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

The smallest spectral radius of bicyclic uniform hypergraphs with a given size

Haiying Shan,  Zhiyi Wang,  Feifei Wang School of Mathematical Sciences, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China ([email protected])School of Mathematical Sciences, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China ([email protected])School of Mathematical Sciences, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China ([email protected])
Abstract

Identifying graphs with extremal properties is an extensively studied topic in spectral graph theory. In this paper, we study the log-concavity of a type of iteration sequence related to the α\alpha-normal weighted incidence matrices which is presented by Lu and Man for computing the spectral radius of hypergraphs. By using results obtained about the sequence and the method of some edge operations, we will characterize completely extremal kk-graphs with the smallest spectral radius among bicyclic hypergraphs with given size.


Keywords: Bicyclic hypergraph, Spectral radius, Weighted incidence matrix, Log-concave sequence.

AMS subject classification 2010: 05C65, 05C50, 15A18.

1 Introduction

A hypergraph H=(V,E)H=(V,E) consists of a set VV of vertices and a collection EE of subsets of VV. We call a member of EE a hyperedge or simple an edge of HH. A hypergraph HH is kk-uniform if all of its edges are kk-subsets of V(H)V(H). We also simply call a kk-uniform hypergraph a kk-graph for brevity. Throughout this paper, we focus on simple kk-uniform hypergraphs with k3k\geq 3.

A hypergraph HH is a sub-hypergraph of GG if V(H)V(G)V(H)\subseteq V(G) and E(H)E(G)E(H)\subseteq E(G), and HH is a proper sub-hypergraph of GG if V(H)V(G)V(H)\subsetneq V(G) or E(H)E(G)E(H)\subsetneq E(G).

Let vv be a vertex of HH. We use EH(v)E_{H}(v) to denote the set consisting of edges of HH which are incident to vv, also written as E(v)E(v) for brevity. The cardinality of EH(v)E_{H}(v) is defined as the degree of the vertex vv, denoted dH(v)d_{H}(v) or d(v)d(v). A vertex of degree one is called a pendant vertex. For e=(v1,v2,,vk)E(H)e=(v_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{k})\in E(H), if there exists at least k1k-1 pendant vertices, we say ee is a pendant vertex of HH; if there exists at least one vertex of degree greater than 2 or three vertices of degree greater than 1, we say ee is a branch edge of HH.

In hypergraph theory, the most common definition of a cycle in a hypergraph is given by Berge (see [1]).

A Berge cycle of length \ell is a hypergraph 𝒞{\mathcal{C}} consisting of \ell distinct hyperedges e1,,ee_{1},...,e_{\ell} such that there exist \ell distinct vertices v1,,vv_{1},\dots,v_{\ell} satisfying that vi,vi+1eiv_{i},v_{i+1}\in e_{i} for each i=1,,1i=1,...,\ell-1 and v1,vev_{1},v_{\ell}\in e_{\ell}.

A Berge path of length \ell is a hypergraph 𝒫{\mathcal{P}} consisting of \ell distinct edges e1,,ee_{1},\dots,e_{\ell} such that there exist +1\ell+1 distinct vertices v1,,v+1v_{1},\dots,v_{\ell+1} satisfying that vi,vi+1eiv_{i},v_{i+1}\in e_{i} for i=1,,i=1,\ldots,\ell.

In graph theory, an internal path of a graph GG is a sequence of vertices u1,,unu_{1},\ldots,u_{n} such that all uiu_{i} are distinct, except possibly u1=unu1=u_{n}; the vertex degrees satisfy d(u1)3,d(u2)==d(un1)=2,d(un)3d(u_{1})\geq 3,d(u_{2})=\cdots=d(u_{n-1})=2,d(u_{n})\geq 3, and uiui+1E(G)u_{i}u_{i+1}\in E(G) for i=1,,n1i=1,\ldots,n-1.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a simple graph. The kk-th power hypergraph of GG is the kk-uniform hypergraph resulting from adding k2k-2 new vertices to each edge of GG. For the ordinary path and cycle with nn edges, the kk-th power of them are called loose path and loose cycle with length nn, denoted by n\mathbb{P}_{n} and n\mathbb{C}_{n}, respectively.

In the following, we will give a general definition of internal path for hypergraph.

Definition 1.1.

For hypergraph HH, let P=e0v1e1v2en1vnenP=e_{0}v_{1}e_{1}v_{2}\cdots e_{n-1}v_{n}e_{n} be a vertex edge alternating sequence of HH such that =v1e1v2en1vn\mathbb{P}=v_{1}e_{1}v_{2}\cdots e_{n-1}v_{n} is a loose path of hypergraph HH and dH(v1)=dH(vn)=2d_{H}(v_{1})=d_{H}(v_{n})=2, {e0,en}E(H)\{e_{0},e_{n}\}\subseteq E(H) (not necessarily distinct).

  1. (1).

    If e0e_{0} and ene_{n} are both branch edges, then PP is called hyper-internal path of HH and \mathbb{P} is called internal loose path.

  2. (2).

    If PP is a hyper-internal path and one of e0e_{0} and ene_{n} contains no vertex with degree more than 2, then PP is called hypo-internal path of HH.

In graph theory, the cyclomatic number of connected graph GG is |E(G)||V(G)|+1|E(G)|-|V(G)|+1, which corresponds to the number of independent (in the sense of linear independence in the so-called cycle space) cycles in GG. In [2], Fan et al. present a generalization of cyclomatic number for kk-uniform graph. Let HH be a kk-graph with nn vertices, mm edges, and pp connected components. The cyclomatic number of HH is denoted as c(H)c(H) and defined as c(H)=m(k1)n+pc(H)=m(k-1)-n+p. The connected hypergraph HH with c=c(H)c=c(H) is called a cc-cyclic hypergraph. In particular, 0-cyclic hypergraph, 11-cyclic hypergraph, 22-cyclic hypergraph, are called supertree, unicyclic kk-graph, bicyclic kk-graph, respectively.

A very important topic on spectral hypergraph theory is the characterization of hypergraphs with extremal values of the spectral radius in a given class of hypergraphs. The spectral radii of hypertrees are well studied in the literatures, see [3, 4, 5]. In [6], Linyuan Lu and Shoudong Man research the connected hypergraphs with small spectral radii and present the α\alpha-normal labeling method for comparing the spectral radii of connected kk-graphs.

In [2, 7], hypergraphs that attain the largest spectral radii among all unicyclic and bicyclic k-graphs are investigated. Recently, Zhang et al. determine the uniform hypergraphs of size mm with the first two smallest spectral radii [8].

Motivating by the preceding work on maximizing and ordering spectral radius, we will consider spectral extremal problems for bicyclic hypergraphs with given size in this paper.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we give some basic definitions and results for tensor and spectra of hypergraphs. In Section 3, a kind of iteration sequence of möbius transformation, which related with some weighted incidence matrix of hypergraph, is researched. We present an explicit expression of the sequence and some property on the convexity and log-concavity of the sequence is researched. In Section 4, effects on the spectral radius of hypergraph by graph operations are researched. In Section 5, the first smallest spectral radius of bicyclic hypergraph are determined.

2 Preliminaries

The definition of eigenvalues of a tensor was proposed in [9, 10], independently. Let 𝒜{\mathcal{A}} be an order kk dimension nn tensor. If there exists a number λ\lambda\in\mathbb{C} and a nonzero vector 𝐱=(x1,x2,,xn)Tn\mathbf{x}=(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{n} such that

𝒜𝐱=λ𝐱[r1],{\mathcal{A}}\mathbf{x}=\lambda\mathbf{x}^{[r-1]},

where 𝐱[r1]\mathbf{x}^{[r-1]} is a vector with ii-th entry xir1x_{i}^{r-1}, then λ\lambda is called an eigenvalue of 𝒜{\mathcal{A}}, 𝐱\mathbf{x} is called an eigenvector of 𝒜{\mathcal{A}} corresponding to the eigenvalue λ\lambda. The spectral radius of 𝒜{\mathcal{A}} is the maximum modulus of the eigenvalues of 𝒜{\mathcal{A}}, denoted by ρ(𝒜)\rho({\mathcal{A}}).

In 2012, Cooper and Dutle [11] defined the adjacency tensors for kk-uniform hypergraphs.

Definition 2.1 ([11]).

The adjacency tensor 𝒜(G)=(ai1ik)\mathcal{A}(G)=(a_{i_{1}\dots i_{k}}) of a kk-uniform hypergraph GG is defined to be an order kk dimension nn tensor with entries ai1ika_{i_{1}\dots i_{k}} such that

ai1ik={1(k1)!if {i1,i2,,ik}E(G),0otherwise.a_{i_{1}\dots i_{k}}=\begin{cases}\frac{1}{(k-1)!}&\text{if $\{i_{1},i_{2},\dots,i_{k}\}\in E(G)$},\\ 0&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}

The following result can be found in [11, 12] and will be used in the sequel.

Theorem 2.1.

Suppose that HH is a uniform hypergraph, and HH^{\prime} is a sub-hypergraph of HH. Then ρ(H)ρ(H)\rho(H^{\prime})\leq\rho(H). Furthermore, if in addition HH is connected and HH^{\prime} is a proper sub-hypergraph, we have ρ(H)<ρ(H)\rho(H^{\prime})<\rho(H).

Definition 2.2.

[6] A weighted incidence matrix BB of a hypergraph HH is a V×E\mid V\mid\times\mid E\mid matrix such that for any vertex vv and edge ee, the entry B(v,e)>0B(v,e)>0 if vev\in e and B(v,e)=0B(v,e)=0 if vev\notin e.

Let 𝒞m=v0e1v1e2emvm{\mathcal{C}}_{m}=v_{0}e_{1}v_{1}e_{2}\cdots e_{m}v_{m} (v0=vmv_{0}=v_{m}) be a Berge cycle of HH. For a weighted incidence matrix BB of HH, if

i=1mB(vi,ei)B(vi1,ei)=1,\prod_{i=1}^{m}\frac{B(v_{i},e_{i})}{B(v_{i-1},e_{i})}=1,

we say that BB is consistent with 𝒞m{\mathcal{C}}_{m}. If BB is consistent for any Berge cycle of HH, we say that BB is consistent for HH.

Definition 2.3.

[6] A hypergraph HH is called α\alpha-supernormal if there exists a weighted incidence matrix B satisfying

  1. (1).

    eE(v)B(v,e)1\sum\limits_{e\in E(v)}B(v,e)\geq 1, for any vV(H)v\in V(H),

  2. (2).

    veB(v,e)α\prod\limits_{v\in e}B(v,e)\leq\alpha, for any eE(H)e\in E(H).

If both equalities hold in above inequalities, HH is called α\alpha-normal. Otherwise, HH is called strictly α\alpha-supernormal. Furthermore, if BB is consistent, HH is called consistently α\alpha-supernormal.

Definition 2.4.

[6] A hypergraph HH is called α\alpha-subnormal if there exists a weighted incidence matrix B satisfying

  1. (1).

    eE(v)B(v,e)1\sum\limits_{e\in E(v)}B(v,e)\leq 1, for any vV(H)v\in V(H),

  2. (2).

    veB(v,e)α\prod\limits_{v\in e}B(v,e)\geq\alpha, for any eE(H)e\in E(H).

If one of above inequalities is strict, HH is called strictly α\alpha-subnormal.

Theorem 2.2.

[6] Let HH be a connected kk-uniform hypergraph. Then the following results hold:

  1. (1).

    ρ\rho is the spectral radius of HH if and only if HH is consistently α\alpha-normal with α=ρk\alpha=\rho^{-k}.

  2. (2).

    If HH is α\alpha-subnormal, ρα1k\rho\leq\alpha^{-\frac{1}{k}}. Moreover, if HH is strictly α\alpha-subnormal, ρ<α1k\rho<\alpha^{-\frac{1}{k}}.

  3. (3).

    If HH is strictly and consistently α\alpha-supernormal, ρ>α1k\rho>\alpha^{-\frac{1}{k}}.

Lemma 2.1.

Let HH be a connected kk-uniform hypergraph, and 𝐱\mathbf{x} be the principal eigenvector of HH. Define the weighted incidence matrix BB such that

B(v,e)={(iexixv)ρ(H)1 if ve,0otherwise.B(v,e)=\begin{cases}\displaystyle(\prod_{i\in e}\frac{x_{i}}{x_{v}})\rho(H)^{-1}&\text{ if }v\in e,\\ 0&\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}

Then HH is consistently α\alpha-normal, where α(H)=ρ(H)k\alpha(H)=\rho(H)^{-k}.

In the sequel, the weighted incidence matrix of hypergraph HH defined in Lemma 2.1 is denoted by BHB_{H}.

Definition 2.5.

Let \mathbb{P} be an internal path of length nn between w0w_{0} and wnw_{n} in hypergraph HH. Let e1,enE()e_{1},e_{n}\in E(\mathbb{P}) and w0e1,wnenw_{0}\in e_{1},w_{n}\in e_{n}, BB is a weighted incidence matrix of HH. Write x=B(w0,e1),y=B(wn,en)x=B(w_{0},e_{1}),y=B(w_{n},e_{n}).

We say that BB is (x,y)(x,y) α\alpha-normal on \mathbb{P}, if BB satisfies the following conditions:

  1. (1).

    eE(v)B(v,e)=1\sum\limits_{e\in E(v)}B(v,e)=1, for any vV(){w0,wn}v\in V(\mathbb{P})\setminus\{w_{0},w_{n}\},

  2. (2).

    veB(v,e)=α\prod\limits_{v\in e}B(v,e)=\alpha, for any eE()e\in E(\mathbb{P}).

Lemma 2.2.

Let e=(u1,u2,,uk),e′′=(v1,v2,,vk)e^{\prime}=(u_{1},u_{2},\dots,u_{k}),e^{\prime\prime}=(v_{1},v_{2},\dots,v_{k}) be two edges of kk-uniform hypergraph HH and BB be a weighted incidence matrix of HH.

  1. (1).

    Let P1P_{1} is a (u1,u2)(u_{1},u_{2})- internal loose path of HH. If BB is (x0,x0)(x_{0},x_{0}) α\alpha-normal for P1P_{1} and B(u1,e)=B(u2,e)=1x0B(u_{1},e^{\prime})=B(u_{2},e^{\prime})=1-x_{0}, then BB is consistent for cycle u1P1u2eu1u_{1}P_{1}u_{2}e^{\prime}u_{1}.

  2. (2).

    Let P1P_{1} is a (u1,v1)(u_{1},v_{1})- internal loose path and P2P_{2} is a (u2,v2)(u_{2},v_{2})- internal loose path of HH. For i=1,2i=1,2, if BB is (yi,yi)(y_{i},y_{i}) α\alpha-normal for PiP_{i} and B(ui,e)=B(vi,e′′)=1yiB(u_{i},e^{\prime})=B(v_{i},e^{\prime\prime})=1-y_{i}, then BB is consistent for cycle u1P1v1e′′v2P21u2eu1u_{1}P_{1}v_{1}e^{\prime\prime}v_{2}P^{-1}_{2}u_{2}e^{\prime}u_{1}.

Proof.

(1). Suppose P1=w0e1w1e2w2en1wn1enwnP_{1}=w_{0}e_{1}w_{1}e_{2}w_{2}\cdots e_{n-1}w_{n-1}e_{n}w_{n} and w0=u1,wn=u2w_{0}=u_{1},w_{n}=u_{2}. Let xi=B(wi,ei+1),xi=B(wi,ei)x_{i}=B(w_{i},e_{i+1}),x^{\prime}_{i}=B(w_{i},e_{i}) (i=1,2,,n1i=1,2,\ldots,n-1) and x0=B(w0,e1)x_{0}=B(w_{0},e_{1}), xn=B(wn,en)x^{\prime}_{n}=B(w_{n},e_{n}). Since BB is (x0,x0)(x_{0},x_{0}) α\alpha-normal for P1P_{1}, we have xnj=xjx^{\prime}_{n-j}=x_{j} for any j{0,1,,n}j\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}.

For Berge cycle u1P1u2eu1=w0e1w1e2w2en1wn1enwnew0u_{1}P_{1}u_{2}e^{\prime}u_{1}=w_{0}e_{1}w_{1}e_{2}w_{2}\cdots e_{n-1}w_{n-1}e_{n}w_{n}e^{\prime}w_{0}, we have

B(w0,e)B(wn,e)i=1nB(wi,ei)B(wi1,ei)=1.\frac{B(w_{0},e^{\prime})}{B(w_{n},e^{\prime})}\prod_{i=1}^{n}\frac{B(w_{i},e_{i})}{B(w_{i-1},e_{i})}=1.

So BB is consistent for cycle u1P1u2eu1u_{1}P_{1}u_{2}e^{\prime}u_{1}.

(2). Using similar arguments the result can be deduced from the conditions. ∎

3 On a kind of sequence obtained by iteration of Möbius transform

In this section, we will focus on the convexity and log-concavity of some sequences which are related with the α\alpha-normal weighted incidence matrices of hypergraphs. Proposition 3.1 of this section will play a key role in the proof of our main result (Theorem 5.4) of this paper.

Let HH be a connected kk-graph and n=w0e1w1e2w2en1wn1enwn\mathbb{P}_{n}=w_{0}e_{1}w_{1}e_{2}w_{2}\cdots e_{n-1}w_{n-1}e_{n}w_{n} be a loose path in kk-graph HH. Let BB be a α\alpha-normal weighted incidence matrix. Take xi=B(wi,ei+1)x_{i}=B(w_{i},e_{i+1}) (i=0,1,,n1i=0,1,\dots,n-1) and xn=eEH(v){en}B(v,e)\displaystyle x_{n}=\sum_{e\in E_{H}(v)\setminus\{e_{n}\}}B(v,e). Then we have: xi(1xi+1)=αx_{i}(1-x_{i+1})=\alpha for i=0,,n1i=0,\dots,n-1.

Hence, (xi)i=0n(x_{i})_{i=0}^{n} is finite portion of the following bi-infinite sequence (xi)i(x_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} such that

xn=f(xn1)=fn(x0) for n,x_{n}=f(x_{n-1})=f^{n}(x_{0})\text{ for }n\in\mathbb{Z}, (3.1)

where f(x)=1αxf(x)=1-\frac{\alpha}{x}, which is a special type of Möbius transform (see Section 1.2 of [13]).

ϕ(x)=x2x+α=0\phi(x)=x^{2}-x+\alpha=0 is called characteristic equation of the iterative sequence (xi)(x_{i}). The roots of ϕ(x)=0\phi(x)=0 are called the characteristic roots of the sequence (xi)(x_{i}).

When 0<α<140<\alpha<\frac{1}{4}, ϕ(x)\phi(x) have two distinct positive roots, denoted by r1,r2r_{1},r_{2}. Suppose r2<r1r_{2}<r_{1}. Let θ=arcosh(12α12)\theta=\operatorname{arcosh}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}). Then r1,r2r_{1},r_{2} can be written in the following form:

r1=αeθ,r2=αeθ.r_{1}=\sqrt{\alpha}e^{\theta},\qquad r_{2}=\sqrt{\alpha}e^{-\theta}.

Since 14α=1sech2(θ)=tanh2(θ)1-4\alpha=1-sech^{2}(\theta)=\tanh^{2}(\theta), r1,r2r_{1},r_{2} can be rewritten as:

r2=12(1tanh(θ)),r1=12(1+tanh(θ)).r_{2}=\frac{1}{2}(1-\tanh(\theta)),\qquad r_{1}=\frac{1}{2}(1+\tanh(\theta)).

For sequence (3.1), if there exists some integer jj such that xj=αx_{j}=\alpha, then xj+1=0x_{j+1}=0, xj+2=x_{j+2}=-\infty and xj+3=1x_{j+3}=1.

If the sequence (3.1) is positive sequence and there exist integers p,qp,q such that xp+xq=1x_{p}+x_{q}=1, we call that (xi)(x_{i}) is symmetric.

It is obvious that (xi)(x_{i}) is symmetric when x0=12,α=14x_{0}=\frac{1}{2},\alpha=\frac{1}{4}.

Lemma 3.1.

Let (xi)i(x_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} be the sequence mentioned above.

  1. (1).

    If α(0,14]\alpha\in(0,\frac{1}{4}] and x0(0,1]x_{0}\in(0,1], then

    xn=2cosh(θ)sinh((n+1)θ)x0sinh(nθ)2cosh(θ)(2cosh(θ)sinh(nθ)x0sinh((n1)θ)),x_{n}=\frac{2\cosh(\theta)\sinh((n+1)\theta)x_{0}-\sinh(n\theta)}{2\cosh(\theta)\big{(}2\cosh(\theta)\sinh(n\theta)x_{0}-\sinh((n-1)\theta)\big{)}},

    where θ=arcosh(12α12)\theta=\operatorname{arcosh}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}).

  2. (2).

    If ϕ(x0)<0\phi(x_{0})<0, then (xi)i(x_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} is strictly increasing and limixi=r1\displaystyle\lim_{i\to\infty}x_{i}=r_{1}.

  3. (3).

    If x0>r1x_{0}>r_{1}, then (xi)i(x_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} is strictly decreasing and limixi=r1\displaystyle\lim_{i\to\infty}x_{i}=r_{1}.

  4. (4).

    If x0<r2x_{0}<r_{2}, then there exists n0>0n_{0}>0 such that xn00x_{n_{0}}\leq 0 and (xi)i=0n01(x_{i})_{i=0}^{n_{0}-1} is positive decreasing sequence.

Proof.

(1). When α=14\alpha=\frac{1}{4}, θ=0\theta=0, for any integer nn, xn=12.x_{n}=\frac{1}{2}. The result holds.

When α14\alpha\neq\frac{1}{4}, as mentioned above, r1,r2r_{1},r_{2} be characteristic roots of sequence (xn)n(x_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}. By the formula (8) of [14], we have:

xn=\displaystyle x_{n}= (r1n+1r2n+1)x0r1r2(r1nr2n)(r1nr2n)x0r1r2(r1n1r2n1)\displaystyle\frac{(r_{1}^{n+1}-r_{2}^{n+1})x_{0}-r_{1}r_{2}(r_{1}^{n}-r_{2}^{n})}{(r_{1}^{n}-r_{2}^{n})x_{0}-r_{1}r_{2}(r_{1}^{n-1}-r_{2}^{n-1})}
=\displaystyle= 2cosh(θ)sinh((n+1)θ)x0sinh(nθ)2cosh(θ)(2cosh(θ)sinh(nθ)x0sinh((n1)θ)).\displaystyle\frac{2\cosh(\theta)\sinh((n+1)\theta)x_{0}-\sinh(n\theta)}{2\cosh(\theta)\big{(}2\cosh(\theta)\sinh(n\theta)x_{0}-\sinh((n-1)\theta)\big{)}}.

(2). Since ϕ(xi)<0\phi(x_{i})<0, ϕ(x)=0\phi(x)=0 have two distinct positive roots, denoted by r1,r2r_{1},r_{2} as before. So r2<xi<r1r_{2}<x_{i}<r_{1}. Because f(x),f1(x)f(x),f^{-1}(x) are strictly increasing functions in the interval (0,)(0,\infty), we have

r2=f(r2)<f(xi)<f(r1)=r1,r_{2}=f(r_{2})<f(x_{i})<f(r_{1})=r_{1},
r2=f1(r2)<f1(xi)<f1(r1)=r1.r_{2}=f^{-1}(r_{2})<f^{-1}(x_{i})<f^{-1}(r_{1})=r_{1}.

Therefore, r2<xi1<r1r_{2}<x_{i-1}<r_{1} and r2<xi+1<r1r_{2}<x_{i+1}<r_{1}.

So j\forall j\in\mathbb{Z}, r2<xj<r1r_{2}<x_{j}<r_{1}, ϕ(xj)<0\phi(x_{j})<0. xjf(xj)<0x_{j}-f(x_{j})<0 follows.

Since xj+1=f(xj)x_{j+1}=f(x_{j}), we have xj<xj+1x_{j}<x_{j+1} for any jj\in\mathbb{Z}.

Hence, (xi)(x_{i}) is strictly increasing bounded sequence. And limi+xi\displaystyle\lim_{i\to+\infty}x_{i} exists. Suppose limi+xi=z\displaystyle\lim_{i\to+\infty}x_{i}=z. It is clear that z>r2z>r_{2}. Next, we take limits as ii\to\infty on both sides of xi+1=f(xi)x_{i+1}=f(x_{i}). We have z=1αzz=1-\frac{\alpha}{z}. So zz is a root of ϕ(x)=0\phi(x)=0. Since z>r2z>r_{2}, z=r1z=r_{1} follows. That is, limixi=r1\displaystyle\lim_{i\to\infty}x_{i}=r_{1}.

(3) If xi>r1x_{i}>r_{1}, then ϕ(xi)>0\phi(x_{i})>0 and xi>f(xi)=xi+1>r1x_{i}>f(x_{i})=x_{i+1}>r_{1}. So (xi)i=0+(x_{i})_{i=0}^{+\infty} is a decreasing bounded positive sequence. So limixi\displaystyle\lim_{i\to\infty}x_{i} exists, denoted by rr. Furthermore, rr will be a root of ϕ(x)=0\phi(x)=0. From x0>r1x_{0}>r_{1}, we have rr1r\geq r_{1}. Since r1r_{1} is the maximal root of ϕ(x)\phi(x), we have r=r1r=r_{1}.

(4) If 0<xi<r20<x_{i}<r_{2}, then ϕ(xi)>0\phi(x_{i})>0 and xi>f(xi)=xi+1x_{i}>f(x_{i})=x_{i+1}. There must exist n0>0n_{0}>0 such that xn00x_{n_{0}}\leq 0. Otherwise, (xi)i=0+(x_{i})_{i=0}^{+\infty} is a bounded positive sequence. So limixi\displaystyle\lim_{i\to\infty}x_{i} exists, denoted by rr. Furthermore, rr will be a root of ϕ(x)=0\phi(x)=0. From x0<r2x_{0}<r_{2}, we have r<r2r<r_{2}, which contradicts that r2r_{2} is the minimal root of ϕ(x)\phi(x). The result follows.∎

Let

F(n,x0)=\displaystyle F(n,x_{0})= 2cosh(θ)sinh((n+1)θ)x0sinh(nθ)2cosh(θ)(2cosh(θ)sinh(nθ)x0sinh((n1)θ)).\displaystyle\frac{2\cosh(\theta)\sinh((n+1)\theta)x_{0}-\sinh(n\theta)}{2\cosh(\theta)\big{(}2\cosh(\theta)\sinh(n\theta)x_{0}-\sinh((n-1)\theta)\big{)}}.

For the sake of brevity, take p(n)=2cosh(θ)sinh((n+1)θ)x0sinh(nθ).p(n)=2\cosh(\theta)\sinh((n+1)\theta)x_{0}-\sinh(n\theta). Then

F(n,x0)=p(n)2cosh(θ)p(n1).F(n,x_{0})=\frac{p(n)}{2\cosh(\theta)p(n-1)}.

Suppose the sequence (xi)i(x_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} is symmetric. Without loss of generality, suppose xp+xq=1x_{p}+x_{q}=1 (p=q+lp=q+l\in\mathbb{Z}, l0l\geq 0). Take yi=xiqy_{i}=x_{i-q}. Then (yi)i(y_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} is an iteration sequence of f(x)=1αxf(x)=1-\frac{\alpha}{x} with initial value y0y_{0}. By (1) of Lemma 3.1, we have yn=F(n,y0)y_{n}=F(n,y_{0}) for all nn\in\mathbb{Z}.

For xp+xq=1x_{p}+x_{q}=1, y0+yl=1y_{0}+y_{l}=1. So y0+F(l,y0)=1y_{0}+F(l,y_{0})=1. Namely, y0y_{0} is a root of the equation x+F(l,x)=1x+F(l,x)=1.

Furthermore, we have the following conclusion:

Theorem 3.1.

Let (yi)i(y_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} be the symmetric sequence mentioned as above.

  1. (1).

    For any ss\in\mathbb{Z}, we have yl+s+ys=1y_{l+s}+y_{-s}=1.

  2. (2).

    If 0<α<140<\alpha<\frac{1}{4}, then (yi)i(y_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} is strictly increasing bounded sequence with r2<yi<r1r_{2}<y_{i}<r_{1} for any ii and limi+yi=r1\displaystyle\lim_{i\to+\infty}y_{i}=r_{1}.

  3. (3).

    For 0<α<140<\alpha<\frac{1}{4}, y0y_{0} is the largest root of x+F(l,x)=1x+F(l,x)=1 and

    y0=12(1tanh(θ)tanh(lθ2)).y_{0}=\frac{1}{2}\bigg{(}1-\tanh(\theta)\tanh\left(\frac{l\theta}{2}\right)\bigg{)}.
Proof.

(1). It is sufficient to show that if there exist integers p,qp,q such that yp+yq=1y_{p}+y_{q}=1, then yp+1+yq1=1y_{p+1}+y_{q-1}=1.

For f(x)=1αxf(x)=1-\frac{\alpha}{x}, we have
yp+1=f(yp)=1αyp,yq1=f1(yq)=α1yq=αypy_{p+1}=f(y_{p})=1-\frac{\alpha}{y_{p}},y_{q-1}=f^{-1}(y_{q})=\frac{\alpha}{1-y_{q}}=\frac{\alpha}{y_{p}}. So yp+1+yq1=1y_{p+1}+y_{q-1}=1.
Since y0+yl=1y_{0}+y_{l}=1, yl+s+yl=1y_{l+s}+y_{-l}=1 holds for any ss\in\mathbb{Z}.

(2). Take t=l2t=\lfloor\frac{l}{2}\rfloor. From (1), ylt+yt=1y_{l-t}+y_{t}=1 holds. So

yt={α if l is odd,12otherwise.y_{t}=\begin{cases}\sqrt{\alpha}&\text{ if $l$ is odd},\\ \frac{1}{2}&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}

Hence, r2<α<12<r1r_{2}<\sqrt{\alpha}<\frac{1}{2}<r_{1} and ϕ(yt)<0\phi(y_{t})<0.

The result follows from (2) of Lemma 3.1.

(3). Since y0y_{0} is a root of x+F(l,x)=1x+F(l,x)=1, By (1) of Lemma 3.1, y0y_{0} is a root of the following equation:

2cosh(θ)sinh((l+1)θ)xsinh(lθ)2cosh(θ)(2cosh(θ)sinh(lθ)xsinh((l1)θ))+x=1,\frac{2\cosh(\theta)\sinh((l+1)\theta)x-\sinh(l\theta)}{2\cosh(\theta)\big{(}2\cosh(\theta)\sinh(l\theta)x-\sinh((l-1)\theta)\big{)}}+x=1,

which has the same roots as the following quadratic equation

x2sinh((l1)θ)sinh(lθ)cosh(θ)x+sinh((l2)θ))4sinh(lθ)cosh2(θ)=0.x^{2}-\frac{\sinh((l-1)\theta)}{\sinh(l\theta)\cosh(\theta)}x+\frac{\sinh((l-2)\theta))}{4\sinh(l\theta)\cosh^{2}(\theta)}=0.

Let Δ\Delta be the discriminant of above quadratic equations. Then

Δ=sinh2((l1)θ)sinh(lθ)sinh((l2)θ)sinh(lθ)cosh(θ)=sinh(θ)sinh(lθ)cosh(θ).\sqrt{\Delta}=\frac{\sqrt{\sinh^{2}((l-1)\theta)-\sinh(l\theta)\sinh((l-2)\theta)}}{\sinh(l\theta)\cosh(\theta)}=\frac{\sinh(\theta)}{\sinh(l\theta)\cosh(\theta)}.

By the quadratic formula we obtained the two roots of above equation:

ν0=sinh((l1)θ)sinh(θ)2sinh(lθ)cosh(θ),ν1=sinh((l1)θ)+sinh(θ)2sinh(lθ)cosh(θ).\nu_{0}=\frac{\sinh((l-1)\theta)-\sinh(\theta)}{2\sinh(l\theta)\cosh(\theta)},\quad\nu_{1}=\frac{\sinh((l-1)\theta)+\sinh(\theta)}{2\sinh(l\theta)\cosh(\theta)}.

Next, we will complete the proof of (2) by showing that y0=ν1y_{0}=\nu_{1}.

Since r2<y0<r1r_{2}<y_{0}<r_{1}, to show y0=ν1y_{0}=\nu_{1}, it is efficient to prove that ν0<r2\nu_{0}<r_{2}.

Since r2=12(1tanh(θ))r_{2}=\frac{1}{2}(1-\tanh(\theta)), we have

ν0<r2\displaystyle\nu_{0}<r_{2}
\displaystyle\iff sinh((l1)θ)sinh(θ)<(cosh(θ)sinh(θ))sinh(lθ)\displaystyle\sinh((l-1)\theta)-\sinh(\theta)<(\cosh(\theta)-\sinh(\theta))\sinh(l\theta)
\displaystyle\iff sinh(θ)<(cosh(lθ)sinh(lθ))sinh(θ).\displaystyle-\sinh(\theta)<(\cosh(l\theta)-\sinh(l\theta))\sinh(\theta).

Since θ=arcosh(12α12)>0\theta=\operatorname{arcosh}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}})>0, the last condition holds. So

y0=ν1=sinh((l1)θ)+sinh(θ)2sinh(lθ)cosh(θ).y_{0}=\nu_{1}=\frac{\sinh((l-1)\theta)+\sinh(\theta)}{2\sinh(l\theta)\cosh(\theta)}.

This formula can be rewritten as

y0=12(1tanh(θ)tanh(lθ2)).y_{0}=\frac{1}{2}(1-\tanh(\theta)\tanh(\frac{l\theta}{2})).\qed

In the sequel, we always write

F0(x)=12(1tanh(θ)tanh(xθ2))F_{0}(x)=\frac{1}{2}(1-\tanh(\theta)\tanh(\frac{x\theta}{2}))

and

F0(x)=1F0(x)=12(1+tanh(θ)tanh(xθ2)).F_{0}^{*}(x)=1-F_{0}(x)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\tanh(\theta)\tanh(\frac{x\theta}{2})).

Consequently, y0=F0(l)=F0(l)y_{0}=F_{0}(l)=F_{0}^{*}(-l) and F0(x)=F0(x)F_{0}(x)=F_{0}^{*}(-x).

From (1) and (3) of Theorem 3.1, we have

ys=F0(l+2s).y_{-s}=F_{0}(l+2s). (3.2)

Furthermore, we have the following Corollary.

Corollary 3.1.

(xi)i(x_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} is the symmetric sequence defined as (3.1). Without loss of generality, suppose xp+xq=1x_{p}+x_{q}=1 (l0,p=q+ll\geq 0,p=q+l\in\mathbb{Z}). Then
for α(0,14]\alpha\in(0,\frac{1}{4}], xnx_{n} can be expressed as:

xn=F0(2npq).x_{n}=F^{*}_{0}(2n-p-q).
Proof.

Take yi=xiqy_{i}=x_{i-q}. Then (yi)i(y_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} is the iteration sequence of f(x)=1αxf(x)=1-\frac{\alpha}{x} with initial value y0y_{0}. Since xp+xq=1x_{p}+x_{q}=1, y0+yl=1y_{0}+y_{l}=1.

By (3.2), we have

xn=ynq=F0(l2(nq))=F0(p+q2n)=F0(2npq).x_{n}=y_{n-q}=F_{0}(l-2(n-q))=F_{0}(p+q-2n)=F_{0}^{*}(2n-p-q).\qed

The remainder of this section is dedicated to the study of the convexity of F0(x)F_{0}(x) and the log-concavity of F0(x)F_{0}^{*}(x).

Definition 3.1.

A function ff is log-concave on II\subseteq\mathbb{R}, if f(x)0f(x)\geq 0 for all xIx\in I and the function xlogf(x)x\mapsto logf(x) is concave on II.

It is well known (see [15]) that

Theorem 3.2.

Let FF be positive function on II\in\mathbb{R}. Then the function

φ(x1,,xn)=i=1nF(xi)\varphi\left(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}\right)=\prod_{i=1}^{n}F\left(x_{i}\right)

is Schur-concave if and only if FF is log-concave.

Theorem 3.3.

Let F0(x)F_{0}(x) and F0(x)F_{0}^{*}(x) be as defined above, then

  1. (1).

    F0(x)F_{0}(x) is strictly decreasing and convex in the interval (0,+)(0,+\infty);

  2. (2).

    F0(x)F_{0}^{*}(x) is strictly increasing and concave in (0,+)(0,+\infty) and log-concave in [1,+)[-1,+\infty).

Proof.

(1). For F0(n)=12(1tanh(θ)tanh(nθ2))F_{0}(n)=\frac{1}{2}(1-\tanh(\theta)\tanh(\frac{n\theta}{2})), by simple computation, we have

F0(x)=θ4tanh(θ)sech2(xθ2)F_{0}(x)^{\prime}=-\frac{\theta}{4}\tanh(\theta)\operatorname{sech}^{2}(\frac{x\theta}{2})

and

F0(x)′′=θ24tanh(θ)tanh(xθ2)sech2(xθ2).F_{0}(x)^{\prime\prime}=\frac{\theta^{2}}{4}\tanh(\theta)\tanh(\frac{x\theta}{2})\operatorname{sech}^{2}(\frac{x\theta}{2}).

Since θ>0\theta>0, F0(x)<0F_{0}(x)^{\prime}<0 and F0(x)′′>0F_{0}(x)^{\prime\prime}>0 on (0,+)(0,+\infty). So F0(x)F_{0}(x) is strictly decreasing and convex in the interval (0,+)(0,+\infty).

(2). Since F0(x)=1F0(x)F_{0}^{*}(x)=1-F_{0}(x), from (1), it follows that F0(x)F_{0}^{*}(x) is strictly increasing and concave in the interval (0,+)(0,+\infty).

Since

F0(x)\displaystyle F^{*}_{0}(x) =sinh((x+1)θ)sinh(θ)2sinh(xθ)cosh(θ)\displaystyle=\frac{\sinh((x+1)\theta)-\sinh(\theta)}{2\sinh(x\theta)\cosh(\theta)}
=12(1+tanh(θ)tanh(xθ2)).\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}(1+\tanh(\theta)\tanh(\frac{x\theta}{2})).

Let f(x)=log(F0(x))f^{*}(x)=log(F^{*}_{0}(x)). We have

f(x)=θ(cosh(θx)1)sinh(θ)(sinh(θ(x+1))sinh(θ))sinh(θx)=θsinh(θ)tanh(xθ2)(sinh(θ(x+1))sinh(θ))f^{*}(x)^{\prime}=\frac{\theta{(\cosh(\theta x)-1)}\sinh(\theta)}{{(\sinh(\theta{(x+1)})-\sinh(\theta))}\sinh(\theta x)}=\frac{\theta\sinh(\theta)\tanh(\frac{x\theta}{2})}{{(\sinh(\theta{(x+1)})-\sinh(\theta))}}

and

f(x)′′=(θtanh(12θx))2sinh(θ(x+1))sinh(θ)(sinh(θ(x+1))sinh(θ))2.f^{*}(x)^{\prime\prime}=-\frac{(\theta\tanh(\frac{1}{2}\theta x))^{2}\sinh(\theta{(x+1)})\sinh(\theta)}{(\sinh(\theta{(x+1)})-\sinh(\theta))^{2}}.

For θ>0\theta>0, x>1x>-1, we have f(x)′′<0f^{*}(x)^{\prime\prime}<0. So F0(x)F_{0}^{*}(x) is log-concave in [1,+)[-1,+\infty). ∎

Proposition 3.1.

Suppose a,b,c,da,b,c,d are real numbers such that 0a<bc<d0\leq a<b\leq c<d, then

  1. (1).

    If a+d=b+ca+d=b+c, we have F0(a)F0(d)<F0(b)F0(c)F_{0}^{*}(a)F_{0}^{*}(d)<F_{0}^{*}(b)F_{0}^{*}(c);

  2. (2).

    F0(b)F0(a)<F0(0)F0(ba)F_{0}^{*}(b)F_{0}^{*}(-a)<F_{0}^{*}(0)F_{0}^{*}(b-a).

Proof.

(1). From (2) of Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 3.2, the assertion (1) holds.

(2). From F0(x)+F0(x)=1F_{0}^{*}(-x)+F_{0}^{*}(x)=1 and 0F0(x),F0(x)<10\leq F_{0}^{*}(-x),F_{0}^{*}(x)<1, we have F0(a)F0(a)(F0(a)+F0(a)2)2=14F_{0}^{*}(a)F_{0}^{*}(-a)\leq(\frac{F_{0}^{*}(a)+F_{0}^{*}(-a)}{2})^{2}=\frac{1}{4}.

Using (2) of Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 3.2, we have
F0(b)=2F0(0)F0(b)<2F0(ba)F0(a)F_{0}^{*}(b)=2F_{0}^{*}(0)F_{0}^{*}(b)<2F_{0}^{*}(b-a)F_{0}^{*}(a).

So

F0(b)F0(a)\displaystyle F_{0}^{*}(b)F_{0}^{*}(-a) <2F0(ba)F0(a)F0(a)\displaystyle<2F_{0}^{*}(b-a)F_{0}^{*}(a)F_{0}^{*}(-a)
<12F0(ba)=F0(0)F0(ba).\displaystyle<\frac{1}{2}F_{0}^{*}(b-a)=F_{0}^{*}(0)F_{0}^{*}(b-a).

The assertion (2) holds. ∎

4 The effect on the spectral radii of uniform hypergraphs by some graph operations

In the study of spectral graph theory, the effects on the spectrum are observed when some operations, such as edge moving, edge subdividing, are applied to the graph. In this section, we study the effects on spectral radii of kk-graphs under the operations:vertex-splitting and vertex-releasing operations.

Definition 4.1 (Edge moving operation [16]).

For k2k\geq 2, let GG be a kk-uniform hypergraph with u,v1,,vrV(G)u,v_{1},\dots,v_{r}\in V(G) and e1,,erE(G)e_{1},\dots,e_{r}\in E(G) for r1r\geq 1 such that ueiu\notin e_{i} and vieiv_{i}\in e_{i} for i=1,,ri=1,\dots,r, where v1,,vrv_{1},\dots,v_{r} are not necessarily distinct. Let ei=(ei\{vi}){u}e^{\prime}_{i}=(e_{i}\backslash\{v_{i}\})\cup\{u\} for i=1,,ri=1,\dots,r. Suppose that eiE(G)e^{\prime}_{i}\notin E(G) for i=1,,ri=1,\dots,r. Let G=G{e1,,er}+{e1,,er}G^{\prime}=G-\{e_{1},\dots,e_{r}\}+\{e^{\prime}_{1},\dots,e^{\prime}_{r}\}. Then we say that GG^{\prime} is obtained from GG by moving edges (e1,,er)(e_{1},\ldots,e_{r}) from (v1,,vr)(v_{1},\ldots,v_{r}) to uu.

The following Lemma is a special case of Corollary 2.1 in [16].

Lemma 4.1.

Let u1,u2u_{1},u_{2} are non-pendant vertices in an edge of connected uniform hypergraph HH with |EH(ui)(EH(u1)EH(u2))|1|E_{H}(u_{i})\setminus(E_{H}(u_{1})\cap E_{H}(u_{2}))|\geq 1 for i=1,2i=1,2. Let HH^{\prime} be the hypergraph obtained from HH by moving edges EH(u2)(EH(u1)EH(u2))E_{H}(u_{2})\setminus(E_{H}(u_{1})\cap E_{H}(u_{2})) from u2u_{2} to u1u_{1} and HHH\ncong H^{\prime}, then

ρ(H)<ρ(H).\rho(H)<\rho(H^{\prime}).
Corollary 4.1.

Let HH be a connected kk-graph, EH(v)={e1,e2,,es}E_{H}(v)=\{e_{1},e_{2},\ldots,e_{s}\} (s3s\geq 3), ue2u\in e_{2} and dH(u)=1d_{H}(u)=1. Take H=He1+e1H^{\prime}=H-e_{1}+e^{\prime}_{1}, where e1=e1{v}+{u}e^{\prime}_{1}=e_{1}-\{v\}+\{u\}. Then α(H)>α(H)\alpha(H^{\prime})>\alpha(H).

Proof.

Since uu and vv are vertices with degree at least 2 in HH^{\prime}. Let HH^{\prime} be the hypergraph obtained by moving ee^{\prime} from uu to vv, then HHH^{\prime}\cong H. By Lemma 4.1, we have α(H)>α(H)\alpha(H^{\prime})>\alpha(H). ∎

Definition 4.2 (vertex-splitting operation).

Let ww be a vertex of a hypergraph HH and HH^{\prime} be the hypergraph obtained by replacing ww with an edge e=(u1,u2,,uk)e=(u_{1},u_{2},\dots,u_{k}) in such a way that some vertices adjacent to ww are now adjacent to u1u_{1} and the rest are adjacent to uku_{k}. dH(u1)+dH(uk)=dH(w)+2d_{H^{\prime}}(u_{1})+d_{H^{\prime}}(u_{k})=d_{H}(w)+2 and dH(u2)==dH(uk1)=1d_{H^{\prime}}(u_{2})=\cdots=d_{H^{\prime}}(u_{k-1})=1. Then HH^{\prime} is said to be obtained from HH by splitting vertex ww.

Lemma 4.2.

Let ww be a vertex with degree 2 of connected kk-graph HH. Suppose EH(w)={e1,e2}E_{H}(w)=\{e_{1},e_{2}\} and HH^{\prime} be the kk-graph obtained from HH by splitting vertex ww. Let α=α(H),ϕ(x)=x2x+α\alpha=\alpha(H),\phi(x)=x^{2}-x+\alpha. If ϕ(BH(w,e1))<0\phi(B_{H}(w,e_{1}))<0, then
α(H)<α(H)\alpha(H)<\alpha(H^{\prime}) and ρ(H)<ρ(H)\rho(H^{\prime})<\rho(H).

Proof.

Suppose that e1,e2e^{\prime}_{1},e^{\prime}_{2} are new edges obtained from e1e_{1} and e2e_{2} and e0=(u1,u2,,uk)e_{0}=(u_{1},u_{2},\dots,u_{k}) be the new edge of HH^{\prime} which obtained from ww during the process of splitting vertex ww. Then e1=(e1{w}){u1}e^{\prime}_{1}=(e_{1}\setminus\{w\})\cup\{u_{1}\} and e2=(e2{w}){uk}e^{\prime}_{2}=(e_{2}\setminus\{w\})\cup\{u_{k}\}. Take BB be a weighted incidence matrix of HH^{\prime} such that

B(v,e)={BH(v,e) for e{e0,e1,e2} and ve0e1e2,BH(v,e) for e{e1,e2} and v(e1e2){u1,uk},BH(w,e1) for (v,e){(u1,e1),(uk,e0)},BH(w,e2) for (v,e){(uk,e2),(u1,e0)},1 for (v,e){(ui,e0)2ik1}.B(v,e)=\begin{cases}B_{H}(v,e)&\text{ for $e\not\in\{e_{0},e^{\prime}_{1},e^{\prime}_{2}\}$ and $v\not\in e_{0}\cup e^{\prime}_{1}\cup e^{\prime}_{2}$},\\ B_{H}(v,e)&\text{ for $e\in\{e^{\prime}_{1},e^{\prime}_{2}\}$ and $v\in(e^{\prime}_{1}\cup e^{\prime}_{2})\setminus\{u_{1},u_{k}\}$},\\ B_{H}(w,e_{1})&\text{ for $(v,e)\in\{(u_{1},e^{\prime}_{1}),(u_{k},e_{0})\}$},\\ B_{H}(w,e_{2})&\text{ for $(v,e)\in\{(u_{k},e^{\prime}_{2}),(u_{1},e_{0})\}$},\\ 1&\text{ for $(v,e)\in\{(u_{i},e_{0})\mid 2\leq i\leq k-1\}$.}\end{cases}

Then vV(H)\forall v\in V(H^{\prime}) and eE(H){e0}\forall e\in E(H^{\prime})\setminus\{e_{0}\}, we have

eEH(v)B(v,e)=1 and veB(v,e)=α.\sum_{e\in E_{H^{\prime}}(v)}B(v,e)=1\text{ and }\prod_{v\in e}B(v,e)=\alpha.

Since BH(w,e1)+BH(w,e2)=1,ϕ(BH(w,e1))<0B_{H}(w,e_{1})+B_{H}(w,e_{2})=1,\phi(B_{H}(w,e_{1}))<0, BH(w,e1)BH(w,e2)>r1r2=αB_{H}(w,e_{1})B_{H}(w,e_{2})>r_{1}r_{2}=\alpha holds. Consequently, ve0B(v,e0)=BH(w,e1)BH(w,e2)>α\displaystyle\prod_{v\in e_{0}}B(v,e_{0})=B_{H}(w,e_{1})B_{H}(w,e_{2})>\alpha.

So HH^{\prime} is α\alpha-subnormal. By (2) of Theorem 2.2, we have α(H)<α(H)\alpha(H)<\alpha(H^{\prime}) and ρ(H)<ρ(H)\rho(H^{\prime})<\rho(H). ∎

Proposition 4.1.

Let e=(v1,v2,,vk)e=(v_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{k}) be an edge of connected kk-graph HH with d(v1)2d(v_{1})\geq 2 and BB be the α\alpha-normal weighted incidence matrix of HH, then

  1. (1).

    αB(v1,e)1α\alpha\leq B(v_{1},e)\leq 1-\alpha;

  2. (2).

    if d(v1)2,d(v2)2,d(v3)2d(v_{1})\geq 2,d(v_{2})\geq 2,d(v_{3})\geq 2, then B(v1,e)α(1α)2B(v_{1},e)\geq\frac{\alpha}{(1-\alpha)^{2}}.

Proof.

(1). Let e=(v1,v2,,vk)e=(v_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{k}) and v1eev_{1}\in e\cap e^{\prime}.
By the definition of α\alpha-normal weighted incidence matrix, we have:
i=1kB(vi,e)=α\prod_{i=1}^{k}B(v_{i},e)=\alpha and 0<B(vi,e)10<B(v_{i},e)\leq 1.
So αB(v1,e)\alpha\leq B(v_{1},e). Similarly, αB(v1,e)\alpha\leq B(v_{1},e^{\prime}).

Since eEH(v)B(v,e)=1\displaystyle\sum_{e\in E_{H}(v)}B(v,e)=1, we have B(v1,e)1B(v1,e)1αB(v_{1},e)\leq 1-B(v_{1},e^{\prime})\leq 1-\alpha.

(2). From (1), we have
B(e,v)=αue{v}B(u,e)αB(v2,e)B(v3,e)α(1α)2\displaystyle B(e,v)=\frac{\alpha}{\prod\limits_{u\in e\setminus\{v\}}B(u,e)}\geq\frac{\alpha}{B(v_{2},e)B(v_{3},e)}\geq\frac{\alpha}{(1-\alpha)^{2}}. ∎

Let

α=1/3(4c1/3c1/3)0.24512233,\alpha^{*}=1/3(4-c^{1/3}-c^{-1/3})\approx 0.24512233,

where c=(369+25)/2c=(3\sqrt{69}+25)/2. Then α\alpha^{*} is the unique root of the following equations in the interval (0,1)(0,1) :

(1x)5=x,\displaystyle(1-x)^{5}=x,
(1x)2+(1x)3=1,\displaystyle(1-x)^{2}+(1-x)^{3}=1,
x(1x)2+(1x)4=0,\displaystyle x-(1-x)^{2}+(1-x)^{4}=0, (4.1)
(12(1+14x))2(1x)x=0.\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{1-4x})\right)^{2}(1-x)-x=0. (4.2)
Claim 1.

For 0<α<140<\alpha<\frac{1}{4}, take r1>r2r_{1}>r_{2} be the two roots of ϕ(x)=x2x+α=0\phi(x)=x^{2}-x+\alpha=0. We have

α(1α)2>r2α<α.\frac{\alpha}{(1-\alpha)^{2}}>r_{2}\iff\alpha<\alpha^{*}.
Proof.

Since 0<α<140<\alpha<\frac{1}{4}, we have r1>12>α(1α)2r_{1}>\frac{1}{2}>\frac{\alpha}{(1-\alpha)^{2}}. Then

α(1α)2>r2\displaystyle\frac{\alpha}{(1-\alpha)^{2}}>r_{2} ϕ(α(1α)2)<0\displaystyle\iff\phi(\frac{\alpha}{(1-\alpha)^{2}})<0
α(1α)2+(1α)4<0.\displaystyle\iff\alpha-(1-\alpha)^{2}+(1-\alpha)^{4}<0.

Since α\alpha^{*} is the unique root of equation (4.1) in the interval (0,1)(0,1), the claim follows. ∎

Lemma 4.3.

Let n=v1e1v2vnenv1\mathbb{C}_{n}=v_{1}e_{1}v_{2}\cdots v_{n}e_{n}v_{1} be a loose cycle with vertex uenu\in e_{n} and d(u)=1d(u)=1. We use n\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n}, n\mathbb{C}^{{}^{\prime}}_{n} to denote the kk-graph obtained from n\mathbb{C}_{n} by attaching a pendent edge to vertex uu and vv, respectively. We have

α(n)<α(n)<α.\alpha(\mathbb{C}^{{}^{\prime}}_{n})<\alpha(\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n})<\alpha^{*}.
Proof.

Let αn=α(n)\alpha_{n}=\alpha(\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n}), B=BnB=B_{\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n}} and yi=B(vi,ei)y_{i}=B(v_{i},e_{i}) for i=1,,ni=1,\dots,n.

Since n\mathbb{C}_{n} is a proper subgraph of n\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n}, we have αn<α(n)=14\alpha_{n}<\alpha(\mathbb{C}_{n})=\frac{1}{4}.

Then we have y1+yn=1y_{1}+y_{n}=1 and (yi)i=1n(y_{i})_{i=1}^{n} is a symmetric sequence. According to Theorem 3.1, ϕ(B(v1,e1)<0\phi(B(v_{1},e_{1})<0. Let HH be kk-graph obtained from n\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n} by splitting vertex v1v_{1}. It is clear that Hn+1H\cong\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n+1}. By Lemma 4.2, we have α(n+1)>α(n)\alpha(\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n+1})>\alpha(\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n}). Namely, (αi)i=2+(\alpha_{i})_{i=2}^{+\infty} is a strictly increasing bounded sequence. So limi+αi\displaystyle\lim_{i\to+\infty}\alpha_{i} exists. Suppose limi+αi=α\displaystyle\lim_{i\to+\infty}\alpha_{i}=\alpha. Let θn=arcosh(12αn12),θ=limnθn\displaystyle\theta_{n}=\operatorname{arcosh}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n}^{-\frac{1}{2}}),\theta=\lim_{n\to\infty}\theta_{n}. Because BB is the αn\alpha_{n}-normal weighted incidence matrix of n\mathbb{C}_{n}^{*}, from Theorem 3.1 it follows that θn\theta_{n} is the root of the following equation:

14(1+tanh(θn)tanh((n1)θn2))2(1αn)=αn.\frac{1}{4}\bigg{(}1+\tanh(\theta_{n})\tanh\left(\frac{(n-1)\theta_{n}}{2}\right)\bigg{)}^{2}(1-\alpha_{n})=\alpha_{n}.

We take limits as ii\to\infty on both sides of above equation. We get

14(1+tanh(θ))2(1α)=α.\frac{1}{4}\bigg{(}1+\tanh(\theta)\bigg{)}^{2}(1-\alpha)=\alpha.

That is r12(1α)=αr_{1}^{2}(1-\alpha)=\alpha, where r1r_{1} is the largest root of x2x+α=0x^{2}-x+\alpha=0. From equation (4.2), we have α=α\alpha=\alpha^{*}. So αn<α\alpha_{n}<\alpha^{*}. From Lemma 4.2, α(n)<α(n)\alpha(\mathbb{C}^{{}^{\prime}}_{n})<\alpha(\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n}). So

α(n)<α(n)<α.\alpha(\mathbb{C}^{{}^{\prime}}_{n})<\alpha(\mathbb{C}^{*}_{n})<\alpha^{*}.

This result follows.∎

Theorem 4.1.

Suppose n0n\geq 0. Let e,e′′e^{\prime},e^{\prime\prime} be two edges of connected kk-graph HH and w0e,wne′′,dH(w0)=dH(wn)=2w_{0}\in e^{\prime},w_{n}\in e^{\prime\prime},d_{H}(w_{0})=d_{H}(w_{n})=2, e,e′′e^{\prime},e^{\prime\prime} both contains at least three vertices with degrees exceeding 1. n\mathbb{P}_{n} is an internal path of HH between w0w_{0} and wnw_{n}. Let HH^{\prime} be a kk-graph obtained from HH by splitting vertex w0w_{0}.
If α(H)<α\alpha(H)<\alpha^{*}, then ρ(H)<ρ(H)\rho(H)<\rho(H^{\prime}).

Proof.

Suppose n=w0e1w1e2w2en1wn1enwn\mathbb{P}_{n}=w_{0}e_{1}w_{1}e_{2}w_{2}\cdots e_{n-1}w_{n-1}e_{n}w_{n}.

Write xi=B(wi,ei+1),xi=B(wi,ei)x_{i}=B(w_{i},e_{i+1}),x^{\prime}_{i}=B(w_{i},e_{i}) for i{1,,n1}i\in\{1,\ldots,n-1\} and
x0=B(w0,e1),xn=B(wn,e′′),x0=B(w0,e),xn=B(wn,en)x_{0}=B(w_{0},e_{1}),x_{n}=B(w_{n},e^{\prime\prime}),x^{\prime}_{0}=B(w_{0},e^{\prime}),x^{\prime}_{n}=B(w_{n},e_{n}). Take α=α(H)\alpha=\alpha(H). From Proposition 4.1, min(B(w0,e),B(wn,e′′))α(1α)2\min(B(w_{0},e^{\prime}),B(w_{n},e^{\prime\prime}))\geq\frac{\alpha}{(1-\alpha)^{2}}.

Since α<α\alpha<\alpha^{*}, by Claim 1, we have
x0=B(w0,e1)=1B(w0,e)1α(1α)2<1r2=r1x_{0}=B(w_{0},e_{1})=1-B(w_{0},e^{\prime})\leq 1-\frac{\alpha}{(1-\alpha)^{2}}<1-r_{2}=r_{1}.
Similarly, xn=B(wn,en)<r1x^{\prime}_{n}=B(w_{n},e_{n})<r_{1}.

According to Lemma 4.2, to complete the proof, it suffices to show ϕ(x0)<0\phi(x_{0})<0. That is, r1>x0>r2r_{1}>x_{0}>r_{2}.

On the contrary, suppose x0r2x_{0}\leq r_{2}. By Lemma 3.1, (xi)i=0n(x_{i})_{i=0}^{n} is decreasing. So xn1x0r2x_{n-1}\leq x_{0}\leq r_{2}. Since xn1xn=αx_{n-1}x^{\prime}_{n}=\alpha, xn=αxn1αr2=r1x^{\prime}_{n}=\frac{\alpha}{x_{n-1}}\geq\frac{\alpha}{r_{2}}=r_{1}, a contradiction. Hence, r2<x0<r1r_{2}<x_{0}<r_{1}, ϕ(x0)<0\phi(x_{0})<0. The result follows from Lemma 4.2. ∎

Definition 4.3 (Vertex-releasing operation).

Let ee be an edge of connected kk-graph HH and v1,v2,,vsv_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{s} (s2s\geq 2) be all vertices with degrees at least 2 in ee. Take e=(e{w1,,wt}){v1,,vt}e^{\prime}=(e\cup\{w_{1},\ldots,w_{t}\})\setminus\{v_{1},\ldots,v_{t}\} (1t<s1\leq t<s), where w1,,wtw_{1},\ldots,w_{t} are new vertices. Let HH^{\prime} be hypergraph such that E(H)=(E(H){e}){e}E(H^{\prime})=(E(H)\setminus\{e\})\cup\{e^{\prime}\}. We say that HH^{\prime} is obtained from HH by releasing vertex v1,,vtv_{1},\ldots,v_{t} of ee.

Theorem 4.2.

Let ee be an edge of connected kk-graph HH and v1,v2,,vsv_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{s} (s2s\geq 2) be all vertices with degrees at least 2 in ee. Take HH^{\prime} be kk-graph obtained from HH by releasing some vertices of ee. We have

α(H)>α(H) and ρ(H)<ρ(H).\alpha(H^{\prime})>\alpha(H)\text{ and }\rho(H^{\prime})<\rho(H).
Proof.

Let α=α(H)\alpha=\alpha(H) and e=(e{w1,,wt}){v1,,vt}e^{\prime}=(e\cup\{w_{1},\ldots,w_{t}\})\setminus\{v_{1},\ldots,v_{t}\}.
Suppose V(H)=V(H){w1,,wt}V(H^{\prime})=V(H)\cup\{w_{1},\ldots,w_{t}\} and E(H)=(E(H){e}){e}E(H^{\prime})=(E(H)\setminus\{e\})\cup\{e^{\prime}\}. Let BHB_{H} be the consistently α\alpha-normal weighted incidence matrix of HH.

Take BB be a weighted incidence matrix of HH^{\prime} such that

B(u,f)={BH(u,f) for u{w1,,wt} and fe,BH(u,e) for u{w1,,wt} and f=e,BH(vi,e) for f=e and u=wii{1,,s} .B(u,f)=\begin{cases}B_{H}(u,f)&\text{ for $u\not\in\{w_{1},\ldots,w_{t}\}$ and $f\neq e^{\prime}$},\\ B_{H}(u,e)&\text{ for $u\not\in\{w_{1},\ldots,w_{t}\}$ and $f=e^{\prime}$},\\ B_{H}(v_{i},e)&\text{ for $f=e^{\prime}$ and $u=w_{i}$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,s\}$ }.\end{cases}\vspace*{-2pt}

Then, for any ff in E(H)E(H^{\prime}), ufB(u,f)=α\displaystyle\prod_{u\in f}B(u,f)=\alpha.
For any uu in V(H){v,w}V(H^{\prime})\setminus\{v,w\}, fEH(u)B(u,f)=1\displaystyle\sum_{f\in E_{H^{\prime}}(u)}B(u,f)=1
and for i{1,,s}i\in\{1,\ldots,s\},
fEH(vi)B(vi,f)=1BH(vi,e)<1\displaystyle\sum_{f\in E_{H^{\prime}}(v_{i})}B(v_{i},f)=1-B_{H}(v_{i},e)<1 and fEH(wi)B(wi,f)=B(vi,e)<1\displaystyle\sum_{f\in E_{H^{\prime}}(w_{i})}B(w_{i},f)=B(v_{i},e)<1.

Hence, BB is strictly α\alpha-subnormal weighted incidence matrix of HH^{\prime}.
The result follows from Theorem 2.2. ∎

Theorem 4.3.

Let HH be a connected kk-graph with c(H)>0c(H)>0. If HH is not loose cycle, then α(H)<α\alpha(H)<\alpha^{*}.

Proof.

Let GG be a minimal cc-cyclic subgraph of HH with c>0c>0.

Case 1. GG is a loose cycle.

When there exist a subgraph of HH isomorphic to one of the following two graphs:n\mathbb{C}_{n}^{*} and n\mathbb{C}_{n}^{{}^{\prime}}, where nn is some integer more than one, by Lemma 4.3, α(G)<α\alpha(G)<\alpha^{*}. Otherwise, since HH is connected and is not loose cycle, there must exist eE(H)e\in E(H) such that |eV(G)|2|e\cap V(G)|\geq 2. Let H1H_{1} be hypergraph with V(H1)=V(H)eV(H_{1})=V(H)\cup e and E(H1)=E(G){e}E(H_{1})=E(G)\cup\{e\}. A hypergraph G1G_{1} can be obtained by application of vertex-releasing operation to vertices in ee of degree more than one of H1H_{1} such that G1G_{1} is isomorphic to n\mathbb{C}_{n}^{*} or n\mathbb{C}_{n}^{{}^{\prime}}. By Theorems 4.2, 2.2, we have α(H)α(G1)<α(C0)<α\alpha(H)\leq\alpha(G_{1})<\alpha(C^{*}_{0})<\alpha.

Case 2. GG is not loose cycle.
Since c(H)>1c(H)>1, GG must be hypergraph with E(G)={e1,e2}E(G)=\{e_{1},e_{2}\} and |e1e2|3|e_{1}\cap e_{2}|\geq 3.

Write p=|e1e2|p=|e_{1}\cap e_{2}|. Then we have α(H)α(G)=12p<α\alpha(H)\leq\alpha(G)=\frac{1}{2^{p}}<\alpha^{*}. ∎

By Theorems 4.1 and 4.3, the following corollary is immediate.

Corollary 4.2.

Let HH be a connected kk-graph with c(H)>0c(H)>0 and vv is a vertex with degree 2 of some internal path of HH. Let HH^{\prime} be a kk-graph obtained from HH by splitting vertex w0w_{0}. Then ρ(H)<ρ(H)\rho(H)<\rho(H^{\prime}).

5 Extremal hypergraphs in (m)\mathscr{B}(m) with the smallest spectral radius

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Refer to caption
(c)
Figure 1: \infty graph and θ\theta graph

Let HH be a cc-cyclic hypergraph. The base of HH, denoted by H^\widehat{H}, is the (unique) minimal cc-cyclic subgraph of HH. It is easy to see that H^\widehat{H} can be obtained from HH by consecutively deleting pendent edges.

It is known that there are three types of bases of bicyclic graphs (see Fig. 1). (n1,n2)\infty(n_{1},n_{2}) is obtained from two vertex-disjoint cycles Cn1C_{n_{1}} and Cn2C_{n_{2}} by identifying vertex uu of Cn1C_{n_{1}} and vertex vv of Cn2C_{n_{2}}, (n1,n2,n3)\infty(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}) is obtained from two vertex-disjoint cycles Cn1C_{n_{1}} and Cn2C_{n_{2}} by joining vertex uu of Cn1C_{n_{1}} and vertex vv of Cn2C_{n_{2}} by a path uu1u2un31vuu_{1}u_{2}\cdots u_{n_{3}-1}v of length n3(n31)n_{3}(n_{3}\geq 1), θ(n1,n2,n3)\theta(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}) (n1n2n3n_{1}\geq n_{2}\geq n_{3}) is obtained from three pairwise internal disjoint paths of lengths n1,n2,n3n_{1},n_{2},n_{3} from vertices uu to vv. Note that (n1,n2,0)\infty(n_{1},n_{2},0) is exactly (n1,n2)\infty(n_{1},n_{2}).

The bicyclic graph containing θ(p,l,q)\theta(p,l,q) as its base is called a θ\theta-graph.

For a hypergraph H=(V,E)H=(V,E), we define the incidence graph to be the bipartite graph K(H)K(H) with the vertex set VEV\cup E and the edge set

{(v,e):(v,e)V×E,ve}.\{(v,e):(v,e)\in V\times E,v\in e\}.

The graph K(H)K(H) is also called the König representation of hypergraph HH.

It is easy to see that the number of Berge cycles of hypergraph HH and the number of cycles of its König representation K(H)K(H) is same.

Refer to caption(a) C0C_{0}Refer to caption(b) K(C0)^\widehat{K(C_{0})}
Figure 2: The bicyclic hypergraph C0C_{0} and K(C0)^\widehat{K(C_{0})}
Proposition 5.1.

Let HH be a connected kk-uniform hypergraph, then c(H)=c(K(H))c(H)=c(K(H)).

Proof.

Suppose H=(V,E)H=(V,E) be a connected kk-uniform hypergraph with order nn and size mm. Since By the definition of K(H)K(H), we have |V(K(H))|=m+n|V(K(H))|=m+n and |E(K(H))|=km|E(K(H))|=km. So c(K(H))=|E(K(H))||V(K(H))|+1=(k1)mn+1=c(H)c(K(H))=|E(K(H))|-|V(K(H))|+1=(k-1)m-n+1=c(H). ∎

Inspired by the above result, the definition of the cyclomatic number for kk-graph can be generalized to general hypergraph as follows: The cyclomatic number of general hypergraph HH, denote by c(H)c(H), is defined as the cyclomatic number of the König representation of HH, namely c(H)=c(K(H))c(H)=c(K(H)).

Let HH be a cc-cyclic hypergraph and HH^{\prime} be hypergraph obtained by adding some new vertices with degree 1 to some edges of HH. It is obvious that c(H)=c(H)c(H)=c(H^{\prime}).

Let HH be a kk-graph and e={u,u1,,uk2,v}e=\{u,u_{1},\ldots,u_{k-2},v\} be an edge of HH, where d(u1)==d(uk2)=1d(u_{1})=\cdots=d(u_{k-2})=1. Subdividing an edge ee means replacing edge ee by two edges f1={u,u1,,uk2,w}f_{1}=\{u,u^{\prime}_{1},\ldots,u^{\prime}_{k-2},w\} and f2={w,u1,,uk2,v}f_{2}=\{w,u_{1},\ldots,u_{k-2},v\}, where w,u1,,uk2w,u^{\prime}_{1},\ldots,u^{\prime}_{k-2} are new added vertices.

Let (m)\mathscr{B}(m) denote the set consisting of all bicyclic kk-graphs with size mm. In the remaining part of this section, we will characterize the extremal hypergraph with the smallest spectral radius among bicyclic kk-graph with given size.

Let 𝒞(m)\mathscr{C}(m) consist of all the minimal bicyclic kk-graphs (k3k\geq 3) with edge number at most mm. Let 𝒞1(m)={GG𝒞(m),Δ(G)=2}\mathscr{C}_{1}(m)=\{G\mid G\in\mathscr{C}(m),\Delta(G)=2\}, 𝒞2(m)={GG𝒞(m),Δ(G)3}\mathscr{C}_{2}(m)=\{G\mid G\in\mathscr{C}(m),\Delta(G)\geq 3\}.

Lemma 5.1.

Let HH be hypergraph in (m)\mathscr{B}(m) with the smallest spectral radius. Then HH is hypergraph in 𝒞1(m)\mathscr{C}_{1}(m).

Proof.

Let GG be hypergraph in 𝒞(m)\mathscr{C}(m) with the smallest spectral radius. We will show G𝒞1(m)G\in\mathscr{C}_{1}(m) with |E(G)|=m|E(G)|=m.

Assume G𝒞2(m)G\in\mathscr{C}_{2}(m). Since the König representation K(G)K(G) is bicyclic graph, K(G)^\widehat{K(G)} is one of (n1,n2)\infty(n_{1},n_{2}), (n1,n2,n3)\infty(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}) and θ(n1,n2,n3)\theta(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}) and there exists vertex vK(G)^v\in\widehat{K(G)} with dK(G)^(v)3d_{\widehat{K(G)}}(v)\geq 3 which is a vertex uu of GG with dG(u)3d_{G}(u)\geq 3. Since k3k\geq 3, there exist eE(G)e\in E(G) and u,veu,v\in e such that dG(u)=1d_{G}(u)=1 and dG(v)3d_{G}(v)\geq 3. From Corollary 4.1, there exists kk-graph (k3k\geq 3) G𝒞(m)G^{\prime}\in\mathscr{C}(m) with |E(G)|=m|E(G^{\prime})|=m such that α(G)>α(G)\alpha(G^{\prime})>\alpha(G). Namely, ρ(G)<ρ(G)\rho(G^{\prime})<\rho(G), which is a contradiction to our assumption on GG. So G𝒞1(m)G\in\mathscr{C}_{1}(m). If |E(G)|<m|E(G)|<m, let GG^{\prime} be a hypergraph obtained by splitting some vertex vv with d(v)=2d(v)=2. By Corollary 4.2, ρ(G)<ρ(G)\rho(G^{\prime})<\rho(G) and |E(G)|m|E(G^{\prime})|\leq m, a contradiction. So |E(G)|=m|E(G)|=m and G(m)𝒞1(m)G\in\mathscr{B}(m)\cap\mathscr{C}_{1}(m).

Assume H𝒞(m)H\not\in\mathscr{C}(m). Then we have H^\widehat{H} is proper subgraph of HH and H^𝒞(m)\widehat{H}\in\mathscr{C}(m). By Theorem 2.1 we have ρ(G)ρ(H^)<ρ(H)\rho(G)\leq\rho(\widehat{H})<\rho(H), which is a contradiction to our assumption on HH since G(m)G\in\mathscr{B}(m). Therefore, HH is hypergraph in 𝒞1(m)\mathscr{C}_{1}(m) with size mm. ∎

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Figure 3: \infty-type and Θ\Theta type hypergraph

Let e,e′′e^{\prime},e^{\prime\prime} be hyperedges with |e|=|e′′|=k3|e^{\prime}|=|e^{\prime\prime}|=k\geq 3 and ee′′=e^{\prime}\cap e^{\prime\prime}=\emptyset.

Take U={u1,u2,u3},V={v1,v2,v3}U=\{u_{1},u_{2},u_{3}\},V=\{v_{1},v_{2},v_{3}\} such that UeU\subseteq e^{\prime}, Ve′′V\subseteq e^{\prime\prime}. Let n1,n2,n3n_{1},n_{2},n_{3} be non-negative integers. We denote by C1(n1,n2,n3)C_{1}(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}) the kk-graph (See (a) of Fig. 3) obtained from ee^{\prime} and e′′e^{\prime\prime} by joining vertex pairs (u1,u3)(u_{1},u_{3}), (v1,v3)(v_{1},v_{3}) and (u2,v2)(u_{2},v_{2}) with three internal loose paths of lengths n1,n2,n3n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}, respectively. C1(n1,n2,n3)C_{1}(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}) is also referred to as \infty-type hypergraph.

Let C2(n1,n2,n3)C_{2}(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}) be the kk-graph (See (b) of Fig. 3) obtained from ee^{\prime} and e′′e^{\prime\prime} by joining vertex pairs (u1,v1)(u_{1},v_{1}), (u2,v2)(u_{2},v_{2}), (u3,v3)(u_{3},v_{3}) with three internal loose paths of lengths n1,n2,n3n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}, respectively. C2(n1,n2,n3)C_{2}(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}) is also referred to as Θ\Theta-type hypergraph.

Let u1,u2,v1,v2u_{1},u_{2},v_{1},v_{2} be distinct vertices in hyperedge ee. We denote by C3(n1,n2)C_{3}(n_{1},n_{2}) the kk-graph obtained from ee by joining vertex pairs (u1,u2)(u_{1},u_{2}), (v1,v2)(v_{1},v_{2}) with two internal loose paths of lengths n1,n2n_{1},n_{2}, respectively. C3(n1,n2)C_{3}(n_{1},n_{2}) is also referred to as Θ\Theta^{*}-type hypergraph.

Suppose H𝒞1(m)H\in\mathscr{C}_{1}(m). Those vertices with degree more than 3 in K(H)^\widehat{K(H)} must be edges of HH. It is clear that

  1. (1).

    when K(H)^\widehat{K(H)} is isomorphic to some (p,q,r)\infty(p,q,r)(r1r\geq 1), HH is \infty-type kk-graph,

  2. (2).

    when K(H)^\widehat{K(H)} is isomorphic to some (p,q)\infty(p,q), HH is Θ\Theta^{*}-type kk-graph,

  3. (3).

    when K(H)^\widehat{K(H)} is isomorphic to some θ(p,q,r)\theta(p,q,r), HH is Θ\Theta-type kk-graph.

The bicyclic hypergraphs in 𝒞1(m)\mathscr{C}_{1}(m) can be partitioned into the following three sets:

1(m)=\displaystyle\mathscr{B}_{1}(m)= {GG(m) and G^ is -type k-graph},\displaystyle\{G\mid G\in\mathscr{B}(m)\text{ and }\widehat{G}\text{ is $\infty$-type $k$-graph}\},
2(m)=\displaystyle\mathscr{B}_{2}(m)= {GG(m) and G^ is Θ-type k-graph},\displaystyle\{G\mid G\in\mathscr{B}(m)\text{ and }\widehat{G}\text{ is $\Theta$-type $k$-graph}\},
3(m)=\displaystyle\mathscr{B}_{3}(m)= {GG(m) and G^ is Θ-type k-graph}.\displaystyle\{G\mid G\in\mathscr{B}(m)\text{ and }\widehat{G}\text{ is $\Theta^{*}$-type $k$-graph}\}.
Lemma 5.2.

For any positive integers p,qp,q, we have

ρ(C1(p,p,q))=ρ(C2(p,p,q)).\rho(C_{1}(p,p,q))=\rho(C_{2}(p,p,q)).
Proof.

Let G=C1(p,p,q),H=C2(p,p,q)G=C_{1}(p,p,q),H=C_{2}(p,p,q). Take α=α(G)\alpha=\alpha(G).
Suppose BGB_{G} is the consistently α\alpha-normal weighted incidence matrix of GG, then we have BG(u1,e)=BG(u3,e)=BG(v1,e′′)=BG(v3,e′′)B_{G}(u_{1},e^{\prime})=B_{G}(u_{3},e^{\prime})=B_{G}(v_{1},e^{\prime\prime})=B_{G}(v_{3},e^{\prime\prime}).
Let EG(u1)={e,e1},EG(u3)={e,ep}E_{G}(u_{1})=\{e^{\prime},e_{1}\},E_{G}(u_{3})=\{e^{\prime},e_{p}\}, EG(v1)={e′′,f1},EG(v3)={e′′,fq}E_{G}(v_{1})=\{e^{\prime\prime},f_{1}\},E_{G}(v_{3})=\{e^{\prime\prime},f_{q}\}. Take e~1=(e1{v3}){u1}\tilde{e}_{1}=(e_{1}\cup\{v_{3}\})\setminus\{u_{1}\}, f~1=(f1{u3}){v1}\tilde{f}_{1}=(f_{1}\cup\{u_{3}\})\setminus\{v_{1}\}. Then HG{e~1,f~1}{e1,f1}H\cong G\cup\{\tilde{e}_{1},\tilde{f}_{1}\}\setminus\{e_{1},f_{1}\}. By exchanging the values of BG(u1,e1)B_{G}(u_{1},e_{1}), BG(v3,e1)B_{G}(v_{3},e_{1}) and BG(v1,f1)B_{G}(v_{1},f_{1}), BG(u3,f1)B_{G}(u_{3},f_{1}), respectively, a consistently α\alpha-normal weighted incidence matrix of GG is obtained from BGB_{G}. Therefore, α(G)=α(H)\alpha(G)=\alpha(H) and ρ(H)=ρ(G)\rho(H)=\rho(G). ∎

Theorem 5.1.

Let p,qp,q be positive integers such that 2p+q=m2,|pq|12p+q=m-2,|p-q|\leq 1. Then C1(p,p,q),C2(p,p,q)C_{1}(p,p,q),C_{2}(p,p,q) are the extremal hypergraph with the smallest spectral radius in 1(m),2(m)\mathscr{B}_{1}(m),\mathscr{B}_{2}(m), respectively.

Proof.

Suppose HiH_{i} is the extremal hypergraph with the smallest spectral radius in i(m)\mathscr{B}_{i}(m). Then Hi=(H^i)H_{i}=(\widehat{H}_{i}) (i=1,2i=1,2). Without loss of generality, Let Hi=Ci(l1,l2,l3)H_{i}=C_{i}(l_{1},l_{2},l_{3}). Take Hi=Ci(p,p,q)H_{i}^{*}=C_{i}(p,p,q), α=α(Hi)\alpha=\alpha(H_{i}^{*}). Let (yj)(y_{j}) be the iterated sequence of f(x)=1αxf(x)=1-\frac{\alpha}{x} with y0=F0(q),yq=F0(q)y_{0}=F_{0}(q),y_{q}=F_{0}^{*}(q). By the symmetry of HiH_{i}^{*}, y0+yp=1y_{0}+y_{p}=1 holds. So (yj)(y_{j}) is a symmetric α\alpha-normal sequence. By Corollary 3.1, we have yn=F0(2nq)y_{n}=F_{0}^{*}(2n-q). If HiHiH_{i}\neq H_{i}^{*}, then (l1,l2,l3)(p,p,q)(l_{1},l_{2},l_{3})\neq(p,p,q). Since α<14\alpha<\frac{1}{4}, By Corollary 3.1, there exists a weighted incidence matrix BB of HiH_{i} which satisfies the following conditions.

  1. (1).

    When i=1i=1, for the internal loose paths (u1,u3)(u_{1},u_{3})-Pl1P_{l_{1}}, (v1,v3)(v_{1},v_{3})-Pl2P_{l_{2}} and (u2,v2)(u_{2},v_{2})-Pl3P_{l_{3}} of H1H_{1}, BB is (F0(l1),F0(l1))(F_{0}(l_{1}),F_{0}(l_{1})) α\alpha-normal, (F0(l2),F0(l2))(F_{0}(l_{2}),F_{0}(l_{2})) α\alpha-normal and (F0(m22l1),F0(m22l2))(F_{0}(m-2-2l_{1}),F_{0}(m-2-2l_{2})) α\alpha-normal. And

    B(e,u1)\displaystyle B(e^{\prime},u_{1}) =B(e,u3)=F0(l1),\displaystyle=B(e^{\prime},u_{3})=F_{0}^{*}(l_{1}), B(e,u2)\displaystyle B(e^{\prime},u_{2}) =F0(m22l1),\displaystyle=F_{0}^{*}(m-2-2l_{1}),
    B(e′′,v1)\displaystyle B(e^{\prime\prime},v_{1}) =B(e′′,v3)=F0(l2),\displaystyle=B(e^{\prime\prime},v_{3})=F_{0}^{*}(l_{2}), B(e′′,v2)\displaystyle B(e^{\prime\prime},v_{2}) =F0(m22l2).\displaystyle=F_{0}^{*}(m-2-2l_{2}).

    Without loss of generality, suppose l1l2l_{1}\leq l_{2}. Since l1+l2+l3=m2l_{1}+l_{2}+l_{3}=m-2, m22l1=l2+l3l10m-2-2l_{1}=l_{2}+l_{3}-l_{1}\geq 0.

    Since F0(x)F_{0}^{*}(x) is log-concave on [1,+)[-1,+\infty), From 2p+q=l1+l2+l32p+q=l_{1}+l_{2}+l_{3}, (l1,l2,l3)(p,p,q)(l_{1},l_{2},l_{3})\neq(p,p,q), we have

    veB(v,e)=F0(l1)2F0(m22l1)<F0(p)2F0(q)=α.\prod\limits_{v\in e^{\prime}}B(v,e^{\prime})=F_{0}^{*}(l_{1})^{2}F_{0}^{*}(m-2-2l_{1})<F_{0}^{*}(p)^{2}F_{0}^{*}(q)=\alpha.

    F0(l2)2F0((m22l2))<F0(p)2F0(q)=αF_{0}^{*}(l_{2})^{2}F_{0}^{*}((m-2-2l_{2}))<F_{0}^{*}(p)^{2}F_{0}^{*}(q)=\alpha when m22l20m-2-2l_{2}\geq 0 and

    F0(l2)F0(0)F0(m2l2)<F0(p)2F0(q)=αF_{0}^{*}(l_{2})F_{0}^{*}(0)F_{0}^{*}(m-2-l_{2})<F_{0}^{*}(p)^{2}F_{0}^{*}(q)=\alpha when m22l2<0m-2-2l_{2}<0.

    By (2) of Proposition 3.1, F0(l2)2F0((m22l2))<F0(l2)F0(0)F0(m2l2)F_{0}^{*}(l_{2})^{2}F_{0}^{*}((m-2-2l_{2}))<F_{0}^{*}(l_{2})F_{0}^{*}(0)F_{0}^{*}(m-2-l_{2}). Hence, ve′′B(v,e′′)=F0(l2)2F0((m22l2))<α\prod\limits_{v\in e^{\prime\prime}}B(v,e^{\prime\prime})=F_{0}^{*}(l_{2})^{2}F_{0}^{*}((m-2-2l_{2}))<\alpha.

  2. (2).

    When i=2i=2,
    for each j{1,2,3}j\in\{1,2,3\}, the internal loose path (uj,vj)(u_{j},v_{j})-PljP_{l_{j}} of H2H_{2}, BB are (F0(l1),F0(l1))(F_{0}(l_{1}),F_{0}(l_{1})) α\alpha-normal and B(e,uj)=B(e′′,vj)=F0(lj)B(e^{\prime},u_{j})=B(e^{\prime\prime},v_{j})=F_{0}^{*}(l_{j}).

    Since F0(x)F_{0}^{*}(x) is log-concave in [1,+)[-1,+\infty),
    veB(v,e)=ve′′B(v,e′′)=F0(l1)F0(l2)F0(l3)<F0(p)2F0(q)=α\prod\limits_{v\in e^{\prime}}B(v,e^{\prime})=\prod\limits_{v\in e^{\prime\prime}}B(v,e^{\prime\prime})=F_{0}^{*}(l_{1})F_{0}^{*}(l_{2})F_{0}^{*}(l_{3})<F_{0}^{*}(p)^{2}F_{0}^{*}(q)=\alpha.

Therefore, for i=1,2i=1,2, we have
vV(Hi)\forall v\in V(H_{i}), eE(v)B(v,e)=1;\displaystyle\sum\limits_{e\in E(v)}B(v,e)=1; eE(H){e,e′′}\forall e\in E(H)-\{e^{\prime},e^{\prime\prime}\}, veB(v,e)=α\displaystyle\prod\limits_{v\in e}B(v,e)=\alpha.

By (1) of Lemma 2.2, BiB_{i} is consistent with all cycles of HiH_{i} for i=1,2i=1,2.

That is, HiH_{i} is consistently α\alpha-supernormal, by Lemma 2.2, ρ(Hi)>ρ(Hi)\rho(H_{i})>\rho(H^{*}_{i}), which is a contradiction to our assumption on HiH_{i}.

So Hi=Ci(p,p,q)H_{i}=C_{i}(p,p,q) is the extremal hypergraph with the smallest spectral radius in i(m)\mathscr{B}_{i}(m) for i=1,2i=1,2.∎

Theorem 5.2.

Let p,qp,q be positive integers such that p+q=m1p+q=m-1, |pq|1|p-q|\leq 1. Then C3(p,q)C_{3}(p,q) is the hypergraph with the smallest spectral radius in 3(m)\mathscr{B}_{3}(m).

Proof.

Let HH be hypergraph in 3(m)\mathscr{B}_{3}(m) with the smallest spectral radius. By similar arguments of proof of Lemma 5.1, H=H^H=\widehat{H}. That is, HH is a Θ\Theta^{*} type hypergraph. Without loss of generality, suppose H=C3(l1,l2)H=C_{3}(l_{1},l_{2}) and l1+l2=m1l_{1}+l_{2}=m-1. Let H=C3(p,q)H^{*}=C_{3}(p,q), α=α(H)\alpha=\alpha(H^{*}). Suppose that (yj)(y_{j}) is the iteration sequence of f(x)=1αxf(x)=1-\frac{\alpha}{x} with y0=F0(q),yq=F0(q)y_{0}=F_{0}(q),y_{q}=F_{0}^{*}(q). By the symmetry of HH^{*}, we have y0+yp=1y_{0}+y_{p}=1 and (yj)(y_{j}) is a α\alpha-normal sequence. From Corollary 3.1, yn=F0(2nq)y_{n}=F_{0}^{*}(2n-q).

Since α<14\alpha<\frac{1}{4}, according to Corollary 3.1, we can build a weighted incidence matrix BB of HH such that BB is (F0(l1),F0(l1))(F_{0}(l_{1}),F_{0}(l_{1})) α\alpha-normal for the loose path (u1,u2)(u_{1},u_{2})-Pl1P_{l_{1}} and (F0(l2),F0(l2))(F_{0}(l_{2}),F_{0}(l_{2})) α\alpha-normal for (v1,v2)(v_{1},v_{2})-Pl2P_{l_{2}},
and B(e,u1)=B(e,u2)=F0(l1),B(e,v1)=B(e,v2)=F0(l2).\begin{aligned} B(e^{\prime},u_{1})&=B(e^{\prime},u_{2})=F_{0}^{*}(l_{1}),&B(e^{\prime},v_{1})&=B(e^{\prime},v_{2})=F_{0}^{*}(l_{2}).\\ \end{aligned}

Then vV(H)\forall v\in V(H), eE(v)B(v,e)=1\displaystyle\sum\limits_{e\in E(v)}B(v,e)=1 and eE(H){e}\forall e\in E(H)-\{e^{\prime}\}, veB(v,e)=α\displaystyle\prod\limits_{v\in e}B(v,e)=\alpha.

For ee^{\prime}, veB(v,e)=F0(l1)2F0(l2)2<F0(p)2F0(q)2=α\prod\limits_{v\in e^{\prime}}B(v,e^{\prime})=F_{0}^{*}(l_{1})^{2}F_{0}^{*}(l_{2})^{2}<F_{0}^{*}(p)^{2}F_{0}^{*}(q)^{2}=\alpha.

By (1) of Lemma 2.2, BiB_{i} is consistent for any cycle of HiH_{i} for i=1,2i=1,2.

Therefore, HH is consistently α\alpha-supernormal. According to (3) of Theorem 2.2, ρ(H)>ρ(H)\rho(H)>\rho(H^{*}), which is a contradiction to our assumption on HH.

Hence, H=C3(p,q)H=C_{3}(p,q) is the hypergraph with the smallest spectral radius in 3(m)\mathscr{B}_{3}(m). ∎

Theorem 5.3.

Let integers p,qp,q such that pq,p+q=m1,|pq|1p\geq q,p+q=m-1,|p-q|\leq 1. Take hypergraphs H=C2(p1,q1,1)H=C_{2}(p-1,q-1,1), G=C3(p,q)G=C_{3}(p,q). Then ρ(H)<ρ(G)\rho(H)<\rho(G).

Proof.

Set α=α(G)\alpha=\alpha(G). Let (yj)(y_{j}) be the iteration sequence of f(x)=1αxf(x)=1-\frac{\alpha}{x} with y0=F0(q),yq=F0(q)y_{0}=F_{0}(q),y_{q}=F_{0}^{*}(q). By the symmetry of GG, y0+yp=1y_{0}+y_{p}=1. So (yj)(y_{j}) is a symmetric α\alpha-normal sequence. By Corollary 3.1, we have yn=F0(2nq)y_{n}=F_{0}^{*}(2n-q). Since α<14\alpha<\frac{1}{4}, by Corollary 3.1, there exists a weighted incidence matrix BB of HH such that
BB is (F0(l1),F0(l1))(F_{0}(l_{1}),F_{0}(l_{1})) α\alpha-normal for (u1,u2)(u_{1},u_{2})-Pl1P_{l_{1}} and (F0(l2),F0(l2))(F_{0}(l_{2}),F_{0}(l_{2})) α\alpha-normal for (v1,v2)(v_{1},v_{2})-Pl2P_{l_{2}}. And,

B(e,u1)\displaystyle B(e^{\prime},u_{1}) =B(e,v1)=F0(p1),\displaystyle=B(e^{\prime},v_{1})=F_{0}^{*}(p-1),
B(e,u2)\displaystyle B(e^{\prime},u_{2}) =B(e,v2)=F0(q1),\displaystyle=B(e^{\prime},v_{2})=F_{0}^{*}(q-1),
B(e,u3)\displaystyle B(e^{\prime},u_{3}) =B(e′′,v3)=F0(1),\displaystyle=B(e^{\prime\prime},v_{3})=F_{0}^{*}(1),

vV(H)\forall v\in V(H), eE(v)B(v,e)=1,\displaystyle\sum\limits_{e\in E(v)}B(v,e)=1,eE(H){e,e′′}\forall e\in E(H)-\{e^{\prime},e^{\prime\prime}\}, veB(v,e)=α\displaystyle\prod\limits_{v\in e}B(v,e)=\alpha.

Since F0(p)2F0(q)2=αF_{0}^{*}(p)^{2}F_{0}^{*}(q)^{2}=\alpha, F0(x)>0F_{0}^{*}(x)>0, F0(p)F0(q)=α=F0(1)F_{0}^{*}(p)F_{0}^{*}(q)=\sqrt{\alpha}=F_{0}^{*}(-1).

For e,e′′e^{\prime},e^{\prime\prime},

veB(v,e)=ve′′B(v,e′′)=\displaystyle\prod\limits_{v\in e^{\prime}}B(v,e^{\prime})=\prod\limits_{v\in e^{\prime\prime}}B(v,e^{\prime\prime})= F0(p1)F0(q1)F0(1)\displaystyle F_{0}^{*}(p-1)F_{0}^{*}(q-1)F_{0}^{*}(1)
>\displaystyle> F0(p)F0(q)F0(1)=α.\displaystyle F_{0}^{*}(p)F_{0}^{*}(q)F_{0}^{*}(-1)=\alpha.

By (2) of Theorem 2.2, HH is α\alpha-subnormal. ρ(H)<ρ(G)\rho(H)<\rho(G) holds. ∎

From Lemmas 5.1, 5.2 and Theorems 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, we derive our main result.

Theorem 5.4.

Let H1H_{1} and H2H_{2} be the hypergraph with the smallest spectral radius in 1(m),2(m)\mathscr{B}_{1}(m),\mathscr{B}_{2}(m), respectively. Then

  1. (1).

    ρ(H1)=ρ(H2)\rho(H_{1})=\rho(H_{2}),

  2. (2).

    H1,H2H_{1},H_{2} are the hypergraphs with the smallest spectral radius in (m)\mathscr{B}(m).

According to those results obtained, we can compute the values of spectral radii of kk-graphs with the smallest spectral radius.

Let ρ\rho be the smallest spectral radius of bicyclic kk-graph with size mm and q=m23q=\lfloor\frac{m-2}{3}\rfloor. Suppose

F(θ)={F0(q)2F0(q+1)for m0(mod3) ,F0(q)F0(q+1)2for m1(mod3) ,F0(q)3for m2(mod3) .F(\theta)=\begin{cases}F_{0}^{*}(q)^{2}F_{0}^{*}(q+1)&\text{for $m\equiv 0\pmod{3}$ },\\ F_{0}^{*}(q)F_{0}^{*}(q+1)^{2}&\text{for $m\equiv 1\pmod{3}$ },\\ F_{0}^{*}(q)^{3}&\text{for $m\equiv 2\pmod{3}$ }.\\ \end{cases}

Let θ0\theta_{0} be the unique positive root of equation

F(θ)14sech(θ)2=0.F(\theta)-\frac{1}{4}\operatorname{sech}(\theta)^{2}=0.

Then ρ=(2cosh(θ0))2k\rho=(2\cosh(\theta_{0}))^{\frac{2}{k}}.

As a example, we take HH to be a kk-graph with the smallest spectral radius in (14)\mathscr{B}(14) for k=3k=3. Let α=α(H)\alpha=\alpha(H) and θ0=arcosh(12α12)\theta_{0}=\operatorname{arcosh}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}). Then θ0\theta_{0} is the positive root of the following equation

(1+tanh(θ)tanh(2θ))32sech2(θ)=0.(1+\tanh(\theta)\tanh(2\theta))^{3}-2\operatorname{sech}^{2}(\theta)=0.

By direct calculation, we have θ00.35581\theta_{0}\approx 0.35581 and α(H)0.22084\alpha(H)\approx 0.22084. Hence, ρ(H)=(2cosh(θ0))231.654396\rho(H)=(2\cosh(\theta_{0}))^{\frac{2}{3}}\approx 1.654396.

References

  • [1] C. Berge, Graphs and hypergraphs, North-Holland Publishing Co., New York, 1973.
  • [2] Y.-Z. Fan, Y.-Y. Tan, X.-X. Peng, A.-H. Liu, Maximizing spectral radii of uniform hypergraphs with few edges, Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 36 (4) (2016) 845–856.
  • [3] H. Li, J.-Y. Shao, L. Qi, The extremal spectral radii of kk-uniform supertrees, Journal of Combinatorial Optimization 32 (3) (2016) 741–764.
  • [4] P. Xiao, L. Wang, Y. Lu, The maximum spectral radii of uniform supertrees with given degree sequences, Linear Algebra and its Applications 523 (2017) 33–45.
  • [5] X. Yuan, J. Shao, H. Shan, Ordering of some uniform supertrees with larger spectral radii, Linear Algebra and Its Applications 495 (2016) 206–222.
  • [6] L. Lu, S. Man, Connected hypergraphs with small spectral radius, Linear Algebra and Its Applications 509 (2016) 206–227.
  • [7] C. Ouyang, L. Qi, X. Yuan, The first few unicyclic and bicyclic hypergraphs with largest spectral radii, Linear Algebra Appl. 527 (2017) 141–162.
  • [8] J. Zhang, J. Li, H. Guo, Uniform hypergraphs with the first two smallest spectral radii, Linear Algebra and its Applications 594 (2020) 71–80.
  • [9] L.-H. Lim, Singular values and eigenvalues of tensors: a variational approach, in: Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing, 2005 1st IEEE International Workshop on, IEEE, 2005, pp. 129–132.
  • [10] L. Qi, Eigenvalues of a real supersymmetric tensor, J. Symbolic Comput. 40 (6) (2005) 1302–1324.
  • [11] J. Cooper, A. Dutle, Spectra of uniform hypergraphs, Linear Algebra and its applications 436 (9) (2012) 3268–3292.
  • [12] M.-u.-I. Khan, Y.-Z. Fan, On the spectral radius of a class of non-odd-bipartite even uniform hypergraphs, Linear Algebra Appl. 480 (2015) 93–106.
  • [13] A. F. Beardon, Iteration of rational functions: Complex analytic dynamical systems, Vol. 132, Springer Science & Business Media, 2000.
  • [14] L. Brand, A sequence defined by a difference equation, The American Mathematical Monthly 62 (7) (1955) 489–492.
  • [15] A. W. Marshall, I. Olkin, B. C. Arnold, Inequalities: theory of majorization and its applications, Vol. 143, Springer, 1979.
  • [16] F. Wang, H. Shan, Z. Wang, On some properties of the α\alpha-spectral radius of the k-uniform hypergraph, Linear Algebra and its Applications 589 (2020) 62–79.