ON EDGE-CRITICAL GRAPHS AND THE NOTION

OF VERTEX INDEPENDENCE IN GRAPHS

by
VINCENT EDWARD FA TICA
B.S., Syracuse University, 1972

M.S., Syracuse University, 1977

M.Ph., Syracuse University, 1985

ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION

Respectfully submitted to the Graduate School of Syracuse University in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics

August 1990

ABSTRACT
Chapter one provides an introduction to and an overview of the
work.
The overview is condensed in this abstract.
For the
convenience of the reader, the basic notions and terms of graph theory
are presented in chapter two.
Chapter three gives an account of most of the major known
results on graphs which are edge-crticial with respect to independence
number. Chapter four presents three characterizations of these edgecritical graphs.
The following is shown in chapter five.
For the task of
decomposing a graph into disjoint subgraphs so that each inherits a
maximum independent set of vertices from such a set in the given
graph, so that the sum of their independence numbers equals that of
the given graph, and so that none of them may be further decomposed,
the edge-critical graphs are necessary and sufficient to serve as the
decomposing subgraphs.

In chapter six it is observed that two of the Platonic graphs are

not decomposable in the sense of chapter five. Decompositions of the
other three are given, that of the dodecahedron being particularly
striking.
Chapter seven presents general constructions yielding
connected edge-critical graphs.
In chapter eight the following is shown.
For the task of
covering a graph with subgraphs so that the sum of the independence
numbers of the subgraphs equals that of the given graph, the edgecritical graphs are necessary and sufficient to serve as the covering
subgraphs.
Several conjectures regarding generalized covering
theorems and edge-critical graphs are made.
Chapter nine gives numerous technical results aimed at proving
one of the conjectures of chapter eight, and allowing for an
elementary and graph theoretic proof of an extension, due to Gerards,
of a celebrated theorem of Konig. Chapter ten presents this proof,
and gives an account of the progress made in the attempt to prove the
conjecture mentioned above.
This conjecture, if verified, would
further extend Gerards' result.
Chapter eleven gives a useful corollary to a theorem of Graver
and Yackel on the independence number of a tree, and points out its
relation to the preceding work.

ON EDGE-CRITICAL GRAPHS AND THE NOTION

OF VERTEX INDEPENDENCE IN GRAPHS

by
VINCENT EDWARD FA Tl CA

B.S., Syracuse University, 1972

M.S., Syracuse University, 1977
M.Ph., Syracuse University, 1985

DISSERTATION
(

Respectfully submitted to the Graduate School of Syracuse University in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics

August 1990

Approved - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date

(
\

Copyright 1990
VINCENT EDWARD FA TICA

(
ii

To my parents
John Joseph Fatica
and
Jean Moore Fatica
and to my grandmother
Carolyn Bertha Moore
in memory of her

iii

Contents

Chapter

page

1. Introduction and Overview ....................................................................... 1

2. Graph Theory ......................................................................................... 5
3. The edge-critical graphs ........................................................................ 10
4. Characterizations of connected edge-critical graphs ................................ 16
5. Decompositions of Graphs ...................................................................... 20
6. The Platonic graphs .............................................................................. 24
7. Some methods for constructing edge-critical graphs ................................ 30
8. Coverings of Graphs ............................................................................. 42
9. Various Results .................................................................................... 49
10. Gerards' Extension of Konig's Theorem .................................................. 75
11. A note on a theorem of Graver and Yackel ............................................ 82

iv

CHAPTER 1 - Introduction and Overview

The subject of this thesis is graph theory.

For the benefit of the reader

who is unfamiliar with the basic notions and terms of the subject, these are
provided in the next chapter. For more in-depth presentations of the rudiments
of graph theory, the reader is referred to books by Berge ([B]), Bondy and
Murty ([BM]), Harary ([H2D, and Graver and Watkins ((GW]).
given

The treatment

in the last of these is particularly encyclopaedic and places great

emphasis on its
symbolism.

mathematical

rigor and its efficient use of notation and

For the purposes of this introduction and overview, it is presumed

that the reader is familia.r with graph theory.

As mentioned above, chapter 2 presents the basic notions and terms of

graph theory.

Chapter 3 introduces the notion of edge-critical graph.

Edge-

critical graphs, per se, were studied for a brief time, by an apparently small
number of researchers, among them such notables as Lovasz and Gallai.
collection

of literature on edge-critical graphs

The

is quite compact, and the

theorems presented in chapter 3 are indeed nearly all of the major results in
the area.

Some of these are used to advantage later in this work.

The others

are inlcuded in chapter 3 for their historical significance.

In chapter 4, three characterizations of edge-critical graphs are given.

None are to be found in the literature. Later in the work, two of these are put
to some use.

Chapter 5 asks and answers the following vaguely stated question: "Can a
graph be taken apart, or decomposed, into smaller, perhaps more manageable

pieces, in such a way that the phenomenon of vertex independence in it may

somehow be understood in
pieces?"

terms of the same

phenomena in these smaller

This question is made precise, and it is shown that the edge-critical

graphs are, in a very natural way, both necessary and sufficient to serve as
the "pieces".

In chapter 6, we will look at a. few familiar graphs in light of the

developments

of chapter 5.

We will consider the graphs formed by the

vertices and edges of the Platonic solids:

the tetrahedron, the octahedron, the

cube, the dodecahedron, and the icosahedron, and take them apart (as much as
we can) in the manner of chapter 5.

The view of the dodecahedron so obtained

is particularly striking.

In chapter 7 are presented constructions of edge-critical graphs.

They

yield arbitrarily large graphs, with arbitrarily large deficiency (a parameter

according to whose value edge-critical graphs are classified), and which are
highly connected.

In chapter 8, we turn our attention to coverings of graphs, a notion

closely related to that of decompositions of graph.
graph

by subgraphs in such a

We ask: "Can we 'cover' a

way as to gain information about

vertex

independence in it from considering vertex independence in these subgraphs?"

The question is precisely posed, and it is shown that in a certain very natural
sense, the edge-critical graphs are necessary and sufficient to serve as the
covering subgraphs.

While still in chapter 8, we introduce the reader to a celebrated theorem

of Konig and observe that it can be easily formulated in terms of edge-critical
graphs.

Proposition 8.4 gives a "sweeping" extension of Konig's theorem which,

because its hypotheses are so strong, is, unfortunately, of little or no practical

value.

However, several stronger (and quite reasonable) conjectures are made.

Chapter 9 has a two-fold purpose.

We embark on an attempt at proving a

conjecture (9.2), which, though it is merely the first unresolved instance of a

more general conjecture from chapter 8, would, if it were determined to be true,
provide an extension of Konig's theorem which goes beyond those known to
date.

These efforts unfortunately do not come to fruition but they do proceed

a long way in a direction which it is hoped the reader agrees is worthy of

continued investigation.

At

the

same

time

as

we

are

trying

to

prove

the

above-mentioned

conjecture, however, we are accumulating results sufficient to allow us to give

an elementary proof of an extension of Konig's theorem due to A.M.S. Gerards.
Gerards' theorem is weaker than our conjecture 9.2 (indeed, it would be an
immediate

consequence

of

9.2),

and

his

proof

uses

advanced

notions and

techniques, most notably those of linear programming and matroid theory.

The

elementary proof presented here will make the proof of this extension of
Konig's theorem accessible to a greater audience.

Chapter 11

may

be considered an

epilogue.

It

communicated to this author privately by Jack Graver.

deals with a notion

It is precisely this

notion which proved to be the seed from which all of these researches grew.

The material presented in chapter 11 is not without connection to the

earlier work (indeed we'll see a rather particular instance of the kind of
decomposition mentioned in chapter 5).

Also, the main result of chapter lJ,

while merely a corollary to a theorem of Graver and Yackel, is interesting in

itself.

Finally, it is hoped that the inclusion of this material will serve as a

small gesture of this author's appreciation for the inspiration, assistance, and
encouragement that Jack Graver has provided him.

CHAPTER 2 - Graph Theory

We shall use the simple term "graph" to connote what should be more
properly termed "finite, simple, undirected graph without loops".
purposes, a

For our

G consists in a finite set V(G) (V, for short), the elements of

which are called the vertices of G, paired with another set E(G) (E for short),
whose elements, called the edges of G, are doubleton subsets of V.

The sets V

and E, aside from the stipulations that V be finite, and that each element of E
be a doubleton subset of V, are arbitrary.

We shall often write G

(V, E) to

denote the graph G whose vertex set is the set V, and whose edge set is the
set E.

For a pair u

V, v

V of vertices of a graph G

(V, E), if e

{u, v}

E, (i.e., e is an edge of G), we shall say that the vertices u and v are adjacent,
or that u is adjacent to v, and vice versa.

We shall also say in this case, that

the vertex u (or v), is incident with, or is an endpoint of, the edge e; we shall
also say that u and v are neighbors.
to be adjacent.

The notion of graph itself and this language that we have

adopted, make it possible for

intuition, for

Edges sharing a common vertex are said

us to put to very good use our geometric

these objects can so easily be "pictured".

consider the graph K4

{b, c}, {b, d}, {c, d}}.

(V, E) where V= {a, b, c, d} and E

{{a, b}, {a, c}, {a, d},

(The name, K4 , of this graph, a graph which will be highly

significant throughout this work, will be explained below.)

as i 11 Ill ustra ti on 1:

As an example,

K 4 may be pictured

Illustration 1: Two views of the graph K4

d
b
In the Illustration, the heavy dots labelled a, b, c, and d represent the
vertices of K4 , and a line drawn between two dots reflects the fact that the
vertices represented by these dots comprise an edge of K4

K4 is just one example of a complete

every possible pair of vertices comprises an edge.

that is, a graph in which

Other complete graphs (named

K 11 K2 , etc. according to their numbers of vertices) are depicted in Illustration 2.

Illustration 2:

l<:i_

Ks

Notice that in the case of K5 , that the lines drawn to represent the edges
were allowed to cross (their crossing is in fact of necessity, though a proof of
that fact is not within the scope of this work; the interested reader should
consult (CW]).

It will often be necessary, or desirable, to do this.

It is

understood that at the point where these lines cross, there is no vertex (there
not being a heavy dot there), and it should be imagined that the "edges" do not
in fact meet.

The graphs Kn (n
"complete".
C4,

1, 2, .. .) are special in that their edge sets are

Another set of graphs is the collection of cvcles (or circuits), C 3 ,

(for so named obvious reasons), some of which are pictured in Illustration

3. The length of a cycle is the number of edges in it.

Illustration 3:

C3

. Cs

Before we can give an adequate definition of these graphs, we need to

consider a couple of new notions.

By the valence (or degree) of a vertex of a

graph is meant the number of edges incident with it; for a given vertex v of a
graph, its degree is denoted p(v).

Furthermore, a graph is call connected, if for

every pair u and v of vertices of a graph G, there exists some sequence

u 0 , u1' .. .,

Un

of vertices of G for which u 0

of G for each i

O, 1, ... , n - 1.

u,

Un =

v, and {uH ui+ 1} is an edge

Such a sequence is called a path from u to v.

Geometrically speaking, a graph G is connected if it is possible to get from any

vertex to any other vertex by "travelling" along the edges of G.

All of the graphs mentioned and depicted so far are connected.

cycles C 3 , C 4 ,

The

may now be easily defined as the collection of connected

graphs for which every vertex has degree 2.

The graph G

({a, b, c, d}, {{a,

b}, {c, d}}) depicted in Illustration 4 is an example of a graph which is not

connected.

Illustration 4:

A graph which is not connected

0..

---------

c
Later

in

this

connectedness.

work,

we

shall

come

across

more

refined

notions

of

Presently, we need to explore a few more of the fundamental

notions and relations of graph theory.

As mentioned earlier, those vertices adjacent to a given vertex, v, are

called the neighbors of v; accordingly, the set of neighbors of v is called the
neighbor set of v and is denoted N(v).

A graph H
G

(V(H), E(H))

is said to be a subgraph of the graph

(V(G), E(G)) if (i) V(H) C V(G), and (ii) E(H)

E(G)

P 2 (V(H)) denotes the collection of doubleton subsets of V(H).

subgraphs of a given graph will be of particular importance.
graph

and v

P 2 (V(H)), where

Certain types of
If G

(V, E) is a

V, then G - v will denote the subgraph of G resulting from

deleting from V the vertex v, and deleting from E those edges incident (in G)
with v.

Similarly, if G

(V, E) and S C V, then G - S will denote the

subgraph of G resulting from deleting from V the set S of vertices, and

deleting from E those edges incident with an element of S.
E) and F C E, then G - F, (G - e if F

And too, if G

(V,

{e}), will denote the subgraph of G

resulting from the deletion from E of those edges in F.

If a graph G has as a subgraph a cycle C then by a chord of C is meant

an edge of G not on C, but incident with two vertices of C.

In a graph G

(V, E), a set I C V is said to be independent if no two of

its members are adjacent.

Such a set whose cardinality is a maximum among

the cardinalities of all independent sets of vertices of G is called a maximum

independent set

(of

vertices

of

G),

and

the

cardinality

of

maximum

independent set is called the independence number of G, and is denoted o:(G). In

keeping

with

this

notation, and

for

the sake

of conciseness,

maximum

independent set will hereinafter be called an a-set of G.

A few other numbers associated with a graph G

CV, E) are of interest:

IVCG) I

(i)

v(G)

(ii)

e(G)

IE(G) I, and

(iii)

6'(G)

v(G) - 2o:.(G), (v - 2a. for short), which has by a few authors been

called the deficiency of G.

In [Gl], A. George has written:

"Finding a largest set of mutually non-adjacent ... points
[an a-set, to us] is one of the oldest problems of graph theory.
This problem arises in many different contexts (e.g. chessboard
problems, coding theory, network theory, matching problems, etc.)."

It is precisely this notion of independence to which the remainder of this

work is dedicated.

10

CHAPTER 3 - The edge-critical graphs

In our investigation of vertex independence in graphs, we are asking a few

basic questions, which will be formulated more precisely later:
(i)

Is it possible to take apart a given graph G in such a way that we may

gain information about the phenomenon of vertex independence in G by
studying the same phenomenon in each of the pieces?

and, if this is the case

(ii)

Can we restrict our attention to any particular, hopefully small and welldefined, class of graphs to serve as these "pieces"?

and, if this too is the case,

(iii)

What can we say about this particular class of graphs?

Before attacking these questions, we need to be introduced to a particular

class of graphs, the edge-critical graphs.

Definition:

A graph G

(V, E) is said to be edge-critical if cx(G - e) > cx(G) for

every edge e of G.

That is, G is edge-critical if the removal of any one of its edges causes
the independence number to increase.

The edge-critical graphs were first considered by Zykov ([Z]) in 1949, and
the list of those who have studied them since then is short, though it includes
some of the most prominent names in graph theory.

And the body of literature

on edge-critical graphs is consequently small and compact.

11

We will present below many (in fact, almost all) of the basic results on
edge-critical graphs.
later chapters.

A few, mainly more technical, results will be saved for

Fairly thorough accounts of the major results on edge-critical

graphs may be found in [G1J, [H2J, and [L2].

3.1
and let U

(see [B], p. 287)

Let G

(V, E) be a connected edge-critical graph,

V have the property that G - U is not connected (such a set U of

vertices is called a cut-set of G).

Then the subgraph of G

~anned

by the

vertices of U (i.e. G - (V - U)) is not a complete graph.

3.2

(due to Berge, see [BJ, p. 286)

In an edge-critical graph, any pair of

adjacent edges lies on a chordless cycle of odd length.

3.3

(due to Hajnal, see [H1J)

If G is an edge-critical graph without

isolated vertices (ie: without vertices of degree 0), then for every independent
set S of G, IN(S) I

3.4

(ibid)

IS J.

[ N(S)

U N(V) ]
vES

If G is an edge-critical graph without isolated vertices, then

for every vertex v of G,

p(v)

3.5

v(G) - 2cx(G) + 1

o(G) + 1.

(a corollary to 3.4, due to Erdos and Gallai, see [B], p. 293)

An edge-

critical graph G contains at least 2cx(G) - v(G) isolated vertices.

As the reader may be coming to realize, the parameter o(G)

is of great importance in classifying the edge-critical graphs.

v(G) - 2cx(G)

We shall adopt

12

the following notation:

the collection of all edge-critical graphs

rn

the collection of edge-critical graphs G for which

o(G)

l:ln

v(G) - 2a.(G)

n.

the collection of connected edge-critical graphs

n r n

(n

0, 1, 2, ... ).

The fact that a connected graph has no isolated vertices, together with 3.5
above provide the range of values of n in the definition of An.

For convenience, we will let ;:1_ 1 denote the collection of graphs whose
only member is the graph K 10 the graph with one vertex and no edges.
graph is edge-critical and connected, both trivially, and indeed o(K 1)

(This

-1).

The next three results are of particular importance in the remainder of

this work.

3.6

(due to Andrasfai, see [A], p.10) A 0 is the collection whose only

member is K2 , the graph with two vertices and one edge.

3.7 (ibid)

A1

{C 3 , C 5 , C 7 ,

... }

i.e., the collection of cycles of odd length.

A graph is called an odd subdivision of K4 or, to us, a very-odd-K 4 if it

can be obtained from the graph K 4 by replacing some or all of the six edges of
K 4 by mutually disjoint paths of odd length.
odd-K4's.

Illustration 5 depicts some very-

13

Illustration 5:

3.8 (ibid)

t.. 2 is the collection of graphs consisting solely of the very-odd-

K/s.

Though it is not the last in our list, investigation into the edge-critical
graphs seems to have come to an end with the following finite basis theorem.

3.9

(due to Lovasz, see [Ll], p. 726)

For each of 6

1, 2, 3, ... there

exists a finite collection of graphs in A 8 with the property that all the graphs
in t.. 0 can be obtained from these by the replacement of some or all of their
edges by mutually disjoint paths of odd length.

Note:

We've seen in 3.7 that the single graph K3 provides such a "finite basis"

for A 1, and in 3.8 that the single graph K4 provides one for .6. 2

Such

simplicity however does not remain the rule.

It is known that for 6 > 3 the

number of graphs needed is greater than one.

The constructions given later in

chapter 7 provide two such examples for each 6 > 3.

Lovasz finishes the proof of 3.9 by deducing that a graph in the "basis"
for a given
to be sharp.

o may

have no more than 22

In the case 6

vertices.

This bound is not believed

3, this bound is approximately 1.84 X 10 19 ,

(S3], Suranyi gives a better bound, namely 57.

In

14

We conclude this chapter with two theorems which will be valuable to us

later.

As 3.8 and 3.9 suggest, this process of odd-subdivision (and its "reversal")
preserve the property of edge-criticality.

This fact is stated formally in the

following theorem, due to Andrasfai:

3.10

(see [A], p. 14)

a) If G = (V, E)

E.

f and v

V with p(v) = 2, v having neighbors u and

E.

w, then the graph G' obtained from G by the deletion of the vertex
v and the edges {u, v} and {v, w}, and the subsequent identification
of the vertices u and w, is also in f; moreover, o(G')
b) If G

(V, E)

E.

r,

E.

o(G).

V, and p(v) > 2, and if v is split into two new ver-

tices v 1 and v 2 , while N(v) is partitioned into the non-empty sets N(v 1)
and N(v 2 ), and if a new vertex u, and the edges {u, v 1} and {u, v 2 } are
added, then the resulting graph, G', is also inf; moreover o(G')

Before we

can appreciate

the

following

beautiful

theorem

o(G).

of Gallai,

characterizing the edge-critical graphs which are connected, but not highly
connected, we must elaborate on the notion of connectedness itself.

Definition: A connected graph, G

(k

(V, E), is said to be k-connected

1, 2, .. .) if for every S C V with ISi :;;; k - 1, G - S is also connected.

That is, G is k-connected if G has no cut-set containing fewer than k

vertices.

By the connectivity of a graph, G, we mean the greatest integer k

for which G is k-connected.

15

Gallai's

theorem,

below,

characterizes

the

edge-critical

connectivity 2 (i.e., the (2 but not 3)-connected ones).

graphs

of

Note that 3.1 implies

that connected edge-critical graphs are 2-connected.

3.11

(due to Gallai, comminicated privately to Andrasfai, see [A], p. 13)

a) Let G 1 and G 2 be two graphs in A, having no vertices in common, and

each having more than one edge. Let e

{uJJ vJ be an edge of G 1

and let x be a vertex of G 2 Let Gi be the graph G 1

e and let G2

be obtained from G 2 by splitting x into two vertices u 2 and v 2 while

partitioning N(x) into the non-empty N(u 2 ) and N(v 2 ). Let G be the
graph obtained by identifying u 1 and
(respectively).

b)

Let G

Then G

Vu

of

G~

with u 2 and v 2 of G2

A.

A and suppose {u, v} is a cut set of G.

Then {u, v}

is not an edge of G (cf., 3.1) and the graph G - {u, v} has exactly two
components. Let

N~'

and N2' be the sets of vertices of these

components, and for i

1, 2, let

subgraph of G spanned by

N~

Ni

Ni' U {u, v}. Let Gi be the

. Then exactly one of the graphs

Gi has

the property that the graph Gi obtained from it by adding the edge
{u, v} belongs to A; and the other one (and only the other one) has
the property that the graph, Gi, obtained from it by identifying u and
v belongs to A.

c)

In both a) and b)
v(G)

v(G 1) + v(G 2 )

cx.(G)

cx.(G 1) + cx.(G 2 ), and consequently

o(G)

0CG1) + 0CG2) - 1.

and

16

CHAPTER 4 - Characterizations of connected edge critical graphs.

No characterizations of edge-critical graphs appear in the literature.

Three are given below.

The two characterizations contained in 4.1 characterize

edge-critical graphs in terms of the local interaction between a-sets and some
particular sets of vertices.

The third characterization, given in 4.2 [as will be

seen later] characterizes edge-critical graphs by a property which will lead

quite naturally to one of the next chapter's theorems on decompositions of
graphs in general.

4.1 - For a connected graph G, the following are equivalent.

(a)

A;

-- tlr)- for every vertex v oT G, N(vJ is minimal wTffi r-espect

To

among the subsets S of V(G) with the property that S

set indusion
I

0 for

every O'.-set I of G - v;
(c)

for every vertex v of G, and for each vertex x

an o.-set I of G with the property that I

Proof:

(a implies b)

Suppose G

N(v)

N(v), there exists

{x}.

A and let v be a vertex of G.

If N(v)

0,

then, being connected, G is the graph K1' whose only vertex is v; in this case
(b) follows trivially.
Let

Suppose N(v)

0 and let u

N(v) and let e = {u, v}.

I be an O'.-set of G - e. II I > a(G) since G is edge-critical; in fact:

(i)

contains both u and v, for if not, I would be independent

in G, which is absurd.

I - {v}, being independent in G, is

consequently an a.-set of G and thus cx(G - v)

cx(G).

17

(ii)

Every o:-set of G - v meets N(v), for if one, say J, did not, J U {v}
would be an independent set in G with

IJ

{v}I

which is absurd.

!JI + 1

subset of N(v) and let w

a(G)

0 since v

<x(G)

To see this suppose S is a proper

N(v) - S. Let e denote the edge {v, w} of

Let I be an a.-set of G - e.

I ll S

And,

(iii) N(v) has the desired minimality.

G.

cx(G - v)

II I

cx(G)

1 (as in (i)).

Moreover,

I (as in (i)). Thus, I - {v}, which has cardinality

a(G - v) is an a-set of G - v which fails to meet S.

(b implies c) Suppose condition (b) holds and let v be a vertex of G.

N(v)

0, then (c) is vacuously true.

So suppose w

edge {v, w} of G and let I be an ex-set of G - e.

independent and contains v.

Cc implies a)

G.

N(v).

If

Let e denote the

N(v)

{w}, for I is

This is as desired.

Suppose condition (c) holds.

Let I be an a.-set of G with I

N(v)

{w}.

Let e

{v, w} be any edge of

I U {v} is independent in G - e

and thus

a(G - e) :;:;:;

implying G

II

U {v} I

II I + 1

a(G) + 1

t:... 0

The following definition will facilitate the statement and proof of our
third characterization of connected edge-critical graphs.

18

Definition:
I of G, I

4.2

A subgraph H of a graph G is called hereditary if for every o:.-set

V(H) is an o:.-set of H.

A connected

graph

is edge-critical if and

only if it

has no

proper

hereditary subgraphs.

Proof

Suppose a connected graph G is edge-critical and suppose the proper

subgraph H of G is hereditary.

Case

1:

V{H)

If V(H)
=

I.

V(G), then o:.(H)

Now, H being a proper subgraph of G, there must be an edge e of

G which is not an edge of H.

critical, III

o:.(G) for if I is an a-set of G,

Let I be an a-set of G - e.

a(G) + 1 which is the same as a(H) + 1.

Since G is edge-

But I is independent in

H. This is absurd.

Case

~:

If V(H)

V(G) - V(H).

V(G), let K be the subgraph of G spanned by the vertices in

Since H is hereditary, for every O'.-set I of G, II

and so for every a-set, I, of G, II

V(K)I

V(H) I

ryJH)

a(G) - a(H).

Let e be an edge connecting a vertex v of H to a vertex w of K and let

be an a-set of G - e.

Since G is edge-critical,

cannot contain more than a(H) vertices of H.

II I

cx(G)

On the other hand, if

::;; cx(H), then I - {v} is an ex-set of G with

!CI - {v})

V(H)I

II

+ 1.

V(H)I - 1 ::: cx(H) - 1

contrary to the supposition that H is hereditary.

Certainly

II

V(H) I

19

On the other hand, suppose G is connected and not edge-critical. Let e be

an edge of G with the property that a(G - e)
proper hereditary subgraph of G.

o(G).

Then, G - e is itself a

20

CHAPTER 5 - Decompositions of Graphs

We now turn our attention to the questions posed at the beginning of

chapter 3.

We shall formulate the first two of them more precisely, and

answer them.

Definition:

Let G

(V, E) be a graph.

the union of all the a_-sets of G.

The subset Va.CG) of V is defined to be

Va.CG) is called the a_-support of G.

Definition: By an o:.-decomposition of a graph G, we mean a collection

{Hu Hz, ... , Hk} of subgraphs of G with the following properties:
(a)

each H, is a hereditary subgraph of G,

(c)

U VCH;)

Note:

i=l

Va.CG).

Of great importance is that the properties (a), (b), (c) above imply that if
k

{Hu Hz, ... , Hk} is an cx.-decomposition of G, then a(G)

2:cx.(Hi).
i=l

Definition:

Definition:

By the trivial a-decomposition of G, we mean the collection {G}.

An a-decomposition of a

graph G will be called a preferred

a-decomposition if none of. the Hi have non-trivial a-decompositions.

Note:

If {H 1, Hz, ..., Hk} is a preferred ex-decomposition, then each H; is

connected.

21

5.1

If G is connected and edge-critical, then G has no o.-decomposition other

than the trivial one.

4.2 characterizes connected edge-critical graphs as those connected

Proof:

graphs having no proper hereditary subgraphs.

result follows.

From this alone, the desired

5.1 tells us that if we desire a collection of graphs, the members of which

suffice to serve as

the

"building blocks" for

the

kind

of decomposition

mentioned above (i.e., to serve as the decomposing subgraphs), then we are

obliged to include in that collection the connected edge-critical graphs.
is, that they are necessary.

5.2

We shall soon see that they are sufficient as well.

If G is not edge-critical, then G has a non-trivial ex-decomposition.

that only when G is connected and V O'JG)

Proof:

That

(Note

V(G) is {G} an ex-decomposition.)

First note that if the subgraph G0 of G spanned by the vertices in

VaCG) is edge-critical, then the components of G 0 constitute a (preferred) exdecomposi ti on.

If G 0 has no edges, then G 0 is a collection of isolated vertices and so is

edge-critical, a case which we have already considered.

So let e 0 be an edge of G 0 with the property that ex(G 0

let G 1
V(Gi)

G0

e0

e0)

ex(G 0 ), and

Continue in the following way: having constructed Gi, with

V(G 0 ) and ex(Gi)

ex(G 0 ), if Gi is not edge-critical, let ei be an edge of

Gi with the property that o:.(G, - ei)

ex(Gi) and let GH 1

Gi - e 1 This cannot

continue ad infinitum.
with V(GN)

Eventually, say when i

V(G 0 ) and o:(GN)

ex(G).

N, GN will be edge-critical,

At this point, the components of GN

(which are each edge-critical) constitute a (preferred) ex-decomposition of G.

5.3

If

(Lemma)

collection H 1,

is

connected

and

edge-critical,

then

there exists no

Hk of disjoint, connected subgraphs of H, the union of whose

vertex sets span H, and which has the property that o:.(H)

Proof:

2:)x(Hi).

Let H be connected and edge-critical and suppose that such a collection

{H1' ... , Hk} does exist.

Let e be an edge of H joining vertices in different H1

Since H is edge-critical, ex(H - e)

ex(H) + 1.

Let I be an o:.-set of H - e. Then

I is independent in the subgraph of H whose components are the Hi.

III

But

ex(H) + 1 = 2:exCH) + 1, which is absurd. D

(
\

The following is almost immediate:

5.4

If a graph G has an ex-decomposition whose elements are connected edge-

critical subgraphs, this ex-decomposition is a preferred ex-decomposition.

Proof:

If {H 1,

H 1G} were an a-decomposition of G with each H 1 connected and

edge-critical, while not being a preferred ex-decomposition, this would imply the
existence, for at least one of the Hit of a collection of subgraphs, the existence
of which is precluded by 5.3.

5.5

Every graph G has a preferred ex-decomposition whose elements are edge-

critical subgraphs of G.

23

Proof:

By 5.1 and 5.4, if G is edge-critical, the components of G, which are

also edge-critical, comprise a preferred a-decomposition of G.

If G is not edge-critical, then the construction used in the proof of 5.2

yields an a-decomposition whose elements are connected edge-critical subgraphs.
By 5.4, this is a preferred a-decomposition. 0

This shows that the connected edge-critical graphs are sufficient for the
task of decomposing graphs in the sense of what we've called a preferred
cx-decomposi ti on.

24

CHAPTER 6 - The Platonic graphs

The Platonic solids have been of interest for a very long time, and more
recently, their vertices and edges have become interesting examples of graphs.
We digress here to view these well known graphs in light of the foregoing
remarks.

1.

(Note that for each of these graphs, Va(G)

V(G).)

The tetrahedron, depicted in Illustration 6, is an edge-critical graph.

Indeed, it is the graph K 4 , the scle building block of the class .6. 2 of
connected edge-critical graphs.

Illustration 6: Tetrahedron (K 4 )

2.

lllustration 7 depicts the octahedron.

25

Illustration 7: Octahedron

I\
I

In the illustration, all the edges, both solid and broken, are edges of the
octahedron. The two subgraphs (triangles, three-cycles) show a preferred
a-decomposition of the octahedron into two edge-critical subgraphs, each with

3.

1. The decomposition is unique up to automorphism.

Illustration 8 depicts the cube (solid and broken edges) together with a
preferred a-decomposition (solid edges only) into 4 edge-critical subgraphs,
each with

o=

0.

26

Illustration 8: The cube

f':
I
I

//1

'

"

" "-

/
I

k
(

4.

o\

8
=- 4

;b
/

V=-

'

"

"

""

I
~

The icosahedron, shown in Illustration 9, is, as will be shown, an edgecritical graph.

27

Illustration 9: The icosahedron

v:: /,;),_
o<. :.

Let us first see that for the icosahedron, ex

3.

=-

Referring to the

labelling in Illustration 9, if an independent set of vertices

(i)

contains 0 or 1 of the x's, it may contain at most 1 of the v's and at

most 1 of the y's;

(ii)

contains 2 of the x's, then, of the v's and y's, it may contain none of
one and at most 1 of the other;

(iii) contains 3 of the x's, it may contain none of the v's and none of the y's.

In any case, the cardinality of an independent set of vertices in the icosahedron

is limited to 3, and since {x 2 , x 4 , x 6 } is, in fact, independent, ex

3.

In showing that the icosahedron is edge-critical, we need only check the

28

removal of the edge {xl> x 2 }, for, by virtue of the symmetry of the icosahedron,
this edge may represent any of its edges.

Upon removing {x 1, x 2 ), the following

set of four vertices is independent: {x 11 x 2 , v 2 , y 2 }.

Thus, the icosahedron is edge-critical.

Moreover,

v - 2<X

12 - 2(3)

6.

5.

The most striking of these examples is the dodecahedron, depicted in

Illustrations 10 and 11. Illustration 10 gives a typical depiction of the
dodecahedron while Illustration 11 shows a preferred o:.-decomposition of it
into two edge-critical subgraphs, each with

o=

2.

(Recall that

~2

is the

collection of odd-subdivisions of K4 , or as we have called .them, the veryodd-K4's.)

The labellings of the vertices in the two illustrations are

consistent.

Illustration 10: The dodecahedron

V
<:>(.

= .2..0
8'
:::.

d =t
(

29

Ill ustra ti on 11: Pref erred o:-decomposi ti on of the dodecahedron

_., .-

--

-- -

- - - -

- - - -

--

........

'

'+ '

' '

'\

G-

... ... 7

10

\
\

'

'

--

l
'

'

--

- -

:-

- -

-- -

_,.

..-

/'

'>/'

With this view of the dodecahedron, it is quite easy to demonstrate that

its independence number is 8. Each of the decomposing very-odd-K/s has o:
(having v

10 and

o=

2). Thus for the dodecahedron, o:

8. Since

{A, C, F, I, 1, 4, 7, 10} is indeed of cardinality 8 and independent in the

dodecahedron, its independence number is equal to 8.

;;...

30

CHAPTER 7 - Some methods for constructing edge-critical graphs.

Before

continuing

along

more

abstract

lines,

we

will

give

few

constructions which yield connected edge-critical graphs.

V(G) be minimal with respect to

7.1

set inclusion among the subsets of V(G) which have non-empty intersection with
every a-set of G.

Let G' be the graph whose vertex set is

V(G')

V(G) U {v},

where v is a "new" vertex, and whose edge set is

(i.e., add the new vertex v to G, and connect it with edges to each vertex in
U).

Then,
G'

Proof:
of G.

cx(G')

ll.

and o(G')

o(G)

+ 1.

cx(G) because U has non-empty intersection with every a-set

Since G' is connected, we need only to show that the removal of any

edge from G' causes its independence number to increase.

If e is one of the edges of G, then o:.(G' - e) > o:.(G'), since G itself is

edge-critical.

Now let e be one of the new edges, say, without loss of

generality, {v, v 1}.

To conclude that a(G' - e) > a(G'), it will suffice to show

that G has an ex-set I with I

{v 1}, for then I U {v} will be independent in

31

G' - e and of cardinality o:.(G) + 1 > o:.(G').

(The argument that follows is similar to the one presented in the proof of 4.1.)

Some a.-set of G contains v 11 for if not, the set U - {vJ would contradict
the minimality of U.

And too, if every o:.-set of G which contains v 1 also

contains some other element of U, the set U - {v 1} would again contradict the
minimality of U.

Thus G has an o:.-set meeting U in precisely {v 1}.

This is as

desired, and the proof is complete. D

Sets such as the set U in the preceding theorem do not in general make
themselves obvious.

One type, however, does as is seen in the following

corollary to 7 .1.

7 .2

(Corollary to 7 .1)

If G is edge-critical and connected and if v

V(G) then

the graph G' obt ined from G by the addition of a new vertex u, and new edges
from u to each of the members of {v} U N(v) is also connected and edgecritical.

Proof:

The characterization of connected edge-critical graphs given in 4.l(b)

guarantees that the set {v} U N(v) has the necessary properties to serve as the
set U in the construction of 7 .1.

Illustration 12 depicts how the construction of 7 .2 works in the particular

case of the complete graphs K1, K2 , K3 ,

A-1' A 0 , A 1,

which are respectively elements of

32

Illustration 12: The construction of 7 .2.

k~

i>

>

+
0

1<.:i.

}(3

+
l<.'f
Another example is given in Illustration 13.

Illustration 13:

7 .3

Let G have vertices v 11 v 2 ,

... ,

(i)

v 21,+ 1 be the vertices of a chordless cycle in

the vertices v 1, v 2 ,

... ,

v Zk+H y 1,

... ,

y k+H x, and let

G of length 2k + 1,
(ii)

Yi have an edge to v 2 i-l and v 2 i (i

(iii)

Yk+l

have an edge to v 2 k+H

(iv) x have an edge to each Yi

1, ... , k),

33

Then G c:: .C.k+i-

For k

3, the graph G is depicted in Illustration 14a.

Cb)

Illustration 14:

v7

v,
Proof:
(a)

v(G)

(2k + l) + (k + 1) + 1

3k + 3. o:.(G)

(x.)

k + 1, for

an ind.:::pendent set of G containing none of the Yi must contain x, and may

contain at most k of the vi, thus limiting its cardinality to k + 1,

(b)

an independent set of G containing, say, j > 0 of the Yi may not contain x,

and may contain at most (k + 1) - j of the vi> again limiting its cardinality
to k + 1, and

(c)

there is an independent set in G of cardinality k + 1, namely

6(G) = v(G) - 2o:.(G) = 3k

+ 3 - 2(k +

1)

k + 1.

To see that G is edge-critical, observe that

(a)

if any edge {vi. v J} is removed, then an independent set of cardinality

k + 2 exists, containing k + 1 of the vi and containing x;

(b)

if any edge {vi, y) is removed, then there exists an independent set of

cardinality k + 2 containing all the y /s and vi; and

34

(c)

if any edge {x, y ;} is removed, there exists an independent set in G of

cardinality k + 2 containing k of the
with YJ and x.

Vi

(but no neighbor of y J), together

The graphs resulting from this construction are (2 but not 3)-connected;
indeed, the vertex Yk+i has degree 2.

Andrasfai's construction (3.10) could then

be used to delete Yk+i and identify its two neighbors.

(the case k

The graphs which result

3 is depicted in Illustration 14 (b)), while they are not more

highly connected, are, since they have no vertices of degree 2, necessarily

members of Gallai's "finite bases" for the various Ak.

7.4

Let G have vertices vl> v 2 ,

v 2 k+H xi> x 2 ,

... ,

x 4 k+Z (k ::: 1).

Let the vi

be the vertices of a complete graph K2 k+l and let the x 1 be the vertices of a

chordless cycle of length 4k + 2.

Finally, let each v 1 have as neighbors (other

than the other v's), the vertices x 2 i and

considered modulo 4k + 2). Then G

XzHZk+l

(the subscripted indices being

A 2 k+P

Illustration 15 depicts the graphs G for k

1 and k

2.

35

Illustration 15:

-x.,

'X-7

k::- I d =3

f<=;L

Proof of 7.4: The set {x 21 : i

o:(G)

:?:

2k + 1.

cf =-S

1, 2, ... , 2k + 1} is independent in G.

Thus

An independent set in G may contain no more than one of the

v's, and if such a set contains one of the v's, then it may contain only 2k of
the x's (since the inclusion of one of the v's precludes the inclusion of an
antipodal pair of x's).
6k + 3, o(G)

Thus cx(G)

(6k + 3) - 2(2k + 1)

2k + 1. Since v(G)

(2k + 1) + (4k + 2)

2k + 1.

G is certainly connected. To see that G is edge-critical, observe that

(a)

if an edge between two of the x's is removed, say, without loss of

generality,

{xll

x 4 k+ 2 }, then there exists an independent set of cardinality

2k + 2 containing 2k + 1 of the x's and one of the v's.

As we have

supposed without loss of generality that {xll x 4k+2} was removed, this
independent set could be taken to be

36

for 2k + 1 of the x's appear, but not x 2 and x2k+ 3 , the x's which neighbor v 1
(b)

If one of the edges {v 1, v) is removed, we begin constructing an

independent set I of cardinality 2k + 2 by including in it v 1 and v J

The

inclusion of vi in I precludes the inclusion of an antipodal pair of the x's,

leaving as candidates for inclusion in I two strings of x's of even length
(length 2k to be precise).

In any string of vertices of even length 2k, an

independent set of k of them may be chosen so as not to include any

given one of them.

If we now include in I an independent set of k

vertices in each of these strings which fails to include the neighbors of

vJ, we have arrived at the desired independent set in G - {v;, v.1} of
cardinality 2k + 2.
(c)

If one of the edges {xH v J} is removed from G we may find the desired
independent set of cardinality 2k + 2 by simply choosing vJ along with the
2k + 1 vertices xH XHz xH 4 ,

xH'l,k (indices modulo 4k + 2), noting that

the other neighbor of v J among the x's (which is XHzk+r) is not chosen. D

One may consider the icosahedron (see chapter 4) to be constructed in the

following way: Let G have vertices v1' v 2 , v 3 , xll x 2 ,

... ,

x 6 , YH y 2 , y 3

Let the

v's (respectively, the x's, the y's) be the vertices of a triangle (respectively, a
chordless 6-cycle, a triangle).
Xzi-1' Xw and XzHl and for i

For i
=

1, 2, 3, let

Yi

also have as neighbors

1, 2, 3, let Yi also have as neighbors Xzi Xzi+H

and x 2 H 2 (the subscripted indices on the x's being considered modulo 6).
is the icosahedron (pictured below).

This

37

Illustration 16:

V =I~

d ::. b

If we use the same method to attach two 4-cycles to an 8-cycle, we again

arrive at an edge-critical graph (see 7.5 below).

This graph was also considered

by Watkins (see (W], p. 245) but for quite different reasons.

The construction

in general, however, does not yield edge-critical graphs.

(respectively,

the

x's,

the

y's)

(respectively, 8-cycle, 4-cycle).

x2 H

11

be

the

vertices

of

chordless

Let v, also have as neighbors x 2 i-1'

and let y 1 also have as neighbors xw x 2 Hi and x 2 H

x's beng considered modulo 8). Then G

A8

4-cycle
Xw

and

(the indices on the

38

Illustration 17:

Proof:

We will first show that ex

4.

There are three cases to consider,

according to whether a given maximum independent set I of vertices in G

contains 0, 1, or 2 of the y's.

Case 1: If I contains none of the y's, then either

(a) I contains none of the v's, in which case I contains at most 4 of the
x's,
(b) I contains 1 of the v's, in which case I contains at most 3 of the x's,

or
(c) I contains 2 of the v's, in which case I contains at most 2 of the x's.
Case 2: If I contains 1 of the y's, then either
(a) I contains 3 of the x's and none of v's,
(b) I contains 2 of the x's and at most 1 of the v's, or

(c) I contains 1 of the x's and 2 of the v's.

39

Case 3: If I contains 2 of the y's, then either

(a) I contains 2 of the x's and none of the v's,
(b) I contains 1 of the x's and 1 of the v's, or

(c) I contains none of the x's and 2 of the v's.

In any case, the cardinality of I is limited to 4 and since {x 11 x 3 , x 5 , x 7 } is

indeed independent, a.

4.

In showing that G is edge-critical, we need to check the removal of only a

few of the edges, for the remainder of the cases follow from the high degree of

symmetry of G.

The representative edges are:

(1)

{y 11 y 2 }, representing a typical edge on either of the 4-cycles;

(2)

{xl> x 2 }, representing a typical edge on the 8-cycle;

(3)

(4)

{yl> x 3 }, representing typical edges from one of the 4-cycles to the 8-cycle.

The independent sets of cardinality 5 which arise upon the removal of

these representative edges are listed below, respectively:
(1)

{yl> Y2,

(2)

{Xl> X2 1 X4, V3, y3},

(3)

{y 1, x 2 , x 6 , v 2 , v 4 } and

(4)

{y1' X3, X11 X5, y3}.

V11 V3, X3},

Lastly, o(G)

v(G) - 20'..(G)

16 - 2(4)

8. D

The following very similar construction can be generalized, and yields

4-connected edge-critical graphs in A 4 , A 6 , A 8 ,

....

40

7 .6

Let G have vertices x 1, x 2 ,

.. .,

x2k+i y 1, y 2 ,

.. .,

Yn+I> (k

2: 1).

Let the x's

and the y's be each the vertices of a chordless odd cycle of length 2k + 1, and
let

X;

also have as neighbors y,_ 1, Yi, and Yi+i (subscripts modulo 2k + 1).

Then

E A2k+2

[In 7 .6, letting k

The results for k

1 result$ in the complete graph K6 , which is in A 4

2 and k

3 are depicted below.]

~I

j
k=::i.

Proof of

7.~:

.. ., {x 2 k+H

) d=6

Clearly, v(G)

Yzk+ 1}.

<>

1~ = 3

4k + 2.

Now consider the edges {x 1, y 1}, {x 2 , y 2 },

For the same reason that a collection of k + 1 vertices on a

2k + 1 cycle must contain an adjacent pair, a collection of k + 1 vertices of G

must contain a representative of each of some "consecutive" pair of these
edges, say

{xH

y 1} and {xi+l> yi+ 1}.

But the vertices comprising these two edges

are pairwise adjacent, implying that a collection of k + 1 vertices of G cannot

be independent. Thus a.(G) :::;; k.

And since {x 2 , x 4 ,

... ,

x 2 k} is independent in G,

41

and has cardinality k, a(G)

k.

Therefore,

o(G)

v(G) - 2o:.(G)

(4k + 2) - 2k

2k + 2.

The high degree of symmetry of G allows us to check only a few

representative edges of G in determining that G is edge-critical. They are:
(1)

{x 1, x 2 }, representing an edge on either of the 2k + 1-cycles;

(2)

{xu y 1} and

(3)

{x 1, y 2 }, representing an edge between the two 2k + 1-cycles.

