notes-100204

# notes-100204 - MATH 682 Notes Combinatorics and Graph...

This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: MATH 682 Notes Combinatorics and Graph Theory II 1 Local and Global 2-connectedness 1.1 Block structure, concluded Previously we saw that the block structure of a connected graph was connected; today we shall see that it is in fact a tree. Proposition 1. Given a connected graph G with block diagram B ( G ) , B ( G ) is acyclic. Proof. Suppose B ( G ) contains the minimal cycle B 1 ∼ v 1 ∼ B 2 ∼ v 2 ∼ B 3 ∼ ··· ∼ B n ∼ v n ∼ B 1 . We shall show that the subgraph B = B 1 ∪ B 2 ∪ B 3 ∪ ··· ∪ B n of G is 2-connected, violating the maximality condition of the blocks B i . Note that B is connected, since if u ∈ B i and v ∈ B j , and without loss of generality i ≤ j , we may construct a walk from u to v via one of the two following scenarios. If i = j , then we simply construct a path inside of B i between the two. If i < j , then we build our walk by placing the following paths end-to-end: the path from u to v i guaranteed by connectivity of B i , the path from v i to v i +1 guaranteed by connectivity of B i +1 , and so forth up to the path from v j- 2 to v j- 1 guaranteed by connectivity of B j- 1 , and then a path from v j- 1 to v guaranteed by connectivity of B j . Now, we shall see that such a walk will remain even if an arbitrary vertex w other than u or v themselves is removed from B . There are several possible vertices w , msot of which have no effect on the construction above: if w ∈ B k but w 6 = v k- 1 ,v k , then by 2-connectivity of individual blocks, B k- w is still connected, and all of the named vertices mentioned in the procedure above are still under consideration. Likewise, removal of any v k with k < i or k ≥ j will have no effect on the walk-construction procedure above. Our only concern, then, is removal of a vertex v k with i ≤ k < j . In this case, we can construct a walk with the opposite routing arond the cycle, by placing the following paths end-to-end: the path from u to v i- 1 guaranteed by connectivity of B i , the path from v i- 1 to v i- 2 guaranteed by connectivity of B i- 1 , and so forth through the path from v 2 to v 1 guaranteed by connectivity of B 2 , and then onto the path from v 1 to v k guaranteed by connectivity of B 1 , continuing to descend to the path from v j +1 to v j guaranteed by connectivity of B j +1 , and then a path from v j to v guaranteed by connectivity of B j . Thus, B is 2-connected, so the ostensible blocks within it are not blocks, contradicting the possibility of a cycle of blocks. We thus know that a connected graph consists of a number of 2-connected graphs joined along a “skeleton”, which is in fact a tree. We can, if we like, use tihs to build a block-structural version of the structure theorem for 1-connected graphs: Proposition 2. For any connected graph G , there is a sequence of connected subgraphs G 1 ⊂ G 2 ⊂ ··· ⊂ G n = G such that: • G 1 is 2-connected or a single edge....
View Full Document

## This note was uploaded on 01/12/2012 for the course MATH 682 taught by Professor Wildstrom during the Spring '09 term at University of Louisville.

### Page1 / 5

notes-100204 - MATH 682 Notes Combinatorics and Graph...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online