Proving Cut Vertices in Simple Graphs

  • Thread starter Thread starter mooncrater
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cut Graphs
Click For Summary
A simple graph with at least two vertices must have at least two vertices that are not cut vertices. The discussion clarifies that the goal is to prove that the number of non-cut vertices, represented as n(S) - x(S), is at least two. It is established that proving a graph cannot have all vertices as cut vertices or just one non-cut vertex leads to a contradiction. The conclusion is that it is unnecessary to prove the existence of two non-cut vertices specifically. The key takeaway is that a simple graph must have at least two non-cut vertices to maintain connectivity.
mooncrater
Messages
215
Reaction score
18

Homework Statement


The given question is:
Show that a simple graph with at least two vertices has at least two vertices that are not cut vertices.

Homework Equations


Cut vertices: The removal of cut vertices and all edges incident to them produces a subgraph more connected components than in the original graph.

The Attempt at a Solution


What I did:
Assuming a ##S## represents that a graph is simple, and ##x## is the number of cut vertices in it. So we have to prove $$S→x>=2$$. We can also prove it through contradiction by proving the negation of the above statement to be always false( that is, a contradiction). So, we can write ##S→x>=2## as
~S√(x>=2) (where √ represents a disjunction)
Whose negation is
S^(x<2).
So, if we prove that having a simple graph having all vertices as cut-vertices or just one non-cut vertex is a contradiction, then does that prove our original statement? Do we still have to prove that 2 non-cut vertices are necessary?
Thanks
Moon
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
mooncrater said:
Assuming a ##S## represents that a graph is simple, and ##x## is the number of cut vertices in it. So we have to prove $$S→x>=2$$.
No, that's not what is being asked. They are asking you to prove that, if ##n(S)\geq 2##,. where ##n(S)## is the number of vertices in ##S##, we have:

$$n(S)-x(S)\geq 2$$

However, the answer to this:
So, if we prove that having a simple graph having all vertices as cut-vertices or just one non-cut vertex is a contradiction, then does that prove our original statement?
is Yes, and hence the answer to this
Do we still have to prove that 2 non-cut vertices are necessary?
is No.

You are asked to prove that ##n(S)-x(S)\geq 2##, which is equivalent to proving that ##x(S)\leq n(S)-2## which, since ##x(S)\leq n(S)##, is equivalent to proving that
$$x(S)\neq n(S)\wedge x(S)\neq n(S)-1$$
 
  • Like
Likes mooncrater
Thanks! I got it now.☺
Moon.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K