Re:The "missing" graph datatype already exists. It was inven...
by hnfong on Wednesday March 06, 2024 @10:23AM
(#39616912)
GP says "graphs can be conveniently represented as matrices", which I believe is totally correct.
The GP's claim that graphs (not matrices) are equivalent to edge lists is almost correct. The textbook definition of graphs is G = (V, E) , where V are the set of vertices and E are the set of edges. Implicitly E contains relationships between some of the vertices, so the only thing in the V which isn't part of an edge in E are vertices that are not related to any edge. So if you have a connected graph, you can unambiguously define it by way of a set of edges (~= "edge lists") without explicitly mentioning the vertices.
In short, I don't see any fundamental error in GP's quoted sentence unless you're trying to be extra pedantic.
The GP's claim that graphs (not matrices) are equivalent to edge lists is almost correct. The textbook definition of graphs is G = (V, E) , where V are the set of vertices and E are the set of edges. Implicitly E contains relationships between some of the vertices, so the only thing in the V which isn't part of an edge in E are vertices that are not related to any edge. So if you have a connected graph, you can unambiguously define it by way of a set of edges (~= "edge lists") without explicitly mentioning the vertices.
In short, I don't see any fundamental error in GP's quoted sentence unless you're trying to be extra pedantic.