Claim D  

Proof:
Suppose that Let p:
be a -component of [S]. Let u be the neighbor of
not on and let be the neighbor of not on We consider
two possibilities.
Case 1.

Then, is a cycle in G. Suppose .

•   Then,)
Let
If , then , a contradiction .
If Or if then , and the desired bound holds. Hence we may
assume that .
Since,
and the lexicographic sequence s() is smaller then
Applying the inductive hypothesis to ,
Every t can be extended to a dominating set of G
by adding to it the vertex and so,

Hence,
•  
Hence, we may assume that =3.
Let be the neighbor of not on If (, let the neighbor of
different from If let be the neighbor of different from ω.
Let be the graph obtained from } by attaching a -unit to
the vertex ω. Then is a graph of order with Since , we
have that .
If then and for If and then, and and for If then
is a reduced graph, we have that and so , Therefore in
all three cases,
,• and
  so the lexicographic sequence s( is smaller then s
Further,
.
Applying the inductive hypothesis to
By obsevation.1
There exist a – set that contains ω
and a set of two other vertices in the attached -unit.
Hence, \ is a dominating set in
Thus,
Consequently,

Whence,
.
•Case
  2.
u
Since is a reduced graph, we must have Let Then, If ,
Further and and and So
Thus if , then If , then would
not be reduced graph, contrary to the assumption .If

Further, and and and so Thus , if

Then ,
•Hence
  we may assume that . Since and the lexicographic
sequence is smaller then s(G).
Applying the inductive hypothesis to
Every- set can be extended to a dominating set of be added
to it the vertex , and so
Hence,
and so
•   Claim E.

Proof:
Suppose that Let be a component of
Let be the neighbor of not on and let be the neighbor of
not on
On the one hand,
Suppose that Let be the graph
Obtained from by attaching a -unit to the vertex . Then,
is a graph of order with Since , we have that ∉.
•  
Further, and for Hence ,

And, so the lexicographic sequence is smaller then

Applying the inductive hypothesis to
.
By observation 1
There exist a - set that contains
and a set of two other vertices in the attached -unit.
Hence, is a dominating set in G.
Thus,
Therefore,
•  
Consequently,

On the other hand:

Suppose that If then let Then, By our
structure of ,If then contrary to our supposition in claim D.
Hence,
.
Further,
.
Thus, Since has order and size the
lexicographic sequence is smaller then .
•  
Applying the inductive hypothesis to
.
Since, the nominating number of a graph cannot decrease
if edge are removed ,mplying that Hence we may assume
that
Let be obtained from by adding the edge
Then,

And both are the large vertices in Since .Further, while

for
Thus, since

The, lexicographic sequence is smaller then

•Applying
  the inductive hypothesis to
Every -set can be extended to a dominating set of by
adding to it , and so

Therefore,

Consequently,
.
□