A stability result for -free graphs
Abstract
A graph is called -free if it does not contain any cycle of length . In 1981, Ha̋ggkvist, Faudree and Schelp showed that every -vertex triangle-free graph with more than edges is bipartite. In this paper, we extend their result and show that for and , every -vertex -free graph with more than edges can be made bipartite by either deleting at most vertices or deleting at most edges. The construction shows that this is best possible.
Keywords: stability; odd cycles; non-bipartite graphs.
1 Introduction
We consider only simple graphs. For a graph , we use and to denote its vertex set and edge set, respectively. Let denote the number of edges of . For , let denote the subgraph of induced by . Let denote the subgraph induced by . For simplicity, we write and for and , respectively. Let denote the set of neighbors of in . For , let denote the set of neighbors of in . Let and . The minimum degree of is defined as the minimum of over all . For a subgraph of , we also write , for , , respectively. For , let denote the graph obtained from by deleting edges in . For disjoint sets , let denote the subgraph of with the vertex set and the edge set . Let . If the context is clear, we often omit the subscript .
Given a graph , we say that is -free if it does not contain as a subgraph. The Turán number is defined as the maximum number of edges in an -free graph on vertices. Let denote the Turán graph, the complete -partite graph on vertices with partition classes, each of size or . Let . The classic Turán theorem [15] tells us that is the unique graph attaining the maximum number of edges among all -free graphs, where the case is Mantel’s theorem [13].
An edge is called a color-critical edge of if . Let be a graph with that contains a color-critical edge. Simonovits [14] proved that there exists such that if , then and is the unique extremal graph. Since and contains a color-critical edge, is implied by Simonovits’ result for sufficiently large . Dzido [6] observed that can be read out from the works of Bondy [3, 4], Woodall [16], and Bollobás [1] (pp. 147–156). Later, Füredi and Gunderson [9] determined the for all and gave a complete description of the extremal graphs.
In 1981, Ha̋ggkvist, Faudree and Schelp [10] proved a stability result for Mantel’s Theorem.
Theorem 1.2 ([10]).
Let be a non-bipartite triangle-free graph on vertices. Then
Let be a graph obtained from by replacing an edge with a path , where is a new vertex. It is easy to see that is a triangle-free graph with edges, which shows that Theorem 1.2 is sharp.
To state our results, we need the following two parameters. Define
and
Let be a graph obtained from graphs and by sharing a vertex. In this paper, we extend Theorem 1.2 to the following two results.
Theorem 1.3.
Let be integers with and . If is a -free () graph on vertices with , then
with equality if and only if up to isomorphism.
Theorem 1.4.
Let be integers with and . If is a -free () graph on vertices with , then
(1.2) |
with equality if and only if up to isomorphism.
The circumference is defined as the length of a longest cycle of . The girth is defined as the length of a shortest cycle of . We say is weakly pancyclic if it contains cycles of all lengths from to . We need the following result due to Brandt, Faudree and Goddard [5].
Theorem 1.5 ([5]).
Every non-bipartite graph of order with minimum degree is weakly pancyclic with girth 3 or 4.
Let be a path of length and let be the family of cycles with lengths at least . We need the Erdős-Gallai Theorem for paths and cycles.
Theorem 1.6 ([8]).
For ,
2 Some useful facts and inequalities
In this section, we prove some facts and inequalities that are needed.
Fact 2.1.
Let be a shortest odd cycle of . If has length at least 5, then every vertex in has at most two neighbors on .
Proof.
Let be a shortest odd cycle of , . Fix an arbitrary vertex . If has at least three neighbors on , there exist neighbors , of () such that the distance between and on does not equal 2. Then one of and is an odd cycle shorter than , a contradiction. ∎
Fact 2.2.
Let be a graph with , . Let be a shortest odd cycle of . If , has length at most .
Proof.
Let and . Suppose for contradiction that . By Fact 2.1, each vertex in has at most two neighbors on . Then
Note that is a decreasing function for . Since , it follows that
Since implies ,
a contradiction. ∎
Fact 2.3.
Let be a -free graph and be an odd cycle of length in . If then for every .
Proof.
Assume that . Let . Define as an indicator function by setting for and setting otherwise. Since is -free, one cannot have both and (subscript modulo ) for each . Hence,
Therefore, . ∎
Let be integers. We need the following equalities and inequalities.
(2.1) | |||
(2.2) | |||
(2.3) | |||
(2.4) |
Note that these equalities and inequalities can be easily verified by checking four cases: ; ; and .
Let be integers. By induction on , one can also obtain the following inequality.
(2.5) |
Define .
Lemma 2.4.
For integers ,
(2.6) | |||
(2.7) |
Proof.
Note that can be viewed as the number of edges in . By adding a vertex to , we get a graph with edges, which is exactly a copy of . Thus follows.
Next we prove (2.7). Let be two disjoint vertex sets with , and be two disjoint sets with , . Clearly is an almost equal partition of vertices. For a set , let denote the complete graph with vertex set . Note that can be viewed as the number of edges in . Similarly, can be viewed as the number of edges in , can be viewed as the number of edges in . Thus,
Define . Note that equals 1 if are both odd and equals 0 otherwise. By (2.1),
∎
3 Two structure lemmas
Lemma 3.1.
Let be a -free () graph on vertices with , . If , then there exists with such that is a bipartite graph on partite sets and (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) hold.
-
(i)
;
-
(ii)
;
-
(iii)
;
-
(iv)
For , either or holds.
Proof.
Set . We obtain a bipartite subgraph from by a vertex-deletion procedure. Let us start with and obtain a sequence of graphs as follows: In the th step, if there exists a vertex with then let be the graph obtained from by deleting and go to the th step. Otherwise we stop and set , . Clearly, the procedure will end in finite steps.
Let . We claim that . Indeed, otherwise
By , we have . Since implies that , we have . Thus , a contradiction. Thus . Suppose to the contrary that . Since is -free, by Theorem 1.1 we have . Thus,
As , we get , a contradiction. Thus and (i) follows from .
Suppose that is non-bipartite. As , by Theorem 1.5 we infer that is weakly pancyclic with girth 3 or 4. By (i) and , contains a cycle of length . Then the weakly pancyclicity implies that contains a cycle of length , a contradiction. Thus is bipartite.
Let , be two partite sets of . We are left to show (ii), (iii) and (iv). Note that
Note that . Set and . Then
It follows that . Thus,
By we have . Then
Thus (ii) holds.
To show (iii), suppose indirectly that there are at least vertices in with degree less than . Let with such that for all . Then for all . Note that implies and thereby . Since is -free, using Theorem 1.1 we get . Thus, by we obtain that
By we have . Hence , a contradiction. Therefore (iii) holds.
To show (iv), suppose for contradiction that for some there exist and . Let and . Note that
Since is -free and , contains no paths of length . By Theorem 1.6 we infer . Thus,
Let . It is easy to check that is a decreasing function on . Since implies , . Hence,
By we see that . Then , a contradiction. Thus (iv) holds and the lemma is proven. ∎
A vertex is called a high-degree vertex if , otherwise it is called a low-degree vertex. Let be the set of all low-degree vertices in , that is,
Lemma 3.2.
Let be a -free () graph on vertices with , and let . If , then is a bipartite graph on bipartite sets with (i)-(vi) hold.
-
(i)
.
-
(ii)
.
-
(iii)
.
-
(iv)
For , either or holds.
-
(v)
For , there does not exist such that . Similarly, there does not exist such that .
-
(vi)
Let be a path in . If , then there does not exist such that or .
Proof.
By Lemma 3.1 there exists with such that is a bipartite graph and (i)-(iv) of Lemma 3.1 hold. Let , be two partite sets of . Since , by Lemma 3.1 (i) we have . Thus .
Suppose indirectly that is not bipartite. Let be a shortest odd cycle in and let . Clearly, are all high-degree vertices. Since is a shortest odd cycle, for each , that is, has no chord. Since implies ,
By Lemma 3.1 (iii), each in has at least two neighbors in with degree at least . By Lemma 3.1 (iv), for each in either or holds. As is an odd cycle, there exist , on such that and are contained in the same one of and . Without loss of generality, let be two distinct vertices in such that and . Let . By Lemma 3.1 (ii) we know . Then
Let . Note that
By we infer that
As implies , we have . Hence . Then there is a path of length at least . For we choose a path of length with both ends in . For we simply choose as a vertex in . Then together with form a cycle of length , a contradiction. Thus is bipartite.
Now we consider (i) and suppose indirectly that . Since is bipartite, . It follows that
Let . Since is convex and ,
Note that
Using , we have . Thus . By we also have . It implies that
Thus , a contradiction. Therefore (i) holds.
Let , be two partite sets of . By we infer and . By Lemma 3.1 (ii), and . By and we have
By , we have . It implies that . Similarly, . Thus (ii) holds.
We are left to show (iv), (v) and (vi). Suppose indirectly that there exists such that has two neighbors and . By the definition of , we have . Let and . Then
Since implies that , we have . Similarly .
If , then the -free property implies that there is no edge between and . It follows that . Then
Let . It is easy to check that is decreasing on . Since implies , we have . Then
By we have . It follows that , a contradiction. Thus we may assume that .
Since , , by (iii) there are and such that . Let , . Then
Since is -free and , contains no paths of length . By Theorem 1.6 we infer . Thus,
Let . Recall that is decreasing on . Since implies , . Thus,
By we have . It implies that , a contradiction. Thus (iv) holds.
To show , suppose for contradiction that there exist and such that . We distinguish two cases.
Case 1. .
Then . By we have . Since is -free, for every with we have . It follows that
(3.1) |
If , then . By (3.1), . Since , it implies that
Then
By we have . It implies that , a contradiction. Thus , that is, .
By (iv), and . Applying (3.1) with and ,
(3.2) |
If , then . As ,
Then
a contradiction. Thus we may assume that .
Without loss of generality, we further assume that . Then and . Let . Note that is a high-degree vertex. It follows that . For every , by applying (3.1) with and we get . By (3.2) we have
Thus
Since , we have
a contradiction.
Case 2. .
Since and by (iii), there exist distinct vertices such that and . Let , . Since and ,
Note also that . If there exists a path of length with both ends in , then together with we obtain a cycle of length , a contradiction. Thus, there does not exist a path of length with both ends in . This implies that is -free. By Theorem 1.6,
Then
It is easy to verify that . By we have . It implies that , a contradiction. Thus (v) holds.
To show , let be a path in and , assume that there exist such that . We distinguish two cases.
Case 1. .
Since , . By (iv), we have and . It follows that
Since is -free, there is no edge between and . That is,
It follows that
Since , . Moreover, and , we have . It follows that for and for , a contradiction.
Case 2. .
Let and . Recall that are both high-degree vertices. Since implies , we infer that
It follows that .
If then by the -free property there is no edge between and . Thus,
By we have . Thus , a contradiction.
If , by (iii) there exist , such that and . Let and . By the -free property there is no a path of length with one end in and the other one in . By Theorem 1.6,
Using , we have
It is easy to verify that . By we have . It implies that , a contradiction. Thus (vi) holds and the lemma is proven. ∎
4 The Proof of Theorem 1.3
Proof of Theorem 1.3.
Let be a -free graph on vertices with . If then we have nothing to do. Thus we assume that
(4.1) |
and we are left to show that up to isomorphism. By Lemma 3.2, there exists with such that is a bipartite graph on partite sets with (i)-(vi) of Lemma 3.2 hold.
Claim 1.
Let . If is non-bipartite, then each shortest odd cycle in has length at most .
Proof.
Since is bipartite and is non-bipartite, . Let be a shortest cycle in , let . Suppose for contradiction that . By Fact 2.3 each has at most neighbors on . By Fact 2.1 each has at most two neighbors on . It follows that
By Fact 2.2 we have . It follows that . Since is -free, by Theorem 1.1 we have . Thus,
Since is a convex function of with , . By we have . It follows that
For ,
Since implies , we infer that . For ,
Thus , contradicting (4.1). ∎
Claim 2.
Let such that is non-bipartite and let be a shortest odd cycle in . Then there is at most one high-degree vertex on .
Proof.
Suppose that and there are two high-degree vertices on , say with . Set and . Let and . By Claim 1 we know that . It follows that . Without loss of generality, assume that is odd and is even.
Note that is an induced cycle and each has at most neighbors on . Let and . Since implies , we have
Similarly, . By Lemma 3.2 (iii), there exist distinct vertices such that and . Then by Claim 1
Similarly, . Now we distinguish two cases.
Case 1. and belong to the same one of .
Let
By Lemma 3.2 (iii) we have . It follows that is a subgraph with minimum degree at least . Note that
Then is a graph on vertices with
Since implies , we have . It follows that . Thus there exists a path of length at least . For , we choose a sub-path of length with both ends in . For , we choose as an arbitrary vertex in . Then forms a cycle of length , a contradiction.
Case 2. and belong to different ones of , .
Without loss of generality, assume that and . Let and . Then . Similarly, . Let
By Lemma 3.2 (iii) we have . It follows that is a subgraph with minimum degree at least . Note that
Then is a graph on vertices with
Since implies , we have . It implies that . Then there exists a path of length at least . For , we choose a sub-path of length with one end in and the other one in . Then forms a cycle of length , a contradiction.
We are left with the case . The -free property implies that there is no edge between and . Since implies ,
Similarly, . Then
Now we choose such that is bipartite and is minimal. By we have . By the minimality of , we infer that for each , is not bipartite. Let be a shortest odd cycle in . By Claim 2, there is at most one high-degree vertex on . Since , contains at least two low-degree vertices. As , we infer that contains a low-degree vertex that is not in , implying that . By we have and . Then contains exactly two low-degree vertices and one high-degree vertex, that is, . Let and let be a high-degree vertex on . Then . Since is chosen from arbitrarily, we conclude that for all .
Assume that and let , . We claim that is bipartite. Indeed, otherwise let be a shortest odd cycle in . Note that . By applying Claim 2 to , contains at most one high-degree vertex. It follows that contains at least two low-degree vertices. But there is only one low-degree vertex in , a contradiction. Thus is bipartite. Let for . By and , we see that is non-bipartite.
Claim 3.
For , there exists a high-degree vertex such that forms a triangle in .
Proof.
Let be a shortest odd cycle in . By Claim 2, contains at most one high-degree vertex. Since contains exactly two low-degree vertices , has to be a triangle on for some high-degree vertex . ∎
By Claim 3, spans a clique of size in . Moreover, for each there exists a high-degree vertex such that is a triangle in .
Claim 4.
For each , .
Proof.
5 The Proof of Theorem 1.4
Proof of Theorem 1.4.
Let be a -free on vertices with
(5.1) |
If then we are done. Thus we may assume that
(5.2) |
and we are left to show that up to isomorphism. By Lemma 3.2, there exists with such that is a bipartite graph on partite sets with (i)-(vi) of Lemma 3.2 hold. Let
By Lemma 3.2 (iv), , , and . It follows that is partition of . Furthermore, we have
(5.3) |
Claim 5.
and are both independent sets of .
Proof.
Suppose not, by symmetry assume that . Since and , there are different vertices such that , contradicting (v) of Lemma 3.2. Thus is an independent set. Similarly, is an independent set. ∎
Claim 6.
and .
Proof.
Suppose that there exist , such that . Since and , one can find different vertices such that , contradicting Lemma 3.2 (v). Thus . Similarly, . ∎
Set , , , and . Clearly . Now we further partition to and such that and . Partition to , such that , and partition to , such that , . Let
Clearly, is a bi-partition of (as shown in Figure 1) and .
By Claim 6 we have . Using and (5.3), we obtain that
Similarly,
Note that
Similarly,
By the definitions of and , and .
Recall that . Then
Moreover,
and
Thus,
Using (2.1) and (2.2), we obtain that
By (2.3) and (2.4), we arrive at
Since
we have
Then,
(5.4) | ||||
(5.5) | ||||
(5.6) | ||||
Since is an increasing function and ,
Then we have equality in (5.4), (5.5), (5.6) and
(5.7) |
It follows that
Hence , and .
Recall that is partition of and . Let us define a different partition of and . Let and . Set , , and . Clearly, and . We partition into and such that and . Similarly, we partition into and such that and . Let
Clearly, is also a bi-partition of (as shown in Figure 2) and .
Claim 7.
If , then is an independent set and . Similarly, if , then is an independent set and .
Proof.
Suppose that there is an edge with and . By the definition of , there exists such that . Then be a path in . Note that , and . It leads to a contradiction with Lemma 3.2 (vi). Thus the claim holds. ∎
Claim 8.
.
Proof.
If , let , then by Lemma 3.2 (vi) we infer that or . If then one can interchange and , and , and , and , and . Thus by symmetry we may assume that . If then and are obvious. Thus in either case we may assume that .
By Claim 7, . By Claim 6 we have . By the definition of we have . Using , (5.3) and by Claim 5, Claim 7, we arrive at
Similarly, .
Since is almost balanced partition of vertices, we infer that . Note that each vertex in has exactly one neighbor in . Thus,
(5.8) |
Similarly,
(5.9) |
It is easy to see that
(5.10) | |||
(5.11) |
and . Adding (5.8), (5.9),(5.10) and (5.11), we get
(5.12) | ||||
Since
we conclude that and equality holds if and only if . ∎
Claim 9.
.
Proof.
Claim 10.
.
Proof.
Claim 11.
is a clique.
Proof.
Since . Moreover, is bipartite and , we have . By , we have
Thus forms a clique in . ∎
Claim 12.
Either or holds.
Proof.
Without loss generality, assume that . By (5.7) and Claims 9, 10 we obtain that . Similarly, if , then . That is, the equality (5.2) holds if and only if , or , . That is, or . Recall that . For each , there exists a unique vertex such that . Otherwise, one can find distinct vertices in (or ) such that , contradicting Lemma 3.2 (v). By Claim 11, forms a clique in . Thus, each vertex in is adjacent to the unique vertex in . Hence is isomorphic to a subgraph of . By the assumption (5.2) we infer that up to isomorphism and the theorem is proven. ∎
6 Concluding remarks
In this paper, we obtain an edge-stability result and a vertex-stability result for -free graphs with at least edges. It should be mention that Korándi, Roberts and Scott [12] proposed a challenging conjecture concerning -free graphs with edges.
For a graph , an -blowup is a graph obtained from by replacing each vertex with an independent set and replacing each edge by a complete bipartite graph. Let be a class of graphs consisting of all -blowups on vertices.
Conjecture 6.1 ([12]).
Fixed and let be small enough. Then for any and large enough , the following holds. For every -free graph on vertices with edges, there is a graph satisfying and .
We define a class of graphs on vertices as follows: a graph on vertices is in if has exactly one block (2-connected component) being complete bipartite and all the other blocks are cliques of size at most .
Conjecture 6.2.
Fixed and let be small enough. Then for any and large enough , the following holds. For every -free graph on vertices with edges, there is a graph satisfying and .
References
- [1] B. Bollobás, Extremal Graph Theory, Academic Press, New York, 1979.
- [2] B. Bollobás, E. Győri, Pentagons vs. triangles, Discrete Math. 308(19) (2008), 4332–4336.
- [3] J. A. Bondy, Pancyclic graphs I, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 11 (1971), 80–84.
- [4] J. A. Bondy, Large cycles in graphs, Discrete Math. 1 (1971), 121–132.
- [5] S. Brandt, R. Faudree, W. Goddard, Weakly pancyclic graphs. J. Graph Theory 27 (1998), 141-176.
- [6] T. Dzido, A note on Turán numbers for even wheels, Graphs Combin. 29 (2013), 1305–1309.
- [7] P. Erdős, L. Pósa, On the maximal number of disjoint circuits of a graph, Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen, 9 (1962), 3–12.
- [8] P. Erdős, T. Gallai, On maximal paths and circuits of graphs, Acta Math. Hungar 10 (1959), 337–356.
- [9] Z. Füredi, D.S. Gunderson, Extremal numbers for odd cycles, Combin. Probab. Comput. 24 (2015), 641–645.
- [10] R. Ha̋ggkvist, R. J. Faudree, R. H. Schelp, Pancyclic graphs–connected Ramsey number, Ars Combin. 11 (1981), 37–49.
- [11] G.R.T. Hendry, S. Brandt, An Extremal Problem for Cycles in Hamiltonian Graphs. Graphs Combin. 11 (1995), 255–262.
- [12] D. Korándi, A. Roberts, A. Scott, Exact Stability for Turán’s Theorem, Advances in Combinatorics 9 (2021), 17 pp.
- [13] W. Mantel, Problem 28, In Wiskundige Opgaven 10 (1907), 60–61.
- [14] M. Simonovits, Extremal graph problems with symmetrical extremal graphs. Additional chromatic conditions, Discrete Math. 7 (1974), 349–376.
- [15] P. Turán, Eine Extremalaufgabe aus der Graphentheorie, Mat. Fiz. Lapok 48 (1941), 436–452.
- [16] D. R. Woodall, Sufficient conditions for circuits in graphs, Proc. London Math. Soc. 24 (1972), 739–755.