• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    I’ve already explained to you why every professional discipline uses domain specific terminology. I get the impression this is the first time you’ve seen a scientific paper in your entire life. Why would they bother make a graph of 4 colors on a page, what the fuck would that even illustrate? The 4 color theorem itself isn’t what’s being discussed. It’s the algorithm that’s novel. You just have to accept the fact that this is serious research, and you’re not the target audience for it.

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      24 days ago

      The algorithm can’t be discussed along with at least a few planar graphs in full color?

      I never said anything against their studies, just their publication. They could have easily rounded that up to 100 pages with 4 extra pages in full color.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        24 days ago

        Can you explain how these planar graphs in full color help make the algorithm more clear? Please do elaborate on what additional explanatory power these would add.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          23 days ago

          If you study color, you don’t go at it colorblind.

          Why are you defending the lack of full 4 color graphs, along with the 96 pages of text and math?

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            23 days ago

            As I’ve already explained, and you promptly ignored, the paper isn’t about studying color. It’s about a specific mathematical algorithm that solves the theorem in linear time. The 96 page paper is about the algorithm. What part of that are you still struggling to comprehend?

            • over_clox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              23 days ago

              I solve Rubik’s Cubes blindfolded behind my back. Yay for me right? No joke either.

              Still, there’s no reason that mathematical experts can’t come up with an intuitive visual representation of their works.

              I followed the works of Steven Wittens, aka Wacko…

              https://acko.net/

              He actually visualizes mathematics.

              • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                23 days ago

                Because sometimes there is no intuitive visualization, or the visualization may even be deceptive. E.g. … the Coloring Problem is not literally about colors. It’s not even about maps. It’s about the abstraction itself. It’s about the math.

                • over_clox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  23 days ago

                  RGBXY

                  You got a 5 dimensional system right there.

                  Its not that hard, except for the people that don’t understand multiple dimensions…

                  • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    23 days ago

                    except for the people that don’t understand multiple dimensions…

                    …which is most people, actually. So you’re kinda making the case against having a figure, because you would have to project your 5D object onto a 2D space, where both topology and graph theory simplify dramatically. Topological graph theory can tell us that there exist graphs with topologies that cannot be embedded into 2D or even 3D space without intersections, meaning you would have to make some sacrifices to draw these graphs within your framework.

                    But that’s not even how it works. If you allow for intersections, you can always draw a graph on a piece of paper. Which they do.