Some Notes on the Inverse Domination ConjectureSome Notes on the Inverse Domination Conjecture John...
Transcript of Some Notes on the Inverse Domination ConjectureSome Notes on the Inverse Domination Conjecture John...
Outline Introduction Progress
Some Notes on the Inverse DominationConjecture
John Asplund, Joe Chaffee, James Hammer∗
Auburn University
April 20, 2013
1 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
1 IntroductionDefinition TheoryObservationsInitial Conjecture
2 ProgressInitial ProgressStrengthening the ConjectureBaby StepsExemplary CaseSummary
2 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Definition Theory
Note.
Graphs in this talk are simple.
Definition
For a vertex v ∈ V (G), N(v) = {u | {u, v} ∈ E(G)} andN [v] = {v} ∪N(v). If S ⊂ V (G), N [S] = ∪v∈SN [v]. A setD is dominating if N [D] = V (G).
The domination number of G, denoted γ(G), is the smallestcardinality of a set that dominates V (G).
γ(G) = 3 in the graph below.
3 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Definition Theory
Note.
Graphs in this talk are simple.
Definition
For a vertex v ∈ V (G), N(v) = {u | {u, v} ∈ E(G)} andN [v] = {v} ∪N(v). If S ⊂ V (G), N [S] = ∪v∈SN [v]. A setD is dominating if N [D] = V (G).
The domination number of G, denoted γ(G), is the smallestcardinality of a set that dominates V (G).
γ(G) = 3 in the graph below.
3 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Definition Theory
Note.
Graphs in this talk are simple.
Definition
For a vertex v ∈ V (G), N(v) = {u | {u, v} ∈ E(G)} andN [v] = {v} ∪N(v). If S ⊂ V (G), N [S] = ∪v∈SN [v]. A setD is dominating if N [D] = V (G).
The domination number of G, denoted γ(G), is the smallestcardinality of a set that dominates V (G).
γ(G) = 3 in the graph below.
3 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Definition Theory
Note.
Graphs in this talk are simple.
Definition
For a vertex v ∈ V (G), N(v) = {u | {u, v} ∈ E(G)} andN [v] = {v} ∪N(v). If S ⊂ V (G), N [S] = ∪v∈SN [v]. A setD is dominating if N [D] = V (G).
The domination number of G, denoted γ(G), is the smallestcardinality of a set that dominates V (G).
γ(G) = 3 in the graph below.
3 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Definition Theory
Note.
Graphs in this talk are simple.
Definition
For a vertex v ∈ V (G), N(v) = {u | {u, v} ∈ E(G)} andN [v] = {v} ∪N(v). If S ⊂ V (G), N [S] = ∪v∈SN [v]. A setD is dominating if N [D] = V (G).
The domination number of G, denoted γ(G), is the smallestcardinality of a set that dominates V (G).
γ(G) = 3 in the graph below.
3 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Definition Theory
Definition
Given a minimum dominating set D of a graph G with noisolated vertices, an inverse dominating set is a set ofvertices in V (G) \D that dominates G.
The inverse domination number of G, denoted γ′(G), is thesmallest cardinality of an inverse dominating set for someminimum dominating set.
γ′(G) = 4 in the graph below.
4 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Definition Theory
Definition
Given a minimum dominating set D of a graph G with noisolated vertices, an inverse dominating set is a set ofvertices in V (G) \D that dominates G.
The inverse domination number of G, denoted γ′(G), is thesmallest cardinality of an inverse dominating set for someminimum dominating set.
γ′(G) = 4 in the graph below.
4 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Definition Theory
Definition
Given a minimum dominating set D of a graph G with noisolated vertices, an inverse dominating set is a set ofvertices in V (G) \D that dominates G.
The inverse domination number of G, denoted γ′(G), is thesmallest cardinality of an inverse dominating set for someminimum dominating set.
γ′(G) = 4 in the graph below.
4 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Observations
Notice.
γ(G) ≤ γ′(G)
Recall.
γ(G) ≤ α(G) (where α(G) is the maximum cardinality of a setof independent vertices)
5 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Observations
Notice.
γ(G) ≤ γ′(G)
Recall.
γ(G) ≤ α(G) (where α(G) is the maximum cardinality of a setof independent vertices)
5 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Initial Conjecture
Assertion
Kulli and Sigarkanti introduced the inverse domination numberand made the following assertion:
γ′(G) ≤ α(G)
Initial Proof
Their proof of the assertion was incorrect. This was noticed byGayla Domke, Jean Dunbar, Teresa Haynes, Steve Hedetniemi,and Lisa Markus.
Inverse Domination Conjecture
Given a graph G with no isolated vertices,
γ′(G) ≤ α(G).
6 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Initial Conjecture
Assertion
Kulli and Sigarkanti introduced the inverse domination numberand made the following assertion:
γ′(G) ≤ α(G)
Initial Proof
Their proof of the assertion was incorrect. This was noticed byGayla Domke, Jean Dunbar, Teresa Haynes, Steve Hedetniemi,and Lisa Markus.
Inverse Domination Conjecture
Given a graph G with no isolated vertices,
γ′(G) ≤ α(G).
6 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Initial Conjecture
Assertion
Kulli and Sigarkanti introduced the inverse domination numberand made the following assertion:
γ′(G) ≤ α(G)
Initial Proof
Their proof of the assertion was incorrect. This was noticed byGayla Domke, Jean Dunbar, Teresa Haynes, Steve Hedetniemi,and Lisa Markus.
Inverse Domination Conjecture
Given a graph G with no isolated vertices,
γ′(G) ≤ α(G).
6 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Initial Progress
True Fact (Johnson, Prier, and Walsh)
If G has no isolated vertices and γ(G) ≤ 4 then γ′(G) ≤ α(G).
The Problem
However, their method is difficult to extend to γ(G) ≥ 5.
7 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Initial Progress
True Fact (Johnson, Prier, and Walsh)
If G has no isolated vertices and γ(G) ≤ 4 then γ′(G) ≤ α(G).
The Problem
However, their method is difficult to extend to γ(G) ≥ 5.
7 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Strengthening the Conjecture
Definition
A fixed inverse domination number of G, denoted Γ′D(G), is thesmallest cardinality of an inverse dominating set for a fixedminimum dominating set D.
Observation
Clearly γ(G) ≤ γ′(G) ≤ Γ′D(G).
Conjecture
If G has no isolated vertices then Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G) for anyminimum dominating set D.
8 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Strengthening the Conjecture
Definition
A fixed inverse domination number of G, denoted Γ′D(G), is thesmallest cardinality of an inverse dominating set for a fixedminimum dominating set D.
Observation
Clearly γ(G) ≤ γ′(G) ≤ Γ′D(G).
Conjecture
If G has no isolated vertices then Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G) for anyminimum dominating set D.
8 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Strengthening the Conjecture
Definition
A fixed inverse domination number of G, denoted Γ′D(G), is thesmallest cardinality of an inverse dominating set for a fixedminimum dominating set D.
Observation
Clearly γ(G) ≤ γ′(G) ≤ Γ′D(G).
Conjecture
If G has no isolated vertices then Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G) for anyminimum dominating set D.
8 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Notes
Based on the observation that γ′(G) ≤ Γ′D(G), ourconjecture is certainly a strengthening of the inversedomination conjecture.
Also, note that for G = K2,m, γ′(G) = 2, but there exists a
minimum dominating set D such that Γ′D(G) = m.
However, in this extremal case and a few others we’vestudied, Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G)
9 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Notes
Based on the observation that γ′(G) ≤ Γ′D(G), ourconjecture is certainly a strengthening of the inversedomination conjecture.
Also, note that for G = K2,m, γ′(G) = 2, but there exists a
minimum dominating set D such that Γ′D(G) = m.
However, in this extremal case and a few others we’vestudied, Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G)
9 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Notes
Based on the observation that γ′(G) ≤ Γ′D(G), ourconjecture is certainly a strengthening of the inversedomination conjecture.
Also, note that for G = K2,m, γ′(G) = 2, but there exists a
minimum dominating set D such that Γ′D(G) = m.
However, in this extremal case and a few others we’vestudied, Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G)
9 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Baby Steps
Sub-Conjecture
If G has no isolated vertices and γ(G) = 5 then Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G)for any minimum dominating set D.
Let D be a minimum dominating set of G and let I be amaximum independent set where I ∩D is as small as possible.For illustration, suppose |I ∩D| = 3
Goal: Form an inverse dominating set using I \D or reachsome contradiction.
10 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Baby Steps
Sub-Conjecture
If G has no isolated vertices and γ(G) = 5 then Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G)for any minimum dominating set D.
Let D be a minimum dominating set of G and let I be amaximum independent set where I ∩D is as small as possible.For illustration, suppose |I ∩D| = 3
Goal: Form an inverse dominating set using I \D or reachsome contradiction.
10 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Baby Steps
Sub-Conjecture
If G has no isolated vertices and γ(G) = 5 then Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G)for any minimum dominating set D.
Let D be a minimum dominating set of G and let I be amaximum independent set where I ∩D is as small as possible.For illustration, suppose |I ∩D| = 3
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Goal: Form an inverse dominating set using I \D or reachsome contradiction.
10 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
Suppose both d0 and d1 are adjacent to I \D.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
11 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
What is dominating the neighborhood of I ∩D inV (G) \ (I ∩D)?
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
12 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
What is dominating the neighborhood of I ∩D inV (G) \ (I ∩D)?Answer: I \D
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
12 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
A lot of case analysis is used, but the idea is that if this were notthe case, either |I| would be bigger, |I ∩D| would be smaller, orwe could form an inverse dominating set of the proper size.
12 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
Let X be a set of no more than |I ∩D| vertices dominating eachvertex in I ∩D
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
X
So (I ∪X) \D is an inverse dominating set whereΓ′D(G) ≤ α(G).
13 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
Let X be a set of no more than |I ∩D| vertices dominating eachvertex in I ∩D
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
X
So (I ∪X) \D is an inverse dominating set whereΓ′D(G) ≤ α(G).
13 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
Suppose both d0 and d1 are not adjacent to I \D.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Then I \D is not dominated by D . . . a contradiction!
14 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
Suppose both d0 and d1 are not adjacent to I \D.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Then I \D is not dominated by D . . . a contradiction!
14 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
Suppose only d1 is adjacent to I \D. (We say D′ is the set ofvertices not adjacent to I \D; so, |D′| = 1.)
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
15 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
Let Y = V (G) \DLet Z be a maximal independent set in Y that contains atleast one vertex that is adjacent to a vertex in I ∩D andthen is adjacent to as many vertices in D \ I as possible.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Y
Z
16 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
Let Y = V (G) \DLet Z be a maximal independent set in Y that contains atleast one vertex that is adjacent to a vertex in I ∩D andthen is adjacent to as many vertices in D \ I as possible.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Y
Z
16 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
Let U be the set of at most |D \ (D′ ∪ (I ∩D))| vertices inV (G) \D adjacent to all of the vertices inD \ (D′ ∪ (I ∩D)).Let X be the set of at most |(I ∩D) \D0| vertices inV (G) \D adjacent to every vertex in (I ∩D) \D0.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Y
Z
U
X
17 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
Let U be the set of at most |D \ (D′ ∪ (I ∩D))| vertices inV (G) \D adjacent to all of the vertices inD \ (D′ ∪ (I ∩D)).Let X be the set of at most |(I ∩D) \D0| vertices inV (G) \D adjacent to every vertex in (I ∩D) \D0.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Y
Z
U
X
17 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
If |D′| = 0 or if |D′| = 2then Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G) asbefore.
If |Z| ≤ |(I \D) ∪D0| − 1then Z ∪X ∪ U is aninverse dominating set ofan appropriate size.
If |Z| > |(I \D) ∪D0| thenZ ∪ ((I ∩D) \D0) is alarger independent set thanI.
If |Z| = |(I \D) ∪D0| thenZ ∪ ((I ∩D) \D0) is anindependent set withsmaller intersection to D.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Y
Z
U
X
18 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
If |D′| = 0 or if |D′| = 2then Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G) asbefore.
If |Z| ≤ |(I \D) ∪D0| − 1then Z ∪X ∪ U is aninverse dominating set ofan appropriate size.
If |Z| > |(I \D) ∪D0| thenZ ∪ ((I ∩D) \D0) is alarger independent set thanI.
If |Z| = |(I \D) ∪D0| thenZ ∪ ((I ∩D) \D0) is anindependent set withsmaller intersection to D.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Y
Z
U
X
18 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
If |D′| = 0 or if |D′| = 2then Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G) asbefore.
If |Z| ≤ |(I \D) ∪D0| − 1then Z ∪X ∪ U is aninverse dominating set ofan appropriate size.
If |Z| > |(I \D) ∪D0| thenZ ∪ ((I ∩D) \D0) is alarger independent set thanI.
If |Z| = |(I \D) ∪D0| thenZ ∪ ((I ∩D) \D0) is anindependent set withsmaller intersection to D.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Y
Z
U
X
18 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Exemplary Case
If |D′| = 0 or if |D′| = 2then Γ′D(G) ≤ α(G) asbefore.
If |Z| ≤ |(I \D) ∪D0| − 1then Z ∪X ∪ U is aninverse dominating set ofan appropriate size.
If |Z| > |(I \D) ∪D0| thenZ ∪ ((I ∩D) \D0) is alarger independent set thanI.
If |Z| = |(I \D) ∪D0| thenZ ∪ ((I ∩D) \D0) is anindependent set withsmaller intersection to D.
DI
d4
d3
d2
d1
d0
Y
Z
U
X
18 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Summary
In Conclusion
There are similar arguments for the cases when|I ∩D| = {1, 2}; however, some oddities occur.
The benefit of this approach is that if sub-conjecture is nottrue, it would point to a possible counterexample.
This approach is also a plausible approach in that Drs.Peter Johnson and Jessica McDonald (Auburn University)have used this technique to re-prove the inverse dominationconjecture for claw-free graphs.
19 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Summary
In Conclusion
There are similar arguments for the cases when|I ∩D| = {1, 2}; however, some oddities occur.
The benefit of this approach is that if sub-conjecture is nottrue, it would point to a possible counterexample.
This approach is also a plausible approach in that Drs.Peter Johnson and Jessica McDonald (Auburn University)have used this technique to re-prove the inverse dominationconjecture for claw-free graphs.
19 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
Summary
In Conclusion
There are similar arguments for the cases when|I ∩D| = {1, 2}; however, some oddities occur.
The benefit of this approach is that if sub-conjecture is nottrue, it would point to a possible counterexample.
This approach is also a plausible approach in that Drs.Peter Johnson and Jessica McDonald (Auburn University)have used this technique to re-prove the inverse dominationconjecture for claw-free graphs.
19 / 20
Outline Introduction Progress
War Eagle!
Thank You For YourKind Attention !
Figure: War Eagle !
20 / 20