 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
editThe figure on the right (M=2, N=2) does not appear to be a correct Kautz graph. It seems to be missing 3 edges: CAB->ABA, BCA->CAC, ABC->BCB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.253.236 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The figure on the right is definitely not a Kautz graph. Is the image file also available in an editable format? Hocomonco (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm no math expert, but as far as I remember math, neither of the figures has an Eulerian path or cycle, contrary to the article. (unless bidirectional edges can be traveled twice)(Would like to draw a better one but don't know the rules of constructing it) Hoemaco (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd assume that for purposes of Eulerian paths, a bidirectional edge is treated as if it's an anti-parallel pair of edges, one in each direction. jeremyleader (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)