MHB Prove Triangle-Free Graph w/ 2n/5 Degree is Bipartite

AI Thread Summary
In a triangle-free graph with n vertices, it is established that if every vertex has a degree greater than 2n/5, then the graph must be bipartite. The discussion explores the implications of having a pentagon within the graph, leading to the conclusion that if a vertex has too many connections, it contradicts the triangle-free condition. The argument is refined through cases based on shared neighbors, ultimately demonstrating that a vertex must exist with a degree of at most 2n/5. The conversation also touches on the connection to known theorems in graph theory, emphasizing the significance of the findings. This analysis confirms the theorem's validity and highlights its relevance in understanding bipartite graphs.
anandvineet27
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
In a group of $$n$$ people, each pair are friends or strangers. No set of three people are mutually friends. For any partition of the $$n$$ people into two groups, there exists two people in a group that are friends. Prove that there exists a person who is friends with at most $$2n/5$$ people in the group.
Suppose not.
Consider a vertex . Let the set of its adjacent vertices be A and strangers be B. Clearly A has more than $$2n/5$$ members. As the graph is triangle free , there no mutual friends in A.
Consider B.
Assume there are two mutual friends p and q in B. As every member of B also has more than $$2n/5$$ adjacent vertices, A must have at least $$4n/5 +2$$ vertices, meaning that B has less than $$n/5$$. Now, every member of A has more than $$2n/5$$ adjacent vertices outside A. But clearly this is not possible.
Is there a flaw in the above argument? I seems a little simplistic to me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see how the following is true.

cupofcoffee said:
As every member of B also has more than $$2n/5$$ adjacent vertices, A must have at least $$4n/5 +2$$ vertices...

May be this is a mistake.
 
caffeinemachine said:
I don't see how the following is true.
May be this is a mistake.

It does look incorrect, not sure what i was thinking.
 
cupofcoffee said:
In a group of $$n$$ people, each pair are friends or strangers. No set of three people are mutually friends. For any partition of the $$n$$ people into two groups, there exists two people in a group that are friends. Prove that there exists a person who is friends with at most $$2n/5$$ people in the group.
Using the title of the thread rather than phrasing the problem in terms of groups of friends, we want to show that a triangle-free graph with $n$ vertices where every vertex has degree $> 2n/5$ is bipartite. Equivalently, a triangle-free non-bipartite graph with $n$ vertices must have a vertex with degree $\leqslant 2n/5$.

If the graph $G$ is not bipartite then it must contain a cycle of odd order. If the shortest such cycle has length 7 or more, then (calling its vertices 1,2,3,... in consecutive order) we can add an extra edge by joining vertex 1 to vertex 4. In the new graph, there will still be no triangles, and each vertex will have at least as large a degree as in the original graph. But the new graph will contain a 5-cycle. So we may as well assume from the start that $G$ contains a 5-cycle.


Now start again. Suppose we have a graph that is triangle-free but contains a pentagon, with vertices labelled 1,2,3,4,5, and suppose that every vertex has degree at least $k$. Vertex 1 already has two neighbours (vertices 2 and 5), so it must have at least $k-2$ other neighbours (and these cannot include vertices 3 or 4, or we would have a triangle). Vertices 2 and 5 must also have at least $k-2$ other neighbours, and these must not include any of vertex 1's neighbours (or again we would have triangles). But vertices 2 and 5 might have some neighbours in common. Say there are $r$ vertices that are neighbours of both vertices 2 and 5. Then vertices 1, 2 and 5 together have at least $3(k-2) -r$ distinct neighbours.

Next, look at vertex 3. It cannot share any neighbours with vertex 2, but it can have the $k-2-r$ neighbours of vertex 5 that are not shared by vertex 2. Similarly, vertex 4 can have the $k-2-r$ neighbours of vertex 2 that are not shared by vertex 5. In addition, vertices 3 and 4 can share between them all the $k-2$ neighbours of vertex 1. That gives them a total of $3(k-2) -2r$ neighbours altogether. But they need $2(k-2)$ neighbours between them. So if $r>\frac12(k-2)$ then vertices 3 and 4 need $2r-(k-2)$ neighbours in addition to those taken up by vertices 1, 2 and 5.

There are now two separate cases to consider. First, if $r\leqslant \frac12(k-2)$ then vertices 1, 2 and 5 together have at least $\frac52(k-2)$ distinct neighbours. Adding in the 5 vertices in the pentagon itself, this means that $n\geqslant \frac52k$ ($n$ being the number of vertices in $G$). Therefore $k\leqslant \frac25n$.

The second case is when $r>\frac12(k-2)$. Then the five vertices of the pentagon require a total of $\bigl(3(k-2) -r\bigr) + \bigl(2r-(k-2)\bigr) = 2(k-2) + r$ distinct neighbours. This is again greater than $\frac52(k-2)$, so as before we get $k\leqslant \frac25n$.
 

Attachments

  • pentagon.png
    pentagon.png
    2.8 KB · Views: 131
Yes, i had worked out a similar proof myself.
Turns out the result is infact a well known theorem (refer Wikipedia)
 
cupofcoffee said:
Turns out the result is in fact a well known theorem (refer Wikipedia)
I assumed it must be, but the nearest thing I could find on Wikipedia was Turán's theorem. Can you give a link for this result?
 
Opalg said:
Using the title of the thread rather than phrasing the problem in terms of groups of friends, we want to show that a triangle-free graph with $n$ vertices where every vertex has degree $> 2n/5$ is bipartite. Equivalently, a triangle-free non-bipartite graph with $n$ vertices must have a vertex with degree $\leqslant 2n/5$.

If the graph $G$ is not bipartite then it must contain a cycle of odd order. If the shortest such cycle has length 7 or more, then (calling its vertices 1,2,3,... in consecutive order) we can add an extra edge by joining vertex 1 to vertex 4. In the new graph, there will still be no triangles, and each vertex will have at least as large a degree as in the original graph. But the new graph will contain a 5-cycle. So we may as well assume from the start that $G$ contains a 5-cycle.


Now start again. Suppose we have a graph that is triangle-free but contains a pentagon, with vertices labelled 1,2,3,4,5, and suppose that every vertex has degree at least $k$. Vertex 1 already has two neighbours (vertices 2 and 5), so it must have at least $k-2$ other neighbours (and these cannot include vertices 3 or 4, or we would have a triangle). Vertices 2 and 5 must also have at least $k-2$ other neighbours, and these must not include any of vertex 1's neighbours (or again we would have triangles). But vertices 2 and 5 might have some neighbours in common. Say there are $r$ vertices that are neighbours of both vertices 2 and 5. Then vertices 1, 2 and 5 together have at least $3(k-2) -r$ distinct neighbours.

Next, look at vertex 3. It cannot share any neighbours with vertex 2, but it can have the $k-2-r$ neighbours of vertex 5 that are not shared by vertex 2. Similarly, vertex 4 can have the $k-2-r$ neighbours of vertex 2 that are not shared by vertex 5. In addition, vertices 3 and 4 can share between them all the $k-2$ neighbours of vertex 1. That gives them a total of $3(k-2) -2r$ neighbours altogether. But they need $2(k-2)$ neighbours between them. So if $r>\frac12(k-2)$ then vertices 3 and 4 need $2r-(k-2)$ neighbours in addition to those taken up by vertices 1, 2 and 5.

There are now two separate cases to consider. First, if $r\leqslant \frac12(k-2)$ then vertices 1, 2 and 5 together have at least $\frac52(k-2)$ distinct neighbours. Adding in the 5 vertices in the pentagon itself, this means that $n\geqslant \frac52k$ ($n$ being the number of vertices in $G$). Therefore $k\leqslant \frac25n$.

The second case is when $r>\frac12(k-2)$. Then the five vertices of the pentagon require a total of $\bigl(3(k-2) -r\bigr) + \bigl(2r-(k-2)\bigr) = 2(k-2) + r$ distinct neighbours. This is again greater than $\frac52(k-2)$, so as before we get $k\leqslant \frac25n$.

Hey Opalg.

You can have a simpler proof in case of a 5-cycle by observing that any vertex not in the five cycle can be adjacent with at most 2 vertices of the 5-cycle. Now pigeon hole principle settles the problem.
 
caffeinemachine said:
Hey Opalg.

You can have a simpler proof in case of a 5-cycle by observing that any vertex not in the five cycle can be adjacent with at most 2 vertices of the 5-cycle. Now pigeon hole principle settles the problem.
Thanks.(Bow) I see now that what I was doing was just a long-winded pigeonhole argument.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top