Eulerian Graphs and Related Topics

~ u l s a Graphs n m

and

'ela6ed rn Topics I

EULERIAN GRAPHS AND RELATED TOPICS Part 1, Volume 1

ANNALS OF DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

General Editor: Peter L. HAMMER Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, U.S.A.

Advisory Editors: C. BERGE, Universite de Paris, France M.A. HARRISON, University of California, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. K KLEE, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, U.S.A. J.H. VAN LIN7; California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, U.S.A. G.C. ROTA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, M.A., U.S.A.

EULERIAN GRAPHS AND RELATED TOPICS Part 1, Volume 1

Herbert FLEISCHNER Institute for Information Processing Austrian Academy of Sciences Vienna, Austria

1990

NORTH-HOLLAND -AMSTERDAM

NEW YORK

OXFORD TOKYO

ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS B.V. Sara Burgerhartstraat 25 P.O. Box 21 1, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands Distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada: ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. 655 Avenue of the Americas New York, N.Y. 10010, U.S.A.

ISBN: 0 444 88395 9

O ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS B.V., 1990 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. / Physical Sciences and Engineering Division, PO. Box 703, 1000 AC Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Special regulations for readers in the U.S.A. - This publication has been registered with the Copyright Clearance Center Inc. (CCC), Salem, Massachusetts. Information can be obtained from the CCC about conditions under which photocopies of parts of this publication may be made in the U.S.A. All other copyright questions, including photocopying outside of the U.S.A., should be referred to the publisher. No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter o f products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

To those who cannot be refrained from asking questions. Therefore, also to my son.

Portrait of Leonard Euler (1707-1783) by the Alsatian painter Franz Bernhard Frey (1716-1806). The portrait must have been painted during Euler's years in Berlin (1741-1766); for he had lost one eye in 1735 (during his first stay in St. Petersbug), whereas he lost the second eye in 1766.

PREFACE

Since writing my Ph.D. thesis, hamiltonian and eulerian graph theory have been the main topics of my research. Until 1975 I put more emphasis on hamiltonian graph theory; since then, however, problems in eulerian graph theory and related questions have been central to my work. This shift in research emphasis from hamiltonian to eulerian graphs was initiated by a problem posed to me by Gert Sabidussi (Universitk de Montrdal) in the summer of 1975 when I was in Montrkal undertaking joint research with him. At that time neither Sabidussi nor I could foresee the relatively wide range of applications that a solution to his problem (henceforth called Sabidussi's conjecture) would have. During the academic year 1976177 I was able to prove a generalization of Sabidussi's conjecture for planar eulerian graphs (henceforth called the compatibility result); from 1979 onwards, a series of various applications in the theory of planar graphs were discovered (partly just by myself, partly in co-operation with Bill Jackson, the 'Chinese Postman' Guan Meigu, and - recently - Andriis Frank). In the course of these discoveries, it transpired that in various proofs, the application of the Four-Color Theorem (or the assumption of the validity of the Four-Color Conjecture, if you wish) could be avoided by using the compatibility result. Unfortunately, there is no simple analogy to the compatibility result in the case of non-planar graphs, however, in recent joint work with Bill Jackson we have put forward a conjecture which contains as a special At this point a remark seems appropriate: I do not have any opinion as to whether the Appel-Haken-proof of the Four-Color Conjecture is correct (thus establishing the Four-Color Theorem) or not. I would prefer t o see a proof of that conjecture/theorem which is not computer-aided (but which graph theorist wouldn't prefer that ?), or a t least it might be desirable for various independent teams t o try and produce computer-aided proofs along the lines adopted by K. Appel and W. Haken (but who has the time and money for it ?).

...

VIII

Preface

case an equivalent formulation of the cycle-double-cover conjecture. This and the preceding statements indicate why Sabidussi's conjecture and generalizations thereof, but also its solution in the planar case (we call this whole complex of conjectures and results the compatibility problem), as well as its applications and implications, assume a dominant position in the second part of the book. The academic year 1977178 was proclaimed graph theory year at the Department of Mathematics at Memphis State University (MSU), Tennessee. Following an invitation by R. Faudree and R. Schelp I spent the fall semester there, during which I gave a three-hour course on eulerian graph theory. At that time I was familiar with A. Kotzig's work in that field of research, and, apart from the compatibility problem I had done research on a special type of eulerian trails which had been extended by my first Ph.D. student S. Regner. In presenting the material at MSU, it occurred to me for the first time that as a topic eulerian graphs constituted more than a mere accumulation of results. Tendencies towards the development of theories on eulerian graphs became visible for me. Consequently, when I learned from L.W. Beineke and R.J. Wilson at the graph theory meeting in Oberwolfach in 1979, that they were preparing Selected Topics in Graph Theory 2 ([BEIN83a]), I asked them if they were interested in a survey article on eulerian graphs. They doubted whether there was sufficient material to justify such an article, but agreed that I should try to write a contribution to [BEIN83a]. In preparing this survey article I was astonished to learn how much material had in fact accumulated on the subject Eulerian Graphs and Related Topics. By 1980, a first version of the survey article Eulerian Graphs was ready; after a first criticism by the editors of [BEIN83a], we agreed that I should write a second extended version from which the editors would produce a condensed version (which finally appeared in [BEIN83a]). This extended version was 90 typewritten pages long (ten of which were taken up by a bibliography using 124 references). After the 90-page version of Eulerian Graphs (originally named Towards Theories o n Eulerian Graphs) had been delivered to the editors of [BEIN83a], it occurred to me that there was enough material to justify writing a book on Eulerian Graphs and Related Topics that would be four to five times as long. This book is the result of checking further into the literature which has become available during the first half of the eighties. Its structure follows partly that of the survey article Eulerian Graphs as presented in [BEIN83a] (with some chapters added and greater

Preface

ix

emphasis added to others). In the preparation of the final material for the book, but also in the course of typing it, Mrs. M. Wenger has been of great help (through her, I saved literally hundreds of hours that would have gone otherwise into copying, typing, and producing a catalogue of the material treated in this book). Mr. Erich Wenger produced most of the figures, and wrote an earlier qualifying thesis (as part of his qualifying to become a high school teacher) in which he treated some of the material treated in this booli (viz. the Chinese Postman Problem and on the Theorem of Amitsur and Levitzki). His brother Emanuel Wenger provided invaluable services akin to those of a technical organizer; being a student of mine and familiar with a large part of my research, he made valuable comments. Other (former) students of mine, Mrs. M. Music and Mr. J. Galambfalvy de Geges had written theses (similar to Erich Wenger7s) on arbitrarily traceable graphs, and enumeration in eulerian graph theory, respectively. My colleagues Mr. L. Dirnitrov and Mr. R. Thaller helped me mXnically in producing the index and in correcting parts of the manuscript. Many of my research colleagues, especially those with whom I undertooli joint research, contributed - directly or indirectly - to this bool;: Be it through valuable suggestions and/or comments; be it through their own experience in writing books and/or articles; be it through explanations of material to which they introduced me; be it through moral support; be it through papers they sent me - they all helped me, and be it only to a minor degree, in completing the book (which, nevertheless, I had to write). I wish to name in alphabetical order those who were of crucial importance to this work: Lowell Beineke, Adrian J. Bondy, AndrAs Frank, Bill Jackson, F'ranqois Jaeger, Charles H.C. Little, Crispin St.J.A. NashWilliams, Mike D. Plummer, Gert Sabidussi (who also called my attention to F.B. Frey's portrait of Euler), and Robin Wilson. My warmest thanks to them and all the others. I hope the book shows that I made proper use of their help. Finally I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. Peter Lillie (a British citizen living in Vienna) who read almost the entire book from the linguistic point of view. Any shortcomings in this respect are entirely my fault.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

CONTENTS

PREFACE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ziii

I.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1

I1.

THREE PILLARS OF EULERIAN GRAPH THEORY Solution of a Problem Concerning the Geometry of Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 11.1

. . 11.12

On the Possibility of Traversing a Line Complex Without Repetition or Interruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.23 From 0. Veblen's "Analysis situs" I11.

. . . . . . . . . . 11.26 BASIC CONCEPTS AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS . 111.1

111.1.

Mixed Graphs and Their Basic Parts . . . . . . . . . 111.2

111.2.

Some Relations Between Graphs and (Mixed) (Di)graphs. Subgraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.9

111.3.

Graphs Derived from a Given Graph

111.4.

Walks, Trails. Paths. Cycles. Trees; Connectivity

111.5.

Compatibility. Cyclic Order of I<: and Corresponding Eulerian Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111.6.

. . . . . . . . . 111.13 . . . 111.18

. 111.40

Matchings. 1-Factors. 2-Factors. 1.Factorizations. 2-Factorizations. Bipartite Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.43

. . . . . 111.50 111.8. Coloring Plane Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.60 111.9. Hamiltonian Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.62 111.10. Incidence and Adjacency Matrices. Flows and Tensions . 111.63 111.11. Algorithms and Their Complexity . . . . . . . . . . 111.72 111.12. Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.75 111.7.

Surface Embeddings of Graphs; Isomorphisms

xii

IV .

Contents

CHARACTERIZATION THEOREMS AND COROLLARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV.l.

. IV.1 Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.1

IV.2.

Digraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.8

IV.3.

Mixed Graphs

IV.4.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I V.13 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.20

V.

EULER REVISITED AND AN OUTLOOI< ON SOME GENERALIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V.l

V.1.

Trail Decomposition. Path/Cycle Decomposition

V.2.

. . . . V.1 Parity Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V.3

V.3.

Double Tracings

V.4.

Crossing the Border: Detachments of Graphs . . . . . . V.5

V.5.

Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V.7

VI .

VARIOUS TYPES OF EULERIAN TRAILS

. . . . .

VI.l.

Eulerian Trails Avoiding Certain Transitions

. . . . . VI. 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V.4

VI.l.l. P(D)-Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs . . . . .

V I.1 V I.7

VI.1.2. Aneulerian Trails in Bieulerian Digraphs and Bieulerian Orientations of Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V I.17 VI .1.3. Do-Favoring Eulerian Trails in Digraphs VI.2.

. . . . . . . VI.25

Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails . . . . . . . . . V1.34

VI.2.1. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.3.

A-Trails in Plane Graphs

. . . VI.59

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . V I.69

VI.3.1. The Duality between A-Trails in Plane Eulerian Graphs and Hamiltoniaa Cycles in Plane Cubic Graphs . . . VI.111 VI.3.2. A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles in Eulerian Graphs

. VI.145

VI.3.3. How to Find A-Trails: Some Complexity Considerations and Proposals for Some Algorithms . . . . . . . . VI.156 An A-Trail Algorithm for Arbitrary Plane Eulerian Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI.165

...

Contents

xlll

VI.3.4. Final Remarks on Non-Intersecting Eulerian Trails and A-Trails, and another Problem . . . . . . . . . . VI.I GS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI.170 VII. TRANSFORMATIONS OF EULERIAN TRAILS . . . VII.1 VII.l. Transforming Arbitrary Eulerian Trails in Graphs . . . VII.2 VI.4.

Exercises

VII.2.

Transforming Eulerian Trails of a Special Type . . . . VII.9

VII.2.1. Applications to Special Types of Eulerian Trails and K~-Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII,23 VII.3.

Transformation of E,ulerian Trails in Digraphs . . . .

. VII.5. Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII.4.

Final Remarks and Some Open Problems

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

VII.45 VII.51 VII.53

. . A.1 . . B.1

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

When Ddnes Konig7s book Theorie der endlichen und unendlicheiz Graphen (The Theory of Finite and Infinite Graphs) [ K O N I S ~ ~was ]. first published in 1936, it tooli only 248 pages (excluding the preface, contents and bibliography) to present the larger part of graph theoretical material which had evolved in the course of 200 years since the publication of Leonhard Euler's paper on the solution of the Konigsberg Bridges Problem. Actually, Euler had presented his paper to the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg (now Leningrad) on August 26, 1735, but it was only in 1741 that the Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae containing Euler's article under the title Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis were published. On the other hand, since the Commentarii were dated 1736, that is generally considered the date of birth of the branch of mathematics known today as Graph Theory. However, a s D. Konig pointed out in the preface, the treatment of graph theory in his book was restricted in essence to what he called absolute graphs (today one would rather say abstract graphs), while - with a few exceptions - topological graph theory (he calls it relative graph theory) and enumerative graph theory were not considered. Since the appearance of D. Konig7s book, but mainly since the end of World War 11, graph theory has developed at an ever-increasing pace. This has led to the founding of more and more journals which specialize in publishing articles on combinatorial problems, about half of which (if not more) are graph theoretical papers. The Journal of Graph Theory, for example came into being in 1977. This upsurge in graph theoretical findings is reflected not only in the growing number of books on graph theory, but also in the fact that many of these books concentrate on special aspects of graph theory, such a s topological graph theory, algebraic

1.2

I. Introduction

graph theory and - as a more recent tendency - algorithmic graph theory (thus satisfying a need of computer scientists). Graph theory can thus be seen to have followed the general course of development of any science. Originally breaking away from a more general field of research (the subtitle of D. Konig's b001i is Kombinatorische Topologie der Strekkenkomplexe - Combinatorial Topology of One-Dimensional Compleses), it breaks into various parts according to the development of results and methods into certain directions. In the case of graph theory, this development has been illustrated - in a concise form - by the publication of Selected Topics in Graph Theory and Selected Topics in Graph Theory 2 ([BEIN78a, BEIN83a]), containing 22 survey articles by various authors and edited by L.W. Beineke and R.J. Wilson. A third volume has just been published (The usefulness of graph theory in various sciences is illustrated in Applications of Graph Theory (same editors as above) containing 12 survey articles). Euler's article on the bridges of Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad) did not descend on the scientific community as a deus ex machina. This is made quite clear by Euler himself when, in his article, he refers to Leibniz:

I n addition t o that branch of geometry which is concerned with magnitudes and which has always received the greatest attention, there is another branch, previously almost unknown, which Leibniz first mentioned, calling it the geometry of position [geometria situs]. This branch is concerned only with the determination of position and its properties; it does not involve measurements, nor calculations made with them... Euler went on to remark that it was not yet quite clear which problems were relevant to the geometry of position, or what methods should be used in solving them, but he certainly regarded the Konigsberg bridges as such a problem, especially since its solution "involved only position, and no calculation was of any use", [WILS85a]. In fact, as early as 1679, Leibniz made the following statement in a letter to Huygens (we quote from [WILS85a]): I a m not content with algebra, in that it yields neither the shortest proofs nor the most beautiful constructions of geometry. Consequently, in view of this I consider that we need yet another kind of analysis, geometric or linear, which deals directly with position, just as algebra deals with magnitude ... By introducing the term analysis situs (analysis of position) he did not lay the foundations of a new mathematical field of research, but rather

I. Introduction

1.3

pointed into a general direction along which some of the research should progress (The reader interested in a historical account of the term analysis situs is referred to R. Wilson's article [WILS85a]). We shall make some more remarks on the history of graph theory in the next chapters, but it should be mentioned at this juncture that D. Kijnig's book is probably the richest single source for the early history of graph theory (with the word early we mean the development of graph theory until the appearance of D. Konig's book in 1936). But why a boolc on eulerian graphs ? Is it because graph theory (and especially Euler 's article) has recently celebrated its 250th anniversary ? The proximity of publication to that anniversary is purely co-incidental (I had originally planned to finish this book by the end of March, 1983). However, as already pointed out in the preface, there has not only been a rapid growth in the number of papers on eulerian graphs, but also tendencies towards theories unifying various results on this topic. These two facts can be considered a necessary condition for writing a book on Eulerian graphs and related topics, and together with the interest shown by many colleagues justify its being written. Moreover, as I have outlined above, this book is in line with the general tendency in graph theory which, slowly but surely, over the past twenty years has been breaking into various parts. In the next chapter, the original versions of three papers are presented which form - in the opinion of most graph theorists - the main roots of eulerian graph theory. A large part of the book is devoted to those results which are more or less directly related to the concepts developed in these papers. However, I believe that to restrict oneself to this part of eulerian graph theory would be too narrow an approach in comparison with current graph theory developments. This point of view also prevailed already in my survey article Eulerian Graphs as presented in [BEIN83a]. On the other hand, this point of view poses the problem of determining the material to be treated in a book like this. Because this book is the first to focus on the treatment of eulerian graphs, I decided to cover as broad a range of topics as possible. Some I have treated in greater detail than others and on occasion I have merely touched on various aspects as though in a survey. This has the disadvantage, of course, that in some instances the reader who wants to know more about the corresponding topic, has to resort to other books or even the original papers quoted in this book. Moreover, it sometimes overlaps

1.4

I. Introduction

with other branches of graph theory covered in [BEIN78a7 BEIN83al. This becomes apparent in the chapters on the Chinese postman Problem and in those places where 1-factorizations of graphs play a certain role, as well as in the chapters on enumeration, coloring, and some other places. But such overlappings are - generally speaking - more or less inevitable precisely because of present developments in graph theory. In lining up the material for the book I checked hundreds of articles as to their suitability. From the above, it is clear that many of the references are not treated extensively in this book. However, one aim of the book is to indicate various directions of current research. Thus, while some readers might get the impression that the references are too numerous when compared with the various topics treated, the large number of references has the advantage of helping interested readers to reach out in various directions beyond the limits of the book. Despite my having checked so many articles I hope that I did not overlook important contributions to eulerian graph theory. On the other hand, my survey article contained some shortcomings in this respect. Last, but not least, this book is self-contained because it is intended to reach as broad a public as possible. Therefore, Chapter I11 deals with the basics of graph theory to the extent required for the subsequent chapters. I admit that I find it annoying that many monographs require a more or less broad knowledge of a particular branch of mathematics before one can understand the matter presented. By the same token, statements such as "as can be easily seen", "it now follows easily", "it is trivial to see", and the like are mostly avoided. Many mathematicians (including myself) have more than once encountered situations in proofs where it took paper, pencil, plus half an hour or longer to see something easily. Hence I have not hesitated to include many figures in this book to illustrate situations and arguments, without using figures instead of logical arguments. Nevertheless, in several instances whole proofs of results are left to the reader as not too difficult exercises. Consequently, this book contains enough material for both an undergraduate or graduate graph theory course which emphasizes eulerian graphs. Hence it can be read by mathematicians not yet familiar with graph theory. But it is also of interest to researchers in graph theory because it contains many recent results, some of which are only partial solutions on yet unsolved more general problems; and a fair number of conjectures have been included as well.

I. Introduction

1.5

A few words on algorithms and complexity studies. Various problems (such as finding eulerim trails, cycle decompositions, postman tours and walks through labyrinths) are also addressed algorithmically. However, it is not the aim of this book to produce an algorithm following theoretical considerations wherever possible. The question of complexity is treated similarly. From a theoretical point of view, it appears more important to know whether certain problems can be solved in polynomial time or not; in this book, it is of secondary relevance whether the complexity of an algorithm is O(n) or O(n2). I know that many colleagues (particularly computer scientists or graph theorists leaning in this direction) will seriously criticize this point.

I would be glad to receive critical response (positive, negative or mixed) from anyone, because it could contribute to improving my further work. I promise to respond t o all my critics.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Chapter I1

THREE PILLARS OF EULERIAN GRAPH THEORY There exist various translations of Euler's article [EULER36a] on the Konigsberg Bridges Problem and of Hierholzer's article [HIER73a] on constructing an eulerian trail in a connected eulerian graph. However, in what follows I present my own translation of these two artic1es.l) I decided to do so because the translations I found had one disadvantage: they were 'up to date' translations, so to say, i.e., translations which disregard to a larger or lesser extent the style in which papers where written a t the time of their appearance. Thus, these translations are inaccurate from a historical point of view and therefore - unintentionally - produce a distorted picture of the road to knowledge and how it was formulated 'back in the old days'. Hence it is clear that my translation of Euler's article is not a belated home exercise of a former high school student who was taught latin for six years; nor did the translations arise out of fear to get into a conflict with copy rights. For a historical account of Euler's article we refer the interested reader to [WILS85a, WILS86al and [SACH86a, SACH86bl.

I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. H. Reitterer of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, who checked my translation of Euler's article.

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

SOLUTIO PROBLEMATIS AD GEOMETRIAM SITUS PERTINENTIS Commentatio 53 indicis ENESTBOEMXANI Comment.nrii academiae scieuliaru~nYetropolitanae 8 (1736), 1741, p. 138-140

1. Praeter illam geometriae partem, quae circa quantitates versatur et omni tempore summo studio est exculta, alterius partis etianlnum admodunl ignotae primus mentionem fecit LEIBNKTZIUS'), quam Geometrianz situs vocavit. Ista pars ab ipso in solo situ determinando situsque proprietatibus eruendis occupata esse statuitur; in quo negotio neque ad quantitates respiciendum neque calculo quantitatum utendum sit. Cuiusmodi autem problemata ad h a w situs geometriam pertineant e t quali methodo in iis resolvendis uti oporteat, non satis est definitum. Quamobrem, cum nuper problematis cuiusdam mentio esset fncta, quod quidem ad geometriam pertinere videbatux, a t ita erat comparatum, u t neque determinationem quantitatum requireret neque solutionem calculi quantitatum ope admitteret, id ad geometriam situs referre haud dubitavi, praesertim quod in eius solutione solus situs in considelationem veniat, calculus vero nullius prorsus sit usus. Methodum ergo meam, quam ad huius generis problemata solvenda inveni, tanqnam specimen Geometriae situs hic exponere constitui. 1) Vide epistolam a G. LEIBNIZ(1646-1716) ad CER HUYGEN~ (1629-1695) scriptam d. 8. Sept. 1679, LEIBNIZWS Mathematische Schriften, hemusg. von C. I. GEBHARDT,Erste Abt, Bd. 2, respondit d. Berlin 1850, p. 17-20, imprimis p. 19, Beilage p. 20-25. Epistola, qua HUYOEN~ 22. Nov. 1679, invenitur ibidem p. 27. Vide porro G. LEIBNIZ, De analysi situs, L E I B X ~MailteENS L. G. D. matkchc Schrifkfi, Zweite Abt., Bd. 1, Haile 1858, p. 178-183.

Lwonuruur E v ~ n u rOpera omnin I i Commentationes algebrnicae

1

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

11.3

2. Problema autem hoc, quod mihi satis notum esse perhibebatur, erat sequens: Regiomonti in Borussia esse insulam A, der Kneiphof dictam, fluviumque eam cingentem in duos dividi ramos, quemadmodum ex figura (Fig. 1) videre licet; ramos vero huius fluvii septem instructos esse pontibus a, b, c, d, e, f e t g. Circa hos pontes iam ista proponebatur quaestio, num quis cursum ita instituere queat, ut per singulos pontes semel et non plus quam semel transeat. Hocque fieri posse, mihi dictum est, alios negare alios dubitare; neminem vero affirmare. Ego ex hoc mihi sequens maxime generale formavi problema: quaecunque sit fluvii figura et distributio in ramos atque quicunque fuerit numerus pontium, invenire, utrum per singulos pontes semel tantum transiri queat an vero secus.

.

rn

T

I *

.B 17

--Fig. 1.

3. Quod quidem ad problema Regiomontanum de septem pontibus attinet, id resolvi posset facienda perfecta enumeratione omninm cursuum, qui institui possunt; ex his enim innotesceret, num quis cursus satisfaceret an vero nullus. Hic vero aolvendi modus propter tantum combinationum numerum et nimis esset difficilis atque operosus et in aliis quaestionibus de multo pluribus pontibus ne quidem adhiberi posset. Hoc porro mod0 si operatio ad finem perducatur, multa inveniuntur, quae non erant in quaestione; in quo procul dubio tantae difficultatis causa consistit. Quamobrem missa hac me-

11.4

129-1311

-

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

AD GEOMETRIBM SITUS PERTINEXTIS

3

thodo in aliam inquisivi, quae plus non largiatur, quam ostendat, utrum talis cursus institui queat an secus; talem enim methodum multo simpliciorem fore sum suspicatus. 4. Innititur autem tota mea methodus idoneo mod0 singulos pontiuln transitus designandi, in quo utor litteris maiusculis A, B, C, D singulis regionibus adscriptis, quae flumine sunt separatae. Ita, si quis ex regione A in regionem B transmigrat per pontem a sive b, hunc transitum denoto litteris A B , quarum prior praebet regionem, ex qua exierat viator, posterior vero dat regionem, in quam pontem transgressus pervenit. Si deinceps viator ex regione B abeat in regionem D per pontem f , hic transitus reprdesentabitur litteris B D ; duos autem hos transitus successive institutes A B et B D denoto tantum tribus litteris A B D , quia media B designat tam regionem, in quam primo transitu yervenit, quam regionem, ex qua altero transitu exit.

5. Simili mod0 si viator ex regione D progrediatur in regionem C per pontem g, hos tres transitus successive factos quatuor litteris A B D C denotabo. Ex his enim quatuor litteris A B D C intelligetur viatorem primo in regione A existentem transiisse in regionem B , hinc esse progressum in regionem D ex hacque ultra esse profectum in C; cum vero hae regiones fluviis sint a se invicem separatae, necesse est, u t viator tres pontes transierit. Sic transitus per quatuor pontes successive instituti quinque litteris denotabuntur; e t si viator trans quotcunque pontes eat, eius migratio per litterarum numerum, qui unitate est maior quam numerus pontium, denotabitur. Quare transitus per septem pontes ad designandum octo requirit litteras. 6. In hoc designandi mod0 non respicio, per quos pontes transitus sit factus, sed si idem transitus ex una regione in aliam per plures pontes fieri potest, perinde est, per quemnam transeat, mod0 in designatam regionem perveniat. Ex quo intelligitur, si cursus per septem figurae pontes ita institui posset, u t per singulos semel ideoque per nullum bis transeatur, hunc cursum octo litteris repraesentari posse easque litteras ita esse debere dispositas, n t immediata litterarum A e t B successio bis occurrat, quia sunt duo pontes a e t b has regiones A et B iungentes; simili mod0 successio litterarum A e t C qnoque debet bis occurrere in illa octo litterarum eerie; deinde successio litterarum A et D semel occurret aimiliterque successio litterarum B e t D itemque C et D semel occurrat necesse est.

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

4

80LUTIO PROBLEMATIS

11.5

[131-133

7. Quaestio ergo huc reducitur, ut ex quatuor litteris A, B , C et 1) series octo litterarum formetur, in qua omnes illae successiones toties occurrant, quoties est praeceptum. Antequam autem ad talem dispositionem opera adhibeatur, ostendi convenit, utrum tali modo hae litterae disponi queant an non. Si enim demonstrari poterit talem dispositionem omnino fieri non posse, inutilis erit omnis labor, qui ad hoc efficiendum locaretur. Qunmobrem regulam investigavi, cuius ope tam pro hac quaestione quam pro omnibus similibus facile discerni queat, num Ldis litterarum dispositio locum habere queat.

8. Considero ad huiusmodi regulam inveniendam unicam regionem A, in quam quotcunque pontes a, b, c, d etc. conducant (Fig. 2). Horum pontium contemplor primo unicum a , qui ad regionem A ducat; si nunc viator per hunc poutem transeat, vel ante transitum esse debuit in regione A vel post transiturn in A perveniet; quare in supra stabilito transitus designandi modo oportet, ut littera A semel occurrat. Si tres pontes, puta a, b, c, in regionem A conducant et viator per omnes tres transeat, tum in designatione eius migrationis littera A bis occurret, sive ex A initio cursum instituerit sive minus. Simili mod0 si quinque pontes in 9 conducant, in designatione transitus per eos omnes littera A ter occurrere debet. Atque si numerus pontium fuerit quicunque numerus impar, turn, si is unitate augeatur, eius dimidium dabit, quot vicibus littera A occurrere debeat.

Fig. 2.

9. In casu igitur pontium tsanseundorum Regiomontano (Fig. I), quia in insulam A quinque pontes deducunt a,-13, c, d, e, necesse est, ut in designatione transitus per hos pontes littera A ter occurrat. Deinde littera B, quia in regionem B tres pontes conducunt, bis debet occurrere similique mod0 littera D bis debet occurrere atque etiam littera C bis. In serie ergo octo litterarum, quibus transitus per septem pontes deberet designari, littera A ter adesse deberet, litternrum vero B, C et D unaquaeque bis; id quod in serie octo litterarum omnino fieri nequit. Ex quo perspicuum est per septem pontes Regiomontanos tadem transitum institui non posse.

11.6

133-1341

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

AD GEOJiETRIAhl SlTUS PERTIKENTIS

5

10. Simili mod0 de omni alio casu pontium, si quidem numerus poatium, qui in qua.mque regionem conducit, fuerit impar, iudicari potest, an per singulos pontes transitus semel fieri queat. Si enim evenit, ut summa omnium vicium, quibus singulae litterae occurrere debent, aequalis sit nunlero omnium pontium unitate aucto, tum talis transitus fieri potest; sin autem, u t in nostro exemplo accidit, summa omnium vicium maior fuerit numero pontium unitate aucto: t~urntalis transitus nequaquam institili potest. Regula autem, qurtln dedi pro numero vicium A ex numero pontium in regionem A deducentium inveniendo, aeque valet, sive omnes pontes ex una regione B, u t in figura (F'ig. 2) repraesentatur, ducant sive ex diversis; tantum enim regionem A consider0 et inquiro, quot vicibus littera A occurrere debeat. 11. Si autem numerus pontium, qui in regionem A conducunt, fuerit par, tum circa transiturn per singulos notandurn est, utrum initio viator cursu~llsuum ex regione A instituerit an non. Si enim duo pontes in A conducant e t viator ex A cursum inceperit, turn littera A bis occurrere debet; semel enim adesse debet ad designandum exitum ex A per alterum pontem e t semel quoque ad designandurn reditum in A per alterum pontem. Sin autem viator ex alia regione cursum inceperit, tum semel tantum littera A occurret; semel enim posita tam adventurn in A quam exitum inde denotabit, u t huiusmodi cursus designare statui.

12. Conducant iam quatuor pontes in regionem A et viator ex A cursum incipiat; turn in designatione totius cursus littera A ter adesse debebit, si quidem per singulos semel transierit. At si ex alia regione ambulare inceperit, turn bis tantum littera A occurret. Si sex pontes ad regionem A conducant, tum littera A, si ex A initiurn eundi est sumpturn, quater occurret, a t si non ex A initio exierit viator, turn ter tantum occurrere debebit. Quare generaliter: si numerus pontium fuerit par, turn eius dimidium dat numerum vicium, quibus littera A occurrere debet, si initium non est in regione A sumpturn; dimidium vero unitate auctum dabit numerum vicium, quoties littera A occurrere debet, initio cursus in ipsa regione A surnpto. 13. Quia autem in tali cursu nonnisi ex una regione initiurn fieri potest, ideo ex numero pontium, qui in quamvis regionem deducunt, ita numerum vicium, quoties littera quamque regionem denotass occurrere debet, definio, ut

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

6

SOLUTIO PROBLEMATIS

11.7

[134-136

sumam numeri pontium unitate aucti dimidium, si nnmerus pontium fuerit impar; ipsius vero numeri pontium medietatam, si fuerit par. Deinde si numerus omnium vicinm adaequet numerum pontium unitate auctum, tum transitus desideratus succedit, a t initium ex regione, in quam impar pontium numerus ducit, capi debet. Sin autem numerus omnium vicium fuerit unitate minor quam pontium numerus unitate auctus, tum transitus succedet incipiendo ex regione, in quam par pontium numerus ducit, qnia hoc mod0 vicium numerus unitate est augendus. 14. Proposita ergo quacunque aquae pontiumque fignra ad investigandum, num quis per singulos semel transire queat, sequenti modo operationem instituo. Primo singulas regiones aqua a se invicem diremptas litteris A, B, C etc. designo. Secundo sumo omnium pontium numerum eumque unitate augeo atque sequenti oper-ationi praefigo. Tertio singulis litteris A, B, C etc. sibi subscriptis cuilibet adscribo numerum pontium ad eam regionem deducentium. Quai-to ens litteras, quae pares adscriptos habent numeros, signo asterisco. Quinto singulorum horum numerorum parium dimidia adiicio, imparium vero unitate auctorum dimidia ipsis adscribo. Sexto hos numeros ultimo scriptos in unam summam coniicio; quae summa si vel unitate minor fuerit vel aequalis numero supra praefixo, qui est numerus pontium unitate auctus, tum concludo transitum desideratum perfici posse. Roc vero est tenendum, si summa inventa fuerit unitate minor quam numerus supra positus, tum initium ambulationis ex regione asterisco notata fieri debere; contra vero ex regione non signata, si summa fuerit aequalis numero praescripto. Ita ergo pro casu Regiomontano operationem instituo, u t sequitur:

Numerus pontium 7, habetur ergo 8.

Quia ergo plus prodit quam 8, huinsmodi transitus potest.

nequaquam fieri

11.8

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

1361

AD GEOMETRIAM SITUS PERTINENTIS

7

15. Sint duae insulae A et B aqua circumdatae, qua cum q u a cornmunicent quatuor fluvii , quemadmodum figura (lhg. 3) repraesentat. Traiecto porro sint super aquam insulas circumiiantem e t fluvios quindecim pontes a, b, c, d etc. et quaeritur, num quis cursum ita instituere queat, ut per

D

= C

';--'

'7'

;

A d

-

I.'

-*_

- _-..

Fig. 3.

omnes pontes transeat, per nullum autem plus quam semel. Designo ergo primum omnes regiones, quae aqua a se invicem sunt separatae, litteris A, B, C, D, E, F, cuiusmodi ergo sunt sex regiones. Dein numerum pontium 15 unitate augeo et summam 16 sequenti operationi praefigo.

B*, 4 C*, 4

2

D,

3

2

El 5

3

e

2

6 13 16

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

8

SOLUTIO PROBLEMATIS

11.9

[137-138

Tertio litteras A, B, C etc. sibi invicem subscribo e t ad quamque numerum pontium, qui in eam regionem ducunt, pono, ut ad A octo ducunt pontes, ad B quatuor etc. Quarto litteras, quae pares adiunctos habent numeros, asterisco noto. Quinto in tertiam columnam scribo parium numerorum dimidia, impares vero unitate augeo et semisses appono. Sexto tertiae columnae numeros invicern addo et obtineo snmmam 16; quae cum aequalis sit numero supra posito 16, sequitur transiturn desiderata mod0 fieri posse, si modo cursus vel ex regione D vel E incipiatur, quippe quae non sunt asterisco notatae. Cursus autem ita fieri potent

ubi inter litteras maiusculas pontes simul collocavi, per quos fit transitus. 16. Hac igitur ratione facile erit in casu quam maxime composito iudicare, utrum transitus per omneb pontes sernel tantum fieri queat an non. Hoc tamen adhuc multo faciliorem tradam modum idem dignoscendi, qui ex hoc ipso mod0 non difficulter eruotur, postquam sequentes observationes in medium protulero. Prilno autem observo omnes numeros pontium singulis litteris A, B, C etc. adscriptos simul sumptos duplo maiores esse toto pontium numero. Huius rei ratio est, quod in hoc computo, quo pontes omnes in, datam regionem ducentes numerantur, quilibet pons bis numeretur; refertur enim quisque pons ad utramque regionem, quas iungit. 17. Sequitur ergo ex hac observatione sunlmam omniuln pontium, qui in singulas regiones conducunt, esse numerum parem, quia eius dimidium pontium numero aequatur. Fieri ergo non potest., u t inter numeros pontium in quamlibet regionem ducentium unicus sit impar; neque etiam, ut tres sint impares, neque quinque etc. Quare si qui pontium numeri litteris A, B, C etc. adscripti sunt impares, necesse est, u t eorum numerus sit par; ita in exemplo Regiornontano quatuor erant pontinm numeri impares litteris regionum A, B, C, D adscripti, uti ex § 14 videre licet; atque in exemplo praecedente, § 15, duo tantum sunt numeri impares, litteris D et E adscripti. 18. Cum summa omnium numerorum litteris A, B, C etc. adiunctorum aequet duplum pontium numerum, manifestum est illam summam binario auctam et per 2 divisam dare numerum operationi praefixum. Si igitur

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

11.10

138-1391

AD GEOJIETRIAY SITUS PERTINENTIS

9

omnes nunleri litteris A, B, C, D etc. adscripti fuerint pares et eorunl singulorum medietates capiantur ad numeros tertiae columnae obtinendos, erit horum numerorum summa unitate minor quam numerus prefixus. Quamobrem his casibus semper transitus per onines pontes fieri potest. In quacunque eniln regione cursus incipiatur, ea habebit pontes numero pares ad se conducentes, uti requiritur. Sic in exemplo Regiomontano fieri potest, u t quis per omnes pontes bis transgrediatur; quilibet enim pons quasi in duos erit divisus numerusque pontium in quamvis regionem ducentium erit par.

19. Praeterea, si duo tantum numeri litteris A, B, C etc. adscripti fuerint impares, reliqui vero omnes pares, tum semper desideratus transitus succedet, si mod0 cursus ex regione, acl quam pontium impar numerus tendit, incipiatur. Si enim pares numeri bisecentur atque etiam impares unitate aucti, uti praeceptum est, summa harum medietaturn unitate erit maior quam numerus pontium ideoque aequalis ipsi numero praefixo. Ex hocque porro perspicitur, si quatuor vel sex vel octo etc. fuerint numeri impares in secunda columna, tum summam numerorum tertiae columnae maiorem fore numero praefiro eumque excedere vel unitate vel binario vel ternario etc. et idcirco transitus fieri nequit. 20. Casu ergo quocunque proposito statim facillirne poterit cognosci, utrulll transitus per omnes pontes semel institui qiieat an non, ope huius regulae : Si fuerint plures duabus regimes, ad p a s ducentiunz pontiunt aunrerus est inzpar, tun^ certo affirgari potest talem trunsitum ?ton dari. Si autevz ad ddtuls tantunz regiones ducentiu~npontiuw nutnerus cst inpar, t u 1 ~transitus fieri poterit, si modo cursus in altera h u m regimutn incapiatur. Si denipue nulla omnino fuerit re*, ad q w m pontes numero impres conducant, t m transitus desiderata d o ittstitui polerit, in puacunque regime ambulandi initium ponatur. Hac igitur data regula problemati proposito plenissime satisfit.

10

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

11.11

SOLUTIO PROBLEMATIS AD GEOMETRIAM SITUS PERTINENTIS

[I40

21. Quando autem inventum fuerit talem traneitum institui posse, quaestio superest, quomodo cursus sit dirigendus. Pro hoc sequenti utor regula: tollantur cogitatione, quoties fieri potest, bini pontes, qui ex una regione in aliam ducunt, quo pacto pontium numerus vehementer ylerumque diminuetur; turn quaeratur, quod facile fiet, cursus desideratus per pontes reliquos; quo invent0 pontes cogitatione sublati hunc ipsum cursum non multum turbabunt, id quod paululum attendenti statim patebit; neque opus esse iudico plura ad cursus reipsa formandos praecipere.

11.12

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

From Leonard Euler's Complete Works, 17, Algebraic Studies

Solution of a Problem Concerning the Geometry of Position Study 53 of Enestroemianus' index Notices of the Petersburg Academy of Sciences 8 (1736), 1741, pp.128-140. 1. In addition to that part of geometry which is concerned with quantities and which has always aroused particular interest, there is another - still virtually unkno.cvn - part ~vl~ich was mentioned first by Leibniz and b>him called G e o m e t r y of position. This part of geometry is concerned call be determined by position alone, ancl n-it11 precisely with that ~vl~ich the investigation of properties of position; in this matter one should neither be concerl~edwith quantities nor their calculation. However, the lcinds of problems belonging to this geometry of position and the methods used for their solution, have not been sufficiently defined. Therefore, when a problem recently arose which seemed to be basically geometrical, but was of such a nature that it neither required the determination of qwantities nor admitted a solution by means of calculating quantities: I was convinced it belonged to the Geometry of Position, especially since only position could be used to solve it, while computation was of no use whatsoever. Therefore, I have decided to esplain here the method which I derived to solve problems of this kind, as an example of the Geometry of Position.

2. The problem, I am told is cluite well known and relates to the following. In Iiijnigsberg in Prussia is an island, called der Kneiphof, and the river surrounding it is divided into two arms, as one can see from the figure (Fig. 1). The arms of this river, however, are crossed by seven bridges a , b, c , d, e, f and g. Concerning these bridges, the question has been posed as to whether one can take a walk in such a way that one walks across all the single bridges once, but only once. I was told that some deny that this can be done and others doubt it but nobody confirms it. Fro~n this I formulated for myself the following general problem: whatever the shape of the river and its distribution of arms may be, and whatever the number of bridges crossing them may be, to discover whether one can cross the individual bridges once and only once. 3. Of course, it is possible to solve I
Solutioli of a Problem Concerning the Geometry of Position

11.13

it would transpire whether some walk is satisfactory or none is. Ho~vever: because of the lczrge number of combinations, this way of solving the problem would be extremely difficult and laborious. Moreover, it could not be applied to other questions concerning many more bridges. Furthermore. if, in this way, the work could be brought to a conclusion, many irrelevant factors would arise; therein without doubt lies the reason for the difficulty. Therefore, having dismissed this method, I looked for another which would merely decide whether a walk as required is possible; for I suspected that such a method would be much simpler. 4. My whole method is based on a proper way of denoting the single crossings of the bridges. I use the capital letters A, B , C, D to denote the single regions which are separated by the river. Accordingly, if one moves a bridge a or b, I denote this crossing by from region A to region B ~ i the the letters AB. The first letter denotes the region whence the traveler came, whereas the second letter indicates the region at which he arrives after crossing the bridge. If, thereafter, the traveler goes from region B to region D via bridge f , this transition will be described by the letters BD; however, I denote these tlvo successive transitions AB and B D only by the three letters ABD because the middle letter B denotes the region reached by the first crossing, as well as the region left by the second. 5 . Similarly, if the traveler advances from region D to region C via the bridge g, then I shall denote these three successive transitions by

four letters ABDC. From these four letters ABDC, one will see that the traveler who first appears in region A, has crossed over to region B , whence he has progressed to region D , and thence advanced further to C'. However, since these regions are separated by rivers, the traveler must cross three bridges. Similarly, crossing four bridges successively will be denoted by five letters; and whatever number of bridges the traveler crosses, this path will be denoted by a number of letters which is one unit larger than the number of bridges. Therefore, the traversal of seven bridges will require eight letters for its description. 6. In this kind of notation I do not consider which bridge is crossed. However, if one can cross from one region to another via several bridges, it does not matter which bridge is taken, as long as one arrives in the designated region. It thus becomes evident that if one could wall- across the seven bridges so as to cross each bridge once and only once, the wall; could be represented by eight letters. The order of these letters would have to be such that the immediate succession of the letters A and B \

11.14

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

would occur twice, because two bridges a and b join the regions A and B. Similarly, the succession of the letters A and C would occur twice in this sequence of eight letters, the succession of the letters A and D would occur once and, similarly, the succession of the letters B and D and also C and D would necessarily occur once. 7. Thus the question is reduced to whether by the four letters A, B, C and D a sequence of eight letters can be formed in which all these successions occur as often as required. But before trying to find such an arrangement, one should show whether these letters can be so arranged. For: if it can be shown that such an arrangement is impossible, all the work invested in its construction will be useless. Therefore I have investigated a rule, by virtue of which it can be easily decided - both for this question and for all similar ones - whether such an arrangement of the letters can be realized.

8. To discover a rule of this kind I consider a particular region A to which an arbitrary number of bridges a , b,c,d, etc. may lead (Fig. 2). Of these bridges I consider first a particular a which leads to region A. If the traveler now crosses this bridge, then either he had to be in region A prior to crossing or he will arrive in A after crossing. Therefore, in order to denote the crossing as described above, it is necessary that the letter A occurs once. If three bridges - a , b and c, for example - lead to region A, and the traveler crosses all three of them, the letter A will occur twice in the description of his crossings, regardless of whether or not he initially started his walk from A. Similarly, if five bridges lead to A, the letter A must occur three times in the description of their traversal. And if the number of bridges were an arbitrary odd number, then, if it were increased by one, half of it would indicate how often the letter A must occur. 9. Consequently - in the Icijnigsberg case of the bridges to be crossed (Fig. 1) - because five bridges a, b, c, d, e lead to the island A, it is necessary that the letter A occur three times in the description of the traversal of these bridges. Furthermore, the letter B must occur twice because three bridges lead to region B , and similarly, the letter D and also the letter C must occur twice. Therefore, in the sequence of eight letters by which the walk across the seven bridges should be described, the letter A should appear three times, but each of the letters B, C,D twice. This, however, cannot be done at all in a sequence of eight letters. Hence it is evident that such a walk cannot be undertaken across the seven bridges

Soltltion of a Problem Concerning the Geometry of Posittion

11.15

10. For every other case of bridges - assuming of course, that the number of bridges leading to each region is odd, it can be decided in a similar manner whether a walk crossing all the bridges only once, can be made. For, if it is the case that the total number of occurrences of letters is equal to the number of bridges increased by one, then such a wall; is possible. If, however, as happened in our example, the total number of times [letters occur] is greater than the number of bridges increased by one, then the walli is impossible. Nevertheless the rule which I offered for deducing the number of appearances of the letter A from the number of bridges leading to region A, is valid equally whether all bridges lead across from one region B as shown in the figure (Fig. 2), or they lead from various regions, for I consider only region A and inquire ho~voften the letter A must occur.

11. If, however, the number of bridges which lead to region A, is even, one has to consider whether the traveler started in A. If two bridges lead to A and the traveler began his walk from A, the letter A must occur twice. The first time it denotes the departure from A via one bridge and the second time the return to A via the other bridge. If, however, the traveler started the wall< from another region, the letter A would occur only once; for, counted once, it will denote an arrival in A as well as a departure from A, according to my description of such wallis. 12. If we assume that four bridges lead to region A, and the traveler begins his wall; from A, then the letter A will have to appear three times in the description of the whole walk, if he crosses each bridge only once. But if he should start his walk in another region, the letter A would occur only twice. If sis bridges lead to region A, the letter A will occur four times if the walk starts in A; but if the traveler does not leave from A initially, A will occur only three times. Therefore, in general, if the number of bridges is even, half that number gives the number of times the letter A must occur, provided that the walk is not begun in region A. However, half the number of bridges plus one gives the number of times the letter A must occur, if the walk is begun in this same region A. 13. In such a walk the initial step can be taken in only one region. From the number of bridges which lead to an arbitrary region, I therefore determine the number of times the letter denoting a particular region must occur, as half the number of bridges increased by one if the number of bridges should be odd, but half this number of bridges if it should be

11.16

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

even. Consecluently, if the number of all appearances [of letters] equals the number of bridges increased by one, the desired walk is possible but must begin in that region to which an odd number of bridges lead. If, however, the number of all appearances [of letters] should be one less than the number of bridges increased by one, the walk is possible if started from a region to which an even number of bridges lead, because in t,llis way the number of appearances [of letters] is increased by one. 14. So, having discussed an arbitrary configuration of water and bridges, I introduce an operation in the following way in order to investigate whether someone can cross each bridge just once. First, I denote the individual regions which are separated from each other by water, by the letters A, B, C , etc. Second, I talie the number of all bridges and increase it by one, and write this number down for the following operation. Third, after the single letters A, B, C , etc. have been listed, I write nest to each of them the number of bridges leading to the region. Fourth, I marl; by an asterisk those letters which have even numbers written nest t o them. Fifth, I attach half of each of these even numbers, while I write one half of the odd numbers increased by one next to those. Sisth, I sum up these numbers written last; if this sum should be equal to or one less than the number written at the top (which is the number of bridges increased by one) I conclude that the walli is possible. It should be noted, however, that if the calculated sum is one less than the number written at the top, the walk must start from a region marked with an asterisk, but if the sum is equal to that number, then the walk must start from an unmarked region. Therefore, in the Konigsberg case I undertake the operation as follows:

Number of bridges 7, therefore 8 is valid.

A, B, C, D,

Bridges 5 3 3 3

3 2 2 2

Because this yields more than 8, the walk is not possible. 15. Let A and B be two islands surrounded by water, and four rivers connected with this water as shown in the figure (Fig. 3). Furthermore, let fifteen bridges a , b, c , d, etc. lead across the water surrounding the

Solution of a Problem Concerning the Geometry of Position

11.17

islands and across the rivers, and the question arises as to whether one can cross all the bridges just once. I first denote all the regions which are separated by water from each other, by the letters A, B , C, D,El F since there are six regions. The number of the bridges, which is 15, I then increase by one and write the sum 16 at the top of the following table.

A*,

B*,

c*,

D, E,

I?*,

8 4 4 3 5 6

4 2 2 2 3 3

Third, I list the letters A, B, C, etc., and write next to each the number of bridges which lead to the region (thus eight bridges lead to A, four to B, etc). Fourth, I mark with an asterisk the letters which are associated with even numbers. Fifth, I write in the third column one half of each even number, while I increase the odd ones by one and add one half [of each of these numbers to the column]. Sixth, I add the single numbers of the third column and obtain 16 as the sum; since this sum equals the number 16 written at the top (of the column), it follows that a walk can be taken in the desired manner only if the walk starts from either region D or E which are not marked by an asterisk. Such a walk can be made, however, as follows EaFbBcFdAeFf CgAhCiDkAmEnApBoElD

,

where at the same time I have put between the capital letters the bridges across which one should walk. 16. By such considerations, it will be easy to decide in the most compli-

cated cases whether a walk over all the bridges crossing each only once, can be made. However, I should like to convey a much easier way of doing this. It can be easily deduced from the above approach after I have acquainted the reader with the following observations. But, first I observe that all numbers of bridges written next to the letters A, B , C, etc., taken together, are twice the total number of bridges. The reason for this is that in this computation every bridge is counted twice in order

11.18

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

that all bridges leading to a given region are counted; for, every bridge leads to each of the two regions which it joins.

17. From this observation, it therefore follows that the sum of all bridges leading to each region, is an even number because half of it equals the number of bridges. Therefore it cannot happen that among the numbers of bridges leading into any region, there is just one odd number; nor can it happen that three numbers are odd, nor five, etc. Therefore, if the numbers of bridges written next to the letters A, B , C , etc., are odd, it follows that their sum is even. Thus, in the example of Konigsberg, there were four odd numbers of bridges written next to the letters of regions A, B , C, D , as can be seen from paragraph 14; and in the preceding example, paragraph 15, there were only two odd numbers, written nest to the letters D and E. 18. Since the sum of all numbers written next to the letters A, B , C , etc., eq~lalstwice the number of bridges, it is clear that this sum, after being increased by two and then divided by two, yields the number written down at the top of the calculation. If, therefore, all numbers written next to the letters A, B, C, D , etc., are even and the halves of each of these numbers are understood as the numbers to be obtained for the third column, then the sum of these numbers will be one less than the number written at the top. Therefore, in these cases a walk across all the bridges can be made. For, in whatever region the walk should begin, there will be an even number of bridges leading to it, as required. Thus, in the Konigsberg example, it can be done by someone walliing across all bridges twice; for, every bridge could be divided into two, so to say, and the number of bridges leading into every region would then be even. 19. Furthermore, if only two numbers, written next to the letters A, B , C , etc., are odd while all the remaining ones are even, the desired wall< is always possible, but must start from a region to which an odd number of bridges lead. For, if the even numbers, as well as the odd ones increased by one, are bisected as prescribed, then the sum of these halves will be one more than the number of bridges and therefore equal to the number written a t the top.

From this it can also be seen that if four, or six or eight, etc. odd numbers should appear in the second column, the sum of the numbers in the third column will be larger than the number at the top, exceeding it by one, two or three, etc. Therefore a walk is not possible.

Solution of a Problem Concerning the Geomet~yof Position

11.19

20. Therefore, in every possible case, one can immediately and very

easily decide, with the help of the following rule, whether or not a walk without repetition can be taken across all the bridges:

If there are nzo7.e than two regions with a n odd number of bridges leading t o them, it can be declared with certainty that such a walk is impossible. I;f, however, there are only two regions with a n odd number of bridges leading t o them, a walk is possible provided the walk starts in one of these two regions. If, finally, there is n o region at all with a n odd number of bridges leading t o it, a walk in the desired manner is possible and can begin in any regi0.n. Consequently by this given rule the posed problem can be completely solved. 21. However, once it has been discovered that such a walk is possible, the

question still remains how a walk should be arranged. For this I use the following rule: delete mentally as often as possible a pair of bridges which lead from one region to another. This will drastically reduce the number of bridges in most cases. Then a desired walk across the remaining bridges can easily be found. The pairs of bridges, deleted mentally above, will not disturb this walk very much. That such is the case becomes immediately clear with a little thought; therefore I deem it unnecessary to put forth still more on the arrangements of the walks.

11.20

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

Man verfolgt dabei zweckmiisjig die Axe des Weges s h t t seiner Randlinie. Jene Miiglichkeit beruht auf der Wahrheit, dms so lange nlau den Ausgang noch nicht erreicht hat, ein bereits durchlaufeues Stiicli der Wegeaxe nothwendig vou noch nicl~tbeschriebenen Theilen derselben getroffen werden mms, weil sonst jei~esStack in sich a b g c schlossen w b e und mit dem'Eingangswege uicht zusmmenhinge. Ma11 markire sich daher den Weg, den man zuracklegt nebst dern Sinnc*, in welchem es geschieht. Sobnld man auf einen schon markirten Weg stiisst, kehre man urn und durebschreite den s&on beschriebenen Weg in umgekehrtem Shne. -Dsman, wenn man nidt ablenkte, denselben hierbei in seiner ganzen Ausdehnung nochmals zuriicklegen wiirde, so muss man nothwendig hierbei auf einen nocb nicht markirten einmihdenden Weg treffen, den man daun verfolge, bis man wieder auf einen markirten trifft. Hier kehre man wieder um und verfahre wie vorher. E s werden dadurch stets neue Wegtl~eilezu den beschriebencn zugefiigt,. so dilss man nach einer endlicheu Zeit das game Labyrinth durchwandern wiirde und so jedenfirlls den Busgang Glide, wean er nicht schon vorher erreicht worden wlre. C a r l s r u h e , December 1871.

Ueber die Blbglichkeit , eineil Liuienzug ohne Wiederl~olung und ohne Unterbrechung zu umfahren. yon

CARL HIEREOL~ER.

M i t g e t h e i l t von CHR.WIOHBR*).

In einetu. beliebig verschluugeuen Linienzuge luijgen Zweige eines Punktes diejenigen verschiedenen Theile des Buges heiqen, auf welchen man den fraglichen Punkt verlassen kanu. Ein Punkt mit rnellrercn Zweigen heisse ein .Knotenpcd-tder , so vielfach genanut \verde, nls *) Die folgeude Uuteraucbung trug der leider so frGh dew Dieaste der Wissenschnft durch den Tod entrissene Privntdocent Dr. Hierholeer dahier (geat. 1B.Sept. 1871) einem Kreiee befreundeter Mathemntiker vor. Urn J e vor Verg m n h c i t zu bcwnhren, mu& n e bei dem Mange1 jeder echriftlichen Aufzeichnuug nus dem Gedkhtniss wieder hergestellt werden, wm iclt unter Beihilfc meines verebrten Collegeu Llir o t h durch dau Folgende mbglichst gctren nusznfiihren snchte.

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory Ueber eine Aufgabe der Geomotria situs.

11.21

31

die Anzahl der Zweige angiebt, und je nach dieser Anzalll als gerad oder ungerad genannt seiu 8011. Ein gem6hnlicher Doppelpuukt wHre hiernach ein vierfacher Knotenpunkt, ein gew8hnlicher Yunkt kaun als ein zweifacher und eine freie Endigung nls ein einfacher Knotenpunkt bezeichnet werden. Wmn ein Lid.tm~ugin cinenz Zugc umfdaren wcrden X-ann, o7mc dass i r g d ein Linienstiick *zchrfac7$ durddaufen wird, so ?uzt a. entwede- keinnz ode- 5wei ungcrarle Kmtenymn;l;te. Wenn mall bein1 Durchlaufen irgend einen Punkt iiberschreitct, so sind dadurch zwei Zweige eiues Knotenpunktes beschrieben, und da keine Strecke zweimnl durchladen werden sou, muss ein Punkt, den man im Ganzen nmal iiberschreitet, eiu Snfacher Knoteupunkt sein. Ein Punlit kann daller nur daun ein ungerader Knotenpuukt sein, wenn er beim Durchlaufen einmal nicht Rberschritten wird, d. h. wenn er Anfnngs- oder Endpunkt ist. Wenn man daher beim Durchlaufen zu dem Ausgangsyu~~ktc bei dem Schlussc zuriickkehrt, so k6nneu nur gerade Knotenpunkte vorhanden sein; wenn niclit, so siild Ausgangs- und Endpuukt uagerade Knotenpunkte. Umgekehrt: Wenn ein Jzusantntnzlaangender Linieneug kcinen odw IU:& ugagerade Knotenpnkte enthiilt, so kann er in a'mn Zuge untfahren wcrdm. Denn a) hat man irgend einen Theil des Linienzuges umfahren, so ist jeder Knotenpunkt im noch nicht durchfahrenen Theile gerad oder ungerad, wie er es im ganzen Zuge war; nur der Anfangs- und Endpunkt des durchlaufenen Stiicks kehren ihren Charakter um, ausser wenn sie zusammenfallen. Denn durch dw Durchlaufen eines Punktes werden zwei Zweige, durch den Anfang und das Ende des Durchlaufens je ein Zweig ausgeschlossen. b) Hat man einen Linienzug in einem ungeraden Knotenpunkt zu umfahren angefangen, so kann man nur in einem andem ungeraden Knotenpunkte stecken bleiben. Denn in einem geraden Knotenpunkte hat man bei jedesmaligem Uurchlaufen zwei Zweige ausgeschlossen, so dass bei erneutem Aukommen in demselben wenigstens noch ein Zweig zum Verlassen fibrig bleibt. Der Anfangspunkt ist aber durch den Beginu zu einem geraden Knotenpunkte verwmdelt worden, so dass auch in ihm ein Gteckenbleiben nicht miiglich ist. > man dagegen einen Linienzug in einem geraden Knotenpunkte zu umfahren an, so knnn man auch in diesem stecken bleiben, indem er durch den Beginn zu einem nngeraden verwmdelt murde. c) Hat nun ein Linienzug zwei ungerade Knotwpunkte, so beginne man dm Umfahren in einem dersellen; man wird dann nothwendig in dem andern stecken bleiben. Der zuriickgelegte Linienzug ist in diesem Falle ein offener. Hat der gegebene Linienzug dagegeu keille

11.22

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

so beginne man das Umfahren in einen~ ungeraden Knotenpunk*, beliebigen Pnnkte, der also eiu gerader Knotenpunkt ist; man wird dann nothwendig im Ausgangspunkte stecken bleiben. Der zuriickgelegte Linienzug ist in diesem Falle ein gescldossener. d) Bleibt dabei ein Theil b undurchlaufen, so kann derselbe nur gerade Knotenpmkte enthalte~l,weil die zwei etma vorhandeneu ungeraden Knotenpunkte durch das e r s t . Umfahren ausgeschlossen wurde~~, und die tibrigen Knotenpunkte ihren Charakter behielten. Zugleich muss b n i t dem schon beschriebenen Zuge a durch wenigstens einen gemeinsamen Punkt zusammenhiingen, weil sonst der Zug in mehrerc nicht zusamrnenhiingende zerfallen wtirde. Geht man beim Umfahren des a in einem solchen Punkte P des Zusammenhangs auf b flber, so muss man nothwendig auf b in P stecken bleiben, und kann von da das Umfahren des a so fortsetzen, wie es friiher geschehen war. Auf dieselbe Weise hfngt man jedes noch nicht umfahrene Stiick an die schon umfahrenen an und beschreibt so die game Linie in einem Zuge. Es ergiebt sich noch folgeuder Satz: E i n Li~~icnzug kunn nuleine gerade Aneahl ungwadm KnotenptnXYe besitam. Den11 schaltet man durch Umfahren ein Linienstiick nus, ilidem man in einem ungeraden Knotenpunkte beginnt nnd so lange weiter geht, bis man stecken bleibt, was wieder in einem ungeraden Knotenpunkte geschehen muss, und entfernt dadurch zwei ungerde Knotenpunkte; so kann mail durch Wiederholung die Auzabl der ungeraden Knotenpunkte auf weniger als zwei vermindern. Dieser Rest kann nber nicht Eins, sondern muss Null sein; denn wenn ein Zug uur einen ungeraden I<notenynnh+ beslsse und man wiirde in ihm anfangen deli Zug zu un~fahren,so kiinute man nie zu Ende kommen, da dies nur in einem andern u n g e d e n IZl~otenpunkten15glicl1 ist. Die Zahl der ungeraden Knotenpunkte des urspriinglichen Linienzuges ist daher eiue gerade. C a r l s r u h e , im December 1871. Aum. der Hed. Der wesentlichc Inhnlt des Voratekenden, nur in kiirzcrer D:wtellung, eum Theil obnc nShere AusTuhrung der Beweisc, findct riel1 iu der leidcr wenig b e b n t e n Abhnndlung von Listing, Vorstudioc rur Il'opoloyie, welche in den GIttinger Studien (Ernter Iki., G6ttingen 1847) erechienen ist. Viellcicht kann der vomtehende Aufsatz dwzu dieneu, die Aufnlerksamkeit der Geometer our diese rroclt in vicle~imderu Bedell~ingeninhaltreicl~eArLeit wieder hinz~~lanken.

Traversing a Line Complex Without Repetition or Interruption

11.23

On the Possibility of Traversing a Line Complex Without Repetition or Interruption by Carl Hierholzer. Communicated by Chr. wiener*) In an arbitrarily interwoven line complex1), the different parts of the complex may be called branches of a point. Along them one can leave the point in question. A point with several branches should be termed a node. It is called as many-fold as the number of branches, and depending on this number it is either even or odd. An arbitrary double-point is thus a four-fold node, an ordinary point can be described as a two-fold node, and a free end as a one-fold node.

If a line complex can be traversed in one stroke without any part of a line being repeatedly traversed, then it has either two odd nodes or none. If one passes through any point during the traversal then two branches of a node are consumed in that way, and because no line should be traversed twice, a point which one crosses altogether n times must be a 2n-fold node. A point can therefore be an odd node only if it is not crossed once in the traversal, i.e., only if it is the initial or terminal point. Therefore, if in the traversal one finally returns to the initial point, only even nodes can be present; if not, both the initial and terminal points are odd nodes. Conversely: if a connected line complex contains two odd nodes or none, then it can be traversed in one stroke. *) Privatdozent Dr. Hierholzer, whose service t o science, unfortunately, was ended by his early death ( 13 September 1871), lectured on the follo\\~ing investigation t o a circle of fellow mathematicians. In order t o be saved from oblivion, the work had to be restored from memory because of the lack of any written notes. With the help of my honored colleague Liiroth I have tried to do this as accurately as possible in the following article.

I use the translation line complex for Linienzug because the term line ~ ] an inaccurate translation from a linguistic system as used in [ B I G G ~ G is point of view (although from a graph theoretical point of view it is probably the best possible). The term 'one-dimensional complex' a s I found it in a mathematical dictionary is an exact translation for 'Linienzug', but it does not seem t o comply with the standard notation used in Hierholzer's times. In fact, Listing uses already the term 'Linearkomplexion' (linear complex) more than twenty years before the appearance of Hierholzer's paper; [LIST48a].

11.24

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

For: a) If one has traversed any part of the line complex, then every node in the part not yet traversed is even or odd, as it was in the whole complex; only the initial and the terminal point of the traversed part change their parity, unless they coincide. For, two branches are consumed by the traversal of a point, and one branch is consumed at each of the beginning and the end of the traversal. b) If one has started to traverse a line complex at an odd node then one can be stopped only at another odd node. For, one has consumed two branches at an even node by each traversal of it, so that after repeated arrivals at the same [node], there is at least one branch left for leaving it. The initial point has been transformed, however, into an even node by the beginning [of the traversal], so that there also it is impossible to be stopped. If one starts, however, to traverse a line complex at an even node, then one can be stopped there, for it has been transformed into an odd one by the beginning [of the traversal].

c) Now, if a line complex has two odd nodes, start the traversal at one of them; necessarily, one will stop at the other. The covered line complex is an open one in this case. On the other hand, if the given line complex has no odd nodes, then begin the traversal at an arbitrary point which is thus an even node; necessarily, one will then finish at the initial point. The covered line complex is a closed one in this case.

d) If thereby a part b remains untraversed, then that same [part] must contain only even nodes because the two possibly existing odd nodes have been consumed by the first traversal and the remaining nodes have retained their parity. At the same time, b must be connected to the already traversed trail a by at least one common point, for otherwise the complex would break into several parts not connected together. If, in the traversal of a, one passes into b at a point of connection P, then necessarily one has to finish in b at P, and can then continue the traversal of a as before. In this way one attaches every part not yet traversed to the ones already traversed, and thus the whole complex is traversed in one stroke. Still another theorem follows: a line complex can have only an even number of odd nodes. Indeed, if one traverses part of the line complex by starting at an odd node and continuing as long as possible, one finishes at an odd node, and thus uses two odd nodes. By repetition one can diminish the number of odd nodes to less than two. This remainder, however, cannot be one, but must be zero. For if a complex were to

Traversing a Line Complex Without Repetition or Interruption

11.25

have only one odd node, and one were to begin to traverse the complex there, then one would never come to an end, for this is possible only at another odd node. The number of odd nodes in the original line comples is therefore even. Carlsruhe, December 1871. Editor's note. The essence of the foregoing, but in a shorter form partly without details of proofs, is found in the regrettably little known treatise Vorstudien tur Topologie [Preliminary Studies on Topology] by Listing, which appeared in Gijttinger Studien (First Vol., GGttingen 1 8 4 7 ) . ~ ) Perhaps the foregoing article can serve t o direct the attention of geometers towards this work again. I t is rich in content in many other respects as well.

We finish this chapter with a quotation from Oswald Veblen7s article [VEBL3la]. Although it is generally accepted as one of the basic papers in the development of graph theory, it contains a minor flaw. For it is not true in general that "Each of these 1-circuits [of Ci] is coincident with/[corresponds to] a 1-circuit of C,, . . ." (see below). Thus our third pillar has a minor crack. However, Veblen showed already in his paper [VEBL12a] how this 'crack' can be removed: ". . .For let us start with an arbitrary edge . . . and describe a path among the edges . . .Whenever there is an edge by which this path approaches a vertes, since the number of . . .edges a t this vertes is even, there is a[n] . . .edge by which the path can go away. Hence the path may be continued till it intersects itself. A portion of the path then forms a closed circuit. If this be removed there are still an even number of . . . edges at each vertex. Another circuit may be removed and so on till all edges are accounted for."

-

2,

See also $17 of Euler's article (H.F.).

11.26

11. Three Pillars of Eulerian Graph Theory

Oswald Veblen, ANALYSIS SITUS

15-16 pp.

One-dimensional Circuits. 22. A connected linear graph each vertex of which is an end of two and only two 1-cells is called a one-dimensional circuit or a 1-circuit. By the theorems of $ 5 any closed curve is decomposed by any finite set of points on it into a 1-circuit. Conversely, it is easy to see that the set of all points on a 1-circuit is a simple closed curve. It is obvious, further, that any linear graph such t h a t each vertex is a n end of two and only two l-cells is either a 1-circuit or a set of 1-circuits no two of which have a point in common. Consider a linear graph C1 such that each vertex is an end of a n even number of edges. Let us denote by 2ni the number of edges incident with each vertex a?. The edges incident with each vertex a? may be grouped arbitrarily in ni pairs no two of which have a n edge in common; let these pairs of edges be called the pairs associated with the vertex a?. Let C1' be a graph coincident with CIin such a way that (1) there is one and only one point of C1' on each point of C1which is not a vertex and (2) there are n i vertices of C1' on each vertex aiOof C1 each of these vertices of C1' being incident only with the two edges of C1' which coincide with a pair associated with a?. The linear graph 01' has just two edges incident with each of its vertices and therefore consists of a number of 1-circuits. Each of these l-circuits is coincident with a I-circuit of C1,and no two of the l-circuits of C1 thus determined have a l-cell in common. Hence C1 consists of a number of l-circuits which have only a finite number of 0-cells in common. It is obvious t h a t a linear graph composed of a number of closed curves having only a finite number of points in common has a n even number of 1-cells incident with each vertex. Hence a necessary and s u . n t condition that C1consist of a number of 1-circuits having only 0-cells i n common is that each 0-cell of C1 be incident with a n men number of 1-cells.

Chapter I11

BASIC CONCEPTS AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS Most of this chapter can be found in any introductory text booli on graph theory. However, since I want to reach as broad a readership as possible I have decided "to start from scratch". h/loreover, for various reasons which will become apparent in the course of studying the following chapters, it seems feasible and even necessary to treat certain graph theoretical concepts in a more differentiated way than is usually done (e.g. o p e n and closed edges, half-edges, a.s.0. - see below). This approach necessitates defining, as a first step, certain basic concepts in a relatively formalistic manner. Later on (in this and following chapters), formalizations are avoided wherever possible, giving way to a more heuristic approach to the material presented in this book, the reason being that all too often formalisms exhaust the reader far too soon. As far as this chapter is concerned, most of the elementary results are stated without proof; they can either be easily proved by a more esyerienced student, or their proofs can be easily found in any introduction to graph theory. The main reason for this procedure is, however, the desire to keep this chapter as short as possible. By the same token, many less elementary results will also be stated without proof; these proofs can be found in the references quoted. I recommend [HARA69a, BONDi6a) BEHZ79a, BEINi8a, BEIK83aI as introductions to graph theory. As for mathematical knowledge other than graph theory, it is assumed that the reader knows some set theory,') basics in algebra and some topology of surfaces (particularly of the plane). As for algorithms, the complexity of algorithms and the complexity of decision problems, we shall in many instances proceed in a somewhat sketchy manner throughout the book and refer the interested reader to the appropriate literature This and the second volume deal with finite graphs only; infinite graphs will be dealt with - to a lesser extent - in a third volume.

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

111.2

where the details can be studied. Therefore, the basic concepts with respect to algorithms and their complexity will not be defined explicitly. Let us now leap into the water.

111.1. Mixed Graphs and Their Basic Parts Definition 111.1. Let there be given four mutually disjoint sets V , I i , I<', I<'' such that I(, I(', I<" are equivalent sets, and I< = 0 if V = 0 . Moreover let there be given seven mappings

where P 2 ( V ) denotes the set of 2-element subsets of V. Suppose these mappings have the following properties: 1 ) o and ,f3 are bijections

;

-

2 ) f ( o ( k t ) ) = f t ( k ' ) and g(/3(kt')) = gt(k") for kt E I<', k" E K t ; 3 ) h(k) =

(f( k ) , g ( k ) )

h(k) E V x V { f ( k ) ,g ( k ) l +,h ( k ) E 7'2(V) U V

for k E K

The links between the above sets and mappings are illustrated in the diagram of Figure 111.1.

Figure 111.1.

111.1. Mixed Graphs and Their Basic Parts

111.3

We then call H = V U Ii a mixed graph, h its incidence function, f its t a i l function and g its head function. We call a mixed graph a g r a p h if h(Ii) n V x V = 0 and a digraph if h ( I 0 C V x V. A graph shall, in most cases, be denoted by G and a digraph by D (the addition of subscripts, superscripts, or other symbols needed to distinguish between various graphs, digraphs respectively, is understood). Definition 111.2. Let H = V U Ir' be a mixed graph. We call v E V a vertex, V the vertex s e t (or set of vertices), and set V = V(H) (in the sequel, we retain the symbol V for the vertex set of H unless several mixed graphs are considered simultaneously). Similarly, defining E(H) := {k E Ii/h(k) 6 V x V), A(H) := {k E I i / h ( I i ) E V x V) we call E ( H ) the edge s e t (or s e t of edges) of H and A(H) the a r c s e t (or s e t of arcs) of H. If no confusion arises, we shall use E instead of E(H) and A instead of A(H). Consequently, I<= E U A. Moreover, for a E A(H) we call f ( a ) t h e tail of the a r c a and g(a) t h e head of a , whereas we call f (e) and g(e) the end-vertices of the edge e if e E E ( H ) . Moreover, for the same a E A(H), e E E ( H ) we say that a is incident f r o m f (a) and incident t o g(a), while e is incident w i t h both f(e) and g(e). For any b E {a, e) we say that f ( b ) a n d g(b) are adjacent or that b joins f (b) and/to g(b), while we call b, c E K (H = V U I<) adjacent if {f (b), g(b)) n {f (4,g(c)) # 0Next we distinguish between various types of edges and half-edges (arcs and half-arcs, respectively) by fully employing Definition 111.1. Definition 111.3. For a mixed graph H = V U E U A we call e E E the o p e n edge e and a E A the o p e n a r c a, while we call C := {e, f (e), g(e)} the closed edge e and 6 := {a, f (a), g(a)) the closed a r c a. The term edge (arc) will be used to denote either an open or a closed edge (arc) unless otherwise explicitly stated; it will be clear from the context which concept prevails. Similarly, we call {e, f (e)} ({e, g(e))) the half-open edge e incident with f (e) (g(e)); we define half-open a r c s analogously. Similarly, we call el E K t (el1 E I<") the half-edge incident with f '(el) (gl(e")) provided h(cr(ef)) 4 V x V (h(P(eU)) !$ V x V). Moreover, we call el and el1the half-edges of e provided e = a(e') = P(etf). However, in most cases we use the notation el to stand for either ef or e"; if we want to be more specific, we shall denote the half-edge el (el1) incident with v = fl(el) (w = gl(etl)) by e(v) (e(w)). Correspondingly one denotes by El C K t , E" E K" the respective sets of half-edges such that cr(Ef)= P(EIf) = E. One proceeds analogously with respect to

111.4

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

half-arcs. Finally, we call an edge or arc k a loop if f (k) = g(k), denote . . by A, the set of-loops at v, and define A(H) := U A,. If a loop a '

VEV(G)

is an arc, we may also say that a is a directed or oriented loop. On the basis of the preceding definitions, we introduce the following notation for a mixed graph H = V U E U A.

E, := {e E Elf (e) = v or g ( e ) = v) , E: := {e(v) E E' U El'/ fl(e(v)) = v and/or gl(e(v)) = v)

;

A' U A" are defined analogously. the corresponding sets A, C A, At However, in many instances we have to be more specific concerning these sets of (half-) arcs. Namely,

A: := {a E A,/f(a) = v),

A, := {a E A,/g(a) = v)

.

Thus A, = A, - A: if and only if A, n A, = 0. The sets of half-arcs (A:)' and (A:)- are defined analogously. We shall also say sometimes that a E A: (a E A;) starts at v (ends at v). Based on the definition of the above sets, we introduce the follo~ving numbers (from now on we assume the sets V and Ii' to be finite and use the symbols I V 1, I I< I to denote the number of elements in the respective set). pH :=IV(H)I, !?H:=IE(H)I IA(H)I, :=lAvl

+

We call pH the order of H and qH the size of H . Provided no confusion arises, we abbreviate p := pH and q := qH , whereas if we consider mixed graphs H, and H,, we shall denote Pl := PH, P2 :=P H ,~a.s.0. Moreover,

+

is called the degree or valency of v, d(v):=l E G I I At I S(H):= min{d(v)/v E V(H)) is called the minimum degree of H, A(H):= max{d(v)/v E V(H)) is called the maximum degree of H,

+

implying that d(v) =I E, I I A, I +A,; i.e. a loop is counted twice in d(v).') Depending on the parity of d(v) we call v an odd or even This coincides with the (nowadays) generally accepted definition of the degree. However, D. KSnig distinguished between two ways of counting loops with respect to d(v); see [1<0~136a, p163].

111.1. Mixed Graphs and Their Basic Parts

111.5

vertex. We thus obtain the following important result already contained in Euler7sclassical paper (see Chapter 11, paragraph 17 of that paper). L e m m a 111.4. For any mixed graph H ,

Thus, the number of odd vertices of H is even. Classifying the vertices of a mixed graph H by their degrees, we denote (unless otherwise explicitly stated)

and call v E V;:(H) an i-valent vertex. In particular, a 1-valent vertex is called an end-vertex of H (not to be confused with an end-vertex of an edge or arc), and the edge (arc) incident with an end-vertex is called end-edge (end-arc). A 0-valent vertex is called isolated vertex. A graph G with V;:(G) = 8 whenever i is odd, is called an eulerian graph. Moreover, on the basis of Lemma 111.4 we introduce

this number will be used in various proofs by induction. However, if H is a digraph D = V(D) U A(D), we define for v E V(D) od(v) := I (A:)

+ I=[ A: I ,

the out-degree of v

id(v) := I (A:)

- I=] A, I ,

the in-degree of v

,

, an$

implying a ( D ) = q - p . This equation follows from the next lemma which can be viewed as the analogue to Lemma 111.4. L e m m a 111.5. In a digraph D,

111.6

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

A vertex v of a digraph D is called source, if id(v) = 0; and it is called sink if od(v) = 0. Note that a 0-valent vertex of D is both a source and a sink, but a digraph need not contain a source or a sink. Moreover, Lemma 111.5 only tells us that if od(v) - id(v) > 0 for some v E V(D), then there must be some w E V(D) - {v) such that od(w) - id(w) < 0. Thus, the case where id(v) = od(v) for every v E V ( D )

,

is quite special. We call such a digraph an eulerian digraph. For such digraphs, we may apply Lemma 111.5 to obtain the following corollaq-.

Corollary III.5a. Let D be a digraph satisfying id(x) = od(z) for every z E V(D) - {v) where v is a fixed vertex of D. Then id(v) = od(v) holds as well, i.e., D is eulerian.

A digraph D is called a k-regular digraph (or just regular) if id(r:) = od(v) = k, v E V(D). Thus, a k-regular digraph is eulerian by definition. This is not the case for k-regular graphs G which are defined by the property d(v) = k, v E V(G); they are eulerian if and only if k is even. In this context and because of Lemmas 111.4 and 111.5 we are led to the question whether one can generally prescribe the degrees of an eulerian (di)graph. Such questions do not concern us for the time being. Suffice it to say that the reader will be able to construct many different eulerian (di)graphs after having read this chapter. Nonetheless, we refer the interested reader to [LESN77a, RAOS79al where this and similar questions are dealt with. For a vertes v of the mixed graph H the neighborhood N(v) of defined by N(v) := {a: E V(H) - {v)/(E, U A, - A,) n (E,

u A, - A,) # 0)

is

21

.

We also define N * (v) := N (v) U (v). x E N (v) is a neighbor of u . If the incidence function h of the mixed graph H = V U E U A is injective (i.e. h(e) = h(a) implies e = a , e , a E E UA), then we write symbolically e = xy if e E E and {f(e),g(e)) = {x, y), whereas we write a = (x, y) if a E A and (f(a),g(a)) = (x, y). However, in general h need not be injective. Nonetheless, we shall use these symbolic equations even if h(e) = h(f) fore, f E E and e # f , or if h(a) = h(b) for a , b E A and a # b. In this case however, these equations have to be interpreted as

111.1. Mixed Graphs and Their Basic P a r t s

F i g u r e 111.2. The mixed graph H = V U E U A with V = {t,u,v,w,x,y,z), E = {e,f,g,ux,zt,zz), A = { a , b, ( x ,z ) , ( z ,x ) , ( t ,t ) ,( y , v), ( w ,y)). The set of end-vertices is { u , v , w ) , u x is an end-edge, ( w,y) and ( y,v) are end-arcs. A(xy) = 3, A(z, y) = 2, while every other edge or arc has multiplicity 1. A, = A, = 1, A(G) = { z z , ( t ,t ) ) with ( t ,t ) being a directed loop. x is the only even vertex of H.

saying e ( a ) is of t h e f o r m xy ( ( x ,Y ) ) . Consequently, we speak of a multiple edge x y (multiple arc ( x ,Y ) ) if h(e) = h ( f ) = ( x , Y ) for e # f ( h ( a )= h ( b ) = ( 2 ,y) for a # b). Similar to the approach adopted towards loops, we define

A(xy) : = I A,, 1, A(x, y) :=I A(,,,) 1, and call these numbers the multiplicity of e = xy-and a = ( x ,y ) , respectively. Finally, define the degree of an edge e = z y by

Some of the concepts discussed so far are summarized in Figure 111.2.

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

111.8

Note that we have not defined id(s), od(s) for any s E V of a mixed graph H = V U E U A which is not a digraph (i.e. for which E # 0). We introduce concepts which are more general than the definition of degree, in-degree or out-degree. For a mixed graph H = V U E U A, choose disjoint sets X , Y V and define

E(X, Y) :={e E E I S fl {f (e), g(e))

# 0 # Y n {f (4,g(e)))

A+ (X, Y) :={a E A/f (a) E X , g(a) E Y ) A- (X, Y) :={a E A/g(a) E X , f (a) E Y ) A(X, Y) :=,4+(X, Y) U A-(X, Y) . Consequently, A+(X, Y) = A-(Y, X ) , A-(X, Y) = A+(Y, X ) and therefore, A(X, Y) = A(Y, X); E ( X ,Y) = E(Y, X ) follows by definition. Furthermore, associate with these sets the numbers

However, if Y = V - X , we abbreviate these sets and numbers by letting

and call E ( X ) U A(X) the coboundary of X. It follows that d(v) = e({v)) a+({v)) + a - ({v)) 2X,. Thus, considering x in Figure 111.2 we have a+({x)) = a-((2)) = 1, e({x)) = 4. Moreover, if H is a digraph D having no loops then

+

+

e({v}) = 0, a+({v}) = od(v), a-({v}) = id(v) for every v E V ( D ). For the greater part of this book we shall permit a mixed graph H to have loops and/or multiple edges, multiple arcs respectively. However, various results will only hold true for those cases where X(H) := CVEV(,y) Xu = 0 and/or X(k) = 1 for every k E E ( H ) U A(H). Consequently, we call H loopless if X(H) = 0, and a loopless mixed graph H is called simple if its incidence function h is injective. However, we call a loopless (mixed) graph (digraph) with multiple edges/arcs a (mixed) m u l t i g r a p h (multidigraph). Finally, in most cases we shall use the term 'mixed graph' and denote it by H if and only if E ( H ) # 8 # A(H), the only exceptions arising in certain considerations of this chapter and the first part of Chapter IX.

111.2. Relations Between Graphs and Mixed Graphs. Subgraphs

111.9

111.2. Some Relations Between Graphs and (Mixed) (Di)graphs. Subgraphs Before developing further concepts, we shall reconsider Definition 111.1. There, the various mappings were given without preferences; then they were tied together by the properties I), 2), 3). It becomes apparent from this definition that even if we are given in advance the incidence function h, this does not necessarily mean that the mappings f ', gf,f , g are uniquely determined by h. In fact, suppose fl : I< -+ V is a tail function and g, := I< -+ V is a head function satisfying fl(a) = f (a) and gl(a) = g(a) for a E A, whereas they only satisfy {f,(e),g,(e)} = {f(e), g(e)} for e E E, and define fi : K f -+ V and gi : I{' t V such that property 2) of Definition 111.1 is fulfilled by f l ,gl, f i , gi (thus leaving the mappings a and ,B unchanged). Then h, f l , gl fulfill property 3) of that definition. However, if h, f l , gl are given and satisfy this property 3), then f, and g, are related to f and g as described above. In short, for given incidence function h and bijections a, p, the tail function and head function (or equivalently, f' and gf) are uniquely determined up to an exchange of their roles on elements of E. However, for the purpose of this book, starting from a given mixed graph H we are concerned with various changes of the incidence function. We define them in a more descriptive manner. For example, if A(H) # 8 and if we replace in h(A(H)) every ordered pair (f (a), g(a)) with the set {f(a), g(a)) (that is, if we replace every arc a with an edge e, joining the same two vertices), then we obtain a graph which we call t h e g r a p h G H underlying H. The inverse operation, i.e. the replacement of edges e E E in a graph G with corresponding arcs a,, will be called a p a r t i a l orientation HG of G if E(HG) # 8, and an orientation DG of G if DG is a digraph. We speak of an eulerian orientation DG of G if idDG(v)= adDG(") for every v E V(DG) = V(G).l) It follows from this definition that G has an eulerian orientation only if G itself is eulerian. Finally, for a given mixed graph H = V U E U A, if we replace every Here, and from now on, the subscript in DG indicates which graph we are referring to. In the sequel we shall extend this pattern of referring t o various objects by corresponding subscripts and/or superscripts, whenever necessary. This will be done in some instances without any specific explanation since it will become apparent from the context what is meant by subscripts that have been attached to various defined objects (graphs, numbers, parameters, a.s.0.).

111.10

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

(x, y) E h(A) with (y, x), then we call the new mixed graph the reverse or inverse orientation H~ of H. Observe that the inverse orientation of an eulerian digraph is also eulerian. In fact, in many instances we will need to reverse only certain arcs or arc subsets of H. Thus, in generalizing the above notation we denote by a R or a- the inverse arc of a; i.e. if a = (x, y) then a R = a- = (y, x) =: (x, y)R, whereas if A, G A(H) then A: := {aR/a E A,). Furthermore, define for Ii', G Ii: where H = V U I i , the edge/arc-induced (mixed) sub(di)graph as the (mised) (di)graph H, such that V(Ho) = {v E V/u E for some k E Ii',) and Ii'(H,) = K O ,and where the corresponding incidence function ho is given by ho := hl K n (It is understood in such a contest that the corresponding mappings a, , j;,96, fo ,go are defined analogously). In particular, we use the notation H - IC1 := V(H) U (Ii'- Ii,) where Ii', 2 I<. If Ii', = {k), we shall use the notation H - k instead of H - { b ) . Similarly, for Vo V(H) the vertex-induced (mixed) sub(di)graph (V,) is defined by V((V,)) = Voand I(((V,)) = h-l(V, xV,UP,(V,)U~.~). That is, (V,) contains precisely those edges and arcs of H which join elements of V,. We also define for Vl C V(H) the mixed graph H - V, := (V(H) - V,). That is, if we delete a vertex v in H we also delete all arcsledges incident with v. In most cases we shall simply say induced instead of edge-induced or arc-induced or vertex-induced since the symbols Ii', and V, indicate whether the induced (mixed) sub(di)graph is vertesinduced. In general, a (mixed) sub(di)graph H, C H is defined by V((I(,)) 2 V, V(H) and Ho := (I(,) U (V, - V((I&))). That is, Ho is obtained from H by first forming H' := H - I(' where I(' = Ii'(H) - I<, and then forming H,, := H' - V' where V' = V(H) - Vo 5 V0(Hf). If Ho is a (mixed) sub(di)graph of H, we call H a supergraph of H,. For a mixed graph H without isolated vertices (i.e., V,(H) = 0) and a mixed subgraph H, C H, we define H - HI := (I<(H) - I((Hl)) = H - K(H,) - V, (H - I<(Ho)). That is, we delete from H all edges/arcs of H, and all vertices x of H for which d H (x) = dH1(2). Thus, also H - H, has no isolated vertices. Finally, call H, C H spanning if V(H,) = V(H). Now we define for A, C A(H) the mixed graph (H - A,) U obtained from H by reversing the orientation of A, by equating (H - A,) u A: := ((K(H) - A,) u where the corresponding incidence ,whereas hl (a) = h(a) function hl is given by hl a(s)-Ao := hl K( whenever a E A,. Note that GH = G(H-AoluA,R(see Figures 111.3 and 111.4). -

boo,

AE

1

AF),

111.2. Relations Between Graphs and Mixed Graphs. Subgraphs 111.11

Figure 111.3. The (eulerian) graph G, a partial orientation H of G which is extended to an (eulerian) orientation D of G. The reverse orientation D R of D obtained from the reverse orientation H~ of H .

111.12

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Figure 111.4. The graph G, the edge-induced subgraph G1 = ({el, e2, e3)), the vertex-induced subgraph Gp = (V(G, )) # G, , and a spanning subgraph G3.

111.3. Graphs Derived From a Given Graph

111.13

Remark 111.6. Treating a mixed graph H = V U E U A as a set with a certain structure imposed on it by the incidence function h is not too common. This approach is, however, extremely practical for the purposes of this bool;. On the other hand, in many graph theoretical instances one deals with sintple mixed graphs only: this makes it possible to avoid the concept of an incidence function by simply choosing E C P,(V) and A V x V. In principle, discussion of many topics in this book could be restricted to simple graphs by introducing additional 2-valent vertices (see the next section). However, in most instances in eulerian graph theory multiple edges/arcs and loops should be permitted because it may be necessary to assume 6(H) > 2 or because by its very nature a problem requires the consideration of mixed graphs with loops and/or multiple edges/arcs. These considerations explain why a rigid approacll was initially chosen to define some of the basic elements of a graph via various mappings, before drifting into a more descriptive approach. Remark 111.7. When considering sets A. C A(H) and A t we obtain A,~A: # 0 if and only if A. contains a loop of the form (x, x), x E V(H). However, in Chapter IX we will discuss the possibility of viewing a loop xx E E as orientable in two ways. This possibility is inherent in the use of the mappings f', g', f , g, i.e. in the use of half-edges and/or half-arcs. Remark 111.8. The use of an incidence function, while more or less essential when considering mixed graphs with multiple edges/arcs (see Remark III.G), serves another purpose which will prove quite advantageous in the course of our discussions: in many considerations we shall derive from a given mixed graph H = V U E U A a mixed graph of the form H' = V' U E U A, i.e. in certain graph transformations we shall change the vertex set V, but not the set K = E U A which is viewed as a set independent of V, but related to V via the incidence function h (see Definition 111.1). This approach to graphs proves particularly useful when Ir' = K ( H ) is given as a list of edgeslarcs, K = {fi,f 2 , . . . ,fq), q = q ~ , i.e. when we consider labeled edgeslarcs (these labels can also be integers).

111.3. Graphs Derived from a Given Graph Consider a mixed graph H = V U E U A and suppose E U A # 0. Let b E E U A; for a vertex z $ V and edgeslarcs b*, b** $ E U A we form

HI = ( H - b) U { z , b*, b**)

,

111.14

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

where we set b* = xz, b** = zy if b = xy, whereas b* = (x, z), b** = (z, y) if b = (x, y) (possibly x = y). We say, H1 has been obtained from H by subdividing b. For the inverse operation, i.e. the replacement of a 2valent vertex z and E, U A, by an edgelarc joining the element(s) of N(z), assume first that A$ # 8 # A; or A, = 8 and I E, U A, I= 2. We then say H has been obtained from HI by suppressing z. We call two mixed graphs H and H* homeomorphic if either H = H* or one can be obtained from the other by a non-empty sequence of subdividing certain edges/arcs and/or suppressing certain 2-valent vertices (we write symbolically H = H*). Observe that if H* can be obtained from H by such a sequence then H can be obtained from H* by the corresponding inverse sequence of suppressions and/or subdivisions. Consequently, for every mixed graph H , there is a mixed graph Ho such that S(Ho) > 2 and H = Ho provided every 2-regular edge-induced subgraph of GH has a vertex which is not 2-valent in H, and a+({v)) = a-({v)) for every v E V2(H). If we subdivide every b 6 E U I< C H, then we call the resulting mixed graph the subdivision mixed g r a p h of H and denote it by S(H). We shall denote by sk := z the vertex introduced when subdividing k. Note that p S ( ~= ) pH qH and q s ( ~ = ) 2qH. Moreover, it follows that S(S(H)) is simple for every mixed graph H; however, in general H, exists such that H, is simple, H, = H and pH1 5 p ~ ( ~ ( ~ ) ) . Note that S ( H ) is eulerian if H is an eulerian (di)graph. This explains why many considerations on eulerian (di)graphs can be restricted to the case where the eulerian (di)graph is simple. Furthermore, in principle, one can interpret the elements of Ask (ESk) as the half-arcs (half-edges) of k.

+

For the next concept assume that H is a graph G = V U E or a digraph D = V U A. The edge g r a p h L(G) (edge d i g r a p h L(D)) is defined by V(L(G)) = E (V(L(D)) = A) and ef E E(L(G)) ((a, b) E A(L(D))) if and only if e, f E E, (a E A;, b E AS) for some v E V(G) (v E V ( D ) ) . Note that for a simple graph G, L(G) is eulerian if and only if dG(e) is even for every e E E(G). Consequently, L(G) is a (2k - 2)-regular simple graph if G is a k-regular simple graph (see also Figure 111.5). For the next concept which will play a central role in many parts of the book, we consider a mixed graph H and assume v E V(H) with d(v) > 2 exists. Suppose K,* = E,* U A: is given as a list of labeled half-edges and/or half-arcs; w.1.o.g. I(: = {bi ,b;, . . . ,b&), d = d(v). For

111.15

111.3. Graphs Derived From a Given Graph

Figure 111.5. The graph G, its subdivision graph S ( G ) and edge graph L(G). An orientation D of G whose edge digraph D, = L ( D ) satisfies the relation G D , C L(G).

v i j $ V ( H )form a new mixed graph H i j defined by V ( H i , j ):= V ( H )U { v ~ , ~IC(Hi,j) )) := K ( H ) where the corresponding mappings f / , j , gi,j7f

I,

,

9' are related by

111.16

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

That is, H i j arises from H by letting the half-edges/half-arcs b',,b) E E,' U At be incident with the new vertex vi,j which thus becomes 2valent in Hilj, and by leaving all other incidences unaltered. we say that H i j has been obtained from H by splitting away the edges/arcs bi and bj. Moreover, the transition from H to Hi is called the splitting operation or splitting procedure. Note that bi = bj if and only if bi = bj is a loop; in almost all instances, however, b: and bj will correspond to difSeerent elements of I<. Also, purely for practical purposes we may sometimes denote by Hi the mixed graph homeomorphic to the above H i j and having V(H) or V(H) - {v) (if d(v) = 4) as its vertes set (that is, we may consider the mixed graph obtained from the original Hi$ by suppressing v ; , ~ ) .It will become clear from the context, however, which of these two graphs is being considered. Moreover, we may denote also for practical purposes only - the new vertex by v instead of vi,j and distinguish between the original v and the new v . The operation yielding H from Hi is contained in the more general concept discussed below. If d(v) = 2k, a k-fold application of the splitting procedure to v results in G, (note that I V-(G,) I=I V2(G) I +k). G, is unique only if the single splitting operations are specified. Let Vo C_ V be chosen for a mixed graph H = V U I<,and let vo 6 V be a vertex. Define a new mixed graph Hvo by

v0 := V(Hvo) = V U {v,)

- V,

IiFO := I<(Hvo) = I<- {k E I
,

and let the incidences in Hvo be defined by leaving the incidences unaltered for every v E V - Vo , whereas f,(k) = vo (g,(k) = vo) if f(k) E V, (g(k) E V,). We say that Hvo has been obtained by contracting Vo onto v,. In the special case where Vo = {v, w) and where v and w are joined by k E I<,we shall write Hk and say Hk has been obtained by contracting the edge/arc k. In some instances, however, it will be necessary to have some (if not all) elements of I< - IC0 represented by loops incident with vo , in which case an edge (arc) of H is represented by an (un)directed loop in Hvo. In particular, if Ho C (V,), and V(H,) = Vo then

HHo:= HvoU A,, where A, = I(((Vo)H) - I<(H,) is the set of loops at vo in HHo. Thus, the symbol Hk may represent two different mixed graphs depending on whether k is viewed as an open or

111.17

111.3. Graphs Derived From a Given Graph

as a closed edge/arc (note that in the latter case, k can be viewed as a subgraph H,). The above concepts are illustrated by Figure 1II.G.

Hi,

Figure III.6.a) Forming Hi,j from H b y splitting away bi and b,. - b) The contraction of Vo = {u, v, w ) yielding Hvo and the contraction of Ho = ( ( e , f ) ) yielding H H o .

111.18

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity The concepts and results of this section are essential to the whole of graph theory and not just for the purposes of this book. Definition 111.9. Let H = V U E U A be a mixed graph, I<= E U A. An alternating sequence of vertices and edgeslarcs

satisfying vi E V for i = 0, . . . , n, bi E Ii for i = 1, . . . , n, { f (b,), g(b,)) = { v , - ~ ,vi), 1 5 i 5 n, is called an edge/arc sequence. Denote by E ( W ) ( A ( W ) )the set of edges (arcs) which appear in W, and let Xw(b) denote the number of occurrences of b E K in W. Set K ( W ) = E(I.T7)U A(W), V(W) = {vi/i = 0 , . . . ,n). A section of W is a subsequence of the form bi, vi, bi+l, 1 5 i 5 n - 1 whereas a segment of W is a subsequence of the form S,,, = v,, b,+l,. . . ,bs, us such that v, = v, and every section of S,,, is a section of W. For a segment S,,, of W call the subsequence b,, S,,,, bS+, of W an extended segment. 1) W is called a walk if f(bi) = v ~ (and - ~ thus g(bi) = vi) whenever bi E A, 1 5 i 5 n. We also say W starts at vo and ends at v, (or FV joins v, and v,) and denote W = PV(vo,v,). In the case where K ( W ) = A(I.V) we may also speak of a directed walk. We call a wallc closed (open) if v, = v, (v, # v,). We speak of a covering walk if I i ( W ) = I<, whereas a V(H)-covering walk only satisfies V(W) = V(H). A covering walk is called a double tracing if Xw(b) = 2 for every b E Ii. For the above W, n is called the length of t h e walk W and denoted by l(W). W is called shorter than W' if 1(W) < l(W1).

2) A wallc is called a t r a i l if bi # bj whenever i closed covering trail is called an eulerian trail.

#

j, 1 5 i, j _< n. A

3) An open trail W satisfying 1(W) =I V ( W )I -1 is a p a t h . A closed trail is a cycle if 1(W) =I V(W) 1; in this case we have n > 0.l) A V ( H ) covering cycle (path) is called a hamiltonian cycle (path). Consequently, H is called hamiltonian if it has a hamiltonian cycle, and it is

'1 Cycles are very often called circuits, while closed trails are often called cycles. Note that a cycle must have a t least one edge/arc.

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.19

called edge- (arc-) hamiltonian if every edge (arc) belongs to a hamiltonian cycle. A cycle C is called dominating cycle if I<(H- V(C)) = 0. Dominating trails are defined analogously. A dominating cycle in a 3regular graph is called T u t t e cycle. The path consisting of just one vertex and no edge (arc) is called the trivial p a t h . 4) The distance d(x, y) between x, y E V ( H )is defined as the length of a shortest path joining x and y if such a path esists; otherwise d(x, y) := m.

F i g u r e 111.7. The graph G with a hamiltonian cycle C defined by E(C) = {kl,kq,k3,e, f,k,). If we replace e and f by g then we obtain a dominating cycle of G.

Definition 111.10. A system of not necessarily distinct cycles, S = {C1, . . . ,C), m 1, in a mixed graph H = V UI
>

UEl

We continue with a few minor results.

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Figure 111.8. The graph G in which the closed covering wall< v , el,r, e?,S, e3,v, e4, t,e5,U ,e6, v is an eulerian trail. S = {C1,C2) is a cycle decomposition of G for C1=v,e1,r,e2,s,e3,vandC2=v,e,,t,e,,u,e6,v.

Lemma 111.11. Let W be a walk in H starting a t vo and ending at un. Then a path P(vo,v,) starting at vo and ending at v, exists. Lemma 111.12. If W ( x ,y) is a walk starting at x = vo and ending at y = v, and if W ( y ,z) is a walk starting at y = vl, and ending at z = v; , then W := W ( x ,y), W(y, z ) is a walk starting at x and ending at z , where in the concatenation of these two walks, it is understood that y = v, = vl, is written only once. Moreover, it is understood that the elements of W ( y ,z) are relabeled in order to express W as a walk in accordance with Definition 111.9.1). We observe that in general, Lemma 111.11 cannot be strengthened to imply that if 1/V,is a closed walk starting and ending a t v := v, = n then H contains a cycle starting and ending a t v. For if H = G is a graph then the inverse sequence TV-' of a walk W is also a walk. By Lemna 111.12, 1% = W, 147-' starts and ends a t the same vertex. Consequently, if W is a path then l(Vl = 117, W-I cannot contain any cycle. However, if H = D is a digraph then the above strengthening of Lemma 111.11 holds true. But we also have the following.

Lemma 111.13. If W is a closed trail in H starting and ending at v = v0 = v,, and I<(W)# 0, then a subsequence C of W exists as a cycle starting ancl ending at v.

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.21

Lemma 111.11 and Lemma 111.12 give rise to the next definitions and observations. Definition 111.14. A graph G is called connected if for arbitrary x, y E V(G), a mall< W(x, y) and thus, by Lemma 111.11, a path P ( x , y) joining x and y esist. A digraph D or a mixed graph H is called weakly connected if G D ,GH respectively, is connected. In the sequel, the t e r ~ n connected instead of weakly connected shall be used for mised graphs H with A ( H ) # 0, provided no confusion arises from this abbreviation. For the property of not being (weakly) connected, we use the term disconnected. D (H) is called strongly connected if for every x, y E V(D) (x, y e V(H)) paths P ( x , y) and P(y, x) esist. A maximal connected (weakly connected) (mixed) sub(di)graph of G (H respectively) is called a component (weakly connected c o m p o n e n t ) of G (D, H respectively). A strongly connected c o m p o n e n t of a digraph D is a maximal strongly connected subdigraph of D (see also Figure 111.9).

F i g u r e 111.9. .A connected graph G and an orientation D of G. The strongly connected components of D are the weakly connected components C, and C2of D - a,. G - e is disconnected.

However, to check the (strong) connectedness of a (di)graph we need not consider all pairs of vertices. L e m m a 111.15. Let G (D) be a (di)graph, V = V(G) (= V(D)) and let a fixed vertex v E V be chosen. G (D) is (strongly) connected if and

111.22

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

only if for every w E V - {v) a path P ( v , w) in G (paths P(v, w),P(w,v) in D) exist (s) . In fact, every G (D, H) is the disjoint union of its (weakly connected) components. Thus the number c(G) (c(D), c(H)) of (weakly connected) components of G (D, H) is uniquely determined, and so is the number of strongly connected components of a digraph. Moreover, H is disconnected if and only if c(H) > 1. R e m a r k 111.16. For a walk FV in H consider the subsequences TITl and W2 consisting esclusively of the edgeslarcs of W and of its vertices, respectively,

FVl = bl,b2,..., b,,

W2 = v o , v l ,...,v,.

It follows from Definition 111.9.1) that W can be reconstructed if one only knows T/t; , and the same holds true for W2 if H is simple. However, even if H is not simple but a digraph, it may sometimes be sufficient to just consider an arbitrary arc a of the form (vi, vi+l) rather than a fised arc joining vi to vi+, . In any case we also shall refer to a sequence Wl or FI/z defined above as a walk, and the same applies to special types of wallcs such as trails, paths, cycles, a.s.0. For example, this enables us to view a cycle decomposition as a partition of K ( H ) , provided one views the elements of T/V, and K ( H ) simultaneously as closed (open) edgeslarcs. Similarly, we shall not distinguish between a cycle C or a path P as defined in Definition 111.9.3) and the mixed graph (I<(C)),, (I<(P)), respectively.') While this convention may cause a decrease in the rigidity of proofs, it definitely does not diminish their clarity. By the same token, if the above W2 corresponds to a path we shall sometimes write (W2) to denote this path (going even further by writing W2 as an unordered set, provided no confusion arises). In the case of a cycle we use (W2 - {v,)) instead of

(4).

Definition 111.17. For a mixed graph H = V U K let Vo I& Ii be given.

c

V, and

1 ) We call Vo (KO)a separating v e r t e x (edge/arc) set if c(H -Vo) > c(H) (c(H - I(,) > c(H)). We also say that Vo (I(,) s e p a r a t e s H , and Most authors do not distinguish between a cycle (path) and a graph induced by a cycle (path).

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.23

that the empty set separates H if H is disconnected. We may also use the shorter term v e r t e x c u t for V,, and edge c u t or c u t s e t for I<,. A minimal c u t s e t I(, C I c(H) and V, # 0 # I(,, we call V, U I<,a mixed c u t (the word 'mixed'refers to Vo U I<, containing both vertices and edgeslarcs). An n-cut is a cut set of size n. Note that a non-empty coboundary is a separating edgelarc set. 2) In the special case where I I&I= 1 and I<,separates H we call the element of I&a bridge. Similarly, if Vo = {v,) separates H or if 0 < Avo # d(vo)- 1,then we call uo a c u t v e r t e x (observe that X = d(vo)- 1 PO implies that v, is either an end-vertex or a 2-valent vertex incident with a loop). 3) A mixed graph is called nonseparable if it contains no cut vertex.') A maximal nonseparable (mixed) sub(di)graph B of H is called a block of H. The number of blocks containing v is called the block n u m b e r of v and denoted by bn(H, v); the number of blocks of H is called the block n u m b e r of H and denoted by bn(H). Finally, if a block B C H contains precisely one cut vertex of H, then we call B an end-block of H. If H is nonseparable, we may also call H a block.

Bridges and cut vertices can be characterized as follows. T h e o r e m 111.18. For a mixed graph H = V U I< the following is true. 1) k E I[ is a bridge if and only if no cycle of GH contains e, E E(G,) (e, = k if k E E C K). 2 ) k E I< is a bridge if and only if V(H) can be partitioned into

two classes V' and V" such that for arbitrary v' E V', v" E V", every path P(vt, v") in GH contains el, E E(GH) (el, = k if I<). Moreover, if k is a bridge, H - k has prek E E cisely two (weakly connected) components C1,C" such that V' = V(C' ) , V" = V(C") . 3) An end-vertex v of a bridge is a cut vertex if and only if d(v)

> 1.

I ) Note that a nonseparable subgraph B of H may contain vertices which are cut vertices of H, while they are not cut vertices of B by definition.

111.24

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Figure 111.10. The graph G with a 2-cut Eo = {e, f) and a bridge g. Eo is a minimal but not a minimum cut set of G. The cut vertices of G are u and v, the blocks of G are B, = ({X)),B, = ({9))7B3 = ( { x , , ~ , , x ~ , x , , ~ ) )B1 . and B3 are end-blocks, B2 is not.

Consequently, an end-edge is a bridge whereas a bridge need not be an end-edge. 4) A vertex v is a cut vertex if and only if bn(H, v)

> 1.

5) If H is loopless, a vertex v is a cut vertex if and only if V(H) {v) can be partitioned into two classes V', V" such that for arbitrary v' E V', v" E V", every path P(vf,v") in G H contains v. 6) v E V(H) is a cut vertex if and only if H contains (mixed) sub(di)graphs HI, H2 such that

H = H , U H2, H,

n H2 = {v)

and d H 1(v) # 0 # d H 2(u).

Blocks have also distinct properties and are related to bridges and cut vertices as expressed by the next result. Lemma 111.19. Let H be a mixed graph having a t least two blocks, and let B and B' be different blocks of H. The following is true.

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.25

Figure 111.11. A spanning tree T of the graph G. T corresponds to an out-tree DT rooted at x in the orientation DG of G. 1) B = ( V ( B ) ) H , i.e. blocks are maximal vertex-induced subgraphs with no cut vertices, provided H is loopless. 2) If I K(B) I > 1, then every edge of GB belongs to a cycle of G B . If K ( B )I= 1, the element of K ( B ) is a bridge or a loop of H.

I

3) B

n B'

= 0, or else B n B' = {v) and v is a cut vertex of H.

4) Every k E I-(H)belongs to a block of H. Thus the set of blocks covers H . Next we define an important class of graphs (see also Figure 111.11).

Definition 111.20. Let H be a mixed graph.

G H has no cycles, we call H a forest. A (weakly) connected forest is a tree. If Ho 2 H spans H (i.e., V(Ho) = V(H)) and if Ho is a tree, we call Ho a spanning tree of H.

1) If H contains no cycles, we call H acyclic. If

2) Suppose H = D is a digraph. A tree T C D is called outarborescence (in-arborescence) with root vo (or shortly out-tree or in-tree with root v,) if for some vo E V(T) C V(D) a path P(vo,v) (P(v, v,)) exists for every v E V(T) - {vo). If an (in- or out-) tree T with root vo spans H , then we say T is a spanning (in- or out-) tree rooted at v,.

111.28

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Concerning spanning (in-, out-) trees we have the following classical result.

Theorem 111.21. Every connected mixed graph has a spanning tree. Every strongly connected digraph D has a spanning in-tree (out-tree) rooted a t an arbitrarily prescribed vo E V(D). Theorem 111.21 in particular applies to weakly connected eulerian digraphs since they are strongly connected. Of course, not every strongly connected digraph D is eulerian, since GD may not be eulerian (see section 111.2). For orientations of graphs, however, the following is true [ROBB39a].

Lemma 111.22. A graph G has a strongly connected orientation DG if and only if G is connected and bridgeless. Proof. If DG is strongly connected, G is connected. We claim that it cannot have bridges. Otherwise, both DG-a, and G - e are disconnectecl for some bridge e in G. By Theorem 111.18.2) vertices x, y E V(G) = V(G - e) exist such that every path P(x, y) contains e . This implies that DG cannot contain a path from x to y or it cannot contain a path from y to x. Hence G must be bridgeless. This finishes the first part of the proof. We construct a strongly connected digraph D whose underlying graph is G, as follows. Since G is a bridgeless graph every edge belongs to a cycle, i.e. G has a cycle cover S (the case qG = O,pG = 1 is trivial),

s = {C,, . . .,C,)

.

Since G is connected, suppose w.1.o.g. the indices in S chosen in such a way that

Let Dl be the digraph with C1 as underlying graph, where C1 has been transformed into an oriented cycle Cf. Dl is strongly connected. Suppose now that for i 1, a strongly connected digraph Di with GDi = Cj has already been constructed. Transform Ci+, E S into an oriented cycle CZ, (choosing one of the two possible orientations arbitrarily). Now define

u:=,

>

i

Di+l = D i u { a e E'('P+l)Ie$

IJE(Cj)} j=1

7

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.27

and assume v E V(Di+,) - V(Di) exists; otherwise, Di+l is strongly connected by analogy to Di.In any case, Di+l is wealily connected by (1). By Lemma 111.15 it suffices to show that for every w # v (v as above), there exist paths P(v, w), P(w, v) in Di+l joining v and w, w and v respectively. We restrict ourselves to proving the existence of P(v,zc) since the proof of the existence of P(w,v) can be handled in a similar manner. Go in CZ1 from v to x, the first vertex also belonging to Di , and denote this path by P(v, x) C C z l . If w E V ( C z l ) - V(Di), then walk in Di from x to the last vertes y contained in V(CZl) t l V(Di) and in the unique path from v to w in Cz, (possibly x = y), and then continue walliing on C g l from y to w thus constructing a path P ( x , w). If w $ v(c$!) - V(Di), then {x, w} E V(Di), and a path P ( x , w ) exists by induction. Thus we have in any case that T/V(v,w) := P ( v , x), P ( x , w) is an open walk in Di+l from v to w which contains a desired P(v, w) by Lemma 111.11. The lemma now follows. However, we shall also consider (di)graphs which lie, in a certain structural sense, in-between Definition 111.20 and Lemma 111.22. Namely, call a graph unicyclic if it has precisely one cycle, and call DG a cyclic orientation of the graph G if DG contains at least one cycle. Lemma 111.19 does not fully describe the structure of a mixed graph H with respect to blocks and cut vertices. Define the block-cut v e r t e x g r a p h bc(H) by setting V(bc(H)) = {B, v/B is a block of H, v is a cut vertex of H)

,

xy E E(bc(H)) if and only if {x, y) = {B, v) and v E V(B) for some cut vertex v and some block B of H. Proposition 111.23. bc(H) is acyclic. It is a tree if and only if H is weakly connected. However, Proposition 111.23 does have a correspondence with respect to a digraph and its strongly connected components. Contrary to graphs, however, it is not true that every arc of a digraph belongs to one of its strongly connected components. We summarize some properties of digraphs.

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

111.28

Proposition 111.24. Let D be a digraph with V(D) is true.

# 0.

The following

1) If D is acyclic then D has at least one source and at least one

sink. 2) If S := {Dl, . . . ,D,) is the set of strongly connected components Di of D then {V(D1), . . . , V(D,)) is a partition of V(D) (note that Di may consist of a single vertex in which case we call Di trivial). 3) Let S be defined as in 2), A(S) := Ur='=, A(Di). The arcs of D belonging to no cycle of D are the elements of A(D) - A(S). 4) For S as defined in 2), set Vi := V(Di), 1 5 i 5 r , and let A(S) be defined as in 3). Set H- := H - A(S) and form

D r e d , the reduced digraph, is acyclic. The definition of Dred is independent of the sequence in which the contractions of the sets Vi, 1 5 i 5 r , are performed. 5) By 1) and 4), D contains strongly connected components Dl, D'I such that a+(V(Dt))= 0 = a-(V(D1')). They are non-trivial if D has neither a source nor a sink. 6) If D has precisely one strongly connected component D' such that a+(V(D1)) = 0, then D has a spanning in-tree rooted at an arbitrary but fixed v E V(D1).

The graph bc(H) resembles (but is not a special case of) another graph used to describe certain structures. Let S = {MI,. . . ,Mk), k 2 1 be a finite system of (not necessarily distinct) sets Mi, i = 1 , . . . , k. Define the intersection g r a p h I ( S ) by ( ( S ) )= S

EMin EM,n E(I(S)) # 0 +-+ (i # j A Mi n M j # 0)

,

and assuming I EMin EM, 15 1. Thus I ( S ) is a simple graph in this definition. In some instances we shall permit I ( S ) to be a multigraph. In this case, we assume I Mi n M j [< co and set X ( e i f ) = l M i n M j l for e i Y j ~ E M i n E , , i # j

.

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.29

For intersection graphs the following is true.

Proposition 111.25. For a mixed graph H let S = {HI,. . .,H,) be a system of weakly connected subgraphs Hi C H, m 2 1. If Uyil Hi= H (i.e., S covers H) then there is a 1-1-correspondence between the weakly connected components of H and the components of I(S). This holds true regardless of the two possible definitions of I(S). We note in passing that the edge graph of a simple graph G can be interpreted as the (simple) intersection graph for M i := { E ~ ) where E(G) = {el,. . . ,eq}. The next result has been used quite frequently by various authors; it will be of importance in this book. A first proof of it has been given in [FLEI76a, Satz 11 for the case of graphs.

Lemma 111.26 (Splitting Lemma). Let H be a (weakly) connected bridgeless (mixed) (&)graph. Suppose v E V ( H ) with d(v) > 3 exists. Form H1,2 and H , ,3 by splitting away bl ,b2 E Ii; , and b, , b3 E Ii; respectively (see section III.3), and assume that b, and b3 belong to different blocks if v is a cut vertex of H . Then either H18 or is (weakly) connected and bridgeless. In particular, if v is a cut vertex, then H1,3 has this property. Finally, if B H is a block such that {bl, b2, b3) C I
1 ) The existence of Pi C G l j classifies G l j as being connected: G

111.30

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

being connected means that a path P(x, v) C G exists for arbitrary x E V(G) - {v), which is also a path joining x and v in Glf , or P(x, v) U Pl contains such a path (see Lemmas 111.11, 111.12, 111.15). 1 ) implies the following. 2) Either is connected, or vl,, and v belong to different components of GI,, and el, e2 are not bridges of GI,, (note that el, e2 E C1 in this case and apply Theorem 111.18.1)). However, {el, e2) is a 2-cut in G if and only if Gl,, is disconnected. 3 ) G1,3 is connected in any case. Otherwise, {el, e , ) is a 2-cut in G (see the last sentence in 2)) implying that v is a cut vertex of G contained in blocks B1 > {el, e3) and B2 > {e,), a contradiction to the choice of el and e3 (see Theorem III.18.4), 5) and the first sentence in the above conclusion 2)). Another property of G, , j is expressed by the following. 4) If is connected but not bridgeless, then every path P ( V ~ v) , ~ , contains all bridges of Gl,j : if this were not the case for a certain Po = P(vl ,j, v), then every bridge of Gl,j not contained in Pois also a bridge in G (see Theorem 111.18.2) and observe that the contraction of v , , ~and v renders G and transforms Pointo a cycle of G). However, G is bridgeless. The rest of the proof is divided into two main cases. I ) v is a cut vertex of G. GI,, is connected (see 3)), el and e3 belong to different blocks of G by hypothesis, and cycles C1 > {el), C3 > {e3) exist. It follows from Theorem III.18.5), Lemma 111.19.3) and Proposition 111.23 that C1 n C, = {v). Therefore, C, corresponds to a path P, in T = 1 , 3 (see the argument preceding I ) ) , and Pl n P3 = { v ~ ,v). ~, It now follows from 4) that GI,, is bridgeless implying the validity of the lemma if v is a cut vertex. 11) v is not a cut vertex. It follows from 2), 3) and Theorem 111.18.6) that both and GI,, are connected. It also follows from Theorem 111.18.6) that G - v is connected. Therefore, for v, E h(ei) - {v), i = 1,2, there is a path P(vl ,v2) c G - v; thus P(vl, v2) U {el, e,) is a cycle C,,, in both G and GI,,. NOWsuppose has a bridge. Consider a path P = P(v,,,,v) in G,,, . By 4), it contains all bridges of Starting a run through P in v , , ~let z be the last vertex incident with a bridge of GI,, ; call this 'last' bridge e,. z # v: otherwise, form GI,, - e, which has precisely two components, call them C' and C", such that

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.31

vl,2 E V(C1), v E V(CU) (see Theorem 111.18.2)). However, considering in G the subgraphs G1 = (E(C1) U {e,)) and G2 = (E(CU)),it follo~vs from Theorem 111.18.6) that v is a cut vertex, a contradiction to the and ) C" > { t ~ ) assumption. Consider again the components C' > { v ~ , ~ of - eZ. We claim that e3 E E(Ctt) is not a bridge of C": otherwise, by analogy to the preceding argument (but with e, in place of e, ) we may conclude again that v is a cut vertex. Therefore, since e3 is not a bridge and G. of C", a cycle C3 > {e3) exists in C"; it is also a cycle in However, GI := (E(C'))G and G" := (E(C"))G satisfy G' n G" = { L * ) ; c GI and C3 c G" satisfy Cl n C3 = {v). NOWwe thus C1 := proceed as in case I). The lemma follows since case I ) has been settled and because the last part of the lemma is a direct consequence of 2 ) . It is not true, however, that if H = D is strongly connected then Dl ,-,or Dl,, is also strongly connected (and thus weakly connected and bridgeless). This becomes clear if {al, a2,a3) C A t ( g A;) in which case But even if a l E A: ul,? is a source (sink) in both D I Z and may be strongly connected. nor and a2,a, E A;, then neither On the other hand, since a weakly connected eulerian digraph is in fact strongly connected, the above consideration will not have any negative impact. We shall also need another result when splitting arcs away in digraphs. There, the symbol Di,j will mean that we have split away a; E A; and a: E A t . L e m m a 111.2'7 (Double Splitting Lemma). Let D be a weakly connected bridgeless digraph having a vertex v with dl := id(v) > 3 and d2 := od(u) > 3. Let A; = {a;, . . . ,a;,), A t = {a:, . . . ,a i 2 ) , and suppose D l and Dl ,4 are both bridgeless and weakly connected. ') If both (D,,,),,; and (D1,3)2,4are disconnected, then at least one of (D1,4)2,3 and (D1,2)4,3is weakly connected and bridgeless. Proof. To shorten the proof as much as possible we apply parts of the proof of Lemma 111.26. To this end we consider G := G D , GI,, := (GD),,, , ei := e -, f j = ea+, a.s.0. Whence assume that both (G1,3)4,2 a. 3 are disconnected. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 111.26 and we may assume w.1.o.g. that G is loopless, and it follows from conclusion By the Splitting Lemma we may assume that if any Dl,j is disconnected or has bridges, then j = 2.

111.32

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

2) of this proof that {e4,f,) and {e,, f 4 ) are 2-cuts in GI,, . We may even conclude that the blocks B4,2 > {e4, f,) and B2,4 > {e,, f 4 ) of GI,, are different: namely, they correspond to blocks Bi := (E(B4,,)), B;,, := (E(B2,,))in both (G1,3)4,2and (GI,3)2 . Just rkcitll Definition 111.17.3) and observe that c((G1,,),,,) = c ( ( G ~ , ~ = ) ~2,implies ~) B;,, nB;,, = 0 in both (G1,3)4,, and (G1,3)2,4and thus B4,, n B2,4 = {u) in G1 . However, the last equation and Lemma 111.19.3) secure B4,2# B2,4and classify u as a cut vertex. Moreover, is bridgeless and loopless. This and Lemma 111.19.2) imply that B4,, (B2,4) contains a cycle C4,, > {e4,f2) (C2,4> {e,, f,}) such that C4,, n C2,4= {u) holds true in GI,, .

,

l

,

Now consider in the block B1,, > {el, f3) and compare its poB2,4 and v. To this end form F := sition in bc(G1,,) with that of B4., b c ( ~ ~ ,-3IUB,,~} ) where ~ ~ 2 E, E4 ( ~ C ( G ~joins , ~ ) )u, B 2 , 4 E v ( ~ c ( G ~ , ~ ) ) . By Proposition 111.23, bc(G,-,) is a tree which is an acychc graph implying that uB2,4 is a bridge a& therefore, F is a forest with precisely two components TI and T,. W.1.o.g. B2,4 E V(T2); B4,, E V(Tl) follo\vs since vB4,, E E ( F ) while v and B2,4 belong to different components of F (cf. Theorem 111.18.2)). However, we could have considered vB,,, instead of vB2,4 since B2,4 and B4,, played symmetrical roles so far. In any case, we may assume w.1.o.g. that B1,3 E V(Tl). B1,, # B2,4follows, but B1,, = B4,, may hold. In any case, B1,. contains a cycle Clz > {el, f,} such that C1,, n C2,4 C {u) with equallty holding only if v E V(B1,3). We also note that dBz,4(u)= dB4,2(v)= dB,,, ( ~ 1 , = ~ 2) since {e,, f4) and {e4,f2) are 2-cuts. For = {v2,41u1,3) v((G1,3)2,4) define := ((G1,3)2,4)~o( ~ 2 ~is4 the new vertex obtained by splitting away e, and f,). In fact, bc(G,) satisfies the equation bc(Go) = F U { V ~ , U ~ B ~ where ~ , U vo ~ is B the ~ ~ ~ , vertex obtained by contracting Vo, and the notation concerning the blocks is retained in the transition from to G o . By construction, TI, T2 bc(Go); thus every vertex of T1 can be joined to v by a path. This is also true for vo since adjoining vo,v,B1,, to a path P(B1,,, V) yields a required path. Since B2,4E V(T2) every vertex of T2can be joined in T, to B2,, by a path which can be extended via vo and P(B1,,, u) to a path ending in u. Thus bc(Go) is connected (cf. Lemma III.15), and the edge sets of the blocks are the same in and Go (only the position of the blocks has been changed). However, forming (G1,4)2,3is now tantamount to splitting vo appropriately into v1,4 and v2,3 such that EvIs4= {el, f,), Ev2,3= { e , , f3). For

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.33

the sake of simplicity we retain the symbols for the objects considered so far. Thus, in Go we have C2 n C1,3 = {vO) since B2,4r l B 1 , = {v,). Therefore, forming (G0)i,4 = (G1,4)2,3 (the splitting operation being persuch formed a t vo) transforms C2, and Clz into two paths P2,?and PlY3 that P 2 , 4 n Piy3= { v ~ ,v~~, , ~ )It. now follows from 2) in the proof of the Splitting Lemma that (G1,4)2,3 is connected. This, the last equation and conclusion 4) of the proof of the Splitting Lemma imply that (G0)1,4= (G1,4)2,3is bridgeless. This finishes the proof. We define another mixed graph in connection with cut sets.

Definition 111.28. Let H = V U K be a weakly connected mised graph and let be a cut set of the form Ic0 = I<(X) for some X c V. Form Ho := H - KOand let Hi = ( X ) H oH; , = (V - X ) H o(note that every component of Ho is incident in H with at least one k E I C o 7 implying that a component of H, belongs entirely to Hi or entirely to H;). Define for i = 1 , 2 and zi $ V(H) the mixed graph

for which the incidences on V(H;I) are the same as in H and IrT,;= IC, (note that Hi is weakly connected since H is). We call Hi UH2 the tie-up H(I(,) of H with respect to I . (see also Figure IV.2 below). We continue with characterizing trees. To this end call H = V U I< the empty graph if V = I< = 0, and call H the trivial graph if K = 0, V = {v}. c(0) = 0 by definition.

Theorem 111.29. The following statements are equivalent for a nonempty mixed graph T. 1) T is a tree. 2) T is weakly connected and qT = pT - 1.

3) T is weakly connected and every k E I((T) is a bridge of T.

4 ) Either qT = pT - 1,Vo(T) = 0, and c(T - k) = 2 for every k E K(T), or else T is the trivial graph. 5) T is weakly connected and c(T - v) = d(v) for every v E V(T). 6)

A ( T ) = 0 and for any fixed vo E V(T) and every v E V(T) {vo), there is a unique path P(vo,v) C GT .

Theorem 111.29.2) implies the following.

111.34

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Corollary 111.30. If F is a forest then q~ = p~ - c(F). In- and out-trees are characterized as follows.

Theorem 111.31. Let T be a weakly connected digraph. The following statements are equivalent. 1) T is an in-tree (out-tree) with root v,.

2) od(v) = 1 (id(v) = 1) for every v E V(T) - {v,), whereas od(v,) = 0 (id(v,) = 0) for (the root) v, E V(T). 3) T is acyclic and there is precisely one vo E V(T) such that for every v E V(T) - { u, ), a unique path P(v, v, ) E T (P(v, , 2j) E T) exists. On comparing trees with nonseparable mixed graphs we can say that nonseparable graphs have a higher degree of connectedness than trees; for unless I V 15 2 and I I<15 1, every tree T contains a cut vertes whereas a nonseparable mised graph H on the same vertex set does not. That is, T - v is disconnected while H - v is connected for every v E V(T) -V, (T). This is even true when deleting a single k E I<(T), k E Ii'(H) respectively. We have an even stronger result in this direction. In order to state it, we introduce the concept of a block-chain to denote a mixed graph H such that bc(H) is a (possibly trivial) path.

Theorem 111.32 ([DIRA67a, Theorem 11). If H = V U I 1, H - k is a block-chain for every k E I<. If pbc(H-k) > 1, the end-vertices of k belong to different end-blocks of H - k and are not cut vertices of H - k. But even among nonseparable mixed graphs one can distinguish various degrees of connectedness. The complete graphs I(,, the complete bipartite graphs Ii',,, and the complete symmetric digraphs I<;, n 2 1,m 2 1, are - in a way - those (di)graphs which can be viewed as having the highest degree of connectedness. They are defined as follows (for practical purposes, the vertex sets are not specified).

I<, : PI\-,, = n, Qrcn =(;), I<: : pg: - n, =2 ();

h(E(I{,)) = P,(v(Ii-,))

.

,

h(A(I<,)) = V(I
= {{x,

Y)/X

E V', y E V") .

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.3.5

Note that the set of blocks of the graph G of Figure 111.9 consists of one copy of IS2 and two copies of IS3 , whereas the graph G of Figure 111.11 is a (copy of) I(4. In this context we call a graph G t h e complement of t h e g r a p h G (of order n) if E ( G ) ~ E ( G )= 0, ~ u =GI<,, V(G) = V(G) = V(I(,). It follows that both G and G are simple graphs, and G = G. In any case we are led to the following definition. Definition 111.33. A simple mixed graph H = VU IS of order p is called k-connected if k < p and H - V' is connected for every V' C V with (V'I< k. We say H has connectivity k, symbolically K(H) = k, if H is k-connected but not (k 1)-connected. If, however, H is not simple then we set K(H)= 1 if H has a loop, and K(G)= 2 if G is a multigraph.

+

It follows from this definition that if H is disconnected, then K ( H ) = 0; if H is connected, then H is 1-connected; K(T) = 1, if T is a non-trivial tree; if H is nonseparable and bridgeless, then K ( H ) 2. In particular, &(I{,)= K ( I S ~= ) n - 1, K ( I < ~ , , )= min{m,n). Moreover, it follows that if K(H) = k > 2, then a vertex cut V' of size k exists or else GH k 1 = pH . Thus, connectivity can be defined via vertex cuts of minimum size. For the next result we need additional notation.

>

>

+

Definition 111.34. 1 ) Two paths PI and P2are called internally-disjoint or simply disjoint (or independent) if Pl n P2 C V, (PI) n V, (P,). They are called totally disjoint if Pl n P, = 0. 2) Let x, y be two nonadjacent vertices of the mixed graph H (i.e., $ GH for p = pH). The local connectivity ~ ( xy), is defined as the smallest vertex cut V, such that x and y belong to different components of H - V,. We also say V, separates x f r o m y. The next theorem plays a central role throughout graph theory. T h e o r e m 111.35. The following statements are true for a simple rnised graph H and k E N, k 5 p~ - 1. 1) For every pair of nonadjacent vertices x, y E V(H), K(X,y) is the maximum number of pairwise disjoint paths in GH joining x and y, and ~ ( xy), 2 n(H) (Menger's T h e o r e m [MENG27a]). 2) H is k-connected if and only if for every x, y E V(H), x # y, there are k pairwise internally-disjoint paths in G joining x

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

111.36

and y , [WHIT32a]. '1 Quite a few proofs of Menger's theorem exist; we refer the interested reader to [DIRA66a] and [McCU84a]. We note that the former reference lists several early proofs of this famous theorem and that the latter reference contains a very short proof of this theorem for digraphs from which the original theorem can be deduced easily (in the context of digraphs, however, the definition of a set of vertices separating x and y as given in [McCU84a] differs from Definition 111.34.2)). However, we also shall use other types of connectivity.

Definition 111.36. 1) Let H be a mixed graph and let I, be the set of edge/arc cuts of H. We define

and call this number the edge-connectivity of H. Moreover, we say that H is k-edge-connected if X(H) 2 k. Moreover, X(x, y) - the local edge-connectivity - is the size of a smallest Ii, E E, separating x from y (i.e. x and y belong to different components of H - I<,). 2) For H and I, as in I), call Kc E I, a cyclic edge/arc cut or cyclic cut set if GH-Ic, has two components each of which contains a cycle. For EC:= {Kc E &,/I{,is a cyclic cut set) we define

Xc(H) :=minil I{, 1 /Kc E E,) if EC# 0; otherwise , X,(H) :=minil I<,I /I<,E E, and H - I(, has two non-trivial components) if such Ii, exists; otherwise X,(H)

,

,

and call this number the cyclic edge-connectivity.2)Similarly, call H cyclically k-edge-connected if X,(H) k.

>

The inequality in statement 1) is usually omitted since it is a direct consequence of Definitions 111.33 and 111.34. Also, one usually formulates 1) and 2) as well as Definitions 111.33 and 111.34 for graphs only. This restriction, however, represents no loss of generality. 2, see [FLEI89a]. Note that &, = 0 if and only if V(Cl) fl V(C2) # any cycles C 1 , C2 G H .

c

8 for

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.37

Minimum degree, connectivity and edge-connectivity are related by the following inequalities.

Lemma 111.37. For any mixed graph H, K(H) I X(H)

5 6(H)

and X(H)

< X,(H)

.

However, X,(H) > S(H) may very well hold true. On the other hand; in the case of 3-regular graphs (which are also called cubic graphs) a logical upper bound for X,(H) is the girth g(GH) of G H , i.e. the length of a smallest cycle (of GH). For the same class of graphs we even have the following.

Lemma 111.38. Let G be a 3-regular graph such that K(G) < 3. Then K(G) = X(G) = X,(G).

Proof. If G is disconnected, then every component of G is 3-regular and has thus a cycle. This implies 0 = K(G) = X(G) = X,(G). If K(G) = 1, then each cut vertex v, of G is incident with a bridge of G. This is clear if one of the blocks containing v, is a loop. In the case where G - v, has two or more components, it follows that for a t least one of them, C1 say, precisely one e E EVcjoins v, to C1 in G. That is, e separates C1 from G - V(Cl). X(G) = 1 follows. Moreover, no component of G - e is a tree: otherwise, such a tree would be nontrivial, thus having two end-vertices which would be joined to G - V(Cl) by four edges, an obvious contradiction. Thus, every component of G - e has a cycle, and we have 1 = K(G)= X(G) = A, (G). Finally suppose K(G)= 2. It follows that G is loopless and has a vertex cut {x, y ) . A component C of G - {x, y ) is joined in G to both x and y since K(G) > 1. Thus C 'absorbs' at least two edges of E,U E,. Let C' be a component of G - {x, y ) - C. If C or C' is joined by two edges to x and y, then these two edges constitute a Zcut E,. Assuming that both C and C' are joined by at least and therefore, precisely three edges to x and y, we may conclude that w.1.o.g. C is joined to x by precisely one edge e and C' is joined to y by precisely one edge f . Now { e , f ) is a Zcut E, such that x and y belong to different components of G- E,. 2 = K(G) = X(G) follows. However, no component Co of G- Eois a tree, where Eois an arbitrary 2cut; otherwise, we may conclude as before that C, is joined to G - V(Co) by at least four edges: again a contradiction. Thus X(G) 5 X,(G) 2 from which 2 = K(G) = X(G) = X,(G) follows. This proves the lemma.

<

111.3s

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Figure 111.12. A 4-regular graph G with K(G) = 3, X(G) = 4, X,(G) = 6.

We note in passing that Lemma 111.38 no longer holds if we replace 3 with 4. This is exemplified by Figure 111.12. Interestingly, Theorem 111.35 has its correspondence concerning edgeconnectivity (see [HARA69a, Theorem 5.111 for its independent discovery by various authors).

Theorem 111.39. Let H be a mixed graph. The following statements are true. 1) For z , y E V(H), X(x, y ) is the maximum number of pairwise edge-disjoint paths in G H joining x and y, and X(z, y) 2 X(H). 2) H is k-edge-connected if and only if every pair of vertices can

be joined by at least k edge-disjoint paths in GH . We fi~lishthis section with an inequality relating to edge-connectivity and the maximum number of pairwise edge-disjoint spanning trees. B a e d on work by W.T. Tutte and C.St.J.A. Nash-Williams, [TUTTGla,

111.4. Walks, Trails, Paths, Cycles, Trees; Connectivity

111.39

NASHGla] (see also [NASH64a] for an extension to the maximum number of pairwise edge-disjoint forests), the following has been proved in [KUND74a7Theorem 21. Lemma 111.40 (Kundu's Lemma). Let k E N and let G be a k-edgeconnected loopless graph. Then the number of pairwise edge-disjoint ([XI denotes the least integer not spanning trees of G is at least less than x).

191

Proof. The basis for the proof is the following result of W.T. Tutte and C.St.J.A. Nash-Williams (see [TUTTGla, NASHGla]): For a loopless graph G let P = {V', V", . . . ,~ ( " ' 1 ) be a partition of V(G). Denote qp = qGP where Gp = (. . . (Gv,)v,, . . .)vc,.l is considered loopless. Then G has k edge-disjoint spanning trees if and only if

for every partition P of V(G) ( r =I P I may vary as P varies). Now let nT(G) denote the maximum number of pairwise edge-disjoint spanning trees of G. Re-interpreting inequality (*) we can say that there must be a partition Po of V(G), T, :=I PoI such that

Considering GPOand applying Lemma 111.4 we obtain

Consequently, GPO has a vertex xo whose valency is at most A. = 2 . By definition of GPO,Exo C E(Gpo) can be interpreted as a coboundary E ( v ( ~ ) )c E(G) where v ( ~ E Po ) corresponds to x o , and

since G is k-edge-connected. Using (1) and (2) we obtain

That is, nT(G)

> $ - 1. The lemma now follows.

111.40

111. Basic Co~lceptsand Preliminary Results

111.5. Compatibility, Cyclic Order of KG and Corresponding Eulerian Trails The concept of compatibility, one of the central themes of this monograph has occupied the largest part of my research since 1975. Several other colleagues (e.g., B. Jackson, F. Jaeger, A. Bouchet) have also been attracted by this topic. Its origin lies in questions raised and dealt with first by A. I
2) Two (partial) partition systems Pl(H), P2(H)are called compatible if and only if for every v E V(H) and {i, j) = {1,2), Ci Cj for every CiE Pi(v) C P,(H) and every Cj E Pj(v) 5 Pj(H). If preference is given to Pl (H) then we say P2(H) is PI(H)-compatible instead of PI( H ) and P2(H)are compatible (this will be of relevance in those cases where H is a (di)graph and P2(H) corresponds to an eulerian trail of H (see below). Observe that by Definition 111.41.2) two (partial) transition systems Xl (H),X2(H) are compatible if and only if XI ( H ) n X 2 ( H ) = 0 since t , C_ t2 implies tl = t2, where tl E Xl(v) and t2 E X2(v). In fact, this is the way one usually defines compatibility with respect to transition systems. Note that the existence of a transition system X ( H ) implies d(v) G 0 (mod 2), i.e. G H is eulerian. Furthermore, observe that there is a 1-1-correspondence between transition systems X ( H ) and trail decompositions S of GH; namely, t E X ( H ) if and only if t corresponds to a section of some element of S. Thus, when we speak of a trail decomposition S of GI{ , we denote the corresponding transition system with X s . '1 Some colleagues have suggested that orthogonal might be more appropriate. However, G. Sabidussi, myself and others have decided to retain compatible - probably out of sheer inertia, possibly for want of imagination.

111.5. Compatibility, Cyclic Order of I<:, Eulerian Trails

111.41

Moreover, we speak of compatible trail decompositions S,, S2if XS1 and Xs2 are compatible. In our studies on compatibility we shall focus attention on the case of (di)graphs and where either a) Si, i E {1,2), has precisely one element (i.e. T E Si is an eulerian trail of G (D), in which case we use the notation XT instead of X,,), or b) the elements of Si are cycles and/or paths of G (D). If S(H) = 2, compatible trail decompositions of GH cannot exist simply because X(v) is uniquely determined for v E V2(H). Hence we shall either assume 6(H) > 2 or imply that the transition (or partition) systems are defined on V ( H ) - V2(H) (They are, strictly speaking, partial transition (partition) systems), or tacitly assume that V(H) - V2(H) is the domain for the definition of X ( H ) . Ivloreover, if X = Xs is a (partial) system of transitions where S is a trail decomposition of G H , and if S' C S (HI c H) then we denote by XI,, (XI,,), the restriction of X to S' (to HI), i.e. XI,, = X n X,, (XI,, = { t E X/t c E*(HI) U A* (HI))). To introduce other classes of eulerian trails we need another concept.

Definition 111.42. Consider v E V in the mixed graph H = V U I<. Assume I<: # 8. For d =I I<,* I= d(v) label the elements of I<: arbitrarily (but fixed), Ii': = {bi, b;, . . . ,b&), and call any d-tuple O+(I<:) := O+(v) E {(b:, b:+,, setting d

. . . , b&+i-l)/i = 1 , . . . ,d,

+ 1 = 1)

the (positive) cyclic ordering of the half-edges and/or half-arcs incident with v. We call b: and b:+, neighbors in O+(v), i = 1 , . . . ,d. Usually we shall denote O+(v) = (bi, b;, . . . , b&). We define for given O+(v) = (bi, bb, . . . ,b&) the negative or inverse cyclic ordering of I<;by setting 0-(v) = (bi, b&, . . . ,b;). Set

While the concept of O+(H) is a useful tool regarding graphs embedded in surfaces (and this is how I used it first), it can also serve as the basis for defining two different types of eulerian trails. ---

--

O+(G) is basically the same as the classical concept of a 'rotational embedding scheme'; see [ B E H Z ~p.104] ~ ~ , for definition and references.

111.42

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Definition III.42.a. Let T = vO,kl, vl,. . ., k,,~,, u, = vO,be an eulerian trail of the mixed graph H , and suppose O + ( H ) is given. Call T an A-trail if and only if for every v E V(H) and every t E X(v) XT it follows that t = {bi, bl,+,) where bi refers to the j-th term in O+(v). That is, consecutive edgeslarcs in T (and incident with v) correspond to neighbors in O+(v). Call T a non-intersecting eulerian t r a i l if and only if whenever v E V ( H ) , t l , t2 E X(v) 5 XT and t , = {b:, bl,) # t, = {b',, b:} (where bl refers to the i-th term in O+(v), a.s.o.), and w.l.o.g., i < j , r < s and i < r , then either s < j or j < r, 1 i, j, r, s d = d(v). Consequently, if two transitions t,, t2 have this property, we call them nonintersecting t r a n s i t ions, otherwise intersecting transitions (see also Figure 111.13).

<

<

F i g u r e 111.13. A 4-valent vertex v with O+(v) = (e',,ei, e$, ei) and a) non-intersecting transitions {ei ,ei), {ei ,e i ), b) intersecting transitions {ei, ei), {e;, e:).

Observe that if O + ( H ) is given and if A ( H ) = 4, A-trails and nonintersecting eulerian trails are equivalent; for, if d = d(v) = 4, then of necessity we haveeither i = 1, j = 4, r = 2, s = 3, or i = 1, j = 2, r = 3, s ,= 4. This implies that b: and bi as well as b', and b', are neighbors in O+(v). In the case d = 2 there is only one transition anyway, and in O+(v) = 0-(v) the two terms are neighbors by definition. We also observe that in the same case A(H) = 4, A-trails (non-intersecting eulerian trails) can be defined as P(H)-compatible eulerian trails provided O + ( H ) is given. Namely, if d ( ~ )= 2, I(: = (e(v), f (v)), let {e(v)), { f (v)) E P ( H ) , whereas if d(v) = 4 and O+(v) = (bi, bk, b$, bk),

111.6. hllatchings, 1-Factors, 2-Factors, Bipartite Graphs

111.43

let {b',, bi), {b;, bi) E P ( H ) ; thus P ( H ) is a well defined partition system. We finish this section by observing that in the case of a simple H the definitions of P(H),X ( H ) , O+(H) do not require the use of half-edgeslhalfarcs. In such cases we may occasionally resort to defining these concepts via partitions and cyclic orderings of I<,, u € V(H). However, already in the case of e, f E E, n E, (i.e. if multiple edges exist), {e, f) E X ( x ) nX(y) may hold. This may complicate certain arguments. Therefore and because we permit loops and multiple edges in general, the use of the half-edgeslhalf-arcs in the above definitions is very practical.

111.6. Matchings, 1-Factors, 2-Factors, 1-Factorizations, 2-Factorizations, Bipartite Graphs Definition 111.43. Let H = V U I
Theorem 111.44. Every 3-regular bridgeless graph has a 1-factor. Proof. We prove a somewhat stronger result, namely: given an arbitrary f E E(G), where G is bridgeless and cubic, a 2-factor Q C G exists such that f E Q (consequently, E(G) - E(Q) is a 1-factor of G). This result is definitely true if G is the multigraph on two vertices. Whence suppose p := p~ > 2. For f E E, n E, for some a , u E V(G), e E E, n E, exists such that v E V(G) - {a, u). Form G' := G, by contracting e onto

111.44

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

vo $! V(G). dG, (vo) = 4 whereas the other vertices of G' are still 3-valent; moreover, Evo= E,, U E, - { e ) . G' is connected and bridgeless, but 2j0 may be a cut vertex. Denote now f = 6, E E, and {b,, 6,) = Euon Ev . It follows that if vo is a cut vertex of G', then no block of G' contalns all of {b,, b,, b,). Therefore, the application of the Splitting Lemma (Lemma 111.26) guarantees that at least one of Gi,2 ,Gi,3 is connected; w.1.o.g. Giz has this property (see also Figure I I I . ~ ~ ) . 'By ) induction, Giz has a 2-factor Q' > {b1,2), where bl,2 is the edge arising from b, and bZ. If Q' does not contain the unique edge g' E E(Gi,,) - (E(G) U {b, ,,)), then Q' corresponds to a 2-factor Q of G such that f , e, b2 E Q. For the remaining case consider C', the cycle in Q' containing b1,2 and g'. Depending on the structure of C' it f0110~vsthat either C' corresponds to a cycle C in G such that EvoC E(C), or it is transformed into two cycles C1 and C2 such that f E E(C1), {b,, b,) C E(C2). Set Q1 = {C) in the first case, Q1 = {C,, C2) in the second, and define Q = (Q' - {C')) U Q1 which is in fact a 2-factor of G containing f (but not e). This finishes the proof of the theorem.

Theorem 111.45. Every 2k-regular graph has a 2-factorization. Unfortunately, Theorem 111.45 does not become a true statement if we replace 2 with 1. In an important instance, however, this will be the case. For the following recall the definition of Km,.

Definition 111.46. H = VUIC is called bipartite if for some V,, V. it follows that V = V, U V,, V, n V2 = 0, I<((V,)) = Ii'((V,)) = 0.

C V,

Similar to our definition of the complement of a graph, we call a graph G1 the bipartite complement of the bipartite graph G if E(Gl) n E(G) = 8, G, U G = I<,,,, V(G1) = V(G) = V(Icm,n). Bipartite mixed graphs can be characterized as follows.

Theorem 111.47. A mixed graph H is bipartite if and only if every cycle of GH has even length. The next result is also 'classic' and due to D. Konig, [ K O N I ~(see ~ ~ also ] [1<0~136a,p.170-1711. The direct transition from G to by splitting e (which can be interpreted as a combination of an edge contraction with the splitting procedure), where G;,, is connected and bridgeless, is the essence of Frink's theorem (see [ K O N I ~ Gp.182-18~]). ~,

111.6. Matchings, 1-Factors, 2-Factors, Bipartite Graphs

111.45

Figure 111.14. Splitting the edge e in two possible ways: first contract e to obtain G',then split vo appropriately.

T h e o r e m 111.48. Every I;-regular bipartite graph has a 1-factorization. Moreover, we note that already J. Petersen himself demonstrated that not every 3-regular graph is 1-factorable. The P e t e r s e n g r a p h P, is the smallest example of this type (see Figure 111.15). In fact Theorem 111.45 and Theorem 111.48 are equivalent; we shall prove

111. Basic Coxlcepts and Prelimixlary Results

Figure 111.15. The Petersen graph P5.

them in the second part of this book. However, we develop special types of 1- and 2-factorizations in complete graphs (see [1<0~136a,p.157-1631 which also contains references for the following two theorems, including [LUCA83a]; see also [HARA69a, Theorem 9.1 and Theorem 9-61).

Theorem 111.49. For every integer n > 1, I$, has a 1-factorization 13 = {Lo,L,, . . .,L,,-,) such that LiULj is a hamiltonian cycle whenever l
by

and define the 1-factor Lo by letting

The remaining 2n - 2 1-factors are obtained by cyclically rotating the vertex labeling as expressed in (*) except for the vertex 2n - 1: imagine all vertices but 2n - 1 represented by the corners of a regular (2n- 1)-gon C2,-, in a clocliwise ordering as expressed by (*). 2n - 1 can be placed inside C2,-, as a point in the euclidean plane which does not belong to any diagonal of C2,-, . Thus we obtain altogether 2n - 1 1-factors

111.6. Matchings, 1-Factors, 2-Factors, Bipartite Graphs

111.47

L O , ...,L2n-2 7 each of the form as expressed in (**). We first show that Li n L j = 0 for i # j; w.1.o.g. i = 0. Hence 1 5 j 5 2n - 2. Suppose an edge e = r(-r) E Lo also belongs to Lj, r 2 1,j 2 1. The vertex r E V((Lo)) carries in V((Lj)) the label r + j provided r + j 5 n-1; otherwise it carries the label -(2(n - 1) - ( r j - 1)) = r j + 1 - 2n. Similarly, (-r) E V((Lo)) carries in V((Lj)) the label -r j if -r j 5 n - 1;otherwise it carries the label -(n- 1- (-r+(j -n))) = j - r + 1- 2n. Since e E Lo n L j it follows that e is in L j of the form k(-k) (note that each edge incident with 2n - 1 belongs to exactly one L,, 0 i 5 2n - 2 ) . It follows that either

+

+ +

+

<

These equations yield j = 0 or j = 2n - 1, a contradiction to 1 5 j 5 2n - 2 (note that the other two conceivable combinations for Ic and (-lc) yield the arithmetic falsity 2 j = 2n - 1). It follows that L = {Lo,L1, . . . ,L2n-2) is a 1-factorization of Next we prove the existence of hamiltonian cycles as described in the statement of the theorem. To this end, it suffices to consider Lo U L1 and L2n-2 U L1 because of the rotational symmetry by which the 1-factors in L are related to each other. Consider Lo U L, first: let S = 0,1, be the path in LoUL, starting in 2n - 1 along the edge (2n - 1)6 and following the 'zig-zag' pattern induced by the above geometrical interpretation of I(,, . Writing as a vertex sequence, 6 = 1,2, we obtain

if n is odd, whereas for even n we obtain

However, since (n- l)(- (n- 1)) E Lo it follows that (-(n- 1))(-(n-2)) E L,. It now follows that for arbitrary n > 1, PI,P;' is the vertex sequence of a hamiltonian cycle of IC2, . Finally consider L2n-2ULl . Again we define paths following the 'zig-zag' pattern. However, we now consider four paths: P, and P, start at 0, their

111.48

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

respective first edges are 02 and 0(-2); P3 and P4start at 2n - 1, their respective first edges being (2n - 1 ) l and (2n - I)(-1). Depending on the residues of n (mod 4) we distinguish between two main cases.

=

Case 1. Definer, = 1 if n l(mod4) a n d r , = -1 if n r 3(mod4). Writing the paths again as vertex sequences we have

Noting that (n - l)(-(n - 1))E Lo implies (n - 2)(n - 1) E L2n-2 and (-(n - l))(-(n - 2)) E L1, it now follows that PI,P,:' P4, P;' is the vertex sequence of a hamiltonian cycle of IC2, regardless of the value of Case 2. Define s, = 1 if n E 0 (mod 4) and s, = -1 if n We now have

2 (mod 4).

By an argument analogous to Case 1 we may now conclude that PI,P,:' P3,P;' defines a hamiltonian cycle of K2, for every s, E (1, -1). The theorem now follows, Theorem 111.50. For every n 2 1, has a 2-factorization whose elements are hamiltonian cycles (equivalently, Ii2,+,has a decomposition into n harniltonian cycles). Proof. For n = 1 the theorem holds trivially; whence we assume n 2 2. Label the vertices of I$,+1 by 1, -1,2, -2,. . ., n , -n, 2n + 1, and consider the hamiltonian path Pl of I<2n+l - (272 1) (written as a vertex sequence),

+

+

1 as lySimilar to the proof of Theorem 111.49 view the vertex 2n ing inside a regular 2n-gon C2, whose vertices are labeled clockwise

111.6. Matchings, 1-Factors, 2-Factors, Bipartite Graphs

111.49

1 , 2 , . . . n - n - n - 1 ) .- 2 - 1 . By n - 1 rotations of the vertex labeling of C,, (the i-th such rotation being completely defined by 1 -+ i, 2 5 i 5 n) we obtain further n - 1 hamiltonian paths of K2n+l- (212 1)' each being of the form (*). These altogether n paths are transformed into hamiltonian cycles of by adjoining to the k-th path, call it Pk (which starts at k and ends at -(n - k I)), the edges (2n+l)k and (2n+l)(-(n-k+l)), 1 5 k 5 n. If twoof these n hamiltonian cycles have an edge in colnmon, then the corresponding hamiltonian paths Pi and Pj have an edge in common. W.1.o.g. i = 1 by symnietry. Thus 2 j n. Suppose e = r(-r) E E(Pl) or f = (-(r - 1))r E E ( P l ) is also an edge of Pj , 1 r 5 n or 2 r n , respectively. The vertex labeled r in Pl carries in Pj the label r - j 1 if j 5 r; otherwise it carries in Pj the label -(j - r). Correspondingly, the vertex -(r - 6) E V(Pl) carries in Pj the label -(r j - 1 - 6) if r j - 1 - 6 n, otherwise it carries in Pj the label 2n - ( r j - 2 - 6), 6 = 0 , l .

+

+

< <

<

+

+

< < + +

<

Assuming that g E { e l f ) n E ( P j )exists and observing that g is in Pj of the form I;(-(I; - al)), S1 E (0, I), we may conclude that either

The first equation yields j < 2, whereas the second equation yields j > n; both contradict 2 j n. It now follows that the n hamiltonian cycles as constructed above are pairwise edge-disjoint implying the validity of the theorem.

< <

>

Theorem 111.51 [TILL80a]. For every n 1, I<: has n - 1- E pairwise arc-disjoint (directed) hamiltonian cycles, where E = 1 for n = 4,6, and E = 0 otherwise. We note that matching theory is a research topic in its own right (see the monograph 'Matching Theory' by L. Lovasz and M.D. Plurnmer, [LOVA86a]), and that other classical results have been drawn up on the existence of 1-factors in arbitrary graphs (Tutte's 1-Factor Theorem) and arbitrary bipartite graphs (Hall's Theorem). We shall consider these results in the second part of this monograph.

On the other hand, it should be mentioned at this point that these theorems also form the roots of graph-factor theory. GI & G is called a factor if V(Gl) = V(G), and graph-factor theory deals with the existence of factors whose vertices have prescribed degrees. In this context we

111.50

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

mention W.T.Tutte's paper [TUTT8la] as well as [BER084a]: the latter paper derives certain results relating to k-factors from Tutte's f-Factor Theorem (see, e.g., [TUTT8la, 6.11). Finally, we define other special types of contractions of a graph G. Suppose G has a 1-factor L = {el,. . . ,e,), r = ~ p and~ a 2-factor , Q = {C,, . . . , C,), s 1. Define = h(ei) for ei E L, i = 1,.. . ,r , and Wj = V(Cj) for Cj E Q, j = 1,.. .,s. Now set

>

G/L := (. . . ( G v l ) . . .)Vv and G/Q := (. . . ( G w l ) . . .)rv,

,

and call G/L (G/Q) the contraction of L (Q).

111.7. Surface Embeddings of Graphs; Isomorphisms Graphs embedded (or imbedded) in surfaces are one of the topics of topological graph theory, and the recent monograph [GROS87a] demonstrates that this field of research has become a branch of graph theory in its own right. In fact, topological graph theory is one of the oldest topics in graph theory inasmuch as the Four Color Problem can be viewed as one of its roots. However, although topological graph theory and (vertex, edge, face) colorings of graphs (treated in the next section) overlap considerably, neither is to be viewed as part of the other. In order to restrict ourselves to a more descriptive approach to surface embeddings of graphs, we also refer to [BEHZ79a]. By surface we mean (in the topological sense) a closed connected surface 3,orientable or not. Call a graph G embedded in 3,if its vertices are points of 3,whereas its open edges C C 3 are homeomorphic images of the open interval ( 0 , l ) such that

a) V(G) = UcaE(G)bd (C), where bd (C) := 3C = C-C the (topological) closure of C).

(Cdenotes

b) C n (? = bd (C) n bd (C') for arbitrary C, C' E E(G), C # C'; that is, two closed edges intersect at most in one or both of their ends. In other words, G is drawn in 3 such that two edges of G meet at most in vertices of G.

111.7. Surface Embeddings of Graphs; Isomorphisms

111.51

A graph G is embeddable on 3 if there exists a graph G, embedded in 3 and bijections

such that p(h(e)) = hl(+(e)), where h and hl are the incidence functions , of G and GI , respectively, and y({x, y)) := { ~ ( x )cp(y)). In general, if G and G1 are graphs and y and $ are bijections as above, then we call (9,$) an isomorphism from G onto GI; we also say that G and G, are isomorphic and write G c G I . If G = G I , we call an isomorphism an automorphism. Noting that (9,$) can be replaced b~ a bijection cp : V(G) U E(G) -t V(G,) U E(G,) such that

we may also speak of an isomorphism cp. Combining the concepts of isomorphisms and edge/arc contractions we say that a mixed graph H is contractible onto another mixed graph H, if a sequence of edgeslarcs exists, say k,, k,, . . . ,k, E I<(H), such that (. . . ((Hk!)k2).. .)k, cz Ho. We note that in the case of graphs, contractions and isomorphisms can be viewed as special types of homonlorphisms which are defined by pairs of mappings (cp, +) as above except that cp and need not be bijective. In the case of a loopless G I , however, one either has to require cp(x) # cp(y) if x and y are adjacent, or else consider the restriction of to E(G) - {e E E(G)/ I cp(h(e)) )= 1). A homomorphism is called an epimorphism if both cp and $ are mappings onto in which case we call G, a homomorphic image of G and write G-GI.

+

+

In the case where 3 is the sphere (or, equivalently, the plane), we call a graph embeddable on 3 a planar graph, and if it is embedded in 3 then we call it a plane graph. Apart from vertices and edges, a graph G embedded in some surface 3 has faces. A face is a masimal connected point set F in F such that F n G = 0. However, F defines a unique subgraph of G called the boundary of F and denoted by bd(F). In fact, bd(F) is the topological boundary d F , namely bd(F) = F - F. Call an embedding of a graph G on a surface 3 a 2-cell-embedding, if every face F of G is homeomorphic to an open disc. Of particular interest are outerplanar graphs which,

111.52

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

by definition, can be embedded in the plane such that V(G) = V(bd(F)) for some F E F(G) (F(G) denotes the set of faces of an embedded graph G); in this case one speaks of an outerplane embedding of G. In addition to faces and their boundaries, a graph G embedded in 3 defines a certain O+(G) which is given by the (usually) counterclockwise cyclic ordering of the (embedded) edges at every vertex. On the other hand, if G is embeddable on 3 and if G1 and G2 are embeddings of G o n 3 (i.e. G1 and G2 are embedded in 3 and G1 21 G 21 G2), then it may very well happen that O+(Gl) # O+(G2). Consequently, we call G1 and G2 - embeddings of G on 3 - O+-isomorphic (0-isomorphic) if G1 21 G2 and if O+(v) = (el (v), . . . ,ed(v)) E O+(G1) O + ( P ( ~ ) )= ($(el(v)), - $(ed(v))) E O+(G,) (O-(P(V)) = ($(el (u)), . . . ,$(ed(v))) E 0-(G,)), for every v E V(G1). We then write symbolically G1 21% G2 (G, NG G,). Furthermore, call a graph G uniquely e m b e d d a b l e o n 3 if for any two embeddings G1 and G2 of G on 3,it follows that G1 21% G2 or G1 N 6G,. We note that in general it is not known which graphs are uniquely embeddable on a given surface 3. However, in the case of the plane these graphs can be exactly described, [FLEI73a, Theorem 3.51. Apart from paths, cycles and other trivial classes of graphs, there is only one nontrivial class named in the nest theorem. T h e o r e m 111.52. Every 3-connected planar graph is uniquely embeddable on the plane.1) Theorem 111.52 is not new; it had been proved by H. Whitney, [WHIT32a], via what has become known as the (combinatorial) dual (not to be confused with the (geometrical) dual graph; see below). For, H. Whitney showed that for any two plane embeddings of a 3-connected planar graph their (combinatorial) duals are isomorphic, and this isomorphy was the basis for defining unique embeddability. However, H. Whitney also showed that (combinatorial) duals exist precisely for planar graphs. Thus the concept of unique embeddability as presented above is more general than H. Whitney's since it applies to arbitrary surfaces. Theorem 111.52 can also be interpreted as saying that the set {O+(G), 0-(G)) is uniquely determined with respect to plane embeddings. Of Note that a planar graph is also embeddable on the torus; in general, if G is embeddable on the sphere with p handles then it is embeddable on the sphere with q handles for q > p.

111.7. Surface Embeddings of Graphs; Isomorphisms

111.53

course, a graph embedded in some surface can be looked at 'from outside' or 'from inside' that surface which implies that O+(G) becomes 0 - ( G ) if we switch our position from the outside to the inside of the surface. This observation also explains why the definition of unique embeddability involves 0+-and 0--isomorphisms. However, if we have an embedding GI of a planar 3-connected graph G on the torus, the corresponding O+(G1) may satisfy O+(G) # O+(Gl) # 0-(G), where O+(G) and 0 - ( G ) refer to any plane embedding of G. In fact, G is not uniquely embeddable on the torus. Whence the question arises which cyclic orderings of E,*can be obtained from embeddings of G on various surfaces. A general answer is given by the next theorem (see [BEHZ79a, Theorem 5.111). T h e o r e m 111.53. Let a non-trivial connected graph G be given together with O+(G). There esists a surface 3 and a 2-cell embedding GI of G on 3 such that G = $ G I . We will frequently use the following result regarding plane graphs. L e m m a 111.54. Let G be a plane graph. The following is true. 1) If G is 2-connected then every face boundary of G is a cycle of G. 2) If K(G) = 1 then bd(F) is connected for any face F of G and there is a face Fo such that every covering walk Wo of bd(Fo) passes a vertex at least twice. Such vertex is a cut vertex of G. If Wo passes e E E(bd(Fo)) at least twice then e is a bridge of G. Conversely, if v (e) is a cut vertex (bridge) of G then there is some face Fo, such that v E V(bd(Fo)) (e E E(bd(Fo))) and every covering walk of bd(Fo) passes v (e) at least twice.

3) K(G) = 0 if and only if a face Fo exists such that bd(Fo) is disconnected.

We note in passing that Lemma 111.54 cannot be extended to include toroidal graphs (i.e. graphs embeddable or embedded in the torus). We say a graph G is of orientable genus r (non-orientable genus r ) if it is embeddable on a sphere with r handles (r crosscaps) whereas it is not embeddable on a sphere with s handles (s crosscaps) for s < r . We denote the orientable genus of a graph G by y(G), the non-orientable genus of G by T(G). In fact, every graph has an orientable as well as a nonorientable genus. Planar graphs, i.e. graphs for which y(G) = y(G) = 0, are characterized as follows.

111.54

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Theorem 111.55. (Kuratowski's Theorem). A graph G is planar if and only if it has no subgraph homeomorphic to K3,3or I&. We refer to [THOM8lb] which contains short proofs of this theorem but also many references to various other proofs as well as various other characterizations of planar graphs; see also [ROSS76b, HOLT8la, CHEN8lal. For a refinement of I
Theorem 111.56. Let G be a connected graph 2-cell embedded in a surface 3 satisfying ~ ( 3 = r) or ~ ( 3 = r). Then PG - 4~ + f~ =

{ 22 -- 2rr

if 3 is orientable if 3 is non-orientable

.

The number 2 - 2r (2 - r ) is called the Euler characteristic ~ ( 3 ) of the orientable (non-orientable) surface 3. We define xF(G) := ~ ( 3 ) for a 2-cell embedding of G on 3 and note that ~ ( 3 2) 0 for just four surfaces: the sphere and the torus which are orientable, whereas the projective plane (one crosscap) and the Klein bottle (two crosscaps) are non-orient able. In any case, Euler's Polyhedron Formula (Theorem 111.56) and 2-cell embeddings G of a connected graph Go on a surface F in general permit us to draw important conclusions. Namely, looking at the set of the shortest covering walks W(bd(F)) of the boundaries of the faces F of G we observe that every edge e is used twice: either because it belongs to bd(Fl) and bd(F2), Fl # F2, and is thus used precisely once in both W(bd(Fl)) and W(bd(F2)), or F, say, lies on 'both sides' of e , in which case e is used twice in W(bd(F)). Consequently, if we denote by F ( G ) the set of faces of G and define Fi := {F E F(G)/I(W(bd(F))) = i), fi :=I Fi 1, then we have 03 00

C fi = f~ i= 1

if, = 29,

and i= 1

(note that in the above sums fi # 0 only for finitely many i since G is finite). F E F, is called an i-gonal face. We may sometimes use ai

111.7. Surface Embeddings of Graphs; Isomorphisms

instead of fi . Now, if 6(G) 2 3 and if fi = 0, 1 5 i P := PG, 9 := 9 ~ 7f := f~

111.55

5 6, then we h a ~ for e

Applying now Theorem 111.56 we obtain

which is impossible if x3(G) 2 0 and implies q 5 21 1 xF(G) I if x7(G) < 0. A similar argument shoxvs that if 6(G) 2 3, x7(G) 2 0 and f i = 0, 1 i 5 5, then xF(G) = 0, f = f 6 , and 3p = 29, i.e. G is 3-regular. Summarizing parts of these considerations we obtain the following.

<

Corollary 111.57. Let 3 be a surface, ~ ( 3 its ) Euler characteristic. There are only finitely many connected graphs Go with b(Go) 2 3 (possibly none) such that a 2-cell embedding G of Go on 3 has no i-gonal face, 1 5 i 6. In particular, if ~ ( 3 2) 0 then G must have an i-gonal face for some i E {1,2,3,4,5,6), and, more specifically, if ~ ( 3 >) 0 then G must have an i-gonal face for some i E {1,2,3,4,5).

<

However, some of the preceding considerations applied to connected 3regular graphs G lead to

That is, even if x3(G) and all fi,i # 6, are known (with all but one fi, i # 6, and x7(G)determining the remaining fi, i # 6), this equation gives us no clue concerning the number f6. In fact, the following is true.

Lemma 111.58. Let 3 be an orientable or non-orientable surface of genus r , and let G3(3) be the set of all connected bridgeless 3-regular graphs 2-cell embedded in 3. Then an infinite subset G:(3) c G3(3) exists such that for any GI, G2 E G,: G1 # G2, we have G1 $ G,, whereas the number of i-gonal faces is the same in both GI and G2 for every i # 6.

A sketchy proof. Replace every edge e = xy with a hexagon C e whose vertices are labeled counterclockwise by x,, x, x2,y,, y, y2 , where xi, yi @

111.56

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

V(G), i = 1,2, and G1 := G E G 3 ( 3 ) has been arbitrarily chosen. View the edges of C6 joining xi with yj+l , i = 1,2 (putting 3 = I), as 'long' edges, the others as 'short7 edges. For e, f E E, ,identify x E Ce with x E C f , and identify precisely one x, E Ce with xi+l E ~ f i = , 1,2 (putting 3 = 1). The corresponding edges of C e and Cf are also identified. It follows that the resulting graph G2 is 3-regular, and that there is a 1-1correspondence between i-gonal faces of G1 and i-gonal faces of G2 for every i # 6. In fact, a 6-gonal face of GI (if such a face exists) corresponds in Gz to a 6-gonal face other than any of these Ce, e E E(G1). We also have GI $ G2 since pGz = 4pG1 . By repeating the above procedure a set G30(3) as described in the statement of the lemma, can readily be constructed (we note, however, that there may be other constructions as well). Looliing at Euler7sPolyhedron Formula as well as at the numbers di := IV,(G) I and fi, 1 5 i < oo, a duality is suggested by this formula which leads to the next definition. Definition 111.59. Let G be a graph embedded in a surface 3. Define the geometrical d u a l (or simply dual) graph D(G) embedded in 3 as well in the following way. There are bijections cr : V(D(G)) t F ( G ) and p : E(D(G)) + E(G) such that a ) v, E F whenever a(v,) = F ; b) I eFF, n a I=I e,, n ( Z - h(e)) I= 1 whenever P(eFFr) = el while /?(eFFt) # e implies eFFl n c = 0, where /3 is such that eFFl E E,, nEVF, if and only if /3(eFF,) E E(bd(F) n bd(F1)). This includes the case where F = F' lies on both sides of e in which case e F is~ a loop.

It follows from this definition that G E $ D(D(G)) ; thus we simply write G = D(D(G)). In particular, cr is such that i-valent vertices of D(G) correspond to i-gonal faces of G. Thus j-gonal faces of D(G) correspond to j-valent vertices of G. This does not preclude D(G) having loops and/or multiple edges although G may be a simple graph. However, if G is a plane 3-connected graph, then D(G) is simple. If G # Ii:, is a connected, plane 3-regular graph and pG > 2 , then K(D(G)) = X,(G). We observe that VF E V(D(G)) is quite often called the capital of F. We also note that G II( D(G) for G = K4 ; thus we call G self-dual if G = D(G). We shall need another (embedded) graph derived from an embedded graph.

111.7. Surface Embeddings of Graphs; Isomorphisms

111.57

Definition 111.60. Let G be a graph embedded in some surface 3 such that every face boundary is a cycle. Define the radial graph, denoted by R(G) and also embedded in 3,in the following way. V(G) C V(R(G)), and there are bijections a : V(R(G)) + V(G) U F(G) and ,dF : EVF-+ V(bd(F)) for every F E F(G) such that a) a(v) = v for v E V(G) and

VF

E F whenever a(vF) = F ;

b) for VF satisfying a(vF) = F and e E E,,, we have hR(e) = {vF, PF(e)) (hR denotes the incidence function for R(G)). That is, vF is joined by precisely one edge to each v E V(bd(F)). Note that R(G) is bipartite in any case. We introduce some additional graphs. A graph G embedded in a surface 3 is called a triangulation of 3 if F3(G) = F(G). Note that even a triangulation of the plane need not be a simple graph. Moreover, triangulations are the duals of cubic graphs, and an eulerian triangulation of the plane is the dual of a cubic, bipartite, plane graph. We identify any plane embedding of the 1-skeletons of any of the five platonic solids (tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron) or any other 3-dimensional convex polyhedron with the corresponding convex polyhedron. This is admissible because of a theorem of Steinitz and Rademacher (see, for example, [HARA69a, Theorem 11.61 or [BOND76a, p.1351). In particular, we observe that I(4 is the graph of the tetrahedron. We denote by 0, the graph of the octahedron (see Figure III.3), by Wn the graph of the n-sided pyramid and observe that Wn is also called the nwheel (see Figure 111.16). Similarly, we shall speak of the graph of the n-sided double pyramid and note that O6 is the 4-sided double pyramid. Finally, a cycle C of length n embedded in the plane is called n-gon, and we consider a plane graph G to be a triangulation of an n-gon C if C = bd(F,) for some Fo E F(G) and F3(G) = F(G) - {F,). Thus a triangulation of the plane can be viewed as a triangulation of a triangle, and note that n-wheels are special types of triangulations of n-gons. Many considerations concerning plane graphs (and some of the preceding results) implicitly use the nest (topological) result which we shall invoke explicitly on various occasions. T h e o r e m 111.61 ( J o r d a n C u r v e T h e o r e m ) . Every simple closed curve C in the (euclidean) plane E2 decomposes E2 into precisely three sets E~ = C U intC U extC

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Figure 111.16. The 5-wheel and the 6-wheel. Note that

w3= IiV4.

such that intC (extC) is a bounded (unbounded) region, and C, for every (continuous) curve C1 joining x E intC with y E extC.

nC # 0

Consequently, if G is a two-connected plane graph, all but one face of G are bounded regions; the remaining face is called the unbounded face and denoted by F,. However, every plane graph has this property. In the case of outer-plane graphs we shall assume in most of the instances that V(G) = V(bd(F,)).

Corollary III.6l.a. Let C be a cycle of the plane graph G, v E V(G), and suppose the open edges e, f E E, lie on different sides of C. Then e and f belong to different face boundaries of G. Definition 111.62. Call a cycle C of a graph G separating cycle if either V(C) is a vertex cut or if G is embedded in the plane and both intC and eztC contain an open edge of G (note that C can be viewed a s a simple closed curve). If C is a simple closed curve in the plane such that C n G c V(G) and if both intC and extC contain an open edge of G, then we shall also refer to C as a separating cycle. Note that for a plane 2-connected graph G, every cycle C C G satisfying C @ {bd(F)/F E F ( G ) ) is by this definition a separating cycle.

111.7. Surface Embeddings of Graphs; Isomorphisms

111.59

We finish this section with an observation concerning plane triangulations.

Proposition 111.63. Let G be a triangulation of the plane, and let {V,, V2) be a partition of V(G). The following is true. 1) Both (V,) and (V2) are acyclic if and only if they are trees.

2) If (V,) is disconnected, then (V2) contains a separating cycle.

Proof. Suppose (V,) is disconnected. Consider a component G1 of (Vl). Viewing G1 as a plane graph in its own right, we may conclude that the boundary C of its unbounded face is well defined. Now consider Vt c V(G), the set of vertices adjacent to elements of V(Gl). Since G, is a component of (Vl), V1 5 V2 follows. Since G is finite, G1 can be chosen such that (V,) - G, C extC, , where C1 is a Jordan curve satisfying G , c intC, and Cl n V(G) = 8. C1 can be chosen to be a cycle of D(G) such that e E E(C,) implies e E E(bd(Fv,)) n E(bd(Fv2))for some vl E V(G1), u2 E V'. By this choice of C,, it follows that if A = bd(FA), FAE F(G), satisfies Cl r l A # 0,then C, fl FAis an open curve C, whose end-points lie on elements of E ( A ) and 1
111.60

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

111.8. Coloring Plane Graphs Coloring problems have occupied the minds of graph theorists ever since the Four Color Problem and - soon afterwards - the Heywood Map Coloring Problem were 'put on the table'. Both problems have since been solved, but there are still many unsolved coloring problems. Coloring; problems related to eulerian graphs will be treated in the second part of this monograph. At this juncture, we merely need some properties of colorings of planar graphs. But first we give a general definition. W.1.o.g. we restrict ourselves to graphs. Definition 111.64. For a graph G and a partition of V(G), P(V(G)) = {V,, . . - 7 V,) 7 k 2 1 7 such that E ( ( Y ) )= 0 for i = 1,.. . ,k we call 'P(V(G)) a k-(vertex-) coloring of G and class for which v E V?. has color i. The number

,

V?. the

i-th color

x(G) := min{k/G has a k-coloring) is called the chromatic n u m b e r of G. A k-edge-coloring and the chromatic index xt(G) can be defined analogously, but one may just a s well introduce these concepts via vertex-colorings of L(G), thus obtaining (or defining) xl(G) = x(L(G)). Similarly, if G is embedded in some surface 3 such that every e E E(G) belongs to two different face boundaries, we define a k-face-coloring via a k-coloring of D(G) and define the face-chromatic n u m b e r xF(G) := x(D(G)). Given a (k-) face-coloring of G we call F E F(G) an i-face if F has color i. Whence the Four Color Problem/Theorem asserts that every plane graph G satisfies m a x { ~ ( G )xF(G)) , 4. In fact, concerning x(G) it suffices to restrict oneself to triangulations of the plane, or, equivalently, to plane cubic graphs concerning face-colorings. In this case, we have an important result independent of the Four Color Theorem.

<

T h e o r e m 111.65 (Tait's Equivalence Theorem). For a plane cubic graph the following statements are equivalent. 1) G has a 4-face-coloring. 2) G has a 3-edge-coloring.

111.8. Coloring Plane Graphs

111.61

3) G has a 1-factorization.

Interestingly, on the grounds of Corollary 111.57 it is quite an easy task to show the following.

Theorem III.65.a (Five Color Theorem). xF(G) 5 5 for every plane 2-connected cubic graph. The tetrahedron Ir', shows that xF(G) < 4 is impossible in general. On the other hand, the plane cubic graphs G with xF(G) = 3 are easily characterized.

Theorem 111.66 (Three-Face-Coloring Theorem). A plane cubic graph has a 3-face-coloring if and only if it is bipartite. Note that a plane cubic bipartite graph G must have a 2-gonal or a 4-gonal face by Corollary 111.57 (its boundary we call digon, quadrangle respectively). Moreover, such G must be bridgeless because it is 1-factorable by Theorem 111.48 and therefore, any two disjoint 1-factors define a 2-factor. This and Theorem 111.65, however, do not reveal any specific relation between a 3-face-coloring and a particular 3-edge-coloring of G. However, starting from a 3-face-coloring F ( F ( G ) ) = {F1,F2,F3) of G and assuming w.1.o.g. that K(G) > 0, it follows that P ( F ( G ) ) is uniquely determined up to permutation of the color classes of F(F(G)). Define the natural 1-factorization of G , L := P ( E ( G ) ) := {L,, L,, L3) by letting e E Li if and only if the two faces F' and F" for which e E bd(F1)flbd(F"), satisfy {F',F") F j u F k and {i,j, k) = {1,2,3). Thus, if F E Fj, then E(bd(F)) is a cycle in which edges of Liand Lk alternate. Since the 3-face-coloring P ( F ( G ) ) can be defined via a natural 1-factorization of G, we arrive at the next theorem. Theorem 111.67. The following statements are equivalent for a plane, connected, cubic bipartite graph G.

1) G has a 3-face-coloring (it does have one by Theorem 111.66). 2) G has a natural 1-factorization. 3) G has a 2-factor Q such that every C E Q is a face boundary and l(C) is even.

4) D(G) has a 3-coloring.

We also characterize the plane graphs G with xF(G) = 2.

111.62

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

T h e o r e m 111.68 (Two-Face-Coloring Theorem). A plane graph is 2-face-colorable if and only if it is eulerian. Theorem 111.68 follows, for example, from the facts that for a plane graph G, D(G) is bipartite if and only if G is eulerian, and that 2-vertescolorings are equivalent to being bipartite. Moreover, Theorem 111.68 and Theorem 111.66 are equivalent. This follows from Theorem 111.67 and the construction of G/Q which is a plane eulerian graph for plane bipartite cubic G and Q = LiULj, i # j , where Li, L j E C. = {L,, L,, L3) and L is the natural 1-factorization of G (note that the inverse operation yielding G from G/Q yields a plane bipartite cubic graph provided G/Q is a plane eulerian graph). In this context, G/Q or G/L (where G is a plane graph and Q is a 2-factor of G whose elements are face boundaries or L is a 1-factor of G) is defined in the obvious way suggested by the topology of the plane and the definition of O+(v), v E V(G). Instead of giving a formal definition, we refer to Figure 111.17. In fact, Theorem 111.68 admits the construction of a special type of eulerian orientation in plane eulerian graphs. Let G be a plane eulerian graph, and suppose a 2-face-coloring is given such that the unbounded face has color 1. The faces F belonging to the second color class F2(G) are thus all bounded faces and S = {bd(F)/F E F,(G)) is a trail decomposition of G since every e E E(G)belongs to precisely one bd(F), F E F2(G). Replace e with an arc a, such that when passing a, from the tail of a, to the head of a, the face F lies on the left-hand side. Doing this for every e E E(G) yields a counterclockwise orientation of every bd(F), F E F,(G) and thus an orientation DG of G. DGis eulerian because for every t = {e', f')E X(v) C X s , v is the head of a , if and only if v is the tail of a j . Moreover, it follows from the definition of DG that in O+(v) = (el(v), ez(v), . . .,ed(v)), d = d(v), v is the head of ei if and only if v is the tail of ei+,(v), i = 1,.. .,d (setting d 1 = 1). Thus in O+(v) E O+(DG) ingoing and outgoing half-arcs alternate. We shall refer to DG , D g respectively, as the canonical orientation of G.

+

111.9. Harniltonian Cycles We start with a relation between hamiltonian cycles and dominating cycles. For this purpose we call the graph K,,, the n-star (or just s t a r ) .

111.9. Hamiltoniall Cycles

Figure 111.17. Contracting a) a face boundary C, b) an edge e, in a plane graph G. Lemma 111.69 [HARA69a, p.831. A loopless graph G has a non-trivial dominating trail if and only if L(G) is hamiltonian and G is not an n-star for n = pc - 1. Hamiltonian cycles are another central theme in graph theoretical re-

111.64

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

search. Owing to an erroneous assumption on the part of Tait the search for hamiltonian cycles in planar graphs has been greatly influenced by the search for a proof of the Four Color Conjecture. In fact, Tait believed that every planar, 3-connected cubic graph G had a hamiltonian cycle H (Tait's Conjecture). If true, Tait's conjecture would have solved the Four Color Problem. For if H is a hamiltonian cycle of the planar cubic graph G, then G has a 1-factorization C = {L1, L,, LJ) such that L1 U L, = E ( H ) and L, = E(G) - E(H) (note that pG must be even by Lemma 111.4 and because G is 3-regular). Thus, by Tait's Equivalence Theorem (Theorem 111.65) any embedding of G on the plane is 4-face-colorable. Note that the existence of hamiltonian cycles and of 1factorizations is independent of any embedding, whereas a face-coloring depends on an actual embedding. However, Tait's conjecture was disproved by Tutte in 1946 who subsequently proved that every 4-connected planar graph is hami1tonian.l) This result is a direct consequence of a more general theorem for which we need some additional notation. Consider a graph G other than a forest, and let C be a cycle of G. Form G1 := G - V(C) and for every component B1 C G, let

That is, B arises from B, by adding all vertices of C adjacent to a vertex of B1, and all edges joining these additional vertices to V(Bl). We call v E V(B) n V(C) = V(B) - V(Bl) a v e r t e x of C-attachment (or just v e r t e x of a t t a c h m e n t if no confusion arises) and we call B a C bridge (or just bridge).2) Note that for two C-bridges B1 and B2 we have E(B1) f l E(B,) = 0, and every v E B1 f l B2 (if such v exists) is a vertex of attachment. A chord or diagonal of C, i.e., an edge e $ E ( C ) such that h ( e ) V ( C ) ( h is the incidence function of G), is also called Since then many planar, 3-connected, cubic graphs without hamiltonian cycles have been developed by various authors. We quote [ZAKS82a] concerning references on this topic and note that in this paper a graph of the said type has been developed such that it contains only face boundaries of a length not exceeding 7. 2, It will become clear from the context that C-bridges = bridges have nothing in common with bridges as defined earlier. Tutte's terminology has caused some graph theorists (myself included) headaches. The best cure for these headaches, however, is to enjoy his wonderful results.

111.9. Hamiltonian Cycles

111.6.5

a C-bridge. Finally, considering e E E(G) and the faces F', F" u-ith e E bd(F1) n bd(FU), we call a cycle Co a terminal cycle of e with respect to F' (Ffl) if a) e E E(C0), b) F' E intCo and F" E extCo, or F" E intCo and F' E extCo, c) the 'side7 of Co containing F' (F") i.e. intCo or extCo - contains as few faces as possible. Note that if G is 2-connected, then such Co is nothing but bd(F1) (bd(Fl1)). The next result is the essence of what is quite commonly called Tutte's "Bridge Theorem" (see [TUTT77a7Theorem I]. This paper is an updated version of [TUTT56b] which already contained Corollary 111.71 below).

Theorem 111.70. For every edge e contained in some cycle of a planar graph, there is a cycle C such that 1 ) C contains e; 2) every C-bridge has at most three vertices of attachment; 3) if E(B)

n E(Co) # 0 for a C-bridge B

and a terminal cycle Co of e, then B has exactly two vertices of attachment.

Moreover, from this theorem we can easily deduce the following results which will be of relevance in the course of this book.

Corollary 111.71. Every (simple) planar 4-connected graph G has a hamiltonian cycle H. Proof. Let C be a cycle as described in Theorem 111.70 and assume that some C-bridge B is not a chord of C. Then B n C is a vertex cut V, with I V, 1 < 4 unless B n C = V(C) and every e E E(G) - (E(C) U E ( B ) ) is a chord of C (Theorem 111.70.2)). By hypothesis, C is a triangle, the two face boundaries C' and C" of G containing e are terminal cycles and satisfy (E(C1) n E(B)) U (E(Cl1) n E(B)) # 0 . By Theorem III.70.3), B has exactly two vertices of attachment implying that C contains a digon which contradicts the fact that G is simple. It follows that every e E E ( G - C) is a chord of C; whence H := C is a harniltonian cycle of G. Corollary 111.71 generalizes the next result due to H. Whitney [WHIT3la].

Corollary 111.72. Let D be a simple triangulation of the plane such that every triangle of D is a face boundary. Then D is hamiltonian.

111.66

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Noting that the hypothesis of this corollary amounts to saying that K(D)2 4 for D # I<4,observing that D = D(G) for some planar cubic graph G with Xc(G) = K(D) 4 if G # I&, we rephrase Corollary 111.72 and apply Corollary 111.71 together with Lemma 111.69 to obtain the following result (Note that for a cubic graph G, r;(L(G))= X,(G) if K(L(G)) < 4). Corollary 111.73. Let G be a planar cubic graph with Xc(G) 2 4. Then both D(G) and L(G) are hamiltonian, and G has a Tutte cycle.

>

It should be noted that the preceding results (Tutte's Bridge Theorem included) also follow from a more general result of C. Thomassen which in turn generalizes Corollary 111.71 (see [THOMS3a] and [CHIB86a]; the latter paper corrects a flaw in the former). The following fol1;lore result relates hamiltonian cycles in a plane cubic graph to trees in D(G).

Lemma 111.74. The following statements are equivalent for a plane cubic graph G. 1) G is hamiltonian.

2) V(D(G)) has a partition {V,, V,) such that both (V,) and (I/,) are trees.

Moreover, given a partition as described in 2) and F' := {F, E F(G)/u E Vl), the edges of G belonging to the boundary of precisely one element of F', define a hamiltonian cycle of G.

Proof. 1) implies 2). Consider a hamiltonian cycle H c G and view it as a Jordan curve. Thus H defines a partition of the set of its chords,

such that every e E Eb lies in i n t H , whereas every f E E, lies in extH (here, e and f are viewed as open edges). Analogously, H defines a partition of the set of faces,

where the subscripts have the same meaning as above. Let V, C V(D(G)) be the vertex set corresponding to Fb C F(G), let V2 be defined analogously with respect to F, and consider (V,), (V2) C D(G). W.l.o.g., if

111.9. Hamiltonian Cycles

111.67

one of these graphs contains a cycle C , then it is (Vl). However, viewing D(G) constructed in the plane (see Definition III.59), it follows that C can be viewed as a Jordan curve composed of capitals of certain elements of Fband (topological) arcs eFp1 corresponding to certain elements of Eb . By definition, eFFl n e # 8 if and only if e E E(bd(F)) n E(bd(Ff))n Eb , in which case I eFFl n e I=[ ~ F F n , E I= 1. This equation and Theorem 111.61 imply, however, that the vertices x and y incident with e lie on different sides of C (note that V(G) n D(G) = 8 by definition). Assume w.1.o.g. that x E intC. However, V(H) = V(G) > {x, y) implies that there is a path P joining x and y in H. Consequently, H r l C # 8 by Theorem 111.61. On the other hand, the definition of D(G) and (Vl) implies C C intH. This and C n H # 8 cannot be true simultanously. It follows that (V,) is acyclic. By analogy, (V,) is acyclic. Since G is cubic, D(G) is a triangulation of the plane. It now follows from Proposition 111.63.1) that (V,) and (V,) are trees. The implication now follows. 2) implies 1). Suppose (Vl), (V2) C D(G) are trees for some partition {V,, V,) of V(D(G)). Let F' C F ( G ) be as defined in the statement of the lemma. By a straightforward inductive argument (which we omit for the sake of brevity) it follo~vsthat F' defines a cycle H C G such that e E E ( H ) if and only if e E E(bd(F,)) for precisely one F, E F', v E V, . View H again as a Jordan curve and assume w.1.o.g. that (V,) C i n t H (note that for every F, E F', Fvn i n t H # 0 if and only if F, f l (extH u H ) = 8, in which case F, c i n t H follows). Suppose H is not a hamiltonian cycle. It follows from the construction of H and by assumption that x E (V(G) - V ( H ) )n extH exists (note: Go := (UFyEFI E(bd(Fv))) is a 2-connected outerplane graph). Therefore, x E V(bd(Fw)) for some w E V2. In fact, since F, c i n t H for every v E Vl , it now follows that every face Fwsatisfying x E V(bd(Fw)) also satisfies Fw C extH and w E Vz . This means, however, that ({w E V2/x E V(bd(Fw)))) contains a cycle which is a cycle of (12).This contradicts the hypothesis that (V2) is a tree. Hence H is a harniltonian cycle. The lemma now follows.

We now turn to hamiltonian cycles in arbitrary simple graphs. First, we state a famous theorem by 0. Ore which generalized a result established by G.A. Dirac and greatly influenced hamiltonian graph theory. Theorem 111.75 (Ore's Theorem). If G is a simple graph of order p such that d(x) d(y) 2 p whenever x and y are nonadjacent, then G is hamiltonian.

+

Proof. The theorem is true if G e K p . Proceeding indirectly we consider

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

111.68

G with maximal qG (pG = p is fixed) for which the theorem fails. Hence x, y E V(G) exist such that Ez n E, = 0 implying that G, = G U {xy) is a simple graph; it has a hamiltonian cycle HI > {xy) by assumption and the choice of G. Writing P := HI - {xy) as a vertex sequence (in which x = vl, y = up),

<

it follows that vpvj $ E ( P ) if V ; V ~ + ~ E E ( P ) , 1 j 5 p - 1. Otherwise, ( ( E ( P - { U ~ V ~ U + {vlvj+l, ~)) vpvj)) is a hamiltorian cycle of G contradicting the choice of G. Therefore, d(vp) 5 p - 1 - d(vl) implying d(vl) d(vp) < p. This contradiction to the hypothesis implies the validity of the theorem.

+

By the same method used in proving Theorem 111.75, we obtain a result on hamiltonian cycles in bipartite graphs. Corollary 111.76. Let G be a simple bipartite graph with bipartition {Vl,V2) (i.e., E((Vl)) = E((V2)) = 0) such that I Vl I=I V2 I= k > 1. Assume a E N U (0) exists such that k > 2a and b(G) 2 k - a . Then G is hamiltonian. Proof. We proceed indirectly. Since the corollary holds if G 11. I i k , k , let G be chosen such that qG is maximal and the corollary does not hold for G. Consider non-adjacent vertices vl E Vl , v2 E V2 and form G1 := G U {vlv2). It follows from the choice of G that G1 is hamiltonian and every hamiltonian cycle of G1 contains vlv2. Thus, G has a hamiltonian path which can be written as a vertex sequence

where v, = v1,1,v2 = and vi,j E 5 , 1 5 j 5 k, i = 1,2. It follows that { V ~ U ~ V, ~~ , U ~ , ~ E(G); ) otherwise, (E(P) - { ~ , , ~ v , , ~U) ) {vlv2,j, v ~ v ~ defines , ~ } a hamiltonian cycle of G contradicting the choice of G. Consequently,

That is, k

< 2a2 which contradicts the hypothesis. The corollary follows.

Concerning hamiltonian cycles in digraphs there is an analogy to Theorem 111.75, [MEYN73a]; a short proof of this result is given in [BOND77a].

111.10. Incidence and Adjacency Matrices, Flows and Tensions 111.69

Theorem 111.77 (Meyniel's Theorem). If D is a strongly connected simple digraph of order p, and if d(x) d(y) 2 21, - 1 for every pair of nonadjacent vertices x, y E V(D), then D is hamiltonian.

+

+

Corollary 111.78. If D is a simple digraph of order p such that d(x) d(y) 2 2p-3 whenever x and y are nonadjacent, then D has a hamiltonian path. For a survey on hamiltonian graph theory we refer the interested reader to J-C. Bermond's article in [BEIN78a, Chapter 61.

111.10. Incidence and Adjacency Matrices, Flows and Tensions There are various connections between graph theory and other branches of mathematics as well as other sciences (see e.g. [WILS79a]). For the purposes of this monograph (especially Chapters VIII and IX, which are contained in Volume 2), certain links with linear algebra and linear programming (LP) are of particular interest, this being the case not only for the sake of implementing graph algorithms, but also for proving graph theoretical results. We restrict our considerations to graphs and digraphs and begin with the representation of graphs by matrices.

Definition 111.79. 1) Let G be a graph whose sets of vertices and edges are given as lists, V(G) = {v,, . . .,v,), E(G) = {el,. . . ,e,}. Let B(G) be a p x q matrix such that the r-th row represents v, , 1 5 r 5 p, the s-th column represents e , , 1 5 s 5 q, and b,,, = 1 if and only if e, E Evv ; otherwise b,,, = 0. Similarly, if D is a loopless digraph, V(D) = {v,, . . . ,up}, A(D) = {a,, . . . ,a,}, then the p x q matrix B(D) has b,, = 1 if and only if a, E A t r , b , , = -1 if and only if a, E A; ; otherwise b , , = 0. We call B(G) (B(D)) the incidence matrix of G (D). 2) Let G, D be given as I), but now D need not be loopless. Let A(G) and A(D) be p x pmatrices in each of which the i-th row and i-th column represent vi ; the respective entries satisfy a,,,(G) =I E,, n E, I and a i j ( D ) =I A: n A; I if i # j, 1 5 i, j 5 p, whereas ai,,(G) = ai,i(D) = A,;. We call A(G) (A(D)) the adjacency matrix of G (D). We malie the following elementary observations.

111.70

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

1) The i-th row sum of B(G) (B(D)) equals d(vi) (od(v,) - id(vi)), 1 5 i 5 p, whereas the j-th column sum of B(G) (B(D)) equals 2 (0) provided G (D) is loopless, 1 j q.

< <

2) A(G) is a symmetric matrix whereas A(D) satisfies the equation A(D) = ( A ( D ~ ) ) where ~, the superscript T stands for the transpose of a matrix. Consequently, in A(G) the i-th row sum equals the i-th column sum, namely d(vi) - A,; (since a loop is counted only once in both A(G) and A(D)), whereas in A(D) the i-th row sum equals od(vi) and the i-th column sum equals id(vi) (here, a E A,; is counted once in the i-th row and once in the i-th column). Next we consider digraphs whose arcs are associated with real numbers. Definition 111.80. Let D be a digraph. 1) A mapping cp : A(D) is called a flow if CaEAt y(a) = CaEA; ~ ( a for ) every v E v ( D ) .

+

R

2) A mapping $v : V(D) + R is called a potential. Given a potential $ v , define $ : A(D) R by $(a) = $v(g(a)) - $v(f(a)) (9 is the head function, f the tail function of D). We call such ?,/I a potential difference or tension. For the following consider C D such that Gc C GD is a cycle. Let C, be a directed cycle such that Gco = G , . Denote A+(C) := A(C) n A(C,), A-(C) := A ( C ~n ) A(C,). +

L e m m a 111.81. Let D be a digraph, and let mappings cp, $ : A(D) t R be given. cp is a flow if and only if for every coboundary A(X), X & . . V(D), CaEA+(xl y(a) = CoEA-(X) ip(a), whereas $ is a tension if and only if CaEA+(c) $(a) = CaEA(C) $(a) for every C D such that Gc is a cycle. There is a close relationship between flows and tensions which is suggested by Lemma 111.81. Denote the arcs of D arbitrarily (but fixed) by a,, . . . ,a q and let vA, $A E RQ be such that their i-th component is cp(ai),$(ai) respectively. Let R, , R+ E Rq denote the corresponding sets of all respective vectors y A and $ A representing flows cp and tensions

?,/I. T h e o r e m 111.82. R, and thogonal complement of R,

R* are subspaces of RQ,and R+ is the or-

.

However, in many theoretical and practical questions (for example, in operations research), one is not so much interested in arbitrary flows and tensions but rather in those which satisfy certain given boundary

111.10. Incidence and Adjacency Matrices, Flows and Tensions

111.71

conditions. For this purpose we introduce another concept. For the sake of brevity, if a,,B : A(D) t R satisfy cr(a) < P(a) (a(a) P(a)) for every a E A(D), then we write cr < ,6 (a P).

<

<

Definition 111.83. Let D be a digraph, and let mappings a,,B : A(D) -+ R be given such that a 5 p. Call a flow cp : A(D) -t R (a,P)-feasible if a 5 cp p. If a ( a ) = 0 for every a E A(D), we call P(a) the capacity

<

of a E A(D); cp is then called P-feasible instead of ( a , P)-feasible. We shall apply the following theorem of A.J. Hoffman.

Theorem 111.84 (Hoffman's Theorem). Let D be a digraph and let given mappings a,,8 : A(D) -+ R be such that a 5 P. There exists an (a,P)-feasible flow in D if and only if the following inequalities are satisfied for every coboundary Ax := A ( X ) , X E V(D):

Suppose the digraph D and the mappings a , P have the following properties: (i) a. € A(D) exists such that f (ao) is a sink and g(ao) is a source in D - a. ; (ii) a ( a ) = 0 for every a E A(D); (iii) P(ao) 2 ~Q~A(D)-{Q /?(a). ~I Then we call D a netw0rk.l) Because of (ii) the trivlal flow cp 0 is also P-feasible, thus the search is rather for a Pfeasible flow cp such that p(ao) is maximum. This is called the maximal flow problem. To characterize a maximal flow consider V' C V(D) such that f (ao) E V', g(ao) $ V', and call A-(V') a network cut. P(A-(V')) := CaEA-(V,)P(a)is called the value or the capacity of

the network cut. Theorem 111.85 (Ford-Fulkerson's MaxFlow-MinCut Theorem). If D is a network, the maximum flow p(ao) equals the minimum value of all possible network cuts. For the purposes of this monograph the following observation expresses an important feature of flow theory; it follows directly from Theorem

111.85. The definition of a network seems to vary; the one given here coincides with the one in [BERG62a, p.191] except for condition (iii). There P(ao) is not defined, implying that y(ao) can be arbitrarily large. On the other hand, ~ ( ~ 50 C)~ E A ( D ) - ( ~ OP(a) } is a trivial condition, so that merely for the sake of defining P for the whole of A(D).

(iii) is formulated

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

111.72

Corollary 111.86 ([WILS79a, ~.243]).Let D be a network such that P(a) E N U (0) for every a E A(D). Then the maximum flow ~ ( a , )is an integer. Consider the special case where Dl = D - {f(a,),g(a,)} is bipartite, V(D,) = V, u V2 and V, n V2 = 0, and such that (tl) N(g(a,)) n Dl = v, , N(f (a,)) n D, = V2 ; (t2) a E A(D1) implies f (a) E V, , g(a) E v2; (t,) a E A(D) - (A(D1) U {a,)) implies P(a) 2 0; 04) a E A(D1) implies P(a) CaEA:,ao, ,A,ao, P(b) and P(ao) is as in (iii) (see above) .I)

>

Furthermore, let a cost function c : A(D) - {a,,) R+ be given. The objective in this case is to find a P-feasible maximal flow 9 such that, ~ ( a= ) @(a)whenever a E ';(ao) U Ag(ao)and C a E A ( D ) - ( a o ) c ( a ) ~ ( ais ) minimal. -$

This restricted masimal flow problem is called t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problem or Hitchcock p r o b l e m [BERG62a, p.2071, a special case of which is the assignment problem as formulated in [PAPA82a, p.2481; these problems will be considered in chapter VIII. We note that the maximal flow problem can be extended to the case where a ( a ) 0, a E A(D) {a,); this can be reduced to a maximal flow problem as formulated earlier (see [BERG62a, p.204- 2051).

>

Readers interested in flows and tensions (particularly with respect to operations research) are referred to [BERG62a7 FORD62a, EVEN79al and Avondo-Bodino's survey article in [WILS79a]. We note, however, that all these maximum flow problems can be reduced to LP problems. In various instances, the latter will be formulated but not discussed in detail.

111.11. Algorithms and Their Complexity Over the past 25 years, graph algorithms and the study of their complexity have been an evergrowing subject. Quite a few books have been published on this topic (or, at least, they have this topic one of its main themes). However, although we develop algorithms in various chapters Again, for such arcs a one usually assumes infinite capacity. The lower bound for P(a) given here does not imply any restriction on any flow.

111.11. Algorithms and Their Complexity

111.73

(not only in chapter X) and study (or, at least, mention) their complesity, this is not to be considered one of the main tasks of this monograph. Therefore, for the sake of brevity of this chapter, we refer the interested reader to R.C. Read's survey article in [WILS79a] and to [EVEN79a, PAPA82a, JUNG87al. These references also contain more or less explicit complexity considerations - including an introduction to the theory of NP-completeness. Nonetheless, we refer readers interested in a thorough study of NP-completeness to the Lclassic' [GARE79a]. Hence, although no clear answer to the Shakespearian query ("To P or to N P ? That is the question !") may have been obtained upon concluding this monograph, we assume from now on that the reader is acquainted with the class N P and its subclasses P (the good guys) and NPC (at present the not so good guys, for whom there's little hope of ever being good guys), as defined in [GARE79a, EVEN79a, PAPA82al. We note, however, that S. Even also quotes two other concepts of NP-completeness, due to Cook, and Aho, Hopcroft and Ullman. In the following, we summarize (without proof) some graph theoretical decision problems, all of which are in P. As for problems in NPC we quote them as they 'come along' in the context of this monograph. The explicit complexity of polynomial algorithms will also be quoted in the relevant places. Theorem 111.87. Let H be a mixed graph. Polynomial time algorithms exist for a) determining K(H),X(H);

b) determining whether H is strongly connected (if H is a digraph, say); c) finding a spanning tree;

d) finding an in-tree or out-tree rooted at v,, E V(H) if H = D is a strongly connected digraph. From now on, whenever Q is a set of real numbers, we set Q+ := { T E QIr > 01. Theorem 111.88. Let G be a graph, and let f : E(G) -t R+ U (0) be given. For Eo E(G), define f (Eo) = CeEEo f ( e ) . Polynomial time algorithms exist for determining

111.74

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

a) the distances between all pairs u, v E V(G) (i.e., paths P = P ( u , v) such that f ( E ( P ) )is minimum);')

b) a minimum cost spanning tree (i.e., a tree T such that f ( E ( T ) ) is minimum); c) a minimum cost perfect matching if G has one (i.e., a 1-factor

L such that f (L) is m i n i m ~ r n ) . ~ ) We note that problems such as determining whether a given set of edgeslarcs and vertices is separating (thus, in particular, whether k E I<(H) is a bridge or v E V(H) is a cut vertex) can be reduced to deciding connectedness in the corresponding subgraph. Thus, bc(H) can be constructed in polynomial time.

As for solving the flow problems listed in the preceding section, we n0t.e that they can all be solved by polynomial time algorithms, even if the capacities are irrational numbers in which case the original Ford-Fulkerson algorithm may fail (see, e.g., [EVEN79a, p.96- 971). We finish this section with the consideration of planar graphs. We refer to [NISH88a] as a central source for this topic.

Theorem 111.89. Linear time algorithms exist for deciding whether a given graph is a) planar, b) outerplanar (see [WIEG87a]). Theorem 111.90. Let G be a planar graph, and let G1 be an embedding of G on the plane. Linear time algorithms exist for a) producing a plane embedding of G (even if one requires the edges to be straight-line segments and all face boundaries to be conves polygons - see [CHIB84a]); '1 The first such algorithm, known as Breadth First Search technique, was developed basically by E.F. Moore MOOR^^^]. However, the reader should not be misled by the paper's title "The shortest path through a maze" since, in this context, a maze is nothing but a known graph, whereas mazes as treated in chapter X of this monograph are graphs of which one only has local information a t every vertex. An algorithm having complexity 0(p3) and deciding whether G has a subgraph with specified degree for every vertex, has been developed in [ANST85a]. 2,

Final Remarks

111.75

b) determining o+(G,);') c) determining the face boundaries of G1 if it is bridgeless;

d) producing D(G1) from GI; e) enlarging G1 by embedding a planar graph Go in some face F E F(G1) and identifying specified vertices in bd(F) with specified vertices in bd(F,) C G o .

In fact, even if G is of orientable or non-orientable genus 1 (i.e., embeddable on the torus or on the projective plane), polynomially bounded algorithms to find embeddings, exist (see [PERU84a] for results and references). T h e o r e m 111.91. Let G be a connected plane graph. The following

coloring problems can be solved in polynomid time. a) 2-face-coloring if G is eulerian;

b) 3-face-coloring if G is bipartite and cubic; b') 3-vertex-coloring if G is an eulerian triangulation of the plane (equivalent with b) via duals); c) 5-face-coloring if G is cubic. Consequently, the canonical orientation of a connected plane eulerian graph can be constructed in polynomial time.

111.12. Final Remarks Further definitions and results which are not directly related to eulerian (mixed) (di)graphs will be developed as we proceed with our study of various topics on or related to eulerian (mixed) (di)graphs. In some instances, we may explicitly recall definitions and results already formulated in this chapter. Initially, extensive references will be made to various definitions and results presented in this chapter; however, later on, they will be less extensive since it is assumed that by then the reader will be familiar with them. A linear time algorithm for embedding G provided O+(G) is known, has been established in READ^^^]. As for the validity of Theorem 111.89 and the first part of Theorem II1.90.a), see [VOI
111.76

111. Basic Concepts and Preliminary Results

Furthermore, the main topics of this monograph are eulerian trails and closed covering walks on the one hand, and cycle decompositions and cycle covers on the other . General considerations on these topics absorb so much space that the eulerian properties of special classes of graphs (except of planar graphs) had to be disregarded in most instances. However, the papers [WALL69a, LEWS72a7 MITC72a, JOLI73a, JOLI75a, HAMA76a, BOUC78a, AI
Chapter IV

CHARACTERIZATION THEOREMS AND COROLLAWES IV.1. Graphs The first characterization theorem summarizes the essence of what is contained in the papers of Euler, Hierholzer, and Veblen.

Theorem IV.l. For a connected graph G, any two of the following statements are equivalent: 1) d(v) is even for every vertex v E V(G); i-e., G is eulerian. 2) G has an eulerian trail T.

3) G has a cycle decomposition S. Proof. 1) implies 2). We proceed by induction on

If a(G) = 0 and q > 0, then every vertex is 2-valent, and G is a cycle C since G is connected. Starting a run through C at any vertex along one of the two incident edges defines an eulerian trail. If a(G) = 0 and q = 0, then G = Kl = {v) and T = v is the only eulerian trail of G. If a(G) > 0, then consider an arbitrary vertex v with d(v) > 2. L,et el, e,, e, be three edges incident with v. By the Splitting Lemma, at least one of the graphs Gig and is connected; say, GI,, is connected. Since a(G1,,) < o(G), and Gl,z is also eulerian, we conclude by induction that contains an eulerian trail Since E(Gl,,) = E(G) and any pair of adjacent edges of is also such a pair of G, therefore, TI,, induces an eulerian trail T of G. Hence, 1)implies 2). 1) implies 3). We proceed by induction on a(G) as in the above proof until we reach GI., (in the case G = K,, S = 0 is the unique cycle

IV. 2

IV. Characterization Theorems and Corollaries

,,

decomposition of G). By induction, has a cycle decomposition S, . Every C E S1,2not containing vl,2 is a cycle in G as well. Let Cl , E Slz denote the cycle with v , , ~ E V(C1,2). If v $ V(Clt), then c,,? corresponds in G to a cycle Ci,2 with v E V(C;,,). Otherwise, V(C1,2) > { v ~ ,v) ~ ,and C1 corresponds to a subgraph H of G in which v is 4-valent and the other virtices are 2-valent. Hence H can be decomposed into two cycles C1,C2 with ei E E(Ci), i = 1,2 (just start a run in v along el and stop after reaching v again; this gives C1, and C2 = H - C1). Consequently, we obtain a cycle decomposition of G by defining in the case u $ V(C1,2)

and in the case v E V(C1,2)

2) implies 1). Consider a run through a fixed eulerian trail T starting at v E V(G). For T = v, we have G = Iil,for which the implication is true. Hence we assume q > 0. For every x E V(G), x # v (if such x exists), every time we reach x in that run along some edge we leave x along some other edge. Since T uses every edge of G exactly once we have a pairing of the edges incident with x where every pair consists of an incoming and an outgoing edge. Consequently, d(v) is even. But also for v we have a pairing of the edges incident with v: one pair consists of the first and the last edge traversed by T, and the other pairs are defined the same way as above for x # v. 3) implies 1 ) . Let S = {C, , . . .,C,) be a fixed cycle decomposition of G (possibly S = 0). For every v E V(G) and every i = 1, . . .,t , we V(C,) or v E V(C,). have dci(v) = 0 or 2 depending on whether u Consequently, since 1

we have

t

This finishes the proof of Theorem IV.1.

IV.l. Graphs

IV.3

We note in passing that in the proofs of the preceding two implications, a loop vv or xx was counted twice which is in accordance with the convention that a loop contributes two units to the degree of a vertes. We also note that if G is disconnected, then it is eulerian if and only if it has a cycle decomposition (see Exercise IV.l). Thus the concept of a cycle decomposition is, in fact, a more general concept when compared with the concept of an eulerian trail. On the other hand, if G is connected, then the equivalence of these two concepts manifests itself in each blocli of G (see Exercise 1V.l .b) and c)). The next two characterizations of eulerian graphs can be deduced by arguments similar to those used in the proof of Theorem IV.l; their proofs are therefore left to the reader as exercises. Corollary IV.2. (see also [I
IV.4

IV. Characterization Theorems and Corollaries

set So = {C:, . . . ,Ck} of cycles which is, in fact, a cycle decomposition of Go by the above replacement procedure. By Theorem IV.l, Go is eulerian, i.e., dGO(v)G 0 (mod2) for every v E V(Go) = V(G). However, for E, = {el,. . .,ed) C E(G) we have ye,

1(mod2) for i = 1,.. . ,d, by hypothesis,

implying

xYe, d

0 I dG0(v)=

E d(mod2)

.

i= 1

Consequently, d = d(v) is even for every v E V(G); i.e., G is eulerian. Necessity. Suppose G is eulerian. We proceed by induction on p =I V(G) I. If p = 1, then every edge is a loop and hence belongs to exactly one cycle, i.e., to an odd number of cycles. - In what follows, we assume w.1.o.g. that G is connected. Suppose p > 1. Since G is connected there exists an edge e = xy with x # y. X(e) 2 1 denotes the multiplicity of e. Form the eulerian graph G, by contracting the edge e and denote the vertex of G, replacing the vertices x, y E V(G), with z. The edges incident with a in G, can be partitioned into three classes E, (x), E, (y), E, (xy) where E,(x) consists of the edges of G incident with x but not with y, E,(y) being defined analogously, and E,(xy) is the set of loops corresponding in G to the X - 1 edges incident with x and y but different from e (see Figure IV.l). We now observe that any cycle C(e) of G containing e corresponds in G, either to a loop in E,(xy) or to a cycle containing some edge of E,(x) and some edge of E,(y). We denote a cycle of the latter type by C(ei, E,(y)) where ei E E,(x). Furthermore, let k = IE,(x)l, let C(ei, ej) denote a cycle of G, containing the two different edges ei, e j E E, (x), and let yG(e) (YG,(ei)) denote the number of cycles of G (G,) containing the edge e (ei E E, (x)). By hypothesis we have

and by induction, yG, (ei)

-

1 (mod 2)

.

IV.l. Graphs

Figure IV.l.The graph G,

Therefore we obtain (by observing that IE,(xy)l = X - 1)

EL,

(note that in yGe(ei) every cycle C(ei, ej) is counted once in rGe (ei) and once in yG, (ej)). Hence the number of cycles of G containing e E E(G), is odd. This finishes the proof of the theorem. Theorem IV.5 enables us to prove another characterization of eulerian graphs in the form of a parity result on the number of cycle decompositions of an eulerian graph (see also [BOND86a, Corollary 3.41). Corollary IV.6.A graph is eulerian if and only if it has an odd number of cycle decompositions. Proof. If a graph G has an odd number of cycle decompositions, then it has a t least one and is therefore, by Theorem IV.1 applied to each component of G, eulerian. Hence assume G to be eulerian; let e E E(G) be arbitrarily chosen, and let C1, . . .,C, be the cycles containing e. By Theorem IV.5, r 1 (mod 2). We proceed by induction on q = IE(G)I.

IV.6

IV. Characterization Theorems and Corollaries

If q = 0, then S = 0 is the unique cycle decomposition of G; hence assume > 0.

q

If Gi = G - Ci = 0 for some i, then r = 1 and G is a cycle with S = {C1) as its unique cycle decomposition. Assume, therefore, that Gi # 0, 1 5 i 5 T . By induction, Gi has an odd number of cycle decompositions (note that Gi need not be connected even if G is). This yields an odd number of cycle decompositions of G containing Ci. Denote this number by s(Ci), and denote by s(G) the number of cycle decompositions of G. Consequently,

Corollary IV.6 now follows.

I would like to point out that it was through the article [LESN86a] that I became familiar with the papers [TOID73a, McI(E84aj. The same is true for the following characterization of eulerian graphs which is due to Shank, [SHAN79a]. The proof presented here differs from Shank's proof.

Theorem IV.7. A connected graph G is eulerian if and only if the number of subsets of E(G) (including the empty set) each of which is contained in a spanning tree of G, is odd. Proof. Let G be an arbitrary connected graph. Let TG denote the number defined in the statement of the theorem, and let ~ ~ (denote e ) the number of the corresponding subsets of E(G) containing e. We proceed by induction on q =I E(G) I. Since a loop is a cycle it cannot be contained in any spanning tree of G. Hence we assume w.1.o.g. that G is loopless. Consequently, if p =(V(G) (= 1 , then G = K l , q = 0, and E(G) = 0 is the only subset contained in the unique spanning tree G = IC1. Hence we assume p > 1, q > 0 (Note that K, is eulerian). Let e = xy be an arbitrary edge. Form G, by contracting e with z E V(G,) - V ( G )replacing x and y. G,has fewer edges than G, and so does G -e. G, is connected since G is connected, and G-e is disconnect,ed if and only if e is a bridge of G. The subsets of E(G) each of which is contained in some spanning tree of G, are divided into two classes: in the first class are the sets containing e, in the second those not containing e.

IV.1. Graphs

IV.7

A set in the first class, M say, corresponds to M' := &I - { e ) in G, with M' contained in some spanning tree of G,; and &I' C E(G,) belonging to a spanning tree of G, corresponds to M = M'U { e ) with M belonging to the first class. Also, note the 1-1-correspondence between spanning trees of G containing e and spanning trees of G,. Consequently, we have by the above and by induction

with T

1(mod 2)

if and only if G, is eulerian

.

(2)

Furthermore, if N C E(G) belongs to the second class, then N belongs to a spanning tree of G - e if and only if G - e is connected, i.e., if and only if e is not a bridge of G. Thus we distinguish between two cases. 1) e is not a bridge of G. Then we conclude from the above

2) e is a bridge of G. Then e is contained in every spanning tree of G (see Theorem 111.18.2) and Theorem III.21), and any N C E(G) belonging to the second class is an N' c E(G,) contained in a spanning tree of G, and vice versa. Thus, we have in this case

Consequently, in case 2) we have TG = 0 (mod 2), in accordance with the statement of the theorem since G cannot be eulerian (an eulerian graph has no bridges by Corollary IV.4), regardless of whether G, is eulerian or not. To finish the proof of the theorem we consider case 1) and assume first that G is eulerian. Then G, is eulerian as well, but G - e is not eulerian. By induction and (2), (3) we then have rG

= 1 + 0 = 1(mod 2) ,

in accordance with the statement of the theorem.

IV.8

IV. Characterization Theorems and Corollaries

Finally assume G not to be eulerian. If none of G, and G - e is eulerian, then induction plus (2) and (3) yield

If however, one of G, and G - e is eulerian, then both are eulerian; for in this case x and y are the only odd vertices of G. Consequently,

lee.,

rG

-

0 (mod 2)

if G is not eulerian.

This finishes the proof of the theorem. We remark that Theorem IV.5 and Corollary IV.6 have been derived in [BOND86a] in a more general setting where certain paths and cycles are being counted. On the other hand, Theorem IV.5 can be deduced from a result on matroids; this has been done in [McKE84a 1. Toida, having proved in [TOID73a] only the necessity of the condition of Theorem IV.5, deduces his result from a result on paths in connected graphs with precisely two odd vertices. In the next chapter, we shall obtain this result as a consequence of Theorem IV.5 - Welsh, [WELS69a], considering the characterization of eulerian graphs by cycle decompositions, extends this concept to binary matroids and shows that a binary matroid is eulerian .if and only i f its dual matroid is bipartite.

IV.2. Digraphs We now turn to the characterization of eulerian digraphs. Our next theorem is the analogue to Theorem IV.l (see [ K O N I ~p.29 ~ ~ 1. , Theorem IV.8. For a weakly connected digraph D , any two of the following statements are equivalent:

1) id(v) = od(v) for every v E V(D) (i.e., D is eulerian). 2) D has an eulerian trail T. 3) D has a cycle decomposition S.

IV.2. Digraphs

Proof. 1) implies 2). Proceeding by induction on

we first note that if a(D) 5 0, then D = I<,, or D is a cycle C since D is weakly connected; starting at any v E V(D), either T = v, or the run through C is uniquely determined by the orientation of C , and this run defines an eulerian trail T of D. Hence we assume a ( D ) > 0; consider any v E V(D) with id(v) = od(v) > 1, and let a, = (v,, v) be any arc incident to v, and let a2 = (v, v2),a 3 = (v, v3) be any two arcs incident from v. Both Dl,: and are eulerian, and by the Splitting Lemma at least one of them is weakly connected; say, is weakly connected. By induction, since a(D1,?) < a(D), Dl,z has an eulerian trail TI,, which induces an eulerian trail of D the same way as in the undirected case.

1) implies 3). Again we proceed by induction on a(D). Since the case a ( D ) = 0 can be argued the same way as in the proof of the preceding implication (with S = 0 if A(D) = 0), therefore, we assume a ( D ) > 0. As in the proof of the preceding implication we apply the Splitting Lemma and assume w.1.o.g. that is weakly connected. Let S1,2be a cycle decomposition of Arguing as in the proof of Theorem IV.l we conclude that the cycle Ci,:! E S1,2 corresponds in D either to a cycle C1,2or to a subdigraph of D which is the arc-disjoint union of two cycles C,, C,. Hence, also for digraphs we obtain a cycle decomposition S by defining

depending on whether Cit2 corresponds to a cycle in D or not. To prove that 2) implies 1) and 3) implies 1) one can proceed along the same line of arguments as in the proof of Theorem IV.l. We leave it therefore to the reader to finish the proof of Theorem IV.8 (Exercise IV.5.). We note in passing that Corollary IV.2 can be restated for digraphs as well, while, in general, this is not true for Corollary IV.3; for, any 4-edge-connected eulerian graph G can be oriented in such a way that the corresponding digraph D is not eulerian although D is strongly connected (just take an eulerian orientation of G and reverse the orientation

IV. 10

IV. Characterization Theorems and Corollaries

of precisely one arc; see also Esercise IV.6). Next we prove a result which is the analogue to Corollary IV.4.

Corollary IV.9. A digraph D is eulerian if and only if every cut set A, C A(D) with bipartition Vl, V2 contains as many arcs incident from Vl as it has arcs incident from V2 (in other words: i = 1,2).

a+(q) = a-(5)

for

Proof. Suppose the condition stated in the corollary holds for arbitrary A,. Then it must also hold for A, = A, - A,; i.e., where V, = { u ) or V, = {v) for arbitrary v E V(G). Say, V, = {v). By hypothesis, there are as many arcs of A, - A, incident from u as there are arcs of A, incident from V(D) - {v), i.e., incident to u. That is, od(v) = id(v) for arbitrary v E V(D), i.e., D is eulerian (note that a loop in v contributes a unit to both id(v) and od(v)). Conversely, if D is eulerian, then consider an arbitrary cut set A,. Since the condition is fulfilled vacuously if A, = 0, assume A, # 0. Form D(Ao), the tie-up of D with respect to A, (see Figure IV.2.).

Figure IV.2. The eulerian digraph D and its tie-up D(A,).

For i = 1,2, we conclude from the fact that odDi(v) = odD(v) = idD(v) = idDi(v) for every v E y,that odD,(2;) = idDi(z;) holds as well (see Corollary III.5a). Since an arc of A, is incident from 5 , to 5 respectively,

IV.2. Digraphs

IV.11

if and only if the corresponding arc in A,; has this property, we conclude that A, contains as many arcs incident from Vias it contains arcs incident to K, namely idDi(zi) = odD,(zi),i = 1 , 2 (note that this equation is independent of i because idD,(z,) = odDz(z,). This finishes the proof of Corollary IV.9. However, Theorem IV.8 also implies the following Corollary whose proof is left as an exercise. Corollary N . l O . Every weakly connected eulerian digraph is strongly connected. However, Theorem IV.5 has no analogue to digraphs. This can be seen from any eulerian orientation of I$,4,, r 2 1. The same digraphs sho~v that there is no analogue of Corollary IV.6 to digraphs either; for they have an even number of cycle decompositions (see Exercises IV.7 and IV.8). As for an analogue of Theorem IV.7 to digraphs we discuss the digraphs of Figure IV.3.

Figure N . 3 . Two eulerian digraphs.

For both D, and D2we look at the spanning out-trees rooted at v, w, x respectively, and count the number . r ~ ~ of ( t subsets ) of A ( D i ) contained in some spanning out-tree rooted at t E {v,w,x),i = 1,2. For t = v we

IV. Characterization Theorems and Corollaries

IV.12

have in Dl the corresponding subsets

and in D2,

That is, rD,(v)

3 rD2 (v)

+ 1= 0 (mod 2) .

Hence, by symmetry we have for arbitrary t E (u,w,x) and i = 1,2 rDi(t) --= i

+ 1 (mod 2)

.

To determine for i = 1,2 the parity of rDi, the number of subsets contained in some spanning out-tree, we observe that no subset of size at least three can be counted in rDi,and that no subset of size two counted in rDi(t), t E {v, w, x), is counted in rD.(t'), t' E {v, w, x), t' # t. Therefore we count in TD1 nine subsets of size two and in rD1twelve such sets. Since every one-element subset and the empty set must be counted in rD, we obtain for i = 1,2

= + 1(mod 2) .

r~~ i

Whence we conclude that there is no simple analogy (if there is any) of Theorem IV.7 for digraphs. It is interesting to note however, that the number of subsets (including the empty set) of A(Di), i = 1,2, each of which is contained in either a spanning out-tree or spanning in-tree of Di, is - 3) 7 = 19. But, under the same condition, the same number is achieved for any non-eulerian digraph obtained from Di by arc reversals. - We note already now that the digraphs of Figure IV.3 are distinguished in another respect as well: namely, the number of spanning out-trees rooted at t E {v, w, x) is 3 for Dl and 4 for D2. This fact will play an important role in the question of how to enumerate eulerian trails in graphs.

((i)

+

IV.3. Mixed Graphs

IV. 13

IV.3. Mixed Graphs Turning now to mixed graphs we have the following result (in [FLEI83b] I attributed it to Batagelj and Pisanski, [BATA77a]; they as well as myself were not aware at that time, however, that this result already appears in the book Flows in Networks by Ford and Fulkerson, [FORDGZa, Theorem 7.1, p.601. - This mistake of quotation was pointed out to me after [FLEI83b] had been published in [BEIN83a]).

Theorem N.ll. Let H be a weakly connected mixed graph. Then any two of the following statements are equivalent. 1) For every X C V(H), fH (X) := e(X)a non-negative even integer.

1 a + ( X ) - a-(X) I is

2) H has an eulerian trail T. 3) H has a cycle decomposition S.

Proof. Let T be an eulerian trail of H starting at v, say, or let S be a cycle decomposition of H. A run through T or any C E S induces an orientation on the elements of E ( H ) ,E(C) respectively (in the case where A(C) = 8, choose arbitrarily one of the two possible orientations). Doing this for every C E S, we obtain by Theorem IV.8 from either T or S an eulerian digraph Dl with A(H) c A(Dl). In Dl we have for every X c V(Dl) = V ( H ) ,a t ( X ) = a r ( X ) (the subscript 1 refers to Dl in order to avoid confusion with a+(X), a-(X) respectively). Thus we have

where et(X)

+ eff(X)= e(,Y);

consequently

implying 0 5 2eIf(X) = e(X) - (a-(X) and 0

- a+(X))

< 2ef(X) = e(X) - (a+(X) - a-(X))

.

IV. 14

IV. Characterization Theorems and Corollaries

Therefore, e(X)- I a+(X) - a-(X) I is a non-negative even integer. Thus we have shown that 2) implies 1) and 3 ) implies 1 ) . On the other hand, if we have in H an eulerian trail T (or a cycle decomposition S), then we obtain from T (S) as above an eulerian digraph DT (DS) in which the original T (S) induces an eulerian trail TD (cycle decomposition SD). By Theorem IV.8., TD(SD) is equivalent to the existence of a cycle decomposition S ( D ) (an eulerian trail T(D)), which in turn induces in H a cycle decomposition ST (an eulerian trail T s ) , simply because A(H) C A(D) for D E {DT,DS). Hence we have shown the equivalence of 2) and 3). To finish the proof of the theorem it suffices to show that starting from I), one can produce an eulerian digraph D by orienting the elements of E(H) in such a way that A(H) C A(D). The application of Theorem IV.8 to D then yields an eulerian trail T or a cycle decomposition S in H the same way as in the preceding paragraph. Suppose there is a mixed graph H (not necessarily connected) satisfying the condition stated in 1) which cannot be transformed into an eulerian digraph D with A(H) C A(D). Among all possible counterexamples let H be chosen in such a way that I V(H) I I E(H)I is as small as possible.

+

In what follows we call a cut set Cx corresponding to X C V(H) critical if fH(X) = 0; we call it trivial if m i n { l X I, I V(H) - X 1) = 1. Also, we call statement 1 ) of Theorem IV.ll the cut condition. W.1.o.g. we may assume H to be loopless since by definition a cut set cannot contain loops, and by the choice of H, loops lie in A(H); hence having obtained an eulerian orientation Do of H - A(H), Do u A(H) is an eulerian orientation of H. Thus, if p =)V(H) I= 1, then E ( H ) = A ( H ) = 0 and H = I<,is an eulerian orientation of itself. Hence p > 1 can be assumed. Next we observe the following facts concerning an arbitrary mixed graph H*: a ) F o r every X C V(H*), fH*(X) = f H I (V(H*) - X); this follows from the cut condition. Hence, in what follows it is no loss of generality if we assume in the case of a critical cut set Cx that X does not contain a prescribed vertex. b)If H* satisfies the cut condition and has a critical cut set Cx,then the orientation of the elements of E ( X ) is uniquely determined in every eulerian orientation D of H (if such D exists). For, E ( X ) # 0 implies

IV.3. Mixed Graphs

IV.15

a + ( X ) # a-(X), and if a+(X) > a-(X), then every e E E ( X ) corresponds in D to an arc incident to X; otherwise e corresponds to an arc incident from X . Consequently, if H; and H; are the two disjoint (mixed) (di)graphs resulting from the tie-up of H* (see also Figure IV.2) with respect to a critical cut set Cx of H*, and if Hi* has an eulerian orientation Df ,i = 1,2, then an eulerian orientation of H* is induced in a natural way by D; and Dg (see also Exercise IV.9). Note that for {zf } = V(H:) - V(H), fHf (zf) = fH. (X) (even if CX is not critical). c)If H* satisfies the cut condition, then G*, the graph underlying H*, is eulerian; consequently Gf , the graph underlying Hi*,i = 1,2, is eulerian; hence f H r (Y) is even for any Y C V(H;*). i

Now we prove

H has n o non-trivial critical cut sets.

(1

Suppose it does. Then there exists X C V(H) with I X I> 1, I V(H) I> 1, and f H ( X ) = 0. Let Hi with {zi} = V(Hi) - V(H) be the (mixed) (di)graphs of the tie-up with respect to Cx, i = 1,2.

X

Suppose fH.(Y) < 0 for some Y C V(Hi) with zi 6 Y (see a ) , c ) ) , i E {I,2 ) . +hen Y C V(H) and Cy is also a cut set of H by the definition of Cx and a tie-up; and fH(Y) = fHi (Y) 0. Th'is contradiction shows that Hl and H2 satisfy the cut condition. Since Cx is non-trivial, I V(Hi) I
>

Our next step is to show that for every v E V(H), fH(v) = 0.

(2)

Suppose there is x E V(H) with fH(x) # 0; by the cut condition, fH(x) 2 2. That is, there is el = us,e, = wx E E,. Form HI,, by splitting el, e2 away from x with {xl,,} = V(H1,2) - V(H) if I A, U EZI> 2; otherwise let Hl,z= H with x1,2 = x. Let Ho = (HI,, - x ~ ,U~{uw). ) It follows from the choice of H that it suffices to show that H,,- satisfies the cut condition: an eulerian orientation of H,- corresponds in a natural way to an eulerian orientation of and hence to an eulerian orientation of H; and V(Ho) 5 V(H), I E(H,) I=I E ( H ) I -1.

IV. 16

IV. Characterization Theorems and Corollaries

fH(x) >_ 2 implies fHo (x) 2 0 if x E V(Ho); but suppose there exists X c V(Ho) with x @ X such that f H o ( X ) < 0 (see a), and note that fHo(X) is even anyway). Let Cx denote the corresponding cut set in

Ho If uw @ Cx, then Cx = Cx, is also a cut set of < 0, with fHI,P(X1) where XI = X or XI = X U { x ~ , depending ~) on whether I {u, w) n X I= 0 or = 2. If uw E CX, then w.1.o.g. u E X, w $ X , and C i = (Cx-{uw))~{uxl,2) is a cut set of with f H l V z(X) < 0 (in this case x1,2 $Z XI = X ) . Consequently, in both cases we obtain XI C V(H) defining a cut set with f H(XI) < 0 unless uw @ CXI and x , , ~E XI. We now coilclude that u, w E X, XI - { x ~ , defines ~) in H a cut set C = Cx U {ux, wx), and thus f H (XI 0. Consequently f H (XI - { x ~ , ~= ) )0. Therefore, C is critical. Since u, w E X, x E V(H) - X, it follows from (1) that {x) = V(H) - X . This and a) yield fH(x) = 0, a contradiction which finishes the proof of (2).

<

Therefore, the critical cut sets of H are the sets C{,) where v E V(H) is arbitrary. Since E ( H ) # 0, there must exist x E V(H) with E, # 0. Since C{,) is critical, in the build-up of an eulerian orientation of H the orientation of every e E E, is defined by odH(x) - idH(x) (see b)). Correspondingly, replace e = xy with a E {(x, y), (y, x)) for a fixed e E E,, thus obtaining HI with V(H1) = V(H) and I E(H1) I
and by hypothesis

(with the subscripts H, HI chosen to avoid confusion). On the other hand, a E Cx yields eH(X) = eH,(X) 1 and I a z ( X ) - a i ( X ) 12 I a&(X) - a i , ( X ) I -1 .

+

Summarizing we obtain

IV.3. Mixed Graphs

Hence,

(Cx- {a)) U {e} is a critical cut set in H. Assuming w.1.o.g

we conclude I X I= 1 by (I), i.e. X = {t) for some t E V(H). By (2) and the construction of HI (see above), fH,(X) = fH(X) = 0 for X = {t), t # y. Therefore, X = {y) follows of necessity.

I X (5 IV(H) - XI

fH,(y) < 0 as well as (2) and the construction of HI imply fHl (y) = -2. Suppose (x, y) E A(H1). This together with fH1(x) = 0 and fH,(y) = -2 yields e ~ ( x ) = a i ( x ) - a + H ( ~ ) ~ e H ( ~ ) = a N ( ~ ) - a.+ H ( ~ ) Since

we obtain finally fH({x, y)) 5 -2, a contradiction to H satisfying the cut condition. Since the same contradiction follows from (y, x) E A(H1), we conclude that fH, (y) = 0 must hold in any case. Thus HI satisfies the cut condition. We conclude that HI has an eulerian orientation D (D = H' if E(H1) = 0) which is, however, also an eulerian orientation of H. This contradiction finishes the proof of Theorem IV.ll.

The main part of the proof of Theorem IV.ll as presented here differs significantly from those presented in [FORD62a, BATA77a1, but I do not know whether a similar proof has been achieved by someone else. We observe that the cut condition of Theorem IV.ll reduces to saying that every cut set is of even size if H is a graph, and that a+(X) = a-(X) for every cut set Cx if H is a digraph. Consequently, if we let X = {x), x E V(H), then this means that H is eulerian if H is a graph or digraph. Therefore, Theorem IV. 11 can be viewed as a common generalization of Theorems IV.l and IV.8., but also of Corollary IV.4 and IV.9. On the other hand, in Theorem IV.l and IV.8 it suffices for G, D respectively, to satisfy the cut condition for X = {x), x E V(G), V(D) respectively, to conclude the existence of an eulerian trail or a cycle decomposition. Therefore it is tempting to suspect that it suffices also in Theorem IV.ll to restrict the cut condition to X with I X I= 1. However, the mixed

IV.18

IV. Characterization Theorems and Corollaries

graph of Figure IV.4 (whose underlying graph is isomorphic to the graph of the octahedron) shows that this restriction is not sufficient for the existence of an eulerian trail. This has been observed also by Batagelj and Pisanski, [BATA77a], where they showed by another example that a corresponding theorem published in [COIC7la] is false. As for their proof of Theorem IV.11., [BATA77a, Theorem 41, they start by proving first that if e = xy is an edge of H such that no critical edge cut contains e, then e can be replaced arbitrarily by (x, y) or (y, x) in constructing an eulerian orientation of H. Next they note as we did in b) that if e E E ( X ) and Cx is critical, then the orientation of e in any eulerian orientation D of H is determined by the cut condition. Together with X they consider then another critical cut set Cy with e E Cy because in the construction of D the forced orientation of e could cause problems only for such Cy. This is similar to the way we looked at H' in the last part of the proof of Theorem IV.11., and this is where the similarities between the two proofs end. For, Batagelj and Pisanski in their next step, consider the six vertes

setsX,Y,A=XnY,B=X-A,C=Y-A,D=V(H)-(X~Y)and establish a system of six linear equations starting from the cut condition for the above six sets which yields f H ( X ) = fH(Y) = 0, f H (F) 2 0 for F = A, B, C, D. Then they investigate the impact of an orientation of e (violating the cut condition for either X or Y) on this system of equations. By reductio ad absurdum they then reach the final conclusion that if Cx, C, are any two critical cut sets with e E Cx n C,, then e can be oriented in such a way that the cut condition is not violated in H' = (H - { e ) ) U { a ) where a is the arc properly replacing e . The proof of Theorem IV. 11 in the Ford-Fulkerson-book, [FORD62a, Theorem 7.1, p.601, differs from the very outset. They use flows in digraphs and apply Hoffman's theorem (see Theorem 111.84) as follows: First replace every e = xy E E ( H ) by the pair of arcs (x, y), (y, x), thus obtaining a digraph Do from H. Define the intervals (1(u, v) , C(U,v)] (with 1standing for lower bound and c for capacity) for every (u, v) E A(DO)by C(U,v) = 1 and l(u, v) = 1 if ( u ,v) E A(H), l(u, v) = 0 otherwise. By this definition, the cut condition is transformed into the condition of Hoffman's theorem. Note that for a flow cp in Do,cp(a) G 1for a E A ( H ) , and cp can be assumed to be integral; thus cp(b) E {O,1) for b E A(Do). For e = xy E E ( H ) , replace e by (x, y) if and only if ~ ( xy), = 1 and cp(y, x) = 0. Doing this for every e E E ( H ) one arrives at HL which is either an eulerian digraph (and therefore, an

IV.3. Mised Graphs

Figure IV.4. A mixed graph satisfying the cut condition a t the vertices, which does not have an eulerian trail.

eulerian orientation of H ) , or H; is a mixed graph such that H; - E(H6) is an eulerian digraph. In the latter case it follows from the cut condition that Go = (E(H6)) is an eulerian graph. Using any eulerian orientation of Go, one extends the eulerian orientation H A -E(H6) of H -E(H6) C H onto the whole of H. Another idea (namely, reducing the problem of finding eulerian trails in mixed graphs to a transportation problem) has been developed in [SERD76a, Theorem 11, while Theorem 2 of that paper also deals with the problem in terms of maximal flows (although in a way different from the approach described above). These results yield a polynomial time algorithm of order O(&), an order which can be obtained for maximal flows in general.1)

While also discussing the mistake of [COIC7la] (see above), -4.1. Serdjukov suggests (on the grounds of his results), "that there may not esist such simple conditions in the case of mixed graphs" (as compared with the conditions for the existence of eulerian trails in graphs and digraphs) - a n error ~, 7, GO]. probably due to the lack of knowledge of [ F O R D G ~Theorem

IV.20

IV. Characterization Theorems and Corollaries

IV.4. Exercises Exercise IV.l.: Prove: a) A graph G has a cycle decomposition if and only if each component of G has a cycle decomposition. b) A graph G has a cycle decomposition if and only if every block of G has a cycle decomposition.

c) A connected graph G has an eulerian trail if and only if every block of G has an eulerian trail. Exercise IV.2: Prove Corollary IV.2. Exercise IV.3: Prove Corollary IV.3. Exercise IV.4: Prove Corollary IV.4. Exercise IV.5: Finish the proof of Theorem IV.8. Exercise IV.6: Prove: if D is an eulerian orientation of a 4-edgeconnected eulerian graph G and D, is obtained from D by replacing an arc (u, v) by (v, u) , then Dl is strongly connected. Exercise IV.7: Using an eulerian orientation of I<2,4r,try to construct an infinite family of eulerian digraphs for which there is no analogue of Theorem IV.5. Exercise IV.8: Prove or disprove: if D is an eulerian orientation of then the number of cycle decompositions of D is congruent 0 (mod 2) unless m = 1. Exercise IV.9: Prove Corollary IV.lO. Exercise IV.lO: Let Cx be a critical cut set of the weakly connected mixed graph H , X C V ( H ) ,and suppose E ( X ) # 0. Let H I ,H2 be the two graphs of the tie-up of H with respect to Cx.Show that if Di is an eulerian orientation of H i , then H has an eulerian orientation preserving i = 1,2. the orientation imposed on every e E E ( X ) in constructing Di,

Chapter V

EULER REVISITED AND AN OUTLOOK ON SOME GENERALIZATIONS V. 1. Trail Decomposition, Path/Cycle Decomposition With Chapter IV behind us, let us have a second look at the papers of Euler and Hierholzer. They stated and proved, in fact, more than the equivalence of the statements 1 ) and 2) of Theorem IV.l (Euler stated and Hierholzer proved). Namely (in our terminology): a con,nected graph G has a n open or closed covering trail if and only if G has at m o s t two odd vertices. Theorem IV.l relates only to the case where G has no odd vertices. However, the other case is a simple consequence of Theorem IV.l (note that by Lemma 111.4, G cannot have just one odd vertex). Corollary V.1. A graph G has an open covering trail T if and only if it is connected and has precisely two odd vertices; and these odd vertices are the ends of T. Proof. 1) Suppose G has an open covering trail T starting in u and ending in v. Adding an extra edge eo = uv (regardless of whether such edge exists already in G), we obtain Go = G U { e , ) having the closed covering (i.e., eulerian) trail To = T, eo,u. By Theorem IV. 1, Go is eulerian and, consequently, G = Go - {e,) has precisely u and v as its odd vertices which are the ends of T . Moreover, since every vertex x of G is reachable from u in T, there exists a path P(u, x) in G for fixed u and arbitrary x, where u, x E V(G). By Lemma 111.15, G is connected. 2) If G is connected and has precisely u and v as its odd vertices then construct the eulerian graph Go as above. By Theorem IV.l, Go has an eulerian trail To. Since To is a closed sequence, one can start the run through Toat any given vertex x along any given edge ex incident with x. Hence, choosing x = v and ex = ec, we can write To = v, e,, T where T is the subsequence of To starting in u and ending in v, but not

V.2

V. Euler Revisited and an Outlook on Some Generalizations

containing eo. Consequently, T is an open covering trail of G starting in u and ending in v; and its ends are the two odd vertices of G. Corollary V.l finds its natural generalization in Corollary V.2. below; this corollary is due to Listing and Lucas [LIST48a7LUCA82aI with Listing having stated it, but Lucas having provided the proof.

Corollary V.2. Let u,, . . v2,, m > 0, denote the odd vertices of the connected graph G. Then there is a decomposition of E(G) into m ) ; any open trails TI, . . - ,Tm with Ti having its ends in {v,, - . , v ~ ~ and decomposition of E(G) into open trails consists of at least m such trails. It follows that every vi, 1 5 i 5 2m, is an odd vertex of precisely one Tj, 1 5 j 5 m. a

,

< <

Proof. Form Go = G U Eo where Eo = { v ~ ~ - ~ iv ~ m) ~ /and ~ Eon E(G) = 0. By construction, Go is eulerian and has therefore, by Theorem IV.1, an eulerian trail To. Deleting Eo in Toresults in creating a sequence of m open subtrails TI, . . ,Tmof Towhose ends lie in {vl, - . . ,v2m) (note that Eo is a set of independent edges). {E(Tl), - . - ,E(Tm)) is a partition of E(G) because E(To) = E(Go) = Eou E(Ti) and Eon E(G) = 0. On the other hand, if E(G) is partitioned into r open trails, then every vi, 1 i 2m, is an end-vertex of at least one such trail. Consequently r 2 m. Corollary V.2 now follows.

UEl

< <

If we look at the open trails TI, . . ,T, into which E(G) is decomposed (where G is connected or, in the more general case, every component of G has odd vertices), then we can decompose each Ti, 1 i 5 m, into a path Pi joining two odd vertices of G plus a set Si of edge-disjoint cycles (possibly Si = 0) since Ti -Piis eulerian (and has therefore a cycle decomposition). Therefore, UE1(Siu{Pi)) is a pathlcycle decomposition of G. If G is a general graph with an eulerian component, then this component has a cycle decomposition, while for an acyclic component of G (i.e., a tree) we have a path decomposition. Since both types of decompositions are special cases of pathlcycle decompositions we obtain as a consequence of Corollary V.2 the following.

<

Corollary V.3. If G is an arbitrary graph, then it has a path/cycle decomposition where the number of paths in this decomposition is half the number of odd vertices of G. As we shall see later, in the case of planar graphs there exist path/cycle decompositions satisfying certain restrictions.

V.2. Parity Results

V.3

Before we continue our theoretical considerations, a word about Listing's work. His monograph " Vorstvdien aur Topologie", [LIST48a], can be considered one of the cornerstones in the development of graph theory. However, as far as the development of eulerian graph theory goes, his contribution to the subject treated in this book, is not as significant as any one of the 'three pillars' (Concerning his pioneering work in the development of graph theory, see also Konig7sbook [1<0~136a]and, more recently, R.J. Wilson's articles, [WILS85a, WILS86al).

Parity Results Concerning an alternate characterization of the graphs addressed in Corollary V.l, we have the following result as a corollary of Theorem IV.5 ([TOID73a, Theorem I]).

Corollary V.4. Let G be a graph with u and v as its only odd vertices. Then the number of paths joining u and v is odd. Proof. Form Go = G U (e,) for eo = uv $! E(G), even if u and v are adjacent in G. Since Go is eulerian, there is an odd number of cycles C in Go containing eo (Theorem IV.5). P(u, v) = C - {e,} is a path joining u and v for each of these cycles C; and conversely, for every P ( u , v) in G, P(u, v) U {eo) is a cycle of Go containing eo. Hence the number of paths joining u and v in G is odd. We remark that Toida proved Corollary V.4 first, in order to deduce the necessary condition for a graph to be eulerian, as stated in Theorem IV.5. Now we can prove another characterization of eulerian graphs (see also [TOID73a, Theorem 1111 and [BOND86a, Corollary 3.41).

Corollary V.5. A graph G is eulerian if and only if for every u, v E V(G), the number of paths joining u and v is even. Proof. 1) Suppose G is eulerian. Let u, v E V(G) be arbitrarily chosen and let Go = G U {e,} for eo = uv 6 E(G) as before. Go has u and v as its only odd vertices. By Corollary V.4, u and v are joined by an odd number of paths one of which is u, eo,v. Hence u and v are joined in G by an even number of paths. 2) If every pair of vertices of G is joined by an even number of paths, then this is true for every adjacent pair. So, if e = xy E E(G) is arbitrarily

V.4

V. Euler Revisited and an Outlook on Some Generalizations

chosen, then there is an odd number of paths in G joining x and y and not containing e. Each of these paths together with e yields a cycle containing e; hence e belongs to an odd number of cycles of G. Since e E E(G) was arbitrarily chosen, G is eulerian by Theorem IV.5. Corollary V.5 now follows. Let w(G) denote the number of paths of G (including paths of length zero). Corollary V.5 yields another parity result for eulerian graphs ([BOND86a, Corollary 2.71).

Corollary V.6. Let G be an eulerian graph on p(G) vertices. Then w (G) = p(G) (mod 2). The proof of Corollary V.6 is left to the reader (Exercise V.l). However, the paper [BOND86a] contains much more than what we quoted. There, apart from eulerian graphs, many parity results on graphs having only odd vertices are proved. Their method is an extension of a proof technique developed by A.G. Thomason, [THOA78a].

Remark V.7. Quite frequently, and probably because of what has been said in the introductory remarks to this chapter, various authors define an eulerian graph as a connected graph with 0 or 2 odd vertices; or, if no odd vertices are permitted, connectedness is the least a graph requires in order to be called eulerian. In those instances, an eulerian graph as defined in this book, is called an even graph. It should be pointed out, however, that the definition of an eulerian graph as presented in this book, is not a whim of the author but nothing less than the definition ~~, given by KBnig himself ( [ I c o N I ~ p.191).

V.3. Double Tracings The next result also has its roots in Euler's paper (see Chapter 11, 518 of that paper), and has been proved - apparently for the first time - in Konig's book, [ K O N I ~p.231. ~~,

Corollary V.8. Every connected graph has a closed covering walk using every edge exactly twice. - Konig reduces the proof to doubling every edge g, thus creating an eulerian graph and considering an eulerian trail in this graph. This trail then corresponds to a covering wallc in the original graph such that every edge is used exactly twice.

V.4. Crossing the Border: Detachments of Graphs

V.5

In a similar reduction, but now to Theorem IV.8, we obtain a stronger result; its proof is left to the reader (Exercise V.4).

Corollary V.9. Every connected graph has a closed covering walk using every edge exactly once in each of its two directions. - This result will resurface as the output of algorithms on mazes (see Chapter X); it can thus be viewed as due to Tr6maux and Tarry. It is worth noting that after proving Corollary V.8, ICi5nig states and proves Veblen7s characterization theorem, and then goes on to discuss the Konigsberg Bridges Problem and the Domino Problem. He does not ask whether there is an analogue to Corollary V.8 relating to Veblen7s characterization theorem the same way as Corollary V.8 relates to the Euler-Hierholzer characterization theorem. That is, Konig does not asli the following question: i f G is a bridgeless graph, is there a cycle cover using every edge exactly twice ? P.D. Seymour [SEYM79a, Conjecture 3.31, and especially F. Jaeger, [JAEG85a], in studying this question are not able to trace the 'father7 of the problem; and neither am I. On the other hand, in view of Theorem IV.l and Corollary V.8 it is only natural to ask this question; and it is therefore surprising that it was not asked a long time ago.l) So, at an early stage we have encountered an unsolved problem which has occupied quite a few researchers for a considerable amount of time during the past twelve years or so. We shall discuss this and related problems and results related to them, extensively.

V.4. Crossing the Border: Detachments of Graphs In a series of papers, [NASH79a7NASH85a, NASH85b, NASH87a1, NashWilliams generalizes the concept of splitting away pairs of edges from a vertex (as defined in this book to obtain from G), to define what KSnig's book contains numerous footnotes and remarks about the history of graph theoretical results and conjectures, but no trace of this problem can be found there. Also, in response t o an inquiry by me, W.T. Tutte (who is probably the one t o know if anyone knows) writes: "I too have been puzzled to find an original reference. I think the conjecture is one that was well established in mathematical conversation long before anyone thought of publishing it."

V.6

V. Euler Revisited and a n Outlook on Some Generalizations

he calls a detachment of a graph. His starting point is the same as ours, namely (see also the proof of Theorem IV.l): if G is an eulerian graph, then through a sequence of splitting procedures performed in such a way that a t each step the resulting graph is still connected (see the Splitting Lemma), one finally arrives at a cycle which corresponds to an eulerian trail of G. Conversely, if T is an eulerian trail of G, then performing the splitting procedure according to the transitions defined by T finally yields a cycle C ; and this correspondence between various eulerian trails T of G and cycles C obtained by a sequence of splitting procedures from G is a bijection. We summarize these considerations.

Corollary V.lO. A graph G has an eulerian trail T if and only if G can be transformed into a cycle C through repeated application of the splitting procedure on vertices of valency exceeding 2. Moreover, the number of eulerian trails of G equals the number of different labeled cycles into which G can be transformed this way. We now have a look at the four papers of Nash-Williams which (so much can be said without hesitation) establish an interesting approach to graph theory. This method encompasses a much wider scope of graphs than just eulerian graphs.

Definition V . l l . Let F and G be graphs. We call F a detachment of G if and only if E ( F ) = E(G) and there exists a mapping a from V ( F ) onto V(G) which is adjacency preserving (i.e., e = xy E E ( F ) implies e = .rr(x)a(y) E E(G)). Remark V.12. By Definition V.11, for x # y we may have a(x) = a(y), i.e., a non-loop of F may be a loop of G (note that since E ( F ) = E(G), the extension of a onto E ( F ) is the identity mapping on E(F)). However, if G is loopless, then for every v E V(G), a-'(v) is an independent set of V(F). In any case, however, a is a special type of homomorphism from F onto G which acts bijectively on the edge sets of F and G. With the concept of detachment at hand we can restate Corollary V.10 as follows.

Corollary V.13. A graph G has an eulerian trail if and only if it has a detachment which is a cycle. As an illustration of Corollaries V.10 and V.13 see Figure V.l (The labels of the edges in G indicate the order in which the edges are passed in an eulerian trail of G).

V.5. Exercises

Figure V.1. A graph G with prescribed eulerian trail and its transformation into a cycle F; or: the cycle F is a detachment of G (defining thus an eulerian trail of G).

In his papers, Nash-Williams applies the concept of detachment to graphs, but also to infinite graphs. To demonstrate one of the directions into which research is being pursued in [NASH79a, NASH85a, NASH85b, NASH87a1, we just quote [NASH85b, Corollary 8.01.

Corollary V.14. Let k be an even positive integer, and let G be a k-edgeconnected graph. For every v E V(G), let f, be a sequence of integers, f, = n,, ,nl(,) such that ni k, 1 5 i l(v), and ;!~f ni = degG(v). Then G has a k-edge-connected detachment F such that for every v E V(G), T-'(v) = {v,,---,vl(,)) and degF(vi) = ni, 1 5 i l(v).

>

<

<

Note that Corollary V.13 follows from Corollary V.14 by letting k = 2,Z(v) = $degG(v) for every v E V(G), and ni = 2 for 1 i 5 Z(v).

<

V. 5. Exercises Exercise V.1. Prove Corollary V.6 with the help of Corollary V.5.

V.8

V. Euler Revisited and an Outlook on Some Generalizations

Exercise V.2. Formulate and prove the analogue of Corollaries V.l, V.2 and V.3 for digraphs. Try the same for mixed graphs. Exercise V.3. Construct a digraph which shows that Corollary V.4 is not valid for digraphs in general. Exercise V.4. Prove Corollary V.9.

Chapter VI

VARIOUS TYPES OF EULERIAN TRAILS

Let us consider the proof of Theorem IV.l where we applied the Splitting Lemma to reach the conclusion that a connected eulerian graph G has an eulerian trail T. If we apply the Splitting Lemma systematically, then we can produce such T (see the chapter on algorithms for finding eulerian trails, but also Corollary V.13). However, the Splitting Lemma tells us more than that: namely, that we are not too restricted at any given stage in producing an eulerian trail, whence we conclude that G must have many eulerian trails, and that one might impose restrictions (apart from the natural restriction expressed by the Splitting Lemma) on the course of some eulerian trail of G. This chapter deals precisely with the question as to which type of restrictions can be imposed.

VI. 1. Eulerian Trails Avoiding Certain Transitions In this section we deal first with a restriction which acts locally and is purely set theoretical, so to say. Consider the set E,+for an arbitrary vertex v of an eulerian connected graph G. How many transitions {e(v), f (v)} can be chosen as forbidden transitions at v where e and f are arbitrary elements of E, ? In other words: what is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of an eulerian trail T of G such that T avoids any of the prescribed transitions ? Kotzig, [KOTZ68a, Theorem 11, answered this question in the following theorem for which we recall Definition 111.41.

Theorem VI.l. Let G be a connected eulerian graph, and for every v E V(G), let P(v) be a partition of E,*. The following statements are equivalent.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

1) G has a P(G)-compatible eulerian trail. 2) For every v E V(G) and every class C E P(v) C P(G), I C I< $dG(V). Proof. 1) implies 2). Let T be a P(G)-compatible eulerian trail of G. Consider for arbitrary v E V ( G )and any C E P(v) all sections e, v, f of T for which C n {e(v), f (v)) # 8. Since T is P(G)-compatible we conclude e(v) E C if and only if f (v) # C; i.e., I C n {e(v), f (v)) I= 1. Since every edge of G appears precisely once in T we conclude 1 C 15 $dG(v). 2) implies 1). We proceed by induction on a(G) and observe that the implication is true for a(G) = 0. For, a(G) = 0 implies I C I= 1 for every C E P(G), whence we conclude that a run through the cycle G is necessarily P(G)-compatible. Hence suppose o(G) > 0. Now choose v E V(G) with dG(u) > 2, and choose C1 E P(v) such that I C, I= max{l C I /C E P(v)). Take any el(v) E C,, and let e2(v),e,(v) be any two distinct elements of E: - C,; they exist because of the choice of v and (C, I< $dG(v). Applying the Splitting Lemma we is connected (see conclusion 2) of the proof conclude w.1.o.g. that of that lemma). Let C2 E P(v) denote the class containing e2(v) and let PL(v) := P(v) - {C1,C2). NOWwe define P1(w) := P(w)

for every

w E V(G,,,) - {v, v,,,)

P1(v1,2) := {{e,(v)), {e2(7J))I

P-(v)u{C, - {e1(v)}, C2 P- (v) U {C, - {e,(v)}} P- (v)

- {e2(v)}I

if IC21> 1 if IC,I>IC,I= 1 if IC, I=IC2 I= 1

We observe the following facts regarding G and P(G); they follow from statement 2) and the choice of v, e l , e2.

a) For every w E V(G1,2) - {v, v , , ~ ) and every C' E P(w) we havelC')< $dG(w) = $dGI2(w).

c P(G)

b) I C" I> I C, - {el (v)) I for some C" E Pf(v) implies C" E P(v) and Ic, I
VI. 1. Eulerian Trails Avoiding Certain Transitions

VI.3

We conclude from a ) and b) that statement 2) is fulfilled regarding Glz and P ( G l 2 ) . Furthermore, a(G1,2) < a(G). The theorem now follows by induction. Remark. Kotzig says in [KOTZ68a] that his Theorem 1 (i.e. Theorem VI.l) is the answer to a question posed by Nash-Williams at the Graph Theory Colloquium held at Tihany in 1966. However, the proceedings of that Colloquium do not contain any reference to this or a similar problem posed by Nash-Williams (who, in a private communication, told the author of this book that he does not recall ever having posed this problem). But in this case, it is irrelevant who posed the problem; what counts are the various directions into which this theorem points, if one makes special assumptions concerning G and P(G). The following result [I
G, U Gb = G, dG, (u) = dGb(u) for every u E V(G) , and the edges of G, and Gb alternate in T. 2) If G is the edge-disjoint union of two subgraphs G, and Gb with

dG,(u) = dGb(u)for every u E V(G), then G has an eulerian trail in which edges of G, and Gb alternate. Proof. A) Coloring the edges of T alternatingly with T (red) and b (blue) as one runs through T, yields the subgraphs G, and Gb as described in 1 ) (for vo, the initial and end vertex of T, we have dG,(uo) = dGa(uO) precisely because I E (G) I is even).

B) Part 2) of the corollary follows from Theorem VI.l by observing that every P(u) consists of two classes of equal size.

VI.4

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

From part A) of the proof of Corollary VI.2 we deduce directly an important result contained in Petersen's famous paper [PETESla].

Corollary VI.3. Every 2k-regular graph having an even number of edges can be decomposed into two k-factors. Consequently, every 4-regular graph can be decomposed into two 2-factors. Theorem VI.l can be generalized in a way similar to the generalization of Theorem IV.l expressed in Corollary V.2. This has been done in [I
Corollary VI.4. Let G be a graph such that every component of G contains at least one odd vertex, and let P(v) be a partition of E: for every v E V(G). The following statements are equivalent. 1) G has a P(G)-compatible decomposition into p open trails (where 2p is the number of odd vertices of G). 2) For every v E V(G) and every class C E P(v) 1 15 dG(v))-

+

c P(G),

Proof. Since every component of G contains odd vertices by hypothesis, it suffices to prove Corollary VI.4 for connected graphs with odd vertices. As in the proof of Corollary V.2, form an eulerian graph Go from G by joining pairs of odd vertices by an additional edge each. Define Po(v) = P(v) for even vertices v of G; and for odd v, define Po(v) = P ( v ) U {{eO(v)}}where eo(v) corresponds to the edge eo E E(Go)- E(G) joining v and some other odd vertex of G. P(Go) = U V ~ vP(o (v) ~ ) satisfies statement 2) of Theorem VI.l if and only if P ( G ) satisfies statement 2) of Corollary VI.4. On the other hand, a P(Go)-compatible eulerian trail T of Go corresponds to a P(G)compatible decomposition S of G into p open trails, and vice versa. These equivalences and the validity of Theorem VI.l imply the validity of Corollary VI.4. Unfortunately, the parallelisms between Theorem IV.l and Theorem VI.l, and between Corollary V.2 and Corollary VI.4, cannot be extended to a statement on P(G)-compatible path/cycle decompositions following Corollary V.3. This is the case, even if P(G) = X(G) is a system of transitions. Later on in the considerations on compatibility (see the third volume of this monograph), we shall discuss certain examples.

VI. 1. Eulerian Trails Avoiding Certain Transitions

VI.5

Next we specify P(G) for the connected eulerian graph G without 2valent vertices, by assuming that P(G) is a system of transitions X(G) (see Definition 111.41). Thus we have the next corollary as a trivial consequence of Theorem VI.1; it can be proved, however, by simply using the Splitting Lemma (i.e., without relying on Theorem VI.l). Corollary VI.5. Let G be a connected eulerian graph without 2-valeat vertices, and let X = X (G) be a system of transitions of G. Then an eulerian trail T exists which is compatible with X. In particular, T exists if X = XT, is the system of transitions induced by an eulerian trail T' of G. Consequently, we can say that if S(G) > 2, then G has at least two mutually compatible eulerian trails. But what is the largest number of mutually compatible eulerian trails in a connected eulerian graph G with S(G) > 2 ? We shall deal with this question in the next section of this chapter. We further specialize by assuming that G is a 4-regular graph embedded in some surface F ,and that X(v) c X(G) is a pair of intersecting transitions for every v E V(G) (see Definition III.42a). Corollary VI.6. If G is a connected 4-regular graph embedded in some surface 3,then G has an A-trail. Proof. Choose X(G) to be a system of intersecting transitions (see above), and apply Corollary VI.5. The edge-sequence 1,2,. . .,12 in Figure V.l gives an example of an Atrail of the octahedron. However, not only can Corollary VI.6 be proved directly by applying the Splitting Lemma (Exercise VI.3), but it is also a consequence of the following result which can also be obtained by applying the Splitting Lemma (Exercise VI.4). L e m m a VI.7. Let G be a connected eulerian graph embedded in some surface 3. Then G has a non-intersecting eulerian trail.

It follows from the definitions of an A-trail, respectively of a nonintersecting eulerian trail (see Definition III.42a) that these two concepts coincide in the 4-regular case (or, more generally, if G is an eulerian graph with A(G) < 6). However, as we shall see in the section on A-trails, there exist 2-connected plane graphs having 4- and 6-valent vertices only, without A-trails (but they do have non-intersecting eulerian trails by Lemma VI. 7).

VI.6

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

We observe that Corollary VI.6 and Lemma VI.7 are folklore results for the planar case (see, for example, [TUTT4la], [KOTZ68c, Theorem 101, and [HARA69a7Exercise 11.21). For graphs embedded in some arbitrary surface 3,Belyj [BELY83a] proves a result which does not rely on surface embeddings as such but rather on a predefined cyclic order of E,*for every v E V(G) (this is implicit in Belyj's paper, although he does not mention it - therefore his definitions lack clarity to some extent). However, both Corollary VI.6 and Lemma VI.7 are trivial consequences of the Splitting Lemma, as is the following lemma (from which the above two results follow immediately) which is the essence of Belyj's paper, (see [BELY83a, Theorem I]); we leave its proof to the reader (see Exercise VI.4).

Lemma VI.8. Let G be a connected eulerian graph with a prescribed order O+(E,*)of the half-edges incident with v, for every v E V(G). Then G has a non-intersecting eulerian trail. Remark. As a matter of historical record, we note that Kotzig, apparently unaware of [TUTT4la], proves Corollary VI.6 for 3 being the plane (calling a-line what is called here A-trail) by applying Corollary VI.5 restricted to 4-regular graphs (see [KOTZ68c, Theorem 31). On the other hand, the paper [TUTT4la] starts with the statement "Consider a plane network v at all of whose nodes exactly 4 lines meet. By Euler's theorem, i t is possible t o find unicursal paths in such a network which do not cross themselves..." (network = graph, unicursal path = eulerian trail, H.F.). This statement, while correct (see Corollary VI.6), does not automatically follow from Theorem IV.l (see also Euler's original paper). Lemma VI.8 has its generalizations for arbitrary graphs as well; we leave their proofs as exercises (their statements in [BELY83a] are less general than the ones given here, but it is apparent that the author had in mind the more general statements - see his Definitions 6 and 7).

Corollary VI.9. Let G be a connected graph having precisely two odd vertices, and let O+(E,*) be given as in Lemma VI.8. Then G has a non-intersecting open covering trail. Corollary VI.lO. Let G be a connected graph, and let O+(E:) be given as in Lemma VI.8. Then G has a decomposition into n mutually non-

intersecting open non-intersecting trails (where 2 n is the number of odd vertices of G). Belyj's definitions are a little bit foggy as he does not use any O+(E:) but simply speaks of the vertices vl, . . . ,v, incident with v in G (in

VI.l.l. P(D)-Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.7

his Definition 1, he replaces v with the n-gon v1v2- - - vn and lets vi be adjacent to v' - which is problematical, the more so as he allows G to have loops and multiple edges). Consequently, his Theorem 2 is false in the non-planar case: trying to establish an analogue to Lemma VI.8 for eulerian digraphs he claims that such graphs have a non-intersecting eulerian trail if and only i f at every vertex v, arcs incident to v alternate with arcs incident from v. Figure VI.1 shows an eulerian orientation D2,4 of the K 2 which, if embedded on the torus or on the projective plane, yields a non-intersecting eulerian trail contradicting Belyj's statement. I

Figure VI.l. An A-trail of D2, where in- and out-going arcs are not alternating in the vertices x and y.

VI.1.1. P(D)-Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs We now try to rephrase some of the preceding results for digraphs. The digraph D2 of Figure VI.l shows that Theorem VI.l has no simple analogue fo; digraphs: for, if we define

then there is no eulerian trail of D2,4 compatible with X(D2,,). This should not be surprising, though, since - generally speaking - for every arc e incident to some vertex v of the connected eulerian digraph D , there

VI.8

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

are id(v) - 1 = id(v) - 1 arcs which cannot be (immediately) consecutive to e in any eulerian trail of D (namely, all arcs incident to v and different frorn e). That is, the fact that D is a digraph and not a graph, in itself imposes a certain partition P(v) of At for every v E V(D) - namely the one consisting of two classes one of which is (At)+, the other being (At)-. For this 'natural' partition P(v) and the corresponding P ( D ) , a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail is just any eulerian trail of D. On the other hand, for an arbitrary P(D), the existence of a P ( D ) compatible eulerian trail implies statement 2) of Theorem VI.1 (with D replacing G in that statement). Figure VI.2 below shows, however, that this statement is not sufficient for the existence of a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail. So, let us consider an arbitrary partition system P ( D ) of D. Because of the Splitting Lemma (applied to D such that Dl12and are eulerian where el is an arc incident to v - hence e2, e3 are arcs incident from v), one may suspect that if for every v E V(G) and any half-arc e- E C- E P(v) c P ( D ) (where e - is incident to v), there are two half-arcs e r ,e l E C+ E P(v) (where ef ,e l are incident from v), and C+ # C-, then D has a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail. In other words, if P ( D ) leaves, at every vertex v, for every e- E (At)- (at least) two choices to define a transition {e-, e t ) , i = 1,2, is this sufficient for the esistence of a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail of D ? The answer is negative as one can see from the digraph of Figure VI.2 by trial and error. However, the following result for digraphs (which seems to be new) can be considered an analogue to Theorem VI.l.

Theorem VI.ll. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph, and for every v E V(D), let P(v) be a partition of A:. If D has a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail, then 1)for every v E V(D) and every C E P(v) C P ( D ) , I C 15 $ dD(u) . If statement 1 ) holds true and if P ( D ) satisfies 2)for every v E V(D) with dD(v) > 2,1 P(v) I> idD(v) then D has a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail.

+ 2,

Proof. It follows from the discussion preceding Figure VI.2 that it suffices to prove that the statements 1 ) and 2) imply the existence of a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail in D.

VI.l.l. P(D)-Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI. 9

Figure VI.2. A 3-regular digraph together with a system of transitions X (marked by little arcs) having no eulerian trail compatible with X.

Consider an arbitrary v E V(D) with dD(v) > 2. Statement 2) implies even for the largest class C, E P(v) that I C1 I< $dD(v) (hence statement 1)is relevant only for the 2-valent vertices). Consequently, if C1 is not affected by the splitting procedure yielding then we still have for Cl E P1(v) C P(DIy2),I C, 15 f d,(u) - 1 = i d D l s 2(v) (compare this notation with the one used in the proof of Theorem VI.l). Furthermore, statement 2) implies that for such v E V(D), I P(v) 12 4 holds. Consequently, we deduce the following property: 3) If dD(v) 2 4 for some v E V(D), then either

a ) for every C E P(v), C f l (A:)+ # 0 if and only i f C n ( A ; ) - = 0

b) C, C', C" E P(v) exist with Co n (A:)+ # 0 # Co n ( A : ) - and C' i l (A;)+ = C" n (A:)+ = 0 (note: I (A;)+ I= i d D ( v ) and I P(v) I> $d,(v) 2).

+

Now we assume the theorem to be false and choose a counterexample D with minimal a ( D ) 0. The case a ( D ) = 0 being treated the same way as in the proof of Theorem VI.l (just replace the letter D with the letter G), we conclude from the resulting contradiction that some v E V(D)

>

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 10

is not 2-valent. Choose such a v and consider for P(v) the two cases corresponding to 3)a) and 3) b) above. In the first case we simply apply repeatedly the Splitting Lemma until v has been replaced with k = idD(v) 2-valent vertices, and the digraph Dl obtained is connected and eulerian. We choose the notation in such a way that we have for these k 2-valent vertices P' (vii) = {{a; (v)), {a: (v))) with a i ( v ) E (At)- and a+(v) E (At)+ for i = 1,- -.,k. Since a(D1) < a ( D ) we conclude that for P ( D f ) = (P(D) - P(v)) U P1(vi,), a P(D1)-compatibleeulerian trail of D' exists which corresponds to a P(D)compatible eulerian trail of D because of the construction of P(D1).

u,:

In the second case let a l (v) E Co n (At)+,a2(v) E C1n (At)-, a,(v) E C1' n (At)- be arbitrarily chosen. By the proof of the Splitting Lemma, Dl,, or is connected (both are eulerian anyway); w.1.o.g. is connected. Let P1(w) for w # v, vlj2,P'(v,,~),Pf(v) and P ( D l ,) be defined the same way as we did in the proof of Theorem VI.l. From the discussion preceding 3) we deduce that P(D1,2) satisfies statement I), and the choice of Co implies

i.e., P(D1,2) satisfies statement 2) as well (observe that 3)b) implies dD(v) 6). From this and a(D1,,) < a ( D ) we deduce the existence of a P ( D l ,)-compatible eulerian trail in Dlq which, by construction, corresponds to a P(D)-compatible eulerian t r a l of D.

>

In both cases 3)a) and 3)b) we obtained a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail of D l which contradicts the choice of D. Theorem VI.ll now follows. The lower bound in the inequality of statement 2) of Theorem VI.ll is best possible; this is demonstrated by the digraph Do of Figure VI.3 and its reduction to DL. Looking at any 4-valent vertex v of Do, it is clear that for I P(v) I= 3 the splitting of v satisfying P(Do)-compatibility is uniquely determined. And this is, basically, the reason why one cannot improve the lower bound in statement 2) without further assumptions concerning the structure of some arbitrary eulerian digraph D and concerning P ( D ) . For, by applying sequences of splitting procedures according to the Splitting Lemma, one may arrive at a connected eulerian digraph with just two 4-valent

VI.l.l. P(D)-Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI. 11

vertices and all the other vertices being Zvalent, and a system of transitions analogous to X(D2,,) as defined in the discussion following Figure VI.l. It follows from the above that replacing {4,5) with (4)) (5) and {3,6) with (31, (6) in X(D2,,) does not alter the problem. And if we alter P ( x ) in Figure VI.3 by letting Ci = C, U C3, C; = C2 n ( A : ) - , Ci = C, n (A:)+,Ci = C,, and P1(x) = {Ci, C;, C;, C;) (where Ci is represented in Figure VI.3 by the arcs marked i), then for

there is no Pf(D)-compatible eulerian trail of D either.

Figure VI.3. Do and P(D,) (where the different classes of P(v) are represented by different numbers for every v E V(Do)) and its unique transformation to Dt, and P(Dt,) following P(Do)-compatibility. Dt, has no P(D6)-compatible eulerian trail; therefore, Do has no P(Do)-compatible eulerian trail.

So, let us specialize concerning the structure of D and the structure of

P(D). Definition VI.12. For a digraph D with given partition system P ( D ) , we say P ( D ) is almost transitional if and only if for every v E V(D)

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 12

and every C E P(v) c P(D), the inequality IC (52 holds. In this case we write X*(D) instead of P ( D ) and X*(v) instead of P(v). Corollary VI.13. If we replace in Theorem VI.ll P ( D ) with X*(D) (where X*(D) is an almost transitional partition system), and 2) with 2') every v E V(D) with dD(v) > 2 satisfies dD(v) 2 8 and I X*(v) 12 idD(v) 1,

+

then we obtain a true statement. The proof of Corollary VI.13 can be reduced to an application of Theorem VI.ll (if one properly applies the Splitting Lemma at every v with dD(v) > 2), and is therefore left to the reader (Exercise VI.7). Moreover, by the same argument used in Exercise VI.7, one can lower the lower bound in 2') to ?jdD (v) if every vertex v satisfies dD(v) > 8 unless it is 2-valent. Thus we obtain another corollary. Corollary VI.14 If we replace in Corollary VI.13 dD(v) 2 8 with dD(v) > 8 and I X*(v) 12 $dD(v) 1 with I X*(v) 12 gdD(v), then we obtain a true statement.

+

By a further specialization concerning dD(v) and P ( D ) we obtain another result. Corollary VI.15. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph, and let a system of transitions X (D) be given. If S(D) > 6, then D has an eulerian trail compatible with X(D). Proof. By Corollary VI.14, it suffices to replace every 8-valent vertex in an appropriate manner with four 2-valent vertices. The application of Corollary VI.14 to the digraph thus obtained then finishes the proof of Corollary VI. 15. If D has no 8-valent vertices, then D and X(D) satisfy the hypothesis of Corollary VI.14, and Corollary VI.15 follows. If however, D has an 8-valent vertex v indeed, then let a+ E (At)+ and af E (At)- such , 1,2,3,4), and and are that w.1.o.g. X(v) = { { a ~ , a ~i) = connected. If (D1,3)2,4 and (D1,3)4,2are both disconnected, then by the Double Splitting Lemma (Lemma III.27), at least one of (D1,4)2,3 and (D1,2)4,3 is connected; say, (D1,4)2,3is connected. Moreover, by the Splitting Lemma either ((D1,4)2,3)3,1or ((D1,4)2,3)3,2is connected; say, H = ((D1,4)2,3)3,1is connected. But then H is a connected eulerian digraph obtained from D by replacing v with four 2-valent vertices, and

VI.l.l. P(D)-Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI. 13

such that every ( X ( D )-X(U))-compatible eulerian trail of H corresponds to an X(D)-compatible eulerian trail of D. If, however, (D1,3)2,4or (D1,3)4,, is connected then a further application of the Splitting Lemma yields the same conclusion (note that eulerian digraphs are bridgeless in any case by Corollary IV.9). Applying this construction to every 8 - d e n t vertex of D we obtain an eulerian digraph to which Corollary VI.14 can be applied. Corollary VI.13 now follows. Figure VI.2 shows that Corollary VI.15 is best possible concerning the restriction on the minimum valency esceeding 2; and there are infinitely many examples demonstrating this fact. To see this, take any 3-regular digraph D and subdivide any two arcs a l , a,. Then join the two subdivision vertices s l , s2 by two arcs of the form (sl, s2) and two arcs of the form (s2,s l ) , and define x(sl) and X (s,) as indicated by Figure VI.4.

Figure VI.4. The 3-regular digraph D, constructed from the 3-regular digraph D.

We leave it a s an exercise to check that Dl has an eulerian trail compatible with X ( D l ) = X ( D ) U X ( s l ) U X(s2) if and only if D has an eulerian trail compatible with a given X(D). Consequently, if D is the digraph of Figure VI.2 or any 3-regular digraph obtained from this digraph by repeated application of the extension indicated by Figure VI.4,

VI.14

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

and if X ( D ) is defined correspondingly, then D has no X(D)-compatible eulerian trail. However, if X(D) = XT is the transition system of an eulerian trail T of D , then we obtain a somewhat stronger result which can be viewed as the analogue to Corollary VI.5 for digraphs. Corollary VI.16. If D is a connected eulerian digraph with S(D) > 4 and T is an eulerian trail of D, then a T-compatible eulerian trail Tf of D exists.

Proof. In view of Corollary VI.15 it suffices to construct from D a connected eulerian digraph D t without 4- and 6-valent vertices with X ( D t ) being induced by X T such that no transition of T at a 6-valent vertex of D defines A: where x is 2-valent in Dl. In fact we can do better by constructing Dt in such a way that X(D1) defines an eulerian trail of Dl. For this purpose we assume D to have a 6-valent vertex v (otherwise, by Corollary VI.15, nothing has to be proved). Write T in the form

where X(v) = {{ei(v)-,ei(v)+)li = 1,2,3) e,(v)+ E (At)+, i = l,2,3. Then

XT with e,(v)-

E (A:)-,

is an eulerian trail of D which follows T everywhere except in v where it behaves like a T-compatible eulerian trail of D. Doing this step by step for every 6-valent vertex of D we finally obtain an eulerian trail T1which coincides with T in all but the 6-valent vertices; and in these vertices it behaves like a T-compatible eulerian trail of D. Denoting by Dl the digraph obtained from D by replacing every 6-valent vertex with three 2-valent vertices such that TI corresponds to an eulerian trail of Dl, we have arrived at an eulerian digraph without 4- and 6-valent vertices with a system of transitions X(Df) induced by T and defining an eulerian trail of Dl. By the construction of Df,X(Dt) respectively, any eulerian trail of D f resulting from the application of Corollary VI.15 to Dl, corresponds to a T-compatible eulerian trail of D. Corollary VI.16 now follows. It is clear that Corollary VI.16 cannot be extended to include eulerian digraphs with 4-valent vertices (see the discussion preceding Definition

VI.l.l. P(D)-Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.15

VI.12). It is not clear which 2-regular digraphs have an eulerian trail compatible with a given eulerian trail; a related problem will be considered in subsection VI.1.2. We continue our search for results on digraphs analogous to the results previously established for graphs. As for Corollary VI.2, it is clear that if we proceed as in the proof of that Corollary, then we can write D = D, U Db (with D, and Db being arc-disjoint), while the degree condition is being transformed into

(any 'red' arc incident to v is matched by a 'blue' arc incident from v, and vice versa). However, statement 2) of Corollary VI.2 is no longer valid for eulerian digraphs: to see this, consider any connected eulerian digraph D with an even number of arcs and a 4-valent cut vertex x (such digraphs exist ! - see Exercise VI.9). Then we can write

D = D, U D2, Dl n D, = x, and Di is connected for i = 1,2. Thus idDl (x) = idD, (x) = odDl (x) = odD2(2) = 1. Consider any bluered coloring of the arcs in accordance with an eulerian trail of D, and interchange the color classes on D,. Now assume D has been chosen in such a way that I A(Di) 1 s 0 (mod 2), i = 1,2, and w.1.o.g. the arc incident to x in Dl has been colored red. Then 1') (see above) is still fulfilled for this new blue-red coloring, but we have

that is, every eulerian trail of D arriving at x via the red arc in D, must continue from x along the red arc in D2. Generally speaking, we are faced with the (somewhat more general) problem of having to define P(v) for any v E V(D), where P(v) consists of two classes: the blue half-arcs incident to and from v forming the first, the corresponding red half-arcs the second; moreover, P(v) satisfies 1'). Let P ( D ) = UP(v). Question: when does D have a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail ? The answer to this question is given in the following theorem for which we need some more terminology.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 16

Let D be an eulerian digraph, and for every v E V(D), let P(v) be a partition of A: into two classes,

Moreover, for i = 1,2, let Pi(v) be written as Pi(.)

= P i , l ( ~ ) U P i , 2 ( v ) with

P i , l ( ~ ) n P i , 2 (=~0)

where Pi,,(v) contains precisely the half-arcs of Pi(v) which are incident to v (hence Pi,2contains only half-arcs incident from v). L,et P(D) = P(v), and let a new digraph D p be derived from D in the following way: every v E V(D) is replaced by two vertices vl,2 and v2,,, and the incidences in Dp are defined by

uv~vw)

Theorem VI.17. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph and let P ( D ) be defined as above. Then the following statements are equivalent. 1) D has a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail.

2) D p has an eulerian trail.

Proof. If D has a P(D)-compatible eulerian trail T, then, by definition of P ( D ) , if T reaches an arbitrary v E V(D) via an half-arc belonging to Pi(v), then this half-arc belongs to Pi,,(v), and T must leave v via an halfarc belonging to Pi+l,2 (v) where we put i 1 = 1 if i = 2. Consequently, because of the definition of the incidences in Dp, T defines a unique eulerian trail of Dp.

+

Conversely, if D p has an eulerian trail Tp, then Tp defines a unique eulerian trail T of D by definition of Dp. Moreover, by this definition it follows that the half-arcs defining a transition of Tp in v , , ~or vZI1 belong to different classes of P(v) for any v E V(D). That is, T is P(D)-compatible. However, Corollary VI.3 has an analogue for digraphs.

Corollary VI.18. Let D be a k-regular digraph having an even number of arcs. Then D can be decomposed into two arc-disjoint subdigraphs Dl and D2 such that dDi(v) = k for every v E V(D) and i = 1,2. In particular, if k = 2, then D is the arc-disjoint union of two 1-factors.

VI.1.2. Aneulerian Trails, Bieulerian Digraphs and Orientations V1.17

Proof. The first part of the corollary is trivial - just use the bluered coloring of the arcs of D as described above. As for the second part, split every vertex v into two Zvalent vertices v- and v+ such that odDo(v-) = idDo(v+) = 0 for the digraph Do thus obtained. By this definition, Do is bipartite since every vertex of Do is either a source or a sink. Consequently, each component of Do has an even number of arcs. Hence the arcs can be 2-colored with blue and red such that no vertex of Do is incident with two arcs of the same color. Considering this arccoloring in D we have at every vertex v E V(D) idGb(v)= odGb(v)= idG,(v) = odG,(v) = 1. That is, each of Gb and G, is a 1-factor of D. We note in passing that a generalization of the idea just used will be employed in the next subsection. Corollaries VI.6 - VI.8 can be reformulated for digraphs as well provided the orientation of the arcs alternates in O+(A:). We state the most general result only, leaving its proof a s an exercise (Exercise VI.lO). Corollary VI.19. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph with a prescribed order O+(At) of the half-arcs incident with v, for every v E V(D), such that two consecutive elements in O+(A:) are not both incident to (from, respectively) v. Then D has a non-intersecting eulerian trail. Note. It may be an interesting research problem to reformulate some of the preceding results for mixed graphs. Also, on the basis of the results obtained so far, it should not be too difficult to reformulate for digraphs what has been said concerning open trails, trail decompositions and pathlcycle decompositions in graphs. We did not go into details here because we want to concentrate on graphs.

VI. 1.2. Aneulerian Trails in Bieulerian Digraphs and Bieulerian Orientations of Graphs Definition VI.20. Let D be a connected digraph whose valencies are all even, and let TG be an eulerian trail of the graph G underlying D. The sequence TD in D corresponding to TG is called an antidirected euler i a n trail, in short an aneulerian trail, if for every section ai, v ~ +ai+l ~ , of TD,a; and are both either incident to vi+, or incident from v ; + ~ . D is called aneulerian if it has an aneulerian trail. If D is eulerian and has an aneulerian trail, then we call D a bieulerian digraph.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 18

The following is an immediate consequence of Definition VI.20.

Corollary VI.21. If D is a bieulerian digraph, then for every v E V(D), idD(v) = odD(v) r 0 (mod 2) and, consequently, ) A(D) 10 (mod 2). Note that if D is just aneulerian, then the first part of the conclusion of Corollary VI.21 is false in general, while the second part, ) A(D) (r 0 (mod 2), remains valid. As a generalization of the construction of Do in the proof of Corollary VI.18, we define for an arbitrary digraph D the digraph 0 7 as obtained from D by splitting every v E V(D) into v-,v+ E V(D7) and by letting v-, vS respectively, be incident with the elements of ( A t ) - , (A:)+ respectively.

Theorem VI.22. Let D be an eulerian digraph. The following statements are equivalent. 1) dD(v)

0 (mod 4) for every v E V(D), and DT is connected.

2) D is bieulerian.

Proof. If dD(v) 0 (mod 4), then idD(v) = odD(v) r 0 (mod 2), hence GT , the graph underlying D+ , is eulerian by definition of DT . Since D+ is connected by hypothesis, so is GT. An eulerian trail of GT corresponds to an aneulerian trail of DT and to an aneulerian trail of D by definition of D+. Hence D is a connected eulerian digraph; hence it has an eulerian trail. That is, it has an aneulerian trail as well as an eulerian trail; i.e., D is bieulerian. Conversely, if D is bieulerian, then dD(v) s 0 (mod4) for every v E V(D) by Corollary VI.21. By definition of DT, an aneulerian trail of D corresponds to an aneulerian trail of DT; hence DT is connected. This finishes the proof of the theorem. The two-regular digraph on two vertices shows that the condition for D+ to be connected, cannot be deleted in the statement of Theorem VI.22. In fact, Theorem VI.22 is only a special case of the next result.

-

Theorem VI.23. Let D be an eulerian digraph with dD(v) 0 (mod 4) for every v E V(D). Then D has a unique decomposition S,, into maximal aneulerian subdigraphs of D , and ) s,, ) = c(D7). Proof. Consider 07, and let its components be denoted by C1,. . . ,Clc, k 2 1. For any i E (1, . . .,k), let Gi be the graph underlying Ci.

VI.1.2. Aneulerian Trails, Bieulerian Digraphs and Orientations VI.19

Since D is eulerian and dD(v) G 0 (mod 4) for every v E V(D), we have d(v+) = d(v-) r 0 (mod2) in D; for every v+, v- E V(D;). Consequently, Gi is eulerian, and an eulerian trail of Gi corresponds to an aneulerian trail of Ci by definition of Dr. Consequently, if Dl, . . . ,Dk are the subdigraphs of D corresponding to Cl, . . . ,Ck respectively, then S ,, = {Dl,. . . ,Dk) is a decomposition of D into aneulerian subdigraphs (note that there is a 1 - 1 correspondence between aneulerian trails of Ci and aneulerian trails of Di, 1 _< i 5 k). Moreover, precisely because of the definition of D+, and because C1, . . . ,Ck are its components, S,, is uniquely determined and Di is a maximal aneulerian subdigraph of D ,, (=c(D7). This finishes the proof of for i = 1,.. .,k. Consequently, I S the theorem. We observe that if D is 2-regular, then the aneulerian subdigraphs of D are necessarily the maximal aneulerian subdigraphs of D simply because the vertices of D; are 2-valent. Which 4-regular graphs have a bieulerian orientation, i.e. an eulerian orientation admitting an aneulerian trail ? The answer we offer is not a good one from an algorithmic point of view; but it relates 4-regular graphs and 3-regular graphs in a way which will play an important role in the context of the Compatibility Problem (We note that the above question was originally stated in [BERM78b]). T h e o r e m VI.24. A 4-regular graph G4 has a bieulerian orientation if and only if there is a hamiltonian, bipartite, 3-regular graph G3 with hamiltonian cycle H such that G4 N G3/L where L = E(G3) - E ( H ) . Proof. If G, has a bieulerian orientation, then fix such an orientation, call it D4, and construct the bipartite digraph DT a s before. The aneulerian trail of D, guarantees that D r is connected. Therefore, for H being the cycle of the underlying graph Go, G3 = GOU {v+v-/v E V(D4)) is a 3-regular graph with a hamiltonian cycle H; by the construction of D+ and G3, the latter is bipartite as well, and G, z G,/L where L = {v+v-/v E V(D,)) = E(G,) - E(H). Conversely, if G, G3/L, and if H = G3 - E(L) is a hamiltonian cycle of the 3-regular graph G,, then orient the edges of H such that H contains no path of length 2; i.e., the digraph Do thus obtained from H has only sources and sinks. The bipartition of V(Do) defined by the sources, sinks respectively, coincides with the bipartition of V(G3) since Do is connected. Thus, every e E L joins a source with a sink since G3

VI.20

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

is bipartite. Hence, D4 obtained from Do by identifying the same pairs of vertices as in forming G3/L from G3, is 2-regular, and a run along the aneulerian trail of Do corresponds to an aneulerian trail of D,. Consequently, since G4 is underlying D4 by hypothesis and by construction, G4 has a bieulerian orientation. The theorem now follows. Thus, G3 being bipartite is an essential property in order that G4 has a bieulerian orientation. However, G4 must not be bipartite if it has such an orientation. This fact is substantiated by the next result (see also [BERM79d]).

Proposition VI.25. If G is a bipartite graph with dG(v) for every v E V(G), then it has no bieulerian orientation.

-- 0 ( m o d 4 )

Proof. Suppose an orientation D of G has an aneulerian trail TDstarting w.1.o.g. a t v E V, along the arc (v, w) where w E V2, and {V,, V2} is the bipartition of V(G) = V(D). Then the next arc in TD is of the form (x, w), with x E Vl. Then the arc following (x, w) in TD is of the form (x, y) with y E V2, a.s.0. Consequently, the first component of an arc of D always belongs to Vl, while the second component lies in V2. That is, D is not an eulerian orientation of G, and therefore, G cannot have a bieulerian orientation. On the other hand, we have for the class of connected eulerian graphs G where each cycle is a block of G, the following strong result. Although this is a rather narrow class of graphs, it will play an important role in the next two sections of this chapter.

Theorem VI.26. If G is a connected graph with dG(v) 0 (mod 4) for every v E V(G), and whose cycles are the blocks of G, then every eulerian orientation of G is bieulerian. Proof. We proceed by induction on bn(G), the number of blocks of G. In any case, bn(G) 2 2. If bn(G) = 2, then, by hypothesis, G has just one vertex incident with just two loops. Orient each of them arbitrarily in one of the two possible ways. This gives an eulerian orientation D of G; passing through one loop according to its orientation and through the other against its orientation, defines an aneulerian trail of D. Hence the theorem holds for bn(G) = 2. For bn(G) > 2 consider an end-block B, of G and its only vertex v (G cannot have 2-valent vertices by hypothesis, so every end-block of G is a loop). Depending on the degree of v we distinguish between two cases.

VI.1.2. Aneulerian Trails, Bieulerian Digraphs and Orie~ltations VI.21

1) dG(v) = 4. Then we form GI obtained from G - B, by suppressing in G - B1 the 2-valent vertes v (see Figure VI.5).

Figure VI.5. G1 obtained from G by deleting the loop B1 and suppressing the 2-valent vertes v of G - B1; possibly x = y.

GI satisfies the hypothesis of the theorem and has fewer blocks than G. Let D be an arbitrary eulerian orientation of G, and let Dl be the eulerian orientation of G1 induced by D. By induction, Dl is bieulerian. Assuming w.1.o.g. (x,u) E A(D), we have (u, y) E A(D) and (x,y) E A(D1). Considering now any aneulerian trail Tl of D l , we see that TI can be extended to an aneulerian trail T of D by replacing the arc (x,y) with (x, v), u, A(B1)-, v, (v, y), where A(B1)- means that we pass through B1 against its orientation (w.1.o.g. Tl passes (x, y) from x to y. Observe that for an aneulerian trail, the inverse sequence is also an aneulerian trail). 2) dc(u) > 4. Because of 1) handled already, we assume w.1.o.g. that no 4-valent vertex of G is incident with a loop of G. Consequently, if we look a t the block-cut vertex graph bc(G), then no end-vertes of bc(G) is adjacent to a 2-valent vertex of bc(G). Consequently, since bc(G) is a tree, there is a cut vertex z of G such that all blocks containing z are loops, except possibly one of them. W.1.o.g. z = v. Because 8 5 dC(u) 0 (mod 4), u is incident with two loops, B, and B, say. Now form G, = G - (B, U B,) .

VI.22

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Gl satisfies the hypothesis of the theorem because 4 5 dG(v) - 4 = d,, (v). Let D be an eulerian orientation of G as in case 1)with (x, v) E A(D). The orientation Dl of G, induced by D is eulerian; by induction, D l is even bieulerian. Replace in any aneulerian trail TIof Dl the arc (x, v) with (x, v), v, A(B,)- ,v, A(B2), thus obtaining an aneulerian trail of D (A(B1)- means, as above, that we pass through B, against its orientation, while A(B2) stands for passing through B2 according to its orientation; also here we assume w.1.o.g that Tl passes (x, v) from x to v). This finishes the proof of the theorem. Proposition VI.25 and Theorem VI.26 name classes of graphs representing the extremal cases concerning the theme of bieulerian orientations of 4regular graphs (no bieulerian orientations at all, every eulerian orientation is bieulerian). Proposition VI.25 does not account for all Cregular graphs without bieulerian orientation. For example, if G is obtained from two 4-regular graphs G; by subdividing an edge ei with one vertex vi,i = 1 , 2 , and then identifying the two 2-valent vertices v, and v2, then G is a 4regular graph with cut vertex v arising from identifying v, and v2. It is straightforward to see that G has a bieulerian orientation if and only if G, and G2 have such orientations. In fact, one can prove the validity of the following statement. Lemma VI.27. A connected 4-regular graph G has a bieulerian orientation if and only if for each block B C G which is homeomorphic to a 4-regular graph B*, B* has a bieulerian orientation.

One proceeds similarly to show the validity of the next lemma. Lemma VI.28. For a connected 4-regular graph G, every eulerian orientation is bieulerian if and only if for every block B of G which is homeomorphic to a 4-regular graph B*, B* has the property that every eulerian orientation is bieulerian.

The proofs of Lemmas VI.27 and VI.28 are left as exercises (Exercise VI. 11). Note. Observe for the statements of the preceding two lemmas that G may contain cycles which are blocks of G; for those there is no homeomorphic 4-regular graph.

Because of the Lemmas VI.27 and VI.28, it suffices to deal with 2connected graphs if one wants to determine all 4-regular graphs which have bieulerian orientations, and/or the property that every eulerian

VI.1.2. Aneulerian Trails, Bieulerian Digraphs and Orientations VI.23

orientation is bieulerian. The example above which has no bieulerian orientation a t all, has, however, a cut vertex; but in [BERM79d], a 2connected, Cregular graph without bieulerian orientation is given. To see that also Theorem VI.26 does not cover all graphs having the property that an eulerian orientation is necessarily bieulerian, we loolc at an arbitrary eulerian orientation D5of K5.It is a routine matter to check that D5has a hamiltonian cycle (in fact, as we shall see later, every eulerian orientation of a complete graph on an odd number of vertices, is hamiltonian). Thus if we draw such a hamiltonian cycle as the outer pentagon, then there are, formally, only two choices for orienting the inner pentagram (see Figure VI.6). These two eulerian orientations are isomorphic, though, and the vertex-sequence 1,3,2,4,3,5,4,1,5,2,1determines the aneulerian trail corresponding to these orientations. Thus the I(5 has an eulerian and thus a bieulerian orientation which is unique up to isomorphisms. However, if we label the vertices of the I& beforehand, then the I(5 has several eulerian orientations which are, however, bieulerian as well. In fact, the number of bieulerian orientations of any 4-regular graph containing a prescribed arc (x, y) is even, [BERM79d, Theorem 6.21.

Figure VI.6. For a given cyclic orientation of the outer pentagon of the the two possible choices of orienting the inner pentagram yield isomorphic eulerian orientations of the IC5, with the isomorphism indicated by the vertex labeling.

VI.24

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

As we have seen in Corollary VI.18, every 2-regular digraph can be decomposed into two 1-factors. In general, there will be more than one such decomposition. Hence the question: what is a necessary and sufficient condition for a 2-regular digraph to have a unique 1-factorization ? This question is answered as a consequence of the following proposition. Proposition VI.29. Let D be a 2-regular digraph. Then there is a 1-1correspondence between the 1-factors of D and the maximal independent arc sets of D r . Proof. If F is a 1-factor of D l then we have odF(v) = idF(v) = 1 for every v E V(D). That is, one of the arcs incident with v in F is incident from v+, the other to v- (if a loop is a component of F , then these two arcs are identical). Hence F corresponds in D 3 to an independent arc set covering all vertices of D+, i.e. to a maximal independent arc set of DT. This arc set is uniquely determined by the construction of DT. Conversely, let M be a maximal independent arc set of DT. VCTehave IA(C)I r 0 (mod 2) for every cycle C of G because DT is bipartite D; by construction. Moreover, since D is 2-regular, the vertices of DT are 2-valent. It follows that M covers all vertices of DT. Consequently, for every v E V(D) there is precisely one arc of M incident from v+ and precisely one arc of M incident to v-. That is, M corresponds to a uniquely determined subgraph F of D satisfying idF(v) = odF(v) = 1; i.e., F is a 1-factor of D. Proposition VI.29 now follows. For a 2-regular digraph D with 1-factor F, D - F is a 1-factor F' of D as well; and M' = A(DT) - M is a maximal independent arc set of D; if M is such an arc set; and if M corresponds to F, then M' corresponds to F'. This follows from the definition of D 7 . Moreover, if DT has at least two components, one of which is C,say, then we have for the above M and M' that

M" = (M n A@))

u (MI n (D;

- C))

is a maximal independent arc set of DT different from M and MI. These considerations together with Proposition VI.29 yield the following relation between the concept of a 1-factorization and that of being bieulerian. Corollary VI.30. A 2-regular digraph has a unique 1-factorization if and only if it is bieulerian.

VI.1.3. Do-Favoring Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.25

We note in passing that Proposition VI.29 is only a different way of stating and proving [BERM78b, Theorem 2.21; Corollary VI.30 appears as a statement in the introduction of [BERM79d], but it also follo~vsfrom [BERM78b, Theorems 2.3 and 2.41. These are summarized as follo~vs. Corollary VI.31. Let D be a 2-regular digraph. Then the number of 1-factors of D equals 2C(D;) and, consequently, the number of 1factorizations of D equals 2c(D;)-1. Corollary VI.31 follows easily from the proof of Proposition VI.29 and the subsequent considerations; its proof is therefore left as an exercise. The paper [BERM78b] finishes with the question: is it true that a 4valent graph with a n odd circuit can be directed so as t o be aneulerian ? The question has a trivial positive answer. For, if G is any connected eulerian graph on an even number of edges, then let T be any eulerian trail of G and orient the edges of G alternatingly following the orientation induced by T or in the opposite direction. This yields an aneulerian orientation of G. Apparently, in the above question the word aneulerian should be replaced with bieulerian. But then the answer is negative as the following example shows: take three copies of any 4-regular graph G which has no bieulerian orientation (e.g., by Proposition VI.25 G can be chosen to be bipartite). Subdivide in each of the three copies an edge. Thus we have three graphs G,, Gb,G , with just one Zvalent vertex a, b, c respectively, and all the other vertices are 4-valent. Consequently, G+ = G, U Gb U Gc U {ab, bc, cn} is a 4-valent graph having a triangle (i.e. an odd cycle); but G+ cannot have a bieulerian orientation because G, has no bieulerian orientation (see Lemma VI.27).

VI.1.3. D,-Favoring Eulerian Trails in Digraphs We finish this section with another type of restriction on eulerian trails in digraphs (see [BERK78a]). Definition VI.32. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph, and let Do be a subdigraph of D. An eulerian trail T of D is called Do-favoring if and only if for every v E V(D), T traverses every arc of Do incident from v before it traverses any arc of Dl := D - Do incident from v. Of course, every connected eulerian digraph D can be written as D = DoUDl with A(Do)nA(D,) = 0; just take Dl = Dl V(Do) = V(D)

VI.26

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

and A(Do) = 0. In this case any eulerian trail of D is favorin^ in^.') Also, Definition VI.32 indicates that the existence of a Do-favoring eulerian trail T may depend on the choice of an initial vertex for T. We prove two theorems on the existence of Do-favoring eulerian trails depending on the structure of Dl := D - Do (see Proposition 111.24).

Theorem VI.33. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph, and for given v E V(D) let Do c D be chosen such that Dl = D - Do is a spanning in-tree of D with root v. Then a Do-favoring eulerian trail starting (and ending) at v exists. Conversely, if T is an eulerian trail of D starting (and ending) at v, and if we mark at every w E V(D), w # v, the last arc of T incident from w, then D l , the subdigraph of D induced by the marlied arcs, is a spanning in-tree with root v (and hence T is a (D- Dl)-favoring eulerian trail of D). Proof. Let Do C D be chosen such that Dl = D - Do is a spanning in-tree of D with root v. Construct T by starting at vertex v with any arc (v, x), choose any arc of Do incident from x, if such arc exists; choose the arc of D l incident from x, otherwise. Continue this way until this procedure terminates at some y E V(D). Then y = v; otherwise, T contains more arcs incident to y than it contains arcs incident from y, contradicting D being eulerian. Suppose T does not contain all arcs of D. Then let z be a vertex incident with arcs not contained in T. Since D is eulerian and T is a closed trail, idD-*(z) = o ~ ~ - ~ #( 0.z )Moreover, z # v by the very construction of T. By definition of Dl, there is a path P(z,v) C_ Dljoining z to v. Write

possibly z = uk and u1 = v (i.e., P(z,v) may contain just one arc). By the construction of T it follows that (z,u,) is not contained in T; therefore, also (u, ,u,) is not contained in T (note that (ul, u,) can be contained in T only if all arcs incident to ul are contained in T), a.s.0. In particular, (uk,v) is not contained in T, contradicting the fact that idT(v) = odT(v) = idD(v) = odD(v). Thus, T contains all arcs of D. This observation is contained in [ B E R K ~where ~ ~ ] the author attributes Theorem IV.8 to I.J. Good, an error apparently inherited from [I
VI. 1.3. Do-FavoringEulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.27

This and the construction of T imply that T is a Do-favoring eulerian trail of D. Next suppose T to be an eulerian trail of D starting a t some vertex v. For every vertex w # v, mark the last arc of T incident from w and denote by Dl the subdigraph induced by these marked arcs. By definition of Dl, T is a Do-favoring eulerian trail of D for Do = D - D l . All we have to show is that Dl is a spanning in-tree rooted at v. In any case, Dl has the following property:

odDl (w) = 1 for every w E V(D) - {v},

odDl (v) = 0

.

(*)

Hence it suffices to show that Dl is connected (see Theorem 111.31). Suppose this is not so. Then there is a component B1 of Dl which does not contain v, and by (*), odg, (w) = odDl (w) = 1 for every w E V(B,). By the finiteness of D , it follows that B1 contains a cycle and, therefore, B1 contains a non-trivial strongly connected component. By Lemma III.24.5), B1 even contains a non-trivial strongly connected component C1 such that B1 (and therefore Dl) has no arc incident from C1. Now, if r is the last vertex of C1 in T such that r , (r, s),s is a section of T where (r, S) E A(D1), then it follows from the choice of C1that s E V(C1); and by the choice of r, T terminates in s. Since T is an eulerian trail, s = v which contradicts the choice of B1 C Dl - {v}. Hence Dl is connected implying that Dl is a spanning in-tree rooted a t v. The theorem now follows. Theorem VI.33 will play an essential role in establishing what has become known as the BEST-Theorem which gives a formula for the number of eulerian trails in an eulerian digraph ([AARD5la]). The first part of the proof of Theorem VI.33 presented here follows along the lines of the proof ~~, 5b] respectively; the secof [KAST67a, p.76-771, ' [ A A R D ~Theorem ond part is partly extracted from the proof of [BERK78a, Theorem 11. In fact, this second part is more general and somewhat longer than the corresponding (and basically identical) proofs in [AARD5la, KAST67a1, but it permits a shortening of the proof of the next theorem. Nevertheless, I believe that a sketch of the proof as presented in those papers is appropriate because of the relevance of the BEST-Theorem. One proceeds as follows: After establishing (*) it suffices to show that Dl is acyclic. Assume the edges of D labeled by 1,2, . . .,IA(D)I as one runs through T. It follows

VI.28

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

that if (r, s) and (s, t ) are arcs of Dl, then the label of (r, s) is smaller than that of (s,t) ((s,t) is the last arc of T incident from s and hence can be passed only after all arcs incident to s have been passed, one of which is ( r ,s)) . Consequently, there cannot be any cycle in Dl ; otherwise, there would be arcs (r', s') and (sf,t') in such a cycle with (r', s') having a larger label than (st, t').

We can generalize Theorem VI.33 concerning the choice of Do. Theorem VI.34. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph. Let Dl D be chosen such that odDl(v) 2 1 for every v E V(D1) C V(D), and let Do = D - Dl. Then the following statements 1) and 2) are equivalent. 1 ) D has a Do-favoring eulerian trail. 2) Dl has precisely one (non-trivial) strongly connected component C1 with the property that no arc of Dl is incident from C1. 3) Moreover, every Do-favoring eulerian trail of D must start at some vertex of C,, and for any vertex of C1 there is a Do-favoring eulerian

trail of D starting at that vertex.

Proof. By hypothesis and by the finiteness of D , Dl has at least one cycle; we conclude in a manner similar to the second part of the proof of Theorem VI.33 (see the arguments following (*)) that any Do-favoring eulerian trail T of D starts in some vertex of C1 where C1 is a strongly connected component of Dl with no arc of Dl incident from C,. By repeating this argument we conclude that Dl has precisely one such strongly connected component C1. Hence we conclude not only that 1)implies 2 ) , but also the validity of the first part of 3). Conversely, assume the validity of statement 2), and let v be any vertes of C1. We want to show that D has a Do-favoring eulerian trail T starting at v. In order to make use of the first part of the construction of T in the proof of Theorem VI.33, we observe that because of the structure of Dl there is a spanning in-tree D: of Dl rooted at v (see Proposition 111.24.6)). Now write A(D) = I<,U K, where

u IC3 with Ki n K j = 0 for i # j,

i, j E {1,2,3)

VI.1.3. Do-Favoring Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.29

and set KO= K, U K3

.

Clearly, (K3) = DO;denote (KO)= DA. Of course, D i may not be a spanning in-tree of D. If there is some x E V(D) - V(Di), then all arcs of D incident with x belong to I<3 K O since V(Di) = V(D1). Using the Splitting Lemma repeatedly we can replace each such x with 2-valent vertices, and by suppressing these 2valent vertices we arrive at a connected eulerian digraph Dl with IC1 U K, A(D1) and V(Di) = V(D1); i.e., D i is a spanning in-tree of Dl rooted at v. If V(D) = V(Di), then define Dl := D. By Theorem VI.33, Dl has a (Dl - Di)-favoring eulerian trail TI which corresponds in a natural way to a DL-favoring eulerian trail T of D. However, T may not be Do-favoring, but the construction of TI as performed in the proof of Theorem VI.33 gives us a high degree of freedom concerning the choice of traversing the arcs of Dl - K,. Namely: for any vertex w E V(D1), having reached w in the construction of TI one can choose any a E A(D1) - I<,incident from w and not yet traversed as the next arc to be traversed by TI. That is, we can impose the additional restriction that at w, T' traverses first the arcs of Dl - Dl incident from w and then traverses the arcs of K2 incident from w, before it traverses any arc of K,. Consequently, if T' has been constructed this way, then T is a Do-favoring eulerian trail of D. The theorem now follows. Theorem VI.34 is nothing but a slight generalization of [BERK78a, Theorem 11 where V(D1) = V(D) is part of the hypothesis (unnecessarily so, as we have seen). Moreover, the proof of Theorem VI.34 basically follows along the lines of the proof of Berkowitz' result, except that in the proof presented here, certain technicalities do not have to be explained in detail because of the.possibility of using parts of the proof of Theorem VI.33 and this theorem itself. On the other hand, on comparing the proofs of Theorems VI.33 and VI.34 it becomes apparent that Theorem VI.33 could be derived from Theorem VI.34 in much the same way as we derived Theorem VI.34 from Theorem VI.33. What is the most general structure that a subdigraph D l of a connected eulerian digraph D can have in order to imply the existence of a (D- Dl)favoring eulerian trail T ? An examination of the proofs of the preceding two theorems shows that Dl must not contain more than one non-trivial strongly connected component C1with the property that no arc of D,

VI.30

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

is incident from C,. But this condition is not sufficient even if Dl is connected; this can be seen from the digraph D* of Figure VI.7. On the other hand, if we let DL = (Do - {(e, d))) U {(d, e)), then D* has a DL-favoring eulerian trail T* starting at either a or b. It should be noted, however, that in constructing T* one no longer has the freedom to choose any arc of DL incident from d. In fact, T* is necessarily of the form

Figure VI.7. An eulerian digraph D* having no Dofavoring eulerian trail (the arcs of Dj are marked with i, i = 0 , l ) .

So, what is the reason for D * having a Db-favoring but no Do-favoring eulerian trail ? A second look at the proofs of the Theorems VI.33 and V1.34 reveals that reason: in those proofs we first produced a closed trail T starting at v, and proceeding indirectly, we had a vertex z and a path P ( z , v) C Dl with no arc of P ( t , v) belonging to T; we thus obtained a contradiction. Moreover, in the proof of Theorem VI.34 we first loolied a t a subgraph D', rather than at the whole of Dl. So, what if we go the other way around ? That is, generally speaking, for a given connected eulerian digraph D and Dl E D , can we find D: 2 D with Dl S D: such that D has a ( D - Dr)-favoring eulerian trail T+ which induces a (D - Dl)-favoring eulerian trail T ? Applying this reasoning to the above D * and D l , D', = D * - Dh respectively, we see that (D',)+ := D', u {(d, c)) satisfies the hypothesis and statement 2) of Theorem VI.34. A (D* - (D',)+)-favoring eulerian trail T+ of D* (rooted a t a or b) exists and induces necessarily T* as described above. As for the above Dl C D*, D:+ := Dl U {(e, d), (d, c)) also implies the esistence of a (D* - DT+)-favoring eulerian trail of D*; there is, however,

VI.1.3. Do-Favoring Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.31

D: := Dl U { ( e , d ) } with Dl C D: C D+ : such that D: has two nontrivial strongly connected components with no arc of D: incident from any of them. This implies that there is no ( D - D:)-favoring eulerian trail of D * (see the argument preceding Figure VI.7); consequently, there cannot be any Do-favoring eulerian trail of D* because the transition from D$ = D - D: to Dodoes not affect an arc incident from d . The preceding discussion and Theorem VI.34 itself lead to the following theorem which answers our original question.

Theorem VI.35. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph, and let Dl be an arbitrary subdigraph of D. Any two of the following statements are equivalent. 1) D has a ( D - Dl)-favoring eulerian trail.

2) There exists a digraph D: v E V(D)

with Dl & D:

C D such that for every

a) odD+ (v) = odDl (v) if and only if od,, (v) # 0; b) otherwise, odD+ (v) = 1 and D: has precisely one non-trivial strongly

connected component C1 with no arc of D: incident from C,. 3) There exists a digraph D: with Dl C D: C D such that

a) D has a ( D - D:)-favoring

eulerian trail;

b) for every Di with Dl & D i & D:, od,, (x) = 0.

if (x, y) E A(Di - Dl), then

4) Dl contains a spanning in-forest Dc such that a) for some vo E V(D1) and for every x E V(D1) - {vo), odD- (2) = 0 if 1 and only if odDl (x) = 0, and odD; (v,) = 0;

b) D has a spanning in-tree B with root vo and DT C B.

Proof. 1) implies 2). Let T be a ( D - Dl)-favoring eulerian trail starting at w. If odDl (v) 2 1 for every v E V(D), then choose D: = Dl ; otherwise, mark the last arc of T which is incident from v, and let D: consist of D, plus the marked arcs. In any case, Dl C Df and D r satisfies the degree conditions of 2a),b). Moreover, T is a ( D - Df)-favoring eulerian trail because of the choice of the elements of A ( D ~ ) A(D1). By Theorem VI.34, Dr has precisely one non-trivial strongly connected

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.32

component C1 with no arc of DF incident from C1. The implication now follows.

2) implies 3). Take D: as defined by 2)a), b). By Theorem VI.34, this D: satisfies 3)a). Now consider any D i with Dl C D i C D:, and suppose A(Di -Dl) # 0;let (x, y) E A(D{ -Dl). By definition of D: in 2)a),b), an arc of D: - Dl is necessarily incident from a vertex z with odDl ( r ) = 0. Hence (x, y) E A(Di - Dl) implies odDl(x) = 0; thus 3)b) holds as well. 3) implies 4). Start with D r as described in 3), and consider a (D-D:)favoring eulerian trail T+ of D. If there is w E V(D) different from the initial vertex vo of T+ such that the last arc of T+ incident from w is not in D:, then mark this arc. Note that in this case none of the arcs incident from w lies in D.: We define

D+ :

= D:

if no such w exists

;

otherwise,

D+ :

= (A(D:)

U {a

E ~ ; / o d ~ (w) : = 0 anda has been marked})

.

In any case, by definition of D:+, T+ is even a ( D - Dr+)-favoring eulerian trail of D , and D+ : satisfies 3)b) a s well. Moreover, V(D:+) = V(D). Marking for every v # vo the last arc of T+ incident from v yields a D?+ spanning in-tree B of D rooted at vo (Theorem VI.33), and B follows from the very definition of D:+. Define D, by V(D,) = V(Dl) and A(D1) = A ( B ) n A(D1); thus DF is a spanning in-forest of Dl. Let (x, y) be any arc of B not in DF; then x # vo. If (x, y) 41 A ( D r ) , then it follows from the definition of D+ : and D+ : Dl that od,: (x) = 0 =

>

odD, (x). If (x, y) E A(D:), then (x, y) A(Dl) by definition of D; ; and by 3 ) b ) with D{ = D: , odD1(x) = 0 follows. We summarize: D; is a spanning in-forest of Dl, and if x # vo for some vo E V(D,) (which is the root of B indeed) satisfies odD; (x) = 0 then odDl(x) = 0 (for, x not being the root of B implies (x, y) E A(B - A(D1)) for some y). Since odDl (x) = 0 implies odD l (x) = 0 anyway and odD; (v,) = ods(vo) = 0, and because D, E B with V(B) = V(D), the proof of the implication is finished.

VI.1.3. Do-Favoring Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.33

4)implies 1).Let D, C Dl be chosen as described in 4)a) and let B be a spanning in-tree of D with root v, and D, C B. Applying Theorem VI.33 we obtain an eulerian trail T of D starting at v, and such that for every v # v,, the last arc of T incident from v belongs to B. Because of the freedom to choose the order in which the arcs of A$ - A(B) appear in T for every v E V(D), and which we utilized in the proof of Theorem VI.34, we are able to construct T in such a way that the arcs of A$ n ( D - Dl) appear in T before any of the arcs of A$ n Dl are used. This is true even in the case where an arc (x, y) E B does not belong to Dl; for, in this case odD; (x) = odDl(x) = 0 by 4)a), i.e. A t n A(Dl) = 0, i.e., Af C D - Dl. In the case of v,, if A o: n A(Dl) # 8, we then proceed with the construction of T by starting along an arc of Azo n A(D - Dl), and each time we arrive at v, we continue along an arc of A$o n.4(D - D l ) not traversed before, as long as there is such an arc. Consequently, T is a ( D - Dl)-favoring eulerian trail of D. This finishes the proof of the implication. Theorem VI.36 now follows. We observe that for the digraph D* of Figure VI.7 and its subdigraphs

Dl, D{ = D* - DA, statement 4)a) holds for both Dl and D{, while statement 4)b) holds for D i only. We leave it as an exercise to check the details (Exercise VI. 12). Of course, Definition VI.32 could have been formulated more generally to include graphs and mixed graphs as well. In the case of graphs, for example, one would then be faced with a question such as: does G have an eulerian orientation D such that a spanning tree of G corresponds to a spanning in-tree of D with root v for some v E V(G) = V(D) ? I haven't found any work in this direction. However, at least one can say that the answer to this question can be given in polynomial time. Namely, choose in a spanning tree B c G an arbitrary vertex v as root and orient B so as to become an in-tree DB with root v. It is then Theorem IV.ll by which one decides the existence of an eulerian orientation DG of G such that D B c DG: just take the unique mixed graph H whose underlying graph is G and whose arcs are the elements of A(DB). In fact, it is precisely the proof of Theorem IV.ll as presented in [FORD62a, Theorem 7.1, p.601 which tells us that the existence of DG can be decided in polynomial time. Repeating this procedure for every v E V(B) = V(G) it follows that the above question has a polynomial time answer.l) This has been pointed out to me by Prof. Cai Maocheng, Beijing, during

VI.34

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Another interesting question (although not related to the preceding problem) is the following. Let G be a connected eulerian graph, and let an ordered set (el, e2,. . .,em) C E(G) be given. Is there some eulerian trail T which can be written in the form

>

This question has a positive answer if X(G) m - 1; and if X(G) 2 2m then one can even prescribe the direction in which these m edges are traversed by T. These and more general results are contained in [CAIM89a]; they are derived by using [JACK88d, Theorem 11.

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails As we have seen in Corollary VI.5, if G is an arbitrary connected eulerian graph without 2-valent vertices and X any system of transitions of G, then there exists an eulerian trail T of G compatible with X. This is true in particular if X = X T , is the system of transitions induced by an eulerian trail T' of G. Whence the following question arises: what is the m a x i m u m number of pairwise compatible eulerian trails in a connected eulerian graph G ? This question was first asked by A.J.W. Hilton and B. Jackson with the latter proving that if S(G) = 2k > 2, then there are a t least max(2, k - 1) pairwise compatible eulerian trails, [JACK87b]. In the same paper, B. Jackson put forward the following conjecture which is the starting point for the results of this section and their discussion. Conjecture VI.36. If G is a connected eulerian graph with S(G) = 2k 2, then G contains at least 21; - 2 pairwise compatible eulerian trails.

>

This conjecture has been verified in [FLEI86a] for the class of eulerian graphs G where each block of G is a cycle. Such graphs demonstrate that the bound 2k - 2 as quoted in the above conjecture, is best possible in general: for, if the edge e is incident with a cut vertex v and d(v) = 2k, and if f is the only other edge incident with v and belonging to the same block a s e, then {e(v), f (v)) is a separating transition and can thus not be my visit t o China in the summer of 1987. This question was asked by Prof. Li Qiao, Hefei (Anhui Province), during the same visit. Recently, G. Sabidussi asked me the same question.

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

VI.35

contained in .XT where T is an arbitrary eulerian trail of G. Consequently, in this case there are a t most 2 1 - 2 possible choices for e(v) to form a transition with other half-edges incident with v. But of course there are instances where a graph contains 21; - 1 pairwise compatible eulerian trails. This is exhibited in Figure VI.8 for k = 2.

Figure VI.8. G with 6(G) = 4 and three pairwise compatible eulerian trails TI = v, l , w , 2 , ~ , 3 , w , 4 , vT2 ; = v,1,w,3,v,4,w,2,v;T3 = v , ~ , w , ~ , v , ~ , w , ~ , v .

In fact, one might conjecture that if one strengthens the hypothesis of Conjecture VI.36 by additionally assuming G to be 2-connected, then one can even find 21; - 1 pairwise compatible eulerian trails. Figure VI.8 points into this direction. In the case where G = 1<2k+lsuch a conjecture has already been formulated by Icotzig, [I
VI.36

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

on the study of what are called isotropic systems which were introduced by A. Bouchet some years ago (see e.g. [BOUC87a]). Let us consider Conjecture VI.36 for the case where G consists of just one vertex v and 7n 2 loops e l , . . . ,em. As we shall see, although this graph is quite trivial in many respects, it takes a non-trivial effort to solve Conjecture VI.36 even in this 'trivial' case.

>

For the sake of simplicity we consider G' = S(G) instead of G; thus we need not speak of half-edges, and the following discussion will be simpler. We note, however, that the concept of compatibility has to be restricted to v, the only vertes having a valency exceeding 2. In G' we choose the notation of the edges in such a way that e: and ey correspond to ei in G, i = 1 , . . . ,m. Together with G' we consider its edge graph L(G1) which is isomorphic to I
Figure VI.9. The eulerian graph GI and its edge graph L(G1). The 'impossible' transitions {e:(v), ey(v)), i = 1 , 2 , 3 , of G' define a 1-factor L = { e ~ e ~ , e & e ~ , e of ~ej') L (GI) 2 IC6.

Of course, whatever the shape of an eulerian trail T of GI might be, none of the transitions {e:(v),e:'(v)) can define a section el,v,ey of T, i = 1, . . . ,m, simply because each of these transitions separates GI. These are

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

VI.37

the 'impossible' transitions; in L(G1) they define a 1-factor L = {eleyli = 1,.. . ,m). Of course, any other transition at v in GI defines a section of some eulerian trail of GI. In L(G1) a transition other than the 'impossible' ones defines an edge not belonging to L. We can say even more: An eulerian trail of GI corresponds to a hamiltonian cycle H of L(G1) with E ( H ) > L, and vice versa. (*I For, by the above considerations, an eulerian trail of GI (written as an edge sequence) must be of the form

where we assume T to start at v and with the notation chosen in such 6 j Sj+l a way that {eij ,eij ) = {e;, ,e.:}' for j = 1, . . .,m, and {il, . . .,im} = (1,. . . ,m). This sequence, re-interpreted as a sequence of vertices of L(G1) defines nothing but a hamiltonian cycle H of L(G1) with L C E(H). By the same token, a hamiltonian cycle H of L(G1) with L C E ( H ) defines an eulerian trail of GI. Now, if Tl and T2 are two compatible eulerian trails of GI, then the corresponding hamiltonian cycles HI and H2 of L(G1) necessarily satisfy

This follows from the preceding considerations and the fact that XT1fl XT, = 0 by the very definition of compatibility. Observing now that if H is a hamiltonian cycle of L(G1) corresponding to an eulerian trail of GI, then (*) implies that E ( H ) - L is a 1-factor of L(G1), and considering (**), we are led to the following theorem which is therefore equivalent to the validity of Conjecture VI.36 in the case where G consists of just one vertex and m 2 2 loops, [FLEI86a].

Theorem VI.37. Let n = 2m > 2 be a positive even integer, and let L be a 1-factor of the complete graph K,. Then there exists a 1-factorization L = {L1,. ..,L,-l) of K , such that L = L, and L U Li is a hamiltonian cycle of K,, for i = 2, . . .,n - 1. Proof. To obtain a 1-factorization as stated in the theorem we consider K , obtained from K, by contracting the edges of the 1-factor L = (el,. . .,em) C K,. Let the notation be chosen in such a way that e j = eie;, i = 1,.. . , m , thus obtaining V(I(,) = {e:, ey/i = 1,.. .,m);

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.38

and for the sake of simplicity denote V(Ir',) = {e,, . . . , e m ) (Observe that this notation is in accordance with the discussion preceding the statement of Theorem VI.37). Let e = eilei2 be a fixed edge of I i m . By the above choice of notation we have in K , the identities e;, = e!t l e!', I , % - e!%?el!1 2 and eil ,ei2 E L. Thus, e corresponds to a set He of four edges in Ii , , He = {e:le:2, e: e: ,eil e: ,e: ei2) (see Figure VI.lO); and this correspondence between e E E(Iir,) and He C E(I<,) defines a bijection between the edges e of I(, and the subsets He of I<, such that for e # f , HenH, = 0. Depending on the parity of m we distinguish between two cases.

el.' '2

e'.' 'I

Kn

Figure VI.lO. e E E(I',)

1) m

-

corresponding to He C E(I(,).

1(mod 2). Then I(, has a decomposition

into hamiltonian cycles HI, . . . ,Hsider an arbitrary but fixed H E 7-f.

(see Theorem 111.50). Con2

The bijection e t, He enables us to describe the 5-regular subgraph PI; = (UeE.E(H)He U L ) C I<, (where UeEE( He is the extension of the above bijection to E ( H ) ) as follows (see Figure VI.ll): Take the m-sided prism whose side edges are the elements of L, and add the diagonals of the side faces. We define the notation in PI; in such a way that { f,!/j= 1,. . . ,m) = {e:/i = 1 , . . .,m) is the vertexset of the boundary of thc 'top' face, while {fylj = 1,. . .,m) = {erli = 1,. . . ,m) is the = 1 , . . . ,m). corresponding set of the 'bottom' face, and L = { f,!

fy/j

VI.2. Pairwise Colllpatible Euleria~iTrails

Figure V I . l l . The 5-regular graph P;j defining an m-sided prism together with the diagonals of the side faces.

We want to show that PE; has a cycle cover with four harniltonian cycles C,, C2,C3,C, such that Cin Cj = L for i # j, 1 5 i, j 4. To achieve this we first decompose E(P;j)- L into four classes:

<

with the subscripts reading mod m. The next step is to define for i = 1 , 2 a partition of Mi into two classes, Mi = M ; , u Mi,, with

Mi,,={fj(i) f j(i) + l / j E { l ,..., m ) , j k ( m o d 2 ) } ,

k=O,l,

where fjl) = f; and fj2) = f;' (i.e., MI,, contains f; f;, f&_,fh, MI,, contains f;f;, fifi, - . .,f;,f:> a-s.0.)-

fif;,

.. .

.

VI.40

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Now define

In any case, it follows from the very definition of &Ii and C:, i = 1,2,3:4, that {Ci,C;, CA, Ci) is a 1-factorization of E(Pj;) - L. To see that Ci = C{UL is a harniltonian cycle of PE; for i = 1,2,3,4, we observe that Ci is a 2-factor of Pj; for i = 1,2,3,4, which, for i = 1,2, cannot have more than one component precisely because of m G 1 (mod 2), while for i = 3,4, Ci is a cycle independent of m 1(mod 2). Therefore, Ci is a hamiltonian cycle for i = 1,2,3,4. These four hamiltonian cycles are described in Figure VI.12.

-

Precisely because of the above bijection e * He satisfying He n H j = 0 for e # f , and because 7-1 is a cycle decomposition of K , into hamiltonian cycles, therefore, the hamiltonian cycles Ci, C; , 1 5 i, j 4, corresponding to H, H* E 'H also satisfy Ci n C; = L. Consequently, if we redefine C:(H) := C: for i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and arbitrary H E 'H, then we have for

<

that

m-1 =2m-2=n-2 ; 2 hence C = L' U {L) is a 1-factorization of K n as required. This finishes the case m = 1(mod 2). IL11=4.13-11=4--

2) m = 0 (mod 2). Observing that the unique 1-factorization of the IC4 satisfies the theorem, we may assume m 2 4.

By Theorem 111.49, I<, has a 1-factorization L* = {L1,. . . ,L,-,) that LiULj is ahamiltoniancycle of I(, for j = i + l , i + 2 , 1s i where we put L, = L1, Lm+l = L2. Let

-

such

< m-1,

1(mod 2) we consider for a fixed H E 3-1' the correAs in the case m sponding 5-regular subgraph P& = (UeEE(H) He U L) C I<,; let the four

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

Figure VI. 12. The hamiltonian cycles C1, C2, C3,C4 COVering P;j and satisfying Ci n C j = L for i # j, 1 5 i, j 5 4.

classes Mi, i = 1,2,3,4, and the partition Mi = Mj,oU Mj,l for j = 1 , 2 be defined as above. Since m.is even, we have, however, a simpler definition of Cl, i = 1,2,3,4; namely:

Again, it follows from the very definitions of Mi and C,', i = 1,2,3,4, that {Ci,C;, C j , Ci} is a 1-factorization of PI; - L, and it follows by an

VI.42

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

even simpler argument that Ci = Cf U L is a hamiltonian cycle of P;i: for i = 1,2, the pattern top edge, L-edge, bottom edge, L-edge yields a hamiltonian cycle precisely because m is even (compare this with Figure VI.12), while for i = 3,4, Ci is a hamiltonian cycle regardless of the parity of m (compare this with the construction of C4in the case m r 1(mod 2)). By the construction just described we again obtain a set L' of pairwise disjoint 1-factors C:(H) of I<, (with C:(H) defined as in the case m E 1(mod 2)), Lf = {C:(H)/i = 1,2,3,4,H E I f * ) , but now

m-4 IL11=4- (31*1=4.=n-8 . 2 To obtain a 1-factorization L of Kn as required it remains to be shown that the 7-regular subgraph G* of I(, with L C E(G*) and corresponding to L,U L2UL3 c E(I<,), has a 1-factorization Lff = {L, L;, . . .,Lg ) such that L; U L is a hamiltonian cycle of I<, for j = 1 , . . .,6. L = Lf' U C' will then be a 1-factorization of I{, as required; this follows from the bijection e ct He with He H f = 0 for e # f , already used in the case m f 1(mod 2), and the fact that 'H* U {L, U L2 U L3) is a decomposition ofI(,; and I L l = n - 8 + 7 = n - 1 . Let H be the hamiltonian cycle of Kminduced by L1 and L2, and consider the 5-regular subgraph P;i > L of I(, as before (see Figure VI.ll). G* is then obtained from PE; by adding for every edge e = eiej E L3 the elements of He = (eie;, eye;, e:ey, eye;). Assuming w.1.o.g. elez E L, we classify the edges of G* - L as follows: For i = 1,2,3, if ere, E Li, then

By definition, {Li, Ly, N i / i = 1,2,3) is a partition of E(G*) - L. This partition is the basis for constructing the 1-factors L;, 1 5 j 5 6, as required. We distinguish between two cases. a) m = 0 (mod 4). We consider the hamiltonian cycle H' of I(, induced by L2 and L3 and the corresponding 5-regular subgraph PE;, of I<, with L c E(P&,). Again, PE;, can be viewed as obtained from the m-sided prism (where the boundary edges of the top (bottom) face are precisely the edges of LL U L$(1;; U Ly), while the side edges of the prism are the

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

VI.43

edges of L ) by adding the diagonals of the side faces. These added edges are precisely the edges of N2 U N3. Now we partition N2 U N3 into two 1-factors C;, C; of Ii, such that C; U L and C; U L are hamiltonian cycles of Ii, (see the construction of C4 = CA U L with C; = h14 in the preceding cases; e.g., see Figure VI.12. Moreover, observe that N2 U N3 is the disjoint union of two even cycles). Having assumed e1e2 E L1 we may, w.l.o.g., further specify the notation in such a way that

With this notation at hand, we next define a partition { N i,N r ) of IN, by

and a partition (L:, L:) of Lk U L12/ by m L: ={eii-2eii-l/i = 1 , . . . , T ) ~ { e ~ ~ e ~ = ~1 ,+ . . ., ,/T i, putting e$+, = ey)

LZ =(LL u L;) - L!

.

A straightforward argument now shows that because of m z 0 (mod4),

C , ' = L : U N ~ and C , * = L ~ U N ~ are 1-factors of I<, such that Cj* U L is a hamiltonian cycle of I(, for j = 3,4, each corresponding to the hamiltonian cycle induced by L1 U Lz in K , (see also Figure VI.13). Since

3

G* - L =

U(L;UL:UN,) i= 1

and i= 1

i= 1

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Figure VI.13. The 1-factors C; and C,* of G* having the property that C3+U L and Cq*U L are harniltonian cycles of K , (the edges of L appear as the side edges of the prism). the only edges of G* - L not yet considered are those of

Viewing these edges as the boundary edges of the top and bottom faces of the m-sided prism and proceeding much the same way as in the construction of Cf and C; at the beginning of this case 2), we conclude as before that C;=L',uL; and Cg*=L'l/uL; are 1-factors of I(, such that C; U L and Cg*U L are hamiltonian cycles of I(,. Thus, for L: = C;,1 5 j 5 6, we have found a 1-factorization L" = {L, L;, . . .,Lg) of G* as required, provided m r 0 (mod 4).

b) m E 2 (mod 4). We have m 2 6 because m 2 4 in any case. Loolcing at the construction of C,; 1 j 5 6, in case a) it follows for j = 1 , 2 that C; is a 1-factor of I<, independent of the parity of m, while for j = 5,6, Cj* is a 1-factor of I(, provided m 0 (mod2). But C,*,Cq* are no longer 1-factors of I<, if m $ 0 (mod 4). In fact, if one constructs C:, C',* step by step starting with e i e y , eye; respectively, as in case a), then one

<

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

VI.4.5

necessarily obtains dc; (ei) = dc: (e;) = 2 and dc; (e;) = dc: (ei) = 0. However, by a local transformation concerning C;, 1 5 j 6, as constructed in case a) and involving the 12 edges adjacent to e',e',' in G*, we shall also succeed in this case. Thus, in what follows let C;, 1 5 j 5 6, be the sets of edges as above, subject to the following modification concerning the upper bounds for the indices i in the definitions of AT; and L!: namely, in the first term of each of Ni and L:, replace with while in the second term of each of these sets replace with (putting, of course, e',+l = ei in this modified definition of L:).

<

y,

Considering the edge eqe, E E(Ii',) we assume w.1.o.g. that the edge e"el belongs to C; (observe that because of the notation chosen in case I a), eqem E N3 C C; U C;). This assumption implies e:e', eye:. E C; where emel E L2 and ele, E L,; consequently, eGek,eke',',e',er E C,*. Moreover, we still have e;e; E C,', and due to the above modification of the upper bounds of the indices i we also have eA-l e k , eAe; E Cj. This I implies elI1e2, ek-,e',, eke',' E C,". As for C; and C l , we have eie;, eyer E C;' and eye;, eie; E Cl. Leaving C; and C; unchanged we first define

To obtain the remaining four 1-factors Cf* of G*, i = 1,3,4,6, we eschange certain edges incident with ei, e; respectively; namely:

Cy* = (C; - {eke:, eye',)) u {eke:, eie',) C;* = (C; - {eiel)) u {eye;) I1 I1 C:* = (Ci - {ernel)) U {eke;)

Ci* = (C: - {eye;, eie',))

u {eiet, eye',) .

<

Having observed that in this case {Cf /l 5 i 6) is a partition but not a 1-factorization of E(G*) - L, we now conclude from the very definition i 6, a n d m 2(mod4) that for LT = C f * , 1 i of C;**,l 6 , L" = { L ,L;, . . . ,Lg) is a 1-factorization of G*. Moreover, precisely is a hamiltonian cycle of G* if m G 0 (mod 4), it follows because L U C;* from the definition of CT* that L U C;**is a hamiltonian cycle of G* if m E 2 (mod 4). This final observation settles case b).

< <

< <

Hence in both cases rn = 0 (mod 4) and m 2 (mod 4) we have found a 1-factorization L" of G* such that L = L1U L" is a 1-factorization of I<,

VI.46

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

as required (as for C', see the discussion of case 2) preceding case a)). This settles the case m G 0 (mod 2); and because the case m G 1(mod 2) has been settled before, Theorem VI.37 now follows.

Theorem VI.37 now enables us to verify Conjecture VI.36 for eulerian graphs G whose cycles are the blocks of G (see the discussion following the statement of Conjecture VI.36 and preceding Theorem VI.37). Theorem VI.38. Let G be a connected eulerian graph with 6(G) > 2. Suppose every cycle of G is a block of G. Then G contains S(G) - 2 pairwise compatible eulerian trails, and among any S(G) - 1 eulerian trails of G there are at least two which are not compatible with each other.

Proof. The second part of the conclusion of the theorem follows from the discussion performed immediately after the statement of Conjecture VI.36; hence it suffices to show that under the given hypothesis, G contains S(G) - 2 pairwise compatible eulerian trails. We proceed by induction on p =I V(G) I. Suppose p = 1. Since S(G) > 2, the only vertex v of G is incident with m 2 2 loops. Thus we have the situation discussed after Figure VI.8 and preceding the statement of Theorem VI.37. There it was shown that the case p = 1 is equivalent to Theorem VI.37. Hence Theorem VI.38 is valid for p = 1. For p > 1 we proceed algorithmically by repeatedly applying Theorem VI.37. We start with an eulerian trail T of the eulerian graph G with I V(G) I= p > 1 and S(G) > 2, and consider the cycle Co with E(Co) = E(G) whose traversal in one of the two possible directions corresponds to To = T. Denote V(G) = {v,,. . . , u p ) . Let G1 be obtained from Co by identifying the vertices v,,,,. . . ,v , , ~of~ Co where 2kl = d(vl) 2 S(G),and where these kl vertices correspond to the replacement of vl E V(G) by kl 2-valent vertices following To. Hence G, has precisely one vertex of valency exceeding 2, namely v,. We note that the very structure of G (every cycle of G is a block of G) implies that for i = 1 (with Gl,j = GI) two half-edges incident with vi belong to the same block of Gilj i f and (*> only i f these half-edges belong t o the same block of G. We rephrase statement (*) in a more descriptive way by saying that Gif and G have the same block distribution in vi.

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

VI.47

By the discussion preceding Theorem VI.37 and by this theorem itself, G1 has eulerian trails TI,,,Tl ,2, . . ., -2 which necessarily define the same transitions in V(G) - {v,) (since these vertices correspond to sets of 2-valent vertices in GI), whereas in vl they behave compatibly (i.e., a pair of half-edges adjacent in u, defines a transition for at most one Tljj, 1 j 5 2k1 - 2). For n = 6(G), let T,,,, . . . ,TI,,-, be the first n - 2 eulerian trails constructed above (if 2k1 = n, then take all of them), and for j = 1,.. . ,n - 2, let Cl,j be the cycle corresponding to T I j .

<

For each j E (1,. . .,n - 2) we construct G2,j from C l j by identifying where 2k2 = d(v2) 2 S(G) = n (see the conthe vertices v2,,, . . ., struction of G, from Co above). We conclude that statement (*) holds for i = 2 as well; i.e., G2,j and G have the same block distribution in v,, and therefore, all these n - 2 graphs G2,j have the same block distribution in v2 (observe that the cycles of G containing v, correspond to one cycle in each G2,j). Hence, if we look at then the pairs of halfedges incident with u2 and defining the blocks of G2,j are the same for every j E (1,. . .,n - 2) and therefore define a unique 1-factor L of Consequently, the application of Theorem VI.37 plus the discussion pre2k2 - 2 = d(v2) - 2 eulerian trails ceding this theorem yield n - 2 T2,17 - . - ,T',n-2 of G which define the same transitions in V(G) - {v, ,v,) (namely, the transitions of To),but behave compatibly in {u,, v,).')

<

Next we consider the cycles C2,j corresponding to T2,j and construct correspondingly the graphs G3,j from C2,j,j = 1,. . .,n - 2. Now we conclude that statement (*) holds for i = 3, i.e., the graphs G3 all have the same block distribution in v3. Consequently, we obtain eulerlan trails T3,1, . 7 T3,n-2 which behave like To in V(G) - {v,, v,, v3) but behave compatibly in {v, ,v2,us). •

If p. = 2 or p = 3, then the theorem follows from the above. For p > 3, we obtain, by repeated application of the above argument, eulerian trails Tp-~,l,- - 9 Tp-1,n-2 of G which behave compatibly precisely at V(G) {up) while in up they still behave like To. Constructing G P j from the cycle CP-1,3 . corresponding to Tp-l,j, j = 1,. . .,n - 2, and observing that these •

To be more precise one could first view Tzj as an eulerian trail of G2,j, with Tzljchosen from the 2k2 2 painvise compatible eulerian trails of G2,j, which in turn have been obtained by the application of Theorem VI.37 with respect to G2,j, j = 1,.. ., n - 2. However, one has to start with a fixed

-

1-factorization of

KZklsatisfying Theorem VI.37.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.48

n - 2 graphs have the same block distribution in up, we apply Theorem V1.37 to the corresponding I(211p where 2kp = d(vp) 2 6(G) = n to obtain eulerian trails Tp,,,... ,Tp,n-2of G which now behave compatibly on all of V ( G ) . That is, T,,,, . . . ,Tp,n-2. are 6(G)- 2 eulerian trails of G which are pairwise compatible. This finishes the proof of the theorem.

It should be noted, however, that a long-standing conjecture of Kotzig, [KOTZ64a,KOTZ64b], and others says that K2m has a 1-factorization {L,, . . . ,Lzm-,} such that Li U L j is a hamiltonian cycle for i # j, 1 5 i, j 5 2m - 1. It follows immediately that the validity of this conjecture implies Theorem VI.37; for, because of the symmetry of it is no real restriction concerning the 1-factorization to contain a prescribed 1-factor as expressed in the statement of Theorem VI.37. The above conjecture, however, has only been proved so far for some special cases: for those cases where 2m - 1 is a prime, m is a prime, [KOTZ64a], or 2m = 16,28,36,50,244 or 344 (for detailed references on this matter, see [MEND85a, SEAH87a, STIN87al; for 2m = 12 all non-isomorphic solutions of this problem can be found in [PETR~o~])').On the other hand, the proof of Theorem VI.38 as presented here shows that Theorem VI. 37 and Theorem VI.38 are equivalent (see also the statement preceding Theorem VI.37). We now turn to the question whether it is possible to use the approach employed in the proof of Theorem VI.38, in order to prove the whole of Conjecture VI.36. Take an eulerian trail To of the connected eulerian graph G without 2-valent vertices and consider Co, the cycle corresponding to To;produce G1as in the proof of Theorem VI.38, apply Theorem VI.38 to GI, a.s.0. The problem we are faced with, however, is that for some i 2 the n - 2 graphs G i j may no longer have the same block distribution in vi (see the proof of Theorem VI.38). This problem can be illustrated by the graph of Figure VI.8 and its eulerian trails Tl and T2: starting with the eulerian trail Tl which assumes the role played by To in the proof of Theorem VI.38, and with Co being the cycle corresponding to TI, one obtains from Co the graph G1 with vl = w as its sole vertex of valency exceeding 2. GI has two eulerian trails which behave compatibly in w, namely

>

TI,, = V 1 , 4 , 1 1 W , 2, 212,373, W , 4, V1,4 A. Rosa informed me recently that various authors solved Kotzig's conjecture for 2m = 126,170,730,1332,1370,1850,2198,3126,6860.

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

and Tl,2 = v 1 , 4 , 1 , ~ , 3 , v 2 , 3 , 2 , ~ , 4 , v 1 , 4

( ~ 1 and , ~ v ~ denote , ~ the 2-valent vertices corresponding to the splitting of v following TI). From TI,' and TIZwe obtain the graphs Gltl and Gig whose sole vertex with valency exceeding 2 is v. But in GI,, the blocks are defined by the edge sets {I, 2) and {3,4), while in the b10clis are defined by the edge sets {1,3} and {2,4}. Hence GI,, and have different block distributions in v. However, the problem just discussed leads us to the following conjecture (first put forward in [FLEI86a]) whose validity would prove Conjecture VI.36 and which can be viewed as a generalization of Theorem VI.37.')

Conjecture VI.39. Let n = 2m > 2 be a positive even integer, and let Lo, L', . . . ,L("-~) be 1-factors of K , such that Lo U L ( ~ is ) a hamiltonian cycle of I(, for i = 1,. . . ,n - 2. Then there is a 1-factorization {L,, . . .,Ln-,) of ICn such that Li U L ( ~ is ) a harniltonian cycle for i = 1,..., n - 2 . We observe that in the statement of Conjecture VI.39, the 1-factors L(;), 1 5 i 5 71-2, need not all be different, nor does L(;) # ~ ( j )1,_< i < j 5 n - 2, imply L ( ~f l) ~ ( j=) 0. This takes account of the fact that in a proof of Conjecture VI.36 analogous to that of Theorem VI.38, for some i 2 2, two graphs Gij, and Gqj2 may or may not have the same block distribution; and if they have hfferent block distributions, they still may contain some identical block-defining pair of half-edges incident with vi. If we have L' = . .. = L(,-~), then Conjecture VI.39 reduces to Theorem VI.37 with L = L' = L,-,. Observe that in this case the 1-factor Lo becomes irrelevant: for it does not play any role in the conclusion of Conjecture VI.39; thus, for Lo to form a harniltonian cycle together with L = L' = Ln-l is tantamount to saying "let L be any 1-factor of I(,". To see that the validity of Conjecture VI.39 implies the validity of Conjecture VI.36 we go back to the discussion preceding the statement of Conjecture VI.39 using the terminology of the proof of Theorem VI.38: observing that for i = 1, statement (*) in the proof of that theorem re. .., behaving compatibly mains valid we obtain eulerian trails '1 Several other conjectures similar to Conjecture VI.39 have been put forward in [FLEI86a].

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.50

precisely in vl; and from the corresponding cycles C1,l, . . . ,C1,,-, we obtain G,,, , . . .,G,,,-, . Let i 2 2 be the smallest integer for which the n - 2 graphs Gi,j, j = 1,. . . ,n - 2, do not satisfy (*), i.e., these n - 2 graphs do not have the same block distribution. If no such i 5 p exists, Conjecture VI.36 is valid for this G by a p-fold application of Theorem VI.37. If, however, such i 5 p exists, we observe the following: the transitions of To in vi are the same for every Gi,j, j = 1,.. .,n -2 (see the definitions of GI and Gi,j for i 2 2), and these transitions correspond to a 1-factor Lo of I(,; where n 5 ni = d(vi). Similarly, for every j = 1 , . . . ,n-2, the blocks of G i jdefine a 1-factor ~ ( jof) Xni such that Lo U ~ ( jis) a hamiltonian cycle of I<, (see statement (*) preceding Theorem VI.37). That is, the hypothesis of Conjecture VI.39 is fulfilled (if n < ni, then ~ ( j =) L(,-') for n - 2 5 j 5 ni- 2). Assuming the validity of this conjecture we have a I-factorization C = {L,, . . . ,Lni-,} of Iinisuch that L j U L ( ~ )is a hamiltonian cycle of Kni for j = 1,.. . ,ni - 2. That is, L j defines an eulerian trail Ti,j of G i j for j = 1 , . . . ,n - 2; and since L is a 1-factorization, these n - 2 eulerian trails Tij behave compatibly precisely in v,, . . . ,vi. For i < p, we obtain from these Titjthe corresponding cycles Ci,j and, consequently, the graphs Gi+l,j, j = 1,. . . ,n - 2. We then repeat the above argument with i 1 in place of i, a.s.0. That is, the validity of Conjecture VI.39 implies the validity of Conjecture VI.36. The above discussion shows on the other hand, that the validity of Conjecture VI.36 implies something concerning 1-factorizations of K,, n r 0 (mod 2). It is not clear, however, whether this 'something' is as strong as Conjecture VI.39; i.e, whether these two conjectures are equivalent. For it is not clear yet whether in proving Conjecture VI.36 one really has to deal with all possible systems of block distributions as expressed (in a translated form) in the hypothesis of Conjecture VI.39. We note that [JACI<88a, Theorem 11 solves Conjecture V1.36 for the case k = 3 by relying on isotropic systems rather than on Conjecture V1.39.

+

So, since we are not able at this point to prove any of the two conjectures in question, one is tempted to replace in Conjecture VI.36 the value 2k - 2 by the function f (k) and, knowing that 2k - 2 is an upper bound for f (k) (see Theorem VI.38), ask for a 'decent' lower bound. In fact, B.Jackson's result (see the discussion preceding Conjecture VI.36) asserts that f (k) max(2, k - 1). This result is a direct consequence of a generalization of Corollary VI.43 (see Theorem VI.42 and Corollary VI.43 below). But before stating these results we need some insight into another relation between systems of transitions in a connected eulerian graph and

>

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

VI.51

hamiltonian cycles containing a given l-factor of a related graph. Let G be a connected eulerian graph with 6(G) = 2k > 2, and let r systems of transitions of G, X,, . . . ,X,, be given. Consider an arbitrary vertex v E V(G), and let Xo(v) be any system of transitions at v if v is not a cut vertex; otherwise, let the system of transitions at v, Xo(v), be defined in such a way that it induces a system of transitions at v in every block containing v (since G is eulerian, every block containing v has an even number of half-edges incident with v; hence Xo(v) can X/O(v), and let be defined in the above manner). Let Xo = UvEV(Gl Xi(v) C Xi, i = 1,.. . , r , be the corresponding systems of transitions at v. Now let ei, . . .,e&,d = d(v) G O(mod 2), be the half-edges incident with v, and consider the complete graph Icdwith V(ICd) = {eill = 1 , . . . ,d). Analogous to what has been said in the discussion preceding Theorem VI.37, we conclude that a system of transitions at v corresponds to a l-factor L(v) of ICd. We mark in K d the edges of Lj(v), the l-factor corresponding to X j (v), j = 0, . . . ,r . We know that constructing an eulerian trail T of G is tantamount to replacing step by step, every vertex v of G with t = ;d(v) 2-valent vertices vl, . . . , v, such that, at each step, the resulting graph G, is connected. Now, if T is compatible with Xi, then XT(v) n Xi(v) = 0, i = 1,. . .,r. Consequently, XT(v) corresponds to a l-factor LT(v) in ICd with LT(v) n Li(v) = 0, i = 1,.. . , r .

(o>

This is a necessary condition for the existence of T compatible with X i , i = 1,.. ., r . But it is not sufficient because it does not take care of the fact that G, has to be connected (observe that the elements of XT(v) are precisely the sets EGj, j = 1 , . . . ,t). On the other hand, a consideration of the statement (*) preceding Theorem VI.37, plus the observation that Xo(v) is uniquely defined if and only if every block of G containing v contains precisely two half-edges incident with v, yields the following conclusion: If LT(v) U LO(v)is a hamiltonian cycle of ICd, then G, is connected. (00) Summarizing (0) and (oo), we seem to be faced with the following ques0 (mod 2)) contain a l-factor L tion: does Kd (with 4 5 d = d(v) such that Li(v) n L = 0, i = 0,. . .,r, and Lo(v) U L is a hamiltonian

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.52

cycle ? Well, let us consider the case r = 1. If d = 4 then I<* has a unique decomposition into 1-factors, any two of which yield a hamiltonian cycle of Ic4; consequently, regardless of Ll(v) n Lo(v) = 0 or # 0, I& contains a 1-factor L with Ll(v) f~ L = 0 such that Lo(v) U L is a hamiltonian cycle of K4 (note that in this case Ll (v) n Lo(v) # 0 yields L,(v) = Lo(v)). If d > 4, then d 2 6, and by Theorem VI.37, Kd has a 1-factorization {L, ,. . ., Ld-l) such that Lo(v) = L1 and Lo(v) U Li is a hamiltonian cycle for i = 2,. . . ,d - 1. d 2 6 implies $ d < d - 2; i.e., the 1-factor Ll(v) (which has $ d edges) satisfies L,(v) n Li= 0 for at least one i E (2,. . . ,d - 1). Whence we conclude that the above question has a positive answer if r = 1 (we note that the same conclusion could have been reached without using Theorem VI.37, by employing a) compatibility results of section VI.l, b) the Splitting Lemma, and c) the structure of Lo(v)). So, the problem we are really faced with is this (we put Li = Li(v)):

+

Let r 1 1-factors Lo, L,, . . .,L, of the I&be given, where d > 2 is a n even integer. How large can r be such that Kd has a 1 -factor L with L n Li = 0, i = 0,. . . ,r , and L U Lo is a hamiltonian cycle ? (o o o) The answer to (o o o) follows from the next result (see [ H A G G ~ ~ ~ ] ) . Observe that a graph of even order satisfying Ore's Theorem (Theorem 111.75) contains a 1-factor because it has a hamiltonian cycle (see [BERM83a] for a generalization of the next theorem). Theorem VI.40. Let H be a simple graph of even order d 2 4 such that d H (x) d H (y) 2 d 1 for every pair of nonadjacent vertices of H , and let L be an arbitrary 1-factor of H. Then L is contained in some hamiltonian cycle of H.

+

+

Proof. We proceed indirectly. Since K d satisfies vacuously the hypothesis of the theorem and since any prescribed 1-factor L c E(Iid) is contained in some harniltonian cycle of Kd by Theorem VI.37, therefore we may choose a graph H having the following properties: a) H is a proper subgraph of K d satisfying the hypothesis of the

theorem, b) H has a 1-factor L not contained in any hamiltonian cycle of H, c)

/ E ( H ) I is as large as possible.

Consequently, if x and y are any two nonadjacent vertices of H, then H U (xy) has a harniltonian cycle C containing L. xy E E ( C ) , otherwise

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

VI.53

H is not a counterexample to the theorem. Writing C as a sequence of vertices with x = xl, y = xd,

we conclude that

By the same argument used in the proof of Ore's Theorem we conclude that d(x) d(y) 2 d + 1 implies the existence of vertices xi and xi+, such that x1xi+,,xdxi € E ( H ) , 2 5 i 5 d - 2. If xixi+, 4 L, then the cycle C, with

+

(see the proof of Ore's Theorem) is a hamiltonian cycle of H containing L, contradicting the choice of H. Thus xixi+, E L, and i is odd

.

(4

To obtain a contradiction concerning the choice of H satisfying (*), we decompose H into two subgraphs H1 and H2 where H, is bipartite with L C E(H,) and, subject to this property, IE(H1) I is as large as possible, and H2 = H - HI. Consequently, V(H1) = V(H). Furthermore, let Hi = H1 - L. Observe that H1 is connected because of the hypothesis of the theorem; hence the vertex bipartition {Al, B1) of V(Hl) is uniquely determined, and I A, I=I B1 I= $ d because of L C E(Hl). W.1.o.g. 2, E A,. We deduce some properties of H,. Consider an arbitrary e = xjxj+, E L ; w.1.o.g. x j E A, (otherwise, replace the index j 1 with j - 1). Now define a new bipartite graph H;* with bipartition V(H;*) = A; U B; as follows:

+

A;1 = ' ( - {xj)) U {xj+l), B; = (B1 - ( x ~ + ~u) ){xj), E(H,') = {uv E E ( H ) / u E A;, v E B;) . Observe that

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 54

Using the fact that L c E(H;) by the definition of H;, we conclude from the choice of H, that IE(H;) 151E ( H l ) I. This and the above equation yield dH;(e) dH2(e) for arbitrary e E L . (**I

>

Consequently, if e =

f = xkxk+l E L, then

+

This inequality together with dH(e) = dH, (e) dH2(e) yields 2 d ~(e) ; 2 d ~(f) i dH(e) dH(f) -

+

>

+

+ 2 for any e E L .

Now, since e = X ~ X ? + ~f , = xkxkcl and w.1.o.g. xj,xk E A,, we obtain from the preceding Inequality and because of the choice of HI

(note: the maximality of I E(H1) I then implies x .xk+,,xkxj+, whence dH(xj) dH( x ~ + ~ d) 1 by hypothesisj.

+

> +

6 E(H)

We construct from H1 a digraph D as follows: replace every edge xy E E(Hl) with the arc (y,x) where x E Al; from the resulting digraph DHl produce D := DH1/L (where L stands for the arc set in DH, corresponding to L in H,). For practical reasons we label the vertices of D with the labels of the elements of L C E ( H l ) in accordance with the contraction procedure. This gives

Since e, f E V(D) are not adjacent for the above e, f E L if and only if xj X k + , ,xkxj+l fi! E ( H l ) (remember that H, is bipartite !), and because d = 2 I V(D) I, we obtain from (* * *) the inequality dD(e)+dD(f)

> 2 1V(D)I -1

if

e, f E V(D)are nonadjacent.

(****)

However, since we do not know at this point whether D is strongly connected or not, Meyniel's Theorem cannot be applied to D (note that D has no multiple arcs because of the definition of DH1). But for the application of Corollary 111.78 strong connectedness is not required. Whence we conclude that D contains a hamiltonian path PD which we write as a vertex sequence, PD = eil, ei2,. . . ,ejm

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

VI.55

where m = i d =I V(D) I and {eil ,. . . ,ei, ) = V(D) = L. Because of the orientation DH1 of Hl it follows that PDcorresponds to an antidirected hamiltonian path in DHl; therefore, PDcorresponds to a hamiltonian path P of H1 containing L. If the end-vertices of P are joined by an edge e in H, then P U {e) is a hamiltonian cycle of H containing L, contradicting the choice of H. W.1.o.g. we can relabel the vertices of P such that E(P) = E(C)-{xdxl) and thus PD= el,e2,. . . , e m for ei = X , ~ - ~ X , ~=, ~1,.. ., m. It follows from the hypothesis (see the arguments preceding (*)) that X ~ X ~ xdxi + ~ , E E(H); and by (*), i is odd. Also, since P C Hl and x1 E Al by assumption, we have Al = { x , ~ - ~j , = 1,..., fd}, B1 = {xZj/j = I , . . . , i d ) . This yields xlxi+,, xjxd E E(H1) since i is odd. Thus, (xi+l, x,), (xd,xi) E A(DHl) by definition of DHl, and these two arcs correspond to the arcs (ej, el), (em,ej) E A(D), where ej = xixi+, and j = whence we conclude that PDU {(ej, el), (em,ej)) is a strongly connected spanning subdigraph of D ; i.e. D is strongly connected. By Meyniel's Theorem, D has a hamiltonian cycle CD. We conclude as above concerning the relation between PDand P that CD corresponds to a hamiltonian cycle Co of Hl with L C E(Co). Since V(Hl) = V(H), we obtain the final contradiction to the choice of H. The theorem now follows.

q;

We are now in a position to answer the question (o o o) raised before stating Theorem VI.40. This question is equivalent to asking whether the graph H = (ICd - U:='=Li) o U Lo has a hamiltonian cycle containing Lo. By definition of H and because Li n L j # 0 may hold for some i # j, 0 i, j r , we have dH(u) 2 (d- 1) - ( r 1) 1 = d - T - 1 for arbitrary v E V(H). Therefore,

<

<

+ +

+ dH(y) 2 2d - 2r - 2 if x, y E V(H) and xy @ E ( H ) . Consequently, if 2d - 2r - 2 > d + 1, then Theorem VI.40 guarantees the dH(x)

existence of a hamiltonian cycle C in H with Lo c E(C). That is, since 2d-2r-22d+l

ifandonlyif

1 r<-(d-3) 2

,

and since r is an integer, a first answer to question (o o o) is: r can be as large as i d - 2. Moreover, the discussion preceding (o o o) shows that one can assume r 2 1 in any case. We summarize these arguments in the following result which is therefore implied by Theorem VI.40.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.56

Corollary VI.41. Let d be an even integer exceeding 2, and let r be a positive integer with r max{l, f d - 2). Let Lo:Ll,. . . ,L, be 1factors of the complete graph Kd. Then H := (Kd- UiZoLi) U Lo has a hamiltonian cycle C containing Lo.

<

Let C and Lo be as in Corollary VI.41, and let LT = C - Lo; LT is a 1-factor of H. That is, we have in a 1-factor LT with LT n Li = 0 for i = 0 , . . . ,r , and LT U Lo is a hamiltonian cycle. Now, in view of the statements (0) and (00) which had led us to the question raised in (o o o) and, subsequently, to Theorem VI.40 and Corollary VI.41, if we re-interpret LT and Li, 0 5 i r , in terms of transition systems, then we can say:

<

Let G be a connected eulerian graph with A(G) 2 4, and let v be any vertex of G with d(v) > 2. Suppose the positive integer r satisfies r max{l, k, - 2) where 2k, = d(v). Let Xi(v), 1 i r , be arbitrary systems of transitions at v, while Xo(v) is a system of transitions at v none of whose elements consists of two half-edges belonging to diflerent blocks of G. Then there is a system of transitions at v, XT(v), such that XT(v) r l Xi(v) = 0 for i = 0,. . . , r , and G, is connected, where the incidences at the 2-valent vertices of V(G,) - V(G) are defined by the (1) elements of XT(v).

< <

<

Now let G be a connected eulerian graph without 2-valent vertices. Define k = +6(G), i.e., k = min{k,/v E V(G)), and let r 5 max{l, k - 2). Denote the vertices of G by v, ,. . .,up, p =I V(G) I, and define Go := G, G j = (Gj-l)v,, j = 1,. . .,p. For the given systems of transitions Xi of G, 1 i 5 r , which induce the systems of transitions Xi(v) at v = vj, j = 1, . . . ,p (see (I)), we have Xi = U;=, Xi(vj). Substituting in (I) step by step G = Gj-, and v = vj, and defining Xo(vj) for vj E V(Gj-l), j = 1, . . . ,p, we arrive by a pfold application of (I) at the connected eulerian graph Gp which has 2-valent vertices only; i.e. Gp is a cycle. Thus, XT = UP,, XT(vj) is a system of transitions defining an eulerian trail T; and XT n Xi = 0, i.e., T is compatible with Xi, i = 1,.. .,r (Observe that Xo = U;=, XO(vj) plays, so to say, a supporting role only since it cannot be defined beforehand). Thus we have obtained the main result of [JACK87b] which is expressed by the next theorem.

<

Theorem VI.42. Let G be a connected eulerian graph with S(G) = 2k > 2, and let r max{l, k - 2) be a positive integer. Let there be given systems of transitions X , ,. . .,X,. Then there exists in G an eulerian trail compatible with Xi, i = 1,. . .,r .

<

VI.2. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails

VI.57

Corollary VI.43. If G is a connected eulerian graph with 6(G) = 2k > 2, then G has at least max(2, k - 1) pairwise compatible eulerian trails. The proof of Corollary VI.43 can be derived from Theorem VI.42; therefore it is left as an exercise. We observe that Theorem VI.42 has been improved for even k by B. Jackson and N. Wormald, [JACI<88c 1. They show that r 5 k - 1 is sufficient. Moreover, they show that G has k pairwise compatible eulerian trails if 6(G) = 2k > 2. The following considerations show that for the latter result one cannot arbitrarily choose pairwise compatible eulerian trails. The inequality r 5 (1, k - 2) in Theorem VI.42 is best possible, as can be seen from the following example (see also Figure VI.14): Let H be a 2-connected 6-regular graph. Consider two compatible eulerian trails Tf,Ti in H and take three copies of H. Subdivide in each of them an edge and identify the subdivision vertices thus obtaining the graph G with cut vertex v (see Figure VI.14). With Tf,Ti at hand in each of the three blocks of G, these eulerian trails can be extended to two compatible eulerian trails TI and T2 as described in Figure VI.14. G contains no eulerian trail T compatible with Tl and T2; otherwise the initial section of T starting with the run through el towards v (which is no loss of generality), must be of the form el, v, e3 or el, v, e5. In the first case, the next section containing v must then be e2,v, e4 (in order not to violate compatibility), in the second case this next section must be e,,v, e2. But then the third section containing v in T must be either of the form e,, v, e6 (in the first case) or of the form e,, v, e, (in the second case). Hence XT r l XTl # 0 in the first case, XT n XT2# 0 in the second case. Hence G does not contain an eulerian trail compatible with TI and T2. This example also illustrates that a solution of Conjecture VI.36 using a 'greedy' method is impossible. This fact, however, has been demonstrated already by the equivalence of Theorems VI.37 and VI.38. There is another approach to solving Conjecture VI.36. Originally put forward by A.J.W. Hilton, it is contained in [FLEI86a] (although in a form differing from the following presentation). We call it the top-down approach as opposed to the bottom-up approach described in the discussion leading to the formulation of Conjecture VI.39. The top-down approach starts with the connected eulerian graph G with 6(G) > 2 where vl, . . .,v,, t 2 1, are the vertices of valency exceeding 2.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Figure VI.14. A 6-regular graph G with two compatible eulerian trails Tl = el, v, e,, . . . , e3,v, e,, . . . ,e,, v, e,, . . . and T2 = el, v, e,, . . . , e5, v, e,, . . . ,e3,v, e,, . . .. There is no eulerian trail of G compatible with Tl and T,.

Now produce a set G1 of d(vl) - 2 connected eulerian graphs by splittillg v, into 2-valent vertices in d(v,) - 2 ways such that no pair of edges incident with vl in G appears as a pair of adjacent edges in more than one element of G1. Theorem VI.37 guarantees that GI exists: for if we pair the edges incident with vl in G in such a way that this pairing induces a corresponding pairing in every block containing vl, then the construction of G1 is precisely the application of Theorem VI.37 to I(d(v,lwith L C I
<

.

< <

VI.2.1. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.59

then proceed as above with G2 in place of GI and v, in place of v2. But does G2 exist ? Maybe one has to be more careful in the choice of the 2k-2 graphs when one tries to form 62; maybe one has to consider all possible choices for forming G, (i.e., all possible 1-factorizations resulting from the application of Theorem VI.37. to - L). This is not known a t this point. But one is led to the following question: suppose G I , . . . ,G2k-2 are graphs o n the same vertex set V such that Gi - V2(G,) G j - V2(Gj) for 1 5 i,j 5 2k - 2, and 2k 5 min{d(v)/v E V(G) - V2(G)). Is it then possible t o produce for each i, 1 5 i 5 2k - 2, a splitting of the same v E V ( G )- V2(G) in each Gi in such a way that for any e , f incident with v in Gi, e and f are adjacent in at most one of the 21; - 2 graphs thus obtained ? A positive answer to this question, however, is tantamount to proving Conjecture VI.39. - We observe that if we drop the requirement that the graphs G2 I, produced above, are connected in order to be a candidate for belonging to P2, then G2 exists. This is guaranteed by Theorem VI.37. Thus both the top-down and the bottomup approach yield, together with the application of Theorem VI.37, the following result (see [FLEI86a, Theorem 21; there, two proofs of Theorem 2 representing the respective approaches, are given): i f G is a n eulerian graph with 6(G) 2 4, then there exist b(G) - 1 pairwise compatible trail decompositions. Although this result is basically nothing but a translation of Theorem VI.37 into the language of compatibility in eulerian graphs, it raises the interesting question whether one obtains a true statement if one replaces in this result 'trail' by 'cycle'. It should be noted that in the case of G = K2m+l,m 2 2, the problem has been considered by Kotzig has 2m - 1 pairwise compatible decompositions who asks whether I<2m+, into hamiltonian cycles, [KOTZ79a7Definition 2 and Problem 41 (Kotzig uses the term 'perfect' instead of 'compatible').

--

VI.2.1. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs Let us consider the problem of determining the maximum number of pairwise compatible eulerian trails in digraphs, and suppose first that every block of the connected eulerian digraph D is a cycle, and that S(D) > 2. Consider a vertex v. As in the discussion leading to the statement of Theorem VI.37 we construct a new graph whose vertices are the half-arcs incident with v, where, as before, the pairs of half-arcs

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.60

belonging to the same block of D (the 'impossible7 transitions) define the 1-factor L of the new graph, and every other edge of the new graph joins a half-arc incident to v with one incident from v. Hence this new graph is the Kd where d = id(v) = od(v), and we have, as before, that an with eulerian trail T of D corresponds to a hamiltonian cycle H of KdYd L c E ( H ) ; and if TI,T2 are two compatible eulerian trails of D, then the corresponding hamiltonian cycles HI, Hz satisfy E(Hl)nE(H2)= L. So, be decomposed into 1-factors L1,. . . ,Ld such the question is: can I L defined by G, = (L, U L, U L,), then the proof of Theorem VI.37 indicates that in general G4 will not be decomposable into four 1factors L = CA, Ci, C;, Ci such that L U Ci is a hamiltonian cycle of Kd,d, i = 1 , 2 , 3 (despite the fact that Li U L j is a hamiltonian cycle of K d , i # j,1 i , j 3).

<

<

<

Now suppose G4 has such a decomposition. We orient the hamiltonian cycles Hi = LUG':, i = 1,2,3, in such a way that the edges of L are always passed in the same direction, from top to bottom, say. This is possible because G4 is bipartite (see Figure VI.16). Thus G4 is transformed into

VI.2.1. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.61

Figure VI.15. cannot be decomposed into 1-factors Lo, L,, LS, L3 such that Lo = L = { i i ' l i = 1,2,3,4) and L U L j is a hamiltonian cycle, j = 1,2,3.

a bipartite digraph D,. Precisely because of the definition of G,, D4 defines a 3-regular digraph D6 which can be viewed as obtained from G3 by replacing every edge ab E E(G3) by two arcs ( a , b), (b, a) E A(DG);and D6 has a decomposition into three oriented hamiltonian cycles H;, H;, Hi corresponding to the respective original hamiltonian cycles L1 U L2, L1 U L3, L2 U L3 of G3 (see Figure VI.16). Next we define an eulerian trail T of D6 as follows: starting at u E V(D6) = V(G3), for example, we pass the whole of H;; after arriving at u again we continue along H;; and after completing the run through H i we pass the arcs of H,*. Consequently, T corresponds to a closed covering walk W of G3 in which one starts in u E V(G3) and passes first through the elements of L2 U L1 according to the run through H; in T; then one continues along the elements of L3 UL2, and finally one passes the elements of L1UL3 in accordance with the run through H; ,H; respectively. That is, W has the following properties: W . passes each edge of G3 precisely once in each direction, and n o edge of G3 is passed the second time immediately after it has been passed for the jirst time. As we shall see in Chapter VIII (see Theorem VIII.4)) a closed covering walk of GS with this property implies I V(G3) 2 (mod 4).') We claim that [AUBE82h, Theorem] follows by the same argument. However, no use

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Figure VI.16. The harniltonian cycles L,UL2, L1UL3,L2U L3 of G3 (with i marking elements of Li) correspond to the respective hamiltonian cycles H I , H2,H3 of G4(whose edges not belonging to L are marked with 12'13'23 respectively) which in turn correspond to oriented hamiltonian cycles of D,. The latter define a decomposition of D6 into three oriented hamiltonian cycles. The edges (arcs) of L in G, (D,) are marked with 0. The subscripts t and b stand for 'top' and 'bottom'.

GJ is bipartite. To see this, consider D6 and delete the following arcs: if ab E L,, delete the arc of H,' joining a and b; if ab E L2, delete the corresponding arc of H;; and if ab E L3, delete the corresponding arc of H; (in Figure VI.16, this corresponds to deleting in D6 the arcs incident from u). The subdigraph D3 C D6 thus obtained is an orientation of G3 of Theorem VIII.4 is made in t h a t paper.

VI.2.1. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.63

such that every vertex is either a source or a sink: i.e. D3 is bipartite, and so is G3 (observe that under the given assumption, if one of the arcs incident with u E V(D6) is known to belong to Hi*,i E {1,2,3), it is known for each of the remaining five arcs to which Hf it belongs; see Figure VI. 16). On the other hand, one obtains D4 from D, by replacing every v E V(D6) by v, and vb, introducing the arc (v,, vb), and by letting the arcs incident to v (from v) be incident to v, (from vb). Moreover, if D6 has a decomposition into three hamiltonian cycles, one concludes via Dq that G4 has a l-factorization {CA, Ci, Ci, C;) such that for L = C;, Hi = L U C;', i = 1,2,3, is a hamiltonian cycle of G4. Moreover, since the hamiltonian cycles H;, H;, Hi of D6 induce an orientation of the hamiltonian cycles Ll U L2,L1 U L3, LS U L3 of G3 such that every edge of G3 is passed exactly once in each direction by the latter hamiltonian cycles, we conclude that the arrows in Figure VI.16 can be reversed as well. In other words, we have the following result. Proposition VI.44. Let G3 and G, be given as above where G, has a l-factorization {L,, L,, L,) such that Ll U LS,L1 U L,, L2 U L, are hamiltonian cycles of G,. Then G4 has a l-factorization {L, Ci, Ci, Ci) such that L U C;' is a hamiltonian cycle of G,, i = 1,2,3, if and only if the above hamiltonian cycles of G, have a cyclic orientation such that each edge of G3 is passed once in each direction by the two hamiltonian cycles to which it belongs. If G3 is a bipartite 3-regular graph, it has a l-factorization {L,, L2,L3) (see Theorem 111.48). If {V,, V2) is a bipartition of V(G,) (which is uniquely determined if and only if G, is connected), and if we replace every edge vlv2 E L1 U LZ by the arc (vl, v2) where vl E V, and 21, E V,, while such edge of L, is replaced by the arc (v2,v,), the 2factors L1 UL,, L2 U L3 appear as l-factors F,, F3 of the digraph D3 thus obtained. Consequently, if I?? denotes the inverse orientation of F2,and if Fl denotes the cyclic orientation of L1 U L2 induced by the arcs of D, corresponding to L1,it follows that Fl ,F t ,F3 define cyclic orientations of L, U L,, L1U L,, andL2 U L3 respectively, such that every edge e of G3 is passed precisely once in each direction by the two 2-factors containing e. Together with what has been said before, we conclude the validity of the next result. Proposition VI.45. Let G, be a 3-regular graph having a 1factorization {L,, L2,.L3) such that Hi = Li U Li+,, i = 1,2,3 (where

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.64

we put L, = L1) is a hamiltonian cycle of G,. The following statements are equivalent.

1) I V(G,)

1-

2 (mod 4) and G is bipartite.

2) Hi, i = 1,2,3, can be assigned one of its two cyclic orientations such that every edge is passed once in each direction by the corresponding two Hi.

In view of Propositions VI.44 and VI.45 and the discussion preceding them, our original approach concerning a 1-factorization {L,, . . . ,Ld) of Kd,dwith L1 U Li, i = 2, . . . ,d, being a hamiltonian cycle of I 2 with d G 2 (mod4) for which lid has a 1-factorization {L1,. . . ,Ld-l} with the following properties: a) Li U Li+,, i = 1,.. . ,d - 2,and L1 U L3 are hamiltonian cycles of Kd ;

b) (L, U L2 U L,) is bipartite. A straightforward argument shows that d 2 10 must hold: for, in the case of K6 the graph (L, U L2 U L,) with the above properties is uniquely determined up to isomorphism and implies that K6 - {L1 U L2 U L,) is a disconnected graph consisting of two disjoint triangles which, therefore, cannot be decomposed into two 1-factors. However, the positive outcome and direct consequence of our discussion so far is the next theorem. Theorem VI.46. Let a 1-factor L C Kd,d,d 2 2, be given. Then there is a 1-factorization {L, L2,. . . ,Ld} of Kd,d with the following properties.

a) L U Li is a hamiltonian cycle of Kd for i = 2,. . . , d - 1;

b) if d is odd, then L U Ld is a hamiltonian cycle as well; c ) if d G 0 (mod 4) or d = 6, then LU Ld is not a hamiltonian cycle.

Theorem VI.46 tells us something concerning the maximum number NT of pairwise compatible eulerian trails of D, namely: d - 2 NT d - 1 for d = $ 6 ( D ) > 2,; and NT = d - 1 for odd d, while NT = d - 2 for d = 4 (see Figure VI.15). But we have not obtained the best possible result for NT simply because we lost some information by utilizing the same approach as in the undirected case.

<

<

VI.2.1. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.65

So, let us return to the consideration of the original 1-factorization problem of Kd,d. Let L = {viv:/i = 1,.. .,d) denote a 1-factor of Kd d , where V := {vi/i = I,.. ,d), V' := {vjli = 1,.. . ,d} and {V, V') is the vertex bipartition of Kd,d.Now orient the edges of Kd such that the elements of L are oriented from V' to V, while the elements of E(I 1 and d # 4,6. Thus we arrive at the following result.

.

Theorem VI.46.a. Let L be a 1-factor of ICd,d, where d 2 2. Then there is a 1-factorization {L, La,. . . ,Ld) such that LUL; is a hamiltonian cycle of ICd for i = 2,. . .,d, provided d # 4,6. Because of what has been said at the beginning of this discussion, the next result is a direct consequence of Theorem VI.46.a.

Theorem VI.47. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph such that every cycle of D is a block of D. Then, for d = $d(D) 2 2, NT satisfies:

(Observe that Theorems VI.46 and VI.46.a yield for d' > d that I
Corollary VI.48. Suppose the bipartite simple graph H on 2d > 2 vertices with vertex bipartition (A, B) has a 1-factor. Suppose that dH(a) dH(b) 2 d 2 for every a E A and b E B, where ab 6 E ( H ) . Then every 1-factor of H is contained in a hamiltonian cycle of H.

+

+

VI. 66

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Proof. We follow the proof of Theorem VI.40. In any case, I A I=!B )=d since H has a 1-factor. Observing that Corollary VI.48 is true for the Kd,d by Theorem VI.46, but assuming Corollary VI.48 to be false in general, we choose a counterexample H with E ( H ) as large as possible, subject to the condition that I V(H) I is as small as possible. Whence we conclude that d > 2 and that H U {ab) has a hamiltonian cycle C containing an arbitrarily prescribed 1-factor L, for arbitrary nonadjacent a E A, b E B. Thus we can write

I

I

C - {ab) = al,albl,bl,bla2,a2,a2b2, ...,ad,adbd,bd where a = a l , b = bd, and L = {a,bi/i = 1,.. . ,d). Since H is bipartite and a, bd $ E ( H ) the degree condition

implies the existence of some i with 2

5 i _< d - 1 such that

(note that C - {ab) contains d edges of the form ej := ajbj). Moreover, for e j = ajbj, ek = akbk E L satisfying ajbk, akbj tif E ( H ) we obtain

Now let DH and D := DH/L be defined as in the proof of Theorem VI.40 (with H in place of HI). Then the preceding inequality yields for every pair ej, e,, of nonadjacent vertices of D

(observe that d H (ej) = d D(ej)

+ 2). Moreover,

since (bi, a;+,) E A(DH) for i = 1,.. . ,d - 1. Hence PD := ( A p ) is a hamiltonian path of D. Furthermore, albi,aibd E E ( H ) implies (b;, a,), (bd,a;) E DH whence we conclude (e;, el), (e,, e ; ) E A(D). Consequently, PDU {(e;, e,), (ed,e;)) is a strongly connected spanning subdigraph of D. That is, D is strongly connected. This and the last inequality

VI.2.1. Pairwise Compatible Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VI.67

permit the application of Meyniel's Theorem. By the very definition of D and D H , a hamiltonian cycle of D corresponds to a hamiltonian cycle of H containing L. This contradiction implies the validity of Corollary VI.48.

Corollary VI.49. Consider I(d,d for d > 3, and let Lo,L1,. . .,L, be 1-factors of ICd d , where r Then (ICd - U:=O Li) U LO has a hamiltonian cycle containing Lo.

< 9.

Proof. Denote L = Lo and H =

- U:=O Li) U Lo. We have

Consequently,

Corollary V1.49 now follows from Corollary VI.48. We note in passing that if we replace in Corollary VI.49 the restrictions on d and r with d 3 and r 5 max{l, 9 1 , then the conclusion is false precisely for d = 3. One only needs to choose L1 with I Lo n Ll I= 1. If, however, LonLl = 8, these weaker restrictions admit the same conclusion as in Corollary VI.49.

>

On the grounds of the preceding discussion we deduce our next result from Corollary VI.49 in the same way we reached Theorem VI.42 by applying Corollary VI.41.

Theorem VI.50. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph with S(D) > 6, 6( 0 )-4 and let X I , . . .,X, be any r systems of transitions, where r 5 7. Then D has an eulerian trail compatible with Xi, i = 1,.. . ,r . This theorem together with the remark following Corollary VI.49 yields the analogue to Corollary VI.43.

>

Corollary VI.51. Let D be a connected eulerian digraph with S(D) 6. Then D has at least max(2, pairwise compatible eulerian trails.

y}

Again, this lower bound for the maximum number of pairwise compatible eulerian trails is, in general, best possible (see Exercise VI.4). However, in view of Theorem VI.47 we put forward the following conjecture (we do not bother, however, to formulate the conjecture on 1-factorizations

VI.68

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

in the Kd corresponding to Conjecture VI.39 with the former's validity implying the validity of Conjecture VI.52). Conjecture VI.52. The maximum number of pairwise compatible eulerian trails in a connected eulerian digraph D with S(D) > 4, is a t least 16(D) 2 - 2.

We note in passing that most of the above results appear in [FLEISOa].

Of course, one can try to apply the discussion performed in this section so far to mixed graphs. However, in the case where every block is a cycle, one is no longer faced with seeking special types of 1-factorizations of the or I
VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs As we have seen in section VI.1, the concept of a non-intersecting eulerian trail and that of a n A-trail coincide for connected 4-regular graphs (as well as for connected eulerian graphs with A(G) 5 4). However, while it is true that every connected eulerian graph embedded in some surface 3 has a non-intersecting eulerian trail (Lemma V1.7), such a statement concerning A-trails is false even if 3 is the plane (or, equivalently, the sphere). This fact is illustrated by the following figure which also shows that the existence of an A-trail may depend on the actual embedding of the planar graph.

Figure VI.17. Two embeddings GI and G, of the same planar graph: G, has no A-trail, G2 has one; but both G, and G, have non-interesting eulerian trails.

In Figure VI.17, the (unique) A-trail of G2 is defined by the transitions {l', 2'), {3', 4'), {5', 6') (marked in the figure with little arcs), where { i ' l i = 1, . . . , 6 ) = Ez. The same transitions define a non-intersecting eulerian trail Tl of GI. But Tl is not an A-trail of G,. In fact, if one starts in the search for an A-trail of G, by passing edge 1 towards v, then the transition {l', 2') is the necessary consequence in this search (for the

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 70

only other possible choice for a suitable transition, {l',6'), d'isconnects the graph). Consequently, {3', 4') must be the next transition at v (otherwise, {3', 6') disconnects the 'inner' triangle from the rest of the graph); thus X(v) = {{l',2'1, {3', 4'1, {5', 6')). Since 5' and 6' are not neighbors in the cyclic ordering of the edges incident with v, X(v) does not define an A-trail but the non-intersecting eulerian trail TI (which comes, so to say, as close as possible to an A-trail). Hence, G1 has no A-trail at all. Figure VI.17 also indicates how one can avoid the existence of an A-trail in a connected planar eulerian graph G with vertex v and three or more blocks containing v: let B1, B2,B, be three such blocks of G, and embed G in the plane in such a way that E(B,)nbd(F,)

# 0 # E(B2)nbd(F,)

while E(B,)nbd(F,)

= {v)

,

and there is a face boundary bd(F) such that bd(F) n E(B2)#

0 # bd(F) n E(B,)

and E,

n bd(F) n bd(F,) # 0 .

Then an argument analogous to the one used in the discussion of Figure VI.17 shows that the plane embedding of G thus obtained does not admit an A-trail. However, the ensuing discussion relating A-trails to special types of vertex splittings will give the theoretical answer concerning the non-existence of A-trails in G1 of Figure VI.17 and the plane embedding of G just discussed. In what follows let G be a connected eulerian plane graph. Since G is plane, a counterclockwise cyclic ordering of the edges incident with v is given by the embedding of G on the plane for every v E V ( G ) ,which we denote by O+(v) = (e;, e;, . . .,e&)where d = d(v).

Lemma VI.53. Suppose the plane eulerian graph G with A(G) > 2 has an A-trail T. Let v E V(G)with d = d(v) > 2 be arbitrarily chosen and suppose {ei, e;) is the first transition defined by T in v. W.1.o.g. T = . . . ,el, v, e 2 , .. .. Then

where

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI. 71

and e2; = e2;+, if and only if eZi is a loop, i E {I,.. .,i d ) (where we put ed+l = el)Proof. Suppose T contains an extended segment T' of the form

where e2i-l,e,i, f , g are the only edges of T' incident with v, and f # e2i+l, f # el respectively if 2i = d. By rotating, if necessary, the indices in O+(v), we may assume w.1.o.g. that i = 1; hence f = e j where j E (4, . . . ,d). Then T' contains a subsequence C which is a cycle starting and ending in v and containing e2 and ej. Consequently, if s(ek) is a subdivision point of el,, k = 1,3, s(el) lies in the exterior of C if and only if s(e3) lies in the interior of C. Now, because of the assumption i = 1 and because of the possibility of cyclically rotating the initial vertex in the sequence T, we may, w.l.o.g., express T in the form

where T" is the subsequence of T' starting and ending in v and not containing e, and g, while T"' is the remainder of T, i.e. the subsequence of T having g as its first and el as its last edge. By construction, e3 E T"'. Hence, viewing T"' as a closed curve starting and ending in v we conclude from the above that T"' contains an open curve To,whose ends are s(e,) and s(e3). We conclude from the Jordan Curve Theorem (Theorem III.61), that there is a vertex w on C such that at least one section fi, w, fi+l of T is a section of T"', and the subdivision points s(fi), s(fi+,) lie on different sides of C. But then fi and fi+, do not belong to the same face boundary of G (see Corollary III.6la). This contradiction implies the validity of Lemma VI.53. Lemma VI.53 implies that if we know one transition of an A-trail T at v E V(G), we know the other transitions of T at v as well; i.e. if {ei, e;) E XT(v) and O+(v) = (ei, ek, . . .,e&)or 0-(v) = (e',, eh, . . . ,e&),XT(v) = I {{ei, eh}, {ej, ei), . . ., {ed-, , e&)}. Consequently, we can say more generally:

If T is an A-trail of the plane eulerian graph G with 6(G) > 2, and if O+(v) = (e',, e;, . . .,e&-,, e&)for an arbitrarily chosen v E V(G), either XT(v) = {{ei, ei), 0.

XT(v) = {{eb,ej),

. . . ,{e&,,,

- . {ei, e:,> - 7

,

e&))

.

(1)

VI.72

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Observe that the validity of (I)rests (implicitly) on the Jordan Curve Theorem which does not hold for surfaces of genus other than 0. However, the concept of an A-trail can be defined for graphs G embedded on arbitrary surfaces. In fact, an A-trail in G yields the same local information expressed by (I). On the other hand, ( I ) is a weaker statement than Lemma VI.53; for, the conclusion of Lemma VI.53 says that the A-trail T 'picks up' the edges incident with v either in their clockwise or in their counterclockwise cyclic ordering induced by the embedding of G. Which of these two 'pick up' procedures is followed by T, depends, of course, on the direction in which one passes through T. In any case, once an orientation of T has been chosen by fixing an initial vertex and an initial edge, T defines a partition of V = V(G), V = V+ U V-, where V+ (V-) contains precisely those vertices v at which T 'picks up' the edges incident with v according to O+(v) (0-(v)). If T is passed in the opposite direction, these two sets V+ and V- naturally interchange their roles. That is, the above partition {V+, V - ) of V(G) is uniquely determined by T with the meaning of V+, V- respectively, depending on the direction in which T is passed. So, the question arises whether it is possible to obtain this partition of V(G) independent of an orientation of T and without using any O+(v) and/or 0-(v). To see that this is possible, we make use of Theorem 111.68. Consider for the plane eulerian graph G with A(G) > 2 a 2-face-coloring (with 1 and 2 denoting the two colors), and let T be an A-trail of G. Choose an arbitrary v E V(G) with d = d(v) > 2 and suppose the half-edges incident with v are labeled in such a way as e:, ek, . . . ,e> that O+(v) = (ei, e;, . . . ,e&). We further assume that the face whose boundary contains el and e, ,is colored with color 1. Then the faces F2,-1 (FZi) with {e2;-,,e2;) E(bd(F2;-1)) ({e2;,e2;+11 C E(bd(F2;))) are colored 1 (2), i = 1, . . . , +d. Now, if we split v into k = i d 2-valent vertices dl),. . . ,v(*) following XT(v) (i.e., {E:,;)/i = 1,. . . , k) = XT(v)) such that the resulting graph G, is plane, then by ( I ) , the faces F2i-2+s, i = 1,.. . , k, appear (homotopically) unchanged in G, while the faces F2i+l-6, i = 1,.. . , k, become one face in G,, whereby 6 = 1 or 6 = 2 depending on the pattern of XT(v) (see Figure VI.18). Thus we are led to the following definition (recall that a 1-face, 2-face respectively, is a face colored 1, respectively 2, in a 2-face-coloring).

c

Definition VI.54. Let G be a plane, eulerian, 2-face-colored graph

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.73

with A(G) > 2, and let v C V(G) with 2k = d(v) > 2 be arbitrarily chosen. Suppose that the notation is chosen in such a way that O+(v) = (e',, eb, . . . ,e&) and ei, eb belong to the boundary of a 1face. For S E {I,2 ) 7 define X ~ ( V= ) ((eki-2+6, eki-l+6)/i = - 7 k) = e',) and form the plane graph G, such that Ez,, = +6), i = 1,.. . ,k, and bd(F) is a face boundary both in G and G,, for every 6-face F of G. Then we say that G, is the result of a (6 1)-splitting applied to u E V(G), where we put 6 1 = 1 if 6 = 2 (see Figure VI.18) '1.

+

+

In view of Definition VI.54 and the paragraph preceding it we can say that an A-trail T of the plane eulerian graph G without 2-valent vertices induces a partition {Vl, V2) of V(G) such that v E Vg if and only if XT(v) = X 6 + l ( ~ (putting ) 6 1 = 1 for 6 = 2). That is, V6 contains precisely those vertices a t which T induces a 6-splitting, 6 = 1,2. Of course, Vl = 0 or V2 = 0 may hold; the same can be said concerning the above partition {V+, V-) (see, e.g., G2 in Figure VI.17).

+

Observe that in Definition VI.54, O+(v) was used for practical purposes only. As Figure VI.18 indicates, a 6-splitting can be defined solely on the grounds of G being a plane eulerian graph and of a fixed 2-face-coloring of G (see [FLEI74a, Definition 2 I). Corollary VI.55. Let G be a plane eulerian 2-face-colored graph without 2-valent vertices which has an A-trail T, and let {V+,V-), {V,, V2) be the two partitions of V(G) induced by T (see above). Then {Vl, V2) = {V+, v-).

Proof. Choose for T an initial vertex x and an initial edge e = xy, Combining Definition VI.54 with the discussion preceding it we can say that if v is a cut vertex of G, bd(F2i-2+s) can be a cycle in G, while it is not a cycle in G, but there is a 1-1-correspondence between the walks through the components of bd(F2i-2+6) in G, and the corresponding walks in G; i.e., ~ ~ ( b d ( F ~ ~ = - ~~+~ ~, () b) d ( F ~ ~ - ~Similarly, + ~ ) ) . if v is a cut vertex of G, F2i+l-6 might be the same face in G for i = 1 , . . . ,k, and so this face becomes one face in G, as well; but in this case ~ ~ ( b d ( F ~ ~ +<~ - s ) ) CG,(bd(F2i+l-6)). That is, taking a topological point of view one would say that the transition from G t o G, does not alter the homotopical properties of F2i-2+67 i = 1,. .,k, while it does alter these properties if F2i+l-6 FZj+,-,5 for some j # i, 1 5 i, j <_ k. However, such considerations are needed only if v is a cut vertex of G.

.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

a) 1-splitting

b) 2-split ting

Figure VI.18. G, obtained from G by applying a 6-splitting to v E V ( G ) ,6 = 1,2.

thus inducing an orientation on T. As one walks on e from x to y, the face to the right of e has w.1.o.g. color 1. With this choice concerning the orientation of the A-trail T we deduce immediately the following properties (see also Lemma VI.53 and Figure VI.19): 1) for every 'O+(v) = (el,,e;, . . .,e&),d = d(v), e: is being traversed towards v if and only if e{+l is being traversed away from v (we put e&+l= el,). 2 ) for every f = uw

E E(G), if f is being traversed from u to w,

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI. 7.5

Figure VI.19. Orienting the A-trail T; the face to the right of an arc always has color 1.

the face to the right of f has color 1. Consequently, T induces in v a 1-splitting if and only if v E V- (and hence induces in v a 2-splitting if and only if v E V+). The corollary now follows. Definition VI.56. Let G be a connected, plane, eulerian, 2-face-colored graph with 6(G) > 2. A partition {Vf,V") of V(G) is called an Apartition if and only if G has an A-trail T such that the vertex partition {Vl, V2) induced by T satisfies the equation {V', V") = {Vl, V2). Now consider a partition {V', V") of V(G) where G is a graph as described in Definition VI.56. How can one recognize whether {V', V") is an A-partition ? Put differently, we want to characterize the A-partitions of G. For this purpose we introduce some notation. Let v E V(G) be arbitrarily chosen. We write Gv,6for the graph G, obtained from G by applying the 6-splitting to v (see Figure VI.18), 6 E {1,2}. For Vo = {v,, . - - v*} E V(G), we define G ~,6 o= (. . ((Gv,,6)v2,6)- - .) vr $6' E {1,2). If V, = 0, then we put GV,,6 = G. With this notation we obtain, on the grounds of Corollaries V.10 and V.13, immediately the following result. Corollary VI.57. Let G be as in Definition VI.56, and let {V', V") be a partition of V(G). The following statements are equivalent. 1) {V', V") is an A-partition.

VI. 76

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

2) At least one of the graphs (Gv,,l)v,r,2 and (GV,,,)v,l,l is a cycle.

Of course, (Gv,,l)v,l,2 may be a cycle although (Gv,,2)vl,,l is not a cycle. This is exemplified by the graph of the octahedron as described in Figure VI.20.a). However, we call an A-partition {V', V") perfect if both (GV,,1)Vu,2and (GVr,P)Vrt,lare cycles. An example of a perfect A-partition is given in Figure VI.20.b). We note in passing that an A-partition in [FLEI74a] is what we call a perfect A-partition here.

Figure VI.20. a) The graph of the octahedron with a nonperfect A-partition. b) The same graph with a perfect A-partition (the elements of V' (V") are marked with v' (v")).

In fact, in checking whether a given partition {V', V") of V(G) is an A-partition (respectively, a perfect A-partition), one does not have to go so far as to decide whether (GVI,1)VII,2 or (GV1,2)VtI,1 is connected :respectively, whether both are connected); for, both graphs are 2-regular anyway. To see this we first state a lemma whose proof is left as an exercise (Exercise VI. 15).

Lemma VI.58. If G is a plane 2-face-colored embedding of a connected graph each of whose blocks is a cycle having an edge in common with the

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI. T i

boundary of the unbounded face of G, G has an A-trail T. Moreover, if the outer face of G has color 1 (2), T induces a 2-splitting (1-splitting) on every v E V(G) - V2(G) implying that T is uniquely determined. With the help of Lemma VI.58 we obtain the following characterization of plane graphs having an A-trail.

Theorem VI.59. The connected, plane, 2-face-colored, eulerian graph G has an A-trail if and only if for some Vo V(G) and 6 = 1 or 6 = 2, GVO,6is connected and outerplane such that every block of GVo16 is a face boundary. ) Proof. Suppose G has an A-trail T . Then let {Vl, V2) be the partition of V(G) - V,(G) induced by T where V6 contains precisely those vertices at which T induces a &splitting, 5 = 1,2 (see the discussion following Definition VI.54). Assume w.1.o.g. that the outer (unbounded) face of G is a 1-face, and consider H := GvIyl. Since for every v E Vl the 1splitting applied to v is induced by T, therefore the A-trail T corresponds to an A-trail TH of H (in fact, if T and TH are written as edge sequences, then T = TH). Thus H is connected. If H is not outerplane, or if it has a block which is not a face boundary, it has a 1-face Fl other than its outer face. Since TH induces a 2-splitting in every w E V(H) -V,(H), TH corresponds to an A-trail Tl of H1 = HV12 ,2, where VIZ = V(bd(Fl )) nV2. On the other hand, since 2-splittings do not alter the boundaries (viewed as edge sequences) of 1-faces (see Figure VI.18.b)), Fl is a 1-face of H , other than the outer face; and bdH1(Fl) is a cycle with dHl (x) = 2 for every x E V(bdH1(PI)).That is, bdHl(Fl) is a non-trivial component of H1, i.e. H1 is disconnected, contradicting the fact that Tl is an eulerian trail of Hl. Whence H is outerplane and each of its blocks is a face boundary indeed, and for Vo = Vl and 6 = 1, GV0,6has the properties as required. V(G) and 6 E {1,2) that GVoY6 is Conversely, suppose for some Vo connected, outerplane and each of its blocks is a face boundary . By Lemma VI.58, GVo:, has an A-trail To which corresponds to an eulerian trail T of G which ~nducesa 6-splitting in each of the elements of Vo. Hence T induces a 1- or a 2-splitting in each of the vertices of G other Gvo,6 is a special type of a Husirni tree which in turn is generally defined as a connected graph in which every edge belongs to at most one cycle (see, e.g. [ H A R A ~ which ~ ~ ] attributes the consideration of such graphs to Husimi, [HuSI~O~]).

VI.78

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

than the 2-valent vertices. Consequently, T is an A-trail of G. Theorem VI.59 now follows. We cannot conclude from the second part of the proof that the A-trail T of G induces a 1-splitting for the elements of V , if the outer face of Gvo,6 has color 1. For it can be that G itself satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma VI.58, and then T induces a 2-splitting for all of V(G) - V,(G). Figure VI.21 shows that there are connected outerplane eulerian graphs without A-trails.

Figure VI.21. A connected, outerplane, simple eulerian graph without any A-trail (observe that H has only 2-, 4and 6-valent vertices).

In fact, if we assume for H of Figure VI.21 that its outer face is a 1face, then the triangle (a, b,c) is the boundary of a 1-face Fl as well. A 1-splitting in any one of a , b, c renders a disconnected graph with one component consisting of a triangle; and H{a,b,c),2contains E(bd(Fl)) as the edge set of a non-trivial component. Hence H cannot have an A-trail.

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI. 79

We leave it as an exercise to show - as a generalization of the idea used in Figure VI.21 - that if G is a graph which satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma VI.58, then a connected, outerplane, simple eulerian graph H exists which has no A-trail and contains a subgraph homeomorphic (also in the topological sense) to G (Exercise VI.16). It is no surprise, however, that in the discussion centering around Figure VI.21 the graphs considered had cut vertices since it was shown in [REGN76a] that every 2-connected, outerplane, simple eulerian graph has an A-trail. In what follows we call the elements of E(G) - E(bd(F,)) inner edges of the outerplane graph G whose outer face is F,. Moreover, we shall make use of the following lemmas. For the sake of brevity, we extend the concept of S-splitting to 2-valent vertices by saying that T induces in such a vertex a 6-splitting where 6 = 1 or 6 = 2; and in this case we choose 6 E {1,2) as we find fit. Lemma VI.60. Let H be a plane eulerian 2-face-colored graph which is a (non-trivial) block-chain whose outer face F, is a l-face, and let B,, . ..,B, be the blocks of H denoted in such a way that Bi n B j # 0 if and only if I i - j I< 1. Suppose further that E(bd(F,)) n E(Bi) # 0 for i = 1,.. . ,T. Then H has an A-trail if and only if Bi has an A-trail which induces a 2-splitting in every cut vertex of H contained in Bi.

Proof. Denote by xi,++, the cut vertex of H for which {xi,++,) = Bi n Bi+,, i = 1,.. .,T - 1. Furthermore, let eil fi,gi, hi E E(Bi) denote those edges which satisfy

and such that w.1.o.g. O + ( X ~ - ~=, ~(e:, ) g{-,,. ..,hi-l, fi, . . .), i = 2,. .. , T . Whence we conclude that gi-, and ei on the one hand, hi-, and fi on the other hand are consecutive in a walk through bd(F,). Now suppose H has an A-trail T. By hypothesis and the notation chosen above, and since w.1.o.g. T starts in xIv2along the edge g,, T is necessarily of the form

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.80

We note that since T is an A-trail in a plane graph, T therefore traverses all edges of B, before passing an edge of Bi, 2 5 i 5 r , and likewise traverses (after passing f,) all edges of B, before passing any other edges of Bi, 2 5 i 5 r - 1; and for i = 2,. . . ,r - 1, T passes the edges of Bi in two subtrails, namely f i , . . . ,hi, and gi, . . . ,ei. Consequently, T induces A-trails Ti in Bi, i = 1,.. . ,r , as follows:

Tl =g,,...,h,7 T, = f , , . . . , e , , Ti = fi,..., hi,gi,..., ei for 2 5 i

< r - 1.

Thus, Ti induces a 2-splitting in X ~ _ ~ , ~ , XE ~V(Bi) , ~ + , (in the case dBi(xi-l,i) = 2 or dgi(xi,i+l) = 2 we can also regard the behavior of Ti as inducing a 2-splitting). Conversely, if Ti is an A-trail of Bi inducing a 2-splitting in the cut vertices of H belonging to Bi, i = 1,.. ., r , then w.1.o.g. it can be expressed as above, and T as above can be constructed by decomposing Ti, i = 2,. . . ,r - 1 into the above two subtrails; and T is an A-trail of H. The lemma now follows. Now we investigate certain properties of outerplane graphs.

Lemma VI.61. Let G be a 2-connected outerplane eulerian simple graph which is not a cycle and whose outer face Fois a 1-face. Define H := G,,, for some v E V(G) with d(v) > 2. Then H has the following properties: 1)

If F, # Fo is a 1-face of G with v E V(bd(Fl)), then every w E V(bd(F,)) - {v) is a cut vertex of H.

2)

The cut vertices of H are precisely the vertices defined in 1).

3) H is a non-trivial block-chain.

Proof. To prove property 1) we observe that the outerplanarity of G yields v, w E V(bd(Fl)) n V(bd(Fo)). That is, there exist two simple open curves CoyC, in the plane such that a) Ci n G = {v, w), i = 0 , l ;

b) Ci - {v, w) lies in the interior of the face F,, i = 0 , l ; and, consequently, c)

C := Co U C, is a simple closed curve in the plane satisfying C n G = {v,w).

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.81

By construction and the Jordan Curve Theorem, C divides F, -C, i = 0,1, into two parts which lie on different sides of C. From this and the fact that Fo and Fl are 1-faces, we can conclude that each of the two sides of C contains a positive even number of edges incident with v and w, respectively. Since G is a simple graph, each of the two sides of C must contain at least one vertex of G. That is, v and w separate G. More precisely, we can express G a s G = G'

u G" ,

where G' n G" = {v, w)

and dGl(v)r dG,(w) E dG,,(v)

= dG,,(w) = O(mod2) .

(*)

Consequently, GI and GI1 lie on different sides of C (except for v and w, of course, which lie on C). Hence, if we form the plane graph HI by splitting v into two vertices v' and v" in such a way that E,, = E, n E(Gt) and Evil = E, n E(GU) and such that v' (v") lies on the same side of C as GI (G"), then we can write

H, = Hi u H:

,

where

Hi n H: = {w)

and Hi, Hr and Hl are all connected and eulerian by (*). Moreover, w is the only element of HI which lies on C (hence Hi and Hi' lie on different sides of C except for w); and by construction, w is a cut vertex of H1. Also, by the above construction,

and H can be written as

H = HI u HI1, where H'

f l

H" = {w}

and

H" = (H:),,,,, . That is, H' and H" lie on different sides of C except for w. This classifies w as a cut vertex of H as well.

'

= ( H V l,

Now we turn to the proof of property 2). First of all, the 2-valent vertices ~ ( ~i 1=, 1,.. .,k, k = idG("), arising from the 1-splitting of v, cannot be cut vertices of H; otherwise, E,(;, is a set of two bridges of H, thus contradicting the fact that H is eulerian.

VI. 82

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Now consider the path

and let x E V(Po) be chosen subject to the condition that x g' V(bd(Fl)) if F, # Fo is a 1-face of G and v E V(bd(F,)). By the above and 1) it suffices to show that x is not a cut vertex of H. In any case, the choice of x implies that vx @ E, - {el, ed), where {el,ed) = E, n E(bd(Fo)). Let the paths PI and P2 be defined by

(possibly E(P,) = 0 or E(P2) = 0). We can consider two cases. a) Suppose there exists xi E V(P;) - {x), i = 1,2, such that either x1x2 E E ( H ) , or for some j E (1,. . ., k), xlv(j), x2v(j) E E(H). Then let P3= P3(xl, x2) be the path joining xl and x2 in Po; x E V(P3) - {x, , x2) follows. Define the cycle C j of H by

C j = (E(P3) u {xlx2)) if xlx2 E E ( H ) , Cj = (E(P3) U E,(,,) otherwise ) (note that {x,v(j), x2v(j)) = E,(jl if xlx2 @ E(H)). In any case, ~ ( j:= (V(Cj)) is a %-connected subgraph of H. In fact, Cj C bd(F,), where F, is the unbounded (outer) face of H. Since H and ~ ( jC)H are also outerplane with Cj being the boundary of the outer face of ~ ( j )we, can ) every u E V(Cj) - {xl, x2, v(j)} (observe conclude that E, c E ( H ( ~ ) for that the elements of E, nE(P,) are consecutive in O+(u)). Consequently, u cannot be a cut vertex of H since ~ ( jis)a 2-connected subgraph of H and thus a subgraph of a block of H. Observing that

we can conclude that x is one of these vertices u and, therefore, x is not a cut vertex of H. b) Assuming now that xi E V(Pi) - {x), i = 1,2, with the properties stated in a) does not exist, we immediately deduce the validity of the following equations:

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.83

Consequently, assuming first that E ( P l ) # 0 # E(P2), it follows that v and x separate G. Moreover, these two equations imply even that in G there exists a face F # Fo with v, x E ~ ( b d ( ~ ) ) By . ~ the ) choice of x, F cannot be a 1-face; hence it is a 2-face both in G and H. Thus, v(j) E V(bd(F)) n V(H) for some j E 1 . .,k . Similar to case a ) ~ )denote the path containing x and defined by let P3 = P ~ ( X ~ ,CXPO {v(j)xl ,v(j)x2) = EvO).Using the same symbols, define Cj and ~ ( j as in case a); again Cj C bd(F,), and Cj is a cycle both in G and H. Continuing the argument as in case a), we can conclude that x is not a cut vertex of H if x = u for some u E V(P3) - {xl,x2). By this and because vx $ E, - {el, ed) by the choice of x, we are led to the following conclusions: x E {x,, x,), hence vx E E, C E(G) which implies vx Z: {el, ed). So, either E(Pl)= 0 or E(P2)= 0. W.1.o.g. vx = el. Let x' denote the element of V ( G )- {v) incident with e2 which is defined by O+(v) = (e',,eh,. . . ,e&),and let in this case P3 = P3(x, 2') c PObe the path joining x and x' in Po. Again, by using the same symbols as before and by observing that in this case j = 1, we define the same way as before the cycle C, which is the boundary of the outer face of H(l) where, as before, ~ ( l:=) (V(C1)) is a Zconnected outerplane subgraph of H. But also in this case we can conclude E, C E ( H ( ~ ) ) ;for we can express C1 as

C, = Pi u {e,) for Pi = P3U {v, vx)

.

This gives the situation of case a ) with v and x' assuming the roles played by xl and x,. That is, x is not an end vertex of Pi; so, as before, E, c E(H(')) follows, and therefore, x is not a cut vertex of H. This finishes the proof of property 2). To see that H is a non-trivial block-chain once again consider Po as defined a t the beginning of the proof of property 2), and let x,, x, x2 be three different vertices lying in this order on Po.We claim that x is not a cut vertex of H if xl and x2 belong to the same block B c H.

B is 2-connected since H is eulerian and simple. Hence there is a cycle C C B with xl, x2 E V(C). For the path P3= P3(x1, x2) E Po,form the Observe that in the definition of PI it is not said whether Pl is the path in Po'to the left7 or 'to the right' of X; hence it is no loss of generality, if we write the same index i on both sides of the last equation. 2, This implication is true, however, for every separating pair of vertices in a 2-connected plane graph.

)

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.84

2-connected subgraph B1 of H defined by

(possibly B, = C ; B1 # B if B, # C). In any case, B1 C B because C C B and K ( B ~2) 2. Also, x E V(B1) since x E V(P3); hence x E V ( B ) . Moreover, P3 C B implies that P3C bd(F*), where F*is the unbounded (outer) face of the outerplane graph B . Now, we observe as before that the elements of E, n E(P3) are consecutive in O+ (x) ; hence E, c E (B), i.e., x is not a cut vertex of H. That is, since j = 1,.. . ,k , is not a cut vertex of H and since V ( P o )= V(H) - {v(j)/j= 1,.. . , k), a block of H contains at most two cut vertices of H. Consequently, since H is connected but not 2-connected and since H is a simple graph, it follo~vs that a cut vertex of H belongs to two blocks of H; that is bc(H) is a non-trivial path. This implies the validity of property 3) and finishes the proof of Lemma VI.61. Finally, we prove a property of 2-connected outerplane graphs. Lemma VI.62. Let B be a 2-connected outerplane simple graph whose outer face is F,, and let B- := B - e for some edge e = x y E E(bd(F,)). Denote by F2 # F, the other face of B with e E E(bd(F2)). Then Bhas the following properties: 1) V(bd(F2)) - {x, y) is the set of cut vertices of B-. 2)

B- is a (non-trivial) block-chain with x and y belonging to different end-blocks of B-, and they are not cut vertices of B-.

Proof. The lemma is trivially true if B is a cycle, i.e., if B- is a path. Hence suppose that B is not a cycle. Any w E V(bd(F2))- {x, y) is a cut vertex of B-: this follows from the fact that w E V(bd(F2))nV(bd(F,)) and xy E E(bd(F2)) n E(bd(F,)) which implies that there is a plane simple closed curve C containing nothing in B except w and precisely one point of the edge x y (with x y viewed as a topological image of the open unit interval (0,l)). Thus x and y lie on different sides of C; hence, every path from x to y in B- passes through w; i.e., w is a cut vertex of B-. Observe that V(bd(F2)) - {x, y) # 0 because G is a simple graph. Now let z be any cut vertex of B-. Since B is 2-connected while B- is not 2-connected, it follows from Theorem 111.32 that B- is a non-trivial blockchain with x and y belonging to different end-blocks of B-, and they are not cut-vertices of B-. Hence every path P(x, y) C B- contains z , and

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.85

so every cycle of B containing xy also contains z. Since bd(F,) is such a cycle, and since x and y are not cut vertices of B- , z E V(bd(F,)) - {x, y } follows. This proves the lemma. Now we turn to Regner's result on A-trails in outerplane eulerian graphs.

Theorem VI.63. Let G be a 2-connected outerplane simple eulerian graph, and consider a 2-face-coloring of G such that the outer face Fois a 1-face. Let v E V(bd(Fo)) with d(v) > 2 be arbitrarily chosen (if such v exists). Then G has an A-trail inducing a 1-splitting in v. Proof. If G has only 2-valent vertices it is a cycle; a run through this cycle represents an A-trail, whence we can assume that G has at least one vertex whose valency exceeds 2. We observe that G being a 2-connected simple graph implies that in this case G has at least three vertices with a valency exceeding 2. Consequently, the smallest graph Go other than a cycle satisfying the hypothesis of the theorem, has precisely three 4valent vertices and three 2-valent vertices; it can be interpreted as being obtained from a plane embedding of the octahedron graph by deleting the edges of the outer face boundary (see Figure VI.22). A 1-splitting in v renders the graph GO,,, having precisely two 4-valent vertices x, y which are necessarily cut vertices of GO,,,. In fact, Gt,l satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma VI.58, whence we can conclude that Go has an A-trail To inducing a 1-splitting in v and a 2-splitting in each of x and y. Using the same argument, we can conclude that if G is an outerplane graph homeomorphic to Go, G has an A-trail T inducing a 1-splitting in the chosen vertex v and a 2-splitting in the other two 4-valent vertices. Now we can proceed by induction. Consider a graph G satisfying the hypothesis of the theorem and having n > 3 vertices of valency exceeding 2, and assume the validity of the theorem for all corresponding graphs H having at most n - 1 such vertices. Consider in G the chosen vertex v and O+(v) = (ei, e;, . . .,e&)where d = d(v) > 2, and w.1.o.g. assume that el, ed E E(bd(Fo)) where Fo is the outer face of G. Now form H = G,,l and denote Po= bd(Fo) - v. In any case, H is connected, eulerian and outerplane. If we denote the cut vertices of H by x,, . . .,x, according to the order in which they appear in Po,it follows from the argument used in proving property 3) of Lemma VI.61, that xi and x j belong to the same block of H, if and only if I i - j I= 1. Hence we can denote the blocks of H by

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.86

Figure VI.22. The 2-connected outerplane eulerian graph Go having an A-trail Towhich induces a 1-splitting in v. B,, . . . ,B,+, such that xl E V(Bl), x, E V(B,+l) and xi-,,xi E V(Bi) for 2 5 i 5 r. As for the distribution of the j = 1,.. . ,k, d(v) = 2k, in these blocks Bi, i = 1,.. . , r 1, we have

+

since G is 2-connected and because of the definition of v(j), j = 1,.. . ,k. W.l.o.g., v(') E V(B,), v(" E V(B,+,) (observe that the notation for Bi, i = 1 , . . .,r 1, can be chosen either "from the left to the right" or "from the right to the left"). For j = 2 , . . . ,k - 1, let ij denote the index such that v(j) E V(Bi, ). Of course, there may be blocks of H not containing any v(j), j = 1, . . .,k; but for j # m we have i # i, because among the four vertices of Poincident with the elements of E,cj, U E,(,, , there are two cut vertices of H , each of which separates the remaining two vertices from each other (see the proof of Lemma VI.61, property 3), and observe that G is a simple graph and that a vertex of Po incident with some e E E, - {el, ed), is a cut vertex of H by Lemma VI.61, property 1)). It follows from the outerplane embedding of G and the definition of v(j), j = 1,. . ., k, that if j < m, then ij < i,. In addition to the xi, i = 1,. . .,r , we introduce zo and x,+, defined in G by vxo = el and U X , + ~ = ed. Thus, Bi n {xj/j = 0,.. .,r 1) = {xi-,, xi). Figure VI.23

+

+

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.87

illustrates the structure of H which follows from Lemma VI.61 and the above argument.

G

H

Figure VI.23. The graphs G and H = G,,l.

The outer face F, of the block-chain H is a 1-face; and Po C bd(F,). Moreover, bd(F,) n E(Bi) # 8 for i = 1,.. . , r 1 because E(Bi) n E(Po)# 0. This and the chosen notation allow the application of Lemma VI.60. Therefore, an A-trail of G inducing a 1-splitting in v necessarily induces a 2-splitting in each of xl, .. .,x,. On the other hand, if we can and xi, i = show that Bi has an A-trail inducing a 2-splitting in 1,. . .,r 1, then H has an A-trail by Lemma VI.60, which is equivalent to saying that G has an A-trail inducing a 1-splitting in v. Hence, to finish the proof of the theorem, it suffices to show that (Bi)(zi-l,zil,2 has an A-trail for i = 1,.. . ,r 1. For this purpose, fix an arbitrary i E (1,. . .,r 1) and consider Bi . Depending on the position of Bi in H and its structure, we can consider the following cases.

+

+

+

+

(I) V ( B j ) n { v ( j ) / j = l , . . . , k } = 0

.

Denote for short B = Bi, x = xi-l, and y = xi. Let A , = (x, v, tl), A 2 = (y, v, t2) be two triangles with t l , t2 $ V ( G ) ,and construct a plane embedding of the planar graph

VI.8S

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

such that t, and t2 are 2-valent in B+ and lie in the boundary of the unbounded face of B + (see Figure VI.24). Observe that for the unbounded face F k of B it follows that V(bd(Fk)) = V(P(x, y ) ) , where

P(x, y) = bd(Fk) n Po ;

otherwise, Po U {el, e d ) = bd(Fo) is a cycle in G containing a vertex of the cycle bd(Fk) in its bounded (but not in its unbounded) region, thus contradicting the fact that G is outerplane. Thus, the embedding of B f as defined above and illustrated by Figure VI.24 is outerplane indeed. Moreover, since B is 2-connected, we can conclude by the same reasoning that P' (x, y) := bd(FL) - P ( x , y) contains no edge other than xy (see Figure VI.24).

Figure VI.24. Forming the outerplane graph B+ from the outerplane graph B by adding the triangles Al and A,.

Now suppose that B has at most n - 2 vertices of valency exceeding 2; then B+ has at most n - 1 such vertices. So, applying the theorem to B + we obtain an A-trail T+ of B+ inducing a 1-splitting in v (the 2face-coloring of B + is induced by the 2-face-coloring of G via the induced 2-face-coloring of B). Observing that T+, read as an edge sequence, can also be regarded as an A-trail of B:, we can conclude that by Lemma VI.60, B has an A-trail T such that the vertex splittings defined by X T ( x ) and XT(y), are Zsplittings.

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.89

However, if B has precisely n- 1 vertices of valency exceeding 2, induction cannot be applied to B+ as constructed above. So in this case we have to proceed differently. Consider the 2-face F2of B (which, in fact, is also a 2-face of G) with xy E bd(F2), and form B- = B - {xy). By Lemma VI.62 we can write the block-chain B- as the union of its blocks,

... U B , , where t =I V(bd(F2))I -1, and B i n B3T # 0 if and only if I i - j I= Furthermore, we can denote for j = 1 , . . ., t - 1, B-=B,U

1.

wj E V(bd(&)) - {x, y) by Lemma VI.62. In addition, denote wo = x and w, = y (w.1.o.g. x E B,, y E B,). Note that since dB- ( z )

-- 1(mod 2 ) , if and only if

z E {x, y)

,

we have for j E J := { I , . . . , t ) dB- (wj-,) zz dBr (wj) 3 1(mod 2), 3

dg7(u) 3

3

= O(rnod2)

if

u

#W~-~,W~.

B being outerplane and V(bd(F2)) = {wj/j = 0,. . . ,t ) yields

Hence wj-l wj E E(B3T) for j E J, and by the above congruences, Bi := Bj - {wj-,wj) is eulerian. Of course, E(BS) = 0 may hold true for some (but not all) j E J. Consider Jo:= { j E J / E ( B i ) # 0) and observe that since B3T is a block of B-, it follows that BIT is 2-connected for j E Jo;hence Bi is a connected eulerian outerplane graph. By the same reasoning used in proving Lemma VI.62, we can conclude that B; is a non-trivial block-chain; thus it has a cut vertex, and wj-,,wj belong to different end-blocks of Bi and are not cut vertices of Bi. Summarizing the above applications of Lemma VI.62, we can express B as follows: B = bd(F2)U B;

U

j E Jo

VI.90

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Figure VI.25. A block B = Bi of H, the non-eulerian blocks B; of B - {xy), i E J, and the eulerian block-chains B; of By - { W ~ - ~ W ~ j) ,E Jo.

where Bj is a non-trivial eulerian block-chain for j E Jo; any two of these block-chains have at most one vertex in common, and that vertex belongs to V(bd(F2)). Figure VI.25 illustrates this structure of B. Our aim now is to find for every j E Jo two sub-trails covering B; and combine them with the cycle bd(F,) so that it results in an A-trail of B as required. For this purpose let cj be an arbitrary cut vertex of B; . Just as we defined B+ from B (see Figure VI.24), we can now form for every j E J, the 2-connected outerplane eulerian graph B? by attaching

AY)

to Bi two triangles A? = ( W ~ - ~ , P tl), , = (wj,p, t,) at wj-,, wj respectively, where p, tl, t2 g' V(G) and t l , t2 are 2-valent in BF. We now have wj-l in place of x, wj in place of y, p in place of v, and Bj in place of B, if we compare this construction with the one illustrated by Figure VI.24. The fact that B is 2-connected while B; is a block-chain (and therefore, cannot contain wj-lwj) does not matter. In any case, Bf has nf < n vertices of valency exceeding 2; this derives from the fact that B- is a non-trivial block-chain. Now, by induction we can conclude that B: has an A-trail T; inducing in cj a 1-splitting. By

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.91

Lemma V1.60, T : induces a 2-splitting in wj-,, wj and p (observe that (B:)~,,~ is a block-chain with wjWl,wj7p as three of its cut vertices). Hence we can write T : as an edge sequence as follows:

where Ti') and Ti') are edge-disjoint closed trails covering B;. T:)' duces a 2-splitting in wj-,

in-

, as does Ti') with respect to wj. Since Ti')

and T J ~are ) A-trails of the respective components of (B;)c, ,1, it follows that two edges incident with u E V(BS)and which are not consecutive in O+(u), can never form a transition defined by any of Ti'), Ti'). By analogy to the proof of Lemma VI.60, we can now choose for every j E J, edges ej, fj,gj, hj with ej, f j E E,.1 - 1 nE(B(i),gj, hj E E w j n E ( B j ) so that the trails Ti') and Ti') (viewed as edge sequences) can be written in the form - e j , T l j , f j 7 and Ti') = hj,Tzj7gj

We can look at the vertices wj, j E J U (0). If j, j

.

+1

J,, dB(wj) = 2; if j E J,, j + 1 @ J,, contains edges of E,, while T!")' does not exist; if j # Jo,j 1 E J,, Ti'+') contains edges of E,, while Ti') does exist and contain not exist; and if j, j 1 E J,, both Ti') and T!")' edges of E,,. Moreover, if we look at O+(wj) in B, either

+

TA')

+

depending on which of the above four cases concerning j, j+ 1 E J prevails (wj-l = wi if j =O). Defining for i = 1,2 and j E J

~T/"=T/') if j E J,,

and 6 T / j 1 = 0

if j E J - J,

,

VI.92

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

and taking into account the above equations concerning T!)' and O+(wj), we conclude that

is an A-trail of B inducing in wj, j E J U (0) and, therefore, especially in wo = xi-l and wt = xi a 2-splitting. In other words, (Bi)(ri-, , r i l , 2 has an A-trail. This settles the case (I). Then there exists precisely one j E { I , . . . ,k) so that v(j) E V(Bi) (see the discussion preceding Figure VI.23). Again denote for short B = B i , x = xi-l, y = xi, set v = v(j), and let P ( x , y) = b d ( F k ) n Po be defined as in case (I). In any case, B has fewer vertices of valency exceeding 2 than G. So, if xy 51 E(B), we suppress v to obtain B* which is of the type treated in (I);and any A-trail of B* corresponds to an A-trail of B, and vice versa. Thus, for xy 6 E ( B ) induction applied to B* yields an A-trail of B as required. Whence we assume xy E E(B): B contains a triangular 2-face A = (v, 2, Y). If A = B, a run through A is an A-trail of B as required because of our additional definition of a 6-splitting in Zvalent vertices. Assume, therefore, A # B. In this case we have precisely the situation illustrated by Figure VI.25 with t = 2, Jo= (21, and v in place of wo, x in place of wl, and y having the same meaning as in Figure VI.25. Note that B - v is a 2-connected outerplane simple graph; hence B- := (B - v) - {xy) = B - A is a non-trivial block-chain by Lemma VI.62. As in case (I) we find c E P(x, y) - {x, y) which is a cut vertex of B-, and by induction an A-trail TB of B which induces a 1-splitting in c and, therefore, a 2-splitting in x and y. Thus, in all possible instances we have reduced case (11) to case (I). Theorem VI.63 now follows. It is tempting to suspect that in the hypothesis of Theorem VI.63, one can drop outerplanarity to obtain a true statement for an even larger class of eulerian graphs. Or, in more cautious terms, one could ask whether it is true that every simple 2-connected eulerian plane graph has an A-trail. In fact, when I first considered the problem of finding A-trails in plane

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.93

eulerian graphs, I thought that 2-connectedness would be a sufficient condition for a plane eulerian graph G to admit a partition {V;, V2/) of V(G) - {v) for some v E V(G), such that (Gvl,1)V;,2 does not contain a subgraph homeomorphic to the graph G1 of Figure VI.17. For, if one considers the problem of finding an A-trail in a connected plane eulerian graph G from an algorithmic point of view, it follows from Theorem VI.59 and the discussion of Figure VI.17 that G has an A-trail, if and only if for every u E V(G) there is a partition {V., V2/) of V(G) - {u) with the property just described. Therefore, the graph G1 of Figure VI.17 characterizes the forbidden stage that one has to avoid in trying to produce an A-trail by a sequence of 6-splittings, 6 E {1,2) (here, homeomorphic includes the meaning it has in the topology of the plane. In this sense, the two graphs of Figure VI.17 have to be viewed as different). Unfortunately, there exist 2-connected plane eulerian simple graphs having only 4- and 6-valent vertices and not having any A-trail. In order to see that the graph Go of Figure VI.26 is such an example, we assume first w.1.o.g. that Go is 2-face-colored with the outer face being a 1-face. Suppose now that Go has an A-trail T. Observing that (Go)(V1,V61,2 is a disconnected graph and applying Corollary VI.57, it follows from the symmetry of Go that this graph also has an A-trail inducing a 1-splitting in v,. W.1.o.g. suppose T has been chosen with this property.

-

This implies, however, with necessity that the 6-splitting induced by T in vi, 2 i 6, satisfies the congruence i 6 (mod 2). That is, we arrive a t the graph H = , v ~ , v ~,{ ~ ,,,,, , I ,l,2 as illustrated by Figure VI.27, where T, viewed as an edge sequence, is an A-trail of H as well. Now, if one applies the corresponding 6-splitting to every 4valent vertex of H, one obtains a graph homeomorphic to the graph G1 of Figure VI.17.') No matter which 6-splitting is applied to every vertex of V(Go)- {v), 6 E {1,2), the result is either a disconnected graph or, at best, what has been termed the forbidden stage whence we can conclude that Go cannot have an A-trail.

< <

1

Interestingly enough, a slight change in the embedding of Go yields the plane graph G r which in fact does have an A-trail T (see Figure VI.28); the checking of the validity of this assertion is left as an exercise. In fact, for every splitting of the Pvalent vertices of H which does not yield a disconnected graph, the result is - homeomorphically - the same, namely GIof Figure VI.17.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Figure VI.26. A 2-connected plane eulerian simple graph Go with 4- and 6-valent vertices only and having no A-trail.

Hence, the existence of an A-trail in a 2-connected plane eulerian graph in general depends on the actual embedding of the underlying (abstract) planar graph, a fact we have already encountered in graphs of connectivity 1 (cf. Figures VI.17, VI.26 and VI.28). So, one might ask whether for a given 2-connected planar eulerian graph G, there exists an embedding H of G on the plane such that H has an A-trail. However, S. Regner (with the help of the author) constructed 3-connected planar eulerian graphs which had no A-trails. Since for any two embeddings H,, H, of such a graph we have either O z l (G) = O& (G) or O i l (G) = o,~(G) (see Theorem III.52), we can conclude that in the case of 3-connected

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

Figure VI.27. H obtained from Go by applying a 6splitting to v2j-2+6, j = 1,2,3, 6 = 1,2.

planar eulerian graphs, the existence or non-existence of an A-trail in such a graph is independent of the actual embedding of that graph. On the other hand, in view of Lemma VI.60, it follows that if one has a planar 3-connected eulerian graph G with no A-trails, the planar eulerian graph HI = G' U G", where G' and G" are copies of G and GI n G" = {v) E V(Hl) (hence K(H,) = I), does not admit an A-trail in any plane embedding of H1. Furthermore, if H2 = G' U G", where GI, G" are as above and GI n G" = {v, w) E V(H2) (hence &(Hz)= 2), no embedding of Hz in the plane has an A-trail either. This conclusion follows directly from the next lemma (see also [REGN76a, Bemerkung 3.21). There, G t will denote the graph constructed from G,, in the same way that B+ was

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.96

Figure VI.28. G r obtained from Go of Figure VI.26 by changing the embedding of the edge vlvs only: vlv6 belongs in Go to the boundary of the outer face, in G r t o the boundary of a 2-face containing v. GF has an A-trail, while Go does not.

constructed from B in the proof of Theorem VI.63 (see Figure VI.24).

Lemma VI.64. Suppose for the plane 2-connected eulerian graph G that it can be written in the form k

G=

UG,, E(G,) n E ( G j )= 0 for i # j , 1 < i, j < P , k > 2 i= 1

,

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.97

such that Gi is eulerian, K ( G ~2) 2 and Gi n G,+l = v,,~+, E V (G),

+

(putting k 1 = 1; if k = 2, then ( G l n Gq [=I {v,,~, I= 2). Suppose further that G is 2-face-colored with the outer face F, being a 1-face, and that E(bd(F,)) n E(Gi) # 8 for i = 1, . . . ,k. The following statements are equivalent.

1) G has an A-trail.

2) The notation can be chosen in such a way that either GI, Gk have A-trails inducing a 1-splitting in v ~ and , ~ a 2splitting in vlj2,v ~ - , , respectively, ~ while for i = 2,. . . , k - 1, G ihas an A-trail inducing 2-splittings in both vidl,;, v;,;+,; or Gi has an A-trail inducing 2-splittings in both v;-,,~, v,,;+, for i = 1,.. . , k - 1 ( ~ u t t i n gvo = vk,,) and G i has an A-trail inducing , v, where {v) = v4(G$) - V4(Gk). a 2-sphtting in each of v ~ - , , ~vkYl7

Proof. We first observe that there are precisely two faces containing all vertices vi,++,, i = 1,.. . ,k, in their respective boundary, namely F, and another 1-face, call it Fl. This follows directly from the hypothesis of the lemma. Consequently, for i # j, 1 5 i, j 5 k, H = G~vi,i+l,vj,j+,l,l is a disconnected graph: in order to see this, take simple open curves C1 c FlU{~i,,+l,vjYj+1}and C, c F,u{vi,i+17 vj,j+l} eachjoining ~ , , i + ~ and vj,j+l. Cl nCz = { v ~ , ~ vj,j+l} + ~ , follows; hence C = C, UC, is a simple closed curve containing open edges of G in its bounded and unbounded region. Therefore and because each Gi is eulerian, i = 1, . . . , k, it follows that H can be constructed (topologically) in such a way that C also contains open edges of H in its bounded a i d unbounded region and C f l H = 0. We can thus conclude that H is disconnected (compare this with the proof of property 1) of Lemma VI.61). From these observations it now follows that if G has an A-trail T or if such T should be constructed from corresponding A-trails of Gi, i = 1,. . . ,k - 1, G z respectively, T or , the construction of T induces a 2-splitting in all but one vertex v ~ , ; + i~= 1,.. . ,k, at the most. Now suppose G has an A-trail T inducing a 1-splitting in some v;,~+,. W.1.o.g. we may assume the notation chosen in such a way that i = k (if necessary, one applies a cyclic permutation to the subscripts in order to obtain i = k). Construct the plane graph Hz,from G by replacing

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.98

v,,, with two vertices x, y @ V(G) such that E, = EukPl n E(G,), E, = Eukp1 n E(G,). Hence, Hz, is a non-trivial eulerian block-chain whose blocks Hi are defined by E(Gi), i = 1,.. .,k, and whose cut vertices are the vertices viyi+,, i = 1, . . . , k - 1. Another way of obtaining Hz, would be to identify the 2-valent vertices in GUkp1which are incident with edges of G1 (Gk), thus yielding the new vertex x (y). It follows, therefore,

,,

that

(Hz~){z,y).l

= Guk,l,l. Carrying the 2-face-coloring of G over to

Hz,, we can conclude from Lemma VI.60 that any A-trail TH of Hxy induces an A-trail Ti in Hi = (E(Gi)), i = 1 , . . ., k, such that Ti induces a 2-splitting in the vertices of Hi which are cut vertices of Hz,. Viewing T as an edge sequence, T is also an A-trail of Hz, and (Hz,) (x,yl,l. Consequently, in this case the existence of T in G implies that Gi has an for i = 2,. . . ,k - 1, and both A-trail inducing 2-splittings in vi-l,i, v;,++~ GI and Gk have an A-trail inducing a l-splitting in vk,, and a 2-splitting in vl,, ,vk-, ,k respectively. Conversely, if Gi has an A-trail as described above, Hz,, as constructed above, has an A-trail TH by Lemma VI.60, and TH induces l-splittings ~ ,GUk,l,~? ~ it followi~that Guk,l also has in 2 and y. Since ( H ~ , ) { ~ , ,'= an A-trail, i.e., G has an A-trail inducing a l-splitting in v ~ , ~ .

i= Now suppose that G has an A-trail T inducing a 2-splitting in 1,. . . ,k. Similar to the notation used in the proof of Lemma VI.60, we can choose edges ei, fi,gi, hi E E(Gi), i = 1,. . .,k, such that

and w.1.o.g. we may assume that the notation for defining G has been chosen in such a way that O + ( V ~ , ~ +=, )(e:+,, g:, . . .,hi, f/+l,. . .). Let us now look at the behavior of T in a fixed Gi, 1 5 i 5 k. Since T is an A-trail, the only transitions of T containing precisely one half-edge of Gi are {e:, g:-,), {fl,hi-,), {g:, e:+,), {hi, f:+,). Therefore and since G is plane, T cannot be of the form

where E(T;') U E(T,") = E(Gi)

- {e;, fi, gi, hi).

Consequently, T must be either of the form

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.99

(where {g:, hi} fi! XT since T does not induce a 1-splitting in v ~ , ~ +or~ ) , of the form T = . ..,ei,T:, fi, .. . ,hi,T:*,gi,. .. , (3) where E(TF) U E(T;-) = E(T,*) U E(T,**) = E(Gi) - {ei, fi, gi, hi} (we assume w.1.o.g. that ei is the first edge of Gi in T). Thus, if T is of the form (2), Ti := ei, TF, gi, hi, TF-, fi is an A-trail of Gi inducing a 2-splitting in each of vi-l,i, v ~ , ~ + If , . T is of the form (3),

T~+:= VX, ei,T:, f i ,xt,, t1v, vt2,t2y, hi,T:*,gi, yv

,

(4)

where x := vi-l,i7 y := ui,i+17 and v,tl,t2 fZ V(G), is an A-trail of G t inducing a 2-splitting in each of v, v ~ - , , ~vi,;+, , (see Figure VI.24 with Gi in place of B). To see that T must be of the form (2) for all but one Gi, and that it must be of the form (3) for the remaining Gi, i E {I,.. .,k}, we observe that T cannot be of the form (2) for all i = 1,.. . ,k; otherwise, we would have

i.e., T does not cover all of E(G) since {gi, e i ) E XT (note that {g:, e:+l) E XT, i = 1,.. . ,k). We can thus conclude that T must 'turn around' somewhere, but because T induces a 2-splitting in every v ; , ~ +i~ = , 1,. . . ,k, this 'turn7 must take place within some Gj, j E (1,. . . ,k). W.1.o.g. we can assume that the first 'turn' takes place for j = k if T starts with ei, i E {I,. . .,k - 1). Thus T is of the form

But then

is an A-trail of G- := G - Gk. Since by definition G- is a block-chain of G if k 2 3, while by hypothesis it is 2-connected for k = 2, it follows

VI. 100

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

from Lemma VI.60 for k 2 3, and from (6) for k = 2 respectively, that T induces an A-trail Tiin Gi such that Tiinduces a 2-splitting in the cut vertices of G- and, by (6), in vk-l,k and vk,, as well. Moreover, T ,: defined as Ti+ in (4), is an A-trail of G: as stated in the lemma. To finish the proof, it suffices to show that if Ti is an A-trail of Gi for i = 1,.. ., k - 1, and if is an A-trail of G i as stated in the conclusion of the lemma, G has an A-trail.

~k+

Define G- as above and apply Lemma VI.60 to G-; this results in an A-trail T- of G- which induces a 2-splitting in both vk-l,k and v ~ , ~ . Choosing the same notation for the definition of the A-trails Ti of Gi as above, we can write T - as defined in (6) and T$ as defined in (4) (with the subscript k replacing the subscript i). T as expressed by (5) can now be obtained by inserting in (6) the corresponding subtrails of (4); and T is an A-trail of G. Lemma VI.64 now follows. In fact, Lemma VI.64 can be generalized, however in one direction only. This generalization is the natural extension of Exercise IV.l.c), but again only in one direction. Lemma VI.65. (see [REGN76a, Lemma 1.41) If the connected plane eulerian graph G has an A-trail, then every block of G has an A-trail.

The proof of Lemma VI.65 and the construction of an example showing that the converse of Lemma VI.65 does not hold, is left as an exercise. Before we turn to the construction of planar 3-connected eulerian graphs with no A-trails, we have to study A-partitions. For this purpose, we may introduce some concepts. Definition VI.66. Let F,, . . . ,F,, m > 1, be m distinct faces of the 2face-colored plane eulerian graph such that, for a fixed 6 E {1,2}, Fiis a 6-face for i = 1,.. . ,m. Let us assume distinct vertices v , , ~v, ~ ,. .~.,,v,,~ exist with v;,++~E bd(Fi) n bd(F;+,), i = 1,...,m (with the subscripts read mod m). Then we call R = {F,, . . . ,F,) a unicolored face-ring of G and LR := {vl,*, . . ., a complete set of links of R (if m = 2, then v1,2 # v2,1). The following result relates A-partitions to face-rings and complete sets of links (see [FLEI74a, Theorem 1 and Corollary I]). Theorem VI.67. Let G be a 2-face-colored Zconnected plane eulerian graph without 2-valent vertices, and let {Vl, V2} be a partition of V(G). The following statements are equivalent.

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.101

(1) G has an A-trail T whose A-partition is {Vl, V2). (2) For every unicolored face-ring R of G and every complete set of links LR of R, if the elements of R are 6-faces then LR V6, 6 E {I?2).

Moreover, if we replace in (1) "A-partition" with "perfect A-partition" and in (2) " L R V6" with "Vl 2 LR Sf V2", then these stronger statements are equivalent as well. Proof. (1) implies (2). Suppose for some unicolored face-ring R of G, whose elements are 6-faces, and for some complete set of links LR that LR V,, 6 E {1,2). We may assume w.1.o.g. that 6 = 1. We claim that H := GLRIlis disconnected.

Since R is a unicolored face-ring of G and 6 = 1, distinct 1-faces Fl, . . . ,Fmof G exist such that

and by definition,

Now let Ci c Fi U bd(Fi) be a simple open curve with Ci n bd(Fi) = {vi-l ,i7 v ~ , ; + ~ ) .Then C = Ci is a simple closed curve. Precisely because Fi is a 1-face, i = 1,.. .,m, C contains in its interior (the bounded region of C), as well as in its exterior (the unbounded region of C) a positive even number of open edges of E,i,i+l,i = 1,.. .,m (otherwise, Ci and Ci+, would lie in faces of different colors, or else Ci = Ci+, which implies Fi = Fi+l). Moreover, C n G = LR S Vl by assumption.

ULl

W.1.o.g. suppose the notation chosen in such a way that for O + ( V ~ , ~ +=, ) (ei ,e;, . . . ,e&,),di = d(viVi+,) > 2, precisely the open edges el, e2, . . .,en; lie in the interior of C. Then 2 5 ni = 0 (mod 2) and di - ni 2 follows from the preceding paragraph. Then we can perform the 1-splitting in vi,++,, i = 1,. . . ,m, in such a way that v(l), . . .,v ( ~ ; )lie entirely in the interior of C, while v("'+') ,. . . ,v(") lie entirely in the exterior of C, where mi = $ni and ki = i d i (see Figure VI.18). Consequently, since C n G = LR c Vl, we can conclude that H is disconnected.

>

,,

Since H is disconnected and LR C Vl, it follows that Gvl is disconnected, and further that (Gvl ,l)v2,2is disconnected. On the other hand,

VI.102

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

{V,, V2) being the A-partition of an A-trail T of G with V6 containing precisely those vertices at which T induces a 6-splitting, 6 = 1,2, implies that (GVl,?)V2,2is a cycle (compare this with Corollary V1.57). This contradiction proves the implication. ( 2 ) implies ( 1 ) . Consider H = (Gvl,l)v,,2 which is a 2-regular graph. If

H is connected, then by Corollary VI.57, {V,, V2) is an A-partition obtained from some A-trail T inducing 6-splittings precisely in the elements of V6, 6 = 1,2. In this case, the implication follows. Hence suppose H to be disconnected. Choose Vo V(G) as small as possible such that Ho := (GVd,l)Vdf,2 is disconnected, where Vd = Vo n V,, V,' = Vo n V2. It follows that Ho has a face Fo such that bd(Fo) is disconnected; w.1.o.g. Fois the unbounded face of Ho. Furthermore, since we did not make any assumptions concerning the 2-face-coloring of G, we may now assume that Fo is a 1-face. : Now, if V', # 0, consider w E .V We claim that already HI := (GV;,I)V;~-{~},~ has a disconnected face boundary (whence HI is disconnected): for, Ho = (H1)Iw),2, and by definition of a 6-splitting, 6 E {1,2), the application of the 2-splitting to a vertex of H, leaves the 1-faces of H, (homotopically) invariant (see the footnote at the end of Definition VI.54); i.e., bd(Fo) is disconnected already in H,. This contradicts the choice of Vo; hence V : = 0 and, therefore Vo & V,. Again by the choice of Vo, and since G is connected, we must have Vo C VFo for VFo := v ( ( E ( b ~ l ( F ~ ) ) )since ~ ) , Vo Vl and Ho being disconnected implies that GVonvF0 ,, has a disconnected outer face. Consider C,,a component of bd(Fo), define C2:= bd(Fo) - C,, and let C be a simple closed curve lying in Fo and such that int C > H,, e x t C > Ho- HI, where H1is the component of Ho with HI > C1.The choice of Vo implies that for every v E Vo, some of the di)lie in int C (i.e., in HI) and some lie in e x t C (i.e., in H, - H,), i = 1,.. .,:d,(v); -. - . . otherwise, one obtains C n GV0-{,~,,= 0 and lntc n G V O - ~ , ~#, , 0 # e+t C n Gvo-~,l,l for some v E V,. W.1.o.g. we may assume that C is drawn in such a way that the transition from Ho to G, viewed as a topological procedure, leaves C invariant (i-e., w.1.o.g. C is a simple closed curve in G as well compare this with Figure VI.18) and C nG = Vo while (C - Vo)nF ( ~ ) = 0 for every 2-face F ( ~of) G.

C n G = Vo implies that we can write Vo as

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI. 103

where and vi,++, divide C into two simple open curves C: and Cy such that C: n 5 = {u;-,,~, C: - {vi-,,;, u;,~+,) lies in a uniquely determined 1-face, call it Fi, i = 1,. . .,m. It follows from the choice of Vo that Fi#Fj for i # j , l < i , j < m , (i2 and that bd(F+)n bd(Fj)

#0

if and only if

i -j 1 1 m - 1

,

(i3)

where bd(Fi) n bd(Fi+,) = {u,,++,) (putting m

+ 1= I)

.

(i4

Otherwise, one could draw a simple closed curve C- in the plane such that C- n F(,) = 0 for every 2-face of G, C-nG= V; c Vo, and (C- V,-) n Fi = 0 for at least one but not all i E {I,.. .,m); and csing an argument similar to the proof of the first implication, these properties of C- imply that Gv- is disconnected. Consequently, the validity of (i,) 0 ' - (i4) classifies R = {F,,. . .,F,) as a unicolored face-ring and Vo as a complete set of links of R. Since R is a set of 1-faces and Vo C V,, R and Vo violate the validity of (2); hence H must be connected in any case.

,

To finish the proof of the theorem suppose now that the A-partition in (1) is a perfect A-partition, and suppose in (2) that LR fulfills the stronger relation V, 2 LR 5 ;call the corresponding statements (1') and (2'). If {V,, V2) is a perfect A-partition, then, by definition, (GVl,1)V2,2is a cycle (which corresponds to T), and so is (Gv,,l)v, ,. Denote by T* the A-trail of G corresponding to the second cycle and define V;' := V,, V; := V,. Since (1)implies (2) a twofold application of this implication yields Vz 2 LR Jf Va for every unicolored face-ring R and every complete set of links LR; i.e., LR V6, 6 = 1,2. Whence we conclude that (1') implies (2'). Observe that {V6, V ): = {V, ,V,) independent of the choice of 6 E {1,2); hence one does not have to specify the color of the elements in the unicolored face-ring R. Suppose (2') holds. Define V$ as above. Since (2) implies (1) we obtain from the proof of this implication that both (Gvl ,l)v2a and (Gv; , = (Gv2,1)v,,2 are cycles; i.e. {V,, V,) is a perfect A-partition. Theorem VI.67 now follows.

VI.104

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

G, 6 = The theorem just proved indicates that if we look at G, = (V,) 1,2, where (Vl, V2) is an A-partition and G satisfies the hypothesis of the theorem , then G, must have a very special structure. In order to determine this structure, let us have a look at an arbitrary cycle C of G which is not a face boundary. It follows that both i n t C and ext C contain (open) edges of G (where we view C as a simple closed curve in the plane). Furthermore, both i n t C and extC contain 1-faces and 2-faces as well. In particular, every e E E(C) belongs to some bd(F,) where F6 is a 6-face, 6 = 1,2. Hence, considering

we conclude that R, is a unicolored face-ring having a complete set of links LR V(C), 6 = 1,2. By Theorem VI.67, V(C) If V,, and therefore, C G6, 6 = 1,2. Hence,

if G6 contains a cycle I<, K is the boundary of a 6-face.

(4

If we suppose that G is just a 2-face-colored plane eulerian graph with K(G)= 1 and possibly 2-valent vertices, the conclusion (*) is still valid: for an A-trail of G induces an A-trail in every block of G (see Lemma VI.65), and any cycle of G6 is necessarily contained in some block of G. Moreover, if a cycle C C G contains a 2-valent vertex of G, and if C is not the face boundary of a 6-face, R, as above can be constructed as well, with LR 2 {v E V(C)/dG(v) > 2) as a complete set of links of R6,5 E {1,2). In this case, LR If V,, S E {1,2), by Theorem VI.67; hence ( L R ) C G6, and moreover, C If G,. Summarizing these considerations we therefore arrive at the following result [REGN76a7Satz 2.11. Corollary VI.68. If T is an A-trail of the connected 2-face-colored plane eulerian graph, G, and if {V,, V2) is a corresponding A-partition of G, G, := (V6) contains a cycle C, only if C is the boundary of a 6-face, 6 E (1,2).

We point out, however, that neither GI nor G2 need to be connected. This fact is exemplified by Figure V1.29. Moreover, the converse of Corollary VI.68 does not hold even if G, is acyclic. In other words, G may have a vertex partition {V,, V2) such that G, = (V,) is acyclic, although G does not have an A-trail. This can be seen by studying the graph Go of Figure VI.26; we leave this as an exercise.

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI. 105

Figure VI.29. (a) The four-sided antiprism H, (b) an A-trail T of H, and (c) the subgraphs induced by the Apartition of T. Observe that H is 4-regular and has, except for two 4-gonal faces, triangular faces only.

The next result, however, shows that the converse of Corollary VI.68 is true provided G6 is connected. For this result, however, we need some considerations on unicolored face-rings. Let us consider a unicolored face-ring R = {Fly F2,.. .,F,), m 2 2, of the 2-connected, 2-face-colored plane eulerian graph G. Suppose bd(Fi)nbd(Fj)=O

for

li-jl>l,l
except if

{i, j} = {l,m}.

(*I

Since G is 2-connected bd(Fi) is a cycle for i = 1, . . .,m. Choose the notation as in the proof of Theorem VI.67. Let LR be a complete set of links. With LR we associate a simple closed curve C = C(LR) as in the Ci, Ci c Fi, first part of the proof of Theorem VI.67, where C = and C n G = L,. Of course, C not only depends on the choice of Ci C Fi, but also to a greater degree on the choice of LR which is uniquely determined if and only if I bd(Fj) n bd(Fi+l) I= 1, i = 1,. . . ,m (e.g. if G is 3-connected). In any case, among all possible choices for L , and the ): and C, = c(L$)) in such a way that associated curve C(LR), choose L for every complete set of links Lh

ULl

int C,

n L',

=0

.

(**I

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 106

Observe that if bd(F,) n bd(Fi+l) > { u ~ , ~ u+ ~~~, + , )one , obtains for every complete set of links L k with ui,++, E L k another complete set of linlcs by defining L k = (Lk - { v ~ , ~ + U , ) {u:,~+~). ) Whence we may conclude that the choice of L$) and Co satisfying (**) is possible. We note that L): is uniquely determined. Similarly, let L$) be the uniquely determined complete set of links such that C, = c(L$)) and

for every complete set of links Lk. By (*) and since G is %-connected,it follows that there are cycles C,, C1 c G defined by m

Co :=

U

m

U

(intCo n ~ ( b d ( ~ ~ C, ) ) := ), (extC, fl E(bd(Fi))) i= 1 i= 1

.

(r * * *)

Now we are in a position to present another result of S. Regner7s Ph.D. thesis, (see [REGN76a, Satz 2.21). Her original proof contains a minor flaw; the proof presented here differs considerably from hers insofar the details are concerned.

Corollary VI.69. Consider a vertex partition {V,, V2) for the plane, 2-connected, 2-face-colored eulerian graph G. If Gg := (Vg), 6 = 1,2, is connected, and if every cycle of Gg is the face boundary of a 6-face, {Vl, V2) is an A-partition. Proof. In view of Theorem VI.67 it suffices to show that for every unicolored face-ring R and every complete set of links LR, if the elements of R are 6-faces, LR Vg, 6 E {1,2). We proceed indirectly by choosing a unicolored face-ring R with minimal I R I whose elements are &faces, and such that for some complete set of links LR, LR C V6, 6 E {1,2); w.1.o.g. S = 1. Denote explicitly R = {Fly.. . ,F,),m 2 2, and LR = { u ~ , .~. .,u,,~). , We have bd(Fi) n bd(Fj) = 0 for 1 i- j I> 1, 1 5 i, j 5 m, unless (2, j ) = (1, m); this follows from the choice of R. Now choose the curves Ci, 1 5 i 5 m, and define the simple closed curve C with C n G = LR c V, a s in the first part of the proof of Theorem VI.67. It is precisely because of CnG = LR Vl and since G2 is connected that either int C n V2 = 0 or

ext C n V2 = 0 ;

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI.107

for, as an application of the Jordan Curve Theorem, every path P ( x , y) in G joining x E int C with y E ext C satisfies P(x, y) n LR # 0. W.l.o.g.,

Using the considerations preceding the formulation of Corollary VI.69 and (1) we may even assume that LR and C have been chosen in such a way that LR = L$) and C = C, thus satisfying (**). Let Co be the cycle defined in (* * * *). By (1) and the definition of C, and because of the assumption LR C V,, we conclude Co C (V,). Now, since every edge of C, is a boundary edge precisely of some element of R and of some 2-face, and since R contains at least two elements, it follows that Co cannot be the face boundary of a 1-face. This contradiction to the hypothesis finishes the proof of the corollary. Consequently, as an application of Corollaries VI.68 and VI.69, a partition {V,, V2) of V(G) where G is 2-connected, plane and eulerian, is a perfect A-partition only if (V,) and (V,) are acyclic; and if (V,) and (V2)are trees, this partition is a perfect A-partition. We observe that the A-partition of the graph in Figure VI.29 is perfect, but the corresponding graphs (V,), (V2)are both disconnected forests, while the graph of Figure VI.26, although not having any A-trails, admits such vertex decomposition (see Exercise VI.20). Note that the graph of Figure VI.29 has two 4-gonal faces only, while its other faces are triangular. However, if G is an eulerian triangulation of the plane, a vertex partition {V,, V2) induces acyclic subgraphs (V,), (V2), if and only if these subgraphs are trees (see Proposition 111.63). So we arrive at the following result.

Theorem VI.70. A vertex partition {V,, V,) of an eulerian triangulation of the plane is a perfect A-partition if and only if (V,) and (V,) are trees. We can restate Theorem VI.70 without using the concept of an Apartition or a perfect A-partition, respectively. In order to see this we reconsider Corollaries VI.68 and VI.69 in the case of eulerian triangulations of the plane. In this case, these two corollaries are the converse of each other; for, if is disconnected, (Vj) has a cycle which is not a face boundary (see Proposition 111.63, and [FLE174a7 Corollary 2]), { i , j } = {I, 21. Now let D denote an eulerian triangulation of the plane which is given together with its 2-face-coloring; suppose it has an A-trail T with {V, , V2)

(K)

VI. 108

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

as the vertex partition corresponding to T . Suppose (V6) contains a cycle A , 6 E {1,2); A is the (triangular) boundary of a 6-face by Corollary VI.68. Denote E ( A ) = {el, e2,e3). By definition, T induces a 6-splitting in all vertices of V(A); i.e., {{e:, e i ) , {e;, e',), {ey ,ey )) n XT = 0. In other words, any two edges of A are not consecutive in T. We say that T separates the edges of A. Similarly, we call the A-trail T nonseparating if and only if T does not separate any face boundary of D. On the other hand, if T separates the edges of some face boundary of Dl the corresponding (V6) contains a cycle (which is a triangle). Hence, we can restate Theorem VI.70 as follows. Theorem VI.70.a. For a vertex partition {Vl, V2) of the eulerian triangulation of the plane, D, the following statements are equivalent. 1)

(V,) i s a t r e e f o r i =

1,2.

2) D has a non-separating A-trail.

Observe that for defining a non-separating A-trail, one need not start with a 2-face-coloring; one can also start from the vertex partition {V+, V - ) related to O+(D), 0 - ( D ) respectively (see Lemma VI.53). Theorems VI.70 and VI.70.a are familiar. For we know that a 2-connected plane cubic graph G3 has a hamiltonian cycle if and only if its dual D = D(G3) has a vertex partition {V,, V,) such that both (Vl) and (V2) are trees (Lemma 111.74). And if G3 is bipartite as well, then D = D(G3) is an eulerian triangulation of the plane in which case D has multiple edges if and only if 4 G 3 ) = 2. Hence we arrive at the following equivalence concerning hamiltonian cycles and A-trails, [FLEI74a, Theorem 21. Theorem VI.71. A 2-connected, plane, cubic, bipartite graph has a hamiltonian cycle if and only if its dual has a non-separating A-trail. There is a much more direct proof of Theorem VI.71. So far unpublished Because ) of to the best of my knowledge, I attribute it to W.T. ~ u t t e . ~ I a m not sure that W.T. Tutte knows that I know that this proof is his, but his proof is the essence of a criticism of the approach to A-trails as presented in [FLEI74a]; when the original manuscript was returned t o me together with the referee's report, Tutte's name was improperly erased. Nevertheless I decided t o adhere t o the approach a s presented here and, earlier, in [FLEI74a, R ~ G N 7 6 a l for ; it proved fruitful to some extent, and the theory on A-trails developed so far might be of some use for finding a proof of the conjectures on A-trails stated below.

VI.3. A-Trails in Plane Graphs

VI. 109

its elegance and relative shortness we present it in detail (the essence of the proof is Tutte's, the phrasing the author's). Tutte's proof of T h e o r e m VI.71. Let H be a hamiltonian cycle of the 2-connected, plane, cubic, bipartite graph G3. From a topological point of view, H constitutes a simple closed curve in the plane such that some of the open elements of L := E(G3) - E ( H ) lie in ext H and some in int H. Write H as an edge sequence, H = el, e2,. . .,e2k, denote by s(ej) a point of the open edge ej, j = 1,. . .,2k, and construct now a simple closed curve C as follows: for i = 1,.. .,k, let C2i-l be a simple open curve joining s(e2;-,) and ~ ( e such ~ ~that ) c2;-1

- { ~ ( e ~ i -s(epi)} ~ ) , c int H

(and lying sufficiently close to the section of H containing the vertex incident with ezi-, ,e, ;). Similarly, for i = 1,. . . ,k let C2; be a simple open curve joining s(ezi) and s(ezi+,) such that

putting e2k+l = el. W.1.o.g

I C j n e I<

1 for e E L and j = 1,.. .,2k.

has the property that every e f E(G3) has precisely one point in common with C: for e E E ( H ) this follows from the definition of C, and for e E L this is a consequence of I C j fl e I< 1 and G3 being bipartite: note that e = x y divides H into two paths Pl (x, y), P2(x, y) such that Pl (x, y) U{e) and P2(x, y) U { e ) are even cycles; and in a walk along C, if some vertex of H lies to the left of C, the next vertex in H lies to the right of C. For every j E { I , . . .,2k), there are faces Fj and Ff of G3 such that CjnF'#O#CjnF,I'

and

CjnF=O

for everyface F # Fj',F,I'

and

F!3 # F!3'

if and only if Cj n e # 0 for some e E L

.

This follows from the preceding paragraph. Next we choose a point vi E Cj n Fj' and a point v[i'€ Cj n Fjll, with vi = v[i'if and only if Fj' = Fj".

VI.l10

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Declaring the elements of the set VT := {v& vy/j = 1,.. .,2k) as vertices we have turned C into a plane (graph theoretical) cycle T whose open edges are precisely the (topological) connected components of C - VT. By construction, every edge of T has a point in common with precisely one edge of G,, and vice versa; and this point is uniquely determined. Also by construction, for every face F of G,, there exists a topological disc I( C F such that ICnC = {x E VTn F ) . Hence, for every face F of G3 we can contract K onto a point VF in such a way that no pair of open edges of any deformation of T (occuring during the reduction process) ever intersect. Consequently, since T is a plane cycle (and thus can be viewed as an A-trail of itself), T is transformed into an A-trail of the graph D whose vertices are the above VF and whose open edges correspond bijectively to the connected components of C - VT. This A-trail of D is indeed non-separating, precisely because H is a hamiltonian cycle of G3. By construction of T and D there is not only a bijection between VF E V(D) and the faces F of G,, but we also have for any faces F', Ff' of G, that eD = vF, vF,, E E(D), if and only if e E E(bd(Ff)) n E(bd(Ff')) exists and the connected component of C - VT corresponding to eD has precisely one point in common with e. This, however, classifies D as the dual of G,. Conversely, suppose D = D(G,) has a non-separating A-trail TD. Consider the cycle T obtained from TD by appropriately splitting every v E V(D) into $d(v) 2-valent vertices vF belonging to the face F of G, for which v E F. By construction, every open edge of T crosses precisely one open edge of G, in precisely one point, and vice versa. Thus, for the plane simple closed curve C corresponding to T we have C n e = {s(e)) for every e E E(G,). C corresponds to the plane cycle C with V(C) = {s(e)/e E E(G3)) such that the edges of C correspond to the connected components of C-V(C). Therefore, and because TDis nonseparating, we have for every v E V(G): if E, = {e,, f,, 9,) C E(G3), then w.1.o.g. either s(e,)s(f,) E E(C) and s(e,)s(g,), s(g,)s(f,) $! E ( C ) , or .(e,)s(g,), s(g,)s(f,) E E(C) and s(e,)s(f,) $! E(C). Now define H by E ( H ) = {e,, f,/v E V(G)}. By definition, H is a 2-regular spanning subgraph of G,, and because C is a simple closed curve with Cne = {s(e)) for every e E E(G,), therefore H is connected. That is, H is a hamiltonian cycle of G,. This finishes the proof.

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI. 11 1

VI.3.1. The Duality between A-Trails in Plane

Eulerian Graphs and Harniltonian Cycles in Plane Cubic Graphs With Theorems VI.70, VI.70.a and VI.71 at hand it becomes clear that there is a close relationship between A-trails in connected plane eulerian graphs (respectively in eulerian triangulations of the plane, to be more precise) and hamiltonian cycles in connected planar, cubic, bipartite graphs. Of course, not every planar, 2-connected, cubic, bipartite graph has a hamiltonian cycle.') The graph of Figure VI.30 (a) is such an example; we leave it as an exercise to prove that this is really the smallest such example and that it is uniquely determined. If one replaces every digon of this graph with a copy of the 3-dimensional cube Q3 minus one edge, one obtains a simple 2-connected plane, cubic, bipartite graph which is not hamiltonian (see Figure VI.20.(b)). It has been shown independently and almost simultaneously, [PET08la, ASAN82al that this simple graph is in fact the smallest example of this type, and that it is uniquely determined. However, the interest in hamiltonian cycles in plane cubic bipartite graphs does not originate from the equivalence with A-trails in eulerian triangulations of the plane as expressed by Theorem VI.71. Let us recall that Tait, after proving that the Four Color Conjecture is equivalent to the conjecture that every planar, 2-connected, cubic graph has a 1-factorization, conjectured that every planar, 3-connected, cubic graph is hamiltonian ~~, This conjecture, stated in 1880 and aimed at (see [ K O N I ~p.27-281). an easy proof of the Four Color Conjecture, was disproved in 1946 by Tutte who conjectured subsequently that if in Tait's conjecture one replaces 'planar' by 'bipartite7, the graphs are hamiltonian, [TUTT7la]. J.D. Horton disproved Tutte's conjecture; his first counterexample has 96 (!) vertices (later he found one with 92 vertices, [HORT82a]). More recently, M.N. Ellingham constructed a counterexample with 78 vertices, '1 In contrast to the case of A-trails, the existence of a hamiltonian cycle is independent of any actual embedding. On the other hand, the planar cubic bipartite graph G3 has a hamiltonian cycle, if and only if for every plane embedding H3 of G3, D(H3) has a non-separating A-trail (Theorem VI.71). This is an interesting fact, for in the case of I C ( G ~= ) 2, D(H$) $ D(H{) may hold for two embeddings H i , H ! of G3.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

(b)

(a)

Figure VI.30.(a) The smallest 2-connected, plane, cubic, bipartite non-hamiltonian graph. (b) Substituting for i = 1 , 2 , 3 the digon (ai, bi) in (a) with Q,- { a i , bi), one obtains the smallest such graph which is simple.

and in joint work Ellingham and Horton constructed a counterexample to Tutte's conjecture on 54 vertices (for the original Horton graph, see, e.g. [BOND76a]; for the other counterexamples and more details, see [ELLI82a, ELLI83al). A short time ago, J.P. Georges and A.K. Kel'mans developed counterexamples on 50 vertices which are cyclically Cedgeconnected, [GEOR89a, K E L M ~.'I ~ ~ ] However, the following conjecture is generally attributed to D. Barnette. According to Tutte (private communication, 1972) he has thought about this conjecture as well. Consequently, we shall call it the Barnette-Tutte Conjecture (BTC). Conjecture VI.72 (BTC). Every planar, 3-connected, cubic, bipartite graph is hamiltonian.

In view of Theorem VI.71 the BTC is equivalent to the following conMr. H. Gropp drew my attention to these two articles. As he points out 6 had been studied as early a s 1887, but in terms of what has become known as 'symmetric configurations'. ')

in

[ G R O P ~ ~bipartite ~ ] , cubic graphs of girth

>

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.113

jecture (observe that planar, 3-connected, cubic graphs have simple triangulations of the plane as their duals, and vice versa).

Conjecture VI.73. Every simple eulerian triangulation of the plane has a non-separating A-trail. However, the next conjecture, although appearing weaker than Conjecture VI.73, is indeed equivalent to the latter, [FLEI74a].

Conjecture VI.74. Every simple eulerian triangulation of the plane has an A-trail. The equivalence between the last two conjectures (and therefore between conjecture VI.74 and the BTC) follows from the next result. There, we consider two eulerian triangulations of the plane, Do and D l , which are related to each other in the following way. For every face boundary A = (ab, bc, ca) of Do take a copy of the plane octahedron minus the outer face boundary A. = (a, b, c, ), embed it in the interior of A and identify the corresponding vertices a, b, c (see Figure VI.31).

Figure VI.31. Obtaining the eulerian triangulation of the plane D,from the eulerian triangulation of the plane Do by embedding in every face of Doa copy of the graph Ho (the Figure shows this operation for one face only).

Lemma VI.75. Let Do be an eulerian triangulation of the plane, and let Dl be constructed from Do as described above. Then the following statements are equivalent.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.114

1) Do has a non-separating A-trail. 2) Dl has an A-trail.

Proof. We first assume that Do has a non-separating A-trail and apply Theorem VI.70.a by which we can write V(Do) = Vf U V : such that (yo)is a tree, i = 1,2. Next consider an arbitrary face F of Do with V(bd(F)) = {a, b,c}, say. Since (yo)is a tree, i = 1,2, we have V10 n V(bd(F)) # 0 # V : n V(bd(F)). Hence, w.1.o.g. we can write a , b E I$ c 'E,V i where {j,k} = {1,2). We adjoin c1 to Q0 and a l , b l to Vj. By this extension of and Vj, performed for every face F of Do, we obtain a vertex partition {Vi ,V2') of Dl. It follows from the very construction of this vertex partition that (Vll) and (V21)are acyclic, hence they are trees. By Theorem VI.70.a, Dl has a (non-separating) A-trail. Conversely, if Dl has an A-trail, by Corollary VI.68, the corresponding A-partition {&I, Vi) has the property that and (V2') contain a cycle only if it is a face boundary of Dl. Thus, we conclude for V; := V(Do) n V : := V(Do) n V : that (Vt) and (V:) are acyclic. By Proposition 111.63.1) and Theorem VI.70.a, Do has a non-separating Atrail. Thus, the lemma is true.

(q)

q,

The equivalence between Conjecture VI.73 and Conjecture VI.74 now follows from Lemma VI.75 by observing that they are formulated for all simple eulerian triangulations of the plane, and that Dl is simple if and only if Do is simple (note Do C Dl). The equivalence between these two conjectures is, however, matched by the corresponding equivalence in bipartite cubic graphs. For, the BTC is equivalent to saying that every planar, 3-connected, cubic, bipartite graph has a dominating cycle. The proof of this equivalence follows along the lines of the proof of Lemma VI.75 translated into the theory of cubic graphs; it is therefore left as an exercise. In [FLEI74a] it had been conjectured that every planar, 3-connected, eulerian graph has an A-trail (note that in this case one need not speak of plane graphs because a change in embeddings either leaves O+(v) invariant or else replaces O+(v) with 0-(v) for every vertex v). If true, this conjecture would immediately have settled Conjecture VI.74 since simple triangulations of the plane other than I(, are 3-connected. In order to construct a planar, 3-connected, eulerian graph without an

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI. 115

A-trail as S. Regner did, one proceeds in a way similar to the above construction of Dl from Do. Start with a non-hamiltonian, plane, 3-connected, cubic graph G3; such graphs exist (see p. 111.64). Consider its dual D := D(G3), and denote the odd vertices of D by vl, v2,. . .,v2k-,, v2k, k 2 1. Consider the set of paths P := . .,P2k-1,2k) such that P2j-1,2j joins v2j-1 and vzj7 1 5 j 5 k, (see Corollary V.3). For an arbitrary but fixed j, 1 5 j 5 k, denote

and for i = 1,.. .,t, let yi denote one of the two vertices each of which defines a face boundary containing X ; - ~ X ~ ,and let A; be the (triangular) face boundary containing xi-l, xi, y;. Now embed a copy of the graph Hi of Figure VI.32 in the interior of A; in the same way that Ho has been embedded in the interior of A to obtain Dl from Do (see Figure VI.31 above). Doing this for i = 1,.. . ,t, we obtain a plane graph Dl having 3and 4-gonal face boundaries only; and D C Dl. Dl has 2k - 2 odd vertices only since

-

d D ~ ( v 2 j - 1 ) = d D ( ~ 2 j - 1 ) + 3 ~ d D 1 ( ~ 2 j ) = d D ( 2 1 2 j ) + 3 0 (,m 0 d 2 ) dD,(xi) =dD(xi) dDI(9;) =do(?/;)

+ 6 dD(xi) (mod 2), i = 1,.. .,t - 1 + 2 G dD(y) (mod 2), i = 1,...,t .

,

Observe that no 4-gonal face boundary of D' contains an edge of D. Therefore, if we choose P" E P, P" # PI, we can produce the graph D" from Dl the same way we produced D' from D. Of course, a vertex corresponding to one of the above yi, may not lie in V(D); but this does not matter precisely because E(P1') n E(Q) = 0 for every 4-gonal face boundary Q of D' (note: P" C D). Now D" has 2k - 4 odd vertices only. ) 3Hence, after k steps we arrive at the plane eulerian graph D ( ~having and 4-gonal face boundaries only; and D c ~ ( ~ Since 1 ) . I V(G,) I> 2, D # lij follows; i.e. D is 3-connected, and consequently, D ( ~is) 3-connected and simple (this follows from the very construction of ~ ( ~ 1 ) . However, D ( ~may ) still contain face boundaries A which are face boundaries in D as well. For such A proceed as in the construction of Dl from

VI.116

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Figure VI.32. The graph Hi.

Do by embedding H,, as illustrated in Figure VI.31. The grap.h G finally obtained has the following properties: 1) G is a plane, 3-connected, eulerian graph; 3) No face boundary of D is a face boundary of G. Because of these properties, if G had an A-trail, the corresponding Apartition {Vl, V2) of V(G) induces a vertex partition {V;, V;) in D which of necessity induces acyclic graphs (V:),(V;) (see property 3) and Corollary VI.68). Consequently, since D is a simple triangulation of the plane, they are trees. That is (see Lemma III.74), Gg with D = D(G3) has a hamiltonian cycle. This contradiction to the choice of G3 shows that G has no A-trail. However, the positive outcome of this construction of G from D = D(G3) is the following general observation whose complete proof is contained in the proof of Theorem VI.91 below.

Let G3 be a 3-connected, planar, cubic graph. T h e n a plane (even a planar 3-connected) eulerian graph G with D = D(G3) C G exists such that n o face boundary of D is a face boundary of G , and G3 is hamiltonian i f and only i f G has a n A-trail. (V1.A) Moreover, we may make the following observation. In the above construction of a plane, 3-connected, eulerian graph G without A-trails having

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.117

properties 1)) 2), 3) it is possible to proceed in such a way that every face of D contains at the most one copy of the graph Hiof Figure VI.32. This follows from [FLEI74c, Theorem 10 and its proof] (see also the discussion on regulating sets centering around Figure VI.35 below). Another way of obtaining G with that property rests on the application of the Chinese Postman Problem. This will be done in the subsection concentrating on complexity considerations. Comparing the above construction of a plane, 3-connected, eulerian graph G from the plane, 3-connected, cubic graph Gg via D = D(G3), with Conjecture VI.74, and noting that G has 3- and 4-gonal face boundaries only, one wonders whether it is possible to disprove this conjecture (and therefore, the BTC as well). All that one would need is a triangulation D2 of the plane with all but two vertices having even valency, and the remaining two vertices lying on the same face boundary and having odd valency. W.1.o.g. one could assume that these two vertices, call them xi-l and xi, lie on the outer face boundary bd(F,). Then the outer face boundary of H;' := D, - bd(F,) would be 6-gonal as in the case of Hi in Figure VI.32, with xi-, and xi being the only odd vertices of H;', and Hi having 3-gonal face boundaries only except for the outer 6-gon. The above construction starting from the non-harniltonian G3, would then yield a simple eulerian triangulation of the plane G without A-trails. Unfortunately, such D2 does not exist, [MOON65a, FLEI74bl. Lemma VI.76. There is no triangulation G of the plane having precisely two odd vertices x, y and such that xy E E(G).

Proof. We present two proofs; both are indirect. The first proof is due to Moon, the second proof was found by the author years ago, but has never been published before. 1) Suppose such G exists. Then H := G - {xy) is a plane eulerian graph with one 4-gonal face Q, and all other faces are 3-gonal. Consider a 2-face-coloring of H such that Q is a 1-face. Denote 3; = {F/F is an i-face), i = 1,2. Since every edge of H belongs to the boundary of precisely one 1-face and precisely one 2-face, we have

On the other hand, IE(bd(F)) I= 3 for F # Q yields

IE(bd(F)) 1s 1(mod 3) and FEFl

IE(bd(F)) FE32

0 (mod 3)

,

VI.118

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

an obvious contradiction to the above equation. 2) Assuming G exists, let H = G - bd(F,) where we assume w.1.o.g that x, y E V(bd(F,)). Consider a plane embedding of the Ir', and denote V(I(,) = {xl, x2, yl, y2) such that {xl yl,x2y2) is a 1-factor of IC4. Let Fi be a face with xjyi E E(bd(Fi)), i = 1,2; Fl # F2follows. Embed now a copy of H in each of Fl,F2 respectively and identify xi with x and yi with y in the respective copy of H, i = 1,2. Identify the vertex z # x, y of bd(F,) n H in the corresponding copy of H with the corresponding vertex zi in bd(Fj) C K4, i = 1,2 (note: zl E {x2,y2), z2 E {xl, yl)). The new graph GI is an eulerian triangulation of the plane because for v E V(I(,) we have

x(G1) = 3 and K4 contradiction.

c

GI. Since x(I(,)

= 4, we obtain the desired

Translated into the language of cubic graphs, Lemma VI.76 says that there is no plane (2-connected) cubic graph which has precisely two odd face boundaries and such that they have an edge in common. However, there is a partial solution to the BTC, [GOOD75a]. To formulate Goodey7sresult, let G3 be a planar, 3-connected, cubic, bipartite graph with the following properties: 1) 2)

I E(bd(F)) IE I E(bd(F)) I=

{4,6,8) for every face F of G,; 8 for at most one face F of G,;

I

3) if there exists F8 with E(bd(F8))I= 8, then there exists an F4 with

I E(bd(F4))I=

4 and bd(F8) n bd(F4) #

0.

Let Bo denote the set of all G, having the above properties. It follows from Euler's Polyhedron Formula that G3 E DO has precisely six 4-gonal face boundaries if it has no 8-gonal face boundary, and it has precisely seven Cgonal face boundaries otherwise (see Exercise VI.23). Goodey7sresult can then be stated in the following way.

Theorem VI.77. Let G3 E Bo be chosen arbitrarily, and let F,,, be any face with I E(bd(F,,,)) I= max such that there is a 4-gonal face F4with bd(F,,,) n bd(F4) # 0. Then there exists a hamiltonian cycle H of G,

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.119

with E(bd(F,,,) n bd(F,)) E E ( H ) (note that for any two faces F', F" in a 3-connected, planar, cubic graph, E(bd(Ft)) n E(bd(FM))IE (0, 1)).

I

Our aim is to translate Goodey's proof of Theorem VI.77 into the theory of A-trails. For this purpose we want to explore first what it means in terms of 6-splittings of vertices in D(G3), if e E E(G,) belongs to a hamiltonian cycle H of G,. Disregard, for the moment, the fact that G3 is bipartite. By Lemma 111.74, G3 has a hamiltonian cycle H if and only if we can write V(D) = Vl U V2 and ( y) is a tree, i = 1,2, where D = D(G3). Moreover, by the same lemma, H contains precisely those edges which correspond in D to the elements of {vlv2/v1 E Vl , v2 E V2). That is, if we look at the face boundaries bd(Fj) of G3 corresponding E(bd(Fj)) - {gj,k E to vj E Q for fixed i E {1,2}, E ( H ) = UVjEri E(bd(Fj) n bd(Fk))/vj, vk E Vi) (see the proof of Lemma 111.74). Now we use the fact that G, is bipartite, and hence D is a simple eulerian triangulation. Therefore, considering the perfect A-partition {V, ,V2) of D corresponding to H c G3 (see Theorems VI.70, VI.70.a and VI.71) we conclude for e* = xy, the edge corresponding to e E E ( H ) , that {x, y)n Vl {x, y) n V2 1. Moreover, since {V,, V2) is a perfect Apartition, i.e., both (Dvl ,l)V2,2and (DV2,1)Yl,2 are cycles, we may assume w.1.o.g. that x E V,, y E V2. This means In terms of 6-splittings that if D is 2-face-colored, D has a non-separating A-trail inducing a 1-splitting in x and a 2-splitting in y.

I

]=I

I=

Now let lo denote the set of all 2-face-colored simple eulerian triangulations D of the plane (with the outer face being a 1-face), having the following properties:

1') dD(v) E {4,6,8) for every u E V(D); 2') 3')

dD(v) = 8 for at most one v E V(D); if there exists v8 E V(D) with dD(v8) = 8, then v, is adjacent to a 4-valent vertex in D.

As above, it follows from Euler's Polyhedron Formula that D E To has precisely six 4-valent vertices, if it has no 8-valent vertex; otherwise it has precisely seven 4-valent vertices (see Exercise VI.23). We note that both Bo and To are infinite sets; this we conclude from [ G R U N ~p.254, ~ ~ , Theorem 21 or Lemma 111.58 and the fact that the elements of 4 and To are in 1-1-correspondence by dualization. Hence, we arrive at the next result on A-trails.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

F i g u r e VI.33. The eulerian triangulation of the plane, Dl, obtained from the eulerian triangulation of the plane, Do, by a W,-extension (possibly a = c # d or b = d # c).

be chosen arbitrarily, let urn,, E V ( D ) T h e o r e m VI.77.a. Let D E lo be of maximal valency and chosen in such a way that it is adjacent to a Cvalent vertex w. Then D has a non-separating A-trail inducing a l-splitting in urn,, and a 2-splitting in w. Before we prove Theorem VI.77.a we must establish some other results. For this purpose, we define a special class of eulerian triangulations of the plane. Let D be a triangulation of the plane, and let A = (a, b, c) be a face boundary in D. Embed the graph Ho a s depicted in Figure VI.31 in the corresponding face of D (i.e, A is replaced with an octahedron 0 6 )call ; the resulting graph D l . We say Dl results from D b y a n octahedral extension (shortly 0,-extension) at A. To define a second operation assume the existence of a 4-valent vertex z, E V ( D ) and consider the 4-wheel W4 defined by N * (to); denote N (zo) = {a, b, c, d ) following O+(zo) = (ato, bzo, ctO,dzO)(Wq can be degenerate, i.e., a = c or b = d). Define the triangulation of the plane Dl by

We say Dl results from D by a W4-extension with the 4-valent vertex zo as its center (see Figure VI.33).

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.121

Now let n be a positive integer and define Do = D, D, = Dl, and Di results from Di-l by an 06-or W4-extension, i = 1,.. . ,n. Then we say Dl results from D by a sequence of 06-and/or MT4extensions. The validity of the following statements is a consequence of the definition of the above extensions: 1 ) Dl is eulerian if and only if D is eulerian; 2) If I V(D) I> 4, then D is simple if and only if D' is simple.

However, the condition I V(D) I> 4 cannot be omitted; the octahedron can be viewed as obtained from the eulerian triangulation of the plane consisting of two 4- and two 2-valent vertices, by a W4-extension. If IV(D)I > 4 and if a = c or b = d, D has two pairs of multiple edges: two edges ba and, correspondingly, two edges zoa or two edges zob. However, only one of these two pairs of multiple edges can disappear by a FIT4extension. This becomes clear from the following observations. Firstly, if Di results from Di-, by an 06-extension, E(Di-,) c E(Di), i E (1, . . . ,n). Therefore, if I V(Di-,) 1 > 3, then independent of the valencies of a , b, c in Di-, (where A = (a, b, c); see Figure VI.31), D j - {a, b, c) is disconnected for every j with i j 5 n (if Di-, has a 2-valent x E {a, b, c), then already D j - ({a, b, c) - {x)) is disconnected, and if none of a, b, c is 2-valent in Di-l, then dDi(y) 2 6 for y E {a, b, c) which implies that none of a , b, c can be the center of a W4-extension in Dk, i 5 k 5 n).

<

Secondly, if Di results from Di-, by a W4-extension and if d,. 1 - 1 (a) > 4, dD.1-1 (c) > 4, then Q = (a, b, c, d) is a separating 4-gon in every Dj, i - 1 5 j 5 n. The valency condition concerning a and c implies the existence of a vertex x 6 {a, b,c,d, t o )and, moreover, E(Q) c E(Dj), i - 1 5 j 5 n. These considerations lead us to the following structural result. In formulating it, we follow the notation of Figures VI.31 and VI.33.

Lemma VI.78. Let D be a simple eulerian triangulation of the plane resulting from the octahedron O6 by a (non-empty) sequence of 0 6 - and/or W4-extensions. Then at least one of the following statements is true. 1 ) D contains a separating triangle A = (a,b, c) and O6 > A as an induced subgraph such that DI, := D - Ho can be obtained from O6 by a (possibly empty) sequence of 0 6 - and/or W,-extensions (Ho:= 0, - A);

VI. 122

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

2) D contains (at least) two 4-valent vertices zb, a: such that the corre-

sponding 4-wheels Wi ,W l have the following properties:

each of Dk := ( D - {a;, a:)) U {a'zh, c'th) and D: (defined analogously) can be obtained from O6 by a (possibly empty) sequence of 0,- and/or W4-extensions.

Proof. By hypothesis, there exists a sequence of eulerian triangulations of the plane, Do, Dl, . . .,D,, such that Do = 0 6 , D, = D , and Di results from Di-I by an 06-or W4-extension, i = 1,. . . ,n. Suppose n = 1. If D results from O6 by an 0,-extension, both sides of the (uniquely determined) separating triangle A = (a, b, c) are graphs isomorphic to Ho := 0, - A . Hence statement 1)of the lemma prevails. If, however, D results from O6 by a w,-extension, D is isomorphic to the 6-sided double pyramid. Hence we can partition V,(D) (which defines the 6-gonal base of this double pyramid), {Vl, Vt), such that P' := (V;) and P" := (V4/') are paths of length two. Now, Wi := (V; U V6(D)) and W l := (V: U V,(D)) are 4-wheels with the properties expressed in statement 2) of the lemma (ah, a: are the 2-valent vertices of PI, P" respectively, and ti, a4 (a: ,a;) are the end vertices of PI (P")). Now we deduce the validity of the lemma if n = 1. Hence consider the case n > 1, and suppose first that Di results from Di-l by an 0,-extension for some i E (1,. . .,n). W.1.o.g. suppose for the triangle A = (a, b, c) c Di-l where this 06-extension is performed, that A # bd(F,) where F, is the outer face of Di-l. Consequently, the graph Ho used to perform the 0,-extension a t A , lies in the bounded region of A . Moreover, A separates Di and dD,(x) 2 6 for any x E {a, b, c). Thus, every 06-or W4-extension performed after the 06-extension at A , takes place entirely either 'outside7 or 'inside7 A. Now, if not all of these latter extensions take place on the same side of A , then consider the last one which takes place outside and the last one which takes place inside of A. Call the correspondingly resulting graphs D j and Dk, i < j,k 5 n.

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.123

If each of D j and Dk results from W4-extensions of Dj-l, Dk-l respectively, statement 2) of the lemma holds for the corresponding 4-wheels w,(') and with W; := w,('), W t := w,(~): this follows from the choice of j and k and the discussion preceding the formulation of Lemma for DA , respectively VI.78, and by defining the sequences Do*,. . .,D:-, Do**,. . .,Dr-l for D$ by

wik)

D;=D,,

r

=

O1

and D,**=D,,

s=O ,..., k - 1 ,

it),

where $'I,a!'), a(1),c(') correspond to lo,zl ,z2,p, c in Figure VI.33 for I = j, k. Observe that dDr(zyJ) = dDr(zP1) = dD.(ZI(" 1 dDs(4") = 4 for every r E {j,. . .,n}, respectively for every s E {k,.. .,n}. Hence suppose w.1.o.g. that D j results from Dj-l by an 0,-extension. Denote by H?) Ho the graph used for this 0,-extension performed at the triangle A(j). Since the octahedron 0;) = A(j) U H:)' belongs to every D, because of the choice of j, r = j, . . .,n, we conclude that DA := D - HA^) results from 0, by a sequence of 0,- and/or W4-extensions, namely, DO Dj-1, Dj+1 - Ho(jl ,-..,D, -

,

,.-a,

Hp)

Since we can use the same argument if all extensions following the 0,extension at A take place outside A (with A and Ho in place of A(j) and and because of the cases solved already, we have to assume that all these later extensions take place inside A.

HA') ,

In particular, we may assume that D, does not result from Dn-l by an Ho, 0,-extension (otherwise, for D := D,, D; := D, - H:"), H:") statement 1)of the lemma holds). Denote by W2 the 4-wheel associated with the W4-extension yielding D, from DnV1. Now take the minimal i E {I,.. .,n} such that Di results from Di-l by an 0,-extension. I f i = l , H l : = D 1 - ( H o ~ A ) ~ H o a n d s o H ~ C D , , t ..., = 2 n;and , since HoU A E O,, we can define D , * : = H o U A and D f - l : = D t - H l ,

t = 2 ,...,n

VI.124

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

to obtain D;-, = D - H l =: DL resulting from 0, by a sequence of 0 6 and/or W4-extensions. If i = 2, D,- is isomorphic to the 6-sided double pyramid. Denote V4(Dl) = {v,, v,, . . . ,v,) according to @(w) = (wvl, WV,, . . . ,W V ~ ) where V6(D1) = {w, x). W.1.o.g. this notation has been chosen in such a way that A = (v5,v6, W ) (= (a, b, c ) ) . But then Wi = ({v, ,v2,v3, W , 2)) is a 4-wheel lying entirely outside A , and Wi C Dj, j = 1,.. . ,n. Hence the W4-extension yielding D, from D,-I (see above) implies that PVl lies entirely inside A; E(Wi) fl E ( W l ) = 0 follows. With v,, vl, v3, v6, v4 assuming the role played in Figure VI.33 by zo, zl, z2, a , c respectively, we define

This yields Do' 2! O,, D:-, = DL (as defined in statement 2) of the lemma ), and Df results from DJ-I by the same extension yielding Dj+l from Dj, j = 1,...,n - 1. To finish the proof of the lemma we have to consider the case where either i > 2, or D results from 0, by a sequence of W,-extensions. Assume first that D j is a (4 2j)-sided double pyramid, where j = i - 1 if i > 2 exists, and j = n if D := D, results from O, by n W4-extensions. We either find Wi, W[ similar to the case i = 2, or else we can take any two edge-disjoint 4-wheels Wi, W t of the (4 2n)-sided double pyramid. In : satisfy statement 2) of the lemma. both cases, Wi and W

+

+

<

Thus we finally consider the case when there is some k < i, k n respectively, such that D j is a (4 2j)-sided double pyramid for 1 5 j 5 k - 1, while Dk is not a double pyramid. Note that Dl is a 6sided double pyramid in any case. It follows that D k contains a 4-gon = Q = (w,x,vr, ~ r + 2 ) 1where {w, X) = V(Dk-l) - V4(Dk-1), d ~ k - I dD,(v,) - 2 = 4 for s E { T , r 21, and where we assume the notation chosen in such a way that v,v,+, E E(Dk-,) for t = 1,. . . ,2k+2 (putting v2k+3= v,). W.1.o.g. T = 1. Thus Q = (w, x, vr ,v3) is a separating 4-gon containing no 4-valent vertex in Dj, j 2 k 2 2. Thus, every 0,- or W4extension yielding Dj+, from Dj, j = k, . . .,n - 1, talces place entirely either inside or outside Q. Arguing along the same lines as before (with Q in place of A ) we may conclude that all these extensions take place on the same side of Q. On the other hand, v2 and v5 are in Dk the centers of 4wheels = (N*(v2)), = (N*(us)) respectively, lying on different

+

+

wi2)

wi5)

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.125

sides of Q. Consequently we have Wi C Dj and 1 V4(Wi)nV4(Di)I= 3 for

wi5)}

some Wi E {wL2), and j = k, . . .,n. Denote by W[ the 4-wheel corresponding to the W4-extension yielding Dn from Dn-, . D:, defined correspondingly, results from 0, by the sequence, Do, . . .,D,-, = D.: As for Db, we denote Wi = ({zb, zi, z;, b', d l ) ) and a', c' in analogy to the notation of Figure VI.33, where {b'd') = {v,, v3} and {a', c'} = {w, x} if Wi = while {b', d l } = {w, s } and {a', c') = {v,, v,} if Wi = wJ5) (putting v7 = u1 if k = 2). Now define D;:= Dj for O < j i k - 1 - 6 , for k - 6 5 1 n - 1, D;:= (Dl+, - { z : , zi)) U {a'z;, C'Z;}

wi2),

<

wi2)

where 6 = 0 if Wi = and 6 = 1if Wi = w,(~). We obtain Db = D:-, resulting from O, by a sequence of 0,- and/or W4-extensions since D; results from D;-l by the same extension yielding Dj+l from Dj, j = k - 5,. .. ,n - 1. Note that for k = 2 and 6 = 1 Df results from Do* by a W4-extension, and so does Dl with respect to Do but the centers of these W4-extensions are different. Lemma VI.78 now follows. We now use this lemma to prove a result on A-trails which generalizes a special case of Goodey7sresult.

Theorem VI.79. Let D be a 2-face-colored eulerian triangulation of the plane, D being either the octahedron itself or arising from the octahedron by a sequence of 06-and/or W4-extensions. Let A = (x, y, z) be an arbitrarily chosen face boundary with x, y, z E V(D). D has a non-separating A-trail whose (perfect) A-partition {Vl ,V2)satisfies x E V, ,y, a E V2. Proof. W.1.o.g. A is the boundary of the outer face F, of D, and F, is a 1-face (note that perfect A-partitions are independent of the 2-facecolorings). If D is the octahedron, then it has a non-separating A-trail T; e.g., taking the graph of Figure VI.20.b) and defining Vl = V', V2 = V", we have I Vl n V(A) I= 1, I V2 n V(A) I= 2. Because of the symmetries of the octahedron we may therefore assume w.1.o.g x E V,, y, z E V2. Thus the theorem holds in the case of the octahedron.

Now let D satisfy the hypothesis of the theorem and suppose D is not the octahedron. By the very construction of D and because of Lemma VI.78 we distinguish between the following two main cases. (1)D satisfies statement 1) of Lemma VI.78. Retaining the notation of Figure VI.31 with D in place of Dl we define

VI.126

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

in which A, := (a, b, c) is a face boundary. Because of the symmetry of the possible situation of A in A. U H,, we assume w.1.o.g. that if A C AoUHo,then either x = a l l y = b,,z = c,, orx=al,y=a,z=cl,orx=c,y=a,z=cl orx=b,,y=b,z=c. Now, applying induction to DL we obtain w.1.o.g. (by symmetry if A $ A, U Ho, or because of the freedom to choose if A c A. u Ho) a E VjO and b, c E V l , {j,k) = {1,2), for the perfect A-partition {Vf, V.') of V(Dh) corresponding to some non-separating A-trail of DI,. Define

5 = 5' U {b,, c,},

Vk = V : U {a,), {j,k) = {I, 2)

.

Consequently, {Vj, Vk) is a perfect A-partition as required if A $ AoUHo, or if j = 2, k = 1 and {x, y,z) # {b,, b,c). On the other hand, if A c A, U Ho and j = 1,k = 2, {Vl,V2) is a perfect A-partition as required provided {x, y, z ) = {b,, b, c ) ; in the other cases we use the fact that (VbO)and (V6), 6 = 1,2, are trees in D ; therefore, for V; := V2 and V; := V,, {V;, V2*) is a perfect A-partition as required. Finally, in the case j = 2, k = 1 and {x, y, 2) = {b,, b, c), we define V;, V; as before to obtain a desired perfect A-partition {V;, V;). This finishes case (1). (2) D satisfies statement 2) of Lemma VI.78. Then D contains a 4wheel W4 as depicted in Figure VI.33 (ii) with A W4. By retaining the notation of this figure with D in place of Dl and DI, in place of Do, we define the reduction of D to D&and apply induction to DI, to obtain V ): as above. Depending on the distribution of a , to,c in Vf and V2' we consider two cases.

{q,

If for {j,k) = {1,2}, either {a,z0,c) C yo,or {a,zo) C yoand c E V : (the case {c, to)C VjO and a E V ' needs no extra consideration because of symmetry), then {b, d} c'V follows of necessity. In both cases we define 5 := u {zI7z2), Vk := v:, { j ,k) = {I, 2) to obtain a perfect A-partition ( 5 , Vk) = {Vl, Vz} of D as required.

<

Hence we have to consider the case { a , c) C VjO, toE V f . Then { b , d} I/jO because {VjO,Vf} is an A-partition. By symmetry we may assume w.1.o.g. that b E VjO, d E V.' To obtain a perfect A-partition {Vj, Vk) = {V,, V2) of D as required by the theorem, we define in this case

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.127

Observing that these considerations cover d cases regardless of A n W4 = 8 or A n W, # 0 (because of the application of Lemma VI.78, A P T.V4 in any case), we now conclude the validity of the theorem. Translated into the theory of cubic graphs, Theorem VI.79 is - by dualization - equivalent indeed to the following result on harniltonian cycles (see also the considerations following the statement of Theorem V1.77). Corollary VI.80. Let G3 be a (3-connected) planar, cubic, bipartite graph which can be derived from the cube by a sequence of one or both of the following operations:

1) Replace a vertex with three mutually adjacent 4-gons; 2) Replace a 4-gon Q with three 4-gons two of which are not adja-

cent. Then, given any e E E(G3), there exists in G3 a hamiltonian cycle not containing e . The proof of the next corollary follows immediately from parts of the proof of Theorem VI.79; therefore we leave it as an exercise to the reader. Corollary VI.81. Let Do and Dl be eulerian triangulations of the plane such that Dl results from Do by a sequence of 0,- and/or VV4extensions. Then Do has a non-separating A-trail if and only if Dlhas a non-separating A-trail.

We omit the translation of Corollary VI.81 into the theory of cubic graphs; it can be done the same way by which Corollary VI.80 has been obtained from Theorem VI.79. There is a procedure similar to the W,-extension to create a new eulerian triangulation of the plane Dlfrom a given eulerian triangulation of the plane Do.Namely: let the vertices a, b, c, d E V(Do) be given as in Figure VI.33, and suppose a c E E(Do). Subdivide a c with two new vertices, z1 and z2 say, and join both zl and z2 by an edge to each of b and d. The resulting graph Dlis an eulerian triangulation of the plane indeed. We call this construction of Dlfrom Do the weak W,-extension (see Figure VI.34 below). Translated into the theory of plane cubic graphs, the weak W4-extension corresponds to the replacement of an edge e E E(G3) with two adjacent 4-gons Ql, Qp in such a way that the parity of I E(bd(F))I remains unchanged for every face F of Gt.That is, if G3 is bipartite, then so is the new graph.

VI. 128

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

However, if we rephrase Lemma VI.78 in order to cover the graphs obtained from O6 by a sequence of 0 6 - and/or weak W4-extensions, the resulting statement is false. That is, starting from O6 one can produce an eulerian triangulation of the plane D by a sequence of weak W4extensions such that N(v) n V4(D) = 0 for every v E V4(D) except for one pair of adjacent elements of V4(D) (We leave it as an exercise to construct such an example). This fact is no surprise, however, if one observes that in Corollary VI.81, the relation between A-trails in Do and A-trails in Dl is bijective (see also the proof of Theorem VI.79). This observation does not hold any longer if one replaces in Corollary VI.81 the term ' W4-extension' with 'weak W4-extension'. For, while it is true that a non-separating A-trail of Do can be extended to a non-separating A-trail of Dl (obtained from Do by a sequence of 06-and/or weak W4extensions), the converse may not be true for some non-separating A-trail of Dl. Figure VI.34 illustrates this consideration.

Figure VI.34. D, obtained from Do by a weak W4extension. If Dl has a perfect A-partition (V,, V2) as indicated by the vertex labels 1 and 2, then for the corresponding partition ( V ' , V2') of V(DO),the graph (Vf) has a cycle containing ac, while (V2') is disconnected.

We note that, starting from 0 6 , one reaches only certain eulerian triangulations of the plane by o,-, W4- and weak W,-extensions. For, in

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.129

general, an eulerian triangulation of the plane need not contain adjacent 4-valent vertices. In fact, if G3 is a plane, 3-connected, cubic graph of girth 5, one can find an independent set of edges, Eo,such that the cubic graph G$resulting from Gg by replacing every e E Eo with a 4-gon Q,, is plane and, in addition, bipartite (see Figure VI.35). Such Eo is called a regulating set (of edges), and every 1-factor L of G3 is a regulating set; for it yields in Gg a 2-factor Q* consisting of even boundary cycles, namely Q* = {Q,/e E L C E(G3)) (by Theorems 111.66 and 111.67 a plane cubic graph is bipartite if and only if it has a 2-factor consisting of even boundary cycles). On the other hand, a regulating set of G3 need not be a subset of a 1-factor L c E(G~).') In any case, translated into the language of eulerian graphs, the transition from G3 to G$ (with the help of a regulating set Eo)means transforming Do := D(G3) into an eulerian triangulation of the plane. This transformation is achieved by subdividing every e* = ac E E(Do) which corresponds to e E Eo c E(G3), with a vertex zo and joining zo to both b and d where a, c, b and a , c, d are the vertices of the boundary triangles containing e* (see Figure VI.34). Moreover, since Eo is an independent edge set, no pair of edges e*, f * € E(Do) corresponding to e, f E Eo,belongs to a face boundary in Do. That is, the above transformation of Do can be performed simultaneously for all corresponding e*. This is also why in the above construction of a plane 3-connected eulerian graph without A-trails, one can proceed in such a way that every face of D contains at most one copy of the graph Hiof Figure VI.32. We point out that the concept of a regulating set has been introduced and studied in [FLEI74c]. We now present the translation of Goodey7sproof of Theorem VI.77 into the theory of A-trails. We note however, that our proof generalizes two special cases of Goodey's proof which have been treated in [GOOD75a] in an "as can easily be seen" manner. This generalization has been expressed in Theorem VI.79. Proof of Theorem VI.77.a. We first observe a general structural property of D which follows directly from the fact that D is a simple triangulation of the plane.

a) If P4 is a path with l(P4) = 3 and V(P4) C V4(D), P4is an induced path, and V(P4) C N(v,) where d(v8) = 8, or else D is the 6-sided double We note that Gg may be 3-connected although K ( G ~= ) 2. This is the case, however, if and only if all cut sets Es of size 2 in G3 belong to some regulating set Eo of G3 (note that ES 2 implies Eo f l Es 1 in any case; one way of proving this fact is, e.g., by dualization of Lemma VI.76).

I

I=

I

I#

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 130

63

G;

Figure VI.35. Transforming the plane cubic graph Gg into a plane cubic bipartite graph G: by replacing the edges e of a certain independent edge set Eo with 4-gons Q,.

pyramid, D E O6 respectively. Noting that the theorem is true for O6 E To by Theorem VI.79 we proceed by induction and distinguish between several cases depending on the distribution of the 4-valent vertices of the chosen D E

lo.

Case 1. D results from an 06-extension of the eulerian triangulation of the plane Do. Then Do contains a boundary triangle A = (a, b, c) at which this 0,-extension has been performed. Suppose first that A(D) < 8. Then dD(a) = dD(b) = dD(c) = 6 and therefore, in Do = D - Ho (for Ho, see Figure VI.31) we have dDo(a) = dDo(b) = dDo(c) = 4. That is, Do results from an 06-extension of some eulerian triangulation D' of the plane; a.s.0. Therefore, D results in this case from O6 by a sequence of 06-extensions. We conclude that in this case Theorem VI.79 implies the validity of Theorem VI.77.a. On the other hand, if A(D) = 8, the esistence of a non-separating A-trail in D is secured by induction and Corollary VI.81; and the proof of Theorem VI.79 shows how a perfect A-partition {V', V2') of V(DO) can be extended to sucll a partition {V, ,V2) of V(D). In particular, if vg with dD(vg) = 8 lies in A, w.1.o.g. vg = vmaz = a and w = al (see the statement of Thcorem VI.77.a); whence we conclude by induction, and since the relations dDo(a)= 6 = A(Do), dDo(b)= 4, a, !$ V(Do) hold, that a E V,' b E V .:

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.131

Therefore, we may define Vl, V2 in such a way that a l E V2, bl E Vl, and cl E Vk if and only if c E where {j,k) = {1,2). Consequently, {V,, V,) is as required in any case.

6

C a s e 2. D results from a W4-extension of the eulerian triangulation of the plane Do. By induction and Corollary VI.81, D has a non-separating A-trail since Do has one; and we know from the proof of Theorem VI.79 how to extend a perfect A-partition {V:, V2') of V(DO)to such a partition {V,, V2) of V(D) if v,,w E E(Do - {z,)). If, however, {v,,,, w) n V(W4) # 0, we proceed as follows. If A(D) < 8, we conclude in a way similar to Case 1 that D results from 0, by a sequence of W,-extensions, and therefore, Theorem VI.77.a follows from Theorem VI.79 in this case = 8, we perform different reductions depending as well. If however, A(D) . . on the position of v,, = v, and w in W4 U {a, C) (we use the notation of # ti, i = 0,1,2; hence, Figure VI.33). Since d(v,) = 8, it follows that by symmetry, we assume w.1.o.g. that v, E {a, d) since we necessarily have v, E {a, b, c, d). Because of property a ) , if min{d(a) ,d(c)) = 4 it follows that us = d since D 3 P4 3 {z,, a,, 2,). Whence we also may assume w.1.o.g. that d(a) = 4 if rnin{d(a),d(c)) = 4.

(i) d(a) = 4. Then v,, = v, = d, and we necessarily have the situation as described in Figure VI.36, where

(note that d(b) = 6 of necessity), and therefore ca- E E(D), N(a-) N(d) n N(a-) = {a, c, d,),

n N(c)=

{d, b, b-),

N(d) n N(c)= {z,, a-, d,).

Noting that we necessarily have d(a-) = d(c) = 6, we conclude that either D is the graph depicted in Figure VI.36, or else A = (dl, d2, b-) is a separating triangle of D. Also, for the chosen 4-valent vertex w adjacent to v,, we have w E (a, zo, z17zz). In both cases we reduce the side of A containing zo to the octahedron, thus obtaining a smaller graph Dl with A(Dl) = 6 (see Figure VI.36). Consequently, either Dl e O,, or else it results from O, by a sequence of 0,-extensions (see C a s e 1).In any case, we may assume by Theorem VI.79 that b- E Vt,dl, d2 E V; holds for a corresponding perfect A-partition {Vll, of V(D1 - V(intA)).

G)

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.132

Figure VI.36. 4, u, = d.

Reducing D to Dl in the case d(a) =

Whence we may extend {V:, V;) to a perfect A-partition {V,, V,) of V(D) as required by the theorem by defining

Note that d = v,,

E Vl while w E V2. This solves case (i).

(ii) d(a) > 4. We reduce D to Do, the graph from which D results by a W,-extension. We first consider the cases where v,, = v8 = a (whence w = zl), or urn,, = v8 = d and w = zl, and choose in Do in both cases zo = w. While a = v,, necessarily holds in the first case (here we have dDo(a)= 8), we have the freedom to choose in the second case (here we in the second case. have A(Do) = 6); whence let d = v,, ): By induction, V(Do) admits a perfect A-partition {VlO,V Vp, and zo E V , . In both of the above cases, we define

with u,,,

if b,d E V,: Vl:= Vp, V2:= V : U {zl, z,) v l : = v p ~ { ~ O )V2:= , ( V ~ - { Z ~ ) ) U { Z ~ , iZf~ b) V2' ~ , d~ V : and if b, d E VZ0 (thus v,,,

= a), we define

E

,

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.133

The case v, = a and b E &O, d E V : is symmetric to the case b E V;, d E yoand thus needs no extra consideration. = Hence, to finish (ii) we are left with the consideration of the case v, v8 = d and w = zO. Let b- be the uniquely defined vertex satisfying b- E N ( b ) - {a,c, z 0 7 ~ 1 , 3 }We . have dDo(b)= 4 and dDo(b-) E {4,6}. Observing that A(Do) = 6 we obtain a perfect A-partition {Vf, V;) with b- E Vp, b E V : either by induction or by Theorem VI.79 (depending on whether dDo(b-) = 6 or dDo(b-) = 4). Note that since the four vertex sets {a, b, c, d), {a, b-, c, d), {a, b, c, zo) and {a, b-, c, zo) define a 4-gon each, we cannot have {a,c,d) c Ko or {a,zo,c) c V,O for any i E {1,2). Consequently, if {a,c) C {zo, d) C where {i,j) = {1,2). On the other hand, if a E y o , c E for i # j, we may assume by symmetry that a E Vf , c E V; . This implies zo E Vf , d E V; in this case, we know from the proof of Theorem VI.79 how to extend {Vf, V;) to a perfect A-partition {V;,V,*) of V(D), and by defining Vl := V., V2 := V; we obtain an appropriate A-partition {V,, V2) of V(D). So we are left with the case {a, c) C KO. W.1.o.g. i = 2 (otherwise ;: thus b E V : may hold). Hence d, z0 E Vf. If we permute Vp and V b E V,O, then Vl := ( V . - {zo)) U {zl), V2 := V2' U {z0, z2) yields an A-partition as required by the theorem. For the case b E V; we define Vl := (Vp - {zo)) U {zl, z2), V2 := V20 U {zO)t o obtain the desired result. This finishes the considerations of (ii) and thus settles Case 2.l)

v,

yo

Case 3, 1 N(w) nV,(D) I= 1. Hence D results from a weak W,-extension of the eulerian triangulation of the plane Do. Using the notation of Figure VI.34 and because of Cases 1, 2 handled already, we conclude d(x) 2 6 for x E (a, b, c, d); by symmetry we assume w.1.o.g. that if d(x) = 8, then x E {a, b). Hence v, E {a, b), and by symmetry we assume w = zl in any case. This last case v, = v8 = d, w = zo (translated into its dual form) requires in Goodey's proof a different type of reduction because he does not have the dual equivalent of Theorem VI.79 at hand. Note that in this case we may have dDo(b) = dDo(b-) = 4 which does not permit to conclude inductively b- E Vt, b E V2'. On the other hand, one has to avoid the to,b E V ;: for this would necessarily yield d, zo E situation a, c, d E Vl, zl, z2 E V2. Of course, one could also apply Theorem VI.79 in this case ,: a , zo E V; to obtain the desired result; but since dDo(d) = such that d E V dDo(a) = 6 one cannot invoke induction concerning Theorem VI.77.a to obtain d E Vp, a E V..

q,

VI. 134

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

We define the eulerian triangulation of the plane Dl by identifying b and d in D - {z,, z2,ab, bc), calling this new vertex z. Thus dDl(c) = 4 in any case, while dD, (z) E {6,8), dDl (a) E {4,6) depending on the existence and position of an 8-valent vertex in D. Consequently, in Dl we denote v,, = z (either because of necessity or because we have the freedom to choose), and choose w = C. Assuming first that Dl is simple we invoke induction to obtain a perfect A-partition {V., V;) of Dl with z E V . , c E V;. This induces V[ := (V: - {z)) U {b, d), V,' := V2' - a partition of V(D) - {z,, 2,) such that (V,') is a forest with at most two components, while (V;) is a tree. Now we define if b = urn,, and a E V,', Vl:= Vi u {z2}, V2:= V2/ u {zl) V2:= V,'U{z1,z2) i f a E V,: Vl:= V', & : = V ~ U { Z ~ ) ifa=vrn,,anda~V2/. V1:=V,'U{z2), In all cases, {Vl, V2) is an A-partition of V(D) as required by the theorem. To finish Case 3 it remains to be shown that Dl must be a simple graph. This is tantamount to showing that bd 6E ( D ) and that N(b) n N(d) = { a , z1,'27 c). Suppose first that bd E E(D). Then each of the sides of the triangle A* = (b, z,, d) defines a triangulation of the plane D* for which A * is a face boundary. However, dD. (2,) E 1 (mod 2), and since all vertices of D* - V(A*) are even vertices of D*, precisely one of b and d is an odd vertex in D*. Thus D* is a triangulation of the plane with precisely two odd vertices; and they are adjacent. This contradiction to Lemma VI.76 implies bd 6 E(D). Suppose there exists x E N(b) f l N(d) - {a, z,, z,, c). Since d is 6-valent either A = (c, d, x) or A = (a, d, x) is a face-boundary of D. Consider A, = (t, b, x) with E ( A ) n E(A,) = {tx) where t E {a, c) depending on which case prevails, and denote by D* the triangulation of the plane for which A, is a boundary triangle and which does not contain z,, 2,. D* $ K3 i because of min{dD(a), dD(c)) > 4. Since we have in any case dD, (t) 0 (mod 2), we conclude dD, (b) dD, (2)E 0 (mod 2) by Lemma VI.76. Denoting by y the vertex satisfying { t ,y) = {a, c) we conclude from d, y, zl, z2 6 V(D*) and the above congruences that {dD.(b),dD.(z),dD,(t)} E {2,4). Since dD,(x) = 2 implies that b and t separate D* and thus also D , we must have dD.(x) = 4;

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.135

and since d 6 V(D*) we conclude dD(x) = 6. By the same token, dD, (b) = dD. ( t ) = 4 follows. Moreover, since urn,, E {a, b) and y, z,, z2 $! V(D*) we conclude urn,, = b and dD(b) = 8. Since dD(a) > 4, dD(a) = 6 follows. Hence suppose w.1.o.g. that t = c. Define {bl) = N(b) - ({a, zl, 2 2 ) U No* (b)), {dl) = N(d) - {a, z,, z2,c, 2). Because of the preceding considerations on the degrees of b and x and since d is 6-valent, these equations are well-defined; moreover, xdl, xb, E E ( D ) - E(D*) and xd E E ( D ) imply dl = bl. That is, A2 = (a, b,d,) is a triangle; and it must be a face boundary because N(b) - {a, dl) lies on the same side of A2. Consequently, dD(a) = 4; otherwise, a and dl separate D. However, dD(a) > 4. This contradiction finishes C a s e 3.') C a s e 4. N(w) n V,(D) = 8. Using the notation of Figure VI.33(i) with D in place of Do, we have w = zO. Assume w.1.o.g. that urn,, = a; hence dD(a) E {6,8) and dD(x) = 6 for x E {b,c,d). Define Dl by identifying b and d in D - {zo, ab, bc), and as in C a s e 3, call the new vertex z. Again, Dl is an eulerian triangulation of the plane with dDl (a) E (4, 61, d,] (c) = 47 dDl (2) = 8. Assuming first that Dl is simple we apply induction to Dl to obtain an appropriate partition {Vi, V;) of V(Dl) with z E V,: c E V; . Similar to C a s e 3, this yields a partition {V,', V2/)of V(D) - {zo) with b, d E V,: c E V2/. Consequently, if we define

vl:=V., vl:=Vi,

V,:= V,l u {z,) .I%:= V,'u{z0)

if a E V,', i f a E Vi

,

then {V,, V2) is a desired A-partition of V(D). Thus, to finish C a s e 4 and hence the proof of Theorem VI.77.a it remains to be shown that D, is simple. We proceed similar to the corresponding considerations in Case 3 by assuming t h a t there exists a vertex x E One could have proceeded differently by considering D** := ( D - D*) U A, and D* separately, applying induction t o D**and Theorem VI.79 to D * (observe that A(D*) 5 6 and that dD. (s) = 4 for s E V(A,)). However, in this instance I preferred the approach presented because it did not rely on Theorem VI.79. Unfortunately, Goodey omits the corresponding part in his proof (which is admittedly rather sketchy) and restricts connectivity considerations t o the dual of C a s e 4 below where he uses the dual form of Lemma VI.76. Moreover, even his restricted considerations are incomplete and contain a flaw (see the footnote a t the end of the proof).

VI.136

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

N(b) n N(d) - (a, zo,c ) (one shows as before that bd $ E(D) by using in place of I,).

to

We first show that xt 6 E(D) for at least one t E {a,c). Suppose to the contrary that xa,xc E E(D). Then a t least one of the triangles A, = (x, d, a ) , and A, = (x, b, a) is not a face boundary of D, and the same is true with respect to the triangles A3 = (x,d,c) and A, = (x, b, c); otherwise, dD(a) = 4, dD(c) = 4 respectively, must hold. Since b,d E V6(D) we assume w.1.o.g that A3 is not a face boundary of D. But then we find the triangulation of the plane D * $ IC3 as in the connectivity consideration in Case 3 with A3 being a face boundary of D*; and zo $ V(D*). By Lemma VI.76, by K(D) 2 3, and since b, c E V6(D), dD(x) E {4,6), we conclude d,. (d) = d,, (c) = d,, (x) = 4; thus dD(x) = 6. Consequently, A, is a face boundary of D and, therefore, A, separates D. Especially, the side of A, not containing to,contains two or four elements of E,, two elements of Ed, but no element of E, since we have dD(x) = 6 = dD. (x)+ I {xb, xa) I. That is, a and d separate D , a contradiction. Suppose now xa, xc $ E(D). Then the side of the 4-gon Q, := (a, b, x, d) not containing zo, contains precisely one element eb E Eb and precisely one element ed E Ed, and the same is true with respect to the 4-gon Q, := (c, b, x, d). This follows from b, d E V,(D). Denote eb = hub, ed = dud. It follows from the distribution of the elements of Eb and Ed with respect to the sides of Q,, that xub,xud E E(D). TOsee that ub = ud, we consider the triangulation D- of the 4-gon Q- := (b, x, d, zo) defined by the side of Q- not containing a. By the above considerations we have dD-(b) = dD- (d) = 4, dD- (I,) = 3. Hence dD-(x) r 1(mod 2). Let vb,vd be defined the same way we defined ub,ud above, but with respect to Q,. Observe that O+(b) = (bx, bvb, bc, bz0, ba, hub), O+(d) = (dx, dud, da, dz,, dc, dud) and therefore, (b, c, vb) and (d, C, vd) are face boundaries. Since 2 3, we conclude vb # vd, hence O+(c) = dD(c) = 6 and K(D) (cud, cd, cz0, cb, cub,CS) for some s E V(D-). This in turn implies together with dD(x) 6 and dD- (x) r 1(mod 2) that dD- (x) = 5. Since ub and ud on the one hand and vb,vd on the other hand lie on different sides of Q-, ub = ud follows of necessity. But then we necessarily have

<

O+(a) = (sub, ab, azo,ad),

i.e.

dD(a) = 4

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI. 137

contradicting dD(a) E {6,8} (observe that (a, d, ud) and (a, b, ub)are face boundaries of D). Thus xa E E(D) if and only if xc @ E(D).

(*I

Now we conclude from Lemma VI.76 and dD(c) = 6 that if xc E E ( D ) , then precisely one of A3 and A4 is not a face boundary and the side of Q1 = (a, b, x, d) not containing zo has nothing in common with either Eb or Ed (note b,d E V6(D)). Thus, xa E E(D), a contradiction to (*). Whence xa E E(D), xc 6 E(D) follows of necessity. If dD(a) = 6, then we reach the same contradiction by the symmetrical argument; i.e., dD(a) = 8. In any case, dD(a) E (6,s) and xu E E(D) imply that at least one of A, = (x, d, a) and A 2 = (x, b, a) is not a face boundary; in fact, dD(x) 5 6 and Lemma VI.76 imply that A l is a face boundary if and only if A2 is not a face boundary. Now we argue symmetrically to the above case xc E E ( D ) to obtain the contradiction xu, xc E E ( D ) . Thus we reach the conclusion that x does not exist; i.e. rc(D1) 2 3. Theorem VI.77.a now follows.') As a matter of self-criticism it should be pointed out, however, that Theorem VI.77.a (and thus Goodey's result) has been stated incorrectly in [FLEI83b, Theorem 4.41; for, that part of the hypothesis where the 8valent vertex is required to be adjacent to a 4-valent vertex, has been '1 In his connectivity considerations, Goodey makes the following mistake: translated into our language, he confuses the vertex pairs {a, c) and {b, d) claiming that x' E N(a) fl N(c) - {b, zo, d) # 8 is impossible. His proof is incomplete, unnecessarily complicated and makes use of the fact that a graph cannot have just one odd vertex (in its dual form). To see that X' can exist indeed consider o6 with its 4-gonal base denoted by a , b, C, d in some cyclic order, and denote the 'top' ('bottom') vertex of this double pyramid by zo (2'). Apply an 06-extension to the face boundary (a, d, x') and a weak bV4extension t o the 4-gon (a, x', C, b) having bx' as diagonal. The graph D' thus obtained satisfies dD,(a) = 8, d, c, X' E V6(D1). But dD,(b) = 4. A W4extension of D' applied t o the 4-wheel defined by a, b, c and the two 4-valent vertices created by the above weak W4-extension, establishes a counterexample t o Goodey's connectivity considerations. Moreover, Goodey fails t o consider the case x E N(b) n N(d) - {a, zo,c}. Goodey's flaw rests solely on the fact that he only considers the case dD(a) = 6; the formal argument is correct. But he wrongly concludes that X' does not exist; for it can exist if dD(a) = 8, as our example shows. We note, however, that Goodey's result has been proved anew in [PET077a].

VI. 138

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

omitted; and the theorem's conclusion was stated in a weaker form; namely, that D just has an A-trail. Unfortunately, I was not able to generalize Theorem VI.77.a to achieve the same conclusion as Theorem VI.79. On the other hand, this generalization would follow if one assumes the validity of any of the Conjectures VI.72 - VI.74. To see this we formulate another conjecture on A-trails (respectively, A-partitions) and then show that it is equivalent to Conjecture VI.73 (and therefore, also to Conjecture VI.74). Conjecture VI.82. Let D be a simple, 2-face-colored, eulerian triangulation of the plane, and let A = (x, y, z) be a face boundary of D. Then D has a perfect A-partition {V, ,V2) with x E 5 ,y, z E V2. Proposition VI.83. (see also [REGN76a7Satz 3.2 and Satz 3.31). Conjecture VI.82 and Conjecture VI.73 are equivalent. Proof. Since non-separating A-trails and perfect A-partitions are equivalent concepts in the case of plane eulerian triangulations, Conjecture VI.82 implies Conjecture VI.73. Hence it sufEices to show the converse.

So, let D and x, y, z be chosen as stated in Conjecture VI.82, and let A, = (x, y, w), w # z, be the face boundary of D satisfying E ( A ) n E ( A l ) = {xy). Let Df and Df' be two copies of D with x', y', z', (xff,yff,zf'), denoting the vertices of D f (Dfl)corresponding to x, y, z, and define H' := D f - A', H" := Dff - Aff, where A' and Aff are the face boundaries corresponding to A. We now embed H' in int A and HIf in int A, in such a way that after identifying y1 with z , zf and y" with x, xf and z" with y, and x" with w, the resulting graph Dl is an eulerian triangulation of the plane. Consequently, D f e HfUA and Dff = HIfUA l . Suppose Dl has a perfect A-partition {Vll, V;). Denote by {Vf, V):, {V', V'), {Vif,V2") respectively, the vertex partitions of D , Dl, Dff respectively, induced by {v117

v; 1.

Non-separating A-trails were defined for triangulations of the plane only, but as such it is no problem t o extend this definition to arbitrary plane eulerian graphs. The equivalence between these two concepts in the general case is not given. For, while a perfect A-partition defines two non-separating A-trails, it is not true in general, even in the 4-regular case, that the A-partition {V,, V2) corresponding to a non-separating A-trail is a perfect A-partition. However, if (V6) is connected for 6 = 1,2, this {V,, V2) is, in fact, a perfect A-partition (see Corollary VI.69).

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.139

implies z E Vt where {j,k) = {1,2). But then x" E x, y E which is tantamount to saying that D has a perfect ,V : yl1,zl1 E with x E V;, y,z E y, ( j , k ) = {1,2). Hence if A-partition (V;,V;) k = 1, thenV. :=V,*, s = 1 , 2 , a n d i f k = 2 , thenV' :=V; andV2 := V;, yield a perfect A-partition {V17V2} in D with x E Vl, y, z f V2.

ql,

C6nsidering {x, y} 6 j = 1,2, we assume w.1.o.g. x E V,: y E V .: So, if z E V2', then for Vl := Vf, V2 := V.O, {T/1,V2} is a perfect Apartition as required. If, on the other hand, z E V ' holds, then we conclude x' E V;, y', z1 E V.: This is tantamount to saying that D has a perfect A-partition {V;, V;} with y, z E V;, x E V; hence {Vl, V2} defined by Vl := V;, VZ := V; is as required. The proposition now follows. We leave it as an exercise to translate Conjecture VI.82 into a stronger (but equivalent) version of the BTC (Conjecture VI.72). So, on the one hand, we have obtained (basically minor) partial solutions of Conjecture VI.73 (or, equivalently, the BTC,') Conjecture VI.74, respectively), and on the other hand, we have been able to deduce a stronger equivalent version of that conjecture, namely Conjecture VI.82. The equivalence between A-trails in eulerian triangulations of the plane and hamiltonian cycles in plane bipartite, cubic graphs has been the basis for the considerations of this subsection (and led to the even more general equivalence expressed in (V1.A); see the discussion preceding Lemma VI.76); and this equivalence can be viewed as sufficient motivation to study A-trails in general plane eulerian graphs. But historically, the study of A-trails has emanated from another hamiltonian problem in plane, bipartite, cubic graphs. Kotzig (see, e.g. [KOTZ62a764al) has studied and constructively determined those cubic graphs G3 which admit a 1-factorization {L1, L2, L3) such that L, U L j is a hamiltonian cycle of G3 for i # j, 1 5 i, j 3; he also proved that apart from the multigraph on two vertices, there is no plane bipartite, cubic graph which admits a 1-factorization of the above type [KOTZ62a7Theorem31. This led me to the following question: let G3 be a 2-connected plane, bipartite, cubic graph, and let L = {L,, L2, L,} be

<

'1 It has been shown in [ H O L T ~ that ~ ~ ] the BTC holds for graphs with fewer than 66 vertices.

VI.140

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

its natural 1-factorization (see Theorem 111.67). When does G3 contain (F) a hamiltonian cycle H with L C E ( H ) for some L E L ? To answer this question, suppose w.1.o.g. L = L1, and let Q = L2 U L3. By definition of L, Q is the 2-factor of G3 whose elements are precisely the boundaries of the 1-faces of G, in the 3-face-coloring underlying the definition of L. Form G := G3/Q in the natural topological sense by contracting every bd(F) e Q onto a vertex of F without allowing intersections of open edges in the course of the contraction procedure. Consequently, for every V F E V(G) its cyclic order O+(vF) is determined by the cyclic order in which the half-edges of L incident to vertices in bd(F) occur in bd(F), and where v~ is the vertex of G corresponding to bd(F) c G3. By construction and since G3 is bipartite, G is a connected plane, eulerian graph. The above construction of G from G3 leads to the following simple result whose proof follows from the above considerations and is, therefore, left as an exercise. Lemma VI.84. Let G3 be a 2-connected plane, bipartite, cubic graph, and let L be its natural 1-factorization. Let L E L be chosen, and let Q := E(G3) - L. Furthermore, let G = G3/Q be constructed as above. Then the following statements are equivalent. 1) G3 has a harniltonian cycle containing L.

2) G has an A-trail. Thus, the original question ( F ) is equivalent to asking which connected plane, eulerian graphs G admit an A-trail. As we have seen before, there are even such G with K(G) = 3 which do not admit A-trails. The example G constructed had only 3- and 4-gonal face boundaries, but for v E V(G) - V,(G), d(v) was fairly large. In contrast, the graph Go of Figure VI.26 has 4- and 6-valent vertices only, I C ( G ~=) 2, but it even has 8gonal faces. One can lower the face sizes by replacing with 2-gons those 2-connected subgraphs of Go which are defined by the components of Go- V6(Go)and the edges joining them to the 6-valent vertices (see Figure VI.37). The eulerian multigraph G' obtained is 6-regular and has 2-, 3-, and 4-gonal face boundaries only. But, it has no A-trail for the same reason why Go has no A-trail. However, on the grounds of Lemma VI.84 we can re-interpret G' as G' = G$/Q6 where Qs is a set of hexagonal face boundaries of Gi; and the other face boundaries of Gi are 4-, 6-, and 8-gonal. Noting that G$ has precisely two 8-gonal face boundaries we observe that D = D(G$) is a simple eulerian triangulation with 4-,

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.141

6-, and precisely two 8-valent vertices. That is, D 'almost' belongs to belongs to B,, (see the definitions of Toand Bo preceding the statements of Theorem VI.77.a, Theorem VI.77 respectively). Yet, dthough G$ has a %factor Q,, each of whose elements is a hexagon, Gk does not have a hamiltonian cycle containing the 1-factor E(G$) - Q6. However, we pose the following question: for G3 E Bo , does G3 have a hamiltonian cycle H with L c H where L is a 1-factor in the natural 1-factorization of Gg ? One might ask the same question concerning the cubic graphs whose duals have been treated in Theorem V1.79. In terms of A-trails in eulerian graphs, we are led to the following question: if G is a 2-connected, plane, eulerian graph with V,(G) = 0 for n > 6, and if (E(bd(F)) I< 5 for every face F and ( E(bd(Ff)) I= 4 for at most one face F', does then G have an A-trail ? The graph G' of Figure VI.37.a) shows that one cannot allow for more than one such face F'. Also, this G' shows that specifications concerning the 2-factor Q are not promising in general (for there, Q = Q, is a set of hexagons). However, it is true that if a (not necessarily planar) connected cubic graph G3 has a 2-factor Q4 each of whose cycles is a 4-gon, then G3 has a hamiltonian cycle H > E(G3) - Q4 [KOTZ68c, Theorem 61. This follows as an application of Corollary VI.6. It is therefore left to the reader to prove this result.

I, or, in other words, G','almost'

The above question (F),respectively the equivalence expressed in Lemma VI.84 can just as well be treated in terms of A-trails in eulerian triangulations of the plane.

Theorem VI.85. Let G3 be a Zconnected, plane, bipartite, cubic graph with its natural 1-factorization L,and let D = D(G3) be given together with the 3-vertex-coloring {C1,C2,C3) corresponding to the (natural) 3-face-coloring of G3 (see Theorem 111.67). The following statements are equivalent.

1) G3 has a harniltonian cycle H containing L1 E C. 2) V(D) has a perfect A-partition {Vl, V2) satisfying the equations v, = c; u c 2 , v2= uc3, c; u = c,.

c;

c;

Proof. We consider H as a simple closed curve in the euclidean plane. For every e E L1, since e E E ( H ) nE(bd(F2)) nE(bd(F3)) for some Zface F2 and 3-face F3 of the natural 3-face-coloring of G3, we conclude that F2 E int H if and only if F3 E ext H.

VI.142

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Figure VI.37. a) A 6-regular multigraph G' without Atrail having no n-gonal face boundaries for n > 4, and having precisely two 4-gonal face boundaries. b) The cubic bipartite graph G$ satisfying G' = G$/Q6 (Q6 is defined by the boundaries of the faces marked Q6). Gi is hamiltonian; but G$ has no hamiltonian cycle H with E(GL) - Q6 C E(H).

Suppose for el, fl E L1 that the corresponding i-faces F', F" with el E E(bd(F1)), f, E E(bd(FU)), lie on different sides of H, i E (2,3). By choosing el and fl as lying on H as close to each other as possible, we may assume that el and fi are joined by an edge g in H. W.1.o.g. g E L, E L. Denote by e3, f3 E L3 the edges adjacent to g and e, ,f, respectively. The open edges ei, fi cannot lie on the same side of H; otherwise, E(bd(F1))n E(bd(FU))# 0, contradicting the fact that F' and F" are both i-faces. On the other hand, e:, fi lying on different sides of H implies that {e3, g, fi) C E(bd(F*)) and {el,g, f3) C E(bd(F**)) for

VI.3.1. Duality between A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles

VI.143

some faces F*and F**. However, since in the natural 3-edge-coloring C every face boundary contains edges of only two classes of C, while each of bd(F*) and bd(F**)contains edges of all three classes of C, we obtain a contradiction which implies that either a l l 2-faces lie in ext H , or they all lie in int H. Suppose w.1.o.g that the Zfaces lie in int H. It follows from the argument at the beginning of the proof that the 3-faces lie in ext H. Denoting by Ci (Cy) the necessarily non-empty set of 1-faces lying in int H (ext H), and by further denoting Vl := V(Tl), V2 := V(T2) where TIand T2 are the trees in D(G3) defined by the faces of G, lying in int(H), ext(H) respectively, we obtain Vl = Ci U C2, V2 = C r U C3 where Ci U C r = C,, Ci n Cy = 0 by definition. Moreover, since G3 is bipartite, D := D(G,) is an eulerian triangulation of the plane and so {V,, V,) is a perfect A-partition of V ( D )by Theorem VI.70. Conversely, suppose the perfect A-partition {V,, V2) of V ( D ) is given as described in 2 ) , and let Ti = (V;.), i = 1,2, be the corresponding trees. For each i E {1,2), the edges of G3 belonging to exactly one face boundary among the faces represented in V;., define a hamiltonian cycle H in G3, with H resulting from Vl as well as from V2. Since V, = C i u C 2 , i.e.,C3nV, = 0

,

and since L, = {e E E(bd(F,))

n E(bd(F3))/Fj is a

j-face, j = 2,3}

we conclude that every edge of L1 belongs to precisely one boundary of a face represented in V,. That is, L, C E(H). This finishes the proof of the theorem. Consequently, questions on the existence of A-trails in plane eulerian graphs can, in principle, be treated as questions on the existence of special types of A-trails (perfect A-partitions, respectively) in eulerian triangulations of the plane, or by the same token, can be treated as questions on the existence of special types of Hamiltonian cycles in plane, bipartite, cubic graphs. This leads us to the question why one should deal with A-trails in plane eulerian graphs instead of considering right away hamiltonian problems in plane, bipartite, cubic graphs (particularly in view of the equivalence between the BTC and Conjecture VI.73, as well as between Goodey's result (Theorem VI.77) and Theorem VI.77.a). History seems to justify the 'hamiltonian approach', and in section VI.2 we proved a

VI. 144

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

result on hamiltonian decompositions to solve an eulerian problem. However, as we shall see in the context of compatible cycle decompositions, dealing with certain problems in eulerian graphs and translating corresponding results into the theory of cubic graphs has proved to be a very fruitful approach indeed. In the particular case of A-trails it is my opinion that the 'eulerian approach' may eventually be just as fruitful. This opinion results not only from many years of experience in dealing with both eulerian and hamiltonian problems, but also from a methodological difference concerning A-trails and hamiltonian cycles in the respective classes of graphs. Namely: finding eulerian trails of whatever kind always involves all edges of the graph, while finding a hamiltonian cycle requires the proper arrangement of certain edges and rejecting, so to say, the remaining edges. The latter problem becomes, therefore, more complicated if the graph under consideration has only vertices of low degree (in particular if it is 3-regular). As a support for this point of view, compare Ore's Theorem (Theorem 111.75) with the BTC (Conjecture VI.72)). We finish this subsection by exhibiting a relation between arbitrary plane 2-connected graphs and certain eulerian triangulations of the plane having a non-separating A-trail ([REGN76a, Satz 5.1]), respectively plane bipartite cubic graphs having a hamiltonian cycle. Namely: let G be plane and Zconnected, and consider

It follows from this definition that GA is an eulerian triangulation of the plane (note that S(G) is bipartite); and it is a simple graph precisely because of K(G) 2 2. Again by definition, the 3-vertex-coloring of G A (which is uniquely determined up to permutation of the color classes) is given by the partition {Vl, V2,V3) of V(GA) where

(note that Vl is an independent set already in S(G), V2is an independent set by definition of S(G), and V, is an independent set because every face of S(G) contains precisely one vertex of R(S(G))). Observing that V2 is a set of 4-valent vertices in GA, we may conclude from Theorem VI.67 that H := ((GA)Vl,l)v3Zis connected and has only 2- and Cvalent vertices; hence it has an A-tral TH which can be interpreted as an A-trail T of GA. It follows from this definition of T that T is non-separating. Hence G3 := D(GA) is a hamiltonian, plane, bipartite, cubic graph with K ( G ~= ) 3.

VI.3.2. A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles in Eulerian Graphs VI.145

V1.3.2. A-Trails and Harniltonian Cycles in Eulerian Graphs Returning to the discussion preceding Theorem VI.85 we are faced with the question into which direction one should go to determine classes of plane eulerian graphs admitting A-trails. As we have seen above, and posed equivalently, specifications as to the degrees of the vertices of a color class in the 3-vertes-coloring of an eulerian triangulation of the plane do not seem to be promising, unless every vertex of the color class is 4-valent. But there is a parameter which plays an essential role in many graph theoretical problems, and especially in the theory of planar graphs connectivity. As we have seen before, 3-connected, planar, eulerian graphs exist which do not admit A-trails. Although, in our construction, the triangulation of the plane we started from can be 5-connected (as there are non-hamiltonian, planar, cyclically 5-edge-connected, cubic graphs), the outcome is always a 3- but not 4-connected, planar, eulerian graph. I have tried to modify the construction in order to obtain a 4-connected, planar, eulerian graph without A-trails which satisfies the equivalence in statement (V1.A) (see the discussion following Lemma VI.75)) but without success. Hence I pose the following conjecture.

Conjecture VI.86. Every planar, 4-connected, eulerian graph has an A-trail. The above lack of success is not the only reason for posing this conjecture. For it follows from Tutte's 'Bridge Theorem' (Theorem 111.70) that every planar 4-connected graph is hamiltonian (Corollary 111.71). And this is a very strong property indeed. Moreover, it has been shown that the problem of finding a hamiltonian cycle in a 4-connected planar graph, is polynomial. More precisely, an algorithm based on the proof of Tutte's 'Bridge Theorem' (Theorem 111.70) has been developed whose "time and space-complexity . . . is overvalued in O(n3)", where n is the number of edges, [GOUY82a, Theorem 21. This is in sharp contrast to the fact that deciding the existence of hamiltonian cycles in planar, 3-connected, cubic graphs is an NP-complete problem, [GARE76a]; and this fact will play a certain role in our considerations on the complexity of determining whether a planar, eulerian graph has an A-trail. Moreover, finding hamiltonian cycles in bipartite cubic planar graphs is an NP-complete problem as well, [PLES83a]; however, this result does include all such 2-connected

VI.146

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

graphs (which are not so interesting in view of the BTC and, via dualization, of little significance to the consideration of A-trails). On the other hand, it was shown in [NISH83a] that the problem of determining a hamiltonian walk (shortest closed walk covering all vertices) in triangulations of the plane, can be solved in 0(p2) time, and that the length of a hamiltonian walk is a t most (p - 3) provided p >_ 9. Thus, in the case of 4-connected triangulations of the plane, one can find a harniltonian cycle even in O(p2) time. More recently, a linear algorithm for finding a hamiltonian cycle in such graphs has been developed in [ASAN84a], and in the same year N. Chiba and T. Nishizeki published such algorithm for arbitrary 4-connected planar graphs (see, e.g., [NISHSSa, p.182- 1841. The existence of harniltonian cycles in kconnected triangulations of the plane follows from Tutte's result, but was proved already by H. Whitney in the thirties (see Corollary 111.72). Note that a triangulation of the plane need not be Hamiltonian - just apply an 06-extension for every face of such a triangulation). These considerations can be viewed a s positively supporting Conjecture ~1.86.')

3

A harniltonian cycle H in a simple plane graph G defines two simple 2connected outerplane graphs GI, G2 satisfying Gl UG2 = G and Gl nG2 = H . ~ )For, viewing H as a simple closed curve in the plane and a plane graph as a certain point set, one can define G1 and G2 by V(Gl) = V(G2) = V(G) E(Gl)= { e E E(G) /e n int H = 0)

,

E(G2)= { f E E(G)/ f n ext H = 0) . Now, if both G1 and G2 are eulerian, they have by Theorem VI.63, Atrails Tl and T2, respectively. Hence one is inclined to believe that this suffices to construct an A-trail T of G starting from Tl and T2. A. Rosa once told me during a stroll that in his opinion (and I hope I quote him correctly), there are two categories of conjectures: firstly those where "everyone knows that they must be correct, but one cannot yet prove them", and secondly those "which create surprise if they are correct". I believe that this is a very good description of how (how many ?) mathematicians relate to conjectures (in my own research I was faced with both situations). As far as Conjecture VI.86 is concerned, I would place it in-between these two categories. 2, Of course, for precisely one of G1 and G2, the 'outer face' is the bounded iE region defined by Hi but it is no problem t o re-embed the corresponding Gi, {1,2), without altering O+(Gi) - simply start with an embedding of G on the sphere.

VI.3.2. A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles in Eulerian Graphs VI.147

Unfortunately, for a 4-connected, planar, eulerian graph G to have a hamiltonian cycle H does not guarantee an easy way of finding an A-trail in G. This general statement is illustrated by the following discussion in which we say that the hamiltonian cycle H of G has the A-property if any pair of edges {e, f ) adjacent in H belongs to a face boundary of G (or, equivalently, e' and f' are neighbours in O+(v) where e l , f' E Ec; cf. [REGN76a, Definition 4.2.1.1). As we shall see below if G admits such an H having the A-property, it is possible indeed to combine Atrails T, and T2 in G, and G2, respectively, to obtain an A-trail in G. In fact, in this case one can start from arbitrary A-trails. However, we first study A-partitions in outerplane eulerian graphs. The following result, [REGN76a, Satz 4.1.2.1, gives a simple and precise characterization of such A-partitions (this result will be more relevant, however, in establishing a formula for the number of A-trails in outerplane graphs. - See Volume 2, Chapter IX).

Theorem VI.87. Let G be a simple 2-face-colored, 2-connected, outerplane, eulerian graph whose outer face F, is a 1-face. Then the following statements are equivalent. 1 ) G has an A-trail. 2) V(G) admits a partition {V,, V2) such that I V(bd(Fl)) nVl for every 1-face Fl # F,.

I=

1

Proof. If G is a cycle, then the equivalence between 1 ) and 2) is vacuously true; for in this case, Fl # F, does not exist. Hence we assume in the following discussion that A(G) > 2 holds. That is, at least one 1-face Fl # F, exists. a) Let T be an A-trail of G, and let Fl # F, be arbitrarily chosen. Moreover, let {V,, V,) denote any A-partition defined by T. Since Fl is a 1-face we must have I V(bd(Fl)) n Vl I> 0; this follows exclusively from the fact A(G) > 2; for in this case, V(bd(Fl)) n Vl = 0 implies that Gv2,2 is disconnected with (E(bd(Fl))) as a component. Suppose now V(bd(Fl))nVl > {v, w). Then R = {F,,F,) is a unicolored face-ring with LR = {v, W ) a s a complete set of links. The elements of R are 1-faces, and LR C Vl follows from the assumption. By Theorem VI.67, however, this contradicts the fact that {Vl, V2} is an A-partition. b) Suppose the partition {V,, V2) of V(G) satisfies I V(bd(F,)) n V, I= 1 for every 1-face F, # F,. Consider an arbitrary unicolored face-ring R

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.148

whose elements are 6-faces for fixed 6 E {1,2), and let LR be a complete set of links of R. By Theorem VI.67, it suffices to show LR V6. Suppose to the contrary that for some such R and LR we have LR C V6.

I I>

Suppose first 6 = 1. Since R 1 it follows that Fl E R for some F1 # F,, and by definition I V(bd(Fl)) n L R I= 2. Consequently, V(bd(Fl)) r l V, 1 which violates 2).

I

I>

Now suppose 6 = 2. Among the possible choices for R and LR consider one with minimal I LR 1; i.e., L C LR implies that there is no unicolored face-ring R1 having L as a complete set of links. We want to show that L R = V(bd(F*)) for some 1-face F* # F,.

I

IE

It follows from the minimality of LR that bd(F1) n bd(Ftl) n LR {O,1} for different elements F1,Fl1E R. Hence we can espress R and LR in the following form:

where

LR n bd(F,)

n bd(Fi+l) = { v ~ , + + ~for) i = 1,.. .,m

bd(Fi)nbd(Fj) = 0 for j - i

> 1, 15 i < j 5 m, { i , j ) # {l,m} .

As in the first part of the proof of Theorem VI.67, we construct a simple closed curve C with

The unbounded region of C, ext C, contains F,, and since G is outerplane it follows that int C n V(G) = 0. Consequently, the path Pi,i+,joining vi-l,i a d v ~ , ; +in~ bd(Fi) whose open edges lie in int C must satisfy

and therefore,

VI.3.2. A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles in Eulerian Graphs VI.149

Hence, (LR) C int C U LR and (LR) is a cycle. This, X(e) = l ( e E E(G)), and the rninimality of LR imply that (int C - E((LR)))n G = 0

.

That is, adjacent edges in (LR) are consecutive in O+(v), where v is their common end-vertex. Thus (LR) is a face boundary bd(F*). Since E((LR))fl E(bd(F,)) # 0 for i = 1 , . . . ,m, it follows of necessity that F* is a 1-face; and F* # F, because (LR)n ext C = 0. Thus, we have found a 1-face F*with

This contradiction to statement 2) finishes the case 6 = 2; whence we conclude that LR V6, 6 E {1,2}, for every unicolored face-ring R whose elements are 6-faces, with LR being a complete set of links of R. By Theorem VI.67, G has an A-trail whose A-partition is {V,, V,). Now we prove the result indicated at the end of the discussion preceding Theorem VI.87.

Theorem VI.88. ([REGN76a, Satz 4.2.1.1). Let G be a simple plane, eulerian graph with a hamiltonian cycle H having the A-property. Then G has an A-trail. Proof. We can write G as the union of two 2-connected, outerplane, eulerian graphs GI and G2 with GlnG2 = H (see the discussion preceding Theorem VI.87). Let T, and T2 be A-trails of GI, G2 respectively; by Theorem VI.63, T, and T2 exist (we start with a 2-face-coloring of G and apply Theorem VI.63 to Gi whose 2-face-coloring is induced by that of G, i = 1,2. Thus, the face of G, whose boundary contains all vertices of G, has either color 1 or 2 depending on the value of i E {1,2)). Because of the A-property of H we have for arbitrary v E V(G) ~ G ~ (>U2,) only if dGj(v) = 2 and dci(v) = dG(v), {i,j) = {I, 2). (*) Consider now {V;', V;), an A-partition corresponding to Ti in G,, i = 1,2, and define

W: :=

n (V(Gi) - V.(G,))

for arbitrary i, j E {I,2)

.

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 150

This definition together with V:

w' n W: (observe that W j

= 0 for

n Vj = 0 and (*) yield

( j i) # ( k 1 )

2 V2(G,) for {i, k)

{ j k 1)

{

l

(+r)

= {l,2)).

Consequently, {l.V;/i, j = 1,2) is a partition of V(G) - V2(G); therefore, Wj := W j U Wf, j = 1,2, defines a partition of V(G) - V2(G). Now we observe that a 2-valent vertex v2 cannot belong to any complete set of links LR of any unicolored face-ring R; for v2 belongs to precisely one 6-face, 6 = 1,2. Hence, if we can show for such R and L that LR g W6, provided the elements of R are 6-faces, 6 E {1,2), then for V2(G) an A-partition {V,, V,) of V(G) is obtained by defining any V," V, := W, U V,", V2 := l.V2 U (V2(G) - V,") (see Theorem VI.67).

s

So, let R and LR be as above. If all elements of R are 6-faces of Gi, i E {1,2), then the existence of Tiimplies LR g Wi by Theorem VI.67, 6 E {1,2}. Since Wi 2 V,(G,) for {i,j) = {1,2}, LR g Wb follows. Hence we have to assume that some elements of R are faces of G, and some are faces of G2; and all of them are 6-faces, 6 E {1,2}. We further specify the situation by assuming w.1.o.g. that the "outer" face F1( F 2 ) of G, (G,) has color 6 (6 1) where we put 6 1 = 1 if 6 = 2 (see footnote 2, in the discussion preceding Theorem VI.87). Moreover, denote R = {F,,. . . ,F,; m > 1) and LR = { v , , ~,v ~ ,. .~., (see the proof of Theorem VI.87, part b)). By relabeling the elements of R and LR if necessary we may assume w.1.o.g. that bd(Fl) 2 G I , bd(F,) 2 G2. Define

+

i2 = min{i/l

< i 5 m A bd(Fj) zG,}

+

and

il = i2 - 1 .

Then we obtain in G, a unicolored face-ring R' whose elements are 6faces, and a corresponding complete set of links L' = LRt by defining

We have L' E LR and L' V(G1). If we had LR C W6, this and W i C V2(G1) would imply L' E Wi C VJ. But Theorem VI.67, applied to G,, says that the existence of TIand its A-partition {V:, Vi) implies L' V,'. Thus, we must have LR g Ws. Again by Theorem VI.67 and the above definition of V, and V2, this means that (V,, V2) is an A-partition of G; i.e., G has an A-trail. Theorem VI.88 now follows.

VI.3.2. A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles in Eulerian Graphs VI.1.51

However, not every A-trail T of G is obtainable from A-trails T, and T, of G, and G2 respectively, as described in the proof of Theorem ~ 1 . 8 g That is, some A-partition {Vl, V2) of V(G) may not be an A-partition of V(Gi) = V(G) for i = 1,2. This can be seen already in the case of O, which we can view as obtained from the cycle C6 = (v,, . . . , v6) by adding A, = (vl ,v3, v5) and A 2 = (v2, v4,us). Embed A, in the bounded region of C6; thus A 2 lies in the unbounded region of C6. We assume the outer face of the 2-face-colored O6 to be a 1-face. Defining H := C6, GI := H U A,, G, := H u A,, and Vl := {u2, v3, v6), V2 := {v,, v4, v5) we conclude that although {Vl , V2) is a (perfect) A-partition of V(G), {Vl , V,) is not an A-partition of V(G1) = V(G), nor of V(G2) = V(G) (note that H has the A - ~ r o ~ e r tFor, ~ ) . (G1){u121.51,2 is disconnected, and so is (G2){vz,V6 However, if an A-partition {V,, V2) of V(G) is an A-partition of V(Gi) as well, i E {1,2), we may say that the latter is an induced A-partition of the former. Correspondingly, we can say that the A-trail Tiof Gi is induced by the A-trail T of G. The graph of Figure VI.38 sho~vsan eulerian triangulation D of the plane together with a hamiltonian cycle H such that the corresponding graphs G,, G2 satisfying G1 U G2 = D and Gl n G2 = H (see the discussion preceding Theorem VI.87), are eulerian. We discuss this graph D: H does not have the A-property since (V(G1) - V,(G,)) n (V(G2) - V,(G,)) - - = {a, b, c, d, e, f ) . We know from Theorem VI.63 that Gi has an A-trail Ti, i = 1,2. We want to show that no choice of TI and T, permits extension of these A-trails to an A-trail T of G in a way-similar to the one in the proof of Theorem VI.88. For this purpose, it suffices to show that TI does not induce the same type of splitting in Vo := {a, b, c, d, e, f ) as T2. To be more precise, let G, and G2 have their 2-face-colorings carried over from a 2-face-coloring of D. Among G, and G2 let G, be defined as the graph whose outer face F, is the unbounded region of H (where H is viewed as a simple, closed, plane curve), and suppose w.1.o.g. the 2-face-coloring of D is chosen in such a way that F, in G, is a 1-face. Whence we may conclude that the "outer7' face int H of G2 is a 2-face. As in the proof of Theorem VI.88, let {V;', Vj) be the A-partition of the arbitrarily chosen A-trail Tiof Gi, i = 1,2. We want to show that the equations V, n V: = Vo n V ,: Vg n V2' = Vo fl V22 cannot hold. Suppose a E Vll. Since d, e, f are boundary vertices of 1-faces of G, each of which contains a as boundary vertex as well, {d, e, f ) C V$ follows by Theorem VI.87. By the same theorem however, {e, f ) C V-j2is impossible since {e, f ) c bd(F2) for some 2-face F, of G2 and because the "outer"

VI. 152

VI. Various Types of Euierian Trails

Figure VI.38. An eulerian triangulation of the plane D with hamiltonian cycle H defining two 2-connected, outerplane, eulerian graphs G,,G2 with D = G1 U G2, H = G1 n G,. D has no A-partition which induces A-partitions in both G1 and G, (note that (V(Gl) - V2(Gl)) n (V(G,) Q(G2)) # 0). face of G, is a 2-face as well. Therefore, the above equations cannot hold if a E V.: Now suppose a E Vl nV;. Since b and c are boundary vertices of 2-faces of G2 each of which also has a as a boundary vertex, we have {b, c ) c V,' by Theorem VI.87. On the other hand, {b, c ) E V(bd(Fl)) for some l-face of Gl ; thus, by Theorem VI.87 we must have {b, c) V: . Consequently, also in the case a E V2' we may conclude that the above equations cannot hold. However, we leave it as an exercise to check that D has an A-trail indeed (we note, though, that n(D) = 3).

VI.3.2. A-Trails and Hamiltonian Cycles in Eulerian Graphs VI.153

So, while in general it is not possible to deduce from some A-trail of G A-trails Ti in Gi, i = 1,2 (where Gi is defined as above with respect to a harniltonian cycle H ) , even if H has the A-property, we do achieve the following interesting result, [REGN76a, Satz 4.2.21. We present a proof differing entirely from Regner's.

Theorem VI.89. Suppose for the 2-face-colored, plane, eulerian graph G that it has a hamiltonian cycle H defining two outerplane eulerian graphs G I , G2 satisfying G1 U G2 = G, G1 n G, = H (see above). If G has an A-trail T inducing an A-trail Ti of Gi, T induces an A-trail Tj in G j as well, {i,j) = {1,2). Proof. We assume w.1.o.g. that F,, the unbounded face of G1 (with bd(F,) = H), is a l-face in the 2-face-coloring of G1 induced by the 2-face-coloring of G, and that G has an A-trail T inducing an A-trail T9 in G,. Let {Vl, V,) be the A-partition of V(G) = V(G,) correspondillg to T, T2respectively. W-e have to show that {V,, V,) is an A-partition of V(Gl) as well. For this purpose we first observe that G1 := GL,l,l is a connected outerplane graph whose outer face F&, is a l-face with E(bd(F,)) E(bd(Fk)) and such that E(bd(F&,))n E ( B ) # 0 for every cycle B of G1 (Lemma VI.5S, Theorem VI.59). If we can show that every non-trivial block of G1 - E(G1) is an end-block of G1, then G1 - (G2 E ( H ) ) has precisely one non-trivial component, namely (G, ) vl ,1, which satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma VI.58. Consider the graph

Go is well defined because the "outer" face FM of G2 is a 2-face in the induced 2-face-coloring of G2 (since F, is a l-face), and therefore E ( H ) = E(bd(Fw)); so, the construction of Go from (G,),l,, amounts to adding diagonals of H lying in GI, i.e., adding the elements of E(G1) E ( H ) . Also, since T2 appears as a run through the boundary of the uniquely determined l-face of (G,) vl ,1, it follows by definition that Go is implies that connected. Moreover, E(bd(FM))C E((G2)", 1) (G,),] ,, contains (E(bd(Fm))) as a block;

therefore 2) Go has a block B w 3 (E(bd(Fw))) with Bw E GI;

VI. 154

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

3 ) every block C of Go - Bm is a cycle with E(C) E E(G,) - E ( H ) and therefore, C is an end-block of Go (see 2)). We relabel the vertices of Bm according to their original labels in G; then we obtain Bm = G1 and the isomorphism

For every block C of Go other than Bm (see 3)) we have C f l Bm C V,. Hence, the unique vc E C n Bm is not affected by the transition from Go to Since every x E V(C - vc) is 2-valent in Go and therefore ,1, it follows that every block C of Go - Bm is an end-block also in ,l. Finally, if we view G1 and as unlabeled graphs, of then the isomorphism (*) becomes an identity ( ~ n (*), the isomorphisnl can be chosen so as to act as the identity on E(G1) = E((GO)V,,l). Consequently, every non-trivial block of G1 - E(Gl) is an end-block of G1 whose edge set belongs to G2 - H. SO,

which satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma VI.58 because G1 also does (the left side of the last equation only expresses the deletion of certain endblocks of G1 which renders a connected graph and leaves unchanged the ,l embedding properties espressed in that lemma). It follows that has an A-trail. Consequently G1 has an A-trail. The theorem now follows. Maybe, the above considerations on A-trails in plane, hamiltonian, eulerian graphs will be of help in eventually proving or disproving Conjecture VI.86. I do not know, however, which of the plane, d-connected, eulerian graphs admit a hamiltonian cycle H having the A-property or at least an H such that the graphs G I , G2 defined by int H U H and ext H U H, are eulerian. So, let us consider Conjecture VI.86 for the case of eulerian triangulations D. The constructions performed before (see also the considerations preceding Conjecture VI.86) do not permit one to draw the conclusion that A-trails and non-separating A-trails are equivalent concepts in 4connected, eulerian triangulations of the plane (compare this with Conjectures VI.73, VI.74 and the discussion leading up to Lemma VI.75). Modify Conjecture VI.86 for triangulations of the plane to the extent

VI.3.2. A-Trails axtd Hamiltonian Cycles in Eulerian Graphs VI.155

that one replaces 'A-trail' with 'non-separating A-trail7. It follows from Theorem VI.71 and the relation &(D(G3))= X,(G3) for connected plane cubic G3 # Kq, that this modified conjecture is equivalent to the BTC (Conjecture VI.72) for the case of cyclically 4-edge-connected, planar, bipartite, cubic graphs. But what does the existence of a (not necessarily non-separating) A-trail in D = D(G3) imply for G3 ? The answer to this question is given in the next theorem. Recall that a dominating cycle in a graph G (or Tutte cycle if G is cubic) is a cycle C such that E(G - V(C)) = 0.

Theorem VI.90. Let G3 be a connected, plane, bipartite, cubic graph with bipartition {V,, V2), and let D(G3) denote its dual. The following statements are equivalent. 1) D(G3) has an A-trail. 2) G3 has a Tutte cycle C such that V' := G3 - V(C) satisfies

a) Vl n V' c int C if and only if V2 n V'

c ext C;

The proof of Theorem VI.90 can be obtained by modifying Tutte's proof of Theorem VI.71; it is therefore left as an exercise. Note that in Theorem VI.90, the equivalence between Tutte cycles of a special type in G3 and A-trails in D(G3) does not require Xc(G3) = 4. On the other hand, Tutte's 'Bridge Theorem' guarantees the existence of a dominating cycle in planar, cyclically 4-edge-connected, cubic graphs (Corollary 111.73). So, in the case of Xc(G3) = 4, the equivalence expressed in Theorem VI.90 boils down to the question whether in the non-empty set of Tutte cycles of G3 one can find an element satisfying a) and b). We also note that regarding non-separating A-trails, it suffices to prove Conjecture VI.73 for Cconnected triangulations; this follows from Proposition VI.83, and it is tantamount to saying that it suffices to prove the BTC for the corresponding cyclically 4-edge-connected graphs (see Exercises VI.25 and VI.30).

VI. 156

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI.3.3. How to Find A-Trails: Some Complexity Considerations and Proposals for Some Algorithms Complexity considerations, although a very important part of today's development of graph theory (in particular with regard to applications to various problems in operations research, for example), do not constitute an essential part of this book. Nevertheless, here and in other chapters such considerations will be performed depending on the importance I attribute to a (solved or unsolved) problem; however, I have restricted my considerations on this topic to such questions as whether a given problem is (at least) NP-complete or whether it can be solved/decided in polynomial time. l) In what follows, we basically restrict ourselves to 3-connected, planar, eulerian graphs. For, as we have seen before, a 2-connected, planar, eulerian graph G may have plane embeddings GI and G2 such that G , has no A-trail while G2 does (see Figures VI.26 - VI.28). Thus, we would have t o consider embedding problems as well, respectively we would have to check all plane embeddings concerning the existence or non-existence of A-trails. On the other hand, 3-connected, planar graphs G are uniquely embeddable on the plane (see Theorem 111.52); hence (see the discussion preceding Lemma VI.64), the esistence of an A-trail in such a G which is also eulerian, is independent of any concrete embedding of G on the plane (or equivalently, 3-dimensional sphere). Nevertheless, for practical purposes we shall always consider some embedding of G. On the grounds of Regner's construction of a planar, 3-connected, eulerian graph without A-trails (respectively statement (V1.A) preceding Lemma VI.76), and because of [GARE76a], we can formulate and prove the following result.

Theorem VI.91. The problem of determining whether a given connected, plane, eulerian graph has an A-trail, is an NP-complete problem. I know that this is a very subjective point of view, and I foresee the disappointment and criticism of some of my colleagues. However, given the material I had to choose from, a thorough treatment of complexity and/or algorithms would have occupied a large part of the book. Moreover, I frankly admit that I am not a specialist on these topics. Hence I prefer to leave them to more competent researchers.

VI.3.3. A-Trails: Complexity Considerations, Algorithms

VI.137

This is true even if the problem is restricted to 3-connected graphs.1)

Proof. By statement (V1.A),if G3 is a planar, 3-connected, cubic graph, a planar, 3-connected, eulerian graph G with D(G, ) c G exists such that no face boundary of D(G3) is a face boundary of G, and G has an A-trail if and only if G3 has a hamiltonian cycle. Since the hamiltonian problem for G3 is NP-complete, [GARE76a], it is (more than) sufficient to show that the A-trail problem for G 3 D(G,), is polynomially equivalent to the hamiltonian problem for G,, and that G can be constructed from G3 in polynomial time. Since it follows from Theorems 111.89 and 111.90 that deciding whether a given graph is planar, and if so, finding an actual plane embedding, can be done in polynomial time, we may assume that G,, G respectively, are actually plane graphs. The problem of finding a 2-face-coloring of G can also be solved in polynomial time (Theorem 111.91). Hence, we may assume that the 2-face-coloring of G is given as well. Assume an A-trail T given in G 3 D(G3). A single run through T tells us at every vertex v which is reached (be it that v is reached in this run for the first time or not), whether v E Vl or v E V2 where {Vl, C' ,)' is the A-partition of T. For, together with the embedding of G we can determine the face boundaries of D(G,) in polynomial time (Theorem 111.90~)~ so we know whether edges of Ev consecutive in T belong to the boundary of a 1-face or 2-face of G. Thus, {V,,V,) is obtained in polynomial time Pl(pG) from T. Having stored V(D(G,)) we obtain v;l := V;: nV(D(G,)), such that (Kt)is a tree, i = 1,2, in polynomial time P2(pG). Knowing the bijection vF E V(D(G3)) tt bd(F) C G3 for every face F of G3 (which requires polynomial space and time only), we form Go = U V F c y bd(F) c G,. This and deleting those edges of Go which belong to bd(F1) and bd(F") for F' # F", 2]FlvFll E E((V:)), can be done in polynomial time P3(pG3),and results in H, a hamiltonian cycle of G,. Since, pG 5 const.pG3 (see below) P(pG3) := Pl (pG) P2 (pG) P3(pG3) is the polynomial in pG3 =I V(G3) I representing the time required to obtain the hamiltonian cycle H of G3 from the A-trail T of G.

+

+

The first part of this theorem has been proved in [BENT87a], where the authors speak of 'non-intersecting eulerian trails' what we call A-trails. Also, their constructions involve multiple edges and cut vertices in most instances. It is also worth noting that the motivation for this paper is derived from a problem in flame cutting.

VI.158

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Conversely, suppose a hamiltonian cycle H c G3 be given. Then it takes polynomial time Pi(pG3)to reach the vertex partition {V,', Vi) of D(G3) such that (V;') is a tree, i = 1 , 2 (V,' corresponds to the set of faces F of G3 with F C int H). In order to obtain an A-partition {V,, V2) of V ( G ) such that V;' = V; n V(D(G,)), i = 1,2, we choose a particular way of constructing a plane, 3-connected, eulerian graph G with D(G,) c G and such that no face boundary of D(G,) is a face boundary of G. It has been noted in the discussion preceding Lemma VI.76 that the construction of G is not unique, and that it can be done in such a way that every face of D(G,) contains precisely one copy of either Hi of Figure VI.32 or of H,, of Figure VI.31. This construction will be performed as the last step of the proof; hence assume first that G with this property is given. Then PG < - fG3 +5pG3 < - 6pG3,where the second inequality follows from Euler's polyhedron formula, and the first inequality is due to the fact that a face of D(G3) (which corresponds to a vertex of G3, and vice versa) contains either 3 or 5 vertices of V(G) - V(D(G,)). Having stored D(G3) and {V,', V,'), {V,, V2) as follows.

we can extend this partition to

a) The face F of D(G3) contains precisely three vertices; then it contains Ho. Following the notation of Figure VI.31, we may by symmetry assume w.1.o.g. that a, b E V,', c E V2/. In this case we define {al, b , ) c V2, c1 E V,. Note that there are altogether only 6 choices for the distribution of a, b, c in V,' and V,'.

b) The face F of D(G3) contains precisely five vertices, so it contains Hi. We follow the notation of Figure VI.32, and having again six choices for the distribution of xi-l, xi, yi in V; and V2/, we assume by symmetry w.1.o.g. that either { z ~ - ~ , xC~ V, ) ' and yi E V,', or { X ~ - ~ , Y ~C) V[ and xi E Vi. In any case, let the vertex of G, uniquely determined by N(xi-,) n N(yi) n F, belong to V2; let the vertex ti of G, uniquely determined by N ( X ; - ~ )nN(xi) nF, belong to V, unless A = (xi-l, ti, xi) is the boundary of a 2-face and yi E V2/ in which case we let ti belong to V2; and let the corresponding vertex of N(xi) n N(yi) n F belong to V,. As for the remaining two vertices ui-, E N(xi-,) and ui E N(xi) of V(Hi) n F, define ui-, ,ui E V2. Since ( K t ) is a tree, i = 1,2, and because of the way we extended {V:, V,') to {V, ,V2), it follows from these considerations that {V, ,V2) is an A-partition which can be obtained from {V,', V,') in polynomial

VI.3.3. A-Trails: Complexity Considerations, Algorithms

VI.159

time Pi(pG3). So, together with the 2-face-coloring of G we can perform the transition from {Vl, V2) to a cycle T which stands for an Atrail of G, by a step by step procedure. Namely: define Go := G, and G := ( G i l ) i , , i = I , . . .,pG, where V ( G ) = {v ,,.. .,upG), and the value of 6 E {1,2) is determined by vi E Vg. Since this transition from Gi-l to Gi can be done in polynomial time, we reach T = GPG from {Vl, V2) in polynomial time P;(pG). Again, since pG = const.pG3, we reach the A-trail T of G from the given hamiltonian cycle H of G3 in polynomial time Pi(pG3)= Pi (pG3) Pi(pG3) Pi (pG). Thus, the problem of finding an A-trail in G 3 D(G,) is polynomially equivalent to the problem of finding a hamiltonian cycle in G3.

+

+

Finally, let us show that the construction of G with the property that every face of D(G3) contains precisely one copy of either Hi or Ho, can be done in polynomial time. First we observe that the transition from G3 to D(G,) can be done in polynomial time Ql(pG3). We anticipate now some of the theory on the Chinese Postman Problem (CPP) which we shall develop in Volume 2, Chapter VIII. Namely: given any connected graph H, there exists an eulerian supergraph HI with the following properties:

1) V ( H , ) = V ( H ) ,

E(H,)2E(H);

2) if x and y are not adjacent in H, they will not be adjacent in HI; 3) for every cycle C1 of H1 we have

Expressed more descriptively, 1)- 3) says that H I is obtained from H by replacing certain edges of H with an edge of multiplicity 2 in such a way that Hl is eulerian and such that for every cycle C of H, the number of edges of C which are replaced in H1 with a multiple edge is at most l(C). As we shall see in the discussion on the CPP, the construction of H I from H can be done in polynomial time. Note that in this construction, dH1-E(H)(~) dH(v) (mod2) for every v E V(H) = V(H1)

.

Applied to the construction of G from H = D(G3) the above amounts to saying that we can label the edges of D(G3) in polynomial time

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 160

Q 2 k G 3 )with 0 and 1 in such a way that in D(G,) for El := {e E E(D(G3))/X(e) = 1) (with X denoting the label function)

I E, n El 1-

dD,G3,(v)(mod 2) for every u E V(D(G3))

(1)

and such that for every cycle C of D(G3)

In particular, (2) holds for the triangular face boundaries A of D(G3). That is, for every such A , I E(A) n El (0, 1). Following the notation of Figures VI.31 and VI.32 we write V(A) := {a, b, c) if E ( A ) n El = 0, and V(A) := { X ~ - ~ , Xyi) ~ , if E(A) n El # 0 with the notation chosen in such a way that w.1.o.g. {xi-,xi) = E ( A ) n El. Among the two face boundaries containing xi-,xi, choose one and fix it; denote it as above with A.

IE

For each of the A chosen with E(A) n El # 8 embed the graph Hiof Figure VI.32 in the corresponding face. For every other face boundary A = (a, b, c) embed Ho of Figure VI.31 in the corresponding face. Denote by G the graph resulting from D(G3) this way. This requires polynomial time Q3(pG3)only, because for each of the pG3face boundaries of D(G,) the embedding of Ho,Hi respectively, can be done in constant time. Thus, the entire transition from G3 to G can be done in polynomial time Q(PG~ ) = Q1 ( P G)~4- QZ ( 1 ) )~ ~Q3 ( 1 ) ).~ ~Because of (1) and the very construction of G from D(G3) it follows that G is plane and eulerian; and it is 3-connected because G3 is 3-connected. This finishes the proof of the theorem.

+

We note that in the second step of the proof of Theorem VI.91 it is not necessary to extend explicitly {V;, V,') to {Vl, V2). It suffices to construct G = (Gv;,l)v;t which is connected and Cregular, and then find algorithmically an A-trail of G in polynomial time by successively applying the Splitting Lemma, say (see Volume 2, Chapter X). As for the complexity of the A-trail problem in planar, 4-connected graphs, it can very well be that it parallels the phenomenon concerning the complexity of the hamiltonian problem. For as we have noted before, in Qconnected planar graphs, a harniltonian cycle can be found in polynomial time. This implies that a Tutte cycle in a planar cubic

VI.3.3. A-Trails: Complexity Considerations, Algorithms

VI.161

graph G3 with X,(G,) 2 4 can be found in polynomial time; in this case, L(G3) is a planar 4-connected graph (see Corollary 111.73). Of course, this does not guarantee that a Tutte cycle of the type described in Theorem VI.90, can be found in polynomial time.l) In fact, there is some evidence of the likelihood of the above parallelism. In addition to the facts quoted in the discussion following Conjecture VI.86 we may malie the following observations (we restrict ourselves to outlines of proofs, the details are left as exercises). 1) An A-trail of a 2-connected outerplane simple graph can be found in

polynomial time. We use Theorem VI.87 to develop a procedure for constructing an A-trail in a 2-connected outerplane simple graph G. We assume G to be 2-facecolored with the outer face F, of G being a 1-face. The procedure (an algorithm, so to say) amounts to successively marking vertices of valency exceeding 2 in such a way that ultimately every 1-face Fl # F, contains exactly one marked vertex. Denoting by Vl the set of marked vertices and V2 := V(G) - Vl, the partition (V,, V,) will then satisfy Theorem VI.87, and therefore, (Gvl ,l)v, ,2 will be a cycle representing an A-trail of On the other hand, it has been claimed that the hamiltonian cycle problem is solvable in polynomial time for arbitrary edge graphs (see [GARE79a, p.199, [ G ~ 3 7 ] ] where , the authors refer to [LIUC68a]); hence the Tutte cycle problem would lie in P (see Lemma 111.69). This claim must be erroneous. In order t o see this, we first consider L(G3) for a 2-connected cubic graph G3. Next we introduce a new vertex vp+; for every vertex ui of G3 and add the new edge V ; V ~ + ~ , i = 1,.. . , p . Denote by H the graph thus obtained. Finally we consider L(H) and S(G3)uL(G3). The latter graph can be viewed as obtained from S(G3) by letting V(L(G3)) = V2(S(G3)) and then adding E(L(G3)). If we proceed thus L(H) and S(G3)U L(G3) are isomorphic graphs. With this visualization of L (.H,) ,it now follows by a straightforward argument that there is a 1-1-correspondence between hamiltonian cycles of G3 and such cycles in L(H). Moreover, the above construction, the transformation of a hamiltonian cycle of G3 into the corresponding hamiltonian cycle of L ( H ) and the inverse transformation can be performed in polynomial time. Whence we may conclude that the hamiltonian cycle problem for L(H) is NP-complete even if G3 is planar and 3-connected (cf. [GARE76a]). We note that these arguments are a slight modification of Bertossi's considerations in BERT^^^] who dealt with the analogous error concerning the hamiltonian path problem [GARE79a, p.199, [GT 3911. - Incidentally, I could not find in Liu's book the claim quoted in [ G A R E ~ ~ ~ ] .

VI. 162

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

The starting point, however, is the construction of the weak dual of G

where f, is the vertex of D ( G ) , the dual of G, corresponding to F,. It has been shown, [FLEI74d, Theorem 1 and Corollary], that Dw( G ) is a tree for 2-connected, outerplane graphs. Hence, in our case T W := D W ( G ) is a tree whose vertex bipartition {Vlw,V2W)following the 2-face-coloring of G is such that the end-vertices of T w belong to V,ZU. Choose vo E 1';" and orient the edges of T w in such a way that T w is transformed into an out-tree TT with V(T?) = V ( T W )and root vo. For every v E Vlw let Fv # F, denote the 1-face of G corresponding to v , and for any 1-face F # F, of G let v F denote the corresponding vertex of V;". We observe that the following initial steps can be done altogether in polynomial time Po( n ) where n =I V ( G )I: a) Establishing the face boundaries of G and classifying them according to whether they belong to a 1-face or to a Zface.

b) Establishing for every v E V ( G ) the set Lv of 1-faces Fl with v E V(bd(F1))c) Constructing the plane out-tree TT with root vo and vertex bipartition {Vlw,V2W). We first mark the root vo E V ( T T ) . Then we mark an arbitrary vertes v1 E bd(Fvo), and let vl belong to V , (note that FVo is a 1-face by the choice of v,). Consider next Lv, and mark vF E V;U for every F E Lvl - {Fvo). At this stage as well as at any later stage of this marking process, the following property is fulfilled precisely because G is a 2connected outerplane graph: If P ( v o ,w ) is a path in Tow joining the root vo with w E V;U, and if w has been marked, all elements of V ( P ( v o w)) , nVlw have been marked. (*> Next we choose an unmarked vertex v E Vlwsubject to the condition that all elements of V ( P ( v 0v, ) - v ) r l Vlw have been marked already. (**) We mark this chosen v. Precisely because G is outerplane and simple it follows that there exists v2 E V(bd(Fv))such that

VI.3.3. A-Trails: Complexity Considerations, Algorithms

VI.163

d(v2) 2 4 and for every F E Lv2- {F,), vF E V(T,") has n o t been (* * *> marked yet. We mark v2. Then we mark in T," every vertex vF

# v for F E Lv2-{F,).

We observe that because of (*) the elements of VlW already marked together with the elements of V2w adjacent from these marked vertices, define a subtree T' of T," with root v,. Therefore, if Ti # Tow, we choose x E V;U subject to condition (**) (with x in place of v) in order to mark x and to find v3 E V(bd(F,)) satisfying (* * *) (with v3 in place of v,), and mark u3. Then we mark in T," the vertex vF # x for every F E LVj- {F,). We observe that the subtree T" of T," defined after this new step of the marking procedure in the same way that Ti was defined above, satisfies Therefore, choosing repeatedly a vertex of Vlw subject to (**) and a vertex of G satisfying (* * *) and marking the latter vertex, eventually leads to an out-tree T ( i )satisfying

After this i-th step, the set Vl C V(G) consisting precisely of the marked vertices of V(G), and V2 := V(G) - Vl defines a vertex partition. We note that it is precisely because of (* * *) that statement 2) of Theorem VI.87 is fulfilled. Hence {Vl, V2) is an A-partition of V(G). We note in passing that the preceding algorithmic considerations together with Theorem VI.87 amount to another proof of Theorem VI.63 independent from the proof established earlier. As for the complexity of the above marking procedure we observe that after the j-th step, 1 5 j < i, the choice for v E Vlw subject to (**) is arbitrary in the set of sources of T," - ~ ( ~ ( - 1 ' 1So, ) . constructing T(j) and choosing and marking such v among the sources of T," - v ( T ( ~ ) ) can be done in polynomial time Pl(n). Since the marking procedure in Tow can be combined with marking the corresponding elements in the sets L,, the discovery of a vertex vj+2 E V(G) satisfying (* * *) in the ( j 1)-th step can be done in polynomial time P2(n). Hence, the time required to construct the A-partition {Vl, V2) is at most P,(n)+n(P, (n)+ P2(n)). Since the transition from {V,, V2) to (GVl,1)V2,2can be done in polynomial time as well, it follows that finding an A-trail in G can be done in polynomial time.

+

VI. 164

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

On the grounds of 1)we arrive at the following statement.

2) If G i s a simple, plane, eulerian graph with a given hamiltonian cycle H having the A-property, a n A-trail of G can be found in polynomial time. By using the notation of the proof of Theorem VI.88 we may conclude from 1)that A-trails TI and T2 of GI and G2, respectively, can be found in polynomial time (where G, U G2 = G, G, n G, = H). Hence the corresponding A-partitions {V;',Vi) of Ti, i = 1,2, can be found in polynomial time. Since the four vertex sets

can be found in polynomial time, we therefore arrive at Wj := Wj' U W f , j = 1,2, in polynomial time. Since (Gw, ,l)w, ,2 can then be obtained in polynomial time, and since this graph is a cycle (see the proof of Theorem VI.88), it corresponds to an A-trail of G obtained in polynomial time. We observe, however, that the above considerations are based on a given harniltonian cycle H of G. Hence the question arises: how complex is the problem of deciding whether a given 4-connected, planar, eulerian graph has a hamiltonian cycle with the A-property ? Of course, in 2) we did not need any assumptions on n(G) (however, n(G) 2 2 since G is hamiltonian), but in view of Conjecture VI.86 and Tutte's theorem on hamiltonian cycles (Corollary 111.71) we restrict ourselves in the above question to 4-connected graphs. It should be noted that if G is any eulerian triangulation of the plane (4-connected or not, simple or not), this problem belongs to P; for, in such G, if e, f E E(G) are incident with v E V(G) and O+(v) = (. . . ,e(v), f(v), . . .), e and f either determine a unique hamiltonian cycle H having the A-property with e, f E E(H),or else H does not exist at all (Exercise VI.32). Thus, it can very well be that the above question has a 'polynomial' answer as well. Note that for a triangulation D of the plane, a hamiltonian cycle having the A-property is a special type of a left-right path as defined in [SHAN75a]. We leave it to the reader to check the complexity of finding an A-trail in a graph covered by either of the Theorems VI.77.a and VI.79 (Exercise VI.33), and now consider the general case.

An A-Trail Algorithm For Arbitrary Plane Eulerian Graphs

VI.165

An A-Trail Algorithm for Arbitrary Plane Eulerian Graphs Our starting point is a 2-connected, plane, eulerian graph Go other than a cycle and, indirectly, Theorems VI.59 and VI.67. However, instead of considering unicolored face-rings we combine a vertex-marking procedure with a sequence of 1-splittings. '1 Step 0. Consider Go together with a 2-face-coloring such that the outer face Fomof Go is a 1-face. Denote Vo* = V(bd(F,")) - V,(Go), and let x1 E V< be arbitrarily chosen. Set i = 1. Step 1. Form Gi := (Gi-l)(zil,l. Denote by Fim the outer face of Gi, and let the 2-face-coloring of Gi be induced by the 2-face-coloring of

G,-,. Step 2. Mark those so far unmarked elements of V(bd(Fim)) which are cut vertices of Gi, and let V1:* denote the set of unmarked vertices in V(bd(Fim)) - V2(G;). Step 3. If Step 1.

If

V;.* # 0, then choose any xi+, E V. Set i = i + 1 and go to

v = 0, then continue.

Step 4. Set v,** = {x/x E (E(Gi) - E(bd(F;"))) U (V(Gi) - V2(Gi));x is unmarked if it is a vertex ). If v,** = 0, then go to Step 7.

If

T*# 0, then continue.

Step 5. Search for the largest integer j

< i such that V; - {xj+,) # 0.

If such j does not exist, then go to Step 8. If j exists, continue. Step 6. Mark xj+, and set

=

V;- {aj+,). Set i = j and go to Step

3. Step 7. Go has an A-trail. Step 8. Go has no A-trail.

'1 For the case of eulerian triangulations of the plane, this algorithm has been outlined already in [ F L E I ~ ~ ~ ] .

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

VI. 166

In fact, this algorithm does more than decide whether Go has an Atrail: for, if = 0 = T*for some i > 0 (which is the necessary and sufficient condition for reaching Step 7), then Gi satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma VI.58. Hence a run through bd(F;DO) describes an A-trail To of Go. Moreover, an A-partition {Vf, V;) in Go corresponding to To is, in terms of the algorithm's notation, defined by

v:

= {xl, ...,X i ) , V2' = {x E V(G)/x has been marked or x E V,(Go)} We note that the construction of Gi and the determination of V,*,T.7' respectively, can be done very fast. This is also true for the determination of the integer j < i in Step 5. However, the algorithm on the whole is very slow. This becomes clear by studying the Steps 4, 5 and 6: V;' = 0 and V;.** # 0 means that, for the time being, one cannot continue the 'greedy approach' expressed in Steps 1, 2 and 3; i.e., one has reached a deadlock. At this point, each block B of Gi satisfying B n y * # 0 defines a unicolored face-ring R (whose elements are 2-faces) with a complete set of links LR := V(bd(FgOO)) - V2(B), where Fp is the unbounded face of B (whose embedding is induced by that of G,) and bd(Fp) c bd(F,OO). For, = 0 means that all elements of V(bd(Fp)) - V2(Gi) have been already marked; since this and B nV;:** # 0 imply int bd(F,") n V,** # 0, we conclude that there are (at least two) 2-faces F2 with E(bd(F2)) n E(bd(Fg)) # 0, whence R is defined by the set of these 2-faces. We note, in addition, that a marked vertex of Gi need not be a cut vertex of G, (see Step 6). Steps 5 and 6 are means of getting out of this deadlock. That is, one has to go back to some Gj, j < i (for practical reasons one chooses the largest j ) and choose some vertex E - {xj+l} to which one applies a 1-splitting to obtain G;+l. At this point x ? + ~ has become a marked vertex, and all the algorithmic work in establishing Gj+l,. . .,Gi is to no avail. That is, the marking and splitting procedures in these graphs are undone. But having shifted xj+, from to the set of marked vertices of Gj does not say anything about the 'final fate' of xj+l in an A-partition {Vf ,V2') of Go that might exist. For, at a later stage one might reach j' < j; and continuing with Step 1 for i = j' 1 might result in the formation of a Vz, k > j' containing the above xi+l again. We note however, that xj+l remains a marked vertex as long as the above Vj* has not been eshausted by Step 6.

+

The working of the above algorithm (and its slowness) becomes even clearer if Go = D is an eulerian triangulation of the plane. For, in this

An A-Trail Algorithm For Arbitrary Plane Eulerian Graphs VI. 167 case the algorithm amounts to constructing connected graphs Dl (induced by the vertices to which one applies a 1-splitting) and D2 (induced by the marked vertices) such that

and for 5 = 1,2, D6 has a cycle C only if C = bd(F6) where F6is a &-face (see Corollaries VI.68 and VI.69 and the subsequent discussion). And at every stage of the algorithm, the graph induced by the vertices to which one applies a 1-splitting, has this property. We leave it as an exercise to translate this algorithm into an algorithm for finding hamiltonian cycles in plane cubic bipartite graphs (it's the obvious algorithm !). However, in view of the equivalence between the Conjectures VI.73 and VI.74 as expressed by Lemma VI.75 one can modify the above algorithm in order for it to decide whether a given plane eulerian graph Go has a non-separating A-trail (Exercise VI.34.b)). If Go has such an A-trail, the outcome of this modified algorithm is a connected outerplane eulerian graph Gi(for some i > 0) whose blocks are the boundaries of the 2faces F2 of Go and such that bd(F2) has more edges than it contains cut vertices of Gi. Restricting ourselves to eulerian triangulations Do of the plane this means that each block of Di contains at most two cut vertices of Di (*). Statement (*) is trivially true for i = 0, and for i = 1 as well; hence one is tempted to suspect that (*) can be preserved in all the graphs Do, D,, . . .,Di of the modified A-trail algorithm. This "suspicion7' leads us to the following more general conjecture where we consider simple eulerian triangulations of an n-gon in the plane. In this case, n 0 (mod 3) must hold; and for every such n, triangulations of this type do exist (see e.g. [FLEI74b] and note that Lemma VI.76 is a consequence of this fact).

Conjecture VI.92. Let a positive integer n r 0 (mod 3) be chosen, and let Do be a simple eulerian triangulation of an n-gon in the plane together with a 2-face-coloring of Do such that the outer face Fooo of Do is a 1-face. Then (distinct) vertices xk E V(Do) - V2(Do) exist such that Dk := (Dk-l)~z,l,l, k = 1,. . .,i, has the following properties: a) x k E V(bd(F,OO_,))- V2(Dk-,) ( F Z , is the outer face of b) every block of Dk contains at most two cut vertices of Dk;

c) if k = i, then every block of Dk is a (triangular) boundary of a 2-face.

VI. 168

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Thus, because of property b) Conjecture VI.92 is a generalization of Conjecture VI.73.

VI.3.4. Final Remarks on Non-Intersecting Eulerian Trails and A-Trails, and another Problem As we have noticed at the beginning of this section, non-intersecting eulerian trails and A-trails are in principle different concepts; they coincide however, for G with A(G) 5 4. This basic difference between these two types of eulerian trails can also be demonstrated topologically. Recall that an eulerian trail T of the connected eulerian graph can be determined by a sequence of splitting operations on vertices of valeilcy exceeding 2 such that the graph obtained after the last splitting operation in that sequence, is a cycle (see also Corollary V.13). On the other hand, a connected eulerian graph G on q edges can be viewed as obtained from a q-gon Cq by a homomorphism which acts bijectively on the edge sets of G and Cq (see Remark V.12). We apply these considerations to an arbitrary connected, plane, eulerian graph G and a non-intersecting eulerian trail T of G. Denote by CT the plane cycle corresponding to T. Moreover, similar to the concept of a 6-splitting, 6 = 1,2, we consider, in the construction of CT from G, the k-fold application of the splitting procedure to obtain k 2-valent vertices v,, . . . ,vk from the 2k-valent vertex v, k > 1, as a simultaneous procedure to replace v with these k 2-valent vertices. Note that this replacement procedure can be done in such a way that v,, . . .,v k lie in a (geometrical) circle K(v, E) with center v and radius E, and x ( v , E) contains no other vertices of G, CT respectively, and E ( v , e) n (E(G) - E,) = 0. Note that CT is a simple closed curve since T is non-intersecting. Thus G can be viewed as obtained from a regular q-gon in the plane Cq(q =I E(G) I) as follows: 1L cT4 G

c,

where cp is a homotopic deformation

and $Jis a continuous mapping of the plane E2 onto itself

VI.3.4. Final Remarks

VI. 169

such that $(x) = v for x E ((v, E) and v E V(G) - V2(G),

$: £ -

U

Ii(u, E )

+ E2

- V(G) is bijective.

v€V(G)-Vz(G)

Since an A-trail is a special type of non-intersecting eulerian trail, the above is true, of course, if T is an A-trail. However, if T is an A-trail, we can assume CT as having the additional property that for every v E V(G) - V2(G) there exists 5 < E such that E ( v , 6)n CT = {vl,. . .,vk). (~4) Using planarity we can replace (A) with

precisely one of K(v, E) n int CT and K(v, E) n ext CT is a region. (A') If we consider a 2-face-coloring of G (with Foo being a 1-face as usual) and the induced coloring of CT, K(v, E) n int CT is a region if and only if T induces a 2-splitting in v. In the case of a non-intersecting eulerian trail which is not an A-trail, then for at least one u E V(G) - V2(G), neither of these two sets defined in (A') is connected. So we have a way of topologically constructing all connected, plane, eulerian graphs (compare this with [ABRH79a, Theorem 31) as well as those graphs among them which admit an A-trail. The A-trail problem can thus be re-interpreted as the problem of describing various classes of these graphs in terms of graph theoretical parameters. We observe that the above considerations can, in principle, be extended to arbitrary graphs embedded in some (orientable or non-orientable) surface 3, except where 2-face-colorings are involved. In particular, property (A) remains valid as the topological means for distinguishing A-trails from the other non-intersecting eulerian trails. Note that the concept of an A-trail was originally introduced via O+(v), 0-(v) respectively, and did not require the concept of 5-splittings. However, for different nonintersecting eulerian trails TIand T2 of the same G, the cycles CTl and CT, may not be homotopic. As for A-trails in connected, plane, eulerian digraphs D and/or mixed graphs M it makes sense to consider this problem only if D is canonically oriented, and/or if M can be canonically oriented (it can easily be

VI. 170

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

decided, whether M admits such orientation; for, a canonical orientation is uniquely determined by just one given arc). To consider the A-trail problem in a canonically oriented digraph D is, however, tantamount to considering the problem in the underlying graph G. For, if G has an Atrail T, either T or T-l corresponds to an A-trail in D ; and an A-trail of D corresponds to an A-trail of G. This follows directly from the relation between an A-trail and 5-splittings, 5 = 1,2. However, it might be of interest to study (in the contest of Theorem VI.33) those in-trees of D which correspond to A-trails of D. Another problem (which has not been treated explicitly in this chapter) considers arbitrary connected eulerian graphs G drawn in the plane in such a way that open edges do not contain points corresponding to vertices, two open edges intersect in at most one point at which they must cross each other, and no three open edges intersect in the same point. Such a drawing of G defines a certain O+(G) from which one deduces a special system of transitions Xo by defining t E XO(v)+-t t = {e:,ei+i), 1 5 i 5 k = k, = $d(v), and v E V(G) is arbitrarily chosen. However, Xo = Xs for some unique trail decomposition S of G. Whence the following questions arise: 1)For a given graph G, does there exist a drawing of G in the plane such that Xo = XT for some eulerian trail T of G ? 2) How many drawings of G exist such that some eulerian trail T of G satisfies XT = Xo (where Xo relates to a particular drawing) ? 3) Which trail decompositions S of G, satisfying Xo = Xs can be obtained this way ? These questions have been raised in [HARB89a] where question 1) is answered in the affirmative for G = I$,+,,n E N.

VI.4. Exercises Exercise VI.1. Prove Corollary VI.2, part 2), by applying the Splitting Lemma (i.e., without using Theorem VI.l). Exercise VI.2. Construct a graph G and define a partition system P(G) satisfying Corollary VI.4.2) such that G has no P(G)-compatible pathlcycle decomposition S in which the number of path elements of S equals half the number of odd vertices of G. Exercise VI.3. Prove Corollaries VI.5 and VI.6 by using the Splitting Lemma only.

VI.4. Exercises

VI.171

Exercise VI.4. Prove Lemma VI.7 and Lemma VI.8 by using the Splitting Lemma. Exercise VI.5. Prove Corollaries VI.9 and VI.lO. Exercise VI.6. Show that the digraph of Figure VI.2 has no A*compatible eulerian trail. Exercise VI.7. Prove Corollary VI. 13 (hint: for v with dD(v) > 6, show first that if IX*(v) I= ;dD(v)+1, then there exists CiE X*(v), i = 1 , 2 , 3 , with I CiI= 2 and (At)+ 3 Ci (A:)-. Then apply the Splitting Lemma in a manner similar to the proof of Theorem VI.ll).

u!=,

Exercise VI.8. Show that Dl of Figure VI.4. has an X(D1)-compatible eulerian trail if and only if D has an X(D)-compatible eulerian trail, where X ( D ) is given and X(D1) = X ( D ) U X ( s l ) U X(s,). Exercise VI.9. a) Construct connected eulerian digraphs D with the property that V ( D ) consists of 4-valent vertices and an odd number of 6-valent vertices. b) Taking two graphs of the type described in a), construct from it an eulerian digraph with an even number of arcs and a 4-valent cut vertex. Exercise VI.lO. Prove Corollary VI. 19. Exercise V I . l l . Prove Lemmas VI.27 and VI.28. Determine those graphs G whose valencies are multiples of four such that these two lemmas are also true for such G. Exercise VI.12. Show that the subdigraphs Dl and D i = D * - DL of the digraph D* of Figure VI.7 satisfy statement 4)a) of Theorem VI.35, while statement 4)b) holds for Di only. Exercise VI.13. Prove Corollary VI.43. Exercise VI.14. Construct a 4-regular simple digraph which has two but not three pairwise compatible eulerian trails (hint: proceed similar to the discussion centering around Figure VI.14). Exercise VI.15. Prove Lemma VI.58. Exercise VI.16. Prove: if G satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma VI.58, then there exists a connected, outerplane, simple graph H having a subgraph H' homeomorphic to G, such that H has no A-trail. If one drops the property "simple", then H can be constructed in such a way that H' spans H.

VI.172

VI. Various Types of Eulerian Trails

Exercise VI.17. Construct a 2-connected, outerplane, eulerian graph having no A-trail. Exercise VI.18. a) Construct an A-trail in the graph GT of Figure VI.28. b) Show that GT has no A-trail inducing a 1-splitting in vl if the outer face of G; is a 1-face in the 2-face-coloring of G r . c) Find other plane embeddings of the abstract graph underlying Go and G,: which admit A-trails. Exercise VI.19. Prove Lemma VI.65 and show by example that the converse of this Lemma is not true. Exercise VI.20. Show that the plane graph Go of Figure VI.26 (which has no A-trail) does have a vertex partition {Vl, V2)such that (V6)is acyclic, 6 = 1,2. Exercise VI.2 1. Prove that the graph of Figure VI.30 (a) is the smallest planar, Zconnected, cubic, bipartite non-hamiltonian graph, and that it is uniquely determined. Exercise VI.22. Prove: the following statements are equivalent. 1) Every plane, 3-connected, cubic, bipartite graph has a hamiltonian cycle (BTC). 2) Every plane, 3-connected, cubic, bipartite graph has a dominating cycle. Exercise VI.23. a) Prove: if G3 (D) is a plane, bipartite, 3-connected, cubic graph (simple eulerian triangulation of the plane) whose face boundaries are 4-, 6-, or 8-gonal (whose vertices are 4-, 6-, or 8-valent), then G, (D) has precisely six Cgonal face boundaries (Cvalent vertices) if it has no 8-gonal face boundary (8-valent vertex); it has precisely seven 4-gonal face boundaries (4-valent vertices) if it has precisely one 8-gonal face boundary (8-valent vertex). b) Construct an eulerian triangulation of the plane with 4-, 6-, and 8valent vertices only such that it has precisely one 8-valent vertex v; and v is not adjacent to any 4-valent vertex. Exercise VI.24. a) Prove Corollary VI.81. b) Starting from the octahedron, construct an eulerian triangulation of the plane D by a sequence of weak W4-extensions such that D has precisely one pair of adjacent 4-valent vertices. Exercise VI.25. Translate Conjecture VI.82 into the theory of cubic graphs to obtain a stronger (but equivalent) version of Conjecture VI.72.

VI.4. Exercises

VI.173

Exercise VI.26. Prove Lemma VI.84. Exercise V1.27. Prove: if G3 is a connected 3-regular graph having a 2-factor Q4 consisting of 4-gons only, then Gg has a hamiltonian cycle H > E(G3) - Q4 (hint: use Corollary VI.6 and suppress those 4-gons in

Q4 which either have diagonals or which contain an edge of multiplicity 2).

Exercise VI.28. Show that the graph D of Figure VI.38 has an A-trail. Exercise VI.29. Prove Theorem VI.90. Exercise VI.30. Show that it suffices to prove Conjecture VI.73 for the corresponding 4-connected graphs (hint: apply Proposition VI.83). Exercise VI.31. a) Concerning finding an A-trail in a 2-connected outerplane simple graph, work out the details of the proposed algorithm (in particular, show that properties (*) and (* * *) are valid). b) Check in detail the complexity considerations on this algorithm (how large is the exponent of Pi (n) for i = 0,1,2 ?).

Exercise VI.32. Show: a) If G is a(n) (eulerian) triangulation of the plane and e, f E E(G) are adjacent in a face boundary of G, then there is at most one hamiltonian cycle H of G having the A-property with e, f E E ( H ) ; and determining whether this H exists or not, can be done in linear time (note that G is already embedded in the plane). b) Using a) show that the problem of deciding the existence of a harniltonian cycle with the A-property in a(n) (eulerian) triangulation of the plane, lies in P. Exercise VI.33. Study the complexity of finding an A-trail in D , where D is an eulerian triangulation of the plane as described in Theorems VI.77.a and VI.79. Exercise VI.34. a) Translate the A-trail algorithm for arbitrary plane eulerian graphs into an algorithm for finding a hamiltonian cycle, a Tutte cycle respectively, with the properties expressed in Theorem VI.90, in a plane cubic bipartite graph (hint: use Lemma VI.75, Theorem VI.90 ancl their respective proofs). b) Modify this A-trail algorithm in such a way that it decides whether a given connected plane eulerian graph has a non-separating A-trail.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Chapter VII

TRANSFORMATIONS OF EULERIAN TRAILS

In the preceding chapter, we have studied various types of eulerian trails in arbitrary eulerian graphs and digraphs, as well as in certain classes of eulerian graphs. We shall consider all eulerian trails in a fixed eulerian graph G. Is there a way of transforming an eulerian trail TI of G into another eulerian trail T2 of G ? For this purpose, we must first explain under which conditions TI and T2 are considered to differ.

Definition VII.l.Two eulerian trails TI and T, of the connected eulerian (di)graph G are considered to differ precisely if XTl # XT2. In other words, for an eulerian trail T of G, should the eulerian trail T' arise from T by reversing or cyclically rotating the edge sequence representing T , T and T' are considered to be equal. Thus, Definition VII.l is in line with the approach used by most authors to date to distinguish between eulerian trails. Moreover, this definition is suggested by Corollary

v.lO.

Of course, in the case of a digraph D, the reversal of the arc sequence representing an eulerian trail T' of D , to obtain an eulerian trail T' of D is out of the question, since traversing an arc (v, w) from w to v is not permitted in an eulerian trail. However, there are other ways of considering two eulerian trails as different which should be mentioned at this juncture. For example, W.T. Tutte considers T and T' to be different if the edge sequences (and/or arc sequences) representing T, T' respectively are different. More precisely, T # T' if T and T' either start at different vertices or if for some i E (1,. . . ,q), the i-th edge (arc) traversed by T differs from the i-th edge (arc) traversed by TI.Comparing this view with the one expressed by Definition VII. 1, it follows that this definition implies an equivalence relation on the set of eulerian trails of a (di)graph; each equivalence class

VII.2

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

contains precisely 29 eulerian trails which define the same system of transitions and which are considered different in the sense of Tutte. For the purposes of this book, however, Tutte's distinction between eulerian trails of a graph has no essential impact other than the above factor 2q. However, in the case of digraphs, Tutte's distinction is of indirect relevance. There is yet another way of distinguishing between eulerian trails of a (di)graph. Suppose the edges (arcs) of a (di)graph H are arbitrarily labeled beforehand by f,, . . . , f,. An eulerian trail T of H, espressed as a sequence of edges (arcs), then defines a permutation .r; of the elements of {1,2,. . . ,q ) . BAerian trails TI and T2 of H are then considered to differ if and only if the corresponding permutations 7il and 7r2 differ. This distinction between eulerian trails (which is in line with Tutte's point of view) will play an essential role in securing a parity result on eulerian trails in digraphs which in turn yields an interesting application in linear algebra.

VII.l. Transforming Arbitrary Eulerian Trails in Graphs Let G be a connected eulerian graph other than a cycle, and consider in G a system of transitions XT defined by an eulerian trail T. Let tl,t2 E X ( v ) C XT for v E V(G) - V2(G) # 8 be arbitrarily chosen, and denote tl = {f;,gi), t2 = {fi,f;). Let H be the connected eulerian graph obtained from G by splitting away those pairs of edges which correspond to the elements of X T - {t,, t 2 } . Consequently, d H ( v ) = 4 and V2(H) = V(H) - {v). Moreover, T corresponds t o an eulerian trail Tl of H with t,, t, E X T l . It now follows by the very structure of H that f;, f;, f{ cannot be half-edges within the same block of H. The Splitting Lemma implies, therefore, that either or is connected. Assuming w.1.o.g. that HI,, is connected, we have V2(H1,2) = V(H1,,); i.e., is a cycle. Thus, a run through HI,z describes an eulerian trail T, of H. By construction and Definition VII.1, TI# T,. Moreover, T2 corresponds to an eulerian trail T' # T of G whose corresponding system of transitions X' := XT, satisfies the equation

x t = (X,-{t,,t,))~(t',,t;) where t', := {f;, f;),th := {f;, 9:).

,

(1)

VII.l. Transforming Arbitrary Eulerian Trails in Graphs

VII.3

Summarizing these considerations, we arrive a t the following result (see also [KOTZ68c, Theorem 11 and [ABFtH80a, Lemma 11). L e m m a VII.2. Let T be an eulerian trail of the connected eulerian graph G, where V(G) - V2(G) # 0, and let t,, t2 be two different transitions of T at a vertex of valency exceeding 2. Then there exists an eulerian trail of G whose transitions coincide with those of T except for tl and t2. Re-interpreting the above equivalently in terms of representations of eulerian trails by edge sequences, we can describe the eulerian trails T and TI as follows

where E(G) = {el,. . . ,eq), Sm,,is a closed trail starting with em and ending with e, at the same vertex v E V(G) - V2(G), and em-, f,, em = g,, en = f 2 , en+, = f3. Hence (1) and (2) describe the same situation. In accordance with [ABRH80a, SKIL83al (see also [KOTZ68c] which, historically, is the starting point for this chapter), we are led to the following. We retain the notation introduced hitherto. Definition VII.3. Let T and TI be two eulerian trails of the connected eulerian graph G, and let v E V(G) - V2(G) # 0. If the corresponding systems of transitions X T , X 1 respectively, satisfy (I), we can say that XI (TI) has been obtained from XT (T) by a K-transformation which in itself is given by transforming tl and t2 into t i and t;. We can also say, by analogy, that TI has been obtained from T by the reversal ,, (or segment reversal for short), which starts of t h e segment S and ends at the same vertex v (see (2)). We note that the inverse operation of a K-transformation is also a Ktransformation. This follows from (I), but also from (2) by observing that (S;$)-l = S,,. If we extend the validity of (1) for the case {tl,t2) = {ti,tb) (i.e., T' = T), then Definition VII.3 permits one to consider the identical transformation (i.e., XT = X I ) a K-transformation. For the sake of brevity we can write K(T) = TI, if TI is obtained from T by a r;-transformation.') Since this formal equation does not specify by which K-transformation TI has been obtained from T,we have K(T) = T',n(T) = T" and T' # TI1 for different K-transformations.

VII.4

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

Definition VII.4. Let I ( G ) denote the s e t of all eulerian trails of the connected eulerian graph G. For T,T1 E I ( G ) we call T and TI K- associate^,^) if To, . . .,Tn E I ( G ) exist for some n E N so that

T = T o , T 1 = T n , and T i = ~ ( T i - , ) f o r l I i < n

.

Thus, if T, TI, T" E I ( G ) are such that K(T) = TI and such that TI and T" are K-associates, then T and TI1are K-associates. From Definition VII.4 and the discussion immediately preceding it, we can now conclude that K-association defines an equivalence relation on I ( G ) . That is, I ( G ) has a partition P(G, K) whose classes are the equivalence classes under this relation. This leads to the question of the number of classes that P ( G , K) has. The answer to this question is given by the nest theorem. T h e o r e m VII.5. IP ( G , K)I= 1 for every connected eulerian graph G.

Proof. If G is a cycle, then I7(G) I= 1 by Definition VII.1. The validity of the theorem follows in this case ( I ( G ) = {TI) since T = K(T) with the K-transformation being the identical transformation, whence we assume V(G) - V2(G) # 0, so IT(G) I> 1 by Lemma VII.2. Let us assume that we have T I ,T2 E I(G)which are not K-associates. Define X, := XTl, X2 := XT2and choose TI and T2 in such a way that I X, n X2 I is as large as possible. Next consider v E V(G) - V2(G) with X,(v) # X2(v), where Xi(v) Xi, i = 1,2, is the set of transitions at v induced by Ti. Such v must exist because of TI# T2. Since d(v) = 2k > 2, it follows from the choice of v that x1,2(v) :=I X1(v) n X2(v) I k - 2 (note that x , , ~ ( v )= k - 1 implies x , , ~ ( v )= k which is impossible by the choice of v).

<

>

Consequently, there are T := k - x , , ~ ( v ) 2 transitions of Xl(v) which do not belong to X2, and vice versa. We may denote these transitions in such a way that

where {i, ,... ,iT}={l,..., r } and

ij#j

for

l s j s ~.

Note that K-associatesare the same as associates in [SI
VII.1. Transforming Arbitrary Eulerian Trails in Graphs

121.5

Thus, for {ei ,f i ) E X l ( v ) - X 2 ( v ) there are two different transitions {ef,f;),{e',, f i ) E X 2 ( v ) - X l ( v ) , where rn = il and 1 = i n , 1 m , n r.' Now denote

<

3

<

We now apply Lemma VII.2 for T = Tl and t , = tl,,, s = 1 , 2 . It follo~vs that T3 E 7 ( G )exists with K(T,)= T3 and X 3 := XT3 > X 1 - { t l , l ,tl,?). Thus, we have either

v )analogy to X ~ , ~ and ( V )observing that Defining x ~ , ~ (by

we conclude from X 3 > X 1 - {tl,l,t1,2)that in the first case x ~ , ~ (>v ) X ~ , ~ and ( V )therefore, I X 3 nX 2 I>I X 1 n X 2 I. By the choice of Tl and T2, it follows that T3 and T, are K-associates. This and K ( T ~=)T3 imply that Tl and T2 are K-associates, thus contradicting the choice of Tl and T2,whence we can conclude that X 3 satisfies the equation (3). Now we apply Lemma VII.2 for T = T2 and t , = t2,,, s = 1,2. Using a symmetric argument we can conclude that there is

and X4 must satisfy the equation

Note that these 2r transitions correspond to a 2-factor Q in K 2 , where V ( K 2 , ) = {e; ,f;, /j = 1, . . . ,r ) ,E(IC2,) consists of all conceivable transitions, and where Q consists only of even cycles because of the definition of these 2r transitions (see also the discussion after Conjecture VI.36 and before Theorem VI.37). Hence, we could have been even more specific concerning the choice of the indices i j ,j = 1,. . ,r. This we shall do later on.

.

VII.6

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

Comparing (3) and (4) we can confirm the validity of the equation

where dm,, is the Kronecker delta. By the choice of TI and Tz7it follows that T3 and T4 are K-associates. This and the formal equations &(TI) = T,, n(T,) = T4 classify, however, Tl and T2 as being K-associates. This final contradiction implies that the theorem is valid. Note that the above proof differs from those of [ABRH80a7Theorem] and [SKIL83a, Theorem 11. Knowing that any connected graph G with 2k > 0 vertices of odd degree has a decomposition S into k open trails such that an odd vertex of G appears as an end-vertex of precisely one trail in S (see Corollary V.2), one is tempted to generalize Theorem VII.5 in the following way. Join a new vertex vo # V(G)to each of the odd vertices of G with precisely one edge in order to obtain a connected eulerian graph H. Each trail decomposition S of G as described above can then be extended to an eulerian trail of H. If we denote S = {T(ui, vi)/i = 1, . . . ,k), where T(ui, vi) stands for the element of S joining the odd vertices ui7vi E V(G) 7

is an eulerian trail of H. In fact, if k > 1, the same decomposition S of E(G) defines more than one such trail T H .Moreover, every eulerian trail TH of H defines a decomposition S of E(G)into open trails. Hence by Theorem VII.5, any two such decompositions S1,S, of E(G) can be transformed into each other by following a sequence of K-transformations applied to the respective eulerian trails TI,T2of H. Interpreting these Ktransformations in terms of segment reversals and noting that a segment may start and end at vo 6 V(G), it immediately follows that in general, we cannot conclude that S1 and S2 can be transformed into each other by a sequence of segment reversals (respectively K-transformations) performed only in G. Figure VII. 1 demonstrates this fact. Of course, we can extend the concept of segment reversal (respectively K-transformation) to arbitrary graphs G by restricting ourselves in H to segments that contain no element of EVo (and/or by restricting K-transformations t o the elements of XS1- XSl(v,)).

VII.1. Transforming Arbitrary Euleriaxl Trails in Graphs

VII.7

Figure VII.l. The decomposition S1 of E(G) into two open trails T(ul, vl), T(u,, v,), where the elements of Xs, are described by the small arcs, cannot be transformed by segment reversals into a path decomposition S, := (P(u1, 212 1, q(v1, v2 I of E(G).

>

However, if k = 1 (i.e., if G contains an open covering trail), any two such trails can be transformed into each other by a sequence of segment reversals. To see this form firstly H from G as above, and denote {u, v) = NH(vO).Precisely, because vo is 2-valent in H one can define a correspondence TH E 7 ( H ) --t E % (G) where %(G)is the set of all open covering trails of G joining the odd vertices u, v E V(G), and where TH is defined by the edge sequence

By Definition VII.l it is no loss of generality if the elements of T ( H ) are written in such a way that they start and end in v,. Hence, the above relation between TH and T$ classifies the above correspondence as a bijection between I ( H ) and T0(G). Secondly, consider T,T1 E I ( H ) such that K(T)= TI. Assume G is a connected graph other than a path, hence we may consider

VII.8

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

Now we can write T as an edge sequence of the form

where S1,m-land S,,, are segments starting and ending at x; hence T starts and ends at x. Moreover, m = 2 (m = q), if and only if the first (last) edge of T is a loop. Next suppose T # TI. Since K(T)= TI, T' is being obtained from T by the reversal of a segment S,,, starting and ending at y E V(H) - V2(H). Because of (*) and Definition VII.l we may suppose w.1.o.g. that y = x, r = 1, s = m - 1. Hence

Following the notation of (1) and (2), we then have

tl = {ei, eb}, ti = {ei, el,),

t2

= {e',-,,e',),

t; = {el,-l, eb}.

However, for

T" = S1,,-, ,s;;, the corresponding system of transitions X" satisfies (1) as well, where t,, t2,t',,t; are the transitions described in (* * *). Hence,

That is, T' can be obtained from T by reversing the segment Sm,,instead of S1,m-l. In other words, if K(T) = T' and T # TI,then T' can be obtained from T by reversing a segment not containing a prescribed edge (see also [SKIL83a, Lemma 11). Generalizing this for any two K associates T,T'E T ( H ) we can therefore say that T' can be obtained f r o m T by a sequence of segment reversals, such that none of the reversed segments contains any element of E ( H ) -E(G). This and Theorem VII.5 are equivalent, however, to the following result ([SI
Corollary VII.6. Let G be a connected graph having precisely two odd vertices, and let T:, Tt E I,(G) be arbitrarily chosen. Then T? and T: are K-associates (i.e., they can be obtained from each other by a sequence of segment reversals).

VII.2. Transforming Eulerian Trails of a Special Type

VII.9

Talcing another look at the general case (where G has 2k > 2 odd vertices) and in the light of the discussion following Theorem VII.5, it is not clear how to handle the classification problem concerning S(G), where S(G) is the set of all decompositions S of E(G) into k open trails. Should one simply adhere to the concept of segment reversal, as has been done for the cases k = 0 (Theorem VII.5) and k = 1 (Corollary VII.G), or should one use certain segments of the eulerian trails of H as well for segment reversals ? The discussion thus far suggests that one should adhere to segment reversals as in the cases k = 0 , l . The question we are then faced with is (see also the discussion of Figure VII.l): if G is a connected graph with precisely 21; > 2 odd vertices, how large can I P ( G , r i ) I be ? Here, P ( G , K ) denotes the partition of S(G) induced by K-association which remains an equivalence relation, provided one considers an open trail T(u, v) and its inverse T(u, v)-l to be the s~uneobject (see Definition VII.l). Is I P ( G , K) I a function f(k) depending on k only ? Maybe f (k) = k ? In my view, these are questions worth answering; it ~vould seem that nobody has undertaken that task.

VII.2. Transforming Eulerian Trails of a Special Type Instead of generalizations, let us now turn to specialization. We should consider in a connected eulerian graph the set I* of all eulerian trails of a special type and ask whether any two of them are K-associates within I*. More precisely, if T, TI E I* are chosen arbitrarily, does a sequence = of objects T I , . . . ,Tn E I*arise such that T, = T, Tn = T' and K(T,.) Ti+l for i = I , . . .,n- 1 ? Turning first to the concept of compatibility, we are soon faced with some disappointment. If G is a connected eulerian graph together with a system of transitions X and eulerian trails T, TI compatible with X , it is generally not true that G contains eulerian trails TI,. . . ,Tn compatible with X and satisfying T=T,,T1=Tn,

and

T i + l = ~ ( T i ) for

l
.

and two of This can be seen from Figure VII.2, where we consider the possible cases for the system of transitions X. In the first case (Figure

VII. 10

VII. Transforlnations of Eulerian Trails

VII.2.a)) XI = Xsfor some cycle decomposition of 1(2,4into two 4-gons, in the second case (Figure VII.2.b)) X" = XTo for some eulerian trail To of IC2,,. The eulerian trail T = 1,5,7,3,4,8,6,2 is compatible with both XI and X". We choose T' = 1,5,6,2,4,8,7,3 in the first case and TI1= 1,5,6,2,3,7,8,4 in the second case (note that T" results from TI by reversing the segment 4,8,7,3). Now a straightforward argument shows that on the one hand, T cannot be transformed into TI by a sequence of K-transformations involving only X1-compatible eulerian trails, ~vhile on the other hand, that transformation is possible for T and T" within the range of Xu-compatible eulerian trails (see Figure VII.2 and E,sercise VII.1).

,

Figure VII.2. I(, together with a system of transitions X' = Xs in case a), respectively X" = XT, in case b ) . F o r T = 1,5,7,3,4,8,6,2,T1= 1 , 5 , 6 , 2 , 4 , 8 , 7 , 3 a n d T V = 1,5,6,2,3,7,8,4 we have X T n X 1 = X T n X f l = XTln X 1 = XTrt n XI' = 0. However, XI n XTa # 0 for any eulerian trail T2 satisfying K(T) = T2 # T, while T2 = 1,5,7,3,2,6,8,4 satisfies XTzn Xu = 0, K(T) = T2,%(T2)= T".

The general theoretical background for the phenomenon just discussed

VII.2. Transforming Eulerian Trails of a Special Type

VII.ll

can be found in the proof of Theorem VII.5. Namely, it is quite possible that the eulerian trails T3 and T4 satisfy (3) and (4) respectively, and that {ei, e',) E X, where X is the prescribed system of transitions; so neither T3 nor T, is compatible with X . This is precisely what happens in the case of Figure VII.2.a). The question is, however, whether the problem lies more in the particular structure of X or in the structure of G, or in the concept of K-transformations. It transpires that if we appropriately generalize the concept of K-transformation, we have, for the concept of compatibility, a tool at hand which yields an affirmative answer to the question stated at the beginning of this section VII.2. Let T be an eulerian trail of a connected eulerian graph G with V(G) V2(G) # 0, and let X T be the system of transitions corresponding to T . Chooset, = {fi,g',), t2 = {fl,g;) EX,(V) for some v E V(G) -T/;(G), and define X' := (X, - {t,, t,)) U {ti, t;) (1') in such a way that t1Ut2=tiUtb,

where t i , t ; ~ X " ( v )

,

and X'is not the system of transitions of an eulerian trail. It then follows that X' is the system of transitions corresponding to a trail decomposition S' of E(G) with I S' I= 2. For, I St 12 2 follows from the definition of XI; and if we form H from G as in the discussion preceding (I), where V,(H) = V(H) - {v) and Ec = t i U th, splitting v into two 2-valent vertices following t i and th results in a 2-regular graph H' with precisely two components. HI, however, is nothing but the 2-regular detachment of G corresponding to XI. Conversely, suppose G has a trail decomposition S' = {Ti,Ti) with I St)=2. Denote X' = Xs, and Xf := XI IT!, i = 1,2. Let u E V(G) be chosen in such a way that E, n Ti' # 0, i = 1 , 2 (Note that the esistence of S' secures the existence of such a u E V(G) - V2(G)). Choose tl E Xf(v), i = 1,2, arbitrarily and define a pair of transitions t l , t2 by 1

Itjnt:l=l

for

i,j=1,2

,and t l n t 2 = 0

.

(*>

Then

XT := (XI - {ti, ti)) L j {t,, t,)

,

(1")

V11.12

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

where tl, t2 E XT (v), defines an eulerian trail T of G. This follows from (*) and the discussion following (I1), which in turn classify the transformation of XT into X', and/or of X' into XT, as expressed by (1') and (I"), as being inverse operations to one another. As a summary of this discussion we introduce the following terminology. Definition VII.7. Let G be a connected eulerian graph with V(G) V2(G) # 0, let T E I ( G ) and let S' be a trail decomposition of E(G) with I SfI= 2; denote by X T and X' the respective systems of transitions. If for some v E V(G) - V,(G) there exist t,, t, E XT(v), t i , t i E Xf(v) which satisfy equation (l'), we can say that X' has been obtained from X T by a K-detachment; it can be formally described as S = tcf(T). If the same objects XT, S f ,ti, ti, i = 1,2, satisfy equation (I"), we can say that XT has been obtained from X' by a K-absorption, which is expressed by the formal equation T = ~ ' ' ( s ' ) . T' E I ( G ) is said to be obtained from T by a K*-transformationif a trail decomposition S' of E(G) exists such that S' = K'(T) and T' = ~ " ( s ' ) . We then adapt the cursory description K* = d"" and T' = K*(T) (which is justified by the equation T' = K"(K'(T))). R e m a r k . Note that in Definition VII.7 I Sf I= 2 by the very definition of a K-detachment. Moreover, applying a K*-transformation means that the corresponding K-absorption may or may not be applied a t the same vertex where the corresponding +detachment has been applied. We note, however, that in Chapter X (see Volume 2) we shall use the terms Kdetachment and K-absorption in the more general sense which is induced by Definition VII.7 (just delete in this definition the requirement I S' 1 = 2 and view T as another trail decomposition). One can define K*-associationin the same way as K-association has been defined (simply replacing K with K* in Definition VII.4). We leave it to the reader to show (Exercise VII.2) that K*-association also defines an equivalence relation on 'T(G). However, for the next result we need to combine tions.

K-

and K*-transforma-

where G is a connected eulerDefinition VII.8. For T,T1 E T(G), ian graph, we may say that T' can be obtained from T by a K,transformation, in short T' = rcl(T), if either T' = K(T) or TI = K*(T). We define K ~ - a s s o c i a t i o nin the same way as K-association has been defined (see Definition VII.4), and leave it to the reader to show that nl-

VII.2. Transforming Eulerian Trails of a Special Type

VII.13

association also defines an equivalence relation on I ( G ) . In the case under discussion, however, we are interested in transforming eulerian trails compatible with a given system of transitions X in such a way that one does not use any other eulerian trail in such transformations. So we are ultimately led to the following terminology. Definition VII.9. Let I ( G , X ) denote the set of all eulerian trails (of the connected eulerian graph G) compatible with a given system of transitions X = X(G). Furthermore, denote by S2(G) the set of all trail decompositions S of G with I S I= 2, and by S2(G,X) all those elements of S2(G) which are compatible with X . Call eulerian trails T and T' K . ~ - a s s o c i a t eifs To,.. . ,Tn E I ( G , X ) exist such that for 1 5 i 5 n, 1) T = To, TI = Tn and Ti = K ~ ( T , . - ~and ) , 2) if Ti = K , ( T ~ - ~=) K . * ( T ~ -for ~ ) some i, then

Similarly, nx-association defines an equivalence relation on I ( G , X ) (see Exercise VII.2). This induces a partition F ( G , K ~ of) I ( G , X ) whose elements are classes of nx-associates. The next theorem can be viewed as the analogue to Theorem VII.5 for eulerian trails compatible with X . T h e o r e m VII.lO. I F ( G , K ~ I=) 1 for every connected eulerian graph G and every prescribed system of transitions X of G. Proof. If G is a cycle, the theorem follows by using the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem VII.5 (note that X = 0 in this case), whence we have V(G) - V2(G) # 0. The case I ( G , X ) = {T) is trivial because it implies K . ~ ( T=) K(T) = T, where K. denotes the identical transformation in this case. Hence, assume I I ( G , X ) I> 1 and suppose TI,T2 E I ( G , X ) exist which are not K.~-associates. We proceed along the lines of the proof of Theorem VII.5, retaining the notation used there. Again we choose TI and T2 in such a way that I XI n X2 I is as large as possible for their respective systems of transitions X1 and X2. Subject to this condition, choose G with minimal I E(G) 1; V2(G) = 0 follows. In the sequel, if e is a loop, its two half-edges will be distinguished by different subscripts rather than el, e" (el refers to the fact that we deal with a half-edge). Again, Tl # T2 must hold (the identical transformation is a /cltransformation), so v E V(G) exists with d(v) = 2k and X ~ , ~ ( := V) pl(v) n X, (v)l< k - 2. Moreover, for r := k - xl ,2 (v) we again have the

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

VII.14

relations

fi), - - . (4,f:) E X1(v) - X2(v) {e;, f;J7 - - - , f;J € X2(4 - X1(v) {il,... ,i,.} = {17...,r}andij # j f o r l 5 j 5 r . ( 4 7

7

(*>

H . 7

We take note of the implication

and because of the footnote in the proof of Theorem VII.5 we may assume w.1.o.g. that {e:, fi/-l} E X2(u) - X1(v), i = 1,.. . , m , putting fh = f&. Consequently, n = 2 (see the proof of Theorem VII.5 concerning the index n), whence we have

We consider four systems of transitions (see - in the proof of Theorem VII.5 - (3), (4) and the equations immediately preceding them):

We observe that for i E {3,4), these definitions imply Xi' = XTi if and only if Xf' = XTi if and only if

X r = Xsi XI = Xsi

where TiE I ( G ) and Si E S2(G); moreover,

Ti I ( G , X ) implies SiE S2(G,X )

.

(* J, *)

Since {eh, f i ) E X2, {e: ,f i } E X1, we conclude that {el,, f;) E X

if

X i = XT3 for T3 E I ( G )

EX

if

X i = XT4 for T4E I ( G ) .

{eh, f;)

(5)

VII.2. Transforming Eulerian Trails of a Special Type

VII.15

Otherwise, one obtains a contradiction as in the proof of Theorem VII.5. Consequently, by (5) and (**), {e;, eh) E X only i f X r = XT, for Ti E T(G), i = 3,4. Also, {e',, eh) E

X;", i = 3,4, and the choice of TI,T2 E

(6)

7 ( G 7X) yield:

Xi" = XTi, i = 3,4, implies {T3,T4) T ( G , X) .

(7)

Otherwise, one proceeds as in the proof of Theorem VII.5 to obtain a contradiction. Now we can consider three main cases. Case 1. Suppose

Xi = XT;, Xy

= XTj for

Ti,Tj E I ( G ) . By

(**), i # j , hence {i, j) = {3,4); w.1.o.g. i = 3 and j = 4. By ( 5 ) and (6), {ei ,f;) E X implying m > 2, and {e', ,eh), { fi ,f;) 6 X. Since T3 $ I ( G , X ) , it follows from (***) that S3 E S2(G,X ) where XSS= X;. Depending on whether T4 E 7 ( G , X ) or not, we may distinguish two cases. Subcase 1.1. T4 E 7 ( G , X). Denote S3 = {S,, Sf) such that el, e2 E E(S,) and therefore, f17 f2 E E ( S f ) Note first that Xl (v) - {t,,, ,tl,,) # 8 since m > 2. Next consider a run through T4 starting at v along el. Since T4 E I ( G ) and {e', ,eh) E XT4 = Xt, one arrives at v along e2 only after having passed all elements of E(G). Consequently, since this is not the case with respect to S,, there must be a vertex w E V((S,)) n V((Sf)) at which a transition {hi, 9:) E X t satisfies hl E E(S,), gl E E ( S I ) . Hence, we find h2,g2 E E, such that {hi, ha) E X1(w) in any case, and where {g: , g i ) E Xl(w) if w # v, whereas we denote g: = fi , i = 1,2, if w = V. Observe that {fi ,f;) E X?. In any case, {{hi, ha), { g ; , gh)) n Xl n X2 = 0 by construction and because of m > 2 and {e',, eh) E X< n Xt. Moreover, for {r, s) = {l,2),

So, one obtains the validity of this equation for some choice of r and s, where {r, s) = {1,2). We can write S, for some j and k, where {j,k) = {1,2), in the form

VII.16

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

(possibly e j = hl or ek = h2 but {ej, ek) # {hl, h2)), and

(note that h2 E E(S,) because of hl E E(S,) and {hi, h;) E X1(w), and that, similarly, g2 E E(Sf)). Hence we obtain

By the very construction of Tj,,, it follows that Tj,kE T(G, X ) . Consequently, since /cl(Tl) = S3 E S2(G,X) and /c1I(S3) = Tj,lcE I ( G ,X ) it follows that T, and TjVk are /cx-associates. Moreover, T, and T4 are /cx-associates because of T4 E I ( G , X ) and T4 = /c(T2) = q ( T 2 ) . On the other hand, since {{hi, hh), jg;, n Xl n X, = 0 {ei,e;) E X:nx,,,

implies

I X : ~ I X ~ ,I>IX1 ,~ n X 2I

.

The choice of Tl and T2, and T4,Tj,, E I ( G , X) imply that T4 and Tj,,, are /cx-associates. So we can finally conclude that Tl and T2 are /cx-associates. This contradiction settles Subcase 1.1. Subcase 1.2. T4 6T(G, X ) . By (* * *), S4 E S2(G,X ) , and XS4 = X i by (**). That is, {fi, fk) E X since {ei, eh) 6X, and thus {eh, fk) 6X. Moreover, retaining the notation of Subcase 1.1we define S3= {S,, Sf) as above and

In this case, however, S; assumes the role played by S3 in Subcase 1.1, and S, assumes the role played there by T,. We can consider a run through S, starting a t v along el; following the elements of Xl and belonging to S,, one finally arrives at u after having passed the elements of E(S,), with e2 being the last edge in this run. This run, re-interpreted as a run through certain elements of E(S,*) and E ( S j ) starting with el E E(S,*) and ending with e2 E E ( S j ) , must therefore pass at some w E V((Sj)) n V((S3) from S,t over to S*. Hence, we may conclude in a f manner similar to Subcase 1.1 that {hl,gi) E Xf(w) exists such that h1 E E(S,*), g, E E ( S j ) ; moreover there are h2,g2 E E, such that {hi, hi) E X2(w) in any case; and {gi,gi) E X2(w) for w # v, whereas

VII.2. Transforming Eulerian Trails of a Special Type

VII.17

for w = v we denote gi = fk , gi = e; ({e;, fh) E Xi). Since we have in any case {h,, h2} C E(S:) and {g,, g2} C E ( S j ) , we may conclude as in Subcase 1.1 that for

S: = e l , . . . ,hj, h k , . . . ,f, , where {j,k} = {I, 2}

,

and

Sj = g s,...,

g,,, where

{ s , ~ } = {1,2}

,

T;,k = e l , . .., h j , S j 7 h k , .. . , f l satisfies T*k E I ( G ,X ) because {{hj,g;}, fl X = 0 for fixed {j,k) = (1,2} and one of the two possible choices of {s,r} = { 1,2}. Note that Sj can be expressed in the above manner for both choices of s and r . Since, by construction, {h', 7

E X2(w) - X l (w) and (9: 7 9;)

in any case (note that m

6 X, (w)

> 2), while

and because Xl n X2 c XTt , we therefore conclude that 1.k

Consequently, by the choice of Tl and T2,Tl and TAk are tcx-associates, and by construction, Tlk and T2 are tcx-associates. Hence T, and T2 are tcx-associates. This contradiction settles Subcase 1.2 and therefore Case 1. We note, however, that in both Subcases 1.1 and 1.2, the special consideration of the case v = w for defining gi = fi, i = 1,2, respectively g, = f, and g2 = e2, is not really necessary. It shows, though, how in the case v = w one can construct Tj,k, T;,k respectively, by changing a minimum number of elements of the original XI, X2. With Case 1 being settled we thus are left with the cases where Xf = XTi,i = 3 , 4 , or X;"= XTi, i = 3,4.

Case 2. X f = X Z , i = 3,4. By ( 5 ) , { { 4 , f;), {e;, fk}} C X , so m > 2; moreover, X;" = Xsi by (**), and Si E S2(G,X), i = 3 , 4 by (* * *). Retaining most of the notation previously used, we write

VII.18

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

Subcase 2.1. E(Se) # E(S:). This assumption plus the fact {el, e,} C E(Se) n E(S,*) implies that starting a run through S,*at v along el, one finds {hi,g;) E X2(w) for some w E V((E(S,*))) such that h1 E E(Se), 9, E E(Sf). As before we then also find h,, g2 E E, such that ,hh} E Xl(w) in any case, {gi, 9;) E Xl (w)if v # w (so 92 E E(S/)), and where we denote g: = f;', i = 1,2, if v = w (see Subcase 1.1). We retain the notation used in the preceding considerations for the sake of a uniform approach and repeat them for a run through S, starting at v along el : we find correspondingly {hi, 9;) E Xl(w) for some w E V((E(Se))) such that hl E E(S:), gl E E(S;), and we find h2,9., E E, such that {hi, h;} E X2(w) in any case, and {g;, 9;) E X2(w) if # w , whereas for v = w we define g; = fi, g; = f;. Note the difference to Subcase 1.2 which is due to the fact that there Xs4 = Xi. As in Case 1 we conclude that by construction

and that Tj,k,Tlk E T ( G ,X ) for the eulerian trails constructed in a way analogous to Subcase 1.1,1.2 respectively. We have

This and the choice of TI and T2 classifies Ti,* and T;* as K~-associates. Moreover, by construction T, and Tj,k are K~-associates, and so are T2 and Ttk. Whence we conclude that T, and T2 are nx-associates, a contradiction which settles Subcase 2.1.

Subcase 2.2. E(Se) = E(S:). Consequently, E ( S f ) = E(S;). This and f, E E ( S j ) as well as {e',, fh} € Xf imply em, f, E E ( S f ) = E ( S j ) which, in turn, together with {e',, f&-l} E X: implies em,fm-, E E ( S j ) = E ( S f ) (observe that m > 2), a.s.0. Consequently, since fl E E(Sf) = E ( S j ) we have E, - {el,e2} E(Sf) = E(Sj). We consider two cases. (2.2.1). m > 3. Then {e:, f;} E X f , {e;, f;} E X:, and because of {e;, f;},{ei, f;) E X and m > 3 we have

VII.2. Transforming Eulerian Trails of a Special Type

VII.19

By the preceding arguments and because we can write

Sf = fi, ...,e3, f3,. . .,f j for some choice of {i, j} = {I, 2) and

S; = f k , . . . ,e3, f,, . . . ,fi for some choice of {k, Z} = {I, m}, it follows that both

T = f i ,...,e3,Se,f3 ,...,f j and T* =fk,...,e3,S,*,f,,...,fi (where both S, and S,* are considered to start with el and end with e2) belong to 7 ( G , X). By construction, {e$, ei)

u (X1 n X,)

= X,

n X,.

which classifies T and T* as tcx-associates because of the choice of Tl and T,. This and the construction of T from TI, respectively T* from T2,imply that TIand T2 are K~-associates, again a contradiction.

>

{{e:, f;}, {ei, fi},{ei, f:}).') Because of {el,e2} E: E(S,) = E(SZ) there is a total of three possibilities for Sf and S; to pass through the edges of E, - {el, e,). Depending on these X). possibilities we may construct T, T* E I(G, (2.2.2) rn = 3. Then X(v)

(a) Sf = f l , . . ., f3,e3,..., f,. Note that S; cannot have a segment S3,, = e3,. . . ,f2 because {ej, fi} E XT, which implies that Xy c Xg. This and S3 c Sj would contradict the fact that Sj is a closed trail. Anyway, with Sf satisfying the above equation we conclude that TI is of the form

,

consequently, we obtain T E 7 ( G , X) by a 6-transformation,

--

--

--

--

'I Observe that m = 3 does not mean that d(v) = 6. This is immediately apparent from the footnote in the proof of Theorem VII.5, where 2m is the length of a cycle in the Zfactor Q of Kz,. Moreover, {ek, E X(v) follows from m = 3 and {e:, f;), {ek, fi) E X ( v ) , as well as from a combination of Case 1 and (5) if we set tl,Z= {ei, fi).

fi)

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

VII.20

(b) S j = f,, . . .,f 2 , e3, . . . ,f,. We conclude in a manner similar to case (a) that Sf cannot have a segment of the form e3, . . .,f3. Here T2 and T* E I ( G , X ) obtained from T2 by a K-transformation are of the form

(c) Either Sf = f l ,..., e3,f3,..., f 2 or Then we have for Tl and T2 the equations

S) = f l , - . . , e 3 , f z , . . . , f 3 .

This yields for T E I ( G , X ) obtained from T, by a n-transformation:

while one obtains T* E I ( G ,X ) from S4= {S:, Sj) by a n-absorption,

In all cases (a),(b),(c), it follows that T and TI, respectively T* and T2, are nx-associates, and that one always has X l n X2

X,

, X, n X2 X,,

respectively

.

On the other hand, if one compares any of the constructed T with any of the constructed T*,one can conclude either

{ei, e ; ) E X T n X,. , or {fi,fi) E X T n X,. or T is as in case (a) and T*is as in case (c).

,

Thus, for the first two instances we may conclude I XT nXT, / > I X, nX,I, classifying T and T* as nx-associates. T and T* are, however, t c x associates in the third instance as well: for in case (c) we have (eb, f;) E XTI which implies I XlnXT. I >1 XlnX2 1, so T* and Tl are nx-associates. This and TI = n(T) finally proves that T and T* are nx-associates in any case. Consequently, since we have T = tc1(T1), T* = n1(T2) in all cases under consideration, it follows that TIand T2 are nX-associates.

VII.2. Transforming Eulerian Trails of a Special Type

VII.21

This contradiction finally settles the case (2.2.2) and thus Subcase 2.2. Hence, Case 2 has been settled.

Case 3. XI' = XTj, i = 3,4. By (7), Tj $ 7 ( G , X ) if Tk E I ( G , X), for any choice of {j,k} = {3,4), hence w.1.o.g. j = 3, k = 4. Subcase 3.1. T4 E I ( G ,X). Then Xi = XsJ, where S, E &(G, X) by (* * *). hloreover, {e',, eb} $ X, {fi, fl) E X. Observe that m > 2 and T4 = el, . . . ,f, , f m ,. . . ,e2. Retaining the notation used before we write

Now we proceed similarly to Subcase 1.1. We start a run through T, at v along el E E ( S f ) and note that this run will end with e2 after all other edges of G have been passed. Consequently, since fl,e2 E E(Se) but E(Se)C E(G), at some vertex w there exists {hi,gi} E X2(w) - X1(w) such that h, E E(S,), gl E E(Sf). Correspondingly, let h2,g? E Ewbe chosen in such a manner that {hi, h;} E X1 (and thus h2 E E(s,)) and {gi, 9;) E X, if w # v, while for v = w we denote gi = e',, gi = fi (thus g,, g, E E ( S f ) in any case). Continuing now as in Subcase 1.1, we obtain Tj,k E I ( G , X ) from S3 by a K-absorption; i.e., Tj,, and TI are nx-associates. Moreover, {{fi, e ; } } U Xl n X2 X2 n XTjekby construction and due to the structure of T, and S3,implying that TjTk and T2 are rtx-associates because of the choice of TI and T2. Hence T, and T2 are K~-associates.This contradiction to the choice of TI and T2 settles Subcase 3.1.

Subcase 3.2. T4 $ I ( G , X). Since the case T3 E 7 ( G , X) is symmetric to Subcase 3.1, we only have to consider the case T3 $ I ( G , X ) . It follows from (* * *) that S,, S4 E S2(G,X ) , where Xj = Xs3 and X i = XS4. Retaining the notation previously used we obtain the following expressions:

Now we have E(S,*) # E(S,) # E(Sj). Hence, we may proceed in a manner similar to the one employed in Subcase 2.1, by starting a run through S,*at u along f,. Since fl E E(Se) and el E E ( S f ) one finds {hi, gi) E X,(w) for some w E V((S,*)) such that h, E E(Se), g, E E(Sf); and similarly one finds h2,g2 E Ewsuch that {hi, h i ) E Xl(w)

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

VII.22

in any case, and where {gi, gi) E Xl(w) if w # v, while we denote gi = e i , gi = if w = v. Note that {gl, g,) C E ( S f ) , and {g:, gi) E Xi - X2 since either w # v or m > 2; moreover, {hi, hb) # {f;, ek) since

fl

{f:,

E X2.

The eulerian trail Tj,* E I ( G , X ) constructed in a manner similar to Subcase 1.1 now satisfies the relation

Because of the choice of Tl and T2 this relation implies that T2 and Tj,k are K~-associates.This and /c1(T1) = Tj,k imply that TI and T2 are nx-associates, again a contradiction. This settles Subcase 3.2 and therefore Case 3 (Note here that the construction of T;,k as in Subcase 2.1 is not necessary simply because Tjr contains a transition of T2 not yet accounted for in X1 n X2, whereas in Subcase 2.1 the construction of both Tj,kand Tik was necessary because of {ei, eb) X1 U X2). Having obtained a contradiction in each of the three main cases (which cover all possibilities concerning the structure of Tl and T,), we may conclude that I ( G , X ) cannot contain two elements which are not tcxassociates. Theorem VII. 10 now follows. A closer look a t the proof of Theorem VII.10 reveals that we have, in fact, proved a stronger result. In order to see this, we must consider for the connected eulerian graph G a partition system P(G) a special case of which is a system of transitions X = X(G). Accordingly, we denote by I ( G , P(G)) the set of all P(G) -compatible eulerian trails of G, and introduce correspondingly the set S2(G,P(G)). Moreover, we estend Definition VII.9 to obtain the concept of s association which again defines an equivalence relation on I ( G , P(G)) whose equivalence classes 1 )these . more general define the corresponding partition P(G,~ ~ ( ~For concepts, one then deduces the following lemma whose proof is left to the reader (Exercise VII.3).

Lemma VII.ll. Let G be a connected eulerian graph together with an arbitrary partition system P(G). Consider an arbitrary T E P(G)) (S E S2(G, P(G))) and let je:, f i ) , {e:, f;) E X~ (XS) be arbitrarily chosen. Then, for all K E P(G),

VII.2.1. Special Types of 6,-Transformations

VII.23

This lemma guarantees the validity of the equations analogous to (**) and (* * *), and the relations corresponding to (5), ( 6 ) , (7) also remain valid (simply replace X with P(G); see the beginning of the proof of Theorem VII.lO). These equations and relations, however, were of central importance to the proof of Theorem VII.lO. Hence one arrives at the next result which is a generalization of Theorem VII.10, and which can be proven the same way as Theorem VII.10 (one only has to change symbolic expressions such as {el, f l ) E X to {el, f') K E P(G)). It is therefore left as an exercise to translate the proof of Theorem VII.10 into a proof of the next result.

Theorem VII.12. IP ( G , rcp(G)) I= 1 for every connected eulerian graph G and every partition system P(G) satisfying I K 15 i d ( v ) for every I< E P(v) P(G) and every v E V(G). Note that in Theorem VII.12, restrictions on the size of the elements of P ( G ) are necessary and sufficient in order to have T(G, P(G)) # 8 (see Theorem VI.l).

VII.2.1. Applications to Special Types of Eulerian Trails and 6,-Transformat ions Some of the next results are direct consequences of Theorem VII.lO. We consider connected graphs G which are Cregular, or such eulerian G which are embedded in a surface, together with three types of eulerian trails. In the first two cases, we may consider G as embedded in a surface and denote the set of all A-trails, non-intersecting eulerian trails respectively, of G by TA(G), TNI(G) respectively. In the third case we consider a 2-factorization {Q1, Q2) of a Cregular G (see Corollary VI.3) and denote by 7,(G;Q1,Q2) the set of all eulerian trails of G in which edges of Q, and Q, alternate (i.e., eulerian trails compatiT2 E ble with the cycle decomposition S = Q,U Q2). Moreover, for TI, I decided to prove Theorem VII.10 and to leave the proof of Theorem VII.12 as an exercise (instead of obtaining the former result as a corollary of the latter) because a system of transitions can be visualized more easily than a general partition system (and, of course, because there is no real difference between the respective proofs). Moreover, in the ensuing discussion Theorem VII.10 is of more direct relevance than Theorem VII.12.

VII.24

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

7 ' -, (G) (respectively TI,T2 E INr (G), TI,T2 E I,(G; Ql ,Q,)) satisfying T, = nl(Tl), we call this K~-transformationa nA-transformation, (respectively nNI-transformation, n,-transformation), and define K A association (respectively association, n, -association) correspondingly. We require, however, that if the nA-transformation is a K*transformation (see Definition VII.8), the trail decomposition S' sat isfying nl(Tl) = St (see Definition VII.7) must result from Tl by choosing a t v e V4(G) the pair of non-intersecting transitions different from XTl(v). Similarly, if a nNI-transformation (na-transformation) is a K * transformation, nl(Tl) = St implies that the corresponding system of transitions X s , is non-intersecting (compatible with the cycle decomposition Q1 U Q2). We note that if G is a plane graph, a %A-transformation is necessarily a K*-transformation,while this is not always so if G is embedded in a surface other than the plane or sphere (Exercise VII.5a), b)). Moreover, in the case of 4-regular graphs, the concepts of KA- and KNItransformation coincide. Again we leave it as an exercise to show that each of the concepts of KA-,KNI-, and K,-association defines an equivalence relation on the respective set of eulerian trails (Exercise VII.5.c)). Corollary VII.13. Let G be a connected 4-regular graph embedded in a surface. Then any two elements of TA(G) are nA-associates. Proof. Since G is embedded in a surface, O+(v) is given by this embedding for every v € V(G). Hence it is possible to speak of intersecting and non-intersecting transitions. Since G is 4-regular, the intersecting transitions are determined solely by the embedding of G. Let X be the system of these intersecting transitions. Then we have

and K~-association is equivalent to nA-association in this case. Corollary V11.13 now follows from Theorem VII.10. Another way of constructing all elements of TA(G) and of describing a K~-transformationhas been developed in [KOTZ68c] for the case where the above G is plane (and for our purposes, this is the relevant case when we speak of A-trails). Namely, consider a 2-face-coloring of the plane connected 4-regular graph G (using the colors 1 and 2) and construct for i = 1 , 2 the graph Mias follows: every element x € V(Mi) represents bijectively an i-face F(x) of G, and x, y E V(Mi) are joined by I V(bd(F(x))) n V(bd(F(y))) I edges; i.e. every vertex v E V(G)

VII.2.1. Special Types of K~-Transformations

VII.25

corresponds to an edge ei(v) E E(Mi). Let 7 denote the set of spanning trees of Mi. The nest result relates 'T;. to TA(G) and describes K~-transformations in TA(G) (see [KOTZ68c7Theorems 14-17]).

Theorem VII.14. Let G be a plane connected 4-regular graph, and let Mi, i = 1,2, be the graphs constructed above in accordance with a fixed 2-face-coloring of G. Then the following is true.

1) There exist bijections cri between TA(G) and 'T;., i = 1,2, and a between TI and T2 which are defined by the following bijection properties: (i) If {Vl, V2) is the A-partition of TAE TA(G), then a;(TA) = ({ei(v) E E(Mi)/v E y)) E ?;, i = 1,2. (ii) For Tl E I, and TA E TA(G) satisfying Tl = al(TA), ~ 1 , 2 ( T l= ) ({e2(v) E E(M2)/e1(v) E(T1))) = a2(T,) E 3 . (iii) a, = al,2cr1.

e

2) The following statements are equivalent for TA7 TA E TA(G).

(i)

K A (TA) =

T i and TA# Ti.

(ii) ai( TA) U oi(TA) has precisely one cycle, i = 1,2. Proof. 1) Consider for TA E TA(G) its A-partition {V,, V2) and construct the plane graphs Hi+l := Gv,,i, i = 1 , 2 (putting 3 = 1). By Theorem VI.59, Hi is a connected outerplane g a p h l ) whose blocks are its cycles which in turn are the boundaries of the i-faces of G, i = 1,2. Hence, one can define Ti C Mi by

(where the subscripts Hi indicate that one considers the corresponding faces in Hi). Because of the structure of Hi, I bd(FHi(x)) f l bd(FH,(y)) I< 1 for every x, y E V(Ti). Because of the definition of Hi and because of v E V(G) w ei(v) E E(Mi), we conclude for i = 1 , 2 that xy = ei(v) E E(Ti) if and only if bd(FHi (x)) n bd(FHi (y)) = {v) E

(i

+

V;.

More precisely: Hi is a planar graph embedded in such a way that some 1)-face contains in its boundary an edge of every block.

VII.26

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

(see Lemma VI.58). Observing further that d H i (v) = 4 if and only if

e ,(v) E E (Ti)

(4

and considering the subdivision graph S(Tj), it follows from the above that

E ( T i ) = { e i ( v ) E E ( M i ) / v ~ V , ), Since Hi is connected, bc(Hi) is a tree. This and V(Ti) = V(&li) implies

Noting that Hi is already characterized by an A-partition {I<,V2), it follows from (*) and (**) that ai(TA) = Ti defines a bijection between TA(G) and ?;. as expressed in (i). In order to see that (ii) also holds true, it suffices to compare H1 with H., and TI with T2 (with Ti defined as above, i = 1,2). Observe first that H; and H2 describe the same TA E TA(G). Hence a, (TA) = T, , a2(TA)= T2. By (*) and the very definition of H, and H2 we can therefore conclude ~) that e,(v) E E(Tl) if and only if e2(v) 6 E(T2). Hence C ~ , , ~ (=TT2 defines the bijection between TI and 3 as expressed by (ii). The validity of (iii) now derives from the preceding considerations. 2) Suppose 6A(TA) = T i for TA,Ti E TA(G). As has been noted before (see also Exercise VII.5), 6A(TA) = 6*(TA); i.e., K* = K"K', where 6' is a K-detachment and K" is a 6-absorption. There thus exists S E S2(G) with X s containing non-intersecting transitions only, such that 6'(TA) = S and K"(S) = Ti. Denote by v(w) the vertex of G at which the /+detachment (6-absorption) takes place, and denote further Ti := ai(TA), T;' := a,(Ti), i = 1,2. Let {V,, V2) ({V:, Vi)) denote the A-partition of G corresponding to TA (Ti). Note that v # w if and only if TA # TA. W.1.o.g. i = 1 (the case i = 2 can be handled in an analogous manner).

The transition from TA to S, i.e. the application of a 6-detachment at v, is equivalent to changing {Vl, V2) to either {Vl U {v), V2 - {v)) or {V,-{v), V,U{V)) depending on whether v E V. or v E V, . Consequently

VII.2.1. Special Types of K~-Transformations

VII.27

and equivalently, Tl is transformed either into the unicyclic graph Tc := TI U el(v) with el(v) necessarily belonging to the uniquely determined cycle C of Tc, or into the forest TF := Tl - el (v) which has precisely two components K1 and I(2(see l)(i)). However, since the transition from S to T i , i.e. the application of a K-absorption at w, must result in the A-partition {V,', Vl) of Ti, we can conclude that either

(i.e., v E V2 if and only if w E Vl. Observe that qTl = qT, = 1 or v; = (V1 - {v)) u { z u ) , = (V, U {v)) - {w)

v;

IhI = IVlI), .

Correspondingly and equivalently, Ti = al ( T i ) results from Tc by deleting el (w), respectively from TF by adding el (w) . In the first case el ( 1 0 ) E E ( C ) ,in the second case el(w) = xlx2, where x j E V(Kj), j = 1,2; this follows from the fact that Ti E TI. The above construction of Ti from Tl shows that in any case,

is a forest which has precisely two components, such that each of el(v) and el(w) joins vertices in different components. Hence,

u

01 (TA) a1(TA)

= TI u TI = Tl

n T2u {el(v), el (w))

has precisely one cycle (which necessarily contains e,(v), el(w)). Thus 2) (i) implies 2) (ii) . Conversely, suppose that C Y ~ ( T ~ ) U C Y ; i( T =L1),,2 , contains precisely one cycle; call it C. TA# TA follows. Denote Ti := ai(TA), Ti := a i ( T i ) . Since Ti,T;' E ?;., and because l ) ( i ) has already been proven we can conclude that

(otherwise, either TiuT;' had more than one cycle or Ti = T;' contradicting TA# Ti). Denote

VII.28

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

Consequently, Ti can be obtained from Ti by deleting ei(v) first and then adding ei(w) (or, liltewise, by adding ei(w) first and then deleting e;(v)). It follows from the first part of the proof of 2) that the transition from Ti to Ti - ei(v) corresponds to the transformation of TA to S, where S E S,(G) and Xs(v) is a pair of non-intersecting transitions. Hence, this transformation is a n-detachment, i.e., nt(TA) = S. Similarly, since Ti' = (Ti - ei(v)) U {ei(w)) is a tree it follows from the bijection expressed by l ) ( i ) and by construction, that the construction of Ti from S is a tiabsorption involving non-intersecting transitions only; i.e., d f ( S ) = T '. Thus T i = nt'(~'(TA))= &A(TA),i.e., 2)(ii) implies 2)(i). This finishes the proof of the theorem. Note that every spanning tree of a connected graph G can be obtained from any other spanning tree of G by a sequence of the 'edge out-edge in' procedure described in the above proof. This and Theorem VII.14 yield a proof of Corollary VII.13 (restricted to plane graphs) independent of Theorem VII.lO. In fact, one can produce a result analogous to Theorem VII.14 for arbitrary connected plane eulerian graphs G. There are two ways, though, to approach this problem. If one wants to adhere to graphs, then (in constructing the corresponding Mi) V(Mi) not only consists of the "capitals" of the i-faces, but also of V(G). In this case, xy E E(Mi) if and only if I {x, y) n V(G) I= 1, where x E V(G), and y corresponds to an i-face F(y) with x E bd(F(y)). Note that this way of defining Micorresponcls to S(Mi) in the case of a 4-regular G (see the discussion immediately preceding Theorem VII. 14). In the present (more general) situation, however, there is no longer a bijection aibetween TA(G) and the set ?;. of spanning trees of Mi. Rather, TA E TA(G) with A-partition {V,, V,) corresponds to any Ti E 7 in which dTi(vj) = 1 for every vj E and dTi(vi) = $dG(vi) for every v i E q ,where {i, j ) = {1,2). So, every TA E TA(G) is associated with a set of trees ?;.(TA) C ?;.. Nevertheless, the duality between 7, and 3 as expressed by equation l)(ii) in Theorem VII.14 remains valid in a modified form; the same can be said of part 2) of that theorem. However, the concept of hypergraphs might be a more appropriate tool to describe an analogy to Theorem VII.14 for arbitrary plane connected eulerian graphs G. In that case V(Mi) is defined as in the case of 4regular graphs, and correspondence between v E V(G) and ei(v) E E(Mi)

VII.2.1. Special Types of K~-Transformations

VII.29

is preserved a s well. But now ei(v) = {x E V(Mi)/F(x) is ani-face with v E V(bd(F(x)))) Defining a spanning hypertree Ti of Mi in a way similar to the case of graphs, one can show that Theorem VII.14 as stated above remains valid even in this more general sense. We leave it as an exercise to check the details of the above discussion on the two possible extensions of Theorem VII.14 to arbitrary plane connected eulerian graphs (Exercise VII.6). We note, however, that because of the bijection ai between TA(G) and the set ?;. of spanning hypertrees (in the general case), deciding the existence of a spanning hypertree in a general hypergraph is an NP-complete problem. For, the constructioil of Mi from G can be done in polynomial time and vice versa, provided G is a plane graph. So, if we restrict our considerations to planar 3-connected eulerian graphs G, the face boundaries of such G are uniquely determined independent of any actual embedding of G (see Theorem 111.52). Consequently, in this case the hypergraph Mi is determined solely by G and vice versa. Now, since for such G deciding the existence of an A-trail is an NP-complete problem (see Theorem VI.91), it follows that the problem of deciding the existence of a spanning hypertree Ti c &Ii is also NP-complete. We leave it as an exercise to check the details of these complexity considerations (Exercise VII.7). One should not overlook, though, that just as Theorem VII.14 as such does not imply Corollary VII.13 (see the paragraph immediately following the proof of Theorem VII.14), the extension of Theorem VII.14 to arbitrary plane connected eulerian graphs G as such does not yield any information about the equivalence classes of TA(G)under K~-association. Of course, a K~-transformationcan only involve 4-valent vertices since we also require that S induces a 1- or 2-splitting at every vertex of G. In fact, in this case T, T' E TA(G) belong to the same equivalence class if and only if their respective A-partitions {V,, V,) and {V,', V;) satisfy the equations

It is left as an exercise to check that in the general situation as well, %A-associationis in fact an equivalence relation on TA(G) and that the above equations determine the equivalence classes of TA(G) under KAassociation (Exercise VII.8).

VII.30

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

However, if we consider the set INI(G) of an arbitrary connected eulerian graph embedded in a surface, we can derive a result analogous to Theorem VII.lO. The proof of this result will be simpler than that of Theorem VII.lO, but it will show at the same time that one does not have the same degree of freedom in applying the corresponding tcl-transformation. For this proof we shall need the following lemmas.

Lemma VII.15. Let G be a graph embedded in a surface and having an even vertex v. Let X(v) be a system of non-intersecting transitions at v. Then for a t least one t E X(v), t = {e', f') say, el and f' are consecutive in O+(v). Moreover, if v @ V2(G) then there are at least two such transitions. Proof. Consider O+(v) := (ei, . . . ,ehk). If k = 1, then X(v) = {{e',, ek)), and the lemma follo~vsin this case simply from the fact that G is an embedded graph. If k = 2, then either X(v) = {{ei, e;}, {ei, ei)) or X(v) = {{e',, ei), {e;, e;}) because X ( v ) is a set of non-intersecting transitions, whence we can conclude that the lemma is also true for k = 2. So consider the case k > 2, and suppose there exists {e:,ei) E X ( v ) such that

i - 1# j # i + 1

(*I

,

where we put i - 1 = 2k if i = 1, and i + 1 = 1 if i = 2k. Among all possible choices for i and j satisfying (*) take one for which li- jl is as small as possible. \V.l.o.g. suppose that in O+(v) the notation has been chosen in such a way that i = 1. Hence 2 < j < 2 k . Precisely because X(v) is a set of non-intersecting transitions it follows that {ei,e',)#X(v) if 2 5 1 < j < m s 2 k .

(**I

Consider the open integer intervals

I

:= ( 1j )

and

IjYzk:= (j,2k)

and choose I, n E I I j such that

II-nI

is as small as possible and t := {ei, ek) E X(v)

.

(* * *)

Then t has the property as described in the lemma with e' = ei , f' = e',; otherwise, we obtain a contradiction either to (*) and the choice of i and j , or to (**).

VII.2.1. Special Types of K~-Transformations

VII.31

As for finding a second transition t' E X(v) having the property stated in the lemma, either t' = {ekk-l, ekk) E X(u) (in which case nothing has to be proved any more), or else {ei, ebb) E X(u), where j < p < 2k - 1. In the latter case, consider the corresponding open integer interval IPTzk := (p, 2k) and consider [I, n' E Ip,2k satisfying (* * *). Using the same argument as above and because max{l,n) < min{ll,n'), we can conclude that t' = {ei,, e',,) # t and that t' also has the property cited in the lemma (with el = ei,,f' = e',,). Lemma VII.15 now follows. It follows from Lemma VII.15 that if XT is a system of non-intersecting transitions corresponding to a (non-intersecting) eulerian trail T of the connected eulerian graph G which is embedded in a surface then at every vertex, T behaves in at least one transition like an A-trail.

Lemma VII.16. Let G be a connected eulerian graph embedded in a surface. Suppose Xs is a system of non-intersecting transitions for some S = {S,,S,} E S2(G). Then for every w E V((E(Se))) n V((E(S,))) there exists T, E TNI(G) such that T, results from S by a K-absorption at w. Proof. Choose w E V((E(Se))) n V((E(Sg))) arbitrarily and consider Xs(w) together with O+(w) = ( h i , . . . ,hLk); k > 1 because of the choice of w. Suppose w.1.o.g. that the notation for O+(w) has been chosen in such a way that h1 E E(Se). For tl = {hi, hi) E Xs(w) we therefore have hj E E(S,). Let t2 = {h',, h',) E Xs(w) be chosen such that h,, h, E E(S,); w.1.o.g. m < n. Moreover, j < m or j > n since Xs is a system of non-intersecting transitions; w.1.o.g. j < m. Suppose {h',,hL) @Xs(w) if r and s satisfy j

< r < m < n < s 5 2k .

Then Xa(w) := (Xs(w) - j t 1 7 tz)) U {{hi, h 3 7 {hi, h:,)) consists of non-intersecting transitions only. Hence

x*= (X,

- X,(w)) U X, (w)

is a system of non-intersecting transitions of G. Moreover, it follows from the definition of X,(w) that the transformation of Xs into X * defines a Kabsorption at w (see equations (*) and (1") in the discussion immediately

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

VII.32

E TNI(G); preceding Definition VII.7). That is, X * = XT,, where T,,, and Tw results from S by a K-absorption.

If, however, {h:, h',) E Xs(w)

and j

< T < m < n < s < 2k for some r and s ,

then define t', := {h:, h:), tk := t2 if h,, h, E E(S,) otherwise, t', := t,, t i := {hi, h:), and repeat the above argument with t i , ta in place of tl, t2 (note that {h',, h:) E Xs(w) implies {h,, h,) n E(Se) # 0 if and only if {h,, h,) C E(Se)). Since d(w) < oo it follows that for some {ty), tyl) Xs(w), the above K-absorption transforming S into Tw E TNI(G), can be performed (9 instead of t,, t,. Lemma VII.16 now follows. by using tl(9,t2 In accordance with the notation previously used, P(G, "NI) denotes the partition of IN1(G) induced by rcNI-association.

Theorem VII.17. I P(G, tclvI) G embedded in a surface.

I=

1 for every connected eulerian graph

Proof. The theorem being trivially true if ) TNI(G)

I=

1 (since the identical transformation is a tcNI-transformation), we proceed indirectly by assuming that 1 TNI(G) I> 1 and that eulerian trails TI,T2 E TNI(G) exist which are not sNI-associates. Denoting their respective system of transitions by X1 and X2 (we retain the notation of the proof of Theorem VII.10 whenever possible), we can again assume that Tl and T2 have been chosen in such a manner that I X1 n X2 I is as large as possible, but this time subject to the condition that a(G) := CVEV(G) (d(v) - 2) is as small as possible. a(G) > 0 follows from (TN1(G)(> 1. Let v be any vertex for which Xl(v) # X2(v). By Lemma VII.15 a transition t = ( e l , f') E X2(v) exists such that O+(v) = (. . . ,e', f', . . .). Suppose t E Xl(v) holds as well. One can then form G' by splitting e and f away from v in such a way that V(G1) = V(G) u {v,, f ) and e, f are the edges incident with v , , ~ ,and where G' can be viewed as embedded in the same surface a s G. Since t E X1 n X2 it follows that Ti corresponds to an eulerian trail T;'of G' with Xf = Xi, where Xf is the system of

VII.2.1. Special Types of nl-Transformations

VII.33

transitions corresponding to Ti', i = 1,2. Observe that because of the position of t in G and because of

it follows that any system of non-intersecting transitions of G' corresponds to a system of non-intersecting transitions in G. Since a(Gt) < a(G),it follows from the choice of G that Ti and Ti are nNI-associates. Viewing the various nNI-transformations used in transforming T: into T: as operations performed in G, and noting (*), it follows that Tl and T; are also nNI-associates. This contradicts the choice of Tl and T2; hence t # X1(v). SO, consider t, = {el,g:} and tf = {ft,ga}, where te,tf E Xl(v), and define for t* = {gi ,ga}

x; = (XI - {t,, tf)) U {t, t*), x;

= X2

.

Precisely because of the structure of t E X2(v) = X;(v) it follows that X; is a system of non-intersecting transitions. Moreover,

since t E X; n Xl whereas t # X1. Consequently, if X; = XT. for T* E TNI(G), it follows from the choice of TI and T2 that T* and T, are nNI-associates. This and T* = nNI(T1) implies, though, that Tl and T2 are nNI-associates, a contradiction to the choice of Tl and T2 which implies that X; = Xs for some S E S2(G). In accordance with the notation used earlier, denote S = {Se,Sg}, where w.1.o.g. e, f E E(Se) and, therefore, gl, g2 E E(Sg)(this follows from S E S2(G)). As in the proof of Theorem VII.lO, consider now a run through T2starting at v along e . Since t E X2 this run will end at v right after passing f . Since e, f E E(S,), gl ,g2 # E(S,), and therefore E(Se) c E(T2)= E(G), it follows that there is a vertex w at which T2 passes from Se into S,, and that d(v) > 4 if w = v. In any case, w E V((E(S,))) n V((E(Sg))). For t E X; n X,*, let G' be obtained (as in the first part of the proof) by splitting away e and f from v (note t = {el, fl}), and redefine Xi = Xi* ,i = 1,2, correspondingly; but now X i = X,, , for St E S2(G1), where St = (S:, SL) and E(S:) = E(Se), E(S;) = E(Sg). We distinguish between two cases.

VII.34

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

Case 1). Xi(w) n X;(w) = 0. In this case, Lemma VII.16 can be applied directly to G' and S' so as to obtain Tk E TN1(Gf), where Tk results from S' by a K-absorption at w. It follows that Tk and T; are associates (where Ti E INI(Gt) corresponds to T,), for the definition of Xf together with Xi(w) n Xi(w) = 0 and (**) ensure the validity of I XT,w f l Xi 1>1 X, n X, I. Thus, the corresponding eulerian trails Tw,T2 E TNz(G) are K-associates. This and K'(T,) = S, K"(S) = Tw,and because X; is a system of non-intersecting transitions, classify TI and T2 as K ~ ~ - a s s o c i a t eThis s . contradiction settles Case 1). Case 2). X i (w) nX;(w)

# 0. In this case we consider first O+(w) in G'

and write O+(w) = (hi, h;, . . . ,hLk) , k

>2

(note that dG,(w) 2 4 regardless of w = v or w # v). Consider an arbitrary element t' = {h',, h',} E Xi(w) n Xi(w), where 1 5 m < n 5 2 k ; w.1.o.g. m = 1. By the very definition of non-intersecting transitions it follows that t" = {hi, hi) $ X((w) U Xi(w) for i and j satisfying 1 < i < n < j 5 2k. Consequently, any element of ( X i ( w ) ~ X i ( w )-) {t') lies on either of the two sides of the open curve, ,C , defined by h k U h;. Thus, ,C, defines a partition of Xf(w), i = 1,2,

(possibly Xi,, (w) = 0 or Xf,r(w) = 0, but Xi,, (w) U Xf,r(w) # 0); Xi,,(w) (Xi,r(w)) contains precisely those transitions in Xf(w) which lie (where left side and right side denote the on the left (right) side of, ,C, opposite sides of.),C ,, This partition (* * *) gives rise to the replacement of w by three vertices w,, w,, w, $ V(G) in such a way that

It follows from the definition of the partition (* * *) that this replacement procedure can be performed in such a way that the resulting graph G{ can be viewed as embedded in the same surface as G. Moreover, it also follows from (* * *) that S' and Tl are transformed into corresponding elements Si E S2(G',) and Ti,, E INz(G;). Finally, it follows from (* * *) and the construction of G', that every system of non-intersecting transitions of G{ corresponds to a system of non-intersecting transitions of G' and G.

VII.2.1. Special Types of &I-Transformations

VII.35

We repeat the above procedure if necessary until we arrive at the connected eulerian graph H with the following properties: 2) the elements ti of Xi(w) n Xi(w) are represented in H by 2-valent vertices wj, and E:j = ti ; 3) dH(w,)

2 4 for every

and Xi(wa) C X;(w),

i = 1,2

,

where these Xi(w,) satisfy

whereas the vertices of G'

- w remain unaltered in H.

4) H can be viewed as embedded in the same surface as GI and obtained from GI in such a way that Xi(H) is a system of non-intersecting transitions which can be written as

(see 2) and 3), and note that a transition is a pair of half-edges independent of incidences with actual vertices). Moreover, every system of non-intersecting transitions in H corresponds to such a system in G' as well. Because of 4), Xl(H) = XSH for SH = {Se,H7 Sg,H) E S2(H) correI (H) sponding to the above S1E S2(GI), and X2(H) = XTH for TH E IN corresponding to T!E 'T;VI(G1). We note that since T2passes a t w from S, into Sgwe can therefore find some

at which TH passes from Se,H into SS,H. Consequently, since X1(wH) n X2(wH) = 0 by 3) we have reduced Case 2) to Case 1) with

VII.36

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

H, WH, SH,TH in place of G', w, Sf,Ti respectively. Thus, the application of Lemma VII.16 yields T t E TNI(H) which results from SH by a K-absorptionat wH. Arguing now along the same lines as in Case 1)we : and TH are associates which is tantamount can conclude that T to saying that Tw,the eulerian trail of G corresponding to T z , and T2 are tcNI-associates. Moreover, by the same token we can conclude that TI and Tw are tcNI-associates. Hence TI and T2 are tcNI-associates, a contradiction which settles Case 2. Having obtained a contradiction in all possible cases, the theorem now follows. It should be noted that surface embeddings of G and the various derived graphs were not necessary for the formulation and proof of Theorem VII.17. What really mattered was that O+(v) was given for every v E V(G) which is sufficient for defining non-intersecting transitions. On the other hand, the proof presented here shows that the constructions of various graphs which are needed to find the appropriate /cNItransformations for transforming T, into T,, permit adherence to the same surface all the way. Moreover, the proof of Theorem VI.17 indicates that in general more (algorithmic) work is required to establish the appropriate rcNI-transformations than in the case of K~-association.It is possible that in the case of S E S2(G) without intersecting transition, no &-absorptionat w yields Tw E TNI(G) satisfying I XTwn X2 I>I Xl n X2 I (see Figure VII.3). Therefore, one is forced to produce S from TI in such a way that already S satisfies I Xs n X, ]>I X, n X , 1, and thereafter to perform a K-absorption at w without involving any element of X,(W>n x2 (4Finally we turn to K,-transformations of eulerian trails in connected 4regular graphs G. It should be recalled that for a 2-factorization {Q, ,Q,) of G, I,(G; Q,, Q,) denotes the set of eulerian trails of G in which edges of Q, and Q2 alternate (see the discussion preceding Corollary VII.13). As another application of Theorem VII.10 we obtain the following result in which P(G, IC,) denotes the partition of 7, (G; Q,, Q,) into equivalence classes under K,-association.

Corollary VII.18. Let G be a connected Cregular graph, and let {Q,, Q,) be a 2-factorization of G (which exists by Corollary VI.3). Then I P(G, 6,) I= 1. Proof. S = Q1 U Q2 is a special type of cycle decomposition of G; its induced system of transitions is denoted by Xs. By the very definition

VII.2.1. Special Types of K~-Transformations

VII.37

Figure VII.3. The connected plane eulerian graph G with eulerian trail TI (T2) whose transitions are marked with small (dotted) arcs. A K-detachment of TI at v involving the edges e, f yields S E S2(G) without intersecting transitions. Because of the structure of Xi(w), i = 1,2, the subsequent n-absorption a t w yielding T, E T,,(G) implies IXT ( w ) n X*(w) l=IX,(w) n X2(w) I= 0. ut

of S and Xs respectively, it follows that

Also, 6,-association and nxs-association are identical concepts in this case. Thus, p(G7 "a) = p(G7 KX, ) . These observations and the validity of Theorem VII.10 imply the validity of Corollary VII. 18. In the case of K,-transformations, one can generalize this concept and Corollary V11.18 in a way similar to the generalization of Theorem VII.10 which led to Theorem VII.12. Namely: suppose G is a connected eulerian

VII.38

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

graph with an even number of edges. Then G can be decomposed into two edge-disjoint eulerian subgraphs G1 and G2 with dG,(v) = dG2(v) for every v E V(G) (see Corollary VI.2). Denote by Ta(G; GI, G2) the set of eulerian trails which alternately pass through edges of G, and G2. Generalize the concept of &,-transformation and K,-association correspondingly. Then the following result can be derived from Theorem VII.12 in much the same way as we derived Corollary VII.18 from Theorem VII.lO. We therefore leave its proof to the reader (Exercise VII.9).

Corollary VII.19. Let G be a connected eulerian graph with an even number of edges, and let {GI, be a decomposition of G into two subgraphs having the same degree sequence (d(vl ), . . .,d(v,)}. Then Tl and T2 are K,-associates for every TI,T2 E I,(G; GI, G2).

In the case of Cregular graphs G, however, one obtains for a fixed T E Ta(G; Q,, Q2) a classification of the vertices of G into 'odd7 and 'even7 vertices as follows. Let T be written in the form

and suppose vi = vj+,. Consider the segment

and the eulerian trail T* obtained by reversing the segment Si,j; i.e.,

T*= vl, el, . . . ,ei-,,, ;s

ej+l, . . .,e,, v,

.

It follows from the very definition of T and T*that T* E T,(G; Q,, Q2) 1(mod 2). if and only if I E(Si,j)

(=

Consider the case where I E ( S i j ) 0 (mod 2). Then a &,-transformation involving v := vi = vj+, cannot be a &-transformation. On the other hand, IE(Si,,.)I= O(mod2) implies V((E(Si,j)))nV((E(G)-E(Si,j))) # {v} . Otherwise, (E(Sij)) would have, except for the Zvalent v, only Cvalent vertices, i.e. (E(Sij)) would be homeomorphic to a 4-regular graph with

VII.2.1. Special Types of K*-Transformations

VII.39

an odd number of edges, something that is impossible. So, a 2-valent vertex w E V((E(Sij))) - {v} exists and T is of the form

where w = vm = v,, and

We now show that these equations imply the existence of a K,transformation involving v and w. For such K, = K If K I and Sj+l,i-l..vJ.+ l , ej+l,. . . ,eq,vl, e l , . . . ,ei-l, vi we can define

which is compatible with S := Q1 U Q2 precisely because of I E(Si .) Ir 0 (mod 2). If we denote by Sm-,,, and S n -1,n the segments of T obtalned from S i j,Sj+l,i-lrespectively, by cyclic rotations so as to start and end 1 at w, then for any S:-l ,, E {Sn-l,n, SL1 ,) 9'.

since Sf is compatible with S, it follows that

That is, there is a K-absorption involving w such that nff(S') = T* ; i.e.,

K,(T) = T* for

K,

= K I1K I

.

Observe, in general, that if one fixes an initial vertex vl and an initial edge e , for T, T defines for every v E V(G) a unique trail decomposition Sh = {S1,,,S2,,) (each of whose elements starts and ends at v). Moreover, I E(G) 0 I (mod 2) since G is 4-regular; hence we have

-

This congruence leads to the following more general definition.

VII.40

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

Definition VII.20. Let T be an eulerian trail of the connected 4-regular graph G starting at v, E V(G) along e E Eva, and consider for every v E V(G) the unique trail decomposition S, = (S,,,, S2,,) which consists of the two segments of T starting and ending at v. Then we can call v T-even or T-odd, depending on whether ( E(S1,,) ( (and therefore, by (I), I E(S2,,) I) is even or odd. In fact, because of (I), the classification of T-even and T-odd vertices is, for a given eulerian trail T, independent of the choice of an initial vertex vl and initial edge el (Exercise VII.10). Hence every eulerian trail T of G defines a partition of V(G) into T-even and T-odd vertices, where this partition depends on T only. It follows from this definition and the preceding discussion that r;,transformations are K-transformations precisely at T-odd vertices of G, while a 6,-transformation which is a K*-transformation,is composed of a &-detachmentat a T-even vertex and of a K-absorption at some (T-even or T-odd) vertex w E V((E(S,,,))) n V((E(S2,,))). It is not true, however, that this vertex w must be T-even (or T-odd) in any case. This fact is demonstrated by the graphs G1 and G2 of Figure VII.4. There, the Qi,,, Qi,2), i, j = 1,2, satisfy the equations eulerian trails Ti,j E I,(Gi;

where the &-detachment 6' is performed at the Ti,,-even vertex v, while the 6-absorption 6" is performed at w which is TI,,-odd in GI and T,,?even in G2. Consequently, in GI a 6,-transformation involving w is possible such that

However, v is T*-odd indeed. Hence, there exists a 6,-transformation such that n(T*) = That is, the above K*-transformationtransforming TI,,into can be replaced with two 6,-transformations which are K-transformations. Such a replacement is not possible, however, in the case of T2,, and T2,2.AS we shall see in a moment, this phenomenon is a general one.

Definition VII.21. Let G be a connected Cregular graph, and let T1,T2 E T,(G; Q,, 9,). Suppose for S = Q1 U Q2 and for some v, w E

VII.2.1. Special Types of %I-Transformations

Figure VII.4. Two 4-regular graphs Gi with eulerian Qi,2),i, j = 1,2, where the edges trails T i j E 7,(Gi; Qi,,, of Qi,,, are marked by k, k = 1,2, and the transitions of Ti,l are marked by small arcs, while the transitions of Ti,, are marked by small dotted arcs, i = 1,2. Since TI and TI,, define the same transitions at x E V(G1), x is represented by two 2-valent vertices. v is Ti,1-even in Gi, i = 1,2, while w is TI,,-odd in GI and T2,,-even in G,.

V(G) that &'(TI)= St E S2(G;X S ) , K"(S')= T 2 , where K' is a Kdetachment a t v and 6'' is a K-absorption at w: Call t ~ , := K"K' reducible or irreducible (regarding v, w) depending on whether w is TI-odd or TIeven (note that v is T,-even in any case since K , is a K*-transformation).

Lemma VII.22. Let G, Tl, T,, S, St,K, = K'K", v and w be the objects used in Definition VII.21. Then the following holds: 1) K, is reducible if and only if there exist T* E ?,(G; Q,, Q,) and Ktransformations K, and K, involving w, v respectively, such that K,(T~)= T* and 6,(T*) = T,.

VII.42

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

2) n, is irreducible if and only if there exists S" E S,(G, Xs) such that z1(T1) = S", it"(S1') = T2, where E' (2') is a K-detachment

(&-absorption) at w

(v).

Proof. 1) Suppose K, is reducible. By Definition VII.21, w is TI-odd. Hence, by the discussion following Corollary VII.19 and Definition VII.20, there exist T* E Ta(G; Q1, Q,) and a nu-transformation K , which is a Ktransformation such that nw(Tl) = T* and XT* - XT*(w) = XTl -

x, (4We claim that v is T*-odd. This becomes visible when we express TI in the following way:

where uo = uj = vm = v and vi = vk = w. Moreover, we assume w.1.o.g. that e1,ej+, E E(Ql), f l , f j , f m E E ( Q 2 ) . This is possible since v is TI-even. Since w is TI-odd we must have for one of the two choices for r , s satisfying {r, s) = { l , 2 )

Hence T* is of the form

T* =vO,el, v,, f l , . . . ,hi, vj, h i , . . . ,ej+l, uj7fj, . . . ,

. . .,hy, vi, h i , . . . ,f,, urn . That is, starting in u = vo along el E E(Ql) we reach v = vj again after passing ej+l E E(Q,), i.e. v is T*-odd. Consequently, there exists a na-transformation nu which is a Ktransformation such that nv(T*) = T$ c I,(G; Q,, Q,) and XTc XT. (v) = XT; - XT; (u) . Consequently,

and

VII.2.1. Special Types of K~-Transformations

These equations and TI,T2,T,' E

VII.43

I,(G; Q1, Q2) yield T2 = Ti.

Conversely, suppose for TI, T2 E 7, (G; Q1, Q2) that there exists T* E 7, (G; Q1, Q2) and K-transformations K, and K, (involving w, v respectively) such that K,(T~)= T* and K,(T*) = T2. Definition VII.20 and the subsequent discussion imply that w is TI-odd. On the other hand, since K, = K"K' is a K*-transformation,v must be TI-even (see Definition VII.21). Hence, K, = r c t t ~ 'is reducible by Definition VII.21. This finishes the proof of statement 1). 2) If

is irreducible, then w is also TI-even. Hence, by using the same symbols with the same meaning as in the first part of the proof of I ) , and such that (*) is fulfilled we obtain K,

Thus, changing the transitions at w = vi = v, so as not to violate compatibility with Xs , we obtain two edge-disjoint subtrails covering 'I

'I

Sl,, = vi,hi

f j , v j , e j + l , . . . , h ~ , ~, ~

St,, =~k,h:,...,fm,~m,el,vl,fl,...,h:,viThat is, St' := {S:,,, Sl,,) E S2(G,XS) and E1(Tl) = S" for some Kdetachment izt at w. However, by a rotation we can rewrite the elements of S" so as to obtain

That is, St = {Si,,,Si,,) yields K'(T;) = Stfor some T: E 7, (G; Q1, Q2). Since St results from S" by a cyclic rotation of the sequences describing its elements, and since the inverse operation of a K-detachment is a Kabsorption, we have ii"(S") = T; for a K-absorption Elt at v. We can now conclude as in the first part of the proof of 1 ) that T; = T2. Conversely, suppose two K,-transformations K"K' and R"Z' satisfy K"(K'(T~))= E"(Et(Tl)) = T2, where nt is a K-detachment at v and E' is a K-detachment at w. Then both v and w must be TI-even (see the discussion following Definition VII.20), hence n, is irreducible. This finishes the proof of 2). Lemma VII.22 now follows.

VII.44

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

Lemma VII.22 says that a K,-transformation K"K' is reducible if and only if one can avoid taking a 'detour' via S2(G,Xs), by applying two K-transformations K, and K, , each of which yields an element of Ta(G; Q,, Q,). This fact, i.e. staying with K-transformations instead of combining a K-detachment with a K-absorption, justifies the term reducible. On the other hand, if K"K' is irreducible, it is irrelevant at which of the two vertices v and w one starts with a K-detachment, i.e. in this case, the product K"K is commutative in the sense that the transformations K' and K", viewed as operations on systems of transitions, yield K"K'(T,)= K'K"(T,) = T2 where K'(T,), K"(T,) E S,(G, Xs) and in general, K'(T,) # rctt(T1). Summarizing the discussion following Corollary VII.19 we are thus led to the following result which is based on Corollary VII.18.

Theorem VII.23. Let G be a connected 4-regular graph G with 2factorization {Q,, Q,). For any two eulerian trails T, T' E I,(G; Q1, QP) a sequence of eulerian trails To,.. . ,T, exists for some m 2 1 such that To = T, T, = T',Ti E Ta(G;Q,,Q,), i = 0,. . .,m, and such that for i = 1,. . . ,m, Ti results from Ti-, by the application of a K,-transformation. If this K,-transformation is a K-traasformation, it is applied at a Ti-,odd vertex. If, however, it is a K*-transformation, it is an irreducible K,-transformation applied at two Ti-,-even vertices v and w, where w belongs to both segments of Ti-, starting and ending at v. In this case it is irrelevant whether one applies the K-detachment at v and the Kabsorption at w, or vice versa. It should already be noted at this point that Theorem VII.23 will play a central role in G. Sabidussi's approach to what has become known as the Compatibility Problem [SABI84a]. In fact, Theorem VII.23 can be translated into [SABI84a, (7.7) Theorem], and a large part of the discussion leading to Theorem VII.23 is contained in that paper. For a short description of Sabidussi's approach to the Compatibility Problem as well as for a discussion of various other approaches and various aspects of the Compatibility,Problem, the intested reader might resort to [FLEI88a] at this point.

VII.3. Transformation of Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VII.45

VII.3. Transformation of Eulerian Trails in Digraphs Just as we used Theorems VII.10 and VII.12 to derive various results concerning the transformations of special types of eulerian trails in graphs, we can apply Theorem VII.12 to obtain a result for digraphs analogous to Theorem VII.5. For this purpose denote, by analogy, by I ( D ) the s e t of all eulerian trails of t h e connected eulerian d i g r a p h D, and define K-, K*-, rcl -transformations and K-detachmentsand K-absorptions. Of course, these operations have to be defined in such a way that every transition at v E V(D) always consists of an incoming and an outgoing halfarc incident with v. This is ~vhy,for a digraph D , K-transformations are not a sufficiently general tool to transform T E I ( D ) into every other element of I ( D ) (see Figure VII.5). However, as we shall see below, K~-transformations suffice to establish a result for digraphs hnalogous to Theorem VII.5. As in the case of graphs one can define the concepts of K-, K*-, 6,association, and one can show that each of these concepts defines an equivalence relation on I ( D ) ; it is left as an exercise to do this (Exercise VII.ll). Such an equivalence relation on I ( D ) defines again, of course, a partition of I ( D ) into equivalence classes as before. For our purposes we shall consider the partition P ( D , K,). T h e o r e m VII.24. IP(D, K l ) I= 1-

Let D be a connected eulerian digraph.

Then

Proof. Our aim is to deduce Theorem VII.24 from Theorem VII.12. For this purpose consider G, the connected eulerian graph underlying a given connected eulerian digraph D. For every v E V(D), let

be the partition of A: into the classes of half-arcs incident from v, to v respectively. Since V(D) = V(G) one then defines for the same v

by letting, for e = vx E E(G), e' belong to (Ez)+ ((Ez)- respectively) if and only if for the corresponding arc a E A(D), a' E (A;)+ (af E (A:)respectively), i.e. if and only if a = (v, x) (a = (x, v) respectively). This

VII.46

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

Figure VII.5. D has precisely two eulerian trails, TI and

T2 (marked by small and dotted small arcs). &(TI) # T2 for any of the two conceivable K-transformations, but ri*(Tl) =

T, for each of the two possible K*-transformationsK* = ~ " r i ' (compare this with Exercise VII.5).

definition is meant t o include multiple arcs (in which case each arc of the form (v, x), (x, v) respectively, has to be considered separately in the above correspondence), as well as loops (v, v) in D (in which case one half-loop belongs to (E:)+ and the other half-loop belongs to (E:)-). Finally define P ( G ) := Pv(G) .

U

vEV(G)

P(G) is, by definition, a partition system of G such that I I< I= + d ( u ) for every I< E P,(G) and every v E V(G) = V(D). Hence, I ( G , P(G)) # 0 by Theorem VI.l, and I P ( G , I= 1 by Theorem VII.12. However, precisely because of the definition of P(G) there is a 1-1-correspondence between P(G)-compatible eulerian trails of G and eulerian trails of D, and by the same token, TG,TA E I ( G , P(G)) are associates if and only if the corresponding elements TD,Tb E 7 ( D ) arc 6,-associates. That is, I P ( D , K , ) I= 1. The theorem now follows.

VII.3. Transformation of Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VII.47

Observe that the above application of Theorem VI.l and the bijection between I ( G , P(G)) and I ( D ) yields a proof of the first part of Theorem IV.8. Another approach to transform an arbitrary T E I ( D ) into any other Tr E I ( D ) has been chosen in XIA AX^^^].^) In this approach one does not have to deal with trail decompositions as in the case of K , transformations; rather, at every step one transforms an element of I ( D ) into another element of I ( D ) . The tool for this approach is given by the next definition. Definition VII.25.Let D be a connected eulerian digraph and suppose some T E I ( D ) can be expressed in the following way:

where T(u, v) and Tr(u, v) are arc-disjoint trails joining u and v (possibly u = v), and suppose A(T(u, v)) u A(Tr(u, v)) # A(D) (which holds in any case if u # v). Then

is said to be obtained from T by a T-transformation which exchanges T(u, v) and Tr(u,v). We express this transformation by the formal equation T(T) = TI. R e m a r k VII.26. 1) Xia speaks of a T-transformation instead of Ttransformation; but since we used the greek letter K for various transformations and since T usually stands for an eulerian trail, the use of the letter T instead of T in naming the above transformation seems appropriate. 2) It follows from Definition VII.25 that not only does Tr E I ( D ) hold for T E I ( D ) and Tr = T(T), but we even have Tr # T. This is guaranteed

by the condition A(T(u, v)) U A(Tr(u,v))

# A(D).

That is, contrary to

This paper has been published in Chinese, the English abstract of which, however, is insufficient to permit a full understanding of the essentials. Doz. Wolfgang Ruppert of Vienna, has translated the most important passages of the paper, and I hope to reproduce them correctly in the ensuing discussion. In any case, I wish to express my thanks to Doz. Wolfgang Ruppert for having taken time to translate major parts of the paper.

VII.48

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

various previous transformations, a r-transformation can never be the identical transformation. So the question arises: which are the digraphs having precisely one eulerian trail ? The answer is simple enough: a connected eulerian digraph D has precisely one eulerian trail i f and only i f every cycle of D i s a block of D and A(D) 5 4. The proof of this statement is left as an exercise. 3) However, if T' = r(T), then for the same pair of trails T(u, v): T1(u,u ) used in transforming T into T' (see Definition VII.25) we obtain r(T1) = T, i.e. T , in a certain sense, satisfies the formal equation r2(T) = r(Tr)= T . Consequently, it makes sense to call T, T' E I ( D ) r-associates if either T = T' or there exists a sequence To,. . .,Tm, m > 0, where Ti E I ( D ) for i = 0 , . . .,m such that To = T, Tm = T' and Ti = T ( T ~ - ~ ) for i = 1,. . .,m. Again, r-association defines an equivalence relation on I ( D ) which in turn defines a partition P(D, r ) (see Exercise VII.13).

The main result of [XIAX84a] is the following. The proof presented here differs, however, from the proof given in the paper cited.

Theorem VII.27. I P ( D , r) I= 1for every connected eulerian digraph D . Proof. If 1 I ( D ) I= 1, the theorem is trivially true since T E I ( D ) is the only r-associate of itself, whence we can assume 17(D) I> 1.

Suppose the theorem fails for D. Then T,T' E I ( D ) exist, which are not r-associates. Suppose T and T' have been chosen such that I X, n X,, I is as large as possible subject to the condition that C ( D := ~ C , E V ( D ) ( ~ d (-~ )1) =I A(D) I - 1 V(D) I is as small as possible. For practical reasons, we can deduce some property D must have attributable to those restrictions.

For every v E V(D), XT(v) n X T r ( v ) = 0 ord(v) = 2 Otherwise, let v be a vertex with XT(v) n XTr(v)

.

# 0 and d(v) > 2.

(1) Let

t = {e', f') E XT(v) n XT,(v) and split away the arcs e, f to form a new eulerian digraph Dl (note that {e,f} n A: # 0 # { e , f} n A;). The eulerian trails T and T' correspond to eulerian trails TI,Ti of Dl, hence Dl is connected. Moreover, XTl = XT, XT; = XTr , hence I XT n XT. I= IX , nXT; I. However, o(D1) < o(D) since I A(Dl) /=I A(D) 1, but I V(D,) I=I V(D) I +l. Thus, Tl and T,'are T-associates. We note that for every Tl(x, y) in Dl used in one of the T-transformations which have been employed for the transformation of Tl into Ti, we cannot have

VII.3. Transformation of Eulerian Trails in Digraphs

VII.49

v ~ E, {x, ~ y), where vePf E V(D1) - V(D), for there are no two arcdisjoint open (or closed) trails in Dl starting (or ending) at v , , ~ . Hence Tl(x, y) corresponds to T(x, y) in D which is an open trail if and only if T,(x, y) is an open trail. Consequently, Tl and Ti being T-associates is tantamount to saying T and T' are T-associates, a contradiction to our assumption. Consider now an arbitrary v E V(D) - V2(D), and let t E XTl(v) be arbitrarily chosen. Denote t = {e(v)-, e(v)+) where e- E A;, e+ E A: ancl let t,, t2 E XT(v) be chosen in such a way that tl = {f (v)-, e(v)+), t2 = {f(v)+,e(v)-). Because of (I), t, # t2; and f - E A;, f + E A.: Now, a run through T starting at v along e+ reaches v along e- before f + or f - have been passed. Hence T contains a segment S(e+, e-) C T. On the other hand, TI,also viewed as starting a t v along e+, has e- as its last arc. Hence there exist transitions t3, t4 E XT1(w) for Some

such that

and t, = {9(w)+, 9(w)-1 E XT(W) (see Figure VII.6 and the proof of Theorem VII.17). Possibly we have v = w. In any case, though, T can be expressed in the form T = v,S(e+,e-),v, f + ,. ..,h-, w,. ..,f - , v . That is, there is a proper subtrail of T joining v and w and having f + as its first and h- as its last arc; denote this subtrail by T1(v,w). Observe that T1(v,w) contains none of the arcs of S(e+, e-). Similarly, S(e+, e-) contains a subtrail T(v, w) having e+ as its first and g- as its last arc. Writing S(e+, e-) = T(v, w), w, T(w, v) we can express T in a more explicit form,

VII.50

VII. Transforlllations of Eulerian Trails

Figure VII.6. Eulerian trails T, TI E I ( D ) whose transitions are marked with small (respectively, small dotted) arcs. Possibly v = w. The segment S(e+, e - ) C T contains g- and g+, but none of f - , f + ,h-h+. Consequently, we obtain T* E I ( D ) , T # T*, by the T-transformation which exchanges T(v, w) and T1(v,w). That is,

Possibly T* = TI. In any case, however, we have d ( v ) > 2, d(w) > 2 and t, t, E X T . n X T , 1 XT n X,,. This and (1) together with the choice of T and TI imply that T* and TI are T-associates (which is true also if T* = TI). Therefore, and because r(T) = T*, we can conclude that T and TI are T-associates. This contradiction to the choice of T and TI finally implies the validity of the theorem. For reasons of time and space, we have restricted ourselves to the above study of transforming 'unrestricted' eulerian trails in digraphs and leave it to the interested reader to find suitable transformations by which one can relate any P(D)-compatible (respectively, (D- Dl )-favoring) eulerian trail to any other such trail. Although I have not occupied myself with the search for such transformations, I believe that K- and K*-transformations suffice in order to handle this problem for digraphs in a way similar to

VII.4. Final Remarks and Some Open Problems

VII.51

the case of graphs (note that a T-transformation can be viewed as the combination of a 6-detachment with a 6-absorption). As for transforming aneulerian trails in a digraph D it suffices to consider Dr.The graph GT underlying D+ is a connected eulerian graph because an aneulerian trail in D corresponds to an aneulerian trail in DT and thus to an eulerian trail in GT, and vice versa. Thus, transforming aneulerian trails in D is equivalent to transforming eulerian trails in GT which can be done by the exclusive use of K-transformations (Theorem VII.5).

VII.4. Final Remarks and Some Open Problems In the preceding sections of this chapter we developed various types of transformations in order to be able to construct every eulerian trail of a special type, provided one such eulerian trail was given. This approach to handling a whole set 7 of eulerian trails gives rise to the following question:

Given T, TI E 7, how often does one have to apply a certain type of K~ -transformations in order to transform T into TI ? (*I In other words, what is the complexity of transforming T into TI? We note that a single 6-transformation can be performed in polynomial time, even if one has to search for a vertex v at which a 6-transformation should be performed. Hence the construction of TI, T[ E T(G), satisfying TI = rc(T), Ti = rc(T1) (with the 6-transformations performed at v), and

can be performed in polynomial time (Exercise VII.15). Hence the original question (*) is the real key to the question about the complexity of K-association. This question has been answered by A. Bouchet for connected Cregular graphs G. He showed that for any T, T' € 7(G) it takes at most 6-transformations to transform T into T', [BOUCSOa]. Together with this result, however, he presents a conjecture which says that can be replaced with ( V(G) I +l. However, analogous complexity studies for the various types of nltransformations (which have been developed for the various types of

VII.52

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

eulerian trails in graphs and digraphs treated so far), have yet to be conducted. I suspect that they all will amount to finding polynomial time algorithms. Finally, we note an interesting structural feature concerning n-transformations. Define the eulerian trail graph G ( 7 , n) as the graph whose vertices are the elements of 7 := 7(G), and TIT2 E E ( G ( 7 , n)) if and only if n(T1) = T2. Note that &(TI) = T2 implies 4 T 2 ) = TI. Hence G ( 7 , n) is a well defined graph. It follows from Theorem VII.5 that G ( 7 , n) is connected, since any two eulerian trails of G can be obtained from each other by a sequence of n-transformations. However, Zhang and Guo verified a much stronger result which we present without proof (for details, see [ z H A F ~ ~ ~ ] ) . ' ) Theorem VII.28. If I 7(G) I> 2, G ( 7 , n ) is edge-hamiltonian.

Again (similar to Bouchet's result [BOUC9Oa]) one is led to the question whether there are results analogous to Theorem VII.28, if one restricts the considerations to special classes of eulerian trails (such as Tx := 7(G, X), a.s.0.) and the appropriate nl-transformations, and defines correspondingly a restricted eulerian trail graph (e.g., G(Tx, fix)). Because of Theorems VII.10, VII.12, VII.17, VII.23, VII.24, VII.27 and Corollaries VII.13, VII.18, VII.19, these restricted eulerian trail graphs are connected in any case. But are they hamiltonian ? How can they be characterized, how can one type of restricted eulerian trail graph be distinguished from another ? We note that in [ZHAF86a] the authors announce that they found a result similar to Theorem VII.28 for the directed euler tour graph, but they do not specify which type of transformation serves as the basis for defining the edges of that graph. In view of Theorem VII.14 and the paragraph following its proof, the following is of relevance to the above questions. Construct the tree graph GT of a graph G, where V(GT) = (T & G / T is a spanning tree of G), and TIT2 E E(G,),if and only if / E(Tl uT2) - E(Tl nT2) I= 2 (compare this equation with tcA-transformationsand the set '7;. of spanning trees of M i in the discussion leading to the formulation of Theorem VII.14). In fact, tree graphs GT have been already considered implicitly in [ORE062a], explicitly in [CUMM66a]. In the latter reference it has been shown that GT is edge-hamiltonian (a short proof of this result has been given in Zhang and Guo speak of the euler tour graph Eu(G) that we have termed the eulerian trail graph G(7,n).

VII.5. Exercises

VII.53

[SHAN68a]). In view of Theorem VII.14 it is conceivable that the affinity between this result on tree graphs and Theorem VII.28 is not a coincidence. For, the tree graph (Mi)T of the graph Mi is nothing but G(TA(G),K ~ ) Concerning . other, earlier, studies of tree graphs we refer to [BAR068a, BAR068bl. As for another structural insight regarding tree graphs, we mention [SHAN8la]; there H. Shank proves that if GT, (GT)T and ((GT)T)T are all eulerian, (((GT)T)T)T is not eulerian unless GT E {K1,K3). Finally, we note that for a digraph D , the in-tree graph DT concerning a fixed root vo E V(D) can be defined in a way similar to the above GT. This has been done in [ D O R F ~ where ~ ~ ] it is s h o w that DT is always connected. We conclude our considerations by remarking that graphs similar to eulerian trail graphs or tree graphs can be found in linear algebra; there one deals with interchange graphs whose vertices are certain m x n matrices (see [BRUA82a] for details). Also here one is faced with the question of hamiltonicity (regarding interchange graphs). According to Li Qiao, this is a 'big question'.

VII.5. Exercises Exercise VII.1. Show that in Figure VII.2 there is no sequence TI, . . .,T,, of XI-compatible eulerian trails of K2 with T = TI, T' = T, and n(Ti) = Ti+1,1 < i 5 n - 1. Describe the segment reversals by which one obtains T2 from T and TI1from T2. Exercise VII.2. Show that each of the concepts of K*- and K ~ association defines an equivalence relation on T(G). Show the same for the concept of K*-association with respect to T(G, X). Exercise VII.3. Prove Lemma VII.ll. Exercise VII.4. Translate the proof of Theorem VII.10 into a proof of Theorem VII.12. Exercise VII.5. a) Show that if K ~ ( T=~T2 ) for Tl ,T2 E TA(G), where G is a connected plane 4-regular graph, then this rcA-transformation is a rc*-transformation. b) Construct an example of a nonplanar G embedded in a surface where this conclusion does not hold. c) Prove: each of the concepts of KA-, ICNI- and K,-association defines an equivalence relation on the respective set of eulerian trails.

-

VII.54

VII. Transformations of Eulerian Trails

Exercise VII.6. Extend Theorem VII.14 to arbitrary connected plane eulerian graphs, in two ways such that a) Mi is a (bipartite) graph, b) Miis a hypergraph (see the first part of the discussion following the proof of Theorem VII.14). Exercise VII.7. Show that deciding the existence of a spanning hypertree in Mi (see Exercise VII.6.b)) is an NP-complete problem if one restricts oneself to the consideration of those Mi which correspond to planar 3-connected eulerian graphs (see the second part of the discussion following the proof of Theorem VII.14). Exercise VII.8. a) Show that the concept of K~-association, extended to arbitrary connected plane eulerian graphs, defines an equivalence relation on 7,(G). b) Show that two elements of TA(G)belong to the same equivalence class under K~-association if and only if their respective A-partitions coincide on the vertices whose valency exceeds 4. Exercise VII.9. Generalize the concept of K,-transformation for connected eulerian graphs having an even number of edges and prove Corollary VII.19 (Hint: apply Theorem VI.l, respectively Corollary VI.2 and Theorem VII.12). Exercise VII.lO. Let T be an eulerian trail of the connected 4-regular graph G. Show that in Definition VII.20, v E V(G) is T-even (T-odd) independent of the choice of an initial vertex and initial edge of T. Exercise VII.ll. Define K-, n*- and rcl-association for digraphs and show that each of these concepts defines an equivalence relation on 7 ( D ) . Exercise VII.12. Prove: the following two statements are equivalent. 1) D is a connected eulerian digraph having precisely one eulerian trail. 2) Every cycle of D is a block of D and A(D) 5 4. Exercise VII.13. Prove that T-association defines an equivalence relation on T(D). Exercise VII.14. Consider P(D)-compatible eulerian trails in a connected eulerian digraph D and find transformations by which any such trail can be transformed into any other such trail. Study the same problem with respect to (D - Do)-favoring eulerian trails. Exercise VII.15. Let G be a connected eulerian graph, and let T,T1E 7(G). Show:

VII.5. Exercises

VII.55

1)The problem of finding a vertex u a t which XT # X T , ( v ) can be solved in polynomial time. 2) The construction of TI, Ti E I ( G ) satisfying -xT(v)= - XTl ( v ),XTt - XTt ( v ) = XT; - XT; ( v ), K ( T ) = TI, r(T1)= Ti and I XTl ( v ) n XT; ( v ) I>I X T ( u ) n X T , ( v ) 1, can be done in polynomial time.

xT

xTl

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[AARD5la] van Aardenne-Ehrenfest, T., de Bruijn, N.G.; Circuits and Trees in Oriented Linear Graphs, Simon Stevin 28 (1931) 203-217. [ABRH79a] Abrham, J., Kotzig, A.; Construction of Planar Eulerian Multigraphs, Proc. Tenth Southeastern Conf. Combinatorics, Graph Theory & Computing, Florida Atlantic Univ., Boca Raton, April 2-6, 1979, Congr. Numer. 23 (1979) V01.1, 123-130. [ABRH80a] Abrham, J., Kotzig, A.; Transformations of Euler Tours, Ann. Discrete Math. 8 (1980) 65-69. [AKIY79a] Akiyarna, J., Harary, F.; A Graph and Its Complement With Specified Properties I: Connectivity, Internat. J . Math. & Math. Sci., Vo1.2, No.2 (1979) 223-228. [ANST85a] Anstee, R.P.; An Algorithmic Proof of Tutte's f -Factor Theorem, J . Algorithms 6 (1985) 112-131. [ASAN82a] Asano, T., Saito, N., Exoo, G., Harary, F.; The Smallest 2Connected Cubic Bipartite Planar Nonhamiltonian Graph, Discrete Math. 38 (1982) 1-6. [ASAN84a] Asano, T., Kikuchi, S., Saito, N.; A Linear Algorithm for Finding Hamiltonian Cycles in 4- Connected Maximal Planar Graphs, Discrete Appl. Math. 7 (1984) no.1, 1-5. [AUBE82b] Aubert, J., Schneider, B.; Graphes orientes inde'composables en circuits hamiltoniens, J . Combin. Theory Ser. B 32 (1982) 347-349. [BAR068a] Baron, G.; ~ b e den r Baumgraphen eines endlichen gerichteten Graphen, Arch. Math., Vol. XIX, Fasc. 6 (1968) 668672.

Bibliography

A.2

[BARO68b] Baron, G., Imrich, W.; On the Maximal Distance of Spanning Trees, J . Combin. Theory 5 (1968) 378-385. [BATA77a] Batagelj, V., Pisanski, T.; On Partially Directed Eulerian Multigraphs, Publ. de 1'Inst. Math., Nouvelle s6rie 25 (1977) no.39, 16-24. [BEHZ79a] Behzad, M., Chartrand, G., Lesniak-Foster, L.; Graphs and Digraphs (Prindle, Weber & Schmidt Int. Series, Boston, Mass.,l979). [BEIN78a] Beineke, L.W., Wilson, R. J. (eds.), Selected Topics i n Graph Theory (Academic Press, New York, 1978). [BEIN83a] Beineke, L.W., IVilson, R.J. (eds.), Selected Topics i n Graph Theory 2 (Academic Press, New York, 1983). [BELY83a] Belyj, S.B.; On Non-Self-Intersecting and Non-Intersecting Trails, Mat. Zametki 34 (1983) no.4, 625-628. [BENT87a] Bent, S.W., Manber, U.; O n Non-Intersecting Eulerian Circuits, Discrete Appl. Math. 18 (1987) 87-94. [BERG62a] Berge, C., Ghouila-Houri, A.; Programme, Spiele, Transportnetze (£3 .G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig , 1967). [BERK78a] Berkowitz, H.W.; Restricted Eulerian Circuits in Directed Graphs, Colloq. Math. 39 (1978) Fasc.1, 185-188. [BERM78b] Berman, K.A.; Aneulerian Digraphs and the Determination of those Eulerian Digraphs Having an Odd Number of Directed Eulerian Paths, Discrete Math. 22 (1978) 75-80. [BERM79d] Berman, K.A.; Bieulerian Orientations of 4- Valent Graphs, Res. Report CORR 79-25, Fac. of Math., Univ. of Waterloo (1979). [BERM8lb] Berman, K.A.; On Graphs where every 1-Factor lies in a Hamiltonian Cycle, unpublished manuscript. T

[BERM83a] Berman, K.A.; Proof of a Conjecture of Haggkvist on Cycles and Independent Edges, Discrete Math 46 (1983) no.l,9-13. [BER084a] Bermond, J., Las-Vergnas, M.; Regular Factors in Nearly Regular Graphs, Discrete Math. 50 (1984) no.1, 9-13.

Bibliography

A.3

[BERT8la] Bertossi, A.A.; The Edge Hamiltonian Path Problem is NPComplete, Inform. Process. Lett. 13 (1981) 110.4-5, 157-159. [BIGG76a] Biggs, N.L., Lloyd, E.K., Wilson, R.J.; Graph Theory 17361936 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1976). [BOND76a] Bondy, J.A., h,furty, U.S.R.; Graph Theory with Applications (The Macmillan Press Ltd, London, 1976). [BOND77a] Bondy, J.A.; A Short Proof of Meyniel's Theorem, Discrete Math. 19 (1977) 195-197. [BOND86a] Bondy, J.A., Halberstam, F.Y.; Parity Theorems for Paths and Cycles in Graphs, J . Graph Theory 10 (1986) 107-115. [BOUC78a] Bouchet, A.; Triangular Imbeddings into Surfaces of a Join of Equicardinal Independent Sets Following an Eulerian Graph, in: Alavi, Y., Lick, D.R. (eds.); Theory & Applications of Graphs, Proc., Michigan 11-15, 1976, Lecture Notes in Math. 642 (Springer, Berlin-New York, 1978) 86-115. [BOUC87a] Bouchet, A.; Isotropic Systems, European J . Combin. 8 (1987) 231-244. [BOUC88b] Bouchet, A.; Compatible Euler Tours and Supplementary Eulerian Vectors, submitted to European J. Combin. [BOUC9Oa] Bouchet, A.; K - Transformations, Local Complementations and Switchings, in: Hahn, G., Sabidussi, G., Woodrow, R. (eds.); Cycles and Rays, NATO AS1 Ser. C (Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, 1990) 41-50. [BRUA82a] Brualdi, R. A, Li, Q.; Small Diameter Interchange Graphs of Classes of Matrices of Zeros and Ones, Linear Algebra Appl. 46 (1982) 177-194. [CAIM89a] Cai, M., Fleischner, H.; An Eulerian Trail Traversing Specified Edges in Given Order, preprint. [CHENSla] Chen, C.C.; On a Characterization of Planar Graphs, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 24 (1981) 289-294. [CHIB84a] Chiba, N., Tadashi, Y., Takao, N.; Linear Algorithms for Convex Drawings of Planar Graphs, in: Bondy, J. A., Murty, U.S.R. (eds.); Progress in Graph Theory, Conf. on

Bibliography

Combinatorics, Univ. Waterloo,. Ontario, 1982 (Academic Press, Toronto, Ontario, 1984) 153-173. [CHIB86a] Chiba, N., Nishizeki, T.; A Theorem on Paths in Planar Graphs, J. Graph Theory 10 (1986) 449-450. [COIC7la] COY, S., Cha'i, S.M.; Applied Graph Theory (Russian), Izdat "NaukaY7Kazah. SSR, Alma-Ata (1971). [CUMM66a] Cummins, R.L.; Hamilton Circuits in Tree Graphs, IEEE Trans. Circuit Theory C-T 13 (1966) no.1, 82-90. [DIRA66a] Dirac, G.A.; Short Proof of Menger's Graph Theorem, Mathematika 13 (1966) 42-44. [DIRA67a] Dirac, G.A.; Minimally &-Connected Graphs, J . Reine Angew. Math. 228 (1967) 204-216.

[ D O R F ~ Dijrfler, ~~] W.; Der Arboreszenzengmph eines gerichteten Graphen, Math. Nachr. 59 (1974) no.1-6, 35-49. [ELLI82a] Ellingham, M.N.; Constructing Certain Cubic Graphs, in: Combinatorial hllathematics IX, Brisbane, 1981; Lecture Notes in Math. 952 (Springer, Berlin-New York, 1982) 252274. [ELLI83a] Ellingham, M.N., Horton, J.D.; Non-Hamiltonian 3-Connected Cubic Bipartite Graphs, J . Combin. Theory Ser. B 34 (1983) 350-353. [EULER36a] Euler, L.; Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis, Commentarii Academiae Petropolitanae 8 (1736) 1741, 128-140 = Opera omnia Ser. I, Vol. 7, 1-10. [EVEN79a] Even, S.; Graph Algorithms (Computer Science Press, Inc., Rockville, 1979). [FLEI73a] Fleischner, H.; The Uniquely Embeddable Planar Graphs, Discrete Math. 4 (1973) 110.4, 347-358. [FLEI74a] Fleischner, H.; The Importance of Being Euler, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 42 (1974) 90-99. [FLEI74b] Fleischner, H., Roy, P.; Distribution of Points of Odd Degree of Certain Triangulations in the Plane, Monatsh. Math. 78 (1974) 385-390.

Bibliography

A.5

[FLEI74c] Fleischner, H.; On Regulating Sets and the Dispan'ty of Planar Cubic Graphs, Canad. Math. Bull. 17 (1974) no.3, 367-374. [FLEI74d] Fleischner, H., Geller, D.P., Harary, F.; Outerplanar Graphs and Weak Duals, J. Indian Math. Soc. 38 (1974) 215-219. [FLEI76a] Fleischner, H.; Eine gemeinsame Basis fur die Theon'e der Eulerschen Graphen und den Satz von Petersen, Monatsh. Math. 81 (1976) 267-278. [FLEI83b] Fleischner, H.; Eulerian Graphs, in: Beineke, L. W., Wilson R.J. (eds.); Selected Topics in Graph Theory 2 (Academic Press, London-New York, 1983) 17-53. [FLEI86a] Fleischner, H., Hilton, A.J.W., Jackson, B.; On the Maximum Number of Pairwise Compatible Euler Cycles, to appear in J . Graph Theory. [FLEI88a] Fleischner, H.; Some Blood, Sweat, but no Tears in Eulerian Graph Theory, in: Proc. 250th Anniversary Coaf. on Graph Theory, Congr. Numer. 63 (1988) 8-48. [FLEI89a] Fleischner, H., Jackson, B.; A Note Concerning Some Conjectures on Cyclically 4-Edge Connected 3-Regular Graphs, in: Andersen, L.D. et al. (eds.); Graph Theory in Memory of G.A. Dirac; Ann. Discrete Math. 41 (1989) 171-178. [FLEI9Oa] Fleischner, H.; Jackson, B.; Compatible Euler Tours in Eulerian Digraphs, in: Hahn, G., Sabidussi, G., Woodrow, R. (eds.); Cycles and Rays, NATO AS1 Ser. C (Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, 1990) 95-100. [FORD62a] Ford, L.R.,Jr., Fulkerson, D.R.; Flows in Networks (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1962). [FUCH77a] Fuchs, H., Kedem, Z.M., Uselton, S.P.; Optimal Surface Reconstruction from Planar Contours, in: Foley, J . (ed.), Graphics and Image Processing, Comm. ACM 20 (1977) no.10, 693-702. [GARE76a] Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S., Tarjan, R.E.; The Planar Hamiltonian Circuit Problem is NP-Complete, SIAM J . Comput. 5 (1976) 704-714.

A.6

Bibliography

[GARE79a] Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.; Computers and Intractability, A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness (W.H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco 1979). [GEOR89a] Georges, J.P.; Non-Hamiltonian Bicubic Graphs, J . Combin. Theory Ser. B 46 (1989) 121-124. [GOOD75a] Goodey, P.R.; Hamiltonian Circuits in Polytopes with Even Sided Faces, Israel J. Math. 22 (1975) no.1, 52-56. [GOUY82a] Gouyou-Beauchamps, D.; The Hamiltonian Circuit Problem is Polynomial for 4-Connected Planar Graphs, S I A M J . Comput. 11 (1982) no.3, 529-539. [GROP89a] Gropp, H.; Configurations and the Tutte Conjecture, tall; held at the Twelfth British Combin. Conf., Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, July 1989. [GROS87a] Gross, J.L., Tucker, T.W.; Topological Graph Theory (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1987). [ G R U N ~ Griinbaum, ~~] B.; Convez Polytopes; Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. XVI (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1967).

[ H A G G ~ Hiiggkvist, ~~] R.; On F-Hamiltonian Graphs, in: Bondy, J.A., Murty, U.S.R. (eds.), Graph Theory and Related Topics (Academic Press, New York, 1979) 219-231. [HAMA76a] Hamada, T., Yoshimura, I.; Traversability and Connectivity of the Middle Graph of a Graph, Discrete Math. 14 (1976) no.3, 247-255. [HARA53a] Harary, F., Uhlenbeck, G.E.; On the Number of Husimi Trees, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 39 (1953) 315-322. [HARA69a] Harary, F. ; Graph Theory (Addison-Wesley Publ., Reading, MA, 1969). [HARB89a] Harborth, H., Harborth, M.; Straight Ahead Cycles in Drawings .of Complete Graphs, to appear in Rostock Math. Kol109. [HIER73a] Hierholzer, C.; be^ die Moglichkeit, einen Linienzug ohne Wzederholung und ohne Unterbrechung zu umfahren, Math. Annalen VI (1873) 30-32.

Bibliography

A.7

[HOLT8la] Holton, D.A., Little, C.H.C.; Elegant Odd Rings and NonPlanar Graphs, in: Combinatorial Math. VIII, Geelong 1980, Lecture Notes in Math. 884 (Springer, Berlin 1981) 234-268. [HOLT85a] Holton, D.A., Manvel, B., McKay, B.D.; Hamiltonian Cycles in Cubic 3-Connected Bipartite Planar Graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 38 (1985) no.3, 279-297. [HORT82a] Horton, J.D.; On Two-Factors of Bipartite Regular Graphs, Discrete Math. 41 (1982) no.1, 35-41. [HUSI50a] Husimi, I<.; Note on Mayer's Theory of Cluster Integrals, J. Chem. Phys. 18 (1950) no.5, 682-684. [JACK87b] Jackson, B.; Compatible Euler Tours for Transition Systems in Eulerian Graphs, Discrete Math. 66 (1987) 127-131. [JACK88a] Jackson, B.; A Characterisation of Graphs Having Three Pairwise Compatible Euler Tours, preprint. [JACK88b] Jackson, B.; Supplementary Eulerian Vectors in Isotropic Systems, preprint. [JACK88c] Jackson, B., Wormald, N.C.; Cycles Containing Matchings and Pairwise Compatible Euler Tours, preprint. [JACK88d] Jackson, B.; Some Remarks on Arc-Connectivity, Vertex Splitting, and Orientation in Graphs and Digraphs, J. Graph Theory 12 (1988), no.3, 429-436. [JAEG85a] Jaeger, F.; A Survey of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture, in: Alspach, B.R., Godsil, C.D. (eds.); Cycles in Graphs, Ann. Discrete Math. 27 (1985) 1-12. [JOLI73a] Jolivet, J.-L.; Sur le joint d'une famille de graphes, Discrete Math. 5 (1973) 145-158. [JOLI75a] Jolivet, J.-L.; The Join of a Family of Graphs, in: Hajnal, A., Rado, R., S6s, V.T. (eds.), Infinite and Finite Sets, Vol.11, Colloq., Keszthely, 1973, dedicated to P. ErdGs on his 6oth birthday, Colloq. Math. Soc. J h o s Bolyai, Vol.10 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975) 935-938. [JUNG87a] Jungnickel, D.; Graphen, Netzwerke und Algorithmen (Bibliographisches Institut , Mannheim-Wien-Ziirich, 1987).

A.8

Bibliography

[KAST67a] Kasteleyn, P.W.; Graph Theory and Crystal Physics, in: Harary, F . (ed.); Graph Theory and Theoretical Physics (Academic Press, New York, 1967) 43-110. [KELM88a] Ke17mans, A.K.; Cubic Bipartite Cyclically 4- Connected Graphs Without Hamiltonian Cycles, Russian Math. Surveys 43 (1988) no.3, 205-206. [KNUT73a] Knuth, D.; The Art of Computer Programming, Vol.1, Fundamental Algorithms (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1973). [ K O N I ~ Kiinig, ~ ~ ] D.; ~ b e rGraphen und ihre Anwendung auf Determinantentheorie und Mengenlehre, Math. Ann. 77 (1916) 453-465. [ K O N I ~ Kiinig, ~ ~ ] D.; Theorie der endlichen und mendlichen Graphen (Chelsea Publ. Comp., New York, 1950, first publ. by Akad. Verlagsges., Leipzig, 1936). [KOTZ56a] Kotzig, A.; Euler Lines and Decompositions of a Regular Graph of Even Order into Two Factors of Equal Orders (in Slovak), Mat.-Fyz. &sopis. Slovensk. Akad. 6 (1956) no.3, 133-136. [KOTZ62a] Kotzig, A.; The Construction of Hamiltonian Graphs of Degree Three (Russian), &sopis PBst Mat. 87 (1962) 148-168. [KOTZ64a] Kotzig, A.; Hamilton Graphs and Hamilton Circuits, in: Theory of Graphs and its Applications, Proc. Symp. Smolenice June 1963 (Publ. House Czech. Acad. Sci., Prague, 1964) 63-82. [KOTZ64b] Kotzig, A.; Problem 20, in: Theory of Graphs and Its Applications, Proc. Symp. Smolenice June 1963 (Publ. House Czech. Acad. Sci., Prague, 1964) 62. [KOTZ68a] Kotzig, A.; Moves Without Forbidden Transitions in a Graph, Mat.-Fyz. &sopis 18 (1968) no.1, 76-80. [KOTZ68c] Kotzig, A.; Eulerian Lines in Finite 4-Valent Graphs and their Transformations, in: Erdos, P., Katona, G.; Theory of Graphs (Academic Press, New-York, 1968) 219-230. [KOTZ79a] Kotzig, A.; Proc. Tenth Southeastern Conf. on Comb., Graph Theory and Computing, Vol. 2, Problem Session, Congr. Numer. 24 (1979) 913-915.

Bibliography

A.9

[KULL80a] Kulli, V.R., Akka, D.G.; O n Semientire Graphs, J. Math. Phys. Sci. 14 (1980) 110.6, 585-588. [KUND74a] Kundu, S.; Bounds on the Number of Disjoint Spanning Trees, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 17 (1974) 199-203. [LESN77a] Lesniak, L., Polimeni, A. D., Vanderjagt, D. W.; Degree Sets and Traversability, Rend. Math. 10 (1977) 193-204. [LESN86a] Lesniak, L., Oellermann, O.R.; A n Eulerian Exposition, J . Graph Theory 10 (1986) no.3, 277-297. [LEWS72a] Lewinski, K.-H.; Graphen von Graphen, Atti Accad. Sci. Istit. Bologna C1. Sci. Fis. Rend. (12) 10, fasc.1 (1972173) 63-72. [LIST48a] Listing, J.B.; Vorstudien zur Topologie, reprinted from Gottinger Studien (1847) (Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1848). [LIUC68a] Liu, C.L.; Introduction to Combinatorial Mathematics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968).

[ L O V A ~ Lovbz, ~ ~ ] L., Plummer, M.D.; Matching Theory, Ann. Discrete Math. 29 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986). [LUCA82a] Lucas, M.E.; Re'cre'ations Matheinatiques I (GauthiersVillars et fils, Paris, 1882). [LUCA83a] Lucas, M.E.; Re'cre'ations Mathhatiques 11 (GauthiersVillars et fils, Paris, 1883). [McCU84a] McCuaig, W.; A Simple Proof of Menger's Theorem, J . Graph Theory 8 (1984) 110.3, 427-429. [McKE84a] McKee, T.A.; Recharacterizing Eulerian: Intimations of New Duality, Discrete Math. 51 (1984) 237-242. [MEND85a] Mendelsohn, E., Rosa, A.; One-Factorizations of the Cornplete Graph - A Survey, J . Graph Theory 9 (1985) no.1, 43-65. [MENG27a] Menger, K.; Zur allgemeinen Kurventheorie, Fund. Math. 10 (1927) 96-115. [MEYN73a] Meyniel, H.; Une condition sufisante d'existence d'un circuit Hamiltonien duns u n graphe orient4 J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 14 (1973) 137-147.

A. 10

Bibliography

[MITC72a] Mitchem, J.; Hamiltonian and Eulerian Properties of Entire Graphs, in: Graph Theory & Applications, Kalamazoo, Mich., 1972, Lecture Notes in Math. 103 (Springer, Berlin, 1972) 189-195. [MOON65a] Moon, J.W.; Solution to E 1667 [1964, 2051, Amer. Math. Monthly 72 (1965) 81-82. [MOOR59a] Moore, E.F.; The Shortest Path Through a Maze, Proc. Int. Sympos. Switching Theory 1957, Part. I1 (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1959) 285-292. [NASHGla] Nash-Williams, C.St.J.A.; Edge-Disjoint Spanning Trees of Finite Graphs, J . London Math. Soc. 36 (1961) 445-450. [NASH64a] Nash-Williams, C.St .J.A.; Decomposition of Finite Graphs into Forests, J. London Math. Soc. 39 (1964) 12. [NASH79a] Nash-Williams, C.St.J.A.; Acyclic Detachments of Graphs, in: Wilson, R.J. (ed.); Graph Theory and Combinatorics, Proc. Conf. Open Univ.; Milton Keynes, 1978, Res. Notes in Math. 34 (Pitman, San Francisco, 1979) 87-97. [NASH85a] Nash-Williams, C.St.J.A.; Detachments of Graphs and Generalized Euler Trails, in: Anderson, I. (ed.); Surveys in Cornbinatorics, 1985, Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Ser. 103 (Cambridge Univ. Press, London, 1985) 137-151. [NASH85b] Nash-Williams, C .St.J.A.; Connected Detachments of Graphs and Generalized Euler Trails, J. London Math. Soc. 31 (1985) no.2, 17-29. [NASH87a] Nash-Williams, C.St.J.A.; Amalgamations of Almost Regular Edge-Colourings of Simple Graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 43 (1987) 322-342. [NISH83a] Nishizeki, T., Asano, T., Watanabe, T.; A n Approximation Algorithm for the Hamiltonian Walk Problem on Maximal Planar Graphs, Discrete Appl. Math. 5 (1983) no.2, 211222. [NISH88a] Nishizeki, T., Chiba, N.; Planar Graphs: Theory and Algorithms, Ann. Discrete Math. 32 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988).

Bibliography

A.ll

[ORE062a] Ore, 0.; Theory of Graphs (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, Rhode Island, 1962). [PAPA82a] Papadimitriou, C.H., Steiglitz, K. ; Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity (Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1982). [PERU84a] Peruncic, B., Duri'c, Z.; An Eficient Algorithm for Embedding Graphs in the Projective Plane, in: Graph Theory With Applications to Algorithms and Computer Science (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1984), Wiley-Intersci. Publ. (Wiley, New 'ork, 1985) 637-650. [PETEgla] Petersen, J.; Die Theorie der regularen Graphs, Acta Math. 15 (1891), 193-220. [PET077a] Peterson, D.L.; Hamiltonian Cycles in Bipartite Plane Cubic Maps, Ph.D. thesis, Texas A& M Univ. (1977). [PET08la] Peterson, D.L.; A Note on Hamiltonian Cycles in Bipartite Plane Cubic Maps Having Connectivity 2, Discrete Math. 36 (1981) 327-332. [PETR80a] Petrenyuk, L.P., Petrenyuk, A.Y.; Intersection of Perfect 1-Factorizations of Complete Graphs, Kibernetika 1 (1980) 6-8, 149. [PLES83a] ~ l e s n i k J.; , On NP-Completeness of the Hamiltonian Cycle Problem in Bipartite Cubic Planar Graphs, Acta Math. Univ. Comenian. 42/43 (1983) 271-273. [RAOS79a] Rao, S.B., Bhat-Nayak, V.N., Naik, R.N.; Characterization of Frequency Partitions of Eulerian Graphs, in: Graph Theory, Proc. Symp., Calcutta 1976, IS1 (Indian Stat. Inst.) Lecture Notes 4 (1979) 124-137. [READ86a] Read, R.C.; A Method for Drawing a Planar Graph Given the Cyclic Order of the Edges at Each Vertex, Combinatorics & Optimization, Research Report CORR 86-14 (July 1986) Fac. of Math., Univ. of Waterloo. [REGN76a] Regner, S.; Zur Existenz einer speziellen Art von Eulerschen Linien in ebenen Graphen, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Vienna (1976).

A.12

Bibliography

[ROBB39a] Robbins, H.E.; A Theorem on Graphs with an Application to a Problem of Traffic Control, Amer. Math. Monthly 46 (1939) 281-283. [ROSS76b] Rosenstiehl, P.; Charactei-ization des graphes planaires par une diagonale alge'brique, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris SQ. A (Oct. 1976) 417-419. [SABI84a] Sabidussi, G.; Eulerian WaRs and Local Complementation, D.M.S. no.84-21, Dkp. de math. et de stat., Univ. de Montrkal, Nov. 1984, to appear in European J. Combin. [SACH86a] Sachs, H., Stiebitz, M.; 250 Jahre Graphentheorie, Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der Abhandlung Eulers uber das Konigsberger Bruckenproblem, preprint, to appear in NTM Schr. Geschichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 1/88. [SACH86b] Sachs, H., Stiebitz, M., Wilson, R.J.; Euler's Konigsberg Letters, pr eprint , Techn. Hochschule Illmenau, Illmenau, DDR. [SEAH87a] Seah, E., Stinson, D.R.; A Perfect One-Factorization for preprint . [SERD76a] Serdjukov, A.I.; Eulersche Konturen auf gemischten Graphen, Diskret. Analiz, Novosibirsk 29 (1976) 61-67. [SEYM79a] Seymour, P.D.; Sums of Circuits, in: Bondy, J.A., Murty, U.S.R. (eds.); Graph Theory and Related Topics (Academic Press, New York, 1979) 341-356. [SHAN68a] Shank, H.; A Note on Hamilton Circuits in Tree Graphs, IEEE Trans. Circuit Theory, C-T 15 (1968) 86. [SHAN75a] Shank, H.; The Theory of Left-Right Paths, in: Combinatorial Mathematics 111, Proc. Third Australian Conf., Univ. Queensland, St. Lucia, 1974; Lecture Notes in Math. 452 (Springer, Berlin-New York, 1975) 42-54. [SHAN79a] Shank, H.; Some Parity Results on Binary Vector Spaces, Ars Combin. 8 (1979) 107-108. [SHANgla] Shank, H.; Consecutive Eulerian Tree Graphs, Ars Combin. 12 (1981) 69-71.

Bibliography

A. 13

[SKIL83a] Skilton, D.K.; Eulerian Chains and Segment Reversals, in: Koh, K.M., Yap, H.P. (eds.); Graph Theory, Proc. First Southeast Graph Theory Colloq., Singapore , May 1983; Lecture Notes in Math. 1073 (Springer, Berlin-New York, 1984) 228-235. [STIN87a] Stinson, D.R., Seah, E.; A Perfect One-Factorization for preprint . [THOA78a] Thomason, Andrew G.; Hamilton Cycles and Uniquely Edge Colorable Graphs, in: Advances in Graph Theory, Proc. Conf. Cambridge 1977; Ann. Discrete Math. 3 (1978) 259-268 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978). [THOM8lb] Thomassen, C.; Kuratowski's Theorem, J. Graph Theory 5 (1981) no.3, 225-241. [THOM83a] Thomassen, C.; A Theorem o n Paths in Planar Graphs, J . Graph Theory 7 (1983) no.2, 169-176. [THOM84a] Thomassen, C.; A Refinement of Kuratowski's Theorem, J . Combin. Theory Ser. B 37 (1984) 245-253. [TILL80a] Tillson, T.W.; A Hamiltonian Decomposition of Kg,, 2m 2 8, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 29 (1980) 68-74. [TOID73a] Toida, S.; Properties of a Euler Graph, J . Franklin Inst. 295 (1973) 343-345. [TUTT4la] Tutte, W.T., Smith, C.A.B.; O n Unicursal Paths in a Network of Degree 4, Amer. Math. Monthly 48 (1941) 233-237. [TUTT56b] Tutte, W.T.; A Theorem o n Planar Graphs, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 82 (1956) 99-116. [TUTTGla] Tutte, W.T.; O n the Problem of Decomposing a Graph Into n Connected Factors, J . London Math. Soc. 142 (1961) 221-230. [TUTT7la] Tutte, W.T.; O n the 2-Factors of Bicubic Graphs, Discrete Math. 1 (1971) no.2, 203-208. [TUTT77a] Tutte, W.T.; Bridges and Hamiltonian Circuits in Planar Graphs, Aequationes Math. 15 (1977) 1-33. [TUTT8la] Tutte, W.T.; Graph Factors, Combinatorica 1 (1981) no.1, 79-97.

A. 14

Bibliography

[VEBL12a] Veblen, 0 . ; An Application of Modular Equations in Analysis Situs, Ann.of Math. (2) 14 (1912/13) 86-94. [VEBL3la] Veblen, 0 . ; Analysis Situs, Amer. Math. Soc. Colloq. Publ. 5, Part I1 (1931) 1-39. [VOKI85a] Vo, K.; Ranking and Unranking Planar Embeddings, Linear and Multilinear Algebra 18 (1985) no. 1, 35-65. [WALL69a] Wall, C.E.; Arc Digraphs and Traversability, in: The hrlany Facets of Graph Theory, Proc. Conf., Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1968, Lecture Notes in Math. 110 (Springer, Berlin, 1969) 287-290. [WELS69a] Welsh, D.J.A.; Euler and Bipartite Matroids, J. Combin. Theory 6, (1969) 375-377. [WHIT3la] Whitney, H.; A Theorem on Graphs, Ann. Math. 32 (1931) 378-390. [WHIT32a] Whitney, H.; Congruent Graphs and the Connectivity of Graphs, Amer. J. Math. 54 (1932) 150-168. [WIEG87a] Wiegers, M.; Recognizing Outerplanar Graphs in Linear Time, in: Tinhofer, G., Schmidt, G. (eds.); Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, Proc. Int. Workshop WG 1986, Bernried, FRG, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 246 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1987) 165-176. [WILS79a] Wilson, R.J., Beineke, L.W. (eds.); Applications of Graph Theory (Academic Press, London-New York,1979). [WILS85a] Wilson, R.J.; Analysis Situs, in: Alavi, Y. et al. (eds.); Graph Theory with Applications to Algorithms and Cornputer Science, Proc. Kalamazoo Conf., Kalarnazoo, klich., 1984 (Wiley Intersci. Publ., New York, 1985) 789-800. [WILS86a] Wilson, R.J.; An Eulerian Trail Through Konigsberg, J. Graph Theory 10 (1986) no.3, 265-275. [WOOD88a] Woodall, D.R.; A Proof of McKee's Eulerian-Bipartite Characterization,preprint. [XIAX84a] Xia, X.; Transformations of Directed Euler Tours, Acta Math. Appl. Sinica 7 (1984) no.1, 73-77.

Bibliography

A.15

[ZAKS82a] Zaks, J.; Non-Hamiltonian Simple Planar Graphs, -4nn. Discrete Math. 12 (1982) 255-263. [ZHAF86a] Zhang, Fu-ji; Guo, Xiao-fong; Hamilton Cycles in Euler Tour Graph, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 40 (1986) 1-8.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

INDEX

Preliminary Remark. Instead of producing a separate index of symbols, I have combined the symbols with the concepts they represent. In those few instances, where certain symbols play a role only in a smaller part of the book, they have been omitted.

B.2

K-absorption acyclic adjacency matrix, A(G), A ( D ) adjacent Ah0 almost transitional partition system, X* Arnitsur-Levitzki Theorem aneulerian trail aneulerian digraph antidirected eulerian trail antidirected hamiltonian path antiprism A-partition APP~~ A-property arc arc set arc-hamiltonian graph arc-induced subdigraph (A,) assignment problem K-associates tcx-associates T-associates &-association nl-association K,-association K*-association

association nx-association K*-association

association

T-association A-trail automorphism Avondo-Bodino

Index

VII.12 Barnette-Tutte 111.25 Conjecture (BTC) VI.112 Batagelj IV.13 ... 111.69 Beineke Vlll 111.3 Belyj VI.6 111.73 Berkowitz VI.29 Bermond 111.69 VI.161 VI. 11 Bertossi ix BEST-Theorem VI.27 VI.17 VI.17 bieulerian digraph VI. 17 bieulerian orientation VI.19 VI.17 bipartite 111.44 bipartite complement 111.44 VI.55 block 111.23 VI. 105 block-chain 111.34 VI.75 block-cut vertex graph, bc(H) 111.2'7 vii block distribution VI.46 VI. 147 block number of 111.3 a cut vertex, bn(H, v) 111.23 111.3 block number of 111.19 a graph, bn(H) 111.23 Bondy ix 111.10 bottom-up approach VI.57 111.40, VI.36 111.72 Bouchet 111.51 VII.4 boundary (topological) VII.13 boundary of a face, bd(F) 111.51 VII.48 bridge 111.23 111.64 VII.4 C-bridge VII.12 Cai VI.33 VII.24 canonically oriented digraph VI.169 111.62 VII.24 canonical orientation 111.71 VII.24 capacity of an arc, P(a) 111.71 VII.13 capacity of a network cut VII.12 capital 111.56 VII.22 2-cell embedding 111.51 VI. 120 VII.48 center of a W,-extension VI.146 111.42 Chiba 111.51 Chinese Postman vii 111.72 Chinese Postman Problem VI. 159

Index

chord 111.64 111.60 chromatic index, x'(G) chromatic number, x(G) 111.60 closed arc 111.3 closed connected surface 111.50 closed edge 111.3 closed trail 111.18 closed walk 111.18 closure (topological) 111.50 coboundary 111.8 color class 111.60 colorable 111.62 coloring 111.60 compatibility 111.40 compatibility problem viii compatibility result vii compatible trail decomposition 111.41 compatible with P(H), X 111.40 P ( H ) - , X-compatible 111.40 complement of a graph 111.35 complete bipartite 111.34 graph7 K,,, complete graph, Ii, 111.34 complete set of links VI. 100 complete symmetric 111.34 digraph, I{: complexity of algorithms 111.72, 111.73 component 111.21 connected 111.21 k-connected 111.35 connectedness 111.21 111.35 connectivity, rc(H) contractible 111.51 contracting an edge/arc 111.16 contracting vertices 111.16 111.16 contraction Hvo of H contraction of

B.3

a 1-factor L, G/L 111.50 contraction of a 2-factor Q, G/Q 111.50 convex polyhedron 111.57 Cook 111.73 cost function 111.7'2 counterclockwise cyclic ordering of edges 111.52 counterclockwise orientation 111.6'2 covering set of blocks 111.25 covering set of subgraphs 111.29 111.18 covering walk V(H)-covering walk 111.18 critical cut set IV.1-4 crosscap 111.54 cube, Q3 111.57 cubic graph 111.37 n-cut 111.23 cut condition IV. 14 cut set 111.23 cut vertex 111.23 cycle 111.18 cycle cover 111.19 cycle decomposition 111.19 cycle-double-cover conjecture viii, V.5 cyclically k-edge-connected 111.36 cyclic cut set 111.36 111.36 cyclic edge/arc cut cyclic edgeconnectivity, X,(H) 111.36 cyclic orientation 111.27 degree of a vertex, d(v) 111.4 degree of an edge, d(e) 111.7 degree sequence VII.38 detachment of a graph V.6 rc-detachment VII.12 diagonal 111.64 digon 111.61

digraph Dirac directed euler tour graph directed loop directed walk disconnected disjoint paths distance, d(x, y) dodecahedron dominating cycle dominating trail Domino problem double pyramid Double Splitting Lemma double tracing dual graph, D(G) edge k-edge-coloring k-edge-connected edge-connectivity, X(H) edge cut edge digraph, L(D) edge graph, L(G) edge-hamiltonian graph edge-induced subgraph, (E,) edge set edgelarc sequence Ellingham embeddable embedded graph embedding empty graph end-arc end-block end-edge end-vertex of a graph end-vertex of an edge epimorphism

111.3 111.67 V11-52 111.4 111.18 111.21 111.35 111.19 111.57 111.19 111.19 V.5 111.57 111.31 111.18 111.56 111.3 111.60 111.36 111.36 111.23 111.14 111.14 111.19 111.10 111.3 111.18 VI.lll 111.51 111.50 111.52 111.33 111.5 111.23 111.5 111.5 111.3 111.51

... Euler v111, . . . Euler characteristic, x ( ~ )X , F(~) 111.54 eulerian digraph 111.6 eulerian graph 111.5 eulerian orientation 111.9 eulerian trail 111.18 eulerian trail graph VII.52 Euler's Polyhedron Formula 111.54 euler tour graph VII.52 Even 111.73 even vertex 111.4 extended segment 111.18 06-extension VI.120 W4-extension VI.120 face 111.51 i-face 111.60 face-chromatic number, xF(G) 111.60 k-face-coloring 111.60 face set, F(G) 111.52, 111.54 factor 111.49 1-factor 111.43 k-factor 111.43 k-factorable 111.43 k-factorization 111.43 ... Faudree Vlll Do-favoring eulerian trail VI. 25 (a, @-feasible flow 111.71 finite graph 111.1 Five Color Theorem 111.61 flow 111.70 Ford IV.13 Ford-Nkerson Theorem 111.71 forest 111.25 Four Color Conjecture/Theorem vii Four Color Problem 111.50, 111.60 Frank vii Frink's Theorem 111.44

Index Fulkerson IV.13 Galambfalvy ix genus 111.53 geometrical dual, D(G) 111.56 Georges VI. 112 111.37 girth, g(G) n-gon 111.57 i-gonal face 111.54 Good VI.26 Goodey VI.118, . . . 111.3 graph graph-factor theory 111.49 VI. 112 G ~ ~ P P Guan vii Guo VII.52 Haken vii half-arc 111.4 half-edge 111.3 half-open arc 111.3 half-open edge 111.3 111.49 Hall harniltonian cyclelpath 111.18 hamiltonian graph 111.18 hamiltonian walk VI. 146 hamiltonicity VII.53 handle 111.52 head 111.3 head function 111.3 hexagon 111.55 Heywood 111.60 Hierholzer 11.1 Hilton VI.34 111.72 Hitchcock problem Hoffman 111.71 Hoffman's Theorem 111.71 homeomorphic 111.14 homomorphic image 111.51 homomorphism 111.51 homotopic deformation VI. 168

B.5

Hopcroft 111.73 Horton VI.lll Husimi tree V1.77 Huygens 1.2 hypergraph VII.28 hypertree VII.29 icosahedron 111.57 in-arborescence 111.25 incidence function, h 111.3 incidence matrix B(G), B(D)111.69 incident from 111.3 incident to 111.3 incident with 111.3 in-degree, id(v) 111.5 independent paths 111.35 independent set of edgeslarcs or vertices 111.43 induced A-partition, A-trail VI.151 induced (mixed) sub(di)graph 111.10 infinite graph 111.1 inner edge VI.79 interchange graph VII.53 internally-disjoint paths 111.35 intersecting transitions 111.42 intersection graph, I ( S ) 111.28 in-tree 111.25 in-tree graph VII.53 inverse arc, aR, a111.10 inverselnegative cyclic orderingofI<:,O-(u) 111.41 inverse orientation, H 111.10 irreducible K,-transformation VII.41 isolated vertex 111.5 isomorphic 111.51 Of -isomorphic 111.52 0--isomorphic 111.52 isomorphism 111.51

B.6

Index

isotropic system VI.36 Jackson vii Jaeger ix Jordan Curve Theorem 111.57 Kel'mans VI.112 Klein bottle 111.54 Konig 1.1, . . . Konigsberg Bridges Problem 1.1, 11.1 Kotzig viii, 111.40 Kronecker delta, 6i,j VII.6 Kundu's Lemma 111.39 Kuratowski's Theorem 111.54 labeled edgelarc 111.13 1.5 labyrinth left-right path VI.164 Leibniz 1.2, 11.12 length 111.18 Li VI.34 linear factor 111.42 Listing 11.23, V.2 Little ix Liu VI.161 local connectivity, K(X, y) 111.35 local edge-connectivity, Y) 111.36 loop 111.4 loopless graph 111.8 Lovasz 111.49 Lucas V.2 matching 111.43 matching theory 111.49 matroid IV.8 maximal flow problem 111.71 maximal matching 111.43 maximum degree, A (H) 111.4 maze 111.74 McKee IV.3 Menger's Theorem 111.35

Meyniel's Theorem 111.69 minimal cut set 111.23 minimum cut set 111.23 minimum degree, S ( H ) 111.4 mixed cut 111.23 mixed graph 111.3 Moon VI.117 Moore 111.74 multidigraph 111.8 multigraph 111.8 multiple arc 111.7 multiple edge 111.7 multiplicity, X(e) 111.7 Music is Nash-Williams ix, 111.38, V.5 natural 1-factorization 111.61 neighbor 111.6 neighborhood, N ( v ) 111.6 neighbor in O+(v) 111.41 network 111.71 network cut 111.71 Nishizeki VI.146 node 11.23 non-intersecting eulerian trail 111.42 non-intersecting transitions 111.42 non-orientable genus of a graph, ?(G) 111.53 non-orientable genus of a surface, Y ( 3 ) 111.54 nonseparable 111.23 non-separating A-trail VI.108 NP-complete, NPC 111.73 number of components, c(G) 111.22 octahedral extension, 0,-extension VI. 120 octahedron, o6 111.57 odd vertex 111.4 open arc 111.3 open edge 111.3

B.7

Index

open trail open walk order of H, p~ Ore Ore's Theorem orientable genus of a graph7 y(G) orientable genus of a surface, y ( 3 ) orientable loop orientation oriented loop orthogonal orthogonal complement out-arborescence out-degree, od(v) outer (unbounded) face outerplanar graph outerplane graph out-tree P (the good guys) parallel class of cycles partial orientation (partial) partition system at v, P ( v ) (partial) partition system of H , P(H) (partial) transition system a t v, X(v) (partial) transition system of H , X ( H ) path pathlcycle decomposition pentagon pentagram perfect A-partition perfect matching Petersen Petersen graph

111.18 111.18 111.4 111.67 111.67

111.40

Pisanski IV.13 planar graph 111.51 plane 111.51 plane graph 111.51 platonic solids 111.57 Plummer ix polyhedron 111.57 positive cyclic ordering of I($, O+(v) 111.41 postman tour 1.5 potential 111.70 potential difference 111.70 prism VI.38 projective plane 111.54 pyramid, n-sided, W, 111.57 quadrangle 111.61 Rademacher 111.57 radial graph, R(G) 111.57 Read 111.73 reduced digraph, Dred 111.28 reducible K,-transformation VII.41 Regner viii, VI regular (di)graph 111.6 k-regular graph 111.6 regulating set VI.129 restricted eulerian trail graph VII.52 restricted maximal 111.72 flow problem restriction of a transition

111.40 111.18 111.19 VI.23 VI.23 VI.76 111.43 111.45 111.46

reversal of a segment VII.3 reverse orientation, HR 111.10 root 111.25 Rosa VI.48 rotational embedding scheme 111.41 Ruppert VII.47 .. Sabidussi v11,. . . Sabidussi's conjecture vii Schelp viii

111.53 111.54 111.13 111.9 111.4 111.40 111.70 111.25 111.5 VI.77 111.51 111.52 111.25 111.73 111.19 111.9 111.40 111.40

Xls,XI~

111.41

B.8

Index

section 111.18 segment 111.18 VII.3 segment reversal self-dual 111.56 VI.108 separating A-trail separating cycle 111.58 separating vertex/edge/arc set 111.23 sequence of edges/arcs/vertices 111.18 Serdjukov IV.19 set of all eulerian trails, I ( G ) VII.4 set of all open covering trails of G7 %(G) VII.7 set of arcs, A 111.3 set of edges, E 111.3 set of loops, A,, A(H) 111.4 111.3 set of vertices, V V.5 Seymour Shank IV.6 simple (mixed) (di)graph 111.8 sink 111.6 size of H, q~ 111.4 1-skeleton 111.57 111.6 source spanning 111.10 spanning (in-/out-) tree rooted at v 111.25 spanning subgraph 111.10 spanning tree 111.25 splitting away edges/arcs 111.16 111.29 Splitting Lemma splitting operation 111.16 splitting procedure 111.16 6-splitting VI.73 1-splitting VI.74 2-splitting V1.74 star 111.62 n-stax, K1,, 111.62

Steinitz Streckenkomplex strongly connected strongly connected component subdigraph subdividing an edge subdivision subdivision (mixed) graph, S ( H ) subgraph subspace, R,, R+ supergraph suppressing a 2-valent vertex suppression surface tail tail function Tait's Conjecture Tait7sEquivalence Theorem Tarry tension terminal cycle tetrahedron, K4 T-even Thomason Thomassen Three-Face-Coloring Theorem tie-up T-odd Toida top-down approach topological graph theory toroidal graph torus totally disjoint paths trail

Index

trail decomposition 111.19 6-transformation VII .3 tcl-transformation VII.12 6,-transformation VII.24 K~-transformation VII.24 /cNI-transformation VII.24 K*-transformation VII.12 T-transformation VII.47 transition 111.40 transition system, X ( H ) 111.40 transportation problem 111.72 tree 111.25 tree graph VII.52 Tr6maux V.5 triangulation of an n-gon 111.57 triangulation of a surface 111.57 triangulation of the plane 111.57 trivial cut set IV. 14 trivial digraph 111.28 trivial graph 111.33 trivial path 111.19 Tutte 111.49 Tutte cycle 111.19 Tutte's "Bridge Theorem" 111.65 Two-Face-Coloring Theorem 111.62 Ullman 111.73 unbounded face, F, 111.58 underlying graph 111.9 unicolored face-ring VI.100 unicyclic graph 111.27 uniquely embeddable 111.52 unlabeled graph VI.154 valency of a vertex, d(v) 111.4 i-valent vertex 111.5 value of a network cut 111.71 Veblen 11.26 vertex 111.3 vertex-coloring 111.60 k-vertex-coloring 111.60

B.9

vertex cut 111.23 vertex-induced subgraph, (V,) 111.10 vertex of attachment 111.64 vertex of C-attachment 111.64 vertex set 111.3 walk, W(vo,vn) 111.18 weak dual VI.162 weak W,-extension VI.127 weakly connected 111.21 weakly connected component 111.21 Welsh IV.8 wheel 111.57 n-wheel, Wn 111.57 Whitney 111.52 Wiener 11.23 Wilson viii Wormald VI.57 Xia VII.47 Zhang VII.52