Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Claim D Proof:: Case 1
Claim D Proof:: Case 1
Claim D Proof:: Case 1
Proof:
Suppose that Let p:
be a -component of [S]. Let u be the neighbor of
not on and let be the neighbor of not on We consider
two possibilities.
Case 1.
Hence,
•
Hence, we may assume that =3.
Let be the neighbor of not on If (, let the neighbor of
different from If let be the neighbor of different from ω.
Let be the graph obtained from } by attaching a -unit to
the vertex ω. Then is a graph of order with Since , we
have that .
If then and for If and then, and and for If then
is a reduced graph, we have that and so , Therefore in
all three cases,
,• and
so the lexicographic sequence s( is smaller then s
Further,
.
Applying the inductive hypothesis to
By obsevation.1
There exist a – set that contains ω
and a set of two other vertices in the attached -unit.
Hence, \ is a dominating set in
Thus,
Consequently,
Whence,
.
•Case
2.
u
Since is a reduced graph, we must have Let Then, If ,
Further and and and So
Thus if , then If , then would
not be reduced graph, contrary to the assumption .If
Proof:
Suppose that Let be a component of
Let be the neighbor of not on and let be the neighbor of
not on
On the one hand,
Suppose that Let be the graph
Obtained from by attaching a -unit to the vertex . Then,
is a graph of order with Since , we have that ∉.
•
Further, and for Hence ,
Therefore,
Consequently,
.
□