あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]The_United_Truth 352 ポイント353 ポイント  (43子コメント)

Absolutely not. You need five of them. You can clearly see on this map that the water is the same color as some states, which is a nonsense; by that, the lakes, for example, are suddenly becoming states, and so on.

[–]Szwab[S] 249 ポイント250 ポイント  (39子コメント)

It's a mathematical theorem that only works if you treat all regions the same. Basically, if you draw some lines to divide a plane, no matter how, you need only four colours to fill the regions.

Saying one class of regions should have a different colour from all others is an additional rule not included in the theorem.

[–]easwaran 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Actually, the theorem doesn't generally apply if some of the regions are disconnected. Imagine that you had three adjacent countries surrounded by a fourth, so that they are required to use four different colors. Then imagine that there is a large lake inside each country. As long as all bodies of water are required to be the same color, you will now have to use a fifth color for the body of water - "water" is basically a "country" that is disconnected and touches each of the four other countries without getting in the way of them all touching each other (which is impossible if it had to be a contiguous country).

And of course, the actual Earth has a few countries with that sort of disconnection as well, notably Congo (Kinshasa) and Russia.

Fortunately, the pattern of lakes and oceans, as well as the pattern of exclaves of Russia and Congo (and perhaps any others?) don't actually get in the way of using just four colors. But once you allow exclaves of this sort, it's easy to come up with maps that can't be colored with four colors.

[–]KingofAlba 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm having a hard time understanding how it would work if the countries (or whatever, I know it's not really meant for maps) were hexagons. Would you not need seven colours then?

[–]dasonk 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nope. There is no issue with a green "country" touching multiple countries that are colored "blue" as long as the blue countries don't touch each other.

[–]KingofAlba 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ooh, I never thought of that...

Thanks!

[–]XenophonOfAthens 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So, imagine a hexagon surrounded by 6 other hexagons, so you get a 7-hexagon cell. Lets say the middle hexagon is blue. Then, color the outer hexagons alternatively red and green, so that every other hexagon is red and every other hexagon is green when read off clockwise. That's only three colors, and no two hexagons of the same color is touching.

[–]KingofAlba 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thanks, that helps me to visualise it quite well. Then the hexagon "inbetween" the red and green could be either blue or the fourth colour?

[–]XenophonOfAthens 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, exactly, the middle one have to be a different color than the edge ones.

[–]TDenverFan 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But why would all the bodies of water have to be the same color? I get that would make the map almost worthless, but the theorum could still hold true

[–]easwaran 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right, if you allow different bodies of water to be different colors, and if you allow exclaves like Kaliningrad to be a different color from the parent country, then the conditions of the four color theorem apply.

[–]CaveBacon 51 ポイント52 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Which is correct, but even on the Wiki page for this theorem has a much better map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem#mediaviewer/File:World_using_the_four_color_theorem.png

[–]TheVegetaMonologues 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The article also states that the theorem is not of particular interest to mapmakers. Go figure.

[–]Philophobie 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It would be weird if it was of interest to mapmakers. That would mean that they're scenarios in which they are limited to using only 4 colours.

[–]Jayrate 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are scenarios in production where using fewer colors can make the cost far cheaper, especially for widely-produced maps in pamphlets and so on.

[–]Jayrate 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is in cases on mass production. Fewer dyes means lower costs.

[–]Szwab[S] 106 ポイント107 ポイント  (6子コメント)

yeah, but that map is using a fifth colour for the water. The theorem here is only applied to one landmass at a time, not to the whole map

[–]CaveBacon 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah ok, makes sense thanks.

[–]lazenbooby 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Holy fuck that hurt my eyes.

[–]RazsterOxzine 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You don't like 1990's map colors? So Retro.

[–]Noumenology 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So that's why "where in the world is carmen sandiego" is playing in my head when i look at this

[–]RazsterOxzine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh yeah, good stuff.

[–]Psyk60 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I notice French Guiana is a different colour to the rest of France on that map. If they fix that, they'd have to rearrange a lot of colours. Actually would it even work if you did that?

[–]foolfromhell 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I disagree. I think using water as one of the four colors shows the power of the theorem.

[–]MooseFlyer 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

You can easily conceive of a situation where a map couldn't be represented with only four colours, because maps don't actually fit that theorem all that well.

Imagine if Lesotho was divided into four countries, and now explain how you could represent southern Africa with only four colours.

[–]AsterJ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Your Lesotho example would not require a 5th color. The only way to force a 4-way subdivision of Lesotho to require 4 colors would be to include an internal region that does not border south Africa. If all 4 regions border south Africa you'd only need 3 colors for them at most. Either way you don't need a 5th color.

[–]MooseFlyer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

If all of them border at a common point, one could certainly argue for 5 colours being necessary.

[–]AsterJ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's like saying you need 4 colors to color a checkerboard. You only need 2. Borders are defined by edges.

[–]Jumala 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Imagine you have Lsotho with exclaves on the borders between South Africa, The Indian Ocean (inside South Africa), Swaziland, Mozambique, Malawi, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Namibia. With exclaves of each of those countries on the borders between two other countries in the list.

I think in this scenario you would need a separate color for each country and one more color for the bodies of water.

sort of like this

And it's similar to what's going on with Tajikistan, Kyrgystan und Uzbekistan...

[–]AsterJ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well yeah, it sounds like you are adding disconnected regions which can trivially be constructed to violate 4 colors. Just have 5 countries each with colonies embedded in eachother.

[–]Jumala 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wow. I'm not trying to be a troll here...

If you look at the picture in the link and imagine a country to the East that borders countries A, B and C. And then imagine that they all were once part of the USSR or Indian Empire, then the situation is realistic enough. Look at the border between Bangladesh and India, for example.

One would then be required to have a separate color for each country. It's not "trivial" as it is completely within the realm of possibility.

[–]AsterJ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you think I was being dismissive but "trivial" as I used it is a mathematical term describing simple structures.

[–]behaaki 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes exactly, and that's why it's inappropriate to illustrate it with a world map. Nice that TYL about the theorem anyways..

[–]cirrus42 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In other words, it's a mathematical theorem that doesn't work for maps.

[–]e8odie 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That Mediterranean state though

[–]DirtyMikeballin -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I thought this was /r/shittymapporn when I first saw this.