GRAPHICAL MODELS AND IMAGE PROCESSING
Vol. 58, No. 4, July, pp. 345–359, 1996
ARTICLE NO. 0028
Jordan Graphs
RON AHARONI,*,1 GABOR T. HERMAN,*
*Medical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104; and
†Department of Combinatorics and Optimisation, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Received January 9, 1995; revised November 20, 1995; accepted March 7, 1996
Early development of digital topology concentrated on tessel-
lations of the plane into square-shaped pixels, each one of which
had a 1 or a 0 assigned to it. It became quickly apparent that
in order to avoid some ‘‘paradoxes’’ one needs to consider
adjacencies in addition to that provided by the edge-adjacency.
The customary choice became the use of a pair of adjacencies;
one for the 1-pixels and another for the 0-pixels. While this
approach can be treated in a mathematically rigorous fashion,
it nevertheless remains attractive to consider those digital
spaces in which a single adjacency sufficies to usefully define
connectivity. This not only makes the resulting mathematics
more elegant, but it also brings the subject nearer to classical
graph theory and its enormous wealth of results. This is what
motivated us to search for an appropriate new concept. Jordan
curves have an interior and an exterior which between them
contain all the points not on the curve and both of which are
connected, but are disconnected from each other. Generaliza-
tion to surfaces in digital spaces is useful when displaying (only
the exterior of a surface is visible from any direction) or analyz-
ing (the interior volume is well defined). Boundaries in digital
spaces may or may not be Jordan, but are ‘‘guaranteed’’ to be
Jordan in spaces we call strong Jordan graphs. In this paper
we define such a notion of a strong Jordan graph. We show
that some previously studied classes (such as those of 1-simply
connected digital spaces and of bridged graphs) are subclasses
of strong Jordan graphs. We also define Jordan graphs, as
those digital spaces in which finite boundaries are guaranteed
to be Jordan and show that there are Jordan graphs which are
not strong Jordan graphs. (Strong) Jordan graphs are charac-
terized by the existence of ‘‘cuts’’ in associated graphs, by the
acyclic nature of the adjacency graphs of binary pictures, and
also by the connectedness of the immediate interiors (or exteri-
ors) of certain types of surfaces. The surfaces of the last category
include the so-called minimally near-Jordan surfaces, which
are shown to be of some interest. Finally, we tie some of these
notions to standard notions of graph theory, such as the notion
of a separating set. Our overall conclusion is that those digital
spaces which are Jordan graphs have some very desirable prop-
1
Visiting from the Department of Mathematics, Technion, Haifa,
Israel.
2
On leave from the Department of Applied Mathematics, Charles
University, Prague, Czech Republic.
345
AND MARTIN LOEBL†,2
erties which make their use advantageous whenever the under-
lying situation allows us to use them.  1996 Academic Press, Inc.
1. MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND
Jordan curves have an interior and an exterior which
between them contain all the points not on the curve and
both of which are connected (for any two interior points
there is a path from one to the other which lies entirely
in the interior and for any two exterior points there is a
path from one to the other which lies entirely in the exte-
rior), but are disconnected from each other (every path
from an interior point to an exterior point must contain a
point on the curve). Generalization to surfaces in digital
spaces is useful when displaying (only the exterior of a
surface is visible from any direction) or analyzing (the
interior volume is well defined). An example of a Jordan
surface in the medical imaging application area is shown
in Fig. 1. Boundaries in digital spaces may or may not be
Jordan (we will show examples), but are ‘‘guaranteed’’ to
be Jordan in those digital spaces which we will call (strong)
Jordan graphs.
We now give the necessary background definitions and
results from [1–3]. For some of the terms used, the primary
definitions given in these papers are not identical. How-
ever, it is proved in [3] that the defined concepts themselves
are the same and so it is valid to quote any of the results
from these papers.
A digital space is a pair (V, f), where V is a nonempty
set (of spels) and f is a symmetric binary relation (called
the proto-adjacency) on V, under which V is connected;
that is, f is a set of ordered pairs of elements of V such that
(i) if (c, d ) [ f, then (d, c) [ f and
(ii) for any c and d in V, there exists a finite sequence
c (0), . . . , c (m) of elements of V such that m $ 0, c (0) 5 c,
c (m) 5 d, and (c (k), c (k11)) [ f, for 0 # k , m.
This definition of a digital space is much more general
than is necessary to do ‘‘digital topology,’’ since there is
no geometrical restriction on the nature of the set V. In
1077-3169/96 $18.00
Copyright  1996 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
346 AHARONI, HERMAN, AND LOEBL

sical topology (such as those based on cell complexes [5]

and on Khalimsky spaces [6]) at the end of our paper.
For the sake of simplicity in illustrating our ideas, we
use V 5 Z 2, the set of ordered pairs of integers, in all our
figures. One intuitive geometrical interpretation of this is
that the underlying space is the Euclidean plane and the
grid points are the points with integer rectangular coordi-
nates. Thus the corresponding Voronoi neighborhoods are
the closed unit squares (called pixels) whose centers are
at the grid points. An ordered pair of pixels which share
an edge is interpreted as that edge with an orientation
across it from the first pixel to the second. Formally, the
digital space is (Z 2, g), where

g 5 h((i, j ), (i9, j9)) u [ui 2 i9u 1 u j 2 j9u 5 1]j. (1)

This is the classical ‘‘4-adjacency’’ [7, 8]. An alternative

FIG. 1. Computer graphic display of a Jordan surface in three-dimen-
sional space. (Data provided by Dr. J. K. Udupa.)
intuitive geometrical interpretation is provided by defining
the grid points using a slanted coordinate system, as in
Fig. 2. The corresponding Voronoi neighborhoods are the
closed hexagons whose centers are at the grid points. An
ordered pair of hexagons which share an edge is interpre-
ted as that edge with an orientation across it from the first
to the second hexagon. Formally, this digital space is (Z 2,
b), where

b 5 h((i, j ), (i9, j9)) u [ui 2 i9u 1 u j 2 j9u 5 1]

(2)
or (i 2 i9) 3 ( j 2 j9) 5 1]j.
graph-theoretical terms, (V, f) is a connected directed
graph in which the adjacency is symmetric; note that we
allow V to be infinite and do not rule out self-adjacency.
(Even (V, V 2) is a legitimate example.) Although this will
not enter the mathematical discussion at all, the way we
imagine these spaces is much more restrictive. We think
of an n-dimensional Euclidean space and some arbitrary
but fixed collection of ‘‘grid points’’ in this space. Then we
think of V as the set of so-called Voronoi neighborhoods of
the grid points. (The Voronoi neighborhood of a grid point
is the set of all points in the n-dimensional Euclidean space
which are at least as close to that grid point as to any other
grid point.) These are closed convex polyhedral sets. We
then allow two elements of such a set V to be in the relation
f only if their intersection is (n 2 1)-dimensional. In the
two-dimensional case, this would mean that two Voronoi
neighborhoods can be in f only if they share an edge.
We emphasize that a digital space is not a topological
space in the sense of classical topology [4]. In fact, the
most fundamental notion of topological spaces (open sets)
do not even enter into our discussion. Nevertheless, as we
will see, we are able to define other notions corresponding
to those of classical topology, such as a ‘‘simply connected
set.’’ We will return to the relationship between our ap-
proach and alternative approaches more embedded in clas- FIG. 2. Hexagonal tessellation of the plane.
 JORDAN GRAPHS 347

between the spels c and d, with an orientation from the

first to the second. This is illustrated in Fig. 2. The surfel
((0, 0), (1, 1)) is not to be interpreted as the vector from
(0, 0) to (1, 1), but rather as the edge between the hexagons
whose centers are at (0, 0) and at (1, 1), respectively (indi-
cated by the heavy line in Fig. 2), with the orientation of
the edge indicated by the vector. Also note that in this
interpretation spels are n-dimensional objects and surfels
are (oriented) (n 2 1)-dimensional objects and so surfaces
are not subsets of V.
The boundary between two subsets O and Q of V is
defined as

­(O, Q) 5 h(c, d ) u c [ O, d [ Q, (c, d ) [ fj. (4)

FIG. 3. Illustration of an g-component (heavy shading) of one subset
of Z 2 (the spels labeled by 1) and a d-component (light shading) of If ­(O, Q) is nonempty, then it is a surface. (Furthermore,
another subset of Z 2 (the spels labeled by 0). The *’s in two of the spels
are in there for ease of identification of them in a discussion following
this surface is uniquely specified by O and Q.) If in Fig. 3
Theorem 2.6. we let O be represented by the heavily shaded region and
Q be represented by the lightly shaded region, then the
unique ­(O, Q) is represented by the heavy edges, with
orientation from the spel labeled by a 1 to the spel labeled
A spel-adjacency r in the digital space (V, f) is defined
by a 0. (To avoid confusion, it is worth pointing out that
as a symmetric binary relation on V such that f , r. (We
while in classical topology [4] the boundary of a subset of
use the notation , for the subset relation; whenever we
a topological space X is always itself a subset of X, the
need to specify a proper subset, we do so in words.) Two
boundary between two sets of spels is a set of surfels, rather
spels c and d are referred to as r-adjacent (or, in case r 5
than a set of spels.)
f, as proto-adjacent), if (c, d ) [ r. A r-path kc (0), . . . , c (m)j
For any surface, S, its immediate interior is
is a sequence of spels such that, for 0 # k , m, (c (k),
c (k11)) [ r. We refer to a f-path as a proto-path. The
notions of a r-connected subset of V and of a r-component II(S) 5 hc [ V u (c, d ) [ S for some d [ V j (5)
of a subset of V are defined in the customary way.
To illustrate these ideas consider the digital space (Z 2, and its immediate exterior is
g). Examples of spel-adjacencies are g itself, the b defined
by (2), and IE(S) 5 hd [ V u (c, d ) [ S for some c [ V j. (6)

d 5 h((i, j ), (i9, j9)) u [ui 2 i9u 1 u j 2 j9u 5 1] A proto-path kc (0), . . . , c (m)l is said to cross a surface S if,
(3)
or [ui 2 i9u 5 2 and u j 2 j9u 5 1]j. for some 0 # k , m, either (c (k), c (k11)) [ S or (c (k11), c (k))
[ S. For a surface S, its interior is defined as
In Fig. 3 we illustrate an g-components of one subset of
Z 2 and a d-component of another subset of Z 2. I(S) 5 hd [ V u there exists a f-path
An element of f is called a surfel (short for ‘‘surface connecting d to an element of II(S) (7)
element’’). A nonempty set of surfels is called a surface in which does not cross S j,
(V, f). (Note that (c, d ) ? (d, c) and so if (c, d) is in a
surface, then (d, c) may or may not also be in the surface.
This is an essential feature of the theory that we are trying and its exterior is defined as
to develop; this theory deals with surfels with an orienta-
tion in which we can distinguish between their ‘‘insides’’ E(S) 5 hc [ V u there exists a f-path
and their ‘‘outsides.’’) While it is again not used in our connecting c to an element of IE(S) (8)
abstract development, it is worthwhile to give a geometrical which does not cross S j.
interpretation of the idea of a surfel in the case when V
consists of n-dimensional convex polyhedral sets in an n- In Fig. 3, both the interior and the exterior of the surface
dimensional space with adjacency interpreted as having an represented by the heavy edges (with orientation from the
(n 2 1)-dimensional intersection. The interpretation of the spel labeled by a 1 to the spel labeled by a 0) is the whole
surfel (c, d ) is exactly this (n 2 1)-dimensional intersection of Z 2.
348 AHARONI, HERMAN, AND LOEBL
LEMMA 1.1. For any surface S,
I(S) < E(S) 5 V. (9)
Proof. This is Proposition 2.1 of [1]. n
A surface S is said to be near-Jordan if every proto-path
from an element of II(S) to an element of IE(S) crosses
S. Clearly, the surface represented in Fig. 3 is not near-
Jordan.
LEMMA 1.2. For a near-Jordan surface S,
(i)
I(S) > E(S) 5 B, (10)
(ii) every proto-path from a spel in I(S) to a spel in
E(S) crosses S, and
(iii)
S 5 ­(I(S), E(S)). (11)
Proof. This is Proposition 2.2 of [1]. n
Near-Jordanness of a surface does not guarantee the
connectedness either of its interior or of its exterior. (As
an example, consider again Fig. 3. The surface which is
represented by all the oriented edges from a spel labeled
by a 1 to a spel labeled by a 0 is clearly near-Jordan. Its
interior consists of all the spels labeled by a 1 and it is not
g-connected. Its exterior consists of all the spels labeled
by a 0 and it is not d-connected.) For spel-adjacencies k
and l, a kl-Jordan surface S is a near-Jordan surface such
that I(S) is k-connected and E(S) is l-connected. The no-
tion of a kl-Jordan surface shares important properties
with the notion of a Jordan curve: its interior and exterior
partition the whole space; both are connected in some
sense, but one cannot get from the interior to the exterior
without crossing the surface which is, in fact, the boundary
between the interior and the exterior. (Mathematically
speaking there is also a difference: a simple closed curve
is a subset of the plane and the Jordan curve theorem [4]
says that the complement of the curve, rather than the
whole plane, has precisely two components. Since our sur-
faces are subsets of f, rather than of V, it is possible to
demand that the interior and exterior partition the whole
of V; if anything, a more attractive-sounding aim than that
of the classical theorem.)
A binary picture is a triple (V, f, f ), where f is a function
whose domain is V and which takes its values from the set
h0, 1j. For a binary picture (V, f, f ), a spel c is called a 1-
spel if f (c) 5 1 or a 0-spel if f (c) 5 0. A bindary picture
is said to be finite if its set of 1-spels is finite. If all nonindi-
cated spels in Fig. 3 are considered labeled by a 0, then
the figure represents a finite binary picture.
A kl-boundary in a binary picture is a nonempty bound-
ary between a k-component of the set of 1-spels and a l-
component of the set of 0-spels. Note that a kl-boundary
is always a surface. In Fig. 3, the surface represented by
the heavy edges (with orientation from the spel labeled
by a 1 to the spel labeled by a 0) is an gd-boundary.
For any binary relation r on V, a sequence kc (0), . . . ,
c l of spels is said to be r-tight if, for 0 # k # m, either
(m)
(c (0), c (k)) [ r or (c (m), c (k)) [ r, or both. A spel-adjacency
r in the digital space (V, f) is said to be tight if
(c, d ) [ r ⇒ (there exists a r-tight proto-path from c to d ).
(12)
Specific spel-adjacencies that have been proposed in the
literature [7, 8] with some application in mind are all tight.
In particular, g, b, and d are all tight in (Z 2, g) and b and
d are tight in (Z 2, b).
THEOREM 1.3. If k and l are tight spel-adjacencies in a
digital space (V, f), then any kl-boundary in any binary
picture over (V, f) has a k-connected interior and a l-
connected exterior.
Proof. This is Theorem 4.6 of [1]. n
A consequence of this theorem is that (for tight k and
l) in order to check whether a kl-boundary is kl-Jordan,
‘‘all’’ we have to do is to check whether it is near-Jordan.
Unfortunately, near-Jordanness is a global concept. In this
paper, we seek a property of digital spaces which guaran-
tees near-Jordanness.
An unordered pair hk, lj of tight spel-adjacencies is
called a strong Jordan pair (respectively, a Jordan pair)
for (V, f), if every (respectively, every finite) kl-boundary
in every binary picture over (V, f) is near-Jordan. It follows
from Fig. 3 that hg, d j is not a Jordan pair (and hence
definitely not a strong Jordan pair) for (Z 2, g). On the
other hand, it is known ([2, Corollary 5.13]) that h b, bj is
a strong Jordan pair (and hence a Jordan pair) for (Z 2, b).
THEOREM 1.4. If hk, lj is a strong Jordan pair (respec-
tively, a Jordan pair) for (V, f) and k9 and l9 are tight spel-
adjacencies in (V, f) such that k , k9 and l , l9, then hk9,
l9j is also a strong Jordan pair (respectively, a Jordan pair)
for (V, f).
Proof. This is Theorem 5.1 of [1]. n
It follows from this theorem and the discussion just
above it that hg, gj is not a Jordan pair (and hence not a
strong Jordan pair) for (Z 2, g) but every pair hk, lj of tight
spel-adjacencies in (Z 2, b) is a strong Jordan pair (and
hence a Jordan pair) for (Z 2, b). This is clearly a very
desirable property of the digital space (Z 2, b); in this space
every kl-boundary is kl-Jordan, as long as both k and l
 JORDAN GRAPHS
are tight in the space. In this paper we investigate in general
the nature of those digital spaces which have such a
property.
2. JORDAN GRAPHS AND
STRONG JORDAN GRAPHS
A digital space (V, f) is called a (strong) Jordan graph
if hf, fj is a (strong) Jordan pair for (V, f). The following
is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.4.
COROLLARY 2.1. In a (strong) Jordan graph every pair
of tight spel-adjacencies is a (strong) Jordan pair. In particu-
lar, if r is a tight spel-adjacency in a (strong) Jordan graph
(V, f), then (V, r) is also a (strong) Jordan graph.
Our previous discussion shows that (Z 2, b) is a strong
Jordan graph and that (Z 2, g) is not even a Jordan graph.
We show below that there are Jordan graphs which are
not strong Jordan graphs. To see that the condition on
tightness is necessary in Corollary 2.1, consider the follow-
ing one-dimensional example. For any positive integer, n,
we define a binary relation nn on Z by
nn 5 h(i, i9) u ui 2 i9u 5 1 or nj.
It is trivial to prove that (Z, n1) is a strong Jordan graph
(in fact every n1 n1-boundary has exactly one element in
this digital space) and also that n2 and n3 are tight spel-
adjacencies in (Z, n1). It follows from Corollary 2.1 that
(Z, n2) and (Z, n3) are also strong Jordan graphs. On the
other hand, n4 is not a tight spel-adjacency in (Z, n1) and
(Z, n4) is not even a Jordan graph. This can be seen from
Fig. 4, in which the heavily shaded region is a n4-component
of 1-spels, the lightly shaded region is a n4-component of
0-spels (consisting of one spel), and the heavy line indicates
the n4 n4-boundary between them; it consists of the single
surfel (9, 10). The n4-path (9, 13, 12, 11, 10) connects the
immediate interior of this n4 n4-boundary to its immediate
exterior without crossing it.
Prior to continuing our discussion of (strong) Jordan
graphs using the terminology of digital topology, we will
explain their nature in terminology that is more familiar
to graph theorists. Even though we have been emphasizing
the importance of orientation in the previous section, it
turns out that being Jordan can be introduced as a property
of graphs, rather than of directed graphs. When discussing
ordinary (i.e., not directed) graphs, we generally follow
the terminology of [9]; however, we refer to nodes and
FIG. 4. Illustration that (Z, n 4) is not a Jordan graph.
349
arcs rather than to points and lines and also we allow
graphs to be infinite.
For any surface S in a digital space we define the arc set
associated with S as
A(S) 5 hhc, d j u (c, d ) [ S or (d, c) [ S j. (14)
For any digital space (V, f), we define the graph associated
with (V, f) as
G(V, f) 5 (V, A(f)). (15)
A nonempty subset F of A(f) is called a cut in the graph
G(V, f), if there exists a subset O of V such that
F 5 A(­(O, V 2 O)). (16)
(We use a minus symbol to denote set theoretical subtrac-
tion; i.e., V 2 O is the set of elements in V which are not
in O.)
LEMMA 2.2. If a surface S in a digital space (V, f) is
near-Jordan, then A(S) is a cut in the graph G(V, f). If a
(13) nonempty subset F of A(f) is a cut in the graph G(V, f),
then there is a near-Jordan surface S in (V, f) such that
A(S) 5 F.
Proof. Suppose first that S is near-Jordan. Let O 5
I(S). By Lemmas 1.1 and 1.2, E(S) 5 V 2 O. Substituting
into (11) and applying A to both sides, we see using (16)
that A(S) is a cut in G(V, f).
Now suppose that F is a cut in G(V, f). By definition,
there exists a subset O of V such that F satisfies (16).
Letting S 5 ­(O, V 2 O), we see that A(S) 5 F. S must
be near-Jordan, since every proto-path from an element
of its immediate interior (which must be in O) to an ele-
ment of its immediate exterior (which cannot be in O)
must at some point move from O to a spel not in O and
hence cross S. n
THEOREM 2.3. A digital space (V, f) is a strong Jordan
graph (respectively, a Jordan graph) if, and only if, for
every binary picture (V, f, f ) and for every pair of f-
components O of the 1-spels and Q of the 0-spels such that
­(O, Q) is nonempty (respectively, nonempty and finite),
A(­(O, Q)) is a cut in the graph G(V, f).
Proof. Suppose first that (V, f) is a strong Jordan graph
(respectively, a Jordan graph). Let (V, f, f ) be a binary
picture with O a f-component of the 1-spels and Q a f-
component of the 0-spels, such that ­(O, Q) is nonempty.
By definition, this means that ­(O, Q) is a ff-boundary.
Since hf, fj is a strong Jordan pair (respectively, a Jordan
pair) for (V, f), ­(O, Q) is near-Jordan (respectively, near-
Jordan if finite). It now follows from Lemma 2.2 that if
350 AHARONI, HERMAN, AND LOEBL
­(O, Q) is nonempty (respectively, nonempty and finite),
then A(­(O, Q)) is a cut in the graph G(V, f).
Suppose now that for every binary picture (V, f, f ) and
for every pair of f-components O of the 1-spels and Q of
the 0-spels such that ­(O, Q) is nonempty (respectively,
nonempty and finite), A(­(O, Q)) is cut in the graph G(V,
f). In order to show that (V, f) is a strong Jordan graph
(respectively, a Jordan graph), we need to show that for
every pair of f-components O of the 1-spels and Q of 0-
spels such that ­(O, Q) is nonempty (respectively, non-
empty and finite), ­(O, Q) is near-Jordan. Since, by the
above, A(­(O, Q)) is a cut in the graph G(V, f), we know
from Lemma 2.2 that there is a near-Jordan surface S in
(V, f) such that
A(S) 5 A(­(O, Q)). (17)
Now we show that ­(O, Q) itself is near-Jordan. In order
to do that, we need to show that every proto-path from
an element c in the immediate interior of ­(O, Q) to an
element d in the immediate exterior of ­(O, Q) crosses
­(O, Q). Due to (17), both c and d are in II(S) < IE(S).
If one is in II(S) and the other in IE(S), then a proto-path
from one to the other crosses S and, equivalently, ­(O,
Q). Otherwise, suppose without loss of generality that they
are both in II(S); we now show that this leads to a contra-
diction. Let e be that element of V such that (d, e) [ S.
Due to (17), we know that either (e, d ) [ ­(O, Q) or (d,
e) [ ­(O, Q). The second possibility cannot occur, since
d [ Q and hence cannot also be in O. Hence both c and
e are in O and so there is a proto-path entirely in O (and
hence not crossing ­(O, Q) or equivalently, S) from c to
e, i.e., from an element of II(S) to an element of IE(S),
contradicting the fact that S is near-Jordan. n
In view of this theorem, we can give the following purely
graph-theoretical definition. A (finite or infinite) con-
nected graph G is strong Jordan (respectively, Jordan), if
for every partition of its node set into two sets X and Y
and for every pair of connected components A of kX l and
B of kY l (the subgraphs induced by X and Y, respectively
[9]), if the set F of arcs between A and B is nonempty
(respectively, nonempty and finite), then F is a cut in G.
Thus, all that we say can be considered to be about certain
entities of graph theory; nevertheless from now on we will
stick to the terminology and notation of digital topology,
which is the field that motivated our work. In spite of this,
graph theory enters in an essential way into our develop-
ment, as can be seen already from the following definition.
Let k and l be tight spel-adjacencies in the digital space
(V, f). The kl-adjacency graph of a binary picture (V, f,
f ) has as its nodes the k-components of the 1-spels and
the l-components of the 0-spels, with an arc between two
such nodes O and Q if, and only if, ­(O, Q) is nonempty.
Consider, for example, Fig. 4. There are three n4-compo-
nents of 0-spels (O1 5 h. . . , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7j, O2 5 h10j,
and O3 5 h12, 15, 16, 17, 18, . . .j) and three n4-components
of 1-spels (I1 5 h6j, I2 5 h8, 9, 13, 14j, and I3 5 h11j). The
corresponding n4 n4-adjacency graphs in (Z, n1) and in (Z,
n4) are shown in Figs. 5a and 5b, respectively. We note
that kl-adjacency graphs are necessarily bigraphs ([9, p.
17]; other authors quite commonly refer to these as ‘‘bipar-
tite graphs’’).
Our next theorem characterizes strong Jordan pairs in
terms of adjacency graphs. Its proof makes use of the
following technical lemmas.
LEMMA 2.4. Let (V, f, f ) be a binary picture, O be a
k-component of the 1-spels, Q be a l-component of the 0-
spels, such that ­(O, Q) is nonempty. If k is a tight spel-
adjacency in (V, f), then O , I(­(O, Q)) and if l is a tight
spel-adjacency in (V, f), then Q , E(­(O, Q)).
Proof. This is Lemma 4.5 of [1]. n
LEMMA 2.5. Let (V, f, f ) be a binary picture.
(i) If k is a tight spel-adjacency in (V, f) and O is a
k-component of the 1-spels, then for every pair of elements
of O, there is a proto-path from one to the other such that
all 1-spels occurring in this proto-path are also in O.
(ii) If l is a tight spel-adjacency in (V, f) and Q is a
l-component of the 0-spels, then for every pair of elements
of Q, there is a proto-path from one to the other such that
all 0-spels occurring in this proto-path are also in Q.
Proof. We prove only (i), since the proof of (ii) is
strictly analogous. Let (V, f, f ) be a binary picture, k be
a tight spel-adjacency in (V, f), and O be a k-component
of the 1-spels. Since O is k-connected, we can get from
any element in it to any other element in it by a k-path
entirely in O. This k-path can be used to create the desired
proto-path, provided only that we can show that, for any
k-adjacent c and d in O, there is a proto-path connecting
them such that all 1-spels occurring in this proto-path are
also in O. Since k is tight, there exists a proto-path kc 5
c (0), . . . , c (m) 5 d l from c to d such that, for 0 # k # m,
either (c, c (k)) [ k or (d, c (k)) [ k, or both. Since O is a
k-component of the 1-spels, the required result follows. n
FIG. 5. n 4n 4-adjacency graphs associated with Fig. 4: (a) in (Z, n 1)
and (b) in (Z, n 4).
 JORDAN GRAPHS 351

For an illustration of Lemma 2.5(ii), consider Fig. 3. from d9 to e9 such that all 0-spels occurring in this proto-
The lightly shaded d-component of the 0-spels is not g- path are also in Q9. Since Q and Q9 are different l-compo-
connected and so there are pairs of elements in this d- nents of the 0-spels, this proto-path does not cross ­(O,
component which cannot be connected by a proto-path of Q). Similarly, we can extend the proto-path to an element
(Z 2, g) which does not leave the d-component. However, of the k-component of the 1-spels which follows Q9 in the
for any pair of elements of the d-component, there is a cycle, without crossing ­(O, Q). This way we have moved
connecting proto-path of (Z 2, g) all of whose 0-spels are from Q9 in the cycle to the node of the kl-adjacency graph
in the d-component. which follows it in the cycle. By repeating this process,
using alternatively Lemma 2.5(i) and Lemma 2.5(ii) (and
THEOREM 2.6. For tight spel-adjacencies k and l in the
noting that until and including the point when we have
digital space (V, f), hk, lj is a strong Jordan pair for (V,
taken care of O9, the nodes that we are dealing with are
f) if, and only if, the kl-adjacency graph of any binary
different from O and from Q), we can generate the re-
picture is acyclic.
quired proto-path from c to d. n
Proof. Suppose first that hk, lj is not a strong Jordan
It is easy to illustrate the existence of a cycle in the gd-
pair for (V, f). Then there is a binary picture (V, f, f )
adjacency graph associated with the binary picture of Fig.
with a k-component O of the 1-spels and a l-component
3. Let O be the heavily shaded g-component of the 1-spels
Q of the 0-spels such that there is a proto-path kc (0), . . . ,
and Q be the lightly shaded d-component of the 0-spels.
c (m)l not crossing ­(O, Q) from an element of II(­(O, Q))
Let Q9 consist of the 0-spel marked by an asterisk (it is
to an element of IE(­(O, Q)). Clearly, there is an arc
not d-adjacent to any other 0-spel) and let O9 consist of
between O and Q in the kl-adjacency graph of (V, f, f ).
the 1-spel marked by an asterisk (it is not g-adjacent to
This arc can be shown to be an arc in a cycle in this graph
any other 1-spel). Then O, Q9, O9, Q, O is a cycle in the
by following the proto-path kc (0), . . . , c (m)l. Since this proto-
gd-adjacency graph associated with the binary picture of
path begins in O and ends in Q but does not cross ­(O,
Fig. 3.
Q), the 0-spel in it which follows the last spel in it which
While this theorem is of some general interest (since it
is also in O must be in a l-component Q9 of the 0-spels
gives a new characterization of the concept of a strong
other than Q and the 1-spel in it which precedes the first
Jordan pair), from the point of view of the current paper
spel in it which is also in Q must be in a k-component O9
its relevance lies in the fact that we can in particular con-
of the 1-spels other than O. It follows that there are arcs
clude the following:
between O and Q9 and between O9 and Q in the kl-
adjacency graph of (V, f, f ). We get a cycle O, Q9, . . . , COROLLARY 2.7. A digital space (V, f) is a strong Jor-
O9, Q, O in the kl-adjacency graph of (V, f, f ) by putting dan graph if, and only if, the ff-adjacency graph of any
in place of the ‘‘. . .’’ all the k-components of the 1-spels binary picture is acyclic.
and l-components of the 0-spels visited by the proto-path
between Q9 and O9 (eliminating any repeated visits that As an illustration consider Fig. 6. The spel e is adjacent
may occur). to the other four spels. Hence, in any binary picture in
Suppose now that there is a binary picture (V, f, f ) such which e is a 1-spel there is at the most one f-component
that its kl-adjacency graph contains the cycle O, Q9, . . . , of the 1-spels, and in any binary picture in which e is a 0-
O9, Q, O, where O is a k-component of the 1-spels and Q spel there is at most one f-component of the 0-spels. In
is a l-component of the 0-spels. To show that hk, lj is not either case, the ff-adjacency graph is acyclic and so, by
a strong Jordan pair for (V, f), it is sufficient to show that Corollary 2.7, the digital space is a strong Jordan graph.
­(O, Q) is not near-Jordan. By Lemma 1.2(ii) and Lemma The same corollary can be used to show that all elements
2.4, it is sufficient to show that there is a proto-path from of some previously studied classes of digital spaces are
a spel in O to a spel in Q which does not cross ­(O, Q).
Let (c, d9) [ ­(O, Q9) and (c9, d ) [ ­(O9, Q). Since O
and O9 are different k-components of the 1-spels and Q
and Q9 are different l-components of the 0-spels, neither
of these surfels is in ­(O, Q). We now discuss how to fill
in the ‘‘. . .’’ in the proto-path kc, d9, . . . , c9, d l from an
element of O to an element of Q so that it does not cross
­(O, Q). Let e9 be an element of Q9 which is proto-adjacent
to some element of the k-component of the 1-spels which
follows Q9 in the cycle whose existence we are assuming.
(This k-component of the 1-spels could be, but does not FIG. 6. Illustration of a finite strong Jordan graph. Two spels are
have to be, O9.) By Lemma 2.5(ii), there is a proto-path considered proto-adjacent if, and only if, they share an edge.
352 AHARONI, HERMAN, AND LOEBL
Jordan. In this paper we introduce, based on [2, 10], two
such classes and prove that they have the stated property.
Let N be a nonnegative integer. If
P 5 kc (1), . . . , c (m), d (0), . . . , d (n), e (1), . . . , e (l)l (18)
and
P9 5 kc (1), . . . , c (m), f (0), . . . , f (k), e (1), . . . , e (l)l (19)
are proto-paths in the same digital space, such that
f (0) 5 d (0), f (k) 5 d (n), and 1 # k 1 n # N 1 2, (20)
then P and P9 are said to be elementarily N-equivalent.
Two proto-paths, P and P9, in a digital space are said to
be N-equivalent, if there is a sequence of proto-paths P0 ,
. . . , Pp ( p $ 0) in the digital space, such that P0 5 P,
Pp 5 P9, and, for 0 # q , p, Pq and Pq11 are elementarily
N-equivalent.
A loop (of length m) in a digital space is a proto-path
kc (0), . . . , c (m)l such that c (m) 5 c (0). In particular, for any
spel c, kcl is a loop and is called a trivial loop. A digital
space is said to be N-simply connected if every loop in the
digital space is N-equivalent to a trivial loop. The digital
space of Fig. 6 is 1-simply connected (and hence N-simply
connected for any positive N ). The 1-equivalence of the
loop ka, b, c, d, al to a trivial loop can be shown by the
following sequence of loops, each one of which is elemen-
tarily 1-equivalent to its neighbors in the sequence: ka, b,
c, d, al, ka, e, b, c, d, al, ka, e, c, d, al, ka, e, d, al, kal. We now
prove some technical results which will be needed later.
LEMMA 2.8. Let (V, f) be a digital space and N be a
nonnegative integer.
(i) If a loop kc (0), . . . , c (m)l is N-equivalent to a trivial
loop, then that trivial loop is kc (0) 5 c (m)l.
(ii) For any proto-path kc (0), . . . , c (m)l, the loop kc (0),
. . . , c (m), c (m), . . . , c (0)l is N-equivalent to a trivial loop.
(iii) For any proto-path kc (0), . . . , c (i), . . . , c (m)l and
for any loop kd (0), . . . , d (u)l which is N-equivalent to the
trivial loop kc (i)l, kc (0), . . . , c (i), . . . , c (m)l is N-equivalent to
kc (0), . . . , c (i 21), d (0), . . . , d (u), c (i 11), . . . , c (m)l.
Proof. (i) If two proto-paths are elementarily N-
equivalent, then they have the same first spel and the same
last spel; see (18)–(20).
(ii) This condition is clearly valid if m 5 0. Now suppose
that it is valid for some nonnegative integer m. kc (0), . . . ,
c (m), c (m11), c (m11), c (m), . . . , c (0)l is elementarily N-equiva-
lent to kc (0), . . . , c (m), c (m11), c (m), . . . , c (0)l, which is elemen-
tarily N-equivalent to kc (0), . . . , c (m), . . . , c (0)l, which is
elementarily N-equivalent to kc (0), . . . , c (m), c (m), . . . , c (0)l,
which is N-equivalent to a trivial loop by the induction hy-
pothesis.
(iii) The very sequence of elementary N-equivalences
which transform kd (0), . . . , d (u)l into kc (i)l can be used to
transform kc (0), . . . , c (i 21), d (0), . . . , d (u), c (i 11), . . . , c (m)l
into kc (0), . . . , c (i), . . . , c (m)l. n
In order to get to our next result we need a further
definition from [2]. A ff-boundary S is said to be 1-locally
Jordan if for any proto-path kc (0), c (1), c (2)l such that (c (0),
c (2)) [ S, exactly one of (c (0), c (1)) and (c (1), c (2)) is also in S.
THEOREM 2.9. Every 1-simply connected digital space
is a strong Jordan graph.
Proof. As a special case of Corollary 4.8 of [2], we
have that a 1-simply connected digital space (V, f) is a
strong Jordan graph if every ff-boundary in every binary
picture over (V, f) is 1-locally Jordan. On the other hand,
it is a special case of Proposition 5.1 of [2] that indeed
every ff-boundary in every binary picture over (V, f) is
1-locally-Jordan. n
This theorem is as strong as it can possibly be, since we
cannot replace in its statement 1-simply connected by 2-
simply connected. This is so, since (Z 2, g) is 2-simply con-
nected [2, Lemma 5.5] and we have already seen that it is
not a Jordan graph. Also, the converse of Theorem 2.9 is
not valid; we now give an example, due to [11], of a finite
strong Jordan graph which is not a 1-simply connected
digital space. The set of spels is h0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6j and
two spels are proto-adjacent if, and only if, the modulo 7
difference between them is 61 or 62. The digital space is
the graph called C 27 in [11]. It is easy to see that it is strong
Jordan. Consider the surface T 5 h(0, 5), (5, 0), (0, 6), (6,
0), (1, 6), (6, 1)j and define the T-parity of a proto-path
kc (0), c (1), . . . , c (m21), c (m) 5 c (0)l to be even if the number
of occurrences of (c (0), c (1)), (c (1), c (2)), . . . , (c (m21), c (m))
in T is even and to be odd otherwise. It is easy to check
that if two proto-paths are elementarily 1-equivalent, then
they have the same T-parity. Hence the loop k0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 0l, which has an odd T-parity cannot possibly be 1-
equivalent to a trivial loop (which has an even T-parity).
We now consider the relationship of the concepts intro-
duced so far to a class of commonly studied graphs, the
so-called bridged graphs. A loop kc (0), c (1), . . . , c (m21),
c (m) 5 c (0)l in a digital space (V, f) is called a cycle if its
length m is at least 3 and c (i) ? c ( j), for 0 # i , j , m. A
proto-path kd (0), . . . , d (u)l is said to be a bridge of this
cycle, if for some i and j, 0 # i , j , m, d (0) 5 c (i),
d (u) 5 c ( j), and both (c (0), . . ., c (i21), c (i) 5 d (0), d (1), . . . ,
d (u21), d (u) 5 c ( j), c ( j11), . . . , c (m) 5 c (0)l and kc ( j) 5 d (u),
d (u21), . . . , d (1), d (0) 5 c (i), c (i11), . . . , c ( j21), c ( j)l are cycles
in (V, f) of length less than m. A digital space (V, f) is
said to be bridged (see, e.g., [10]) if every cycle of length
at least 4 has a bridge. The digital space represented in
 JORDAN GRAPHS
Fig. 6 is not bridged, since the cycle ka, b, c, d, al does not
have a bridge. On the other hand the digital space (Z 2, b)
is bridged; in Fig. 2 the cycle k(0, 1), (1, 1), (1, 0), (0, 0),
(0, 1)l has the bridge k(1, 1), (0, 0)l and the cycle k(0, 1),
(1, 1), (1, 0), (0, 21), (21, 21), (21, 0), (0, 1)l has the
bridge k(0, 1), (0, 0), (0, 21)l. Thus some (even infinite)
strong Jordan graphs are bridged and some (even finite
and 1-simply connected) ones are not. On the other hand,
we have the following result.
THEOREM 2.10. Every bridged digital space is 1-simply
connected and so is a strong Jordan graph.
Proof. Suppose that a digital space (V, f) is not 1-
simply connected. We show that assuming that it is bridged
leads to a contradiction. By the assumption that (V, f) is
not 1-simply connected, there exists a loop which is
not 1-equivalent to a trivial loop. Let kc (0),
c (1), . . . , c (m21), c (m) 5 c (0)l be a such a loop of minimal
length m. Clearly m . 3; otherwise, the loop is elementarily
1-equivalent to the trivial loop kc (0)l. Furthermore, there
can be no i and j such that 0 # i , j , m and c (i) 5 c ( j) ;
otherwise, kc (i), c (i11), . . . , c ( j) 5 c (i)l would be a loop of
length less than m (and hence 1-equivalent to a trivial
loop) and so, by Lemma 2.8(iii), kc (0), c (1), . . . , c (m21),
c (m) 5 c (0)l would be 1-equivalent to the shorter loop
kc (0), . . . , c (i21), c (i) 5 c ( j), c ( j11), . . . , c (m21), c (m) 5 c (0)l and,
hence, to a trivial loop. This shows that kc (0), c (1), . . . ,
c (m21), c (m) 5 c (0)l is a cycle. By the assumption that
(V, f) is bridged, there exist an i and a j such that 0 #
i , j , m, d (0) 5 c (i), d (u) 5 c ( j), and both kc (0), . . . , c (i21),
c (i) 5 d (0), d (1), . . . , d (u21), d (u) 5 c ( j), c ( j11), . . . , c (m) 5
c (0)l and kc ( j) 5 d (u), d (u21), . . . , d (1), d (0) 5 c (i), c (i11), . . . ,
c ( j21), c ( j)l are cycles in (V, f) of length less than m and
hence are 1-equivalent to trivial loops. By Lemma 2.8, kc (0),
c (1), . . . , c (m21), c (m) 5 c (0)l is 1-equivalent to kc (0), c (1), . . . ,
c (i) 5 d (0), d (1), . . . , d (u) 5 c ( j), d (u), . . . , d (0) 5 c (i), . . . ,
c (m21), c (m) 5 c (0)l, which in its turn is 1-equivalent to kc (0),
c (1), . . . , c (i) 5 d (0), d (1), . . . , d (u) 5 c ( j), c ( j11), . . . , c (m21),
c (m) 5 c (0)l and, hence, to a trivial loop. n
Somewhat oddly, the characterization of Jordan pairs (as
opposed to strong Jordan pairs) requires some additional
machinery. A spel-adjacency r in a digital space (V, f) is
said to be finitary if, for every spel c, hd u (c, d ) [ rj is
finite and is said to be very tight if whenever (c, d ) [ r,
there exists a proto-path kc (0), . . . , c (m)l from c to d such
that, for 0 , k # m, (c (0), c (k)) [ r. Clearly, all spel-
adjacencies that we have dealt with so far are finitary and
all specific spel-adjacencies studied in the digital topology
literature [7, 8] are finitary. Being very tight is somewhat
more restrictive from the point of view of eliminating po-
tentially useful spel-adjacencies; in (Z 2, g) b is very tight,
but d is not. The need for these concepts comes from the
fact that they appear in the conditions of the following
result.
353
LEMMA 2.11. Let k and l be finitary spel-adjacencies in
a digital space (V, f) such that at least one of them is very
tight. If S is a finite kl-boundary in a binary picture (V, f,
g), then it is a kl-boundary in some finite binary picture
(V, f, f ).
Proof. This is Lemma 5.2 of [1]. n
The proof given in [1] for this lemma is constructive. In
fact, the finite binary picture of Fig. 3 is the result of
such a construction applied to a nonfinite binary picture
containing the same gd-boundary as is indicated in Fig. 3
by the heavily drawn eges.
THEOREM 2.12. If k and l are finitary spel-adjacencies
in the digital space (V, f) such that at least one of them is
very tight, then hk, lj is a Jordan pair if, and only if, the
kl-adjacency graph of any finite binary picture is acyclic.
Proof. Suppose first that hk, lj is not a Jordan pair for
(V, f). Then there is a finite kl-boundary S in a binary
picture (V, f, g), such that S is not near-Jordan. By Lemma
2.11, S is also a kl-boundary in some finite binary picture
(V, f, f ). Now we can show that the kl-adjacency graph
of (V, f, f ) is cyclic, just as we have done in the first half
of the proof of Theorem 2.6.
Conversely, suppose that the kl-adjacency graph of a
finite binary picture is cyclic. We can then generate a kl-
boundary in this finite binary picture which is not near-
Jordan, just as we have done in the second half of the proof
of Theorem 2.6. In addition, we observe that finiteness of
the binary picture together with the finitariness of f (which
has to be finitary, since it is a subset of both k and l)
implies this not near-Jordan kl-boundary is finite. This
shows that hk, lj is not a Jordan pair for (V, f). n
COROLLARY 2.13. If f is finitary, then (V, f) is a Jordan
graph if, and only if, the ff-adjacency graph of any finite
binary picture is acyclic.
We now discuss further characterizations of (strong) Jor-
dan graphs in terms of contractibility [9, p. 113]. This discus-
sion will be informal, without giving details of the proofs
of the statements in it; its purpose is to strengthen the links
between our study and traditional graph theory. We note
that if G(V, f) is contractible to a bigraph H, then we can
use H to define an f so that the ff-adjacency graph of (V,
f, f ) is H. Hence, a necessary condition for the strong
Jordanness of (V, f) is that if G(V, f) is contractible to a
bigraph H, then H is acyclic. In the special case when (V,
f) is a digital space with a finite V, then (V, f) is contractible
to the ff-adjacency graph of any binary picture (V, f, f )
and the following are equivalent:
(i) (V, f) is a strong Jordan graph.
(ii) (V, f) is a Jordan graph.
(iii) If G(V, f) is contractible to a bigraph H, then H
is acyclic.
354 AHARONI, HERMAN, AND LOEBL
Since one can also prove that a bigraph which has a cycle
is contractible to a complete bigraph Km,n (for a definition
of these see, e.g., [9, p. 17]) for some integers m and n, both
greater than 1, we have the further equivalent condition:
(iv) For any integers m and n, both greater than 1, G(V,
f) is not contractible to the complete bigraph Km,n .
This last result, combined with Theorem 1.2 of [11], implies
that—in the special case of a finite V—(V, f) is a (strong)
Jordan graph if, and only if, G(V, f) is a well-connected
graph in the sense defined in [11]. As a result of this, special
instances (for the case of finite V) of some of our results
have been foreshadowed in [11]; we discuss the relationship
between our results and those of [11] in greater detail near
the end of our paper.
We conclude this section by giving an example of a
Jordan graph which is not a strong Jordan graph. Let
T 5 h0, 1, 2, 3j 3 Z
and
t 5 h((i, j), (i9, j9)) u [ui 2 i9u 1 u j 2 j9u 5 1]
or [ui 2 i9u 5 3 and u j 2 j9u 5 0]
or [(i 2 i9) 3 ( j 2 j9) 5 1]
or [ui 2 i9u 5 3 and ( j 2 j9) 5 (i9 2 i)/3]j.
This is a wrapped around version of the hexagonal tessella-
tion of the plane (see Fig. 2): hexagons with coordinates
(3, j) are proto-adjacent to those two hexagons with first
coordinate 0 which are proto-adjacent to (21, j) in (Z 2,
b). Consider now the binary picture (T, t, t), where
H
0, if i is even,
t(i, j) 5
1, if i is odd.
There are four nodes in the tt-adjacency graph of this
binary picture; they are
Ni 5 h(i, j) u j [ Z j, for 0 # i # 3.
There is an arc between nodes Ni and Nj if, and only if,
the modulo 4 difference between the nodes is 61. Hence
N0 , N1 , N2 , N3 , N0 is a cycle in the tt-adjacency graph of
(T, t, t) and so, by Corollary 2.7, (T, t) is not a strong
Jordan graph.
To show that it is a Jordan graph, we show that assuming
that it is not a Jordan graph implies that (Z 2, b) is also
not a Jordan graph, which we know to be false [2, Corollary
5.13]. If (T, t) is not a Jordan graph, then there is a finite
binary picture (T, t, f ) with a t-component O of the 1-
spels and a t-component Q of the 0-spels such that there
is a t-path not crossing ­(O, Q) from a spel c [ II(­(O,
Q)) to a spel d [ IE(­(O, Q)). We will give a construction
which with any such picture will associate a binary picture
(Z 2, b, g) such that if O9 is the b-component of the 1-spels
containing c and Q9 is the b-component of the 0-spels
containing d, then there is a b-path not crossing ­(O9, Q9)
from c to d. This would indicate that (Z 2, b) is not a
Jordan graph.
The construction is done as follows. Since (T, t, f ) is
finite, there exists an integer u such that f (i, j) 5 0 if j $
u, for 0 # i # 3. We define
D 5 h(i, j) u 0 # i # 3, j # uj (25)
and we set g equal to f for spels in D (which is a subset
of both Z 2 and of T ). Outside D we set g equal to 0 with
the following exception. For any k such that f (3, k) 5 1,
we assign the value 1 to g for any spel (i, j) such that either
4 # i # 3 1 u 2 k and j 5 k, or i 5 3 1 u 2 k and k #
(21) j # 2u 2 k, or 2u 1 k # i # 3 1 u 2 k and j 5 2u 2 k,
or i 5 2u 1 k and k # j # 2u 2 k, or 2u 1 k # i # 21
and j 5 k. This is done to simulate the wraparound in the
digital space (T, t) by ‘‘corridors’’ (of all 1-spels or all 0-
spels) outside D in (Z 2, b). We illustrate the process in
Fig. 7. We leave it to the reader to check that the construc-
(22)
tion has the following properties. If O9 is the b-component
of the 1-spels containing c and Q9 is the b-component of
the 0-spels containing d, then O > D 5 O9 > D and Q >
D 5 Q9 > D. We can simulate the t-path from c to d not
crossing ­(O, Q) by a b-path not crossing ­(O9, Q9), by
following its moves inside D and using the corridors when-
ever the t-path wraps around.
Some of the results discussed in this section can be sum-
marized in the following single statement.
(23) COROLLARY 2.14. There are strong Jordan graphs, there
are Jordan graphs which are not strong Jordan graphs, and
there are digital spaces which are not Jordan graphs.
3. MINIMALLY NEAR-JORDAN SURFACES
(24) Near-Jordan surfaces have been introduced and studied
in [1–3] since the concept captures some of the properties
of Jordan curves (simple closed curves). There is a property
of Jordan curves which is not reflected by near-Jordan
surfaces; namely that they are minimal in the sense that a
proper subset of a Jordan curve is not a Jordan curve.
Correspondingly, we define a minimally near-Jordan sur-
face as a near-Jordan surface such that any surface which
is a proper subset of it is not near-Jordan.
We will see that minimally near-Jordan surfaces help us
to give an alternative characterization of (strong) Jordan
graphs. Before getting into that, we recall some relevant
results and discuss some basic properties of minimally near-
Jordan surfaces.
 JORDAN GRAPHS 355

FIG. 7. Illustration of the construction for showing that (T, t) is a Jordan graph. T is the shaded area, with D the more heavily shaded part of
it. The unbroken heavy lines (with orientation from 1-spels to 0-spels) form a tt-boundary in (T, t) which is extended by the construction into a
bb-boundary in (Z 2, b) as indicated by the broken heavy lines (with orientation from 1-spels to 0-spels).

THEOREM 3.1. Let k and l be spel-adjacencies in a digi-
tal space (V, f). Let O be a nonempty k-connected proper
subset of V and let Q be one of the l-components of the
complement of O. Then ­(O, Q) is a kl-Jordan surface.
Proof. This is Theorem 3.2 of [1]. n
THEOREM 3.2. If S is a minimally near-Jordan surface
in a digital space (V, f), then both I(S) and E(S) are f-con-
nected.
Proof. We prove the result only for E(S), the proof
for I(S) is strictly analogous. Since S is near-Jordan, it
follows from Lemmas 1.1 and 1.2 that E(S) is the comple-
ment of I(S) and S 5 ­(I(S), E(S)). We can always find a
spel-adjacency k in (V, f) such that I(S) is k-connected.
(Recall that even V 2 is a spel-adjacency.) Also, since S is
a surface, neither I(S) nor E(S) is empty and so I(S) is a
nonempty proper subset of V. We assume that E(S) is not
f-connected and show that this leads to a contradiction.
Let Q9 and Q0 be two distinct (and hence disjoint) f-
components of E(S). Then, by Theorem 3.1 both ­(I(S),
Q9) and ­(I(S), Q0) are kf-Jordan surfaces, which in partic-
ular means that they are nonempty and near-Jordan. They
are also disjoint, implying that they are both near-Jordan
surfaces which are proper subsets of S, contradicting the
minimal near-Jordanness of S. n
Recall that we said earlier that near-Jordanness of a
surface does not guarantee the connectedness either of its
interior or of its exterior. We see from Theorem 3.2 that
this situation changes essentially when we replace the con-
cept of ‘‘near-Jordan’’ by that of ‘‘minimally near-Jordan.’’
As an immediate consequence, we have the following.
COROLLARY 3.3. If S is a minimally near-Jordan surface
and k and l are spel-adjacencies in a digital space (V, f),
then S is kl-Jordan.
A further immediate consequence follows with the help
of another previously proven result.
LEMMA 3.4. If k and l are spel-adjacencies in a digital
space (V, f) and S is a kl-Jordan surface in that space,
then there exists a binary picture (V, f, f ) in which S is the
unique kl-boundary.
Proof. This is Proposition 4.2 of [1]. n
COROLLARY 3.5. If k and l are spel-adjacencies in a
digital space (V, f) and S is a minimally near-Jordan surface
in that space, then there exists a binary picture (V, f, f ) in
which S is the unique kl-boundary.
We may ask whether the converse of either Corollary
3.3 or Corollary 3.5 holds. This turns out not to be the
356 AHARONI, HERMAN, AND LOEBL
case in general, as is illustrated by the following example
in (Z 2, g). In Fig. 8, there is only one g-component of
the 1-spels and only one d-component of the 0-spels. The
unique gd-boundary between them (composed of all sur-
fels between a 1-spel; and a 0-spel) is gd-Jordan. However,
it is not minimally near-Jordan, since the proper subset
indicated by the heavy lines in Fig. 8 also forms a near-
Jordan surface. Nevertheless, we have the following partial
converse to these corollaries.
LEMMA 3.6. In a digital space (V, f), every near-Jordan
ff-boundary is minimally near-Jordan.
Proof. Let S be a near-Jordan ff-boundary. In order
to show that it is minimally near-Jordan, we have to demon-
strate for any surface S9 which is a proper subset of S that
it is not near-Jordan. Consider a surfel (c, d ) [ S 2 S9.
Let e be a spel in the immediate interior of S9 and f be a
spel in the immediate exterior of S9. We now show that
there is a proto-path from e to f which does not cross S9.
This proto-path first goes from e to c. It can do this without
crossing S (and hence S9), since the interior of the ff-
boundary S is f-connected (see Theorem 1.3). It then
moves from c to d (and we know that this step does not
cross S9). Finally, it moves from d to f ; which again can
be done without crossing S in view of Theorem 1.3. n
THEOREM 3.7. Let S be a surface in a digital space (V,
f). The following are equivalent:
(i) S is a near-Jordan ff-boundary.
(ii) S is minimally near-Jordan.
(iii) S is ff-Jordan.
Proof. That (i) implies (ii) is Lemma 3.6. That (ii)
implies (iii) is a special case of Corollary 3.3. That (iii)
implies (i) follows from Lemma 3.4. n
COROLLARY 3.8. Let S be a surface (respectively, a finite
surface) in a strong Jordan graph (respectively, a Jordan
graph) (V, f). The following are equivalent:
(i) S is a ff-boundary.
(ii) S is minimally near-Jordan.
(iii) S is ff-Jordan.
FIG. 8. Illustration that the converses of Corollary 3.3 and of Corol-
lary 3.5 do not hold.
We complete this section with some alternative charac-
terizations of strong Jordan graphs and of Jordan graphs,
which we can now give due to our results on minimally
near-Jordan surfaces.
THEOREM 3.9. Let (V, f) be a digital space. The follow-
ing are equivalent:
(i) (V, f) is a strong Jordan graph.
(ii) The immediate interior of every ff-boundary is
f-connected.
(iii) The immediate interior of every minimally near-
Jordan surface is f-connected.
(iv) The immediate exterior of every ff-boundary is
f-connected.
(v) The immediate exterior of every minimally near-
Jordan surface is f-connected.
Proof. We prove only the equivalence of (i), (ii), and
(iii). The rest of the proof is clearly strictly analogous.
To show that (i) implies (ii), we assume that (V, f) is a
strong Jordan graph. Let S be a ff-boundary. By Theorem
1.3 both I(S) and E(S) are f-connected. Define a binary
picture (V, f, f ) so that the set of 1-spels is exactly the
immediate interior of S. In this binary picture, E(S) is a
f-connected set (as discussed above) and is in fact a f-
component of the 0-spels of (V, f, f ). This follows from
Lemmas 1.1 and 1.2, according to which the complement
of E(S) is I(S), but any element of I(S) which is proto-
adjacent to an element of E(S) is in II(S) and is therefore
a 1-spel in (V, f, f ). Also, clearly, if O is a f-component
of the 1-spels of (V, f, f ), then ­(O, E(S)) is not empty.
We suppose now that II(S) is not f-connected and show
that this leads to a contradiction. Let c and d be two spels in
different f-components of II(S). Since I(S) is f-connected,
there is a proto-path from c to d entirely in I(S). This path
must begin in one f-component J of II(S) (which is also
a f-component of the 1-spels of (V, f, f )) and must eventu-
ally arrive at another f-component of L of II(S) (which is
also a f-component of the 1-spels of (V, f, f )), having gone
through a f-component K of the 0-spels of (V, f, f ) which
is other than E(S). Thus, in the ff-adjacency graph of (V,
f, f ), there is a cycle E(S), J, K, . . . , L, E(S) which, by
Corollary 2.7 contradicts that (V, f) is a strong Jordan
graph.
That (ii) implies (iii) follows immediately from Theorem
3.7, according to which a minimally near-Jordan surface is
a ff-boundary.
To show that (iii) implies (i), we assume that the ff-
adjacency graph of some binary picture (V, f, f ) has cycle
Q, O, . . . , O9, Q (where Q is a f-component of the 0-spels
and O and O9 are two different f-components of the 1-
spels) and produce from this a minimally near-Jordan sur-
face whose immediate interior is not f-connected. Let
2 5 hO u ­(O, Q) is not emptyj. (26)
 JORDAN GRAPHS
We define a binary relation p on elements of 2 by O p
O9 if, and only if, either O 5 O9 or there is a cycle Q,
O, . . . , O9, Q in the ff-adjacency graph of (V, f, f ). It is
easy to show that p is an equivalence relation. According
to our assumption, there is at least one equivalence class
which contains more than one element; let us refer to the
union of all the elements of this class as P. We next show
that ­(P, Q) is near-Jordan. Let c (0), . . . , c (m) be a proto-
path from II(­(P, Q)) to IE(­(P, Q)). Let c (0) be in O and
let c (k) be the last element in the proto-path which is not
in Q. Then c (k) [ O9 for some O9 in 2. If O9 ? O, then
the proto-path can be used to create a cycle Q, O, . . . ,
O9, Q in the ff-adjacency graph of (V, f, f ). This shows
that O p O9 and so (c (k), c (k11)) [ ­(P, Q). Now we show
that ­(P, Q) is minimally near-Jordan. Let S be any surface
which is a proper subset of ­(P, Q) and suppose that (c,
d ) [ ­(P, Q) 2 S and (c9, d9) [ S. Since c9 [ O9 and
c [ O for some O and O9 such that O p O9, there is a
proto-path from c9 to c not crossing ­(P, Q) and, hence,
S. (This is obvious if O 5 O9, which is a f-component of
the 1-spels. In the alternative case, we can make use of
the ‘‘inside’’ of the cycle Q, O9, . . . , O, Q to get from
c9 to c without crossing ­(P, Q).) By our choice that
(c, d ) [ ­(P, Q) 2 S, we can extend the proto-path to d
without crossing S. Finally, we can extend it to d9 without
crossing ­(P, Q), since both d and d9 are in Q, which is a
f-component of the 0-spels. This shows that S is not near-
Jordan. To complete the proof, let O and O9 be two distinct
elements of 2 which are subsets of P. Since II(­(P, Q))
contains at least one element from both O and O9, it cannot
be f-connected (otherwise O and O9 would be the same
f-component of the 1-spels). n
THEOREM 3.10. Let (V, f) be a digital space such that
f is finitary. The following are equivalent:
(i) (V, f) is a Jordan graph.
(ii) The immediate interior of every finite ff-bound-
ary is f-connected.
(iii) The immediate interior of every finite minimally
near-Jordan surface is f-connected.
(iv) The immediate exterior of every finite ff-bound-
ary is f-connected.
(v) The immediate exterior of every finite minimally
near-Jordan surface is f-connected.
Proof. The proof of Theorem 3.9 can be adopted with
a very minor change: we need to use Corollary 2.13 instead
of Corollary 2.7. n
A significant aspect of these theorems is worth emphasiz-
ing: in both theorems, (i), (ii), and (iv) deal with concepts
that were defined in terms of binary pictures; however, the
equivalent conditions (iii) and (v) do not in any way refer
to assignment of 0’s and 1’s to spels. They are just proper-
ties of certain types of surfaces. In other words, we could
357
have given an equivalent definition of when a digital space
is a Jordan graph without ever referring to binary pictures.
So, for example, the surface indicated by heavy lines in
Fig. 8 is by itself sufficient to tell us that (Z 2, g) is not a
Jordan graph (even if there were no 1’s and 0’s in that
figure). This is because the surface oriented from the inside
to the outside of this rectangle is clearly a finite minimally
near-Jordan surface, but its immediate exterior is clearly
not g-connected. Hence condition (v) of Theorem 3.10 is
not satisfied, implying that (Z 2, g) is not a Jordan graph.
There are approaches to digital topology which do not
make use of surfaces as we defined them (i.e., as a set of
surfels), but rather use subsets of spels to play a similar
role. (Such approaches are also quite natural when we take
a more pure graph-theoretical point of view.) We complete
this paper with results corresponding to the last two theo-
rems phrased in terms of this alternative approach. For any
digital space (V, f), for any spel c, and for any nonempty set
D of spels not containing c, a set U of spels is called cD-
separating if c is not in U and, for every spel d in D, every
proto-path from c to d contains an element of U. A cD-
separating set is called minimally cD-separating, if no
proper subset of it is cD-separating. It turns out that this
new concept is not so different from those already intro-
duced, as can be seen from the following.
THEOREM 3.11. Let (V, f) be a digital space and U be
a subset of V. The following are equivalent:
(i) U is a minimally cD-separating set for some c and
a f-connected set D.
(ii) U is the immediate exterior of a minimally near-
Jordan surface.
Proof. Assume first that U is a minimally cD-separat-
ing set for some spel c and a f-connected set D. We define
a binary picture (V, f, f ) so that a spel is given the value
1 if, and only if, there is a f-path from c to it which does
not contain an element of U. Clearly, c itself is a 1-spel,
while all elements of D are 0-spels. Also, the set O of 1-
spels is f-connected and all f-components of the 0-spels
are f-components of the complement of O. Let Q be the
f-component of the 0-spels which contains D (since D is
f-connected, there is such a f-component) and let S be the
ff-boundary ­(O, Q) (necessarily nonempty). By Theorem
3.1, S is ff-Jordan and hence, by Theorem 3.7, is minimally
near-Jordan. Clearly, the immediate exterior of S is a sub-
set of U. In fact, it is the whole of U, since it is a cD-
separating set and U is minimally cD-separating.
Now assume that U is the immediate exterior of mini-
mally near-Jordan surface S. By Theorem 3.2, both I(S)
and E(S) are f-connected. Let c be any element in I(S)
and let D 5 E(S). By Lemma 1.2 IE(S) is a cD-separating
set. Let d be any element of IE(S). Then d is also in D.
Let e be an element of I(S) which is f-adjacent to d. There
358 AHARONI, HERMAN, AND LOEBL
is a f-path from c to e entirely in I(S). It follows that any
subset of IE(S) which does not contain d would not be
cD-separating. n
This combined with Theorems 3.9 and 3.10 immediately
yields the following new characterizations of strong Jordan
graphs and Jordan graphs. Note that these characteriza-
tions do not make use of the concept of a surface; they
use only the concepts of f-connected and of cD-separating
sets of spels.
COROLLARY 3.12. Let (V, f) be a digital space. The
following are equivalent:
(i) (V, f) is a strong Jordan graph.
(ii) For every spel c and for every f-connected non-
empty set D of spels not containing c, every minimally cD-
separating set is f-connected.
COROLLARY 3.13. Let (V, f) be a digital space such that
f is finitary. The following are equivalent:
(i) (V, f) is a Jordan graph.
(ii) For every spel c and for every f-connected non-
empty set D of spels not containing c, every finite minimally
cD-separating set is f-connected.
For readers interested in graph theory, we mention the
consequence of these corollaries to ordinary graphs, with
a finite number of nodes. For such graphs there is no
difference between Jordanness and strong Jordanness (see
the discussions following Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 2.13).
Hence, we may conclude that such a graph is Jordan (equiv-
alently, strong Jordan) if, and only if, every set of nodes
which is a minimal separator of a node and a connected
set of nodes is connected.
This result brings us around again to [11]. We now repro-
duce the basic definitions of that paper. A minimal relative
cutset in a (finite ordinary connected) graph G 5 G(V, f)
is a cutset C of G (i.e., a separating subset of V ) for which
there exist nodes c and d such that C is inclusion-minimal
with the property of separating c and d. G is said to be
well connected if every minimal relative cutset of G is
connected. It does not immediately follow from this defini-
tion and the result stated at the end of the previous para-
graph that being well connected is the same as being
(strong) Jordan in case of ordinary graphs. That is because
there are minimally cD-separating sets which are not mini-
mal relative cutsets; e.g., any set of the form hd j which is
not a cutset is nevertheless a minimally chd j-separating
set. However, as we have already discussed, well connect-
edness is in fact the same as Jordanness for ordinary con-
nected graphs and so the definition of [11] can be consid-
ered to be yet another characterization of a (strong) Jordan
graph in this special case. Similarly, the notion of a 1-
simply connected digital space has also been considered
for ordinary graphs in [11]; the corresponding notion in
there is what they call a null-homotopic graph and they
show (in their Theorem 2.2) that every (connected) null-
homotopic graph is well connected. This can also be de-
rived as an immediate corollary of our more general Theo-
rem 2.9.
Finally, we give our promised discussion of the relation-
ship of our approach to parallel works nearer in spirit to
classical topology [4]. A basic notion which might be
thought of as topological in our approach is the notion of
f-connectedness. A very natural question is: can we impose
a topology on V such that a subset of V is f-connected if,
and only if, it is connected (in the classical sense) in the
resulting topological space? The answer to this is some-
times yes; this has been shown for the digital space (Z 2,
g) (and for its n-dimensional generalizations) in [12]. Un-
fortunately, for other interesting spaces the answer is no;
for example, the proof given in [13] can easily be adopted
to show that no such topology can be found for the 1-
simply connected digital space (Z 2, b) of Fig. 2. Thus
connectedness in Jordan graphs cannot be made in this
fashion to be a special case of classical topological connect-
edness. One approach that has been advocated to over-
come this difficulty is to extend the set of the proposed
topological space to include elements in addition to those
of V. This is the idea underlying the use of cellular com-
plexes as advocated by Kovalevsky (see, e.g., [5] and, for
a critical discussion, [14]) and of Khalimsky spaces [6].
These certainly make good geometrical sense: when our
spels are interpreted as n-dimensional Voronoi neighbor-
hoods, then they are in fact n-cells and the unoriented
versions of the surfels can be interpreted as (n 2 1)-spels.
We can also carry over the Khalimsky idea to our digital
spaces: consider the set V < f and define the topology on
it as that generated by the basis [4]
hhcj u c [ V j < hhc, (c, d ), d j u (c, d ) [ fj. (27)
We certainly could have attempted to work with such a
topology; for example, it is easy to see that if O and Q are
sets of spels which have no elements in common, then
A(­(O, Q)) 5 O < Q, where the overbar indicates closure
in the topological space. The choice for our more graph-
theoretical approach was made mainly based on our previ-
ous success in obtaining results in that framework [1–3];
the further results presented in here do somewhat validate
this choice.
4. DISCUSSION
Early development of digital topology concentrated on
the space we call in this paper (Z 2, g). It became quickly
apparent that in order to avoid some ‘‘paradoxes’’ (unnatu-
ral behavior of the interior and exterior of boundaries;
such as the failure of the Jordan curve theorem) one needs
 JORDAN GRAPHS
to introduce adjacencies in addition to that provided by
the proto-adjacency. The customary choice became to use a
pair of adjacencies; one for the 1-spels and another (usually
different) for the 0-spels [7, 8]. While this approach can
be treated in a mathematically rigorous fashion (our own
treatment of it can be found in [1–3] and is somewhat
further developed in this paper; see Theorems 2.6 and
2.12), it nevertheless remains attractive to consider those
digital spaces in which the proto-adjacency alone can serve
to usefully define connectivity. This not only makes for
more elegant mathematics of digital topology (and possibly
leads to more efficient computer algorithms when dealing
with discrete geometrical objects), but it also brings the
subject nearer to classical graph theory together with its
enormous wealth of results. This is what motivated us to
search for the concept that we have defined as a ‘‘(strong)
Jordan graph.’’
In the body of the paper we have given only one specific
example of an infinite strong Jordan graph (that which
arises from the hexagonal tessellation of the plane) and
one example of a Jordan graph that is not a strong Jordan
graph. However, there are other interesting examples of
strong Jordan graphs: in fact, arbitrary dimensional gener-
alizations of the hexagonal tessellation of the plane (such
as the hexahedral tessellations in three dimensions and the
octahedral tessellations in four dimensions) result in strong
Jordan graphs [2].
In addition to the new characterizations of (strong) Jor-
dan pairs in terms of acyclic adjacency graphs (Theorems
2.6 and 2.12), the original work that we have presented in
this paper consists of the following. We have defined the
notion of a (strong) Jordan graph so that if (V, f) is a
strong Jordan graph (respectively, a Jordan graph), then
(for arbitrary tight spel-adjacencies k and l and for an
arbitrary assignment of 1’s and 0’s to spels) a nonempty
(respectively, nonempty and finite) boundary between a
k-component of the 1-spels and a l-component of the 0-
spels will be a kl-Jordan surface, in the sense that its k-
connected interior (which contains the original k-compo-
nent of the 1-spels) and its l-connected exterior (which
contains the original l-component of the 0-spels) partition
V in such a way that every proto-path from the interior to
the exterior must cross the boundary. We have shown that
every 1-simply connected digital space (and that so, in
particular, every bridged graph) is a strong Jordan graph,
that there are Jordan graphs which are not strong Jordan
graphs, and that there are digital spaces which are not
Jordan graphs. (Strong) Jordan graphs have been charac-
terized by the existence of ‘‘cuts’’ in associated (not di-
359
rected) graphs, by the acyclic nature of the adjacency
graphs of binary pictures, and also by the connectedness
of the immediate interiors (or exteriors) of certain types
of surfaces. The surfaces of the last category include the
so-called minimally near-Jordan surfaces, which have been
shown to be of some interest (e.g., they are kl-Jordan for
any spel-adjacencies k and l). Finally, we have tied some
of these notions to standard notions of graph theory, such
as the notion of a separating set.
Our overall conclusion is that those digital spaces which
are Jordan graphs have some very desirable properties
which make their use advantageous (as compared to arbi-
trary digital spaces in general) whenever the underlying
situation allows us to use them.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research of the first two authors was supported in part by NIH
Grant HL28438 and NSF Grant IRI-9013341. The third author was sup-
posed by Canada International Fellowship and CACR 2167, GAUK 261.
REFERENCES
1. G. T. Herman, Oriented surfaces in digital spaces. CVGIP: Graphical
Models Image Process. 55, 1993, 381–396.
2. G. T. Herman and E. Zhao, Jordan surfaces in simply connected
digital spaces. J. Math. Image Vision 6, 1996, 121–138.
3. G. T. Herman, Boundaries in digital spaces: Basic theory, in Topologi-
cal Algorithms in Digital Image Processing (A. Rosenfeld and T. Y.
Kong, Eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996.
4. J. R. Munkres, Topology: A First Course, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, 1975.
5. V. A. Kovalevsky, Finite topology as applied to image analysis, Com-
put. Vision Graphics Image Process. 46, 1989, 141–161.
6. E. Khalimsky, Pattern analysis of n-dimensional digital images, in
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
Atlanta, GA, 1983, pp. 1559–1562.
7. T. Y. Kong and A. Rosenfeld, Digital topology: Introduction and
survey, Comput. Vision Graphics Image Process. 48, 1989, 357–393.
8. T. Y. Kong, A. W. Roscoe, and A. Rosenfeld, Concepts of digital
topology. Topology Appl. 46, 1992, 219–262.
9. F. Harary, Graph Theory, Addison–Wesley, Reading, MA, 1969.
10. M. Farber, Bridged graphs and geodesic convexity, Discrete Math.
66, 1987, 249–257.
11. P. Duchet, M. Las Vergnas, and H. Meyniel, Connected subsets of
a graph and triangle basis of the cycle space, Discrete Math. 62,
1986, 145–154.
12. D. Marcus, A special topology for integers, Am. Math. Monthly 77,
1970, 1119.
13. L. Latecki, Topological connectedness and 8-connectedness in digital
pictures, CVGIP: Image Understanding 57, 1993, 261–262.
14. G. T. Herman, On topology as applied to image analysis, Comput.
Vision Graphics Image Process. 52, 1990, 409–415.