The damage number of the Cartesian product of graphs

For a contradiction, suppose (x,y) is a c-dominated vertex in G \square H. Then there exists some vertex (u,v) \in V(G \square H) such that N[(x,y)] \subseteq N[(u,v)]. Without loss of generality, suppose u is adjacent to x in G and y=v in H. Since H has no isolated vertices, there exists z \in V(H) \backslash \{y\} that is adjacent to y. Then vertex (x,z) exists and is adjacent to (x,y) in G \square H. But (u,y) is not adjacent to (x,z) in G \square H because y \neq z and u \neq x. Consequently, (x,z) \in N[(x,y)] but (x,z) \not\in N[(u,v)] and we have a contradiction.

In G \square H, suppose the cop and robber initially occupy vertices with the same first coordinate and it is the robber’s turn to move. Let |V(G)|=m and observe that graph G \square H has m vertex-disjoint subgraphs, denoted H_1,H_2,\dots,H_m such that H_i \cong H and \cup_{i=1}^m V(H_i)=V(G \square H). Then every vertex in H_i has the same first coordinate and so the cop and robber initially both occupy vertices in H_i for some i \in \left\{1, \dots,m\right\}. We refer to H_1,H_2,\dots,H_m as copies of H.

The cop’s strategy is as follows: whenever the robber changes their first coordinate, the cop changes their first coordinate to match. This will ensure that after the cop moves at each round, the cop and robber will occupy the same copy of H. Whenever the robber changes their second coordinate, the cop changes their second coordinate, following a cop strategy that minimizes the damage on H.

At worst, every time the robber changes their second coordinate (i.e. moves within a copy of H), the robber could then change their first coordinate m times (and damage |V(G)| many vertices) before changing the second coordinate again. This results in at most ({\rm dmg}'(H))\cdot(m) vertices damaged. We note that since the cop’s strategy is to always change the same coordinate the robber previously changed, the robber will be the first to change their second coordinate (i.e. move within a copy of H) and thus, can damage {\rm dmg}'(H), rather than {\rm dmg}(H) many vertices in each copy of H.

Suppose G and H have universal vertices u and v, respectively. The cop initially occupies (u,v) in G \square H. If the cop initially changes their first coordinate to match that of the robber, then by Lemma 2.3, the robber can damage {\rm dmg}'(H)|V(G)| vertices. Note that {\rm dmg}'(H)=1 since H has a universal vertex. Thus, the robber can damage at most |V(G)| vertices. By a similar argument, if the cop initially changes their second coordinate to match that of the robber, the robber can then damage at most |V(H)| vertices.

The upper bound follows from Theorem 2.4. For a lower bound, we suppose that {\rm dmg}(K_m \square K_n) = k, where k < m and obtain a contradiction. By Observation 1.3, we can assume the robber uses a strategy to damage k vertices and avoid capture. By some round t, the robber has damaged k vertices and the robber cannot move to an undamaged vertex without being captured. Suppose that during round t, the cop occupies (x,y), the robber occupies (u,v) and it is the robber’s turn to move. When the robber moves, (u,v) is damaged, so to obtain a contradiction, we need only observe that (u,v) has at least k neighbours that are not also adjacent to (x,y).

If x=u, observe

If x \neq u and y \neq v, observe

Thus, the robber can move to an undamaged vertex that is not adjacent to the cop and, regardless of the cop’s next move, the robber will damage a (k+1)^{th} vertex.

Let G be a graph on m vertices, labeled u_0,\dots,u_{m-1}. Without loss of generality, suppose that by occupying u_0 and moving first, as usual, the cop can prevent more than {\rm dmg}(G) vertices from being damaged. Let H be a graph on n vertices, labeled v_0,\dots,v_{n-1}. Suppose that by occupying v_0 and passing during the first round, the cop can prevent more than {\rm dmg}'(H) vertices from being damaged. In G \square H, the cop will initially occupy (u_0,v_0).

On G \square H, the cop’s strategy will often be to mirror optimal cop moves of a game played on G or H.

In G \square H, suppose u_p and u_x are the first coordinates of the cop and robber’s positions, respectively during some round. On G, suppose the cop and robber occupy u_p and u_x (respectively) and an optimal strategy for the cop in G is to next move to u_\alpha. In G \square H, if the cop then changes first coordinate to u_\alpha, then we say the cop changes their first coordinate according to an optimal cop-strategy for G.

Suppose the cop occupies (u_0,v_0), the robber occupies (u_x,v_y), and it is the cop’s turn to move. During the first round (i.e. when t=1), the cop changes the first coordinate in G \square H according to an optimal cop-strategy for G. If this results in the cop matching the first coordinate of the robber, then by Lemma 2.3, the robber can damage at most {\rm dmg}'(H)|V(G)| vertices on G \square H. Otherwise, for t > 1,

1. If the cop can move during round t to match first or second coordinate to that of the robber, then the cop will do so.

2. Otherwise,

   1. if the robber changed their first coordinate during round t-1, then during round t, the cop changes their first coordinate according to an optimal cop-strategy on G.

   2. if the robber changed their second coordinate during round t-1, then during round t, the cop changes their second coordinate according to an optimal cop-strategy on H.

   3. if the robber passed during round t-1, the cop will pass during round t.

Let D(G) be a set of {\rm dmg}(G) vertices that can be damaged by the robber on graph G if the cop and robber initially occupy u_0 and u_x, respectively. Let D'(H) be a set of {\rm dmg}'(H) vertices that can be damaged by the robber on graph H if the cop and robber initially occupy v_0 and v_y, respectively; and the cop initially passes.

Let

and

and observe that (u_x,v_y) \in S_G \cap S'_H. Note that the strategy of (2) restrict the robber to vertices in S_G \cup S'_H. If the robber only ever occupies vertices of S_G \cap S'_H, then the result holds because

Suppose that during some round, the robber moves to a vertex of S_G \backslash S'_H; observe that to do this, the robber changes their second coordinate. The cop is then able to move to match the second coordinate of the robber. Observe that by (1) and (2), the robber will be captured if the robber moves to a vertex outside S_G. Thus, the robber can damage at most |S_G| = {\rm dmg}(G)|V(H)| vertices and the result holds. Similarly, if the robber instead moves from a vertex in S_G \cap S'_H to a vertex in S'_H \backslash S_G, then the cop will move to match the first coordinate of the robber. Then again, the robber will be captured if the robber moves to a vertex outside S'_H. Consequently, the robber can damage at most |S'_H| = {\rm dmg}'(H)|V(G)| vertices and the result holds.

The lower bound follows from Theorem 1.4. For the upper bound, it suffices to show that {\rm capt}(T)\leq {\rm rad}(T) as Cox and Sanaei [CS2019] pointed out that {\rm dmg}(G) \leq {\rm capt}(G)-1 for any copwin graph G. Suppose the cop initially occupies a center c of tree T. If the robber initially occupies vertex u, the robber will be distance at most {\rm rad}(T) away from the cop. The cop can then take the shortest path from c to u to capture the robber, which will take {\rm rad}(T) or fewer rounds. Therefore {\rm capt}(T) \leq {\rm rad}(T).

The lower bound follows from Theorem 1.4. Suppose the cop initially occupies (u_0,v_0) where u_0 and v_0 are center vertices for T and T', respectively. We present a strategy for the cop in which at most {\rm rad}(T \square T')-1 vertices can be damaged.

Cop-strategy: Suppose the cop occupies (u_a,v_b), the robber occupies (u_i,v_j), and it is the cop’s turn to move.

1. If the cop and robber are equidistant, then the cop passes.

2. Otherwise,

   (i) if {\rm dist}_T(u_a,u_i) > {\rm dist}_{T'}(v_b,v_j), the cop changes their first coordinate in accordance with an optimal cop-strategy on T;

   (ii) if {\rm dist}_T(u_a,u_i) < {\rm dist}_{T'}(v_b,v_j), the cop changes their second coordinate in accordance with an optimal cop-strategy on T'.

If the cop follows the above cop-strategy, at some round the cop and robber will be equidistant since T and T' are finite. When the cop and robber are equidistant for the first time, Phase 1 is complete. We next bound the number of rounds before Phase 1 finishes, which bounds the number of vertices that have been damaged when Phase 1 finishes.

Recall the cop is initially located at (u_0,v_0) and suppose the robber is initially located at (u_i,v_j). If the cop and robber are initially equidistant, then Phase 1 is complete before the cop moves (and no vertices are damaged in Phase 1). Otherwise, without loss of generality, suppose {\rm dist}_T(u_0,u_i) > {\rm dist}_{T'}(v_0,v_j); so the cop-robber distance is smaller in the second coordinate. Note that after each move of the cop (following (2)(i)) and after each move of the robber, either the cop and robber are equidistant or the cop-robber distance remains smaller in the second coordinate. Consequently, such a cop only ever changes first coordinate in Phase 1. Suppose the cop and robber become equidistant during round t when the cop occupies (u_a,v_0) and the robber occupies (u_k,v_\ell). Then t = {\rm dist}_T(u_0,u_a) and {\rm dist}_T(u_a,u_k) = {\rm dist}_{T'}(v_0,v_\ell).

Phase 2 begins immediately after the cop and robber become equidistant. Given (1) the cop-strategy, we can assume it is the robber’s turn to move. If the robber passes, then the cop will continue to pass until the robber moves; thus, we need only consider active moves by the robber:

1. Suppose the robber’s move increases the cop-robber distance in the first coordinate or decreases the cop-robber distance in the second coordinate. Then the cop-robber distance will be smaller in the second coordinate. Following (2)(i), the cop’s move will decrease the cop-robber distance in the first coordinate and leave the cop and robber equidistant.

2. Suppose the robber’s move increases the cop-robber distance in the second coordinate or decreases the cop-robber distance in the first coordinate. Then the cop-robber distance will be smaller in the first coordinate. Following (2)(ii), the cop’s move will decrease the cop-robber distance in the second coordinate and leave the cop and robber equidistant.

In (a) and (b), each move by the cop leaves the cop and robber equidistant; however, it is important to observe that the relative capture time of at least one of T,T' decreases during each round in Phase 2. Recall that when Phase 2 begins, the robber occupies (u_k,v_\ell). After at most

rounds of Phase 2, the cop and robber are equidistant, the vertices corresponding to the first and second coordinate of the cop and robber are stems and leaves in T and T'; i.e. if a vertex occupied by the cop dominates a vertex occupied by the robber in T and in T', then in the Cartesian product, T\square T', the cop will o-dominate the vertex occupied by the robber. The robber can damage no new vertices, apart from (u_k,v_\ell). By the proof of Corollary 2.8, {\rm capt}_{T'}(v_0;v_\ell) \leq {\rm rad}(T'). Note that {\rm dist}_T(u_0,u_a)+{\rm capt}_T(u_a;u_k) \leq {\rm rad}(T). Thus, after at most

rounds, the cop occupies a vertex (u_m,v_n) such that u_m and v_n are stems in T and T' respectively and the robber occupies (u_x,v_y) such that u_x and v_y are leaves in T and T' respectively where u_x \in N_T(u_m) and v_y \in N_{T'}(v_n). Since the robber can remain on (u_x,v_y) indefinitely, the robber also damages (u_x,v_y). Thus, at most {\rm rad}(T \square T')-2+1 = {\rm rad}(T \square T')-1 vertices are damaged.

We must show that the robber can damage \max \Big\{{\rm dmg}(C_m) |V(C_n)|, {\rm dmg}(C_n)|V(C_m)|\Big\} vertices regardless of the cop strategy. In order to discuss the location of the robber, relative to the cop, consider the copy of C_m in which the cop initially places themselves as copy 0. The index for the second coordinate is v_0 (on C_n). We give the following robber strategy. The robber starts in the same copy of C_m as the cop, at distance two away. Without loss of generality, suppose the cop started at (u_i, v_0), then the robber starts at (u_{i+2}, v_0). The robber responds to each possible initial cop move using the following strategy:

1. If the cop passes, then the robber increases the index of their first coordinate mod m (thus moves in their copy of C_m), maintaining a distance of at least two from the cop.

2. If the cop increases their distance to the robber in the first coordinate, then the robber decreases their distance to the cop in the first coordinate.

3. If the cop decreases their distance to the robber in the first coordinate, then the robber increases their distance to the cop in the first coordinate.

4. If the cop increases their distance in the second coordinate, then the robber plays as though the cop is still occupying the same vertex in the robber’s copy of C_m, and treats this as a pass move by the cop. The robber will damage a new vertex as they move away from the cop in the first coordinate. This will be called the shadow strategy.

More precisely, the shadow strategy for the robber is to pretend that the cop is occupying a vertex of the robber’s copy of C_m by projecting the image of the cop from the second coordinate, to its corresponding position in the robber’s copy of C_m: the cop’s shadow. For example, if the robber is occupying the vertex labelled (u_{i+2}, v_j), and the cop is occupying (u_{i}, v_{j+1}), the robber will play as though the cop is occupying (u_i, v_j). The robber plays in this way to maintain a distance of at least two from the cop in the robber’s copy of C_m. When the robber moves to a new copy of C_m, this strategy prevents the robber from being immediately captured. If the cop moves in the second coordinate, this works to the advantage of the robber as long as the robber plays the shadow strategy.

The robber damages at least {\rm dmg}(C_m) vertices in copy 0 as they can guarantee this amount when the cop plays optimally. If the cop is elsewhere in the graph, but the robber maintains distance at least two from the cop’s shadow, then the cop will never be able to capture the robber, nor will they be able to prevent the robber from changing copies of C_m. If the cop returns to a previously visited vertex other than their starting position or passes, then the robber moves to the closest undamaged vertex that is at least distance two away from the cop in the same copy of C_m. If such a vertex does not exist, it means the robber has damaged {\rm dmg}(C_m) vertices in copy 0. The robber instead increases their second coordinate in order to begin the process again, but in a different copy of C_m. The robber applies this strategy until all copies of C_m have been visited, and {\rm dmg}(C_m) vertices have been damaged in each copy.

Recall from Section ? that {\rm dmg}'(C_m) \in \{{\rm dmg}(C_m),{\rm dmg}(C_m)+1\}, so it remains to show that {\rm dmg}'(C_m) \geq {\rm dmg}(C_m)+1 when m is even and {\rm dmg}'(C_m) \leq {\rm dmg}(C_m) when m is odd.

Suppose m is even. We provide a robber strategy which will always damage {\rm dmg}(C_m)+1 many vertices, regardless of the cop strategy. Suppose the cop and robber initially occupy vertices u_0 and u_1, respectively. The robber’s strategy is to increase their index at each round, until they occupy u_{m/2}.

Since the cop initially passes, there is no cop strategy to prevent the robber from moving to u_{m/2} before the cop can move to u_{m/2+1} or u_{m/2-1}. Thus, the robber will be able to damage u_1,u_2,\dots, u_{m/2} and damage at least {\rm dmg}(C_m)+1 vertices.

We next allow m to be either odd or even and provide a cop strategy to find an upper bound for {\rm dmg}'(C_m) while simultaneously proving the second statement in the theorem. Suppose the cop and robber initially occupy u_0 and u_i (respectively) and without loss of generality, 1 \leq i \leq \frac{m}{2}. The cop initially passes and for t >1, the cop moves according to the following cycle-strategy, where indices are taken modulo m:

1. If the robber increases (decreases) their index during round t-1, then the cop decreases (increases) their index during round t;

2. If the robber passes during round t-1, then the cop passes during round t, unless the cop is adjacent to the robber. In this case, the cop moves to capture the robber.

Given (2), it suffices to consider only “active rounds" of the robber; that is, rounds during which the robber does not pass. For the remainder of the proof, all rounds will be considered to be active rounds.

First, we assume i>1 and show that by following the cycle-strategy, the cop can prevent the robber from damaging a vertex outside the set

where k = \lceil \frac{i+1}{2}\rceil. Suppose that during some round t>1, the robber moves from u_{k+1} to u_k. We count the number of rounds that have passed since the robber first occupied u_i to when the robber moves to u_k: for some non-negative integer x, during a total of x-many rounds (not necessarily consecutive), the robber increased their index (mod m) and during (x+\lfloor \frac{i-1}{2}\rfloor)-many rounds, the robber decreased their index (mod m). Thus, after 2x+\lfloor \frac{i-1}{2}\rfloor rounds, the robber occupies u_k; i.e. the vertex with subscript

Since the cop follows the cycle-strategy, after 2x+\lfloor \frac{i-1}{2}\rfloor+1 rounds (where the robber has not yet moved in round 2x+\lfloor \frac{i-1}{2}\rfloor), the cop occupies the vertex with subscript 0-x+(x+\lfloor \frac{i-1}{2}\rfloor) = \lfloor \frac{i-1}{2}\rfloor. Observe that

At this point, the robber occupies u_k, the cop occupies u_{k-1} or u_{k-2} and it the robber’s turn to move during round 2x+\lfloor \frac{i-1}{2}\rfloor. If i is odd, the cop and robber are adjacent and if i is even, the cop and robber are distance two apart. In either case, the robber cannot move to u_{k-1}. By a similar argument, the robber cannot move to a higher indexed vertex than u_{\lfloor \frac{m+i-1}{2}\rfloor} without being captured. Thus, if i>1, at most |S_i| = \lfloor \frac{m-1}{2}\rfloor= {\rm dmg}(C_m) vertices are damaged.

Second, we assume i=1 and show that by following the cycle-strategy, the cop can prevent the robber from damaging a vertex outside the set S_1 = \{u_1,u_2,\dots,u_{\lfloor m/2\rfloor}\}. Suppose that during some round t>1, the robber moves from u_{\lfloor m/2\rfloor -1} to u_{\lfloor m/2\rfloor}. Then during a total of x-many rounds (not necessarily consecutive), the robber decreased their index and during (x+\lfloor \frac{m}{2}\rfloor -1)-many rounds, the robber increased their index, leaving the robber at u_{\lfloor m/2\rfloor}. After the cop has moved during round 2x+\lfloor \frac{m}{2}\rfloor, the robber occupies u_{\lfloor m/2 \rfloor}, the cop occupies u_{m-(\lfloor\frac{m}{2}\rfloor-1)} and it is the robber’s turn to move. But as the cop and robber are either adjacent (if m is even) or distance 2 apart (if m is odd), the robber cannot move to u_{\lfloor m/2\rfloor+1}. By a similar argument, the robber cannot move to a lower indexed vertex than u_1. Thus, if i=1, the number of vertices damaged is at most

Suppose the cop initially occupies (u_0,v_0). Let

We consider two cases for the initial position of the robber, either the robber begins at a vertex in S or a vertex in V(C_m \square C_n) \backslash S.

Case 1. Suppose the robber initially occupies a vertex in V(C_m \square C_n) \backslash S. Considering the corresponding positions of the cop and robber in C_m and C_n, note that the cop is not adjacent to the robber in at least one of C_m or C_n. Using Lemma 2.14 and the cop-strategy given in the proof of Theorem 2.6, the cop can limit the damage to at most \max\{ {\rm dmg}(C_m)|V(C_n)|, {\rm dmg}(C_n)|V(C_m)|\} vertices.

Case 2. Suppose the robber initially occupies a vertex in S and without loss of generality, suppose the robber occupies (u_1,v_1). The cop initially passes, the robber damages (u_1,v_1), then the robber moves to (u_2,v_1) or (u_1,v_2). (If the robber moves to a different neighbour of (u_1,v_1), the cop will next capture the robber and if the robber passes, the cop will continue to pass until the robber moves to a new vertex.) Without loss of generality, suppose the robber moved to (u_2,v_1).

Consider an instance of the game where the cop begins at (u_0,v_0), the robber begins at (u_2,v_1), and the cop moves first. We know from Case 1. that the cop can limit the damage to at most \max\{{\rm dmg}(C_m)|V(C_n)|, {\rm dmg}(C_n)|V(C_m)|\} vertices. Thus, if the cop begins at (u_0,v_0), the robber begins at (u_1,v_1) and the cop initially passes, the cop can prevent the robber from damaging more than 1+\max\{{\rm dmg}(C_m)|V(C_n)|, {\rm dmg}(C_n)|V(C_m)|\} vertices.

The upper bound follows from Lemma 2.16. For the lower bound, without loss of generality, suppose the cop initially occupies (u_0,v_0) on C_m \square C_n. We will show that if the robber initially occupies (u_1,v_1), they can damage at least

vertices, regardless of the cop’s strategy. For i \in \{0,1,\dots,n-1\}, the subgraph induced by the vertex set \{(u_j,v_i)~:~ 0 \leq j \leq m-1 \} is called copy i of C_m.

Phase 1: We first assume the cop’s initial move is to change their second coordinate to occupy (u_0,v_{n-1}) or (u_0,v_1). The robber will play a shadow strategy on copy 1 of C_m. To do this, the robber projects the image of the cop from the second coordinate, to its corresponding position in the robber’s copy of C_m: the cop’s shadow.

Initially, the cop occupies (u_0,v_0), so the cop’s shadow on copy 1 of C_m is at (u_0,v_1). The robber aims to move within copy 1 of C_m and damage {\rm dmg}(C_m)+1 vertices while maintaining a distance of at least two from the cop’s shadow after each move of the robber. Consequently, the robber will initially move from (u_1,v_1) to (u_2,v_1). Regardless of the cop’s subsequent moves, the robber will, at each round, increase their first coordinate until the robber moves to (u_{m/2},v_1) during round m/2-1. After the cop moves during round m/2, the cop’s shadow is either at (u_{m/2-1},v_1) or is distance at least two from the robber. Note that the actual cop either occupies (u_{m/2-1},v_1) or a vertex at least distance two from the robber. With the robber’s move during round m/2, vertex (u_{m/2},v_1) is damaged. As a result, at least m/2 = {\rm dmg}(C_m)+1 vertices are damaged in copy 1 of C_m.

Phase 2: Without loss of generality, suppose the robber next moves to copy 2 of C_m. Note that this results in the robber being at least distance two from the cop and at least distance one from the cop’s shadow in copy 2 of C_m. At the end of round m/2 either:

1. the cop’s shadow is at least distance two from the robber in copy 2 of C_m; or

2. the cop occupies (u_{m/2-1},v_1) and the cop’s shadow is distance one from the robber in copy 2 of C_m.

Suppose (1) occurs. Then the cop’s shadow is at least distance two from the robber in copy 1 of C_m and so after the robber moves to copy 2 of C_m, the cop’s shadow remains at least distance two from the robber in copy 2 of C_m. The robber can follow the shadow strategy and damage at least {\rm dmg}(C_m) vertices in copy 2 such that at the end of each round, the robber is at least distance two from the cop’s shadow. Once this occurs, the robber moves to another copy of C_m and we are essentially beginning Phase 2 again, but for a new copy of C_m. Continuing in a similar fashion, in the remaining copies of C_m, the robber can damage at least {\rm dmg}(C_m) vertices, yielding a total of at least 1+{\rm dmg}(C_m)|V(C_n)| damaged vertices.

Suppose (2) occurs. If the cop passes or moves to (u_{m/2-1},v_2) or (u_{m/2-1},v_0), then we are essentially beginning Phase 1 again, but for copy 2 of C_m. In this case, the robber will damage {\rm dmg}(C_m)+1 vertices in copy 2 of C_m. Otherwise, suppose the cop moves to (u_{m/2},v_1) during round m/2+1. Then immediately after the cop has moved (but before the robber has moved), the cop’s shadow in copy 2 of C_m coincides with the robber’s position in copy 2 of C_m (i.e. they have the same first coordinate). If the cop chooses to maintain the same first coordinate as the robber forever (i.e. whenever the robber changes first coordinate, the cop then changes first coordinate to match), the robber will be able to damage m vertices in copy 2 of C_m, m vertices in copy 3 of C_m, and so on, to m vertices in copy n/2 of C_m. This yields m(n/2) > {\rm dmg}(C_m)|V(C_n)| damaged vertices. Otherwise, the cop may match the first coordinate as the robber for some rounds, but not others. During the rounds where the latter occurs, we next show that the robber continues to damage at least {\rm dmg}(C_m) many vertices in copies of C_m.

Finally, if (2) occurs and the cop moves to (u_{m/2-2},v_1) during round m/2+1, then the cop’s shadow is at least distance two from the robber in copy 2 of C_m and the robber proceeds as in (1) above.

Recall that the above argument assumed the cop’s first move was to change their second coordinate. If the cop initially passes, the robber can damage (u_1,v_1) and move to (u_2,v_1) and following the above argument, damage at least 1+{\rm dmg}(C_m)|V(C_n)| vertices. By a symmetric argument, if the cop’s first move is to change their first coordinate, the robber first plays a shadow strategy on copy 1 of C_n and can damage at least 1+{\rm dmg}(C_n)|V(C_m)| vertices.

Suppose {\rm dmg}(G)=1 for graph G. By Theorem 1.4, {\rm rad}(G) \in \{0,1,2\}. If {\rm rad}(G) \in \{0,1\}, then G is an isolated vertex or has a universal vertex and {\rm dmg}(G)=0.

For the forward direction, consider the contrapositive. Assume G is a graph where either {\rm rad}(G) \not= 2 or for all c \in V(G), there exists w \in V(G) \setminus N[c] such that for each s \in N[c], N(w) \not\subseteq N[s]. We will show that {\rm dmg}(G) \neq 1.

If {\rm rad}(G) = 0, then G is an isolated vertex and trivially {\rm dmg}(G)=0. If {\rm rad}(G) = 1 or {\rm rad}(G) >2, then {\rm dmg}(G) \not= 1 by the contrapositive of Lemma 3.4. Consequently, we assume {\rm rad}(G) = 2 and show that no matter the strategy of the cop, the robber can damage more than one vertex in G. Since {\rm rad}(G) = 2, no matter where the cop places themselves in G, there always is a vertex at least distance two away. Suppose the cop initially occupies some vertex v \in V(G). If there is a vertex at distance 3 away from the cop, the robber can damage at least two vertices. Otherwise, the cop must be located on a center since the graph has radius 2. Given the properties of G, there exists w \in V(G) \setminus N[v] such that N(w) \not\subseteq N(v) and for all s \in N(v), N(w) \not\subseteq N[s]. We next show that if the robber starts on such a vertex w, they can damage at least two vertices.

In the first round, the cop has a choice to either stay on vertex v or move to some vertex s_i \in N(v) where i \in \{1, 2,\ldots, k\} and |N(v)|= k.

Since N(w) \not\subseteq N(v), there exists some vertex t \in N(w) where t \not\in N(v). If the cop stays on vertex v in the first round, then the robber can damage w and move to vertex t. Since t \not \in N(v), during the second round, the cop is still at least a distance of two away from the robber. No matter where the cop moves in the second round, the robber can damage vertex t by remaining on it for the second round. Thus, the robber damages at least two vertices.

Suppose instead that the cop moves to vertex s_i during the first round. Given the properties of G, we know there is some vertex r \in N(w) where r \not \in N[s_i]. Note that r is not necessarily distinct from the vertex t where t \in N(w) but t \not\in N(v). During the first round, the robber can damage w and move to vertex r. At this point, since r \not \in N[s_i], the robber is still at least distance of two away from the cop. No matter where the cop moves in the second round, the robber can damage r by remaining on it for the second round. Thus, the robber damages at least two vertices.

For the reverse implication, assume that G is a graph with radius 2 and the conditions of the theorem hold. We will show that if the cop initially occupies a center vertex c, they have a strategy to protect |V(G)| -1 vertices and the robber has a strategy to damage one vertex. Since {\rm rad}(G) = 2, we know {\rm dmg}(G) \geq 1 by Theorem 1.4.

If the cop initially occupies a center c, then the cop is protecting N[c] from damage in the first round. Therefore the robber will initially occupy some vertex w \in V(G) \setminus N[c].

By the way we have defined G, we know there is a vertex s \in N[c] that dominates w. If s=c the cop can protect |V(G)|-1 by passing in all rounds, unless the robber moves to a neighbour of c. Otherwise, the cop initially moves from c to s such that s dominates w. The cop protects |V(G)|-1 vertices by passing in all subsequent rounds, unless the robber moves to a neighbour of s.

Suppose the cop initially occupies (u,v) where u and v are as described in the theorem statement; and the robber initially occupies some vertex (x,y). Assume u o-dominates x in G and for now, assume y \not\in N_H(v). If v o-dominates y in H, then the cop in G \square H initially passes. Otherwise, there exists s \in N_H(v) such that s o-dominates y in H and the cop in G \square H moves to (u,s). Observe that the cop’s first and second coordinates now o-dominate the robber’s first and second coordinates, in their respective input graphs. The robber must pass indefinitely (and damage only one vertex) or during some round, change a coordinate. Whenever the robber changes first (second) coordinate, the cop changes first (second) coordinate to match. Without loss of generality, suppose the robber changes second coordinate. Then the cop changes second coordinate to match that of the robber. If the robber now changes first coordinate, the cop will move and capture the robber. Thus, to maximize the number of damaged vertices, the robber can only ever change second coordinate and at most |V(H)| vertices are damaged.

