Yes, you're right. It depends on the topology of the graph. Do you have any references for the upper or lower bound? Or even an asymptotic of form O(2^k)?
Bruno On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Geoffrey Summerhayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 8:20 pm, brunotavila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi people, > > > > How to calculate the number of binary trees that are subgraphs of a > > given connected, undirected, unweighted and simple (no parallel edges > > nor loops) graph? > > Haven't given it too much thought, but I believe the number is > dependant on the actual topology of the graph. It should be possible > to calculate an upper and lower bound, but for an accurate number for > a given graph I think you're stuck with counting them. > > --- > Geoff > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
