MHB Degrees of Vertices I: Is it Possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joystar77
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Degrees
Joystar77
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Let G be a graph with vertex set V = {v1, v2, v3, v4, v5}.

Is it possible for the degrees of the vertices to be 3, 6, 2, 1, 5, respectively? Why or why not?

2E = deg v1 + deg v2 + deg v3 + deg v4 + deg v5

2E = 3 + 6 + 2 + 1 + 5

2E = 17

E = 8.5

Is this correct to say that yes it is possible for the degrees of the vertices to be 3, 6, 2, 1, 5 because you end up with the number of edges being a decimal number?

Is it correct to say no that its not possible for the degrees of the vertices to be 3, 6, 2, 1, 5 because you end up with the number of edges being a decimal number?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Joystar1977 said:
Let G be a graph with vertex set V = {v1, v2, v3, v4, v5}.

Is it possible for the degrees of the vertices to be 3, 6, 2, 1, 5, respectively? Why or why not?

2E = deg v1 + deg v2 + deg v3 + deg v4 + deg v5

2E = 3 + 6 + 2 + 1 + 5

2E = 17

E = 8.5

Is this correct to say that yes it is possible for the degrees of the vertices to be 3, 6, 2, 1, 5 because you end up with the number of edges being a decimal number?

Is it correct to say no that its not possible for the degrees of the vertices to be 3, 6, 2, 1, 5 because you end up with the number of edges being a decimal number?
The number of edges in a graph cannot be other than a whole number. Thus there is no graph possible which has vertices of degrees 3, 6, 2, 1, 5.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top