Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 10, 2018 at 17:27 comment added José Alejandro Samper I still feel it should hold! Anyways, i like this property quite a bit. Do you know how close to tight is this?
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:37 comment added Russ Woodroofe @JoséAlejandroSamper, I thought when I updated the post that I saw how to easily recover nonevasiveness, but now I no longer see it. I'll delete my earlier comment claiming that it holds.
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:14 comment added Russ Woodroofe @JoséAlejandroSamper, as far as examples, look at the graph theory literature, under the name independent domination. A nontrivial example can be constructed by attaching a large number of pendant edges to each vertex of a complete graph. See e.g. Independent domination in graphs: a survey and recent results by Goddard and Henning.
Dec 9, 2018 at 20:55 comment added José Alejandro Samper Perhaps the non-evasiveness has to be addressed further given that the proof changed. 1) the ones described in the problem. 2) the ones obtained from removing a vertex, which give an additional local condition to relax the larger one, i.e there is a vertex with a pleasant link! It seems like this imposes many conditions on the graph. Do you have a systematic way to construct interesting examples?
Dec 3, 2018 at 11:19 history edited Russ Woodroofe CC BY-SA 4.0
fixed a problem pointed out by @Hailong Dao; hopefully improved clarity of exposition. I remark that non-evasiveness still seems to hold (per comments).
Nov 19, 2018 at 16:19 vote accept Hailong Dao
Nov 19, 2018 at 16:18 comment added Hailong Dao Great, thanks Russ. This remind me of my paper with Jay, perhaps I should dig it out.
Nov 19, 2018 at 16:14 history edited Russ Woodroofe CC BY-SA 4.0
be clearer that proof is of contractibility
Nov 19, 2018 at 10:12 history edited Russ Woodroofe CC BY-SA 4.0
clarified base case, slightly improved notation
Nov 19, 2018 at 8:56 history answered Russ Woodroofe CC BY-SA 4.0