Degree Sequences, Forcibly Chordal Graphs, and Combinatorial Proof Systems
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEGREE SEQUENCES, FORCIBLY CHORDAL GRAPHS, AND COMBINATORIAL PROOF SYSTEMS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Christian Altomare, B.S. Graduate Program in Mathematics The Ohio State University 2009 Dissertation Committee: Dr. G. Neil Robertson, Advisor Dr. John Maharry Dr. Akos Seress ABSTRACT We study the structure theory of two combinatorial objects closely related to graphs. First, we consider degree sequences, and we prove several results originally moti- vated by attempts to prove what was, until recently, S.B. Rao's conjecture, and what is now a theorem of Paul Seymour and Maria Chudnovsky, namely, that graphic degree sequences are well quasi ordered. We give a new, surprisingly non-graph the- oretic proof of the bounded case of this theorem. Next, we obtain an exact structure theorem of degree sequences excluding a square and a pentagon. Using this result, we then prove a structure theorem for degree sequences excluding a square and, more generally, excluding an arbitrary cycle. It should be noted that taking complements, this yields a structure theorem for excluding a matching. The structure theorems above, however, are stated in terms of forcibly chordal graphs, hence we next begin their characterization. While an exact characterization seems difficult, certain partial results are obtained. Specifically, we first characterize the degree sequences of forcibly chordal trees. Next, we use this result to extend the characterization to forcibly chordal forests. Finally, we characterize forcibly chordal graphs having a certain path structure. Next, we define a class of combinatorial objects that generalizes digraphs and partial orders, which is motivated by proof systems arising in mathematical logic. We ii give what we believe will be the basic theory of these objects, including definitions, theorems, and proofs. We define the minors of a proof system, and we give two forbidden minors theorems, one of them characterizing partial orders as proof systems by forbidden minors. iii To Moomar. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I wish to thank Neil Robertson, my advisor. It is every student's wish to have an advisor with such depth of understanding, breadth of knowledge, and raw intuition for his field of expertise. I have gained from him not only knowledge, but an understanding of how research mathematics is carried out. His ability to find the right generalization to prove, the right special case to consider, the right approach to try, and the right question to ask at all, has continually amazed me. Second, I would like to thank S.B. Rao for a beautiful conjecture. Third, I would like to thank Christopher McClain for his generous and patient help related to typesetting and document preparation, which are not my strong suits. Fourth, I wish to thank Akos Seress and John Maharry for their time and effort participating in my thesis committee. Fifth, I would like to thank everyone in the Ohio State University Mathematics Department who has helped me in my time since I started taking mathematics courses here as a high school student. In particular, in the order in which I met them, I am thankful to John Maharry, Alexander Dynin, Judie Monson, Yung-Chen Lu, Vitaly Bergelson, Randall Dougherty, Tim Carlson, Cindy Bernlohr, Boris Pittel, and once again my advisor for the amount of time, effort, and patience they were willing to spend toward my career and development. I thank the countless others in the v department who have helped me as well. Without their help, this would not be possible. Sixth, I thank my parents, Richard and Karen Altomare. vi VITA April 7, 1980 . Born - Columbus, OH 1998-2001 . Undergraduate, The Ohio State University 2001 . B.S. in Mathematics, The Ohio State University 2001-Present . Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Mathematics Specialization: Graph Theory vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract . ii Dedication . iv Acknowledgments . v Vita . vii CHAPTER PAGE 1 Introduction . 1 1.1 Introduction to Degree Sequences . 1 1.2 Degree Sequence Basics, Notation, and Conventions . 5 1.3 Introduction to Combinatorial Proof Systems . 9 2 The Bounded Case of Rao's Conjecture . 12 3 Excluding Matchings and Cycles . 24 4 Forcibly Chordal Trees . 42 5 Forcibly Chordal Forests . 54 6 Forcibly Chordal Graphs . 59 7 Combinatorial Proof Systems . 86 7.1 Introduction . 86 7.2 Proof Closure . 87 7.3 The Merge . 88 7.4 Preceding Set Proof Systems . 92 7.4.1 Examples . 94 7.4.2 Motivation for Definition of Proof . 96 7.4.3 Proof Definition and Basics . 97 viii 7.4.4 Autonomous Sets . 99 7.4.5 Axioms . 103 7.4.6 The Information in the Set of Proofs . 104 7.5 Autonomous Systems . 106 7.5.1 Introduction . 106 7.5.2 Definition of Proof Revisited . 107 7.6 The Canonical Orders . 107 7.6.1 Canonical Order Definition and Basics . 107 7.6.2 Descendability . 109 7.6.3 Canonical Order Basic Theorems And Examples . 116 7.7 Partial Orders As Ausyses . 120 7.8 Well Founded Autonomous Systems . 128 7.9 Blocking . 133 7.9.1 The Blocking Order . 140 7.9.2 Blocking In Posets . 143 7.10 Ausys Lexicographic Sum . 144 7.11 Subausys, Dot, Homomorphisms, and Minors . 150 7.12 Relations to Matching and Connectivity . 163 Bibliography . 165 ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This work studies two classes of objects. The first class we study is the class of degree sequences of finite graphs. The second class we study is a class of combinatorial proof systems we call autonomous systems. 1.1 Introduction to Degree Sequences We assume familiarity with basic graph theory. Definitions and conventions are as in [3] unless otherwise stated. Our graphs are finite, simple, and undirected throughout unless otherwise stated. Definition 1.1.1. Let G be a graph with vertices v1; : : : ; vn, listed such that d(v1) ≥ · · · ≥ d(vn). Then the degree sequence of G, denoted by D(G), is the sequence (d(v1); : : : ; d(vn)). We make no use of the fact that, according to our definition, the degree sequence is a decreasing sequence. It is rather simply the easiest way to make the degree sequence of a graph unique, so we can refer to the degree sequence D(G) of G, as opposed to a degree sequence of G. We note that while a degree sequence does not technically have any vertices, it can be 1 very suggestive to think of the vertices of a degree sequence, which we sometimes do. The degree sequence (2; 2; 2; 1; 1), for instance, would be said to have three vertices of degree 2 and two of degree 1. Definition 1.1.2. Let D be a degree sequence and let G be a graph. We say that G realizes D, or that G is a realization of D, if D(G) = D. We denote by R(D) the set of realizations of D. Myriad theorems in combinatorics, and in particular graph theory, study the graphs not \containing" a fixed graph, for various notions of containment. It is fruitful to define a notion of containment for degree sequences as well so that similar questions may be asked and theorems proved. Definition 1.1.3. Let D1 and D2 be degree sequences. We write D1 ≤ D2 if there is a graph G1 in R(D1) and a graph G2 in R(D2) such that G1 is an induced subgraph of G2. The reader may check that ≤ is a reflexive, transitive relation. One motivation for making this definition is that the induced subgraph relation for graphs can be extremely difficult to work with, even for questions that are tractable if the induced subgraph relation is replaced with another containment relation. The relation ≤ for degree sequences is similar to, but more tractable in many cases than, the induced subgraph relation for graphs. 2 A discussion of claw free graphs and degree sequences best illustrates this point. A claw is the unique graph up to isomorphism with degree sequence (3; 1; 1; 1). Suppose we wish to find the structure of claw free graphs. What claw free means of course depends on the containment relation used. If we work with the minor relation, we are asking which graphs have no claw as a minor. It is trivial that a graph is claw free in this sense iff it has no vertices of degree three or more. The claw free graphs are trivially then exactly the disjoint unions of paths and cycles. If instead of working with the minor relation, we rather work with the induced sub- graph relation, the structure of claw free graphs is then a deep and difficult theorem of Chudnovsky and Seymour, proved in a series of five papers totalling over 200 pages. Now, if instead of working with graphs excluding a claw as an induced subgraph, we instead ask which degree sequences exclude the degree sequence of a claw, then the structure theorem given by Robertson and Song can be proved in under six pages. Thus, in passing from induced subgraphs to the ≤ relation on degree sequences, we have a theorem that is motivated by induced subgraphs, yet still more amenable to analysis. With this motivation, degree sequence analogues of questions asked for graphs are of- ten asked for degree sequences. The celebrated Minor Theorem of Robertson and Sey- mour says that finite graphs are well quasi ordered under the minor relation. A well quasi order is a reflexive, transitive relation T on a set X such that if x1; x2; : : : ; xn;::: is an infinite sequence in X then there exist i and j with i < j such that xiT xj.