George Krasilnikov
Reputation
Next privilege 250 Rep.
 Nov6 awarded Notable Question Mar21 awarded Popular Question Dec7 suggested rejected edit on Rational numbers- sticks and stones Nov25 revised Planar graphs all equivalent to null graph by equivalence relation. added 309 characters in body Nov25 revised Planar graphs all equivalent to null graph by equivalence relation. added 309 characters in body Nov23 awarded Promoter Nov22 revised Planar graphs all equivalent to null graph by equivalence relation. added 110 characters in body Nov22 revised Planar graphs all equivalent to null graph by equivalence relation. added 185 characters in body Nov22 comment Planar graphs all equivalent to null graph by equivalence relation. @GerryMyerson What is meant by adjacent here is that the edges in question both bound the same region. In other words, one can draw a line segment on the plane which meets the graph only in those two edges. Nov20 revised Planar graphs all equivalent to null graph by equivalence relation. added 386 characters in body Nov20 comment Planar graphs all equivalent to null graph by equivalence relation. @Gerry vertices are classified by the edges they connect to so by sliding vertices, I did mean sliding edges. Yes, multiple edges are allowed. By neighboring edges I mean adjacent edges- ie adjacent edges with the same label can be "transformed"/altered in the way shown. We are permitting multiple edges, yes. If you could with rewording given this that would be great! Nov20 asked Planar graphs all equivalent to null graph by equivalence relation. Nov20 accepted Cyclic Pentagon Nov16 awarded Nice Question Nov16 awarded Teacher Nov11 revised Odd and even numbers in Pascal's triangle-Sierpinski's triangle added 420 characters in body Nov11 comment Odd and even numbers in Pascal's triangle-Sierpinski's triangle @Micah Is it possible that you could give further direct proof and explanation for the modulo 2 relations and why the rules can determine whether a string is in Pascal's mod 2 triangle the way they do? That would be fantastic, and then I will mark your answer as correct. Nov9 comment Odd and even numbers in Pascal's triangle-Sierpinski's triangle @Micah Yes, non-appearing strings grow exponentially with, k, but what if we enumerated appearing string more explicitly in terms of k? Nov9 comment Odd and even numbers in Pascal's triangle-Sierpinski's triangle @Micah In general as astute as your observations are if you could work to make more improvements in the explicitness of all parts of the question that would be even better! In any case thank you very much for your time so far, and I hope you will keep working on the problem in that direction. Nov9 comment Odd and even numbers in Pascal's triangle-Sierpinski's triangle @Micah This is absolutely fantastic! Do you know if there is a more explicit way of enumeration that would not be so tedious for large $k$? Perhaps the total number of possible strings of that length minus those that we know will not appear? Perhaps if we are able to more explicitly describe strings that do not appear for any given size, we could use that.