I have a doubt about some edge cases in problem $22.(b)$ in Hatcher's "Algebraic Topology", section $1.2$.
The writer presents a knot:
To begin, we position the knot to lie almost flat on a table, so that $K$ consists of finitely many disjoint arcs $\alpha_i$ where it intersects the table top together with finitely many disjoint arcs $\beta_\ell$ where $K$ crosses over itself.
The configuration at such a crossing is shown in the first figure below.
The writer than proceeds to describe a cell-complex that $\mathbb{R}^3 -K$ deformation-retracts onto, and that will help us calculate $\pi_{1}(\mathbb{R}^3 -K)$. See the essentials bellow:
Start with the rectangle $T$ formed by the table top. Above each arc $\alpha_i$ place a rectangular strip $R_i$, curved to run parallel to $\alpha_i$ and arched so that the two long edges of $R_i$ are identified with points of $T$ , as in the second figure.
Any arcs $\beta_\ell$ that cross over $\alpha_i$ are positioned to lie in $R_i$.
Finally, over each arc $\beta_\ell$ put a square $S_\ell$ , bent downward along its four edges so that these edges are identified with points of three strips $R_i, R_j$ and $R_k$ as in the third figure; namely, two opposite edges of $S_\ell$ are identified with short edges of $R_j$ and $R_k$ and the other two opposite edges of Sℓ are identified with two arcs crossing the interior of $R_i$ .
The knot K is now a subspace of $X$ , but after we lift $K$ up slightly into the complement of $X$ , it becomes evident that $X$ is a deformation retract of $\mathbb{R}^3 -K$.
I've managed to calculate the fundamental group, which is described bellow for completeness:
$\pi_{1}(\mathbb{R}^3 -K)$ has a presentation with one generator $x_i$ for each strip $R_i$ and one relation of the form $x_i x_j x^{−1}_i = x_k$ for each square $S_\ell$ , where the indices are as in the figures above.
Than I run into some problems - We're asked to:
Use this presentation to show that the abelianization of $\pi_{1}(\mathbb{R}^3 -K)$ is $\mathbb{Z}$.
I don't think this is correct. It is right for the exact configuration sketched in the figure, but it won't work if the set of arcs labeled as $\{\beta_l\}$ is empty, and there are at least 2 different $\alpha$-type arcs. Such a configuration deformation retracts to $S^1 \vee S^1$, and the abelianization in that case is $\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}$
If I'm not mistaken, this won't work even with the assumption that $\{\beta_l\}\neq \emptyset$, which can be seen when taking two parallel copies of the intersection described:
This violate the desired corollary, since if two loops are homotopic in $\mathbb{R}^3 -K$, they are obviously homotopic in $\mathbb{R}^3 - (\alpha_i \cup \{red\ arc\ \})$ and this, again, deformation retracts into $S^1 \vee S^1$, which leads into a contradiction.
What did I miss?