2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0012-365x(03)00130-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An upper bound on the sum of squares of degrees in a hypergraph

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bey [3] gives a generalization of de Caen's bound to hypergraphs. A general bound on k can be found in Székely, Clark, and Entringer [16].…”
Section: A Sum Of Squares In General Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bey [3] gives a generalization of de Caen's bound to hypergraphs. A general bound on k can be found in Székely, Clark, and Entringer [16].…”
Section: A Sum Of Squares In General Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This bound was generalised to hypergraphs by Bey [1] and improved to [2] by Das [8]. De Caen's inequality was also used by Li and Pan [7] to provide an upper bound on the largest eigenvalue of the Laplacian of a graph.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is easy to check that Theorem 1.1 (with p = 3 and q = 6) implies (1). Moreover, the implicit condition ∆(G) ≥ 2p in Theorem 1.1 is necessary.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…an appealingly simple form." He was right-his result motivated further research, e.g., see [3,7,8]. Sadly enough, neither de Caen, nor his successors refer to the work done before Olpp. In summary, the result (4) is exact but complicated, while de Caen's result (5) is simple but inexact.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2m) 3/2 (n 2 − 2m) 3/2 + 4mn − n3 and, if 0 m n 2 /4, then(2m) 3/2 (n 2 − 2m) 3/2 + 4mn − n 3 .In other words,F (n, m) = max{(2m) 3/2 , (n 2 − 2m) 3/2 + 4mn − n 3 }.Lemma 4 implies that, for all n and m,C(n, m) m √ 8m + 1 − m (2m) 3/2 ;Lemma 5 implies that, for m n 2 /4, S(n, m) (n 2 − 2m) 3/2 + 4mn − n 3 , and so, in view of (4), the second inequality in(8)is proved.Proof of the first inequality in(8): To prove the first inequality in(8), observe that, by Proposition 3, we have (2m) 3/2 − 3m C(n, m), and so, if m n 2 /4, then F (n, m) − 4m C(n, m).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%