Show any two edges in a 2-connected graph lie on a cycle
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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
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
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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
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
discrete-mathematics graph-theory connectedness graph-connectivity
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited Nov 20 at 15:37
answered Nov 19 at 20:47
Just_a_newbie
506
506
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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
Required, but never shown
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
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
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
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