Skip to main content

Definability in First Order Theories of Graph Orderings

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 9537))

Abstract

We study definability in the first order theory of graph order: that is, the set of all simple finite graphs ordered by either the minor, subgraph or induced subgraph relation. We show that natural graph families like cycles and trees are definable, as also notions like connectivity, maximum degree etc. This naturally comes with a price: bi-interpretability with arithmetic. We discuss implications for formalizing statements of graph theory in such theories of order.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bienstock, D., Langston, M.A.: Algorithmic implications of the graph minor theorem. Handb. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. 7, 481–502 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bodlaender, H.L.: Treewidth: algorithmic techniques and results. In: Privara, I., Ruzicka, P. (eds.) MFCS ’97. LNCS, vol. 1295, pp. 19–36. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Diestel, R.: Graph Theory. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Enderton, H.: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Academic press, Waltham (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Ershov, Y.L., Lavrov, I.A., Taimanov, A.D., Taitslin, M.A.: Elementary theories. Russ. Math. Surv. 20(4), 35–105 (1965)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Hatami, H., Norine, S.: Undecidability of linear inequalities in graph homomorphism densities. J. Am. Math. Soc. 24(2), 547–565 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Immerman, N.: Descriptive Complexity. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2012)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Ježek, J., McKenzie, R.: Definability in substructure orderings, iv: finite lattices. Algebra Univers. 61(3–4), 301–312 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Ježek, J., McKenzie, R.: Definability in substructure orderings, i: finite semilattices. Algebra Univers. 61(1), 59–75 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Ježek, J., McKenzie, R.: Definability in substructure orderings, iii: finite distributive lattices. Algebra Univers. 61(3–4), 283–300 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Ježek, J., McKenzie, R.: Definability in substructure orderings, ii: finite ordered sets. Order 27(2), 115–145 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Kach, A.M., Montalban, A.: Undecidability of the theories of classes of structures. J. Symbolic Logic 79(04), 1001–1019 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaye, R.: Models of Peano Arithmetic. Oxford University Press, USA (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Kudinov, O.V., Selivanov, V.L.: Definability in the infix order on words. In: Diekert, V., Nowotka, D. (eds.) DLT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5583, pp. 454–465. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Kudinov, O.V., Selivanov, V.L., Yartseva, L.V.: Definability in the subword order. In: Ferreira, F., Löwe, B., Mayordomo, E., Mendes Gomes, L. (eds.) CiE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6158, pp. 246–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Kunos, Á.: Definability in the embeddability ordering of finite directed graphs. Order 32(1), 117–133 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuske, D.: Theories of orders on the set of words. RAIRO-Theor. Inform. Appl. 40(01), 53–74 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Robertson, N., Seymour, P.D.: Graph minors. xx. wagner’s conjecture. J. Comb. Theor. B 92(2), 325–357 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Wires, A.: Definability in the substructure ordering of simple graphs (2012). http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/awires/SimpleGraphs.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. S. Thinniyam .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Proof of Lemma 2

Lemma 2: Let \(x_n\) be an tree with at most one degree 3 node and no node of degree 4 or more. Then for any other graph \(x_0\), \(x_n \le _m x_0\) iff \(x_n \le _s x_0\).

We prove the result by induction on the number of contraction operations in transforming \(x_0\) to \(x_n\).

Base Case: There are no contraction operations, there is nothing to be done.

For the induction step there are two cases we consider:

Case 1 : \(\underline{x_n}\) has no degree 3 node. Let \(x_n\) be a path \(u_0,u_1,...,u_m\). Let \(o_1,..,o_n\) be the sequence of minor operations in normal form with \(x_i\) being obtained from \(x_{i-1}\) via operation \(o_i\). \(o_n\) must be a contraction operation (else all operations are deletions and we are done). Therefore \(x_{n-1}\) is either a path of length \(m+1\) or a graph such that \(V(x_{n-1})=V(x_n) \cup \{ u'\}\) and there exists an i with \(E(x_{n-1})=E(x_n) \cup \{ u'u_i\}\) or \(E(x_{n-1})=E(x_n) \cup \{ u'u_i, u'u_{i+1}\}\). In all cases, we can delete an endpoint of \(x_{n-1}\) or \(u'\) respectively in order to obtain \(x_n\). Thus there is a sequence \(o_1,..,o_{n-1},o_n'\) of operations (\(o_n'\) is a deletion) to obtain \(x_n\) from \(x_0\). Since this sequence has a smaller number of contractions, by induction hypothesis, \(x_n\) is a subgraph of \(x_0\).

Case 2 : \(\underline{x_n}\) has exactly one degree three node. Let \(x_n\) consist of a degree 3 node u with paths \(p_1,p_2,p_3\). As before, consider the sequence of minor operations. In one case \(x_{n-1}\) is a graph with a degree 3 node attached to three paths exactly one of which has length one more than previously. We can delete the end point of the appropriate path to get \(x_n\) from \(x_{n-1}\). Another possibility is that \(x_{n-1}\) is a graph with a vertex \(u' \notin V(x_n)\) such that \(u'\) is attached to either one or two adjacent points of one of the paths \(p_1,p_2,p_3\). As before, we can delete \(u'\) to get \(x_n\) from \(x_{n-1}\). Then by induction hypothesis \(x_n\) is a subgraph of \(x_{n-1}\).

1.2 Proof of Maximum Degree Definability in Theorem 4

Theorem 4: Connectivity, maximum degree and maximum path length are de-finable in minor.

In order to apply observation 2, we construct the following family:

\(\mathcal {S}\cup \mathcal {N}(x)\) iff x is formed by addition of some arbitrary number of isolated vertices to a star.

$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {S}\cup \mathcal {N}(x) :=&\mathcal {F}(x) \; \wedge \;\exists y \; hasStarComp(y,x) \; \wedge \; onlystar(x,y)\\&\text {where}\\ hasStarComp(y,x) :=&\mathcal {S}(y) \; \wedge \; y \le _m x \wedge \; \forall z \; conn(z) \; \wedge \; z \le _m x \supset z \le _m y \\ onlyStar(x,y) :=&\forall x' \;\mathcal {F}(x') \; \wedge \;|x'|_{gr}=|x|_{gr} \; \wedge \; uc_m(x',x) \supset \\&\forall y' \; (conn(y') \; \wedge \; y' \le _m x') \supset \; uc_m(|y'|_{gr},|y|_{gr}) \end{aligned}$$

onlyStarComp asserts that y is a star minor of x and in addition, every connected minor of x is also a minor of y. To fulfill this condition, x has to contain y as a connected component.

onlyStar asserts that any forest \(x'\) which is formed by adding an edge to x (by observation 2) has the property that all its connected minors have order one more than the order of y.

Clearly, any graph formed by adding isolated vertices to a star has these properties.

\(\mathcal {S}\cup \mathcal {N}subGraph\) states that there is a subgraph y of x which is a \(\mathcal {S}\cup \mathcal {N}\) of same order as x. Note that for \(S_n \cup N_m\) and \(S_{n'} \cup N_{m'}\) with \(n+m=n'+m'\), \(S_n \cup N_m \le _m S_{n'} \cup N_{m'}\) iff \(n \le n'\). Thus maximal y satisfying the formula \(\mathcal {S}\cup \mathcal {N}subGraph\) contains the largest star occuring as a subgraph of x. We extract the star from this object to obtain the maximum degree of x.

1.3 Proof of Lemma 4

Lemma 4: The following predicates are definable in first order arithmetic:

  1. 1.

    nchoose2(nx) iff \(x = {n \atopwithdelims ()2}\) where \({n \atopwithdelims ()2}=n \times (n-1)/2\). \(nchoose2(n,x) := 2 \times x + n = n^2\).

  2. 2.

    div(nxy) iff n is the quotient when x is divided by y; denoted \(n=x / y\). \(div(n,x,y) := \exists z \; x = y \times n + z \; \wedge \; z < y\)

  3. 3.

    rem(nxy) iff n is the remainder when x is divided by y; denoted \(n=rem(x,y)\). \(rem(n,x,y) := \exists z \; x = y \times z + n \; \wedge \; n < y\)

    We note that the exponentiation relation \(x^y=z\) is known to be definable in arithmetic (see [13]).

  4. 4.

    pow2(ix) iff \(x =2^i\). \(pow2(i,x) := \exists y \; y=2 \; \wedge \; y^i=x\)

  5. 5.

    bit(ix) iff the \(i^{th}\) bit of the binary representation of x is a 1. \(bit(i,x) := rem(x,2^i) =rem(x,2^{i-1})\)

  6. 6.

    length(nx) iff the length of the binary representation of x is n. We will denote this unique n by |x|.

    \(length(n,x) := bit(n,x) \; \wedge \; \forall n' \; n < n' \supset \lnot bit(n',x)\)

1.4 Details of Subsection 6.1

graphOrder(xn) iff \(n\ \in \mathcal {N}\) and the order of x is |n|.

$$\begin{aligned} graphOrder (x,n) := isGraph(x) \; \wedge \; 2 \times |x| = 2 +n \times (n-1) \end{aligned}$$

We will denote by \(|g_x|\) the order of the graph represented by x.

edgeExists(xij) iff x denotes a graph and \(v_iv_j \in E(g_x)\).

$$\begin{aligned} edgeExists(x,i,j) :=&\exists n \; graphOrder(x,n) \; \wedge \\&((1 \le i < j \le n \; \wedge \; bit((2ni -2n-i^2-i+2j)/2,x) ) \\&\vee (1 \le j < i \le n \; \wedge \; bit((2nj-2n-j^2-j+2i)/2,x) ) \end{aligned}$$

By doing some counting, we can see that the tuple \(\{v_i,v_j \}, i <j \) occurs at bit position \((2ni -2n -i^2 -i +2j)/2= n(n-1)/2 - (n-i)(n-i+1)/2 + j-i\).

Defining Permutations and Isomorphism. Any permutation of vertices of a vertex labelled graph induces a permutation on the edges of a graph. To identify all numbers which represent the same graph under our encoding, we will need to represent permutations on [n] and their actions.

perm(xn) iff x represents a permutation on [n].

$$\begin{aligned} perm(x,n) :=&|x| = 1+ n \times \lfloor log(n) \rfloor \; \wedge \; \forall i \; 1 \le i \le n \; \exists ! j \; 1 \le j \le n \\&i=(rem(x,2^{j \; |n|})- rem(x,2^{(j-1) \; |n|}))/ 2^{(j-1)|n|} \end{aligned}$$

We represent a permutation by a bit string which is of length \(n \times \lfloor log(n) \rfloor + 1\), note that \(\lfloor log(n) \rfloor \) is the same as |n| i.e. the length of the string n. The most significant digit is to be ignored, after which every block of \(\lfloor log(n) \rfloor \) bits represents a number from 1 to n. In addition, every such block must be unique (in order to guarantee that it is a permutation). The permutation sends \(i \in [n]\) to the number represented by the \(i^{th}\) block from the left. The formula checks that every \(i \in [n]\) is obtained from a unique block \(j \in [n]\).

applyperm(xijn) iff x is a permutation on [n] and sends i to j for \(i,j \in [n]\).

$$\begin{aligned} applyperm(x,i,j,n) :=&perm(x,n) \; \wedge \\&(rem(x,2^{(n-i+1) |n|}) - rem(x,2^{(n-i)|n|}))/2^{(n-i)|n|} = j \end{aligned}$$

We can now define the isomorphism of graphs:

$$\begin{aligned}&sameGraph(x,y) := \exists n \; |x|=|y|=1+{n \atopwithdelims ()2} \; \wedge \; \exists z \; perm(z,n) \; \wedge \\&\forall i \; \forall j \; 1 \le i < j \le n \supset \; (edgeExists(x,i,j) \iff (\exists i' \exists j' \; applyPerm(z,i,i',n) \\&\wedge \; applyPerm(z,j,j',n) \; \wedge edgeExists(y,i',j') \; ))\\ \end{aligned}$$

The formula states that for x and y to represent the same graph, there must exist a permutation z such that for any tuple \(\{ v_i,v_j \}\) of vertices of x, \(v_iv_j \in E(g_x)\) iff \(v_{z(i)}v_{z(j)} \in E(g_y)\).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ramanujam, R., Thinniyam, R.S. (2016). Definability in First Order Theories of Graph Orderings. In: Artemov, S., Nerode, A. (eds) Logical Foundations of Computer Science. LFCS 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9537. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27683-0_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27683-0_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27682-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27683-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics