0

1

I have been trying to count the number of graphs up to isomorphism which are: 1. Simple 2. Connected 3. Have n-edges

I apologize in advance if there is ample documentation on this question, however, I have found none.

Thus far, my best overestimate is:

g(n) = The sum (t(i) * (a(i) choose (n - i - 1))) from i=x to y

where:

g(n) := the number of such graphs with n-edges t(i) := the number of trees up to isomorphism on i vertices a(i) := the number of non-adjacent vertices in a tree on i vertices

I have conjectured that: a(i) = the sum (i - k) from k=1 to i

y = n+1

x is greater than or equal to the number of vertices in the complete graph with the closest number of edges to n, rounded down

I have also read:

that the number of complete graphs including isomorphism with i vertices is i^(i-2), and have placed that as the upper bound for t(i)

And that there is an estimate for the number of such graphs up to isomorphism: c*(a^i)*(i^(-5/2)) with c=.534949606... and a=2.99557658565...

What I would like to know is: A. Is there an answer already found for this question? B. Is there any information off the top of your head which might assist me? C. Is this problem incredibly hard?

Again, I apologize if this is not appropriate for this site, and for the lack of TeX.

I am a sophomore undergraduate student, and I have been trying to answer or estimate this question for use as an upper bound for another larger question that I am working on.

Thanks for the help.

flag
Get the first few values, then look 'em up at the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. – Gerry Myerson Jun 3 2011 at 22:28
A. I doubt an exact number is known but I am pretty sure the question has been asked before and there is a lot of literature; B the rough order is $e^{n\log n}$ (give or take a constant factor in the exponent). C. That depends on the precision you want. The crude estimate I quoted is trivial but the more accurate bounds you want, the harder it gets. – fedja Jun 3 2011 at 23:12
1 
It is certainly not the state of the art but a quick literature search yields the asymptotics $\left[\frac 2e\frac n{\log^2 n}\gamma(n)\right]^n$ with $\gamma(n)=1+c(n)\frac{\log\log n}{\log n}$ and $c(n)$ eventually between $2$ and $4$. Is it good enough for your purposes? – fedja Jun 4 2011 at 0:28
Thanks for your help. This will be enough to place an upper bound on what I was looking for, though I'm afraid I vastly underestimated the order of magnitude. Because of this, I doubt I'll be able to use this to produce a close estimate. For anyone interested in further pursuing this problem on it's own. If there is an estimate available for the average number of spanning trees in an n-vertex simple graph, I believe dividing the sum that I proposed: g(n) = The sum (t(i) * (a(i) choose (n - i - 1))) from i=x to y by a manipulation of this number may provide an estimate. – malloc8 Jun 4 2011 at 1:03

1 Answer

2

Start here and you might find more.

http://oeis.org/A002905

link|flag
Thanks, that was helpful. – malloc8 Jun 4 2011 at 1:04

Your Answer

Get an OpenID
or

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.