Line 12: Line 12:
 
But then you don't count the subgraphs with isolated vertices. My answer is (4 choose 1) + (4 choose 2)*(2^1) + (4 choose 3)*(2^3) + (4 choose 4)*(2^6). Try it.<br>
 
But then you don't count the subgraphs with isolated vertices. My answer is (4 choose 1) + (4 choose 2)*(2^1) + (4 choose 3)*(2^3) + (4 choose 4)*(2^6). Try it.<br>
 
--[[User:Asuleime|Asuleime]] 14:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Asuleime|Asuleime]] 14:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 +
----
 +
 +
The easiest way I think is to split it into cases where 4 vertices remain, 3 vertices remain... 1 vertex remains. It may seem like you are doing 4 times as much work, but if you know how many vertices remain, the problem becomes easy in each case. (See explanation above)

Revision as of 13:09, 8 November 2008

Has anyone found a method for counting the number of subgraphs of W3 without actually drawing out every graph and counting them?
--Aoser 16:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Yep, I found. Build the adjacency matrix for W3.
1) Consider (# of ways to choose i vertices), where i=1,2,3,4.
2) Also consider # of places for edges in each configuration (with 1, 2, 3, 4 vertices) - build the edge or not (2 choices).
3) Combine these using product & sum rules of counting.
Hope it helps
--Asuleime 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


I also thought of another way of doing this. Draw the graph with all the edges. (It should be a triangle with another vertex in the center, all connected.) Counting the edges, there are 6. Consider every edge to be a binary function of either on or off, therefore there are 2^6 - 1 ways when you subtract the null value graph.


But then you don't count the subgraphs with isolated vertices. My answer is (4 choose 1) + (4 choose 2)*(2^1) + (4 choose 3)*(2^3) + (4 choose 4)*(2^6). Try it.
--Asuleime 14:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


The easiest way I think is to split it into cases where 4 vertices remain, 3 vertices remain... 1 vertex remains. It may seem like you are doing 4 times as much work, but if you know how many vertices remain, the problem becomes easy in each case. (See explanation above)

Alumni Liaison

Correspondence Chess Grandmaster and Purdue Alumni

Prof. Dan Fleetwood