[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.9233547 [View]
File: 2 KB, 117x100, graph.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9233547

I'm confused on the definition of subgraph.
We define a graph as G=(V,E) with V being a finite set and E satisfying [math]E\subseteq [V]^{2}[/math]. We can allow E to be the empty set, but V will always be not empty.
G'=(V',E') is a subgraph of G if [math]V'\subseteq V[/math] and [math]E'\subseteq E[/math].
So, if in this picture we use the red points to form V' and E' only has the diagonal, that would be a valid subgraph, even though by itself it would not be a graph since [math]E'\nsubseteq [V']^{2}[/math]. Am I wrong somewhere? Because if I'm not, I don't see the point of such a subgraph.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]