![Arxiv:1708.04773V2 [Math.CO] 13 Sep 2018 Point in the Plane, and Maps Each Edge of to a Simple Closed Curve Between the Images of Its End-Vertices,• Such That](http://data.docslib.org/img/8c90ddc955865543bdd2462091aa7e72-1.webp)
Thickness and Antithickness of Graphs∗
† §
Abstract.Vida Dujmovi´c David R. Wood thickness G This paperk studies questions about duality betweenG crossings and non-crossings ink graph drawings via the notionsantithickness of thickness and antithickness.G The ofk a graph is the minimum integerG such that in some drawing of k, the edges can be partitionedthrackle into noncrossing subgraphs. The of a graph is the minimum integer such that inv some drawing of , the edgesv can be partitioned into thrackles, where a is a set of edges, each pair of which intersect exactly once. (Here edges with a common endvertex are considered to intersect at .) So thickness is a measure of how close a graph is to being planar, whereas antithickness is a measure of how close a graph is to being a thrackle. This paper explores the relationship between the thickness and antithickness of a graph, under various graph drawing models, with an emphasis on extremal questions. 1 Introduction
planar This paper studies questionsthrackle about duality between crossings and non-crossings in graph draw- ings. This idea is best illustrated by an example. A graph is if it has a drawing with no crossings, while a is a graph drawing in which every pair of edges intersect exactly once. So in some sense, thrackles are the graph drawings with the most crossings. Yet thrackle- hood and planarity appear to be related. In particular, a widely believed conjecture would imply that every thrackleable graph is planar. Loosely speaking, this says that a graph that can be drawn with the maximum number of crossings has another drawing with no crossings. This paper explores this seemingly counterintuitive idea through the notions of thickness and antithickness. Firsttopological we introducedrawing the essential definitions.G G 1 G A( ) of a graph is a function that maps each vertex of to a distinct arXiv:1708.04773v2 [math.CO] 13 Sep 2018 point in the plane, and maps each edge of to a simple closed curve between the images of its end-vertices,• such that:
the only vertex images that an edge image intersects are the images of its own end-vertices † th (that is, an edge doesth not ‘pass through’ a vertex), [email protected], 2007. Revised: 17 September, 2018 School of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada § ( ). Research supported by NSERC and the [email protected] Ministry of Research and In- novation. G V (G) E(G) 1 School of MathematicalG Sciences, Monash University,n = |V (G Melbourne,)| m = Australia|E(G)| ( G[S] ). G We consider undirected, finite,S ⊆ simpleV (G) graphsG −withS := vertexG[V (G set) \ S] andG edge− v := setG \{v}. The number of vertices and edges of are respectively denoted by and . Let denote the subgraph of induced by a set of vertices . Let and .
1 •
the images of two edges are not tangential at a common interior point (that is, edges cross ‘properly’). adjacent crossWhere there is no confusion we henceforth do not distinguish between a graph element and its image in a drawing. Two edgesdisjoint with a common end-vertex arenoncrossing. Two edges in a drawing if theyplanar intersect at some point other than a common end-vertex. Two edges that do not intersect in a drawing are . A drawing of a graph is if no two edges cross. A graph is if it has a noncrossing drawing. thrackle
In the 1960sthrackeable John Conway introduced the following definition. A drawing of a graph is a if every pair of edges intersect exactly once (either at a common endvertex or at a crossing point). A graph isexactly if it has a drawing that is a thrackle; see [5, 12–15, 17, 22, 47, 49, 52, 72, 75, 83, 84, 88, 89, 92]. Note that in this definition, it is important that every pair of edges intersect 2 once since every graph has a drawing in which every pair of edges intersect at least once . geometric convex 2-track drawing A drawing is if every edge is a straight line segment. A geometric drawing is if every vertex is on the convex hull of the set of vertices. A is a convex drawing of a bipartite2 graph in which the two colour classes are separatedtracks in the ordering of the verticesconvex thracklearound the convex hull. For the purposesouterplanar of this thrackle paper, we can assume that the two colour classes in a -track drawing are on two parallel lines (called ). The notion of a is closely related to that of , which was independently introduced by Cairns and Nikolayevsky [17]. 1.1 Thickness and Antithickness
thickness G k N E(G) ∈ k thicknessThe of a graph is the minimum k suchN that the edge set can be partitioned ∈ into planar subgraphs.k Thickness is a widely studied parameter; see the surveys [60,k 79]. The of a graph drawing is the minimum such that the edges of the drawing can be partitioned into noncrossing subgraphs. Equivalently, each edge is assigned one of colours such that crossing edges receive distinct colours. k k Every planar graph can be drawn with its vertices at prespecified locations [56, 64, 85k]. It follows that a graphG has thickness if and only2 if it has a drawing3 with thicknessk [56, 64].geometric However, in such a representation the edges might be highly curved . The minimum integer such that Proof V (G) = {v1, . . . , vn} vi (i, 0) ≺ E(G) vivj ≺ vpvq a graph has a geometric / convex / -track drawing with thickness is called the 2 i < j 6 p < q E(G) E(G) = {e1, . . . , em} ei ≺ ej : Let j < i . Positionei = v eachpvq vertex at . Define(p, a0)( relationi, 1)(q, 0)on where if and only if . Observe that is a partial order of . Let , where implies that . Draw each edge as the 1-bend polylineG . Then everyn pair of edges 3 intersect atG least once. Ω(n) G Ω(n) In fact, Pach and WengerG [85] proved that for every planar graph that contains a matching of edges, if the vertices of are randomly assigned prespecified locations on a circle, then edges of have bends in every polyline drawing of .
2 book 2-track thickness G pagenumber stacknumber
/ / of . Book4 thickness is also called and in the literature; see the surveys [7, 34] G
The• followingG results are well known1 for every graphG :
• G 1 G has geometric thickness if and only if is planar [42, 97]. • G 2 G has book thickness if and only if is outerplanar [64].
has book thickness at most if and only if is a subgraph of a Hamiltonian planar • G 2 1 G graph [64].
antithicknesshas -track thicknessG if and only if kis aN forest of caterpillarsE(G) [57]. ∈ k antithickness k N ∈ The of a graph is the minimum ksuch that can be partitioned into thrackeable subgraphs.k The of a graph drawing is the minimum ksuchN ∈ that the edges ofG the drawing can be partitioned into thrackles. Equivalently, each edge is kassigned one oftopologicalcolours suchgeometric that disjointconvex edges2-track receive distinct antithickness colours. TheG minimum such that a graph has a topological / geometric1 / convex / 2-track drawing with antithickness is called the / / / of . Thus a graph is Lemma 1. Every thrackeable graph G has a thrackled drawing with each vertex at a prespecified thrackeable if and only if it has antithickness . location.
Proof. G H p(v) v G Consider a thrackledx V drawing(H) V of(G.) Replace each crossing pointp(x) byR a2 dummyp(v): vertex.v V Let(G) ∈ − ∈ \{ ∈ } be the planar graph obtained. Let be a distinct prespecified point in the plane for each vertexH of . For each vertex x chooseH p( ax distinct) point . EveryG planar graph canv beG drawnp( withv) its vertices at prespecified locations [56, 64, 85]. Thus can be drawn planar with each vertex of at . This drawing defines a thrackled drawing Corollary 2. A graph has antithickness k if and only if it has a drawing with antithickness k. of with each vertex of at , as desired.
G
(G) (G) (G) , Every graph satisfies6 6 (G) 6 (G) 6 (G) . thickness geometric thickness book thickness and G antithickness geometric antithickness convex antithickness (G) (G) = (G) , Moreover, if is bipartite,6 then (G) 6 (G) = (G) . book thickness 2-track thickness 2-track antithickness and convex thickness convex antithickness 2-track thickness 2-track antithickness 4 topological thickness In the context of this paper it would make sense to refer to book thickness as , and to refer to thickness as , although we refrain from the temptation of introducing further terminology.
3 2 G k 2 G k For the final equality, observe that a -track layout of with antithickness is obtained from a -track layout of with thickness by simply reversing one track, and vice versa. 1.2 An Example: Trees
1 1 T 2 2 Proof: Consider the thickness of a tree.r Every tree is2 planar, and thus has thicknessT black andwhite geometric thickness . It is well known that every tree has -track thickness at most . T Orient ther edges away from some vertex . Properly -colour the vertices of and . Place each colour class on its own track, ordered according to a breadth-first search of starting at . Colour each edge according to whether it is oriented from a black to a white vertex, or from a white to a black vertex. It is easily seen that no two monochromatic edges cross, as illustrated in Figure1.
2 2
Figure 1: A -track drawing of a tree with thickness . 2-claw r, v , v , v , w , w , w { 1 2 3 1 2 3} rv , rv , rv , v w , v w , v w 2 { 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 3} The2 is the tree with vertex set and edge set 2 2 , as illustrated in Figure2(a). The upper bound of on the -track thickness of trees is best possible since Harary and Schwenk [57] proved that the 2-claw r has -track thickness exactly , as illustrated in Figure2(b). v1
v1 v2 v3
r w1 w2 w3
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 2: (a) The 2-claw. (b) The 2-claw has 2-track thickness 2. (c) The 2-claw is not a geometric thrackle. (d) The 2-claw drawn as a thrackle. 2 2 2 2 What about the antithickness of a tree? Since every tree has -track thickness at most , by reversing one track, every tree has -track antithickness at most . And again the 2-claw shows Lemma 3. The 2-claw is not a geometric thrackle. that this bound is tight. In fact:
4 Proof. r rv1 Suppose tor the contrary that the 2-claw is a geometricrv1 thrackle,v1w1 as illustrated in Figure2rv(c).2 Forrv at3 least one of the three edges incident to , say , the other two ver- tices adjacent to are on distinct sides of the line through . Thus can only intersect one of and , which2 is the desired contradiction.
This lemma shows that1 is a tight upper bound on the geometric antithickness of trees. On the other hand, if we allow curved edges, Woodall [99] proved that every tree is thrackleable, and thus has antithickness , as illustrated in Figure2(d) in the case of a 2-claw. 1.3 Main Results and Conjectures
graph parameter β G β(G)
A is a function that assigns to every graph a non-negative integer . F Examplesβ( ) that we have seenf already: N includeN thickness,f(n) geometric thickness,β(G) book thickness, F → nantithickness, geometricG antithickness, andbounded convex antithickness.β β( ) Let(1) be an class of graphs. ∈ F F F ∈ O Let denote(1) the function , where is the maximum of , taken over all O -vertex graphs . We say has if (where is the hidden β bounded by γ variable in ). F binding g β(G) g(γ(G)) G β γ 6 F A graph parameterγ is β a graphβ parameterγ tied(for some classβ ),γ if there exists a F F F function such that β for every graphγ (in ). If is bounded by F F (in ) and is bounded by (in ) then and are (in ). If and areβ tied,γ then a graph family has bounded if and only if β has bounded .γ This definition is due to Ding and Oporowskiβ [28]γ and Reedseparated [90]. Note that ‘tied’ is a transitive relation. For and to be not tied means that for some class of graphs, is bounded but is unbounded (or vice versa). In this case, and are , which is terminology introduced by Eppstein [37, 38].
The central questions of this paper ask which thickness/antithickness parameters are tied. In Section4 we prove that thickness and antithickness are tied—in fact we prove that these pa- rameters are both tied to arboricity, and thus only depend on the maximum density of the graph’s subgraphs. (See Section4 for the definition of arboricity.) t 2 t Eppstein [37] proved that book thickness and geometric thickness are separated. In particular, for every , there existsKn0 a graph with geometric thickness Knand book thickness at least ; see [8,9] for a similar result. Thus bookKn0 thickness is not bounded by2 geometric thickness. The p example used hereKn0 is , which is the graph obtained fromn/6 by subdividing each edge exactly once. In Lemma 17 we prove that has geometric antithickness . At the end of Section5 we prove that has convex antithickness at least (which is unbounded). Thus convex antithickness is not bounded by geometric antithickness, implying that convex antithickness and geometric antithickness are separated. t 3 t Eppstein [38] also proved that geometric thickness and thickness are separated. In particular, for every , there exists a graph with thickness and geometric thickness at least . Thus geometric thickness is not bounded by thickness. (Note that it is open whether every graph with thickness
5 2 n Gn n + 3 hasn bounded geometric thickness.) Eppstein [38] used the following graph to establish this result. Let Kn0 be the graph having as its vertices the singleton and tripleton subsetsGn of an -element3 set, witht an edgen between twoGn subsets when one is contained int the other. (Note that can be analogously defined—just replace tripleton by doubleton.) Then has Ethickness(Gn) , and for all there is an for which hasGn geometric thickness3 at least . We expect that ant analogous separationn resultGn holds for antithickness and geometrict antithickness. Since has an edge-partition into three star-forests, has antithickness . We conjecture that for all there is an for which has geometric antithickness at least . This would imply that geometric antithickness is not bounded by antithickness. Conjecture 4. Geometric thickness and geometric antithickness are tied. In the positive direction, we conjecture the following dualities: Conjecture 5. Book thickness and convex antithickness are tied.
In Theorem 15 we prove that convex antithickness and queue-number (defined in Section2) are tied. Thus the truth of Conjecture5 would imply that book thickness and queue-number are tied. This would imply, since planar graphs have bounded book thickness [11, 100], that planar graphs have bounded queue-number, which is an open problem due to Heath et al. [58, 59]; see [23, 29, 31] for recent progress. Thus a seemingly easier open problem is to decide whether planar graphs have bounded geometric antithickness.
Lov´aszet al. [72] proved two related results. First they proved that every bipartite thrackleable graph is planar. And more generally, they proved that a bipartite graph has a drawing in which every pair of edges intersect an odd number of times if and only if the graph is planar. In their construction, non-adjacent edges cross once, and adjacent edges intersect three times. 1.4 Other Contributions
In addition to the results discussed above, this paper makes the following contributions. In Section2 we prove that convex antithickness is tied to queue-number and track-number. Several interesting results follow from this theorem. Section3 surveys the literature on the problem of determining the thickness or antithickness of a given (uncoloured) drawing of a graph. Sections4 and5 respectively prove two results discussed above, namely that thickness and antithickness are tied, and that convex antithickness and geometric antithickness are separated. Section6 studies natural extremal questions for all of the above parameters. Finally, Section7 considers the various antithickness parameters for a complete graph. 2 Stack, Queue and Track Layouts
This section introduces track and queue layouts, which are well studied graph layout models. We show that they are closely related to convex antithickness.
6 vertex ordering n G π : V (G) 1, 2, . . . , n v < → { } π w π(v) < π(w) 6π V (G) G V (G) ordered by A< L(e) ofR( ane) -vertex graph is a bijection e E(G) . WeL(e write) < R(e) π ∈ π to mean that . Thus is aπ total order on(v1, v2,. . We . . , v sayn) or π(viis) = i . Let and denote the end-vertices of each edge V1such,V2,...,V that k . At times, it will be convenient toV expressi by the< listi (V1,V2,...,V, wherek) . These notions extendπ to subsetsv < ofw vertices in thev naturalV way.w SupposeV thati < j v V ware disjointV π ∈ i ∈ j ∈ i ∈ i vsets < ofw vertices, suchV < thatV each< Lete bef a vertexπ ordering of a graph . ConsiderL(e) <π twoL( edgesf) with no common end- vertex. There are the following three possibilities for the relative positions of the end-vertices of and in . Without loss of generality . • e f cross L(e) <π L(f) <π R(e) <π R(f) • e f nest f nested inside e L(e) < L(f) < R(f) < R(e) and : π. π π • e f disjoint L(e) < R(e) < L(f) < R(f) and and is π π: π and are : stack queue π F E(G) F ⊆ π π A (respectively, ) in is a set of edges such that no two edges in are crossing (nested) in . Observe that when traversing , edges in a stack (queue) appear in LIFO linear layout G (π, E ,E ,...,E ) π G (FIFO) order—hence the names. { 1 2 k} E ,E ,...,E E(G) k stack k queue layout G { 1 2 k} A(π, E ,E ,...,Eof a) graph is a pairE stack queue whereπ is a vertex orderingstack(e) of = `, { 1 2 k} i andqueue(e) = ` e isE a partition of .A - ( - ) of is a linear layout ∈ ` such that each is a ( ) in . At times we write (or ) if k . k k stack k queue graph stack- number G sn(G) k G k Aqueue-number graph admittingG a -stack ( -queue)qn(G) layout is calledk a - ( G- k) . The of a graph , denoted by , is the minimum such that is a -stack graph. The of , denoted by , is the minimum such that is a -queue graph. See [34k] for a summary of resultsG and references on stack and queueG layouts. k G G A -stack layout of a graph defines a convex drawing of with thickness , and vice versa. Lemma 6. For every graph G, the queue-number of G is at most the convex antithickness of G. Thus the stack-number of equals the book thickness of . Proof. G k (v1, . . . , vn) E1,...,Ek ConsiderEi a convex drawing of a graph with convex antithickness . Let be the(v1, underlying. . . , vn) circular orderingEi and let G be the correspondingk edge-partition. Any two edges in cross or intersect at a common end-vertex with respect to the vertex ordering . Thus each is a queue, and has queue-number at most . 7 We now set out to prove a converse to Lemma6. A key tool will be track layouts, which generalise the notion of 2-track drawings, and have been previously studied by several authors vertex I -colouring G V : i I V (G) [24–26, 29| –|32, 35, 76–78]. { i ∈ } vw E(G) v V w V i = j I colours V ∈ ∈ i ∈ j 6 i colourA class of a< graphi is a partition of Vi such that for every(Vi, < edgei) track , if(V , < ):andi I thenI track. The assignment elements ofG are , and each set is a { i i ∈ } | | . Suppose thatV : i isI a total order on each colour class . Then each pair is { i ∈ } a , and is an - of . To ease the notation we denote trackX-crossing assignments by when the ordering on eachvw colour classxy is implicit.v Proof. Kt 1, 2, . . . , t T ,T ,...,T (V , < ) : 1 i t { 1 2 p} { i i 6 6 } In the given convex drawingE : of1 `, sayk the vertices are ordered (k, t)around a circle, { ` 6 6 } Gand π = (V ,V ,...,Vis an) edge-partition into thrackled matchings.G Let ` 1, 2, . . . , k 1 2 t ∈ { } jbe the1, track2, . . . ,assignment p E and= vw E : v V ,be w theV edge, i i colouringT in a -track layout of ∈ { } `,j { ∈ ` ∈ i1 ∈ i2 1 2 ∈ j} E`,j. Let πbe a circular vertex ordering of . For each and , let . We now show that each set e, f E e f is a convex thrackle∈ in `,j, as illustrated in Figure3. e f π Tj Considere f two edges with no common endvertex.Tj If the endvertices of and belong to foure distinctf tracks, then and cross in , sincee thef edges in πpairwise cross.e The endverticesf of and do not belong toG three distinctE`,j tracks, since isπ a matching.G If the endvertices of and kpbelong to two distinct tracks, then and cross in , as otherwise and form a monochromatic crossing in . Thus is a convex thrackle in , and has convex antithickness at most . (k, t) k t t The following results show that -track graphs have bounded convex antithickness (for Lemma 8. Every (k, 3)-track graph G has convex antithickness at most 3k. bounded and ). We start by considering small values of . Every (k, 4)-track graph G has convex antithickness at most 5k. Every (k,(a)5)-track graph G has convex antithickness at most 8k. (b) (c) Proof. K3 K4 K5 By Lemma7, it is enough to show that , and admit convex drawings with 8 G K5 K5 Figure 3: In the proof of Lemma7, startingG from a 5-track graph , and a convex drawing of with antithickness 8, in which each thrackle is a matching, replace the vertices of by the tracks to produce a convex drawing of with convex antithickness 8. K4 their edges partitioned into 3, 5, and 8 thrackled matchings, respectively. The first claim is trivial. For the secondK4 claim, position the vertices of around a circle. Colour the two Vcrossing(K ) = edges1, 2, blue.3, 4, 5 Colour each of the four otherK edges by a distinct colour. We1, obtain2, 3, 4, 5 a 5 { } 5 convex13 drawing, 24 , 25 of, 14 ,with35 , its12 edges, 23 partitioned, 34 , 45 into, 15 five thrackled matchings.E(K ) Finally, say { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } 5 . Position the vertices of around a circle in the order . Then is a partition of into 8 thrack- led matchings. 5 k = 1 CorollaryDujmovi´cet 9. al.Every [32] outerplanarproved that every graph outerplanarG has convex graph antithickness has a -track at most layout.8. Thus Lemma8(c) with implies: Pn 1 ln n n H(n) := i=1 i n 1 Let be the natural logarithmln n of+ γ. LetH(n) < ln n + γ + denote, the -th harmonic number. 6 2n It is well-known that γ = 0.577 ... (1) where is the Euler–Mascheroni constant; see [21, 51]. Lemma 10. The complete graph Kn has a convex drawing with antithickness p in which every Thethrackle constructions is a matching, in the for proof some of Lemma integer8 pgeneralise < n ln(2n as). follows. That is, there is an edge p-colouring, such that edges that are disjoint or have a vertex in common receive distinct colours. 9 Proof. n > 6 (v0, v1, . . . , vn 1) − K ` 1, 2,..., n j 0, 1,..., n/` 1 n ∈ { b 2 c} ∈ { d e− } E`,jBy the above constructions, we may assume that . Let be the vertices of in order around a circle. For each and , E := v v : j` i (j + 1)` 1 . let be the set of edges`,j { i (i+`) mod n 6 6 − } E`,j v3 As illustrated in Figure4, is a thracklev4 and a matching.v2 v5 v1 v6 v0 v7 v11 v8 v10 v9 E`,j ` = 4 j = 0 Figure 4: The set of edges in Lemma 10 with and . n n Xb 2 c Xb 2 c n + ` 1 Now p = n/` − = (n 1) H( n ) + n . d e 6 ` − · b 2 c b 2 c `=1 `=1 n 1 n By (1), p < (n 1) ln + γ + + − b 2 c 2 n b 2 c b 2 c n 1 n ln(n) n ln(2) + γn + − + n 6 − 2 n 2 b 2 c n ln(n) + n ln(2) + γ + 1 + 1 6 − 2 4 2n < n ln(n) + + 1 5 4 n < n ln(n) + 2 < n ln(2n). Theorem 11. Every (k, t)-track graph G has convex antithickness at most kt ln(2t). Lemmas7 and 10 imply: (k, t) k t t d 2 eb 2 c A similar result was proved by Dujmovi´cet al. [32], who showed that a -track graph has geometric thickness at most . It is interesting that track layouts can be used to produce 10 graph drawings with small geometric thickness, and can be used to produce graph drawings with small convex antithickness. k c (2k, c) Dujmovi´cet al. [32] proved that every -queue -colourable graph has a -track layout. Corollary 12. Every k-queue c-colourable graph G has convex antithickness at most 2kc ln(2c). Thus Theorem 11 implies: k G 4k (2k, 4k) Dujmovi´cand Wood [34] proved that every -queue graph is -colourable, and thus has a Corollary 13. Every k-queue graph G has convex antithickness at most 8k2 ln(8k). -track layout. Thus Theorem 11 implies: series parallel K4 Theorem 14. Every series parallel graph G has convex antithickness at most 18. A graph is if it has no -minor. Proof. G G 3 It is well knownG that (6is, 3) 3-colourable. Rengarajan and Veni Madhavan [91] proved that has a -queue layout; see [33] for an alternative proof. By the above-mentioned result of Dujmovi´cet al. [32], has a -track layout. The result follows from Lemma8(a). Dujmovi´cet al. [32] proved that queue-number and track-number are tied. Thus Lemma6 and Theorem 15. Queue-number, track-number and convex antithickness are tied. Corollary 13 imply: Several upper bounds on convex antithickness immediately follow from known upper bounds on queue-number. Ink particular,= 1 Dujmovi´cet al. [30] proved that graphs with bounded treewidth have bounded track-number (see [24, 98] for quantitative improvements to the bounds). Thus Theoremn 11 with impliesO(log n that) graphs with bounded treewidth have bounded convex antithickness.n Improving on a breakthroughg byO( Dig +log Battistan) et al. [23], Dujmovi´c[29] proved that O-vertex(√g) planar graphs have queue-number.O(√g(log Moreg)(g + generally, log n)) Dujmovi´cet al. [31] proved that -vertex graphs with Euler genus Hhave queue-number. SinceH such graphs are log-colourable,O(1) n Corollary 12 implies a logO(1) n upper bound on the convex antithickness. MostO(1) generally, for fixed , Dujmovi´cet al. [31] proved that -minor-free graphs have queue-number, which implies a bound on the convex antithickness (since such graphs are -colourable). 3 Thickness and Antithickness of a Drawing G clique This section considers the problem of determining the thickness or antithickness of a given drawing of a graph. We employ the following standard terminology. For a graph , a 11 G G clique number G ω(G) G clique-covering number G ofσ(G)is a set of pairwise adjacent vertices of . The V (G) independentof , denoted set byG , is the maximum number of vertices inG a cliqueindependence of . The number G of ,α denoted(G) by is the minimum number of cliques that partitionG .chromatic An number Gof is a set χof(G pairwise) nonadjacent vertices of . The Vof(G) , denoted byχ(G) >, isω( theG) maximumσ(G) numberα(G of) vertices in an independentG set of . The χ-boundedof , denotedχ by > F F , is theω minimum number ofσ-bounded independentσ sets that partitionα . Obviously F F F and for every graph . Let be a family of graphs. is if is boundedD by in , and is G ifk is bounded by in . D ` D k Now let be a drawing ofD a graph` . Let be the maximum number of pairwiseD crossing edges in , and let be theD maximum number of pairwise disjoint edgesk in . Then is a lowerD bound on the thickness of , and is` a lower bound on the antithickness of . Our interest is when the thickness of is bounded from above by a function of , or the antithickness of is boundedH from above by a functionV (H) = ofE(.G) H D H+ V (H) = E(G) Let be the graphH+ with such that two vertices of are adjacentD if and only if the corresponding edges crossH in . Let be the graphH with+ such that twoD verticesχ of(H) are adjacent if and onlyD if the correspondingσ(H+) edges cross in or have an endvertex in common. Note that is a spanning subgraph of . By definition, the thickness of stringequals graph , and the antithickness of equals . D H+ A is the intersection graph ofD a family of simpleH curves in the plane; see [44– 46D, 63, 74, 93] for example. IfH we considerH+ edges in as curves, then is a string graph. And deletingD a small disc aroundH eachH vertex+ in , we see that is also a string graph. Moreover, if is geometric,circlegraph then both and are intersectionD graphs2 of sets of segments in theH plane. HIf + is convex, then both and are intersection graphs of sets of chords of a circle, which is called a ; see [55, 65] for example. If is a -track drawing, then both and are permutation graphs, which are perfect; see [50] for example. χ Whetherω the thickness / antithickness of an (unrestricted) drawing is bounded by the maximum number of pairwise crossing / disjoint edges is equivalent to whether string graphs are -bounded / -bounded. Whether theχ thickness /ω antithickness of a geometric drawing is bounded by the maximum number of pairwise crossing / disjoint edges is equivalent to whether intersection graphs of segments are -bounded / -bounded. For many years both these were open; see [68, 69]. However, in a recent breakthrough, Pawlik, Kozik, Krawczyk, Laso´n,Micek, Trotter, and Walczak [86, 87] constructed set of segments in the plane, whose intersection graph is triangle- free and with unbounded chromatic number. Thus the thickness of a drawing is not bounded by any function of the maximum number of pairwise crossing edges, and this remains true in the geometric setting. χ χ(H) < 21 2ω(H) · For convex drawings, more positive results are known. Gy´arf´as[53, 54] proved that the family of circle graphs is -bounded, thek best known bound being due21 to2kCern´yˇ · [20] (slightly improving an earlier bound by Kostochka and Kratochv´ıl[66]). This implies that a convex drawing with at most pairwise crossing edges has thickness less than . For 12 k σ(H) 6 (1 + o(1))α(H) log α(H) H smallk values of much better bounds are known [1,2].(1 Kostochka + o(1))k [log67]k proved that for every circle graph ; also see [66]. Thus a convex drawing with at + most pairwise disjoint edges hasD antithicknessH H at most . χ(H) = ω(H) σ(H+) = α(H+) D k Now consider a 2-track` drawing . Then and D are permutation graphs,k which are perfect. Thus ` and . This says that if has at most pairwise crossing edges, and at most` pairwise disjoint edges, then hasvw thicknessx y at, x mosty , . . . ,and x y antithickness { 1 1 2 2 i i} at most . There is a very simple algorithm for computingx < x these< partitions.< x < v First we compute 1 2 ··· i they < partition y < into< y 2-track< w thrackles. For each edge ,vw if i + 1 is a set of 1 2 ··· i maximum size of pairwisev1w1 disjointv2w2 edges such that v1 < v2 w1in< one w2 layer and v1win1 the other layer, theni assign+ 1 to thev (2w2 )-th set. Consider twoj + 1)disjoint edges x y ,and . . . , x y . Without loss of generality, and . Suppose { 1 1 i i} thatx < by x the< above< x rule< v is assigned toy the< y ( < )-th< sety < and w is assigned to the 1 2 ··· i 1 1 2 ··· i 1 ( x y ,-th . . . ,set. x y Let, v w be a set of maximum size of pairwisex < x disjoint< edges< x < such v < that v { 1 1 i i 1 1} 1 2 ··· i 1 2 y < y 13 i S | | S S (i 1) S i | | − | |· Thus the -th queue can beS partitionedi k intoS k/isets of pairwise non-disjoint edges.i Now we | | · 6 | | 6 b c bound k/i. Under each edge in is an -edge rainbow. This gives a setPk of k/i edges that b c i=1b c are pairwise disjoint. Thus and k(1 +. ln Thusk) we can partition the -th queue into at most sets of pairwise non-disjoint edges. In total we have at most sets, each with no two disjoint edges, which is less than . Loosely speaking, this proof shows that a convex drawing and an associated edge-partition into convex thrackles can be thought of as a combination of a queue layout and an arch layout; see [34] for the definition of an arch layout. 4 Thickness and Antithickness are Tied arboricity G E(G) G The of a graph is the minimum numberE(H of) forests that partition . Nash-Williams max | | . [80] proved that the arboricity of equalsH G V (H) 1 ⊆ | | − (2) Theorem 16. Thickness, antithickness, and arboricity are pairwise tied. In particular, for every graphWe haveG with the following thickness connectiont, antithickness betweenk, and thickness, arboricity antithickness,`, and arboricity. k 3k k ` and t ` . 6 3 6 6 6 2 Proof. G ` G ` t 6 ` Every forest is planar. Thus a partition of into forests is also a partition of into planar subgraphs. Thus . G ` G ` k 6 ` Woodall [99] proved that every forest is thrackeable. Thus a partition of into forests is also G 3 E(G) 3 V (G) 6 a partition of into thrackeable subgraphs. Thus . | | 6 | | − Every planar graph has arboricity at most by (2) and since 3 . (Indeed,G mucht more is known about edge-partitions ofG planar3t graphs into three forests [94].)k Since6 3t every forest is thrackeable [99], every planar graph has antithickness at most . Thus a partition of ` 3 k m 3k H into planar subgraphs gives6 2 a partition of into thrackeablen subgraphs.1 6 2 Thus . G n m − It remains3 ( ton prove1) that . By (2), it suffices to show that forH every subgraph 2 − of withk verticesm 3 andk(n edges.1) Cairns and Nikolayevsky [15] proved that every thrackle has 6 2 − at most edges. Since every subgraph of a thrackle is a thrackle, has antithickness at most , and k = 1 , as desired. 2 Theorem 16 with implies that every thrackle has arboricity at most . It is an open problem 3 167 whether2 every thrackle is planar. It follows117 from a result by Cairns and Nikolayevsky [16] that every thrackle has a crossing-free embedding in the projective plane. Also note that the constant in Theorem 16 can be improved to using the result of Fulek and Pach [47]. 14 5 Separating Convex Antithickness and Geometric Thickness Kn0 Kn As discussed in Section 1.3, the following lemma is a key step in showing that convex antithick- ness and geometric antithickness are separated. Recall that is the graph obtained from Lemma 17. K has geometric antithickness 2. by subdividingn0 each edge exactly once. Proof. v1, . . . , vn Kn0 vi (2i, 0) 1 6 i < j 6 n xi,j vivj vixi,j blue vjxi,j redLet be the originalKn0 vertices of . Position each at . For , let be the division vertex of the edge ; colour the edge , and colour the edge . Orient each edge of from the original endvertex to the division endvertex. This orientation enables us to speak of the orderK ofn0 crossings along an edge. 2 We now construct a geometric drawingi [1, n of 2] , suchj that[i + every 2, n] pair of blue edges crosses, and ∈ − ∈ every pair of red edges cross. Thus the drawing has antithickness . In addition, the following vixi,i+1 vixi,i+1 vjxj 1,j invariants are maintained for all and : − vjxj 1,j vixi,i+1 vjxj 1,j (1) No blue edge crosses − after the crossing between and − . i [n 1] x (2(n i)+1, 1) (2) No red edge crosses after the crossing between∈ − andi,i+1 . − The drawing is constructed in two stages. First, for , position at , xn 1,n x3,4 x2,3 x1,2 as illustrated− in Figure5. v1 v2 vn 1 vn − Kn0 2 Figure 5: Initial vertex placement in a geometric1 drawing1 of with antithickness . (n + 2 , 2 ) 3 1 (n + 2 , 2 ) Observe that all the blue segments intersect at , and all the red segments intersect at . Thus the invariants hold in this subdrawing. Moreover, every blue edge intersects i [1, n 2] j [i + 2, n] x every∈ red edge− (although∈ this property will not be maintained). i,j vixi,i+1 vjxj 1,j − For c and (in an arbitrary order) position asF follows. The blue segment and the red segment were drawn in the first stage, and thus cross at some point . In the arrangement formed by the drawing produced so far, let be the face that 15 c vixi,i+1 F vjxj 1,j − F xi,j F contains , such that the blue segment is on the left of , and the red segment xj 1,j xi,i+1 is on the right of . Position− noin the red interior ofno, blue as illustrated in Figure6. crossing crossing vi vi+1 vj 1 vj − x i [1, n 2] j [i + 2, n] i,j ∈ − ∈ Figure 6: Placing where and . vixi,i+1 vjxj 1,j − vixi,j By invariant (1), no blue edge crossesvjxj 1,j after the red edgevixi,i+1 . It follows that the − new bluev edgejxi,j crosses every blue edge already drawn, and invariant (1) is maintained. By invariant (2), no red edge crosses after the blue edge . It follows that the new red edge crosses every red edge already drawn, and invariant (2) is maintained.p Kn0 n/6 Kn0 p Dujmovi´cand Woodn/6 [35, Lemma 10] proved that has queue-number at least . Since the queue-number of a graph is at most its convex antithickness (Lemma6), has convex antithick- ness at least . This proves the claim in Section1 that implies that convex antithickness is not bounded by geometric antithickness. 6 Extremal Questions n 2 k This section studies the maximum number of edges in an -vertex graph with topological (or geometric or convex or -track) thickness (or antithickness) . The results are summarised in Table1. First we describe2 results from the literature, followed by our original results. n Fork book( thicknessk + 1)n and3k -track thickness the maximum number of edges is known. Bernhart and − Kainenn [6] proved that the2 maximum numberk of edgesk(n in ank) -vertex graph with book thickness − equals . Dujmovi´cand Wood [34] proved that the maximum number of edges in an -vertex graph with -track thickness equals . n n Determining the maximum number of edges in a thrackle is a famous open problem proposed by 167 John Conway, who conjectured that every thrackle117 n on vertices has at most edges. Improvingk 167 upon previous117 boundskn by Lov´aszetn > 2 al.k + [72 1] and Cairns and Nikolayevskyn [15], Fulek and Pach [47k] proved that every thrackleCn has at most edges. Thus everyk graphkn with antithickness has at most edges. For , it is easy to construct an -vertex graph consisting of edge-disjoint copies of . Thus this graph has antithickness and edges. 16 n k Table 1: The maximum number of edges in an -vertex graph with given parameter . k 3k(n 2) 3k(n 2) parameter lower bound− upper bound− reference 1 3n 6 3n 6 − − thickness 2 6n 20 6n 18 Theorem 18 − − geometric thickness k k(3n 4k 3) k(3n k 5) − − − − geometric thicknessk (k + 1)n 3k (k + 1)n 3k [62] − − geometric thicknessk k(n k) k(n k) Theorem 20 − − book thickness [6] 167 2-track thickness1 n 117 n [34] 167 k kn 117 kn antithickness 1 n n [47] antithickness k kn k kn − 2 geometric antithicknessk kn k kn k [39, 61, 82, 99] − 2 − 2 geometric antithicknessk k(n k) k(n k) − − convex antithickness [40, 41] 2-track antithickness [34] n k kn Many authors have proved that every geometric thrackle has atkn most kedges [39, 61, 82, 99]. − 2 Thus every graph with geometric antithickness has at most edges. For convex antithickness, Fabila-Monroy and Wood [41] improved this upper bound to , and Fabila-Monroy, Jonsson, Valtr, and Woodn [40] established a matching lower bound. Thisk lower bound is the best known lower bound in the geometric setting. It is an open problem to determine the maximum number of edges in an -vertex graph with geometric antithickness . k k k k We also mention that many authors have considered graph drawings, with at most pairwise crossing edges or at most pairwise disjoint edges (instead of thickness or antithickness ). These weaker assumptions allow for more edges. See [3, 18, 19, 43, 48, 48, 70, 71, 95, 96]. 6.1 Thickness n 3 3(n 2) n 3 > − > k 3k(n 2) − Since every planar graph with vertices has at most edges, every graph with Theorem 18. For all k and infinitely many n there is a graph with n vertices, thickness k, and vertices and thickness has at most edges. We now prove a lower bound. exactly 3k(n 2) edges. − G f V (G) Gf V (Gf ) = V (G) E(Gf ) = f(vw): vw E(G) f(vw) { ∈ } Let be a graph. Let be a bijection of . Let be the graph with vertex set and edge set , where is an abbreviation for the 17 f1 f2 f(v)f(w) f1 f2 V (G) compatible G G edge . Bijections and of are if and are edge-disjoint. Lemma 19. For each integer k 1 there are infinitely many edge-maximal planar graphs that By taking a union, the next lemma> implies Theorem 18. admits k pairwise compatible bijections. Proof. n 3k2 G V (G) = u i , v i , w i : i [0, n 1] Let be a prime number greater{ h thani h i h. Leti ∈ be the− graph} with vertex set E(G) = A B C ∪ ∪ A = u i u i + 1 , v i v i + 1 , w i w i + 1 : i [0, n 2] , and edge set { h i h ,i whereh i h i h i h i ∈ − } B = u i v i , v i w i , w i u i : i [0, n 1] , { h i h i h i h i h i h i ∈ − } C = u i v i + 1 , v i w i + 1 , w i u i + 1 : i [0, n 2] . { h i h i h i h i h i h i ∈ − } G p [1, k] f : V (G) V (G) Then is edge-maximal∈ p planar, as→ illustrated in Figure7. f (u i ) := u pi For each , let p h i beh thei function defined by f (v i ) := v pi + p(k + 1) p h i h i f (w i ) := w pi + 2p(k + 1) , p h i h i Zn fp Gfp Gfq e p, q [1, k] where vertex indices are always in the cyclic group . Thus is a bijection. ∈ u 0 , . . . , u n 1 u 0 , . . . , u n 1 f f { h i h − i} { h i h − i} p q Supposev toi the contraryw i that and have an edge in common, for some distinctn . h i h i Since is mapped to by both and , and similarly fp fq for the e and A , the followingG casesG suffice. All congruences are modulo . e = f (u i u i + 1 ) = f (u j u j + 1 ) i, j u pi u p(i + 1) = Case 1. is from p inh i bothh i and q :h i h i h i h i u qj u q(j + 1) pi qj pi + p qj + q p q pi qj + q h i h i ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ Casepi + p 1a.qj pi qj q p for some : Thusn > 2k p + q ≡ − ≡ ≡ − > . Then and (implying ), or and e = f (v i v i + 1 ) = f (v j v j + 1 ) i, j (implying p h i h ),i which is aq contradictionh i h i since . v pi + p(k + 1) v p(i + 1) + p(k + 1) = v qj + q(k + 1) v q(j + 1) + q(k + 1) h i h i h i h i piCase+ p( 1b.k + 1) qj + q(k + 1) p(i + 1) + p(k + 1) q(jfor+ 1) some + q(k +: 1) Thus ≡ ≡ p q n > k p, q pi + p(k + 1) q(j + 1) +.q(k + 1) If ≡ > ≡ p(i + 1) + p(k + 1) qj + q(kand+ 1) p + q 0 , then ≡ ≡ n > 2,k which> p + isq a contradiction since . Otherwise and , implying , which is a contradiction since e = f (w i w i + 1 ) = f (w j w j + 1 ) i, j . p h i h i q h i h i w pi + 2p(k + 1) w p(i + 1) + 2p(k + 1) = w qj + 2q(k + 1) w q(j + 1) + 2q(k + 1) pi + h i h i h i h i 2Casep(k + 1c. 1) qj + 2q(k + 1) p(i + 1) + 2p(k + 1) q(j + 1) +for 2q(k some+ 1) :p Thusq ≡ ≡ ≡ . If and , then , 18 u6 u5 u4 u3 u2 u1 u0 w0 v0 w1 v1 w2 v2 w3 v3 w4 v4 w5 v5 w6 v6 Figure 7: The nested triangles graph. n > k p, q pi + 2p(k + 1) q(j + 1) + 2q(k + 1) > ≡ p(i + 1) + 2p(k + 1) qj + 2q(k + 1) p + q 0 ≡ ≡ whichn > 2k is> ap contradiction+ q since . Otherwise and , implying , which is a contradiction since fp fq e . B G G e = f (u i v i ) = f (u j v j ) i, j u pi v pi + p(k + 1) = Case 2. is from p inh bothi h i andq h i: h i h i h i u qj v qj + q(k + 1) pi qj pi+p(k+1) qj +q(k+1) p(k+1) q(k+1) h i h i ≡ ≡ ≡ Casep 2a.q n for some n >. k Thusp, q ≡ > . Then and . Hence e = f (v i w i ) = f (v j w j ) i, j and since is prime, whichp h isi ah contradictioni q sinceh i h i . v pi + p(k + 1) w pi + 2p(k + 1) = v qj + q(k + 1) w qj + 2q(k + 1) pi + p(k + 1) h i h i h i h i ≡ Case 2b. for some . Thus . Then 19 qj + q(k + 1) pi + 2p(k + 1) qj + 2q(k + 1) p(k + 1) q(k + 1) p q ≡ ≡ ≡ n n > k > p, q and . Hence , implying e = f (w i u i ) = f (w j u j ) i, j w pi + 2p(k + 1) u pi = since is prime, whichp h i ish ai contradictionq h i sinceh i . h i h i w qj + 2q(k + 1) u qj pi + 2p(k + 1) qj + 2q(k + 1) pi qj 2p(k + 1) h i h i ≡ ≡ ≡ 2Caseq(k + 2c. 1) p q n for some . Thus n > k p, q ≡ > . Then and . Hence fp fq e, implyingC sinceG is prime,G which is a contradiction since . e = f (u i v i + 1 ) = f (u j v j + 1 ) i, j Case 3. is from in bothp h iandh i : q h i h i u pi v p(i + 1) + p(k + 1) = u qj v q(j + 1) + q(k + 1) pi qj p(i + 1) + p(k + h i h i h i h i ≡ 1)Caseq( 3a.j + 1) + q(k + 1) p(k + 2) q(k + 2) p qfor somen . Thus ≡ ≡ ≡ n > k > p, q . Thus and . Hence , implying since is prime, which is e = f (v i w i + 1 ) = f (v j w j + 1 ) i, j a contradiction since p h i .h i q h i h i v pi + p(k + 1) w p(i + 1) + 2p(k + 1) = v qj + q(k + 1) w q(j + 1) + 2q(k + 1) pi + h i h i h i h i Casep(k+1) 3b. qj +q(k+1) p(i+1)+2p(k+1) q(j +1)+2q(k+1) for somep(k+2).q(k Thus+2) ≡ ≡ ≡ p q n n > k p, q . Thus ≡ > and . Hence , e = f (w i u i + 1 ) = f (w j u j + 1 ) i, j implying since is prime,p h i whichh isi a contradictionq h i sinceh i . w pi + 2p(k + 1) u p(i + 1) = w qj + 2q(k + 1) u q(j + 1) pi + 2p(k + 1) qj + h i h i h i h i ≡ Case2q(k + 1)3c. p(i + 1) q(j + 1) p(2k + 1) q(2k + 1) forp someq .n Thus ≡ ≡ ≡ n > k > p, q . Thus and . Hence , implying since is prime, fp fq which ise a contradictionB G since C G. e = f (u i v i ) = f (u j v j + 1 ) i, j u pi v pi + p(k + 1) = Case 4. is from p inh i h i and fromq h iinh :i h i h i u qj v q(j + 1) + q(k + 1) pi qj pi + p(k + 1) q(j + 1) + q(k + 1) h i h i ≡ ≡ Case(p q 4a.)(k + 1) q p > q (p q)(k + 1) for[k some+ 1, k2 .1] Thus q [1, k] − ≡ − ∈ − ∈ n > k2 p <. q Then (p andq)(k + 1) [ (k + 1), (k2 1)] , implying − ∈ − − − q [1, k] n.> If 2k2 then is not congruent to ∈ since . Otherwise , implying is not congruent e = f (v i w i ) = f (v j w j + 1 ) i, j to since . p h i h i q h i h i v pi + p(k + 1) w pi + 2p(k + 1) = v qj + q(k + 1) w q(j + 1) + 2q(k + 1) h i h i h i h i Casepi + p( 4b.k + 1) qj + q(k + 1) pi + 2p(k + 1) q(j +for 1) + some 2q(k + 1). Thus ≡ ≡ (p q)(k + 1) q . Then − ≡ and . Hence e = f (w i u i ) = f (w j u j + 1 ) i, j w pi + 2p(k + 1) u pi = p .h Asi inh i Case 3a,q thish i ish a contradiction.i h i h i w qj + 2q(k + 1) u q(j + 1) pi + 2p(k + 1) qj + 2q(k + 1) pi q(j + 1) h i h i ≡ ≡ Casepi qj 4c. 2(q p)(k + 1) q q > p 2(q forp)( somek + 1) .[2 Thusk + 2, 2k2 2] − ≡ − ≡ − ∈ − q [1, k] n > 3k2 . Then q < p 2(q p)(k + 1)and[ 2k2 + 2, 2k. Hence2] ∈ − ∈ − − − q [1, k] . If n > 3kthen2 is not congruent ∈ to since . Otherwise , implying is not congruentf1, . to. . , fk since . G Therefore are pairwise compatible bijections of . 20 6.2 Geometric Thickness n 3 k 3k(n 2) > − k = 1 k = 2 Every graph6n with18 vertices and geometric thickness has at most2 6n 20 edges. Of − − course, this bound is tight for . But for , Hutchinsonk et al. [62] improved this upper bound to , and constructed a graph with geometric thickness and edges. We have the following lower and upper bounds for general . The proof is inspired by the proofs of lower and upper bounds on the geometric thickness of complete graphs due to Dillencourt, Theorem 20. For k 1 and n max 2k, 3 , every graph with n vertices and geometric Eppstein, and Hirschberg> [27]. > { } thickness k has at most k(3n k 5) edges. Conversely, for all such n 0 (mod 2k), there is − − ≡ an n-vertex graph with geometric thickness k and exactly k(3n 4k 3) edges. − − Proof of Upper Bound. T1,...,Tk V (G) E(G) T T A k 1 ∪ · · · ∪ k B Let bek triangulations of suchn that2k is containedA B = in > ∩ ∅ . Assume that no two vertices have the same x-coordinate. Let be the set of the v, w A vw T leftmost vertices. Let be∈ the set of the rightmost vertices. Since , we have i. vw Ti[A] Ti[A] Ti[B] For distinct vertices , the line segment crosses a number of triangular faces in . The left sides of these faces form a -path in . Thus is connected. Similarly T [A] T [B] k 1 T 3n 6 2(k 1) = is connected.i i − i − − − 3n 2k 4 A B − − ThusE(G) Eand(T bothT have) 2 at k least + k(3n edges.2k 4) Hence = k(3ncontainsk 5) at most | | 6 | 1 ∪ · · · ∪ k | 6 2 − − − − edges with at most one end-vertex in and at most one end-vertex in . Thus Proof of Lower Bound. s . G n = 2sk k V1,...,Vs 2k V :=Fix( aa, positive i): i integer[1, 2k] . Wea construct[1, s] a geometric graph with V a { ∈ } ∈ a vertices and geometric thicknessC . Ther vertices are partitioned into levels1 = r < each< r with a a 1 ··· s vertices, where Va for(a, 1),...,.(a, The2k) vertices in each levelCa are evenly(a, j) spaced on( aa, circle k + j) of radius centred at the origin, where 2k are specified below. The2k vertices in are ordered clockwise around . Thus is opposite , where the second coordinate is always modulo . All congruences V i, j [1, 2k] (1, i)(1, j) below are modulo1 . ∈ ` [1, k] i + j 2` i + j 2` 1 ` ∈ ≡ ≡ − The first level induces a complete(1 graph., `) For(1, k distinct+ `) , the edge is k 3k coloured(1, ` + 2 by)(1 the, ` + 2 ) such that or . The edges coloured form a b c b c 2k knon-crossing path with end-verticesK2k and , as illustrated in2 Figure8. NoteG that is the ‘long’ edge in this path. This is a well-known construction of a V a [2, s] -page book embeddinga of ∈; see [10] for example. This contributes edges to . a = 1 Every other level (where ) induces a complete graph minusi, j a perfect[1, 2k] matching.i k + Wej ∈ 6≡ use a partition(a, i)( intoa, j) non-crossing paths, analogous` [1, k] to that usedi + inj the 2` icase,+ j except2` that1 the ∈ ≡ ≡ − ‘long’ edge in each path is not included. More precisely, for distinct with , the edge is coloured by the such that or . The 21 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 ℓ =1 ℓ =2 ℓ =3 ℓ =4 Va k = 4 a = 1 Figure 8: The edges between vertices in with . The dashed edges are included only for . ` (a, `) (a, ` + 3k ) b 2 c (a, ` + k ) (a, k + `) b 2 c (edgess 1)( coloured 2k k)form two non-crossingG paths, one with end-vertices and , the − 2 − other with end-vertices and , as illustrated in Figure8. This contributes a [2, s] edges to . ∈ i [1, k] j [1, 2k] (a, i + k )(a 1, j) (a, i + 3k )(a 1, j) ∈ ∈ b 2 c − b 2 c − We now define thei edges between the2(s layers,1)2k as2 illustratedG in Figure9. Fora [2, s 1] and − ∈ − i [1, k] and (a +, the1, i + edgesk )(a 1, k + i) (a +and 1, i + 3k )(a 1, i) are present ∈ b 2 c − b 2 c − and are colouredi . This contributes2(s 2)k edgesG to . Finally, for and − , the edges and are present and are coloured . This contributes edges to .a r1, . . . , ra ra+1 (a + 1) As illustrated in Figure9, given a drawing of the first layers (which are defined by ) there is a sufficiently large value of such that the addition of the -th layer does not G 2k + (s 1)( 2k k) + (s 1)( 2k k) + 2(s 2)k create any crossings between2 − edges2 with− the same− colour.2 − − 6ks 4k2 3k = k(3n 4k 3) − − − − In total, contains edges, which equals . Examples of the construction in Theorem 20 are given in Figures 10 and 11. 7 Antithickness of Complete Graphs cat(G) G cat(Kn) Let be the convex antithicknessn + 1 of a graph5 . We1 now consider . Araujo, Du- 2 1 cat(K ) < n log n . mitrescu, Hurtado, Noy, and Urrutia3 [−4] proved6 thatn − 2 b c (3) In the original version of this paper (cited in [40, 41]), we improved both the lower anddc upper(n) = 5boundcat(Kn as) follows. Araujo et al. [4] did not use the terminology of ‘antithickness’, but it is easily seen that their definition of . 22 (a +1,i + 3k ) ⌊ 2 ⌋ (a,i + 3k ) ⌊ 2 ⌋ (a,i) (a 1, k + i) (a 1,i) − − (a, k + i) (a,i + k ) ⌊ 2 ⌋ (a +1,i + k ) ⌊ 2 ⌋ i Figure 9: Edges coloured between layers. Theorem 21. The convex antithickness of the complete graph Kn satisfies 3n 6 rn ln n − cat(K ) < n + 4. 4 6 n − 2 − 2 cat(K ) = n o(n) n − In 2007, we conjectured that . This conjecture was subsequently verified by 23 k = 2 s = 4 Figure 10: The construction in Theorem 20 with and . n k kn k − 2 Fabila-Monroy and Wood [41] who proved that everyq -vertex graph with convex antithickness cat(K ) n 2n + 1 + 1 . has at most edges, which impliesn > that− 4 2 (4) This is a significant improvement over the lower bound in Theorem 21. The upper bound in q Theorem 21 has since been improved by Fabila-Monroy1 et al.1 [40] to match the lower bound in cat(Kn) = n 2n + 4 2 . (4). Thus − − 24 k = 3 s = 3 Figure 11: The construction in Theorem 20 with and . For the historical record we includeK ourn proof of Theorem 21 in an appendix. n n 1 Proposition 22. The antithickness of K is at least and at most − . Now consider the antithickness of . n 3 d 2 e Proof. k 3 2 k(n 1) n − n 1 The lowerK boundn follows from the fact that−2 every graph with antithickness at most has n 1 at most edges; see Section6. For theKn upper bound,−2 first considern the case of odd . n 2 Walecki proved has a edge-partition− into Hamiltoniann cycles1 [73]. Each(n such1) cycle is a 2 − − thrackle. By Corollary2, the antithickness of is at most . For even , (applyingKn the odd case) there is an edge-partition into odd cycles of length , plus one -edge star. Each such cycle and the star is a thrackle. By Corollary2, the antithickness of is at most 25 n 2 n 1 − + 1 = − 2 d 2 e . n 1 K − n d 2 e Kn q We conjecture thatn the antithickness2n + 1 1 of equals (which is implied by Conway’s thrackle − b 4 − 2 c conjecture).n 1 Determining the geometric antithickness of is an open problem. The best known −2 n kupper bound iskn , which follows from the convex case. The best lower bound is only , which follows from the fact that every -vertex graph with geometric antithickness has at most edges. Acknowledgement This research was initiated at the 2006 Bellairs Workshop on Computational Geometry organised by Godfried Toussaint. Thanks to the other workshop participants for creating a productive working environment. References 5 Discrete Math. [1] Alexander Ageev. A triangle-free circle graph with chromatic5 3 number . Discrete Math., 152(1–3):295–298, 1996. doi: 10.1016/0012-365X(95)00349-2. MR: 1388649. [2] Alexander Ageev. Every circle graph of girth at least is -colourable.Discrete Comput. Geom., 195(1–3):229–233, 1999. doi: 10.1016/S0012-365X(98)00192-7. MR: 1663843. [3] Noga Alon and Paul Erdos˝ . Disjoint edges in geometric graphs. , 4(4):287–290, 1989. doi: 10.1007/BF02187731. MR: 0996763. Comput. Geom. Theory [4] GabrielaAppl. Araujo, Adrian Dumitrescu, Ferran Hurtado, Marc Noy, and Jorge Urrutia. On the chromatic number of some geometric type KneserAustralas. graphs. J. Combin. , 32(1):59–69, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.comgeo.2004.10.003. MR: 2155418. [5] Dan Archdeacon and Kirsten Stor. Superthrackles. J. Combin., 67:145–158, Theory Ser.2017. B MR: 3607819. [6] Frank R. Bernhart and Paul C. Kainen. The book thicknessComputers of a graph. and Digital Tech- niques., 27(3):320–331,IEE Proc. E 1979. doi: 10.1016/0095-8956(79)90021-2https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/. MR: 554297. [7] Tomasz129252/ Bilski. Embedding graphs in books: a survey. , 139(2):134–138,Book Embeddings 1992. of Graphs . http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/ [8] Robinetd-0709103-163907/unrestricted/Blankenship_dis.pdf Blankenship. . Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mathemat- ics, Louisiana State University, U.S.A., 2003. . [9] Robin Blankenship and Bogdanhttp://www.math.lsu.edu/ Oporowski. Drawing subdivisions~preprint/1999/rbbo991. of complete and com- pleteps bipartite graphs on books. Tech. Rep. 1999-4, Department of Mathematics, Louisiana State University, U.S.A., 1999. . 26 Comput. Geom. Theory Appl. [10] Prosenjit Bose, Ferran Hurtado, Eduardo Rivera-Campo, and David R. Wood. Partitions of complete geometric graphs into plane trees. , 34(2):116–125, 2006.Proc. 16th doi: 10.1016/j.comgeo.2005.08.006 ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing. MR: 2222887 (STOC. ’84) [11] Jonathan F. Buss and Peter Shor. On the pagenumber of planar graphs. In , pp. 98–100.Discrete ACM, Math. 1984. doi: 10.1145/800057.808670. [12] Grant Cairns and Deborah M. King. All odd musquashes are standard. , 226(1–3):71–91,Discrete Math. 2001. doi: 10.1016/S0012-365X(00)00126-6. [13] Grant Cairns, Timothy J. Koussas, and Yuri Nikolayevsky. Great-circle spherical thrack- Kles.5 K3,3 , 338(12):2507–2513, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.disc.2015.06.023. [14] Grant Cairns, Margaret McIntyre, and Yury Nikolayevsky. The thrackleDiscrete conjecture Comput. for Geom.and . In [81], pp. 35–54. [15] Grant Cairns and Yury Nikolayevsky. Bounds for generalized thrackles. , 23(2):191–206,Discrete Comput. 2000. Geom. doi: 10.1007/PL00009495. [16] Grant Cairns and Yury Nikolayevsky. Generalized thrackleGraphs drawings Combin. of non-bipartite graphs. , 41(1):119–134, 2009. doi: 10.1007/s00454-008-9095-5. [17] Grant Cairns and Yury Nikolayevsky. Outerplanar thrackles. , 28(1):85– J.96, Combin. 2012. doi: Theory 10.1007/s00373-010-1010-1 Ser. B . [18] Vasilis Capoyleas and J´anos Pach. A Tur´an-typetheorem on chordsDiscrete of a Comput.convex polygon. Geom. , 56(1):9–15, 1992. doi: 10.1016/0095-8956(92)90003-G. [19] Jakub Cernˇ ´y. Geometric graphs withElectron. no three Notes disjoint in edges. Discrete Math. , 34(4):679–695, 2005. doi: 10.1007/s00454-005-1191-1. [20] Jakub Cernˇ ´y. Coloring circle graphs. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 29:457âĂŞ–461,http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_number2007. doi: 10.1016/j.endm.2007.07.072. [21] Wikipedia contributors. HarmonicThrackles, number. surfaces, and maximum drawings of graphs, 2010. . [22] Judith Elaine Cottingham. . Ph.D. thesis, ClemsonSIAM J. University, Comput. 1993. [23] Giuseppe Di Battista, Fabrizio Frati, and J´anos Pach. On the queue number of planar graphs. , 42(6):2243–2285,Comput. 2013. Geom. doi: 10.1137/130908051 Theory Appl. . MR: 3141759. [24] Emilio Di Giacomo, Giuseppe Liotta, and Henk Meijer. Computing straight-line 3D grid drawings of graphs in linear volume. , 32(1):26–58, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.comgeo.2004.11.003. Discrete Mathematics [25] Emilio Di Giacomo, Giuseppe Liotta, Henk Meijer, and Stephen K. Wismath. Volume requirements of 3D upward drawings. , 309(7):1824–1837, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.disc.2007.12.061Proc.. MR: 11th 2509356 International. Symp. on Graph Drawing (GD ’03) [26] Emilio Di GiacomoLecture and Notes Henk in Comput. Meijer. Sci. Track drawings of graphs with constant queue num- ber. In Giuseppe Liotta, ed., , vol. 2912 of , pp. 214–225. Springer, 2004. doi: 10.1007/978- 3-540-24595-7 20. 27 J. Graph Algorithms Appl. [27] Michael B. Dillencourt, David Eppstein, and Daniel S. Hirschberg. Geometric thickness of complete graphs. , 4(3):5–17, 2000. doi:Discrete 10.7155/jgaa.00023 Math. . MR: 1787458. [28] Guoli Ding and Bogdan Oporowski. On tree-partitionsJ. Combin. of graphs. Theory Series B. , 149(1– 3):45–58, 1996. doi: 10.1016/0012-365X(94)00337-I. MR: 1375097. [29] Vida Dujmovi´c. Graph layouts via layered separators. , 110:79– SIAM89, 2015. J. Comput. doi: 10.1016/j.jctb.2014.07.005. MR: 3279388. [30] Vida Dujmovi´c, Pat Morin, and David R. Wood. Layout of graphs with bounded tree-width. , 34(3):553–579, 2005. doi:J. 10.1137/S0097539702416141 Combin. Theory Ser. B . MR: 2137079. [31] Vida Dujmovi´c, Pat Morin, and David R. Wood. Layered separators in minor- closed graph classes with applications. , 127:111–147,Discrete 2017. Math.doi: 10.1016/j.jctb.2017.05.006 Theor. Comput. Sci. . MR: 3704658. http://dmtcs.episciences.org/315 [32] Vida Dujmovi´c, Attila Por,´ and David R. Wood. Track layouts of graphs. , 6(2):497–522, 2004. k . MR: 2180055. [33] Vida Dujmovi´c and David R. Wood. Tree-partitions of -trees with applications in graph layout. Tech. Rep. TR-2002-03, School of Computer Science, CarletonDiscrete University, Math. Ottawa, Theor. Comput.Canada, Sci.2002. http://dmtcs.episciences.org/317 [34] Vida Dujmovi´c and David R. Wood. On linear layouts of graphs. , 6(2):339–358,Discrete Math. 2004. Theor. Comput. Sci. http://dmtcs.. MR: 2081479. [35] Vidaepisciences.org/346 Dujmovi´c and David R. Wood. Stacks, queues and tracks: Layouts of graph subdivisions. , 7:155–202,Amer. J. Math. 2005. . MR: 2164064. [36] Ben Dushnik and E. W. Miller. Partially ordered sets. , 63:600–610, 1941. doi: 10.2307/2371374. [37] David Eppstein. Separating geometric thickness from book thickness, 2001. arXiv: math/0109195. [38] David Eppstein. Separating thicknessn from geometricAmer. Math. thickness. Monthly In [81], pp. 75–86. arXiv: math/0204252. [39] Paul Erdos˝ . On sets of distances of points. , 53:248–250, 1946. doi: 10.2307/2305092. [40] Ruy Fabila-Monroy, Jakob Jonsson, Pavel Valtr, and David R. Wood. The exact chromatic number of the convex segment disjointness graph. 2018. arXiv: 1804.01057Proc.. XIV Spanish [41] MeetingRuy Fabila-Monroy on Computational and David Geometry R. Wood. The chromatic number of the convex segmentLecture Notesdisjointness in Computer graph. Science In A. M´arquez, P. Ramos, and J. Urrutia, eds., (EGC 2011, Hurtado Festschrift),Acta Univ. vol. 7579 Szeged. of Sect. Sci. Math. , pp. 79–84. Springer, 2012. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-34191-5 7. [42] Istv´an F´ary. OnGeometric straight line graphs representation and arrangements of planar graphs. , 11:229–233, 1948. [43] Stefan Felsner. . Advanced Lectures in Mathematics. 28 Combin.Friedr. Vieweg Probab. & Comput. Sohn, Wiesbaden, 2004. [44] Jacob Fox and J´anos Pach. A separator theorem for string graphs and its applications.Adv. Math. , 19(3):371–390, 2010. doi: 10.1017/S0963548309990459. [45] Jacob Fox and J´anos Pach. String graphs and incomparability graphs. , 230(3):1381–1401,Combin. Probab. Comput. 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.aim.2012.03.011. [46] Jacob Fox and J´anos Pach. Applications of a new separator theorem for string graphs. Comput. Geom. , 23(1):66–74, 2014. doi: 10.1017/S0963548313000412. [47] Radoslav Fulek and J´anos Pach. A computational approach to Conway’s thrackle conjec- ture. European, J. 44(6-7):345–355, Combin. 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.comgeo.2011.02.001. [48] Wayne Goddard, Meir Katchalski, and Daniel J. Kleitman. ForcingDiscrete disjoint Comput. segments Geom. in the plane. , 17(4):391–395, 1996. doi: 10.1006/eujc.1996.0032. [49] Luis Goddyn and Yian Xu. OnAlgorithmic the bounds graph of Conway’s theory and thrackles. perfect graphs , 58(2):410–416, 2017. doi: 10.1007/s00454-017-9877-8. MR: 3679942. [50] Martin Charles Golumbic. Concrete. Academic mathematics Press, 1980. [51] Ronald L. Graham, Donald E. Knuth, and Oren Patashnik. . GraphAddison-Wesley, theory, combinatorics, 2nd edn., 1994. and algorithms, Vol. 1, 2 (Kalamazoo, MI, 1992) [52] J. E. Green and Richard D. Ringeisen. Combinatorial drawings and thrackle surfaces. In , pp. 999– Discrete1009. Wiley, Math. 1995. [53] Andr´as Gy´arf´as. On the chromatic number of multiple interval graphs and overlap graphs. , 55(2):161–166,Discrete Math. 1985. doi: 10.1016/0012-365X(85)90044-5. [54] Andr´as Gy´arf´as. Corrigendum: “On the chromatic number of multiple interval graphs and Discreteoverlap graphs”. Math. , 62(3):333, 1986. doi: 10.1016/0012-365X(86)90224-4. [55] Andr´as Gy´arf´as and Jeno¨ Lehel. Covering and coloring problemsInform. for relatives Sci. of intervals. , 55(2):167–180, 1985. doi: 10.1016/0012-365X(85)90045-7. [56] John H. Halton. On the thickness of graphs of given degree. , 54(3):219–238,Utilitas Math.1991. doi: 10.1016/0020-0255(91)90052-V. [57] Frank Harary and Allen Schwenk. A new crossing number for bipartite graphs. , 1:203–209, 1972. SIAM J. Discrete Math. [58] Lenwood S. Heath, F. Thomson Leighton, and Arnold L. Rosenberg. Comparing queues and stacks as mechanisms for laying out graphs. , 5(3):398–412,SIAM J. Comput.1992. doi: 10.1137/0405031. MR: 1172748. [59] Lenwood S. Heath and Arnold L. RosenbergRecent. Laying Progress out graphs in Combinatorics using queues. (Proc. 3rd Waterloo, 21(5):927–958, Conf. on Combinatorics, 1992. doi: 1968) 10.1137/0221055. MR: 1181408. [60] Arthur M. Hobbs. A survey of thickness. In Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker- Vereinigung , pp. 255–264. Academic Press, 1969. [61] H. Hopf and E. Pammwitz. Aufgabe no. 167. , 43, 1934. [62] Joan P. Hutchinson, Thomas C. Shermer, and Andrew Vince. On representations 29 Comput. Geom. Theory Appl. of some thickness-two graphs. , 13(3):161–171, 1999. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7721(99)00018-8J. Graph Theory . [63] Svante Janson and Andrew J. Uzzell. On string graph limitsAbh. and Math. the Sem. structure Univ. of Hamburg a typical string graph. , 84(4):386–407, 2017. doi: 10.1002/jgt.22031. [64] Paul C. Kainen. Thickness and coarseness of graphs. , 39:88–95, 1973. doi: 10.1007/BF02992822. [65] Alexandr Kostochka. Coloring intersection graphs of geometric figures with a given clique number.Discrete In Math. [81], pp. 127–138. [66] Alexandr Kostochka and Jan Kratochv´l. Covering and coloring polygon-circleTrudy graphs. Inst. Mat. (Novosibirsk), 163(1–3):299–305, 1997. doi: 10.1016/S0012-365X(96)00344-5. [67] Alexandr V. Kostochka. Upper bounds on the chromatic number of graphs. , 10:204–226, 1988. European J. Combin. [68] Alexandr V. Kostochka and Jaroslav Neˇsetˇril. Coloring relatives of intervals on the plane. I. Chromatic number versus girth. , 19(1):103–110, 1998. doi: 10.1006/eujc.1997.0151. European J. Combin. [69] Alexandr V. Kostochka and Jaroslav Neˇsetˇril. Colouring relatives of intervals on the plane. II. Intervals and rays in two directions. , 23(1):37–41, 2002.Ann. Discretedoi: 10.1006/eujc.2000.0433 Math. . [70] Yaakov S. Kupitz. On pairs of disjoint segments in convex position in the plane. ,Discrete 20:203–208, Comput. 1984. Geom. doi: 10.1016/S0304-0208(08)72827-5. [71] Yaakov S. Kupitz and Micha A. Perles. Extremal theory for convex matchings in convexDiscrete ge- ometricComput. graphs. Geom. , 15(2):195–220, 1996. doi: 10.1007/BF02717731. [72] L´aszlo´ LovR´ecr´eationsMath´ematiques´asz, J´anos Pach, and Mario Szegedy. On Conway’s thrackle conjecture. , 18(4):369–376, 1997. doi: 10.1007/PL00009322Combin.. Probab. Comput. [73] E.´ Lucas. , vol. 2. Gauthiers Villars, Paris, 1892. [74] Jiˇr´ Matouˇsek. Near-optimal separators in string graphs. Aus-, tralas.23(1):135–139, J. Combin. 2014. doi: 10.1017/S0963548313000400. MR: 3197972. [75] Grace Misereh and Yuri Nikolayevsky. Thrackles containing a standard musquash. , 70:168–184, 2018. MR: 3737105Computational. Geometry and Graph Theory [76] Miki Miyauchi. (3,2)-track layout of bipartite graph subdivisions. In Hiro Ito, Mikio Kano, Naoki Katoh,(d + 1 and, 2) Yushi Uno, eds., IEICE Trans. Fun-, dam.pp. 127–131. Electron. Springer-Verlag, Commun. Comput. 2008. Sci. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89550-3 14. [77] Miki Miyauchi. -track layout of bipartite graph subdivisions. , E91-A:2292–2295, 2008. doi: 10.1093/ietfec/e91- a.9.2292IEICE Technical. Report. Circuits and systems [78] Miki Shimabara Miyauchi. Improvement of track layout of bipartite graph subdivisions. Graphs Combin. , 106(512):7–12, 2007. CAS2006-71. [79] Petra Mutzel, Thomas Odenthal, and Mark Scharbrodt. The thickness of graphs:J. London a survey. , 14(1):59–73, 1998. doi: 10.1007/PL00007219. MR: 1617664. [80] Crispin St. J. A. Nash-Williams. Decomposition of finite graphs into forests. 30 Math. Soc. Towards a Theory of Geometric Graphs Contemporary Math- ematics , 39:12, 1964. doi: 10.1112/jlms/s1-39.1.12. [81] J´anos Pach, ed. Combinatorial geometry, vol. 342 of . Amer. Math. Soc., 2004. Geombinatorics [82] J´anos Pach and Pankaj K. Agarwal. . John Wiley, 1995. [83] J´anos Pach, Radoˇs Radoiˇci´c, and G´eza Toth´ . Tangled thrackles. Amer. Math., Monthly21(4):157–169, 2012. [84] J´anos Pach and Ethan Sterling. Conway’s conjecture for monotone thrackles. Graphs Combin., 118(6):544–548, 2011. doi: 10.4169/amer.math.monthly.118.06.544. [85] J´anos Pach and Rephael Wenger. Embedding planar graphs at fixed vertex locations. , 17(4):717–728, 2001. doi: 10.1007/PL00007258. [86] Arkadiusz Pawlik, JakubDiscrete Kozik, Comput. Tomasz Geom. Krawczyk, Micha l Lason,´ Piotr Micek, William T. Trotter, and Bartosz Walczak. Triangle-free geometric intersection graphs with large chromatic number. , 50(3):714–726, 2013. doi: 10.1007/s00454- 013-9534-9. [87] Arkadiusz Pawlik, Jakub Kozik, TomaszJ. Krawczyk, Combin. Theory Micha Ser.l Laso B n,´ Piotr Micek, William T. Trotter, and Bartosz Walczak. Triangle-free intersection graphs of line segments with large chromatic number. , 105:6–10, 2014. Rdoi:3 10.1016/j.jctb.2013.11.001. Graphs Combin. [88] Amitai Perlstein and Rom Pinchasi. Generalized thrackles and geometric graphs in with no pair of strongly avoiding edges. , 24(4):373–389, 2008. doi: 10.1007/s00373-008-0796-6Discrete Math. . [89] Barry L. Piazza, Richard D. Ringeisen, and Sam K. Stueckle. Subthrackleable graphs and fourSurveys cycles. in combinatorics, 127(1–3):265–276,London 1994. Math. doi: Soc. 10.1016/0012-365X(92)00484-9 Lecture Note Ser. . [90] Bruce A. Reed. Tree width and tangles: a new connectivity measure and some applications. In , vol. 241 of 2 , pp. 87–162. Cambridge Univ. Press,Proc. 1997. 1st doi: Annual 10.1017/CBO9780511662119.006 International Conf. on Computing. MR: and 1477746 Combinatorics. [91] S.(COCOON Rengarajan ’95) and C. E. VeniLecture Madhavan Notes. Stack in Comput. and queue Sci. number of -trees. In Ding-Zhu Du and Ming Li, eds., , vol. 959 of , pp. 203–212. Springer, 1995. doi: 10.1007/BFb0030834. European J. Combin. [92] Andres J. Ruiz-Vargas, Andrew Suk, and Csaba D. Toth´ . Disjoint edges in topologi- cal graphs and the tangled-thrackle conjecture. , 51:398–406,J. Comput. 2016. Systemdoi: 10.1016/j.ejc.2015.07.004 Sci. . [93] Marcus Schaefer and Daniel Stefankoviˇ ˇc. Decidability ofOrder string graphs. , 68(2):319–334, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.jcss.2003.07.002. [94] Walter Schnyder. Planar graphs andJ. poset Combin. dimension. Theory Ser. A , 5(4):323–343, 1989. doi: 10.1007/BF00353652. [95] G´eza Toth´ . Note on geometric graphs. , 89(1):126–132,Discrete Comput. 2000. doi: 10.1006/jcta.1999.3001. [96] G´eza Toth´ and Pavel Valtr. Geometric graphs with few disjoint edges. 31 Geom. Jber. Deutsch. Math.-Verein. , 22(4):633–642,http://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?GDZPPN002131633 1999. doi: 10.1007/PL00009482. [97] Klaus Wagner. Bemerkung zum Vierfarbenproblem. Electron., 46:26– J. Combin.32, 1936. . [98] Veit Wiechert. On the queue-number of graphs withCombinatorial bounded tree-width. Mathematics and its Applications, 24(1):1.65, (Proc. Conf., 2017. Oxford, 1969) [99] Douglas R. Woodall. Thrackles and deadlock. In J. Comput. System Sci. , pp. 335–347. Academic Press, London, 1971. [100] Mihalis Yannakakis. Embedding planar graphs in four pages. , 38(1):36–67, 1989. doi: 10.1016/0022-0000(89)90032-9. MR: 0990049. A Proof of Theorem 21 Proof of Theorem 21 Lower Bound. n cat(Kn) < 3n 6 3m 6 4− cat(Km) > 4− m < n n > 5 Kn Say is thecat( minimumKn) counterexample. That is, , but for all .1 It, 2, is3, easily4 seen that . Consider a12 convex23 34drawing of with its edgesa, coloured b, c with12 34 colours, such thata monochromatic= c edges 6 intersect. Considera = b fourb consecutive= c verticesa, b, c on the convex hull. Say the edgesa b ,c , 6 6 are respectively1 2 3 coloured4 K .1 Since, 2, 3, 4 and do not intersect,cat(K ) 3 . Suppose to the n − { } n − contrary that and . Then are distinct colours. Every edge coloured , or is 3n 18 3(n 4) 6 3n 6 3n 18 incident to −, , =or .− Thus− 6 cat(Kn 4) receives6 cat(Kn at) most3 < − 3 =colours.− Hence. 4 4 − − 4 − 4 a = b b = c n Kn a, a, b, b, c, c, . . . 2 This contradiction proves thatn 6 or S. Hence, as illustrated in Figure 12, the sequence n of colours on the boundary edges of isS = 2 . In particular,Kn thereS are colours | | 1 n − on the boundary edges (and is even). Let Knbe the set of2 vertices( 2 2) for which the two incident n 1 n− n 1 n 3n 6 boundaryK edgesS are monochromatic. Then . An internal+ ( edge2) of + cannot( 3) receive = − a n − 2 2 2 − > 2 2 2 − 4 colour that is assigned to a boundary edge of . There are pairwise disjoint internal edges of . Thus the number of colours is at least , as desired. We proveK the upper(0, bound1, . . . ,in n Theorem1) 21 by a series of lemmas. To facilitate an inductiven n − argument,distance it will be beneficiali to provej an upper bounddist(i, for j) a broader class of convex graphs than justi .j Let be the verticesdist(i, in j) clockwise = min j orderi , n aroundj i a convexdistance-gon. {| − | − | − |} The between vertices and , denoted by G(n, `,) is the length of the shortestn path betweenij and around the boundary.dist( Thati, j) is, ` . Then > b 2 c of an edge is the distance` [1, betweenn ] its end-vertices.K = LetG(n, 1) be the convex graph on vertices, ∈ b 2 c n where` is an edge if and onlyn if . Since every distanceG(n, n is) at most , the only b 2 c interesting case is . Observe that . We proceed by upward induction on boundary internal and downward induction on . For the base case, observe that is a thrackled perfect 6 An edge contained in the convex hull of a convex drawing is a edge; otherwise it is . 32 c b c b d a d a e h e h f g f g Figure 12: Illustration for the proof of the lower bound in Theorem 21. cat(G(n, n )) = 1 b 2 c matching or odd cycle; thus . In general, we have the following recursive Lemma 23. For all integers n > 1 and ` > 1, construction. n `n cat(G(n, `)) + cat(G( , ` + 1)) . 6 ` + 1 ` + 1 Proof. ` n + 1 ` [1, n ] S > b 2 c ∈ b 2 c n ` 1 ` S d `+1 e − S The lemma isS vacuous2 for all v. NowS assume that . Letc be a | | > ∈ v set of cvvertices with or verticesv not in betweenxy each pair` of consecutive` + 1 vertices in . Observe that x .y With each vertex , associate av distinct colour . Assign the colourcv to all edges incident to , and to all edges of distance or ,G such(n, ` that) a shortest path between andS around the boundary passes through . Observe` + 1that theG(n, edges `) coloured form a thrackle, as illustrated in Figure 13(a). Moreover, every edge of that isn incidentS = n to a vertexn = in`n is coloured, and every edge of distance at most` + 2 in is − | | − d `+1 e b `+1 c coloured, as illustrated`+t in Figure t13(b).1 The numberS of vertices incident toS an uncoloured edge is − G( `n , ` + 1) . Every uncoloured edge has distance at least . An uncoloured b `+1 c with distance spans at most vertices in . Thus after deleting , the uncoloured edges form ,P asn illustrated1 in Figure 13(c). H(n) := i=1 i > ln n + γ Lemma 24. For all integers n > ` > 1, Recall that n. jnk cat(K ) n + (` H(`)) + cat(G( , `)) . n 6 − ` − ` Proof. ` ` = 1 cat(Kn) 6 cat(G(n, 1)) ` 2 ` 1 > − We proceed by inductionn on . For , the lemma claims thatn , cat(K ) n + (` 1 H(` 1)) + cat(G( , ` 1)) . which holds with equality.n 6 − Suppose` 1 that− − and− the lemma holds` for1 −. That is, − − 33 (a) G(12, 2) (b) (c) G(8, 3) Figure 13: Colouring . (a) one thrackle, (b) four thrackles, (c) uncoloured . n G( ` 1 , ` 1) b − c − n n n Bycat( LemmaK ) 23n applied to+ (` 1 H(` 1))we + have /` + cat(G( (` 1) /` , `)) n 6 − ` 1 − − − ` 1 − ` 1 − − − n n ` 1 jnk n + + ` 1 H(` 1) + − + cat(G( , `)) 6 − ` 1 `(` 1) − − − ` ` n− − jnk = n + (` H(`)) + cat(G( , `)) . − ` − ` p n 1 n Proof of Theorem 21 Upper Bound. ` = 2 ` > 2 ` n d e b c cat(G( ` , `)) 6 1 Apply Lemma 24 with . Observe that . n lq n m lq n m Thus cat(Kn), and6 n p n + 2 H 2 + 1 − 2 − d e q lq m < n √2n 2 + n + 1 H n + 1 − − 2 − 2 q lq m n n ln n + γ + 4 6 − 2 − 2 q n n 1 ln( n + γ) + 4 6 − 2 − 2 2 q < n n 1 ln n + 4 . − 2 − 2 34