DOCSLIB.ORG

Maximally Edge-Connected and Vertex-Connected Graphs and Digraphs: a Survey Angelika Hellwiga, Lutz Volkmannb,∗

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maximally Edge-Connected and Vertex-Connected Graphs and Digraphs: a Survey Angelika Hellwiga, Lutz Volkmannb,∗ View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Discrete Mathematics 308 (2008) 3265–3296 www.elsevier.com/locate/disc Maximally edge-connected and vertex-connected graphs and digraphs: A survey Angelika Hellwiga, Lutz Volkmannb,∗ aInstitut für Medizinische Statistik, Universitätsklinikum der RWTH Aachen, PauwelsstraYe 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany bLehrstuhl II für Mathematik, RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany Received 8 December 2005; received in revised form 15 June 2007; accepted 24 June 2007 Available online 24 August 2007 Abstract Let D be a graph or a digraph. If (D) is the minimum degree, (D) the edge-connectivity and (D) the vertex-connectivity, then (D) (D) (D) is a well-known basic relationship between these parameters. The graph or digraph D is called maximally edge- connected if (D) = (D) and maximally vertex-connected if (D) = (D). In this survey we mainly present sufficient conditions for graphs and digraphs to be maximally edge-connected as well as maximally vertex-connected. We also discuss the concept of conditional or restricted edge-connectivity and vertex-connectivity, respectively. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Connectivity; Edge-connectivity; Vertex-connectivity; Restricted connectivity; Conditional connectivity; Super-edge-connectivity; Local-edge-connectivity; Minimum degree; Degree sequence; Diameter; Girth; Clique number; Line graph 1. Introduction Numerous networks as, for example, transport networks, road networks, electrical networks, telecommunication systems or networks of servers can be modeled by a graph or a digraph. Many attempts have been made to determine how well such a network is ‘connected’ or stated differently how much effort is required to break down communication in the system between some vertices. Clearly, it is desirable that a network stays connected as long as possible in case of faults should arise. Two classical measures that indicate how reliable a graph or a digraph D is are the edge-connectivity (D) and the vertex-connectivity or simply the connectivity (D) of D.If(D) is the minimum degree, then it is well known that (D)(D) and (D)(D). Thus, in order to construct reliable and fault-tolerant networks, sufficient conditions for graphs or digraphs D satisfying (D)=(D) (so-called maximally edge-connected) or (D)=(D) (so- called maximally connected) are of great interest. For the case that graphs or digraphs are maximally edge-connected or connected also further connectivity parameters are needed to investigate the fault tolerance, such as super-edge- connectivity, restricted (edge-)connectivity or local-edge-connectivity. Our objectives are to present results on (edge-)connectivity and maximally (edge)-connected graphs and digraphs. Furthermore, we take a look at the concept of conditional or restricted (edge-)connectivity. ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Hellwig), [email protected] (L. Volkmann). 0012-365X/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.disc.2007.06.035 3266 A. Hellwig, L. Volkmann/ Discrete Mathematics 308 (2008) 3265–3296 For more information on connectivity in graphs we refer the reader to survey articles with different emphases by Fàbrega and Fiol [47], Mader [103], Oellermann [113] and Xu [177] and to the Ph.D. thesis by Hellwig [69]. 2. Some terminology and basic results We consider finite (di-)graphs without loops and multiple edges. For any (di-)graph D the vertex set is denoted by V(D)and the edge set (sometimes called oriented edge set or arc set in the case that D is a digraph) by E(D).We define the order of D by n = n(D) =|V(D)| and the size by m = m(D) =|E(D)|.IfG is a graph, then the vertex degree d(v) = dG(v) of a vertex v is the number of vertices of G adjacent to v. The minimum degree is denoted by = (G) and the maximum degree by = (G). The degree sequence of a graph G is defined as the nonincreasing sequence of the degrees of the vertices of G. For a vertex v ∈ V (G), the open neighborhood N(v)= NG(v) is the set of all vertices adjacent to v, and N[v]=NG[v]=N(v)∪{v} is the closed neighborhood of v.Ife = uv is an edge of a graph G, then let N(e)= NG(e) = (N(u) ∪ N(v))−{u, v}. For X ⊆ V (G) let G[X] be the subgraph of G induced by X. For a connected graph G, the distance d(u, v)=dG(u, v) between two vertices u and v is the length of a shortest path from u to v. The diameter dm(G) of a connected graph G is defined by dm(G) = maxu,v∈V (G) dG(u, v).IfX and Y are two subsets of V (G), then we denote by (X, Y ) the set of edges with one endpoint in X and the other one in Y and by d(X,Y) = dG(X, Y ) = minx∈X, y∈Y dG(x, y) the distance between X and Y. The girth g of a graph is the length of its shortest cycle. A (,g)-cage is a -regular graph with 2 and girth g 3 having the least possible number of vertices. Let p be a positive integer. A (di-)graph D is said to be p-partite if it is possible to partition V(D)into p subsets V1,V2,...,Vp (called partite sets) such that every edge joins a vertex of Vi to a vertex of Vj for i = j.IfG is a p-partite graph such that uv ∈ E(G) for every vertex u ∈ Vi and every v ∈ Vj for i = j, then we speak of a complete p-partite or complete multipartite graph.Forp = 2, such graphs are called bipartite graphs. The complete bipartite graph Kp,q has the bipartition A, B with |A|=p and |B|=q such that for every pair of vertices u ∈ A and v ∈ B there exists the edge uv. A vertex-cut in a graph G is a set X of vertices of G such that G − X is disconnected. The vertex-connectivity or simply the connectivity = (G) of a graph G is the minimum cardinality of a vertex-cut of G if G is not complete, and (G) = n − 1ifG is the complete graph Kn of order n.Anedge-cut in a graph G is a set S of edges of G such that G − S is disconnected. If S is a minimal edge-cut of a connected graph G, then, necessarily, G − S consists of exactly two components. Every nontrivial graph has an edge-cut. The edge-connectivity = (G) of a graph G is the minimum ¯ cardinality of an edge-cut of G if G is nontrivial and (K1) = 0. We denote by G the complementary graph of a graph G. A graph G is self-complementary if G = G¯ . For other graph theory terminology we follow Bondy and Murty [21] or Chartrand and Lesniak [29]. Connectivity, edge-connectivity and minimum degree of a graph are related by a basic inequality due to Whitney [171] in 1932. Theorem 2.1 (Whitney [171] 1932). For any graph G, (G)(G)(G). (1) Chartrand and Harary [27] showed that this result is best possible in the sense that if a,b and c are positive integers such that a bc, then there exists a graph G with (G) = a, (G) = b and (G) = c. Because of (1), it is reasonable to say that a graph G is maximally connected if (G) = (G) and maximally edge-connected if (G) = (G). The following result on the diameter of a graph and its complement will be used later, and can be found in the book by Bondy and Murty [21] on p. 14 as an exercise (for a proof cf. [148, p. 19]). Theorem 2.2 (Bondy and Murty [21] 1976). If G is a graph of diameter dm(G)4, then dm(G)¯ 2. Note that Theorem 2.2 generalizes the earlier result by Ringel [133] that a nontrivial self-complementary graph has diameter 2 or 3 as well as the observation that dm(G)3 implies dm(G)¯ 3 by Harary and Robinson [68]. A. Hellwig, L. Volkmann/ Discrete Mathematics 308 (2008) 3265–3296 3267 3. Maximally edge-connected graphs Sufficient conditions for equality of edge-connectivity and minimum degree for graphs were given by several authors. The starting point was an article by Chartrand [26] in 1966. He observed that if is large enough, then the second inequality in (1) becomes an equality. Theorem 3.1 (Chartrand [26] 1966). If G is a graph of order n(G)2(G) + 1, then (G) = (G). In 1974, Lesniak [91] proved the following strengthening of this result. Theorem 3.2 (Lesniak [91] 1974). If G is a graph with dG(u) + dG(v)n(G) − 1 for all distinct non-adjacent vertices u and v, then (G) = (G). One year later, Plesník [127] presented a nice condition based on the diameter that implies Theorems 3.1 and 3.2. Theorem 3.3 (Plesník [127] 1975). If G is a graph of diameter dm(G)2, then (G) = (G). In 1989, Plesník and Znám [128] could relax the condition in Theorem 3.3 in the sense that some distances can be greater than 2. Theorem 3.4 (Plesník and Znám [128] 1989). If in a connected graph G no four vertices u1,v1,u2,v2 with d(u1,u2), d(u1,v2), d(v1,u2), d(v1,v2)3 exist, then (G) = (G). A pair of sets X, Y ⊂ V (G) with dG(X, Y ) = k, where k is a positive integer, is called k-distance maximal, if there exist no sets X1 ⊇ X and Y1 ⊇ Y with X1 = X or Y1 = Y such that dG(X1,Y1) = k.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MTH 304: General Topology Semester 2, 2017-2018
    MTH 304: General Topology Semester 2, 2017-2018 Dr. Prahlad Vaidyanathan Contents I. Continuous Functions3 1. First Definitions................................3 2. Open Sets...................................4 3. Continuity by Open Sets...........................6 II. Topological Spaces8 1. Definition and Examples...........................8 2. Metric Spaces................................. 11 3. Basis for a topology.............................. 16 4. The Product Topology on X × Y ...................... 18 Q 5. The Product Topology on Xα ....................... 20 6. Closed Sets.................................. 22 7. Continuous Functions............................. 27 8. The Quotient Topology............................ 30 III.Properties of Topological Spaces 36 1. The Hausdorff property............................ 36 2. Connectedness................................. 37 3. Path Connectedness............................. 41 4. Local Connectedness............................. 44 5. Compactness................................. 46 6. Compact Subsets of Rn ............................ 50 7. Continuous Functions on Compact Sets................... 52 8. Compactness in Metric Spaces........................ 56 9. Local Compactness.............................. 59 IV.Separation Axioms 62 1. Regular Spaces................................ 62 2. Normal Spaces................................ 64 3. Tietze's extension Theorem......................... 67 4. Urysohn Metrization Theorem........................ 71 5. Imbedding of Manifolds..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Discrete Mathematics Panconnected Index of Graphs
    Discrete Mathematics 340 (2017) 1092–1097 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Discrete Mathematics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/disc Panconnected index of graphs Hao Li a,*, Hong-Jian Lai b, Yang Wu b, Shuzhen Zhuc a Department of Mathematics, Renmin University, Beijing, PR China b Department of Mathematics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA c Department of Mathematics, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, 030024, PR China article info a b s t r a c t Article history: For a connected graph G not isomorphic to a path, a cycle or a K1;3, let pc(G) denote the Received 22 January 2016 smallest integer n such that the nth iterated line graph Ln(G) is panconnected. A path P is Received in revised form 25 October 2016 a divalent path of G if the internal vertices of P are of degree 2 in G. If every edge of P is a Accepted 25 October 2016 cut edge of G, then P is a bridge divalent path of G; if the two ends of P are of degree s and Available online 30 November 2016 t, respectively, then P is called a divalent (s; t)-path. Let `(G) D maxfm V G has a divalent g Keywords: path of length m that is not both of length 2 and in a K3 . We prove the following. Iterated line graphs (i) If G is a connected triangular graph, then L(G) is panconnected if and only if G is Panconnectedness essentially 3-edge-connected. Panconnected index of graphs (ii) pc(G) ≤ `(G) C 2.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Simple Connectedness of Hyperplane Complements in Dual Polar Spaces
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography On the simple connectedness of hyperplane complements in dual polar spaces I. Cardinali, B. De Bruyn∗ and A. Pasini Abstract Let ∆ be a dual polar space of rank n ≥ 4, H be a hyperplane of ∆ and Γ := ∆\H be the complement of H in ∆. We shall prove that, if all lines of ∆ have more than 3 points, then Γ is simply connected. Then we show how this theorem can be exploited to prove that certain families of hyperplanes of dual polar spaces, or all hyperplanes of certain dual polar spaces, arise from embeddings. Keywords: diagram geometry, dual polar spaces, hyperplanes, simple connected- ness, universal embedding MSC: 51E24, 51A50 1 Introduction We presume the reader is familiar with notions as simple connectedness, hy- perplanes, hyperplane complements, full projective embeddings, hyperplanes arising from an embedding, and other concepts involved in the theorems to be stated in this introduction. If not, the reader may see Section 2 of this paper, where those concepts are recalled. The following is the main theorem of this paper. We shall prove it in Section 3. Theorem 1.1 Let ∆ be a dual polar space of rank ≥ 4 with at least 4 points on each line. If H is a hyperplane of ∆ then the complement ∆ \ H of H in ∆ is simply connected. ∗Postdoctoral Fellow on the Research Foundation - Flanders 1 Not so much is known on ∆ \ H when rank(∆) = 3. The next theorem is one of the few results obtained so far for that case.
    [Show full text]
  • Connected Fundamental Groups and Homotopy Contacts in Fibered Topological (C, R) Space
    S S symmetry Article Connected Fundamental Groups and Homotopy Contacts in Fibered Topological (C, R) Space Susmit Bagchi Department of Aerospace and Software Engineering (Informatics), Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 660701, Korea; [email protected] Abstract: The algebraic as well as geometric topological constructions of manifold embeddings and homotopy offer interesting insights about spaces and symmetry. This paper proposes the construction of 2-quasinormed variants of locally dense p-normed 2-spheres within a non-uniformly scalable quasinormed topological (C, R) space. The fibered space is dense and the 2-spheres are equivalent to the category of 3-dimensional manifolds or three-manifolds with simply connected boundary surfaces. However, the disjoint and proper embeddings of covering three-manifolds within the convex subspaces generates separations of p-normed 2-spheres. The 2-quasinormed variants of p-normed 2-spheres are compact and path-connected varieties within the dense space. The path-connection is further extended by introducing the concept of bi-connectedness, preserving Urysohn separation of closed subspaces. The local fundamental groups are constructed from the discrete variety of path-homotopies, which are interior to the respective 2-spheres. The simple connected boundaries of p-normed 2-spheres generate finite and countable sets of homotopy contacts of the fundamental groups. Interestingly, a compact fibre can prepare a homotopy loop in the fundamental group within the fibered topological (C, R) space. It is shown that the holomorphic condition is a requirement in the topological (C, R) space to preserve a convex path-component. Citation: Bagchi, S. Connected However, the topological projections of p-normed 2-spheres on the disjoint holomorphic complex Fundamental Groups and Homotopy subspaces retain the path-connection property irrespective of the projective points on real subspace.
    [Show full text]
  • Solutions to Problem Set 4: Connectedness
    Solutions to Problem Set 4: Connectedness Problem 1 (8). Let X be a set, and T0 and T1 topologies on X. If T0 ⊂ T1, we say that T1 is finer than T0 (and that T0 is coarser than T1). a. Let Y be a set with topologies T0 and T1, and suppose idY :(Y; T1) ! (Y; T0) is continuous. What is the relationship between T0 and T1? Justify your claim. b. Let Y be a set with topologies T0 and T1 and suppose that T0 ⊂ T1. What does connectedness in one topology imply about connectedness in the other? c. Let Y be a set with topologies T0 and T1 and suppose that T0 ⊂ T1. What does one topology being Hausdorff imply about the other? d. Let Y be a set with topologies T0 and T1 and suppose that T0 ⊂ T1. What does convergence of a sequence in one topology imply about convergence in the other? Solution 1. a. By definition, idY is continuous if and only if preimages of open subsets of (Y; T0) are open subsets of (Y; T1). But, the preimage of U ⊂ Y is U itself. Hence, the map is continuous if and only if open subsets of (Y; T0) are open in (Y; T1), i.e. T0 ⊂ T1, i.e. T1 is finer than T0. ` b. If Y is disconnected in T0, it can be written as Y = U V , where U; V 2 T0 are non-empty. Then U and V are also open in T1; hence, Y is disconnected in T1 too. Thus, connectedness in T1 imply connectedness in T0.
    [Show full text]
  • CONNECTEDNESS-Notes Def. a Topological Space X Is
    CONNECTEDNESS-Notes Def. A topological space X is disconnected if it admits a non-trivial splitting: X = A [ B; A \ B = ;; A; B open in X; and non-empty. (We'll abbreviate `disjoint union' of two subsets A and B {meaning A\B = ;{ by A t B.) X is connected if no such splitting exists. A subset C ⊂ X is connected if it is a connected topological space, when endowed with the induced topology (the open subsets of C are the intersections of C with open subsets of X.) Note that X is connected if and only if the only subsets of X that are simultaneously open and closed are ; and X. Example. The real line R is connected. The connected subsets of R are exactly the intervals. (See [Fleming] for a proof.) Def. A topological space X is path-connected if any two points p; q 2 X can be joined by a continuous path in X, the image of a continuous map γ : [0; 1] ! X, γ(0) = p; γ(1) = q. Path-connected implies connected: If X = AtB is a non-trivial splitting, taking p 2 A; q 2 B and a path γ in X from p to q would lead to a non- trivial splitting [0; 1] = γ−1(A) t γ−1(B) (by continuity of γ), contradicting the connectedness of [0; 1]. Example: Any normed vector space is path-connected (connect two vec- tors v; w by the line segment t 7! tw + (1 − t)v; t 2 [0; 1]), hence connected. The continuous image of a connected space is connected: Let f : X ! Y be continuous, with X connected.
    [Show full text]
  • A Connectedness Principle in the Geometry of Positive Curvature Fuquan Fang,1 Sergio´ Mendonc¸A, Xiaochun Rong2
    communications in analysis and geometry Volume 13, Number 4, 671-695, 2005 A Connectedness principle in the geometry of positive curvature Fuquan Fang,1 Sergio´ Mendonc¸a, Xiaochun Rong2 The main purpose of this paper is to develop a connectedness prin- ciple in the geometry of positive curvature. In the form, this is a surprising analog of the classical connectedness principle in com- plex algebraic geometry. The connectedness principle, when ap- plied to totally geodesic immersions, provides not only a uniform formulation for the classical Synge theorem, the Frankel theorem and a recent theorem of Wilking for totally geodesic submanifolds, but also new connectedness theorems for totally geodesic immer- sions in the geometry of positive curvature. However, the connect- edness principle may apply in certain cases which do not require the existence of totally geodesic immersions. 0. Introduction. In algebraic geometry, the connectedness principle is a theme that may be stated as follows (cf. [14]): Given a suitably “positive” embedding of manifold of codimension d, D→ P , and a proper morphism, f : N n → P , f −1(D) −−−−→ N n f f D −−−−→ P, n −1 ∼ the homotopy groups should satisfy that πi(N ,f (D)) = πi(P, D)for i ≤ n − d− “defect”, where the defect can be measured by the lack of positivity of N in P , the singularities of N and the dimension of the fibers of f. The most basic case is when P = Pm × Pm, the product of the projective space, D = ∆, the diagonal submanifold P ,andN is the product 1Supported by CNPq of Brazil, NSFC Grant 19741002, RFDP and Qiu-Shi Foundation of China 2Supported partially by NSF Grant DMS 0203164 and a research found from Capital normal university 671 672 F.
    [Show full text]
  • Path Connectedness and Invertible Matrices
    PATH CONNECTEDNESS AND INVERTIBLE MATRICES JOSEPH BREEN 1. Path Connectedness Given a space,1 it is often of interest to know whether or not it is path-connected. Informally, a space X is path-connected if, given any two points in X, we can draw a path between the points which stays inside X. For example, a disc is path-connected, because any two points inside a disc can be connected with a straight line. The space which is the disjoint union of two discs is not path-connected, because it is impossible to draw a path from a point in one disc to a point in the other disc. Any attempt to do so would result in a path that is not entirely contained in the space: Though path-connectedness is a very geometric and visual property, math lets us formalize it and use it to gain geometric insight into spaces that we cannot visualize. In these notes, we will consider spaces of matrices, which (in general) we cannot draw as regions in R2 or R3. To begin studying these spaces, we first explicitly define the concept of a path. Definition 1.1. A path in X is a continuous function ' : [0; 1] ! X. In other words, to get a path in a space X, we take an interval and stick it inside X in a continuous way: X '(1) 0 1 '(0) 1Formally, a topological space. 1 2 JOSEPH BREEN Note that we don't actually have to use the interval [0; 1]; we could continuously map [1; 2], [0; 2], or any closed interval, and the result would be a path in X.
    [Show full text]
  • Connected Spaces and How to Use Them
    CONNECTED SPACES AND HOW TO USE THEM 1. How to prove X is connected Checking that a space X is NOT connected is typically easy: you just have to find two disjoint, non-empty subsets A and B in X, such that A [ B = X, and A and B are both open in X. (Notice n that when X is a subset in a bigger space, say R , \open in X" means relatively open with respected to X. Be sure to check carefully all required properties of A and B.) To prove that X is connected, you must show no such A and B can ever be found - and just showing that a particular decomposition doesn't work is not enough. Sometimes (but very rarely) open sets can be analyzed directly, for example when X is finite and the topology is given by an explicit list of open sets. (Anoth example is indiscrete topology on X: since the only open sets are X and ;, no decomposition of X into the union of two disjoint open sets can exist.) Typically, however, there are too many open sets to argue directly, so we develop several tools to establish connectedness. Theorem 1. Any closed interval [a; b] is connected. Proof. Several proofs are possible; one was given in class, another is Theorem 2.28 in the book. ALL proofs are a mix of analysis and topology and use a fundamental property of real numbers (Completeness Axiom). Corollary 1. All open and half-open intervals are connected; all rays are connected; a line is connected.
    [Show full text]
  • On Locally 1-Connectedness of Quotient Spaces and Its Applications to Fundamental Groups
    Filomat xx (yyyy), zzz–zzz Published by Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, DOI (will be added later) University of Nis,ˇ Serbia Available at: http://www.pmf.ni.ac.rs/filomat On locally 1-connectedness of quotient spaces and its applications to fundamental groups Ali Pakdamana, Hamid Torabib, Behrooz Mashayekhyb aDepartment of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences, Golestan University, P.O.Box 155, Gorgan, Iran. bDepartment of Pure Mathematics, Center of Excellence in Analysis on Algebraic Structures, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, P.O.Box 1159-91775, Mashhad, Iran. Abstract. Let X be a locally 1-connected metric space and A1; A2; :::; An be connected, locally path con- nected and compact pairwise disjoint subspaces of X. In this paper, we show that the quotient space X=(A1; A2; :::; An) obtained from X by collapsing each of the sets Ai’s to a point, is also locally 1-connected. Moreover, we prove that the induced continuous homomorphism of quasitopological fundamental groups is surjective. Finally, we give some applications to find out some properties of the fundamental group of the quotient space X=(A1; A2; :::; An). 1. Introduction and Motivation Let be an equivalent relation on a topological space X. Then one can consider the quotient topological space X∼= and the quotient map p : X X= . In general, quotient spaces are not well behaved and it seems interesting∼ to determine which−! topological∼ properties of the space X may be transferred to the quotient space X= . For example, a quotient space of a simply connected or contractible space need not share those properties.∼ Also, a quotient space of a locally compact space need not be locally compact.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 131: Introduction to Topology 1
    Math 131: Introduction to Topology 1 Professor Denis Auroux Fall, 2019 Contents 9/4/2019 - Introduction, Metric Spaces, Basic Notions3 9/9/2019 - Topological Spaces, Bases9 9/11/2019 - Subspaces, Products, Continuity 15 9/16/2019 - Continuity, Homeomorphisms, Limit Points 21 9/18/2019 - Sequences, Limits, Products 26 9/23/2019 - More Product Topologies, Connectedness 32 9/25/2019 - Connectedness, Path Connectedness 37 9/30/2019 - Compactness 42 10/2/2019 - Compactness, Uncountability, Metric Spaces 45 10/7/2019 - Compactness, Limit Points, Sequences 49 10/9/2019 - Compactifications and Local Compactness 53 10/16/2019 - Countability, Separability, and Normal Spaces 57 10/21/2019 - Urysohn's Lemma and the Metrization Theorem 61 1 Please email Beckham Myers at [email protected] with any corrections, questions, or comments. Any mistakes or errors are mine. 10/23/2019 - Category Theory, Paths, Homotopy 64 10/28/2019 - The Fundamental Group(oid) 70 10/30/2019 - Covering Spaces, Path Lifting 75 11/4/2019 - Fundamental Group of the Circle, Quotients and Gluing 80 11/6/2019 - The Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem 85 11/11/2019 - Antipodes and the Borsuk-Ulam Theorem 88 11/13/2019 - Deformation Retracts and Homotopy Equivalence 91 11/18/2019 - Computing the Fundamental Group 95 11/20/2019 - Equivalence of Covering Spaces and the Universal Cover 99 11/25/2019 - Universal Covering Spaces, Free Groups 104 12/2/2019 - Seifert-Van Kampen Theorem, Final Examples 109 2 9/4/2019 - Introduction, Metric Spaces, Basic Notions The instructor for this course is Professor Denis Auroux. His email is [email protected] and his office is SC539.
    [Show full text]
  • Connectedness of Spheres in Cayley Graphs, C
    CONNECTEDNESS OF SPHERES IN CAYLEY GRAPHS JÉRÉMIE BRIEUSSEL & ANTOINE GOURNAY Abstract. We introduce the notion of connection thickness of spheres in a Cayley graph, related to dead-ends and their retreat depth. It was well-known that connection thickness is bounded for finitely presented one-ended groups. We compute that for natural generating sets of lamplighter groups on a line or on a tree, connection thickness is linear or logarithmic respectively. We show that it depends strongly on the generating set. We give an example where the metric induced at the (finite) thickness of connection gives diameter of order n2 to the sphere of radius n. We also discuss the rarity of dead- ends and the relationships of connection thickness with cut sets in percolation theory and with almost-convexity. Finally, we present a list of open questions about spheres in Cayley graphs. 1. Introduction Spheres are simply beautiful. Long ago Plato considered the world was given the shape of a (euclidean) sphere for it is the most perfect (symmetric) of all, Timaeus 34b [Pla]. Nowadays the most popular game in the world consists in two teams playing with a sphere and not allowed to touch it by the hands. As mathematicians we also love to play with spheres, and as geometric group theorists we shall focus on spheres in Cayley graphs of infinite groups. Spheres have not received much attention for themselves in geometric group theory, at the notable exception of a study by Duchin, Lelièvre and Mooney [DLM1], [DLM2], [DLM3], somewhat focused on the Abelian case. The reason is probably that spheres are often either too easy or too complicated to describe.
    [Show full text]