# Non-Separable Detachments of Graphs

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

## Transcription

1 Egerváry Research Group on Combinatorial Optimization Technical reports TR Published by the Egrerváry Research Group, Pázmány P. sétány 1/C, H 1117, Budapest, Hungary. Web site: ISSN Non-Separable Detachments of Graphs Bill Jackson and Tibor Jordán May 25, 2001 Revised April 12, 2002

2 1 Non-Separable Detachments of Graphs Bill Jackson and Tibor Jordán Dedicated to the memory of Crispin Nash-Williams. Abstract Let G = (V, E) be a graph and r : V Z +. An r-detachment of G is a graph H obtained by splitting each vertex v V into r(v) vertices, called the pieces of v in H. Every edge uv E corresponds to an edge of H connecting some piece of u to some piece of v. An r-degree specification for G is a function f on V, such that, for each vertex v V, f(v) is a partition of d(v) into r(v) positive integers. An f-detachment of G is an r-detachment H in which the degrees in H of the pieces of each v V are given by f(v). Crispin Nash-Williams [3] obtained necessary and sufficient conditions for a graph to have a k-edge-connected r- detachment or f-detachment. We solve a problem posed by Nash-Williams in [2] by obtaining analogous results for non-separable detachments of graphs. 1 Introduction All graphs considered are finite, undirected, and may contain loops and multiple edges. We shall use the term simple graph for graphs without loops or multiple edges. Let G = (V, E) be a graph and r : V Z +. An r-detachment of G is a graph H obtained by splitting each vertex v V into r(v) vertices. The vertices v 1,..., v r(v) obtained by splitting v are called the pieces of v in H. Every edge uv E corresponds to an edge of H connecting some piece of u to some piece of v. An r-degree specification is a function f on V, such that, for each vertex v V, f(v) is a partition of d(v) into r(v) positive integers. An f-detachment of G is an r-detachment in which the degrees of the pieces of each v V are given by f(v). Crispin Nash-Williams [3] obtained the following necessary and sufficient conditions for a graph to have a k-edge-connected r-detachment or f-detachment. For X, Y disjoint subsets of V (G), let e(x, Y ) be the number of edges of G from X to Y, e(x) the number of edges between the vertices of X, b(x) the number of components of G X and r(x) = x X r(x). For v V, we use d(v) to denote the degree of v. Thus d(v) = e(v, V v) + 2e(v). Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences, Goldsmiths College, London SE14 6NW, England. Department of Operations Research, Eötvös University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, 1117 Budapest, Hungary. Supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund grant no. T029772, F034930, and FKFP grant no. 0143/2001. May 25, Revised April 12, 2002

3 Section 2. Main Results 2 Theorem 1.1 (Nash-Williams). Let G = (V, E) be a graph and r : V Z +. Then G has a connected r-detachment if and only if e(x) + e(x, V X) r(x) + b(x) 1 for every X V. Furthermore, if G has a connected r-detachment then G has a connected f-detachment for every r-degree specification f. Theorem 1.2 (Nash-Williams). Let G = (V, E) be a graph, r : V Z +, and k 2 be an integer. Then G has a k-edge-connected r-detachment if and only if (a) G is k-edge-connected, (b) d(v) kr(v) for each v V, and neither of the following statements is true: (c) k is odd and G has a cut-vertex v such that d(v) = 2k and r(v) = 2, (d) k is odd, V = 2, E = 2k, G is loopless, and r(v) = 2 for each vertex v V. Furthermore, if G has a k-edge-connected r-detachment then G has a k-edge-connected f-detachment for any r-degree specification f for which each term d v i is at least k for every v V and every 1 i r(v). Let G be a graph. A vertex v is a cut-vertex of G if E(G) 2 and either v is incident with a loop or G v has more components than G. A graph is non-separable if it is connected and has no cut-vertices. Nash-Williams proposed the following problem in [2, p.145]: It might also be worth looking at the question whether one can give necessary and sufficient conditions on a graph G and function r : V (G) Z + for the existence of a non-separable r-detachment of G, i.e. an r-detachment of G which has no cut-vertices - but of course it is not self-evident that a reasonable set of necessary and sufficient conditions for this must even exist. In this paper we answer this question by showing necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a non-separable r-detachment of a graph. We also solve the degree specified version. We shall need the following slight strengthening of Theorem 1.1. Theorem 1.3. Let G = (V, E) be a graph, r : V Z + and V 2 = {v V : r(v) 2}. Then G has a connected r-detachment if and only if e(x) + e(x, V X) r(x) + b(x) 1 for every X V 2. Proof. Necessity follows from Theorem 1.1. To see sufficiency suppose that G does not have an r-detachment. By Theorem 1, e(x) + e(x, V X) r(x) + b(x) 2 for some X V. If x X V 2, then r(x) = 1, and putting X = X x we have e(x ) + e(x, V X ) r(x ) + b(x ) 2. Hence we can construct X V 2 with e(x ) + e(x, V X ) r(x ) + b(x ) 2. 2 Main Results Let G be a graph and N(G) = {v V : d(v) 4}. Given r : V Z +, let N 1 (G, r) = {v N(G) : r(v) = 1}, and N 2 (G, r) = {v N(G) : r(v) 2}.

4 Section 2. Main Results 3 Theorem 2.1. Let G = (V, E) be a graph with at least two edges and r : V Z +. Then G has a non-separable r-detachment if and only if (a) G is 2-edge connected, (b) d(v) 2r(v) for all v V, (c) e(v) = 0 for all v N 1 (G, r), and (d) e(x, V X y)+e(x) r(x)+b(x+y) 1 for all y N 1 (G, r) and X N 2 (G, r). The degree specified version is as follows. Theorem 2.2. Let G = (V, E) be a graph with at least two edges, r : V Z +, and let f be an r-degree specification, where f(v) = (f1 v, f2 v,..., fr(v) v ) and f 1 v f2 v... fr(v) v, for each v V. Then G has a non-separable f-detachment if and only if (a) G is 2-edge connected, (b) fi v 2 for all v V and all 1 i r(v), (c) e(x + v, V X v) + e(x + v) f1 v r(x + v) + b(x + v) 2 for all v N(G) and X N 2 (G, r) v. Note that condition (c) of Theorem 2.2 implies that e(v) = 0 for all v N 1 (G) by taking X =. We shall need the following lemmas. Since loops create complications in notation, and since we only need the lemmas for loopless graphs, we add the hypothesis to the lemmas that the graphs are loopless. Note however that they may be applied to graphs with loops by subdividing their loops. Lemma 2.3. Let G be a 2-edge-connected loopless graph and v N(G). Define r : V Z + by r(v) = 2 and r(u) = 1 for all u V v. Then there exists a 2-edge-connected r-detachment H of G such that, at least one of the pieces of v in H, has degree two. Furthermore, if v is a cut-vertex of G, then there exists a 2-edgeconnected r-detachment H of G such that, for the pieces v 1, v 2 of v in H, we have d H (v 2 ) = b(v), and neither v 1 nor v 2 is a cut-vertex of H. Proof. The first part of the lemma is easy and well known (it follows for example from Theorem 1.2). To prove the second part, let C 1, C 2,..., C b be the components of G v, where b = b(v). Let H be an r-detachment of G such that H has exactly one edge from v 2 to each component C i. Since G is 2-edge-connected, there is also at least one edge from v 1 to each C i. To see that H is 2-edge-connected, it suffices to show that H has a cycle containing v 1, v 2. (Since the 2-edge-connectivity of G implies that every cut-edge of H must separate v 1 and v 2.) We can construct such a cycle by choosing edges v 1 x i, v 2 y i in H with x i, y i C i and an x i y i -path in C i for each i {1, 2}. The fact that neither v 1 nor v 2 is a cut-vertex of H follows easily from the construction of H. Let G be a graph. A block B of G is a non-separable subgraph of G which is maximal with respect to subgraph inclusion. We say that G is a block if G is a block of itself (or equivalently, if G is non-separable). A vertex v V (B) is an internal vertex of B (in G) if v is not a cut-vertex of G. An end-block of G is a block which contains at most one cut-vertex of G. Note that if G is separable then G has at least two end-blocks. We say that G is a uv-block-path if G is connected with exactly two end-blocks, B 1

5 Section 2. Main Results 4 and B 2 say, and u, v are internal vertices of B 1 and B 2, respectively, in G. For edges ux, vz in a graph G, we define the graph G(ux, vz) obtained by switching ux and vz by putting G(ux, vz) = G {ux, vz} {uz, vx}. Note that switching preserves the degree sequence of G. We shall use the following lemmas to determine when switching can be used to reduce the number of blocks in a detachment of G. Lemma 2.4. Let G be a loopless graph and ux, vz E(G) such that ux, vz belong to vertex disjoint cycles in G. Suppose that G is either a block or a uv-block-path. Then G(ux, vz) is a block. Proof. Choose disjoint cycles C 1, C 2 containing ux, vz, respectively. Then (C 1 ux) (C 2 vz) {uz, vx} induces a cycle in G(ux, vz) containing u, x, v, w. Since every end-block of G {ux, vz} contains either u, x, v or z as an internal vertex, it follows that G(ux, vz) is a block. We shall use the following rather technical lemmas to show that, if a graph G has an f-detachment with a unique cut-vertex y N 1 (G), then either G has a non-separable f-detachment, or we can find a set X N 2 (G) such that r(x) + b(x + y) is large. Let G be a graph, y V (G), r : V Z + with r(y) = 1, and f be an r-degree specification for G. Let H be an f-detachment of G, W V (H). and u, v V (H) W. We say that u and v are W -separated in H if u and v belong to different components of H W. Define sequences of sets R 1, R 2,... V (G), S 1, S 2,... V (H), and W 0 W 1... V (H), recursively, as follows. Let W 0 = {y}, and, for i 1, let R i = {v V (G) : at least two pieces of v are W i 1 -separated in H}, S i = {v j V (H) : v j is a piece of some v R i }, and W i = S i W i 1. It follows from these definitions that S i S j = = R i R j for i j and W i = {y} S 1 S 2... S i. Also note that S i = for all i 1 if y is not a cut-vertex of H. Lemma 2.5. Let H be a connected f-detachment of G. Let Z be a component of H W i 1 for some i 1 and uv, wx E(Z). Suppose Z(uv, wx) is connected. Then H = H(uv, wx) is a connected f-detachment of G and S m (H ) = S m (H) for all 1 m i. Proof. Since H and H have the same degree sequence, H is an f-detachment of G. Furthermore H is connected since H and Z(uv, wx) is connected. We shall show that S m (H ) = S m (H) for all 1 m i by induction on i. If i = 1 then W 0 (H ) = {y} = W 0 (H). Since Z(uv, wx) is connected, we have R 1 (H) = R 1 (H ) and hence S 1 (H) = S 1 (H ). Suppose i 2. By induction, S m (H ) = S m (H) for all 1 m i 1. Thus W i 1 (H ) = W i 1 (H). Since Z(uv, wx) is connected, we have R i (H) = R i (H ) and hence S i (H) = S i (H ).

6 Section 2. Main Results 5 Let H be a graph and y be a vertex of H and B be an end-block of H. We say that H is a block-star centered on y if every block of H contains y. We say that H is an extended block-star centered on y with distinguished end-block B if every end-block of H, with the possible exception of B, contains y. Note that every block-star is an extended block-star and every block is a block-star. An edge e of H is a cut-edge of H if H e has more components than H. Lemma 2.6. Let G be a loopless graph, y V (G), r : V Z + with r(y) = 1, and f be an r-degree specification for G such that each term in f(v) is at least two for all v V (G). Suppose that G has an f-detachment which is a block-star centered on y, and that H has been chosen amongst all such f-detachments so that b H (y) is as small as possible. Then each edge of H y incident to a vertex in S i is a cut-edge of H y for all i 1. Proof. We proceed by contradiction. Suppose the lemma is false. Since the lemma is vacuously true if y is not a cut-vertex of H we have b H (y) 2. Choose an f- detachment K of G such that: (i) b K (y) = b H (y), (ii) K is an extended block-star centered on y with distinguished end-block B. (iii) for some edge v j x E(B y) and i 1 we have v j S i and v j x is not a cut edge of K y, (iv) each edge of K y which is incident to a vertex of S m is a cut-edge of K y for all 1 m i 1, (v) subject to (i)-(iv), i is as small as possible. Note that K exists since if H is a counterexample to the lemma and we choose an edge which is not a cut-edge of H y and is incident to a vertex of S i such that i is as small as possible, then H will satisfy (i)-(iv). Our proof technique forces us to work with extended block-stars rather than block-stars because the switching operations we use preserve the property of being an extended block-star, but may not preserve the property of being a block-star. Since v j x is not a cut-edge of K y, v j x is contained in a cycle C of K y. Let B 1, B 2,..., B t be blocks of K such that y V (B 1 ), V (B i ) V (B s ) if and only if i s 1, B t = B, and y V (B 2 ) if t 2. Then v j x E(B t ) and C B t. Since v j S i, v j is a piece of some vertex v R i. Thus we may choose another piece v k of v such that v j and v k are W i 1 -separated in K. Claim 2.7. i 2. Proof. Suppose i = 1. Then v j and v k are y-separated in K. Hence v j and v k belong to different end-blocks B t and B 0 of K. Choose an edge v k z E(B 0 ). Since K has minimum degree at least two, v k z is contained in a cycle C in B 0. Since y V (C), C and C are vertex disjoint. Applying Lemma 2.4 to the block-path

7 Section 2. Main Results 6 F = B 0 B 1... B t, we deduce that F (v j x, v k z) is a block. Thus H = K(v j x, v k z) is an f-detachment of G which is a block-star centered on y, and b H (y) = b H (y) 1. This contradicts the hypothesis that b H (y) is as small as possible. Since v j, v k S i 1 they are not W i 2 -separated in K. Thus they both belong to the same component Z of K W i 2. In particular v j, v k are not y-separated in K so v k V (B s ) for some s, 1 s t. By (iv), V (C) W i 2 =, and hence C Z. Let P be a path from v k to C in Z. We may extend P around C if necessary to obtain a v k v j -path P in Z which avoids the edge v j x. Let v k z be the edge of P incident with v k. Since v j, v k are W i 1 separated but not W i 2 -separated, we can choose u V (P ) S i 1. Let K = K(v j x, v k z). We shall show that K contradicts the above choice of K. Claim 2.8. (a) K is a connected f-detachment of G and S j (K ) = S j (K) for all 1 m i 1. (b) u and v j z are contained in a common cycle of K y. Proof. (a) follows from Lemma 2.5 since P [z, v j ] (C v j x) {zv k } is a connected subgraph of Z(v j x, v k z). (b) follows since P [z, v j ] {v j z} is a cycle in K y containing u and v j z. Let F 1 = B 1 B 2... B t. Since u S i 1, (iv) implies that each edge of K y incident with u is a cut-edge of K y. Thus there is exactly one edge from u to each component of F 1 {y, u}. Let X be the component of F 1 {y, u} which contains v j. Since u has a unique neighbour in X and u lies on the v j v k -path P in F 1 y, v k V (X). Furthermore C B t X. Let F 2 be the graph obtained from F 1 by adding a new edge yu and put F 3 = F 2 X. Claim 2.9. F 3 is a block. Proof. Since F 1 y is connected, F 3 y is connected. Thus if F 3 were not a block then we could choose an end-block B of F 3 such that y V (B ). Then B would be an end-block of K which did not contain y and was distinct from B = B t, since B t X. This would contradict (ii). Since F 3 is a block, we can choose a cycle C in F 3 which contains v k z. Then C is vertex disjoint from C since C X. Furthermore, F 2 is either a block or a block-path with distinct end-blocks F 3 and B t. Since v k z E(F 3 ) E(C ) and v j x E(B t ) E(C), Lemma 2.4 implies that F 2 (v j x, v k z) is a block. Thus F 1 (v j x, v k z) = F 2 (v j x, v k z) yu is either a block or a yu-block-path. Combining this with Claim 2.8, we deduce: Claim K = K(v j x, v k z) is an extended block-star, centered on y, with distinguished end-block B, where B is the block of F 1 (v j x, v k z) which contains u. Furthermore b K (y) = b K (y), u is an internal vertex of K, u S i 1 (K ) and u is contained in a cycle of K y which is contained in B.

8 Section 2. Main Results 7 Choose u x E(B y) such that u x is not a cut-edge of K y, u S p (K ) for some p 1 and p is as small as possible. Then p i 1 since u S i 1 (K ) V (B ). To show that K contradicts our choice of K to minimise i, it only remains to show that (iv) holds for K : Claim Each edge of K y which is incident to a vertex of S m (K ) is a cut-edge of K y for all 1 m p 1. Proof. Suppose the claim is false and let C be a cycle of K y which contains a vertex of S m (K ) for some m, 1 m p 1. The minimality of P implies that C contains no edge of B. Since u is an internal vertex of K contained in B, and u and v j z are contained in a cycle of K y by Claim 2.8(b), we may deduce that v j z E(B ) and hence v j z E(C ). Since v k and x belong to different components of K {y, u}, every path from v k to x in K y contains u. Thus every cycle of K y which contains v k x also contains u and hence is contained in B. Thus v k x E(C ). Since v k x, v j z E(C ) we have C K y. Since S m (K ) = S m (K) by Claim 2.8(a), the existence of C now contradicts condition (iv) in the choice of K. This completes the proof of the Lemma. To simplify notation, we shall first prove Theorem 2.1 for the special case when G is loopless and N(G) is an independent set of vertices in G. The general case follows easily from this special case by the simple procedure of subdividing every edge of G and extending r by putting r(v) = 1 for each subdivision vertex v. Thus we shall prove: Theorem Let G = (V, E) be a loopless graph with at least two edges and r : V Z +. Suppose that N(G) is an independent set of vertices in G. Then G has a non-separable r-detachment if and only if (a) G is 2-edge connected, (b) d(v) 2r(v) for all v V, and (c) e(x, V X) r(x) + b(x + y) 1 for all y N 1 (G, r) and X N 2 (G, r). Proof. We first prove necessity. Suppose H is a non-separable r-detachment of G. Then H is 2-edge-connected and since detaching vertices cannot increase edgeconnectivity, (a) holds. Since H has minimum degree at least two we also have (b). Condition (c) follows from the easy part of Theorem 1.1, since H y is a connected r V y -detachment of G y. We next prove sufficiency. We proceed by contradiction. Suppose that the theorem is false and choose a counterexample (G, r) such that γ(g, r) := N 1 (G, r) + (d(v) 3) v N(G) is as small as possible, and, subject to this condition, V (G) is as small as possible. If N(G) = then G has maximum degree at most three and, by (b), r(v) = 1 for all v V (G). Using (a) we deduce that G is a non-separable r-detachment of itself. Hence we may suppose that N(G) and hence γ(g, r) 1.

9 Section 2. Main Results 8 Claim Suppose that U V such that e(u, V U) = 2. Then either U = 1 or V U = 1. Proof. Suppose U 2 and V U 2. Let U 1 = U and U 2 = V U. For i {1, 2}, let G i be the graph obtained from G by contracting U i to a single vertex u i of degree two. Define r i : V (G i ) Z + by putting r i (u i ) = 1 and r i (v) = r(v) for v V (G i ) u i. Then γ(g i, r i ) γ(g, r) and V (G i ) < V (G). Since contraction preserves edge-connectivity, G i satisfies (a). Clearly (G i, r i ) also satisfies (b). Suppose (G i, r i ) does not satisfy (c). Then e Gi (X, V (G i ) X) r i (X) + b Gi (X + y) 2 for some y N 1 (G i, r i ) and X N 2 (G i, r i ). Since u i N(G i ), u i belongs to some component of G i (X +y), and X +y V (G). Thus X, y contradict the fact that (c) holds for G. Hence (c) holds for (G i, r i ) and, by induction, G i has a non-separable r i - detachment for i = 1, 2. Since e(u, V U) = 2, this implies that G has a non-separable r-detachment. Claim N 1 (G, r). Proof. Suppose N 1 (G, r) =. Choose v N 2 (G, r) such that r(v) is as large as possible and d(v) is as small as possible. Define r v : V (G) Z + by r v (v) = 2 and r v (u) = 1 for all u V v. By Lemma 2.3, we can construct a 2-edge-connected r v -detachment H of G such that, for the pieces v 1, v 2 of v in H, we have d H (v 2 ) = 2. Define r : V (H) Z + by r (v 1 ) = r(v) 1, r (v 2 ) = 1, and r (u) = r(u) for all u V (H) {v 1, v 2 }. Then γ(h, r ) < γ(g, r). By construction (H, r ) satisfies (a) and (b). If (H, r ) also satisfies (c), then, by induction H has a non-separable r -detachment H. Clearly, H is the required r-detachment of G. Hence e H (X, V (H) X) r (X) + b H (X + y) 2 (1) for some y N 1 (H, r ) and X N 2 (H, r ). Since N 1 (G, r) = and d H (v 2 ) = 2, we must have y = v 1, and r (v 1 ) = 1. Thus r(v) = 2. The choice of v now implies r(u) = 2 for all u N(G). (2) In particular r (X) = r(x) = 2 X. The choice of v also implies that d H (u) = d G (u) d G (v) = d H (v 1 ) + 2 for all u N(G) v. Thus e H (X, V (H) X) X (d H (v 1 ) + 2). Since H is 2-edge-connected, each component of H (X + v 1 ) has at least two edges to X + v 1. Thus 2b H (X + v 1 ) e H (X, V (H) X) + d H (v 1 ). Substituting these inequalities into (1), we deduce that d H (v 1 )( X 1) 2( X 2). Hence X =. Now (1) implies that b H (v 1 ) 2. Thus v 1 is a cut-vertex of H and hence v is a cut-vertex of G. By Lemma 2.3, we can construct a 2-edge-connected r v -detachment H of G such that, for the pieces v 1, v 2 of v in H, we have d H (v 2 ) = b G (v), and neither v 1 nor v 2 is a cut-vertex of H. Defining r as above (i.e. r (v 1) = r(v) 1 = 1, r (v 2) = 1, and r (u) = r(u) for all u V (H ) {v 1, v 2}) we have γ(h, r ) < γ(g, r), and (H, r ) satisfies (a) and (b). Thus we may again deduce that (H, r ) fails to satisfy (c). Hence e H (X, V (H ) X) r (X) + b H (X + y) 2 for some y N 1 (H, r ) and

10 Section 2. Main Results 9 X N 2 (H, r ). Since N 1 (G, r) = we must have y = v i for some i {1, 2}. Using (2), we may now deduce as above that X = and hence v i is a cut-vertex of H. This contradicts the choice of H. Choose y N 1 (G, r) such that d(y) is as large as possible. Define r y : V (G) Z + by r y (y) = 2 and r y (u) = r(u) for all u V y. Clearly γ(g, r y ) < γ(g, r), and (G, r y ) satisfies (a) and (b). Claim (G, r y ) satisfies (c). Proof. Suppose we have e G (X, V X) r y (X)+b G (X+y ) 2 for some y N 1 (G, r y ) and X N 2 (G, r y ). Since (c) holds for (G, r) we must have y X and e G (X, V X) = r(x) + b G (X + y ) 1. (3) Let C 1, C 2,..., C b be the components of G (X + y ). Since (c) holds for (G, r), we may apply Theorem 1.3 to deduce that G y has a connected r -detachment H, where r = r V y. Let X be the set of all pieces of vertices of X in H. Since (b) holds for G, Theorem 1.1 implies that H may be constructed to have the additional property that d H (x i ) 2 for all x i X. Let H be the detachment of G y obtained from H by re-attaching all the pieces of v, for each v V X y. Thus H is a connected r -detachment of G y, where r (v) = r(v) for v X and r (v) = 1 for v V X y. Using the fact that equality holds in (3), we have exactly r(x)+b 1 edges in H joining the vertices in X and the components C 1, C 2,..., C b. Since H is connected and X = r(x), the graph T obtained from H by contracting each component C i to a single vertex c i, is a tree. Since d T (x i ) 2 for all x i X, no vertex of X is an end-vertex of T. Since r (y) = 1, we can label the unique piece of y in H as y. We then have y X and d T (y) = d G (y). Thus T has at least d G (y) end-vertices, all of which belong to {c 1, c 2,..., c b }. Furthermore, if T has exactly d G (y) end-vertices, then all vertices of T other than y have degree one or two. Let S = {C i : d T (c i ) = 1, 1 i b}. Then e H (C i, V (H ) C i ) = 1 for all C i S. Since G is 2-edge-connected and r (v) = 1 for all v C i, there is at least one edge in G from C i to y for each C i S. Since S d G (y), it follows that d G (y ) d G (y). It now follows from the initial choice of y that we must have d G (y ) = S = d G (y), that there is exactly one edge in G from y to each C i S and to no other vertices of G, and that all vertices of T other than y have degree one or two. Again, since r (v) = 1 for all v C i, we have e G (C i, V (G) C i ) = 2 for all 1 i b. Using Claim 2.13, we deduce that V (C i ) = 1 for all 1 i b. Thus V (C i ) = {c i }, H = H and since G is loopless, d G (c i ) = 2. By (b), r(c i ) = 1 = r (c i ) for all 1 i b and H = T. Let G be the graph obtained from H by adding y and the edge y c i for each C i S. (Thus G is obtained by adding an edge from y to each end-vertex of T.) Then G is the required non-separable r-detachment of G. Since (c) holds for (G, r y ), we may apply induction to deduce that G has a nonseparable r y -detachment. It follows that G has an r-detachment H such that H is a block-star centered on y. We may suppose that H has been chosen such that the number of blocks of H is as small as possible. Let f be the r-degree specification for

11 Section 2. Main Results 10 G given by H. Since G has no non-separable f-detachment, b H (y) 2. For i 0, let S i and W i be the subsets of V (H) defined as for Lemma 2.6. Since the sets S i are pairwise disjoint and H is finite, we may choose i such that S i+1 =. Let X = W i y and X = {x V (G) : some piece of x in H belongs to X }. By Lemma 2.6, every edge x 1 v E(H y) with x 1 X is a cut-edge in H y. Thus the graph F we get from H y by contracting each component of H X y to a single vertex is a forest with b H (y) components and b H (X + y) + X vertices. Using the facts that X + y N(G), and N(G) is an independent set of vertices in G, we deduce that E(F ) = e H (X, V (H) X ). Thus e H (X, V (H) X ) = b H (X + y) + X b H (y). (4) We have e H (X, V (H) X ) = e G (X, V (G) X), X = r(x) and b H (y) 2. Furthermore, for each v V (G) X y, all pieces of v in H belong to the same component of H X y, since S i+1 =. Thus b G (X + y) = b H (X + y). Substituting into (4) we obtain e G (X, V (G) X) r(x) + b G (X + y) 2. This contradicts hypothesis (c) of the theorem and completes our proof. Proof of Theorem 2.1. Let G be obtained from G by subdividing every edge of G. Then G is loopless, N(G ) = N(G) and N(G ) is independent in G. Extend r to r by putting r (v) = r(v) for all v V (G) and r (v) = 1 for all v V (G ) V (G). Then N 1 (G, r ) = N 1 (G, r) and N 2 (G, r ) = N 2 (G, r). We shall show that conditions (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Theorem 2.1 hold for (G, r) if and only if conditions (a), (b), and (c) of Theorem 2.12 hold for (G, r ). Clearly Theorem 2.1 (a) and (b) hold for (G, r) if and only if Theorem 2.12 (a) and (b) hold for (G, r ). Furthermore for y N 1 (G, r) = N 1 (G, r ) and X N 2 (G, r) = N 2 (G, r ), we have r(x) = r (X), and e G (X, V X y) + e G (X) b G (X + y) e G (y) = e G (X, V X) b G (X + y). If Theorem 2.1 (c) and (d) hold for (G, r), then e G (y) = 0 and the above equalities imply that Theorem 2.12 (c) holds for (G, r ). Suppose, on the other hand, that Theorem 2.12 (c) holds for (G, r ). Taking X = we have b G (y) 1 for all y N 1 (G r ) and hence e G (y) = 0 for all y N 1 (G, r). Thus Theorem 2.1 (c) holds for (G, r). The above equalities now imply that Theorem 2.1 (d) also holds for (G, r). We shall next prove Theorem 2.2. Given a graph G = (V, E) and X V, let Γ(X) be the set of vertices of V X which are adjacent to vertices in X and put γ(x) = Γ(X). We shall use the following operation to adjust the degree sequence in a detachment of a graph. For vertices x, y, z of G with xz E(G), we define the graph G(xz yz) obtained by flipping xz to yz by putting G(xz yz) = G xz + yz. The following lemma characterises when we may flip edges in a non-separable graph and preserve non-separability. Lemma Let G = (V, E) be a non-separable graph and let x, y V be distinct vertices of G. Let xz 1, xz 2,..., xz t be distinct edges of G y with t 3. Then G(xz i yz i ) is separable for all 1 i t if and only if there exist distinct components C 1, C 2,..., C t of G {x, y} with z i V (C i ) and e(x, C i ) = 1 for all 1 i t.

12 Section 2. Main Results 11 Proof. Sufficiency is easy to see. To prove necessity first note that G(xz i yz i ) has no loops for all 1 i t since G is non-separable and z i y. Suppose that G(xz yz) has a cut-vertex for all 1 i t. It is easy to see that flipping an edge xz i to yz i creates a cut-vertex if and only if there is a set W V x in G with e(w, x) = 1, γ(w ) = 2, and z i W, y W Γ(W ). We call W a certificate for z i. Let us choose a minimal family F = {W 1,..., W m } which contains a certificate for z i for all 1 i t. Since e(w i, x) = 1 for 1 i m and by the minimality of F we have t = m and Γ(x) W i W j = for all 1 i < j t. Furthermore, since e(w i, x) = 1 and G is non-separable, each W i induces a connected subgraph of G. First we show that W i W j = for 1 i < j t. Suppose that W i W j holds for two distinct W i, W j F. Since e(w i, x) = e(w j, x) = 1 and d(x) 3, it follows that Z := V (W i W j ) {x} is non-empty. The subgraphs G[W i ] and G[W j ] are connected, hence we have that both Γ(W i ) (W j W i ) and Γ(W j ) (W i W j ) are non-empty. Since γ(w i ) = γ(w j ) = 2 and x Γ(W i ) Γ(W j ), this implies that e(w i W j, Z) = 0. Hence x is a cut-vertex in G, a contradiction. Now suppose that y W i holds for some 1 i t. Since W i W j =, we must have y Γ(W j ) for all W j F W i. Since x Γ(W i ) and t 3, this implies γ(w i ) 3, a contradiction. Thus y Γ(W i ) for all 1 i t. This, and the facts that γ(w j ) = 2 and x Γ(W j ) for all 1 j t, imply that C i = G[W i ], 1 i t, are the required components of G {x, y}. Corollary Let t 3 be an integer. Let G = (V, E) be a non-separable graph, x, y V and xz i E(G y) for 1 i t. If t d(y) e({x, y}) + 1, then G(xz i yz i ) is non-separable for some 1 i t. Proof. Suppose that for all 1 i t the graph G(xz i yz i ) is separable. We may apply Lemma 2.16 and deduce that b({x, y}) t. Since t d(y) e({x, y}) + 1, it follows that e(c, y) = 0 for some component C of G {x, y}. Thus x is a cut-vertex in G, a contradiction. Corollary Let G = (V, E) be a non-separable graph and let x, y, w V be distinct vertices of G such that d(x) 3 and xy, xw E. Then there exists a z Γ(x) such that either G(xz yz) or G(xz wz) is non-separable. Proof. Suppose that for all z Γ(x) the graph G(xz yz) is separable. By Lemma 2.16 we have b({x, y}) = d(x). Let C 1, C 2,..., C d(x) be the components of G {x, y}, where w V (C 1 ). Then each neighbour of x other than the unique neighbour in C 1 belongs to the same component of G {x, w}. Thus Lemma 2.16 implies that G(xz wz) is non-separable for some z Γ(x). Lemma Let G = (V, E) be a non-separable graph and suppose that b({x, y}) = d(x) 3 for some pair x, y V. Let w be a vertex in some component C of G {x, y} with e(w, y) = e(w, x) = 0 and let z Γ(x) C. Then either G(xz wz)(wz yz ) is non-separable for some z Γ(w) or every edge incident to w in G is a cut-edge in C.

13 Section 2. Main Results 12 Proof. Let the components of G {x, y} be C 1, C 2,..., C d(x) and, without loss of generality, suppose that z V (C 1 ). Then C 1 C. We first observe that H := G(xz wz) is non-separable. This follows from the fact that, since d(x) 3, there is a cycle containing x and z in H. Thus we need to show that either there is flip from w to y in H which creates no cut-vertices or C has the required property. Suppose that H(wz yz ) has a cut-vertex for every z Γ(w) V (C). Using the facts that d H (w) 3, e H (w, y) = 0, and y is a cut-vertex in H(wz yz), we may apply Lemma 2.16 to deduce that b H ({w, y}) = d H (w) = d G (w) + 1. This implies that every edge incident to w in H is a cut-edge in H y. Since z / V (C) and H is obtained from G by flipping xz to wz, and y / V (C), we may deduce that every edge incident to w in G is a cut-edge in C. This proves the lemma. We next apply the above results to obtain some preliminary results on f-detachments. Lemma Let G = (V, E) be a loopless graph and r : V (G) Z +. Suppose that G has a non-separable r-detachment H. Let f be the r-degree specification for G given by f1 v = d(v) if r(v) = 1; and f(v) = (f1 v, f2 v,..., fr(v) v ) where f 1 v = (d(v) 2r(v) + 4)/2, f2 v = (d(v) 2r(v) + 4)/2, and fi v = 2 for all v N 2 (G, r) and 3 i r(v). Then G has a non-separable f-detachment. Proof. For each v V, let v 1, v 2,..., v r(v) be the pieces of v in H, where d H (v 1 ) d H (v 2 )... d H (v r(v) ). Note that the pieces of v are independent in H since G is loopless. Suppose d H (v i ) 3 for some 3 i r(v). Using Corollary 2.18, we can construct a new non-separable r-detachment by flipping an edge v i z to either v 1 z or v 2 z for some z Γ H (v i ). Applying this operation iteratively, and relabelling v 1 and v 2 if necessary, we may construct a non-separable r-detachment H of G on the same vertex set as H with d H (v 1 ) d H (v 2 ) and d H (v i ) = 2 for all v N 2 (G, r) and i 3 r(v). Suppose d H (v 1 ) d H (v 2 ) + 2. By Corollary 2.17, we can construct a new nonseparable r-detachment by flipping an edge v 1 z to v 2 z for some z Γ H (v 1 ). Applying this operation iteratively to H we may construct the required non-separable f-detachment G. Let S be the set of all sequences of integers of length r in decreasing order of magnitude. Let r be the lexicographic ordering on S, (hence f = (f 1, f 2,..., f r ) r g = (g 1, g 2,..., g r ) if and only if either f = g, or, for some 1 i r, f 1 = g 1, f 2 = g 2,..., f i 1 = g i 1, f i > g i ). Lemma Let G = (V, E) be a loopless graph, r : V (G) Z +, and f and g be two r-degree specifications for G. Suppose that G has a non-separable f-detachment, f(v) r(v) g(v) and gi v 2 for all v V and 1 i r(v). Then G has a nonseparable g-detachment. Proof. We assume that, for each v V the sequences f(v) and g(v) occur in decreasing order of magnitude. Note that r i=1 (v)f i v = d G (v) = r i=1 (v)gv i for all v V. Given an integer z let z = z if z 0, and otherwise let z = 0. We may suppose that f has been chosen to satisfy the hypotheses of the lemma and such that:

14 Section 2. Main Results 13 (i) θ 1 (f) = v V 3 i r(v) (f v i g v i ) is as small as possible; (ii) subject to (i), θ 2 (f) = v V 3 i r(v) (gv i f v i ) is as small as possible; (iii) subject to (i) and (ii), θ 3 (f) = v V (f v 1 g v 1) is as small as possible. Let H be a non-separable f-detachment of G. Let v 1, v 2,..., v r(v) be the pieces of v in H, where d H (v i ) = fi v for all v V and all 1 i r(v). Suppose θ 1 (f) 1. Then we may choose v V such that fi v gi v + 1 for some 3 i r(v). Then fi v 3 and by Corollary 2.18 there exists a z Γ H (v i ) such that either H(v i z v 1 z) or H(v i z v 2 z) is non-separable. In both cases, the resulting non-separable graph H is an f -detachment of G for some r-degree specification f with f (u) r(u) g(u) for all u V and θ 1 (f ) = θ 1 (f) 1. This contradicts the choice of f. Thus θ 1 (f) = 0 and fi v gi v for all v V and all 3 i r(v). Suppose θ 2 (f) 1. Then we may choose v V such that gi v fi v + 1 for some 3 i r(v). We first consider the case when f1 v g1 v + 1. Then f1 v > fi v and by Corollary 2.17 there exists a z Γ H (v 1 ) such that H(v 1 z v i z) is non-separable. The resulting non-separable graph H is an f -detachment of G for some r-degree specification f with f (u) r(u) g(u) for all u V, θ 1 (f ) = 0, and θ 2 (f ) = θ 2 (f) 1. (Note that f (v) r(v) g(v) since θ 1 (f) = 0 and hence either f1 v 1 > g1, v or else f1 v 1 = g1 v and f2 v g2 v with equality only if f (v) = g(v).) This contradicts the choice of f and hence f1 v g1. v Since f(v) r(v) g(v), θ 1 (v) = 0 and θ 2 (v) 1, we must have f1 v = g1 v and f2 v g2 v + 1. We can now obtain a contradiction as above by using Corollary 2.17 to show that there exists a z Γ H (v 2 ) such that H(v 2 z v i z) is non-separable. Thus we must have θ 2 (f) = 0 = θ 1 (f) and hence fi v = gi v for all v V and all 3 i r(v). Suppose θ 3 (f) 1. Then we may choose v V such that f1 v g1 v + 1. Then f1 v > g2 v > f2 v and by Corollary 2.17 there exists a z Γ H (v 1 ) such that H(v 1 z v 2 z) is non-separable. The resulting graph H is a non-separable f -detachment of G for some r-degree specification f with f (u) r(u) g(u) for all u V, θ 1 (f ) = 0 = θ 2 (f ), and θ 3 (f ) = θ 3 (f) 1. This contradicts the choice of f and hence θ 3 (f) = 0. Thus f = g and the lemma is trivially true. We shall need one more lemma which is an extension of Lemma 2.3. Lemma Let G be a 2-edge-connected loopless graph, v N(G), and r : V Z + be such that r(v) 2 and r(u) = 1 for all u V v. Suppose that v is a cut-vertex of G and that b(v) r(v). Then there exists a 2-edge-connected r-detachment H of G such that, for the pieces v 1, v 2,..., v r(v) of v in H, we have d H (v 2 ) = b G (v) 2r(v)+4, d H (v i ) = 2 for 3 i r(v) and neither v 1 nor v 2 is a cut-vertex of H. Proof. We use induction on r(v). If r(v) = 2 then the lemma follows from Lemma 2.3. Hence suppose r(v) 3 and choose x, y Γ(v) belonging to different components of G v. Let G be the graph obtained from G by detaching v into two vertices v and v, where d G (v ) = 2 and Γ G (v ) = {x, y}. It can be seen that G is 2-edge

15 Section 2. Main Results 14 connected and b G (v ) = b G (v) 1. The lemma now follows by applying induction to (G, v, r ) where r (v ) = r(v) 1. As for Theorem 2.1, we first prove Theorem 2.2 in the case when G is loopless and N(G) is independent. Theorem Let G = (V, E) be a loopless graph with at least two edges, r : V (G) Z +, and let f be an r-degree specification, where f(v) = (f1 v, f2 v,..., fr(v) v ) and f1 v f2 v... fr(v) v for all v V. Suppose that N(G) is independent. Then G has a non-separable f-detachment if and only if (a) G is 2-edge connected, (b) fi v 2 for all v V and all 1 i r(v), (c) e(x + v, V X v) f1 v r(x + v) + b(x + v) 2 for all v N(G) and all X N 2 (G, r) v. Proof. We first prove necessity. Suppose that G has a non-separable f-detachment H. It is easy to see that conditions (a) and (b) must hold for G. Choose v N(G) and X N 2 (G, r) v. Let C 1, C 2,..., C b be the components of G (X + v), where b = b(x + v), and let C i be the subgraph of H induced by the pieces of all vertices of C i. Let v 1 be the piece of v in H of degree f v 1. Let S be the set of all pieces of vertices of X in H and all pieces of v other than v 1. Then S = r(x + v) 1. Since G is loopless and N(G) is independent, we have e(x +v, V X v) f v 1 edges in H joining the subgraphs C 1, C 2,..., C b and vertices in S. Since H is non-separable H v 1 is connected and hence we must have e(x + v, V X v) f v 1 b + r(x + v) 2. Thus (c) holds for G. We next prove sufficiency. We proceed by contradiction. Suppose that (G, r, f) satisfies (a), (b) and (c) and that G does not have a non-separable f-detachment. We first use Theorem 2.12 to show that G has a non-separable r-detachment. Since (G, r) satisfies (a) and (b), it also satisfies Theorem 2.12 (a) and (b). Furthemore, for y N 1 (G, r) and X N 2 (G, r) we have f y 1 = d(y), r(x + y) = r(x) + 1, and, since G is loopless and N(G) is independent, e(x + y, V X y) = e(x, V X) + d(y). Since (G, r) satisfies (c), it follows that (G, r) also satisfies Theorem 2.12 (c). Hence G has a non-separable r-detachment. Applying Lemma 2.20, G has a non-separable h-detachment, H for some r-degree specification h satisfying h v 1 h v 2 h v 3 =... = h v r(v) = 2 for all v V. We may suppose that H has been chosen such that θ(h) = v V hv 1 is as large as possible. If h v 1 f1 v for all v V then h(v) r(v) f(v) for all v V and by Lemma 2.21, G has a non-separable f-detachment. Hence we may suppose that h v 1 f1 v 1 for some v V. Necessarily we must have v N 2 (G, r) and h v 2 f2 v Let v 1, v 2,..., v r(v) be the pieces of v in H, where d H (v i ) = h v i for 1 i r(v). If H = H(v 2 z v 1 z) is non-separable for some z Γ H (v 2 ), then H is a non-separable h -detachment of G with θ(h ) > θ(h). This contradicts the choice of H. Applying Lemma 2.16, we deduce that b H ({v 1, v 2 }) = d H (v 2 ) = h v 2. Claim b H ({v 1, v 2,..., v r(v) }) = h v 2 + r(v) 2.

16 Section 2. Main Results 15 Proof. We have already shown that b H ({v 1, v 2 }) = d H (v 2 ) = h v 2 and hence the claim holds for r(v) = 2. Suppose r(v) 3 and choose i, 3 i r(v). Let z be a neighbour of v 2 in H such that z, v i belong to different components of H {v 1, v 2 }. If H = H(v 2 z v i z)(v i z v 1 z ) is non-separable for some z Γ H (v i ), then H is a non-separable h -detachment of G with θ(h ) > θ(h). This contradicts the choice of H. Applying Lemma 2.19, we deduce that each edge of H incident to v i is a cut-edge of H {v 1, v 2 } for all 3 i r(v). Since h v i = 2 for 3 i r(v), it follows that H {v 1, v 2,..., v r(v) } has h v 2 + r(v) 2 components. Let L be the graph obtained from H by contracting {v 1, v 2..., v r(v) } back to the single vertex v. Then L is an l-detachment of G for the r -degree specification for G defined by r (v) = 1, l(v) = d G (v); and r (u) = r(u) and l(u) = h(u) for u V v. Furthermore L is a block-star centered on v and b L (v) = h v 2 + r(v) 2. Claim Let L be an l-detachment of G such that L is a block-star centered on v. Then b L (v) b L (v). Proof. Suppose b L (v) b L (v) 1. By Lemma 2.22, we can detach v in L into r(v) pieces v 1, v 2,... v r(v) such that, in the resulting graph H we have d H (v 2) = b L (v) 2r(v) + 4, d H (v i) = 2 for 3 i r(v), d H (v 1) > h v 1, and neither v 1 nor v 2 is a cut-vertex of H. Using Claim 2.24, we have d H (v 2) = b L (v) 2r(v) + 4 = h v 2 r(v) + 2 h v 2. Since H is 2-edge-connected and d H (v i) = 2 for 3 i r(v), v i is not a cut-vertex of H for 1 i r(v). Thus, if H had a cut-vertex x, then x would belong to some component of L v, and x would be a cut-vertex of L distinct from v. Hence H is a non-separable h -detachment of G for some r-degree specification h for G satisfying θ(h ) > θ(h). This contradicts the choice of H. It follows from Claim 2.25 that we may apply Lemma 2.6 to (G, L, l). Let S i and W i be the subsets of V (L) defined as in Lemma 2.6 (but with respect to v). Since the sets S i are pairwise disjoint and L is finite, we may choose i such that S i+1 =. Let X = (W i v) and X = {x V (G) : some piece of x in L belongs to X }. By Lemma 2.6, every edge x 1 u of L v with x 1 X is a cut-edge in L v. Thus the graph we get from L v by contracting each component of L X v to a single vertex is a forest F with b L (v) components and X + b L (X + v) vertices. Using the facts that X + v N(G), and N(G) is an independent set of vertices in G, we deduce that F has e L (X, V (L) X ) edges. Thus e L (X, V (L) X ) = b L (X + v) + X b L (v). (5) We have e L (X, V (L) X ) = e G (X + v, V (G) X v) d L (v), X = r(x), b L (v) = h v 2 + (r(v) 2 = d G (v) h v 1 (r(v) 2), and d L (v) = d G (v). Furthermore, for each u V (G) X v, all pieces of u in L belong to the same component of L X v, since S i+1 =. Thus b G (X + v) = b L (X + v). Substituting into (5) we obtain e G (X + v, V (G) X v) = r(x + v) + b G (X + v) + h v 1 2. Since h v 1 f v 1 1, this contradicts the fact that G satisfies (c).

17 Section 3. Some Corollaries and Open Problems 16 Proof of Theorem 2.2. Let Ĝ = ( ˆV, Ê) be obtained from G by subdividing every edge of G. Then Ĝ is loopless, N(Ĝ) = N(G) and N(Ĝ) is independent. Extend r to ˆr and f to ˆf by putting ˆr(v) = r(v) and ˆf(v) = f(v) for all v V (G); ˆr(v) = 1 and ˆf(v) = 2 for all v ˆV V. Then N 1 (Ĝ, ˆr) = N 1(G, r), N 2 (Ĝ, ˆr) = N 2(G, r). We shall show that conditions (a), (b), and (c) of Theorem 2.2 hold for (G, r, f) if and only if conditions (a), (b), and (c) of Theorem 2.23 hold for (Ĝ, ˆr, ˆf). Clearly Theorem 2.2 (a) and (b) hold for (G, r, f) if and only if Theorem 2.23 (a) and (b) hold for (Ĝ, ˆr, ˆf). Furthermore for v N(G) = N(Ĝ) and X N 2(G, r) = N 2 (Ĝ, ˆr), we have f 1 v = ˆf 1 v, r(x) = ˆr(X), and e G (X +v, V X v)+e G (X +v) b G (X +v) = eĝ(x +v, ˆV X v) bĝ(x +v). Thus Theorem 2.2 (c) holds for (G, r, f), if and only if Theorem 2.23 (c) holds for (Ĝ, ˆr, ˆf). We close this section by noting that our proofs of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 are constructive and give rise to polynomial algorithms which either construct the specified detachment or construct a certificate that shows it does not exist. 3 Some Corollaries and Open Problems Our first corollary extends Euler s Theorem. Corollary 3.1. Let G = (V, E) be a 2-edge-connected graph and r : V Z + such that d(v) 2r(v) for all v V and r(v) 2 for all v N(G). Let f be an r-degree specification for G such that f(v) = (f1 v, f2 v,..., fr(v) v ) and 2 f i v d(v)/2 r(v)+2 for all v V and all 1 i r(v). Then G has a nonseparable f-detachment. Proof. Theorem 2.1 implies that G has a non-separable r-detachment (conditions (b) and (c) of Theorem 2.1 hold vacuously for G since N 2 (G) = ). The existence of a non-separable f detachment now follows from Lemma 2.20 and It can also be derived from Theorem 2.2. The more difficult direction of Euler s theorem follows from Corollary 3.1 by taking r(v) = d(v)/2 in a graph in which all vertices have even degree. Our next corollary is a result of Hakimi [1] which characterises the degree sequences of non-separable graphs. Corollary 3.2. Let d 1 d 2... d n 2 be integers with n 2. Then there exists a non-separable graph with degree sequence (d 1, d 2,..., d n ) if and only if (a) d 1 + d d n is even, and (b) d 1 d 2 + d d n 2n + 4. Proof. We first prove necessity. Suppose there exists a non-separable graph H with this degree sequence and let v i V (H) have degree d i for 1 i n. Clearly (a) holds. Since H is non-separable, H v 1 is connected. Thus E(H v 1 ) n 2. Hence d 1 = e(v v 1, v 1 ) d 2 + d d n 2n + 4. Sufficiency follows by applying Theorem 2.2 to the graph G consisting of a single vertex v incident to (d 1 + d d n )/2 loops, by setting r(v) = n and f(v) = (d 1, d 2,..., d n ).

18 Section 3. Some Corollaries and Open Problems 17 Our next result considers the case when we only want to detach one vertex in a graph. The special case when d(v) is even and r(v) = d(v)/2 gives a splitting off result for non-separable graphs. Corollary 3.3. Let G = (V, E) be a graph, u V, and r : V Z + such that r(u) = m 2 and r(v) = 1 for all v V u. Let f be an r-degree specification for G where f(u) = (f 1, f 2,..., f m ), f 1 f 2... f m 2, and f(v) = d(v) for v V u. Then G has a non-separable f-detachment if and only if (a) G is 2-edge-connected, (b) e(v) = 0 and b(v) = 1 for all v V u, (c) f 2 + f f m b(u) + e(u) + m 2, and (d) e(u, V v u) + e(u) m + b(u, v) 1 for all v V u. Proof. The necessity of conditions (a)-(d) is easy to see. To prove sufficiency, we suppose that G satisfies (a)-(d) and use Theorem 2.2 to deduce that G has a nonseparable f detachment. It is easy to see that conditions (a) and (b) of Theorem 2.2 hold for G. To see that condition (c) of Theorem 2.2 holds, let v N(G) and X N 2 (G) v. Since N 2 (G) = {u} we have (v, X) {(v, ), (u, ), (v, {u})}. Condition (c) of Theorem 2.2 holds for each of these three alternatives since conditions (b), (c), and (d) of the corollary hold for G. Note that when (v, X) = (v, {u}) we have e(x + v, V X v) + e(x + v) f1 v = e({u, v}, V {u, v}) + e({u, v}) d(v) = e(u, V v u) + e(u), since e(v) = 0 by condition (b) of the corollary. We next consider non-separable simple detachments. Corollary 3.4. Let G = (V, E) be a graph and r : V Z +. Then G has a nonseparable simple r-detachment if and only if (a) G is 2-edge connected, (b) d(v) 2r(v) for all v V, (c) e(x, V X y)+e(x) r(x)+b(x+y) 1 for all y N 1 (G, r) and X N 2 (G, r), and (d) e(u) r(u)(r(u) 1)/2 and e(u, v) r(u)r(v) for all u, v V. Proof. Necessity of (a),(b),(c) follows from Theorem 2.1 while necessity of (d) is obvious. To see sufficiency we use Theorem 2.1 to deduce that G has a non-seperable r-detachment H. We may assume that H has as few parallel edges as possible. Suppose that e H (u 1, v 1 ) 2 for two vertices u 1 and v 1 of H. Let u 1 and v 1 be pieces in H of the vertices u and v, respectively, of G, (allowing the possibility that u = v). Then (d) implies that there exist distinct pieces u i of u and v j of v in H such that e H (u i, v j ) = 0. Then H u 1 v 1 + u i v j has one less parallel edge than H. It is an open, and perhaps difficult, problem to characterise when a graph has a non-separable simple detachment for some given degree specification. A graph G = (V, E) is said to be k-connected if V k + 1 and G U is connected for all U V (G) with U k 1. Thus, if V 3, then G is non-separable if and

19 References 18 only if G is 2-connected and loopless. Our next result characterises when a graph has a 2-connected r-detachment. Corollary 3.5. Let G = (V, E) be a graph and r : V Z + such that r(v ) 3. Then G has a 2-connected r-detachment if and only if (a) G is 2-edge connected, (b) d(v) 2r(v) for all v V, (c) e(x, V X y)+e(x) r(x)+b(x+y) 1 for all y N 1 (G, r) and X N 2 (G, r). Proof. This follows easily by applying Theorem 2.1 to (G, r) where G is the graph obtained from G by deleting all loops incident to vertices in N 1 (G, r). By Theorem 1.3, condition (c) of Corollary 3.5 is equivalent to the statement G y has a connected r V y -detachment for all y N(G) with r(y) = 1. It is conceivable that Corollary 3.5 extends to k-connectivity as follows. Conjecture 3.6. Let k 2 be an integer, G = (V, E) be a graph, and r : V Z + such that r(v ) k + 1. Then G has a k-connected r-detachment if and only if (a) G is k-edge connected, (b) d(v) kr(v) for all v V, (c) G y has a (k r(y))-connected r V y -detachment for all y V with r(y) k 1. Using Theorem 1.1, it can be seen that the truth of this conjecture for j-connected detachments for all 2 j k would be equivalent to the truth of the following conjecture. Conjecture 3.7. Let k be a positive integer, G = (V, E) be a graph, and r : V Z + such that r(v ) k + 1. Then G has a k-connected r-detachment if and only if (a) G Y is (k r(y ))-edge connected for all Y V with r(y ) k 2, (b) d(v) e(v, Y ) (k r(y ))r(v) for all v V and all Y V v with r(y ) k 2, (c) e(x, V X Y ) + e(x) r(x) + b(x Y ) 1 for all Y V with r(y ) k 1 and all X V Y. Conjecture 3.7 is true for k = 1, 2 by Theorem 1.1, and Corollary 3.5, respectively. References [1] S. L. Hakimi, On realizability of a set of integers as degrees of the vertices of a linear graph. I, J. Soc. Indust. Appl. Math. 10, 1962, [2] C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, Detachments of graphs and generalised Euler trails, in Surveys in Combinatorics 1985, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 103, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985, [3] C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, Connected detachments of graphs and generalized Euler trails, J. London Math. Soc., Vol. 31, 1985,

### Large induced subgraphs with all degrees odd

Large induced subgraphs with all degrees odd A.D. Scott Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, University of Cambridge, England Abstract: We prove that every connected graph of order

### 8. Matchings and Factors

8. Matchings and Factors Consider the formation of an executive council by the parliament committee. Each committee needs to designate one of its members as an official representative to sit on the council,

### Every tree contains a large induced subgraph with all degrees odd

Every tree contains a large induced subgraph with all degrees odd A.J. Radcliffe Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA A.D. Scott Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics University

### A 2-factor in which each cycle has long length in claw-free graphs

A -factor in which each cycle has long length in claw-free graphs Roman Čada Shuya Chiba Kiyoshi Yoshimoto 3 Department of Mathematics University of West Bohemia and Institute of Theoretical Computer Science

### Generalized Induced Factor Problems

Egerváry Research Group on Combinatorial Optimization Technical reports TR-2002-07. Published by the Egrerváry Research Group, Pázmány P. sétány 1/C, H 1117, Budapest, Hungary. Web site: www.cs.elte.hu/egres.

### ON INDUCED SUBGRAPHS WITH ALL DEGREES ODD. 1. Introduction

ON INDUCED SUBGRAPHS WITH ALL DEGREES ODD A.D. SCOTT Abstract. Gallai proved that the vertex set of any graph can be partitioned into two sets, each inducing a subgraph with all degrees even. We prove

### Class One: Degree Sequences

Class One: Degree Sequences For our purposes a graph is a just a bunch of points, called vertices, together with lines or curves, called edges, joining certain pairs of vertices. Three small examples of

### Odd induced subgraphs in graphs of maximum degree three

Odd induced subgraphs in graphs of maximum degree three David M. Berman, Hong Wang, and Larry Wargo Department of Mathematics University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana, USA 70148 Abstract A long-standing

### Partitioning edge-coloured complete graphs into monochromatic cycles and paths

arxiv:1205.5492v1 [math.co] 24 May 2012 Partitioning edge-coloured complete graphs into monochromatic cycles and paths Alexey Pokrovskiy Departement of Mathematics, London School of Economics and Political

### Cycles in a Graph Whose Lengths Differ by One or Two

Cycles in a Graph Whose Lengths Differ by One or Two J. A. Bondy 1 and A. Vince 2 1 LABORATOIRE DE MATHÉMATIQUES DISCRÉTES UNIVERSITÉ CLAUDE-BERNARD LYON 1 69622 VILLEURBANNE, FRANCE 2 DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS

### Graph theoretic techniques in the analysis of uniquely localizable sensor networks

Graph theoretic techniques in the analysis of uniquely localizable sensor networks Bill Jackson 1 and Tibor Jordán 2 ABSTRACT In the network localization problem the goal is to determine the location of

### All trees contain a large induced subgraph having all degrees 1 (mod k)

All trees contain a large induced subgraph having all degrees 1 (mod k) David M. Berman, A.J. Radcliffe, A.D. Scott, Hong Wang, and Larry Wargo *Department of Mathematics University of New Orleans New

### On end degrees and infinite cycles in locally finite graphs

On end degrees and infinite cycles in locally finite graphs Henning Bruhn Maya Stein Abstract We introduce a natural extension of the vertex degree to ends. For the cycle space C(G) as proposed by Diestel

### The positive minimum degree game on sparse graphs

The positive minimum degree game on sparse graphs József Balogh Department of Mathematical Sciences University of Illinois, USA jobal@math.uiuc.edu András Pluhár Department of Computer Science University

### Graphs without proper subgraphs of minimum degree 3 and short cycles

Graphs without proper subgraphs of minimum degree 3 and short cycles Lothar Narins, Alexey Pokrovskiy, Tibor Szabó Department of Mathematics, Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany. August 22, 2014 Abstract

### Computer Science Department. Technion - IIT, Haifa, Israel. Itai and Rodeh [IR] have proved that for any 2-connected graph G and any vertex s G there

- 1 - THREE TREE-PATHS Avram Zehavi Alon Itai Computer Science Department Technion - IIT, Haifa, Israel Abstract Itai and Rodeh [IR] have proved that for any 2-connected graph G and any vertex s G there

### SEQUENCES OF MAXIMAL DEGREE VERTICES IN GRAPHS. Nickolay Khadzhiivanov, Nedyalko Nenov

Serdica Math. J. 30 (2004), 95 102 SEQUENCES OF MAXIMAL DEGREE VERTICES IN GRAPHS Nickolay Khadzhiivanov, Nedyalko Nenov Communicated by V. Drensky Abstract. Let Γ(M) where M V (G) be the set of all vertices

### 136 CHAPTER 4. INDUCTION, GRAPHS AND TREES

136 TER 4. INDUCTION, GRHS ND TREES 4.3 Graphs In this chapter we introduce a fundamental structural idea of discrete mathematics, that of a graph. Many situations in the applications of discrete mathematics

### On Integer Additive Set-Indexers of Graphs

On Integer Additive Set-Indexers of Graphs arxiv:1312.7672v4 [math.co] 2 Mar 2014 N K Sudev and K A Germina Abstract A set-indexer of a graph G is an injective set-valued function f : V (G) 2 X such that

### Minimum degree condition forcing complete graph immersion

Minimum degree condition forcing complete graph immersion Matt DeVos Department of Mathematics Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 Jacob Fox Department of Mathematics MIT Cambridge, MA 02139

### Connectivity and cuts

Math 104, Graph Theory February 19, 2013 Measure of connectivity How connected are each of these graphs? > increasing connectivity > I G 1 is a tree, so it is a connected graph w/minimum # of edges. Every

### Mean Ramsey-Turán numbers

Mean Ramsey-Turán numbers Raphael Yuster Department of Mathematics University of Haifa at Oranim Tivon 36006, Israel Abstract A ρ-mean coloring of a graph is a coloring of the edges such that the average

### Labeling outerplanar graphs with maximum degree three

Labeling outerplanar graphs with maximum degree three Xiangwen Li 1 and Sanming Zhou 2 1 Department of Mathematics Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China 2 Department of Mathematics and Statistics

### Total colorings of planar graphs with small maximum degree

Total colorings of planar graphs with small maximum degree Bing Wang 1,, Jian-Liang Wu, Si-Feng Tian 1 Department of Mathematics, Zaozhuang University, Shandong, 77160, China School of Mathematics, Shandong

### On the k-path cover problem for cacti

On the k-path cover problem for cacti Zemin Jin and Xueliang Li Center for Combinatorics and LPMC Nankai University Tianjin 300071, P.R. China zeminjin@eyou.com, x.li@eyou.com Abstract In this paper we

### On the independence number of graphs with maximum degree 3

On the independence number of graphs with maximum degree 3 Iyad A. Kanj Fenghui Zhang Abstract Let G be an undirected graph with maximum degree at most 3 such that G does not contain any of the three graphs

### Best Monotone Degree Bounds for Various Graph Parameters

Best Monotone Degree Bounds for Various Graph Parameters D. Bauer Department of Mathematical Sciences Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, NJ 07030 S. L. Hakimi Department of Electrical and Computer

### An inequality for the group chromatic number of a graph

An inequality for the group chromatic number of a graph Hong-Jian Lai 1, Xiangwen Li 2 and Gexin Yu 3 1 Department of Mathematics, West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26505 USA 2 Department of Mathematics

### Graphical degree sequences and realizations

swap Graphical and realizations Péter L. Erdös Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics Hungarian Academy of Sciences MAPCON 12 MPIPKS - Dresden, May 15, 2012 swap Graphical and realizations Péter L. Erdös

### When is a graph planar?

When is a graph planar? Theorem(Euler, 1758) If a plane multigraph G with k components has n vertices, e edges, and f faces, then n e + f = 1 + k. Corollary If G is a simple, planar graph with n(g) 3,

### Zachary Monaco Georgia College Olympic Coloring: Go For The Gold

Zachary Monaco Georgia College Olympic Coloring: Go For The Gold Coloring the vertices or edges of a graph leads to a variety of interesting applications in graph theory These applications include various

### Cycle transversals in bounded degree graphs

Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics 35 (2009) 189 195 www.elsevier.com/locate/endm Cycle transversals in bounded degree graphs M. Groshaus a,2,3 P. Hell b,3 S. Klein c,1,3 L. T. Nogueira d,1,3 F.

### 3. Eulerian and Hamiltonian Graphs

3. Eulerian and Hamiltonian Graphs There are many games and puzzles which can be analysed by graph theoretic concepts. In fact, the two early discoveries which led to the existence of graphs arose from

### CS 598CSC: Combinatorial Optimization Lecture date: 2/4/2010

CS 598CSC: Combinatorial Optimization Lecture date: /4/010 Instructor: Chandra Chekuri Scribe: David Morrison Gomory-Hu Trees (The work in this section closely follows [3]) Let G = (V, E) be an undirected

### Combinatorial 5/6-approximation of Max Cut in graphs of maximum degree 3

Combinatorial 5/6-approximation of Max Cut in graphs of maximum degree 3 Cristina Bazgan a and Zsolt Tuza b,c,d a LAMSADE, Université Paris-Dauphine, Place du Marechal de Lattre de Tassigny, F-75775 Paris

### An inequality for the group chromatic number of a graph

Discrete Mathematics 307 (2007) 3076 3080 www.elsevier.com/locate/disc Note An inequality for the group chromatic number of a graph Hong-Jian Lai a, Xiangwen Li b,,1, Gexin Yu c a Department of Mathematics,

### Determination of the normalization level of database schemas through equivalence classes of attributes

Computer Science Journal of Moldova, vol.17, no.2(50), 2009 Determination of the normalization level of database schemas through equivalence classes of attributes Cotelea Vitalie Abstract In this paper,

### Chapter 4, Arithmetic in F [x] Polynomial arithmetic and the division algorithm.

Chapter 4, Arithmetic in F [x] Polynomial arithmetic and the division algorithm. We begin by defining the ring of polynomials with coefficients in a ring R. After some preliminary results, we specialize

### it is easy to see that α = a

21. Polynomial rings Let us now turn out attention to determining the prime elements of a polynomial ring, where the coefficient ring is a field. We already know that such a polynomial ring is a UF. Therefore

### Degree Hypergroupoids Associated with Hypergraphs

Filomat 8:1 (014), 119 19 DOI 10.98/FIL1401119F Published by Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, University of Niš, Serbia Available at: http://www.pmf.ni.ac.rs/filomat Degree Hypergroupoids Associated

### SHARP BOUNDS FOR THE SUM OF THE SQUARES OF THE DEGREES OF A GRAPH

31 Kragujevac J. Math. 25 (2003) 31 49. SHARP BOUNDS FOR THE SUM OF THE SQUARES OF THE DEGREES OF A GRAPH Kinkar Ch. Das Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, W.B.,

### A Hajós type result on factoring finite abelian groups by subsets II

Comment.Math.Univ.Carolin. 51,1(2010) 1 8 1 A Hajós type result on factoring finite abelian groups by subsets II Keresztély Corrádi, Sándor Szabó Abstract. It is proved that if a finite abelian group is

### Tree-representation of set families and applications to combinatorial decompositions

Tree-representation of set families and applications to combinatorial decompositions Binh-Minh Bui-Xuan a, Michel Habib b Michaël Rao c a Department of Informatics, University of Bergen, Norway. buixuan@ii.uib.no

### A Sublinear Bipartiteness Tester for Bounded Degree Graphs

A Sublinear Bipartiteness Tester for Bounded Degree Graphs Oded Goldreich Dana Ron February 5, 1998 Abstract We present a sublinear-time algorithm for testing whether a bounded degree graph is bipartite

### 10. Graph Matrices Incidence Matrix

10 Graph Matrices Since a graph is completely determined by specifying either its adjacency structure or its incidence structure, these specifications provide far more efficient ways of representing a

### SHORT CYCLE COVERS OF GRAPHS WITH MINIMUM DEGREE THREE

SHOT YLE OVES OF PHS WITH MINIMUM DEEE THEE TOMÁŠ KISE, DNIEL KÁL, END LIDIKÝ, PVEL NEJEDLÝ OET ŠÁML, ND bstract. The Shortest ycle over onjecture of lon and Tarsi asserts that the edges of every bridgeless

### Tools for parsimonious edge-colouring of graphs with maximum degree three. J.L. Fouquet and J.M. Vanherpe. Rapport n o RR-2010-10

Tools for parsimonious edge-colouring of graphs with maximum degree three J.L. Fouquet and J.M. Vanherpe LIFO, Université d Orléans Rapport n o RR-2010-10 Tools for parsimonious edge-colouring of graphs

### Removing Even Crossings

EuroComb 2005 DMTCS proc. AE, 2005, 105 110 Removing Even Crossings Michael J. Pelsmajer 1, Marcus Schaefer 2 and Daniel Štefankovič 2 1 Department of Applied Mathematics, Illinois Institute of Technology,

### THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA VIA PROPER MAPS

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA VIA PROPER MAPS KEITH CONRAD 1. Introduction The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra says every nonconstant polynomial with complex coefficients can be factored into linear

### BOUNDARY EDGE DOMINATION IN GRAPHS

BULLETIN OF THE INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICAL VIRTUAL INSTITUTE ISSN (p) 0-4874, ISSN (o) 0-4955 www.imvibl.org /JOURNALS / BULLETIN Vol. 5(015), 197-04 Former BULLETIN OF THE SOCIETY OF MATHEMATICIANS BANJA

### Even Faster Algorithm for Set Splitting!

Even Faster Algorithm for Set Splitting! Daniel Lokshtanov Saket Saurabh Abstract In the p-set Splitting problem we are given a universe U, a family F of subsets of U and a positive integer k and the objective

### UPPER BOUNDS ON THE L(2, 1)-LABELING NUMBER OF GRAPHS WITH MAXIMUM DEGREE

UPPER BOUNDS ON THE L(2, 1)-LABELING NUMBER OF GRAPHS WITH MAXIMUM DEGREE ANDREW LUM ADVISOR: DAVID GUICHARD ABSTRACT. L(2,1)-labeling was first defined by Jerrold Griggs [Gr, 1992] as a way to use graphs

### On 2-vertex-connected orientations of graphs

On 2-vertex-connected orientations of graphs Zoltán Szigeti Laboratoire G-SCOP INP Grenoble, France 12 January 2012 Joint work with : Joseph Cheriyan (Waterloo) and Olivier Durand de Gevigney (Grenoble)

### POLYNOMIAL RINGS AND UNIQUE FACTORIZATION DOMAINS

POLYNOMIAL RINGS AND UNIQUE FACTORIZATION DOMAINS RUSS WOODROOFE 1. Unique Factorization Domains Throughout the following, we think of R as sitting inside R[x] as the constant polynomials (of degree 0).

### The Independence Number in Graphs of Maximum Degree Three

The Independence Number in Graphs of Maximum Degree Three Jochen Harant 1 Michael A. Henning 2 Dieter Rautenbach 1 and Ingo Schiermeyer 3 1 Institut für Mathematik, TU Ilmenau, Postfach 100565, D-98684

### Single machine parallel batch scheduling with unbounded capacity

Workshop on Combinatorics and Graph Theory 21th, April, 2006 Nankai University Single machine parallel batch scheduling with unbounded capacity Yuan Jinjiang Department of mathematics, Zhengzhou University

### Removing even crossings

Removing even crossings Michael J. Pelsmajer a, Marcus Schaefer b, Daniel Štefankovič c a Department of Applied Mathematics, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616, USA b Department of Computer

### Handout #Ch7 San Skulrattanakulchai Gustavus Adolphus College Dec 6, 2010. Chapter 7: Digraphs

MCS-236: Graph Theory Handout #Ch7 San Skulrattanakulchai Gustavus Adolphus College Dec 6, 2010 Chapter 7: Digraphs Strong Digraphs Definitions. A digraph is an ordered pair (V, E), where V is the set

### Discrete Mathematics Problems

Discrete Mathematics Problems William F. Klostermeyer School of Computing University of North Florida Jacksonville, FL 32224 E-mail: wkloster@unf.edu Contents 0 Preface 3 1 Logic 5 1.1 Basics...............................

### The degree, size and chromatic index of a uniform hypergraph

The degree, size and chromatic index of a uniform hypergraph Noga Alon Jeong Han Kim Abstract Let H be a k-uniform hypergraph in which no two edges share more than t common vertices, and let D denote the

### GRAPH THEORY LECTURE 4: TREES

GRAPH THEORY LECTURE 4: TREES Abstract. 3.1 presents some standard characterizations and properties of trees. 3.2 presents several different types of trees. 3.7 develops a counting method based on a bijection

### A Turán Type Problem Concerning the Powers of the Degrees of a Graph

A Turán Type Problem Concerning the Powers of the Degrees of a Graph Yair Caro and Raphael Yuster Department of Mathematics University of Haifa-ORANIM, Tivon 36006, Israel. AMS Subject Classification:

### A simple criterion on degree sequences of graphs

Discrete Applied Mathematics 156 (2008) 3513 3517 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Discrete Applied Mathematics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dam Note A simple criterion on degree

### Product irregularity strength of certain graphs

Also available at http://amc.imfm.si ISSN 1855-3966 (printed edn.), ISSN 1855-3974 (electronic edn.) ARS MATHEMATICA CONTEMPORANEA 7 (014) 3 9 Product irregularity strength of certain graphs Marcin Anholcer

### 1 Definitions. Supplementary Material for: Digraphs. Concept graphs

Supplementary Material for: van Rooij, I., Evans, P., Müller, M., Gedge, J. & Wareham, T. (2008). Identifying Sources of Intractability in Cognitive Models: An Illustration using Analogical Structure Mapping.

### A REMARK ON ALMOST MOORE DIGRAPHS OF DEGREE THREE. 1. Introduction and Preliminaries

Acta Math. Univ. Comenianae Vol. LXVI, 2(1997), pp. 285 291 285 A REMARK ON ALMOST MOORE DIGRAPHS OF DEGREE THREE E. T. BASKORO, M. MILLER and J. ŠIRÁŇ Abstract. It is well known that Moore digraphs do

### 2.3 Scheduling jobs on identical parallel machines

2.3 Scheduling jobs on identical parallel machines There are jobs to be processed, and there are identical machines (running in parallel) to which each job may be assigned Each job = 1,,, must be processed

### arxiv: v2 [math.co] 30 Nov 2015

PLANAR GRAPH IS ON FIRE PRZEMYSŁAW GORDINOWICZ arxiv:1311.1158v [math.co] 30 Nov 015 Abstract. Let G be any connected graph on n vertices, n. Let k be any positive integer. Suppose that a fire breaks out

### Discrete Mathematics & Mathematical Reasoning Chapter 10: Graphs

Discrete Mathematics & Mathematical Reasoning Chapter 10: Graphs Kousha Etessami U. of Edinburgh, UK Kousha Etessami (U. of Edinburgh, UK) Discrete Mathematics (Chapter 6) 1 / 13 Overview Graphs and Graph

### Lecture 15 An Arithmetic Circuit Lowerbound and Flows in Graphs

CSE599s: Extremal Combinatorics November 21, 2011 Lecture 15 An Arithmetic Circuit Lowerbound and Flows in Graphs Lecturer: Anup Rao 1 An Arithmetic Circuit Lower Bound An arithmetic circuit is just like

### P. Jeyanthi and N. Angel Benseera

Opuscula Math. 34, no. 1 (014), 115 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.7494/opmath.014.34.1.115 Opuscula Mathematica A TOTALLY MAGIC CORDIAL LABELING OF ONE-POINT UNION OF n COPIES OF A GRAPH P. Jeyanthi and N. Angel

### Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering. Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson

Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson October 1996 Chapter 1 Logic Lecture no. 1. We introduce the concept of a proposition, which is a statement

### Ramsey numbers for bipartite graphs with small bandwidth

Ramsey numbers for bipartite graphs with small bandwidth Guilherme O. Mota 1,, Gábor N. Sárközy 2,, Mathias Schacht 3,, and Anusch Taraz 4, 1 Instituto de Matemática e Estatística, Universidade de São

### Outline 2.1 Graph Isomorphism 2.2 Automorphisms and Symmetry 2.3 Subgraphs, part 1

GRAPH THEORY LECTURE STRUCTURE AND REPRESENTATION PART A Abstract. Chapter focuses on the question of when two graphs are to be regarded as the same, on symmetries, and on subgraphs.. discusses the concept

### Extremal Wiener Index of Trees with All Degrees Odd

MATCH Communications in Mathematical and in Computer Chemistry MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 70 (2013) 287-292 ISSN 0340-6253 Extremal Wiener Index of Trees with All Degrees Odd Hong Lin School of

### Introduction to Finite Fields (cont.)

Chapter 6 Introduction to Finite Fields (cont.) 6.1 Recall Theorem. Z m is a field m is a prime number. Theorem (Subfield Isomorphic to Z p ). Every finite field has the order of a power of a prime number

### Operations Preserving Global Rigidity of Generic Direction-Length Frameworks. Bill Jackson and Tibor Jordán

Egerváry Research Group on Combinatorial Optimization Technical reports TR-2008-08. Published by the Egerváry Research Group, Pázmány P. sétány 1/C, H 1117, Budapest, Hungary. Web site: www.cs.elte.hu/egres.

### On the Relationship between Classes P and NP

Journal of Computer Science 8 (7): 1036-1040, 2012 ISSN 1549-3636 2012 Science Publications On the Relationship between Classes P and NP Anatoly D. Plotnikov Department of Computer Systems and Networks,

### CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZERO SUM PROBLEMS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZERO SUM PROBLEMS S. D. ADHIKARI, Y. G. CHEN, J. B. FRIEDLANDER, S. V. KONYAGIN AND F. PAPPALARDI Abstract. A prototype of zero sum theorems, the well known theorem of Erdős, Ginzburg

### Triangle deletion. Ernie Croot. February 3, 2010

Triangle deletion Ernie Croot February 3, 2010 1 Introduction The purpose of this note is to give an intuitive outline of the triangle deletion theorem of Ruzsa and Szemerédi, which says that if G = (V,

### FIXED POINT SETS OF FIBER-PRESERVING MAPS

FIXED POINT SETS OF FIBER-PRESERVING MAPS Robert F. Brown Department of Mathematics University of California Los Angeles, CA 90095 e-mail: rfb@math.ucla.edu Christina L. Soderlund Department of Mathematics

### Math 179: Graph Theory

Math 179: Graph Theory Evan Chen May 17, 2015 Notes for the course M179: Introduction to Graph Theory, instructed by Wasin So. 1 1 January 23, 2013 1.1 Logistics Website: www.math.sjsu.edu/~so contains

### COMBINATORIAL PROPERTIES OF THE HIGMAN-SIMS GRAPH. 1. Introduction

COMBINATORIAL PROPERTIES OF THE HIGMAN-SIMS GRAPH ZACHARY ABEL 1. Introduction In this survey we discuss properties of the Higman-Sims graph, which has 100 vertices, 1100 edges, and is 22 regular. In fact

### Degree-associated reconstruction parameters of complete multipartite graphs and their complements

Degree-associated reconstruction parameters of complete multipartite graphs and their complements Meijie Ma, Huangping Shi, Hannah Spinoza, Douglas B. West January 23, 2014 Abstract Avertex-deleted subgraphofagraphgisacard.

### Ph.D. Thesis. Judit Nagy-György. Supervisor: Péter Hajnal Associate Professor

Online algorithms for combinatorial problems Ph.D. Thesis by Judit Nagy-György Supervisor: Péter Hajnal Associate Professor Doctoral School in Mathematics and Computer Science University of Szeged Bolyai

### The Goldberg Rao Algorithm for the Maximum Flow Problem

The Goldberg Rao Algorithm for the Maximum Flow Problem COS 528 class notes October 18, 2006 Scribe: Dávid Papp Main idea: use of the blocking flow paradigm to achieve essentially O(min{m 2/3, n 1/2 }

### A characterization of trace zero symmetric nonnegative 5x5 matrices

A characterization of trace zero symmetric nonnegative 5x5 matrices Oren Spector June 1, 009 Abstract The problem of determining necessary and sufficient conditions for a set of real numbers to be the

### most 4 Mirka Miller 1,2, Guillermo Pineda-Villavicencio 3, The University of Newcastle Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia University of West Bohemia

Complete catalogue of graphs of maimum degree 3 and defect at most 4 Mirka Miller 1,2, Guillermo Pineda-Villavicencio 3, 1 School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science The University of Newcastle

### Divisor graphs have arbitrary order and size

Divisor graphs have arbitrary order and size arxiv:math/0606483v1 [math.co] 20 Jun 2006 Le Anh Vinh School of Mathematics University of New South Wales Sydney 2052 Australia Abstract A divisor graph G

### Graph Powers: Hardness Results, Good Characterizations and Efficient Algorithms. Dissertation

Graph Powers: Hardness Results, Good Characterizations and Efficient Algorithms Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor-Ingenieur (Dr.-Ing.) der Fakultät für Informatik und Elektrotechnik

### Distributed Computing over Communication Networks: Maximal Independent Set

Distributed Computing over Communication Networks: Maximal Independent Set What is a MIS? MIS An independent set (IS) of an undirected graph is a subset U of nodes such that no two nodes in U are adjacent.

### A threshold for the Maker-Breaker clique game

A threshold for the Maker-Breaker clique game Tobias Müller Miloš Stojaković October 7, 01 Abstract We study the Maker-Breaker k-clique game played on the edge set of the random graph G(n, p. In this game,

### Subsets of Euclidean domains possessing a unique division algorithm

Subsets of Euclidean domains possessing a unique division algorithm Andrew D. Lewis 2009/03/16 Abstract Subsets of a Euclidean domain are characterised with the following objectives: (1) ensuring uniqueness

### Exponential time algorithms for graph coloring

Exponential time algorithms for graph coloring Uriel Feige Lecture notes, March 14, 2011 1 Introduction Let [n] denote the set {1,..., k}. A k-labeling of vertices of a graph G(V, E) is a function V [k].

### Approximation Algorithms

Approximation Algorithms or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Deal with NP-Completeness Ong Jit Sheng, Jonathan (A0073924B) March, 2012 Overview Key Results (I) General techniques: Greedy algorithms

### On three zero-sum Ramsey-type problems

On three zero-sum Ramsey-type problems Noga Alon Department of Mathematics Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel and Yair Caro Department of Mathematics

### Examination paper for MA0301 Elementær diskret matematikk

Department of Mathematical Sciences Examination paper for MA0301 Elementær diskret matematikk Academic contact during examination: Iris Marjan Smit a, Sverre Olaf Smalø b Phone: a 9285 0781, b 7359 1750

### M-Degrees of Quadrangle-Free Planar Graphs

M-Degrees of Quadrangle-Free Planar Graphs Oleg V. Borodin, 1 Alexandr V. Kostochka, 1,2 Naeem N. Sheikh, 2 and Gexin Yu 3 1 SOBOLEV INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS NOVOSIBIRSK 630090, RUSSIA E-mail: brdnoleg@math.nsc.ru