534 research outputs found

    Improved Bounds for the Graham-Pollak Problem for Hypergraphs

    Full text link
    For a fixed rr, let fr(n)f_r(n) denote the minimum number of complete rr-partite rr-graphs needed to partition the complete rr-graph on nn vertices. The Graham-Pollak theorem asserts that f2(n)=n1f_2(n)=n-1. An easy construction shows that fr(n)(1+o(1))(nr/2)f_r(n) \leq (1+o(1))\binom{n}{\lfloor r/2 \rfloor}, and we write crc_r for the least number such that fr(n)cr(1+o(1))(nr/2)f_r(n) \leq c_r (1+o(1))\binom{n}{\lfloor r/2 \rfloor}. It was known that cr<1c_r < 1 for each even r4r \geq 4, but this was not known for any odd value of rr. In this short note, we prove that c295<1c_{295}<1. Our method also shows that cr0c_r \rightarrow 0, answering another open problem

    Distance matrices of a tree: two more invariants, and in a unified framework

    Full text link
    Graham-Pollak showed that for D=DTD = D_T the distance matrix of a tree TT, det(D)(D) depends only on its number of edges. Several other variants of DD, including directed/multiplicative/qq- versions were studied, and always, det(D)(D) depends only on the edge-data. We introduce a general framework for bi-directed weighted trees, with threefold significance. First, we improve on state-of-the-art for all known variants, even in the classical Graham-Pollak case: we delete arbitrary pendant nodes (and more general subsets) from the rows/columns of DD, and show these minors do not depend on the tree-structure. Second, our setting unifies all known variants (with entries in a commutative ring). We further compute in closed form the inverse of DD, extending a result of Graham-Lovasz [Adv. Math. 1978] and answering a question of Bapat-Lal-Pati [Lin. Alg. Appl. 2006]. Third, we compute a second function of the matrix DD: the sum of all its cofactors, cof(D)(D). This was worked out in the simplest setting by Graham-Hoffman-Hosoya (1978), but is relatively unexplored for other variants. We prove a stronger result, in our general setting, by computing cof(.)(.) for minors as above, and showing these too depend only on the edge-data. Finally, we show our setting is the 'most general possible', in that with more freedom in the edgeweights, det(D)(D) and cof(D)(D) depend on the tree structure. In a sense, this completes the study of the invariant det(DT)(D_T) (and cof(DT)(D_T)) for trees TT with edge-data in a commutative ring. Moreover: for a bi-directed graph GG we prove multiplicative Graham-Hoffman-Hosoya type formulas for det(DG)(D_G), cof(DG)(D_G), DG1D_G^{-1}. We then show how this subsumes their 1978 result. The final section introduces and computes a third, novel invariant for trees and a Graham-Hoffman-Hosoya type result for our "most general" distance matrix DTD_T.Comment: 42 pages, 2 figures; minor edits in the proof of Theorems A and 1.1
    corecore