Minor fixes to chapters 3 and 6.

[saga.git] / TODO

diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index 27cb653f6fa49d07e057ee577f0686bec1f4e8af..a76d1b8e28c61ea1a57818f564f38fe72462db40 100644 (file)
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -18,28 +18,19 @@ Typography:
 Diaz:
 
 > 2: simplify, remove proof sketches
-- 3: intro: replace "efficient" by "linear"
-- 3.1.7, 3.1.10: skip proof
-- 3.3: do we really need the full Komlos's result?
-- 3.3.17: maxflow: shouldn't Karzanov be cited, too?
-- 3.5.1: does the first alg give any insight?
-- 3.5.1: mention geometric distribution
-- 5.4.6: could we give a simple proof?
-- 5: mention graphs with moving vertices?
-- 6: mention d-regular graphs
-- 6: two monographs on Euclidean MST
-       M. Steel: Probability theory and combinatorial optimization, SIAM 1997
-       J. Yukich: Probability theory of classical Euclidean optimization problems, Springer 1998
+> 3.1.7, 3.1.10: skip proof
+> 3.5.1: does the first alg give any insight?
+> 5: mention graphs with moving vertices?
 
 Patrice:
 
-- Remark on 2.5.1: polynomial time could be replaced by sub-exponential time.
+> Remark on 2.5.1: polynomial time could be replaced by sub-exponential time.
 - For 1.5.6, you should probably quote D. Cheriton and R.E. Tarjan.
   Finding Minimum Spanning Trees. SIAM J. on Comp. 5(4) (1976) pp.
   724-742. who gave a linear time algorithm for planar graphs, extended by
   Tarjan in 1983 to proper minor closed classes (both quoted by Gustedt).
   [XXX: Cannot get the paper.]
-- In 3.1.12 and 3.1.16, you should make explicit the dependence of the
+> In 3.1.12 and 3.1.16, you should make explicit the dependence of the
   running time  with respect, for instance, to the Hadwiger number of the
   graph or to the maximal density nabla(G) of a minor of the graph, as
   considering a minor closed class or another does not change the