08 - Chapter 1
08 - Chapter 1
08 - Chapter 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
AND
REVIEW OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
At present, nobody will deny the importance and overwhelming craze for
activities. However, graphs only describe some binary relations and are not always
sufficient for modelling problems or data which involve relations of order higher than
binary. In order to tackle additional combinatorial problems involving any higher order
relation, it was therefore natural to model and generalize the concept of graph in such a
way that it allows applications to wider spectrum of real life situation. The first attempt
in this regard was made by C. Berge [5] who in 1960 shaped the idea of what we now
call a “Hypergraph”. Primary motivation behind this idea rested on the observation that
1
2
of more than two elements of V. For instance, people going to a market can have some
sort of binary relation like one buying and another selling leading to the formation of a
graph in its ordinary sense; but there are occasions in which mutual transactions are
made with the help of a broker and this situation cannot be expressed by our so called
graphs. In fact, seller, buyer and the broker form a 3-element subset of the set of people
in the market so that the existing concept of edge with 2-element set can be extended to
an edge with 3-element set leading to emergence of the concept of a hyper edge of a
are not strongly connected to the present investigation and therefore we refrain from
The second attempt to generalize the concept of graph was concentrated upon
the fact that a graph G consists of a set V of elements called vertices together with a
prescribed set X of unordered 2-tuple {u, v} called an edge which can be pictorially
as a line, its 2-tuple set notation {u, v} can be modified as (u, v) where both (u, v) and
(v, u) are considered to represent the same edge. In other words, the edges (u, v) and
(u ′, v′) represent one and the same edge if and only if either u = u ′ and v = v ′ or,
u = v ′ and v = u ′ . With this, the path was opened up for another generalization of the
edge of a graph and such a generalization was successfully initiated by a famous Indian
graph theorist named Sampathkumarachar [19] who proposed an edge with more than
two vertices viz., (u1 , u 2 , u 3 ,..., u n ) where the edges (u1 , u 2 , u 3 ,..., u m ) and (v1 , v 2 ,..., v n )
are considered to represent the same edge if and only if m = n and either u i = vi for
graph, where two distinct edges intersect in at most at one vertex only, it became
necessary for the new edges to satisfy the same condition that two distinct edges in the
Thus, in spite of the fact that both hypergraph and semigraph generalize an edge
to contain more than two vertices, the particular order imposed upon vertices of the
edge of a semigraph makes the semigraph more akin to a graph than a hypergraph.
advantages over its counterpart viz., hypergraph as mentioned in [19]. These are:
(ii) The concept of Eulerian and Hamiltonian paths of ordinary graphs can be
(iii) Since each edge in a semigraph looks like an edge in a graph, one can
easily give a direction to each edge and obtain a structure called directed
While the justifications as enumerated in the preceding lines were sufficient for
the new generalization of graph called semigraph its originator E. Sampathkumar [19]
(ii)′ Analogous to the concept of block graph B(G) of a graph G, where every
apply to problems as demanded by situations in real life that involve relations more than
binary ones.
In this context interestingly, one could also note that any property enjoyed by
hypergraph. While encountering with problem for DNA splicing S. Jeyabharathi et al.
[53] and [54], found that semigraph is more effective tool than graphs for describing
generalization.
5
After being confirmed that the new generalization was totally natural and worthy
structural foundation for it. His immediate task was to examine and see how does the
new idea work and what impact does it have on the existing terminology of graph
theory. The immediate impact was overwhelming. With recognition of edge through
more than two vertices in case of semigraph the concepts of adjacency of vertices and
edges and also the degree of vertices had to be extended thereby creating adjacency, end
vertex adjacency, consecutive adjacency, degree, edge degree, adjacent degree and
consecutive adjacent degree (all mentioned in Section 2.1 of Chapter 2). With modified
edge concept there were new entrants like subedge and partial edge of a semigraph
followed by other concepts like edge complete semigraphs, edge bipartite semigraphs
and edge cliques which are extensions of similar ideas in ordinary graphs. On the basis
and partial subsemigraphs. Similarly, two types of paths and cycles called s-path (strong
path), w-path (weak path), s-cycle (strong cycle) and w-cycle (weak cycle). The concept
e-independence and strongly independence in the context of semigraph and on the basis
of these independence concepts three types of bipartite semigraphs were defined namely
types of new graphs from a semigraph which played significant role in the theory of
semigraph. The three graphs associated with a semigraph are End vertex graph,
6
Adjacency graph and Consecutive adjacency graph. The cut vertex, bridge and block are
also defined for a semigraph with a characterization theorem for a block of a semigraph.
trees in graphs called dendroids. The idea of eccentricity, radius, diameter and center are
also discussed in the work with necessary modifications. Due attention was also paid to
the concepts of cycle vector, cycle space, cycle basis, cycle rank in the context of
semigraphs.
transitory work.
The next issue to be taken up in this line of action was the covering of graph and
E. Sampathkumar was successful in defining two types of coverings for each of vertex
covering and edge covering for semigraphs. These are named as vertex covering and
e-vertex covering for the first and edge covering and e-edge covering for the second of
As is evident from what has been discussed already, graph theoretic terms and
either for their extensions or new interpretations. With generalized graph structure
7
allowing unusually long list of terms and definitions which were algebraically screened
with positive outcomes it was natural to eye upon its topological aspects and,
paths viz., strong path (s-path) and weak path (w-path) in a semigraph E. Sampathkumar
w-connectivity for semigraph. Also, depending upon subedge (fs-edge) and partial edge
(fp-edge) of any edge another two types of connectivity (edge connectivity) viz., s-edge
concerning each of the (path) connectivity and edge connectivity were obtained in this
context.
generalization of planarity in graph and accordingly the Euler’s polyhedral formula was
easily generalized for planar semigraphs. It was interesting to note that Kuratowski’s
theorem for graph could be used to characterize planar semigraphs. Some minimal non-
planar semigraphs for five and six vertices were also obtained.
which every vertex has edge degree at least two. It was noted that dual of a Semigraph
was not unique. He examined semigraphs having unique duals and those having self
Eulerian and Hamiltonian graphs are amongst the most interesting and much
talked about topics of graph theory from its inception studied under traversability. The
way graph is generalized to define hypergraph does not provide necessary structure for
subedges of an edge and defined three types of partitions of an edge viz., s-partition,
p-partition and 2-partition which helped him introduce as many as four types of
semigraph and f-Eulerian semigraph. Then he went on to establish some results showing
p-Eulerian.
first proposed the definition of Hamiltonian semigraph. Then, introducing the notions of
established the semigraph versions of some classical graph theory results due to Dirac
Like other graph theoretic ideas analogue of line graph was easily
accommodated in semigraph resulting in two other semigraphs of this type viz., line
semigraph and point semigraph. While line semigraph needed edge labeling in one hand
and point semigraph that of adjacency of points on the other, both of the two
being different types of adjacency relations in respect of points and edges for
semigraphs a volley of new definitions of line and point semigraphs resulted thereafter.
A rich collection of results both classical and new followed in this context [19].
The famous classical problems of ‘Map Coloring’ popularly known as the four
color theorem and five color theorem which are discussed in graph theory as coloring of
graph have been examined in semigraphs also [19]. Three types of vertex coloring
named as coloring, e-coloring and strong coloring were defined and their corresponding
chromatic numbers was obtained. Some other results determining chromatic numbers of
number of a complete semigraph was raised and its solution is yet to be realized.
two different types of edge coloring viz., edge coloring and e-edge coloring.
