Source author record

Jesus Leanos

Jesus Leanos appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2012arXiv

On the decay of crossing numbers of sparse graphs

Richter and Thomassen proved that every graph has an edge $e$ such that the crossing number $\ucr(G-e)$ of $G-e$ is at least $(2/5)\ucr(G) - O(1)$. Fox and Cs. Tóth proved that dense graphs have large sets of edges (proportional in the total number of edges) whose removal leaves a graph with crossing number proportional to the crossing number of the original graph; this result was later strenghtened by Černý, Kynčl and G. Tóth. These results make our understanding of the {decay} of crossing numbers in dense graphs essentially complete. In this paper we prove a similar result for large sparse graphs in which the number of edges is not artificially inflated by operations such as edge subdivisions. We also discuss the connection between the decay of crossing numbers and expected crossing numbers, a concept recently introduced by Mohar and Tamon.

preprint2011arXiv

Visibility-preserving convexifications using single-vertex moves

Devadoss asked: (1) can every polygon be convexified so that no internal visibility (between vertices) is lost in the process? Moreover, (2) does such a convexification exist, in which exactly one vertex is moved at a time (that is, using {\em single-vertex moves})? We prove the redundancy of the "single-vertex moves" condition: an affirmative answer to (1) implies an affirmative answer to (2). Since Aichholzer et al. recently proved (1), this settles (2).