MHB Statement of a theorem due to Bondy.

  • Thread starter Thread starter caffeinemachine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
On this page Turán's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI found that:

"A strengthened form of Mantel's theorem states that any graph with at least $n^2/4$ edges must either be a complete bipartite graph $K_{n/2,n/2}$ or it must be pancyclic, i.e, not only does it contain a triangle, it must also contain cycles of all other possible lengths up to the number of vertices."

Now a special case of this is:

A non-bipartite graph $G$ with $|E(G)|\geq n^2/4$, where $n=|V(G)|$, has a Hamiltonian Cycle.

But if we consider the $10$ vertex graph $G$ which has a $9$-clique and an isolated vertex then we see that $|E(G)|=36>10^2/4$ but $G$ doesn't have a Hamiltonian cycle.

What has gone wrong here? What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What I read is:

A strengthened form of Mantel's theorem states that any hamiltonian graph with at least n2/4 edges must either be the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2 or it must be pancyclic: not only does it contain a triangle, it must also contain cycles of all other possible lengths up to the number of vertices in the graph (Bondy 1971).

So the special case is really:

A non-bipartite hamiltonian graph G satisfies $|E(G)| \geq n^2 / 4$ where $n = |V(G)|$.

Which does not imply that a non-bipartite graph satisfying this condition is hamiltonian.

So maybe you got the conditions the other way around. I could be wrong though.. it's late. If not, maybe the theorem only applies to connected graphs.
 
Bacterius said:
What I read is:
So the special case is really:
Which does not imply that a non-bipartite graph satisfying this condition is hamiltonian.

So maybe you got the conditions the other way around. I could be wrong though.. it's late. If not, maybe the theorem only applies to connected graphs.

You are right Bacterius. I found the correct statement on ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B - Pancyclic graphs I and had corrected it on wiki. Wiki didn't have tjhe clause 'Hamiltonian' there.
 
Bacterius said:
Ah, that explains it. Thanks :)
I almost got bald pulling my hair over this one. BUt finally science direct helped. Phewf. Thanks for taking a look at my problem. :)
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top