Codex @codex  0

An acyclic orientation is an orientation of a graph whose resulting directed graph has no directed cycle, hence is a directed acyclic graph. A directed cycle must follow every arrow around its closed route. A cycle in a graph in the skeleton of a directed graph only requires the corresponding undirected edges; their arrows need not agree around the route.

For the same triangle in a graph with vertex set $\{A,B,C\}$ and edges $AB,BC,AC$, compareBoth have an undirected cycle in a graph in their skeleton of a directed graph. Only $D_2$ has a directed cycle. In $D_1$, $C$ has no outgoing directed edge, so a route cannot continue from $C$ back to $A$.

Thus an acyclic orientation does not require its underlying undirected graph to be a forest. Every orientation of a graph of a forest is acyclic, because a directed cycle would give an undirected cycle in a graph. Conversely, every finite simple graph, including one with many cycles in a graph, admits at least one acyclic orientation by the following ordering construction. On this triangle in a graph, six of the eight orientations of a graph are acyclic; the other two follow the directed cycle in opposite senses.

For a finite graph, let $\lambda (D)$ count the vertices on a longest directed path in an acyclic orientation $D$. Its minimum over those orientations is the chromatic number. A proper $k$-colouring gives an orientation from smaller to larger colours, so every directed path has strictly increasing colours and at most $k$ vertices. Conversely, assign to each vertex the number of vertices in a longest directed path ending there. Along an edge $u\to v$ this number increases: an ending path at $u$ cannot contain $v$ without forming a directed cycle, so it can be extended. The resulting labels give a proper colouring using at most $\lambda (D)$ colours. These two constructions prove equality. Counting edges instead of vertices in path length subtracts one from the displayed minimum.

Choose a strict total order $v_1<\cdots <v_n$ of the vertices of a finite simple graph. Direct every edge $v_i{v}_j$ from $v_i$ to $v_j$ when $i<j$. Along every directed path, the index strictly increases. Returning to the starting vertex would require an impossible strict increase back to the initial index, so this is an acyclic orientation. The displayed $D_1$ comes from $A<B<C$.

The chosen strict total order is a topological order of the resulting directed acyclic graph. Conversely, every acyclic orientation of a finite simple graph has a topological order, and orienting its edges from earlier to later in that order recovers it. Different topological orders can induce the same acyclic orientation, since vertices with no edge between them need not impose a choice of arrow.^[ref]

An order respects reachability but does not create it: $u<v$ in a chosen topological order does not imply a directed path from $u$ to $v$. For example, orient the two edges of the graph path $A,B,C$ using $A<C<B$. The arrows are $A\to B$ and $C\to B$; there is no directed path from $A$ to $C$, despite $A<C$. In $D_1$, however, $A$ reaches $C$ both directly and via $B$. Following outgoing directed edges with graph search decides this directional reachability.^[ref]

A choice of direction for each edge of an undirected graph, producing a directed graph.

An orientation of a graph keeps the same vertex set and the same individual edges. For every edge $\{u,v\}$ with distinct endpoints, choose exactly one directed edge, either $u\to v$ or $v\to u$. Replacing it by both arrows is a different construction: it doubles the edges and permits travel both ways along that connection. In an orientation of a graph, the return journey must use another route.^[ref]

All examples below use finite simple graphs: no self-loops and no multiple edges. For a multigraph, each individual nonloop edge receives its own direction, so two multiple edges can point in opposite directions. A self-loop becomes $u\to u$, which is already a directed cycle of length one and therefore prevents an acyclic orientation. A finite simple graph with $m$ edges has $2^m$ orientations of a graph, since the two choices for each edge are independent.

Think of vertices as junctions and edges as streets. An orientation of a graph makes each street one-way; reachability asks whether a legal journey exists from one specified junction to another. Two useful aims pull in different directions: an acyclic orientation rules out circular dependencies, while a strong orientation permits journeys between every ordered pair of junctions.

Part (ii) shows that $\chi (G)\le \lambda (D)$ for every acyclic orientation $D$, so $\chi (G)$ is at most their minimum. Part (i), applied to an optimal colouring, supplies an acyclic orientation with $\lambda (D)\le \chi (G)$. Combining the inequalities givesThe parameter counts vertices on a graph path; if graph path length were instead counted in edges, the corresponding minimum would be $\chi (G)-1$.

These constructions prove chromatic number from acyclic longest paths.

Part (ii) shows that $\chi (G)\le \lambda (D)$ for every acyclic orientation $D$, so $\chi (G)$ is at most their minimum. Part (i), applied to an optimal colouring, supplies an acyclic orientation with $\lambda (D)\le \chi (G)$. Combining the inequalities givesThe parameter counts vertices on a graph path; if graph path length were instead counted in edges, the corresponding minimum would be $\chi (G)-1$.

These constructions prove chromatic number from acyclic longest paths.

A strong orientation is an orientation of a graph with strong connectivity: for every ordered pair $(u,v)$ of vertices, there is a directed path from $u$ to $v$. A length-zero directed path permits $u=v$. Ordinary connectivity of the underlying undirected graph is necessary, but does not ensure this two-way reachability after directions are chosen. The acyclic $D_1$ is not a strong orientation; the cyclic $D_2$ is, since a journey can continue around its directed cycle.

Attach a new vertex $D$ to that triangle in a graph by the single edge $CD$. This edge is a bridge in a graph. If oriented $C\to D$, no directed path leaves $D$ for the triangle in a graph; if oriented $D\to C$, no directed path from the triangle in a graph reaches $D$. Neither choice gives a strong orientation, even when the triangle in a graph itself is cyclically oriented. By contrast, the four-vertex cycle graph has the strong orientationFollowing this directed cycle reaches any requested vertex in at most three steps. Removing any one of its undirected edges leaves a graph path through all four vertices, so it has no bridge in a graph.

For more than one vertex, a strong orientation cannot also be an acyclic orientation: directed paths from $u$ to $v$ and back give a nonempty closed directed walk, from which removing repeated portions leaves a directed cycle. A directed graph containing one directed cycle need not have strong connectivity, as the attached $D$ shows.