Search for: All records

The combinatorial problem in this paper is motivated by a variant of the famous traveling salesman problem where the salesman must return to the starting point after each delivery. The total length of a delivery route is related to a metric known as closeness centrality. The closeness centrality of a vertex v in a graph G was defined in 1950 by Bavelas to be CC(v)=|V(G)|−1SD(v), where SD(v) is the sum of the distances from v to each of the other vertices (which is one-half of the total distance in the delivery route). We provide a real-world example involving the Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority rail network and identify stations whose SD values are nearly identical, meaning they have a similar proximity to other stations in the network. We then consider theoretical aspects involving asymmetric trees. For integer values of k, we considered the asymmetric tree with paths of lengths k,2k,…,nk that are incident to a center vertex. We investigated trees with different values of k, and for k=1 and k=2, we established necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of two vertices with identical SD values, which has a surprising connection to the triangular numbers. Additionally, we investigated asymmetric trees with paths incident to two vertices and found a sufficient condition for vertices to have equal SD values. This leads to new combinatorial proofs of identities arising from Pascal’s triangle. 

For a given a graph G, the zero forcing number of G, Z(G), is the smallest cardinality of any set S of vertices on which repeated applications of the forcing rule results in all vertices being included in S. The forcing rule is as follows: if a vertex v is in S, and exactly one neighbor u of v is not in S, then u is added to S in the next iteration. The failed zero forcing number of a graph was introduced by Fetcie, Jacob, and Saavedra and was defined as the cardinality of the largest set of vertices which fails to force all vertices in the graph. In 2021, Gomez et al. proved that there were exactly 15 graphs with a failed zero forcing number of two, but their proof was complicated, requiring the analysis of many graph families. We present an “inverse” approach where we start with a set of vertices S and then see which graphs have S as a maximum-sized failed zero forcing set. This results in not only a shorter proof but characterizes which graphs have a particular failed zero forcing set. In our proof, we characterize the graphs which have a failed zero forcing set S where |S|=2, meaning considering all simple graphs of order two as induced subgraphs. This approach also has greater potential for characterizing graphs where F(G)>2 since many general arguments on the structure of graphs are developed in this type of analysis and are applicable for failed zero forcing sets of any size. 

Given a graph G, the zero forcing number of G, Z(G), is the minimum cardinality of any set S of vertices of which repeated applications of the forcing rule results in all vertices being in S. The forcing rule is: if a vertex v is in S, and exactly one neighbor u of v is not in S, then u is added to S in the next iteration. Hence the failed zero forcing number of a graph was defined to be the cardinality of the largest set of vertices which fails to force all vertices in the graph. A similar property called skew zero forcing was defined so that if there is exactly one neighbor u of v is not in S, then u is added to S in the next iteration. The difference is that vertices that are not in S can force other vertices. This leads to the failed skew zero forcing number of a graph, which is denoted by F−(G). In this paper, we provide a complete characterization of all graphs with F−(G)=1. Fetcie, Jacob, and Saavedra showed that the only graphs with a failed zero forcing number of 1 are either: the union of two isolated vertices; P3; K3; or K4. In this paper, we provide a surprising result: changing the forcing rule to a skew-forcing rule results in an infinite number of graphs with F−(G)=1. 

A vertex in a graph is referred to as fixed if it is mapped to itself under every automorphism of the vertices. The fixing number of a graph is the minimum number of vertices, when fixed, that fixes all of the vertices in the graph. Fixing numbers were first introduced by Laison and Gibbons, and independently by Erwin and Harary. Fixing numbers have also been referred to as determining numbers by Boutin. The main motivation is to remove all symmetries from a graph. A very simple application is in the creation of QR codes where the symbols must be fixed against any rotation. We determine the fixing number for several families of graphs, including those arising from combinatorial block designs. We also present several infinite families of graphs with an even stronger condition, where fixing any vertex in a graph fixes every vertex. 

Given a graph G, the zero forcing number of G, Z(G), is the smallest cardinality of any set S of vertices on which repeated applications of the forcing rule results in all vertices being in S. The forcing rule is: if a vertex v is in S, and exactly one neighbor u of v is not in S, then u is added to S in the next iteration. Zero forcing numbers have attracted great interest over the past 15 years and have been well studied. In this paper, we investigate the largest size of a set S that does not force all of the vertices in a graph to be in S. This quantity is known as the failed zero forcing number of a graph and will be denoted by F(G). We present new results involving this parameter. In particular, we completely characterize all graphs G where F(G)=2, solving a problem posed in 2015 by Fetcie, Jacob, and Saavedra. 

An automorphism of a graph is a mapping of the vertices onto themselves such that connections between respective edges are preserved. A vertex v in a graph G is fixed if it is mapped to itself under every automorphism of G. The fixing number of a graph G is the minimum number of vertices, when fixed, fixes all of the vertices in G. The determination of fixing numbers is important as it can be useful in determining the group of automorphisms of a graph-a famous and difficult problem. Fixing numbers were introduced and initially studied by Gibbons and Laison, Erwin and Harary and Boutin. In this paper, we investigate fixing numbers for graphs with an underlying cyclic structure, which provides an inherent presence of symmetry. We first determine fixing numbers for circulant graphs, showing in many cases the fixing number is 2. However, we also show that circulant graphs with twins, which are pairs of vertices with the same neighbourhoods, have considerably higher fixing numbers. This is the first paper that investigates fixing numbers of point-block incidence graphs, which lie at the intersection of graph theory and combinatorial design theory. We also present a surprising result-identifying infinite families of graphs in which fixing any vertex fixes every vertex, thus removing all symmetries from the graph.