Introduction
For given graphs G G G and H H H , G G G is H H H -free if G G G contains no subgraph isomorphic to H H H . The Turán number of a graph H H H , denoted by ex ( n , H ) \operatorname{ex}(n,H) ex ( n , H ) , is the maximum number of edges in an n n n -vertex H H H -free graph. An n n n -vertex H H H -free graph with ex ( n , H ) \operatorname{ex}(n,H) ex ( n , H ) edges is called an extremal graph for H H H . Let EX ( n , H ) \operatorname{EX}(n,H) EX ( n , H ) denote the family of all n n n -vertex extremal graphs for H H H .
For integers n n n and p p p , let T n , p T_{n,p} T n , p denote the Turán graph, that is, the complete p p p -partite graph on n n n vertices whose partite sets differ in size by at most one. Let t n , p t_{n,p} t n , p denote the number of edges of T n , p T_{n,p} T n , p . Turán [14 ] proved
Theorem 1 ([14 ] ). For all n ≥ p ≥ 2 n \ge p \ge2 n ≥ p ≥ 2 , ex ( n , K p ) = t n , p − 1 \operatorname{ex}(n,K_p)=t_{n,p-1} ex ( n , K p ) = t n , p − 1 and EX ( n , K p ) = { T n , p − 1 } \operatorname{EX}(n,K_p)=\{T_{n,p-1}\} EX ( n , K p ) = { T n , p − 1 } .
This Turán’s theorem generalizes Mantel’s theorem [11 ] stating that ex ( n , K 3 ) = ⌊ n 2 4 ⌋ \operatorname{ex}(n,K_3)=\left\lfloor\frac{n^2}{4}\right\rfloor ex ( n , K 3 ) = ⌊ 4 n 2 ⌋ .
We follow the notation and terminology of [1 ] unless stated otherwise. For a graph G G G , let V ( G ) V(G) V ( G ) and E ( G ) E(G) E ( G ) denote its vertex set and edge set, respectively. The cardinality of a set S S S is denoted by ∣ S ∣ |S| ∣ S ∣ , and e ( G ) = ∣ E ( G ) ∣ e(G)=|E(G)| e ( G ) = ∣ E ( G ) ∣ .
The disjoint union of graphs G G G and H H H is denoted by G ∪ H G \cup H G ∪ H . The graph G ∨ H G \vee H G ∨ H denotes the join of G G G and H H H , obtained by adding all possible edges between V ( G ) V(G) V ( G ) and V ( H ) V(H) V ( H ) .
Let K p K_p K p denote the complete graph on p p p vertices, K p ‾ \overline{K_p} K p denote the edgeless graph on p p p vertices and S ℓ S_\ell S ℓ denote a star on ℓ + 1 \ell+1 ℓ + 1 vertices. Furthermore, let k K p kK_p k K p denote the disjoint union of k k k copies of K p K_p K p .
Observe that a copy of K p K_p K p in G G G corresponds to an independent set of size p p p in G ‾ \overline{G} G . Therefore, rather than directly determining ex ( n , H ) \operatorname{ex}(n,H) ex ( n , H ) , we first study the minimum number of edges in a graph that contains no collection of pairwise disjoint independent sets of prescribed sizes. The extremal graphs for the original problem can then be obtained by taking complements. For convenience, define
ex ‾ ( n , H ) = ( n 2 ) − ex ( n , H ) , t ‾ n , p = ( n 2 ) − t n , p and EX ‾ ( n , H ) = { G ‾ : G ∈ EX ( n , H ) } . \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,H)=\binom{n}{2}-\operatorname{ex}(n,H),\qquad\overline{t}_{n,p}=\binom{n}{2}-t_{n,p}\quad\text{and}\quad\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,H)=\{\overline{G}:G\in\operatorname{EX}(n,H)\}. ex ( n , H ) = ( 2 n ) − ex ( n , H ) , t n , p = ( 2 n ) − t n , p and EX ( n , H ) = { G : G ∈ EX ( n , H )} .
Key words and phrases. Turán number, discharging, disjoint cliques.
Research of the first author is supported in part by NSF RTG Grant DMS-1937241.
Research of the second author is supported in part by NSF RTG Grant DMS-1937241.
Research of the fourth author is supported by the Fundamental and Interdisciplinary Disciplines Break-through Plan of the Ministry of Education of China (JYB2025XDXM207).
The problem of determining the Turán number of vertex-disjoint copies of cliques was initiated by Erdős [4 ] . Subsequently, Moon [12 ] and Simonovits [13 ] determined ex ( n , k K p ) \operatorname{ex}(n,kK_p) ex ( n , k K p ) and characterized the extremal graphs for sufficiently large n n n . In our notation, this is equivalent to determining ex ‾ ( n , k K p ) \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,kK_p) ex ( n , k K p ) and EX ‾ ( n , k K p ) \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,kK_p) EX ( n , k K p ) .
Theorem 2 [12 , 13 ] . Let k ≥ 1 k \ge1 k ≥ 1 and p ≥ 2 p \ge2 p ≥ 2 be integers. For sufficiently large n n n , ex ‾ ( n , k K p ) = t ‾ n − k + 1 , p − 1 \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,kK_p)=\overline{t}_{n-k+1,p-1} ex ( n , k K p ) = t n − k + 1 , p − 1 and EX ‾ ( n , k K p ) = { K ‾ k − 1 ∪ T ‾ n − k + 1 , p − 1 } \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,kK_p)=\{\overline{K}_{k-1}\cup\overline{T}_{n-k+1,p-1}\} EX ( n , k K p ) = { K k − 1 ∪ T n − k + 1 , p − 1 } .
A natural problem is to determine the Turán numbers of disjoint unions of cliques for all n n n . However, exact values are known only for a limited number of cases. In 1959, Erdős and Gallai [5 ] determined ex ‾ ( n , k K 2 ) \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,kK_2) ex ( n , k K 2 ) and EX ‾ ( n , k K 2 ) \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,kK_2) EX ( n , k K 2 ) for all positive integers n n n and k k k . More recently, Chen, Lu and Yuan [3 ] determined the Turán number of 2 K p 2K_p 2 K p for all n n n . Subsequently, Zhang and Yin [18 ] determined the value of ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ) \operatorname{ex}(n,K_p\cup K_q) ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ) for all n n n , q q q and p ∈ { 2 , 3 } p\in\{2,3\} p ∈ { 2 , 3 } . This result was later extended by Hu [7 ] , who determined ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ) \operatorname{ex}(n,K_p\cup K_q) ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ) for all p p p and q q q , and Luo [10 ] characterized all extremal graphs for K p ∪ K q K_p\cup K_q K p ∪ K q .
For positive integers a ≤ b a\le b a ≤ b and nonnegative integers x , y , n x,y,n x , y , n satisfying a x + b y ≤ n ax+by\le n a x + b y ≤ n , let
K a , b ( n , x , y ) = x K a ∪ y K b ∪ K n − a x − b y (1) K_{a,b}(n,x,y)=xK_a\cup yK_b\cup K_{n-ax-by} \tag*{(1)} K a , b ( n , x , y ) = x K a ∪ y K b ∪ K n − a x − b y (1)
Also, for each integer z z z with 0 ≤ z ≤ p − 1 0\le z\le p-1 0 ≤ z ≤ p − 1 , let
K 3 , 4 ( n , z ) = { K 3 , 4 ( n , x , y ) : x + 2 y = n − p − q + 1 and x + y ≤ z } , \mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,z)=\{K_{3,4}(n,x,y):x+2y=n-p-q+1\text{ and }x+y\le z\}, K 3 , 4 ( n , z ) = { K 3 , 4 ( n , x , y ) : x + 2 y = n − p − q + 1 and x + y ≤ z } ,
and let K 3 , 4 ( n ) = K 3 , 4 ( n , p − 1 ) \mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n)=\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,p-1) K 3 , 4 ( n ) = K 3 , 4 ( n , p − 1 ) .
Theorem 3 [7 , 10 ] . Let n n n , p p p , q q q be positive integers with p > q ≥ 2 p>q\ge2 p > q ≥ 2 and n ≥ p + q n\ge p+q n ≥ p + q . Then
ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = { 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) , if n ≤ p + q + max { 2 q − p , ⌊ q 2 ⌋ − 1 } , t ‾ n , p − 1 , if n > p + q + max { 2 q − p , ⌊ q 2 ⌋ − 1 } . \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q)=
\begin{cases}
3(n-p-q+1), & \text{if }n\le p+q+\max\left\{2q-p,\left\lfloor\frac{q}{2}\right\rfloor-1\right\},\\
\overline{t}_{n,p-1}, & \text{if }n>p+q+\max\left\{2q-p,\left\lfloor\frac{q}{2}\right\rfloor-1\right\}.
\end{cases} ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = { 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) , t n , p − 1 , if n ≤ p + q + max { 2 q − p , ⌊ 2 q ⌋ − 1 } , if n > p + q + max { 2 q − p , ⌊ 2 q ⌋ − 1 } . Furthermore, if p − 1 = q p-1=q p − 1 = q , then
EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = { K 3 , 4 ( n ) , if n < 4 q , { T ‾ n , p − 1 } , if n ≥ 4 q . \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,K_p\cup K_q)=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n), & \text{if }n<4q,\\
\{\overline{T}_{n,p-1}\}, & \text{if }n\ge4q.
\end{cases} EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = { K 3 , 4 ( n ) , { T n , p − 1 } , if n < 4 q , if n ≥ 4 q . If q + 1 ≤ p − 1 < 3 q 2 q+1\le p-1<\frac{3q}{2} q + 1 ≤ p − 1 < 2 3 q , then
EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = { K 3 , 4 ( n ) , if n < 3 q , K 3 , 4 ( n ) ∪ { T ‾ n , p − 1 } , if n = 3 q , { T ‾ n , p − 1 } , if n > 3 q . \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,K_p\cup K_q)=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n), & \text{if }n<3q,\\
\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n)\cup\{\overline{T}_{n,p-1}\}, & \text{if }n=3q,\\
\{\overline{T}_{n,p-1}\}, & \text{if }n>3q.
\end{cases} EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = ⎩ ⎨ ⎧ K 3 , 4 ( n ) , K 3 , 4 ( n ) ∪ { T n , p − 1 } , { T n , p − 1 } , if n < 3 q , if n = 3 q , if n > 3 q . If p − 1 ≥ 3 q 2 p-1\ge\frac{3q}{2} p − 1 ≥ 2 3 q , then
EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = { K 3 , 4 ( n ) , if n < p − 1 + 3 q , K 3 , 4 ( n ) ∪ { T ‾ n , p − 1 } , if n = p − 1 + 3 q , { T ‾ n , p − 1 } , if n > p − 1 + 3 q . \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,K_p\cup K_q)=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n), & \text{if }n<p-1+3q,\\
\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n)\cup\{\overline{T}_{n,p-1}\}, & \text{if }n=p-1+3q,\\
\{\overline{T}_{n,p-1}\}, & \text{if }n>p-1+3q.
\end{cases} EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = ⎩ ⎨ ⎧ K 3 , 4 ( n ) , K 3 , 4 ( n ) ∪ { T n , p − 1 } , { T n , p − 1 } , if n < p − 1 + 3 q , if n = p − 1 + 3 q , if n > p − 1 + 3 q .
Brualdi and Mellendorf [2 ] and independently Zhang [16 ] determined ex ( k p , k K p ) \operatorname{ex}(kp,kK_p) ex ( k p , k K p ) and EX ( k p , k K p ) \operatorname{EX}(kp,kK_p) EX ( k p , k K p ) for all k k k and p p p . Recently, Zhang and Yin [17 ] and independently Zhang [16 ] determined the values of ex ( n , 3 K p ) \operatorname{ex}(n,3K_p) ex ( n , 3 K p ) for all n n n , and Kostochka, Peng and Zhang [9 ] determined the values of ex ( n , 4 K p ) \operatorname{ex}(n,4K_p) ex ( n , 4 K p ) and EX ( n , 4 K p ) \operatorname{EX}(n,4K_p) EX ( n , 4 K p ) for all n n n .
In this paper, we determine ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) \operatorname{ex}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r) ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) and EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) \operatorname{EX}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r) EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) for all p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 p\ge q\ge r\ge2 p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 and n ≥ p + q + r n\ge p+q+r n ≥ p + q + r . We first determine the value for the case n = p + q + r n=p+q+r n = p + q + r and the corresponding extremal graphs. Note that the special case p = q = r = 2 p=q=r=2 p = q = r = 2 was already settled in [5 ] , where it was shown that ex ( 6 , 3 K 2 ) = 5 \operatorname{ex}(6,3K_2)=5 ex ( 6 , 3 K 2 ) = 5 and EX ( 6 , 3 K 2 ) = { K 1 , 5 } \operatorname{EX}(6,3K_2)=\{K_{1,5}\} EX ( 6 , 3 K 2 ) = { K 1 , 5 } .
Theorem 4. Let p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 p\ge q\ge r\ge2 p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 , ( p , q , r ) ≠ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) (p,q,r)\ne(2,2,2) ( p , q , r ) = ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) and n = p + q + r n=p+q+r n = p + q + r . Then
ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = min { 6 , t ‾ n , p − 1 } \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\min\{6,\overline{t}_{n,p-1}\} ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = min { 6 , t n , p − 1 } and
EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = { { K 4 ∪ K ‾ 3 , K 1 , 6 } , if ( p , q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) , { K 4 ∪ K ‾ n − 4 , T ‾ n , p − 1 } , if ( p , q , r ) = ( 5 , 2 , 2 ) or p ≥ 7 and ( q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 ) , { T ‾ n , p − 1 } , if p ≥ 6 and q = r = 2 , { K 4 ∪ K ‾ n − 4 } , otherwise. \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=
\begin{cases}
\{K_4\cup\overline{K}_3,K_{1,6}\}, & \text{if }(p,q,r)=(3,2,2),\\
\{K_4\cup\overline{K}_{n-4},\overline{T}_{n,p-1}\}, & \text{if }(p,q,r)=(5,2,2)\\
& \text{or }p\ge7\text{ and }(q,r)=(3,2),\\
\{\overline{T}_{n,p-1}\}, & \text{if }p\ge6\text{ and }q=r=2,\\
\{K_4\cup\overline{K}_{n-4}\}, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases} EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = ⎩ ⎨ ⎧ { K 4 ∪ K 3 , K 1 , 6 } , { K 4 ∪ K n − 4 , T n , p − 1 } , { T n , p − 1 } , { K 4 ∪ K n − 4 } , if ( p , q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) , if ( p , q , r ) = ( 5 , 2 , 2 ) or p ≥ 7 and ( q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 ) , if p ≥ 6 and q = r = 2 , otherwise.
For p ≥ q ≥ r p\ge q\ge r p ≥ q ≥ r , let c q = { 0 , if p > q , 1 , if p = q , c_q=\begin{cases}0,&\text{if }p>q,\\1,&\text{if }p=q,\end{cases} c q = { 0 , 1 , if p > q , if p = q , and c r = { 0 , if p > r , 1 , if p = r . c_r=\begin{cases}0,&\text{if }p>r,\\1,&\text{if }p=r.\end{cases} c r = { 0 , 1 , if p > r , if p = r . Define c = c q + c r c=c_q+c_r c = c q + c r . Also, for each integer z z z with 0 ≤ z ≤ p − 1 0\le z\le p-1 0 ≤ z ≤ p − 1 , let
K 5 , 6 ( n , z ) = { K 5 , 6 ( n , x , y ) : 2 x + 3 y = n − p − q − r + 1 and x + y ≤ z } , \mathbb{K}_{5,6}(n,z)=\{\mathbb{K}_{5,6}(n,x,y):2x+3y=n-p-q-r+1\text{ and }x+y\le z\}, K 5 , 6 ( n , z ) = { K 5 , 6 ( n , x , y ) : 2 x + 3 y = n − p − q − r + 1 and x + y ≤ z } ,
and let K 5 , 6 ( n ) = K 5 , 6 ( n , p − 1 ) \mathbb{K}_{5,6}(n)=\mathbb{K}_{5,6}(n,p-1) K 5 , 6 ( n ) = K 5 , 6 ( n , p − 1 ) . Furthermore, for p = q p=q p = q and 3 ( p + q ) 2 − 2 ≤ n ≤ 2 p + 2 q − 4 \frac{3(p+q)}{2}-2\le n\le2p+2q-4 2 3 ( p + q ) − 2 ≤ n ≤ 2 p + 2 q − 4 , let
K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) = ( 2 p + 2 q − 4 − n ) K 3 ∪ ( n − 3 ( p + q ) 2 + 2 ) K 4 ∪ K 1 , 3 . K^*_{3,4}(n)=(2p+2q-4-n)K_3\cup\left(n-\frac{3(p+q)}{2}+2\right)K_4\cup K_{1,3}. K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) = ( 2 p + 2 q − 4 − n ) K 3 ∪ ( n − 2 3 ( p + q ) + 2 ) K 4 ∪ K 1 , 3 .
For p = q = r p=q=r p = q = r and 5 ( p + q + r ) 3 − 4 ≤ n ≤ 2 p + 2 q + 2 r − 6 \frac{5(p+q+r)}{3}-4\le n\le2p+2q+2r-6 3 5 ( p + q + r ) − 4 ≤ n ≤ 2 p + 2 q + 2 r − 6 , we let
K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) = ( 2 p + 2 q + 2 r − 6 − n ) K 5 ∪ ( n − 5 ( p + q + r ) 3 + 4 ) K 6 ∪ K 1 , 5 . K^*_{5,6}(n)=(2p+2q+2r-6-n)K_5\cup\left(n-\frac{5(p+q+r)}{3}+4\right)K_6\cup K_{1,5}. K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) = ( 2 p + 2 q + 2 r − 6 − n ) K 5 ∪ ( n − 3 5 ( p + q + r ) + 4 ) K 6 ∪ K 1 , 5 .
Our main results are as follows.
Theorem 5. Let n n n , p p p , q q q , and r r r be positive integers with p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 p\ge q\ge r\ge2 p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 and n ≥ p + q + r + 1 n\ge p+q+r+1 n ≥ p + q + r + 1 , and set s = n − p − q − r + 1 s=n-p-q-r+1 s = n − p − q − r + 1 .
If n ∈ [ p + q + r + 1 , 4 ( p − 1 ) + c ] n\in[p+q+r+1,4(p-1)+c] n ∈ [ p + q + r + 1 , 4 ( p − 1 ) + c ] , then
ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = min { 5 s , 3 ( s + r ) , t ‾ n − c , p − 1 } . (2) \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\min\{5s,3(s+r),\overline{t}_{n-c,p-1}\}. \tag*{(2)} ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = min { 5 s , 3 ( s + r ) , t n − c , p − 1 } . (2) If n ∈ [ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c , 5 ( p − 1 ) + c ] n\in[4(p-1)+c,5(p-1)+c] n ∈ [ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c , 5 ( p − 1 ) + c ] , then
ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = min { 5 s , t ‾ n − c , p − 1 } . (3) \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\min\{5s,\overline{t}_{n-c,p-1}\}. \tag*{(3)} ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = min { 5 s , t n − c , p − 1 } . (3) If n ≥ 5 ( p − 1 ) + c n\ge5(p-1)+c n ≥ 5 ( p − 1 ) + c , then ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t ‾ n − c , p − 1 \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\overline{t}_{n-c,p-1} ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t n − c , p − 1 .
Theorem 6. Let p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 p\ge q\ge r\ge2 p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 , n ≥ p + q + r + 1 n\ge p+q+r+1 n ≥ p + q + r + 1 and s = n − p − q − r + 1 s=n-p-q-r+1 s = n − p − q − r + 1 . Let H 0 ( n ) \mathcal{H}_0(n) H 0 ( n ) , H 1 ( n ) \mathcal{H}_1(n) H 1 ( n ) , H 2 ( n ) \mathcal{H}_2(n) H 2 ( n ) be pairwise disjoint families such that EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = H 0 ( n ) ∪ H 1 ( n ) ∪ H 2 ( n ) \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\mathcal{H}_0(n)\cup\mathcal{H}_1(n)\cup\mathcal{H}_2(n) EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = H 0 ( n ) ∪ H 1 ( n ) ∪ H 2 ( n ) , where H 0 ( n ) \mathcal{H}_0(n) H 0 ( n ) consists of graphs containing no K p K_p K p , H 1 ( n ) \mathcal{H}_1(n) H 1 ( n ) consists of graphs containing K p K_p K p and no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q , and H 2 ( n ) \mathcal{H}_2(n) H 2 ( n ) consists of graphs containing disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q . Then
(1) If c = 0 c=0 c = 0 , then H 0 ( n ) = { G = T ‾ n , p − 1 : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t ‾ n , p − 1 } \mathcal{H}_0(n)=\{G=\overline{T}_{n,p-1}:\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\overline{t}_{n,p-1}\} H 0 ( n ) = { G = T n , p − 1 : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t n , p − 1 } ,
H 1 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) } , \mathcal{H}_1(n)=\{G\in\mathbb{K}_{3,4}(n,q-1):\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=3(s+r)\}, H 1 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r )} , and
H 2 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s } . \mathcal{H}_2(n)=\{G\in\mathbb{K}_{5,6}(n,r-1):\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=5s\}. H 2 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s } .
(2) If c = 1 c=1 c = 1 , then H 0 ( n ) = ∅ \mathcal{H}_0(n)=\varnothing H 0 ( n ) = ∅ ,
H 1 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) } \mathcal{H}_1(n)=\{G\in K_{3,4}(n):\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=3(s+r)\} H 1 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r )}
∪ { G = K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) and 3 ( p + q ) 2 − 2 ≤ n ≤ 2 p + 2 q − 4 } \qquad\cup\{G=K^*_{3,4}(n):\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=3(s+r)\ \text{and}\ \frac{3(p+q)}{2}-2\le n\le2p+2q-4\} ∪ { G = K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) and 2 3 ( p + q ) − 2 ≤ n ≤ 2 p + 2 q − 4 }
∪ { G = K 1 ∪ T ‾ n − 1 , p − 1 : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t ‾ n − 1 , p − 1 } . \qquad\cup\{G=K_1\cup\overline{T}_{n-1,p-1}:\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\overline{t}_{n-1,p-1}\}. ∪ { G = K 1 ∪ T n − 1 , p − 1 : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t n − 1 , p − 1 } .
and
H 2 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s } . \mathcal{H}_2(n)=\{G\in K_{5,6}(n,r-1):\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=5s\}. H 2 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s } .
(3) If c = 2 c=2 c = 2 , then H 0 ( n ) = ∅ \mathcal{H}_0(n)=\varnothing H 0 ( n ) = ∅ , H 1 ( n ) = ∅ \mathcal{H}_1(n)=\varnothing H 1 ( n ) = ∅ and
H 2 ( n ) = { K 5 , 6 ( n ) , if n ≤ 5 p − 5 , K 5 , 6 ( n ) ∪ { K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) } , if 5 p − 4 ≤ n ≤ 6 p − 6 , { K 2 ∪ T ‾ n − 2 , p − 1 } , n ≥ 6 p − 5. \mathcal{H}_2(n)=
\begin{cases}
K_{5,6}(n), & \text{if }n\le5p-5,\\
K_{5,6}(n)\cup\{K^*_{5,6}(n)\}, & \text{if }5p-4\le n\le6p-6,\\
\{K_2\cup\overline{T}_{n-2,p-1}\}, & n\ge6p-5.
\end{cases} H 2 ( n ) = ⎩ ⎨ ⎧ K 5 , 6 ( n ) , K 5 , 6 ( n ) ∪ { K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n )} , { K 2 ∪ T n − 2 , p − 1 } , if n ≤ 5 p − 5 , if 5 p − 4 ≤ n ≤ 6 p − 6 , n ≥ 6 p − 5.
These results extend and generalize Theorem 3 as well as the result for ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K p ∪ K p ) \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_p\cup K_p) ex ( n , K p ∪ K p ∪ K p ) established in [15 , 16 , 17 ] . The key idea is to consider graphs that already have independent sets P P P and Q Q Q of required size, and try to add an independent set R R R to them. The restriction r ≥ 2 r\ge2 r ≥ 2 is natural, since for n ≥ p + q + 1 n\ge p+q+1 n ≥ p + q + 1 , ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K 1 ) = ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_1)=\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q) ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K 1 ) = ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ) .
The structure of the paper is as follows. In the next section, we introduce some more notation and give some definitions. In § 3 we present Theorem 7 on existence of two cliques when we know that one of them exists. § 4 establishes Theorem 8, a generalization of Theorem 7 that addresses another important special case of the main theorem. The subsequent three sections are devoted to proving Theorem 8 by considering several distinct cases. We prove Theorems 4 , 5 and 6 in § 8 , § 9 and § 10 respectively, and conclude the paper with some remarks in § 11 .
Notation and definitions
For a vertex v ∈ V ( G ) v\in V(G) v ∈ V ( G ) and a subgraph H ⊆ G H\subseteq G H ⊆ G (or a vertex subset S ⊆ V ( G ) S\subseteq V(G) S ⊆ V ( G ) ), we write N H ( v ) N_H(v) N H ( v ) (or N S ( v ) N_S(v) N S ( v ) ) for the set of neighbors of v v v in H H H (or in S S S ). The degree of v v v in G G G is denoted by d G ( v ) = ∣ N G ( v ) ∣ d_G(v)=\lvert N_G(v)\rvert d G ( v ) = ∣ N G ( v )∣ . The minimum and maximum degrees of G G G are denoted by δ ( G ) \delta(G) δ ( G ) and Δ ( G ) \Delta(G) Δ ( G ) , respectively. We write G ‾ \overline{G} G for the complement of G G G and α ( G ) \alpha(G) α ( G ) for its independence number.
Given vertex subsets V 1 , V 2 ⊆ V ( G ) V_1,V_2\subseteq V(G) V 1 , V 2 ⊆ V ( G ) , let E [ V 1 , V 2 ] E[V_1,V_2] E [ V 1 , V 2 ] denote the set of edges with one endpoint in V 1 V_1 V 1 and the other in V 2 V_2 V 2 , and let e [ V 1 , V 2 ] = ∣ E [ V 1 , V 2 ] ∣ e[V_1,V_2]=\lvert E[V_1,V_2]\rvert e [ V 1 , V 2 ] = ∣ E [ V 1 , V 2 ]∣ . For a vertex subset V ′ ⊆ V ( G ) V'\subseteq V(G) V ′ ⊆ V ( G ) , the subgraph induced by V ′ V' V ′ is denoted by G [ V ′ ] G[V'] G [ V ′ ] .
The following definition originates from [8 ] . We will use it throughout the proofs.
Definition 1. Given a graph G G G and a partition P = ( V 1 , … , V k ) \mathcal{P}=(V_1,\ldots,V_k) P = ( V 1 , … , V k ) of V ( G ) V(G) V ( G ) , an auxiliary digraph D D D with respect to P \mathcal{P} P is a digraph with vertex set V ( D ) = { V 1 , … , V k } V(D)=\{V_1,\ldots,V_k\} V ( D ) = { V 1 , … , V k } and edge set E ( D ) = { V i V j : ∃ x ∈ V i , N G ( x ) ∩ V j = ∅ } E(D)=\{V_iV_j:\exists x\in V_i,N_G(x)\cap V_j=\varnothing\} E ( D ) = { V i V j : ∃ x ∈ V i , N G ( x ) ∩ V j = ∅ } .
