![]() | Snark (graph theory) 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: August 8, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Snark (graph theory) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am not sure about application of snarks to four color theorem. Kuszi 00:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Today I added two snarky mathematical uses, the four color theorem and the four flow conjecture. See [1] for the diff. I got this info from page 141 of Reinhard Diestel, Graph Theory, Springer, 1997, ISBN 0-387-98211-6. dbenbenn | talk December 25, 2004
One of two cases from proof of theorem that every snark has Petersen graph as a minor was published here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.4352.pdf. Proof of second case was still "in preparation" at November 2015. -- Miteusz ( talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 ( talk · contribs) 21:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this review. On first look, I see very few issues needing attention. One suggestion to start out - I think the two sentences on computational complexity might work better under "Properties" than as a single-line section. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Infinitely many snarks are known to existcould mean "we know of infinite snarks already" as well as the intended meaning of "Our theorems prove that there's an infinite number of snarks". Might be worth rewording.
the subsequent proof of the four-color theoremto Four color theorem#Proof by computer
also demonstrates that all snarks are non-planar.needs a source
Moved complexity into properties, removed "are known to" in the part about infinitely many snarks to make the wording there more direct; added a little more to lead. Used Tait's middle initial rather than the full name or omitting the initial. Linked 4-color proof. Added a source that explicitly connects the Appel–Haken proof to the nonexistence of planar snarks. Commons category linked in external links section. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() | Snark (graph theory) 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: August 8, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Snark (graph theory) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am not sure about application of snarks to four color theorem. Kuszi 00:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Today I added two snarky mathematical uses, the four color theorem and the four flow conjecture. See [1] for the diff. I got this info from page 141 of Reinhard Diestel, Graph Theory, Springer, 1997, ISBN 0-387-98211-6. dbenbenn | talk December 25, 2004
One of two cases from proof of theorem that every snark has Petersen graph as a minor was published here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.4352.pdf. Proof of second case was still "in preparation" at November 2015. -- Miteusz ( talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 ( talk · contribs) 21:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this review. On first look, I see very few issues needing attention. One suggestion to start out - I think the two sentences on computational complexity might work better under "Properties" than as a single-line section. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Infinitely many snarks are known to existcould mean "we know of infinite snarks already" as well as the intended meaning of "Our theorems prove that there's an infinite number of snarks". Might be worth rewording.
the subsequent proof of the four-color theoremto Four color theorem#Proof by computer
also demonstrates that all snarks are non-planar.needs a source
Moved complexity into properties, removed "are known to" in the part about infinitely many snarks to make the wording there more direct; added a little more to lead. Used Tait's middle initial rather than the full name or omitting the initial. Linked 4-color proof. Added a source that explicitly connects the Appel–Haken proof to the nonexistence of planar snarks. Commons category linked in external links section. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |