Reputation
434
Top tag
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
Badges
3 12
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~28k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 1 helpful flag
  • 287 votes cast
12h
comment The existential theory is undecidable
it would be helpful if you cite ref, pg
Jul
19
comment Existential theory
are you asking about (iv)? the basic idea of this is that it is setting up conditions that the existential theory of a quotient field of R is decidable...
Jul
18
comment Existential theory
have you looked at the introduction of [125] as directed? what is [125]? plz cite [125] and this reference you have photocopied here.
Jul
18
comment Existential theory
there is no proposition do you mean the last lemma 1.6? might as well refer to it by number! ... might cook up answer if this gets better votes :| otherwise more discussion in cs chat
Jul
14
awarded  Yearling
Jul
7
comment Reorder adjacency matrices of regular graphs so they are the same
addendum, further analysis/ discussion in this chat room. feel the question is more about a subroutine in a graph isomorphism algorithm. another similar paper AN ALGORITHM FOR DETERMINING ISOMORPHISM USING LEXICOGRAPHIC SORTING AND THE MATRIX INVERSE / Augeri et al has concept of "canonical isomorphs" in section 2.1.3.
Jun
23
comment Reorder adjacency matrices of regular graphs so they are the same
good luck! your research effort seems un- or dis-connected from the CS/ math literature to me which goes against scientific convention... think many votes are for your latex/ analysis skills...
Jun
23
answered Reorder adjacency matrices of regular graphs so they are the same
Jun
21
comment Reorder adjacency matrices of regular graphs so they are the same
also, now wondering, is this actually a veiled question of (aiming in the direction) whether graph isomorphism is in P? which is open?
Jun
21
comment Reorder adjacency matrices of regular graphs so they are the same
some further thought/ analysis on this with jim in chat room. while this question shows some significant analysis, have suspicion jim has taken single regular graph instance & partitioned it into matrices/ structure & while insinuating it in the question, after request doesnt seem to have any proof/ response this can be done in general (with all regular graphs) & hes not disabusing me of this notion so far. its clearly the basis for the whole question, but lacking a proof, am presuming it is likely not true in general. also motivation seems to be study of hard graphs for graph isomorphism.
Jun
19
comment Reorder adjacency matrices of regular graphs so they are the same
@Jim just write something (as much as possible) in Mathematics Chat & generally have to do it asynchronously, it has chat reply mechanisms for signalling; there is already some brief discussion of your problem(s)/ migration etc by mod R & others
Jun
18
comment Counting problem of combinations of symmetric matrix.
suggest trying to describe your problem completely/ rigorously without examples 1st.... and then clearly showing how the examples fit the math operations....
Jun
18
comment Reorder adjacency matrices of regular graphs so they are the same
this is impressive but the question is buried. you seem to want to rearrange k-regular graphs in some way to do... x. what is x? you seem mainly to want an efficient algorithm for x. it would help by attempting to boil down x within existing algorithmic operations/ studies. there are many studies of regular graphs. is this mainly a graph isomorphism question? you seem to have strong mathematical background yet unfamiliar with graph isomorphisms (& other basic graph operations etc)... looking over the Mathematics question, even that is not very clear. try starting over & also Mathematics Chat
May
6
comment Properties of Ackermann's function
probably all these are proved in a book somewhere.... the function is very thoroughly studied over decades....
Apr
26
comment The output of Kruskal's algorithm is a spanning tree
lol its not stated very well is it? it needs some induction there. the algorithm starts with a forest of 0-edge 1-vertex "trees" (1 for all vertices). every step of the algorithm increases the size of those (separate) trees (adding edges/ vertices) or joins two trees to form a new tree. at the end there is a single tree. maybe watch a visualization of it running & then try to describe why it always works in mathematical terms.
Apr
26
comment The output of Kruskal's algorithm is a spanning tree
the complete proof is on wikipedia under kruskals algorithm entry here
Apr
24
comment Tree decomposition by hand for understanding
seems to be returning a bag but having trouble following $X_{V_1}$ vs $X_V$, do you get it? fyi all chat room on this
Apr
24
comment Tree decomposition by hand for understanding
Bodlaender (oops missed edit). see also tree decomposition fastest algorithm in practice / Computer Science where the answer might indicate that the algorithm(s) have never actually been implemented (?)
Apr
24
revised Tree decomposition by hand for understanding
add cs tag
Apr
24
suggested approved edit on Tree decomposition by hand for understanding