1518:
desirable in the light of that policy and guidance, since the use of the term must be verifiable. To remove the specific references and say that the material is available somewhere in the book is to decrease the helpfulness of the article to a reader who wants to check the reference and take their reading further. In general I would say that each paragraph, or each specific major assertion, in an article should be supported by inline citations. Obviously this is open for discussion and consensus, and there is room for difference of opinion or style. However, I maintain that removing citations once given requires more justification than simply asserting that they are not needed.
1099:
work when re-using the same citations in another article with a different style of references. I strongly feel that we should use automatic reference formatting whenever possible; in the case of
Knowledge, this means that we should use citation templates. I think that while the {{citation}} template could be better, it is already good enough for use in any article. And the most important part is that when someone creates a compatible citation template that produces output that follows the conventions of a particular field, it is very easy to change the name of the template in an article, with very little manual work and without any risk of introducing internal inconsistencies. —
2432:: "This word is a play on the many morphisms in mathematics, but 'cryptomorphism' is only very distantly related to 'isomorphism', 'homomorphism', or 'morphisms'. Its informal sense was popularized (and greatly expanded in scope) by Gian-Carlo Rota in the context of matroid theory. Though there are many cryptomorphic concepts in mathematics outside of matroid theory and universal algebra, the word has not caught on among mathematicians generally. It is, however, in fairly wide use among researchers in matroid theory."
84:
74:
53:
1751:(N.B. I am personally curious about Deltahedron's expertise, solely for the purpose of knowing his/her point of view. I repeat: a non-expert can do a great deal of good for an article; it is not supposed to be a put-down. If Deltahedron is one of the rare people who can take the viewpoint of both an expert and a non-expert at the same time (which is wonderful), I would also be interested to know it. All this is just curiosity and doesn't require any answer.)
1771:'Should the definition of a new concept, ... which might well be the target of a re-direct, be supported by an inline citations...?' I think that is not needed. A person who follows a redirect ought to be able to read the entire paragraph, at least. Thus, I again support David Eppstein's opinion. If that's what Deltahedron is suggesting, then I agree. If Deltahedron is suggesting that every new term get its own citation, I disagree.
1527:. This is simply a personal opinion, and I dispute it. Terminology in matroid theory is not completely standard. To say this as your personal opinion in a discussion like the one we're having here is just that, your opinion. To say that in an article positively requires an independent reliable source that directly supports the assertions that the terminology is standard, which it did not have, and I took it out on those grounds.
3159:
there are a lot of references around infinite matrixes but from a rigorous mathematical standpoint they are not well accepted, in fact it becomes about operators and
Hilbert spaces. In the scope of matroids you can imagine that a functional definition/representation of matroids like rank functions is similar/analogous to functors or operators on hilbert spaces, where for example an infinite basis can be well defined.
1577:)." (Emphasis added.) Now, citing for every single technical term is poor scholarly writing. The proper method is to give one citation to the source (assuming for the moment there is one source). Please note that technical books come with indexes, and in particular Oxley has a good index, so there is no need to cite a page for each term. Also, please note that I have read the text at
2300:, to name but two random examples. Compared to how often the phenomenon occurs everywhere in mathematics, the use of the term cryptomorphism is relatively rare. I made the above comment because I was actually distracted from the subject when I came to the page to read about matroids. Please take it as friendly feedback by a real user, who would like to apologize for the harsh wording.
2573:
general position (so that each pair of opposite edges becomes skew) and then choose four used-to-be-parallel edges (say the vertical ones) and perturb all eight vertices along the lines of those edges into general position (so that the top and bottom faces of the cube stop being coplanar). My guess is that the omission of the fifth 4-tuple from Reiner's notes is just a mistake. —
22:
1738:
who should be involved in writing articles. I do not say non-experts should not be involved in writing articles; far from it. I have seen articles by experts that need improvement by non-experts, and I have seen articles by non-experts that need improvement by experts. Experts do not necessarily write good articles (often they don't), but they can contribute expertise.
1904:
Eppstein, and
Deltahedron are merely personal opinions. You prefer more page numbers, I prefer the reader be expected to use the book's index when it is a good index (Oxley's is), you prefer footnoting every term, I find that interferes with reading ... what is objective about it? Why is your opinion better than mine? Please explain how we decide this sort of dispute.
754:
infinite set of excluded minors. Lazarson (1958) constructed an infinite sequence of matroids that are not real-representable, but he didn't make they observation that they are excluded minors for real representability. The 2011 edition of Oxley's book shows that there are infinitely many excluded minors for representability over any infinite field (Theorem 6.5.17).
2492:'s Knowledge article does not mention matroids, and my impression is that he is better known for his work on greedoids (although he has a reasonably well-cited paper with Jensen in SICOMP 1982 on computational complexity issues related to matroids). In any case, what should his book be added as a reference for, that does not already have better references listed? —
546:). Now, find the maximally independent set of columns (i.e. the basis of the vector space). Take away the repeated columns. Does the vector space change? Of course not. So both matroids will be describing the same vector space, only the vector matroid will be the "simple matroid" of the column matroid (and identical if there are no repeated columns).
1768:'I maintain that there is sufficient variey in usage to say that while there are commonly understood usages, there is not one single standard.' (Deltahedron) I tried to explain that by "standard" I don't necessarily mean a unique standard. I meant generally understood. It was a mistake to put "standard" into the article; please accept my apology.
2572:
article) and Reiner's figure itself (what are edges ce and df there for, if not to show that cdef is a fifth coplanar 4-tuple?). Besides, a matroid with only the outer four 4-tuples coplanar is easy to realize in 3d and therefore linear, unlike the Vámos matroid. Perturb the six planes of a cube into
2247:
My understanding was that this term was introduced specifically in the context of matroids to describe the large number of different ways that they can be axiomatized. So it definitely belongs somewhere in an article on matroid theory, but I don't have a strong opinion about whether it belongs in the
1517:
Indeed, inline citations are required for
Featured Articles, Good Articles, and A-Class Articles — standards we should presumably aspire to. I am not directly challenging the correctness of the terminology, but providing a specific reference for the definition of each new term is, in my view, highly
649:
Let me add that any definition about "maximal independent sets" is a basis definition, not an independent set definition. The equality of size of two bases is usually a theorem, not an axiom, but its equivalence is important. (This is one more example of how many different equivalent ways there are
284:
On a historical note: the current article makes it sound (to me) as if
Edmonds single-handedly first showed that matroids have a connection with greedy algorithms. I'm fairly certain this is not true. For example, I think I read in Oxley (?) that Whitney's 1935 paper refers to the idea that in some
3755:
In the same article you can also read "The term cycle may also refer to an element of the cycle space of a graph." The adjective "simple" disambiguates this as referring to the first meaning, not the second. The phrase "simple cycle" is very common on the mathematical literature. You should not read
3539:
It's not clear to me which distinction is being made here between vector matroids and representable/linear matroids. The term "equivalent" hasn't been defined (this is a problem in itself); I presume it's meant to be synonymous with "isomorphic" (which also hasn't been defined but which is generally
2427:
How many of these hits actually refer the meaning of cryptomorphic we are talking about? Many have titles like "Microbiotic crusts and ecosystem processes", "Cryptomorphic structures of the lithosphere: Their reflection on space images and the Earth's surface", or "Characteristics of the serum lipid
2360:
The argument is not about *who* should be considered wrt cryptomorphism, but *what subjects*. Not the real line because we can just say "real line" when introducing it. Yes for matroids and antimatroids because they have too many competing cryptomorphic definitions. Maybe for weak orders because you
1737:
Zaslav did imply that he is an expert and that you may not be, or you may be. That is not a game; calling it a game is a game. Claiming to be an expert is not an assertion of personal authority, it is an assertion of expertise. An expert is someone who knows the subject. That is a kind of person
1700:
policy and guidelines, as developed by editor consensus here on this talk page. That consensus has not yet emerged, and I hope that it will do so as a result of reasoned discussion based on verifiable facts and policy, rather than appeals, implict or explicit, to some notional of personal authority.
1631:
I think that for basic introductory material like this one inline citation per paragraph is a good rule — less than that makes it look unsourced but more than that is overkill. On the other hand, I do think it's almost always useful when citing a book to cite specific page numbers rather than making
569:
This explanation is not quite right, but thank you both for bringing up the question. I added a comment to the article. The fact is that a vector matroid, strictly, does not have a repeated vector but it need not be a simple matroid because (a) it can have the 0 vector, which is a loop, and (b) it
387:
This is not a correct counterexample. The basis exchange property is valid. You are misunderstanding what it is saying. It says that if you choose an element from the first independent set, there exists an element in the second that you can swap with. It does not say that any two elements can be
3167:
page which means that sometime there is often little integration from something like matroids that is assigned to belong to "applied mathematics" with the "pure math stuff". Matroids have huge relationships with algebra and topology and this "infinite matroids" is actually a topic that bridges from
2322:
For the real line, cryptomorphism is less of an issue because only model theorists and people who have to teach this stuff care about the underlying
Dedekind cut stuff, whether you pass to the completion before or after doing negatives, etc. It's more prominent in subjects like matroid theory or (a
1764:
Deltahedron quotes WP policies about 'support any text we add to an article by citing independent reliable sources.' I observe in WP (original research?) that most articles do not cite a source for every statement. Those that do strike me as overwritten (yes, that is a personal opinion!). I have
1672:
imply that terminology in this area is standardised, or there is a single standard, or simply that one particular set of terminology is commonly understood? I say it could reasonably mean either, that as it stands it is fatally ambiguous and that the distinction, which is important, should be made
1608:
Maybe our different is that I agree it's reasonable "that each paragraph, or each specific major assertion, in an article should be supported by inline citations" but I don't see every technical term as major. For instance, the citations to Welsh for the axioms, one citation per axiom system, seem
1152:
And another comment regarding full author names: please, add full author names (and wikilinks) whenever possible; I don't see any need to use abbreviations for author names (or journals or conferences) in
Knowledge. You can easily enter the full names when you are using the templates, so this is an
1071:
As for fighting about minutiae, you have your opinions which are strongly held and which you enforced on this article, and I differ. Does that make yours right? Should not this have been discussed with other users or editors interested in math articles (especially) before making major changes? I
635:
No. The standard axioms are the ones currently on the page. With "standard" I mean the ones proposed by
Whitney in his original paper, and those in Oxley's book. In fact, exercise 3 of Section 1.1 of Oxley asks to show that your set of axioms is equivalent to the first one. Also, Oxley mentions the
449:
be the vertices of a graph, and let the independent sets be those that can be colored with three colors. The empty set can be three-colored, and any subset of a three-colorable set is three-colorable, but the exchange property does not hold, because it's possible to have two maximal three-colorable
3683:
be constructed in this way, whether they naturally arise in this way or are defined via another construction and just turn out to also be constructible in this way. But that's not at all obvious from the current formulation – by saying that "Matroids of this kind are called vector matroids", where
1584:
I think you misunderstood the meaning of "standard terminology". (1) The standardness of the terminology is not a random personal opinion, it is the conclusion obtained by observing what people in the area write. I'm sure you know the difference. (2) Please note that stating some terminology is
1424:
Just after this it is said concerning circuits, that "in spite of the similarity to the definition of basis this notion has no analogue in classical linear algebra." The only "similarity" to the definition of a basis is that it is the opposite in a certain sense. That is not much of a similarity
1098:
reasonable style of formatting references, as long as everything is 100% internally consistent within an article (and no bibliographic details are missing). In practice, manual formatting of references leads to inconsistencies, some of which are very hard to spot, and it also causes a lot of extra
612:
The first two are clearly the same. I believe the third two are logically equivalent, but I have never seen it stated the way it is written here. Perhaps someone was confusing it with part of the Bases definitions. Also, I have never heard use of the terminology augmentation property. It seems
3158:
most of classical definitions e.g. Whitney and Tutte are all for the finite case. Going to the infinite case is quite a big step, in layman terms is like the difference between a finite polynomial and an analytical function or between algebraic and non algebraic. Historically in
Quantum Mechanics
1179:
I agree that full author names are good, and not only for
Chinese authors (though they are essential there). I incline to stick to the published name, mostly for pedantry, also in order to make it easiest to find the item; sometimes a search with a full name will fail to turn up an item authored
2512:
The matroid page should be improved by adding the following information: 1) clearly define substructures (submatroids) and quotient structures, 2) clearly define morphisms of matroids, especially matroid isomorphisms, 3) more rigorously define matroid representability using matroid morphisms, 4)
1699:
How should we work together the editing of the article? Zaslav implies that he is an expert and I am not. I am not going to engage in those games. Whoever we are, we need to support any text we add to an article by citing independent reliable sources. The way we edit is governed by Knowledge
320:
The first two properties are simple, but the motivation behind the third property is not obvious. The property implies the fact that given two independent sets of the same size, any element of one can be replaced by some element of the other; thus the name "exchange." The examples in the example
1420:
I am reading this topic having little prior knowledge of it. It is nice that the exposition is very teacherly, but seems to contain a few confusing non-sequitors. For instance, after giving the three properties of matroids it is claimed that the first two are obviously motivated but the third
878:
You're right. Since the matroid has rank 3 and is simple, any set of 4 points that doesn't contain a circuit of 3 points (i.e., a 3-point line) is predictably a circuit. Thus, one could say the 3-point lines are the "essential" circuits. However, they aren't the only circuits and the article
1899:
I find footnotes intrusive and having a high density of them is very irritating, except in a scholarly article where they cannot be avoided. If they can be collected in one footnote per paragraph, as sometimes advocated by David Eppstein, that is better. There is a difference in WP, that the
1023:
I disagree. I believe it is more useful to conform to similar styles used in other Knowledge articles than to conform to the styles of some mathematics journals. I also believe that having the citations in templates helps due to their machine-readability (e.g. DOIbot can fix up mistakes in the
753:
Vamos doesn't actually prove that the class of real-representable matroids has infinitely many excluded minors. He shows that there are infinitely many minor-minimal matroids that are not representable. In other words, the class of matroids that are representable over at least one field has an
1903:
I still think footnotes should be minimized, and as the citations to Oxley are not of the kind objected to (rightly) by David Eppstein, I don't think his objection applies. Can we not try for one footnote per (short) paragraph, as a general guide? Most of the opinions expressed here by me,
1051:
I agree about templates; it makes sense. I would prefer it if templates were adjustable to the needs of individual fields, but as I'm not an expert in WP it's clear that will never happen. No doubt someone will alter the references I've just put in, into template form, which will have the
398:
That is still not correct. Elements are not swapped. The exchange property says there is an element in the second such that, putting it into the first set and removing the original first-set element, you get an independent set. You do not expect anything nice to happen in the second set.
993:
Someone has changed the original reference style, which conformed to these guidelines (except #5), by converting to a template. I don't know how to change the template so I can't do anything except by throwing out the template. Anyway, I shouldn't just change it all without discussion.
981:
I think these conventions (except #5) make the reference list relatively readable, especially compared with the now-existing style. Other desirable conventions for an encyclopedia, to keep it most accessible to general readers who happen upon a technical (or nontechnical) article, include
2390:
The author of a texbook or journal article is of course allowed to make up words in order to make a point. These may get picked up by other authors. In an encyclopedia, the vocabulary should be more conservative. "Cryptomorphism" is a spoof on the terminology of category theory. It is a
1024:
citations) and that, similarly to BibTeX, using citation templates instead of hand-formatted citations is much likelier to lead to consistency of formatting. But I further believe that our time and energy as editors is better spent working on content than on fighting about minutiae. —
1741:
The reason I mention expertise is that an expert tends to know things non-experts don't know. Those things are not all written down, or in places where one can put one's hands on them easily. Adding citations to existing text can be very helpful; I just think it can sometimes be
1581:; I hope you would agree the rule there, like almost all rules for good writing, should be used with judgement; but regardless, I disagree with your personal preference " that each paragraph, or each specific major assertion, in an article should be supported by inline citations."
2327:
that are not as much common knowledge, because to communicate these subjects you always have to start by explaining "a matroid is..." and then realizing that whatever definition you pick to finish the sentence is going to be incompatible with the definition chosen by many others.
2412:
Do you have a citation for your assertion that this is not a seriously used notation? Because the word "cryptomorphism" has ~200 hits in Google scholar (in both matroid theory and universal algebra). That seems far from being some textbook author's idiosyncratic notation to me.
1747:
Also, the viewpoint of an expert and that of a non-expert tend to be different. The non-expert viewpoint often makes for a better article, in a way that can be hard to do for an expert. That doesn't mean (to me) that it is irrelevant whether a certain writer is or is not an
513:
repetitions. Or, at any rate, the one based on the matrix without repetitions will be the "simple matroid" of the one with repetitions (because the repeated columns will form "parallel classes" of the ground set E), and hence they are the same for most purposes relating to
1585:"standard" does not imply it is the only standard. There can be more than one standard technical term for the same thing, but if the terms are both well known and widely used, then they are both standard. (3) Please let me know your basis for deciding that terminology is
531:
members -by picking one (arbitrary) member from each "parallel class", with a "parallel class" being a group of identical columns. So the vector space which is represented by the two matroids will be the same vector space (the isomorphism is best seen as being between the
285:
sense matroids are exactly those structures for which the greedy algorithm does work. Maybe we should add a sentence to this effect (I'm not doing it myself though since I don't have any reference available to double-check exactly who should get credit first, etc.)
1307:
templates; they also generally decrease readability of edit space. You are free to write your own template with the format you want, which seems entirely sensible; or you can do by hand. Any one who argues should be told to write another article the way they want.
2375:
On Knowledge we go by what is stated in independent reliable sources. Clearly the term is used in numerous works on the subject of this article, and hence is appropriate for the article. Use of the term in other articles can be discussed on other talk pages.
3678:
I suspect that what the article might be trying to say is that "vector matroid" is an informal term that one uses for matroids that are defined via a vector space construction, whereas "representable/linear matroid" is a formal term that refers to matroids that
1907:
One more remark: In a scholarly article, one does not cite for every specialized term. One would give the sources and leave the details to the reader, barring special circumstances. It's different if you're quoting or paraphrasing comments by other writers.
1368:
Hey, does anyone actually have citations where one could look up the two theorems and their proofs cited in the "Greedy Algorithms" sections? I've seen them (vaugely) attributed to Edmonds, but I'm having the hardest time actually finding them in his paper
2428:
of high school freshmen cryptomorphic obesity sufferers". Can we maybe get away from these purely formal arguments? It is not a question of right or wrong but a question of style, and these cannot be settled by counting. As for a citation, have a look at
1425:
and no one knowing linear algebra would think that a minimally dependent set is anything like a basis. At the same time one could easily define such a thing --for instance in finite-dimensional linear algebra-- but it's not a useful concept there.
1823:
I don't like citations to books that don't include page numbers. Too many times it means "I think this book is relevant but I don't really know what's inside it". In this case, I would give a single reference that includes all three page numbers.
1483:
for elementary, standard terminology, that I had deleted. (E.g., "simple", "simplification".) Is it policy to refer to a source separately for every technical term? Obviously not! So, please explain the reason for giving citations. Thanks!
1061:
Related to that, though: Who decided what style to use? Were they "RIGHT"? Your remark about "some mathematics journals" would be more forceful if it were not actually "most mathematics journals" that use something close to the style I
376:
Right you are. An excellent counterexample. I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that - I guess I have no idea why it's called the exchange property after all. A better name would be like "the expansion property" or something.
541:
Here's another way to think of it. Imagine each column to be a vector in the vector space (don't worry if two different columns describe the same vector, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as we realise they are describing the
1265:
can also be useful, in instances where one wants both a link to the author's article (on their name) and a link to the bibliography (on the year). I added an example, the Whitney 1935 citation at the start of the history section.
1922:
Still one more remark to Deltahedron. I do appreciate your effort in trying to improve the article. I don't fully agree with every aspect, but I know you're putting a lot of work into it and there's reason behind it. Thanks.
1589:
standard. Are you familiar with the field? If so, I would be interested to know. If not, then you have an uninformed opinion; for an informed opinion, consult persons in the field. Do not consult me, consult others, but do
2153:
596:
If A and B are two independent sets and A has more elements than B, then there exists an element in A which is not in B and when added to B still gives an independent set; this property is called the augmentation property.
1866:
Quite right, I mis-wrote, corrected now. Thanks for spotting that! I have always preferred more citations with exact page references, and that is what I have been gradually adding (and which Zaslav has been disputing).
1593:
In the meantime, I suggest one citation of Oxley as the source for the terminology and results, unless otherwise credited. As Oxley has a good index, it is not necessary nor wise to load the article with citation notes.
3711:"Every finite graph (or multigraph) G gives rise to a matroid M(G) as follows: take as E the set of all edges in G and consider a set of edges independent if and only if it is a forest; that is, if it does not contain a
3097:
In axiom/definition 3, "A has more elements than B" seems a poor/loose definition if not pointing to the related theory. Can it be clarified? (from which theory it is taken, axiomatic set theory? vector space ...)
2219:
This is a cute term, but it is not in common usage, and it is not specific to the subject. I think there is no point to introduce it here. It only distracts from the subject and violates the neutral point of view.
494:
The article currently (Sep 2006) claims that the column matroid of a matrix is the same thing as a vector matroid. This cannot be true. A matrix can have repeated columns, wheras a subset of a vector space can
2976:
551:
I do want to give the article a workover at some stage (it needs it), but thought I should allay your fears now. When I get the chance I'll add some blab about simple matroids (which are, of course, related to
2587:
Thanks, I think you're right. The crucial thing I was missing is that the top line and the bottom line (as drawn in the Knowledge picture) are supposed to be skew, which isn't super obvious from the picture.
1125:
Yes, I'm convinced that templates are useful. I hope some variety of format, along the lines you suggest, will become available, though I'm not the person who can do it. It doesn't seem a major issue.
1221:
templates should be used, and should contain as much information as possible (including authors' full names, when available). May I make a further suggestion that, in addition to citation templates,
2545:
The point is supposed to be that the middle four points are *not* on a plane, so it's confusing that there is a plane drawn through them. See for example figure 17(c) and its caption on page 28 of
2342:
I do not get your argument. First, you exclude model theorists and people who have to teach this stuff from the group who's point of view should be taken into consideration, then you argue that the
3741:
3675:). (The example of a graphic matroid even explicitly states that a graphic matroid "is also representable by vectors".) But then "vector matroid" is synonymous with "representable/linear matroid".
997:
I point out that, the last time I read WP reference guidelines, they said the reference style should conform to the conventions of the field. I feel that way about this and other math articles.
170:
This is NOT the same. An independance structure does NOT have to fulfill the third independance axion (according to "Korte/Vygen - Combinatorial Optimization" and the german wikipedia article).
2274:
The term is used extensively in White (1986) and referred to in Oxley (2006), Handbook of Algebra, Handbook of Combinatorics, and dozens of other books returned by a Google Books search for
140:
1207:
Looking at the above thread, I can't help but get the impression that people are talking past each other. Besides nitpicks on how citations are formatted on Knowledge (direct inquiries to
1728:
Yes, there are several issues here. I hope we can discuss them calmly. I wish to withdraw any and all remarks that were offensive. I'm going to try not to be snarky. I hope I succeed!
3536:
if it is representable over the real numbers. For instance, although a graphic matroid (see below) is presented in terms of a graph, it is also representable by vectors over any field."
263:
No ... what the third property implies is that there exists an element of A which is not in the empty set, and which, when added to the empty set gives a (now non-empty) independent set.
2361:
can simply say "strict weak order" or whatever to refer to one particular definition but because again, if you just want to say "weak otrder", there are too many competing definitions. —
1241:) should be used to make the inline citations links to the relevant item of the bibliography? I will do a few of these to demonstrate. Revert if you think this is not an improvement.
1072:
say this without disagreeing that content is most important. I don't intend to continue this argument, since we both agree it's pointless. I just wanted to make my viewpoint clear.
2916:
2781:
1779:
I hope that we can work together amicably. I hate to fight. A consensus doesn't emerge by fighting. I'm willing to argue, but let's avoid personal attacks, and assume good faith.
2513:
describe isomorphism classes for small cardinalities of the underlying set, 5) describe the current progress in matroid enumeration and classification of matroid isomorphism types.
3064:
3018:
2846:
2739:
2674:
1805:. These terms are defined on three different pages in Oxley. Is it better to have the individual page references, or to have a single reference without page numbers? I think the
2811:
2704:
519:
OK, I don't think the article goes into simple matroids and all that. Think of it like this. If two columns are identical, then they form two identical members of the ground set
1951:
A matroid M is called a frame matroid if it, or a matroid that contains it, has a basis such that all the points of M are contained in the lines that join pairs of basis elements
499:
have repeated vectors in it. So it seems to me that there is some overlap between the notions, but they differ. Can someone familiar with matroids please fix this? Thanks.--
2394:
Matroid theory is a part of mathematics, and this article is categorized as mathematics. Of course it is admissible to take a step back and consider it in a broader context.
1765:
noticed that the tendency to footnote is increasing, and it strikes me as a symptom of calcification in WP (personal opinion, admittedly), although sometimes it is justified.
527:
of independent sets, which of course correspond to independent vectors in the vector space); So, we can effectively reduce the ground set of the matroid by dealing only with
1696:, in either meaning, correct? I maintain that there is sufficient variey in usage to say that while there are commonly understood usages, there is not one single standard.
3684:"matroids of this kind" refers to "a matroid that can be defined in this way", "vector matroid" is being defined to mean the same thing as "representable/linear matroid".
857:
The description given appears to imply that only the sets of three points on curves are circuits. It doesn't necessarily imply this, but it does appear to at first sight.
253:
3673:
3628:
3583:
3648:
3603:
3558:
3530:
3508:
3484:
3464:
3441:
3409:
3385:
3365:
3345:
3321:
3301:
3281:
3261:
3238:
2868:
1774:'How should we work together the editing of the article?' By cooperating, assuming good faith (a WP guideline), and being willing to accept alternative opinions.
289:
There is an article by Richard Rado, 1957 that show the connexion between matroids and the greedy algorithm, generalising an earlier result by Kruskal for graphs.
1042:
First, I strongly request that the full author name as printed in the book/article be used. This is a courtesy to authors and is potentially helpful to readers.
436:
Two maximal three-colorings of different sizes. The one on the left cannot be enlarged because the only remaining vertex is already adjacent to all three colors.
803:
of two sets does not reduce to the union when the sets are disjoint, and I assume that matroids over two different underlying sets cannot be the same matroid.
854:
I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure the circuits of the Fano matroid are the sets of three points with curves through them and their complements.
828:
Minor point, in "non-examples" the picture overlaps the text slightly. Tiny point, but correcting it takes a step closer to perfection. (Unlike my grammer).
1661:
Should the definition of a new concept, such as "co-simple matroid", which might well be the target of a re-direct, be supported by an inline citations per
716:
I didn't know that it wasn't possible to distinguish matroids representable over the reals by finitely many forbidden minors. Is this at all easy to see?
659:
The term "independent set exchange" is more common than "augmentation", even if it doesn't seem to make sense to some (understandably). I will add it.
3785:
130:
1685:. To say that this "is not a random personal opinion, it is the conclusion obtained by observing what people in the area write" is to say that this is
1508:
any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.
1094:
I am a nit-picker; in real-world technical writing, I pay a lot of attention to details such as correct reference formatting. However, I can live with
2057:
2235:
I see no problem with the link in the Definition section, but I agree that it is distracting and irrelevant in the lead, I’ll remove it from there.—
1421:
isn't. Why?? This is familiar from linear algebra as the statement that a basis for a subspace can be extended to a basis of the ambient space.
3140:
What if we merely omit finiteness from the definition? Same question about definition of matroid from vector space, at least finite-dimentional.
509:
Nothing to fix. Even if the matrix in question has a whole bunch of repeated columns, it will still give rise to the same matroid as if it had
433:
2529:
106:
3780:
3081:
2617:
1852:
Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. Didn't you just immediately above advocate for omitting page numbers? Isn't that less precise? —
916:
3120:
You need to specify an axiom systems to be able to count? Everything is finite here, so the number of elements is just a natural number. —
3141:
3105:
2474:
835:
761:
3745:
2921:
2163:
171:
860:
Can someone tell me if, as I think, the complements of these sets are also circuits, as if so I'd like to edit the page for clarity.
344:
Now the above paragraph says: We can replace any elemnt between the two forests and they should stay indepent (means circular-free).
3183:
97:
58:
1547:
I misunderstood your reference to the article, as I had forgotten that it said "standard" in the article. See below. Very sorry!
1734:
The article should not say terminology is "standard". I don't remember that I wrote that, but I guess I did and I now apologize.
1183:
I'm in *total* agreement regarding journal and conference names. Can you imagine seeing "IPSAIC 06" and trying to decipher it?
961:
I would be much happier with the references if they conformed to the usual mathematical publishing conventions. These include
2013:
Are these in fact the same, and if so, is there a reliable source that reconciles them, or is this terminology non-standard?
2199:
Did you add the WP link for μ? If so, thank you. Is the White citation for the characteristic polynomial? If so, ditto.
1285:
1246:
813:
The WP definition has two forms. The appropriate definition for direct sum is a union in which the two sets are disjoint.
1900:
footnote can be read without jumping to the footnotes. That's a major improvement and makes footnotes much less annoying.
1208:
33:
1398:
Pages 62-64 of the 1992 edition to be precise. The assertion about the independence oracle is more-or-less explicit.
350:
x---x x x \ | and | x x x x \ / x x
3605:
can be defined as a finite subset of a vector space (with independent sets being the linearly independent sets), then
1330:
It contains many external links, and seems that the writer of this section is simply "plugging" his/her own projects.
1186:
Wikilinking authors is also good idea. My problem is that I find the templates too hard to navigate, but I'll learn.
1569:
I think you have misunderstood the policy. You wrote "Certainly ". That is clearly not true. I read the policy on
334:
x---x x x | and \ | x x x x \ / x x
2292:
Many important concepts in many areas of mathematics have apparently different but equivalent definitions. Consider
2525:
946:
674:
I have recently picked up Oxley's book, and it defines and names things differently than what I have seen before.
622:
If B1 and B2 are bases, and e is in B_1 \ B_2, then there exists f in B_2 \ B_1 such that B_1 \ e U f is a basis.
3077:
1225:
479:
Right you are. I wrote this example and rewrote it to be correct, speaking of colorings instead of colorability.
1487:
By the way, I don't question the usefulness of the citations you provided for aspects of the greedy algorithm.
1281:
1242:
3761:
3125:
2578:
2497:
2418:
2366:
2333:
2253:
1857:
1829:
1637:
1578:
1510:
1445:
1271:
1029:
2621:
920:
3163:
Finally matroids belong to the realm of non-pure mathematics e.g. see the reference of Pierre Cartier in the
3145:
3109:
2478:
2464:
Everyone knows that Prof. Dr. Korte is a matroid-genius´, but why is his name not mentioned in this article.
1573:
and found the following: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions
839:
1570:
1327:
The section on "matroid software" seems irrelevant to the rest of the article. It is not "encyclopedic".
765:
175:
2873:
2749:
2521:
3388:
3415:. A matroid that is equivalent to a vector matroid, although it may be presented differently, is called
3027:
2981:
2816:
2709:
2642:
692:
3203:
3179:
2786:
2679:
2437:
2399:
2381:
2351:
2305:
2283:
2225:
2189:
2179:
2018:
1872:
1843:
1814:
1709:
1532:
1403:
938:
904:
This book is about a japanese mathematician who worked on matroids and is not mentioned in the article:
39:
2262:
According to our own article, the term was introduced by Birkhoff in the context of universal algebra.—
83:
3630:
can also be defined in this way (simply by considering the same vector space with the elements of the
3199:
1348:
Plugging something, that's for sure! It's very poor. I think I can improve it quickly, at any rate.
593:
Every subset of an independent set is independent; this is sometimes called the hereditary property.
3171:
3101:
3073:
3069:
2613:
2517:
2470:
1986:
1956:
1313:
912:
831:
2589:
2550:
1426:
864:
21:
3757:
3444:
3324:
3121:
2593:
2574:
2554:
2493:
2414:
2362:
2329:
2249:
1853:
1825:
1633:
1441:
1430:
1338:
1267:
1025:
868:
675:
637:
626:
413:
389:
105:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1374:
470:
367:
264:
89:
73:
52:
3540:
understood to refer to the existence of a structure-preserving bijection). But if two matroids
1731:
I agree with David Eppstein that one citation per paragraph is a plausible average, in general.
378:
238:
3725:"A cycle or simple circuit is a circuit in which only the first and last vertices are equal."
2546:
1998:
1968:
1301:
1215:
3694:
3175:
3164:
2569:
2565:
2433:
2395:
2377:
2347:
2301:
2279:
2221:
2204:
2185:
2175:
2033:
2014:
2005:
1975:
1928:
1913:
1868:
1839:
1810:
1784:
1705:
1614:
1599:
1552:
1528:
1492:
1459:
1399:
1389:
1353:
1191:
1131:
1077:
1013:
1005:
884:
818:
743:
977:
The order NAME, TITLE, PUBLICATION INFO, DATE instead of putting date after authors' names.
2266:
2239:
2167:
2008:
1978:
1309:
557:
412:
True. My choice of the word swap was poor. I was only referring to what you have said.
432:
3653:
3608:
3563:
2564:
I'm not convinced. Reiner's description in the figure caption seems to contradict both
2489:
2429:
1334:
1331:
1259:
1158:
1104:
800:
275:
256:
235:
Suppose there exists an nonempty independent set A. Then by the third property with B=
3633:
3588:
3543:
3515:
3493:
3469:
3449:
3426:
3394:
3370:
3350:
3330:
3306:
3286:
3266:
3246:
3223:
2853:
189:
I don't know anything about matroids, but the definition as stated is clearly absurd:
3774:
2324:
2297:
1370:
1235:
804:
717:
480:
467:
466:
in 3 colors (only in a different way), hence the (1,2,3) is not maximal colorable. `'
1332:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory
587:
The axioms given for "independent sets" is not the standard set of axioms. We have:
3241:
2171:
1686:
1682:
553:
1838:
I still don't see why less precise references would be better than more precise.
609:
For each X subset of E, every maximal independent subset of X has the same size.
3690:
2293:
2200:
2148:{\displaystyle p_{M}(\lambda ):=\sum _{A}\mu (\emptyset ,A)\lambda ^{r(M)-r(S)}}
2029:
1924:
1909:
1780:
1662:
1610:
1595:
1548:
1503:
1488:
1455:
1385:
1349:
1187:
1127:
1073:
1009:
1001:
880:
814:
739:
702:
660:
571:
500:
400:
328:
I will try to construct an counter-example using the tree/forest/graph example:
297:
102:
907:
2610:
It seems like this page should mention minimum spanning trees at least once.
2391:
tongue-in-cheek technical term like "generalized nonsense" or "diagram chase".
2263:
2236:
796:
79:
2001:
1971:
1515:
editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Knowledge.
1154:
1100:
194:
1440:
I think your removal of this editorialization is an improvement — thanks. —
935:
Birkhoff's paper and his lattice-theoretic work may deserve mention, also.
613:
like someone just decided to change to that because "Exchange" didn't fit.
691:
This article mentions "coatom" without defining what it is. Please fix. -
3719:
1480:
2870:
might be the entire ground set. Otherwise this test wouldn't apply to
3198:
Missing a section on applications - whether theoretical or practical
1983:. On the other hand, there appears to be a different definition at
556:) and then the troublesome statement can be meaningfully reworded.
255:, there exists an element in the empty set (!) which is not in A. --
2028:
The paper of Zaslavsky shows that the definitions are equivalent.
3156:
2971:{\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}=\left\{\left\{1,2,3\right\}\right\}}
2467:
Add at least his book: Korte, Vygen - Combinatorial Optimization
1280:
Cool. I always just use #CITEREF directly, but this is nice too.
799:
to the direct sum" or some such? The Knowledge definition of the
570:
can have nonzero scalar multiples, which make 2-element circuits.
523:
of the matroid (they are interchangeable when building up the set
431:
729:
P. Vamos, The missing axiom of matroid theory is lost forever.
3765:
3749:
3698:
3207:
3187:
3149:
3129:
3113:
3085:
2625:
2597:
2582:
2558:
2533:
2501:
2482:
2441:
2422:
2403:
2385:
2370:
2355:
2337:
2309:
2287:
2269:
2257:
2242:
2229:
2208:
2193:
2037:
2022:
1932:
1917:
1876:
1861:
1847:
1833:
1818:
1788:
1713:
1641:
1618:
1603:
1556:
1536:
1496:
1463:
1449:
1434:
1407:
1393:
1378:
1357:
1342:
1317:
1289:
1275:
1250:
1195:
1162:
1135:
1108:
1081:
1033:
1017:
951:
924:
888:
872:
843:
822:
807:
769:
747:
720:
705:
695:
678:
663:
640:
629:
574:
560:
503:
483:
473:
416:
403:
392:
381:
370:
300:
179:
15:
3367:
is a matroid that can be defined in this way, we say the set
1523:
What I do take issue with is the opinion in the article that
1180:
under an abbreviated name. But it's easy to get around that.
2927:
2833:
2798:
2726:
2691:
1681:
I say no, unless it is directly supported by an independent
989:"Vol." before volume number and "pp." before page numbers.
3728:
Thus, according to Knowledge, there is no such notion as
2323:
WP article I've been working on the last couple of days)
3155:
infinite matroids are subject of current research e.g.
364:
Any hint / help / correction would be very apreciated!
900:
Takeo Nakasawa: The Forgotten Father of Matroid Theory
726:
No! Good question. It's a significant theorem. See
3656:
3636:
3611:
3591:
3566:
3546:
3518:
3496:
3472:
3452:
3429:
3397:
3373:
3353:
3333:
3309:
3289:
3269:
3249:
3226:
3030:
2984:
2924:
2876:
2856:
2819:
2789:
2752:
2712:
2682:
2645:
2060:
1000:
I hope several users will respond to these remarks.
241:
3756:
the Knowledge cycle article as forbidding its use. —
1680:, in either meaning, be included in the article: -->
625:The second one is called the basis exchange axiom.
450:
subgraphs of different sizes, as shown to the right.
361:
And like this the above paragraph should be wrong?!
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1479:Deltahedron, you restored the inline references in
606:Every subset of the independent set is independent
353:
So now there is a circle in the left forest --: -->
331:Imagine 2 graphs with 5 vertices and 3 edges each:
3667:
3642:
3622:
3597:
3577:
3552:
3524:
3502:
3478:
3458:
3435:
3403:
3379:
3359:
3339:
3315:
3295:
3275:
3255:
3232:
3213:vector matroid vs. representable or linear matroid
3058:
3012:
2970:
2910:
2862:
2840:
2805:
2775:
2733:
2698:
2668:
2147:
1658:There are a number of issues being conflated here
247:
1579:Knowledge:Citing_sources#Books and print articles
974:"PUBLISHER, PLACE" instead of "PLACE: PUBLISHER".
454:The picture is wrong: the text speaks about color
200:every subset of an independent set is independent
2636:In the second axiom for independence it states:
1297:Reference formats should not be decided by the
536:, not between the matrix and the vector space).
429:the following nonexample removed as incorrect:
321:section below will make its motivation clearer.
2278:. In what sense is this not "common usage"?
1673:explicit before sensible discussion can occur.
3720:https://en.wikipedia.org/Cycle_(graph_theory)
8:
968:Missing "and" before name of last coauthor,
908:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3764385723
3169:
3099:
2611:
2162:the otherwise undefined function μ is the
1793:Let's consider the paragraph that defines
1211:), there seems to be broad agreement that
971:"VOLUME, PAGES" instead of "VOLUME:PAGES",
791:are disjoint, the union is the direct sum.
731:Journal of the London Mathematical Society
636:name "independence augmentation property".
47:
3655:
3635:
3610:
3590:
3565:
3545:
3517:
3495:
3471:
3451:
3443:is equivalent to a vector matroid over a
3428:
3396:
3372:
3352:
3332:
3308:
3288:
3268:
3248:
3225:
3029:
2983:
2926:
2925:
2923:
2875:
2855:
2832:
2831:
2818:
2797:
2796:
2788:
2751:
2725:
2724:
2711:
2690:
2689:
2681:
2644:
2115:
2087:
2065:
2059:
240:
733:, II. Ser., Vol. 18 (1978), pp. 403-408.
313:I have a question about this paragraph:
3742:2001:4C4D:1C08:8100:EDF4:7965:F231:D213
49:
19:
2911:{\displaystyle E=\left\{1,2,3\right\}}
2776:{\displaystyle A'\subset A\subseteq E}
1985:Slilaty, Daniel; Qin, Hongxun (2008).
1384:See Oxley's book. It will help you.
347:But what about this exachange though:
166:"a matroid or independence structure "
3708:Examples/Matroids from graph theory:
2346:is an issue when you teach matroids.
1632:people look things up in the index. —
1052:(desirable) advantage of consistency.
356:two independent sets of the same size
339:two independent sets of the same size
7:
3411:. Matroids of this kind are called
3059:{\displaystyle \left\{1,2,3\right\}}
3013:{\displaystyle \left\{1,2,3\right\}}
2841:{\displaystyle A'\in {\mathcal {I}}}
2734:{\displaystyle A'\in {\mathcal {I}}}
2669:{\displaystyle A'\subset A\subset E}
309:Exchange property paragraph question
95:This article is within the scope of
2806:{\displaystyle A\in {\mathcal {I}}}
2699:{\displaystyle A\in {\mathcal {I}}}
1694:this terminology, which is standard
1678:this terminology, which is standard
1670:this terminology, which is standard
1525:this terminology, which is standard
38:It is of interest to the following
3303:by taking the independent sets of
2099:
1957:"Frame matroids and biased graphs"
879:should not give that impression.
712:Real matroids and forbidden minors
242:
219:, then there exists an element in
14:
3786:Mid-priority mathematics articles
490:column matroid vs. vector matroid
441:On the other hand, consider this
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
2541:Mistake in Vamos matroid picture
1987:"Connectivity in frame matroids"
895:Mathematicians deserving mention
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
3263:, then we can define a matroid
2049:I presume that in the formula
590:The empty set is independent.
135:This article has been rated as
2182:) 22:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
2140:
2134:
2125:
2119:
2108:
2096:
2077:
2071:
1358:02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
1343:04:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
561:10:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
504:04:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
274:Yes, I'm an idiot. Thanks. --
231:still gives an independent set
1:
3766:15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
3750:11:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
3699:00:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
3130:06:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
3114:06:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
3086:10:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
2534:16:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
2023:20:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
1834:23:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
1819:19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
1789:05:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
1714:07:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
1642:04:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
1619:04:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
1604:03:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
1557:05:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
1537:07:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
1497:05:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
1408:22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
1394:06:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
1209:Knowledge talk:Citing sources
823:06:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
795:Should that be "the union is
738:Worth adding to the article.
706:09:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
696:20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
664:02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
641:16:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
603:The empty set is independent
600:But the standard axioms are:
575:02:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
458:, but the pucture shows color
404:02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
301:01:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
296:It certainly wasn't Whitney!
211:are two independent sets and
109:and see a list of open tasks.
3781:B-Class mathematics articles
3217:The article currently says:
3188:10:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
3168:matroids to the other two.
2626:02:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
2209:04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
2194:22:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
2038:04:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
1933:05:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
1918:04:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
1877:08:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
1862:08:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
1848:07:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
1689:, and this is not permitted.
1379:00:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
1008:) 05:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
844:22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
630:18:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
393:17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
382:17:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
371:11:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
180:16:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
3687:Or am I missing something?
2502:17:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
2483:16:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
775:Matroid union vs Direct sum
616:The Bases Definitions are:
583:Independent sets definition
3802:
3240:is any finite subset of a
3150:13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
2442:17:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
2423:14:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
2404:10:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
2386:22:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
2371:14:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
2356:10:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
2338:20:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
2310:17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
2288:18:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
2270:15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
2258:14:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
2243:13:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
2230:10:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
1955:Zaslavsky, Thomas (1994).
1502:Certainly. It is in fact
1464:02:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
1450:18:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
1435:18:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
952:09:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
721:00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
474:16:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
259:23:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
248:{\displaystyle \emptyset }
2598:01:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
2583:04:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
2559:03:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
2547:these notes by Vic Reiner
2184:Found it — White (1987)
2044:Characteristic polynomial
1953:appears to be taken from
1475:Copied from my talk page
1470:Terminology and citations
808:21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
770:23:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
679:14:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
484:01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
417:14:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
337:Like this we should have
278:01:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
3208:21:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
1318:22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1290:01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
1276:00:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
1251:00:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
1196:19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
1163:09:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
1136:19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
1109:08:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
1082:07:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
1034:06:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
1018:06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
925:14:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
889:04:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
873:16:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
748:04:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
267:01:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
141:project's priority scale
701:Thank you. It's done.
215:has more elements than
98:WikiProject Mathematics
3669:
3644:
3624:
3599:
3579:
3554:
3526:
3504:
3480:
3460:
3437:
3405:
3381:
3361:
3341:
3317:
3297:
3277:
3257:
3234:
3060:
3014:
2972:
2912:
2864:
2842:
2807:
2777:
2735:
2700:
2670:
2606:Minimum spanning trees
2344:matroid cryptomorphism
2276:matroid cryptomorphism
2149:
965:Name in natural order,
687:Definition of "coatom"
437:
249:
158:Independence structure
28:This article is rated
3670:
3650:replaced by those of
3645:
3625:
3600:
3580:
3555:
3527:
3505:
3481:
3461:
3438:
3406:
3382:
3362:
3342:
3318:
3298:
3278:
3258:
3235:
3061:
3015:
2973:
2913:
2865:
2843:
2808:
2778:
2736:
2701:
2671:
2508:Possible improvements
2150:
1676:Should the statement
1665:? I think it should.
1575:as may be appropriate
435:
250:
3654:
3634:
3609:
3589:
3564:
3544:
3516:
3494:
3470:
3450:
3427:
3395:
3371:
3351:
3331:
3325:linearly independent
3307:
3287:
3267:
3247:
3224:
3028:
2982:
2922:
2874:
2854:
2817:
2787:
2750:
2710:
2680:
2643:
2058:
1663:verifiability policy
1454:I agree completely.
1153:orthogonal issue. —
650:to define matroids.)
462:. The left graph is
239:
121:mathematics articles
3585:are isomorphic and
1668:Does the statement
1609:reasonable to me.
1416:Expository Features
986:Full journal names,
3732:. There is just a
3668:{\displaystyle M'}
3665:
3640:
3623:{\displaystyle M'}
3620:
3595:
3578:{\displaystyle M'}
3575:
3550:
3534:real-representable
3522:
3500:
3488:representable over
3476:
3456:
3433:
3401:
3377:
3357:
3337:
3313:
3293:
3273:
3253:
3230:
3056:
3010:
2968:
2908:
2860:
2838:
2803:
2773:
2743:Shouldn't this be
2731:
2696:
2666:
2145:
2092:
619:There is a basis.
438:
245:
227:and when added to
162:From the article:
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
3643:{\displaystyle M}
3598:{\displaystyle M}
3553:{\displaystyle M}
3525:{\displaystyle M}
3503:{\displaystyle F}
3479:{\displaystyle M}
3459:{\displaystyle F}
3436:{\displaystyle M}
3404:{\displaystyle M}
3380:{\displaystyle E}
3360:{\displaystyle M}
3340:{\displaystyle E}
3316:{\displaystyle M}
3296:{\displaystyle E}
3276:{\displaystyle M}
3256:{\displaystyle V}
3233:{\displaystyle E}
3190:
3174:comment added by
3116:
3104:comment added by
3089:
3072:comment added by
2863:{\displaystyle A}
2632:Axiom I2 Subset E
2628:
2616:comment added by
2537:
2520:comment added by
2473:comment added by
2083:
1997:(10): 1994–2001.
1692:Is the statement
1687:original research
1476:
1364:Greedy Algorithms
1316:
950:
915:comment added by
846:
834:comment added by
779:The text states:
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
3793:
3736:, and that is a
3722:, you can read:
3674:
3672:
3671:
3666:
3664:
3649:
3647:
3646:
3641:
3629:
3627:
3626:
3621:
3619:
3604:
3602:
3601:
3596:
3584:
3582:
3581:
3576:
3574:
3559:
3557:
3556:
3551:
3531:
3529:
3528:
3523:
3511:
3509:
3507:
3506:
3501:
3485:
3483:
3482:
3477:
3465:
3463:
3462:
3457:
3442:
3440:
3439:
3434:
3410:
3408:
3407:
3402:
3386:
3384:
3383:
3378:
3366:
3364:
3363:
3358:
3346:
3344:
3343:
3338:
3322:
3320:
3319:
3314:
3302:
3300:
3299:
3294:
3282:
3280:
3279:
3274:
3262:
3260:
3259:
3254:
3239:
3237:
3236:
3231:
3165:Nicolas_Bourbaki
3088:
3066:
3065:
3063:
3062:
3057:
3055:
3051:
3019:
3017:
3016:
3011:
3009:
3005:
2977:
2975:
2974:
2969:
2967:
2963:
2959:
2931:
2930:
2917:
2915:
2914:
2909:
2907:
2903:
2869:
2867:
2866:
2861:
2847:
2845:
2844:
2839:
2837:
2836:
2827:
2812:
2810:
2809:
2804:
2802:
2801:
2782:
2780:
2779:
2774:
2760:
2740:
2738:
2737:
2732:
2730:
2729:
2720:
2705:
2703:
2702:
2697:
2695:
2694:
2675:
2673:
2672:
2667:
2653:
2536:
2522:Peteris.daugulis
2514:
2485:
2154:
2152:
2151:
2146:
2144:
2143:
2091:
2070:
2069:
2012:
1982:
1474:
1323:Matroid Software
1312:
1306:
1300:
1264:
1258:
1240:
1234:
1230:
1226:Harvard citation
1224:
1220:
1214:
949:
943:
936:
931:Garrett Birkhoff
927:
850:The Fano matroid
829:
254:
252:
251:
246:
223:which is not in
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
3801:
3800:
3796:
3795:
3794:
3792:
3791:
3790:
3771:
3770:
3706:
3704:simple cycle ?!
3657:
3652:
3651:
3632:
3631:
3612:
3607:
3606:
3587:
3586:
3567:
3562:
3561:
3542:
3541:
3514:
3513:
3512:in particular,
3492:
3491:
3490:
3468:
3467:
3448:
3447:
3425:
3424:
3413:vector matroids
3393:
3392:
3369:
3368:
3349:
3348:
3329:
3328:
3305:
3304:
3285:
3284:
3265:
3264:
3245:
3244:
3222:
3221:
3215:
3196:
3138:
3095:
3074:Lee A. Christie
3067:
3035:
3031:
3026:
3025:
2989:
2985:
2980:
2979:
2943:
2939:
2935:
2920:
2919:
2887:
2883:
2872:
2871:
2852:
2851:
2820:
2815:
2814:
2785:
2784:
2753:
2748:
2747:
2713:
2708:
2707:
2678:
2677:
2646:
2641:
2640:
2634:
2608:
2543:
2515:
2510:
2468:
2462:
2248:lead section. —
2217:
2172:reliable source
2168:matroid lattice
2164:Möbius function
2111:
2061:
2056:
2055:
2046:
1984:
1954:
1949:The definition
1947:
1683:reliable source
1472:
1418:
1366:
1325:
1310:Septentrionalis
1304:
1298:
1262:
1256:
1238:
1232:
1228:
1222:
1218:
1212:
959:
957:Reference style
939:
937:
933:
910:
902:
897:
852:
777:
714:
689:
585:
492:
427:
358:anymore, or???
