Given the null graph with no edges or vertices, we have a connected planar graph as no edges cross when this graph is drawn in the plane, and the fact that any two distinct vertices have a path between them is vacuously true. However, Euler's formula doesn't work: plugging into $v+f= e+2$, we have $1=2$. Why is this the case? Can we not apply Euler's formula here?
2026-03-25 19:00:35.1774465235
Euler's formula doesn't work for null graph?
3.5k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in DISCRETE-MATHEMATICS
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What's $P(A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3\cap A_4) $?
- The function $f(x)=$ ${b^mx^m}\over(1-bx)^{m+1}$ is a generating function of the sequence $\{a_n\}$. Find the coefficient of $x^n$
- Given is $2$ dimensional random variable $(X,Y)$ with table. Determine the correlation between $X$ and $Y$
- Given a function, prove that it's injective
- Surjective function proof
- How to find image of a function
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Solving discrete recursion equations with min in the equation
- Determine the marginal distributions of $(T_1, T_2)$
Related Questions in GRAPH-THEORY
- characterisation of $2$-connected graphs with no even cycles
- Explanation for the static degree sort algorithm of Deo et al.
- A certain partition of 28
- decomposing a graph in connected components
- Is it true that if a graph is bipartite iff it is class 1 (edge-coloring)?
- Fake induction, can't find flaw, every graph with zero edges is connected
- Triangle-free graph where every pair of nonadjacent vertices has exactly two common neighbors
- Inequality on degrees implies perfect matching
- Proving that no two teams in a tournament win same number of games
- Proving that we can divide a graph to two graphs which induced subgraph is connected on vertices of each one
Related Questions in PLANAR-GRAPHS
- max planarity and triangulation
- How to find a minimal planar covering of a graph
- Complete bipartite planar graphs
- Is graph Planar?
- Kuratowski's theorem on Planar graphs
- Graph Theory: Degree of regions in a planar graph
- On the Hex/Nash connection game theorem
- Graph Theory: There is only one planar graph with all vertices of degree 4 and 10 regions
- Intersection of circles and regions
- Which of these graphs is planar?
Related Questions in GRAPH-CONNECTIVITY
- Connectivity and minimum length
- Proving the graph $V=\{S\subset\{1,2\ldots9\}\mid3\leq\left|S\right|\leq4\},\,\,\,E=\{(u,v)\mid u\subset v\}$ is connected
- Prove or disprove that every graph $G$ satisfies $\chi (G) \le |G| - \alpha (G) + 1$
- The "$k$th diameter" of a graph
- What is κ(G) and κ′(G) and δ(G) for graph G?
- Can edge-connectivity version of Menger's theorem be generalized for two subsets of vertices?
- planar graphs and number of faces
- How to find a Graph's $K_v$?
- 2-connected graph that is not 3-connected
- Finding vertex-cut using Menger's theorem
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
We can slightly generalize Euler's formula as: $V-E+F-C = 1$, where $C$ is the number of components. Most of the time $C=1$, which gives us the familiar formula. But it works great if $C>1$. And the question is about the "trivial" case where $C=0$. Now of course $V=E=0$ and $F=1$, giving us the right answer.
There is a standard inductive proof of Euler's formula which involves either removing an edge and a face, or removing an edge and a vertex, and observing that the invariant remains the same. See here. But these proofs are quite complicated, because they are trying to preserve connectedness.
With the generalized formula, the proof can be much cleaner (still skating over elementary topology). Remove any edge. There are two disjoint possibilities:
(1) We merge two distinct faces, so: $E-1; F-1$
(2) The edge always had the same face on both sides, so removing the edge instead splits a component into two: $E-1; C+1$
In either case the invariant $V-E+F-C$ remains the same. So we remove all the edges, and then have a bunch of isolated vertex/components in a single face, so $V=C$ and hence $V-0+1-C = 1$.
Always nice when a formula can apply all the way down to $0$.