Proving Connectivity After Removing k Vertices in a Finite Graph

  • Thread starter Thread starter Office_Shredder
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Graph
Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,702
Reaction score
1,587

Homework Statement



If a finite connected graph G has minimal degree k, show there exists a path x_1, x_2, x_3,..., x_k so that G-{x_1,x_2,...,x_k} is still connected

Homework Equations



Minimal degree means every vertex has k or more edges connecting to it

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm pretty much nowhere. I can do by induction that you can remove k vertices without disconnecting G by the following:

You can pare G down to a spanning tree, and then it has a vertex you can remove from the tree (since it has to have a leaf). Remove that, and the tree is still connected, so when you add back the rest of the edges it's still connected. This new graph has minimal degree at least k-1 so there are k-1 other vertices you can remove.

I can't see how to make a path though (I tried a similar induction argument for a path but it's demonstrably false as far as I can tell)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
:rolleyes: I think this is silly.

:rolleyes: It has taken me since yesterday to realize. :redface:

If you can show, similarly to what you have, that you can remove an edge, x1 say, without disconnecting, then you have a connected graph G - x1 of minimal degree (k -1), so ...
 
So I can remove a path of length k-1. I have already demonstrated to myself that the path found is not necessarily one that can be extended to a path of length k, unless I missed something.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8876/graphtheory.png

I need a way of finding the 'right' vertex to remove, so that a path can be removed of length k-1 that has an edge to the one I removed.

EDIT: Whoops, the graph in the picture has minimal degree k, not k+1. That's a typo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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