Upper bounds for the -numbers and characterization of extremal graphs111Supported by NSFC No.11871034 and 11531011.
Abstract
For an edge-colored graph , we call an edge-cut of monochromatic if the edges of are colored with the same color.
The graph is called monochromatic disconnected if any two distinct vertices of are separated by a monochromatic edge-cut.
For a connected graph , the monochromatic disconnection number
(or -number for short) of , denoted by , is the maximum number of colors that are allowed in order to make
monochromatic disconnected. For graphs with diameter one, they are complete graphs and so
their -numbers are . For graphs with diameter at least 3, we can construct -connected graphs such that their
-numbers can be arbitrarily large; whereas for graphs with diameter two, we show that if is a -connected graph then
, and if has a cut-vertex then is equal to the number of blocks of . So, we will focus on studying
-connected graphs with diameter two, and give two upper bounds of their -numbers depending on their connectivity and
independent numbers, respectively. We also characterize the -connected graphs (with large connectivity)
whose -numbers are and the -connected graphs (with small connectivity) whose -numbers
archive the upper bound
For graphs with connectivity less than , we show that if the connectivity of a graph is in linear with its order , then
its -number is upper bounded by a constant, and this suggests us to leave a conjecture that for a -connected graph ,
.
Keywords: monochromatic disconnection number, connectivity, diameter, independent number, upper bound, extremal graph.
AMS subject classification (2020): 05C15, 05C40, 05C35.
1 Introduction
Let be a graph and let , denote the vertex-set and the edge-set of , respectively. We use and to denote the number of vertices and the number of edges of , respectively, and call them the order and the size of . If there is no confusion, we also use and to denote and , respectively, throughout this paper. Let and be a vertex subset and an edge subset of , respectively. Then is the graph obtained from by deleting the vertices of together with the edges incident with vertices of , and is the graph whose vertex-set is and edge-set is . Let and be the subgraphs of induced, respectively, by and . We use to denote the set of positive integers. If , then set . For all other terminology and notation not defined here we follow Bondy and Murty [4].
For a graph , let be an edge-coloring of that allows a same color to be assigned to adjacent edges. For an edge of , we use to denote the color of . If is a subgraph of , we also use to denote the set of colors on the edges of and use to denote the number of colors in . For an edge-colored graph and a vertex of , the color-degree of , denoted by , is the number of colors appearing on the edges incident with .
The three main colored connection colorings: rainbow connection coloring [8], proper connection coloring [5] and proper-walk connection coloring [3], monochromatic connection coloring [6], have been well-studied in recent years. As a counterpart concept of the rainbow connection coloring, rainbow disconnection coloring was introduced in [7] by Chartrand et al. in 2018. Subsequently, the concepts of monochromatic disconnection coloring and proper disconnection coloring were also introduced in [12] and [1, 9]. We refer to [2] for the philosophy of studying these so-called global graph colorings. More details on the monochromatic disconnection coloring can be found in [13]. We will further study this coloring in this paper and get some deeper and stronger results.
For an edge-colored graph , we call an edge-cut a monochromatic edge-cut if the edges of are colored with the same color. If there is a monochromatic -cut with color , then we say that color separates and . We use to denote the set of colors in that separate and , and let .
An edge-coloring of a graph is called a monochromatic disconnection coloring (or -coloring for short) if each pair of distinct vertices of the graph has a monochromatic edge-cut separating them, and the graph is called monochromatic disconnected. For a connected graph , the monochromatic disconnection number (or -number for short) of , denoted by , is defined as the maximum number of colors that are allowed in order to make monochromatic disconnected. An extremal -coloring of is an -coloring that uses colors. If is a subgraph of and is an edge-coloring of , we call an edge-coloring restricted on .
The following terminology and notation are needed in the sequel. Let and be two graphs. The union of and is the graph with vertex-set and edge-set . The intersect of and is the graph with vertex-set and edge-set . The Cartesian product of and is the graph with , and are adjacent in if either is an edge of and , or is an edge of and . If and are vertex-disjoint, then let denote the join of and which is obtained from and by adding an edge between every vertex of and every vertex of .
For a graph , a pendent vertex of is a vertex with degree one. The ends of is the set of pendent vertices, and the internal vertex set of is the set of vertices with degree at least two. We use and to denote the ends of and the internal vertex set of , respectively. The independent number of , denoted by , is the order of a maximum independent set of . For two vertices of , we use to denote the neighborhood of in , and to denote the set of common neighbors of and in . The distance between and in is denoted by , and the diameter of is denoted by . We call a cycle (path ) a -cycle (-path) if (). If is even (odd), then we call the path an even (odd) path and the cycle an even (odd) cycle. A -cycle is also called a triangle. A matching-cut of is an edge-cut of , which also forms a matching in .
Lemma 1.1.
[12]
-
1.
If a connected graph has blocks , then and if and only if is a tree.
-
2.
if is a cycle, and if is a complete graph with order at least two.
-
3.
If is a connected spanning subgraph of , then . Thus, .
-
4.
If is connected, then .
-
5.
If is neither a cut-vertex nor a pendent vertex of and is an extremal -coloring of , then , and thus, .
Theorem 1.2.
[12] If is a -connected graph, then .
Theorem 1.3.
[13] If and are connected graphs, then .
Lemma 1.4.
[13] If has a matching-cut, then .
We will list some easy observations in the following, which will be used many times throughout this paper. Suppose is an -coloring of . If is a subgraph of , then is an -coloring restricted on . Every triangle of is monochromatic. If is a -cycle, then its opposite edges have the same color. If is a -cycle, then there are two adjacent edges having the same color.
Let be a set of vertices and let . Then a hypergraph is a linear hypergraph if and for any . The size of is the number of hyperedges in . A hyperedge-coloring of assigns each hyperedge a positive integer. A linear hypergraph (say the size of is ) is a linear hypercycle if there is a sequence of hyperedges of , say , and there exist distinct vertices of , such that and for . If we delete a hyperedge from a linear hypercycle and then delete the vertices only in this hyperedge, then we call the resulting hypergraph a linear hyperpath. A linear hypercycle (linear hyperpath) is called a linear hyper -cycle (linear hyper -path) if the size of this linear hypercycle (linear hyperpath) is .
2 Preliminaries
We need some more preparations before proceeding to our main results.
Lemma 2.1.
For two connected graphs and , if then .
Proof.
Let and be an extremal -coloring of . Then and is an -coloring restricted on (and also ). So, . On the other hand, since is monochromatic under any -coloring of , let be an -coloring of for such that . Let be an edge-coloring of such that if , and let be a vertex of . Then for any two vertices of , if , then ; if and , then . So, is an -coloring of , i.e., . Therefore, .
Lemma 2.2.
Let be a connected graph and let be a graph obtained from by replacing an edge with a path . Then .
Proof.
Let be an extremal -coloring of . Let and let . Let be an edge-coloring of such that when , for , when is odd, and when is even. It is easy to verify that is an -coloring of . Thus, .
Lemma 2.3.
Suppose are nonadjacent vertices of and is an extremal -coloring of . Let and an extra edge, and let be an edge-coloring of that is obtained from by coloring the added edge with color . Then is an -coloring of and .
Proof.
Let be the graph obtained from by deleting all the edges with color . Let . If is not an -coloring of , then there are two vertices of such that . If , since are in different components of , we have , a contradiction. If , then let . Then there are two components of such that and . Since does not separate in , the edge connects and , say and . Thus, the color separates in , which contradicts that . Therefore, is an -coloring of . Since and is an extremal -coloring of , we have . Since is a connected spanning subgraph of , by Lemma 1.1 (3) we have . So, .
Suppose is an -coloring of and is the subgraph of induced by the set of edges with color , which, in what follows, is called the color induced subgraph of . Then for any component of and any component of , we have ; otherwise, suppose . Then , a contradiction. We use to denote a hyperedge-colored hypergraph with vertex-set and hyperedge-set , and the hyperedge has color if corresponds to a component of . Let be a graph with and
Then each hyperedge of corresponds to a clique of , and any two hyperedges of (any two cliques of ) share at most one vertex. Thus, is a linear hypergraph. If is a hyperedge of and , then . According to Lemma 2.3, we have the following result.
Lemma 2.4.
If is an extremal -coloring of , then .
Suppose is an -coloring of and is a hyper -cycle of . Then there is a -cycle of such that any adjacent edges of have different colors. Thus, . Moreover, if , then the opposite hyperedges of have the same color.
3 Graphs with diameter two
In this section, we show that for a -connected graph if . However, for any integer , we can construct a -connected graph such that and can be arbitrarily large. Thus, it makes sense to focus on studying the graphs with diameter two, since graphs with diameter 1 are complete graphs and their -numbers are 1.
Theorem 3.1.
Suppose is a graph with . Then
-
1.
if has a cut-vertex, then is equal to the number of blocks of ;
-
2.
if is a -connected graph, then ;
-
3.
if any two nonadjacent vertices of has at least two common neighbors, then , and the equality holds if and only if , where .
Proof.
The proof of statement (1) goes as follows. If is a cut-vertex of and , then connects every vertex of . Thus, for each block of , is connected and , i.e., . Therefore, is equal to the number of blocks of .
Next, for the proof of statement (2) suppose is an -coloring of with . Then each hypercycle (hyperpath) of the above mentioned hypergraph is a linear hypercycle (linear hyperedge). We now prove that there is a rainbow hyper -path (the colors of the three hyperedges are pairwise differently) in . Since does not have hyper -cycle, the union of three consecutive hyperedges forms a hyper -path. If every vertex of has , then there is a rainbow hyper -path in . If there is a vertex of with , then there are three hyperedges, say and , such that is the common vertex of them. Then the colors of and are pairwise differently. Since is a -connected graph, there is a vertex of with (otherwise, is a cut-vertex of , a contradiction). Then there is a hyperedge of , such that is a common vertex of and . Thus, either or is a rainbow hyper -path.
Let be a rainbow hyper -path of and let for . Let and . We use to denote a minimum hyperpath connecting and . Since , the size of is either one or two. Let . If is a hyperedge, then is a hyper -cycle. Since and are opposite hyperedges of and they have different colors, a contradiction. If is a hyper -path, then let be hyperedges of , and let . If , then is a hyper -cycle, a contradiction. If , then contains a hyper -cycle, a contradiction.
Finally, we show statement (3). It is obvious that , and is a -connected graph when . So, . Suppose and . Then for any nonadjacent vertices and of . By Lemma 1.1 (2) and Theorem 1.3, we have .
Suppose . Then and is a -connected graph. Let be an extremal -coloring of and let be the colors induced subgraphs of , respectively. Since , we have for each . If , by symmetry, suppose is in a component of . Since , we have , i.e., there exists a vertex in . Then are nonadjacent and . Let . Since , we have is a monochromatic -cycle, i.e., , a contradiction. Thus, for each . We use and to denote the components of and , respectively, such that .
Suppose there are components of and components of . Since is a -connected graph, we have . Otherwise, if , then for each vertex of , is a cut-vertex, a contradiction. We label the components of by the numbers in and label the components of by the numbers in , respectively. We use to denote the label of a component of , and use to denote the label of a component of . For a vertex of , since , we use to denote . For two vertices of , let and let . In order to show , we need to show that is an edge of when and , or and , and are nonadjacent vertices when and . If and , then . Since , are nonadjacent vertices of . If, by symmetry, and , then . Let . Then are nonadjacent. Since and , we have
Thus, . Since , we have is an edge of .
Remark 1.
Suppose are internal disjoint odd paths with an order for each , and they have the same ends . Let . Let and . If for , then let be an edge-coloring of such that and for each and . Then is an -coloring of with . Since is a -connected graph, we have . If for each , then is a -connected graph with and . Therefore, there exist -connected graphs with diameter three, but their -numbers can be arbitrarily large.
Let be a graph with and . Then is a matching-cut of . If is an odd integer, then let
Theorem 3.2.
Suppose is a -connected graph and . Then and
-
1.
if is even, then if and only if ;
-
2.
if is odd, then if and only if .
Proof.
Since for any two nonadjacent vertices and , we have . So, .
Now suppose is a -connected graph and . Since , is a -connected graph. We distinguish the following cases for our proof.
Case 1. is even.
For any two nonadjacent vertices of , . By Theorem 3.1 (3), , where . We need to prove that at least one of equals two. Suppose are two cliques of order , respectively, and . Then , i.e., . Since , we have . Thus, either or .
Case 2. is odd.
Say for some integer . Suppose is an extremal -coloring of and are the colors induced subgraphs, respectively.
Subcase 2.1 Every vertex of has .
Suppose there are components of , respectively, such that . Then let and . Since , there are components of and of , such that and . Since and are vertex-cuts of , we have and . Since , we have , i.e., . Then is a cut-vertex of , a contradiction. Therefore, for each component of and each component of , we have . Then since for each , any two components of (and also ) have the same order, say (the order is ). Then ; otherwise, suppose , i.e., is a matching. Since is odd, we have . Thus, each vertex of has , a contradiction. For a vertex of , let be the components of , respectively, containing . Then is a vertex-cut of , i.e., . However, and , a contradiction.
Subcase 2.2 There is a vertex of with .
Suppose is the component of containing . Then since is a vertex cut of , we have . Since the set of vertices of with color-degree two is a vertex-cut of , there are at least vertices of , say , such that for . Let be the component of containing and let . Then . Since , we have , , and for . Moreover, . Let . For , if is not an edge of , then is a vertex-cut of with order , which contradicts that is -connected. For each , if there are two vertices such that and are not edges of , then is a vertex-cut of with order , which contradicts that is -connected. Therefore, connects all but at most one vertex of . So, .
4 Upper bounds
In this section, we give two upper bounds of the monochromatic disconnection number of a graph , one of which depends on the connectivity of , and the other depends on the independent number of . Note that for a -connected graph , when (small) and (large), from Theorems 1.2 and 3.2 we know that . This suggests us to make the following conjecture.
Conjecture 4.1.
Suppose is a -connected graph. Then .
Suppose is a -path. Then . Since and is an -connected graph, the bound is sharp for if the conjecture is true.
The mean distance of a connected graph is defined as . Plesnĺk in [14] posed the problem of finding sharp upper bounds on for -connected graphs. Favaron et al. in [11] proved that if is a -connected graph of order , then
(1) |
and the bound is sharp when is even. If is odd and , then Dankelmann et al. in [10] proved that and this bound is, apart from an additive constant, best possible.
The following result gives a relationship between the monochromatic disconnection number and the connectivity of a graph, which means that if the connectivity of a graph is in linear of the order of the graph, then the monochromatic disconnection number of the graph is upper bounded by a constant.
Theorem 4.2.
For any , there is a constant , such that for any -connected graph , .
Proof.
Suppose is an extremal -coloring of and . We use to denote an unordered integer pair in this proof. For each color of , let
Then .
Claim 4.3.
for each .
Proof.
Let . The result holds obviously for . Thus, let . For each , let be the color induced subgraph of , and let be the graph obtained from by deleting all the edges with color . Then is a disconnected graph. Suppose there is a component of with . Let . For a component of , if , then . Since contains at least one vertex of , we have . Since , is a proper subset of . So, is a vertex-cut of . Since and is -connected, this yields a contradiction. Thus, for each , there is no component of with order greater than .
We partition the components of into parts such that is minimum and the number of vertices in each part is at most . Suppose the parts have vertices, respectively. Then . If , then since is minimum, for each . Thus,
and then . Since , this yields a contradiction. Therefore, is equal to 2 or 3. If , then . If , then there is an such that , say . Otherwise, for each , then , a contradiction. Thus, .
By the inequality (1) above, we have
Since , we have . It is obvious that for any two vertices of . Thus,
The proof is thus complete.
Remark 2.
Since , we have This means that when the connectivity of a graph increases, its -number could decrease, and the upper bound is when is getting to .
The following result gives a relationship between the monochromatic disconnection number and the independent number of a graph.
Theorem 4.4.
If is a -connected graph, then . The bound is sharp.
Proof.
Let be a path and let be an integer. Since , the bound is sharp if the result holds.
The proof proceeds by induction on the order of a graph . If , then since is a -connected graph, . If has a vertex such that is still -connected, then by Lemma 1.1 (5), we know . Since , by induction, we have . Thus, we only need to consider the graph with the property that is not a -connected graph for any vertex of .
Let be a vertex of such that has a maximum component. Let be the set of components of and let be a maximum component. Let be the set of cut-vertices of . The block-tree of , denoted by , is a bipartite graph with bipartition and , and a block has an edge with a cut-vertex in if and only if contains . Then the leaves of are blocks, say . Since is -connected, there is a vertex of such that connects in for . We use to denote the subpath of from to . We now prove that is a path and is an edge for . If is not a path, then . There are two leaves of , say and , such that . Then has a component containing , which contradicts that is maximum. Thus, is a tree. Suppose and is not an edge, i.e., is a -connected graph. Since is a path, we have . Let . Then has a component containing , which contradicts that is maximum. Thus, is an edge for .
Without loss of generality, suppose for . Then, are leaves of , is an edge for and . Let and be two vertices adjacent to .
Let and let . Then and are paths. There is an independent set of such that and for . Let be a maximum independent set of . Then is an independent set of , i.e.,
Let and let . Then is an -path and is a -connected spanning subgraph of . By Lemma 1.1 (3), we have . Let be an extremal -coloring of . Then is an -coloring restricted on and . We call and each edge of the joints of . Let be the set of colors such that is in at least two joints of . For , we use to denote the number of joints of having edges colored with . Then . Since there is a color of that separates and , we have . By the same reason, for each , either for an edge of , or . Thus, . Therefore,
The proof is thus complete.
5 Characterization of extremal graphs
We knew that if is a -connected graph. In this section, we characterize all the -connected graphs with -number . We use to denote an ear-decomposition of , where is a -connected subgraph of and is a path for . Let .
If is a cycle of and , then we use to denote the maximum number of -path of , such that and . We call a -umbrella of (or an umbrella for short) if . The vertices divide into paths, say . We call a spoke of and call a rim of . If the size of each spoke is odd and the size of each rim is even, then we call the -umbrella a uniform -umbrella (or uniform umbrella for short).
A graph is called a -graph if is the union of three internal disjoint paths and with . If each is an even path, then we call an even -graph and call each a route.
Suppose is an ear-decomposition of . Then the concept normal ear-decomposition of is defined as follows.
If is even, then is a normal ear-decomposition of if is a cycle.
If is odd and is not a bipartite graph, then is a normal ear-decomposition of if is an odd cycle.
If is odd and is a bipartite graph, then is a normal ear-decomposition of if is either an umbrella or an even -graph. Moreover, if is an even -graph, then for each , is contained in one route.
Lemma 5.1.
If is a -connected graph, then has a normal ear-decomposition.
Proof.
If is even or is a nonbipartite graph with odd, then has a normal ear-decomposition. If is a bipartite graph and is odd, then let be an ear-decomposition of with an even cycle. Since and is odd, there is an even path among the ears, say . Since is a -connected bipartite graph, there is an even cycle of containing . Moreover, divides into two even paths. So, is an even -graph, say the three routes are and . Let be an ear-decomposition of and let for . If the ends of each in are contained in one route, then is a normal ear-decomposition of . Otherwise, suppose , and . Then , i.e., there is a -umbrella, say . Then there is a normal ear-decomposition of containing .
Lemma 5.2.
Suppose is a -connected graph with . Let be an ear-decomposition of with a -connected subgraph of and for . Then we have the following results.
-
1.
If is a -connected subgraph of , then each extremal -coloring of is an extremal -coloring restricted on , and
-
2.
If is even, then is a bipartite graph and is an odd path for .
-
3.
If is odd, then when is even, exact one of is even; when is odd, is an odd path for .
Proof.
Let be an extremal -coloring of . Then for each , ; otherwise, , a contradiction. Moreover, each color of is used on at least two edges of . Otherwise, suppose and color is only used on one edge of . Then since is connected, , a contradiction. Therefore,
Then and for each . So, is an extremal -coloring restricted on , and . Moreover, when is an odd path.
If is not a bipartite graph, is even and an odd cycle, then the above inequality does not hold. Thus, is a bipartite graph when is even. Moreover, is an odd path for each . If and are odd, then is an odd path for . If is odd and is even, then exact one of is even.
For a normal ear-decomposition of a -connected graph , if is an odd cycle and , then divides into an odd path and an even path, which are denoted by and , respectively. If is an even cycle, and , then we use to denote the subpath of with ends and contains . We define a function for as follows.
If is not an even cycle, then the function depends only on and . If is an even cycle and , then the function also depends on . Thus, we need to fix an edge of in advance if is an even cycle.
Lemma 5.3.
If is a uniform umbrella or an even -graph other than , then is odd and .
Proof.
It is obvious that is odd. Fix an integer . Suppose is either a minimum even -graph other than , or a minimum uniform umbrella with spokes.
If is a minimum even -graph other than , then and one of its extremal -colorings are depicted in Figure 1 (1), which implies .
If is a minimum uniform umbrella with spokes, then each spoke is an edge and each rim is a -path. Suppose the spokes are , and the rims are . We color each with . The colors of the edges of obey the rule that opposite edges of any -cycle have the same color (see Figure 1).

Since , we know that for , is a monochromatic -cut (it is also a monochromatic -cut for , and a monochromatic -cut for ), is a monochromatic -cut and is a monochromatic -cut. By symmetry, the edge-coloring is an -coloring of with colors. Since is -connected and , we have .
Suppose is a uniform umbrella with spokes (an even -graph other than ). Then is obtained from by replacing some edges with odd paths, respectively. W.l.o.g., suppose is obtained from by replacing one edge with an odd path . Then by Lemma 2.2, we have , i.e., . The proof is thus complete.
Lemma 5.4.
If is a bipartite graph of odd order and , then each umbrella of is a uniform umbrella.
Proof.
Suppose is a bipartite graph of odd order and . Let be a -umbrella of . We show that is a uniform umbrella.
If , then let and be spokes of and be a -path. Then is divided into three paths by vertices and (say, the three paths are and , such that , and ). If each is an odd path, then since is a bipartite graph, each is an even path, be a uniform -umbrella of . If, by symmetry, is an even path and are odd paths, then are odd paths and is an even path. Then since is an ear-decomposition of containing even paths and , by Lemma 5.2 (1) and (3) this yields a contradiction. If, by symmetry, is an odd path and are even paths, then is a uniform -umbrella. If each is an even path, then is an ear-decomposition of containing two even paths, a contradiction.
If , then let be four spokes of (let be a path for ). Then is divided into two paths by and (say, the two paths are and ). W.l.o.g., suppose is an even path. Then is an ear-decomposition of . Since and is an even path, by Lemma 5.2 (4), is an odd path. Since is a bipartite graph, either or is an even path (say ). Then is an ear-decomposition of containing two even paths, a contradiction. So, each spoke of is an odd path. Since is a bipartite graph, each rim of is an even path.
Suppose is an ear-decomposition of . Then can have the following possible properties.
Q: If , then .
R: If , then is a proper subpath of .
The concept standard ear-decomposition of is defined as follows.
If is even, then is a standard ear-decomposition of if is an even cycle.
If is odd and is not a bipartite graph, then is a standard ear-decomposition of if is an odd cycle and for .
If is odd and is a bipartite graph, then is a standard ear-decomposition of if is either a uniform umbrella or a even -graph other than . Moreover, for each , if is a uniform umbrella, then is contained in either a rim or a spoke; if is an even -graph other than , then is contained in one route.
Therefore, a standard ear-decomposition of is also a normal ear-decomposition of .
Lemma 5.5.
If is a standard ear-decomposition of and has properties Q and R, then there exist integers such that , and for each .
Proof.
For , let . We use () to demote the minimum integer such that (). Since , we have and . Since has property Q, we know for each , either , or . Let be the minimum integer such that .
Let be a digraph with vertex-set and arc-set . We use to denote the length of a minimum directed path from to . If , then . Let . If , then for each .
Let be an integer in such that is minimum. If there is a vertex of such that , then there is a path such that . Since has property R, is a proper subpath of , i.e., . Since is minimum, we have . Then there is a path, say , such that . Thus, , a contradiction. Hence, for each .
Theorem 5.6.
Suppose is a -connected graph and is a normal ear-decomposition of . Then if and only if is a standard ear-decomposition of that has properties Q and R, is an odd path for each , and is an odd path if .
Proof.
For , let .
For the necessity, suppose . If is even, then is an even cycle. By Lemma 5.2 (2), is a bipartite graph and is an odd path for . Since is an even cycle, is an odd path. If is odd, then since is normal, is odd. By Lemma 5.2 (4), is an odd path for . Suppose there are integers such that is an even path. If and is an odd cycle, then is an odd path, a contradiction. If and is an odd cycle, then is a -connected subgraph of and is an ear-decomposition of with an odd cycle and an even path, and by Lemma 5.2 (1) and (3) this yields a contradiction. If is an umbrella or an even -graph other than , then is a bipartite graph. Since is an even cycle and is an odd path, is an odd path, a contradiction. Thus, is an odd path if is odd.
We need to prove that is standard and has properties Q and R below.
Claim 5.7.
is standard.
Proof.
If is even, then since is a bipartite graph, is an even cycle. Thus, is standard.
If is not a bipartite graph and is odd, then is an odd cycle. Suppose is not a standard ear-decomposition of . Then there are paths and of such that . Let . Then is -connected subgraph of . Since is an ear-decomposition of and are even paths, by Lemma 5.2 (1) and (3) this yields a contradiction. Thus, is standard.
If is a bipartite graph, is odd and is an even -graph, then . Otherwise is a -connected subgraph of with , and by Lemma 5.2 (1) this yields a contradiction. Thus, is standard.
If is a bipartite graph, is odd and is an umbrella, then suppose the rims of are , where and is a -path for . Suppose the spokes are , where is a -path. Let . Since , by Lemma 5.4, is a uniform umbrella, i.e., each is an even path and each is an odd path. Suppose there is a path of such that is neither contained in any spoke nor contained in any rim. If and , then divides into two subpaths and . Since , w.l.o.g., let . Then is a -connected graph for . Since is an odd path, one of and is an even path, say . Since is an ear-decomposition of and are even paths, by Lemma 5.2 (1) and (3) this yields a contradiction. If , then since is a bipartite graph, is an odd path and each is an even path, we have . Therefore, there is a rim such that divides into two odd paths and . (w.l.o.g., suppose ). Since there is no rim containing , we have . Note that divides into two subpaths and such that and . Since , by symmetry, suppose . Then there is an integer such that contains and . Then there is an ear-decomposition of such that and . Since and are even paths, by Lemma 5.2 (3) this yields a contradiction. Thus is standard.
Claim 5.8.
has property Q.
Proof.
Let () be the minimum integer such that (). Since , we have and . Let be an integer such that .
Suppose does not have property Q. Then there are integers such that and . Since , by symmetry, suppose . For convenience, let . Since is an odd path, let be an even path. Let and . Then is a -connected graph with an ear-decomposition . If is an odd cycle, or a uniform umbrella, or an even -graph other than , then since is odd and is an even path, by Lemma 5.2 (1) and (3) this yields a contradiction. If is an even cycle, then by Lemma 5.2 (1) and (2) this yields a contradiction.
Claim 5.9.
has property R.
Proof.
If does not have property R, then there are integers such that and is not a subpath of . Since has property Q, is a subpath of . Then and appear alternately on , say are consecutively on . Here, is a subpath of the path if ; is a subpath of either a rim or a spoke of if and is a uniform umbrella; is a subpath of a route if and is an even -graph other than ; is a subpath of a cycle if and is a cycle. Let and . Since and are odd paths, either are even paths and is an odd path, or is an even path and are odd paths. Let .
Suppose are even paths and is an odd path. Let be a graph obtained from by removing and . Then is a -connected graph. Since is an ear-decomposition of and are even paths, by Lemma 5.2 this yields a contradiction.
Suppose is an even path and are odd paths. Let be a graph obtain from by removing for . It is obvious that each is a -connected graph. If is an even cycle, then is an ear-decomposition of , and by Lemma 5.2 (1) and (2) this yields a contradiction. If and is an odd cycle, then is an even path and is an even cycle. Since is an ear-decomposition of and are even paths, by Lemma 5.2 (1) and (3) this yields a contradiction. If and is an even -graph, then suppose and are routes of , and suppose is a subpath of . Then is an ear-decomposition of and are even paths, a contradiction. If and is a uniform umbrella, then there is a rim of such that is not a subpath of . Then is an ear-decomposition of and are even paths, a contradiction. If and is odd, then is an ear-decomposition of . Since is odd and is an even path, by Lemma 5.2 (1) and (3) this yields a contradiction.
Now for the sufficiency, suppose satisfies all conditions of the theorem, i.e., is a standard ear-decomposition of that has properties Q and R, is an odd path for , and is an odd path when . Recall the definitions of digraph , set and integer in Lemma 5.5. We choose an integer from such that is minimum. For convenience, let . Then for each vertex of , we have . The proof proceeds by induction on . By Lemmas 1.1 (2) and 5.3, the result holds for .
If is not an edge, then let be a graph obtained from by replacing with an edge , let and . Let . Let be an ear-decomposition of obtained from by removing , and then replacing with . If , then since is an odd path, is an odd path and satisfies all the conditions. If and is a uniform umbrella (an odd cycle or an even cycle), then is also a uniform umbrella (an odd cycle, an even cycle), i.e., satisfies all the conditions in this case. If and is an even -graph, then satisfies all the conditions except for . Thus, satisfies all the conditions unless .
If , then satisfies all the conditions. Since the number of paths in is , by the induction hypothesis we have . Since is an even cycle, we have . Thus, by Lemma 2.1, . Since is a graph obtained from by replacing with the odd path , by Lemma 2.2 we have . Therefore, .
If , then and . Since , is maximum and (the definition is in the proof of Lemma 5.5). Thus, for each . Let and be routes of with . Then and are -paths and is a subpath of with . Since , we have . For each , if for , then , a contradiction; if , then is an even path, a contradiction. Thus, is a proper subpath of and for each . If for , then and is not a proper subpath of i.e., does not have property R, a contradiction. Therefore, for each . Let . Then is a graph constructed in Remark 1. Thus, . Suppose is an extremal -coloring of (see Remark 1). Let and . Since , let be an edge-coloring of such that for each , and and . Then is an -coloring of with colors, i.e., .
If is an edge, then replace by and replace by . Then the new ear-decomposition also satisfies all the conditions. Moreover, is maximum and is minimum in the new ear-decomposition. Since is not an edge in the new ear-decomposition, this case has been discussed above.
Remark 3.
Recalling the proof of Lemma 5.1, we can find a normal ear-decomposition for a given -connected graph in polynomial time. For a normal ear-decomposition of , deciding whether satisfies all the conditions of Theorem 5.6 can be done in polynomial time. Thus, given a -connected graph , deciding whether is polynomially solvable.
Corollary 5.10.
If is a -connected graph with , then is a planar graph.
Proof.
By Theorem 5.6, there is a standard ear-decomposition of that has properties Q and R. Since is a planar graph if is a cycle, an umbrella or a -graph, the result holds for . Our proof proceeds by induction on . Suppose . By Lemma 5.5, there are integers such that is a path of order at least two, and for each . Let be a graph obtained from by removing . By Lemma 5.2 (1), . By the induction hypothesis, is a planar graph. Since for each , there is a face of such that is a subpath of . Therefore, can be embedded in and is a planar graph.
References
- [1] X. Bai, Y. Chen, M. Ji, X. Li, Y. Weng, W. Wu, Proper disconnection of graphs, arXiv:1906.01832 [math.CO].
- [2] X. Bai, X. Li, Graph colorings under global structural conditions, arXiv:2008.07163 [math.CO].
- [3] J. Bang-Jensen, T. Ballitto, A. Yeo, Proper-walk connection number of graphs, J. Graph Theory, DOI: 10.1002/jgt.22609, in press (2020), 1–23.
- [4] J.A. Bondy, U.S.R. Murty, Graph Theory, GTM 244, Springer, 2008.
- [5] V. Borozan, S. Fujita, A. Gerek, C. Magnant, Y. Manoussakis, L. Montero, Zs. Tuza, Proper connection of graphs, Discrete Math. 312(17) (2012), 2550–2560.
- [6] Y. Caro, R. Yuster, Colorful monochromatic connectivity, Discrete Math. 311 (2011), 1786–1792.
- [7] G. Chartrand, S. Devereaux, T.W. Haynes, S.T. Hedetniemi, P. Zhang, Rainbow disconnection in graphs, Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 38(4) (2018), 1007–1021.
- [8] G. Chartrand, G.L. Johns, K.A. McKeon, P. Zhang, Rainbow connection in graphs, Math. Bohem. 133 (2008), 85–98.
- [9] Y. Chen, P. Li, X. Li, Y. Weng, Complexity results for the proper disconnection of graphs, Proceedings of 14th International Frontiers of Algorithmics Workshop (FAW 2020), LNCS No.12340.
- [10] P. Dankelmann, S. Mukwembi, H.C. Swart, Average distance and vertex-connectivity, J. Graph Theory 62(2) (2010), 157–177.
- [11] O. Favaron, M. Kouider, M. Mahéo, Edge-vulnerability and mean distance, Networks 19 (1989), 493–504.
- [12] P. Li, X. Li, Monochromatic disconnection of graphs, accepted for publication in Discrete Appl. Math. arXiv:1901.01372 [math.CO].
- [13] P. Li, X. Li, Monochromatic disconnection: Erdős-Gallai-type problems and product graphs, arXiv:1904.08583 [math.CO].
- [14] J. Plesnĺk, On the sum of all distances in a graph or digraph, J. Graph Theory 8 (1984), 1–24.