Show any two edges in a 2-connected graph lie on a cycle











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












So I found some proofs on any two vertices would lie on a cycle, but stuck on dealing with edges. We can say any two edges are connected, but does that just imply they will be on a common cycle?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Which kind of $2$-connectedness are you referring to: $2$-edge-connected or $2$-vertex-connected? I would guess that $2$-edge-connected is what you are aiming for, but I can't say for sure.
    – Batominovski
    Nov 19 at 21:16












  • @Batominovski Here I'm referring to 2-vertex-connected.
    – Thomas
    Nov 19 at 21:25















up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












So I found some proofs on any two vertices would lie on a cycle, but stuck on dealing with edges. We can say any two edges are connected, but does that just imply they will be on a common cycle?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Which kind of $2$-connectedness are you referring to: $2$-edge-connected or $2$-vertex-connected? I would guess that $2$-edge-connected is what you are aiming for, but I can't say for sure.
    – Batominovski
    Nov 19 at 21:16












  • @Batominovski Here I'm referring to 2-vertex-connected.
    – Thomas
    Nov 19 at 21:25













up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1






1





So I found some proofs on any two vertices would lie on a cycle, but stuck on dealing with edges. We can say any two edges are connected, but does that just imply they will be on a common cycle?










share|cite|improve this question















So I found some proofs on any two vertices would lie on a cycle, but stuck on dealing with edges. We can say any two edges are connected, but does that just imply they will be on a common cycle?







discrete-mathematics graph-theory connectedness graph-connectivity






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 19 at 21:18









Batominovski

31.8k23190




31.8k23190










asked Nov 19 at 19:57









Thomas

946




946












  • Which kind of $2$-connectedness are you referring to: $2$-edge-connected or $2$-vertex-connected? I would guess that $2$-edge-connected is what you are aiming for, but I can't say for sure.
    – Batominovski
    Nov 19 at 21:16












  • @Batominovski Here I'm referring to 2-vertex-connected.
    – Thomas
    Nov 19 at 21:25


















  • Which kind of $2$-connectedness are you referring to: $2$-edge-connected or $2$-vertex-connected? I would guess that $2$-edge-connected is what you are aiming for, but I can't say for sure.
    – Batominovski
    Nov 19 at 21:16












  • @Batominovski Here I'm referring to 2-vertex-connected.
    – Thomas
    Nov 19 at 21:25
















Which kind of $2$-connectedness are you referring to: $2$-edge-connected or $2$-vertex-connected? I would guess that $2$-edge-connected is what you are aiming for, but I can't say for sure.
– Batominovski
Nov 19 at 21:16






Which kind of $2$-connectedness are you referring to: $2$-edge-connected or $2$-vertex-connected? I would guess that $2$-edge-connected is what you are aiming for, but I can't say for sure.
– Batominovski
Nov 19 at 21:16














@Batominovski Here I'm referring to 2-vertex-connected.
– Thomas
Nov 19 at 21:25




@Batominovski Here I'm referring to 2-vertex-connected.
– Thomas
Nov 19 at 21:25










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













Let $G = (V, E)$ graph, $|V| ge 3$. Suppose that there exists an edge $e = (u, v) in E$ such that $e$ does not lie on a cycle. Then every path from $u$ to $v$ must contain $e$ (1). If $u$ or $v$ are a leaf, then removing the vertex that connects the leaf from the rest of the graph makes the leaf disconnected (!). Otherwise, define the following partition of $G$ without $e$:



$$G_u = (V_u, E_u) quad quad G_v = (V_v, E_v)$$



where $V_u = {w in V |$ there is a path from $w$ to $u$ that does not contain $e}$, $E_u = {(w, t) in E | w, t in V_u}$ and $V_v$, $E_v$ are defined analogously (2). If we remove $u$ or $v$ from the graph, then we are also removing $e$. Note, however, that if we remove $e$, then there is no path to go from any $w in G_u$ to any $t in G_v$. In other words, the graph becomes disconnected (!).



Notes:



(1) Suppose that there exists a path from $u$ to $v$ that does not contain $e$. Then we can join this path to $e$ to form a cycle, but by doing so we are showing that $e$ lies on a cycle (!).



(2) It is easy to show that $G_u$ and $G_v$ are disjoint.






share|cite|improve this answer























    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: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    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%2f3005438%2fshow-any-two-edges-in-a-2-connected-graph-lie-on-a-cycle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Let $G = (V, E)$ graph, $|V| ge 3$. Suppose that there exists an edge $e = (u, v) in E$ such that $e$ does not lie on a cycle. Then every path from $u$ to $v$ must contain $e$ (1). If $u$ or $v$ are a leaf, then removing the vertex that connects the leaf from the rest of the graph makes the leaf disconnected (!). Otherwise, define the following partition of $G$ without $e$:



    $$G_u = (V_u, E_u) quad quad G_v = (V_v, E_v)$$



    where $V_u = {w in V |$ there is a path from $w$ to $u$ that does not contain $e}$, $E_u = {(w, t) in E | w, t in V_u}$ and $V_v$, $E_v$ are defined analogously (2). If we remove $u$ or $v$ from the graph, then we are also removing $e$. Note, however, that if we remove $e$, then there is no path to go from any $w in G_u$ to any $t in G_v$. In other words, the graph becomes disconnected (!).



    Notes:



    (1) Suppose that there exists a path from $u$ to $v$ that does not contain $e$. Then we can join this path to $e$ to form a cycle, but by doing so we are showing that $e$ lies on a cycle (!).



    (2) It is easy to show that $G_u$ and $G_v$ are disjoint.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Let $G = (V, E)$ graph, $|V| ge 3$. Suppose that there exists an edge $e = (u, v) in E$ such that $e$ does not lie on a cycle. Then every path from $u$ to $v$ must contain $e$ (1). If $u$ or $v$ are a leaf, then removing the vertex that connects the leaf from the rest of the graph makes the leaf disconnected (!). Otherwise, define the following partition of $G$ without $e$:



      $$G_u = (V_u, E_u) quad quad G_v = (V_v, E_v)$$



      where $V_u = {w in V |$ there is a path from $w$ to $u$ that does not contain $e}$, $E_u = {(w, t) in E | w, t in V_u}$ and $V_v$, $E_v$ are defined analogously (2). If we remove $u$ or $v$ from the graph, then we are also removing $e$. Note, however, that if we remove $e$, then there is no path to go from any $w in G_u$ to any $t in G_v$. In other words, the graph becomes disconnected (!).



      Notes:



      (1) Suppose that there exists a path from $u$ to $v$ that does not contain $e$. Then we can join this path to $e$ to form a cycle, but by doing so we are showing that $e$ lies on a cycle (!).



      (2) It is easy to show that $G_u$ and $G_v$ are disjoint.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        Let $G = (V, E)$ graph, $|V| ge 3$. Suppose that there exists an edge $e = (u, v) in E$ such that $e$ does not lie on a cycle. Then every path from $u$ to $v$ must contain $e$ (1). If $u$ or $v$ are a leaf, then removing the vertex that connects the leaf from the rest of the graph makes the leaf disconnected (!). Otherwise, define the following partition of $G$ without $e$:



        $$G_u = (V_u, E_u) quad quad G_v = (V_v, E_v)$$



        where $V_u = {w in V |$ there is a path from $w$ to $u$ that does not contain $e}$, $E_u = {(w, t) in E | w, t in V_u}$ and $V_v$, $E_v$ are defined analogously (2). If we remove $u$ or $v$ from the graph, then we are also removing $e$. Note, however, that if we remove $e$, then there is no path to go from any $w in G_u$ to any $t in G_v$. In other words, the graph becomes disconnected (!).



        Notes:



        (1) Suppose that there exists a path from $u$ to $v$ that does not contain $e$. Then we can join this path to $e$ to form a cycle, but by doing so we are showing that $e$ lies on a cycle (!).



        (2) It is easy to show that $G_u$ and $G_v$ are disjoint.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Let $G = (V, E)$ graph, $|V| ge 3$. Suppose that there exists an edge $e = (u, v) in E$ such that $e$ does not lie on a cycle. Then every path from $u$ to $v$ must contain $e$ (1). If $u$ or $v$ are a leaf, then removing the vertex that connects the leaf from the rest of the graph makes the leaf disconnected (!). Otherwise, define the following partition of $G$ without $e$:



        $$G_u = (V_u, E_u) quad quad G_v = (V_v, E_v)$$



        where $V_u = {w in V |$ there is a path from $w$ to $u$ that does not contain $e}$, $E_u = {(w, t) in E | w, t in V_u}$ and $V_v$, $E_v$ are defined analogously (2). If we remove $u$ or $v$ from the graph, then we are also removing $e$. Note, however, that if we remove $e$, then there is no path to go from any $w in G_u$ to any $t in G_v$. In other words, the graph becomes disconnected (!).



        Notes:



        (1) Suppose that there exists a path from $u$ to $v$ that does not contain $e$. Then we can join this path to $e$ to form a cycle, but by doing so we are showing that $e$ lies on a cycle (!).



        (2) It is easy to show that $G_u$ and $G_v$ are disjoint.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 20 at 15:37

























        answered Nov 19 at 20:47









        Just_a_newbie

        506




        506






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005438%2fshow-any-two-edges-in-a-2-connected-graph-lie-on-a-cycle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bundesstraße 106

            Le Mesnil-Réaume

            Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten