Talk:Graph theory

message: This article starts with "In mathematics graph theory is the study [...]", which made think if it is right to classify Graph Theory in maths?
I think that in all the universities I have known, there are professors of the department of (theoretical) Computer Science that study graph theory. Also, courses of graph theory are typically taught to students of computer science. 
So, maybe it would be better to change the article by saying that it is an area in the intersection of mathematics and computer science... What do you think about?
Lp.vitor (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To me (and I speak as someone in a computer science department who does graph theory) graph theory is clearly mathematics, not computer science. It is heavily used in computer science, and graph algorithms are computer science, but graph theory itself is mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Speaking as someone else in a CS department who does graph theory, I agree with David. McKay (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Mathematics are likely to be applied (everywhere). David is absolutely right about graph theory being mathematics used in computer science. SlvrKy (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Speaking as someone who earned a Ph.D. in computer science and had a pair of advisors—one each in mathematical sciences and computer science—David is absolutely right about graph theory being mathematics used in computer science. PaulTanenbaum (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics or Computer Science? 

message: : Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — LeoFrank  Talk 06:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this supposed to be a replacement for the two existing sentences about chemical graph theory? It seems overly WP:TECHNICAL, unsourced, and (in the last two sentences) a bit off-topic to me. And are reaction networks really graphs? How can they be when reactions typically have more than one input and output? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2018 

message: [...] In chemical graph theory graphs represent both molecules and chemical reactions. A special case of the latter are synthon graphs, whose edges represent multistep synthetic reactions. Retrosynthetic analysis splits a target molecule into simpler reagents, until simple starting materials are obtained. This sort of computerized chemical reverse engineering has facilitated the syntheses of complicated molecules. [...]
:Is this supposed to be a replacement for the two existing sentences about chemical graph theory? It seems overly WP:TECHNICAL, unsourced, and (in the last two sentences) a bit off-topic to me. And are reaction networks really graphs? How can they be when reactions typically have more than one input and output? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics and chemistry 

message: I am a bit surprised with the museum guard problem in the list of problems. If one want to see this as a graph theoretical problem, it should be rather seen as a dominating set problem. And for the later, I would include it maybe in the set cover part (which I will do now). So maybe we can remove that section? 
Dorbec (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum Guards problem 

message: I think the way the following sentence is phrased, hints that the two events are independent, but according to MacTutor and this article the second is a consequence of the first:
"his problem was first posed by Francis Guthrie in 1852 and its first written record is in a letter of De Morgan addressed to Hamilton the same year."
Perhaps the second part of the sentence could be removed or stated as a footnote? Dimitris131 (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the letter from De Morgan to Hamilton