Talk: Graph theory
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
I'm currently taking an introductory (graduate)level course in graph theory the information currently listed here is same amount that we covered in the first 20 minutes in class. I would like to greatly expand this section to include most of what I have been learning. Hopefully it may be useful. --Glinos Nov 11,2002
- Info about directed graphs, including acyclic ones, would be nice to have too.
- You can tell someone who's spent far too much time studying computer science when he refers to his ancestors as the "family directed acyclic graph".
- I hope at least the last few nodes of your family DAG form a proper binary tree. Brent Gulanowski
Maybe it's just me, but isn't it much more common to indicate graphs using the terms vertices and edges? Any formal defintion of graphs I've ever seen always uses these terms, G = (V, E). I know the other terms are also sometimes used, but I've never seen them in formal use, neither have I ever seen G = (N, E). Jeronimo
- I agree. Vertices/edges is far more common than nodes/arcs. G=(V,E) is the standard notation. G=(N,E) is not only nonstandard, but it mixes the two nomenclatures. --LC 21:37 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)
Maybe we need a few more pictures on this page; I moved the graphic down so that people wouldn't have to jump back and forth when considering the examples noted in the "properties" section; User:AxelBoldt moved it back so that people have a chance to see what the topic is about when they enter.
Perhaps smaller versions of the graphs shown at links like complete graph?
In addition, we could use a bit more meat here; graph isomorphisms, chromatic number, etc.; which might require a bit more overall restructuring. User:chas_zzz_brown 19:09 6 Oct 02 (UTC)
- Ah, I just moved the graph down without realising there was some dispute over it. I will not move it back, though, because it seems clearly better where it is to me. It was more or less impossible to follow the examples with it stuck up at the top of the article without using a higher than normal resolution. If somebody wants to see it when they first get to the page, they can scroll down. --Camembert
- I'm concerned about those people who are not mathematically mature enough and cannot follow the words without a picture. They won't scroll down, because they leave in frustration after the first paragraph. We can just show the same picture twice for now. AxelBoldt 19:35 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)
- Seems fair enough - if I'd realised there was some disagreement over where it should go, I would have done that myself. --Camembert
In addition, we could use a bit more meat here; Yup; maybe a section with elementary definitions like path, degree and cycle, and then a section with more substantive definitions like planar graph, coloring, Hamilton cycles etc and links to the respective pages. AxelBoldt 19:39 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)
Arvindn, why did you remove the reference I put in to the Seven Bridges of Konigsberg problem? The page on Konigsberg and the page on Euler both mention this problem, which is a famous early problem in Graph Theory.
Hi. I changed the definition of a null graph to say "a graph with no edges," but it was changed back to "a graph with no edges and no vertices." I don't think this is the most common definition of a null graph; in fact this is the first place I have seen it. I checked in MathWorld, and it appears that the definition used there, is the same as the one used here. But in all the books I have read a null graph may contain vertices. Fisk 16:41 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
- I made the change after checking the first two Google hits, Mathworld and PlanetMath. The other links however seem to agree with your definition. The references given in the MathWorld article sound convincing however. I don't know what to do. AxelBoldt 02:30 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
How bout Networks topic?
- Done. Mikkalai
I typed "simple path" in the search box and it landed me here. I would fill in my own definition for a simple path if I could only figure out how to edit the simple path page. But I can't since it keeps landing me at Graph theory. Shouldn't there be a seperate page for things such as simple path? --Bryanlharris
- Welcome, Bryan. Simple path. If you click there, you will see
- Graph theory
- (Redirected from [Simple path])
- If you click on "simple path" there, you will see the page
- Simple path
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- REDIRECT [graph theory]
- And you can start editing.
- BTW, if you type four tildas, ~~~~, it will give your signature with date. It helps us to tract conversations better.
- Finally, in talk pages it is customary to add at the BOTTOM, not at the top of the page. I hope you will guess why.
Mikkalai 17:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
It seems that this page has been kinda stagnant for a little while. I just recently went through a grad class on the topic as well, and I'll probably fill in a few bits here and there as I have time to do so. I added a little bit on graph representations. I know that adjacency lists were covered by someone else in their own article, but I though that the adjacency matrix deserved a quick mention as well. I also added the special graph section, since there are several common graph structures which haven't been mentioned, from what I could see.
On second glance, it seems that this data may do better on the Graphs page. Don't have time to change it now, but I'll move it over soon. If anyone wants to do this for me, feel free.
--Naerbnic 07:14, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
