You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Mathematics
  • Article
  • Open Access

13 October 2020

Uniformly Resolvable Decompositions of Kv-I into n-Cycles and n-Stars, for Even n

,
and
1
Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche e Informatiche, Scienze Fisiche e Scienze della Terra, Università di Messina, 98166 Messina, Italy
2
Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Catania, 95131 Catania, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Design Theory and Applications in Combinatorial Algebraic Geometry

Abstract

If X is a connected graph, then an X-factor of a larger graph is a spanning subgraph in which all of its components are isomorphic to X. Given a set Γ of pairwise non-isomorphic graphs, a uniformly resolvable Γ-decomposition of a graph G is an edge decomposition of G into X-factors for some graph X Γ . In this article we completely solve the existence problem for decompositions of K v -I into C n -factors and K 1 , n -factors in the case when n is even.

1. Introduction and Definitions

For any graph G, let V ( G ) and E ( G ) be the vertex-set and the edge-set of G, respectively. Throughout the paper K v will denote the complete graph on v vertices, while K v \ K h will denote the graph with V ( K v ) as vertex-set and E ( K v ) \ E ( K h ) as edge-set (this graph is sometimes referred to as a complete graph of order v with a hole of size h).
Given a set Γ of pairwise non-isomorphic graphs, a Γ-decomposition (or Γ-design)of a graph G is a decomposition of the edge-set of G into subgraphs (called blocks) that are isomorphic to some element of Γ . A Γ -factor of G is a spanning subgraph of G whose components are isomorphic to a member of Γ . If X Γ , then an X-factor is a spanning subgraph whose components are isomorphic to X. A Γ -decomposition of G is resolvable if its blocks can be partitioned into Γ -factors and is called a Γ-factorization of G. A Γ -factorization of G is called uniform if each factor is an X-factor for some graph X Γ . A K 2 -factorization of G is known as a 1-factorization and its factors are called 1-factors; it is well known that a 1-factorization of K v exists if and only if v is even ([1]). A C k -factorization of K v exists if and only if 3 k v , v and k are odd, and v 0 ( mod k ) ([2]).
A Γ -isofactorization of G is a Γ -factorization with isomorphic factors. If Γ is the set of all possible cycles of K v , then determining the existence of possible Γ -isofactorizations of K v with an odd v is known as the Oberwolfach Problem. It was first posed in 1967 by Gerhard Ringel and asks whether it is possible to seat an odd number v of mathematicians at n round tables in ( v 1 ) / 2 meals so that each mathematician sits next to everyone else exactly once. If the n round tables are of sizes p 1 , p 2 , , p n (with p 1 + p 2 + + p n = v ), the Oberwolfach Problem asks for an isofactorization of K v with factors whose components are isomorphic to cycles of length p 1 , p 2 , , p n . It is easy to see that such a factorization can exist only if v is odd. For even v, it is common to instead decompose K v -I, with the complete graph with the edges of a 1-factor removed. The uniform Oberwolfach problem (all cycles of a factor have the same size) has been completely solved by Alspach and Häggkvist [3] and Alspach, Schellenberg, Stinson and Wagner [2] .
Additional existence problems for Γ -factorizations of K v or K v -I have been studied and many results have been obtained, especially on uniformly resolvable Γ -decompositions: when Γ is a set of two complete graphs of an order of at most five in [4,5,6,7]; when Γ is a set of two or three paths on two, three or four vertices in [8,9,10]; for Γ = { P 3 , K 3 + e } in [11]; for Γ = { K 3 , K 1 , 3 } in [12]; for Γ = { C 4 , P 3 } in [13]; for Γ = { K 3 , P 3 } in [14]; for Γ = { K 2 , K 1 , 3 } in [15,16]; for Γ = { K 2 , K 1 , 4 } in [17]. Most famous is the variation of the Oberwolfach problem known as the Hamilton-Waterloo problem. In this problem the meals for the dining mathematicians take place at two different venues. Hence a decomposition of K v or K v -I is sought where the factors can be of either one of two types. In particular, the uniform case asks for a decomposition of K v or K v -I into C p -factors and C q -factors. Thus the round tables in one venue sit p mathematicians, whereas the tables in the other venue each sit q. Of course, in this case p and q must divide v and Γ = { C p , C q } .
A uniformly resolvable { X , Y } -decomposition of G into exactly r X-factors and s Y-factors is abbreviated as ( X , Y ) -URD ( G ; r , s ) . If G = K v we simply write ( X , Y ) -URD ( v ; r , s ) . In this paper, we study uniformly resolvable Γ -decompositions in the case when Γ = { C n , K 1 , n } . The existence problem of a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( v ; r , s ) was solved for n = 2 ([9], note that C 2 = K 2 ) and n = 3 ([12]). Here we deal with the case when n is even and greater or equal to 4. For an even n, it is known that a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( v ; 0 , s ) exists if and only if v 1 ( mod 2 n ) and v 0 ( mod n + 1 ) ([18]), while, when v is even, no ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( v ; r , s ) exists with r > 0 because otherwise, 2 ( n + 1 ) r + 2 n s = ( n + 1 ) ( v 1 ) , which is clearly impossible. Hence we study the existence problem for ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( K v I ; r , s ) , which is denoted by ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) and, since n and n + 1 must divide v, we assume that v 0 ( mod n ( n + 1 ) ) . Furthermore, since ( v 2 ) ( n + 1 ) 2 n N , necessarily r > 0 .
For v 0 ( mod n ( n + 1 ) ) , defined the set J ( v ) according to the following Table 1.
Table 1. The set J ( v ) .
We completely solve the existence problem of a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) by proving the following result.
Theorem 1.
Let v 0 ( mod n ( n + 1 ) ) . There exists a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) if and only if ( r , s ) J ( v ) .

3. Necessary Conditions and Preliminary Lemmas

Let n 0 ( mod 2 ) , n 4 . To start with, in this section we will give necessary conditions for the existence of a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) and then we will prove some basic lemmas that are useful for obtaining our main result. Let p = n ( n + 1 ) .
Lemma 3.
Let v 0 ( mod p ) . If there exists a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) then ( r , s ) J ( v ) .
Proof. 
By the resolvability:
r n v n + n s v n + 1 = v ( v 2 ) 2 ,
and hence
2 ( n + 1 ) r + 2 n s = ( n + 1 ) ( v 2 ) .
Denote by R the set of r C n -factors and by S the set of s K 1 , n -factors. Since the factors of R are regular of degree 2, every vertex of K v -I is incident to r C n -factors in R and ( v 2 ) 2 r edges in S. Assume that any fixed vertex appears in x factors of S with degree n and in y factors of S with degree 1. Since
x + y = s a n d n x + y = v 2 2 r ,
equality (1) gives us:
( n + 1 ) ( v 2 n x y ) + 2 n ( x + y ) = ( n + 1 ) ( v 2 ) ,
which implies y = n x and s = ( n + 1 ) x . Replacing s = ( n + 1 ) x in Equation (1) provides r = v 2 2 n x , where x < v 2 2 n (because r is a positive integer) and so 0 x v 2 2 n . □
In what follows, we will denote by ( a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) the n-cycle on { a 1 , a 2 , , a n } with edge-set { { a 1 , a 2 } , { a 2 , a 3 } , , { a n 1 , a n } , { a n , a 1 } } , and by ( a ; a 1 , a 2 , , a n ) the graph K 1 , n on the vertex-set { a , a 1 , a 2 , , a n } with edge-set { { a , a 1 } , { { a , a 2 } , , { a , a n } } . If G is a graph whose vertices belong to Z v , then we call orbit of B under Z v the set ( G ) = { G + i : i Z v } , where G + i is the graph with V ( G + i ) = { a + i : a V ( G ) } and E ( G + i ) = { { a + i , b + i } : { a , b } V ( G ) } .
Lemma 4.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( r , s ) of C n ( t ) where t = n + 1 exists for ( r , s ) = ( n + 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , n + 1 ) .
Proof. 
Start from the cycle C = ( 0 , 1 , , n 1 ) on Z n and expand it t = n + 1 times. For the case ( r , s ) = ( 1 , n + 1 ) , take the following factors:
F = { ( 0 j , 1 j , , ( n 1 ) j ) : j = 0 , 1 , , n } ,
F j = { ( i j ; ( 1 + i ) j + 1 , ( 1 + i ) j + 2 , , ( 1 + i ) j + n ) : i Z n } , j Z n + 1 .
For the case ( r , s ) = ( n + 1 , 0 ) , take the following C n -factors:
F j = { ( 0 i , 1 i + j , 2 i , 3 i + j , , ( n 2 ) i , ( n 1 ) i + j ) : i Z n + 1 } , j Z n + 1 . □
Lemma 5.
A G-factorization of G ( n ) exists for G = C n , K 1 , n .
Proof. 
For G = C n , start from the n-cycle ( 1 , 2 , , n ) and on { 1 , 2 , , n } × Z n consider the following C n -factors:
F i = { ( 1 i , 2 i + j , 3 i , 4 i + j , , n i + j ) : j Z n } , i Z n .
For G = K 1 , n , start from ( 0 ; 1 , 2 , , n ) and on { 0 , 1 , 2 , , n } × Z n consider the following K 1 , n -factors:
F i = { ( 0 i ; 1 0 , 1 1 , , 1 n 1 ) , ( 0 i + 1 ; 2 0 , 2 1 , , 2 n 1 ) , , ( 0 i 1 ; n 0 , n 1 , , n n 1 ) } , i Z n . □
Lemma 6.
There exists a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( n , n ( n + 1 ) ) of C n ( p ) .
Proof. 
Let F i , i = 1 , 2 , , n be the C n -factorization of C n ( n ) given by Lemma 5. Expand each vertex t = n + 1 times. For i = 1 , 2 , , n , for each n-cycle C of F i on V ( C ) × Z t place a copy of a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( 1 , n + 1 ) of C n ( t ) (given by Lemma 4) to get a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( n , n ( n + 1 ) ) of C n ( p ) . □
It is not difficult to generalize Lemma 4.8 of [17] so as to obtain a more general result that holds for any even n.
Lemma 7.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( 0 , ( n + 1 ) 2 ) of C m ( p ) exists for every m 3 .
Lemma 8.
There exists a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( 2 ( n + 1 ) ; 0 , n + 1 ) .
Proof. 
