How many different spanning trees of $K_n setminus e$ are there?
I need to know how many different spanning trees of $K_n setminus e$ are there. $K_n setminus e$ is a graph created by removing one of the edges of a full graph $K_n$.
Well as we all know the number of spanning trees of a full graph is $n^{n-2}$. But graphs fulfill the deletion-contraction rule, meaning that $tau$ being the number of spanning trees fulfills the following equality.
$tau(K_n)-tau(K_n / e)=tau(K_n setminus e)$, where $K_n / e$ is a graph made by joining two vertices at the end of edge $e$ and connecting it to all neigbours of edges that lie on $e$. But $K_n / e$ is $K_{n-1}$, right? It has $n-1$ vertices and each an every one of them connects to each other. Therefore $tau(K_n setminus e)=n^{n-2}-(n-1)^{n-3}$, right?
Or does deletion contraction rule not apply to simple graphs?
combinatorics graph-theory trees
add a comment |
I need to know how many different spanning trees of $K_n setminus e$ are there. $K_n setminus e$ is a graph created by removing one of the edges of a full graph $K_n$.
Well as we all know the number of spanning trees of a full graph is $n^{n-2}$. But graphs fulfill the deletion-contraction rule, meaning that $tau$ being the number of spanning trees fulfills the following equality.
$tau(K_n)-tau(K_n / e)=tau(K_n setminus e)$, where $K_n / e$ is a graph made by joining two vertices at the end of edge $e$ and connecting it to all neigbours of edges that lie on $e$. But $K_n / e$ is $K_{n-1}$, right? It has $n-1$ vertices and each an every one of them connects to each other. Therefore $tau(K_n setminus e)=n^{n-2}-(n-1)^{n-3}$, right?
Or does deletion contraction rule not apply to simple graphs?
combinatorics graph-theory trees
1
Contraction-Deletion doesn't apply here the way you want it to. In particular, the edge contraction of $K_{n+1}$ doesn't give $K_n$. Instead, there are $2$ edges incident on the contracted vertex. So while it's a valid formula, the resulting graph is not a simple complete graph and so Cayley's theore no longer applies.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 5:22
Why doesn't Cayley's formula apply here? A spanning tree of edge contracted $K_{n+1}$ only uses one of the double edges between the contracted vertex and all other ones, so we could form a bijection between such spanning tree and a spanning tree $K_n$. Does the fact which edge is used make such a difference? I thought that Cayley's formula only differentiated between which vertices are connected, and not which edges were used...
– Arek Krawczyk
Feb 7 '14 at 7:58
Distinguishing between which vertices are used is equivalent to distinguishing between which edges are used for a simple graph. Any two vertices uniquely determine an edge in that case. To see why multiple edges must be considered, try your argument on $K_3$. $K_3$ has three spanning trees. If you contract an edge without considering multiple edges, you get $K_2$ which has a single spanning tree. Then your formula says $K_3cdot e$ has two spanning trees, which is incorrect.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 16:04
Your notation is nonstandard. Normally $G/e$ is the contracted graph. Some people use $Gsetminus e$ for the graph with $e$ deleted, but since these notations are easy to mix up many people just use $G-e$ for that.
– Especially Lime
Feb 3 '17 at 6:47
add a comment |
I need to know how many different spanning trees of $K_n setminus e$ are there. $K_n setminus e$ is a graph created by removing one of the edges of a full graph $K_n$.
Well as we all know the number of spanning trees of a full graph is $n^{n-2}$. But graphs fulfill the deletion-contraction rule, meaning that $tau$ being the number of spanning trees fulfills the following equality.
$tau(K_n)-tau(K_n / e)=tau(K_n setminus e)$, where $K_n / e$ is a graph made by joining two vertices at the end of edge $e$ and connecting it to all neigbours of edges that lie on $e$. But $K_n / e$ is $K_{n-1}$, right? It has $n-1$ vertices and each an every one of them connects to each other. Therefore $tau(K_n setminus e)=n^{n-2}-(n-1)^{n-3}$, right?
Or does deletion contraction rule not apply to simple graphs?
combinatorics graph-theory trees
I need to know how many different spanning trees of $K_n setminus e$ are there. $K_n setminus e$ is a graph created by removing one of the edges of a full graph $K_n$.
Well as we all know the number of spanning trees of a full graph is $n^{n-2}$. But graphs fulfill the deletion-contraction rule, meaning that $tau$ being the number of spanning trees fulfills the following equality.
$tau(K_n)-tau(K_n / e)=tau(K_n setminus e)$, where $K_n / e$ is a graph made by joining two vertices at the end of edge $e$ and connecting it to all neigbours of edges that lie on $e$. But $K_n / e$ is $K_{n-1}$, right? It has $n-1$ vertices and each an every one of them connects to each other. Therefore $tau(K_n setminus e)=n^{n-2}-(n-1)^{n-3}$, right?
Or does deletion contraction rule not apply to simple graphs?
combinatorics graph-theory trees
combinatorics graph-theory trees
edited Nov 26 at 16:59
Trevor Gunn
14.2k32046
14.2k32046
asked Feb 7 '14 at 5:05
Arek Krawczyk
1,10811020
1,10811020
1
Contraction-Deletion doesn't apply here the way you want it to. In particular, the edge contraction of $K_{n+1}$ doesn't give $K_n$. Instead, there are $2$ edges incident on the contracted vertex. So while it's a valid formula, the resulting graph is not a simple complete graph and so Cayley's theore no longer applies.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 5:22
Why doesn't Cayley's formula apply here? A spanning tree of edge contracted $K_{n+1}$ only uses one of the double edges between the contracted vertex and all other ones, so we could form a bijection between such spanning tree and a spanning tree $K_n$. Does the fact which edge is used make such a difference? I thought that Cayley's formula only differentiated between which vertices are connected, and not which edges were used...
– Arek Krawczyk
Feb 7 '14 at 7:58
Distinguishing between which vertices are used is equivalent to distinguishing between which edges are used for a simple graph. Any two vertices uniquely determine an edge in that case. To see why multiple edges must be considered, try your argument on $K_3$. $K_3$ has three spanning trees. If you contract an edge without considering multiple edges, you get $K_2$ which has a single spanning tree. Then your formula says $K_3cdot e$ has two spanning trees, which is incorrect.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 16:04
Your notation is nonstandard. Normally $G/e$ is the contracted graph. Some people use $Gsetminus e$ for the graph with $e$ deleted, but since these notations are easy to mix up many people just use $G-e$ for that.
– Especially Lime
Feb 3 '17 at 6:47
add a comment |
1
Contraction-Deletion doesn't apply here the way you want it to. In particular, the edge contraction of $K_{n+1}$ doesn't give $K_n$. Instead, there are $2$ edges incident on the contracted vertex. So while it's a valid formula, the resulting graph is not a simple complete graph and so Cayley's theore no longer applies.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 5:22
Why doesn't Cayley's formula apply here? A spanning tree of edge contracted $K_{n+1}$ only uses one of the double edges between the contracted vertex and all other ones, so we could form a bijection between such spanning tree and a spanning tree $K_n$. Does the fact which edge is used make such a difference? I thought that Cayley's formula only differentiated between which vertices are connected, and not which edges were used...
– Arek Krawczyk
Feb 7 '14 at 7:58
Distinguishing between which vertices are used is equivalent to distinguishing between which edges are used for a simple graph. Any two vertices uniquely determine an edge in that case. To see why multiple edges must be considered, try your argument on $K_3$. $K_3$ has three spanning trees. If you contract an edge without considering multiple edges, you get $K_2$ which has a single spanning tree. Then your formula says $K_3cdot e$ has two spanning trees, which is incorrect.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 16:04
Your notation is nonstandard. Normally $G/e$ is the contracted graph. Some people use $Gsetminus e$ for the graph with $e$ deleted, but since these notations are easy to mix up many people just use $G-e$ for that.
– Especially Lime
Feb 3 '17 at 6:47
1
1
Contraction-Deletion doesn't apply here the way you want it to. In particular, the edge contraction of $K_{n+1}$ doesn't give $K_n$. Instead, there are $2$ edges incident on the contracted vertex. So while it's a valid formula, the resulting graph is not a simple complete graph and so Cayley's theore no longer applies.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 5:22
Contraction-Deletion doesn't apply here the way you want it to. In particular, the edge contraction of $K_{n+1}$ doesn't give $K_n$. Instead, there are $2$ edges incident on the contracted vertex. So while it's a valid formula, the resulting graph is not a simple complete graph and so Cayley's theore no longer applies.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 5:22
Why doesn't Cayley's formula apply here? A spanning tree of edge contracted $K_{n+1}$ only uses one of the double edges between the contracted vertex and all other ones, so we could form a bijection between such spanning tree and a spanning tree $K_n$. Does the fact which edge is used make such a difference? I thought that Cayley's formula only differentiated between which vertices are connected, and not which edges were used...
– Arek Krawczyk
Feb 7 '14 at 7:58
Why doesn't Cayley's formula apply here? A spanning tree of edge contracted $K_{n+1}$ only uses one of the double edges between the contracted vertex and all other ones, so we could form a bijection between such spanning tree and a spanning tree $K_n$. Does the fact which edge is used make such a difference? I thought that Cayley's formula only differentiated between which vertices are connected, and not which edges were used...
– Arek Krawczyk
Feb 7 '14 at 7:58
Distinguishing between which vertices are used is equivalent to distinguishing between which edges are used for a simple graph. Any two vertices uniquely determine an edge in that case. To see why multiple edges must be considered, try your argument on $K_3$. $K_3$ has three spanning trees. If you contract an edge without considering multiple edges, you get $K_2$ which has a single spanning tree. Then your formula says $K_3cdot e$ has two spanning trees, which is incorrect.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 16:04
Distinguishing between which vertices are used is equivalent to distinguishing between which edges are used for a simple graph. Any two vertices uniquely determine an edge in that case. To see why multiple edges must be considered, try your argument on $K_3$. $K_3$ has three spanning trees. If you contract an edge without considering multiple edges, you get $K_2$ which has a single spanning tree. Then your formula says $K_3cdot e$ has two spanning trees, which is incorrect.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 16:04
Your notation is nonstandard. Normally $G/e$ is the contracted graph. Some people use $Gsetminus e$ for the graph with $e$ deleted, but since these notations are easy to mix up many people just use $G-e$ for that.
– Especially Lime
Feb 3 '17 at 6:47
Your notation is nonstandard. Normally $G/e$ is the contracted graph. Some people use $Gsetminus e$ for the graph with $e$ deleted, but since these notations are easy to mix up many people just use $G-e$ for that.
– Especially Lime
Feb 3 '17 at 6:47
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
We create a bipartite graph. In one part we have the $n^{n-2}$ labeled spanning trees of $K_n$, and in the other part we have the $binom{n}{2}$ edges in $K_n$, and we draw an edge between two vertices whenever a tree contains an edge. It'll looks something like the image below:
Trees have $n-1$ edges, so the degree of every tree vertex in the above graph is $n-1$. By symmetry, every edge in $K_n$ belongs to the same number of trees, say $d$, which is also the degree of any edge vertex in the above graph. Hence the number of edges in the above graph is $$n^{n-2} (n-1)=d binom{n}{2}$$ which implies that $$d=frac{n^{n-2} (n-1)}{binom{n}{2}}=2n^{n-3}.$$
The number of trees that contain a given edge is $d$, so the number of trees that don't contain that edge is $$n^{n-2}-d=n^{n-3}(n-2).$$ This is also the number of labeled spanning trees of $K_n setminus {e}$.
add a comment |
Your notation is confusing, but I think you want the number of spanning trees in the graph $K_n-e$, obtained by removing one edge from the complete graph $K_n$. In other words, you want the number of spanning trees in $K_n$ which do not contain a given edge $e$.
Each spanning tree contains $n-1$ of the $binom n2$ edges of $K_n$, that is, the proportion $dfrac{n-1}{binom n2}=dfrac2n$ of all the edges. Equivalently, a given edge $e$ belongs to $dfrac2n$ of all the spanning trees, and is omitted by $dfrac{n-2}n$ of all the spanning trees. Since the total number of spanning trees is $n^{n-2}$, the number of spanning trees omitting $e$ is$$frac{n-2}ncdot n^{n-2}=(n-2)n^{n-3}.$$
add a comment |
Another way to solve this is to use Prüfer Code (Wikipedia), a sequence of $n-2$ numbers each from $1$ to $n$ that uniquely identifies all $n^{n-2}$ spanning trees, where n is the number of vertices.
Without the loss of generality (due to isomorphism), we can label the two vertices containing the edge that is deleted as "$n$" and "$n-1$".
Since in the process of constructing Prufer code, we always remove the smallest labeled leaf vertices, $e$ will always be the last edge left. Therefore, the last removed leaf must be attached to either the vertex with label n, or n-1, making the last element of the generated Prüfer code n, or n-1.
For all spanning trees, we have $n^{n-2}$ of them because in Prüfer code, there are $n$ choices each for the $n-2$ slots. Instead of having $n$ choices for the last element of the Prufer code, we have two. As a result, there are $2n^{n-3}$ spanning trees using edge e, and $(n-2)n^{n-3}$ spanning trees in $(G-e)$.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f666997%2fhow-many-different-spanning-trees-of-k-n-setminus-e-are-there%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
We create a bipartite graph. In one part we have the $n^{n-2}$ labeled spanning trees of $K_n$, and in the other part we have the $binom{n}{2}$ edges in $K_n$, and we draw an edge between two vertices whenever a tree contains an edge. It'll looks something like the image below:
Trees have $n-1$ edges, so the degree of every tree vertex in the above graph is $n-1$. By symmetry, every edge in $K_n$ belongs to the same number of trees, say $d$, which is also the degree of any edge vertex in the above graph. Hence the number of edges in the above graph is $$n^{n-2} (n-1)=d binom{n}{2}$$ which implies that $$d=frac{n^{n-2} (n-1)}{binom{n}{2}}=2n^{n-3}.$$
The number of trees that contain a given edge is $d$, so the number of trees that don't contain that edge is $$n^{n-2}-d=n^{n-3}(n-2).$$ This is also the number of labeled spanning trees of $K_n setminus {e}$.
add a comment |
We create a bipartite graph. In one part we have the $n^{n-2}$ labeled spanning trees of $K_n$, and in the other part we have the $binom{n}{2}$ edges in $K_n$, and we draw an edge between two vertices whenever a tree contains an edge. It'll looks something like the image below:
Trees have $n-1$ edges, so the degree of every tree vertex in the above graph is $n-1$. By symmetry, every edge in $K_n$ belongs to the same number of trees, say $d$, which is also the degree of any edge vertex in the above graph. Hence the number of edges in the above graph is $$n^{n-2} (n-1)=d binom{n}{2}$$ which implies that $$d=frac{n^{n-2} (n-1)}{binom{n}{2}}=2n^{n-3}.$$
The number of trees that contain a given edge is $d$, so the number of trees that don't contain that edge is $$n^{n-2}-d=n^{n-3}(n-2).$$ This is also the number of labeled spanning trees of $K_n setminus {e}$.
add a comment |
We create a bipartite graph. In one part we have the $n^{n-2}$ labeled spanning trees of $K_n$, and in the other part we have the $binom{n}{2}$ edges in $K_n$, and we draw an edge between two vertices whenever a tree contains an edge. It'll looks something like the image below:
Trees have $n-1$ edges, so the degree of every tree vertex in the above graph is $n-1$. By symmetry, every edge in $K_n$ belongs to the same number of trees, say $d$, which is also the degree of any edge vertex in the above graph. Hence the number of edges in the above graph is $$n^{n-2} (n-1)=d binom{n}{2}$$ which implies that $$d=frac{n^{n-2} (n-1)}{binom{n}{2}}=2n^{n-3}.$$
The number of trees that contain a given edge is $d$, so the number of trees that don't contain that edge is $$n^{n-2}-d=n^{n-3}(n-2).$$ This is also the number of labeled spanning trees of $K_n setminus {e}$.
We create a bipartite graph. In one part we have the $n^{n-2}$ labeled spanning trees of $K_n$, and in the other part we have the $binom{n}{2}$ edges in $K_n$, and we draw an edge between two vertices whenever a tree contains an edge. It'll looks something like the image below:
Trees have $n-1$ edges, so the degree of every tree vertex in the above graph is $n-1$. By symmetry, every edge in $K_n$ belongs to the same number of trees, say $d$, which is also the degree of any edge vertex in the above graph. Hence the number of edges in the above graph is $$n^{n-2} (n-1)=d binom{n}{2}$$ which implies that $$d=frac{n^{n-2} (n-1)}{binom{n}{2}}=2n^{n-3}.$$
The number of trees that contain a given edge is $d$, so the number of trees that don't contain that edge is $$n^{n-2}-d=n^{n-3}(n-2).$$ This is also the number of labeled spanning trees of $K_n setminus {e}$.
answered Feb 7 '14 at 5:23
Rebecca J. Stones
20.9k22781
20.9k22781
add a comment |
add a comment |
Your notation is confusing, but I think you want the number of spanning trees in the graph $K_n-e$, obtained by removing one edge from the complete graph $K_n$. In other words, you want the number of spanning trees in $K_n$ which do not contain a given edge $e$.
Each spanning tree contains $n-1$ of the $binom n2$ edges of $K_n$, that is, the proportion $dfrac{n-1}{binom n2}=dfrac2n$ of all the edges. Equivalently, a given edge $e$ belongs to $dfrac2n$ of all the spanning trees, and is omitted by $dfrac{n-2}n$ of all the spanning trees. Since the total number of spanning trees is $n^{n-2}$, the number of spanning trees omitting $e$ is$$frac{n-2}ncdot n^{n-2}=(n-2)n^{n-3}.$$
add a comment |
Your notation is confusing, but I think you want the number of spanning trees in the graph $K_n-e$, obtained by removing one edge from the complete graph $K_n$. In other words, you want the number of spanning trees in $K_n$ which do not contain a given edge $e$.
Each spanning tree contains $n-1$ of the $binom n2$ edges of $K_n$, that is, the proportion $dfrac{n-1}{binom n2}=dfrac2n$ of all the edges. Equivalently, a given edge $e$ belongs to $dfrac2n$ of all the spanning trees, and is omitted by $dfrac{n-2}n$ of all the spanning trees. Since the total number of spanning trees is $n^{n-2}$, the number of spanning trees omitting $e$ is$$frac{n-2}ncdot n^{n-2}=(n-2)n^{n-3}.$$
add a comment |
Your notation is confusing, but I think you want the number of spanning trees in the graph $K_n-e$, obtained by removing one edge from the complete graph $K_n$. In other words, you want the number of spanning trees in $K_n$ which do not contain a given edge $e$.
Each spanning tree contains $n-1$ of the $binom n2$ edges of $K_n$, that is, the proportion $dfrac{n-1}{binom n2}=dfrac2n$ of all the edges. Equivalently, a given edge $e$ belongs to $dfrac2n$ of all the spanning trees, and is omitted by $dfrac{n-2}n$ of all the spanning trees. Since the total number of spanning trees is $n^{n-2}$, the number of spanning trees omitting $e$ is$$frac{n-2}ncdot n^{n-2}=(n-2)n^{n-3}.$$
Your notation is confusing, but I think you want the number of spanning trees in the graph $K_n-e$, obtained by removing one edge from the complete graph $K_n$. In other words, you want the number of spanning trees in $K_n$ which do not contain a given edge $e$.
Each spanning tree contains $n-1$ of the $binom n2$ edges of $K_n$, that is, the proportion $dfrac{n-1}{binom n2}=dfrac2n$ of all the edges. Equivalently, a given edge $e$ belongs to $dfrac2n$ of all the spanning trees, and is omitted by $dfrac{n-2}n$ of all the spanning trees. Since the total number of spanning trees is $n^{n-2}$, the number of spanning trees omitting $e$ is$$frac{n-2}ncdot n^{n-2}=(n-2)n^{n-3}.$$
answered Feb 7 '14 at 5:37
bof
50.1k457119
50.1k457119
add a comment |
add a comment |
Another way to solve this is to use Prüfer Code (Wikipedia), a sequence of $n-2$ numbers each from $1$ to $n$ that uniquely identifies all $n^{n-2}$ spanning trees, where n is the number of vertices.
Without the loss of generality (due to isomorphism), we can label the two vertices containing the edge that is deleted as "$n$" and "$n-1$".
Since in the process of constructing Prufer code, we always remove the smallest labeled leaf vertices, $e$ will always be the last edge left. Therefore, the last removed leaf must be attached to either the vertex with label n, or n-1, making the last element of the generated Prüfer code n, or n-1.
For all spanning trees, we have $n^{n-2}$ of them because in Prüfer code, there are $n$ choices each for the $n-2$ slots. Instead of having $n$ choices for the last element of the Prufer code, we have two. As a result, there are $2n^{n-3}$ spanning trees using edge e, and $(n-2)n^{n-3}$ spanning trees in $(G-e)$.
add a comment |
Another way to solve this is to use Prüfer Code (Wikipedia), a sequence of $n-2$ numbers each from $1$ to $n$ that uniquely identifies all $n^{n-2}$ spanning trees, where n is the number of vertices.
Without the loss of generality (due to isomorphism), we can label the two vertices containing the edge that is deleted as "$n$" and "$n-1$".
Since in the process of constructing Prufer code, we always remove the smallest labeled leaf vertices, $e$ will always be the last edge left. Therefore, the last removed leaf must be attached to either the vertex with label n, or n-1, making the last element of the generated Prüfer code n, or n-1.
For all spanning trees, we have $n^{n-2}$ of them because in Prüfer code, there are $n$ choices each for the $n-2$ slots. Instead of having $n$ choices for the last element of the Prufer code, we have two. As a result, there are $2n^{n-3}$ spanning trees using edge e, and $(n-2)n^{n-3}$ spanning trees in $(G-e)$.
add a comment |
Another way to solve this is to use Prüfer Code (Wikipedia), a sequence of $n-2$ numbers each from $1$ to $n$ that uniquely identifies all $n^{n-2}$ spanning trees, where n is the number of vertices.
Without the loss of generality (due to isomorphism), we can label the two vertices containing the edge that is deleted as "$n$" and "$n-1$".
Since in the process of constructing Prufer code, we always remove the smallest labeled leaf vertices, $e$ will always be the last edge left. Therefore, the last removed leaf must be attached to either the vertex with label n, or n-1, making the last element of the generated Prüfer code n, or n-1.
For all spanning trees, we have $n^{n-2}$ of them because in Prüfer code, there are $n$ choices each for the $n-2$ slots. Instead of having $n$ choices for the last element of the Prufer code, we have two. As a result, there are $2n^{n-3}$ spanning trees using edge e, and $(n-2)n^{n-3}$ spanning trees in $(G-e)$.
Another way to solve this is to use Prüfer Code (Wikipedia), a sequence of $n-2$ numbers each from $1$ to $n$ that uniquely identifies all $n^{n-2}$ spanning trees, where n is the number of vertices.
Without the loss of generality (due to isomorphism), we can label the two vertices containing the edge that is deleted as "$n$" and "$n-1$".
Since in the process of constructing Prufer code, we always remove the smallest labeled leaf vertices, $e$ will always be the last edge left. Therefore, the last removed leaf must be attached to either the vertex with label n, or n-1, making the last element of the generated Prüfer code n, or n-1.
For all spanning trees, we have $n^{n-2}$ of them because in Prüfer code, there are $n$ choices each for the $n-2$ slots. Instead of having $n$ choices for the last element of the Prufer code, we have two. As a result, there are $2n^{n-3}$ spanning trees using edge e, and $(n-2)n^{n-3}$ spanning trees in $(G-e)$.
answered Feb 3 '17 at 6:39
waltyellow
212
212
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f666997%2fhow-many-different-spanning-trees-of-k-n-setminus-e-are-there%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Contraction-Deletion doesn't apply here the way you want it to. In particular, the edge contraction of $K_{n+1}$ doesn't give $K_n$. Instead, there are $2$ edges incident on the contracted vertex. So while it's a valid formula, the resulting graph is not a simple complete graph and so Cayley's theore no longer applies.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 5:22
Why doesn't Cayley's formula apply here? A spanning tree of edge contracted $K_{n+1}$ only uses one of the double edges between the contracted vertex and all other ones, so we could form a bijection between such spanning tree and a spanning tree $K_n$. Does the fact which edge is used make such a difference? I thought that Cayley's formula only differentiated between which vertices are connected, and not which edges were used...
– Arek Krawczyk
Feb 7 '14 at 7:58
Distinguishing between which vertices are used is equivalent to distinguishing between which edges are used for a simple graph. Any two vertices uniquely determine an edge in that case. To see why multiple edges must be considered, try your argument on $K_3$. $K_3$ has three spanning trees. If you contract an edge without considering multiple edges, you get $K_2$ which has a single spanning tree. Then your formula says $K_3cdot e$ has two spanning trees, which is incorrect.
– EuYu
Feb 7 '14 at 16:04
Your notation is nonstandard. Normally $G/e$ is the contracted graph. Some people use $Gsetminus e$ for the graph with $e$ deleted, but since these notations are easy to mix up many people just use $G-e$ for that.
– Especially Lime
Feb 3 '17 at 6:47