More TODO.

diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index 24a643841eafd89c871fdebbf0211effd7671e14..ac91e76e7c718ddf259bbf53c6415bead1435216 100644 (file)
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -14,3 +14,38 @@ Ranking:
 Typography:
 
 - formatting of multi-line \algin, \algout
+
+Diaz:
+
+- 1.1.2: progress was made not only by means of new algorithms, but also
+  due to better data structures
+- 1.4.2: full list of authors
+- 1.4.20: proof -> comment
+- 2: simplify, remove proof sketches
+- 2.3: mention radix sorting in linear time
+- 2.5.24: skip proof
+- 3: intro: replace "effient" 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
+
+Patrice:
+
+- 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).
+- 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
+  algorithm but only the bound on its running time.