Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: "Booted Cat" <yaoziyuan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Dec 2006 00:51:55 -0800
Because in order to successfully swap i and j, the pairwise swap must
lead to a shorter path; and this may not be satisfied.
On Dec 6, 11:13 pm, "d...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The flaw seems to be that only two-vertex swaps are not sufficient. For
example, a three-vertex swap:
s -...-> i -...-> j -...-> k -...-> t
=>
s -...-> j -...-> k -...-> i -...-> t
is not accomplishable by a series of two-vertex swaps.Huh?
xijky
xjiky
xjkiy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: Bryan Olson
- Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- References:
- A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: Booted Cat
- Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: Booted Cat
- Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- From: dfarr@xxxxxxxxxxx
- A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- Prev by Date: Re: Discussion about transformation TSP to UniqueTSP
- Next by Date: Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- Previous by thread: Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- Next by thread: Re: A stupid thought about Hamilton Path problem
- Index(es):