Does “Let S be a minimal set of edge-disjoint chordal subgraphs of a graph G” make sense?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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.







share|cite|improve this question
























    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.







    share|cite|improve this question






















      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.







      share|cite|improve this question












      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.









      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Aug 18 at 0:04









      hamster

      394




      394




















          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:



          6-vtx 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.)






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • 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?
            – 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.
            – 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!
            – hamster
            Aug 18 at 17:24










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );








           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          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






























          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:



          6-vtx 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.)






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • 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?
            – 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.
            – 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!
            – hamster
            Aug 18 at 17:24














          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Such a set does not always exist. For example, take the $6$-vertex wheel graph:



          6-vtx 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.)






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • 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?
            – 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.
            – 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!
            – hamster
            Aug 18 at 17:24












          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:



          6-vtx 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.)






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Such a set does not always exist. For example, take the $6$-vertex wheel graph:



          6-vtx 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.)







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          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?
            – 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.
            – 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!
            – 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?
            – 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.
            – 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!
            – 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?
          – 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?
          – 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.
          – 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.
          – 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!
          – 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!
          – hamster
          Aug 18 at 17:24












           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          Drama (film and television)

          Evaluating the modulus of roots of a 6 degree polynomial