Discrete Mathematics 49 (1984) 7-13 7

North-Holland

A NOTE ON TOTAL DOMINATION

Robert B. A L L A N * , Renu L A S K A R ¢ and Stephen H E D E T N I E M I t

Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29631, USA

Received 6 March 1981

Revised 16 June 1983

For a graph G, let ~'(G), 3,z(G), i(G) and ir(G) denote the domination, total domination,
independent domination and irredundance numbers of G, respectively. The following conjec-
tures due to Robyn Dawes are proved:
(i) ~'(G)+3,,(G)<~p and
(ii) i(G)+ ~/z(G)~<p, where IV(G)I= p > 2 .
It is also shown that
(iii) 3,t(G) ~<2ir(G) and
(iv) 3'(G) ~<2ir(G) - (k + 1).
where k is the maximum number of isolates in an Jr(G) set. This last result improves the result,
obtained independently by Boll6bas and Cockayne [6], Allan and Laskar [2].

1. Introduction

A vertex in a graph G = (V, E ) is said to dominate every vertex adjacent to it.

A set D of vertices in G is a dominating set if every vertex in V - D is dominated
by at least one vertex in D. Dominating sets were defined by Berge [4] (where
they are called externally stable sets) and Ore [16] and have been receiving
increased attention recently. For a survey of results on dominating sets see [7, 15].
A well-known problem involving dominating sets (often called the Five Queens
Problem) is to determine the smallest number of queens which can be placed on a
chessboard so that every square is dominated by at least one queen. This problem,
which dates at least back to 1892 (cf. Ball [3]), and the related Eight Queens
Problem have been examined independently by many people, including Schuh
[17], Kraitchik [14], Ball [3], de Jaenisch [12], K6nig [13], Ahrens [1], Dudenay
[10] and more recently Berge [5]. Among the many solutions to this problem, the
two in Fig. 1 are particularly interesting. In the first solution (Fig. la) no queen is
dominated by any other queen, while in the second solution (Fig. lb) the opposite
is essentially true, every queen is dominated by at least one other queen. The
second solution suggests the following definition: a set T of vertices in G is a total
dominating set if every vertex in V is dominated by at least one vertex in T. Total
dominating sets were first defined and studied by Cockayne, Dawes and Hedet-
niemi [8]. In addition to several new results involving total domination, this note
contains several new inequalities for the domination number of a graph.
* Present address: University of North Alabama, Florence, Alabama.
t Research partly supported by NSF EPSCoR.

0012-365X/84/$3.00 © 1984, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

8 R.B. Allan, R. Laskar, S. Hedetniemi

Q Q
Q
Q Q
~Q Q
Q Q

Q
b

Fig. 1

2. Deflmltioas

W e consider graphs G = (V, E ) which are finite, undirected, loopless and have
no multiple edges. A n y definitions not given here can be found in [5].
Define the (open) neighborhood N(u) of a vertex to be the set of vertices
adjacent to v, i.e. N(u) = {w [ (v, w) ~ E}; note that v~ N(u). The closed neighbor-
hood of v is the set N[v]=N(v)U{v}. A set D ~ _ V is a dominating set if
V v ~ V - D , N ( v ) N D ~ f J . A set T ~ _ V is a total dominating set if V v ~ V ,
N ( v ) A T ~ f ~ . A set S _ V is an independent set if no two vertices in S are
adjacent; while a set F~_E of edges is independent if no two edges in F have a
vertex in common. A set S _ V is irredundant if for every v ~ S , N [ v ] ~
U~,~-~/V[w].
In what follows we will consider relationships a m o n g the following p a r a m e t e r s
of a graph G :
it(G), the irredundance number of G, is the minimum n u m b e r of vertices in a
maximal irredundant set of G.
3,(G), the domination number of G, is the m i n i m u m n u m b e r of vertices in a
dominating set of (3.
3,t(G), the total domination number of (3, is the m i n i m u m n u m b e r of vertices in
a total dominating set of G.
i(G), the independent domination number of G, is the minimum n u m b e r of
vertices in an independent dominating set (equivalently, in a maximal indepen-
dent set) of G.
/3o(G), the independence number of G, is the m a x i m u m n u m b e r of vertices in an
independent set of G.
ot0(G), the vertex covering number of G, is the m i n i m u m n u m b e r of vertices in a
set S such that every edge has at least one vertex in S.
/31(G), the matching number of G, is the m a x i m u m n u m b e r of edges in an
independent set.
/3~(G), the minimum matching number of G, is the minimum n u m b e r of edges
in a maximal independent set.
In the following discussion we will abbreviate these p a r a m e t e r s as i = i(G),
/30 =/30(G), 3' = 3,(G), etc. W e will also denote a set S as a 3,-set, if S is a
dominating set with ISI = 3'. Similarly /r-set, /3o-set, etc. will be denoted.
 A note on total domination 9

3. Total domination

In the only paper published to date on the subject, Cockayne, Dawes and
Hedetniemi [8] defined the total domination number and showed among other
things that:
(i) if G is a connected graph with p vertices, then

(ii) if G has p vertices, maximum degree A = A(G), and no isolates, then

3",~p--A+I;

(iii) if G is connected and A < p - 1, then 7, ~<p - d ;

(iv) if G has p vertices, no isolates and A < p - 1 , then 3",+~,~<p+2, with
equality if and only if G or Cr=mK2, where ~/, =3",(G), and G denotes the
complement of G ; and
(v) if G has p vertices and no isolates, then

i <~p + 1 - [(p - 3",)/3",]- ½3',

Thus Cockayne, Dawes and Hedetniemi [8] related the total domination
number, 3',, to the number of vertices p, the maximum degree A and the
independent domination number, i, of a graph G. In this paper we related 3", to %
i, /3i and it. W e also establish a new inequality between 3' and Jr.

4. New bounds for total domination

T h e following results are known:

a0+/30 = p, [11] (i)
ir<~3"<~i<~[3o, [7] (2)
3" ~<a0. (3)
It is easy to establish the following:

3" ~< 3", ~<23", (4)

and
if 3', = 23", then 3' = i. (5)
In view of (2), (3) and (4) it is natural to ask: What relationships, if any, exist
between i, a0 and 3",? T h e graphs in Fig. 2 show that no particular inequality
holds between any pair of these parameters. However, the following proposition
follows immediately from (1), (2) and (3).

Proposition 1. For any graph G without isolates,

3"+ i ~ p . (6)
10 R.B. Allan, R. Laskar, S. Hedetniemi

(o~ (hi (¢)

X a0 i "/t
(o) z 3 5 4

(b) 4 4 5 6

(c) i 4 I 2

Fig. 2

On the basis of (6), R o b y n D a w e s [9] p r o p o s e d the following

Con]me. For any connected graph G = ( V , E), with IVl>2

(i) v+v,~p, . (7)
and
(ii) i + 3', ~<P (8)
N o t e that (7) might hold even if (8) does not; however, if (8) holds then (7) holds.
W e present a proof of (8).

T h e o r e m 1. I f G = (V, E ) is a graph with IVI = p such that each component has at

least 3 vertices, then i + 3', <~P.

lhrooL Select f r o m all v-sets a ~/-set V' which has a m i n i m u m number, say k, of
isolated vertices in its induced subgraph <V'). Let V" denote the isolated vertices
of <V'). Note that IV"I = k. Now if V " = ~, then 3' = % and further, since i + 3' ~<P
by (6), we have our result.

Hence, without loss of generality assume that V" ~ ¢. W e m a y also assume that
d e g v ~ > 2 for each v e V " , since if d e g v = l for s o m e v e V " , then we can
exchange it for the one vertex adjacent to u which by hypothesis must have
degree t>2. (The new V' obtained by this exchange would still be a dominating set
of cardinality -y and hence the vertex that v was exchanged for would still be
isolated in the subgraph induced by the new V'; otherwise, we would contradict
the minimality of k).
W e claim that for each v ~ V ' , there exists a w ~ V - V ' such that,
N(w~) fq V' = {v}. If v e V ' - V", since N ( v ) N V' ~ (J, and V' is a m i n i m u m
dominating set, such a w~ is guaranteed. On the other hand, if u ~ V", we know
there exists a w e V - V ' , such that N ( w ) N V' contains v. If for all such w,
 A n o t e o n total d o m i n a t i o n 11

N ( w ) fq V' contains another vertex v ' # v, u ' ~ V ' then take a new v to be any
vertex adjacent to v which contradicts the minimality of V". Let W = Uv~v, {w,}
and note that Iwl= Iv'l-- 3". Also, for each v ~ V", IN(v)[>~2 and N ( v ) n V ' = ¢ .
Therefore, for each v ~ V" we pick u~ ~ N ( v ) - W and let U = U ~ v , , {u~}. Note
that [UI = l ~< k, U n W = ~ and U n v ' = ¢. Also v ' t_l u is a total dominating
set, hence 3', ~<lV't_J U[ =3" + I. Now extend V" to a maximal independent set of
(3, denoted L Notice that i ~<[I[ and that for each v ~ V', both v and w, cannot be
contained in /, since v w , ~ E . Therefore, it follows that there exists a set
W ' ~ ( W U V ' ) such that Iw'l=3" and W'tqI=~J. Also u n I = ( J and hence
i + 3", <---111+3"+1
=lIl+lw'l+luI
= lIt_J w ' u u l ~ l v l = p.
T h e next result improves the inequality 3", ~<23" given in (4).

Theorem 2. For any connected graph G, 3"t<~2ir.

Proof. Let S = {Vl, v2. . . . . v,,} be an it-set. Since S is an irredundant set,

~r[~,]~ t3 N[~i] w,~s.

Let

/V~ = N [ v ~ ] - U N[uj] for i = 1, 2 . . . . . m.

Since / V ~ o, let ui E/V~ and let S ' = S U { u l , u2. . . . . u~}. N o t e that IS'l~2ir. W e
claim that S' is a dominating set. Suppose not, then let w ~ V - S' and N ( w ) fq S' =
O- Thus in particular

N[w]¢ U N[vi] (9)

t,~E S

Consider S U { w } = S t . Let x e S 1 . If x = w then by (9), N[w]¢U~,~sN[vi]. If

x = vi ~ S, then there exists u~ such that, u~ ~ Ni, and since w ~ N[u~], for all i, we
have ui e N [ v i ] - U N[v]. Therefore, for all vi ~ S,
ueSa
v~vt

N[~,]¢ U /v[~]. (10)

t, ESl--ul

Thus S t_J{w} = $1 is an irredundant set. But this contradicts the maximality of

S. T h e r e f o r e S' is a dominating set with cardinality <~2ir. H v~ is an isolate in S,
then select u~ ~/V~ such that ~ ~ v~, such a u~ exists as G is connected. Thus, a total
dominating set S" can be constructed such that (S") does not contain any isolates,
and consequently 3', ~<2ir.
12 R.B. Allan, R. Laskar, S. Hedetnierni

I 4 7
".. ,/,.., ,/
2 3 5 6

( 5 , 5 ) Ill on Ir-set ond ( 2 , 5 , 5 , 6 ) is on 3"t - s e t

Fig. 3

T h e b o u n d in T h e o r e m 2 is best possible as s h o w n in the graph of Fig. 3. O u r

final b o u n d relates 3', with m i n i m u m maximal matchings.

Proposition 2. For any connected graph G with Iv[ >t2 vertices, 3", ~ 213-~.

P r o o | . Let M be a set o f / 3 ~ edges that f o r m a m i n i m u m maximal matching. L e t

VM be the set of vertices in M. T h e n VM is a total d o m i n a t i n g set, since every
vertex not in VM must be adjacent to a vertex in VM and every vertex in VM is
adjacent to a n o t h e r vertex in VM. Since VM has 2/3i vertices, the inequality is
immediate.

5. A n e w bound for the domination number

T h e following inequality was i n d e p e n d e n t l y o b t a i n e d by Bollobas and C o c -

k a y n e [6], Allan and L a s k a r [2]:

3,<~2ir-1. (11)

Using an a r g u m e n t very similar to the o n e used to p r o v e T h e o r e m 2, we can n o w

i m p r o v e this inequality.

T h e o r e m 3. Let S be an Jr-set, and let the subgraph (S) induced by S have k

isolated vertices. Then 3"(G) <-2Jr(G)- (k + 1).
P r o o f . Let S = { v l , v2 . . . . . Vk, Vk+l . . . . . V,,} be an it-set with k isolates
{Vl, v2 . . . . . vk}. A s before, let

N, = N [ v , ] - I..J N [ v j ] ~ O.

Let u~ ~ Ni for i = 1, 2 . . . . . m, w h e r e u~ = vi for i = 1, 2 . . . . . k. C o n s i d e r the set

S' ={Vl, v2 . . . . . Vk+x, v~+2 . . . . . v,,, Uk+l. . . . . U,,,}. A s in the p r o o f of T h e o r e m 2,
S' is a d o m i n a t i n g set and [S'[ = 2 i t - k . But S' is not a m i n i m u m d o m i n a t i n g set,
since it p r o p e r l y contains a maximal i r r e d u n d a n t set. T h e r e f o r e , 3 " ( G ) <~
2Jr- (k + 1).

N o t e . If S is an i n d e p e n d e n t set, then S is an irredundant set.

 A note on total domination 13

I ~ o l m s i l i o n 4. I f S is a n it-set, a n d S is i n d e p e n d e n t then ir = V = i.

l~roo|. C l e a r l y S is a d o m i n a t i n g set; t h e r e f o r e , V <~ it, a n d ~ = i. B u t ir <~ ~ b y (1).

H e n c e , ir = "y = i.

Reterences

[1] W. Ahrens, Mathematische Unterhaltung und Spiele. II (Leipzig, 1901, 1918).

[2] R.B. Allan and R. Laskar, On domination and some related topics in graph theory, Proc. Ninth
S.E. Conf. on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing (Utilitas Math., Winnipeg,
1978) 43-58.
[3] W.W. Rouse Ball, Mathematical Recreations and Problems of Past and Present Times (MacMil-
lan, London, 1892).
[4] C. Berge, The Theory of Graphs and its Applications (Dunod, Paris, 1958 and Methuen,
London, 1962).
[5] C. Berge, Graphs and Hypergraphs (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975).
[6] B. Boll6bas and E.J. Cockayne, Graph-theoretic parameters concerning domination, indepen-
dence and irredundance, J. Graph Theory 3 (1979), 241-249.
[7] E.J. Cockayne and S.T. Hedetniemi, Towards a theory of domination in Graphs, Networks
(1977) 247-261.
[8] E.J. Cockayne, R. Dawes and S.T. Hedetniemi, Total domination in graphs, Networks 10 (1980)
211-215.
[9] Robyn Dawes, private communication.
[10] Henry E. Dudenay, Amusements in Mathematics (Thomas Nelson, London, 1907).
[11] T. Gallai, 0ber extreme Punkt- und Kantenmengen, Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest, F,otvSs Sect.
Math. 2 (1959) 133-138.
[12] C.F. de Jaenisch, Applications de l'Analyse Mathematique au Ju des Echecs (Petrograd, 1962).
[13] Denes KiSnig,Theorie der endlichen and unendlichen graphen (Leipzig, 1936 and Chelsea,
1954).
[14] Maurice Kraitchig, Mathematical Recreations (Dover, New York, 1953).
[15] R. Laskar and H.B. Walikar, On domination related concepts in Graph Theory, Lecture Notes in
Math. 885 (1980) 308-320.
[16] O. Ore, Theory of Graphs, Amer. Math. Soc. Colloq. Publ. 38 (AMS, Providence, RI, 1962).
[17] Fred Schuh, The Master Book of Mathematical Recreations (Dover, New York, 1969).