Skip to content

Improvements to isomorphism tutorial. #141

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rossbar
Copy link
Contributor

@rossbar rossbar commented Mar 11, 2025

Minor touchups to the isomorphism notebook.

I've limited the changes in this PR to minor changes in wording, line formatting (i.e. splitting up very long lines, where possible), and minor touchups to links etc.

LMK what you think!

Copy link
Contributor

@eriknw eriknw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These changes look good to me. I like using explicit axes and figures in matplotlib instead of relying on pyplot implicit API.

I left one tiny typo suggestion. There were places where I would consider adding a comma, but I don't like being a comma-nazi :-P

Copy link
Member

@dschult dschult left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In reading through this file, I notice that line 252 should either remove the word "that" or add "are isomorphic" at the end of the line.

Also, on line 58, I think the bijection for the example would be the identity isomorphism. And not f(i) = i+1 as stated.

Perhaps we should pick an example where it is easy (in code) to get differently named nodes. For example, G = nx.wheel_graph(8) and H = nx.wheel_graph(range(1,9)). But maybe the drawings of those networks are not as nice. But the incorrect mapping is confusing as it is.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants