>It appears that the definition of lean graphs is not very useful. > >For example > > ex:x ex:r _:x . > _:x ex:r ex:y . > ex:x ex:r _:y . > _:y ex:r ex:z . > >is a non-lean graph but it is not internally redundant. Good point. This definition was written a long time ago. Here's a better definition: a graph is fat if it has a proper subgraph which is an instance of it, otherwise lean. Now examples like the above are lean. The lemmas apply to this definition (with easier proofs, in fact.) Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayesReceived on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 22:34:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 18:22:17 GMT