3 views

Uploaded by TJPRC Publications

In this paper we initiate the study of a variation of standard domination, namely strong split block cut vertex
domination in G. Let G = (V, E) be a graph and H=BC (G) is the block cut vertex graph of G. A strong split block cut
vertex (SSBC) dominating set of G is a set D⊆ V[H], where 〈V(H) − D〉 is totally disconnected with at least two vertices.
The strong split block cut vertex (SSBC) domination number of a graph G denoted by γ
(G) is the minimum cardinality
of SSBC-set of G. We determine the best possible upper bounds and lower bounds for γ
(G) in terms of the elements of
G, characterizing those graphs achieving these bounds. Also we characterize the class of trees for which γ
(G) relates to
restrained domination number and total restrained domination number of G.

save

You are on page 1of 8

**Computer Applications Research (IJMCAR)
**

ISSN(P): 2249-6955; ISSN(E): 2249-8060

Vol. 5, Issue 5, Oct 2015, 73-80

© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

**STRONG SPLIT BLOCK CUT VERTEX DOMINATION OF A GRAPH
**

M. H. MUDDEBIHAL & MEGHA KHANDELWAL

Department of Mathematics, Gulbarga University, Gulbarga, Karnataka, India

ABSTRACT

In this paper we initiate the study of a variation of standard domination, namely strong split block cut vertex

domination in G. Let G = (V, E) be a graph and H=BC (G) is the block cut vertex graph of G. A strong split block cut

vertex (SSBC) dominating set of G is a set D⊆ V[H], where 〈V(H) − D〉 is totally disconnected with at least two vertices.

The strong split block cut vertex (SSBC) domination number of a graph G denoted by γ

(G) is the minimum cardinality

of SSBC-set of G. We determine the best possible upper bounds and lower bounds for γ

(G) in terms of the elements of

G, characterizing those graphs achieving these bounds. Also we characterize the class of trees for which γ

(G) relates to

**restrained domination number and total restrained domination number of G.
**

AMS Subject Classification Number: 05C 69

**KEYWORDS: Strong Split Block Cut Vertex Domination of a Graph
**

1. INTRODUCTION

All the graphs considered here are finite, without loops and multiple edges, undirected and connected,

also

( )≠

. Graph theory terminology not found here can be found in [2]. Specifically, let G = (V, E) be a graph

with vertex set V and edge set E such that| | = and | | = . Moreover the notation

will denote path of order p.

**Degree of an edge = uv in a graph G is defined as deg (u) + deg (v) -2 and is denoted as ∆′ (G).
**

Theory of domination was introduced by Ore in [8]. Dominating sets of edges were studied by Mitchell and

Hedetniemi in [5]. A set of edges F in a graph G =(V,E) is called an edge dominating set of G if every edge in E-F is

adjacent to at least one edge in F. The edge domination number denoted as " ′ ( ) of a graph G is the minimum cardinality

of an edge dominating set of G.

A set F of edges in a graph G= (V, E) is called a total edge dominating set of G, if every edge in E is adjacent to at

least one edge in F. The total edge domination number of a graph G is the minimum cardinality taken over all the total

edge dominating sets of G. It is denoted as "#′ ( ) .The concept of total domination and total edge domination is discussed

in [4].Further work in this topic is done in [9].

Restrained dominating set is a set $ ⊆

where every vertex in V-S is adjacent to a vertex in S as well as another

**vertex V-S. The restrained domination number of G denoted as "& ( ) is the smallest cardinality of a restrained dominating
**

set. This concept is discussed in [1].

A set $ ⊆

is total restrained dominating set if every vertex is adjacent to a vertex in S and every vertex of

−$

**is adjacent to a vertex in − $. The total restrained domination number of G, denoted by "#& ( ) is the minimum
**

cardinality of a total restrained dominating set of G. This concept is discussed in [3].

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

74

M. H. Muddebihal & Megha Khandelwal

In this paper we define a new domination parameter as strong split block cut vertex domination of a graph G. If

H=BC (G) is block cut vertex graph of G, then $ ⊆ (') is strong split block cut vertex dominating set (SSBC-dominating

set) such that every vertex 〈 (') − $〉 is an isolate and 〈 (') − $〉 contains at least two vertices. Strong split block cut

vertex domination number of a graph G denoted as "(()* ( ) is the minimum cardinality taken over all strong split block

cut vertex dominating sets of G.

The concept of strong split domination was introduced in [4]. The more on strong Split domination of different

type of graphs is well studied by M.H. Muddebihal et.al [6, 7]. In section [3] we establish equality "(()* ( ) = +. And have

found equality "(()* (-) = "& (-) + 1, and characterized the trees achieving this equality. Also we established equality with

strong split lict domination number of G ("((0 ( )) which is discussed in [6]. Finally in section [4] we have found some

upper bounds and lower bounds in terms of above described domination parameters and also in terms of connected block

domination "*) (-) which is discussed in [8]. Also characterized graphs achieving these bounds

2. PRELIMINARIES

The following result was established in [3].We shall see this result will be useful in Establishing a sharp upper

bound for strong split block cut vertex domination number in terms of restrained domination number of G.

Theorem A [10] If T is a tree of order ≥ 2 then

"#& (-) ≥ 3

45

5

6

**Theorem B [9] .Ore’s Theorem:
**

For any graph

"( ) ≤ 3 6

5

**Theorem C [6] For any path , γ ss [ ]= 3 6
**

5

3. EQUALITIES

In this section we characterize some general graphs and trees for equalities of "(()* ( ) with different domination

parameters of the graph G and elements of the same.

Proposition1: For any path , "(()* ( ) =

−2

**The following theorem gives a clear equality in terms of number of blocks of G.
**

Theorem 2: For any connected (p, q), graph G with n blocks, BC (G) ≠ Kp, "(()* ( ) = +

Proof Let H = BC (G) be the block cut vertex graph of connected graph G. Since BC (G) has at least two cut

vertices .In BC (G) every block is complete. Let G has H= {B1, B2, - - - Bn} blocks. Then in B (G), J= {b1, b2, - - - bn} is the

corresponding block vertices and C be the set of cut vertices. Since V [BC (G)] = {b1, b2, - - - bn} ∪ C and 〈 〉 is totally

disconnected such that ∀ 9: ∈ [

( )] −{b1, b2, - - - bn} is adjacent to at least one vertex of {b1, b2, - - - bn} Clearly J is

**a "(()* - set. Hence |J |= n gives "(()* ( ) = +. ⎕
**

Corollary 3: For any connected (p, q) graph G"(()* (-) ≤ , equality holds if G is a nontrivial tree.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.6257

NAAS Rating: 3.80

75

Strong Split Block Cut Vertex Domination of a Graph

**Theorem 4: If T is a tree of order p ≥ 3 then "(()* (-) = "& (-) + 1, if and only if T is obtained from P4, P5 or P6
**

by adding zero or more leaves to some vertex = of the stem such that either = ∈ "& -set of the path or ∃9 ∈ ?(=), such that

9 is an end vertex.

Proof: Suppose T be a tree of order ≥ 3, such that

(-) = ' and

= {BC , B5 , … B0 } be the block vertices and

**= {GC , G5 , … G0 } be the set of cut vertices in T. Then { } ∪ { }= V [BC (T)] with "(()* (-) = "& (-) + 1. Then we
**

consider the following cases:

Case 1: Suppose T is a tree obtained from

I

by adding leaves to stem of

I .Then

'=

and "(()* (') does not

exist.

Case 2: Suppose T is obtained from

{9C , 9J , x} is the "& (-)-set

By

corollary

J

= {9C , 95 , 9I , 9J } by adding a path xy of length 1 at 95 (KL 9I ). Then

[3], | (-)| = "(()* (-) ≠ |{9C , 9J , x}| + 1.Hence "(()* (-) ≠ "& (-) + 1,

a

contradiction.

Case 3: Suppose tree T is obtained from

S

= T9C , 95 , 9I, 9J, 9S U by adding edges or path to some stem vertices.

Then we consider the following sub cases of case 3. Before considering the sub cases of case 3 we observed that, a tree T

obtained by adding leaves to stem vertex of S , the vertex 9I always does not belong to "& (-)- set.

Subcase 3.1: Assume a path xy of length 1 is added to a stem vertex 95 (or 9J ) then T9C , 9J , 9S, XU (or

{9C , 95 , 9S , X}) where y is an end vertex of path of length 1, gives a "& (-)- set. Again by corollary [3], "(()* (-) = 6 ≠

"& (-) + 1, a contradiction

Subcase 3.2: Assume a leaf vertex x is added to the vertex 9I , which is an end edge 9I . Then {9C , 9S , X} is a

"& (-)- set, Clearly "(()* (-) ≠ "& (-) + 1. Also if leaves are added to 95 , 9I , 9J then [-] − {95 , 9I , 9J } is the restrained

dominating set of size

− 3, clearly

− 3 ≠ − 1. Hence from corollary [3], "(()* (-) ≠ "& (-) + 1, a contradiction.

Case 4: Suppose tree T is obtained from

Z

= T9C , 95 , 9I, 9J, 9S , 9Z U by adding leaves to some stem vertices then

**we consider the following sub cases of case 4.
**

Subcase 4.1: Assume a path xy of length 2 is added to any of the stem vertices of

Z

**. Then [-] − {95 , 9I , [} is "& (-)-set of cardinality − 3. Also "(()* (-) = [-] − 1 ≠ "& (-), a contradiction
**

Subcase 4.2: Assume at least one leaf is attached to 9I (or 9J ). Then [-] − {95 , 9I , 9J } (or [-] − {9I , 9J , 9S } )

forms a restrained dominating set of size − 3. Hence "& (-) = [-] − 3 ≠ [-] − 1= "(()* (-), a contradiction.

Case 5: Suppose T is a tree obtained from

( \ ) is of size

[-] − 4 and "(()* –set of

\ is

\

= T9C , 95 , 9I, 9J, 9S , 9Z , 9\ U by adding zero leaves. Then "& set of

6. Thus for

\ , "(()* (-)

≠ "& (-) + 1. Further if we obtain tree T by

**adding more leaves to the stem vertex (or vertices), then "(()* (-) − "& (-) > 1, a contradiction.
**

Converse of the above cases are discussed as follows.

Forcase 2: Suppose tree T is obtained from

J

= {9C , 95 , 9I , 9J } by adding leaves. Let

**$C = {_C , _5 , … . , _` } And $5 = T_C , _5 , … . , _a U be the set of leaves. If $C is added at 95 or $5 is added at 9I or both
**

$C and $5 are added to 95 and 9I . Then $C ∪ {9C } ∪ {9J } or $5 ∪ {9C } ∪ {9J } or $C ∪ $5 ∪ {9C } ∪ {9J } all belong to "& -

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

76

M. H. Muddebihal & Megha Khandelwal

**set of tree T, resulting in to "(()* (-) = |$C ∪ A9C F ∪ A9J F| + 1 or |$5 ∪ A9C F ∪ A9J F| + 1 or |$C ∪ $5 ∪ A9C F ∪ A9J F| +
**

1= "& - + 1.

Forcase 3: Suppose tree T is obtained from

S

= A9C , 95 , 9I , 9J , 9S F by adding leaves at stem vertices of S . Let

**$C = A_C , _5 , … . , _` F and $5 = T_C , _5 , … . , _a U be the set of leaves. If $C is added at 95 or $5 is added at 9J or both $C and $5
**

are added to 95 and 9J L_b _Gcd9_eX , then $C ∪ A9C F ∪ A9J F or $5 ∪ A9C F ∪ A9J F or $C ∪ $5 ∪ A9C F ∪ A9J F all belong to

"& - set of tree T, resulting in to "(()* - = |$C ∪ A9C F ∪ A9J F ∪ A9S F| or |$5 ∪ A9C F ∪ A95 F ∪ A9S F| or |$C ∪ $5 ∪ A9C F ∪

A95 F ∪ A9S F| is the "& -set of tree which gives "(()* - = "& - + 1.

Forcase 4: Suppose T is obtained from

= A9C , 95 , 9I , 9J , 9S , 9Z F by adding leaves at stem vertices of

Z

Z .If

**$C = A_C , _5 , … . , _` F and $5 = T_C , _5 , … . , _a U be the set of leaves. If $C is added at 95 or $5 is added at 9S or both $C and $5
**

are added to 95 and9S respectively. Then |$C ∪ $5 ∪ A9C F ∪ A9I F ∪ A9J F ∪ A9Z F| forms the "& -set of tree

And corollary [3] gives "(()* - = "& - + 1. ⎕

We establish the following theorem to prove our further theorem which relates strong split lict domination number

[6] of a graph with "(()*

.

**Theorem 5: For any nontrivial (p, q) tree, and + - ≠
**

C, ,

Proof: Suppose T=

≥ 2, Then + k

C,

l=

then "((0 - =

, By definition of strong split domination, "(( –set does not

exist. Hence - ≠

= T_C , _5 , … . , _m U and

**For any nontrivial tree T, let
**

+ Then

=A

- ∪

+ -

Clearly |

−

- F. Let

- =

- | = "((0 - ,

= A9C , 95 , … . , 90 F = A

+ -

- , where

- ∈

- ,

- ∈

+ -

**= AGC , G5 , … . , G` F the set of cut vertices in T. In + - ,
**

- ∪

- F. Since each block of + -

hence ∀ 9: ∈

is complete.

- is an isolate with at least two vertices.

+ - . Therefore "((0 - = . ⎕

Theorem 6: For any connected (p, q) graph G for which BC (G) ≠ Kp , with n blocks "(()*

= "((0

, if and

only if G is a tree.

Proof: Suppose G is not a tree, with

γ ssbc

(G) =

γ ssn (G). Then there exists a cycle

= A_C , _5 , … . , _n F. For any positive integer m and k

**which at least one 9: is incident to a neighbor block of G. Let
**

with m ≥ o, G has

+

=A

∪

`

**even cycle, then p = − 1 and "((0
**

5

**If C is an odd cycle thenp =
**

Which gives "((0

F. Clearly

+

−

`

= q + e − re + − 1s = q −

5

`tC

5

> "(()*

, then "((0

= A9C , 95 , … . , 9` , 9C F in

= q + e − re +

∪ T_C , _5 , … . , _a U is a "((0 –set of G. If C is an

`

5

+1 ,

`tC

5

s=q−

`tC

5

, a contradiction. Then G must be a tree

**Conversely suppose T is a tree and BC (T) ≠ Kp. Then each edge of T is a block. By Theorem [5], "((0 - =
**

and by corollary [3] "(()* - =

. Thus"((0 - = "(()* -

Connected block domination is defined by Muddebihal ET. Al [8]. We find equality for "(()*

in terms of

connected block domination of G.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.6257

NAAS Rating: 3.80

77

Strong Split Block Cut Vertex Domination of a Graph

**Theorem 7: For any connected (p, q), graph G "(()* ( ) = ")* ( ) + Ne where Ne is the number of end blocks in
**

G.

Proof: Let B = {b1, b2, b3 . . . b n} be the set of blocks of G and B' = {bi}, 1 ≤ i ≤ n –2 be the set of non end blocks

of G and B'' = {bj}, 2 ≤ j ≤ n be the end blocks of G, such that | B'' | = Ne. Further let H1 = B (G) and H2 = BC (G) are the

block graph and block cut vertex graph of G respectively. Then the vertex set of H1, V (H1) = B' ∪ B'' and vertex set of H2,

V (H2) = B' ∪ B'' ∪ C where C is the set of cut vertices of G. Let D be the connected block dominating set of G and |D|

= "* [ ( )] . Then ∀ u∈D there exists v ∈N (u) – B’’ such that v ∈ B’ also every end block bj ∈B'' is dominated by some u

∈ D. Thus D = B'. Further we consider D' is a strong split block cut vertex dominating set of G such that 〈V(H2) – D'〉 is

totally disconnected then each ν ∈ 〈V(H2) – D'〉 is a cut vertex of G. Hence D' = B' ∪ B'' which gives D' = D ∪ B'' hence

|D'|= |D| + |B''| resulting in to

γ ssbc

(G) = ")* ( ) + Nv . \ ⎕

The following proposition relates

γ ssbc

(T) with total domination number of a spider and an octopus. The proofs

**are omitted as results are straight forward.
**

Proposition 8: For a spider , "(()* (-) = 2"# (-) − 1

Proposition 9: For an octopus , "(()* (-) =

Theorem 10: If T is a tree of order

I wx (y)

5

≥ 3 then , "(()* ( ) ≤ 2 "#& (-) − 3

Proof: From Theorem [A] for any tree T of order≥ 3,

p = q+1, so

p + 2

where p is the number of vertices of T,

2

γ tr [T ] ≥

q + 3

and from corollary [3] we get the desired result. ⎕

2

γ tr [T ] ≥

**Theorem 11: For any tree T with order p, "(()* (-) ≥ "(( (-).
**

Proof: For any tree T of order p, let D is a strong split dominating set of T. Then, 〈{V (T)-D}〉 is a totally

disconnected graph with at least two vertices so γ ss (T ) ≤

p − 2 , which results into γ ssbc (T ) ≥ γ ss (T ) . ⎕

Theorem 12: For any connected (p, q) graph G with n blocks and G contains exactly one block B1 which is not an

edge, then "(()* ( ) ≤ "(( ( ) if B1 contains at least (n+1) vertices

Proof: Let G be the connected (p, q) graph with n blocks and B1 be the only block of G which is not an edge, and

B1 has (n+1) vertices .Let B = {B1, B2, …. Bn} be the set of blocks in G and Let H = BC (G) is the block cut vertex graph

of G. Clearly V (H) = B ∪ C (G) .Suppose D is the dominating set of H such that = 〈V (H) – D)〉 is totally disconnected

with at least two vertices. Then D is the strong split cut vertex dominating set of G. Further for induced sub graph H1 = 〈V

(G) – V (B1)〉 we consider the following cases:

Case 1: Suppose H1 = 〈V (G) – V (B1)〉 is totally disconnected with at least two vertices. Then

γ ss set of G is of

**size at least n which gives "(()* ( ) ≤ "(( ( ).
**

Case 2: Suppose H1 = 〈V(G) – V(B1)〉 is disconnected with at least two components say edges .Then in induced

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

78

M. H. Muddebihal & Megha Khandelwal

**sub graph 〈V(G) – V(B1)〉 edge set is {=C 9C , =5 95 } then set of vertices U = {=C, =5} (or ({9C ,95 } or {9C ,=C } KL {95 , =5 }
**

respectively) are such that {=C, =5 } (or ({9C ,95 } or {9C ,=C } KL {95 , =5 } respectively) ⊂ D, also |V(B1)| = n+1 so ∃ a set of

vertices D1 ⊆ V(B1) such that |DC | ≥ + − 2 and 〈V(B1) – V(DC )〉 is totally disconnected clearly DC ∪ z is the "(( - set of G

.Thus "(( ( ) ≥ + and hence "(( ( ) ≥ "(()* ( ).

γ ss -

Case 3: Suppose H1 = 〈{V (G) - V (B1)}〉 is a path Pp-(n+1). Then from Theorem C,

set of H1 is of size

p − (n + 1)

n + 1

and γ ss - set of B1 is of size at least

so γ ss (G) ≥ n and hence "(( ( ) ≥ "(()* ( ) . ⎕

2

2

0

**Theorem 13: For any Connected (p, q) graph G with n blocks "(()* ( ) ≥ "k ( )l + 3 6, equality holds for a Pp.
**

5

**Proof: Let G be a graph with n blocks and ( ) = T9C , 95 , … . , 9 U and = {BC , B5 , … . , B0 } be the set of blocks
**

of G. Let D be a minimal set of vertices of G such that {⊆ ( ) and every vertex in { − {} is adjacent to atleast one

vertex in and 〈 − {〉 is totally disconnected with at least two vertices. Then |D|= "(()* ( ). Further let 'C = ( ) be the

0

**block graph of G, then| ('C )| = +. From theorem [B] and Theorem [1] we get s "(()* ( ) ≥ "k ( )l + 3 6. ⎕
**

5

**Theorem 14: For any (p, q) tree T, "(()* ( ) ≥ "* ′(-) .
**

Proof: For any (p, q) tree T, − 1 = , | [| (-)]| = . By corollary (3) "(()* ( ) =

We obtained a lower bound for

≥ "* ′(-). ⎕

γ ssbc (T) in terms of ∆′ (T) and total edge domination number of a tree which are

described in [3] and [10].

Theorem 15: For any non trivial tree T, "#′ (-) ≤ "(()* ( ) − ∆′(T), if and only if ∆′(T) <

− 2.

**Proof: Suppose ∆′(T) ≥ p − 2 and "#′ (-) ≤ "(()* ( ) − ∆′(T). Then we consider the following cases:
**

Case 1: Assume T is a path .Then T is either

I or J .

Hence "#′ (

I ) >

"(()* ( ) − ∆′(T) and "#′ (

J )

=

"(()* ( ) − ∆′(T), a contradiction.

Case 2: Assume T is not a path then we consider the following sub cases:

Subcase 2.1: Suppose T is a star

C,0 ,

then BC(T) =

Subcase 2.2: Suppose T is a tree obtained from

5

C40

and "(()* -set does not exist.

= {=9} by adding number of edges at u and v. Let $C =

**{_C , _5 , … . , _n } be the set of edges incident at u and $5 = {_C ′, _5 ′, … . , _n ′} be the set of edges incident at v, then ∆′(T) =
**

q + +. Then block cut vertex graph(-) =

n45 .

045 .

Clearly| [

(-)]| = (q + 2) + (+ + 2) − 1 = q + + +

**3, gives "(()* (-) = (q + + + 3) − 2. Further {uv}∪ {_: }, _: ∈ $C or {uv}∪ {_a }, _a ∈ $5 is such that |{=9} ∪ {_: }| or
**

|{=9} ∪ T_a U |= "#′ (-), giving "#′ (-) > "(()* ( ) − ∆′(T) , a contradiction.

Conversely assume ∆′(T) <

− 2.Then for every tree T, ‚dƒq(-) ≥ 4. Further let F is the minimal set of edges

of T, such that every edge in F is adjacent to an edge in

− „ and for every edge _ ∈ „, there is an edge_′ ∈ „, such that

**they have a vertex in common. Clearly |„| = "#′ (-) we consider the following cases:
**

Case 1: Suppose T is a path

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.6257

= T9C , 95 , … . , 9 U and

**(-) = {_C , _5 , … . , _0 }.Then clearly∆′(T) = 2.
**

NAAS Rating: 3.80

79

Strong Split Block Cut Vertex Domination of a Graph

**Since ‚dƒq( ) ≥ 4, then "#′ k l ≤ | (-)| − 2, which gives
**

"#′ (-) ≤ "(()* ( ) − ∆′(T).

Case 2: Suppose T is not a path. Let (-) = T_C , _5 , … . , _m U, and (-) = {GC , G5 , … . , Gn } be the edge set and cut

vertex set of T respectively. Assume

(-) = ', then (') = T_C ′, _5 ′, … . , _m ′U ∪ (-), where each _:† ∈ (') is a vertex

corresponding to an edge _: ∈ (-). Then T_C ′, _5 ′, … . , _m ′U⊆ V(H) is a minimal set of vertices such that

(') −

**T_C ′, _5 ′, … . , _m ′U is a totally disconnected graph. Hence T_C ′, _5 ′, … . , _m ′U is a "(()* - set of T. Further consider „ † =
**

{_C , _5 , … . , _n } ⊆ E(T) such that each _:† ∈ ∆′(T)- set ∀1 ≤ d ≤ q. Thus |„ † | = ∆′(T) < p – 2 which gives ∆′(-) <

"(()* ( ) − 1. Since ‚dƒq(-) > 4 and T is not a path, then "#† (-) ≤ "(()* ( ) − ∆′(T).

REFERENCES

1.

G.S. Domke et.al. Restrained domination in graphs, Discrete Mathematics 203(1999).

2.

F. Harary, Graph Theory, Addison – Wesley, Reading, MA, 1969.

3.

J. H. Hattingh et.al. Total restrained domination in trees, Discrete Maths. 307(2007), 1643-1650.

4.

V. R. Kulli, Theory of domination in graph, Vishwa Int. Pub. 2010, 84-86.

5.

**S. Mitchell and S.T.Hedetniemi, Edge domination in trees, Proc.8thS.E. Conference on Combinatorics, Graph
**

Theory and Computing, 19(1977), 489-509.

6.

**M.H. Muddebihal and Megha Khandelwal, Strong split lict domination of a graph, Int. J.of Engg. And Sci.
**

Research, Vol 2, Issue-7, July-2014.

7.

M. H. Muddebihal and N.U.Patel, Strong split block domination in graphs. IJSER, Vol 2, Issue-9 Sept-2014

8.

**M. H. Muddebihal and Vedula Padmavathi, Connected block domination in graphs. Int. J. of Physical Science,
**

Vol 25, Issue-3 Sept-Dec-2013, 453-458.

9.

O. Ore, Theory of graphs, Amer, Maths, Soc. Colloq. Publ. 38, Providence (1962).

10. S. Velammal and S. Arumugam, Total edge domination in graph, Elixir Discrete Maths 44(2012) 7213-7217.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

- 48017147 ITI EX SM 03 4 Intrerupatoare Oleopneumatice de 110 400kV Si Dispozitiv M O PUploaded byBodoShow
- Teoria de NúmerosUploaded byVictor
- Xie_YanUploaded byİmane Bouziane
- Facility Layout Nearness diagramUploaded bysivasundaram anushan
- InvariantsUploaded bystacy
- Probability PracticeUploaded bysandeep_leo088714
- v_mamuth_grazUploaded bylindzeyn
- graphs_groups_symmetryUploaded byGilleain Torrance
- megan lesson plan ce-2Uploaded byapi-384661405
- Weakly Hull Number of a GraphUploaded byfhao2k12
- 4. Mathematics - Ijmcar - Signed Product Cordial in - Santhi mUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- RANDOM GRAPHS AND COMPLEX NETWORKS Volume I Remco van der HofstadUploaded byDiego Castañeda León
- Network OperationsUploaded byaaboelmakarem
- Theory of Computer ScienceUploaded byManoj Yadav
- Stefan Forcey and Derriell Springfield- Geometric Combinatorial Algebras: Cyclohedron and SimplexUploaded bySwertyy
- Huffman Coding TreesUploaded byrazee_
- Finding the Most Weight Vertex-weighted MatchingsUploaded byRavi Gohel
- Lecture 7Uploaded byheymka
- High Dimensional Data Clustering Based On Feature Selection AlgorithmUploaded byijcert
- PetriUploaded bymmdixitmm
- L09-discrete mathUploaded byOsama Hassan
- d SeparationUploaded byJoe
- 145789189 Basic Mathematics SolvedUploaded byom1444
- hw3solUploaded byballechase
- evolutionary algorithm.pdfUploaded byJohn Gray
- JMT000392.pdfUploaded byTadveer Singh Hora
- Discrete Optimization - 2015-02-20Uploaded byLotteWeedage
- Olympiad Combinat or Ics Chapter 4Uploaded byLucian Lazar
- Vermelho vs AmareloUploaded byAlhepSoftAlhep
- Non-Uniform Cellular AutomataUploaded byprojul52

- A PILOT SCALE PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF HIGH SHELF LIFE MULTI-FUNCTIONAL LIQUID BIOFERTILIZERSUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- A CASE STUDY ON WOMEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE INDIA’S DEVELOPMENTUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- THE SELECTION OF INFORMATIVE FEATURESUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- A STUDY ON QUALITY OF WORK LIFE AMONG THE EMPLOYEES OF THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRYUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- EFFECT OF ECCENTRICITY PIN GEOMETRY ON THE FABRICATION OF SURFACE COMPOSITE (AL6061-T6 /SIC) BY FRICTION STIR PROCESSINGUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- DESIGNING OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR ASSESSING YES CAKE & BAKERY EMPLOYEE’S PERFORMANCEUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- AN ADAPTIVE SCHEME OVER TEXT STREAMS FOR REAL-TIME MONITORINGUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- FACTORS AFFECTING THE FORMATION OF GAS POROSITY IN A356 ALLOY WHEEL BY GRAVITY DIE CASTINGUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- A QUALITY OF LIFE (QoL) IMPROVEMENT OF THE MINORITY CASTE PARTICIPANTS OF THE MICRO ENTERPRISES: AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT WITH A SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WEST BURDWAN, WEST BENGALUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- ROLE OF NGOS AND SELF-HELP GROUPS (SHGS) IN PROMOTING COOPERATIVE ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE AMONG RURAL WOMEN – A CASE STUDY OF COASTAL KARNATAKAUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- PRIVACY PRESERVING FOR NUMERIC DATA QUERY IN CLOUD COMPUTINGUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- SOCIAL FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SMARTPHONE PURCHASE AMONG THE GENERATION ZUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- THE MTI IMPROVEMENT FACTOR BY USING DOUBLE - DELAY FILTER AT TWO AND THREE PERIOD STAGGEREDUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- EXPERIENCING ORGANIZATION CLIMATE BASED ON HUMAN RELATIONS AND WITHDRAWAL BEHAVIOUR IN SELECTED BPO, TIRUCHIRAPPALLIUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- PLEASURE OR DISPLEASURE: A SOLUTION FOR CUSTOMERS’ SATISFACTIONUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- CHILD HEALTH POLICY, PROGRAM AND GAPS IN NEPALUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- EMERGING SIGNIFICANCE OF SUSTAINABILITY ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING IN INDIA - A CONCEPTUAL STUDYUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- VOLKSWAGEN EMISSIONS SCANDAL - A CASE STUDY REPORTUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- NEURAL TUBE DEFECTS IN BASRAH - CLINICAL STUDYUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOARD INDEPENDENCE AND FINANCIAL REPORTING QUALITY IN SAUDI NON-FINANCIAL LISTED FIRMSUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- ABC AND VED ANALYSES OF FREE DRUG STORE IN DRUG AND PHARMACY OF SKIMS – A TERTIARY CARE INSTITUTE IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR, INDIAUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- AN IMPACT ON SUSTAINAIBLE DEVELOPMENT DUE TO RISE OF THE AUTOMATION AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCEUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- THE ACUPUNCTURE ANESTHESIA OF He Gu (LI-4), NEI GUAN (P-6), BiNao (LI-14) AND JIAN LIAO (TB-14) REDUCE DEMAND FOR GENERAL ANESTHETICS ON THE MODIFIED RADICAL MASTECTOMYUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- THE IMPACT OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON FIRM'S PERFORMANCE EVIDENCE FROM INDONESIAUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- AN EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ACCOUNTING IN THE SELECTED AFRICAN COUNTRIES: A LITERATURE REVIEWUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- THE DETERMINATION OF AFM1 AND AFM2 IN THE CRUDE MILK BY HPLC IN THE PROVINCE OF DIYALAUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- EXAMINATION OF BASIC DATA MEASUREMENT SCALES AND STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES TESTS RELEVANCE IN CONTEMPORARY BUSINESS MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A DISCOURSEUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- DETERMINANTS FOR THE UTILIZATION OF ANTENATAL CARE IN NEPALUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- A LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ITS IMPACT ON REDUCING THE PHENOMENON OF EXPATRIATE CAREER - A SURVEY OF THE VIEWS OF A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES OF THE DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE NINEVEHUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- MEDIATING EFFECT OF AUTONOMY IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB KNOWLEDGE, JOB MOTIVATION, JOB SATISFACTION AND JOB PERFORMANCE AMONG PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEEUploaded byTJPRC Publications