Timeline for Dinitz Conjecture extension to rectangles
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2019 at 19:28 | comment | added | vidyarthi | @bof thanks for that observation. Edited the question now. | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 19:27 | history | edited | vidyarthi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Oct 7, 2019 at 3:42 | comment | added | bof | I don't understand the statement. What does your conjecture say in the special case where $m=n$? It's not the Dinitz Conjecture because the DC does not require distinct symbold on the diagonal, and I believe it would be false if you just added that requirement. Also not sure what "fill a maximum of $\min(m,n)$ symbols . . ." means. If it means "fill at most $\min(m,n)$ symbols," can't you satisfy it trivially by leaving all cells empty? | |
| Sep 13, 2019 at 11:55 | comment | added | vidyarthi | @RebeccaJ.Stones yes, the latin rectangle is partial, that is, has some empty cells | |
| Sep 7, 2019 at 14:37 | history | asked | vidyarthi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |