5
$\begingroup$

Suppose we have a directed graph with colored edges such that (1) every vertex has at most one outgoing edge of each color, (2) for any path of length two, say from $u$ to $v$ to $w$, there exists a vertex $v'$ and a directed path from $u$ to $v'$ to $w$ such that edge $(u,v')$ has the same color as edge $(v,w)$ and edge $(v',w)$ has the same color as edge $(u,v)$, and (3) for all $v$, if we have distinct edges $(v,w)$ and $(v,w')$, there exists $x$ and edges $(w,x)$ and $(w',x)$ with the same color as $(v,w')$ and $(v,w)$ respectively.. Then a standard argument (the "Jordan-Holder argument") shows that, for any starting vertex $s$, EITHER there is no terminating path from $s$ (where a terminating path is one whose final vertex $t$ has no outgoing edges) OR every maximal path from $s$ terminates at a path-independent vertex $t$ and moreover the number of times each color gets used is path-independent.

Can anyone provide a citation for this lemma or something like it? (It occurs in a more specialized form in the theory of abelian sandpiles, and again in the theory of rewrite systems, and again in group theory, but it's really just a general-purpose graph-theory lemma.)

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Is condition (2) really necessary? $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2017 at 1:04
  • $\begingroup$ Is condition (2) even satisfied for abelian sandpiles? $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2017 at 1:38
  • $\begingroup$ Possibly relevant (well, related): The "aNL" lemma on pages 7-8 of Marc Bezem, Thierry Coquand, Newman's Lemma - a Case Study in Proof Automation and Geometric Logic, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.63.8200 . $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2017 at 1:39
  • $\begingroup$ Sam and Darij are right; condition (2) is irrelevant, and it is false in the case of sandpiles. $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Here's a proof of a more general result that Alex Postnikov presented recently in class. (Actually he did not use colors as you do but that can be incorporated into the proof.) He called the result the "Roman Lemma" because a) it may have been known to the ancient Romans and b) it is based on the principle that all roads lead to Rome. :) (There was also some discussion about its relation to the Roman Catholic Church which I will omit here.)

Recall that a sink of a directed graph is a vertex of outdegree zero.

Lemma: Let $G$ be an edge-colored directed graph, not necessarily finite, without loops but possibly with multiple edges, whose underlying undirected graph is connected. Suppose that whenever $(v,w)$ and $(v,w')$ are edges of $G$ (even with $w = w'$) there is some $k\geq 0$ and two paths $(v,w = w_0), (w_0,w_1),\ldots, (w_{k-1},w_{k} = u)$ and $(v,w' = w'_0), (w'_0,w'_1),\ldots, (w'_{k-1},w'_{k} = u)$ that bring $w$ and $w'$ back together in the same number of steps and whose multisets of edge colors are the same. Then either: (1) $G$ has no sinks or (2) $G$ has a unique sink $q$, and starting from any fixed $v \in G$, every path from $v$ eventually leads to $q$, in the same number of steps, and moreover with the same multiset of edge colors.

(Note that (2) means that, ignoring edge colors, $G$ is the Hasse diagram of a graded poset with a unique maximal element.)

Pf: Suppose (1) does not hold. So $G$ has some sink; choose a sink $q$. For $i \geq 0$, let $L_i$ be the set of all vertices in $G$ whose shortest path to $q$ is of length $i$.

Subclaim 1: The vertices in $L_i$ have edges only to vertices in $L_{i-1}$. Thus the restriction to $L_0,L_1,\ldots,L_i$ is a Hasse diagram of a graded poset with unique maximal element $q$.

Pf: By induction on $i$. Clear for $i=0$. Suppose to the contrary that $v \in L_i$ has an edge to $w$ with $w \notin L_{i-1}$. By construction there is $w' \in L_{i-1}$ such that $(v,w')$ is also an edge. Then we can join up $w$ and $w'$ in the same number of steps to some $u$. But since by induction all paths from $w'$ to $q$ have length $i-1$, we get a path from $w$ to $q$ of length $i-1$, which contradicts $w \notin L_{i-1}$ (if $w$ is not in any $L_j$ for any $j \leq i-1$ this is clearly a contradiction; if $w$ is in $L_j$ for some $j < i-1$ then this yields a path from $v$ to $q$ via $w$ having length $j+1<i$, which contradicts $v \in L_i$).

Subclaim 2: $\bigsqcup_{i=0}^{\infty} L_i = G$.

Pf: Let $v$ be a vertex in $G$. We want to prove that $v$ has a directed path to $q$. By the assumption that the underlying undirected graph of $G$ is connected, there is an undirected path from $v$ to $q$. We prove that a directed path from $v$ to $q$ exists by induction on the length of the shortest undirected path from $v$ to $q$. It is clear if this length is zero. So let $v=v_0,v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_k=q$ be an undirected path from $v$ to $q$. If the first step is a directed edge $(v_0,v_1)$ in the right direction, then clearly we are done by induction. However, if the first step is a directed edge $(v_1,v_0)$ in the ``wrong'' direction, still we have $v_1 \in L_i$ for some $i$ by induction, and thus $v_0 \in L_{i-1}$ by Subclaim 1. So we are done.

We have now proved everything except the stuff about edge colors.

Subclaim 3 (colors): All paths from a fixed $v \in L_i$ to $q$ have the same multiset of edge colors.

Pf: Again induction on $i$. Again clear for $i=0$. Let $v \in L_i$. Suppose we have two paths $(v,w = w_0), (w_0,w_1),\ldots, (w_{i-1},w_{i} = q)$ and $(v,u = u_0), (u_0,u_1),\ldots, (u_{i-1},u_{i} = q)$. By assumption we can find two other paths $(v,w = w'_0), (w'_0,w'_1),\ldots, (w'_{k-1},w'_{k} = t)$ and $(v,u = u'_0), (u'_0,u'_1),\ldots, (u'_{k-1},u'_{k} = t)$ with the same multisets of colors. Continue these paths from $t$ to $q$, maintaining the same multisets of colors: $(v,w'_0), (w'_0,w'_1),\ldots, (w'_{i-1},w'_{i} = q)$ and $(v,u'_0), (u'_0,u'_1),\ldots, (u'_{i-1},u'_{i} = q)$. By induction $(w'_0,w'_1),\ldots, (w'_{i-1},w'_{i})$ has the same multiset of colors as $(w_0,w_1),\ldots, (w_{i-1},w_{i})$ and $(u'_0,u'_1),\ldots, (u'_{i-1},u'_{i})$ has the same multiset of colors as $(u_0,u_1),\ldots, (u_{i-1},u_{i})$. This meant that $(v,w_0), (w_0,w_1),\ldots, (w_{i-1},w_{i})$ and $(v,u_0), (u_0,u_1),\ldots, (u_{i-1},u_{i})$ have the same multiset of colors.

This completes the whole proof. $\square$

As for a reference, I do not know.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Here is even a further slight generalization: instead of assigning each edge a color, assign it a monomial of degree at least one in the commuting variables x1,x2,x3,…x1,x2,x3,…. If all the edge weights were monomials of degree exactly one these would just be colors. Then define the weight of a path to be the product of weights of its edges. Change the condition to: whenever (v,w)(v,w) and (v,w′)(v,w′) are edges, there exists two paths, one extending (v,w)(v,w) and one extending (v,w′)(v,w′), that reach the same final vertex and have the same weight (although they may have different lengths). $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2017 at 13:32
  • $\begingroup$ Then the same conclusion holds: either there is no sink, or a unique sink qq and every path from any fixed vv to qq has the same weight. The way we can prove this is by subdividing each edge the degree of its monomial minus one times, and distributed its weight on these new edges so that every edge has a monomial of degree one as its weight. This new graph is just an edge-colored graph, but its dynamics are clearly the same as the graph before subdividing. $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2017 at 13:33
  • $\begingroup$ The statement doesn't really square to me. If the vertices of $G$ are $1,2,3,\ldots,+\infty$, and edges go from $u$ to $v$ whenever $u < v$, then what exactly do you mean by "every path from $v$ eventually leads to $q$"? Not the path $1,2,3,\ldots$ for sure. You might want to set some finiteness condition, such as "for each vertex $v$, there exists an integer $N$ such that each path starting at $v$ has length $\leq N$". $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2017 at 21:44
  • $\begingroup$ That graph doesn't satisfy the condition. There is an edge $(1,2)$ and an edge $(1,\infty)$, but we cannot bring these together by two paths that have the same length. $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2017 at 22:06
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I see! Still, why is the disjoint union of the $L_i$ the whole $G$ in the proof of Subclaim 1? $\endgroup$ Feb 18, 2017 at 22:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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