|
|
|
|
|
|
by lolinder
841 days ago
|
|
|
You're pulling in context from ylow's post that isn't relevant to this subthread. I'm not defending ylow's definition, I'm defending lou1306's. Here's the first few parts of the chain of thought of this subthread: ylow> Fundamentally, all I need to define a graph is a set of vertices v \in V and function Neighbors(v). You> Even that is severely overconstrained. It doesn't allow multiple edges to the same neighbor! lou1306> Well to be fair, that constraint is also part of the mathematical definition of a graph ... You> There is no "the" definition. From Wikipedia ... You explicitly were only replying to the portion of ylow's comment that was about vertices and a neighbors function, and lou1306 was replying to your assertion that vertices+neighbors was overconstrained because it wouldn't allow multiple edges. All I'm saying is that lou1306 is correct in their definition of a graph. If that means that both you and ylow are wrong, that's fine with me! |
|
|
I never claimed otherwise. I explicitly said the opposite - there are multiple correct definitions. That's literally one of the reasons why there's no general purpose graph type - there are multiple definitions with different properties, all of which are referred to in various contexts as "graphs".
> If that means that both you and ylow are wrong, that's fine with me!
This gives off very strong "somebody is wrong on the internet" vibes...
All I said was (a) in the context of the current discussion (not decided by me!), graphs were already assumed to encompass more than the vanilla undirected V x V definition people are pointing me to, and (b) in that context, one more example (supporting the parent's point that I was replying to!) was graphs with multiple edges. All of which seems quite uncontroversial, true, and in line with the context of the parent comment I replied to. I have nothing to add.
I seriously don't get where the desire to die on this hill is coming from, but I don't share it to keep continuing here.