<p>You may want to look at nowhere dense graphs.
<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195669811000151" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195669811000151</a></p>

<p>One of the reasons why minor-closedness is natural is the following. We typically want to work with families of graphs rather than specific graphs. And we want to solve problems with arbitrary weights/capacities on edges/nodes. Suppose we want to solve the shortest path problem in a family of graphs. Then, if we allow for zero length and infinite lengths then basically we are allowing minor operations on the family. In some settings it makes sense to work with unweighted graphs where positive results can be obtained for larger families of graphs that are not necessarily minor-closed.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-23T21:27:32.297Z
This makes a lot of sense. Does it ever make sense to weight the 2-cells? Perhaps it is hard to make a natural analog of the shortest path problem, but perhaps cut problems could be generalized to this setting (by finding a low-weight bounding surface)?
Aaron Schild
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-23T18:33:08.317Z
2014-03-23T18:33:08.317Z
Chandra Chekuri
<p>A lot of people have asked about generalizations of planar graphs on other forums. Some topics include:</p>

<p><a href="https://mathoverflow.net/questions/7650/generalizations-of-planar-graphs">https://mathoverflow.net/questions/7650/generalizations-of-planar-graphs</a>
<a href="https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/22714/higher-dimensional-analog-to-planar-graphs">https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/22714/higher-dimensional-analog-to-planar-graphs</a></p>

<p>Many have talked about minor-closed family generalizations of planar graphs, but they cannot possibly include even 3D n by n by n grids. If they did, then n by n by n grids would have to have balanced separators of size $n^{3/2}$, but in reality all of their balanced separators have size at least $n^2$. Qiaochu's definition focuses more on the direction that I am interested in. Ideally, I would like to look at graphs that are 1-skeleta of $(k-1)$-dimensional cell complexes that can be embedded in $\mathbb{R}^k$ injectively (which may be the same thing that Qiaochu is looking for). These are not minor closed for $k\ge 3$, but might be face-contraction closed.</p>

<p>Have these graphs been studied algorithmically? For example, can one generalize the planar separator theorem to these graphs? Or is there something particularly nasty about this definition that I am overlooking that prevents these objects from being algorithmically interesting?</p>

<graph-theory><planar-graphs><topology><algebraic-topology>
Generalizations of planar graphs that include hypercubes with large side length in $R^d$
Aaron Schild
# Generalizations of planar graphs that include hypercubes with large side length in $R^d$

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-23)

A lot of people have asked about generalizations of planar graphs on other forums. Some topics include:

<https://mathoverflow.net/questions/7650/generalizations-of-planar-graphs>
<https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/22714/higher-dimensional-analog-to-planar-graphs>

Many have talked about minor-closed family generalizations of planar graphs, but they cannot possibly include even 3D n by n by n grids. If they did, then n by n by n grids would have to have balanced separators of size $n^{3/2}$, but in reality all of their balanced separators have size at least $n^2$. Qiaochu's definition focuses more on the direction that I am interested in. Ideally, I would like to look at graphs that are 1-skeleta of $(k-1)$-dimensional cell complexes that can be embedded in $\mathbb{R}^k$ injectively (which may be the same thing that Qiaochu is looking for). These are not minor closed for $k\ge 3$, but might be face-contraction closed.

Have these graphs been studied algorithmically? For example, can one generalize the planar separator theorem to these graphs? Or is there something particularly nasty about this definition that I am overlooking that prevents these objects from being algorithmically interesting?

**Tags:** graph-theory, planar-graphs, topology, algebraic-topology


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-03-23. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

You may want to look at nowhere dense graphs.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195669811000151>

One of the reasons why minor-closedness is natural is the following. We typically want to work with families of graphs rather than specific graphs. And we want to solve problems with arbitrary weights/capacities on edges/nodes. Suppose we want to solve the shortest path problem in a family of graphs. Then, if we allow for zero length and infinite lengths then basically we are allowing minor operations on the family. In some settings it makes sense to work with unweighted graphs where positive results can be obtained for larger families of graphs that are not necessarily minor-closed.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: This makes a lot of sense. Does it ever make sense to weight the 2-cells? Perhaps it is hard to make a natural analog of the shortest path problem, but perhaps cut problems could be generalized to this setting (by finding a low-weight bounding surface)?  

---

