2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.disc.2015.11.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Total domination in maximal outerplanar graphs II

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
20
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, Dorfling et al. showed that, except for two exceptions, every maximal outerplanar graph with order n5 has total domination number at most 2n/5. Since a maximal outerplanar graph has minimum degree 2, the most we can hope for is two disjoint total dominating sets (Observation ).…”
Section: Planar and Related Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, Dorfling et al. showed that, except for two exceptions, every maximal outerplanar graph with order n5 has total domination number at most 2n/5. Since a maximal outerplanar graph has minimum degree 2, the most we can hope for is two disjoint total dominating sets (Observation ).…”
Section: Planar and Related Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then D ⊆ V (G) is a dominating set if every vertex from V (G)\D is adjacent to some vertex from D. The domination number γ(G) is the minimum cardinality of a dominating set of G. D is a total dominating set if every vertex from V (G) is adjacent to some vertex from D. The total domination number γ t (G) is the minimum cardinality of a total dominating set of G. Note that the total domination number is not defined for graphs that contain isolated vertices, hence unless stated otherwise, all graphs in this paper are isolate-free. For more information on the total domination in graphs see the recent book [17] and papers [11,12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proofs of these two results in [4,7] are quite different. While Theorem 1 follows from an elegant labeling argument, the proof of Theorem 2 relied on a detailed case analysis; one reason for this difference probably being the existence of the two exceptional graphs.…”
Section: F I G U R Ementioning
confidence: 98%