Talk:Kneser graph

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special page for Kneser bipartite graph?[edit]

Hello,

For your information, on the French wikipedia, we created a special page for the Kneser bipartite graph under the name fr:Graphe biparti de Kneser. The reasoning behind that is that the Kneser bipartite graph is not a Kneser Graph, they only share a part of their name. --MathsPoetry (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kneser graph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kneser graphs are Hamiltonian[edit]

All Kneser graphs (except for the Petersen graph) were shown to be Hamiltonian. I added this statement and a source. I did not remove the mention of the previous partial results, thought I think they are less relevant now. If there is no objection I will consider to delete them in the future.

There are some special cases that have shorter more elegant proofs that are noteworthy because of that. So if for a special case we can emphasizes this aspect, this might be a reason to keep it. MWinter4 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]