Math 3322: Graph Theory1 Mikhail Lavrov

Lecture 9: Graph Isomorphisms

February 9, 2022 Kennesaw State University

1 Isomorphic graphs
Several times in this class, we have wanted to say that two graphs have the “same structure” even
if they’re not literally the same graph.
For example, our definition of a path graph Pn is a graph with vertex set {v1 , v2 , . . . , vn } and edges
vi vi+1 for i = 1, 2, . . . , i + 1. But when we find the 000 − 111 path (000, 001, 011, 111) in the cube
graph Q3 , we want to say that this path corresponds to “a P4 subgraph” even though it is not
literally P4 : its vertices are not named v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 .
v4 111 111
v3 001 011 001 011
v2
v1 000 000

Now we are going to define the formal way in which this subgraph is “the same as” P4 .
We define a graph isomorphism from graph G to graph H to be a function f : V (G) → V (H)
with two properties:
1. f is a bijection—for every vertex y ∈ V (H), there is exactly one vertex x ∈ V (G) such that
f (x) = y.
2. f preserves adjacency—for any two vertices v, w ∈ V (G), v and w are adjacent in G if and
only if f (v) and f (w) are adjacent in H.
Two graphs are isomorphic if there is an isomorphism from one graph to the other. In which
direction? It doesn’t matter: because we defined f to be a bijection in the definition above, it has
an inverse f −1 : V (H) → V (G), and we can check that f −1 is an isomorphism from H to G.
The intuition is that isomorphic graphs are “the same graph, but with different vertex names”.
The graph isomorphism is a “dictionary” that translates between vertex names in G and vertex
names in H.
In the diagram above, we can define a graph isomorphism from P4 to the path subgraph of Q3 by
f (v1 ) = 000, f (v2 ) = 001, f (v3 ) = 011, f (v4 ) = 111. To check the second property of being an
isomorphism, we verify that:
• v1 v2 , v2 v3 , and v3 v4 are edges of P4 . Accordingly, 000 is adjacent to 001, 001 is adjacent to
011, and 011 is adjacent to 111 in the subgraph on the right.
1
This document comes from the Math 3322 course webpage: http://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/mlavrov/
courses/3322-spring-2022.php

1
 • v1 v3 , v1 v4 , and v2 v4 are not edges of P4 . Accordingly, 000 is not adjacent to 011 or 111, and
001 is not adjacent to 111, in the subgraph on the right.
Essentially all the properties we care about in graph theory are preserved by isomorphism. For
example, if G is isomorphic to H, then we can say that:
• G and H have the same number of vertices and edges.
• G is connected if and only if H is connected. More generally, G and H have the same number
of connected components.
• G is bipartite if and only if H is bipartite.
• G and H have the same diameter.
• G and H have the same degree sequence; in particular, the same minimum degree and the
same maximum degree. We can be more precise: if f is a graph isomorphism from G to H,
and v is a vertex of G, then degG (v) = degH (f (v)).
Sometimes, we call these invariants of a graph: “invariant” because they not change when we
rearrange the vertices.
Watch out for one common pitfall. Even if G and H share some vertices, the isomorphism between
G and H does not have to care about the shared vertices—isomorphisms don’t care about vertex
names. If G and H both have a vertex v, and are isomorphic, v might do different things in the
two graphs (for example, degG (v) might be different from degH (v)).
However, in general, if you can describe some property without making reference to vertex names,
then it should be preserved by isomorphism. For example, if G has the property “no two vertices of
degree 4 in G are adjacent”, and H is isomorphic to G, then H must also have this property.
This is very useful for proving that two graphs are not isomorphic. For example, how do we
distinguish the complete bipartite graph K2,4 from the graph below?

Some easy tests fail: K2,4 has the same number of vertices (6) as the graph above, the same
number of edges (8), and the same degree sequence (4, 4, 2, 2, 2). However, either of the following
tests distinguishes this graph from K2,4 :
• The graph above is not bipartite: for example, you can find two cycles of length 3 in it. K2,4 ,
of course, is bipartite.
• In K2,4 , the two vertices of degree 4 are not adjacent. In the graph above, they are.

2
2 Graph automorphisms (symmetries)
An automorphism of a graph G is an isomorphism from G to itself. The function f : V (G) →
V (G) such that f (v) = v for all vertices v is always an automorphism. However, there may be
more complicated ones. For example, the path graph Pn has an automorphism that “reverses the
path”: f (vi ) = vn+1−i .
Why are automorphisms useful? Because they let us describe ways in which a graph is “symmet-
ric”. This lets us avoid dealing with many identical cases when we’re proving something about a
graph.
Here’s an example. First, we will prove a lemma about automorphisms of the cycle graph Cn ,
which admittedly takes a bit of work.

Lemma 2.1. If x and y are any two adjacent vertices of the cycle graph Cn , then Cn has an
automorphism f such that f (x) = v1 and f (y) = vn .

Proof. There are several cases. I will just define the automorphism in each case, and leave you to
check two facts: first, that f takes x to v1 and y to vn ; second, that f preserves adjacencies between
vertices.
If x = v1 and y = vn already, take the automorphism f (vi ) = vi .
If x = vk and y = vk−1 , define the automorphism f by
(
vi−(k−1) i≤k
f (vi ) =
vi+(n−k−1) i > k.

If x = vn and y = v1 , define f by f (vi ) = vn+1−i .

Finally, if x = vk and y = vk−1 , we already know that there is an automorphism f1 that takes x to
vn and y to v1 (by the second case), and an automorphism f2 that swaps v1 and vn (by the third
case). Define f by f (vi ) = f2 (f1 (vi )).

But now we can use this lemma to make lots of proofs about Cn much easier, because we don’t
have to check many very similar cases! For example:

Theorem 2.2. If xy is any edge of Cn , then Cn − xy (the graph we obtain by deleting xy) is still
connected.

Proof. By Lemma 2.1, we may assume that x = v1 and y = vn . Here’s how: let f be the
automorphism that takes x to v1 and y = vn . Then the same f is also an isomorphism between
Cn − xy and Cn − v1 vn . So if we show that Cn − v1 vn is connected, we conclude that Cn − xy is
connected.
(Warning: you may see proofs that skip the explanation of how the automorphism helps us, and
just say “because the graph has such-and-such symmetry, we may assume this-and-that”.)
When x = v1 and y = vn , then Cn − xy = Pn , which we already know is connected. (We really did
prove this at some point a few weeks ago.) So Cn − xy is connected for all edges xy.

3
3 How many r-regular graphs are there?
Disclaimer: we will not actually answer the question in the title of this section for most r. However,
it has some easy answers when r = 0, 1, 2. By taking the complement, we get corresponding easy
answers for r = n − 1, n − 2, n − 3.

Claim 3.1. Up to isomorphism, there is only one 0-regular graph on n vertices.

Proof. The words “up to isomorphism” here mean “any two such graphs are isomorphic”. This
claim really needs these words, because otherwise we would have to consider two 0-regular graphs
on n vertices different if we just give the vertices different names.
Anyway, a 0-regular graph has 0 edges. So if we have two 0-regular graphs G and H on n vertices,
any bijection f : V (G) → V (H) is an isomorphism. Two vertices are never adjacent in G, and
they’re also never adjacent in H, so f preserves adjacency.

Up to isomorphism, there is also only one (n − 1)-regular graph on n vertices: the complete graph
Kn .

Claim 3.2. Up to isomorphism, there is only one 1-regular graph on n vertices, when n is even.
There are none when n is odd.
We won’t prove this claim because it’s a bit tedious, but here is the only possible graph:

···

In particular, P2 is the only connected 1-regular graph, on any number of vertices. In general, a
2k-vertex 1-regular graph has k connected components, each isomorphic to P2 ; we can define an
isomorphism to the graph above by dealing with each component separately.
For 2-regular graphs, the story is more complicated. What we can say is:

Claim 3.3. Up to isomorphism, there is only one connected 2-regular graph on n ≥ 3 vertices: the
cycle graph Cn .

Proof. Let G be a connected 2-regular graph on n vertices. In particular, G has minimum degree 2,
so by a result we proved in a previous lecture, we know that G has a cycle. Let (x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xk , x1 )
be that cycle.
Each of the vertices x1 , x2 , . . . , xk has two neighbors on this cycle, but every vertex of G has degree
2 in total. Therefore these vertices have no other neighbors, and {x1 , x2 , . . . , xk } is a connected
component of G.
Since G is connected, this connected component must be all of G. Therefore k = n and we can
define an isomorphism f from G to Cn by f (xi ) = vi for i = 1, . . . , n.

In general, there are many 2-regular graphs on n vertices; as many as there are ways to split up n
into connected components of at least 3 vertices each.

4
For r = 3, already things become more complicated.
There is only one 3-regular graph on 4 vertices: the complete graph K4 . With 6 vertices, we get
the following two graphs:

With 8 vertices, we get 6 different 3-regular graphs. One is the disjoint union of two copies of K4 .
The other 5 are connected, and shown below.

5
4 Practice problems
1. Prove that none of these five graphs are isomorphic: find invariants distinguishing them all
from each other.

2. If our collection of 3-regular connected graphs on 8 vertices is complete (it is!) then the cube
graph Q3 must be isomorphic to one of the five graphs above. Which one?
Similarly, the complete bipartite graph K3,3 must be isomorphic to one of the two 3-regular
graphs on 6 vertices we drew. Which one?
3. Find all automorphisms of the graph shown below: that is, all functions f : {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} →
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} that preserve the edges of the graph.
2
1 3

4 6
5

(Hint: there are four, and one of them is very boring.)

4. Let G and H be isomorphic graphs. Prove the following:
(a) G is connected if and only if H is connected.
(b) G is bipartite if and only if H is bipartite.
(c) G and H have the same number of vertices.
(d) G and H have the same number of edges.
5. Suppose G and H are two graphs with the same vertex set: V (G) = V (H). In the previous
lecture, we talked about what happens if G and H have the same vertex degrees: degG (v) =
degH (v) for all vertices v.
Prove that this neither implies nor is implied by G being isomorphic to H. In other words:
(a) Give an example where degG (v) = degH (v) for all vertices v, but G and H are not
isomorphic.
(b) Give an example where G and H are isomorphic, but degG (v) is not equal to degH (v)
for at least some vertices v.
6. For n ≥ 5, the walk (v1 , v3 , vn ) is a v1 − vn walk in the complement C n .
Use this fact and Lemma 2.1 to write a short proof that when n ≥ 5, C n is connected.