351:
335:
311:
237:
236:
187:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
3799:
3797:
3789:
3788:
3783:
3773:
3772:
3769:
3768:
3758:David Eppstein
3734:simple circuit
3705:
3702:
3663:
3660:
3639:
3618:
3615:
3594:
3573:
3570:
3549:
3521:
3499:
3475:
3466:, then we say
3455:
3432:
3400:
3376:
3356:
3336:
3312:
3292:
3272:
3252:
3229:
3214:
3211:
3195:
3192:
3161:
3160:
3137:
3134:
3133:
3132:
3122:David Eppstein
3094:
3091:
3054:
3050:
3047:
3044:
3041:
3038:
3034:
3008:
3004:
3001:
2998:
2995:
2992:
2988:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2955:
2952:
2949:
2946:
2942:
2938:
2934:
2929:
2906:
2902:
2899:
2896:
2893:
2890:
2886:
2882:
2879:
2859:
2835:
2830:
2826:
2823:
2800:
2795:
2792:
2772:
2769:
2766:
2763:
2759:
2756:
2728:
2723:
2719:
2716:
2693:
2688:
2685:
2665:
2662:
2659:
2656:
2652:
2649:
2633:
2630:
2618:73.222.120.136
2607:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2575:David Eppstein
2542:
2539:
2509:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2494:David Eppstein
2490:Bernhard Korte
2461:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2430:Cryptomorphism
2415:David Eppstein
2407:
2406:
2392:
2363:David Eppstein
2330:David Eppstein
2325:weak orderings
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2250:David Eppstein
2216:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2170:? Is there a
2156:
2155:
2142:
2139:
2136:
2133:
2130:
2127:
2124:
2121:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2107:
2104:
2101:
2098:
2095:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2079:
2076:
2073:
2068:
2064:
2045:
2042:
2041:
2040:
1967:(3): 303–307.
1946:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1905:
1901:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1854:David Eppstein
1826:David Eppstein
1799:simplification
1777:
1776:
1775:
1772:
1769:
1766:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1749:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1732:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1690:
1674:
1666:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1634:David Eppstein
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1606:
1591:
1582:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1540:
1539:
1520:
1519:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1452:
1442:David Eppstein
1417:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1324:
1321:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1282:Sławomir Biały
1268:David Eppstein
1243:Sławomir Biały
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1184:
1181:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1037:
1036:
1026:David Eppstein
991:
990:
987:
979:
978:
975:
972:
969:
966:
958:
955:
932:
929:
917:201.53.116.195
901:
898:
896:
893:
892:
891:
851:
848:
826:
825:
801:disjoint union
793:
792:
776:
773:
751:
750:
736:
735:
734:
713:
710:
709:
708:
693:74.112.174.192
688:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
669:
668:
667:
666:
654:
653:
652:
651:
644:
643:
584:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
564:
563:
548:
547:
538:
537:
516:
515:
491:
488:
487:
486:
452:
451:
426:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
407:
406:
385:
384:
354:we don't have
349:
333:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
310:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
291:
290:
282:
281:
280:
279:
269:
268:
244:
233:
232:
201:
198:
197:is independent
186:
183:
168:
167:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3798:
3787:
3784:
3782:
3779:
3778:
3776:
3767:
3763:
3759:
3754:
3753:
3752:
3751:
3747:
3743:
3739:
3735:
3731:
3726:
3723:
3721:
3716:
3714:
3709:
3703:
3701:
3700:
3696:
3692:
3688:
3685:
3682:
3676:
3661:
3658:
3637:
3616:
3613:
3592:
3571:
3568:
3547:
3537:
3535:
3519:
3497:
3489:
3473:
3453:
3446:
3430:
3422:
3418:
3417:representable
3414:
3398:
3391:
3390:
3374:
3354:
3334:
3326:
3310:
3290:
3270:
3250:
3243:
3227:
3218:
3212:
3210:
3209:
3205:
3201:
3194:Applications?
3193:
3191:
3189:
3185:
3181:
3177:
3173:
3166:
3157:
3154:
3153:
3152:
3151:
3147:
3143:
3142:79.179.15.250
3135:
3131:
3127:
3123:
3119:
3118:
3117:
3115:
3111:
3107:
3106:87.67.113.207
3103:
3092:
3090:
3087:
3083:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3052:
3048:
3045:
3042:
3039:
3036:
3032:
3023:
3006:
3002:
2999:
2996:
2993:
2990:
2986:
2964:
2960:
2956:
2953:
2950:
2947:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2932:
2904:
2900:
2897:
2894:
2891:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2877:
2857:
2848:
2828:
2824:
2821:
2793:
2790:
2770:
2767:
2764:
2761:
2757:
2754:
2744:
2741:
2721:
2717:
2714:
2686:
2683:
2663:
2660:
2657:
2654:
2650:
2647:
2637:
2631:
2629:
2627:
2623:
2619:
2615:
2605:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2571:
2570:Vámos matroid
2568:(used in the
2567:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2540:
2538:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2507:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2491:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2484:
2480:
2476:
2475:87.161.21.168
2472:
2465:
2459:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2383:
2379:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2368:
2364:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2326:
2321:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2298:Tangent space
2295:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2268:
2265:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2241:
2238:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2215:Cryptomorphic
2214:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2159:
2157:
2137:
2131:
2128:
2122:
2116:
2112:
2105:
2102:
2093:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2074:
2066:
2062:
2054:
2053:
2051:
2050:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2010:
2007:
2003:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1991:Discrete Math
1988:
1980:
1977:
1973:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1952:
1945:Frame matroid
1944:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1773:
1770:
1767:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1750:
1746:
1745:
1740:
1736:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1704:
1698:
1695:
1691:
1688:
1684:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1592:
1588:
1583:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1571:verifiability
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1521:
1516:
1512:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1485:
1482:
1477:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1422:
1415:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1333:
1328:
1322:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1303:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1261:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1237:
1227:
1217:
1210:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
998:
995:
988:
985:
984:
983:
976:
973:
970:
967:
964:
963:
962:
956:
954:
953:
948:
944:
942:
930:
928:
926:
922:
918:
914:
909:
905:
899:
894:
890:
886:
882:
877:
876:
875:
874:
870:
866:
861:
858:
855:
849:
847:
845:
841:
837:
836:130.216.33.81
833:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
802:
798:
790:
786:
782:
781:
780:
774:
772:
771:
767:
763:
762:130.195.2.100
758:
755:
749:
745:
741:
737:
732:
728:
727:
725:
724:
723:
722:
719:
711:
707:
704:
700:
699:
698:
697:
694:
686:
680:
677:
673:
672:
671:
670:
665:
662:
658:
657:
656:
655:
648:
647:
646:
645:
642:
639:
634:
633:
632:
631:
628:
623:
620:
617:
614:
610:
607:
604:
601:
598:
594:
591:
588:
582:
576:
573:
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:
559:
555:
554:simple graphs
550:
549:
545:
540:
539:
535:
530:
529:non-identical
526:
522:
518:
517:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
502:
498:
489:
485:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
472:
469:
465:
461:
457:
448:
444:
440:
439:
434:
430:
424:
418:
415:
411:
410:
409:
408:
405:
402:
397:
396:
395:
394:
391:
383:
380:
375:
374:
373:
372:
369:
365:
362:
359:
357:
348:
345:
342:
340:
332:
329:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
308:
302:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
288:
287:
286:
277:
273:
272:
271:
270:
266:
265:Michael Hardy
262:
261:
260:
258:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
196:
192:
191:
190:
184:
182:
181:
177:
173:
165:
164:
163:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
3737:
3733:
3730:simple cycle
3729:
3727:
3724:
3717:
3713:simple cycle
3712:
3710:
3707:
3689:
3686:
3680:
3677:
3538:
3533:
3487:
3420:
3416:
3412:
3387:
3242:vector space
3219:
3216:
3197:
3170:— Preceding
3162:
3139:
3100:— Preceding
3096:
3068:— Preceding
3021:
2849:
2745:
2742:
2638:
2635:
2612:— Preceding
2609:
2544:
2516:— Preceding
2511:
2469:— Preceding
2466:
2463:
2343:
2275:
2218:
2161:
2160:
2158:
2052:
2048:
2047:
1994:
1990:
1964:
1961:Eur. J. Comb
1960:
1950:
1948:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1693:
1677:
1669:
1586:
1574:
1524:
1514:
1507:
1486:
1478:
1473:
1423:
1419:
1367:
1329:
1326:
1296:
1206:
1095:
999:
996:
992:
980:
960:
940:
934:
906:
903:
862:
859:
856:
853:
827:
794:
788:
784:
778:
759:
756:
752:
730:
715:
690:
624:
621:
618:
615:
611:
608:
605:
602:
599:
595:
592:
589:
586:
543:
533:
528:
524:
520:
510:
496:
493:
463:
459:
455:
453:
446:
442:
428:
386:
366:
363:
360:
355:
352:
346:
343:
338:
336:
330:
327:
312:
283:
234:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
188:
172:84.60.98.171
169:
161:
137:Mid-priority
136:
96:
62:Mid‑priority
40:WikiProjects
3327:subsets of
3200:PolyCreator
3176:Flyredeagle
3136:Why finite?
2566:this source
2434:BSpringborn
2396:BSpringborn
2378:Deltahedron
2348:BSpringborn
2302:BSpringborn
2294:Real number
2280:Deltahedron
2222:BSpringborn
2186:Deltahedron
2176:Deltahedron
2174:for this?
2015:Deltahedron
1869:Deltahedron
1840:Deltahedron
1811:Deltahedron
1706:Deltahedron
1529:Deltahedron
1400:Deltahedron
1231:(or simply
911:—Preceding
830:—Preceding
544:same vector
443:non-example
425:non-example
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
3775:Categories
3389:represents
3323:to be the
3093:Definition
3024:subset of
2009:1170.05323
1979:0797.05027
1742:excessive.
1511:Guidelines
1314:PMAnderson
797:isomorphic
558:Byrgenwulf
2746:for each
2639:for each
2590:Ctourneur
2551:Ctourneur
2002:0012-365X
1972:0195-6698
1809:former.
1803:co-simple
1427:Geminatea
1335:Jwesley78
947:Wolfowitz
865:James mcl
514:matroids.
464:colorable
388:swapped.
276:Saforrest
257:Saforrest
195:empty set
3184:contribs
3172:unsigned
3102:unsigned
3082:contribs
3070:unsigned
3020:isn't a
2614:unsigned
2530:contribs
2518:unsigned
2471:unsigned
1371:Bruce IV
1302:citation
1216:citation
1062:request.
913:unsigned
863:Thanks!
832:unsigned
805:LachlanA
757:Cheers,
718:Changbao
676:Lmdemasi
638:Wandrer2
627:Lmdemasi
534:matroids
481:Dcoetzee
414:Lmdemasi
390:Lmdemasi
3718:Now in
3347:. If
2166:of the
1748:expert.
1481:Matroid
760:Dillon
139:on the
30:B-class
3691:Joriki
3423:. If
3421:linear
3022:strict
2978:since
2850:since
2201:Zaslav
2030:Zaslav
1925:Zaslav
1910:Zaslav
1807:latter
1795:simple
1781:Zaslav
1611:Zaslav
1596:Zaslav
1549:Zaslav
1504:policy
1489:Zaslav
1456:Zaslav
1386:Zaslav
1350:Zaslav
1188:Zaslav
1128:Zaslav
1074:Zaslav
1010:Zaslav
1002:Zaslav
941:Kiefer
881:Zaslav
815:Zaslav
740:Zaslav
703:Zaslav
661:Zaslav
572:Zaslav
501:345Kai
445:: let
401:Zaslav
368:Tormen
298:Zaslav
185:Absurd
36:scale.
3738:cycle
3445:field
2813:then
2783:, if
2706:then
2676:, if
2460:KORTE
1506:that
1260:harvs
468:mikka
3762:talk
3746:talk
3715:."
3695:talk
3560:and
3220:"If
3204:talk
3180:talk
3146:talk
3126:talk
3110:talk
3078:talk
2622:talk
2594:talk
2579:talk
2555:talk
2526:talk
2498:talk
2479:talk
2438:talk
2419:talk
2400:talk
2382:talk
2367:talk
2352:talk
2334:talk
2306:talk
2296:and
2284:talk
2264:Emil
2254:talk
2237:Emil
2226:talk
2205:talk
2190:talk
2180:talk
2034:talk
2019:talk
1999:ISSN
1969:ISSN
1929:talk
1914:talk
1873:talk
1858:talk
1844:talk
1830:talk
1815:talk
1801:and
1785:talk
1710:talk
1638:talk
1615:talk
1600:talk
1553:talk
1533:talk
1513:say
1493:talk
1460:talk
1446:talk
1431:talk
1404:talk
1390:talk
1375:talk
1354:talk
1339:talk
1286:talk
1272:talk
1247:talk
1236:harv
1192:talk
1159:talk
1155:Miym
1132:talk
1105:talk
1101:Miym
1078:talk
1030:talk
1014:talk
1006:talk
921:talk
885:talk
869:talk
840:talk
819:talk
787:and
766:talk
744:talk
456:able
379:Deco
207:and
193:the
176:talk
3681:can
3532:is
3486:is
3419:or
3283:on
2006:Zbl
1995:308
1976:Zbl
1590:it.
1587:not
1096:any
783:If
497:not
471:(t)
203:if
131:Mid
3777::
3764:)
3748:)
3740:.
3697:)
3206:)
3186:)
3182:•
3148:)
3128:)
3112:)
3084:)
3080:•
2918:,
2829:∈
2794:∈
2768:⊆
2762:⊂
2722:∈
2687:∈
2661:⊂
2655:⊂
2624:)
2596:)
2581:)
2557:)
2549:.
2532:)
2528:•
2500:)
2481:)
2440:)
2421:)
2402:)
2384:)
2369:)
2354:)
2336:)
2308:)
2286:)
2267:J.
2256:)
2240:J.
2228:)
2207:)
2192:)
2129:−
2113:λ
2100:∅
2094:μ
2085:∑
2081::=
2075:λ
2036:)
2021:)
2004:.
1993:.
1989:.
1974:.
1965:15
1963:.
1959:.
1931:)
1916:)
1875:)
1860:)
1846:)
1832:)
1817:)
1797:,
1787:)
1712:)
1640:)
1617:)
1602:)
1555:)
1535:)
1495:)
1462:)
1448:)
1433:)
1406:)
1392:)
1377:)
1356:)
1341:)
1305:}}
1299:{{
1288:)
1274:)
1263:}}
1257:{{
1249:)
1239:}}
1233:{{
1229:}}
1223:{{
1219:}}
1213:{{
1194:)
1161:)
1134:)
1107:)
1080:)
1032:)
1016:)
923:)
887:)
871:)
842:)
821:)
768:)
746:)
511:no
460:ed
341:.
243:∅
178:)
3760:(
3744:(
3693:(
3662:′
3659:M
3638:M
3617:′
3614:M
3593:M
3572:′
3569:M
3548:M
3520:M
3510:;
3498:F
3474:M
3454:F
3431:M
3399:M
3375:E
3355:M
3335:E
3311:M
3291:E
3271:M
3251:V
3228:E
3202:(
3178:(
3144:(
3124:(
3108:(
3076:(
3053:}
3049:3
3046:,
3043:2
3040:,
3037:1
3033:{
3007:}
3003:3
3000:,
2997:2
2994:,
2991:1
2987:{
2965:}
2961:}
2957:3
2954:,
2951:2
2948:,
2945:1
2941:{
2937:{
2933:=
2928:I
2905:}
2901:3
2898:,
2895:2
2892:,
2889:1
2885:{
2881:=
2878:E
2858:A
2834:I
2825:′
2822:A
2799:I
2791:A
2771:E
2765:A
2758:′
2755:A
2727:I
2718:′
2715:A
2692:I
2684:A
2664:E
2658:A
2651:′
2648:A
2620:(
2592:(
2577:(
2553:(
2524:(
2496:(
2477:(
2436:(
2417:(
2413:—
2398:(
2380:(
2365:(
2350:(
2332:(
2328:—
2304:(
2282:(
2252:(
2224:(
2203:(
2188:(
2178:(
2141:)
2138:S
2135:(
2132:r
2126:)
2123:M
2120:(
2117:r
2109:)
2106:A
2103:,
2097:(
2089:A
2078:)
2072:(
2067:M
2063:p
2032:(
2017:(
2011:.
1981:.
1927:(
1912:(
1871:(
1856:(
1842:(
1828:(
1824:—
1813:(
1783:(
1708:(
1636:(
1613:(
1598:(
1551:(
1531:(
1491:(
1458:(
1444:(
1429:(
1402:(
1388:(
1373:(
1352:(
1337:(
1284:(
1270:(
1266:—
1245:(
1190:(
1157:(
1130:(
1103:(
1076:(
1028:(
1012:(
1004:(
945:.
919:(
883:(
867:(
838:(
817:(
789:F
785:E
764:(
742:(
525:I
521:E
447:E
229:B
225:B
221:A
217:B
213:A
209:B
205:A
174:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
