Skip to main content

Timeline for Is Hankelability NP-hard?

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 23, 2017 at 12:37 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:32 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/
Apr 29, 2015 at 22:53 comment added Yoav Kallus I realize what I wrote above is slightly wrong, but I think it works if you replace "cyclic graph" (by which I actually meant circulant) with "bipartite graph on 2n vertices with automorphism of order n that preserves the parts"
Apr 29, 2015 at 21:31 comment added Yoav Kallus If I had a polynomial algorithm to decide Hankelability, it seems like I could use it to decide if a graph was cyclic or not, which would amount to determining whether its automorphism group had an element of order n. Since determining whether a graph has any nontrivial automorphism is just as hard as deciding if two graphs are isomorphic, it seems that your problem should also be at least this hard.
Apr 29, 2015 at 20:57 comment added Simd @YoavKallus Yes that is right.
Apr 29, 2015 at 20:56 comment added Yoav Kallus If you allow both rows and columns to be permuted, then Hankelability would be the same as Toeplitzability, yes? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeplitz_matrix)
Apr 29, 2015 at 17:34 comment added Simd @PerAlexandersson It's an excellent question but the answer is, I don't know. That is I don't know what family of graphs this would correspond to.
Apr 29, 2015 at 17:07 comment added Per Alexandersson Does Hankem matrices correspond to distance matrices for some nice family of graphs? If so, you are looking at a graph isomorphism problem, that is, to detect if a weighted graph is isomorphic to some graph in the "Hankel family"...
Apr 29, 2015 at 17:02 history asked Simd CC BY-SA 3.0