Next Article in Journal
The Linear Stability of a Power-Law Liquid Film Flowing Down an Inclined Deformable Plane
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable PV Power Forecasting via MPA-VMD Optimized BiGRU with Attention Mechanism
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Structure Fault Tolerance of Fully Connected Cubic Networks

by
Eminjan Sabir
1,† and
Cheng-Kuan Lin
2,*,†
1
College of Mathematics and System Sciences, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China
2
Department of Computer Science, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu 30010, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Mathematics 2025, 13(9), 1532; https://doi.org/10.3390/math13091532
Submission received: 27 February 2025 / Revised: 1 May 2025 / Accepted: 3 May 2025 / Published: 7 May 2025

Abstract

:
An interconnection network is usually modeled by a graph, and fault tolerance of the interconnection network is often measured by connectivity of the graph. Given a connected subgraph L of a graph G and non-negative integer t, the t-extra connectivity κ t ( G ) , the L-structure connectivity κ ( G ; L ) and the t-extra L-structure connectivity κ g ( G ; L ) of G can provide new metrics to measure the fault tolerance of a network represented by G. Fully connected cubic networks FC n are a class of hierarchical networks which enjoy the strengths of a constant vertex degree and good expansibility. In this paper, we determine κ t ( FC n ) , κ ( FC n ; L ) and κ t ( FC n ; L ) for t = 1 and L { K 1 , 1 , K 1 , 2 , K 1 , 3 } . We also establish the edge versions λ t ( FC n ) , λ ( FC n ; L ) and λ t ( FC n ; L ) for t = 1 and L { K 1 , 1 , K 1 , 2 } .

1. Introduction

To improve the flexibility and effectiveness of interconnection networks, a major measure is to mend its fault-tolerant performance. Fault tolerance refers to the ability of an interconnection network to run normally when some components fail. The fault-tolerance ability of interconnection networks increases the overall consistency of the parallel systems and improves its functionality. Therefore, the fault tolerance of an interconnection network is an important issue and has been studied extensively [1]. It is well known that when the underlying topology of an interconnection network is modeled by a graph G, the classical connectivity and edge connectivity of G are used as deterministic measures of fault tolerance of the interconnection network. The connectivity (resp., edge connectivity) of a graph G, denoted κ ( G ) (resp., λ ( G ) ), is the cardinality of a minimal set S of vertices (resp., edges) whose removal disconnects G or makes G S an isolated vertex. In general, the interconnection network becomes more reliable as the connectivity and edge connectivity rise.
However, these two measures are bounded by the minimum degree of the graph. Thus, they cannot accurately reflect the real fault-tolerant ability of networks under some particular cases. In order to overcome this shortcoming and reflect the reliability of interconnection networks more accurately, some generalizations of these two measures have been proposed. Esfahanian and Hakimi introduced the concept of restricted connectivity, which requires that each vertex has at least one good neighbor [2,3]. Over the past few years, the restricted connectivity has found applications in several interconnection networks; see, for example, the works in [4,5] and the references therein. Fábrega et al. introduced the t-extra connectivity by adding extra conditions on every component of a faulty network [6]. As an important measure, extra connectivity has been widely studied. Yang et al. determined the t-extra connectivity of the n-dimensional hypercube Q n for 0 t n and n 4 . More generally, Chang et al. studied the t-extra connectivity of hypercube-like networks for t = 2 , 3 . Recently, An et al. investigated the t-extra connectivity of the data center network RRect for t = 1 , 2 , 3 [7]. For further reviewing of t-extra connectivity, the readers can refer to [8,9,10,11,12].
It is worth noting that the above-mentioned research only deals with the faults of a single vertex and fails to take into account the possible impact that these faulty vertices may have on their neighboring vertices. In fact, in a real-world network environment, adjacent vertices usually have an influence on one another. Specifically, when a vertex is faulty, the vertices adjacent to the faulty one are often more prone to being affected, with an increased likelihood of suffering subsequent faults. By taking into account this case, Lin et al. introduced the L-structure connectivity κ ( G ; L ) and L-substructure connectivity κ s ( G ; L ) of a graph G and determined κ ( Q n ; L ) and κ s ( Q n ; L ) for a hypercube Q n and L { K 1 , 1 , K 1 , 2 , K 1 , 3 , C 4 } [13]. Following this trend, the two measurements have been studied extensively for other interconnection networks like two-dimensional torus networks [14], alternating group networks [15], split-star networks [16] and divide-and-swap cube [17]. In addition, the further promotion of these concepts and studies also demonstrates the strong vitality of this topic. Recently, combining t-extra connectivity and L-structure connectivity, Zhu et al. proposed t-extra L-structure connectivity and investigated this property of hypercubes [18]. In 2021, Sabir et al., inspired by the impacts brought about by structure edge faults, proposed structure edge connectivity and used the measurement to evaluate the fault tolerance of some recursive interconnection networks [19]. Later, Wang et al. studied the structure edge connectivity and substructure edge connectivity of regular networks [20]. In this paper, combining t-extra connectivity and L-structure edge connectivity, we introduce t-extra L-structure edge connectivity.
This paper focuses on fully connected cubic networks, represented as F C C N n . They are recursively defined using the three-dimensional hypercube as the base graph. As a result, F C C N n networks possess the advantages of a constant vertex degree and excellent expandability [21]. For simplicity, we represent F C C N n as FC n hereafter. Some basic properties including the connectivity, diameter and maximally fault-tolerant capability of FC n were also discussed in [21]. Later, Yang et al. provided the shortest-path routing algorithm in FC n [22]. Ho et al. studied the fault-tolerant Hamiltonian property of FC n [23]. Chin et al. proved that FC n was super-spanning-connected [24]. Anitha investigated the total domination problem in fully connected cubic networks [25]. Rao et al. explored some forcing parameters in fully connected cubic networks [26]. In this paper, we discuss the t-extra connectivity (resp., t-extra edge connectivity), L-structure connectivity (resp., L-structure edge connectivity) and t-extra L-structure connectivity (resp., t-extra L-structure edge connectivity) of the fully connected cubic networks FC n for t = 1 and L { K 1 , 1 , K 1 , 2 , K 1 , 3 } .
The rest of this article is organized as follows: In Section 2, we introduce the definitions and notations of graphs applied in this paper. The principal contributions of this paper are presented in Section 3 and Section 4. The results of the paper are summarized in Section 5.
We list some symbols in Table 1.

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Graph Definitions and Notations

For a graph G = ( V , E ) , denote by V ( G ) and E ( G ) the vertex set and edge set. The order of G is the cardinality of V ( G ) , and the size of G is the cardinality of E ( G ) . Let u , v V ( G ) , and ( u , v ) denotes the edge if u is adjacent to v. For a vertex subset S V ( G ) , we denote N G ( S ) as the set { y V ( G S ) ( x , y ) E ( G ) for some x S } . This set includes all vertices outside S that are adjacent to at least one vertex in S. In particular, G u is a subgraph of graph G, which is obtained by removing vertex u and its adjacent edges from graph G. The degree of a vertex u is deg ( u ) =   | N G ( u ) | . If deg ( u ) = 0 , we call it an isolated vertex. We denote by δ ( G ) and Δ ( G ) the minimum degree and maximum degree of graph G. We use K n to denote a complete graph with n vertices, where every pair of vertices is connected by an edge. Additionally, we use K 1 , n to denote a star which consists of a central vertex connected to n leaf vertices.
Definition 1
([6]). Let t N and S V ( G ) . Then, we call S a t-extra vertex cut if G S becomes disconnected and every component of G S contains at least t + 1 vertices. Moreover, κ t ( G ) , the t-extra connectivity, is defined as the minimum size of all t-extra vertex cuts.
By the definition above, we infer κ 0 ( G ) = κ ( G ) .
In the following five lemmas, let L be a connected subgraph of a graph G.
Definition 2
([13]). Assume that a set of vertex-disjoint connected subgraphs in G is denoted by FC . When FC ’s every element is isomorphic to L and G FC is not connected, we call FC an L-structure cut. The cardinality of a minimum L-structure cut of G is said to be the L-structure connectivity of G, written as κ ( G ; L ) . If G FC is disconnected and every element of FC is isomorphic to a connected subgraph of L, then we call FC an L-substructure cut. A minimum L-substructure cut’s cardinality is said to be the L-substructure connectivity, denoted by κ s ( G ; L ) , of G.
By definition, it is not difficult to see that κ s ( G ; L ) κ ( G ; L ) . Moreover, κ ( G ; K 1 ) and κ s ( G ; K 1 ) reduce to the classical connectivity κ ( G ) , i.e., κ ( G ; K 1 ) = κ s ( G ; K 1 ) = κ ( G ) .
Definition 3
([18]). Let t N . For L and a set of vertex-disjoint subgraphs V of G, we call V a t-extra L-structure cut if V ’s every element is isomorphic to L, G V is not connected, and G V ’s every remaining component contains more than t vertices. The cardinality of a minimum t-extra L-structure cut of G is said to be the t-extra L-structure connectivity of G, written as κ t ( G ; L ) . Moreover, we call V a t-extra L-substructure cut if V ’s every element is isomorphic to a connected subgraph of L, G V is not connected, and G V ’s every component contains more than t vertices. The cardinality of a minimum t-extra L-substructure cut of G is said to be the t-extra L-substructure connectivity of G, written as κ t s ( G ; L ) .
By definition, we have that κ t s ( G ; L ) κ t ( G ; L ) and κ 0 s ( G ; K 1 ) = κ 0 ( G ; K 1 ) = κ ( G ) .
Definition 4
([6]). For a non-negative integer t, we call an edge subset F of a graph G, a t-extra edge cut if G F is disconnected and every component of G F has at least t + 1 vertices. Moreover, the minimum cardinality over all t-extra edge cuts of G is said to be the t-extra edge connectivity, denoted by λ t ( G ) .
By the definition above, we infer λ 0 ( G ) = λ ( G ) .
Definition 5
([19]). Let E denote a set of edge-disjoint subgraphs of G. Then, we call E ( E ) an L-structure edge cut if G E ( E ) is not connected and E ’s every element is isomorphic to L. If E ( E ) is an L-structure edge cut of G, then the minimum cardinality of E is said to be the L-structure edge connectivity of G, written as λ ( G ; L ) . Moreover, if G E ( E ) is not connected and E ’s every element is isomorphic to a connected subgraph of L, then E ( E ) is said to be an L-substructure edge cut. If E ( E ) is a substructure edge cut of G, then the L-substructure edge connectivity of G, denoted by λ s ( G ; L ) is the minimum cardinality of E .
By definition, λ s ( G ; L ) λ ( G ; L ) . In addition, the K 1 , 1 -structure edge connectivity and K 1 , 1 -substructure edge connectivity reduce to the classic edge connectivity. Therefore, structure edge connectivity and substructure edge connectivity can both be regarded as general forms of the classic edge connectivity.
Definition 6.
Let t N and a set of edge-disjoint subgraphs of G be denoted by E . Then, we call E ( E ) a t-extra L-structure edge cut if E ’s every element is isomorphic to L, G E ( E ) is not connected, and every remaining component of G E ( E ) contains more than t vertices. The t-extra L-structure edge connectivity of G, denoted by λ g ( G ; L ) is the minimum cardinality of E such that E ( E ) is a t-extra L-structure edge cut of G. Moreover, E ( E ) is a t-extra L-substructure edge cut if every element in E is isomorphic with a connected subgraph of L, G E ( E ) is not connected, and G E ( E ) ’s every component has more than t vertices. The t-extra L-substructure edge connectivity λ t s ( G ; L ) of G is the minimum cardinality of E such that E ( E ) is a t-extra L-substructure edge cut of G.
By definition, we have λ t s ( G ; L ) λ t ( G ; L ) . Moreover, λ 0 s ( G ; K 1 , 1 ) = λ 0 ( G ; K 1 , 1 ) = λ ( G ) .

2.2. Fully Connected Cubic Networks

The Hamming distance between two strings of the same length is the number of positions at which the corresponding characters differ. We set Z n to be the set { 0 , 1 , , n 1 } .
Definition 7.
The n-dimensional hypercube Q n consists of the vertex set { u n 1 u n 2 u 0 u i Z 2 for each i Z n } . Two vertices x and y are adjacent in Q n if and only if they differ in exactly one position, meaning the Hamming distance h ( u , v ) between them is one.
Lemma 1
([27]). For n 3 , κ 1 ( Q n ) = λ 1 ( Q n ) = 2 n 2 .
Lemma 2
([13]). When n 3 , κ ( Q n ; K 2 ) = κ s ( Q n ; K 2 ) = n 1 , and κ ( Q n ; L ) = κ s ( Q n ; L ) = n 2 , where L { K 1 , 2 , K 1 , 3 } .
Lemma 3
([18]). κ 1 ( Q n ; K 2 ) = κ 1 s ( Q n ; K 2 ) = n 1 for n 3 .
Lemma 4
([28]). For n 3 , let F V ( Q n ) with n | F | 2 n 3 . If Q n F is not connected, then it contains exactly two components, and one of them contains 2 n | F | 1 vertices.
For any positive integer r 1 and for any a Z 8 , we set a r = a a a r . For any positive integer x 2 n 1 , let b n ( x ) denote the function that returns the binary representation of x with a fixed length n. For example, b 3 ( 7 ) = 111 , and b 3 ( 3 ) = 011 .
Definition 8
([21]). For n 1 , the n-level fully connected cubic networks, FC n , is defined as follows:
1.
FC 1 has vertex set { 0 , 1 , , 7 } and edge set { ( x , y ) h ( b 3 ( x ) , b 3 ( y ) ) = 1 for x , y { 0 , 1 , , 7 } } .
2.
For n 2 , the graph FC n is constructed from eight vertex-disjoint copies of FC n 1 by adding 28 edges. For m Z 8 , let FC n 1 m represent a copy of FC n 1 with each vertex being prefixed by m. Specifically, the vertex set of FC n 1 m is { x n 1 x n 2 x 0 x n 1 = m and x i Z 8 for each i Z n 1 . Then, the graph FC n is defined as V ( FC n ) = m = 0 7 V ( FC n 1 m ) and E ( FC n ) = ( m = 0 7 E ( FC n 1 m ) ) { ( s t n 1 , t s n 1 ) s , t Z 8 with s t } .
Figure 1 shows FC 1 and FC 2 . It is worth mentioning that FC 1 Q 3 . Let n 2 . If a vertex in FC n is of the form s n , then it is said to be a boundary vertex, and if it has the form s t n 1 with s t , then it is said to be an intercubic vertex. If an edge joins two intercubic vertices, then we call it an intercubic edge. Obviously, every FC n 1 m has seven intercubic vertices and one boundary vertex for n 2 and 0 m 7 . Let S be any subset of Z 8 . For convenience, we set FC n S to be the subgraph induced by i S V ( FC n 1 i ).
Lemma 5
([29]). For n 1 , κ ( FC n ) = 3 and λ ( FC n ) = 3 .
Lemma 6
([24]). For n 2 and for any two elements m , l { 0 , 1 , , 7 } with m l , there is exactly one intercubic edge between FC n 1 m and FC n 1 l , denoted by ( m l n 1 , l m n 1 ) .

3. Extra Connectivity, Structure Connectivity and t-Extra L-Structure Connectivity

For any vertex subset F of FC n , we set F i = F V ( FC n 1 i ) . Note that F = i Z 8 F i and F j F k = if j k .
Lemma 7.
Let F be any vertex subset of FC n with | F | 4 . Define m as max { | F i | i Z 8 } , and let t be an element in Z 8 such that | F t | = max { | F i | i Z 8 } . For n 2 , FC n F is connected if m 2 , and FC n 1 Z 8 { t } F is connected if m 4 .
Proof. 
We set { a 0 , a 1 , , a 7 } = Z 8 such that a 0 = t and | F a 0 |     | F a 1 |     | F a 7 | . Since | F | 4 and | F | = k = 0 7 | F a k | , max { | F a 1 | , | F a 2 | , | F a 3 | } 2 and | F a j | = 0 for j { 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 } . By Lemma 5, FC n 1 i F i is connected for each i { a 1 , a 2 , , a 7 } . By Lemma 6, there is an edge between FC n 1 i and FC n 1 j for any two elements i , j { a 4 , a 5 , a 6 , a 7 } with i j . Thus, the subgraph FC n 1 { a 4 , a 5 , a 6 , a 7 } is connected. We set S = { a 1 , a 2 , , a 7 } and F S = i S F i .
  • Case 1: m 4 . We set A i = { ( a i a 4 n 1 , a 4 a i n 1 ) , ( a i a 5 n 1 , a 5 a i n 1 ) , ( a i a 6 n 1 , a 6 a i n 1 ) , ( a i a 7 n 1 , a 7 a i n 1 ) } for each i { 1 , 2 , 3 } . By Lemma 6, A 1 E ( FC n ) . Since | F a 1 | 2 and | F a j | = 0 for each j { 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 } , there is an edge, say ( x , y ) , in A 1 with { x , y } F a 1 = . Since FC n 1 a 1 F a 1 and FC n 1 { a 4 , a 5 , a 6 , a 7 } are both connected, FC n 1 { a 1 , a 4 , a 5 , a 6 , a 7 } F a 1 is connected. Similarly, one can deduce that FC n 1 a i F a i is connected for each i { 2 , 3 } . Thus, we have FC n 1 S F S if m 4 .
  • Case 2: m 2 . By Case 1, we have that FC n 1 S F S is connected. Since κ ( FC n 1 ) = 3 , we have that FC n 1 { a 0 } is connected. We set A 0 = { ( a 0 a j n 1 , a j a 0 n 1 ) j { 1 , 2 , , 7 } } . By Lemma 6, A 0 E ( FC n ) . Since | F | 4 and | A 0 | = 7 , there exists an edge, say { p , q } , in A 0 with { p , q } F = . From the fact that FC n 1 a 0 F a 0 and FC n 1 S F S are both connected, one can infer that FC n F is also connected for m 2 . □

3.1. Extra Connectivity

Lemma 8.
Let F V ( FC n ) with | F | 4 . If n 2 , then FC n F contains a component with at least 8 n | F | 1 vertices.
Proof. 
We set { a 0 , a 1 , , a 7 } = Z 8 such that | F a 0 |     | F a 1 |     | F a 7 | . Suppose that F a 0 2 . We prove this lemma by mathematical induction on n. By Lemma 7, FC 2 F is connected and it contains 8 2 | F | vertices. Thus, we consider that F a 0 3 . Since | F | 4 , we have | F a 1 |   1 and | F a i |   = 0 for each i { 2 , 3 , , 7 } . Let S = { a 1 , a 2 , , a 7 } . By Lemma 7, the subgraph FC 1 S F a 1 is connected. We have the following cases:
  • Case 1: | F a 0 |   = 3 . Let R be the largest connected component of FC 1 a 0 F a 0 . If FC 1 a 0 F a 0 is connected, then R contains 8 | F | = 5 vertices. Otherwise, by Lemma 4, it contains four vertices. Consequently, R contains at least three intercubic vertices, and one of these intercubic vertices has a neighbor in FC 1 S F a 1 . Hence, the subgraph induced by V ( R ) and V ( FC 1 S ) F a 1 is connected and contains at least 4 + ( 7 × 8 | F a 1 | ) = 8 2 | F | 1 vertices.
  • Case 2: | F a 0 |   = 4 . Since | F a 0 |   = 4 , there are at least three vertices, say x 1 , x 2 and x 3 , in V ( FC 1 a 0 ) F a 0 such that those vertices are not boundary vertex of FC 1 . By Lemma 6, each vertex of them has a neighbor in FC 1 S . Thus, the subgraph induced by V ( FC 1 S ) { x 1 , x 2 , x 3 } contains | V ( FC 1 S ) { x 1 , x 2 , x 3 } | = 7 × 8 + 3 = 59 vertices. However, 59 = 8 2 | F | 1 . Therefore, this lemma is valid when n = 2 .
Suppose that it is true for n 2 . Next, we consider the case for FC n + 1 F . By Lemma 7, FC n + 1 F is connected and it contains 8 n + 1 | F | vertices. Thus, we focus on the case where F a 0 3 .
Since | F | 4 , we have | F a 1 |   1 and | F a i | = 0 for each i { 2 , 3 , , 7 } . Let S = { a 1 , a 2 , , a 7 } . By induction hypothesis, FC n a 0 F a 0 contains a component R which contains a least 8 n | F a 0 | 1 vertices. Since FC n a 0 has seven intercubic vertices, R has at least two intercubic vertices. Since | F |   | F a 0 |     1 , there is at least one intercubic vertex in R such that its neighbor is in FC n S F a 1 . Hence, the induced subgraph induced by V ( R ) and V ( FC 1 S ) F a 1 is connected and contains at least ( 8 n | F a 0 | 1 ) + ( 7 × 8 n | F a 1 | ) = 8 n + 1 | F | 1 vertices. □
Theorem 1.
κ 1 ( FC n ) = 4 if n = 1 , 5 if n 2 .
Proof. 
Since FC 1 is isomorphic to Q 3 , by Lemma 1, we have κ 1 ( FC 1 ) = 4 . Next, we consider the case for n 2 .
Let F be any subset of vertices of FC n with | F | 4 . By Lemma 8, FC n F is either connected or it contains exactly two components: one trivial component and one nontrivial component. This implies that F is not a one-extra vertex cut of FC n . Hence, κ 1 ( FC n ) 5 .
We set u = 0 n , v = 0 n 1 1 , x 1 = 0 n 1 2 , x 2 = 0 n 1 4 , x 3 = 1 n 1 3 , x 4 = 1 n 1 5 and x 5 = 0 n 2 10 . It is straightforward to see that ( 1 ) ( u , v ) E ( FC n ) , and ( 2 ) N FC n ( { u , v } ) = { x i 1 i 5 } . We set R as N FC n ( { u , v } ) . Since | V ( FC n ) | = 8 n > 7 = | { u , v } R | , R forms a vertex cut of FC n . Let w be any vertex in FC n ( R { u , v } ) . According to Definition 8, | N FC n ( w ) N FC n ( { u , v } ) | 2 . Hence, w has a neighbor in FC n R . Consequently, R is a one-extra vertex cut of FC n . Thus, κ 1 ( FC n ) 5 .
In conclusion, κ 1 ( FC n ) = 5 . □

3.2. Structure Connectivity

Theorem 2.
For n 2 , κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) = κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) = 3 .
Proof. 
We set u = 0 n , x 1 = 0 n 1 1 , y 1 = 0 n 2 10 , x 2 = 0 n 1 2 , y 2 = 0 n 2 20 , x 3 = 0 n 1 4 and y 3 = 0 n 2 40 . Then, we set F as { { x 1 , y 1 } , { x 2 , y 2 } , { x 3 , y 3 } } . Obviously, every element in F is an edge in FC n . Combining the fact that FC n F is not a connected graph with the fact that F is a K 1 , 1 -structure cut of FC n , κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 and κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 .
Let S be a K 1 , 1 -substructure cut of FC n with | S | 2 . Since S is a vertex cut and | V ( S ) | 4 , by Lemma 8, FC n S contains one trivial component C 1 = { u } and one nontrivial component C 2 . Moreover, | V ( C 1 ) | = 1 and | V ( C 2 ) | = 8 n | F | 1 . Since each element in S represents either a single vertex or two adjacent vertices, and FC n is K 3 -free, u can have at most one neighbor in each element of S. Since deg FC n ( u ) 3 , we must have | N FC n V ( S ) ( u ) | 1 , which contradicts the fact that | V ( C 1 ) | = 1 . Therefore, S cannot be a K 1 , 1 -substructure cut. Consequently, κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 and κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 for n 2 . □
Lemma 9.
For n 2 , max { κ ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) , κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) h { 2 , 3 } } 2 .
Proof. 
We set u = 0 n , x 1 = 0 n 1 3 , x 2 = 0 n 1 1 , x 3 = 0 n 1 2 , x 4 = 0 n 2 30 , y 1 = 0 n 1 6 , y 2 = 0 n 1 4 , y 3 = 0 n 1 5 and y 4 = 0 n 2 40 . It follows that ( x 1 , x i ) E ( FC n ) for every i { 2 , 3 , 4 } and ( y 1 , y j ) E ( FC n ) for every j { 2 , 3 , 4 } .
Let F 1 = { { x 1 , x 2 , x 3 } , { y 1 , y 2 , y 3 } } . Each element in F 1 is isomorphic to K 1 , 2 and | F 1 | = 2 . Since FC n F 1 is disconnected where { u } is one component of FC n F 1 , we have that F 1 is a K 1 , 2 -structure cut of FC n . Hence, max { κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) , κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) } 2 .
Similarly, define F 2 = { { x 1 , x 2 , , x 4 } , { y 1 , y 2 , , y 4 } } . Each element in F 2 is isomorphic to K 1 , 3 and | F 2 | = 2 . From the fact that FC n F 2 is not connected, we have that F 2 is a K 1 , 3 -structure cut of FC n . Therefore, max { κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) , κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) } 2 .
In conclusion, we have max { κ ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) , κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) h { 2 , 3 } } 2 . □
Theorem 3.
For n 2 , κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) = κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) = 2 .
Proof. 
By Lemma 9, we have max { κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) , κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) } 2 . Thus, we only need to show that min { κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) , κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) } 2 .
We prove it by contradiction. Let S be a K 1 , 2 -substructure set of FC n with | S | 1 . Suppose that FC n S is not connected. We assume that C is the smallest component of FC n S . Since δ ( FC n ) = 3 and FC n is triangle free, | V ( C ) | 2 . However, by Theorem 1, κ 1 ( FC n ) = 5 for n 2 . This means that under the condition | V ( C ) | 2 , if we want to disconnect FC n , we have to delete at least five vertices. However, | V ( S ) | 3 < 5 , which is a contradiction. Thus, κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 2 and so κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 2 for n 2 . □
Lemma 10.
For u , v V ( FC n ) , we have | N FC n ( u ) N FC n ( v ) | 2 .
Proof. 
Since FC 1 Q 3 , the lemma is valid for n = 1 . Thus, suppose that it is also valid for n 2 . Next, we consider the case for FC n + 1 . We assume that u FC n p and v FC n q .
Suppose that p q . According to Definition 8, u has at most one neighbor in FC n q , and v has at most one neighbor in FC n p . Thus, | N FC n ( u ) N FC n ( v ) | 2 .
Suppose that p = q . By induction hypothesis, | N FC n p ( u ) N FC n p ( v ) | 2 . Let S = Z 8 { p } . By Definition 8, the neighbor vertex of u in FC n S is not the same as the neighbor vertex of v in FC n S if both u and v are intercubic vertices. Thus, | N FC n + 1 ( u ) N FC n + 1 ( v ) | 2 . □
Theorem 4.
For n 2 κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 3 ) = κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 3 ) = 2 .
Proof. 
By Lemma 9, we have max { κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 3 ) , κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 3 ) } 2 . Thus, we only need to show that κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 3 ) 2 and κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 3 ) 2 . We prove this by contradiction. Consider a set F which is a subset of the collection of all K 1 , 3 -substructures of FC n that satisfies | F | 1 . Assume that FC n F is not connected. We suppose that C is the smallest component of FC n F . Combining the fact that δ ( FC n ) = 3 and FC n is triangle free with Lemma 10, | V ( C ) | 2 . However, by Theorem 1, κ 1 ( FC n ) = 5 for n 2 . This means that under the condition | V ( C ) | 2 , if we want to disconnect FC n , we have to delete at least five vertices. However, | V ( F ) | 4 < 5 , which is a contradiction. Thus, κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 3 ) 2 , and so κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 3 ) 2 for n 2 . □
By Lemma 2, we have κ ( FC 1 ; K 1 , h ) = κ s ( FC 1 ; K 1 , h ) = 2 for every h { 1 , 2 , 3 } . The following theorem is derived from Theorems 2, 3 and 4.
Theorem 5.
κ ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) = κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) = 2 if n = 1 and h = 1 , or n 1 and h { 2 , 3 } , 3 if n 2 and h = 1 .

3.3. t-Extra L-Structure Connectivity

Theorem 6.
κ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) = κ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) = 2 if n = 1 , 3 if n 2 .
Proof. 
According to Lemma 3, one can deduce κ 1 ( FC 1 ; K 1 , 1 ) = κ 1 s ( FC 1 ; K 1 , 1 ) = 2 . Next, we consider n 2 .
First, we show that κ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 and κ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 as follows: Let u = 0 n , v = 0 n 1 1 . Take u 1 = 0 n 1 2 , u 2 = 0 n 1 4 , v 1 = 0 n 1 3 , v 2 = 0 n 1 5 , v 3 = 0 n 2 10 , v 3 1 = 0 n 2 11 . Set F = { { u 1 , v 1 } , { u 2 , v 2 } , { v 3 , v 3 1 } } . Obviously, every element in F is isomorphic to K 1 , 1 and | F | = 3 . Because FC n F is not connected and its every component has more than one vertex, we have that F is a one-extra K 1 , 1 -structure cut of FC n . This means that κ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 and κ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 .
Below, we prove that κ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 and κ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 for n 2 . We prove this by contradiction. Let F be a one-extra K 1 , 1 -substructure cut of FC n with | F | 2 . Then, FC n F is disconnected. We assume that C is the smallest component of FC n F . Clearly, | V ( C ) | 2 . However, by Theorem 1, κ 1 ( FC n ) = 5 for n 2 . This means that under the condition | V ( C ) | 2 , if we want to disconnect FC n , we have to delete at least five vertices. However, | V ( F ) | 2 × 2 = 4 < 5 , which is a contradiction. Thus, κ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 , and so κ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) 3 for n 2 . □

4. Extra Edge Connectivity, Structure Edge Connectivity and g-Extra H-Structure Edge Connectivity

Let E be any subset of edges of FC n . We set E i = E E ( FC n 1 i ) for each i Z 8 , and E c = E ( i Z 8 E ( FC n 1 i ) ) . Note that E c is the set of faulty intercubic edges. Moreover, | E | =   | E c |   + i Z 8 | E i | .
Lemma 11.
Let E be a subset of edges of FC n with | E | 4 . Define m as max { | E i | i Z 8 } , and let t be an element in Z 8 such that | E t | = max { | E i | i Z 8 } . For n 2 , FC n E is connected if m 2 , and FC n 1 Z 8 { t } E is connected if m 4 .
Proof. 
We set { a 0 , a 1 , , a 7 } = Z 8 such that a 0 = t and | E a 0 |     | E a 1 |     | E a 7 | . Since | E | 4 and | E | =   | E c |   + k = 0 7 | E a k | , max { | E a j | j { 1 , 2 , , 7 } } 2 . We set S = { a 1 , a 2 , , a 7 } , and E S = E E a 0 . By Lemma 5, FC n 1 i E i is connected for each i S .
  • Case 1: m 4 . Let p , q S , and let R be the set S { p , q } . Since | E c |   4 and | R | = 5 , by Lemma 6, there is an index z in R such that the edge between FC n 1 p E p and FC n 1 z E z and the edge between FC n 1 q E q and FC n 1 z E z are not in E c . Since FC n 1 z E z is connected, FC n 1 p E p can connect to FC n 1 q E q via FC n 1 z E z . Consequently, for any two distinct indices α and β in S, there exists an index r S { α , β } such that FC n 1 α E α can connect to FC n 1 β E β via FC n 1 r E r . Thus, FC n 1 S E S is connected if m 4 .
  • Case 2: m 2 . By Case 1, we have that FC n 1 S E S is connected. By Lemma 5, FC n 1 a 0 E a 0 is connected. By Lemma 6, there are seven edges between FC n 1 a 0 and FC n 1 S . Since | E c |   4 , there is an edge between FC n 1 a 0 and FC n S such that it is not in E c . Thus, FC n E is connected if m 2 . □

4.1. Extra Edge Connectivity

Lemma 12.
If E is a subset of edges of FC 2 with | E | 4 , then FC 2 E contains a component with at least 8 2 1 vertices.
Proof. 
Without loss of generality, we may assume that | E 0 |     | E k | for each k 1 . According to Lemma 11, this lemma is valid for | E 0 |   2 . Hence, we consider the case | E 0 |   3 . We have | E c |   1 . Let R = { x 1 , x 2 , , x 7 } be the set of all intercubic vertices in FC 1 0 , and let x 0 = 00 be the boundary vertex in FC 1 0 . Since | E c |   1 , there is at least six intercubic vertices in FC 1 0 such that their corresponding intercubic edges are not in E c . We may suppose that x i ’s corresponding intercubic edge is not in E c for each i { 1 , 2 , , 6 } . Thus, x i can connect to FC 1 S via its corresponding intercubic edge. Let e be the x 7 ’s corresponding intercubic edge.
  • Case 1: e E c . We have that x 7 can connect to FC 1 S via its corresponding intercubic edge. Hence, the subgraph H induced by R and V ( FC 1 S ) is connected and it contains 7 + 7 × 8 = 8 2 1 vertices.
  • Case 2: e E c . We have | E 0 |   = 3 .
  • Case 2.1: | N FC 1 0 ( x 0 ) { x 1 , x 2 , , x 6 } |     1 . Let y N FC 1 0 ( x 0 ) { x 1 , x 2 , , x 6 } . Since ( x 0 , y ) E 0 and y can connect to FC 1 S via its corresponding intercubic edge, x 0 can connect to FC 1 S via y. Hence, the subgraph H induced by { x 0 } , R { x 7 } and V ( FC 1 S ) is connected and it contains 7 + 7 × 8 = 8 2 1 vertices.
  • Case 2.2: | N FC 1 0 ( x 0 ) { x 1 , x 2 , , x 6 } | =   0 . Since deg FC n 1 0 ( x 0 ) = 3 , we have that there are at least two edges corresponding to x 0 that are in E 0 . Since deg FC 1 0 ( x 7 ) = 3 , | N FC 1 0 ( x 7 ) { x 1 , x 2 , , x 6 } | 1 . Similarly to Case 2.1, the subgraph H induced by R and V ( FC 1 S ) is connected and contains 7 + 7 × 8 = 8 2 1 vertices. □
Lemma 13.
Let F E ( FC n ) with | F | 4 . If n 2 , then FC n F contains a component with at least 8 n 1 vertices.
Proof. 
According to Lemma 12, the lemma is valid for n = 2 . Below, we assume that the result is also valid for n 1 . Without loss of generality, we may assume that | E 0 |     | E k | for each k 1 . According to Lemma 11, this lemma is valid for | E 0 |     2 . Hence, we consider the case | E 0 |     3 .
By Lemma 11, FC n 1 S is connected for S = { 1 , 2 , . . . , 7 } . By the induction hypothesis, there is a connected component R in FC n 1 0 E 0 that contains at least 8 n 1 1 vertices. Consequently, R contains at least six intercubic vertices. Since | E c |   4   , some of the intercubic vertices in R can connect to FC n 1 S via its intercubic edge. Thus, the subgraph induced by V ( R ) and V ( FC n 1 S ) is connected and it contains at least ( 8 n 1 1 ) + 7 × 8 n 1 = 8 n 1 vertices. □
From Lemma 13, we obtain the corollary below.
Corollary 1.
Let F E ( FC n ) with | F | 4 . Then, one of the following is true:
1. FC n F is connected;
2. FC n F contains exactly two components, and one of them contains 8 n 1 vertices.
Theorem 7.
λ 1 ( FC n ) = 4 if n = 1 , 5 if n 2 .
Proof. 
Combining the fact that FC 1 Q 3 with Lemma 1, we obtain λ 1 ( Q 3 ) = 4 . Hence, λ 1 ( FC 1 ) = 4 . Thus, we consider the case n 2 below. On one hand, we prove λ 1 ( FC n ) 5 . Let u = 0 n , v = 0 n 1 1 , F = N FC n ( { u , v } ) . Clearly, ( u , v ) E ( FC n ) . Because d e g FC n ( u ) = 3 , d e g FC n ( v ) = 4 and u,v have no common vertices, | F | = 5 . Since λ ( FC n ) = 3 , FC n F { u , v } is connected. Thus, every component of FC n F has at least two vertices. This means that F is a one-extra edge cut of FC n . Thus, λ 1 ( FC n ) 5 . On the other hand, we prove λ 1 ( FC n ) 5 . Suppose, to the contrary, that λ 1 ( FC n ) < 5 . Suppose that S is an arbitrary minimum one-extra edge cut of FC n . This means | F | = λ 1 ( FC n ) 4 . By Corollary 1, FC n F contains a component, say C, that satisfies | V ( C ) | = 1 . Clearly, this is a contradiction. Hence, λ 1 ( FC n ) 5 . In summary, λ 1 ( FC n ) = 5 . □

