Book embedding has been listed as one of the
Mathematics good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 17, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Book embedding appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 June 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In See also Arc diagrams are referred to as two-page book embeddings. In Arc diagram#Planar graphs it is discussed how some planar graphs can only be represented as topological two-page book embeddings. I propose this be expanded upon in this article.
67.252.103.23 ( talk) 15:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I am confused by this statement:
Consider the set of all graphs. As far as I understood the linked article and also this article, this set is minor-closed. But because this set also contains all complete graphs, it has an unbounded book thickness.
Am I making a mistake somewhere?
Does this sentence only apply to all other minor-closed graph families? If so, I propose to mention this.
Baum42 ( talk) 11:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cryptic C62 ( talk · contribs) 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, this article is off to an excellent start. I am particularly impressed with the efforts to summarize esoteric concepts in layman's terms, something deemed largely impossible by the mathematicians I have met. Comments through Behavior under subdivisions:
Done! -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not adding this to this article or to List of unsolved problems in mathematics, at least not until it's been properly peer-reviewed and published, but https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.04195 provides a counterexample to the Blankenship–Oporowski conjecture. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Book embedding has been listed as one of the
Mathematics good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 17, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Book embedding appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 June 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In See also Arc diagrams are referred to as two-page book embeddings. In Arc diagram#Planar graphs it is discussed how some planar graphs can only be represented as topological two-page book embeddings. I propose this be expanded upon in this article.
67.252.103.23 ( talk) 15:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I am confused by this statement:
Consider the set of all graphs. As far as I understood the linked article and also this article, this set is minor-closed. But because this set also contains all complete graphs, it has an unbounded book thickness.
Am I making a mistake somewhere?
Does this sentence only apply to all other minor-closed graph families? If so, I propose to mention this.
Baum42 ( talk) 11:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cryptic C62 ( talk · contribs) 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, this article is off to an excellent start. I am particularly impressed with the efforts to summarize esoteric concepts in layman's terms, something deemed largely impossible by the mathematicians I have met. Comments through Behavior under subdivisions:
Done! -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not adding this to this article or to List of unsolved problems in mathematics, at least not until it's been properly peer-reviewed and published, but https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.04195 provides a counterexample to the Blankenship–Oporowski conjecture. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)