[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
categories: Re: Inevitability of ordering products
This is concerning the mail of Dusko in reply to my mail:
>
> Eduardo Dubuc wrote:
>
> > what sense has the concept of unlabeled graph ?
> >
> > try to put an unlabeled graph inside a computer ?
>
> you mean unordered? i would implement it as an ordered graph, with an
> additional involutive map on the edges, ie
>
> Edges <--inv-- Edges ==dom,cod==> Nodes
> dom.inv = cod
> inv.inv = id
>
> --- which, in a way, confirms that
>
yours is not an answer to my question, which I shall explain now (I
thought that it needed no explanations)
by an unlabeled graph i mean the drawing of a graph, in paper, say, or a
graph buildt in space, the skeleton of a building for example. It has
vertices and edges, and everybody knows what it is. Mathematically you
could say a symetric relation on its (finete) set of vertices. But not
quite so ...
If you have n vertices, you have n! different labeling. Each labeling
gives you a different labeled graph.
The minute you have a set (in the mathematical sense) of vertices, you
have a labeling. Namely, the elements of that set are the labels!. So,
with a symetric relation (in the mathematical sense) what you got is a
labeled graph. Not an unlabeled graph !.
And you become well aware of this fact when you want to put a concrete
unlabeled graph (say, the skeleton of a building) inside a computer !!
REMEMBER I rise the question on unlabeled graph related to the question
that we were discussing:
INEVITABILITY OF NAMING (IN MATHEMATICS)
(naming is not the same as labeling ?)
>> well, unlabeled graph has to be a quotient by an equivalent relation
...
I said that. It seems possible. I explain now the ...
Given two graphs R, S (symetric relations) on a finite set X (of
vertices), consider the natural action of the symetric group of X on the
power set of X x X. Then, R =~ S iff they are in the same orbit. The
elements of the quotient set are the unlabeled graphs.
e.d.