How Do You Prove Minimum Vertex Degree in Graph Theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ych22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approach
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the minimum vertex degree in graph theory, specifically for a simple graph G=(V,E) with n>=3 vertices and 2n-3 edges. The key assertion is that if every subgraph with m (m>=2) vertices has at most 2m-3 edges, then the minimum degree S of any vertex in V must be either 2 or 3. The method of proof discussed involves using the contrapositive approach, demonstrating that if S is less than 2 or greater than 3, then the conditions of the graph cannot hold.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of simple graphs and their properties
  • Familiarity with minimum vertex degree concepts
  • Knowledge of subgraph edge constraints
  • Proficiency in propositional logic and proof techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of simple graphs in graph theory
  • Learn about minimum degree conditions and their implications
  • Explore the contrapositive method of proof in mathematical logic
  • Investigate edge constraints in subgraphs and their applications
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in mathematics, particularly those focusing on graph theory, discrete mathematics, and logic proof techniques.

ych22
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
I was attempting a simple graph theory question.

"Let G=(V,E) be a simple graph with n>=3 vertices and 2n-3 edges. Suppose that every subgraph with m(>=2) vertices has <= 2m-3 edges. Let S be the minimum degree for any vertex in V. Prove that S is either 2 or 3."

So I let A be the statement "G=(V,E) is a simple graph with... has <= 2m-3 edges."
Let B be the statement "S is the minimum degree...either 2 or 3".

Is my job to prove that A->B? Can I prove ~B->~A instead? That is, I want to show that if S is 0,1, or >3 then G cannot be a ... with every subgraph with ...

I am self-learning discrete maths and have some uncertainty in propositional logic.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes, proving a statement by proving its contrapositive (proving "A implies B" by proving "not B implies not A") is a standard method of proof.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
414