DOCSLIB.ORG

Graphs That Are Minor Minimal Not Apex of Connectivity Κ 6 5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Graphs That Are Minor Minimal Not Apex of Connectivity Κ 6 5 Jonathan Miller Graphs that are minor minimal not Apex of connectivity κ 6 5 Honors in the Major Thesis California State University Chico Department of Natural Sciences Supervision Prof. Dr. Thomas Mattman July 2016 Contents List of Figures iii List of Tables iv Nomenclature iv Abstract 1 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Basics . .2 1.1.1 Definitions . .2 1.1.2 Operations of Graphs . .3 1.2 Graph Minor Theorem . .5 1.2.1 Minors . .5 1.2.2 The Family of Apex Graphs . .6 1.2.3 Minor Minimal Not Apex . .7 1.3 Results . .7 1.3.1 K6 and Jørgensen graphs . .7 2 What do we know about MMNA graphs 9 2.1 Introduction . .9 2.1.1 Minor Minimal Intrinsically Knotted . .9 2.2 MMNA Graphs . 10 2.2.1 Disconnected MMNA graphs . 10 2.2.2 Connectivity of MMNA graphs . 10 2.3 Connectivity 5 and MMNAK6 and J ......................... 11 2.4 3−connected constructions . 13 2.5 Content to Come . 14 − 3 The root of connectivity κ = 5 MMNA is K6 15 3.1 Introduction . 15 3.1.1 Properties of MMNA .............................. 15 − 3.1.2 K6 ........................................ 15 3.2 Bollobás . 16 4 Constructing MMNAs 21 4.1 Graphs that are 3−connected . 21 4.2 Tutte . 21 4.3 Creating candidates for MMNA tests . 22 4.3.1 3−connected to 5−connected . 23 4.4 Results of graph construction upto 8 vertices. 23 4.4.1 jGj = 6 ...................................... 23 4.4.2 jGj = 7 ...................................... 23 i 4.4.3 jGj = 8 ...................................... 25 4.5 Conclusions . 27 5 Conclusion and Questions 28 5.1 Introduction . 28 − 5.1.1 Connecting K6 to MMNA or κ = 5 ...................... 28 5.1.2 Building κ = 5 graphs from 3−connected ones . 28 5.2 Questions remaining . 29 5.2.1 Proving K6 and Jørgensen are the only MMNA κ = 5 graphs . 29 A Definitions, Theorems, etc. 30 B To be completed 31 C Bibliography 33 Index 35 List of Figures 1.1 A simple graph on 5 vertices and 7 edges. .2 ∼ 1.2 Edge contraction K5=e = K4 ..............................4 1.3 Vertex split options of K4 ................................4 1.4 K6 and J .........................................7 2.1 The Petersen Family - creative commons . 10 3.1 The Icosahedral Graph, I12 ............................... 16 − + 3.2 K6 < I12 ......................................... 17 3.3 I12 ............................................. 18 3.4 I12 top........................................... 18 4.1 W5 and DW4 ....................................... 21 4.2 W4 ............................................. 24 4.3 Case a ........................................... 24 4.4 Case b ........................................... 24 iii List of Tables iv Nomenclature ρ A graph property E(G) Edge set of a graph G G A finite simple graph G+ A graph with an added edge G− Graph with a removed edge G1 < G2 Graph G1 is a minor of G2 MMNA A graph G that is NA and also Apex when actions G=e and G − e are applied to G NA A graph G that is Not Apex is G − v is not planar V (G) Vertex set of a graph G v Abstract We embark on an exploration of graphs which are closed under taking minors. That is to say, a graph G with a certain property p, also has that same property p after we take a minor. In particular, we consider the case for all graphs that are apex by considering the finite class of graphs that are minor minimal not apex. Recall that a graph, G is apex if G − v is planar for some v 2 V (G). For the consideration of this report we consider only graphs that have vertex connectivity equalling to five. Specifically is the conjecture that there exist only two such graphs that are minor minimally not apex which are also with connectivity κ = 5, namely K6 and the prism graph on 6 vertices plus two additional vertices connected to all but themselves, which is called the Jørgensen graph. 1 Chapter 1 Introduction In 2004 Neil Robertson and Paul Seymour published the article "Graph Minors.XX. Wagner’s conjecture, . ,in which they proved that for every infinite set of finite graphs, one of its members is isomorphic to a minor of another" [4]. Meaning, that for graphs closed under taking minors, one can always find two graphs such that one of them is a minor of the other. We delve into the basics of Graph Theory to refresh the essential definitions and theorems that have been referenced for the purpose of this research. I begun the researching this topic in the Summer of 2016, continued on into my senior year of my BSc with Professor Thomas Matman for the purpose of honors in the major. I endeavour to delineate effectively the nature of Graph Theory as it pertains to the Graph Minor Theorem.[2] 1.1 Basics We begin this discussion on graphs with the following essentials to any discussion in Graph Theory. Generally any textbook on Graph Theory will cover these topics. Take Graph Theory by Reinhard Deistel, see [2], for a complete look at graph theory. 1.1.1 Definitions We recall the essentail definition of a graph: Definition 1: Graphs A graph is a pair G = (V; E) of sets, with E ⊂ V 2; that is the elements of E are 2 element subsets of V . The v 2 V are called vertices and the e 2 E are called edges. We use the notation e := uv. If u = v then G contains loops and potentially double edges and is called a multi-graph. We restrict multi-graphs and only consider simple graphs containing no double edges or loops. Figure 1.1 shows an example of a simple graphs B C A E D Figure 1.1: A simple graph on 5 vertices and 7 edges. 2 Chapter 1. Introduction 3 Order and size For a graph G with n vertices and m edges, we say jGj = n and jjGjj = m, and jGj, jjGjj is called the size and order respectively. Incidence, Adjacency, Neighbours, Degree For any edge there are 2 ends, say u and v. We say that uv is incident upon u or v. Also, we say that u and v are adjacent. Suppose that u is adjacent to k vertices, then the neighbourhood of v is the list of all k vertices and we denote this list by N(v), and its length or size by jN(v)j. The degree of v = jN(v). The graph G where all vertices are adjacent to all other vertices in G is said to be complete and is denoted as Kn. We say the complete graphs on n vertices. Subgraphs Let H be a subgraph of G, where H and G are both graphs and we notate as H ⊂ G. Then V (H) ⊂ V (G) and E(H) ⊂ E(G). If V (H) = V (G), then H is a spanning subgraph. If our subgraph V (H) is an arbitrary subset of V (G), and E(H) consists of all edges of G whose ends are all in V (H), then H is an induced subgraph of G. 1.1.2 Operations of Graphs Let G be a graph, then a graph operation is defined in the following boxes. Definition 2: Vertices and Edges Vertices For a graph G, we can add or subtract vertices. • G − v, is the graph G without v and all edges incident upon v. • G + v, is the new graph G + v with a new vertex v added to the old graph G, that may or may not have added edges. Edges For a graph G, we can add or subtract edges. • G − e, is the graph G with an edge removed from the existing graph. • G+e, is the existing graph G, where two non-adjacent vertices are now adjacent after G + e. Definition 3: Edge Contractions Let x and y be two adjacent vertices in a graph G, then G=xy is the graph formed from smashing x and y into a new vertex, z. We note that jG=xyj 6 jGj = n − 1. Then this is called an edge contraction ∼ Figure 1.2 shows K5=v = K4, through an edge contraction. 4 1.1. Basics B B C A A C D E D ∼ Figure 1.2: Edge contraction K5=e = K4 Definition 4: Vertex Splits Let G be a graph and let z be a vertex on n neighbors. A vertex split splits z into two new vertices x and y. We write G ? v(a; b), where a = jN(x)j − 1 and b = jN(y)j − 1. Figure 1.3 shows a 4 different vertex splits. The top left is written as G?A(0; 3). The bottom right is written as G?A(3; 3), which is also isomporphic to K5. Not all vertex splits will be the inverse operation of a given edge contraction. B B A A E E C C D D B B A A E E C C D D Figure 1.3: Vertex split options of K4 Definition 5: Connectivity Let G be a connected graph, U be a subset of vertices in G, and jUj < κ. G is κ−connected if G − κ is connected Connectivity A graph is connectivity κ = k, when κ is largest integer for which G − k is κ−connected. Chapter 1. Introduction 5 1.2 Graph Minor Theorem 1.2.1 Minors Definition 6: Graph Minor Let a graph H be a minor of another graph G. Then at least one of the following is true: 1. G − v =∼ H 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enumerating Graph Embeddings and Partial-Duals by Genus and Euler Genus
    numerative ombinatorics A pplications Enumerative Combinatorics and Applications ECA 1:1 (2021) Article #S2S1 ecajournal.haifa.ac.il Enumerating Graph Embeddings and Partial-Duals by Genus and Euler Genus Jonathan L. Grossy and Thomas W. Tuckerz yDepartment of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027 USA Email: [email protected] zDepartment of Mathematics, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY 13346, USA Email: [email protected] Received: September 2, 2020, Accepted: November 16, 2020, Published: November 20, 2020 The authors: Released under the CC BY-ND license (International 4.0) Abstract: We present an overview of an enumerative approach to topological graph theory, involving the derivation of generating functions for a set of graph embeddings, according to the topological types of their respective surfaces. We are mainly concerned with methods for calculating two kinds of polynomials: 1. the genus polynomial ΓG(z) for a given graph G, which is taken over all orientable embeddings of G, and the Euler-genus polynomial EG(z), which is taken over all embeddings; @ ∗ @ × @ ∗×∗ 2. the partial-duality polynomials EG(z); EG(z); and EG (z), which are taken over the partial-duals for all subsets of edges, for Poincar´eduality (∗), Petrie duality (×), and Wilson duality (∗×∗), respectively. We describe the methods used for the computation of recursions and closed formulas for genus polynomials and partial-dual polynomials. We also describe methods used to examine the polynomials pertaining to some special families of graphs or graph embeddings, for the possible properties of interpolation and log-concavity. Mathematics Subject Classifications: 05A05; 05A15; 05C10; 05C30; 05C31 Key words and phrases: Genus polynomial; Graph embedding; Log-concavity; Partial duality; Production matrix; Ribbon graph; Monodromy 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity of Two Graph Orientation Problems
    The Complexity of Two Graph Orientation Problems Nicole Eggemann∗ and Steven D. Noble† Department of Mathematical Sciences, Brunel University Kingston Lane Uxbridge UB8 3PH United Kingdom [email protected] and [email protected] November 8, 2018 Abstract We consider two orientation problems in a graph, namely the mini- mization of the sum of all the shortest path lengths and the minimization of the diameter. We show that it is NP-complete to decide whether a graph has an orientation such that the sum of all the shortest paths lengths is at most an integer specified in the input. The proof is a short reduction from a result of Chv´atal and Thomassen showing that it is NP-complete to decide whether a graph can be oriented so that its diameter is at most 2. In contrast, for each positive integer k, we describe a linear-time algo- rithm that decides for a planar graph G whether there is an orientation for which the diameter is at most k. We also extend this result from planar graphs to any minor-closed family F not containing all apex graphs. 1 Introduction We consider two problems concerned with orienting the edges of an undirected graph in order to minimize two global measures of distance in the resulting directed graph. Our work is motivated by an application involving the design of arXiv:1004.2478v1 [math.CO] 14 Apr 2010 urban light rail networks of the sort described in [22]. In such an application, a number of stations are to be linked with unidirectional track in order to minimize some function of the travel times between stations and subject to constraints on cost, engineering and planning.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of the Studies on Gallai and Anti-Gallai Graphs 1. Introduction
    Communications in Combinatorics and Optimization Vol. 6 No. 1, 2021 pp.93-112 CCO DOI: 10.22049/CCO.2020.26877.1155 Commun. Comb. Optim. Review Article A survey of the studies on Gallai and anti-Gallai graphs Agnes Poovathingal1, Joseph Varghese Kureethara2,∗, Dinesan Deepthy3 1 Department of Mathematics, Christ University, Bengaluru, India [email protected] 2 Department of Mathematics, Christ University, Bengaluru, India [email protected] 3 Department of Mathematics, GITAM University, Bengaluru, India [email protected] Received: 17 July 2020; Accepted: 2 October 2020 Published Online: 4 October 2020 Abstract: The Gallai graph and the anti-Gallai graph of a graph G are edge disjoint spanning subgraphs of the line graph L(G). The vertices in the Gallai graph are adjacent if two of the end vertices of the corresponding edges in G coincide and the other two end vertices are nonadjacent in G. The anti-Gallai graph of G is the complement of its Gallai graph in L(G). Attributed to Gallai (1967), the study of these graphs got prominence with the work of Sun (1991) and Le (1996). This is a survey of the studies conducted so far on Gallai and anti-Gallai of graphs and their associated properties. Keywords: Line graphs, Gallai graphs, anti-Gallai graphs, irreducibility, cograph, total graph, simplicial complex, Gallai-mortal graph AMS Subject classification: 05C76 1. Introduction All the graphs under consideration are simple and undirected, but are not necessarily finite. The vertex set and the edge set of the graph G are denoted by V (G) and E(G) respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Intrinsic Linking and Knotting of Graphs in Arbitrary 3–Manifolds 1 Introduction
    Algebraic & Geometric Topology 6 (2006) 1025–1035 1025 arXiv version: fonts, pagination and layout may vary from AGT published version Intrinsic linking and knotting of graphs in arbitrary 3–manifolds ERICA FLAPAN HUGH HOWARDS DON LAWRENCE BLAKE MELLOR We prove that a graph is intrinsically linked in an arbitrary 3–manifold M if and only if it is intrinsically linked in S3 . Also, assuming the Poincare´ Conjecture, we prove that a graph is intrinsically knotted in M if and only if it is intrinsically knotted in S3 . 05C10, 57M25 1 Introduction The study of intrinsic linking and knotting began in 1983 when Conway and Gordon [1] 3 showed that every embedding of K6 (the complete graph on six vertices) in S contains 3 a non-trivial link, and every embedding of K7 in S contains a non-trivial knot. Since the existence of such a non-trivial link or knot depends only on the graph and not on the 3 particular embedding of the graph in S , we say that K6 is intrinsically linked and K7 is intrinsically knotted. At roughly the same time as Conway and Gordon’s result, Sachs [12, 11] independently proved that K6 and K3;3;1 are intrinsically linked, and used these two results to prove that any graph with a minor in the Petersen family (Figure 1) is intrinsically linked. Conversely, Sachs conjectured that any graph which is intrinsically linked contains a minor in the Petersen family. In 1995, Robertson, Seymour and Thomas [10] proved Sachs’ conjecture, and thus completely classified intrinsically linked graphs.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2104.09976V2 [Cs.CG] 2 Jun 2021
    Finding Geometric Representations of Apex Graphs is NP-Hard Dibyayan Chakraborty* and Kshitij Gajjar† June 3, 2021 Abstract Planar graphs can be represented as intersection graphs of different types of geometric objects in the plane, e.g., circles (Koebe, 1936), line segments (Chalopin & Gonc¸alves, 2009), L-shapes (Gonc¸alves et al., 2018). For general graphs, however, even deciding whether such representations exist is often NP-hard. We consider apex graphs, i.e., graphs that can be made planar by removing one vertex from them. We show, somewhat surprisingly, that deciding whether geometric representations exist for apex graphs is NP-hard. More precisely, we show that for every positive integer k, recognizing every graph class G which satisfies PURE-2-DIR ⊆ G ⊆ 1-STRING is NP-hard, even when the input graphs are apex graphs of girth at least k. Here, PURE-2-DIR is the class of intersection graphs of axis-parallel line segments (where intersections are allowed only between horizontal and vertical segments) and 1-STRING is the class of intersection graphs of simple curves (where two curves share at most one point) in the plane. This partially answers an open question raised by Kratochv´ıl & Pergel (2007). Most known NP-hardness reductions for these problems are from variants of 3-SAT. We reduce from the PLANAR HAMILTONIAN PATH COMPLETION problem, which uses the more intuitive notion of planarity. As a result, our proof is much simpler and encapsulates several classes of geometric graphs. Keywords: Planar graphs, apex graphs, NP-hard, Hamiltonian path completion, recognition problems, geometric intersection graphs, 1-STRING, PURE-2-DIR.
