Prove that the graph dual to Eulerian planar graph is bipartite.
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
How would I go about doing this proof I am not very knowledgeable about graph theory I know the definitions of planar and bipartite and dual but how do you make these connection
graph-theory planar-graph eulerian-path
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
How would I go about doing this proof I am not very knowledgeable about graph theory I know the definitions of planar and bipartite and dual but how do you make these connection
graph-theory planar-graph eulerian-path
It's actually an if and only if. The other direction is simpler. If I recall correctly you need to use the dual of the dual of $G$ is isomorphic to $G$:
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:00
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
How would I go about doing this proof I am not very knowledgeable about graph theory I know the definitions of planar and bipartite and dual but how do you make these connection
graph-theory planar-graph eulerian-path
How would I go about doing this proof I am not very knowledgeable about graph theory I know the definitions of planar and bipartite and dual but how do you make these connection
graph-theory planar-graph eulerian-path
graph-theory planar-graph eulerian-path
edited Jul 6 '15 at 6:40
Martin Sleziak
44.6k7115269
44.6k7115269
asked Jul 5 '15 at 20:00
Fernando Martinez
3,327104278
3,327104278
It's actually an if and only if. The other direction is simpler. If I recall correctly you need to use the dual of the dual of $G$ is isomorphic to $G$:
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:00
add a comment |
It's actually an if and only if. The other direction is simpler. If I recall correctly you need to use the dual of the dual of $G$ is isomorphic to $G$:
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:00
It's actually an if and only if. The other direction is simpler. If I recall correctly you need to use the dual of the dual of $G$ is isomorphic to $G$:
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:00
It's actually an if and only if. The other direction is simpler. If I recall correctly you need to use the dual of the dual of $G$ is isomorphic to $G$:
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:00
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
So $G$ is planar and eulerian. We must prove $G'$ is bipartite. Asume $G'$ is not bipartite. Now I want you to forget about the fact that $G'$ is the dual of $G$. Just think of $G'$ as a normal graph in which the vertices of $G'$ are drawn as vertices and not as the faces of $G$.
Since $G'$ is not bipartite it has an odd cycle, one of the faces inside that odd cycle must therefore have an odd number of edges. That face is a vertex of odd degree in $G''$,so $G''$ is not eulerian. Now,$Gcong G''$ so $G$ is not eulerian, a contradiction. The contradiction comes from assuming $G'$ is not bipartite.
A key step is the fact $Gcong G''$.
$G''$ is the dual of the dual, it is isomorphic to $G$. It id the second property con the wikipedia page about the dual.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_graph#Properties
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:30
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let $G$ be a planar Eulerian graph, and consider a particular planar diagram of $G$. There is an Eulerian circuit that does not pass "through" vertices, but instead always takes a hard left or right turn.
While there is probably some argument involving depth-first traversals, one can also construct such an Eulerian circuit by starting with any Eulerian circuit then performing the following kind of local modification to the circuit whenever the circuit crosses over itself (which happens exactly when the circuit fails to make a hard turn).
If we think of the circuit as being a curve in the plane, we can push it slightly away from the vertices to get an embedded closed curve. By the Jordan Curve Theorem, this curve separates the plane into two components. The dual graph's vertices are partitioned into two sets depending on which side of the circuit the vertex lies on, and each edge of the dual graph crosses the circuit transversely in one point. Hence, the dual graph is a planar bipartite graph.
Here is a worked example of the dual of on octahedral graph, with the blue curve being the pushed-off embedded Eulerian circuit, and with the cyan and green vertices representing the two partitions of the bipartite graph:
For the converse, you can take small blue circles around each green vertex to get a multicurve. Then around each vertex in the dual graph you can join them in such a way to get an Eulerian circuit of the dual. Or just note that each face in a planar bipartite graph has an even number of sides.
(It seems there should be a way to think about all of this in terms of (co)homology with $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ coefficients and Poincaré duality.)
A possible simplification to the above argument could be that Eulerian implies each vertex has even degree. Then, one can replace each vertex of degree $2n$ with $n$ vertices of degree $2$ in a "starburst" pattern. This is a planar graph composed entirely of circles. By the Jordan curve theorem you can $2$-color the regions between the circles, meaning the regions on either side of a circle have opposite colors. The coloring partitions the vertices of the dual graph into two parts, and again edges cross the circles, so the dual is bipartite.
This is rehashing a proof that the dual of a planar graph with vertices of only even degree can be $2$-colored. For example the shadow of a knot diagram.
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',
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%2f1350552%2fprove-that-the-graph-dual-to-eulerian-planar-graph-is-bipartite%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
So $G$ is planar and eulerian. We must prove $G'$ is bipartite. Asume $G'$ is not bipartite. Now I want you to forget about the fact that $G'$ is the dual of $G$. Just think of $G'$ as a normal graph in which the vertices of $G'$ are drawn as vertices and not as the faces of $G$.
Since $G'$ is not bipartite it has an odd cycle, one of the faces inside that odd cycle must therefore have an odd number of edges. That face is a vertex of odd degree in $G''$,so $G''$ is not eulerian. Now,$Gcong G''$ so $G$ is not eulerian, a contradiction. The contradiction comes from assuming $G'$ is not bipartite.
A key step is the fact $Gcong G''$.
$G''$ is the dual of the dual, it is isomorphic to $G$. It id the second property con the wikipedia page about the dual.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_graph#Properties
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:30
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
So $G$ is planar and eulerian. We must prove $G'$ is bipartite. Asume $G'$ is not bipartite. Now I want you to forget about the fact that $G'$ is the dual of $G$. Just think of $G'$ as a normal graph in which the vertices of $G'$ are drawn as vertices and not as the faces of $G$.
Since $G'$ is not bipartite it has an odd cycle, one of the faces inside that odd cycle must therefore have an odd number of edges. That face is a vertex of odd degree in $G''$,so $G''$ is not eulerian. Now,$Gcong G''$ so $G$ is not eulerian, a contradiction. The contradiction comes from assuming $G'$ is not bipartite.
A key step is the fact $Gcong G''$.
$G''$ is the dual of the dual, it is isomorphic to $G$. It id the second property con the wikipedia page about the dual.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_graph#Properties
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:30
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
So $G$ is planar and eulerian. We must prove $G'$ is bipartite. Asume $G'$ is not bipartite. Now I want you to forget about the fact that $G'$ is the dual of $G$. Just think of $G'$ as a normal graph in which the vertices of $G'$ are drawn as vertices and not as the faces of $G$.
Since $G'$ is not bipartite it has an odd cycle, one of the faces inside that odd cycle must therefore have an odd number of edges. That face is a vertex of odd degree in $G''$,so $G''$ is not eulerian. Now,$Gcong G''$ so $G$ is not eulerian, a contradiction. The contradiction comes from assuming $G'$ is not bipartite.
A key step is the fact $Gcong G''$.
So $G$ is planar and eulerian. We must prove $G'$ is bipartite. Asume $G'$ is not bipartite. Now I want you to forget about the fact that $G'$ is the dual of $G$. Just think of $G'$ as a normal graph in which the vertices of $G'$ are drawn as vertices and not as the faces of $G$.
Since $G'$ is not bipartite it has an odd cycle, one of the faces inside that odd cycle must therefore have an odd number of edges. That face is a vertex of odd degree in $G''$,so $G''$ is not eulerian. Now,$Gcong G''$ so $G$ is not eulerian, a contradiction. The contradiction comes from assuming $G'$ is not bipartite.
A key step is the fact $Gcong G''$.
edited Jul 7 '15 at 10:38
answered Jul 5 '15 at 22:27
Jorge Fernández
75k1089190
75k1089190
$G''$ is the dual of the dual, it is isomorphic to $G$. It id the second property con the wikipedia page about the dual.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_graph#Properties
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:30
add a comment |
$G''$ is the dual of the dual, it is isomorphic to $G$. It id the second property con the wikipedia page about the dual.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_graph#Properties
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:30
$G''$ is the dual of the dual, it is isomorphic to $G$. It id the second property con the wikipedia page about the dual.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_graph#Properties
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:30
$G''$ is the dual of the dual, it is isomorphic to $G$. It id the second property con the wikipedia page about the dual.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_graph#Properties
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:30
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let $G$ be a planar Eulerian graph, and consider a particular planar diagram of $G$. There is an Eulerian circuit that does not pass "through" vertices, but instead always takes a hard left or right turn.
While there is probably some argument involving depth-first traversals, one can also construct such an Eulerian circuit by starting with any Eulerian circuit then performing the following kind of local modification to the circuit whenever the circuit crosses over itself (which happens exactly when the circuit fails to make a hard turn).
If we think of the circuit as being a curve in the plane, we can push it slightly away from the vertices to get an embedded closed curve. By the Jordan Curve Theorem, this curve separates the plane into two components. The dual graph's vertices are partitioned into two sets depending on which side of the circuit the vertex lies on, and each edge of the dual graph crosses the circuit transversely in one point. Hence, the dual graph is a planar bipartite graph.
Here is a worked example of the dual of on octahedral graph, with the blue curve being the pushed-off embedded Eulerian circuit, and with the cyan and green vertices representing the two partitions of the bipartite graph:
For the converse, you can take small blue circles around each green vertex to get a multicurve. Then around each vertex in the dual graph you can join them in such a way to get an Eulerian circuit of the dual. Or just note that each face in a planar bipartite graph has an even number of sides.
(It seems there should be a way to think about all of this in terms of (co)homology with $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ coefficients and Poincaré duality.)
A possible simplification to the above argument could be that Eulerian implies each vertex has even degree. Then, one can replace each vertex of degree $2n$ with $n$ vertices of degree $2$ in a "starburst" pattern. This is a planar graph composed entirely of circles. By the Jordan curve theorem you can $2$-color the regions between the circles, meaning the regions on either side of a circle have opposite colors. The coloring partitions the vertices of the dual graph into two parts, and again edges cross the circles, so the dual is bipartite.
This is rehashing a proof that the dual of a planar graph with vertices of only even degree can be $2$-colored. For example the shadow of a knot diagram.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let $G$ be a planar Eulerian graph, and consider a particular planar diagram of $G$. There is an Eulerian circuit that does not pass "through" vertices, but instead always takes a hard left or right turn.
While there is probably some argument involving depth-first traversals, one can also construct such an Eulerian circuit by starting with any Eulerian circuit then performing the following kind of local modification to the circuit whenever the circuit crosses over itself (which happens exactly when the circuit fails to make a hard turn).
If we think of the circuit as being a curve in the plane, we can push it slightly away from the vertices to get an embedded closed curve. By the Jordan Curve Theorem, this curve separates the plane into two components. The dual graph's vertices are partitioned into two sets depending on which side of the circuit the vertex lies on, and each edge of the dual graph crosses the circuit transversely in one point. Hence, the dual graph is a planar bipartite graph.
Here is a worked example of the dual of on octahedral graph, with the blue curve being the pushed-off embedded Eulerian circuit, and with the cyan and green vertices representing the two partitions of the bipartite graph:
For the converse, you can take small blue circles around each green vertex to get a multicurve. Then around each vertex in the dual graph you can join them in such a way to get an Eulerian circuit of the dual. Or just note that each face in a planar bipartite graph has an even number of sides.
(It seems there should be a way to think about all of this in terms of (co)homology with $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ coefficients and Poincaré duality.)
A possible simplification to the above argument could be that Eulerian implies each vertex has even degree. Then, one can replace each vertex of degree $2n$ with $n$ vertices of degree $2$ in a "starburst" pattern. This is a planar graph composed entirely of circles. By the Jordan curve theorem you can $2$-color the regions between the circles, meaning the regions on either side of a circle have opposite colors. The coloring partitions the vertices of the dual graph into two parts, and again edges cross the circles, so the dual is bipartite.
This is rehashing a proof that the dual of a planar graph with vertices of only even degree can be $2$-colored. For example the shadow of a knot diagram.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Let $G$ be a planar Eulerian graph, and consider a particular planar diagram of $G$. There is an Eulerian circuit that does not pass "through" vertices, but instead always takes a hard left or right turn.
While there is probably some argument involving depth-first traversals, one can also construct such an Eulerian circuit by starting with any Eulerian circuit then performing the following kind of local modification to the circuit whenever the circuit crosses over itself (which happens exactly when the circuit fails to make a hard turn).
If we think of the circuit as being a curve in the plane, we can push it slightly away from the vertices to get an embedded closed curve. By the Jordan Curve Theorem, this curve separates the plane into two components. The dual graph's vertices are partitioned into two sets depending on which side of the circuit the vertex lies on, and each edge of the dual graph crosses the circuit transversely in one point. Hence, the dual graph is a planar bipartite graph.
Here is a worked example of the dual of on octahedral graph, with the blue curve being the pushed-off embedded Eulerian circuit, and with the cyan and green vertices representing the two partitions of the bipartite graph:
For the converse, you can take small blue circles around each green vertex to get a multicurve. Then around each vertex in the dual graph you can join them in such a way to get an Eulerian circuit of the dual. Or just note that each face in a planar bipartite graph has an even number of sides.
(It seems there should be a way to think about all of this in terms of (co)homology with $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ coefficients and Poincaré duality.)
A possible simplification to the above argument could be that Eulerian implies each vertex has even degree. Then, one can replace each vertex of degree $2n$ with $n$ vertices of degree $2$ in a "starburst" pattern. This is a planar graph composed entirely of circles. By the Jordan curve theorem you can $2$-color the regions between the circles, meaning the regions on either side of a circle have opposite colors. The coloring partitions the vertices of the dual graph into two parts, and again edges cross the circles, so the dual is bipartite.
This is rehashing a proof that the dual of a planar graph with vertices of only even degree can be $2$-colored. For example the shadow of a knot diagram.
Let $G$ be a planar Eulerian graph, and consider a particular planar diagram of $G$. There is an Eulerian circuit that does not pass "through" vertices, but instead always takes a hard left or right turn.
While there is probably some argument involving depth-first traversals, one can also construct such an Eulerian circuit by starting with any Eulerian circuit then performing the following kind of local modification to the circuit whenever the circuit crosses over itself (which happens exactly when the circuit fails to make a hard turn).
If we think of the circuit as being a curve in the plane, we can push it slightly away from the vertices to get an embedded closed curve. By the Jordan Curve Theorem, this curve separates the plane into two components. The dual graph's vertices are partitioned into two sets depending on which side of the circuit the vertex lies on, and each edge of the dual graph crosses the circuit transversely in one point. Hence, the dual graph is a planar bipartite graph.
Here is a worked example of the dual of on octahedral graph, with the blue curve being the pushed-off embedded Eulerian circuit, and with the cyan and green vertices representing the two partitions of the bipartite graph:
For the converse, you can take small blue circles around each green vertex to get a multicurve. Then around each vertex in the dual graph you can join them in such a way to get an Eulerian circuit of the dual. Or just note that each face in a planar bipartite graph has an even number of sides.
(It seems there should be a way to think about all of this in terms of (co)homology with $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ coefficients and Poincaré duality.)
A possible simplification to the above argument could be that Eulerian implies each vertex has even degree. Then, one can replace each vertex of degree $2n$ with $n$ vertices of degree $2$ in a "starburst" pattern. This is a planar graph composed entirely of circles. By the Jordan curve theorem you can $2$-color the regions between the circles, meaning the regions on either side of a circle have opposite colors. The coloring partitions the vertices of the dual graph into two parts, and again edges cross the circles, so the dual is bipartite.
This is rehashing a proof that the dual of a planar graph with vertices of only even degree can be $2$-colored. For example the shadow of a knot diagram.
edited Dec 3 at 22:28
answered Dec 3 at 22:18
Kyle Miller
8,347928
8,347928
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f1350552%2fprove-that-the-graph-dual-to-eulerian-planar-graph-is-bipartite%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
It's actually an if and only if. The other direction is simpler. If I recall correctly you need to use the dual of the dual of $G$ is isomorphic to $G$:
– Jorge Fernández
Jul 5 '15 at 22:00