Talk:Entanglement (graph measure)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 9 June 2010 by reviewer Feinoha (talk · contribs).

I was surprised to find this article initially created by an anonymous user, since although editing by anonymous users is allowed and happens frequently, creation by anonymous users was abolished several years ago. Then I find this talk page mentioning "article wizard". I never heard of that until a moment ago. Apparently when I click on "edit" on this talk page, a user is identified as a "reviewer", but no initial author is identified. Having making that information available, and having clickable links to those users, is what I would expect of something like this.

Whoever did this allowed this:

n-1

where what should have appeared is this:

n − 1.

Note that:

The minus sign is not just a hyphen.
The 1 should not be italicized.
Spaces should precede and follow the minus sign.
This is standard. See WP:MOS

Also "Applications was capitalized in a section heading where it should have been in lower case, and some hyphens were used in ranges of pages where en-dashes should have been. Also standard, per WP:MOS. I understand that newbies don't know these things, but what about the reviewer? This is routine standard stuff. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

I think the definition has a glitch! Currently we write: "A graph G has entanglement n if n cops win in the entanglement game on G but n − 1 cops lose the game". Howevere below we write that n=0 means our graph is acyclical. This is a contradicition since 0 cops should not be able to ever win the game! I assume the proper definition should use n+1 and n. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.145.194 (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we look at what the reliable sources say, and this is indeed what the 2004 paper says. Secondly, and no less importantly, it is correct: zero cops win the game. The robber must move and loses if he cannot. On an acyclic graph, he can make only finitely many moves and hence must ultimately lose, even if no cops are added to the graph. Deltahedron (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]