Talk:Klein graphs
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Chromatic number of 7-regular graph
[edit]Hello,
Are you sure about the chromatic number 3 for the 7-regular one? MathWorld says 4. Best, --MathsPoetry (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are quite a number of similar errors or internal incoherences. --MathsPoetry (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have fixed at least some of these. Maproom (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- It looks okay to me now. --MathsPoetry (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have fixed at least some of these. Maproom (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Two graphs in one article
[edit]I observe that the article Clebsch graph also covers two graphs in one article. They are related, one is 5-regular and the other 10-regular. The article is organised differently from this one. Maproom (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- The French article only addresses the 16 vertices Clebsch graph.
- I don't know whether it is correct to call the other one "Clebsch graph" as well (I did not check the sources), but it would be worth investigating that.
- Wolfram mathworld calls "confusing" the usage of "Clebsch graph" by Brower et. al. to refer to its complementary, the halved-cube graph H5.
- Incidentally, it seems that we have no article on no wikipedia for the halved-cube graph...
- Wolfram mathworld calls "confusing" the usage of "Clebsch graph" by Brower et. al. to refer to its complementary, the halved-cube graph H5.
- I think that the English article on Klein graphs separates better the two Klein graphs from each other than the one on the Clebsch graphs.
- In the French wikipedia, we solved this issue by doing 1 article <=> 1 graph, excepted in parametric families of graphs. --MathsPoetry (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Redundant URLs
[edit]Before re-adding redundant URLs, please carefully study Help:Citation_Style_1#Identifiers. Nemo 16:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Incorrectly marked as Cayley
[edit]Hi, according to the census of cubic graphs [1], cubic Klein graph is not Cayley. I was also unable to find any proof that the graph is Cayley (I didn't find any other source that would proof it is not Cayley though).
[1] http://mdh.graphsym.net/?filters=%5B%7B%22slug%22%3A%22number_of_vertices%22%2C%22uid%22%3A1%2C%22value%22%3A%22%3D56%22%2C%22initial%22%3Afalse%7D%5D&pre_filter=null&columns=%5B%22cvt_index%22%2C%22name%22%2C%22number_of_vertices%22%2C%22diameter%22%2C%22girth%22%2C%22is_arc_transitive%22%2C%22is_bipartite%22%2C%22is_cayley%22%2C%22is_edge_transitive%22%2C%22is_hamiltonian%22%2C%22is_spx%22%2C%22vertex_stabilizer%22%5D&page=0&per_page=20&widths=null&order=%22%22 Mitch.ondra (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)