Do any two spanning trees of a simple graph always have some common edges?
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
I tried few cases and found any two spanning tree of a simple graph has some common edges. I mean I couldn't find any counter example so far. But I couldn't prove or disprove this either. How to prove or disprove this conjecture?
graphs graph-theory spanning-trees
add a comment |
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
I tried few cases and found any two spanning tree of a simple graph has some common edges. I mean I couldn't find any counter example so far. But I couldn't prove or disprove this either. How to prove or disprove this conjecture?
graphs graph-theory spanning-trees
add a comment |
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
I tried few cases and found any two spanning tree of a simple graph has some common edges. I mean I couldn't find any counter example so far. But I couldn't prove or disprove this either. How to prove or disprove this conjecture?
graphs graph-theory spanning-trees
I tried few cases and found any two spanning tree of a simple graph has some common edges. I mean I couldn't find any counter example so far. But I couldn't prove or disprove this either. How to prove or disprove this conjecture?
graphs graph-theory spanning-trees
graphs graph-theory spanning-trees
asked Dec 5 at 2:59
Mr. Sigma.
524320
524320
add a comment |
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
43
down vote
accepted
No, consider the complete graph $K_4$:
It has the following edge-disjoint spanning trees:
2
You can make each of the trees planar by taking one to be $N$-shaped and the other $Z$-shaped. You can make the whole thing planar by drawing the edge from the upper right vertex to the lower left vertex as a curve going outside the square.
– Acccumulation
Dec 5 at 20:29
@kelalaka We don't need a complete graph, no (imagine doing this same sort of thing on $K_5$ -- unless I've missed my guess, you have a few unused edges that can be removed, making it no longer complete (because each vertex needs 2-4 traversed edges connected to it, and each vertex in $K_5$ has 5 edges available, so each vertex is attached to at least one unused edge)). $K_4$ is probably just the best example -- it's well known, easy to visualize (comparatively few edges), and has very simple spanning trees.
– Nic Hartley
Dec 6 at 6:40
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
For the more interested readers, there are some research on decomposition of graph into edge-disjoint spanning trees.
For example, the classical papers On the Problem of Decomposing a Graph into $n$ Connected Factors by W. T. Tutte and Edge-disjoint spanning trees of finite graphs by C. St.J. A. Nash-Williams provides a characterization of graphs that contains $k$ pairwise edge-disjoint spanning trees.
For example, the paper Bi-cyclic decompositions of complete graphs into spanning trees by Dalibor Froncek shows how to decompose complete graphs $K_{4k+2}$ into isomorphic ${2k+1}$ spanning trees.
For example, the paper Factorizations of Complete Graphs into Spanning Trees with All Possible Maximum Degrees by Petr Kovář and Michael Kubesa shows how to factorize $K_{2n}$ to spanning trees with a given maximum degree.
You can search for more. For example, a Google search for decomposition of graph into spanning trees.
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
EDIT: This is incorrect as pointed out in the comments. As the other answer says, a spanning tree for $K_4$ can be done without sharing edges.
No, it's not true that any two spanning trees of a graph have common edges.
Consider the wheel graph:
You can make a spanning tree with edges "inside" the loop and another one from the outer loop.
2
but the outer loop doesn't reach the center node
– amI
Dec 5 at 6:21
You're right, I'll delete this answer as the other one suffices.
– Gokul
Dec 5 at 6:27
10
You can modify this by taking the out loop minus some "chord" plus some "radius" and its complement.
– boboquack
Dec 5 at 6:56
Yes. Actually I had seen that way only. @boboquack
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 5 at 8:09
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
After observing the graphs presented by @Bjorn and @Gokul, I arrive at the conclusion that every complete graph $K_n$ with $ngeq4$ has at least two spanning trees with disjoint edges.
The graph given in the pic, which is wheel, has clearly two spanning trees with disjoint edges. In fact, every wheel will have exactly $2$ spanning trees with disjointed edges because one is complement graph of another.
Now, If we look at the solution of @Bjorn carefully, we find that his graph & spanning trees are homomorphic to the graphs shown in the pic. In fact, every complete graph $K_n$ with $ngeq4$ has wheel as its subgraph, so it directly follows that every complete complete graph with $ngeq4$ has at least 2 (or exactly $2$?) spanning trees with disjoint edges.
P.S:
This observation gives birth to $2$ more interesting question.
- Is there any complete graph with more than $2$ spanning trees with disjoint edges? Or it will always have exactly $2$ spanning trees with disjoint edges.
- Is there any graph other than wheel or wheel as its subgraph having spanning trees with disjointed edges?
These questions and beyond have been answered in the papers I cited. If you are interested, you can take a look.
– Apass.Jack
Dec 6 at 5:33
Thanks @Apass.Jack I have seen your answer. Will look at it.
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 6 at 5:35
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
For $K_{2k}$, I believe that
$$G_1 = { (v_{2i},v_{2i+1} ),(v_{2i},v_{2i+2}),dots,(v_{2k-2},v_{2k-1})},$$
$$G_2 = { (v_{2i+1},v_{2i+2}),(v_{2i},v_{2i}),dots(v_{2(k-1)},v_{2(k-1)})}$$
for $0leq i < k$ are counterexamples. That is, for the first graph, take the vertices with even indices and connect them to the next vertex, and for all but the last even vertex, connect it to the vertex after that as well. For the second graph, do this with odd vertices.
And inductively, once we have a counterexample for $n$ vertices, it's easy to construct a counterexample with $n+1$ vertices by connecting the new vertex with one edge for one graph, and with another edge for the other.
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
43
down vote
accepted
No, consider the complete graph $K_4$:
It has the following edge-disjoint spanning trees:
2
You can make each of the trees planar by taking one to be $N$-shaped and the other $Z$-shaped. You can make the whole thing planar by drawing the edge from the upper right vertex to the lower left vertex as a curve going outside the square.
– Acccumulation
Dec 5 at 20:29
@kelalaka We don't need a complete graph, no (imagine doing this same sort of thing on $K_5$ -- unless I've missed my guess, you have a few unused edges that can be removed, making it no longer complete (because each vertex needs 2-4 traversed edges connected to it, and each vertex in $K_5$ has 5 edges available, so each vertex is attached to at least one unused edge)). $K_4$ is probably just the best example -- it's well known, easy to visualize (comparatively few edges), and has very simple spanning trees.
– Nic Hartley
Dec 6 at 6:40
add a comment |
up vote
43
down vote
accepted
No, consider the complete graph $K_4$:
It has the following edge-disjoint spanning trees:
2
You can make each of the trees planar by taking one to be $N$-shaped and the other $Z$-shaped. You can make the whole thing planar by drawing the edge from the upper right vertex to the lower left vertex as a curve going outside the square.
– Acccumulation
Dec 5 at 20:29
@kelalaka We don't need a complete graph, no (imagine doing this same sort of thing on $K_5$ -- unless I've missed my guess, you have a few unused edges that can be removed, making it no longer complete (because each vertex needs 2-4 traversed edges connected to it, and each vertex in $K_5$ has 5 edges available, so each vertex is attached to at least one unused edge)). $K_4$ is probably just the best example -- it's well known, easy to visualize (comparatively few edges), and has very simple spanning trees.
– Nic Hartley
Dec 6 at 6:40
add a comment |
up vote
43
down vote
accepted
up vote
43
down vote
accepted
No, consider the complete graph $K_4$:
It has the following edge-disjoint spanning trees:
No, consider the complete graph $K_4$:
It has the following edge-disjoint spanning trees:
edited Dec 5 at 4:35
answered Dec 5 at 4:30
Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen
594511
594511
2
You can make each of the trees planar by taking one to be $N$-shaped and the other $Z$-shaped. You can make the whole thing planar by drawing the edge from the upper right vertex to the lower left vertex as a curve going outside the square.
– Acccumulation
Dec 5 at 20:29
@kelalaka We don't need a complete graph, no (imagine doing this same sort of thing on $K_5$ -- unless I've missed my guess, you have a few unused edges that can be removed, making it no longer complete (because each vertex needs 2-4 traversed edges connected to it, and each vertex in $K_5$ has 5 edges available, so each vertex is attached to at least one unused edge)). $K_4$ is probably just the best example -- it's well known, easy to visualize (comparatively few edges), and has very simple spanning trees.
– Nic Hartley
Dec 6 at 6:40
add a comment |
2
You can make each of the trees planar by taking one to be $N$-shaped and the other $Z$-shaped. You can make the whole thing planar by drawing the edge from the upper right vertex to the lower left vertex as a curve going outside the square.
– Acccumulation
Dec 5 at 20:29
@kelalaka We don't need a complete graph, no (imagine doing this same sort of thing on $K_5$ -- unless I've missed my guess, you have a few unused edges that can be removed, making it no longer complete (because each vertex needs 2-4 traversed edges connected to it, and each vertex in $K_5$ has 5 edges available, so each vertex is attached to at least one unused edge)). $K_4$ is probably just the best example -- it's well known, easy to visualize (comparatively few edges), and has very simple spanning trees.
