Re: dual graph

From: Marshall <>
Date: 26 Jun 2006 09:31:26 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Chris Smith wrote:
> David Cressey <> wrote:
> > Thanks to everybody for clearing up the matter of "planar".
> >
> > Now, I'm interested in a a subset of the planar graphs.
> >
> > It's the graphs that don't divide the space into more than one region.
> >
> > It seems to me that it's appropriate to call such graphs "hierarchical
> > graphs", or simply "hierarchies". But I'm not sure. Can anyone clear this
> > up?
> Well, such a graph has no cycles, so it is a forest. If it's connected,
> then it's a tree.

I would have thought that to call an acyclic graph a tree, it would have to have a distinguished node. Yes? No? My answer to David's question would have been "acyclic." But again: not my field.

Marshall Received on Mon Jun 26 2006 - 18:31:26 CEST

Original text of this message