Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Answer

deleted rubbish sentence, improved formatting and spelling.
Source Link
Marco Golla
Marco Golla
  • 10.9k
  • 3
  • 41
  • 63

 

The answer is yes. firstFirst we draw a cycle with the outestoutmost vertices such that other vertices are within the cycle. (This is step 2 in above picture  .) thenThen we repeat this for vertices that are not on the first cycle and draw the second cycle. weWe repeat this until all vertices lie on a unique simple closed cycle. Now we delete an edge from each two adjacent cycles and connecting vertices such that two cycles exchange in one longer cycle. thenThen repeat this until we have had a cycle consists all vertices.

 

The answer is yes. first we draw a cycle with the outest vertices such that other vertices are within the cycle. ( step 2 in above picture  ) then we repeat this for vertices that are not on the first cycle and draw second cycle. we repeat this until all vertices lie on a unique simple closed cycle. Now we delete an edge from each two adjacent cycles and connecting vertices such that two cycles exchange in one longer cycle. then repeat this until we have had a cycle consists all vertices.

 

The answer is yes. First we draw a cycle with the outmost vertices such that other vertices are within the cycle. (This is step 2 in above picture.) Then we repeat this for vertices that are not on the first cycle and draw the second cycle. We repeat this until all vertices lie on a unique simple closed cycle. Now we delete an edge from each two adjacent cycles and connecting vertices such that two cycles exchange in one longer cycle. Then repeat this until we have had a cycle consists all vertices.
deleted rubbish sentence
Source Link
edit approved Dec 21, 2015 at 12:27
JMP
edit approved Dec 21, 2015 at 12:27
JMP
  • 1.2k
  • 5
  • 13
  • 21

 

The answer is yes. first we draw a cycle with the outest vertices such that other vertices are within the cycle. ( step 2 in above picture ) then we repeat this for vertices that are not on the first cycle and draw second cycle. we repeat this until all vertices lie on a unique simple closed cycle. Now we delete an edge from each two adjacent cycles and connecting vertices such that two cycles exchange in one longer cycle. then repeat this until we have had a cycle consists all vertices. excuse me for very very weak english writing

 

The answer is yes. first we draw a cycle with the outest vertices such that other vertices are within the cycle. ( step 2 in above picture ) then we repeat this for vertices that are not on the first cycle and draw second cycle. we repeat this until all vertices lie on a unique simple closed cycle. Now we delete an edge from each two adjacent cycles and connecting vertices such that two cycles exchange in one longer cycle. then repeat this until we have had a cycle consists all vertices. excuse me for very very weak english writing

 

The answer is yes. first we draw a cycle with the outest vertices such that other vertices are within the cycle. ( step 2 in above picture ) then we repeat this for vertices that are not on the first cycle and draw second cycle. we repeat this until all vertices lie on a unique simple closed cycle. Now we delete an edge from each two adjacent cycles and connecting vertices such that two cycles exchange in one longer cycle. then repeat this until we have had a cycle consists all vertices.
deleted 18 characters in body
Source Link
Joseph O'Rourke
Joseph O'Rourke
  • 150.9k
  • 36
  • 358
  • 958

enter image description here 

The answer is yes.
first we draw a cycle with the outest vertices such that other vertices are within the cycle. ( step 2 in above picture ) then we repeat this for vertices that are not on the first cycle and draw second cycle. we repeat this until all vertices lie on a unique simple closed cycle. Now we delete an edge from each two adjacent cycles and connecting vertices such that two cycles exchange in one longer cycle. then repeat this until we have had a cycle consists all vertices. excuse me for very very weak english writing

The answer is yes. first we draw a cycle with the outest vertices such that other vertices are within the cycle. ( step 2 in above picture ) then we repeat this for vertices that are not on the first cycle and draw second cycle. we repeat this until all vertices lie on a unique simple closed cycle. Now we delete an edge from each two adjacent cycles and connecting vertices such that two cycles exchange in one longer cycle. then repeat this until we have had a cycle consists all vertices. excuse me for very very weak english writing

enter image description here

The answer is yes.
first we draw a cycle with the outest vertices such that other vertices are within the cycle. ( step 2 in above picture ) then we repeat this for vertices that are not on the first cycle and draw second cycle. we repeat this until all vertices lie on a unique simple closed cycle. Now we delete an edge from each two adjacent cycles and connecting vertices such that two cycles exchange in one longer cycle. then repeat this until we have had a cycle consists all vertices. excuse me for very very weak english writing

 

The answer is yes. first we draw a cycle with the outest vertices such that other vertices are within the cycle. ( step 2 in above picture ) then we repeat this for vertices that are not on the first cycle and draw second cycle. we repeat this until all vertices lie on a unique simple closed cycle. Now we delete an edge from each two adjacent cycles and connecting vertices such that two cycles exchange in one longer cycle. then repeat this until we have had a cycle consists all vertices. excuse me for very very weak english writing
Source Link
srmusawi
srmusawi
  • 41
  • 2