1994
DOI: 10.1088/0305-4470/27/10/006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The writhe of a self-avoiding walk

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

5
51
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
5
51
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Numerical simulations gave α = 1.122 ± 0.005, but it was argued that this might actually be a lower estimate, the true value being higher [1]. In later simulations, Arteca [6] found a value 1.20 ± 0.04 for SAWs and 1.34 to 1.4 for protein backbones [7].…”
mentioning
confidence: 88%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Numerical simulations gave α = 1.122 ± 0.005, but it was argued that this might actually be a lower estimate, the true value being higher [1]. In later simulations, Arteca [6] found a value 1.20 ± 0.04 for SAWs and 1.34 to 1.4 for protein backbones [7].…”
mentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Indeed an increase of the value of C had also been seen in [1] for SAWs with self-attraction, and it was conjectured in [7,8] that C is a useful observable for detecting the coil-globule transition. Due to its supposed importance, C was called the "entanglement complexity" in [9], and was shown there (by non-rigorous arguments) to be < 1.4 for random configurations.…”
mentioning
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Indeed, such attempts (explicit and implicit) have been made. 9,12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 It happens that the definitions of the writhe suggested by different authors are not consistent. One of the first works where it was proposed how to compute the writhing number for an open (and non-smooth) curve, is Ref.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%