mathematics

Article
Edge Irregular Reflexive Labeling for the Disjoint
Union of Gear Graphs and Prism Graphs
Xiujun Zhang 1 ID , Muhammad Ibrahim 2 , Syed Ahtsham ul Haq Bokhary 2 and
Muhammad Kamran Siddiqui 3, * ID
1 School of Information Science and Engineering, Chengdu University, Chengdu 610106, China;
[email protected]
2 Centre for Advanced Studies in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Bahauddin Zakariya University,
Multan 60800, Pakistan; [email protected] (M.I.); [email protected] (S.A.u.H.B.)
3 Department of Mathematics, COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal Campus, Sahiwal 57000, Pakistan
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 15 July 2018; Accepted: 15 August 2018; Published: 21 August 2018


Abstract: In graph theory, a graph is given names—generally a whole number—to edges, vertices,
or both in a chart. Formally, given a graph G = (V, E), a vertex naming is a capacity from V to
an arrangement of marks. A diagram with such a capacity characterized defined is known as a
vertex-marked graph. Similarly, an edge naming is a mapping of an element of E to an arrangement
of marks. In this case, the diagram is called an edge-marked graph. We consider an edge irregular
reflexive k-labeling for the disjoint association of wheel-related diagrams and deduce the correct
estimation of the reflexive edge strength for the disjoint association of m copies of some wheel-related
graphs, specifically gear graphs and prism graphs.

Keywords: edge irregular reflexive labeling; reflexive edge strength; gear graphs; prism graphs

MSC: 05C12, 05C90

1. Introduction.
All diagrams considered in this paper are basic, limited and undirected. Chartrand et al. [1]
proposed the following: relegate a positive whole number mark from the set {1, 2, ..., k} to the edges
of a straightforward associated graph with no less than three in such a path, so that the diagram is
sporadic, i.e., the weight (name entirety) at every vertex are particular. The question is then what is the
base estimation of the biggest k over all such unpredictable assignments. This parameter for a chart G
is the irregularity strength of the graph G.
A comprehensive overview on the irregularity strength is given by Lahel [2]. For further analysis,
see the papers by Amar and Togni [3], Dimitz et al. [4], Gyarfas [5] and Nierhoff [6]. Following from
these papers, an edge irregular k-labeling as a vertex naming ξ : V ( G ) → {1, 2, ..., k } was characterized
0 0 0 0
so that for each two distinct edges hg and h g there is wtφ (hg) 6= wξ (h g ), where the heaviness of an
edge hg ∈ E( G ) is wtξ (hg) = ξ (h) + ξ ( g). The base k for which the graph G has an edge abnormality
quality k-labeling is called the edge irregularity strength of the diagram G, represented as es( G ). In [7]
the limits of the parameters es( G ), are evaluated and the correct estimation of the edge irregularity
strength for a few groups of diagrams are resolved, in particular for ways, stars, and twofold stars,
and the Cartesian result of two paths.
Baca et al. [8] called the aggregate marking ξ : V ( G ) ∪ E( G ) → {1, 2, ..., k} an edge irregular total
0 0
k-labeling of the chart G if for each two distinctive edge qr and q r of G, wtξ (qr ) = ξ (q) + ξ (qr ) +
0 0 0 0 0 0
ξ (r ) 6= wtξ (q r ) = ξ (q ) + ξ (q r ) + ξ (r ). The edge abnormality quality, tes( G ), is the base k for

Mathematics 2018, 6, 142; doi:10.3390/math6090142 www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2018, 6, 142 2 of 10

which G has an edge irregular, total k-labeling. Evaluation of these parameters can be obtained, giving
exact estimations of the aggregate edge abnormality quality for ways, cycles, stars, and haggle charts.
Further details about the aggregate abnormality quality can be found in [9–14].
Issue related to unpredictable marking emerge from thinking of graphs with particular degree. In a
straightforward graph, it is not possible to develop a diagram in which each vertex has a one-of-a-kind
degree; be that as it may, it is possible in multigraphs (graphs in which we permit various edges
between the neighboring vertices). The inquiry at this point moves toward: what is the smallest
number of parallel edges between two vertices required to guarantee that the diagram shows vertex
abnormality? This issue is equivalent to the marking issue as portrayed toward the start of this section.
Ryan et al. [15] asserted that the vertex marks ought to represent circles at the vertex. The outcome was
two-fold: first, every vertex mark was required to be a whole number, since each circle added two to
the vertex degree; and second, dissimilar to absolute unpredictable marking, the mark 0 was allowed
to represent a loopless vertex. Edges were then named by whole numbers from 1 to k. In this manner,
they defined the marking χe : E( G ) → {1, 2, ..., k e } and χv : V ( G ) → {0, 2, ..., 2k v }, and termed χ as an
aggregate k-labeling of G, with χ( x ) = χv ( x ) if x ∈ V ( G ). Further, χ( x ) = χe ( x ) if x ∈ E( G ), where
k = max {k e , 2k v }.
The total k-labeling χ is called an edge irregular reflexive k-labeling of the diagram G if for each
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
two unique edges rs and r s of G, wt(rs) = χv (r ) + χe (rs) + χv (s) 6= wt(r s ) = χv (r ) + χe (r s ) +
0
χv (s ). The smallest estimation of k for which such a marking exists is known as the reflexive edge
strength of the diagram G and is termed res( G ). For ongoing outcomes see [16,17].
The effect of this variety is not generally visible in the marking quality, but rather produced some
imperative outcomes:
tes(K5 ) = 5whereasres(K5 ) = 4

The impact of this change leads to the following conjecture which can be used to evaluate some
problematic special cases (see [18]).

Conjecture 1. Any graph G with the most extreme degree ∆( G ) other than K5 fulfills:

| E( G )| + 2 ∆+1
   
tes( G ) = max , .
3 2

Baca et al. [19] proposed the following conjecture and proved Theorem 1.

Conjecture 2. Any graph G with most extreme degree ∆( G ) fulfills:

| E( G )| ∆+2
   
res( G ) = max +r , ,
3 2

where r = 1 for | E( G )| ≡ 3(mod 6), | E( G )| ≡ 2(mod 6) and zero otherwise.


 d | E(G)| e, if n 6≡ 2, 3(mod 6)
3
Theorem 1. For every graph G, res(Cn ) =
 d |E(3G)| e + 1, if n ≡ 2, 3(mod 6).

2. Constructing an Edge Irregular Reflexive Labeling

Let us recall the following lemma:

 d | E(G)| e, if n 6≡ 2, 3(mod 6)
3
Lemma 1. For every graph G, res( G ) ≥
 d | E(G)| e + 1, if n ≡ 2, 3(mod 6).
3
Mathematics 2018, 6, 142 3 of 10

The lower bound for res( G ) follows from the insignificant edge weight under an edge irregular
reflexive labeling in one. The basis of the maximal edge weight is that | E( G )| can be accomplished as
the total of only three numbers, no less than two of which are indeed.
In this paper, we explore the reflexive edge irregularity strength for disjoint association of m
duplicates of gear and prism graphs.

3. The Gear Graph

The Jahangir graph is denoted Jn,m , n ≥ 3, m ≥ 1, and can be obtained from a wheel graph by
adding vertices in between the vertices that lie on the rim. I. It was introduced by Tomescu in [20].
For m = 2 it is known as the gear graph (see [21]). In the next theorem, we determined the edge irregular
j
reflexive strength of disjoint union of consecutive, non-isomorphic m copies of a gear graph Jn ,2 , n j ≥ 3.
j
 Sm j 
The vertex set and the edge set of Jn ,2 are defined as follows:
j
j =1

m
[  n m
o [
j j j
V Jn ,2 = xi , yi : 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , 1 ≤ j ≤ m ∪ {c j },
j
j =1 j =1

m
[  n o
j j j j j j
E Jn ,2 = xi yi , c j xi , xi+1 yi : 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , 1≤j≤m .
j
j =1

Also it is easy to see that:

m
 [  m
∑ nj + j
j
Jn ,2  = 2 ·
 
V j
j =1 j =1

m
 [  m
∑ nj
j
Jn ,2  = 3 ·
 
E j
j =1 j =1

m
S j
Theorem 2. Let ( Jn ,2 ) be the disjoint union of m consecutive, non-isomorphic copies of gear graphs with
j
j =1
n j ≥ 3, 1 ≤ j ≤ m and n j+1 = n j + 1, with n1 = 3, and i is to be taken modulo n j . Then
 m m
 ∑ n j + 1, if ∑ n j ≡ 2, 3(mod 6),

m 
[ j j =1 j =1
res( Jn ,2 ) = m m
j
 ∑ nj, if ∑ n j 6≡ 2, 3(mod 6).

j =1 
j =1 j =1

Proof. From Lemma 1, we get

 m m
m j


 ∑ n j + 1, if ∑ n j ≡ 2, 3(mod 6),
j =1 j =1
Jn ,2 ) ≥
S
res( m m
j
j =1  ∑ nj, if ∑ n j 6≡ 2, 3(mod 6).


j =1 j =1

Next, we will show that:

 m m
 ∑ n j + 1, if ∑ n j ≡ 2, 3(mod 6),

m j 
j =1 j =1
Jn ,2 ) ≤
S
res( m m
j
j =1  ∑ nj, if ∑ n j 6≡ 2, 3(mod 6).


j =1 j =1
m
S j
For this we define an f -labeling on ( Jn ,2 ) as follow:
j
j =1

For j = 1 and n1 = 3, Figure 1 shows labelings of vertices and edges along with their weights.
Mathematics 2018, 6, 142 4 of 10

For j ≥ 2, we have the following labelings and their weights as follows:

 m
∑ nj, if i = 1, 2 and j ≡ 0(mod 4)



j =1



m −1


∑ n j − 1 + 2d 2i e, if 3 ≤ i < n j and j ≡ 0(mod 4)







 j =1
 m −1
i

 ∑ n j − 2 + 2d 2 e, if 1 ≤ i < n j and j ≡ 1(mod 4)



j j =1
f ( xi ) = m −1
∑ n j − 1 + 2d 2i e, if 1 ≤ i < n j and j ≡ 2(mod 4)






 j =1
 m

∑ nj, if i = 1 and j ≡ 3(mod 4)






 j =1
 m −1
i

 ∑ n j − 2 + 2d 2 e, if 2 ≤ i < n j and j ≡ 3(mod 4)



j =1

m −1
i
 ∑ n j − 2 + 2d 2 e, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j and j ≡ 0, 1, 3(mod 4)



j j =1
f ( yi ) = m −1
i
 ∑ n j − 1 + 2d 2 e, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j and j ≡ 2(mod 4)



j =1
 m
 ∑ nj, if j ≡ 0, 3(mod 4)


j =1
f (c j ) = m
 ∑ n j + 1, if j ≡ 1, 2(mod 4)


j =1

m −1
∑ n j − n j − 1 + 2i, if i = 1, 2 and j ≡ 0(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
∑ n j + 1, if 3 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1 and (i is odd) j ≡ 0(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
∑ n j + 1, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j and (i is odd) j ≡ 1(mod 4)






 j =1
m −1


∑ n j − 1, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1 and (i is odd) j ≡ 2(mod 4)




j =1



m −2


j j
f ( xi yi ) = ∑ n j − 1, if i = 1 and j ≡ 3(mod 4)

 j =1
m −1


∑ n j − 1,



 if 3 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is odd) and j ≡ 3(mod 4)
j =1



m −1



∑ n j + 3, if 4 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is even) and j ≡ 0(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
∑ n j + 3, if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1, (i is even) and j ≡ 1(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
∑ n j + 1, if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is even) and j ≡ 2, 3(mod 4)




j =1
Mathematics 2018, 6, 142 5 of 10

 m −1
∑ n j − n j + 2, if i = 1 and j ≡ 0(mod 4)



j =1



m −1


∑ n j + 2,



 if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1 and j ≡ 0(mod 4)
j =1



 m −1

j j
f ( x i +1 y i ) = ∑ n j + 2, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1 and j ≡ 1(mod 4)

 j =1
m


∑ if i = n j and j ≡ 1(mod 4)



 n j + 1,
j =1



 m −1

 ∑ nj,


 if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j and j ≡ 2, 3(mod 4)
j =1
 m


 ∑ n j − 1, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1, (i is odd) j ≡ 0, 2(mod 4)

 j =1
m


∑ nj,



 if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is odd) j ≡ 1(mod 4)
j =1



 m

j
f ( c j xi ) = ∑ nj, if i = 1 and j ≡ 3(mod 4)

 j =1

 m
∑ n j − 1, if 3 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is odd) j ≡ 3(mod 4)





 j =1
 m

 ∑ nj,


 if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is even) j ≡ 0, 1, 2, 3(mod 4)
j =1

m −1



 3 ∑ n j − 3 + 2i + 2d 2i e, if i = 1, 2 and j ≡ 0(mod 4)
j =1



m −1


3 ∑ n j − 3 + 4d 2i e, if 3 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1 (i is odd) and j ≡ 0(mod 4)




j =1



m −1


3 ∑ n j − 3 + 4d 2i e,



 if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is odd) and j ≡ 1(mod 4)
j =1



m −1


3 ∑ n j − 3 + 4d 2i e,

if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1, (i is odd) and j ≡ 2(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
3 ∑ n j + n j − 1, if i = 1 and j ≡ 3(mod 4)




j j j =1
wt( xi yi ) = m −1
3 ∑ n j − 5 + 4d 2i e, if 3 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is odd) and j ≡ 3(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
3 ∑ n j − 1 + 4d 2i e, if 4 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is even) and j ≡ 0(mod 4)




j =1



m −1


3 ∑ n j − 1 + 4d 2i e, if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1, (i is even) and j ≡ 1(mod 4)




j =1



m −1


3 ∑ n j − 1 + 4d 2i e,



 if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is even) and j ≡ 2(mod 4)
j =1



m −1


3 ∑ n j − 3 + 4d 2i e,

if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1, (i is even) and j ≡ 3(mod 4)



j =1
Mathematics 2018, 6, 142 6 of 10

 m −1


 3 ∑ n j + 2, if i = 1 and j ≡ 0(mod 4)
j =1



m −1


3 ∑ n j − 2 + 4d 2i e,

if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1 and j ≡ 0(mod 4)






 j =1
 m −1
i

 3 ∑ n j − 2 + 4d 2 e, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1 and j ≡ 1(mod 4)



j j j =1
wt( xi+1 yi ) = m −1 n
3 ∑ n j − 3 + n j + 4d 2j e, if i = n j and j ≡ 1(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
3 ∑ n j − 2 + 4d 2i e, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j and j ≡ 2(mod 4)




j =1



m −1


i
 3 ∑ n j − 4 + 4d 2 e, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j and j ≡ 3(mod 4)



j =1
m



 3 ∑ n j − 1, if i = 1 and j ≡ 0(mod 4)
j =1



m −1


3 ∑ nj,

if i = 2 and j ≡ 0(mod 4)





 j =1

 m −1
3 ∑ n j + 2n j − 3 + 2d 2i e,

if 3 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1 (i is odd) and j ≡ 0(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
3 ∑ n j + 2n j − 1 + 2d 2i e, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is odd) and j ≡ 1(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
3 ∑ n j + 2n j − 1 + 2d 2i e, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1, (i is odd) and j ≡ 2(mod 4)






 j =1
j


j
wt(c j xi ) = 3 ∑ nk , if i = 1 and j ≡ 3(mod 4)

 k =1
m −1


3 ∑ n j + 2n j − 3 + 2d 2i e, if 3 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1, (i is odd) and j ≡ 3(mod 4)




j =1



m −1


3 ∑ n j + 2n j − 2 + 2d 2i e,



 if 4 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1, (i is even) and j ≡ 0(mod 4)
j =1



m −1


3 ∑ n j + 2n j + 2d 2i e,



 if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1, (i is even) and j ≡ 1(mod 4)
j =1



m −1


3 ∑ n j + 2n j + 2d 2i e,

if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j , (i is even) and j ≡ 2(mod 4)






 j =1
 m −1
3 ∑ n j + 2n j − 2 + 2d 2i e,

if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j − 1, (i is even) j ≡ 3(mod 4)




j =1

It is easy to check that no two edges have the same weight. Therefore, f is an edge irregular
m j
Jn ,2 ) for n j ≥ 3, which completes the proof.
S
reflexive labeling of (
j
j =1

0
2 1 4 1

2 3 0 7

2 4 2 6 2

3 9
4 8
2 0

1 1 5 3
2

(a) (b)

1 and (b) The edge weights of J 1 .

Figure 1. (a) A reflexive irregular 4-labeling of J3,2 3,2
Mathematics 2018, 6, 142 7 of 10

4. The Prism Graph

Let Dn be a prism graph with

V ( Dn ) = { xi , yi : i = 1, 2, ..., n},

E( Hn ) = { xi xi+1 , xi yi , xi xi+1 : i = 1, 2, ..., n}.

In the next theorem, we determine the edge irregular reflexive k-labeling for a disjoint union of
j
consecutive, non-isomorphic m copies of prism graphs Dn j for n j ≥ 3. The vertex set and the edge set
m
 S
j

of Dn j is given as follows:
j =1
m
[  n o
j j j
V Dn j = xi , yi : 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , 1 ≤ j ≤ m ,
j =1

 m  n o
[ j j j j j j j
E Dn j = x i x i +1 , x i y i , y i y i +1 : 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , 1 ≤ j ≤ m .
j =1

It is easy to see that

m
 [  m
∑ nj
j 
Dn j  = 2 ·

V
j =1 j =1

m
 [  m
∑ nj
j 
Dn j  = 3 ·

E
j =1 j =1

m
S j
Theorem 3. Let ( Dn j ) be the disjoint union of consecutive, non-isomorphic m copies of prism graphs with
j =1
n j ≥ 3, 1 ≤ j ≤ m and n j+1 = n j + 1, n1 = 3, i is to be taken modulo n j . Then
 m m
 ∑ n j + 1, if ∑ n j ≡ 2, 3(mod 6),

m 
[ j j =1 j =1
res( Dn j ) = m m
 ∑ nj, if ∑ n j 6≡ 2, 3(mod 6).

j =1 
j =1 j =1

Proof. From Lemma 1, we get

 m m
m


 ∑ n j + 1, if ∑ n j ≡ 2, 3(mod 6),
j j =1 j =1
res( Dn j ) ≥
S
m m
j =1  ∑ nj, if ∑ n j 6≡ 2, 3(mod 6).


j =1 j =1

Next, we will show that

 m m
m


 ∑ n j + 1, if ∑ n j ≡ 2, 3(mod 6),
j j =1 j =1
res( Dn j ) ≤
S
m m
j =1  ∑ nj, if ∑ n j 6≡ 2, 3(mod 6).


j =1 j =1

m
S j
For this we define a f -labeling on ( Dn ) as follow:
j =1

For j = 1, Figure 2 shows the labeling of vertices and edges along with their weights.
Mathematics 2018, 6, 142 8 of 10

0
4
2

2 1 1
3
3

3 3
9 7

4
6
2

0 2
3 8 5
2 0

2
2

(a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) A reflexive irregular 4-labeling for D31 and (b) The edge weights for D31 .

For j ≥ 2, we have the following labeling and their weights as follows:


m −1
 1 + ∑ nj, if 1 ≤ i < n j , j ≡ 2, 3(mod 4)



j j =1
f ( xi ) = m −1
 ∑ nj, if 1 ≤ i < n j , j ≡ 0, 1(mod 4)



j =1
 m
 1 + ∑ nj, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 1, 2(mod 4)


j j =1
f ( yi ) = m
 ∑ nj, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 0, 3(mod 4)


j =1

m −1

∑ n j − 3 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 2(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
 ∑ n j − 1 + i, if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 1(mod 4)



j j j =1
f ( x i x i +1 ) = m −1
∑ n j − 2 + i, if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 3(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
 ∑ n j + i, if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 0(mod 4)



j =1
 m −1


 ∑ n j − 3 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 2(mod 4)
j =1




 m
 ∑ n j − 2 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 3(mod 4)



j j j =1
f ( xi yi ) = m
∑ n j − 1 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 1(mod 4)



j =1



m −1


 ∑ n j + i,

if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 0(mod 4)


j =1
Mathematics 2018, 6, 142 9 of 10

m −1

∑ n j − 3 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 2(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
 ∑ n j − 1 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 3(mod 4)



j j j =1
f ( y i y i +1 ) = m −1
∑ n j + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 0(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
 ∑ n j − 2 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 1(mod 4)



j =1
 m −1


 3 ∑ n j − 3 + 2d 2i e + 2d i+2 1 e, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 1, 2, 3(mod 4)
j =1



 j −1

j j
wt( xi yi ) = 3 ∑ nk + 1, if i = 1, j ≡ 0(mod 4)

 k =1
m −1


 3 ∑ n j − 3 + 2d 2i e + 2d i+

2 e, if 2 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 0(mod 4)


j =1

m −1
 3 ∑ n j − 1 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 2, 3(mod 4)



j j j =1
wt( xi xi+1 ) = m −1
 3 ∑ n j + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 0, 1(mod 4)



j =1

m −1

3 ∑ n j + n j − 1 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 2(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
 3 ∑ n j + n j − 2 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 3(mod 4)



j j j =1
wt( xi yi ) = m −1
3 ∑ n j + n j + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 0(mod 4)






 j =1

 m −1
 3 ∑ n j + n j + 1 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 1(mod 4)



j =1

m −1
 3 ∑ n j + 2n j − 1 + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 2, 3(mod 4)



j j j =1
wt(yi yi+1 ) = m −1
 3 ∑ n j + 2n j + i, if 1 ≤ i ≤ n j , j ≡ 0, 1(mod 4)



j =1

It is easy to check that no two edges have the same weight. Therefore, f is an edge irregular
m j
Dn j for n j ≥ 3, which completes the proof.
S
reflexive labeling of
j =1

5. Conclusions
In this paper we discuss the union of m consecutive copies of gear graphs and prism graphs.
m j 
 S m
 S
j

We also determined the exact value of the reflexive edge strength of Jn ,2 and Dn j .
j
j =1 j =1
We conclude this paper with two open problems for future work.

6. Open Problems
1. Determine the exact value of the reflexive edge strength for arbitrary union of gear graphs.
2. Determine the exact value of the reflexive edge strength for arbitrary union of prism graphs.

Author Contributions: X.Z. contributed for supervision, project administration, funding and analyzed the data
curation. M.I. and M.K.S. contributed for designing the experiments, validation, conceptualization, formal
analysing experiments, resources, software and some computations. S.A.u.H.B. contributed for Investigation,
Methodology and wrote the initial draft of the paper. M.K.S. investigated and wrote the final draft. All authors
read and approved the final version of the paper.
Mathematics 2018, 6, 142 10 of 10

Funding: This work was supported by Applied Basic Research (Key Project) of the Sichuan Province under
grant 2017JY0095, the key project of the Sichuan Provincial Department of Education under grant 17ZA0079 and
18ZA0118, the Soft Scientific Research Foundation of Sichuan Provincial Science and Technology Department
(18RKX1048).
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and
suggestions that improved this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References and Note

1. Chartrand, G.; Jacobson, M.S.; Lehel, J.; Oellermann, O.R.; Ruiz, S.; Saba, F. Irregular networks. Congr. Numer.
1988, 64, 187–192.
2. Lahel, J. Facts and quests on degree irregular assignment. In Proceedings of the Sixth Quadrennial
International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Graphs, New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 765–782.
3. Amar, D.; Togni, O. On irregular strenght of trees. Discret Math. 1998, 190, 15–38. [CrossRef]
4. Dimitz, J.H.; Garnick, D.K.; Gyárfás, A. On the irregularity strength of the m × n grid. J. Graph Theory 1992,
16, 355–374. [CrossRef]
5. Gyárfás, A. The irregularity strength of Km,m is 4 for odd m. Discret Math. 1998, 71, 273–274. [CrossRef]
6. Nierhoff, T. A tight bound on the irregularity strength of graphs. SIAM. J. Discret. Math. 2000, 13, 313–323.
[CrossRef]
7. Ahmad, A.; Al Mushayt, O.; Bača, M. On edge irregularity strength of graphs. Appl. Math. Comput. 2014, 243,
607–610. [CrossRef]
8. Bača, M.; Jendrol’, S.; Miller, M.; Ryan, J. On irregular total labellings. Discrete Math. 2007, 307, 1378–1388.
[CrossRef]
9. Ahmad, A.; Bača, M.; Siddiqui, M.K. On edge irregular total labeling of categorical product of two cycles.
Theory Comp. Syst. 2014, 54, 1–12. [CrossRef]
10. Siddiqui, M.K.; Afzal, D.; Faisal, M.R. Total edge irregularity strength of accordion graphs. J. Comb. Optim.
2017, 34, 534–544. [CrossRef]
11. Siddiqui, M.K.; Miller, M.; Ryan, J. Total edge irregularity strength of octagonal grid graph. Util. Math. 2017,
103, 277–287.
12. Siddiqui, M.K. On irregularity strength of convex polytope graphs with certain pendent edges added.
Ars Comb. 2016, 129, 199–210.
13. Bača, M.; Siddiqui, M.K. On total edge irregularity strength of strong product of two cycles. Util. Math. 2017,
104, 255–275.
14. Bača, M.; Siddiqui, M.K. Total edge irregularity strength of generalized prism. Appl. Math. Comput. 2014, 235,
168–173. [CrossRef]
15. Ryan, J.; Munasinghe, B.; Tanna, D. Reflexive irregular labelings. preprint 2017.
16. Bača, M.; Irfan, M.; Ryan, J. Semaničovǎ-Feňovčkovǎ, A.; Tanna, D. On edge irregular reflexive labelings for
the generalized friendship graphs. Mathematics 2017, 67, 2–11.
17. Tanna, D.; Ryan, J.; Semaničovǎ-Feňovčkovǎ, A. A reflexive edge irregular labelings of prisms and wheels.
Australas. J. Combin. 2017, 69, 394–401.
18. Brandt, S.; Miškuf, J.; Rautenbach, D. On a conjecture about edge irregular total labellings. J. Graph Theory
2008, 57, 333–343. [CrossRef]
19. Bača, M.; Irfan, M.; Ryan, J.; Semaničovǎ-Feňovčkovǎ, A.; Tanna, D. Note On reflexive irregular edge labelings
of graphs. AKCE Intern. J. Graphs Comb. 2018. [CrossRef]
20. Tomescu, I.; Javaid, I. On the metric dimension of the Jahangir graph. Bull. Math. Soc. Sci. Math. Roum. 2007,
50, 371–376.
21. Ma, K.J.; Feng, C.J. On the gracefulness of gear graphs. Math. Pract. Theory 1984, 4, 72–73.

c 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).