581:." You can see, I hope, that not requiring readers to already understand CW complexes and "the usual way" lowers the amount of background needed to understand this material. The same goes for all the rest of the material. You need to pay much more attention to whether the jargon and notation you are introducing is really necessary, or whether it is just there to make things look more mathy.
801:
it actually is true that homeomorphism of spaces is the same as isomorphism of graphs, and it has much of the other properties you would want. Its continuous maps are almost like graph homomorphisms — no edge subdivision are possible — but homomorphisms after you augment the graph to have a self-loop on each vertex. So its categorical product becomes the
603:"The usual category of graphs and graph homomorphisms is naturally contained within the category of graphs" reads like a tautology. I think that the second instance of "category of graphs" should be replaced by something more like "category of topological graphs and continuous maps". Also, there is no entry for inclusion in
607:
so although I can guess I am a bit unsure what the right meaning of an inclusion of categories is supposed to be, especially in this case because it's not clear what the objects are — do two isomorphic combinatorial graphs lead to a single object in the category, or two different objects? What about
214:
I would like the
Wikimedia software to automatically embed the userpage on META into my userpage here, so that I don't need to always make the same change twice, and I don't want a deletion message to be displayed. The point is not that I want to hide the history, we can preserve that somewhere else
800:
There's another kind of topological space derived from graphs (I think this idea is from
Thurston but I don't have a source): make a non-Hausdorff space with a closed point for each vertex, an open point for each edge, and the closure of each edge being the set of it and its endpoints. For this one
591:
In general, many concepts that are used here are neither linked to pages describing them nor explained within the article, leaving the article readable only to people who are already familiar with those concepts. These include graphs (the normal kind of graph), skeleton, quotient topology, quotient
229:
No I have zero concerns about your intentions, I just didn't know from a technical perspective, why it was necessary. Now that I understand, it makes sense. If you go ahead and tag it, I'll delete it. (And if I'm not here when it gets tagged then just ping me or the deleting admin and someone can
624:
It is not really even true that a topological graph is just a topological space of this form, right? Because the vertices are distinguished as special points of the graph. If you subdivide an edge of a graph, you get a different graph with the same topological space. So it is also not formally
368:
Namely, I am currently reading
Hatcher's book, and there are a couple theorems on graphs, like for instance that every graph contains a maximal tree, from that one can compute the fundamental group, covering spaces of graphs are again graphs, and there is also an application to group theory
193:
I recognize that fully, which is why I suggested db-u1 - you don't need a full MfD discussion, you just need to tag it for speedy deletion. What I'm not aware of is why embedding the global userpage would require revdel'ing the entire history of the page, a fairly unusual action.
364:
at "Merging should be avoided if:" 2. I assume the reason for the merger was 2. in the first list; I don't know whether context is required there; when reading
Hatcher's book, this concept was presented to me without this particular context, and it was understandable.
465:
I'd rather keep a copy here for my records, but if you want to copy it to your talk page I have no problem with that. I'm not sure why you call them lemmas; they're generally called articles here. But I'd have to see the expansion before formulating an opinion on it.
625:
correct to toss around concepts like covering space, fundamental group, homotopy equivalence, etc., as if they applied to graphs. What they actually apply to is the underlying topological space, forgetting the distinction of some points as vertices.
383:, so that I am notified (furthermore my talk page is much less busy, and since your reply may shed some light on the issue, I may want to come back to it in the future, which is easier when the archive is somewhat less crowded). --
595:
In the bullet about "usual category of graphs", graphs points to a disambiguation page, and there is no actual link to the category of graphs. Also I thought the usual category of graphs was over directed graphs (and directed
608:
two different but homeomorphic embedded topological graphs? And if they do all lead to different objects, which of multiple homeomorphic topological graphs is the one that is supposed to represent a given combinatorial graph?
398:
It's a fuzzy boundary, but to me the topics are similar enough that a new article would need to demonstrate the need for a new article by providing significantly more content about whatever it is about. In the case of
150:
You can use {{db-u1}} for stuff in your own userspace, no need to bring to MfD. I'm going to speedy close the MfD nom you put up. Not sure a rev-del is necessary - it's fairly unusual except for the cases outlined at
824:
Hmm, so there is a different structure (which seems still a fairly discrete one). As usual I agree on what has been said, and I will also look for more sources ASAP (for now I'm "a bit" busy). --
765:. This would mean that CW complexes have a "memory" for how they were formed, or the associated topological space does not bear all the information about CW complexes. Interesting. --
621:
Are you assuming that the starting combinatorial graph is finite? Because otherwise the existence of a maximal tree would seem to need the axiom of choice or some similar assumption.
797:
This does not line up well with graph homomorphisms because its continuous functions allow both edge subdivisions and edge contractions while graph homomorphisms don't.
376:
of merging lemmata and articles, so that I will be able to avoid creating new lemmata in vain by checking some more-or-less well-defined criteria on when not to do so.
337:, although it seems as though a graph in topology is merely the object of study of the latter. I am confused on when to construct new lemmata; certainly
584:
In the same vein of reducing technicality, If you are going to discuss complexes, what is the point of using CW complexes? These are all just
357:
about groups, whereas linear algebra also studies matrices and so on, which is why one could argue for a merger between the two).
104:
850:
525:
372:
I would be particularly pleased if apart from the rules, which seem ambiguous here, I would gain knowledge on the day-to-day
592:
map, gluing, closed, one-dimensional, unit ball, etc., and that's just in the lead section. The rest is if anything worse.
612:
308:
303:
Okay, the deleted edits were invisible when I logged out, but they're still visible to anyone with a mop. Good enough. ♠
294:
289:
Yeah that was the one. I'm going to revdel the page now then log out and check if it actually did what you want it to. ♠
235:
199:
160:
84:
604:
48:
814:
802:
635:
529:
493:
471:
448:
412:
404:
334:
403:, on the other hand, the new article was significantly shorter than the paragraph about the same topic within
304:
290:
245:
231:
209:
195:
171:
156:
550:
566:
875:
858:
829:
770:
730:
694:
537:
501:
456:
388:
380:
269:
255:
220:
181:
134:
17:
361:
844:
810:
689:
Could you give some info or a reference on the closely related concepts that are to be included? --
631:
574:
570:
467:
408:
346:
879:
862:
833:
818:
774:
734:
698:
639:
541:
505:
475:
460:
416:
392:
311:
297:
273:
259:
238:
224:
202:
185:
163:
152:
138:
119:
88:
54:
597:
585:
379:
Since you mentioned the possibility at the top of your talk page, I would invite you to reply at
558:
52:
725:
Although
Hatcher's book defines them without point distinction. Let's see what we do here. --
562:
444:
400:
326:
115:
96:
50:
871:
854:
825:
766:
726:
690:
533:
528:
in my user namespace. I would ask for comment; it would be best if you could use the page
497:
452:
384:
265:
251:
216:
177:
130:
338:
69:
350:
342:
853:
has now been submitted to be reviewed, after all your concerns were addressed. --
111:
76:
83:
Please do not create articles if you have looked, but been unable to find,
447:
so that it would contain significantly more content on the subject than
176:
The point is that I want the user page from METAWIKI to be embedded. --
578:
532:
for commenting, since this is embedded in both our talk pages. --
618:
There are some closely related concepts that should be included,
496:) which can be embedded in both our talk pages as a template. --
611:
The applications section is missing a link to the main article
353:(although this I find perhaps not right since group theory is
55:
25:
451:, would you then think it is better to have two lemmas? --
588:, the added generality of CW complexes is pointless here.
330:
79:
just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
64:
A page you started (Banach lattice) has been reviewed!
553:. Here's my attempt at a more accessible start: "A
664:Yes, these are all true. Gonna include them ASAP.
794:You really should be using more than one source.
761:Aha, perhaps the points are distinguished by
8:
434:1) May I move this section to my talk page?
369:(subgroups of free groups are again free).
362:Knowledge (XXG):Merging#Reasons_for_merger
851:User:Mathmensch/sandbox/Graph_(topology)
318:Graphs in topology and lemma separation
95:To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's
600:) but here the graphs are undirected.
345:are two different articles, and even
7:
24:
125:I have reliable sources, but not
91:is on the creator to find these.
834:17:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
819:18:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
775:06:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
735:06:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
699:06:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
640:21:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
542:10:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
506:06:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
250:What would be the right tag?--
1:
476:20:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
461:12:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
443:2) If, say, I were to expand
417:06:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
393:06:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
230:follow up with the revdel). ♠
863:10:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
605:Glossary of category theory
895:
215:if you have suspicions. --
880:05:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
526:draft of Graph (topology)
331:transformed to a redirect
312:21:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
298:21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
274:19:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
260:19:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
239:19:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
225:19:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
203:17:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
186:17:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
164:15:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
139:07:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
120:21:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
803:strong product of graphs
613:Nielsen–Schreier theorem
530:User:Mathmensch/Disc1wDE
494:User:Mathmensch/Disc1wDE
449:topological graph theory
405:topological graph theory
335:Topological graph theory
75:Knowledge (XXG) editor
93:
264:That the right one?--
81:
790:Some more thoughts:
763:being the 0-skeleton
615:on this application.
586:simplicial complexes
68:Thanks for creating
18:User talk:Mathmensch
598:graph homomorphisms
546:Ok, some comments:
347:Group (mathematics)
565:by replacing each
492:I created a page (
246:Premeditated Chaos
210:Premeditated Chaos
172:Premeditated Chaos
85:WP:RELIABLESOURCES
559:topological space
555:topological graph
549:I think it's too
524:I just created a
108:
103:Learn more about
61:
60:
886:
848:
563:undirected graph
561:defined from an
445:Graph (topology)
401:Graph (topology)
381:my own talk page
327:Graph (topology)
249:
213:
175:
102:
56:
26:
894:
893:
889:
888:
887:
885:
884:
883:
842:
320:
243:
207:
169:
147:
66:
57:
51:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
892:
890:
868:
867:
866:
865:
845:David Eppstein
837:
836:
811:David Eppstein
807:
806:
798:
795:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
632:David Eppstein
628:
627:
626:
622:
619:
616:
609:
601:
593:
589:
582:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
468:David Eppstein
438:
437:
436:
435:
429:
428:
427:
426:
420:
419:
409:David Eppstein
339:Linear Algebra
319:
316:
315:
314:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
167:
166:
146:
143:
142:
141:
72:, Mathmensch!
70:Banach lattice
65:
62:
59:
58:
53:
49:
47:
44:
43:
40:
39:
36:
35:
30:
29:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
891:
882:
881:
877:
873:
864:
860:
856:
852:
846:
841:
840:
839:
838:
835:
831:
827:
823:
822:
821:
820:
816:
812:
804:
799:
796:
793:
792:
791:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
736:
732:
728:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
700:
696:
692:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
641:
637:
633:
629:
623:
620:
617:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
594:
590:
587:
583:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
477:
473:
469:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
439:
433:
432:
431:
430:
424:
423:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
397:
396:
395:
394:
390:
386:
382:
377:
375:
370:
366:
363:
358:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
323:
317:
313:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
299:
296:
292:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
247:
242:
241:
240:
237:
233:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
211:
206:
205:
204:
201:
197:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
187:
183:
179:
173:
165:
162:
158:
154:
149:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
122:
121:
117:
113:
109:
106:
105:page curation
100:
98:
92:
90:
86:
80:
78:
73:
71:
63:
46:
45:
42:
41:
38:
37:
33:
28:
27:
19:
869:
849:The article
808:
789:
762:
554:
551:WP:TECHNICAL
425:Hello there,
378:
373:
371:
367:
359:
354:
351:Group theory
343:Vector space
324:
321:
288:
168:
126:
110:
101:
94:
82:
74:
67:
31:
129:sources. --
872:Mathmensch
855:Mathmensch
826:Mathmensch
767:Mathmensch
727:Mathmensch
691:Mathmensch
534:Mathmensch
498:Mathmensch
453:Mathmensch
385:Mathmensch
325:the lemma
266:Mathmensch
252:Mathmensch
217:Mathmensch
178:Mathmensch
131:Mathmensch
573:and each
360:See also
329:has been
153:WP:REVDEL
97:talk page
89:WP:BURDEN
374:practice
145:Userpage
32:Archives
322:Hello,
805:, etc.
567:vertex
309:(talk)
295:(talk)
236:(talk)
200:(talk)
161:(talk)
112:Boleyn
87:. The
77:Boleyn
579:curve
577:by a
571:point
569:by a
557:is a
16:<
876:talk
859:talk
830:talk
815:talk
771:talk
731:talk
695:talk
636:talk
575:edge
538:talk
502:talk
472:talk
457:talk
413:talk
389:talk
355:only
349:and
341:and
270:talk
256:talk
221:talk
182:talk
135:talk
127:good
116:talk
407:. —
333:to
305:PMC
291:PMC
232:PMC
196:PMC
157:PMC
155:. ♠
878:)
870:--
861:)
832:)
817:)
773:)
733:)
697:)
638:)
540:)
504:)
474:)
459:)
415:)
391:)
307:♠
293:♠
272:)
258:)
234:♠
223:)
198:♠
184:)
159:♠
137:)
118:)
99:.
874:(
857:(
847::
843:@
828:(
813:(
809:—
769:(
729:(
693:(
634:(
630:—
536:(
500:(
470:(
466:—
455:(
411:(
387:(
268:(
254:(
248::
244:@
219:(
212::
208:@
194:♠
180:(
174::
170:@
133:(
114:(
107:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.