Proving Vertex Count in a Graph with Girth 5 and Minimum Degree d

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graph
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that a graph G with girth 5 and minimum degree d contains at least d^2 + 1 vertices. Participants explore the implications of girth, noting that it limits adjacency between vertices. One approach involves summing the degrees of vertices to establish a relationship between edges and vertices. A key insight is that for each vertex A with d connections, there are at least d*(d-1) additional vertices that cannot be adjacent to A, leading to the conclusion that the total vertex count is at least d^2 + 1. The conversation highlights the complexity of the proof and the utility of hints from other sources in reaching the solution.
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
The girth of a graph is the length of the smallest polygon in the graph. Let G be graph with girth 5 for which all vertices have degree >=d. Show that G has at least d^2+1 vertices.
Can equality hold?

I am not sure, but how do I use the fact that the girth of G is 5, the only thing it tells me is that there are at least 5 vertices?

Should I prove this statement by induction on d?

What I did think of is using the fact the summing the degrees over all the vertices gives us that (1) 2|E|>=d*N, where N is the number of vertices and E is the set of edges of G.
Now if I show that |E|>=(d^3+d)/2, and this is not a strict bound, then I prove it, but it seems even difficult than a proof by induction which I am not sure how to do also.

Any hints?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, if the graph has girth 5, that means that if nodes A and B are adjacent, then B cannot be adjacent to any other node that A is adjacent to. Additionally, if B and C are both adjacent to A, then the intersection of the nodes adjacent to B and C is just A.

If a given node A connects to d other nodes, then there are (at least) d*(d-1) nodes other than A that are adjacent to nodes adjacent to A. And A can't connect to any of those. So for each node A in the graph, there are at least d*(d-1) nodes that are not adjacent to A. And there are at least d nodes that are adjacent to A. And then there's A itself. Adding all these nodes together, you get d*(d-1) + d + 1 = d^2 + 1.
 
Thanks, I got to this same reasoning after someone else gave me a hint on how to solve this from another forum.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K