Jump to content

Talk:Kirchhoff's theorem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I copied the original material from spanning tree (mathematics) and added a different formulation of Kirchhoff's theorem using the cofactor of the admittance matrix. Then I wrote a new article admittance matrix and deleted most of the explaination on this page in terms of discrete Laplace operator (which was just a definition of the admittance matrix). Now the article is quite terse, perhaps someone else can add some material to illustrate the theorem. Although I do not think it is a good idea to duplicate the definition of the admittance matrix here. MathMartin 17:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hmm?

[edit]

Fair enough we an make a spanning tree, a loop free mechanism to determine the nodes, we can also determine the number of spanning trees in the graph (logically if there are k Vertices in the graph there is always a way to connect all k via some loop free path) however i doubt how it helps to say that path 102 is the same as path 201

Cayleys formula

[edit]
Seeing that Cayley's formula follows from Kirchhoff's theorem as a special case is easy: every vector with 1 in one place, -1 in another place, and 0 elsewhere is an
eigenvector of the Laplacian matrix of the complete graph, with the corresponding eigenvalue being n. These vectors together span a space of dimension n-1, so there
are no other non-zero eigenvalues.

I don't think this is fully correct. First it should be mentioned that we're talking about , not . is and has eigenvectors of the form to the eigenvalue and one eigenvector to the eigenvalue 1. Multiplying those eigenvalues gives obviously . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.77.186 (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

[edit]

In case anyone is interested, here are illustrations that could make the counting of spanning trees more intuitive:

=>

In this pecular case there are 11 spanning trees covering the original graph.

I hope that helps, --MathsPoetry (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in introduction

[edit]

The determinant of the Laplacian matrix is 0, because the constant vector 1,1,1...,1 is in the matrix's kernel. So this determinant is not the number of spanning trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Semeria (talkcontribs) 19:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I added "minor" in the first sentence, which I think fixes the problem. (Ehm, I was very close to marking it as a "minor edit".) --St.nerol (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]