1 Introduction
If is a connected graph and , then the distance, , between and is the number of edges on a shortest -path. The diameter, , of is the maximum distance between its vertices.
The set contains the vertices that are closer to than to , that is,
|
|
|
Vertices and are balanced if . For an integer , the graph is -distance-balanced if each pair of its vertices with is balanced.
-distance-balanced were first considered by Handa [12] in 1999. The term “distance-balanced” for these graphs was proposed a decade later in [14]. This has prompted a widespread research into these graphs, see [1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 2, 7, 16, 24, 25].
It was Frelih who in [9] extended distance-balanced graphs to -distance balanced graphs. Also these graphs have already been investigated a lot, see [20, 21, 10, 15, 23].
If and , then the generalized Petersen graph is the graph with
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As it turned out, in general it is difficult to determine whether a generalized Petersen graphs is -distance-balanced for some . Back in the seminal paper [14], the following conjecture was proposed for the case .
Conjecture 1.
[14]
For any , there exists a positive integer such that is not distance-balanced for every .
The conjecture has been positively resolved by Yang et al. as follows.
Theorem 2.
[26]
If and , then is not distance-balanced.
Miklavič and Šparl [23] expanded and specified Conjecture 1 to -distance-balancedness as follows.
Conjecture 3.
[23]
Let be an integer and let
|
|
|
Then is not -distance-balanced for any and for any . Moreover, is the smallest integer with this property.
Conjecture 3 has by now been confirmed for in [23] and for in [21]. These results assert that if and , or and , or and , then is not distance-balanced. These are significant improvements over the bound of Theorem 2 for . In the first main result of this paper we improve the bound of Theorem 2 for an arbitrary , where the case is included for completeness.
Theorem 4.
Let and be integers, where .
-
(i)
If and , then is not distance-balanced. In addition, is distance-balanced.
-
(ii)
If and , then is not distance-balanced. In addition, is distance-balanced.
In our second main result we deal with -distance-balancedness, where the cases are included for completeness.
Theorem 5.
Let and be integers, where .
-
(i)
If and is even, then is not -distance-balanced for any .
-
(ii)
If and is odd, then is not -distance-balanced for any .
-
(iii)
If and , or and , or and , then is not -distance-balanced.
In addition, , , and are -distance-balanced.
Proofs of Theorems 4 and 5 are respectively given in Sections 2 and 3.
2 Proof of Theorem 4
Let be vertices of a graph . In addition to the already defined sets and , let
|
|
|
Clearly, , which in turn implies the following simple, but useful fact.
Lemma 6.
Let be vertices of a graph with , where .
If , then is not -distance-balanced.
As already mentioned, Conjecture 3 holds true for . Moreover, is not distance-balanced, but is distance-balanced, see [23, Table 1]). These results cover the case of Theorem 4.
In the rest we assume that and . We consider the vertices and , and the corresponding sets , , and .
Case 1: even, . In this case we have
-
•
when ; there are such vertices.
-
•
when ; there are two such vertices.
-
•
when ; there are such vertices.
Subcase 1.1: . In this subcase we get
-
•
when ; there are such vertices.
-
•
; there are such vertices.
From the above we obtain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If , then and hence . We can conclude
that is not distance-balanced if .
Assume now that . Then and hence .
Since any two adjacent vertices from the set as well as any two adjacent vertices from are symmetrical, we can conclude that is distance-balanced.
Subcase 1.2: .
In this subcase we have . If , then
-
•
when ; there are such vertices.
Hence and . From this, we can estimate as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applying Lemma 6 we can conclude that is not distance-balanced.
Case 2: odd, . Now we obtain
-
•
when ; there are such vertices.
-
•
when ; there are such vertices.
Case 2.1: . In this subcase we have
-
•
when ; there are such vertices.
-
•
; there are such vertices.
By the above it follows that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If , then and is not distance-balanced. If , then . Since any two adjacent vertices from as well as any two adjacent vertices from are symmetrical, we can deduce that is distance-balanced.
Case 2.2: .
Now we have . Assume that . Then
-
•
when ; there are such vertices.
Having in mind that is odd, we have . From here we can estimate as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using Lemma 6 once more we infer that also in this case is not distance-balanced. This completes the proof of Theorem 4.
3 Proof of Theorem 5
For the case , Theorem 5 holds because Conjecture 3 is right for [23] and
the fact that is not -distance-balanced, but is -distance-balanced (see Table 1 of [23]).
For the case , Theorem 5 holds because Conjecture 3 is right for [21] and
the fact that is not -distance-balanced when , but is -distance-balanced (see Table 1 of [23]).
For the case , Theorem 5 holds because Conjecture 3 is right for [21] and
the fact that is not -distance-balanced when , but is -distance-balanced (see Table 1 of [23]).
In the rest we assume that . Note that and . We will compute and .
Two cases are discussed according to the parity of .
Case 1: is even, , and .
We distinguish three subcases which are separated according to which vertices are being addressed.
Subcase 1.1: Vertices and , where .
Then and when if , and and when . So, there are such vertices which are in and such vertices which are in .
Subcase 1.2: Vertices , where .
For we have when , and when . Thus, there are such vertices which are in .
For we have or . We first consider the vertices such that .
Note that if , then . Let be the largest integer such that the maximum distance of a -path is less than the minimum distance of a -path, where . That is, is the maximal integer such that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because is the largest integer satisfying the above inequality, we get
|
|
|
By the definition of , if , then , where .
That is, for any , and there are
such vertices which are in .
Note that if , then the difference of the distance of a -path, and the distance of a -path is . So, among the vertices , where ,
there are at most two vertices which are not in . That is, there are at least vertices among these which are in . Using similar discussions we can get that the
number of vertices , where , which are in , is at least
|
|
|
Among the vertices , where , there are at least
vertices which are in ,
and vertices
which are in and not counted in .
Subcase 1.3: Vertices , where .
Firstly, consider vertices such that .
Note that .
Let be the largest integer such that the maximum distance of a -path is less than or equal to the minimum distance of a -path. That is, is the largest integer such that
|
|
|
Because is the largest integer satisfying the above inequality, we get
|
|
|
By the definition of we have if .
That is, there are such vertices which are in .
Secondly, consider vertices , such that .
Note that .
Let be the largest integer such that the maximum distance of a -path is less than
the minimum distance of a -path. So is the largest integer such that
|
|
|
Because is the largest integer satisfying the above inequality, it can be concluded that
|
|
|
By the definition of we get that for .
That is, there are such vertices which are in .
Thirdly, consider vertices with , , and , such that . Note that if . Let be the largest integer such that
the maximum distance of a -path is less than or equal to the minimum distance
of a -path, where . IN other words, is the largest integer such that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because is the largest integer satisfying the above inequality, we can conclude that
|
|
|
By the definition of , if , then , where .
That is, there are
such vertices which are in .
If , then the difference between the distance of a -path and the distance of a -path is . So among the vertices with ,
there are at most
two vertices which are not in . That is, there are at least vertices among the vertices
, where , which are in . Similarly we can get that the
number of vertices (, where and , which are in , is at least
|
|
|
Among the vertices , where , there are at least
vertices which are in and more than
|
|
|
vertices which are in .
Combining the above three subcases, we obtain that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which in turn implies that the number of vertices in which are not counted in
is at least
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore,
|
|
|
Since , we get . Lemma 6 yields that is not -distance-balanced.
Case 2: is odd, , and .
Just as in Case 1, we are going to distinguish three subcases separated according to which vertices are being addressed.
Subcase 2.1: Vertices and , where .
If , then and . If , then and , and thus
there are two such vertices in . If , then and . So,
there are such vertices in and such vertices in .
Subcase 2.2: Vertices , where .
If , then when , and
when . Thus, there are such vertices which are in .
If , then or .
We first consider the vertices such that .
Note that if , then .
Let be the largest integer such that
the maximum distance of a -path is less than the minimum distance
of a -path, where . In other words, is the largest integer such that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because is the largest integer satisfying the above inequality, we get
|
|
|
By the definition of , if , then , where .
That is, for any , and there are
such vertices which are in .
If , then the difference between the distance of a -path and the distance of a -path is . Hence, among the vertices , where ,
there are at most two vertices which are not in . That is, there are at least vertices among these vertices which are in . Similarly, the
number of vertices , where , which are in , is at least
|
|
|
Among the vertices , where , there are at least
vertices which are in , and
|
|
|
vertices
which are in and not counted in .
Subcase 2.3: Vertices , where .
By a similar discussion as in Case 1.3 we obtain that if
(),
and if ().
That is, there are such vertices which are in
and such vertices which are in .
We next consider vertices , where , , and , such that .
If , then .
Let be the largest integer such that
the maximum distance of a -path is less than or equal to the minimum distance
of a -path, where . That is, is the largest integer such that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As is the largest integer satisfying the above inequality, we get
|
|
|
By the definition of , if , then where .
That is, there are
such vertices which are in .
If , then the difference between the distance of a -path and the distance of a -path is . So among the vertices , where ,
there are at most two vertices which are not in . Consequently, there are at least vertices , where , which are in . Similarly, the
number of vertices , where , , and , which are in , is at least
|
|
|
Among the vertices , where , there are at least
vertices which are in and more than
|
|
|
vertices
which are in .
Combining the above three subcases, we obtain that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consequently, the number of vertices in which are not counted in is at least
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consequently,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the assumption we get , hence Lemma 6 yields that is not -distance-balanced.