[seqfan] Re: Comment in A000792
mathoflove-seqfan at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 11 05:21:33 CET 2009
You are right.
So the comment should be change to maximal cliques.
--- On Tue, 3/10/09, Jim Nastos <nastos at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Jim Nastos <nastos at gmail.com>
> Subject: [seqfan] Re: Comment in A000792
> To: "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 8:15 PM
> Oh, yes, isolated vertices should be counted as maximal
> cliques, so
> the term on 3 vertices is indeed 3. The statement on
> maximal cliques
> should be able to stand without the n>= 4 stipulation.
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tanya Khovanova
> <mathoflove-seqfan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That was my first thought, that a(n) is the maximum
> number of maximal cliques in the graph with n+2 vertices.
> Did you mean n>2 vertices here? a(n) does seem to
> count maximal
> cliques on n vertices, not n+2 (starting with index 0.)
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan