This is an unsurprising result in hindsight, right, because with a context-free grammar for replacements is fairly powerful. You can create rules which will result in a wide variety of input sets.
Well, it _seems_ like it is the same to me. I only downloaded the first paper (on curvature). It reads exactly like what I would expect - "if we pretend that these features of the graph are X, then we can successfully get equation Y".
-
-
Some of these, I don't even quite understand why they are even statements. They are like "if we take a graph that can only be represented in 3D without crossings, then it has 3D properties" - but obviously that is true?
-
Like, obviously I can't say for sure because there's a big information dump here, and they are not particularly good at explaining themselves (as mathematicians often are). So, to be continued, certainly.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.