Skip to main content

Graph Theory: Planar Graphs

Continuing from the previous post ( which is here ). This is a bit short post. I think this post is not at all helpful in olys but then let's do it cause I find them interesting :P. Here are my notes..

Book referred: Daniel A Marcus Graph theory

Chapter H:

  • Planar Graphs: A planar graph is a graph that can be represented by a diagram with no edge cross. Such a diagram is called a plane diagram. For $K_4$ is a planar graph.
  • Regions formed by a graph: The planar graph divides the plan into regions 
  • Non- planar graph: A non-planar graph is a graph that always has a edge cross. 
  • Regional Degrees: The regions are boundaries by edges. The number od edges each region is boundaries with is called regional degrees.
  • Subdivision: A graph that is obtained by inserting vertices of degree $2$ is an already existing edge.



Regional Degree theorem: Let $G$ be a connected graph and let $r_1,r_2,\dots $ be the degrees of the regions in any plane diagram of $G.$ Then the sum of $$r_1+r_2+r_3+\dots =2e$$
    Proof: Note that each edges contributes two times in the region sum, since it's part of two regions. ( True for multi graph too)

      Funfact: Let $G$ be a connected graph with three or more vertices. Then in any plane of diagrams of $G,$ every region has degree greater than or equal to $3.$
        Regions and each edge contribute to two

          Euler's Formula: Let $G$ be a connected planar graph with $v$ vertices and $e$ edges and $r$ be the number of regions in any plane diagram $G.$ Then $$v-e+r=2.$$
            More on Euler's formula: We can extend it to solid to reknown formula $$v-e+f=2.$$
              Proof: We consider a spanning tree of the  connected graph. It exist as the graph is connected. Note that now we have $$v-e+r= v-(v-1)+1=2.$$ 
                Now, whenever we add an edge, we get a new cycle and hence a new region. So the $-e+r$ is constant.
                  Another proof: Reduce the graph into spanning tree by  removing one edge from a cycle and same reasoning. 
                    Problem 1: Prove that $K_5$ is non planar.
                      Proof: Suppose it is planar, then since $K_5$ is connected, it must satisfy the Euler's formula. So $$v-e+r=2\implies r= 7$$
                        But by the funfact, the regional degree sums must be $\ge 7\cdot 3=21$ but regional degree sum is $2e=20.$ Contradiction.
                          Problem 2: Let $G$ be a connected graph with three or more vertices. Show that $r\le 2e/3$ and prove that $e\le 3v-6.$
                            Proof: For the first inequality we use the fact that each region is bondried by atleats $3$ edges. And $$2e=\sum r_i, r_i\ge 3 \implies r\le 2e/3.$$ Using euler's formula, we get $$ v-e+r=2\implies v-e+2e/3\ge 2\implies 3v-6 \ge e$$
                              Problem 3: In any plane diagram of a bipartite graph, all of the regional degrees must be even. 
                                Proof: Consider the boundaries of any region. Since it is a bipartite graph, colour the vertices with two colour such that no two adjacent vertices are of the same colour. So the boundaries must have even length i.e even degree.
                                  Problem 4: Suppose $G$ is bipartite Show that $r\le e/2$ and $e\le 2v-4.$
                                    Prooof: Since $G$ is bipartite, the regional degree must be at least $4$ so $$r\le \frac{2e}{4}=\frac{e}{2}.$$
                                      Using Euler's Formula, we get $$ v-e+r=2\implies v-e +\frac{e}{2}\ge 2\implies 2v-e\ge 4$$
                                        So $$e\le 2v-4.$$
                                          Problem 5: Prove that $K_{3,3}$ is non planar.
                                            Proof: Suppose it is planar, then since $K_{3,3}$ is connected, it must satisfy the Euler's formula.
                                              By euler's formula, we get $$v-e+r=2\implies r= 5.$$ Since, we have bipartite graph, we get $r\le e/2 $ but $5\ge 9/2.$
                                                Non planar graphs [intuitive idea]: 
                                                  When we add a degree two vertex to a  non plannar graph $G$, the new subdivision graph $G'$ would be non plannar. In order to make $G$ a planar graph, we would have to add vertex in the "intersection" of the edges, which have degree $4.$
                                                    Moreover, if the subdivision $G'$ of the graph $G$ is planar then $G$ is planar too. The only case it wont be planar is when we remove the vertex from $G'$ which forms the intersection point. But then this vertex would have degree $4$ at least. Hence it is not the point we added so form the subdivision.
                                                      Hence, if one graph is a subdivision of another, then either both graphs are planar or else both are non planar.
                                                      Subdivision of $K_5$

                                                        Problem: If a graph $G$ contains a subgraph with is either $K_{3,3}$ or $K_5$ or a subdivision of one of these, then $G$ must be non -planar.
                                                          This just works, because we know the subdivision would be non planar.

