Timeline for Is there a variant of the crossing lemma for multigraphs with arbitrary embedding?

13 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
S May 10 at 18:02	history	bounty ended	CommunityBot
S May 10 at 18:02	history	notice removed	CommunityBot
May 2 at 22:21	history	edited	Michael Hardy	CC BY-SA 4.0	added 60 characters in body
May 2 at 18:05	comment	added	Hao S		@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine Yes there is a fixed embedding of G.
May 2 at 17:39	history	edited	Hao S	CC BY-SA 4.0	added 22 characters in body
May 2 at 17:27	comment	added	Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine		@Hung-HsunYu: I think the OP is assuming the multigraph comes with a chosen embedding from the start. // @ OP, it would be very helpful to clarify this — is $G$ embedded from the start, or if not, where/how are you quantifying over possible embeddings?
May 2 at 16:43	history	edited	Hao S	CC BY-SA 4.0	added 113 characters in body
S May 2 at 16:38	history	bounty started	Hao S
S May 2 at 16:38	history	notice added	Hao S		Draw attention
May 2 at 16:36	history	edited	Hao S	CC BY-SA 4.0	added 11 characters in body
May 2 at 16:35	comment	added	Hao S		@Hung-HsunYu I'm not sure what you mean by "the best you can say about the crossing lemma for multigraphs is to simply apply the lemma to the simplification" what does it say here?
Apr 7 at 4:12	comment	added	Hung-Hsun Yu		I am not sure about the specific questions asked here, but in general without further assumptions, the best you can say about the crossing lemma for multigraphs is to simply apply the lemma to the simplification, as you can always draw parallel edges that are close to each other.
Mar 24 at 20:34	history	asked	Hao S	CC BY-SA 4.0