Exercise about connected graphs

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exercise Graphs
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving a property of connected graphs, specifically regarding the distance between vertices. Given a connected graph \( G=(V,E) \) and vertices \( u, v \) where the distance \( d(v,u) = k \), it is established that there exists a path \( v=v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_{k+1}=u \) such that no edges connect vertices \( v_i \) and \( v_j \) for \( j \geq i+2 \). The proof employs contradiction, demonstrating that if such an edge existed, a shorter path would contradict the definition of \( d(u,v) \) as the minimum distance.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of graph theory concepts, particularly connected graphs.
  • Familiarity with the definition of distance in graphs, specifically \( d(u,v) \).
  • Knowledge of proof techniques, especially proof by contradiction.
  • Basic understanding of paths in graphs and their properties.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of connected graphs and their implications on vertex distances.
  • Learn about proof techniques in mathematics, focusing on contradiction and induction.
  • Explore advanced graph theory topics such as shortest paths and their algorithms.
  • Investigate the implications of graph connectivity on network design and optimization.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, computer scientists, and students studying graph theory, particularly those interested in properties of connected graphs and distance metrics.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I got stuck at the following exercise... Could you give me an idea how to show this?

Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph and $u,v$ $\epsilon$ $V$.If $d(v,u)=k$,then there is a path $v=v_{1},v_{2},...,v_{k+1}=u$ so that $\{v_{i},v_{j}\}$ doesn't belong in $E$ for $j \geq i+2$. Especially,there can't be repeated vertices.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
And what is $d(u,v)$?
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
And what is $d(u,v)$?

$d(u,v)$ is the minimum distance from the vertex u to the vertex v.
 
By distance I assume the number of edges in a path from $u$ to $v$. Then the path of this minimal length has the required property, doesn't it? Otherwise it could be shortened.
 
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

I got stuck at the following exercise... Could you give me an idea how to show this?

Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph and $u,v$ $\epsilon$ $V$.If $d(v,u)=k$,then there is a path $v=v_{1},v_{2},...,v_{k+1}=u$ so that $\{v_{i},v_{j}\}$ doesn't belong in $E$ for $j \geq i+2$. Especially,there can't be repeated vertices.
Just as Evgeny mentioned, you can argue by contradiction.

Since $d(u,v)=k$, the shortest path between $u$ and $v$ has length $k$.
Let $v=v_1,\ldots,v_{k+1}=u$ be a shortest path between $u$ and $v$ and call this path $P$.
Assume there exists $i$ and $j$ with $j\geq i+2$ such that $v_iv_j\in E$.

Can you construct a path between $u$ and $v$ which is shorter than $P$?
 
caffeinemachine said:
Just as Evgeny mentioned, you can argue by contradiction.

Since $d(u,v)=k$, the shortest path between $u$ and $v$ has length $k$.
Let $v=v_1,\ldots,v_{k+1}=u$ be a shortest path between $u$ and $v$ and call this path $P$.
Assume there exists $i$ and $j$ with $j\geq i+2$ such that $v_iv_j\in E$.

Can you construct a path between $u$ and $v$ which is shorter than $P$?

Assuming that there exists $i$ and $j$ with $j \geq i+2$ such that $v_iv_j \in E$, then there is a path between $u$ and $v$ whose distance is less than k, that means that there is a path which shorter than $P$.
 
mathmari said:
Assuming that there exists $i$ and $j$ with $j \geq i+2$ such that $v_iv_j \in E$, then there is a path between $u$ and $v$ whose distance is less than k, that means that there is a path which shorter than $P$.
Yes. Does that solve your problem?
 
I found in my notes the following proof:

If $\{v_i,v_j\} \in E$ for $i,j$ with $j \geq i+1$.
Then the path is $v=v_1, ... , v_i, v_j, v_{j+1}, ..., v_{k+1}=u$ which length is $ i-1+1+(k+1)-j=k-(j-i)+1 \leq k-2+1=k-1$.
$v_j=v_i$ for $j>i$ then $\{v_i,v_{j+1}\}=\{v_j,v_{j+1}\}$

Could you explain me how we calculated the length $ i-1+1+(k+1)-j=k-(j-i)+1 \leq k-2+1=k-1$ ?
I assume that we have calculated the length of the path $v_1, ..., v_i$, which is $i-1+1$ and then the length of the path $ v_j, ..., v_{k+1}$ which is $ k+1-j+1=k-j+2$, isn't?
 
mathmari said:
I found in my notes the following proof:

If $\{v_i,v_j\} \in E$ for $i,j$ with $j \geq i$+$1$. (I believe you meant $2$ rather than $1$.)
Then the path is $v=v_1, ... , v_i, v_j, v_{j+1}, ..., v_{k+1}=u$ which length is $ i-1+1+(k+1)-j=k-(j-i)+1 \leq k-2+1=k-1$.
$v_j=v_i$ for $j>i$ then $\{v_i,v_{j+1}\}=\{v_j,v_{j+1}\}$ $\leftarrow$ I do not understand this line.

Could you explain me how we calculated the length $ i-1+1+(k+1)-j=k-(j-i)+1 \leq k-2+1=k-1$ ?
I assume that we have calculated the length of the path $v_1, ..., v_i$, which is $i-1+1$ and then the length of the path $ v_j, ..., v_{k+1}$ which is $ k+1-j+1=k-j+2$, isn't?
How did calculate the length of the path?
It is kind of immediate from the definition of length of path.
How many edges are there in the path $v=v_1,\ldots,v_i,v_j,v_{j+1},\ldots,v_{k+1}=u$?
(Remember that a path is actually a graph.)

There are $l=\underbrace{(i-1)}_{\text{from } v \text{ to } v_i}+\underbrace{1}_{\text{for the edge between }v_i \text{ and } v_j}+\underbrace{(k+1-j)}_{\text{from } v_j \text{ to } u}$.

This gives $l=i-j+k+1$.
Now since $i-j\leq -2$, we have the $l\leq k-1$.
 
  • #10
caffeinemachine said:
How did calculate the length of the path?
It is kind of immediate from the definition of length of path.
How many edges are there in the path $v=v_1,\ldots,v_i,v_j,v_{j+1},\ldots,v_{k+1}=u$?
(Remember that a path is actually a graph.)

There are $l=\underbrace{(i-1)}_{\text{from } v \text{ to } v_i}+\underbrace{1}_{\text{for the edge between }v_i \text{ and } v_j}+\underbrace{(k+1-j)}_{\text{from } v_j \text{ to } u}$.

This gives $l=i-j+k+1$.
Now since $i-j\leq -2$, we have the $l\leq k-1$.

Oh yes, I calculated the number of vertices between $v$ and $u$ instead of the number of edges. :o
That's why I found an other result..

So, since $ l<k-1$, there is also a shorter path, but that contradicts to that what we have assumed, that the length of the shortest path is $k$. So it cannot be $j \geq i+2$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K