minor

poly-form.tex

@@ -110,16 +110,10 @@ When we expand $\poly(\wElem_1,\ldots, \wElem_N) = q_E(\wElem_1,\ldots, \wElem_\
 	\end{align}
 \end{Lemma}
 \AH{\cref{lem:qE3-exp} needs to be proven.  I think I might need a gentle nudge on this, I can understand intuitively, but I think there is a combinatorics argument to prove this formally, I'm just a bit unsure.}
-\OK{It's ugly, but I think this may just be an enumeration of cases.  I might suggest showing first that this is all possible "shapes" of ways to pick 3 random edges from E, then extending the proof to show how edge counting maps to the polynomial $q_E$.}
 \AH{The warm-up below is fine for now, but will need to be removed for the final draft}
 First, let us do a warm-up by computing $\rpoly(\wElem_1,\dots, \wElem_\numTup)$ when $\poly = q_E(\wElem_1,\ldots, \wElem_\numTup)$.  Before doing so, we introduce a notation.  Let $\numocc{G}{H}$ denote the number of occurrences that $H$ occurs in $G$.  So, e.g., $\numocc{G}{\ed}$ is the number of edges ($m$) in $G$.
 
 \AH{We need to make a decision on subgraph notation, and number of occurrences notation.  Waiting to hear back from Oliver before making a decision.}
-
-\OK{
-	I'm not sure what I can add.  The existing notation is fine (for now).  I would suggest adding
-	a definition table.
-}
 \AH{UPDATE: I did a quick google, and it \textit{appears} that there is a bit of a learning curve to implement node/edge symbols in LaTeX.  So, maybe, if time is of the essence, we go with another notation.}
 
 \begin{Claim}