Three-arc graphs: Characterization and domination
Statement
Give a sharp upper bound on in terms of for any connected graph with , where denotes the domination number.
Context
Candidate 2 of the open problems stated in "Three-arc graphs: Characterization and domination", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.
People
Attempts
No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
NEW
Problem: Interpret the question as asking for the optimal finite function
Here is the 3-arc graph: its vertices are the arcs of , and in iff is a 3-arc of , equivalently , , and .
Result: No finite upper bound in terms of alone exists. In fact,
For , take the wheel , with center and rim vertices . Then is connected, , and .
Let be any dominating set of . For each , consider the arc . If an arc dominates , then either , or . In the latter case, by the definition of ,
is a 3-arc of , so . Hence, for every , contains an arc whose tail is one of .
Thus the set of rim vertices appearing as tails of arcs in is a dominating set of the cycle . Therefore
So
which is unbounded while .
More generally, for fixed , take wheels and join their centers in a path. The resulting graph is connected, has minimum degree at least , has domination number exactly , and still contains a wheel rim of arbitrarily large length, giving the same lower bound. Hence for every .
Therefore the requested sharp upper bound cannot be a finite function of alone.
Citation: No literature citation is needed for the counterexample above. The definition of is the standard one used in Xu–Zhou, “Three-arc graphs: Characterization and domination.”
Reviews
1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1
PASS
The wheel family is a valid counterexample: it has and , while the argument correctly shows every dominating set of must induce a dominating set of the rim cycle, so . Hence is unbounded even when , so no finite upper bound depending only on exists. The proof attacks the stated problem and is mathematically sound.
Novelty assessment
TYPE1
Classification rationale: The resolution is a very short counterexample family: wheels have and , while grows at least like . This decisively answers the posed question negatively, but the argument is elementary and would not support a standalone combinatorics paper except perhaps as a brief note/comment.
Literature check: I found the original Xu–Zhou arXiv paper and searched for follow-up occurrences of “three-arc graph(s)”, “3-arc graph domination number”, “”, and combinations with “wheel” and “domination”. The accessible searches returned only the original paper and no later paper, note, forum post, or repository giving the wheel counterexample or stating that no finite bound in terms of exists. I therefore do not find evidence that this negative answer is already in the literature.
Citation: Guangjun Xu and Sanming Zhou, “Three-arc graphs: Characterization and domination,” arXiv:1401.0422, 2014.
No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Solve with an agent
Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.