CHANGING AND UNCHANGING DOMINATION PARAMETERS

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY IN MATHEMATICS By SHUNMUGASUNDARI Register Number: 0935313 Research Guide Dr. SHIVASHARANAPPA SIGARKANTI H.O.D., Department of Mathematics Government Science College Nruppathunga Road Bangalore-560 001

HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE-560 029 2010

1

Dr. SHIVASHARANAPPA SIGARKANTI H.O.D., Department of Mathematics Government Science College Kruppathunga Road Bangalore-560 001

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the dissertation submitted by Shunmugasundari on the title Changing and Unchanging Domination Parameters is a record of research work done by her during the academic year 2009 2010 under my guidance and supervision in partial fulfilment of Master of Philosophy in Mathematics. This dissertation has not been submitted for the award of any Degree, Diploma, Associate-ship, Fellowship etc., in this University or in any other University.

Place: Bangalore Date:

Dr. SHIVASHARANAPPA SIGARKANTI (Guide)

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled Changing and Unchanging Domination Parameters has been undertaken by me for the award of M.Phil degree in Mathematics. I have completed this under the guidance of Dr. SHIVASHARANAPPA SIGARKANTI, H.O.D., Department of Mathematics, Government Science College, and Kruppathunga Road, Bangalore-560001. I also declare that this dissertation has not been submitted for the award of any Degree, Diploma Associate-ship, and Fellowship etc., in this University or in any other University.

Place: Date:

Bangalore

Shunmugasundari (Candidate)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Neil Armstrong, the famous Astronaut has said, Research is creating new Knowledge. My effort in searching for this knowledge would not have been complete without the valuable contributions and support of so many benefactors. I place on my record my gratitude to Dr. (Fr.) THOMAS Pro Vice-

C.MATHEW, Vice Chancellor, Fr. ABRAHAM V.M.,

Chancellor, Prof. Chandrashekaran K.A and Dr. Nanjegowda N. A, Dean of Sciences for having provided me an opportunity to undertake this research work. It is with profound gratitude that I acknowledge the constant guidance of Dr. SHIVASHARANAPPA SIGARKANTI, H.O.D., Department of Mathematics, Government Science college, Bangalore-560001, Whose valuable guidance, inspiration, fruitful discussions and constant encouragement at every stage empowered me to carry out this study and complete this research work successfully. I express with all sincerity & regard my deep indebtedness to Dr. S. PRANESH, Co-ordinator, Post Graduate Department of Mathematics, Christ University, Bangalore-560 029 for his inspiration, able guidance and

suggestions at every stage of my research work. Without his expertise concern & benevolent encouragement this work would not have been possible.

I also express my gratitude to Dr. MARUTHAMANIKANDAN S., Post Graduate Department of Mathematics, Christ University, and Bangalore for his
4

affection and keen interest throughout the course of my work. It is with a sense of deep appreciation that I place on record my profound thankfulness to him. I must specially acknowledge Mr. T.V. Joseph, H.O.D., Department of Mathematics, and other colleagues for their kind co-operation throughout the period of this study Finally a special word of thanks to my family members for their encouragement and support in completing this work. . Shunmugasundari

PREFACE Graph Theory is a delightful playground for the exploration of proof techniques in discrete mathematics, and its results have applications in many areas of computing, social, and natural sciences. How can we lay cable at minimum cost to make every telephone reachable from every other? What is the fastest route from the national capital to each state capital? How can n jobs be filled by n people with maximum total utility? What is the maximum flow per unit time from source to sink in a network of pipes? How many layers does a computer chip need so that wires in the same layer dont cross? How can the season of a sports league be scheduled into the minimum number of weeks? In what order should a travelling salesman visit cities to minimum number of weeks? Can we colour the regions of every map using four colours so that neighbouring regions receive different colours? These and many other practical problems involve graph theory (D. B. West, 2002 page1). Graph Theory was born in 1936 with Euler's paper in which he solved the Konigsberg Bridge problem. The past 50 years has been a period of intense activity in graph theory in both pure and applied mathematics. Perhaps the fastestgrowing area within graph theory is the study of domination and related subset problems, such as independence, covering, and matching.

This thesis is divided into five chapters, first chapter being the preliminaries introducing all the terms which are used in developing this thesis. In this chapter we collect some basic definitions on graphs which are needed for the subsequent chapters. In chapter 2 we present a brief review of the historical development of the study of domination in graphs. Chapter 3 we deals with dominating set and domination number of a graph. Some fundamental results on domination are presented. Further several bounds for the domination number are stated. We also consider a variety of conditions that might be imposed on a dominating set D in a graph G = (V, E). In this chapter we will consider a variety of conditions that can be imposed either on the dominated set V D, or on V, or on the method by which vertices in V D are dominated. In chapter 4 we present the effects on domination parameters when a graph is modified by deleting a vertex or deleting or adding edges. In chapter 5 we present many interesting relationships among the six classes of changing and unchanging graphs.

Table of Contents
S.No Topics Preface Preliminaries History of Graph theory Graphs: Basic Definitions Common Families of Graphs Isomorphism of Graphs Trees Euler Tour and Hamilton cycles Operation on Graph Theory Independent set Matching and Factorization Literature survey Theoretical New models Algorithmic Applications Motivation: Theory of Domination in Graphs Domination number Independent domination Number Total domination number Connected domination number Connected Total domination number Clique domination number Paired domination number Induced paired domination number Global domination number Total global domination number Edge domination number Total Edge domination Number
8

Page No

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12

1 4 6 24 25 28 31 33 35 38 44 45 46 47 55 56 58 59 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 65

3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.5 4.5.1 4.6 4.7 4.8 5 5.1 5.2 6 7 8

Connected Edge domination number Domatic number Total Domatic Number Connected Domatic Number Edge Domatic number Total Edge Domatic number Split domination number Non Split domination number Cycle non split Dominating Set Path non split Dominating Set Cototal Dominating Set Distance K Domination Changing and unchanging Domination parameters Terminology Vertex removal: Changing Domination Vertex removal: Unchanging Domination Edge removal :Changing Domination Bondage Number Total Bondage Number Split Bondage Number Edge Removal: Unchanging Domination Nonbondage Number Edge addition: Changing Domination Edge addition: Unchanging Domination References Conclusion Classes of changing and unchanging graphs Relationships among Classes Bibliography Index of symbols Index of Definitions

66 67 67 68 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78 84 87 87 88 93 97 99 100 101 107 108 110 110 112 113 126 129

Chapter-1 Preliminaries In this chapter we collect the basic definitions on graphs which are needed for the subsequent chapters. 1.1 History of Graph theory Konigsberg is a city which was the capital of East Prussia but now is known as Kaliningrad in Russia. The city is built around the River Pregel where it joins another river. An island named Kniephof is in the middle of where the two rivers join. There are seven bridges that join the different parts of the city on both sides of the rivers and the island.

People tried to find a way to walk all seven bridges without crossing a bridge twice, but no one could find a way to do it. The problem came to the attention of a Swiss mathematician named Leonhard Euler (pronounced "oiler"). 10

In 1735, Euler presented the solution to the problem before the Russian Academy. He explained why crossing all seven bridges without crossing a bridge twice was impossible. While solving this problem, he developed a new mathematics field called graph theory, which later served as the basis for another mathematical field called topology

Euler simplified the bridge problem by representing each land mass as a point and each bridge as a line. He reasoned that anyone standing on land would have to have a way to get on and off. Thus each land mass would need an even number of bridges. But in Konigsberg, each land mass had an odd number of bridges. This was why all seven bridges could not be crossed without crossing one more than once. The Konigsberg Bridge Problem is the same as the problem of drawing the above figure without lifting the pen from the paper and without retracing any line and coming back to the starting point. Present state of the bridges Two of the seven original bridges were destroyed by bombs during World War II. Two others were later demolished and replaced by a modern highway. The three other bridges remain, although only two of them are from Euler's time (one was rebuilt in 1935). Thus, there are now five bridges in Konigsberg.

11

In terms of graph theory, two of the nodes now have degree 2, and the other two have degree 3. Therefore, an Eulerian trail is now possible, but since it must begin on one island and end on the other.

1.2 Graphs: Basic Definitions In mathematics and computer science, graph theory studies the properties of graphs. Mathematical structures used to model pair wise relations between objects from a certain

collection. A "graph" in this context refers to a collection of vertices V (G) or 'nodes' and a collection of edges E (G) that connect pairs of vertices. A graph may be undirected, meaning that there is no distinction between the two vertices associated with each edge, or its edges may be directed from one vertex to another Undirected graph:

12

Directed graph (Digraph) :

Null graph: Graph that contains no edge is called Null graph because they have null degree of vertices. A null graph of order n is denoted by Nn Trivial graph: A null graph with only one vertex is called a trivial graph. A graph / digraph with only a finite number of vertices as well as finite number of edges are called a finite graph / digraph; otherwise, it is called an infinite graph / digraph. The number of vertices in a (finite) graph is called the order of the graph. It is denoted by | V | ( The cardinality of the set V) The number of edges in a (finite) graph is called the size of the graph. It is denoted by |E | ( The cardinality of the set E) Loop: If an edge is supported by only one vertex, it is called a loop.

Two vertices can also have multiple edges.

13

In fact one vertex can have multiple loops. The two end vertices are coincident if the edge is a loop 1.3 Common Families of Graphs: Simple Graph: A graph with no loops or multiple edges is called a simple graph.

Multigraph: A graph which contains multiple edges but no loops is called a multigraph.

General graph: A graph which contains multiple edges or loops (or both) is called a general graph. Pseudo graph: A multi graph in which loops are allowed is called a pseudo graph.

Every edge has two end vertices; every edge is incident on two vertices.

We also say that Vertex A incident with edge e and Vertex B incident with edge e. Degree of vertex (Valency): Let G is the graph with loops, and let v be a vertex of G. The degree of v is the number of edges meeting at v, and is denoted by deg (v).

14

Deg (A) = 3

Deg (B) = 4

Deg (H) = 1

An isolated vertex has zero degree. Let G be a multi graph. The maximum degree of G, denoted by (G), is denoted as the maximum number among all vertex degrees in G. (G) = max {d (v) /v V (G)} Let G be a multi graph. The minimum degree of G, denoted by (G), is denoted as the minimum number among all vertex degrees in G. (G) = min {d (v) /v V (G)} Ex.

Here (G) = 4

and

(G) = 1

Regular graph: A graph G is said to be regular if every vertex in G has the same degree G is said to be k-regular if d(v) = k for each vertex v in G, Where k 0. An edge is incident only on two vertices. A vertex may be incident with any number of edges. 15

Two non-parallel edges are said to be adjacent edges if they are incident on a common vertex.

Two vertices are said to be adjacent vertices (or neighbors) if there is an edge joining them.

The set of all neighbors of v in G is denoted by N(v); i.e. N (v) = {x | x is a neighbor of v}.

N (A) = {B, C, D} and

N (B) = {D, E}

Petersen graph: The Petersen graph is the 3-regular graph. It posses a number of graph theoretic properties and it frequently used to illustrate established theorems and to test conjectures.

A graph G is k-regular if and only if (G) = (G) = k Walk: A walk in a multigraph G is an alternating sequence of vertices and edges beginning and ending at vertices: v0 e0v1e1 v2 e2v3e3 . . . vk-1 ek-1vk, 16

Where k 1 and ei is incident with vi and vi+1, for each i = 0,1,2 , . . . , k-1. The walk is also called a v0 vk walk with its initial vertex v0 and terminal vertex vk. The length of the walk is defined as k, which is the number of occurrences of edges in the sequence.

Trail: A walk is called a trail if no edge in it is traversed more than once. Path: A walk is called a path if no vertex in it is visited more than once.

walk (1) is neither a trail nor a path 17

walk (2) is a trail but not a path walk (3) both a trail and a path Every path must be a Trail. A u-v walk is said to be closed if u = v, that is, its initial and terminal vertices are the same; and open otherwise. A closed walk of length at least two in which no edge is repeated is called a circuit. Connected graph: A multi graph G is said to be connected if every two vertices in G are joined by a path. Otherwise it is disconnected. Every disconnected graph can be split up into a number of connected sub graphs, called components. Ex: Connected non simple graph

Ex : Disconnected non simple graph

Let G be a connected multi graph, and u, v be any two vertices in G. The distance from u to v , denoted by d(u , v) is the smallest length of all u-v paths in G ( This is also known as geodesic distance) The greatest distance between any two vertices in a graph G (i.e.) max {d (u, v) / u, v V (G)} is called the diameter of G and it is denoted by diam (G). 18

The eccentricity of a vertex v is the greatest distance between v and any other vertex. The radius of a graph is the minimum eccentricity of any vertex. Density: The density of G is the ratio of edges in G to the maximum possible number of edges Density = 2L/ (p * (p-1)) Where L is the number of edges in the graph and p is the number of vertices in the graph.

Density = 2*7 / (7*6) = 1 / 3 Bouquet: A Graph consisting of a single vertex with n self loops is called a bouquet and is denoted Bn. Ex. B4

Dipole: A Graph consisting of two vertices and n edges joining them is called a dipole and is denoted Dn Ex. D5

The Complete Graphs: A simple graph of order 2 in which there is an edge between every pair of vertices is called a complete graph (or a full graph)

19

In other words, a complete graph is a simple graph in which every pair of distinct vertices is adjacent. It is denoted by Kn. Ex. K5

Path Graph : A path graph P is a simple connected graph with |Vp| = |Ep | + 1 that can be drawn so that all of its vertices and edges lie on a single straight line and it is denoted by Pn . Ex. P8

Circular ladder graph: The Circular ladder graph CLn is visualized as two concentric n-cycles in which each of the n pairs of corresponding vertices is joined by an edge. Ex. CL4

Cut point: A vertex is a cut point if its removal increases the number of components in the graph.

20

Bridges: An edge is a bridge if its removal increases the number of components in the graph.

Vertex-connectivity: The connectivity (G) of a connected graph G is the minimum number of vertices that need to be removed to disconnect the graph (or make it empty).

(G) = 1

Edge-connectivity: The edge-connectivity (G) of a connected graph G is the minimum number of edges that need to be removed to disconnect the graph.

(G) = 2

Block: A block of a loop less graph is a maximal connected subgraph H such that no vertex of H is a cut vertex of H. Ex. G: 21

G has four blocks; they are the subgraph induced on the vertex subsets {u, v, w, x}, {x, y}, {y, z, m}. Block graph: The block graph of a graph G, denoted by BL (G), is the graph whose vertices correspond to the blocks of G, such that two vertices of BL (G) are joined by a single edge whenever the corresponding blocks have a vertex in common. Ex. G: BL (G):

Bipartite graph (or bigraph): A bipartite graph is a graph whose vertices can be divided into two disjoint U and V such that every edge connects a vertex in U to one in V; that is, U and V are independent sets. Equivalently, a bipartite graph is a graph that does not contain any odd-length cycles.

Complete bipartite graph:

22

Complete bipartite graph or biclique is a special kind of bipartite where every vertex of the first set is connected to every vertex of the second set. The complete bipartite graph with partitions of size | V1 | = m and | V2 | = n, is denoted Km,n.

Star: A star Sk is the complete bipartite graph K1, k Ex. K1, 7

Wheel: The wheel graph Wn is a graph on n vertices constructed by connecting a single vertex to every vertex in an (n-1)-cycle. Ex. W8

Planar graph: A planar graph is that can be embedded in the plane, i.e., it can be drawn on the plane in such a way that its edges intersect only at their endpoints. 23

The Cycles: A graph of order n 3 is called cycle if its n vertices can be named as v1 ,v2 ,,vn such that v1 is adjacent to v2 , v2 is adjacent to v3 to vn-1 is adjacent to vn , vn is adjacent to v1 , and no other adjacency exists; that is , V (G) = { v1, v2 ,, vn } and E (G) = {v1v2 , v2v3, , ,vnv1 } A cycle of order n is denoted Cn, we call Cn an n-cycle. Ex.C6

Girth: The minimum length of a cycle in a graph G is the girth g (G).

g (G) = 3 24

Unicyclic Graph: A connected graph containing exactly one cycle Subgraphs: A subgraph S of a graph G is a graph such that The vertices of S are a subset of the vertices of G. (i.e.) V(S) V (G) The edges of S are a subset of the edges of G. (i.e.) E(S) E (G)

S is a subgraph of G S1 is not a subgraph of G Proper subgraph: If S is a subgraph of G then we write S G. When S G but S G. i.e. V(S) V(G) or E(S) E(G), then S is called a Proper subgraph of G . A spanning subgraph: A spanning subgraph of G is a subgraph that contains all the vertices of G. ( i.e.) V(S) = V(G)

25

S is spanning subgraph of G A vertex induced Subgraph: A vertex-induced subgraph is one that consists of some of the vertices of the original graph and all of the edges that connect them in the original denoted by V.

G1 is an induced subgraph - induced by the set of vertices V1 = {A,B,C,F} . G2 is not an induced subgraph. An edge-induced subgraph: An edge-induced subgraph consists of some of the edges of the original graph and the vertices that are at their endpoints.

Some graph operation: 26

Vertex deleted subgraph: For any vertex v of graph G, G-v is obtained from G by removing v and all the edges of G which have v as an end. G-v is referred to as a vertex deleted subgraph.

Edge deleted subgraph: If G = (V,E) and e is an edge of G then G-e is obtained from G by removing the edge e (but not its end point(s) . G-e is referred to as a edge deleted subgraph.

Complement of a graph: The complement of the graph G, denoted by ( ) = V(G) such that two vertices are adjacent in

, is the graph with V

if and only if they are not adjacent in

G. ( interchanging the edges and the non-edges)

27

Clique: clique in an undirected graph G is a subset of the vertex set C V, such that for every two vertices in C, there exists an edge connecting the two. This is equivalent to saying that the subgraph induced by C is complete (in some cases, the term clique may also refer to the subgraph). A maximal clique is a clique that cannot be extended by including one more adjacent vertex, that is, a clique which does not exist exclusively within the vertex set of a larger clique. A maximum clique is a clique of the largest possible size in a given graph. The clique number (G) of a graph G is the number of vertices in the largest clique in G.

(G) = 5 1.4 Isomorphism of Graphs: The simple graphs G1 = (V1, E1) and G2 = (V2, E2) are isomorphic if there is a bijection (an oneto-one and onto function) f from V1 to V2 with the property that a and b are adjacent in G1 if and only if f (a) and f(b) are adjacent in G2, for all a and b in V1.Such a function f is called an isomorphism. In other words, G1 and G2 are isomorphic if their vertices can be ordered in such a way that the adjacency matrices MG1 and MG2 are identical For two simple graphs, each with n vertices, there are n! possible isomorphism For this purpose we can check invariants, that is, properties that two isomorphic simple graphs must both have 28

the same number of vertices, the same number of edges, and The same degrees of vertices.

Note that two graphs that differ in any of these invariants are not isomorphic, but two graphs that match in all of them are not necessarily isomorphic Example : Are the following two graphs isomorphic?

Solution: Yes, they are isomorphic, f(a) = e, f(b) = a, f(c) = b, f(d) = c, f(e) =d. If G is isomorphic to H, then V(G ) = V(H) and E(G) = E(H). Adjacency matrix: Let G = (V, E) be a simple graph with |V| = n. Suppose that the vertices of G are listed in arbitrary order as v1, v2 vn. The adjacency matrix A (or AG) of G, with respect to this listing of the vertices, is the nn zero-one matrix with 1 as its (i, j) entry when vi and vj are adjacent, and 0 otherwise. In other words, for an adjacency matrix A = [aij], aij = 1 aij = 0 if {vi, vj} is an edge of G, otherwise.

Example: What is the adjacency matrix AG for the following graph G based on the order of vertices a, b, c, d?

29

Adjacency matrices of undirected graphs are always symmetric. Incidence matrix: Let G = (V, E) be an undirected graph with |V| = n. Suppose that the vertices and edges of G are listed in arbitrary order as v1, v2 vn and e1, e2 em, respectively. The incidence matrix of G with respect to this listing of the vertices and edges is the nm zero-one matrix with 1 as its (i, j) entry when edge ej is incident with vi, and 0 otherwise. In other words, for an incidence matrix M = [mij], mij = 1 mij = 0 if edge ej is incident with vi otherwise.

Example: What is the incidence matrix M for the following graph G based on the order of vertices a, b, c, d and edges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6?

Incidence matrices of directed graphs contain two 1s per column for edges connecting two vertices and one 1 per column for loops. 1.5 Tree: A tree is a graph in which any two vertices are connected by exactly one simple path. In other words, any connected graph without cycles is a tree.

30

Spanning tree: A spanning tree T of a connected , undirected graph G is a tree composed of all the vertices and some (or perhaps all) of the edges of G. Informally, a spanning tree of G is a selection of edges of G that form a tree spanning every vertex. That is, every vertex lies in the tree, but no cycles (or loops) are formed

Forest: A forest is an undirected graph, all of whose connected components are trees; in other words, the graph consists of a disjoint union of trees. Equivalently, a forest is an undirected cycle-free graph.

Galaxy: A galaxy is a forest in which each component is a star. 1.6 Euler Tour and Hamilton cycles: 31

Euler path: A graph is said to be containing an Euler path if it can be traced in 1 sweep without lifting the pencil from the paper and without tracing the same edge more than once. Vertices may be passed through more than once. The starting and ending points need not be the same. Euler circuit: An Euler circuit is similar to an Euler path, except that the starting and ending points must be the same. The term Eulerian graph has two common meanings in graph theory. One meaning is a graph with an Eulerian circuit, and the other is a graph with every vertex of even degree An Eulerian path, Eulerian trail or Euler walk in an undirected graph is a path that uses each edge exactly once. If such a path exists, the graph is called traversable or semi-eulerian. An Eulerian cycle, Eulerian circuit or Euler tour in an undirected graph is a cycle that uses each edge exactly once. If such a cycle exists, the graph is called unicursal. While such graphs are Eulerian graphs, not every Eulerian graph possesses an Eulerian cycle. Let's look at the graphs below; do they contain an Euler circuit or an Euler path?

32

What is the relationship between the nature of the vertices and the kind of path/circuit that the graph contains? We will have the answer after looking at the table below.

Graph

Number vertices

of

odd Number of even What vertices

does

the

path contain? (Euler path = P; Euler circuit = C; Neither = N)

10

33

2 3 4 5 6

0 2 2 4 8

6 6 4 1 0

C P P N N

From the above table, we can observe that: A graph with all vertices being even contains an Euler circuit. A graph with 2 odd vertices and some even vertices contains an Euler path. A graph with more than 2 odd vertices does not contain any Euler path or circuit.

Hamiltonian path: Hamiltonian path (or traceable path) is a path in an undirected graph which visits each vertex exactly once. Hamiltonian cycle: A Hamiltonian cycle (or Hamiltonian circuit) is a cycle in an undirected graph which visits each vertex exactly once and also returns to the starting vertex Hamiltonian graph: A graph is Hamiltonian if it contains a Hamilton cycle.

1.7 Some Operations on Graph Theory: Union: There are several ways to combine two graphs to get a third one. Suppose we have graphs G1 and G2 and suppose that G1 has vertex set V1 and edge set E1, and that G2 has vertex 34

set V2 and edge set E2. The union of the two graphs, written G1 U G 2 will have vertex set V1 U V2 and edge set E1U E2. If we choose the null graph N1 and the complete graph K5 we will get the graph in following figure

N1 U K5 Sum (Join): The sum of two graphs G1 and G2, written G1 + G2, is obtained by first forming the union G1UG2 and then making every vertex of G1 adjacent to every vertex of G2.

N1 + K5 Graph Cartesian Product: The Cartesian graph product G = G1 X G2, sometimes simply called "the graph product of graphs G1 and G2 with disjoint point sets V1 and V2 and edge sets E and E
2 1

is the graph with point set or

and

adjacent with

whenever

35

1.8 Independent set: An independent set or stable set is a set of vertices in a graph no two of which are adjacent.

{I, D}, {I, D, F} and {H, C, E} are some of the independent sets. But {A, D, F} and {A, C, H} are not. Independent sets are also called disjoint or mutually exclusive. Maximum independent set: A maximum independent set is a largest independent set for a given graph G. Maximal independent set: A maximal independent set or maximal stable set is an independent set that is not a subset of any other independent set. Ex. In the cycle C10

36

The sets {B,F,I} ,{A,C,E,G,I} , {A,C,E} are some of the independent sets. {J,C,F,H} ,{A,C,E,G,I} ,{B,D,F,H,J} are maximal independent set. {J, C, F, H} is not a maximum independent set. Independence number 0 (G): The number of vertices in a maximum independent set of G is called the independence number of G and is denoted by 0 (G).

0 (G) = 4 Independent set of edges: An independent set of edges of G has no two of its edges are adjacent Ex. K4

Edge independence number 1 (G): The number of edges in a maximum independent set of G is called the edge independence number of G and is denoted by 1 (G).

1 (G) = 2

37

Point cover: A vertex and a line are said to cover each other if they are incident. A set of points which covers all the lines of graph G is called a point cover. Vertex covering number: The smallest number of points in any vertex cover for G is called its vertex covering number and it is denoted by 0 (G). Edge Cover: A set of lines which covers all the vertices of graph G is called a line cover. Edge covering number: The smallest number of lines in any edge cover for G is called its edge covering number and it is denoted by 1 (G).

0 (G) = 3 and 1 (G) = 3 1.9 Matching: Given a graph G, a matching M in G is a set of pair wise non-adjacent edges; that is, no two edges share a common vertex. A vertex is matched (or saturated) if it is incident to an edge in the matching. Otherwise the vertex is unmatched (or unsaturated). A maximal matching is a matching M of a graph G with the property that if any edge not in M is added to M, it is no longer a matching, that is, M is maximal if it is not a proper subset of any other matching in graph G. A maximum matching is a matching that contains the largest possible number of edges. There may be many maximum matching. The matching number (G) of a graph

G is the size of a

maximum matching. Note that every maximum matching is maximal, but not every maximal matching is a maximum matching..

38

 (G) = 2 A perfect matching is a matching which matches all vertices of the graph.

A near-perfect matching is one in which exactly one vertex is unmatched. This can only occur when the graph has an odd number of vertices, and such a matching must be maximum.

An alternating path is a path in which the edges belong alternatively to the matching (M) and not to the matching (E-M). An augmenting path is an alternating path that starts from and ends on free (unmatched) vertices.

Factorization: A factor of a graph G is a spanning subgraph of G which is not totally disconnected. G is the sum of factors G called a factorization of G.
i

if it is their line disjoint union, and such a union is

An n-factor is a regular of degree n. 39

If G is the sum of n-factors, their union is called an n-factorization and G itself is nfactorable. A 1-factorization of a graph is a decomposition of all the edges of the graph into 1factors.

G: K4

G = G1 + G2 + G3 A 2-factor is a collection of cycles that spans all vertices of the graph. G: K5

G1:

G2:

40

G = G1 + G2

41

References: 1. Bollobas.B,Graph Theory: An Introductory Course Springer 1979. 2. C. Berge Graphs, North-Holland 1985. 3. Chartrand.G, Introductory Graph Theory, Dover 1985 . 4. Diestel.R, Graph Theory, Springer-Verlag 1997.

5. F. Harary, Graph Theory, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, (1969). 6. G. Chartrand and L.Leniak, Graphs Digraphs, Fourth Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2004. 7. Gould.RJ Benjamin/Cummings, Graph Theory , 1988 8. Gross. JL and Yellen. J, Graph Theory and its Applications, CRC Press LLC, 1998.

9. J. A. Bondy and U. S. R. Murthy, Graph Theory with Applications, Macmillan, London. 10. J. Clark and D. A. Holton, a first look at graph theory, World Scientific Pub. Singapore / Allied Pub.Ltd. New Delhi (1995) 11. J. Wilson and J.J. Watkins John, Graphs: An Introductory Approach, Wiley & Sons 1990. 12. M. Behzad, A characterization of total graphs, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 26 (1970) 383 389. 13. M. Capobianco and J.C. Molluzzo, Examples and Counterexamples in Graph Theory, North-Holland 1978. 14. O. Ore, Theory of Graphs, AMS Colloquium Publications 38 AMS 1962. 15. R. C. Brigham and D. Dutton, On Neighborhood graphs, J. Combinatorics Inf & Syst. Sci., 12 (1987) 75 85. 16. R. L. Brooks On coloring the nodes of a network, Proc.Cambridge Philos. Soc. (1941) 194 197. 37

42

17. R.J. Wilson Introduction to Graph Theory by R.J. Trudeau Dover Publications, 1994. 18. S. Arumugam and S. Ramachandran, Invitation to Graph Theory Scitech Publications (2001). 19. T. Gallai, Uber extreme Punkt-und Kantenmenger, Ann Univ. Sci. Budapest, Eotvos Sect. Math, 2 (1959) 133 138. 20. V. R. Kulli, Graph Theory, Vishwa Internat. Publications, (2000).

21. West.DB, Introduction to Graph Theory, Prentice Hall 1996.

43

44

Chapter-3 Concept of Domination in graphs

In this chapter we collect the basic definitions and theorems on domination in graphs which are needed for the subsequent chapters. 3.1 Dominating set : In graph theory, a dominating set for a graph G = (V, E) is a subset D of V such that every vertex not in D (every vertex in V- D ) is joined to at least one member of D by some edge. (i.e.) A set D of vertices in a graph G is called a dominating set of G if every vertex in V-D is adjacent to some vertex in D. Ex. In the following graph G

The set D = {A, B, E, H} is one of the dominating set Minimum Dominating set: A dominating set D is said to be Minimum Dominating set if D consist of minimum number of vertices among all dominating sets.. Ex. In the following graph G

45

Domination number: The domination number (G) is the number of vertices in a smallest dominating set for G. (The cardinality of minimum dominating set) Ex. In the following graph G

46

Minimal Dominating Set: A dominating set D is called Minimal dominating set if no proper subset of D is a dominating set Ex.

The sets {B,C,E} ,{D,C} and {B,E,F,G} are Minimal dominating sets. In the following graph

The set D1 = {B, C, D} is a dominating set. But D1 is not a minimal dominating set. D2 = {C, D} is a minimal dominating set. Also D2 is a minimum dominating set. A minimum dominating set is a minimal dominating set, but the converse is not always true. Theorem 2.1: A dominating set D is a minimal dominating set if and only if for each vertex

vD, one of the following two conditions holds: (a) v is an isolated vertex of D (b) there exists a vertex u V-D such that N(u) D = {v}. Theorem 2.2: Every connected graph G of order n 2 has a dominating set D whose complement V-D is also a dominating set. 47

Theorem 2.3: If G is a graph with no isolated vertices, then the complement V-D of every minimal dominating set D is a dominating set. 2.2 Independent dominating set: A dominating set D of a graph G is an independent dominating set if the induced sub graph <D> has no edges. Ex.

Independent domination Number: i (G): The independent domination number i (G) of a graph G is the minimum

cardinality of an independent dominating set. i (G) = 2 Theorem 2.4: An independent set is maximal independent set if and only it is independent and dominating. Theorem 2.5: Every maximal independent set in a graph G is a minimal dominating set. Theorem 2.6[: For any graph G, p /(1 +(G) (G) p - (G). where p is the number of vertices in V (G). 2.3 Total dominating set:

48

A dominating set D of a graph G is a total dominating set if the induced sub graph <D> has no isolated vertices. i.e. Every vertex of G is adjacent to at least one vertex in D Ex. P7

Total domination number t (G): The total domination number is the minimum cardinality of a total dominating set Here t (G) = 4

Theorem 2.7: If G is a connected graph with p 3 vertices then t (G) 2p/3. Theorem 2.8: If G has p vertices and no isolates, then t (G) p - (G) +1. Theorem 2.9: If G is connected and (G) < p-1, then t (G) p - (G) . 2.4 Connected Dominating set: A dominating set D is said to be connected dominating set if induced subgraph <D> is connected. Connected domination number c (G):

The connected domination number is the minimum cardinality of a connected dominating set. Ex. P8

49

 c (P8) = 6 Theorem 2.10: If G is a connected graph with p 3 vertices then c (G) p-2 Theorem 2.11: For any connected graph G, p/((G)+1) c (G) 2q-p. Furthermore, the lower bound is attained if and only if (G) = p-1 and the upper bound is attained if and only if G is a path. Theorem 2.12: For any connected graph G, c (G) p-(G). 2.5 Connected Total dominating set: A total dominating set D of a graph G is a connected total dominating set if the induced sub graph <D> is connected. Connected Total domination number ct (G):
ct

The connected total domination number connected total dominating set.

(G) is the minimum cardinality of a

ct (G) = 4 Theorem 2.13: For any connected graph G with p 4, 50

 p/((G)+1) + 1 ct (G) 2p-q. Furthermore, the lower bound is attained if G = Kp and the upper bound is attained if and only if G is a path. Theorem 2.14: For any connected graph G with p 4, ct (G) p-2. Theorem 2.15: If T is a tree of order p 4 and T K number of end vertices of a tree. 2.6 Clique dominating set: A dominating set D of a graph G is a dominating clique if the induced sub graph <D> is a complete graph. Clique domination number cl (G): The Clique domination number cl is the minimum cardinality of a dominating clique.
1,p-1,

then ct (G) = p e. where e is the

cl (G) = 4 2.7 Paired dominating set: A dominating set D of a graph G is a paired dominating set if the induced sub graph D contains at least one perfect match. Paired domination number p (G): The paired domination number dominating set. 51
p

(G) is the minimum cardinality of a paired

G:

p (G) = 4 Theorem 2.16: If G has no isolated vertices, then 2 p (G) p and these bounds are sharp. Theorem 2.17: If G has no isolated vertices, then p/(G) p (G). Theorem 2.18: If a connected graph G has p 6 and (G) 2, then p (G) 2 p/3 2.8 Induced Paired dominating set: A dominating set D of vertices of a graph G is an induced paired dominating set if the induced sub graph D is a set of independent edges. Induced paired domination number ip (G): The induced paired domination number cardinality of an induced paired dominating set of G. Ex. G:
i p

(G) is the minimum

ip (G) = 1 2.9 Global dominating set: A dominating set D of a graph G is a global dominating set if D is also a dominating set of Global domination number g (G):

52

The global domination number g (G) is the minimum cardinality of a global dominating set.

g (G) = 2 2.10 Total Global dominating set: A total dominating set D of a graph G is a total global dominating set if D is also a total dominating set of .

Total global domination number tg(G): The total global domination number tg(G) is the minimum cardinality of a total global dominating set.

tg(G) = 4 Theorem 2.19: Let G be a graph such that neither G nor 2q-p(p-3) tg(G) Theorem 2.20: Let G be a graph such that neither G nor tg(G) 20(G) 2.11 Edge dominating set : 53 have an isolated vertex. Then have an isolated vertex. Then

A set F of edges in a graph G is an edge dominating set, if every edge not in F (every edge in E-F) is adjacent to at least one edge in F. Edge domination number 1(G): The edge domination number 1(G) of a graph G is the minimum cardinality of an edge dominating set of G.

1(G) = 3 2.12 Total Edge dominating Set: A set F of edges in a graph G is called a total edge dominating set of G if for every edge in E is adjacent to at least one edge in F. i.e. a set F of edges in G is called total edge dominating set of G if for every edge e E, there exists an edge e1 F such that e and e1 have a vertex in common. Total Edge domination Number: t 1(G) The minimum cardinality of a total edge dominating set of G is the total edge domination number of a graph G, and it is denoted by t 1(G).

t 1 (G) = 3 2.13 Connected Edge Dominating set : 54

A edge dominating set D is said to be connected edge dominating set if induced subgraph <F> is connected. Ex. P8

Connected Edge domination number c 1(G): The connected edge domination number is the minimum cardinality of a connected edge dominating set. c 1(G) = 5 2.14 Domatic number: d(G) The domatic number is defined as the maximum number of disjoint dominating set. Ex.

X = { {B,E}, {A,D,G},{C,F}} and Theorem 2.21: For any graph G, d (G) (G) +1.

d(G) = 3

Theorem 2.22: For any graph G, d (G) = 1 if and only if G has an isolated vertex. Theorem 2.23: For any graph G, p +(p - (G)) d(G). 2.15 Total Domatic Number: 55

A partition of a vertex V of G is called total domatic partition of G if each class of is a total dominating set of G. The maximum number of classes of total domatic partition of G is called the total domatic number G and is denoted by dt(G). Ex. G:

X = {{A, B}, {D, C}} dt (G) = 2 Theorem 2.24: For any graph G without isolated vertices, dt (G) d (G). Theorem 2.25: For any graph G without isolated vertices, dt (G) (G). Theorem 2.26: If K p is a complete graph with p 2 vertices then dt (K p ) = p/2 Theorem 2.27: For any graph G without isolated vertices, d(G) /2 dt (G). 2.16 Connected Domatic Number: A partition of a vertex V of a connected graph G is called a connected domatic partition of G if each class of is a connected dominating set of G. The maximum number of classes of connected domatic partition of G is called the connected domatic number G and is denoted by dc(G). Ex. G:

56

X = {{A, B}, {H,I} , {D,E} } d c(G) = 3 Theorem 2.28: For any connected graph G, dc (G) (G). Theorem 2.29: For any connected graph G which is not compete dc (G) (G)+1. Theorem 2.30: For any connected graph G which is not compete dc (G) (G). 2.17 Edge domatic number: An edge domatic partition of G is a partition of E(G), all of whose classes are edge dominating sets in G. The maximum number of classes of an edge partition of G is called the edge domatic number of G and is denoted by d1(G). Ex. C6

X = {{e1, e4 } , {e2 , e5 }, {e3 , e6 }} d1 (G) = 3 Theorem 2.31: If Pp is a path with p 3 vertices then d1 (Pp) = 2. 57

Theorem 2.32: If Cp is a cycle with p 3 vertices then d1 (Cp) = 3 if p is divisible 3 =2 otherwise.

Connected Edge domatic number: A connected edge domatic partition of G is a partition of E (G), all of whose classes are connected edge dominating sets in G. The maximum number of classes of a connected edge partition of G is called the connected edge domatic number of G and is denoted by dc1 (G). Ex. G:

X = {{e2, e3, e4}, {e7, e11, e9, e10}} dc1 (G) = 2. 2.18 Total Edge domatic number: A total edge domatic partition of G is a partition of E(G), all of whose classes are total edge dominating sets in G. The maximum number of classes of a total edge partition of G is called the total edge domatic number of G and is denoted by dc1(G). Ex. G: W6

58

X = { {e2 , e8, e11 , e5 } , {e3 , e9, e12 , e6 } , {e4 , e10, e7 , e1 }} dt1 (G) = 4.

2.19 Split Dominating Set: A dominating set D of G is a split dominating set if the induced subgraph <V-D> is disconnected. Ex. C5

Split domination number s (G): The split domination number is the minimum cardinality of a split dominating set. s (G) = 2 Theorem 2.33: For any graph G, s (G) 0 (G). Theorem 2.34: For any graph G, (G) + s (G) p. 59

Theorem 2.35: s (Cp) s (W p)

= =

p/3 if p 4; 3 m if p 5; if 2 m n.

s (K m ,n) = Strong split Dominating Set:

A dominating set D of G is a strong split dominating set if the induced sub graph <V-D> is totally disconnected with at least two vertices. Strong split domination number ss (G): The strong split domination number is the minimum cardinality of a strong split dominating set Ex. G:

ss (G) = 4 2.20 Non Split Dominating Set: A dominating set D of G is a non split dominating set if the induced sub graph <V-D> is connected. Non Split domination number ns (G): The split domination number is the minimum cardinality of a non split dominating set.

ns (G) = 5 60

Theorem 2.36: If T is a tree which is not a star then ns (T) p-2. Theorem 2.37: If T is a tree with p 3 then p m ns (T). Here m is the number of vertices adjacent to end vertices.

Strong non split Dominating Set: A dominating set D of G is a strong split dominating set if the induced subgraph <V-D> is complete. Strong non Split domination number sns (G): The strong non split domination number is the minimum cardinality of a strong non split dominating set.

sns (G) = 3 2.21 Cycle non split Dominating Set: A dominating set D of a connected graph G is a cycle non split dominating set if the induced sub graph <V-D> is cycle in G. Cycle non split domination number cns (G): The cycle non split domination number is the minimum cardinality of a cycle non split dominating set

61

 cns (G) = 2 Preposition 2.38: For any connected graph G with p 4, (G) cns (G). Preposition 2.39: For any connected graph G with p 4, (G) + cns (G) p. 2.22 Path non split Dominating Set: A dominating set D of a connected graph G is a path non split dominating set if the induced sub graph <V-D> is a path in G Path non split domination number pns (G): The path non split domination number is the minimum cardinality of a path non split dominating set. Ex. C5

pns (G) = 3 Preposition 2.40: For any nontrivial connected graph G, (G) pns (G). Preposition 2.41: For any nontrivial connected graph G, (G) + pns (G) p.

62

Preposition 2.42: pns (K p) = p 2, p 3. pns (Cp) = p 2, p 3. pns (Pp) = p 2, p 3. pns (W p) = 2, p 4.

pns (Km ,n ) = m + n 3 , m 2, n 3. 2.23 Cototal Dominating Set: A dominating set D of G is a cototal dominating set if the induced subgraph <V-D> is has no isolated vertices. Cototal domination number cot (G): The cototal domination number cotal dominating set.
cot

(G) is the minimum cardinality

cot (G) = 3 Theorem 2.43: For any graph G, p (2/3)q cot (G). Theorem 2.44: let G be a graph such that each component of G is not a star. Then cot (G) p - (G). Theorem 2.45: For any graph G, 2(p q) p0 vertices in G. 2.24 Distance K Domination: Given any integer k 1, vertex subset D is a distance-k dominating set of a graph G if for all v VG D, there exists x D such that d(v , x) k
cot

(G). Where p0 is the number of isolated

63

Ex. A Minimum distance -2 dominating set

The distance-k domination number: The distance-k domination number of a graph G, denoted dk dom(G) , is the cardinality of a minimum distance-k dominating set of G. More over dk dom(G) (G)

(G) = 4 d2dom(G) = 2

64

References: 1. A. M. Barcalkin and L. F. German, The external stability number of the Cartesian product of graphs, Bul. Akad. Stiince RSS Moldoven, No 1, 94 (1979) 5-8. 2. B. Bollobas and E.J.Cockayne, Graph theoretic parameters concerning domination, independence and irredundance, J. Graph Theory 3 (1979) 241-250. 3. C. Berge, Theory of Graphs and its Applications, Methuen, London, (1962). 4. E. J. Cockayne, S.T.Hedetniemei and D.J.Miller, Properties of hereditary hyper graphs and middle graphs, Canad. Math. Bull., 21 (1978) 461-468. 5. E. Sampathkumar and H. B. Walikar, The connected domination number of a

graph, J. Math.Phys.Sci., 13 (1979) 607-613. 6. F. Harary and M. Livingston, Characterization of trees with equal domination and independent domination number. Congr. Number, 55 (1986) 121-150. 7. H. B. Walikar, B. D. Acharya and E. Sampathkumar, Recent developments in the theory of domination in graphs. In MRI Lecture Notes in Math. Metha Research Inst., No. 1, (1979). 8. K. Seyffarth and G. Macgillivray, Domination numbers of Theory, 22 (1996) 2134-229. 9. L. A. Sanchis, Maximum number of edges in connected graph with given domination number, Discrete Math. 87 (1991) 65-72. 10. O. Favaron, A bound on the independent domination number of a tree. Vishwa Internat. J. Graph Theory, 1 (1992) 19-27. 11. R. B. Allan and R. C. Laskar, On domination and independent domination numbers graph, Discrete Math, 23 (1978) 73-76. 12. S. L. Mitchell and S. T. Hedetniemi, Edge domination in trees. Congr. Numer.19 489-509. 13. S. R. Jayaram, Edge domination in graphs, a Graphs Combin. 3(1987) 357-363. 65 (1997) of a planar graphs, J. Graph Allahabad

14. T.W. Haynes and P. J. Slater, Paired Domination in graphs, Networks, 32 (1998) 199-206. 15. V. G. Vizing, Some unsolved problems in graph theory, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 23 (6(144)) (1968) 117-134. 16. V. R. Kulli, Theory of domination in graph, Vishwa Internat.Publications,2010.

66

Chapter-3 Literature survey

The following problem can be said to be the origin of the study of dominating sets in graphs. The following figures illustrates a standard 8 x 8 chessboard on which is placed a queen.

According to the rules of chess a queen can, in one move, advance any number of squares horizontally, vertically, or diagonally (assuming no other chess piece lies in its way). Thus, the queen in the above figure can move to (or attack, or dominate) all of the squares marked with an X. In the 1850s, chess enthusiastics in Europe considered the problem of determining the minimum number of queens that can be placed on a chess board so that all squares are either attacked by a queen or are occupied by a queen. The following figure illustrates a set of six

67

queens which together attack or dominate, every square on the board. It was correctly thought in the 1850s, that five is the minimum number of queens that can dominate all of the squares of an 8 x 8 chessboard. Case-1 : No two Queens attack each other

68

Case-2 : All Queens lie on the main diagonal

Case-3 : All Queens lie on a common column

69

Mathematical history of Domination in Graphs: The mathematical study of dominating sets in graphs began around 1960. The subject has historical roots dating back to 1862, when Jaenisch studied the problem of determining the Minimum number of Queens which are necessary to cover an n x n chess board. Among others, the following are the 3 basic types of problems: Covering: What is the minimum number of chess pieces of given type which is necessary to cover / attack /dominate every square of an n x n board? This is an example of the problem, finding a dominating set of minimum cardinality. Independent Covering: What is the minimum number of mutually non attacking chess pieces of a given type which are necessary to dominate every square of an n x n board? This is an example of the problem of finding a minimum cardinality independent dominating set. Independence: What is the maximum number of chess pieces of a given type which can be placed on an n x n chessboard in such a way that no two of them attack / dominate each other? This is an example of the problem of finding the maximum cardinality of an independent set. These three problem types were studied in detail by Yaglom and Yaglom brothers around 1964

In 1958 Claude Berge wrote a book on graph theory, in which he defined for the first time, the concept of the domination number of a graph ( he called this number as the coefficient of external stability ) In 1962, Oystein Ore published his book on Graph theory in which he used for the first time, the names dominating set and dominating number . 70

In 1977, Cockayne and Hedetniemi publish a survey of the few results known at that time, about dominating sets and graph. In this survey, they were the first to use the notation (G) for the domination number in a graph, which subsequently became the accepted notation. This survey paper seems of have set in motion the modern study of domination in graphs Some twenty years later, more than 1200 research papers have been published on this topic and the number of papers is steadily growing. According to S. T. Hedetniemi, R. C. Laskar, they divide the contributions in Topics on domination theory into three sections, entitled theoretical, new models and algorithmic. The nine theoretical papers retain a primary focus on properties of the standard domination number (G) The four papers which they classify as new models are concerned primarily with new variations in the domination theme. The eight algorithmic papers are primarily concerned with finding classes of graphs for which the domination number, and Several other domination-related parameters can be computed in polynomial time.

3.1 Theoretical: For a variety of reasons they lead of this volume with the paper Chessboard domination problem by Cockayne, because Cockayne has done the most definitive work in this area. The follow up paper On the queen domination problem by Ginstead, Hahne and Vanstone the best approximation to the old problem of placing a minimum number of queens on an arbitrary nxn chessboard so that all squares are covered by atleast one queen.

71

. It is able to present next a reprint of a paper by Berge and Duchet entitled Recent problems and results about Kernels in directed graph Claude Berge has done more than anyone in particular of domination theory. He used the terminology Coefficient of external stability instead The domination number . David Sumner was one of the early researcher in domination theory and was perhaps the first one to consider the question of domination in critical graphs. In this paper Critical concepts in domonation he considers the problem of characterizing graphs for which adding any edge e decreases the domination number. He also considers the problem of characterizing graphs having minimum dominating sets D which are independent. i.e. no two vertices in D are adjacent. A related notion, By Fink , Jacobson, Kinch and Roberts in The bondage number of graph, is that of finding a set of edges F of smallest order (called the bondage number), whose removal increases the domination number. In the original survey paper on domination Cockayne and Hedetniemi introduced the domatic number of a graph denoted d(G) which equals the maximum order of a partition{V1 ,V2, V3,, VR } of V(G) such that every set Vi is a dominating set. Today Zelinka has become the worlds foremost authority on the domatic number and a related partition numbers. He has published nearly two dozen papers on this topic. Zelinka entitled Regular totally domatically full graphs and Rall entitled Domatically critical and domatically full graphs . On the domatic number of a graph. 3.2 New models: The concepts of domination, covering and centrality are so interrelated. In a 1985 paper, Hedetniemi, Hedetniemi and Laskar list 30 different types of domination. As of now twice as many types of domination problem have been studied. The paper Dominating cliques in graphs by Cozzens and Kelleher, studies the existence of families of graphs which contain a complete subgraph whose vertices form a dominating set. They present several forbidden subgraph conditions which are sufficient to imply

72

the existence of dominating cliques and they present a polynomial algorithm for finding a domination clique for a certain class of graphs. The paper Covering all cliques of a graph by Tuza considers a different kind of domination, in which one seeks a minimum set of vertices which dominates all cliques(i.e. maximal complete subgraphs ) of a graph. The paper by Brigham and Dutton entitled Factor domination in graphs considers, the general problem of finding a minimum set of vertices which is a dominating set of every subgraph in a set of edge disjoint subgraphs, say G1 ,G2, G3,, Gt , whose union is a given graph G. The paper by Sampathkumar entitled The least point covering and domination number of a graph is one of many papers in which one imposes additional conditions on a dominating set, e.g. the dominating set must induce a connected subgraph(connected domination), a complete subgraph (dominating clique), or a totally-disconnected graph (independent domination). In Sampathkumars paper the domination number of the subgraph induced by the dominating set must be minimized. 3.3 Algorithmic: Nearly 100 papers containing domination algorithm or complexity results have been published in the last 10 years. Perhaps, the first domination algorithm was an attempt by Daykin and Ng in 1966 to compute the domination number of an arbitrary tree. But their algorithm seems to have an error that cannot be easily corrected. Cockayne, Goodman and Hedetniemi apparently constructed the first domination algorithm for trees in 1975 and, at about the same time, David Johnson constructed the first (unpublished) proof that the domination problem for arbitrary graphs is NP complete. The first paper by Corneil and Stewart entitled Dominating sets in perfect graphs presents both a brief survey of algorithmic results on domination and a discussion of the dynamic-programming-style technique that is commonly used in designing domination algorithms, especially as they are applied to the family of perfect graph. 73

The paper Unit disk graphs by Clark , Colbourn and Johnson discusses the algorithmic compelxity of such problem as domination , independent domination and connected domination , and several other problems, on the intersection graphs of equal size circles in the plane. This paper is significant since it contains the result that the Domination problem for grid graphs, a subclass of unit disk graphs, is NP-complete. The paper Permutation graphs: Connected domination and Steiner trees by Colbourn and Stewart , a variety of NP-complete problems have been shown to have polynomial solutions when restricted to permutation graph. The paper The discipline number of a graph Chavatal and Cook, provides an example of the relatively recent study of fractional( i.e. real valued ) parameters of graphs. These are the values obtained by real relaxations of the integer linear programs corresponding to various graphical parameters like domination, matching, covering and independence. The paper Best location of service centers in a tree- like network under budget constraints by McHugh and Perl, provides both a nice applications perspective on domination and an illustration of the many papers that have been published on the topic of centrality in graphs. It also provides an example of a pseudo-polynomial domination algorithm and another example of the dynamic programming technique applied to domination problems. The paper Dominating cycles in Halin graphs by Skowronska and Syslo, discusses both a fourth class of graphs on which polynomial time domination algorithms can be constructed, and the notion of a dominating cucle, i.e. a cycle C in a graph such that every vertex not in C lies at most one from some vertex in C. The paper Finding dominating cliques efficiently, in strongly chrodal graphs and undirected path graph by Kratsch is an algorithmic mate of the paper by Cozzens and Kelleher on dominating cliques, find the dominating cliques of minimum size. The paper On minimum dominating sets with minimum intersection by

Grinstead and Slatter, which is a good representative of the fast developing area of polynomial, 74

and even linear , algorithms on partial K-trees. Grinstead and Slatter introduce a difficult, new type of problem, prove that it is in general NP-complete, and give a linear time solution when restricted to trees. This solution also uses a dynamic programming style approach and a methodology created by Wimer in his 1987 Ph.D. Thesis. 3.4 Applications: School Bus Routing: Most school in the country provide school buses for transporting children to and from school. Most also operate under certain rules, one of which usually states that no child shall have to walk farthrer than, say one quarter km to a bus pickup point. Thus, they must construct a route for each bus that gets Within one quarter km of every child in its assigned area. No bus ride can take more than some specified number of minutes, and Limits on the number of children that a bus can carry at any one time. Let us say that the following figure represents a street map of part of a city, where each edge represents one pick up block. The school is located at the large vertex. Let us assume that the school has decided that no child shall have to walk more than two blocks in order to be picked up by a school bus. Construct a route for a school bus that leaves the school, gets within two blocks of every child and returns to the school. One such simple route is indicated by the directed edges in the following figure

75

A second possible route is indicated below. With this route the school bus can turn around and drive back down a street. Both routes define what are called distance-2

dominating sets in the sense that every vertex not on the route(not in the set) is within distance two (two edges) of at least one point on the route. These routes also define what are called connected dominating sets in the sense that the set of shaded vertices on the route forms a connected subgraph of the entire graph. The connected domination number c (G) equals the minimum cardinality of a dominating set D such that <D> is connected

76

Computer Communication Networks: Consider a computer network modelled by a graph G = (V,E), for which vertices represents computers and edges represent direct links between pairs of computers. Let the vertices in following figure represent an aray, or network, of 16 computers, or processors. Each processors to which it is directly connected. Assume that from time to time we need to collect information from all processors. We do this by having each processor route its information to one of a small set of collecting processors (a dominating set). Since this must be done relatively fast, we cannot route this information over too long a path. Thus we identify a small set of processors which are close to all other processors. Let us say that we will tolerate at most a two unit delay between the time a processors sends its information and the time it arrives at a nearby collector. In this case we seek a distance-2 dominating set among the set of all processors. The two shaded vertices form a distance-2 dominating set in the hypercube network in following figure

77

Radio Stations: Suppose that we have a collection of small villeges in a remote part of the world. We would like to locate radio stations in some of these villeges so that messages can be broadcast to all of the villages in the region. Since each radio station has a limited broadcasting range, we must use several stations to reach all villages. But since radio stations are costly, we want to locate as few as possible which can reach all other villages. Let each village be represented by a vertex. An edge between two villages is labelled with the distance, say in kilometers, between the two villages

78

Let us assume that a radio station has a broadcast range of fifty kilometers. What is the least number of stations in a set which dominates (within distance 50) all other vertices in ths graph? A set (B,F,H,J} of cardinality four is indicated in the following figure(b).

Here we have assumed that a radio station has a broadcast range of only fifty kilometers, we can essentially remove all edges in the graph, which represent a distance of more than fifty kilometers. We need only to find a dominating set in this graph.Notice that if we could afford 79

radio stations which have a broadcast range of seventy kilometers, three radio stations would sufficient. Other Applications: Locate TV and Mobile communication towers Wireless Ad Hoc Network Mining Scientific Data Sets Using Graphs Assignment problem Guard location problem Surveillance system and Coding theory Land Surveying.

References: 1. T. W. Haynes, S. T. Hedetniemi, and P. J. Slater (eds), Fundamentals of Domination in Graphs, Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, 1998. 2. T. W. Haynes, S. T. Hedetniemi, and P. J. Slater (eds), Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics,
3.

Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, 1 998.

S.T.Hedetniemi, and R. C. Laskar, Topics on domination, Annals of discrete mathematics.

80

81

Chapter-4 Changing and unchanging Domination parameters

An Important Consideration in the topological design of a network is fault tolerance, that is, the ability of the network to provide service even when it contains a faulty component or components. The behavior of a network in the presence of a fault can be analyzed by determining the effect that removing an edge (link failure) or a vertex (processor failure) from its underlying graph G has on the fault- tolerance criterion. For example, a -set in G represents a minimum set of processors that can communicate directly with all other processors in the system. If it is essential for file servers to have this property and that the number of processors designated as file servers be limited, then the domination number of G is the fault-tolerance criterion. In this example, It is most important that (G) does not increase when G is modified by removing a vertex or an edge. From another perspective, networks can be made fault-tolerant by providing redundant communication links (adding edges). Hence, we examine the effects on (G) when G is modified by deleting a vertex or deleting or adding an edge 4.1 Terminology: The semi-expository paper by Carrington, Harary, and Haynes surveyed the problems of characterizing the graphs G in the following six classes. Let G-v (respectively, G-e) denote the graph formed by removing vertex v (respectively, edge e) from G. We use acronyms to denote the following classes of graphs (C represents changing; U represents unchanging; V: vertex; E: Edge; R: removal; A: addition). (CVR) (CER) (G - v) (G - e) (G) for all v V (G) for all e E 82

(CEA) (UVR) (UER) (UEA)

(G + e) (G - v) (G - e) (G + e)

(G) for all e E(G ) = (G) for all v V = (G) for all e E = (G) for all e E(G )

These six problems have been approached individually in the literature with other terminology. Hence we examine them and several related problems using the above changing and unchanging terminology first suggested by Harary [F. Harary, Changing and unchanging invariants for graphs. Bull. Malaysian Math. Soc. 5 (1982) 73-78. It is useful to partition the vertices of G into three sets according to how their removal affects their (G). Let V = V 0 V + V - for V 0 = {v V : (G - v) = (G)} V + = {v V : (G - v) > (G)} V - = {v V : (G - v) < (G)} Similarly, the edge set can be partitioned into E 0 = {uv E: (G -uv) = (G)} E + = {uv E: (G -uv) > (G)} For Example, the graphs in the following figure G:

83

 (G) = 2 The graph G1 : G-{X}

(G-{X}) = 2 V 0 = {X V: (G {X} = (G)} (i.e.) V 0 = {A, B, C, D, E, X} ----------------------------------1 The graph G2: G-{F}

84

 (G-{F}) = 6 (G-{F}) > (G)

V + = {F V : (G {F} > (G)} (i.e.) V + = {F} -----------------------------------2

The graph G3: G-{H}

(G-{H}) = 1 (G-{H}) < (G) 85

V - = { H V : (G {H} < (G)} i.e. V - = {F} ----------------------------------------------------- 3 From equation 1, 2 and 3 V=V0 V+ V Vertex removal: The removal of vertex v from a graph G results a graph G-v such that (G-v) (G-v) (G-v) > (G) < (G) = (G)
-

The removal of vertex from G can increase (G) by more than one Ex. For the graph K1,4

Here (G) = 1 (G-A) > (G)

(G-A) = 4

But the removal of vertex from G can decrease (G) by at most one Ex. For the cyclic graph C4

86

Here

(G) = 2 (G-v) < (G)

(G- v) = 1

Edge removal: The removal of an edge from a graph G can increase by the domination number by at most one and cannot decrease the domination number. ( i.e.) (G-e) = (G) + 1 Ex. G:

(G) = 3 (G-e) = (G) + 1

(G-e) = 4

The domination number is unchanged when any single edge is removed. (G-e) = (G) Ex. For the cyclic graph C8

87

Here

(G) = 3 (G-e) = (G)

(G- e) = 3

Vertex removal: Unchanging Domination Ex. For the cyclic graph C8

Here

(G) = 3 (G-v) = (G)

(G- v) = 3

4.2 Vertex removal: Changing Domination:

The vertices in V + were characterized by Bauer, Harary, Nieminen and Suffel [1] Theorem 4.1[1]: A vertex v V + if and only if (i) . v is not an isolated vertex and is in every -set of G, and

(ii). no subset S V N (v) with cardinality (G) dominates G-v.

88

The vertices in V - were characterized by Sampathkumar and Neeralagi. Theorem 4.2 [2]: A vertex v V - if and only if pn [v, D] = {v} for some -set D containing v. Carrington et al. determined the properties of V + and V and showed that for any graph G in changing vertex removal, (G - v) < (G) for all v V, that is , V = V and V + = . Theorem 4.3 [3]: For any graph G, (a) If v V vertices, (b) if x V + and y V - , then x and y are not adjacent, (c) |V0 | 2|V+ |, (d) (G) (G - v) for all v V if and only if V = V , and (e) if v V and v is not an isolated vertex in G , then there exists a -set D of G such that v not in D Brigham, Chinn and Dutton determined a sufficient condition to imply that (G - v) = established the following theorem. Theorem 4.4 [4]: If a graph G has a non isolated vertex v such that the subgraph induced by N (v) is complete, then (G - v) = (G). Theorem 4.5[22]: If a graph GCVR and (G) 2, then diam (G) 2( (G) 1). (G).They
+

, then for every -set D of G, v D and pn[v,D] contains at least two non adjacent

Bauer et al. [1] studied a problem of determining the minimum number of vertices whose removal changes (G). Let + denote the minimum number of vertices whose removal increases the domination number and
-

denote the minimum number of vertices whose removal

decreases the domination number They obtained the following results. Theorem 4.6[1]: For any tree T, + (T) = 2 if and only if there are vertices u and v such that (1) every -set contains either u or v. (2) v is in every -set for T-u and u is in every -set for T-v.

89

They also established the following results Theorem 4.7[1]: For any graph (a) -(G) (G) + 1.

(b) min { +(G), -(G)} (G) + 1. (c) If G has an end vertex, then +(G 2 implies -(G) 2. (d) For n 7, +( Pn ) + -( Pn) = 4. (e) For n 8, +( Cn ) + -( Cn ) = 6.
Bauer, Harary, Nieminen and Suffel showed that V following theorem. Theorem4. 8[1]: For any tree T with n 2, there exists a vertex v V, such that (T v} = (T).
0

is never empty for a tree. They proved the

4.3 Vertex removal: Unchanging Domination

Carrington, Harary and Haynes [3] characterized graph for which (G v} = (G). Theorem 4.9[3]: A graph G has (G v} = (G) for any vertex v V if and only if G has no isolated vertices and for each vertex v, either (i) There is a -set D such that v D and for each -set D such that v D, pn[v,D] contains at
1 1

least one vertex from V-D, or (ii) v is in every -set and there is a subset of (G) vertices in G-N[v] that dominating G-v
4.4 Edge removal (CER- Edge removal: Changing Domination) The removal of an edge from G cannot decrease -set and can increase it by at most one. Thus a

graph for which the domination number changes when an arbitrary edge is removed has the 90

property that (G e} = (G) + 1, for all eE. The graphs in CER were called +- critical graphs
and independently characterized by Bauer et al. [1] and Walikar and Acharya [5]. Theorem 4.10 [1, 5]: A graph G has (G e} component of G is a star. 4.4.1 Bondage Number: In a communications network, network consists of existing communication links between a fixed set of sites. The problem at hand is to select a smallest set of sites at which to place transmitters is joined by a direct communication link to one that does have a transmitter. This problem reduces to finding a minimum dominating set in the graph, corresponding to this network, that has a vertex corresponding to each site, and an edge between two vertices if and only if the corresponding sites have a direct communications link joining them. Suppose that someone does not know which sites in the network act as transmitters, but does know that the set of such sites corresponds to a minimum dominating set in the related graph. What is the fewest number of communication links that he must sever so that at least one additional transmitter would be required in order that communication with all sites be possible? With this in mind, they introduce the bondage number of a graph = (G) + 1 for any edge eE if and only if each

This concept was introduced by Fink et al. [6] with the above application in mind. Bondage number: b(G) The bondage number b(G) of a non empty graph G is the minimum cardinality among all sets of edges X E such that (G-X) > (G). Ex. K4

(G) = 1

(G-X) =2 91

 (G-X) > (G) b (G) = 2 First results on the bondage number are found in Bauer at al. [1] (the term edges stability
number was used instead of bondage number).

Hartnel and Rall [7] characterized the trees having bondage number 2. Theorem 4.11[1, 5]: If T is a nontrivial tree then b(T) 2. Theorem 4.12 [1, 5]: If any vertex of a tree T is adjacent with two or more end vertices then b (T) = 1. Theorem 4.13: If F is a forest, then F is an induced subgraph of a tree S with b(S) = 1 and a tree T with b(T) = 2. Fink et al. [6] gave the exact values for b (G) of selected graphs. Theorem 4.14[6]: The bondage number of the complete graph K p (p 2) is b (K p) = p/2 . Ex. K 5

(K 5 ) = 1 (K 5 - x ) > (K 5 ) b (K p) =3.

(K 5 - x ) = 2

Theorem 4.15[6]: The bondage number of the p-cycle C p is

92

b (C p) = 3 if p 1 (mod 3), 2 otherwise Ex. C 6 We know that (C p ) = p/3 for p 3

(C6 - x ) = 3

and (C 6 ) = 2

(C6 - x ) > (C 6 ) b (C6) =2.

Theorem 4.16[6]: The bondage number of the path of order p (p 2) is

b (P p) = 2 if p 1 (mod 3), 1 otherwise Ex. P 7 We know that (P p ) = p/3 for p 1

(P7 - x ) = 4 and (P 7 ) = 3 93

(P7 - x ) > (P 7 ) b (P7) =2. General bounds: In this section we shall establish bounds on the bondage number of a graph that are independent of the graphs structure, Theorem 4.17: If G is connected graph of graph of order p 2 then b(G) p-1. Theorem 4.18: If G is a nonempty graph, then b (G) min { deg u + deg v 1: u and v are adjacent vertices}. The above theorem is proved by Bauer, Harary, Nieminen and Suffel. Corollary of the above theorem: If (G) and (G) denote respectively the maximum and minimum degree among all vertices of nonempty connected graph G, then b (G) (G) + (G) - 1 Another bound on the bondage number that involves the maximum degree among the vertices of the graph is given by the following theorem. This bound also indicates a relationship between the bondage number and the domination number. Theorem 4.18[6]: If G is nonempty graph with domination number (G) 2, then b (G) ((G) 1) (G) + 1. Theorem 4.19[6]: If G is a connected graph of order p 2, then b (G) p - (G) + 1. The following upper bound was established by Hartnell and Rall [8]. Theorem 4.20 [6]: If G has edge connectivity (G) 1, then b (G) (G) + (G) - 1. Conjecture: It is conjectured in [6] that b (G) (G) + 1 for any nonempty graph G. 94

In 2000, Kang and Yuan [20] made a breakthrough toward this conjecture. They obtained the following results. Theorem 4.21[20]: If G is a connected planar graph then b (G) max {8, (G) +2}. Theorem 4.22[20]:If G is a connected planar graph with no degree five vertex, then b(G) 7 Theorem 4.23 [7] If G is a connected planar graph then b(G) 6, if g(G) 4; 5, if g(G) 5; 4, if g(G) 6; 3, if g(G) 8. Theorem 4.24[8]: Hartnell and Rall [8] proved that b(Gn) = 3/2 * (Gn) for the Cartesian product Gn = Kn Kn, which disproves the existence of an upper bound of the form b (G) (G) + c for any constant number c. Theorem 4.25[18]: Teschner [18] showed that b(G) 3/2 * (G) holds for any graph G satisfying (G) 3. Theorem 4.26[19]: S. Klavzar et al. determined in [19] the domination number of Cm Cn for some m, n, they obtained that (C3 Cn) = n (n/4) for n 4. Theorem 4.27: For any positive integer k, we have b(C3 C4k) = 2; b(C3 C4k+1) = 4; and b(C3 C4k+2) = 4. Theorem 4.28: For any positive integer k, we have b(C3 C4k+3) = 5 for every k 1. 4.4.2 Total Bondage Number: b t(G) 95

The total bondage number b t (G) of a graph G is the minimum cardinality among all sets of edges X E such that t(G-X) > t(G). Ex. P7

t (G) = 4

t(G-X) = 5 t(G-X) > t(G) b t(G) = 1

This concept was introduced by Kulli and Patwari [12]. They determined b t(G) for some families of graph. Theorem 4.29[12]: The total bondage number of the complete graph K p (p 5) is b t (K p) = 2p - 5. Ex. K 6

We know that t(K p ) = 2 t(K6 - x ) = 3

for p 2 and t (K6 ) = 2

t(K6 - x ) > t (K6 ) 96

b t (K 6) =7.
Theorem 4.30[12]: The total bondage number of the p-cycle C p (p 3) is

b t (C p) = 3 2

if p 2 (mod 4), otherwise.

Theorem 4.31[12]: The total bondage number of the path of order (p 4) is

b t(P p) = 2 if p 2 (mod 4), 1 otherwise.

Theorem 4.32[12]: The total bondage number of the complete bipartite graph K m, n with

2 m n is b t(K m, n) = m.
Theorem 4.33 [12]: The total bondage number of a wheel of order p 5 is

b t( W p ) = 2. Also Kulli and Patwari [12] established bounds of total bondage number
Theorem 4.32 [12]: If G is a connected graph of order p 5, then b t(G) p-5. Theorem 4.33 [12]: If T is a tree with at least 2 cut vertices, then b t(T) 2.

The following results are established by Jia Huang, Jun-Ming Xu Department of mathematics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China. Consider G = (V, E) as a digraph with the vertex-set V and the edge-set E. For a subset S V, let E+(S) = {(u, v) E : u S, v S} and E(S) = {(u, v) E : u S, v S}; let N+(S) = {v V: u S, (u, v) E+(S)} and N(S) = {u V: v S, (u, v) E(S)}. If S = {x} we replace S by x for convenience. For v V and (u, v), (v,w) E, u and w are called an inneighbor and an out-neighbor of v, respectively . The in-degree and out-degree of v are the number 97

of its in-neighbors and out-neighbors, and are denoted by d(v) = dG (v) and

d+(v) = d+ G

(v), respectively. The degree of v is d (v) = d G(v) = d+(v) + d(v). Denote the maximum and the minimum degree of G by (G) and (G), the maximum and the minimum in degree (resp. outdegree) of G by (G) and (G) (resp. + (G) and +(G)). A digraph G is d-regular if (G) = + (G) = (G) = +(G) = d. Lemma 4.34: Let G be a loopless digraph with (G) 2. If there exist an edge (u, v) and a vertex w different from u and v in G such that X = (N(v) N(w)) \ {u} then (a) b t (G) d+(u) + d(v) + d(w) |N(v) \ N(w)| 2; (b) b t (G) d+(u) + d(v) + d(w) min xX {|N+(u) N+(x)|} 2. Corollary 4.35: Let G be a loopless digraph. If + (G) 2 and (G) 2, then b t (G) min{ + (G) + 2 (G) , (G) + +(G) +(G)} 3. In particular, if G is -regular and 2, then b t (G) 3( 1). Lemma 4.36: For a digraph G, bt (G) s(G). Denote by s(G) the minimum number of edges which support all minimum total dominating sets in G. Split Bondage Number: b s (G): The removal of set of edges of G results a spanning subgraph H of G such that the split domination number of H may be greater than or less than the split domination number of G. This motivates to define new parameter as The Split bondage number. These concepts were introduced by Kulli, Janakiram and Iyer [10]. 4.4.3 Split Bondage Number: b s (G): The Split bondage number b s(G) of a graph G is the minimum cardinality among all sets of edges X E such that s(G-X) > s(G). Ex.c6 98

Clearly s(G-X) > s(G). b s(G) = 2 Negative Split Bondage Number: b s (G): The negative split bondage number b
s

(G) of a graph G is the minimum

cardinality among all sets of edges X E such that s(G-X) < s(G).
Theorem 4.37 [10]: For any connected graph G, b s (G) p -1. Theorem 4.38 [10]: If (G) = s(G), then b s(G) b (G).

Kulli and Janakiram [10] obtained an upper bound on b degree (G).

Theorem 4.39 [10]: For any connected graph G, b s(G) (G) 1.

(G) in terms of the maximum

Theorem 4.39 [10]: Let G be a graph with diam (G) = 2 and D be s set of G. If there exists a

b s set X in V D incident to some vertex v V-D, then s(G) b s (G) + (G) 1

Theorem 4.40 [10]: If v is a vertex of minimum degree 2 and u, w are two adjacent vertices adjacent to v, then b
s (G)

= 1.

Definition: A graph is said to be well dominated if and only if every minimal dominating set is of same cardinality [11].
Theorem 4.41 [10]: If G is a well dominated graph with s(G) = 0 (G), then b Theorem 4.42 [10]: If G is a well dominated graph, then b
s (G) s (G)

= 1.

p - s(G).

Edge Removal: Unchanging Domination 99

Consider a graph for which the domination number is unchanged when any single edge is removed. These graphs were characterised by Walikar and Acharya [5].
Theorem 4.43 [5]: A graph G has (G) = (G-e) for any edge e E if and only if for each

e = uv E, there exists a set D such that one of the following condition is satisfied: (a) u, v D

(b) u, v V D (c ) u D and v V-D implies |N(v) D | 2. Nonbondage Number: This is used in a communication network. That is it is used to minimize the direct communication links in the network. Kulli and Janakiram [9] introduced Nonbondage number. Nonbondage Number: The nonbondage number b
n

(G) of a graph G is the maximum

cardinality among all sets of edges X E such that (G-X) = (G).

(G) = 2 b n (G) = 5

(G-X) = 2

Kulli and Janakiram established the following theorems and corollaries. Theorem 4.44[9]: For any graph G, b n (G) = q p + (G).

100

Here q = 11, p = 8 and (G) = 2 b n (G) = 11 - 8 +2 = 5 Corollary 4.45 [9]: For any graph G, b n (G) q (G).

Here q = 11,

(G) = 5

and

b n (G) = 5

Clearly b n (G) q (G). Corollary 4.45 [9]: For any connected graph G, (diam (G) 2)/3 b n (G). Corollary 4.46 [9]: If G is a Hamiltonian graph, then p/3 b n (G). Theorem 4.47[9]: For any graph G, b (G) b n (G) + 1. Corollary 4.48 [9]: For any graph G, b (G) q - (G) + 1. 101

Theorem 4.49[9]: Let G be a unicyclic graph. If (G) = p/2, then (G) b n (G). Theorem 4.50[9]: An edge e = uv is in every b n set of G if and only if for every set D of G, {u,v} D or {u,v} V D. Edge addition: Changing Domination: The domination number is changed when any single edge is added i.e. (G + e) = (G) - 1 . Ex.

(G) = 3 (G + e) = (G) - 1 .

(G + e) = 2

The addition of an edge can decrease the domination number by at most one. Sumner and Blitch [13] characterised these graphs only in the cases for which (G) is 1 or 2. Theorem 4.51[13]: A graph G with (G) =1 is in CEA if and only if G is complete. Theorem 4.52[13]: A graph G with (G) =2 is in CEA if and only if G is complement of a union of stars. Sumner [14] characterized the disconnected graphs in CEA having (G) = 3.

102

Theorem 4.53 [14]: A disconnected graph G with (G) = 3 is in CEA if and only if G A B where either A is trivial and B is in CEA and has (G) = 2 or A is a complete graph and B is a complete graph minus a 1-factor. Although, the graphs in CEA with (G) 3 have not been characterized, many interesting properties of these graphs have been found. For example, Favaron, Sumner and Wojcicka [15] showed the following result. Theorem 4.54 [14]: The diameter of a graph GCEA with (G) = k is at most 2k-2. They conjectured that the best possible bound is actually 3k/2 1 . This conjecture is unsolved at the present time. Sumner and Blitch [13] also conjectured that all graphs in CEA have equal domination and independent domination numbers. This conjecture is true for graphs in CEA which have (G) 2 Ao, Cockayne, MacGillivray, and Mynhardt constructed a counter example for graphs G in CEA with (G) 4. The conjecture is still unsettled for graph GCEA with (G) = 3, and many people who have studied it believe it is true for this case. Wojcicka [15] proved another conjecture by Sumner and Blitch [13] that every connected graph in CEA with (G) = 3 and p 6 has a Hamiltonian path. Relating edge addition to vertex removal, Sumner and Blitch [13] showed that V+ is empty for graphs in CEA. Theorem 4.55 [13]: If a graph G CEA, then V = V V0. Favaron et al. gave another property of the vertex set of graph in CEA. Theorem 4.56 [15]: If a graph G CEA, then the sub graph induced by V0 is complete graph. Theorem 4.57 [15]: If a connected graphs G CEA is not complete then | V | (G). Cobondage Number: The cobondage number b c (G) of a graph G is the minimum cardinality among the sets of edges X P2(V) E, Where P2(V) = { X V: |X| = 2 } such that (G + X) < (G). 103

Ex. G:

(G) = 2 Here E = {AB, BD, DC, AC} and P2(V) = { AB, BD, DC, AC, AD, BC} X { AD, BC}

(G + X) = 1 (G + X) < (G). b c (G) = 1

This concept was defined by Kulli and Janakiram [16]. An obvious application of this theory is evident in our communication network example. Determining b
c

(G) for the networks underlying

graph reveals the minimum number of

communication links which must be added to the network in order to decrease the number of file servers required to service the system. Kok and Mynhardt [17] (the term reinforcement number was used instead of cobondage

number) found cobondage number for several families of graphs and determined bounds on cobondage number. Theorem 4.58 [17]: For any graph G, (G) p - (G) - b c (G) + 1. Theorem 4.59 [17]: If G is a graph with (G) 2 then b c (G) = (G). Corollary 4.60 [17]: If G is a graph with (G) = 2 then b c (G) = p - (G) -1. 104

Kulli and Janakiram [16] established an upper bound on bondage number of a complementary graph. Theorem 4.61 [16]: For any graph G, b c ( ) (G).

Theorem 4.62 [16]: For any graph G, b c (G) (G) + 1. Theorem 4.63 [16]: For any graph G, b c (G) (G) + 1 if and only if every set of G satisfying the following conditions: (i) D is independent, (ii) every vertex in D is of maximum degree, (iii) every vertex in V D is adjacent to exactly one vertex in D. Theorem 4.64 [16]: For any graph G, b c (G) p 1 with equality if and only if G =
2.

Theorem 4.65 [16]: For any graph G of order p 3, b c (G) p 2 with equality if and only if G = 2 K2 or
3

or K2 K1.

The following results gave some relationships between b c (G) and (G). Theorem 4.66 [16]: For any graph G, (G) + b c (G) p+1 with equality if and only if G = Theorem 4.67 [16]: Let D be a - set of G. If there exists a vertex vD which is adjacent to every other vertex in D, then (G) + b c (G) p-1. Theorem 4.68 [16]: For any graph G, (G) + b c (G) p-(G) +1. Theorem 4.69 [16]: If T is a spanning tree of G such that (T) = (G), then b c (G) b c (T). Theorem 4.70 [16]: If T is a tree and u is a cut vertex adjacent to an end vertex, then b c (T) 1 +min {deg(u)}. A lower bound for b c (T) involving the bondage number of T which was given by Kulli and Janakiram [16]. Theorem 4.71 [16]: if T is a tree with diam (T) = 5 and has exactly cut vertices which are adjacent to end vertices and also they have same degree, then b (T) + 1 1 + b c (T). 105
p.

Kulli and Janakiram [16] determined the cobondage number for K n1, n2, n3, , nt, Preposition 4.72 [16]: if G = K n1, n2, n3, , nt, where n1 n2 n3 nt , then b c (G) = n1 1. Kulli and Janakiram [16] and Kok and Mynhardt [17] determined the cobondage number for paths and cycles by using different techniques. Preposition 4.73 [16, 17]: If p = 3k + i 4 where i = 1, 2, 3 then b c (C n) = b c (P n) = i. Definition: For a graph G, Let uDV. The Private neighborhood of u with respect to D is the set pn [u, D] = N[u] N[D-{u}]. Let p(D) = min{|pn[u, D] |: u D}. The private neighborhood number p(G) of G is the min{p(D): D is a -set of G}. Kok and Mynhardt [17] showed that the cobondage number is bounded by the private neighborhood number. Theorem 4.74 [16]: If G is a graph with (G) 2, then b c (G) p(G) with equality holds if b c (G) = 1. Edge addition: Unchanging Domination (UEA) The domination number is unchanged when any single edge is added. (G + e) = (G) Ex.

(G) = 2 106

(G + e) = 2

(G + e) = (G). Theorem 4.75 [3]: A graph G UEA if and only if V is empty. Observation

Classes of changing and unchanging graphs:

The Venn diagram in the following figure illustrates the relationships among the classes. Not all graphs are in one of the six classes.

Graph G (UVR UEA ) (UER CER)

Graph G UER (CVR CEA UEA)

107

Graph G (UER UEA ) UVR Also this graph has V = V0V +

Conclusion: Relationships among Classes:

There are many interesting relationships among the six classes of changing and unchanging graphs. For example, the characterization of the graphs in UEA relates them to the graphs in CVR. Observation 4.76: (a) A graph G UVR if and only if V = V0. (b) If a graph G UER, then V = V 0 U V U V+(c) A graph G UEA if and only if V = V 0 U V+- (either V0 or V+ may be empty). (d) A graph G CVR if and only if V = V (e) If a graph G UVR, then G UEA. (f) If a graph G CER UVR if and only if G is mK2 m 2.

108

(g) A graph G (CER UEA) UVR if and only if G is a galaxy with no isolated vertices and at least one star with two or more end vertices. (h) A graph G CER (UEA CEA) if and only if G is a galaxy with at least one isolated vertex and at least two edges. (i) A graph G CER CEA if and only if G has n 3 vertices and exactly one edge. (j) If a graph G CVR, then G UER. References: 1. Bauer.D, Harary.F, Nieminen.J and. Suffel.C.L, Domination alteration sets in Graphs, Discrete Math.47(1983) 153 - 161 2. E. Sampathkumar and P.S. Neeralagi, Domination neighbourhood critical, fixed, free and totally free points, Sankhya (special Volume) 54 (1992) 403-407. 3. J.R.Carrington, F.Harary and T.W.Haynes, Changing and unchanging the domination number of a graph, J.Combin. Math.Cmbin.Comput.9 (1991) 57-63. 4. R.C. Briham, P.Z. Chinn, and R.D. Dutton, Vertex domination critical graphs, Networks 18 (1988) 173-179. 5. H.B.Walikar and B.D.Acharya, Domination critical graph, Nat.Acad.Sci.Lett.2 (1979) 70-72. 6. J. F. Fink, M. J. Jacobson, L. F. Kinch, J. Roberts, The bondage number of a graph, Discrete Math. 86 (1990) 47-57. 7. B. L. Hartnell, D. F. Rall, A Characterization of trees in which no edge is essential to the domination number, Arc Combin. 33 (1992) 65-76. 8. B. L. Hartnell, D. F. Rall, Bounds on the bondage number of a graph, Discrete Math. 128(1994) 173-177. 9. V.R. Kulli and B. Janakiram, The nonbonage number of graph, Graph Theory notes of New York XXX (1996) 14-16. 109

10. V.R. Kulli, B. Janakiram, and R.R.Iyer, Split bondage numbers of a graph, J. Discrete Math. Sci. And Cryptography, 1 (1998) 79-84. 11. A Finbow, B.L.Hartnell and R. Nowakowski, Well domination in Graph, Ars Combin. 25A (1988) 5 10. 12. V.R. Kulli and D.K.Patwari, The total bondage number of a graph, In V.R.Kulli, editor, Advances in Graph theory, p 227-235, Vishwa International, Publ. Gulbarga India, 1991. 13. D.P.Sumner, and P.Blitch, Domination critical graphs, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. B 34 (1983) 65-76. 14. D.P.Sumner, Critical concepts in domination, Discrete Math. 86 (1990) 33-46. 15. O.Favaron, D.P.Sumner, and K Wojcicka, The diameter of domination k-critical graphs, J. Graph theory, 18 (1994) 723-734. 16. V.R. Kulli and B. Janakiram, The cobondage number of a graph. Discuss. Math. 16 (1996) 111-117. 17. U.Kok and Mynhardt, Reinforcement in graphs, Congr. Numer. 79 (1990) 225-231. 18. M.Kwasnik and M.Zwierzchowski, Special kinds of domination parameters in graphs with deleted edge, Ars Combin. 55 (2000)139-146. 19. U. Teschner, A new upper bound for the bondage number of graphs with domination number, Australas. J. Combin. 12 (1995) 27-35. 20. S. Klavzar and S. Sandi, Norbert Dominating Cartesian products of cycles, Discrete Appl. Math. 59 (1995), no. 2, 129{136} 21. J. Fulman, D. Hanson, and McGillivray. Vertex domination-critical graphs. Networks, 25:41-43,1995.

110

111

Bibliography: 1. A Finbow, B.L.Hartnell and R. Nowakowski, Well domination in Graph, Ars Combin. 25A (1988) 5 10. 2. A. M. Barcalkin and L. F. German, the external stability number of the cartesian product of graphs, Bul. Akad. Stiince RSS Moldoven, No 1, 94 (1979) 5-8. 3. A.Yeo, Improved bound on the total domination in graphs with minimum degree four, manuscript (2006). 4. Alber, Jochen; Fellows, Michael R; Niedermeier, Rolf (2004), "Polynomial-time data reduction for dominating set", Journal of the ACM 51 (3): 363384,

doi:10.1145/990308.990309. 5. Allan, Robert B.; Laskar, Renu (1978), "On domination and independent domination numbers of a graph", Discrete Mathematics 23 (2): 7376, doi: 10.1016/0012365X(78)90105-X . 6. B. Bollobas and E. J. Cockayne, Graph theoretic parameters concerning

domination, independence and irredundance, J. Graph Theory 3 (1979) 241-250. 7. B. L. Hartnell and D. F. Rall, Bounds on the bondage number of a graph, Discrete math, 128 (1994), 173-177. 8. B. L. Hartnell, D. F. Rall, A Characterization of trees in which no edge is essential to the domination number, Arc Combin. 33 (1992) 65-76. 112

9. Bermond, J.C. and Peyrat, C., De Bruijn and Kautz networks: A competitor for the hypercube. In: Andre, F., Verjus, J.P. (Eds.), Hypercube and Distributed Computers, Elsevier Science, BV, Amsterdam. pp. 278-293. 10. Bollobas.B, Graph theory: An Introductory Course Springer 1979. 11. C. Bazgan: Schemas d Approximation et Complexities Parameters. Rapport de DEA, University Paris Sud, 1995. 12. C. Berge Graphs, North-Holland 1985. 13. C. Berge, Theory of Graphs and its Applications, Methuen, London, (1962). 14. ChartChartrand.G, Introductory Graph theory, Dover 1985. 15. Cockayne, E.J., Dawes, R.M. and Hedetniemi, S.T., Total domination in graphs. Networks. v10. 211-219. 16. D. Archdeacon, J. Ellis-Monaghan, D. Fischer, D. Froncek, P.C.B. Lam, S. Seager,B. Wei, and R. Yuster, Some remarks on domination. J. Graph Theory 46 (2004),207-210. 17. D. Bauer, F. Harary, J. Nieminen and C.L. Suffel, Domination alteration sets in Graphs, Discrete Math.47(1983) 153 - 161 18. D.P.Sumner, and P.Blitch, Domination critical graphs, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. B 34 (1983) 65-76. 19. D.P.Sumner, Critical concepts in domination, Discrete Math. 86 (1990) 33-46 20. Diestel.R, Graph Theory, Springer-Verlag 1997. 21. E. J. Cockayne, S. T. Hedetniemei and D. J. Miller, Properties of hereditary

hypergraphs and middle graphs, Canad. Math. Bull., 21 (1978) 461-468. 22. E. J. Cockayne, R. M. Dawes, and S. T. Hedetniemi, Total domination in graphs. Networks 10 (1980), 211-219.

113

23. E. Sampathkumar

and

H. B. Walikar,

The

connected

domination

number

of

graph, J. Math.Phys.Sci., 13 (1979) 607-613. 24. E. Sampathkumar and L.Pushpa Latha, strong (weak) domination and domination balance in graph, Discrete math, 161 (1996), 235-242. 25. E. Sampathkumar and P.S. Neeralagi, Domination neighborhood critical, fixed, free and totally free points, Sankhya (special Volume) 54 (1992) 403-407. 26. F. Harary and M. Livingston, Characterization of trees with equal domination and independent domination number. Congr. Numer, 55 (1986) 121-150. 27. F. Harary, Graph Theory, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, (1969). F.Harary, Graph Theory, 10th Reprint, Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, 2001. 28. Faudree, Ralph; Flandrin, Evelyne; Ryjek, Zdenk (1997), "Claw-free graphs A survey", Discrete Mathematics 164 (13): 87147, doi: 10.1016/S0012-365X (96)00045-3, MR1432221. 29. Fomin, Fedor V.; Grandoni, Fabrizio; Kratsch, Dieter (2009), "A measure & conquer approach for the analysis of exact algorithms", Journal of the ACM 56 (5): 25:132, doi:10.1145/1552285.1552286. 30. Fomin, Fedor V.; Grandoni, Fabrizio; Pyatkin, Artem; Stepanov, Alexey (2008), "Combinatorial bounds via measure and conquer: Bounding minimal dominating sets and applications", ACM Transactions on Algorithms 5 (1): 9:117,

doi:10.1145/1435375.1435384. 31. Fomin, Fedor V.; Thilikos, Dimitrios M. (2006), "Dominating sets in planar graphs: branchwidth and exponential speed-up", SIAM Journal on Computing 36: 281, doi: 10.1137/S0097539702419649. 32. G. Chartrand and L.Leniak, Graphs Digraphs, Fourth Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2004.

114

33. Garey, Michael R.; Johnson, David S. (1979), Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, W. H. Freeman, ISBN 0-7167-1045-5 , p. 190, problem GT2. 34. Gould.RJ Benjamin/Cummings, Graph Theory, 1988. Grandoni, F. (2006), "A note on the complexity of minimum dominating set", Journal of Discrete Algorithms 4 (2): 209214, doi:10.1016/j.jda.2005.03.002. 35. Gross. JL and Yellen. J, Graph Theory and its Applications, CRC Press LLC, 1998. 36. Guha, S.; Khuller, S. (1998), "Approximation algorithms for connected dominating sets", Algorithmica 20 (4): 374387, doi: 10.1007/PL00009201. 37. H. B. Walikar, B. D. Acharya and E. Sampathkumar, Recent developments in the theory of domination in graphs. In MRI Lecture Notes in Math. Metha

Research Inst., Allahabad No. 1, (1979). 38. H.B.Walikar and B.D.Acharya, Domination critical graph, Nat.Acad.Sci.Lett.2 (1979) 70-72. 39. Haynes, T.W., Hedetniemi, S.T. and Slater, P.J., Fundamentals of Domination in Graphs. 1998. Marcel Dekker, New York. 40. Haynes, Teresa W.; Hedetniemi, Stephen; Slater, Peter (1998a), Fundamentals of Domination in Graphs, Marcel Dekker, ISBN 0-8247-0033-3, OCLC 37903553. 41. Haynes, Teresa W.; Hedetniemi, Stephen; Slater, Peter (1998b), Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics, Marcel Dekker, ISBN 0-8247-0034-1, OCLC 38201061. 42. Hedetniemi, S. T.; Laskar, R. C. (1990), "Bibliography on domination in graphs and some basic definitions of domination parameters", Discrete Mathematics 86 (13): 257277, doi: 10.1016/0012-365X (90)90365-O. 43. Huang, J. and Xu, J.-M., The bondage numbers of extended de Bruijn and Kautz digraphs. Comput. Math. Appl. v51. 1137-1147. 44. In: Haynes, T.W., Hedetniemi, S.T., Slater, P.J. (Eds.), Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics, Marcel Dekker, and New York. 115

45. J. A. Bondy and U. S. R. Murthy, Graph Theory with Applications, Macmillan, London. 46. J. A. Bondy, U. S. R. Murty, Graph Theory with Applications, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1976. 47. J. Clark and D. A. Holton, a first look at graph theory, World Scientific Pub. Singapore / Allied Pub.Ltd. New Delhi (1995). 48. J. F. Fink, M. S. Jacobson, L. F. Kinch and J. Roberts, the bondage number of a graph, Discrete math, 86 (1990), 47-57. 49. J. Flum, M. Grohe: The Parameterized Complexity of Counting Problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 33(4), pp 892-922, 2004. 50. J. Ghoshal, R. Laskar, D. Pillone and C. Wallis, Strong bondage and strong reinforcement numbers of graphs, English Congr, Numerantium, 108 (1995), 33-42. 51. J. Gross, T. Tucker, Topological Graph Theory, John Wiley and Sons, 1987. 52. J. H. Hattingh and M. A. Henning, On strong domination in graph, To appear in Ars Combin. 53. J. Wilson and J.J. Watkins John, Graphs: An Introductory Approach, Wiley & Sons 1990. 54. J.R.Carrington, F.Harary and T.W.Haynes, Changing and unchanging the domination number of a graph, J. Combin. Math.Cmbin.Comput.9 (1991) 57-63. 55. John Frederick Fink, Michael S. Jacobson, Lael F. Kinch, John Roberts, The bondage number of a graph, Discrete Mathematics, v.86 n.1-3, p.47-57, Dec. 14, 1990. 56. K. Seyffarth and G. McGillivray, Domination numbers of planar graphs, J. Graph Theory, 22 (1996) 2134-229. 57. Kann, Viggo (1992), On the Approximability of NP-complete Optimization Problems, http://www.csc.kth.se/~viggo/papers/phdthesis.pdf. PhD thesis, Department of Numerical Analysis and Computing Science, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. 58. Karam Ebadi and L. Pushpa Latha. Smarandachely Bondage Number of a Graph, J.Math, Combin, 4 (2009), 09-19. 116

59. Kulli, V.R. and Patwari, D.K., The total bondage number of a graph. In: Kulli, V.R. (Ed.), Advances in Graph Theory, Vishwa, and Gulbarga. pp. 227-235. 60. L. A. Sanchis, Maximum number of edges in connected graphs with given

domination number, Discrete Math. 87 (1991) 65-72. 61. L. Kang, J. Yuan, Bondage number of Planar Graphs, Discrete Math. 222 (2000) 191-198 62. L. Kang, M. Sohn, H. Kim, Bondage number of the discrete torus Cn C4, Discrete Math. to be appeared. M. A. Henning and A. Yeo, Hypergraphs with large transversal number and with edge sizes at least three, manuscript (2006). 63. M. A. Henning, Graphs with large total domination number. J. Graph Theory 35 (2000), 2145. 64. M. Behzad, A characterization of total graphs, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 26 389. 65. M. Capobianco and J.C. Molluzzo, Examples and Counterexamples in Graph Theory, NorthHolland 1978. 66. M. Cesati, L. Trevisan: On the Efficiency of Polynomial Approximation Schemes. Information Processing Letters, 64(4), pp 165-171, 1997. 67. M. Grohe and M. Gruber: Parameterized Approximability of the Disjoint Cycle Problem. Proceedings of ICALP 2007, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4596, pp 363-374, 2007. 68. M.Kwasnik and M.Zwierzchowski, Special kinds of domination parameters in graphs with deleted edge, Ars Combin. 55 (2000)139-146. 69. N. Alon, Transversal number of uniform hypergraphs. Graphs Combin. 6 (1990), 1-4. 70. O. Favaron, A bound on the independent domination number of a tree. Vishwa Internat. J. Graph Theory, 1 (1992) 19-27. (1970) 383

117

71. O. Favaron, M.A. Henning, C.M. Mynhardt, and J. Puech, Total domination in graphs with minimum degree three. J. Graph Theory 34 (2000), 9-19. 72. O. Ore, Theory of Graphs, AMS Colloquium Publications 38 AMS 1962 73. O.Favaron, D.P.Sumner, and K Wojcicka, The diameter of domination k-critical graphs, J. Graph theory, 18 (1994) 723-734. 74. P. C. B. Lam and B. Wei, On the total domination number of graphs. Utilitas Math.72 (2007), 223-240. 75. Pradhan, D.K., Fault-tolerant VLSI architectures based on de Bruijn graphs (Galileo in the mid nineties). DIMACS Ser. Discrete Math. Theoret. Comput. Sci. v5. 183-195. 76. R. B. Allan and R. C. Laskar, On domination and independent domination numbers of a graph, Discrete Math, 23 (1978) 73-76.

77. R. C. Brigham and D. Dutton, On Neighborhood graphs, J. Combinatorics Inf & Syst. Sci., 12 (1987) 75 85. 78. R. G. Downey, C. M. McCartin: Online Problems, Path width, and Persistence. Proceedings of IWPEC 2004, Springer-Verlag LNCS 3162, pp 13-24, 2004. 79. R. G. Downey, M. R. Fellows: Parameterized Complexity Springer-Verlag, 1999. 80. R. L. Brooks On coloring the nodes of a network, Proc.Cambridge Philos. Soc. 37 (1941) 194 197. 81. R.C. Brigham, J.R. Carrington, and R.P. Vitray, Connected graphs with maximum total domination number. J. Combin. Comput. Combin. Math. 34 (2000), 81-96. 82. R.C. Briham, P.Z. Chinn, and R.D. Dutton, Vertex domination critical graphs, Networks 18 (1988) 173-179. 83. R.J. Wilson Introduction to Graph Theory by R.J. Trudeau Dover Publications, 1994.

118

84. Raz, R.; Safra, S. (1997), "A sub-constant error-probability low-degree test, and subconstant error-probability PCP characterization of NP", Proc. 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, ACM, pp. 475484, doi:10.1145/258533.258641. 85. S. Arumugam and S. Ramachandran, Invitation to Graph Theory SciTech Publications (2001). 86. S. Klavzar and S. Sandi, Norbert Dominating Cartesian products of cycles, Discrete Appl. Math. 59 (1995), no. 2, 129{136} 87. S. L. Mitchell and S. T. Hedetniemi, Edge (1997) 489-509. 88. S. R. Jayaram, Edge domination in graphs,a. Graphs Combin. 3(1987) 357-363. 89. S. Thomass and A. Yeo, Total domination of graphs and small transversals of hy-pergraphs. To appear in Combinatorial. 90. Shibata, Y. and Gonda, Y., Extension of de Bruijn graph and Kautz graph. Comput. Math. Appl. v30. 51-61. 91. T. Gallai, Uber extreme Punkt-und Kantenmenger, Ann Univ. Sci. Budapest, Eotvos Sect. Math, 2 (1959) 133 138. 92. T. W. Haynes, S. T. Hedeniemi and P. J. Slater, Domination in graphs, Advanced Topic, Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, 1998. 93. T. W. Haynes, S. T. Hedetniemi, and P. J. Slater (eds), Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics, Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, 1998. the electronic journal of combinatory 14 (2007), #R65 9 94. T. W. Haynes, S. T. Hedetniemi, and P. J. Slater (Eds), Fundamentals of Domination in Graphs, Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, 1998. 95. T.W. Haynes and P. J. Slater, Paired Domination in graphs, Networks, 32 (1998) 199-206. 119 domination in trees. Congr. Numer. 19

96. U. Teschner, A new upper bound for the bondage number of graphs with domination number, Australas. J. Combin. 12 (1995) 27-35. 97. U.Kok and Mynhardt, Reinforcement in graphs, Congr. Numer. 79 (1990) 225-231. 98. V. Chvatal and C. MacDiarmid, Small transversals in hypergraphs. Combinatorica 12 (1992), 19-26. 99. V. G. Vizing, Some unsolved problems in graph theory, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 23 (6(144)) (1968) 117-134. 100. 101. V. R. Kulli, Graph Theory, Vishwa Internat. Publications, (2000).

V.R. Kulli and B. Janakiram, The cobondage number of a graph. Discuss. Math. 16

(1996) 111-117. 102. V.R. Kulli and B. Janakiram, The nonbonage number of graph, Graph Theory notes of

New York XXX (1996) 14-16. 103. 104. V.R. Kulli and B. Janakiram, The nonbondage number of a graph, New York, 1996. V.R. Kulli and D.K.Patwari, The total bondage number of a graph, In V.R.Kulli, editor,

Advances in Graph theory, p 227-235, Vishwa International, Publ. Gulbarga India, 1991. 105. V.R. Kulli, B. Janakiram, and R.R.Iyer, Split bondage numbers of a graph, J. Discrete

Math. Sci. And Cryptography, 1 (1998) 79-84. 106. 107. 108. West .DB, Introduction to Graph Theory, Prentice Hall 1996. Xu, J.-M., Topological Structure and Analysis of Interconnection Networks. 2001. Y. Chen, M. Grohe and M Grubber: On Parameterized Approximability. In

H.L.Bodlaender and M.A. Langston, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Notes in Computer Science 4169 (2006), 96108. Workshop on Parameterized and Exact Computation, Springer-Verlag, Lecture 109. Z. Tuza, Covering all cliques of a graph. Discrete Math. 86 (1990), 117-126. 120

121

A (or AG)
b(G)

Adjacency matrix, 25 Bondage number, 88 Bouquet, 13 Circular ladder graph, 14 Clique domination number, 62 Clique number, 23 Complement of a graph, 23 Complete bipartite graph, 17 Complete graph, 14 Connected dominating number, 60 Connected edge domination number, 66 Connected total domination number, 61 Cototal domination number, 76 Cycle non split domination number, 74 Cycle, 19 Degree of vertex (valency), 7 Diameter, 12 Dipole, 13 Distance-k domination number, 77 Domatic number, 67 Dominating set, 56 Domination number, 56 Edge independence number, 35 Edge covering number, 35 Edge domination number, 65 Edge-connectivity, 16 Geodesic distance, 12 Girth, 19 Global domination number, 64 122

Bn. CLn cl (G) (G) Km,n. Kn c (G) c (G): ct (G) cot (G) cns (G) Cn deg (v) diam(G) Dn d2dom(G) = 2 d(G)
D
1

(G)
1

(G)

(G)
(G)

1 (G) 1

d(u , v) g (G) g (G)

M
0

Incidence matrix, 26 (G) Independence number , 34 Independent domination number, 58 Induced paired domination number, 63 Induced subgraph, 21 Matching number, 36 Negative split bondage number, 98 Neighbor, 9 Non split domination number, 73 Paired domination number, 62 Path graph Path non split domination number, 75 Removal of a edge,23 Removal of a point, 22 Split bondage number, 97 Split domination number, 72 Star, 18 Strong split domination number, 73 Strong non split domination number, 74 Subgraph, 22 The cardinality of the set e, 5 The cardinality of the set v, 5 The edge set of g, 4 The maximum degree of g, 7 The minimum degree of g, 7 The nonbondage number, 99 The null graph of order n, 5 The vertex set of g, 4 Total bondage number, 93 Total domatic number, 46 Total dominating number, 59 Total edge domination number, 65 Total global domination number, 64 Vertex covering number, 35 Vertex-connectivity, 15 Wheel, 18 123

i (G) ip (G) < D> (G)

b - s (G)

N(v) ns (G) p (G) Pn pns (G) G-e G-v

b s (G)

s (G) Sk ss (G) sns (G) S |E | |V| E (G) (G) (G)

b n (G)

Nn V (G) b t(G) dt(G) t (G) t 1(G) tg(G) 0 (G) (G) Wn

124

Adjacency matrix, 19 Alternating path, 37 Augmenting path, 37 Biclique, 15 Bigraph, 17 Bipartite graph, 17 Block 16 Block graph 16 Bondage number, 88 Bouquet, 12 Bridge, 15 Circuit, 10 Circular ladder graph, 14 Clique dominating set, 62 Clique domination number, 62 Clique, 23 Complement, 23 Complete bipartite graph, 17 Complete graph, 14 Components, 11 Connected dominating number, 60 Connected dominating set, 60 Connected edge dominating set, 66 Connected edge domination number, 66 Connected graph, 12 Connected total dominating set, 61 Connected total domination number, 61 Cototal dominating set, 76 Cototal domination number, 76 Cut point, 14 125

Cycle non split dominating set, 74 Cycle non split domination number, 74 Cycle, 19 Degree of vertex, 7 Density, 12 Diameter, 12 Digraph, 5 Dipole, 13 Directed graph , 4 Distance-k dominating set, 77 Domatic number, 67 Dominating set, 56 Domination number, 56 Eccentricity, 12 Edge cover, 35 Edge covering number, 35 Edge deleted subgraph, 22 Edge dominating set, 65 Edge domination number, 65 Edge independence number, 35 Edge-connectivity, 16 Edge-induced subgraph, 22 Euler tour and hamilton cycles, 28 Factorization, 37 Forest, 27 General graph, 6 Geodesic distance, 12 Girth, 19 Global dominating set, 64 Global domination number, 64 Graph, 4 Incidence matrix, 20 Independence number, 33 Independent dominating set, 58 Independent domination number, 58 Independent set of edges, 34 Independent set, 33 Induced paired dominating set, 63 Induced paired domination number, 63 Induced subgraph, 21 126

Isomorphism of graphs, 21 Loop, 5 Matching, 35 Maximal independent set, 33 Maximum independent set, 33 Maximum matching, 36 Minimal dominating set, 57 Minimum dominating set 57 Multigraph, 6 Multiple edges, 5 Negative split bondage number, 98 Non split dominating set, 73 Non split domination number, 73 Null graph, 5 Operation on graph theory, 31 Order of the graph, 5 Paired dominating set, 62 Paired domination number, 62 Path graph 14 Path non split dominating set, 75 Path non split domination number, 75 Path, 9 Perfect matching , 36 Petersen graph 9 Planar graph, 18 Point cover, 35 Proper subgraph, 21 Pseudo graph, 6 Radius, 12 Regular graph, 8 Simple graph, 6 Size of the graph, 5 Spanning subgraph, 21 Spanning tree, 27 Split bondage number, 97 Split dominating set, 72 Split domination number, 72 Stable set, 33 Star, 18 Strong split dominating set, 72 127

Strong split domination number, 73 Subgraphs, 20 Distance-k domination number, 77 Nonbondage number, 99 Total bondage number, 93 Total dominating number, 59 Total dominating set, 59 Total edge dominating set, 65 Total edge domination number, 65 Total global dominating set, 64 Total global domination number, 64 Trail, 9 Tree, 27 Trivial graph, 5 Undirected graph, 4 Unicyclic graph, 20 Valency, 7 Vertex covering number, 35 Vertex deleted subgraph, 22 Vertex-connectivity, 15 Vertex-induced subgraph, 21 Walk, 9 Wheel, 18

128