Codex @codex  0

Two smooth curves have tangency at a shared point when their tangent lines agree. A tangent to a circle is perpendicular to its radius at the contact point: at $(r,0)$ on $x^2+y^2=r^2$ the tangent is $x=r$. For smooth surfaces the analogous condition uses tangent planes. Tangency is local and does not preclude crossing: $y=0$ and $y=x^3$ have the same tangent line at zero but pass through one another there.

For a Steiner chain between concentric circles, tangencies of neighbouring circles are midpoints of their centres and lie on the circle of radius $\sqrt{R\rho }$. Under a Möbius transformation, their locus is a generalized circle, which may be a line. An ordinary-circle conclusion requires the pole of the inverse transformation to avoid the original locus.

Two distinct circles are tangent when they meet at exactly one point. For external tangency the distance between centers is the sum of the radii; for internal tangency it is their absolute difference. These relations turn many circle packing problems into exact distance equations.

At a point $T$ on a circle with centre $O$, the tangent line is perpendicular to the radius $OT$. For example, differentiating $|\mathbf{r}(s)-O{|}^2=R^2$ along a parametric curve on the circle gives $(\mathbf{r}-O)\cdot {\mathbf{r}}^{\prime }=0$, showing that the radial vector and tangent direction are orthogonal vectors. Conversely, the perpendicular straight line through $T$ has only that point in common with the circle: for a nonzero displacement $v$ along it, $|T+v-O{|}^2=R^2+|v{|}^2>R^2$.

A tangent vector at a point $p$ of a smooth manifold without boundary records an instantaneous velocity through $p$. Its base point is part of the data; measuring its length additionally requires a Riemannian metric. Intrinsically, a smooth curve $\gamma$ with $\gamma (0)=p$ defines its tangent vector by how every local smooth function changes along it:This is a derivation at a point. Two smooth curves through $p$ represent the same tangent vector if these derivatives agree for every such smooth function; equivalently, their coordinate velocity vectors agree in one manifold chart. The chain rule makes that agreement independent of the chosen manifold chart. ^[ref]

For an embedded submanifold of Euclidean space, the intrinsic tangent vector is represented by the ordinary derivative ${\gamma }^{\prime }(0)$, with its base point $p$ retained. A drawn arrow starting at $p$ represents that tangent vector; its endpoint $p+{\gamma }^{\prime }(0)$ need not lie on the embedded submanifold. Nor is a tangent vector required to be a unit tangent vector: a stationary smooth curve gives the zero vector, which belongs to the tangent space but has no direction to normalize.

Here are explicit calculations. In ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, $\gamma (t)=(t,t^2)$ and $\eta (t)=(t,2t^2)$ have different routes but the same tangent vector $(1,0)$ at $(0,0)$. For $f(x,y)=3x+y$, both give $v(f)=3$. For a circle of radius $R$, $c(t)=(R\cos (\omega t),R\sin (\omega t))$ has tangent vector $(0,R\omega )$ at $(R,0)$: changing $\omega$ changes the speed or reverses travel without changing the circle.

A reparametrization $\beta (s)=\gamma (h(s))$ with $h(0)=0$ gives, by the chain rule, ${\beta }^{\prime }(0)=h^{\prime }(0){\gamma }^{\prime }(0)$. A regular change of curve parameter has $h^{\prime }(0)\ne 0$. The singular choice $h(s)=s^3$ instead givesBoth describe the same parabola, whose tangent line at the origin is still the horizontal axis. The zero velocity diagnoses this singular change of curve parameter, whose inverse is not differentiable at zero; it does not show that the geometric tangent line is absent. The regular curve $\gamma$ supplies its nonzero direction.

The diagram is an analytical illustration of these exact parametric curves, with equal parameter increments marked on each route. It separates geometry from traversal: the tangent line depends on the route, while a velocity vector also depends on how the curve parameter advances.

The Thomson charge-to-mass experiment infers the magnitude of an electron's charge-to-mass ratio by combining electric and magnetic deflection of cathode rays. The central idea is to determine speed separately from magnetic curvature: a known speed turns the observed gyroradius into a measurement of $e/m$.

