Timeline for edge graph reconstruction conjecture : set vs multi set
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 7, 2016 at 4:22 | answer | added | Brendan McKay | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 7, 2016 at 4:12 | comment | added | user94793 | Are you asking if there is a difference between a set of edge-deleted subgraphs and a multi-set of edge deleted subgraphs? If so, a multi-set is a set-like object in which order is ignored, but multiplicity is explicitly significant. Therefore {a,a,b} and {a,b} are distinct in multisets but both will be considered as {a,b} in sets. mathworld.wolfram.com (Wolfram Mathworld) | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 4:27 | answer | added | Michael Melcher | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 8:54 | comment | added | Dag Oskar Madsen | Sorry, you are right. I will delete my comment. | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 8:09 | comment | added | Thinniyam Srinivasan Ramanatha | @DagOskarMadsen But the set reconstruction is stated only for vertex right? What about edge reconstruction? Is there a set version for that as well? | |
| Jul 25, 2014 at 6:58 | history | edited | Thinniyam Srinivasan Ramanatha | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted wrong counter e.g.
|
| Jul 25, 2014 at 6:57 | comment | added | Thinniyam Srinivasan Ramanatha | Thank you, i realised it doesn't work (even if i hadn't made the mistake of writ in n-2 instead of n-1). It only gives subgraphs of n copies of $K_{1,2} \subset$ subgraphs of (n-1 copies of $K_{1,2} \cup K_1 \cup K_2$), the reverse isn't true. | |
| Jul 24, 2014 at 13:36 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | Your vertex example has a problem: $3n$ vertices versus $3n-3$ vertices. | |
| Jul 24, 2014 at 12:32 | history | edited | Thinniyam Srinivasan Ramanatha | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
counterexample for vertex deletion
|
| Jul 24, 2014 at 12:04 | history | asked | Thinniyam Srinivasan Ramanatha | CC BY-SA 3.0 |