What is a DAG (Graph Theory)?
$begingroup$
I am reading this link on Wikipedia; it states the following definition is given for a DAG.
Definition: A DAG is a finite, directed graph with no directed cycles.
Reading this definition believes me to think that the digraph below would be a DAG as there are no directed cycles here (there are cycles of the underlying graph but there are no directed cycles).
However, all the pictures on Wikipedia show examples of DAGs with arrows pointing the same way. So, I think I am interpreting this definition wrong. In particular, why does the definition mention later on an equivalent definition is that it must have topological ordering such that "every edge is directed from earlier to later in the sequence"? Reading the definition above would lead me to believe that the graph above is a DAG, but then the equivalent definition would make me think otherwise.
graph-theory directed-graphs
edited 4 hours ago
Jasper
242110
asked 14 hours ago
W. G.W. G.
6621717
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am reading this link on Wikipedia; it states the following definition is given for a DAG.
Definition: A DAG is a finite, directed graph with no directed cycles.
Reading this definition believes me to think that the digraph below would be a DAG as there are no directed cycles here (there are cycles of the underlying graph but there are no directed cycles).
However, all the pictures on Wikipedia show examples of DAGs with arrows pointing the same way. So, I think I am interpreting this definition wrong. In particular, why does the definition mention later on an equivalent definition is that it must have topological ordering such that "every edge is directed from earlier to later in the sequence"? Reading the definition above would lead me to believe that the graph above is a DAG, but then the equivalent definition would make me think otherwise.
graph-theory directed-graphs
edited 4 hours ago
Jasper
242110
asked 14 hours ago
W. G.W. G.
6621717
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
If you are learning about dags, a useful resource is webgraphviz, which lets you write dags using a simple description language and will then draw them for you in as close to a top-to-bottom ordering as it can manage.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@EricLippert Thank you! I will keep that in mind!
$endgroup$
– W. G.
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@EricLippert or yEd. the beautiful thing is that you can ask it to animate between layouts. So if you draw what you have here and ask it to make a hierarchical layout then boom it looks like a graph on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– joojaa
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Another newer graph exploration tool is erkal.github.io/kite . Check it out, it's kind of fun.
$endgroup$
– Ben
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am reading this link on Wikipedia; it states the following definition is given for a DAG.
Definition: A DAG is a finite, directed graph with no directed cycles.
Reading this definition believes me to think that the digraph below would be a DAG as there are no directed cycles here (there are cycles of the underlying graph but there are no directed cycles).
However, all the pictures on Wikipedia show examples of DAGs with arrows pointing the same way. So, I think I am interpreting this definition wrong. In particular, why does the definition mention later on an equivalent definition is that it must have topological ordering such that "every edge is directed from earlier to later in the sequence"? Reading the definition above would lead me to believe that the graph above is a DAG, but then the equivalent definition would make me think otherwise.
graph-theory directed-graphs
edited 4 hours ago
Jasper
242110
asked 14 hours ago
W. G.W. G.
6621717
$endgroup$
I am reading this link on Wikipedia; it states the following definition is given for a DAG.
Definition: A DAG is a finite, directed graph with no directed cycles.
Reading this definition believes me to think that the digraph below would be a DAG as there are no directed cycles here (there are cycles of the underlying graph but there are no directed cycles).
However, all the pictures on Wikipedia show examples of DAGs with arrows pointing the same way. So, I think I am interpreting this definition wrong. In particular, why does the definition mention later on an equivalent definition is that it must have topological ordering such that "every edge is directed from earlier to later in the sequence"? Reading the definition above would lead me to believe that the graph above is a DAG, but then the equivalent definition would make me think otherwise.
graph-theory directed-graphs
graph-theory directed-graphs
edited 4 hours ago
Jasper
242110
asked 14 hours ago
W. G.W. G.
6621717
edited 4 hours ago
Jasper
242110
asked 14 hours ago
W. G.W. G.
6621717
edited 4 hours ago
Jasper
242110
edited 4 hours ago
Jasper
242110
edited 4 hours ago
Jasper
242110
242110
asked 14 hours ago
W. G.W. G.
6621717
asked 14 hours ago
W. G.W. G.
6621717
asked 14 hours ago
W. G.W. G.
6621717
6621717
5
$begingroup$
If you are learning about dags, a useful resource is webgraphviz, which lets you write dags using a simple description language and will then draw them for you in as close to a top-to-bottom ordering as it can manage.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@EricLippert Thank you! I will keep that in mind!
$endgroup$
– W. G.
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@EricLippert or yEd. the beautiful thing is that you can ask it to animate between layouts. So if you draw what you have here and ask it to make a hierarchical layout then boom it looks like a graph on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– joojaa
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Another newer graph exploration tool is erkal.github.io/kite . Check it out, it's kind of fun.
$endgroup$
– Ben
3 hours ago
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
If you are learning about dags, a useful resource is webgraphviz, which lets you write dags using a simple description language and will then draw them for you in as close to a top-to-bottom ordering as it can manage.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@EricLippert Thank you! I will keep that in mind!
$endgroup$
– W. G.
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@EricLippert or yEd. the beautiful thing is that you can ask it to animate between layouts. So if you draw what you have here and ask it to make a hierarchical layout then boom it looks like a graph on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– joojaa
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Another newer graph exploration tool is erkal.github.io/kite . Check it out, it's kind of fun.
$endgroup$
– Ben
3 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
If you are learning about dags, a useful resource is webgraphviz, which lets you write dags using a simple description language and will then draw them for you in as close to a top-to-bottom ordering as it can manage.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you are learning about dags, a useful resource is webgraphviz, which lets you write dags using a simple description language and will then draw them for you in as close to a top-to-bottom ordering as it can manage.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@EricLippert Thank you! I will keep that in mind!
$endgroup$
– W. G.
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EricLippert Thank you! I will keep that in mind!
$endgroup$
– W. G.
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@EricLippert or yEd. the beautiful thing is that you can ask it to animate between layouts. So if you draw what you have here and ask it to make a hierarchical layout then boom it looks like a graph on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– joojaa
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EricLippert or yEd. the beautiful thing is that you can ask it to animate between layouts. So if you draw what you have here and ask it to make a hierarchical layout then boom it looks like a graph on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– joojaa
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Another newer graph exploration tool is erkal.github.io/kite . Check it out, it's kind of fun.
$endgroup$
– Ben
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Another newer graph exploration tool is erkal.github.io/kite . Check it out, it's kind of fun.
$endgroup$
– Ben
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The graph you show is a DAG.
It is conventional to draw DAGs with all the arrows going in the roughly the same direction, because that usually gives a clearer intuition about what is going on in the graph.
But remember that locations and directions are not part of the formal definition of a graph -- they're just incidental features of the particular drawing at the graph you're looking at, and it would be the same graph if you drew the vertices in different locations on the paper.
(Even in your drawing, all the edges go in a broadly southeasterly direction -- or at least more southeast than northwest -- so you're actually following the convention).
In particular, why does the definition mention later on an equivalent definition is that it must have topological ordering such that "every edge is directed from earlier to later in the sequence"?
Because that is another way to define the same class of graphs, and sometimes (but not always) a more productive way to think about them. You should be able to prove that the finite directed graphs that have no directed cycles are exactly the same as the finite directed graphs that have a topological ordering.
answered 14 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
241k17307546
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Another term is "embedding": a graph is an abstract mathematical object of nodes and edges. A drawing on a piece of paper that represents a graph is an embedding of the graph in two-dimensional space.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unrelated: Is "graph is a DAG" sufficient and necessary for "graph is topologically sortable"? I suspect so.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the area of (information) visualization, it is not uncommon to refer to a "graph" as the abstract, underlying data structure which does not know anything about positions (of vertices) and lines (for edges). The latter is then more specifically referred to as a Node-Link-Diagram - namely, a visual representation of the abstract data structure. Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_drawing#Graphical_conventions
$endgroup$
– Marco13
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Alexander yes it is. In one direction, you cannot topologically sort a directed cycle, obviously. In the other, observe that a DAG has a sink, place that sink last, remove it from the graph, and recurse.
$endgroup$
– Sasho Nikolov
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the given graph is indeed a DAG,
The equivalent definition says that a graph $(V, E)$ is a dag if and only if you can find a total order that extends the order given by $E$.
In simpler terms, let $u_1, ldots, u_n$ be the elements of $V$ (the vertices), then $(V, E)$ is a dag if and only if you can find an order $<$ such that if $(u_i, u_k)in E$ then $u_i < u_k$.
answered 14 hours ago
aleph0aleph0
39510
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3127366%2fwhat-is-a-dag-graph-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The graph you show is a DAG.
It is conventional to draw DAGs with all the arrows going in the roughly the same direction, because that usually gives a clearer intuition about what is going on in the graph.
But remember that locations and directions are not part of the formal definition of a graph -- they're just incidental features of the particular drawing at the graph you're looking at, and it would be the same graph if you drew the vertices in different locations on the paper.
(Even in your drawing, all the edges go in a broadly southeasterly direction -- or at least more southeast than northwest -- so you're actually following the convention).
In particular, why does the definition mention later on an equivalent definition is that it must have topological ordering such that "every edge is directed from earlier to later in the sequence"?
Because that is another way to define the same class of graphs, and sometimes (but not always) a more productive way to think about them. You should be able to prove that the finite directed graphs that have no directed cycles are exactly the same as the finite directed graphs that have a topological ordering.
answered 14 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
241k17307546
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Another term is "embedding": a graph is an abstract mathematical object of nodes and edges. A drawing on a piece of paper that represents a graph is an embedding of the graph in two-dimensional space.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unrelated: Is "graph is a DAG" sufficient and necessary for "graph is topologically sortable"? I suspect so.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the area of (information) visualization, it is not uncommon to refer to a "graph" as the abstract, underlying data structure which does not know anything about positions (of vertices) and lines (for edges). The latter is then more specifically referred to as a Node-Link-Diagram - namely, a visual representation of the abstract data structure. Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_drawing#Graphical_conventions
$endgroup$
– Marco13
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Alexander yes it is. In one direction, you cannot topologically sort a directed cycle, obviously. In the other, observe that a DAG has a sink, place that sink last, remove it from the graph, and recurse.
$endgroup$
– Sasho Nikolov
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The graph you show is a DAG.
It is conventional to draw DAGs with all the arrows going in the roughly the same direction, because that usually gives a clearer intuition about what is going on in the graph.
But remember that locations and directions are not part of the formal definition of a graph -- they're just incidental features of the particular drawing at the graph you're looking at, and it would be the same graph if you drew the vertices in different locations on the paper.
(Even in your drawing, all the edges go in a broadly southeasterly direction -- or at least more southeast than northwest -- so you're actually following the convention).
In particular, why does the definition mention later on an equivalent definition is that it must have topological ordering such that "every edge is directed from earlier to later in the sequence"?
Because that is another way to define the same class of graphs, and sometimes (but not always) a more productive way to think about them. You should be able to prove that the finite directed graphs that have no directed cycles are exactly the same as the finite directed graphs that have a topological ordering.
answered 14 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
241k17307546
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Another term is "embedding": a graph is an abstract mathematical object of nodes and edges. A drawing on a piece of paper that represents a graph is an embedding of the graph in two-dimensional space.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unrelated: Is "graph is a DAG" sufficient and necessary for "graph is topologically sortable"? I suspect so.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the area of (information) visualization, it is not uncommon to refer to a "graph" as the abstract, underlying data structure which does not know anything about positions (of vertices) and lines (for edges). The latter is then more specifically referred to as a Node-Link-Diagram - namely, a visual representation of the abstract data structure. Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_drawing#Graphical_conventions
$endgroup$
– Marco13
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Alexander yes it is. In one direction, you cannot topologically sort a directed cycle, obviously. In the other, observe that a DAG has a sink, place that sink last, remove it from the graph, and recurse.
$endgroup$
– Sasho Nikolov
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The graph you show is a DAG.
It is conventional to draw DAGs with all the arrows going in the roughly the same direction, because that usually gives a clearer intuition about what is going on in the graph.
But remember that locations and directions are not part of the formal definition of a graph -- they're just incidental features of the particular drawing at the graph you're looking at, and it would be the same graph if you drew the vertices in different locations on the paper.
(Even in your drawing, all the edges go in a broadly southeasterly direction -- or at least more southeast than northwest -- so you're actually following the convention).
In particular, why does the definition mention later on an equivalent definition is that it must have topological ordering such that "every edge is directed from earlier to later in the sequence"?
Because that is another way to define the same class of graphs, and sometimes (but not always) a more productive way to think about them. You should be able to prove that the finite directed graphs that have no directed cycles are exactly the same as the finite directed graphs that have a topological ordering.
answered 14 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
241k17307546
$endgroup$
The graph you show is a DAG.
It is conventional to draw DAGs with all the arrows going in the roughly the same direction, because that usually gives a clearer intuition about what is going on in the graph.
But remember that locations and directions are not part of the formal definition of a graph -- they're just incidental features of the particular drawing at the graph you're looking at, and it would be the same graph if you drew the vertices in different locations on the paper.
(Even in your drawing, all the edges go in a broadly southeasterly direction -- or at least more southeast than northwest -- so you're actually following the convention).
In particular, why does the definition mention later on an equivalent definition is that it must have topological ordering such that "every edge is directed from earlier to later in the sequence"?
Because that is another way to define the same class of graphs, and sometimes (but not always) a more productive way to think about them. You should be able to prove that the finite directed graphs that have no directed cycles are exactly the same as the finite directed graphs that have a topological ordering.
answered 14 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
241k17307546
answered 14 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
241k17307546
answered 14 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
241k17307546
answered 14 hours ago
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
241k17307546
241k17307546
1
$begingroup$
Another term is "embedding": a graph is an abstract mathematical object of nodes and edges. A drawing on a piece of paper that represents a graph is an embedding of the graph in two-dimensional space.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unrelated: Is "graph is a DAG" sufficient and necessary for "graph is topologically sortable"? I suspect so.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the area of (information) visualization, it is not uncommon to refer to a "graph" as the abstract, underlying data structure which does not know anything about positions (of vertices) and lines (for edges). The latter is then more specifically referred to as a Node-Link-Diagram - namely, a visual representation of the abstract data structure. Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_drawing#Graphical_conventions
$endgroup$
– Marco13
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Alexander yes it is. In one direction, you cannot topologically sort a directed cycle, obviously. In the other, observe that a DAG has a sink, place that sink last, remove it from the graph, and recurse.
$endgroup$
– Sasho Nikolov
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Another term is "embedding": a graph is an abstract mathematical object of nodes and edges. A drawing on a piece of paper that represents a graph is an embedding of the graph in two-dimensional space.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unrelated: Is "graph is a DAG" sufficient and necessary for "graph is topologically sortable"? I suspect so.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the area of (information) visualization, it is not uncommon to refer to a "graph" as the abstract, underlying data structure which does not know anything about positions (of vertices) and lines (for edges). The latter is then more specifically referred to as a Node-Link-Diagram - namely, a visual representation of the abstract data structure. Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_drawing#Graphical_conventions
$endgroup$
– Marco13
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Alexander yes it is. In one direction, you cannot topologically sort a directed cycle, obviously. In the other, observe that a DAG has a sink, place that sink last, remove it from the graph, and recurse.
$endgroup$
– Sasho Nikolov
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Another term is "embedding": a graph is an abstract mathematical object of nodes and edges. A drawing on a piece of paper that represents a graph is an embedding of the graph in two-dimensional space.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Another term is "embedding": a graph is an abstract mathematical object of nodes and edges. A drawing on a piece of paper that represents a graph is an embedding of the graph in two-dimensional space.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unrelated: Is "graph is a DAG" sufficient and necessary for "graph is topologically sortable"? I suspect so.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unrelated: Is "graph is a DAG" sufficient and necessary for "graph is topologically sortable"? I suspect so.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the area of (information) visualization, it is not uncommon to refer to a "graph" as the abstract, underlying data structure which does not know anything about positions (of vertices) and lines (for edges). The latter is then more specifically referred to as a Node-Link-Diagram - namely, a visual representation of the abstract data structure. Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_drawing#Graphical_conventions
$endgroup$
– Marco13
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
In the area of (information) visualization, it is not uncommon to refer to a "graph" as the abstract, underlying data structure which does not know anything about positions (of vertices) and lines (for edges). The latter is then more specifically referred to as a Node-Link-Diagram - namely, a visual representation of the abstract data structure. Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_drawing#Graphical_conventions
$endgroup$
– Marco13
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Alexander yes it is. In one direction, you cannot topologically sort a directed cycle, obviously. In the other, observe that a DAG has a sink, place that sink last, remove it from the graph, and recurse.
$endgroup$
– Sasho Nikolov
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Alexander yes it is. In one direction, you cannot topologically sort a directed cycle, obviously. In the other, observe that a DAG has a sink, place that sink last, remove it from the graph, and recurse.
$endgroup$
– Sasho Nikolov
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the given graph is indeed a DAG,
The equivalent definition says that a graph $(V, E)$ is a dag if and only if you can find a total order that extends the order given by $E$.
In simpler terms, let $u_1, ldots, u_n$ be the elements of $V$ (the vertices), then $(V, E)$ is a dag if and only if you can find an order $<$ such that if $(u_i, u_k)in E$ then $u_i < u_k$.
answered 14 hours ago
aleph0aleph0
39510
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the given graph is indeed a DAG,
The equivalent definition says that a graph $(V, E)$ is a dag if and only if you can find a total order that extends the order given by $E$.
In simpler terms, let $u_1, ldots, u_n$ be the elements of $V$ (the vertices), then $(V, E)$ is a dag if and only if you can find an order $<$ such that if $(u_i, u_k)in E$ then $u_i < u_k$.
answered 14 hours ago
aleph0aleph0
39510
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the given graph is indeed a DAG,
The equivalent definition says that a graph $(V, E)$ is a dag if and only if you can find a total order that extends the order given by $E$.
In simpler terms, let $u_1, ldots, u_n$ be the elements of $V$ (the vertices), then $(V, E)$ is a dag if and only if you can find an order $<$ such that if $(u_i, u_k)in E$ then $u_i < u_k$.
answered 14 hours ago
aleph0aleph0
39510
$endgroup$
the given graph is indeed a DAG,
The equivalent definition says that a graph $(V, E)$ is a dag if and only if you can find a total order that extends the order given by $E$.
In simpler terms, let $u_1, ldots, u_n$ be the elements of $V$ (the vertices), then $(V, E)$ is a dag if and only if you can find an order $<$ such that if $(u_i, u_k)in E$ then $u_i < u_k$.
answered 14 hours ago
aleph0aleph0
39510
answered 14 hours ago
aleph0aleph0
39510
answered 14 hours ago
aleph0aleph0
39510
answered 14 hours ago
aleph0aleph0
39510
39510
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3127366%2fwhat-is-a-dag-graph-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
$begingroup$
If you are learning about dags, a useful resource is webgraphviz, which lets you write dags using a simple description language and will then draw them for you in as close to a top-to-bottom ordering as it can manage.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@EricLippert Thank you! I will keep that in mind!
$endgroup$
– W. G.
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@EricLippert or yEd. the beautiful thing is that you can ask it to animate between layouts. So if you draw what you have here and ask it to make a hierarchical layout then boom it looks like a graph on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
– joojaa
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Another newer graph exploration tool is erkal.github.io/kite . Check it out, it's kind of fun.
$endgroup$
– Ben
3 hours ago