1962 13erdos
1962 13erdos
1962 13erdos
Throughout this paper Gg " will denote a graph with n vertices and k edges
where circuits consisting of two edges and loops (i . e . circuits of one edge) are not
permitted and G'" will denote a graph of n vertices and k edges where loops and
circuits with two edges are permitted . v(G) (respectively v(G)) will denote the num-
ber of edges of G (respectively G) .
If x,, x" . . ., x,, are some of the vertices of G, then (G-x, - . . . -x k) will
denote the graph which we obtain from G by omitting the vertices x,, . . ., x k and
all the edges incident to them . By G(x,, . . ., x k ) we denote the subgraph of G spanned
by the vertices x,, . . ., xk . The valency of a vertex x - v (x) - will denote the number
of edges incident to it . (A loop is counted doubly .) The edge connecting x, and x,
will be denoted by [x,, x,], edges will sometimes be denoted by e,, ez , . . . . (x,, x,, . . .xk )
will denote the circuit having the edges [x,, x,], . . ., [xk _,, .vk], [x k x,] .
A set of edges is called independent if no two of them have a common vertex .
A set of circuits will be called independent if no two of them have a common ver-
tex . They will be called weakly independent if no two of them have a common
edge .
In a previous paper ERDŐS and GALLAI [l] proved that every
2k ' 1 k 2 11]
(l) G,+i where 1=max (k-1)n-(k-1) +
3k l
(2) GM with l=max [( )+n 3k+2 (2k 1) n 2kz+k
2 J
contains k independent circuits .
Denote by g(k) the smallest integer so that every Gr+g(k) contains k weakly
independent circuits . We will show that g(2)=4 and that for every k
where c l and c 2 are suitable absolute constants (the c's throughout this paper will
denote suitable absolute constants) . The exact determination of g(k) seems to be
a very difficult problem and we cannot even show that g(k)llog k tends to a cons-
tant. Further we do not know the value of g(3) .
It is easy to see that g(2)--4 i . e . we will show that for every n 6 there exists
a G„+3 which does not contain two weakly independent circuits . To see this let
the vertices of our graph be x,, . . ., x" and its edges
A simple argument shows that this G ;,+3 does not contain two weakly independent
circuits.
After completing our paper we found out that some of our results were known
to G . DIRAC but he published nothing on this subject . In particular he proved that
for n~6 every G3„_ ; contains two independent circuits and that every G„'+ 4 con-
tains two weakly independent circuits . He also proved that for n--6 every G ( " )
where the valency of every vertex is 3 and the valency of every vertex with at
most one exception is ----4 contains two independent circuits and conjectured that
for n 3k every G ( " ) which is 2k-fold connected (i . e . which remains connected
after the omission of any 2k -1 of its vertices) contains k independent circuits .
Theorem 1 . Let k > 1, n 24k then every Gk-) either contains k independent
circuits or 2k - 1 vertices of valency n -l .
Our Theorem clearly implies that for n-24k every G"') k +i contains k inde-
pendent circuits (since a simple computation shows that a G f(;, k - which has 2k -l
vertices of valency n - I has all its other vertices of valency 2k-1 and its structure
is thus uniquely determined) . n -- 24k could easily be improved a great deal, but
our method does not give any hope of best possible estimates .
Theorem 1 . will be proved by a fairly complicated induction process and to
make this as painless as possible we will restate Theorem 1 . in a very much more
complicated form but which will be more suitable for our induction process .
Theorem 1' . Every Gt,"~ contains a circuit (k =l) . For k > 1 put
We shall show l = k . Assume l < k . Each of the vertices x , , +, and x,,, 2 are connec-
ted with at least n - k vertices . Thus every vertex except possibly 2k vertices are
connected with both x 2 ,-, and x,t+2, i . e . these are at least n-2k~4k of them
which are connected with both and x, t +, . Since 2k+2l--4k-2 there are
two further vertices and y,1+2 which are connected with both X21 +, and
. Thus the quadrilateral (x2a+I~ Y21-I-, x21 +2,Yet+2) is independent of the
x,,+2
others, which contradicts our maximality assumption, which proves Lemma l .
Lemma 2 . Let n-2k and assume that every vertex of G" ) has valency --2k,
then G ( " ) contains k independent edges .
Lemma 2 can be proved from first principles in a few lines as follows :) Let
e ;,-[x2i_, .x2i], 1t be a maximal set of independent edges . Assume t<k
(otherwise there is nothing to prove) . But then since n ~:- 2k there are two vertices
of G t "I y, and Y2 distinct from the x ;, 1--i-_2í, y, and Y2 can be joined only to
the a- i 1--i-2t (by our maximality assumption), and by the same assumption
if y, is connected to an endpoint of e t l--i--t then y 2 can not be connected to
the other endpoint . Thus v (y,) v (y,) -_ 2t < 2k which contradicts v (y i ) --k . This
contradiction proved the Lemma .
Now we prove Theorem V by induction . Let k > 1 and assume that Theorem Y
holds for k - 1 and assume that it holds for every 6k < m < n . (We already remarked
that it trivially holds for 3k-_m-_6k) . Then we shall prove it for n, and if we have
succeeded in this the proof of Theorem F and therefore Theorem 1 will be complete .
Assume first that our G9(,),, k> contains 2k vertices of valency --n-k.
Then by Lemma 1 . our graph contains k independent quadrilaterals and thus
Theorem 1' is proved in this case .
Henceforth we can assume that G contains at most 2k -1 vertices of valency
-n-k . If all the other vertices have valency <2k then the number of edges of
G is at most
(2k-1)(n-l)+(2k-1)(n-2k+1)_f(n
k)
2
and equality can occur only if G contains 2k -1 vertices of valency n -1 (i . e. these
vertices are connected with all the vertices of the graph), and G contains no other
edge, otherwise it would contain another vertex of valency ~--- 2k) . Thus the structure
of our G is uniquely determined (G can have this structure only if n-24k) and Theo-
rem I' is proved in this case too .
Therefore we can now assume that G has a vertex - say x o - of valency l'
satisfying
2k :1'<n-k.
In this case Theorem 1' easily follows since G contains k independent triangles .
To see this observe that it immediately follows from our assumptions that there
are k - I independent triangles (x2 i _ 1 , x2 b y ,), 1 : i t k - l . (xo, x2x-1, x20 is the
k-th independent triangle .
Henceforth we can thus assume that - say el = [x l , x2] - is contained in
at most k - 2 triangles in the graph (G - x o - x 3 - . . . - x2 j . Put G 2 = (G - x o -x l - x 2 ) .
Now we estimate v (G2) from below, by estimating from above the number of edges
of G incident to x o , x l and x 2 . v(x o)<n-k by our assumption . In G(x l , . . ., x 2 0
the vertices x l and x2 are incident to at most 4k - 3 edges . Finally every vertex
of (G-xo-xl- . . . -x 20 is connected with at most one of the vertices x1 and x 2i
except possibly k - 2 vertices which might be connected with both . Thus we obtain
at most n - k - 3 further edges . Thus the total number of edges incident to x o , x 1
and x 2 is at most
n-k-1+4k-3+n-k-3=2n+2k-7 .
Hence for k>2
v(G Z ) - v(G) -2n-2k+7= (n-3) (2k- 3) -2(k- 1) -' +k+
(4)
+g(n, k)-f(n, k)>g(n-3, k-1)
since clearly
g (n, k) - f(n, k) - g (n - 3, k - 1) -f(n - 3, k -1) .
For k=2, we obtain
First we prove the upper bound in (5), (no attempt will be made to get a good.
estimation for c,) . We shall use induction with respect to k . For k=2 the inequa-
lity follows from Theorem 3 . Assume that it holds for k-l, we shall prove it
for k. As in the proof of Theorem 3 . we can assume that every vertex of our graph
u> >
G« +[,,k k] has valency -3 . But then
r(G) 3 T1
or
(6) n 2c,k log k .
First we prove
-.(")e23L_,vEtmrnayxgofphwGicsvaleny
log 2l
contains a circuit of at most n I edges .
Clog ' J
If our graph contains a loop or a circuit of two edges our Lemma is trivial.
Thus assume that such circuits do not occur in our graph . Let a- i be any vertex
of G ( " ) . If G'") contains no circuit of ~2t edges, then all the vertices which can
be reached from x, in t or fewer edges are all distinct . Since every vertex of G'" 1
has valency _-3 a simple argument shows that in t steps we can reach at least
1+3 + . . .+32'-i=2'-'>n
Clog log n
vertices if t = 1 . Thus G ( "' contains a circuit of length not exceeding 2
g 2] [log 2]
as stated .
10 P . Erdős and L. Pósa
From (6) and Lemma 3 . our graph contains a circuit of length not greater
than
log n (2e,k log k) < ác
[log 2 log k
2 [log 2 - 2 log 2
for sufficiently large c2 . If we omit the edges of this circuit we obtain a graph of
at most n vertices and more than
edges . By our induction hypothesis our new graph contains k - 1 weakly inde-
pendent circuits, thus together with our first circuit we have our required k weakly
independent circuits, which completes the proof of the right side of (5) .
To prove the lower bound in (5) we need
Lemma 4 . There exists a constant c 3 > 0 so that for every m there exists a G(2'm
which contains no circuit of length less than C3 log 111,
The proof of the Lemma is implicitely contained in a paper by ERDŐS [3], but
for the sake of completeness we give it here in full detail .
Consider all graphs of in labelled vertices having 2rn edges . The number I of
M
((2) '
these graphs clearly equals Denote these graphs by G 1 , . . ., G r and denote
3m
by f(G) the number of distinct circuits of length not exceeding [c 3 log m] contained
in G r . We are going to estimate
r
M= I f(G)
:,Z
=1
from above . A simple combinatorial argument show's that the number of graphs G t
which contain a given circuit of k edges equals
rrz k
(7) 2
,3m-k,
The number of circuits of length k is clearly less than
(8) k! ( k) n1k .
2m
k
c 3 log m
weakly independent circuits, if c l is sufficiently small . On the other hand our graph
has 2m = m + [c, k log k] edges, which completes the proof of the left side of (5)
for k > k o . But clearly for 2---5k--k, g(k) --g (2) = 4, thus if c l is sufficiently
small (5) holds for all k--2 and thus Theorem 4 . is proved .
If we have already constructed a G;n+t,,kiogkj which does not contain k we-
akly independent circuits, we can construct such a Gnu-r[c,klogkj for every n-m
by adding a path of n - i i new vertices and edges to our G,,,+[c,k lag k] .
Finally we consider the following question : Let m--n and consider a graph
G,,,'n,' . Define h(G,„") as the length of the shortest circuit Of Our G'." ) . Put
2n+2
` 3 .
]
The determination, or even the estimation, off(n, m for general n and m seems
a difficult problem .
Theorem 5 . Plat in =n+d,d,l . Then ,tie have
(n +d) log d
(10) f(n, n I d) < c 4
d
and to every constant C > 0 there exists an A (C) depending only on C so that
log d
,(11) f(n, n+d)>A(C) (yi+d)
d
(11) shows that for d-< Cn (10) gives the correct order of magnitude for f(n, m) .
12 P . Erdős and L . Pósa : On circuits of a graph
(t~+d log d
(12) logQd>c,
\Cz,I-l}cs
By adding a path of n-d new edges and vertices to this graph we obtain a
Gn"+d the shortest circuit of which satisfies the inequality (12), thus (11) and the-
refore Theorem 5, is proved,
1t would be easy to strengthen Lemma 3, as follows : Let C---~- then there
exists an e c which tends to 0~ as C tends to infinity so that every G'rc, l contains
a circuit of length less than e c log n, but we are far from being able to determine
the exact dependence of sc from C,
Bibliography
[1] P . ERDŐS and T . GALLAI, On maximal paths and circuits of graphs, Acta _Path
. Acad. Sci . Hun-
. 10 (1959), 337-356 .
gar
[2] G. DIRAC, In abstrakten Graphen vorhandene vollstandige 4-Graphen and ihre Unterteilun-
gen, Math. Nachr . 22 (1960), 61 -85 .
[3] P . ERDŐS, Graph theory and probability, Canad. J. Math . 11 (1959), 34-38 .