The 2-Domination Number and the Upper Median Degree: A Proof of Graffiti.pc Conjecture 387

Write m=m(G). If m=0, then V(G) is a 2-dominating set and

Hence assume m\geq 1. Let F=\overline G and put

In particular, 0\leq t\leq n-2 and 2\leq q\leq n.

Define

and write h=|H| and k=|B|. Since

a vertex lies in H exactly when its degree in G is at least m. By the definition of the upper median, at least \lceil n/2\rceil vertices have degree at least m. Thus

First suppose that k\leq t+1. Since k<q\leq n, choose a q-element set D with B\subseteq D. Every vertex v\notin D belongs to H, so

As v\notin D, its neighbors in F among the vertices of D are exactly its nonneighbors in G among those vertices. Hence

Thus D is 2-dominating.

It remains to consider the case

For each x\in H, we have

Using (?), extend N_F(x)\cap B to a t-element subset A_x\subseteq B. Choose pairwise distinct real numbers a_z for z\in B, and define

where the empty product is 1 when t=0.

The vector space of real polynomials of degree at most t has dimension t+1. By (?) and (?),

so the indexed family (p_x)_{x\in H} is linearly dependent. Choose an inclusion-minimal dependent subfamily, indexed by a set C\subseteq H, and put r=|C|. Apply Lemma 2 to the sets (A_x)_{x\in C}. With

the lemma gives

and every element of B\setminus P belongs to at most r-2 of the sets A_x with x\in C.

Because 2\leq r\leq t+2, we have 0\leq t+2-r\leq t. Together with (?) and |B|=k\geq t+2, this allows us to choose Y\subseteq B such that

Set

Since C\subseteq H and Y\subseteq B, the union is disjoint and

Let v\notin D. If v\in H, then simply

Now suppose v\in B. Since P\subseteq Y and v\notin Y, we have v\notin P. Lemma 2 therefore shows that v belongs to at most r-2 of the sets A_x with x\in C. As N_F(x)\cap B\subseteq A_x for every x\in C, and F is undirected,

Consequently,

We have shown that every v\notin D satisfies d_F(v,D)\leq t. Therefore

Thus D is a 2-dominating set of cardinality

and the theorem follows.

Each p_i is nonzero, so r\geq 2. Minimal dependence implies that any r-1 of the polynomials are linearly independent. Since all p_i lie in the (t+1)-dimensional vector space of real polynomials of degree at most t, we obtain r-1\leq t+1, and hence r\leq t+2.

Choose a nontrivial dependence

Minimality implies c_i\neq 0 for every i. If some z\in B belonged to exactly r-1 of the sets A_i, then evaluating (Proof) at X=a_z would leave exactly one nonzero summand. Indeed, if z\notin A_j, then

because the numbers a_u are pairwise distinct. This contradiction shows that an element occurring in at least r-1 of the sets must occur in all r of them. Consequently, every element outside P occurs in at most r-2 sets.

Finally, define

and write p_i=g\widetilde p_i. Multiplication by the nonzero polynomial g is injective, so the indexed family (\widetilde p_i)_{i=1}^{r} is again minimally linearly dependent. Each \widetilde p_i has degree t-s. Therefore any r-1 of them are linearly independent in a vector space of dimension t-s+1, giving

Equivalently, s\leq t+2-r.