Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Discrete and metric divisorial gonality can be different

Combinatorics · Submitted 23 Jun 2021

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We show that $\text{dgon}(\Gamma(G,\mathbb{1}))$ is equal to the minimal divisorial gonality of all regular subdivisions of $G$, and we provide a class of graphs for which this number is strictly smaller than the divisorial gonality of $G$.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2106.12568 (version 2)
Pith IDP3DF2U6T, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationHarry Smit, Josse van Dobben de Bruyn, Marieke van der Wegen. "Discrete and metric divisorial gonality can be different." arXiv:2106.12568 (2021). https://pith.science/paper/P3DF2U6T
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,009 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.14 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.14 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.20 · compares with prior results 0.82 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

This paper compares the divisorial gonality of a finite graph $G$ to the divisorial gonality of the associated metric graph $\Gamma(G,\mathbb{1})$ with unit lengths. We show that $\text{dgon}(\Gamma(G,\mathbb{1}))$ is equal to the minimal divisorial gonality of all regular subdivisions of $G$, and we provide a class of graphs for which this number is strictly smaller than the divisorial gonality of $G$. This settles a conjecture of M. Baker in the negative.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 This paper compares the divisorial gonality of a finite graph $G$ to the divisorial gonality of the associated metric graph $\Gamma(G,\mathbb{1})$ with unit lengths. background 0.56 0.40 0.05 asserted 0.55
s1 We show that $\text{dgon}(\Gamma(G,\mathbb{1}))$ is equal to the minimal divisorial gonality of all regular subdivisions of $G$, and we provide a class of graphs for which this number is strictly smaller than the divisorial gonality of $G$. result 0.96 0.96 0.82 asserted 1.00
s2 This settles a conjecture of M. Baker in the negative. interpretation 0.85 0.62 0.37 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v2
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

This paper compares the divisorial gonality of a finite graph $G$ to the divisorial gonality of the associated metric graph $\Gamma(G,\mathbb{1})$ with unit lengths. We show that $\text{dgon}(\Gamma(G,\mathbb{1}))$ is equal to the minimal divisorial gonality of all regular subdivisions of $G$, and we provide a class of graphs for which this number is strictly smaller than the divisorial gonality of $G$. This settles a conjecture of M. Baker in the negative.

Human review

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.