Star-factors of tournaments

Let S_m denote the m-vertex simple digraph formed by m-1 edges with a common tail. Let f(m) denote the minimum n such that every n-vertex tournament has a spanning subgraph consisting of n/m disjoint copies of S_m. We prove that m lg m - m lg lg m <= f(m) <= 4m^2 - 6m for sufficiently large m.Comment: 5 pages, 1 figur

k-Ary spanning trees contained in tournaments

A rooted tree is called a $k$-ary tree, if all non-leaf vertices have exactly $k$ children, except possibly one non-leaf vertex has at most $k-1$ children. Denote by $h(k)$ the minimum integer such that every tournament of order at least $h(k)$ contains a $k$-ary spanning tree. It is well-known that every tournament contains a Hamiltonian path, which implies that $h(1)=1$. Lu et al. [J. Graph Theory {\bf 30}(1999) 167--176] proved the existence of $h(k)$, and showed that $h(2)=4$ and $h(3)=8$. The exact values of $h(k)$ remain unknown for $k\geq 4$. A result of Erd\H{o}s on the domination number of tournaments implies $h(k)=\Omega(k\log k)$. In this paper, we prove that $h(4)=10$ and $h(5)\geq13$.Comment: 11 pages, to appear in Discrete Applied Mathematic

Trees in tournaments

AbstractA digraph is said to be n-unavoidable if every tournament of order n contains it as a subgraph. Let f(n) be the smallest integer such that every oriented tree is f(n)-unavoidable. Sumner (see (Reid and Wormald, Studia Sci. Math. Hungaria 18 (1983) 377)) noted that f(n)⩾2n−2 and conjectured that equality holds. Häggkvist and Thomason established the upper bounds f(n)⩽12n and f(n)⩽(4+o(1))n. Let g(k) be the smallest integer such that every oriented tree of order n with k leaves is (n+g(k))-unavoidable. Häggkvist and Thomason (Combinatorica 11 (1991) 123) proved that g(k)⩽2512k3. Havet and Thomassé conjectured that g(k)⩽k−1. We study here the special case where the tree is a merging of paths (the union of disjoint paths emerging from a common origin). We prove that a merging of order n of k paths is (n+32(k2−3k)+5)-unavoidable. In particular, a tree with three leaves is (n+5)-unavoidable, i.e. g(3)⩽5. By studying trees with few leaves, we then prove that f(n)⩽385n−6

Trees in tournaments

AbstractA digraph is said to be n-unavoidable if every tournament of order n contains it as a subgraph. Let f(n) be the smallest integer such that every oriented tree is f(n)-unavoidable. Sumner (see (Reid and Wormald, Studia Sci. Math. Hungaria 18 (1983) 377)) noted that f(n)⩾2n−2 and conjectured that equality holds. Häggkvist and Thomason established the upper bounds f(n)⩽12n and f(n)⩽(4+o(1))n. Let g(k) be the smallest integer such that every oriented tree of order n with k leaves is (n+g(k))-unavoidable. Häggkvist and Thomason (Combinatorica 11 (1991) 123) proved that g(k)⩽2512k3. Havet and Thomassé conjectured that g(k)⩽k−1. We study here the special case where the tree is a merging of paths (the union of disjoint paths emerging from a common origin). We prove that a merging of order n of k paths is (n+32(k2−3k)+5)-unavoidable. In particular, a tree with three leaves is (n+5)-unavoidable, i.e. g(3)⩽5. By studying trees with few leaves, we then prove that f(n)⩽385n−6

Oriented trees and paths in digraphs

Which conditions ensure that a digraph contains all oriented paths of some given length, or even a all oriented trees of some given size, as a subgraph? One possible condition could be that the host digraph is a tournament of a certain order. In arbitrary digraphs and oriented graphs, conditions on the chromatic number, on the edge density, on the minimum outdegree and on the minimum semidegree have been proposed. In this survey, we review the known results, and highlight some open questions in the area

The Law of Ponzi Payouts

When a Ponzi scheme collapses, there will typically be net winners and net losers. The bankruptcy trustee will often seek to force the net winners - those who received more money back from the Ponzi scheme than they invested - to disgorge their profits. Courts diverge on whether they should compel disgorgement in this instance. This Note argues that under prevailing fraudulent transfer law, net winners in a Ponzi scheme need not disgorge their profits. This is because the investor\u27s dollar-for-dollar discharge of a preexisting debt constitutes the transfer of value in exchange for the payout. There are two exceptions to this rule: where the payouts are objectively excessive and where the investor is an equity holder rather than a debtholder. This framework is sound as a matter of policy, despite the fact that it is not always entirely fair because it provides greater certainty in commercial transactions