1. Introduction
With the rapid development of technologies, interconnection networks play an important role in large multiprocessor system. An interconnection network is usually modeled as an undirected graph , where is the vertex set and is the edge set. In this graph, the vertices and edges correspond to the process and communication links respectively. In the large-scale interconnected network, the failure of vertices or edges is inevitable. Therefore, in order to have an unimpeded interconnection network, we must think about the fault tolerance of a graph. Connectivity is an important parameter to measure the fault tolerance of an interconnection network, so the research of connectivity is very important. Connectivity can be divided into many kinds: maximal connectivity, local connectivity, maximal local connectivity, generalized connectivity and so on. In this paper, we study a special class of connectivity: m-component connectivity. Next, we firstly introduce the traditional connectivity of a graph G.
Let be a simple connected graph, where is the vertex set and is the edge set. Let , we use to denote the subgraph of G with vertex set and edge set . Let x and y be any two distinct vertices, a path P between them is a sequence of adjacent vertices , where are distinct ones. The vertices , are called internal vertices of the path P. For any two vertices , if there exists a -path, we say G is connected. Furthermore, if is disconnected or has only one vertex, we called F is a vertex cut. Meanwhile, we call the biggest component in a big component. It’s well know that, when G is not a complete graph, the traditional connectivity is defined as and F is a vertex cut }. Otherwise, we say , where n is the number of vertices in G. A graph G is k-connected if .
As an extension of traditional connectivity, let’s look at the
m-component connectivity of a graph
G. By referring to the relevant literature, we can find that the notion concerning the number of components in
was first introduced by Chartrand et al. [
1] and Sampathkumar [
2]. Furthermore, the definition of
was first proposed by Hsu et al. [
3]. Let
F is a vertex set of
G, if the following conditions are satisfied, we say
F is a
m-component cut:
is disconnected;
the number of components in
is greater than or equal to
m. The
m-component connectivity
is defined as
and
F ia a
m-component cut}. By the above definition, we can easily get that
and
. By referring to the relevant literature, we can also get there exists a certain relationship between
m-component connectivity
and
m-extra connectivity. The
m-extra connectivity, denoted by
, is defined as the minimum number of vertices whose removal from
G results in every component in
has at least
vertices [
4]. Li et al. [
5], Hao et al. [
6] and Guo et al. [
7] have studied the relationship between extra (edge) connectivity and component (edge) connectivity in networks. So far, the
m-component (edge) connectivity of many graphs has been studied [
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17]. However, these results most are about small
m. If we want to get a result about a bigger
m, we must expend greater effort. Next, we give some definitions that will be used in the following sections.
For a vertex
,
is the set of neighbors of
v. We let
be the degree of
v and
be the minimum degree of
G. If
for every
, then
G is
k-regular. A singleton of
G is a vertex
v with
. For a vertex set
X,
is the neighbor of
X. The distance between any two vertices
u and
v, denoted by
, is the length of the shortest path from
u to
v.
G is bipartite if there exist two vertex subsets
with
such that
and for each edge
,
. It is well known that bipartite graphs contain no odd cycles. We use Bondy and Murty [
18] for terminology and notation not defined here.
In this paper, we study the m-component connectivity of , prove that is odd) and is even) for ; is odd) and is even) for ; is odd) and is even) for .
The detailed arrangement of the paper ia as follows:
Section 2 introduces the definition of
and gives some properties of
. In
Section 3, we discuss
. In
Section 4, we prove the value of
. In
Section 5, we prove some useful lemmas firstly, and then calculate the value of
.
Section 6 concludes this paper. Next, let’s first introduce the Leaf-sort graph.
2. Preliminaries
Let
,
be two integers with
. Set
is an integer with
. In the permutation
,
. For the convenience, we denote the permutation
by
. In [
19], every permutation can be denoted by a product of disjoint cycles. For example,
. Specially,
. The product
of two permutations is the composition function
followed by
, e.g.,
. For terminology and notation not defined here, we follow [
19]. Now we give the definition of
n-dimensional leaf-sort graphs
.
Let
, and let
be the symmetric group on
containing all permutations
of
. It is well known that
is a generating set for
. So
(
n is odd.) is also a generating set for
and
(
n is even.) is also a generating set for
. The
n-dimensional leaf-sort graph
is the graph with vertex set
in which two vertices
are adjacent if and only if
, or
when
j is even and
n is odd, or
when
j and
n are even. By the definition, we can get
is a
-regular graph on
vertices for odd
n, and
-regular graph on
vertices for even
n. The graphs
,
and
are depicted in
Figure 1.
We can partition
into
n subgraphs
where every vertex
has a fixed integer
i in the last position
for
. It is obvious that
is isomorphic to
for
[
20]. The edges whose end vertices in different
are called cross-edges. Two edges are said to be independent if they are not adjacent. For any
, we denote
,
, and
, which are called outgoing neighbors of
u. Denote
for
.
Proposition 2.1.([
20]) Let
be defined as above. Then there are
independent cross-edges between two different
when
n is odd; there are
independent cross-edges between two different
when
n is even.
Proposition 2.2. ([
20]) Let
which be defined as above. Then
and
belong to two different
’s
when
n is odd;
belong to
when
n is even.
Proposition 2.3. For any , when n is odd; when n is even.
Proof. Let and , where for some . Then , . Moreover, and . Hence when n is odd, ; when n is even, .
Proposition 2.4.([
20]) For any integer
,
is bipartite.
Proposition 2.5. For any two vertices , .
Proof. If or , then ; Otherwise ), there will be a 3-circle or , a contradiction. So we consider . Next, we proof this result by induction on n.
For , as and .
For , if , as and . If , , let and , we know . If or , then . Thus .
Now we assume and the result holds for . If for , then by Proposition and the inductive hypothesis, the result holds. So we let , , , . Then , , , . We know and . Since , and . As and , we can assume .
When n is odd. If , then , . Thus and , , . So . If and adjacent to x, then , . Thus . Furthermore, if and only if , there will be , this is similar to the situation . When , . So when n is odd, this result holds.
When n is even. Note that . If or , then . Thus .
In summary, this proposition is proven.
Corollary 2.6. When is even, if x and y belong to two different subgraphs in , then .
Corollary 2.7. When is odd, for any two vertices , where , . Then if and only if or .
Proposition 2.8.([
20]) Let
be the leaf-sort graph. Then the connectivity
when
n is odd and
when
n is even.
Lemma 1. ([
21]) Let
with
when
n is odd
and
when
n is even
. If
is disconnected, then
satisfies one of the following conditions:
has two components, one of which is a singleton;
has three components, two of which are singletons.
The conclusion of Lemma 1 is closely linked to the proof of m-component connectivity of , that is why we listed it first. Next, we will discuss the component connectivity of .
3. The 3-component connectivity of
In this section, we will discuss the 3-component connectivity of , and will prove that: when n is odd, for ; When n is even, for . Before proving our main results, we prove some useful lemmas firstly. Let S is a subset of , if any two vertices and in S are nonadjacent, we call S an independent set. For convenience, we can simply write the independent set as -set.
Lemma 3.1. When n is odd, if , then there exists only vertices in , which can satisfy that ; When n is even, if , then there exists only vertices in such that . In addition, these vertices are all regular.
Proof. Note that . When n is odd, is even, . Since , by Corollary 2.6, we know that must belong to a common subgraph in ; Otherwise, if are in different subgraphs in , then . So we can assume , . Now we let , , then , , is odd. Since , by the proof process of Proposition 2.5, we know have two different situations:
Case 1. belong to two different subgraphs in , and or .
In this case, we have . If , then . Thus . If , then . Thus .
Case 2. belong to the same subgraph in .
In this case, we have , , . As , is even, , we can get belong to a common subgraph in . Then . Let , , then , and . As is odd, there are two different situations:
Subcase 2.1. belong to two different subgraphs in , and or .
If , we can get . Thus . If , then . Thus .
Subcase 2.2. belong to a same subgraph in .
This case is similar to case 2, this is a finite cycle process.
Finally, when n is odd, we can get vertices such that , they are , , , ,…,, .
When n is even, is odd, . Let , , . Assume , , then , , similarly, we can also divide it into two different situations:
Case 1. belong to two different subgraphs in , and or .
In this case, we have . If , then . Thus . If , then . Thus .
Case 2. belong to a same subgraph in .
In this case, . Since and , and are in a same subgraph in . So . Let , , then , , is odd. As , we can also consider the following two situations:
Subcase 2.1. and belong to two different subgraphs in , and or .
If , then . Thus
. If , then . Thus .
Subcase 2.2. and belong to a same subgraph in .
This case is similar to case 2, this is also a finite cycle process.
Finally, when n is even, we can get vertices such that , they are , , ,
, …, , .
Corollary 3.2. Let is an n-dimension leaf-sort graph, . If , and , then .
Lemma 3.3. For , let S is an -set and , then when n is odd, ; when n is even, .
Proof. Let , as S is an -set, so and are nonadjacent. By Proposition 2.5 and the definition of , we know that and is a -regular graph is odd) or -regular graph is even). So when n is odd, . When n is even, .
Corollary 3.4. For , let F is a subset of ) and when n is odd, ; when n is even, , then contains a big component C, which satisfies .
Theorem 1. For , when n is odd, ; when n is even, .
Proof. For , since , we can get by Proposition 2.8. For , by Corollary 3.4, we can also get when n is odd and when n is even. Next, we will prove that: when n is odd, and when n is even, . Since , we can choose two different vertices , which can satisfy the condition . From the definition of , we know that is a -regular is odd) and -regular graph is even), so when n is odd, ; when n is even, . Thus let , we know contains three components and two of them only has a singleton. So we can get is odd) and is even).
4. The 4-component connectivity of
Lemma 4.1. When , let S is an -set and , .
Proof. Let , since S is an -set, are nonadjacent with each other. Note that , . Next, we will think about the following three cases.
Case 1. belong to the same subgraph .
In this case, since and S is an -set, . By Proposition 2.3, we know the outgoing neighbors of are different. Thus, .
Case 2. belong to two different subgraphs , .
In this case, we can let
,
. Since
and
are nonadjacent, we can get
,
. By the definition of
, we know
only has one outgoing neighbor. If the structure shown in
Figure 2 (a) exists,
. Now we can show that this structure does not exist. As
and
, we assume
, then
or
. Thus
,
, the structure shown in
Figure 2 (a) does not exist. Thus
.
Case 3. belong to three different subgraphs , , are different from each other).
In this case, we can let . By the definition of , we know , thus .
Combining the above three situations, we can get .
Lemma 4.2. When , let S is an -set and , .
Proof. Let , since S is an -set, are nonadjacent with each other. Note that . We think about the following three cases.
Case 1. belong to the same subgraph .
Since , by Lemma 4.1, we can get . By the definition of and Proposition 2.3, we know the outgoing neighbors of are different and every vertex has two different outgoing neighbors. Thus .
Case 2. belong to two different subgraphs , .
In this case, we can let
,
. Since
, by Lemma 3.3, we know that
. By Proposition 2.8, we can get
. By Proposition 2.2, we can get
and
have at most two neighbors which belong to
. In other words, there are at least two neighbors of
and
belong to
. If the structure shown in
Figure 2 (b) exists, then
. Furthermore,
if and only if this structure exists. Now, we can prove this structure does not exist.
Since , and , by Corollary 2.6, we can know that must belong to a common subgraph in . So we can assume , . As the subgraph of is isomorphic to , thus or are different from each other).
If , then , . Since , and one of the two outgoing neighbors of belong to , we can get . Thus . As are adjacent to , so or or . When , , , and is adjacent to . Since , , , . When , , , and is adjacent to . Since , and , , . When , , , and is adjacent to . Since , and , , . So this structure does not exist.
If , then , . Since , and one of the two outgoing neighbors of belong to , we can get . Thus . As are adjacent to , so or or . When , , , and is adjacent to . Since , , , . When , , , and is adjacent to . Since , and , , . When , , , and is adjacent to . Since , and , , .
Thus the structure shown in
Figure 2 (b) does not exist,
.
Case 3. belong to three different subgraphs , , are different from each other).
Without loss of generality, we can let , , . By the definition of , we can get , thus .
Combining the above three situations, we can get .
Lemma 4.3. When n is odd, let is an -set, where , and . Then .
Proof. When
n is odd,
occurs if and only if the structure in
Figure 3 appears. Next, we will prove that these structures can not appear.
Firstly, we prove that the structure shown in
Figure 3 (a) does not exist. Suppose on the contrary, we assume this structure exists and
, then
,
. As
, by the proof process of Lemma 3.3, we can know that
must have three common neighbors in
. Note that
n is odd, then
is even, and
. By Corollary 2.6, we can get
must belong to a common subgraph in
; Otherwise, if
belong to two different subgraphs in
, then
, a contradiction. So
,
,
,
,
. By Corollary 3.2, we know
. As one of the two outgoing neighbors of
and
belong to a common subgraph with
, so
and
. Now we assume
. As one of the two outgoing neighbors of
belongs to
, so
or
. When
,
,
. In this situation,
,
, since
, we have
,
. Thus this structure does not exist. When
, as
are adjacent to
, we can get
,
, this contradicts to the fact
, thus this structure does not exist.
Next we will prove that the structure in
Figure 3 (b) does not exist. Similarly, we know that
,
,
and
. We let
, then
,
. Thus
and
, the structure in
Figure 3 (b) does not exist.
Lemma 4.4. When n is even, let is an -set, where , and . Then .
Proof. When
n is even,
occurs if and only if the structure in
Figure 4 appears. Next, we will prove that this structure does not exist. Note that
,
is odd.
Suppose on the contrary, we assume this structure exists, as , we know must have three common neighbors in by Lemma 3.3. Now, we let , . By Corollary 3.2, we know and . Thus , , and can not belong to a common subgraph in , this contradicts to this structure. Thus .
Lemma 4.5. When , let S is an -set and , then when n is odd, ; when n is even, .
Proof. Let , since S is an -set, are nonadjacent with each other. We proof this result by induction on n. By Lemma and Lemma , we know when , this result holds. Now we assume that and the result holds for . Note that . Next, we think about the following three cases:
Case 1. belong to a same subgraph .
When n is odd, by induction hypothesis, we have . By Proposition 2.3 and the definition of , we know the neighbors of in are different and every vertex has two outgoing neighbors. Thus .
When n is even, by induction hypothesis, we have . By Proposition 2.3 and the definition of , we know the neighbors of in are different and every vertex has only one outgoing neighbor. Thus .
Case 2. belong to two different subgraphs , .
In this case, we can let
,
. By Lemma
, we can get: when
n is odd,
; when
n is even,
. By Proposition 2.8, we know when
n is odd,
; when
n is even,
. When
n is odd, by Proposition 2.2, we know
have at most two outgoing neighbors can belong to
, in another word, there are at least two outgoing neighbors of
can belong to
. So
. By Lemma 4.3, we know
, thus
. When
n is even, if the structure of
Figure 4 exist, then
. By Lemma 4.4, we know this structure does not exist, so
.
Case 3. belong to three different subgraphs , , are different from each other).
Without loss of generality, we can let , , . By Proposition 2.8, we have when n is odd, ; when n is even, . Thus when n is odd, ; when n is even, .
Thus the result holds.
Corollary 4.6. When n is even, let is an -set, if , then belong to a same subgraph in .
Lemma 4.7. For , if , then contains a big component C, which satisfies the result .
Proof. We are not going to think about is connected for the moment, so we assume that is disconnected. Let for with , where . If , then and is connected. By Proposition , we know there exists a vertex in , which has neighbor in . So is connected, a contradiction. Hence we consider . Since , we have , , , , . Firstly, we proof the following Claim is correct.
Claim 1. If for some , then is connected.
Proof of Claim 1. By Proposition , we can get is connected for each . On the other hand, as , we can get , which implies for . Hence is connected.
Since , by Claim 1, we can get is connected. If and are all connected, we know is connected. As , is connected. As , we have is connected. Since is disconnected, at least one of is disconnected, which leads to the following two cases.
Note that if , by Proposition , we can get has a big component and at most two vertices, which has a neighbor in . Thus, if or is connected, then satisfies the condition . If and are all disconnected, then satisfies the condition . Hence we only think about this situation: .
Case 1. Both and are disconnected.
In this case, we know . Since , . Hence , . By Corollary 3.4, we know has a big component and a singleton . By Lemma 1, should consider the following two situations: has two components, one of which is a singleton. has three components, two of which are singletons. For , let is the big component and is the singleton of , since and , by Proposition , we can get is connected. Similarly, we can also get is connected. Thus the result holds. For , let is the big component and , are singletons of . If is nonadjacent to , then are three singletons in . By Lemma , we can get , this contradicts to the fact . If is adjacent to , say , then only has two components; Otherwise, we let has three components, then is a singleton in . By Proposition 2.5, we have , a contradiction. Thus the result holds.
Case 2. Only is disconnected.
Since , . As is disconnected, we have and then . If , then , , a contradiction. Thus . Since , is connected. As , by Corollary , we know has a big component S and at most one singleton. By the same argument as that of Case 1, we can get is connected. Then must satisfies condition .
Case 3. Only is disconnected.
In this case, we have by Proposition and since and . As , we have is connected.
If , by Lemma 1, has a big component S and one single and two singletons. By the same argument as that of Case 1, we can get is connected. Then must be one of conditions and .
Now, we suppose . Then . Let W be the union of components of , whose vertices, which are totally contained in , are not connected with . By Proposition and Proposition , we know , which implies . Thus satisfies or .
Combing the above three cases, we know this result holds.
Lemma 4.8. For , if , then contains a big component C, which satisfies the result .
Proof. Similarly, we do not think about the situation is connected, so we let is disconnected. Let for with , where . If , then and is connected. By Proposition , we can get is connected. So we assume . Since , we have , , , , , . Firstly, we proof the following Claim is correct.
Claim 2. If , then is connected.
Proof of Claim 2. By Proposition , we know is connected for each . On the other hand, since for , we can get . Thus is connected.
By Claim 2, we know is connected. If both and are connected, we can get is connected. As , and is connected, thus is connected. Since is disconnected, at least one of is disconnected, which leads to the following cases.
Case 1. Both and are disconnected.
In this case, we know . By Corollary 3.4, we know that has a big component and one singleton . As . Thus is connected. Similarly, we can get is also connected. Thus the result holds.
Case 2. Only is disconnected.
As is disconnected, we have and then . Since , is connected. Since , by Corollary 3.4, has a big component C and one singleton. Since , we can get is connected. Then must be one of conditions .
Case 3. Only is disconnected.
In this case, , . As , we have is connected.
If , by Lemma , has a big component C with . By the same argument as that of Case 2, we can get is connected. Thus the result holds.
If , then . Let W be the union of components of , whose vertices, which are totally contained in , and are not connected with . By Proposition and Proposition , we have . Thus the result holds.
Lemma 4.9. Let for odd n and for even n, then contains a big component C, which satisfies that .
Proof. By Lemma and Lemma , the result holds for . We proof this result by induction on n. Assume and the result holds for . Now we suppose is disconnected for any with or . Let for with , where .
When n is odd, if , then and is connected, and thus, by Proposition , we can get is connected. Now we assume ; When n is even, if , then and is connected, and thus, by Proposition , we can get is connected. Now we assume .
Claim 3. When n is even, if , then is connected; When n is odd, if , then is connected;
Proof of Claim 3. By Proposition , we know is connected for each . On the other hand, since for is even) and for is odd), we can get . Thus is connected.
Since is even) and is odd), we have for even n and for odd n. By Claim 3, we can get is connected. If and are all connected, as is even) and is odd), then is connected. Similarly, we can also get is connected. So at least one of is disconnected, which leads to the following cases.
Note that, when n is odd, if , by the same argument of Lemma 4.7, we know satisfies condition or . Hence we assume that .
Case 1. Both and are disconnected.
When n is even, we have . By Corollary 3.4, we know and all have a big component and one singleton. As , , Thus is connected, the result holds.
When n is odd, we have .So by Lemma 1, we would consider the following three subcases: Both and have three components, two of which are singletons; Only one of and has three components, two of which are singletons; Both and have two components, one of which is singleton. Now, we just proof the first subcase and the other two subcases could be proved by the same argument. Let (resp., ) be the two singletons and the other big component of (resp., ). Since and , by Proposition , we know is connected. Similarly, we can get is connected.
If are four singletons in , then by Proposition , we know , a contradiction.
If has three singletons, then by Lemma , we can get , this contradicts to the fact . So has two singletons or only one singleton.
Claim 4. If has at least one edge, say , then only has two components.
Proof of Claim 4. Suppose has at least three components. Then is a singleton or . If is a singleton, then , a contradiction. If , then , a contradiction.
Thus, by Claim 4, the result holds.
Case 2. Only is disconnected.
As is disconnected, we have for even n and for odd n, then is even) and is odd). Since is even) and is odd), is connected. Since , when n is even, by Corollary 3.4, we know has a big component C and one singleton; When n is odd, by Lemma 1, we know has a big component C and at most two singletons. By the same argument as that of Case 1, we can get is connected. Then must be one of conditions and .
Case 3. Only is disconnected.
In this case, for even n and for odd n. As is even) and is odd), we have is connected.
When n is even, if , by introduction, we know has a big component C with . By the same argument as that of Case 1, we can get is connected. Thus the result holds. If , then . Let W be the union of components of , whose vertices, which are totally contained in , and are not connected with . By Proposition and Proposition , we have . Thus the result holds.
When n is odd, if , by introduction, has a big component C with . By the same argument as that of Case 1, we can get is connected. Thus the result holds. If , then . Let W be the union of components of , whose vertices, which are totally contained in , and are not connected with . By Proposition , . Then we have . Thus the result holds.
Theorem 2. For , when n is odd, ; when n is even, .
Proof. By Lemma 1, we have . For , by Lemma , we can get when n is odd, ; when n is even, . Next, we will prove that and . For , if we let , then has three singletons: . Thus . For , when n is odd, let , where , , , then and there are three singletons in . Thus when n is odd, . When n is even, let , where , , , then and . As belong to a common subgraph, by Proposition 2.3, we know have different outgoing neighbors. So and are three singletons in . Thus when n is even, .
5. The 5-component connectivity of
Lemma 5.1. For , let S is an -set and , then .
Proof. Let , since S is an -set, are nonadjacent to each other. As , we know can not belong to a same subgraph of . So we need think about the following cases:
Case 1: belong to two different subgraphs of .
In this case, we can divide it into two subcases:
Subcase 1.1: There are two subgraphs of which contain only two vertices of S. Without loss of generality, we can let , . By the definition of , . Now we let , then or . Thus , or . Hence and can not belong to a common subgraph of . Similarly, we know and can not belong to a common subgraph of . If or belong to and adjacent to , meanwhile or belong to and adjacent to , then . Now, we illustrate this structure exists. Let , , then is adjacent to , is adjacent to . Thus .
Subcase 1.2: There is a subgraph of which contains three vertices of S. In this subcase, we can let , . We let , , , then , , . Clearly, , . If and is adjacent to , meanwhile is adjacent to , then . Let , then . Thus is adjacent to and is adjacent to . Thus .
Case 2: belong to three different subgraphs of .
In this case, there exists a subgraph which must contains two vertices of S. Now we can let , , . Then , , .
Case 3: belong to four different subgraphs of .
In this case, we can let , then . Thus .
Combing the above three cases, we have .
Lemma 5.2. When n is odd, let is an -set and , . If , then .
Proof. Since , by the proof process of Lemma 3.3, we know have three common neighbors in . So by Lemma 3.1, we can let , , where and . Then , , , . By Proposition 2.3 and Proposition 2.2, we have , . Then we think about the following three cases:
Case 1: .
In this case, we can easily get .
Case 2: .
In this case, only one of the outgoing neighbors of belong to . So or . We assume , then . If , then . If , one of the outgoing neighbors of must belong to , we assume or belong to , then or . When , then by the proof process of Lemma 3.1, we can let , where and . Thus , , , . Then . Since , . Thus as , , . When , then by the proof process of Lemma 3.1, we can let , where and . Then , , , , . Since , , we know . As and , then , , . Thus .
Case 3: .
In this case, two outgoing neighbors of belong to . Thus and . Now we let , then , where and . If , clearly . If , the proof process is similar to Case 2, we can get . So we let , then one of the outgoing neighbors of and belong to , we assume or . When , we can get , so . By Corollary 3.2, we know and can not have three common neighbors in , so , . Since , and , we have , , , . Thus .
Lemma 5.3. When n is odd, let is an -set and , . If , , then .
Proof. Since , , is even and , by Corollary 4.6, we know must belong to a common subgraph in . So we let , , . Then , , , , , . If , then . Thus we assume , then one of the two outgoing neighbors of must belong to a common subgraph of , we need to think about the following two situations:
Case 1: and .
In this case, we let , then , . If and , then as and , , . If one of the two outgoing neighbors of belong to , we can assume or . If , since , we know are adjacent to , so , , , this contradicts to the fact that are different from each other. So , then , . Hence , , , . Thus .
Case 2: Let , and .
In this case, , , . Then , , , , , . We let , then , . If and , then as , , . If one of the two outgoing neighbors of belong to , we can assume or . When , as are adjacent to , so , , , this contracts to the fact are different from each other. So , , . Then , , , . Thus .
Lemma 5.4. When n is odd, let is an -set and , , are different from each other). If , then .
Proof. If
, the structure in
Figure 5 must exists. Now we can proof this structure does not exist. As
, we can get
must have three common neighbors in
. So we can assume
, then by Lemma 3.1, we can let
, where
and
. Then
,
,
,
. Since
and
,
can not belong to a common subgraph with
or
. Thus the structure in
Figure 5 does not exist,
.
Lemma 5.5. For , let S is an -set and , then .
Proof. Let , since S is an -set, are nonadjacent to each other. Note that . Now we think about the following four cases:
Case 1: belong to a same subgraph .
By Lemma 5.1, we have . By Proposition 2.3, we know . Thus .
Case 2: belong to two different subgraphs , .
In this case, we need to think about the following two situations:
Subcase 2.1: , .
By Lemma 3.3, we can get , . By Lemma 5.2, we have .
Subcase 2.2: , .
By Lemma 4.1, we have , . By Lemma 5.3, we know . Thus .
Case 3: belong to three different subgraphs , , are different from each other).
In this case, there exists a subgraph , which contains two vertices of S, we let . Clearly, , . Thus, by Lemma 5.4, we have .
Case 4: belong to four different subgraphs.
In this case, we can let . Clearly, , thus .
Combing the above four cases, we can get .
Lemma 5.6. For , let S is an -set and , then .
Proof. Let , since S is an -set, are nonadjacent to each other. Note that . Now we think about the following four cases:
Case 1: belong to a same subgraph .
By Lemma , we can get . By the definition of , we know every vertex in has only one outgoing neighbor. Thus .
Case 2: belong to two different subgraphs , .
In this case, we also need to think about the following two situations:
Subcase 2.1: , .
By Lemma 3.3, we can get , . Thus .
Subcase 2.2: , .
By Lemma 4.2, we have , . Thus .
Case 3: belong to three different subgraphs , , are different from each other).
In this case, there exists a subgraph , which contains two vertices of S, we let . Clearly, , . Thus, .
Case 4: belong to four different subgraphs.
In this case, we can let . Clearly, , thus .
Combing the above four cases, we can get .
Lemma 5.7. For , let S is an