What is in the minimum number of simple paths in a forest of k trees with n vertices?












1












$begingroup$


I'm stumped on this one.



Let G be a forest containing 6 trees with 27 total vertices. What is the minimum number of simple paths for G?



I know how to compute this for an even number of vertices. For example, a forest with 4 trees and 18 total vertices would have at least 82 paths. You partition the total number of vertices:



$4^2 + 4^2 + 5^2 + 5^2 = 82 $



I'm not sure how to adapt this formula to an odd number of total vertices.






graph-theory trees







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    I'm stumped on this one.



    Let G be a forest containing 6 trees with 27 total vertices. What is the minimum number of simple paths for G?



    I know how to compute this for an even number of vertices. For example, a forest with 4 trees and 18 total vertices would have at least 82 paths. You partition the total number of vertices:



    $4^2 + 4^2 + 5^2 + 5^2 = 82 $



    I'm not sure how to adapt this formula to an odd number of total vertices.






    graph-theory trees







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      I'm stumped on this one.



      Let G be a forest containing 6 trees with 27 total vertices. What is the minimum number of simple paths for G?



      I know how to compute this for an even number of vertices. For example, a forest with 4 trees and 18 total vertices would have at least 82 paths. You partition the total number of vertices:



      $4^2 + 4^2 + 5^2 + 5^2 = 82 $



      I'm not sure how to adapt this formula to an odd number of total vertices.






      graph-theory trees







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I'm stumped on this one.



      Let G be a forest containing 6 trees with 27 total vertices. What is the minimum number of simple paths for G?



      I know how to compute this for an even number of vertices. For example, a forest with 4 trees and 18 total vertices would have at least 82 paths. You partition the total number of vertices:



      $4^2 + 4^2 + 5^2 + 5^2 = 82 $



      I'm not sure how to adapt this formula to an odd number of total vertices.






      graph-theory trees




      graph-theory trees






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 25 '18 at 17:47









      shattershatter

      133




      133






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          I don't see why it makes a difference if you have an odd number of vertices. You do exactly the same thing: divide the vertices up as evenly as possible.



          You seem to already know this, but the total number of simple paths (counting a path and its reversal separately) in any tree with $k$ vertices is $k^2$. Every vertex is a path of length $0$, and for every pair of distinct vertices $(a,b)$ there is exactly one path from $a$ to $b$.



          So if a forest has six trees with $k_1,...,k_6$ vertices respectively there are $k_1^2+cdots+k_6^2$ paths, and you have to choose $k_1,...,k_6$ all positive with $k_1+cdots+k_6=27$, to make $k_1^2+cdots+k_6^2$ as small as possible. $27/6=4.5$, so this is achieved by taking three components of $4$ vertices and three of $5$, for $4^2+4^2+4^2+5^2+5^2+5^2=123$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I guess my confusion had to do with an odd number of vertices. Thank you for the clarification.
            $endgroup$
            – shatter
            Nov 25 '18 at 19:56





















          0












          $begingroup$

          From the example you give one is lead to the conjecture that the total number of paths in a tree with $j$ vertices is minimal when the tree is a path graph of length $j-1$. The number of (directed) subpaths then is $j^2$. Assuming this it seems that the total number of paths in a forest is minimal if the all trees in this forest are path graphs, and have about the same size.



          Im not going into the proof of the first of these conjectures (if true). For the second it suffices to consider two path graphs $Gamma$ and $Gamma'$ with $j$ and $j'$ vertices, and to show that, if $j'geq j+2$ you can make the total number of subpaths smaller by making $Gamma$ one edge longer and $Gamma'$ one edge shorter.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3013144%2fwhat-is-in-the-minimum-number-of-simple-paths-in-a-forest-of-k-trees-with-n-vert%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0












            $begingroup$

            I don't see why it makes a difference if you have an odd number of vertices. You do exactly the same thing: divide the vertices up as evenly as possible.



            You seem to already know this, but the total number of simple paths (counting a path and its reversal separately) in any tree with $k$ vertices is $k^2$. Every vertex is a path of length $0$, and for every pair of distinct vertices $(a,b)$ there is exactly one path from $a$ to $b$.



            So if a forest has six trees with $k_1,...,k_6$ vertices respectively there are $k_1^2+cdots+k_6^2$ paths, and you have to choose $k_1,...,k_6$ all positive with $k_1+cdots+k_6=27$, to make $k_1^2+cdots+k_6^2$ as small as possible. $27/6=4.5$, so this is achieved by taking three components of $4$ vertices and three of $5$, for $4^2+4^2+4^2+5^2+5^2+5^2=123$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              I guess my confusion had to do with an odd number of vertices. Thank you for the clarification.
              $endgroup$
              – shatter
              Nov 25 '18 at 19:56


















            0












            $begingroup$

            I don't see why it makes a difference if you have an odd number of vertices. You do exactly the same thing: divide the vertices up as evenly as possible.



            You seem to already know this, but the total number of simple paths (counting a path and its reversal separately) in any tree with $k$ vertices is $k^2$. Every vertex is a path of length $0$, and for every pair of distinct vertices $(a,b)$ there is exactly one path from $a$ to $b$.



            So if a forest has six trees with $k_1,...,k_6$ vertices respectively there are $k_1^2+cdots+k_6^2$ paths, and you have to choose $k_1,...,k_6$ all positive with $k_1+cdots+k_6=27$, to make $k_1^2+cdots+k_6^2$ as small as possible. $27/6=4.5$, so this is achieved by taking three components of $4$ vertices and three of $5$, for $4^2+4^2+4^2+5^2+5^2+5^2=123$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              I guess my confusion had to do with an odd number of vertices. Thank you for the clarification.
              $endgroup$
              – shatter
              Nov 25 '18 at 19:56
















            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            I don't see why it makes a difference if you have an odd number of vertices. You do exactly the same thing: divide the vertices up as evenly as possible.



            You seem to already know this, but the total number of simple paths (counting a path and its reversal separately) in any tree with $k$ vertices is $k^2$. Every vertex is a path of length $0$, and for every pair of distinct vertices $(a,b)$ there is exactly one path from $a$ to $b$.



            So if a forest has six trees with $k_1,...,k_6$ vertices respectively there are $k_1^2+cdots+k_6^2$ paths, and you have to choose $k_1,...,k_6$ all positive with $k_1+cdots+k_6=27$, to make $k_1^2+cdots+k_6^2$ as small as possible. $27/6=4.5$, so this is achieved by taking three components of $4$ vertices and three of $5$, for $4^2+4^2+4^2+5^2+5^2+5^2=123$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            I don't see why it makes a difference if you have an odd number of vertices. You do exactly the same thing: divide the vertices up as evenly as possible.



            You seem to already know this, but the total number of simple paths (counting a path and its reversal separately) in any tree with $k$ vertices is $k^2$. Every vertex is a path of length $0$, and for every pair of distinct vertices $(a,b)$ there is exactly one path from $a$ to $b$.



            So if a forest has six trees with $k_1,...,k_6$ vertices respectively there are $k_1^2+cdots+k_6^2$ paths, and you have to choose $k_1,...,k_6$ all positive with $k_1+cdots+k_6=27$, to make $k_1^2+cdots+k_6^2$ as small as possible. $27/6=4.5$, so this is achieved by taking three components of $4$ vertices and three of $5$, for $4^2+4^2+4^2+5^2+5^2+5^2=123$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 25 '18 at 19:41









            Especially LimeEspecially Lime

            21.9k22858




            21.9k22858












            • $begingroup$
              I guess my confusion had to do with an odd number of vertices. Thank you for the clarification.
              $endgroup$
              – shatter
              Nov 25 '18 at 19:56




















            • $begingroup$
              I guess my confusion had to do with an odd number of vertices. Thank you for the clarification.
              $endgroup$
              – shatter
              Nov 25 '18 at 19:56


















            $begingroup$
            I guess my confusion had to do with an odd number of vertices. Thank you for the clarification.
            $endgroup$
            – shatter
            Nov 25 '18 at 19:56






            $begingroup$
            I guess my confusion had to do with an odd number of vertices. Thank you for the clarification.
            $endgroup$
            – shatter
            Nov 25 '18 at 19:56













            0












            $begingroup$

            From the example you give one is lead to the conjecture that the total number of paths in a tree with $j$ vertices is minimal when the tree is a path graph of length $j-1$. The number of (directed) subpaths then is $j^2$. Assuming this it seems that the total number of paths in a forest is minimal if the all trees in this forest are path graphs, and have about the same size.



            Im not going into the proof of the first of these conjectures (if true). For the second it suffices to consider two path graphs $Gamma$ and $Gamma'$ with $j$ and $j'$ vertices, and to show that, if $j'geq j+2$ you can make the total number of subpaths smaller by making $Gamma$ one edge longer and $Gamma'$ one edge shorter.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              From the example you give one is lead to the conjecture that the total number of paths in a tree with $j$ vertices is minimal when the tree is a path graph of length $j-1$. The number of (directed) subpaths then is $j^2$. Assuming this it seems that the total number of paths in a forest is minimal if the all trees in this forest are path graphs, and have about the same size.



              Im not going into the proof of the first of these conjectures (if true). For the second it suffices to consider two path graphs $Gamma$ and $Gamma'$ with $j$ and $j'$ vertices, and to show that, if $j'geq j+2$ you can make the total number of subpaths smaller by making $Gamma$ one edge longer and $Gamma'$ one edge shorter.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                From the example you give one is lead to the conjecture that the total number of paths in a tree with $j$ vertices is minimal when the tree is a path graph of length $j-1$. The number of (directed) subpaths then is $j^2$. Assuming this it seems that the total number of paths in a forest is minimal if the all trees in this forest are path graphs, and have about the same size.



                Im not going into the proof of the first of these conjectures (if true). For the second it suffices to consider two path graphs $Gamma$ and $Gamma'$ with $j$ and $j'$ vertices, and to show that, if $j'geq j+2$ you can make the total number of subpaths smaller by making $Gamma$ one edge longer and $Gamma'$ one edge shorter.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                From the example you give one is lead to the conjecture that the total number of paths in a tree with $j$ vertices is minimal when the tree is a path graph of length $j-1$. The number of (directed) subpaths then is $j^2$. Assuming this it seems that the total number of paths in a forest is minimal if the all trees in this forest are path graphs, and have about the same size.



                Im not going into the proof of the first of these conjectures (if true). For the second it suffices to consider two path graphs $Gamma$ and $Gamma'$ with $j$ and $j'$ vertices, and to show that, if $j'geq j+2$ you can make the total number of subpaths smaller by making $Gamma$ one edge longer and $Gamma'$ one edge shorter.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 25 '18 at 19:27









                Christian BlatterChristian Blatter

                172k7113326




                172k7113326






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics 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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3013144%2fwhat-is-in-the-minimum-number-of-simple-paths-in-a-forest-of-k-trees-with-n-vert%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

                    Image
                    3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question ...
                    Read more

                    Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

                    Image
                    0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"...
                    Read more

                    Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

                    Image
                    up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx...
                    Read more