Prove G contains a cycle of length at least k+1

  • Thread starter Thread starter cxc001
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cycle Length
cxc001
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
This is a graph theory related question.

Let G be a simple graph with min. degree k, where k>=2. Prove that G contains a cycle of length at least k+1.

Am I suppose to use induction to prove G has a path length at least k first, then try to prove that G has a cycle of length at least k+1? Or should I go directly use induction to prove G contains a cycle of length at least k+1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider one of the vertices, \nu_k of degree k. Let the set of vertices which are connected to this one be \{ \nu_i^{(k)} \}. What is the minimum path length of a cycle C^{(k)} that connects all of the \nu_i^{(k)}? Can you see a way to construct a cycle C' of degree \text{deg}\, C^{(k)}+1?
 
Tell me if I'm not on the right track.

Use induction on k.

Pick a path P of maximum length, and suppose vertex vi is a vertex on this path, which has degree at least k, with a set of adjacent vertices {w1,w2,…,wj}, the adjacent vertex set must be on the path.
The minimum path length of a cycle Ci that connected all of vertex set {w1,w2,…,wj } is k.
Then extend the path to a cycle by adding the edge wjvi, so the resulting cycle has length at least k+1.
We're done! Does this induction make sense?
 
with a set of adjacent vertices {w1,w2,…,wj}, the adjacent vertex set must be on the path.

This is not likely to be true
 
Your path P is too arbitrary and it's unlikely that you can prove very much given the constraints. However, it should be possible to argue that a simple graph contains a cycle that actually contains the vertex set wi and consider the path length of a closely related cycle that includes v.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top