that did not feel like a proof at all. it just felt like a more detailed mathematical description of the claim that we tried to "prove." Is this some sort of more elementary proof? I can hardly imagine anything other than basic proofs being like this
@@WrathofMath Oh yes I got it, thanks. But if two graphs are simple connected and have the same number of vertices and edges and the same degree sequence, then can we say that the two graphs are isomorphic?
Same degree sequence? More like "Super videos; thank you for all of this!" 👍
Wish this was around when I was doing Graph Theory
At least now you can use the classic "back in my day" phrase to describe how much more difficult it was to learn in the olden days!
hey!! can we also prove this by taking an example??
Why V(G)=k+l? vertex v is there.if we add v then V(G) become k+l+1.is it right sir???
that did not feel like a proof at all. it just felt like a more detailed mathematical description of the claim that we tried to "prove." Is this some sort of more elementary proof? I can hardly imagine anything other than basic proofs being like this
order of graph G should be k+l+1 as v is adjacent to k vertices and non adjacent to l vertices . you did not count the v in the order of grapg G.
Hi, I want a video on Fleury's Algorithm
This proof seems redundant, as its already established two graphs are identical except for their labelling.
Will the converse of this theorem also be true?
Thanks for watching and good question! Consider the 6-cycle and then another graph consisting of two separate 3-cycles.
@@WrathofMath Oh yes I got it, thanks. But if two graphs are simple connected and have the same number of vertices and edges
and the same degree sequence, then can we say that the two graphs are isomorphic?
Thank you it's good❤
Thanks for watching!
Do you have a video about automorphism?
Thanks for watching, Marc! Do you mean graph automorphisms, specifically? I do not, but I'd be happy to make one!