T. Andreae, M. Hintz, M. Nolle, G. Schreiber, G.W. Schuster, and H Seng. Cartesian products of graphs as subgraphs of de Bruijn graphs of dimension at least three. Discrete Applied Mathematics. Accepted for publication.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....2 is proved with the exception of the case m = 2; n = 3. In part II the case m = 2; n = 3 is settled. Since the proof of part II is somewhat technical, it is postponed to Section 5. Part I: We assume n 4 when m = 2. We show how this case can be settled by application of the results proved in [1]. For a direct argument which does not use the more general results of [1] we refer to the original proof of Theorem 2 presented in [2] Clearly, it suffices to settle the case that the G i are simple graphs, which is assumed henceforth. We suppose that G is a subgraph of D and show that this ....

....case m = 2; n = 3 is settled. Since the proof of part II is somewhat technical, it is postponed to Section 5. Part I: We assume n 4 when m = 2. We show how this case can be settled by application of the results proved in [1] For a direct argument which does not use the more general results of [1], we refer to the original proof of Theorem 2 presented in [2] Clearly, it suffices to settle the case that the G i are simple graphs, which is assumed henceforth. We suppose that G is a subgraph of D and show that this implies jGj jDj. If n 5, then it follows from Theorem 2 in [1] that B ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

T. Andreae, M. Hintz, M. Nolle, G. Schreiber, G.W. Schuster, and H Seng. Cartesian products of graphs as subgraphs of de Bruijn graphs of dimension at least three. Discrete Applied Mathematics. Accepted for publication.

....2 is proved with the exception of the case m = 2; n = 3. In part II the case m = 2; n = 3 is settled. Since the proof of part II is somewhat technical, it is postponed to Section 5. Part I: We assume n 4 when m = 2. We show how this case can be settled by application of the results proved in [1]. For a direct argument which does not use the more general results of [1] we refer to the original proof of Theorem 2 presented in [2] Clearly, it suffices to settle the case that the G i are simple graphs, which is assumed henceforth. We suppose that G is a subgraph of D and show that this ....

....case m = 2; n = 3 is settled. Since the proof of part II is somewhat technical, it is postponed to Section 5. Part I: We assume n 4 when m = 2. We show how this case can be settled by application of the results proved in [1] For a direct argument which does not use the more general results of [1], we refer to the original proof of Theorem 2 presented in [2] Clearly, it suffices to settle the case that the G i are simple graphs, which is assumed henceforth. We suppose that G is a subgraph of D and show that this implies jGj jDj. If n 5, then it follows from Theorem 2 in [1] that B ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

T. Andreae, M. Hintz, M. Nolle, G. Schreiber, G.W. Schuster, and H Seng. Cartesian products of graphs as subgraphs of de Bruijn graphs of dimension at least three. To appear in Discrete Applied Mathematics.

No context found.

T. Andreae, M. Hintz, M. Nolle, G. Schreiber, G.W. Schuster, and H. Seng. "Cartesian products of graphs as subgraphs of de bruijn graphs of dimension at least three", in 4th Twente Workshop on graphs and combinatorial optimization, Twente, NL, June 1995.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC