Lecture Notes On Graph Theory

Lecture Notes on
GRAPH THEORY
Tero Harju
Department of Mathematics
University of Turku
FIN-20014 Turku, Finland
1994 – 2012
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1 Graphs and their plane figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Subgraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Paths and cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Connectivity of Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1 Bipartite graphs and trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3 Tours and Matchings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.1 Eulerian graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 Hamiltonian graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Matchings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4 Colourings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.1 Edge colourings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 Ramsey Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.3 Vertex colourings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5 Graphs on Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.1 Planar graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.2 Colouring planar graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.3 Genus of a graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6 Directed Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.1 Digraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.2 Network Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
1
Introduction
Graph theory may be said to have its beginning in
1736 when EULER considered the (general case of the)
Königsberg bridge problem: Does there exist a walk
crossing each of the seven bridges of Königsberg exactly
once? (Solutio Problematis ad geometriam situs perti-
nentis, Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis
Petropolitanae 8 (1736), pp. 128-140.)
It took 200 years before the first book on graph theory was written. This was “Theorie
der endlichen und unendlichen Graphen” ( Teubner, Leipzig, 1936) by KÖNIG in 1936. Since
then graph theory has developed into an extensive and popular branch of mathematics,
which has been applied to many problems in mathematics, computer science, and other
scientific and not-so-scientific areas. For the history of early graph theory, see
N.L. BIGGS, R.J. LLOYD AND R.J. WILSON, “Graph Theory 1736 – 1936”, Clarendon Press,
1986.
There are no standard notations for graph theoretical objects. This is natural, because the
names one uses for the objects reflect the applications. Thus, for instance, if we consider a
communications network (say, for email) as a graph, then the computers taking part in this
network, are called nodes rather than vertices or points. On the other hand, other names are
used for molecular structures in chemistry, flow charts in programming, human relations in
social sciences, and so on.
These lectures study finite graphs and majority of the topics is included in
J.A. B ONDY, U.S.R. MURTY, “Graph Theory with Applications”, Macmillan, 1978.
R. DIESTEL, “Graph Theory”, Springer-Verlag, 1997.
F. HARARY, “Graph Theory”, Addison-Wesley, 1969.
D.B. WEST, “Introduction to Graph Theory”, Prentice Hall, 1996.
R.J. WILSON, “Introduction to Graph Theory”, Longman, (3rd ed.) 1985.
In these lectures we study combinatorial aspects of graphs. For more algebraic topics and
methods, see
N. BIGGS, “Algebraic Graph Theory”, Cambridge University Press, (2nd ed.) 1993.
C. GODSIL, G.F. ROYLE, “Algebraic Graph Theory”, Springer, 2001.
and for computational aspects, see
S. EVEN, “Graph Algorithms”, Computer Science Press, 1979.
3
In these lecture notes we mention several open problems that have gained respect among
the researchers. Indeed, graph theory has the advantage that it contains easily formulated
open problems that can be stated early in the theory. Finding a solution to any one of these
problems is another matter.
Sections with a star (∗) in their heading are optional.
Notations and notions
• For a finite set X , |X | denotes its size (cardinality, the number of its elements).
• Let
[1, n] = {1, 2, . . . , n},
and in general,
[i, n] = {i, i + 1, . . . , n}
for integers i ≤ n.
• For a real number x, the floor and the ceiling of x are the integers
⌊x⌋ = max{k ∈ Z | k ≤ x} and ⌈x⌉ = min{k ∈ Z | x ≤ k}.
• A family {X 1 , X 2 , . . . , X k } of subsets X i ⊆ X of a set X is a partition of X , if

[
X= X i and X i ∩ X j = ; for all different i and j .
i∈[1,k]
• For two sets X and Y ,

X × Y = {(x, y) | x ∈ X , y ∈ Y }
is their Cartesian product, and
X △Y = (X \ Y ) ∪ (Y \ X )
is their symmetric difference. Here X \ Y = {x | x ∈ X , x ∈ / Y }.

• Two integers n, k ∈ N (often n = |X | and k = |Y | for sets X and Y ) have the same parity,
if both are even, or both are odd, that is, if n ≡ k (mod 2). Otherwise, they have opposite
parity.
Graph theory has abundant examples of N P-complete problems. Intuitively, a problem

is in P 1 if there is an efficient (practical) algorithm to find a solution to it. On the other hand,
a problem is in N P 2 , if it is first efficient to guess a solution and then efficient to check that
this solution is correct. It is conjectured (and not known) that P 6= N P. This is one of the
great problems in modern mathematics and theoretical computer science. If the guessing
part in N P-problems can be replaced by an efficient systematic search for a solution, then
P = N P. For any one N P-complete problem, if it is in P, then necessarily P = N P.
1
Solvable – by an algorithm – in polynomially many steps on the size of the problem instances.
2
Solvable nondeterministically in polynomially many steps on the size of the problem instances.
1.1 Graphs and their plane figures 4
1.1 Graphs and their plane figures
Let V be a finite set, and denote by
E(V ) = {{u, v} | u, v ∈ V, u 6= v} .
the 2-sets of V , i.e., subsets of two distinct elements.
DEFINITION. A pair G = (V, E) with E ⊆ E(V ) is called a graph (on V ). The elements of V
are the vertices of G, and those of E the edges of G. The vertex set of a graph G is denoted
by VG and its edge set by EG . Therefore G = (VG , EG ).
In literature, graphs are also called simple graphs; vertices are called nodes or points;
edges are called lines or links. The list of alternatives is long (but still finite).
A pair {u, v} is usually written simply as uv. Notice that then uv = vu. In order to simplify
notations, we also write v ∈ G and e ∈ G instead of v ∈ VG and e ∈ EG .
DEFINITION. For a graph G, we denote
νG = |VG | and ǫG = |EG | .
The number νG of the vertices is called the order of G, and ǫG is the size of G. For an edge
e = uv ∈ G, the vertices u and v are its ends. Vertices u and v are adjacent or neighbours,
if uv ∈ G. Two edges e1 = uv and e2 = uw having a common end, are adjacent with each
other.
A graph G can be represented as a plane figure by drawing a line v1 v3 v6

(or a curve) between the points u and v (representing vertices)
if e = uv is an edge of G. The figure on the right is a geometric
representation of the graph G with VG = {v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 , v5 , v6 } and
v2 v4 v5
EG = {v1 v2 , v1 v3 , v2 v3 , v2 v4 , v5 v6 }.
Often we shall omit the identities (names v) of the vertices in our figures, in which case
the vertices are drawn as anonymous circles.
Graphs can be generalized by allowing loops v v and parallel (or multiple) edges be-
tween vertices to obtain a multigraph G = (V, E, ψ), where E = {e1 , e2 , . . . , em } is a set (of
symbols), and ψ: E → E(V ) ∪ {v v | v ∈ V } is a function that attaches an unordered pair of
vertices to each e ∈ E: ψ(e) = uv.
Note that we can have ψ(e1 ) = ψ(e2 ). This is drawn in the figure of b
G by placing two (parallel) edges that connect the common ends.
On the right there is (a drawing of) a multigraph G with vertices
V = {a, b, c} and edges ψ(e1 ) = aa, ψ(e2 ) = a b, ψ(e3 ) = bc, and a c
ψ(e4 ) = bc.
Later we concentrate on (simple) graphs.
DEFINITION. We also study directed graphs or digraphs D =

(V, E), where the edges have a direction, that is, the edges are
ordered: E ⊆ V × V . In this case, uv 6= vu.
The directed graphs have representations, where the edges are drawn as arrows. A di-
graph can contain edges uv and vu of opposite directions.
Graphs and digraphs can also be coloured, labelled, and weighted:
DEFINITION. A function α: VG → K is a vertex colouring of G by a set K of colours. A

function α: EG → K is an edge colouring of G. Usually, K = [1, k] for some k ≥ 1.
If K ⊆ R (often K ⊆ N), then α is a weight function or a distance function.
Isomorphism of graphs
DEFINITION. Two graphs G and H are isomorphic, denoted by G ∼
= H, if there exists a
bijection α: VG → VH such that
uv ∈ EG ⇐⇒ α(u)α(v) ∈ EH
for all u, v ∈ G.
Hence G and H are isomorphic if the vertices of H are renamings of those of G. Two
isomorphic graphs enjoy the same graph theoretical properties, and they are often identified.
In particular, all isomorphic graphs have the same plane figures (excepting the identities of
the vertices). This shows in the figures, where we tend to replace the vertices by small
circles, and talk of ‘the graph’ although there are, in fact, infinitely many such graphs.
v2 v3 2 4
Example 1.1. The following graphs are isomor-
phic. Indeed, the required isomorphism is given by v5 1
v1 7→ 1, v2 7→ 3, v3 7→ 4, v4 7→ 2, v5 7→ 5.
v1 v4 3 5
Isomorphism Problem. Does there exist an efficient algorithm to check whether any two given
graphs are isomorphic or not?
n
The following table lists the number 2(2) of all graphs on a given set of n vertices, and the
number of all nonisomorphic graphs on n vertices. It tells that at least for computational
purposes an efficient algorithm for checking whether two graphs are isomorphic or not
would be greatly appreciated.
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
graphs 1 2 8 64 1024 32 768 2 097 152 268 435 456 236 > 6 · 1010
nonisomorphic 1 2 4 11 34 156 1044 12 346 274 668
Other representations
Plane figures catch graphs for our eyes, but if a problem on graphs is to be programmed, then
these figures are, to say the least, unsuitable. Integer matrices are ideal for computers, since
every respectable programming language has array structures for these, and computers are
good in crunching numbers.
Let VG = {v1 , . . . , vn } be ordered. The adjacency matrix of  
0 1 1 0 1
G is the n × n-matrix M with entries Mi j = 1 or Mi j = 0 1 0 0 1 1
according to whether vi v j ∈ G or vi v j ∈/ G. For instance, the  
1 0 0 1 0
graph in Example 1.1 has an adjacency matrix on the right. 0 1 1 0 0
Notice that the adjacency matrix is always symmetric (with 1 1 0 0 0
respect to its diagonal consisting of zeros).
A graph has usually many different adjacency matrices, one for each ordering of its set
VG of vertices. The following result is obvious from the definitions.
Theorem 1.1. Two graphs G and H are isomorphic if and only if they have a common adjacency
matrix. Moreover, two isomorphic graphs have exactly the same set of adjacency matrices.
Graphs can also be represented by sets. For this, let X = {X 1 , X 2 , . . . , X n } be a family

of subsets of a set X , and define the intersection graph GX as the graph with vertices
X 1 , . . . , X n , and edges X i X j for all i and j (i 6= j) with X i ∩ X j 6= ;.
Theorem 1.2. Every graph is an intersection graph of some family of subsets.
Proof. Let G be a graph, and define, for all v ∈ G, a set
X v = {{v, u} | vu ∈ G}.
Then X u ∩ X v 6= ; if and only if uv ∈ G. ⊔

⊓
Let s(G) be the smallest size of a base set X such that G can be represented as an inter-
section graph of a family of subsets of X , that is,
s(G) = min{|X | | G ∼
= GX for some X ⊆ 2X } .
How small can s(G) be compared to the order νG (or the size ǫG ) of the graph? It was shown
by KOU, STOCKMEYER AND WONG (1976) that it is algorithmically difficult to determine the
number s(G) – the problem is NP-complete.
Example 1.2. As yet another example, let A ⊆ N be a finite set of natural numbers, and let
GA = (A, E) be the graph with rs ∈ E if and only if r and s (for r 6= s) have a common divisor
> 1. As an exercise, we state: All graphs can be represented in the form GA for some set A of
natural numbers.
1.2 Subgraphs 7
1.2 Subgraphs
Ideally, given a nice problem the local properties of a graph determine a solution. In these
situations we deal with (small) parts of the graph (subgraphs), and a solution can be found
to the problem by combining the information determined by the parts. For instance, as we
shall later see, the existence of an Euler tour is very local, it depends only on the number of
the neighbours of the vertices.
Degrees of vertices
DEFINITION. Let v ∈ G be a vertex a graph G. The neighbourhood of v is the set
NG (v) = {u ∈ G | vu ∈ G} .
The degree of v is the number of its neighbours:
dG (v) = |NG (v)| .
If dG (v) = 0, then v is said to be isolated in G, and if dG (v) = 1, then v is a leaf of the

graph. The minimum degree and the maximum degree of G are defined as
δ(G) = min{dG (v) | v ∈ G} and ∆(G) = max{dG (v) | v ∈ G} .
The following lemma, due to EULER (1736), tells that if several people shake hands, then
the number of hands shaken is even.
Lemma 1.1 (Handshaking lemma). For each graph G,

X
dG (v) = 2 · ǫG .
v∈G
Moreover, the number of vertices of odd degree is even.
Proof. Every edge e ∈ EG has two ends. The second claim follows immediately from the
first one. ⊔
⊓
Lemma 1.1 holds equally well for multigraphs, when dG (v) is defined as the number of
edges that have v as an end, and when each loop v v is counted twice.
Note that the degrees of a graph G do not determine G. Indeed, there are graphs G =
(V, EG ) and H = (V, EH ) on the same set of vertices that are not isomorphic, but for which
dG (v) = dH (v) for all v ∈ V .
1.2 Subgraphs 8
Subgraphs
DEFINITION. A graph H is a subgraph of a graph G, denoted by H ⊆ G, if VH ⊆ VG and

EH ⊆ EG . A subgraph H ⊆ G spans G (and H is a spanning subgraph of G), if every vertex
of G is in H, i.e., VH = VG .
Also, a subgraph H ⊆ G is an induced subgraph, if EH = EG ∩ E(VH ). In this case, H is
induced by its set VH of vertices.
In an induced subgraph H ⊆ G, the set EH of edges consists of all e ∈ EG such that

e ∈ E(VH ). To each nonempty subset A ⊆ VG , there corresponds a unique induced subgraph
G[A] = (A, EG ∩ E(A)) .
To each subset F ⊆ EG of edges there corresponds a unique spanning subgraph of G,
G[F ] = (VG , F ) .
G subgraph spanning induced
For a set F ⊆ EG of edges, let
G−F = G[EG \ F ]
be the subgraph of G obtained by removing (only) the edges e ∈ F from G. In particular,

G−e is obtained from G by removing e ∈ G.
Similarly, we write G + F , if each e ∈ F (for F ⊆ E(VG )) is added to G.
For a subset A ⊆ VG of vertices, we let G−A ⊆ G be the subgraph induced by VG \ A, that
is,
G−A = G[VG \ A] ,
and, e.g., G−v is obtained from G by removing the vertex v together with the edges that
have v as their end.
Reconstruction Problem. The famous open problem, Kelly-Ulam problem or the Recon-
struction Conjecture, states that a graph of order at least 3 is determined up to isomorphism
by its vertex deleted subgraphs G−v (v ∈ G): if there exists a bijection α: VG → VH such that
G−v ∼ = H−α(v) for all v, then G ∼= H.
1.2 Subgraphs 9
2-switches
DEFINITION. For a graph G, a 2-switch with respect to
the edges uv, x y ∈ G with ux, v y ∈
/ G replaces the edges
uv and x y by ux and v y. Denote v y v y
2s
G −→ H
u x u x
if there exists a finite sequence of 2-switches that carries
G to H.
2s 2s
Note that if G −→ H then also H −→ G since we can apply the sequence of 2-switches in
reverse order.
Before proving Berge’s switching theorem we need the following tool.
Lemma 1.2. Let G be a graph of order n with a degree sequence d1 ≥ d2 ≥ · · · ≥ dn , where

2s
dG (vi ) = di . Then there is a graph G ′ such that G −→ G ′ with NG ′ (v1 ) = {v2 , . . . , vd1 +1 }.
Proof. Let d = ∆(G) (= d1 ). Suppose that there is a vertex vi with 2 ≤ i ≤ d + 1 such

that v1 vi ∈/ G. Since dG (v1 ) = d, there exists a v j with
j ≥ d + 2 such that v1 v j ∈ G. Here di ≥ d j , since j > i.
Since v1 v j ∈ G, there exists a vt (2 ≤ t ≤ n) such that v1 vi vj
vi vt ∈ G, but v j vt ∈
/ G. We can now perform a 2-switch
with respect to the vertices v1 , v j , vi , vt . This gives a new vt
graph H, where v1 vi ∈ H and v1 v j ∈ / H, and the other
neighbours of v1 remain to be its neighbours.
When the process is repeated for all indices i with v1 vi ∈ / G for 2 ≤ i ≤ d + 1, we obtain
a graph G ′ as required. ⊔
⊓
Theorem 1.3 (BERGE (1973)). Two graphs G and H on a common vertex set V satisfy dG (v) =
dH (v) for all v ∈ V if and only if H can be obtained from G by a sequence of 2-switches.
2s
Proof. If G −→ H, then clearly H has the same degrees as G.
In converse, we use induction on the order νG . Let G and H have the same degrees. By
2s 2s
Lemma 1.2, we have a vertex v and graphs G ′ and H ′ such that G −→ G ′ and H −→ H ′ with
NG ′ (v) = NH ′ (v). Now the graphs G ′ −v and H ′ −v have the same degrees. By the induction
2s 2s 2s
hypothesis, G ′ −v −→ H ′ −v, and thus also G ′ −→ H ′ . Finally, we observe that H ′ −→ H by
the ‘reverse 2-switches’, and this proves the claim. ⊓
⊔
DEFINITION. Let d1 , d2 , . . . , dn be a descending sequence of nonnegative integers, that is,

d1 ≥ d2 ≥ · · · ≥ dn . Such a sequence is said to be graphical, if there exists a graph G = (V, E)
with V = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vn } such that di = dG (vi ) for all i.
Using the next result recursively one can decide whether a sequence of integers is graph-
ical or not.
1.2 Subgraphs 10
Theorem 1.4 (HAVEL (1955), HAKIMI (1962)). A sequence d1 , d2 , . . . , dn (with d1 ≥ 1 and

n ≥ 2) is graphical if and only if
d2 − 1, d3 − 1, . . . , dd1 +1 − 1, dd1 +2 , dd1 +3 , . . . , dn (1.1)
is graphical (when put into nonincreasing order).
Proof. (⇐) Consider G of order n − 1 with vertices (and degrees)
dG (v2 ) = d2 − 1, . . . , dG (vd1 +1 ) = dd1 +1 − 1,

dG (vd1+2 ) = dd1 +2 , . . . , dG (vn ) = dn
as in (1.1). Add a new vertex v1 and the edges v1 vi for all i ∈ [2, dd1 +1 ]. Then in the new
graph H, dH (v1 ) = d1 , and dH (vi ) = di for all i.
(⇒) Assume dG (vi ) = di . By Lemma 1.2 and Theorem 1.3, we can suppose that NG (v1 ) =
{v2 , . . . , vd1 +1 }. But now the degree sequence of G−v1 is in (1.1). ⊔
⊓
Example 1.3. Consider the sequence s = 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1. By Theorem 1.4,
s is graphical ⇐⇒ 3, 3, 2, 1, 1 is graphical v2 v4
2, 1, 1, 0 is graphical
v6
0, 0, 0 is graphical.
The last sequence corresponds to a graph with no edges, and

v1 v3 v5
hence also our original sequence s is graphical. Indeed, the
graph G on the right has this degree sequence.
Special graphs
DEFINITION. A graph G = (V, E) is trivial, if it has only one vertex, i.e., νG = 1; otherwise
G is nontrivial.
The graph G = KV is the complete graph on V , if every two

vertices are adjacent: E = E(V ). All complete graphs of order n
are isomorphic with each other, and they will be denoted by Kn .
The complement of G is the graph G on VG , where EG = {e ∈ E(V ) | e ∈ / EG }. The

complements G = K V of the complete graphs are called discrete graphs. In a discrete
graph EG = ;. Clearly, all discrete graphs of order n are isomorphic with each other.
A graph G is said to be regular, if every vertex of G has the same degree. If this degree
is equal to r, then G is r-regular or regular of degree r.
1.3 Paths and cycles 11
A discrete graph is 0-regular, and a complete graph Kn is (n − 1)-regular. In particular,

ǫKn = n(n − 1)/2, and therefore ǫG ≤ n(n − 1)/2 for all graphs G that have order n.
Many problems concerning (induced) subgraphs are algorithmically difficult. For in-
stance, to find a maximal complete subgraph (a subgraph Km of maximum order) of a graph
is unlikely to be even in NP.
Example 1.4. The graph on the right is the Petersen graph

that we will meet several times (drawn differently). It is a
3-regular graph of order 10.
Example 1.5. Let k ≥ 1 be an integer, and consider the set Bk of all binary strings of length
k. For instance, B3 = {000, 001, 010, 100, 011, 101, 110, 111}. Let Q k be the graph, called
the k-cube, with VQ k = Bk , where uv ∈ Q k if and only if the strings u and v differ in exactly
one place. 110 111
k
The order of Q k is νQ k = 2 , the number of binary strings of 100 101
length k. Also, Q k is k-regular, and so, by the handshaking
010 011
lemma, ǫQ k = k · 2k−1. On the right we have the 3-cube, or
simply the cube.
000 001
Example 1.6. Let n ≥ 4 be any even number. We show by induction that there exists a
3-regular graph G with νG = n. Notice that all 3-regular graphs have even order by the
handshaking lemma.
x y
If n = 4, then K4 is 3-regular. Let G be a 3-regular graph
of order 2m − 2, and suppose that uv, uw ∈ EG . Let VH =
w v
VG ∪ {x, y}, and EH = (EG \ {uv, uw}) ∪ {ux, x v, u y, y w, x y}. u
Then H is 3-regular of order 2m.
1.3 Paths and cycles
The most fundamental notions in graph theory are practically oriented. Indeed, many graph
theoretical questions ask for optimal solutions to problems such as: find a shortest path (in
a complex network) from a given point to another. This kind of problems can be difficult, or
at least nontrivial, because there are usually choices what branch to choose when leaving
an intermediate point.
Walks
DEFINITION. Let ei = ui ui+1 ∈ G be edges of G for i ∈ [1, k]. The sequence W = e1 e2 . . . ek

is a walk of length k from u1 to uk+1 . Here ei and ei+1 are compatible in the sense that ei
is adjacent to ei+1 for all i ∈ [1, k − 1].
We write, more informally,

k
W : u1 −
→ u2 −
→ ... −
→ uk −
→ uk+1 or W : u1 −
→ uk+1 .
⋆
Write u −
→ v to say that there is a walk of some length from u to v. Here we understand that
⋆
W:u− → v is always a specific walk, W = e1 e2 . . . ek , although we sometimes do not care to
mention the edges ei on it. The length of a walk W is denoted by |W |.
DEFINITION. Let W = e1 e2 . . . ek (ei = ui ui+1 ) be a walk.

W is closed, if u1 = uk+1 .
W is a path, if ui 6= u j for all i 6= j.
W is a cycle, if it is closed, and ui 6= u j for i 6= j except that u1 = uk+1 .
W is a trivial path, if its length is 0. A trivial path has no edges.
For a walk W : u = u1 − → ... −
→ uk+1 = v, also
W −1 : v = uk+1 −
→ ... −
→ u1 = u
is a walk in G, called the inverse walk of W .

A vertex u is an end of a path P, if P starts or ends in u.
⋆ ⋆ ⋆
The join of two walks W1 : u −→ v and W2 : v − → w is the walk W1 W2 : u −
→ w. (Here the
end v must be common to the walks.)
Paths P and Q are disjoint, if they have no vertices in common, and they are indepen-
dent, if they can share only their ends.
Clearly, the inverse walk P −1 of a path P is a path (the inverse path of P). The join of
two paths need not be a path.
A (sub)graph, which is a path (cycle) of length k−1 (k, resp.)

having k vertices is denoted by Pk (Ck , resp.). If k is even
(odd), we say that the path or cycle is even (odd). Clearly,
all paths of length k are isomorphic. The same holds for cycles
of fixed length. P5 C6
⋆ ⋆
Lemma 1.3. Each walk W : u − → v with u 6= v contains a path P : u −
→ v, that is, there is a
⋆
path P : u −
→ v that is obtained from W by removing edges and vertices.
Proof. Let W : u = u1 − → ... − → uk+1 = v. Let i < j be indices such that ui = u j . If no such
⋆ ⋆ ⋆
i and j exist, then W , itself, is a path. Otherwise, in W = W1 W2 W3 : u − → ui − → uj − → v the
⋆ ⋆
portion U1 = W1 W3 : u − → ui = u j − → v is a shorter walk. By repeating this argument, we
⋆
obtain a sequence U1 , U2 , . . . , Um of walks u −
→ v with |W | > |U1 | > · · · > |Um |. When the
procedure stops, we have a path as required. (Notice that in the above it may very well be
that W1 or W3 is a trivial walk.) ⊔
⊓
DEFINITION. If there exists a walk (and hence a path) from u to v in G, let

k
dG (u, v) = min{k | u −
→ v}
⋆
be the distance between u and v. If there are no walks u − → v, let dG (u, v) = ∞ by conven-
tion. A graph G is connected, if dG (u, v) < ∞ for all u, v ∈ G; otherwise, it is disconnected.
The maximal connected subgraphs of G are its connected components. Denote
c(G) = the number of connected components of G .
If c(G) = 1, then G is, of course, connected.
The maximality condition means that a subgraph H ⊆ G is a connected component if

and only if H is connected and there are no edges leaving H, i.e., for every vertex v ∈
/ H,
the subgraph G[VH ∪ {v}] is disconnected. Apparently, every connected component is an
induced subgraph, and
NG∗ (v) = {u | dG (v, u) < ∞}
is the connected component of G that contains v ∈ G. In particular, the connected compo-
nents form a partition of G.
Shortest paths
DEFINITION. Let G α be an edge weighted graph, that is, G α is a graph G together with a
weight function α: EG → R on its edges. For H ⊆ G, let
X
α(H) = α(e)
e∈H
be the (total) weight of H. In particular, if P = e1 e2 . . . ek is a path, then its weight is

Pk
α(P) = i=1 α(ei ). The minimum weighted distance between two vertices is
⋆
dGα (u, v) = min{α(P) | P : u −
→ v} .
In extremal problems we seek for optimal subgraphs H ⊆ G satisfying specific conditions.

In practice we encounter situations where G might represent
• a distribution or transportation network (say, for mail), where the weights on edges are
distances, travel expenses, or rates of flow in the network;
• a system of channels in (tele)communication or computer architecture, where the weights
present the rate of unreliability or frequency of action of the connections;
• a model of chemical bonds, where the weights measure molecular attraction.
In these examples we look for a subgraph with the smallest weight, and which connects
two given vertices, or all vertices (if we want to travel around). On the other hand, if the
graph represents a network of pipelines, the weights are volumes or capacities, and then
one wants to find a subgraph with the maximum weight.
We consider the minimum problem. For this, let G be a graph with an integer weight
function α: EG → N. In this case, call α(uv) the length of uv.
The shortest path problem: Given a connected graph G with a weight function α: EG → N,
find dGα (u, v) for given u, v ∈ G.
Assume that G is a connected graph. Dijkstra’s algorithm solves the problem for every
pair u, v, where u is a fixed starting point and v ∈ G. Let us make the convention that
α(uv) = ∞, if uv ∈
/ G.
Dijkstra’s algorithm:
(i) Set u0 = u, t(u0 ) = 0 and t(v) = ∞ for all v 6= u0 .

(ii) For i ∈ [0, νG − 1]: for each v ∈
/ {u1 , . . . , ui },
replace t(v) by min{t(v), t(ui ) + α(ui v)} .
Let ui+1 ∈
/ {u1 , . . . , ui } be any vertex with the least value t(ui+1 ).
(iii) Conclusion: dGα (u, v) = t(v).
Example 1.7. Consider the following weighted graph G. Apply Dijkstra’s algorithm to the
vertex v0 .
• u0 = v0 , t(u0 ) = 0, others are ∞.

2
• t(v1 ) = min{∞, 2} = 2, t(v2 ) = min{∞, 3} = 3, others
v1 1 v3
are ∞. Thus u1 = v1 .
2 1
• t(v2 ) = min{3, t(u1 ) +α(u1 v2 )} = min{3, 4} = 3, t(v3 ) = 3
v0 2 2 v5
2+1 = 3, t(v4 ) = 2+3 = 5, t(v5 ) = 2+2 = 4. Thus choose 3 2
u2 = v3 . v2 1 v4
• t(v2 ) = min{3, ∞} = 3, t(v4 ) = min{5, 3 + 2} = 5,
t(v5 ) = min{4, 3 + 1} = 4. Thus set u3 = v2 .
• t(v4 ) = min{5, 3 + 1} = 4, t(v5 ) = min{4, ∞} = 4. Thus choose u4 = v4 .
• t(v5 ) = min{4, 4 + 1} = 4. The algorithm stops.
We have obtained:
t(v1 ) = 2, t(v2 ) = 3, t(v3 ) = 3, t(v4 ) = 4, t(v5 ) = 4 .
These are the minimal weights from v0 to each vi .

The steps of the algorithm can also be rewritten as a table:
v1 2 - - - -
v2 3 3 3 - -
v3 ∞ 3 - - -
v4 ∞ 5 5 4 -
v5 ∞ 4 4 4 4
The correctness of Dijkstra’s algorithm can verified be as follows.

⋆ ⋆
Let v ∈ V be any vertex, and let P : u0 −
→u− → v be a shortest path from u0 to v, where u
is any vertex u 6= v on such a path, possibly u = u0 . Then, clearly, the first part of the path,
⋆ ⋆
u0 −→ u, is a shortest path from u0 to u, and the latter part u −
→ v is a shortest path from u to
⋆ ⋆
v. Therefore, the length of the path P equals the sum of the weights of u0 − → u and u − → v.
Dijkstra’s algorithm makes use of this observation iteratively.
2
Connectivity of Graphs
2.1 Bipartite graphs and trees
In problems such as the shortest path problem we look for minimum solutions that satisfy
the given requirements. The solutions in these cases are usually subgraphs without cycles.
Such connected graphs will be called trees, and they are used, e.g., in search algorithms for
databases. For concrete applications in this respect, see
T.H. CORMEN, C.E. LEISERSON AND R.L. RIVEST, “Introduction to Algorithms”, MIT Press,
1993.
Certain structures with operations are representable as +
trees. These trees are sometimes called construction trees,
decomposition trees, factorization trees or grammatical trees. · y
Grammatical trees occur especially in linguistics, where
syntactic structures of sentences are analyzed. On the right x +
there is a tree of operations for the arithmetic formula
y z
x · ( y + z) + y.
Bipartite graphs
DEFINITION. A graph G is called bipartite, if VG has a partition to two subsets X and Y such
that each edge uv ∈ G connects a vertex of X and a vertex of Y . In this case, (X , Y ) is a
bipartition of G, and G is (X , Y )-bipartite.
A bipartite graph G (as in the above) is complete (m, k)-bipartite,
if |X | = m, |Y | = k, and uv ∈ G for all u ∈ X and v ∈ Y .
All complete (m, k)-bipartite graphs are isomorphic. Let Km,k de-
note such a graph.
A subset X ⊆ VG is stable, if G[X ] is a discrete graph.
K2,3
The following result is clear from the definitions.
Theorem 2.1. A graph G is bipartite if and only if VG has a partition to two stable subsets.
Example 2.1. The k-cube Q k of Example 1.5 is bipartite for all k. Indeed, consider A = {u |
u has an even number of 1′ s} and B = {u | u has an odd number of 1′ s}. Clearly, these sets
partition Bk , and they are stable in Q k .
2.1 Bipartite graphs and trees 17
Theorem 2.2. A graph G is bipartite if and only if G it has no odd cycles (as subgraph).
Proof. (⇒) Observe that if G is (X , Y )-bipartite, then so are all its subgraphs. However, an
odd cycle C2k+1 is not bipartite.
(⇐) Suppose that all cycles in G are even. First, we note that it suffices to show the
claim for connected graphs. Indeed, if G is disconnected, then each cycle of G is contained
in one of the connected components G1 , . . . , Gp of G. If Gi is (X i , Yi )-bipartite, then G has
the bipartition (X 1 ∪ X 2 ∪ · · · ∪ X p , Y1 ∪ Y2 ∪ · · · ∪ Yp ).
Assume thus that G is connected. Let v ∈ G be a chosen vertex, and define
X = {x | dG (v, x) is even} and Y = { y | dG (v, y) is odd} .
Since G is connected, VG = X ∪ Y . Also, by the definition of distance, X ∩ Y = ;.

⋆ ⋆
Let then u, w ∈ G be both in X or both in Y , and let P : v −
→ u and Q : v − → w be (among
the) shortest paths from v to u and w. Assume that x is the last common vertex of P and Q:
⋆ ⋆
P = P1 P2 , Q = Q 1Q 2 , where P2 : x −
→ u and Q 2 : x −
→ w are independent. Since P and Q are
⋆
shortest paths, P1 and Q 1 are shortest paths v − → x. Consequently, |P1 | = |Q 1 |.
Thus |P2 | and |Q 2 | have the same parity and hence the sum P2 u
|P2 |+|Q 2 | is even, i.e., the path P2−1Q 2 is even, and so uw ∈
/ EG P1
by assumption. Therefore X and Y are stable subsets, and G v x uw
is bipartite as claimed. ⊔
⊓ Q1
Q2 w
1
Checking whether a graph is bipartite is easy. Indeed, this 1 2
can be done by using two ‘opposite’ colours, say 1 and 2. Start
2 2 2
from any vertex v1 , and colour it by 1. Then colour the neigh-
bours of v1 by 2, and proceed by colouring all neighbours of 1 1
an already coloured vertex by the opposite colour.
1 2
If the whole graph can be coloured without contradiction, then G is (X , Y )-bipartite, where
X consists of those vertices with colour 1, and Y of those vertices with colour 2; otherwise,
at some point one of the vertices gets both colours, and in this case, G is not bipartite.
Example 2.2 (ERDÖS (1965)). We show that each graph G has a bipartite subgraph H ⊆ G
such that ǫH ≥ 21 ǫG . Indeed, let VG = X ∪ Y be a partition such that the number of edges
between X and Y is maximum. Denote
F = EG ∩ {uv | u ∈ X , v ∈ Y } ,
and let H = G[F ]. Obviously H is a spanning subgraph, and it is bipartite.

By the maximum condition, dH (v) ≥ dG (v)/2, since, otherwise, v is on the wrong side.
(That is, if v ∈ X , then the pair X ′ = X \ {v}, Y ′ = Y ∪ {v} does better that the pair X , Y .)
Now
1X 1X1 1
ǫH = dH (v) ≥ dG (v) = ǫG .
2 v∈H 2 v∈G 2 2
Bridges
DEFINITION. An edge e ∈ G is a bridge of the graph G,
if G−e has more connected components than G, that is, if
c(G−e) > c(G). In particular, and most importantly, an edge
e in a connected G is a bridge if and only if G−e is discon-
nected.
On the right (only) the two horizontal lines are bridges.
We note that, for each edge e ∈ G,
e = uv is a bridge ⇐⇒ u, v in different connected components of G−e .
Theorem 2.3. An edge e ∈ G is a bridge if and only if e is not in any cycle of G.

⋆
Proof. (⇒) If there is a cycle in G containing e, say C = PeQ, then QP : v − → u is a path in
G−e, and so e is not a bridge.
(⇐) If e = uv is not a bridge, then u and v are in the same connected component of G−e,
⋆ ⋆
and there is a path P : v −
→ u in G−e. Now, eP : u − →v− → u is a cycle in G containing e. ⊓ ⊔
Lemma 2.1. Let e be a bridge in a connected graph G.

(i) Then c(G−e) = 2.
(ii) Let H be a connected component of G−e. If f ∈ H is a bridge of H, then f is a bridge of G.
Proof. For (i), let e = uv. Since e is a bridge, the ends u and v are not connected in G−e.
⋆
Let w ∈ G. Since G is connected, there exists a path P : w − → v in G. This is a path of G−e,
⋆ ⋆
unless P : w −→ u → v contains e = uv, in which case the part w − → u is a path in G−e.
For (ii), if f ∈ H belongs to a cycle C of G, then C does not contain e (since e is in no
cycle), and therefore C is inside H, and f is not a bridge of H. ⊔
⊓
Trees
DEFINITION. A graph is called acyclic, if it has no cycles. An acyclic graph is also called a
forest. A tree is a connected acyclic graph.
By Theorem 2.3 and the definition of a tree, we have
Corollary 2.1. A connected graph is a tree if and only if all its edges are bridges.
Example 2.3. The following enumeration result for trees has many different proofs, the first
of which was given by CAYLEY in 1889: There are nn−2 trees on a vertex set V of n elements.
We omit the proof.
On the other hand, there are only a few trees up to isomorphism:
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
trees 1 1 1 2 3 6 11 23
n 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
trees 47 106 235 551 1301 3159 7741 19 320
The nonisomorphic trees of order 6 are:
⋆
We say that a path P : u −→ v is maximal in a graph G, if there are no edges e ∈ G for
which Pe or eP is a path. Such paths exist, because νG is finite.
⋆
Lemma 2.2. Let P : u − → v be a maximal path in a graph G. Then NG (v) ⊆ P. Moreover, if G
is acyclic, then dG (v) = 1.
Proof. If e = vw ∈ EG with w ∈ / P, then also Pe is a path, which contradicts the maximality

assumption for P. Hence NG (v) ⊆ P. For acyclic graphs, if w v ∈ G, then w belongs to P, and
w v is necessarily the last edge of P in order to avoid cycles. ⊔
⊓
Corollary 2.2. Each tree T with ν T ≥ 2 has at least two leaves.
Proof. Since T is acyclic, both ends of a maximal path have degree one. ⊔
⊓
Theorem 2.4. The following are equivalent for a graph T .

(i) T is a tree.
(ii) Any two vertices are connected in T by a unique path.
(iii) T is acyclic and ǫ T = ν T − 1.
Proof. Let ν T = n. If n = 1, then the claim is trivial. Suppose thus that n ≥ 2.

⋆
(i)⇒(ii) Let T be a tree. Assume the claim does not hold, and let P, Q : u −
→ v be two
different paths between the same vertices u and v. Suppose that |P| ≥ |Q|. Since P 6= Q,
there exists an edge e which belongs to P but not to Q. Each edge of T is a bridge, and
therefore u and v belong to different connected components of T −e. Hence e must also
belong to Q; a contradiction.
(ii)⇒(iii) We prove the claim by induction on n. Clearly, the claim holds for n = 2, and
suppose it holds for graphs of order less than n. Let T be any graph of order n satisfying
(ii). In particular, T is connected, and it is clearly acyclic.
⋆
Let P : u −
→ v be a maximal path in T . By Lemma 2.2, we have d T (v) = 1. In this case,
⋆
P: u −→ w − → v, where vw is the unique edge having an end v. The subgraph T −v is
connected, and it satisfies the condition (ii). By induction hypothesis, ǫ T −v = n − 2, and so
ǫ T = ǫ T −v + 1 = n − 1, and the claim follows.
(iii)⇒(i) Assume (iii) holds for T . We need to show that T is connected. Indeed, let
the connected components of T be Ti = (Vi , Ei ), for i ∈ [1, k]. Since T is acyclic, so are the
connected graphs Ti , and hence they are trees, for which we have proved that |Ei | = |Vi |−1.
Pk Pk
Now, ν T = i=1 |Vi |, and ǫ T = i=1 |Ei |. Therefore,
X
k X
k
n − 1 = ǫT = (|Vi | − 1) = |Vi | − k = n − k ,
i=1 i=1
which gives that k = 1, that is, T is connected. ⊔

⊓
Example 2.4. Consider a cup tournament of n teams. If during a round there are k teams
left in the tournament, then these are divided into ⌊k⌋ pairs, and from each pair only the
winner continues. If k is odd, then one of the teams goes to the next round without having
to play. How many plays are needed to determine the winner?
So if there are 14 teams, after the first round 7 teams continue, and after the second
round 4 teams continue, then 2. So 13 plays are needed in this example.
The answer to our problem is n − 1, since the cup tournament is a tree, where a play
corresponds to an edge of the tree.
Spanning trees
Theorem 2.5. Each connected graph has a spanning tree, that is, a spanning graph that is a
tree.
Proof. Let T ⊆ G be a maximum order subtree of G (i.e., subgraph that is a tree). If VT 6= VG ,

there exists an edge uv ∈
/ EG such that u ∈ T and v ∈ / T . But then T is not maximal; a
contradiction. ⊔
⊓
Corollary 2.3. For each connected graph G, ǫG ≥ νG − 1. Moreover, a connected graph G is a

tree if and only if ǫG = νG − 1.
Proof. Let T be a spanning tree of G. Then ǫG ≥ ǫ T = ν T − 1 = νG − 1. The second claim is

also clear. ⊔
⊓
Example 2.5. In Shannon’s switching game a positive player P and a negative player N
play on a graph G with two special vertices: a source s and a sink r. P and N alternate
turns so that P designates an edge by +, and N by −. Each edge can be designated at most
⋆
once. It is P’s purpose to designate a path s −
→ r (that is, to designate all edges in one such
⋆
path), and N tries to block all paths s −
→ r (that is, to designate at least one edge in each
such path). We say that a game (G, s, r) is
• positive, if P has a winning strategy no matter who begins the game,

• negative, if N has a winning strategy no matter who begins the game,
• neutral, if the winner depends on who begins the game.
r
The game on the right is neutral.
s
LEHMAN proved in 1964 that Shannon’s switching game (G, s, r) is positive if and only if
there exists H ⊆ G such that H contains s and r and H has two spanning trees with no edges
in common.
In the other direction the claim can be proved along the following lines. Assume that
there exists a subgraph H containing s and r and that has two spanning trees with no edges
in common. Then P plays as follows. If N marks by − an edge from one of the two trees,
then P marks by + an edge in the other tree such that this edge reconnects the broken tree.
In this way, P always has two spanning trees for the subgraph H with only edges marked
by + in common.
In converse the claim is considerably more difficult to prove.
There remains the problem to characterize those Shannon’s switching games (G, s, r)
that are neutral (negative, respectively).
The connector problem

To build a network connecting n nodes (towns, computers, chips in a computer) it is desir-
able to decrease the cost of construction of the links to the minimum. This is the connector
problem. In graph theoretical terms we wish to find an optimal spanning subgraph of
a weighted graph. Such an optimal subgraph is clearly a spanning tree, for, otherwise a
deletion of any nonbridge will reduce the total weight of the subgraph.
Let then G α be a graph G together with a weight function α: EG → R+ (positive reals) on
the edges. Kruskal’s algorithm (also known as the greedy algorithm) provides a solution
to the connector problem.
Kruskal’s algorithm: For a connected and weighted graph G α of order n:
(i) Let e1 be an edge of smallest weight, and set E1 = {e1 }.
(ii) For each i = 2, 3, . . . , n − 1 in this order, choose an edge ei ∈
/ Ei−1 of smallest possible
weight such that ei does not produce a cycle when added to G[Ei−1 ], and let Ei =
Ei−1 ∪ {ei }.
The final outcome is T = (VG , En−1 ).
By the construction, T = (VG , En−1 ) is a spanning tree of G, because it contains no cycles,

it is connected and has n − 1 edges. We now show that T has the minimum total weight
among the spanning trees of G.
Suppose T1 is any spanning tree of G. Let ek be the first edge produced by the algorithm
that is not in T1 . If we add ek to T1 , then a cycle C containing ek is created. Also, C must
contain an edge e that is not in T . When we replace e by ek in T1 , we still have a spanning
tree, say T2 . However, by the construction, α(ek ) ≤ α(e), and therefore α(T2 ) ≤ α(T1 ). Note
that T2 has more edges in common with T than T1 .
Repeating the above procedure, we can transform T1 to T by replacing edges, one by
one, such that the total weight does not increase. We deduce that α(T ) ≤ α(T1 ).
The outcome of Kruskal’s algorithm need not be unique. Indeed, there may exist several
optimal spanning trees (with the same weight, of course) for a graph.
Example 2.6. When applied to the weighted graph on
the right, the algorithm produces the sequence: e1 = v1 3 v2 2 v3
v2 v4 , e2 = v4 v5 , e3 = v3 v6 , e4 = v2 v3 and e5 = v1 v2 . The 1
total weight of the spanning tree is thus 9. 1 2 2
4
Also, the selection e1 = v2 v5 , e2 = v4 v5 , e3 = v5 v6 , 2
e4 = v3 v6 , e5 = v1 v2 gives another optimal solution (of v4 1 v5 2 v6
weight 9).
3
Problem. Consider trees T with weight functions α: E T → N. Each tree T of order n has
n
exactly 2 paths. (Why is this so?) Does there exist a weighted tree T α of order n such that
n

the (total) weights of its paths are 1, 2, . . . , 2 ?
In such a weighted tree T α different paths have different

n 1 4
weights, and each i ∈ [1, 2 ] is a weight of one path. Also,
5
α must be injective.
2 8
No solutions are known for any n ≥ 7.
TAYLOR (1977) proved: if T of order n exists, then necessarily n = k2 or n = k2 + 2 for some

k ≥ 1.
Example 2.7. A computer network can be presented as a graph G, where the vertices are
the node computers, and the edges indicate the direct links. Each computer v has an ad-
dress a(v), a bit string (of zeros and ones). The length of an address is the number of its
bits. A message that is sent to v is preceded by the address a(v). The Hamming distance
h(a(v), a(u)) of two addresses of the same length is the number of places, where a(v) and
a(u) differ; e.g., h(00010, 01100) = 3 and h(10000, 00000) = 1.
It would be a good way to address the vertices so that the Hamming distance of two
vertices is the same as their distance in G. In particular, if two vertices were adjacent, their
addresses should differ by one symbol. This would make it easier for a node computer to
forward a message.
010
A graph G is said to be addressable, if it has an ad-
000 110 111
dressing a such that dG (u, v) = h(a(u), a(v)).
100
2.2 Connectivity 23
We prove that every tree T is addressable. Moreover, the addresses of the vertices of T can
be chosen to be of length ν T − 1.
The proof goes by induction. If ν T ≤ 2, then the claim is obvious. In the case ν T = 2, the
addresses of the vertices are simply 0 and 1.
Let then VT = {v1 , . . . , vk+1}, and assume that d T (v1 ) = 1 (a leaf) and v1 v2 ∈ T . By the
induction hypothesis, we can address the tree T −v1 by addresses of length k −1. We change
this addressing: let ai be the address of vi in T −v1 , and change it to 0ai . Set the address of
v1 to 1a2 . It is now easy to see that we have obtained an addressing for T as required.
The triangle K3 is not addressable. In order to gain more generality, we modify the ad-
dressing for general graphs by introducing a special symbol ∗ in addition to 0 and 1. A
star address will be a sequence of these three symbols. The Hamming distance remains
as it was, that is, h(u, v) is the number of places, where u and v have a different symbol
0 or 1. The special symbol ∗ does not affect h(u, v). So, h(10 ∗ ∗01, 0 ∗ ∗101) = 1 and
h(1 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗∗, ∗00 ∗ ∗∗) = 0. We still want to have h(u, v) = dG (u, v).
We star address this graph as follows:
v3
a(v1 ) = 0000 , a(v2 ) = 10 ∗ 0 ,
a(v3 ) = 1 ∗ 01 , a(v4 ) = ∗ ∗ 11 . v1 v2
These addresses have length 4. Can you design a star v4
addressing with addresses of length 3?
WINKLER proved in 1983 a rather unexpected result: The minimum star address length of
a graph G is at most νG − 1.
For the proof of this, see VAN LINT AND WILSON, “A Course in Combinatorics”.
2.2 Connectivity
Spanning trees are often optimal solutions to problems, where cost is the criterion. We
may also wish to construct graphs that are as simple as possible, but where two vertices
are always connected by at least two independent paths. These problems occur especially
in different aspects of fault tolerance and reliability of networks, where one has to make
sure that a break-down of one connection does not affect the functionality of the network.
Similarly, in a reliable network we require that a break-down of a node (computer) should
not result in the inactivity of the whole network.
Separating sets
DEFINITION. A vertex v ∈ G is a cut vertex, if c(G−v) > c(G). A

subset S ⊆ VG is a separating set, if G−S is disconnected. We also
say that S separates the vertices u and v and it is a (u, v)-separating
set, if u and v belong to different connected components of G−S.
2.2 Connectivity 24
If G is connected, then v is a cut vertex if and only if G−v is disconnected, that is, {v} is
a separating set. The following lemma is immediate.
⋆
Lemma 2.3. If S ⊆ VG separates u and v, then every path P : u −
→ v visits a vertex of S.
Lemma 2.4. If a connected graph G has no separating sets, then it is a complete graph.
Proof. If νG ≤ 2, then the claim is clear. For νG ≥ 3, assume that G is not complete, and let
uv ∈
/ G. Now VG \ {u, v} is a separating set. The claim follows from this. ⊔
⊓
DEFINITION. The (vertex) connectivity number κ(G) of G is defined as

κ(G) = min{k | k = |S|, G−S disconnected or trivial, S ⊆ VG } .
A graph G is k-connected, if κ(G) ≥ k.
In other words,
• κ(G) = 0, if G is disconnected,
• κ(G) = νG − 1, if G is a complete graph, and
• otherwise κ(G) equals the minimum size of a separating set of G.
Clearly, if G is connected, then it is 1-connected.
DEFINITION. An edge cut F of G consists of edges so that G−F is disconnected. Let

κ′ (G) = min{k | k = |F |, G−F disconnected, F ⊆ EG } .
For trivial graphs, let κ′ (G) = 0. A graph G is k-edge connected, if κ′ (G) ≥ k. A minimal
edge cut F ⊆ EG is a bond (F \ {e} is not an edge cut for any e ∈ F ).
Example 2.8. Again, if G is disconnected, then κ′ (G) =

0. On the right, κ(G) = 2 and κ′ (G) = 2. Notice that the
minimum degree is δ(G) = 3.
Lemma 2.5. Let G be connected. If e = uv is a bridge, then either G = K2 or one of u or v is a

cut vertex.
∗
Proof. Assume that G 6= K2 and thus that νG ≥ 3, since G is connected. Let Gu = NG−e (u)
∗
and Gv = NG−e (v) be the connected components of G−e containing u and v. Now, either
νGu ≥ 2 (and u is a cut vertex) or νGv ≥ 2 (and v is a cut vertex). ⊔
⊓
Lemma 2.6. If F be a bond of a connected graph G, then c(G−F ) = 2.
Proof. Since G−F is disconnected, and F is minimal, the subgraph H = G−(F \ {e}) is
connected for given e ∈ F . Hence e is a bridge in H. By Lemma 2.1, c(H−e) = 2, and thus
c(G−F ) = 2, since H−e = G−F . ⊔
⊓
2.2 Connectivity 25
Theorem 2.6 (WHITNEY (1932)). For any graph G,
κ(G) ≤ κ′ (G) ≤ δ(G) .
Proof. Assume G is nontrivial. Clearly, κ′ (G) ≤ δ(G), since if we remove all edges with an
end v, we disconnect G. If κ′ (G) = 0, then G is disconnected, and in this case also κ(G) = 0.
If κ′ (G) = 1, then G is connected and contains a bridge. By Lemma 2.5, either G = K2 or G
has a cut vertex. In both of these cases, also κ(G) = 1.
Assume then that κ′ (G) ≥ 2. Let F be an edge cut of G with |F | = κ′ (G), and let e =
uv ∈ F . Then F is a bond, and G−F has two connected components.
Consider the connected subgraph e

G . .. H . ..
H = G−(F \ {e}) = (G−F ) + e, .. . .. .
where e is a bridge.
F
Now for each f ∈ F \ {e} choose an end different from u and v. (The choices for different
edges need not be different.) Note that since f 6= e, either end of f is different from u or v.
Let S be the collection of these choices. Thus |S| ≤ |F | − 1 = κ′ (G) − 1, and G−S does not
contain edges from F \ {e}.
If G−S is disconnected, then S is a separating set and so κ(G) ≤ |S| ≤ κ′ (G) − 1 and we
are done. On the other hand, if G−S is connected, then either G−S = K2 (= e), or either
u or v (or both) is a cut vertex of G−S (since H−S = G−S, and therefore G−S ⊆ H is an
induced subgraph of H). In both of these cases, there is a vertex of G−S, whose removal
results in a trivial or a disconnected graph. In conclusion, κ(G) ≤ |S| + 1 ≤ κ′ (G), and the
claim follows. ⊔
⊓
Menger’s theorem
Theorem 2.7 (MENGER (1927)). Let u, v ∈ G be nonadjacent vertices of a connected graph

G. Then the minimum number of vertices separating u and v is equal to the maximum number
of independent paths from u to v.
⋆
Proof. If a subset S ⊆ VG is (u, v)-separating, then every path u − → v of G visits S. Hence |S|
is at least the number of independent paths from u to v.
Conversely, we use induction on m = νG + ǫG to show that if S = {w1 , w2 , . . . , w k } is a
(u, v)-separating set of the smallest size, then G has at least (and thus exactly) k independent
⋆
paths u −→ v.
The case for k = 1 is clear, and this takes care of the small values of m, required for the
induction.
(1) Assume first that u and v have a common neighbour w ∈ NG (u) ∩ NG (v). Then nec-
essarily w ∈ S. In the smaller graph G−w the set S \ {w} is a minimum (u, v)-separating set,
⋆
and the induction hypothesis yields that there are k − 1 independent paths u −→ v in G−w.
⋆
Together with the path u −→w− → v, there are k independent paths u −
→ v in G as required.
2.2 Connectivity 26
∗ ∗
(2) Assume then that NG (u)∩NG (v) = ;, and denote by Hu = NG−S (u) and H v = NG−S (v)
the connected components of G−S for u and v.
(2.1) Suppose next that S * NG (u) and S * NG (v).
Let b v be a new vertex, and define Gu to be the graph on
Hu ∪S ∪{b v } having the edges of G[Hu ∪S] together with
wk
v w i for all i ∈ [1, k]. The graph Gu is connected and it is
b
...
smaller than G. Indeed, in order for S to be a minimum b
v
w2
separating set, all w i ∈ S have to be adjacent to some
u
vertex in H v . This shows that ǫGu ≤ ǫG , and, moreover, w1
the assumption (2.1) rules out the case H v = {v}. So
|H v | ≥ 2 and νGu < νG .
If S ′ is any (u, b
v )-separating set of Gu , then S ′ will separate u from all w i ∈ S \S ′ in G. This
′
means that S separates u and v in G. Since k is the size of a minimum (u, v)-separating set,
we have |S ′ | ≥ k. We noted that Gu is smaller than G, and thus by the induction hypothesis,
⋆
there are k independent paths u − → bv in Gu . This is possible only if there exist k paths
⋆
u−→ w i , one for each i ∈ [1, k], that have only the end u in common.
By the present assumption, also u is nonadjacent to some vertex of S. A symmetric argu-
ment applies to the graph Gv (with a new vertex u b), which is defined similarly to Gu . This
⋆
yields that there are k paths w i −→ v that have only the end v in common. When we combine
⋆ ⋆ ⋆
these with the above paths u − → w i , we obtain k independent paths u − → wi −→ v in G.
(2.2) There remains the case, where for all (u, v)-separating sets S of k elements, either
S ⊆ NG (u) or S ⊆ NG (v). (Note that then, by (2), S ∩ NG (v) = ; or S ∩ NG (u) = ;.)
⋆ ⋆
Let P = e f Q be a shortest path u − → v in G, where e = ux, f = x y, and Q : y − → v.
Notice that, by the assumption (2), |P| ≥ 3, and so y 6= v. In the smaller graph G− f , let S ′
be a minimum set that separates u and v.
⋆
If |S ′ | ≥ k, then, by the induction hypothesis, there are k independent paths u − → v in
G− f . But these are paths of G, and the claim is clear in this case.
⋆
If, on the other hand, |S ′ | < k, then u and v are still connected in G−S ′ . Every path u −
→v
in G−S ′ necessarily travels along the edge f = x y, and so x, y ∈ / S ′.
Let
S x = S ′ ∪ {x} and S y = S ′ ∪ { y} .
These sets separate u and v in G (by the above fact), and they have size k. By our current
assumption, the vertices of S y are adjacent to v, since the path P is shortest and so u y ∈
/G
(meaning that u is not adjacent to all of S y ). The assumption (2) yields that u is adjacent
to all of S x , since ux ∈ G. But now both u and v are adjacent to the vertices of S ′ , which
contradicts the assumption (2). ⊔
⊓
Theorem 2.8 (MENGER (1927)). A graph G is k-connected if and only if every two vertices
are connected by at least k independent paths.
2.2 Connectivity 27
Proof. If any two vertices are connected by k independent paths, then it is clear that κ(G) ≥ k.
In converse, suppose that κ(G) = k, but that G has vertices u and v connected by at
most k − 1 independent paths. By Theorem 2.7, it must be that e = uv ∈ G. Consider the
graph G−e. Now u and v are connected by at most k − 2 independent paths in G−e, and
by Theorem 2.7, u and v can be separated in G−e by a set S with |S| = k − 2. Since νG > k
(because κ(G) = k), there exists a w ∈ G that is not in S ∪ {u, v}. The vertex w is separated
⋆
in G−e by S from u or from v; otherwise there would be a path u − → v in (G−e)−S. Say,
this vertex is u. The set S ∪ {v} has k − 1 elements, and it separates u from w in G, which
contradicts the assumption that κ(G) = k. This proves the claim. ⊔
⊓
We state without a proof the corresponding separation property for edge connectivity.
DEFINITION. Let G be a graph. A uv-disconnecting set is a set F ⊆ EG such that every path
⋆
u−
→ v contains an edge from F .
Theorem 2.9. Let u, v ∈ G with u 6= v in a graph G. Then the maximum number of edge-
⋆
disjoint paths u −
→ v equals the minimum number k of edges in a uv-disconnecting set.
Corollary 2.4. A graph G is k-edge connected if and only if every two vertices are connected by
at least k edge disjoint paths.
Example 2.9. Recall the definition of the cube Q k from Example 1.5. We show that κ(Q k ) =
k.
First of all, κ(Q k ) ≤ δ(Q k ) = k. In converse, we show the claim by induction. Extract from
Q k the disjoint subgraphs: G0 induced by {0u | u ∈ Bk−1 } and G1 induced by {1u | u ∈ Bk−1 }.
These are (isomorphic to) Q k−1, and Q k is obtained from the union of G0 and G1 by adding
the 2k−1 edges (0u, 1u) for all u ∈ Bk−1 .
Let S be a separating set of Q k with |S| ≤ k. If both G0 −S and G1 −S were connected,
also Q k −S would be connected, since one pair (0u, 1u) necessarily remains in Q k −S. So we
can assume that G0 −S is disconnected. (The case for G1 −S is symmetric.) By the induction
hypothesis, κ(G0 ) = k − 1, and hence S contains at least k − 1 vertices of G0 (and so |S| ≥
k − 1). If there were no vertices from G1 in S, then, of course, G1 −S is connected, and
the edges (0u, 1u) of Q k would guarantee that Q k −S is connected; a contradiction. Hence
|S| ≥ k.
Example 2.10. We have κ′ (Q k ) = k for the k-cube. Indeed, by Whitney’s theorem, κ(G) ≤
κ′ (G) ≤ δ(G). Since κ(Q k ) = k = δ(Q k ), also κ′ (Q k ) = k.
Algorithmic Problem. The connectivity problems tend to be algorithmically difficult. In

the disjoint paths problem we are given a set (ui , vi ) of pairs of vertices for i = 1, 2, . . . , k,
⋆
and it is asked whether there exist paths Pi : ui −
→ vi that have no vertices in common.
This problem was shown to be NP-complete by KNUTH in 1975. (However, for fixed k, the
problem has a fast algorithm due to ROBERTSON and SEYMOUR (1986).)
2.2 Connectivity 28
Dirac’s fans
DEFINITION. Let v ∈ G and S ⊆ VG such that v ∈ / S in a graph
G. A set of paths from v to a vertex in S is called a (v, S)-fan, ∗ ...
if they have only v in common.
∗
v
Theorem 2.10 (DIRAC (1960)). A graph G is k-connected if ∗ S
and only if νG > k and for every v ∈ G and S ⊆ VG with
|S| ≥ k and v ∈
/ S, there exists a (v, S)-fan of k paths.
Proof. Exercise. ⊔
⊓
Theorem 2.11 (DIRAC (1960)). Let G be a k-connected graph for k ≥ 2. Then for any k
vertices, there exists a cycle of G containing them.
Proof. First of all, since κ(G) ≥ 2, G has no cut vertices, and thus no bridges. It follows that
every edge, and thus every vertex of G belongs to a cycle.
Let S ⊆ VG be such that |S| = k, and let C be a cycle of G that contains the maximum
number of vertices of S. Let the vertices of S ∩ VC be v1 , . . . , vr listed in order around C so
that each pair (vi , vi+1 ) (with indices modulo r) defines a path along C (except in the special
case where r = 1). Such a path is referred to as a segment of C. If C contains all vertices of
S, then we are done; otherwise, suppose v ∈ S is not on C.
It follows from Theorem 2.10 that there is a (v, VC )-fan of at least min{k, |VC |} paths.
⋆ ⋆
Therefore there are two paths P : v − → u and Q : v −
→ w in such a fan that end in the same
⋆ ⋆
segment (vi , vi+1 ) of C. Then the path W : u − → w (or w − → u) along C contains all vertices
of S ∩ VC . But now PW Q−1 is a cycle of G that contains v and all vi for i ∈ [1, r]. This
contradicts the choice of C, and proves the claim. ⊔
⊓
3
Tours and Matchings
3.1 Eulerian graphs
The first proper problem in graph theory was the Königsberg bridge problem. In general, this
problem concerns of travelling in a graph such that one tries to avoid using any edge twice.
In practice these eulerian problems occur, for instance, in optimizing distribution networks
– such as delivering mail, where in order to save time each street should be travelled only
once. The same problem occurs in mechanical graph plotting, where one avoids lifting the
pen off the paper while drawing the lines.
Euler tours
DEFINITION. A walk W = e1 e2 . . . en is a trail, if ei 6= e j for all i 6= j. An Euler trail of a graph
G is a trail that visits every edge once. A connected graph G is eulerian, if it has a closed
trail containing every edge of G. Such a trail is called an Euler tour.
Notice that if W = e1 e2 . . . en is an Euler tour (and so EG = {e1 , e2 , . . . , en }), also

ei ei+1 . . . en e1 . . . ei−1 is an Euler tour for all i ∈ [1, n]. A complete proof of the following
Euler’s Theorem was first given by HIERHOLZER in 1873.
Theorem 3.1 (EULER (1736), HIERHOLZER (1873)). A connected graph G is eulerian if and
only if every vertex has an even degree.
⋆
Proof. (⇒) Suppose W : u − → u is an Euler tour. Let v (6= u) be a vertex that occurs k times in
W . Every time an edge arrives at v, another edge departs from v, and therefore dG (v) = 2k.
Also, dG (u) is even, since W starts and ends at u.
(⇐) Assume G is a nontrivial connected graph such that dG (v) is even for all v ∈ G. Let
⋆
W = e1 e2 . . . en : v0 −
→ vn with ei = vi−1 vi
be a longest trail in G. It follows that all e = vn w ∈ G are among the edges of W , for,
otherwise, W could be prolonged to We. In particular, v0 = vn , that is, W is a closed trail.
(Indeed, if it were vn 6= v0 and vn occurs k times in W , then dG (vn ) = 2(k − 1) + 1 and that
would be odd.)
If W is not an Euler tour, then, since G is connected, there exists an edge f = vi u ∈ G
for some i, which is not in W . However, now
ei+1 . . . en e1 . . . ei f
is a trail in G, and it is longer than W . This contradiction to the choice of W proves the
claim. ⊔
⊓
3.1 Eulerian graphs 30
Example 3.1. The k-cube Q k is eulerian for even integers k, because Q k is k-regular.
Theorem 3.2. A connected graph has an Euler trail if and only if it has at most two vertices of
odd degree.
⋆
Proof. If G has an Euler trail u −→ v, then, as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, each vertex
w∈ / {u, v} has an even degree.
Assume then that G is connected and has at most two vertices of odd degree. If G has
no vertices of odd degree then, by Theorem 3.1, G has an Euler trail. Otherwise, by the
handshaking lemma, every graph has an even number of vertices with odd degree, and
therefore G has exactly two such vertices, say u and v. Let H be a graph obtained from G
by adding a vertex w, and the edges uw and vw. In H every vertex has an even degree, and
⋆ ⋆
hence it has an Euler tour, say u −
→v−→w− → u. Here the beginning part u −
→ v is an Euler
trail of G. ⊔
⊓
The Chinese postman
The following problem is due to GUAN MEIGU (1962). Consider a village, where a postman
wishes to plan his route to save the legs, but still every street has to be walked through. This
problem is akin to Euler’s problem and to the shortest path problem.
Let G be a graph with a weight function α: EG → R+ . The Chinese postman problem
is to find a minimum weighted tour in G (starting from a given vertex, the post office).
If G is eulerian, then any Euler tour will do as a solution, because such a tour traverses
each edge exactly once and this is the best one can do. In this case the weight of the optimal
tour is the total weight of the graph G, and there is a good algorithm for finding such a tour:
Fleury’s algorithm:
• Let v0 ∈ G be a chosen vertex, and let W0 be the trivial path on v0 .

• Repeat the following procedure for i = 1, 2, . . . as long as possible: suppose a trail Wi =
e1 e2 . . . ei has been constructed, where e j = v j−1 v j .
Choose an edge ei+1 (6= e j for j ∈ [1, i]) so that
(i) ei+1 has an end vi , and
(ii)ei+1 is not a bridge of Gi = G−{e1 , . . . , ei }, unless there is no alternative.
Notice that, as is natural, the weights α(e) play no role in the eulerian case.
Theorem 3.3. If G is eulerian, then any trail of G constructed by Fleury’s algorithm is an Euler
tour of G.
⊓
3.2 Hamiltonian graphs 31
If G is not eulerian, the poor postman has to walk at least one street twice. This happens,
e.g., if one of the streets is a dead end, and in general if there is a street corner of an odd
number of streets. We can attack this case by reducing it to the eulerian case as follows. An
edge e = uv will be duplicated, if it is added to G parallel to an existing edge e′ = uv with
the same weight, α(e′ ) = α(e).
4 3 4 3 4 3
3
3 3
3
2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2
Above we have duplicated two edges. The rightmost multigraph is eulerian.

There is a good algorithm by EDMONDS AND JOHNSON (1973) for the construction of
an optimal eulerian supergraph by duplications. Unfortunately, this algorithm is somewhat
complicated, and we shall skip it.
3.2 Hamiltonian graphs
In the connector problem we reduced the cost of a spanning graph to its minimum. There are
different problems, where the cost is measured by an active user of the graph. For instance,
in the travelling salesman problem a person is supposed to visit each town in his district,
and this he should do in such a way that saves time and money. Obviously, he should plan
the travel so as to visit each town once, and so that the overall flight time is as short as
possible. In terms of graphs, he is looking for a minimum weighted Hamilton cycle of a
graph, the vertices of which are the towns and the weights on the edges are the flight times.
Unlike for the shortest path and the connector problems no efficient reliable algorithm is
known for the travelling salesman problem. Indeed, it is widely believed that no practical
algorithm exists for this problem.
Hamilton cycles
DEFINITION. A path P of a graph G is a Hamilton path, if P

visits every vertex of G once. Similarly, a cycle C is a Hamil-
ton cycle, if it visits each vertex once. A graph is hamilto-
nian, if it has a Hamilton cycle.
Note that if C : u1 → u2 → · · · → un is a Hamilton cycle, then so is ui → . . . un → u1 →
. . . ui−1 for each i ∈ [1, n], and thus we can choose where to start the cycle.
Example 3.2. It is obvious that each Kn is hamiltonian whenever n ≥ 3. Also, as is easily

seen, Kn,m is hamiltonian if and only if n = m ≥ 2. Indeed, let Kn,m have a bipartition (X , Y ),
where |X | = n and |Y | = m. Now, each cycle in Kn,m has even length as the graph is bipartite,
and thus the cycle visits the sets X , Y equally many times, since X and Y are stable subsets.
But then necessarily |X | = |Y |.
Unlike for eulerian graphs (Theorem 3.1) no good characterization is known for hamil-
tonian graphs. Indeed, the problem to determine if G is hamiltonian is NP-complete. There
are, however, some interesting general conditions.
Lemma 3.1. If G is hamiltonian, then for every nonempty subset S ⊆ VG ,
c(G−S) ≤ |S| .
⋆
Proof. Let ; =6 S ⊆ VG , u ∈ S, and let C : u −
→ u be a Hamilton cycle of G. Assume G−S has
k connected components, Gi , i ∈ [1, k]. The case k = 1 is trivial, and hence suppose that
k > 1. Let ui be the last vertex of C that belongs to Gi , and let vi be the vertex that follows
ui in C. Now vi ∈ S for each i by the choice of ui , and v j 6= vt for all j 6= t, because C is a
cycle and ui vi ∈ G for all i. Thus |S| ≥ k as required. ⊔
⊓
Example 3.3. Consider the graph on the right. In G,

c(G−S) = 3 > 2 = |S| for the set S of black vertices. Therefore
G does not satisfy the condition of Lemma 3.1, and hence it
is not hamiltonian. Interestingly this graph is (X , Y )-bipartite
of even order with |X | = |Y |. It is also 3-regular.
Example 3.4. Consider the Petersen graph on the right,

which appears in many places in graph theory as a counter ex-
ample for various conditions. This graph is not hamiltonian,
but it does satisfy the condition c(G−S) ≤ |S| for all S 6= ;.
Therefore the conclusion of Lemma 3.1 is not sufficient to en-
sure that a graph is hamiltonian.
The following theorem, due to ORE, generalizes an earlier result by DIRAC (1952).
Theorem 3.4 (ORE (1962)). Let G be a graph of order νG ≥ 3, and let u, v ∈ G be such that
dG (u) + dG (v) ≥ νG .
Then G is hamiltonian if and only if G + uv is hamiltonian.
Proof. Denote n = νG . Let u, v ∈ G be such that dG (u) + dG (v) ≥ n. If uv ∈ G, then there is

nothing to prove. Assume thus that uv ∈ / G.
(⇒) This is trivial since if G has a Hamilton cycle C, then C is also a Hamilton cycle of
G + uv.
(⇐) Denote e = uv and suppose that G + e has a Hamilton cycle C. If C does not use the
edge e, then it is a Hamilton cycle of G. Suppose thus that e is on C. We may then assume
⋆
that C : u −
→v− → u. Now u = v1 − → v2 −→ ... −
→ vn = v is a Hamilton path of G. There exists
an i with 1 < i < n such that uvi ∈ G and vi−1 v ∈ G. For, otherwise, dG (v) < n − dG (u)
would contradict the assumption.
v1 v2 ◦ ◦ vi−1 vi ◦ ◦ vn
⋆ ⋆
But now u = v1 −
→ vi−1 −
→ vn −
→ vn−1 −
→ vi+1 −
→ vi −
→ v1 = u is a Hamilton cycle in G. ⊔
⊓
Closure
DEFINITION. For a graph G, define inductively a sequence G0 , G1 , . . . , Gk of graphs such that
G0 = G and Gi+1 = Gi + uv ,
where u and v are any vertices such that uv ∈ / Gi and dGi (u) + dGi (v) ≥ νG . This procedure
stops when no new edges can be added to Gk for some k, that is, in Gk , for all u, v ∈ G either
uv ∈ Gk or dGk (u) + dGk (v) < νG . The result of this procedure is the closure of G, and it is
denoted by cl(G) (= Gk ) .
In each step of the construction of cl(G) there are usually alternatives which edge uv is
to be added to the graph, and therefore the above procedure is not deterministic. However,
the final result cl(G) is independent of the choices.
Lemma 3.2. The closure cl(G) is uniquely defined for all graphs G of order νG ≥ 3.
Proof. Denote n = νG . Suppose there are two ways to close G, say
H = G + {e1 , . . . , e r } and H ′ = G + { f1 , . . . , fs } ,
where the edges are added in the given orders. Let H i = G + {e1 , . . . , ei } and H i′ = G +
{ f1 , . . . , f i }. For the initial values, we have G = H0 = H0′ . Let ek = uv be the first edge such
that ek 6= f i for all i. Then dHk−1 (u) + dHk−1 (v) ≥ n, since ek ∈ H k , but ek ∈ / H k−1 . By the
choice of ek , we have H k−1 ⊆ H ′ , and thus also dH ′ (u)+dH ′ (v) ≥ n, which means that e = uv
must be in H ′ ; a contradiction. Therefore H ⊆ H ′ . Symmetrically, we deduce that H ′ ⊆ H,
and hence H ′ = H. ⊔
⊓
Theorem 3.5. Let G be a graph of order νG ≥ 3.

(i) G is hamiltonian if and only if its closure cl(G) is hamiltonian.
(ii) If cl(G) is a complete graph, then G is hamiltonian.
Proof. First, G ⊆ cl(G) and G spans cl(G), and thus if G is hamiltonian, so is cl(G).
In the other direction, let G = G0 , G1 , . . . , Gk = cl(G) be a construction sequence of the
closure of G. If cl(G) is hamiltonian, then so are Gk−1 , . . . , G1 and G0 by Theorem 3.4.
The Claim (ii) follows from (i), since each complete graph is hamiltonian. ⊔
⊓
Theorem 3.6. Let G be a graph of order νG ≥ 3. Suppose that for all nonadjacent vertices u
and v, dG (u) + dG (v) ≥ νG . Then G is hamiltonian. In particular, if δ(G) ≥ 12 νG , then G is
hamiltonian.
Proof. Since dG (u)+dG (v) ≥ νG for all nonadjacent vertices, we have cl(G) = Kn for n = νG ,
and thus G is hamiltonian. The second claim is immediate, since now dG (u) + dG (v) ≥ νG
for all u, v ∈ G whether adjacent or not. ⊔
⊓
Chvátal’s condition
The hamiltonian problem of graphs has attracted much attention, at least partly because the
problem has practical significance. (Indeed, the first example where DNA computing was
applied, was the hamiltonian problem.)
There are some general improvements of the previous results of this chapter, and quite
many improvements in various special cases, where the graphs are somehow restricted. We
become satisfied by two general results.
Theorem 3.7 (CHVÁTAL (1972)). Let G be a graph with VG = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vn }, for n ≥ 3,

ordered so that d1 ≤ d2 ≤ · · · ≤ dn , for di = dG (vi ). If for every i < n/2,
di ≤ i =⇒ dn−i ≥ n − i , (3.1)
then G is hamiltonian.
Proof. First of all, we may suppose that G is closed, G = cl(G), because G is hamiltonian if
and only if cl(G) is hamiltonian, and adding edges to G does not decrease any of its degrees,
that is, if G satisfies (3.1), so does G + e for every e. We show that, in this case, G = Kn , and
thus G is hamiltonian.
Assume on the contrary that G 6= Kn , and let uv ∈ / G with dG (u) ≤ dG (v) be such that
dG (u) + dG (v) is as large as possible. Because G is closed, we must have dG (u) + dG (v) < n,
and therefore dG (u) = i < n/2. Let A = {w | vw ∈ / G, w 6= v}. By our choice, dG (w) ≤ i for
all w ∈ A, and, moreover,
|A| = (n − 1) − dG (v) ≥ dG (u) = i .
Consequently, there are at least i vertices w with dG (w) ≤ i, and so di ≤ dG (u) = i.

Similarly, for each vertex from B = {w | uw ∈ / G, w 6= u}, dG (w) ≤ dG (v) < n − dG (u) =
n − i, and
|B| = (n − 1) − dG (u) = (n − 1) − i .
Also dG (u) < n − i, and thus there are at least n − i vertices w with dG (w) < n − i. Conse-
quently, dn−i < n−i. This contradicts the obtained bound di ≤ i and the condition (3.1). ⊓ ⊔
Note that the condition (3.1) is easily checkable for any given graph.
3.3 Matchings 35
3.3 Matchings
In matching problems we are given an availability relation between the elements of a

set. The problem is then to find a pairing of the elements so that each element is paired
(matched) uniquely with an available companion.
A special case of the matching problem is the marriage problem, which is stated as
follows. Given a set X of boys and a set Y of girls, under what condition can each boy marry
a girl who cares to marry him? This problem has many variations. One of them is the job
assignment problem, where we are given n applicants and m jobs, and we should assign
each applicant to a job he is qualified. The problem is that an applicant may be qualified for
several jobs, and a job may be suited for several applicants.
Maximum matchings
DEFINITION. For a graph G, a subset M ⊆ EG is a matching of G, if M contains no adjacent
edges. The two ends of an edge e ∈ M are matched under M. A matching M is a maximum
matching, if for no matching M ′ , |M| < |M ′ |.
The two vertical edges on the right constitute a matching M

that is not a maximum matching, although you cannot add
any edges to M to form a larger matching. This matching
is not maximum because the graph has a matching of three
edges.
DEFINITION. A matching M saturates v ∈ G, if v is an end of
an edge in M. Also, M saturates A ⊆ VG , if it saturates every
v ∈ A. If M saturates VG , then M is a perfect matching.
It is clear that every perfect matching is maximum.

On the right the horizontal edges form a perfect matching.
DEFINITION. Let M be a matching of G. An odd path P =
e1 e2 . . . e2k+1 is M-augmented, if
• P alternates between EG \ M and M
(that is, e2i+1 ∈ G−M and e2i ∈ M), and
• the ends of P are not saturated.
Lemma 3.3. If G is connected with ∆(G) ≤ 2, then G is a path or a cycle.
⊓
We start with a result that gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a matching to
be maximum. One can use the first part of the proof to construct a maximum matching in
an iterative manner starting from any matching M and from any M-augmented path.
Theorem 3.8 (BERGE (1957)). A matching M of G is a maximum matching if and only if

there are no M-augmented paths in G.
3.3 Matchings 36
Proof. (⇒) Let a matching M have an M-augmented path P = e1 e2 . . . e2k+1 in G. Here

e2 , e4 , . . . , e2k ∈ M, e1 , e3 , . . . , e2k+1 ∈
/ M. Define N ⊆ EG by
N = (M \ {e2i | i ∈ [1, k]}) ∪ {e2i+1 | i ∈ [0, k]} .
Now, N is a matching of G, and |N | = |M| + 1. Therefore M is not a maximum matching.

(⇐) Assume N is a maximum matching, but M is not. Hence |N | > |M|. Consider the
subgraph H = G[M △ N ] for the symmetric difference M △ N . We have dH (v) ≤ 2 for each
v ∈ H, because v is an end of at most one edge in M and N . By Lemma 3.3, each connected
component A of H is either a path or a cycle.
Since no v ∈ A can be an end of two edges from N or from M, each connected component
(path or a cycle) A alternates between N and M. Now, since |N | > |M|, there is a connected
component A of H, which has more edges from N than from M. This A cannot be a cycle,
because an alternating cycle has even length, and it thus contains equally many edges from
⋆
N and M. Hence A: u − → v is a path (of odd length), which starts and ends with an edge
from N . Because A is a connected component of H, the ends u and v are not saturated by
M, and, consequently, A is an M-augmented path. This proves the theorem. ⊔
⊓
Example 3.5. Consider the k-cube Q k for k ≥ 1. Each maximum matching of Q k has 2k−1
edges. Indeed, the matching M = {(0u, 1u) | u ∈ Bk−1 }, has 2k−1 edges, and it is clearly
perfect.
Hall’s theorem
For a subset S ⊆ VG of a graph G, denote
NG (S) = {v | uv ∈ G for some u ∈ S} .
If G is (X , Y )-bipartite, and S ⊆ X , then NG (S) ⊆ Y .
The following result, known as the
Theorem 3.9 (HALL (1935)). Let G be a (X , Y )-bipartite graph. Then G contains a matching
M saturating X if and only if
|S| ≤ |NG (S)| for all S ⊆ X . (3.2)
Proof. (⇒) Let M be a matching that saturates X . If |S| > |NG (S)| for some S ⊆ X , then not
all x ∈ S can be matched with different y ∈ NG (S).
(⇐) Let G satisfy Hall’s condition (3.2). We prove the claim by induction on |X |.
If |X | = 1, then the claim is clear. Let then |X | ≥ 2, and assume (3.2) implies the existence
of a matching that saturates every proper subset of X .
If |NG (S)| ≥ |S| + 1 for every nonempty S ⊆ X with S 6= X , then choose an edge uv ∈
G with u ∈ X , and consider the induced subgraph H = G−{u, v}. For all S ⊆ X \ {u},
3.3 Matchings 37
|NH (S)| ≥ |NG (S)| − 1 ≥ |S| , and hence, by the induction hypothesis, H contains a matching
M saturating X \ {u}. Now M ∪ {uv} is a matching saturating X in G, as was required.
Suppose then that there exists a nonempty subset R ⊆ X with R 6= X such that |NG (R)| =
|R|. The induced subgraph H1 = G[R ∪ NG (R)] satisfies (3.2) (since G does), and hence, by
the induction hypothesis, H1 contains a matching M1 that saturates R (with the other ends
in NG (R)).
Also, the induced subgraph H2 = G[VG \ A], for A = R ∪ NG (R), satisfies (3.2). Indeed, if
there were a subset S ⊆ X \ R such that |NH2 (S)| < |S|, then we would have
|NG (S ∪ R)| = |NH2 (S)| + |NH1 (R)| < |S| + |NG (R)| = |S| + |R| = |S ∪ R|
(since S ∩ R = ;), which contradicts (3.2) for G. By the induction hypothesis, H2 has a
matching M2 that saturates X \ R (with the other ends in Y \ NG (R)). Combining the match-
ings for H1 and H2 , we get a matching M1 ∪ M2 saturating X in G. ⊔
⊓
Second proof. This proof of the direction (⇐) uses Menger’s theorem. Let H be the graph
obtained from G by adding two new vertices x, y such that x is adjacent to each v ∈ X and y
is adjacent to each v ∈ Y . There exists a matching saturating X if (and only if) the number
⋆
of independent paths x − → y is equal to |X |. For this, by Menger’s theorem, it suffices to
show that every set S that separates x and y in H has at least |X | vertices.
x y
Let S = A ∪ B, where A ⊆ X and B ⊆ Y . Now, vertices in
X \ A are not adjacent to vertices of Y \ B, and hence we have X \A Y \B
NG (X \ A) ⊆ B, and thus that |X \ A| ≤ |NG (X \ A)| ≤ |B| using A B
the condition (3.2).
We conclude that |S| = |A| + |B| ≥ |X |. ⊔
⊓
Corollary 3.1 (FROBENIUS (1917)). If G is a k-regular bipartite graph with k > 0, then G
has a perfect matching.
Proof. Let G be k-regular (X , Y )-bipartite graph. By regularity, k · |X | = ǫG = k · |Y |, and

hence |X | = |Y |. Let S ⊆ X . Denote by E1 the set of the edges with an end in S, and by E2
the set of the edges with an end in NG (S). Clearly, E1 ⊆ E2 . Therefore, k · |NG (S)| = |E2 | ≥
|E1 | = k ·|S|, and so |NG (S)| ≥ |S|. By Theorem 3.9, G has a matching that saturates X . Since
|X | = |Y |, this matching is necessarily perfect. ⊔
⊓
Applications of Hall’s theorem

DEFINITION. Let S = {S1 , S2 , . . . , Sm } be a family of finite nonempty subsets of a set S. (Si
need not be distinct.) A transversal (or a system of distinct representatives) of S is a
subset T ⊆ S of m distinct elements one from each Si .
As an example, let S = [1, 6], and let S1 = S2 = {1, 2}, S3 = {2, 3} and S4 = {1, 4, 5, 6}.
For S = {S1 , S2 , S3 , S4 }, the set T = {1, 2, 3, 4} is a transversal. If we add the set S5 = {2, 3}
to S , then it is impossible to find a transversal for this new family.
3.3 Matchings 38
The connection of transversals to the Marriage Theorem is as follows. Let S = Y and

X = [1, m]. Form an (X , Y )-bipartite graph G such that there is an edge (i, s) if and only if
s ∈ Si . The possible transversals T of S are then obtained from the matchings M saturating
X in G by taking the ends in Y of the edges of M.
Corollary 3.2. Let S be a family of finite nonempty sets. Then S has a transversal if and only
if the union of any k of the subsets Si of S contains at least k elements.
Example 3.6. An m×n latin rectangle is an m×n integer matrix M with entries Mi j ∈ [1, n]
such that the entries in the same row and in the same column are different. Moreover, if
m = n, then M is a latin square. Note that in a m × n latin rectangle M, we always have
that m ≤ n.
We show the following: Let M be an m × n latin rectangle (with m < n). Then M can be
extended to a latin square by the addition of n − m new rows.
The claim follows when we show that M can be extended to an (m+1)×n latin rectangle.
Let Ai ⊆ [1, n] be the set of those elements
P that do not occur in the i-th column of M. Clearly,
|Ai | = n − m for each i, and hence i∈I |Ai | = |I|(n − m) for all subsets I ⊆ [1, n]. Now
∪ A ≥ |I|, since otherwise at least one element from the union would be in more than
i∈I i
n − m of the sets Ai with i ∈ I. However, each row has all the n elements, and therefore each
i is missing from exactly n − m columns. By Marriage Theorem, the family {A1 , A2 , . . . , An }
has a transversal, and this transversal can be added as a new row to M. This proves the
claim.
Tutte’s theorem
The next theorem is a classic characterization of perfect matchings.
DEFINITION. A connected component of a graph G is said to be odd (even), if it has an odd

(even) number of vertices. Denote by codd (G) the number of odd connected components in
G.
Denote by m(G) be the number of edges in a maximum matching of a graph G.
Theorem 3.10 (Tutte-Berge Formula). Each maximum matching of a graph G has
νG + |S| − codd (G−S)

m(G) = min (3.3)
S⊆VG 2
elements.
Note that the condition in (ii) includes the case, where S = ;.
Proof. We prove the result for connected graphs. The result then follows for disconnected
graphs by adding the formulas for the connected components.
3.3 Matchings 39
We observe first that ≤ holds in (3.3), since, for all S ⊆ VG ,
|VG \ S| − codd (G−S) νG + |S| − codd (G−S)

m(G) ≤ |S| + m(G−S) ≤ |S| + = .
2 2
Indeed, each odd component of G−S must have at least one unsaturated vertex.
The proof proceeds by induction on νG . If νG = 1, then the claim is trivial. Suppose that
νG ≥ 2.
Assume first that there exists a vertex v ∈ G such that v is saturated by all maximum
matchings. Then m(G−v) = m(G) − 1. For a subset S ′ ⊆ G−v, denote S = S ′ ∪ {v}. By the
induction hypothesis, for all S ′ ⊆ G−v,
1
m(G) − 1 ≥ (νG − 1) + |S ′ | − codd (G−(S ′ ∪ {v}))
2
1
= (νG + |S| − codd (G−S)) − 1.
2
The claim follows from this.
Suppose then that for each vertex v, there is a maximum matching that does not saturate
v. We claim that m(G) = (νG − 1)/2. Suppose to the contrary, and let M be a maximum
matching having two different unsaturated vertices u and v, and choose M so that the
distance dG (u, v) is as small as possible. Now dG (u, v) ≥ 2, since otherwise uv ∈ G could
be added to M, contradicting the maximality of M. Let w be an intermediate vertex on a
⋆
shortest path u − → v. By assumption, there exists a maximum matching N that does not
saturate w. We can choose N such that the intersection M ∩ N is maximal. Since dG (u, w) <
dG (u, v) and dG (w, v) < dG (u, v), N saturates both u and v. The (maximum) matchings N
and M leave equally many vertices unsaturated, and hence there exists another vertex x 6= w
saturated by M but which is unsaturated by N . Let e = x y ∈ M. If y is also unsaturated by
N , then N ∪ {e} is a matching, contradicting maximality of N . It also follows that y 6= w.
Therefore there exists an edge e′ = yz in N , where z 6= x. But now N ′ = N ∪ {e} \ {e′ } is
a maximum matching that does not saturate w. However, N ∩ M ⊂ N ′ ∩ M contradicts the
choice of N . Therefore, every maximum matching leaves exactly one vertex unsaturated,
i.e., m(G) = (νG − 1)/2.
In this case, for S = ;, the right hand side of (3.3) gets value (νG − 1)/2, and hence, by
the beginning of the proof, this must be the minimum of the right hand side. ⊔
⊓
For perfect matchings we have the following corollary, since for a perfect matching we
have m(G) = (1/2)νG .
Theorem 3.11 (TUTTE (1947)). Let G be a nontrivial graph. The following are equivalent.
(i) G has a perfect matching.
(ii) For every proper subset S ⊂ VG , codd (G−S) ≤ |S|.
Tutte’s theorem does not provide a good algorithm for constructing a perfect matching,
because the theorem requires ‘too many cases’. Its applications are mainly in the proofs
3.3 Matchings 40
of other results that are related to matchings. There is a good algorithm due to EDMONDS
(1965), which uses ‘blossom shrinkings’, but this algorithm is somewhat involved.
Example 3.7. The simplest connected graph that has no perfect matching is the path P3 .
Here removing the middle vertex creates two odd components.
The next 3-regular graph (known as the Sylvester graph)
does not have a perfect matching, because removing the black
vertex results in a graph with three odd connected compo-
nents. This graph is the smallest regular graph with an odd
degree that has no perfect matching.
Using Theorem 3.11 we can give a short proof of PETERSEN’s result for 3-regular graphs
(1891).
Theorem 3.12 (PETERSEN (1891)). If G is a bridgeless 3-regular graph, then it has a perfect
matching.
Proof. Let S be a proper subset of VG , and let Gi , i ∈ [1, t], be the odd connected compo-
nents of G−S. Denote by mi the number of edges with one end in Gi and the other in S.
Since G is 3-regular,
X X
dG (v) = 3 · νGi and dG (v) = 3 · |S| .
v∈Gi v∈S
The first of these implies that

X
mi = dG (v) − 2 · ǫGi
v∈Gi
is odd. Furthermore, mi 6= 1, because G has no bridges, and therefore mi ≥ 3. Hence the

number of odd connected components of G−S satisfies
1X 1X
t
t≤ mi ≤ dG (v) = |S| ,
3 i=1
3 v∈S
and so, by Theorem 3.11, G has a perfect matching. ⊔

⊓
Stable Marriages
DEFINITION. Consider a bipartite graph G with a bipartition (X , Y ) of the vertex set. In

addition, each vertex x ∈ G supplies an order of preferences of the vertices of NG (x). We
write u < x v, if x prefers v to u. (Here u, v ∈ Y , if x ∈ X , and u, v ∈ X , if x ∈ Y .) A matching
M of G is said to be stable, if for each unmatched pair x y ∈ / M (with x ∈ X and y ∈ Y ), it
is not the case that x and y prefer each other better than their matched companions:
x v ∈ M and y < x v, or u y ∈ M and x < y u.

3.3 Matchings 41
We omit the proof of the next theorem.
Theorem 3.13. For bipartite graphs G, a stable matching exists for all lists of preferences.
4 8
Example 3.8. That was the good news. There is a catch, of course.
3 7
A stable matching need not saturate X and Y . For instance, the
graph on the right does have a perfect matching (of 4 edges). 2 6
1 5
Suppose the preferences are the following:
1: 5 2: 6 < 8 < 7 3: 8 < 5 4: 7 < 5

5: 4 < 1 < 3 6: 2 7: 2 < 4 8: 3 < 2
Then there is no stable matchings of four edges. A stable matching of G is the following:
M = {28, 35, 47}, which leaves 1 and 6 unmatched. (You should check that there is no stable
matching containing the edges 15 and 26.)
Theorem 3.14. Let G = Kn,n be a complete bipartite graph. Then G has a perfect and stable
matching for all lists of preferences.
Proof. Let the bipartition be (X , Y ). The algorithm by GALE AND SHAPLEY (1962) works as
follows.
Procedure.
Set M0 = ;, and P(x) = ; for all x ∈ X .
Then iterate the following process until all vertices are saturated:
Choose a vertex x ∈ X that is unsaturated in Mi−1 . Let y ∈ Y be the
most preferred vertex for x such that y ∈/ P(x).
(1)Add y to P(x).
(2)If y is not saturated, then set Mi = Mi−1 ∪ {x y}.
(3)If z y ∈ Mi−1 and z < y x, then set Mi = (Mi−1 \ {z y}) ∪ {x y}.
First of all, the procedure terminates, since a vertex x ∈ X takes part in the iteration at
most n times (once for each y ∈ Y ). The final outcome, say M = M t , is a perfect matching,
since the iteration continues until there are no unsaturated vertices x ∈ X .
Also, the matching M = M t is stable. Note first that, by (3), if x y ∈ Mi and z y ∈ M j for
some x 6= z and i < j, then x < y z. Assume the that x y ∈ M, but y < x z for some z ∈ Y .
Then x y is added to the matching at some step, x y ∈ Mi , which means that z ∈ P(x) at this
step (otherwise x would have ‘proposed’ z). Hence x took part in the iteration at an earlier
step Mk , k < i (where z was put to the list P(x), but xz was not added). Thus, for some
u ∈ X , uz ∈ Mk−1 and x <z u, and so in M the vertex z is matched to some w with x <z w.
Similarly, if x < y v for some v ∈ X , then y < v z for the vertex z ∈ Y such that vz ∈ M.
⊔
⊓
4
Colourings
4.1 Edge colourings
Colourings of edges and vertices of a graph G are useful, when one is interested in classifying
relations between objects.
There are two sides of colourings. In the general case, a graph G with a colouring α is
given, and we study the properties of this pair G α = (G, α). This is the situation, e.g., in
transportation networks with bus and train links, where the colour (buss, train) of an edge
tells the nature of a link.
In the chromatic theory, G is first given and then we search for a colouring that the
satisfies required properties. One of the important properties of colourings is ‘properness’.
In a proper colouring adjacent edges or vertices are coloured differently.
Edge chromatic number
DEFINITION. A k-edge colouring α: EG → [1, k] of a graph G is an assignment of k colours

to its edges. We write G α to indicate that G has the edge colouring α.
A vertex v ∈ G and a colour i ∈ [1, k] are incident with each other, if α(vu) = i for some
vu ∈ G. If v ∈ G is not incident with a colour i, then i is available for v.
The colouring α is proper, if no two adjacent edges obtain the same colour: α(e1 ) 6= α(e2 )
for adjacent e1 and e2 .
The edge chromatic number χ ′ (G) of G is defined as
χ ′ (G) = min{k | there exists a proper k-edge colouring of G} .
A k-edge colouring α can be thought of as a partition {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek } of EG , where Ei =

{e | α(e) = i}. Note that it is possible that Ei = ; for some i. We adopt a simplified notation
G α [i1 , i2 , . . . , i t ] = G[Ei1 ∪ Ei2 ∪ · · · ∪ Ei t ]
for the subgraph of G consisting of those edges that have a colour i1 , i2 , . . . , or i t . That is,
the edges having other colours are removed.
Lemma 4.1. Each colour set Ei in a proper k-edge colouring is a matching. Moreover, for each
graph G, ∆(G) ≤ χ ′ (G) ≤ ǫG .
Proof. This is clear. ⊔

⊓
4.1 Edge colourings 43
Example 4.1. The three numbers in Lemma 4.1 can be equal. This happens, for instance,
when G = K1,n is a star. But often the inequalities are strict.
A star, and a graph with χ ′ (G) = 4.
Optimal colourings
We show that for bipartite graphs the lower bound is always optimal: χ ′ (G) = ∆(G).
Lemma 4.2. Let G be a connected graph that is not an odd cycle. Then there exists a 2-edge
colouring (that need not be proper), in which both colours are incident with each vertex v with
dG (v) ≥ 2.
Proof. Assume that G is nontrivial; otherwise, the claim is trivial.

(1) Suppose first that G is eulerian. If G is an even cycle, then a 2-edge colouring exists
as required. Otherwise, since now dG (v) is even for all v, G has a vertex v1 with dG (v1 ) ≥ 4.
Let e1 e2 . . . e t be an Euler tour of G, where ei = vi vi+1 (and vt+1 = v1 ). Define
¨
1, if i is odd ,
α(ei ) =
2, if i is even .
Hence the ends of the edges ei for i ∈ [2, t − 1] are incident with both colours. All vertices
are among these ends. The condition dG (v1 ) ≥ 4 guarantees this for v1 . Hence the claim
holds in the eulerian case.
(2) Suppose then that G is not eulerian. We define a new graph G0 by adding a vertex
v0 to G and connecting v0 to each v ∈ G of odd degree.
In G0 every vertex has even degree including v0 (by the hand-
shaking lemma), and hence G0 is eulerian. Let e0 e1 . . . e t be
an eulerian tour of G0 , where ei = vi vi+1 . By the previous 2 1
case, there is a required colouring α of G0 as above. Now, α v0 1 2
restricted to EG is a colouring of G as required by the claim,
since each vertex vi with odd degree dG (vi ) ≥ 3 is entered 2
1
and departed at least once in the tour by an edge of the orig-
inal graph G: ei−1 ei .
⊔
⊓
DEFINITION. For a k-edge colouring α of G, let
cα (v) = |{i | v is incident with i ∈ [1, k]}| .

A k-edge colouring β is an improvement of α, if

X X
cβ (v) > cα (v) .
v∈G v∈G
Also, α is optimal, if it cannot be improved.
Notice that we always have cα (v) ≤ dG (v), and if α is proper, then cα (v) = dG (v), and
in this case α is optimal. Thus an improvement of a colouring is a change towards a proper
colouring. Note also that a graph G always has an optimal k-edge colouring, but it need not
have any proper k-edge colourings.
The next lemma is obvious.
Lemma 4.3. An edge colouring α of G is proper if and only if cα (v) = dG (v) for all vertices
v ∈ G.
Lemma 4.4. Let α be an optimal k-edge colouring of G, and let v ∈ G. Suppose that the
colour i is available for v, and the colour j is incident with v at least twice. Then the connected
component H of G α [i, j] that contains v, is an odd cycle.
Proof. Suppose the connected component H is not an odd cycle. By Lemma 4.2, H has a
2-edge colouring γ: EH → {i, j}, in which both i and j are incident with each vertex x with
dH (x) ≥ 2. (We have renamed the colours 1 and 2 to i and j.) We obtain a recolouring β of
G as follows: ¨
γ(e), if e ∈ H ,
β (e) =
α(e), if e ∈
/ H.
Since dH (v) ≥ 2 (by the assumption on the colour j) and in β both colours i and j are
now incident with v, cβ (v) = cα (v) + 1.P by the construction of β , we have
Furthermore, P
cβ (u) ≥ cα (u) for all u 6= v. Therefore u∈G cβ (u) > u∈G cα (u), which contradicts the
optimality of α. Hence H is an odd cycle. ⊔
⊓
Theorem 4.1 (KÖNIG (1916)). If G is bipartite, then χ ′ (G) = ∆(G).
Proof. Let α be an optimal ∆-edge colouring of a bipartite G, where ∆ = ∆(G). If there

were a v ∈ G with cα (v) < dG (v), then by Lemma 4.4, G would contain an odd cycle. But a
bipartite graph does not contain such cycles. Therefore, for all vertices v, cα (v) = dG (v). By
Lemma 4.3, α is a proper colouring, and ∆ = χ ′ (G) as required. ⊔
⊓
Vizing’s theorem
In general we can have χ ′ (G) > ∆(G) as one of our examples did show. The following
important theorem, due to VIZING, shows that the edge chromatic number of a graph G
misses ∆(G) by at most one colour.
Theorem 4.2 (VIZING (1964)). For any graph G, ∆(G) ≤ χ ′ (G) ≤ ∆(G) + 1.
Proof. Let ∆ = ∆(G). We need only to show that χ ′ (G) ≤ ∆ + 1. Suppose on the contrary
that χ ′ (G) > ∆ + 1, and let α be an optimal (∆ + 1)-edge colouring of G.
We have (trivially) dG (u) < ∆ + 1 < χ ′ (G) for all u ∈ G, and so

Claim 1. For each u ∈ G, there exists an available colour b(u) for u.
Moreover, by the counter hypothesis, α is not a proper colouring, and hence there exists
a v ∈ G with cα (v) < dG (v), and hence a colour i1 that is incident with v at least twice, say
α(vu1 ) = i1 = α(v x) . (4.1)
Claim 2. There is a sequence of vertices u1 , u2 , . . . such that
α(vu j ) = i j and i j+1 = b(u j ) .
Indeed, let u1 be as in (4.1). Assume we have already found the vertices u1 , . . . , u j , with
j ≥ 1, such that the claim holds for these. Suppose, contrary to the claim, that v is not
incident with b(u j ) = i j+1 .
We can recolour the edges vuℓ by iℓ+1 for ℓ ∈ [1, j], and ob- ur
u r−1
tain in this way an improvement of α. Here v gains a new
..
colour i j+1 . Also, each uℓ gains a new colour iℓ+1 (and may . ir = i t+1
.
..
loose the colour iℓ ). Therefore, for each uℓ either its num- ir−1
it
ber of colours remains the same or it increases by one. This v ut
contradicts the optimality of α, and proves Claim 2. u2 i2
i1 i1
u1
Let t be the smallest index such that for some r < t, i t+1 = i r . x
Such an index t exists, because dG (v) is finite.
ur
u r−1
Let β be a recolouring of G such that for 1 ≤ j ≤ r − 1, ..
β (vu j ) = i j+1 , and for all other edges e, β (e) = α(e). .
.. ir = i t+1
. ir
Claim 3. β is an optimal (∆ + 1)-edge colouring of G. it
v ut
Indeed, cβ (v) = cα (v) and cβ (u) ≥ cα (u) for all u, since each u2 i3
i2 i1
u j (1 ≤ j ≤ r − 1) gains a new colour ji+1 although it may
u1
loose one of its old colours. x
ur
Let then the colouring γ be obtained from β by recolouring u r−1
the edges vu j by i j+1 for r ≤ j ≤ t. Now, vu t is recoloured by ..
.
i r = i t+1 . .
..
ir+1
ir
Claim 4. γ is an optimal (∆ + 1)-edge colouring of G. ir
v ut
u2 i3
Indeed, the fact i r = i t+1 ensures that i r is a new colour in- i2 i1
cident with u t , and thus that cγ (u t ) ≥ cβ (u t ). For all other u1
vertices, cγ (u) ≥ cβ (u) follows as for β . x
4.2 Ramsey Theory 46
By Claim 1, there is a colour i0 = b(v) that is available for v. By Lemma 4.4, the connected
components H1 of G β [i0 , i r ] and H2 of G γ [i0 , i r ] containing the vertex v are cycles, that is,
⋆
H1 is a cycle (vu r−1 )P1 (u r v) and H2 is a cycle (vu r−1 )P2 (u t v), where both P1 : u r−1 − → ur
⋆
and P2 : ur−1 −
→ u t are paths. However, the edges of P1 and P2 have the same colours with
respect to β and γ (either i0 or i r ). This is not possible, since P1 ends in u r while P2 ends in
a different vertex u t . This contradiction proves the theorem. ⊔
⊓
Example 4.2. We show that χ ′ (G) = 4 for the Petersen graph. Indeed, by Vizing’ theorem,
χ ′ (G) = 3 or 4. Suppose 3 colours suffice. Let C : v1 −
→ ... − → v5 −
→ v1 be the outer cycle
and C ′ : u1 −
→ ... −
→ u5 −
→ u1 the inner cycle of G such that vi ui ∈ EG for all i.
Observe that every vertex is adjacent to all colours 1, 2, 3. Now C uses one colour (say
1) once and the other two twice. This can be done uniquely (up to permutations):
1 2 3 2 3
v1 − → v3 −
→ v2 − → v5 −
→ v4 − → v1 .
2 3 1 1 1
Hence v1 −→ u1 , v2 −
→ u2 , v3 −
→ u3 , v4 −
→ u4 , v5 −
→ u5 . However, this means that 1 cannot be
′ ′
a colour of any edge in C . Since C needs three colours, the claim follows.
Edge Colouring Problem. Vizing’s theorem (nor its present proof) does not offer any char-
acterization for the graphs, for which χ ′ (G) = ∆(G)+1. In fact, it is one of the famous open
problems of graph theory to find such a characterization. The answer is known (only) for
some special classes of graphs. By HOLYER (1981), the problem whether χ ′ (G) is ∆(G) or
∆(G) + 1 is NP-complete.
The proof of Vizing’s theorem can be used to obtain a proper colouring of G with at most
∆(G) + 1 colours, when the word ‘optimal’ is forgotten: colour first the edges as well as
you can (if nothing better, then arbitrarily in two colours), and use the proof iteratively to
improve the colouring until no improvement is possible – then the proof says that the result
is a proper colouring.
4.2 Ramsey Theory
In general, Ramsey theory studies unavoidable patterns in combinatorics. We consider an

instance of this theory mainly for edge colourings (that need not be proper). A typical ex-
ample of a Ramsey property is the following: given 6 persons each pair of whom are either
friends or enemies, there are then 3 persons who are mutual friends or mutual enemies.
In graph theoretic terms this means that each colouring of the edges of K6 with 2 colours
results in a monochromatic triangle.
Turan’s theorem for complete graphs
We shall first consider the problem of finding a general condition for K p to appear in a graph.
It is clear that every graph contains K1 , and that every nondiscrete graph contains K2 .
DEFINITION. A complete p-partite graph G consists of p

discrete and disjoint induced subgraphs G1 , G2 , . . . , Gp ⊆ G,
where uv ∈ G if and only if u and v belong to different parts,
Gi and G j with i 6= j.
Note that a complete p-partite graph is completely deter-

mined by its discrete parts Gi , i ∈ [1, p].
Let p ≥ 3, and let H = H n,p be the complete (p−1)-partite graph of order n = t(p−1)+ r,
where r ∈ [1, p − 1] and t ≥ 0, such that there are r parts H1 , . . . , H r of order t + 1 and
p − 1 − r parts H r+1 , . . . , H p−1 of order t (when t > 0). (Here r is the positive residue of n
modulo (p − 1), and is thus determined by n and p.)
By its definition, K p * H. One can compute that the number ǫH of edges of H is equal to

p−2 r r
T (n, p) = n2 − 1− . (4.2)
2(p − 1) 2 p−1
The next result shows that the above bound T (n, p) is optimal.
Theorem 4.3 (TURÁN (1941)). If a graph G of order n has ǫG > T (n, p) edges, then G con-
tains a complete subgraph K p .
Proof. Let n = (p − 1)t + r for 1 ≤ r ≤ p − 1 and t ≥ 0. We prove the claim by induction on

t. If t = 0, then T (n, p) = n(n − 1)/2, and there is nothing to prove.
Suppose then that t ≥ 1, and let G be a graph of order n such that ǫG is maximum subject
to the condition K p * G.
Now G contains a complete subgraph G[A] = K p−1 , since adding any one edge to G
results in a K p , and p − 1 vertices of this K p induce a subgraph K p−1 ⊆ G.
Each v ∈ / A is adjacent to at most p − 2 vertices of A; otherwise G[A ∪ {v}] = K p . Also,
K p * G−A, and νG−A = n − p + 1. Because n − p + 1 = (t − 1)(p − 1) + r, we can apply the
induction hypothesis to obtain ǫG−A ≤ T (n − p + 1, p). Now
(p − 1)(p − 2)
ǫG ≤ T (n − p + 1, p) + (n − p + 1)(p − 2) + = T (n, p) ,
2
which proves the claim. ⊔
⊓
When Theorem 4.3 is applied to triangles K3 , we have the following interesting case.
Corollary 4.1 ( MANTEL (1907)). If a graph G has ǫG > 41 ν2G edges, then G contains a triangle
K3 .
Ramsey’s theorem
DEFINITION. Let α be an edge colouring of G. A subgraph H ⊆ G is said to be (i-) monochro-

matic, if all edges of H have the same colour i.
The following theorem is one of the jewels of combinatorics.
Theorem 4.4 (RAMSEY (1930)). Let p, q ≥ 2 be any integers. Then there exists a (smallest)
integer R(p, q) such that for all n ≥ R(p, q), any 2-edge colouring of Kn → [1, 2] contains a
1-monochromatic K p or a 2-monochromatic Kq .
Before proving this, we give an equivalent statement. Recall that a subset X ⊆ VG is

stable, if G[X ] is a discrete graph.
Theorem 4.5. Let p, q ≥ 2 be any integers. Then there exists a (smallest) integer R(p, q) such
that for all n ≥ R(p, q), any graph G of order n contains a complete subgraph of order p or a
stable set of order q.
Be patient, this will follow from Theorem 4.6. The number R(p, q) is known as the Ram-
sey number for p and q.
It is clear that R(p, 2) = p and R(2, q) = q.
Theorems 4.4 and 4.5 follow from the next result which shows (inductively) that an
upper bound exists for the Ramsey numbers R(p, q).
Theorem 4.6 (ERDÖS and SZEKERES (1935)). The Ramsey number R(p, q) exists for all p, q ≥
2, and
R(p, q) ≤ R(p, q − 1) + R(p − 1, q) .
Proof. We use induction on p + q. It is clear that R(p, q) exists for p = 2 or q = 2, and it is

thus exists for p + q ≤ 5.
It is now sufficient to show that if G is a graph of order R(p, q − 1) + R(p − 1, q), then it
has a complete subgraph of order p or a stable subset of order q.
Let v ∈ G, and denote by A = VG \(NG (v)∪{v}) the set of vertices that are not adjacent to
v. Since G has R(p, q−1)+R(p−1, q)−1 vertices different from v, either |NG (v)| ≥ R(p−1, q)
or |A| ≥ R(p, q − 1) (or both).
Assume first that |NG (v)| ≥ R(p − 1, q). By the definition of Ramsey numbers, G[NG (v)]
contains a complete subgraph B of order p − 1 or a stable subset S of order q. In the first
case, B ∪ {v} induces a complete subgraph K p in G, and in the second case the same stable
set of order q is good for G.
If |A| ≥ R(p, q − 1), then G[A] contains a complete subgraph of order p or a stable subset
S of order q − 1. In the first case, the same complete subgraph of order p is good for G, and
in the second case, S ∪ {v} is a stable subset of G of q vertices. This proves the claim. ⊔
⊓
A concrete upper bound is given in the following result.
Theorem 4.7 ( ERDÖS and SZEKERES (1935)). For all p, q ≥ 2,

p+q−2
R(p, q) ≤ .
p−1
Proof. For p = 2 or q = 2, the claim is clear. We use induction on p + q for the general
statement. Assume that p, q ≥ 3. By Theorem 4.6 and the induction hypothesis,
R(p, q) ≤ R(p, q − 1) + R(p − 1, q)

p+q−3 p+q−3 p+q−2
≤ + = ,
p−1 p−2 p−1
which is what we wanted. ⊔

⊓
In the table below we give some known values and estimates for the Ramsey numbers
R(p, q). As can be read from the table1 , not so much is known about these numbers.
p\q 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 6 9 14 18 23 28 36 40-43
4 9 18 25 35-41 49-61 55-84 69-115 80-149
5 14 25 43-49 58-87 80-143 95-216 121-316 141-442
The first unknown R(p, p) (where p = q) is for p = 5. It has been verified that 43 ≤
R(5, 5) ≤ 49, but to determine the exact value is an open problem.
Generalizations
Theorem 4.4 can be generalized as follows.
Theorem 4.8. Let qi ≥ 2 be integers for i ∈ [1, k] with k ≥ 2. Then there exists an integer R =
R(q1 , q2 , . . . , qk ) such that for all n ≥ R, any k-edge colouring of Kn has an i-monochromatic
Kqi for some i.
Proof. The proof is by induction on k. The case k = 2 is treated in Theorem 4.4. For k > 2,
we show that R(q1 , . . . , qk ) ≤ R(q1 , . . . , qk−2, p), where p = R(qk−1 , qk ).
Let n = R(q1 , . . . , qk−2 , p), and let α: EKn → [1, k] be an edge colouring. Let β : EKn →
[1, k − 1] be obtained from α by identifying the colours k − 1 and k:
¨
α(e) if α(e) < k − 1 ,
β (e) =
k − 1 if α(e) = k − 1 or k .
1
S.P. RADZISZOWSKI, Small Ramsey numbers, Electronic J. of Combin., 2000 on the Web
β
By the induction hypothesis, Kn has an i-monochromatic Kqi for some 1 ≤ i ≤ k −2 (and we
β
are done, since this subgraph is monochromatic in Knα ) or Kn has a (k − 1)-monochromatic
subgraph H β = K p . In the latter case, by Theorem 4.4, H α and thus Knα has a (k − 1)-
monochromatic or a k-monochromatic subgraph, and this proves the claim. ⊔
⊓
Since for each graph H, H ⊆ Km for m = νH , we have
Corollary 4.2. Let k ≥ 2 and H1 , H2 , . . . , H k be arbitrary graphs. Then there exists an integer
R(H1 , H2 , . . . , H k ) such that for all complete graphs Kn with n ≥ R(H1 , H2 , . . . , H k ) and for all
k-edge colourings α of Kn , Knα contains an i-monochromatic subgraph H i for some i.
This generalization is trivial from Theorem 4.8. However, the generalized Ramsey num-
bers R(H1 , H2 , . . . , H k ) can be much smaller than their counter parts (for complete graphs)
in Theorem 4.8.
Example 4.3. We leave the following statement as an exercise: If T is a tree of order m,

then
R(T, Kn) = (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1 ,
that is, any graph G of order at least R(T, Kn ) contains a subgraph isomorphic to T , or the
complement of G contains a complete subgraph Kn .
Examples of Ramsey numbers∗

Some exact values are known in Corollary 4.2, even in more general cases, for some dear
graphs (see RADZISZOWSKI’s survey). Below we list some of these results for cases, where
the graphs are equal. To this end, let
R k (G) = R(G, G, . . . , G) (k times G).
The best known lower bound of R2 (G) for connected graphs was obtained by BURR AND
ERDÖS (1976),
4νG − 1
R2 (G) ≥ (G connected).
3
Here is a list of some special cases:
jnk
R2 (Pn ) = n + − 1,
 2

6 if n = 3 or n = 4,
R2 (Cn ) = 2n − 1 if n ≥ 5 and n odd ,

3n/2 − 1 if n ≥ 6 and n even,
¨
2n − 1 if n is even,
R2 (K1,n ) =
2n if n is odd,
R2 (K2,3 ) = 10, R2 (K3,3 ) = 18.
The values R2 (K2,n ) are known for n ≤ 16, and in general, R2 (K2,n ) ≤ 4n − 2. The value
R2 (K2,17 ) is either 65 or 66.
Let Wn denote the wheel on n vertices. It is a cycle Cn−1 , where a vertex v with degree
n − 1 is attached. Note that W4 = K4 . Then R2 (W5 ) = 15 and R2 (W6 ) = 17.
For three colours, much less is known. In fact, the only nontrivial result for complete
graphs is: R3 (K3 ) = 17. Also, 128 ≤ R3 (K4 ) ≤ 235, and 385 ≤ R3 (K5 ), but no nontrivial
upper bound is known for R3 (K5 ). For the square C4 , we know that R3 (C4 ) = 11.
Needless to say that no exact values are known for R k (Kn ) for k ≥ 4 and n ≥ 3.
It follows from Theorem 4.4 that for any complete Kn , there exists a graph G (well, any
sufficiently large complete graph) such that any 2-edge colouring of G has a monochromatic
(induced) subgraph Kn . Note, however, that in Corollary 4.2 the monochromatic subgraph
H i is not required to be induced.
The following impressive theorem improves the results we have mentioned in this chap-
ter and it has a difficult proof.
Theorem 4.9 (DEUBER, ERDÖS, HAJNAL, PÓSA, and RÖDL (around 1973)). Let H be any
graph. Then there exists a graph G such that any 2-edge colouring of G has an monochromatic
induced subgraph H.
Example 4.4. As an application of Ramsey’s theorem, we shortly describe Schur’s theorem.

For this, consider the partition {1, 4, 10, 13}, {2, 3, 11, 12}, {5, 6, 7, 8, 9} of the set N13 =
[1, 13]. We observe that in no partition class there are three integers such that x + y = z.
However, if you try to partition N14 into three classes, then you are bound to find a class,
where x + y = z has a solution.
SCHUR (1916) solved this problem in a general setting. The following gives a short proof
using Ramsey’s theorem.
For each n ≥ 1, there exists an integer S(n) such that any partition S1 , . . . , Sn of NS(n) has a
class Si containing two integers x, y such that x + y ∈ Si .
Indeed, let S(n) = R(3, 3, . . . , 3), where 3 occurs n times, and let K be a complete on
NS(n) . For a partition S1 , . . . , Sn of NS(n) , define an edge colouring α of K by
α(i j) = k, if |i − j| ∈ Sk .
By Theorem 4.8, K α has a monochromatic triangle, that is, there are three vertices i, j, t such
that 1 ≤ i < j < t ≤ S(n) with t − j, j − i, t − i ∈ Sk for some k. But (t − j) + ( j − i) = t − i
proves the claim.
There are quite many interesting corollaries to Ramsey’s theorem in various parts of
mathematics including not only graph theory, but also, e.g., geometry and algebra, see
R.L. GRAHAM, B.L. ROTHSCHILD AND J.L. SPENCER, “Ramsey Theory”, Wiley, (2nd ed.) 1990.
4.3 Vertex colourings 52
4.3 Vertex colourings
The vertices of a graph G can also be classified using colourings. These colourings tell that
certain vertices have a common property (or that they are similar in some respect), if they
share the same colour. In this chapter, we shall concentrate on proper vertex colourings,
where adjacent vertices get different colours.
The chromatic number
DEFINITION. A k-colouring (or a k-vertex colouring) of a graph G is a mapping α: VG →

[1, k]. The colouring α is proper, if adjacent vertices obtain a different colour: for all uv ∈ G,
we have α(u) 6= α(v). A colour i ∈ [1, k] is said to be available for a vertex v, if no neighbour
of v is coloured by i.
A graph G is k-colourable, if there is a proper k-colouring for G. The (vertex) chromatic
number χ(G) of G is defines as
χ(G) = min{k | there exists a proper k-colouring of G} .
If χ(G) = k, then G is k-chromatic.
Each proper vertex colouring α: VG → [1, k] provides a partition {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk } of the

vertex set VG , where Vi = {v | α(v) = i}.
Example 4.5. The graph on the right, which is often called a

wheel (of order 7), is 3-chromatic.
By the definitions, a graph G is 2-colourable if and only if it is

bipartite.
Again, the ‘names’ of the colours are immaterial:
Lemma 4.5. Let α be a proper k-colouring of G, and let π be any permutation of the colours.
Then the colouring β = πα is a proper k-colouring of G.
Proof. Indeed, if α: VG → [1, k] is proper, and if π: [1, k] → [1, k] is a bijection, then

uv ∈ G implies that α(u) 6= α(v), and hence also that πα(u) 6= πα(v). It follows that πα is
a proper colouring. ⊔
⊓
Example 4.6. A graph is triangle-free, if it has no subgraphs isomorphic to K3 . We show

that there are triangle-free graphs with arbitrarily large chromatic numbers.
The following construction is due to GRÖTZEL: Let G be any triangle-free graph with
VG = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vn }. Let G t be a new graph obtained by adding n + 1 new vertices v and
u1 , u2 , . . . , un such that G t has all the edges of G plus the edges ui v and ui x for all x ∈ N (vi )
and for all i ∈ [1, n].
Claim. G t is triangle-free and it is k + 1-chromatic

Indeed, let U = {u1 , . . . , un }. We show first that G t is triangle-free. Now, U is stable, and
so a triangle contains at most (and thus exactly) one vertex ui ∈ U. If {ui , v j , vk } induces a
triangle, so does {vi , v j , vk } by the definition of G t , but the latter triangle is already in G; a
contradiction.
For the chromatic number we notice first that χ(G t ) ≤ (k+1). If α is a proper k-colouring
of G, extend it by setting α(ui ) = α(vi ) and α(v) = k + 1.
Secondly, χ(G t ) > k. Assume that α is a proper k-colouring of G t , say with α(v) = k.
Then α(ui ) 6= k. Recolour each vi by α(ui ). This gives a proper (k − 1)-colouring to G; a
contradiction. Therefore χ(G t ) = k + 1.
Now using inductively the above construction starting from the triangle-free graph K2 ,
we obtain larger triangle -free graphs with high chromatic numbers.
Critical graphs
DEFINITION. A k-chromatic graph G is said to be k-critical, if χ(H) < k for all H ⊆ G with
H 6= G.
In a critical graph an elimination of any edge and of any vertex will reduce the chromatic
number: χ(G−e) < χ(G) and χ(G−v) < χ(G) for e ∈ G and v ∈ G. Each Kn is n-critical,
since in Kn −(uv) the vertices u and v can gain the same colour.
Example 4.7. The graph K2 = P2 is the only 2-critical graph. The 3-critical graphs are ex-
actly the odd cycles C2n+1 for n ≥ 1, since a 3-chromatic G is not bipartite, and thus must
have a cycle of odd length.
Theorem 4.10. If G is k-critical for k ≥ 2, then it is connected, and δ(G) ≥ k − 1.
Proof. Note that for any graph G with the connected components G1 , G2 , . . . , Gm , χ(G) =
max{χ(Gi ) | i ∈ [1, m]} . Connectivity claim follows from this observation.
Let then G be k-critical, but δ(G) = dG (v) ≤ k − 2 for v ∈ G. Since G is critical, there is a
proper (k − 1)-colouring of G−v. Now v is adjacent to only δ(G) < k − 1 vertices. But there
are k colours, and hence there is an available colour i for v. If we recolour v by i, then a
proper (k − 1)-colouring is obtained for G; a contradiction. ⊔
⊓
The case (iii) of the next theorem is due to SZEKERES AND WILF (1968).
Theorem 4.11. Let G be any graph with k = χ(G).

(i) G has a k-critical subgraph H.
(ii) G has at least k vertices of degree ≥ k − 1.
(iii) k ≤ 1 + maxH⊆G δ(H).
Proof. For (i), we observe that a k-critical subgraph H ⊆ G is obtained by removing vertices
and edges from G as long as the chromatic number remains k.
For (ii), let H ⊆ G be k-critical. By Theorem 4.10, dH (v) ≥ k − 1 for every v ∈ H. Of
course, also dG (v) ≥ k − 1 for every v ∈ H. The claim follows, because, clearly, every k-
critical graph H must have at least k vertices.
For (iii), let H ⊆ G be k-critical. By Theorem 4.10, χ(G) − 1 ≤ δ(H), which proves this
claim. ⊔
⊓
Lemma 4.6. Let v be a cut vertex of a connected graph G, and let Ai , for i ∈ [1, m], be the
connected components of G−v. Denote Gi = G[Ai ∪ {v}]. Then χ(G) = max{χ(Gi ) | i ∈
[1, m]}. In particular, a critical graph does not have cut vertices.
Proof. Suppose each Gi has a proper k-colouring αi . By Lemma 4.5, we may take αi (v) = 1
for all i. These k-colourings give a k-colouring of G. ⊔
⊓
Brooks’ theorem
For edge colourings we have Vizing’s theorem, but no such strong results are known for
vertex colouring.
Lemma 4.7. For all graphs G, χ(G) ≤ ∆(G) + 1. In fact, there exists a proper colouring
α: VG → [1, ∆(G) + 1] such that α(v) ≤ dG (v) + 1 for all vertices v ∈ G.
Proof. We use greedy colouring to prove the claim. Let VG = {v1 , . . . , vn } be ordered in
some way, and define α: VG → N inductively as follows: α(v1 ) = 1, and
α(vi ) = min{ j | α(vt ) 6= j for all t < i with vi vt ∈ G} .
Then α is proper, and α(vi ) ≤ dG (vi ) + 1 for all i. The claim follows from this. ⊔
⊓
Although, we always have χ(G) ≤ ∆(G) + 1, the chromatic number χ(G) usually takes
much lower values – as seen in the bipartite case. Moreover, the maximum value ∆(G) + 1
is obtained only in two special cases as was shown by BROOKS in 1941.
The next proof of Brook’s theorem is by LOVÁSZ (1975) as modified by BRYANT (1996).
Lemma 4.8. Let G be a 2-connected graph. Then the following are equivalent:
(i) G is a complete graph or a cycle.
(ii) For all u, v ∈ G, if uv ∈/ G, then {u, v} is a separating set.
(iii) For all u, v ∈ G, if dG (u, v) = 2, then {u, v} is a separating set.
Proof. It is clear that (i) implies (ii), and that (ii) implies (iii). We need only to show that
(iii) implies (i). Assume then that (iii) holds.
We shall show that either G is a complete graph or dG (v) = 2 for all v ∈ G, from which
the theorem follows.
First of all, dG (v) ≥ 2 for all v, since G is 2-connected. Let w be a vertex of maximum
degree, dG (w) = ∆(G).
If the neighbourhood NG (w) induces a complete subgraph, then G is complete. Indeed,
otherwise, since G is connected, there exists a vertex u ∈
/ NG (w)∪{w} such that u is adjacent
to a vertex v ∈ NG (w). But then dG (v) > dG (w), and this contradicts the choice of w.
Assume then that there are different vertices u, v ∈ NG (w) such that uv ∈ / G. This means
that dG (u, v) = 2 (the shortest path is u −→w− → v), and by (iii), {u, v} is a separating set of
G. Consequently, there is a partition VG = W ∪ {u, v} ∪ U, where w ∈ W , and all paths from
a vertex of W to a vertex of U go through either u or v.
We claim that W = {w}, and thus that ∆(G) = 2 as required. Suppose on the contrary
that |W | ≥ 2. Since w is not a cut vertex (since G has no cut vertices), there exists an x ∈ W
with x 6= w such that xu ∈ G or x v ∈ G, say xu ∈ G.
Since v is not a cut vertex, there exists a y ∈ U such that u y ∈

u
G. Hence dG (x, y) = 2, and by (iii), {x, y} is a separating set.
Thus VG = W1 ∪ {x, y} ∪ U1 , where all paths from W1 to U1 w x y
pass through x or y. Assume that w ∈ W1 , and hence that
v
also u, v ∈ W1 . (Since uw, vw ∈ VG −{x, y}).
There exists a vertex z ∈ U1 . Note that U1 ⊆ W ∪U. If z ∈ W (or z ∈ U, respectively), then

all paths from z to u must pass through x (or y, respectively), and x (or y, respectively)
would be a cut vertex of G. This contradiction, proves the claim. ⊔
⊓
Theorem 4.12 ( BROOKS (1941)). Let G be connected. Then χ(G) = ∆(G) + 1 if and only if
either G is an odd cycle or a complete graph.
Proof. (⇐=) Indeed, χ(C2k+1 ) = 3, ∆(C2k+1) = 2, and χ(Kn ) = n, ∆(Kn ) = n − 1.

(=⇒) Assume that k = χ(G). We may suppose that G is k-critical. Indeed, assume the
claim holds for k-critical graphs. Let k = ∆(G) + 1, and let H ⊂ G be a k-critical proper
subgraph. Since χ(H) = k = ∆(G) + 1 > ∆(H), we must have χ(H) = ∆(H) + 1, and thus
H is a complete graph or an odd cycle. Now G is connected, and therefore there exists an
edge uv ∈ G with u ∈ H and v ∈ / H. But then dG (u) > dH (u), and ∆(G) > ∆(H), since
H = Kn or H = Cn .
Let then G be any k-critical graph for k ≥ 2. By Lemma 4.6, it is 2-connected. If G is an
even cycle, then k = 2 = ∆(G). Suppose now that G is neither complete nor a cycle (odd or
even). We show that χ(G) ≤ ∆(G).
By Lemma 4.8, there exist v1 , v2 ∈ G with dG (v1 , v2 ) = 2, say v1 w, w v2 ∈ G with v1 v2 ∈
/ G,
such that H = G−{v1 , v2 } is connected. Order VH = {v3 , v4 , . . . , vn } such that vn = w, and
for all i ≥ 3,
dH (vi , w) ≥ dH (vi+1 , w) .
Therefore for each i ∈ [1, n − 1], we find at least one j > i such that vi v j ∈ G (possibly
v j = w). In particular, for all 1 ≤ i < n,
|NG (vi ) ∩ {v1 , . . . , vi−1 }| < dG (vi ) ≤ ∆(G) . (4.3)
Then colour v1 , v2 , . . . , vn in this order as follows: α(v1 ) = 1 = α(v2 ) and
α(vi ) = min{r | r 6= α(v j ) for all v j ∈ NG (vi ) with j < i} .
The colouring α is proper.

By (4.3), α(vi ) ≤ ∆(G) for all i ∈ [1, n − 1]. Also, w = vn has two neighbours, v1 and
v2 , of the same colour 1, and since vn has at most ∆(G) neighbours, there is an available
colour for vn , and so α(vn) ≤ ∆(G). This shows that G has a proper ∆(G)-colouring, and,
consequently, χ(G) ≤ ∆(G). ⊔
⊓
Example 4.8. Suppose we have n objects V = {v1 , . . . , vn }, some of which are not compati-
ble (like chemicals that react with each other, or worse, graph theorists who will fight during
a conference). In the storage problem we would like to find a partition of the set V with
as few classes as possible such that no class contains two incompatible elements. In graph
theoretical terminology we consider the graph G = (V, E), where vi v j ∈ E just in case vi and
v j are incompatible, and we would like to colour the vertices of G properly using as few
colours as possible. This problem requires that we find χ(G).
Unfortunately, no good algorithms are known for determining χ(G), and, indeed, the
chromatic number problem is NP-complete. Already the problem if χ(G) = 3 is NP-complete.
(However, as we have seen, the problem whether χ(G) = 2 has a fast algorithm.)
The chromatic polynomial
A given graph G has many different proper vertex colourings α: VG → [1, k] for sufficiently
large natural numbers k. Indeed, see Lemma 4.5 to be certain on this point.
DEFINITION. The chromatic polynomial of G is the function χG : N → N, where
χG (k) = |{α | α: VG → [1, k] a proper colouring}| .
This notion was introduced by BIRKHOFF (1912), BIRKHOFF AND LEWIS (1946), to attack
the famous 4-Colour Theorem, but its applications have turned out to be elsewhere.
If k < χ(G), then clearly χG (k) = 0, and, indeed,
χ(G) = min{k | χG (k) 6= 0} .
Therefore, if we can find the chromatic polynomial of G, then we easily compute the chro-
matic number χ(G) just by evaluating χG (k) for k = 1, 2, . . . until we hit a nonzero value.
Theorem 4.13 will give the tools for constructing χG .
Example 4.9. Consider the complete graph K4 on {v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 }. Let k ≥ χ(K4 ) = 4. The
vertex v1 can be first given any of the k colours, after which k − 1 colours are available
for v2 . Then v3 has k − 2 and finally v4 has k − 3 available colours. Therefore there are
k(k − 1)(k − 2)(k − 3) different ways to properly colour K4 with k colours, and so
χK4 (k) = k(k − 1)(k − 2)(k − 3) .
On the other hand, in the discrete graph K 4 has no edges, and thus any k-colouring is a
proper colouring. Therefore
χK 4 (k) = k4 .
Remark. The considered method for checking the number of possibilities to colour a ‘next
vertex’ is exceptional, and for more nonregular graphs it should be avoided.
DEFINITION. Let G be a graph, e = uv ∈ G, and let x = x(uv) be a new contracted vertex.

The graph G ∗ e on
VG∗e = (VG \ {u, v}) ∪ {x}
is obtained from G by contracting the edge e, when
EG∗e = { f | f ∈ EG , f has no end u or v} ∪ {w x | wu ∈ G or w v ∈ G} .
Hence G ∗ e is obtained by introducing a new vertex x,

u x
and by replacing all edges wu and w v by w x, and the
vertices u and v are deleted. e
(Of course, no loops or parallel edges are allowed in the
v
new graph G ∗ e.)
Theorem 4.13. Let G be a graph, and let e ∈ G. Then
χG (k) = χG−e (k) − χG∗e (k).
Proof. Let e = uv. The proper k-colourings α: VG → [1, k] of G−e can be divided into two
disjoint cases, which together show that χG−e (k) = χG (k) + χG∗e (k):
(1) If α(u) 6= α(v), then α corresponds to a unique proper k-colouring of G, namely α.
Hence the number of such colourings is χG (k).
(2) If α(u) = α(v), then α corresponds to a unique proper k-colouring of G ∗ e, namely
α, when we set α(x) = α(u) for the contracted vertex x = x(uv). Hence the number of such
colourings is χG∗e (k). ⊔
⊓
Theorem 4.14. The chromatic polynomial is a polynomial.
Proof. The proof is by induction on ǫG . Indeed, χK n (k) = k n for the discrete graph, and
for two polynomials P1 and P2 , also P1 − P2 is a polynomial. The claim follows from Theo-
rem 4.13, since there G−e and G ∗ e have less edges than G. ⊔
⊓
The connected components of a graph can be coloured independently, and so

Lemma 4.9. Let the graph G have the connected components G1 , G2 , . . . , Gm . Then
χG (k) = χG1 (k)χG2 (k) . . . χGm (k) .
Theorem 4.15. Let T be a tree of order n. Then χ T (k) = k(k − 1)n−1 .
Proof. We use induction on n. For n ≤ 2, the claim is obvious. Suppose that n ≥ 3, and let
e = vu ∈ T , where v is a leaf. By Theorem 4.13, χ T (k) = χ T −e (k) − χ T ∗e (k). Here T ∗ e is a
tree of order n − 1, and thus, by the induction hypothesis, χ T ∗e (k) = k(k − 1)n−2. The graph
T −e consists of the isolated v and a tree of order n − 1. By Lemma 4.9, and the induction
hypothesis, χ T −e (k) = k · k(k − 1)n−2. Therefore χ T (k) = k(k − 1)n−1. ⊔
⊓
Example 4.10. Consider the graph G of order 4 from the above. Then we have the following
reductions.
e = −
G G−e G∗e
f
= −
G−e G − {e, f } (G − e) ∗ f
Theorem 4.13 reduces the computation of χG to the discrete graphs. However, we know
the chromatic polynomials for trees (and complete graphs, as an exercise), and so there is
no need to prolong the reductions beyond these. In our example, we have obtained
χG−e (k) = χG−{e, f } (k) − χ(G−e)∗ f (k)

= k(k − 1)3 − k(k − 1)2 = k(k − 1)2 (k − 2) ,
and so
χG (k) = χG−e (k) − χG∗e (k) = k(k − 1)2 (k − 2) − k(k − 1)(k − 2)

= k(k − 1)(k − 2)2 = k4 − 5k3 + 8k2 − 4k .
For instance, for 3 colours, there are 6 proper colourings of the given graph.
Chromatic Polynomial Problems. It is difficult to determine χG of a given graph, since

the reduction method provided by Theorem 4.13 is time consuming. Also, there is known
no characterization, which would tell from any polynomial P(k) whether it is a chromatic
polynomial of some graph. For instance, the polynomial k4 − 3k3 + 3k2 is not a chromatic
polynomial of any graph, but it seems to satisfy the general properties (that are known or
conjectured) of these polynomials. REED (1968) conjectured that the coefficients of a chro-
matic polynomial should first increase and then decrease in absolute value. REED (1968)
and TUTTE (1974) proved that for each G of order νG = n:
• The degree of χG (k) equals n.
• The coefficient of k n equals 1.
• The coefficient of k n−1 equals −ǫG .
• The constant term is 0.
• The coefficients alternate in sign.
• χG (m) ≤ m(m − 1)n − 1 for all positive integers m, when G is connected.
• χG (x) 6= 0 for all real numbers 0 < x < 1.
5
Graphs on Surfaces
5.1 Planar graphs
The plane representations of graphs are by no means unique. Indeed, a graph G can be
drawn in arbitrarily many different ways. Also, the properties of a graph are not necessarily
immediate from one representation, but may be apparent from another. There are, however,
important families of graphs, the surface graphs, that rely on the (topological or geomet-
rical) properties of the drawings of graphs. We restrict ourselves in this chapter to the most
natural of these, the planar graphs. The geometry of the plane will be treated intuitively.
A planar graph will be a graph that can be drawn in the plane so that no two edges
intersect with each other. Such graphs are used, e.g., in the design of electrical (or similar)
circuits, where one tries to (or has to) avoid crossing the wires or laser beams. Planar graphs
come into use also in some parts of mathematics, especially in group theory and topology.
There are fast algorithms (linear time algorithms) for testing whether a graph is planar
or not. However, the algorithms are all rather difficult to implement. Most of them are based
on an algorithm designed by AUSLANDER AND PARTER (1961) see Section 6.5 of
S. SKIENA, “Implementing Discrete Mathematics: Combinatorics and Graph Theory with
Mathematica”, Addison-Wesley, 1990.
Definition
DEFINITION. A graph G is a planar graph, if it has a
plane figure P(G), called the plane embedding of G,
where the lines (or continuous curves) corresponding
to the edges do not intersect each other except at their
ends.
The complete bipartite graph K2,4 is a planar graph.
DEFINITION. An edge e = uv ∈ G is subdivided, when it is replaced by a path u − →x− →v

of length two by introducing a new vertex x. A subdivision H of a graph G is obtained from
G by a sequence of subdivisions.
5.1 Planar graphs 61
The following result is clear.
Lemma 5.1. A graph is planar if and only if its subdivisions are planar.
Geometric properties
It is clear that the graph theoretical properties of G are inherited by all of its plane embed-
dings. For instance, the way we draw a graph G in the plane does not change its maximum
degree or its chromatic number. More importantly, there are – as we shall see – some non-
trivial topological (or geometric) properties that are shared by the plane embeddings.
We recall first some elements of the plane geometry. Let F be an open set of the plane
R × R, that is, every point x ∈ F has a disk centred at x and contained in F . Then F is a
region, if any two points x, y ∈ F can be joined by a continuous curve the points of which
are all in F . The boundary ∂ (F ) of a region F consists of those points for which every
neighbourhood contains points from F and its complement.
Let G be a planar graph, and P(G) one of its plane embeddings. Regard now each edge
e = uv ∈ G as a line from u to v. The set (R × R) \ EG is open, and it is divided into a finite
number of disjoint regions, called the faces of P(G).
DEFINITION. A face of P(G) is an interior face, if it is bounded.
The (unique) face that is unbounded is called the exterior face
of P(G). The edges that surround a face F constitute the bound- F3
ary ∂ (F ) of F . The exterior boundary is the boundary of the F2
exterior face. The vertices (edges, resp.) on the exterior bound- F1
ary are called exterior vertices exterior edges, resp.). Vertices
F0
(edges, resp.) that are not on the exterior boundary are interior
vertices interior edges, resp.).
Embeddings P(G) satisfy some properties that we accepts at face value.
Lemma 5.2. Let P(G) be a plane embedding of a planar graph G.

(i) Two different faces F1 and F2 are disjoint, and their boundaries can intersect only on edges.
(ii) P(G) has a unique exterior face.
(iii) Each edge e belongs to the boundary of at most two faces.
(iv) Each cycle of G surrounds (that is, its interior contains) at least one internal face of P(G).
(v) A bridge of G belongs to the boundary of only one face.
(vi) An edge that is not a bridge belongs to the boundary of exactly two faces.
If P(G) is a plane embedding of a graph G, then so is any drawing P ′ (G) which is obtained
from P(G) by an injective mapping of the plane that preserves continuous curves. This
means, in particular, that every planar graph has a plane embedding inside any geometric
circle of arbitrarily small radius, or inside any geometric triangle.
Euler’s formula
Lemma 5.3. A plane embedding P(G) of a planar graph G has no interior faces if and only if
G is acyclic, that is, if and only if the connected components of G are trees.
Proof. This is clear from Lemma 5.2. ⊔

⊓
The next general form of Euler’s formula was proved by LEGENDRE (1794).
Theorem 5.1 (Euler’s formula). Let G be a connected planar graph, and let P(G) be any of
its plane embeddings. Then
ν G − ǫG + ϕ = 2 ,
where ϕ is the number of faces of P(G).
Proof. We shall prove the claim by induction on the number of faces ϕ of a plane embedding
P(G). First, notice that ϕ ≥ 1, since each P(G) has an exterior face.
If ϕ = 1, then, by Lemma 5.3, there are no cycles in G, and since G is connected, it is a
tree. In this case, by Theorem 2.4, we have ǫG = νG − 1, and the claim holds.
Suppose then that the claim is true for all plane embeddings with less than ϕ faces for
ϕ ≥ 2. Let P(G) be a plane embedding of a connected planar graph such that P(G) has ϕ
faces.
Let e ∈ G be an edge that is not a bridge. The subgraph G−e is planar with a plane
embedding P(G−e) = P(G)−e obtained by simply erasing the edge e. Now P(G−e) has ϕ−1
faces, since the two faces of P(G) that are separated by e are merged into one face of P(G−e).
By the induction hypothesis, νG−e −ǫG−e +(ϕ −1) = 2, and hence νG −(ǫG −1)+(ϕ −1) = 2,
and the claim follows. ⊔
⊓
In particular, we have the following invariant property of planar graphs.
Corollary 5.1. Let G be a planar graph. Then every plane embedding of G has the same number
of faces:
ϕ G = ǫG − ν G + 2
Maximal planar graphs
Lemma 5.4. If G is a planar graph of order νG ≥ 3, then ǫG ≤ 3νG − 6. Moreover, if G has no

triangles C3 , then ǫG ≤ 2νG − 4.
Proof. If G is disconnected with connected components Gi , for i ∈ [1, k], and if the claim
holds for these smaller (necessarily planar) graphs Gi , then it holds for G, since
νG
X νG
X
ǫG = ǫ Gi ≤ 3 νGi − 6k = 3νG − 6k ≤ 3νG − 6 .
i=1 i=1
It is thus sufficient to prove the claim for connected planar graphs.

Also, the case where ǫG ≤ 2 is clear. Suppose thus that ǫG ≥ 3.

Each face F of an embedding P(G) contains at least three edges on its boundary ∂ (F ).
Hence 3ϕ ≤ 2ǫG , since each edge lies on at most two faces. The first claim follows from
Euler’s formula.
The second claim is proved similarly except that, in this case, each face F of P(G) contains
at least four edges on its boundary (when G is connected and ǫG ≥ 4). ⊔
⊓
An upper bound for δ(G) for planar graphs was achieved by HEAWOOD.
Theorem 5.2 (HEAWOOD (1890)). If G is a planar graph, then δ(G) ≤ 5.
Proof. If νG ≤ 2, then there is nothing to prove. Suppose νG ≥ 3. By the handshaking

lemma and the previous lemma,
X
δ(G) · νG ≤ dG (v) = 2ǫG ≤ 6νG − 12 .
v∈G
It follows that δ(G) ≤ 5. ⊔

⊓
Theorem 5.3. K5 and K3,3 are not planar graphs.
Proof. By Lemma 5.4, a planar graph of order 5 has at most 9 edges, but K5 has 5 vertices
and 10 edges. By the second claim of Lemma 5.4, a triangle-free planar graph of order 6
has at most 8 edges, but K3,3 has 6 vertices and 9 edges. ⊔
⊓
DEFINITION. A planar graph G is maximal, if G + e is nonplanar for every e ∈

/ G.
Example 5.1. Clearly, if we remove one edge from K5 , the result is a maximal planar graph.
However, if an edge is removed from K3,3 , the result is not maximal!
Lemma 5.5. Let F be a face of a plane embedding P(G) that has at least four edges on its
boundary. Then there are two nonadjacent vertices on the boundary of F .
Proof. Assume that the set of the boundary vertices of F induces a complete subgraph K.
The edges of K are either on the boundary or they are not inside F (since F is a face.) Add a
new vertex x inside F , and connect the vertices of K to x. The result is a plane embedding of
a graph H with VH = VG ∪ {x} (that has G as its induced subgraph). The induced subgraph
H[K ∪ {x}] is complete, and since H is planar, we have |K| < 4 as required. ⊔
⊓
By the previous lemma, if a face has a boundary of at least four edges, then an edge can
be added to the graph (inside the face), and the graph remains to be planar. Hence we have
proved
Corollary 5.2. If G is a maximal planar graph with νG ≥ 3, then G is triangulated, that is,
every face of a plane embedding P(G) has a boundary of exactly three edges.
Theorem 5.4. For a maximal planar graph G of order νG ≥ 3, ǫG = 3νG − 6 .

Proof. Each face F of an embedding P(G) is a triangle having three edges on its boundary.
Hence 3ϕ = 2ǫG , since there are now no bridges. The claim follows from Euler’s formula.
⊔
⊓
Kuratowski’s theorem
Theorem 5.5 will give a simple criterion for planarity of graphs. This theorem (due to KU-
RATOWSKI in 1930) is one of the jewels of graph theory. In fact, the theorem was proven
earlier by PONTRYAGIN (1927-1928), and also independently by FRINK AND SMITH (1930).
For history of the result, see
J.W. KENNEDY, L.V. QUINTAS, AND M.M. SYSLO, The theorem on planar graphs. Historia Math.
12 (1985), 356 – 368.
The graphs K5 and K3,3 are the smallest nonplanar graphs, and, by Lemma 5.1, if G
contains a subdivision of K5 or K3,3 as a subgraph, then G is not planar. We prove the
converse of this result in what follows. Therefore
Theorem 5.5 (KURATOWSKI (1930)). A graph is planar if and only if it contains no subdivision
of K5 or K3,3 as a subgraph.
We prove this result along the lines of THOMASSEN (1981) using 3-connectivity.
Example 5.2. The cube Q k is planar only for k = 1, 2, 3. Indeed, the graph Q 4 contains a
subdivision of K3,3 , and thus by Theorem 5.5 it is not planar. On the other hand, each Q k
with k ≥ 4 has Q 4 as a subgraph, and therefore they are nonplanar. The subgraph of Q 4 that
is a subdivision of K3,3 is given below.
0000 1010 1001
0100 1110 1101 0001
0011
1000 1100 0010
DEFINITION. A graph G is called a Kuratowski graph, if it is a subdivision of K5 or K3,3 .
Lemma 5.6. Let E ⊆ EG be the set of the boundary edges of a face F in a plane embedding of
G. Then there exists a plane embedding P(G), where the edges of E are exterior edges.
Proof. This is a geometric proof. Choose a circle that contains every point of the plane
embedding (including all points of the edges) such that the centre of the circle is inside the
given face. Then use geometric inversion with respect to this circle. This will map the given
face as the exterior face of the image plane embedding. ⊔
⊓
Lemma 5.7. Let G be a nonplanar graph without Kuratowski graphs of minimal total size
ǫG + νG . Then G is 3-connected.
Proof. By the minimality assumption, G is connected. We show then that G is 2-connected.

On the contrary, assume that v is a cut vertex of G, and let A1 , . . . , Ak be the connected
components of G−v.
Since G is minimal nonplanar with respect to ǫG , the sub-
graphs Gi = G[Ai ∪{v}] have plane embeddings P(Gi ), where
A1 A2
v is an exterior vertex. We can glue these plane embeddings
together at v to obtain a plane embedding of G, and this will
contradict the choice of G.
Assume then that G has a separating set S = {u, v}. Let G1 and G2 be any subgraphs
of G such that EG = EG1 ∪ EG2 , S = VG1 ∩ VG2 , and both G1 and G2 contain a connected
⋆
component of G−S. Since G is 2-connected (by the above), there are paths u − → v in G1 and
G2 . Indeed, both u and v are adjacent to a vertex of each connected component of G−S. Let
H i = Gi + uv. (Maybe uv ∈ G.)
If both H1 and H2 are planar, then, by Lemma 5.6, they have
plane embeddings, where uv is an exterior edge. It is now H1 H2
easy to glue H1 and H2 together on the edge uv to obtain a
plane embedding of G + uv, and thus of G.
We conclude that H1 or H2 is nonplanar, say H1 . Now ǫH1 < ǫG , and so, by the minimality
⋆
of G, H1 contains a Kuratowski graph H. However, there is a path u −→ v in H2 , since G2 ⊆ H2 .
This path can be regarded as a subdivision of uv, and thus G contains a Kuratowski graph.
This contradiction shows that G is 3-connected. ⊔
⊓
Lemma 5.8. Let G be a 3-connected graph of order νG ≥ 5. Then there exists an edge e ∈ G
such that the contraction G ∗ e is 3-connected.
Proof. On the contrary suppose that for any e ∈ G, the graph G ∗ e has a separating set S
with |S| = 2. Let e = uv, and let x = x(uv) be the contracted vertex. Necessarily x ∈ S, say
S = {x, z} (for, otherwise, S would separate G already). Therefore T = {u, v, z} separates
G. Assume that e and S are chosen such that G−T has a connected component A with the
least possible number of vertices.
There exists a vertex y ∈ A with z y ∈ G. (Otherwise {u, v}

B
would separate G.) The graph G ∗ (z y) is not 3-connected by u
assumption, and hence, as in the above, there exists a vertex
A
w such that R = {z, y, w} separates G. It can be that w ∈ T v
{u, v}, but by symmetry we can suppose that w 6= u. z y
Since uv ∈ G, G−R has a connected component B such that u, v ∈ / B. For each y ′ ∈ B,

⋆
there exists a path P : u −→ y ′ in G−{z, w}, since G is 3-connected, and hence this P goes
through y. Therefore y is connected to y also in G−T , that is, y ′ ∈ A, and so B ⊆ A. The
′
inclusion is proper, since y ∈

/ B. Hence |B| < |A|, and this contradicts the choice of A. ⊔
⊓
By the next lemma, a Kuratowski graph cannot be created by contractions.
Lemma 5.9. Let G be a graph. If for some e ∈ G the contraction G ∗ e has a Kuratowski
subgraph, then so does G.
Proof. The proof consists of several cases depending on the Kuratowski graph, and how the
subdivision is made. We do not consider the details of these cases.
Let H be a Kuratowski graph of G∗e, where x = x(uv) is the contracted vertex for e = uv.
If dH (x) = 2, then the claim is obviously true. Suppose then that dH (x) = 3 or 4. If there
exists at most one edge x y ∈ H such that u y ∈ G (or v y ∈ G), then one easily sees that G
contains a Kuratowski graph.
There remains only one case, where H is a subdivision of K5 , and both u and v have 3
neighbours in the subgraph of G corresponding to H. In this case, G contains a subdivision
of K3,3 . ⊔
⊓
v2 v4 v2 v4
x u v
v1 v3 v1 v3
Lemma 5.10. Every 3-connected graph G without Kuratowski subgraphs is planar.
Proof. The proof is by induction on νG . The only 3-connected graph of order 4 is the planar
graph K4 . Therefore we can assume that νG ≥ 5.
By Lemma 5.8, there exists an edge e = uv ∈ G such that G ∗ e (with a contracted vertex
x) is 3-connected. By Lemma 5.9, G ∗ e has no Kuratowski subgraphs, and hence G ∗ e has a
plane embedding P(G ∗ e) by the induction hypothesis. Consider the part P(G ∗ e)−x, and
let C be the boundary of the face of P(G ∗ e)−x containing x (in P(G ∗ e)). Here C is a cycle
of G (since G is 3-connected).
Now since G−{u, v} = (G ∗ e)−x, P(G ∗ e)−x is a plane embedding of G−{u, v}, and
NG (u) ⊆ VC ∪ {v} and NG (v) ⊆ VC ∪ {u}. Assume, by symmetry, that dG (v) ≤ dG (u). Let
⋆
NG (v) \ {u} = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vk } in order along the cycle C. Let Pi, j : vi −
→ v j be the path along
C from vi to v j . We obtain a plane embedding of G−u by drawing (straight) edges v vi for
1 ≤ i ≤ k.
(1) If NG (u) \ {v} ∈ Pi,i+1 (i + 1 is taken modulo k) for some i, then, clearly, G has a
plane embedding (obtained from P(G)−u by putting u inside the triangle (v, vi , vi+1 ) and
by drawing the edges with an end u inside this triangle).
y
(2) Assume there are y, z ∈ NG (u) \ {v} such that y ∈ Pi j

u
and z ∈ / Pi j for some i and j, where y, z ∈ / {vi , v j }. Now, z
{u, vi , vi+1 } ∪ {v, z, y} form a subdivision of K3,3 . v
5.2 Colouring planar graphs 67
By (1) and (2), we can assume that NG (u) \ {v} ⊆ NG (v).

Therefore, NG (u) \ {v} = NG (v) \ {u} by the assumption u
dG (v) ≤ dG (u). Also, by (1), dG (v) = dG (u) > 3. But now
v
u, v, v1 , v2 , v3 give a subdivision of K5 . ⊔
⊓
Proof of Theorem 5.5. By Theorem 5.3 and Lemma 5.1, we need to show that each nonpla-
nar graph G contains a Kuratowski subgraph. On the contrary, suppose that G is a nonplanar
graph that has a minimal size ǫG such that G does not contain a Kuratowski subgraph. Then,
by Lemma 5.7, G is 3-connected, and by Lemma 5.10, it is planar. This contradiction proves
the claim. ⊔
⊓
Example 5.3. Any graph G can be drawn in the plane so that three of its edges never inter-
sect at the same point. The crossing number ×(G) is the minimum number of intersections
of its edges in such plane drawings of G. Therefore G is planar if and only if ×(G) = 0, and,
for instance, ×(K5 ) = 1.
We show that ×(K6 ) = 3. For this we need to show that ×(K6 ) ≥ 3. For the equality, one
is invited to design a drawing with exactly 3 crossings.
Let X (K6 ) be a drawing of K6 using c crossings so that two edges cross at most once. Add
a new vertex at each crossing. This results in a planar graph G on c + 6 vertices and 2c + 15
edges. Now c ≥ 3, since ǫG = 2c + 15 ≤ 3(c + 6) − 6 = 3νG − 6.
5.2 Colouring planar graphs
The most famous problem in the history of graph theory is that of the chromatic number
of planar graphs. The problem was known as the 4-Colour Conjecture for more than 120
years, until it was solved by APPEL AND HAKEN in 1976: if G is a planar graph, then χ(G) ≤ 4.
The 4-Colour Conjecture has had a deep influence on the theory of graphs during the last
150 years. The solution of the 4-Colour Theorem is difficult, and it requires the assistance
of a computer.
The 5-colour theorem

We prove HEAWOOD’s result (1890) that each planar graph is properly 5-colourable.
Lemma 5.11. If G is a planar graph, then χ(G) ≤ 6.
Proof. The proof is by induction on νG . Clearly, the claim holds for νG ≤ 6. By Theorem 5.2,
a planar graph G has a vertex v with dG (v) ≤ 5. By the induction hypothesis, χ(G−v) ≤ 6.
Since dG (v) ≤ 5, there is a colour i available for v in the 6-colouring of G−v, and so χ(G) ≤
6. ⊔
⊓
The proof of the following theorem is partly geometric in nature.
Theorem 5.6 (HEAWOOD (1890)). If G is a planar graph, then χ(G) ≤ 5.

Proof. Suppose the claim does not hold, and let G be a 6-critical planar graph. Recall that
for k-critical graphs H, δ(H) ≥ k−1, and thus there exists a vertex v with dG (v) = δ(G) ≥ 5.
By Theorem 5.2, dG (v) = 5.
Let α be a proper 5-colouring of G−v. Such a colouring exists, v5 v1

because G is 6-critical. By assumption, χ(G) > 5, and there-
fore for each i ∈ [1, 5], there exists a neighbour vi ∈ NG (v) v v2 P13
such that α(vi ) = i. Suppose these neighbours vi of v occur
in the plane in the geometric order of the figure. v4 v3
Consider the subgraph G[i, j] ⊆ G made of colours i and j. The vertices vi and v j are in
the same connected component of G[i, j] (for, otherwise we interchange the colours i and
j in the connected component containing v j to obtain a recolouring of G, where vi and v j
have the same colour i, and then recolour v with the remaining colour j).
⋆
Let Pi j : vi −
→ v j be a path in G[i, j], and let C = (v v1 )P13 (v3 v). By the geometric as-
sumption, exactly one of v2 , v4 lies inside the region enclosed by the cycle C. Now, the path
P24 must meet C at some vertex of C, since G is planar. This is a contradiction, since the
vertices of P24 are coloured by 2 and 4, but C contains no such colours. ⊔
⊓
The final word on the chromatic number of planar graphs was proved by APPEL AND
HAKEN in 1976.
Theorem 5.7 (4-Colour Theorem). If G is a planar graph, then χ(G) ≤ 4.
By the following theorem, each planar graph can be decomposed into two bipartite
graphs.
Theorem 5.8. Let G = (V, E) be a 4-chromatic graph, χ(G) ≤ 4. Then the edges of G can be
partitioned into two subsets E1 and E2 such that (V, E1 ) and (V, E2 ) are both bipartite.
Proof. Let Vi = α−1 (i) be the set of vertices coloured by i in a proper 4-colouring α of G.
The define E1 as the subset of the edges of G that are between the sets V1 and V2 ; V1 and
V4 ; V3 and V4 . Let E2 be the rest of the edges, that is, they are between the sets V1 and V3 ;
V2 and V3 ; V2 and V4 . It is clear that (V, E1 ) and (V, E2 ) are bipartite, since the sets Vi are
stable. ⊔
⊓
Map colouring∗
The 4-Colour Conjecture was originally stated for maps. In the map-colouring problem we
are given several countries with common borders, and we wish to colour each country so
that no neighbouring countries obtain the same colour. How many colours are needed?
A border between two countries is assumed to have a positive length – in particular,
countries that have only one point in common are not allowed in the map colouring.
Formally, we define a map as a connected planar (embedding of a) graph with no bridges.
The edges of this graph represent the boundaries between countries. Hence a country is a
face of the map, and two neighbouring countries share a common edge (not just a single
vertex). We deny bridges, because a bridge in such a map would be a boundary inside a
country.
The map-colouring problem is restated as follows:
How many colours are needed for the faces of a plane em-
bedding so that no adjacent faces obtain the same colour.
The illustrated map can be 4-coloured, and it cannot be
coloured using only 3 colours, because every two faces
have a common border.
Let F1 , F2 , . . . , Fn be the countries of a map M, and define a graph G with VG =

{v1 , v2 , . . . , vn } such that vi v j ∈ G if and only if the countries Fi and F j are neighbours.
It is easy to see that G is a planar graph. Using this notion of a dual graph, we can state the
map-colouring problem in new form: What is the chromatic number of a planar graph? By
the 4-Colour Theorem it is at most four.
Map-colouring can be used in rather generic topological setting, where the maps are
defined by curves in the plane. As an example, consider finitely many simple closed curves
in the plane. These curves divide the plane into regions. The regions are 2-colourable.
That is, the graph where the vertices correspond to 2

1
the regions, and the edges correspond to the neigh- 1
1
bourhood relation, is bipartite. To see this, colour 2
2
a region by 1, if the region is inside an odd number 1 1 2
2
of curves, and, otherwise, colour it by 2. 2 1
History of the 4-Colour Theorem

That four colours suffice planar maps was conjectured around 1850 by FRANCIS GUTHRIE, a
student of DE MORGAN at University College of London. During the following 120 years
many outstanding mathematicians tried to solve the problem, and some of them even
thought that they had been successful.
In 1879 CAYLEY pointed out some difficulties that lie in the conjecture. The same year
ALFRED KEMPE published a paper, where he claimed a proof of the 4CC. The basic idea in
KEMPE’s argument (known later as Kempe chains) was the same as later used by HEAWOOD
to prove the 5-Colour Theorem, (Theorem 5.6).
For more than 10 years KEMPE’s proof was considered to be valid. For instance, TAIT
published two papers on the 4CC in the 1880’s that contained clever ideas, but also some
further errors. In 1890 HEAWOOD showed that KEMPE’s proof had serious gaps. As we shall
see in the next chapter, HEAWOOD discovered the number of colours needed for all maps
on other surfaces than the plane. Also, he proved that if the number of edges around each
region is divisible by 3, then the map is 4-colourable.
One can triangulate any planar graph G (drawn in the plane), by adding edges to divide
the faces into triangles. BIRKHOFF introduced one of the basic notions (reducibility) needed
in the proof of the 4CC. In a triangulation, a configuration is a part that is contained inside
a cycle. An unavoidable set is a set of configurations such that any triangulation must con-
tain one of the configurations in the set. A configuration is said to be reducible, if it is not
contained in a triangulation of a minimal counter example to the 4CC.
The search for avoidable sets began in 1904 with work of WEINICKE, and in 1922
FRANKLIN showed that the 4CC holds for maps with at most 25 regions. This number was
increased to 27 by REYNOLDS (1926), to 35 by WINN (1940), to 39 by ORE AND STEMPLE
(1970), to 95 by MAYER (1976).
The final notion for the solution was due to HEESCH, who in 1969 introduced discharging.
This consists of assigning to a vertex v the charge 6 − dG (v). From Euler’s formula we see
that for the sum of the charges, we have
X
(6 − dG (v)) = 12.
v
Now, a given set S of configurations can be proved to be unavoidable, if for a triangulation,

that does not contain a configuration from S, one can ‘redistribute’ the charges so that no v
comes up with a positive charge.
According to HEESCH one might be satisfied with a set of 8900 configurations to prove
the 4CC. There were difficulties with his approach that were solved in 1976 by APPEL AND
HAKEN. They based the proof on reducibility using Kempe chains, and ended up with an un-
avoidable set with over 1900 configurations and some 300 discharging rules. The proof used
1200 hours of computer time. (KOCH assisted with the computer calculations.) A simplified
proof by ROBERTSON, SANDERS, SEYMOUR AND THOMAS (1997) uses 633 configurations and
32 discharging rules. Because of these simplifications also the computer time is much less
than in the original proof.
The following book contains the ideas of the proof of the 4-Colour Theorem.
T.L. SAATY AND P.C. KAINEN, “The Four-Color Problem”, Dover, 1986.
List colouring
DEFINITION. Let G be a graph so that each of its vertices v is given a list (set) Λ(v) of colours.
A proper colouring α: VG → [1, m] of G is a (Λ-)list colouring, if each vertex v gets a colour
from its list, α(v) ∈ Λ(v).
The list chromatic number χℓ (G) is the smallest integer k such that G has a Λ-list
colouring for all lists of size k, |Λ(v)| = k}. Also, G is k-choosable, if χℓ (G) ≤ k.
{1, 2} {1, 3} {2, 3}

Example 5.4. The bipartite graph K3,3 is not 2- y1 y2 y3
choosable. Indeed, let the bipartition of K3,3 be (X , Y ),
where X = {x 1 , x 2 , x 3 } and Y = { y1 , y2 , y3 }. The lists for
x1 x2 x3
the vertices shown in the figure show that χℓ (K3,3 ) > 2.
{1, 2} {1, 3} {2, 3}
Obviously χ(G) ≤ χℓ (G), since proper colourings are special cases of list colourings, but
equality does not hold in general. However, it was proved by VIZING (1976) and ERDÖS,
RUBIN AND TAYLOR (1979) that
χℓ (G) ≤ ∆(G) + 1 .
For planar graphs we do not have a ‘4-list colour theorem’. Indeed, it was shown by VOIGT
(1993) that there exists a planar graph with χℓ (G) = 5. At the moment, the smallest such a
graph was produced by MIRZAKHANI (1996), and it is of order 63.
Theorem 5.9 (THOMASSEN (1994)). Let G be a planar graph. Then χℓ (G) ≤ 5.
In fact, THOMASSEN proved a stronger statement:
Theorem 5.10. Let G be a planar graph and let C be the cycle that is the boundary of the
exterior face. Let Λ consist of lists such that |Λ(v)| = 3 for all v ∈ C, and |Λ(v)| = 5 for all
v∈/ C. Then G has a Λ-list colouring α.
Proof. We can assume that the planar graph G is connected, and that it is given by a near-
triangulation; an embedding, where the interior faces are triangles. (If the boundary of a
face has more than 3 edges, then we can add an edge inside the face.) This is because adding
edges to a graph can only make the list colouring more difficult. Note that the exterior
boundary is unchanged by a triangulation of the interior faces.
The proof is by induction on νG under the additional constraint that one of the vertices
of C has a fixed colour. (Thus we prove a stronger statement than claimed.) For νG ≤ 3, the
claim is obvious. Suppose then that νG ≥ 4.
Let x ∈ C be a vertex, for which we fix a colour c ∈ Λ(x). Let v ∈ C be a vertex adjacent
⋆
to x, that is, C : v → x − → v.
Let NG (v) = {x, v1 , . . . , vk , y}, where y ∈ C, and vi are or- v
dered such that the faces are triangles as in the figure. It can y x
be that NG (v) = {x, y}, in which case x y ∈ G.
v1
Consider the subgraph H = G−v. The exterior boundary of vk v2
⋆ ...
H is the cycle x → v1 → · · · → vk → y − → x. Since |Λ(v)| = 3,
there are two colours r, s ∈ Λ(v) that differ from the colour c
of x.
We define new lists for H as follows: Λ′ (vi ) ⊆ Λ(vi ) \ {r, s} such that |Λ′ (vi )| = 3 for each
i ∈ [1, k], and otherwise Λ′ (z) = Λ(z).
Now νH = νG − 1, and by the induction hypothesis (with c still fixed for x), H has a Λ′ -list
colouring α. For the vertex v, we choose α(v) = r or s such that α(v) 6= α( y). This gives
a Λ′ -list colouring for G. Since Λ′ (z) ⊆ Λ(z) for all z, we have that α is a Λ-list colouring
of G. ⊔
⊓
Straight lines and kissing circles∗
We state an interesting result of WAGNER, the proof of which can be deduced from the above
proof of Kuratowski’s theorem. The result is known as Fáry’s Theorem.
Theorem 5.11 (WAGNER (1936)). A planar graph G has a plane embedding, where the edges
are straight lines.
This raises a difficult problem:

Integer Length Problem. Can all planar graphs be drawn in the plane such that the edges
are straight lines of integer lengths?
We say that two circles kiss in the plane, if they intersect in ·

one point and their interiors do not intersect. For a set of
circles, we draw a graph by putting an edge between two · · ·
midpoints of kissing circles. · ·
The following improvement of the above theorem is due to
KOEBE (1936), and it was rediscovered independently by AN- · ·
DREEV (1970) and THURSTON (1985).
Theorem 5.12 (KOEBE (1936)). A graph is planar if and only if it is a kissing graph of circles.
Graphs can be represented as plane figures in many different ways. For this, consider
a set S of curves of the plane (that are continuous between their end points). The string
graph of S is the graph G = (S, E), where uv ∈ E if and only if the curves u and v intersect.
At first it might seem that every graph is a string graph, but this is not the case.
It is known that all planar graphs are string graphs (this is a trivial result).
Line Segment Problem. A graph is a line segment graph if it is a string graph for a set
L of straight line segments in the plane. Is every planar graph a line segment graph for some
set L of lines?
Note that there are also nonplanar graphs that are line segment graphs. Indeed, all com-
plete graphs are such graphs.
The above question remains open even in the case

when the slopes of the lines are +1, −1, 0 and ∞. +1 −1 0 ∞
A positive answer to this 4-slope problem for planar
graphs would prove the 4-Colour Theorem.
The Minor Theorem∗
DEFINITION. A graph H is a minor of G, denoted by H ´ G, if H is isomorphic to a graph

obtained from a subgraph of G by successively contracting edges.
A recent result of ROBERTSON AND SEYMOUR (1983-2000) on graph minors is (one of)
the deepest results of graph theory. The proof goes beyond these lectures. Indeed, the proof
of Theorem 5.13 is around 500 pages long.
G a subgraph a contraction
Note that every subgraph H ⊆ G is a minor, H ´ G.

The following properties of the minor relation are easily established:
(i) G ´ G,
(ii) H ´ G and G ´ H imply G ∼
= H,
(iii) H ´ L and L ´ G imply H ´ G.
The conditions (i) and (iii) ensure that the relation ´ is a quasi-order, that is, it is reflex-
ive and transitive. It turns out to be a well-quasi-order, that is, every infinite sequence
G1 , G2 , . . . of graphs has two graphs Gi and G j with i < j such that Gi ´ G j .
Theorem 5.13 (Minor Theorem). The minor order ´ is a well-quasi-order on graphs. In

particular, in any infinite family F of graphs, one of the graphs is a (proper) minor of another.
Each property P of graphs defines a family of graphs, namely, the family of those graphs
that satisfy this property.
DEFINITION. A family F of graphs is said to be minor closed, if every minor H of a graph

G ∈ F is also in F . A property P of graphs is said to be inherited by minors, if all minors
of a graph G satisfy P whenever G does.
The following families of graphs are minor closed: the family of (1) all graphs, (2) planar
graphs (and their generalizations to other surfaces), (3) acyclic graphs.
The acyclic graphs include all trees. However, the family of trees is not closed under taking
subgraphs, and thus it is not minor closed. More importantly, the subgraph order of trees
(T1 ⊆ T2 ) is not a well-quasi-order.
WAGNER proved a minor version of Kuratowski’s theorem:
5.3 Genus of a graph 74
Theorem 5.14 (WAGNER (1937)). A graph G is nonplanar if and only if K5 ´ G or K3,3 ´ G.
⊓
ROBERTSON AND SEYMOUR (1998) proved the Wagner’s conjecture:
Theorem 5.15 (Minor Theorem 2). Let P be a property of graphs inherited by minors. Then
there exists a finite set F of graphs such that G satisfies P if and only if G does not have a
minor from F .
One of the impressive application of Theorem 5.15 concerns embeddings of graphs on

surfaces, see the next chapters. By Theorem 5.15, one can test (with a fast algorithm)
whether a graph can be embedded onto a surface.
Every graph can be drawn in the 3-dimensional space without crossing edges. An old
problem asks if there exists an algorithm that would determine whether a graph can be
drawn so that its cycles do not form (nontrivial) knots. This problem is solved by the above
results, since the property ‘knotless’ is inherited by minors: there exists a fast algorithm to
do the job. However, this algorithm is not known!
Hadwiger’s Problem. HADWIGER conjectured in 1943 that for every graph G,
Kχ(G) ´ G ,
that is, if χ(G) ≥ r, then G has a complete graph K r as its minor. The conjecture is trivial
for r = 2, and it is known to hold for all r ≤ 6. The cases for r = 5 and 6 follow from the
4-Colour Theorem.
5.3 Genus of a graph
A graph is planar, if it can be drawn in the plane without crossing edges. A plane is an
important special case of a surface. In this section we study shortly drawing graphs in other
surfaces.
There are quite many interesting surfaces many of which are rather difficult to draw. We
shall study the ‘easy surfaces’ – those that are compact and orientable. These are surfaces
that have both an inside and an outside, and can be entirely characterized by the number
of holes in them. This number is the genus of the surface. There are also non-orientable
compact surfaces such as the Klein bottle and the projective plane.
Background on surfaces
We shall first have a quick look at the general surfaces and their classification without going
into the details. Consider the space R3 , which has its (usual) distance function d(x, y) ∈ R
of its points.
Two figures (i.e., sets of points) A and B are topologically equivalent (or homeomor-
phic) if there exists a bijection f : A → B such that f and its inverse f −1 : B → A are contin-
uous. In particular, two figures are topologically equivalent if one can be deformed to the
other by bending, squeezing, stretching, and shrinking without tearing it apart or gluing
any of its parts together. All these deformations should be such that they can be undone.
A set of points X is a surface, if X is connected (there is a continuous line inside X be-
tween any two given points) and every point x ∈ X has a neighbourhood that is topologically
equivalent to an open planar disk D(a) = {x | d ist(a, x) < 1}.
We deal with surfaces of the real space, and in this case a surface X is compact, if X is
closed and bounded. Note that the plane is not compact, since it it not bounded. A subset of
a compact surface X is a triangle if it is topologically equivalent to a triangle in the plane.
A finite set of triangles Ti , i = 1, 2, . . . , m, is a triangulation of X if X = ∪m
i=1 Ti and any
nonempty intersection Ti ∩ T j with i 6= j is either a vertex or an edge.
The following is due to RADÓ (1925).
Theorem 5.16. Every compact surface has a triangulation.
Each triangle of a surface can be oriented by choosing an order for its vertices up to cyclic
permutations. Such a permutation induces a direction for the edges of the triangle. A trian-
gulation is said to be oriented if the triangles are assigned orientations such that common
edges of two triangles are always oriented in reverse directions. A surface is orientable if it
admits an oriented triangulation.
Equivalently, orientability can be described as follows.
Theorem 5.17. A compact surface X is orientable if and only if it has no subsets that are
topologically equivalent to the Möbius band.
In the Möbius band (which itself is not a surface according the

above definition) one can travel around and return to the starting
point with left and right reversed.
A connected sum X #Y of two compact surfaces is obtained by cutting an open disk off
from both surfaces and then gluing the surfaces together along the boundary of the disks.
(Such a deformation is not allowed by topological equivalence.)
The next result is known as the classification theorem of compact surfaces.
Theorem 5.18 (DEHN AND HEEGAARD (1907)). Let X be a compact surface. Then
(i) if X is orientable, then it is topologically equivalent to a sphere S = S0 or a connected sum
of tori: Sn = S1 #S1 # . . . #S1 for some n ≥ 1, where S1 is a torus.
(ii) if X is nonorientable, then X is topologically equivalent to a connected sum of projective
planes: Pn = P#P# . . . #P for some n ≥ 1, where P is a projective plane.
It is often difficult to imagine how a figure (say, a graph) can be drawn in a surface. There
is a helpful, and difficult to prove, result due to RADÓ (1920), stating that every compact
surface (orientable or not) has a description by a plane model, which consists of a polygon
in the plane such that
• each edge of the polygon is labelled by a letter,

• each letter is a label of exactly two edges of the polygon, and
• each edge is given an orientation (clockwise or counter clockwise).
Given a plane model M, a compact surface is obtained by gluing together the edges having
the same label in the direction that they have.
a a a a
a b b b b b a b
b a a b
Sphere Torus Klein bottle Projective plane
From a plane model one can easily determine if the surface is oriented or not. It is nonori-
ented if and only if, for some label a, the edges labelled by a have the same direction when
read clockwise. (This corresponds to the Möbius band.)
A plane model, and thus a compact surface, can also be represented by a (circular) word
by reading the model clockwise, and concatenating the labels with the convention that a−1
is chosen if the direction of the edge is counter clockwise. Hence, the sphere is represented
by the word a bb−1 a−1 , the torus by a ba−1 b−1 , the Klein bottle by a ba−1 b and the projective
plane by a bb−1 a.
These surfaces, as do the other surfaces, have many other

plane models and representing words as well. A word rep-
resenting a connected sum of two surfaces, represented
by words W1 and W2 , is obtained by concatenating these
words to W1 W2 . By studying the relations of the represent-
ing words, Theorem 5.18 can be proved.
Klein bottle
Drawing a graph (or any figure) in a surface can be elaborated compared to drawing
in a plane model, where a line that enters an edge of the polygon must continue by the
corresponding point of the other edge with the same label (since these points are identified
when we glue the edges together).
a
e4 e5
Example 5.5. On the right we have drawn K6 in the

Klein bottle. The black dots indicate, where the lines e3 e1
enter and leave the edges of the plane model. Recall b e2 e2 b
that in the plane model for the Klein bottle the vertical e1 e3
edges of the square have the same direction.
e4 e5
a
Sphere
DEFINITION. In general, if S is a surface, then a graph G has an S-embedding, if G can be

drawn in S without crossing edges.
Let S0 be (the surface of) a sphere. According to the next

theorem a sphere has exactly the same embeddings as do
the plane. In the one direction the claim is obvious: if G is
a planar graph, then it can be drawn in a bounded area of
the plane (without crossing edges), and this bounded area
can be ironed on the surface of a large enough sphere.

Clearly, if a graph can be embedded in one sphere, then it can be embedded in any sphere
– the size of the sphere is of no importance. On the other hand, if G is embeddable in a
sphere S0 , then there is a small area of the sphere, where there are no points of the edges.
We then puncture the sphere at this area, and stretch it open until it looks like a region of
the plane. In this process no crossings of edges can be created, and hence G is planar.
Another way to see this is to use a projection

of the sphere to a plane:
Theorem 5.19. A graph G has an S0 -embedding if and only if it is planar.
Therefore instead of planar embeddings we can equally well study embeddings of graphs
in a sphere. This is sometimes convenient, since the sphere is closed and it has no bound-
aries. Most importantly, a planar graph drawn in a sphere has no exterior face – all faces
are bounded (by edges).
If a sphere is deformed by pressing or stretching, its embeddability properties will remain
the same. In topological terms the surface has been distorted by a continuous transforma-
tion.

Torus
Consider next a surface which is obtained from the sphere S0

by pressing a hole in it. This is a torus S1 (or an orientable
surface of genus 1). The S1 -embeddable graphs are said to
have genus equal to 1.
Sometimes it is easier to consider handles than holes: a torus S1 can be deformed (by a

continuous transformation) into a sphere with a handle.

If a graph G is S1 -embeddable, then it can be drawn in any one of the above surfaces without

crossing edges.
1 1
5
Example 5.6. The smallest nonplanar graphs K5 and 2

6
K3,3 have genus 1. Also, K7 has genus 1 as can be seen
3
from the plane model (of the torus) on the right.
7
4
1 1
Genus
Let Sn (n ≥ 0) be a sphere with n holes in it. The drawing of an S4 can already be quite
complicated, because we do not put any restrictions on the places of the holes (except
that we must not tear the surface into disjoint parts). However, once again an Sn can be

transformed (topologically) into a sphere with n handles.

DEFINITION. We define the genus g(G) of a graph G as the smallest integer n, for which G
is Sn -embeddable.
For planar graphs, we have g(G) = 0, and, in particular, g(K4 ) = 0. For K5 , we have
g(K5 ) = 1, since K5 is nonplanar, but is embeddable in a torus. Also, g(K3,3 ) = 1.
The next theorem states that any graph G can be embedded in some surface Sn with
n ≥ 0.

Theorem 5.20. Every graph has a genus.

This result has an easy intuitive verification. Indeed, consider
a graph G and any of its plane (or sphere) drawing (pos-
sibly with many crossing edges) such that no three edges
cross each other in the same point (such a drawing can be
obtained). At each of these crossing points create a handle so

that one of the edges goes below the handle and the other
uses the handle to cross over the first one.

We should note that the above argument does not determine
g(G), only that G can be embedded in some Sn . However,
clearly g(G) ≤ n, and thus the genus g(G) of G exists.
The same handle can be utilized by several edges.
Euler’s formula with genus∗
The drawing of a planar graph G in a sphere has the advantage that the faces of the embed-
ding are not divided into internal and external. The external face of G becomes an ‘ordinary
face’ after G has been drawn in S0 .
In general, a face of an embedding of G in Sn (with g(G) = n) is a region of Sn surrounded
by edges of G. Let again ϕG denote the number of faces of an embedding of G in Sn . We
omit the proof of the next generalization of Euler’s formula.
Theorem 5.21. If G is a connected graph, then
νG − ǫG + ϕG = 2 − 2g(G) .
If G is a planar graph, then g(G) = 0, and the above formula is the Euler’s formula for
planar graphs.
DEFINITION. A face of an embedding P(G) in a surface is a 2-cell, if every simple closed

curve (that does not intersect with itself) can be continuously deformed to a single point.
The complete graph K4 can be embedded in a torus such that it has a face that is not a
2-cell. But this is because g(K4 ) = 0, and the genus of the torus is 1. We omit the proof of
the general condition discovered by YOUNGS:
Theorem 5.22 (YOUNGS (1963)). The faces of an embedding of a connected graph G in a

surface of genus g(G) are 2-cells.
Lemma 5.12. For a connected G with νG ≥ 3 we have 3ϕG ≤ 2ǫG .
Proof. If νG = 3, then the claim is trivial. Assume thus that νG ≥ 4. In this case we need
the knowledge that ϕG is counted in a surface that determines the genus of G (and in no
surface with a larger genus). Now every face has a border of at least three edges, and, as
before, every nonbridge is on the boundary of exactly two faces. ⊔
⊓
Theorem 5.23. For a connected G with νG ≥ 3,

1 1
g(G) ≥ ǫG − (νG − 2) .
6 2
Proof. By the previous lemma, 3ϕG ≤ 2ǫG , and by the generalized Euler’s formula, ϕG =
ǫG − νG + 2 − 2g(G). Combining these we obtain that 3ǫG − 3νG + 6 − 6g(G) ≤ 2ǫG , and the
claim follows. ⊔
⊓
By this theorem, we can compute lower bounds for the genus g(G) without drawing any
embeddings. As an example, let G = K8 . In this case νG = 8, ǫG = 28, and so g(G) ≥ 53 .
Since the genus is always an integer, g(G) ≥ 2. We deduce that K8 cannot be embedded in
the surface S1 of the torus.
If H ⊆ G, then clearly g(H) ≤ g(G), since H is obtained from G by omitting vertices and
edges. In particular,
Lemma 5.13. For a graph G of order n, g(G) ≤ g(Kn ).
For the complete graphs Kn a good lower bound was found early.
Theorem 5.24 (HEAWOOD (1890)). If n ≥ 3, then

(n − 3)(n − 4)
g(Kn ) ≥ .
12
Proof. The number of edges in Kn is equal to ǫG = 12 n(n − 1). By Theorem 5.23, we obtain
g(Kn ) ≥ (1/6)ǫG − (1/2)(n − 2) = (1/12)(n − 3)(n − 4) . ⊔
⊓
This result was dramatically improved to obtain
Theorem 5.25 (RINGEL AND YOUNGS (1968)). If n ≥ 3, then

(n − 3)(n − 4)
g(Kn ) = .
12
Therefore g(K6 ) = ⌈3 · 2/12⌉ = ⌈1/2⌉ = 1. Also, g(K7 ) = 1, but g(K8 ) = 2.

By Theorem 5.25,
Theorem 5.26. For all graphs G of order n ≥ 3,

(n − 3)(n − 4)
g(G) ≤ .
12
Also, we know the exact genus for the complete bipartite graphs:
Theorem 5.27 ( RINGEL (1965)). For the complete bipartite graphs,

(m − 2)(n − 2)
g(Km,n ) = .
4
Chromatic numbers∗
For the planar graphs G, the proof of the 4-Colour Theorem, χ(G) ≤ 4, is extremely long
and difficult. This in mind, it is surprising that the generalization of the 4-Colour Theorem
for genus ≥ 1 is much easier. HEAWOOD proved a hundred years ago:
Theorem 5.28 (HEAWOOD). If g(G) = g ≥ 1, then

p
7 + 1 + 48g
χ(G) ≤ .
2
Notice that for g = 0 this theorem would be the 4-colour theorem. HEAWOOD proved it
‘only’ for g ≥ 1.
Using the result of RINGEL AND YOUNGS and some elementary computations we can
prove that the above theorem is the best possible.
Theorem 5.29. For each g ≥ 1, there exists a graph G with genus g(G) = g so that
p
7 + 1 + 48g
χ(G) = .
2
p If a nonplanar graph G can be embedded in a torus, then g(G) = 1, and χ(G) ≤ ⌊(7 +
1 + 48g)/2⌋ = 7. Moreover, for G = K7 we have that χ(K7 ) = 7 and g(K7 ) = 1.
Three dimensions∗
Every graph can be drawn without crossing edges in the 3-dimensional space. Such a draw-
ing is called spatial embedding of the graph. Indeed, such an embedding can be achieved
by putting all vertices of G on a line, and then drawing the edges in different planes that
contain the line. Alternatively, the vertices of G can be put in a sphere, and drawing the
edges as straight lines crossing the sphere inside.
A spatial embedding of a graph G is said to have linked cycles, if two cycles of G form a
link (they cannot be separated in the space). By CONWAY and GORDON in 1983 every spatial
embedding of K6 contains linked cycles.
It was shown by ROBERTSON, SEYMOUR AND THOMAS (1993) that there is a set of 7
graphs such that a graph G has a spatial embedding without linked cycles if and only if G
does not have a minor belonging to this set.
This family of forbidden graphs was originally found by SACHS (without proof), and it
contains K6 and the Petersen graph. Every graph in the set has 15 edges, which is curious.
For further results and proofs concerning graphs in surfaces, see
B. MOHAR AND C. THOMASSEN, “Graphs on Surfaces”, Johns Hopkins, 2001.

6
Directed Graphs
6.1 Digraphs
In some problems the relation between the objects is not

symmetric. For these cases we need directed graphs, where
the edges are oriented from one vertex to another.
As an example consider a map of a small town. Can you
make the streets one-way, and still be able to drive from
one house to another (or exit the town)?
Definitions
DEFINITION. A digraph (or a directed graph) D = (VD , E D ) consists of the vertices VD and
(directed) edges E D ⊆ VD × VD (without loops v v). We still write uv for (u, v), but note that
now uv 6= vu. For each pair e = uv define the inverse of e as e−1 = vu (= (v, u)).
Note that e ∈ D does not imply e−1 ∈ D.
DEFINITION. Let D be a digraph. Then A is its

• subdigraph, if VA ⊆ VD and EA ⊆ E D ,
• induced subdigraph, A = D[X ], if VA = X and EA = E D ∩ (X × X ).
The underlying graph U(D) of a digraph D is the

graph on VD such that if e ∈ D, then the undirected
edge with the same ends is in U(D).
A digraph D is an orientation of a graph G, if G = U(D) and e ∈ D implies e−1 ∈

/ D. In
this case, D is said to be an oriented graph.
⋆
DEFINITION. Let D be a digraph. A walk W = e1 e2 . . . ek : u −
→ v of U(D) is a directed walk, if
ei ∈ D for all i ∈ [1, k]. Similarly, we define directed paths and directed cycles as directed
walks and closed directed walks without repetitions of vertices.
⋆
The digraph D is di-connected, if, for all u 6= v, there exist directed paths u − → v and
⋆
v− → u. The maximal induced di-connected subdigraphs are the di-components of D.
Note that a graph G = U(D) might be connected, although the digraph D is not di-
connected.
6.1 Digraphs 84
DEFINITION. The indegree and the outdegree of a vertex are defined as follows
d DI (v) = |{e ∈ D | e = x v}|, d DO (v) = |{e ∈ D | e = v x}| .
We have the following handshaking lemma. (You offer and accept a handshake.)
Lemma 6.1. Let D be a digraph. Then

X X
d DI (v) = |D| = d DO (v).
v∈D v∈D
Directed paths
The relationship between paths and directed paths is in

general rather complicated. This digraph has a path of
length five, but its directed paths are of length one.
There is a nice connection between the lengths of directed paths and the chromatic
number χ(D) = χ(U(D)).
Theorem 6.1 (ROY (1967),GALLAI (1968)). A digraph D has a directed path of length χ(D)−
1.
Proof. Let A ⊆ E D be a minimal set of edges such that the subdigraph D−A contains no
directed cycles. Let k be the length of the longest directed path in D−A.
For each vertex v ∈ D, assign a colour α(v) = i, if a longest directed path from v has
length i − 1 in D−A. Here 1 ≤ i ≤ k + 1.
⋆
First we observe that if P = e1 e2 . . . e r (r ≥ 1) is any directed path u −→ v in D−A, then
⋆
α(u) 6= α(v). Indeed, if α(v) = i, then there exists a directed path Q : v − → w of length i − 1,
⋆
and PQ is a directed path, since D−A does not contain directed cycles. Since PQ : u − → w,
α(u) 6= i = α(v). In particular, if e = uv ∈ D−A, then α(u) 6= α(v).
Consider then an edge e = vu ∈ A. By the minimality of A, (D−A) + e contains a directed
⋆ ⋆
cycle C : u −
→v− → u, where the part u − → v is a directed path in D−A, and hence α(u) 6=
α(v). This shows that α is a proper colouring of U(D), and therefore χ(D) ≤ k + 1, that is,
k ≥ χ(D) − 1. ⊔
⊓
The bound χ(D) − 1 is the best possible in the following sense:
Theorem 6.2. Every graph G has an orientation D, where the longest directed paths have
lengths χ(G) − 1.
Proof. Let k = χ(G) and let α be a proper k-colouring of G. As usual the set of colours is
[1, k]. We orient each edge uv ∈ G by setting uv ∈ D, if α(u) < α(v). Clearly, the so obtained
orientation D has no directed paths of length ≥ k − 1. ⊔
⊓
6.1 Digraphs 85
DEFINITION. An orientation D of an undirected graph G is acyclic, if it has no directed

cycles. Let a(G) be the number of acyclic orientations of G.
The next result is charming, since χG (−1) measures the number of proper colourings of
G using −1 colours!
Theorem 6.3 (STANLEY (1973)). Let G be a graph of order n. Then the number of the acyclic
orientations of G is
a(G) = (−1)n χG (−1) ,
where χG is the chromatic polynomial of G.
Proof. The proof is by induction on ǫG . First, if G is discrete, then χG (k) = k n , and a(G) =
1 = (−1)n (−1)n = (−1)n χG (−1) as required.
Now χG (k) is a polynomial that satisfies the recurrence χG (k) = χG−e (k) − χG∗e (k). To
prove the claim, we show that a(G) satisfies the same recurrence.
Indeed, if
a(G) = a(G−e) + a(G ∗ e) (6.1)
then, by the induction hypothesis,
a(G) = (−1)n χG−e (−1) + (−1)n−1 χG∗e (−1) = (−1)n χG (−1) .
For (6.1), we observe that every acyclic orientation of G gives an acyclic orientation of G−e.
On the other hand, if D is an acyclic orientation of G−e for e = uv, it extends to an acyclic
⋆
orientation of G by putting e1 : u → v or e2 : v → u. Indeed, if D has no directed path u −
→ v,
⋆
we choose e2 , and if D has no directed path v − → u, we choose e1 . Note that since D is
⋆ ⋆
acyclic, it cannot have both ways u −→ v and v − → u.
We conclude that a(G) = a(G−e) + b, where b is the number of acyclic orientations D
of G−e that extend in both ways e1 and e2 . The acyclic orientations D that extend in both
ways are exactly those that contain
⋆ ⋆
neither u −
→ v nor v −
→ u as a directed path. (6.2)
Each acyclic orientation of G ∗ e corresponds in a natural way to an acyclic orientation

D of G−e that satisfies (6.2). Therefore b = a(G ∗ e), and the proof is completed. ⊔
⊓
One-way traffic
Every graph can be oriented, but the result may not be di-connected. In the one-way traffic
problem the resulting orientation should be di-connected, for otherwise someone is not
able to drive home. ROBBINS’ theorem solves this problem.
DEFINITION. A graph G is di-orientable, if there is a di-connected oriented graph D such

that G = U(D).
6.1 Digraphs 86
Theorem 6.4 (ROBBINS (1939)). A connected graph G is di-orientable if and only if G has no
bridges.
Proof. If G has a bridge e, then any orientation of G has at least two di-components (both
sides of the bridge).
Suppose then that G has no bridges. Hence G has a cycle C, and a cycle is always di-
orientable. Let then H ⊆ G be maximal such that it has a di-orientation DH . If H = G, then
we are done.
Otherwise, there exists an edge e = vu ∈ G such that u ∈ H
u e v
but v ∈
/ H (because G is connected). The edge e is not a bridge
and thus there exists a cycle P′ P Q
⋆ ⋆
C ′ = ePQ : v −
→u−
→w−
→v w
in G, where w is the last vertex inside H.

⋆
In the di-orientation DH of H there is a directed path P ′ : u −
→ w. Now, we orient e : v −
→u
⋆ ′ ⋆
and the edges of Q in the direction Q : w − → v to obtain a directed cycle eP Q : v − →u− →
⋆
w− → v. In conclusion, G[VH ∪ VC ] has a di-orientation, which contradicts the maximality
assumption on H. This proves the claim. ⊔
⊓
Example 6.1. Let D be a digraph. A directed Euler tour of D is a directed closed walk that
uses each edge exactly once. A directed Euler trail of D is a directed walk that uses each
edge exactly once.
The following two results are left as exercises.
(1) Let D be a digraph such that U(D) is connected. Then D has a directed Euler tour if and
only if d DI (v) = d DO (v) for all vertices v.
(2) Let D be a digraph such that U(D) is connected. Then D has a directed Euler trail if and
only if d DI (v) = d DO (v) for all vertices v with possibly excepting two vertices x, y for which
|d DI (v) − d DO (v)| = 1.
The above results hold equally well for multidigraphs, that is, for directed graphs, where
we allow parallel directed edges between the vertices.
Example 6.2. The following problem was first studied by HUTCHINSON AND WILF (1975)
with a motivation from DNA sequencing. Consider words over an alphabet A = {a1 , a2 , . . . , an }
of n letters, that is, each word w is a sequence of letters. In the case of DNA, the letters are
A, T, C, G. In a problem instance, we are given nonnegative integers si and ri j for 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n,
and the question is: does there exist a word w in which each letter ai occurs exactly si times,
and ai is followed by a j exactly ri j times.
For instance, if n = 2, s1 = 3, and r11 = 1, r12 = 2, r21 = 1, r22 = 0, then the word
a1 a2 a1 a1 a2 is a solution to the problem.
Consider a multidigraph D with VD = A for which there are ri j edges ai a j . It is rather
obvious that a directed Euler trail of D gives a solution to the sequencing problem.
6.1 Digraphs 87
Tournaments
DEFINITION. A tournament T is an orientation of a complete graph.
Example 6.3. There are four tournaments of four vertices that are not isomorphic with each
other. (Isomorphism of directed graphs is defined in the obvious way.)
Theorem 6.5 (RÉDEI (1934)). Every tournament has a directed Hamilton path.
Proof. The chromatic number of Kn is χ(Kn ) = n, and hence by Theorem 6.1, a tournament
T of order n has a directed path of length n−1. This is then a directed Hamilton path visiting
each vertex once. ⊔
⊓
The vertices of a tournament can be easily reached from one vertex (sometimes called
the king).
Theorem 6.6 (LAUDAU (1953)). Let v be a vertex of a tournament T of maximum outdegree.

⋆
Then for all u, there is a directed path v −
→ u of length at most two.
Proof. Let T be an orientation of Kn , and let d TO (v) = d be the maximum outdegree in

T . Suppose that there exists an x, for which the directed distance from v to x is at least
three. It follows that x v ∈ T and xu ∈ T for all u with vu ∈ T . But there are d vertices in
A = { y | v y ∈ T }, and thus d + 1 vertices in { y | x y ∈ T } = A ∪ {v}. It follows that the
outdegree of x is d + 1, which contradicts the maximality assumption made for v. ⊔
⊓
Problem. Ádám’s conjecture states that in every digraph D with a directed cycle there exists
an edge uv the reversal of which decreases the number of directed cycles. Here the new digraph
has the edge vu instead of uv.
Example 6.4. Consider a tournament of n teams that play once against each other, and
suppose that each game has a winner. The situation can be presented as a tournament,
where the vertices correspond to the teams vi , and there is an edge vi v j , if vi won v j in their
mutual game.
DEFINITION. A team v is a winner (there may be more than one winner), if v comes out
with the most victories in the tournament.
Theorem 6.6 states that a winner v either defeated a team u or v defeated a team that
defeated u.
6.1 Digraphs 88
A ranking of a tournament is a linear ordering of the teams vi1 > vi2 > · · · > vin that
should reflect the scoring of the teams. One way of ranking a tournament could be by a
Hamilton path: the ordering can be obtained from a directed Hamilton path P : vi1 −→ vi2 −→
... −
→ vin . However, a tournament may have several directed Hamilton paths, and some of
these may do unjust for the ‘real’ winner.
Example 6.5. Consider a tournament of six teams

1, 2, . . . , 6, and let T be the scoring digraph as in the 1 2
figure. Here 1 − → 2 − → 4 − → 5 −→ 6 −→ 3 is a directed
Hamilton path, but this extends to a directed Hamilton 6 3
cycle (by adding 3 − → 1)! So for every team there is a
Hamilton path, where it is a winner, and in another, it is a 5 4
looser.
Let s1 ( j) = d TO ( j) be the winning number of the team j (the number of teams beaten by
j). In the above tournament,
s1 (1) = 4, s1 (2) = 3, s1 (3) = 3, s1 (4) = 2, s1 (5) = 2, s1 (6) = 1 .
So, is team 1 the winner? If so, is 2 or 3 next? Define the second-level scoring for each
team by X
s2 ( j) = s1 (i) .
ji∈T
This tells us how good teams j beat. In our example, we have
s2 (1) = 8, s2 (2) = 5, s2 (3) = 9, s2 (4) = 3, s2 (5) = 4, s2 (6) = 3 .
Now, it seems that 3 is the winner,but 4 and 6 have the same score. We continue by defining
inductively the mth-level scoring by
X
sm ( j) = sm−1 (i) .
ji∈T
It can be proved (using matrix methods) that for a di-connected tournament with at least
four teams, the level scorings will eventually stabilize in a ranking of the tournament: there
exits an m for which the mth-level scoring gives the same ordering as do the (m + k)th-level
scorings for all k ≥ 1. If T is not di-connected, then the level scoring should be carried out
with respect to the di-components.
In our example the level scoring gives 1 − →3− →2− →5− →4− → 6 as the ranking of the
tournament.
6.2 Network Flows 89
6.2 Network Flows
Various transportation networks or water pipelines are conveniently represented by weighted

directed graphs. These networks usually possess also some additional requirements. Goods
are transported from specific places (warehouses) to final locations (marketing places)
through a network of roads. In modelling a transportation network by a digraph, we must
make sure that the number of goods remains the same at each crossing of the roads. The
problem setting for such networks was proposed by T.E. Harris in the 1950s. The connection
to Kirchhoff’s Current Law (1847) is immediate. According to this law, in every electrical net-
work the amount of current flowing in a vertex equals the amount flowing out that vertex.
Flows
DEFINITION. A network N consists of
4
• an underlying digraph D = (V, E),
5
• two distinct vertices s and r, called the source and the 5 2
sink of N , and s 4 2 r
4
• a capacity function α: V × V → R+ (nonnegative real
6 5
numbers), for which α(e) = 0, if e ∈/ E.
4
Denote VN = V and EN = E.
Let A ⊆ VN be a set of vertices, and f : VN × VN → R any function such that f (e) = 0, if
e∈
/ N . We adopt the following notations:
[A, A] = {e ∈ D | e = uv, u ∈ A, v ∈ / A} ,
X X
f + (A) = f (e) and f − (A) = f (e) .
e∈[A,A] e∈[A,A]
In particular, X X
f + (u) = f (uv) and f − (u) = f (vu) .
v∈N v∈N
DEFINITION. A flow in a network N is a function f : VN × VN → R+ such that
0 ≤ f (e) ≤ α(e) for all e, and f − (v) = f + (v) for all v ∈

/ {s, r} .
Example 6.6. The value f (e) can be taught of as the rate at which transportation actually
happens along the channel e which has the maximum capacity α(e). The second condition
states that there should be no loss.
4
4
If N = (D, s, r, α) is a network of water pipes, then the 5 1
value α(e) gives the capacity (x m3 /min) of the pipe e.
s 3 0 r
The previous network has a flow that is indicated on the 3
right. 4 4
4
A flow f in N is something that the network can handle. E.g., in the above figure the
source should not try to feed the network the full capacity (11 m3 /min) of its pipes, because
the junctions cannot handle this much water.
DEFINITION. Every network N has a zero flow defined by f (e) = 0 for all e. For a flow f
and each subset A ⊆ VN , define the resultant flow from A and the value of f as the numbers
val( fA) = f + (A) − f − (A) and val( f ) = val( fs ) (= f + (s) − f − (s)) .
A flow f of a network N is a maximum flow, if there does not exist any flow f ′ such that
val( f ) < val( f ′ ).
The value val( f ) of a flow is the overall number of goods that are (to be) transported
through the network from the source to the sink. In the above example, val( f ) = 9.
Lemma 6.2. Let N = (D, s, r, α) be a network with a flow f .

(i) If A ⊆ N \ {s, r}, then val( fA) = 0.
(ii) val( f ) = −val( f r ).
Proof. Let A ⊆ N \ {s, r}. Then

X X X
0= ( f + (v) − f − (v)) = f + (v) − f − (v) = f + (A) − f − (A) = val( fA),
v∈A v∈A v∈A
where the third equality holds since the values of the edges uv with u, v ∈ A cancel each
out.
The second claim is also clear. ⊔
⊓
Improvable flows
Let f be a flow in a network N , and let P = e1 e2 . . . en be an undirected path in N where an
edge ei is along P, if ei = vi vi+1 ∈ N , and against P, if ei = vi+1 vi ∈ N .
We define a nonnegative number ι(P) for P as follows:
¨
α(e) − f (e) if e is along P ,
ι(P) = min ι(e), where ι(e) =
ei f (e) if e is against P.
4
DEFINITION. Let f be a flow in a network N . A path
⋆ 4
P: s −
→ r is ( f -)improvable, if ι(P) > 0. 5 1
s 3 0 r
3
On the right, the bold path has value ι(P) = 1, and 4
4
therefore this path is improvable. 4
Lemma 6.3. Let N be a network. If f is a maximum flow of N , then it has no improvable

paths.
Proof. Define 

 f (e) + ι(P) if e is along P ,
′
f (e) = f (e) − ι(P) if e is against P ,

 f (e) if e is not in P .
4
Then f ′ is a flow, since at each intermediate vertex v ∈ / 4
′ − ′ + 5 2
{s, r}, we have ( f ) (v) = ( f ) (v), and the capacities of
the edges are not exceeded. Now val( f ′ ) = val( f )+ι(P), s 3
2
0 r
since P has exactly one edge sv ∈ N for the source s. 5 4
Hence, if ι(P) > 0, then we can improve the flow. 4
⊔
⊓
Max-Flow Min-Cut Theorem
DEFINITION. Let N = (D, s, r, α) be a network. For a subset S ⊂ VN with s ∈ S and r ∈

/ S, let
the cut by S be
[S] = [S, S] (= {uv ∈ N | u ∈ S, v ∈ / S}) .
The capacity of the cut [S] is the sum
X
α[S] = α+ (S) = α(e) .
e∈[S]
A cut [S] is a minimum cut, if there is no cut [R]

4
with α[R] < α[S].
5
5 2
Example 6.7. In our original network the capacity of
s 4 2 r
the cut for the indicated vertices is equal to 10. 4
6 5
Lemma 6.4. For a flow f and a cut [S] of N , 4
val( f ) = val( fS ) = f + (S) − f − (S) .
Proof. Let S I = S \ {s}. Now val(S I ) = 0 (since S I ⊆ N \ {s, r}), and val( f ) = val( fs ). Hence
X X
val( fS ) =val( fs ) − f (sv) + f (vs)
v∈S I v∈S I
X X
+ val( fSI ) + f (sv) − f (vs)
v∈S I v∈S I
=val( fs ) = val( f ) .
⊔
⊓
Theorem 6.7. For a flow f and any cut [S] of N , val( f ) ≤ α[S]. Furthermore, equality holds
if and only if for each u ∈ S and v ∈
/ S,
(i) if e = uv ∈ N , then f (e) = α(e),

(ii) if e = vu ∈ N , then f (e) = 0.
Proof. By the definition of a flow,

X X
f + (S) = f (e) ≤ α(e) = α[S] ,
e∈[S] e∈[S]
and f − (S) ≥ 0. By Lemma 6.4, val( f ) = val( fS ) = f + (S) − f − (S), and hence val( f ) ≤ α[S],
as required. Also, the equality val( f ) = α[S] holds if and only if
(1)f + (S) = α[S] and (2) f − (S) = 0. This holds if and only if f (e) = α(e) for all e ∈ [S]
(since f (e) ≤ α(e)), and
(2)f (e) = 0 for all e = vu with u ∈ S, v ∈
/ S.
This proves the claim. ⊔
⊓
In particular, if f is a maximum flow and [S] a minimum cut, then
val( f ) ≤ α[S] .
Corollary 6.1. If f is a flow and [S] a cut such that val( f ) = α[S], then f is a maximum
flow and [S] a minimum cut.
The following main result of network flows was proved independently by ELIAS, FEIN-
STEIN,SHANNON, by FORD AND FULKERSON, and by ROBACKER in 1955 – 56. The present
approach is due to Ford and Fulkerson.
Theorem 6.8. A flow f of a network N is maximum if and only if there are no f -improvable
paths in N .
Proof. By Lemma 6.3, a maximum flow cannot have improvable paths.

Conversely, assume that N contains no f -improvable paths, and let
⋆
S I = {u ∈ N | for some path P : s −
→ u, ι(P) > 0} .
Set S = S I ∪ {s}.
Consider an edge e = uv ∈ N , where u ∈ S and v ∈ / S. Since u ∈ S, there exists a path
⋆ ⋆
P: s −
→ u with ι(P) > 0. Moreover, since v ∈
/ S, ι(Pe) = 0 for the path Pe : s −
→ v. Therefore
ι(e) = 0, and so f (e) = α(e).
By the same argument, for an edge e = vu ∈ N with v ∈ / S and u ∈ S, f (e) = 0.
By Theorem 6.7, we have val( f ) = α[S]. Corollary 6.1 implies now that f is a maximum
flow (and [S] is a minimum cut). ⊔
⊓
Theorem 6.9. Let N be a network, where the capacity function α: V × V → N has integer
values. Then N has a maximum flow with integer values.
Proof. Let f0 be the zero flow, f0 (e) = 0 for all e ∈ V × V . A maximum flow is constructed
using Lemma 6.3 by increasing and decreasing the values of the edges by integers only. ⊓ ⊔
The proof of Theorem 6.8 showed also
Theorem 6.10 (Max-Flow Min-Cut). In a network N , the value val( f ) of a maximum flow
equals the capacity α[S] of a minimum cut.
Applications to graphs⋆
The Max-Flow Min-Cut Theorem is a strong result, and many of our previous results follow
from it.
We mention a connection to the Marriage Theorem, Theorem 3.9. For this, let G be a
bipartite graph with a bipartition (X , Y ), and consider a network N with vertices {s, r} ∪ X ∪
Y . Let the edges (with their capacities) be s x ∈ N (α(s x) = 1), y r ∈ N (α( y r) = 1) for all
x ∈ X , y ∈ Y together with the edges x y ∈ N (α(x y) = |X |+1), if x y ∈ G for x ∈ X , y ∈ Y .
Then G has a matching that saturates X if and only if N has a maximum flow of value |X |.
Now Theorem 6.10 gives Theorem 3.9.
Next we apply the theorem to unit networks, where the capacities of the edges are equal
to one (α(e) = 1 for all e ∈ N ). We obtain results for (directed) graphs.
Lemma 6.5. Let N be a unit network with source s and sink r.

(i) The value val( f ) of a maximum flow equals the maximum number of edge-disjoint directed
⋆
paths s −
→ r.
(ii) The capacity of a minimum cut [S] equals the minimum number of edges whose removal
⋆
destroys the directed connections s −
→ r from s to r.
⊓
Corollary 6.2. Let u and v be two vertices of a digraph D. The maximum number of edge-
⋆
disjoint directed paths u −
→ v equals the minimum number of edges, whose removal destroys
⋆
all the directed connections u −
→ v from D.
Proof. A network N with source s and sink r is obtained by setting the capacities equal to
1. The claim follows from Lemma 6.5 and Corollary 6.10. ⊔
⊓
Corollary 6.3. Let u and v be two vertices of a graph G. The maximum number of edge-disjoint
⋆
paths u −
→ v equals the minimum number of edges, whose removal destroys all the connections
⋆
u−→ v from G.
Proof. Consider the digraph D that is obtained from G by replacing each (undirected) edge
uv ∈ G by two directed edges uv ∈ D and vu ∈ D. The claim follows then easily from
Corollary 6.2. ⊔
⊓
The next corollary is Menger’s Theorem for edge connectivity.

Corollary 6.4. A graph G is k-edge connected if and only if any two distinct vertices of G are
connected by at least k independent paths.
Proof. The claim follows immediately from Corollary 6.3. ⊔

⊓
Seymour’s 6-flows∗
DEFINITION. A k-flow (H, α) of an undirected graph G is an orientation H of G together

with an edge colouring α: EH → [0, k − 1] such that for all vertices v ∈ V ,
X X
α(e) = α( f ) , (6.3)
e=vu∈H f =uv∈H
that is, the sum of the incoming values equals the sum of the outgoing values. A k-flow is
nowhere zero, if α(e) 6= 0 for all e ∈ H.
In the k-flows we do not have any source or sink. For convenience, let α(e−1 ) = −α(e)
for all e ∈ H in the orientation H of G so that the condition (6.3) becomes
X
α(e) = 0 . (6.4)
e=vu∈H
1 1
2
Example 6.8. A graph with a nowhere zero 4-flow. 1 2

3
The condition (6.4) generalizes to the subsets A ⊆ VG in a natural way,

X
α(e) = 0 , (6.5)
e∈[A,A]
since the values of the edges inside A cancel out each other. In particular,
Lemma 6.6. If G has a nowhere zero k-flow for some k, then G has no bridges.
Tutte’s Problem. It was conjectured by TUTTE (1954) that every bridgeless graph has a
nowhere zero 5-flow. The Petersen graph has a nowhere zero 5-flow but does not have any
nowhere 4-flows, and so 5 is the best one can think of. Tutte’s conjecture resembles the
4-Colour Theorem, and indeed, the conjecture is known to hold for the planar graphs. The
proof of this uses the 4-Colour Theorem.
In order to fully appreciate Seymour’s result, Theorem 6.11, we mention that it was
proved as late as 1976 (by JAEGER) that every bridgeless G has a nowhere zero k-flow for
some integer k.
SEYMOUR’s remarkable result reads as follows:
Theorem 6.11 (SEYMOUR’s (1981)). Every bridgeless graph has a nowhere zero 6-flow.
Proof. Omitted. ⊔
⊓
DEFINITION. The flow number f (G) of a bridgeless graph G is the least integer k for which
G has a nowhere zero k-flow.
Theorem 6.12. A connected graph G has a flow number f (G) = 2 if and only if it is eulerian.
Proof. Suppose G is eulerian, and consider an Euler tour W of G. Let D be the orientation
of G corresponding to the direction of W . If an edge uv ∈ D, let α(e) = 1. Since W arrives
and leaves each vertex equally many times, the function α is a nowhere zero 2-flow.
Conversely, let α be a nowhere zero 2-flow of an orientation D of G. Then necessarily
the degrees of the vertices are even, and so G is eulerian. ⊔
⊓
Example 6.9. For each 3-regular bipartite graph G, we have f (G) ≤ 3. Indeed, let G be
(X , Y )-bipartite. By Corollary 3.1, a 3-regular graph has a perfect matching M. Orient the
edges e ∈ M from X to Y , and set α(e) = 2. Orient the edges e ∈ / M from Y to X , and set
α(e) = 1. Since each x ∈ X has exactly one neighbour y1 ∈ Y such that x y1 ∈ M, and two
neighbours y2 , y3 ∈ Y such that x y2 , x y3 ∈
/ M, we have that f (G) ≤ 3.
Theorem 6.13. We have f (K4 ) = 4, and if n > 4, then

¨
2 if n is odd ,
f (Kn ) =
3 if n is even .
⊓
Index
N P-complete problems, 3 di-connected di-component, 83

2-sets, 4 di-orientable, 85
digraph, 83
acyclic, 18 directed
digraph, 85 Euler tour, trail, 86
addressable, 22 walk, path, cycle, 83
adjacency matrix, 6 directed graphs (digraph), 5
adjacent, 4 disconnected, 13
augmented path, 35 disconnecting set, 27
available colour, 42, 52 discrete graph, 10
disjoint walks, 12
bipartite, 16 distance, 13
bond, 24 distance function, 5
boundary, 61
bridge, 18 edge, 4
edge chromatic number χ ′ (G), 42
capacity, 91 edge colouring, 5, 42
capacity function, 89 edge cut, 24
choosable, 70 embedding, 77
chromatic number χ(G), 52 end (of a path), 12
chromatic polynomial χG , 56 end (of an edge), 4
closed walk, 12 Euler trail , tour, 29
colouring, 52 Euler’s formula, 62
complement G, 10 eulerian, 29
complete bipartite Km,k , 16 even component, 38
complete graph Kn , 10 even cycle, 12
connected, 24 exterior: face, boundary,vertex,edge, 61
connected (component), 13
connected sum, 75 face, 61
connectivity number κ(G), 24 fan, 28
contracted vertex, 57 flow, 89
critical, 53 flow number, 95
crossing number, 67 forest, 18
cube, 11
cut (in a network), 91 genus, 79
cut vertex, 23 graph, 4
cycle, 12 graphical sequence, 9
degree dG (v), 7 Hamilton path , cycle, 31

Index 97
hamiltonian, 31 odd component, 38

Hamming distance, 22 odd cycle, 12
homeomorphic, 75 optimal colouring, 44
order νG , 4
improvable (path), 90 orientable surface, 75
improvement (colouring), 44 orientation, 83
incident colours, 42 oriented, 75
indegree, 84 oriented graph, 83
independent paths, 12 outdegree, 84
induced subdigraph, 83
induced subgraph, 8 parallel edges, 4
interior: face, vertex, edge, 61 partition, 3
intersection graph, 6 path, 12
inverse pair, 83 perfect matching, 35
inverse walk (path), 12 Petersen graph, 11, 32
isolated vertex, 7 planar graph, 60
isomorphic, 5 plane embedding, 60
plane model, 75
join of walks, 12 proper colouring, 42, 52
Ramsey number, 48
king, 87
ranking, 88
kiss (circles), 72
regular graph, 10
Kuratowski graph, 64
resultant flow, 90
latin rectangle, 38 same parity, 3
latin square, 38 saturate (matching), 35
leaf, 7 separates, 23
line segment graph, 72 separating set, 23
linked cycles, 82 Shannon’s switching game, 20
list chromatic number, 70 sink and source, 89
list colouring, 70 size ǫG , 4
loop, 4 spanning subgraph, 8
spanning tree, 20
Möbius band, 75 spatial embedding, 81
map, 68 sphere, 77
matching, 35 sphere with a handle, 78
maximal planar graph, 63 stable matching, 40
maximum stable set, 16
degree ∆(G), 7 subdigraph, 83
flow, 90 subdivision, 60
matching, 35 subgraph, 8
minimum surface, 75
cut, 91 symmetric difference, 3
degree δ(G), 7
weighted distance, 13 topologically equivalent, 75
minor, 73 torus, 78
monochromatic, 48 tournament, 87
multigraph, 4 trail, 29
transversal, 37
near-triangulation, 71 tree, 18
neighbour, 4 triangle, 75
neighbourhood NG (v), 7 triangle-free, 52
network, 89 triangulation, 75
nontrivial graph, 10 trivial graph, 10
Index 98
trivial path, 12 vertex colouring, 5

2-cell, 79
2-switch, 9 walk, 11
weight, 13
underlying digraph, 89 weight function, 5
underlying graph, 83 wheel, 51
unit networks, 93 winning number, 88
vertex, 4 zero flow, 90

Lecture Notes On Graph Theory

Uploaded by

Lecture Notes On Graph Theory

Uploaded by

Lecture Notes on

3 Tours and Matchings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Sections with a star (∗) in their heading are optional.

Notations and notions

⌊x⌋ = max{k ∈ Z | k ≤ x} and ⌈x⌉ = min{k ∈ Z | x ≤ k}.

• A family {X 1 , X 2 , . . . , X k } of subsets X i ⊆ X of a set X is a partition of X , if

• For two sets X and Y ,

is their symmetric difference. Here X \ Y = {x | x ∈ X , x ∈ / Y }.

Graph theory has abundant examples of N P-complete problems. Intuitively, a problem

1.1 Graphs and their plane figures

Let V be a finite set, and denote by

the 2-sets of V , i.e., subsets of two distinct elements.

DEFINITION. For a graph G, we denote

νG = |VG | and ǫG = |EG | .

A graph G can be represented as a plane figure by drawing a line v1 v3 v6

Later we concentrate on (simple) graphs.

DEFINITION. We also study directed graphs or digraphs D =

DEFINITION. A function α: VG → K is a vertex colouring of G by a set K of colours. A

Graphs can also be represented by sets. For this, let X = {X 1 , X 2 , . . . , X n } be a family

Theorem 1.2. Every graph is an intersection graph of some family of subsets.

Proof. Let G be a graph, and define, for all v ∈ G, a set

Then X u ∩ X v 6= ; if and only if uv ∈ G. ⊔

DEFINITION. Let v ∈ G be a vertex a graph G. The neighbourhood of v is the set

The degree of v is the number of its neighbours:

dG (v) = |NG (v)| .

If dG (v) = 0, then v is said to be isolated in G, and if dG (v) = 1, then v is a leaf of the

δ(G) = min{dG (v) | v ∈ G} and ∆(G) = max{dG (v) | v ∈ G} .

Lemma 1.1 (Handshaking lemma). For each graph G,

Moreover, the number of vertices of odd degree is even.

DEFINITION. A graph H is a subgraph of a graph G, denoted by H ⊆ G, if VH ⊆ VG and

In an induced subgraph H ⊆ G, the set EH of edges consists of all e ∈ EG such that

G[A] = (A, EG ∩ E(A)) .

To each subset F ⊆ EG of edges there corresponds a unique spanning subgraph of G,

G subgraph spanning induced

For a set F ⊆ EG of edges, let

be the subgraph of G obtained by removing (only) the edges e ∈ F from G. In particular,

Lemma 1.2. Let G be a graph of order n with a degree sequence d1 ≥ d2 ≥ · · · ≥ dn , where

Proof. Let d = ∆(G) (= d1 ). Suppose that there is a vertex vi with 2 ≤ i ≤ d + 1 such

DEFINITION. Let d1 , d2 , . . . , dn be a descending sequence of nonnegative integers, that is,

Theorem 1.4 (HAVEL (1955), HAKIMI (1962)). A sequence d1 , d2 , . . . , dn (with d1 ≥ 1 and

d2 − 1, d3 − 1, . . . , dd1 +1 − 1, dd1 +2 , dd1 +3 , . . . , dn (1.1)

is graphical (when put into nonincreasing order).

Proof. (⇐) Consider G of order n − 1 with vertices (and degrees)

dG (v2 ) = d2 − 1, . . . , dG (vd1 +1 ) = dd1 +1 − 1,

Example 1.3. Consider the sequence s = 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1. By Theorem 1.4,

The last sequence corresponds to a graph with no edges, and

The graph G = KV is the complete graph on V , if every two

The complement of G is the graph G on VG , where EG = {e ∈ E(V ) | e ∈ / EG }. The

A discrete graph is 0-regular, and a complete graph Kn is (n − 1)-regular. In particular,

Example 1.4. The graph on the right is the Petersen graph

1.3 Paths and cycles

DEFINITION. Let ei = ui ui+1 ∈ G be edges of G for i ∈ [1, k]. The sequence W = e1 e2 . . . ek

We write, more informally,

DEFINITION. Let W = e1 e2 . . . ek (ei = ui ui+1 ) be a walk.

is a walk in G, called the inverse walk of W .

A (sub)graph, which is a path (cycle) of length k−1 (k, resp.)

DEFINITION. If there exists a walk (and hence a path) from u to v in G, let

c(G) = the number of connected components of G .

If c(G) = 1, then G is, of course, connected.

The maximality condition means that a subgraph H ⊆ G is a connected component if

be the (total) weight of H. In particular, if P = e1 e2 . . . ek is a path, then its weight is

In extremal problems we seek for optimal subgraphs H ⊆ G satisfying specific conditions.

(i) Set u0 = u, t(u0 ) = 0 and t(v) = ∞ for all v 6= u0 .

replace t(v) by min{t(v), t(ui ) + α(ui v)} .

• u0 = v0 , t(u0 ) = 0, others are ∞.

t(v1 ) = 2, t(v2 ) = 3, t(v3 ) = 3, t(v4 ) = 4, t(v5 ) = 4 .

These are the minimal weights from v0 to each vi .

The steps of the algorithm can also be rewritten as a table:

The correctness of Dijkstra’s algorithm can verified be as follows.

2.1 Bipartite graphs and trees

X = {x | dG (v, x) is even} and Y = { y | dG (v, y) is odd} .

Since G is connected, VG = X ∪ Y . Also, by the definition of distance, X ∩ Y = ;.

and let H = G[F ]. Obviously H is a spanning subgraph, and it is bipartite.

e = uv is a bridge ⇐⇒ u, v in different connected components of G−e .

Theorem 2.3. An edge e ∈ G is a bridge if and only if e is not in any cycle of G.

Lemma 2.1. Let e be a bridge in a connected graph G.