I know the theorem that in a graph G=(V,E) which has no isolated vertex, a set $C\subset V$ is a vertex covering in G if and only if the set V‐C is an independent set in G. I want to know whether this theorem will hold if G has isolated vertices? Why? Thanks in advance!
2026-04-24 01:09:37.1776992977
The vertex covering of a graph that has isolated vertices
1.7k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
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
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?
Sure, why not. The reasoning behind that statement doesn't depend on whether or not there are isolated vertices.
Let $C \subseteq V$ be an arbitrary set of vertices. $C$ is a vertex cover if and only if each edge of the graph has at least one end in $C$. This is the same as saying that there are no edges in the graph whose both ends are in $V \setminus C$. This is the same as saying that no two vertices in $V \setminus C$ are connected by an edge. That is synonymous to saying that $V\setminus C$ is an independent set.
UPDATE: You can find the short version of this argument on wikipedia.
If this isn't convincing, you can think about isolated vertices specifically. If $C$ is a vertex cover and $v$ is an isolated vertex, then you can see from the definition that both $C \cup \{v\}$ and $C \setminus \{v\}$ are also vertex covers. In the same vein, if $D$ is an independent set and $v$ is an isolated vertex, then $D \cup \{v\}$ and $D \setminus \{v\}$ are also independent sets. What this tells us is that isolated vertices have no say in deciding which sets are vertex covers and which are independent sets. So they cannot spoil your theorem.