Jump to content

Talk:Crown graph

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MathsPoetry (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 20 April 2012 (Wrong schema ?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMathematics B‑class Low‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Greedy worst case lower bound

I attributed the greedy worst case lower bound to Johnson, which is what Kubale (2004) does. That’s the oldest reference I’ve been able to find for this construction. If the Füredi et al. (2008) paper was only used for that reference, I think it can be removed. (But I’m slightly confused about that paper, so maybe I’m misunderstanding something.) Thore Husfeldt (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polyhedral resemblance

The crown graph with an octagonal boundary looks a bit like a square cupola... Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 13:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tensor product

I think that the crown graph on 2n vertices can also be regarded as the tensor product of Cn and K2. Unless someone points out that I am mistaken, I shall add this to the first paragraph. Maproom (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Tensor product with K2 (also known as the bipartite double cover) preserves the degree of a vertex. Cn x K2 is always either C2n (if n is odd) or two disjoint copies of Cn (if n is even). Maybe you mean some other kind of product? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I mean Cartesian product, still of Cn and K2. Maproom (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not right, I think. The Cartesian product of a cycle with K2 is a Prism; it has three edges per vertex, and is non-bipartite if the cycle is odd. Crown graphs have higher degree (except for the eight-vertex one, the one case for which this works) and are always bipartite. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wrong twice, so maybe I ought to give up. But I now think I mean tensor product of Kn and K2. Maproom (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one's already in the first paragraph, where it says "bipartite double cover". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong schema ?

The schema captioned "A biclique cover of the ten-vertex crown graph" seems wrong to me. For example, it includes an edge between u3 and v3, which does not exist in the crown graph. Unless I misunderstood what a "cover" was, of course. --MathsPoetry (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]