arXiv++ Combinatorics

This is a supplement for "Pearls in graph theory" -- a textbook written by Nora Hartsfield and Gerhard Ringel. We discuss the following topics: Ramsey theory, Probabilistic method, Deletion-contraction formulas, Matrix theorem, Graph-polynomials, Generating functions, Minimum spanning trees, Marriage theorem and its relatives, Toroidal graphs, Rado graph, Rewriting systems.

The paper is devoted to a proof of the de Bruijn-Erdös theorem in incidence geometry based on the Ph. Hall's marriage theorem (the theorem about the systems of distinct representatives).

A very nice result of Bárány and Lehel asserts that every finite subset $X$ or $\mathbb R^d$ can be covered by $f(d)$ $X$-boxes (i.e. each box has two antipodal points in $X$). As shown by Gyárfás and Pálvőlgyi this result would follow from the following conjecture : If a tournament admits a partition of its arc set into $k$ quasi orders, then its domination number is bounded in terms of $k$. This question is in turn implied by the Erdős-Sands-Sauer-Woodrow conjecture : If the arcs of a tournament $T$ are colored with $k$ colors, there is a set $X$ of at most $g(k)$ vertices such that for every vertex $v$ of $T$, there is a monochromatic path from $X$ to $v$. We give a short proof of this statement. We moreover show that the general Sands-Sauer-Woodrow conjecture (which as a special case implies the stable marriage theorem) is valid for directed graphs with bounded stability number. This conjecture remains however open.

As is well known, a graph is a mathematical object modeling the existence of a certain relation between pairs of elements of a given set. Therefore, it is not surprising that many of the first results concerning graphs made reference to relationships between people or groups of people. In this article, we comment on four results of this kind, which are related to various general theories on graphs and their applications: the Handshake lemma (related to graph colorings and Boolean algebra), a lemma on known and unknown people at a cocktail party (to Ramsey theory), a theorem on friends in common (to distance-regularity and coding theory), and Hall's Marriage theorem (to the theory of networks). These four areas of graph theory, often with problems which are easy to state but difficult to solve, are extensively developed and currently give rise to much research work. As examples of representative problems and results of these areas, which are discussed in this paper, we may cite the following: the Four Colors Theorem (4CTC), the Ramsey numbers, problems of the existence of distance-regular graphs and completely regular codes, and finally the study of topological proprieties of interconnection networks.

The problem of completing a partially specified n by n Latin square is solved by an alternative proof, based on filling the rows (or diagonals) from 1 to n, using an extended form of Hall's marriage theorem.

We introduce a geometric generalization of Hall's marriage theorem. For any family $F = \{X_1, \dots, X_m\}$ of finite sets in $\mathbb{R}^d$, we give conditions under which it is possible to choose a point $x_i\in X_i$ for every $1\leq i \leq m$ in such a way that the points $\{x_1,...,x_m\}\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ are in general position. We give two proofs, one elementary proof requiring slightly stronger conditions, and one proof using topological techniques in the spirit of Aharoni and Haxell's celebrated generalization of Hall's theorem.

Let $G$ be a permutation group acting on $[n]=\{1, ..., n\}$ and $\mathcal{V}=\{V_{i}: i=1, ..., n\}$ be a system of $n$ subsets of $[n]$. When is there an element $g \in G$ so that $g(i) \in V_{i}$ for each $i \in [n]$? If such $g$ exists, we say that $G$ has a $G$-marriage subject to $\mathcal{V}$. An obvious necessary condition is the {\it orbit condition}: for any $\emptyset \not = Y \subseteq [n]$, $\bigcup_{y \in Y} V_{y} \supseteq Y^{g}=\{g(y): y \in Y \}$ for some $g \in G$. Keevash (J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 111(2005), 289--309) observed that the orbit condition is sufficient when $G$ is the symmetric group $\Sym([n])$; this is in fact equivalent to the celebrated Hall's Marriage Theorem. We prove that the orbit condition is sufficient if and only if $G$ is a direct product of symmetric groups. We extend the notion of orbit condition to that of $k$-orbit condition and prove that if $G$ is the alternating group $\Alt([n])$ or the cyclic group $C_{n}$ where $n \ge 4$, then $G$ satisfies the $(n-1)$-orbit condition subject to $\V$ if and only if $G$ has a $G$-marriage subject to $\mathcal{V}$.

In this paper, we consider various problems concerning quasi-matchings and semi-matchings in bipartite graphs, which generalize the classical problem of determining a perfect matching in bipartite graphs. We prove a vast generalization of Hall's marriage theorem, and present an algorithm that solves the problem of determining a lexicographically minimum $g$-quasi-matching (that is a set $F$ of edges in a bipartite graph such that in one set of the bipartition every vertex $v$ has at least $g(v)$ incident edges from $F$, where $g$ is a so-called need mapping, while on the other side of the bipartition the distribution of degrees with respect to $F$ is lexicographically minimum). We also present an application in designing an optimal CDMA-based wireless sensor networks.

Holroyd and Propp used Hall's marriage theorem to show that, given a probability distribution pi on a finite set S, there exists an infinite sequence s_1,s_2,... in S such that for all integers k >= 1 and all s in S, the number of i in [1,k] with s_i = s differs from k pi(s) by at most 1. We prove a generalization of this result using a simple explicit algorithm. A special case of this algorithm yields an extension of Holroyd and Propp's result to the case of discrete probability distributions on infinite sets.

Let G be a finite group. Define a relation ~ on the conjugacy classes of G by setting C ~ D if there are representatives c \in C and d \in D such that cd = dc. In the case where G has a normal subgroup H such that G/H is cyclic, two theorems are proved concerning the distribution, between cosets of H, of pairs of conjugacy classes of G related by ~. One of the proofs involves an interesting application of the famous Marriage Theorem of Philip Hall. The paper concludes by discussing some aspects of these theorems and of the relation ~ in the particular cases of symmetric and general linear groups, and by mentioning an open question related to Frobenius groups.

A labeling of a graph is a bijection from $E(G)$ to the set $\{1, 2,..., |E(G)|\}$. A labeling is \textit{antimagic} if for any distinct vertices $u$ and $v$, the sum of the labels on edges incident to $u$ is different from the sum of the labels on edges incident to $v$. We say a graph is antimagic if it has an antimagic labeling. In 1990, Ringel conjectured that every connected graph other than $K_2$ is antimagic. In this paper, we show that every regular bipartite graph (with degree at least 2) is antimagic. Our technique relies heavily on the Marriage Theorem.

The stability number alpha(G) of a graph G is the cardinality of a maximum stable set in G, xi(G) denotes the size of core(G), where core(G) is the intersection of all maximum stable sets of G. In this paper we prove that for a graph G without isolated vertices, the following assertions are true: (i) if xi(G)< 2, then G is quasi-regularizable; (ii) if G is of order n and alpha(G) > (n+k-1)/2, for some k > 0, then xi(G) > k, and xi(G) > k+1, whenever n+k-1 is even. The last finding is a strengthening of a result of Hammer, Hansen, and Simeone, which states that alpha(G) > n/2 implies xi(G) > 0. G is a Koenig-Egervary graph if n equals the sum of its stability number and the cardinality of a maximum matching. For Koenig-Egervary graphs, we prove that alpha(G) > n/2 holds if and only if xi(G) is greater than the size of the neighborhood of core(G). Moreover, for bipartite graphs without isolated vertices, alpha(G) > n/2 is equivalent to xi(G) > 1. We also show that Hall's marriage Theorem is valid for Koenig-Egervary graphs, and it is sufficient to check Hall's condition only for one specific stable set, namely, for core(G).