CONTENT

PAGE
CHAPTER TITLE
NO

INTRODUCTION 01

I BASIC DEFINITION 05

II TYPES OF DOMINATION 16

III THE MINIMAL DOMINATING GRAPH 24

THE VERTEX MINIMAL DOMINATING

IV 31
GRAPH

THE COMMON MINIMAL

V 42
DOMINATING GRAPH

47
CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY 48

INTRODUCTION
Graph theory is a branch of mathematics which has become
quite rich and interesting for several reasons. In last three

1
decades hundreds of research articles have been published in
graph theory. There are several areas of graph theory. There are
several areas of graph theory which have received good
attentions from Mathematics. Some of these areas are colouring
of graphs, matching theory, domination theory, labelling graphs
and areas related to algebraic graph theory.

The domination parameter was studied from the 1950’s

onwards but the rate of research on domination significantly
increased in the mid -1970’s. Now it is a rapidly developing area
of the research in graph theory, and its various application to ad
hoc networks, distributed computing, social networks and web
graphs partly explain the increased interest.

A graph G = (V, E) is a finite, simple and undirected graph

where V is the vertex set with cardinality p (order) and E is the
edge set with cardinality q(size).

A set D ≤ V(G) of a graph is a dominating set of G, if every

vertex in V\D is the adjacent to some vertex in D. This concept
was introduced by ore in [2].

The graphs considered here are finite, undirected without loops

or multiple edges.

BASIC DEFINITIONS

2
 Here we give an introduction of basic concepts domination,
open domination or total domination, independent domination,
minimal domination, vertex minimal domination and common
minimal domination. This chapter also provides some notations
and conventions.

DEFINITION 1.1

A graph G consists of a pair (V(G), E(G)), where V(G) is

non-empty finite set whose elements are called points or vertices
and E(G) is a set of unordered pairs of distinct elements of V(G).
The elements of E(G) are called lines or edges of the graph G.

Example:
v1 e1 v2 v5

v3 e5 v4

A linear graph G=(V,E);V={v1,v2, v3,v4,v5} and E={e1,e2,e3,e4, e5, e6}

DEFINITION 1.2

A graph g is said to be sub graph of a graph G if all the

vertices and all the edges of g are in G and each edge of small g
has the same end vertices in g as in G.
Example:

3
 a b a b

c d c d

G g

DEFINITION 1.3

A set S⊆ V of vertices in a graph G =(V, E) is a dominating set

if every vertex v ∈ V is an element of S or adjacent to an element
of S. Alternatively, we can say that S ⊆ V is a dominating set of G
if N[S] = V(G). A dominating set S is a minimal dominating set if
no proper subset S′ ⊂ S is a dominating set.
The domination number γ(G) of a graph g is the minimum
cardinality of a dominating set of G. We call such a set a γ -set of
G.

DEFINITION 1.4

Let ∑= (V, E, σ) be a signed graph. A subset D ⊆ V of vertices

of Ʃ

4
Is a dominating set of Ʃ, If there exists a marking µ: V → {+1, −1}
of Ʃ such that every vertex u of Ʃ is either in D or whenever u ∈
V ∖ N{u}⋂D ≠ ∅ and σ{uv}=µ(u)(v) for every v ∈ N{u} ∩ D.

DEFINITION 1.5

The minimal dominating graph MD(G) of a graph G is the

intersection graph defined on the family of all minimal
dominating sets of vertices in G.

Example:

2 3 (2,3) (2,5)

(3,4) ( 4,5)

The vertex minimal dominating graph MvD(G) of a graph G is a

graph with V(MvD(G)) = V′ = V U S ,where S is the collection of all
minimal dominating sets of G with two vertices, v ∈ V′ are adjacent
if either there are adjacent vertices in G or v = D is a minimal
dominating set of G containing u.
DEFINITION 1.6

5
 The common minimal dominating graph CD(G) of a graph G is
the graph having the same vertex set as G with two vertices adjacent
in CD(G) if and only if there exists a minimal dominating set in G
containing them.

Example:

1 2

1 2 3 4 3 4

G CD(G)

DEFINITION 1.7

The total minimal dominating graph Mt(G) of a graph G is

the intersection graph defined on the family of all minimal
dominating sets of vertices of G.

DEFINITION 1.8

A subset of V(G) is said to be dominating set if for every

vertex v in V(G)- S, there is a vertex u in S such that u is adjacent to
v. That is a vertex v of G is or is adjacent to some vertex of S.

For instance the vertex set {b, g} is a dominating set in this Graph

6
of b Figure-0.1The set {a, b, c, d, f} is a dominating set of the graph
G.
For a graph G, G-(V) denote the graph obtain by removing vertex
v and all the edges incident to v.

DEFINITION 1.9
A dominating set D is called a minimal dominating set. If no
proper subset of D is a dominating set. The sets {B, C, E} {D, C}
and {B, E, F, G} are minimal dominating set.

Example:
A
B C

F G
D E

A B C

F G
D E

A B C

F G
D E

7
DEFINITION 1.10

A dominating set with least number of vertices is called

minimum dominating set. It is denoted as γ set of the graph G.

DEFINITION 1.11
A set T ⊂ V(G) is said to be a totally domination set if for
every vertex v ∈ V(G), v is adjacent to some vertex of T.
Note that a graph with an isolated vertex cannot have a
totally domination set. We assume that a totally domination
set has at least two vertices.

DEFINITION 1.12
A totally domination set S of G is said to be totally
dominating set if S — {v} is not a totally dominating set
for every vertex v in S.

DEFINITION 1.13
A totally dominating set with least number of vertices is
called minimum dominating set. It is called a γT set of the
graph G.

DEFINITION 1.14
The number of vertices is a minimum dominating set is
called domination number of the graph G. It is denoted by γ(G).

8
DEFINITION 1.15
A sets of vertices in a graph G is called an independent set.

If no two vertices in s are adjacent. The sets {B, F} {A, C, E, G, J}

{A, C, E}are some of the independent set.
Example:

E F

DEFINITION 1.16

A dominating set D of a graph G is an independent

dominating set, if the induced sub graph < D > has no edges. The
independent domination number γi(G) is the minimum
cardinality of a independent dominating set.

DEFINITION 1.17

9
 A dominating set D is said to be connected dominating set, if
the induced sub graph < D > is connected. The connected
domination number γc(G) is the minimum cardinality of a
connected dominating set.

DEFINITION 1.18

A dominating set D of a graph G is said to be a paired

dominating set if the induced sub graph < D > contains at least one
perfect matching, paired domination number γp(G) is the minimum
cardinality of a paired dominating set.

DEFINITION 1.19

A dominating set D of G is a non split dominating set, if the

induced
Subgraph < V — D > disconnected split domination number γs(G) is

the minimum cardinality of a split dominating set.

DEFINITION 1.20

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 γns(G) is the minimum cardinality of a non split dominating
set.

10
DEFINITION 1.21
A dominating set D of a graph G is called a global dominating
set, If D is also a dominating set of G. The global domination r γs(G)
in the minimum cardinality of a global dominating set.

DEFINITION 1.22

The kth power of a graph G is graph with the same set of

vertices of G and an edges between two vertices if there is a path of
length almost k between

G2is called the square of G, G3 is called the cube of G etc.

DEFINITION 1.23

The upper domination number Г(G) of a graph G is the

maximum cardinality of a minimal dominating set of G. Also recall
that the minimum cardinality of a maximal independent is the
independent domination number i(G).
● i(G × H) ≥ i(G)i(H)

● Г(G × H) ≥ Г(G)Г(H)

● Г(G□ H) ≥ Г(G)Г(H)

DEFINITION 1.24

11
 The fractional domination number of a graph G is the
minimum weight of the function is over all vertices of its values. We
note that for any graph, γf(G)≤ γ(G).

DEFINITION 1.25

The weight of a {k}-dominating function is the sum of its

function values over all vertices, and the {k}-domination number of
G, γ(k)(G) is the minimum weight of {k}- dominating function of G.

DEFINITION 1.26

A set D ⊂ V(G) is a total dominating set if N(D) = V(G).

The total domination number is the minimum cardinality of a
total dominating set of G and is denoted by γt(G). Henning and
Rall conjectured that 2γt(G □H)≥ γt(H) and they proved this
inequality certain classes of graph G with no isolated vertices
and any graph H without isolated vertices. This conjecture was
proved for graphs without isolated vertices by Ho.

12
13
 LIST OF NOTATIONS

Symbol Description

γ(G) Domination number

γ(G) Minimum vertex degree

∆(G) Maximum vertex degree

i(G) Independent domination number

Total domination number

γt(G)

γ(G) Independence number

Г(G) Upper domination number

Гt(G) Upper total domination number

γpr(G) Paired domination number

γi(G) Independence domination number

 TYPES OF DOMINATION

The variations of domination are mainly formed by

imposing additional condition on S, V (G)− S or V (G). We will
review some of these variations in the next chapter, but our main
focus is two type domination, namely, Open domination/Total
domination and Independent domination.

OPEN DOMINATION/TOTAL DOMINATION

We have seen that a vertex u dominates a vertex v in a graph

if either v = u or v is a neighbour of u. However there are a variations
of domination. In this context, we restrict domination so that a vertex
u is only permitted to dominate a vertex v if v is a neighbour of u. We
refer this type of domination as open domination, although the term
total domination is used as well.

DEFINITION 2.1.1

If w N (V ), then we say that v openly dominates w. That is, a

vertex v openly dominates the vertices in its open neighbourhood N
(V ). A set of vertices in a graph G is an open dominating set of G if
every vertex of G is adjacent to atleast one vertex of S.

REMARK 2.1.1
 A graph G contains an open dominating set iff G can contain
no isolated vertices. Furthermore, if S is an open dominating set
of G, then the subgraph < S > induced by S contains no isolated
vertices.

DEFINITION 2.1.2

The minimum cardinality of an open dominating set is the

open domination number γo(G) of G. An open dominating set of
cardinality γo(G) is a minimum dominating set.

EXAMPLE 2.1.1
For the graph of G below, the set S = {u1, v, w, v4} is a mini-
mum open dominating set of G and so γ0(G) = 4.

Figure 2.1.1: A graph G with minimum open dominating set

EXAMPLE 2.1.2
 Both bounds in the above theorem are sharp. For example, the
domination number and open domination number of every double
star is 2. For the following figure, let

Figure 2.1.2: A graph G containing no isolated vertices

S = {v1, v2, v3, v4, v5}

′
S = {u1, u2, u3, u4, u5}

′
Then S is a minimum dominating set of G, while S S is a minimum
open dominating set. Therefore, γ(G) = 5 and γ0(G) =
10.

DEFINITION 2.1.3

Let S ⊂ V (G) and v ∈ S and then total private neighbour- hood

of V with respect to S is TPn[v, S] = {w ∈ V (G) : N (w) ∩ S = {V }.

EXAMPLE 2.1.3
 For cycle G = C9 in figure 3.3,with minimum openly dominated
set is {v2, v3, v6, v7, v9}
TPn[2, T ] = {v3}

TPn[3, T ] = {v3, v4}

TPn[6, T ] = {v5, v7} TPn[7, T ]

= {v6}

TPn[9, T ] = φ

EXAMPLE 2.1.4

Note that removing a vertex can increase the open domination

number more than one but will decrease at most once. Wheel graph
with 11 vertices is example for removing a vertex can increase the
open domination number more than one.
For wheel graph with 11 vertices γ0-set is {1,11} and γ0(G) is,

Figure 2.4: Wheel graph with 11 vertices

Now for the graph G − {11},the γ0 set is {2,3,6,7,9,10} and γ0(G −

11) is 6.
 INDEPENDENT DOMINATION

DEFINITION 2.2.1.
A subset S of a vertex set of a graph G is an independent
dominating set of G if S is both independent and a dominating
set.

The independent domination number i(G) of G is the minimum

cardinality of an independent dominating set of G.

THEOREM: 2.2.1.

Every maximal independent set of a graph G is a minimal

dominating set.

PROOF
Let S be a maximal independent set of G. Then S must be a
dominating set of G. If not, there exist a vertex v ∈ V − S that is not
dominated by S, and so S ∪ {V } is an independent set of G, violating
the maximality of S. Further, S must be a minimal dominating set of
G. If not, there exist u ∈ S such that T = S − {u} is also a dominating
set. This means as u ∈/ T ,has a neighbour in T and hence S is not
independent, a contradiction.

EXAMPLE 2.2.1.
For the path P5, γ(P5) = i(P5) = 2.Consider the following figure,γ(G)
= 2, i(G) = 3.It is clear that γ(G) ≤ i(G) for any graph.

Figure 2.2.1: A graph G with maximal dominating set

DEFINITION 2.2.2.
A set S ⊆ V (G) is called irredundant if every vertex v of s has
atleast one private neighbour.

This means that either v is an isolated vertex of G[S] or else v has a

private neighbour in V − S. ie, there exist at least one w ∈ V − S that is
adjacent to only v in S.

THEOREM 2.2.2.

A set S ⊆ V is minimal dominating set of G iff S is both

dominating and irredundant.
 PROOF

Assume that S is both a dominating set and irredundant set of

′
G. If S were not a minimal dominating set, there exist v S such that
′ ′
S − {v } is also a dominating set. But as S is irredundant, v has a
′
private neighbour w (may be equal to v’).Since wJ has neighbour in S
′ ′
− {v }, S − {V } is not a dominating set of G.

Thus S is a minimal dominating set of G.

The proof of converse is also similar.

DEFINITION 2.2.3.

(1) The minimum cardinality of a maximal irredundant set of a graph G

is known as the irredundance number and is denoted by ir(G).

(2) The maximum cardinality of a irredundant set is known as the upper

irredundance number and is denoted by IR(G).

THE MINIMAL DOMINATING GRAPH

THEOREM 3.1

For any graph G with at least two vertices MD(G) is connected

if and only if ∆(G) <P-1 where ∆(G) is the maximum degree of
G.
PROOF

Let ∆(G)<P−1. Let D1 and D2 be two disjoint minimal

dominating sets of G. We consider the following cases:

CASE 1:

Suppose there exist two vertices u∈ D1 and v∈ D2 such that u

and v are not adjacent. Then there exists a independent set D1
containing u and v.

Since D3 is also a minimal dominating set, this implies that D1

and D2 are connected in MD(G) through D3.

CASE 2:

Suppose every vertex in D1 is adjacent to every vertex in D2.

We consider the following sub cases:S

SUBCASE (i):

Suppose there exist two vertices u∈ D2 and v∈ D2such that

every vertex not in D1 U D2 is adjacent to either u or v.
Then {u,v} is a minimal dominating set of G and hence D1
and D2 are connectedin MD(G) through {u,v}
SUBCASE (ii):
 Suppose for any two vertices u∈ D1 and v ∈ D2 there
exists a vertex w∈ D1 U D2 such that W is adjacent to neither
u nor v.
Then there exist two maximal independent sets D3 and D4
containing u,w and v respectively.
Thus, as above, D1 and D2 are connected in MD(G)
through D3 and D4 Thus, every two vertices in MD(G) are
connected and hence MD(G) is connected. Conversely,
suppose MD(G) is connected. If now, ∆(G)=p-1 and u is a
vertex of degree p.

Then {u} is a minimum dominating set of G and v\{u} also contains

a minimal dominating set of G.
This proves that MD(G) has at least two components, a
contradiction.
Hence, ∆(G)p-1.
Next we characterize graphs G whose minimal dominating
graphs MD(G)are complete.

THEOREM 3.2:
For any graph G.β0(MD(G)) = d(G).

PROOF

β0(MD(G)) = d(G)…..(3.1)

Let F be a maximum order domatic partition of V(G). If

each dominating set in F is minimal, then F is a maximum
independent set of vertices in MD(G) and hence equation (3.1)
holds.

Otherwise, let D⊆ F be a dominating set in F which is not minimal.

Then there exist a minimal dominating set D’⊂D.
Replacing each such set D in F by its subset D’ we see that F is
a maximum independent set of vertices in MD(G). Thus,
equation (3.1) follows.

COROLLARY:
For any graph.

∣V(MD(G))∣≥d(G);

v(MD(G))≤ð(G)+1;

v(MD(G))≤p-v(G) +1;

Where (G) is the minimum degree of G and V(MD(G))

and v(MD(G) are the vertex set and dominating number of
MD(G), respectively.

PROOF
∣V(MD(G))∣≥d(G); . (3.2)

v(MD(G))≤ð(G)+1; . (3.3)
v(MD(G))≤p-v(G) +1; .. (3.4)

Statement equation (3.2) follows from equation (3.1)

and the fact that, for any graph G. ∣V(G)∣ ≥β0(G).We prove
equation (3.3).

Since (by equation(3.1) (MD(G)) ≤β0(MD(G)) ≤ d(G). Also,

from Cockayne and Hedetniemi [2], d(G) ≤ð(G)+1. Then, equation
(3.3) holds.

