« first day (2291 days earlier)      last day (1615 days later) » 

Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
6:05 AM
0
Q: Are all cyclically 4-connected CUBIC graphs which have a chordless dominating circuit (MO graphs) Hamiltonian?

EGMEAn MO graph is a simple cubic graph with a chordless dominating circuit (that is, a circuit which has no chords and which, if deleted, leaves behind a set of isolated vertices). In a previous post (Edge colorability and Hamiltonicity of certain classes of cubic graphs (MO graphs)) I asked if the...

graph-theory hamiltonian-graphs cubic-graphs
 
 
10 hours later…
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
3:50 PM
new-tag Four new tags in the same question real function dense preimages.
0
Q: Does such a real function exist?

Vladimir KanoveiUsing AC, one easily defines a function $F:\mathbb R\to \mathbb R$ such that the $F$-image of any real interval $(a,b)$ ($a<b$) is equal to $\mathbb R$. (Equivalently, the $F$-preimage of any real singleton has to be a dense set in $\mathbb R$.) Does there exist a Borel-measurable $F$ with this ...

real function dense preimages
I have replaced the tags with real-analysis and examples. I hope it's ok.
The change of tags is also useful if the question gets migrated - in that case it is necessary that the tag exists on the target site.
 
 
2 hours later…
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
5:36 PM
I suppose that the link to hyperopt next to Alan Turing in your original post was a mistake, so I have edited the link away. (That version of the question said: "...including Alan Turing2...") I have also removed the (geometry) tag, since it is deprecated on this site. I tried to choose suitable tags, but please do edit them further if there is some better choice. — Martin Sleziak 1 hour ago
@MartinSleziak Thank you very much for removing the link to hyperopt. :) I was trying to figure out how to do that myself. — Aidan Rocke 1 min ago
The only problem was that your post contained these two parts:
> Turing[2]
The latter was at the end of the post, here is link to the source of that revision. It was added most likely by the editor after you clicked on the hyperlink button.
In this way, it was interpreted as a link.
Basically, the only problem is that you are using in the post [1], [2], [3], [4] in two meanings - both as the MarkDown syntax for links and also as a way to mark references.
A way to avoid this would be using the links in the format [text](url), for example [Google](https://www.google.com) gives Google.
I left a short explanation in chat - I did not want to add here more comments that are related more to the formatting than to the actual content of the post. — Martin Sleziak 10 secs ago
 

« first day (2291 days earlier)      last day (1615 days later) »