3
$\begingroup$

When does a matroid $M$ have a set of circuits $\mathcal{C}$ with a connected intersection graph i.e. when is the graph $G$ with$V(G)=\mathcal{C}$ and adjacencies $\{A,B\}\in E(G)\iff A\cap B\neq\emptyset$ connected?

This is equivalent to charactering the matroids with a partial ear-decomposition i.e. the matroids with circuits that can be indexed $C_1,\ldots C_n$ so we get that $\forall 0<i\leq n\exists j<i:C_i\cap C_j\neq\emptyset$ (where note this indexing is not necessarily injective i.e. there might exist $i\neq j$ with $C_i=C_j$)


Suppose we call matroids with this property special now if two matroids $M_1$ and $M_2$ are special and some circuit in $M_1$ is not disjoint to some circuit in $M_2$ then $M_1\oplus M_2$ is also special, with that said then what do "special" matroids look like? Is there a simple way to characterise these?

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see why the two questions you posed are equivalent. The first seems to be saying that the intersection graph of circuits has no isolated vertices, which is different from it being connected. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 16, 2020 at 17:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SamHopkins made a slight error, updated it $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 16, 2020 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ Here's a first stab: evidently the matroid itself must be connected. I don't know if that's sufficient. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 16, 2020 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ (Actually I guess there could be a connected component which has no circuits, i.e., a unique base.) $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 16, 2020 at 17:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your two conditions are still not equivalent. Your first condition is saying that the intersection graph has a Hamiltonian path, while the second condition is saying it is connected. I answered the connected version below. $\endgroup$
    – Tony Huynh
    Commented Oct 16, 2020 at 17:42

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

This holds if and only if $M$ has at most one connected component which contains a circuit. Clearly, the intersection graph of circuits is disconnected if $M$ has two connected components which each contain a circuit. For the other direction, suppose that $M$ has at most one connected component $N$ which contains a circuit. If $M$ has at most one circuit, then clearly the intersection graph of circuits is connected. Otherwise, let $C_1$ and $C_2$ be distinct circuits of $M$. Note that $C_1$ and $C_2$ are circuits of $N$. Choose $e \in C_1$ and $f \in C_2$. Since $N$ is connected, there is a circuit $C_3$ of $N$ such that $\{e,f\} \subseteq C_3$. Thus, there is path of length $2$ between $C_1$ and $C_2$ in the intersection graph of circuits.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ @LorenzoNajt I updated it, so basically these matroids are just the direct sum of connect matroids with partition matroids if I understand your answer $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 16, 2020 at 17:57
  • $\begingroup$ More precisely, they are the direct sum of a connected matroid with a free matroid (no circuits). $\endgroup$
    – Tony Huynh
    Commented Oct 16, 2020 at 18:01
3
$\begingroup$

It seems that the question was edited while I typed. The second question I refer is when a matroid M has an ordering $C_1,\dots, C_n$ of its circuits such that for each $2\le i\le n$, there exists $j<i$ such that $C_i$ and $C_j$ intersect:

The questions are not equivalent. The answer to the second question (the one about the graph) is given by Tony Huynh: $M$ is connected except for coloops. This happens to be the answer to the first question too (the one about the circuit ordering).

We reduce the proof to the case that $M$ is coloopless. On one hand if $M$ has such an ordering for its circuits, then $M$ is connected by the answer for the other question.

The other implication is proved by induction on the number of elements. Suppose that $M$ is connected and smaller connected matroids than $M$ have such an ordering of its circuits. There is a result that says that $M$ has an element $e$ such that either $M\backslash e$ is connected or $e$ is in serial pair of $M$ and $M/e$ is connected. In the latter case, a desired ordering of the circuits of $M/e$ induces an ordering of the corresponding circuits in $M$. In the former case, one just has to add the circuits of $M$ containing $e$ to the end of a desired ordering of the circuits of $M\backslash e$.

$\endgroup$
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .