{"id":460,"date":"2007-07-03T15:49:04","date_gmt":"2007-07-03T15:49:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2007\/07\/03\/edge-coloring-and-graph-turning\/"},"modified":"2007-07-03T15:49:04","modified_gmt":"2007-07-03T15:49:04","slug":"edge-coloring-and-graph-turning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2007\/07\/03\/edge-coloring-and-graph-turning\/","title":{"rendered":"Edge Coloring and Graph Turning"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In addition to doing vertex and face colorings of a graph, you can also do edge colorings. In an edge coloring, no two edges which are incident on the same vertex can share the same color. In general, edge coloring doesn&#8217;t get as much attention as vertex coloring or face coloring, but it can be an interesting subject. Today I&#8217;m going to show you an example of a really clever visual proof technique called *graph turning* to prove a statement about the edge colorings of complete graphs.<br \/>\nJust like a graph has a chromatic index for its vertex coloring, it&#8217;s got a chromatic<br \/>\nindex for its edge coloring. The edge chromatic index of a graph G is the minimum number of colors in any edge-coloring of G. The  theorem that I&#8217;m going to prove for you is about the edge chromatic index of complete graphs with 2n vertices for some integer n:<br \/>\n**The edge-chromatic index of a complete graph K<sub>2n<\/sub> = 2n-1.**<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><br \/>\nTo start with, we&#8217;ll set an *lower bound* on the value of the edge-chromatic index, which is simple. The edge chromatic index of a graph is greater than or equal to the highest<br \/>\ndegree of any vertex in that graph. The reason why is obvious by definition: the edge coloring must have distinct colors for any edges that are incident on the same vertex &#8211; so any coloring wit less colors than the degree of some vertex *must* necessarily have two edges of that vertex with the same color.<br \/>\nIn fact, we can be even stronger than that for regular graphs. For a n-regular graph (that is, a graph where every vertex has *n* edges), the edge-chromatic index must be either n or n+1.<br \/>\nEvery vertex in K<sub>2n<\/sub> is degree 2n-1. So to prove the theorem, all we need to do is show that there is an edge coloring with degree 2n-1.<br \/>\n<img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"k10.jpg\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/scientopia.org\/img-archive\/goodmath\/img_174.jpg?resize=195%2C201\" width=\"195\" height=\"201\" class=\"inset right\" \/><br \/>\nThe way that we&#8217;ll do that is using a technique called graph turning. Take the graph, and pick one vertex. Call it vertex *X*, which we&#8217;ll use as the *pivot* of the turning. Take the other vertices, and number them from 0 to 2n-2. (As a running example down the right, we&#8217;ll use K<sub>10<\/sub> &#8211; K<sub>2n<\/sub> for n=5, which must have a coloring with 9 colors.)<br \/>\nTo do the turning, you set up the graph as follows:<br \/>\n<img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"k10-turn0.jpg\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/scientopia.org\/img-archive\/goodmath\/img_175.jpg?resize=229%2C281\" width=\"229\" height=\"281\" class=\"inset right\" \/><br \/>\n* Drag the pivot out of the graph. Put vertex 0 to the left of it. Then in two columns under it, put 1, 2, 3, &#8230; on the right side under the pivot, and 2n-2, 2n-3, &#8230;. on the left, with the two columns<br \/>\nlining up in rows. (See the example to the side.) This two column structure, with<br \/>\nX at the top of the right-hand column, is what we&#8217;ll use for turning.<br \/>\n* Take this initial configuration, with X and 0 at the top. Each horizontal edge is<br \/>\ngoing to get color 0. So 0&rarr;x, 2n-2&rarr;1, 2n-3&rarr;2, and so on, get color 0.<br \/>\n(In our example, it&#8217;s (0,x), (8,1), (7,2), (6,3), (5,4)).)<br \/>\n<img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"k10-turn1.jpg\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/scientopia.org\/img-archive\/goodmath\/img_176.jpg?resize=255%2C253\" width=\"255\" height=\"253\" class=\"inset right\" \/><br \/>\n* Now we&#8217;re going to *turn* the graph. Keep the pivot where it is, but rotate all of the<br \/>\nother vertices counterclockwise &#8211; so now 1 is paired with X, 0 is lined up with 2, 2n-2<br \/>\nis lined up with with 3, and so on. Now, all of the edges that are horizontal get color 1.<br \/>\n<img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"k10-turn2.jpg\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/scientopia.org\/img-archive\/goodmath\/img_177.jpg?resize=248%2C259\" width=\"248\" height=\"259\" class=\"inset right\" \/><br \/>\n* Turn again: X gets paired with 2, 1 with 3, 0 with 4, 2n-2 with 5; again, the horizontals get the next color, color 2.<br \/>\nEach turning of the graph will select a new set of N edges to be colored. How many times can we turn it? Each node 0 through 2n-1 (that is, 2n+1 nodes) will get paired with X &#8211; there are 2n-2 turns, assigning 2n-1 colors (the initial color, plus one for each turning). If you look at the example diagrams, you can see that the colored edges can&#8217;t get to the horizontal where they&#8217;d be colored in less that 2n-1 turns. So this produces a coloring with 2n-1 colors. Since we already know that the edge-coloring has *at least* 2n-1 colors, we&#8217;ve proved that the chromatic index is exactly 2n-1, because it can be colored in that minimum.<br \/>\nThen, as a simple corollary, we can show that a complete graph with 2n-1 vertices *also* has edge chromatic index 2n-1. It&#8217;s really easy. There are two parts to the proof: first, showing that the graph *can* be edge-colored in 2n-1 colors; and then showing that it *can&#8217;t* be edge-colored in 2n-2 colors.<br \/>\nTo show that it can be edge-colored in 2n-1 colors, we can just add another vertex, turning it into K<sub>2n<\/sub>, coloring it as above, and then removing the extra vertex, keeping the colors of the edges.<br \/>\nTo show that it *can&#8217;t* be edge-colored in 2n-2 colors, there&#8217;s a simple combinatorial trick we can use:<br \/>\n* The complete graph with 2n-1 vertices has ((2n-1) choose 2) edges, or (2n-1)(n-1)=2n<sup>2<\/sup>-3n+1 edges.<br \/>\n* Suppose that we *could* color all of the edges with 2n-2 colors. How many edges would<br \/>\nthere be with each color? The average would be (2n-1)(n-1)\/2n-2 &#8211; the total number of edges divided by the number of colors.<br \/>\n* If the coloring works, than there can&#8217;t be more that N-1 edges with the same color,<br \/>\nor else there&#8217;d be a vertex with the same color for two of its edges: since the number<br \/>\nof edges is (2n-1)(n-1), and there are 2n-1 vertices, then if any color is assigned to<br \/>\nmore than   n-1 edges, then some vertex must have two edges with the same color.<br \/>\n* But since the number of edges is (2n-1)(n-1), and the number of colors 2N-2 is less that 2n-1, then the average number of edges per color must be *greater than* n-1, which means that at least one color is assigned to n edges.<br \/>\nSince that&#8217;s a contradiction, we know that we can&#8217;t color K<sub>2n-1<\/sub> in less than 2n-1 colors.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In addition to doing vertex and face colorings of a graph, you can also do edge colorings. In an edge coloring, no two edges which are incident on the same vertex can share the same color. In general, edge coloring doesn&#8217;t get as much attention as vertex coloring or face coloring, but it can be [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-graph-theory"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-7q","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/460","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}