This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
The articles starts off fine until you reach the section on graph-theoretic data structures, then it becomes too technical. It is not clear why this section is included on this page. The link I can see is that the concept of
graph (data structure) uses the structure and therefore theory of
graph (mathematics), so should this section be moved to
graph (mathematics) instead as an application?. It is not clear if this is actually a part of graph theory, about graph theory an extension or an application? I am not sure if splitting the applications section into subsections, and including it somewhere in that, with some explanation may help? Sorry if i appear dumb.
Bg9989 (
talk) 22:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree -- it's big, technical, and not really on topic. It's certainly not more important to graph theory than the sections that follows it. --
JBL (
talk) 18:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree that is is too technical, but not that it is not important. However, it should be moved to
Graph (mathematics), renamed and rewritten. It should be renamed "Representing graphs on a computer". The explicit mentions of basic data structures (arrays, linked lists, ...) must be removed, and the various representations should be described at higher level (like pseudo-code vs. code). The main representations (which have a lot of technical variants) are
Incidence matrix
List of the name of the vertices and list of the edges, which are pairs of vertices
List of vertices, each linked to the list of the vertices connected to it by an edge
Also, the respective advantages of each representation should be discuted. For example, the last one is the best if the graph may change during the computation, and if one want to find paths in the graph.
D.Lazard (
talk) 19:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I missed this article. This means that every people that is interested in groups and does know what is an abstract data type will also miss it (although I know what is an abstract data structure). However this article allows to make above suggested section "Representing graphs on a computer" shorter, with a hatnote {{main}}.
D.Lazard (
talk) 08:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, but this section should also be in the article on graphs in mathematics, not graph theory. --
JBL (
talk) 14:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)reply
This article starts with "In mathematics graph theory is the study [...]", which made think if it is right to classify Graph Theory in maths?
I think that in all the universities I have known, there are professors of the department of (theoretical) Computer Science that study graph theory. Also, courses of graph theory are typically taught to students of computer science.
So, maybe it would be better to change the article by saying that it is an area in the intersection of mathematics and computer science... What do you think about?
To me (and I speak as someone in a computer science department who does graph theory) graph theory is clearly mathematics, not computer science. It is heavily used in computer science, and graph algorithms are computer science, but graph theory itself is mathematics. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Speaking as someone else in a CS department who does graph theory, I agree with David.
McKay (
talk) 03:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Mathematics are likely to be applied (everywhere).
David is absolutely right about graph theory being mathematics used in computer science.
SlvrKy (
talk) 12:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Speaking as someone who earned a Ph.D. in computer science and had a pair of advisors—one each in mathematical sciences and computer science—
David is absolutely right about graph theory being mathematics used in computer science.
PaulTanenbaum (
talk) 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
elementary graph theory is often taught to computer science students. However, algebraic graph theory, spectral graph theory, etc. are usually in math departments. I am a bit surprised by this entire conversation. Graph theory is clearly mathematics, just because it is taught to computer science students does not change that. Do not computer science students take calculus? Isn't that still mathematics? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:6000:1526:4538:3561:C16:A398:4FC2 (
talk) 15:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Is this supposed to be a replacement for the two existing sentences about chemical graph theory? It seems overly
WP:TECHNICAL, unsourced, and (in the last two sentences) a bit off-topic to me. And are reaction networks really graphs? How can they be when reactions typically have more than one input and output? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Problems
Museum Guards problem
I am a bit surprised with the museum guard problem in the list of problems. If one want to see this as a graph theoretical problem, it should be rather seen as a
dominating set problem. And for the later, I would include it maybe in the set cover part (which I will do now). So maybe we can remove that section?
Dorbec (
talk) 16:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Regarding the letter from De Morgan to Hamilton
I think the way the following sentence is phrased, hints that the two events are independent, but according to
MacTutor and
this article the second is a consequence of the first:
"his problem was first posed by
Francis Guthrie in 1852 and its first written record is in a letter of
De Morgan addressed to
Hamilton the same year."
Perhaps the second part of the sentence could be removed or stated as a footnote?
Dimitris131 (
talk) 12:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply