Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
\addbibresource

sample.bib

Metric dimension and Zagreb indices of essential ideal graph of a finite commutative ring

Jamsheena P and Chithra A V
Department of Mathematics, National Institute of Technology Calicut,
Kozhikode, 673601, Kerala, India
Abstract

Let R𝑅Ritalic_R be a commutative ring with unity. The essential ideal graph Rsubscript𝑅\mathcal{E}_{R}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of R𝑅Ritalic_R is a graph whose vertex set consists of all nonzero proper ideals of R. Two vertices I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG are adjacent if and only if I^+J^^𝐼^𝐽\hat{I}+\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG + over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG is an essential ideal. In this paper, we characterize the graph Rsubscript𝑅\mathcal{E}_{R}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as having a finite metric dimension. Additionally, we identify that the essential ideal graph and annihilating ideal graph of the ring nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are isomorphic whenever n𝑛nitalic_n is a product of distinct primes. We also estimate the metric dimension of the essential ideal graph of the ring nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Furthermore, we determine the topological indices, namely the first and the second Zagreb indices, of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Keywords— Essential ideal graph, metric dimension, first and second Zagreb indices
AMS 2010201020102010 Subject Classification: 05C07,05C12,05C2505𝐶0705𝐶1205𝐶2505C07,05C12,05C2505 italic_C 07 , 05 italic_C 12 , 05 italic_C 25

1 Introduction

Let ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ be a simple graph with vertex set V(Γ)={v1,v2,,vn}𝑉Γsubscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2subscript𝑣𝑛V(\Gamma)=\{v_{1},v_{2},\cdots,v_{n}\}italic_V ( roman_Γ ) = { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } and edge set E(Γ)𝐸ΓE(\Gamma)italic_E ( roman_Γ ). If a vertex u𝑢uitalic_u is adjacent to a vertex v𝑣vitalic_v in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ, we write uvsimilar-to𝑢𝑣u\sim vitalic_u ∼ italic_v in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ. The set N(u)={vV(Γ):vuinΓ}𝑁𝑢conditional-set𝑣𝑉Γsimilar-to𝑣𝑢inΓN(u)=\{v\in V(\Gamma):v\sim u\ \text{in}\ \Gamma\}italic_N ( italic_u ) = { italic_v ∈ italic_V ( roman_Γ ) : italic_v ∼ italic_u in roman_Γ }, is called the set of neighbors of u𝑢uitalic_u and deg(u)=|N(u)|𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑁𝑢deg(u)=|N(u)|italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) = | italic_N ( italic_u ) | is called the degree of a vertex u𝑢uitalic_u. Also, N[u]=N(u){u}𝑁delimited-[]𝑢𝑁𝑢𝑢N[u]=N(u)\cup\{u\}italic_N [ italic_u ] = italic_N ( italic_u ) ∪ { italic_u }. The distance d(u,v)𝑑𝑢𝑣d(u,v)italic_d ( italic_u , italic_v ) between two vertices u𝑢uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v of a connected graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is the number of edges in the shortest path between u𝑢uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v. The complete graph Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, is a graph in which any two vertices are adjacent. A graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is a kpartite graph𝑘partite graphk-\textit{partite graph}italic_k - partite graph if V(Γ)𝑉ΓV(\Gamma)italic_V ( roman_Γ ) can be partitioned into k𝑘kitalic_k subsets V1,V2,,Vksubscript𝑉1subscript𝑉2subscript𝑉𝑘V_{1},\ V_{2},\ \cdots,\ V_{k}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (named partite sets) such that the vertices u𝑢uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v form an edge in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ if they belong to different partite sets. If, in addition, there exists an edge between every two vertices belonging to different partite sets, then graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ can be classified as complete k-partite graph. The graph denoted as Km,nsubscript𝐾𝑚𝑛K_{m,n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT represents a complete bipartite graph consisting of two sets with sizes m𝑚mitalic_m and n𝑛nitalic_n respectively. The induced subgraph, Γ[S]Γdelimited-[]𝑆\Gamma[S]roman_Γ [ italic_S ], is formed by taking the subset S𝑆Sitalic_S of vertices from ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ, along with all the edges that connect vertices solely within S𝑆Sitalic_S. The complement of a graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is denoted by Γ¯¯Γ\overline{\Gamma}over¯ start_ARG roman_Γ end_ARG. The join of two graphs, Γ1subscriptΓ1\Gamma_{1}roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Γ2subscriptΓ2\Gamma_{2}roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, represented as Γ1Γ2subscriptΓ1subscriptΓ2\Gamma_{1}\vee\Gamma_{2}roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∨ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, is formed by adding edges between any two vertices v1subscript𝑣1v_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and v2subscript𝑣2v_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where v1Γ1subscript𝑣1subscriptΓ1v_{1}\in\Gamma_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and v2Γ2subscript𝑣2subscriptΓ2v_{2}\in\Gamma_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

The concept of metric dimension of a graph was introduced by Slater in [slater1975leaves], and was called locating sets and locating numbers. An equivalent terminology was also introduced by Harary and Melter independently in [harary1976metric], and used the term resolving set. Slater described the usefulness of these ideas in long-range aids to navigation. Also, these concepts have some applications in chemistry for representing chemical compounds [johnson1993structure, johnson1998browsable], or in problems of pattern recognition and image processing, some of which involve the use of hierarchical data structures [melter1984metric]. Other applications of this concept to the navigation of robots in networks and other areas appear in [chartrand2000resolvability, hulme1984boolean, khuller1996landmarks]. Hence, according to its applicability resolving sets has become an interesting and popular topic of investigation in graph theory.

Topological Indices play a vital role in mathematical chemistry. They give ideas about structural characteristics with easy identification for a molecule. Hence there are a lot of molecular descriptors called graph invariants. A graph invariant is a number that is invariant under graph isomorphisms in graph theory. The graphical invariant is considered as a structural invariant related to a graph. Since the topological index is constructed as a graphical invariant in molecular graph theory, the computing of topological indices of many graph structures has been an attractive research area for scientists especially chemists and mathematicians for a long time [consonni2009molecular, gutman2012mathematical]. The first and second Zagreb indices of a graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ introduced in [gutman1972graph], and elaborated in [gutman1975graph] are degree-based topological indices defined respectively as follows:
M1=vV(Γ)deg(v)2subscript𝑀1subscript𝑣𝑉Γ𝑑𝑒𝑔superscript𝑣2M_{1}=\displaystyle\sum_{v\in V(\Gamma)}deg(v)^{2}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ italic_V ( roman_Γ ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and M2=uvu,vV(Γ)deg(u)deg(v).subscript𝑀2subscriptsimilar-to𝑢𝑣𝑢𝑣𝑉Γ𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣M_{2}=\displaystyle\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}u\sim v\\ u,v\in V(\Gamma)\end{subarray}}deg(u)deg(v).italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_u ∼ italic_v end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_u , italic_v ∈ italic_V ( roman_Γ ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) .

Let R𝑅Ritalic_R be a commutative ring with nonzero unity. An element zR𝑧𝑅z\in Ritalic_z ∈ italic_R is said to be a zero divisor of R𝑅Ritalic_R whenever there exists a nonzero element wR𝑤𝑅w\in Ritalic_w ∈ italic_R such that zw=0𝑧𝑤0zw=0italic_z italic_w = 0. An ideal I𝐼Iitalic_I of a ring R𝑅Ritalic_R is said to be an annihilating ideal of R𝑅Ritalic_R if there exists a nonzero ideal J𝐽Jitalic_J of R𝑅Ritalic_R such as IJ=0𝐼𝐽0IJ=0italic_I italic_J = 0. An ideal I𝐼Iitalic_I of a ring R𝑅Ritalic_R which has a nonzero intersection with every other nonzero ideal of R𝑅Ritalic_R is called an essential ideal.

The study of metric dimension and topological indices of graphs related to various algebraic structures has emerged as a compelling area of research in recent times. In [pirzada2014locating], S. Pirzada and R. Raja introduced and investigated the metric dimension of the zero divisor graph of a commutative ring R𝑅Ritalic_R. The results on topological indices of this graph can be seen in [selvakumar2022wiener]. In [banerjee2022spectra, banerjee2023adjacency], S. Banerjee determined the metric dimension and topological indices like the Wiener index, the first and the second Zagreb index of comaximal graph of the ring nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In [aijaz2020annihilating], M. Aijaz and S. Pirzada computed the metric dimension of annihilating ideal graphs of commutative rings. The annihilating ideal graph 𝔸𝕀𝔾(R)𝔸𝕀𝔾𝑅\mathbb{AIG}(R)blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R ), of a commutative ring R𝑅Ritalic_R, introduced and studied by M. Behboodi and Z. Rakeei in [behboodi2011annihilating], is a graph in which the vertex set consists of the set of all nonzero annihilating ideals of R𝑅Ritalic_R and two distinct vertices I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG are joined by an edge if and only if I^J^=0^𝐼^𝐽0\hat{I}\hat{J}=0over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG = 0.

Being motivated by these works, in this paper, we study the metric dimension and topological indices of the essential ideal graph of the ring nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The essential ideal graph Rsubscript𝑅\mathcal{E}_{R}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of a commutative ring R𝑅Ritalic_R, introduced and studied by J. Amjadi in [amjadi2018essential], is a graph in which the vertex set is the set of all nonzero proper ideals of R𝑅Ritalic_R and two vertices I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG are joined by an edge whenever I^+J^^𝐼^𝐽\hat{I}+\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG + over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG is an essential ideal. To date, there is no information about the metric dimension and topological indices of the essential ideal graph of nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in literature.

This paper has been organized as follows: In Section 2222, we list the results and definitions that are needed for the present study. In Section 3333, we determine the metric dimension of the essential ideal graph of nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Also, we prove that the essential ideal graph and annihilating ideal graph of the ring nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are equal (up to isomorphism) whenever n𝑛nitalic_n is a product of k2𝑘2k\geq 2italic_k ≥ 2 distinct primes. Moreover, we provide an alternate proof to show that the metric dimension of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is kabsent𝑘\leq k≤ italic_k when n=i=1kpi𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘subscript𝑝𝑖n=\prod_{i=1}^{k}p_{i}italic_n = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In section 4444, we calculate the first and the second Zagreb index of the graph nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for any n4𝑛4n\geq 4italic_n ≥ 4.

Throughout this paper, n=/nsubscript𝑛𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}=\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = blackboard_Z / italic_n blackboard_Z, where n4𝑛4n\geq 4italic_n ≥ 4 and n𝑛nitalic_n is not a prime.

2 Preliminaries

In this section, we list some definitions and results that are needed for the present study.

Definition 2.1.

A subset W𝑊Witalic_W of vertices of a connected graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is said to resolve ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ, if each vertex of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is uniquely determined by its vector of distances to the vertices of W𝑊Witalic_W. In general, for an ordered subset W={w1,w2,,wk}𝑊subscript𝑤1subscript𝑤2subscript𝑤𝑘W=\{w_{1},w_{2},\cdots,w_{k}\}italic_W = { italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } of vertices of a connected graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ and a vertex vV(Γ)\W𝑣\𝑉Γ𝑊v\in V(\Gamma)\backslash Witalic_v ∈ italic_V ( roman_Γ ) \ italic_W of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ, the metric representation of v𝑣vitalic_v with respect to W𝑊Witalic_W is the klimit-from𝑘k-italic_k -vector r(v|W)=(d(v,w1),d(v,w2),d(v,wk))𝑟conditional𝑣𝑊𝑑𝑣subscript𝑤1𝑑𝑣subscript𝑤2𝑑𝑣subscript𝑤𝑘r(v|W)=(d(v,w_{1}),d(v,w_{2}),\cdots d(v,w_{k}))italic_r ( italic_v | italic_W ) = ( italic_d ( italic_v , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_d ( italic_v , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ⋯ italic_d ( italic_v , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ). The set W𝑊Witalic_W is a resolving set for ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ if r(v|W)r(u|W)𝑟conditional𝑣𝑊𝑟conditional𝑢𝑊r(v|W)\neq r(u|W)italic_r ( italic_v | italic_W ) ≠ italic_r ( italic_u | italic_W ), for any pair of distinct vertices u,vV(Γ)\W𝑢𝑣\𝑉Γ𝑊u,v\in V(\Gamma)\backslash Witalic_u , italic_v ∈ italic_V ( roman_Γ ) \ italic_W.

The resolving set, the metric representation of a vertex, and the metric dimension of a graph are also called the locating set, locating code of a vertex, and locating number of a graph respectively.

Definition 2.2.

Let ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ be a connected graph with order n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2. The metric dimension dim(Γ)𝑑𝑖𝑚Γdim(\Gamma)italic_d italic_i italic_m ( roman_Γ ) of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ, is defined as dim(Γ)=min{|W|:Wis a resolving set ofΓ}dim(\Gamma)=min\{|W|:W\textit{is a resolving set of}\ \Gamma\}italic_d italic_i italic_m ( roman_Γ ) = italic_m italic_i italic_n { | italic_W | : italic_W is a resolving set of roman_Γ } and such a set W𝑊Witalic_W is the metric basis for ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ.
For every connected graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ of order n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2, 1dim(Γ)n11𝑑𝑖𝑚Γ𝑛11\leq dim(\Gamma)\leq n-11 ≤ italic_d italic_i italic_m ( roman_Γ ) ≤ italic_n - 1.

Definition 2.3.

Let ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ be a connected graph with order n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2. Two distinct vertices u𝑢uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v are said to be distance similar if d(u,x)=d(v,x)𝑑𝑢𝑥𝑑𝑣𝑥d(u,x)=d(v,x)italic_d ( italic_u , italic_x ) = italic_d ( italic_v , italic_x ), for all xV(Γ)\{u,v}𝑥\𝑉Γ𝑢𝑣x\in V(\Gamma)\backslash\{u,v\}italic_x ∈ italic_V ( roman_Γ ) \ { italic_u , italic_v }. It can be verified that the distance relation is an equivalence relation on V(Γ)𝑉ΓV(\Gamma)italic_V ( roman_Γ ) and two vertices are distance similar if either uvE(Γ)𝑢𝑣𝐸Γuv\notin E(\Gamma)italic_u italic_v ∉ italic_E ( roman_Γ ) and N(u)=N(v)𝑁𝑢𝑁𝑣N(u)=N(v)italic_N ( italic_u ) = italic_N ( italic_v ) or uvE(Γ)𝑢𝑣𝐸Γuv\in E(\Gamma)italic_u italic_v ∈ italic_E ( roman_Γ ) and N[u]=N[v]𝑁delimited-[]𝑢𝑁delimited-[]𝑣N[u]=N[v]italic_N [ italic_u ] = italic_N [ italic_v ].

Theorem 2.4.

[chartrand2000resolvability] Let ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ be a connected graph with order n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2 and W𝑊Witalic_W be a metric basis for ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ. Then dim(Γ)=n1𝑑𝑖𝑚Γ𝑛1dim(\Gamma)=n-1italic_d italic_i italic_m ( roman_Γ ) = italic_n - 1 if and only if ΓKnΓsubscript𝐾𝑛\Gamma\cong K_{n}roman_Γ ≅ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Theorem 2.5.

[pirzada2014locating] Let ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ be a connected graph and V(Γ)𝑉ΓV(\Gamma)italic_V ( roman_Γ ) is partitioned into k𝑘kitalic_k distinct distance similar classes X1,X2,Xksubscript𝑋1subscript𝑋2subscript𝑋𝑘X_{1},X_{2},\cdots X_{k}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then

  1. 1.

    Any resolving set W𝑊Witalic_W contains all but at most one vertex from each Xisubscript𝑋𝑖X_{i}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

  2. 2.

    If t𝑡titalic_t is the number of distance similar classes that consist of a single vertex, then |V(Γ)|kdim(Γ)V(Γ)|k+t𝑉Γ𝑘𝑑𝑖𝑚Γconditional𝑉Γ𝑘𝑡|V(\Gamma)|-k\leq dim(\Gamma)\leq V(\Gamma)|-k+t| italic_V ( roman_Γ ) | - italic_k ≤ italic_d italic_i italic_m ( roman_Γ ) ≤ italic_V ( roman_Γ ) | - italic_k + italic_t.

Theorem 2.6.

[amjadi2018essential] Let R𝑅Ritalic_R be a commutative ring with unity. Then, Rsubscript𝑅\mathcal{E}_{R}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finite graph if and only if every vertex of Rsubscript𝑅\mathcal{E}_{R}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has finite degree.

In [p2023structure], the authors determined the structure of essential ideal graph of the ring nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by defining an equivalence relation on the set 𝒰𝒰\mathscr{U}script_U of nonessential ideals of nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as follows:

Definition 2.7.

Let Ξ={1,2,,k}Ξ12𝑘\Xi=\{1,2,\cdots,k\}roman_Ξ = { 1 , 2 , ⋯ , italic_k } be an index set. For an ideal I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG of 𝒰𝒰\mathscr{U}script_U, define a subset ΞI^subscriptΞ^𝐼\Xi_{\hat{I}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of ΞΞ\Xiroman_Ξ by, ΞI^={i:ri=miinI^}subscriptΞ^𝐼conditional-set𝑖subscript𝑟𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖in^𝐼\Xi_{\hat{I}}=\{i:r_{i}=m_{i}\ \text{in}\ \hat{I}\}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_i : italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG }.

Definition 2.8.

Let I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG be any two ideals of 𝒰𝒰\mathscr{U}script_U. We define a relation precedes-or-equals\preccurlyeq on 𝒰𝒰\mathscr{U}script_U by I^J^precedes-or-equals^𝐼^𝐽\hat{I}\preccurlyeq\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ≼ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG if and only if ΞI^=ΞJ^subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽\Xi_{\hat{I}}=\Xi_{\hat{J}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Thus, 𝒰𝒰\mathscr{U}script_U is partitioned into 2k2superscript2𝑘22^{k}-22 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 equivalent classes, and each equivalent class is denoted by [I^]delimited-[]^𝐼[\hat{I}][ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ]. For example, if n=p12p23p3p4p54𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝12superscriptsubscript𝑝23subscript𝑝3subscript𝑝4superscriptsubscript𝑝54n=p_{1}^{2}p_{2}^{3}p_{3}p_{4}p_{5}^{4}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and I^=p23p4^𝐼delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝23subscript𝑝4\hat{I}=\langle p_{2}^{3}p_{4}\rangleover^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG = ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ is the representative ideal then, the corresponding equivalent class [I^]delimited-[]^𝐼[\hat{I}][ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ] is the set XI^={p1r1p23p4p5r5:0r11,and 0r53}subscript𝑋^𝐼conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝑝23subscript𝑝4superscriptsubscript𝑝5subscript𝑟5formulae-sequence0subscript𝑟11and 0subscript𝑟53X_{\hat{I}}=\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{3}p_{4}p_{5}^{r_{5}}\rangle:0\leq r_% {1}\leq 1,\ \text{and}\ 0\leq r_{5}\leq 3\}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 , and 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 3 }.

Lemma 2.9.

Let K^^𝐾\hat{K}over^ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG and L^^𝐿\hat{L}over^ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG be two vertices of any two of the 2k2superscript2𝑘22^{k}-22 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 equivalent classes, say [I^]delimited-[]^𝐼[\hat{I}][ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ] and [M^]delimited-[]^𝑀[\hat{M}][ over^ start_ARG italic_M end_ARG ] respectively. Then K^^𝐾\hat{K}over^ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG and L^^𝐿\hat{L}over^ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG are adjacent in nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if and only if ΞI^ΞM^=ϕsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝑀italic-ϕ\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{M}}=\phiroman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_M end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ.

The next theorem can be found in [p2023structure], which determines the structure of the induced subgraph n(𝒰)subscriptsubscript𝑛𝒰\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}(\mathscr{U})caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( script_U ). The next theorem gives the structure of the induced subgraph n(𝒰)subscriptsubscript𝑛𝒰\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}(\mathscr{U})caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( script_U ).

Theorem 2.10.

[p2023structure] Let n=p1m1p2m2pkmk𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘n=p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{m_{k}}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where p1<p2<<pksubscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{k}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are primes, k2𝑘2k\geq 2italic_k ≥ 2, and mi>1subscript𝑚𝑖1m_{i}>1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 for at least one i𝑖iitalic_i.Then, the induced subgraph n(𝒰)subscriptsubscript𝑛𝒰\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}(\mathscr{U})caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( script_U ) is the generalized join of certain null graphs given by,

n(𝒰)=𝒢[n([p1m1]),,n([pkmk]),n([p1m1p2m2]),,n([pk1mk1pkmk]),,n([p2m2pk1mk1pkmk])],subscriptsubscript𝑛𝒰𝒢subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘1subscript𝑚𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘1subscript𝑚𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘\begin{split}\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}(\mathscr{U})=\mathscr{G}&[\mathcal{E% }_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}\rangle]),\cdots,\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb% {Z}_{n}}([\langle p_{k}^{m_{k}}\rangle]),\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\langle p% _{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\rangle]),\cdots,\\ &\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\langle p_{k-1}^{m_{k}-1}p_{k}^{m_{k}}\rangle])% ,\cdots,\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\langle p_{2}^{m_{2}}\cdots p_{k-1}^{m_{% k-1}}p_{k}^{m_{k}}\rangle])],\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( script_U ) = script_G end_CELL start_CELL [ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ] ) , ⋯ , caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ] ) , caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ] ) , ⋯ , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ] ) , ⋯ , caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ] ) ] , end_CELL end_ROW

where n([I^])=K¯iΞI^misubscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]^𝐼subscript¯𝐾subscriptproduct𝑖subscriptΞ^𝐼subscript𝑚𝑖\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\hat{I}])=\overline{K}_{\displaystyle\prod_{i% \notin\Xi_{\hat{I}}}m_{i}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ] ) = over¯ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∉ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for the representative ideal I^(vertex of𝒢)^𝐼vertex of𝒢\hat{I}(\text{vertex of}\ \mathscr{G})over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ( vertex of script_G ) of the equivalent class [I^]delimited-[]^𝐼[\hat{I}][ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ].

The following theorem determines the structure of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as the join of a complete graph induced by the essential ideals of nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the induced subgraph n(𝒰)subscriptsubscript𝑛𝒰\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}(\mathscr{U})caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( script_U ).

Theorem 2.11.

[p2023structure] Let n=p1m1p2m2pkmk𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘n=p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{m_{k}}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where p1<p2<<pksubscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{k}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are primes, and mi>1subscript𝑚𝑖1m_{i}>1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 for at least one i𝑖iitalic_i. Then, the essential ideal graph nKmHsubscriptsubscript𝑛subscript𝐾𝑚𝐻\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}\cong K_{m}\vee Hcaligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∨ italic_H, where Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the complete graph on m=i=1kmi1𝑚superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘subscript𝑚𝑖1m=\prod_{i=1}^{k}m_{i}-1italic_m = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 vertices and

H=𝒢[n([p1m1]),,n([pkmk]),n([p1m1p2m2]),,n([pk1mk1pkmk]),,n([p2m2pk1mk1pkmk])].𝐻𝒢subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘1subscript𝑚𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘1subscript𝑚𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘\begin{split}H=\mathscr{G}&[\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}% }\rangle]),\cdots,\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\langle p_{k}^{m_{k}}\rangle])% ,\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\rangle]),% \cdots,\\ &\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\langle p_{k-1}^{m_{k}-1}p_{k}^{m_{k}}\rangle])% ,\cdots,\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\langle p_{2}^{m_{2}}\cdots p_{k-1}^{m_{% k-1}}p_{k}^{m_{k}}\rangle])].\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_H = script_G end_CELL start_CELL [ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ] ) , ⋯ , caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ] ) , caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ] ) , ⋯ , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ] ) , ⋯ , caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ] ) ] . end_CELL end_ROW

3 Metric Dimension of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

In this section, we compute the metric dimension of the essential ideal graph of nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Theorem 3.1.

Let R𝑅Ritalic_R be a commutative ring with unity. Then, dim(R)𝑑𝑖𝑚subscript𝑅dim(\mathcal{E}_{R})italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is finite if and only if R𝑅Ritalic_R is finite.

Proof.

If R𝑅Ritalic_R is finite, obviously, dim(R)𝑑𝑖𝑚subscript𝑅dim(\mathcal{E}_{R})italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is finite. Conversely, suppose that dim(R)=k<𝑑𝑖𝑚subscript𝑅𝑘dim(\mathcal{E}_{R})=k<\inftyitalic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_k < ∞. This ensures that each vertex of R)\mathcal{E}_{R})caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) has a unique k𝑘kitalic_k-vector metric representation with respect to a minimum resolving set W𝑊Witalic_W of cardinality k𝑘kitalic_k. Since diam(R)=3<𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚subscript𝑅3diam(\mathcal{E}_{R})=3<\inftyitalic_d italic_i italic_a italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 3 < ∞, for every vertex vV(R)\W𝑣\𝑉subscript𝑅𝑊v\in V(\mathcal{E}_{R})\backslash Witalic_v ∈ italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) \ italic_W, there are only 4ksuperscript4𝑘4^{k}4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT choices for r(v|W)𝑟conditional𝑣𝑊r(v|W)italic_r ( italic_v | italic_W ). Hence, |V(R)|4k+k𝑉subscript𝑅superscript4𝑘𝑘|V(\mathcal{E}_{R})|\leq 4^{k}+k| italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | ≤ 4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_k.

The next result follows directly from Theorems 2.6 and 3.1.

Corollary 3.2.

Let R𝑅Ritalic_R be a commutative ring with unity. Then, dim(R)𝑑𝑖𝑚subscript𝑅dim(\mathcal{E}_{R})italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is finite if and only if every vertex of Rsubscript𝑅\mathcal{E}_{R}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has finite degree.

Lemma 3.3.

Let n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where p1<p2<<pksubscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{k}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are primes and let d1subscript𝑑1d_{1}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and d2subscript𝑑2d_{2}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be two distinct nontrivial proper divisors of n𝑛nitalic_n. Then, gcd(d1,d2)=1𝑔𝑐𝑑subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑21gcd(d_{1},d_{2})=1italic_g italic_c italic_d ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 1 if and only if n(nd1)(nd2)conditional𝑛𝑛subscript𝑑1𝑛subscript𝑑2n\mid(\frac{n}{d_{1}})(\frac{n}{d_{2}})italic_n ∣ ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG )

Proof.

Assume that gcd(d1,d2)=1𝑔𝑐𝑑subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑21gcd(d_{1},d_{2})=1italic_g italic_c italic_d ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 1. Then, there exist integers x𝑥xitalic_x and y𝑦yitalic_y such that 1=d1x+d2y1subscript𝑑1𝑥subscript𝑑2𝑦1=d_{1}x+d_{2}y1 = italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y. Now,

(nd1)=nx+(nd1)d2y(nd2)=(nd2)d1x+d2yand hence(nd1)(nd2)=n(x1+2nxy+y1),𝑛subscript𝑑1𝑛𝑥𝑛subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑2𝑦𝑛subscript𝑑2𝑛subscript𝑑2subscript𝑑1𝑥subscript𝑑2𝑦and hence𝑛subscript𝑑1𝑛subscript𝑑2𝑛subscript𝑥12𝑛𝑥𝑦subscript𝑦1\begin{split}(\frac{n}{d_{1}})=&nx+(\frac{n}{d_{1}})d_{2}y\\ (\frac{n}{d_{2}})=&(\frac{n}{d_{2}})d_{1}x+d_{2}y\\ \text{and hence}\ (\frac{n}{d_{1}})(\frac{n}{d_{2}})=&n(x_{1}+2nxy+y_{1}),\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) = end_CELL start_CELL italic_n italic_x + ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL and hence ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) = end_CELL start_CELL italic_n ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 2 italic_n italic_x italic_y + italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW

where x1=(nd2)d1x2,y1=(nd1)d2y2formulae-sequencesubscript𝑥1𝑛subscript𝑑2subscript𝑑1superscript𝑥2subscript𝑦1𝑛subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑2superscript𝑦2x_{1}=(\frac{n}{d_{2}})d_{1}x^{2},\ y_{1}=(\frac{n}{d_{1}})d_{2}y^{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Thus, n|(nd1)(nd2)conditional𝑛𝑛subscript𝑑1𝑛subscript𝑑2n|(\frac{n}{d_{1}})(\frac{n}{d_{2}})italic_n | ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ). For the converse, suppose that gcd(d1,d2)=d>1𝑔𝑐𝑑subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑2𝑑1gcd(d_{1},d_{2})=d>1italic_g italic_c italic_d ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_d > 1. Then d=pi1pi2pit𝑑subscript𝑝subscript𝑖1subscript𝑝subscript𝑖2subscript𝑝subscript𝑖𝑡d=p_{i_{1}}p_{i_{2}}\cdots p_{i_{t}}italic_d = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where pi1,pi2,,pitsubscript𝑝subscript𝑖1subscript𝑝subscript𝑖2subscript𝑝subscript𝑖𝑡p_{i_{1}},p_{i_{2}},\cdots,p_{i_{t}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are primes such that i1<i2<<itsubscript𝑖1subscript𝑖2subscript𝑖𝑡i_{1}<i_{2}<\cdots<i_{t}italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 1itk11subscript𝑖𝑡𝑘11\leq i_{t}\leq k-11 ≤ italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_k - 1 so that d1=r1dsubscript𝑑1subscript𝑟1𝑑d_{1}=r_{1}ditalic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d, and d2=r2dsubscript𝑑2subscript𝑟2𝑑d_{2}=r_{2}ditalic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d. Consequently, both divisors (nd1)𝑛subscript𝑑1(\frac{n}{d_{1}})( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) and (nd2)𝑛subscript𝑑2(\frac{n}{d_{2}})( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) of n𝑛nitalic_n do not have d𝑑ditalic_d as a factor and hence n(nd1)(nd2)not-divides𝑛𝑛subscript𝑑1𝑛subscript𝑑2n\nmid(\frac{n}{d_{1}})(\frac{n}{d_{2}})italic_n ∤ ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ). ∎

Theorem 3.4.

Let R1=i=1kFisubscript𝑅1superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘subscript𝐹𝑖R_{1}=\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{k}F_{i}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where each Fisubscript𝐹𝑖F_{i}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a field and let R2=nsubscript𝑅2subscript𝑛R_{2}=\mathbb{Z}_{n}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where pisubscript𝑝𝑖p_{i}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s are distinct primes for 1ik1𝑖𝑘1\leq i\leq k1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_k. Then, R1R2𝔸𝕀𝔾(R2)subscriptsubscript𝑅1subscriptsubscript𝑅2𝔸𝕀𝔾subscript𝑅2\mathcal{E}_{R_{1}}\cong\mathcal{E}_{R_{2}}\cong\mathbb{AIG}(R_{2})caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

Proof.

We first note that the vertices of R1subscriptsubscript𝑅1\mathcal{E}_{R_{1}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the nonzero proper ideals of the ring i=1kFisuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘subscript𝐹𝑖\prod_{i=1}^{k}F_{i}∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, given by I^=i=1kIi^^𝐼superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘^subscript𝐼𝑖\hat{I}=\prod_{i=1}^{k}\hat{I_{i}}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, where Ii^=0^subscript𝐼𝑖delimited-⟨⟩0\hat{I_{i}}=\langle 0\rangleover^ start_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = ⟨ 0 ⟩ for at least one i𝑖iitalic_i and Ii^=Fi^subscript𝐼𝑖subscript𝐹𝑖\hat{I_{i}}=F_{i}over^ start_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for at least one i𝑖iitalic_i. Thus, |V(R1)|=2k2=|V(R2)|=|V(𝔸𝕀𝔾(R2))|𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑅1superscript2𝑘2𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑅2𝑉𝔸𝕀𝔾subscript𝑅2|V(\mathcal{E}_{R_{1}})|=2^{k}-2=|V(\mathcal{E}_{R_{2}})|=|V(\mathbb{AIG}(R_{2% }))|| italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 = | italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | = | italic_V ( blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) |. Also,
V(R2)=V(𝔸𝕀𝔾(R2))={d:dis a positive proper divisor ofn}𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑅2𝑉𝔸𝕀𝔾subscript𝑅2conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩𝑑𝑑is a positive proper divisor of𝑛V(\mathcal{E}_{R_{2}})=V(\mathbb{AIG}(R_{2}))=\{\langle d\rangle:d\ \text{is a% positive proper divisor of}\ n\}italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_V ( blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = { ⟨ italic_d ⟩ : italic_d is a positive proper divisor of italic_n }. For the divisor d𝑑ditalic_d of n𝑛nitalic_n, define a map φ:V(R2)V(𝔸𝕀𝔾(R2)):𝜑𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑅2𝑉𝔸𝕀𝔾subscript𝑅2\varphi:V(\mathcal{E}_{R_{2}})\rightarrow V(\mathbb{AIG}(R_{2}))italic_φ : italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) → italic_V ( blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) by dnd𝑑𝑛𝑑d\longmapsto\frac{n}{d}italic_d ⟼ divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d end_ARG(divisor conjugate of d𝑑ditalic_d). Since each divisor d𝑑ditalic_d of n𝑛nitalic_n has a unique divisor conjugate nd𝑛𝑑\frac{n}{d}divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d end_ARG, and 1<nd<n1𝑛𝑑𝑛1<\frac{n}{d}<n1 < divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_d end_ARG < italic_n for 1<d<n1𝑑𝑛1<d<n1 < italic_d < italic_n, it follows immediately that φ𝜑\varphiitalic_φ is both one-one and onto. Now, Lemma 3.3 assures that two vertices d1delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑑1\langle d_{1}\rangle⟨ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ and d2delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑑2\langle d_{2}\rangle⟨ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ are adjacent in R2subscriptsubscript𝑅2\mathcal{E}_{R_{2}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if and only if φ(d1)𝜑delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑑1\varphi(\langle d_{1}\rangle)italic_φ ( ⟨ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ) and φ(d2)𝜑delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑑2\varphi(\langle d_{2}\rangle)italic_φ ( ⟨ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ) are adjacent in 𝔸𝕀𝔾(R2)𝔸𝕀𝔾subscript𝑅2\mathbb{AIG}(R_{2})blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Thus, φ𝜑\varphiitalic_φ is an isomorphism and hence R2𝔸𝕀𝔾(R2)subscriptsubscript𝑅2𝔸𝕀𝔾subscript𝑅2\mathcal{E}_{R_{2}}\cong\mathbb{AIG}(R_{2})caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

Now, for each vertex I^=i=1kIi^^𝐼superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘^subscript𝐼𝑖\hat{I}=\prod_{i=1}^{k}\hat{I_{i}}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG of R1subscriptsubscript𝑅1\mathcal{E}_{R_{1}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we define a subset ΘI^subscriptΘ^𝐼\Theta_{\hat{I}}roman_Θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the index set {1,2,,k}12𝑘\{1,2,\cdots,k\}{ 1 , 2 , ⋯ , italic_k } such that Ii^={0,ifiΘI^Fi,otherwise.^subscript𝐼𝑖casesdelimited-⟨⟩0if𝑖subscriptΘ^𝐼subscript𝐹𝑖otherwise\hat{I_{i}}=\begin{cases}\langle 0\rangle,&\text{if}\ i\in\Theta_{\hat{I}}\\ F_{i},&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}over^ start_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = { start_ROW start_CELL ⟨ 0 ⟩ , end_CELL start_CELL if italic_i ∈ roman_Θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL otherwise . end_CELL end_ROW Obviously, two distinct vertices I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG are adjacent in R1subscriptsubscript𝑅1\mathcal{E}_{R_{1}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if and only if ΘI^ΘJ^=ϕsubscriptΘ^𝐼subscriptΘ^𝐽italic-ϕ\Theta_{\hat{I}}\cap\Theta_{\hat{J}}=\phiroman_Θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ. Define a map ψ:V(R1)V(𝔸𝕀𝔾(R2)):𝜓𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑅1𝑉𝔸𝕀𝔾subscript𝑅2\psi:V(\mathcal{E}_{R_{1}})\rightarrow V(\mathbb{AIG}(R_{2}))italic_ψ : italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) → italic_V ( blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) by ψ(I^)=iΘI^pi𝜓^𝐼delimited-⟨⟩subscriptproduct𝑖subscriptΘ^𝐼subscript𝑝𝑖\psi(\hat{I})=\langle\displaystyle\prod_{i\notin\Theta_{\hat{I}}}p_{i}\rangleitalic_ψ ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ) = ⟨ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∉ roman_Θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩. Clearly, ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ is a well defined bijection preserving adjacencies and nonadjacencies in R1subscriptsubscript𝑅1\mathcal{E}_{R_{1}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝔸𝕀𝔾(R2)𝔸𝕀𝔾subscript𝑅2\mathbb{AIG}(R_{2})blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), and hence R1𝔸𝕀𝔾(R2)subscriptsubscript𝑅1𝔸𝕀𝔾subscript𝑅2\mathcal{E}_{R_{1}}\cong\mathbb{AIG}(R_{2})caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). ∎

In [aijaz2020annihilating], the authors computed the metric dimension of the annihilating ideal graph of the rings i=1kFisuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘subscript𝐹𝑖\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{k}F_{i}∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Theorem 3.5.

[aijaz2020annihilating] For R=i=1kFiorn𝑅superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘subscript𝐹𝑖orsubscript𝑛R=\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{k}F_{i}\ \text{or}\ \mathbb{Z}_{n}italic_R = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the following hold:

  1. 1.

    dim(𝔸𝕀𝔾(R))=k1𝑑𝑖𝑚𝔸𝕀𝔾𝑅𝑘1dim(\mathbb{AIG}(R))=k-1italic_d italic_i italic_m ( blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R ) ) = italic_k - 1 for 1k41𝑘41\leq k\leq 41 ≤ italic_k ≤ 4.

  2. 2.

    dim(𝔸𝕀𝔾(R))=5𝑑𝑖𝑚𝔸𝕀𝔾𝑅5dim(\mathbb{AIG}(R))=5italic_d italic_i italic_m ( blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R ) ) = 5 for k=5𝑘5k=5italic_k = 5.

  3. 3.

    dim(𝔸𝕀𝔾(R))k𝑑𝑖𝑚𝔸𝕀𝔾𝑅𝑘dim(\mathbb{AIG}(R))\leq kitalic_d italic_i italic_m ( blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R ) ) ≤ italic_k for k6𝑘6k\geq 6italic_k ≥ 6.

The proof is developed by showing that the annihilating ideal graph 𝔸𝕀𝔾(R)𝔸𝕀𝔾𝑅\mathbb{AIG}(R)blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( italic_R ) for R=i=1kFiorn𝑅superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘subscript𝐹𝑖orsubscript𝑛R=\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{k}F_{i}\ \text{or}\ \mathbb{Z}_{n}italic_R = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is isomorphic to the zero divisor graph (𝔻𝔾𝔻𝔾\mathbb{ZDG}blackboard_Z blackboard_D blackboard_G) of the boolean ring i=1k2superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘subscript2\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{k}\mathbb{Z}_{2}∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and applying the result on metric dimension of zero divisor graph of i=1k2superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘subscript2\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{k}\mathbb{Z}_{2}∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [Proposition 6.26.26.26.2 and Theorem 6.36.36.36.3 of [raja2016locating]]. Hence by Theorems 3.4 and 3.5, we can have the following result.

Proposition 3.6.

Let R=i=1kFiorn𝑅superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘subscript𝐹𝑖orsubscript𝑛R=\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{k}F_{i}\ \text{or}\ \mathbb{Z}_{n}italic_R = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then,

  1. 1.

    dim(R)=k1𝑑𝑖𝑚subscript𝑅𝑘1dim(\mathcal{E}_{R})=k-1italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_k - 1 for 1k41𝑘41\leq k\leq 41 ≤ italic_k ≤ 4.

  2. 2.

    dim(R)=5𝑑𝑖𝑚subscript𝑅5dim(\mathcal{E}_{R})=5italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 5 for k=5𝑘5k=5italic_k = 5.

  3. 3.

    dim(R)k𝑑𝑖𝑚subscript𝑅𝑘dim(\mathcal{E}_{R})\leq kitalic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ italic_k for k6𝑘6k\geq 6italic_k ≥ 6.

In the following theorem, we give another proof for computing the metric dimension of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, k6𝑘6k\geq 6italic_k ≥ 6, by finding a minimal resolving set of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For this, we make use of the following Lemma.

Lemma 3.7.

Let R=n𝑅subscript𝑛R=\mathbb{Z}_{n}italic_R = blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then, for any two vertices I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG of Rsubscript𝑅\mathcal{E}_{R}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

  1. 1.

    d(I^,J^)=2𝑑^𝐼^𝐽2d(\hat{I},\hat{J})=2italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ) = 2 if and only if I^+J^R^𝐼^𝐽𝑅\hat{I}+\hat{J}\neq Rover^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG + over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ≠ italic_R and I^J^0^𝐼^𝐽0\hat{I}\cap\hat{J}\neq 0over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ∩ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ≠ 0.

  2. 2.

    d(I^,J^)=3𝑑^𝐼^𝐽3d(\hat{I},\hat{J})=3italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ) = 3 if and only if I^+J^R^𝐼^𝐽𝑅\hat{I}+\hat{J}\neq Rover^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG + over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ≠ italic_R and I^J^=0^𝐼^𝐽0\hat{I}\cap\hat{J}=0over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ∩ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG = 0.

Proof.

(i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ) First, suppose that d(I^,J^)=2𝑑^𝐼^𝐽2d(\hat{I},\hat{J})=2italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ) = 2. Obviously, I^+J^R^𝐼^𝐽𝑅\hat{I}+\hat{J}\neq Rover^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG + over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ≠ italic_R. Thus, it remains to prove that I^J^0^𝐼^𝐽0\hat{I}\cap\hat{J}\neq 0over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ∩ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ≠ 0. If possible, let I^J^=0^𝐼^𝐽0\hat{I}\cap\hat{J}=0over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ∩ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG = 0. Then, any prime not in the generator of the ideal I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG must be in the generator of the ideal J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG and vice versa. Hence, if K^^𝐾\hat{K}over^ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG is a vertex adjacent to the vertex I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG, then it cannot be adjacent to the vertex J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG as the generators of both K^^𝐾\hat{K}over^ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG have at least one common prime factor. This leads to the conclusion that d(I^,J^)>2𝑑^𝐼^𝐽2d(\hat{I},\hat{J})>2italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ) > 2, is a contradiction. Thus, I^J^0^𝐼^𝐽0\hat{I}\cap\hat{J}\neq 0over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ∩ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ≠ 0. For the converse, assume that I^+J^R^𝐼^𝐽𝑅\hat{I}+\hat{J}\neq Rover^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG + over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ≠ italic_R and I^J^0^𝐼^𝐽0\hat{I}\cap\hat{J}\neq 0over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ∩ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ≠ 0. Then d(I^,J^)>1𝑑^𝐼^𝐽1d(\hat{I},\hat{J})>1italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ) > 1. Since I^J^0^𝐼^𝐽0\hat{I}\cap\hat{J}\neq 0over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ∩ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ≠ 0, there must exist at least one prime number pssubscript𝑝𝑠p_{s}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that pssubscript𝑝𝑠p_{s}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is not a prime factor of generators of both ideals I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG. Thus, if S^=ps^𝑆delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝𝑠\hat{S}=\langle p_{s}\rangleover^ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG = ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩, we have I^S^J^similar-to^𝐼^𝑆similar-to^𝐽\hat{I}\sim\hat{S}\sim\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ∼ over^ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG ∼ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG. Consequently, d(I^,J^)=2𝑑^𝐼^𝐽2d(\hat{I},\hat{J})=2italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG ) = 2.
(ii)𝑖𝑖(ii)( italic_i italic_i ) Result follows as a direct consequence of the proof of Case 1111. ∎

In the following theorem, we give another proof for computing the metric dimension of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Theorem 3.8.

Let n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where p1<p2<<pksubscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{k}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are primes and k6𝑘6k\geq 6italic_k ≥ 6. Then dim(n)k𝑑𝑖𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑘dim(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})\leq kitalic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ italic_k.

Proof.

Consider the set W𝑊Witalic_W consisting of all minimal ideals of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as in the following order:

W={p1p2pk1,p1p2pk2pk,,p2p3pk}.𝑊delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘1delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘2subscript𝑝𝑘delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3subscript𝑝𝑘W=\{\langle p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k-1}\rangle,\langle p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k-2}p_% {k}\rangle,\cdots,\langle p_{2}p_{3}\cdots p_{k}\rangle\}.italic_W = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⋯ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } .

claim: W𝑊Witalic_W is a resolving set of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
We need to show that each vertex vV(n)\W𝑣\𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑊v\in V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})\backslash Witalic_v ∈ italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) \ italic_W has a unique representation of distances with respect to W𝑊Witalic_W. For this, take any two vertices of V(n)\W\𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑊V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})\backslash Witalic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) \ italic_W of the form I^=pi1pi2pit^𝐼delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝subscript𝑖1subscript𝑝subscript𝑖2subscript𝑝subscript𝑖𝑡\hat{I}=\langle p_{i_{1}}p_{i_{2}}\cdots p_{i_{t}}\rangleover^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG = ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ and J^=pj1pj2pjs^𝐽delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝subscript𝑗1subscript𝑝subscript𝑗2subscript𝑝subscript𝑗𝑠\hat{J}=\langle p_{j_{1}}p_{j_{2}}\cdots p_{j_{s}}\rangleover^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG = ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩, where pi1,pi2,,pit,pj1,pj2,,pjssubscript𝑝subscript𝑖1subscript𝑝subscript𝑖2subscript𝑝subscript𝑖𝑡subscript𝑝subscript𝑗1subscript𝑝subscript𝑗2subscript𝑝subscript𝑗𝑠p_{i_{1}},p_{i_{2}},\cdots,p_{i_{t}},p_{j_{1}},p_{j_{2}},\cdots,p_{j_{s}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are primes such that i1<i2<<itsubscript𝑖1subscript𝑖2subscript𝑖𝑡i_{1}<i_{2}<\cdots<i_{t}italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and j1<j2<<jssubscript𝑗1subscript𝑗2subscript𝑗𝑠j_{1}<j_{2}<\cdots<j_{s}italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT not necessarily distinct and 1it,jsk2formulae-sequence1subscript𝑖𝑡subscript𝑗𝑠𝑘21\leq i_{t},j_{s}\leq k-21 ≤ italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_k - 2. Then three cases may occur- either t<s𝑡𝑠t<sitalic_t < italic_s, or t=s𝑡𝑠t=sitalic_t = italic_s, or t>s𝑡𝑠t>sitalic_t > italic_s.
Case 1:t<s:1𝑡𝑠1:t<s1 : italic_t < italic_s
Then, there exists at least one prime pjlsubscript𝑝subscript𝑗𝑙p_{j_{l}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which is in the generator of J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG but not in that of I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG. Now, consider a vertex P^^𝑃\hat{P}over^ start_ARG italic_P end_ARG in W𝑊Witalic_W such that pjlsubscript𝑝subscript𝑗𝑙p_{j_{l}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is not in the generator of P^^𝑃\hat{P}over^ start_ARG italic_P end_ARG. Then d(I^,P^)=2𝑑^𝐼^𝑃2d(\hat{I},\hat{P})=2italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_P end_ARG ) = 2, by Lemma 3.7(1)1(1)( 1 ). That is, I^pjlP^similar-to^𝐼delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝subscript𝑗𝑙similar-to^𝑃\hat{I}\sim\langle p_{j_{l}}\rangle\sim\hat{P}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ∼ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ∼ over^ start_ARG italic_P end_ARG. However, since J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG is not adjacent to the vertex pjldelimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝subscript𝑗𝑙\langle p_{j_{l}}\rangle⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ to which P^^𝑃\hat{P}over^ start_ARG italic_P end_ARG is only adjacent, d(J^,P^)=3𝑑^𝐽^𝑃3d(\hat{J},\hat{P})=3italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_P end_ARG ) = 3. Then, the coordinate corresponding to the vertex P^^𝑃\hat{P}over^ start_ARG italic_P end_ARG of W𝑊Witalic_W in the k𝑘kitalic_k-vector of both I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG are distinct. Hence, r(I^|W)r(J^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊𝑟conditional^𝐽𝑊r(\hat{I}|W)\neq r(\hat{J}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ) ≠ italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG | italic_W ).
Case 2:t=s:2𝑡𝑠2:t=s2 : italic_t = italic_s
In this case, at least one prime is not common in the generators of both I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG. Without loss of generality, assume that pihsubscript𝑝subscript𝑖p_{i_{h}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is in the generator of I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG but not in that of J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG and pjlsubscript𝑝subscript𝑗𝑙p_{j_{l}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is in the generator of J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG but not in that of I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG. Consider the vertex Q^W^𝑄𝑊\hat{Q}\in Wover^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG ∈ italic_W such that the generator of Q^^𝑄\hat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG contains pjlsubscript𝑝subscript𝑗𝑙p_{j_{l}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as a factor but not pihsubscript𝑝subscript𝑖p_{i_{h}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then, Q^^𝑄\hat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG is adjacent only to the vertex pihdelimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝subscript𝑖\langle p_{i_{h}}\rangle⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ and the latter is not adjacent to I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG. Hence, by Lemma 3.7, d(I^,Q^)=3𝑑^𝐼^𝑄3d(\hat{I},\hat{Q})=3italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG ) = 3 and d(J^,Q^)=2𝑑^𝐽^𝑄2d(\hat{J},\hat{Q})=2italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG ) = 2.
Case 3:t>s:3𝑡𝑠3:t>s3 : italic_t > italic_s
Here, there is at least one prime pihsubscript𝑝subscript𝑖p_{i_{h}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the generator of I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG but not in that of J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG. Then, by Lemma 3.7, d(I^,K^)=3𝑑^𝐼^𝐾3d(\hat{I},\hat{K})=3italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG ) = 3, and d(J^,K^)=2𝑑^𝐽^𝐾2d(\hat{J},\hat{K})=2italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG ) = 2, for the vertex K^W^𝐾𝑊\hat{K}\in Wover^ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG ∈ italic_W having pihsubscript𝑝subscript𝑖p_{i_{h}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT not in the generator of K^^𝐾\hat{K}over^ start_ARG italic_K end_ARG. This proves that r(I^|W)r(J^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊𝑟conditional^𝐽𝑊r(\hat{I}|W)\neq r(\hat{J}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ) ≠ italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG | italic_W ), for any two distinct vertices I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG in V(n)\W\𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑊V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})\backslash Witalic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) \ italic_W. Hence W𝑊Witalic_W is a resolving set of cardinality k𝑘kitalic_k and dim(n)k𝑑𝑖𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑘dim(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})\leq kitalic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ italic_k. ∎

Proposition 3.9.

Let T=|V(n)|𝑇𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛T=|V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})|italic_T = | italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) |. Then, dim(n)=T1𝑑𝑖𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑇1dim(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=T-1italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_T - 1 if and only if either n=pm,m>1formulae-sequence𝑛superscript𝑝𝑚𝑚1n=p^{m},\ m>1italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_m > 1 or n=p1p2𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2n=p_{1}p_{2}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof.

It is obvious that dim(n)=T1𝑑𝑖𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑇1dim(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=T-1italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_T - 1 when n=pm,m>1formulae-sequence𝑛superscript𝑝𝑚𝑚1n=p^{m},\ m>1italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_m > 1 or n=p1p2𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2n=p_{1}p_{2}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For the converse, assume that dim(n)=T1𝑑𝑖𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑇1dim(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=T-1italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_T - 1. Then, nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is complete by Theorem 2.4. Suppose np1p2𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2n\neq p_{1}p_{2}italic_n ≠ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To prove n=pm,m>1formulae-sequence𝑛superscript𝑝𝑚𝑚1n=p^{m},\ m>1italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_m > 1, assume to the contrary that n=p1α1p2α2pkαk𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝛼1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝛼2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝛼𝑘n=p_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}p_{2}^{\alpha_{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{\alpha_{k}}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, k2𝑘2k\geq 2italic_k ≥ 2 and αi>1subscript𝛼𝑖1\alpha_{i}>1italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 for at least two i𝑖iitalic_i (say, α1,α2subscript𝛼1subscript𝛼2\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT). Now, consider the two vertices I^=p1α1^𝐼delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝛼1\hat{I}=\langle p_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}\rangleover^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG = ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ and J^=p1α1p2α2^𝐽delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝛼1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝛼2\hat{J}=\langle p_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}p_{2}^{\alpha_{2}}\rangleover^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG = ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩. Obviously, I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG are nonadjacent in nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT contradicting the fact that nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is complete. ∎

By Theorem 2.11, nKm𝒢[Γ1,Γ2,,Γ2k2]subscriptsubscript𝑛subscript𝐾𝑚𝒢subscriptΓ1subscriptΓ2subscriptΓsuperscript2𝑘2\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}\cong K_{m}\vee\mathscr{G}[\Gamma_{1},\Gamma_{2},% \cdots,\Gamma_{2^{k}-2}]caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∨ script_G [ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ], where Γi=n([I^])subscriptΓ𝑖subscriptsubscript𝑛delimited-[]^𝐼\Gamma_{i}=\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}([\hat{I}])roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ] ) for each of the equivalence class [I^]delimited-[]^𝐼[\hat{I}][ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ] of the partition on the set of nonessential ideals of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This can be further viewed as n𝒢[Km,Γ1,Γ2,,Γ2k2]subscriptsubscript𝑛𝒢subscript𝐾𝑚subscriptΓ1subscriptΓ2subscriptΓsuperscript2𝑘2\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}\cong\mathscr{G}[K_{m},\Gamma_{1},\Gamma_{2},% \cdots,\Gamma_{2^{k}-2}]caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ script_G [ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ], since the vertices of the subgraph Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are adjacent to all the vertices of the subgraphs ΓisubscriptΓ𝑖\Gamma_{i}roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for 1i2k21𝑖superscript2𝑘21\leq i\leq 2^{k}-21 ≤ italic_i ≤ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2. Also, note that the vertices in each of the induced subgraphs Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and ΓisubscriptΓ𝑖\Gamma_{i}roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for 1i2k21𝑖superscript2𝑘21\leq i\leq 2^{k}-21 ≤ italic_i ≤ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 are distance similar so that V(n)𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is partitioned into 2k1superscript2𝑘12^{k}-12 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 distance similar classes X,X1,X2,,X2k2𝑋subscript𝑋1subscript𝑋2subscript𝑋superscript2𝑘2X,X_{1},X_{2},\cdots,X_{2^{k}-2}italic_X , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as follows.

X=𝑋absent\displaystyle X=italic_X = {p1r1p2r2pkrk:0rimi1for 1ik}\n,\conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑟2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑟𝑘0subscript𝑟𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖1for1𝑖𝑘subscript𝑛\displaystyle\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{r_{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{r_{k}}\rangle:0% \leq r_{i}\leq m_{i}-1\ \text{for}\ 1\leq i\leq k\}\backslash\mathbb{Z}_{n},{ ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 for 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_k } \ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
X1=subscript𝑋1absent\displaystyle X_{1}=italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = Xp1m1={p1m1p2r2pkrk:0rimi1for 2ik},subscript𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑟2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑟𝑘0subscript𝑟𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖1for2𝑖𝑘\displaystyle X_{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{r% _{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{r_{k}}\rangle:0\leq r_{i}\leq m_{i}-1\ \text{for}\ 2\leq i% \leq k\},italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 for 2 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_k } ,
\displaystyle\vdots
Xk=subscript𝑋𝑘absent\displaystyle X_{k}=italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = Xp1mk={p1r1p2r2pkmk:0rimi1for 1ik1},subscript𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚𝑘conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑟2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘0subscript𝑟𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖1for1𝑖𝑘1\displaystyle X_{\langle p_{1}^{m_{k}}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{r% _{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{m_{k}}\rangle:0\leq r_{i}\leq m_{i}-1\ \text{for}\ 1\leq i% \leq k-1\},italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 for 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_k - 1 } ,
Xk+1=subscript𝑋𝑘1absent\displaystyle X_{k+1}=italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = Xp1m1p2m2={p1m1p2m2pkrk:0rimi1for 3ik},subscript𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑟𝑘0subscript𝑟𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖1for3𝑖𝑘\displaystyle X_{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{m% _{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{r_{k}}\rangle:0\leq r_{i}\leq m_{i}-1\ \text{% for}\ 3\leq i\leq k\},italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 for 3 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_k } ,
\displaystyle\vdots
X2k2=subscript𝑋superscript2𝑘2absent\displaystyle X_{2^{k}-2}=italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = Xp2m2pkmk={p1r1p2m2pkmk:0r1m11}.subscript𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘0subscript𝑟1subscript𝑚11\displaystyle X_{\langle p_{2}^{m_{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{m_{k}}\rangle}=\{\langle p% _{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{m_{k}}\rangle:0\leq r_{1}\leq m_{1}-1\}.italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 } .

Here, X=V(Km)𝑋𝑉subscript𝐾𝑚X=V(K_{m})italic_X = italic_V ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and Xi=V(Γi)=[I^]subscript𝑋𝑖𝑉subscriptΓ𝑖delimited-[]^𝐼X_{i}=V(\Gamma_{i})=[\hat{I}]italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_V ( roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = [ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ] for each of 2k2superscript2𝑘22^{k}-22 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 equivalent class [I^]delimited-[]^𝐼[\hat{I}][ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG ]. By Theorem 2.5, any resolving set W𝑊Witalic_W of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT must contain all but at most one vertex from each of the partitioned sets X,Xi𝑋subscript𝑋𝑖X,\ X_{i}italic_X , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for i=1,2,,2k2𝑖12superscript2𝑘2i=1,2,\cdots,2^{k}-2italic_i = 1 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2. Hence, for any resolving set W𝑊Witalic_W,

|W||X|1+|X1|1+|X2|1++|X2k2|1m1+Tm1112k2timesT(2k1).𝑊𝑋1subscript𝑋11subscript𝑋21subscript𝑋superscript2𝑘21𝑚1𝑇𝑚subscript111superscript2𝑘2times𝑇superscript2𝑘1\begin{split}|W|\geq&|X|-1+|X_{1}|-1+|X_{2}|-1+\cdots+|X_{2^{k}-2}|-1\\ \geq&m-1+T-m\underbrace{-1-1\cdots-1}_{2^{k}-2\ \text{times}}\\ \geq&T-(2^{k}-1).\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL | italic_W | ≥ end_CELL start_CELL | italic_X | - 1 + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | - 1 + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | - 1 + ⋯ + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | - 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ≥ end_CELL start_CELL italic_m - 1 + italic_T - italic_m under⏟ start_ARG - 1 - 1 ⋯ - 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 times end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ≥ end_CELL start_CELL italic_T - ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) . end_CELL end_ROW (1)

Now, we identify the values of n𝑛nitalic_n for which these bounds are attained by computing the metric dimension of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Theorem 3.10.

Let n=p1m1p2m2pkmk𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘n=p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{m_{k}}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where p1<p2<<pksubscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{k}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are primes, k2𝑘2k\geq 2italic_k ≥ 2, and mi>1subscript𝑚𝑖1m_{i}>1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 for at least one i𝑖iitalic_i. Then

dim(n)={T(2k1),ifmi>1for at least twoi,T(2k2),ifmi>1for exactly onei.𝑑𝑖𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑛cases𝑇superscript2𝑘1ifsubscript𝑚𝑖1for at least two𝑖𝑇superscript2𝑘2ifsubscript𝑚𝑖1for exactly one𝑖dim(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=\begin{cases}T-(2^{k}-1),&\text{if}\ m_{i}>1% \ \text{for at least two}\ i,\\ T-(2^{k}-2),&\text{if}\ m_{i}>1\ \text{for exactly one}\ i.\\ \end{cases}italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = { start_ROW start_CELL italic_T - ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) , end_CELL start_CELL if italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 for at least two italic_i , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_T - ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 ) , end_CELL start_CELL if italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 for exactly one italic_i . end_CELL end_ROW
Proof.

By Equation (1)1(1)( 1 ), we see that any resolving set of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT must contain at least T(2k1)𝑇superscript2𝑘1T-(2^{k}-1)italic_T - ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) vertices consisting of all but at most one vertex of each of the distance similar partitioned sets. Case 1111: mi>1subscript𝑚𝑖1m_{i}>1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 for at least two i𝑖iitalic_i
Here, it remains to show that there exists a resolving set of cardinality T(2k1)𝑇superscript2𝑘1T-(2^{k}-1)italic_T - ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ). Take W𝑊Witalic_W as an ordered set consisting of m1𝑚1m-1italic_m - 1 vertices of X𝑋Xitalic_X, followed by |Xi|1subscript𝑋𝑖1|X_{i}|-1| italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | - 1 vertices of the sets Xisubscript𝑋𝑖X_{i}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, for 1i2k21𝑖superscript2𝑘21\leq i\leq 2^{k}-21 ≤ italic_i ≤ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2. Without loss of generality, let

W=X\{p1m11p2m21pkmk1}X1\{p1m1p2m21pkmk1}X2k2\{p1m11p2m2pkmk}.𝑊\𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘1\subscript𝑋1delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘1\subscript𝑋superscript2𝑘2delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘\begin{split}W=&X\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}\cdots p_{k% }^{m_{k}-1}\rangle\}\bigcup X_{1}\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}% -1}\cdots p_{k}^{m_{k}-1}\rangle\}\bigcup\cdots\\ &\bigcup X_{2^{k}-2}\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\cdots p_{% k}^{m_{k}}\rangle\}.\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_W = end_CELL start_CELL italic_X \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ } ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ } ⋃ ⋯ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ } . end_CELL end_ROW

Since p1m11p2m21pkmk1delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘1\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}\cdots p_{k}^{m_{k}-1}\rangle⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ is the only essential ideal of the set V\W\𝑉𝑊V\backslash Witalic_V \ italic_W, we see that

r(p1m11p2m21pkmk1|W)=(1,1,,1)r(v|W)for anyvV\W.𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘1𝑊111𝑟conditional𝑣𝑊for any𝑣\𝑉𝑊r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}\cdots p_{k}^{m_{k}-1}\rangle|W)=(1,1,% \cdots,1)\neq r(v|W)\ \text{for any}\ v\in V\backslash W.italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W ) = ( 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 ) ≠ italic_r ( italic_v | italic_W ) for any italic_v ∈ italic_V \ italic_W .

Now, take any two vertices I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG of V\W\𝑉𝑊V\backslash Witalic_V \ italic_W with respective index sets ΞI^subscriptΞ^𝐼\Xi_{\hat{I}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and ΞJ^subscriptΞ^𝐽\Xi_{\hat{J}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. we claim that r(I^|W)r(J^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊𝑟conditional^𝐽𝑊r(\hat{I}|W)\neq r(\hat{J}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ) ≠ italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG | italic_W ). For I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG, either ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕ\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phiroman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ or ΞI^ΞJ^ϕsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕ\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}\neq\phiroman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ italic_ϕ. If ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕ\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phiroman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ, then there exist at least two distinct primes pisubscript𝑝𝑖p_{i}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and pjsubscript𝑝𝑗p_{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that pimiI^butJ^superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖^𝐼but^𝐽p_{i}^{m_{i}}\in\hat{I}\ \text{but}\notin\hat{J}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG but ∉ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG and pjmjJ^butI^superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑗subscript𝑚𝑗^𝐽but^𝐼p_{j}^{m_{j}}\in\hat{J}\ \text{but}\ \notin\hat{I}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG but ∉ over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG. Now, d(I^,v)=2𝑑^𝐼𝑣2d(\hat{I},v)=2italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG , italic_v ) = 2 and d(J^,v)=1𝑑^𝐽𝑣1d(\hat{J},v)=1italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG , italic_v ) = 1 for any vXpimi𝑣subscript𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖v\in X_{\langle p_{i}^{m_{i}}\rangle}italic_v ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Consequently, r(I^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊r(\hat{I}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ) will have 2222 in all the co-ordinates corresponding to the elements from the set Xpimisubscript𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖X_{\langle p_{i}^{m_{i}}\rangle}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT whereas r(J^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐽𝑊r(\hat{J}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG | italic_W ) will have 1111 in the respective coordinates. So r(I^|W)r(J^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊𝑟conditional^𝐽𝑊r(\hat{I}|W)\neq r(\hat{J}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ) ≠ italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG | italic_W ). If ΞI^ΞJ^ϕsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕ\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}\neq\phiroman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ italic_ϕ, then it can be either ΞI^subscriptΞ^𝐼\Xi_{\hat{I}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or ΞJ^subscriptΞ^𝐽\Xi_{\hat{J}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or none of these. Let ΞI^ΞJ^=ΞI^subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐼\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\Xi_{\hat{I}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since ΞJ^ΞI^subscriptΞ^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐼\Xi_{\hat{J}}\neq\Xi_{\hat{I}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, there exists at least one prime pjsubscript𝑝𝑗p_{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that pjmjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑗𝑚𝑗p_{j}^{mj}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is in J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG but not in I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG. Hence, r(I^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊r(\hat{I}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ) will have 1111 in all the co-ordinates corresponding to the elements from the set Xpjmjsubscript𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑗subscript𝑚𝑗X_{\langle p_{j}^{m_{j}}\rangle}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and r(J^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐽𝑊r(\hat{J}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG | italic_W ) will have 2222 in all the co-ordinates corresponding to the elements from the set Xpjmjsubscript𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑗subscript𝑚𝑗X_{\langle p_{j}^{m_{j}}\rangle}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Thus, r(I^|W)r(J^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊𝑟conditional^𝐽𝑊r(\hat{I}|W)\neq r(\hat{J}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ) ≠ italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG | italic_W ). Through a similar argument, we see that r(I^|W)r(J^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊𝑟conditional^𝐽𝑊r(\hat{I}|W)\neq r(\hat{J}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ) ≠ italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG | italic_W ) whenever ΞI^ΞJ^=ΞJ^subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐽\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\Xi_{\hat{J}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Now, in the last case, there must exist at least two primes pisubscript𝑝𝑖p_{i}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and pjsubscript𝑝𝑗p_{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that pimisuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖p_{i}^{m_{i}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is in I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG but not in J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG and pjmjsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑗subscript𝑚𝑗p_{j}^{m_{j}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is in J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG but not in I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG leading to r(I^|W)r(J^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊𝑟conditional^𝐽𝑊r(\hat{I}|W)\neq r(\hat{J}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ) ≠ italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG | italic_W ).
Case 2222: If mi>1subscript𝑚𝑖1m_{i}>1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 for exactly one i𝑖iitalic_i
without loss of generality take n=p1m1p2pk𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, m1>1subscript𝑚11m_{1}>1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1. We know that any resolving set contains all but at most one vertex of each of the distance similar partitioned sets and by Equation (1)1(1)( 1 ), |W|T(2k1)𝑊𝑇superscript2𝑘1|W|\geq T-(2^{k}-1)| italic_W | ≥ italic_T - ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ), for any resolving set W𝑊Witalic_W. At first, we show that there is no resolving set of cardinality T(2k1)𝑇superscript2𝑘1T-(2^{k}-1)italic_T - ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ). For this, take W𝑊Witalic_W as an ordered set consisting of m1𝑚1m-1italic_m - 1 vertices of X𝑋Xitalic_X followed by |Xi|1subscript𝑋𝑖1|X_{i}|-1| italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | - 1 vertices of Xisubscript𝑋𝑖X_{i}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for each i𝑖iitalic_i. That is,

W={p1,p12,p1m12,p2,p1p2,,p1m12p2,,pk,p1pk,,p1m12pk,p2p3,p1p2p3,,p1m12p2p3,,p2p3pk,,p1m12p2p3pk}.𝑊delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝1delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝12delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚12delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝2delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚12subscript𝑝2delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝𝑘delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝𝑘delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚12subscript𝑝𝑘delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚12subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3subscript𝑝𝑘delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚12subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3subscript𝑝𝑘\begin{split}W=&\{\langle p_{1}\rangle,\langle p_{1}^{2}\rangle,\langle p_{1}^% {m_{1}-2}\rangle,\langle p_{2}\rangle,\langle p_{1}p_{2}\rangle,\cdots,\langle p% _{1}^{m_{1}-2}p_{2}\rangle,\cdots,\langle p_{k}\rangle,\langle p_{1}p_{k}% \rangle,\cdots,\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-2}p_{k}\rangle,\\ &\langle p_{2}p_{3}\rangle,\langle p_{1}p_{2}p_{3}\rangle,\cdots,\langle p_{1}% ^{m_{1}-2}p_{2}p_{3}\rangle,\cdots,\langle p_{2}p_{3}\cdots p_{k}\rangle,% \cdots,\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-2}p_{2}p_{3}\cdots p_{k}\rangle\}.\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_W = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⋯ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⋯ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⋯ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⋯ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⋯ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⋯ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } . end_CELL end_ROW

Consider the vertices I^=p1m11^𝐼delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11\hat{I}=\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}\rangleover^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG = ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ and J^=p1m1^𝐽delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1\hat{J}=\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}\rangleover^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG = ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ of V\W\𝑉𝑊V\backslash Witalic_V \ italic_W. Since I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG is essential, r(I^|W)=(1,1,,1)𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊111r(\hat{I}|W)=(1,1,\cdots,1)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ) = ( 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 ). For J^,ΞJ^={1}^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐽1\hat{J},\ \Xi_{\hat{J}}=\{1\}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG , roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 1 } and for any vertex wW𝑤𝑊w\in Witalic_w ∈ italic_W, 1Ξw1subscriptΞ𝑤1\notin\Xi_{w}1 ∉ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Consequently, d(J^,w)=1𝑑^𝐽𝑤1d(\hat{J},w)=1italic_d ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG , italic_w ) = 1 and r(J^|W)=(1,1,,1)=r(I^|W)𝑟conditional^𝐽𝑊111𝑟conditional^𝐼𝑊r(\hat{J}|W)=(1,1,\cdots,1)=r(\hat{I}|W)italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG | italic_W ) = ( 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 ) = italic_r ( over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG | italic_W ). Thus, there is no resolving set of cardinality T(2k1)𝑇superscript2𝑘1T-(2^{k}-1)italic_T - ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ). Now, take Wsuperscript𝑊W^{\prime}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as an ordered set obtained by adjoining one more vertex (say p1m1delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}\rangle⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩) to W𝑊Witalic_W. Let I^^𝐼\hat{I}over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG and J^^𝐽\hat{J}over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG be two distinct vertices of V\W\𝑉𝑊V\backslash Witalic_V \ italic_W with index sets ΞI^subscriptΞ^𝐼\Xi_{\hat{I}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and ΞJ^subscriptΞ^𝐽\Xi_{\hat{J}}roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT respectively. Then there may occur two cases- either ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕ\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phiroman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ or ΞI^ΞJ^ϕsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕ\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}\neq\phiroman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ italic_ϕ. Proceeding in the same manner as in the proof of case 1111, we see that Wsuperscript𝑊W^{\prime}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a resolving set of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of minimum cardinality. ∎

Corollary 3.11.

Let n=p1m1p2m2𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2n=p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where p1<p2subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2p_{1}<p_{2}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be primes. Then

dim(n)={2m2,ifm1=m2,m2=1or vice versa,m1m2+m1+m24,ifm1,m2>1..𝑑𝑖𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑛cases2𝑚2formulae-sequenceifsubscript𝑚1𝑚2subscript𝑚21or vice versasubscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚24ifsubscript𝑚1subscript𝑚21dim(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=\begin{cases}2m-2,&\textit{if}\ m_{1}=m\geq 2% ,m_{2}=1\textit{or vice versa},\\ m_{1}m_{2}+m_{1}+m_{2}-4,&\textit{if}\ m_{1},m_{2}>1.\end{cases}.italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = { start_ROW start_CELL 2 italic_m - 2 , end_CELL start_CELL if italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_m ≥ 2 , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 or vice versa , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 4 , end_CELL start_CELL if italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 . end_CELL end_ROW .
Example 3.12.
  • Consider the graph nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for n=p1m1p2m2p3𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2subscript𝑝3n=p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}p_{3}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, m1,m2>1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚21m_{1},m_{2}>1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1. Then the distance similar partition of vertices is given by,

    X={p1r1p2r2:0imi1fori=1,2}\n,|X|=m1m21X1={p1m1p2r2:0r2m21},|X1|=m2,X2={p1r1p2m2:0r1m11},|X2|=m1,X3={p1r1p2r2p3:0rimi1fori=1,2},|X3|=m1m2,X4={p1m1p2m2},X5={p1m1p2r2p3:0r2m21},|X5|=m2,X6={p1r1p2m2p3:0r1m11},|X6|=m1.formulae-sequenceformulae-sequence𝑋\conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑟2formulae-sequence0𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖1for𝑖12subscript𝑛𝑋subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚21subscript𝑋1conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑟20subscript𝑟2subscript𝑚21formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋1subscript𝑚2formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋2conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚20subscript𝑟1subscript𝑚11formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋2subscript𝑚1formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋3conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑟2subscript𝑝3formulae-sequence0subscript𝑟𝑖subscript𝑚𝑖1for𝑖12formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋3subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋4delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋5conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑟2subscript𝑝30subscript𝑟2subscript𝑚21formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋5subscript𝑚2formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋6conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2subscript𝑝30subscript𝑟1subscript𝑚11subscript𝑋6subscript𝑚1\begin{split}X=&\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{r_{2}}\rangle:0\leq i\leq m_{i}-% 1\ \text{for}\ i=1,2\}\backslash\mathbb{Z}_{n},|X|=m_{1}m_{2}-1\\ X_{1}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{r_{2}}\rangle:0\leq r_{2}\leq m_{2}-1\},|% X_{1}|=m_{2},\\ X_{2}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\rangle:0\leq r_{1}\leq m_{1}-1\},|% X_{2}|=m_{1},\\ X_{3}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{r_{2}}p_{3}\rangle:0\leq r_{i}\leq m_{i}-% 1\ \text{for}\ i=1,2\},|X_{3}|=m_{1}m_{2},\\ X_{4}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\rangle\},\\ X_{5}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{r_{2}}p_{3}\rangle:0\leq r_{2}\leq m_{2}-% 1\},|X_{5}|=m_{2},\\ X_{6}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}p_{3}\rangle:0\leq r_{1}\leq m_{1}-% 1\},|X_{6}|=m_{1}.\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_X = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 for italic_i = 1 , 2 } \ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , | italic_X | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 } , | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 } , | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 for italic_i = 1 , 2 } , | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ } , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 } , | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 } , | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW

    Since any resolving set W𝑊Witalic_W contains all but at most one vertex of each of the distance similar vertex partitioned sets, take W𝑊Witalic_W as follows:

    W=X\{p1m11p2m21}X1\{p1m1p2m21}X2\{p1m11p2m2}X3\{p1m11p2m21p3}X5\{p1m1p2m21p3}X6\{p1m11p2m2p3},|W|=2(m1m2+m1+m2)7=T7formulae-sequence𝑊\𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21\subscript𝑋1delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21\subscript𝑋2delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2\subscript𝑋3delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21subscript𝑝3\subscript𝑋5delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21subscript𝑝3\subscript𝑋6delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2subscript𝑝3𝑊2subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚27𝑇7\begin{split}W=&X\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}\rangle\}% \bigcup X_{1}\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}\rangle\}\bigcup X% _{2}\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\rangle\}\bigcup X_{3}% \backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}p_{3}\rangle\}\\ &\bigcup X_{5}\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}p_{3}\rangle\}% \bigcup X_{6}\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}}p_{3}\rangle\},|W% |=2(m_{1}m_{2}+m_{1}+m_{2})-7=T-7\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_W = end_CELL start_CELL italic_X \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ } ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ } ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ } ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } , | italic_W | = 2 ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 7 = italic_T - 7 end_CELL end_ROW

    To prove W𝑊Witalic_W is a minimum resolving set, it is enough to show that each vertex of V\W\𝑉𝑊V\backslash Witalic_V \ italic_W has a unique metric representation. The representations of the seven vertices of V\W\𝑉𝑊V\backslash Witalic_V \ italic_W are given as follows:

    r(p1m11p2m21|W)=(1,1,,1T7times),r(p1m1p2m21|W)=(1,1,,1m1m22,2,2,,2m21,1,1,,1m11,1,1,,1m1m21,2,2,,2m21,1,1,,1m11),r(p1m11p2m2|W)=(1,1,,1m1m22,1,1,,1m21,2,2,,2m11,1,1,,1m1m21,1,1,,1m21,2,2,,2m11),r(p1m11p2m21p3|W)=(1,1,,1m1m22,1,1,,1m21,1,1,,1m11,2,2,,2m1m21,2,2,,2m21,2,2,,2m11),formulae-sequence𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21𝑊subscript111𝑇7timesformulae-sequence𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚22subscript222subscript𝑚21subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript111subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚21subscript111subscript𝑚11formulae-sequence𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚22subscript111subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚11subscript111subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚21subscript111subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚11𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21subscript𝑝3𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚22subscript111subscript𝑚21subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript222subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚11\begin{split}r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}\rangle|W)=&(\underbrace{% 1,1,\cdots,1}_{T-7\text{times}}),\\ r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}\rangle|W)=&(\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{% m_{1}m_{2}-2},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{2}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m% _{1}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_% {2}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}-1}),\\ r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\rangle|W)=&(\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{% m_{1}m_{2}-2},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m% _{1}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}m_{2}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_% {2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1}),\\ r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}p_{3}\rangle|W)=&(\underbrace{1,1,% \cdots,1}_{m_{1}m_{2}-2},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{2}-1},\underbrace{1,1,% \cdots,1}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,% \cdots,2}_{m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1}),\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T - 7 times end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW
    r(p1m1p2m2|W)=(1,1,,1m1m22,2,2,,2m21,2,2,,2m11,1,1,,1m1m21,2,2,,2m21,2,2,,2m11),r(p1m1p2m21p3|W)=(1,1,,1m1m22,2,2,,2m21,1,1,,1m11,2,2,,1m1m21,2,2,,2m21,2,2,,2m11),r(p1m11p2m2p3|W)=(1,1,,1m1m22,1,1,,1m21,2,2,,2m11,2,2,,1m1m21,2,2,,2m21,2,2,,2m11).formulae-sequence𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚22subscript222subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚11subscript111subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚11formulae-sequence𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚21subscript𝑝3𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚22subscript222subscript𝑚21subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript221subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚11𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2subscript𝑝3𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚22subscript111subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚11subscript221subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚21subscript222subscript𝑚11\begin{split}r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\rangle|W)=&(\underbrace{1,1,% \cdots,1}_{m_{1}m_{2}-2},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,% \cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,% \cdots,2}_{m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1}),\\ r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}-1}p_{3}\rangle|W)=&(\underbrace{1,1,\cdots% ,1}_{m_{1}m_{2}-2},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{2}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,% 1}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2% }_{m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1}),\\ r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}^{m_{2}}p_{3}\rangle|W)=&(\underbrace{1,1,\cdots% ,1}_{m_{1}m_{2}-2},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,% 2}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2% }_{m_{2}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1}).\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . end_CELL end_ROW

    It can be seen that any two distinct vertices of V(n)\W\𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑊V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})\backslash Witalic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) \ italic_W have different metric representations with respect to W𝑊Witalic_W. Thus W𝑊Witalic_W is a resolving set having T7=2(m1m2+m1+m2)7𝑇72subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚27T-7=2(m_{1}m_{2}+m_{1}+m_{2})-7italic_T - 7 = 2 ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 7 vertices. Also, any resolving set must contain more than T7𝑇7T-7italic_T - 7 elements, we conclude that dim(n)=T7𝑑𝑖𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑇7dim(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=T-7italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_T - 7.

  • Let n=p1m1p2p3𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3n=p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}p_{3}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, m1>1subscript𝑚11m_{1}>1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1. Then the distance similar partition of vertices of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is given by:

    X={p1r1:1r1m11},|X|=m11,X1={p1m1},X2={p1r1p2:0r1m11},|X2|=m1,X3={p1r1p3:0r1m11},|X3|=m1,X4={p1m1p2},X5={p1m1p3},X6={p1r1p2p3:0r1m11},|X6|=m1.formulae-sequence𝑋conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟11subscript𝑟1subscript𝑚11formulae-sequence𝑋subscript𝑚11formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋1delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋2conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1subscript𝑝20subscript𝑟1subscript𝑚11formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋2subscript𝑚1formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋3conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1subscript𝑝30subscript𝑟1subscript𝑚11formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋3subscript𝑚1formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋4delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑝2formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋5delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑝3formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋6conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝30subscript𝑟1subscript𝑚11subscript𝑋6subscript𝑚1\begin{split}X=&\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}\rangle:1\leq r_{1}\leq m_{1}-1\},|X|=m% _{1}-1,\\ X_{1}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}\rangle\},\\ X_{2}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}\rangle:0\leq r_{1}\leq m_{1}-1\},|X_{2}|=m% _{1},\\ X_{3}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{3}\rangle:0\leq r_{1}\leq m_{1}-1\},|X_{3}|=m% _{1},\\ X_{4}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}\rangle\},\ X_{5}=\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_% {3}\rangle\},\\ X_{6}=&\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}p_{3}\rangle:0\leq r_{1}\leq m_{1}-1\},|X_{% 6}|=m_{1}.\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_X = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 1 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 } , | italic_X | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ } , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 } , | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 } , | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 } , | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW

    Now, take W𝑊Witalic_Was an ordered set consisting of first m12subscript𝑚12m_{1}-2italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 vertices of X𝑋Xitalic_X, first m11subscript𝑚11m_{1}-1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 vertices of X2subscript𝑋2X_{2}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and so on. Then, for the vertices p1m11delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}\rangle⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ and p1m1delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}\rangle⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ of V(n)\W\𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑊V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})\backslash Witalic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) \ italic_W,

    r(p1m11|W)=(1,1,,1m12,1,1,,1m11,1,1,,1m11,1,1,,1m11)=r(p1m1|W)𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚12subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript111subscript𝑚11𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1𝑊r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}\rangle|W)=(\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}-2},% \underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}-1},% \underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}-1})=r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}\rangle|W)italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W ) = ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W )

    Hence, W𝑊Witalic_W cannot be a resolving set of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Without loss of generality, take W=W{p1m1}superscript𝑊𝑊delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1W^{\prime}=W\cup\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}\rangle\}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_W ∪ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ }. That is,

    W=X\{p1m11}X1X2\{p1m11p2}X3\{p1m11p3}X6\{p1m11p2p3}.superscript𝑊\𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11subscript𝑋1\subscript𝑋2delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11subscript𝑝2\subscript𝑋3delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11subscript𝑝3\subscript𝑋6delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3W^{\prime}=X\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}\rangle\}\bigcup X_{1}\bigcup X% _{2}\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}\rangle\}\bigcup X_{3}\backslash\{% \langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{3}\rangle\}\bigcup X_{6}\backslash\{\langle p_{1}^{m% _{1}-1}p_{2}p_{3}\rangle\}.italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_X \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ } ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } ⋃ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } .

    The representations of vertices of V(n)\W\𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛superscript𝑊V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})\backslash W^{\prime}italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) \ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are given by,

    r(p1m11|W)=(1,1,,1m12,1,1,1,,1m11,1,1,,1m11,1,1,,1m11),r(p1m11p2|W)=(1,1,,1m12,1,2,2,,2m11,1,1,,1m11,2,2,,2m11),r(p1m11p3|W)=(1,1,,1m12,1,1,1,,1m11,2,2,,2m11,2,2,,2m11),r(p1m1p2|W)=(1,1,,1m12,2,2,2,,2m11,1,1,,1m11,2,2,,2m11),r(p1m1p3|W)=(1,1,,1m12,2,1,1,,1m11,2,2,,2m11,2,2,,2m11),r(p1m11p2p3|W)=(1,1,,1m12,1,2,2,,2m11,2,2,,2m11,2,2,,2m11).formulae-sequence𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11superscript𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚121subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript111subscript𝑚11formulae-sequence𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11subscript𝑝2superscript𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚121subscript222subscript𝑚11subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript222subscript𝑚11formulae-sequence𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11subscript𝑝3superscript𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚121subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript222subscript𝑚11subscript222subscript𝑚11formulae-sequence𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑝2superscript𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚122subscript222subscript𝑚11subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript222subscript𝑚11formulae-sequence𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑝3superscript𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚122subscript111subscript𝑚11subscript222subscript𝑚11subscript222subscript𝑚11𝑟conditionaldelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚11subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3superscript𝑊subscript111subscript𝑚121subscript222subscript𝑚11subscript222subscript𝑚11subscript222subscript𝑚11\begin{split}r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}\rangle|W^{\prime})=&(\underbrace{1,1,% \cdots,1}_{m_{1}-2},1,\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{1,1,% \cdots,1}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}-1}),\\ r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}\rangle|W^{\prime})=&(\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_% {m_{1}-2},1,\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{% 1}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1}),\\ r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{3}\rangle|W^{\prime})=&(\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_% {m_{1}-2},1,\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{% 1}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1}),\\ r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}\rangle|W^{\prime})=&(\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m% _{1}-2},2,\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}% -1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1}),\\ r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{3}\rangle|W^{\prime})=&(\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m% _{1}-2},2,\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}% -1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1}),\\ r(\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}-1}p_{2}p_{3}\rangle|W^{\prime})=&(\underbrace{1,1,% \cdots,1}_{m_{1}-2},1,\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{2,2,% \cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1},\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{m_{1}-1}).\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 2 , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 2 , under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_r ( ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ | italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( under⏟ start_ARG 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , under⏟ start_ARG 2 , 2 , ⋯ , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . end_CELL end_ROW

This unique representation of vertices of V(n)\W\𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛superscript𝑊V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})\backslash W^{\prime}italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) \ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ensures that Wsuperscript𝑊W^{\prime}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a minimum resolving set of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Hence, the metric dimension of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is 4(m11)=T64subscript𝑚11𝑇64(m_{1}-1)=T-64 ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) = italic_T - 6.

4 Zagreb Indices of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

In this section, we calculate the 1111st and 2222nd Zagreb indices of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proposition 4.1.

Let n=pm𝑛superscript𝑝𝑚n=p^{m}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, m>2𝑚2m>2italic_m > 2. Then

  1. 1.

    The first Zagreb index of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is, M1(n)=(m1)(T1)2subscript𝑀1subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑚1superscript𝑇12M_{1}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=(m-1)(T-1)^{2}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ( italic_m - 1 ) ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

  2. 2.

    The second Zagreb index of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is, M2(n)=(m12)(T1)2subscript𝑀2subscriptsubscript𝑛binomial𝑚12superscript𝑇12M_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=\binom{m-1}{2}(T-1)^{2}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_m - 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Lemma 4.2.

[jamsheena2023adjacency] Let n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where p1,p2,,pksubscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘p_{1},p_{2},\cdots,p_{k}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are distinct primes. Then any two vertices xdelimited-⟨⟩𝑥\langle x\rangle⟨ italic_x ⟩ and ydelimited-⟨⟩𝑦\langle y\rangle⟨ italic_y ⟩ of the essential ideal graph of nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are adjacent if and only if gcd(x,y)=1𝑔𝑐𝑑𝑥𝑦1gcd(x,y)=1italic_g italic_c italic_d ( italic_x , italic_y ) = 1, provided x𝑥xitalic_x is the product of i𝑖iitalic_i distinct primes and y𝑦yitalic_y is the product of j𝑗jitalic_j distinct primes for 1i,jk1formulae-sequence1𝑖𝑗𝑘11\leq i,j\leq k-11 ≤ italic_i , italic_j ≤ italic_k - 1.

Theorem 4.3.

Let n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then, the fist and second Zagreb indices of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are,

  1. 1.

    M1(n)=i=1k1(ki)(2ki1)2.subscript𝑀1subscriptsubscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘1binomial𝑘𝑖superscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑖12M_{1}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\binom{k}{i}(% 2^{k-i}-1)^{2}.italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_i end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

  2. 2.

    M2(n)=t=1k2(kt)(2kt1)[12(ktt)(2kt1)+s=tkt(kts)(2ks1)].subscript𝑀2subscriptsubscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑡1𝑘2binomial𝑘𝑡superscript2𝑘𝑡1delimited-[]12binomial𝑘𝑡𝑡superscript2𝑘𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑡binomial𝑘𝑡𝑠superscript2𝑘𝑠1M_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{\lfloor\frac{k}{2% }\rfloor}\binom{k}{t}(2^{k-t}-1)[\frac{1}{2}\binom{k-t}{t}(2^{k-t}-1)+% \displaystyle\sum_{s=t}^{k-t}\binom{k-t}{s}(2^{k-s}-1)].italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s = italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_s end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) ] .

Proof.

For n=p1p2pk𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the vertex set of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be partitioned as follows:

V1={pi:1ik}V2={pipj:1ik1andi+1jk}V3={pipjpl:1ik2,i+1jk1andj+1lk}Vk1={p1p2p3pk1,p1p2p3pk2pk,,p2p3pk1pk}subscript𝑉1conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝𝑖1𝑖𝑘subscript𝑉2conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝𝑖subscript𝑝𝑗1𝑖𝑘1and𝑖1𝑗𝑘subscript𝑉3conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝𝑖subscript𝑝𝑗subscript𝑝𝑙formulae-sequence1𝑖𝑘2𝑖1𝑗𝑘1and𝑗1𝑙𝑘subscript𝑉𝑘1delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3subscript𝑝𝑘1delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3subscript𝑝𝑘2subscript𝑝𝑘delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3subscript𝑝𝑘1subscript𝑝𝑘\begin{split}&V_{1}=\{\langle p_{i}\rangle:1\leq i\leq k\}\\ &V_{2}=\{\langle p_{i}p_{j}\rangle:1\leq i\leq k-1\textit{and}\ i+1\leq j\leq k% \}\\ &V_{3}=\{\langle p_{i}p_{j}p_{l}\rangle:1\leq i\leq k-2,\ i+1\leq j\leq k-1% \textit{and}\ j+1\leq l\leq k\}\\ &\vdots\\ &V_{k-1}=\{\langle p_{1}p_{2}p_{3}\cdots p_{k-1}\rangle,\langle p_{1}p_{2}p_{3% }\cdots p_{k-2}p_{k}\rangle,\cdots,\langle p_{2}p_{3}\cdots p_{k-1}p_{k}% \rangle\}\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ : 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_k } end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ : 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_k - 1 and italic_i + 1 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_k } end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ : 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_k - 2 , italic_i + 1 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_k - 1 and italic_j + 1 ≤ italic_l ≤ italic_k } end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , ⋯ , ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ } end_CELL end_ROW

Clearly |V1|=(k1),|V2|=(k2),,and|Vk1|=(kk1)formulae-sequencesubscript𝑉1binomial𝑘1formulae-sequencesubscript𝑉2binomial𝑘2andsubscript𝑉𝑘1binomial𝑘𝑘1|V_{1}|=\binom{k}{1},\ |V_{2}|=\binom{k}{2},\cdots,\ \text{and}\ |V_{k-1}|=% \binom{k}{k-1}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG ) , | italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) , ⋯ , and | italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_k - 1 end_ARG ). Also, by Lemma 4.2, two vertices xdelimited-⟨⟩𝑥\langle x\rangle⟨ italic_x ⟩ and ydelimited-⟨⟩𝑦\langle y\rangle⟨ italic_y ⟩ of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are adjacent if and only if the generators x𝑥xitalic_x and y𝑦yitalic_y have no prime factors in common.

For a vertexvV(n),deg(v)={2k11,ifvV1,2k21,ifvV2,3,ifvVk2,1,ifvVk1.formulae-sequenceFor a vertex𝑣𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣casessuperscript2𝑘11if𝑣subscript𝑉1superscript2𝑘21if𝑣subscript𝑉23if𝑣subscript𝑉𝑘21if𝑣subscript𝑉𝑘1\text{For a vertex}\ v\in V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}),\ deg(v)=\begin{% cases}2^{k-1}-1,&\textit{if}\ v\in V_{1},\\ 2^{k-2}-1,&\textit{if}\ v\in V_{2},\\ \vdots&\vdots\\ 3,&\textit{if}\ v\in V_{k-2},\\ 1,&\textit{if}\ v\in V_{k-1}.\\ \end{cases}For a vertex italic_v ∈ italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) = { start_ROW start_CELL 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 , end_CELL start_CELL if italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 , end_CELL start_CELL if italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 3 , end_CELL start_CELL if italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 , end_CELL start_CELL if italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW

Also, for a fixed i𝑖iitalic_i,

vVideg(v)2=(ki)(2ki1)2.subscript𝑣subscript𝑉𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑔superscript𝑣2binomial𝑘𝑖superscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑖12\sum_{v\in V_{i}}deg(v)^{2}=\binom{k}{i}(2^{k-i}-1)^{2}.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_i end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Hence,

  1. 1.
    M1(n)=vV1deg(v)2+vV2deg(v)2++vVk1deg(v)2=i=1k1vVideg(v)2=i=1k1(ki)(2ki1)2.subscript𝑀1subscriptsubscript𝑛subscript𝑣subscript𝑉1𝑑𝑒𝑔superscript𝑣2subscript𝑣subscript𝑉2𝑑𝑒𝑔superscript𝑣2subscript𝑣subscript𝑉𝑘1𝑑𝑒𝑔superscript𝑣2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘1subscript𝑣subscript𝑉𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑔superscript𝑣2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘1binomial𝑘𝑖superscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑖12\begin{split}M_{1}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\sum_{v\in V_{1}}deg(v)^{2}+% \sum_{v\in V_{2}}deg(v)^{2}+\cdots+\sum_{v\in V_{k-1}}deg(v)^{2}\\ =&\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\sum_{v\in V_{i}}deg(v)^{2}\\ =&\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\binom{k}{i}(2^{k-i}-1)^{2}.\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯ + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_i end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW
  2. 2.

    For a fixed t𝑡titalic_t, 1tk21𝑡𝑘21\leq t\leq\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\rfloor1 ≤ italic_t ≤ ⌊ divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ⌋, Lemma 4.2 assures that any vertex uVt𝑢subscript𝑉𝑡u\in V_{t}italic_u ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are adjacent only to (kts)binomial𝑘𝑡𝑠\binom{k-t}{s}( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_s end_ARG ) vertices of Vssubscript𝑉𝑠V_{s}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for tskt𝑡𝑠𝑘𝑡t\leq s\leq k-titalic_t ≤ italic_s ≤ italic_k - italic_t. Then, for u,vVt, 1tk2formulae-sequence𝑢𝑣subscript𝑉𝑡1𝑡𝑘2u,v\in V_{t},\ 1\leq t\leq\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\rflooritalic_u , italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 ≤ italic_t ≤ ⌊ divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ⌋,

    uvdeg(u)deg(v)=12(kt)(ktt)(2kt1)2.subscriptsimilar-to𝑢𝑣𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣12binomial𝑘𝑡binomial𝑘𝑡𝑡superscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑡12\displaystyle\sum_{u\sim v}deg(u)deg(v)=\frac{1}{2}\binom{k}{t}\binom{k-t}{t}(% 2^{k-t}-1)^{2}.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u ∼ italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (2)

    Now, consider uVt𝑢subscript𝑉𝑡u\in V_{t}italic_u ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for a fixed t𝑡titalic_t such that 1tk21𝑡𝑘21\leq t\leq\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\rfloor1 ≤ italic_t ≤ ⌊ divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ⌋. Then we have,

    uvvVsdeg(u)deg(v)=uvvVtdeg(u)deg(v)+uvvVt+1deg(u)deg(v)++uvvVktdeg(u)deg(v)=12(kt)(ktt)(2kt1)2+(kt)(ktt+1)(2kt1)(2k(t+1)1)++(kt)(ktkt)(2kt1)(2t1)=12(kt)(ktt)(2kt1)2+(kt)(2kt1)s=t+1kt(2ks1).subscriptFRACOPsimilar-to𝑢𝑣𝑣subscript𝑉𝑠𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣subscriptFRACOPsimilar-to𝑢𝑣𝑣subscript𝑉𝑡𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣subscriptFRACOPsimilar-to𝑢𝑣𝑣subscript𝑉𝑡1𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣subscriptFRACOPsimilar-to𝑢𝑣𝑣subscript𝑉𝑘𝑡𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣12binomial𝑘𝑡binomial𝑘𝑡𝑡superscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑡12binomial𝑘𝑡binomial𝑘𝑡𝑡1superscript2𝑘𝑡1superscript2𝑘𝑡11binomial𝑘𝑡binomial𝑘𝑡𝑘𝑡superscript2𝑘𝑡1superscript2𝑡112binomial𝑘𝑡binomial𝑘𝑡𝑡superscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑡12binomial𝑘𝑡superscript2𝑘𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡1𝑘𝑡superscript2𝑘𝑠1\begin{split}\displaystyle\sum_{u\sim v\atop v\in V_{s}}deg(u)deg(v)=&% \displaystyle\sum_{u\sim v\atop v\in V_{t}}deg(u)deg(v)+\displaystyle\sum_{u% \sim v\atop v\in V_{t+1}}deg(u)deg(v)+\cdots+\displaystyle\sum_{u\sim v\atop v% \in V_{k-t}}deg(u)deg(v)\\ =&\frac{1}{2}\binom{k}{t}\binom{k-t}{t}(2^{k-t}-1)^{2}+\binom{k}{t}\binom{k-t}% {t+1}(2^{k-t}-1)(2^{k-(t+1)}-1)+\cdots\\ +&\binom{k}{t}\binom{k-t}{k-t}(2^{k-t}-1)(2^{t}-1)\\ =&\frac{1}{2}\binom{k}{t}\binom{k-t}{t}(2^{k-t}-1)^{2}+\binom{k}{t}(2^{k-t}-1)% \displaystyle\sum_{s=t+1}^{k-t}(2^{k-s}-1).\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∼ italic_v end_ARG start_ARG italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∼ italic_v end_ARG start_ARG italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∼ italic_v end_ARG start_ARG italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) + ⋯ + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∼ italic_v end_ARG start_ARG italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_t + 1 end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - ( italic_t + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) + ⋯ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + end_CELL start_CELL ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s = italic_t + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) . end_CELL end_ROW (3)

    Now, by Equation (3),

    M2(n)=uvu,vV(n)deg(u)deg(v)=uvuV1,vVsdeg(u)deg(v)+uvuV2,vVsdeg(u)deg(v)++uvuVk2,vVsdeg(u)deg(v)=12t=1k2(kt)(ktt)(2kt1)2+t=1k2(kt)(2kt1)s=tkt(kts)(2ks1)=t=1k2(kt)(2kt1)[12(ktt)(2kt1)+s=tkt(kts)(2ks1)].subscript𝑀2subscriptsubscript𝑛subscriptFRACOPsimilar-to𝑢𝑣𝑢𝑣𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣subscriptFRACOPsimilar-to𝑢𝑣formulae-sequence𝑢subscript𝑉1𝑣subscript𝑉𝑠𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣subscriptFRACOPsimilar-to𝑢𝑣formulae-sequence𝑢subscript𝑉2𝑣subscript𝑉𝑠𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣subscriptFRACOPsimilar-to𝑢𝑣formulae-sequence𝑢subscript𝑉𝑘2𝑣subscript𝑉𝑠𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣12superscriptsubscript𝑡1𝑘2binomial𝑘𝑡binomial𝑘𝑡𝑡superscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑡12superscriptsubscript𝑡1𝑘2binomial𝑘𝑡superscript2𝑘𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑡binomial𝑘𝑡𝑠superscript2𝑘𝑠1superscriptsubscript𝑡1𝑘2binomial𝑘𝑡superscript2𝑘𝑡1delimited-[]12binomial𝑘𝑡𝑡superscript2𝑘𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑡binomial𝑘𝑡𝑠superscript2𝑘𝑠1\begin{split}M_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\displaystyle\sum_{u\sim v% \atop u,v\in V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})}deg(u)deg(v)\\ =&\displaystyle\sum_{u\sim v\atop u\in V_{1},\ v\in V_{s}}deg(u)deg(v)+% \displaystyle\sum_{u\sim v\atop u\in V_{2},\ v\in V_{s}}deg(u)deg(v)+\cdots+% \displaystyle\sum_{u\sim v\atop u\in V_{\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\rfloor},\ v\in V_{s% }}deg(u)deg(v)\\ =&\frac{1}{2}\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\rfloor}\binom{k}{t}% \binom{k-t}{t}(2^{k-t}-1)^{2}+\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{\lfloor\frac{k}{2}% \rfloor}\binom{k}{t}(2^{k-t}-1)\displaystyle\sum_{s=t}^{k-t}\binom{k-t}{s}(2^{% k-s}-1)\\ =&\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\rfloor}\binom{k}{t}(2^{k-t}-1)[% \frac{1}{2}\binom{k-t}{t}(2^{k-t}-1)+\displaystyle\sum_{s=t}^{k-t}\binom{k-t}{% s}(2^{k-s}-1)].\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∼ italic_v end_ARG start_ARG italic_u , italic_v ∈ italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∼ italic_v end_ARG start_ARG italic_u ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∼ italic_v end_ARG start_ARG italic_u ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) + ⋯ + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∼ italic_v end_ARG start_ARG italic_u ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌊ divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ⌋ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s = italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_s end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s = italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_k - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_s end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) ] . end_CELL end_ROW

Example 4.4.
  • Let n=p1p2p3𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3n=p_{1}p_{2}p_{3}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then by Theorem 4.3, the first and second Zagreb indices are given by,

    M1(n)=i=12(3i)(23i1)2=(31)32+(32)=30,subscript𝑀1subscriptsubscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑖12binomial3𝑖superscriptsuperscript23𝑖12binomial31superscript32binomial3230\begin{split}M_{1}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{2}% \binom{3}{i}(2^{3-i}-1)^{2}\\ =&\binom{3}{1}3^{2}+\binom{3}{2}=30,\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG italic_i end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 - italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG ) 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) = 30 , end_CELL end_ROW

    and

    M2(n)=t=132(3t)(23t1)s=t3t(3ts)(23s1)=(31)3[3(21)+1]=63.subscript𝑀2subscriptsubscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑡132binomial3𝑡superscript23𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡3𝑡binomial3𝑡𝑠superscript23𝑠1binomial313delimited-[]3binomial21163\begin{split}M_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{% \lfloor\frac{3}{2}\rfloor}\binom{3}{t}(2^{3-t}-1)\displaystyle\sum_{s=t}^{3-t}% \binom{3-t}{s}(2^{3-s}-1)\\ =&\binom{3}{1}3[3\binom{2}{1}+1]=63.\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ divide start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s = italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_s end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG ) 3 [ 3 ( FRACOP start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG ) + 1 ] = 63 . end_CELL end_ROW
  • Let n=p1p2p3p4𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝3subscript𝑝4n=p_{1}p_{2}p_{3}p_{4}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then

    M1(n)=i=13(4i)(24i1)2=(41)72+(42)32+(43)=254,subscript𝑀1subscriptsubscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑖13binomial4𝑖superscriptsuperscript24𝑖12binomial41superscript72binomial42superscript32binomial43254\begin{split}M_{1}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{3}% \binom{4}{i}(2^{4-i}-1)^{2}\\ =&\binom{4}{1}7^{2}+\binom{4}{2}3^{2}+\binom{4}{3}=254,\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG 4 end_ARG start_ARG italic_i end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 - italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ( FRACOP start_ARG 4 end_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG ) 7 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( FRACOP start_ARG 4 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( FRACOP start_ARG 4 end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG ) = 254 , end_CELL end_ROW

    and

    M2(n)=t=12(4t)(24t1)s=t4t(4ts)(24s1)=(41)7[(31)7+3(32)+1]+(42)9=922.subscript𝑀2subscriptsubscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑡12binomial4𝑡superscript24𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡4𝑡binomial4𝑡𝑠superscript24𝑠1binomial417delimited-[]binomial3173binomial321binomial429922\begin{split}M_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{2}% \binom{4}{t}(2^{4-t}-1)\displaystyle\sum_{s=t}^{4-t}\binom{4-t}{s}(2^{4-s}-1)% \\ =&\binom{4}{1}7[\binom{3}{1}7+3\binom{3}{2}+1]+\binom{4}{2}9=922.\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG 4 end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s = italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG 4 - italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_s end_ARG ) ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ( FRACOP start_ARG 4 end_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG ) 7 [ ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG ) 7 + 3 ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) + 1 ] + ( FRACOP start_ARG 4 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) 9 = 922 . end_CELL end_ROW

This can be easily verified from Figure 1.

Figure 1: nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for n=i=13pi𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖13subscript𝑝𝑖n=\prod_{i=1}^{3}p_{i}italic_n = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and n=i=14pi𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖14subscript𝑝𝑖n=\prod_{i=1}^{4}p_{i}italic_n = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Theorem 4.5.

Let n=p1m1p2m2pkmk𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘n=p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}\cdots p_{k}^{m_{k}}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where p1<p2<<pksubscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{k}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are primes, k2𝑘2k\geq 2italic_k ≥ 2 and mi>1subscript𝑚𝑖1m_{i}>1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 for at least one i𝑖iitalic_i. Then,

  1. 1.

    M1(n)=m(T1)2+I^|XI^|(m+J^:ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ|XJ^|)2subscript𝑀1subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑚superscript𝑇12subscript^𝐼subscript𝑋^𝐼superscript𝑚subscript:^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕsubscript𝑋^𝐽2M_{1}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=m(T-1)^{2}+\displaystyle\sum_{\hat{I}}|X_{% \hat{I}}|(m+\displaystyle\sum_{\hat{J}:\ \Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi}|% X_{\hat{J}}|)^{2}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ( italic_m + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG : roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

  2. 2.
    M2(n)=(m2)(T1)2+m(T1)I^|XI^|(m+J^:ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ|XJ^|)+δij2|XI^||XJ^|u,v𝒰deg(u)deg(v),whereδij={1,ifΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ,0,otherwise,formulae-sequencesubscript𝑀2subscriptsubscript𝑛binomial𝑚2superscript𝑇12𝑚𝑇1subscript^𝐼subscript𝑋^𝐼𝑚subscript:^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕsubscript𝑋^𝐽superscriptsubscript𝛿𝑖𝑗2subscript𝑋^𝐼subscript𝑋^𝐽subscript𝑢𝑣𝒰𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣wheresuperscriptsubscript𝛿𝑖𝑗cases1ifsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕ0otherwise\begin{split}M_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\binom{m}{2}(T-1)^{2}+m(T-1)% \displaystyle\sum_{\hat{I}}|X_{\hat{I}}|(m+\displaystyle\sum_{\hat{J}:\ \Xi_{% \hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi}|X_{\hat{J}}|)\\ +&\frac{\delta_{i}^{j}}{2}|X_{\hat{I}}||X_{\hat{J}}|\displaystyle\sum_{u,v\in% \mathscr{U}}deg(u)deg(v),\text{where}\quad\delta_{i}^{j}=\begin{cases}1,&\text% {if}\ \Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi,\\ 0,&\text{otherwise},\end{cases}\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_m end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ( italic_m + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG : roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + end_CELL start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_v ∈ script_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) , where italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { start_ROW start_CELL 1 , end_CELL start_CELL if roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 , end_CELL start_CELL otherwise , end_CELL end_ROW end_CELL end_ROW

    and deg(u)=|X|+J^:ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ|XJ^|𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑋subscript:^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕsubscript𝑋^𝐽deg(u)=|X|+\displaystyle\sum_{\hat{J}:\ \Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi}|X% _{\hat{J}}|italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) = | italic_X | + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG : roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | for any vertex uXI^𝑢subscript𝑋^𝐼u\in X_{\hat{I}}italic_u ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of 𝒰𝒰\mathscr{U}script_U.

Proof.

By Theorem 2.11, nKm𝒢[Γ1,Γ2,,Γ2k2]subscriptsubscript𝑛subscript𝐾𝑚𝒢subscriptΓ1subscriptΓ2subscriptΓsuperscript2𝑘2\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}\cong K_{m}\vee\mathscr{G}[\Gamma_{1},\Gamma_{2},% \cdots,\Gamma_{2^{k}-2}]caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∨ script_G [ roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ], where Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the subgraph induced by the set X𝑋Xitalic_X of essential ideals of nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and Γi=n(XI^)subscriptΓ𝑖subscriptsubscript𝑛subscript𝑋^𝐼\Gamma_{i}=\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}(X_{\hat{I}})roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) for each of the 2k2superscript2𝑘22^{k}-22 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 equivalent class XI^subscript𝑋^𝐼X_{\hat{I}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the set 𝒰𝒰\mathscr{U}script_U. Thus, V(n)=XI^XI^𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛subscript^𝐼𝑋subscript𝑋^𝐼V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=X\cup_{\hat{I}}X_{\hat{I}}italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_X ∪ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where the union is taken over all the equivalent classes. Then, for any vertex vX𝑣𝑋v\in Xitalic_v ∈ italic_X, deg(v)=T1𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣𝑇1deg(v)=T-1italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) = italic_T - 1 and by Lemma 2.9,

for any vertexvXI^,deg(v)=|X|+J^:ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ|XJ^|,formulae-sequencefor any vertex𝑣subscript𝑋^𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣𝑋subscript:^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕsubscript𝑋^𝐽\text{for any vertex}\ v\in X_{\hat{I}},\hskip 42.67912ptdeg(v)=|X|+% \displaystyle\sum_{\hat{J}:\ \Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi}|X_{\hat{J}}|,for any vertex italic_v ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) = | italic_X | + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG : roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | , (4)
  1. 1.
    M1(n)=vXdeg(v)2+vI^XI^deg(v)2,=m(T1)2+I^|XI^|(m+J^:ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ|XJ^|)2,\begin{split}M_{1}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\displaystyle\sum_{v\in X}% deg(v)^{2}+\displaystyle\sum_{v\in\cup_{\hat{I}}X_{\hat{I}}}deg(v)^{2},\\ =&m(T-1)^{2}+\displaystyle\sum_{\hat{I}}|X_{\hat{I}}|(m+\displaystyle\sum_{% \hat{J}:\ \Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi}|X_{\hat{J}}|)^{2},\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ ∪ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ( italic_m + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG : roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW

    where the summation runs over all the equivalent classes.

  2. 2.

    First consider vX𝑣𝑋v\in Xitalic_v ∈ italic_X. Since, |X|=m𝑋𝑚|X|=m| italic_X | = italic_m and there are (m2)binomial𝑚2\binom{m}{2}( FRACOP start_ARG italic_m end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) pairs of elements in X𝑋Xitalic_X , we have

    u,vXdeg(u)deg(v)=(m2)(T1)2.subscript𝑢𝑣𝑋𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣binomial𝑚2superscript𝑇12\displaystyle\sum_{u,v\in X}deg(u)deg(v)=\binom{m}{2}(T-1)^{2}.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_v ∈ italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) = ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_m end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (5)

    Now, each vertex uX𝑢𝑋u\in Xitalic_u ∈ italic_X is adjacent to every vertex vXI^𝑣subscript𝑋^𝐼v\in X_{\hat{I}}italic_v ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, for each of the equivalent class XI^subscript𝑋^𝐼X_{\hat{I}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then,

    deg(u)deg(v)=(T1)(m+J^:ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ|XJ^|),𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣𝑇1𝑚subscript:^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕsubscript𝑋^𝐽deg(u)deg(v)=(T-1)(m+\displaystyle\sum_{\hat{J}:\ \Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J% }}=\phi}|X_{\hat{J}}|),italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) = ( italic_T - 1 ) ( italic_m + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG : roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) ,

    and hence,

    uXv𝒰deg(u)deg(v)=I^m(T1)|XI^|(m+J^:ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ|XJ^|)=m(T1)I^|XI^|(m+J^:ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ|XJ^|).subscriptFRACOP𝑢𝑋𝑣𝒰𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣subscript^𝐼𝑚𝑇1subscript𝑋^𝐼𝑚subscript:^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕsubscript𝑋^𝐽𝑚𝑇1subscript^𝐼subscript𝑋^𝐼𝑚subscript:^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕsubscript𝑋^𝐽\begin{split}\displaystyle\sum_{u\in X\atop v\in\mathscr{U}}deg(u)deg(v)=&% \displaystyle\sum_{\hat{I}}m(T-1)|X_{\hat{I}}|(m+\displaystyle\sum_{\hat{J}:\ % \Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi}|X_{\hat{J}}|)\\ =&m(T-1)\displaystyle\sum_{\hat{I}}|X_{\hat{I}}|(m+\displaystyle\sum_{\hat{J}:% \ \Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi}|X_{\hat{J}}|).\\ \end{split}start_ROW start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∈ italic_X end_ARG start_ARG italic_v ∈ script_U end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ( italic_m + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG : roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ( italic_m + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG : roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) . end_CELL end_ROW (6)

    Now, if we take u,v𝑢𝑣u,vitalic_u , italic_v from the vertex subset 𝒰=I^XI^𝒰subscript^𝐼subscript𝑋^𝐼\mathscr{U}=\bigcup\limits_{\hat{I}}X_{\hat{I}}script_U = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then uXI^𝑢subscript𝑋^𝐼u\in X_{\hat{I}}italic_u ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and vXJ^𝑣subscript𝑋^𝐽v\in X_{\hat{J}}italic_v ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for some equivalent classes XI^subscript𝑋^𝐼X_{\hat{I}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and XJ^subscript𝑋^𝐽X_{\hat{J}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By Lemma 2.9, u𝑢uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v are adjacent if and only if ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕ\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phiroman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ and hence

    uvu,v𝒰deg(u)deg(v)=δij|XI^||XJ^|u,v𝒰deg(u)deg(v),whereδij={1,ifΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ,0,otherwise.formulae-sequencesubscriptFRACOPsimilar-to𝑢𝑣𝑢𝑣𝒰𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣superscriptsubscript𝛿𝑖𝑗subscript𝑋^𝐼subscript𝑋^𝐽subscript𝑢𝑣𝒰𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣wheresuperscriptsubscript𝛿𝑖𝑗cases1ifsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕ0otherwise\displaystyle\sum_{u\sim v\atop u,v\in\mathscr{U}}deg(u)deg(v)=\delta_{i}^{j}|% X_{\hat{I}}||X_{\hat{J}}|\displaystyle\sum_{u,v\in\mathscr{U}}deg(u)deg(v),% \text{where}\quad\delta_{i}^{j}=\begin{cases}1,&\text{if}\ \Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap% \Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi,\\ 0,&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∼ italic_v end_ARG start_ARG italic_u , italic_v ∈ script_U end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_v ∈ script_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) , where italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { start_ROW start_CELL 1 , end_CELL start_CELL if roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 , end_CELL start_CELL otherwise . end_CELL end_ROW (7)

    Using Equations (5), (6) and (7), we have

    M2(n)=u,vXdeg(u)deg(v)+uXv𝒰deg(u)deg(v)+uvu,v𝒰deg(u)deg(v)=(m2)(T1)2+m(T1)I^|XI^|(m+J^:ΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ|XJ^|)+δij|XI^||XJ^|u,v𝒰deg(u)deg(v),whereδij={1,ifΞI^ΞJ^=ϕ,0,otherwise,formulae-sequencesubscript𝑀2subscriptsubscript𝑛subscript𝑢𝑣𝑋𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣subscriptFRACOP𝑢𝑋𝑣𝒰𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣subscriptFRACOPsimilar-to𝑢𝑣𝑢𝑣𝒰𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣binomial𝑚2superscript𝑇12𝑚𝑇1subscript^𝐼subscript𝑋^𝐼𝑚subscript:^𝐽subscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕsubscript𝑋^𝐽superscriptsubscript𝛿𝑖𝑗subscript𝑋^𝐼subscript𝑋^𝐽subscript𝑢𝑣𝒰𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣wheresuperscriptsubscript𝛿𝑖𝑗cases1ifsubscriptΞ^𝐼subscriptΞ^𝐽italic-ϕ0otherwise\begin{split}M_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\displaystyle\sum_{u,v\in X}% deg(u)deg(v)+\displaystyle\sum_{u\in X\atop v\in\mathscr{U}}deg(u)deg(v)+% \displaystyle\sum_{u\sim v\atop u,v\in\mathscr{U}}deg(u)deg(v)\\ =&\binom{m}{2}(T-1)^{2}+m(T-1)\displaystyle\sum_{\hat{I}}|X_{\hat{I}}|(m+% \displaystyle\sum_{\hat{J}:\Xi_{\hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi}|X_{\hat{J}}|)% \\ +&\delta_{i}^{j}|X_{\hat{I}}||X_{\hat{J}}|\displaystyle\sum_{u,v\in\mathscr{U}% }deg(u)deg(v),\text{where}\quad\delta_{i}^{j}=\begin{cases}1,&\text{if}\ \Xi_{% \hat{I}}\cap\Xi_{\hat{J}}=\phi,\\ 0,&\text{otherwise},\end{cases}\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_v ∈ italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∈ italic_X end_ARG start_ARG italic_v ∈ script_U end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG italic_u ∼ italic_v end_ARG start_ARG italic_u , italic_v ∈ script_U end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_m end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ( italic_m + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG : roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + end_CELL start_CELL italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_v ∈ script_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) , where italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { start_ROW start_CELL 1 , end_CELL start_CELL if roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_I end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_J end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 , end_CELL start_CELL otherwise , end_CELL end_ROW end_CELL end_ROW

    deg(u)𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢deg(u)italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) and deg(v)𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣deg(v)italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_v ) are given by Equation (4).

Corollary 4.6.

Let n=p1m1p2m2𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2n=p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where p1<p2subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2p_{1}<p_{2}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are primes and mi>1subscript𝑚𝑖1m_{i}>1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 for at least one i𝑖iitalic_i. Then

  1. 1.

    M1(n)=m(T1)2+m1(m+m2)2+m2(m+m1)2subscript𝑀1subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑚superscript𝑇12subscript𝑚1superscript𝑚subscript𝑚22subscript𝑚2superscript𝑚subscript𝑚12M_{1}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=m(T-1)^{2}+m_{1}(m+m_{2})^{2}+m_{2}(m+m_{1% })^{2}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

  2. 2.

    M2(n)=(m2)(T1)2+m(T1)[m(m1+m2)+2m1m2]+m1m2(m+m1)(m+m2).subscript𝑀2subscriptsubscript𝑛binomial𝑚2superscript𝑇12𝑚𝑇1delimited-[]𝑚subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚22subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2𝑚subscript𝑚1𝑚subscript𝑚2M_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=\binom{m}{2}(T-1)^{2}+m(T-1)[m(m_{1}+m_{2}% )+2m_{1}m_{2}]+m_{1}m_{2}(m+m_{1})(m+m_{2}).italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_m end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) [ italic_m ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + 2 italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

Proof.

By Theorem 2.11, nKmK2[Km2¯,Km1¯]subscriptsubscript𝑛subscript𝐾𝑚subscript𝐾2¯subscript𝐾subscript𝑚2¯subscript𝐾subscript𝑚1\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}\cong K_{m}\vee K_{2}[\overline{K_{m_{2}}},\ % \overline{K_{m_{1}}}]caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∨ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ over¯ start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , over¯ start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ], where Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the subgraph induced by the set X𝑋Xitalic_X of essential ideals of nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Here,

X1=Xp1m1={p1m1p2r2:0r2<m2};|X1|=m2,X2=Xp2m2={p1r1p2m2:0r1<m1};|X2|=m1.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋1subscript𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑟20subscript𝑟2subscript𝑚2formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋1subscript𝑚2subscript𝑋2subscript𝑋delimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚2conditional-setdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝑝2subscript𝑚20subscript𝑟1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑋2subscript𝑚1\begin{split}X_{1}=&X_{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{m_{1}}p_% {2}^{r_{2}}\rangle:0\leq r_{2}<m_{2}\};|X_{1}|=m_{2},\\ X_{2}=&X_{\langle p_{2}^{m_{2}}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{m_{2}}% \rangle:0\leq r_{1}<m_{1}\};|X_{2}|=m_{1}.\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ; | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ; | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW

Then, by Theorem 4.5, M1(n)=m(T1)2+m1(m+m2)2+m2(m+m1)2subscript𝑀1subscriptsubscript𝑛𝑚superscript𝑇12subscript𝑚1superscript𝑚subscript𝑚22subscript𝑚2superscript𝑚subscript𝑚12M_{1}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=m(T-1)^{2}+m_{1}(m+m_{2})^{2}+m_{2}(m+m_{1% })^{2}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and

M2(n)=(m2)(T1)2+m(T1)[m2(m+m1)+m1(m+m2)]+m1m2(m+m1)(m+m2)=(m2)(T1)2+m(T1)[m(m1+m2)+2m1m2]+m1m2(m+m1)(m+m2).subscript𝑀2subscriptsubscript𝑛binomial𝑚2superscript𝑇12𝑚𝑇1delimited-[]subscript𝑚2𝑚subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚1𝑚subscript𝑚2subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2𝑚subscript𝑚1𝑚subscript𝑚2binomial𝑚2superscript𝑇12𝑚𝑇1delimited-[]𝑚subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚22subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2𝑚subscript𝑚1𝑚subscript𝑚2\begin{split}M_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\binom{m}{2}(T-1)^{2}+m(T-1)% [m_{2}(m+m_{1})+m_{1}(m+m_{2})]+m_{1}m_{2}(m+m_{1})(m+m_{2})\\ =&\binom{m}{2}(T-1)^{2}+m(T-1)[m(m_{1}+m_{2})+2m_{1}m_{2}]+m_{1}m_{2}(m+m_{1})% (m+m_{2}).\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_m end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) [ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_m end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( italic_T - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m ( italic_T - 1 ) [ italic_m ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + 2 italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . end_CELL end_ROW

Example 4.7.

Let n=p12p23p32𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝12superscriptsubscript𝑝23superscriptsubscript𝑝32n=p_{1}^{2}p_{2}^{3}p_{3}^{2}italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then, T=|V(n)|=34𝑇𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑛34T=|V(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})|=34italic_T = | italic_V ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | = 34, and nKm𝒢[K6¯,K4¯,K6¯,K2¯,K3¯,K2¯]subscriptsubscript𝑛subscript𝐾𝑚𝒢¯subscript𝐾6¯subscript𝐾4¯subscript𝐾6¯subscript𝐾2¯subscript𝐾3¯subscript𝐾2\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}\cong K_{m}\vee\mathscr{G}[\overline{K_{6}},% \overline{K_{4}},\overline{K_{6}},\overline{K_{2}},\overline{K_{3}},\overline{% K_{2}}]caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∨ script_G [ over¯ start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , over¯ start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , over¯ start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , over¯ start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , over¯ start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , over¯ start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ], where m=11𝑚11m=11italic_m = 11. The partitioned sets of nonessential ideals of nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are

X1=Xp12={p12p2r2p3r3:0ri<mifori=2,3};|X1|=6,X2=Xp23={p1r1p23p3r3:0ri<mifori=1,3};|X2|=4,X3=Xp32={p1r1p2r2p33:0ri<mifori=1,2};|X3|=6,X4=Xp12p23={p12p23p3r3:0r3<m3};|X4|=2,X5=Xp12p32={p12p2r2p32:0r2<m2};|X5|=3,X6=Xp23p32={p1r1p23p32:0r1<m1};|X6|=2.\begin{split}X_{1}=&X_{\langle p_{1}^{2}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{2}p_{2}^{r_{% 2}}p_{3}^{r_{3}}\rangle:0\leq r_{i}\leq<m_{i}\ \text{for}\ i=2,3\};\ |X_{1}|=6% ,\\ X_{2}=&X_{\langle p_{2}^{3}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{3}p_{3}^{r_{% 3}}\rangle:0\leq r_{i}<m_{i}\ \text{for}\ i=1,3\};\ |X_{2}|=4,\\ X_{3}=&X_{\langle p_{3}^{2}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{r_{2}}p_{3}^% {3}\rangle:0\leq r_{i}<m_{i}\ \text{for}\ i=1,2\};\ |X_{3}|=6,\\ X_{4}=&X_{\langle p_{1}^{2}p_{2}^{3}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{2}p_{2}^{3}p_{3}% ^{r_{3}}\rangle:0\leq r_{3}<m_{3}\};\ |X_{4}|=2,\\ X_{5}=&X_{\langle p_{1}^{2}p_{3}^{2}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{2}p_{2}^{r_{2}}p% _{3}^{2}\rangle:0\leq r_{2}<m_{2}\};\ |X_{5}|=3,\\ X_{6}=&X_{\langle p_{2}^{3}p_{3}^{2}\rangle}=\{\langle p_{1}^{r_{1}}p_{2}^{3}p% _{3}^{2}\rangle:0\leq r_{1}<m_{1}\};\ |X_{6}|=2.\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for italic_i = 2 , 3 } ; | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 6 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for italic_i = 1 , 3 } ; | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 4 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for italic_i = 1 , 2 } ; | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 6 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ; | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 2 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ; | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 3 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ⟨ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ : 0 ≤ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ; | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 2 . end_CELL end_ROW

deg(u)={11+|X2|+|X3|+|X6|=23,foruX1,11+|X1|+|X3|+|X5|=26,foruX2,11+|X1|+|X2|+|X4|=23,foruX3,11+|X3|=17,foruX4,11+|X2|=15,foruX5,11+|X1|=17,foruX6.𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑢cases11subscript𝑋2subscript𝑋3subscript𝑋623for𝑢subscript𝑋111subscript𝑋1subscript𝑋3subscript𝑋526for𝑢subscript𝑋211subscript𝑋1subscript𝑋2subscript𝑋423for𝑢subscript𝑋311subscript𝑋317for𝑢subscript𝑋411subscript𝑋215for𝑢subscript𝑋511subscript𝑋117for𝑢subscript𝑋6deg(u)=\begin{cases}11+|X_{2}|+|X_{3}|+|X_{6}|=23,&\ \text{for}\ u\in X_{1},\\ 11+|X_{1}|+|X_{3}|+|X_{5}|=26,&\ \text{for}\ u\in X_{2},\\ 11+|X_{1}|+|X_{2}|+|X_{4}|=23,&\ \text{for}\ u\in X_{3},\\ 11+|X_{3}|=17,&\ \text{for}\ u\in X_{4},\\ 11+|X_{2}|=15,&\ \text{for}\ u\in X_{5},\\ 11+|X_{1}|=17,&\ \text{for}\ u\in X_{6}.\\ \end{cases}italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_u ) = { start_ROW start_CELL 11 + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 23 , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_u ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 11 + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 26 , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_u ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 11 + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 23 , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_u ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 11 + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 17 , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_u ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 11 + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 15 , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_u ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 11 + | italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 17 , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_u ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW
Then, by Theorem,

M1(n)=11×332+6×232+4×262+6×232+2×172+3×152+2×172=22,862.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑀1subscriptsubscript𝑛11superscript3326superscript2324superscript2626superscript2322superscript1723superscript1522superscript17222862\begin{split}M_{1}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&11\times 33^{2}+6\times 23^{% 2}+4\times 26^{2}+6\times 23^{2}+2\times 17^{2}+3\times 15^{2}+2\times 17^{2}% \\ =&22,862.\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL 11 × 33 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 × 23 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4 × 26 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 × 23 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 × 17 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 3 × 15 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 × 17 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = end_CELL start_CELL 22 , 862 . end_CELL end_ROW
M2(n)=(112)332+11×33[6×23+4×26+6×23+2×17+3×15+2×17]+12[6×4×23×26+6×6×23×23+6×2×23×17+4×6×26×23+4×6×26×23+4×3×26×15+6×6×23×23+6×4×23×26+6×2×23×17+2×6×17×23+3×4×15×26+2×6×17×23].=3,00,666.\begin{split}M_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})=&\binom{11}{2}33^{2}+11\times 3% 3[6\times 23+4\times 26+6\times 23+2\times 17+3\times 15+2\times 17]+\frac{1}{% 2}[6\times 4\times 23\times 26\\ +&6\times 6\times 23\times 23+6\times 2\times 23\times 17+4\times 6\times 26% \times 23+4\times 6\times 26\times 23+4\times 3\times 26\times 15\\ +&6\times 6\times 23\times 23+6\times 4\times 23\times 26+6\times 2\times 23% \times 17+2\times 6\times 17\times 23+3\times 4\times 15\times 26\\ +&2\times 6\times 17\times 23]\\ .=&3,00,666.\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = end_CELL start_CELL ( FRACOP start_ARG 11 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) 33 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 11 × 33 [ 6 × 23 + 4 × 26 + 6 × 23 + 2 × 17 + 3 × 15 + 2 × 17 ] + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ 6 × 4 × 23 × 26 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + end_CELL start_CELL 6 × 6 × 23 × 23 + 6 × 2 × 23 × 17 + 4 × 6 × 26 × 23 + 4 × 6 × 26 × 23 + 4 × 3 × 26 × 15 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + end_CELL start_CELL 6 × 6 × 23 × 23 + 6 × 4 × 23 × 26 + 6 × 2 × 23 × 17 + 2 × 6 × 17 × 23 + 3 × 4 × 15 × 26 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + end_CELL start_CELL 2 × 6 × 17 × 23 ] end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL . = end_CELL start_CELL 3 , 00 , 666 . end_CELL end_ROW

5 Conclusion

In this article, we have proved that the metric dimension of the essential ideal graph Rsubscript𝑅\mathcal{E}_{R}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of a commutative ring R𝑅Ritalic_R is finite whenever each vertex of Rsubscript𝑅\mathcal{E}_{R}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is of finite degree. Also, for the ring nsubscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}_{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, it is identified that the graphs nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝔸𝕀𝔾(n)𝔸𝕀𝔾subscript𝑛\mathbb{AIG}(\mathbb{Z}_{n})blackboard_A blackboard_I blackboard_G ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) coincide (up to isomorphism) when n𝑛nitalic_n is a product of distinct primes. Furthermore, we have calculated the metric dimension of nsubscriptsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Additionally, an alternative method has been provided to establish an upper limit for dim(n)𝑑𝑖𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑛dim(\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}_{n}})italic_d italic_i italic_m ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) when n=p1p2pk;k6formulae-sequence𝑛subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝2subscript𝑝𝑘𝑘6n=p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{k};\ k\geq 6italic_n = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; italic_k ≥ 6. Finally, the first and second Zagreb indices of nsubscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{\mathbb{Z}{n}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Z italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are computed for arbitrary values of n𝑛nitalic_n.

6 Declarations

Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

\printbibliography