Path Decomposition - Definition

Definition

In the first of their famous series of papers on graph minors, Neil Robertson and Paul Seymour (1983) define a path-decomposition of a graph G to be a sequence of subsets Xi of vertices of G, with two properties:

  1. For each edge of G, there exists an i such that both endpoints of the edge belong to subset Xi, and
  2. For every three indices i ≤ j ≤ k, Xi ∩ Xk ⊆ Xj.

The second of these two properties is equivalent to requiring that the subsets containing any particular vertex form a contiguous subsequence of the whole sequence. In the language of the later papers in Robertson and Seymour's graph minor series, a path-decomposition is a tree decomposition (X,T) in which the underlying tree T of the decomposition is a path graph.

The width of a path-decomposition is defined in the same way as for tree-decompositions, as maxi |Xi| − 1, and the pathwidth of G is the minimum width of any path-decomposition of G. The subtraction of one from the size of Xi in this definition makes little difference in most applications of pathwidth, but is used to make the pathwidth of a path graph be equal to one.

Read more about this topic:  Path Decomposition

Famous quotes containing the word definition:

    “It’s a rare parent who can see his or her child clearly and objectively. At a school board meeting I attended . . . the only definition of a gifted child on which everyone in the audience could agree was “mine.””
    —Jane Adams (20th century)

    “The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!—But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.”
    —Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

    “Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
    —Walter Pater (1839–1894)