Can someone tell me if this is a bipartite graph?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Topgun_68
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graph
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of bipartite graphs, specifically whether a given graph can be classified as bipartite based on its structure and connections between vertices.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of bipartite graphs and question the implications of having edges connecting vertices within the same subset. There are attempts to clarify the conditions under which a graph can be considered bipartite, including the presence of cycles and complete subgraphs.

Discussion Status

Multiple interpretations of the bipartite definition are being explored, with some participants providing feedback and insights regarding the implications of certain graph structures. There is no explicit consensus, but guidance has been offered regarding the characteristics that disqualify a graph from being bipartite.

Contextual Notes

Participants note constraints such as the requirement for a graph to be simple and the presence of complete subgraphs, which are discussed in relation to the bipartite classification. The original poster's drawing is mentioned as a limitation in conveying the graph's structure.

Topgun_68
Messages
34
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I know this is the description of a bipartite graph:

A bipartite graph G is a simple graph whose vertex set can be partitioned into two mutually disjoint nonempty subsets V1 and V2 such that vertices in V1 may be connected to vertices in V2, but no vertices in V1 are connected to other vertices in V1 and no vertices in V2 are connected to other vertices in V2


The Attempt at a Solution



Since a simple graph has no loops or parallel edges, than the attached photo must not be a bipartite graph, correct? Thanks for any feedback!

My scanner is broke so I apologize for the lame drawing :<)
 

Attachments

  • Is-bipartite-graph.jpg
    Is-bipartite-graph.jpg
    17.4 KB · Views: 556
Physics news on Phys.org
Topgun_68 said:

Homework Statement



I know this is the description of a bipartite graph:

A bipartite graph G is a simple graph whose vertex set can be partitioned into two mutually disjoint nonempty subsets V1 and V2 such that vertices in V1 may be connected to vertices in V2, but no vertices in V1 are connected to other vertices in V1 and no vertices in V2 are connected to other vertices in V2


The Attempt at a Solution



Since a simple graph has no loops or parallel edges, than the attached photo must not be a bipartite graph, correct? Thanks for any feedback!

My scanner is broke so I apologize for the lame drawing :<)

You are correct: the graph is not bipartite. If it were bipartite, v1 would be in some subset A of nodes. Now v3 and v4 are connected to v1 by arcs, so {v3,v4} would have to be in another node subset B; but v3 and v4 are also connected by an arc, so we cannot have them in the same subset---contradiction.
 
Thanks for your feedback!
 
"Bipartite" means "two parts". Your graph is NOT bipartite because it does not consist of two separate parts. The fact that it would be possible to go from any vertex to any other vertex along edges is a clear sign of that.
 
Notice that your graph on n vertices contains a complete (sub)graph on n vertices. A complete graph on n verices cannot be bipartite, almost by definition.
 
Thanks for all the valuable insights. I have my final exam this Fri so I can use it :approve:
 
HallsofIvy said:
"Bipartite" means "two parts". Your graph is NOT bipartite because it does not consist of two separate parts. The fact that it would be possible to go from any vertex to any other vertex along edges is a clear sign of that.
No, that's not what's meant by a bipartite graph. The key definition is the one Ray Vickson used: that the vertices can be partitioned into two sets such that no edges join two vertices in the same set. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for the graph to be simple - it could have parallel edges, but no loops, of course.
An equivalent definition is that there are no odd cycles. Ray indicates a cycle length 3.
 
haruspex said:
No, that's not what's meant by a bipartite graph. The key definition is the one Ray Vickson used: that the vertices can be partitioned into two sets such that no edges join two vertices in the same set. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for the graph to be simple - it could have parallel edges, but no loops, of course.
An equivalent definition is that there are no odd cycles. Ray indicates a cycle length 3.

I think he meant that the graph _cannot be_ bipartite , because it contains a complete graph
( I basically repeated what he said without noticing --sorry HOIvy ), which makes it impossible to separate the vertices into two sets S1, S2 , so that there are no edges joining any s_i to s_i' in
S_i ; i=1,2. Equivalently,given any possible partition of the set S of vertices into S1,S2 , given
the existence of the complete subgraph K4 , there will necessarily be some edges joining _any_ two vertices vi,vj in either S1 and/or S2.

Good luck on the test, Top Gun.
 
Bacle2 said:
I think he meant that the graph _cannot be_ bipartite , because it contains a complete graph
No, it's quite clear that HoI thought bipartite meant disconnected:. Note the plural 'edges':
it would be possible to go from any vertex to any other vertex along edges
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K