The removal from G of each of these results in an independent set of k +

1 vertices. These independent sets are given, respectively, below.
(1)

{x1, Xz, X4, X5,

...,

X21J,

(2)

{xll YH X3, X5,

...,

Xn:-1},

(3)

{x1'

y 2 X4, X5, X3, .. ., Xzd.

So G is edge-critical, and, as desired, in

.l2k+2

42

CHAPTER 8 - Coverings of Graphs.

The notion of a-decomposition of an arbitrary graph G, presented in

chapter 5, while abstractly appealing, has a certain shortcoming: it presupposes
some knowledge of the phenomenon of vertex independence in G, at the very
least, knowledge about the set Vo.(G).

The question of determining the set

Vo.(G) will not be considered in this work, and it seems to be, in general, a
difficult one.

So we will consider a closely related notion, that of a covering of a given

graph G by subgraphs, in the hope that we may understand vertex independence
in G, with only a knowledge of some properties of G which are relatively
explicit (compared to some knowledge of V O'.(G)) in the definition of G itself.

Definition.

By a covering of a graph G, we mean a collection {H 1, H2 ,

. ,

Hk} of

connected subgraphs of G with the property that V(G)

U V(Hi).

i=l

For any covering of G, o:.(G) ~ L:a(Hi), for if I is an a-set of G,

i=l

ex.CG)

II I

.u o n vmi) I

t=l

Definition.

L: II n
i=l

VCH;) I ~ :Lex.CH;).
i=l

By an ex-covering of a graph G, we mean a covering of G with the

k

additional properties that cx(G)

L:o:.CH;) and that the H; are vertex disjoint.

i=l

1'

That is, a covering by disjoint subgraphs for which L:o:.CH;) is a minimum.

It

i=l

will be seen that with some knowledge of the kinds of subgraphs which G has,
we can put very definite limits on the subgraphs needed to serve in an

43

o:-covering.

The notions of O'.-decomposition and ex-covering are very similar.

there

are two major differences:

(i)

a-decompositions ignore vertices not in V o:(G), and

(ii)

ex-coverings, while they do consist of hereditary subgraphs, do not

necessarily consist of minimal ones, as do ex-decompositions.

These

differences

are

exemplified

by

the

following

simple

ex.:rnple,

showing a graph ({a)), its ex-decomposition ((b)), and two ex-coverings ((c) and (d))
by edge-critical subgraphs:

..

(a..)

(b)

..

(C)

:i..

~
(d)

:;:.

Note that the ve.:-tex x, which is not in Va does not appear in the ex.de~omposition.

Note also that the edge {w, x} in (c), and the triangle in (d),

though they are hereditary subgraphs, are not minimal ones.

44
8.1

Every graph has an a.-covering whose elements are in A.

Proof:

Let G be a graph.

trivially.

If G is edge-critical then the desired result holds

If G is not edge-critical, then, as in the proof of 5.2, the removal of

edges without increasing oJG) until this can no longer be done yields a subgraph
of G whose components, which are each edge-critical, constitute an a-covering
of G.

8.::.

A connected edge-critical graph G has no a-covering other than the

trivial one, {G}.

Proof:

Since, for an edge-critical graph G Va(G)

also an a-decomposition of G.

V(G), any a-covering of G is

In 5.1, we have shown that a connected edge-

critical graph has no ex-decomposition other than the trivial one.

The desired

result is immediate. D

8.1 and 8.2 show, respectively, the sufficiency and the necessity of the
connected edge-critical graphs for the task of providing coverings of graphs
which respect vertex independence in the sense of our a.-coverings.

It is

unfortunate indeed that this class is so large, and that so little is known about
it.

In light of this, one might hope that for a given graph, it would be possible

to place some limits on which connected edge-critical graphs are needed.

The

first theorem along these lines, a celebrated theorem of Konig (see [BJ, [BMJ,
[H2], or [GWJ) well predates any consideration of edge-critical graphs or of
coverings in general which respect vertex independence in the sense of our a.coverings.

We shall state Konig's theorem in a way in which it is often stated, and

45

then restate it in terms of the notions of this work.

Definition:

A graph G is said to be bipartite if there exists a partition of V(G)

into sets V 1 and V2 so that every edge of G has one of its vertices in V 1 and
the other in V2

A common version of Konig's theorem may now be stated.

Konig's Theorem:

Let G be a bipartite graph without isolated vertices.

Let J&

be a covering of G [in our sense of covering] whose elements are each an edge
of G.

If, among all such coverings of G,

a_(G)

1%1

is minimum, then

1%!.

(
'

If, in Konig's theorem, we allow vertices as well as edges to serve as the

covering subgraphs, then we may insist that the covering subgraphs be disjoint,
for a pair of edges sharing a vertes, say {u, v} and {v, w}, may be replaced in a
covering by the edge {u, v} and the vertex w.

It is a well known and elementary fact that a graph is bipartite if and

only if it contains no odd cycles.

Putting these last two observations together, and noticing that the first
of them allows us to handle graphs with isolated vertices, we may restate
Konig's theorem as

Konig's Theorem: If G contains no odd cycles then G has an a-covering by

46

vertices and edges;

or, as

8.3.

Konig's Theorem:

If G contains no subgraph in

ex-covering whose elements are in A_ 1 U

L}.u

then G has an

i.}. 0

This is highly suggestive that there may be numerous extensions of

Konig's theorem, and indeed there are.

8.4.

If G contains no subgraph in

whose elements are in A_ 1 U

i.}.. 0

L}.k

U ... U

A.k+i

U ... then G has an ex-covering

L}.k-l

Proof: This is a direct consequence of 8.1. D

At this point one

might be

guarantees that the graphs in A 2,

tempted

L}. 3 , ..

to say: in light of 3.2, which

all contain odd cycles, Konig's theorem,

as stated in 8.3, is simply a special case of 8.4 (namely the case k

1).

But this would be begging the question, for Berge's proof of 3.2 in fact
uses Konig's theorem.

However, Berge's result (3.2) generalizes a couple of earlier results, in

particular one of Beineke, Harary, and Plummer ([BHP], p. 208) which state:

Any pair of adjacent critical edges of a graph

lies on an odd cycle.

47

By a critical edge, Beineke, Harary, and Plummer mean an edge whose

removal increases a graph's independence number.

Their proof of this result

does not rely on Konig's theorem, and when applied to an edge-critical graph
(where all the edges are critical) it may be stated:

Any adjacent pair of edges in an edge-critical graph

lies on an odd-cycle.

This is the same as Berge's result, but without the work "chordless," and
suffices to allow the offhand deduction of Konig's theorem (as above) without
committing the fallacy of petitio principii.

8.4, however, is a terribly weak theorem, for it essentially has infinitely

many hypotheses.

8.5

(Conjecture)

Much stronger would be the following.

If G contains no subgraph in .O.k then G has an ex-covering

whose elements are in .0._ 1 U .0. 0 U ... U

.O.k-1

As is shown below, 8.5 would follow quickly from the following.

8.6

(Conjecture)

If G

.D.k then G has a subgraph H

E .O.k-l

To see that 8.6 implies 8.5, suppose that 8.6 holds, and that the graph G
contains no subgraph in .O.k.
subgraph in Ak+i-

So as not to contradict 8.6, G contains no

By induction then, G contains no subgraph in Ak+Z or in

.0.1'+ 3 , and so on ad infinitum.

48

Thus G contains no subgraph in l:ik U l:ik+i U ... , and by virtue of 8.4, G

must have an ex-covering whose elements are in /:i_ 1 U 6. 0 U ... U

which is

/:ik-l

the conclusion of 8.5.

Such a general result as 8.6 seems at this time to be out of reach.

next chapter is devoted to the first unresolved case in 8.5, the case k

2.

The

49

CHAPTER 9 - Various Results.

It will be convenient to speak of coverings as including vertices and edges

of a given graph.

While vertices and edges are not, strictly speaking, subsets

of a graph, this abuse of the language will not give rise to any ambiguity.
When we speak of a vertex v in this sense, let it be understood that we mean
the subgraph ({v}, ), and for an edge e

{u, v}, we mean the subgraph ({u, v},

{e}).

We seek a result of the following kind, for such would indeed be a

genuine extension of Konig's Theorem and a strong result:

9.1

(Conjecture)

If G has no subgraph which is a very-odd-K 4 (i.e., element

of A. 2 ), then G has an a.-covering whose elements are vertices, edges, and odd
cycles (ie: elements of A.- 1 U A. 0 U A. 1).

To

this

end

we focus

our attention on

the following slightly

more

technical conjecture from which 9.1 would follow immediately:

9.2

(Conjecture) If G

A. 10 where k > 2, then G has a subgraph in A. 2

Unfortunately, our efforts toward this end will not be entirely successful;
that is, 9 .2 will not be proved.

These efforts are included, however, for a

number of reasons: they are numerous and exemplify interesting techniques;

they proceed a long way in a direction which appears to be promising; they will
allow us to prove another extension of Konig's Theorem, one which is weaker
than 9.1, and one which is already known, but whose proof relies heavily on

50

advanced

theoretical

regular matroids).

notions and

techniques (most

Presently, we

discuss this

notably

the

theory of

just-mentioned extension of

Konig's Theorem, while making apparent our choice of the name very-odd-K 4 for
an element of

~2

In [G2], Gerards defines an odd-K 4 to be a graph of the type depicted

below:

Illustration 18:

where the wriggled lines denote pairwise vertex disjoint paths, and where the
four "faces" (triangles) of this "tetrahedron" are bound by cycles of odd length.

The graphs which we have called very-odd-K 4 's comprise a proper subset
of the collection of odd-K 4 's.

This may be seen by sorting the odd-K/s

according to the various allowable collections of parities of the numbers of

edges in the six paths denoted by the wriggled lines. Illustration 19 depicts the
three types.

The labels o (for odd) and e (for even) refer to the number of

edges in a given path.

the graphs in

~2

The odd-K 4 's of type I are precisely the very-odd-K 4 's,

51

Illustration 19: The three types of odd-K 4 's.

Gerards continues in [G2] to prove the following extension of Konig's

Theorem, stated here in the terms to which we have become accustomed:

9.3

If G has no subgraph which is an odd-K 4 then G has an ex-covering whose

elements are vertices, edges, and odd cycles.

(
In the next chapter, we will give a graph theoretic proof of 9.3.

A subset

of that proof will provide [and this will be duly noted at the proper time] a
proof of the following more technical result.

9.4

If G

l:i.k for k > 2, then G contains a subgraph which is an odd-K 4

[Compare this to 9.2 which conjectures: If G

Ak for k > 2, then G

contains a subgraph which is a very-odd-K 4 .]

The remainder of this chapter proceeds as follows.

existence of a certain graph

conjectured 9.2.

X which

We will assume the

provides a counterexample to the

We will also assume the existence of a certain graph Y which

provides a counterexample to 9.4.

We will then let the graph Z be either of

52

the graphs X or Y, and show that in either case, Z (from whose supposed
existence we wish to derive a contradiction) must have some very particular
properties.

In the next chapter we will see that, if Z

Y, these properties are

sufficient to allow us to arrive at the desired contradiction, thus proving 9.4,

and, as mentioned, Gerards' extension of Konig's theorem (9.3) will follow from
this.

The following result tells us that if there exists a counterexample to 9.2

[respectively, 9.4], then there exists one which is 3-connected,

Its proof relies

entirely on Gallai's characterization of the (2 but not 3)-connected edge-critical

graphs given in 3.11.

