This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

A note on hamiltonian cycles in 44-tough (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-free graphs

Lingjuan Shia111 The first author is supported by NSFC (grant no. 11871256 and 11901458) and by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (grant no. D5000200199)., Songling Shanb
(aSchool of Software, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710072, P. R. China
b Department of Mathematics, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790, USA
E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
)
Abstract

Let t>0t>0 be a real number and GG be a graph. We say GG is tt-tough if for every cutset SS of GG, the ratio of |S||S| to the number of components of GSG-S is at least tt. The Toughness Conjecture of Chvátal, stating that there exists a constant t0t_{0} such that every t0t_{0}-tough graph with at least three vertices is hamiltonian, is still open in general. For any given integer k1k\geq 1, a graph GG is (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1}) free if GG does not contain the disjoint union of P2P_{2} and kk isolated vertices as an induced subgraph. In this note, we show that every 4-tough and 2k2k-connected (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-free graph with at least three vertices is hamiltonian. This result in some sense is an “extension” of the classical Chvátal-Erdős Theorem that every max{2,k}\max\{2,k\}-connected (k+1)P1(k+1)P_{1}-free graph on at least three vertices is hamiltonian.

Keywords: toughness; hamiltonian cycle; (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-free graph

1 Introduction

We consider only simple graphs. Let GG be a graph. We denote by V(G)V(G) and E(G)E(G) the vertex set and edge set of GG, respectively. For a vertex xV(G)x\in V(G) and a subgraph HH of GG, NH(x)N_{H}(x) denotes the set of neighbors of xx that are contained in V(H)V(H), and dH(x):=|NH(x)|d_{H}(x):=|N_{H}(x)|. Let SV(G)S\subseteq V(G). Then NG(S)=xSNG(x)SN_{G}(S)=\bigcup_{x\in S}N_{G}(x)\setminus S and NH(S)=NG(S)V(H)N_{H}(S)=N_{G}(S)\cap V(H). Denote by G[S]G[S] the subgraph of GG induced by SS, and let GS=G[V(G)S]G-S=G[V(G)\setminus S]. We skip the subscript GG if no confusion may arise.

For a given graph HH, we say that GG is HH-free if GG does not contain HH as an induced subgraph. For another graph FF, HFH\cup F is the disjoint union of HH and FF. For positive integers aa and bb, we denote by aPbaP_{b} the graph consisting of aa disjoint copies of the path PbP_{b}. For two integers pp and qq, let [p,q]={i:piq}[p,q]=\{i\in\mathbb{Z}:p\leq i\leq q\}.

Throughout this paper, if not specified, we will assume tt to be a nonnegative real number. The number of components of GG is denoted by c(G)c(G). The graph GG is said to be tt-tough if |S|tc(GS)|S|\geq t\cdot c(G-S) for each SV(G)S\subseteq V(G) with c(GS)2c(G-S)\geq 2. The toughness τ(G)\tau(G) is the largest real number tt for which GG is tt-tough, or is \infty if GG is complete. This concept, a measure of graph connectivity and “resilience” under removal of vertices, was introduced by Chvátal [5] in 1973. It is easy to see that if GG has a hamiltonian cycle then GG is 1-tough. Conversely, Chvátal [5] conjectured that there exists a constant t0t_{0} such that every t0t_{0}-tough graph is hamiltonian (Chvátal’s toughness conjecture). Bauer, Broersma and Veldman [1] have constructed tt-tough graphs that are not hamiltonian for all t<94t<\frac{9}{4}, so t0t_{0} must be at least 94\frac{9}{4}. It is not difficult to see that a non-complete tt-tough graph is 2t2\lceil t\rceil-connected.

There are many papers on Chvátal’s toughness conjecture, and it has been verified when restricted to a number of graph classes [2], including planar graphs, claw-free graphs, co-comparability graphs, and chordal graphs. The conjecture was also confirmed for graphs forbidden small linear forests. The results include the following: 1-tough for RR-free graphs, where R{P4,P3P1,P22P1}R\in\{P_{4},P_{3}\cup P_{1},P_{2}\cup 2P_{1}\} [10]; 25-tough, 3-tough, and now 2-tough for 2P22P_{2}-free graphs [4, 12, 11]; 3-tough for (P23P1)(P_{2}\cup 3P_{1})-free graphs [9]; 7-tough for (P32P1)(P_{3}\cup 2P_{1})-free graphs [8]; and 15-tough for (P2P3)(P_{2}\cup P_{3})-free graphs [13]. In this paper, for any integer k1k\geq 1, we investigate Chvátal’s toughness conjecture for (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-free graphs. For k=1k=1, it is an easy exercise to show that every 1-tough (P2P1)(P_{2}\cup P_{1})-free graph on n3n\geq 3 vertices has minimum degree at least n/2n/2 and so is hamiltonian by Dirac’s Theorem [7]. By [10], 1-tough is enough to guarantee a hamiltonian cycle for (P22P1)(P_{2}\cup 2P_{1})-free graphs on at least three vertices. By [9], 3-tough is enough to guarantee a hamiltonian cycle for (P23P1)(P_{2}\cup 3P_{1})-free graphs on at least three vertices. Thus we consider only the case when k4k\geq 4, and obtain the result below.

Theorem 1.

Let k4k\geq 4 be an integer and GG be a 44-tough and 2k2k-connected (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-free graph. Then GG is hamiltonian.

As a non-complete tt-tough graph is 2t2\lceil t\rceil-connected, as a corollary of Theorem 1, we get the following result.

Corollary 2.

For any integer k4k\geq 4, every kk-tough (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-free graph on at least three vertices is hamiltonian.

Theorem 1 can also be seen as a result along the Chavátal-Erdős type theorems [6]. The Chavátal-Erdős Theorem can be rephrased as below: for any integer k1k\geq 1, every max{2,k}\max\{2,k\}-connected (k+1)P1(k+1)P_{1}-free graph on at least three vertices is hamiltonian. It is necessary for a hamiltonian graph to be 1-tough and the condition that “kk-connected and (k+1)P1(k+1)P_{1}-free” in the Chavátal-Erdős Theorem implies that the graph is 1-tough. However, any constant connectivity condition cannot guarantee the existence of a hamiltonian cycle in (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-free graphs. For example, for integer n2n\geq 2, the complete bipartite graph Kn1,nK_{n-1,n} is (n1)(n-1)-connected, (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-free for any k1k\geq 1, but is not hamiltonian. This explains the involvement of the toughness condition in Theorem 1 other than the connectivity condition. However, we do think that the condition 4-tough is not sharp and we propose the following conjecture.

Conjecture 3.

Let k4k\geq 4 be an integer and GG be a 11-tough and 2k2k-connected (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-free graph. Then GG is hamiltonian.

2 Proof of Theorem 1

We start with certain notation and preliminary results. Let CC be an oriented cycle, and we assume that the orientation is clockwise throughout the rest of this paper. For xV(C)x\in V(C), denote the immediate successor of xx on CC by x+x^{+} and the immediate predecessor of xx on CC by xx^{-}. For u,vV(C)u,v\in V(C), uCvu\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}v denotes the segment of CC starting at uu, following CC in the orientation, and ending at vv. Likewise, uCvu\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}v is the opposite segment of CC with endpoints as uu and vv.

A path PP connecting two vertices uu and vv is called a (u,v)(u,v)-path, and we write uPvuPv or vPuvPu in order to specify the two endvertices of PP. Let uPvuPv and xQyxQy be two paths. If vxvx is an edge, we write uPvxQyuPvxQy as the concatenation of PP and QQ through the edge vxvx.

Lemma 4 ([3]).

Let tt be a positive real number and GG be a tt-tough graph on at lest three vertices with δ(G)>nt+11\delta(G)>\frac{n}{t+1}-1. Then GG is hamiltonian.

Proof of Theorem 1.

Suppose for a contradiction that GG is not hamiltonian. Then GG is not complete and δ(G)n51\delta(G)\leq\frac{n}{5}-1 by Lemma 4. Since GG is 2k2k-connected, δ(G)2k\delta(G)\geq 2k. Thus we have n5(2k+1)45n\geq 5(2k+1)\geq 45. Let CC be a longest cycle of GG. As GG is not hamiltonian, V(G)V(C)V(G)\setminus V(C)\neq\emptyset. Let HH be a component of GV(C)G-V(C) and suppose |NC(V(H))|=t|N_{C}(V(H))|=t. We let x1,,xtx_{1},\ldots,x_{t} be all the neighbors of vertices of HH on CC, and we assume that they appear in the order x1,,xtx_{1},\ldots,x_{t} along C\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}. Note that t2kt\geq 2k as GG is 2k2k-connected.

Claim 1.

Any two vertices in {x1,,xt}\{x_{1},\ldots,x_{t}\} are not consecutive on CC, and {x1+,x2+,,xt+}\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\} is an independent set in GG.

Proof.

The first part is clear as otherwise we can extend CC. For the second part, suppose to the contrary that xi+xj+E(G)x_{i}^{+}x_{j}^{+}\in E(G) for some i,j[1,t]i,j\in[1,t]. Without loss of generality, assume that i<ji<j. Let xi,xjV(H)x_{i}^{\prime},x_{j}^{\prime}\in V(H) such that xixi,xjxjE(G)x_{i}x_{i}^{\prime},x_{j}x_{j}^{\prime}\in E(G), and let PP be an (xi,xj)(x_{i}^{\prime},x_{j}^{\prime})-path of HH. Then xixiPxjxjCxi+xj+Cxix_{i}x_{i}^{\prime}Px_{j}^{\prime}x_{j}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}x_{i}^{+}x_{j}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{i} is a cycle longer than CC, a contradiction. ∎

Claim 2.

Each component of GV(C)G-V(C) is trivial, i.e., a one-vertex graph.

Proof.

We still let HH represent any component of GV(C)G-V(C). Suppose to the contrary that HH has an edge uvuv. Then uvuv and {x1+,x2+,,xt+}\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\} together form an induced P2tP1P_{2}\cup tP_{1}, which contains P2kP1P_{2}\cup kP_{1} as an induced subgraph, a contradiction. ∎

Claim 3.

|V(C)|4n5|V(C)|\geq\frac{4n}{5}.

Proof.

Suppose to the contrary that |V(C)|<4n5|V(C)|<\frac{4n}{5}. Then GV(C)G-V(C) has exactly n|V(C)|>n/59n-|V(C)|>n/5\geq 9 components by Claim 2. Thus V(C)V(C) is a cutset of GG and |V(C)|c(GV(C))<4\frac{|V(C)|}{c(G-V(C))}<4. This contradicts that GG is 44-tough. ∎

Our goal in the rest of the proof is to find an independent set of size more than n/5n/5 in GG and so to reach a contradiction to the toughness of GG. By Claim 2, let V(H)={x}V(H)=\{x\}. Assume, without loss of generality, that |V(x1Cxk+1)||V(xk+1Cx1)||V(x_{1}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{k+1})|\leq|V(x_{k+1}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{1})|. Then |V(xk+1Cx1)|2n5|V(x_{k+1}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{1})|\geq\frac{2n}{5} by Claim 3. Let xk+1Cx1=xk+1xk+1+y1y2yhx1x_{k+1}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{1}=x_{k+1}x_{k+1}^{+}y_{1}y_{2}\ldots y_{h}x_{1}, and define

Y=\displaystyle Y= {y2,y4,,yh}\displaystyle\{y_{2},y_{4},\ldots,y_{h}\} if hh is even;
Y=\displaystyle Y= {y2,y4,,yh1}\displaystyle\{y_{2},y_{4},\ldots,y_{h-1}\} if hh is odd.
Claim 4.

N(Y){x1+,,xk+1+}=N(Y)\cap\{x_{1}^{+},\ldots,x_{k+1}^{+}\}=\emptyset. As a consequence, YY is an independent set in GG.

Proof.

Let X={x1+,x2+,,xk+1+}X=\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{k+1}^{+}\}. Since XX is an independent set in GG by Claim 1, the consequence part of the claim follows easily from the first part and the (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-freeness of GG. So we only show that N(Y){x1+,,xk+1+}=N(Y)\cap\{x_{1}^{+},\ldots,x_{k+1}^{+}\}=\emptyset. Considering the edge xk+1+y1x_{k+1}^{+}y_{1} and the independent set XX, we conclude that |N(y1)X|2|N(y_{1})\cap X|\geq 2 by the (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-freeness of GG. Next, we show N(y2)X=N(y_{2})\cap X=\emptyset. Suppose not, then |N(y2)X|2|N(y_{2})\cap X|\geq 2. Otherwise let N(y2)X={xi}N(y_{2})\cap X=\{x_{i}\} for some i[1,k+1]i\in[1,k+1]. Then y2xiy_{2}x_{i} and X{xi}X\setminus\{x_{i}\} form an induced copy of (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1}). We consider three cases regarding the size of the set N(y1)N(y2)XN(y_{1})\cap N(y_{2})\cap X below.

Case 1: |N(y1)N(y2)X|2|N(y_{1})\cap N(y_{2})\cap X|\geq 2.

Let xi+,xj+N(y1)N(y2)Xx_{i}^{+},x_{j}^{+}\in N(y_{1})\cap N(y_{2})\cap X for some distinct i,j[1,k+1]i,j\in[1,k+1]. Assume, without loss of generality, that i<ji<j. Then xxiCy2xj+Cy1xi+Cxjxxx_{i}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}y_{2}x_{j}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}y_{1}x_{i}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{j}x is a cycle longer than CC, a contradiction.

Case 2: |N(y1)N(y2)X|=1|N(y_{1})\cap N(y_{2})\cap X|=1.

Let N(y1)N(y2)X={xi+}N(y_{1})\cap N(y_{2})\cap X=\{x_{i}^{+}\} for some i[1,k+1]i\in[1,k+1]. If i=1i=1, then y2y_{2} has another neighbor xj+x_{j}^{+} with j[2,k+1]j\in[2,k+1] since |N(y2)X|2|N(y_{2})\cap X|\geq 2. So xx1Cy2xj+Cy1x1+Cxjxxx_{1}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}y_{2}x_{j}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}y_{1}x_{1}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{j}x is a cycle longer than CC, a contradiction. If i=k+1i=k+1, then y1y_{1} has another neighbor xj+x_{j}^{+} with j[1,k]j\in[1,k] since |N(y1)X|2|N(y_{1})\cap X|\geq 2. So xxjCy2xk+1+Cy1xj+Cxk+1xxx_{j}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}y_{2}x_{k+1}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}y_{1}x_{j}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{k+1}x is a cycle longer than CC, a contradiction. If i[2,k]i\in[2,k], then we define two indices as follows:

s\displaystyle s =\displaystyle= min{j:xj+N(y1)X},\displaystyle\min\{j:x_{j}^{+}\in N(y_{1})\cap X\},
\displaystyle\ell =\displaystyle= max{j:xj+N(y2)X}.\displaystyle\max\{j:x_{j}^{+}\in N(y_{2})\cap X\}.

Clearly, sis\leq i and i\ell\geq i. If s<is<i then xxsCy2xi+Cy1xs+Cxixxx_{s}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}y_{2}x_{i}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}y_{1}x_{s}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{i}x is a cycle longer than CC; if >i\ell>i, then xxiCy2x+Cy1xi+Cxxxx_{i}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}y_{2}x_{\ell}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}y_{1}x_{i}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{\ell}x is a cycle longer than CC. Thus we assume s==is=\ell=i.

If y1y_{1} is a neighbor of xx, then xy1Cxi+y2Cxixxy_{1}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}x_{i}^{+}y_{2}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{i}x is a cycle longer than CC, a contradiction. So y1N(x)y_{1}\notin N(x). This implies that y2{x1+,x2+,,xt+}y_{2}\notin\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\}. We claim that N(y1){xk+2+,xk+3+,,xt+}=N(y_{1})\cap\{x_{k+2}^{+},x_{k+3}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\}=\emptyset. Otherwise, suppose y1xh+E(G)y_{1}x_{h}^{+}\in E(G) for some h[k+2,t]h\in[k+2,t]. Then xxiCxh+y1Cxi+y2Cxhxxx_{i}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}x_{h}^{+}y_{1}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}x_{i}^{+}y_{2}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{h}x is a cycle longer than CC. Hence xi+Cy1x_{i}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}y_{1} or y2Cxi+y_{2}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{i}^{+} has at least k+1k+1 vertices belonging to {x1+,x2+,,xt+}\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\} as t2kt\geq 2k.

If xi+Cy1x_{i}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}y_{1} has at least k+1k+1 vertices in {x1+,x2+,,xt+}\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\}, then y2xi+y_{2}x_{i}^{+} and the kk vertices in (V(xi+Cy1){x1+,x2+,,xt+}){xi+}(V(x_{i}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}y_{1})\cap\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\})\setminus\{x_{i}^{+}\} induce a P2kP1P_{2}\cup kP_{1} subgraph in GG, a contradiction. If y2Cxi+y_{2}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{i}^{+} has at least k+1k+1 vertices in {x1+,x2+,,xt+}\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\}, then xi+y1x_{i}^{+}y_{1} and the kk vertices in (V(y2Cxi+){x1+,x2+,,xt+}){xi+}(V(y_{2}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{i}^{+})\cap\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\})\setminus\{x_{i}^{+}\} induce a P2kP1P_{2}\cup kP_{1} subgraph in GG, a contradiction.

Case 3: |N(y1)N(y2)X|=0|N(y_{1})\cap N(y_{2})\cap X|=0.

We define ss and \ell the same way as in Case 2. Since |N(y1)N(y2)X|=0|N(y_{1})\cap N(y_{2})\cap X|=0, ss\neq\ell. If s<s<\ell, then xxsCy2x+Cy1xs+Cxxxx_{s}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}y_{2}x_{\ell}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}y_{1}x_{s}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{\ell}x is a cycle longer than CC, a contradiction. So s>s>\ell. If y1N(x)y_{1}\in N(x), then xxCy2x+Cy1xxx_{\ell}\overset{\leftharpoonup}{C}y_{2}x_{\ell}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}y_{1}x is a cycle longer than CC, a contradiction. So y1y_{1} is not a neighbor of xx and thus y2{x1+,x2+,,xt+}y_{2}\notin\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\}. By the same argument as in Case 2, we have N(y1){xk+2+,xk+3+,,xt+}=N(y_{1})\cap\{x_{k+2}^{+},x_{k+3}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\}=\emptyset. So y1y_{1} dose not have any neighbor in {x1+,,xs1+}{xk+2+,,xt+}\{x_{1}^{+},\ldots,x_{s-1}^{+}\}\cup\{x_{k+2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\}, which is a subset of V(y2Cxs)V(y_{2}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{s}). By the definition of \ell and the assumption that <s\ell<s, we know that y2y_{2} does not have any neighbor in {xs+,,xk+1+}\{x_{s}^{+},\ldots,x_{k+1}^{+}\}. Since t2kt\geq 2k, y2Cxsy_{2}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{s} or xs+Cxk+1+x_{s}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{k+1}^{+} has at least kk vertices belonging to {x1+,x2+,,xt+}\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\}. If y2Cxsy_{2}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{s} has kk vertices belonging to {x1+,x2+,,xt+}\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\}, then those kk vertices and the edge y1xs+y_{1}x_{s}^{+} induce a copy of P2kP1P_{2}\cup kP_{1}. If xs+Cxk+1+x_{s}^{+}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{k+1}^{+} has kk vertices belonging to {x1+,x2+,,xt+}\{x_{1}^{+},x_{2}^{+},\ldots,x_{t}^{+}\}, then those kk vertices and the edge y2x+y_{2}x_{\ell}^{+} induce a copy of P2kP1P_{2}\cup kP_{1}.

Cases 1 to 3 imply N(y2)X=N(y_{2})\cap X=\emptyset. Since XX is an independent set in GG, |X|=k+1|X|=k+1 and y2y3E(G)y_{2}y_{3}\in E(G), the (P2kP1)(P_{2}\cup kP_{1})-freeness of GG implies that |N(y3)X|2|N(y_{3})\cap X|\geq 2. With y3y_{3} playing the role of y1y_{1} and y4y_{4} playing the role of y2y_{2}, the same arguments in Cases 1 to 3 show that N(y4)X=N(y_{4})\cap X=\emptyset. Repeating the same arguments for all other elements of YY, we get N(Y)X=N(Y)\cap X=\emptyset. ∎

By Claim 1 and Claim 4, we know that XYX\cup Y in an independent set in GG. By Claim 3 and the assumption that |V(x1Cxk+1)||V(xk+1Cx1)||V(x_{1}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{k+1})|\leq|V(x_{k+1}\overset{\rightharpoonup}{C}x_{1})|, we have |Y|12(|C|22)n512|Y|\geq\lfloor\frac{1}{2}(\frac{|C|-2}{2})\rfloor\geq\lfloor\frac{n}{5}-\frac{1}{2}\rfloor. Since k4k\geq 4 and so |X|5|X|\geq 5, we have |XY|>n59|X\cup Y|>\frac{n}{5}\geq 9. Let S=V(G)(XY)S=V(G)\setminus(X\cup Y). Then SS is a cutset of GG with c(GS)=|XY|>n5c(G-S)=|X\cup Y|>\frac{n}{5}. However, |S|c(GS)<4\frac{|S|}{c(G-S)}<4, contradicting GG being 4-tough. The proof is now complete. ∎

References

  • [1] D. Bauer, H. J. Broersma, and H. J. Veldman. Not every 2-tough graph is Hamiltonian. In Proceedings of the 5th Twente Workshop on Graphs and Combinatorial Optimization (Enschede, 1997), volume 99, pages 317–321, 2000.
  • [2] D. Bauer, H.J. Broersma, and E. Schmeichel. Toughness in graphs – a survey. Graphs and Combinatorics, 22(1):1–35, 2006.
  • [3] Douglas Bauer, H. J. Broersma, J. van den Heuvel, and H. J. Veldman. Long cycles in graphs with prescribed toughness and minimum degree. Discrete Math., 141(1-3):1–10, 1995.
  • [4] H. Broersma, V. Patel, and A. Pyatkin. On toughness and Hamiltonicity of 2K22K_{2}-free graphs. J. Graph Theory, 75(3):244–255, 2014.
  • [5] V. Chvátal. Tough graphs and Hamiltonian circuits. Discrete Math., 5:215–228, 1973.
  • [6] V. Chvátal and P. Erdős. A note on Hamiltonian circuits. Discrete Math., 2:111–113, 1972.
  • [7] G. A. Dirac. Some theorems on abstract graphs. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 2:69–81, 1952.
  • [8] Y. Gao and S. Shan. Hamiltonian cycles in 7-tough (P32P1)(P_{3}\cup 2P_{1})-free graphs. arXiv:2107.08476, 2021.
  • [9] A. Hatfield and E. Grimm. Hamiltonicity of 3-tough (K23K1)(K_{2}\cup 3K_{1})-free graphs. arXiv:2106.07083, 2021.
  • [10] B. Li, H. J. Broersma, and S. Zhang. Forbidden subgraphs for Hamiltonicity of 1-tough graphs. Discuss. Math. Graph Theory, 36(4):915–929, 2016.
  • [11] K. Ota and M. Sanka. Hamiltonian cycles in 2-tough 2K22K_{2}-free graphs. arXiv:2103.06760, 2021.
  • [12] S. Shan. Hamiltonian cycles in 3-tough 2K22K_{2}-free graphs. J. Graph Theory, 94(3):349–363, 2020.
  • [13] S. Shan. Hamiltonian cycles in tough (P2P3)(P_{2}\cup P_{3})-free graphs. Electron. J. Combin., 28(1):Paper No. 1.36, 16, 2021.