Exam Example
Exam Example
Solution
(b) Both G and Ḡ are 2-regular so they have 5 vertices, so are C5 .
(c) Disproof: The disjoint union of two cycles is not a cycle, but is 2-regular.
Solution
(b) Girth 5.
(d) Assume it contains a C10 . Each vertex has one more edge than is used
in the cycle, and as the girth is 5, the last edge from a vertex v must go to a
vertex at distance 4or5 from v in the C10 . If it goes to a vertex at distance
4, then that vertex ‘has distance 6 around the other side of the cycle’ so
makes a C7 , which we just showed doesn’t exist. So it goes to the vertex at
distance 5 around the cycle. As this is for all vertice in the C10 we get a C4 ,
contradicting the fact that the girth of the graph is 5. So by contradiction,
the petersen graph has no C10 .
Solution
(a) Non-graphic: 10 > 2 + 1 + 1
(b) Non-graphic: Degree sum is odd.
(c) Graphic by Havel-Hakimi.
(6, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1) → (0, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1) → (0, 0, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1)
→ (0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1) = (2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)
→ (0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0) → (0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)
→ (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
Solution
(a) Such a tournament cannot have even n as then the total degree is odd.
If n is odd, where the vertices are labelled 1, 2, . . . , n let i have arcs out to
i + 1, i + 2, . . . , i + (n − 1)/2 modulo n.
(b) Make a new graph G∗ from G by adding a new vertex v ∗ adjacent to each
vertex of G of odd degree. Every vertex of G∗ has even degree, so it has an
Euler cycle. Orient the edges so that this is a directed cycle. This orients
the edges of G∗ so that every vertex has the same in-degree and out-degree.
Removing the vertex v ∗ reduces either the indegree or outdegree of any vertex
by at most 1. So what remains is an orientation of the edges of G such that
the indegree and outdegree of any vertex differ by at most 1.
Solution
(a) A set of edges no two of which share a vertex.
(b) A spanning matching.
(c) n/2 if n is even, (n − 1)/2 if n is odd.
(d) Proof: Consider two perfect matchings of G. Their symmetric difference
is a union of cycles in G. But G is a tree, so their symmetric difference must
be empty, which means they are the same.
(e) Assume that M is a maximum matching in G and that M 0 is a matching
with less than σ 0 (G)/2 edges. An edge of M 0 can share vertices with at most
two edges of M , so there is some edge of M that shares no vertices with any
edge of M 0 . So M 0 is not maximal.
Solution
(a) A perfect matching.
(b) Let S be the set of three outer vertices of the big triangle. As |S| = 3
and o(G \ S) = 4, we have by Tutte’s theorem that the graph has no perfect
matching.
Solution
(a) A graph in which every vertex has degree k.
(b) For any set S of vertices on the X side of the graph, there are k|S| edges
leaving S, any vertex can be the other endpoint of at most k of these edges,
so |N (S)| ≥ |S|. Thus by Hall’s Theorem there is matching that saturates
X. As X and Y have the same number of edges, k-regularity implies that
they are the same size, so the matching also saturates Y .
(c) If 3-regular G decomposes into copies of P4 , there are n/2 such copies as
G has 3n/2 edges, and each copy has 3. Neither of the middle vertices in one
copy can be a middle vertex in another copy, as the vertex has degree 2 in
each copy. So the middle edge of each copy of P4 makes up a 1-factor.
Assume, on the other hand that G has a 1-factor F . Removing F leaves a
2-regular subgraph, which must be the union of disjoint cycles. Direct each
cycle. For every edge e of F let Pe be the copy of P4 we consising of e and
the edges out of its endpoints. This is a decomposition of G into copies of P4 .