Related papers: A State Sum Link Invariant of Regular Isotopy

This paper has been withdrawn by the author(s), due a crucial error in Eqn. 30.

This paper has been withdrawn by the author(s), due the following reasons. A similar system for a different purpose has already been studied in Phys.Rev.D60:083001,1999 (astro-ph/9904315). Moreover, our analysis was wrong because we have…

This paper has been withdrawn by the author, due to errors in the figures.

This paper has been withdrawn due to non-clearness of some technical points, as well as lack of a reasonable statement of quantization conjecture.

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors; the main conclusion is incorrect, as some of the crucial calculations were not properly converged.

This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a mistake in the section 4.

This paper has been withdrawn by the author because there is a gap in Lemma 9.

The paper has been withdrawn by the author due to unhappy mistake in the initial scope of the work.

The paper has been withdrawn due to an error in the main theorem.

The state sum regular isotopy invariant of links which I introduce in this work is a generalization of the Jones Polynomial. So it distinguishes any pair of links which are distinguishable by Jones'. This new invariant, denoted {\em…

This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to an error in section 7. There is a new version: arXiv:1011.3352.

The paper has been withdrawn.

Paper withdrawn - lemma 4.1 was false. Quite a lot of changes need to be made!

The paper has been withdrawn by change of content and some errors in the examples.

This paper has been withdrawn by the author(s) in the light of several other works available and due to a misunderstanding in the authorships.

The paper has been withdrawn due to numerical error.

This paper was withdrawn by the author due to a fatal error.

This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial sign error in Proposition 3.1.

This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to an error in the computation of E(n,x) on page 6 which appears to be essential for the result. The author is currently trying to correct this proof

This paper has been withdrawn, not because of any errors (that we know of), but because rather than presenting our material as a series of 3 papers, as we originally intended, we have now combined them into one long paper, which is "A…