4.2. Structure Edge Connectivity

Theorem 8.
When 1 h 3 , λ ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) = λ s ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) = 3 h .
Proof. 
The result clearly holds for h = 1 since λ ( FC n ) = 3 . In the following we consider the case h { 2 , 3 } .
First, we show that min { λ s ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) , λ ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) } 3 h for h { 2 , 3 } . Assume that S is a K 1 , h -substructure set of FC n with | S | 3 h 1 . Since | E ( S ) | 2 < 3 = λ ( FC n ) , FC n E ( S ) is connected. Thus, min { λ ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) , λ s ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) } 3 h .
Next, we prove that max { λ s ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) , λ ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) } 3 h for h { 2 , 3 } . We set u = 0 n , u 1 = 0 n 1 1 , u 2 = 0 n 1 2 , u 3 = 0 n 1 4 and u 3 1 = 0 n 1 5 .
  • Case 1: h = 2 . Set S = { { u , u 1 , u 2 } , { u , u 3 , u 3 1 } } . Obviously, S’s every element is isomorphic to K 1 , 2 and | S | = 2 . Since FC n E ( F ) is disconnected, we have that E ( S ) is clearly a K 1 , 2 -structure edge cut of FC n . This means that λ ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 2 and λ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 2 .
  • Case 2: h = 3 . Set S = { { u , u 1 , u 2 , u 3 } } . Obviously, F’S every element isomorphic to K 1 , 3 and | S | = 1 . Since FC n E ( F ) is disconnected, we have that E ( F ) is clearly a K 1 , 3 -structure edge cut of FC n . This implies that λ ( FC n ; K 1 , 3 ) 1 and λ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 3 ) 1 .
In conclusion, for 1 h 3 , we have λ ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) = λ s ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) = 3 h . □

4.3. g-Extra H-Structure Edge Connectivity

Theorem 9.
λ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) = λ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) = 2 if n = 1 , 3 if n 2 .
Proof. 
By definition, we obtain λ 1 ( FC 1 ; K 1 , 2 ) = λ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) = 2 . In the following, we prove first that λ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 3 and λ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 3 for n 2 . Let u = 0 n , v = 0 n 1 1 . Take u 1 = 0 n 1 2 , u 2 = 0 n 1 4 , v 1 = 0 n 1 3 , v 2 = 0 n 1 5 , v 3 = 0 n 2 10 , v 3 1 = 0 n 2 11 . Set S = { { u , u 1 , u 2 } , { v , v 1 , v 2 } , { v 3 , v , v 3 1 } } . Obviously, S’s every element is isomorphic to K 1 , 2 and | S | = 3 . Because FC n E ( S ) is not connected and FC n E ( S ) ’s every component has more than one vertices, we infer that E ( S ) is a one-extra K 1 , 2 -structure edge cut of FC n and so λ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 3 and λ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 3 . Now, we prove that λ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 3 and λ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 3 when n 2 . Assume that S is an arbitrary set of edge disjoint K 1 , 2 -substructures of FC n with | S | 2 . Then, | E ( S ) | 4 < λ 1 ( FC n ) = 5 . Thus, λ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 3 and so λ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 2 ) 3 . □

5. Conclusions

Fault tolerance is significant to the reliability analysis of interconnection networks. Extra connectivity, structure connectivity and t-extra L-structure connectivity are important parameters to measure network fault tolerance. In this paper, we explored the t-extra connectivity, L-structure connectivity and t-extra L-structure connectivity of fully connected cubic networks FC n . In detail, we determined that
1 . κ 1 ( FC n ) = 4 if n = 1 , 5 if n 2 . 2 . κ ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) = κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) = 2 if n = 1 , 3 if n 2 . 3 . κ ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) = κ s ( FC n ; K 1 , h ) = 2 for n 1 and h = 2 , 3 . 4 . κ 1 ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) = κ 1 s ( FC n ; K 1 , 1 ) = 2 if n = 1 , 3 if n 2 .
We also established the corresponding edge versions of the results 1 4 . On the basis of this research, one can continue to study the t-extra connectivity, L-structure connectivity and t-extra L-structure connectivity of FC n for more general t and L.

Author Contributions

Methodology: E.S.; writing—review and editing: C.-K.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (12261085).

Data Availability Statement

The manuscript has no associated data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Nadeem, M.F.; Imran, M.; Afzal Siddiqui, H.M. Fault tolerance designs of interconnection. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 2023, 16, 1125–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Esfahanian, A.-H.; Hakimi, S.L. On computing a conditional edge-connectivity of a graph. Inf. Process. Lett. 1988, 27, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Esfahanian, A.-H. Generalized measures of fault tolerance with application to n-cube networks. IEEE Trans. Comput. 1989, 38, 1586–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Li, X.; Zhou, S.; Guo, X.; Ma, T. The h-restricted connectivity of the generalized hypercubes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 2021, 850, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lin, L.; Huang, Y.; Wang, X.; Xu, L. Restricted connectivity and good-neighbor diagnosability of split-star networks. Theor. Comput. Sci. 2020, 824, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fàbrega, J.; Fiol, M.A. Extraconnectivity of graphs with large girth. Discrete Math. 1994, 127, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. An, N.; Lv, M.; Fan, W.; Han, L.; Xiao, F. Extra connectivity of the data center network-RRect. J. Supercomput. 2024, 80, 16452–16473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cheng, E.; Lipták, L.; Qiu, K.; Shen, Z.; Vangipuram, A. On the g-extra connectivity of augmented cubes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 2022, 33, 155–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gu, M.-M.; Hao, R.-X.; Lei, J. Fault-tolerance and diagnosability of hierarchical star networks. Int. J. Comput. Math. 2018, 3, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sun, X.; Dong, Q.; Zhou, S.; Lv, M.; Lian, G.; Liu, J. Fault tolerance analysis of hierarchical folded cube. Theor. Comput. Sci. 2019, 790, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sun, X.; Fan, J.; Sabir, E.; Cheng, B.; Yu, J. Reliability of augmented k-ary n-cubes under the extra connectivity condition. J. Supercomput. 2023, 79, 13641–13669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yi, Y.; Fan, J.; Cheng, B.; Wang, Y.; Yu, J. The 3-extra connectivity of the data center network BCube. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 2022, 65, 3199–3208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lin, C.-K.; Zhang, L.; Fan, J.; Wang, D. Structure connectivity and substructure connectivity of hypercubes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 2016, 634, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cheng, D. Extra connectivity and structure connectivity of 2-dimensional torus networks. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 2023, 970, 114059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ge, H.; Zhang, S.; Ye, C. The structure fault tolerance of alternating group networks. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 2024, 35, 483–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhao, L.; Wang, S. Structure connectivity and substructure connectivity of split-star networks. Discret Appl. Math. 2023, 341, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhou, Q.; Zhou, S.; Liu, J.; Liu, X. Structure connectivity and substructure connectivity of split-star networks. Theor. Comput. Sci. 2021, 880, 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhu, B.; Zhang, S.; Ge, H.; Ye, C. The g-extra H-structure connectivity and g-extra H-substructure connectivity of hypercubes. AIMS Math. 2023, 8, 24848–24861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sabir, E.; Meng, J. Structure fault tolerance of recursive interconnection networks. Comput. J. 2021, 64, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, N.; Meng, J.; Tian, Y. Reliability analyses of regular graphs based on edge-structure connectivity. Discret Appl. Math. 2024, 356, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, H.; Chang, E.K.C. Fully connected cubic network: A highly recursive interconnection network. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS’05), Fukuoka, Japan, 20–22 July 2005; pp. 250–255. [Google Scholar]
  22. Yang, X.; Megson, G.M.; Evans, D.J. An oblivious shortest-path routing algorithm for fully connected cubic networks. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 2006, 66, 1294–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ho, T.-Y.; Lin, C.-K. Fault-Tolerant hamiltonian connectivity and fault-tolerant hamiltonicity of the fully connected cubic networks. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2009, 25, 1855–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chin, C.; Chen, H.-C.; Hsu, L.-. H; Chiou, S.-C.; Lai, K.-T. Super spanning connectivity of the fully connected cubic networks. J. Interconnect. Netw. 2010, 11, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Anitha, J. Total domination in fully connected cubic networks. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2016, 109, 211–218. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rao, Y.; Kosari, S.; Anitha, J.; Rajasingh, I.; Rashmanlou, H. Forcing parameters in fully connected cubic networks. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Xu, J.M.; Zhu, Q.; Hou, X.M.; Zhou, T. On restricted connectivity and extra connectivity of hypercubes and folded hypercubes. J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.) 2005, E-10, 203–207. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lai, P.-L.; Tan, J.J.M.; Chang, C.-P.; Hsu, L.-H. Conditional diagnosability measures for large multiprocessor systems. IEEE Trans. Comput. 2005, 54, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, H.; Gu, W.; Chang, E.K.C. Fully connected cubic network applied in parallel processing. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Region 10 Conference on Computers, Communications, Control and Power Engineering, TENCOM ’02, Proceedings, Beijing, China, 28–31 October 2002; Volume 1, pp. 363–366. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Illustrations of FC 1 and FC 2 .
Figure 1. Illustrations of FC 1 and FC 2 .
Mathematics 13 01532 g001
Table 1. Notations and descriptions.
Table 1. Notations and descriptions.
NotationDescription
G = ( V , E ) A graph with vertex set V and edge set E
S V ( G ) A vertex subset of G
N G ( S ) Neighbor set of a vertex subset of G
N G ( S ) Edge neighbor set of a vertex subset of G
K n A complete graph
K 1 , r Star graph
Q n Hypercube
FC n n-Dimensional fully connected cubic networks
κ ( G ) Connectivity of the graph G
λ ( G ) Edge connectivity of the graph G
κ g ( G ) g-Extra connectivity of the graph G
λ g ( G ) g-Extra edge connectivity of the graph G
κ ( G ; L ) L-structure connectivity of the graph G
λ ( G ; L ) L-structure edge connectivity of the graph G
κ g ( G ; L ) g-Extra L-structure connectivity of the graph G
λ g ( G ; L ) g-Extra L-structure edge connectivity of the graph G
N Set of natural numbers
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sabir, E.; Lin, C.-K. Structure Fault Tolerance of Fully Connected Cubic Networks. Mathematics 2025, 13, 1532. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13091532

AMA Style

Sabir E, Lin C-K. Structure Fault Tolerance of Fully Connected Cubic Networks. Mathematics. 2025; 13(9):1532. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13091532

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sabir, Eminjan, and Cheng-Kuan Lin. 2025. "Structure Fault Tolerance of Fully Connected Cubic Networks" Mathematics 13, no. 9: 1532. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13091532

APA Style

Sabir, E., & Lin, C.-K. (2025). Structure Fault Tolerance of Fully Connected Cubic Networks. Mathematics, 13(9), 1532. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13091532

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop