From boaz@ccs.neu.edu Thu Sep 18 11:26:25 1997
Received: from taboor.ccs.neu.edu (boaz@taboor.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.112.115])
	by amber.ccs.neu.edu (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA17213; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:26:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (boaz@localhost)
	by taboor.ccs.neu.edu (8.8.6/8.6.4) id LAA04302; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:26:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:26:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199709181526.LAA04302@taboor.ccs.neu.edu>
From: Boaz Patt-Shamir <boaz@ccs.neu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Karl Lieberherr <lieber@ccs.neu.edu>
cc: dem@ccs.neu.edu
Subject: boundary case
In-Reply-To: <199709181405.KAA05892@stockberg.ccs.neu.edu>
References: <199709181405.KAA05892@stockberg.ccs.neu.edu>
X-Mailer: VM 6.31 under Emacs 19.34.1
Status: R

Karl Lieberherr writes:
 > Boaz: what is the difference between:
 > 
 > Tree -> Tree         (cyclic one node strategy)
 > from Tree to Tree    (non-cyclic two node strategy)
 > 
 > Do they always define the same path set?
 > 
 > -- Karl

Yes, the difference is pronounced only when the name map is changed.
(To see that the pathsets are identical, it is sufficient to consider
the corresponding traversal graphs. The crucial observation is that
when connecting copies in Step  2(b) of Alg. 1, edges are added to all
copies which are *reachable* using intercopy edges only.)

Boaz