The orbit of B = ( 0 ; 1 , 2 , , n ) under Z 2 ( n + 1 ) is the block set of a K 1 , n -decomposition of K 2 ( n + 1 ) I and can be partitioned into the n + 1 factors F i = { B + i + ( n + 1 ) j , j = 0 , 1 } , for i = 0 , 1 , , n , to obtain the required design. □
Lemma 9.
Let v = p k , k 1 . A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) exists for every ( r , s ) ( v 2 2 n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , k n 2 .
Proof. 
Start from a C n -RGDD of type 2 n k 2 , which exists by Lemma 1 and has α = n k 2 1 factors. Applying the GDD-construction with t = n + 1 gives a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r ¯ , s ¯ ) of type [ 2 ( n + 1 ) ] n k 2 for each ( r ¯ , s ¯ ) ( n k 2 1 ) * { ( n + 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , n + 1 ) } (the input designs are given by Lemma 4). Now fill the groups with copies of a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( 2 ( n + 1 ) ; 0 , n + 1 ) from Lemma 8 to get a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( p k ; r , s ) for each ( r , s ) { ( 0 , n + 1 ) } + ( n k 2 1 ) { ( n + 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , n + 1 ) } = v 2 2 n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 1 , , n k 2 . The missing case ( x = 0 ) corresponds to a C n -factorization of K p k I , which is known to exist (see [21]). □
Lemma 10.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( p ; r , s ) exists for every ( r , s ) J ( p ) .
Proof. 
It follows by Lemma 9 for k = 1 . □
Lemma 11.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( 2 p ; r , s ) exists for every ( r , s ) J ( 2 p ) .
Proof. 
It follows by Lemma 9 for k = 2 . □
Lemma 12.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r , s ) of type p 1 + 2 k , k 1 , exists for every ( r , s ) { k p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , k n , k ( n + 1 ) } .
Proof. 
Applying the GDD-construction with t = n + 1 to a C n -RGDD of type n 1 + 2 k (which exists by Lemma 1 and has α = n k factors) gives a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r ¯ , s ¯ ) of type p 1 + 2 k for each ( r ¯ , s ¯ ) n k * { ( n + 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , n + 1 ) } = { p k n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n k } (the input designs are given by Lemmas 4). For ( r , s ) = ( 0 , k ( n + 1 ) 2 ) , apply the GDD-construction with t = p to a C 1 + 2 k -RGDD of type 1 1 + 2 k , which exists by Lemma 1 and has α = k factors (the input designs are given by Lemma 7). □
Lemma 13.
Let v = p + 2 p k , k > 0 . A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -IURD * ( p + 2 p k , p ; [ r , s ] , [ r , s ] ) exists for each ( r , s ) J ( p ) and ( r , s ) { p k n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n k , ( n + 1 ) k } . In addition, if k n 2 + 1 , then a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) exists for every ( r , s ) J ( v ) .
Proof. 
It follows by applying the filling construction to the GDD from Lemma 12 and using copies of a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( p ; r , s ) from Lemma 10 as input designs. □
As a consequence of the previous lemma we have the following two lemmas.
Lemma 14.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -IURD ( 3 p , p ; [ r , s ] , [ r , s ] ) exists for each ( r , s ) J ( p ) and ( r , s ) { ( p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) , x = 0 , 1 , , n + 1 } .
Lemma 15.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( 3 p ; r , s ) exists for every ( r , s ) J ( 3 p ) .
Lemma 16.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r , s ) of type ( 2 p ) k , k 2 , exists for every ( r , s ) { ( ( k 1 ) p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n ( k 1 ) , ( n + 1 ) ( k 1 ) } .
Proof. 
Applying the GDD-construction with t = n + 1 to a C n -RGDD of type ( 2 n ) k , k 2 , (which exists by Lemma 1 and has α = n ( k 1 ) factors) gives a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r ¯ , s ¯ ) of type ( 2 p ) k for each ( r ¯ , s ¯ ) ( k 1 ) n * { ( n + 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , n + 1 ) } = { p ( k 1 ) n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n ( k 1 ) (the input designs are given by Lemmas 4). For ( r , s ) = ( 0 , ( k 1 ) ( n + 1 ) 2 ) , apply the GDD-construction with t = p to a C 2 k -RGDD of type 2 k , k 2 , which exists by Lemma 1 and has α = k 1 factors (the input designs are given by Lemma 7). □
Lemma 17.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r , s ) of type ( 2 p ) 2 exists for every ( r , s ) { ( p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n + 1 } .
Proof. 
It follows by Lemma 16 for k = 2 . □
Lemma 18.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r , s ) of C 4 ( p ) exists for every ( r , s ) { p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n + 1 } .
Proof. 
It follows by Lemma 17 because the graph K 2 p , 2 p is isomorphic to C 4 ( p ) . □
Lemma 19.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r , s ) , n 6 , of type p 2 exists for every ( r , s ) { p 2 n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n 2 } .
Proof. 
For n 6 , applying the GDD-construction with t = n + 1 to a C n -RGDD of type n 2 (which exists by Lemma 1 and has α = n 2 factors) gives a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r ¯ , s ¯ ) of type p 2 for each ( r ¯ , s ¯ ) n 2 * { ( n + 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , n + 1 ) } = p 2 n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n 2 (the input designs are given by Lemmas 4). □
Lemma 20.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r , s ) of type ( 2 p ) 3 exists for every ( r , s ) { ( 2 p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , 2 ( n + 1 ) } .
Proof. 
By Lemma 16 a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r , s ) of type ( 2 p ) 3 exists for every ( r , s ) { ( 2 p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , 2 n , 2 n + 2 } . We need to solve the case for x = 2 n + 1 . For n 6 , apply the GDD-construction with t = p to a ( C 6 , K 2 ) -URGDD ( 1 , 2 ) of type 2 3 (which can be obtained from a C 6 -RGDD of type 2 3 by replacing one 6-cycle with two 1-factors) and get a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r , s ) of type ( 2 p ) 3 with ( r , s ) = 2 ( n 2 , n 2 ( n + 1 ) ) + ( 0 , ( n + 1 ) 2 ) = ( n , ( n + 1 ) ( 2 n + 1 ) ) (the input designs are two copies of a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( n 2 , n 2 ( n + 1 ) ) of type p 2 given by Lemma 19, and a copy of a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( 0 , ( n + 1 ) 2 ) of C 6 ( p ) from Lemma 7). For n = 6 , apply the GDD-construction with t = p = 42 to a C 6 -RGDD of type 2 3 and get a ( C 6 , K 1 , 6 ) -URGDD ( 6 , 91 ) of type 84 3 (the input designs are given by Lemmas 6 and 7). □
By Lemmas 11 and 20, and the filling constructions the following two lemmas follow.
Lemma 21.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -IURD ( 6 p , 2 p ; [ r , s ] , [ r , s ] ) exists for each ( r , s ) J ( 2 p ) and ( r , s ) { ( 2 p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) , x = 0 , 1 , , 2 ( n + 1 ) } .
Lemma 22.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( 6 p ; r , s ) exists for each ( r , s ) J ( 6 p ) .
Lemma 23.
A ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( 10 p ; r , s ) exists for every ( r , s ) J ( 10 p ) .
Proof. 
Apply the filling construction to a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r , s ) of type ( 2 p ) 5 with ( r , s ) { ( 4 p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , 4 n , 4 ( n + 1 ) } (given by Lemma 16 for k = 5 ) by using copies of a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( 2 p ; r , s ) from Lemma 11 as input designs. □

4. The Main Result

Lemma 24.
Let v 0 ( mod 4 p ) . Then a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) exists for every ( r , s ) J ( v ) .
Proof. 
Let v = 4 p k , k 1 . Applying the GDD-construction with t = 2 p to a 2-RGDD of type 1 2 k (i.e., a 1-factorization of K 2 k , which is known to have α = 2 k 1 1-factors) gives a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URGDD ( r ¯ , s ¯ ) of type ( 2 p ) 2 k for each ( r ¯ , s ¯ ) ( 2 k 1 ) * { ( p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n + 1 } (the input designs are given by Lemma 17). Now fill the groups with copies of a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( 2 p ; r , s ) with ( r , s ) J ( 2 p ) (from Lemma 11) to get a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) for each ( r , s ) J ( p ) + ( 2 k 1 ) * { ( p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n + 1 } = J ( 4 p k ) . □
Lemma 25.
Let v 2 p ( mod 4 p ) . Then a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) exists for every ( r , s ) J ( v ) .
Proof. 
Let v = 2 p + 4 p k , k 0 . The cases v = 2 p , 6 p and 10 p follow by Lemmas 11, 22 and 23, respectively. For k 3 , applying the frame-construction with t = 2 p and h = 2 p to a 2-frame of type 2 k (see [22]) gives a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) for each ( r , s ) J ( 2 p ) + 2 k { ( p n x , ( n + 1 ) x ) : x = 0 , 1 , , n + 1 } = J ( 2 p + 4 p k ) (the input designs are given by Lemmas 11, 17 and 21). □
Lemma 26.
Let v p ( mod 2 p ) . Then a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) exists for every ( r , s ) J ( v ) .
Proof. 
Let v = p + 2 p k , k 0 . The cases v = p , 3 p and 5 p follow by Lemmas 10, 13 and 15, respectively. For l 3 , apply the frame-construction with t = p and h = p to a { C 3 , C 4 } -frame of type 2 l , which is known to exist ([20]) and have α = 1 factor missing in any fixed group, and get a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD ( v ; r , s ) for each ( r , s ) J ( p ) + k * { ( p m x , ( m + 1 ) x ) , x = 0 , 1 , , m + 1 } = J ( p + 2 p k ) (the input designs are given by Lemmas 10, 12, 14 and 18). □
As a consequence of Lemmas 24–26, our main result immediately follows.
Theorem 2.
Let v 0 ( mod n ( n + 1 ) ) . There exists a ( C n , K 1 , n ) -URD * ( v ; r , s ) if and only if ( r , s ) J ( v ) .

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.L.F., S.M. and A.T.; formal analysis, G.L.F., S.M. and A.T.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L.F., S.M. and A.T.; writing—review and editing, G.L.F., S.M. and A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by GNSAGA INDAM (Giovanni Lo Faro, Antoinette Tripodi), by FFABR Unime 2019 (Antoinette Tripodi), and by Università di Catania, Piano della Ricerca 2016/2018 Linea di intervento 2 (Salvatore Milici).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lucas, E. Récréations Mathématiques; Gauthier-Villars: Paris, France, 1883; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alspach, B.; Schellenberg, P.; Stinson, D.R.; Wagner, D. The Oberwolfach problem and factors of uniform length. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 1989, 52, 20–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alspach, B.; Häggkvist, R. Some observations on the Oberwolfach problem. J. Graph Theory 1985, 9, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dinitz, J.H.; Ling, A.C.H.; Danziger, P. Maximum Uniformly resolvable designs with block sizes 2 and 4. Discret. Math. 2009, 309, 4716–4721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  5. Rees, R. Uniformly resolvable pairwise balanced designs with block sizes two and three. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 1987, 45, 207–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  6. Schuster, E.; Ge, G. On uniformly resolvable designs with block sizes 3 and 4. Des. Codes Cryptogr. 2010, 57, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wei, H.; Ge, G. Uniformly resolvable designs with block sizes 3 and 4. Discret. Math. 2016, 339, 1069–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gionfriddo, M.; Milici, S. Uniformly resolvable -designs with = {P3, P4}. Australas. J. Combin. 2014, 60, 325–332. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gionfriddo, M.; Milici, S. Uniformly resolvable {K2, Pk}-designs with k = {3,4}. Contrib. Discret. Math. 2015, 10, 126–133. [Google Scholar]
  10. Faro, G.L.; Milici, S.; Tripodi, A. Uniformly resolvable decompositions of Kv into paths on two, three and four vertices. Discret. Math. 2015, 338, 2212–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gionfriddo, M.; Milici, S. On the existence of uniformly resolvable decompositions of Kv and Kv-I into paths and kites. Discret. Math. 2013, 313, 2830–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Küçükçifçi, S.; Milici, S.; Tuza, Z. Maximum uniformly resolvable decompositions of Kv and Kv-I into 3-stars and 3-cycles. Discret. Math. 2015, 338, 1667–1673. [Google Scholar]
  13. Milici, S. A note on uniformly resolvable decompositions of Kv and Kv-I into 2-stars and 4-cycles. Australas. J. Combin. 2013, 56, 195–200. [Google Scholar]
  14. Milici, S.; Tuza, Z. Uniformly resolvable decompositions of Kv into P3 and K3 graphs. Discret. Math. 2014, 331, 137–141. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen, F.; Cao, H. Uniformly resolvable decompositions of Kv into K2 and K1,3 graphs. Discret. Math. 2016, 339, 2056–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Küçükçifçi, S.; Faro, G.L.; Milici, S.; Tripodi, A. Resolvable 3-star designs. Discret. Math. 2015, 338, 608–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Keranen, M.S.; Kreher, D.L.; Milici, S.; Tripodi, A. Uniformly resolvable decompositions of Kv into 1-factors and 4-stars. Australas. J. Combin. 2020, 76, 55–72. [Google Scholar]
  18. Yu, M.L. On tree factorizations of Kn. J. Graph Theory 1993, 17, 713–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cao, H.; Niu, M.; Tang, C. On the existence of cycle frames and almost resolvable cycle systems. Discret. Math. 2011, 311, 2220–2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  20. Vadivu, A.S.; Muthusamy, A. Cycle frames and the Oberwolfach problem. Graphs Comb. 2019, 16, 83–95. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoffman, D.G.; Schellenberg, P.J. The existence of Ck-factorizations of K2n-I. Discret. Math. 1991, 97, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  22. Colbourn, C.J.; Dinitz, J.H. (Eds.) Handbook of Combinatorial Designs, 2nd ed.; Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.