Dinitz theorem

From HandWiki
Short description: Theorem in combinatorics

In combinatorics, the Dinitz theorem, formerly known as the Dinitz conjecture, is a statement about the extension of arrays to partial Latin squares, proposed in 1979 by Jeff Dinitz,[1] and proved in 1994 by Fred Galvin.[2][3]

Statement

The Dinitz theorem states that, given an n×n square array, a set of m symbols with m≥n, and for each cell of the array an n-element set drawn from the pool of m symbols, it is possible to label each cell with one of the elements of its set in such a way that no symbol is repeated within any row or any column. The resulting array is a partial Latin square: if all the cell sets happen to be the same set of n symbols, the labeling is an ordinary n×n Latin square.[4]

Formulation as list edge coloring

The theorem is most naturally expressed in the language of list coloring. For a graph G, a list assignment L attaches to every edge e a set L(e) of permitted colors; a proper L-edge-coloring assigns to each edge a color from its own list so that adjacent edges (those sharing an endpoint) receive distinct colors. The list chromatic index χ'ℓ(G) is the least integer k such that a proper L-edge-coloring exists for every list assignment with |L(e)|≥k for all edges e. Since one may always take identical lists, χ'ℓ(G)≥χ′(G)≥Δ(G), where χ′ is the ordinary chromatic index and Δ the maximum degree.

An n×n Latin square corresponds to a proper edge coloring of the complete bipartite graph Kn,n with n colors: the two vertex classes are the rows and the columns, the edge joining row i to column j represents the cell (i,j), and its color is the symbol placed in that cell. Under this correspondence, prescribing an n-element list for each cell is exactly prescribing an n-element list for each edge. The Dinitz theorem is therefore the statement that

χ'ℓ(Kn,n)=n.

Because Δ(Kn,n)=n, this asserts that the list chromatic index of Kn,n attains its smallest possible value.[4][3]

Galvin's theorem

Galvin proved a considerably more general result: for every bipartite multigraph G,

χ'ℓ(G)=χ′(G).

By Kőnig's edge-coloring theorem the chromatic index of a bipartite multigraph equals its maximum degree, so χ'ℓ(G)=Δ(G). Taking G=Kn,n recovers the Dinitz theorem.[2][5]

Proof via kernels

Galvin's argument uses the notion of a kernel of a directed graph. A kernel of a digraph D is a set K of vertices that is independent (no arc joins two vertices of K) and absorbing (every vertex outside K has an arc directed into K). The proof combines this with the following lemma, the kernel method.[2][6]

Kernel lemma. Let D be an orientation of a graph G such that every induced subdigraph of D has a kernel, and let L be a list assignment (on the vertices) with |L(v)|≥dD+(v)+1 for every vertex v, where dD+(v) is the out-degree of v. Then G has a proper L-coloring.

The lemma is proved by induction: choose a color c appearing in some list, let A be the set of vertices whose lists contain c, take a kernel K of the subdigraph induced on A, color the vertices of K with c, and delete K from the graph together with c from all remaining lists. Every vertex of A∖K loses at least one out-neighbor, so the out-degree condition is preserved and induction applies.[6]

To apply this to L(Kn,n), whose vertices are the n2 cells (i,j), fix a reference Latin square that assigns to cell (i,j) a symbol σ(i,j)∈{1,…,n}. Orient the line graph as follows: for two cells in the same row, direct the arc from the smaller reference symbol to the larger; for two cells in the same column, direct it from the larger to the smaller. Because the symbols in each row and each column form a permutation of {1,…,n}, the cell (i,j) with σ(i,j)=s has exactly n−s out-arcs within its row and s−1 within its column, giving out-degree

d+(i,j)=(n−s)+(s−1)=n−1

for every cell. Lists of size n=(n−1)+1 thus satisfy the hypothesis of the kernel lemma.

Finally, every induced subdigraph has a kernel: a set of cells corresponds to a bipartite graph between rows and columns, and interpreting the reference symbols as preference rankings turns a kernel into a stable matching, which exists by the Gale–Shapley theorem. Hence Kn,n is n-edge-choosable.[2][7][6]

History

Dinitz posed the problem in 1979, and it circulated for over a decade as one of the best-known open questions on list coloring.[1][4] Partial results preceded Galvin's solution: Jeannette Janssen proved the statement for (n−1)×n rectangular arrays, and for the square case with lists of size n+1, by applying the polynomial method of Alon and Tarsi.[8] Galvin settled the full conjecture in 1994 (published 1995) with the kernel argument above, which is elementary and self-contained.[2] Expository accounts were given by Zeilberger[3] and in the textbook literature.[6][9]

Generalizations

Galvin's proof extends verbatim from Kn,n to all bipartite multigraphs, and more generally to line-perfect graphs by way of Maffray's characterization of the line graphs possessing kernels.[10] Alexandr Kostochka, Borodin, and Woodall strengthened the bipartite result by allowing shorter lists: for a bipartite graph G, a proper edge coloring exists whenever each edge uv is given a list of size at least max⁡{dG(u),dG(v)}.[5]

The list edge-coloring conjecture (or list coloring conjecture) asserts that χ'ℓ(G)=χ′(G) for every loopless multigraph, not just bipartite ones; it remains open in general. An even more general conjecture states that the list chromatic number of every claw-free graph equals its chromatic number.[11] The Dinitz theorem is also related to Rota's basis conjecture.[4]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Erdős, P.; Rubin, A. L.; Taylor, H. (1979). "Proc. West Coast Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing, Arcata". 26. pp. 125–157. http://www.math-inst.hu/~p_erdos/1980-07.pdf. Retrieved 2017-04-22. 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 F. Galvin (1995). "The list chromatic index of a bipartite multigraph". Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Series B 63 (1): 153–158. doi:10.1006/jctb.1995.1011. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Zeilberger, D. (1996). "The method of undetermined generalization and specialization illustrated with Fred Galvin's amazing proof of the Dinitz conjecture". American Mathematical Monthly 103 (3): 233–239. doi:10.2307/2975373. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Chow, T. Y. (1995). "On the Dinitz conjecture and related conjectures". Discrete Mathematics 145 (1–3): 73–82. doi:10.1016/0012-365X(94)00055-N. http://math.mit.edu/~tchow/dinitz.pdf. 
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Borodin, O. V.; Kostochka, A. V.; Woodall, D. R. (1997). "List edge and list total colourings of multigraphs". Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Series B 71 (2): 184–204. doi:10.1006/jctb.1997.1780. 
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Aigner, Martin; Ziegler, Günter M. (2018). "The Dinitz problem". Proofs from THE BOOK (6th ed.). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-57265-8. 
  7. ↑ Gale, D.; Shapley, L. S. (1962). "College admissions and the stability of marriage". American Mathematical Monthly 69 (1): 9–15. doi:10.1080/00029890.1962.11989827. 
  8. ↑ Janssen, Jeannette C. M. (1993). "The Dinitz problem solved for rectangles". Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. New Series 29 (2): 243–249. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1993-00430-1. 
  9. ↑ Diestel, Reinhard (2017). Graph Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. 173 (5th ed.). Springer. §5.4, List Colouring. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-53622-3. 
  10. ↑ Maffray, Frédéric (1992). "Kernels in perfect line-graphs". Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Series B 55 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1016/0095-8956(92)90028-V. 
  11. ↑ Gravier, Sylvain; Maffray, Frédéric (2004). "On the choice number of claw-free perfect graphs". Discrete Mathematics 276 (1–3): 211–218. doi:10.1016/S0012-365X(03)00292-9.