Changes

{| width="468"

| class="td1" width="460" align="center" valign="middle" |

|}

|}

I was warned this morning while I was working, at the last moment of my work, I was warned that on June 12, that June 12 that is not, whatever the second Tuesday, that is not not in principle the one I was hoping to meet you with, so I was warned that the room would be occupied by so-called oral exams and that from then on we could not answer for this that she would be free at such or such time because the oral exams do not know how it extends, how it ends. In any case, I did not intend, as I just said, to meet you for the 12th of June since it is the Tuesday of Pentecost. On the other hand, I intended to meet you on June 19th, third Tuesday. On June 19th the exams will continue,

Only, that's where the little sign I wrote up here takes its value. I mean the one that I need to distinguish from the one I wrote below. They are separated. You may notice that it is something that has all the characters of writing it could as well be a letter. Only as you write cursively, it does not occur to you to stop the line before it meets another to make it pass under, to suppose it to pass under, because it is in the writing of anything other than three-dimensional space </font><font class="font3">148 </font>.

This line cut here, I said, means that it passes under the other. Here it is above because it is the other that breaks off, that is what produces, although there is not here that a line, this thing which is distinguished from what would be a simple round, a round of string if it existed. It differs in the sense that although there is only one string, it makes a knot.

This other line, this string, as I called it, is not so easily incarnated in space. The proof is that the ideal string, the simplest, would be a torus. And it has taken a long time to realize from the topology that what is locked in a torus is something that has absolutely nothing to do with what is locked in a cube. It is not a question of cutting the torus, because whatever you do with the surface of a torus you will not make a knot. But instead with the place of the torus, as this shows you, you can tie a knot. This is why, let me tell you, the torus is the reason that is what allows the node. That's good what I show you,

The fact remains that it is to remake three tori by the little thing that I already showed you under the name of Borromean knot that we will be able to operate, to say something about what it is about use of the first node. Of course there are some who were not there when I spoke last year, on the February side, of the Borromean knot.

Here is for example the case, I already last year put that on the board.

Of course, as I made a small mistake, it is not quite satisfactory but it will become so. Nothing is easier in this order than to make a mistake. Ah! Still my fault!

As you see here, as you see it inscribed, it is easy for you to see that since these two rounds of string are so constructed that they are not tied to each other, it is only by the third that they stand, which curiously I did not manage to reproduce with my rounds of string. But thank God, I still have another way to do it than to reproduce what I do on the board, namely to miss it. (to his assistant: open me, you'll be nice, that one) I'm going to give you the means in a completely rational and understandable way ..., here, here is a round of string, here's another one.

You pass the second round in the first and you bend it like that. It will be sufficient for a third circle to take the second, so that these three are knotted, and knotted so that it is obviously enough that you cut one of the three so that the other two are free.

Suppose dear friends that I take this one away from you, this one that I just picked up, huh, you want the last one, that's the one you want, but it's quite the same, it's is quite the same for the simple reason that this one, which I represented to you as folded and which has in fact two ears in which passes the third, it is absolutely symmetrical on the other side, namely that by compared to the third he also has two ears that takes first.

Nevertheless, this story makes the Borromean knot simple in the sense that here, for example, you can perfectly touch in what it is the two parts of this element which make ear, this one and this one, and that in sum in pulling it with the other, it is this round that folds in two, here and here pass, are the two ears, and this circle there, which will go to him, let the one that we will be able in this occasion, but only in this occasion to call first, which will remain in the round, round-support state of the first round folded.

To this sensible intuition, as it were, of the function of the circles, you can see that it suffices to cut any one of them, be it one of the middle or one of the two extremities, so that all that there is knots folded, at the same time, or from each other released. The solution is therefore absolutely general.

I think I have said enough about the symmetry of the reports of the first and second, since the last I called the third. This symmetry still holds, this symmetry still holds if you unify the third round with any one of the other two. Just then you will have a figure like this, one that faces a simple round with what I call the inner eight.

You will have had the blossoming of the Other but at the price of the over-expenditure of something which is the inner eight and which as you know is what I support the band of Moebius, in other words what in what in a strict support of this path that I try for you to spawn the function of the node, is expressed by the inner eight. I can only begin here, why, because I have yet to advance something that seems to me, before I leave you, capital. If I have given you the solution of the Borromean knots by this series of folded chains in the form of these circles which become completely independent if you cut one, what can this serve?

Il suffit que je vous fasse ça :

C’est embêtant que les autres, les autres nœuds soient là.

Je viens de faire passer deux de ces ronds l’un dans l’autre d’une façon telle qu’ils font ici non pas du tout ce re-pliage que je vous ai montré tout à l’heure mais simplement un nœud marin. Comme ils sont de ce fait même, puisque je viens de les agencer fermés, comme ils sont de ce fait même parfaitement séparables l’ un de l’autre, vous devez penser que, si simplement ce qui m’est tout aussi possible je fais avec un cercle qui suit le même nœud marin, il suffit que j’approche de ceux-là un autre, ici je peux faire la même chose avec un troisième rond. J’aurai encore un nœud marin, peu importe qu’il soit face à face avec le premier ou qu’il soit strictement dans la file, c’est-à-dire que ce qui passe devant, passe devant également le suivant.

Je peux en faire un nombre infini et même fermer le cercle que cela fera, le fermer simplement. Pour le dernier, pour le dernier bien sûr, il ne sera pas séparable, il faudra que ce dernier je le passe entre les deux du bout de ce que j’aurai déjà construit, et que je le passe en faisant un nœud. Non pas en l’introduisant comme je viens de faire pour ces deux-là. Il n’en restera pas moins que voilà une autre solution tout aussi valable que la première, car que je sectionne un quelconque de ceux que j’aurai agencés ainsi, tous les autres du même coup seront libres, et pourtant ce ne sera pas la même sorte de nœud.

En réalité il la met au travail, mais au travail de l’Un et c’est bien en quoi cet Autre pour autant que s’y inscrit l’articulation du langage, c’est-à-dire la vérité, l’Autre pourra être barré, barré de ceci que j’ai qualifié tout à l’heure de l’Un en moins. Le S de A en tant qu’il est barré :

c’est bien cela que ça veut dire, et c’est en quoi nous en arrivons à poser la question de faire de l’Un quelque chose qui se tienne, c’est-à-dire qui se compte sans être.

Le réel c’est le mystère du corps parlant, c’est le mystère de l’inconscient.

<font class="font4">148 Les notes dont nous disposions ne reproduisaient pas les dessins des nœuds. Nous avons donc utilisé les dessins de la version Seuil, sauf pour le nœud de la p. 10 qui est faux dans la version Seuil. Nous avons utilisé le bon nœud rétabli par Soury et Thomé dans Chaînes et nœuds deuxième partie, texte 58, p. 4.

<font class="font3">150</font><font class="font5"> Lapsus ?

'''Index </font>'''</div>

<div align="left"> • </font>Encore - p. 4

{| width="476"

{| width="468"

| class="td1" width="460" align="center" valign="middle" |

|}

|}