Undergrad Finding the chromatic number of a graph with biconnected components

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the chromatic number of a simple, connected graph G, where each biconnected component is a cycle with at least four vertices. It is established that even cycles require two colors for proper coloring, while odd cycles necessitate three colors, leading to the conclusion that the chromatic number is bounded between 2 and 3. The relevance of cut vertices is questioned, with the consensus that they do not influence the chromatic bounds. A more rigorous proof is needed to confirm the graph's structure as a tree of cycles, ensuring that the established bounds are valid. Ultimately, the participants agree that the bounds of 2 and 3 are correct, but further validation is necessary.
Superyoshiom
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Our problem involves a graph G that is simple and connected, where every biconnected component is a cycle that has at least four vertices in it. The maximum number of components we can get from removing a cut vertex is 4, and we are asked to find tight bounds on the chromatic number of G.

My idea was to take the cycles and then do cases for whether they are even or odd:

1) Even cycle - in an even cycle we can have have at least two colors if we alternate colors for the vertices. For every vertex that is neighboring the biconnected component, then, we wouldn't need to add new colors since we just make them the alternate of whatever they are next to. So we'd only need a chromatic number of 2 here.

2) Odd cycle - similar idea, but we'd need three vertices for a cycle so our chromatic number of 3.

So my final answr would be 2<=X(G)=3, but this doesn't make that much sense to me, and I didn't really need to use the information about the cut vertices. I'm not sure where to proceed from here so any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I believe your bounds of 2 and 3 are correct, and that the premise about the cut vertex is not needed. To be sure, we'd need to make the proof more rigorous than what is above though.

I believe the premises, excluding the cut vertex one, imply that the graph must consist of cycles of length at least four, that can be arranged in a non-recombining tree. Each biconnected component (cycle) of the graph is a node of that tree. Each "edge" of the tree is a sequence of one or more serially-connected cut vertices (of the original graph). One such sequence in the original graph may manifest as more than one edge in the tree. The 'cut vertex' premise implies the sequence cannot manifest as more than four tree edges. But that has no impact on the colouring bounds.

If that is the case, it is easy to see that your bounds hold. But we need to make rigorous the proof that the graph does indeed have that form.,
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K