Ermelinda DeLaVina (delavinae@uhd.edu)
Lower bounds for maximum number of leaves over all spanning trees, Ls(G) | |||
T | 1. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ n + 1 - 2m(G) | definitions reference |
1996. In 1984, Hedetniemi and Laskar [HL] proved that
for simple connected graphs Ls(G) ≥ n - 2m(G).
In 1996, Fajtlowicz proved that for connected
graphs on at least two vertices Ls(G) ≥ n + 1 - 2m(G)
and later send the following. Dec 12, 2004 Fajtlowicz. Let T be a spanning tree containing a maximum matching. Then Graffiti's conjecture follows (for graphs with at least one edge) from the Lemma. Let T be a n-vertex tree with L endpoints and n > 1. If T has a matching with m edges then L > n - 2m. Proof: We can assume that n > 3. *Suppose T has two leaves adjacent to a vertex u of degree > 2. Let T' be the tree obtained from T by deletion of one of these leaves,* and let n', L' and m' be the corresponding invariants of T'. Since n' > 1, by induction on n we have that L' > n' - 2m'. Because deg(u) > 2, it follows that L' = L-1, and m' = m. Thus L - 1 > n - 1 - 2m' , i.e., L > n - 2m. Suppose now that T has a leaf adjacent to a vertex of degree 2 and let T' be the tree obtained from T by deleting this leaf and its unique neighbor *u*. Clearly m'= m-1 in this case and L' = L if the degree of the other neighbor of u is 2 and L-1 otherwise. In either of these two cases we have L >= L' > n' - 2m' >= n - 2 - 2 (m-1) = n - 2m and the theorem again follows by induction on n, because n' > 1. |
|||
T | 3. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G)≥ gi(G) * maximum temp(v) | definitions |
1996. Mar. 17, 2004: Ryan
Pepper " Here, MID is the number of vertices in a minimum independent
dominating set. Take any vertex v of max degree D from graph G with n
vertices and remove all vertices adjacent to v leaving G'. Now, any
independent dominating set of G' must include v and so is also an
independent dominating set of G. But there are at most n-D vertices in any
independent dominating set of G'. Therefore, MID <= n-D, since MID is
cardinality of a minimum independent dominating set. The rest of proof is as
even more of an exercise than this and goes as follows. For any
graph, max(temp) <= D/(n-D), D is max degree. So,
MID(max(temperature)) <= (n-D)D/(n-D) = D <= Max number of leaves of spanning tree. The last inequality because, starting from a vertex x of maximum degree, we can build a spanning tree by including first all vertices of distance one from x, then all vertices of distance two from x, etc .... This will give spanning tree with a vertex of maximum degree D, and every tree has at least as many leaves as its maximum degree." |
|||
T | 4. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ minimum of |NG(e)| - 1 | definitions reference |
1996. DeLaVina 1996 | |||
T | 5. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ maximum{| S(v, rad(G)) |: v is a center of G} | definitions reference |
1996. DeLaVina and Fajtlowicz 1996 | |||
T | 6. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ 1 + n -m(G)- a(G) | definitions reference |
1996. DeLaVina 1996 | |||
T | 7. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ maximum of l(v) -1 + n - 2a(G) | definitions reference |
1996. DeLaVina, Fajtlowicz, Waller (2002) | |||
T | 8. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ maximum of disteven(v) - a(G) | definitions reference |
1996. DeLaVina 1996 | |||
Lower bounds for the path covering number of trees, p(T). | |||
E | 9. | If T is a tree, then p(T) ≥ D(T) -1 | definitions reference |
2001 | |||
E | 10. | If T is a tree, then p(T) ≥ CEIL(L(T)/2) | definitions reference |
2001 | |||
E | 11. | If T is a tree, then p(T) ≥ 2a(T) - n | definitions reference |
2001 | |||
E | 12. | If T is a tree, then 2a(T) - n ≥ maximum of disteven(v) - minimum of disteven(v) | definitions reference |
2001 | |||
Lower bounds on the bipartite number of simple connected graphs, b(G). | |||
T | 13. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≥ diam(G) + maximum of l(v) -1 | definitions reference |
July 3, 2003. DeLaVina and Waller 2004. | |||
T | 14. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≥ diam(G) + fG(1) -1 | definitions reference |
July 3, 2003. DeLaVina and Waller 2003 | |||
R | 15. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≥ 2rad(G) | definitions reference |
July 3, 2003. This was proven by Fajtlowicz, 1988. Waller sent an alternate proof 2003. | |||
T | 16. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≥ 2(rad(G)-1) + maximum of l(v) | definitions reference |
July 3, 2003.
July 26, 2003 Bill Waller shows, by proof similar to Favaron's for a(G) ≥ rad(G), that b(G) ≥ 2rad(G) + maximum of l(v) - 5. Mar. 17, 2004: Ryan Pepper communicated that he could prove f(G) ≥ diam(G) + maximum of l(v) - 3. Note: A second run of the program was conducted for forest number (see conjectures 57-67.) Mar. 25, 2004: In a second run for forest the program conjectured f(G) ≥ diam(G) + maximum of l(v) - 2. It is conjecture 67. Nov. 25, 2006 The conjectured relation follows for a tree T since diam(T) ≥ 2rad(T) -1 and by wowII #13 it follows that b(T) ≥ diam(T) + maximum of l(v) -1. Jan. 2008: DRW | |||
T | 17. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≥ a(G) + CEIL(diam(G)/3) | definitions |
July 3, 2003. Independently proven by Benny John, UHD (Dec. 2005) and David Schindl,Gerard Univ (Jan. 2006). | |||
T | 18. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≥ a(G) + CEIL(sqrt(distmax(M))) | definitions |
July 3, 2003. July 2005, for large enough diameter this follows from conjecture #17. Feb. 21, 2006 Benny John generalized Schindl's proof of 17 to prove #18.. | |||
T* | 20. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≥ n/FLOOR[degavg(G)] | definitions reference |
July 3, 2003.
Mar 06, 2004, Bill Waller observes that for graphs that are p-regular and Kp-free, f(G) ≥ n/FLOOR[degavg(G)] (see conjecture #50 below) follows from Fajtlowicz's result on the independence ratio that for graphs with max. degree at most p and Kq-free, a(G)/n ≥ 2/(p+q). Mar. 07, 2004, Fajtlowicz sent a proof of f(G) ≥ n/degavg(G), see conjecture #50. | |||
T | 27. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≥ (minimum of |N(e)|)1-t(G) | definitions |
July 3, 2003.
** Mar. 17 2004: thanks to Ryan Pepper for alerting me to a typo in this
statement. Mar. 19, 2004: Pepper sent a proof of a bound on b in terms of the degree of an edge which is stronger for triangle-free graphs, and notes that for t(G) ≥ 1, 1 ≥ (minimum of |N(e)|)1-t(G). | |||
T | 29. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≥ distmax(A)+ 1/(n mod D(G)) | definitions |
July 3, 2003. The expression on the right is undefined for some graphs. The conjecture is made for those graphs for which is is defined. June 2005, this follows from b(G) ≥ diam(G)+ 1. | |||
Lower bounds on the path number of simple connected graphs, path(G). | |||
R | 31. | If G is a simple connected graph, then path(G) ≥ 2rad(G) - 1 | definitions reference |
July 15, 2003. This is Chung's Lemma, see reference. | |||
R | 31a. | If G is a simple connected graph, then path(G) ≥ 2ecc(Centers) + 1 | definitions reference |
Summer 2003. This is offers an improvement over Chung's Theorem see wowII #31, when rad(G) = ecc(centers). June 2005, Waller noticed that conjecture follows from a Theorem of Basco and Tuza (see reference). | |||
R | 35. | If G is a simple connected graph, then path(G) ≥ 1 + diam(G) | definitions reference |
July 15, 2003. This could also have been labeled an exercise, but since it was noted in the cited reference we include it here as a rediscovery. | |||
Lower bounds on the forest number of simple connected graphs, f(G). | |||
Note: |
Clearly b(G) ≥ f(G) ≥ path(G), and note that f(G)
and path(G) were not available to the program when lower bounds for b(G) were
generated.
| ||
E | 37. | If G is a simple connected graph, then f(G) ≥ path(G) | definitions |
Mar 05, 2004. | |||
R | 47. | If G is a simple connected graph, then f(G) ≥ diam(G) + fG(1) -1 | definitions reference |
Mar 05, 2004. This is a rediscovery since Waller and I knew it to be true from our work on b(G). DeLaVina and Waller 2003, see #14 above. | |||
T | 48. | If G is a simple connected graph, then f(G) ≥ girth(G) + fG(1) -1 | definitions reference |
Mar 05, 2004. The proof is similar to that of #47. DeLaVina and Waller 2004. *must check algorithm for circumference. | |||
T* | 50. | If G is a simple connected graph, then f(G) ≥ n/FLOOR[degavg(G)] | definitions reference |
Mar 05, 2004.
Note conj. #20 of wowII is b(G) ≥ n/FLOOR[degavg(G)].
Mar 06, 2004, Bill Waller observes that for graphs that are p-regular and Kp-free, f(G) ≥ n/FLOOR[degavg(G)] follows from Fajtlowicz's result on the independence ratio that for graphs with max. degree at most p and Kq-free, a(G)/n ≥ 2/(p+q).[F] Mar 07, 2004, DeLaVina: I came across a paper [BB] (see reference link) by Bau and Beineke on n(G) - f(G), which they called the decycling number of a graph. In their paper they cite a result of Zheng and Lu in [ZL] that for cubic graphs without triangles and n not 8, f => n - ceil[n/3] (settling a conjecture by Bondy, Hopkins and Staton [BHS].) Zheng and Lu's bound for cubic triangle-free graphs is an improvement over the above. Bau and Beineke also cite other results on the decycling number, they write "A sharp upper bound for the decycling number of cubic graphs has been obtained in [LZ] by Liu and Zhao and that for connected graphs with maximum degree 3 has been obtained in [AMT]." Mar. 07, 2004, Fajtlowicz sent a proof of f(G) ≥ n/degavg(G) "The algorithm is as the proof which essentially shows how to find a forest of size n/A, where A is the average degree. Proof: We can assume that G has no isolated points. Let's order vertices at random and starting with empty set F, let us keep adding to F a vertex v, if F + {v} is an induced forest. We add suitable vertices to F in order they are listed. Let d be the degree of v. The probability that v will eventually land in F is at least 2/(d+1), because that's the probability that v is the first or the second on the list of v +{neighbors of v}. Adding such vertices keeps F acyclic. Let f(v) = 1 if v is in F and zero otherwise. By linearity, The expected value of f is at least R = sum 1/d, where the summation is over the degree sequence D, because for d >= 1, 2/(d+1) >= 1/d. Since that is the expected value then there is at least one ordering for which |F| is at least R. This is a version of Caro-Wei bound for forests rather than the independence number and the idea of the proof is the same as Shearer's proof of their result. Let H be the harmonic mean of D, i.e., H = n/R and A the average of D. Then f >= n/A follows from the inequality of arithmetic-harmonic means which says that A >= H. f >= R f/n >= R/n = 1/H >= 1/A i.e, f >= n/A Siemion" |
|||
2nd run on Lower bounds on the forest number of simple connected graphs, f(G). | |||
Note: |
Clearly b(G) ≥ f(G) ≥ tree(G) ≥ path(G), and note that
this (for the second run) time b(G), tree(G)
and path(G) were available to the program when lower bounds for f(G) were
generated;
Also for the second run for forest should reflect the counterexamples listed above
and now also includes the local independence invariants and the domination
number. conjectures 39, 42, 47 | ||
E | 57. | If G is a simple connected graph, then f(G) ≥ tree(G) | definitions |
Mar 25, 2004. | |||
T | 67. | If G is a simple connected graph, then f(G) ≥ diam(G) + maximum of l(v) -2 | definitions reference |
Mar 25, 2004. This is related to
the discussion of conjecture 16. Mar 27, 2004. DeLaVina and Waller. | |||
Lower bounds on the tree number of simple connected graphs, tree(G). | |||
Note: | Clearly b(G) ≥ f(G) ≥ tree(G) ≥ path(G). | ||
E | 68. | If G is a simple connected graph, then tree(G) ≥ path(G) | definitions |
Apr 04, 2004. | |||
Upper bounds on the bipartite number of simple connected graphs, b(G). | |||
E | 86. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≤ 2 + n - w(G) | definitions |
April 10, 2004. | |||
E | 89. | If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≤ 2a(G) | definitions |
April 10, 2004. | |||
Upper bounds on the independence number of simple connected graphs, a(G). | |||
R | 92. | If G is a simple connected graph, then a(G) ≤ FLOOR[( n + p)/2] | definitions reference |
April 21, 2004. This is equivalent to conjecture #11 which as described in the reference I knew was correct for all simple graphs. | |||
E | 93. | If G is a simple connected graph, then a(G) ≤ f(G) -1 | definitions |
April 21, 2004. | |||
T | 94. | If G is a simple connected graph, then a(G) ≤ CEIL[b(G) - SQRT[circumference(G)]] | definitions |
April 21, 2004. July 2005, for
large enough
circumference(G), the conjecture follows from the proposition below. Proposition. If G is a simple connected graph, then b(G) ≥ a(G) + FLOOR(circumference(G)/4). Proof. Note circumference(G) => 3. Let C be the set of vertices of a largest induced cycle. Let I be the set of vertices of a maximum independent set. Color the vertices of I with color green. Since the intersection of C and I is at most FLOOR(circumference(G)/2), there are at least FLOOR(circumference(G)/4) vertices of C that can be colored red. Hence, G has an induced bipartite subgraph on at least a(G) + FLOOR(circumference(G)/4) vertices. October 12, 2006. Benny John. |
|||
T | 97. | If G is a simple connected graph, then a(G) ≤ maximum of l(v) - d(G) | definitions |
April 21, 2004. Fajtlowicz April 2004 | |||
E | 99. | If G is a simple connected graph, then a(G) ≤ b(G) -minimum of l(v) | definitions |
April 21, 2004. DeLaVina April 2004 | |||
T | 101. | If G is a simple connected graph, then a(G) ≤ FLOOR[(n + alphacore(G))/2] | definitions |
April 21, 2004. This follows from the inclusion-exclusion principle. March 14, 2008. Pepper and I noticed a similar bound a(G) ≤ matching(G) + alphacore(G). | |||
T | 102. | If G is a simple connected graph, then a(G) ≤ CEIL[b(G) - SQRT[diam(G)]] | definitions |
April 21, 2004. July 2005, for
large enough diameter this follows from the proposition listed below
conjecture 17.
October 12, 2006. Benny John. |
|||
E | 106. | If G is a simple connected graph, then a(G) ≤ n - domination(G)] | definitions |
April 21, 2004. |
|||
Lower bounds on the matching number of connected bipartite graphs, m(G). | |||
note: Graffiti.pc was asked to focus on lower bounds for the matching number, which are sharp for some connected bipartite graphs and thus some conjectures were made for all graphs (see 113 & 127) | |||
E | 112. | If G is a connect bipartite graph, then m(G) ≥ CEILING[freq(D(G))/2] | definitions reference |
June, 2004. DeLaVina and Gramajo June 2004. | |||
T | 113. | If G is a simple connected graph, then m(G) ≥ CEILING[dd(G)/2] | definitions reference |
June, 2004. DeLaVina and
Gramajo (June 2004) proved this for connected bipartite graphs. Jan 2005. Craig Larson proved this for all simple graphs with no isolated vertices. |
|||
E | 114. | If G is a connect bipartite graph, then m(G) ≥ minimum { modemax(G), frequency of mode} | definitions reference |
June, 2004. DeLaVina and Gramajo July 2004. In light of this and conjectures #115 and #116, we proved the more general statement m(G) ≥ minimum {d(S), |S|} | |||
E | 115. | If G is a connect bipartite graph, then m(G) ≥ minimum {D(G), freq(D(G))} | definitions reference |
June, 2004. DeLaVina and Gramajo July 2004. See #114. | |||
E | 116. | If G is a connect bipartite graph, then m(G) ≥ minimum { min degree of center vertices, number of center vertices} | definitions reference |
June, 2004. DeLaVina and Gramajo July 2004. See #114. | |||
E | 118 | If G is a connect bipartite graph, then m(G) ≥ s(G) | definitions reference |
June, 2004. DeLaVina and Gramajo June 2004. Follows from the general statement given in #114. | |||
T | 119 | If G is a connect X,Y bigraph such that |X| £ |Y|, then m(G) ≥ minimum{2s(G), |X|} | definitions reference |
June, 2004. DeLaVina and Gramajo June 2004. | |||
R | 120 | If G is a bipartite graph, then m(G) ≥ |E(G)|/D(G). | definitions reference |
June, 2004. | |||
T | 121 | Let G be a connected X,Y bigraph such that |X| £ |Y|, and let A be the set of vertices of minimum degree. Then m(G) ≥ |N(A)-A|/d(G). | definitions reference |
June 2004. DeLaVina and Gramajo September 2004. | |||
T | 122 | If G is a connected bipartite graph, then m(G) ≥ rad(G). | definitions reference |
June 2004. Gramajo June 2004. | |||
T | 122a | If G is a connected bipartite graph, then m(G) ≥ 0.5diam(G) + d(G) - 1 . | definitions reference |
June, 2004. DeLaVina and Gramajo June 2004. The numbering of conjectures was in err at this point. | |||
T | 124 | If G is a connected X,Y bigraph such that |X| £ |Y|, then m(G) ≥ minimum{CEILING[1 + median of degrees], |X|} | definitions |
December 2004. I. Gramajo, Feb 2005. | |||
| |||
T | 125 | If G is a connected X,Y bigraph such that |X| £ |Y|, then m(G) ≥ minimum{1 + k, |X|}, where k is the (n-|X|-1)th degree of the ordered degree sequence. | definitions |
December 2004. I. Gramajo, Feb 2005. | |||
| |||
T | 127 | If G is a simple connected graph, then m(G) ≥ minimum{1 + ecc(centers), minimum of disteven(G)} | definitions |
December 2004. I. Gramajo, Mar 2005. | |||
| |||
T | 129 | Let G be a connected X,Y bigraph such that |X| £ |Y|,. Then m(G) ≥ |X|/(D(Y)-1) | definitions reference |
December 2004. D. R. Woodall of the University of Nottingham, Sept. 2008. | |||
| |||
T | 130 | Let G be a connected X,Y bigraph such that |X| £ |Y|,. Then m(G) ≥ |X|/(S(G)-1) | definitions reference |
December 2004. D. R. Woodall of the University of Nottingham, Sept. 2008 | |||
| |||
Lower bounds on the path number of simple connected graphs, path(G). #'s 31, 31a, and 35 were repeated from 1st run for path. | |||
E | 131. | If G is a simple connected graph, then path(G) ≥ circumference - 1 | definitions |
July 12, 2005. | |||
T | 135. | If G is a simple connected graph, then path(G) ≥ girth/d(G) | definitions |
July 12, 2005. B. Waller | |||
2nd run for Lower bounds on the tree number of simple connected graphs, tree(G). See 68-85 for 1st run. Note: the program repeated some conjectures, but I do not repeat them here. | |||
Note: | Clearly b(G) ≥ f(G) ≥ tree(G) ≥ path(G). | ||
E | 140. | If G is a simple connected graph, then tree(G) ≥ 1 + maximum of l(v) | definitions |
July 19, 2005. | |||
E | 147. | If G is a simple connected graph, then tree(G) ≥ n(G)*t(G) | definitions |
July 19, 2005. | |||
Next List | |||
2nd Run for Lower bounds for maximum number
of leaves over all spanning trees, Ls(G) note: conjecture 5 was repeated from the first run for L. |
|||
E | 152. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ maximum of {N(e): e an edge of G} - 2. | definitions |
Aug 8, 2005. | |||
E | 153. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ D(G). | definitions |
Aug 8, 2005. | |||
E | 158. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ maximum of l(v) + 1 - cK3(G). | definitions |
Aug 8, 2005. It is easily proven that Ls(G) ≥ maximum of l(v) and if the graph has a triangle it is also easily proven that Ls(G) ≥ maximum of l(v) can be improved by one. | |||
E | 159. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ maximum of l(v) + 0.5*w(G) - 1. | definitions |
Aug 8, 2005. Oct. 2005, if G is not K1, the the stronger bound of Ls(G) ≥ maximum of l(v) + w(G) - 2 is easily argued. If there is a vertex of a maximum clique that realizes the maximum of local independence, then one can begin to build a spanning tree from that vertex with maximum of l(v) + w(G) - 2 leaves and then extend the spanning tree. If no vertex of a maximum clique is a vertex that realizes the maximum of local independence, then one can begin to build a spanning tree rooted at a vertex of maximum local independence with at least maximum of l(v) leaves. At most one of its independent neighbors will be in any one maximum clique; in any case, add the edges and vertices of a shortest path from the root to a maximum clique, and extend the tree to include w(G) - 1 vertices of the clique as leaves of the extended spanning tree. Since at most one independent neighbor is on the maximum clique, this initial spanning tree will contain at least maximum of l(v) + w(G) - 2 leaves. | |||
E |
163. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ CEIL[0.5*D(G2)]. | definitions |
Aug 8, 2005. Oct 10, 2005. | |||
E | 164. | If G is a simple connected graph, then Ls(G) ≥ D(G2) - D(G). | definitions |
Aug 8, 2005. Oct 10, 2005. | |||
Next List | |||
Lower bounds for Ls(G) + b(G) | |||
T | 173. | If G is a simple connected graph on at least 2 vertices, then Ls(G) + b(G) ≥ n + 1 + cbipartite(G). | definitions reference |
Aug 8, 2005. Note that
since 2a(G) ≥ b(G) , G.pc's 173 is an improvement over
Grigg's Conjecture Ls(G) ≥
n - 2a(G) + 1,
which inspired the first run of lower bounds (listed on wowII) on Ls(G).
DeLaVina and Waller proved that if G is a simple connected graph on at least 2 vertices, then
Ls(G) + b(G) ≥ n + 1. see reference. Note that
in the case that the graph is bipartite, the relation is obvious since
b(G) = n and Ls(G) ≥ 2. Note: Since n - Ls(G) is the connected domination number, gc of a graph, this relation provides an upper bound on the connected domination number b(G) ≥ gc+ 1 + cbipartite(G). Since a largest induced bipartite subgraph B has the property that every vertex not among the vertices of B is adjacent to 2 vertices of B of different colors, the vertices of B determine a special variety of 2-dominating set, and so b(G) ≥ g2 but I know of no relation between connected domination and 2-domination. |
|||
T | 175. | If G is a simple connected graph on at least 2 vertices, then Ls(G) + b(G) ≥ n + D(G)*cbipartite(G). | definitions |
Aug 8, 2005. In the case that G is a bipartite graph, the relation follows since b(G) = n and Ls(G) ≥ D(G); otherwise, the relation follows from Ls(G) + b(G) ≥ n + 1, see wowII 173. | |||
Sophie Heuristic | |||
Sufficient conditions on a simple graph G for the existence of a Hamiltonian path (also known as Traceable graph) | |||
Note: the following conjectures were generated
by a new heuristic for G.pc named Sophie. The program was
queried for sufficient conditions for simple connected graphs on at least
two vertices.
| |||
T | 188. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that annihilation number ≤ 1 + σ(G), then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. April 2008, Landon Jennings | |||
T | 190a. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that LS(G)-1 ≤ σ(G), then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006.
At some point in the program's execution, this conjecture (appeared together
with #190) was eventually superseded by some combination of other conjectures,
however, since we thought about this conjecture, it is included on this
list. Note, the program may have made this conjecture because if L = 2
then must be a path or cycle, which has a Hamiltonian path, but the
hypothesis of #190 is not satisfied for paths.
June 2013, in [M1], using theorems of Griggs and Wu, and of Dirac, Mukwembi proved that if \( \delta \ge 5 \) and \( \delta \ge L -1 \), then G is Hamiltonian and in [M2] he extended this to if \( \delta \ge 3 \) and \( \delta \ge L -1 \), then G is Hamiltonian. [M1] Simon Mukwembi, Minimum degree, leaf number and Hamiltonicity, American Mathematical Monthly, 115-, (2013). [M2] Simon Mukwembi, On spanning cycles, paths and trees, Discrete Applied Mathematics, 2217-2222, (2013). |
|
||
T | 191. |
If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that
2 * lower median of degree sequence of G - 1 ≤ min { deg(v) + deg(u) : v and u are not adjacent }, then G has a Hamiltonian path. |
definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. June 2010, Richard Stong (CCR, La Jolla). | |||
T | 192. | If G is a simple
connected graph with n > 1 such that
Σ(G) ≤ upper median of degree sequence of G, then G has a Hamiltonian path. |
definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. Note one can rewrite the
hypothesis of this conjecture as n - σ(G)
- 1 ≤ upper median of degree sequence of G], where σ(G)
is the 2nd smallest of the degree sequence of G. The following
theorem is an analogue to Chvatal's condition for hamiltonian cycle
(see D. West's Intro. to Graph Theory.) from which below it is proven
that the conjecture follows. Theorem (Chvatal's). Let G be a simple graph with degree sequence d1≤ d2≤ ...≤ dn with n at least 3. If for i < (n+1)/2 we have that di ≥ i or dn+1-i ≥ n-i. , then G has a Hamiltonian path. Lemma. If n is at least 2, then [n - σ(G) - 1 ≤ upper median of degree sequence of G] implies Chvatal's condition. Proof. Assume that n is at least 2 and n - σ(G) - 1 ≤ upper median of degree sequence of G . Observe that our assumption implies d(n+2)/2 ≥ upper median of degree sequence of G ≥ n - σ(G) - 1. If i = 1, then since the graph is connected the Chvatal's condition clearly holds. So suppose 2 ≤ i < (n+1)/2. Then clearly σ(G) ≤ di. Now, if di < i, then i ≥ σ(G) + 1, which is equivalent to n -1- σ(G) ≥ n - i. Since i < (n+1)/2, it follows that n +1 - i ≥ (n+3)/2. Thus, dn+1-i ≥ d(n+3)/2 ≥ d(n+2)/2 ≥ n - σ(G) - 1 ≥ n - i. QED
|
|||
R | 195. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that a(G) - 1 ≤ κ(G) , then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. This is a Theorem of Chvatal & Erdos. | |||
T | 196. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that b(G)/2 = radius(G), then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. Jan. 2008 DPW. | |||
T | 196a. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that a(G) = radius(G), then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions reference |
Jan 12, 2006. Note that this
conjecture was superseded by Sophie's #196, but since Pepper and Waller were
aware of it and began working on it, I've included it on the list.
|
|||
T | 197. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that girth(G) ≥ 2a(G) - 1, then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. Note that this conjecture was superseded by later conjectures, but since Pepper and Waller proved it, it is included on the list. | |||
T | 198. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that b(G) ≤ 2 + eccavg(M), then G has a Hamiltonian path, where M is the set of vertices of maximum degree of G. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. June 2010, Richard Stong (CCR, La Jolla). | |||
T | 201. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that path(G) = 2 + Σ(G), then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. May 2010, Richard Stong (CCR, La Jolla). | |||
T | 203. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that Σ(G) ≤ λmax(G), then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. Note that in
G, the value of
λmax(G)
corresponds to the maximum of all co-clique numbers of vertices. For a
vertex, v, compute the clique number of the subgraph induced by
V(G) - N[v], this will be the co-clique number of a vertex. Note,
N[v] is the vertex v together with its neighborhood. Let
us denote this value at wc(G).
Then the conjecture can be rewritten as n - (σ(G) + 1) ≤ wc(G), which for σ(G) ≤ 3 is easily argued since the graph must have a large clique.... |
|||
Jan 12, 2006. June 2010, Richard Stong (CCR, La Jolla). | |||
T | 205. |
If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that
induced circumference(G) ≥ 2(annihilation number -1), then G has a Hamiltonian path. |
definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. May 2010, Richard Stong (CCR, La Jolla). | |||
T | 206. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that Σ(G) ≤ 1 + 0.5*modemax(G), then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. April 2008, Landon Jennings proved that this condition follows from Chvatal's sufficient condition for Hamiltonian paths. | |||
T | 207. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that (1/4)* [1 + 2*|E(G)| ] ≤ modemax(G), then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. April 5, 2008, I coded in Chvatal's sufficient condition and for the graphs in the program's database the conjectured sufficient condition implies Chvatal's . June 2010, Richard Stong (CCR, La Jolla); he proved |E(G)| ≤ 2*modemax(G)-1 implies Chvatal's sufficient condition for a Hamiltonian path. | |||
T | 208. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that (1/2)* [1 + (2/3)*|E(G)| ] ≤ matching(G), then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. April 5, 2008, I coded in Chvatal's sufficient condition and for the graphs in the program's database the conjectured sufficient condition implies Chvatal's. June 2010, Richard Stong (CCR, La Jolla); he also communicated that this does not imply Chvatal's sufficient condition. This is likely due to my error in coding the expression. | |||
T | 215. | If G is a simple connected graph with n > 1 such that (1/2)*domination(G) ≤ cclaw(G), then G has a Hamiltonian path. | definitions |
Jan 12, 2006. Mar. 9, 2006. DeLaVina, John & Pepper. | |||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Lower bounds for Total Domination gt | |||
R | 226. |
If G is a simple connected graph, then
gt(G) ≥
g(G)) |
definitions |
Feb. 23, 2007. | |||
T | 228. |
If G is a simple connected triangle-free graph, then
gt(G)
≥
c(G) |
definitions reference |
Feb. 23, 2007. Mar. 30, 2007. Stephen Hartke, Qi Liu, Doug West and Hehui Wu. | |||
R | 229. |
If G is a simple connected graph, then
gt(G)
≥
n(G)/D(G) |
definitions |
Feb. 23, 2007. | |||
T | 230. |
If G is a simple connected graph, then
gt(G)
≥
2 * (CEIL[0.5*radius(G)]) |
definitions reference |
Feb. 23, 2007. B. Waller & R. Pepper. | |||
T | 231. |
If G is a simple connected graph, then
gt(G)
≥
1 + ecc(Centers) |
definitions reference |
Feb. 23, 2007. | |||
T | 249. |
If G is a simple connected graph, then
gt(G)
≥ CEIL[girth(G)/2] |
definitions reference |
Feb. 23, 2007. April 19, 2007: B. Waller & R. Pepper. | |||
T | 251. |
If G is a simple connected graph such that girth(G) ≥
5, then
gt(G)
≥ 1 + upper_median(G). |
definitions reference |
Feb. 23,2007. In 2016 Desormeaux and Henning proved this conjecture, see reference. | |||
E | 263. |
If G is a simple connected graph on an odd number of vertices such that D(G) ≤
n(G)/2, then
gt(G)
≥ 3. |
definitions |
Feb. 23, 2007. | |||
Sophie Heuristic | |||
Sufficient conditions on a simple connected graph G for Total Domination equal to Radius | |||
Note: the following conjectures were generated by a new heuristic for G.pc named Sophie. The program was queried for sufficient conditions for simple connected graphs on at least two vertices. | |||
T | 277. | Let G is a simple connected graph with n > 1. minimum {|EG(D)|: D is a minimum total dominating set} =0.5*radius(G) if and only if gt(G)=radius(G). | definitions reference |
Feb 25, 2007. Since radius was
proven to be a lower bound for total domination (see 230), Sophie was
queried for sufficient condition for the case of equality and subsequently
reported the above equivalence. It is easily
proven that if
minimum {|EG(D)|: D is a minimum total dominating set} =0.5*radius(G),
then
gt(G)=radius(G). May 4, 2007: B. Waller proved the converse. |
|||
Sophie Heuristic | |||
Sufficient conditions on a simple connected graph G for Total Domination equal to Radius (excluding the invariant from above minimum {|EG(D)|: D is a minimum total dominating set}. | |||
Note: the following conjectures were generated by a new heuristic for G.pc named Sophie. The program was queried for sufficient conditions for simple connected graphs on at least two vertices. | |||
T | 278. | Let G is a simple connected graph with n > 1. maximum {|EG(D)|: D is a minimum total dominating set} =0.5*radius(G) if and only if gt(G)=radius(G). | definitions reference |
Feb 25, 2007. It is easily proven that if maximum {|EG(D)|: D is a minimum total dominating set} =0.5*radius(G), then gt(G)=radius(G). | |||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Upper bounds for Total Domination gt | |||
R | 279. |
If G is a simple connected graph, then
gt(G) ≤
2*g(G)) |
definitions |
Mar. 1, 2007. | |||
R | 280. |
If G is a simple connected graph, then
gt(G) ≤
FLOOR[(2/3)*n(G)] |
definitions |
Mar. 1, 2007. | |||
T | 288. |
If G is a simple connected graph, then
gt(G) ≤
p(G) + m(G) |
definitions |
Feb. 23 2006. B.
Waller. To see that this relation is sharp for every value of p(G), let Cm be a cycle on m vertices with the convention that C1 = K1 and C2 = P2. Next, identify each vertex of Cm with the center of a P7. The resulting graph has 7m vertices, gt(G) = 4m, p(G) = m, and m(G) = 3m. See the graphs for m = 2 and m = 4. Feb. 2019, in [HW17] this bound is improved to gt(G) ≤ [p(G)-1]/2 + m(G) when the graph has minimum degree is at least 3. [HW17] Michael A. Henning and Kirsti Wash, Matchings, path covers and domination, Discrete Mathematics 340 (2017), no. 1, 3207-3216. |
|||
R | 294. |
If G is a simple connected graph such that n(G)> 2, then
gt(G) ≤ n(G)
-
D(G) +1 |
definitions reference |
Mar. 1, 2007. In 1980,
Cocknaye, Dawnes, and Hedetniemi proved the following: [CDH] If a graph G has no isolated vertices, then gt(G) ≤ n(G) - D(G) +1; and if a connected graph G has D(G) < n-1, then gt(G) ≤ n(G) - D(G). |
|||
T | 295. |
If G is a simple connected graph such that n(G)> 2 and its complement
G is traceable, then
gt(G) ≤ n(G)
-
D(G) |
definitions reference |
Mar. 1, 2007. April 4,
2007: It is easily seen that if
G is traceable, then
D(G) ≤ n(G)
- 2. So #295 follows from
[CDH] If a connected graph G has D(G) < n-1, then gt(G) ≤ n(G) - D(G).. |
|||
R | 296. |
If G is a simple connected graph such that n(G)> 2, then
gt(G) ≤ n(G)
- gi(G). |
definitions reference |
Mar. 1, 2007. Allan, Laskar, and Hedetniemi proved this in 1984. | |||
T | 297. |
If G is a simple connected graph such that n(G)> 2, then
gt(G) ≤ n(G)
- (1/2)*gc(G). |
definitions reference |
Mar. 1, 2007. April 6,
2007 Note: A corollary to a result of Kleitman and West in [KW] is that if δ(G) ≥ 4,
then gc(G) ≤
(3/5)n(G)
- 2. From the latter and from
gt(G) ≤
(2/3)n(G),
if δ(G) ≥ 4,
then
gt(G)
+ (1/2)gc(G) ≤
(2/3)n(G) + (3/10)n(G) - 1 ≤ n(G). Mar. 30, 2007. Stephen Hartke, Qi Liu, Doug West and Hehui Wu. |
|||
T | 301. |
If G is a simple connected graph, then
gt(G) ≤
w(G) + frequency of λmax(G)) |
definitions |
Mar. 1, 2007. | |||
T | 306. |
If G is a simple connected graph, then
gt(G) ≤
2*FLOOR[(1/2)*minimum of |NG(e)|] |
definitions |
Mar. 1, 2007. April 4, 2007: | |||
Sophie Heuristic | |||
For totally independence reducible graphs. | |||
Note: the following conjectures were generated by G.pc's Sophie heuristic. | |||
T | 329. |
Let G is a simple connected graph with n > 1. The matching number = vertex
cover number if and only if the independence number equals the
critical independence number. |
definitions |
Dec. 19, 2007. Feb 2008
Craig Larson. He notes that this is equivalent to
the independence number equals the critical independence number of graph if
and only if the graph is a Konig-Egervary graph. See [CEL2011].
June 2011: in [LM2011] Vadim E. Levit · Eugen Mandrescu proved that G is a Konig-Egervary graph if and only if every maximum independent set is critical. [CEL2011] C.E. Larson, The critical independence number and an independence decomposition, European Journal of Combinatorics, Vol. 32, Issue 2, February 2011, pp. 294-300. [LM2011] V. Levit and E. Mandrescu, Critical Independent Sets and König–Egerváry Graphs, Graphs and Combinatorics, 2011 pp. 1-8. |
|||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Upper bounds on Total Domination number gt of a Tree | |||
R | 330. |
If T is a tree on n > 2 vertices, then
γt ≤ κv(T) + number of isolated vertices of T γt ≤ n(T) - Δ(T) - 1 + 3/rad(T) γt ≤ ⌈ ((2/3)(n(T)-1))⌉ γt≤ 2γ(T) γt ≤ n(T) - γ(T) γt ≤ γ2(T) |
definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. 6 of the 20 upper bounds were obvious rediscoveries, but for completion I list them here. Note, that they appeared on the list implies that the others on the list did not follow from the rediscoveries. | |||
T | 331. |
If T is a tree on n > 2 vertices,
then γt
≤ 2α(T) - number of isolates of <N(S(T))>, where S(T) is the set of support vertices of T
|
definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. Mar 3,
2009 B. Waller. Note: γt ≤ 2α(G) is an exercise for all simple graphs. |
|||
T | 332. |
If T is a tree on n > 2 vertices, then γt
≤ ½[n(T) + number of isolates of <S(T)>], where S(T) is the set of support vertices of T. |
definitions reference |
Feb. 18, 2009. April 2009,
this conjecture
proposes a strengthening of a result of Chellali & Haynes that for a tree
γt
≤ ½[n(T) + |S(T)|]. In [DLPW2], we prove the stronger bound that
for a non-star tree
γt
≤ (n + |S*(T)|)/2 - (L - |S(T)| )/2.
[DLPW2] E. DeLaVina, C. E. Larson, R. Pepper, & B. Waller, On total domination and support vertices of a tree, preprint 2009. |
|||
T | 333. | If T is a tree on n > 2
vertices, then γt
≤ |S(T)| + ⌈ κv(T)/2 ⌉, where
S(T) is the set of support vertices of T.
|
definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. April 2009, since κv(T)
= n(T)-L, this conjecture proposes a strengthening of a result of
Chellali & Haynes that for a tree
γt
≤ ½[n(T) + |S(T)|]. Note for a non-star tree |S(T)| + κv(T)/2
= |S(T)| + (n(T)-L)/2
= (n + |S(T)|)/2 - (L - |S(T)|)/2. So this too proposes and
improvement over Chellali & Haynes that for a tree
γt
≤ ½[n(T) + |S(T)|]. In [DLPW2], we prove the stronger bound that for a
non-star tree
γt
≤ (n + |S*(T)|)/2 - (L - |S(T)| )/2. [DLPW2] E. DeLaVina, C. E. Larson, R. Pepper, & B. Waller, On total domination and support vertices of a tree, preprint 2009. |
|||
T | 334. | If T is a tree on n > 2 vertices, then γt ≤ number of isolates of <S(T)> + vc(T), where S(T) is the set of support vertices of T. | definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. July 2009. [DLPW2] E. DeLaVina, C. E. Larson, R. Pepper, & B. Waller, On total domination and support vertices of a tree, preprint 2009. |
|||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Lower bounds on Total Domination number gt of a Tree | |||
R | 345. |
If T is a tree on n > 2 vertices, then
γT(T) ≥ γ(T) γT(T) ≥ rad(T) γT(T) ≥ 1+ 2⁄3*ecc(B) (conj 233) γT(T) ≥ ⌈ 1 + ½κv⌉ (Chellali & Haynes [CH2])
|
definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. Conj 240
from a previous run was repeated.
[CH2] M. Chellali and T. W. Haynes, A note on the total domination of a tree, J. Combin. Math. Combin. Comput., 58(2006), 189-193. |
|||
T | 347. | If T is a tree on n > 2 vertices, then γT(T) ≥ half of order of a largest component of <D2(T)> + -1 +|S(T)|, where D2={v| deg(v) = 2} and S(T) is the set of support vertices of T. | definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. 2012 Hongxing Jiang. | |||
T | 349. | If T is a tree on n>2 vertices, then γT(T) ≥ rad(T) -1 + number of components of <N(D2(T)) ∪ D2(T) >, where D2={v| deg(v) = 2}. | definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. 2012 Hongxing Jiang. | |||
T | 350. | If T is a tree on n>2 vertices, then γT(T) ≥ ½[diam(T) + number of components of <N(D2(T)) ∪ D2(T) >], where D2={v| deg(v) = 2}. | definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. 2012 Hongxing Jiang. | |||
T | 355. | If T is a tree on n>2 vertices, then γT(T) ≥ κv/(ecc(C) - 1), where C is the center of T. | definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009.
Feb. 2009: R. Pepper.
Note: if ecc(C) > 2, then this follows from γT(T) ≥ ⌈ 1 + ½*κv⌉ (Chellali & Haynes [CH2]). So it was enough to prove this for ecc(C) = 2. |
|||
T | 357. | If T is a tree on n>2 vertices, then γT(T) ≥ ecc(C) + |N(B)| -1 , where C is the center of T and B is the boundary of T. | definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. Feb. 2009: DPW. | |||
T | 366. | If T is a tree on n>2 vertices, then γT(T) ≥ 2⁄3 *dd(T). | definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. Feb. 2009. DPW | |||
T | 370. | If T is a tree on n>2 vertices, then γT(T) ≥ 2μ'(T)/Δ(T), where μ(G) denotes the matching number of G, and we define μ'(T) = maximumv∈V{ deg(v) + μ(<V(T) - N(v)>). | definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. 2012 Hongxing Jiang. | |||
T | 371. | If T is a tree on n>2 vertices, then γT(T) ≥ 2vc(T)/Σ(T) | definitions |
Feb. 18, 2009. August 2009, if
Σ(T)=2 or
Σ(T)=1, then T is a path or star, and the relation
clearly holds. So assume
Σ(T) ≥ 3. In [DLPW2], we prove that
γT(T) ≥ vc(T) - (k-1)
where k is the number of components of the subgraph induced by a
minimum total dominating set.
Since k £
γT(T)
/2, -k
≥
-γT(T)/2.
Now by the above
γT(T) ≥ vc(T) - (k-1) ≥
vc(T)
-γT(T)/2
+1,
which yields
γT(T) ≥ (2/3)(vc(T)
+1). Since we can assume that Σ(T)≥ 3, the
conjecture follows. [DLPW2] DeLaVina, Larson, Pepper, and Waller, On total domination and support vertices of a tree, preprint 2009. |
|||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Upper bounds on 2-domination number g2 of a connected graph | |||
T | 382a. |
If G is a connected graph n > 2 vertices, then
γ2 ≤ 2a-ac. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. DeLaVina & Hemmati.
It is easy to see that γ2
≤ 2a,
and the independence
number is not an upper bound for the 2-domination number; so we note the
corollary, if G has a unique maximum independent set, then γ2
≤ a. In
[DLPW3] we simplified the proof. [DLPW3] DeLaVina, Larson, Pepper, and Waller, Graffiti.pc on the 2-domination number of a tree, preprint 2009. |
|||
T | 383a. |
If G is a connected graph n > 2 vertices, then
γ2 ≤ n - a (G[A]), where A is the set of non-minimum degree vertices. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. Feb. 2010 DPW. This together
with conjecture 384 led us to the stronger statement. If G is a connected graph n > 2 vertices, then γ2
≤ n
- a (G[A]), where A is the set of
non-pendant vertices.
Pepper later generalized this & 383b to If G is a connected graph n > 2 vertices, then γk ≤ n - a (G[Ak]), where Ak is the set of vertices of degree at least k. (see [DLPW3]) |
|||
T | 383b. |
If G is a connected graph n > 2 vertices, then
γ2 ≤ n - a + |P|, where P is the set of pendants (i.e. vertices of degree 1). |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. DPW. This together
with conjecture 384 led us to the stronger statement. If G is a connected graph n > 2 vertices, then γ2 ≤ n - a (G[A]), where A is the set of non-pendant vertices. Pepper later generalized this and 383a to If G is a connected graph n > 2 vertices, then γk ≤ n - a (G[Ak]), where Ak is the set of vertices of degree at least k. (see [DLPW3]) |
|||
T | 384a. |
If G is a connected graph on n > 2 vertices and
kv
cut vertices, then
γ2 ≤ FLOOR(n - kv/2). |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. March 2010 (see [DLPW3]).. | |||
E | 385a. |
If G is a connected graph n > 2, then
γ2 ≤ n - D(G[N(M)-M]). where M is the set of maximum degree vertices. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. DeLaVina, Feb 2010. Inspired by 385a,b&c, a more general statement follows, namely, If G is a connected graph n > 2, then γ2 ≤ n - D(G[N(S)-S]). where S is any subset of vertices . | |||
E | 385b. |
If G is a connected graph n > 2, then
γ2 ≤ n - D(G[N(Ad )-Ad ]). where Ad is the set of minimum degree vertices. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. DeLaVina, Feb 2010. Inspired by 385a,b&c, a more general statement follows, namely, If G is a connected graph n > 2, then γ2 ≤ n - D(G[N(S)-S]). where S is any subset of vertices . | |||
E | 385c. |
If G is a connected graph n > 2, then
γ2 ≤ n - D(G[N(B)-B]). where B is the set of periphery vertices. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. DeLaVina, Feb 2010. Inspired by 385a,b&c, a more general statement follows, namely, If G is a connected graph n > 2, then γ2 ≤ n - D(G[N(S)-S]). where S is any subset of vertices . | |||
E | 386a. |
If G is a connected graph on n > 2, then
γ2 ≤ n - maximum{|N(u) Ç N(u)| : u and v distinct vertices of G }. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. DeLaVina Feb. 2010 | |||
E | 386b. |
If G is a connected graph on n > 2, then
γ2 ≤ 2(n - S(G)). where S(G) is the 2nd largest entry of the ordered (non-decreasing) degree sequence. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. March 2010 DLPW. | |||
T | 388. |
If G is a connected graph on n > 2 vertices, then
γ2 ≤ (n + a (G[A2 ]))/2, where A2 is the set vertices of degree at most two. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. March 11, 2010 DeLaVina, Pepper & Vaughan. May 18, 2010. M. Henning & W. Goddard communicated an independent proof of this conjecture. | |||
T | 390. |
If G is a connected graph on n > 2 vertices, then
γ2 ≤ p(G) + m(G). |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. Feb. 2010 DeLaVina, Pepper & Waller see [DLPW3]. | |||
T | 392a. |
If G is a connected graph on n > 2 vertices, then
γ2 ≤ m(G[A3]) + |V-A3|, where A3 is the set vertices of degree at least three. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. March 11,
2010. DeLaVina, Pepper & Vaughan. Our argument generalized to
γk ≤ m(G[A2k-1]) + |V-A2k-1|, where A2k-1 is the set vertices of degree at least 2k-1. May 18, 2010. M. Henning & W. Goddard communicated another independent proof of this conjecture and its generalization. Note: In an effort to organize conjectures, I've grouped all involving matching and small degrees under 392. |
|||
T | 397a. |
If G is a connected graph on n > 2 vertices, then
γ2 ≤ |V - N(P)| + |{v : |N(v) Ç [V - N(P)] | = 1}| , where P is the set of pendants. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. March 20101. DeLaVina Proof: If minimum degree is greater than one, then this follows trivially. So assume P is not empty. Let D' = {v : | N(v) Ç [V - N(P)]| =1}. Then V-N(P) is a 2-dominating set unless some vertex v in N(P) is adjacent to only one vertex in V-N(P), but then v is in D'. Thus, [V-N(P)] È D' is a 2-dominating set. qed. [DLPW3] | |||
T | 397b |
If G is a connected graph on n > 2 vertices, then
γ2 ≤ |V - N(P)| + m(G[N(P)]) , where P is the set of pendants. |
definitions |
Jan. 2010. April
2010 [DLPW3].
|
|||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Bounds on sets related to H (the union of all maximum critical independent sets) for trees. | |||
T | 403. | Let G be a tree on n > 2 vertices and H the union of all maximum critical independent sets of G. Then number of isolates(G[H]) = ac(G) | definitions |
Jan. 2010. Larson proved that this identity holds for Konig-Egarvy graphs. | |||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Upper Bounds on the order of H (the union of all maximum critical independent sets) for connected graphs. | |||
T | 408. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 2 vertices and H the union of all maximum critical independent sets of G. Then |H| ≤ 2a(G[V-N(P)]) - ac(G). | definitions |
June 2010. June 2010, DeLaVina&Larson, note that a(G[V-N(P)]) = a(G) unless G has a component of P2, thus the conjecture is equivalent to |H| ≤ 2a(G) - ac(G), which we prove and also characterize that the graphs for which equality holds are Konig-Egervary graphs. | |||
T | 409a. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 2 vertices; let M be the set of maximum degree vertices and H the union of all maximum critical independent sets of G. If D(G) > n/2, |H| ≤ n-|M|. | definitions |
June 2010. June 2010, DeLaVina&Larson, proved the stronger statement that for M be the set of whose degree is greater than n/2, we have |H| ≤ n-|M|. which settles 409b also. | |||
T | 409b. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 2 vertices and H the union of all maximum critical independent sets of G. If d(G) > n/2, |H| =0. | definitions |
June 2010. June 2010, DeLaVina&Larson, proved the stronger statement that for M be the set of whose degree is greater than n/2, we have |H| ≤ n-|M|. which settles 409a also. | |||
T | 409c. | Let G be a connected graph on 6 > n > 2; let A2 be vertices of degree less than or equal to 2, and H the union of all maximum critical independent sets of G. Then |H| ≤ |A2|. | definitions |
June 2010. June 2010, DeLaVina&Larson, proved the stronger statement that for M be the set of whose degree is greater than n/2, we have |H| ≤ n-|M|. which settles 409b & 409c also. | |||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Lower Bounds on the order of H (the union of all maximum critical independent sets) for connected graphs. | |||
T | 411. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 2 vertices, P the set of pendant vertices and H the union of all maximum critical independent sets of G. Then |H| ≥ isolates(G[V-N(P)]) + peN(V-N(P)) . | definitions |
June 2010. June 2010, with Larson. | |||
T | 412c. | Let G be a connected bipartite graph on n > 2 vertices and H the union of all maximum critical independent sets of G. Then |H| ≥ a(G). | definitions |
June 2010. This follows for the larger class of Konig-Egervary graphs because maximum critical independent sets are maximum independent sets. | |||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Lower Bounds on the independent domination for connected graphs. | |||
R | 417. |
Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices. Then i(G)
£
n(G) - maximum{deg(v) + m(G[V-N(v)])
: v in V(G) } |
definitions |
Dec. 8 2010.
M. Blidia, M. Chellali, F. Maffray, Extremal graphs for a new upper bound on domination parameters in graphs, Discrete Mathematics, 306 (2006), 2314-2326. |
|||
T | 418a. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices, A the set of minimum degree vertices of G. Then i(G) £ a(G[V-A]) + |A| -1. | definitions |
Dec. 8 2010. W. Goddard. May 2012, just noticed that this is similar to G.pc's #451. |
|||
T | 419a. |
Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices, A the set of minimum degree
vertices of G. Then i(G)
£ a(G)
- 1/(w(G[N[Ac]]) -1 ). |
definitions |
Dec. 8 2010. For this and
419b if the core of G is empty then the right hand side is a(G)
+1 and so the inequality follows trivially. If the core of G
is not empty, then both w(G[N[Ac]])
and r(G[N[Ac]]) are both at least two,
and the smallest that the right hand side can be is a(G)
- 1. Dec, 2010 Bill Waller proved that For a connected graph G, if the core of G is non-empty, then i(G) £ a(G) - 1. |
|||
T | 419b. |
Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices, A the set of minimum degree
vertices of G. Then i(G)
£ a(G)
- 1/(r(G[N[Ac]]) -1 ). |
definitions |
Dec. 8 2010. Dec 2010 Bill
Waller (see above). |
|||
T | 420a. |
Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices, S the set of support
vertices of G. Then i(G)
£ a(G[V(G)-N(S)])
+ 2*Floor[0.5|E(G[N(S)])|] ). |
definitions |
Dec. 8 2010. Dec 2010Wayne
Goddard proved that i(G)
£ a(G[V(G)-N(S)])
+ |E(G[N(S)])| (so there is still the question of a slight improvement when
|E(G[N(S)])| is odd.) |
|||
R | 421a. |
Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices. Then i(G)
£
lmax(G)
(gt(G)-1). |
definitions |
Dec. 8 2010. DeLaVina If G
is a graph on n > 1 vertices i(G)
£
1 + (lmax(G)-1)
(g(G)-1).
|
|||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Upper Bounds on the 2-independence number for connected graphs. | |||
T | 436a. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices. Then a2(G)£ WP(G) + c(D), where WP(G) is the Welsh-Powell invariant of the complement graph and c(D) is the number of components of the subgraph induced by the set of neighbor dominators of G. | definitions |
Jan. 2012. May 2012, in [DP12] we proved that ak ≤ WP(G) + k - 1 and that a2 ≤ WP(G) whenever the graph G has no neighbor dominators. [DP12] E. DeLaVina, R. Pepper, Graffiti.pc on the 2-independence number of a graph, preprint 2012. |
|||
T | 436b. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices. Then a2(G)£ WP(G) + FLOOR[3/radius], where WP(G) is the Welsh-Powell invariant of the complement graph. | definitions |
Jan. 2012. *May 2012, in [DP12] we proved that ak ≤ WP(G) + k-1, so here it simply remains to settle a2 ≤ WP(G) whenever the graph G has has radius at least 4. May 2013, DeLaVina. [DP12] E. DeLaVina, R. Pepper, Graffiti.pc on the 2-independence number of a graph, preprint 2012. |
|||
T | 437. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices. Then a2(G)£ CEILING[(2/3)n]*p(G). | definitions |
Jan. 2012.
May 2012, Pepper: if the path covering number of G is greater than 1 then the conjecture is trivially true. Now if p(G) =1, that is the graph has a Hamiltonian path, then since the a2(Pn) = CEILING[(2/3)n] the conjecture follows. |
|||
T | 440. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices. Then a2(G)£ n - g(G[V-A]), where A is the set of minimum degree vertices of G. | definitions |
Jan. 2012. May 2012, Pepper and Waller. | |||
T | 445a. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices. Then a2(G)£ a3(G) - D(G[H2]) + 1, where H2 is the set of vertices of degree at most 2 in G. | definitions |
Jan. 2012. April
2012,DeLaVina & Pepper. [DP12] E. DeLaVina, R. Pepper, Graffiti.pc on the k-independence number of a graph, preprint 2012. |
|||
T | 451. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices. Then a2(G)£ 2a(V-A) + |A|, where AÍV. | definitions |
Jan. 2012. Note that
the program made several conjectures of this exact form with a variety of
different sets, so I chose to report the stronger conjecture and indeed it
is true. Jan 2012, the more general statement
ak(G)£
ka(V-A) +
|A|, where AÍV
is proven in [DP12]. Note that this is similar to G.pc's #418a. [DP12] E. DeLaVina, R. Pepper, Graffiti.pc on the k-independence number of a graph, preprint 2012. |
|||
T | 452. | Let G be a connected graph on n > 3 vertices. Then a2(G)£ 2a(G) - m(G[S]), where S is the set of support vertices of G. | definitions |
Jan. 2012. June 2013, Bill Kinnersly settled this during my talk at CanaDAM 2013 in St John's. | |||
Dalmatian Heuristic | |||
Lower Bounds on the 2-independence number for connected graphs. | |||
T | 458. | Let G be a connected graph on \( n \ge 3 \) vertices. Then \( \alpha_2(G) \ge 2\alpha(G) - |V-D| \), where D is the set of neighbor-dominators. | definitions |
Jan. 2012. April 2012,
DeLaVina & Pepper. [DP12] E. DeLaVina, R. Pepper, Graffiti.pc on the \( k \)-independence number of a graph, preprint 2012 |
|||
T | 457. | Let G be a connected graph on \( n \ge 3 \) vertices. Then \( \alpha_2(G) \ge \alpha_c(G) + 2c(G[N[V-A_c]]) \), where \( A_c \) is the core of G. | definitions |
Jan. 2012. June 2013, DeLaVina | |||
T | 459. | Let G be a connected graph on \( n \ge 3 \) vertices. Then \( \alpha_2(G) \ge |A| - |E(G[A])/2| \), where A is any subset of the vertices. | definitions |
Jan. 2012. The program
conjecture this for a variety of sets so I propose the stronger conjecture. June 2013, Pepper wrote the following: "Let R_k, CT_k, a_k be the k-Residue, k-Caro-Tuza, and k-independence respectively. Also, let n be order and m be size. Theorem(s): (Jelen 1999) a_k >= R_k >= CT_k Observation: (Jelen 1999) For k < D, where D means max degree, CT_k = n – m/k Theorem: (Pepper 2004) For k >= D, where D means max degree, R_k = n – m/k Corollaries: a_k >= R_k >= n – m/k Randy and G.pc Conjecture: a_k >= |A| - |E(G[A])|/k Proof: Let A be a set of vertices in graph G. Then a_k(G) >= a_k([A]) >= R_k([A]) >= n([A]) – m([A])/k = |A| - |E(G[A])|/k." |
|||