Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
0 of .
Results for:
P. 1
Mehvish I. Poshni, Imran F. Khan, and Jonathan L. Gross- Website Supplement: Genus Distributions of Graphs under Edge-Amalgamations

# Mehvish I. Poshni, Imran F. Khan, and Jonathan L. Gross- Website Supplement: Genus Distributions of Graphs under Edge-Amalgamations

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7 |Likes:

### Availability:

See more
See less

12/30/2011

pdf

text

original

Website Supplement:Genus Distributions of Graphs under Edge-Amalgamations
Mehvish I. Poshni, Imran F. Khan, and Jonathan L. Gross
Department of Computer ScienceColumbia University, New York, NY 10027
Abstract
This document supplements a paper [PKG10a] submitted to
Ars Mathematicae Contemporanea
. It provides proof of the productionslisted in Table 7.1 of that paper. It also provides a table of the parti-tioned genus distributions of the closed-end ladders
L
0
through
L
5
.
1 Productions for Double-Edge-RootedGraphs
We now derive the productions listed in Table 7.1 of [PKG10a], which areused for our application to closed-end ladders in
§
2. These productions aresummarized in Table 1.1 for easy reference and for easy comparison to Table7.1 of [PKG10a].
Theorem 1.1
Le
(
G,e,d
)
and
(
H,g,f
)
be double-edge-rooted graphs, whereall four roots have two 2-valent endpoints. Then the following productionsapply when the fb-walks on both roots of the imbedding of
G
are distinct from each other and the imbedding of
is of type
dd
′′
:
dd
0
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
2
dd
0
i
+
j
(
) + 2
ds
0
i
+
j
+1
(
) (1.1)
ds
0
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
4
dd
0
i
+
j
(
) (1.2)
sd
0
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
2
sd
0
i
+
j
(
) + 2
ss
0
i
+
j
+1
(
) (1.3)
ss
0
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
4
sd
0
i
+
j
(
) (1.4)1

Genus Distributions of Graphs under Edge-Amalgamations
2
Proof
Productions (1.1) and (1.3) are both of form
xd
0
i
(
G,e,d
)
dd
′′
j
(
H,g,f
)
2
xd
0
i
+
j
(
W,e,f
) + 2
xs
0
i
+
j
+1
(
W,e,f
)where
x
is
d
in the former case and
s
in the latter case. Figure 1.1 showshow the fb-walks change in response to the breaking of fb-walks incident onthe root-edges and recombining of the resulting strands. The ﬁrst and lastimbeddings show one less face as a result of amalgamation, while the middletwo imbeddings show a decrease of three faces. The result follows from theEuler polyhedral equation.Figure 1.1:
xd
0
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
2
xd
0
i
+
j
(
) + 2
xs
0
i
+
j
+1
(
)In all cases, the fb-walks at edge
e
remain unaﬀected. Thus, the resultingimbedding for graph
has
d
or
s
for
x
, depending on whether there aretwo distinct fb-walks incident on edge
e
or only one in the graph
G
. Theproofs of Productions (1.2) and (1.4) are very similar, and we leave these tothe reader.
Theorem 1.2
Le
(
G,e,d
)
and
(
H,g,f
)
be double-edge-rooted graphs, whereall four roots have two 2-valent endpoints. Then the following productionsapply to the remaining cases where the fb-walks on each of the two roots of the imbedding of
G
are distinct and the imbedding of
is of type
dd
′′
.
dd
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
dd
0
i
+
j
(
) +
dd
i
+
j
(
) + 2
ds
i
+
j
+1
(
) (1.5)

Genus Distributions of Graphs under Edge-Amalgamations
3
dd
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
dd
0
i
+
j
(
) +
dd
i
+
j
(
) + 2
ds
i
+
j
+1
(
) (1.6)
dd
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
dd
0
i
+
j
(
) +
dd
i
+
j
(
) + 2
ds
i
+
j
+1
(
) (1.7)
dd
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
dd
0
i
+
j
(
) +
dd
i
+
j
(
) + 2
ds
i
+
j
+1
(
) (1.8)
dd
′′
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
dd
i
+
j
(
) +
dd
i
+
j
(
) + 2
ss
2
i
+
j
+1
(
) (1.9)
dd
′′
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
dd
i
+
j
(
) +
dd
i
+
j
(
) + 2
ss
2
i
+
j
+1
(
) (1.10)
Proof
As before, we consider the way amalgamation on the root-edgesin imbeddings of graphs
G
and
generates new fb-walks by recombiningstrands in the imbedding of the graph
. For the proof of Production (1.5),we look to Figure 1.2, which shows the new fb-walks of
as they arise fromfb-walks in imbeddings of
G
and
.Figure 1.2:
dd
i
(
G
)
dd
′′
j
(
)
dd
0
i
+
j
(
) +
dd
i
+
j
(
) + 2
ds
i
+
j
+1
(
)Productions (1.6 - 1.8) also deal with amalgamation of a
dd
-type imbed-ding of
G
with a
dd
′′
-type imbedding of
. However, in each case the par-ticular second-order partial of
dd
causes diﬀerent types of imbeddings to begenerated. For example, Figure 1.3 highlights this contrast by providing theproof for Production (1.7).Similarly, the picture proof of the Production (1.10) is given in Figure1.4. The ﬁrst and last imbedding of the graph
show one less face, whilethe second and the third imbedding of
show a decrease of 3 faces as all