Tournaments
One of the important classes of directed graphs is called tournaments. A tournament is an orientation of a complete graph. We can think of a tournament as the result of players participating in round-robin games where there is no tie or rematch. An edge directed from to means that player won against player .
Prove: Let be a tournament. If all vertices have the same out-degree, then is odd.
An interesting concept, closely related to Eulerian graphs, is called Hamiltonicity. A Hamiltonian path is a path from (a vertex) to (another vertex) that visits every vertex exactly once (since it is a path).
Every tournament contains a Hamiltonian path.
The proof of this theorem will use the following simple fact: If we have a bit string , and we know that and , then there must be some index such that and . This fact can be proved by contradiction and is left as an exercise.
Let be the longest path in . We argue that is a Hamiltonian path. Assume otherwise that some vertex is not on . The idea is that, we know that, for every , either or . We know that (otherwise, if , we get a path longer than ). Also, by the same reasoning, . For the rest of the edges, we do not know the directions between and .
Now, defining the string if and otherwise. There must be some for which and , meaning that and . We can then construct a path , contradicting the maximality of .
Present an algorithm that, given a tournament as input, efficiently computes a Hamiltonian path in .
Another interesting property of a tournament is the existence of a king. Vertex is called a king in digraph if for every vertex , there is a path of length at most two (edges) from to 1.
Every tournament contains a king.
Let be a vertex in , chosen to maximize the number of its out-neighbors, i.e., . We claim that vertex is a king. Denote by and vertices that are reachable from by a shortest path of length one or two respectively. Assume otherwise that is not a king. Then there must be a vertex . Notice that (otherwise, would have been in , a contradiction) and for all (otherwise, , a contradiction). This implies that the out-neighbors of include and hence , contradicting the fact that has largest out-degree.
Notice that, in the above proof, there is another potential choice of , which is to choose to maximize the number of vertices reachable from by a path of length at most two. Since we know the validity of the above theorem, vertex must be a king. However, with this choice of , it is unclear how to derive directly the fact that is a king (you can try to prove the above theorem with this choice of and you will see that you would get stuck).
Footnotes
-
We have no idea why they would call such a vertex a king 🙃 ↩