Skip to Main Content

Let H be a connected subgraph of a connected graph G. The H-structure connectivity of the graph G, denoted by κ(G;H), is the minimum cardinality of a minimal set of subgraphs F={H1,H2,,Hm} in G, such that every HiF is isomorphic to H and removal of F from G will disconnect G. The H-substructure connectivity of the graph G, denoted by κs(G;H), is the minimum cardinality of a minimal set of subgraphs F={J1,J2,,Jm} in G, such that every JiF is a connected subgraph of H and removal of F from G will disconnect G. In this paper, we provide the H-structure and the H-substructure connectivity of the circulant graph Cir(n,Ω) where Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1},1kn2 and the hypercube Qn for some connected subgraphs H.

A simple graph G=(V,E) is a finite nonempty set V(G) of objects called vertices together with a (possibly empty) set E(G) of unordered pairs of distinct vertices of G called edges. Two distinct vertices u,vV(G) are said to be adjacent in G if u and v are connected by an edge and it is represented by {u,v}E(G). A graph G is said to be trivial if it contains only one vertex and no edges. The connectivity is an important indicator of the reliability and fault tolerability of a network. The vertex connectivity of a connected graph G, denoted by κ(G), is the minimum cardinality of a vertex subset SV(G), whose removal would disconnect G or G\S is the trivial graph. As a generalization of the vertex connectivity κ(G), Cheng-Kuan Lin et al. [6] introduced two new kinds of connectivity, called structure connectivity and substructure connectivity. A set F of connected subgraphs of a graph G is a subgraph-cut of G if G\V(F) is a disconnected graph or K1. Let H be a connected subgraph of G. Then F is an H-structure cut if F is a subgraph cut, and every element in F is isomorphic to H. The H -structure connectivity of G, denoted by κ(G;H), is defined to be the minimum cardinality of all H-structure cuts of G. F is an H-substructure cut if F is a subgraph-cut, and every element in F is isomorphic to a connected subgraph of H. The H-substructure connectivity of G, denoted by κs(G;H), is the minimum cardinality of all H-substructure cuts of G. Since every H-structure cut is an H-substructure cut κs(G;H)κ(G;H). If H=K1 then we have κ(G;H)=κs(G;H).

The vertex connectivity κ(G)κs(G;H) for every subgraph H of G whereas the relation between vertex connectivity and structure connectivity depends on H. For the graph G, given in Figure 1, κ(G)=2, the structure connectivity of G with respect to the cycle of length 5,κ(G;C5)=1 and the structure connectivity of G with respect to the cycle of length 4,κ(G;C4)=3.

Figure 1

κ(G)=2,κ(G;C5)=1,κ(G;C4)=3.

Figure 1

κ(G)=2,κ(G;C5)=1,κ(G;C4)=3.

Close modal

Let Γ be a finite group with e as the identity. A generating set of Γ is a subset Ω such that every element of Γ can be expressed as a product of finitely many elements in Ω. Assume that eΩ and aΩ implies a1Ω and such a subset Ω is called as a symmetric generating set of Γ. Hereafter, we assume that Ω is a symmetric generating set of a finite group Γ. A Cayley graph is a graph G=(V,E), where V(G)=Γ and two vertices x and y are adjacent if xy1Ω and it is denoted by Cay(Γ,Ω). The inclusion of the inverse in Ω for every element of Ω means that Cay(Γ,Ω) is undirected. Since Ω is a generating set for Γ, Cay(Γ,Ω) is connected and Cay(Γ,Ω) is a regular graph of degree |Ω|. Cayley graphs are extensively dealt in the literature and various authors including Dejter [3], Lakshmivarahan [4], Lee [5], Tamizh Chelvam [8], and Wang [10] have worked on Cayley graphs. For example, one can refer the survey by Tamizh Chelvam and Sivagami [9] for domination in Cayley graphs. The Cayley graph constructed out of the finite cyclic group n,n2 along with a symmetric generating set Ω is called a circulant graph and the same is denoted by Cir(n,Ω). The hypercube Qn is the Cayley graph defined on the group 2n with the standard orthonormal basis as the generating set. Cheng-Kuan Lin et al. [6] have obtained κ(Qn;H) and κs(Qn;H) for H{K1,K1,1,K1,2,K1,3,C4}. Here, we provide an example in Figure 2, to exhibit a structure cut of the circulant graph Cir(10,{1,2,3,7,8,9}) with respect to K3. In Figure 2, the structure cut is indicated by the dotted lines and note that κs(Cir(10,{1,2,3,7,8,9};K3))=2.

Figure 2

K3-structure cut of Cir (10,{1,2,3,7,8,9}).

Figure 2

K3-structure cut of Cir (10,{1,2,3,7,8,9}).

Close modal

Throughout this paper, GX denotes the removal of a set X of subgraphs from the graph G and G\B denotes the removal of the set BV(G) from the graph G. When X={H}, GX is simply denoted as GH. For a graph G, the open neighborhood N(v) of a vertex vV(G) is the set of all vertices which are adjacent to v. The closed neighborhood of v is N[v]=N(v){v}. Let G1=(V1,E1) and G2=(V2,E2) be two graphs. Then the intersection of G1 and G2, denoted by G1G2, is the graph whose vertex set is V1V2 and the edge set is E1E2. The union of two disjoint vertex sets graphs G1=(V1,E1) and G2=(V2,E2), denoted by G1G2, is the graph whose vertex set is V1V2 and the edge set is E1E2. For basic definitions and properties related to graph theory, one can refer [2]. For undefined definitions related to algebraic graph theory, one can refer [1].

In Section 2, we obtain the H-structure and the H-substructure connectivity of the circulant graph Cir(n,Ω) where Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1}, for 1kn2 with respect to some of its connected subgraphs. For integers n(5) and m with 2mn2, Mane [7] proved that κ(Qn;Ck)nm, where k is a positive even integer with 2m<k<2m+1 and observed that κ(Q4;C6)=2. In Section 3, for n4, we obtain the exact value for κ(Qn;C6).

Throughout this section n(2), m and k are integers such that 1kn2 and Ω={1,2,,k,nk,,n1}. We take the elements of n as n={0,1,,n1}. The following result due to Wang [10] is useful in the paper.

Theorem 2.1

([10, Wang]).Letnandkbe positive integers such that1kn2,Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1}andG=Cir(n,Ω). Thenκ(G)=|Ω|.

By definition and from Theorem 2.1, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 2.2.

Letn(2)andkbe positive integers such that1kn2,Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1}andG=Cir(n,Ω). Thenκ(G;K1)=|Ω|andκs(G;K1)=|Ω|.

A star graph K1,m(m1) is a complete bipartite graph comprised of two partite sets of vertices of sizes 1 and m respectively, such that two vertices are adjacent if and only if they are in different partite sets. If K1,m is a subgraph of Cir(n,Ω), then m|Ω|. If k=n2 and Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1}, then the circulant graph G=Cir(n,Ω) is the complete graph Kn. Now, we obtain the structure connectivity of Kn, as a circulant graph with respect to K1,m. If m+1 does not divide n1, then removal of λK1,m does not disconnect Cir(n,Ω) for any λ. Hence the structure connectivity of Kn with respect to K1,m is meaningful only when m+1 divides n1.

Lemma 2.3.

Letn(2)andkbe positive integers such thatk=n2,Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1}andG=Cir(n,Ω). For a positive integermwithmn2,κs(G;K1,m)=n1m+1. Also,κ(G;K1,m)=n1m+1ifm+1dividesn1.

Proof.

By the assumption on n,k and Ω, Cir(n,Ω)=Kn. By Theorem 2.1, G is (n1)- connected. Let F be a K1,m-substructure cut with minimum cardinality of G=Cir(n,Ω). Suppose κs(G;K1,m)<n1m+1. Then |V(F)|<n1 and G\V(F) is disconnected, which is a contradiction to G is (n1)-connected. Hence κs(G;K1,m)n1m+1.

For 1in1m+11, let Hi be the subgraph of G with i(m+1) as the central vertex and i(m+1)1,,i(m+1)m as the end vertices and hence isomorphic to K1,m. Consider the subgraph Hn1m+1 of G with (n1) as the central vertex and all remaining vertices of (G{H1,,Hn1m+11})\{0,n1} as end vertices. Note that Hn1m+1 is isomorphic to a subgraph of K1,m. Clearly G{H1,,Hn1m+1} is the trivial graph K1. Hence κs(G;K1,m)n1m+1. Thus κs(G;K1,m)=n1m+1.

Suppose m+1 divides n1. As mentioned above in the proof, Hn1m+1 is a subgraph of G isomorphic to K1,m and so κ(G;K1,m)n1m+1. Now n1m+1=κs(G;K1,m)κ(G;K1,m)n1m+1. Hence κ(G;K1,m)=n1m+1. □

In Lemma 2.3, we have considered k=n2 in which case G=Cir(n,Ω) is complete. Now, we consider k<n2, so that G=Cir(n,Ω) can never be complete. By considering k<n2, we determine the structure and substructure connectivity of Cir(n,Ω) with respect to K1,m where m2k.

Theorem 2.4.

Letn(4),kandmbe positive integers such that1k<n2andm2k. LetΩ={1,,k,nk,,n1}andG=Cir(n,Ω). Then the following are equivalent:

  • (i) κs(G;K1,m)=1;

  • (ii) m+1=2k+1=n1;

  • (iii) κ(G;K1,m)=1.

Proof.

Since k<n2, |Ω|=2k<n1.

(i) (ii). Assume that κs(G;K1,m)=1. So that there exists a subgraph K1,t of K1,m for some t,tm2k such that GK1,t is disconnected or a trivial graph. Since G is vertex transitive, one can have the central vertex of K1,t as u=0. Consider the subgraph H of G induced by 〈{0,±1,,±k}〉. The graph GH is connected and the vertices of H other than 0 are adjacent to either k+1 or n(k+1) in G. Note that GH is a subgraph of GK1,t. Suppose t<2k, then GK1,t is connected, which is a contradiction. Hence t=m=2k and GK1,t=GK1,2k. It is easy to observe that the graphs GK1,2k and GH are equal. It is known that m=2kn2. Suppose 2k<n2, then GK1,t=GH is connected, which is a contradiction. This implies that t=m=2k=n2. Hence m+1=2k+1=n1.

(ii) (iii). Assume that m+1=2k+1=n1. For uV(G), deg(u)=2k=n2 and hence G\N[u]=K1. Since |N(u)|=2k=m, K1,m is a subgraph of N[u] and hence removal of N[u] from G is same as removing K1,m from G. Thus κ(G;K1,m)=1.

(iii) (i). Since κs(G;K1,m)κ(G;K1,m)=1, κs(G;K1,m)=1. □

Remark 2.5.

Let n(6) and k be positive integers such that 2k<n2, Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1}, G=Cir(n,Ω) and m2k. Even without the condition n>(m+1)2km+1, one can talk about κs(G;K1,m), whereas it is not so in the case of κ(G;K1,m). For, if n(m+1)2km+1, then for any integer λ with |V(λK1,m)|n, removal of λK1,m does not disconnect G.

Consider n(m+1)2km+1. If λ<2km+1, then |V(λK1,m)|<2k and hence by Theorem 2.1, G is connected after removal of λK1,m from G. On the other hand if λ2km+1, then |V(λK1,m)|(m+1)2km+1n. This along with |V(λK1,m)|n yields |V(λK1,m)|=n. Thus G=λK1,m.

Now, we attempt to obtain κ(Cir(n,Ω);K1,m) and κs(Cir(n,Ω);K1,m), for 2m+1k and Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1}.

Theorem 2.6.

Letn(6)andkbe positive integers such that2k<n2,Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1}andG=Cir(n,Ω). Ifmis an integer such that2m+1kand(m+1)2km+1<n, thenκ(G;K1,m)=2km+1andκs(G;K1,m)=2km+1.

Proof.

Let ai=n(ki+1) for 1ik, ai=ik for k+1i2k and bj=j for k+1jn(k+1). By division algorithm 2k=(m+1)s+r and k=(m+1)h+r for some r and r with 0rm and 0rm.

For 1is=2krm+1, let Hi be defined as follows.

V(Hi)={a(m+1)im,a(m+1)i(m1),,a(m+1)i} and edge set

Further when r0, let Hs+1 be defined as follows.

V(Hs+1)={v1,,vm+1:vi={a2k(ri)if1irbk+irifr+1im+1} and edge set

In G, two vertices u and v are adjacent if and only if u,vn has the property that |uv|k. Since |a(m+1)i(mr)a(m+1)i(mj)|k for every 0jm and |vr+1vj|k for every 1jm+1, Hi is indeed a subgraph of G for every 1is+1.

Note that, each Hi is isomorphic to K1,m. Let H be the union of subgraphs given by H={i=1sHi=i=1sK1,mifr=0;i=1s+1Hi=i=1s+1K1,mifr0.

Note that V(H)=2km+1K1,m, N(0)V(H), GH is disconnected with {0} as one component. Thus, κ(G;K1,m)2km+1 and so κs(G;K1,m)2km+1. By Theorem 2.1, G is 2k-connected. Suppose there exists a set F={H1,,Ht} of subgraphs of G such that every HiF is isomorphic to a subgraph of K1,m, t<2km+1 and GF is disconnected. Let X=V(F). Clearly |X|<2k and by the assumption G\X is disconnected, which is a contradiction to G is 2k-connected.

Thus κs(G;K1,m)2km+1 and so κ(G;K1,m)2km+1. Hence κ(G;K1,m)=κs(G;K1,m)=2km+1. □

Now we obtain κ(Cir(n,Ω);K1,m) and κs(Cir(n,Ω);K1,m), for k<m+12k+1 and Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1}.

Lemma 2.7.

Letn(6)andkbe positive integers such that2k<n2,Ω={1,,k,nk,,n1}andG=Cir(n,Ω). Ifmis an integer withk<m+12k+1andn>(m+1)2km+1, then

Proof.

By Theorem 2.6, κ(G;K1,m)=κs(G;K1,m)=2 for m+1=k. This gives that κ(G;K1,m)2 and so κs(G;K1,m)2 when k<m+12k+1. By Theorem 2.4, κ(G;K1,m)=1=κs(G;K1,m) if and only if m+1=2k+1=n1. Hence for the other cases κ(G;K1,m)2 and κs(G;K1,m)2. Thus,

Now we provide an example for the K1,4-substructure connectivity of the circulant graph Cir(16,{1,2,14,15}) in Figure 3. Here n=16,k=2,m=4 and k<m+1. The substructure cut is F={H1K1,3,H2K1,2}. In Figure 3, the substructure cut F is indicated by the dotted lines.

Figure 3

K1,4-substructure cut of Cir(16,{1,2,14,15}).

Figure 3

K1,4-substructure cut of Cir(16,{1,2,14,15}).

Close modal

The n-dimensional hypercube Qn is the Cayley graph defined on the group 2n with generating set as the standard orthonormal basis. Note that Qn contains 2n vertices and n2n1 edges. Actually two distinct vertices x=(x1x2xn) and y=(y1y2yn) in V(Qn) are adjacent if and only if xiyi for exactly one i (1in). For any vertex x=(x1x2xn) in Qn, let (x)i=(x1ix2ixni) where xji=xj for every ji and xii=1xi. Note that {(x)i}1in is the neighborhood set of x in Qn. For each t=0,1, we have two (n1)-dimensional subgraphs Qnt of Qn where V(Qnt)={x|x=(x1x2xn)V(Qn)andxn=t} and E(Qnt)={{x,y}|{x,y}E(Qn)andx,yV(Qnt)}. Obviously, Qnt is isomorphic to Qn1 for each t=0,1. The path Pm of length m is a walk with m+1 distinct vertices and m distinct edges. The cycle Cm of length m is a closed path that contains m distinct vertices.

Cheng-Kuan Lin et al. [6] proved the following theorem for the substructure connectivity of hypercube Qn with respect to the cycle C4.

Theorem 3.1

([6, Theorem 10]).Forn4, κs(Qn;C4)=n2.

For integers n(5),k and m with k is a positive even integer, 2m<k<2m+1 and 2mn2, Mane [7] considered the substructure connectivity of Qn with respect to the cycle C6. In fact Mane [7] proved that κ(Qn;Ck)nm, and κ(Q4;C6)=2. In this section, for n4, we obtain the exact value for κ(Qn;C6).

First, we obtain the structure connectivity and the substructure connectivity of hypercube Qn with respect to P3, the path of length 3.

Corollary 3.2.

Forn4,κ(Qn;P3)=κs(Qn;P3)=n2.

Proof.

By Theorem 3.1, κs(Qn;C4)=n2. Since all subgraphs of P3 are also subgraphs of C4, we have κs(Qn;P3)n2.

For 1in21, consider the paths of length 3, Ri:(ai1ain)(bi1bin)(ci1cin)(di1din) where

For odd n, let Rn2:(001)(1001)(10011)(10010) and for even n, let Rn2:(0010)(0011)(001)(1001). The removal of these paths Ri, for 1in2, of length 3 disconnects Qn with (000) as an isolated vertex. Hence κ(Qn;P3)n2.

Thus, we have n2κs(Qn;P3)κ(Qn;P3)n2 and so κ(Qn;P3)=κs(Qn;P3)=n2. □

In the following lemma, we obtain an upper bound for the structure connectivity of Qn with respect to C6.

Lemma 3.3.

Forn3,κ(Qn;C6)n3.

Proof.

By division algorithm, n=3q+r, 0r2. For 1iq, consider the cycles Bi of length 6 given below:

Bi:(ai1ain)(bi1bin)(ci1cin)(di1din)(ei1ein)(fi1fin)(ai1ain) where

If r=1, let Bq+1:(0001)(0011)(00111)(001111)(0001101)(001001)(00001).

If r=2, let Bq+1:(0010)(00110)(00111)(00101)(0001)(0011)(00010).

The removal of cycles B1,B2,,Bn3 disconnects Qn with (000) as an isolated vertex. Hence κ(Qn;C6)n3. □

For each n3, Z6n is a collection of 6-cles of Qn and the same is taken as {{u,v,w,x,y,z}|{u,v},{v,w},{w,x},{x,y},{y,z},{z,u}E(Qn)}. Let Z6n={X1,,Xm} be a subset of collection of 6-cycles of Qn. For i=0,1, (Z6n)iZ6n is the subgraph j=1mXjQni of Qn. Cheng-Kuan Lin et al. [6] obtained the substructure connectivity of hypercube Qn with respect to K1,2 and the same the stated below to obtain a lower bound for the substructure connectivity of the hypercube with respect to C6.

Lemma 3.4

([6, Theorem 6]). For n3, κ(Qn;K1,2)=n2.

Lemma 3.5.

If |Z64|<2, then Q4Z64 is connected.

Proof.

If |Z64|=0, then Q4Z64=Q4, hence is connected. Assume that |Z64|=1 and Z64={C:u1u2u3u4u5u6u1}.

Suppose uiQ40 for all 1i6. Since Q41 is connected and every vertex of Q40Z64 is connected to a vertex in Q41, we get that Q4Z64 is connected.

If uiQ41 for all 1i6, then by similar arguments as above, Q4Z64 is connected.

Assume that V(C)V(Q40)φ and V(C)V(Q41)φ. Without loss of generality one can assume that |V(C)V(Q40)||V(C)V(Q41)|. Then we have two cases.

Case 1.

Let |V(C)V(Q40)|=2 and |V(C)V(Q41)|=4. Clearly Q40(Z64)0 is connected and every vertex in Q41(Z64)1 is adjacent to a vertex in Q40(Z64)0. Hence Q4Z64 is connected.

Case 2.

Let |V(C)V(Q40)|=3 and |V(C)V(Q41)|=3. Note that subgraphs induced by |V(C)V(Q40)and|V(C)V(Q41) are subgraph isomorphic to K1,2 in Q40 and Q41 respectively. Further both Q40 and Q41 are isomorphic to Q3. By Lemma 3.4, removal of a K1,2 does not disconnect Q40 and Q41. Thus both Q40(Z64)0 and Q40(Z64)0 are connected. Also there exists a vertex xQ40(Z64)0 adjacent to (x)4Q41(Z64)1. Thus Q4Z64 is connected. □

In the following lemma, we obtain a lower bound for the structure connectivity of Qn with respect to C6.

Lemma 3.6.

For an integern4,κ(Qn;C6)n3.

Proof.

By induction on n. By Lemma 3.5, the result is true for n=4. Assume as induction hypothesis that the statement holds for Qi, 4in1. To complete the proof, one has to prove that if |Z6n|n31, then QnZ6n is connected.

Case 1.

Assume that either V(Z6n)V(Qn0) or V(Z6n)V(Qn1). Without loss of generality, let us assume that V(Z6n)V(Qn0). Note that Qn1 is connected and every vertex of Qn0Z6n is connected to a vertex in Qn1 and hence QnZ6n is connected.

Case 2.

Suppose V(Z6n)V(Qn1)φ and V(Z6n)V(Qn0)φ.

Case 2.1.

Assume that, for every 6-cycle X of Z6n, V(X)V(Qn1) or V(X)V(Qn0). In this case, we have the number of 6-cycles of Z6n and Qn1 is at most n32 and |V(Z6n)V(Qn0)|n32. Note that n31n13 and so n32<n13. By the induction hypothesis, κ(Qni;C6)n13 and thus Qni(Z6n)i is connected for i{0,1}. Since 6(n32)<6(n+332)=2(n3)<2(n2)2n2, for i=0,1, Qni(Z6n)i contains more than 2n12 vertices. Hence there exists a vertex uQn1(Z6n)1 which is adjacent to (u)n1Qn0(Z6n)0. Hence QnZ6n is connected.

Case 2.2.

Assume that V(Z6n)V(Qn1)φ and V(Z6n)V(Qn0)φ and there is a 6-cycle XZ6n such that V(X)V(Qni)φ for each i=0,1.

Let Z6n={X1,X2,,Xm}, mn31 where each Xi is a 6-cycle. For any XiZ6n, the elements of V(Xi) differ from one another in at most 3 coordinates. Let us name those coordinates as ki1,ki2,ki3. i.e., if 0 (or 1) is the pth coordinate of an element in V(Xi) for pki1,ki2,ki3, then every element of V(Xi) has 0 (or 1) as the pth coordinate.

Hence in total we have 3m such coordinates ki1,ki2,ki3, for 1im (not necessarily distinct) corresponding to all elements in Z6n. Further, 3m3n33<3(n+33)3=n. Thus there exists k{1,2,n} such that k{ki1,ki2,ki3} for each 1im. This means that kth coordinate of V(Xi) is same in all the 6 elements of Xi. i.e., the kth coordinate of all the elements of V(Xi) are equal.

Let us partition the vertices of Qn into two subsets Vj={x=(x1xn)V(Qn):xk=j,kis the index identified above},j{0,1}. By the above arguments, for every i, 1im, either V(Xi)V0 or V(Xi)V1. Note that both the induced subgraphs V0 and V1 of Qn are isomorphic to Qn1. Now, if Z6nVj for some j{0,1}, proceeding as in Case 1, QnZ6n is connected. Otherwise, proceeding as in Case 2.1, QnZ6n is connected. Thus, κ(Qn;C6)n3. □

Figure 4 illustrates the C6-structure connectivity of Q4. In Figure 4, the structure cut is indicated with the dotted lines.

Figure 4

C6-structure cut of Q4.

Figure 4

C6-structure cut of Q4.

Close modal

Since Q3 is connected and by Lemma 3.3, κ(Q3;C6)33=1, κ(Q3;C6)=1=33. Also, by Lemma 3.3 and 3.6, we have the following result.

Theorem 3.7.

Forn3,κs(Qn;C6)κ(Qn;C6)=n3.

This research work is supported through the INSPIRE, India programme (IF160672) of Department of Science and Technology, Government of India for the second author. Declaration of Competing Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The publisher wishes to inform readers that the article “Structure and substructure connectivity of circulant graphs and hypercubes” was originally published by the previous publisher of the Arab Journal of Mathematical Sciences and the pagination of this article has been subsequently changed. There has been no change to the content of the article. This change was necessary for the journal to transition from the previous publisher to the new one. The publisher sincerely apologises for any inconvenience caused. To access and cite this article, please use Tamizh Chelvam, T., Sivagami, M., “Structure and substructure connectivity of circulant graphs and hypercubes”, Arab Journal of Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 94-103. The original publication date for this paper was 24/10/2019.

[1]
N.
Biggs
,
Algebraic Graph Theory
,
Cambridge University Press
,
1993
.
[2]
G.
Chatr
,
P.
Zhang
,
Introduction To Graph Theory
,
Tata McGraw-Hill
,
2006
.
[3]
Italo J.
Dejter
,
Perfect domination in regular grid graphs
,
Australas. J. Combin.
42
(
2008
)
99
114
.
[4]
S.
Lakshmivarahan
,
S.K.
Dhall
,
Ring, torus, hypercube architectures algorithms for parallel computing
,
Parallel Comput
.
25
(
1999
)
1877
1906
.
[5]
J.
Lee
,
Independent perfect domination sets in Cayley graphs
,
J. Graph Theory
37
(
4
) (
2001
)
213
219
.
[6]
Cheng-Kuan
Lin
,
Lili
Zhang
,
Jianxi
Fan
,
Dajin
Wang
,
Structure connectivity and substructure connectivity of hypercubes
,
Theoret. Comput. Sci.
634
(
2016
)
97
107
, .
[7]
S.A.
Mane
,
Structure connectivity of hypercubes
,
AKCE Int. J. Graphs Comb.
15
(
1
) (
2018
)
49
52
.
[8]
T.
Tamizh Chelvam
,
I.
Rani
,
Independent domination number of Cayley graphs on n
.,
J. Combin. Math. Combin. Comput.
69
(
2009
)
251
255
.
[9]
T.
Tamizh Chelvam
,
M.
Sivagami
,
Domination in Cayley graphs: A survey
,
AKCE Int. J. Graphs Comb.
16
(
2019
)
27
40
, .
[10]
J.F.
Wang
,
An investigation of the network reliability properties of circulant graphs (Doctoral dissertation)
,
Stevens Institute of Technology
,
1983
.
Published in the Arab Journal of Mathematical Sciences. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal