Proving Cut Vertices in Simple Graphs

  • Thread starter Thread starter mooncrater
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cut Graphs
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

A simple graph with at least two vertices must contain at least two vertices that are not cut vertices. The proof involves demonstrating that if a simple graph has all vertices as cut vertices or only one non-cut vertex, it leads to a contradiction. The key conclusion is that for a simple graph represented as S, the relationship n(S) - x(S) ≥ 2 must hold, where n(S) is the number of vertices and x(S) is the number of cut vertices. Thus, it is established that x(S) cannot equal n(S) or n(S) - 1.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of simple graphs and their properties
  • Knowledge of cut vertices and their significance in graph theory
  • Familiarity with logical proofs and contradiction techniques
  • Basic graph notation, including n(S) for the number of vertices and x(S) for cut vertices
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of cut vertices in graph theory
  • Learn about different types of graph connectivity
  • Explore logical proof techniques, particularly proof by contradiction
  • Investigate advanced topics in graph theory, such as bridge edges and their relation to cut vertices
USEFUL FOR

Students of graph theory, mathematicians, and computer scientists interested in understanding graph connectivity and cut vertices.

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   Reactions: mooncrater
Thanks! I got it now.☺
Moon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
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