Comments on article “Hamilton Cycles in Addition Graphs” by Cheyne, Gupta and Wheeler
Whenever dealing with graph topics, it is good to give an example of a graph’s rendering, even if it is an
elementary one, to aid in the reader’s visualization, particularly for undergraduates.
Sometimes, notation is at cross-purposes. <A> is the subgroup generated by A, but it also is the induced
subgraph on A.
I like the proof of Proposition 2.3, but I question the “1. 2.3.” numbering. Perhaps a separate designation
for necessity and sufficiency would be more appropriate.
Perhaps the statement about Add(A,G) and bipartite sets should be removed from Proposition 2.6 and made
a separate observation or remark (i.e., keep the equivalence statements). If not, at least a transitional word
like “Furthermore” would be helpful.
Proposition 2.7 might have clearer statement if “not triangle-free” is changed to “contains a triangle as a
subgraph”.