                                                              Now, here's the black magic! I don't know the proof of this theorem though.. 

                                                                  Kuratowski's Theorem: Every non planar contains a subgraph which is either $K_5$ or $K_{3,3}.$
                                                                    Using this theorem, we can show that a Petersen graph non planar too.


                                                                    The Petersen graph is non planar

                                                                    Problem: Show that the 
                                                                    Petersen graph is non-planar 

                                                                    Proof: Refer to the below image 


                                                                    We use the subdivision fact and the fact that $K_{3,3}$ is non-planar. By Kuratowski's Theorem we are done.
                                                                      Yayy!! That's it for this blog post, I think there will be a sequel talking about vertex colouring which I am so excited to learn! 
                                                                        Sunaina💜

                                                                        Comments

                                                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                                                        My experiences at EGMO, IMOTC and PROMYS experience

                                                                        Yes, I know. This post should have been posted like 2 months ago. Okay okay, sorry. But yeah, I was just waiting for everything to be over and I was lazy. ( sorry ) You know, the transitioning period from high school to college is very weird. I will join CMI( Chennai Mathematical  Institue) for bsc maths and cs degree. And I am very scared. Like very very scared. No, not about making new friends and all. I don't care about that part because I know a decent amount of CMI people already.  What I am scared of is whether I will be able to handle the coursework and get good grades T_T Anyways, here's my EGMO PDC, EGMO, IMOTC and PROMYS experience. Yes, a lot of stuff. My EGMO experience is a lot and I wrote a lot of details, IMOTC and PROMYS is just a few paras. Oh to those, who don't know me or are reading for the first time. I am Sunaina Pati. I was IND2 at EGMO 2023 which was held in Slovenia. I was also invited to the IMOTC or International Mathematical Olympiad Training Cam...

                                                                        How to prepare for RMO?

                                                                        "Let's wait for this exam to get over".. *Proceeds to wait for 2 whole fricking years!  I always wanted to write a book recommendation list, because I have been asked so many times! But then I was always like "Let's wait for this exam to get over" and so on. Why? You see it's pretty embarrassing to write a "How to prepare for RMO/INMO" post and then proceed to "fail" i.e not qualifying.  Okay okay, you might be thinking, "Sunaina you qualified like in 10th grade itself, you will obviously qualify in 11th and 12th grade." No. It's not that easy. Plus you are talking to a very underconfident girl. I have always underestimated myself. And I think that's the worst thing one can do itself. Am I confident about myself now? Definitely not but I am learning not to self-depreciate myself little by little. Okay, I shall write more about it in the next post describing my experience in 3 different camps and 1 program.  So, I got...

                                                                        IMO Shortlist 2021 C1

                                                                         I am planning to do at least one ISL every day so that I do not lose my Olympiad touch (and also they are fun to think about!). Today, I tried the 2021 IMO shortlist C1.  (2021 ISL C1) Let $S$ be an infinite set of positive integers, such that there exist four pairwise distinct $a,b,c,d \in S$ with $\gcd(a,b) \neq \gcd(c,d)$. Prove that there exist three pairwise distinct $x,y,z \in S$ such that $\gcd(x,y)=\gcd(y,z) \neq \gcd(z,x)$. Suppose not. Then any $3$ elements $x,y,z\in S$ will be $(x,y)=(y,z)=(x,z)$ or $(x,y)\ne (y,z)\ne (x,z)$. There exists an infinite set $T$ such that $\forall x,y\in T,(x,y)=d,$ where $d$ is constant. Fix a random element $a$. Note that $(x,a)|a$. So $(x,a)\le a$.Since there are infinite elements and finite many possibilities for the gcd (atmost $a$). So $\exists$ set $T$ which is infinite such that $\forall b_1,b_2\in T$ $$(a,b_1)=(a,b_2)=d.$$ Note that if $(b_1,b_2)\ne d$ then we get a contradiction as we get a set satisfying the proble...

                                                                        Solving Random ISLs And Sharygin Solutions! And INMO happened!!

