Talk:Haven (graph theory)

Untitled
What does "even more strongly" in the last section mean? 32.178.136.137 (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Collin237
 * Having havens of orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, .. (as stated in the previous clause) is not the same thing as, and weaker than, having a haven of infinite order (in the "even more strongly" clause). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

is a way of describing a strategy
"is a way of describing a strategy" is so vague it is meaningless. I'm out of my depth on this topic, but the first sentence should at least be comprehensible to the average reader. Is a haven a type of strategy? Bhny (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. The actual mathematical definition is in (surprise) the definition section. The short version is that it's a function from sets of vertices in a graph to other sets of vertices, obeying certain properties. If you have such a function in hand, you can use it as a roadmap to play the pursuit-evasion game, consulting the function to choose where to go on each step. In that sense it *describes* a strategy, or to say it another way, every haven corresponds to the strategy that you get by consulting it, and that's what the lead sentence is intended to mean, but that's different from saying that it *is* a strategy. If you wanted to define a strategy formally as a mathematical object, it would be a function of a different type, from game positions to the move that you would play in that position. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you put your explanation in the lead? Bhny (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Better now? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes that's a little better, but why not include your full explanation. Bhny (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's the lead of an article on a highly WP:TECHNICAL subject and we want to start as accessible as we can. The full explanation is later in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's what I meant. Your explanation above is accessible and the current lead isn't. Bhny (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've made another attempt. I think your opinion on what is accessible for this subject is probably more accurate than mine, because this is too close to things I've worked on professionally for me to see it from a naive viewpoint. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)