Accordingly, the concepts of edge chromatic number and e-edge chromatic number
could be defined and discussed. Few results involving bounds for each of the edge
chromatic number and e-edge chromatic number which coincide with chromatic index
Semigraphs like graphs can be represented by matrices which make the study of
semigraphs possible in certain of its aspects. As in other cases here also the original
which revealed in the forms of the adjacency matrix, the incidence matrix, the
consecutive adjacency matrix and the 3-matrix of a semigraph. It was found that the
uniquely.
semigraph in his innovative project “Semigraphs and Their Applications” [19]. The
necessary pre-requisites being already available and subsidiary related ideas being
subedge, subsemigraph etc., subarc, partial arc, subdisemigraph are introduced for
directed semigraph (or disemigraph) so that walks, trails, paths, cycles etc., can be
defined for it. A result of directed graph involving in-degree and out-degree was
mostly from southern and western parts of the country took up keen interest to this new
area and they began attempting to complete the untouched and unfinished works of its
originator. In 2003, S.S. Kamath and R.S. Bhat [57] took up one of the very popular and
important concepts viz., domination of graph into semigraph. In this paper, they
introduced three types of dominating sets for semigraphs viz., adjacent dominating set,
end vertex dominating set and consecutive adjacent dominating set along with their
In the same year, S. S. Kamath along with Saroja R. Hebbar extended the
dominating sets, full sets and domination balance. In another paper they forwarded the
In the year 2004, B. Y. Bam [3] of Pune University carried out the research on
a new concept of degree called as me-degree or (m, e)-degree. Using this new concept
sequences. In both of [3] and [42], B. Y. Bam considered the issue of line semigraph
Selvam, first three of which were published in 2007 and the last in 2010. The first paper
authored by K. Kayathri and Mary Sunithi Vijayan [31] dealt with the problem of
coloring of complete semigraph and obtained chromatic numbers for some special types
of semigraphs. The second and third papers in the series authored by K. Kayathri and S.
Pethanachi Selvam ([32], [33]), dealt with edge completeness of (p, 2) and (p, 3)
semigraphs. The last mentioned authors collaborated again in 2010 and introduced the
concept of enumeration of edge complete (p, 3) semigraph [34] in which they found 20
categories of edge complete (p, 3) semigraphs and proved that no two of these 20
The study of N. S. Bhave and B. Y. Bam [3] on (m, e)-degree of vertices etc.,
and they extended it to the concept of (m, e)-strong dominating set, (m, e)-dominating
set, (m, e)-domination number along with a characterization theorem of (m, e)-strong
dominating set.
13
The works outlined in the preceding paragraphs give sufficient testimony about
aspects of formal structures. However, no model, however pure and perfect may be in
overcame an important physical test when the concept of semigraph was used for DNA
[35] correlated the concept of the graph splicing with semigraphs and obtained a
Sinthanai Selvi and R. Anusha [54], observed that, at the time of splicing DNA molecule
holds the characterization of semigraph, which is more powerful than graph model. In
this paper they also discussed the properties of the odd and even cut bipartite semigraph
bipartite graphs constructed with the domination and total domination parameters of
adjacency and consecutive adjacency graphs associated with a semigraph. They also
introduced the domination and independence parameters for bipartite semigraph and
and Xa-dominating sequence chain. Recently, they worked out results on the concept of
domination of a set, hyper domination number of a set, hyper independent set and hyper
new faces are attracted into its fold day by day. In 2011, a collaborated paper on
topology on the vertex set of a disemigraph in such a way that there exists one to one
correspondence between the set of all topologies on the vertex set having the property of
completely additive closure and the set of all equivalence classes of disemigraph
Recently (2012), P. Das and Hamida Aktra Hoque [45] attempted to obtain a
Gaidhani [7] (2012, July) and it gives a new definition for the adjacency matrix of a
semigraph. They also introduce the notion of spectrum of a semigraph and study some
15
of its spectral properties. Moreover, they obtain a necessary and sufficient condition for
a matrix to be semigraphical.
The framework of this thesis is to carry forward the structural features of the
theory. In spite of many researchers are engaged in the study of various aspects of the
semigraph immediately after its inception, there is a lack of cohesion as well as co-
ordination in these endeavours and a lot of works in the direction of algebraical and
conformity with the spirit of the subject. Mainly here, the concepts of factorization,
matching and few topological invariants like genus, thickness, coarseness and crossing
number of graphs are generalized into semigraphs. Some new concepts like maximum
concept of matching and generator of a face in connection with genus in semigraphs are
also considered here. Total adjacent domination and arboricity are also two other
concepts introduced here. Some vital conditions of 1-factorization of graph not held in
case of semigraphs are demonstrated with the help of concrete examples. The
The thesis consists of six chapters. In the first chapter a general introduction
E. Sampathkumar up to date has been incorporated. Indeed, this literature survey has
clearly justified the relevance and importance of the problem under consideration. A
chapter-wise introduction in brief is also presented in this chapter so that reader can
The second chapter introduces the reader with a collection of notations and
ideas in the form of definitions, axioms and results which can be used as ready reference
for easy understanding of the subsequent topics. The collection of notations and ideas in
semigraphs like graphs is usually very rich and though many of them are yet to be
recognized as standard however, they have found place in the recent works on
semigraphs and therefore, these are simply borrowed and reproduced without any
change here.
The Third chapter deals with the concept of factorization in semigraph. Based on
different types of degree of vertices in semigraph particularly, the degree and edge
case which has been demonstrated with the help of example. Of course, similar to
relation between semigraph and classification problem due to Cariolaro [14] some
17
results are established. Another graph factorization problem called arboricity is also
semigraph. On the basis of the C. Berge’s [5], [6] characterization theorem for matching
in graphs as well as in hypergraphs, a similar result has been established for semigraphs.
A result analogous to König’s [16] theorem in graph theory is also obtained. Some new
and optimal matching along with their parameters known as power of maximal
and demonstrated with relevant examples here. This chapter also deals with the total
adjacent domination concept for semigraph along with some results and a result
showing relation between total adjacent domination number and edge independence
number has been established. The chapter concludes by establishing a relation between
total adjacent domination number and power of minimal edge-saturated matching for
semigraph.
is examined. The similar concept in graph theory can be traced back to “Euler
Polyhedron Formula” after which the concept of planar graphs was developed and the
parameter called genus for non-planar graph was originated. Heawood’s conjecture [49]
can also be recalled in this respect. However, the concept of genus does not
automatically enter into semigraph. A new concept namely, ‘the generator of a face’ is
needed to introduce the definition of genus for a semigraph and this has been
18
successfully done for a compact orientable 2-manifold surface. In a sense, this result
generalizes the Euler’s formula for graph into the semigraph setting. Another important
result on lower bound for genus for each of a connected semigraph with each face
having triangle and a connected semigraph with each face having no triangle has been
obtained. A result on lower bound for a complete semigraph has also been obtained
The sixth, also the last major chapter deals with some other topological
parameters viz., thickness, coarseness and crossing number for semigraphs. The origin
by Harary [21] in sequel to an attempt to prove or disprove whether “For any graph G
with 9 points, G or its complementary graph is non-planar”. Tutte [63] introduced the
concept of thickness to generalize this problem and Beineke and Harary [37] found
thickness for certain complete graphs. The concept of coarseness on non-planar graphs
was introduced by P. Erdös (verbal communication) and, Beineke and Guy [39]
investigated coarseness of complete graphs. Turán's brick factory problem [50] was the
introducer of the crossing number problem of non-planar graphs. Guy [51] described
some results on this concept. Beineke and Chartrand [40] found some bounds of
θ (G ) , coarseness ζ (G) and crossing numberν (G) involving a non planar semigraph G
is studied here. Mainly, the problem of determination of lower bound of thickness for
triangle is dealt with separately. Based on the result obtained by Beineke and Chartrand
[40] in graphs, the upper bound of coarseness for each of semigraph and complete
19
semigraph is established separately. Also, three results, one each for determining lower
*****