![](/files/happy5.png)
¿Are critical k-forests tight?
Let be a
-uniform hypergraph. If
is a critical
-forest, then it is a
-tree.
We say that a hypergraph is a
-graph if it is
-uniform, and denote its order by
and its size by
.
Laszlo Lovasz introduced the following concept: a -graph
is said to be a
-forest if for every edge
there exists a
-colouing
such that
; that is, such that only the edge
receives the
colours in its vertices. Clearly a
-forest is simply a forest in the usual sense (i.e., an acyclic graph). Lovasz proved that
![$ k $](/files/tex/c450c3185f7285cfa0b88d3a903c54f7df601201.png)
![$ m\leq{n-1\choose k-1} $](/files/tex/d96dde0ee2061dc7f4b2881540dc7e820febf801.png)
On the other hand, Victor Neumann-Lara introduced the following invariant: the heterochromatic number of a -graph
is the minimum number of colours
such that, in every colouring
there is an edge wich receives different colours in each of its vertices; that is, there exists
such that
. If the heterochromatic number and the rank are equal, the hypergraph is said to be tight. Clearly a
-graph is tight if and only if it is connected. A tight
-forest is called a
-tree.
I can prove the following
![$ k $](/files/tex/c450c3185f7285cfa0b88d3a903c54f7df601201.png)
![$ m={n-1\choose k-1} $](/files/tex/759741c8f7409e931096d1da4bdeb4ad8f0533a2.png)
![$ k $](/files/tex/c450c3185f7285cfa0b88d3a903c54f7df601201.png)
Finally, we say that a -forest is critical if no edge can be added to it without loosing the property of being a
-forest; it is maximal (in size) with such a property. Observe that there are critical
-forests of size
, whenever
.
So, the conjecture is to motivate the question: ¿are critical -forests tight?
Bibliography
* indicates original appearance(s) of problem.
This has been solved.
See http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3390