For integers 1<=a<=b<=c, construct a graph G with k(G)=a, lamda(G)=b and delta(G)=c.

ferdysy9 2022-08-08 Answered
For integers 1<=a<=b<=c, construct a graph G with k(G)=a, lamda(G)=b and delta(G)=c.
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

Emely English
Answered 2022-08-09 Author has 16 answers
The minimum value of a, b or call can be 1.
k(G)=a(>=1). Thus the graph is complete.
Delta(G) =c(>=1) this mean that a vertex can have at maximum of atleast 1 connection but this is not possible. Also lambda(G) =b(>=1).this means that a vertex is connected by already one other vertex.
Thus we can see that in the graph G, the minimum number of connection is atleast 1 and maximum is atleast 2.
Also,k(G)=a=n-2
Thus,1<=n-2
Or,n>= 3
Not exactly what you’re looking for?
Ask My Question

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-07-07
I've heard all these terms thrown about in proofs and in geometry, but what are the differences and relationships between them? Examples would be awesome! :)
asked 2022-04-30
This may be a dumb question.

The Poisson postulates are:

1. P ( n = 1 , h ) = λ h + o ( h )
2. i = 2 P ( n = i , h ) = o ( h )
3. Events in nonoverlapping intervals are independent

What ensures that λ h [ 0 , 1 ] irrespective of the value of λ ?
asked 2022-06-25
Lorenz, Every single line through a point within an angle will meet at least one side of the angle.
I know I have to Show that the parallel postulate 5 implies lorenz, and then lorenz implies parallel postulate 5.
Assume postulate 5 . So we are given AB and a point C not on AB. Choose B on AB draw CD to construct angle ECD= angle BDC.
I just don't get what Lorenz postulate means. Thats where I am getting stuck.
asked 2022-07-05
So I'm reading about the history of hyperbolic geometry and something like this came up: "two thousand years later, people gave up on trying to derive the fifth postulate from the other 4 and begun studying the consequences of the mathematical structure without the fifth postulate. The result is a coherent theory". My question: were there any possibility of incoherence? I understand some postulates are actually definition of objects, then, clearly, other postulates might be dependent on this other postulate, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
asked 2022-07-23
I was wondering whether there is a proof of SSS Congruence Theorem (and also whether there is one for SAS and ASA Congruence Theorem). In my textbook, they are treated as a postulate, or one that we just accept as truth without basis. Is the 3 theorems for similar triangles really just postulates, or are there any proof of them? I tried searching online but I couldn't find one.
asked 2022-06-29
I am beginning real analysis and got stuck on the first page (Peano Postulates). It reads as follows, at least in my textbook.

Axiom 1.2.1 (Peano Postulates). There exists a set N with an element 1 N and a function s : N N that satisfies the following three properties.
a. There is no n N such that s ( n ) = 1.
b. The function s is injective.
c. Let G N be a set. Suppose that 1 G, and that g G s ( g ) G. Then G = N .

Definition 1.2.2. The set of natural numbers, denoted N , is the set the existence of which is given in the Peano Postulates.

My question is: From my understanding of the postulates, we could construct an infinite set which satisfies the three properties. For example, the odd numbers { 1 , 3 , 5 , 7 , }, or the powers of 5 { 1 , 5 , 25 , 625 }, could be constructed (with a different s ( n ), of course, since s ( n ) is not defined in the postulates anyway). How do these properties uniquely identify the set of the natural numbers?
asked 2022-07-07
In Peano arithmetic addition is usually defined with the following two postulates:
( 1 a ) : p + 0 = p
( 2 a ) : p + S ( q ) = S ( p + q )
Lets say I put the successor term of the second postulate on the left? Namely:
( 1 b ) : p + 0 = p
( 2 b ) : S ( p ) + q = S ( p + q )
Are these two definitions of addition equivalent?

New questions