When the partition P \mathcal{P} P is clear, we may refer to D D D simply as the auxiliary digraph. For an edge V i V j ∈ E ( D ) V_iV_j\in E(D) V i V j ∈ E ( D ) , if x ∈ V i x\in V_i x ∈ V i and N G ( x ) ∩ V j = ∅ N_G(x)\cap V_j=\varnothing N G ( x ) ∩ V j = ∅ , then we say x x x is movable to V j V_j V j . Given V i 1 , V i 2 , … , V i ℓ ∈ V ( D ) V_{i_1},V_{i_2},\ldots,V_{i_\ell}\in V(D) V i 1 , V i 2 , … , V i ℓ ∈ V ( D ) , if for each V i j V_{i_j} V i j where 1 ≤ j ≤ ℓ − 1 1\le j\le\ell-1 1 ≤ j ≤ ℓ − 1 , there is a vertex v i j v_{i_j} v i j that is movable to V i j + 1 V_{i_{j+1}} V i j + 1 , then the directed path V i 1 V i 2 … V i ℓ V_{i_1}V_{i_2}\ldots V_{i_\ell} V i 1 V i 2 … V i ℓ is an accessible path in D D D . For a given digraph D D D , we may fix some V j ∈ V ( D ) V_j\in V(D) V j ∈ V ( D ) as a target class. Consequently, for V i ∈ V ( D ) V_i\in V(D) V i ∈ V ( D ) , if there is an accessible path from V i V_i V i to V j V_j V j , then we say V i V_i V i is accessible. Note that the target class V j V_j V j is always trivially accessible. Let A \mathcal{A} A be the set of accessible classes in D D D and B = V ( D ) ∖ A \mathcal{B}=V(D)\setminus\mathcal{A} B = V ( D ) ∖ A . Further, let A = ⋃ A A=\bigcup\mathcal{A} A = ⋃ A and B = ⋃ B B=\bigcup\mathcal{B} B = ⋃ B . For vertices u ∈ B u\in B u ∈ B and v ∈ A v\in A v ∈ A , the edge u v uv uv is a solo edge if v v v is the only neighbor of u u u in its color class. In this case, we also say that u u u and v v v are solo neighbors of each other.
Two cliques
Theorem 7. Let p ≥ q ≥ 2 p\ge q\ge2 p ≥ q ≥ 2 , n ≥ p + q n\ge p+q n ≥ p + q and s = n − p − q + 1 s=n-p-q+1 s = n − p − q + 1 . If an n n n -vertex graph G G G contains an induced K p K_p K p and e ( G ) ≤ 3 s e(G)\le3s e ( G ) ≤ 3 s , then one of the following holds:
(a) G G G contains vertex disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q ;
(b) e ( G ) = 3 s e(G)=3s e ( G ) = 3 s , G G G contains x x x copies of K 3 K_3 K 3 and y y y copies of K 4 K_4 K 4 , where 3 x + 6 y = 3 s 3x+6y=3s 3 x + 6 y = 3 s and 3 x + 4 y ≤ n 3x+4y\le n 3 x + 4 y ≤ n , and all other components are K 1 K_1 K 1 s;
(c) e ( G ) = 3 s e(G)=3s e ( G ) = 3 s , p = q p=q p = q , one component of G G G is the star K 1 , 3 K_{1,3} K 1 , 3 and every other component is a K 3 K_3 K 3 or a K 4 K_4 K 4 .
Proof. Suppose there is a counter-example G G G for the theorem and a set P ⊂ V ( G ) P\subset V(G) P ⊂ V ( G ) such that G [ P ] = K ‾ p G[P]=\overline{K}_p G [ P ] = K p . Then (a) fails and e ( G ) ≤ 3 s e(G)\le3s e ( G ) ≤ 3 s . If e ( G ) = 3 s e(G)=3s e ( G ) = 3 s , then neither (b) nor (c) holds.
Let Q Q Q be a maximum independent set in G − P G-P G − P and q ′ = ∣ Q ∣ q'=|Q| q ′ = ∣ Q ∣ . Let S = V ( G ) − P − Q S=V(G)-P-Q S = V ( G ) − P − Q and s ′ = ∣ S ∣ s'=|S| s ′ = ∣ S ∣ . Then 1 ≤ q ′ ≤ q − 1 1\le q'\le q-1 1 ≤ q ′ ≤ q − 1 and s ′ ≥ s s'\ge s s ′ ≥ s .
Suppose first that s ′ = 1 s'=1 s ′ = 1 . Since n ≥ p + q n\ge p+q n ≥ p + q , this means q ′ = q − 1 q'=q-1 q ′ = q − 1 , s ′ = s = 1 s'=s=1 s ′ = s = 1 and n = p + q n=p+q n = p + q . Thus, e ( G ) ≤ 3 s = 3 e(G)\le3s=3 e ( G ) ≤ 3 s = 3 . Choose P P P so that
G − P has the fewest edges. (4) G-P\text{ has the fewest edges.} \tag*{(4)} G − P has the fewest edges. (4)
Note that S ∪ Q = V ( G ) − P S\cup Q=V(G)-P S ∪ Q = V ( G ) − P . If G − P G-P G − P has no edges, we are done, so assume u v ∈ E ( G ) uv\in E(G) uv ∈ E ( G ) for some u , v ∈ S ∪ Q u,v\in S\cup Q u , v ∈ S ∪ Q . We will use the following properties of our partition.
(a) If u or v has no neighbors in P , then each w ∈ P has a neighbor in Q ∪ S . (b) If u or v has exactly one neighbor w in P , then w has another neighbor in Q ∪ S . (5) \begin{aligned}
\text{(a)}\quad&\text{If }u\text{ or }v\text{ has no neighbors in }P,\text{ then each }w\in P\text{ has a neighbor in }Q\cup S.\\
\text{(b)}\quad&\text{If }u\text{ or }v\text{ has exactly one neighbor }w\text{ in }P,\text{ then }w\text{ has another neighbor in }Q\cup S. \tag*{(5)}
\end{aligned} (a) (b) If u or v has no neighbors in P , then each w ∈ P has a neighbor in Q ∪ S . If u or v has exactly one neighbor w in P , then w has another neighbor in Q ∪ S . (5)
Indeed, if (3.2a) or (3.2b) does not hold, then we switch u u u (or v v v ) with w w w , contradicting (3.1).
Now since e ( G ) ≤ 3 e(G)\le3 e ( G ) ≤ 3 , by (3.2), we must have that ∣ E ( P , Q ∪ S ) ∣ = 2 |E(P,Q\cup S)|=2 ∣ E ( P , Q ∪ S ) ∣ = 2 and ∣ P ∣ = 2 |P|=2 ∣ P ∣ = 2 or some w ∈ P w\in P w ∈ P is adjacent to both u u u and v v v .
If some w ∈ P w\in P w ∈ P is adjacent to both u u u and v v v , then (b) holds for G G G , contradicting the choice of G G G . Thus we may assume that each w ∈ P w\in P w ∈ P is adjacent to at most one of u u u and v v v and that ∣ P ∣ = 2 |P|=2 ∣ P ∣ = 2 . In this case, p = q = 2 p=q=2 p = q = 2 , ∣ Q ∣ = q ′ = 1 |Q|=q'=1 ∣ Q ∣ = q ′ = 1 , and we may assume that u u u is the only vertex in S S S , and v v v is the only vertex in Q Q Q . Since ∣ E ( P , Q ∪ S ) ∣ = 2 |E(P,Q\cup S)|=2 ∣ E ( P , Q ∪ S ) ∣ = 2 , by (3.2)(b), either u u u or v v v is adjacent to both vertices in P P P . As e ( G ) = 3 e(G)=3 e ( G ) = 3 , we have G = K 1 , 3 G=K_{1,3} G = K 1 , 3 , and (c) holds for G , G, G , a contradiction. So s ′ ≥ 2 s'\ge2 s ′ ≥ 2 .
We choose a triple ( G , P , Q ) (G,P,Q) ( G , P , Q ) so that
(M1) n : = ∣ V ( G ) ∣ n:=|V(G)| n := ∣ V ( G ) ∣ is minimum;
(M2) subject to (M1), q ′ = ∣ Q ∣ q'=|Q| q ′ = ∣ Q ∣ is maximum;
(M3) subject to (M1) and (M2), the number of vertices in P P P of degree at least 3 is minimum.
Claim 3.1. For each u ∈ S ∪ Q u\in S\cup Q u ∈ S ∪ Q , d G ( u ) ≤ 2 d_G(u)\le2 d G ( u ) ≤ 2 .
Proof. Suppose the claim does not hold. Among different choices of P P P and u ∈ S ∪ Q u\in S\cup Q u ∈ S ∪ Q with d ( u ) ≥ 3 d(u)\ge3 d ( u ) ≥ 3 , pick such that d ( u ) d(u) d ( u ) is maximum, and modulo this, the number of K 3 K_3 K 3 -subgraphs containing u u u is maximum.
Consider G ′ = G − u G'=G-u G ′ = G − u . It still contains P P P . If G ′ G' G ′ contains vertex disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q , then so does G G G , a contradiction. Otherwise, by the minimality of n n n , e ( G ′ ) ≥ 3 ( s − 1 ) e(G')\ge3(s-1) e ( G ′ ) ≥ 3 ( s − 1 ) , and in the case of equality every component of G ′ G' G ′ is a K 3 K_3 K 3 , a K 4 K_4 K 4 or a K 1 K_1 K 1 (or a K 1 , 3 K_{1,3} K 1 , 3 when p = q p=q p = q ). Since d ( u ) ≥ 3 d(u) \ge3 d ( u ) ≥ 3 , d ( u ) = 3 d(u)=3 d ( u ) = 3 and e ( G ) = 3 s e(G)=3s e ( G ) = 3 s .
Case 1: u u u is in a K 4 K_4 K 4 -subgraph F F F of G G G . Then F F F is a component of G G G , since otherwise we can choose a vertex v v v of a higher degree in Q ∪ S Q \cup S Q ∪ S , possibly moving u u u into P P P . (If v ∈ S ∪ Q v \in S \cup Q v ∈ S ∪ Q , then d G ( v ) > d G ( u ) d_G(v)>d_G(u) d G ( v ) > d G ( u ) , contradicting the choice of u u u . If v ∈ P v \in P v ∈ P , switch u u u and v v v contradicting the choice of u u u ). In this case, F − u F-u F − u is a K 3 K_3 K 3 -component in G ′ G' G ′ . Thus, if G ′ G' G ′ satisfies (b) or (c) of Theorem 7, then so does G G G , a contradiction.
Since this case is impossible and any P P P contains at most one vertex from any K 4 K_4 K 4 -subgraph of G G G , we conclude that
G does not contain K 4 . (6) G\text{ does not contain }K_4. \tag*{(6)} G does not contain K 4 . (6)
Case 2: u u u is in a K 3 K_3 K 3 -subgraph F F F of G G G . Then F − u F-u F − u cannot be in a K 4 K_4 K 4 -component of G ′ G' G ′ by (3.3). If F − u F-u F − u is in a K 1 , 3 K_{1,3} K 1 , 3 -component, say Y Y Y , then for G ′ G' G ′ situation (c) holds, i.e. e ( G ′ ) = 3 ( s − 1 ) e(G')=3(s-1) e ( G ′ ) = 3 ( s − 1 ) , p = q p=q p = q and in view of (3.3) every component apart from Y Y Y is a K 3 K_3 K 3 . To have e ( G ′ ) = 3 ( s − 1 ) e(G')=3(s-1) e ( G ′ ) = 3 ( s − 1 ) , the number of K 3 K_3 K 3 -components in G ′ G' G ′ must be s − 2 s-2 s − 2 . So, n − 1 = 4 + 3 ( s − 2 ) n-1=4+3(s-2) n − 1 = 4 + 3 ( s − 2 ) , and hence s = p s=p s = p . If Y Y Y has center v v v , then u v ∈ E ( G ) uv \in E(G) uv ∈ E ( G ) . Now v v v is not in any independent set of size p p p in G ′ G' G ′ , and hence belongs to Q ∪ S Q \cup S Q ∪ S . Since d G ( v ) = 4 > 3 = d G ( u ) d_G(v)=4>3=d_G(u) d G ( v ) = 4 > 3 = d G ( u ) , this contradicts the choice of u u u .
Thus, F − u F-u F − u is in a K 3 K_3 K 3 -component, say Y Y Y with vertex set { v 1 , v 2 , v 3 } \{v_1,v_2,v_3\} { v 1 , v 2 , v 3 } . By (3.3), we may assume N ( u ) ∩ V ( Y ) = { v 1 , v 2 } N(u) \cap V(Y)=\{v_1,v_2\} N ( u ) ∩ V ( Y ) = { v 1 , v 2 } . Since d ( u ) = 3 d(u)=3 d ( u ) = 3 , each of v 1 , v 2 v_1,v_2 v 1 , v 2 is in two K 3 K_3 K 3 -subgraphs of G G G and at most one of v 1 , v 2 v_1,v_2 v 1 , v 2 can be in P P P , this contradicts the choice of u u u and finishes Case 2.
Case 3: Vertex u u u is in no K 3 K_3 K 3 -subgraph of G G G . If G ′ G' G ′ has a K 1 , 3 K_{1,3} K 1 , 3 -component F F F , say with center v v v and leaves v 1 , v 2 , v 3 v_1,v_2,v_3 v 1 , v 2 , v 3 , then by the minimality of n n n , part (c) of the theorem holds for G ′ G' G ′ . This means e ( G ′ ) = 3 ( s − 1 ) e(G')=3(s-1) e ( G ′ ) = 3 ( s − 1 ) , p = q p=q p = q and by (3.3) all components of G ′ − F G'-F G ′ − F are K 3 K_3 K 3 's. So, as in Case 2, the number of K 3 K_3 K 3 -components in G ′ G' G ′ must be s − 2 s-2 s − 2 , s = p s=p s = p and v v v is not in any independent set of size p p p in G ′ G' G ′ ; thus v ∈ Q ∪ S v \in Q \cup S v ∈ Q ∪ S . If u v ∈ E ( G ) uv \in E(G) uv ∈ E ( G ) , then d G ( v ) = 4 > 3 = d G ( u ) d_G(v)=4>3=d_G(u) d G ( v ) = 4 > 3 = d G ( u ) , contradicting the choice of u u u . So, u v ∉ E ( G ) uv \notin E(G) uv ∈ / E ( G ) . For 1 ≤ i ≤ s − 2 1 \le i \le s-2 1 ≤ i ≤ s − 2 , let the K 3 K_3 K 3 -component Z i Z_i Z i have vertex set { v i , 1 , v i , 2 , v i , 3 } \{v_{i,1},v_{i,2},v_{i,3}\} { v i , 1 , v i , 2 , v i , 3 } .
By Case 2, u u u has at most one neighbor in each Z i Z_i Z i , so we may assume N ( u ) ∩ Z i ⊆ { v i , 3 } N(u) \cap Z_i \subseteq\{v_{i,3}\} N ( u ) ∩ Z i ⊆ { v i , 3 } for each i ∈ [ s − 2 ] i \in[s-2] i ∈ [ s − 2 ] . But then { v 1 , 1 , … , v s − 2 , 1 , v 1 , v 2 } \{v_{1,1},\ldots,v_{s-2,1},v_1,v_2\} { v 1 , 1 , … , v s − 2 , 1 , v 1 , v 2 } and { v 1 , 2 , … , v s − 2 , 2 , u , v } \{v_{1,2},\ldots,v_{s-2,2},u,v\} { v 1 , 2 , … , v s − 2 , 2 , u , v } are two independent sets of size p p p in G G G contradicting the choice of G G G .
The remaining possibility is that each component of G ′ G' G ′ is a K 3 K_3 K 3 - or a K 1 K_1 K 1 -component and u u u has at most one neighbor in each K 3 K_3 K 3 -component. Let the isolated vertices in G ′ G' G ′ be v 1 , v 2 , … , v k 1 v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{k_1} v 1 , v 2 , … , v k 1 and the K 3 K_3 K 3 -components be Z 1 , … , Z k 3 Z_1,\ldots,Z_{k_3} Z 1 , … , Z k 3 with V ( Z i ) = { v i , 1 , v i , 2 , v i , 3 } V(Z_i)=\{v_{i,1},v_{i,2},v_{i,3}\} V ( Z i ) = { v i , 1 , v i , 2 , v i , 3 } for i = 1 , … , k 3 i=1,\ldots,k_3 i = 1 , … , k 3 , so n − 1 = k 1 + 3 k 3 n-1=k_1+3k_3 n − 1 = k 1 + 3 k 3 .
Since 3 k 3 = e ( G ′ ) = e ( G ) − 3 = 3 s − 3 3k_3=e(G')=e(G)-3=3s-3 3 k 3 = e ( G ′ ) = e ( G ) − 3 = 3 s − 3 and v ( G ′ ) = k 1 + 3 k 3 v(G')=k_1+3k_3 v ( G ′ ) = k 1 + 3 k 3 , we have k 3 = s − 1 k_3=s-1 k 3 = s − 1 and p + q + s = n + 1 = k 1 + 3 ( s − 1 ) + 2 p+q+s=n+1=k_1+3(s-1)+2 p + q + s = n + 1 = k 1 + 3 ( s − 1 ) + 2 , implying
p + q − 1 = k 1 + 2 ( s − 1 ) . (7) p+q-1=k_1+2(s-1). \tag*{(7)} p + q − 1 = k 1 + 2 ( s − 1 ) . (7)
Since P P P has at most one vertex in each K 3 K_3 K 3 -component and does not contain u u u , G G G has an independent set Q ′ Q' Q ′ disjoint from P P P that contains u u u and one vertex from each K 3 K_3 K 3 -component. Since G G G is a counter-example to our theorem, ( s − 1 ) + 1 = ∣ Q ′ ∣ ≤ q − 1 (s-1)+1=|Q'|\le q-1 ( s − 1 ) + 1 = ∣ Q ′ ∣ ≤ q − 1 , i.e., q ≥ s + 1 q \ge s+1 q ≥ s + 1 . Thus, (3.4) implies k 1 ≥ 3 k_1 \ge3 k 1 ≥ 3 with equality only if p = q = s + 1 p=q=s+1 p = q = s + 1 .
If k 1 ≥ 4 k_1 \ge4 k 1 ≥ 4 , then by (3.4),
q ≤ ⌊ ( p + q ) / 2 ⌋ ≤ ( s − 1 ) + ⌊ ( k 1 + 1 ) / 2 ⌋ ≤ ( s − 1 ) + k 1 − 2. (8) q \le\lfloor(p+q)/2 \rfloor\le(s-1)+\lfloor(k_1+1)/2 \rfloor\le(s-1)+k_1-2. \tag*{(8)} q ≤ ⌊( p + q ) /2 ⌋ ≤ ( s − 1 ) + ⌊( k 1 + 1 ) /2 ⌋ ≤ ( s − 1 ) + k 1 − 2. (8)
So, since u u u has at least k 1 − 3 k_1-3 k 1 − 3 non-neighbors in K 1 K_1 K 1 -components, we can construct a q q q -element independent set Q ′ Q' Q ′ by including into it u u u , one non-neighbor of u u u from each of the s − 1 s-1 s − 1 K 3 K_3 K 3 -components and q − 1 − ( s − 1 ) q-1-(s-1) q − 1 − ( s − 1 ) isolated vertices of G ′ G' G ′ not adjacent to u u u , and then construct a p p p -element independent set P ′ P' P ′ by including into it one vertex not included into Q ′ Q' Q ′ from each of the s − 1 s-1 s − 1 K 3 K_3 K 3 -components and p − ( s − 1 ) p-(s-1) p − ( s − 1 ) isolated vertices of G ′ G' G ′ not included into Q ′ Q' Q ′ . Note that by (7) , there are p − ( s − 1 ) p-(s-1) p − ( s − 1 ) isolated vertices of G ′ G' G ′ not included into Q ′ Q' Q ′ . This contradicts the choice of G G G , so k 1 = 3 k_1=3 k 1 = 3 and p = q = s + 1 p=q=s+1 p = q = s + 1 .
Since u u u has at most one neighbor in each Z i Z_i Z i , we may assume that v 1 , 1 , … , v s − 1 , 1 v_{1,1},\ldots,v_{s-1,1} v 1 , 1 , … , v s − 1 , 1 are not adjacent to u u u . So if u u u is not adjacent to all of v 1 , v 2 , v 3 v_1,v_2,v_3 v 1 , v 2 , v 3 , say u v 1 ∉ E ( G ) uv_1\notin E(G) u v 1 ∈ / E ( G ) , then we have disjoint ( s + 1 ) (s+1) ( s + 1 ) -element independent sets Q 1 = { v 1 , 1 , … , v s − 1 , 1 , u , v 1 } Q_1=\{v_{1,1},\ldots,v_{s-1,1},u,v_1\} Q 1 = { v 1 , 1 , … , v s − 1 , 1 , u , v 1 } and P 1 = { v 1 , 2 , … , v s − 1 , 2 , v 2 , v 3 } P_1=\{v_{1,2},\ldots,v_{s-1,2},v_2,v_3\} P 1 = { v 1 , 2 , … , v s − 1 , 2 , v 2 , v 3 } contradicting the choice of G G G . Otherwise, one component of G G G is K 1 , 3 K_{1,3} K 1 , 3 (with the center u u u ) and all other are K 3 K_3 K 3 's; thus part (c) of Theorem 7 holds.
□ \square □
Now let D D D be the auxiliary digraph with respect to ( P , Q , S ) (P,Q,S) ( P , Q , S ) with target class Q Q Q . If S ∈ A S\in\mathcal{A} S ∈ A , then moving witnesses along a shortest S , Q S,Q S , Q -path would increase ∣ Q ∣ |Q| ∣ Q ∣ , contradicting (M2). Thus S ∈ B S\in\mathcal{B} S ∈ B . Subject to (M1)--(M3), choose the partition so that:
(M4) ∣ B ∣ |\mathcal{B}| ∣ B ∣ is minimum.
There are two cases for ∣ B ∣ |\mathcal{B}| ∣ B ∣ .
Case 1. ∣ B ∣ = 1 |\mathcal{B}|=1 ∣ B ∣ = 1 . Then B = { S } \mathcal{B}=\{S\} B = { S } and A = { P , Q } \mathcal{A}=\{P,Q\} A = { P , Q } . Thus every vertex of S S S has a neighbor in both P P P and Q Q Q . By Claim 3.1, each u ∈ S u\in S u ∈ S has exactly one neighbor in P P P and exactly one neighbor in Q Q Q . Denote them by p u ∈ P p_u\in P p u ∈ P and q u ∈ Q q_u\in Q q u ∈ Q .
Since u u u has no neighbor in P − { p u } P-\{p_u\} P − { p u } and d G ( u ) ≤ 2 d_G(u)\leq2 d G ( u ) ≤ 2 , the choice in (M3) gives d G ( p u ) ≤ 2 d_G(p_u)\leq2 d G ( p u ) ≤ 2 ; otherwise replacing p u p_u p u by u u u in P P P would decrease the number of vertices of degree at least 3 in P P P . Also, p u p_u p u must have a neighbor in Q Q Q , for if N Q ( p u ) = ∅ N_Q(p_u)=\varnothing N Q ( p u ) = ∅ , then P − p u + u P-p_u+u P − p u + u is an independent set of size p p p while Q ∪ { p u } Q\cup\{p_u\} Q ∪ { p u } is an independent set larger than Q Q Q , contradicting (M2). Hence p u p_u p u has a unique neighbor in Q Q Q , say q u ′ q'_u q u ′ , and d G ( p u ) = 2 d_G(p_u)=2 d G ( p u ) = 2 .
Thus each u ∈ S u\in S u ∈ S gives three edges u p u up_u u p u , u q u uq_u u q u , p u q u ′ p_uq'_u p u q u ′ , and overall there are 3 s ′ 3s' 3 s ′ edges counted in this way. We claim that these 3 s ′ 3s' 3 s ′ edges are distinct. Indeed, the edges u p u up_u u p u and u q u uq_u u q u are distinguished by their endpoint u u u . If p u q u ′ = p v q v ′ p_uq'_u=p_vq'_v p u q u ′ = p v q v ′ for distinct u , v ∈ S u,v\in S u , v ∈ S , then the common vertex in P P P is adjacent to u u u , to v v v , and to a vertex of Q Q Q , contradicting d G ( p u ) = 2 d_G(p_u)=2 d G ( p u ) = 2 . Similarly, p u ≠ p v p_u\ne p_v p u = p v whenever u ≠ v u\ne v u = v . Therefore, e ( G ) ≥ 3 s ′ ≥ 3 s e(G)\geq3s'\geq3s e ( G ) ≥ 3 s ′ ≥ 3 s . Since e ( G ) ≤ 3 s e(G)\leq3s e ( G ) ≤ 3 s , equality holds. In particular, s ′ = s s'=s s ′ = s , and every edge of G G G must be one of the forms u p u up_u u p u , u q u uq_u u q u , p u q u ′ p_uq'_u p u q u ′ .
We now identify the structure. For each u ∈ S u\in S u ∈ S , if q u = q u ′ q_u=q'_u q u = q u ′ , then G [ { u , p u , q u } ] ≅ K 3 G[\{u,p_u,q_u\}]\cong K_3 G [{ u , p u , q u }] ≅ K 3 . Suppose that there is some u ∈ S u\in S u ∈ S with q u ≠ q u ′ q_u\ne q'_u q u = q u ′ , then the component containing u u u contains the path q u p u q u ′ q_up_uq'_u q u p u q u ′ . If there is a component C C C of G G G that is a path, and say it contains t t t vertices in S S S , then it must contain t t t vertices in P P P and t + 1 t+1 t + 1 vertices in Q Q Q . In particular for every u ∈ C ∩ S u\in C\cap S u ∈ C ∩ S , we must have q u ≠ q u ′ q_u\ne q'_u q u = q u ′ , so s < q ≤ p s<q\leq p s < q ≤ p , then there is some isolated vertex w ∈ P w\in P w ∈ P . Now C C C contains 3 t + 1 3t+1 3 t + 1 vertices, and we may pick two sets P C P_C P C and Q C Q_C Q C such that each is an independent set of size t + 1 t+1 t + 1 . We may replace P ∩ C P\cap C P ∩ C by P C P_C P C and Q ∩ C Q\cap C Q ∩ C by Q C Q_C Q C , then move w w w from P P P to Q Q Q . Now P P P and Q Q Q are two disjoint independent sets of sizes at least p p p and q q q each, satisfying (a), a contradiction.
Suppose that there is some cycle component C C C of length at least four. If it contains t t t vertices in S S S , then it must contain t t t vertices in each of P P P and Q Q Q . Similarly, we may find independent sets P C P_C P C of size at least t t t and Q C Q_C Q C of size at least t + 1 t+1 t + 1 . We may replace $P\cap C by P C P_C P C and Q ∩ C Q \cap C Q ∩ C by Q C Q_C Q C , and P P P and Q Q Q are two disjoint independent sets of sizes at least p p p and q q q each, satisfying (a), a contradiction.
Then each component in G G G must be a copy of K 3 K_3 K 3 induced by { u , p u , q u } \{u,p_u,q_u\} { u , p u , q u } for some u ∈ S u \in S u ∈ S , a contradiction to the choice of G G G .
Case 2. ∣ B ∣ = 2 |\mathcal{B}| = 2 ∣ B ∣ = 2 . Then A = { Q } \mathcal{A} = \{Q\} A = { Q } and B = { P , S } \mathcal{B} = \{P,S\} B = { P , S } . Hence every vertex of S ∪ P S \cup P S ∪ P has a neighbor in Q Q Q , so
e [ S ∪ P , Q ] ≥ s ′ + p . (9) e[S \cup P,Q] \ge s' + p. \tag*{(9)} e [ S ∪ P , Q ] ≥ s ′ + p . (9)
By Claim 3.1, each vertex of Q Q Q has degree at most 2, so s ′ + p ≤ e [ S ∪ P , Q ] ≤ 2 q ′ s' + p \le e[S \cup P,Q] \le2q' s ′ + p ≤ e [ S ∪ P , Q ] ≤ 2 q ′ . Since p ≥ q ≥ q ′ + 1 p \ge q \ge q' + 1 p ≥ q ≥ q ′ + 1 , it follows that s ≤ s ′ ≤ q ′ ≤ q − 1 ≤ p − 1 s \le s' \le q' \le q - 1 \le p - 1 s ≤ s ′ ≤ q ′ ≤ q − 1 ≤ p − 1 . If S P ∉ E ( D ) SP \notin E(D) S P ∈ / E ( D ) , then every vertex of S S S has a neighbor in P P P , and so e [ S , P ] ≥ s ′ e[S,P] \ge s' e [ S , P ] ≥ s ′ . Together with (3.5), this gives e ( G ) ≥ s ′ + p + s ′ ≥ 3 s + 1 e(G) \ge s' + p + s' \ge3s + 1 e ( G ) ≥ s ′ + p + s ′ ≥ 3 s + 1 , a contradiction. Hence we have that S P ∈ E ( D ) SP \in E(D) S P ∈ E ( D ) , and say some vertex z ∈ S z \in S z ∈ S has no neighbor in P P P . If there is some vertex w ∈ P w \in P w ∈ P with d G ( w ) ≥ 3 d_G(w) \ge3 d G ( w ) ≥ 3 , then P − w + z P-w+z P − w + z is independent and contains less vertices of degree at least 3, contradicting (M3). With Claim 3.1, we have that Δ ( G ) ≤ 2 \Delta(G) \le2 Δ ( G ) ≤ 2 .
Subject to (M1)–(M3), choose ( P , Q ) (P,Q) ( P , Q ) so that ∑ v ∈ Q d G ( v ) \sum_{v \in Q} d_G(v) ∑ v ∈ Q d G ( v ) is minimized. We claim the following:
If u ∈ S ∪ P has a solo neighbor v ∈ Q , then d ( u ) ≥ d ( v ) . (10) \text{If }u \in S \cup P\text{ has a solo neighbor }v \in Q,\text{ then }d(u) \ge d(v). \tag*{(10)} If u ∈ S ∪ P has a solo neighbor v ∈ Q , then d ( u ) ≥ d ( v ) . (10)
Indeed, if d G ( u ) < d G ( v ) d_G(u) < d_G(v) d G ( u ) < d G ( v ) , then we move u u u to Q Q Q and v v v to S S S . If u ∈ P u \in P u ∈ P , then we also move a witness of S P ∈ E ( D ) SP \in E(D) S P ∈ E ( D ) to P P P . The new partition satisfies all previous choices, but decreases ∑ v ∈ Q d G ( v ) \sum_{v \in Q} d_G(v) ∑ v ∈ Q d G ( v ) , a contradiction.
Now we assign each vertex of S ∪ P S \cup P S ∪ P an initial charge of 1, and all vertices of Q Q Q and all edges charge 0. Thus the total initial charge is s ′ + p s' + p s ′ + p .
Distribute the charges so that each edge inside G [ S ∪ P ] G[S \cup P] G [ S ∪ P ] receives charge 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 from each endpoint, and then every vertex of S ∪ P S \cup P S ∪ P distributes its remaining charge equally among its neighbors in Q Q Q . By (3.6) and the fact Δ ( G ) ≤ 2 \Delta(G) \le2 Δ ( G ) ≤ 2 , every vertex of Q Q Q receives final charge at most 1. Therefore s ′ + p ≤ e ( G [ S ∪ P ] ) + q ′ s' + p \le e(G[S \cup P]) + q' s ′ + p ≤ e ( G [ S ∪ P ]) + q ′ .
With (3.5), we have that
e ( G ) ≥ e ( G [ S ∪ P ] ) + e [ S ∪ P , Q ] ≥ s ′ + p − q ′ + ( s ′ + p ) ≥ ( s + 1 ) + ( s ′ + p ) ≥ 3 s + 1 , e(G) \ge e(G[S \cup P]) + e[S \cup P,Q] \ge s' + p - q' + (s' + p) \ge(s+1) + (s' + p) \ge3s + 1, e ( G ) ≥ e ( G [ S ∪ P ]) + e [ S ∪ P , Q ] ≥ s ′ + p − q ′ + ( s ′ + p ) ≥ ( s + 1 ) + ( s ′ + p ) ≥ 3 s + 1 ,
a contradiction. □
Setup for 3 cliques
In this section we set up a proof of Theorem 8 below, and in the following three sections we prove it.
Theorem 8. Let p , q ≥ r ≥ 2 p, q \ge r \ge2 p , q ≥ r ≥ 2 , n ≥ p + r + q n \ge p+r+q n ≥ p + r + q and s = n − p − q − r + 1 s = n-p-q-r+1 s = n − p − q − r + 1 . If an n n n -vertex graph G G G contains vertex disjoint induced K p K_p K p and K q K_q K q and e ( G ) ≤ 5 s e(G) \le5s e ( G ) ≤ 5 s , then one of the following holds:
(a) G G G contains vertex disjoint induced K p K_p K p , K q K_q K q and K r K_r K r ,
(b) e ( G ) = 5 s e(G) = 5s e ( G ) = 5 s and G G G contains x x x disjoint copies of K 5 K_5 K 5 and y y y disjoint copies of K 6 K_6 K 6 , where 10 x + 15 y = 5 s 10x + 15y = 5s 10 x + 15 y = 5 s and 5 x + 6 y ≤ n 5x + 6y \le n 5 x + 6 y ≤ n ,
(c) e ( G ) = 5 s e(G) = 5s e ( G ) = 5 s , p = q = r p = q = r p = q = r , one component of G G G is the star K 1 , 5 K_{1,5} K 1 , 5 and every other component is a K 5 K_5 K 5 or a K 6 K_6 K 6 .
Note that p p p and q q q are symmetric. Suppose there is a counter-example G G G for the theorem and disjoint sets P , Q ⊆ V ( G ) P,Q \subseteq V(G) P , Q ⊆ V ( G ) are such that G [ P ] = K p G[P]=K_p G [ P ] = K p and G [ Q ] = K q ‾ G[Q]=\overline{K_q} G [ Q ] = K q . Then (a) fails and e ( G ) ≤ 5 s e(G)\leq5s e ( G ) ≤ 5 s . If e ( G ) = 5 s e(G)=5s e ( G ) = 5 s , then neither (b) nor (c) holds.
Let R R R be a maximum independent set in G − P − Q G-P-Q G − P − Q and r ′ = ∣ R ∣ r'=|R| r ′ = ∣ R ∣ . Let S = V ( G ) − P − Q − R S=V(G)-P-Q-R S = V ( G ) − P − Q − R and s ′ = ∣ S ∣ s'=|S| s ′ = ∣ S ∣ . Then 1 ≤ r ′ ≤ r − 1 1\leq r'\leq r-1 1 ≤ r ′ ≤ r − 1 and s ′ ≥ s s'\geq s s ′ ≥ s .
Suppose first that s ′ = 1 s'=1 s ′ = 1 . Since n ≥ p + q + r n\geq p+q+r n ≥ p + q + r , this means r ′ = r − 1 r'=r-1 r ′ = r − 1 , s ′ = s s'=s s ′ = s and n = p + q + r n=p+q+r n = p + q + r .
Choose P P P and Q Q Q so that
(Q1) G − P − Q G-P-Q G − P − Q has the fewest edges,
(Q2) modulo (Q1), ∑ v ∈ S ∪ R d ( v ) \sum_{v\in S\cup R}d(v) ∑ v ∈ S ∪ R d ( v ) is minimum.
Note that S ∪ R = V ( G ) − P − Q S\cup R=V(G)-P-Q S ∪ R = V ( G ) − P − Q . If G − P − Q G-P-Q G − P − Q has no edges, we are done, so assume x y ∈ E ( G ) xy\in E(G) x y ∈ E ( G ) for some x , y ∈ S ∪ R x,y\in S\cup R x , y ∈ S ∪ R . We will use the following properties of our partition.
(A) If x (or y ) has no neighbors in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then each w ∈ J has a neighbor in R ∪ S ; and (B) If x (or y ) has exactly one neighbor w in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then w has another neighbor in R ∪ S . (11) \begin{aligned}
&\text{(A) If }x\text{ (or }y\text{) has no neighbors in some }J\in\{P,Q\}\text{, then each }w\in J\text{ has a}\\
&\text{neighbor in }R\cup S\text{; and}\\
&\text{(B) If }x\text{ (or }y\text{) has exactly one neighbor }w\text{ in some }J\in\{P,Q\}\text{, then }w\text{ has another}\\
&\text{neighbor in }R\cup S\text{.} \tag*{(11)}
\end{aligned} (A) If x (or y ) has no neighbors in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then each w ∈ J has a neighbor in R ∪ S ; and (B) If x (or y ) has exactly one neighbor w in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then w has another neighbor in R ∪ S . (11)
Indeed, if (A) or (B) does not hold, then we switch x x x (or y y y ) with w w w , contradicting (Q1).
Now (11) yields
For each J ∈ { P , Q } , e [ J , R ∪ S ] ≥ 2 with equality only if ∣ J ∣ = 2 or some w ∈ J is adjacent to both x and y . (12) \text{For each }J\in\{P,Q\},\quad e[J,R\cup S]\geq2\text{ with equality only if }|J|=2\text{ or some }w\in J\text{ is adjacent to both }x\text{ and }y. \tag*{(12)} For each J ∈ { P , Q } , e [ J , R ∪ S ] ≥ 2 with equality only if ∣ J ∣ = 2 or some w ∈ J is adjacent to both x and y . (12)
Since e ( G ) ≤ 5 e(G)\leq5 e ( G ) ≤ 5 , (12) implies that e ( G ) = 5 e(G)=5 e ( G ) = 5 and e [ P , Q ] = 0 e[P,Q]=0 e [ P , Q ] = 0 . If each J ∈ { P , Q } J\in\{P,Q\} J ∈ { P , Q } has a vertex w J w_J w J adjacent to two vertices in R ∪ S R\cup S R ∪ S , then we move w P w_P w P to Q Q Q and an isolated v ∈ Q v\in Q v ∈ Q to P P P , obtaining a new partition in which R ∪ S R\cup S R ∪ S has no neighbors in P − w P + v P-w_P+v P − w P + v , contradicting (4.1)(A). Thus by symmetry we may assume that each w ∈ P w\in P w ∈ P has at most one neighbor in R ∪ S R\cup S R ∪ S . Then by (12) , ∣ P ∣ = 2 |P|=2 ∣ P ∣ = 2 , say P = { w , w ′ } P=\{w,w'\} P = { w , w ′ } , and hence ∣ R ∣ = 1 |R|=1 ∣ R ∣ = 1 , namely R ∪ S = { x , y } R\cup S=\{x,y\} R ∪ S = { x , y } . Also, if w w w and w ′ w' w ′ are adjacent to different neighbors in R ∪ S R\cup S R ∪ S , that would contradict (4.1)(B). So, we may assume that x w , x w ′ ∈ E ( G ) xw,xw'\in E(G) x w , x w ′ ∈ E ( G ) .
Now, if Q Q Q contains a vertex z z z adjacent to x x x and y y y , then we can switch z z z with x x x and decrease the sum of degrees of vertices in S ∪ R S\cup R S ∪ R , contradicting (Q2). Therefore, by (12) , ∣ Q ∣ = 2 |Q|=2 ∣ Q ∣ = 2 , say Q = { z , z ′ } Q=\{z,z'\} Q = { z , z ′ } , and z z z and z ′ z' z ′ have the same neighbor in R ∪ S R\cup S R ∪ S . If this neighbor is y y y , then the sets P ′ = { w , y } P'=\{w,y\} P ′ = { w , y } , Q ′ = { z , x } Q'=\{z,x\} Q ′ = { z , x } and R ′ = { w ′ , z ′ } R'=\{w',z'\} R ′ = { w ′ , z ′ } are independent, a contradiction. Otherwise, G = K 1 , 5 G=K_{1,5} G = K 1 , 5 , as claimed. So s ′ ≥ 2 s'\geq2 s ′ ≥ 2 .
We choose a quadruple ( G , P , Q , R ) (G,P,Q,R) ( G , P , Q , R ) as above so that
(N1) n : = ∣ V ( G ) ∣ n:=|V(G)| n := ∣ V ( G ) ∣ is minimum;
(N2) modulo (N1), r ′ r' r ′ is maximum;
(N3) modulo (N1) and (N2), the number of vertices in P ∪ Q P\cup Q P ∪ Q of degree at least 5 5 5 is minimum.
Claim 4.1. For every x ∈ S ∪ R x\in S\cup R x ∈ S ∪ R , d ( x ) ≤ 4 d(x)\leq4 d ( x ) ≤ 4 .
Proof. Suppose the claim does not hold. Among different choices of P , Q P,Q P , Q and x ∈ S ∪ R x\in S\cup R x ∈ S ∪ R with d ( x ) ≥ 5 d(x)\geq5 d ( x ) ≥ 5 , pick such that d ( x ) d(x) d ( x ) is maximum, and modulo this, the number of K 5 K_5 K 5 -subgraphs containing x x x is maximum.
Consider G ′ = G − x G'=G-x G ′ = G − x . It still contains P P P and Q Q Q . If G ′ G' G ′ contains vertex disjoint induced K p ‾ \overline{K_p} K p , K q ‾ \overline{K_q} K q and K r ‾ \overline{K_r} K r , then so does G G G , a contradiction. Otherwise, by the minimality of n n n , $e(G')\geq 5 ( s − 1 ) 5(s-1) 5 ( s − 1 ) , and in the case of equality every component of G ′ G' G ′ is a K 5 K_5 K 5 , a K 6 K_6 K 6 or a K 1 K_1 K 1 (or a K 1 , 5 K_{1,5} K 1 , 5 when p = q = r p=q=r p = q = r ). Since d ( x ) ≥ 5 d(x) \ge5 d ( x ) ≥ 5 , the latter holds and d ( x ) = 5 d(x)=5 d ( x ) = 5 .
Case 1: x x x is in a K 6 K_6 K 6 -subgraph F F F of G G G . Then F F F is a component of G G G , since otherwise we can choose a vertex of a higher degree in R ∪ S R \cup S R ∪ S , possibly moving x x x into P ∪ Q P \cup Q P ∪ Q . In this case, F − x F-x F − x is a K 5 K_5 K 5 -component in G ′ G' G ′ . Thus, if G ′ G' G ′ satisfies statement (b) or (c) of our theorem, then so does G G G , a contradiction.
Since Case 1 is impossible and any P ∪ Q P \cup Q P ∪ Q contains at most two vertices from any K 6 K_6 K 6 -subgraph of G G G , we conclude that
G does not contain K 6 . (13) G\text{ does not contain }K_6. \tag*{(13)} G does not contain K 6 . (13)
Case 2: x x x is in a K 5 K_5 K 5 -subgraph F F F of G G G . Then F − x F-x F − x cannot be in a K 6 K_6 K 6 -component of G ′ G' G ′ by (4.3), and in a K 1 , 5 K_{1,5} K 1 , 5 -component by the structure. So, it must be in a K 5 K_5 K 5 -component, which implies that there is y ∈ V ( G ) − V ( F ) y \in V(G)-V(F) y ∈ V ( G ) − V ( F ) adjacent to all vertices in F − x F-x F − x . Since each vertex in F − x F-x F − x is in two K 5 K_5 K 5 -subgraphs of G G G and only two of them can be in P ∪ Q P \cup Q P ∪ Q , this contradicts the choice of x x x .
Case 3: For any choice of P , Q P,Q P , Q and x ∈ V ( G ) ∖ ( P ∪ Q ) x \in V(G) \setminus(P \cup Q) x ∈ V ( G ) ∖ ( P ∪ Q ) with d ( x ) = 5 d(x)=5 d ( x ) = 5 , x x x is in no K 5 K_5 K 5 -subgraph of G G G . Let x x x and G ′ G' G ′ be chosen as above. If G ′ G' G ′ has a K 1 , 5 K_{1,5} K 1 , 5 -component F F F , say with center c c c and leaves y 1 , … , y 5 y_1,\ldots,y_5 y 1 , … , y 5 , then p = q = r p=q=r p = q = r and by the minimality of n n n and (4.3), all other components are K 5 K_5 K 5 's. In particular, if G ′ G' G ′ has k k k K 5 K_5 K 5 -components, then p = q = r = k + 2 p=q=r=k+2 p = q = r = k + 2 .
It follows that we can include any two vertices from each copy of K 5 K_5 K 5 into P ∪ Q P \cup Q P ∪ Q , thus by Case 2, x x x has no neighbors in K 5 K_5 K 5 's, and c c c is in neither P P P nor Q Q Q . Therefore x c ∉ E ( G ) xc \notin E(G) x c ∈ / E ( G ) . But then we can construct independent sets P , Q P,Q P , Q and R R R by including into P P P { y 1 , y 2 } \{y_1,y_2\} { y 1 , y 2 } , into Q Q Q { y 3 , y 4 } \{y_3,y_4\} { y 3 , y 4 } , into R R R { c , x } \{c,x\} { c , x } , and then add to each of these sets one vertex from each of the k k k K 5 K_5 K 5 -components. This contradicts the choice of G G G .
The remaining possibility is that each component of G ′ G' G ′ is a K 5 K_5 K 5 - or a K 1 K_1 K 1 -component and that x x x is not adjacent to K 5 K_5 K 5 -components. It follows that one component of G G G is a K 1 , 5 K_{1,5} K 1 , 5 , some components are K 1 K_1 K 1 's (say, k 1 k_1 k 1 of them), and some components are K 5 K_5 K 5 's (say, k 5 k_5 k 5 of them). Let G ′ ′ G'' G ′′ be obtained from G G G by deleting all vertices of K 5 K_5 K 5 -components, and let n ′ ′ = ∣ V ( G ′ ′ ) ∣ n''=|V(G'')| n ′′ = ∣ V ( G ′′ ) ∣ . Then n = 5 k 5 + k 1 + 6 n=5k_5+k_1+6 n = 5 k 5 + k 1 + 6 , n ′ ′ = k 1 + 6 n''=k_1+6 n ′′ = k 1 + 6 and e ( G ) = 10 k 5 + 5 e(G)=10k_5+5 e ( G ) = 10 k 5 + 5 , hence s = 2 k 5 + 1 s=2k_5+1 s = 2 k 5 + 1 and p + q + r = 3 k 5 + k 1 + 6 p+q+r=3k_5+k_1+6 p + q + r = 3 k 5 + k 1 + 6 .
Since G ′ G' G ′ contains disjoint independent sets P P P and Q Q Q each of which has at most one vertex in each K 5 K_5 K 5 -component, we can find a disjoint from P ∪ Q P \cup Q P ∪ Q independent set containing x x x , and one vertex from each K 5 K_5 K 5 -component. Since G G G is a counter-example to the theorem, this yields
r ≥ 2 + k 5 . (14) r \ge2+k_5. \tag*{(14)} r ≥ 2 + k 5 . (14)
It follows that V ( G ′ ′ ) V(G'') V ( G ′′ ) cannot be partitioned into three independent sets of sizes p − k 5 p-k_5 p − k 5 , q − k 5 q-k_5 q − k 5 and r − k 5 r-k_5 r − k 5 , which by the structure of G ′ ′ G'' G ′′ means that
1 + k 1 ≤ r − k 5 ≤ ⌊ n ′ ′ / 3 ⌋ = ⌊ k 1 / 3 ⌋ + 2. (15) 1+k_1 \le r-k_5 \le\left\lfloor n''/3 \right\rfloor= \left\lfloor k_1/3 \right\rfloor+ 2. \tag*{(15)} 1 + k 1 ≤ r − k 5 ≤ ⌊ n ′′ /3 ⌋ = ⌊ k 1 /3 ⌋ + 2. (15)
By (4.5), k 1 = 0 k_1=0 k 1 = 0 , r − k 5 ≤ 2 r-k_5 \le2 r − k 5 ≤ 2 and n ′ ′ = 6 n''=6 n ′′ = 6 . Together with (4.4) and p , q ≥ r p,q \ge r p , q ≥ r , we get r − k 5 = q − k 5 = p − k 5 = 2 r-k_5=q-k_5=p-k_5=2 r − k 5 = q − k 5 = p − k 5 = 2 , thus (c) of Theorem 8 holds. □ \square □
Similarly, we obtain the following properties:
(i) If x ∈ R ∪ S has no neighbor in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then d ( v ) ≤ 4 for every v ∈ J ; (ii) If x ∈ S ∪ R has a unique neighbor x ′ in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then d ( x ′ ) ≤ 4. (16) \begin{aligned}
\text{(i)}\ &\text{If }x \in R \cup S\text{ has no neighbor in some }J \in\{P,Q\},\text{ then }d(v) \le4\text{ for every }v \in J;\\
\text{(ii)}\ &\text{If }x \in S \cup R\text{ has a unique neighbor }x'\text{ in some }J \in\{P,Q\},\text{ then }d(x') \le4. \tag*{(16)}
\end{aligned} (i) (ii) If x ∈ R ∪ S has no neighbor in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then d ( v ) ≤ 4 for every v ∈ J ; If x ∈ S ∪ R has a unique neighbor x ′ in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then d ( x ′ ) ≤ 4. (16)
With the partition ( P , Q , R , S ) (P,Q,R,S) ( P , Q , R , S ) of V ( G ) V(G) V ( G ) , let D D D be the corresponding auxiliary digraph, and fix R R R to be the target class, so R R R is accessible by default. Let A A A denote the set of accessible vertices in D D D and let B = V ( D ) ∖ A \mathcal{B}=V(D)\setminus\mathcal{A} B = V ( D ) ∖ A . If S S S is accessible, then we move the witnesses along a shortest S , R S,R S , R -path in D D D and get more vertices in R R R , contradicting (N2). Thus, S ∈ B S\in\mathcal{B} S ∈ B . Among the quadruples ( G , P , Q , R ) (G,P,Q,R) ( G , P , Q , R ) satisfying (N1)–(N3), choose one such that
(N4) ∣ B ∣ |\mathcal{B}| ∣ B ∣ is minimum .
By above, ∣ B ∣ ∈ { 1 , 2 , 3 } |\mathcal{B}|\in\{1,2,3\} ∣ B ∣ ∈ { 1 , 2 , 3 } . In each of the next 3 sections, we will consider one of these possibilities.
Case of ∣ B ∣ = 1 |\mathcal{B}|=1 ∣ B ∣ = 1
In this section, B = { S } \mathcal{B}=\{S\} B = { S } , A = { P , Q , R } \mathcal{A}=\{P,Q,R\} A = { P , Q , R } and each x ∈ S x\in S x ∈ S has at least one neighbor in each V ′ ∈ A V'\in\mathcal{A} V ′ ∈ A . By Claim 4.1, Δ ( G [ S ] ) ≤ 1 \Delta(G[S])\le1 Δ ( G [ S ]) ≤ 1 . Thus s ≤ s ′ ≤ 2 r − 2 s\le s'\le2r-2 s ≤ s ′ ≤ 2 r − 2 . By Turán’s Theorem,
e ( G [ S ] ) ≥ t s ′ , r − 1 = { 0 , if 0 ≤ s ′ ≤ r − 1 , s ′ − r + 1 , if r ≤ s ′ ≤ 2 r − 2. (17) e(G[S])\ge t_{s',r-1}=
\begin{cases}
0, & \text{if } 0\le s'\le r-1,\\
s'-r+1, & \text{if } r\le s'\le2r-2.
\end{cases} \tag*{(17)} e ( G [ S ]) ≥ t s ′ , r − 1 = { 0 , s ′ − r + 1 , if 0 ≤ s ′ ≤ r − 1 , if r ≤ s ′ ≤ 2 r − 2. (17)
Claim 5.1. If v ∈ P v\in P v ∈ P (resp. v ∈ Q v\in Q v ∈ Q ) is a solo neighbor of a vertex u ∈ S u\in S u ∈ S and Q R ∈ E ( D ) QR\in E(D) QR ∈ E ( D ) (resp. P R ∈ E ( D ) PR\in E(D) P R ∈ E ( D ) ), then N Q ( v ) ≠ ∅ N_Q(v)\ne\varnothing N Q ( v ) = ∅ (resp. N P ( v ) ≠ ∅ N_P(v)\ne\varnothing N P ( v ) = ∅ ) and N R ( v ) ≠ ∅ N_R(v)\ne\varnothing N R ( v ) = ∅ .
Proof. By symmetry, we may assume that v ∈ P v\in P v ∈ P and Q R ∈ E ( D ) QR\in E(D) QR ∈ E ( D ) . If N Q ( v ) = ∅ N_Q(v)=\varnothing N Q ( v ) = ∅ , then we move u u u to P P P , move v v v to Q Q Q and move the witness along Q R QR QR . Thus we get more vertices in R R R , contradicting (N2).
If N R ( v ) = ∅ N_R(v)=\varnothing N R ( v ) = ∅ , then we move u u u to P P P , move v v v to R R R . Again, we obtain more vertices in R R R , contradicting (N2). □ \square □
:::
Claim 5.2. No vertex v ∈ V ′ ∈ A v\in V'\in\mathcal{A} v ∈ V ′ ∈ A is the common solo neighbor of two non-adjacent vertices in S S S .
Proof. Assume that v ∈ V ′ ∈ A v\in V'\in\mathcal{A} v ∈ V ′ ∈ A is the common solo neighbor of two non-adjacent vertices u 1 , u 2 ∈ S u_1,u_2\in S u 1 , u 2 ∈ S . If V ′ ≠ R V'\ne R V ′ = R , then D D D contains a V ′ , R V',R V ′ , R -path. Let v ′ ∈ V ′ v'\in V' v ′ ∈ V ′ be a vertex with no neighbor in the successor of V ′ V' V ′ on V ′ , R V',R V ′ , R -path. By Claim 5.1, v ≠ v ′ v\ne v' v = v ′ . We move the witnesses along V ′ , R V',R V ′ , R -path, then move u 1 , u 2 u_1,u_2 u 1 , u 2 to V ′ V' V ′ and move v v v to S S S . Now we get more vertices in R R R , contradicting (N2). □ \square □
:::
Claim 5.3. Every vertex in V ′ ∈ { P , Q } V'\in\{P,Q\} V ′ ∈ { P , Q } that is the solo neighbor of a vertex in S S S has neighbors in each class of A ∖ { V ′ } \mathcal{A}\setminus\{V'\} A ∖ { V ′ } .
Proof. By symmetry, we let V ′ = P V'=P V ′ = P and v ∈ P v\in P v ∈ P be a solo neighbor of u ∈ S u\in S u ∈ S . If Q R ∉ E ( D ) QR\notin E(D) QR ∈ / E ( D ) , then e [ Q , R ] ≥ q e[Q,R]\ge q e [ Q , R ] ≥ q and P R , Q P ∈ E ( D ) PR,QP\in E(D) P R , QP ∈ E ( D ) . Let v ′ ∈ Q v'\in Q v ′ ∈ Q be a solo neighbor of u ′ ∈ S u'\in S u ′ ∈ S . By Claim 5.1, N P ( v ′ ) ≠ ∅ N_P(v')\ne\varnothing N P ( v ′ ) = ∅ . Recall that every vertex in S S S has at least one neighbor in each class in A \mathcal{A} A . Assume that there are x x x vertices in S S S that have a solo neighbor in Q Q Q , and s ′ − x s'-x s ′ − x vertices in S S S that have at least two neighbors in Q Q Q . Since Δ ( G [ S ] ) ≤ 1 \Delta(G[S])\le1 Δ ( G [ S ]) ≤ 1 , by Claim 5.2, there are at least ⌈ x 2 ⌉ \left\lceil\frac{x}{2}\right\rceil ⌈ 2 x ⌉ vertices in S S S that have the distinct unique neighbors in Q Q Q . Thus
e [ S , Q ] + e [ Q , P ] ≥ x + 2 ( s ′ − x ) + ⌈ x 2 ⌉ = 2 s ′ − ⌊ x 2 ⌋ ≥ 2 s ′ − x 2 ≥ 3 s ′ 2 . e[S,Q]+e[Q,P]\ge x+2(s'-x)+\left\lceil\frac{x}{2}\right\rceil=2s'-\left\lfloor\frac{x}{2}\right\rfloor\ge2s'-\frac{x}{2}\ge\frac{3s'}{2}. e [ S , Q ] + e [ Q , P ] ≥ x + 2 ( s ′ − x ) + ⌈ 2 x ⌉ = 2 s ′ − ⌊ 2 x ⌋ ≥ 2 s ′ − 2 x ≥ 2 3 s ′ .
By Claim 5.1, N R ( v ) ≠ ∅ N_R(v)\ne\varnothing N R ( v ) = ∅ . Similarly, we obtain e [ S , P ] + e [ P , R ] ≥ 3 s ′ 2 e[S,P]+e[P,R]\ge\frac{3s'}{2} e [ S , P ] + e [ P , R ] ≥ 2 3 s ′ . Thus
e ( G ) = e ( G [ S ] ) + ( e [ S , P ] + e [ P , R ] ) + ( e [ S , Q ] + e [ Q , P ] ) + e [ S , R ] + e [ Q , R ] ≥ t s ′ , r − 1 + 3 s ′ 2 + 3 s ′ 2 + s ′ + q = 4 s ′ + q + t s ′ , r − 1 . \begin{aligned}
e(G)&=e(G[S])+(e[S,P]+e[P,R])+(e[S,Q]+e[Q,P])+e[S,R]+e[Q,R]\\
&\ge t_{s',r-1}+\frac{3s'}{2}+\frac{3s'}{2}+s'+q\\
&=4s'+q+t_{s',r-1}.
\end{aligned} e ( G ) = e ( G [ S ]) + ( e [ S , P ] + e [ P , R ]) + ( e [ S , Q ] + e [ Q , P ]) + e [ S , R ] + e [ Q , R ] ≥ t s ′ , r − 1 + 2 3 s ′ + 2 3 s ′ + s ′ + q = 4 s ′ + q + t s ′ , r − 1 .
Since q ≥ r q \ge r q ≥ r , by (5.1), e ( G ) > 5 s e(G)>5s e ( G ) > 5 s . This contradiction to e ( G ) ≤ 5 s e(G)\le5s e ( G ) ≤ 5 s yields Q R ∈ E ( D ) QR\in E(D) QR ∈ E ( D ) . By Claim 5.1, we are done. □ \square □
We do the following discharging. At the start, each v ∈ V ( G ) v\in V(G) v ∈ V ( G ) has charge c h ( v ) = 0 ch(v)=0 c h ( v ) = 0 and each e ∈ E ( G ) e\in E(G) e ∈ E ( G ) has charge c h ( e ) = 1 ch(e)=1 c h ( e ) = 1 . So, ∑ x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) c h ( x ) = ∣ E ( G ) ∣ ≤ 5 s \sum_{x\in V(G)\cup E(G)}ch(x)=|E(G)|\le5s ∑ x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) c h ( x ) = ∣ E ( G ) ∣ ≤ 5 s . Now,
Step 1. Every edge x y ∈ E ( G ) xy\in E(G) x y ∈ E ( G ) such that x ∈ S x\in S x ∈ S , y ∉ S y\notin S y ∈ / S gives charge 1 to x x x .
Step 2. Every edge x y ∈ E ( G ) xy\in E(G) x y ∈ E ( G ) such that x , y ∈ S x,y\in S x , y ∈ S gives charge 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 to x x x and 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 to y y y .
Step 3. Every edge x y ∈ E ( G ) xy\in E(G) x y ∈ E ( G ) such that x ∈ P ∪ Q x\in P\cup Q x ∈ P ∪ Q and y ∈ R y\in R y ∈ R gives charge 1 to x x x .
Step 4. Every edge x y ∈ E ( G ) xy\in E(G) x y ∈ E ( G ) such that x , y ∈ P ∪ Q x,y\in P\cup Q x , y ∈ P ∪ Q gives charge 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 to x x x and 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 to y y y .
Step 5. Every vertex v v v in P ∪ Q ∪ R P\cup Q\cup R P ∪ Q ∪ R distributes its charge equally between its solo neighbors in S S S .
Let the charge of each x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) x\in V(G)\cup E(G) x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) after Step j j j be denoted by c h j ( x ) ch_j(x) c h j ( x ) . Then c h 4 ( e ) = 0 ch_4(e)=0 c h 4 ( e ) = 0 for every e ∈ E ( G ) e\in E(G) e ∈ E ( G ) and c h 5 ( v ) ≥ 0 ch_5(v)\ge0 c h 5 ( v ) ≥ 0 for every v ∈ P ∪ Q ∪ R v\in P\cup Q\cup R v ∈ P ∪ Q ∪ R . Hence
e ( G ) ≥ ∑ v ∈ S c h 5 ( v ) . (18) e(G)\ge\sum_{v\in S}ch_5(v). \tag*{(18)} e ( G ) ≥ v ∈ S ∑ c h 5 ( v ) . (18)
We claim that
(i) c h 5 ( v ) = 5 and d S ( v ) = 1 for each v ∈ S ; and (ii) The solo neighbors of v in P , Q are also solo neighbors of its neighbor in S . (19) \begin{aligned}
\text{(i)}\quad&ch_5(v)=5\text{ and }d_S(v)=1\text{ for each }v\in S;\text{ and}\\
\text{(ii)}\quad&\text{The solo neighbors of }v\text{ in }P,Q\text{ are also solo neighbors of its neighbor in }S. \tag*{(19)}
\end{aligned} (i) (ii) c h 5 ( v ) = 5 and d S ( v ) = 1 for each v ∈ S ; and The solo neighbors of v in P , Q are also solo neighbors of its neighbor in S . (19)
By Claim 4.1, d ( v ) ≤ 4 d(v)\le4 d ( v ) ≤ 4 for every v ∈ S v\in S v ∈ S . Recall that v ∈ S v\in S v ∈ S has at least one neighbor in each V ′ ∈ A V'\in\mathcal{A} V ′ ∈ A . Suppose that d S ( v ) = 0 d_S(v)=0 d S ( v ) = 0 . By Claim 5.2, solo neighbors of v v v are not solo neighbors of other vertices in S S S . Assume that v v v has exactly x x x solo neighbors in P ∪ Q P\cup Q P ∪ Q . Since d ( v ) ≤ 4 d(v)\le4 d ( v ) ≤ 4 , x ≥ 1 x\ge1 x ≥ 1 . Then c h 1 ( v ) ≥ x + ( 2 − x ) ⋅ 2 + 1 ch_1(v)\ge x+(2-x)\cdot2+1 c h 1 ( v ) ≥ x + ( 2 − x ) ⋅ 2 + 1 . Let u ∈ P u\in P u ∈ P (resp. u ∈ Q u\in Q u ∈ Q ) be a solo neighbor of v v v . By Claim 5.3, u u u has neighbors in each class in { Q , R } \{Q,R\} { Q , R } (resp. { P , R } \{P,R\} { P , R } ). Hence c h 4 ( u ) ≥ 1 2 + 1 = 3 2 ch_4(u)\ge\frac{1}{2}+1=\frac{3}{2} c h 4 ( u ) ≥ 2 1 + 1 = 2 3 . In Step 5, each solo neighbor will send all its charge to v v v . Therefore, c h 5 ( v ) ≥ x ⋅ ( 1 + 3 2 ) + ( 2 − x ) ⋅ 2 + 1 = 5 + x 2 > 5 ch_5(v)\ge x\cdot\left(1+\frac{3}{2}\right)+(2-x)\cdot2+1=5+\frac{x}{2}>5 c h 5 ( v ) ≥ x ⋅ ( 1 + 2 3 ) + ( 2 − x ) ⋅ 2 + 1 = 5 + 2 x > 5 .
If d S ( v ) = 1 d_S(v)=1 d S ( v ) = 1 , we let N S ( v ) = { v ′ } N_S(v)=\{v'\} N S ( v ) = { v ′ } . Moreover, let N P ( v ) = { u 1 } N_P(v)=\{u_1\} N P ( v ) = { u 1 } , N Q ( v ) = { u 2 } N_Q(v)=\{u_2\} N Q ( v ) = { u 2 } and N R ( v ) = { u 3 } N_R(v)=\{u_3\} N R ( v ) = { u 3 } . Then c h 2 ( v ) = 3 + 1 2 ch_2(v)=3+\frac{1}{2} c h 2 ( v ) = 3 + 2 1 . By Claim 5.3, c h 4 ( u i ) ≥ 1 2 + 1 = 3 2 ch_4(u_i)\ge\frac{1}{2}+1=\frac{3}{2} c h 4 ( u i ) ≥ 2 1 + 1 = 2 3 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 2 1\le i\le2 1 ≤ i ≤ 2 . By Claim 5.2, u i u_i u i (1 ≤ i ≤ 2 1\le i\le2 1 ≤ i ≤ 2 ) can be a solo neighbor of only v v v and v ′ v' v ′ . In Step 5, each u i u_i u i (1 ≤ i ≤ 2 1\le i\le2 1 ≤ i ≤ 2 ) sends at least half of its charge to v v v . Therefore, c h 5 ( v ) ≥ 3 + 1 2 + 2 ⋅ 1 2 ⋅ 3 2 = 5 ch_5(v)\ge3+\frac{1}{2}+2\cdot\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{3}{2}=5 c h 5 ( v ) ≥ 3 + 2 1 + 2 ⋅ 2 1 ⋅ 2 3 = 5 and c h 5 ( v ) = 5 ch_5(v)=5 c h 5 ( v ) = 5 only if u 1 , u 2 u_1,u_2 u 1 , u 2 are the common solo neighbors of v v v and v ′ v' v ′ .
By (5.2) and above discussion, e ( G ) ≥ ∑ v ∈ S c h 5 ( v ) ≥ 5 s ′ ≥ 5 s e(G)\ge\sum_{v\in S}ch_5(v)\ge5s'\ge5s e ( G ) ≥ ∑ v ∈ S c h 5 ( v ) ≥ 5 s ′ ≥ 5 s , with equality only if s ′ = s s'=s s ′ = s and d S ( v ) = 1 d_S(v)=1 d S ( v ) = 1 for each v ∈ S v\in S v ∈ S . Since e ( G ) ≤ 5 s e(G)\le5s e ( G ) ≤ 5 s , this proves (5.3). Moreover, we conclude that
s is divisible by 2 and G [ S ] = s 2 K 2 . (20) s\text{ is divisible by }2\text{ and }G[S]=\frac{s}{2}K_2. \tag*{(20)} s is divisible by 2 and G [ S ] = 2 s K 2 . (20)
For v ∈ S v\in S v ∈ S , let N S ( v ) = { v ′ } N_S(v)=\{v'\} N S ( v ) = { v ′ } , N P ( v ) = { u p } N_P(v)=\{u_p\} N P ( v ) = { u p } and N Q ( v ) = { u q } N_Q(v)=\{u_q\} N Q ( v ) = { u q } . By (5.3)(ii), N P ( v ′ ) = { u p } N_P(v')=\{u_p\} N P ( v ′ ) = { u p } and N Q ( v ′ ) = { u q } N_Q(v')=\{u_q\} N Q ( v ′ ) = { u q } . Suppose that u p u q ∉ E ( G ) u_pu_q\notin E(G) u p u q ∈ / E ( G ) . By (4.6), d ( u p ) ≤ 4 d(u_p)\le4 d ( u p ) ≤ 4 . By Claim 5.3, we may assume that N Q ( u p ) = { u q ′ } N_Q(u_p)=\{u'_q\} N Q ( u p ) = { u q ′ } and u q ′ ≠ u q u'_q\ne u_q u q ′ = u q . We switch v ′ v' v ′ with u p u_p u p . Then N Q ( v ) ≠ N Q ( u p ) N_Q(v)\ne N_Q(u_p) N Q ( v ) = N Q ( u p ) , contradicting (5.3)(ii). Thus
G [ { v , v ′ , u p , u q } ] = K 4 . G[\{v,v',u_p,u_q\}]=K_4. G [{ v , v ′ , u p , u q }] = K 4 .
Note that each x ∈ { v , v ′ , u p , u q } x\in\{v,v',u_p,u_q\} x ∈ { v , v ′ , u p , u q } has a neighbor in R R R . By s ≤ 2 r − 2 s\le2r-2 s ≤ 2 r − 2 and (5.4), every component of G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] G[S\cup P\cup Q] G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] is either a K 4 K_4 K 4 or a K 1 K_1 K 1 , and every such K 1 K_1 K 1 is also an isolated vertex of G G G . We claim the following.
For each K 4 , its neighbors in R are disjoint from the neighbors in R of every other K 4 . (21) \text{For each }K_4,\text{ its neighbors in }R\text{ are disjoint from the neighbors in }R\text{ of every other }K_4. \tag*{(21)} For each K 4 , its neighbors in R are disjoint from the neighbors in R of every other K 4 . (21)
Indeed, if (21) does not hold, then we could rearrange the vertices of the K 4 K_4 K 4 ’s so that a common neighbor becomes the solo neighbor of two non-adjacent vertices in S S S contradicting Claim 5.2.
If ∣ N R ( { v , v ′ , u p , u q } ) ∣ ≥ 2 |N_R(\{v,v',u_p,u_q\})| \ge2 ∣ N R ({ v , v ′ , u p , u q }) ∣ ≥ 2 , choose vertices u r , u r ′ ∈ N R ( { v , v ′ , u p , u q } ) u_r,u'_r \in N_R(\{v,v',u_p,u_q\}) u r , u r ′ ∈ N R ({ v , v ′ , u p , u q }) such that d ( u r ) d(u_r) d ( u r ) is maximum and d ( u r ′ ) d(u'_r) d ( u r ′ ) is minimum. Then we may assume that u r u p , u r ′ u p ′ ∉ E ( G ) u_ru_p,u'_ru'_p \notin E(G) u r u p , u r ′ u p ′ ∈ / E ( G ) . Let u p 0 ∈ P u^0_p \in P u p 0 ∈ P be an isolated vertex. We move v ′ , u p 0 v',u^0_p v ′ , u p 0 to R R R , and move u r u_r u r to P P P . Then P − u p 0 + u r P-u^0_p+u_r P − u p 0 + u r and ( R − u r ) ∪ { v ′ , u p 0 } (R-u_r)\cup\{v',u^0_p\} ( R − u r ) ∪ { v ′ , u p 0 } are also independent sets, contradicting (N2). Thus ∣ N R ( { v , v ′ , u p , u q } ) ∣ = 1 |N_R(\{v,v',u_p,u_q\})|=1 ∣ N R ({ v , v ′ , u p , u q }) ∣ = 1 . By (20) and (21) , G = s 2 K 5 ∪ ( n − 5 s 2 ) K 1 G=\frac{s}{2}K_5\cup(n-\frac{5s}{2})K_1 G = 2 s K 5 ∪ ( n − 2 5 s ) K 1 . Hence G G G satisfies statement (b) of our theorem, a contradiction.
Case of ∣ B ∣ = 2 |B|=2 ∣ B ∣ = 2
In this section A = { X , R } \mathcal{A}=\{X,R\} A = { X , R } and B = { S , Y } \mathcal{B}=\{S,Y\} B = { S , Y } , where { X , Y } = { P , Q } \{X,Y\}=\{P,Q\} { X , Y } = { P , Q } . Let y = ∣ Y ∣ y=|Y| y = ∣ Y ∣ , so y ∈ { p , q } y\in\{p,q\} y ∈ { p , q } and y ≥ r > r ′ y\ge r>r' y ≥ r > r ′ . Let B = ⋃ W ∈ B W B=\bigcup_{W\in\mathcal{B}}W B = ⋃ W ∈ B W . By the definition of accessible, each v ∈ B v\in B v ∈ B has at least one neighbor in each V ′ ∈ A V'\in\mathcal{A} V ′ ∈ A . By Claim 4.1, for every u ∈ S u\in S u ∈ S ,
d G [ B ] ( u ) = d G ( u ) − ∣ N X ∪ R ( u ) ∣ ≤ 2. d_{G[B]}(u)=d_G(u)-|N_{X\cup R}(u)|\le2. d G [ B ] ( u ) = d G ( u ) − ∣ N X ∪ R ( u ) ∣ ≤ 2.
If G [ B ] G[B] G [ B ] contains vertex disjoint induced K ‾ ∣ Y ∣ \overline{K}_{|Y|} K ∣ Y ∣ and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r , then these subgraphs together with X X X form vertex disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r , contradicting the choice of G G G . Thus by Theorem 7, e ( G [ B ] ) ≥ 3 ( s ′ − r ′ ) e(G[B])\ge3(s'-r') e ( G [ B ]) ≥ 3 ( s ′ − r ′ ) .
Let B ′ \mathcal{B}' B ′ denote the set of classes in B \mathcal{B} B not reachable from S S S . Let B ′ = ⋃ W ∈ B ′ W B'=\bigcup_{W\in\mathcal{B}'}W B ′ = ⋃ W ∈ B ′ W . Note that if S Y ∈ E ( D ) SY\in E(D) S Y ∈ E ( D ) , then B ′ = ∅ B'=\varnothing B ′ = ∅ , otherwise B ′ = Y B'=Y B ′ = Y . Since X X X is accessible, X R ∈ E ( D ) XR\in E(D) X R ∈ E ( D ) , and we have the following claims similar to the ones in Section 5.
Claim 6.1. If v ∈ X v\in X v ∈ X is the solo neighbor of a vertex u ∈ B ∖ B ′ u\in B\setminus B' u ∈ B ∖ B ′ , then N R ( v ) ≠ ∅ N_R(v)\ne\varnothing N R ( v ) = ∅ .
Proof. If u ∈ S u\in S u ∈ S , then we may move v v v to R R R and u u u to X X X , contradicting the choice of r ′ r' r ′ . If u ∈ Y u\in Y u ∈ Y , then S Y ∈ E ( D ) SY\in E(D) S Y ∈ E ( D ) , and there is some w ∈ S w\in S w ∈ S witnessing the directed edge S Y SY S Y . Then we may move w w w to Y Y Y , u u u to X X X and v v v to R R R , again contradicting the choice of r ′ r' r ′ . □ \square □
Claim 6.2. No vertex v ∈ X v\in X v ∈ X is a solo neighbor of two non-adjacent vertices of B ∖ B ′ B\setminus B' B ∖ B ′ .
Proof. Suppose that some v ∈ X v\in X v ∈ X is a solo neighbor of non-adjacent vertices u , w ∈ B ∖ B ′ u,w\in B\setminus B' u , w ∈ B ∖ B ′ . By Claim 6.1 , v v v has a neighbor in R R R , so there is some v ′ ∈ X ∖ { v } v'\in X\setminus\{v\} v ′ ∈ X ∖ { v } that has no neighbor in R R R .
If at least one of u , w u,w u , w is in S S S , say u ∈ S u\in S u ∈ S , then we may switch u u u and v v v . Now w w w is movable to the new X X X , and since X X X is still accessible, the class containing w w w is now accessible. This contradicts the minimality of ∣ B ∣ |B| ∣ B ∣ in (N4). If both u , w u,w u , w are in Y Y Y , then Y Y Y is reachable from S S S , so we may fix a vertex s 0 ∈ S s_0\in S s 0 ∈ S movable to Y Y Y . Now we move s 0 s_0 s 0 to Y Y Y , u u u to X X X and v v v to S S S . Again w w w is movable to the new X X X , and now Y Y Y is accessible, contradicting (N4). □ \square □
Case 1: ∣ B ′ ∣ = 0 |B'|=0 ∣ B ′ ∣ = 0 . We first show that e ( Y , X ) + e ( X , R ) ≥ 2 y e(Y,X)+e(X,R)\ge2y e ( Y , X ) + e ( X , R ) ≥ 2 y . Let Y 1 = { v ∈ Y : ∣ N X ( v ) ∣ = 1 } Y_1=\{v\in Y:|N_X(v)|=1\} Y 1 = { v ∈ Y : ∣ N X ( v ) ∣ = 1 } . For x ∈ X x\in X x ∈ X , put Y x = { v ∈ Y 1 : N X ( v ) = { x } } Y_x=\{v\in Y_1:N_X(v)=\{x\}\} Y x = { v ∈ Y 1 : N X ( v ) = { x }} . By Claim 6.2 and the facts that Y Y Y is independent and Y ⊆ B ∖ B ′ Y\subseteq B\setminus B' Y ⊆ B ∖ B ′ , each Y x Y_x Y x has size at most 1. By Claim 6.1 , whenever Y x ≠ ∅ Y_x\ne\varnothing Y x = ∅ , the vertex x x x has a neighbor in R R R . Now the vertices of Y ∖ Y 1 Y\setminus Y_1 Y ∖ Y 1 send at least two edges to X X X , and each vertex of Y 1 Y_1 Y 1 contributes one edge to X X X together with a distinct edge from its solo neighbor in X X X to R R R . Thus we have that e ( Y , X ) + e ( X , R ) ≥ 2 y e(Y,X)+e(X,R)\ge2y e ( Y , X ) + e ( X , R ) ≥ 2 y .
Also, every vertex of Y Y Y has a neighbor in R R R , so e ( Y , R ) ≥ y e(Y,R) \ge y e ( Y , R ) ≥ y . Since every vertex of S S S has a neighbor in both X X X and R R R , we have e ( S , X ∪ R ) ≥ 2 s ′ e(S,X \cup R) \ge2s' e ( S , X ∪ R ) ≥ 2 s ′ . By Theorem 7, e ( G [ B ] ) ≥ 3 ( s ′ − r ′ ) e(G[B]) \ge3(s' - r') e ( G [ B ]) ≥ 3 ( s ′ − r ′ ) .
Then we obtain
e ( G ) ≥ e ( G [ B ] ) + e ( S , X ∪ R ) + e ( Y , X ) + e ( Y , R ) + e ( X , R ) ≥ 3 ( s ′ − r ′ ) + 2 s ′ + 2 y + y = 5 s ′ + 3 y − 3 r ′ > 5 s , \begin{aligned}
e(G) &\ge e(G[B]) + e(S,X \cup R) + e(Y,X) + e(Y,R) + e(X,R)\\
&\ge3(s' - r') + 2s' + 2y + y\\
&= 5s' + 3y - 3r' > 5s,
\end{aligned} e ( G ) ≥ e ( G [ B ]) + e ( S , X ∪ R ) + e ( Y , X ) + e ( Y , R ) + e ( X , R ) ≥ 3 ( s ′ − r ′ ) + 2 s ′ + 2 y + y = 5 s ′ + 3 y − 3 r ′ > 5 s ,
where the last inequality follows from s ′ ≥ s s' \ge s s ′ ≥ s and y ≥ r > r ′ y \ge r > r' y ≥ r > r ′ . This contradicts e ( G ) ≤ 5 s e(G) \le5s e ( G ) ≤ 5 s .
Case 2: B ′ = { Y } B' = \{Y\} B ′ = { Y } . Thus B ∖ B ′ = S B \setminus B' = S B ∖ B ′ = S . Since Y Y Y is not reachable from S S S , every vertex of S S S has a neighbor in Y Y Y , so e ( S , Y ) ≥ s ′ e(S,Y) \ge s' e ( S , Y ) ≥ s ′ . Also every vertex of S S S has a neighbor in R R R , and every vertex of Y Y Y has a neighbor in both X X X and R R R .
Now we show that e ( S , X ) + e ( X , R ) ≥ 3 s ′ 2 e(S,X) + e(X,R) \ge\frac{3s'}{2} e ( S , X ) + e ( X , R ) ≥ 2 3 s ′ . Let S 1 = { v ∈ S : ∣ N X ( v ) ∣ = 1 } S_1 = \{v \in S : |N_X(v)| = 1\} S 1 = { v ∈ S : ∣ N X ( v ) ∣ = 1 } . For x ∈ X x \in X x ∈ X , put S x = { v ∈ S 1 : N X ( v ) = { x } } S_x = \{v \in S_1 : N_X(v) = \{x\}\} S x = { v ∈ S 1 : N X ( v ) = { x }} . By Claim 6.2, each nonempty S x S_x S x is a clique in G [ S ] G[S] G [ S ] . Since Y Y Y is not reachable from S S S , we have Δ ( G [ S ] ) ≤ 1 \Delta(G[S]) \le1 Δ ( G [ S ]) ≤ 1 , and hence ∣ S x ∣ ≤ 2 |S_x| \le2 ∣ S x ∣ ≤ 2 . By Claim 6.1, every nonempty S x S_x S x contributes an edge from x x x to R R R . Therefore, if k = ∣ S 1 ∣ k = |S_1| k = ∣ S 1 ∣ , then
e ( S , X ) + e ( X , R ) ≥ 2 ( s ′ − k ) + k + ⌈ k 2 ⌉ ≥ 3 s ′ 2 , e(S,X) + e(X,R) \ge2(s' - k) + k + \left\lceil\frac{k}{2}\right\rceil\ge\frac{3s'}{2}, e ( S , X ) + e ( X , R ) ≥ 2 ( s ′ − k ) + k + ⌈ 2 k ⌉ ≥ 2 3 s ′ ,
as desired.
Since Δ ( G [ S ] ) ≤ 1 \Delta(G[S]) \le1 Δ ( G [ S ]) ≤ 1 and α ( G [ S ] ) ≤ r − 1 \alpha(G[S]) \le r - 1 α ( G [ S ]) ≤ r − 1 , we have s ′ ≤ 2 r − 2 s' \le2r - 2 s ′ ≤ 2 r − 2 , and Turán’s theorem gives
e ( G [ S ] ) ≥ t ‾ s ′ , r − 1 = { 0 , if 0 ≤ s ′ ≤ r − 1 , s ′ − r + 1 , if r ≤ s ′ ≤ 2 r − 2. e(G[S]) \ge\overline{t}_{s',r-1} =
\begin{cases}
0, & \text{if } 0 \le s' \le r - 1,\\
s' - r + 1, & \text{if } r \le s' \le2r - 2.
\end{cases} e ( G [ S ]) ≥ t s ′ , r − 1 = { 0 , s ′ − r + 1 , if 0 ≤ s ′ ≤ r − 1 , if r ≤ s ′ ≤ 2 r − 2.
Now we have that
e ( G ) ≥ e ( G [ S ] ) + e ( S , X ∪ Y ∪ R ) + e ( X , R ) + e ( Y , X ∪ R ) ≥ t ‾ s ′ , r − 1 + 7 s ′ 2 + 2 y . \begin{aligned}
e(G) \ge e(G[S]) + e(S,X \cup Y \cup R) + e(X,R) + e(Y,X \cup R) \\
&\ge\overline{t}_{s',r-1} + \frac{7s'}{2} + 2y.
\end{aligned} e ( G ) ≥ e ( G [ S ]) + e ( S , X ∪ Y ∪ R ) + e ( X , R ) + e ( Y , X ∪ R ) ≥ t s ′ , r − 1 + 2 7 s ′ + 2 y .
If s ′ ≤ r − 1 s' \le r - 1 s ′ ≤ r − 1 , then, since y ≥ r ≥ s ′ + 1 y \ge r \ge s' + 1 y ≥ r ≥ s ′ + 1 ,
t ‾ s ′ , r − 1 + 7 s ′ 2 + 2 y ≥ 7 s ′ 2 + 2 ( s ′ + 1 ) > 5 s ′ ≥ 5 s . \overline{t}_{s',r-1} + \frac{7s'}{2} + 2y \ge\frac{7s'}{2} + 2(s' + 1) > 5s' \ge5s. t s ′ , r − 1 + 2 7 s ′ + 2 y ≥ 2 7 s ′ + 2 ( s ′ + 1 ) > 5 s ′ ≥ 5 s .
If r ≤ s ′ ≤ 2 r − 2 r \le s' \le2r - 2 r ≤ s ′ ≤ 2 r − 2 , then
t ‾ s ′ , r − 1 + 7 s ′ 2 + 2 y ≥ s ′ − r + 1 + 7 s ′ 2 + 2 r = 9 s ′ 2 + r + 1 > 5 s ′ ≥ 5 s , \overline{t}_{s',r-1} + \frac{7s'}{2} + 2y \ge s' - r + 1 + \frac{7s'}{2} + 2r = \frac{9s'}{2} + r + 1 > 5s' \ge5s, t s ′ , r − 1 + 2 7 s ′ + 2 y ≥ s ′ − r + 1 + 2 7 s ′ + 2 r = 2 9 s ′ + r + 1 > 5 s ′ ≥ 5 s ,
In both cases e ( G ) > 5 s e(G) > 5s e ( G ) > 5 s , contradicting e ( G ) ≤ 5 s e(G) \le5s e ( G ) ≤ 5 s . In particular we don’t have extremal graphs in this case.
Case of ∣ B ∣ = 3 |B| = 3 ∣ B ∣ = 3
In this section, ∣ B ∣ = 3 |B| = 3 ∣ B ∣ = 3 , thus B = { P , Q , S } B = \{P,Q,S\} B = { P , Q , S } and each x ∈ S ∪ P ∪ Q x \in S \cup P \cup Q x ∈ S ∪ P ∪ Q has a neighbor in R R R . So
∣ E ( S ∪ P ∪ Q , R ) ∣ ≥ s ′ + p + q , (22) |E(S \cup P \cup Q,R)| \ge s' + p + q, \tag*{(22)} ∣ E ( S ∪ P ∪ Q , R ) ∣ ≥ s ′ + p + q , (22)
and by Claim 4.1, s ′ + p + q ≤ 4 r ′ s' + p + q \le4r' s ′ + p + q ≤ 4 r ′ . Since p , q ≥ r ≥ r ′ + 1 p,q \ge r \ge r' + 1 p , q ≥ r ≥ r ′ + 1 , this yields
s ≤ s ′ ≤ 4 r ′ − p − q ≤ 2 r ′ − 2 ≤ 2 ( r − 2 ) . (23) s \le s' \le4r' - p - q \le2r' - 2 \le2(r - 2). \tag*{(23)} s ≤ s ′ ≤ 4 r ′ − p − q ≤ 2 r ′ − 2 ≤ 2 ( r − 2 ) . (23)
Let B ′ B' B ′ denote the set of sets in B \mathcal{B} B not reachable from S S S . Modulo (N1)–(N4) we choose ( P , Q , R ) (P,Q,R) ( P , Q , R ) so that
(N5) ∣ B ′ ∣ |B'| ∣ B ′ ∣ is minimum .
Since S S S is reachable from itself, we have three cases.
Case 1: B ′ = ∅ B'=\emptyset B ′ = ∅ . Modulo (N1)–(N5), we choose ( P , Q , R ) (P,Q,R) ( P , Q , R ) so that
(N6) ∑ y ∈ R d ( y ) \sum_{y\in R}d(y) ∑ y ∈ R d ( y ) is minimum .
Similarly to (3.6) (and with a similar proof) we now show
(7.3) If x ∈ S ∪ P ∪ Q x\in S\cup P\cup Q x ∈ S ∪ P ∪ Q has a solo neighbor y y y in R R R , then d ( x ) ≥ d ( y ) d(x)\ge d(y) d ( x ) ≥ d ( y ) .
Indeed, if d ( x ) < d ( y ) d(x)<d(y) d ( x ) < d ( y ) , then we move x x x to R R R and y y y to S S S . Now, if x x x was originally not in S S S , then by symmetry we may assume x ∈ Q x\in Q x ∈ Q , consider a shortest S , Q S,Q S , Q -path in D D D and move the witness(es) of the edges along the path. The new partition satisfies (N1)–(N5), but ∑ y ∈ R d ( y ) \sum_{y\in R}d(y) ∑ y ∈ R d ( y ) decreases, contradicting (N6). This proves (7.3).
We do the following discharging. At the start, the charge c h ( x ) ch(x) c h ( x ) is 1 when x ∈ S ∪ P ∪ Q x\in S\cup P\cup Q x ∈ S ∪ P ∪ Q and is 0 when x ∈ R ∪ E ( G ) x\in R\cup E(G) x ∈ R ∪ E ( G ) . Thus ∑ x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) c h ( x ) = s ′ + p + q \sum_{x\in V(G)\cup E(G)}ch(x)=s'+p+q ∑ x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) c h ( x ) = s ′ + p + q . Now,
Step 1: each edge u v ∈ E ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] ) uv\in E(G[S\cup P\cup Q]) uv ∈ E ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ]) gets 1 / 6 1/6 1/6 from each of its two ends;
Step 2: each u ∈ S ∪ P ∪ Q u\in S\cup P\cup Q u ∈ S ∪ P ∪ Q shares the remaining charge equally among its neighbors in R R R .
Let c h ∗ ( x ) ch^*(x) c h ∗ ( x ) denote the resulting charge for x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) x\in V(G)\cup E(G) x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) . We claim that
(7.4) c h ∗ ( v ) ≤ 2 ch^*(v)\le2 c h ∗ ( v ) ≤ 2 for every v ∈ R v\in R v ∈ R .
Indeed, if d ( v ) ≤ 2 d(v)\le2 d ( v ) ≤ 2 , this is trivial. If d ( v ) = 3 d(v)=3 d ( v ) = 3 and u v ∈ E ( G ) uv\in E(G) uv ∈ E ( G ) , then either v v v is not a solo neighbor of u u u and u u u gives to v v v at most 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 , or v v v is a solo neighbor of u u u and by (7.3), u u u gives to the incident edges at least 2 ( 1 / 6 ) 2(1/6) 2 ( 1/6 ) and to v v v at most 1 − 1 / 3 = 2 / 3 1-1/3=2/3 1 − 1/3 = 2/3 . In all cases, v v v gets at most 3 ( 2 / 3 ) = 2 3(2/3)=2 3 ( 2/3 ) = 2 .
Suppose now that d ( v ) = 4 d(v)=4 d ( v ) = 4 . If v v v is not a solo neighbor of u u u , then u u u gives to v v v at most $1/2$. Otherwise (7.3) yields d ( u ) ≥ 4 d(u)\ge4 d ( u ) ≥ 4 , so u u u gives to the incident edges at least 3 ( 1 / 6 ) = 1 / 2 3(1/6)=1/2 3 ( 1/6 ) = 1/2 and to $v 1 − 1 / 2 = 1 / 2 1-1/2=1/2 1 − 1/2 = 1/2 . Anyway, v v v gets at most 4 ( 1 / 2 ) = 2 4(1/2)=2 4 ( 1/2 ) = 2 . This proves (7.4).
So, by the discharging rules and (7.4), s ′ + p + q ≤ 1 3 ∣ E ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] ) ∣ + 2 r ′ s'+p+q\le\frac{1}{3}|E(G[S\cup P\cup Q])|+2r' s ′ + p + q ≤ 3 1 ∣ E ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ]) ∣ + 2 r ′ implying
e ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] ) ≥ 3 ( s ′ + p + q − 2 r ′ ) ≥ 3 ( s + 2 ) e(G[S\cup P\cup Q])\ge3(s'+p+q-2r')\ge3(s+2) e ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ]) ≥ 3 ( s ′ + p + q − 2 r ′ ) ≥ 3 ( s + 2 ) . Together with (7.1) and (7.2), we get
e ( G ) ≥ 3 ( s + 1 ) + ( s ′ + p + q ) ≥ 4 s + 3 + 2 r ≥ 5 s + 5 e(G)\ge3(s+1)+(s'+p+q)\ge4s+3+2r\ge5s+5 e ( G ) ≥ 3 ( s + 1 ) + ( s ′ + p + q ) ≥ 4 s + 3 + 2 r ≥ 5 s + 5 ,
a contradiction.
Case 2: ∣ B ′ ∣ = 1 |B'|=1 ∣ B ′ ∣ = 1 . By the symmetry between P P P and Q Q Q , we may assume that B ′ = { Q } B'=\{Q\} B ′ = { Q } . By the case, e ( S ∪ P , Q ∪ R ) + e ( Q , R ) ≥ 2 ( s ′ + p ) + q e(S\cup P,Q\cup R)+e(Q,R)\ge2(s'+p)+q e ( S ∪ P , Q ∪ R ) + e ( Q , R ) ≥ 2 ( s ′ + p ) + q . By Theorem 7, e ( G [ S ∪ P ] ) ≥ 3 ( s ′ − r ′ ) e(G[S\cup P])\ge3(s'-r') e ( G [ S ∪ P ]) ≥ 3 ( s ′ − r ′ ) . Thus, e ( G ) ≥ 2 ( s ′ + p ) + q + 3 ( s ′ − r ′ ) ≥ 5 s ′ + 3 e(G)\ge2(s'+p)+q+3(s'-r')\ge5s'+3 e ( G ) ≥ 2 ( s ′ + p ) + q + 3 ( s ′ − r ′ ) ≥ 5 s ′ + 3 , a contradiction.
Case 3: ∣ B ′ ∣ = 2 |B'|=2 ∣ B ′ ∣ = 2 . Then B ′ = { P , Q } B'=\{P,Q\} B ′ = { P , Q } . Let S ′ = { v ∈ S : ∣ N ( v ) ∩ ( P ∪ Q ) ∣ = 2 } S'=\{v\in S:|N(v)\cap(P\cup Q)|=2\} S ′ = { v ∈ S : ∣ N ( v ) ∩ ( P ∪ Q ) ∣ = 2 } and S ′ ′ = S ∖ S ′ S''=S\setminus S' S ′′ = S ∖ S ′ .
Claim 7.1. No vertex in P ∪ Q P\cup Q P ∪ Q is a unique neighbor of two non-adjacent vertices in S S S .
Proof. Suppose v ∈ P v\in P v ∈ P is the unique neighbor of non-adjacent u , u ′ ∈ S u,u'\in S u , u ′ ∈ S . Then we move u u u to P P P and v v v to S S S . Now all conditions (N1)–(N4) still hold, but u ′ u' u ′ is movable to P − v + u P-v+u P − v + u contradicting (N5). This proves the claim.
Claim 7.2. e ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] ) ≥ 3 s ′ − 1 e(G[S\cup P\cup Q])\ge3s'-1 e ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ]) ≥ 3 s ′ − 1 . Proof. First, we show that
If P has two vertices x , x ′ movable to Q , then each y ∈ Q that is a unique neighbor of some z ∈ S ′ is not movable to P . (24) \text{If } P \text{ has two vertices } x,x' \text{ movable to } Q,\text{ then each } y\in Q \text{ that is a unique neighbor of some } z\in S' \text{ is not movable to } P. \tag*{(24)} If P has two vertices x , x ′ movable to Q , then each y ∈ Q that is a unique neighbor of some z ∈ S ′ is not movable to P . (24)
Indeed, if such y ∈ Q y\in Q y ∈ Q is a unique neighbor of z ∈ S ′ z\in S' z ∈ S ′ with N ( z ) ∩ ( P ∪ Q ) = { y , y ′ } N(z)\cap(P\cup Q)=\{y,y'\} N ( z ) ∩ ( P ∪ Q ) = { y , y ′ } , then y ′ ∈ P y'\in P y ′ ∈ P , and we may assume that y ′ ≠ x ′ y'\ne x' y ′ = x ′ . So after moving y y y to P P P and x ′ x' x ′ to Q − y Q-y Q − y , we get a new partition satisfying (N1)–(N4) with z z z movable to Q − y + x ′ Q-y+x' Q − y + x ′ , contradicting (N5). This proves (7.5).
By (7.5) and the symmetry between P P P and Q Q Q we may assume that
for some y ∈ Q , each unique neighbor of a z ∈ S ′ in Q − y has a neighbor in P . (25) \text{for some } y\in Q,\text{ each unique neighbor of a } z\in S' \text{ in } Q-y \text{ has a neighbor in } P. \tag*{(25)} for some y ∈ Q , each unique neighbor of a z ∈ S ′ in Q − y has a neighbor in P . (25)
We fix y ∈ Q y\in Q y ∈ Q satisfying (7.6) and do the following discharging. At the start, the charge c h ( x ) ch(x) c h ( x ) is 1 when x ∈ E ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] ) ∪ { y } x\in E(G[S\cup P\cup Q])\cup\{y\} x ∈ E ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ]) ∪ { y } and is 0 when x ∈ ( S ∪ P ∪ Q ) ∖ { y } x\in(S\cup P\cup Q)\setminus\{y\} x ∈ ( S ∪ P ∪ Q ) ∖ { y } . Thus ∑ x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) c h ( x ) = e ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] ) + 1 \sum_{x\in V(G)\cup E(G)}ch(x)=e(G[S\cup P\cup Q])+1 ∑ x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) c h ( x ) = e ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ]) + 1 . Now,
Step 1: each edge u v ∈ E ( S , P ∪ Q ) uv\in E(S,P\cup Q) uv ∈ E ( S , P ∪ Q ) gives 1 to its end in S S S ;
Step 2: each edge u v ∈ E ( P , Q ) uv\in E(P,Q) uv ∈ E ( P , Q ) gives 1 to its end in Q Q Q ;
Step 3: each edge u v ∈ E ( G [ S ] ) uv\in E(G[S]) uv ∈ E ( G [ S ]) gives 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 to each of its ends;
Step 4: each u ∈ Q u\in Q u ∈ Q shares its current charge equally among the vertices in S S S for which u u u is the unique neighbor in Q Q Q .
Let c h i ( x ) ch_i(x) c h i ( x ) denote the charge of x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) x\in V(G)\cup E(G) x ∈ V ( G ) ∪ E ( G ) after Step i i i . By the rules, c h 4 ( x ) ≥ 0 ch_4(x)\ge0 c h 4 ( x ) ≥ 0 for each x ∈ E ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] ) ∪ P ∪ Q x\in E(G[S\cup P\cup Q])\cup P\cup Q x ∈ E ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ]) ∪ P ∪ Q , and so ∑ v ∈ S c h 4 ( v ) ≤ e ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] ) + 1 \sum_{v\in S}ch_4(v)\le e(G[S\cup P\cup Q])+1 ∑ v ∈ S c h 4 ( v ) ≤ e ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ]) + 1 . We claim that
c h 4 ( v ) ≥ 3 for every v ∈ S . (26) ch_4(v)\ge3\text{ for every }v\in S. \tag*{(26)} c h 4 ( v ) ≥ 3 for every v ∈ S . (26)
Indeed, if v ∈ S ′ ′ v\in S'' v ∈ S ′′ , then already c h 2 ( v ) ≥ 3 ch_2(v)\ge3 c h 2 ( v ) ≥ 3 . If v ∈ S ′ v\in S' v ∈ S ′ , let v ′ v' v ′ be the unique neighbor of v v v in Q Q Q . Now, if v v v has no neighbors in S S S , then by (7.6) and Claim 7.1 , v v v gets at least 1 from v ′ v' v ′ on Step 4, thus c h 4 ( v ) ≥ 2 + 1 = 3 ch_4(v)\ge2+1=3 c h 4 ( v ) ≥ 2 + 1 = 3 . Finally, if v v v has neighbors in S S S , then since d ( v ) ≤ 4 d(v)\le4 d ( v ) ≤ 4 , there is only one such neighbor, say v ′ ′ v'' v ′′ . In this case, v v v may receive only 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 from v ′ v' v ′ , but it also gets 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 from the edge v v ′ ′ vv'' v v ′′ on Step 3. This proves (7.7).
Since (7.7) implies e ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ] ) ≥ 3 s ′ − 1 e(G[S\cup P\cup Q])\ge3s'-1 e ( G [ S ∪ P ∪ Q ]) ≥ 3 s ′ − 1 , the claim holds. □
Now by Claim 7.2, (7.1) and (7.2),
e ( G ) ≥ ( 3 s ′ − 1 ) + ( s ′ + p + q ) = 4 s ′ − 1 + p + q ≥ 4 s ′ + 1 + 2 r ′ > 5 s ′ e(G)\ge(3s'-1)+(s'+p+q)=4s'-1+p+q\ge4s'+1+2r'>5s' e ( G ) ≥ ( 3 s ′ − 1 ) + ( s ′ + p + q ) = 4 s ′ − 1 + p + q ≥ 4 s ′ + 1 + 2 r ′ > 5 s ′
This contradiction finishes the proof.
Helpful theorems
Theorem 9. [6 ] Every graph with maximum degree at most ℓ \ell ℓ has an equitable ( ℓ + 1 ) (\ell+1) ( ℓ + 1 ) -coloring.
Theorem 10. Let 2 ≤ ℓ ≤ 3 2\le\ell\le3 2 ≤ ℓ ≤ 3 and p 1 ≥ p 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ p ℓ ≥ 2 p_1\ge p_2\ge\cdots\ge p_\ell\ge2 p 1 ≥ p 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ p ℓ ≥ 2 . Define c = max { i ∣ p i = p 1 , 1 ≤ i ≤ ℓ } − 1 c=\max\{i\mid p_i=p_1,\ 1\le i\le\ell\}-1 c = max { i ∣ p i = p 1 , 1 ≤ i ≤ ℓ } − 1 .
If there is an integer n 3 ≥ p 1 + p 2 + ⋯ + p ℓ n_3\ge p_1+p_2+\cdots+p_\ell n 3 ≥ p 1 + p 2 + ⋯ + p ℓ such that K c ∨ T n 3 − c , p 1 − 1 ∈ EX ( n 3 , K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ ) K_c\vee T_{n_3-c,p_1-1}\in\operatorname{EX}(n_3,K_{p_1}\cup\cdots\cup K_{p_\ell}) K c ∨ T n 3 − c , p 1 − 1 ∈ EX ( n 3 , K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ ) , then K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 ∈ EX ( n , K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ ) K_c\vee T_{n-c,p_1-1}\in\operatorname{EX}(n,K_{p_1}\cup\cdots\cup K_{p_\ell}) K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 ∈ EX ( n , K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ ) for all n ≥ n 3 n\ge n_3 n ≥ n 3 ;
If there is an integer n 4 ≥ p 1 + p 2 + ⋯ + p ℓ n_4\ge p_1+p_2+\cdots+p_\ell n 4 ≥ p 1 + p 2 + ⋯ + p ℓ such that EX ( n 4 , K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ ) = { K c ∨ T n 4 − c , p 1 − 1 } \operatorname{EX}(n_4,K_{p_1}\cup\cdots\cup K_{p_\ell})=\{K_c\vee T_{n_4-c,p_1-1}\} EX ( n 4 , K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ ) = { K c ∨ T n 4 − c , p 1 − 1 } , then EX ( n , K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ ) = { K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 } \operatorname{EX}(n,K_{p_1}\cup\cdots\cup K_{p_\ell})=\{K_c\vee T_{n-c,p_1-1}\} EX ( n , K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ ) = { K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 } for all n ≥ n 4 n\ge n_4 n ≥ n 4 .
Proof. Note that n 3 ≤ n 4 n_3 \le n_4 n 3 ≤ n 4 . We use induction on n n n . Suppose Part 1) holds for all n 3 ≤ n ′ < n n_3 \le n' < n n 3 ≤ n ′ < n and let G ∈ EX ( n , K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ ) G \in\operatorname{EX}(n, K_{p_1} \cup\cdots\cup K_{p_\ell}) G ∈ EX ( n , K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ ) . If G G G is K p 1 K_{p_1} K p 1 -free, then c = 0 c=0 c = 0 , and by Theorem 1, G = T n , p 1 − 1 G=T_{n,p_1-1} G = T n , p 1 − 1 . Thus, we are done. Assume that G G G contains an induced K p 1 K_{p_1} K p 1 .
Claim 8.1. δ ( G ) ≤ n − 1 − ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ \delta(G) \le n-1-\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor δ ( G ) ≤ n − 1 − ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ .
Proof. If δ ( G ) ≥ n − ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ \delta(G) \ge n-\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor δ ( G ) ≥ n − ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ , then Δ ( G ‾ ) ≤ ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ − 1 \Delta(\overline{G}) \le\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor-1 Δ ( G ) ≤ ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ − 1 .
Case 1: n ≤ ℓ ( p 1 − 1 ) + c n \le\ell(p_1-1)+c n ≤ ℓ ( p 1 − 1 ) + c . Then Δ ( G ‾ ) ≤ ℓ − 2 ≤ 1 \Delta(\overline{G}) \le\ell-2 \le1 Δ ( G ) ≤ ℓ − 2 ≤ 1 . Let G ‾ = x 1 K 2 ∪ y 1 K 1 \overline{G}=x_1K_2\cup y_1K_1 G = x 1 K 2 ∪ y 1 K 1 . We show:
For 1 ≤ k ≤ ℓ − 1 , if G ‾ contains disjoint induced K ‾ p 1 , … , K ‾ p k , then G ‾ contains disjoint induced K ‾ p 1 , … , K ‾ p k , K ‾ p k + 1 . (27) \text{For }1\le k\le\ell-1,\text{ if }\overline{G}\text{ contains disjoint induced }\overline{K}_{p_1},\ldots,\overline{K}_{p_k},\text{ then }\overline{G}\text{ contains}
\text{ disjoint induced }\overline{K}_{p_1},\ldots,\overline{K}_{p_k},\overline{K}_{p_{k+1}}. \tag*{(27)} For 1 ≤ k ≤ ℓ − 1 , if G contains disjoint induced K p 1 , … , K p k , then G contains disjoint induced K p 1 , … , K p k , K p k + 1 . (27)
Take pairwise disjoint independent sets S 1 , … , S k S_1,\ldots,S_k S 1 , … , S k with ∣ S i ∣ = p i |S_i|=p_i ∣ S i ∣ = p i for each 1 ≤ i ≤ k 1\le i\le k 1 ≤ i ≤ k such that the number of edges of G ‾ \overline{G} G incident with S 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ S k S_1\cup\cdots\cup S_k S 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ S k is as large as possible. If x 1 ≤ p 1 + ⋯ + p k x_1\le p_1+\cdots+p_k x 1 ≤ p 1 + ⋯ + p k , then α ( G ‾ − S 1 − ⋯ − S k ) = n − p 1 − ⋯ − p k ≥ p k + 1 \alpha(\overline{G}-S_1-\cdots-S_k)=n-p_1-\cdots-p_k\ge p_{k+1} α ( G − S 1 − ⋯ − S k ) = n − p 1 − ⋯ − p k ≥ p k + 1 . If x 1 > p 1 + ⋯ + p k x_1>p_1+\cdots+p_k x 1 > p 1 + ⋯ + p k , then α ( G ‾ − S 1 − ⋯ − S k ) ≥ p 1 + ⋯ + p k ≥ p k + 1 \alpha(\overline{G}-S_1-\cdots-S_k)\ge p_1+\cdots+p_k\ge p_{k+1} α ( G − S 1 − ⋯ − S k ) ≥ p 1 + ⋯ + p k ≥ p k + 1 . Thus α ( G ‾ − S 1 − ⋯ − S k ) ≥ p k + 1 \alpha(\overline{G}-S_1-\cdots-S_k)\ge p_{k+1} α ( G − S 1 − ⋯ − S k ) ≥ p k + 1 . Then there is an independent set S k + 1 S_{k+1} S k + 1 of size p k + 1 p_{k+1} p k + 1 . This proves (8.1). It follows that G ‾ \overline{G} G contains disjoint induced K ‾ p 1 , … , K ‾ p ℓ \overline{K}_{p_1},\ldots,\overline{K}_{p_\ell} K p 1 , … , K p ℓ . Thus G G G contains K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ K_{p_1}\cup\cdots\cup K_{p_\ell} K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ , a contradiction.
Case 2: n ≥ ℓ ( p 1 − 1 ) + c + 1 n\ge\ell(p_1-1)+c+1 n ≥ ℓ ( p 1 − 1 ) + c + 1 . Then ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ ≥ ℓ \left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor\ge\ell ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ ≥ ℓ . By Theorem 9, G ‾ \overline{G} G has an equitable coloring with color classes V 1 , V 2 , … , V ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ V_1,V_2,\ldots,V_{\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor} V 1 , V 2 , … , V ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ , where ∣ V 1 ∣ ≥ ∣ V 2 ∣ ≥ ⋯ ≥ ∣ V ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ ∣ |V_1|\ge|V_2|\ge\cdots\ge\left|V_{\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor}\right| ∣ V 1 ∣ ≥ ∣ V 2 ∣ ≥ ⋯ ≥ V ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ . Since G G G is K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ K_{p_1}\cup\cdots\cup K_{p_\ell} K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ -free, ∣ V c + 1 ∣ ≤ p 1 − 1 |V_{c+1}|\le p_1-1 ∣ V c + 1 ∣ ≤ p 1 − 1 . Then ∣ V j ∣ ≤ p 1 |V_j|\le p_1 ∣ V j ∣ ≤ p 1 for 1 ≤ j ≤ c 1\le j\le c 1 ≤ j ≤ c and ∣ V j ∣ ≤ p 1 − 1 |V_j|\le p_1-1 ∣ V j ∣ ≤ p 1 − 1 for c + 1 ≤ j ≤ ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ c+1\le j\le\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor c + 1 ≤ j ≤ ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ . Hence
n = ∑ j = 1 ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ ∣ V j ∣ ≤ c p 1 + ( ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ − c ) ( p 1 − 1 ) < n , n=\sum_{j=1}^{\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor}|V_j|
\le cp_1+\left(\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor-c\right)(p_1-1)<n, n = j = 1 ∑ ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ ∣ V j ∣ ≤ c p 1 + ( ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ − c ) ( p 1 − 1 ) < n ,
a contradiction. □
By Claim 8.1, there is a vertex v ∈ V ( G ) v\in V(G) v ∈ V ( G ) with d ( v ) = δ ( G ) ≤ n − 1 − ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ d(v)=\delta(G)\le n-1-\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor d ( v ) = δ ( G ) ≤ n − 1 − ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ . Since e ( G ) ≥ e ( K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 ) e(G)\ge e(K_c\vee T_{n-c,p_1-1}) e ( G ) ≥ e ( K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 ) and
e ( G ) = e ( G − v ) + d ( v ) ≤ e ( K c ∨ T n − c − 1 , p 1 − 1 ) + n − 1 − ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ = e ( K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 ) , e(G)=e(G-v)+d(v)\le e(K_c\vee T_{n-c-1,p_1-1})+n-1-\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor=e(K_c\vee T_{n-c,p_1-1}), e ( G ) = e ( G − v ) + d ( v ) ≤ e ( K c ∨ T n − c − 1 , p 1 − 1 ) + n − 1 − ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ = e ( K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 ) ,
we conclude that e ( G ) = e ( K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 ) e(G)=e(K_c\vee T_{n-c,p_1-1}) e ( G ) = e ( K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 ) , d ( v ) = n − 1 − ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ d(v)=n-1-\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor d ( v ) = n − 1 − ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ and e ( G − v ) = e ( K c ∨ T n − c − 1 , p 1 − 1 ) e(G-v)=e(K_c\vee T_{n-c-1,p_1-1}) e ( G − v ) = e ( K c ∨ T n − c − 1 , p 1 − 1 ) . This proves Part 1).
Suppose now that Part 2) holds for all n 4 ≤ n ′ < n n_4\le n'<n n 4 ≤ n ′ < n . Then G − v = K c ∨ T n − c − 1 , p 1 − 1 G-v=K_c\vee T_{n-c-1,p_1-1} G − v = K c ∨ T n − c − 1 , p 1 − 1 and hence V ( G ) − v V(G)-v V ( G ) − v can be divided into p 1 p_1 p 1 subsets V ′ , V 1 , V 2 , … , V p 1 − 1 V',V_1,V_2,\ldots,V_{p_1-1} V ′ , V 1 , V 2 , … , V p 1 − 1 so that G [ V ′ ] = K c G[V']=K_c G [ V ′ ] = K c , each of V 1 , … , V p 1 − 1 V_1,\ldots,V_{p_1-1} V 1 , … , V p 1 − 1 is an independent set and ⌈ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌉ ≥ ∣ V 1 ∣ ≥ ∣ V 2 ∣ ≥ ⋯ ≥ ∣ V p 1 − 1 ∣ ≥ ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ \left\lceil\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rceil\ge|V_1|\ge|V_2|\ge\cdots\ge|V_{p_1-1}|\ge\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor ⌈ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌉ ≥ ∣ V 1 ∣ ≥ ∣ V 2 ∣ ≥ ⋯ ≥ ∣ V p 1 − 1 ∣ ≥ ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ .
If N ( v ) ∩ V j ≠ ∅ N(v)\cap V_j\ne\varnothing N ( v ) ∩ V j = ∅ for every 1 ≤ j ≤ p 1 − 1 1\le j\le p_1-1 1 ≤ j ≤ p 1 − 1 , let v j ∈ N ( v ) ∩ V j v_j\in N(v)\cap V_j v j ∈ N ( v ) ∩ V j , U 1 = { v , v 1 , v 2 , … , v p 1 − 1 } U_1=\{v,v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{p_1-1}\} U 1 = { v , v 1 , v 2 , … , v p 1 − 1 } , and G ′ = G − U 1 G'=G-U_1 G ′ = G − U 1 . Then G [ U 1 ] = K p 1 G[U_1]=K_{p_1} G [ U 1 ] = K p 1 and G ′ = K c ∨ T n − p 1 − c , p 1 − 1 G'=K_c\vee T_{n-p_1-c,p_1-1} G ′ = K c ∨ T n − p 1 − c , p 1 − 1 . Since n − p 1 ≥ p 2 + ⋯ + p ℓ n-p_1\ge p_2+\cdots+p_\ell n − p 1 ≥ p 2 + ⋯ + p ℓ , G ′ G' G ′ contains K p 2 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ K_{p_2}\cup\cdots\cup K_{p_\ell} K p 2 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ . Thus G G G contains a copy of K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ K_{p_1}\cup\cdots\cup K_{p_\ell} K p 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K p ℓ , a contradiction.
Hence there is an index j 0 ∈ { 1 , … , p 1 − 1 } j_0\in\{1,\ldots,p_1-1\} j 0 ∈ { 1 , … , p 1 − 1 } such that N ( v ) ∩ V j 0 = ∅ N(v)\cap V_{j_0}=\varnothing N ( v ) ∩ V j 0 = ∅ . Since
n − 1 − ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ = d ( v ) ≤ n − 1 − ∣ V j 0 ∣ ≤ n − 1 − ⌈ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌉ , n-1-\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor=d(v)\le n-1-|V_{j_0}|\le n-1-\left\lceil\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rceil, n − 1 − ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ = d ( v ) ≤ n − 1 − ∣ V j 0 ∣ ≤ n − 1 − ⌈ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌉ ,
N ( v ) = V ( G ) ∖ ( V j 0 ∪ { v } ) N(v)=V(G)\setminus(V_{j_0}\cup\{v\}) N ( v ) = V ( G ) ∖ ( V j 0 ∪ { v }) , ∣ V j 0 ∣ = ⌊ n − c − 1 p 1 − 1 ⌋ |V_{j_0}|=\left\lfloor\frac{n-c-1}{p_1-1}\right\rfloor ∣ V j 0 ∣ = ⌊ p 1 − 1 n − c − 1 ⌋ and G = K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 G=K_c\vee T_{n-c,p_1-1} G = K c ∨ T n − c , p 1 − 1 . This proves Part 2). □
Proof of Theorem 4. Let G ∈ EX ( p + q + r , K ‾ p ∪ K ‾ q ∪ K ‾ r ) G \in\operatorname{EX}(p+q+r, \overline{K}_p \cup\overline{K}_q \cup\overline{K}_r) G ∈ EX ( p + q + r , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) . Observe that for every t ≥ 1 t \ge1 t ≥ 1 , each independent set of size t t t in K ‾ 4 ∪ K ‾ p + q + r − 4 \overline{K}_4 \cup\overline{K}_{p+q+r-4} K 4 ∪ K p + q + r − 4 contains at least t − 1 t-1 t − 1 vertices from K ‾ p + q + r − 4 \overline{K}_{p+q+r-4} K p + q + r − 4 . Since ( p − 1 ) + ( q − 1 ) + ( r − 1 ) − ( p + q + r − 4 ) = 1 (p-1)+(q-1)+(r-1)-(p+q+r-4)=1 ( p − 1 ) + ( q − 1 ) + ( r − 1 ) − ( p + q + r − 4 ) = 1 , K ‾ 4 ∪ K ‾ p + q + r − 4 \overline{K}_4 \cup\overline{K}_{p+q+r-4} K 4 ∪ K p + q + r − 4 contains no three disjoint independent sets of sizes p p p , q q q and r r r . By definition, T ‾ n , p − 1 \overline{T}_{n,p-1} T n , p − 1 has no induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p . Thus e ( G ) ≤ min { 6 , t n , p − 1 } e(G) \le\min\{6,t_{n,p-1}\} e ( G ) ≤ min { 6 , t n , p − 1 } .
Claim 8.2. If G G G contains an induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and e ( G ) ≤ 6 e(G) \le6 e ( G ) ≤ 6 , then one of the following holds:
G = K ‾ 4 ∪ K ‾ n − 4 G=\overline{K}_4 \cup\overline{K}_{n-4} G = K 4 ∪ K n − 4 ;
( p , q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) (p,q,r)=(3,2,2) ( p , q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) and G = K 1 , 6 G=K_{1,6} G = K 1 , 6 .
Proof. By e ( G ) ≤ 6 < 9 ≤ 3 ( s + r ) e(G) \le6 < 9 \le3(s+r) e ( G ) ≤ 6 < 9 ≤ 3 ( s + r ) and Theorem 7 , G G G contains disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q . If e ( G ) ≤ 5 e(G) \le5 e ( G ) ≤ 5 , then by Theorem 8, G G G contains disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r , a contradiction. Suppose e ( G ) = 6 e(G)=6 e ( G ) = 6 .
If Δ ( G ) = 6 \Delta(G)=6 Δ ( G ) = 6 , then G = K 1 , 6 ∪ K ‾ p + q + r − 7 G=K_{1,6}\cup\overline{K}_{p+q+r-7} G = K 1 , 6 ∪ K p + q + r − 7 . If p + q + r − 7 ≠ 0 p+q+r-7 \ne0 p + q + r − 7 = 0 , then K 1 , 6 ∪ K ‾ p + q + r − 7 K_{1,6}\cup\overline{K}_{p+q+r-7} K 1 , 6 ∪ K p + q + r − 7 contains disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r , a contradiction. If p + q + r − 7 = 0 p+q+r-7=0 p + q + r − 7 = 0 , then by p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 p \ge q \ge r \ge2 p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 , ( p , q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) (p,q,r)=(3,2,2) ( p , q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) . So, in this case, Part 2) holds.
If Δ ( G ) ≤ 5 \Delta(G)\le5 Δ ( G ) ≤ 5 , let disjoint sets P , Q ⊆ V ( G ) P,Q \subseteq V(G) P , Q ⊆ V ( G ) be such that G [ P ] = K ‾ p G[P]=\overline{K}_p G [ P ] = K p and G [ Q ] = K ‾ q G[Q]=\overline{K}_q G [ Q ] = K q . Choose P P P and Q Q Q so that
(M1) G − P − Q G-P-Q G − P − Q has the fewest edges,
(M2) modulo (M1), e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] e[P,V(G)\setminus P] e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] is maximum,
If ∣ E ( P , V ( G ) ∖ P ) ∣ ≥ 4 |E(P,V(G)\setminus P)|\ge4 ∣ E ( P , V ( G ) ∖ P ) ∣ ≥ 4 or ∣ E ( Q , V ( G ) ∖ Q ) ∣ ≥ 4 |E(Q,V(G)\setminus Q)|\ge4 ∣ E ( Q , V ( G ) ∖ Q ) ∣ ≥ 4 , then e ( G − P ) ≤ 2 e(G-P)\le2 e ( G − P ) ≤ 2 or e ( G − Q ) ≤ 2 e(G-Q)\le2 e ( G − Q ) ≤ 2 . By Theorem 7 , in these cases G − P G-P G − P contains disjoint induced K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r or G − Q G-Q G − Q contains disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r , a contradiction.
Suppose ∣ E ( P , V ( G ) ∖ P ) ∣ ≤ 3 |E(P,V(G)\setminus P)|\le3 ∣ E ( P , V ( G ) ∖ P ) ∣ ≤ 3 and ∣ E ( Q , V ( G ) ∖ Q ) ∣ ≤ 3 |E(Q,V(G)\setminus Q)|\le3 ∣ E ( Q , V ( G ) ∖ Q ) ∣ ≤ 3 . If G − P − Q G-P-Q G − P − Q has no edges, then G G G contains disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r , a contradiction. Let R = V ( G ) − P − Q R=V(G)-P-Q R = V ( G ) − P − Q and x y ∈ E ( G ) xy\in E(G) x y ∈ E ( G ) for some x , y ∈ R x,y\in R x , y ∈ R . Similarly to (11) , we have the following properties.
(A) If x (or y ) has no neighbors in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then each w ∈ J has a neighbor in R ; and (B) If x (or y ) has exactly one neighbor w in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then w has another neighbor in R ; and (C) For each J ∈ { P , Q } , e [ J , R ] ≥ 2 with equality only if ∣ J ∣ = 2 or some w ∈ J is adjacent to both x and y . (28) \begin{aligned}
\text{(A)}\quad&\text{If }x\text{ (or }y\text{) has no neighbors in some }J\in\{P,Q\},\text{ then each }w\in J\text{ has a neighbor in }R;\text{ and}\\
\text{(B)}\quad&\text{If }x\text{ (or }y\text{) has exactly one neighbor }w\text{ in some }J\in\{P,Q\},\text{ then }w\text{ has another neighbor in }R;\text{ and}\\
\text{(C)}\quad&\text{For each }J\in\{P,Q\},\ e[J,R]\ge2\text{ with equality only if }|J|=2\text{ or some }w\in J\\
&\text{is adjacent to both }x\text{ and }y. \tag*{(28)}
\end{aligned} (A) (B) (C) If x (or y ) has no neighbors in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then each w ∈ J has a neighbor in R ; and If x (or y ) has exactly one neighbor w in some J ∈ { P , Q } , then w has another neighbor in R ; and For each J ∈ { P , Q } , e [ J , R ] ≥ 2 with equality only if ∣ J ∣ = 2 or some w ∈ J is adjacent to both x and y . (28)
Recall that e ( G ) = 6 e(G)=6 e ( G ) = 6 . Since p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 p\ge q\ge r\ge2 p ≥ q ≥ r ≥ 2 and ( p , q , r ) ≠ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) (p,q,r)\ne(2,2,2) ( p , q , r ) = ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) , we have p ≥ 3 p\ge3 p ≥ 3 . By (8.2)(C), e ( G [ R ] ) ≤ 2 e(G[R])\le2 e ( G [ R ]) ≤ 2 . If e ( G [ R ] ) = 2 e(G[R])=2 e ( G [ R ]) = 2 , then e [ P , R ] = 2 e[P,R]=2 e [ P , R ] = 2 and e [ Q , R ] = 2 e[Q,R]=2 e [ Q , R ] = 2 . Also by (8.2)(C), there is a vertex w r ∈ R − { x , y } w_r\in R-\{x,y\} w r ∈ R − { x , y } with degree one in G [ R ] G[R] G [ R ] that has no neighbor in P P P . We can move w r w_r w r to P P P and an isolated vertex in P P P to R R R , contradicting (M1). Thus e ( G [ R ] ) = 1 e(G[R])=1 e ( G [ R ]) = 1 .
If e [ P , Q ] = 0 e[P,Q]=0 e [ P , Q ] = 0 , then there is a set J ∈ { P , Q } J\in\{P,Q\} J ∈ { P , Q } such that e [ J , R ] = 3 e[J,R]=3 e [ J , R ] = 3 . If e [ P , R ] = 3 e[P,R]=3 e [ P , R ] = 3 , then e [ Q , R ] = 2 e[Q,R]=2 e [ Q , R ] = 2 . If ∣ Q ∣ = 2 |Q|=2 ∣ Q ∣ = 2 , let Q = { w q 1 , w q 2 } Q=\{w_{q_1},w_{q_2}\} Q = { w q 1 , w q 2 } and x w q 1 , x w q 2 ∈ E ( G ) xw_{q_1},xw_{q_2}\in E(G) x w q 1 , x w q 2 ∈ E ( G ) . Since Δ ( G ) ≤ 5 \Delta(G)\le5 Δ ( G ) ≤ 5 , either there is a vertex w p ∈ P w_p\in P w p ∈ P such that N ( w p ) = ∅ N(w_p)=\varnothing N ( w p ) = ∅ or w p w_p w p has a second adjacent vertex in P P P adjacent to y y y . If the former holds, then we move w p w_p w p to Q Q Q and w q 1 w_{q_1} w q 1 to P P P , obtaining a new partition which increases e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] e[P,V(G)\setminus P] e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] , contradicting (M2). If the latter holds, let P = { w p 1 , w p 2 , w p 3 } P=\{w_{p_1},w_{p_2},w_{p_3}\} P = { w p 1 , w p 2 , w p 3 } . Then the sets P ′ = { w p 1 , w p 2 , x } P'=\{w_{p_1},w_{p_2},x\} P ′ = { w p 1 , w p 2 , x } , Q ′ = { w q 1 , w p 3 } Q'=\{w_{q_1},w_{p_3}\} Q ′ = { w q 1 , w p 3 } and R ′ = { w q 2 , y } R'=\{w_{q_2},y\} R ′ = { w q 2 , y } are independent, a contradiction. If there is a vertex w q ∈ Q w_q\in Q w q ∈ Q such that x w q , y w q ∈ E ( G ) xw_q,yw_q\in E(G) x w q , y w q ∈ E ( G ) , then by e [ P , R ] = 3 e[P,R]=3 e [ P , R ] = 3 , there is a vertex w p ′ ∈ P w'_p\in P w p ′ ∈ P such that d ( w p ′ ) ≤ 1 d(w'_p)\le1 d ( w p ′ ) ≤ 1 . Thus we can switch w p ′ w'_p w p ′ and w q w_q w q and increase e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] e[P,V(G)\setminus P] e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] , contradicting (M2).
If e [ Q , R ] = 3 e[Q,R]=3 e [ Q , R ] = 3 , then e [ P , R ] = 2 e[P,R]=2 e [ P , R ] = 2 and there is a vertex z q ∈ Q z_q\in Q z q ∈ Q such that ∣ N ( z q ) ∣ ≥ 1 |N(z_q)|\ge1 ∣ N ( z q ) ∣ ≥ 1 . Since p ≥ 3 p\ge3 p ≥ 3 , there is a vertex z p ∈ P z_p\in P z p ∈ P such that N ( z p ) = ∅ N(z_p)=\varnothing N ( z p ) = ∅ . We can switch z p z_p z p and z q z_q z q and increase e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] e[P,V(G)\setminus P] e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] , contradicting (M2).
If e [ P , Q ] = 1 e[P,Q]=1 e [ P , Q ] = 1 , then by (8.2)(C), we have e [ J , R ] = 2 e[J,R]=2 e [ J , R ] = 2 for each J ∈ { P , Q } J\in\{P,Q\} J ∈ { P , Q } . Since ∣ P ∣ ≥ 3 |P|\ge3 ∣ P ∣ ≥ 3 , there is a vertex u P ∈ P u_P\in P u P ∈ P adjacent to both x x x and y y y . If ∣ Q ∣ = 2 |Q|=2 ∣ Q ∣ = 2 , then we may assume that Q = { u q 1 , u q 2 } Q=\{u_{q_1},u_{q_2}\} Q = { u q 1 , u q 2 } , x u q 1 , x u q 2 ∈ E ( G ) xu_{q_1},xu_{q_2}\in E(G) x u q 1 , x u q 2 ∈ E ( G ) and N ( u q 1 ) ∩ P = ∅ N(u_{q_1})\cap P=\varnothing N ( u q 1 ) ∩ P = ∅ . Then we move u q 1 u_{q_1} u q 1 to P P P and an isolated vertex in P P P to Q Q Q , obtaining a new partition which increases e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] e[P,V(G)\setminus P] e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] , contradicting (M2).
Suppose that there is a vertex u Q ∈ Q u_Q\in Q u Q ∈ Q adjacent to both x x x and y y y . If u P u Q ∉ E ( G ) u_Pu_Q\notin E(G) u P u Q ∈ / E ( G ) and ∣ N ( u Q ) ∩ P ∣ = 0 |N(u_Q)\cap P|=0 ∣ N ( u Q ) ∩ P ∣ = 0 , then we move u Q u_Q u Q to P P P and an isolated vertex in P P P to Q Q Q , obtaining a new partition which increases e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] e[P,V(G)\setminus P] e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] , contradicting (M2). If u P u Q ∉ E ( G ) u_Pu_Q\notin E(G) u P u Q ∈ / E ( G ) and ∣ N ( u Q ) ∩ P ∣ = 1 |N(u_Q)\cap P|=1 ∣ N ( u Q ) ∩ P ∣ = 1 , then we can switch u Q u_Q u Q with the neighbor of u Q u_Q u Q in P P P and increase e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] e[P,V(G)\setminus P] e [ P , V ( G ) ∖ P ] , contradicting (M2). Thus u P u Q ∈ E ( G ) u_Pu_Q\in E(G) u P u Q ∈ E ( G ) . Hence G = K 4 ∪ K ‾ n − 4 G=K_4\cup\overline{K}_{n-4} G = K 4 ∪ K n − 4 . □
If G G G contains no induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , then by Theorem 1, G = T ‾ n , p − 1 G=\overline{T}_{n,p-1} G = T n , p − 1 . If G G G contains an induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , then by Claim 8.2, G = K 4 ∪ K ‾ n − 4 G=K_4\cup\overline{K}_{n-4} G = K 4 ∪ K n − 4 or ( p , q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) (p,q,r)=(3,2,2) ( p , q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) and G = K 1 , 6 G=K_{1,6} G = K 1 , 6 . Note that t ‾ n , p − 1 = 6 \overline{t}_{n,p-1}=6 t n , p − 1 = 6 for ( p , q , r ) = ( 5 , 2 , 2 ) (p,q,r)=(5,2,2) ( p , q , r ) = ( 5 , 2 , 2 ) or p ≥ 7 p\ge7 p ≥ 7 and ( q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 ) (q,r)=(3,2) ( q , r ) = ( 3 , 2 ) , t ‾ n , p − 1 = 5 \overline{t}_{n,p-1}=5 t n , p − 1 = 5 for p ≥ 6 p\ge6 p ≥ 6 and q = r = 2 q=r=2 q = r = 2 , and t ‾ n , p − 1 > 6 \overline{t}_{n,p-1}>6 t n , p − 1 > 6 otherwise. Then we are done. □
Proof of Theorem 5
Recall that
c = c q + c r , c=c_q+c_r, c = c q + c r ,
where p ≥ q ≥ r p\ge q\ge r p ≥ q ≥ r , c q = { 0 , if p > q , 1 , if p = q , c_q=\begin{cases}0,&\text{if }p>q,\\1,&\text{if }p=q,\end{cases} c q = { 0 , 1 , if p > q , if p = q , and c r = { 0 , if p > r , 1 , if p = r . c_r=\begin{cases}0,&\text{if }p>r,\\1,&\text{if }p=r.\end{cases} c r = { 0 , 1 , if p > r , if p = r .
Lemma 9.1. For any z ≤ p − 1 z\le p-1 z ≤ p − 1 , every graph in K 3 , 4 ( n , z ) ∪ { K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) } \mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,z)\cup\{K^*_{3,4}(n)\} K 3 , 4 ( n , z ) ∪ { K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n )} contains no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q .
Proof. Let z ≤ p − 1 z\le p-1 z ≤ p − 1 . If G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , z ) G\in\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,z) G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , z ) , write G = K 3 , 4 ( n , x , y ) G=\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,x,y) G = K 3 , 4 ( n , x , y ) , where x + 2 y = n − p − q + 1 x+2y=n-p-q+1 x + 2 y = n − p − q + 1 , 3 x + 4 y ≤ n 3x+4y\le n 3 x + 4 y ≤ n and x + y ≤ z x+y\le z x + y ≤ z . Each independent set of size t ∈ { p , q } t\in\{p,q\} t ∈ { p , q } in G G G contains at least t − x − y t-x-y t − x − y vertices from ( n − 3 x − 4 y ) K 1 (n-3x-4y)K_1 ( n − 3 x − 4 y ) K 1 . Moreover, ( p − x − y ) + ( q − x − y ) − ( n − 3 x − 4 y ) = p + q + x + 2 y − n = 1 (p-x-y)+(q-x-y)-(n-3x-4y)=p+q+x+2y-n=1 ( p − x − y ) + ( q − x − y ) − ( n − 3 x − 4 y ) = p + q + x + 2 y − n = 1 . Thus any independent p p p -set intersects each independent q q q -set.
Suppose G = K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) = ( 2 p + 2 q − 4 − n ) K 3 ∪ ( n − 3 ( p + q ) 2 + 2 ) K 4 ∪ K 1 , 3 G=K^*_{3,4}(n)=(2p+2q-4-n)K_3\cup\left(n-\frac{3(p+q)}{2}+2\right)K_4\cup K_{1,3} G = K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) = ( 2 p + 2 q − 4 − n ) K 3 ∪ ( n − 2 3 ( p + q ) + 2 ) K 4 ∪ K 1 , 3 , where p = q p=q p = q . Since K 1 , 3 K_{1,3} K 1 , 3 has no two disjoint induced K ‾ 2 \overline{K}_2 K 2 , G G G contains no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q . □
Lemma 9.2. For any z ≤ p − 1 z\le p-1 z ≤ p − 1 , no graph in K 5 , 6 ( n , z ) ∪ { K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) } \mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,z)\cup\{K^*_{5,6}(n)\} K 5 , 6 ( n , z ) ∪ { K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n )} contains disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r .
Proof. Let z ≤ p − 1 z\le p-1 z ≤ p − 1 . If G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , z ) G\in\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,z) G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , z ) , write G = K 5 , 6 ( n , x , y ) G=\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,x,y) G = K 5 , 6 ( n , x , y ) , where 2 x + 3 y = n − p − q − r + 1 2x+3y=n-p-q-r+1 2 x + 3 y = n − p − q − r + 1 , 5 x + 6 y ≤ n 5x+6y\le n 5 x + 6 y ≤ n and x + y ≤ z x+y\le z x + y ≤ z . Each independent set of size t ∈ { p , q , r } t\in\{p,q,r\} t ∈ { p , q , r } in G G G contains at least t − x − y t-x-y t − x − y vertices from ( n − 5 x − 6 y ) K 1 (n-5x-6y)K_1 ( n − 5 x − 6 y ) K 1 . Moreover, ( p − x − y ) + ( q − x − y ) + ( r − x − y ) − ( n − 5 x − 6 y ) = p + q + r + 2 x + 3 y − n = 1 (p-x-y)+(q-x-y)+(r-x-y)-(n-5x-6y)=p+q+r+2x+3y-n=1 ( p − x − y ) + ( q − x − y ) + ( r − x − y ) − ( n − 5 x − 6 y ) = p + q + r + 2 x + 3 y − n = 1 . Thus G G G contains no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r .
Suppose now G = K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) = ( 2 p + 2 q + 2 r − 6 − n ) K 5 ∪ ( n − 5 ( p + q + r ) 3 + 4 ) K 6 ∪ K 1 , 5 G=K^*_{5,6}(n)=(2p+2q+2r-6-n)K_5\cup\left(n-\frac{5(p+q+r)}{3}+4\right)K_6\cup K_{1,5} G = K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) = ( 2 p + 2 q + 2 r − 6 − n ) K 5 ∪ ( n − 3 5 ( p + q + r ) + 4 ) K 6 ∪ K 1 , 5 , where p = q = r p=q=r p = q = r . Since K 1 , 5 K_{1,5} K 1 , 5 has no three disjoint induced K ‾ 2 \overline{K}_2 K 2 , G G G contains no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r . □
Lemma 9.3. If n ∈ [ p + q , 3 ( p − 1 ) + c q ] n \in[p+q,3(p-1)+c_q] n ∈ [ p + q , 3 ( p − 1 ) + c q ] and
3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) ≤ t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 , (29) 3(n-p-q+1) \le\bar{t}_{n-c_q,p-1}, \tag*{(29)} 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) ≤ t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 , (29) then there is a graph G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , p − 1 ) G \in\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,p-1) G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , p − 1 ) with e ( G ) ≤ 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) e(G) \le3(n-p-q+1) e ( G ) ≤ 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) . Moreover, if n ∈ [ 3 ( p − 1 ) + c q , 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q ] n \in[3(p-1)+c_q,4(p-1)+c_q] n ∈ [ 3 ( p − 1 ) + c q , 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q ] , then 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) ≥ t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 3(n-p-q+1) \ge\bar{t}_{n-c_q,p-1} 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) ≥ t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 .
Proof. First suppose that p + q ≤ n ≤ 3 ( p − 1 ) + c q p+q \le n \le3(p-1)+c_q p + q ≤ n ≤ 3 ( p − 1 ) + c q and (9.1) holds. Then every component of T ‾ n − c q , p − 1 \overline{T}_{n-c_q,p-1} T n − c q , p − 1 has at most three vertices, so t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 ≤ 2 ( n − c q ) 2 = n − c q \bar{t}_{n-c_q,p-1} \le\frac{2(n-c_q)}{2}=n-c_q t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 ≤ 2 2 ( n − c q ) = n − c q and t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 ≤ 3 ( p − 1 ) \bar{t}_{n-c_q,p-1} \le3(p-1) t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 ≤ 3 ( p − 1 ) . Thus 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) ≤ n − c q 3(n-p-q+1) \le n-c_q 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) ≤ n − c q and n − p − q + 1 ≤ p − 1 n-p-q+1 \le p-1 n − p − q + 1 ≤ p − 1 . Let k = ⌈ ( n − p − q + 1 ) / 2 ⌉ k=\lceil(n-p-q+1)/2\rceil k = ⌈( n − p − q + 1 ) /2 ⌉ , x = 2 k − ( n − p − q + 1 ) x=2k-(n-p-q+1) x = 2 k − ( n − p − q + 1 ) and y = n − p − q + 1 − k y=n-p-q+1-k y = n − p − q + 1 − k . Since n − p − q + 1 ≥ 1 n-p-q+1 \ge1 n − p − q + 1 ≥ 1 , we have x ∈ { 0 , 1 } x \in\{0,1\} x ∈ { 0 , 1 } and y ≥ 0 y \ge0 y ≥ 0 . Moreover,
x + 2 y = n − p − q + 1 , x + y = k ≤ n − p − q + 1 ≤ p − 1 , x+2y=n-p-q+1,\qquad x+y=k\le n-p-q+1\le p-1, x + 2 y = n − p − q + 1 , x + y = k ≤ n − p − q + 1 ≤ p − 1 , and
3 x + 4 y = n − p − q + 1 + 2 k ≤ 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) ≤ n − c q ≤ n . 3x+4y=n-p-q+1+2k\le3(n-p-q+1)\le n-c_q\le n. 3 x + 4 y = n − p − q + 1 + 2 k ≤ 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) ≤ n − c q ≤ n . Thus K 3 , 4 ( n , x , y ) ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , p − 1 ) \mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,x,y) \in\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,p-1) K 3 , 4 ( n , x , y ) ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , p − 1 ) and e ( K 3 , 4 ( n , x , y ) ) = 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) e(\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,x,y))=3(n-p-q+1) e ( K 3 , 4 ( n , x , y )) = 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) .
Suppose that 3 ( p − 1 ) + c q ≤ n ≤ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q 3(p-1)+c_q \le n \le4(p-1)+c_q 3 ( p − 1 ) + c q ≤ n ≤ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q . In this range, t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 = 3 ( n − c q ) − 6 ( p − 1 ) \bar{t}_{n-c_q,p-1}=3(n-c_q)-6(p-1) t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 = 3 ( n − c q ) − 6 ( p − 1 ) . By the definition of c q c_q c q , q ≤ p − 1 + c q q \le p-1+c_q q ≤ p − 1 + c q , and hence
3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) ≥ 3 ( n − 2 ( p − 1 ) − c q ) = t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 . 3(n-p-q+1)\ge3(n-2(p-1)-c_q)=\bar{t}_{n-c_q,p-1}. 3 ( n − p − q + 1 ) ≥ 3 ( n − 2 ( p − 1 ) − c q ) = t ˉ n − c q , p − 1 .
Lemma 9.4. If n ∈ [ p + q + r + 1 , 5 ( p − 1 ) + c ] n \in[p+q+r+1,5(p-1)+c] n ∈ [ p + q + r + 1 , 5 ( p − 1 ) + c ] and
5 s ≤ t ˉ n − c , p − 1 , (30) 5s\le\bar{t}_{n-c,p-1}, \tag*{(30)} 5 s ≤ t ˉ n − c , p − 1 , (30) then there is a graph G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , p − 1 ) G \in\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,p-1) G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , p − 1 ) with e ( G ) ≤ 5 s e(G)\le5s e ( G ) ≤ 5 s . Moreover, if n ∈ [ 5 ( p − 1 ) + c , 6 ( p − 1 ) + c ] n \in[5(p-1)+c,6(p-1)+c] n ∈ [ 5 ( p − 1 ) + c , 6 ( p − 1 ) + c ] , then 5 s ≥ t ˉ n − c , p − 1 5s\ge\bar{t}_{n-c,p-1} 5 s ≥ t ˉ n − c , p − 1 .
Proof. First suppose that p + q + r + 1 ≤ n ≤ 5 ( p − 1 ) + c p+q+r+1\le n\le5(p-1)+c p + q + r + 1 ≤ n ≤ 5 ( p − 1 ) + c and (9.2) holds. Then every component of T ‾ n − c , p − 1 \overline{T}_{n-c,p-1} T n − c , p − 1 has at most five vertices, so t ˉ n − c , p − 1 ≤ 4 ( n − c ) 2 = 2 ( n − c ) \bar{t}_{n-c,p-1}\le\frac{4(n-c)}{2}=2(n-c) t ˉ n − c , p − 1 ≤ 2 4 ( n − c ) = 2 ( n − c ) and t ˉ n − c , p − 1 ≤ 10 ( p − 1 ) \bar{t}_{n-c,p-1}\le10(p-1) t ˉ n − c , p − 1 ≤ 10 ( p − 1 ) . Consequently, 5 s ≤ 2 ( n − c ) 5s\le2(n-c) 5 s ≤ 2 ( n − c ) and s ≤ 2 ( p − 1 ) s\le2(p-1) s ≤ 2 ( p − 1 ) . Let k = ⌈ s / 3 ⌉ k=\lceil s/3\rceil k = ⌈ s /3 ⌉ , x = 3 k − s x=3k-s x = 3 k − s and y = s − 2 k y=s-2k y = s − 2 k . Since s ≥ 2 s\ge2 s ≥ 2 , we have k ≤ s / 2 k\le s/2 k ≤ s /2 , and therefore x , y x,y x , y are nonnegative integers satisfying
2 x + 3 y = s , x + y = k ≤ p − 1 , 5 x + 6 y = s + 3 k ≤ 5 s 2 ≤ n − c ≤ n . 2x+3y=s,\qquad x+y=k\le p-1,\qquad5x+6y=s+3k\le\frac{5s}{2}\le n-c\le n. 2 x + 3 y = s , x + y = k ≤ p − 1 , 5 x + 6 y = s + 3 k ≤ 2 5 s ≤ n − c ≤ n . Thus K 5 , 6 ( n , x , y ) ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , p − 1 ) \mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,x,y)\in\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,p-1) K 5 , 6 ( n , x , y ) ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , p − 1 ) and e ( K 5 , 6 ( n , x , y ) ) = 5 s e(\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,x,y))=5s e ( K 5 , 6 ( n , x , y )) = 5 s .
Suppose that 5 ( p − 1 ) + c ≤ n ≤ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c 5(p-1)+c\le n\le6(p-1)+c 5 ( p − 1 ) + c ≤ n ≤ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c . In this range, t ˉ n − c , p − 1 = 5 ( n − c ) − 15 ( p − 1 ) \bar{t}_{n-c,p-1}=5(n-c)-15(p-1) t ˉ n − c , p − 1 = 5 ( n − c ) − 15 ( p − 1 ) . By the definitions of c c c ,
5 s = 5 ( n − p − q − r + 1 ) ≥ 5 ( n − 3 ( p − 1 ) − c ) = t ˉ n − c , p − 1 . 5s=5(n-p-q-r+1)\ge5(n-3(p-1)-c)=\bar{t}_{n-c,p-1}. 5 s = 5 ( n − p − q − r + 1 ) ≥ 5 ( n − 3 ( p − 1 ) − c ) = t ˉ n − c , p − 1 .
Proof of Theorem 5. Let G G G be an n n n -vertex graph with no disjoint independent sets of sizes p p p , q q q and r r r and with e ( G ) = ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) e(G)=\operatorname{ex}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r) e ( G ) = ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) . Since G G G is extremal,
e ( G ) ≤ t ˉ n − c , p − 1 . (31) e(G)\le\bar{t}_{n-c,p-1}. \tag*{(31)} e ( G ) ≤ t ˉ n − c , p − 1 . (31)
If G G G does not contain an induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , then by Theorem 1, e ( G ) ≥ t ‾ n , p − 1 ≥ t ‾ n − c , p − 1 e(G) \ge\overline{t}_{n,p-1} \ge\overline{t}_{n-c,p-1} e ( G ) ≥ t n , p − 1 ≥ t n − c , p − 1 . Together with (9.3), we get c = 0 c=0 c = 0 and e ( G ) = t ‾ n − c , p − 1 e(G)=\overline{t}_{n-c,p-1} e ( G ) = t n − c , p − 1 , so our theorem holds. Hence below we assume G G G contains an induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p .
Case 1: G G G does not contain disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q . In this case, for any edge e ∈ E ( G ) e \in E(G) e ∈ E ( G ) , the graph G − e G-e G − e still does not have three disjoint copies of induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p . Thus, by the extremality of G G G , in this case c ≤ 1 c \le1 c ≤ 1 . Since ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) ≤ ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r) \le\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p \cup K_q) ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) ≤ ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ) , we conclude that e ( G ) = ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) e(G)=\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p \cup K_q) e ( G ) = ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ) .
By Theorem 7 and (9.3), 3 ( r + s ) ≤ e ( G ) ≤ t ‾ n − c , p − 1 3(r+s) \le e(G) \le\overline{t}_{n-c,p-1} 3 ( r + s ) ≤ e ( G ) ≤ t n − c , p − 1 . If n ∈ [ p + q + r + 1 , 4 ( p − 1 ) + c ] n \in[p+q+r+1,4(p-1)+c] n ∈ [ p + q + r + 1 , 4 ( p − 1 ) + c ] , then by Lemma 9.3, we have e ( G ) = 3 ( r + s ) e(G)=3(r+s) e ( G ) = 3 ( r + s ) .
Assume that n ≥ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c + 1 n \ge4(p-1)+c+1 n ≥ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c + 1 . Since t ‾ 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 = 6 ( p − 1 ) \overline{t}_{4(p-1),p-1}=6(p-1) t 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 = 6 ( p − 1 ) and
3 ( ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c ) − p − q + 1 ) = 3 ( 3 p − 4 − ( q − c ) + 1 ) ≥ 3 ( 2 p − 2 ) = t ‾ 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 , 3\left((4(p-1)+c)-p-q+1\right)=3(3p-4-(q-c)+1)\ge3(2p-2)=\overline{t}_{4(p-1),p-1}, 3 ( ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c ) − p − q + 1 ) = 3 ( 3 p − 4 − ( q − c ) + 1 ) ≥ 3 ( 2 p − 2 ) = t 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 ,
Theorem 10(1) for ℓ = 2 \ell=2 ℓ = 2 yields that e ( G ) = ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = t ‾ n − c , p − 1 e(G)=\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p \cup K_q)=\overline{t}_{n-c,p-1} e ( G ) = ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = t n − c , p − 1 .
Case 2: G G G contains disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q . By Theorem 8 and (9.3), 5 s ≤ e ( G ) ≤ t ‾ n − c , p − 1 5s \le e(G) \le\overline{t}_{n-c,p-1} 5 s ≤ e ( G ) ≤ t n − c , p − 1 . If n ∈ [ p + q + r + 1 , 5 ( p − 1 ) + c ] n \in[p+q+r+1,5(p-1)+c] n ∈ [ p + q + r + 1 , 5 ( p − 1 ) + c ] , then by Lemma 9.4, we have e ( G ) = 5 s e(G)=5s e ( G ) = 5 s .
Assume that n ≥ 5 ( p − 1 ) + c + 1 n \ge5(p-1)+c+1 n ≥ 5 ( p − 1 ) + c + 1 . Since t ‾ 5 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 = 10 ( p − 1 ) \overline{t}_{5(p-1),p-1}=10(p-1) t 5 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 = 10 ( p − 1 ) and
5 ( ( 5 ( p − 1 ) + c ) − p − q − r + 1 ) ≥ { 5 ( 4 p − 5 − ( q − c ) − r + 1 ) ≥ 5 ( 2 p − 2 ) if c ≤ 1 , 5 ( 4 p − 5 − ( q − 1 ) − ( r − 1 ) + 1 ) ≥ 5 ( 2 p − 2 ) if c = 2 , 5\left((5(p-1)+c)-p-q-r+1\right)\ge
\begin{cases}
5(4p-5-(q-c)-r+1)\ge5(2p-2) & \text{if } c\le1,\\
5(4p-5-(q-1)-(r-1)+1)\ge5(2p-2) & \text{if } c=2,
\end{cases} 5 ( ( 5 ( p − 1 ) + c ) − p − q − r + 1 ) ≥ { 5 ( 4 p − 5 − ( q − c ) − r + 1 ) ≥ 5 ( 2 p − 2 ) 5 ( 4 p − 5 − ( q − 1 ) − ( r − 1 ) + 1 ) ≥ 5 ( 2 p − 2 ) if c ≤ 1 , if c = 2 ,
Theorem 10(1) for ℓ = 3 \ell=3 ℓ = 3 yields that e ( G ) = ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t ‾ n − c , p − 1 e(G)=\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r)=\overline{t}_{n-c,p-1} e ( G ) = ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t n − c , p − 1 . Again, our theorem holds. □
Proof of Theorem 6
Let G n = EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) \mathcal{G}_n=\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r) G n = EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) . Then for each G ∈ G n G \in\mathcal{G}_n G ∈ G n , e ( G ) ≤ t ‾ n − c , p − 1 e(G)\le\overline{t}_{n-c,p-1} e ( G ) ≤ t n − c , p − 1 .
Claim 10.1. Let G ∈ G n G \in\mathcal{G}_n G ∈ G n . (i) If G G G contains no K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , then c = 0 c=0 c = 0 ; (ii) If G G G contains K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q , then c ≤ 1 c\le1 c ≤ 1 .
Proof. Let e ∈ E ( G ) e \in E(G) e ∈ E ( G ) . If G G G contains no K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , then G − e G-e G − e does not have two disjoint copies of induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p . Thus c = 0 c=0 c = 0 . If G G G contains K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q , then G − e G-e G − e does not have three disjoint copies of induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p . Hence c ≤ 1 c\le1 c ≤ 1 . □
Claim 10.2. (i) If n ≥ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q n\ge4(p-1)+c_q n ≥ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q , then EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = { K c q ∪ T ‾ n − c q , p − 1 } \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,K_p\cup K_q)=\{K_{c_q}\cup\overline{T}_{n-c_q,p-1}\} EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = { K c q ∪ T n − c q , p − 1 } ; (ii) If n ≥ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 n\ge6(p-1)+c-1 n ≥ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , then EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = { K c ∪ T ‾ n − c , p − 1 } \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\{K_c\cup\overline{T}_{n-c,p-1}\} EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = { K c ∪ T n − c , p − 1 } .
Proof. Suppose there is J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q ∈ EX ‾ ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q , K p ∪ K q ) J_{4(p-1)+c_q}\in\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(4(p-1)+c_q,K_p\cup K_q) J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q ∈ EX ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q , K p ∪ K q ) . Note that e ( J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q ) ≤ t ‾ 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 e(J_{4(p-1)+c_q})\le\overline{t}_{4(p-1),p-1} e ( J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q ) ≤ t 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 . If J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q J_{4(p-1)+c_q} J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q contains no K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , then by Theorem 1, c q = 0 c_q=0 c q = 0 and J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = T ‾ 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 J_{4(p-1)+c_q}=\overline{T}_{4(p-1),p-1} J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = T 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 .
If J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q J_{4(p-1)+c_q} J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q contains K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , then by Theorem 7, e ( J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q ) ≥ 3 ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − p − q + 1 ) e(J_{4(p-1)+c_q})\ge3(4(p-1)+c_q-p-q+1) e ( J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q ) ≥ 3 ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − p − q + 1 ) . Since t ‾ 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 = 6 ( p − 1 ) \overline{t}_{4(p-1),p-1}=6(p-1) t 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 = 6 ( p − 1 ) and
3 ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − p − q + 1 ) = 3 ( 3 p − 3 + c q − q ) ≥ 3 ( 2 p − 2 ) = t ‾ 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 , 3(4(p-1)+c_q-p-q+1)=3(3p-3+c_q-q)\ge3(2p-2)=\overline{t}_{4(p-1),p-1}, 3 ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − p − q + 1 ) = 3 ( 3 p − 3 + c q − q ) ≥ 3 ( 2 p − 2 ) = t 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 , we have 3 ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − p − q + 1 ) = t ‾ 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 3(4(p-1)+c_q-p-q+1)=\overline{t}_{4(p-1),p-1} 3 ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − p − q + 1 ) = t 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 . Hence
q = { p − 1 , if c q = 0 , p , if c q = 1. q=
\begin{cases}
p-1, & \text{if } c_q=0,\\
p, & \text{if } c_q=1.
\end{cases} q = { p − 1 , p , if c q = 0 , if c q = 1. By Theorem 7,
J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = x K 3 ∪ y K 4 ∪ K 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − 3 x − 4 y or J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = x ′ K 3 ∪ y ′ K 4 ∪ K 1 , 3 . J_{4(p-1)+c_q}=xK_3\cup yK_4\cup K_{4(p-1)+c_q-3x-4y}
\quad\text{or}\quad
J_{4(p-1)+c_q}=x'K_3\cup y'K_4\cup K_{1,3}. J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = x K 3 ∪ y K 4 ∪ K 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − 3 x − 4 y or J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = x ′ K 3 ∪ y ′ K 4 ∪ K 1 , 3 .
holds, then since 3 x + 6 y = 3 ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − p − q + 1 ) = 6 ( p − 1 ) 3x+6y=3(4(p-1)+c_q-p-q+1)=6(p-1) 3 x + 6 y = 3 ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − p − q + 1 ) = 6 ( p − 1 ) and 3 x + 4 y ≤ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q 3x+4y\le4(p-1)+c_q 3 x + 4 y ≤ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q , we have x = 0 x=0 x = 0 and y = p − 1 y=p-1 y = p − 1 . If c q = 0 c_q=0 c q = 0 , then J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = ( p − 1 ) K 4 J_{4(p-1)+c_q}=(p-1)K_4 J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = ( p − 1 ) K 4 , a contradiction, as ( p − 1 ) K 4 (p-1)K_4 ( p − 1 ) K 4 contains no K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p . If c q = 1 c_q=1 c q = 1 , then J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = K ‾ 1 ∪ ( p − 1 ) K 4 = K ‾ 1 ∪ T ‾ 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 J_{4(p-1)+c_q}=\overline{K}_1\cup(p-1)K_4=\overline{K}_1\cup\overline{T}_{4(p-1),p-1} J 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = K 1 ∪ ( p − 1 ) K 4 = K 1 ∪ T 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 . If the latter holds, then since p = q p=q p = q , 3 x ′ + 6 y ′ + 3 = 3 ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − p − q + 1 ) = 6 ( p − 1 ) 3x'+6y'+3=3(4(p-1)+c_q-p-q+1)=6(p-1) 3 x ′ + 6 y ′ + 3 = 3 ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q − p − q + 1 ) = 6 ( p − 1 ) and 3 x ′ + 4 y ′ + 4 = 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = 4 p − 3 3x'+4y'+4=4(p-1)+c_q=4p-3 3 x ′ + 4 y ′ + 4 = 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q = 4 p − 3 , we have x ′ = − 1 x'=-1 x ′ = − 1 and y ′ = p − 1 y'=p-1 y ′ = p − 1 , a contradiction. Thus EX ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q , K p ∪ K q ) = { K ‾ c q ∪ T ‾ 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 } \operatorname{EX}(4(p-1)+c_q,K_p\cup K_q)=\{\overline{K}_{c_q}\cup\overline{T}_{4(p-1),p-1}\} EX ( 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q , K p ∪ K q ) = { K c q ∪ T 4 ( p − 1 ) , p − 1 } . Then Theorem 10(2) for ℓ = 2 \ell=2 ℓ = 2 yields that EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = { K ‾ c q ∪ T ‾ n − c q , p − 1 } \operatorname{EX}(n,K_p\cup K_q)=\{\overline{K}_{c_q}\cup\overline{T}_{n-c_q,p-1}\} EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ) = { K c q ∪ T n − c q , p − 1 } for n ≥ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q n\ge4(p-1)+c_q n ≥ 4 ( p − 1 ) + c q . This proves (i).
Suppose that there is G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ∈ EX ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) G_{6(p-1)+c-1}\in\operatorname{EX}(6(p-1)+c-1,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r) G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ∈ EX ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) . Recall that e ( G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ) ≤ t ‾ 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 e(G_{6(p-1)+c-1})\le\overline{t}_{6(p-1)-1,p-1} e ( G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ) ≤ t 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 . If G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 G_{6(p-1)+c-1} G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 contains no K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , then by Theorem 1, c = 0 c=0 c = 0 and G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = T ‾ 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 G_{6(p-1)+c-1}=\overline{T}_{6(p-1)-1,p-1} G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = T 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 .
If G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 G_{6(p-1)+c-1} G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 contains K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q , then by Claim 10.1, c ≤ 1 c\le1 c ≤ 1 . Moreover, e ( G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ) ≥ ex ‾ ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , K p ∪ K q ) e(G_{6(p-1)+c-1})\ge\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(6(p-1)+c-1,K_p\cup K_q) e ( G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ) ≥ ex ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , K p ∪ K q ) . Since ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) ≤ ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)\le\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q) ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) ≤ ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ) , e ( G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ) = ex ‾ ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , K p ∪ K q ) e(G_{6(p-1)+c-1})=\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(6(p-1)+c-1,K_p\cup K_q) e ( G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ) = ex ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , K p ∪ K q ) . Thus G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ∈ EX ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , K p ∪ K q ) G_{6(p-1)+c-1}\in\operatorname{EX}(6(p-1)+c-1,K_p\cup K_q) G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ∈ EX ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , K p ∪ K q ) . By (i), G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = K ‾ c ∪ T ‾ 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 G_{6(p-1)+c-1}=\overline{K}_c\cup\overline{T}_{6(p-1)-1,p-1} G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = K c ∪ T 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 .
If G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 G_{6(p-1)+c-1} G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 contains disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q , then by Theorem 8, e ( G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ) ≥ 5 ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − p − q − r + 1 ) e(G_{6(p-1)+c-1})\ge5(6(p-1)+c-1-p-q-r+1) e ( G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 ) ≥ 5 ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − p − q − r + 1 ) . Since t ‾ 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 = 15 ( p − 2 ) + 10 = 15 p − 20 \overline{t}_{6(p-1)-1,p-1}=15(p-2)+10=15p-20 t 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 = 15 ( p − 2 ) + 10 = 15 p − 20 and
5 ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − p − q − r + 1 ) = 5 ( 5 p − 6 + c − q − r ) ≥ 5 ( 3 p − 4 ) = t ‾ 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 , 5(6(p-1)+c-1-p-q-r+1)=5(5p-6+c-q-r)\ge5(3p-4)=\overline{t}_{6(p-1)-1,p-1}, 5 ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − p − q − r + 1 ) = 5 ( 5 p − 6 + c − q − r ) ≥ 5 ( 3 p − 4 ) = t 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 ,
we have 5 ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − p − q − r + 1 ) = t ‾ 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 5(6(p-1)+c-1-p-q-r+1)=\overline{t}_{6(p-1)-1,p-1} 5 ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − p − q − r + 1 ) = t 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 . Hence
q = { p − 1 , if c = 0 , p , if c ≥ 1 , and r = { p − 1 , if c ≤ 1 , p , if c = 2. q=\begin{cases}
p-1, & \text{if }c=0,\\
p, & \text{if }c\ge1,
\end{cases}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
r=\begin{cases}
p-1, & \text{if }c\le1,\\
p, & \text{if }c=2.
\end{cases} q = { p − 1 , p , if c = 0 , if c ≥ 1 , and r = { p − 1 , p , if c ≤ 1 , if c = 2.
By Theorem 8, G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = x K 5 ∪ y K 6 ∪ K ‾ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − 5 x − 6 y G_{6(p-1)+c-1}=xK_5\cup yK_6\cup\overline{K}_{6(p-1)+c-1-5x-6y} G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = x K 5 ∪ y K 6 ∪ K 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − 5 x − 6 y or G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = x ′ K 5 ∪ y ′ K 6 ∪ K 1 , 5 G_{6(p-1)+c-1}=x'K_5\cup y'K_6\cup K_{1,5} G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = x ′ K 5 ∪ y ′ K 6 ∪ K 1 , 5 . If the former holds, then since
10 x + 15 y = 5 ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − p − q − r + 1 ) = 15 p − 20 10x+15y=5(6(p-1)+c-1-p-q-r+1)=15p-20 10 x + 15 y = 5 ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − p − q − r + 1 ) = 15 p − 20
and 5 x + 6 y ≤ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 5x+6y\le6(p-1)+c-1 5 x + 6 y ≤ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , we have x = 1 x=1 x = 1 and y = p − 2 y=p-2 y = p − 2 . If c ≤ 1 c\le1 c ≤ 1 , then G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = K ‾ c ∪ K 5 ∪ ( p − 2 ) K 6 G_{6(p-1)+c-1}=\overline{K}_c\cup K_5\cup(p-2)K_6 G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = K c ∪ K 5 ∪ ( p − 2 ) K 6 , a contradiction as K 5 ∪ ( p − 2 ) K 6 K_5\cup(p-2)K_6 K 5 ∪ ( p − 2 ) K 6 and K ‾ 1 ∪ K 5 ∪ ( p − 2 ) K 6 \overline{K}_1\cup K_5\cup(p-2)K_6 K 1 ∪ K 5 ∪ ( p − 2 ) K 6 contain no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q . If c = 2 c=2 c = 2 , then G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = K ‾ 2 ∪ K 5 ∪ ( p − 2 ) K 6 = K ‾ 2 ∪ T ‾ 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 G_{6(p-1)+c-1}=\overline{K}_2\cup K_5\cup(p-2)K_6=\overline{K}_2\cup\overline{T}_{6(p-1)-1,p-1} G 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = K 2 ∪ K 5 ∪ ( p − 2 ) K 6 = K 2 ∪ T 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 . If the latter holds, then since p = q = r p=q=r p = q = r ,
10 x ′ + 15 y ′ + 5 = 5 ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − p − q − r + 1 ) = 15 p − 20 10x'+15y'+5=5(6(p-1)+c-1-p-q-r+1)=15p-20 10 x ′ + 15 y ′ + 5 = 5 ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 − p − q − r + 1 ) = 15 p − 20
and 5 x ′ + 6 y ′ + 6 = 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = 6 p − 5 5x'+6y'+6=6(p-1)+c-1=6p-5 5 x ′ + 6 y ′ + 6 = 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 = 6 p − 5 , we have x ′ = − 1 x'=-1 x ′ = − 1 and y ′ = p − 1 y'=p-1 y ′ = p − 1 , a contradiction. Thus EX ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = { K ‾ c ∪ T ‾ 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 } \operatorname{EX}(6(p-1)+c-1,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\{\overline{K}_c\cup\overline{T}_{6(p-1)-1,p-1}\} EX ( 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = { K c ∪ T 6 ( p − 1 ) − 1 , p − 1 } . Then Theorem 10(2) for ℓ = 3 \ell=3 ℓ = 3 yields that EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = { K ‾ c ∪ T ‾ n − c , p − 1 } \operatorname{EX}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\{\overline{K}_c\cup\overline{T}_{n-c,p-1}\} EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = { K c ∪ T n − c , p − 1 } for n ≥ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 n\ge6(p-1)+c-1 n ≥ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 1 . This proves (ii). □
Claim 10.3
EX ( n , 2 K p ) = { K 3 , 4 ( n ) , if 2 p ≤ n ≤ 3 p − 3 , K 3 , 4 ( n ) ∪ { K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) } , if 3 p − 2 ≤ n ≤ 4 p − 4 , { K ‾ 1 ∪ T ‾ n − 1 , p − 1 } , n ≥ 4 p − 3. \operatorname{EX}(n,2K_p)= \begin{cases} K_{3,4}(n), & \text{if }2p\le n\le3p-3,\\ K_{3,4}(n)\cup\{K^*_{3,4}(n)\}, & \text{if }3p-2\le n\le4p-4,\\ \{\overline{K}_1\cup\overline{T}_{n-1,p-1}\}, & n\ge4p-3. \end{cases} EX ( n , 2 K p ) = ⎩ ⎨ ⎧ K 3 , 4 ( n ) , K 3 , 4 ( n ) ∪ { K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n )} , { K 1 ∪ T n − 1 , p − 1 } , if 2 p ≤ n ≤ 3 p − 3 , if 3 p − 2 ≤ n ≤ 4 p − 4 , n ≥ 4 p − 3.
Proof. Let J n ∈ EX ( n , 2 K p ) J_n\in\operatorname{EX}(n,2K_p) J n ∈ EX ( n , 2 K p ) . Since e ( J n ) ≤ t ‾ n − 1 , p − 1 e(J_n)\le\overline{t}_{n-1,p-1} e ( J n ) ≤ t n − 1 , p − 1 , by Theorem 1, J n J_n J n contains K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p . By Claim 10.2(i), if n ≥ 4 p − 3 n\ge4p-3 n ≥ 4 p − 3 , then EX ( n , 2 K p ) = { K ‾ 1 ∪ T ‾ n − 1 , p − 1 } \operatorname{EX}(n,2K_p)=\{\overline{K}_1\cup\overline{T}_{n-1,p-1}\} EX ( n , 2 K p ) = { K 1 ∪ T n − 1 , p − 1 } .
Then we consider 2 p ≤ n ≤ 4 p − 4 2p\le n\le4p-4 2 p ≤ n ≤ 4 p − 4 . By Theorem 7, J n ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n ) J_n\in K_{3,4}(n) J n ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n ) or J n = x ′ K 3 ∪ y ′ K 4 ∪ K 1 , 3 J_n=x'K_3\cup y'K_4\cup K_{1,3} J n = x ′ K 3 ∪ y ′ K 4 ∪ K 1 , 3 . If the latter holds, then by 3 x ′ + 6 y ′ + 3 = 3 ( n − 2 p + 1 ) 3x'+6y'+3=3(n-2p+1) 3 x ′ + 6 y ′ + 3 = 3 ( n − 2 p + 1 ) and 3 x ′ + 4 y ′ + 4 = n 3x'+4y'+4=n 3 x ′ + 4 y ′ + 4 = n , we have x ′ = 4 p − 4 − n x' = 4p - 4 - n x ′ = 4 p − 4 − n and y ′ = n − 3 p + 2 y' = n - 3p + 2 y ′ = n − 3 p + 2 , i.e., J n = K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) J_n = K^{*}_{3,4}(n) J n = K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) . On the other hand, by Lemma 9.1, K ‾ 3 , 4 ( n ) ⊆ EX ‾ ( n , 2 K ‾ p ) \overline{K}_{3,4}(n) \subseteq\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n, 2\overline{K}_p) K 3 , 4 ( n ) ⊆ EX ( n , 2 K p ) and K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) ∈ EX ‾ ( n , 2 K ‾ p ) K^{*}_{3,4}(n) \in\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n, 2\overline{K}_p) K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) ∈ EX ( n , 2 K p ) . □
Claim 10.4. EX ‾ ( n , 3 K ‾ p ) = { K ‾ 5 , 6 ( n ) , if 3 p + 1 ≤ n ≤ 5 p − 5 , K ‾ 5 , 6 ( n ) ∪ { K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) } , if 5 p − 4 ≤ n ≤ 6 p − 6 , { K ‾ 2 ∪ T ‾ n − 2 , p − 1 } , n ≥ 6 p − 5. \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n, 3\overline{K}_p) = \begin{cases} \overline{K}_{5,6}(n), & \text{if } 3p+1 \le n \le5p-5, \\ \overline{K}_{5,6}(n) \cup\{K^{*}_{5,6}(n)\}, & \text{if } 5p-4 \le n \le6p-6, \\ \{\overline{K}_2 \cup\overline{T}_{n-2,p-1}\}, & n \ge6p-5. \end{cases} EX ( n , 3 K p ) = ⎩ ⎨ ⎧ K 5 , 6 ( n ) , K 5 , 6 ( n ) ∪ { K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n )} , { K 2 ∪ T n − 2 , p − 1 } , if 3 p + 1 ≤ n ≤ 5 p − 5 , if 5 p − 4 ≤ n ≤ 6 p − 6 , n ≥ 6 p − 5.
Proof. Let G n ∈ EX ‾ ( n , 3 K ‾ p ) G_n \in\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n, 3\overline{K}_p) G n ∈ EX ( n , 3 K p ) and e ∈ E ( G n ) e \in E(G_n) e ∈ E ( G n ) . If G n G_n G n contains no two disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , then G n − e G_n-e G n − e does not have three disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , a contradiction. Thus G n G_n G n contains two disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p . By Claim 10.2(ii), if n ≥ 6 p − 5 n \ge6p-5 n ≥ 6 p − 5 , then EX ‾ ( n , 3 K ‾ p ) = { K ‾ 2 ∪ T ‾ n − 2 , p − 1 } \overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n, 3\overline{K}_p) = \{\overline{K}_2 \cup\overline{T}_{n-2,p-1}\} EX ( n , 3 K p ) = { K 2 ∪ T n − 2 , p − 1 } .
Then we consider 3 p + 1 ≤ n ≤ 6 p − 6 3p+1 \le n \le6p-6 3 p + 1 ≤ n ≤ 6 p − 6 . By Theorem 8, G n ∈ K ‾ 5 , 6 ( n ) G_n \in\overline{K}_{5,6}(n) G n ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n ) or G n = x ′ K ‾ 5 ∪ y ′ K ‾ 6 ∪ K ‾ 1 , 5 G_n = x'\overline{K}_5 \cup y'\overline{K}_6 \cup\overline{K}_{1,5} G n = x ′ K 5 ∪ y ′ K 6 ∪ K 1 , 5 . If the latter holds, then since 10 x ′ + 15 y ′ + 5 = 5 ( n − 3 p + 1 ) 10x' + 15y' + 5 = 5(n-3p+1) 10 x ′ + 15 y ′ + 5 = 5 ( n − 3 p + 1 ) and 5 x ′ + 6 y ′ + 6 = n 5x' + 6y' + 6 = n 5 x ′ + 6 y ′ + 6 = n , we have x ′ = 6 p − 6 − n x' = 6p-6-n x ′ = 6 p − 6 − n and y ′ = n − 5 p + 4 y' = n-5p+4 y ′ = n − 5 p + 4 , i.e., G n = K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) G_n = K^{*}_{5,6}(n) G n = K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) . By Lemma 9.2, K ‾ 5 , 6 ( n ) ⊆ EX ‾ ( n , 3 K ‾ p ) \overline{K}_{5,6}(n) \subseteq\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n, 3\overline{K}_p) K 5 , 6 ( n ) ⊆ EX ( n , 3 K p ) and K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) ∈ EX ‾ ( n , 3 K ‾ p ) K^{*}_{5,6}(n) \in\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n, 3\overline{K}_p) K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) ∈ EX ( n , 3 K p ) . □
Claim 10.5. (i) If c = 0 c = 0 c = 0 , then H 1 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) } \mathcal{H}_1(n) = \{G \in\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,q-1) : \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n, K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r) = 3(s+r)\} H 1 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r )} ; (ii) If c ≤ 1 c \le1 c ≤ 1 , then H 2 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s } \mathcal{H}_2(n) = \{G \in\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,r-1) : \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n, K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r) = 5s\} H 2 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s } .
Proof. To prove (i), suppose that c = 0 c = 0 c = 0 . First, we show that
H 1 ( n ) ⊆ { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) } . (32) \mathcal{H}_1(n) \subseteq\{G \in\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,q-1) : \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n, K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r) = 3(s+r)\}. \tag*{(32)} H 1 ( n ) ⊆ { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r )} . (32)
If H 1 ( n ) = ∅ \mathcal{H}_1(n) = \varnothing H 1 ( n ) = ∅ , then (10.1) holds. If H 1 ( n ) ≠ ∅ \mathcal{H}_1(n) \ne\varnothing H 1 ( n ) = ∅ , let G 1 ( n ) ∈ H 1 ( n ) G_1(n) \in\mathcal{H}_1(n) G 1 ( n ) ∈ H 1 ( n ) . Since G 1 ( n ) ∈ EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ) G_1(n) \in\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n, K_p \cup K_q) G 1 ( n ) ∈ EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ) , by Claim 10.2(i), n ≤ 4 ( p − 1 ) − 1 n \le4(p-1)-1 n ≤ 4 ( p − 1 ) − 1 . By Theorem 5, e ( G 1 ( n ) ) = min { 5 s , 3 ( s + r ) , t ‾ n , p − 1 } e(G_1(n)) = \min\{5s, 3(s+r), \overline{t}_{n,p-1}\} e ( G 1 ( n )) = min { 5 s , 3 ( s + r ) , t n , p − 1 } and by Theorem 7, e ( G 1 ( n ) ) ≥ 3 ( s + r ) e(G_1(n)) \ge3(s+r) e ( G 1 ( n )) ≥ 3 ( s + r ) . Thus e ( G 1 ( n ) ) = 3 ( s + r ) e(G_1(n)) = 3(s+r) e ( G 1 ( n )) = 3 ( s + r ) . By Theorem 7, G 1 ( n ) = x K 3 ∪ y K 4 ∪ K ‾ n − 3 x − 4 y G_1(n) = xK_3 \cup yK_4 \cup\overline{K}_{n-3x-4y} G 1 ( n ) = x K 3 ∪ y K 4 ∪ K n − 3 x − 4 y . If x + y ≥ q x+y \ge q x + y ≥ q , then
α ( G 1 ( n ) ) = ( x + y ) + ( n − 3 x − 4 y ) = n − ( x + 2 y ) − ( x + y ) ≤ n − ( n − p − q + 1 ) − q = p − 1 , \alpha(G_1(n)) = (x+y) + (n-3x-4y) = n-(x+2y)-(x+y) \le n-(n-p-q+1)-q = p-1, α ( G 1 ( n )) = ( x + y ) + ( n − 3 x − 4 y ) = n − ( x + 2 y ) − ( x + y ) ≤ n − ( n − p − q + 1 ) − q = p − 1 ,
contradicting the fact that G 1 ( n ) G_1(n) G 1 ( n ) contains an induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p . Thus x + y ≤ q − 1 x+y \le q-1 x + y ≤ q − 1 . This proves (10.1).
Next, we prove that
{ G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) } ⊆ H 1 ( n ) . (33) \{G \in\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,q-1) : \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n, K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r) = 3(s+r)\} \subseteq\mathcal{H}_1(n). \tag*{(33)} { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r )} ⊆ H 1 ( n ) . (33)
Suppose now that ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n, K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r) = 3(s+r) ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) . If K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) = ∅ \mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,q-1) = \varnothing K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) = ∅ , then (10.2) holds. If K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) ≠ ∅ \mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,q-1) \ne\varnothing K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) = ∅ , let G ′ = x K 3 ∪ y K 4 ∪ K ‾ n − 3 x − 4 y ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) G' = xK_3 \cup yK_4 \cup\overline{K}_{n-3x-4y} \in\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n,q-1) G ′ = x K 3 ∪ y K 4 ∪ K n − 3 x − 4 y ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n , q − 1 ) . Since x + 2 y = n − p − q + 1 x+2y = n-p-q+1 x + 2 y = n − p − q + 1 and x + y ≤ q − 1 x+y \le q-1 x + y ≤ q − 1 , we have
α ( G ′ ) = ( x + y ) + ( n − 3 x − 4 y ) = n − ( x + 2 y ) − ( x + y ) ≥ n − ( n − p − q + 1 ) − ( q − 1 ) = p . \alpha(G') = (x+y) + (n-3x-4y) = n-(x+2y)-(x+y) \ge n-(n-p-q+1)-(q-1) = p. α ( G ′ ) = ( x + y ) + ( n − 3 x − 4 y ) = n − ( x + 2 y ) − ( x + y ) ≥ n − ( n − p − q + 1 ) − ( q − 1 ) = p .
Thus G ′ G' G ′ contains an induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p . By Lemma 9.1, G ′ G' G ′ has no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q . Since e ( G ′ ) = 3 ( s + r ) e(G') = 3(s+r) e ( G ′ ) = 3 ( s + r ) , G ′ ∈ EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) G' \in\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n, K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r) G ′ ∈ EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) . Thus G ′ ∈ H 1 ( n ) G' \in\mathcal{H}_1(n) G ′ ∈ H 1 ( n ) . This proves (10.2).
To prove (ii) suppose that c ≤ 1 c \le1 c ≤ 1 . First, we prove that
H 2 ( n ) ⊆ { G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s } . (34) \mathcal{H}_2(n) \subseteq\{G \in\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,r-1) : \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n, K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r) = 5s\}. \tag*{(34)} H 2 ( n ) ⊆ { G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s } . (34)
If H 2 ( n ) = ∅ \mathcal{H}_2(n) = \varnothing H 2 ( n ) = ∅ , then (10.3) holds. If H 2 ( n ) ≠ ∅ \mathcal{H}_2(n) \ne\varnothing H 2 ( n ) = ∅ , let G 2 ( n ) ∈ H 2 ( n ) G_2(n) \in\mathcal{H}_2(n) G 2 ( n ) ∈ H 2 ( n ) . Since G 2 ( n ) ∈ EX ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) G_2(n) \in\overline{\operatorname{EX}}(n, K_p \cup K_q \cup K_r) G 2 ( n ) ∈ EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) , by Claim 10.2(ii), n ≤ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 2 n \le6(p-1)+c-2 n ≤ 6 ( p − 1 ) + c − 2 . By Theorem 8, e ( G 2 ( n ) ) ≥ 5 s e(G_2(n)) \ge5s e ( G 2 ( n )) ≥ 5 s . Theorem 5 and Lemma 9.4 yield e ( G 2 ( n ) ) ≤ 5 s e(G_2(n)) \le5s e ( G 2 ( n )) ≤ 5 s . Thus, e ( G 2 ( n ) ) = 5 s e(G_2(n)) = 5s e ( G 2 ( n )) = 5 s . Then Theorem 8 implies that G 2 ( n ) = x K 5 ∪ y K 6 ∪ K ‾ n − 5 x − 6 y G_2(n)=xK_5\cup yK_6\cup\overline{K}_{n-5x-6y} G 2 ( n ) = x K 5 ∪ y K 6 ∪ K n − 5 x − 6 y . If x + y ≥ r x+y\ge r x + y ≥ r , then the maximum total size of two disjoint independent sets in G 2 ( n ) G_2(n) G 2 ( n ) is
2 ( x + y ) + ( n − 5 x − 6 y ) = n − ( 2 x + 3 y ) − ( x + y ) ≤ n − ( n − p − q − r + 1 ) − r = p + q − 1. 2(x+y)+(n-5x-6y)=n-(2x+3y)-(x+y)\le n-(n-p-q-r+1)-r=p+q-1. 2 ( x + y ) + ( n − 5 x − 6 y ) = n − ( 2 x + 3 y ) − ( x + y ) ≤ n − ( n − p − q − r + 1 ) − r = p + q − 1.
contradicting the fact that G 2 ( n ) G_2(n) G 2 ( n ) contains disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q . Thus x + y ≤ r − 1 x+y\le r-1 x + y ≤ r − 1 . This proves (34) .
Next, we prove that
{ G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s } ⊆ H 2 ( n ) . (35) \{G\in\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,r-1):\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=5s\}\subseteq\mathcal{H}_2(n). \tag*{(35)} { G ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s } ⊆ H 2 ( n ) . (35)
Suppose now that ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s \overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=5s ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 5 s . If K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) = ∅ \mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,r-1)=\varnothing K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) = ∅ , then (35) holds. If K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) ≠ ∅ \mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,r-1)\ne\varnothing K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) = ∅ , let G ′ = x K 5 ∪ y K 6 ∪ K ‾ n − 5 x − 6 y ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) G'=xK_5\cup yK_6\cup\overline{K}_{n-5x-6y}\in\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n,r-1) G ′ = x K 5 ∪ y K 6 ∪ K n − 5 x − 6 y ∈ K 5 , 6 ( n , r − 1 ) . Since 2 x + 3 y = n − p − q − r + 1 2x+3y=n-p-q-r+1 2 x + 3 y = n − p − q − r + 1 and x + y ≤ r − 1 x+y\le r-1 x + y ≤ r − 1 , the maximum total size of two disjoint independent sets in G ′ G' G ′ is
2 ( x + y ) + ( n − 5 x − 6 y ) = n − ( 2 x + 3 y ) − ( x + y ) ≥ n − ( n − p − q − r + 1 ) − ( r − 1 ) = p + q . 2(x+y)+(n-5x-6y)=n-(2x+3y)-(x+y)\ge n-(n-p-q-r+1)-(r-1)=p+q. 2 ( x + y ) + ( n − 5 x − 6 y ) = n − ( 2 x + 3 y ) − ( x + y ) ≥ n − ( n − p − q − r + 1 ) − ( r − 1 ) = p + q .
Thus G ′ G' G ′ contains disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p and K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q . By Lemma 9.2 , G ′ G' G ′ has no disjoint induced K ‾ p \overline{K}_p K p , K ‾ q \overline{K}_q K q and K ‾ r \overline{K}_r K r . Since e ( G ′ ) = 5 s e(G')=5s e ( G ′ ) = 5 s , G ′ ∈ E X ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) G'\in\mathrm{EX}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r) G ′ ∈ EX ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) . Thus G ′ ∈ H 2 ( n ) G'\in\mathcal{H}_2(n) G ′ ∈ H 2 ( n ) . This proves (35) . □
Now we are ready to finish the proof of the theorem.
Case 1: c = 0 c=0 c = 0 . Since H 0 ( n ) ⊆ E X ( n , K p ) \mathcal{H}_0(n)\subseteq\mathrm{EX}(n,K_p) H 0 ( n ) ⊆ EX ( n , K p ) , by Theorem 1, H 0 ( n ) = { T ‾ n , p − 1 : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t ‾ n , p − 1 } \mathcal{H}_0(n)=\{\overline{T}_{n,p-1}:\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\overline{t}_{n,p-1}\} H 0 ( n ) = { T n , p − 1 : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t n , p − 1 } . Together with Claim 10.5, we are done.
Case 2: c = 1 c=1 c = 1 . By Claim 10.1 (i), H 0 ( n ) = ∅ \mathcal{H}_0(n)=\varnothing H 0 ( n ) = ∅ . Note that H 1 ( n ) ⊆ E X ( n , 2 K p ) \mathcal{H}_1(n)\subseteq\mathrm{EX}(n,2K_p) H 1 ( n ) ⊆ EX ( n , 2 K p ) . By Claim 10.3,
H 1 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) } ∪ { K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) and 3 ( p + q ) 2 − 2 ≤ n ≤ 2 p + 2 q − 4 } ∪ { K ‾ 1 ∪ T ‾ n − 1 , p − 1 : ex ‾ ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t ‾ n − 1 , p − 1 } . \begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_1(n)={}&\{G\in\mathcal{K}_{3,4}(n):\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=3(s+r)\}\\
&\cup\{K^*_{3,4}(n):\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=3(s+r)\text{ and }\frac{3(p+q)}{2}-2\le n\le2p+2q-4\}\\
&\cup\{\overline{K}_1\cup\overline{T}_{n-1,p-1}:\overline{\operatorname{ex}}(n,K_p\cup K_q\cup K_r)=\overline{t}_{n-1,p-1}\}.
\end{aligned} H 1 ( n ) = { G ∈ K 3 , 4 ( n ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r )} ∪ { K 3 , 4 ∗ ( n ) : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = 3 ( s + r ) and 2 3 ( p + q ) − 2 ≤ n ≤ 2 p + 2 q − 4 } ∪ { K 1 ∪ T n − 1 , p − 1 : ex ( n , K p ∪ K q ∪ K r ) = t n − 1 , p − 1 } .
By Claim 10.5(ii), we are done.
Case 3: c = 2 c=2 c = 2 . In this case, r = q = p r=q=p r = q = p . By Claim 10.1 , H 0 ( n ) = ∅ \mathcal{H}_0(n)=\varnothing H 0 ( n ) = ∅ and H 1 ( n ) = ∅ \mathcal{H}_1(n)=\varnothing H 1 ( n ) = ∅ . Since H 2 ( n ) = E X ( n , 3 K p ) \mathcal{H}_2(n)=\mathrm{EX}(n,3K_p) H 2 ( n ) = EX ( n , 3 K p ) , by Claim 10.4,
H 2 ( n ) = { K 5 , 6 ( n ) , if n ≤ 5 p − 5 , K 5 , 6 ( n ) ∪ { K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n ) } , if 5 p − 4 ≤ n ≤ 6 p − 6 , { K ‾ 2 ∪ T ‾ n − 2 , p − 1 } , n ≥ 6 p − 5. \mathcal{H}_2(n)=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n), & \text{if }n\le5p-5,\\
\mathcal{K}_{5,6}(n)\cup\{K^*_{5,6}(n)\}, & \text{if }5p-4\le n\le6p-6,\\
\{\overline{K}_2\cup\overline{T}_{n-2,p-1}\}, & n\ge6p-5.
\end{cases} H 2 ( n ) = ⎩ ⎨ ⎧ K 5 , 6 ( n ) , K 5 , 6 ( n ) ∪ { K 5 , 6 ∗ ( n )} , { K 2 ∪ T n − 2 , p − 1 } , if n ≤ 5 p − 5 , if 5 p − 4 ≤ n ≤ 6 p − 6 , n ≥ 6 p − 5.
□
Concluding remarks
We think that the following claims are likely to be true.
Conjecture 1. Let k 1 , k 2 , … , k ℓ − 1 ≥ k ℓ ≥ 2 k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_{\ell-1}\ge k_\ell\ge2 k 1 , k 2 , … , k ℓ − 1 ≥ k ℓ ≥ 2 , n ≥ k 1 + k 2 + ⋯ + k ℓ n\ge k_1+k_2+\cdots+k_\ell n ≥ k 1 + k 2 + ⋯ + k ℓ and s = n − k 1 − k 2 − ⋯ − k ℓ + 1 s=n-k_1-k_2-\cdots-k_\ell+1 s = n − k 1 − k 2 − ⋯ − k ℓ + 1 . If an n n n -vertex graph G G G contains vertex disjoint induced K ‾ k 1 , … , K ‾ k ℓ − 1 \overline{K}_{k_1},\ldots,\overline{K}_{k_{\ell-1}} K k 1 , … , K k ℓ − 1 and e ( G ) < ( 2 ℓ − 1 ) s e(G)<(2\ell-1)s e ( G ) < ( 2 ℓ − 1 ) s , then G G G contains vertex disjoint induced K ‾ k 1 , … , K ‾ k ℓ \overline{K}_{k_1},\ldots,\overline{K}_{k_\ell} K k 1 , … , K k ℓ .
Conjecture 2. Let ℓ ≥ 4 \ell\ge4 ℓ ≥ 4 and k 1 , k 2 , … , k ℓ k_1, k_2, \ldots, k_\ell k 1 , k 2 , … , k ℓ be positive integers with k 1 ≥ k 2 ≥ … ≥ k ℓ − 1 ≥ k ℓ ≥ 2 k_1 \ge k_2 \ge\ldots\ge k_{\ell-1} \ge k_\ell\ge2 k 1 ≥ k 2 ≥ … ≥ k ℓ − 1 ≥ k ℓ ≥ 2 . Define t = max { i ∣ k i = k 1 , 1 ≤ i ≤ ℓ } t = \max\{i \mid k_i = k_1, 1 \le i \le\ell\} t = max { i ∣ k i = k 1 , 1 ≤ i ≤ ℓ } .
(1) If there is an integer n 3 ≥ k 1 + k 2 + ⋯ + k ℓ n_3 \ge k_1+k_2+\cdots+k_\ell n 3 ≥ k 1 + k 2 + ⋯ + k ℓ such that K t − 1 ∨ T n 3 − t + 1 , k 1 − 1 ∈ EX ( n 3 , K k 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K k ℓ ) K_{t-1} \vee T_{n_3-t+1,k_1-1} \in\operatorname{EX}(n_3, K_{k_1} \cup\cdots\cup K_{k_\ell}) K t − 1 ∨ T n 3 − t + 1 , k 1 − 1 ∈ EX ( n 3 , K k 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K k ℓ ) , then K t − 1 ∨ T n − t + 1 , k 1 − 1 ∈ EX ( n , K k 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K k ℓ ) K_{t-1} \vee T_{n-t+1,k_1-1} \in\operatorname{EX}(n, K_{k_1} \cup\cdots\cup K_{k_\ell}) K t − 1 ∨ T n − t + 1 , k 1 − 1 ∈ EX ( n , K k 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K k ℓ ) for all n ≥ n 3 n \ge n_3 n ≥ n 3 ;
(2) If there is an integer n 4 ≥ k 1 + k 2 + ⋯ + k ℓ n_4 \ge k_1+k_2+\cdots+k_\ell n 4 ≥ k 1 + k 2 + ⋯ + k ℓ such that EX ( n 4 , K k 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K k ℓ ) = { K t − 1 ∨ T n 4 − t + 1 , k 1 − 1 } \operatorname{EX}(n_4, K_{k_1} \cup\cdots\cup K_{k_\ell}) = \{K_{t-1} \vee T_{n_4-t+1,k_1-1}\} EX ( n 4 , K k 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K k ℓ ) = { K t − 1 ∨ T n 4 − t + 1 , k 1 − 1 } , then EX ( n , K k 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K k ℓ ) = { K t − 1 ∨ T n − t + 1 , k 1 − 1 } \operatorname{EX}(n, K_{k_1} \cup\cdots\cup K_{k_\ell}) = \{K_{t-1} \vee T_{n-t+1,k_1-1}\} EX ( n , K k 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ K k ℓ ) = { K t − 1 ∨ T n − t + 1 , k 1 − 1 } for all n ≥ n 4 n \ge n_4 n ≥ n 4 .
Acknowledgment
Part of the work was carried out while the third author was a PhD student at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and was supported in part by NSF RTG Grant DMS-1937241.
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 Email address: kostochk@illinois.edu
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 Email address: dadongp2@illinois.edu
Shanghai Center for Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, P.R.China Email address: zimuxiang@fudan.edu.cn
Center for Combinatorics and LPMC, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R.China. Email address: 1120240010@mail.nankai.edu.cn