9.5

If for some k

3 there exists a graph in

f::.k

which is (2 but not 3)-

connected, and which contains no very-odd-K 4 [resp. no odd-K 4 ], then for some j
with k

3, there exists a graph in

f::.J

which is 3-connected and contains no

very-odd-K 4 [resp. no odd-K 4 ].

!:roof:

(Refer to 3.11)

Suppose that there are edge-critical graphs with

o2

which are (2 but not 3)-connected and which contain no very-odd-K 4 's [resp. no
odd-K/s].

Restrict attention to such graphs of minimum

o,

and from among

these, let G be one with a minimum number of edges, and let o(G)
(i.e., G

Ak).

Let G! and

G~

be as in 3.ll(b).

Refer to Illustration 20, below.

53

Illustration 20:

odd u-v
p<:..-t-h I~

G;

\
I

.1
\

/
I

G_,_

Suppose also, and without loss of generality, that of Gj and G2 ,

G~

is the

one with the property that the graph G 1 obtained from it by adding the edge
{u, v} is also in A, and that G2 is the one with the property that the graph G2
obtained from it by identifying u and v is again in A.

Since k

o(G)

6'(G 1) + o(G 2 )

1 (3.1 l(c)), the possibilities for the pair

(o(G 1), o(G)) are (k, 1), (k - 1, 2), (k - 2, 3), ... , (2, k - 1), (1, k).

(i)

G 1 contains no very-odd-K 4 [resp. odd-K,i} for: if G 1 contains such a

subgraph not using the edge {u, v}, then this subgraph would also be a
subgraph of G; and, if G 1 contains such a subgraph using the edge {u, v},
then, in G, this subgraph, with {u, v} replaced by a path of odd length
from u to v lying entirely in G2 , would contradict G containing no veryodd-K 4 [odd-K 4 ].

To see that such a path exists, let e 1 and e 2 ,

54

respectively, be incident with u and v in G2 . In G 2 , where u and v are

identified, they are adjacent, and by virtue of 3.2, they lie on a
chordless odd cycle. This odd cycle in 0 2 is the desired path of odd
length in
(ii)

G2 .

G 2 contains no very-odd-K 4 [odd-K 4 ], for: if G 2 contains such a subgraph

not using the vertex which results from the identification of u and v,
then this subgraph would also be a subgraph of G; and if 0 2 contains
such a subgraph which does use this vertex, then, in G, this subgraph,
with u and v split, together with a path of even length in

Gi connecting u

and v would again contradict G's containing no very-odd-K 4 's [odd-K.1 's].
The existence of such a path is guaranteed, again by virtue of 3.2, for if
e 3 is an edge of G 1 not equal to {u, v} but incident with u, then in 0 11 the
adjacent edges e 3 and {u, v} must lie on an odd cycle. The removal of the
edge {u, v} from this cycle provides the desired path of even length from
u to v in

Gf .

The minimality properties of G imply that if o(G;) > 2 then G 1 will be 3connected, and will therefore provide the graph whose existence is asserted in
If neither 6(0 1) > 2 nor 6(0 2 ) > 2, then it must

the conclusion of the theorem.

be the case that o(G 1)

6(G 2 )

2 in which case G 1

arguments (i) and (ii) above, ensure that G (in

~3)

E ~2

and G2

E ~2,

has a subgraph in

and the

~ 2,

which

is contrary to hypothesis. D

In light of 9.5, in trying to show that every connected edge-critical graph

with 6 > 2 must contain a very-odd-K 4 [odd-K 4 ] we may restrict our attention to
those graphs which are 3-connected.

That is, if there exists a counter-example

to 9.2, [or to 9.4], then there exists one which is 3-connected.

55

We now suppose the existence of counterexamples to 9.2 and 9.4, fixing

the graphs X and Y for the remainder of the chapter.

If

there

exists

counterexample

to

9.2,

let

it

have

the

following

properties (without loss of generality), and let it be called X:

(a)

X is edge cri ti ca 1

(b)

X is 3-connected

(c)

6(X) > 2

(d)

X contains no very-odd-K 4

(e)

6(X) is minimum among all graphs with properties (a), (b), (c), and (d)

(f)

e(X) is minimum among all graphs with properties (a), (b), (c), (d),
and (e).

If

there

exists

counterexample

to

9.4

let

it

have

the

following

properties (without loss of generality), and let it be called Y:

(a)

Y is edge-critical

(b)

Y is 3-connected

(c)

6(Y) > 2

(d)

Y contains no odd-K 4

(e)

6(Y) is minimum among all graphs with properties (a), (b), (c), and (d)

(f)

e(Y) is minimum among all graphs with properties (a), (b), (c), (d),
and (e).

Let Z be either of the graphs X or Y.

true if Z

X or if Z

Y.

The proofs are written as if Z

different argument is needed in the case Z

remarks.

The propositions which follow are

X.

Where a

Y, it is given in [bracketed]

56

9.6

For every vertex v of Z, p(v)

Proof:

3.

If some vertex v of Z has degree 2, then N(v) would comprise a cut-set

of Z of cardinality '.:, which is impossible since Z is 3-connected. 0

In [S3J, Suranyi has proved the following lemma, which we will exploit
greatly, and which is stated below in terms appropriate to this discussion.

9.7

(Suranyi, [S3J, p. 1416)

If Z

Ilk for k

::e:

1, and if x is a vertex of Z,

then there exists an edge-critical subgraph H, spanning Z - x, containing no

isolated vertices and satisfying oc(H) = oc(Z) ( = a.(Z - x)).

The subgraph H is not unique.

In our discussion we will let any

realization of this subgraph be denoted Z - x.

Observe that

o(Z - x)

9.8

v(Z - x) - 2a.(Z - x)

v(Z) - 1 - 2a.(Z)

o(Z) - 1.

The components of Z - x are edges and odd cycles.

Proof:

Since Z - x has no isolated vertices, its components lie in

tl 0 U fl 1 U ... U fl 0 czi-i

These components contain no very-odd-K 4 's, [odd-K/s],

for if one did, so also would Z, and thus by the minimality conditions, (e) and
(f) on Z must lie in !l 0 U fl 1

o(Z - x) is equal to the number of odd-cycles in Z - x because of the

57

additive nature of 8 on the components of a graph, and so Z - x is a collection

of precisely o(Z) - 1 disjoint odd cycles, and perhaps some isolated edges.

As mentioned earlier, we will proceed to show that, for a given vertex x

of Z, and a given realization of the graph Z - x, the graph Z - x must satisfy
certain properties.

Many of the arguments in the remainder of this chapter

take the following form: A certa.in covering of Z - x by precisely o(Z) - 1

disjoint odd cycles and the appropriate number of isolated edges cannot exist,
for if, as it did, it would provide a realization of

possessing a

property which we have shown, it must possess.

9.9

The neighbors of x in Z lie on the odd cycles of Z - x.

Proof:

Suppose that, on the contrary, {x, y} is an edge of Z and that {y, w} is

one of the isolated edges of Z - x.

since p(y)

:?:

In Z, y has yet another neighbor, say z,

3.

Illustration 21:

-....
'-

'

'

r-/1/-

....

'

'9

.z:
/

'
/

l.

'

"

_j

'

.......

58

a.CZ - {y, z}) > a.(Z) since Z is edge-critical.

But an o:-set I of Z - {y, z}

is necessarily independent in Z - x for containing both y

contain x.

Thus I is independent in Z - x and of cardinality

o:(Z - {y, z}) > a.(Z)

9.10

and z, it cannot

o:(Z-x), which is absurd.

If y is a neighbor of x then p(y)

3, y having no neighbors other than x

and its two immediate neighbors on that odd-cycle.

Proof:

Suppose, as is depicted in Illustration 22, that some neighbor y of x has

as a neighbor w, not an immediate neighbor on the cycle of Z - x to which y

belongs. Two cases are pictured.

No distinction is needed in the proof.

Illustration 22:

(w)

-- -

-.w

Just as in the last paragraph of the proof of 9.9, an ex-set of Z - {y, w}

would be independent in Z - x and of cardinality greater than cx(Z - x), which is
impossible.

9.11

For every vertex v of Z, p(v)

3.

59

Proof:

Let v be a vertex of Z and let x be a neighbor of v.

By 9.9 and 9.10,

in any subgraph of Z - x which qualifies for being called Z - x, v lies on an

odd-cycle of Z - x and has no neighbors other than x and its two immediate
neighbors on this cycle.

Proposition 9.11 implies that Z is 3-regular (!), a very strong property.

9.12

Proof:

o(Z) is even and consequently greater than or equal to 4.

The sum of the degrees of the vertices of a graph must be even (being

twice the number of edges -

a well known elementary result).

Since in Z all

the degrees are 3, 3v(Z) must be even, requiring that v(Z) be even and
consequently that o(Z)

9.13

v(Z) - 2a.(Z) be even.

If x has two neighbors y and z on the same odd cycle of Z - x, then on

this cycle, y and z have a common neighbor.

Proof: Suppose the contrary, with x, y, and z as above.

60

Illustration 23:

Ii ew
1':;)0/o..

+ed

.e~e.s

Then y and z divide this cycle into two y - z paths, one containing an
odd number of edges, the other containing an even number, greater than 2, of
edges.

Let w be adjacent to z and on the second of these paths.

The

remainder of the vertices along this path may be paired, as is shown by the
wriggled lines.

Now consider the odd cycle formed by the first of the above mentioned
paths and the edges {x, y} and {x, z}, together with the pairs of vertices just
mentioned.

They together include the same number of vertices as did the

original cycle of Z - x (for x is now included, while w is omitted), and have the
same value of v - 2o:. as did that cycle, namely 1.

Consequently the subgraph

consisting of this cycle and these edges has the same 6 as did the original cycle
of Z - x.

Now if, in the collection of edges and odd cycles which comprises Z - x,
we replace the original odd cycle with this new one and these isolated edges, we

61

get a graph qualified to serve as Z - w but with w having a neighbor not on

one of the odd cycles of Z - w, contrary to 9.9. 0

In particular, 9.13 implies the following two results.

9.14

Z contains no triangles.

Proof:

Suppose Z contains a triangle whose vertices are x, y, and z (see

Illustration 24).

y and z must lie on cycles of Z - x and since each of these

cycles must contain the edge {y, z}, they must be the same cycle.

Illustration 24:

(
'

odd path
\.._

____~, '-

........

__

......

So as not to contradict 9.13, y and z must share a neighbor w on this

cycle, requiring it to be a triangle as well.

3.2 demands that in Z, the edges

{x, z} and {z, w} lie on a chordless odd cycle.

necessarily a void the vertex y.

This cycle, being chordless, must

This implies the existence of a pa th of an odd

number of edges from x to w, not including the vertex y.

But the subgraph of

Z now depicted in Illustration 24 is indeed a very-odd-K 4 [odd K4 ]; it is K4 with

precisely one of its edges replaced by a path of odd length.
to our choice of Z.

This is contrary

(
9.15

For no vertex x of Z and no realization of Z - x does x have all three

62

of its neighbors on the same odd cycle of

Proof:

It is impossible for each of the 3 pairs of neighbors of x to have a

common

neighbor

on

the same odd

cycle

unless that

containing only them, and this by 9.14 is impossible.

9.16

For any vertex x of Z there exists a realization of

edge of Z is a chord of the cycles of

Proof:

cycle is a triangle

- x for which no

- x which neighbor x.

Let x be any vertex of Z, and choose any Z -x for which the sum of

the lengths of the cycles neighboring x in Z is a minimum.

If there exists an

edge e of Z that is a chord of a cycle C of Z -x neighboring x in Z, then the

endpoints of e divide C into two arcs, one with an even number of edges, and

one with an odd number of edges.

Illustration 25:

-t-h~ jde..

This even arc together with e forms an odd cycle, while the vertices
along the arc with an odd number of edges may be divided into adjacent pairs.
In Z - x, the cycle C can be replaced by this new odd cycle and the edges
formed by these adjacent pairs of edges.

63

(i)

If x has a neighbor on the arc with an odd number of edges, then in

this new version of Z - x, x neighbors an isolated edge, which is
contrary to 9.9.

(ii)

If x has a neighbor on the even arc, this new version of Z - x

violates the minimality condition above.

9.17

For at least one choice of the vertex x of Z, and for at least one

realization of the subgraph

Z, x has as neighbors a vertex on each of

three distinct odd cycles of Z - x.

Proof:

Suppose on the contrary that for every choice of the vertex x, and

every realization of Z - x, it happens that x has as neighbors two vertices on

one of the odd cycles of Z - x.

Notice that 9.13 implies that these two

neighbors of x have another common neighbor on that cycle, and that 9.15
implies that the third neighbor of x be on some other odd cycle of Z - x.

The proof proceeds by induction, giving a construction which, under our

suppositions, continues ad infinitum, implying Z has an infinite number of
vertices, which is not the case.

Reference to Illustration 26 will be indispensable to the arguments which

follow.

In the other illustrations in this proof, let the notation

**

following

the illustration number indicate that all else, not pictured, but whose existence
has at that point been asserted, is as it is in Illustration 26.

64

Illustration 26:

c..:i..

Ci;.
\

65
Let x be a vertex of Z, and from among all the realizations of
which the odd cycles neighboring x are chordless in Z (see 9.16), choose one for
which the number of isolated edges is a minimum.
components are the odd cycles Ci, i

Suppose that its connected

1, 2, ... , 8(Z) - 1, and that the isolated

By hypothesis, x is adjacent to vertices u 2 and v 2 on one of the odd

cycles, call it C 2 , and to u 1 on C 1
w 2 on C 2

Since p(w 2 )

By 9.13, u 2 and v 2 have a common neighbor

3, w2 has yet another neighbor, w 3 which we will

presently show must lie on an as yet unmentioned cycle of Z - x which we will

Observe that w 3 is not on the cycle C 1, for this would imply that Z contains a
very-odd-K 4 [odd-K 4 ], namely the one shown in Illustration 27, where the dashed
line denotes the arc along C 1 from w3 to u 1 that has an odd number of edges.

Illustration 27:

(Very-odd-K 4 if w3 is on C 1)

c~

66

Moreover, w3 is not on C 2 , for we have taken C 2 to be chordless.

Lastly, w3 is not on one of the isolated edges of Z - x, for if it were,

there would exist a realization of

Z-::- w2 , for which, in Z, w2 would neighbor

one of the isolated edges (see Illustration 28). This is contrary to 9.9.

Illustration 28**:

(w 3 on an isolated edge of Z - x: realization of Z - w2

contradicting 9.9)

Thus w3 must lie on a previously unmentioned cycle of Z - x which we

will call C 3

At this point we have just completed the initial step of the induction
argument.

We will proceed to show that given a vertex

Wzn+1'

with certain

properties which will be stated presently, it must be the case that Z has
numerous previously unmentioned additional vertices, and in particular one
among them which we will call

Wz 71 + 3 ,

having the very same properties which

allowed the deduction of its existence from the existence of

imply that Z has an infinite number of vertiees, w3 , w5 ,

.. .,

Wzn+i

This will

which is absurd, and

67

when we reach this implication, the proof will be complete.

(The induction hypothesis)

Let us suppose that we have shown the

existence of w2 n+ 11 being on a previously unmentioned odd cycle C 2 n+i of

and being a neighbor of the previously mentioned vertex w2 ,,, lying on C 2 ,,,
where

W2n

has neighbors

U2n

and

V2n

On

C2n

and

Uz 71

and

V2n

also have the

common neighbor x 2 n.

Observe that if we let x also be called x 2 , then w3 satisfies the induction

hypothesis in the case n

1.

For the sake of clarity, we present the induction step in terms of the
subscripts of the very next iteration, that is, the deduction of the existence of
w5 , satisfying the induction hypothesis, from the existence of w 3

The very

same arguments, with the appropriate subscripts, will allow the deduction of the
existence of w2 ,,+ 3 from that of w2 n+i

Continuing, w 3 has two neighbors u 3 and v 3 on C 3

By hypothesis, in any

realization of Z - w 3 , two of the neighbors in Z of w3 have yet another common

neighbor.

w2 cannot be one of these two, for neither of w2 's neighbors (u 2 and

v 2 ) neighbor u 3 or v 3

So u 3 and v 3 have a previously unmentioned vertex x 3

as a neighbor.

Now x 3 must lie in some component of Z - x.

degree 3, x 3 can not lie on C 1 or C 2

Since each vertex has in Z

Neither can x 3 lie on C 3 , for if it did, it

would have to be adjacent to u 3 (or v 3 ) along C 3 , giving rise to a realization of

Z - w 2 in which in Z, w 2 neighbors one of the isolated edges of

68

Z - w2 ,

which cannot

happen.

This

realization

of

Z - w2

is depicted

in

Illustration 29.

Illustration 29**: (x 3 on C 3 : realization of Z - w2 contradicting 9.9)

C..z.
u.%.
Vi..
\
\
\

1C::. /)(._z

U.3

'X-3

WJ

c.3

Also, this component of Z - x in which x 3 lies cannot be yet another cycle

of Z - x, for two of the neighbors of x 3 already lie on C 3 Thus x 3 must lie on
one of the isolated edges, say {x 3 , x 4 }, of Z -

x.

Consider the realization of Z - x 4 depicted in Illustration 30.

69

Illustration 30**: (A realization of Z - x 4 )

In this version of Z - x 4 , two of the neighbors of x 4 must share yet

another common neighbor.
or z 3

If one of these two is x 3 , then the other must be y 3

But z 3 (and similarly y 3 ) neighboring x 4 would provide a realization of

Z - x contradicting the condition that our original Z - x has a minimum number

of isolated edges. This realization of Z - x is shown in Illustration 31.

70

Illustration 31 **: (x 4 neighboring z 3 (or y 3 ): contradictory realization of Z - x)

c.3

Note that the edge {v 3 , z 3 } being in Z a chord of the pictured "new" C3 ,

causes no difficulty, for this is not one of the cycles neighboring x.

So x 4 has two "new" vertices as neighbors, call them u 4 and v 4 , and these

two have yet another common neighbor, call it w4

If we consider the realization of Z - x 4 depicted in Illustration 30, we see

that the vertices u 4 , w'l, and v 4 must lie on some previously unmentioned cycle
of Z - x, call it C 4

Furthermore, w4 must have yet another neighbor, call it w5

Now, w5 is

not on C 1, C 2 , or C 3 , since this would imply the existence of a subgraph of Z

which is a very-odd-K 4 [odd-K 4 ], (just as w3 could not be on C 1), as shown in
Illustration 32.

71

Illustration 32: (Very-odd-K 4 if w5 is on C 1, C 2 , or C 3 )

Nor can w5 be on C 4 , for this would imply the existence of a realization

of Z - x . 11 shown in Illustration 33, for which in Z, x 4 neighbors one of the
isolated edges (compare with the proof of 9.13 and Illustration 23).

Illustration 33**: (w 5 on C 4 : realization of Z - x 4 contradicting 9.9)

c'l.

w~/
Finally, w5 cannot be on one of the isolated edges of Z - x (as w3 could
not have been), for there would then exist a realization of Z - w4 , as depicted
in Ill ustra ti on 34 in which in Z, w4 neighbors one of the isolated edges,
contrary to 9.9.

73

Illustration 34**:

(w 5

on an isolated edge of Z - x: realization of Z -

W4

contradicting 9.9)

C::i..

....

Thus w5 lies on a previously unmentioned odd cycle of Z - x, call it C 5

The vertex w5 satisfies the induction hypothesis, as did w3

the existence of w 7 , w 8 ,

... ,

which is absurd. The proof is complete.

This implies
0

74

By virtue of the preceding remarks, we are finally at liberty to choose a

vertex x of Z, and a realization of Z - x, as depicted in Illustration 35, with
the property that in Z, x neighbors three distinct odd cycles of Z - x.

Illustration 35: (with possibly isolated edges and additional odd cycles).

CL_

~\

75

CHAPTER 10 - Gerards' Extension of Konig's Theorem.

We are now

in a position

to give an elementary proof of Gerards'

extension of Konig's Theorem stated in 9.3 and repeated below:

If G has no subgraph which is an odd-K,, then G has an O'_-covering

(9.3)

whose elements are vertices, edges, and odd cycles.

Proofs [of 9.3 and 9.4]:

Suppose, on the contrary, there exist graphs which

contain no odd-K 4 but which do not have a-coverings by vertices, edges, and
odd cycles.

Let G be one with a minimum number of edges.

As noted earlier, if {Hi> H2 ,

with V(G)

. ,

Hk} is any collection of subgraphs of G

U V(H;) then
!=l

a(G) s 2)x.CHi)
i=l

since each a-set of G induces an independent set in each Hi

If, for some edge e of G, a(G - e)

a_(G), then the graph G - e would

contain no odd-K 4 , would have no ex-covering by vertices, edges, and odd cycles
(since such would be an a-covering of G), and would have fewer edges than G.
This is contrary to our choice of G, and thus, for every edge e of G,
a.(G - e) > ex.CG). That is: G is edge-critical.

The graphs in A_ 1, A 0 , and A 1 clearly have a-coverings of the desired

kind, and the graphs in A 2 being very-odd-K 4 's contain odd-K 4 's. So 6(G) > 2.

76

It follows that there exists a connected edge-critical graph with 6

containing no odd-K 4

>

2, and

[The contradiction which arises from the existence of

such a graph will not only complete this proof but also provide a proof of 9.4,
mentioned earlier, and again later in this chapter.]

In 9.5 it was shown that if such a graph exists, then one exists which is
3-connected.

It now follows that there exists a graph satisfying the conditions defining
the graph Y of Chapter 9, and in Chapter 9 (see 9.17) it was shown that such a
graph necessarily contains three disjoint odd cycles, CH C 2 , and C 3 , and a
vertex x adjacent to each of these three cycles, as shown.

Illustration 36:

C.;.

C3

~/

One version of Menger's Theorem ([MJ, see [BJ), a well known result in
graph theory, states:

77

It is a necessary and sufficient condition for a graph to

be k-connected that between any two vertices there exist k

disjoint paths.

It is claimed that (possible after a renaming of the cycles) there exist

such paths as are represented by the dashed lines from z 1 to z 2 and from z2 to
z 3 in lllustration 37.

Menger's theorem guarantees the existence of three x - y 2 paths. Clearly

We may assume without loss of

one of these paths is the edge {x, y 2 }.

generality that another of these paths avoids one of the cycles C 1 and C 3 , say
C3

If the third of them avoids the cycle C 1 then the claim is verified; if it

does not, then it visits C 1 before (proceeding from y 2 to x) it visits C 3 In this

case, a renaming of the cycles where C 1 is renamed C 2 verifies the claim.

Illustration 37:

"-

"' '

LC
I J '2.

"

,,,
/

'\.

I
'-.,.

/ /
/

'f'-x.
The vertices where these paths meet C 2 , together with x's neighbor on C 2 ,
divide C 2 into three arcs.

There are four cases to be considered, according to

78

the parities of the numbers of edges in each arc.

Case 1:

The three arcs are odd.

Here, we immediately find an odd-K 4 of type

I, (a very-odd-K 4 ), shown below, which is a contradiction.

Illustration 38:

,,

-- -

...._

,~3

......

\
\

'

I'

In Illustration 38, the paths from

2 1

to y 1 and from

C 1 and C 3 , respectively, chosen so that the

22 - 21 -

y1

2 3
-

paths each have an odd number of edges.

Case 2: The arc from z 2 to

22

is odd, the other two even.

to y 3 are arcs along

x and

22 -

z3

y3

79

Illustration 39:

~,

...,,.

- - - -.,-r..

.........

\
I

odd

\
/

In this case, we get an odd-K 4 of type II (shown below) by choosing the

arcs along C 1 and C 3 so as to make the z 2

z1

y1

x and

z~

- z3

y3

paths even. This again is a contradiction.

Illustration 40:

Cases 3 and 4:
from y 2 to

z9

The arc from y 2 to z 2 (and by a symmetrical argument, the arc

is odd, the other two even.

80

Illustration 41:

~I

,,,.-

I
I

ever;

z;\

- - -.,

evej

odd
'

,, I
/

~)

_j3

In this case, the arcs along C 1 and C 3 are chosen so as to make the
z2

z1

y1

x path odd and the z2 - z 3

y3

x path even, yielding the odd-K 4

of type III shown below, and also providing the contradiction which completes
the proof.

Illustration 42:

To close this chapter, we recount what has indeed been shown in our
attempt to prove conjecture 9.2 (and consequently, conjec:ture 9.1).

81

(9.4)

If G is connected and edge-critical with o(G) > 2, then G contains as a

subgraph an odd-K 4

Proof: See the proof of 9.3 given earlier in this chapter. 0

10.1

If G is connected and edge-critical with o(G)

subgraph a very-odd-K 4 (an element of Ll 2 ).

3, then G contains as a

[This is the first unsettled

instance of conjectures 9.2 and 8.6.]

Proof:

It is a direct consequence of 9.12, which, together with the development

preceding it implies that if G is connected and edge-critical, not containing a

very-odd-K 4 , and of minimum
even).

10.2

o among

such graphs with

o>

2, then o(G)

4 (and

If G is connected and contains no very-odd-K 4 and v(G) - 2cx.(G)

3, then

G has an cx.-covering by vertices, edges, and odd cycles.

Proof:

Suppose not, and let G be a counterexample with a minimum number of

edges.

Then (as in the proof of 9.3) G is edge-critical.

If o(G) < 2, G is an

isolated vertex, an isolated edge, or an odd cycle, a contradiction in any case.

If o(G)

2, G is a very-odd-K 4 , again a contradiction, while if o(G)

3, G

contains a very-odd-K 4 by virtue of 10.2 which is once again a contradiction. 0

82

CH 1.PTER 11 - A note on a theorem of Graver and Yackel

A tree is a connected graph containing no cycles.

Graver ([G3J) has suggested the following notions:

Let G

(V, E) be a tree.

Define a function hG with domain V U E and

codomain {O, 1} as follows:

a)

for v

V,
if v

I for every ex-set I of G

otherwise;
b)

for e

{u, v}

E,
if {u, v} n I rf- 0 for every
cx.-set I of G, while hG(u)
otherwise.

It is this very notion, that of the function hG, which has proved to be
the seed from which grew all of the work in this thesis.

Note also that, since a tree has no cycles, a preferred ex-decomposition

(Chapter 5) of a tree contains only vertices and edges (elements of LL 1 U A 0 ).

A moment's reflection reveals that the preferred ex-decomposition of G is

in fact unique, and consists of precisely those edges and vertices for which the
value of hG is 1, i.e., the support of hG.

83

The function hG may also be defined as follows:

(i)

for v

V,

hG(v)

(ij)

for e

{u, v}

cx(G) - cx(G - v),

and

E,

That the two definitions of hG agree on the vertices of G is clear.

To see that

they also coincide on the edges of G, observe that hG(e), as originally defined

(1)

equalling 1 implies cx(G) - cx(G - u - v) = 1 while hG(u) = hG(v)

(2)

equalling 0 implies either

(a)

O;

some a.-set of G misses both u and v, whence

cx(G) - a.CG - u - v) = 0 and hG(u)

(b)

hG(v) = 0, or

every o:.-set of G includes u (similarly, v), in which case

cx(G) - cx(G - u - v)

1 while hG(u)

1 and hc(v)

0.

In [GY] (p. 137), Graver and Yackel have shown that for a tree G

(V, E),

where gi is the number of connected subgraphs of G containing i edges.

Our second way of defining the function hG allows us to prove the

following corollary to this theorem of Graver and Yackel, and with this
proposition and its proof, we end this work.

84

11.1

Let G

(V, E) be a tree.

For a vertex v of G (respectively, an edge e

of G) let g 1(v) (respectively, g 1(e)) denote the number of connected subgraphs of

G c0ntaining the vertex v (respectively, the edge e), and having i edges.

hG(v)

IEI

Then

2:::C-U'g,(v)
i=O

and

i=l

Proof: Let v be a vertex of G.

By the above remarks

hG(v)

where E'

a_(G) -

cx(G - v)

E(G - v) and g~(v) is the number of connected subgraphs of G - v

containing i edges.

A connected subgraph of G not containing the vertex v contributes 0 to

the

above

summations.

difference,

since

it

contributes

equally

to

each

of

the

two

On the other hand, connected subgraphs of G co1itaining v are not

even considered in the second summation.

Thus the above difference is equal to

IEI
.
2.::(-1/g;(v)
i=O

as desired.

85

Furthermore,

where E'

E(G - u - v), and

g~

is the number of connected subgraphs of

G - u - v containing i edges.

Now a connected subgraph of G containing i edges but neither u nor v

contributes

zero

to

the

above,

being

counted

equally

in

the

first

two

summations, and not at all in the last two.

Also, a connected subgraph of G containing i edges and u but not v

(similarly v but not u) contributes zero, being counted equally in the first and
third summations (or first and fourth) and not at all in the other two.

The only remaining connected subgraphs of G are those containing i edges

and both u and v.
the

But such must contain the edge e for, G having no cycles,

only path from

to v is along that edge.

Also, such a subgraph

contributes equally to the first, third, and fourth summations, and not at all to
the second.

Consequently, the above equals

!El
.
- I:C-lYgi(e),
i=l

86

the summation now beginning at i

G containing u and v and no edges.

1 since there are no connected subgraphs of

This is as desired.

87

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[A]

B. Andrasfai: "On line-critical graphs", Theory of Graphs International

Symposium, Rome, 1966; Dunod, Paris-Gordon, and Breach, New York,
1967, 9-19.

[B]

C. Berge: "Graphs and Hypergraphs'', North-Holland, AmsterdamLondon, American Elsevier, New York, 1970.

[BHP]

L.W. Bein eke, F. Harary, and M. Plummer: "On the critical lines of a
graph", Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 22, no. 2, (1967), 205-212.

[BM]

J .A. Bondy and U .S.R. Murty: "Graph Theory with Applications",

American Elsevier, New York, 1976.

[Gl]

A. George: "On line-critical graphs", (Master's thesis), Vanderbilt

University, August 1971.

[G2J

A.M.H. Gerards: "An extension of Konig's theorem to graphs with no

odd-K/', (preprint).

(G3]

J.E. Graver: personal communication.

[GW]

J.E. Graver and M.E. Watkins: "Combinatorics with emphasis on the

theory of graphs", Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977.

88

[GY]

J.E. Graver and J. Yackel: "Some graph theoretic results associated

with Ramsey's theorem", Journal of Combinatorial Theory, vol. 4, no. 2,
(1968), 125-175.

[Hl]

A. Hajnal: "A theorem on k-saturated graphs", Canadian Journal of

Mathematics, 7, (1965), 720 - 724.

[H2]

F. Harary: "Graph Theory'', Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1969.

[Kl

D. Konig: "Theorie der endlichen und unendlichen Graphen", Chelsea,

New York, 1950.

[Ll]

L. Lovasz: "Some finite basis theorems in graph theory", Colloquia

Mathematica Societatis Janos Bolyai 18, Combinatorics, Keszthely,

Hungary, (1976), 717 - 729.

[L2]

L. Lovasz: "Combinatorial Problems and Exercises'', North-Holland,

New York, 1979.

[M]

K. Menger: "Zur allgemeinen Kurventheorie", Fund, Math., 10, (1926),

96-115.

[Sl]

L. Suranyi: "A note concerning a conjecture of Gallai concerning

a-critical graphs", Colloquia Mathematica Societatis Janos Bolyai 18,

Combinatorics, Keszthely, Hungary, (1976), 1065-1074.

89

[S2J

L. Suranyi: "On a generalization of line-critical graphs", Discrete

Mathematics 30, (1980), 277-287.

[S3J

L. Suranyi: "On line-critical graphs", Colloquia Mathematica Societatis

Janos Bolyai 10, Infinite and Finite Sets, Keszthely, Hungary, (1973),
1411-1444.

[W]

M.E. Watkins: "On the existence of certain disjoint arcs in graphs",

Duke Mathematical Journal, vol. 35, no. 2, (1968), 231-246.

[ZJ

A.A. Zykov: "On some properties of linear complexes", (Russian)

Mathematiceskii Sbornik N.S. 24(66), (1949), 163 - 188.

90
INDEX

adjacent ............................. 5
o:.(G) ................................... 9
a-covering ....................... 42
a.-decomposi ti on ................ 20
ex-set ................................. 9
a.-support ......................... 20

incident ................................. 5
independence number .............. 9
independent ........................... 8
independent set ...................... 9
isolated vertex .................... 11
K,, .........................................6

bipartite graph ................. 44

k-connected ......................... 14
Konig's Theorem ............. 44, 45

C,, ...................................... 7

maximum independent set ........ 9

chord ................................. 8
circuit ............................... ?
complete graph ................... 6
connected ........................... 7
connectivity ..................... 14
covering ........................... 42
cube ................................ 26
cut-set ............................. 11
cycle ................................. 7

N(v) ...................................... 8

neighbor ................................ 5
neighbor set .......................... 8

octahedron, .......................... 25
odd-K 4 ................................. 50
odd subdivision of K 4 ........... 12

deficiency .......................... 9
degree ................................ 7

D.. ..................................... 12
L'.ln ................................... 12
o(G) ...................................9
dodecahedron .................... 28

path ...................................... 7
platonic graph ...................... 24
preferred ex-decomposition .... 20

E(G) ...................................5

p(v) ....................................... 7

e(G) ...................................9

edge ................................... 5
edge-critical graph ............ 10
endpoint ............................. 5
finite basis theorem .......... 13

G - e ................................. 8
G - S .................................8

G - v ................................. 8
graph ................................. 5

hG .................................... 82
hereditary ........................ 18

span .................................... 11
subgraph ............................... 8
tetrahedron ......................... 24
tree ..................................... 82

V(G) ...................................... 5
v(G) ......................................9
V a(G) .................................. 20

valence .................................. 7
vertex ................................... 5
very-odd-K 4 ......................... 12
Z - x ................................... 56

icosahedron ...................... 26

91

BIOGRAPHICAL DAT A

VINCENT EDWARD FA TICA

Date and Place of Birth

21 February 1949
Albany, New York

Elementary School
Saint Patrick's School
Ravena, New York

High School
The Vincentian Institute
Albany, New York

Higher Ed uca ti on
B.S., Syracuse University 1972
M.S., Syracuse University 1977
M.Ph., Syracuse University 1985