Timeline for Infinite graphs with finitely discriminable vertices
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:27 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| May 18, 2011 at 14:22 | answer | added | Aaron Meyerowitz | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 18, 2011 at 13:12 | history | edited | Hans-Peter Stricker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| May 18, 2011 at 13:12 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | @James: Sorry for that (for me a graph is directed, but I should have been aware that this is not common!) An undirected graph is then just a special kind of (symmetric) digraph. | |
| May 18, 2011 at 12:54 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 18, 2011 at 12:46 | comment | added | James Cranch | Secondly, why isn't the graph I described (vertices $\mathbb{N}$, edges from $n$ to $n\pm 1$) a counterexample? | |
| May 18, 2011 at 12:44 | comment | added | James Cranch | It's possible I'm being really stupid. But I'd like a bit more clarification. Firstly, you really ought to say from the beginning that you're interested in directed graphs (to me a graph is undirected). | |
| May 18, 2011 at 12:31 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | @James: I tried to make things clearer. Especially, I mean the directed natural number graph with edges from n to n+1 only. | |
| May 18, 2011 at 12:29 | history | edited | Hans-Peter Stricker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 58 characters in body
|
| May 18, 2011 at 12:07 | comment | added | James Cranch | I haven't understood the definition of "finitely discriminable" yet, can you help? By "natural number graph" do I assume you mean the graph whose vertices are natural numbers, with edges between $n$ and $n\pm 1$? If so, then, unless I'm very much mistaken, it's finitely discriminable but not for the reasons you state. After all, the label you've associated to 100 (consisting of $1,2,\ldots,100$) could very well be attached to 1 instead (just the wrong way around, with downwards being sent to upwards). Shouldn't you instead associate something like the interval $[1,2n-1]$ to the vertex $n$? | |
| May 18, 2011 at 9:44 | history | edited | Hans-Peter Stricker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| May 18, 2011 at 9:26 | history | asked | Hans-Peter Stricker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |