Talk:Table of simple cubic graphs

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

[Untitled]

This is a very pretty page. Thanks to the author for posting it! But there is an error in the drawings -- the eighth of the 10-vertex graphs has a pair of vertices of order 2. Should they be connected by an edge?

I think the image is correct. Vertex 3 does have the right number of edges; it's just that the edge from 3 to 2 is partially hidden behind the edge from 3 to 8. --Especially Lime (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad links

K3,3 and Wn,2 link to some random pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.14.199 (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The K_{3,3} link makes sense (K_{3,3} is sometimes called the "utility graph" for that reason), but it should probably be a separate link for that name, with K_{3,3} itself linking to the page on complete bipartite graphs. W_{n,2} links to a different meaning of "web graph" than the intended one, but according to the source I can find (Wolfram Mathworld), the graph in question isn't a web graph at all. I'll make those changes. --Especially Lime (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

another 8 nodes cubic simple graph

I notice that may be we left a graph which not appear in list of 8 nodes. Is this next graph :

0 : 2,5
1 : 2,6
2 : 0,1,5,7
3 : 4,7
4 : 3,7
5 : 0,2
6 : 1,7
7 : 2,3,4,6

(at left are the vertices, and at right is adjacent list) I have a picture, but i am not able to send it. This graph is planar and have 2 3-cycles and one 4-cycle. greatings. Sorry, now i notice that this is not cubic. Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjiun (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nodes 2 and 7 have 4 neighbours, so this is not a cubic graph and the graph does not belong in here. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aut. Column

As far as I can tell the meaning of the "Aut." column is never explained. I assume it's number of automorphisms? Loke202 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]