Number of spanning trees in a subgraph












0












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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
















0












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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














0












0








0





$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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


















  • $begingroup$
    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










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

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




  1. Picking an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $G$ which is not yet in $T$.

  2. Finding the shortest path from $v$ to $T$, ending at a vertex $w$ in $T$.

  3. 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.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%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









    1












    $begingroup$

    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




    1. Picking an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $G$ which is not yet in $T$.

    2. Finding the shortest path from $v$ to $T$, ending at a vertex $w$ in $T$.

    3. 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.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      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




      1. Picking an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $G$ which is not yet in $T$.

      2. Finding the shortest path from $v$ to $T$, ending at a vertex $w$ in $T$.

      3. 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.)






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        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




        1. Picking an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $G$ which is not yet in $T$.

        2. Finding the shortest path from $v$ to $T$, ending at a vertex $w$ in $T$.

        3. 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.)






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        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




        1. Picking an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $G$ which is not yet in $T$.

        2. Finding the shortest path from $v$ to $T$, ending at a vertex $w$ in $T$.

        3. 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.)







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 24 '18 at 17:25

























        answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:46









        Misha LavrovMisha Lavrov

        46.8k657107




        46.8k657107






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050744%2fnumber-of-spanning-trees-in-a-subgraph%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Image
            up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
            Read more

            build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

            Image
            0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
            Read more

            Mont Emei

            Image
            Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
            Read more