Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Separating Geometric Thickness from Book Thickness

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv math/0109195 v1 pith:DFB3AYVW submitted 2001-09-24 math.CO cs.CGcs.DM

Separating Geometric Thickness from Book Thickness

David Eppstein This is my paper
classification math.CO cs.CGcs.DM
keywords thicknessbookgeometricasymptoticallyequivalenteveryexistsgraph
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We show that geometric thickness and book thickness are not asymptotically equivalent: for every t, there exists a graph with geometric thickness two and book thickness >= t.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Weighted Book Thickness

    cs.CG 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    Weighted book thickness can require strictly more pages than classical book thickness, already for a 10-vertex planar graph and for a 2-tree, but equals the 2-page value for all pathwidth-2 graphs.