| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Mathematics Forum » Douglas West's Graph Theory
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jared |
 Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I studied graph theory for a semester using this book. Admittedly, my
experience was somewhat less that stellar; and I found this book too
difficult for me. A little background might be sufficient: I did not
have any prior "Intro. to Combinatorics" course and I was an
engineering student who happened to have an interest in mathematics.
I did however find these books tremendously easier:
Book 1. Combinatorics and Graph Theory
by John M. Harris, Jeffry L. Hirst, Michael J. Mossinghoff
ISBN: 0387987363
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387987363/002-2811429-8891268?v=glance
Book 2. Applied Combinatorics
by Alan Tucker
ISBN: 047143809X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/047143809X/ref=lpr_g_1/002-2811429-8891268?v=glance&s=books
Learning graph theory from Prof. West's book was like being being
pushed unwittingly into a cold river: you know that the able ones
would survive and laugh but the unprepared would sink, in the end you
vow never to play near water again. I think the prose was a bit terse
and at times confusing. Some of the examples are harder than the
material they serve to explicate, sometimes much effort is expended
just to understand the complicating details of the examples.
On the plus side, the proofs are very short and most of them elegant.
No time is wasted in being chatty (contra Book 1)--like the
methematical equivalent of Emeril, each discussion concludes with a
Bam! and on to the next--but of course this leads to a feeling that
graph theory is a slapdash of assorted subjects with no coherent
whole. (I guess the colorful nomenclature of the subject deserves more
lighthearted treatment).
I am interested in learning what other people have in mind about the
book. I am thinking of repurchasing it (sold it earlier). What book
would you nominate to be the best introductory book with the right
combination of rigor and friendliness--neither uncharted Pacific
trench nor kiddies pool. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:02 pm |
|
|
|
|
Jared <jaredleto_usa@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: I studied graph theory for a semester using this book.
....
and I found this book too difficult for me. A little background might be
sufficient: I did not have any prior "Intro. to Combinatorics" course
From the preface, it is intended for undergrad or beginning grad level.
Appendix A in the book about "Mathematical Background" is definitely that.
Some previous exposure to combinatorics (or even basic graph theory) would
help a lot with this book.
Quote: Learning graph theory from Prof. West's book was like being being
pushed unwittingly into a cold river: you know that the able ones
would survive and laugh but the unprepared would sink, in the end you
vow never to play near water again.
That's not a terrible thing. it's not pleasant, but I don't think West
would really take it as a criticism.
Quote: I think the prose was a bit terse and at times confusing.
Agreed, but I think that style was a conscious design decision. The
language is formed always in a ttempt to be correct and concise, and
certain informal sounding English is used pointedly, e.g. he might
use "the foobar" instead of the lengthier but not more precise "there
exists exactly 1 foobar". So if you're not used to it (and you will be
after the book), the language only -seems- confusing. You need to put in
that extra work to extract the unspoken .. er not unspoken but not
immediate .. er it is immediate if only you were already precise about
your use of language. Later on in the preface, he makes some remarks about
intellectual discipline and honesty and use of language "say what you
mean" and "mean what you say". (and he practices what he preaches).
Quote: On the plus side, the proofs are very short and most of them elegant.
as many classic results in combinatorics are.
Quote: this leads to a feeling that
graph theory is a slapdash of assorted subjects with no coherent
whole.
From the preface, "Graph theory is still young, and no consensus has
emerged on how the introductory material should be presented." This lack
of consensus is there also at the "advanced" level. There's no one
unifying vision of the landscape of facts in graph theory (or
combinatorics for that matter), there are many good, deep, competing
viewpoints, that unify some large parts of combinatorics but not all
(I think the main problem is that the set of phenomena in combinatorics is
just inherently too broad to have a general encompassing theory).
Quote: I am thinking of repurchasing it (sold it earlier).
Highly recommended. Keep it as a reference. Dip into it at leisure.
Quote: What book
would you nominate to be the best introductory book with the right
combination of rigor and friendliness--neither uncharted Pacific
trench nor kiddies pool.
Hmm.. that I don't have too many opinions about. Possibly a text on
algorithms with coverage of graphs?
Mitch Harris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:14 am
|
|