Definition talk:Walk

I kind of think that at least some set of these should get there own pages, maybe with a see also section. It does create a lot of little pages, but that's fairly common in the definitions namespace. Does anyone have thoughts? --Cynic (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy with that, which is why I set up separate pages for them (admittedly just as redirects) so as to enable the pages linking to them to have minimal amendments needed to them. I'm not intending to go too deeply into graph theory, I just needed to get some of these definitions in place so that I can use tree theory in something else I'm doing. So no onjections from me ...

Oh yes, and we'll need a disambig for "cycle". --Matt Westwood 09:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, all the above has been done. Several other disambigs have also been set up. --Matt Westwood 21:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

0-length walk

May a walk have length 0? I.e., may a walk be formed by only one vertex and zero edges? I don't think so, but it is not clear in the definition.

But if it were allowed, the definition of "connected vertices" could be simplified.

No, nothing to stop it. I see what you about simplifying that definition, but clarity could suffer if we're not careful. --prime mover 01:15, 17 May 2012 (EDT)