What does it mean? (Graph theory)

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding a definition from the paper "A triangle-free circle graph with chromatic number 5" by A.A. Ageev. A graph consists of vertices connected by edges, with the specific arrangement being irrelevant. A circle graph is a specific type of graph, and an independent set of vertices has no edges connecting them. The term "parallel" refers to a subset of vertices in a circle graph where adding a new vertex connected to all vertices in the subset still results in a circle graph. The explanation clarifies the definition, aiding comprehension of the paper's concepts.
ff4ever
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

In the paper "A triangle-free circle graph with chromatic number 5" from A.A. Ageev, I don't understand what the author mean with the following definition:

captur10.png


Somebody can explain it to me? (I'm not mathematician).
Thanks !

Link to the whole paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012365X95003492
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A graph is a set of spots ('vertices'), some of which are connected to each other by lines ('edges'). The arrangement of the spots and the shape of the connecting lines doesn't matter. All that matters is what spots are connected to each other.

A 'circle graph' is a particular type of graph whose meaning is explained here.

A set of vertices is 'independent' in a graph if, for every pair of vertices in the set, the graph has no edge connecting the two.

For a graph ##H##, we use ##V(H)## to refer to the set of vertices in the graph, and ##E(H)## to refer to the set of edges.

If ##x## and ##v## are vertices in a graph then ##xv## refers to an edge connecting ##x## to ##v##.

What the definition says is that a subset ##X## of vertices of a circle graph ##G## is defined to be parallel iff the graph formed from ##G## by adding a new vertex and adding edges joining the new vertex to every vertex in ##X## is also a circle graph.
 
Okay. Now I understand. Thanks a lot !
 
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 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 213 ·
8
Replies
213
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K