Graph Treewidth and Geometric Thickness Parameters

Consider a drawing of a graph $G$ in the plane such that crossing edges are coloured differently. The minimum number of colours, taken over all drawings of $G$, is the classical graph parameter "thickness". By restricting the edges to be straight, we obtain the "geometric thickness". By further restricting the vertices to be in convex position, we obtain the "book thickness". This paper studies the relationship between these parameters and treewidth. Our first main result states that for graphs of treewidth $k$, the maximum thickness and the maximum geometric thickness both equal $\lceil{k/2}\rceil$. This says that the lower bound for thickness can be matched by an upper bound, even in the more restrictive geometric setting. Our second main result states that for graphs of treewidth $k$, the maximum book thickness equals $k$ if $k \leq 2$ and equals $k+1$ if $k \geq 3$. This refutes a conjecture of Ganley and Heath [Discrete Appl. Math. 109(3):215-221, 2001]. Analogous results are proved for outerthickness, arboricity, and star-arboricity.Comment: A preliminary version of this paper appeared in the "Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Graph Drawing" (GD '05), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3843:129-140, Springer, 2006. The full version was published in Discrete & Computational Geometry 37(4):641-670, 2007. That version contained a false conjecture, which is corrected on page 26 of this versio

Semifields, relative difference sets, and bent functions

Recently, the interest in semifields has increased due to the discovery of several new families and progress in the classification problem. Commutative semifields play an important role since they are equivalent to certain planar functions (in the case of odd characteristic) and to modified planar functions in even characteristic. Similarly, commutative semifields are equivalent to relative difference sets. The goal of this survey is to describe the connection between these concepts. Moreover, we shall discuss power mappings that are planar and consider component functions of planar mappings, which may be also viewed as projections of relative difference sets. It turns out that the component functions in the even characteristic case are related to negabent functions as well as to $\mathbb{Z}_4$-valued bent functions.Comment: Survey paper for the RICAM workshop "Emerging applications of finite fields", 09-13 December 2013, Linz, Austria. This article will appear in the proceedings volume for this workshop, published as part of the "Radon Series on Computational and Applied Mathematics" by DeGruyte