Draw a planar graph with two vertices of degree 3 and four vertices of degree 5, if possible.












2












$begingroup$



Draw a planar graph with two vertices of degree 3 and four vertices of degree 5, if possible.




Attempt:



With handshaking lemma, I get this:



$2e = 26 implies e=13$



Then with Euler's formula, I get:



$6-13+f=2 implies f = 9$



However, since $e leq 3v - 6$ for a simple, connected, planar graph I would get:



$13 leq 3(6)-6$



$13 leq 12$



I can't figure out how I could get 9 faces for my graph. I can only get 8 faces as shown here:



enter image description here



This is the best attempt I had on this problem with no success.






combinatorics graph-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Euler's formula counts the external face. Your graph has 9.
    $endgroup$
    – Misha Lavrov
    Dec 9 '18 at 2:50










  • $begingroup$
    3 minutes. $ $ $ $
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:54










  • $begingroup$
    I had no trouble drawing a simple connected planar graph with two vertices of degree $3$ and four vertices of degree $5$. It is a tree of order $22$. (Was there some other condition you didn't mention?)
    $endgroup$
    – bof
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:59
















2












$begingroup$



Draw a planar graph with two vertices of degree 3 and four vertices of degree 5, if possible.




Attempt:



With handshaking lemma, I get this:



$2e = 26 implies e=13$



Then with Euler's formula, I get:



$6-13+f=2 implies f = 9$



However, since $e leq 3v - 6$ for a simple, connected, planar graph I would get:



$13 leq 3(6)-6$



$13 leq 12$



I can't figure out how I could get 9 faces for my graph. I can only get 8 faces as shown here:



enter image description here



This is the best attempt I had on this problem with no success.






combinatorics graph-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Euler's formula counts the external face. Your graph has 9.
    $endgroup$
    – Misha Lavrov
    Dec 9 '18 at 2:50










  • $begingroup$
    3 minutes. $ $ $ $
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:54










  • $begingroup$
    I had no trouble drawing a simple connected planar graph with two vertices of degree $3$ and four vertices of degree $5$. It is a tree of order $22$. (Was there some other condition you didn't mention?)
    $endgroup$
    – bof
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:59














2












2








2





$begingroup$



Draw a planar graph with two vertices of degree 3 and four vertices of degree 5, if possible.




Attempt:



With handshaking lemma, I get this:



$2e = 26 implies e=13$



Then with Euler's formula, I get:



$6-13+f=2 implies f = 9$



However, since $e leq 3v - 6$ for a simple, connected, planar graph I would get:



$13 leq 3(6)-6$



$13 leq 12$



I can't figure out how I could get 9 faces for my graph. I can only get 8 faces as shown here:



enter image description here



This is the best attempt I had on this problem with no success.






combinatorics graph-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





Draw a planar graph with two vertices of degree 3 and four vertices of degree 5, if possible.




Attempt:



With handshaking lemma, I get this:



$2e = 26 implies e=13$



Then with Euler's formula, I get:



$6-13+f=2 implies f = 9$



However, since $e leq 3v - 6$ for a simple, connected, planar graph I would get:



$13 leq 3(6)-6$



$13 leq 12$



I can't figure out how I could get 9 faces for my graph. I can only get 8 faces as shown here:



enter image description here



This is the best attempt I had on this problem with no success.






combinatorics graph-theory




combinatorics graph-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 9 '18 at 9:32









Maria Mazur

47.4k1260120




47.4k1260120










asked Dec 9 '18 at 0:36









cosmicbrowniecosmicbrownie

1016




1016












  • $begingroup$
    Euler's formula counts the external face. Your graph has 9.
    $endgroup$
    – Misha Lavrov
    Dec 9 '18 at 2:50










  • $begingroup$
    3 minutes. $ $ $ $
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:54










  • $begingroup$
    I had no trouble drawing a simple connected planar graph with two vertices of degree $3$ and four vertices of degree $5$. It is a tree of order $22$. (Was there some other condition you didn't mention?)
    $endgroup$
    – bof
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:59


















  • $begingroup$
    Euler's formula counts the external face. Your graph has 9.
    $endgroup$
    – Misha Lavrov
    Dec 9 '18 at 2:50










  • $begingroup$
    3 minutes. $ $ $ $
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:54










  • $begingroup$
    I had no trouble drawing a simple connected planar graph with two vertices of degree $3$ and four vertices of degree $5$. It is a tree of order $22$. (Was there some other condition you didn't mention?)
    $endgroup$
    – bof
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:59
















$begingroup$
Euler's formula counts the external face. Your graph has 9.
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 9 '18 at 2:50




$begingroup$
Euler's formula counts the external face. Your graph has 9.
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 9 '18 at 2:50












$begingroup$
3 minutes. $ $ $ $
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 9 '18 at 10:54




$begingroup$
3 minutes. $ $ $ $
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 9 '18 at 10:54












$begingroup$
I had no trouble drawing a simple connected planar graph with two vertices of degree $3$ and four vertices of degree $5$. It is a tree of order $22$. (Was there some other condition you didn't mention?)
$endgroup$
– bof
Dec 9 '18 at 10:59




$begingroup$
I had no trouble drawing a simple connected planar graph with two vertices of degree $3$ and four vertices of degree $5$. It is a tree of order $22$. (Was there some other condition you didn't mention?)
$endgroup$
– bof
Dec 9 '18 at 10:59










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Here is a planar example. The vertices A and B are linked by two simple edges. The vertices A, B, E and F have degree 5. The vertices C and D have degree 3.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @greedoid 5. As is mentioned in my post.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:03












  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand. What have I proved then?
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:05










  • $begingroup$
    @greedoid That no graph such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one edge, solves the question. And I provided a graph solving the question such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one or two edges (when one admits more than one edge, these are often called multi-edged graphs). No mathematical mystery here. (But the reason why the OP, who is obviously considering graphs with multi-edges, chose to instantly accept an answer dealing only with graphs without multi-edge, is a true mystery, yes.)
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:15





















2












$begingroup$

From formula you wrote $eleq 3v-6$ you can see that such a (planar) graph does not exist.



Also you could note that this graph contains $K_{3,3}$ so again it can not be planar.




Edit: Actualy this graph doesn't even exist since the sequence $5,5,5,5,3,3$ is not graphicaly. If it is, then following would be also



$$ 4,4,4,2,2implies 3,3,1,1implies 2,0,0$$
but last one clearly it is not graphicaly.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Can you still get a planar graph even if it's not a simple, connected one based on the formula? I thought that formula was just for simple, connected planar graphs.
    $endgroup$
    – cosmicbrownie
    Dec 9 '18 at 0:47










  • $begingroup$
    Yes it is, but your graph is clearly connected, it has to many edges to not be connected
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    Dec 9 '18 at 0:48











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%2f3031861%2fdraw-a-planar-graph-with-two-vertices-of-degree-3-and-four-vertices-of-degree-5%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









3












$begingroup$

Here is a planar example. The vertices A and B are linked by two simple edges. The vertices A, B, E and F have degree 5. The vertices C and D have degree 3.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @greedoid 5. As is mentioned in my post.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:03












  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand. What have I proved then?
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:05










  • $begingroup$
    @greedoid That no graph such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one edge, solves the question. And I provided a graph solving the question such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one or two edges (when one admits more than one edge, these are often called multi-edged graphs). No mathematical mystery here. (But the reason why the OP, who is obviously considering graphs with multi-edges, chose to instantly accept an answer dealing only with graphs without multi-edge, is a true mystery, yes.)
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:15


















3












$begingroup$

Here is a planar example. The vertices A and B are linked by two simple edges. The vertices A, B, E and F have degree 5. The vertices C and D have degree 3.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @greedoid 5. As is mentioned in my post.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:03












  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand. What have I proved then?
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:05










  • $begingroup$
    @greedoid That no graph such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one edge, solves the question. And I provided a graph solving the question such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one or two edges (when one admits more than one edge, these are often called multi-edged graphs). No mathematical mystery here. (But the reason why the OP, who is obviously considering graphs with multi-edges, chose to instantly accept an answer dealing only with graphs without multi-edge, is a true mystery, yes.)
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:15
















3












3








3





$begingroup$

Here is a planar example. The vertices A and B are linked by two simple edges. The vertices A, B, E and F have degree 5. The vertices C and D have degree 3.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Here is a planar example. The vertices A and B are linked by two simple edges. The vertices A, B, E and F have degree 5. The vertices C and D have degree 3.



enter image description here







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 9 '18 at 10:57

























answered Dec 9 '18 at 10:35









DidDid

248k23225464




248k23225464








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @greedoid 5. As is mentioned in my post.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:03












  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand. What have I proved then?
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:05










  • $begingroup$
    @greedoid That no graph such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one edge, solves the question. And I provided a graph solving the question such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one or two edges (when one admits more than one edge, these are often called multi-edged graphs). No mathematical mystery here. (But the reason why the OP, who is obviously considering graphs with multi-edges, chose to instantly accept an answer dealing only with graphs without multi-edge, is a true mystery, yes.)
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:15
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @greedoid 5. As is mentioned in my post.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:03












  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand. What have I proved then?
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:05










  • $begingroup$
    @greedoid That no graph such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one edge, solves the question. And I provided a graph solving the question such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one or two edges (when one admits more than one edge, these are often called multi-edged graphs). No mathematical mystery here. (But the reason why the OP, who is obviously considering graphs with multi-edges, chose to instantly accept an answer dealing only with graphs without multi-edge, is a true mystery, yes.)
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 9 '18 at 11:15










1




1




$begingroup$
@greedoid 5. As is mentioned in my post.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 9 '18 at 11:03






$begingroup$
@greedoid 5. As is mentioned in my post.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 9 '18 at 11:03














$begingroup$
I don't understand. What have I proved then?
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
Dec 9 '18 at 11:05




$begingroup$
I don't understand. What have I proved then?
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
Dec 9 '18 at 11:05












$begingroup$
@greedoid That no graph such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one edge, solves the question. And I provided a graph solving the question such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one or two edges (when one admits more than one edge, these are often called multi-edged graphs). No mathematical mystery here. (But the reason why the OP, who is obviously considering graphs with multi-edges, chose to instantly accept an answer dealing only with graphs without multi-edge, is a true mystery, yes.)
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 9 '18 at 11:15






$begingroup$
@greedoid That no graph such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one edge, solves the question. And I provided a graph solving the question such that, between two given vertices, there are either zero or one or two edges (when one admits more than one edge, these are often called multi-edged graphs). No mathematical mystery here. (But the reason why the OP, who is obviously considering graphs with multi-edges, chose to instantly accept an answer dealing only with graphs without multi-edge, is a true mystery, yes.)
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 9 '18 at 11:15













2












$begingroup$

From formula you wrote $eleq 3v-6$ you can see that such a (planar) graph does not exist.



Also you could note that this graph contains $K_{3,3}$ so again it can not be planar.




Edit: Actualy this graph doesn't even exist since the sequence $5,5,5,5,3,3$ is not graphicaly. If it is, then following would be also



$$ 4,4,4,2,2implies 3,3,1,1implies 2,0,0$$
but last one clearly it is not graphicaly.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Can you still get a planar graph even if it's not a simple, connected one based on the formula? I thought that formula was just for simple, connected planar graphs.
    $endgroup$
    – cosmicbrownie
    Dec 9 '18 at 0:47










  • $begingroup$
    Yes it is, but your graph is clearly connected, it has to many edges to not be connected
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    Dec 9 '18 at 0:48
















2












$begingroup$

From formula you wrote $eleq 3v-6$ you can see that such a (planar) graph does not exist.



Also you could note that this graph contains $K_{3,3}$ so again it can not be planar.




Edit: Actualy this graph doesn't even exist since the sequence $5,5,5,5,3,3$ is not graphicaly. If it is, then following would be also



$$ 4,4,4,2,2implies 3,3,1,1implies 2,0,0$$
but last one clearly it is not graphicaly.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Can you still get a planar graph even if it's not a simple, connected one based on the formula? I thought that formula was just for simple, connected planar graphs.
    $endgroup$
    – cosmicbrownie
    Dec 9 '18 at 0:47










  • $begingroup$
    Yes it is, but your graph is clearly connected, it has to many edges to not be connected
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    Dec 9 '18 at 0:48














2












2








2





$begingroup$

From formula you wrote $eleq 3v-6$ you can see that such a (planar) graph does not exist.



Also you could note that this graph contains $K_{3,3}$ so again it can not be planar.




Edit: Actualy this graph doesn't even exist since the sequence $5,5,5,5,3,3$ is not graphicaly. If it is, then following would be also



$$ 4,4,4,2,2implies 3,3,1,1implies 2,0,0$$
but last one clearly it is not graphicaly.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



From formula you wrote $eleq 3v-6$ you can see that such a (planar) graph does not exist.



Also you could note that this graph contains $K_{3,3}$ so again it can not be planar.




Edit: Actualy this graph doesn't even exist since the sequence $5,5,5,5,3,3$ is not graphicaly. If it is, then following would be also



$$ 4,4,4,2,2implies 3,3,1,1implies 2,0,0$$
but last one clearly it is not graphicaly.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 9 '18 at 0:51

























answered Dec 9 '18 at 0:44









Maria MazurMaria Mazur

47.4k1260120




47.4k1260120












  • $begingroup$
    Can you still get a planar graph even if it's not a simple, connected one based on the formula? I thought that formula was just for simple, connected planar graphs.
    $endgroup$
    – cosmicbrownie
    Dec 9 '18 at 0:47










  • $begingroup$
    Yes it is, but your graph is clearly connected, it has to many edges to not be connected
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    Dec 9 '18 at 0:48


















  • $begingroup$
    Can you still get a planar graph even if it's not a simple, connected one based on the formula? I thought that formula was just for simple, connected planar graphs.
    $endgroup$
    – cosmicbrownie
    Dec 9 '18 at 0:47










  • $begingroup$
    Yes it is, but your graph is clearly connected, it has to many edges to not be connected
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    Dec 9 '18 at 0:48
















$begingroup$
Can you still get a planar graph even if it's not a simple, connected one based on the formula? I thought that formula was just for simple, connected planar graphs.
$endgroup$
– cosmicbrownie
Dec 9 '18 at 0:47




$begingroup$
Can you still get a planar graph even if it's not a simple, connected one based on the formula? I thought that formula was just for simple, connected planar graphs.
$endgroup$
– cosmicbrownie
Dec 9 '18 at 0:47












$begingroup$
Yes it is, but your graph is clearly connected, it has to many edges to not be connected
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
Dec 9 '18 at 0:48




$begingroup$
Yes it is, but your graph is clearly connected, it has to many edges to not be connected
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
Dec 9 '18 at 0:48


















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%2f3031861%2fdraw-a-planar-graph-with-two-vertices-of-degree-3-and-four-vertices-of-degree-5%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