3 ms·
My point is formal language doesn’t mean “doesn’t require intuition”. By “intuition” I mean the appeal to something you expect the reader to believe without fur
by usgroup 8y ago
My point is formal language doesn’t mean “doesn’t require intuition”. By “intuition” I mean the appeal to something you expect the reader to believe without further proof.
I hadn’t seen the Wikipedia article you point out but Peterson graphs will be in many graph theory textbooks.
Again have a look at the article on constructionist proof for another angle on maths and intuition.
- n4r9 8y ago> Peterson graphs The plural here is confusing. Are you talking about the Petersen graph, on ten vertices? There does exist a constructivist proof of its non-Hamiltonicity: merely enumerate every cycle of length ten and show that none are Hamiltonian. There is a class of objects called generalised Petersen graphs but these are usually Hamiltonian: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82084439.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82084439.pdf