Gregory J. Puleo

83
On a Conjecture of Erd˝os, Gallai, and Tuza Gregory J. Puleo Coordinated Science Lab, UIUC UIUC Graph Theory Seminar September 23, 2014

Transcript of Gregory J. Puleo

Page 1: Gregory J. Puleo

On a Conjecture of Erdos, Gallai, and Tuza

Gregory J. Puleo

Coordinated Science Lab, UIUC

UIUC Graph Theory SeminarSeptember 23, 2014

Page 2: Gregory J. Puleo

How many edges in a triangle-free graph?

Definition

A graph is triangle-free if it has no subgraph isomorphic to K3.

Theorem (Mantel 1907)

If G is a triangle-free n-vertex graph, then G has at most n2/4 edges.Equality holds if and only if G = Kn/2,n/2.

Theorem (Turan 1941)

If G is an n-vertex graph with no copy of Kr , then G has at most(r−2r−1

)n2

2 edges.

Equality holds if and only if G = Kn/(r−1),··· ,n/(r−1).

Page 3: Gregory J. Puleo

How many edges in a triangle-free graph?

Definition

A graph is triangle-free if it has no subgraph isomorphic to K3.

Theorem (Mantel 1907)

If G is a triangle-free n-vertex graph, then G has at most n2/4 edges.Equality holds if and only if G = Kn/2,n/2.

Theorem (Turan 1941)

If G is an n-vertex graph with no copy of Kr , then G has at most(r−2r−1

)n2

2 edges.

Equality holds if and only if G = Kn/(r−1),··· ,n/(r−1).

Page 4: Gregory J. Puleo

How hard is it to make a graph bipartite?

Theorem (Erdos 1965)

Any graph G can be made bipartite by removing at most |E (G )| /2 edges.

Proof.

Randomly color each vertex red or blue, each with probability 1/2.Delete all monochromatic edges.

Each edge has probability 1/2 of being deleted, so the expectednumber of deleted edges is |E (G )| /2.

Corollary

If G has n vertices, then G can be made bipartite by deletingat most n2/4 edges. The worst-case graph is Kn.

Page 5: Gregory J. Puleo

How hard is it to make a graph bipartite?

Theorem (Erdos 1965)

Any graph G can be made bipartite by removing at most |E (G )| /2 edges.

Proof.

Randomly color each vertex red or blue, each with probability 1/2.Delete all monochromatic edges.

Each edge has probability 1/2 of being deleted, so the expectednumber of deleted edges is |E (G )| /2.

Corollary

If G has n vertices, then G can be made bipartite by deletingat most n2/4 edges. The worst-case graph is Kn.

Page 6: Gregory J. Puleo

How hard is it to make a graph bipartite?

Theorem (Erdos 1965)

Any graph G can be made bipartite by removing at most |E (G )| /2 edges.

Proof.

Randomly color each vertex red or blue, each with probability 1/2.Delete all monochromatic edges.

Each edge has probability 1/2 of being deleted, so the expectednumber of deleted edges is |E (G )| /2.

Corollary

If G has n vertices, then G can be made bipartite by deletingat most n2/4 edges. The worst-case graph is Kn.

Page 7: Gregory J. Puleo

How hard is it to make a graph bipartite?

Theorem (Erdos 1965)

Any graph G can be made bipartite by removing at most |E (G )| /2 edges.

Proof.

Randomly color each vertex red or blue, each with probability 1/2.Delete all monochromatic edges.

Each edge has probability 1/2 of being deleted, so the expectednumber of deleted edges is |E (G )| /2.

Corollary

If G has n vertices, then G can be made bipartite by deletingat most n2/4 edges. The worst-case graph is Kn.

Page 8: Gregory J. Puleo

Hitting sets and triangle-independent sets

Definition

X ⊂ E (G ) is a hitting set if it contains at least one edgefrom each triangle of G .

A ⊂ E (G ) is triangle-independent if it contains at most one edgefrom each triangle of G .

Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of a hitting set in G .

α1(G ) is the largest size of a triangle-independent set in G .

The Erdos bound implies: τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.Mantel’s Theorem implies: α1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Page 9: Gregory J. Puleo

Hitting sets and triangle-independent sets

Definition

X ⊂ E (G ) is a hitting set if it contains at least one edgefrom each triangle of G .

A ⊂ E (G ) is triangle-independent if it contains at most one edgefrom each triangle of G .

Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of a hitting set in G .

α1(G ) is the largest size of a triangle-independent set in G .

The Erdos bound implies: τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.Mantel’s Theorem implies: α1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Page 10: Gregory J. Puleo

Hitting sets and triangle-independent sets

Definition

X ⊂ E (G ) is a hitting set if it contains at least one edgefrom each triangle of G .

A ⊂ E (G ) is triangle-independent if it contains at most one edgefrom each triangle of G .

Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of a hitting set in G .

α1(G ) is the largest size of a triangle-independent set in G .

The Erdos bound implies: τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.Mantel’s Theorem implies: α1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Page 11: Gregory J. Puleo

The Erdos–Gallai–Tuza Conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

The conjecture is sharp, if true:

Consider the complete graph Kn, where n is even:

τ1(Kn) =(n2

)− n2/4 = n2/4− n/2,

α1(Kn) = n/2,

Thus α1(Kn) + τ1(Kn) = n2/4.

Next, consider the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2:

τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = 0,

α1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4,

Thus α1(Kn/2,n/2) + τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4.

More generally, the conjecture is sharp for Kr1,r1 ∨ · · · ∨ Krt ,rt .

Page 12: Gregory J. Puleo

The Erdos–Gallai–Tuza Conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

The conjecture is sharp, if true:

Consider the complete graph Kn, where n is even:

τ1(Kn) =(n2

)− n2/4 = n2/4− n/2,

α1(Kn) = n/2,

Thus α1(Kn) + τ1(Kn) = n2/4.

Next, consider the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2:

τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = 0,

α1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4,

Thus α1(Kn/2,n/2) + τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4.

More generally, the conjecture is sharp for Kr1,r1 ∨ · · · ∨ Krt ,rt .

Page 13: Gregory J. Puleo

The Erdos–Gallai–Tuza Conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

The conjecture is sharp, if true:

Consider the complete graph Kn, where n is even:

τ1(Kn) =(n2

)− n2/4 = n2/4− n/2,

α1(Kn) = n/2,

Thus α1(Kn) + τ1(Kn) = n2/4.

Next, consider the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2:

τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = 0,

α1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4,

Thus α1(Kn/2,n/2) + τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4.

More generally, the conjecture is sharp for Kr1,r1 ∨ · · · ∨ Krt ,rt .

Page 14: Gregory J. Puleo

The Erdos–Gallai–Tuza Conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

The conjecture is sharp, if true:

Consider the complete graph Kn, where n is even:

τ1(Kn) =(n2

)− n2/4 = n2/4− n/2,

α1(Kn) = n/2,

Thus α1(Kn) + τ1(Kn) = n2/4.

Next, consider the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2:

τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = 0,

α1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4,

Thus α1(Kn/2,n/2) + τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4.

More generally, the conjecture is sharp for Kr1,r1 ∨ · · · ∨ Krt ,rt .

Page 15: Gregory J. Puleo

The Erdos–Gallai–Tuza Conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

The conjecture is sharp, if true:

Consider the complete graph Kn, where n is even:

τ1(Kn) =(n2

)− n2/4 = n2/4− n/2,

α1(Kn) = n/2,

Thus α1(Kn) + τ1(Kn) = n2/4.

Next, consider the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2:

τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = 0,

α1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4,

Thus α1(Kn/2,n/2) + τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4.

More generally, the conjecture is sharp for Kr1,r1 ∨ · · · ∨ Krt ,rt .

Page 16: Gregory J. Puleo

The Erdos–Gallai–Tuza Conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

The conjecture is sharp, if true:

Consider the complete graph Kn, where n is even:

τ1(Kn) =(n2

)− n2/4 = n2/4− n/2,

α1(Kn) = n/2,

Thus α1(Kn) + τ1(Kn) = n2/4.

Next, consider the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2:

τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = 0,

α1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4,

Thus α1(Kn/2,n/2) + τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4.

More generally, the conjecture is sharp for Kr1,r1 ∨ · · · ∨ Krt ,rt .

Page 17: Gregory J. Puleo

The Erdos–Gallai–Tuza Conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

The conjecture is sharp, if true:

Consider the complete graph Kn, where n is even:

τ1(Kn) =(n2

)− n2/4 = n2/4− n/2,

α1(Kn) = n/2,

Thus α1(Kn) + τ1(Kn) = n2/4.

Next, consider the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2:

τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = 0,

α1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4,

Thus α1(Kn/2,n/2) + τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4.

More generally, the conjecture is sharp for Kr1,r1 ∨ · · · ∨ Krt ,rt .

Page 18: Gregory J. Puleo

The Erdos–Gallai–Tuza Conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

The conjecture is sharp, if true:

Consider the complete graph Kn, where n is even:

τ1(Kn) =(n2

)− n2/4 = n2/4− n/2,

α1(Kn) = n/2,

Thus α1(Kn) + τ1(Kn) = n2/4.

Next, consider the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2:

τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = 0,

α1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4,

Thus α1(Kn/2,n/2) + τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4.

More generally, the conjecture is sharp for Kr1,r1 ∨ · · · ∨ Krt ,rt .

Page 19: Gregory J. Puleo

The Erdos–Gallai–Tuza Conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

The conjecture is sharp, if true:

Consider the complete graph Kn, where n is even:

τ1(Kn) =(n2

)− n2/4 = n2/4− n/2,

α1(Kn) = n/2,

Thus α1(Kn) + τ1(Kn) = n2/4.

Next, consider the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2:

τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = 0,

α1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4,

Thus α1(Kn/2,n/2) + τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4.

More generally, the conjecture is sharp for Kr1,r1 ∨ · · · ∨ Krt ,rt .

Page 20: Gregory J. Puleo

The Erdos–Gallai–Tuza Conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

The conjecture is sharp, if true:

Consider the complete graph Kn, where n is even:

τ1(Kn) =(n2

)− n2/4 = n2/4− n/2,

α1(Kn) = n/2,

Thus α1(Kn) + τ1(Kn) = n2/4.

Next, consider the complete bipartite graph Kn/2,n/2:

τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = 0,

α1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4,

Thus α1(Kn/2,n/2) + τ1(Kn/2,n/2) = n2/4.

More generally, the conjecture is sharp for Kr1,r1 ∨ · · · ∨ Krt ,rt .

Page 21: Gregory J. Puleo

From τ1 to τB

Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of a hitting set in G .

Equivalent Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of an edge set X such that G −X is triangle-free.

Definition

τB(G ) is the smallest size of an edge set X such that G − X is bipartite.

Observe that τ1(G ) ≤ τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Conjecture

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Page 22: Gregory J. Puleo

From τ1 to τB

Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of a hitting set in G .

Equivalent Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of an edge set X such that G −X is triangle-free.

Definition

τB(G ) is the smallest size of an edge set X such that G − X is bipartite.

Observe that τ1(G ) ≤ τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Conjecture

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Page 23: Gregory J. Puleo

From τ1 to τB

Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of a hitting set in G .

Equivalent Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of an edge set X such that G −X is triangle-free.

Definition

τB(G ) is the smallest size of an edge set X such that G − X is bipartite.

Observe that τ1(G ) ≤ τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Conjecture

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Page 24: Gregory J. Puleo

From τ1 to τB

Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of a hitting set in G .

Equivalent Definition

τ1(G ) is the smallest size of an edge set X such that G −X is triangle-free.

Definition

τB(G ) is the smallest size of an edge set X such that G − X is bipartite.

Observe that τ1(G ) ≤ τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Conjecture

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Page 25: Gregory J. Puleo

Two approaches to the conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Two obvious ways to try to find partial results:

Find c > 1/4 such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ cn2 for all G .Find a class F such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4 for all G ∈ F .

Theorem (P. 2014+)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Theorem (P. 2014+)

If G has no induced K−4 , then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

In the rest of the talk, we prove these and other results.K−4

Page 26: Gregory J. Puleo

Two approaches to the conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Two obvious ways to try to find partial results:

Find c > 1/4 such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ cn2 for all G .Find a class F such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4 for all G ∈ F .

Theorem (P. 2014+)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Theorem (P. 2014+)

If G has no induced K−4 , then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

In the rest of the talk, we prove these and other results.K−4

Page 27: Gregory J. Puleo

Two approaches to the conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Two obvious ways to try to find partial results:

Find c > 1/4 such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ cn2 for all G .Find a class F such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4 for all G ∈ F .

Theorem (P. 2014+)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Theorem (P. 2014+)

If G has no induced K−4 , then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

In the rest of the talk, we prove these and other results.K−4

Page 28: Gregory J. Puleo

Two Lemmas

u v

Let b(G ) = max{|B| : G [B] is bipartite}.

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then for any uv ∈ A,the induced subgraph G [NA(u) ∪ NA(v)] isbipartite with dA(u) + dA(v) vertices.

Thus, dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then |A| ≤ nb(G)4.

Proof.

For any uv ∈ A, the first lemma gives dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Summing over all edges in A, we get∑

v dA(v)2 ≤ |A| b(G ).

Cauchy-Schwarz gives∑

v dA(v)2 ≥ 4|A|2n , and the conclusion follows.

Page 29: Gregory J. Puleo

Two Lemmas

u v

Let b(G ) = max{|B| : G [B] is bipartite}.

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then for any uv ∈ A,the induced subgraph G [NA(u) ∪ NA(v)] isbipartite with dA(u) + dA(v) vertices.Thus, dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then |A| ≤ nb(G)4.

Proof.

For any uv ∈ A, the first lemma gives dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Summing over all edges in A, we get∑

v dA(v)2 ≤ |A| b(G ).

Cauchy-Schwarz gives∑

v dA(v)2 ≥ 4|A|2n , and the conclusion follows.

Page 30: Gregory J. Puleo

Two Lemmas

u v

Let b(G ) = max{|B| : G [B] is bipartite}.

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then for any uv ∈ A,the induced subgraph G [NA(u) ∪ NA(v)] isbipartite with dA(u) + dA(v) vertices.Thus, dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then |A| ≤ nb(G)4.

Proof.

For any uv ∈ A, the first lemma gives dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Summing over all edges in A, we get∑

v dA(v)2 ≤ |A| b(G ).

Cauchy-Schwarz gives∑

v dA(v)2 ≥ 4|A|2n , and the conclusion follows.

Page 31: Gregory J. Puleo

Two Lemmas

u v

Let b(G ) = max{|B| : G [B] is bipartite}.

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then for any uv ∈ A,the induced subgraph G [NA(u) ∪ NA(v)] isbipartite with dA(u) + dA(v) vertices.Thus, dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then |A| ≤ nb(G)4.

Proof.

For any uv ∈ A, the first lemma gives dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Summing over all edges in A, we get∑

v dA(v)2 ≤ |A| b(G ).

Cauchy-Schwarz gives∑

v dA(v)2 ≥ 4|A|2n , and the conclusion follows.

Page 32: Gregory J. Puleo

Two Lemmas

u v

Let b(G ) = max{|B| : G [B] is bipartite}.

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then for any uv ∈ A,the induced subgraph G [NA(u) ∪ NA(v)] isbipartite with dA(u) + dA(v) vertices.Thus, dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then |A| ≤ nb(G)4.

Proof.

For any uv ∈ A, the first lemma gives dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Summing over all edges in A, we get∑

v dA(v)2 ≤ |A| b(G ).

Cauchy-Schwarz gives∑

v dA(v)2 ≥ 4|A|2n , and the conclusion follows.

Page 33: Gregory J. Puleo

Two Lemmas

u v

Let b(G ) = max{|B| : G [B] is bipartite}.

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then for any uv ∈ A,the induced subgraph G [NA(u) ∪ NA(v)] isbipartite with dA(u) + dA(v) vertices.Thus, dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Lemma

If A is triangle-independent, then |A| ≤ nb(G)4.

Proof.

For any uv ∈ A, the first lemma gives dA(u) + dA(v) ≤ b(G ).

Summing over all edges in A, we get∑

v dA(v)2 ≤ |A| b(G ).

Cauchy-Schwarz gives∑

v dA(v)2 ≥ 4|A|2n , and the conclusion follows.

Page 34: Gregory J. Puleo

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16

Lemma (Erdos–Faudree–Pach–Spencer 1988)

If G is a graph, and B is a vertex set such that G [B] is bipartite, then

τB(G ) ≤ 12

(∣∣∣E (G ) \(B2

)∣∣∣).

Theorem

For any n-vertex graph G , α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Proof.

EFPS yields τB(G ) ≤ 12

[(n2

)−(b(G)

2

)]≤ n2

4 −b(G)2

4 .

Thus, α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ nb(G)4 + n2

4 −b(G)2

4 .The right side is maximized when b(G ) = n/2, yieldingα1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Page 35: Gregory J. Puleo

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16

Lemma (Erdos–Faudree–Pach–Spencer 1988)

If G is a graph, and B is a vertex set such that G [B] is bipartite, then

τB(G ) ≤ 12

(∣∣∣E (G ) \(B2

)∣∣∣).Theorem

For any n-vertex graph G , α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Proof.

EFPS yields τB(G ) ≤ 12

[(n2

)−(b(G)

2

)]≤ n2

4 −b(G)2

4 .

Thus, α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ nb(G)4 + n2

4 −b(G)2

4 .The right side is maximized when b(G ) = n/2, yieldingα1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Page 36: Gregory J. Puleo

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16

Lemma (Erdos–Faudree–Pach–Spencer 1988)

If G is a graph, and B is a vertex set such that G [B] is bipartite, then

τB(G ) ≤ 12

(∣∣∣E (G ) \(B2

)∣∣∣).Theorem

For any n-vertex graph G , α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Proof.

EFPS yields τB(G ) ≤ 12

[(n2

)−(b(G)

2

)]≤ n2

4 −b(G)2

4 .

Thus, α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ nb(G)4 + n2

4 −b(G)2

4 .The right side is maximized when b(G ) = n/2, yieldingα1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Page 37: Gregory J. Puleo

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16

Lemma (Erdos–Faudree–Pach–Spencer 1988)

If G is a graph, and B is a vertex set such that G [B] is bipartite, then

τB(G ) ≤ 12

(∣∣∣E (G ) \(B2

)∣∣∣).Theorem

For any n-vertex graph G , α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Proof.

EFPS yields τB(G ) ≤ 12

[(n2

)−(b(G)

2

)]≤ n2

4 −b(G)2

4 .

Thus, α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ nb(G)4 + n2

4 −b(G)2

4 .

The right side is maximized when b(G ) = n/2, yieldingα1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Page 38: Gregory J. Puleo

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16

Lemma (Erdos–Faudree–Pach–Spencer 1988)

If G is a graph, and B is a vertex set such that G [B] is bipartite, then

τB(G ) ≤ 12

(∣∣∣E (G ) \(B2

)∣∣∣).Theorem

For any n-vertex graph G , α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Proof.

EFPS yields τB(G ) ≤ 12

[(n2

)−(b(G)

2

)]≤ n2

4 −b(G)2

4 .

Thus, α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ nb(G)4 + n2

4 −b(G)2

4 .The right side is maximized when b(G ) = n/2, yieldingα1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 5n2/16.

Page 39: Gregory J. Puleo

Two versions of the conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Definition

A graph is triangular if each of its edges lies in some triangle.

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex triangular graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Later formulations of the conjecture, by both Erdos and Tuza, silentlydropped the “triangular” condition.

Question (Grinberg 2012)

Are these two forms of the conjecture equivalent?

Answer (P. 2014+): YES.

Page 40: Gregory J. Puleo

Two versions of the conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996 ...sort of)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Definition

A graph is triangular if each of its edges lies in some triangle.

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex triangular graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Later formulations of the conjecture, by both Erdos and Tuza, silentlydropped the “triangular” condition.

Question (Grinberg 2012)

Are these two forms of the conjecture equivalent?

Answer (P. 2014+): YES.

Page 41: Gregory J. Puleo

Two versions of the conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996 ...sort of)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Definition

A graph is triangular if each of its edges lies in some triangle.

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex triangular graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Later formulations of the conjecture, by both Erdos and Tuza, silentlydropped the “triangular” condition.

Question (Grinberg 2012)

Are these two forms of the conjecture equivalent?

Answer (P. 2014+): YES.

Page 42: Gregory J. Puleo

Two versions of the conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996 ...sort of)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Definition

A graph is triangular if each of its edges lies in some triangle.

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex triangular graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Later formulations of the conjecture, by both Erdos and Tuza, silentlydropped the “triangular” condition.

Question (Grinberg 2012)

Are these two forms of the conjecture equivalent?

Answer (P. 2014+): YES.

Page 43: Gregory J. Puleo

Two versions of the conjecture

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996 ...sort of)

If G is an n-vertex graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Definition

A graph is triangular if each of its edges lies in some triangle.

Conjecture (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

If G is an n-vertex triangular graph, then α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Later formulations of the conjecture, by both Erdos and Tuza, silentlydropped the “triangular” condition.

Question (Grinberg 2012)

Are these two forms of the conjecture equivalent?

Answer (P. 2014+): YES.

Page 44: Gregory J. Puleo

Warmup: α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|

Theorem (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

In any graph G , α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|.

Proof.

Let A be a largest triangle-independent set, so that α1(G ) = |A|.Let X = E (G )− A.Any triangle of G contains at most one edge of A, thus contains at leasttwo edges of X .Thus, X is a hitting set (and then some!), so that τ1(G ) ≤ |X |.Therefore α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |A|+ |X | = |E (G )|.

This proof is global, dealing with all edges of G .We localize it, dealing only with the edges of some edge cut [S ,S ].

Page 45: Gregory J. Puleo

Warmup: α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|

Theorem (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

In any graph G , α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|.

Proof.

Let A be a largest triangle-independent set, so that α1(G ) = |A|.

Let X = E (G )− A.Any triangle of G contains at most one edge of A, thus contains at leasttwo edges of X .Thus, X is a hitting set (and then some!), so that τ1(G ) ≤ |X |.Therefore α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |A|+ |X | = |E (G )|.

This proof is global, dealing with all edges of G .We localize it, dealing only with the edges of some edge cut [S ,S ].

Page 46: Gregory J. Puleo

Warmup: α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|

Theorem (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

In any graph G , α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|.

Proof.

Let A be a largest triangle-independent set, so that α1(G ) = |A|.Let X = E (G )− A.

Any triangle of G contains at most one edge of A, thus contains at leasttwo edges of X .Thus, X is a hitting set (and then some!), so that τ1(G ) ≤ |X |.Therefore α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |A|+ |X | = |E (G )|.

This proof is global, dealing with all edges of G .We localize it, dealing only with the edges of some edge cut [S ,S ].

Page 47: Gregory J. Puleo

Warmup: α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|

Theorem (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

In any graph G , α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|.

Proof.

Let A be a largest triangle-independent set, so that α1(G ) = |A|.Let X = E (G )− A.Any triangle of G contains at most one edge of A, thus contains at leasttwo edges of X .

Thus, X is a hitting set (and then some!), so that τ1(G ) ≤ |X |.Therefore α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |A|+ |X | = |E (G )|.

This proof is global, dealing with all edges of G .We localize it, dealing only with the edges of some edge cut [S ,S ].

Page 48: Gregory J. Puleo

Warmup: α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|

Theorem (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

In any graph G , α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|.

Proof.

Let A be a largest triangle-independent set, so that α1(G ) = |A|.Let X = E (G )− A.Any triangle of G contains at most one edge of A, thus contains at leasttwo edges of X .Thus, X is a hitting set (and then some!), so that τ1(G ) ≤ |X |.

Therefore α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |A|+ |X | = |E (G )|.

This proof is global, dealing with all edges of G .We localize it, dealing only with the edges of some edge cut [S ,S ].

Page 49: Gregory J. Puleo

Warmup: α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|

Theorem (Erdos–Gallai–Tuza 1996)

In any graph G , α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |E (G )|.

Proof.

Let A be a largest triangle-independent set, so that α1(G ) = |A|.Let X = E (G )− A.Any triangle of G contains at most one edge of A, thus contains at leasttwo edges of X .Thus, X is a hitting set (and then some!), so that τ1(G ) ≤ |X |.Therefore α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |A|+ |X | = |E (G )|.

This proof is global, dealing with all edges of G .We localize it, dealing only with the edges of some edge cut [S , S ].

Page 50: Gregory J. Puleo

Edge cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

S S

Proof.

Let A be any triangle-independent set in G .Let X1, X2 be smallest hitting sets in G [S ], G [S ] respectively.Let A1 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), A2 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), C = A ∩ [S ,S ].Have |A1|+ |X1| ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) and likewise for S .X1 ∪ X2 hits all triangles except those with vertices in both S and S .Let X = X1 ∪ X2 ∪ ([S , S ]− C ); now X hits all triangles.

Page 51: Gregory J. Puleo

Edge cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

S S

Proof.

Let A be any triangle-independent set in G .

Let X1, X2 be smallest hitting sets in G [S ], G [S ] respectively.Let A1 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), A2 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), C = A ∩ [S ,S ].Have |A1|+ |X1| ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) and likewise for S .X1 ∪ X2 hits all triangles except those with vertices in both S and S .Let X = X1 ∪ X2 ∪ ([S ,S ]− C ); now X hits all triangles.

Page 52: Gregory J. Puleo

Edge cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

S S

Proof.

Let A be any triangle-independent set in G .Let X1, X2 be smallest hitting sets in G [S ], G [S ] respectively.

Let A1 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), A2 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), C = A ∩ [S ,S ].Have |A1|+ |X1| ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) and likewise for S .X1 ∪ X2 hits all triangles except those with vertices in both S and S .Let X = X1 ∪ X2 ∪ ([S ,S ]− C ); now X hits all triangles.

Page 53: Gregory J. Puleo

Edge cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

S S

Proof.

Let A be any triangle-independent set in G .Let X1, X2 be smallest hitting sets in G [S ], G [S ] respectively.Let A1 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), A2 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), C = A ∩ [S ,S ].

Have |A1|+ |X1| ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) and likewise for S .X1 ∪ X2 hits all triangles except those with vertices in both S and S .Let X = X1 ∪ X2 ∪ ([S ,S ]− C ); now X hits all triangles.

Page 54: Gregory J. Puleo

Edge cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

S S

Proof.

Let A be any triangle-independent set in G .Let X1, X2 be smallest hitting sets in G [S ], G [S ] respectively.Let A1 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), A2 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), C = A ∩ [S ,S ].Have |A1|+ |X1| ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) and likewise for S .

X1 ∪ X2 hits all triangles except those with vertices in both S and S .Let X = X1 ∪ X2 ∪ ([S ,S ]− C ); now X hits all triangles.

Page 55: Gregory J. Puleo

Edge cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

S S

Proof.

Let A be any triangle-independent set in G .Let X1, X2 be smallest hitting sets in G [S ], G [S ] respectively.Let A1 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), A2 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), C = A ∩ [S ,S ].Have |A1|+ |X1| ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) and likewise for S .X1 ∪ X2 hits all triangles except those with vertices in both S and S .

Let X = X1 ∪ X2 ∪ ([S ,S ]− C ); now X hits all triangles.

Page 56: Gregory J. Puleo

Edge cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

S S

Proof.

Let A be any triangle-independent set in G .Let X1, X2 be smallest hitting sets in G [S ], G [S ] respectively.Let A1 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), A2 = A ∩ E (G [S ]), C = A ∩ [S ,S ].Have |A1|+ |X1| ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) and likewise for S .X1 ∪ X2 hits all triangles except those with vertices in both S and S .Let X = X1 ∪ X2 ∪ ([S , S ]− C ); now X hits all triangles.

Page 57: Gregory J. Puleo

Minimum Counterexamples have Dense Cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

Theorem

If G is a vertex-minimal graph such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, then forall proper nonempty S ⊂ V (G ), we have

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Proof.

Lemma + minimality gives

α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |S |2 /4 + (n − |S |)2/4 +∣∣[S , S ]

∣∣

= n2/4− |S | (n − |S |)/2 +∣∣[S ,S ]

∣∣ .

Since α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, the claim follows.

Page 58: Gregory J. Puleo

Minimum Counterexamples have Dense Cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

Theorem

If G is a vertex-minimal graph such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, then forall proper nonempty S ⊂ V (G ), we have

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Proof.

Lemma + minimality gives

α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |S |2 /4 + (n − |S |)2/4 +∣∣[S , S ]

∣∣

= n2/4− |S | (n − |S |)/2 +∣∣[S ,S ]

∣∣ .

Since α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, the claim follows.

Page 59: Gregory J. Puleo

Minimum Counterexamples have Dense Cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

Theorem

If G is a vertex-minimal graph such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, then forall proper nonempty S ⊂ V (G ), we have

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Proof.

Lemma + minimality gives

α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |S |2 /4 + (n − |S |)2/4 +∣∣[S , S ]

∣∣

= n2/4− |S | (n − |S |)/2 +∣∣[S , S ]

∣∣ .Since α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, the claim follows.

Page 60: Gregory J. Puleo

Minimum Counterexamples have Dense Cuts

Lemma (P. 2014+)

For any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τ1(G [S ]) +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

Theorem

If G is a vertex-minimal graph such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, then forall proper nonempty S ⊂ V (G ), we have

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Proof.

Lemma + minimality gives

α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ |S |2 /4 + (n − |S |)2/4 +∣∣[S , S ]

∣∣= n2/4− |S | (n − |S |)/2 +

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ .

Since α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, the claim follows.

Page 61: Gregory J. Puleo

Minimum Degree in Minimum Counterexamples

Theorem

If G is a vertex-minimal graph such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, then forall proper nonempty S ⊂ V (G ), we have

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Improvement

If G is a vertex-minimal counterexample, then δ(G ) > n/2.

Thus, G is triangular.

Corollary

If α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4 for all triangular graphs G , thenα1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4 for all graphs G .

That is, the two forms of the conjecture are equivalent.

Page 62: Gregory J. Puleo

Minimum Degree in Minimum Counterexamples

Theorem

If G is a vertex-minimal graph such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, then forall proper nonempty S ⊂ V (G ), we have

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Improvement

If G is a vertex-minimal counterexample, then δ(G ) > n/2.Thus, G is triangular.

Corollary

If α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4 for all triangular graphs G , thenα1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4 for all graphs G .

That is, the two forms of the conjecture are equivalent.

Page 63: Gregory J. Puleo

Minimum Degree in Minimum Counterexamples

Theorem

If G is a vertex-minimal graph such that α1(G ) + τ1(G ) > n2/4, then forall proper nonempty S ⊂ V (G ), we have

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Improvement

If G is a vertex-minimal counterexample, then δ(G ) > n/2.Thus, G is triangular.

Corollary

If α1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4 for all triangular graphs G , thenα1(G ) + τ1(G ) ≤ n2/4 for all graphs G .

That is, the two forms of the conjecture are equivalent.

Page 64: Gregory J. Puleo

Dense Cuts for τB

Lemma

For any triangle-independent A and any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ])+

12

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣+∣∣A ∩ [S ,S ]

∣∣ .

Proof.

Suffices to show that τB(G ) ≤ τB(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ]) + 12

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣.

Given bipartitions of S and S , consider the two ways to combine themyielding a bipartition of V (G ).

S S

Page 65: Gregory J. Puleo

Dense Cuts for τB

Lemma

For any triangle-independent A and any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ])+

12

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣+∣∣A ∩ [S ,S ]

∣∣ .Proof.

Suffices to show that τB(G ) ≤ τB(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ]) + 12

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣.

Given bipartitions of S and S , consider the two ways to combine themyielding a bipartition of V (G ).

S S

Page 66: Gregory J. Puleo

Dense Cuts for τB

Lemma

For any triangle-independent A and any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ])+

12

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣+∣∣A ∩ [S ,S ]

∣∣ .Proof.

Suffices to show that τB(G ) ≤ τB(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ]) + 12

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣.

Given bipartitions of S and S , consider the two ways to combine themyielding a bipartition of V (G ).

S S

Page 67: Gregory J. Puleo

Dense Cuts for τB

Lemma

For any triangle-independent A and any S ⊂ V (G ),α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ α1(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ]) + α1(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ])+

12

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣+∣∣A ∩ [S ,S ]

∣∣ .Proof.

Suffices to show that τB(G ) ≤ τB(G [S ]) + τB(G [S ]) + 12

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣.

Given bipartitions of S and S , consider the two ways to combine themyielding a bipartition of V (G ).

S S

Page 68: Gregory J. Puleo

Clique Cuts

Corollary

If G is a vertex-minimal graph with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4 and A istriangle-independent, then for any nonempty proper S ⊂ V (G ), we have12

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣+∣∣A ∩ [S , S ]

∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Corollary

If G is a vertex-minimal graph with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4, if A istriangle-independent, and if S is a clique, then

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > (|S |− 2)(n−|S |).

Proof.

Since S is a clique, each vertex v ∈ S has at most one A-neighbor in S .Thus,

∣∣A ∩ [S ,S ]∣∣ ≤ n − |S |.

S vcan’t happen:

Page 69: Gregory J. Puleo

Clique Cuts

Corollary

If G is a vertex-minimal graph with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4 and A istriangle-independent, then for any nonempty proper S ⊂ V (G ), we have12

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣+∣∣A ∩ [S , S ]

∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Corollary

If G is a vertex-minimal graph with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4, if A istriangle-independent, and if S is a clique, then

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ > (|S |− 2)(n−|S |).

Proof.

Since S is a clique, each vertex v ∈ S has at most one A-neighbor in S .Thus,

∣∣A ∩ [S ,S ]∣∣ ≤ n − |S |.

S vcan’t happen:

Page 70: Gregory J. Puleo

Clique Cuts

Corollary

If G is a vertex-minimal graph with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4 and A istriangle-independent, then for any nonempty proper S ⊂ V (G ), we have12

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣+∣∣A ∩ [S , S ]

∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Corollary

If G is a vertex-minimal graph with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4, if A istriangle-independent, and if S is a clique, then

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ > (|S |− 2)(n−|S |).

Proof.

Since S is a clique, each vertex v ∈ S has at most one A-neighbor in S .Thus,

∣∣A ∩ [S , S ]∣∣ ≤ n − |S |.

S vcan’t happen:

Page 71: Gregory J. Puleo

Clique Cuts

Corollary

If G is a vertex-minimal graph with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4 and A istriangle-independent, then for any nonempty proper S ⊂ V (G ), we have12

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣+∣∣A ∩ [S , S ]

∣∣ > |S | (n − |S |)/2.

Corollary

If G is a vertex-minimal graph with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4, if A istriangle-independent, and if S is a clique, then

∣∣[S , S ]∣∣ > (|S |− 2)(n−|S |).

Proof.

Since S is a clique, each vertex v ∈ S has at most one A-neighbor in S .Thus,

∣∣A ∩ [S , S ]∣∣ ≤ n − |S |.

S vcan’t happen:

Page 72: Gregory J. Puleo

K−4 -free Graphs

Theorem

If G is K−4 -free, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Proof (by contradiction).

First, show that α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4 when G is triangle-free.Among the K−4 -free graphs with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4, take Gvertex-minimal. Note that G is vertex-minimal among all graphs.Let S be a maximum clique, so that |S | ≥ 3.Corollary gives

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > (|S | − 2)(n − |S |), so some v ∈ S has

dS(v) ≥ |S | − 1.Maximality forces dS(v) = |S | − 1, so this gives an induced K−4 .Contradiction!

Sv

Page 73: Gregory J. Puleo

K−4 -free Graphs

Theorem

If G is K−4 -free, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Proof (by contradiction).

First, show that α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4 when G is triangle-free.

Among the K−4 -free graphs with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4, take Gvertex-minimal. Note that G is vertex-minimal among all graphs.Let S be a maximum clique, so that |S | ≥ 3.Corollary gives

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > (|S | − 2)(n − |S |), so some v ∈ S has

dS(v) ≥ |S | − 1.Maximality forces dS(v) = |S | − 1, so this gives an induced K−4 .Contradiction!

Sv

Page 74: Gregory J. Puleo

K−4 -free Graphs

Theorem

If G is K−4 -free, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Proof (by contradiction).

First, show that α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4 when G is triangle-free.Among the K−4 -free graphs with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4, take Gvertex-minimal. Note that G is vertex-minimal among all graphs.

Let S be a maximum clique, so that |S | ≥ 3.Corollary gives

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > (|S | − 2)(n − |S |), so some v ∈ S has

dS(v) ≥ |S | − 1.Maximality forces dS(v) = |S | − 1, so this gives an induced K−4 .Contradiction!

Sv

Page 75: Gregory J. Puleo

K−4 -free Graphs

Theorem

If G is K−4 -free, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Proof (by contradiction).

First, show that α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4 when G is triangle-free.Among the K−4 -free graphs with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4, take Gvertex-minimal. Note that G is vertex-minimal among all graphs.Let S be a maximum clique, so that |S | ≥ 3.

Corollary gives∣∣[S ,S ]

∣∣ > (|S | − 2)(n − |S |), so some v ∈ S hasdS(v) ≥ |S | − 1.Maximality forces dS(v) = |S | − 1, so this gives an induced K−4 .Contradiction!

S

v

Page 76: Gregory J. Puleo

K−4 -free Graphs

Theorem

If G is K−4 -free, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Proof (by contradiction).

First, show that α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4 when G is triangle-free.Among the K−4 -free graphs with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4, take Gvertex-minimal. Note that G is vertex-minimal among all graphs.Let S be a maximum clique, so that |S | ≥ 3.Corollary gives

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > (|S | − 2)(n − |S |), so some v ∈ S has

dS(v) ≥ |S | − 1.

Maximality forces dS(v) = |S | − 1, so this gives an induced K−4 .Contradiction!

Sv

Page 77: Gregory J. Puleo

K−4 -free Graphs

Theorem

If G is K−4 -free, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Proof (by contradiction).

First, show that α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4 when G is triangle-free.Among the K−4 -free graphs with α1(G ) + τB(G ) > n2/4, take Gvertex-minimal. Note that G is vertex-minimal among all graphs.Let S be a maximum clique, so that |S | ≥ 3.Corollary gives

∣∣[S ,S ]∣∣ > (|S | − 2)(n − |S |), so some v ∈ S has

dS(v) ≥ |S | − 1.Maximality forces dS(v) = |S | − 1, so this gives an induced K−4 .Contradiction!

Sv

Page 78: Gregory J. Puleo

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4 for triangle-free G

Lemma (Erdos–Faudree–Pach–Spencer 1988)

If G is an n-vertex triangle-free graph with m edges, then

τB(G ) ≤ m − 4m2

n2.

Corollary

If G is triangle-free, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Proof.

The lemma yields

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 2m − 4m2

n2.

The upper bound is maximized when m = n2/4, yielding

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Page 79: Gregory J. Puleo

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4 for triangle-free G

Lemma (Erdos–Faudree–Pach–Spencer 1988)

If G is an n-vertex triangle-free graph with m edges, then

τB(G ) ≤ m − 4m2

n2.

Corollary

If G is triangle-free, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Proof.

The lemma yields

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 2m − 4m2

n2.

The upper bound is maximized when m = n2/4, yielding

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Page 80: Gregory J. Puleo

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4 for triangle-free G

Lemma (Erdos–Faudree–Pach–Spencer 1988)

If G is an n-vertex triangle-free graph with m edges, then

τB(G ) ≤ m − 4m2

n2.

Corollary

If G is triangle-free, then α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Proof.

The lemma yields

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ 2m − 4m2

n2.

The upper bound is maximized when m = n2/4, yielding

α1(G ) + τB(G ) ≤ n2/4.

Page 81: Gregory J. Puleo

Acknowledgments

This research wasperformed while I was agraduate student at theUIUC math department.

Thank you for coming!

Page 82: Gregory J. Puleo

Acknowledgments

This research wasperformed while I was agraduate student at theUIUC math department.

Thank you for coming!

Page 83: Gregory J. Puleo

FIN