categories - Category Theory list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduardo Dubuc <edubuc@math.uqam.ca>
To: categories@mta.ca
Subject: Re: Inevitability of ordering products
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:40:08 -0500 (EST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200102141840.NAA09452@cogito.math.uqam.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3A88BE0C.C3CA8E04@kestrel.edu> from "Dusko Pavlovic" at Feb 12, 2001 08:54:36 PM

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.








  reply	other threads:[~2001-02-14 18:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-02-08 18:48 Charles Wells
2001-02-12 20:27 ` Eduardo Dubuc
2001-02-13  4:54   ` Dusko Pavlovic
2001-02-14 18:40     ` Eduardo Dubuc [this message]
2001-02-15 20:31       ` Unlabeled graphs Charles Wells
2001-02-18 23:38         ` Eduardo Dubuc
2001-02-11 20:19 Inevitability of ordering products John Duskin
2001-02-13  0:39 ` James Borger

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200102141840.NAA09452@cogito.math.uqam.ca \
    --to=edubuc@math.uqam.ca \
    --cc=categories@mta.ca \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).