Graph Theory

Graph G = (V , E).
V ={vertices}, E={edges}.
a b

h
d
k

e
f

V={a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,k}
E={(a,b),(a,g),( a,h),(a,k),(b,c),(b,k),...,(h,k)} |E|=16.
Digraph D = (V , A).
V ={vertices}, E={edges}.
a b

h
d
k

e
f

V={a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,k}
E={(a,b),(a,g),( h,a),(k,a),(b,c),(k,b),...,(h,k)} |E|=16.
 Eulerian Graphs

Can you draw the diagram below without taking your pen off the
paper or going over the same line twice?
 Bipartite Graphs

G is bipartite if V = X ∪ Y where X and Y are disjoint and every edge

is of the form (x, y) where x ∈ X and y ∈ Y .
In the diagram below, A,B,C,D are women and a,b,c,d are men.
There is an edge joining x and y iff x and y like each other. The thick
edges form a “perfect matching” enabling everybody to be paired with
someone they like. Not all graphs will have perfect matching!

A a

B b

C c

D d
 Vertex Colouring

R
Colours {R,B,G}
B B

R G
R

Let C = {colours}. A vertex colouring of G is a map f : V → C.

We say that v ∈ V gets coloured with f (v ).
The colouring is proper iff (a, b) ∈ E ⇒ f (a) 6= f (b).
The Chromatic Number χ(G) is the minimum number of colours
in a proper colouring.
 Subgraphs
G′ = (V ′ , E ′ ) is a subgraph of G = (V , E) if V ′ ⊆ V and E ′ ⊆ E.
G′ is a spanning subgraph if V ′ = V .

a f
d e
b g

c h
If V ′ ⊆ V then

G[V ′ ] = (V ′ , {(u, v ) ∈ E : u, v ∈ V ′ })

is the subgraph of G induced by V ′ .

a

b d e G[{a,b,c,d,e}]

c
Similarly, if E1 ⊆ E then G[E1 ] = (V1 , E1 ) where

V1 = {v ∈ V1 : ∃e ∈ E1 such that v ∈ e}

is also induced (by E1 ).

E 1 = {(a,b), (a,d)}

d G[E 1 ]
b
 Isomorphism

G1 = (V1 , E1 ) and G2 = (V2 , E2 ) are isomorphic if there exists a

bijection f : V1 → V2 such that

(v , w) ∈ E1 ↔ (f (v ), f (w)) ∈ E2 .

a A

b d B D

c C

f(a)=A etc.
 Complete Graphs
Kn = ([n], {(i, j) : 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n})
is the complete graph on n vertices.
Km,n = ([m] ∪ [n], {(i, j) : i ∈ [m], j ∈ [n]})
is the complete bipartite graph on m + n vertices.
(The notation is a little imprecise but hopefully clear.)

K5
 Vertex Degrees

dG (v ) = degree of vertex v in G
= number of edges incident with v
δ(G) = min dG (v )
v
∆(G) = max dG (v )
v

G d G (a)=2, d G (g)=4 etc.

b
c
a
δ( G)=2, ∆ (G)=4.
g
d
f
e
 Matrices and Graphs
Incidence matrix M: V × E matrix.

1 v ∈e
M(v , e) =
0 v∈/e

e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8
a 1 1 1
b 1 1 1
c 1 1 1
d 1 1 1
e 1 1 1 1
e 1
b c
e5
e e6
e2 e 4
e 8
e7
a e d
3
Adjacency matrix A: V × V matrix.

1 v , w adjacent
A(v , w) =
0 otherwise

a b c d e
a 1 1 1
b 1 1 1
c 1 1 1
d 1 1 1
e 1 1 1 1

e 1
b c
e5
e e6
e2 e 4
e 8
e7
a e d
3
Theorem
X
dG (v ) = 2|E|
v ∈V

Proof Consider the incidence matrix M. Row v has dG (v )

1’s. So X
# 1’s in matrix M is dG (v ).
v ∈V

Column e has 2 1’s. So

# 1’s in matrix M is 2|E|.


Corollary

In any graph, the number of vertices of odd degree, is even.

Proof Let ODD = {odd degree vertices} and

EVEN = V \ ODD.
X X
d(v ) = 2|E| − d(v )
v ∈ODD v ∈EVEN

is even.
So |ODD| is even. 
 Paths and Walks

W = (v1 , v2 , . . . , vk ) is a walk in G if (vi , vi+1 ) ∈ E for 1 ≤ i < k .

A path is a walk in which the vertices are distinct.
W1 is a path, but W2 , W3 are not.
b d

a c e

g f

W1 = a,b,c,e,d
W2 =a,b,a,c,e
W3 =g,f,c,e,f
A walk is closed if v1 = vk . A cycle is a closed walk in which the
vertices are distinct except for v1 , vk .
b, c, e, d, b is a cycle.
b, c, a, b, d, e, c, b is not a cycle.

b d

a c e

g f
Theorem
Let A be the adjacency matrix of the graph G = (V , E) and let
Mk = Ak for k ≥ 1. Then for v , w ∈ V , Mk (v , w) is the number
of distinct walks of length k from v to w.

Proof We prove this by induction on k . The base case

k = 1 is immediate.

Assume the truth of the theorem for some k ≥ 1. For ℓ ≥ 0, let

Pℓ (x, y ) denote the set of walks of length ℓ from x to y . Let
Pk +1 (v , w; x) be the set of walks from v to w whose
penultimate vertex is x. Note that

Pk +1 (v , w; x) ∩ Pk +1 (v , w; x ′ ) = ∅ for x 6= x ′

and [
Pk +1 (v , w) = Pk +1 (v , w; x)
x∈V
So,
X
|Pk +1 (v , w)| = |Pk +1 (v , w; x)|
x∈V
X
= |Pk (v , x)|A(x, w)
x∈V
X
= Mk (v , x)A(x, w) induction
x∈V
= Mk +1 (v , w) matrix multiplication


 Connected components

We define a relation ∼ on V .
a ∼ b iff there is a walk from a to b.

b d e

a c f
g

a ∼ b but a 6∼ d.
Claim: ∼ is an equivalence relation.
reflexivity v ∼ v as v is a (trivial) walk from v to v .
Symmetry u ∼ v implies v ∼ u.
(u = u1 , u2 . . . , uk = v ) is a walk from u to v
implies (uk , uk −1 , . . . , u1 ) is a walk from v to u.
 Transitivity u ∼ v and v ∼ w implies u ∼ w.
W1 = (u = u1 , u2 . . . , uk = v ) is a walk from u to v
and W2 = (v1 = v , v2 , v3 , . . . , vℓ = w) is a walk
from v to w imples that
(W1 , W2 ) = (u1 , u2 . . . , uk , v2 , v3 , . . . , vℓ ) is a walk
from u to w.
The equivalence classes of ∼ are called connected
components.
In general V = C1 ∪ V2 ∪ · · · ∪ Cr where C1 , C2 , . . . ,
Cr are the connected comonents.
We let comp(G)(= r ) be the number of components of G.
G is connected iff comp(G) = 1 i.e. there is a walk between
every pair of vertices.
Thus C1 , C2 , . . . , Cr induce connected subgraphs
G[C1 ], . . . , G[Cr ] of G
For a walk W we let ℓ(W ) = no. of edges in W .

l(W)=6

Lemma
Suppose W is a walk from vertex a to vertex b and that W
minimises ℓ over all walks from a to b. Then W is a path.

Proof Suppose W = (a = a0 , a1 , . . . , ak = b) and ai = aj

where 0 ≤ i < j ≤ k . Then W ′ = (a0 , a1 , . . . , ai , aj+1 , . . . , ak ) is
also a walk from a to b and ℓ(W ′ ) = ℓ(W ) − (j − i) < ℓ(W ) –
contradiction. 
Corollary
If a ∼ b then there is a path from a to b.

So G is connected ↔ ∀a, b ∈ V there is a path from a to b.

 Breadth First Search – BFS

Fix v ∈ V . For w ∈ V let

d(v , w) = length of shortest path from v to w.

For t = 0, 1, 2, . . . , let

At = {w ∈ V : d(v , w) = t}.

A2 A3 A4
A1

v A4 A4
A2 A3
A1
A2 A3
A0 = {v } and v ∼ w ↔ d(v , w) < ∞.
In BFS we construct A0 , A1 , A2 , . . . , by

At+1 = {w ∈
/ A0 ∪ A1 ∪ · · · ∪ At : ∃ an edge
(u, w) such that u ∈ At }.

Note : no edges (a, b) between Ak and Aℓ

for ℓ − k ≥ 2, else w ∈ Ak +1 6= Aℓ .
(1)

In this way we can find all vertices in the same component C as

v.
By repeating for v ′ ∈
/ C we find another component etc.
 Characterisation of bipartite graphs

Theorem
G is bipartite ↔ G has no cycles of odd length.

Proof →: G = (X ∪ Y , E).

Y X

X Y Typical Cycle

Y X

Suppose C = (u1 , u2 , . . . , uk , u1 ) is a cycle. Suppose u1 ∈ X .

Then u2 ∈ Y , u3 ∈ X , . . . , uk ∈ Y implies k is even.
← Assume G is connected, else apply following argument to
each component.
Choose v ∈ V and construct A0 , A1 , A2 , . . . , by BFS.

X = A0 ∪ A2 ∪ A4 ∪ · · · and Y = A1 ∪ A3 ∪ A5 ∪ · · ·

We need only show that X and Y contain no edges and then

all edges must join X and Y . Suppose X contains edge (a, b)
where a ∈ Ak and b ∈ Aℓ .
(i) If k 6= ℓ then |k − ℓ| ≥ 2 which contradicts (1)
(ii)

k = ℓ:
a

v
vj b
There exist paths (v = v0 , v1 , v2 , . . . , vk = a) and
(v = w0 , w1 , w2 , . . . , wk = b).
Let j = max{t : vt = wt }.

(vj , vj+1 , . . . , vk , wk , wk −1 , . . . , wj )

is an odd cycle – length 2(k − j) + 1 – contradiction. 

 Trees

A tree is a graph which is

(a) Connected and

(b) has no cycles (acyclic).
Lemma
Let the components of G be
C1 , C2 , . . . , Cr , Suppose e = (u, v ) ∈
/ E, u ∈ Ci , v ∈ Cj .
(a) i = j ⇒ comp(G + e) = comp(G).
(b) i 6= j ⇒ comp(G + e) = comp(G) − 1.

(a)

v
u

(b)

u v
Proof Every path P in G + e which is not in G must contain
e. Also,
comp(G + e) ≤ comp(G).
Suppose

(x = u0 , u1 , . . . , uk = u, uk +1 = v , . . . , uℓ = y )

is a path in G + e that uses e. Then clearly x ∈ Ci and y ∈ Cj .

(a) follows as now no new relations x ∼ y are added.
(b) Only possible new relations x ∼ y are for x ∈ Ci and y ∈ Cj .
But u ∼ v in G + e and so Ci ∪ Cj becomes (only) new
component. 
Lemma
G = (V , E) is acyclic (forest) with (tree) components
C1 , C2 , . . . , Ck . |V | = n. e = (u, v ) ∈
/ E, u ∈ Ci , v ∈ Cj .
(a) i = j ⇒ G + e contains a cycle.
(b) i 6= j ⇒ G + e is acyclic and has one less
component.
(c) G has n − k edges.
(a) u, v ∈ Ci implies there exists a path
(u = u0 , u1 , . . . , uℓ = v ) in G.
So G + e contains the cycle u0 , u1 , . . . , uℓ , u0 .

u
v
 v
u

(b) Suppose G + e contains the cycle C. e ∈ C else C is a

cycle of G.
C = (u = u0 , u1 , . . . , uℓ = v , u0 ).
But then G contains the path (u0 , u1 , . . . , uℓ ) from u to v –
contradiction.
u2

u1
uℓ−1
u v
Drop in number of components follows from previous Lemma.
The rest follows from
(c) Suppose E = {e1 , e2 , . . . , er } and
Gi = (V , {e1 , e2 , . . . , ei }) for 0 ≤ i ≤ r .
Claim: Gi has n − i components.
Induction on i.
i = 0: G0 has no edges.
i > 0: Gi−1 is acyclic and so is Gi . It follows from part (a) that ei
joins vertices in distinct components of Gi−1 . It follows from (b)
that Gi has one less component than Gi−1 .
End of proof of claim
Thus r = n − k (we assumed G had k components). 
Corollary
If a tree T has n vertices then
(a) It has n − 1 edges.
(b) It has at least 2 vertices of degree 1, (n ≥ 2).

Proof (a) is part (c) of previous lemma. k = 1 since T is

connnected.
(b) Let s be the number of vertices of degree 1 in T . There are
no vertices of degree 0 – these would form separate
components. Thus
X
2n − 2 = dT (v ) ≥ 2(n − s) + s.
v ∈V

So s ≥ 2. 
Theorem
Suppose |V | = n and |E| = n − 1. The following three
statements become equivalent.
(a) G is connected.
(b) G is acyclic.
(c) G is a tree.

Let E = {e1 , e2 , . . . , en−1 } and

Gi = (V , {e1 , e2 , . . . , ei }) for 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1.
(a) ⇒ (b): G0 has n components and Gn−1 has 1 component.
Addition of each edge ei must reduce the number of
components by 1. Thus Gi−1 acyclic implies Gi is acyclic. (b)
follows as G0 is acyclic.
(b) ⇒ (c): We need to show that G is connected. Since Gn−1 is
acyclic, comp(Gi ) = comp(Gi−1 ) − 1 for each i. Thus
comp(Gn−1 ) = 1.
(c) ⇒ (a): trivial.
Corollary
If v is a vertex of degree 1 in a tree T then T − v is also a tree.

v
Proof Suppose T has n vertices and n − 1 edges. Then
T − v has n − 1 vertices and n − 2 edges. It acyclic and so
must be a tree. 
 How many trees? – Cayley’s Formula
n=4

4 12

n=5

5 60 60

n=6

6 120 360 90

360
360
 Prüfer’s Correspondence

There is a 1-1 correspondence φV between spanning trees of

KV (the complete graph with vertex set V ) and sequences
V n−2 . Thus for n ≥ 2

τ (Kn ) = nn−2 Cayley’s Formula.

Assume some arbitrary ordering V = {v1 < v2 < · · · < vn }.

φV (T ):
begin
T1 := T ;
for i = 1 to n − 2 do
begin
si := neighbour of least leaf ℓi of Ti .
Ti+1 = Ti − ℓi .
end φV (T ) = s1 s2 . . . sn−2
end
 5 3

11
8 4
7
14 6 2

10
9 13 1 12 15

6,4,5,14,2,6,11,14,8,5,11,4,2
Lemma
v ∈ V (T ) appears exactly dT (v ) − 1 times in φV (T ).

Proof Assume n = |V (T )| ≥ 2. By induction on n.

n = 2: φV (T ) = Λ = empty string.
Assume n ≥ 3:

s1
ℓ1
T1

φV (T ) = s1 φV1 (T1 ) where V1 = V − {s1 }.

s1 appears dT1 (s1 ) − 1 + 1 = dT (s1 ) − 1 times – induction.
v 6= s1 appears dT1 (v ) − 1 = dT (v ) − 1 times – induction. 
 Construction of φ−1
V

Inductively assume that for all |X | < n there is an inverse

function φ−1
X . (True for n = 2).
Now define φ−1V by

φ−1 −1
V (s1 s2 . . . sn−2 ) = φV1 (s2 . . . sn−2 ) plus edge s1 ℓ1 ,

where ℓ1 = min{s ∈ V : s ∈
/ {s1 , s2 , . . . sn−2 }} and
V1 = V − {ℓ1 }. Then

φV (φ−1 −1
V (s1 s2 . . . sn−2 )) = s1 φV1 (φV1 (s2 . . . sn−2 ))
= s1 s2 . . . sn−2 .

Thus φV has an inverse and the correspondence is

established.
n = 10
s = 5, 3, 7, 4, 4, 3, 2, 6.
6
8
9
2
10 7
3
6
2
5 4
5
1 4
7 9
1
3

8
 Number of trees with a given degree sequence

Corollary
If d1 + d2 + · · · + dn = 2n − 2 then the number of spanning trees
of Kn with degree sequence d1 , d2 , . . . , dn is
 
n−2 (n − 2)!
= .
d1 − 1, d2 − 1, . . . , dn − 1 (d1 − 1)!(d2 − 1)! · · · (dn − 1)!

Proof From Prüfer’s correspondence this is the number of

sequences of length n − 2 in which 1 appears d1 − 1 times, 2
appears d2 − 1 times and so on. 
 Eulerian Graphs

An Eulerian cycle of a graph G = (V , E) ia closed walk which

uses each edge e ∈ E exactly once.
e

b h
c
g
f
d
a j

k
The walk using edges a, b, c, d, e, f , g, h, j, k in this order is an
Eulerian cycle.
Theorem
A connected graph is Eulerian i.e. has an Eulerian cycle, iff it
has no vertex of odd degree.

Proof Suppose W = (v1 , v2 , . . . , vm , v1 )

(m = |E|) is an Eulerian cycle. Fix v ∈ V . Whenever W visits v
it enters through a new edge and leaves through a new edge.
Thus each visit requires 2 new edges. Thus the degree of v is
even.
v i-1

v i+1
v

vj-1

v j+1
The converse is proved by induction on |E|. The result is true
for |E| = 3. The only possible graph is a triangle.
Assume |E| ≥ 4. G is not a tree, since it has no vertex of
degree 1. Therefore it contains a cycle C. Delete the edges of
C. The remaining graph has components K1 , K2 , . . . , Kr .
Each Ki is connected and is of even degree – deleting C
removes 0 or 2 edges incident with a given v ∈ V . Also, each
Ki has strictly less than |E| edges. So, by induction, each Ki
has an Eulerian cycle, Ci say.
We create an Eulerian cycle of G as follows: let
C = (v1 , v2 , . . . , vs , v1 ). Let vit be the first vertex of C which is in
Kt . Assume w.l.o.g. that i1 < i2 < · · · < ir .
W =
(v1 , v2 , . . . , vi1 , C1 , , vi1 , . . . , vi2 , C2 , vi2 , . . . , vir , Cr , vir , . . . , v1 )
is an Eulerian cycle of G. 
 K1
i1
K 2

i2

C
i3

K3
 Independent sets and cliques

S ⊆ V is independent if no edge of G has both of its endpoints

in S.

α(G)=maximum size of an independent set of G.

Theorem
If graph G has n vertices and m edges then

n2
α(G) ≥ .
2m + n

n
Note that this says that α(G) is at least d+1 where d is the
average degree of G.
Proof Let π(1), π(2), . . . , π(ν) be an arbitrary permutation
of V . Let N(v ) denote the set of neighbours of vertex v and let

I(π) = {v : π(w) > π(v ) for all w ∈ N(v )}.

Claim
I is an independent set.

Proof of Claim 1
Suppose w1 , w2 ∈ I(π) and w1 w2 ∈ E. Suppose π(w1 ) < π(w2 ).
Then w2 ∈/ I(π) — contradiction. 
 f
b d
h

c e g

a b c d e f g h I
π1 c b f h a g e d {c, f }
π2 g f h d e a b c {g, a}
Claim
If π is a random permutation then
X 1
E(|I|) = .
d(v ) + 1
v ∈V


1 v ∈I
Proof: Let δ(v ) =
0 v∈/I
Thus
X
|I| = δ(v )
v ∈V
X
E(|I|) = E(δ(v ))
v ∈V
X
= Pr(δ(v ) = 1).
v ∈V
Now δ(v ) = 1 iff v comes before all of its neighbours in the
order π. Thus
1
Pr(δ(v ) = 1) =
d(v ) + 1
and the claim follows. 
Thus there exists a π such that
X 1
|I(π)| ≥
d(v ) + 1
v ∈V

and so
X 1
α(G) ≥ .
d(v ) + 1
v ∈V
We finish the proof of the theorem by showing that
X 1 n2
≥ .
d(v ) + 1 2m + n
v ∈V

This follows from the following claim by putting xv = d(v ) + 1

for v ∈ V .
Claim
If x1 , x2 , . . . xk > 0 then

1 1 1 k2
+ + ··· + ≥ . (2)
x1 x2 xk x1 + x2 + · · · + xk
Proof
Multiplying (2) by x1 + x2 + · · · + xk and subtracting k from both
sides we see that (2) is equivalent to
X  xi xj

+ ≥ k (k − 1). (3)
xj xi
1≤i<j≤k

But for all x, y > 0

x y
+ ≥2
y x
and (3) follows. 
Corollary
If G contains no clique of size k then

(k − 2)n2
m≤
2(k − 1)

For example, if G contains no triangle then m ≤ n2 /4.

Proof Let Ḡ be the complement of G i.e. G + Ḡ = Kn .

By assumption

n2
k − 1 ≥ α(Ḡ) ≥ .
n(n − 1) − 2m + n


 Parallel searching for the maximum – Valiant

We have n processors and n numbers x1 , x2 , . . . , xn . In each

round we choose n pairs i, j and compare the values of xi , xj .
The set of pairs chosen in a round can depend on the results of
previous comparisons.
Aim: find i ∗ such that xi ∗ = maxi xi .
Claim
For any algorithm there exists an input which requires at least
1
2 log2 log2 n rounds.
 9
8
7

4 10
3
6
5

2
1
Suppose that the first round of comparisons involves comparing
xi , xj for edge ij of the above graph and that the arrows point to
the larger of the two values. Consider the independent set
{1, 2, 5, 8, 9}. These are the indices of the 5 largest elements,
but their relative order can be arbitrary since there is no implied
relation between their values.
Let C(a, b) be the maximum number of rounds needed for a
processors to compute the maximum of b values in this way.
Lemma

b2
  
C(a, b) ≥ 1 + C a, .
2a + b

Proof The set of b comparisons defines a b-edge graph G

on a vertices where comparison of xi , xj produces an edge ij of
G. Now, & ' 
b2

b
α(G) ≥ 2a = .
b +1
2a + b
For any independent set I it is always possible to define values
for x1 , x2 , . . . , xa such I is the index set of the |I| largest values
and so that the comparisons do not yield any information about
the ordering of the elements xi , i ∈ I.
Thus after one round one has the problem of finding the
maximum among α(G) elements. 
Now define the sequence c0 , c1 , . . . by c0 = n and
& '
ci2
ci+1 = .
2n + ci

It follows from the previous lemma that

ck ≥ 2 implies C(n, n) ≥ k + 1.
Claim 4 now follows from
Claim
n
ci ≥ .
32i −1

By induction on i. Trivial for i = 0. Then

n2 1
ci+1 ≥ × n
32i+1 −2 2n + i
32 −1
n 3
= 2i+1 −1
× 1
3 2+ i
32 −1
n
≥ 2i+1 −1
.
3

We found an upper bound on the number of edges m ≤ n2 /4
on graphs without triangles. We find a smaller bound if we
exclude cycles of length four.
Theorem
If G contains no cycles of length four then m ≤ (n3/2 + n)/2.

Proof We count in two ways the number N of paths x, y , z

of length two.

For an unordered pair x, z there can be at most one y such that

x, y , z forms a path. Otherwise G will contain a C4 . Thus
 
n
N≤ .
2
Let d(y ) denote the degree of z for y ∈ V . In which case there
)

are d(y
2 choices of x, z to make a path x, y , z.

Thus
X d(y )
N =
2
y ∈V
1X
= −m + d(y )2
2
y ∈V

n 2m 2
 
≥ −m +
2 n

Thus
n2 − n 2m2
≥ −m + .
2 n
We re-arrange to give

n n3 − n2
m2 − m− ≤0
2 4

or

 n 2 n 3 n2
m− − − ≤0
4 4 16
which implies that

n n3/2 n
m− ≤ + .
4 2 4

 Matchings
A matching M of a graph G = (V , E) is a set of edges, no two
of which are incident to a common vertex.
M-saturated

M={ }

M-unsaturated
 M-alternating path

M not M M not M M

b d

(a,b,c,d,e,f) is an
M-alternating path
f

An M-alternating path joining 2 M-unsaturated vertices is called

an M-augmenting path.
M is a maximum matching of G if no matching M ′ has more
edges.
Theorem
M is a maximum matching iff M admits no M-augmenting paths.

Proof Suppose M has an augmenting path

P = (a0 , b1 , a1 , . . . , ak , bk +1 ) where
ei = (ai−1 , bi ) ∈
/ M, 1 ≤ i ≤ k + 1 and
fi = (bi , ai ) ∈ M, 1 ≤ i ≤ k .
a1 a2

b1 b3

a0 b2

M ′ = M − {f1 , f2 , . . . , fk } + {e1 , e2 , . . . , ek +1 }.
 |M ′ | = |M| + 1.
M ′ is a matching
For x ∈ V let dM (x) denote  the degree of x in matching M, So
 dM (x) x 6∈ {a0 , b1 , . . . , bk +1 }
dM (x) is 0 or 1. dM ′ (x) = dM (x) x ∈ {b1 , . . . , ak }
dM (x) + 1 x ∈ {a0 , bk +1 }

So if M has an augmenting path it is not maximum.
Suppose M is not a maximum matching and |M ′ | > |M|.
Consider H = G[M∇M ′ ] where M∇M ′ = (M \ M ′ ) ∪ (M ′ \ M) is
the set of edges in exactly one of M, M ′ .
Maximum degree of H is 2 – ≤ 1 edge from M or M ′ . So H is a
collection of vertex disjoint alternating paths and cycles.

(a) (b)

x
 Bipartite Graphs

Let G = (A ∪ B, E) be a bipartite graph with bipartition A, B.

For S ⊆ A let N(S) = {b ∈ B : ∃a ∈ S, (a, b) ∈ E}.
a1 b1

a2 b2

a3 b3

a4 b4

N({a 2 , a 3 }) ={ b 1 b 3 b4 }

Clearly, |M| ≤ |A|, |B| for any matching M of G.

 Systems of Distinct Representatives

Let S1 , S2 , . . . , Sm be arbitrary sets. A set s1 , s2 , . . . , sm of m

disitinct elements is a system of distinct representatives if
si ∈ Si for i = 1, 2, . . . , m.

For example {1, 2, 4} is a system of distinct representatives for

{1, 2, 3}, {2, 5, 6}, {2, 4, 5}.

the bipartite graph G with vertex bipartition [m], S

Now define S
where S = m i=1 Si and an edge (i, s) iff s ∈ Si .

Then S1 , S2 , . . . , Sm has a system of distinct representatives iff

G has a matching of size m.
 Hall’s Theorem

Theorem
G contains a matching of size |A| iff

|N(S)| ≥ |S| ∀S ⊆ A. (4)

a1 b1

a2 b2

a3 b3

a4 b4

N({a1 , a2 , a3 }) = {b1 , b2 } and so at most 2 of a1 , a2 , a3 can be

saturated by a matching.
: Suppose M = {(a, φ(a)) : a ∈ A} saturates A.

1 φ (2) ε N(S)

2 φ (4)
+non-matching
S
edges
3 φ (1) ε N(S)

4 φ (3) ε N(S)

|N(S)| ≥ |{φ(s) : s ∈ S}|

= |S|

and so (4) holds.

If: Let M = {(a, φ(a)) : a ∈ A′ } (A′ ⊆ A) is a maximum
matching. Suppose a0 ∈ A is M-unsaturated. We show that (4)
fails.
Let
A1 = {a ∈ A : such that a is reachable from a0 by an
M-alternating path.}
B1 = {b ∈ B : such that b is reachable from a0 by an
M-alternating path.}

B1 B1 B1 B1

a0 A1 A1 A1 A1

No A 1 - B\B 1
edges
• B1 is M-saturated else there exists an M-augmenting path.
• If a ∈ A1 \ {a0 } then φ(a) ∈ B1 .

a0 φ(a) a
• If b ∈ B1 then φ−1 (b) ∈ A1 \ {a0 }.
So |B1 | = |A1 | − 1. • N(A1 ) ⊆ B1

a0 b a
So |N(A1 )| = |A1 | − 1 and (4) fails to hold.
 Marriage Theorem

Theorem
Suppose G = (A ∪ B, E) is k -regular. (k ≥ 1) i.e. dG (v ) = k for
all v ∈ A ∪ B. Then G has a perfect matching.

Proof k |A| = |E| = k |B| and so |A| = |B|.

Suppose S ⊆ A. Let m be the number of edges incident with S.
Then k |S| = m ≤ k |N(S)|. So (4) holds and there is a matching
of size |A| i.e. a perfect matching.
 Edge Covers

A set of vertices X ⊆ V is a covering of G = (V , E) if every

edge of E contains at least one endpoint in X .

{ } is a covering

Lemma
If X is a covering and M is a matching then |X | ≥ |M|.

Proof Let M = {(a1 , bi ) : 1 ≤ i ≤ k }. Then |X | ≥ |M| since

ai ∈ X or bi ∈ X for 1 ≤ i ≤ k and a1 , . . . , bk are distinct. 
 Konig’s Theorem

Let µ(G) be the maximum size of a matching.

Let β(G) be the minimum size of a covering.
Then µ(G) ≤ β(G).
Theorem
If G is bipartite then µ(G) = β(G).

Proof Let M be a maximum matching.

Let S0 be the M-unsaturated vertices of A.
Let S ⊇ S0 be the A-vertices which are reachable from S by
M-alternating paths.
Let T be the M-neighbours of S \ S0 .
 T T T T

S0 S0 S0 S S S S

Let X = (A \ S) ∪ T .
• |X | = |M|.
|T | = |S \ S0 |. The remaining edges of M cover A \ S exactly
once.
• X is a cover.
There are no edges (x, y ) where x ∈ S and y ∈ B \ T .
Otherwise, since y is M-saturated (no M-augmenting paths) the
M-neightbour of y would have to be in S, contradicting y ∈
/ T.