DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 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 = jV (G Melbourne,)j m = AustraliajE(G)j ( G[S] ). G We consider undirected, finite,S ⊆ simpleV (G) graphsG −withS := vertexG[V (G set) n S] andG edge− v := setG n fvg. 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 Wherecross 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 aroundthrackle 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) 2 k Thethickness of a graph is the minimum k suchN that the edge set can be partitioned 2 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) = fv1; : : : ; vng 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) = fe1; : : : ; emg 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]. 2 k antithickness k N 2 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 2 that the edges ofG the drawing can be partitioned into thrackles. Equivalently, each edge is assignedk 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) 2 − 2 nf 2 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 10 GEOMETRIC GRAPH THEORY J´Anos Pach
    10 GEOMETRIC GRAPH THEORY J´anos Pach INTRODUCTION In the traditional areas of graph theory (Ramsey theory, extremal graph theory, random graphs, etc.), graphs are regarded as abstract binary relations. The relevant methods are often incapable of providing satisfactory answers to questions arising in geometric applications. Geometric graph theory focuses on combinatorial and geometric properties of graphs drawn in the plane by straight-line edges (or, more generally, by edges represented by simple Jordan arcs). It is a fairly new discipline abounding in open problems, but it has already yielded some striking results that have proved instrumental in the solution of several basic problems in combinatorial and computational geometry (including the k-set problem and metric questions discussed in Sections 1.1 and 1.2, respectively, of this Handbook). This chapter is partitioned into extremal problems (Section 10.1), crossing numbers (Section 10.2), and generalizations (Section 10.3). 10.1 EXTREMAL PROBLEMS Tur´an’s classical theorem [Tur54] determines the maximum number of edges that an abstract graph with n vertices can have without containing, as a subgraph, a complete graph with k vertices. In the spirit of this result, one can raise the follow- ing general question. Given a class of so-called forbidden geometric subgraphs, what is the maximum number of edgesH that a geometric graph of n vertices can have without containing a geometric subgraph belonging to ? Similarly, Ramsey’s the- orem [Ram30] for abstract graphs has some natural analoguesH for geometric graphs. In this section we will be concerned mainly with problems of these two types.
    [Show full text]
  • On Grids in Topological Graphs
    On Grids in Topological Graphs Eyal Ackerman∗ Jacob Fox† J´anos Pach‡ Andrew Suk§ Abstract A topological graph is a graph drawn in the plane with vertices represented by points and edges as arcs connecting its vertices. A k-grid in a topological graph is a pair of edge subsets, each of size k, such that every edge in one subset crosses every edge in the other subset. It is known that for a fixed constant k, every n-vertex topological graph with no k-grid has O(n) edges. We conjecture that this remains true even when: (1) considering grids with distinct vertices; or (2) all edges are straight-line segments and the edges within each subset of the grid are required to be pairwise ∗ 2 disjoint. These conjectures are shown to be true apart from log n and log n factors, respectively. We also settle the conjectures for some special cases, including the second conjecture for convex geometric graphs. This result follows from a stronger statement that generalizes the celebrated Marcus-Tardos Theorem on excluded patterns in 0-1 matrices. 1 Introduction The intersection graph of a set of geometric objects has the members of as its vertex set and an edge between every pair of objectsC with a nonempty intersection. The problemsC of finding maximum independent set and maximum clique in the intersection graph of geometric objects have received a considerable amount of attention in the literature due to their applications in VLSI design [HM85], map labeling [AKS98], frequency assignment in cellular networks [M97], and elsewhere. Here we study the intersection graph of the edge set of graphs that are drawn in the plane.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Maximum Crossing Number
    Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications http://jgaa.info/ vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 67–87 (2018) DOI: 10.7155/jgaa.00458 On the Maximum Crossing Number Markus Chimani 1 Stefan Felsner 2 Stephen Kobourov 3 Torsten Ueckerdt 4 Pavel Valtr 5 Alexander Wolff 6 1 Universit¨atOsnabr¨uck, Germany 2 Technische Universit¨atBerlin, Germany 3 University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ, U.S.A. 4 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany 5 Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic 6 Universit¨atW¨urzburg, Germany Abstract Research about crossings is typically about minimization. In this pa- per, we consider maximizing the number of crossings over all possible ways to draw a given graph in the plane. Alpert et al. [Electron. J. Combin., 2009] conjectured that any graph has a convex straight-line drawing, that is, a drawing with vertices in convex position, that maximizes the number of edge crossings. We disprove this conjecture by constructing a planar graph on twelve vertices that admits a non-convex drawing with more crossings than any convex drawing. Bald et al. [Proc. COCOON, 2016] showed that it is NP-hard to compute the maximum number of crossings of a geometric graph and that the weighted geometric case is NP-hard to approximate. We strengthen these results by showing hardness of approx- imation even for the unweighted geometric case. We also prove that the unweighted topological case is NP-hard. Submitted: Reviewed: Revised: Reviewed: Revised: May 2017 August 2017 October 2017 December 2017 December 2017 Accepted: Final: Published: December 2017 December 2017 January 2018 Article type: Communicated by: Regular paper M.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Maximum Crossing Number
    On the Maximum Crossing Number Markus Chimani, Stefan Felsner, Stephen Kobourov, Torsten Ueckerdt, Pavel Valtr, and Alexander Wolff 1 Universitat¨ Osnabruck,¨ [email protected] 2 Technische Universitat¨ Berlin, [email protected] 3 University of Arizona, [email protected] 4 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, [email protected] 5 Charles University, [email protected] 6 Universitat¨ Wurzburg,¨ orcid.org/0000-0001-5872-718X Abstract. Research about crossings is typically about minimization. In this pa- per, we consider maximizing the number of crossings over all possible ways to draw a given graph in the plane. Alpert et al. [1] conjectured that any graph has a convex straight-line drawing, e.g., a drawing with vertices in convex position, that maximizes the number of edge crossings. We disprove this conjecture by constructing a planar graph on twelve vertices that allows a non-convex drawing with more crossings than any convex one. Bald et al. [2] showed that it is NP-hard to compute the maximum number of crossings of a geometric graph and that the weighted geometric case is NP-hard to approximate. We strengthen these results by showing hardness of approximation even for the unweighted geometric case and prove that the unweighted topological case is NP-hard. 1 Introduction While traditionally in graph drawing one wants to minimize the number of edge cross- ings, we are interested in the opposite problem. Specifically, given a graph G, what is the maximum number of edge crossings possible, and what do embeddings7 of G that attain this maximum look like? Such questions have first been asked as early as in the 19th century [3,22].
    [Show full text]
  • On the Maximum Crossing Number∗
    On the Maximum Crossing Number∗ Markus Chimaniy Stefan Felsnerz Stephen Kobourovx Torsten Ueckerdt{ Pavel Valtrk Alexander Wolff∗∗ Abstract Research about crossings is typically about minimization. In this paper, we consider maximizing the number of crossings over all possible ways to draw a given graph in the plane. Alpert et al. [Electron. J. Combin., 2009] conjectured that any graph has a convex straight-line drawing, e.g., a drawing with vertices in convex position, that maximizes the number of edge crossings. We disprove this conjecture by constructing a planar graph on twelve vertices that allows a non-convex drawing with more crossings than any convex one. Bald et al. [Proc. COCOON, 2016] showed that it is NP-hard to compute the maximum number of crossings of a geometric graph and that the weighted geometric case is NP- hard to approximate. We strengthen these results by showing hardness of approximation even for the unweighted geometric case and prove that the unweighted topological case is NP-hard. 1 Introduction While traditionally in graph drawing one wants to minimize the number of edge crossings, we are interested in the opposite problem. Specifically, given a graph G, what is the maximum number of edge crossings possible, and what do embeddings1 of G that attain this maximum look like? Such questions have first been asked as early as in the 19th century [Bal85, Sta93]. Perhaps due to the counterintuitive nature of the problem (as illustrated by the disproved conjecture below) and due to the lack of established tools and concepts, little is known about maximizing the number of crossings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Graph Crossing Number and Its Variants: a Survey
    The Graph Crossing Number and its Variants: A Survey Marcus Schaefer School of Computing DePaul University Chicago, Illinois 60604, U.S.A. [email protected] Submitted: Dec 20, 2011; Accepted: Apr 4, 2013 Fourth edition, Feb 14, 2020 Mathematics Subject Classifications: 05C62, 68R10 Abstract The crossing number is a popular tool in graph drawing and visualization, but there is not really just one crossing number; there is a large family of crossing number notions of which the crossing number is the best known. We survey the rich variety of crossing number variants that have been introduced in the literature for purposes that range from studying the theoretical underpinnings of the crossing number to crossing minimization for visualization problems. 1 So, Which Crossing Number is it? The crossing number, cr(G), of a graph G is the smallest number of crossings required in any drawing of G. Or is it? According to a popular introductory textbook on combi- natorics [502, page 40] the crossing number of a graph is “the minimum number of pairs of crossing edges in a depiction of G”. So, which one is it? Is there even a difference? To start with the second question, the easy answer is: yes, obviously there is a differ- ence, the difference between counting all crossings and counting pairs of edges that cross. But maybe these different ways of counting don’t make a difference and always come out the same? That is a harder question to answer. Pach and Tóth in their paper “Which Crossing Number is it Anyway?” [402] coined the term pair crossing number, pcr, for the crossing number in the second definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Thickness and Antithickness of Graphs
    Journal of Computational Geometry jocg.org THICKNESS AND ANTITHICKNESS OF GRAPHS Vida Dujmović,∗ David R. Wood,y Abstract. This paper studies questions about duality between crossings and non-crossings in graph drawings via the notions of thickness and antithickness. The thickness of a graph G is the minimum integer k such that in some drawing of G, the edges can be partitioned into k noncrossing subgraphs. The antithickness of a graph G is the minimum integer k such that in some drawing of G, the edges can be partitioned into k thrackles, where a thrackle is a set of edges, each pair of which intersect exactly once. (Here edges with a common endvertex v are considered to intersect at v.) 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 This paper studies questions about duality between crossings and non-crossings in graph drawings. This idea is best illustrated by an example. A graph is planar if it has a drawing with no crossings, while a thrackle 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 thracklehood and planarity appear to be related. In particular, a widely believed conjecture would imply that every thrackleable graph is planar.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Maximum Crossing Number Markus Chimani 1 Stefan Felsner 2 Stephen Kobourov 3 Torsten Ueckerdt 4 Pavel Valtr 5 Alexander Wolff 6
    Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications http://jgaa.info/ vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 0{0 (0) DOI: 10.7155/jgaa.00458 On the Maximum Crossing Number Markus Chimani 1 Stefan Felsner 2 Stephen Kobourov 3 Torsten Ueckerdt 4 Pavel Valtr 5 Alexander Wolff 6 1 Universit¨atOsnabr¨uck, Germany 2 Technische Universit¨atBerlin, Germany 3 University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ, U.S.A. 4 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany 5 Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic 6 Universit¨atW¨urzburg,Germany Abstract Research about crossings is typically about minimization. In this pa- per, we consider maximizing the number of crossings over all possible ways to draw a given graph in the plane. Alpert et al. [Electron. J. Combin., 2009] conjectured that any graph has a convex straight-line drawing, that is, a drawing with vertices in convex position, that maximizes the number of edge crossings. We disprove this conjecture by constructing a planar graph on twelve vertices that admits a non-convex drawing with more crossings than any convex drawing. Bald et al. [Proc. COCOON, 2016] showed that it is NP-hard to compute the maximum number of crossings of a geometric graph and that the weighted geometric case is NP-hard to approximate. We strengthen these results by showing hardness of approx- imation even for the unweighted geometric case. We also prove that the unweighted topological case is NP-hard. Submitted: Reviewed: Revised: Reviewed: Revised: May 2017 September 2017 October 2017 December 2017 December 2017 Accepted: Final: Published: December 2017 December 2017 Article type: Communicated by: Regular paper M.
    [Show full text]
  • Graph Theory, an Antiprism Graph Is a Graph That Has One of the Antiprisms As Its Skeleton
    Graph families From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Chapter 1 Antiprism graph In the mathematical field of graph theory, an antiprism graph is a graph that has one of the antiprisms as its skeleton. An n-sided antiprism has 2n vertices and 4n edges. They are regular, polyhedral (and therefore by necessity also 3- vertex-connected, vertex-transitive, and planar graphs), and also Hamiltonian graphs.[1] 1.1 Examples The first graph in the sequence, the octahedral graph, has 6 vertices and 12 edges. Later graphs in the sequence may be named after the type of antiprism they correspond to: • Octahedral graph – 6 vertices, 12 edges • square antiprismatic graph – 8 vertices, 16 edges • Pentagonal antiprismatic graph – 10 vertices, 20 edges • Hexagonal antiprismatic graph – 12 vertices, 24 edges • Heptagonal antiprismatic graph – 14 vertices, 28 edges • Octagonal antiprismatic graph– 16 vertices, 32 edges • ... Although geometrically the star polygons also form the faces of a different sequence of (self-intersecting) antiprisms, the star antiprisms, they do not form a different sequence of graphs. 1.2 Related graphs An antiprism graph is a special case of a circulant graph, Ci₂n(2,1). Other infinite sequences of polyhedral graph formed in a similar way from polyhedra with regular-polygon bases include the prism graphs (graphs of prisms) and wheel graphs (graphs of pyramids). Other vertex-transitive polyhedral graphs include the Archimedean graphs. 1.3 References [1] Read, R. C. and Wilson, R. J. An Atlas of Graphs, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2004 reprint, Chapter 6 special graphs pp. 261, 270. 2 1.4. EXTERNAL LINKS 3 1.4 External links • Weisstein, Eric W., “Antiprism graph”, MathWorld.
    [Show full text]