How to prove that at least two vertices have the same degree in any graph? [duplicate]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












7












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • If $n$ is a natural number $ge 2$ how do I prove that any graph with $n$ vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?

    2 answers



  • “In a party people shake hands with one another”

    3 answers



I want to prove that at least two vertices have the same degree in any graph (with 2 or more vertices). I do have a few graphs in mind that prove this statement correct, but how would I go about proving it (or disproving it) for ALL graphs?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by JMoravitz, Mike Earnest, Servaes, Acccumulation, verret Feb 5 at 5:19


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please try to make the titles of your questions more informative. For example, Why does $a<b$ imply $a+c<b+c$? is much more useful for other users than A question about inequality. From How can I ask a good question?: Make your title as descriptive as possible. In many cases one can actually phrase the title as the question, at least in such a way so as to be comprehensible to an expert reader. You can find more tips for choosing a good title here.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Feb 4 at 17:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Symmetric, simple graphs?
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Feb 4 at 17:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of If n is a natural number ≥2 how do I prove that any graph with n vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Feb 4 at 22:23
















7












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • If $n$ is a natural number $ge 2$ how do I prove that any graph with $n$ vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?

    2 answers



  • “In a party people shake hands with one another”

    3 answers



I want to prove that at least two vertices have the same degree in any graph (with 2 or more vertices). I do have a few graphs in mind that prove this statement correct, but how would I go about proving it (or disproving it) for ALL graphs?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by JMoravitz, Mike Earnest, Servaes, Acccumulation, verret Feb 5 at 5:19


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please try to make the titles of your questions more informative. For example, Why does $a<b$ imply $a+c<b+c$? is much more useful for other users than A question about inequality. From How can I ask a good question?: Make your title as descriptive as possible. In many cases one can actually phrase the title as the question, at least in such a way so as to be comprehensible to an expert reader. You can find more tips for choosing a good title here.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Feb 4 at 17:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Symmetric, simple graphs?
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Feb 4 at 17:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of If n is a natural number ≥2 how do I prove that any graph with n vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Feb 4 at 22:23














7












7








7


3



$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • If $n$ is a natural number $ge 2$ how do I prove that any graph with $n$ vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?

    2 answers



  • “In a party people shake hands with one another”

    3 answers



I want to prove that at least two vertices have the same degree in any graph (with 2 or more vertices). I do have a few graphs in mind that prove this statement correct, but how would I go about proving it (or disproving it) for ALL graphs?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





This question already has an answer here:



  • If $n$ is a natural number $ge 2$ how do I prove that any graph with $n$ vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?

    2 answers



  • “In a party people shake hands with one another”

    3 answers



I want to prove that at least two vertices have the same degree in any graph (with 2 or more vertices). I do have a few graphs in mind that prove this statement correct, but how would I go about proving it (or disproving it) for ALL graphs?





This question already has an answer here:



  • If $n$ is a natural number $ge 2$ how do I prove that any graph with $n$ vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?

    2 answers



  • “In a party people shake hands with one another”

    3 answers







combinatorics discrete-mathematics graph-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Feb 5 at 0:00









James Rettie

31




31










asked Feb 4 at 17:52









desiignerdesiigner

675




675




marked as duplicate by JMoravitz, Mike Earnest, Servaes, Acccumulation, verret Feb 5 at 5:19


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by JMoravitz, Mike Earnest, Servaes, Acccumulation, verret Feb 5 at 5:19


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please try to make the titles of your questions more informative. For example, Why does $a<b$ imply $a+c<b+c$? is much more useful for other users than A question about inequality. From How can I ask a good question?: Make your title as descriptive as possible. In many cases one can actually phrase the title as the question, at least in such a way so as to be comprehensible to an expert reader. You can find more tips for choosing a good title here.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Feb 4 at 17:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Symmetric, simple graphs?
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Feb 4 at 17:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of If n is a natural number ≥2 how do I prove that any graph with n vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Feb 4 at 22:23













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please try to make the titles of your questions more informative. For example, Why does $a<b$ imply $a+c<b+c$? is much more useful for other users than A question about inequality. From How can I ask a good question?: Make your title as descriptive as possible. In many cases one can actually phrase the title as the question, at least in such a way so as to be comprehensible to an expert reader. You can find more tips for choosing a good title here.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Feb 4 at 17:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Symmetric, simple graphs?
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Feb 4 at 17:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of If n is a natural number ≥2 how do I prove that any graph with n vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Feb 4 at 22:23








1




1




$begingroup$
Please try to make the titles of your questions more informative. For example, Why does $a<b$ imply $a+c<b+c$? is much more useful for other users than A question about inequality. From How can I ask a good question?: Make your title as descriptive as possible. In many cases one can actually phrase the title as the question, at least in such a way so as to be comprehensible to an expert reader. You can find more tips for choosing a good title here.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Feb 4 at 17:56




$begingroup$
Please try to make the titles of your questions more informative. For example, Why does $a<b$ imply $a+c<b+c$? is much more useful for other users than A question about inequality. From How can I ask a good question?: Make your title as descriptive as possible. In many cases one can actually phrase the title as the question, at least in such a way so as to be comprehensible to an expert reader. You can find more tips for choosing a good title here.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Feb 4 at 17:56




1




1




$begingroup$
Symmetric, simple graphs?
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Feb 4 at 17:56




$begingroup$
Symmetric, simple graphs?
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Feb 4 at 17:56




1




1




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of If n is a natural number ≥2 how do I prove that any graph with n vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Feb 4 at 22:23





$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of If n is a natural number ≥2 how do I prove that any graph with n vertices has at least two vertices of the same degree?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Feb 4 at 22:23











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















12












$begingroup$

Say graph is simple with no loops and that all vertices have different degree $d_1,d_2,...d_n$, then $$d_1,d_2,...d_n = 0,1,2...,n-1$$



So there is a vertex with degree $n-1$ and a vertex with degree $0$. A contradiction.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Perhaps it would be better to include that the graph is simple?
    $endgroup$
    – Shubham Johri
    Feb 4 at 18:04










  • $begingroup$
    Is it necessary to specify "no loops"?
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    Feb 4 at 22:24










  • $begingroup$
    Of course. Take a graph with two vertices and one connected to it self. @Shufflepants
    $endgroup$
    – greedoid
    Feb 4 at 22:25







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @greedoid Then by "no loops" did you mean "no self connection"? Otherwise I'd interpret "simple with no loops" as being equivalent to a tree. But in any case, the OP didn't specify "simple" or "no loops". So, it would seem the answer to the question is: it's not provable because it's not true.
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    Feb 4 at 22:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because I didn't see it at first: This follows because in a simple graph the degree of any vertex must be less than the number of vertices. Thus if the vertex degrees are all different and less than $n$ they must be $0, 1, 2..., n-1$.
    $endgroup$
    – immibis
    Feb 5 at 0:02



















10












$begingroup$

I assume we're talking about finite graphs. I'm pretty sure your statement is false for infinite graphs.



Assume that a finite graph $G$ has $n$ vertices. Then each vertex has a degree between $n-1$ and $0$. But if any vertex has degree $0$, then no vertex can have degree $n-1$, so it's not possible for the degrees of the graph's vertices to include both $0$ and $n-1$. Thus, the $n$ vertices of the graph can only have $n-1$ different degrees, so by the pigeonhole principle at least two vertices must have the same degree.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You are assuming the graph is simple?
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    Feb 4 at 22:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes. That is assumed in the definition of graph that I learned. I learned to call a graph with loops or multiple edges between vertices a "multigraph."
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    Feb 4 at 23:04


















1












$begingroup$

EDIT: Graphs are typically defined as being finite. Infinite graphs are a generalization. I did not know this at the time of the post. I will leave this answer up though in case anyone finds it useful.



Here is a counterexample.



Let $G$ be a graph on the positive integers where there is an edge from $x$ to $y$ if $x < y le 2x$. Note that we will ignore the direction of the edges. So $2$, for example, is neighbored by $1$, $3$, and $4$.



Let $j$ and $k$ be distinct positive integers. Without loss of generality assume that $j < k$. Note that $deg(j) = j + lfloor j/2 rfloor$ and $deg(k) = k + lfloor k/2 rfloor$. We have that



$$j < k$$
$$lfloor j/2 rfloor le lfloor k/2 rfloor$$
$$j + lfloor j/2 rfloor < k + lfloor k/2 rfloor$$
$$deg(j) < deg(k)$$
$$deg(j) neq deg(k)$$



Therefore, no two different vertices will have the same degree. $square$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    As noted at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory#Definitions, "V and E are usually taken to be finite, and many of the well-known results are not true (or are rather different) for infinite graphs because many of the arguments fail in the infinite case."
    $endgroup$
    – ruakh
    Feb 5 at 3:11










  • $begingroup$
    @ruakh Huh, didn't know that. I edited a disclaimer into my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    Feb 5 at 3:44

















3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









12












$begingroup$

Say graph is simple with no loops and that all vertices have different degree $d_1,d_2,...d_n$, then $$d_1,d_2,...d_n = 0,1,2...,n-1$$



So there is a vertex with degree $n-1$ and a vertex with degree $0$. A contradiction.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Perhaps it would be better to include that the graph is simple?
    $endgroup$
    – Shubham Johri
    Feb 4 at 18:04










  • $begingroup$
    Is it necessary to specify "no loops"?
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    Feb 4 at 22:24










  • $begingroup$
    Of course. Take a graph with two vertices and one connected to it self. @Shufflepants
    $endgroup$
    – greedoid
    Feb 4 at 22:25







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @greedoid Then by "no loops" did you mean "no self connection"? Otherwise I'd interpret "simple with no loops" as being equivalent to a tree. But in any case, the OP didn't specify "simple" or "no loops". So, it would seem the answer to the question is: it's not provable because it's not true.
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    Feb 4 at 22:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because I didn't see it at first: This follows because in a simple graph the degree of any vertex must be less than the number of vertices. Thus if the vertex degrees are all different and less than $n$ they must be $0, 1, 2..., n-1$.
    $endgroup$
    – immibis
    Feb 5 at 0:02
















12












$begingroup$

Say graph is simple with no loops and that all vertices have different degree $d_1,d_2,...d_n$, then $$d_1,d_2,...d_n = 0,1,2...,n-1$$



So there is a vertex with degree $n-1$ and a vertex with degree $0$. A contradiction.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Perhaps it would be better to include that the graph is simple?
    $endgroup$
    – Shubham Johri
    Feb 4 at 18:04










  • $begingroup$
    Is it necessary to specify "no loops"?
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    Feb 4 at 22:24










  • $begingroup$
    Of course. Take a graph with two vertices and one connected to it self. @Shufflepants
    $endgroup$
    – greedoid
    Feb 4 at 22:25







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @greedoid Then by "no loops" did you mean "no self connection"? Otherwise I'd interpret "simple with no loops" as being equivalent to a tree. But in any case, the OP didn't specify "simple" or "no loops". So, it would seem the answer to the question is: it's not provable because it's not true.
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    Feb 4 at 22:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because I didn't see it at first: This follows because in a simple graph the degree of any vertex must be less than the number of vertices. Thus if the vertex degrees are all different and less than $n$ they must be $0, 1, 2..., n-1$.
    $endgroup$
    – immibis
    Feb 5 at 0:02














12












12








12





$begingroup$

Say graph is simple with no loops and that all vertices have different degree $d_1,d_2,...d_n$, then $$d_1,d_2,...d_n = 0,1,2...,n-1$$



So there is a vertex with degree $n-1$ and a vertex with degree $0$. A contradiction.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Say graph is simple with no loops and that all vertices have different degree $d_1,d_2,...d_n$, then $$d_1,d_2,...d_n = 0,1,2...,n-1$$



So there is a vertex with degree $n-1$ and a vertex with degree $0$. A contradiction.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Feb 4 at 18:06

























answered Feb 4 at 17:57









greedoidgreedoid

44.6k1156111




44.6k1156111











  • $begingroup$
    Perhaps it would be better to include that the graph is simple?
    $endgroup$
    – Shubham Johri
    Feb 4 at 18:04










  • $begingroup$
    Is it necessary to specify "no loops"?
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    Feb 4 at 22:24










  • $begingroup$
    Of course. Take a graph with two vertices and one connected to it self. @Shufflepants
    $endgroup$
    – greedoid
    Feb 4 at 22:25







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @greedoid Then by "no loops" did you mean "no self connection"? Otherwise I'd interpret "simple with no loops" as being equivalent to a tree. But in any case, the OP didn't specify "simple" or "no loops". So, it would seem the answer to the question is: it's not provable because it's not true.
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    Feb 4 at 22:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because I didn't see it at first: This follows because in a simple graph the degree of any vertex must be less than the number of vertices. Thus if the vertex degrees are all different and less than $n$ they must be $0, 1, 2..., n-1$.
    $endgroup$
    – immibis
    Feb 5 at 0:02

















  • $begingroup$
    Perhaps it would be better to include that the graph is simple?
    $endgroup$
    – Shubham Johri
    Feb 4 at 18:04










  • $begingroup$
    Is it necessary to specify "no loops"?
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    Feb 4 at 22:24










  • $begingroup$
    Of course. Take a graph with two vertices and one connected to it self. @Shufflepants
    $endgroup$
    – greedoid
    Feb 4 at 22:25







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @greedoid Then by "no loops" did you mean "no self connection"? Otherwise I'd interpret "simple with no loops" as being equivalent to a tree. But in any case, the OP didn't specify "simple" or "no loops". So, it would seem the answer to the question is: it's not provable because it's not true.
    $endgroup$
    – Shufflepants
    Feb 4 at 22:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because I didn't see it at first: This follows because in a simple graph the degree of any vertex must be less than the number of vertices. Thus if the vertex degrees are all different and less than $n$ they must be $0, 1, 2..., n-1$.
    $endgroup$
    – immibis
    Feb 5 at 0:02
















$begingroup$
Perhaps it would be better to include that the graph is simple?
$endgroup$
– Shubham Johri
Feb 4 at 18:04




$begingroup$
Perhaps it would be better to include that the graph is simple?
$endgroup$
– Shubham Johri
Feb 4 at 18:04












$begingroup$
Is it necessary to specify "no loops"?
$endgroup$
– Shufflepants
Feb 4 at 22:24




$begingroup$
Is it necessary to specify "no loops"?
$endgroup$
– Shufflepants
Feb 4 at 22:24












$begingroup$
Of course. Take a graph with two vertices and one connected to it self. @Shufflepants
$endgroup$
– greedoid
Feb 4 at 22:25





$begingroup$
Of course. Take a graph with two vertices and one connected to it self. @Shufflepants
$endgroup$
– greedoid
Feb 4 at 22:25





1




1




$begingroup$
@greedoid Then by "no loops" did you mean "no self connection"? Otherwise I'd interpret "simple with no loops" as being equivalent to a tree. But in any case, the OP didn't specify "simple" or "no loops". So, it would seem the answer to the question is: it's not provable because it's not true.
$endgroup$
– Shufflepants
Feb 4 at 22:32




$begingroup$
@greedoid Then by "no loops" did you mean "no self connection"? Otherwise I'd interpret "simple with no loops" as being equivalent to a tree. But in any case, the OP didn't specify "simple" or "no loops". So, it would seem the answer to the question is: it's not provable because it's not true.
$endgroup$
– Shufflepants
Feb 4 at 22:32




1




1




$begingroup$
Because I didn't see it at first: This follows because in a simple graph the degree of any vertex must be less than the number of vertices. Thus if the vertex degrees are all different and less than $n$ they must be $0, 1, 2..., n-1$.
$endgroup$
– immibis
Feb 5 at 0:02





$begingroup$
Because I didn't see it at first: This follows because in a simple graph the degree of any vertex must be less than the number of vertices. Thus if the vertex degrees are all different and less than $n$ they must be $0, 1, 2..., n-1$.
$endgroup$
– immibis
Feb 5 at 0:02












10












$begingroup$

I assume we're talking about finite graphs. I'm pretty sure your statement is false for infinite graphs.



Assume that a finite graph $G$ has $n$ vertices. Then each vertex has a degree between $n-1$ and $0$. But if any vertex has degree $0$, then no vertex can have degree $n-1$, so it's not possible for the degrees of the graph's vertices to include both $0$ and $n-1$. Thus, the $n$ vertices of the graph can only have $n-1$ different degrees, so by the pigeonhole principle at least two vertices must have the same degree.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You are assuming the graph is simple?
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    Feb 4 at 22:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes. That is assumed in the definition of graph that I learned. I learned to call a graph with loops or multiple edges between vertices a "multigraph."
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    Feb 4 at 23:04















10












$begingroup$

I assume we're talking about finite graphs. I'm pretty sure your statement is false for infinite graphs.



Assume that a finite graph $G$ has $n$ vertices. Then each vertex has a degree between $n-1$ and $0$. But if any vertex has degree $0$, then no vertex can have degree $n-1$, so it's not possible for the degrees of the graph's vertices to include both $0$ and $n-1$. Thus, the $n$ vertices of the graph can only have $n-1$ different degrees, so by the pigeonhole principle at least two vertices must have the same degree.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You are assuming the graph is simple?
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    Feb 4 at 22:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes. That is assumed in the definition of graph that I learned. I learned to call a graph with loops or multiple edges between vertices a "multigraph."
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    Feb 4 at 23:04













10












10








10





$begingroup$

I assume we're talking about finite graphs. I'm pretty sure your statement is false for infinite graphs.



Assume that a finite graph $G$ has $n$ vertices. Then each vertex has a degree between $n-1$ and $0$. But if any vertex has degree $0$, then no vertex can have degree $n-1$, so it's not possible for the degrees of the graph's vertices to include both $0$ and $n-1$. Thus, the $n$ vertices of the graph can only have $n-1$ different degrees, so by the pigeonhole principle at least two vertices must have the same degree.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



I assume we're talking about finite graphs. I'm pretty sure your statement is false for infinite graphs.



Assume that a finite graph $G$ has $n$ vertices. Then each vertex has a degree between $n-1$ and $0$. But if any vertex has degree $0$, then no vertex can have degree $n-1$, so it's not possible for the degrees of the graph's vertices to include both $0$ and $n-1$. Thus, the $n$ vertices of the graph can only have $n-1$ different degrees, so by the pigeonhole principle at least two vertices must have the same degree.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Feb 4 at 17:59









Robert ShoreRobert Shore

1,59415




1,59415











  • $begingroup$
    You are assuming the graph is simple?
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    Feb 4 at 22:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes. That is assumed in the definition of graph that I learned. I learned to call a graph with loops or multiple edges between vertices a "multigraph."
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    Feb 4 at 23:04
















  • $begingroup$
    You are assuming the graph is simple?
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    Feb 4 at 22:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes. That is assumed in the definition of graph that I learned. I learned to call a graph with loops or multiple edges between vertices a "multigraph."
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    Feb 4 at 23:04















$begingroup$
You are assuming the graph is simple?
$endgroup$
– Servaes
Feb 4 at 22:07




$begingroup$
You are assuming the graph is simple?
$endgroup$
– Servaes
Feb 4 at 22:07




1




1




$begingroup$
Yes. That is assumed in the definition of graph that I learned. I learned to call a graph with loops or multiple edges between vertices a "multigraph."
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
Feb 4 at 23:04




$begingroup$
Yes. That is assumed in the definition of graph that I learned. I learned to call a graph with loops or multiple edges between vertices a "multigraph."
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
Feb 4 at 23:04











1












$begingroup$

EDIT: Graphs are typically defined as being finite. Infinite graphs are a generalization. I did not know this at the time of the post. I will leave this answer up though in case anyone finds it useful.



Here is a counterexample.



Let $G$ be a graph on the positive integers where there is an edge from $x$ to $y$ if $x < y le 2x$. Note that we will ignore the direction of the edges. So $2$, for example, is neighbored by $1$, $3$, and $4$.



Let $j$ and $k$ be distinct positive integers. Without loss of generality assume that $j < k$. Note that $deg(j) = j + lfloor j/2 rfloor$ and $deg(k) = k + lfloor k/2 rfloor$. We have that



$$j < k$$
$$lfloor j/2 rfloor le lfloor k/2 rfloor$$
$$j + lfloor j/2 rfloor < k + lfloor k/2 rfloor$$
$$deg(j) < deg(k)$$
$$deg(j) neq deg(k)$$



Therefore, no two different vertices will have the same degree. $square$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    As noted at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory#Definitions, "V and E are usually taken to be finite, and many of the well-known results are not true (or are rather different) for infinite graphs because many of the arguments fail in the infinite case."
    $endgroup$
    – ruakh
    Feb 5 at 3:11










  • $begingroup$
    @ruakh Huh, didn't know that. I edited a disclaimer into my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    Feb 5 at 3:44















1












$begingroup$

EDIT: Graphs are typically defined as being finite. Infinite graphs are a generalization. I did not know this at the time of the post. I will leave this answer up though in case anyone finds it useful.



Here is a counterexample.



Let $G$ be a graph on the positive integers where there is an edge from $x$ to $y$ if $x < y le 2x$. Note that we will ignore the direction of the edges. So $2$, for example, is neighbored by $1$, $3$, and $4$.



Let $j$ and $k$ be distinct positive integers. Without loss of generality assume that $j < k$. Note that $deg(j) = j + lfloor j/2 rfloor$ and $deg(k) = k + lfloor k/2 rfloor$. We have that



$$j < k$$
$$lfloor j/2 rfloor le lfloor k/2 rfloor$$
$$j + lfloor j/2 rfloor < k + lfloor k/2 rfloor$$
$$deg(j) < deg(k)$$
$$deg(j) neq deg(k)$$



Therefore, no two different vertices will have the same degree. $square$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    As noted at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory#Definitions, "V and E are usually taken to be finite, and many of the well-known results are not true (or are rather different) for infinite graphs because many of the arguments fail in the infinite case."
    $endgroup$
    – ruakh
    Feb 5 at 3:11










  • $begingroup$
    @ruakh Huh, didn't know that. I edited a disclaimer into my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    Feb 5 at 3:44













1












1








1





$begingroup$

EDIT: Graphs are typically defined as being finite. Infinite graphs are a generalization. I did not know this at the time of the post. I will leave this answer up though in case anyone finds it useful.



Here is a counterexample.



Let $G$ be a graph on the positive integers where there is an edge from $x$ to $y$ if $x < y le 2x$. Note that we will ignore the direction of the edges. So $2$, for example, is neighbored by $1$, $3$, and $4$.



Let $j$ and $k$ be distinct positive integers. Without loss of generality assume that $j < k$. Note that $deg(j) = j + lfloor j/2 rfloor$ and $deg(k) = k + lfloor k/2 rfloor$. We have that



$$j < k$$
$$lfloor j/2 rfloor le lfloor k/2 rfloor$$
$$j + lfloor j/2 rfloor < k + lfloor k/2 rfloor$$
$$deg(j) < deg(k)$$
$$deg(j) neq deg(k)$$



Therefore, no two different vertices will have the same degree. $square$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



EDIT: Graphs are typically defined as being finite. Infinite graphs are a generalization. I did not know this at the time of the post. I will leave this answer up though in case anyone finds it useful.



Here is a counterexample.



Let $G$ be a graph on the positive integers where there is an edge from $x$ to $y$ if $x < y le 2x$. Note that we will ignore the direction of the edges. So $2$, for example, is neighbored by $1$, $3$, and $4$.



Let $j$ and $k$ be distinct positive integers. Without loss of generality assume that $j < k$. Note that $deg(j) = j + lfloor j/2 rfloor$ and $deg(k) = k + lfloor k/2 rfloor$. We have that



$$j < k$$
$$lfloor j/2 rfloor le lfloor k/2 rfloor$$
$$j + lfloor j/2 rfloor < k + lfloor k/2 rfloor$$
$$deg(j) < deg(k)$$
$$deg(j) neq deg(k)$$



Therefore, no two different vertices will have the same degree. $square$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Feb 5 at 3:44

























answered Feb 4 at 22:49









PyRulezPyRulez

4,94122470




4,94122470











  • $begingroup$
    As noted at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory#Definitions, "V and E are usually taken to be finite, and many of the well-known results are not true (or are rather different) for infinite graphs because many of the arguments fail in the infinite case."
    $endgroup$
    – ruakh
    Feb 5 at 3:11










  • $begingroup$
    @ruakh Huh, didn't know that. I edited a disclaimer into my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    Feb 5 at 3:44
















  • $begingroup$
    As noted at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory#Definitions, "V and E are usually taken to be finite, and many of the well-known results are not true (or are rather different) for infinite graphs because many of the arguments fail in the infinite case."
    $endgroup$
    – ruakh
    Feb 5 at 3:11










  • $begingroup$
    @ruakh Huh, didn't know that. I edited a disclaimer into my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    Feb 5 at 3:44















$begingroup$
As noted at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory#Definitions, "V and E are usually taken to be finite, and many of the well-known results are not true (or are rather different) for infinite graphs because many of the arguments fail in the infinite case."
$endgroup$
– ruakh
Feb 5 at 3:11




$begingroup$
As noted at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory#Definitions, "V and E are usually taken to be finite, and many of the well-known results are not true (or are rather different) for infinite graphs because many of the arguments fail in the infinite case."
$endgroup$
– ruakh
Feb 5 at 3:11












$begingroup$
@ruakh Huh, didn't know that. I edited a disclaimer into my answer.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
Feb 5 at 3:44




$begingroup$
@ruakh Huh, didn't know that. I edited a disclaimer into my answer.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
Feb 5 at 3:44


Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Christian Cage

How to properly install USB display driver for Fresco Logic FL2000DX on Ubuntu?