– Nic Hartley
Dec 6 at 6:40
2
2
You can make each of the trees planar by taking one to be $N$-shaped and the other $Z$-shaped. You can make the whole thing planar by drawing the edge from the upper right vertex to the lower left vertex as a curve going outside the square.
– Acccumulation
Dec 5 at 20:29
You can make each of the trees planar by taking one to be $N$-shaped and the other $Z$-shaped. You can make the whole thing planar by drawing the edge from the upper right vertex to the lower left vertex as a curve going outside the square.
– Acccumulation
Dec 5 at 20:29
@kelalaka We don't need a complete graph, no (imagine doing this same sort of thing on $K_5$ -- unless I've missed my guess, you have a few unused edges that can be removed, making it no longer complete (because each vertex needs 2-4 traversed edges connected to it, and each vertex in $K_5$ has 5 edges available, so each vertex is attached to at least one unused edge)). $K_4$ is probably just the best example -- it's well known, easy to visualize (comparatively few edges), and has very simple spanning trees.
– Nic Hartley
Dec 6 at 6:40
@kelalaka We don't need a complete graph, no (imagine doing this same sort of thing on $K_5$ -- unless I've missed my guess, you have a few unused edges that can be removed, making it no longer complete (because each vertex needs 2-4 traversed edges connected to it, and each vertex in $K_5$ has 5 edges available, so each vertex is attached to at least one unused edge)). $K_4$ is probably just the best example -- it's well known, easy to visualize (comparatively few edges), and has very simple spanning trees.
– Nic Hartley
Dec 6 at 6:40
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
For the more interested readers, there are some research on decomposition of graph into edge-disjoint spanning trees.
For example, the classical papers On the Problem of Decomposing a Graph into $n$ Connected Factors by W. T. Tutte and Edge-disjoint spanning trees of finite graphs by C. St.J. A. Nash-Williams provides a characterization of graphs that contains $k$ pairwise edge-disjoint spanning trees.
For example, the paper Bi-cyclic decompositions of complete graphs into spanning trees by Dalibor Froncek shows how to decompose complete graphs $K_{4k+2}$ into isomorphic ${2k+1}$ spanning trees.
For example, the paper Factorizations of Complete Graphs into Spanning Trees with All Possible Maximum Degrees by Petr Kovář and Michael Kubesa shows how to factorize $K_{2n}$ to spanning trees with a given maximum degree.
You can search for more. For example, a Google search for decomposition of graph into spanning trees.
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
For the more interested readers, there are some research on decomposition of graph into edge-disjoint spanning trees.
For example, the classical papers On the Problem of Decomposing a Graph into $n$ Connected Factors by W. T. Tutte and Edge-disjoint spanning trees of finite graphs by C. St.J. A. Nash-Williams provides a characterization of graphs that contains $k$ pairwise edge-disjoint spanning trees.
For example, the paper Bi-cyclic decompositions of complete graphs into spanning trees by Dalibor Froncek shows how to decompose complete graphs $K_{4k+2}$ into isomorphic ${2k+1}$ spanning trees.
For example, the paper Factorizations of Complete Graphs into Spanning Trees with All Possible Maximum Degrees by Petr Kovář and Michael Kubesa shows how to factorize $K_{2n}$ to spanning trees with a given maximum degree.
You can search for more. For example, a Google search for decomposition of graph into spanning trees.
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
For the more interested readers, there are some research on decomposition of graph into edge-disjoint spanning trees.
For example, the classical papers On the Problem of Decomposing a Graph into $n$ Connected Factors by W. T. Tutte and Edge-disjoint spanning trees of finite graphs by C. St.J. A. Nash-Williams provides a characterization of graphs that contains $k$ pairwise edge-disjoint spanning trees.
For example, the paper Bi-cyclic decompositions of complete graphs into spanning trees by Dalibor Froncek shows how to decompose complete graphs $K_{4k+2}$ into isomorphic ${2k+1}$ spanning trees.
For example, the paper Factorizations of Complete Graphs into Spanning Trees with All Possible Maximum Degrees by Petr Kovář and Michael Kubesa shows how to factorize $K_{2n}$ to spanning trees with a given maximum degree.
You can search for more. For example, a Google search for decomposition of graph into spanning trees.
For the more interested readers, there are some research on decomposition of graph into edge-disjoint spanning trees.
For example, the classical papers On the Problem of Decomposing a Graph into $n$ Connected Factors by W. T. Tutte and Edge-disjoint spanning trees of finite graphs by C. St.J. A. Nash-Williams provides a characterization of graphs that contains $k$ pairwise edge-disjoint spanning trees.
For example, the paper Bi-cyclic decompositions of complete graphs into spanning trees by Dalibor Froncek shows how to decompose complete graphs $K_{4k+2}$ into isomorphic ${2k+1}$ spanning trees.
For example, the paper Factorizations of Complete Graphs into Spanning Trees with All Possible Maximum Degrees by Petr Kovář and Michael Kubesa shows how to factorize $K_{2n}$ to spanning trees with a given maximum degree.
You can search for more. For example, a Google search for decomposition of graph into spanning trees.
answered Dec 5 at 9:56
Apass.Jack
5,7931531
5,7931531
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
EDIT: This is incorrect as pointed out in the comments. As the other answer says, a spanning tree for $K_4$ can be done without sharing edges.
No, it's not true that any two spanning trees of a graph have common edges.
Consider the wheel graph:
You can make a spanning tree with edges "inside" the loop and another one from the outer loop.
2
but the outer loop doesn't reach the center node
– amI
Dec 5 at 6:21
You're right, I'll delete this answer as the other one suffices.
– Gokul
Dec 5 at 6:27
10
You can modify this by taking the out loop minus some "chord" plus some "radius" and its complement.
– boboquack
Dec 5 at 6:56
Yes. Actually I had seen that way only. @boboquack
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 5 at 8:09
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
EDIT: This is incorrect as pointed out in the comments. As the other answer says, a spanning tree for $K_4$ can be done without sharing edges.
No, it's not true that any two spanning trees of a graph have common edges.
Consider the wheel graph:
You can make a spanning tree with edges "inside" the loop and another one from the outer loop.
2
but the outer loop doesn't reach the center node
– amI
Dec 5 at 6:21
You're right, I'll delete this answer as the other one suffices.
– Gokul
Dec 5 at 6:27
10
You can modify this by taking the out loop minus some "chord" plus some "radius" and its complement.
– boboquack
Dec 5 at 6:56
Yes. Actually I had seen that way only. @boboquack
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 5 at 8:09
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
EDIT: This is incorrect as pointed out in the comments. As the other answer says, a spanning tree for $K_4$ can be done without sharing edges.
No, it's not true that any two spanning trees of a graph have common edges.
Consider the wheel graph:
You can make a spanning tree with edges "inside" the loop and another one from the outer loop.
EDIT: This is incorrect as pointed out in the comments. As the other answer says, a spanning tree for $K_4$ can be done without sharing edges.
No, it's not true that any two spanning trees of a graph have common edges.
Consider the wheel graph:
You can make a spanning tree with edges "inside" the loop and another one from the outer loop.
edited Dec 5 at 6:28
answered Dec 5 at 4:32
Gokul
353111
353111
2
but the outer loop doesn't reach the center node
– amI
Dec 5 at 6:21
You're right, I'll delete this answer as the other one suffices.
– Gokul
Dec 5 at 6:27
10
You can modify this by taking the out loop minus some "chord" plus some "radius" and its complement.
– boboquack
Dec 5 at 6:56
Yes. Actually I had seen that way only. @boboquack
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 5 at 8:09
add a comment |
2
but the outer loop doesn't reach the center node
– amI
Dec 5 at 6:21
You're right, I'll delete this answer as the other one suffices.
– Gokul
Dec 5 at 6:27
10
You can modify this by taking the out loop minus some "chord" plus some "radius" and its complement.
– boboquack
Dec 5 at 6:56
Yes. Actually I had seen that way only. @boboquack
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 5 at 8:09
2
2
but the outer loop doesn't reach the center node
– amI
Dec 5 at 6:21
but the outer loop doesn't reach the center node
– amI
Dec 5 at 6:21
You're right, I'll delete this answer as the other one suffices.
– Gokul
Dec 5 at 6:27
You're right, I'll delete this answer as the other one suffices.
– Gokul
Dec 5 at 6:27
10
10
You can modify this by taking the out loop minus some "chord" plus some "radius" and its complement.
– boboquack
Dec 5 at 6:56
You can modify this by taking the out loop minus some "chord" plus some "radius" and its complement.
– boboquack
Dec 5 at 6:56
Yes. Actually I had seen that way only. @boboquack
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 5 at 8:09
Yes. Actually I had seen that way only. @boboquack
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 5 at 8:09
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
After observing the graphs presented by @Bjorn and @Gokul, I arrive at the conclusion that every complete graph $K_n$ with $ngeq4$ has at least two spanning trees with disjoint edges.
The graph given in the pic, which is wheel, has clearly two spanning trees with disjoint edges. In fact, every wheel will have exactly $2$ spanning trees with disjointed edges because one is complement graph of another.
Now, If we look at the solution of @Bjorn carefully, we find that his graph & spanning trees are homomorphic to the graphs shown in the pic. In fact, every complete graph $K_n$ with $ngeq4$ has wheel as its subgraph, so it directly follows that every complete complete graph with $ngeq4$ has at least 2 (or exactly $2$?) spanning trees with disjoint edges.
P.S:
This observation gives birth to $2$ more interesting question.
- Is there any complete graph with more than $2$ spanning trees with disjoint edges? Or it will always have exactly $2$ spanning trees with disjoint edges.
- Is there any graph other than wheel or wheel as its subgraph having spanning trees with disjointed edges?
These questions and beyond have been answered in the papers I cited. If you are interested, you can take a look.
– Apass.Jack
Dec 6 at 5:33
Thanks @Apass.Jack I have seen your answer. Will look at it.
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 6 at 5:35
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
After observing the graphs presented by @Bjorn and @Gokul, I arrive at the conclusion that every complete graph $K_n$ with $ngeq4$ has at least two spanning trees with disjoint edges.
The graph given in the pic, which is wheel, has clearly two spanning trees with disjoint edges. In fact, every wheel will have exactly $2$ spanning trees with disjointed edges because one is complement graph of another.
Now, If we look at the solution of @Bjorn carefully, we find that his graph & spanning trees are homomorphic to the graphs shown in the pic. In fact, every complete graph $K_n$ with $ngeq4$ has wheel as its subgraph, so it directly follows that every complete complete graph with $ngeq4$ has at least 2 (or exactly $2$?) spanning trees with disjoint edges.
P.S:
This observation gives birth to $2$ more interesting question.
- Is there any complete graph with more than $2$ spanning trees with disjoint edges? Or it will always have exactly $2$ spanning trees with disjoint edges.
- Is there any graph other than wheel or wheel as its subgraph having spanning trees with disjointed edges?
These questions and beyond have been answered in the papers I cited. If you are interested, you can take a look.
– Apass.Jack
Dec 6 at 5:33
Thanks @Apass.Jack I have seen your answer. Will look at it.
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 6 at 5:35
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
After observing the graphs presented by @Bjorn and @Gokul, I arrive at the conclusion that every complete graph $K_n$ with $ngeq4$ has at least two spanning trees with disjoint edges.
The graph given in the pic, which is wheel, has clearly two spanning trees with disjoint edges. In fact, every wheel will have exactly $2$ spanning trees with disjointed edges because one is complement graph of another.
Now, If we look at the solution of @Bjorn carefully, we find that his graph & spanning trees are homomorphic to the graphs shown in the pic. In fact, every complete graph $K_n$ with $ngeq4$ has wheel as its subgraph, so it directly follows that every complete complete graph with $ngeq4$ has at least 2 (or exactly $2$?) spanning trees with disjoint edges.
P.S:
This observation gives birth to $2$ more interesting question.
- Is there any complete graph with more than $2$ spanning trees with disjoint edges? Or it will always have exactly $2$ spanning trees with disjoint edges.
- Is there any graph other than wheel or wheel as its subgraph having spanning trees with disjointed edges?
After observing the graphs presented by @Bjorn and @Gokul, I arrive at the conclusion that every complete graph $K_n$ with $ngeq4$ has at least two spanning trees with disjoint edges.
The graph given in the pic, which is wheel, has clearly two spanning trees with disjoint edges. In fact, every wheel will have exactly $2$ spanning trees with disjointed edges because one is complement graph of another.
Now, If we look at the solution of @Bjorn carefully, we find that his graph & spanning trees are homomorphic to the graphs shown in the pic. In fact, every complete graph $K_n$ with $ngeq4$ has wheel as its subgraph, so it directly follows that every complete complete graph with $ngeq4$ has at least 2 (or exactly $2$?) spanning trees with disjoint edges.
P.S:
This observation gives birth to $2$ more interesting question.
- Is there any complete graph with more than $2$ spanning trees with disjoint edges? Or it will always have exactly $2$ spanning trees with disjoint edges.
- Is there any graph other than wheel or wheel as its subgraph having spanning trees with disjointed edges?
answered Dec 6 at 5:04
Mr. Sigma.
524320
524320
These questions and beyond have been answered in the papers I cited. If you are interested, you can take a look.
– Apass.Jack
Dec 6 at 5:33
Thanks @Apass.Jack I have seen your answer. Will look at it.
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 6 at 5:35
add a comment |
These questions and beyond have been answered in the papers I cited. If you are interested, you can take a look.
– Apass.Jack
Dec 6 at 5:33
Thanks @Apass.Jack I have seen your answer. Will look at it.
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 6 at 5:35
These questions and beyond have been answered in the papers I cited. If you are interested, you can take a look.
– Apass.Jack
Dec 6 at 5:33
These questions and beyond have been answered in the papers I cited. If you are interested, you can take a look.
– Apass.Jack
Dec 6 at 5:33
Thanks @Apass.Jack I have seen your answer. Will look at it.
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 6 at 5:35
Thanks @Apass.Jack I have seen your answer. Will look at it.
– Mr. Sigma.
Dec 6 at 5:35
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
For $K_{2k}$, I believe that
$$G_1 = { (v_{2i},v_{2i+1} ),(v_{2i},v_{2i+2}),dots,(v_{2k-2},v_{2k-1})},$$
$$G_2 = { (v_{2i+1},v_{2i+2}),(v_{2i},v_{2i}),dots(v_{2(k-1)},v_{2(k-1)})}$$
for $0leq i < k$ are counterexamples. That is, for the first graph, take the vertices with even indices and connect them to the next vertex, and for all but the last even vertex, connect it to the vertex after that as well. For the second graph, do this with odd vertices.
And inductively, once we have a counterexample for $n$ vertices, it's easy to construct a counterexample with $n+1$ vertices by connecting the new vertex with one edge for one graph, and with another edge for the other.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
For $K_{2k}$, I believe that
$$G_1 = { (v_{2i},v_{2i+1} ),(v_{2i},v_{2i+2}),dots,(v_{2k-2},v_{2k-1})},$$
$$G_2 = { (v_{2i+1},v_{2i+2}),(v_{2i},v_{2i}),dots(v_{2(k-1)},v_{2(k-1)})}$$
for $0leq i < k$ are counterexamples. That is, for the first graph, take the vertices with even indices and connect them to the next vertex, and for all but the last even vertex, connect it to the vertex after that as well. For the second graph, do this with odd vertices.
And inductively, once we have a counterexample for $n$ vertices, it's easy to construct a counterexample with $n+1$ vertices by connecting the new vertex with one edge for one graph, and with another edge for the other.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
For $K_{2k}$, I believe that
$$G_1 = { (v_{2i},v_{2i+1} ),(v_{2i},v_{2i+2}),dots,(v_{2k-2},v_{2k-1})},$$
$$G_2 = { (v_{2i+1},v_{2i+2}),(v_{2i},v_{2i}),dots(v_{2(k-1)},v_{2(k-1)})}$$
for $0leq i < k$ are counterexamples. That is, for the first graph, take the vertices with even indices and connect them to the next vertex, and for all but the last even vertex, connect it to the vertex after that as well. For the second graph, do this with odd vertices.
And inductively, once we have a counterexample for $n$ vertices, it's easy to construct a counterexample with $n+1$ vertices by connecting the new vertex with one edge for one graph, and with another edge for the other.
For $K_{2k}$, I believe that
$$G_1 = { (v_{2i},v_{2i+1} ),(v_{2i},v_{2i+2}),dots,(v_{2k-2},v_{2k-1})},$$
$$G_2 = { (v_{2i+1},v_{2i+2}),(v_{2i},v_{2i}),dots(v_{2(k-1)},v_{2(k-1)})}$$
for $0leq i < k$ are counterexamples. That is, for the first graph, take the vertices with even indices and connect them to the next vertex, and for all but the last even vertex, connect it to the vertex after that as well. For the second graph, do this with odd vertices.
And inductively, once we have a counterexample for $n$ vertices, it's easy to construct a counterexample with $n+1$ vertices by connecting the new vertex with one edge for one graph, and with another edge for the other.
edited Dec 7 at 14:40
David Richerby
65.4k1598186
65.4k1598186
answered Dec 5 at 20:13
Acccumulation
1194
1194
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f101038%2fdo-any-two-spanning-trees-of-a-simple-graph-always-have-some-common-edges%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown