Re^3: Graph labeling problem

> Probably I'm having a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem ...

Why? Do you understand "adjacent" in a different way?

> but I think with one more color it's trivial

Why "but"? I think so, too.

map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]||0,1}[\*||{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^*ARGV,3]

Comment on Re^3: Graph labeling problem Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Graph labeling problem by LanX (Saint) on Feb 19, 2022 at 22:13 UTC
> Why? Do you understand "adjacent" in a different way? No, in the first draft I thought I could easily improve the solution for the OP's N-1 problem based on this. But then I realized the limitations by symmetry. But I left the phrase in... just in case. Anyway - on a meta level - I realized that going for a (slightly) sub-optimal solution is almost ever the clever CS approach. Like here, why trying to solve a very hard mathematical problem just to spare one color? Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Graph labeling problem
by LanX (Saint) on Feb 19, 2022 at 22:13 UTC

> Why? Do you understand "adjacent" in a different way?

No, in the first draft I thought I could easily improve the solution for the OP's N-1 problem based on this. But then I realized the limitations by symmetry. But I left the phrase in... just in case.

Anyway - on a meta level - I realized that going for a (slightly) sub-optimal solution is almost ever the clever CS approach.

Like here, why trying to solve a very hard mathematical problem just to spare one color?

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

[reply]