Abstract
In a digraph , a two-valued function defined on the vertices of D is called a signed dominating function if for every v in D. The weight of a signed dominating function is . The signed domination number is the minimum weight among all signed dominating functions of D. Let be the Cartesian product of directed path and directed cycle . In this paper, the exact value of is determined for any positive integers m and n.
1. Introduction
All digraphs considered in this paper are finite without loops and multiple arcs, and we refer to [1] for notation and graph-theoretical terminology not defined here. In a digraph D with vertex set and arc set , u is said to be an in-neighbor of v if . For a vertex , denote be the open in-neighborhood of v. The closed in-neighborhood of v is . In all cases above, we omit the subscript D when the digraph D is clear from the context. For , denotes the subdigraph induced by S.
For two digraphs and , the Cartesian product is the digraph with vertex set and if and only if and or and , where for . We use to present that and are isomorphic. The sets of vertices of the directed path and the directed cycle are denoted by and , respectively. Furthermore, in the Cartesian product (see Figure 1), let for and let for . In fact, and are isomorphic to the directed cycle and the directed path , respectively. Throughout this paper, for each vertex in , the subscript i is taken modulo n. Hence, if and k is the smallest positive integer such that , then .
Figure 1.
The Cartesian product .
Domination and its variations in graphs have been widely investigated as they have many applications in the real word and other disciplines such as computer networks and location theory, see [2,3,4,5]. The signed domination is one variation of domination and is now well studied in the literature. The study of signed domination of undirected graphs was initiated by Dunbar et al. in [6]. Then, many authors paid much attention to signed domination of graphs, see [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15] and elsewhere. The signed domination of graph has some applications, for example, this concept can also serve as a model of social networks in which global decisions must be made similar to that exhibited in [10]. In [16], Zelinka generalizes this concept to digraphs. For a two-valued function , the weight of f is . Formally, a two-valued function is said to be a signed dominating function (SDF) if for each vertex . The signed domination number of D, denoted by , is the minimum weight among all signed dominating functions of D. Signed domination of digraphs was studied by several authors including [16,17,18]. Throughout this paper, if f is a signed dominating function of D, then we let P and M denote the sets of those vertices in D which are assigned under f the value 1 and , respectively. Hence and .
Product graphs are considered in order to gain global information from the factor graphs [19]. Many interesting wireless networks are based on product graphs with simple factors, such as paths and cycles. In particular, any square grid (resp., torus) is the Cartesian product of two paths (resp., cycles) [20]. The domination numbers of Cartesian product of two directed paths (resp., cycles) have been recently determined by several authors [21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Even more recently, Zhang and Shaheen [28] determined the exact value of signed domination number on Cartesian product and for any and , and Wang et al. [29] solved the remaining cases.
In this paper, we continue to study the signed domination number of and obtain its exact value for any positive integers m and n.
2. Signed Domination Number of
In this section we determine the exact values of signed domination number of Cartesian product for any and . Notice that . In [16], Zelinka obtained that . Thus, in what follows, we may assume that in the Cartesian product . We begin with one lemma that will be useful in the proof of our main results.
Lemma 1.
Let f be a SDF of. The following statements are true:
- (1)
- .
- (2)
- For,.
- (3)
- For,.
- (4)
- For,.
Proof.
The statements (1) and (2) are trivial by the definition of SDF.
(3) If , then for some integer . Suppose on the contrary that there exists some such that . Then at least one of and holds. Without loss of generality, assume that , where . By the definition of SDF, . Thus , a contradiction. Therefore, . For the cases that or , one can reach the same contradictions by applying the argument similar to that above. Consequently, the statement (3) is true.
(4) If , then for some integer . Assume that is false for . Then there exists some such that . Hence it follows that at least one of , and is true. Suppose that , where . Then and by the definition of SDF. Thus , which is a contradiction. This implies that either or . Without loss of generality, assume that , where . Let , where . If , then . By the statement (2), , a contradiction again. So . Let , , and , where . By the definition of SDF, . Since , it follows that would be divided into some directed segments (that is, these directed segments are all isomorphic to directed paths) by l pairs of vertices , ,…,. Without loss of generality, assume that there are t such directed segments, denoted by , where (The directed segments ’s of are shown in Figure 2). Then each segment contains at most vertices which are assigned under f the value by the definition of SDF, where . Thus as . Notice that , that is, . Then , which is a contradiction. Consequently, the statement (4) is true for the case when . By a similar argument above, one can obtain the same contradictions for the cases when or . Hence the statement (4) holds. This completes the proof of Lemma 1. □
Figure 2.
The directed segments ’s in .
Next we shall give our main results in this paper. The methods to prove the following theorems are similar. First we present the upper bound on by constructing signed dominating function for with weight attaining the upper bound, then we establish the lower bound on by Lemma 1, moreover, the lower bound coincides with the upper bound. Thus the exact value of is determined.
Theorem 1.
For any integer,
Proof.
Let . Define by assigning to each vertex of the value while to each vertex of the value 1. It is easy to check that f is a SDF of with weight . If (, respectively), then (, respectively), and (, respectively) by Lemma 1 (1) and (2). This implies that (, respectively) when (, respectively). This completes the proof of Theorem 1. □
Theorem 2.
For any integerssuch that,
Proof.
Suppose that for some integer . We next consider the following cases to complete the proof of Theorem 2.
Case 1.. Then for some integer . We first show that by constructing a SDF of with weight . Let , for , and for . Define by assigning to each vertex of the value while to each vertex of the value 1. It is easy to verify that f is a SDF of with weight (The SDF f of is shown in Figure 3). Thus . By Lemma 1 (3) and (4), we have and for every , and so from Lemma 1 (1). Then , which implies that .
Figure 3.
The SDF f of . The red solid vertices are assigned the value under f.
Case 2.. Then for some integer . We first prove that by establishing a SDF of with weight . Set , and for . Define as follows: each vertex of is assigned the value while each vertex of is assigned the value 1. It is not hard to see that g is a SDF of with weight (The SDF g of can be obtained by restricting f defined in Case 1 on , which is depicted in Figure 3). Thus . For each , it follows from Lemma 1 (4) that . According to Lemma 1 (1), we have . Hence . This implies that .
Case 3.. Then for some integer . We first demonstrate that by giving a SDF of with weight . We write for , and for . Assigning to all vertices of the value and to all other vertices the value 1, we produce a SDF h of with weight (The SDF h of can be obtained by restricting f defined in Case 1 (see Figure 3) to ). So . According to Lemma 1 (3) and (4), we obtain , and for every . This means that by Lemma 1 (1). Therefore, , implying that . This completes the proof of Theorem 2. □
Theorem 3.
For any positive integerssuch that,
Proof.
Suppose that for some integer . We first prove that Theorem 3 is true when . Let for . Define by assigning to each vertex of the value while to each vertex of the value 1. It is easy to check that f is a SDF of with weight . Then or when or . By Lemma 1 (1) and (3), if (, respectively), then we have (, respectively), and so (, respectively). This implies that or when or . We next assume that and proceed the proof of Theorem 3 by considering two cases.
Case 1.. Then for some integer . We first show that by constructing a SDF of with weight . Set for and for . Define as follow: each vertex of is assigned the value while each vertex of is assigned the value 1. It is not hard to verify that g is a SDF of with weight (The SDF g of is shown in Figure 4). Thus . By Lemma 1 (3) and (4), we have and for every , and so from Lemma 1 (1). Then , which implies that .
Figure 4.
The SDF g of . The red solid vertices are assigned the value under g.
Case 2.. Then for some integer . We first demonstrate that by establishing a SDF of with weight . We write for and for . Assigning to all vertices of the value , and to all other vertices the value 1, we produce a SDF h of with weight (The SDF h of can be obtained by restricting g defined in Case 1 (see Figure 4) to ). So . For every , it follows from Lemma 1 (3) that . This derives that by Lemma 1 (1). Therefore, , implying that . This completes the proof of Theorem 3. □
Theorem 4.
For any positive integerssuch that,
Proof.
Suppose that for some integer . We first show that Theorem 4 is true when . Define by assigning to each vertex of the value while to each vertex of the value 1. It is easy to check that f is a SDF of with weight . Then or when or . By Lemma 1 (1) and (3), if (, respectively), then we have (, respectively), and so (, respectively). This implies that or when or . We next assume that and consider two cases to complete the proof of Theorem 4.
Case 1.. Then for some integer . We first prove that by constructing a SDF of with weight . Let for and for . Define as follow: each vertex of is assigned the value while each vertex of is assigned the value 1. It is not hard to verify that g is a SDF of with weight (The SDF g of is shown in Figure 5). Thus . By Lemma 1 (3) and (4), we have and for every . So according to Lemma 1 (1). Then , which implies that .
Figure 5.
The SDF g of . The red solid vertices are assigned the value under g.
Case 2.. Then for some integer . We first demonstrate that by establishing a SDF of with weight . We write for and for . Assigning to all vertices of the value , and to all other vertices the value 1, we produce a SDF h of with weight (The SDF h of can be obtained by restricting g defined in Case 1 (see Figure 5) to ). So . For every , it follows from Lemma 1 (3) that . This means that by Lemma 1 (1). Therefore, , implying that . This completes the proof of Theorem 4. □
3. Conclusions and Future Work
This paper is a contribution to the theory of signed domination of graphs. In particular, we determine the exact value of signed domination number of the Cartesian product for any positive integers m and n. It is also interesting to study the signed domination number of the Cartesian product of directed cycles in future.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed equally to the manuscript typed, read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (No. 14ZR1417900) and Basic Science Research Program, the National Research Foundation of Korea, the Ministry of Education, (NRF-2018R1D1A1B07049584).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Chartrand, G.; Lesniak, L. Graphs and Digraphs, 4th ed.; Chapman and Hall: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez, A.C.; Montejano, L.P.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. Total weak Roman domination in graphs. Symmetry 2019, 11, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, A.C.; Montejano, L.P.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. On the secure total domination number of graphs. Symmetry 2019, 11, 1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haynes, T.W.; Hedetniemi, S.T.; Slater, P.J. Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Haynes, T.W.; Hedetniemi, S.T.; Slater, P.J. Foundamentals of Domination in Graphs; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Dunbar, J.E.; Hedetniemi, S.T.; Henning, M.A.; Slater, P.J. Signed Domination in Graphs, Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Applications; John Wiley Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995; Volume 1, pp. 311–322. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, W.; Song, E. Lower bounds on several versions of signed domination number. Discrete Math. 2008, 308, 1837–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Favaron, O. Signed domination in regular graphs. Discrete Math. 1996, 158, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Füredi, Z.; Mubayi, D. Signed domination in regular graphs and set-systems. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 1999, 76, 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Henning, M.A. Signed total domination in graphs. Discrete Math. 2004, 278, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matoušek, J. On the signed domination in graphs. Combinatorica 2000, 20, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, S. Complexity of majority monopoly and signed domination problems. J. Discrete Algorithms 2012, 10, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Shan, E.F.; Cheng, T.C.E. Remarks on the minus (signed) total domination in graphs. Discrete Math. 2008, 308, 3373–3380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Shan, E.F.; Cheng, T.C.E.; Kang, L.Y. An application of the Turán theorem to domination in graphs. Discrete Appl. Math. 2008, 156, 2712–2718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sohn, M.Y.; Lee, J.; Kwon, Y.S. Lower bounds of signed domination number of a graph. Bull. Korean Math. Soc. 2004, 41, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zelinka, B. Signed domination numbers of directed graphs. Czechoslov. Math. J. 2005, 55, 479–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karami, H.; Sheikholeslami, S.M.; Khodkar, A. Lower bounds on the signed domination numbers of directed graphs. Discrete Math. 2009, 309, 2567–2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volkmann, L. Signed domination and signed domatic numbers of digraphs. Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 2011, 31, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hammack, R.; Imrich, W.; Klavžar, S. Handbook of Product Graphs, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, N.; Kumar, M.; Patel, R.B. Capacity and interference aware link scheduling with channel assignment in wireless mesh networks. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2011, 34, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crevals, S.; Wang, H.C.; Kim, H.K.; Baek, H. Domination number of the directed cylinder. Australas. J. Comb. 2015, 61, 192–209. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Zhang, X.D.; Chen, X.; Meng, J.X. The domination number of Cartesian products of directed cycles. Inform. Process. Lett. 2010, 110, 171–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Zhang, X.D.; Meng, J.X. On domination number of Cartesian product of directed paths. J. Combin. Optim. 2011, 22, 651–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mollard, M. On domination of Cartesian product of directed cycles. Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 2013, 33, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mollard, M. The domination number of Cartesian product of two directed paths. J. Combin. Optim. 2014, 27, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaheen, R. Domination number of toroidal grid digraphs. Util. Math. 2009, 78, 175–184. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.D.; Liu, J.; Chen, X.; Meng, J.X. Domination number of Cartesian products of directed cycles. Inform. Process. Lett. 2010, 111, 36–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Shaheen, R. On signed domination number of Cartesian product of directed paths. Asian J. Math. Comput. Res. 2017, 18, 113–119. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.C.; Kim, H.K.; Deng, Y.P. On signed domination number of Cartesian product of directed paths. Util. Math. 2018, 109, 45–61. [Google Scholar]
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).