4 ms·

For people who don’t understand graphs, Euler graphs seem like such a weird place to start. There are much more relevant problems (social networks, followers an

For people who don’t understand graphs, Euler graphs seem like such a weird place to start. There are much more relevant problems (social networks, followers and travel distances) with approachable graphs (undirected, directed, and weighted).

vinchuco 9y ago
The place I wish I had started at: The Nature of Computation - Moore, Mertens What I got (graduate coursework): Graph Theory - Reinhard Diestel A more encyclopedic treatment (most big results, no proofs): Handbook of Graph Theory - Gross, Yellen
- adrianN 9y ago
  The Diestel book is great if you already know Graph Theory. The proofs are exquisitely concise, but it's hard to read because you have to think really hard about the definitions and why they're giving in precisely that way (hint: to make the proofs more concise!).
- gaurav_v 9y ago
  The Nature of Computation is really good.
gilleain 9y ago
edit: Never mind - I hadn't read far enough in. He means 'Eulerian graph', I think. As in a graph with an Eularian trail. You know it might be nice for people to get the terminology right if you are writing about this stuff... What do you mean by 'Euler graphs'? As in, the problems described by him such as the bridge problem? I would call anything with vertices and edges an 'Euler graph' as opposed to a 'Cartesian graph' (a chart).
- rowyourboat 9y ago
  > You know it might be nice for people to get the terminology right if you are writing about this stuff... He specifically mentions in the article that he found both terms and used the one used in the literature he refers to.
  - gilleain 9y ago
    Fair point. A minor detail is that he mistypes the standard term : > I used “Euler path” instead of “Eulerean path” just to be consistent with the referenced book [1] definition Should be 'Eulerian'. It's not horribly confusing, just a little vague.
    - vardanator 9y ago
      Fixed, thanks!

vinchuco 9y ago

The place I wish I had started at: The Nature of Computation - Moore, Mertens What I got (graduate coursework): Graph Theory - Reinhard Diestel A more encyclopedic treatment (most big results, no proofs): Handbook of Graph Theory - Gross, Yellen

adrianN 9y ago
The Diestel book is great if you already know Graph Theory. The proofs are exquisitely concise, but it's hard to read because you have to think really hard about the definitions and why they're giving in precisely that way (hint: to make the proofs more concise!).
gaurav_v 9y ago
The Nature of Computation is really good.

gilleain 9y ago

edit: Never mind - I hadn't read far enough in. He means 'Eulerian graph', I think. As in a graph with an Eularian trail. You know it might be nice for people to get the terminology right if you are writing about this stuff... What do you mean by 'Euler graphs'? As in, the problems described by him such as the bridge problem? I would call anything with vertices and edges an 'Euler graph' as opposed to a 'Cartesian graph' (a chart).

rowyourboat 9y ago
> You know it might be nice for people to get the terminology right if you are writing about this stuff... He specifically mentions in the article that he found both terms and used the one used in the literature he refers to.
- gilleain 9y ago
  Fair point. A minor detail is that he mistypes the standard term : > I used “Euler path” instead of “Eulerean path” just to be consistent with the referenced book [1] definition Should be 'Eulerian'. It's not horribly confusing, just a little vague.
  - vardanator 9y ago
    Fixed, thanks!