    [Show full text]
  • On a Conjecture Concerning the Petersen Graph
    On a conjecture concerning the Petersen graph Donald Nelson Michael D. Plummer Department of Mathematical Sciences Department of Mathematics Middle Tennessee State University Vanderbilt University Murfreesboro,TN37132,USA Nashville,TN37240,USA [email protected] [email protected] Neil Robertson* Xiaoya Zha† Department of Mathematics Department of Mathematical Sciences Ohio State University Middle Tennessee State University Columbus,OH43210,USA Murfreesboro,TN37132,USA [email protected] [email protected] Submitted: Oct 4, 2010; Accepted: Jan 10, 2011; Published: Jan 19, 2011 Mathematics Subject Classifications: 05C38, 05C40, 05C75 Abstract Robertson has conjectured that the only 3-connected, internally 4-con- nected graph of girth 5 in which every odd cycle of length greater than 5 has a chord is the Petersen graph. We prove this conjecture in the special case where the graphs involved are also cubic. Moreover, this proof does not require the internal-4-connectivity assumption. An example is then presented to show that the assumption of internal 4-connectivity cannot be dropped as an hypothesis in the original conjecture. We then summarize our results aimed toward the solution of the conjec- ture in its original form. In particular, let G be any 3-connected internally-4- connected graph of girth 5 in which every odd cycle of length greater than 5 has a chord. If C is any girth cycle in G then N(C)\V (C) cannot be edgeless, and if N(C)\V (C) contains a path of length at least 2, then the conjecture is true. Consequently, if the conjecture is false and H is a counterexample, then for any girth cycle C in H, N(C)\V (C) induces a nontrivial matching M together with an independent set of vertices.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRINSIC LINKING in DIRECTED GRAPHS 1. Introduction Research
    INTRINSIC LINKING IN DIRECTED GRAPHS JOEL STEPHEN FOISY, HUGH NELSON HOWARDS, NATALIE ROSE RICH* Abstract. We extend the notion of intrinsic linking to directed graphs. We give methods of constructing intrinsically linked directed graphs, as well as complicated directed graphs that are not intrinsically linked. We prove that the double directed version of a graph G is intrinsically linked if and only if G is intrinsically linked. One Corollary is that J6, the complete symmetric directed graph on 6 vertices (with 30 directed edges), is intrinsically linked. We further extend this to show that it is possible to find a subgraph of J6 by deleting 6 edges that is still intrinsically linked, but that no subgraph of J6 obtained by deleting 7 edges is intrinsically linked. We also show that J6 with an arbitrary edge deleted is intrinsically linked, but if the wrong two edges are chosen, J6 with two edges deleted can be embedded linklessly. 1. Introduction Research in spatial graphs has been rapidly on the rise over the last fif- teen years. It is interesting because of its elegance, depth, and accessibility. Since Conway and Gordon published their seminal paper in 1983 [4] show- ing that the complete graph on 6 vertices is intrinsically linked (also shown independently by Sachs [10]) and the complete graph on 7 vertices is in- trinsically knotted, over 62 papers have been published referencing it. The topology of graphs is, of course, interesting because it touches on chem- istry, networks, computers, etc. This paper takes the natural step of asking about the topology of directed graphs, sometimes called digraphs.
    [Show full text]
  • Knots, Links, Spatial Graphs, and Algebraic Invariants
    689 Knots, Links, Spatial Graphs, and Algebraic Invariants AMS Special Session on Algebraic and Combinatorial Structures in Knot Theory AMS Special Session on Spatial Graphs October 24–25, 2015 California State University, Fullerton, CA Erica Flapan Allison Henrich Aaron Kaestner Sam Nelson Editors American Mathematical Society 689 Knots, Links, Spatial Graphs, and Algebraic Invariants AMS Special Session on Algebraic and Combinatorial Structures in Knot Theory AMS Special Session on Spatial Graphs October 24–25, 2015 California State University, Fullerton, CA Erica Flapan Allison Henrich Aaron Kaestner Sam Nelson Editors American Mathematical Society Providence, Rhode Island EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Dennis DeTurck, Managing Editor Michael Loss Kailash Misra Catherine Yan 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 05C10, 57M15, 57M25, 57M27. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Flapan, Erica, 1956- editor. Title: Knots, links, spatial graphs, and algebraic invariants : AMS special session on algebraic and combinatorial structures in knot theory, October 24-25, 2015, California State University, Fullerton, CA : AMS special session on spatial graphs, October 24-25, 2015, California State University, Fullerton, CA / Erica Flapan [and three others], editors. Description: Providence, Rhode Island : American Mathematical Society, [2017] | Series: Con- temporary mathematics ; volume 689 | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2016042011 | ISBN 9781470428471 (alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Knot theory–Congresses. | Link theory–Congresses. | Graph theory–Congresses. | Invariants–Congresses. | AMS: Combinatorics – Graph theory – Planar graphs; geometric and topological aspects of graph theory. msc | Manifolds and cell complexes – Low-dimensional topology – Relations with graph theory. msc | Manifolds and cell complexes – Low-dimensional topology – Knots and links in S3.msc| Manifolds and cell complexes – Low-dimensional topology – Invariants of knots and 3-manifolds.
    [Show full text]
  • A Splitter for Graphs with No Petersen Family Minor John Maharry*
    Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B TB1800 Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B 72, 136139 (1998) Article No. TB971800 A Splitter for Graphs with No Petersen Family Minor John Maharry* Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1174 E-mail: maharryÄmath.ohio-state.edu Received December 2, 1996 The Petersen family consists of the seven graphs that can be obtained from the Petersen Graph by Y2- and 2Y-exchanges. A splitter for a family of graphs is a maximal 3-connected graph in the family. In this paper, a previously studied graph, Q13, 3 , is shown to be a splitter for the set of all graphs with no Petersen family minor. Moreover, Q13, 3 is a splitter for the family of graphs with no K6 -minor, as well as for the family of graphs with no Petersen minor. 1998 Academic Press View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector In this paper all graphs are assumed to be finite and simple. A graph H is called a minor of a graph G if H can be obtained from a subgraph of G by contracting edges. This is denoted Hm G. A simple graph with at least 4 vertices is 3-connected if it remains connected after the deletion of any two vertices. Let y be a vertex of a graph G such that y has exactly three distinct neighbors [a, b, c]. Let H be the graph obtained from G by deleting y and adding a triangle on the vertices, [a, b, c].
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizations of Graphs Without Certain Small Minors by J. Zachary
    Characterizations of Graphs Without Certain Small Minors By J. Zachary Gaslowitz Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Mathematics May 11, 2018 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Mark Ellingham, Ph.D. Paul Edelman, Ph.D. Bruce Hughes, Ph.D. Mike Mihalik, Ph.D. Jerry Spinrad, Ph.D. Dong Ye, Ph.D. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction . 2 2 Previous Work . 5 2.1 Planar Graphs . 5 2.2 Robertson and Seymour's Graph Minor Project . 7 2.2.1 Well-Quasi-Orderings . 7 2.2.2 Tree Decomposition and Treewidth . 8 2.2.3 Grids and Other Graphs with Large Treewidth . 10 2.2.4 The Structure Theorem and Graph Minor Theorem . 11 2.3 Graphs Without K2;t as a Minor . 15 2.3.1 Outerplanar and K2;3-Minor-Free Graphs . 15 2.3.2 Edge-Density for K2;t-Minor-Free Graphs . 16 2.3.3 On the Structure of K2;t-Minor-Free Graphs . 17 3 Algorithmic Aspects of Graph Minor Theory . 21 3.1 Theoretical Results . 21 3.2 Practical Graph Minor Containment . 22 4 Characterization and Enumeration of 4-Connected K2;5-Minor-Free Graphs 25 4.1 Preliminary Definitions . 25 4.2 Characterization . 30 4.3 Enumeration . 38 5 Characterization of Planar 4-Connected DW6-minor-free Graphs . 51 6 Future Directions . 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 93 1 Chapter 1 Introduction All graphs in this paper are finite and simple. Given a graph G, the vertex set of G is denoted V (G) and the edge set is denoted E(G).
    [Show full text]
  • Minor-Closed Graph Classes with Bounded Layered Pathwidth
    Minor-Closed Graph Classes with Bounded Layered Pathwidth Vida Dujmovi´c z David Eppstein y Gwena¨elJoret x Pat Morin ∗ David R. Wood { 19th October 2018; revised 4th June 2020 Abstract We prove that a minor-closed class of graphs has bounded layered pathwidth if and only if some apex-forest is not in the class. This generalises a theorem of Robertson and Seymour, which says that a minor-closed class of graphs has bounded pathwidth if and only if some forest is not in the class. 1 Introduction Pathwidth and treewidth are graph parameters that respectively measure how similar a given graph is to a path or a tree. These parameters are of fundamental importance in structural graph theory, especially in Roberston and Seymour's graph minors series. They also have numerous applications in algorithmic graph theory. Indeed, many NP-complete problems are solvable in polynomial time on graphs of bounded treewidth [23]. Recently, Dujmovi´c,Morin, and Wood [19] introduced the notion of layered treewidth. Loosely speaking, a graph has bounded layered treewidth if it has a tree decomposition and a layering such that each bag of the tree decomposition contains a bounded number of vertices in each layer (defined formally below). This definition is interesting since several natural graph classes, such as planar graphs, that have unbounded treewidth have bounded layered treewidth. Bannister, Devanny, Dujmovi´c,Eppstein, and Wood [1] introduced layered pathwidth, which is analogous to layered treewidth where the tree decomposition is arXiv:1810.08314v2 [math.CO] 4 Jun 2020 required to be a path decomposition.
    [Show full text]
  • On Graph Crossing Number and Edge Planarization∗
    On Graph Crossing Number and Edge Planarization∗ Julia Chuzhoyy Yury Makarychevz Anastasios Sidiropoulosx Abstract Given an n-vertex graph G, a drawing of G in the plane is a mapping of its vertices into points of the plane, and its edges into continuous curves, connecting the images of their endpoints. A crossing in such a drawing is a point where two such curves intersect. In the Minimum Crossing Number problem, the goal is to find a drawing of G with minimum number of crossings. The value of the optimal solution, denoted by OPT, is called the graph's crossing number. This is a very basic problem in topological graph theory, that has received a significant amount of attention, but is still poorly understood algorithmically. The best currently known efficient algorithm produces drawings with O(log2 n) · (n + OPT) crossings on bounded-degree graphs, while only a constant factor hardness of approximation is known. A closely related problem is Minimum Planarization, in which the goal is to remove a minimum-cardinality subset of edges from G, such that the remaining graph is planar. Our main technical result establishes the following connection between the two problems: if we are given a solution of cost k to the Minimum Planarization problem on graph G, then we can efficiently find a drawing of G with at most poly(d) · k · (k + OPT) crossings, where d is the maximum degree in G. This result implies an O(n · poly(d) · log3=2 n)-approximation for Minimum Crossing Number, as well as improved algorithms for special cases of the problem, such as, for example, k-apex and bounded-genus graphs.
    [Show full text]