5 - arXiv.org

Transcription

5 - arXiv.org

THE SIGNED ROMAN DOMINATION NUMBER OF SOME GRAPHS
arXiv:1411.7208v1 [math.CO] 26 Nov 2014
ALI BEHTOEI ∗ , EBRAHIM VATANDOOST, FEZZEH AZIZI RAJOL ABAD
Abstract. A signed Roman domination function (simply, a “SRDF”) on a graph G = (V, E) is a funcP
tion f : V (G) → {−1, 1, 2} which satisfies two following conditions: a) For each x ∈ V , xy∈E f (y) ≥ 1.
P
b) Each vertex x with f (x) = −1 has a neighbor y with f (y) = 2. The value f (V ) = x∈V f (x) is
called the weight of the function f . The signed Roman domination number of G, denoted by γsR (G), is
the smallest integer k such that G has a SRDF of weight k. In this paper we study and determine the
signed Roman domination number of some graphs like wheel, fan, friendship and the Petersen graph.
Moreover, we provide a lower bound for the signed Roman domination number of regular graphs.
1. Introduction
Let G be a simple graph with the vertex set V (G) and the edge set E(G). The order of G is |V (G)|.
For each vertex v ∈ V (G), the open neighborhood of v in G is the set N (v) = {u ∈ V (G) : uv ∈ E(G)}
and the closed neighborhood of v in G is the set N [v] = N (v) ∪ {v}. The degree of a vertex v in G is
given by deg(v) = |N (v)|. The minimum degree and the maximum degree of G are denoted by ∆(G)
and δ(G), respectively. A graph is called k-regular if each vertex of it has degree k. A subset S of
V (G) is independent if there exist no two adjacent vertices in S. The independent number of G is the
maximum size of an independent set in G.
A set D ⊆ V (G) is called a dominating set of G if each vertex outside D has at least one neighbor in
D. The minimum cardinality of a dominating set of G is the domination number of G and is denoted
by γ(G). For example, the domination numbers of the n-vertex complete graph, path, or cycle are
given by γ(Kn ) = 1, γ(Pn ) = ⌈ n3 ⌉ and γ(Cn ) = ⌈ n3 ⌉, respectively [5].
Domination is a rapidly developing area of research in graph theory, and its various applications to
ad hoc networks, distributed computing, social networks, biological networks and web graphs partly
explain the increased interest. The concept of domination has existed and studied for a long time
and early discussions on the topic can be found in the works of Ore [7] and Berge [2]. At present,
domination is considered to be one of the fundamental concepts in graph theory with an extensive
research activity. Garey and Johnson [4] have shown that determining the domination number of an
arbitrary graph is an NP-complete problem.
MSC(2010): Primary: 05C69; Secondary: 05C78.
Keywords: Signed Roman domination, Petersen, Wheel, Fan, Friendship.
∗ Corresponding author.
1
2
The Signed Roman Domination Number Of Some Graphs
A. Behtoei, E. Vatandoost, F. Azizi
The domination number can be defined equivalently by means of a function, which can be considered
as a characteristic function of a dominating set [5]. A function f : V (G) → {0, 1} is called a dominating
P
P
function on G if for each vertex x ∈ V (G), y∈N [x] f (y) ≥ 1. The value w(f ) = x∈V (G) f (x) is
called the weight of f . Now the domination number of G can be defined as
γ(G) = min{w(f ) : f is a domination function on G}.
Analogously, a signed domination function of G is a labeling of the vertices of G with +1 and
−1 such that the closed neighborhood of each vertex contains more +1’s than −1’s. The signed
domination number of G is the minimum value of the sum of vertex labels, taken over all signed
domination functions of G. This concept is closely related to combinatorial discrepancy theory as
shown by F¨
uredi and Mubayi in [3].
In general, many domination parameters can be defined by combining domination with other graph
theoretical properties.
Definition 1.1. [1] Let G = (V, E) be a graph. A signed Roman domination function (simply,
a “SRDF”) on the graph G is a function f : V → {−1, 1, 2} which satisfies two following conditions:
P
(a) For each x ∈ V , xy∈E f (y) ≥ 1,
(b) Each vertex x with f (x) = −1 has a neighbor y with f (y) = 2.
P
The value f (V ) = x∈V f (x) is called the weight of the function f and is denoted by w(f ). The
signed Roman domination number of G, γsR (G), is the minimum weight of a SRDF on G.
These concepts are introduced by Ahangar et al. in [1]. They described the usefulness of these
concepts in various applicative areas like “defending the Roman empire”, see [9] and [6] for more
details. It is obvious that for every graph G of order n we have γsR (G) ≤ n, because assigning +1 to
each vertex yields a SRDF. In [1] Ahangar et al. present various lower and upper bounds on the signed
Roman domination number of a graph in terms of it’s order and size. Moreover, they characterized
all graphs which attain these bounds. They also study the signed Roman domination number of some
special bipartite graphs, and the relation between γsR and some other graphical parameters. It is
2n
proved in [1] that γsR (Kn ) = 1 for each n 6= 3, γsR (K3 ) = 2, γsR (Cn ) = ⌈ 2n
3 ⌉, γsR (Pn ) = ⌊ 3 ⌋, and
that the only n-vertex graph G with γsR (G) = n is the empty graph K n .
In [8] Sheikholeslami and Volkmann studied these concepts from another point of view as follow.
A set {f1 , f2 , ..., fd } of distinct signed Roman dominating functions on G with the property that
Pd
i=1 fi (v) ≤ 1 for each v ∈ V (G), is called a signed Roman dominating family (of functions) on G.
The maximum number of functions in a signed Roman dominating family on G is the signed Roman
domatic number of G, and is denoted by dsR (G). They initiate the study of signed Roman domatic
number in graphs and present some sharp bounds for dsR (G). In addition, they determine the signed
Roman domatic number of some graphs like stars, paths, cycles, complete graphs, cactuses, and some
regular graphs.
Note that each signed Roman domination function f of G is uniquely determined by the ordered
partition (V−1 , V1 , V2 ) of V (G), where Vi = f
−1
(i) = {x ∈ V (G) : f (x) = i} for each i ∈ {−1, 1, 2}.
3
Specially, w(f ) = 2|V2 | + |V1 | − |V−1 |. For convenience, we write f = (V−1 , V1 , V2 ) and, when S ⊆ V
P
we denote the sumation x∈S f (x) by f (S). In this paper, we provide a lower bound for the signed
Roman domination number of regular graphs. Also, we determine the signed Roman domination
numbers of some graphs like wheel, fan, friendship and the Petersen graph.
2. Main Results
At first, we investigate the signed Roman domination number of the Petersen graph which is a
3-regular graph. For this reason we need the following lemma about regular graphs.
Lemma 2.1. If G is a k-regular graph of order n, then γsR (G) ≥
n
k+1 .
Proof. Assume that V (G) = {x1 , x2 , ..., xn } and let f be a signed Roman domination function on the
graph G of weight w(f ) = γsR (G). Thus, for each i, 1 ≤ i ≤ n, we have f (N [xi ]) ≥ 1. Also note that
f (xi ) is counted in f (N [xi ]) and in f (N [xj ]) for each xj ∈ N (xi ). This means each f (xi ) is counted
P
k + 1 times in nj=1 f (N [xj ]). Therefore,
γsR (G) = w(f ) =
n
X
f (xi ) =
i=1
n
n
j=1
j=1
1 X
1 X
n
f (N [xj ]) ≥
1=
,
k+1
k+1
k+1
which completes the proof.
Theorem 2.2. The signed Roman domination number of the Petersen graph is given by γsR (P ) = 5.
Proof. Let f0 : V (P ) → {−1, 1, 2} be the labeling of the vertices of the Petersen graph which is
illustrated in Figure 1 (b). It is easy to check that f0 is a SRDF on P and hence,
γsR (P ) ≤ w(f0 ) = 5.
x1
2
x6
x5
x4
x10
x7
x9
x8
(a)
x2
x3
−1
−1
−1
1
1
2
1
−1
2
(b)
Figure 1. The Petersen graph and a labelling on it.
Now let f = (V−1 , V1 , V2 ) be a signed Roman domination function on P of the minimum weight.
We want to show that w(f ) = 5. Since P is a 3-regular graph of order 10, Lemma 2.1 implies that
w(f ) = γsR (P ) ≥ 3. Each vertex xi ∈ V (P ) has three neighbors, and f (NP [xi ]) ≥ 1. Hence, each
vertex xi has at most two neighbors in V−1 , and if xi ∈ V−1 , then |NP (xi ) ∩ V−1 | ≤ 1.
If |V2 | = 0, then we should have |V−1 | = 0. Hence w(f ) = 10 > 5, which is a contradiction. If
4
|V2 | = 1, then |V−1 | ≤ 2 and w(f ) ≥ 2 − 1 − 1 + 7 × 1 > 5, which is a contradiction. Thus |V2 | ≥ 2.
Now if |V−1 | ≤ 3, then w(f ) ≥ 2 × 2 − 3 + 5 > 5 which is a contradiction. Also, if |V−1 | ≥ 6, then
w(f ) ≤ 4 × 2 − 6 < 3, a contradiction. Thus |V−1 | ∈ {4, 5}.
Now we show that |V−1 | =
6 5, and hence |V−1 | = 4. Suppose on the contrary, that |V−1 | = 5. Since
the independent number of the Petersen graph is 4 (see [10], pages 13-15), there exist two adjacent
vertices in V−1 . By the symmetry and without loss of generality, assume that x1 and x2 are two
adjacent vertices in V−1 , see Figure 1 (a). Since f (N [x1 ]) ≥ 1 and f (N [x2 ]) ≥ 1 we should have
V−1 ∩ {x3 , x5 , x6 , x7 } = ∅. Thus |V−1 ∩ {x4 , x8 , x9 , x10 }| = 3. If {x8 , x9 } ⊆ V−1 , then f (N [x6 ]) < 0,
a contradiction. Hence |V−1 ∩ {x8 , x9 }| = 1 which implies {x4 , x10 } ⊆ V−1 and f (N [x5 ]) < 0, a
contradiction.
We know that |V2 | ≥ 2. If |V2 | ≥ 3, then w(f ) ≥ 3 × 2 − 4 + 3 ≥ 5 and we are done. Suppose on the
contrary, that |V2 | = 2. Thus each vertex of V2 has two distinct neighbors in V−1 . Let V2 = {u1 , u2 }
and V−1 = {v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 } with {v1 , v2 } ⊆ N (u1 ) and {v3 , v4 } ⊆ N (u2 ).
At first, assume that there exist two adjacent vertices in V−1 . Since P contains no triangle, E(P ) ∩
{v1 v2 , v3 v4 } = ∅. Without loss of generality, assume that two adjacent vertices in V−1 . Since P
contains no cycle of length 4, u1 and u2 are not adjacent and hence they have a common neighbor
x ∈ (N (u1 ) ∩ N (u2 )) \ V−1 , see [10] page 13. Similarly, v2 and v4 are not adjacent and have a common
neighbor y ∈
/ V2 , see Figure 2 (a) and (b). Thus f (y) = 1 and f (N [y]) ≤ 1 − 2 + 1 = 0, a contradiction.
Now assume that V−1 is an independent set. Two vertices v2 and v3 are non-adjacent and hence
have a common neighbor y. Since P is triangle-free, y is not adjacent to u1 , nor to u2 (see Figure 2
(c) and (d)). Hence f (N [y]) ≤ 1 − 2 + 1 = 0, which is a contradiction. These contradiction completes
the proof. Note that f0 illustrated in Figure 1 (b) is a signed Roman domination function of minimum
weight on P such that |V2 | = 3 and |V−1 | = 4.
x
u1
1
u2
v1 v2
2
u1
2
v3 v4 −1 −1 −1 −1
y
1
(a)
v1 v2
(b)
u2
2
2
v3 v4 −1 −1
y
−1
1
(c)
−1
(d)
Figure 2. The graphs related to the proof of Theorem 2.2.
Recall that the join of two graphs G1 and G2 , denoted by G1 ∨ G2 , is a graph with vertex set
V (G1 ) ∪ V (G2 ) and edge set E(G1 ) ∪ E(G2 ) ∪ {uv : u ∈ V (G1 ), v ∈ V (G2 )}. For example K1 ∨ Pn is
the fan Fn , K1 ∨ Cn is the wheel Wn , and the friendship graph F rn , n = 2m + 1, is the graph obtained
by joining K1 to the m disjoint copies of K2 . For determining the signed Roman domination number
of Wn , Fn and F rn we need the following useful lemma.
Lemma 2.3. If G is a graph with ∆(G) = |V (G)| − 1, then γsR (G) ≥ 1.
5
Proof. Let f be a signed Roman domination function on G such that w(f ) = γsR (G). Since ∆(G) =
|V (G)| − 1, there exists x ∈ V (G) such that deg(x) = |V (G)| − 1. Since f is SRDF and N (x) =
V (G) \ {x}, we have
X
γsR (G) = w(f ) =
f (v) = f (x) +
v∈V (G)
X
f (v) = f (N [x]) ≥ 1.
v∈N (x)
Theorem 2.4. Let Wn = K1 ∨ Cn be a wheel of order n + 1. Then
(
2 n=4
γsR (Wn ) =
1 n 6= 4.
Proof. Assume that V (Wn ) = {v0 , v1 , v2 , ..., vn } and
E(Wn ) = {v0 vi : 1 ≤ i ≤ n} ∪ {v1 v2 , v2 v3 , ..., vn−1 vn , vn v1 }.
Since ∆(Wn ) = |V (Wn )| − 1, Lemma 2.3 implies that γsR (Wn ) ≥ 1.
For the case n = 4 it is not hard to check by inspection that there exists no signed Roman domination
function on W4 of weight 1 while, Figure 3 (a) illustrates an SRDF of weight 2. Hence γsR (W4 ) = 2.
−1
1
−1
−1
−1
2
1
2
−1
1
1
(a)
(b)
Figure 3. Signed Roman domination labeling on W4 and W5 .
2
−1
−1
−1
2
−1
−1
2
−1
−1
−1
(a)
2
−1
2
1
−1
1
−1
−1
2
1
−1
−1
2
−1
2
−1
(b)
1
−1
1
−1
−1
1
(c)
Figure 4. Signed Roman domination labeling of W12 , W10 and W8 .
To complete the proof it is sufficient to provide a signed Roman domination function of weight 1
on Wn for each n 6= 4. For this reason we consider the following different cases.
Case 1. n is odd.
6
Define the function f : V (Wn ) → {−1, 1, 2} as

i=0

 2
f (vi ) =
−1 i ≡ 1 (mod 2)


1
i ≥ 1, i ≡ 0 (mod 2).
(2.1)
Such a labeling is illustrated in Figure 3 (b) for n = 5 where, the central vertex is v0 , top one is v1
and v2 is the second vertex when the sense of traversal being clockwise. Note that each vertex in
V−1 = f
−1
(−1) is adjacent to v0 ∈ f
−1
(2). Also, it is easy to check that


 1 i ∈ {0, 1, n}
f (N [vi ]) =
1 i∈
/ {0, 1, n}, i ≡ 0 (mod 2)


3 i∈
/ {0, 1, n}, i ≡ 1 (mod 2).
Thus f is a SRDF on Wn of weight w(f ) = f (NWn [v0 ]) = 1.
Case 2. n is even and n ≡ 0 (mod 3).
Define the function f : V (Wn ) → {−1, 1, 2} as


1



 2
f (vi ) =
 −1




−1
(2.2)
i=0
i ≥ 1, i ≡ 0 (mod 3)
i ≥ 1, i ≡ 1 (mod 3)
i ≥ 1, i ≡ 2 (mod 3).
Such a labeling is depicted in Figure 4 (a) for n = 12. It is straightforward to check that f is a SRDF
on Wn of weight 1.
Define the function f as
(2.3)


2





2



 1
f (vi ) =

−1





−1




−1
i=0
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 7, i ≡ 0 (mod 3)
i ∈ {n − 4, n − 1, n}
i ∈ {n − 6, n − 5, n − 3, n − 2}
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 7, i ≡ 1 (mod 3)
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 7, i ≡ 2 (mod 3).
Such a labeling is illustrated in Figure 4 (b) for n = 10. It is not hard to check that f is a SRDF on
Wn and w(f ) = 1.
7
Define the function f on V (Wn ) as follow.


2





2



 1
f (vi ) =

−1





−1




−1
(2.4)
i=0
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 5, i ≡ 0 (mod 3)
i ∈ {n − 2, n}
i ∈ {n − 4, n − 3, n − 1}
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 5, i ≡ 1 (mod 3)
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 5, i ≡ 2 (mod 3).
Figure 4 (c) this kind of labeling for n = 8. It is easy to check that f is a SRDF on Wn and it’s
weight is one.
Therefore, in each case we provide a suitable labeling on Wn with weight 1. This completes the
proof.
The structure of fan Fn is very similar to the structure of wheel Wn . This similarity helps us to
construct suitable signed Roman domination functions on Fn .
Theorem 2.5. Let Fn = K1 ∨ Pn be a fan of order n + 1. Then
γsR (Fn ) =
(
2 n ∈ {2, 4}
1 n∈
/ {2, 4}.
Proof. Assume that V (Fn ) = {v0 , v1 , v2 , ..., vn } and
E(Fn ) = {v0 vi : 1 ≤ i ≤ n} ∪ {v1 v2 , v2 v3 , ..., vn−1 vn }.
Since ∆(Fn ) = |V (Fn )| − 1, Lemma 2.3 implies that γsR (Fn ) ≥ 1.
The fan F2 is a complete graph with tree vertices and hence γsR (F2 ) = γsR (K3 ) = 2. For the case
n = 4 it is not hard to check by inspection that there exists no signed Roman domination function on
F4 of weight 1. Figure 5 (a) and (b) illustrate a SRDF of weight 2 on F2 and F4 , respectively. Thus,
for n ∈ {2, 4} we have γsR (Fn ) = 2.
2
−1
(a)
2
1
−1
1
2
−1
(b)
1
−1
1
−1
1
−1
(c)
Figure 5. Signed Roman domination labeling on F2 , F4 and F5 , respectively.
8
2
−1
−1
−1
2
−1
−1
2
−1
−1
−1
2
−1
−1
−1
2
1
−1
1
2
1
−1
−1
−1
(a)
2
−1
2
1
(b)
−1
1
−1
−1
1
(c)
Figure 6. Signed Roman domination labeling on F12 , F10 and F8 , respectively.
To complete the proof it is sufficient to provide a signed Roman domination function of weight 1
on Fn , n ∈
/ {2, 4}. For this reason we consider the functions f : V (Fn ) → {−1, 1, 2} as defined in the
equations 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 regarding to the different cases of n. For instance , F5 is depicted in
Figure 5 (c), where the top vertex is v0 and the lef one is v1 . Also, F6 , F8 and F10 are illustrated in
Figure 6 (a), (b) and (c), respectively (where the central vertex is v0 and the top one is v1 ).
Theorem 2.6. Let m ≥ 2 be an integer and n = 2m + 1. Then, the signed Roman domination number
of the Friendship graph F rn = K1 ∨ (mK2 ) is 2.
Proof. Assume that V (F rn ) = {x} ∪ {yi , zi : 1 ≤ i ≤ m} and
E(F rn ) = {xyi , xzi : 1 ≤ i ≤ m} ∪ {yi zi : 1 ≤ i ≤ m}.
For example, F r9 is depicted in Figure 7 (a). Since ∆(F rn ) = deg(x) = n − 1, Lemma 2.3 implies
that γsR (F rn ) ≥ 1. Consider the function f : V (F rn ) → {−1, 1, 2} defined as

v=x

 2
f (v) =
1
v ∈ {y1 , y2 , ..., ym }


−1 v ∈ {z1 , z2 , ..., zm }.
Such a labeling is shown in Figure 7 (b) for n = 9. It is easy to check that f is a SRDF on F rn and
hence γsR (F rn ) ≤ 2. Now let g = (V−1 , V1 , V2 ) be a signed Roman domination function on F rn of the
minimum weight. Note that w(g) = γsR (F rn ) ≤ 2. If g(yi ) = g(zi ) = −1 for some i, then
g(N [yi ]) = g(yi ) + g(zi ) + g(x) ≤ −1 − 1 + 2 = 0,
which is a contradiction. Thus, for each i ∈ {1, 2, ..., m} we have |V−1 ∩ {yi , zi }| ≤ 1. This implies
that |V−1 | ≤ m + 1. If V−1 = ∅, then w(g) ≥ n × 1 ≥ 5, a contradiction. Hence |V−1 | ≥ 1 and this
implies that |V2 | ≥ 1. If |V−1 | = m + 1, then |V−1 ∩ {yi , zi }| = 1 for each i ∈ {1, 2, ..., m}, and x ∈ V−1 .
Without loss of generality, assume that g(y1 ) = −1 (the case g(z1 ) = −1 is similar). Since g(z1 ) ≤ 2,
we obtain g(N [z1 ]) ≤ 2 − 1 − 1 = 0 which is a contradiction. Therefore, |V−1 | ≤ m and
γsR (F rn ) = w(g) = 2|V2 | + |V1 | − |V−1 | ≥ 2 × 1 + m × 1 + m × (−1) = 2.
y1
z1
−1
1
y2
z4
−1
1
x
2
y4
z2
−1
1
y3
z3
9
−1
(a)
1
(b)
Figure 7. The Friendship graph F r9 and a signed Roman domination labeling of it.
References
[1] H. A. Ahangar, M. A. Henning, Y. Zhao, C. L¨
owenstein, V. Samodivkin, Signed Roman domination in graphs, J.
Comb. Optim., 27 (2014) 241-255.
[2] C. Berge, Graphs and hypergraphs, North Holland, Amsterdam, (1973).
[3] Z. F¨
uredi and D. Mubayi, Signed domination in regular graphs and setsystems, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 76 (1999)
223-239.
[4] M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the theory of NP-completeness, W.H.
Freeman, San Francisco (1979).
[5] T. W. Haynes, S. T. Hedetniemi and P. J. Slater, Domination in Graphs, Advanced Topics, Marcel Dekker, New
York, (1998).
[6] M. A. Henning and S. T. Hedetniemi, Defending the Roman empirea new strategy, Discrete Math., 266, (2003),
239251
[7] O. Ore, Theory of graphs, Amer. Math. Soc. Colloq. Publ., 38, Providence, (1962).
[8] S. M. Sheikholeslami, L. Volkmann, The signed Roman domatic number of a graph, Annales Mathematicae et
Informaticae, 40 (2012) 105112.
[9] I. Stewart, Defend the Roman Empire, Sci. Amer., 281 (1999) 136-139.
[10] D. B. West, Introduction to graph theory, Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458, Second Edition (2001).
Ali Behtoei
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Imam Khomeini International University,
P.O. Box 34149-16818, Qazvin, Iran
Email:
[email protected]
Ebrahim Vatandoost
Email:
[email protected]
Fezzeh Azizi Rajol Abad
Email:
[email protected]

5 - arXiv.org

Transcription

Similar documents

Roman Alphabet for web

In Roman times Onagers were used to attack forts

Roman Medicine

to read more

¨ Introduction to World Religions HRT 3M ¨ Markville History

CAPARRA. EN.indd

Document 6584299



Roman Society and Culture

Yurta (2014-2015): Appendix