If y \in N_H(v), the cop in G \square H initially moves to (u,y) to match the second coordinate of the robber. As above, if the robber changes first coordinate, the cop will capture the robber.

Let G be a graph for which {\rm dmg}(G)=2. By Theorem 1.4, {\rm rad}(G) \in \{0,1,2,3\}. If {\rm rad}(G) = 0, then the graph has a single vertex and no vertices can be damaged. Similarly, if {\rm rad}(G) = 1, then there exists a universal vertex and the damage number of G is 0. Thus, {\rm rad}(G) \in \{2,3\}.

Let G be a graph with radius 2 or radius 3 and damage number of G is 2. We next show that the theorem conditions hold. The cop initially occupies some vertex z \in V(G).

If {\rm rad}(G)=2, the eccentricity of z is at most 4. If the eccentricity of z equals 4, then there is a shortest path P=(z,v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4). The robber can initially occupy v_2 and damage v_2,v_3,v_4, which contradicts {\rm dmg}(G)=2. If {\rm rad}(G)=3, the eccentricity of z is at most 6. If the eccentricity of z is 4, 5, or 6, then as in the {\rm rad}(G)=2 case, the robber can damage at least three vertices, a contradiction. Thus, a necessary condition on z is that every vertex is within distance three of z.

The robber must start on a vertex at distance two or three from z, since otherwise the robber would be captured in the first round. Label this vertex y, so {\rm dist}_G(z,y) \in \{2,3\}. Since {\rm dmg}(G) = 2, no vertex in N[z] dominates y. Thus, regardless of where the cop moves on the first round, say s_y, there must exist a safe vertex to which the robber can move. So, there is at least one vertex x \in N(y) \backslash N[s_y].

The cop first moves to some vertex s_y \in N[z]: the closed neighbourhood allows for the possibility that the cop passes and s_y = z. Then the robber moves to some vertex x \in N(y)\backslash N[s_y]. Since the damage number is 2, the robber is not captured by the next move of the cop; the cop’s next move is to some vertex s_x \in N[s_y] (allowing the possibility that the cop passes and s_x = s_y). Since the damage number is 2, there can be no neighbour of x, apart from possibly y, that is not adjacent to s_x. Thus, N(x) \backslash \{y\} \subseteq N[s_x]. If s_x \not\sim y, the robber can move back to y and so there must be a vertex v \in N[s_x] to which the cop can move such that N(y)\backslash \{x\} \subseteq N[v]; otherwise, the robber can move to, and damage a third vertex. Thus, if {\rm dmg}(G)=2, conditions (1), (2), and (3) of the theorem must hold. The existence of the conditions implies that the robber can damage two vertices. Notably, any vertex w, at distance two or three from z must either satisfy those conditions (to ensure the number of vertices damaged cannot exceed two), or w satisfies the condition of Theorem 3.5, which implies the damage number would be 1 if the robber were to initially occupy such a vertex.

Considering the reverse implication, let G be a graph with radius 2 or radius 3. Now, suppose the conditions of the theorem are met and the cop initially occupies z. Suppose the robber initially occupies a vertex y satisfying conditions (1), (2), and (3). Since no vertex in N[z] dominates y, regardless of where the cop moves, the robber will be able to move to, and damage, a second vertex. Thus, if the cop initially occupies z, at least two vertices will be damaged. We next show that at most two vertices will be damaged. The cop initially moves from z to some vertex s_y as described by the conditions of the theorem and the robber’s only move is to some vertex x \not\in N[s_y]. Recall such a vertex exists because of condition (2). However, by condition (3), the cop can move to a vertex s_x \in N[s_y] such that N(x) \backslash \{y\} \subseteq N[s_x]. To avoid capture, the robber can either remain at x (provided s_x \not\sim x) or move back to y (provided s_x \not\sim y). But, in moving back to y, the cop can then move to v \in N[s_x] such that N(y) \backslash \{x\} \subseteq N[v] by condition (3). Thus, the robber can only damage two vertices when the cop and robber initially occupy z and y, respectively.