Finally, We prove equation (3.4). Since (G) ≤ p-(G), equation

(3.4) follows from equation (3.3).

In the next result we characterize graphs whose minimal

dominating graphs have domatic number one.
THEOREM 3.3:
For any graph G, d(MD(G))=1.
If and only if G = kp or ∆(G) = p-1 where kp is the complement of
kp .

PROOF

d(MD(G)) = 1….. (3.5)

Suppose equation (3.5) holds. Then MD(G) contains an isolated

vertex D. IfV(MD(G)) = {D},D = V, and hence G = kp .

Otherwise, MD(G) is disconnected and hence, by

Theorem 1, ∆(G) = p-1. The converse is obvious.
THEOREM 3.4:
For any graph G,
ω(G) ≤ |V(MD(G))|

where ω(G) is the clique number of G.

PROOF

ω(G) ≤ |V (MD(G))|………(3.6)

Let S be a set if vertices in G such that the induced graph

‹S› is complete with ∣S∣= ω(G).

Then, for Each vertex v∈ S, there exists a minimal dominating

set containing v, and equation (3.6) follows.

In the next result we characterize graphs whose minimal

dominating graphs have dominating number equal to the
order of G.

THEOREM 3.5:

For any graph G. v(MD(G)) = p

if and only if every independent set of G is a dominating set.

PROOF

v(MD(G)) = p….. (3.7)

 Suppose every independent set of G is a dominating set.
Then, each {v} ≤ V is a minimum dominating set of G. This proves
that MD(G) = kp. Hence, equation(3.7) holds.

Conversely,

suppose equation(3.7) holds. Then, by equation (3.3), it

follows that (G) = p- 1 and hence G = k p. Thus, every
independent set of G is a dominating set.

The clique graph K(G) of a graph G is the intersection graph

on the family of clique of G.

THEOREM:3.6

For any graph G,K(G) ⊆MD(G).

Furthermore equality is attained if and only if every minimal
dominating set of G is independent.
PROOF

K(G)⊆MD(G) ... (3.8)

Let S denote the family of all maximal independent

sets of vertices in G. Then Ω(G) = K(G), and equation (3.8)
follows from the fact that Ω(S) ⊆ MD(G).
 Suppose the equality in equation(3.8) is attained. Then it
follows that MD(G) = Ω(S). This proves that every minimal
dominating set of G is independent

Conversely,
Suppose every minimal dominating set D of G is independent.
Then D is a maximal independent set. .
Thus MD(G) = Ω(S) and hence the equality in equation(3.8) is
attained. Let L(H) denote the line graph of a graph H. Then

COROLLARY :

For any graph G. L(G)⊆MD(G) if and only if β(G) ≤ 2.

PROOF

L(G)⊆MD(G) .. (3.9)
Suppose equation (3.9) holds. Then any two
nonadjacent vertices of G from a minimal dominating set of
G. Thus proves that β0(G) ≤ 2.

Conversely, suppose β0(G)≤ Then it follows that ω(G) ≤ and

hence

L(G)⊆ K
(G). Thus, equation (3.9) follows from equation (3.8).
 The independent graph I(G) of a graph G is defined to be the
independent graph on the independent sets of vertices in G.

COROLLARY :
For any graph G, MD(G) ⊆ I(G) if and only if every
minimal dominating set of G is independent.

PROOF
MD(G) ⊆ I(G)………….(3.10) Suppose every minimal
dominating set of G is independent. Then by Theorem 8, K(G) =
MD(G). From Cockayne and Hedetniemi [3], K(G) ⊆I(G). Hence,
equation (3.10) follows.

THEOREM 3.7:

If G is a (p-2) regular graph, then MD(G) is Eulerian.

PROOF

Let v∈ V be a vertex in G. Then there exists exactly one vertex

u such that u is not adjacent to v.

This proves that {u,v} is a minimal dominating set of G. Since

for any vertex w adjacent to v, {u,w} is also a minimal dominating
set of G, for any minimal dominating set D of G, there exist exactly
2(p-2) minimal dominating sets containing a vertex of D.
Thus, D has even degree in MD(G) and hence by theorem A, MD(G)
is Eulerian.
THE VERTEX MINIMAL DOMINATING GRAPH
THEOREM 4.1:
For any graph G,MvD(G) is connected. Further, it is complete
if and only if G = K1.

{2,4} 1 {1}
{3,4}

2 3 2 3

G MvD(G)
Fig.1.

PROOF
Since for each vertex v∈V there exists a minimal dominating
set containing v, every vertex in MvD(G) is not an isolate.

Suppose MvD(G) is disconnected and G1 and G2 be two

components of MvD(G).
Then there exist two nonadjacent vertices u,v∈ V such that u∈ V1

= V(G1)and v∈ V2 = V(G2).

This implies that there is no minimal dominating set in G

containing u and v, which is a contradiction, since there exists a
maximal independent set containing u and v and every maximal
independent set is a minimal dominating set. Hence, MvD(G) is
connected.
Now, we prove the second part.
Suppose MvD(G) is complete. Then G is complete and has
exactly one minimal dominating set. This implies that G = K1.
Converse is obvious.

THEOREM 4.2:

For any graph G, diam (MvD(G)) ≤ 3, where diam (G) is the

diameter of G.

PROOF
diam (MvD(G)) ≤ 3…. (1)
Suppose G has at least two vertices. Then MvD(G) has at
least three vertices. Let u, v ∈ V. We consider the following cases:

CASE 1:

Suppose u, v ∈ V. Then in MvD(G), d(u,v) ≤ 2.

CASE 2:
 Suppose u∈ V and v ∉ V. Then v = D is a minimal dominating
set of G. If u∈D, tℎen in MvD(G), d(u,v) = 1.

If u ∉ D, then there exists a vertex w∈ D adjacent to u and

hence in MvD(G),d(u,v) = d(u,w) + d(w,v) = 2.

CASE 3:

Suppose u,v ∉ V. Then u = D and v = D’ are two minimal

dominating sets of G. If D and D’ are disjoined then every vertex w∈
D is adjacent to some vertex x∈ D’ and vice versa.

This implies that in MvD(G), d(u,v) = d(w,x) + d(x,v) = 3. If

D and D’ have a vertex in common, then in M vD(G), d(u,v) =
d(u,w) + d(w,v) = 2.

Thus, from Theorem 1 and above all the three cases (1) follows:

THEOREM 4.3:

For any graph G, p + d(G)≤p’≤ p(p +1)/2 where d(G) is the

domatic number of G and p’ donates the number of number of
vertices of Mv D(G).
 Further, the lower bound is attained if and only if G = K p or Kp
or K1,p—1 and the upper bound is attained if and only if G is (p-1)
regular.

PROOF
p+ d(G)≤p’≤ p(p +1)/2…… (2)

The lower bound follows from the fact that every graph has at
least d(G) number of minimal dominating sets of G and the upper
bound follows from the fact that every vertex is in at most (p-1)
minimal dominating sets of G.

Suppose the lower bound is attained. Then every vertex is in exactly

one minimal dominating set of G and hence, every minimal
dominating set is independent.

Further, for any two minimal dominating sets D and D’

every vertex in D is adjacent to every vertex in D’. This implies
the necessity. Sufficiency is straightforward.

Suppose the upper bound is attained. Then each vertex is in

exactly (p-1) minimal dominating sets and hence G is (p-1)
regular. Converse is obvious.

THEOREM 4.4:
For any graph G,

(i) p + q ≤ q′ ≤ p(p — 1)
 𝑞′

Where q’ denotes the number of edges of MvD(G).

Further, the lower bounds in (3) and (4) are attained if and only if
every vertex of G is in exactly one minimal dominating set of G and
G = Kp or kp respectively and the upper bound in (3) is attained if
and only if G is (p-1) regular.

PROOF

sp + q ≤ q′ ≤ p(p — 1) ……… (3)

𝑞′…….(4)

First we prove (3).

The lower bound follows from the fact that for every vertex
v∈ V there is a minimal dominating set containing v.

Suppose the lower bound is attained. Then obviously each

vertex is in exactly one minimal dominating set.

Converse is obvious.

The proof for the upper bound is on the same lines of

Theorem 3.

2q́ =∑𝑝 𝑖=1 deg deg 𝑣ᵢ

 =∑𝑝𝑖=1 deg 𝑣ᵢ+∑𝑝 𝑖=𝑝+1 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑣ᵢ

≥2q+p+(γ(G).d(G))

This proves (4)

Suppose the bound is attained. On the contrary, if G ≠ K p′Kp
′ then either there exists a vertex v ∈ V which is in at least two minimal
dominating sets of G or there exist two minimal dominating sets D
and D’ such that ∣ D ∣≠∣ D′ ∣, which is a contradiction and hence, G =
Kp or Kp.

Converse is obvious.

COROLLARY :

For any graph G,

max{p + q, {2q + p + (γ(G). d(G))}/2} ≤ q′….. (5)

THEOREM 4.5:

For any graph G.

β0(MvD(G) = {p′ — p, β0 (G) + K}.

Where K is the maximum number of minimal dominating sets

in a vertex of G and β0(G) is the independent number of G.

PROOF
 β˳(Mˠ D(G))= {ṕ-p1β(̥ G)+k}………….
Let S’ be a maximal independent set of vertices in
MvD(G). Then S’ = S or D1 U S2, where S is the collection all
minimal dominating sets of G,D1 be the maximum independent
set of vertices in G and S1 be the collection of all minimal
dominating sets of G in V — D1 with ∣ S1 ∣ = K .
This proves (6).

COROLLARY :
For any graph G.

If G has no isolates, then,

β0(MvD(G)) ≥ {D(G), β0 (G) + 1}; ………(7)

For otherwise:
β0(MVD(G)) ≥ β0(G) .................... (8)

Next we give necessary and sufficient conditions on G for which

MvD(G) is eulerian.

THEOREM 4.6:
For any graph G, MvD(G) if and only if the following
conditions are satisfied:

(i) Every minimal dominating set contains even number of

vertices;
 (ii) If v ∈ V is a vertex of odd degree, than it is odd number
of minimal dominating sets, otherwise it is in even
number of minimal dominating sets.

PROOF
Suppose MvD(G) is eulerian. On the contrary, if one of the given
conditions say

(i) Is not satisfied, then there exists a minimal dominating set

containing odd number of vertices and hence, M vD(G)
has a vertex of odd degree, a contradiction.
Hence (1) holds. Similarly, we

can prove (ii)

Conversely,
Suppose the given conditions are satisfied. Then every
MvD(G) has even degree and hence, Mv D(G) is eulerian.

THEOREM 4.7:

For any graph G, MvD(G) is a tree if and only if G = Kp or K2.

PROOF:

Suppose MvD(G) is a tree. Clearly, G has no cycle, On

the contrary, if G ≠Kp, K2, then we consider the following

cases:

CASE 1:
 If ∆(G) = p-1, p ≥ 3, then G is a star and hence M vD(G)
contains a cycle, a contradiction.

CASE 2:
If ∆(G) ≤ p -2, then there exists three vertices u,v and w ∈ V such
that u and v are adjacent and w is not adjacent to both u and v. This
implies that in MvD(G), uand v are connected by at least two paths,
once again a contradiction.

Thus, from the above two cases necessity follows. The subdivision
graph S(G) of G is obtained by inserting a vertex in the edge.
THE COMMON MINIMAL DOMINATING
GRAPH

THEOREM 5.1:
For any graph G, G ⊆ CD(G) ……(1)

And G =CD(G) if and only if every minimal dominating set of G

is independent.
PROOF:

If (u, v) ∈ E(G), then extend {u, v} to a maximal independent

set S of vertices in G. Since S is also a minimal dominating set of
G, we obtain G ⊆ CD(G) .
Now we prove the second part.
 If every minimal dominating set of G is independent, then two
vertices adjacent in G cannot be adjacent in CD(G). The (G) ⊆ G , and
together with
(1) we see that CD(G) = G .

Conversely, CD(G) ⊆ G implies that two vertices in the same

minimal dominating set S are not adjacent in G, i.e., S is independent.

Let ∆(G) denote the maximum degree of G.

THEOREM 5.2:

For any graph G,

γ (CD(G)) = p ..................... (2)

if and only if G = Kp.

PROOF:
Suppose (2) holds. Then CD(G) = K p and hence by
(1), G Kp. Thus, G = Kp.

Conversely, SupposeG = Kp. Then every minimal dominating set

of G is
independent. Hence by Theorem 1, CD(G) = G =Kp. Thus (2) holds.

In a graph G, a vertex and an edge incident with it are said to

cover each other.

A set of vertices which covers all the edge is a vertex cover of G.

The vertex covering number α0(G) of G is the minimum number
of vertices in a vertex cover. A set S of vertices in G is
independent if no two vertices in S are adjacent . Then
independent number β0(G) of G is the maximum cardinality of
an independent set of vertices. Now we obtain some upper
bounds for γ(CD(G)).Let ω(G) denote the clique number of G.
 THEOREM 5.3:
For any graph G, γ(CD(G)) ≤ ω(G) .........(3)

PROOF

By Theorem 1,
γ(CD(G) ≤ γ(G)

̅
≤ β0(G̅)̅

≤ ω(G).s

THEOREM 5.4:

For any graph G,

γ (CD(G)) ≤ α0(G) + 1

PROOF
γ (CD(G)) ≤ α0(G) + 1 ...... (5)

Let S be a minimal dominating set of G with∣ S ∣= Г(G).

Then ω (CD(G)) ≥ Г(G). Thus (4) follows from the facts that γ(G)
≤ p-1 ∆(G) and ∆(G) ≥ ω(G)-1 for any graph G.

Let α0(G) denote the vertex covering number of G, i.e.,

the minimum number of vertices in a vertex cover and use the fact
that α0(G) + βo(G) = p.

41
COROLLARY :

For any graph G,

γ (CD(G)) ≤ αo(G) + 1 ................... (6)

Let ð(G) denote the minimum degree of G.

THEOREM 5.5:

For any graph G,

γ (CD(G)) ≤ 1 + ð(G) .......................................(7)

PROOF

By (1), ∆(CD 1 — ð(G). Hence (6)

follows from the first fact used in the proof of theorem 5.
To prove our next two results we make use of the following results.

THEOREM 5.6:

Let G be a graph of order at least three satisfying one of the

following condition:

[P
(i) ∆(G) < ];
,

[P
(ii) ∆(G) = ] and for every v of G with deg P tℎere exists a

42
 vertex u ∈ N(v) such that u is adjacent to every vertex
in V − N(v) . Then CD(G) is Hamiltonian.

PROOF

Suppose (i) holds. Then ð(G) ≥ p/2 and hence by (1) and
Theorem B,CD(G) is Hamiltonian.

Suppose (ii) holds. Then {u, v} is a dominating set of G and

further it is minimal, since there exist two vertices u 1 ∈ N(u) −
N(v) and v1 ∈ N(v) − N(u).
Hence by (1), deg deg (v)in CD(G) ≥ p/2 . p

Also by (i), for any vertex u with deg deg (u) < [2] ,deg deg (u) in
CD(G) ≥
Hence by Theorem B, CD(G) is Hamiltonian.

43
 CONCLUSION

Graph Theory is a wide area with more application to real life.

Dominations in graph helps the researchers to get more ideas to
manage the problem in the real life situation. It has numerous
application in modern science and engineering.

An essential part of the motivation in the various applications

are based on the varieties of domination. There are more than 75
variation of domination cited in (6) variations are mainly formed by
imposing additional condition on S,V (G) − S or V (G).

In this paper, I attempted to categorize domination concepts into

some categories. Also domination is an area in graph theory with an
extensive research activity. So I conclude this project by introducing
some applications of domination in real life situations.

44
 BIBILIOGRAPHY
1. THE MINIMAL DOMINATING GRAPH, V.R KULLI and
B.JANAKIRAM, Gulbarga University,
Gulbarga585106,India, Graph Theory of New York
XXVIII,12- 15(1995) new York Academy of sciences.
2. THE VERTEX MINIMAL DOMINATING
GRAPH,V.R KULLI, B.JANAKIRAM and
K.M.NIRANJAN,
3. ActaCinecia India, Volume XXVIII M, Number 3, 433(2002).
4. THE COMMON DOMINATIG GRAPH, V.R KULLI and
B.JANAKIRAM, Gulbarga University, Gulbarga-
585106,India, Indian J. Pure applied mathematics 27(2):
193-196, Feb. 1996.
5. THE TOTAL DOMINATING GRAPH, V.R KULLI,
Gulbarga University, Gulbarga- 585106,India, Annals of Pure
and Applied Mathematics Volume 10, Number 1,
2015, 123-128, ISSN: 2279-087X(P), 2279-0888(online),
Published on 29 July 2015.
6. F. Harary, Graph Theory, Addisan-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
(1969).
7. E.J. Cockayne and S.T. Hedetniemi, Towards a theory of
domination in graphs, Networks. 7, 247-261 (1977).