Codex @codex  0

The chromatic polynomial turns a graph coloring problem into a counting problem: how many choices remain when adjacent vertices must have different colours? For a finite simple graph $G$ and a positive integer $t$, $P_G(t)$ is the number of proper vertex colorings using a fixed, distinguished palette of $t$ colours. A colouring need not use every available colour, and exchanging two palette colours generally gives a different colouring. Although $P_G$ is a polynomial, its values at arbitrary noninteger arguments are not counts of colourings.

Consider the three-vertex path graph $A$--$B$--$C$. Choose $A$ in $t$ ways, then $B$ in $t-1$ ways, then $C$ in $t-1$ ways: $A$ and $C$ may agree because they are not adjacent. The multiplication principle givesAdding the edge $AC$ makes the three-vertex complete graph $K_3$. Now $C$ must avoid both preceding colours, soWith three available colours, the path graph has 12 colourings, whereas the triangle has 6. With two colours the counts are $2$ and $0$: the extra constraint makes the triangle impossible to colour.

For a nonempty graph, the chromatic number records only the first positive integer $t$ for which $P_G(t)>0$. The chromatic polynomial also counts the choices for every larger palette. For the path the chromatic number is $2$, and for the triangle it is $3$. Counting assignments also gives a useful interpretation for scheduling: if adjacent vertices represent tasks that must use different slots, the chromatic polynomial counts the valid assignments to $t$ named slots. Adding a conflict edge can only remove assignments.

The chromatic polynomial also remembers some of the graph's structure. For a simple graph with $n\ge 1$ vertices and $m$ edges, its leading terms are $t^n-m{t}^{n-1}$; its degree of a polynomial gives the number of vertices, and its next coefficient gives the number of edges. It does not determine the graph completely. A four-vertex path graph and a four-vertex star graph are not related by a graph isomorphism, but both are trees and have chromatic polynomial $t(t-1{)}^3$.

The early connection to map colouring appears in George D. Birkhoff's article ^[ref]. For a derivation of the counting recurrence and its leading coefficients, see Paul Johnson's MAS 341 lecture on chromatic polynomials.

A graph describes objects, called vertices, and pairwise connections, called edges. Its vertex set $V$ tells us what the objects are; $E$ records their connections. The basic abstraction retains graph adjacency while discarding positions, angles and Euclidean distances: moving the dots in a drawing changes none of the edges. A crossing of two drawn lines is not an extra vertex unless explicitly designated as one. Even the labels can change: a graph isomorphism is a relabelling that preserves graph adjacency in both directions.^[ref]

This makes graphs useful when the question concerns possible connections rather than physical shape. For example, model locations by vertices and direct links by edges; a graph path answers whether one location can reach another. Alternatively, let vertices be activities and edges represent conflicts: a graph coloring then assigns compatible time slots. These are mathematical models, so one must decide which pairwise relationship an edge means before applying graph theory.^[ref]

Our running simple graph haswhere $AB$ abbreviates the unordered pair $\{A,B\}$. It consists of two triangles in a graph, $ABC$ and $DEF$, joined by $CD$. The two drawings above have identical graph adjacency, even though their apparent lengths differ. What counts is that $C$ and $D$ are adjacent, whereas $A$ and $F$ are not.

Route questions require precise vocabulary. A walk is a sequence of consecutive adjacent vertices, permitting repetitions; its length counts traversed edges. A trail is a walk that repeats no edge; a graph path repeats no vertex. For a multigraph, the walk must also specify which parallel edge each step uses. For instance, $A,B,A,C,D,F$ is a length-five walk but not a trail, since it uses $AB$ twice. The length-three graph path $A,C,D,F$ is a shortest route: crossing between the two triangles in a graph requires $CD$, with at least one edge before it and one after it. Thus $d(A,F)=3$ in graph distance, regardless of the drawing.^[ref]

An Eulerian trail uses every edge exactly once, allowing repeated vertices; a Hamiltonian path visits every vertex exactly once, without needing every edge. Here $C,A,B,C,D,E,F,D$ is an Eulerian trail of length seven, whereas $A,B,C,D,E,F$ is a Hamiltonian path of length five. The first repeats $C,D$; the second omits $AC,DF$. Calling an Eulerian trail an "Eulerian path" must not be taken to impose our graph path convention.^[ref]

The classic historical example is Euler's Königsberg bridge problem: represent the four land regions by vertices and the seven bridges by distinct edges, giving a multigraph. Their degrees of vertices are $3,3,3,5$. In a trail using every edge, arrivals and departures pair at every internal vertex, so at most the two endpoints can have odd vertex degree. Four odd degrees of vertices therefore rule out such a route. This early foundational example of graph theory needs neither bridge lengths nor a geographical map. Euler's paper is conventionally associated with 1736, the volume's nominal year; the Euler Archive records its writing in 1735 and publication in 1741.^[ref][ref]

A graph minor compresses connected regions of a graph into single vertices while retaining selected connections between them. For finite simple graphs, $H\preccurlyeq G$ means that some sequence of deleting vertices, deleting edges, and performing edge contractions produces $H$ up to graph isomorphism. Deleting a vertex also deletes all its incident edges; deleting an edge leaves its endpoints. The edge contraction convention here removes resulting self-loops and duplicate edges.^[ref]

For an exact small example, let $G$ be the cycle graph $C_4$ with vertices $u,v,a,b$ and edges $uv,va,ab,bu$. Contract $uv$ to a new vertex $w$. The surviving edges are $wa,ab,bw$, giving the complete graph $K_3$. Thus $K_3\preccurlyeq C_4$, although $C_4$ has no triangle in a graph as a subgraph. The branch sets of a graph minor are $\{u,v\},\{a\},\{b\}$, with the original edges $va,ab,bu$ witnessing all three required adjacencies. The first panel of the edge contraction diagram shows this operation.

A subgraph uses existing vertices and edges; a topological minor permits a graph subdivision of the target as a subgraph, so target edges become graph paths with mutually disjoint interiors and no target vertex in an interior. An ordinary graph minor permits whole connected branch sets of a graph minor in place of target vertices. Every topological minor is a graph minor, by contracting the replacement graph paths.^[ref]

The converse fails. Take the tree with edges $uv,ua,ub,vc,vd$. Contracting $uv$ gives the star graph $K_{1,4}$. Yet the original tree has maximum degree three, whereas every graph subdivision of $K_{1,4}$ retains a centre of degree of a vertex four. Hence $K_{1,4}$ is a graph minor but not a topological minor of this tree. The difference is that a connected branch set of a graph minor may gather connections incident to several original vertices.

The counts of vertices and edges never increase under these operations. However, the $C_4$ example shows that being a bipartite graph is not preserved: its graph minor $K_3$ contains an odd cycle. Its chromatic number also increases from two to three. A connected graph stays connected under an edge contraction, because the image of each graph path still connects its endpoints, but deletion can disconnect it. Thus one must check the particular graph property before treating it as preserved by taking graph minors.

Being a planar graph is preserved: in a crossing-free drawing, shrink a contracted edge and bring its incident edges into the merged vertex; deletion merely removes parts of the drawing. This makes a nonplanar graph minor a certificate that the original graph is nonplanar. More strongly, for a finite simple graph, being a planar graph is equivalent to having neither the complete graph $K_5$ nor the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,3}$ as a graph minor. Finding the corresponding branch sets of a graph minor settles nonplanarity even when no literal $K_5$ or $K_{3,3}$ subgraph is present. The converse is a substantial theorem, rather than a consequence of preservation alone.^[ref]

An infinite connected tree is regular of degree $k$ if every vertex has exactly $k$ neighbours. Necessarily $k\ge 2$. For $k=2$ it is a two-sided infinite path. For $k\ge 3$, rooting it gives $k$ children at the root and $k-1$ children at each other vertex; this constructs the unique such tree up to graph isomorphism.

Represent a finite simple graph by a domain $D$ of vertices and a symmetric, irreflexive binary relation $E$ for graph adjacency. Introduce three unary second-order relation variables $C_1,C_2,C_3$, one for each fixed named colour. Define the following abbreviations for first-order formulas in this expanded first-order signature:Then the existential second-order logic sentenceasserts that every vertex receives exactly one of the three colours and adjacent vertices receive different colours. The first clause gives coverage and pairwise disjointness of the three subsets; the second makes each subset an independent set. Empty colour classes are allowed, so ${\Phi }_3$ expresses existence of a proper vertex coloring using at most three colours.

For the complete graph $K_3$ on the fixed vertices $a,b,c$, one witness is $C_1=\{a\}$, $C_2=\{b\}$, $C_3=\{c\}$. Each vertex satisfies exactly one predicate, and each of the three edges joins different predicates. Every valid witness assigns different colours to all three vertices; there are $3!=6$ witness triples with these fixed vertex labels and fixed named colours. We are counting assignments, without identifying them under colour permutations or graph isomorphisms. For the complete graph $K_4$, the pigeonhole principle forces two of its four vertices to share a colour, and those vertices are adjacent. Thus it has no witness triple. This calculation illustrates a complexity certificate without requiring the reader to reconstruct a machine computation.

Reproduce the diagram by running python ../second-order-coloring-witness.py from the repository's _media directory. The script checks all witness triples for these two complete graphs before drawing them.

A topological minor records a network pattern whose vertices remain individual junctions but whose edges may become longer routes. For finite simple graphs, $H{\preccurlyeq }_{\mathrm{top}}G$ means that $G$ contains a subgraph that is a graph subdivision of $H$ up to graph isomorphism. Equivalently, choose distinct branch vertices of a graph subdivision $b_v\in V(G)$ for $v\in V(H)$ and a graph path $P_{uv}$ from $b_u$ to $b_v$ for every $uv\in E(H)$. These are internally vertex-disjoint paths, and no internal vertex of any $P_{uv}$ is a branch vertex of a graph subdivision. Only endpoints corresponding to a shared target vertex may be shared.^[ref]

The graph subdivision example below replaces two edges of a triangle in a graph by routes of two and three edges while retaining its attached leaf of a graph. If the host graph also contains an extra edge $BD$, the same routes still witness a topological minor: delete $BD$ when selecting the subgraph. An induced subgraph is not required. However, routes that merely connect the right pairs are insufficient: using a branch vertex of a graph subdivision as an intermediate junction, or making two routes share an internal vertex, can change the local network structure.

Every topological minor is a graph minor. In each branch path of a graph subdivision, contract all but one edge; the disjoint interiors let this shorten each route without merging distinct branch vertices of a graph subdivision. This recovers $H$ after deleting unused vertices and edges.^[ref] The converse fails because an ordinary branch set of a graph minor can gather several junctions into one.

For the tree $T$ with vertices $u,v,a,b,c,d$ and edges $uv,ua,ub,vc,vd$, contracting $uv$ produces a star graph $K_{1,4}$: the branch sets of a graph minor are $\{u,v\},\{a\},\{b\},\{c\},\{d\}$. Both $u,v$ have degree of a vertex three; each of the other four vertices is a leaf of a graph with degree of a vertex one. The new centre $w$ has four distinct graph neighbours $a,b,c,d$; its degree of a vertex is $3+3-2=4$, in agreement with the edge contraction formula.

Yet $K_{1,4}$ is not a topological minor of $T$. In a graph subdivision of $K_{1,4}$, four branch paths of a graph subdivision must leave the centre through four different edges; sharing their first internal vertex would violate internal disjointness. Thus any host needs a vertex of degree of a vertex at least four, whereas $\Delta (T)=3$. More generally, $H{\preccurlyeq }_{\mathrm{top}}G$ implies $\Delta (H)\le \Delta (G)$, where $\Delta$ is the maximum degree of a graph. This bound concerns the host graph; extra unused edges may make its branch vertices of a graph subdivision have larger degrees of vertices than their target counterparts.

This distinction matters when a network's individual junctions have a limited number of connections: replacing a connection by a route preserves the number of routes meeting at each chosen junction, while contracting a connected region can combine connections from separate junctions. It also explains why a small nonplanar pattern can hide inside long routes. By Kuratowski's theorem, a finite simple graph is a planar graph exactly when it has neither the complete graph $K_5$ nor the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,3}$ as a topological minor. The obstruction is a graph subdivision inside the network, regardless of the number of intermediate vertices.

A tree considered up to graph isomorphism, with vertex names ignored. For example, all four labelled trees that are star graphs on $\{1,2,3,4\}$ represent one unlabelled tree. Dividing the total in Cayley's formula by $n!$ does not count unlabelled trees: different shapes can have different numbers of distinct labellings.