                                                                        Some of the ISLs I did before INMO :P  [2005 G3]:  Let $ABCD$ be a parallelogram. A variable line $g$ through the vertex $A$ intersects the rays $BC$ and $DC$ at the points $X$ and $Y$, respectively. Let $K$ and $L$ be the $A$-excenters of the triangles $ABX$ and $ADY$. Show that the angle $\measuredangle KCL$ is independent of the line $g$ Solution: Note that $$\Delta LDK \sim \Delta XBK$$ and $$\Delta ADY\sim \Delta XCY.$$ So we have $$\frac{BK}{DY}=\frac{XK}{LY}$$ and $$\frac{DY}{CY}=\frac{AD}{XC}=\frac{AY}{XY}.$$ Hence $$\frac{BK}{CY}=\frac{AD}{XC}\times \frac{XK}{LY}\implies \frac{BK}{BC}=\frac{CY}{XC}\times \frac{XK}{LY}=\frac{AB}{BC}\times \frac{XK}{LY} $$ $$\frac{AB}{LY}\times \frac{XK}{BK}=\frac{AB}{LY}\times \frac{LY}{DY}=\frac{AB}{DL}$$ $$\implies \Delta CBK\sim \Delta LDK$$ And we are done. We get that $$\angle KCL=360-(\angle ACB+\angle DKC+\angle BCK)=\angle DAB/2 +180-\angle DAB=180-\angle DAB/2$$ Motivation: I took a hint on this. I had other angles but I did...

                                                                        New year with a new beginning! And a recap of 2024..and all the best for INMO 2025!

                                                                        Hi everyone! Happy New Year :)  Thank you so much for 95k+ views!!! How was everyone's 2024? What are everyone's resolutions? ( Do write down in the comment section! And you can come back 1 year later to see if you made them possible!). A Better Mathematician  Well, technically a theoretical computer scientist.  I am so grateful to be allowed to study at CMI where I can interact with so many brilliant professors, access the beautiful library and obviously discuss mathematics ( sometimes non math too ) with the students.    And this year, I want to learn more mathematics and clear my fundamentals. I have become much worse in math actually. And hopefully, read some research papers too :)  And discuss a lot of mathematics with other people.  However, with that whole depressing 2024 year, I have lost a lot of my confidence in mathematics. And to be a better mathematician, I should gain the confidence that I can be a mathematician. And well, I am working on...

                                                                        Some Geometry Problems for everyone to try!

                                                                         These problems are INMO~ish level. So trying this would be a good practice for INMO!  Let $ABCD$ be a quadrilateral. Let $M,N,P,Q$ be the midpoints of sides $AB,BC,CD,DA$. Prove that $MNPQ$ is a parallelogram. Consider $\Delta ABD$ and $\Delta BDC$ .Note that $NP||BD||MQ$. Similarly, $NM||AC||PQ$. Hence the parallelogram. In $\Delta ABC$, $\angle A$ be right. Let $D$ be the foot of the altitude from $A$ onto $BC$. Prove that $AD^2=BD\cdot CD$. Note that $\Delta ADB\sim \Delta CDA$. So by similarity, we have $$\frac{AD}{BD}=\frac{CD}{AD}.$$ In $\Delta ABC$, $\angle A$ be right. Let $D$ be the foot of the altitude from $A$ onto $BC$. Prove that $AD^2=BD\cdot CD$. Let $D\in CA$, such that $AD = AB$.Note that $BD||AS$. So by the Thales’ Proportionality Theorem, we are done! Given $\Delta ABC$, construct equilateral triangles $\Delta BCD,\Delta CAE,\Delta ABF$ outside of $\Delta ABC$. Prove that $AD=BE=CF$. This is just congruence. N...

                                                                        Symmetric Polynomials #week 6

                                                                        Well... I haven't seen much symmetric polynomials in Olympiads, but still I am learning, because I found them cute. And I am basically using this blog as my notes :P What are symmetric polynomials?  One can understand this with  examples. If we are considering over 3 variables, $x_1,x_2,x_3$ then  $$\sum_{sym}x_1^2\cdot x_2^3\cdot x_3=x_1^2\cdot x_2^3\cdot x_3+x_1^2\cdot x_3^3\cdot x_2+x_2^2\cdot x_1^3\cdot x_3+x_2^2\cdot x_3^3\cdot x_1+x_3^2\cdot x_1^3\cdot x_2.$$ See? $3!$ terms! Let's take one more example with again over 3 variables, $x_1,x_2,x_3$ then $$\sum_{sym}x_1^2\cdot x_2^2= x_1^2\cdot x_2^2+x_1^2\cdot x_3^2+x_2^2\cdot x_1^2+x_2^2\cdot x_3^2+x_3^2\cdot x_1^2+x_3^2\cdot x_2^2$$ Wait.. why 2 times ? So basically what happens in symmetrictric sums, is we go through all $n!$ possible permutations. So, here we have $a^2\cdot b^2\cdot c^0$ as like the "general" form type, right? Now, list down all the $3!=6$ permutations of $x_1,x_2,x_3$, and put them in the gene...

                                                                        IMO Shortlist 2022 C1

                                                                          Today we shall try IMO Shortlist $2022$ C1. A $\pm 1$-sequence is a sequence of $2022$ numbers $a_1, \ldots, a_{2022},$ each equal to either $+1$ or $-1$. Determine the largest $C$ so that, for any $\pm 1$-sequence, there exists an integer $k$ and indices $1 \le t_1 < \ldots < t_k \le 2022$ so that $t_{i+1} - t_i \le 2$ for all $i$, and$$\left| \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{t_i} \right| \ge C.$$ We claim that the answer is $\boxed{506}$. $506$ is the upper bound. Just consider the sequence $$+1,-1,-1,+1,+1,-1,-1,+1\dots,-1,-1,+1,+1,-1.$$ Here $1, -1, -1, 1$ is repeated $505$ times and $1,-1$ is concatted to it. Now,our sequence would be $a_1,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_7,\dots$ which on summing would give $506$. And clearly, this would give the upper bound. Now, we show that $506$ is attainable by every sequence. WLOG there are at least $1011$ positive numbers in the sequence. Then we choose $+1$ whenever we can. Let the sequence be $c_1,b_1,\dots, c_n,b_n$ where $c_i$ are ...

                                                                        IMO 2023 P2

                                                                        IMO 2023 P2 Well, IMO 2023 Day 1 problems are out and I thought of trying the geometry problem which was P2.  Problem: Let $ABC$ be an acute-angled triangle with $AB < AC$. Let $\Omega$ be the circumcircle of $ABC$. Let $S$ be the midpoint of the arc $CB$ of $\Omega$ containing $A$. The perpendicular from $A$ to $BC$ meets $BS$ at $D$ and meets $\Omega$ again at $E \neq A$. The line through $D$ parallel to $BC$ meets line $BE$ at $L$. Denote the circumcircle of triangle $BDL$ by $\omega$. Let $\omega$ meet $\Omega$ again at $P \neq B$. Prove that the line tangent to $\omega$ at $P$ meets line $BS$ on the internal angle bisector of $\angle BAC$. Well, here's my proof, but I would rather call this my rough work tbh. There are comments in the end! Proof Define $A'$ as the antipode of $A$. And redefine $P=A'D\cap (ABC)$. Define $L=SP\cap (PDB)$.  Claim1: $L-B-E$ collinear Proof: Note that $$\angle SCA=\angle SCB-\angle ACB=90-A/2-C.$$ So $$\angle SPA=90-A/2-C\implies \ang...

                                                                        Problems I did this week [Jan8-Jan14]

                                                                        Yeyy!! I am being so consistent with my posts~~ Here are a few problems I did the past week and yeah INMO going to happen soon :) All the best to everyone who is writing!  I wont be trying any new problems and will simply revise stuffs :) Some problems here are hard. Try them yourself and yeah~~Solutions (with sources) are given at the end! Problems discussed in the blog post Problem1: Let $ABC$ be a triangle whose incircle $\omega$ touches sides $BC, CA, AB$ at $D,E,F$ respectively. Let $H$ be the orthocenter of $DEF$ and let altitude $DH$ intersect $\omega$ again at $P$ and $EF$ intersect $BC$ at $L$. Let the circumcircle of $BPC$ intersect $\omega$ again at $X$. Prove that points $L,D,H,X$ are concyclic. Problem 2: Let $ ABCD$ be a convex quadrangle, $ P$ the intersection of lines $ AB$ and $ CD$, $ Q$ the intersection of lines $ AD$ and $ BC$ and $ O$ the intersection of diagonals $ AC$ and $ BD$. Show that if $ \angle POQ= 90^\circ$ then $ PO$ is the bisector of $ \angle AOD$ ...