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?

Bahrain

Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay