2 Directed graphs
In this section, we consider weighted complete directed graphs. We assume the weights are from the
set of integers modulo , for some . It is sufficient to consider the case
when all vertex weights are 0, since as mentioned earlier, the weight of a vertex can be added to the weights
of all edges directed out of the vertex, without changing the weight of any cycle. We will therefore
assume the weight of every vertex is 0. If is any proper divisor of
, and , the congruence class modulo is the set of all integers in
that are congruent to modulo . A congruence class modulo is simply
a congruence class modulo for some . If and
, we denote by the set of all elements in that
can be obtained by adding to an element in . Note that . Let denote
the number of prime factors, not necessarily distinct, in the prime factorization of .
If is any proper divisor of , then , hence
.
A set is said to be a near arithmetic progression if
and there exists a subset with and some nonzero element such that . The main property of that we use is given
by the following lemma.
Lemma 1
Let be a near arithmetic progression. Then at least
one of the following statements holds for .
-
1.
There exists a proper divisor of , such that for any subset with and any , if then is a multiple of .
-
2.
There exists an element such that and for any subset with
and any , if then .
Proof: Since is a near arithmetic progression, by definition, there exists a
subset and a nonzero element such that and
. Let be the element in .
Case 1. Suppose .
This implies so for every element , is in for all ,
hence . This implies is the union of some congruence classes modulo .
Let be the smallest divisor of such that is the union of congruence classes modulo .
We show that in this case satisfies the first property. Since , we have . Also, since
, contains at least one congruence class modulo .
Let with and suppose for some . Suppose is not
a multiple of and let modulo . First suppose . Let .
If for some element , modulo is not in , the congruence class modulo
is contained in but not in . Hence can contain at most one element of that class, a
contradiction. Therefore for all , modulo is also in . However, this implies is the
union of congruence classes modulo , contradicting the choice of . Therefore in
this case must be a multiple of .
Suppose which implies and hence contains exactly one number congruent to
modulo . However, for any congruence class modulo that does not contain , either
contains all elements in the class or none. If , each congruence class contains at least
3 elements, which implies there are at least 2 elements in that are not in , contradicting the
assumption that and . This implies that if , must be a multiple
of in this case also. Thus if , satisfies the first property with .
The remaining case is if and contains . Let . Then is a
union of congruence classes modulo . Let . Suppose there exists an element
such that modulo is not in . This implies cannot contain any of the elements
, otherwise contains an element not in . However, since ,
and , this gives a contradiction. Therefore for every element , modulo
is in , and hence is the union of congruence classes modulo . This implies is also
a union of congruence classes modulo . Let be the smallest divisor of such
that is a union of congruence classes modulo . Note that since , and
each congruence class modulo contains at least 4 elements. Also, since , . We claim
that must be a multiple of . Again, if not, and modulo , for every congruence class
modulo in , the congruence class must be in , otherwise we get at least 4 elements
in that are not in , a contradiction. On the other hand, if this holds, it contradicts the choice of
. Therefore in this case must be multiple of . Since is a divisor of , in all cases
must be a multiple of . This implies satisfies the first property. An example of such a case
is if , , and . Here but and for the set
, .
Case 2. Suppose .
In this case, there must be exactly one element such that and ,
hence . Consider the longest arithmetic progression contained in that starts with and has
common difference . The last element in this sequence must be , otherwise if it it an element in ,
we can add to it to get a longer progression. Note that the element added cannot be since
. Let be the elements of in this arithmetic progression and let . Then and is the union (possibly empty) of congruence classes modulo .
The arithmetic progression is contained in one congruence class modulo .
Suppose , which implies is empty. Since , the elements ,
are not in . In this case we show that satisfies the second property. Let be a subset
of with such that . Let the elements in be for
, where . At least one of the elements or must be contained in ,
otherwise there are 2 elements in not in , contradicting the assumption that
and . Suppose . Then for some we have .
If , then and if then . Suppose . Then if ,
then , contradicting the assumption that . If
then and , again a contradiction.
Suppose but . Then for some , . If ,
then and if then . If , then since
, neither nor are in , contradicting the assumption
that . Therefore, for any such subset and element , we must have
with .
Suppose . Let be the union of the congruence classes modulo , for all
such that contains an element congruent to modulo . Suppose and let be the
smallest divisor of such that is the union of congruence classes modulo . Since
we have . Let be the subset of elements such that
contains the congruence class modulo . If is not a multiple of , and
modulo , there exists an element such that modulo is not in ,
otherwise is the union of congruence classes modulo , contradicting the choice
of . This implies does not contain any element from the congruence class modulo ,
since otherwise contains an element not in . However, since , every congruence
class modulo that is contained in , and hence every congruence class modulo that
is contained in , contains at least 2 elements in . This implies there are two elements in
that are not in , contradicting the assumption that .
The remaining possibility is that . Since , this implies that there are at
least two elements in the congruence class modulo that contains , which are not contained
in . Let this class be modulo . Suppose is not a multiple of and modulo
. Since , at least two elements in the congruence class modulo are not
contained in . However, all elements in this class are contained in , hence we again get
two elements in that are not contained in , a contradiction. Thus in this case must
be a multiple of . In fact, using the argument in Case 1, we can show that in this case
must be or , but the weaker statement suffices.
This completes the proof of LemmaΒ 1.
Theorem 1
Let be a βweighted complete directed graph of order at least for some
. Then contains a zero cycle.
We prove the theorem using the following lemma.
Lemma 2
Let be a βweighted complete directed graph of order at least , for some , , and let be any two distinct vertices in . Then either contains
a zero cycle, or there exists a set of β paths in ,
such that and , for all .
Proof:[TheoremΒ 1]
Consider any βweighted complete directed graph of order at least , for some
. Let be any 3 vertices in . If and then adding
the 2 equations gives , hence is a zero cycle. Without loss of generality, assume
. Applying LemmaΒ 2 to the graph with , either
contains a zero cycle or there exist β paths of order at least 3 in
with distinct weights. In the latter case, contains a β path with weight or a
β path with weight . In the first case, adding the edge to the path gives a zero
cycle, while in the second case, adding the edges gives a zero cycle. Thus in all cases contains
a zero cycle.
Note that this shows that if LemmaΒ 2 holds for some , then TheoremΒ 1
also holds for the same value of .
Proof: [LemmaΒ 2]
Suppose there exists a counterexample. Choose an example for which is minimum, and
subject to this condition is minimum.
If , since , and there exists a path of order at least 3 from to .
Suppose , which implies and let be the vertices other than in . If
and , then adding the two equations gives .
Thus is a zero cycle in , a contradiction. Without loss of generality, assume . Then the paths and have distinct weights, a contradiction.
Suppose that , and let be any vertex other than .
By the minimality of , either contains a zero cycle or there exist at least
β paths of order at least 3 and distinct weights in . We may assume the latter holds.
If there are such paths with distinct weights, then appending the edge to each of
them gives β paths in with distinct weights, a contradiction. We may
assume contains β paths of distinct weights. Let be
the set of all elements , such that contains a β path of weight .
Thus . We show that must be a near arithmetic progression.
Let be any ordered pair of vertices in . As argued in the case when , we must
have either or , otherwise the cycle has 0
weight. Again assume without loss of generality that . By the minimality of ,
either contains a zero cycle or there exists a set of
β paths in , such that and , for all . We may assume that the latter holds.
Let be the β path obtained by adding the edge to and let be the path obtained
by adding edges and to . Let , let , and let
. Note that . We must have
and therefore is a subset of with and for a nonzero .
Since , is a near arithmetic progression. Let be any pair of vertices
in . As argued previously, either contains a zero cycle or there exist
β paths in of order at least 3 with distinct weights. Adding the edge to each such
path we get a set of β paths with distinct weights. Let be the set of weights
of these paths and let . Replacing the edge in these paths by the path gives
a set of β paths with distinct weights . Hence . Similarly, considering the
set of β paths in , and , we get a subset with
and . Therefore, by LemmaΒ 1, one of the following properties
must hold.
-
1.
There exists a proper divisor of such that for every ordered pair of vertices in ,
and is a multiple of .
-
2.
There exists a nonzero constant such that and for every ordered pair of
vertices in , and are contained in .
Case 1. Suppose for all pair of vertices in , and
are multiples of for some proper divisor of .
We show that all β paths in of order at least 3 have weights that are congruent modulo .
First consider any two paths of length 2, and . Then
modulo . Also, for any path for , since
modulo , it follows by induction that modulo .
Since all β paths in have weights that are congruent modulo , there can be at most
such paths with distinct weights in . Since there are such paths, we
must have .
Suppose . Then is a complete directed graph of order .
Thus is a complete directed graph of order at least . Define a weight function
on the edges of by if (in ),
for some . This gives a -weighting of and by the minimality
of , LemmaΒ 2 and hence TheoremΒ 1 holds for . Therefore there exists
a cycle in such that in . Since
, where , is a
multiple of , is a multiple of . Hence is also a zero
cycle in with weights .
Suppose . Again define the same weight function for the edges
in . Suppose for every β path in of order at least 3, modulo .
Suppose for a vertex other than the weight of the path is for some
. Define and . It is easy to show by induction on
the length that for any β path in of order at least 3, . Since
, applying LemmaΒ 2 for , either there exists a cycle in with
, or there exist β paths in of order at least 3 with distinct weights
in . If the cycle exists, then , and it is a zero cycle in .
If the paths exist, then the same paths also have distinct weights in , giving a contradiction
in either case.
Case 2. Suppose there exists a constant such that and for
all pairs of vertices in , and are contained
in .
Let and thus for all edges in .
If is a cycle in , then , hence we may assume there is no cycle in
such that . We will henceforth refer to as the weight of an edge or
a subgraph, unless stated explicitly otherwise.
Suppose contains 3 vertices such that and
for some . We call such a triple of vertices a heavy triple. If , consider
the β paths , and . Then and
, hence we get 3 β paths of order at least 3 with distinct weights.
If , by induction, either contains a cycle with or there exists
β paths in with distinct weights. Assume the latter holds. For any such path ,
let be the β path obtained by adding the edge to , is obtained by adding the edges
to , is obtained by adding the edges to , and is obtained by adding the
edges to . Then , and . This implies
that contains a subset with such that . Since , one of the inequalities must be an equality. This implies there
exists a subset such that for some with . But this
implies , a contradiction. We may therefore assume does not contain a heavy triple of
vertices.
We now show that for some , contains a Hamiltonian path
such that for all , where . Since ,
,and we get β paths in of order at least 3 and distinct weights. If is the
β path for , it follows that and the
paths have distinct weights. This gives a contradiction.
The edges with must form a directed acyclic graph otherwise we get a zero cycle. If all
the other edges have weight for some , then it is easy it see that the graph has a
Hamiltonian path with all edges having weight . The vertices can be ordered so that
if then . Then for and this ordering gives the
required Hamiltonian path.
Suppose has edges with weights as well as . We show that has a
very special structure, which implies it has a Hamiltonian path with all edges of weight ,
for some . We claim that satisfies the following properties.
-
1.
The edges with weight 0 form a directed acyclic graph.
-
2.
There exists an edge such that and for every vertex , either
or . Note that both cannot hold since there is no cycle with 0
weight edges. We call such an edge the dominating edge.
-
3.
For some , is the only edge in the graph with weight , all other edges have
weight or .
Note that these properties imply that for all vertices ,
otherwise is a triangle with 0 weight.
We prove this by induction on for . Suppose . The edges of weight 0 must form a
directed acyclic graph. Suppose there are 3 edges with weight 0, say , and . Then
the edges , and have nonzero weights and two of them must be the same. If then the triangle has 0 weight, a contradiction. Therefore
but , which implies is a heavy triple, a contradiction.
Suppose there are two edges of 0 weight, say . Then and are both nonzero
and must be equal, say for some . If either or
is , then either or are triangles with 0 weight, respectively. A symmetrical argument
holds if . Suppose . Again, we must have
for some . If both , then is a heavy triple. Therefore
exactly one of and has weight and the other has weight . Then satisfies the required
properties with either or as the dominating edge.
If is the only edge with weight 0, then we must have and .
Also, otherwise the triangle has 0 weight. This implies we must have
and , which implies is a heavy triple.
Finally, if there is no edge with 0 weight then , and .
Without loss of generality, we may assume and for some . This implies is a heavy triple.
Suppose . We claim that there exists a vertex in such that
contains an edge of weight as well as an edge of weight . Let be a vertex in
and suppose that has no edge of weight for some . We may assume
that either or is an edge with weight . Let and be two vertices other than
in . At least one of the edges or has weight and hence
has an edge of weight as well as an edge of weight .
Applying induction, we may assume that has a dominating edge of 0 weight, and
is the only edge of weight in .
Suppose all edges in the subgraph induced by have weights 0 or .
Suppose both and have weight . Let be any vertex other than . If ,
then and also . This implies the cycle has 0 weight. If , then
and , which again implies the cycle has 0 weight. Since is a
dominating edge, one of the two conditions must hold, and we get a contradiction. If both and
have weight 0, then is a triangle with weight 0. Suppose and .
Then we have . If , then if the triangle has 0
weight and if the triangle has 0 weight. This implies
and is a heavy triple. If , then if the triangle has
0 weight and if , the cycle has 0 weight. Therefore and
hence is a heavy triple. This gives a contradiction. A symmetrical argument holds if
and . This implies . If , then if the triangle
has weight 0 and if , the cycle has weight 0. This implies and
is a heavy triple. If , then if the triangle has 0 weight and if
the triangle has 0 weight. Therefore and is a heavy triple.
We may assume that the subgraph induced by contains an edge of weight and
also an edge of weight . The argument for the base case implies there exists a dominating
edge in this subgraph, which can only be one of , or .
Suppose is the dominating edge. Then we have , , and . If then if the triangle has 0 weight and if ,
the cycle has 0 weight. This implies and is a heavy triple.
If then if the cycle has 0 weight and if the
triangle has 0 weight. Therefore , which implies is a heavy triple.
Suppose is the dominating edge. Then we have , , .
If then if the cycle has 0 weight and if the triangle
has 0 weight. Therefore and is a heavy triple. If
then if the cycle has 0 weight and if the triangle
has weight 0. Therefore . Similarly, if , the cycle has 0 weight
and if the triangle has 0 weight. Therefore and the cycle
has 0 weight, a contradiction.
Therefore the dominating edge must be itself. This implies exactly one of the edges ,
has 0 weight and all others, except , have weight in the subgraph induced by . Suppose
. We claim that for any vertex neither the edge nor the edge
can have weight . If then if then is a heavy triple and
if then is a heavy triple. If then if the
cycle has 0 weight and if the triangle has 0 weight. Therefore
is the only edge with weight in and satisfies all the required properties.
Suppose . If then if the triangle has 0 weight and
if the cycle has 0 weight. If , then if the
cycle has weight 0 and if the triangle has weight 0. Therefore
is the only edge with weight , and satisfies all the required properties.
Now it is easy to show that has a Hamiltonian path with all edges of weight .
Let be an ordering of the vertices such that if then
. Since is a dominating edge, we must have and for
some . Suppose and . Then
is a Hamiltonian path with all edges of weight . If , since , the path
is a Hamiltonian path with all edges of weight . Similarly, if ,
the path is the required Hamiltonian path.
This completes the proof of LemmaΒ 2 and hence the proof of TheoremΒ 1.
3 Undirected Graphs
In this section, we consider undirected graphs in which weights are assigned to
vertices as well as edges. The weight of a subgraph is the sum of the weights of vertices
and edges in the subgraph. The proof of TheoremΒ 1 can be modified slightly to show that every
-complete weighted directed graph of order at least contains a directed zero cycle
of length at least 3. LemmaΒ 2 also needs to be modified slightly to consider graphs of
order at least to ensure the cycle has length at least 3. If and ,
the statement fails for a complete graph of order 4, if ,
. However, the induction step is the same with the hypothesis
that the zero cycle in has length at least 3. The following statement therefore
follows from the modified TheoremΒ 1, after replacing each undirected edge by two
oppositely directed edges with the same weight, and adding the weight of a vertex to all edges
directed out of the vertex. Since the zero cycle has length at least 3, it is also a cycle in
the undirected graph.
Corollary 1
Let be a complete undirected graph of order for some and suppose
every vertex and edge in is assigned a weight in . Then contains a cycle with
weight 0.
More significantly, in the undirected case, a similar result holds for all graphs with
sufficiently large minimum degree, rather than just complete graphs. The bound that
we prove is weaker though.
Theorem 2
Let be any nontrivial finite abelian group and an undirected
-weighted graph with minimum degree at least .
Then there exists a zero cycle in .
Let and denote by the weight of a vertex,
edge or subgraph of . The proof technique used is almost exactly the
same as used inΒ [5] to prove a completely different result. Let
denote the set of vertices in that are adjacent to the vertex in .
We consider ordered pairs of the form where is a
proper complete subgraph of the graph , possibly empty.
Definition 1
The ordered pair is said to contain a configuration of type
A if there exists a vertex such that
.
Definition 2
The ordered pair is said to contain a configuration of type
B if there exist two vertices in such
that , and there
exists an β path in .
Definition 3
The ordered pair is said to contain a configuration of type
C and rank , , if there exist two vertices in such that , and there exists a set of
β paths in having distinct weights.
Definition 4
The ordered pair is said to contain a configuration of type D and rank ,
, if contains three vertices satisfying the following properties.
-
1.
and are edges in .
-
2.
There exist vertices and vertex disjoint paths in
such that , ,
, and for all , is a β path. Note that the
vertex may be the same as the vertex , in which case the path is trivial, for .
-
3.
There is a set of β paths in having distinct weights
such that is internally vertex disjoint from , and for .
Lemma 3
Let be a -weighted graph and a proper complete subgraph of . If every vertex in
has degree at least in , then either contains a zero cycle,
or the ordered pair contains a configuration of one of the types A, B, C,
or D.
Proof: Let be a counterexample that minimizes . If
, the only vertex has degree at least , hence
. This implies contains a configuration of type A, a contradiction.
Suppose . We consider two cases, one of which is straightforward.
Case 1.
Suppose there exists a vertex that is adjacent to all vertices in . Let
be the complete subgraph of induced by . Then the ordered pair satisfies the
hypothesis of Lemma 3, and by the minimality of , either contains a zero cycle
or contains a configuration of one of the four types. Since is a subgraph of , we
may assume that the latter holds. Now we show that in each case, the configuration in can be modified
to either find a zero cycle in , or get a configuration of one of the four types in , contradicting
the fact that is a counterexample.
Case 1.1
Suppose contains a configuration of type A. Let be a vertex in
such that . If is not adjacent to , then and
contains a configuration of type A. If is adjacent to , then
and since is adjacent to every vertex in , . The edge
implies that contains a configuration of type B.
Case 1.2
Suppose contains a configuration of type B. Let be vertices in
such that , and there is an β path in
.
If is not adjacent to both the vertices , then satisfy the same properties with replaced by
, and contains the same configuration of type B.
If is adjacent to but not adjacent to , then and hence
. Also, is a β path in . Hence contains
a configuration of type B. A symmetrical argument holds if is adjacent to but not adjacent
to .
Suppose is adjacent to both and . Then , and
hence . If then and are two
β paths in with distinct weights. This implies contains a configuration of type
C and rank two. Similarly, if either or then contains a configuration of type C and rank two. If none of these
inequalities holds, then the three equations imply that the cycle is a zero cycle.
Hence, either contains a configuration of type C and rank two, or contains a zero
cycle, a contradiction.
Case 1.3
Suppose contains a configuration of type C and rank , for some .
Let be vertices in such that , and let be the set of β paths in having distinct
weights.
If is not adjacent to both and , then also contains the same configuration of type
C and rank .
If is adjacent to but not to , then and hence . The paths for are β paths in having distinct
weights. Hence contains a configuration of type C and rank . A symmetrical argument holds
if is adjacent to but not adjacent to .
Suppose is adjacent to both and . If , then the cycles
for have distinct weights, and since , one of these has
weight 0. Therefore contains a zero cycle. Suppose . Since ,
we have . Relabeling the vertex as ,
choosing the vertices to be the vertices respectively and the paths
to be trivial, we get a configuration of type D and rank in .
Case 1.4
Finally, suppose contains a configuration of type D and rank , for some .
Let be the three vertices in that satisfy the properties defined in
configuration D, such that are edges in . Let be the vertices in such that , and
and let be the vertex disjoint β, β and
β paths in , respectively. Let be the set of β paths
in that are internally vertex disjoint from the paths and have distinct weights.
If is not adjacent to any of the vertices , it is clear that contains the same
configuration of type D and rank . If is adjacent to exactly one of the vertices ,
then . If is adjacent only to for some , replace the
vertex by the vertex and the path by the path . This gives a configuration of
type D and rank in .
Suppose is adjacent to and but not to . Then ,
and hence . Replace the vertex by
and the path by the path . Now interchange the labels of the vertices , label
as and as , to get a configuration of type D and rank in .
Suppose is adjacent to and and may or may not be adjacent to . Then , and hence . Let
and , for ,
be β paths in . If among the paths , there are paths
of distinct weights, then contains a configuration of type C and rank , with and
as the two required vertices satisfying the properties defined for configuration C. Similarly,
let and , for be β paths in . If among the paths
there are paths of distinct weights, then contains a
configuration of type C and rank , with and as the required vertices.
Suppose both sets of paths and contain only
paths of distinct weights. Note that for some and all
, which implies that have distinct weights. Similarly,
for some . Also and . Suppose for some and . Then
and there exists an index such that . Therefore . Hence, there is an index such that , which
implies and hence where .
Since this holds for any path , it implies that the set contains a path of weight
, for all .
Let be the β path for . If none of the
paths for , has weight then
is a set of β paths in having distinct weights. This implies contains a
configuration of type C and rank . Suppose, without loss of generality, that . By the previous discussion, there exists a path for some , such that
and hence . This implies that the cycle
is a zero cycle. Thus either contains a configuration of type C and rank or
contains a zero cycle.
If is adjacent to and but not to , then ,
and hence . Now, we can use the same argument
as before, by interchanging the vertices and .
Case 2.
Suppose there is no vertex in that is adjacent to all vertices in .
Let be any vertex in . For every vertex , let denote
any vertex in that is not adjacent to . Let be the graph obtained from by
adding edges for all vertices . Let .
Now, but , hence by the minimality of
, either contains a zero cycle, or contains one of the four types of
configurations. Since and in equals in
for every vertex , it follows from the definitions of the configurations that
either contains a zero cycle or contains the same configuration as .
This completes the proof of Lemma 3.
Proof:[TheoremΒ 2]
The proof of Theorem 2 follows immediately from Lemma 3. If is a graph
with minimum degree at least , then the ordered pair satisfies the hypothesis of
Lemma 3 and hence either contains a zero cycle or contains a configuration
of one of the four types. However, since is empty, the latter is not possible, and the theorem follows.