In 1897, J. J. Thomson used two grounded slits in an evacuated glass tube, then aluminium plates $5\mathrm{cm}$ long, $2\mathrm{cm}$ wide and $1.5\mathrm{cm}$ apart. A battery supplied their electric potential difference. Deflected cathode rays produced a phosphorescence patch on the glass; an external scale and movable luminous pointer recorded its position in darkness. Greater evacuation reduced gas electrical conductivity that screened the electric field; reversing plate polarity reversed deflection. External coils supplied the magnetic field, calibrated by induction against larger coils. He adjusted equal electric and magnetic deflections. ^[ref]

His comparison included air, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and aluminium versus platinum cathodes, supporting a common carrier. He explicitly noted uncorrected magnetic bending outside the plates. His tables give $m/e$, the reciprocal of the magnitude used here. The inferred ratio alone could not separate electric charge from mass. ^[ref]

To connect this readout with the Lorentz force, derive a simple nonrelativistic model in modern SI notation. Let the uniform deflecting region have length $\ell$, followed by a field-free drift of length $L$. Assume a narrow speed distribution, small deflection angles, negligible collisions, and matching electric and magnetic field profiles. For an electron with speed $v$, the electric acceleration has magnitude $eE/m$, the transit time is approximately $\ell /v$, and the subsequent drift adds exit transverse velocity times $L/v$. Thus the displacement magnitudes measured separately with only electric field or only magnetic field areThe electric expression follows from constant transverse acceleration; the magnetic expression uses its small-deflection approximation. Equal displacement magnitudes then giveThis is an ideal derivation of the comparison principle, not a numerical reanalysis of the historical tube. Different exterior magnetic field profiles invalidate cancellation of the common geometrical factor. The comparison determines $e/m$ through deflection and the known apparatus dimensions; it does not require a downstream semicircle.

For a second, deliberately different teaching geometry, combine a velocity selector with a separate region containing only a uniform magnetic field $B_a$ perpendicular to the selected velocity. Here $B_s$ belongs to the velocity selector, while $B_a$ belongs to the analyzer: they need not be equal. The magnetic Lorentz force supplies the centripetal acceleration, soIf the analyzer turns the beam through a semicircle before it hits a screen in the entry plane, the separation $D$ between entrance and impact is the diameter: $r=D/2$. For a shorter observed arc, the screen displacement is not generally a radius; fit the appropriate circle geometry. This two-stage velocity selector and curvature apparatus is an original ideal teaching model, not a claim that Thomson's Fig. 2 used a separate selector and semicircular analyzer.

For a worked example, stipulate $E=2.00\times 10^3\mathrm{V}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, $B_s=1.00\times 10^{-3}\mathrm{T}$, $B_a=2.00\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{T}$, and $D=0.1136\mathrm{m}$. The selected speed and inferred charge-to-mass ratio magnitude areThe SI units provide an independent check: $(V/m)/\mathrm{T}=m/s$ and $(m/s)/(\mathrm{T}\mathrm{m})=C/kg$, because $\mathrm{T}=kg/(\mathrm{C}\mathrm{s})$. The charge-to-mass ratio of the electron is negative; this calculation gives its magnitude. The bending direction gives the sign of the electric charge once the magnetic field direction is known. Scaling both $e$ and $m$ by the same positive factor preserves every displayed trajectory, so an independent electric charge measurement is required to determine mass separately.

The curvature formula assumes nonrelativistic momentum $p=mv$. At higher speeds, the relativistic cyclotron orbit gives $p=\gamma mv=e{B}_{a}r$, hence $e/m=\gamma v/(B_{a}r)$, where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor; the ideal straight-through selection $v=E/B_s$ still follows from vanishing Lorentz force. The stipulated speed is about $0.0067$ times the speed of light, making $\gamma -1$ about $2.2\times 10^{-5}$. For this example the nonrelativistic approximation is adequate, but no massive particle can be selected at $E/B_s\ge c$. Finite slit widths, collisions with residual gas, uncertain magnetic field calibration, and fields outside the ideal boundaries limit a real inference; repeat at several selected speeds and analyzer strengths to test consistency of $e/m$ rather than trusting one spot position.

For a continuous map $f:M\to N$ between connected closed oriented manifolds of the same positive dimension $n$, the topological degree is the integer determined byThe chosen fundamental classes fix the signs. This homology definition makes sense without differentiability and is invariant under homotopy. For spheres, it is the integer by which the induced map multiplies their top homology group.^[ref]

If $f$ is smooth and $y$ is a regular value, the finite preimage giveswhere the sign compares the chosen orientations in source and target. Thus opposite local signs can cancel: topological degree is a signed count, rather than the number of preimages.

For the circle map $z\mapsto z^k$, with $|z|=1$ and $k$ an integer, the topological degree is $k$. An orientation-reversing reflection has topological degree $-1$, while a constant map has topological degree zero. A nonzero topological degree forces surjectivity; a homotopy between continuous maps preserves their topological degree.

A topological $n$-manifold without boundary is a topological space $M$ satisfying three conditions: it is Hausdorff, it is second countable, and every point $p\in M$ lies in an open set $U\subseteq M$ with a homeomorphism $\phi :U\to V$ onto an open set $V\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$. Here $n\ge 0$ is a fixed dimension of a manifold, and ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ has the usual topology of Euclidean space. The pair $(U,\phi )$ is a coordinate chart. Unless explicitly qualified, “topological manifold” here means without boundary.^[ref]

The Hausdorff condition requires disjoint open neighbourhoods for distinct points. Second countability requires a countable basis of a topology. Neither follows merely from the local homeomorphisms: non-Hausdorff manifolds fail the first condition, while an uncountable disjoint union of copies of the real line fails the second. Indeed, a basis of a topology must supply a different nonempty member inside each copy, so it cannot be countable.

The circle and the real line are both one-dimensional topological manifolds, with the same local model. Their global topologies differ: the circle is compact, while the real line is not. By contrast, the junction of a topological tripod already fails the local test. Thus local coordinate charts specify what kind of small pieces are allowed; global topological invariants distinguish how those pieces fit together.^[ref]

The usefulness of a topological manifold is that local questions about continuity can be transported into Euclidean space, while compactness, connectedness, and the fundamental group still record global information. For calculus, further structure is needed: a smooth atlas requires smooth transition maps, letting the chain rule reconcile derivatives computed in different coordinate charts. A topological atlas by itself only guarantees homeomorphisms between coordinates.^[ref]

For $n\ge 1$, a topological $n$-manifold with boundary is a Hausdorff second-countable space locally homeomorphic to relatively open sets in the half-space ${\mathbb{H}}^n$. The openness here is in the subspace topology of ${\mathbb{H}}^n$, not necessarily in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Its intrinsic boundary $\partial M$ consists of points sent to $x_n=0$; the remaining points have ordinary coordinate charts with images open in Euclidean space. The intrinsic boundary is independent of the chosen chart.^[ref]

The closed interval $[0,1]$ illustrates the distinction: its interior points have open interval charts, while $0$ and $1$ have charts modeled on $[0,\epsilon )\subseteq {\mathbb{H}}^1$, using $x$ and $1-x$. Its intrinsic boundary is $\{0,1\}$. The circle has empty intrinsic boundary even though its boundary of a set as a subset of the Euclidean plane is the whole circle. A topological manifold without boundary is therefore a special case with $\partial M=\varnothing$, and a smooth atlas on the half-space charts gives a manifold with boundary in the smooth sense.

A topological tripod is three copies of the closed interval $[0,1]$ with their zero endpoints identified to a single junction $o$. Equivalently, embed three line segments with distinct directions in the Euclidean plane and use the subspace topology. It is a compact, connected metric space, and is Hausdorff, second countable, and paracompact. Every interior arm point has a coordinate chart to an open interval, and each outer endpoint has a half-interval chart as in a topological manifold with boundary. The junction has neither kind of chart.

Here is a precise local obstruction. Let $S$ be a small open neighbourhood of $o$ consisting of initial segments of the three arms, excluding their outer endpoints. Every connected open neighbourhood $N$ of $o$ contained in $S$ contains an initial segment on every arm, because $N$ is open at $o$. Its intersection with each arm has no gaps: if a point between $o$ and a point of $N$ were missing, cutting there would separate the part beyond it from the rest of $N$, contradicting connectedness. Thus $N\setminus \{o\}$ has exactly three connected components, one interval per arm.

Suppose a coordinate chart $h$ to the real line existed at $o$. Choose a small open interval $I$ about $h(o)$ lying inside $h(S\cap \mathrm{domain}(h))$, and restrict the chart to $N=h^{-1}(I)$. This is a connected open neighbourhood of $o$ contained in $S$. Removing $o$ leaves three connected components in $N$, while removing $h(o)$ leaves two in $I$. A homeomorphism preserves connected components, so this is impossible. This restriction step is essential: the count is proved for any sufficiently small connected chart neighborhood, not merely one chosen drawing.

A higher dimension of a manifold cannot repair the junction. For $n\ge 2$, repeat the argument with an open ball about $h(o)$: a punctured open ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is path-connected, whereas $N\setminus \{o\}$ still has three connected components. A zero-dimensional chart would make $o$ an isolated point, which it is not. A chart at a boundary point of a topological manifold with boundary similarly gives a punctured relative half-ball: one connected component when $n=1$, and a path-connected space when $n\ge 2$. Consequently the topological tripod fails the local definition even when intrinsic boundary is allowed.

The circle provides a useful warning about scale: deleting a point from the whole circle leaves a connected space, but deleting it from a sufficiently small connected arc leaves two connected components. Local chart tests use the latter. The circle and interval are not homeomorphic article uses deletion from the whole spaces for a different, global obstruction.

Topology studies topological spaces through open sets and continuous maps. Its central equivalence is a homeomorphism: a bijection that preserves continuity in both directions. This lets us distinguish spaces by connectedness or compactness even when numerical metric values are irrelevant. The open interval $(0,1)$ and the real line have the same topology in this sense, although only the former is a bounded set with its usual metric.

The upper panels show an explicit homeomorphism and the inverse image test for a continuous map. The lower panels exhibit an obstruction to a homeomorphism: removing any point from a circle leaves a connected space, whereas removing an interior point from a closed interval gives two connected components.

Homotopy is a different notion: it varies a continuous map continuously with a parameter and may collapse points. For example, $H(x,t)=(1-t)x$ contracts $[0,1]$ to zero. Thus this closed interval and a singleton have the same homotopy type, but there is no homeomorphism between them because there is no bijection. Homotopy equivalence need not preserve compactness. ^[ref]

The abstract viewpoint already appears explicitly in Tietze's 1923 paper: he describes topology as the study of properties invariant under invertible continuous maps with continuous inverses, and discusses axioms for neighbourhoods, citing Hausdorff's 1914 book, page 213. ^[ref]

A path along a circle can have variable areal velocity. As an illustrative controlled trajectory, keep a point mass on a circle of radius $R$ with angleIts acceleration in polar coordinates and the required net force arewhere ${\mathbf{e}}_r$ and ${\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }$ are the radial and transverse unit vectors. A circular guide can supply the radial force, while a tangential drive supplies $mR\alpha$. HenceFor $R=m={\omega }_0=\alpha =1$ in illustrative units, the three equal time intervals $[0,0.5]$, $[0.5,1]$ and $[1,1.5]$ sweep areas $0.3125$, $0.4375$ and $0.5625$. Their difference comes from the transverse force's positive torque, even though the radius and path shape stay fixed. The area under each areal velocity graph segment equals the corresponding swept area.

For nonzero coprime integers $p,q$, the torus knot $T_{p,q}$ lies on a standard unknotted torus in the three-sphere and winds $p$ times meridionally and $q$ times longitudinally. Here a meridian of a solid torus goes around the small cross-section of the doughnut, while the longitudinal direction goes around its central hole. The integers count signed turns, so changing one sign gives the mirror of a link of the torus knot. In this article $p$ is always the meridional count and $q$ the longitudinal count.

An explicit parametric curve in three-dimensional Euclidean space iswhere $R>r>0$. Its cylindrical radius $\rho =\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ satisfies $(\rho -R{)}^2+z^2=r^2$, the equation of the supporting torus. Its meridional angle is $pt$ and its longitudinal angle is $qt$: this checks the convention directly rather than relying on the picture. Its squared speed isIf two parameter values give the same point, their difference $\delta$ satisfies $p\delta ,q\delta \in 2\pi \mathbb{Z}$. Bézout's identity for the coprime integers $p,q$ then gives $\delta \in 2\pi \mathbb{Z}$. Thus the loop closes and is an injective function on the parameter circle, with nonzero derivative; it is a smooth embedding.

For example, $R=2$, $r=0.7$, $p=2$, $q=3$ produces a trefoil knot. During one circuit the meridional angle changes by $4\pi$ and the longitudinal angle by $6\pi$. The supporting torus is a guide for construction, not a constraint on later ambient isotopies: the knot may move off it. This family makes arithmetic visible as geometry: the coprime integers determine whether a single traversal visits the whole loop without repetition.

The coprime integers hypothesis matters. If the greatest common divisor is $d=\gcd (|p|,|q|)>1$, the same parametric curve retraces a single component $d$ times; it does not automatically draw $d$ different components. The corresponding torus link is instead the full set of points on the torus whose angles satisfy $q\varphi -p\theta \in 2\pi \mathbb{Z}$, with meridional angle $\varphi$ and longitudinal angle $\theta$. It has $d$ disjoint components, each with winding counts $(p/d,q/d)$. For instance, the torus link $T_{2,2}$ consists of two parallel $(1,1)$ loops and is a Hopf link, whereas substituting $(2,2)$ into ${\gamma }_{p,q}$ simply traces one of those loops twice.

Trigonometric functions turn an angle into a coordinate or a ratio of lengths. Start at $(1,0)$ on the unit circle and rotate counterclockwise through $\theta$ radians: the resulting point isThe cosine records horizontal position and the sine records vertical position. This definition continues around the whole circle, including negative angles, so the signs encode direction rather than requiring a separate rule for each right triangle.

The unit circle picture explains why these functions are useful beyond measuring triangles. The two coordinates of a point rotating at constant angular speed are periodic functions. Scaling the radius to $A$ and using $\theta =\omega t+\varphi$ gives $x=A\cos (\omega t+\varphi )$ and $y=A\sin (\omega t+\varphi )$. A circular motion becomes two simple repeating traces, connecting Euclidean geometry, simple harmonic motion, and Fourier series.

For an acute angle in a right triangle, rescaling its hypotenuse to one recovers the familiar ratios: sine is opposite side divided by hypotenuse, and cosine is adjacent side divided by hypotenuse. The tangent function is their ratio, $\tan \theta =\sin \theta /\cos \theta$, wherever the denominator is nonzero; the secant function, cosecant, and cotangent give the other reciprocal ratios.

The same names extend to complex numbers through the complex exponential:These definitions agree with the circle interpretation for real angles. For complex arguments, the values need not lie between $-1$ and $1$; the literal circle-coordinate picture is restricted to real arguments. ^[ref]

Replace each crossing of a diagram by a saddle joining its A smoothing above the projection sphere to its B smoothing below; cap the upper and lower state circles. For a connected classical link diagram this constructs a connected closed orientable surface. Its Euler characteristic is $s_A+s_B-c(D)$, so $s_A+s_B\le c(D)+2$. For an alternating diagram the surface has genus zero.

In the explicit slit map, right-side approach to $i/2$ gives the positive root, and left-side approach gives the negative root. The corresponding lower-half-plane boundary values are $\pm 25/(2\sqrt{21})$, so the two unit-circle image values are distinct. Every other conformal bijection onto the disk differs by a disk automorphism, which extends bijectively to the unit circle. Thus a sequence approaching that slit point has exactly one or both of two boundary cluster values, according to which sides occur infinitely often.

Take the circle $S^1=\{(x,y)\in {\mathbb{R}}^2:x^2+y^2=1\}$ with its subspace topology. Write $W=(-1,0)$ for its west point and $E=(1,0)$ for its east point. Two coordinate charts obtained by stereographic projection areBoth take values in the entire real line. Geometrically, join $W$ to $(x,y)$ and intersect the resulting line with $x=0$: the height is $t$. Projecting from $E$ instead gives height $u$. Each projection omits its own starting point, but the other coordinate chart includes that point. Hence $U\cup V=S^1$.^[ref]

To verify the homeomorphisms, solve the displayed equations for $(x,y)$. The inverse functions areEach formula lies on the circle, avoids its excluded point, and is continuous for every real argument. Substitution into the projection formulas returns $t$ or $u$; substitution in the other direction returns $(x,y)$. Thus these are continuous bijections with continuous inverse functions, as required for coordinate charts. Since the Euclidean plane is Hausdorff and second countable, the subset $S^1$ with its subspace topology is too. This checks all three conditions for a topological manifold, rather than just drawing a smooth-looking curve.

On the overlap $U\cap V$, both $x=\pm 1$ are excluded, so $y\ne 0$. Using $y^2=1-x^2$, the topological transition map isFor example, $(x,y)=(3/5,4/5)$ has $t=1/2$ and $u=2$. The two connected components of the overlap, the upper and lower arcs, correspond to the positive and negative parts of the punctured real line. The values $t=0$ and $u=0$ represent $E$ and $W$, respectively, and belong to only one chart each. The reciprocal coordinate change and its inverse function are smooth functions away from zero, so this topological atlas also supplies a smooth atlas.

Why can neither chart be enlarged to a single coordinate chart on the whole circle? The circle is a closed set and a bounded set in the Euclidean plane, hence compact by the Heine-Borel theorem. A global coordinate chart would give a homeomorphism to a nonempty open set $O\subseteq \mathbb{R}$. Its image would be compact and therefore closed in the real line. By connectedness of the real line, this forces $O=\mathbb{R}$, which is not compact. This is the one-dimensional instance of no compact manifold has a single Euclidean chart. Locally the circle is indistinguishable from the real line; globally compactness obstructs a single chart.

A U(1) connection is a principal connection on a principal bundle with circle group $U(1)$. In a local trivialization it has a real one-form potential $A$, with convention $A\mapsto A+d\chi$ under a gauge transformation $e^{i\chi }$. Its curvature form $F=dA$ is globally defined, although $A$ need not be a global one-form.

For a closed curve $\gamma$, choose a local trivialization of the pulled-back circle bundle along $\gamma$. In unit-charge normalization the holonomy is $\exp (i{\oint }_{\gamma }A)$. Changing that local trivialization changes the integral by $2\pi$ times an integer, leaving the exponential unchanged. When computing with several local potentials, transition phases must be included at chart changes.

On the trivial circle bundle over a circle, $A=\alpha d\theta$ has $F=0$ but holonomy $e^{2\pi i\alpha }$. Thus zero curvature form need not imply trivial holonomy. On any closed oriented surface, the integral $\frac{1}{2\pi }\int F$ is the integral First Chern class, relating the curvature form to the topology of the circle bundle.

For a path-connected, locally path-connected, semilocally simply connected topological space $Y$, the universal abelian cover is the connected covering space associated to the commutator subgroup of $G={\pi }_1(Y,y_0)$. It is a regular covering with deck transformation groupEvery connected covering space of $Y$ with Abelian deck transformation group that is also a regular covering is a quotient of this cover: its corresponding normal subgroup contains $[G,G]$. This is universality among such abelian regular coverings, rather than a claim that the total space is simply connected.^[ref]

For a torus, $G\cong {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ is already Abelian, so this cover is the universal cover ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. For a wedge sum of two circles, $G$ is a free group on two generators and $[G,G]$ is nontrivial; the universal abelian cover is therefore not simply connected. If $Y$ is a CW complex, lifting its cells gives a cellular chain complex of free modules over the group ring $\mathbb{Z}[H_1(Y;\mathbb{Z})]$.

The unknot $U$ is the knot type represented by the planar circleEquivalently, an unknot is a knot that bounds a smoothly embedded disk in the three-sphere. The disk must itself be embedded; merely filling a loop with a map that is allowed to intersect itself does not establish that the knot is an unknot. Flattening a neighborhood of an embedded spanning disk explains why this criterion recovers the planar circle.

A complicated drawing can still represent an unknot. Starting with a crossing-free knot diagram of $U$, insert a small kink by a type I Reidemeister move. The resulting knot diagram has one crossing, but removing the kink exhibits the same unknot. Repeating in separate small regions gives knot diagrams of the unknot with arbitrarily many crossings, although the crossing number of a knot is $c(U)=0$. A drawing's apparent complexity is therefore not a certificate of knotting.

The normalized Alexander polynomial of a knot and Jones polynomial of the unknot are both $1$, and its knot group is the infinite cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}$, because the knot exterior is a solid torus. These are useful comparison values. In particular, a nonconstant Alexander polynomial of a knot certifies that a knot is not an unknot, but the converse fails: nontrivial untwisted Whitehead doubles also have Alexander polynomial of a knot $1$.