Oops, didn't see your reply before I posted. Not counting the empty graph is very very strange. At the very least OEIS needs to be updated to have a proper definition to warn people that the empty graph is excluded.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2012-10-30, Jernej Azarija <azi.std...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ------=_Part_1698_7171753.1351582604933 >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> On Monday, 29 October 2012 22:49:03 UTC+1, Tom wrote: >>> >>> Here's a list of 21 edge-transitive graphs on 6 vertices. >>> > [...] >>> They've all got 6 vertices. They're all edge transitive. That means >>> Weisstein's list is wrong. > > no, not really. He just doesn't count empty graphs. Somewhere on > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Edge-TransitiveGraph.html > you can read: > > "Counting empty graphs as edge-transitive, the numbers of edge-transitive > graphs on , 2, ... nodes are 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 21, 27, .... " > > So it's a misunderstand related to definitions used, rather than > a bug in someone's code, it seems. > > Dima > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
