Relations between global forcing number and maximum anti-forcing number of a graph

The global forcing number of a graph G is the minimal cardinality of an edge subset discriminating all perfect matchings of G, denoted by gf(G). For any perfect matching M of G, the minimal cardinality of an edge subset S in E(G)-M such that G-S has a unique perfect matching is called the anti-forcing number of M,denoted by af(G, M). The maximum anti-forcing number of G among all perfect matchings is denoted by Af(G). It is known that the maximum anti-forcing number of a hexagonal system equals the famous Fries number. We are interested in some comparisons between the global forcing number and the maximum anti-forcing number of a graph. For a bipartite graph G, we show that gf(G)is larger than or equal to Af(G). Next we mainly extend such result to non-bipartite graphs, which is the set of all graphs with a perfect matching which contain no two disjoint odd cycles such that their deletion results in a subgraph with a perfect matching. For any such graph G, we also have gf(G) is larger than or equal to Af(G) by revealing further property of non-bipartite graphs with a unique perfect matching. As a consequence, this relation also holds for the graphs whose perfect matching polytopes consist of non-negative 1-regular vectors. In particular, for a brick G, de Carvalho, Lucchesi and Murty [4] showed that G satisfying the above condition if and only if G is solid, and if and only if its perfect matching polytope consists of non-negative 1-regular vectors. Finally, we obtain tight upper and lower bounds on gf(G)-Af(G). For a connected bipartite graph G with 2n vertices, we have that 0 \leq gf(G)-Af(G) \leq 1/2 (n-1)(n-2); For non-bipartite case, -1/2 (n^2-n-2) \leq gf(G)-Af(G) \leq (n-1)(n-2).Comment: 19 pages, 11 figure

An aperiodic monotile

A longstanding open problem asks for an aperiodic monotile, also known as an "einstein": a shape that admits tilings of the plane, but never periodic tilings. We answer this problem for topological disk tiles by exhibiting a continuum of combinatorially equivalent aperiodic polygons. We first show that a representative example, the "hat" polykite, can form clusters called "metatiles", for which substitution rules can be defined. Because the metatiles admit tilings of the plane, so too does the hat. We then prove that generic members of our continuum of polygons are aperiodic, through a new kind of geometric incommensurability argument. Separately, we give a combinatorial, computer-assisted proof that the hat must form hierarchical -- and hence aperiodic -- tilings.Comment: 89 pages, 57 figures; Minor corrections, renamed "fylfot" to "triskelion", added the name "turtle", added references, new H7/H8 rules (Fig 2.11), talk about reflection