Proof of Petersen's corollary

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I am trying to understand a proof to the following lemma:




Lemma: Every 3-regular graph with no cut edge has a perfect matching.




Proof: Let $S subseteq V(G)$. Let $H$ be a component of $Gsetminus S$ with $|H|$ odd. The number of edges between $S$ and $H$ cannot be 1, since $G$ has no cut edge. It also cannot be even, because then the sum of the vertex degrees in $H$ would be odd. Hence there are at least three edges from $H$ to $S$.



Since $G$ is 3-regular, each vertex of $S$ is incident to at most three edges between $S$ and $Gsetminus S$. Combining this fact with the previous paragraph, we have $3q(Gsetminus S) leq 3|S|$ and hence $q(Gsetminus S) leq |S|$ and the proof is concluded.



I cannot understand why the the number of edges between $S$ and $H$ cannot be even with the explanation of the proof. The sum of the vertex degrees in $H$ should be $3|H| -$ # edges leaving from $S$ to $Gsetminus S$. Is it because if it is even then the sum of vertex degrees wouldn't be a multiple of 3? Because in that case makes more sense.







share|cite|improve this question















  • 1




    If the number of edges was even then, since $|H|$ is odd, $3|H|-$ # edges would be odd, contradiction, since the sum of the degrees must be even.
    – quasi
    Jul 31 at 13:40















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I am trying to understand a proof to the following lemma:




Lemma: Every 3-regular graph with no cut edge has a perfect matching.




Proof: Let $S subseteq V(G)$. Let $H$ be a component of $Gsetminus S$ with $|H|$ odd. The number of edges between $S$ and $H$ cannot be 1, since $G$ has no cut edge. It also cannot be even, because then the sum of the vertex degrees in $H$ would be odd. Hence there are at least three edges from $H$ to $S$.



Since $G$ is 3-regular, each vertex of $S$ is incident to at most three edges between $S$ and $Gsetminus S$. Combining this fact with the previous paragraph, we have $3q(Gsetminus S) leq 3|S|$ and hence $q(Gsetminus S) leq |S|$ and the proof is concluded.



I cannot understand why the the number of edges between $S$ and $H$ cannot be even with the explanation of the proof. The sum of the vertex degrees in $H$ should be $3|H| -$ # edges leaving from $S$ to $Gsetminus S$. Is it because if it is even then the sum of vertex degrees wouldn't be a multiple of 3? Because in that case makes more sense.







share|cite|improve this question















  • 1




    If the number of edges was even then, since $|H|$ is odd, $3|H|-$ # edges would be odd, contradiction, since the sum of the degrees must be even.
    – quasi
    Jul 31 at 13:40













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I am trying to understand a proof to the following lemma:




Lemma: Every 3-regular graph with no cut edge has a perfect matching.




Proof: Let $S subseteq V(G)$. Let $H$ be a component of $Gsetminus S$ with $|H|$ odd. The number of edges between $S$ and $H$ cannot be 1, since $G$ has no cut edge. It also cannot be even, because then the sum of the vertex degrees in $H$ would be odd. Hence there are at least three edges from $H$ to $S$.



Since $G$ is 3-regular, each vertex of $S$ is incident to at most three edges between $S$ and $Gsetminus S$. Combining this fact with the previous paragraph, we have $3q(Gsetminus S) leq 3|S|$ and hence $q(Gsetminus S) leq |S|$ and the proof is concluded.



I cannot understand why the the number of edges between $S$ and $H$ cannot be even with the explanation of the proof. The sum of the vertex degrees in $H$ should be $3|H| -$ # edges leaving from $S$ to $Gsetminus S$. Is it because if it is even then the sum of vertex degrees wouldn't be a multiple of 3? Because in that case makes more sense.







share|cite|improve this question











I am trying to understand a proof to the following lemma:




Lemma: Every 3-regular graph with no cut edge has a perfect matching.




Proof: Let $S subseteq V(G)$. Let $H$ be a component of $Gsetminus S$ with $|H|$ odd. The number of edges between $S$ and $H$ cannot be 1, since $G$ has no cut edge. It also cannot be even, because then the sum of the vertex degrees in $H$ would be odd. Hence there are at least three edges from $H$ to $S$.



Since $G$ is 3-regular, each vertex of $S$ is incident to at most three edges between $S$ and $Gsetminus S$. Combining this fact with the previous paragraph, we have $3q(Gsetminus S) leq 3|S|$ and hence $q(Gsetminus S) leq |S|$ and the proof is concluded.



I cannot understand why the the number of edges between $S$ and $H$ cannot be even with the explanation of the proof. The sum of the vertex degrees in $H$ should be $3|H| -$ # edges leaving from $S$ to $Gsetminus S$. Is it because if it is even then the sum of vertex degrees wouldn't be a multiple of 3? Because in that case makes more sense.









share|cite|improve this question










share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question









asked Jul 31 at 13:30









dimkou

535




535







  • 1




    If the number of edges was even then, since $|H|$ is odd, $3|H|-$ # edges would be odd, contradiction, since the sum of the degrees must be even.
    – quasi
    Jul 31 at 13:40













  • 1




    If the number of edges was even then, since $|H|$ is odd, $3|H|-$ # edges would be odd, contradiction, since the sum of the degrees must be even.
    – quasi
    Jul 31 at 13:40








1




1




If the number of edges was even then, since $|H|$ is odd, $3|H|-$ # edges would be odd, contradiction, since the sum of the degrees must be even.
– quasi
Jul 31 at 13:40





If the number of edges was even then, since $|H|$ is odd, $3|H|-$ # edges would be odd, contradiction, since the sum of the degrees must be even.
– quasi
Jul 31 at 13:40
















active

oldest

votes











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',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
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%2f2868042%2fproof-of-petersens-corollary%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest



































active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes










 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2868042%2fproof-of-petersens-corollary%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?

Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon

What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?