Factoring complete graphs and hypergraphs into factors with few maximal cliques

Abstract

For integers $r,t\geq 2$ and $n\geq 1$ let $f_{r}(t,n)$ be the minimum, over all factorizations of the complete $r$-uniform hypergraph of order $n$ into $t$ factors $H_{1},\dots,H_{t}$, of $\sum_{i=1}^{t}c(H_{i})$ where $c(H_{i})$ is the number of maximal cliques in $H_{i}$. It is known that $f_{2}(2,n)=n+1$; in fact, if $G$ is a graph of order $n$, then $c(G)+c(\overline{G})\geq n+1$ with equality iff $\omega(G)+\alpha(G)=n+1$ where $\omega$ is the clique number and $\alpha$ the independence number. In this paper we investigate $f_{r}(t,n)$ when $r>2$ or $t>2$. We also characterize graphs $G$ of order $n$ with $c(G)+c(\overline{G})=n+2$.

1 Introduction

Let $c(G)$ denote the number of maximal cliques and $\overline{c}(G)=c(\overline{G})$ the number of maximal anticliques in a graph $G$. In an earlier paper [2] two of the present authors showed that, if $G$ is a graph of order $n$, then $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n+1$ with equality just in case $\omega(G)+\alpha(G)=n+1$ where $\omega$ is the clique number and $\alpha$ the independence number. (Proofs of these facts will be given here; see Theorem 28 and Theorem 34(a).) In this paper we generalize the problem in two ways: by considering factorizations of the complete graph $K_{n}$ into $t$ factors instead of just the two factors $G$ and $\overline{G}$, and by considering uniform hypergraphs instead of graphs. We also characterize the graphs $G$ of order $n$ with $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)=n+2$.

An $r$-uniform hypergraph (in this paper $r\geq 2$) is a structure $H=(V,E)$ comprising a nonempty finite set $V=V(H)$ of vertices and a set $E=E(H)\subseteq\binom{V}{r}$ of edges; $n(H)=|V|$ is the order and $e(H)=|E|$ is the size of $H$. (A $2$-uniform hypergraph is a graph; a $3$-uniform hypergraph is a triple system.) A set $X\subseteq V$ is a clique if $\binom{X}{r}\subseteq E$, an anticlique if $\binom{X}{r}\cap E=\varnothing$. The complement of $H$ is the hypergraph $\overline{H}=(V,\binom{V}{r}\setminus E)$. We write $c(H)$ for the number of maximal cliques and $\overline{c}(H)=c(\overline{H})$ for the number of maximal anticliques in $H$. We write $D(v)$ for the number of maximal cliques and $\overline{D}(v)$ for the number of maximal anticliques containing a vertex $v$. We define $d(H)=\min\{D(v):v\in V\}$ and $\overline{d}(H)=d(\overline{H})=\min\{\overline{D}(v):v\in V\}$. The complete $r$-uniform hypergraph of order $n$ is $K^{r}_{n}=(V,\binom{V}{r})$ where $|V|=n$. Note that $c(K^{r}_{n})=1$ and $\overline{c}(K^{r}_{n})=\max\{\binom{n}{r-1},1\}$. An edge $\{u,v\}$ of a graph may be written as $uv$ if no confusion will result. The neighborhood of a vertex $v$ in a graph $G=(V,E)$ is the set $N(v)=N_{G}(v)=\{u\in V:uv\in E\}$, and we write $\overline{N}(v)$ for $N_{\overline{G}}(v)=\{u\in V:uv\notin E,u\neq v\}$. The clique number $\omega(G)$ of a graph $G$ is the maximum number of vertices in a clique of $G$; the independence number $\alpha(G)=\omega(\overline{G})$ is the maximum number of vertices in an anticlique of $G$. See West [4] for graph-theoretic notation and terminology not defined here.

For integers $r,t\geq 2$ and $n\geq 1$ we define $f_{r}(t,n)$ as the minimum of $\sum_{i=1}^{t}c(H_{i})$ over all factorizations of $K^{r}_{n}$ into $t$ edge-disjoint spanning subgraphs $H_{1},\dots,H_{t}$. In this notation, part of the aforementioned result of [2] may be expressed as follows. (A slightly stronger result will be proved here as Theorem 28.)

Theorem 1.

$f_{2}(2,n)=n+1$.

Sometimes we find it convenient to use the language of colorings: $f_{r}(t,n)$ is the least possible number of maximal monochromatic cliques in an edge coloring of $K^{r}_{n}$ with $t$ colors, it being understood that a set which is a maximal monochromatic clique for more than one color is counted once for each color; e.g., $f_{2}(3,2)=1+2+2=5$. Most of this paper is a study of the function $f_{r}(t,n)$. We have determined exact values only in some very special cases; mostly we have upper and lower bounds which are far apart.

In §2 we establish some general facts about the function $f_{r}(t,n)$, most notably an asymptotic lower bound: for fixed integers $r,t\geq 2$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ we show that $f_{r}(t,n)>n^{r-1-\varepsilon}$ for all sufficiently large $n$ (Theorem 7).

In §3 we find upper bounds for $f_{3}(2,n)$, the minimum number of maximal cliques in a triple system of order $n$ and its complement. The main result here is that $f_{3}(2,n)\leq\left\lfloor\frac{n^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor+5$. For $n\leq 12$ this is definitely not the best possible, e.g., $f_{3}(2,7)=14$ is attained by the Fano plane (Theorem 11).

In §4 we find upper bounds and a few exact values for $f_{2}(t,n)$ when $t>2$. We show that, if there is a projective plane of order $q$, then $f_{2}(q+1,n)=q^{2}+q-1$ for $(q-1)^{2}<n\leq(q-1)q$, and $f_{2}(q+1,n)=q^{2}+q$ for $(q-1)q<n\leq q^{2}$ (Theorem 19). For $q\geq 2$ we observe that $f_{2}(q+1,q^{2})=q^{2}+q$ if and only if a projective plane of order $q$ exists (Theorem 20). We obtain an upper bound of the form $f_{2}(t,n)\leq n+C_{t}$ whenever a projective plane of order $t$ or $t-1$ exists (Theorem 21); in particular see Theorem 23 for the case $t=3$, Theorem 25 for $t=4$, Theorems 26 and 27 for $t=5$. We have no counterexample to the conjecture that $f_{2}(3,n)=n+2$ for $n\equiv 1\pmod{3}$ and $f_{2}(3,n)=n+3$ otherwise (Question 24).

In §5 we characterize the graphs $G$ with $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)=n(G)+2$ (Theorem 34(b)), thereby showing that $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n(G)+3$ for all graphs outside of a well-defined class of exceptions. In particular, we show that $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n(G)+3$ if $\omega(G)+\alpha(G)<n(G)$ (Lemma 33, Corollary 35(c)).

Some of our results (Theorems 6, 7, 8, 17, 20, and 23, perhaps in a less general formulation) were stated without proof in the earlier paper [2] or in the abstract [1]. Some were presented by the third author in invited addresses to the Mid-Atlantic Mathematical Logic Seminar, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, October 2003, and to the CombinaTexas Conference, Houston, Texas, April 2009.

2 Generalities

In this section we establish some basic properties of the function $f_{r}(t,n)$ such as monotonicity (Theorem 3), the trivial bounds (Theorem 6), and an asymptotic lower bound (Theorem 7). We begin by disposing of the trivial cases where $n\leq r+1$. Recall that the maximum size of a $t$-partite graph of order $n$ is attained by the Turán graph $T_{n,t}$.

Theorem 2.

For any integers $r,t\geq 2$ we have

$$f_{r}(t,n)=\begin{cases}t&\text{ if }1\leq n<r,\\ (t-1)n+1&\text{ if }n=r,\\ \binom{n+1}{2}+(t-2)\binom{n}{2}-e(T_{n,t})&\text{ if }n=r+1,\\ \left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor&\text{ if }n=r+1\text{ and }t=2.\\ \end{cases}$$

Proof.

Only the case $n=r+1$ is in need of a proof. Consider a factorization $H_{1},\dots,H_{t}$ of $K_{n}^{n-1}=\left(V,\binom{V}{n-1}\right)$. Let $V_{i}=\{v\in V:V\setminus\{v\}\in E(H_{i})\}$ and let $n_{i}=|V_{i}|=e(H_{i})$, so that $\sum_{i=1}^{t}n_{i}=|V|=n$.

First suppose $n_{i}<n$ for all $i$. Then for $x\in V$ the set $V\setminus\{x\}$ is a maximal clique only for the unique factor $H_{i}$ having $V\setminus\{x\}$ as an edge, while for $\{x,y\}\in\binom{V}{2}$ the set $V\setminus\{x,y\}$ is a maximal clique of $H_{i}$ just in case $x\notin V_{i}$ and $y\notin V_{i}$. Hence the factors $H_{i}$ have a total of $n$ maximal cliques of size $n-1$ and $(t-2)\binom{n}{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{t}\binom{n_{i}}{2}$ maximal cliques of size $n-2$, so that in this case

$$\begin{split}\sum_{i=1}^{t}c(H_{i})&=n+(t-2)\binom{n}{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{t}\binom{n_{i}}{2}\\ &=\binom{n+1}{2}+(t-2)\binom{n}{2}-\left[\binom{n}{2}-\sum_{i=1}^{t}\binom{n_{i}}{2}\right].\end{split}$$ (1)

On the other hand, if $n_{1}=n$, then

$$\sum_{i=1}^{t}c(H_{i})=1+(t-1)\binom{n}{2}=n+(t-2)\binom{n}{2}+\binom{n-1}{2},$$

the same number of maximal cliques as when $n_{1}=n-1$. Hence we may assume that $n_{i}<n$ for all $i$. The quantity (1) is minimized when $\binom{n}{2}-\sum_{i=1}^{t}\binom{n_{i}}{2}$ is maximized, i.e., when $\binom{n}{2}-\sum_{i=1}^{t}\binom{n_{i}}{2}=e(T_{n,t})$. This shows that $f_{n-1}(t,n)=\binom{n+1}{2}+(t-2)\binom{n}{2}-e(T_{n,t})$. Finally, setting $t=2$, we have

$$f_{n-1}(2,n)=\binom{n+1}{2}-e(T_{n,2})=\binom{n+1}{2}-\left\lfloor\frac{n^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor=\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor.$$

∎

Theorem 3.

$f_{r}(t,n)\leq f_{r}(t,n+1)$.

Proof.

If $H$ is an induced subhypergraph of $G$ then $c(H)\leq c(G)$. ∎

The inequality is not necessarily strict, e.g., if $n$ is odd then $f_{2}(n,n)=f_{2}(n,n+1)=\binom{n+1}{2}$ by Corollary 15(b). See Theorem 19 for more examples.

Question 4.

Does the inequality $f_{r}(t,n)\leq f_{r}(t+1,n)$ hold for all integers $r,t\geq 2$ and $n\geq 1$?

At any rate we don’t have strict inequality, since $f_{2}(3,9)=f_{2}(4,9)=12$ by Theorems 23 and 25.

An obvious way to get a $t$-coloring from a $(t+1)$-coloring is by merging two colors. This can increase the number of maximal monochromatic cliques, i.e., if $G_{1}$ and $G_{2}$ are edge-disjoint graphs on the same vertex set $V$, we can have $c(G_{1}\cup G_{2})>c(G_{1})+c(G_{2})$. For example, let $V$ be the set of vertices of a unit cube, and let

$$E(G_{1}) =\{\{x,y\}\in\binom{V}{2}:d(x,y)=1\},$$

$$E(G_{2}) =\{\{x,y\}\in\binom{V}{2}:d(x,y)=\sqrt{2}\}.$$

Then $G_{1}=Q_{3}$, $G_{2}=2K_{4}$, and $G_{1}\cup G_{2}=K_{2,2,2,2}$, so that $c(G_{1})=12$, $c(G_{2})=2$, and $c(G_{1}\cup G_{2})=16$.

Lemma 5.

Consider a coloring of $K_{n}^{r}$. For each color $i$, let $c_{i}$ denote the number of maximal $i$-cliques. Then, for any two colors $i\neq j$, we have $c_{i}c_{j}\geq\binom{n}{r-1}$.

Proof.

Let $V$ be the vertex set. For each color $i$ let $C_{i}$ be the set of all maximal $i$-cliques. Each set $X\in\binom{V}{r-1}$ is an $i$-clique; let $f_{i}(X)$ be some maximal $i$-clique containing $X$. If $i\neq j$, then the map $X\mapsto(f_{i}(X),f_{j}(X))$ is an injection from $\binom{V}{r-1}$ to $C_{i}\times C_{j}$. ∎

Theorem 6.

For all integers $r,t\geq 2$ and $n\geq r-1$,

$t\binom{n}{r-1}^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq f_{r}(t,n)\leq(t-1)\binom{n}{r-1}+1$.

Proof.

For the upper bound, give all edges the same color.

For the lower bound, let $K_{n}^{r}$ be $t$-colored so that $f_{r}(t,n)=c_{1}+\dots+c_{t}$ where $c_{i}$ is the number of maximal $i$-cliques. By Lemma 5 we have $c_{i}c_{j}\geq\binom{n}{r-1}$ for $i\neq j$. Hence:

$$(c_{1}c_{2})(c_{2}c_{3})\dots(c_{t}c_{1})\geq\binom{n}{r-1}^{t};$$

$$c_{1}c_{2}\dots c_{t}\geq\binom{n}{r-1}^{t/2};$$

$$f_{r}(t,n)=c_{1}+c_{2}+\dots+c_{t}\geq t(c_{1}c_{2}\dots c_{t})^{1/t}\geq t\binom{n}{r-1}^{1/2}.$$

∎

Theorem 7.

For any integers $s\geq 1$ and $t\geq 2$, and for any $\varepsilon>0$, we have $f_{s+1}(t,n)>n^{s-\varepsilon}$ for all sufficiently large $n$.

Proof.

Choose $\delta$ so that $0<\delta<\min\{\varepsilon,s\}$. Let $\alpha=\frac{s-\delta}{s}$ and $k=\left\lceil\frac{s-\delta}{1-\alpha}\right\rceil$. Define $M$ so that

$$m\geq M\implies\frac{m(m-1)(m-2)\cdots(m-s+1)}{m^{s}}\geq\frac{t-\frac{3}{2}}{t-1}.$$

By Ramsey’s theorem there is an integer $R\geq k$ such that any $t$-coloring of the edges of the complete hypergraph $K_{R}^{s+1}$ contains a monochromatic clique of size $k$. Let $\beta=\min\left\{\frac{t-\frac{3}{2}}{s!},\frac{1}{\binom{R}{k}}\right\}$.

Let $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and consider a $t$-coloring of the edges of $K_{n}^{s+1}$. Let $c_{i}$ be the number of maximal $i$-cliques. Let $m$ be the size of the largest monochromatic clique.

If there is a $j$-clique of size $m$, then for each color $i\neq j$ there are at least $\binom{m}{s}$ maximal $i$-cliques. If $n^{\alpha}\geq M$ then

$$\sum_{i=1}^{t}c_{i}>(t-1)\binom{m}{s}\geq\frac{t-\frac{3}{2}}{s!}m^{s}\geq\beta m^{s}\geq\beta n^{\alpha s}=\beta n^{s-\delta}.$$

Let $p$ be the number of monochromatic cliques of size $k$. Since every monochromatic clique is contained in a maximal monochromatic clique, $p\leq\binom{m}{k}\sum_{i=1}^{t}c_{i}$. On the other hand, if $n\geq R$, then $p\geq\binom{n}{k}/\binom{R}{k}\geq\beta\binom{n}{k}$ and we have

$$\sum_{i=1}^{t}c_{i}\geq\frac{\beta\binom{n}{k}}{\binom{m}{k}}\geq\frac{\beta n^{k}}{m^{k}}\geq\frac{\beta n^{k}}{n^{\alpha k}}\geq\beta n^{s-\delta}.$$

Thus $f_{s+1}(t,n)\geq\beta n^{s-\delta}>n^{s-\varepsilon}$ for sufficiently large $n$. ∎

3 A triple system and its complement

In this section we find upper bounds for $f_{3}(2,n)$. For $n>12$ our best result is $f_{3}(2,n)\leq\left\lfloor\frac{n^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor+5$ (Theorem 12). We know the exact value of $f_{3}(2,n)$ only for $n\leq 7$. By tedious case analysis (which we omit) we have verified that Theorem 8 is optimal for $2\leq n\leq 6$, so that $f_{3}(2,n)=\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor$ in those cases, and that Theorem 11 is optimal for $n=7$, so that $f_{3}(2,7)=14$. See Theorem 2 for the trivial cases $n\leq 4$.

Theorem 8.

$f_{3}(2,n)\leq\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor$ for $n\geq 2$.

Proof.

Let $n=n_{1}+n_{2}$ where $n_{1},n_{2}>0$. Let $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2},V_{1}\cap V_{2}=\varnothing,|V_{i}|=n_{i}$, and consider the triple system $H=(V,E)$ where $E=\{e\in\binom{V}{3}:|e\cap V_{1}|\geq 2\}$. Then $c(H)=n_{2}+\binom{n_{2}}{2}$; the maximal cliques are the sets $V_{1}\cup\{v\}$, $v\in V_{2}$, and the $2$-element subsets of $V_{2}$. Taking $n_{1}=\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor$ and $n_{2}=\left\lceil\frac{n}{2}\right\rceil$, we see that

$$f_{3}(2,n)\leq c(H)+\overline{c}(H)=\left\lceil\frac{n}{2}\right\rceil+\binom{\left\lceil\frac{n}{2}\right\rceil}{2}+\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor+\binom{\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor}{2}=\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor.$$

Alternatively, let $H=(V,E)$ where $V=[n]$ and $E=\{\{x,y,z\}\in\binom{V}{3}:x<y<z,\ y\text{ odd}\}$. For integers $a<b$ of the same parity, let $X_{a,b}$ be the set consisting of $a$ and $b$ and all integers of the opposite parity between $a$ and $b$; e.g., $X_{3,9}=\{3,4,6,8,9\}$. Then the maximal cliques (anticliques) of $H$ are just the sets $X_{a,b}\cap[n]$ where $a$ and $b$ are even (odd) integers, $0\leq a<b\leq n+1$. It follows that

$$c(H)+\overline{c}(H)=\binom{\left\lceil\frac{n}{2}\right\rceil+1}{2}+\binom{\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor+1}{2}=\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor.$$

∎

In fact $f_{3}(2,n)=\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor$ holds for $2\leq n\leq 6$ but not for $n\geq 7$; see Theorems 11 and 12.

Lemma 9.

A triple system $H$ of order $n\geq 2$ can be extended to a triple system $H^{*}$ of order $n+1$ such that $c(H^{*})=c(H)+d(H)+1$, $d(H^{*})=d(H)+1$, $\overline{c}(H^{*})=\overline{c}(H)$, and $\overline{d}(H^{*})=\overline{d}(H)$.

Proof.

Let $H=(V,E)$ be a triple system of order $n\geq 2$. Choose a vertex $v\in V$ with $D(v)=d(H)$. Choose a new vertex $v^{*}\notin V$ and let $H^{*}=(V^{*},E^{*})$ where $V^{*}=V\cup\{v^{*}\}$ and $E^{*}=E\cup\{\{x,y,v^{*}\}:\{x,y,v\}\in E\}$.

The maximal anticliques of $H^{*}$ are $(1)$ the maximal anticliques of $H$ not containing $v$ and $(2)$ the sets $X\cup\{v^{*}\}$ where $X$ is a maximal anticlique of H containing $v$. Plainly $\overline{c}(H^{*})=\overline{c}(H)$ and $\overline{d}(H^{*})=\overline{d}(H)$.

The maximal cliques of $H^{*}$ are $(1)$ the maximal cliques of $H$, and $(2)$ the sets $(X\setminus\{v\})\cup\{v^{*}\}$ where $X$ is a maximal clique of $H$ containing $v$, and $(3)$ the set $\{v,v^{*}\}$. Now it can be seen that $c(H^{*})=c(H)+D_{H}(v)+1=c(H)+d(H)+1$, and that $D_{H^{*}}(v)=D_{H^{*}}(v^{*})=D_{H}(v)+1=d(H)+1$, while $D_{H^{*}}(u)\geq D_{H}(u)+1\geq d(H)+1$ for $u\in V\setminus\{v\}$, whence $d(H^{*})=d(H)+1$. ∎

Lemma 10.

If there is a triple system $H$ of order $n\geq 2$ with $c(H)+\overline{c}(H)=k$ and $d(H)=\left\lfloor\frac{m}{2}\right\rfloor$ and $\overline{d}(H)=\left\lceil\frac{m}{2}\right\rceil$, then there is a triple system $H^{\prime}$ of order $n+1$ with $c(H^{\prime})+\overline{c}(H^{\prime})=k+\left\lfloor\frac{m+2}{2}\right\rfloor$ and $d(H^{\prime})=\left\lfloor\frac{m+1}{2}\right\rfloor$ and $\overline{d}(H^{\prime})=\left\lceil\frac{m+1}{2}\right\rceil$.

Proof.

By Lemma 9 there is a triple system $H^{*}$ of order $n+1$ such that $c(H^{*})+\overline{c}(H^{*})=c(H)+d(H)+1+\overline{c}(H)=k+\left\lfloor\frac{m+2}{2}\right\rfloor$ and $d(H^{*})=d(H)+1=\left\lfloor\frac{m+2}{2}\right\rfloor=\left\lceil\frac{m+1}{2}\right\rceil$ and $\overline{d}(H^{*})=\overline{d}(H)=\left\lceil\frac{m}{2}\right\rceil=\left\lfloor\frac{m+1}{2}\right\rfloor$. Let $H^{\prime}$ be the complement of $H^{*}$. ∎

Theorem 11.

$f_{3}(2,n)\leq\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor-2$ for $n\geq 7$.

Proof.

We prove by induction that for each $n\geq 7$ there is a triple system $H$ of order $n$ with $c(H)+\overline{c}(H)=\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor-2$ and $d(H)=\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor$ and $\overline{d}(H)=\left\lceil\frac{n}{2}\right\rceil$. The inductive step follows from Lemma 10 since

$$\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor-2+\left\lfloor\frac{(n+2)}{2}\right\rfloor=\left\lfloor\frac{(n+2)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor-2.$$

For the base case $n=7$, consider the Fano plane as a hypergraph H with the points as vertices and the lines as edges. Then the maximal cliques are the lines, and the maximal anticliques are the complements of lines. Thus $c(H)=\overline{c}(H)=7$, and $d(H)=3$ and $\overline{d}(H)=4$; each vertex is in exactly three maximal cliques and four maximal anticliques. ∎

In fact $f_{3}(2,7)=14$; the proof of $f_{3}(2,7)\geq 14$ is a tedious case analysis which we omit. We do not know if equality holds in Theorem 11 when $8\leq n\leq 14$. For $n\geq 15$ a better bound is given by Theorem 12.

Theorem 12.

$f_{3}(2,n)\leq\left\lfloor\frac{n^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor+5$.

Proof.

The cases with $n\leq 5$, while easily verified, are of no interest. For $n\geq 6$ we prove by induction that there is a triple system $H$ of order $n$ with $c(H)+\overline{c}(H)=\left\lfloor\frac{n^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor+5$ and $d(H)=\left\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\right\rfloor$ and $\overline{d}(H)=\left\lceil\frac{n-1}{2}\right\rceil$. The inductive step follows from Lemma 10 since

$$\left\lfloor\frac{n^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor+5+\left\lfloor\frac{n+1}{2}\right\rfloor=\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4}\right\rfloor+5.$$

Now consider $H=(V,E)$ where $V=[6]$ and $E=\{\{1,3,6\},\\ \{1,4,5\},\{2,3,5\},\{2,3,6\},\{2,4,5\},\{2,4,6\}\}$.

We can visualize this as the $6$ vertices and $6$ of the $8$ faces of a regular octahedron, the two missing faces meeting at one point. There are $9$ maximal cliques, namely, the $6$ edges and the $3$ antipodal pairs

$$\{1,2\},\{3,4\},\{5,6\};$$

and there are $5$ maximal anticliques, namely, the missing faces

$$\{1,3,5\},\{1,4,6\},$$

and the complements of the antipodal pairs,

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

Thus

$$c(H)+\overline{c}(H)=9+5=14,$$

while

$$d(H)=D(1)=3$$

and

$$\overline{d}(H)=\overline{D}(2)=2.$$

The complement of $H$ satisfies the requirements of the base case $n=6$. ∎

4 Edge-colored graphs and projective planes

The main results of this section are upper bounds for $f_{2}(t,n)$ from recursive constructions using projective planes. For example, we use projective planes of orders $4$ and $5$ to show that $f_{2}(5,n)\leq n+7$ for $n\geq 37$ (Theorem 27). From Theorem 20 we see that determining the exact value of $f_{2}(t,n)$ in all cases will be at least as hard as determining all possible orders of finite projective planes.

Theorem 13.

For all integers $t\geq 2$ and $n\geq 1$,

$t\sqrt{n}\leq(t-2)\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\right\rceil+\left\lceil\sqrt{4n}\hskip 2.84544pt\right\rceil\leq f_{2}(t,n)\leq(t-1)n+1$.

Proof.

The upper bound is from Theorem 6. For the lower bound, let $f_{2}(t,n)=c_{1}+c_{2}+\dots+c_{t}$ where $c_{i}$ is the number of maximal $i$-cliques in some $t$-coloring of $K_{n}$; we may assume that $c_{1}\leq c_{2}\leq\dots\leq c_{t}$. By Lemma 5 we have $c_{1}c_{2}\geq n$. It follows that $c_{i}\geq c_{2}\geq\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\hskip 2.84544pt\right\rceil$ for $i=3,\dots,t$, and $c_{1}+c_{2}\geq\left\lceil 2\sqrt{c_{1}c_{2}}\hskip 2.84544pt\right\rceil\geq\left\lceil\sqrt{4n}\hskip 2.84544pt\right\rceil$, whence $f_{2}(t,n)=c_{1}+c_{2}+\dots+c_{t}\geq(t-2)\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\hskip 2.84544pt\right\rceil+\left\lceil\sqrt{4n}\hskip 2.84544pt\right\rceil\geq t\sqrt{n}$. ∎

Theorem 14.

$f_{2}(t,n)\geq tn-\binom{n}{2}$, with equality if and only if $n\leq 2\left\lceil\frac{t}{2}\right\rceil$.

Proof.

Let the edges of $K_{n}$ be colored with $t$ colors. Consider the graph $G=G_{1}\cup G_{2}\cup\dots\cup G_{t}$ where $G_{1},\dots,G_{t}$ are vertex-disjoint graphs such that $G_{i}$ is isomorphic to the spanning subgraph of $K_{n}$ formed by the edges of color $i$. Let $k$ be the number of components of $G$. Then

$$\sum_{i=1}^{t}c(G_{i})=c(G)\geq k\geq|V(G)|-|E(G)|=tn-\binom{n}{2}.$$ (2)

For equality to hold in (2) we must have $c(G)=k$, meaning that each component of $G$ is a clique, and also $k=|V(G)|-|E(G)|$, meaning that $G$ is acyclic. So equality holds just in case each component of $G$ is $K_{1}$ or $K_{2}$, which means that the given coloring is a proper edge-coloring of $K_{n}$. Of course, $K_{n}$ is $t$-edge-colorable if and only if $n\leq 2\left\lceil\frac{t}{2}\right\rceil$. ∎

Corollary 15.

$$\begin{array}[]{ll}(a)&f_{2}(n+1,n)=\frac{n(n+3)}{2}$.$\\ (b)&$ If $n$ is odd, then $f_{2}(n,n+1)=\binom{n+1}{2}=f_{2}(n,n)$.$\\ (c)&$ If $n$ is even, then $f_{2}(n,n+1)>\binom{n+1}{2}=f_{2}(n,n)$.$\end{array}$$

Lemma 16.

Let $G$ be a $t$-colored complete graph of order $m$, and let $c=c_{1}+\cdots+c_{t}$ where $c_{i}$ is the number of maximal $i$-cliques in $G$. If some vertex $v$ of $G$ is in a unique maximal $i$-clique for each color $i$, then $f_{2}(t,n+m-1)\leq f_{2}(t,n)+c-t$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.

Proof.

Let $H$ be an optimally $t$-colored complete graph of order $n$, so that $f_{2}(t,n)=c_{1}^{H}+\dots+c_{t}^{H}$ where $c_{i}^{H}$ is the number of maximal $i$-cliques in $H$. Replace the vertex $v$ of $G$ with a copy of $H$. In the resulting $t$-colored complete graph of order $n+m-1$, the number of maximal $i$-cliques meeting $V(H)$ is $c_{i}^{H}$, while the number of maximal $i$-cliques disjoint from $V(H)$ is $c_{i}-1$. ∎

Theorem 17.

If there is a projective plane of order $q$, then $f_{2}(q+1,n+q^{2}-1)\leq f_{2}(q+1,n)+q^{2}-1$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.

Proof.

Let $P$ be the point set of a projective plane of order $q$. Choose a line $l_{0}$ and let $x_{0},x_{1},\dots,x_{q}$ be the points on $l_{0}$. Let $G$ be the complete graph of order $q^{2}$ with vertex set $P\setminus\{x_{0},x_{1},\dots,x_{q}\}$. Color the edges of $G$ with colors $0,1,\dots,q$ by assigning color $i$ to an edge $uv$ if the points $u,v,x_{i}$ are collinear. For each color $i$ there are $q$ maximal $i$-cliques corresponding to the lines other than $l_{0}$ through the point $x_{i}$, and each vertex of $G$ is in just one of them. We obtain the desired inequality by setting $t=q+1$, $m=q^{2}$, $c=q^{2}+q$ in Lemma 16. ∎

The following unpublished observation by Graham and Van Lint is included by permission.

Theorem 18.

(Ronald L. Graham and Jack van Lint) If there is a projective plane of order $q$, then $f_{2}(q,n+q^{2})\leq f_{2}(q,n)+q^{2}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.

Proof.

Let $P$ be the point set of a projective plane of order $q$. Choose a line $l_{0}$; let $x_{0},x_{1},\dots,x_{q}$ be the points on $l_{0}$, and let $l_{1},\dots,l_{q}$ be the other lines through $x_{0}$. Let $G$ be the complete graph of order $q^{2}+1$ with vertex set $P\setminus\{x_{1},\dots,x_{q}\}$. For any edge $uv$ of $G$, let $l(uv)$ be the line through $u$ and $v$. Color the edges of $G$ with colors $1,\dots,q$ by assigning color $i$ to an edge $uv$ if either $l(uv)=l_{i}$ or else $l(uv)$ meets $l_{0}$ at the point $x_{i}$. For each color $i$ there are $q+1$ maximal $i$-cliques; $q$ of them correspond to the lines other than $l_{0}$ through $x_{i}$; the remaining one, corresponding to the line $l_{i}$, is the only maximal $i$-clique containing $x_{0}$. We obtain the desired inequality by setting $t=q$, $m=q^{2}+1$, $c=q^{2}+q$, and $v=x_{0}$ in Lemma 16. ∎

Theorem 19.

If there is a projective plane of order $q$, then:

$$\begin{array}[]{ll}(a)&f_{2}(q+1,n)=q^{2}+q-1$ whenever $(q-1)^{2}<n\leq(q-1)q$;$\\ (b)&f_{2}(q+1,n)=q^{2}+q$ whenever $(q-1)q<n\leq q^{2}$.$\end{array}$$

Proof.

If $n>(q-1)^{2}$ then by Theorem 13 we have

$$f_{2}(q+1,n)\geq(q-1)\left\lceil\sqrt{(q-1)^{2}+1}\right\rceil+\left\lceil\sqrt{4(q-1)^{2}+4}\right\rceil$$

$$=(q-1)q+(2q-1)=q^{2}+q-1;$$

moreover, if $n>(q-1)q$, then

$$f_{2}(q+1,n)\geq(q-1)\left\lceil\sqrt{(q-1)q+1}\right\rceil+\left\lceil\sqrt{4(q-1)q+4}\right\rceil$$ (3)

$$=(q-1)q+2q=q^{2}+q.$$ (4)

On the other hand, if there is a projective plane of order $q$, and if $n\leq q^{2}$, then

$$f_{2}(q+1,n)\leq f_{2}(q+1,q^{2})\leq f_{2}(q+1,1)+q^{2}-1=q^{2}+q$$

by Theorem 17. This completes the proof of $(b)$.

Take a projective plane of order $q$. Choose a line $l_{0}$ with points
$x_{0},x_{1},\dots,x_{q}$ and another line $l_{1}$ through $x_{0}$. Let $G$ be the complete graph of order $q^{2}-q$ whose vertices are the points not on $l_{0}$ or $l_{1}$. Assign the color $i$ to an edge $uv$ of $G$ if the line through $u$ and $v$ meets $l_{0}$ at $x_{i}$. Now maximal $i$-cliques correspond to lines through $x_{i}$ other than $l_{0}$ and $l_{1}$, so the number of maximal $i$-cliques is $q-1$ if $i=0$ and $q$ if $i\in\{1,\dots,q\}$, for a total of $q^{2}+q-1$. Hence, for $n\leq q^{2}-q$, we have

$$f_{2}(q+1,n)\leq f_{2}(q+1,q^{2}-q)\leq q^{2}+q-1.$$

This completes the proof of $(a)$. ∎

Theorem 20.

For $n\geq 2$ the following statements are equivalent:

$$\begin{array}[]{ll}(a)&f_{2}(n+1,n^{2})=n^{2}+n$;$\\ (b)&f_{2}(n+1,n^{2})\leq n^{2}+n$;$\\ (c)&$there is a projective plane of order $n$.$\end{array}$$

Proof.

We have $(c)\implies(a)$ by Theorem 19$(b)$, and $(a)\implies(b)$ is trivial; we have to show $(b)\implies(c)$.

Assume that $n\geq 2$ and $f_{2}(n+1,n^{2})\leq n^{2}+n$. Consider a factorization $K_{n^{2}}=G_{0}\cup G_{1}\cup\dots\cup G_{n}$ with $c_{0}+c_{1}+\dots+c_{n}\leq n^{2}+n$, where $c_{i}=c(G_{i})$. Since $c_{i}c_{j}\geq n^{2}$ for $i\neq j$, the geometric mean of $c_{0},c_{1},\dots,c_{n}$ is at least $n$, that is,

$$n\leq(c_{0}c_{1}\dots c_{n})^{\frac{1}{n+1}}\leq\frac{c_{0}+c_{1}+\dots+c_{n}}{n+1}\leq n,$$

whence $c_{0}=c_{1}=\dots=c_{n}=n$.

For each $i$, there are exactly $n$ maximal $i$-cliques, which are pairwise disjoint and contain $n$ vertices each. If $X$ is a maximal $i$-clique and $Y$ a maximal $j$-clique, $i\neq j$, then $|X\cap Y|=1$. Hence there is a projective plane of order $n$; the points are the vertices of $K_{n^{2}}$ and the numbers $0,1,\dots,n$; the lines are the set $\{0,1,\dots,n\}$ and the sets $X\cup\{i\}$ where $X$ is a maximal $i$-clique. ∎

In view of Theorem 20, a computation by Lam, Thiel, and Swiercz [3] shows that $f_{2}(11,100)>110$. On the other hand,

$$f_{2}(11,100)\leq f_{2}(11,122)\leq f_{2}(11,1)+121=132$$

by Theorem 18.

Theorem 21.

(Due to Ronald L. Graham and Jack van Lint in the case of a projective plane of order $t$.) If there is a projective plane of order $t$ or $t-1$, then there is a constant $C_{t}$ such that $f_{2}(t,n)\leq n+C_{t}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.

Proof.

If there is a projective plane of order $t-1$, the result follows from Theorem 17 with

$$C_{t}=\max\{f_{2}(t,n)-n:1\leq n\leq t^{2}-2t\};$$

if there is a projective plane of order $t$, it follows from Theorem 18 with

$$C_{t}=\max\{f_{2}(t,n)-n:1\leq n\leq t^{2}\}.$$

∎

Question 22.

For each integer $t\geq 2$, is there a constant $C_{t}$ such that $f_{2}(t,n)\leq n+C_{t}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$?

If $C_{t}$ exists then $C_{t}\geq\binom{t}{2}$ since, when $n=t-1$, we have $f_{2}(t,n)=f_{2}(n+1,n)=\frac{n(n+3)}{2}=n+\binom{n+1}{2}=n+\binom{t}{2}$ by Corollary 15$(a)$. In fact the inequality $f_{2}(t,n)\leq n+\binom{t}{2}$ holds for $2\leq t\leq 5$ (Theorems 1, 23, 25, 26). On the other hand it fails for $t=6$ and $t=8$, since $f_{2}(6,7)=23$ and $f_{2}(8,9)=38$; we omit the details.

Of course a negative answer to Question 22 would imply a negative answer to Question 4 as well.

Theorem 23.

$$f_{2}(3,n)\leq\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}n+2&$ if $n\equiv 1\pmod{3}$,$\\ n+3&$ otherwise,$\end{array}\right.$$

with equality at least for $n\leq 10$.

Proof.

By Theorem 17 with $q=2$, to verify the inequality it suffices to observe that it holds for $n\leq 3$. To verify equality for all $n\leq 10$, it suffices to show that $f_{2}(3,8)\geq 11$ and $f_{2}(3,9)\geq 12$; we omit the details. ∎

Question 24.

Does equality hold in Theorem 23 for all $n$?

Theorem 25.

$$f_{2}(4,n)\leq\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}n+3&$if $n\equiv 1\pmod{8}$,$\\ n+4&$if $n\equiv 0\pmod{8}$,$\\ n+5&$if $n\equiv 2,6,7\pmod{8}$,$\\ n+6&$if $n\equiv 3,4,5\pmod{8}$,$\\ \end{array}\right.$$

with equality at least for $n\leq 10$.

Proof.

Use $q=3$ in Theorem 17. ∎

Theorem 26.

$f_{2}(5,n)\leq n+10$ for all $n$.

Proof.

By Theorem 17 with $q=4$ we have $f_{2}(5,n+15)\leq f_{2}(5,n)+15$; hence it will suffice to prove the inequality $f_{2}(5,n)\leq n+10$ for $n\leq 15$. By Theorem 14 we have $f_{2}(5,n)=5n-\binom{n}{2}$ for $n\leq 6$, and by Theorem 19 with $q=4$ we have $f_{2}(5,n)=19$ for $10\leq n\leq 12$ and $f_{2}(5,n)=20$ for $13\leq n\leq 16$. We leave it as an exercise for the reader to verify that $f_{2}(5,7)\leq 17$ and $f_{2}(5,8)\leq 18$. (In fact it is easy to show that $f_{2}(5,7)=17$ and $f_{2}(5,8)=f_{2}(5,9)=18$.) ∎

Theorem 27.

$f_{2}(5,n)\leq n+7$ for $n\geq 37$. In fact, if $n\geq 37$, then

$$\begin{array}[]{ll}(a)&f_{2}(5,n)\leq n+4$ if $n\equiv 1\pmod{5}$,$\\ (b)&f_{2}(5,n)\leq n+7$ if $n\equiv 2\pmod{5}$,$\\ (c)&f_{2}(5,n)\leq n+7$ if $n\equiv 3\pmod{5}$,$\\ (d)&f_{2}(5,n)\leq n+6$ if $n\equiv 4\pmod{5}$,$\\ (e)&f_{2}(5,n)\leq n+5$ if $n\equiv 0\pmod{5}$.$\\ \end{array}$$

Proof.

Only $(a)$ and $(b)$ need proof, as $(c)-(e)$ follow directly from $(a)$. We will use the facts that $f_{2}(5,1)=5$ and $f_{2}(5,2)=9$ by Theorem 2 (or Theorem 14), and $f_{2}(5,12)=19$ by Theorem 19$(a)$ with $q=4$.

We have $f_{2}(5,n+15)\leq f_{2}(5,n)+15$ by Theorem 17 with $q=4$, and $f_{2}(5,n+25)\leq f_{2}(5,n)+25$ by Theorem 18 with $q=5$. It follows that $f_{2}(5,n+5k)\leq f_{2}(5,n)+5k$ for every integer $k\geq 8$.

If $n\equiv 1\pmod{5}$ and $n>37$, then $n=1+5k$ for some integer $k\geq 8$, and

$$f_{2}(5,n)=f_{2}(5,1+5k)\leq f_{2}(5,1)+5k=5+5k=n+4.$$

If $n\equiv 2\pmod{5}$ and $n>37$, then $n=2+5k$ for some integer $k\geq 8$, and

$$f_{2}(5,n)=f_{2}(5,2+5k)\leq f_{2}(5,2)+5k=9+5k=n+7.$$

Finally, if $n=37$ then $n\equiv 2\pmod{5}$ and

$$f_{2}(5,n)=f_{2}(5,12+25)\leq f_{2}(5,12)+25=19+25=n+7.$$

∎

5 When $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)=n(G)+2$

For a graph $G$ we define $\tau(G)=c(G)+\overline{c}(G)-n(G)$. In this section we characterize the graphs $G$ with $\tau(G)=2$. In doing so we also prove the characterization of graphs with $\tau(G)=1$ which was proved more simply in [2]. We need the following improved version of the result of [2] that $\tau(G)\geq 1$ for every graph $G$.

Theorem 28.

If $G$ is a graph of order $n$, then

$c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n+d(G)+\overline{d}(G)-1\geq n+1$.

Proof.

We use induction on $n$. Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$; let $c=c(G)$, $\overline{c}=\overline{c}(G)$, $d=d(G)$, $\overline{d}=\overline{d}(G)$. We may assume that there is a vertex $v$ such that $N(v)\neq\varnothing\neq\overline{N}(v)$; otherwise $G$ or $\overline{G}$ is a complete graph and the result is clear. Let $G_{1}=G[N(v)]$ and $G_{2}=G[\overline{N}(v)]$; Let $n_{i}=n(G_{i})$, $c_{i}=c(G_{i})$, $\overline{c}_{i}=\overline{c}(G_{i})$, $d_{i}=d(G_{i})$, $\overline{d}_{i}=\overline{d}(G_{i})$. By the inductive hypothesis, $c_{i}+\overline{c}_{i}\geq n_{i}+d_{i}+\overline{d}_{i}-1$.

Choose a vertex $w$ of $G_{2}$ which is in exactly $d_{2}$ maximal cliques of $G_{2}$. The number of maximal cliques of $G$ containing $v$ is equal to $c_{1}$; the number of maximal cliques containing $w$ is at least $d$; the number of maximal cliques containing neither $v$ nor $w$ is at least $c_{2}-d_{2}$. Since no clique contains both $v$ and $w$, $c\geq c_{1}+d+c_{2}-d_{2}.$ Similarly, $\overline{c}\geq\overline{c}_{2}+\overline{d}+\overline{c}_{1}-\overline{d}_{1}$.

Adding these two inequalities we get

$$\begin{array}[]{ll}c+\overline{c}\geq(c_{1}+\overline{c}_{1})+(c_{2}+\overline{c}_{2})+d+\overline{d}-d_{2}-\overline{d}_{1}\\ \geq(n_{1}+d_{1}+\overline{d}_{1}-1)+(n_{2}+d_{2}+\overline{d}_{2}-1)+d+\overline{d}-d_{2}-\overline{d}_{1}\\ =n_{1}+n_{2}+(d_{1}-1)+(\overline{d}_{2}-1)+d+\overline{d}\\ \geq n_{1}+n_{2}+d+\overline{d}=n+d+\overline{d}-1.\end{array}$$

∎

We define four classes of graphs, unimaginatively named after their smallest members. As motivation note that $K_{1}$ is the smallest graph $G$ with $\tau(G)=1$, while $P_{4}$, $C_{4}$, and $\overline{C}_{4}$ are the smallest graphs with $\tau(G)=2$. Recall that $G$ is a split graph if $V(G)$ is the union of a clique and an anticlique. We begin by defining two classes of split graphs.

A graph $G$ is $K_{1}$-like if $V(G)=X\cup Y$ where $X$ is a clique, $Y$ is an anticlique, and $X\cap Y\neq\varnothing$; equivalently, if $\omega(G)+\alpha(G)=n(G)+1$.

A graph $G$ is $P_{4}$-like if $V(G)=X\cup Y$ where $X$ is a maximal clique, $Y$ is a maximal anticlique, and $X\cap Y=\varnothing$.

Lemma 29.

If $G$ is a split graph then just one of the following statements holds:

$$\begin{array}[]{ll}(a)&\omega(G)+\alpha(G)=n(G)+1$, $G$ is $K_{1}$-like, and $\tau(G)=1;\\ (b)&\omega(G)+\alpha(G)=n(G)$, $G$ is $P_{4}$-like, and $\tau(G)=2.\end{array}$$

A graph $G$ is $C_{4}$-like if there is a $4$-element set $U=\{p,q,r,s\}\subseteq V(G)$ such that $pq,qr,rs,ps\in E(G)$ while $pr,qs\notin E(G)$, and $V(G)\setminus U=X\cup Y$ where $X$ is a clique and $Y$ is an anticlique, each vertex in $X$ is joined to $p$ and $q$ and at least one more vertex in $U$, and no vertex in $Y$ is joined to any vertex in $U$.

A graph $G$ is $\overline{C}_{4}$-like if $\overline{G}$ is $C_{4}$-like.

Lemma 30.

If a graph $G$ is $P_{4}$-like or $C_{4}$-like or $\overline{C}_{4}$-like, then $\tau(G)=2$ and $\omega(G)+\alpha(G)=n(G)$.

Lemma 31.

Let $G$ be a graph. If $\tau(G)\leq 2$ and $\omega(G)+\alpha(G)\geq n(G)$, then $G$ is $C_{4}$-like or $\overline{C}_{4}$-like or a split graph.

Proof.

Let $G=(V,E)$ and $n=|V|$. Let $X$ be a clique and $Y$ an anticlique with $|X|+|Y|=n$. We may assume that $X\cup Y\neq V$; let $V\setminus(X\cup Y)=\{s\}$, $X\cap Y=\{p\}$, $X_{0}=X\setminus\{p\}$, $Y_{0}=Y\setminus\{p\}$. Since the statement of the lemma is invariant under complementation, we may assume that $p$ is joined to $s$. We may assume that some vertex $q\in X_{0}$ is not joined to $s$, and some vertex $r\in Y_{0}$ is joined to $s$, as otherwise $G$ is a split graph. Then $D(p)\geq 2$, since $\{p,q\}$ and $\{p,s\}$ are contained in different maximal cliques.

Then $\overline{D}(q)\geq 2$. From this and $D(p)\geq 2$ we have

$$n+2\geq c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq\sum_{y\in Y}D(y)+\sum_{x\in X}\overline{D}(x)\geq(|Y|+1)+(|X|+1)=n+2.$$ (5)

Since equality holds in (5), we have $D(y)=1$ for each $y\in Y_{0}$, $\overline{D}(x)=1$ for each $x\in X\setminus\{q\}$, and every maximal anticlique meets $X$.

If some vertex $x\in X_{0}\setminus\{q\}$ is not joined to $s$, then, according as $x$ is joined to $r$ or not, either $D(r)\geq 2$ or $\overline{D}(x)\geq 2$, neither of which is possible. Hence $(X\setminus\{q\})\cup\{s\}$ is a clique.

Now suppose $q$ is joined to some vertex $y\in Y_{0}$. If $y$ is joined to $s$, then $D(y)\geq 2$, which is impossible; otherwise $\{y,s\}$ is contained in a maximal anticlique disjoint from $X$, also impossible. Hence $q$ is joined to no vertex in $Y_{0}$, so $Y_{0}\cup\{q\}$ is an anticlique and $G$ is a split graph.

Then $D(r)\geq 2$. From this and $D(p)\geq 2$ we have

$$n+2\geq c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq\sum_{y\in Y}D(y)+\sum_{x\in X}\overline{D}(x)\geq(|Y|+2)+|X|=n+2.$$ (6)

Since equality holds in (6), we have $D(y)=1$ for each $y\in Y_{0}\setminus\{r\}$, $\overline{D}(x)=1$ for each $x\in X$, and every maximal anticlique meets $X$.

Each vertex $x\in X$ is joined to $r$ or to $s$, as otherwise we would have $\overline{D}(x)\geq 2$.

If $s$ were joined to some vertex $y\in Y_{0}\setminus\{r\}$, then we would have $D(y)\geq 2$ or $\overline{D}(q)\geq 2$ according as $y$ is joined to $q$ or not. Hence $s$ is not joined to any vertex in $Y_{0}\setminus\{r\}$.

Now the anticlique $(Y_{0}\setminus\{r\})\cup\{s\}$ is contained in a maximal anticlique, which must meet $X$ but cannot contain $p$. Hence there is a vertex $q^{\prime}\in X_{0}$ which is not joined to $s$ or to any vertex in $Y_{0}\setminus\{r\}$. Of course $q^{\prime}$ is joined to $r$, since $\overline{D}(q^{\prime})=1$.

It is easy to check that $G$ is $C_{4}$-like, with $p,q^{\prime},r,s,X_{0}\setminus\{q^{\prime}\},Y_{0}\setminus\{r\}$ playing the roles of $p,q,r,s,X,Y$ in the definition. ∎

Lemma 32.

If $G$ is a graph and $H=G[\overline{N}(v)]$, where $v$ is a vertex such that $N(v)$ is a clique and $\overline{N}(v)\neq\varnothing$, then $\tau(H)\leq\tau(G)$.

Proof.

Let $X=N(v)$ and $Y=\overline{N}(v)=V(H)$. Then

$$\begin{array}[]{ll}\tau(G)&=c(G)+\overline{c}(G)-n(G)\\ &\geq(1+c(H))+(\overline{c}(H)+|X|)-(|X|+|Y|+1)\\ &=c(H)+\overline{c}(H)-|Y|=\tau(H).\end{array}$$

∎

Lemma 33.

If $\tau(G)\leq 2$ then $\omega(G)+\alpha(G)\geq n(G)$.

Proof.

We use induction on $n(G)$. Let $G$ be a graph, $n(G)=n$, $\tau(G)\leq 2$, so $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\leq n+2$. By Theorem 28, $d(G)+\overline{d}(G)\leq 3$, so $d(G)=1$ or $\overline{d}(G)=1$. We may assume that $d(G)=1$, i.e., some vertex $v$ is in a unique maximal clique; i.e., $N(v)$ is a clique. We may assume that $N(v)\neq\varnothing\neq\overline{N}(v)$. Let $Z=N(v)$, $W=\overline{N}(v)$; then $n=|W|+|Z|+1$. Let $H=G[W]$; Then $\tau(H)\leq 2$ by Lemma 32. By the inductive hypothesis, $\omega(H)+\alpha(H)\geq|W|$. By Lemmas 31 and 29, $H$ is $K_{1}$-like or $P_{4}$-like or $C_{4}$-like or $\overline{C}_{4}$-like. Since $A=Z\cup\{v\}$ is a clique which meets every maximal anticlique, and since $\overline{D}(v)=\overline{c}(H)$, we have

$$\overline{c}(G)=\sum_{a\in A}\overline{D}(a)=\overline{c}(H)+|Z|+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1).$$ (7)

So $W=X\cup Y$ where $X$ is a clique, $Y$ is an anticlique, and $X\cap Y=\{p\}$. Then $n=|X|+|Y|+|Z|$ and $\overline{c}(H)=|X|$, so

$$\overline{c}(G)=|X|+|Z|+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1)=n-|Y|+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1).$$ (8)

Let $B=Y\cup\{v\}$ and let $m$ be the number of maximal cliques disjoint from $B$. Since $B$ is an anticlique,

$$c(G)=m+\sum_{b\in B}D(b)\geq m+1+|Y|+(D(p)-1).$$ (9)

Adding 8 and 9 we get

$$c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n+1+m+(D(p)-1)+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1).$$

Since $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\leq n+2$, it follows that

$$m+(D(p)-1)+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1)\leq 1.$$ (10)

Since $\alpha(G)=\alpha(H)+1=|Y|+1$, we have to show that $\omega(G)\geq|X|+|Z|-1$, i.e., that $\omega(G)\geq|Z|+|X_{0}|$ where $X_{0}=X\setminus\{p\}$. If $Z\cup X_{0}$ is a clique we’re done, so we may assume that some vertex $z_{0}\in Z$ is not joined to some vertex $x_{0}\in X_{0}$. Then either $D(p)\geq 2$ (if $z_{0}$ is joined to $p$) or $\overline{D}(z_{0})\geq 2$ (otherwise), so $m=0$, i.e., every maximal clique meets $B$. Hence it will suffice to show that $Z\cup(X_{0}\setminus\{x_{0}\})$ is a clique, since, being disjoint from $B$, it’s not a maximal clique.

So $D(p)=2$, and $\overline{D}(z)=1$ for all $z\in Z$. Then $z_{0}$ is joined to every vertex in $X_{0}\setminus\{x_{0}\}$, since $z_{0}$ is not joined to $x_{0}$, and $\overline{D}(z_{0})=1$. Likewise, if $z\in Z$ and $z$ is not joined to $p$, then $z$ is joined to every vertex in $X_{0}$, since $\overline{D}(z)=1$. Finally, suppose there are vertices $z_{1}\in Z\setminus\{z_{0}\}$ and $x_{1}\in X_{0}\setminus\{x_{0}\}$ such that $z_{1}$ is joined to $p$ and not to $x_{1}$. Then the cliques $\{p,z_{0},z_{1}\}$, $\{p,z_{0},x_{1}\}$, and $X$ extend to three different maximal cliques, contradicting $D(p)=2$.

So $\overline{D}(z_{0})=2$, $\overline{D}(z)=1$ for all $z\in Z\setminus\{z_{0}\}$, and $D(p)=1$. Suppose $z\in Z\setminus\{z_{0}\}$; if $z$ is joined to $p$ then $z$ is joined to every vertex in $X_{0}$ because $D(p)=1$; if $z$ is not joined to $p$, then $z$ is joined to every vertex in $X_{0}$ because $\overline{D}(z)=1$. Finally, $z_{0}$ is joined to every vertex in $X_{0}\setminus\{x_{0}\}$ because otherwise we would have $\overline{D}(z_{0})\geq 3$.

In Cases 2 – 4 we have $\omega(H)+\alpha(H)=n(H)=|W|$ by Lemma 30, and we have to show that $\omega(G)+\alpha(G)\geq n$. Since $n=|Z|+|W|+1=|Z|+\omega(H)+\alpha(H)+1=|Z|+\omega(H)+\alpha(G)$, we have to show that $\omega(G)\geq|Z|+\omega(H)$.

So $W=X\cup Y$ where $X$ is a maximal clique in $H$, $Y$ is a maximal anticlique in $H$, $X\cap Y=\varnothing$, and $n=|X|+|Y|+|Z|+1$. Then $\overline{c}(H)=|X|+1$, so (7) becomes

$$\overline{c}(G)=|X|+1+|Z|+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1).$$ (11)

The set $B=Y\cup\{v\}$ is an anticlique. Let $m$ be the number of maximal cliques disjoint from $B$; $m\geq 1$, since $X$ is contained in a maximal clique which is disjoint from $B$. Then we have

$$c(G)=m+\sum_{b\in B}D(b)\geq 2+|Y|+\sum_{y\in Y}(D(y)-1).$$ (12)

Adding (11) and (12) and recalling that $n=|X|+|Y|+|Z|+1$, we get

$$c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n+2+\sum_{y\in Y}(D(y)-1)+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1).$$

Since $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\leq n+2$, it follows that $D(y)=1$ for all $y\in Y$, and $\overline{D}(z)=1$ for all $z\in Z$. We have to show that $\omega(G)\geq|Z|+\omega(H)$, i.e., $\omega(G)\geq|Z|+|X|$. It will suffice to show that $Z\cup X$ is a clique. Assume for a contradiction that some vertex $z_{0}\in Z$ is not joined to some vertex $x_{0}\in X$. Since $Y$ is a maximal anticlique in $H$, $x_{0}$ is joined to some vertex $y_{0}\in Y$. But then either $D(y_{0})\geq 2$ (if $y_{0}$ is joined to $z_{0}$) or else $\overline{D}(z_{0})\geq 2$ (otherwise); either way we have a contradiction.

So there is a $4$-element set $U=\{p,q,r,s\}\subseteq W$ such that $pq,qr,rs,ps\in E(G)$ while $pr,qs\notin E(G)$; and $W\setminus U=X\cup Y$ where $X$ is a clique and $Y$ is an anticlique, each vertex in $X$ is joined to $p$ and $q$ and at least one more vertex in $U$, and no vertex in $Y$ is joined to any vertex in $U$. Then $n=|X|+|Y|+|Z|+5$, $\overline{c}(H)=\omega(H)=|X|+2$, and (7) becomes

$$\overline{c}(G)=|X|+2+|Z|+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1).$$ (13)

Since $B=Y\cup\{p,r,v\}$ is an anticlique and $D(r)\geq 2$,

$$c(G)\geq\sum_{b\in B}D(b)\geq|Y|+D(p)+3.$$ (14)

Adding (13) and (14), with $n=|X|+|Y|+|Z|+5$, we get

$$c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n+D(p)+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1).$$

Since $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\leq n+2$, we must have $D(p)=2$ and $\overline{D}(z)=1$ for all $z\in Z$. A similar argument, using the anticlique $B^{\prime}=Y\cup\{q,s,v\}$ instead of $B$, shows that $D(q)=2$. We have to show that $\omega(G)\geq|Z|+\omega(H)$, i.e., $\omega(G)\geq|Z|+|X|+2$.

Proof.

Suppose $z\in Z$, $x\in X$, $z$ not joined to $x$. Then $z$ must be joined to $p$ and $q$, since $\overline{D}(z)=1$. But then the cliques $\{p,q,z\}$, $\{p,q,x\}$, $\{p,s\}$ extend to three different maximal cliques, contradicting $D(p)=2$. ∎

Proof.

If neither $Z\cup X\cup\{q\}$ nor $Z\cup X\cup\{s\}$ is a clique, then there are vertices $t_{1},t_{2}\in Z\cup X$ (not necessarily distinct) such that $t_{1}$ is not joined to $q$ and $t_{2}$ is not joined to $s$. Then $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ are joined to $p$, because every vertex in $X$ is joined to $p$, and if $t_{i}\in Z$ then $t_{i}$ must be joined to $p$ because $\overline{D}(t_{i})=1$. But then $\{p,q\}$, $\{p,s\}$, and $\{p,t_{1},t_{2}\}$ are cliques extending to three different maximal cliques, contradicting $D(p)=2$. ∎

Proof.

Similar to Claim 2, using $D(q)=2$. ∎

It follows from Claims 2 and 3 that there are two adjacent vertices $u,w\in U$ such that $Z\cup X\cup\{u,w\}$ is a clique, so $\omega(G)\geq|Z|+|X|+2$.

So there is a $4$-element set $U=\{p,q,r,s\}\subseteq W$ such that $pr,qs\in E(G)$ while $pq,qr,rs,ps\notin E(G)$; and $W\setminus U=X\cup Y$ where $X$ is an anticlique and $Y$ is a clique, no vertex of $X$ is joined to $p$ or $q$ or to more than one vertex in $U$, and every vertex in $Y$ is joined to every vertex in $U$. Then $n=|X|+|Y|+|Z|+5$, and $\overline{c}(H)=|Y|+4$ so (7) becomes

$$\overline{c}(G)=|Y|+4+|Z|+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1).$$ (15)

We have to show that $\omega(G)\geq|Z|+\omega(H)$, i.e., that $\omega(G)\geq|Z|+|Y|+2$. The set $B=X\cup\{p,q,v\}$ is an anticlique. Let $m$ be the number of maximal cliques disjoint from $B$. Then

$$c(G)=m+\sum_{b\in B}D(b)\geq m+|X|+D(p)+2.$$ (16)

Adding (15) and (16), since $n=|X|+|Y|+|Z|+5$, we get

$$c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n+1+D(p)+m+\sum_{z\in Z}(\overline{D}(z)-1).$$

But $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\leq n+2$, so $D(p)=1$, and $\overline{D}(z)=1$ for all $z\in Z$, and $m=0$, i.e., every maximal clique meets $B$.

Now $Z\cup Y\cup\{r\}$ is a clique, since $Z$ and $Y\cup\{r\}$ are cliques, and if some vertex $z\in Z$ were not joined to some vertex $w\in Y\cup\{r\}$, then, since $p$ is joined to $w$, we would have either $D(p)\geq 2$ (if $z$ is joined to $p$) or else $\overline{D}(z)\geq 2$ (otherwise). So $Z\cup Y\cup\{r\}$ is a clique of size $|Z|+|Y|+1$, but it can’t be a maximal clique since it’s disjoint from $B$, so $\omega(G)\geq|Z|+|Y|+2$. ∎

Theorem 34.

Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$.

$$\begin{array}[]{ll}(a)&c(G)+\overline{c}(G)=n+1$ if and only if $G$ is $K_{1}$-like.$\\ (b)&c(G)+\overline{c}(G)=n+2$ if and only if $G$ is $P_{4}$-like, $C_{4}$-like or $\overline{C}_{4}$-like.$\\ \end{array}$$

Proof.

By Lemmas 29 and 30, $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)=n+1$ if $G$ is $K_{1}$-like, while $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)=n+2$ if $G$ is $P_{4}$-like or $C_{4}$-like or $\overline{C}_{4}$-like. On the other hand, if $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\leq n+2$, then by Lemmas 33 and 31 and 29, $G$ is $K_{1}$-like or $P_{4}$-like or $C_{4}$-like or $\overline{C}_{4}$-like. ∎

Only part (b) of Theorem 34 is new; part (a) was proved in [2].

Corollary 35.

Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$.

$$\begin{array}[]{ll}(a)&c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n+1$.$\\ (b)&$If $\omega(G)+\alpha(G)\leq n$ then $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n+2$.$\\ (c)&$If $\omega(G)+\alpha(G)<n$ then $c(G)+\overline{c}(G)\geq n+3$.$\\ \end{array}$$

Proof.

This follows from Theorem 28, Theorem 34(a), and Lemma 33. ∎

Only part (c) of Corollary 35 is new; parts (a) and (b) were proved in [2].