Does âLet S be a minimal set of edge-disjoint chordal subgraphs of a graph Gâ make sense?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have a graph $G$, and I would like to obtain a set $S$ of subgraphs of $G$ such that:
- every subgraph in $S$ is chordal;
- the subgraphs in $S$ are pairwise edge-disjoint;
- every triangle in $G$ is witnessed in some subgraph in $S$;
- the set $S$ is minimal, i.e., each subgraph in $S$ should contain as many triangles as possible.
Please note that I do not wish to compute such a set, I just want to use it in a proof and I would like to know if it is obvious that such a set exists or if I have to prove it.
My intuition says that such a set exists, but I do not know how to phrase it in a formal manner.
graph-theory chordal-graph
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have a graph $G$, and I would like to obtain a set $S$ of subgraphs of $G$ such that:
- every subgraph in $S$ is chordal;
- the subgraphs in $S$ are pairwise edge-disjoint;
- every triangle in $G$ is witnessed in some subgraph in $S$;
- the set $S$ is minimal, i.e., each subgraph in $S$ should contain as many triangles as possible.
Please note that I do not wish to compute such a set, I just want to use it in a proof and I would like to know if it is obvious that such a set exists or if I have to prove it.
My intuition says that such a set exists, but I do not know how to phrase it in a formal manner.
graph-theory chordal-graph
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have a graph $G$, and I would like to obtain a set $S$ of subgraphs of $G$ such that:
- every subgraph in $S$ is chordal;
- the subgraphs in $S$ are pairwise edge-disjoint;
- every triangle in $G$ is witnessed in some subgraph in $S$;
- the set $S$ is minimal, i.e., each subgraph in $S$ should contain as many triangles as possible.
Please note that I do not wish to compute such a set, I just want to use it in a proof and I would like to know if it is obvious that such a set exists or if I have to prove it.
My intuition says that such a set exists, but I do not know how to phrase it in a formal manner.
graph-theory chordal-graph
I have a graph $G$, and I would like to obtain a set $S$ of subgraphs of $G$ such that:
- every subgraph in $S$ is chordal;
- the subgraphs in $S$ are pairwise edge-disjoint;
- every triangle in $G$ is witnessed in some subgraph in $S$;
- the set $S$ is minimal, i.e., each subgraph in $S$ should contain as many triangles as possible.
Please note that I do not wish to compute such a set, I just want to use it in a proof and I would like to know if it is obvious that such a set exists or if I have to prove it.
My intuition says that such a set exists, but I do not know how to phrase it in a formal manner.
graph-theory chordal-graph
asked Aug 18 at 0:04
hamster
394
394
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Such a set does not always exist. For example, take the $6$-vertex wheel graph:
Take a subgraph from $S$ containing one of the triangles. Then it must also contain the next adjacent triangle: it already includes one of its edges, so no other element of $S$ can contain that triangle, but some element of $S$ must. By repeating this argument, the subgraph we start with must contain all five triangles, so it must be the entire graph $G$. But $G$ is not chordal, so this violates the first condition.
The answer to the question in your title, though, is yes: if we drop the condition that every triangle is present in one of the subgraphs, then such a set $S$ does exist. One such set is the set of all $1$-edge subgraphs; this is probably not minimal, but now that we know that the collection of such partitions is nonempty, we can take one with as few parts as possible. (There may be multiple ways to achieve that minimum.)
Thank you for your answer, it was really helpful. Do you know of any property about partitioning a graph into chordal subgraphs? Since you explained that these subgraphs cannot be edge-disjoint, perhaps a single edge would be enough?
â hamster
Aug 18 at 12:57
We can definitely find a set $S$ such that any two subgraphs in $S$ overlap in at most one edge. Again: one such set exists because we can take each triangle in $G$ to be a subgraph, and each edge that's not in any triangle to be another subgraph. Then it is valid to take a smallest such set.
â Misha Lavrov
Aug 18 at 15:16
Anyway, I have accepted your answer and marked my question as resolved, and thank you again, but for the moment it is not yet clear in my head what I want exactly. I may come back at a later time!
â hamster
Aug 18 at 17:24
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Such a set does not always exist. For example, take the $6$-vertex wheel graph:
Take a subgraph from $S$ containing one of the triangles. Then it must also contain the next adjacent triangle: it already includes one of its edges, so no other element of $S$ can contain that triangle, but some element of $S$ must. By repeating this argument, the subgraph we start with must contain all five triangles, so it must be the entire graph $G$. But $G$ is not chordal, so this violates the first condition.
The answer to the question in your title, though, is yes: if we drop the condition that every triangle is present in one of the subgraphs, then such a set $S$ does exist. One such set is the set of all $1$-edge subgraphs; this is probably not minimal, but now that we know that the collection of such partitions is nonempty, we can take one with as few parts as possible. (There may be multiple ways to achieve that minimum.)
Thank you for your answer, it was really helpful. Do you know of any property about partitioning a graph into chordal subgraphs? Since you explained that these subgraphs cannot be edge-disjoint, perhaps a single edge would be enough?
â hamster
Aug 18 at 12:57
We can definitely find a set $S$ such that any two subgraphs in $S$ overlap in at most one edge. Again: one such set exists because we can take each triangle in $G$ to be a subgraph, and each edge that's not in any triangle to be another subgraph. Then it is valid to take a smallest such set.
â Misha Lavrov
Aug 18 at 15:16
Anyway, I have accepted your answer and marked my question as resolved, and thank you again, but for the moment it is not yet clear in my head what I want exactly. I may come back at a later time!
â hamster
Aug 18 at 17:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Such a set does not always exist. For example, take the $6$-vertex wheel graph:
Take a subgraph from $S$ containing one of the triangles. Then it must also contain the next adjacent triangle: it already includes one of its edges, so no other element of $S$ can contain that triangle, but some element of $S$ must. By repeating this argument, the subgraph we start with must contain all five triangles, so it must be the entire graph $G$. But $G$ is not chordal, so this violates the first condition.
The answer to the question in your title, though, is yes: if we drop the condition that every triangle is present in one of the subgraphs, then such a set $S$ does exist. One such set is the set of all $1$-edge subgraphs; this is probably not minimal, but now that we know that the collection of such partitions is nonempty, we can take one with as few parts as possible. (There may be multiple ways to achieve that minimum.)
Thank you for your answer, it was really helpful. Do you know of any property about partitioning a graph into chordal subgraphs? Since you explained that these subgraphs cannot be edge-disjoint, perhaps a single edge would be enough?
â hamster
Aug 18 at 12:57
We can definitely find a set $S$ such that any two subgraphs in $S$ overlap in at most one edge. Again: one such set exists because we can take each triangle in $G$ to be a subgraph, and each edge that's not in any triangle to be another subgraph. Then it is valid to take a smallest such set.
â Misha Lavrov
Aug 18 at 15:16
Anyway, I have accepted your answer and marked my question as resolved, and thank you again, but for the moment it is not yet clear in my head what I want exactly. I may come back at a later time!
â hamster
Aug 18 at 17:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Such a set does not always exist. For example, take the $6$-vertex wheel graph:
Take a subgraph from $S$ containing one of the triangles. Then it must also contain the next adjacent triangle: it already includes one of its edges, so no other element of $S$ can contain that triangle, but some element of $S$ must. By repeating this argument, the subgraph we start with must contain all five triangles, so it must be the entire graph $G$. But $G$ is not chordal, so this violates the first condition.
The answer to the question in your title, though, is yes: if we drop the condition that every triangle is present in one of the subgraphs, then such a set $S$ does exist. One such set is the set of all $1$-edge subgraphs; this is probably not minimal, but now that we know that the collection of such partitions is nonempty, we can take one with as few parts as possible. (There may be multiple ways to achieve that minimum.)
Such a set does not always exist. For example, take the $6$-vertex wheel graph:
Take a subgraph from $S$ containing one of the triangles. Then it must also contain the next adjacent triangle: it already includes one of its edges, so no other element of $S$ can contain that triangle, but some element of $S$ must. By repeating this argument, the subgraph we start with must contain all five triangles, so it must be the entire graph $G$. But $G$ is not chordal, so this violates the first condition.
The answer to the question in your title, though, is yes: if we drop the condition that every triangle is present in one of the subgraphs, then such a set $S$ does exist. One such set is the set of all $1$-edge subgraphs; this is probably not minimal, but now that we know that the collection of such partitions is nonempty, we can take one with as few parts as possible. (There may be multiple ways to achieve that minimum.)
answered Aug 18 at 3:12
Misha Lavrov
36.4k54691
36.4k54691
Thank you for your answer, it was really helpful. Do you know of any property about partitioning a graph into chordal subgraphs? Since you explained that these subgraphs cannot be edge-disjoint, perhaps a single edge would be enough?
â hamster
Aug 18 at 12:57
We can definitely find a set $S$ such that any two subgraphs in $S$ overlap in at most one edge. Again: one such set exists because we can take each triangle in $G$ to be a subgraph, and each edge that's not in any triangle to be another subgraph. Then it is valid to take a smallest such set.
â Misha Lavrov
Aug 18 at 15:16
Anyway, I have accepted your answer and marked my question as resolved, and thank you again, but for the moment it is not yet clear in my head what I want exactly. I may come back at a later time!
â hamster
Aug 18 at 17:24
add a comment |Â
Thank you for your answer, it was really helpful. Do you know of any property about partitioning a graph into chordal subgraphs? Since you explained that these subgraphs cannot be edge-disjoint, perhaps a single edge would be enough?
â hamster
Aug 18 at 12:57
We can definitely find a set $S$ such that any two subgraphs in $S$ overlap in at most one edge. Again: one such set exists because we can take each triangle in $G$ to be a subgraph, and each edge that's not in any triangle to be another subgraph. Then it is valid to take a smallest such set.
â Misha Lavrov
Aug 18 at 15:16
Anyway, I have accepted your answer and marked my question as resolved, and thank you again, but for the moment it is not yet clear in my head what I want exactly. I may come back at a later time!
â hamster
Aug 18 at 17:24
Thank you for your answer, it was really helpful. Do you know of any property about partitioning a graph into chordal subgraphs? Since you explained that these subgraphs cannot be edge-disjoint, perhaps a single edge would be enough?
â hamster
Aug 18 at 12:57
Thank you for your answer, it was really helpful. Do you know of any property about partitioning a graph into chordal subgraphs? Since you explained that these subgraphs cannot be edge-disjoint, perhaps a single edge would be enough?
â hamster
Aug 18 at 12:57
We can definitely find a set $S$ such that any two subgraphs in $S$ overlap in at most one edge. Again: one such set exists because we can take each triangle in $G$ to be a subgraph, and each edge that's not in any triangle to be another subgraph. Then it is valid to take a smallest such set.
â Misha Lavrov
Aug 18 at 15:16
We can definitely find a set $S$ such that any two subgraphs in $S$ overlap in at most one edge. Again: one such set exists because we can take each triangle in $G$ to be a subgraph, and each edge that's not in any triangle to be another subgraph. Then it is valid to take a smallest such set.
â Misha Lavrov
Aug 18 at 15:16
Anyway, I have accepted your answer and marked my question as resolved, and thank you again, but for the moment it is not yet clear in my head what I want exactly. I may come back at a later time!
â hamster
Aug 18 at 17:24
Anyway, I have accepted your answer and marked my question as resolved, and thank you again, but for the moment it is not yet clear in my head what I want exactly. I may come back at a later time!
â hamster
Aug 18 at 17:24
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2886299%2fdoes-let-s-be-a-minimal-set-of-edge-disjoint-chordal-subgraphs-of-a-graph-g-ma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password