Htimes [0,1]/Htimes0$. Let $w$ be the image of $(w,1)$ in $C$. Finally, $X$ is the bouquet of two copies of $(C,w)$; this is a path-connected, locally path-connected, compact space, embeddable into $mathbfR^3$.



            enter image description here



            It is classical that $X$ is not simply connected: this is an example of failure of a too naive version of van Kampen's theorem.



            However every simple loop in $X$ is homotopic to a constant loop. Indeed, since the joining point $win X$ separates $Xsmallsetminusw$ into two components, such a loop cannot pass through $w$ and hence is included in one of these two components, hence one of the two copies of the cone $C$, in which it can clearly be homotoped to the sharp point of the cone.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$










            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
              $endgroup$
              – YCor
              5 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
              $endgroup$
              – Ivan Meir
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
              $endgroup$
              – YCor
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
              $endgroup$
              – Ivan Meir
              4 hours ago













            17












            17








            17





            $begingroup$

            Here is an example of topological space $X$, embeddable as compact subspace of $mathbfR^3$, that is not simply connected, but in which every simple loop is homotopic to a constant loop.



            Namely, start from the Hawaiian earring $H$, with its singular point $w$. Let $C$ be the cone over $H$, namely $C=Htimes [0,1]/Htimes0$. Let $w$ be the image of $(w,1)$ in $C$. Finally, $X$ is the bouquet of two copies of $(C,w)$; this is a path-connected, locally path-connected, compact space, embeddable into $mathbfR^3$.



            enter image description here



            It is classical that $X$ is not simply connected: this is an example of failure of a too naive version of van Kampen's theorem.



            However every simple loop in $X$ is homotopic to a constant loop. Indeed, since the joining point $win X$ separates $Xsmallsetminusw$ into two components, such a loop cannot pass through $w$ and hence is included in one of these two components, hence one of the two copies of the cone $C$, in which it can clearly be homotoped to the sharp point of the cone.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Here is an example of topological space $X$, embeddable as compact subspace of $mathbfR^3$, that is not simply connected, but in which every simple loop is homotopic to a constant loop.



            Namely, start from the Hawaiian earring $H$, with its singular point $w$. Let $C$ be the cone over $H$, namely $C=Htimes [0,1]/Htimes0$. Let $w$ be the image of $(w,1)$ in $C$. Finally, $X$ is the bouquet of two copies of $(C,w)$; this is a path-connected, locally path-connected, compact space, embeddable into $mathbfR^3$.



            enter image description here



            It is classical that $X$ is not simply connected: this is an example of failure of a too naive version of van Kampen's theorem.



            However every simple loop in $X$ is homotopic to a constant loop. Indeed, since the joining point $win X$ separates $Xsmallsetminusw$ into two components, such a loop cannot pass through $w$ and hence is included in one of these two components, hence one of the two copies of the cone $C$, in which it can clearly be homotoped to the sharp point of the cone.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 6 hours ago









            Anton Petrunin

            27.4k5 gold badges84 silver badges203 bronze badges




            27.4k5 gold badges84 silver badges203 bronze badges










            answered 6 hours ago









            YCorYCor

            30.6k4 gold badges91 silver badges147 bronze badges




            30.6k4 gold badges91 silver badges147 bronze badges










            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
              $endgroup$
              – YCor
              5 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
              $endgroup$
              – Ivan Meir
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
              $endgroup$
              – YCor
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
              $endgroup$
              – Ivan Meir
              4 hours ago












            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
              $endgroup$
              – YCor
              5 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
              $endgroup$
              – Ivan Meir
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
              $endgroup$
              – YCor
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
              $endgroup$
              – Ivan Meir
              4 hours ago







            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
            $endgroup$
            – YCor
            5 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
            $endgroup$
            – YCor
            5 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
            $endgroup$
            – Ivan Meir
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
            $endgroup$
            – Ivan Meir
            4 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
            $endgroup$
            – YCor
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
            $endgroup$
            – YCor
            4 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
            $endgroup$
            – Ivan Meir
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
            $endgroup$
            – Ivan Meir
            4 hours ago











            4












            $begingroup$

            Every finite simplicial complex is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite space. Therefore there are finite spaces with nontrivial loops; and these are obviously not embedded.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



















              4












              $begingroup$

              Every finite simplicial complex is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite space. Therefore there are finite spaces with nontrivial loops; and these are obviously not embedded.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                Every finite simplicial complex is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite space. Therefore there are finite spaces with nontrivial loops; and these are obviously not embedded.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Every finite simplicial complex is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite space. Therefore there are finite spaces with nontrivial loops; and these are obviously not embedded.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 1 hour ago









                Jeff StromJeff Strom

                7,5972 gold badges30 silver badges60 bronze badges




                7,5972 gold badges30 silver badges60 bronze badges






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f337942%2fin-a-topological-space-if-there-exists-a-loop-that-cannot-be-contracted-to-a-poi%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                    Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                    Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її