Number of spanning trees in a subgraph
$begingroup$
A spanning tree of a connected graph is identified with any acyclic subgraph that contains all vertices of this graph. How to formally prove or where to find a proof that any subgraph of a connected graph contains equal or less numer of spanning trees than the original graph ?
combinatorics graph-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A spanning tree of a connected graph is identified with any acyclic subgraph that contains all vertices of this graph. How to formally prove or where to find a proof that any subgraph of a connected graph contains equal or less numer of spanning trees than the original graph ?
combinatorics graph-theory
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:17
1
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft Only if the subgraph is spanning, which it may not be.
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
If the subgraph is not spanning (I assume you mean connected) then there is no spanning tree in the first place. But then still every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:36
$begingroup$
I mean that if the subgraph does not have all the vertices that the original graph has, then a spanning tree of the subgraph extends to a spanning tree of the original graph, but you have to add more vertices and edges to get there
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A spanning tree of a connected graph is identified with any acyclic subgraph that contains all vertices of this graph. How to formally prove or where to find a proof that any subgraph of a connected graph contains equal or less numer of spanning trees than the original graph ?
combinatorics graph-theory
$endgroup$
A spanning tree of a connected graph is identified with any acyclic subgraph that contains all vertices of this graph. How to formally prove or where to find a proof that any subgraph of a connected graph contains equal or less numer of spanning trees than the original graph ?
combinatorics graph-theory
combinatorics graph-theory
asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:11
Piotr WilczekPiotr Wilczek
86
86
$begingroup$
Every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:17
1
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft Only if the subgraph is spanning, which it may not be.
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
If the subgraph is not spanning (I assume you mean connected) then there is no spanning tree in the first place. But then still every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:36
$begingroup$
I mean that if the subgraph does not have all the vertices that the original graph has, then a spanning tree of the subgraph extends to a spanning tree of the original graph, but you have to add more vertices and edges to get there
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:17
1
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft Only if the subgraph is spanning, which it may not be.
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
If the subgraph is not spanning (I assume you mean connected) then there is no spanning tree in the first place. But then still every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:36
$begingroup$
I mean that if the subgraph does not have all the vertices that the original graph has, then a spanning tree of the subgraph extends to a spanning tree of the original graph, but you have to add more vertices and edges to get there
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:57
$begingroup$
Every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:17
$begingroup$
Every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:17
1
1
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft Only if the subgraph is spanning, which it may not be.
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft Only if the subgraph is spanning, which it may not be.
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
If the subgraph is not spanning (I assume you mean connected) then there is no spanning tree in the first place. But then still every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:36
$begingroup$
If the subgraph is not spanning (I assume you mean connected) then there is no spanning tree in the first place. But then still every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:36
$begingroup$
I mean that if the subgraph does not have all the vertices that the original graph has, then a spanning tree of the subgraph extends to a spanning tree of the original graph, but you have to add more vertices and edges to get there
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:57
$begingroup$
I mean that if the subgraph does not have all the vertices that the original graph has, then a spanning tree of the subgraph extends to a spanning tree of the original graph, but you have to add more vertices and edges to get there
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:57
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general, the combinatorial strategy to prove that $|X| le |Y|$ is to find an injective function from $X$ to $Y$.
In this case, you have a subgraph $H$ of a connected graph $G$; to prove that $G$ has at least as many spanning trees as $H$, you want to find an injective function which turns spanning trees of $H$ into spanning trees of $G$.
Given a spanning tree $T$ of $H$, we can extend it to a spanning tree of $G$ as follows. For as long as $T$ is not a spanning tree of $G$ (that is, for as long as it does not contain the vertices of $G$) we can make $T$ larger by
- Picking an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $G$ which is not yet in $T$.
- Finding the shortest path from $v$ to $T$, ending at a vertex $w$ in $T$.
- Creating a larger tree $T'$ consisting of the tree $T$ and the $v,w$-path found in step 2.
Repeat this with the new tree $T'$ until you have a tree that spans all the vertices of $G$.
You should check that (a) this process is always possible to carry out, (b) it always ends with a spanning tree of $G$, and (c) if we start with different spanning trees of $H$, we are guaranteed to end up with different spanning trees of $П$.
(Statement (c) is necessary to guarantee that the function we construct is injective, which is vital to get the inequality we want.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050744%2fnumber-of-spanning-trees-in-a-subgraph%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general, the combinatorial strategy to prove that $|X| le |Y|$ is to find an injective function from $X$ to $Y$.
In this case, you have a subgraph $H$ of a connected graph $G$; to prove that $G$ has at least as many spanning trees as $H$, you want to find an injective function which turns spanning trees of $H$ into spanning trees of $G$.
Given a spanning tree $T$ of $H$, we can extend it to a spanning tree of $G$ as follows. For as long as $T$ is not a spanning tree of $G$ (that is, for as long as it does not contain the vertices of $G$) we can make $T$ larger by
- Picking an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $G$ which is not yet in $T$.
- Finding the shortest path from $v$ to $T$, ending at a vertex $w$ in $T$.
- Creating a larger tree $T'$ consisting of the tree $T$ and the $v,w$-path found in step 2.
Repeat this with the new tree $T'$ until you have a tree that spans all the vertices of $G$.
You should check that (a) this process is always possible to carry out, (b) it always ends with a spanning tree of $G$, and (c) if we start with different spanning trees of $H$, we are guaranteed to end up with different spanning trees of $П$.
(Statement (c) is necessary to guarantee that the function we construct is injective, which is vital to get the inequality we want.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, the combinatorial strategy to prove that $|X| le |Y|$ is to find an injective function from $X$ to $Y$.
In this case, you have a subgraph $H$ of a connected graph $G$; to prove that $G$ has at least as many spanning trees as $H$, you want to find an injective function which turns spanning trees of $H$ into spanning trees of $G$.
Given a spanning tree $T$ of $H$, we can extend it to a spanning tree of $G$ as follows. For as long as $T$ is not a spanning tree of $G$ (that is, for as long as it does not contain the vertices of $G$) we can make $T$ larger by
- Picking an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $G$ which is not yet in $T$.
- Finding the shortest path from $v$ to $T$, ending at a vertex $w$ in $T$.
- Creating a larger tree $T'$ consisting of the tree $T$ and the $v,w$-path found in step 2.
Repeat this with the new tree $T'$ until you have a tree that spans all the vertices of $G$.
You should check that (a) this process is always possible to carry out, (b) it always ends with a spanning tree of $G$, and (c) if we start with different spanning trees of $H$, we are guaranteed to end up with different spanning trees of $П$.
(Statement (c) is necessary to guarantee that the function we construct is injective, which is vital to get the inequality we want.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, the combinatorial strategy to prove that $|X| le |Y|$ is to find an injective function from $X$ to $Y$.
In this case, you have a subgraph $H$ of a connected graph $G$; to prove that $G$ has at least as many spanning trees as $H$, you want to find an injective function which turns spanning trees of $H$ into spanning trees of $G$.
Given a spanning tree $T$ of $H$, we can extend it to a spanning tree of $G$ as follows. For as long as $T$ is not a spanning tree of $G$ (that is, for as long as it does not contain the vertices of $G$) we can make $T$ larger by
- Picking an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $G$ which is not yet in $T$.
- Finding the shortest path from $v$ to $T$, ending at a vertex $w$ in $T$.
- Creating a larger tree $T'$ consisting of the tree $T$ and the $v,w$-path found in step 2.
Repeat this with the new tree $T'$ until you have a tree that spans all the vertices of $G$.
You should check that (a) this process is always possible to carry out, (b) it always ends with a spanning tree of $G$, and (c) if we start with different spanning trees of $H$, we are guaranteed to end up with different spanning trees of $П$.
(Statement (c) is necessary to guarantee that the function we construct is injective, which is vital to get the inequality we want.)
$endgroup$
In general, the combinatorial strategy to prove that $|X| le |Y|$ is to find an injective function from $X$ to $Y$.
In this case, you have a subgraph $H$ of a connected graph $G$; to prove that $G$ has at least as many spanning trees as $H$, you want to find an injective function which turns spanning trees of $H$ into spanning trees of $G$.
Given a spanning tree $T$ of $H$, we can extend it to a spanning tree of $G$ as follows. For as long as $T$ is not a spanning tree of $G$ (that is, for as long as it does not contain the vertices of $G$) we can make $T$ larger by
- Picking an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $G$ which is not yet in $T$.
- Finding the shortest path from $v$ to $T$, ending at a vertex $w$ in $T$.
- Creating a larger tree $T'$ consisting of the tree $T$ and the $v,w$-path found in step 2.
Repeat this with the new tree $T'$ until you have a tree that spans all the vertices of $G$.
You should check that (a) this process is always possible to carry out, (b) it always ends with a spanning tree of $G$, and (c) if we start with different spanning trees of $H$, we are guaranteed to end up with different spanning trees of $П$.
(Statement (c) is necessary to guarantee that the function we construct is injective, which is vital to get the inequality we want.)
edited Dec 24 '18 at 17:25
answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:46
Misha LavrovMisha Lavrov
46.8k657107
46.8k657107
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050744%2fnumber-of-spanning-trees-in-a-subgraph%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:17
1
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft Only if the subgraph is spanning, which it may not be.
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
If the subgraph is not spanning (I assume you mean connected) then there is no spanning tree in the first place. But then still every spanning tree of the subgraph is a spanning tree of the original graph.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 23 '18 at 22:36
$begingroup$
I mean that if the subgraph does not have all the vertices that the original graph has, then a spanning tree of the subgraph extends to a spanning tree of the original graph, but you have to add more vertices and edges to get there
$endgroup$
– Misha Lavrov
Dec 23 '18 at 22:57