How to draw all subgraphs of K_5

  • Thread starter Thread starter christodouloum
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the challenge of drawing and counting all trees of the complete graph K_5, which has 125 possible configurations. The participant is struggling to ensure they have captured all unique trees without duplication, particularly when considering vertex rotations. They attempted to categorize the trees based on vertex valency but identified that they are missing four configurations. There is a noted lack of a unified mathematical theory for systematic enumeration of combinatorial possibilities in graph theory. The conversation highlights the interest in algorithms for subgraph enumeration, especially among biologists and chemists.
christodouloum
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Hi all. I have a simple question on methodology for counting graphs explicitely. I am trying to find all trees of the complete graph K_5. I know that the answer is 5^(5-2)=125 and that each should have only four of the ten edges. I am trying to understand how I would draw them down by hand explicitely. It turns out difficult to be sure that I have exactly all of them without replications etc.

My simple way at it was to search for 25 graphs that would not coincide when the vertices are "rotated" and try to find first the ones with up to two valent vertices, then up to 3-valent and then up to four-valent vertices (all of these times five). I found respectively 14,6 and 1 which means I am missing four. Does anyone know of a systematic way to do this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your post raises (in my mind) the general question of how to specifically enumerate combinatorial possibilities in graph theory. I searched the web, expecting to find that this would be a well developed mathematical/programming subject. I don't see any unified mathematical theory of it. The biologists and chemists are interested in algorithms that accomplish the task and if you search for "subgraph enumeration", you find specialized algorithms.

You particular problem would be interesting to discuss. Currently, I don't know the algorithm for it.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K