Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdaisy!gjerawlins
From: gjerawlins@watdaisy.UUCP (Gregory J.E. Rawlins)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: etc Euler formula
Message-ID: <7328@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Jun-85 03:36:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.7328
Posted: Sun Jun 23 03:36:46 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 06:12:09 EDT
Reply-To: gjerawlins@watdaisy.UUCP (Gregory J.E. Rawlins)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 15

In article <555@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes:
>Re Euler formula:
>[.......]
>if the added vertex splits an edge, then F + (V+1) = (E+1) + 2, else
>if it splits a face, then (F+2) + (V+1) = (E+3).
>	(Of course, I am ignoring the holomogy of these 'objects'.)
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>	Sorry about the typo for the last formula (F+2) + (V+1) =
>(E+3) + 2.

	Shouldn't that be (F+1) + (V+2) = (E+3) + 2 ? (assuming that the
"added vertex" is an edge (in the normal sense) which splits a face).
-- 
Gregory J.E. Rawlins, Department of Computer Science, U. Waterloo
{allegra|clyde|linus|inhp4|decvax}!watmath!watdaisy!gjerawlins