The number of non-isomorphic subgraphs of K3 is only 7












1












$begingroup$


This comes from a book called Introduction to Graph Theory (Dover Books on Mathematics) at the end of the first chapter we are asked to draw all 17 subgraphs of k3 which is pretty easy to do. however the next problem 22 asks The number of non-isomorphic subgraphs of K3 is only 7. Draw them. I do not quite understand what I am comparing the subgraphs to. I could for instance say compare K3 with say another graph proving the 2 graphs are not isomorphic by comparing their subgraphs alternatively I could compare the k3 subgraphs to each other in which case I end up with 7 distinct types of subgraphs:




  1. 3 vertices 3 edges

  2. 3 vertices 2 edges

  3. 3 vertices 0 edges

  4. 2 vertices 1 edges

  5. 2 vertices 0 edges

  6. 1 vertices 0 edges

  7. 3 vertices 1 edges


is the list above the correct answer?






graph-theory graph-isomorphism







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    This comes from a book called Introduction to Graph Theory (Dover Books on Mathematics) at the end of the first chapter we are asked to draw all 17 subgraphs of k3 which is pretty easy to do. however the next problem 22 asks The number of non-isomorphic subgraphs of K3 is only 7. Draw them. I do not quite understand what I am comparing the subgraphs to. I could for instance say compare K3 with say another graph proving the 2 graphs are not isomorphic by comparing their subgraphs alternatively I could compare the k3 subgraphs to each other in which case I end up with 7 distinct types of subgraphs:




    1. 3 vertices 3 edges

    2. 3 vertices 2 edges

    3. 3 vertices 0 edges

    4. 2 vertices 1 edges

    5. 2 vertices 0 edges

    6. 1 vertices 0 edges

    7. 3 vertices 1 edges


    is the list above the correct answer?






    graph-theory graph-isomorphism







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      This comes from a book called Introduction to Graph Theory (Dover Books on Mathematics) at the end of the first chapter we are asked to draw all 17 subgraphs of k3 which is pretty easy to do. however the next problem 22 asks The number of non-isomorphic subgraphs of K3 is only 7. Draw them. I do not quite understand what I am comparing the subgraphs to. I could for instance say compare K3 with say another graph proving the 2 graphs are not isomorphic by comparing their subgraphs alternatively I could compare the k3 subgraphs to each other in which case I end up with 7 distinct types of subgraphs:




      1. 3 vertices 3 edges

      2. 3 vertices 2 edges

      3. 3 vertices 0 edges

      4. 2 vertices 1 edges

      5. 2 vertices 0 edges

      6. 1 vertices 0 edges

      7. 3 vertices 1 edges


      is the list above the correct answer?






      graph-theory graph-isomorphism







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      This comes from a book called Introduction to Graph Theory (Dover Books on Mathematics) at the end of the first chapter we are asked to draw all 17 subgraphs of k3 which is pretty easy to do. however the next problem 22 asks The number of non-isomorphic subgraphs of K3 is only 7. Draw them. I do not quite understand what I am comparing the subgraphs to. I could for instance say compare K3 with say another graph proving the 2 graphs are not isomorphic by comparing their subgraphs alternatively I could compare the k3 subgraphs to each other in which case I end up with 7 distinct types of subgraphs:




      1. 3 vertices 3 edges

      2. 3 vertices 2 edges

      3. 3 vertices 0 edges

      4. 2 vertices 1 edges

      5. 2 vertices 0 edges

      6. 1 vertices 0 edges

      7. 3 vertices 1 edges


      is the list above the correct answer?






      graph-theory graph-isomorphism




      graph-theory graph-isomorphism






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 20 at 17:53







      liminal18

















      asked Jan 20 at 14:58









      liminal18liminal18

      1084




      1084






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          You are correct that you are comparing the subgraphs to one another. The goal is to decide which of the 17 labelled (i.e., the vertices have labels) subgraphs of $K_3$ are isomorphic to one another. The isomorphism relation is an equivalence relation, and the really important aspect of that for us is transitivity. That means that if $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_2$ and $G_2$ is isomorphic to $G_3$, then $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_3$. This drastically cuts down on the number of pairs of graphs you have to investigate.



          Here are three subgraphs of $K_3$ (the numbers are labeled vertices and the hyphens are edges):



          1-2-3



          2-3-1



          3-1-2



          If you remove the vertex labels, however, they all look like:



          x-x-x (the path on three vertices, $P_3$)



          Since the graphs are identical when labels are removed, they are all isomorphic to one another. You can say they belong to the same isomorphism class.



          Another subgraph of $K_3$ is $K_3$ itself. Even when you remove the vertex labels, you will be able to tell that it is a different graph than $P_3$. It is not isomorphic to $P_3$, and therefore belongs in a different isomorphism class.



          Continue making these sorts of comparisons until all 17 labelled graphs live in exactly one isomorphism class.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3080682%2fthe-number-of-non-isomorphic-subgraphs-of-k3-is-only-7%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            1












            $begingroup$

            You are correct that you are comparing the subgraphs to one another. The goal is to decide which of the 17 labelled (i.e., the vertices have labels) subgraphs of $K_3$ are isomorphic to one another. The isomorphism relation is an equivalence relation, and the really important aspect of that for us is transitivity. That means that if $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_2$ and $G_2$ is isomorphic to $G_3$, then $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_3$. This drastically cuts down on the number of pairs of graphs you have to investigate.



            Here are three subgraphs of $K_3$ (the numbers are labeled vertices and the hyphens are edges):



            1-2-3



            2-3-1



            3-1-2



            If you remove the vertex labels, however, they all look like:



            x-x-x (the path on three vertices, $P_3$)



            Since the graphs are identical when labels are removed, they are all isomorphic to one another. You can say they belong to the same isomorphism class.



            Another subgraph of $K_3$ is $K_3$ itself. Even when you remove the vertex labels, you will be able to tell that it is a different graph than $P_3$. It is not isomorphic to $P_3$, and therefore belongs in a different isomorphism class.



            Continue making these sorts of comparisons until all 17 labelled graphs live in exactly one isomorphism class.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              1












              $begingroup$

              You are correct that you are comparing the subgraphs to one another. The goal is to decide which of the 17 labelled (i.e., the vertices have labels) subgraphs of $K_3$ are isomorphic to one another. The isomorphism relation is an equivalence relation, and the really important aspect of that for us is transitivity. That means that if $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_2$ and $G_2$ is isomorphic to $G_3$, then $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_3$. This drastically cuts down on the number of pairs of graphs you have to investigate.



              Here are three subgraphs of $K_3$ (the numbers are labeled vertices and the hyphens are edges):



              1-2-3



              2-3-1



              3-1-2



              If you remove the vertex labels, however, they all look like:



              x-x-x (the path on three vertices, $P_3$)



              Since the graphs are identical when labels are removed, they are all isomorphic to one another. You can say they belong to the same isomorphism class.



              Another subgraph of $K_3$ is $K_3$ itself. Even when you remove the vertex labels, you will be able to tell that it is a different graph than $P_3$. It is not isomorphic to $P_3$, and therefore belongs in a different isomorphism class.



              Continue making these sorts of comparisons until all 17 labelled graphs live in exactly one isomorphism class.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                You are correct that you are comparing the subgraphs to one another. The goal is to decide which of the 17 labelled (i.e., the vertices have labels) subgraphs of $K_3$ are isomorphic to one another. The isomorphism relation is an equivalence relation, and the really important aspect of that for us is transitivity. That means that if $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_2$ and $G_2$ is isomorphic to $G_3$, then $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_3$. This drastically cuts down on the number of pairs of graphs you have to investigate.



                Here are three subgraphs of $K_3$ (the numbers are labeled vertices and the hyphens are edges):



                1-2-3



                2-3-1



                3-1-2



                If you remove the vertex labels, however, they all look like:



                x-x-x (the path on three vertices, $P_3$)



                Since the graphs are identical when labels are removed, they are all isomorphic to one another. You can say they belong to the same isomorphism class.



                Another subgraph of $K_3$ is $K_3$ itself. Even when you remove the vertex labels, you will be able to tell that it is a different graph than $P_3$. It is not isomorphic to $P_3$, and therefore belongs in a different isomorphism class.



                Continue making these sorts of comparisons until all 17 labelled graphs live in exactly one isomorphism class.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                You are correct that you are comparing the subgraphs to one another. The goal is to decide which of the 17 labelled (i.e., the vertices have labels) subgraphs of $K_3$ are isomorphic to one another. The isomorphism relation is an equivalence relation, and the really important aspect of that for us is transitivity. That means that if $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_2$ and $G_2$ is isomorphic to $G_3$, then $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_3$. This drastically cuts down on the number of pairs of graphs you have to investigate.



                Here are three subgraphs of $K_3$ (the numbers are labeled vertices and the hyphens are edges):



                1-2-3



                2-3-1



                3-1-2



                If you remove the vertex labels, however, they all look like:



                x-x-x (the path on three vertices, $P_3$)



                Since the graphs are identical when labels are removed, they are all isomorphic to one another. You can say they belong to the same isomorphism class.



                Another subgraph of $K_3$ is $K_3$ itself. Even when you remove the vertex labels, you will be able to tell that it is a different graph than $P_3$. It is not isomorphic to $P_3$, and therefore belongs in a different isomorphism class.



                Continue making these sorts of comparisons until all 17 labelled graphs live in exactly one isomorphism class.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jan 20 at 18:40









                Austin MohrAustin Mohr

                20.4k35098




                20.4k35098






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3080682%2fthe-number-of-non-isomorphic-subgraphs-of-k3-is-only-7%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

                    Image
                    28 6 $begingroup$ Per the Font of Magic feature, sorcerer can use Flexible Casting to create 5th-level spell slots at level 7, even though they are not typically available until level 9. You can transform unexpended sorcery points into one spell slot as a bonus action on your turn. The Creating Spell Slots table shows the cost of creating a spell slot of [5th level is 7] If such a sorcerer levels up while still having this 5th-level spell slot, can they choose a 5th-level spell as the spell they gain upon levelling up? The Spellcasting feature states: Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
                    Read more

                    Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

                    Image
                    up vote 13 down vote favorite 1 After the 2018 errata, the disintegrate spell description now reads: A creature targeted by this spell must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage. The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points. If you were to polymorph an enemy into a rat and then disintegrate it, would the enemy be disintegrated or would it just return to its original form? I know that for Druids, it’s not an instant kill anymore, but is this the case for polymorph as well? dnd-5e spells polymorph errata share | improve this question edited 18 hours ago
                    Read more

                    A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$

                    Image
                    3 3 $begingroup$ Recently, I saw a construction of topological invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$ with $ngeq 2$ : $$ N=frac{1}{24pi^2}int_{S^3} d^3x epsilon^{ijk} Tr[(U^{-1}partial_{x_i}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_j}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_k}U)] , $$ where $Uin U(n)$ depends on $boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)in S^3$ , $epsilon^{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, $i,j,k=1,2,3$ , and the duplicated indexes are summed over. It is claimed that $N$ is an integer, but why? Update 02/02/2019 I think I got an argument for $n=2$ . In this case, $U=e^{i varphi} q$ with $qin SU(2)$ . Due to the trace and the Levi-Civita symbol in $N$ , $varphi$ does not contribute to $N$ . As $Tr[q^{dagger}partial_i q]=0$ and $(q^{dagger}partial_i q)^{dagger}=-q^{dagger}partial_i q$ , $q^{dagger}partial_i q$ in geneeral has the form $q^{dagger}partia
                    Read more