Hi, On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 08:46:22AM -0800, Martin Baker wrote: > Would there be any commonality between finite and infinite graphs? yes, think of any local property like "neighbours", "distance" etc. which do not see whether the graph is finite or infinite. Others, like "spanning tree", "adjacency matrix" etc. are confined to finite graphs. So it probably makes sense to separate.
> PS I'm curious about the stuff in here about 'animals'. I have not > come across that, all I can find on the web is 'lattice animal' which > seems to be related to multi-square dominoes? yes, that's the same thing generalized to arbitrary graphs. The code here is just brute force, but was sufficient for the simulations I needed some time ago (http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3135, http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0867). Physicists have put a lot of effort and sophistication in order to enumerate them on Z^d. The current state is that animals of size up to 50 something can be enumerated exactly. > Are they related to infinite graphs? An animal is a finite connected subgraph containing the root vertex. It makes sense for any graph, however since the important thing is the asymptotic number of them, it is not really interesting for finite graphs. best regards, Franz -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" 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/fricas-devel?hl=en.
