You're correct, as I also quickly realised but couldn't get back to a network connection. Earlier material had somehow led me into thinking that the 'closure' must have many edges, which is untrue. That leaves the later typos, which suggest that I'm not the only one to get into a tangle ... WFL On 4/2/12, James Buddenhagen <jbuddenh@gmail.com> wrote:
I am certainly no graph theorist, but it seems to me the closure of the dodecahedron is the dodecahedron, or am I missing something? This link has a clearer explanation of closure and proof of the Bondy–Chvátal theorem. http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~gusfield/cs225w12/Bondy-Chvatal.pdf
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Fred lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
Would somebody who knows a little more graph theory than I do please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_path and give an opinion?
The section entitled "Bondy–Chvátal theorem" looks to be seriously mangled; in particular, flatly contradicted by the accompanying circuit on a dodecahedron; later theorems appear to have "smaller" substituted for "greater".
Has a troll been at work, I wonder?
Fred Lunnon
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun