Advertisement

A tight lower bound for primitivity in k-structures

  • P. Bonizzoni
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 820)

Abstract

The recently developed theory of k- structures, which constitute a general notion of hypergraph, can give important contributions to the analysis of combinatorial and algorithmic problems on graphs. The basic result of this theory is a decomposition of k-structures which generalizes the modular decomposition for 2-structures. This one gives, as a special case, the modular decomposition of graphs, which is a well known technique that facilitates the solution of a certain number of problems on graphs. But, there is a subclass of k-structures to which only a trivial decomposition can be applyed, the primitive ones.

In this paper we solve for the general case of k-structures a crucial question for the usefulness of the modular decomposition: to give a tight lower bound for the size of the biggest primitive substructures in primitive k-structures. We show that in a primitive k-structure on n elements, for k>2, n−k+1 is such tight lower bound. This result shows that bounds for primitivity in k-structures do not generalize the case k=2.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. Berge. Graph and Hypergraphs. North Holland, Mathematical Library, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Bonizzoni. Primitive 2-structures with the (n−2)-property. Theoretical Computer Science, 1993. To appear.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Cournier and M. Habib. An efficient algorithm to recognize prime undirected graphs. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science n. 657, pages 212–224. Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, WG '92, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Cournier and M. Habib. A linear algorithm to build modular decomposition trees, 1993. Preprint.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Ehrenfeucht and R.McConnell. A k-structure generalization of the theory of 2-structures. Theoretical Computer Science, 1993. To appear.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Ehrenfeucht and G. Rozenberg. Primitivity is hereditary for 2-structures. Theoretical Computer Science, 70:343–358, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Ehrenfeucht and G. Rozenberg. Theory of 2-structures, Part I: clans, basic subclasses and morphisms. Theoretical Computer Science, 70:277–303, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Ehrenfeucht and G. Rozenberg. Theory of 2-structures, Part II: representation through labeled tree families. Theoretical Computer Science, 70:305–342, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Engelfriet, T. Harju, A. Proskurowski, and G. Rozenberg. Survey on graphs as 2-structures and parallel complexity of decomposition. Technical Report 93-06, University of Leiden, Department of Computer Science, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Golumbic. Algorithmic graph theory and perfect graphs. Academic Press, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Harju and G. Rozenberg. Reductions for primitive 2-structures, 1992. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. M. McConnell and J. P. Spinrad. Linear-time modular decomposition and efficient transitive orientation of undirected graphs, 1994. Proceedings, ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. H. Moehring. Almost all comparability graphs are UPO. Discr. Math., 50:63–70, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. H. Moehring. Algorithmic aspects of comparability graphs and interval graphs. Graphs and Orders, 00:41–101, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. H. Moehring and F.J. Radermacher. Substitution decomposition and connections with combinatorial optimization. Ann. Discrete Math., 19:257–356, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. H. Schmerl and W.T. Trotter. Critically indecomposable partially ordered sets, graphs, tournaments and other binary relational structures. Discrete Mathematics, 113:191–205, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Spinrad. On comparability and permutation graphs. Siam J. Computing, 14:658–670, 1985.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Spinrad and J. Valdes. Recognition and isomorphism of two dimensional partial orders. In Lecture Notes in Computer Sience n. 154, pages 676–686. 10th Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, 1983.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Valdes, R. E. Tarjan, and E. L. Lawler. The recognition of series-parallel digraphs. Siam J. Computing, 11:298–313, 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Bonizzoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze dell'InformazioneUniversità degli StudiMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations