Graph Theory: Bipartite Graph Question

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that a graph G is bipartite if and only if every subgraph H contains an independent set of size at least |V(H)|/2. The proof involves demonstrating the contrapositive: if G is not bipartite, then there exists a subgraph H that lacks an independent set of size |V(H)|/2. The key argument relies on the existence of an odd-length cycle within G, where removing k+1 vertices leads to at least two adjacent vertices, thereby violating the conditions for an independent set.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of bipartite graphs
  • Knowledge of independent sets in graph theory
  • Familiarity with the pigeonhole principle
  • Basic concepts of graph cycles
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of bipartite graphs in depth
  • Learn about independent sets and their applications in graph theory
  • Explore the pigeonhole principle and its implications in combinatorial proofs
  • Investigate odd-length cycles and their significance in graph structures
USEFUL FOR

Students of graph theory, mathematicians focusing on combinatorial proofs, and educators teaching advanced topics in discrete mathematics.

mrtanaka
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove: G is bipartite iff every subgraph H has an independent set containing |V(H)|/2

Homework Equations



independent set = set of mutually nonadjacent vertices.

The Attempt at a Solution



I am trying to understand a solution given by my prof (for the backwards direction). As I understand it, he proved the contrapositive: suppose G is not bipartite and show that there exists a subgraph that does not have an independent with |V(H)|/2.

As G is not bipartite, we can find a cycle of odd length, {v_1, ...,v_2k+1}. He said if you take out k+1 vertices from this set, then by the pigeonhole principle, two of them will be consecutive (=> therefore adjacent). Therefore k+1 vertices cannot be independent.

I do not understand the step where k+1 vertices are removed, then somehow by the pigeonhole principle you conclude they are adjacent. I'd appreciate any help with this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not all of the k+1 verticies are adjacent. He is saying that in the cycle, there are 2k+1 verticies, each one being connected to the next one. But, if you take out k+1, then at least two of them will be adjacent. Now, why is this true? Well, let's try to take as many verticies out of this cycle such that no two are adjacent. How would you do this, and how many can you do for a cycle of length 2k+1?

Do you see it? Post back if not.
 
Thank you for replying. I see that if you take out k+1, at least two of them will be adjacent. but i do not see how this says anything about the size of the independent set, so i am still unclear
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K