Skip Navigation

IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems 2008 E91-D(2):178-186; doi:10.1093/ietisy/e91-d.2.178
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by CHENG, P.
Right arrow Articles by MASUYAMA, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2008 The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers

Special Section on Foundations of Computer Science -- Papers -- Graphs and Networks

Inequalities on the Number of Connected Spanning Subgraphs in a Multigraph

Peng CHENG1 and Shigeru MASUYAMA2

1 The author is with the Faculty of Commerce, Nagoya Gakuin University, Nagoya-shi, 456–8612 Japan. E-mail: cheng{at}ngu.ac.jp, 2 The author is with the Department of Knowledge-Based Information Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology, Toyohashi-shi, 441–8580 Japan.


   Abstract

Consider an undirected multigraph G = (V,E) with n vertices and m edges, and let Ni denote the number of connected spanning subgraphs with i(m greater double equals i greater double equals n) edges in G. Recently, we showed in [3] the validity of (mi + 1)Ni–1 > (i–n + {lfloor}3+{surd}9+8(i–n)/2{rfloor})Ni for a simple graph and each i(m greater double equals i greater double equals n). Note that, from this inequality, (m–n)Nn/2Nn+1 + Nn/(m–n+1)Nn–1 greater double equals 2 is easily derived. In this paper, for a multigraph G and all i(m greater double equals i greater double equals n), we prove (m – i + 1)Ni–1 greater double equals (i – n + 2)Ni, and give a necessary and sufficient condition by which (m – i + 1)Ni–1 = (i – n + 2)Ni. In particular, this means that (m–i + 1)Ni–1 > (i–n + {lfloor}3+{surd}9+8(i–n)/2{rfloor})Ni is not valid for all multigraphs, in general. Furthermore, we prove (m–n)Nn/2Nn+1 + Nn/(m–n+1)Nn–1 greater double equals 2, which is not straightforwardly derived from (m – i + 1)Ni–1 greater double equals (i–n+2)Ni, and also introduce a necessary and sufficent condition by which (m–n)Nn/2Nn+1 + Nn(m – n + 1)Nn–1 = 2. Moreover, we show a sufficient condition for a multigraph to have Nn2 > Nn–1Nn+1. As special cases of the sufficient condition, we show that if G contains at least {lceil}2/3(m–n){rciel}+1 multiple edges between some pair of vertices, or if its underlying simple graph has no cycle with length more than 4, then Nn2 > Nn–1Nn+1.

Key Words: multigraph, the number of connected spanning subgraphs, network reliability polynomial, inequality


Manuscript received April 2, 2007. Manuscript revised July 2, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.