Timeline for Sandbox for Proposed Challenges
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 16 at 9:00 | history | edited | emanresu A | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2474 characters in body
|
| Aug 14 at 3:20 | comment | added | shape warrior t | In that case, no further suggestions from me! | |
| Aug 14 at 3:16 | comment | added | emanresu A | @shapewarriort a) fixed b) the vertex pairs are mostly meant to be a machine-readable format c) Yes, and that's allowed in general under standard I/O. | |
| Aug 14 at 3:13 | history | edited | emanresu A | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Aug 14 at 3:13 | comment | added | shape warrior t |
Not sure if this is common practice, but now that the challenge is no longer WIP, I've reset my voting standards accordingly. The biggest thing right now is that, in the vertex pairs for the last test case, [9,12] should be [11,12]. Other than that, matching up the vertex pairs with the images was not terribly hard, though it took me some time to find vertex 1 in the second test case, especially since [3,7] comes so late in the list. I'm assuming the specific data types for the input don't matter, and we are allowed to, say, use a dict[tuple[str, str], bool] as an adjacency matrix?
|
|
| Aug 14 at 0:00 | history | edited | emanresu A | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 13 at 23:50 | history | edited | emanresu A | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Aug 13 at 23:09 | history | edited | emanresu A | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 792 characters in body
|
| Aug 8 at 20:57 | history | edited | emanresu A | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
unfinished
|
| Aug 2 at 21:26 | comment | added | emanresu A | @shapewarriort It is graph isomorphism, yes, just only distinguishing nodes by whether they're coloured or not | |
| Aug 2 at 21:25 | comment | added | shape warrior t | @emanresuA By moving the nodes around? I can kind of see what that means, assuming moving the nodes around keeps the node connections and colours the same, though it's not the easiest to visualize. Seems like something vaguely connected to graph isomorphism. | |
| Aug 2 at 21:16 | comment | added | emanresu A | @shapewarriort That one graph can be rearranged into the other by moving its nodes around. | |
| Aug 2 at 21:12 | comment | added | shape warrior t | Is there a standard definition of what it means for a backbone to be "the same up to rearrangement"? | |
| Aug 1 at 8:01 | comment | added | Bubbler | Adding common representations should work fine. | |
| Aug 1 at 7:24 | comment | added | emanresu A | @RubenVerg Adjacency matrices, built-in graph objects, lists of vertices/edges - I'm not sure if there's anything else I could allow specifically for unlabelled graphs | |
| Aug 1 at 7:17 | comment | added | RubenVerg | last sentence doesn't end but presumably you at least want to allow adjacency lists and maybe graph objects/classes too? | |
| Aug 1 at 6:48 | history | answered | emanresu A | CC BY-SA 4.0 |