Combinatorics and Computer Science pp 58-66 | Cite as

# Complete bipartite decompositions of crowns, with applications to complete directed graphs

## Abstract

For an integer *n*≥3, the crown *S* _{n} ^{0} is defined to be the graph with vertex set {*a*_{1}, *a*_{2}, ..., *a*_{ n }, *b*_{1}, *b*_{2}, ..., *b*_{ n }} and edge set {*a*_{ i }*b*_{ j }: 1≤*i,j*≤*n,i*≠*j*}. We consider the decomposition of the edges of *S* _{n} ^{0} into the complete bipartite graphs, and obtain the following results.

The minimum number of complete bipartite subgraphs needed to decompose the edges of *S* _{n} ^{0} is *n*.

The crown *S* _{n} ^{0} has a *K*_{ l,m }-decomposition (i.e., the edges of *S* _{n} ^{0} can be decomposed into subgraphs isomorphic to *K*_{ l,m }) if *n=λlm*+1 for some positive integers *λ, l, m*. Furthermore, the *l*-part and *m*-part of each member in this decomposition can be required to be contained in {*a*_{1}, *a*_{2}, ..., *a*_{ n }} and {*b*_{1},*b*_{2}, ..., *b*_{ n }}, respectively.

Every minimum complete bipartite decomposition of *S* _{n} ^{0} is trivial if and only if *n=p*+1 where *p* is prime (a complete bipartite decomposition of *S* _{n} ^{0} that uses the minimum number of complete bipartite subgraphs is called a minimum complete bipartite decomposition of *S* _{n} ^{0} and a complete bipartite decomposition of *S* _{n} ^{0} is said to be trivial if it consists of either *n* maximal stars with respective centers *a*_{1}, *a*_{2}, ..., *a*_{ n }, or *n* maximal stars with respective centers *b*_{1}, *b*_{2}, ..., *b*_{ n }).

The above results have applications to the directed complete bipartite decomposition of the complete directed graphs.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.D. De Caen and D. G. Hoffman,
*Impossibility of decomposing the complete graph on n points into n*−1*isomorphic complete bipartite graphs*, SIAM J. Disc. Math.**2**(1989), 48–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.F. R. K. Chung, R. L. Graham, and P. M. Winkler,
*On the addressing problem for directed graphs*, Graphs and Combinatorics**1**(1985), 41–50.Google Scholar - 3.R. L. Graham and H. O. Pollak,
*On embedding graphs in squashed cubes*, Springer Lecture Notes in Math.**303**(1973), 99–110.Google Scholar - 4.A. Granville, A. Moisiadis, and R. Rees,
*Bipartite planes*, Congr. Numer.**61**(1988), 241–248.Google Scholar - 5.C. Huang and A. Rosa,
*On the existence of balanced bipartite designs*, Utilitas Math.**4**(1973), 55–75.Google Scholar - 6.Q.-X. Huang,
*On complete bipartite decomposition of complete multigraphs*, Ars Combinatoria**38**(1994), 292–298.Google Scholar - 7.T. Kratzke, B. Reznick, and D. West,
*Eigensharp graphs: decomposition into complete bipartite subgraphs*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.**308**(1988), 637–653.Google Scholar - 8.G. W. Peck,
*A new proof of a theorem of Graham and Pollak*, Discrete Math.**49**(1984), 327–328.Google Scholar - 9.D. Pritikin,
*Applying a proof of Tverberg to complete bipartite decompositions of digraphs and multigraphs*, J. Graph Theory**10**(1986), 197–201.Google Scholar - 10.B. Reznick, P. Tiwari, and D. B. West,
*Decomposition of product graphs into complete bipartite subgraphs*, Discrete Math.**57**(1985), 189–193.Google Scholar - 11.
- 12.H. Tverberg,
*On the decomposition of K*_{n}*into complete bipartite graphs*, J. Graph Theory**6**(1982), 493–494.Google Scholar - 13.W. D. Wallis,
*Combinatorial designs*, Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, and Basel, 1988, p. 23.Google Scholar