Constructing an Infinite Family of Graphs











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












In a number of graph theory books that I am working through I come across questions that ask something like $textit{'Construct an infinite}$ $textit{family of graphs with _________'}$ and state some property in the blank space that the family of graphs have to satisfy. These questions totally stump me, so my question is what, if any, is a good method of attack for these types of questions? Also what is a 'solution' to these questions meant to look like?



As an example, I am currently trying to work through the following problem from John Meier's book $textit{Groups, Graphs and Trees; An Introduction to the Geometry of Infinite Groups}$ that asks:




Construct infinitely many distinct (2,3)-biregular graphs




In this case I understand what a biregular graph is and can construct a number of distinct graphs by hand, however, I don't understand how to generalise it to get infinitely many distinct graphs of this type.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    In a number of graph theory books that I am working through I come across questions that ask something like $textit{'Construct an infinite}$ $textit{family of graphs with _________'}$ and state some property in the blank space that the family of graphs have to satisfy. These questions totally stump me, so my question is what, if any, is a good method of attack for these types of questions? Also what is a 'solution' to these questions meant to look like?



    As an example, I am currently trying to work through the following problem from John Meier's book $textit{Groups, Graphs and Trees; An Introduction to the Geometry of Infinite Groups}$ that asks:




    Construct infinitely many distinct (2,3)-biregular graphs




    In this case I understand what a biregular graph is and can construct a number of distinct graphs by hand, however, I don't understand how to generalise it to get infinitely many distinct graphs of this type.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      In a number of graph theory books that I am working through I come across questions that ask something like $textit{'Construct an infinite}$ $textit{family of graphs with _________'}$ and state some property in the blank space that the family of graphs have to satisfy. These questions totally stump me, so my question is what, if any, is a good method of attack for these types of questions? Also what is a 'solution' to these questions meant to look like?



      As an example, I am currently trying to work through the following problem from John Meier's book $textit{Groups, Graphs and Trees; An Introduction to the Geometry of Infinite Groups}$ that asks:




      Construct infinitely many distinct (2,3)-biregular graphs




      In this case I understand what a biregular graph is and can construct a number of distinct graphs by hand, however, I don't understand how to generalise it to get infinitely many distinct graphs of this type.










      share|cite|improve this question















      In a number of graph theory books that I am working through I come across questions that ask something like $textit{'Construct an infinite}$ $textit{family of graphs with _________'}$ and state some property in the blank space that the family of graphs have to satisfy. These questions totally stump me, so my question is what, if any, is a good method of attack for these types of questions? Also what is a 'solution' to these questions meant to look like?



      As an example, I am currently trying to work through the following problem from John Meier's book $textit{Groups, Graphs and Trees; An Introduction to the Geometry of Infinite Groups}$ that asks:




      Construct infinitely many distinct (2,3)-biregular graphs




      In this case I understand what a biregular graph is and can construct a number of distinct graphs by hand, however, I don't understand how to generalise it to get infinitely many distinct graphs of this type.







      combinatorics graph-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 7 hours ago









      bof

      49.1k452116




      49.1k452116










      asked 8 hours ago









      Fiticous

      6717




      6717






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted










          If you want to construct infinitely many graphs, you want to construct arbitrarily large graphs with the given property. A straightforward approach to try would be to try to find an $n$-vertex graph for any $n$.



          This might not always work, because not all values of $n$ are valid. An infinite family also lets you skip values of $n$ that don't work, as long as you still have $n$-vertex graphs for infinitely many $n$. For example:




          • If you were looking for examples of $10$-regular graphs, you would not be able to find any for fewer than $11$ vertices. It's okay to skip $n=1, 2,dots, 10$.

          • If you were looking for examples of $3$-regular graphs, you would not be able to find any for an odd number of vertices. It's okay to only take $n=2, 4, 6, 8, dots$.

          • Even finding a graph of some type with, say, $2^{2^k}$ vertices for each $k$ is still an infinite family, as long as any sufficiently large $k$ works.


          In your case, there's a simple restriction: a $(2,3)$-biregular graph has $3k$ vertices on one side, and $2k$ vertices on the other, for some $k$. So you might try to find an example of a $5k$-vertex $(2,3)$-biregular graph for each $k$, and that would give an infinite family.



          (Or you might discover another restriction, specify which values of $n$ work more precisely, and try again.)



          In some cases, part of the challenge might be describing how you actually get the example. This would look like an algorithm: given $k$, here is how you construct a $5k$-vertex graph with the property we want.






          share|cite|improve this answer




























            up vote
            2
            down vote













            The answer to your problem is quite easy. Just observe that if $K_{2,3}$ is the $(2,3)$-biregular graph with $5$ vertices then the distinct union of $n$ $K_{2,3}$ is a $(2,3)$-biregular graph with $5n$ vertices.



            A more general way to attack the problem, where you can see the heuristics is the following:



            Let $G=(V,E)$ be a $(2,3)$-biregular graph with parts $B$ and $C$, where $forall bin B deg_G b=2$ and $forall cin C deg_G c=2$. It is easy to see that $2|B|=3|C|$. Indeed, we can count the number of edges of $G$ in two different ways as follows: the number of edges of $G$ that are incident to some vertex in $B$ is equal to $2|B|$, while the number of edges of $G$ that are incident to some vertex in $C$ is equal to $3|C|$. Hence, since every edge of $G$ is between a vertex in $B$ and a vertex in $C$ we have the equality, i.e. $2|B|=|E|=3|C|$. It is easy to solve this Diophantine equation. We get that $|B|=3n$ and $|C|=2n$ for some positive integer $n$.



            Therefore, you have restricted considerably the problem of finding $(2,3)$-biregular graphs to bipartite graphs of parts of sizes $3n$ and $2n$ respectively.



            This example is not so interesting as it has an easy solution but in general, the strategy to tackle this kind of problems is to gradually restrict the structure of the graph being considered. In many of these problems a nice way to construct the family of graphs is by induction. This example hides an induction in the construction of the graphs, but it is a trivial one!






            share|cite|improve this answer




























              up vote
              2
              down vote













              The question in your first paragraph is way too broad; it's almost like asking "How do I find a graph that satisfies some given conditions?" The difference is, you're asking "How do I find a graph that satisfies some given conditions, where one of the conditions is 'has more than $n$ vertices'?" The question is unanswerable because what gives the problem its flavor is not the part about having more than $n$ vertices, it's the other conditions. If you ask such a general question, the best you can expect is a very general answer, like "Think hard about it."



              Your question about $(2,3)$-biregular graphs is the kind we can deal with here. As stated, it's too easy: just consider the graph $nK_{3,2}$, the union of $n$ vertex-disjoint copies of the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,2}$. To make it a little more interesting, lets ask for large connected $(2,3)$-biregular graphs. There are still lots of solutions. Here's one:



              Draw an $ntimes n$ chessboard, $nge3$. Divide each little square into two triangles by drawing a diagonal. Make the chessboard into a torus by identifying the left side with the right side and the top with the bottom. Now each of the $2n^2$ triangles has $3$ sides, and each of the $3n^2$ edges is a side of $2$ triangles, so the triangle-edge incidence graph is a $(3,2)$-biregular graph of order $5n^2$.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                Your Answer





                StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
                return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
                StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
                StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
                });
                });
                }, "mathjax-editing");

                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "69"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                convertImagesToLinks: true,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: 10,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });














                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3024837%2fconstructing-an-infinite-family-of-graphs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes








                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes








                up vote
                5
                down vote



                accepted










                If you want to construct infinitely many graphs, you want to construct arbitrarily large graphs with the given property. A straightforward approach to try would be to try to find an $n$-vertex graph for any $n$.



                This might not always work, because not all values of $n$ are valid. An infinite family also lets you skip values of $n$ that don't work, as long as you still have $n$-vertex graphs for infinitely many $n$. For example:




                • If you were looking for examples of $10$-regular graphs, you would not be able to find any for fewer than $11$ vertices. It's okay to skip $n=1, 2,dots, 10$.

                • If you were looking for examples of $3$-regular graphs, you would not be able to find any for an odd number of vertices. It's okay to only take $n=2, 4, 6, 8, dots$.

                • Even finding a graph of some type with, say, $2^{2^k}$ vertices for each $k$ is still an infinite family, as long as any sufficiently large $k$ works.


                In your case, there's a simple restriction: a $(2,3)$-biregular graph has $3k$ vertices on one side, and $2k$ vertices on the other, for some $k$. So you might try to find an example of a $5k$-vertex $(2,3)$-biregular graph for each $k$, and that would give an infinite family.



                (Or you might discover another restriction, specify which values of $n$ work more precisely, and try again.)



                In some cases, part of the challenge might be describing how you actually get the example. This would look like an algorithm: given $k$, here is how you construct a $5k$-vertex graph with the property we want.






                share|cite|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  5
                  down vote



                  accepted










                  If you want to construct infinitely many graphs, you want to construct arbitrarily large graphs with the given property. A straightforward approach to try would be to try to find an $n$-vertex graph for any $n$.



                  This might not always work, because not all values of $n$ are valid. An infinite family also lets you skip values of $n$ that don't work, as long as you still have $n$-vertex graphs for infinitely many $n$. For example:




                  • If you were looking for examples of $10$-regular graphs, you would not be able to find any for fewer than $11$ vertices. It's okay to skip $n=1, 2,dots, 10$.

                  • If you were looking for examples of $3$-regular graphs, you would not be able to find any for an odd number of vertices. It's okay to only take $n=2, 4, 6, 8, dots$.

                  • Even finding a graph of some type with, say, $2^{2^k}$ vertices for each $k$ is still an infinite family, as long as any sufficiently large $k$ works.


                  In your case, there's a simple restriction: a $(2,3)$-biregular graph has $3k$ vertices on one side, and $2k$ vertices on the other, for some $k$. So you might try to find an example of a $5k$-vertex $(2,3)$-biregular graph for each $k$, and that would give an infinite family.



                  (Or you might discover another restriction, specify which values of $n$ work more precisely, and try again.)



                  In some cases, part of the challenge might be describing how you actually get the example. This would look like an algorithm: given $k$, here is how you construct a $5k$-vertex graph with the property we want.






                  share|cite|improve this answer























                    up vote
                    5
                    down vote



                    accepted







                    up vote
                    5
                    down vote



                    accepted






                    If you want to construct infinitely many graphs, you want to construct arbitrarily large graphs with the given property. A straightforward approach to try would be to try to find an $n$-vertex graph for any $n$.



                    This might not always work, because not all values of $n$ are valid. An infinite family also lets you skip values of $n$ that don't work, as long as you still have $n$-vertex graphs for infinitely many $n$. For example:




                    • If you were looking for examples of $10$-regular graphs, you would not be able to find any for fewer than $11$ vertices. It's okay to skip $n=1, 2,dots, 10$.

                    • If you were looking for examples of $3$-regular graphs, you would not be able to find any for an odd number of vertices. It's okay to only take $n=2, 4, 6, 8, dots$.

                    • Even finding a graph of some type with, say, $2^{2^k}$ vertices for each $k$ is still an infinite family, as long as any sufficiently large $k$ works.


                    In your case, there's a simple restriction: a $(2,3)$-biregular graph has $3k$ vertices on one side, and $2k$ vertices on the other, for some $k$. So you might try to find an example of a $5k$-vertex $(2,3)$-biregular graph for each $k$, and that would give an infinite family.



                    (Or you might discover another restriction, specify which values of $n$ work more precisely, and try again.)



                    In some cases, part of the challenge might be describing how you actually get the example. This would look like an algorithm: given $k$, here is how you construct a $5k$-vertex graph with the property we want.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    If you want to construct infinitely many graphs, you want to construct arbitrarily large graphs with the given property. A straightforward approach to try would be to try to find an $n$-vertex graph for any $n$.



                    This might not always work, because not all values of $n$ are valid. An infinite family also lets you skip values of $n$ that don't work, as long as you still have $n$-vertex graphs for infinitely many $n$. For example:




                    • If you were looking for examples of $10$-regular graphs, you would not be able to find any for fewer than $11$ vertices. It's okay to skip $n=1, 2,dots, 10$.

                    • If you were looking for examples of $3$-regular graphs, you would not be able to find any for an odd number of vertices. It's okay to only take $n=2, 4, 6, 8, dots$.

                    • Even finding a graph of some type with, say, $2^{2^k}$ vertices for each $k$ is still an infinite family, as long as any sufficiently large $k$ works.


                    In your case, there's a simple restriction: a $(2,3)$-biregular graph has $3k$ vertices on one side, and $2k$ vertices on the other, for some $k$. So you might try to find an example of a $5k$-vertex $(2,3)$-biregular graph for each $k$, and that would give an infinite family.



                    (Or you might discover another restriction, specify which values of $n$ work more precisely, and try again.)



                    In some cases, part of the challenge might be describing how you actually get the example. This would look like an algorithm: given $k$, here is how you construct a $5k$-vertex graph with the property we want.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 7 hours ago









                    Misha Lavrov

                    42.2k555101




                    42.2k555101






















                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote













                        The answer to your problem is quite easy. Just observe that if $K_{2,3}$ is the $(2,3)$-biregular graph with $5$ vertices then the distinct union of $n$ $K_{2,3}$ is a $(2,3)$-biregular graph with $5n$ vertices.



                        A more general way to attack the problem, where you can see the heuristics is the following:



                        Let $G=(V,E)$ be a $(2,3)$-biregular graph with parts $B$ and $C$, where $forall bin B deg_G b=2$ and $forall cin C deg_G c=2$. It is easy to see that $2|B|=3|C|$. Indeed, we can count the number of edges of $G$ in two different ways as follows: the number of edges of $G$ that are incident to some vertex in $B$ is equal to $2|B|$, while the number of edges of $G$ that are incident to some vertex in $C$ is equal to $3|C|$. Hence, since every edge of $G$ is between a vertex in $B$ and a vertex in $C$ we have the equality, i.e. $2|B|=|E|=3|C|$. It is easy to solve this Diophantine equation. We get that $|B|=3n$ and $|C|=2n$ for some positive integer $n$.



                        Therefore, you have restricted considerably the problem of finding $(2,3)$-biregular graphs to bipartite graphs of parts of sizes $3n$ and $2n$ respectively.



                        This example is not so interesting as it has an easy solution but in general, the strategy to tackle this kind of problems is to gradually restrict the structure of the graph being considered. In many of these problems a nice way to construct the family of graphs is by induction. This example hides an induction in the construction of the graphs, but it is a trivial one!






                        share|cite|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote













                          The answer to your problem is quite easy. Just observe that if $K_{2,3}$ is the $(2,3)$-biregular graph with $5$ vertices then the distinct union of $n$ $K_{2,3}$ is a $(2,3)$-biregular graph with $5n$ vertices.



                          A more general way to attack the problem, where you can see the heuristics is the following:



                          Let $G=(V,E)$ be a $(2,3)$-biregular graph with parts $B$ and $C$, where $forall bin B deg_G b=2$ and $forall cin C deg_G c=2$. It is easy to see that $2|B|=3|C|$. Indeed, we can count the number of edges of $G$ in two different ways as follows: the number of edges of $G$ that are incident to some vertex in $B$ is equal to $2|B|$, while the number of edges of $G$ that are incident to some vertex in $C$ is equal to $3|C|$. Hence, since every edge of $G$ is between a vertex in $B$ and a vertex in $C$ we have the equality, i.e. $2|B|=|E|=3|C|$. It is easy to solve this Diophantine equation. We get that $|B|=3n$ and $|C|=2n$ for some positive integer $n$.



                          Therefore, you have restricted considerably the problem of finding $(2,3)$-biregular graphs to bipartite graphs of parts of sizes $3n$ and $2n$ respectively.



                          This example is not so interesting as it has an easy solution but in general, the strategy to tackle this kind of problems is to gradually restrict the structure of the graph being considered. In many of these problems a nice way to construct the family of graphs is by induction. This example hides an induction in the construction of the graphs, but it is a trivial one!






                          share|cite|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote









                            The answer to your problem is quite easy. Just observe that if $K_{2,3}$ is the $(2,3)$-biregular graph with $5$ vertices then the distinct union of $n$ $K_{2,3}$ is a $(2,3)$-biregular graph with $5n$ vertices.



                            A more general way to attack the problem, where you can see the heuristics is the following:



                            Let $G=(V,E)$ be a $(2,3)$-biregular graph with parts $B$ and $C$, where $forall bin B deg_G b=2$ and $forall cin C deg_G c=2$. It is easy to see that $2|B|=3|C|$. Indeed, we can count the number of edges of $G$ in two different ways as follows: the number of edges of $G$ that are incident to some vertex in $B$ is equal to $2|B|$, while the number of edges of $G$ that are incident to some vertex in $C$ is equal to $3|C|$. Hence, since every edge of $G$ is between a vertex in $B$ and a vertex in $C$ we have the equality, i.e. $2|B|=|E|=3|C|$. It is easy to solve this Diophantine equation. We get that $|B|=3n$ and $|C|=2n$ for some positive integer $n$.



                            Therefore, you have restricted considerably the problem of finding $(2,3)$-biregular graphs to bipartite graphs of parts of sizes $3n$ and $2n$ respectively.



                            This example is not so interesting as it has an easy solution but in general, the strategy to tackle this kind of problems is to gradually restrict the structure of the graph being considered. In many of these problems a nice way to construct the family of graphs is by induction. This example hides an induction in the construction of the graphs, but it is a trivial one!






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            The answer to your problem is quite easy. Just observe that if $K_{2,3}$ is the $(2,3)$-biregular graph with $5$ vertices then the distinct union of $n$ $K_{2,3}$ is a $(2,3)$-biregular graph with $5n$ vertices.



                            A more general way to attack the problem, where you can see the heuristics is the following:



                            Let $G=(V,E)$ be a $(2,3)$-biregular graph with parts $B$ and $C$, where $forall bin B deg_G b=2$ and $forall cin C deg_G c=2$. It is easy to see that $2|B|=3|C|$. Indeed, we can count the number of edges of $G$ in two different ways as follows: the number of edges of $G$ that are incident to some vertex in $B$ is equal to $2|B|$, while the number of edges of $G$ that are incident to some vertex in $C$ is equal to $3|C|$. Hence, since every edge of $G$ is between a vertex in $B$ and a vertex in $C$ we have the equality, i.e. $2|B|=|E|=3|C|$. It is easy to solve this Diophantine equation. We get that $|B|=3n$ and $|C|=2n$ for some positive integer $n$.



                            Therefore, you have restricted considerably the problem of finding $(2,3)$-biregular graphs to bipartite graphs of parts of sizes $3n$ and $2n$ respectively.



                            This example is not so interesting as it has an easy solution but in general, the strategy to tackle this kind of problems is to gradually restrict the structure of the graph being considered. In many of these problems a nice way to construct the family of graphs is by induction. This example hides an induction in the construction of the graphs, but it is a trivial one!







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 7 hours ago









                            richarddedekind

                            689313




                            689313






















                                up vote
                                2
                                down vote













                                The question in your first paragraph is way too broad; it's almost like asking "How do I find a graph that satisfies some given conditions?" The difference is, you're asking "How do I find a graph that satisfies some given conditions, where one of the conditions is 'has more than $n$ vertices'?" The question is unanswerable because what gives the problem its flavor is not the part about having more than $n$ vertices, it's the other conditions. If you ask such a general question, the best you can expect is a very general answer, like "Think hard about it."



                                Your question about $(2,3)$-biregular graphs is the kind we can deal with here. As stated, it's too easy: just consider the graph $nK_{3,2}$, the union of $n$ vertex-disjoint copies of the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,2}$. To make it a little more interesting, lets ask for large connected $(2,3)$-biregular graphs. There are still lots of solutions. Here's one:



                                Draw an $ntimes n$ chessboard, $nge3$. Divide each little square into two triangles by drawing a diagonal. Make the chessboard into a torus by identifying the left side with the right side and the top with the bottom. Now each of the $2n^2$ triangles has $3$ sides, and each of the $3n^2$ edges is a side of $2$ triangles, so the triangle-edge incidence graph is a $(3,2)$-biregular graph of order $5n^2$.






                                share|cite|improve this answer



























                                  up vote
                                  2
                                  down vote













                                  The question in your first paragraph is way too broad; it's almost like asking "How do I find a graph that satisfies some given conditions?" The difference is, you're asking "How do I find a graph that satisfies some given conditions, where one of the conditions is 'has more than $n$ vertices'?" The question is unanswerable because what gives the problem its flavor is not the part about having more than $n$ vertices, it's the other conditions. If you ask such a general question, the best you can expect is a very general answer, like "Think hard about it."



                                  Your question about $(2,3)$-biregular graphs is the kind we can deal with here. As stated, it's too easy: just consider the graph $nK_{3,2}$, the union of $n$ vertex-disjoint copies of the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,2}$. To make it a little more interesting, lets ask for large connected $(2,3)$-biregular graphs. There are still lots of solutions. Here's one:



                                  Draw an $ntimes n$ chessboard, $nge3$. Divide each little square into two triangles by drawing a diagonal. Make the chessboard into a torus by identifying the left side with the right side and the top with the bottom. Now each of the $2n^2$ triangles has $3$ sides, and each of the $3n^2$ edges is a side of $2$ triangles, so the triangle-edge incidence graph is a $(3,2)$-biregular graph of order $5n^2$.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                                    up vote
                                    2
                                    down vote










                                    up vote
                                    2
                                    down vote









                                    The question in your first paragraph is way too broad; it's almost like asking "How do I find a graph that satisfies some given conditions?" The difference is, you're asking "How do I find a graph that satisfies some given conditions, where one of the conditions is 'has more than $n$ vertices'?" The question is unanswerable because what gives the problem its flavor is not the part about having more than $n$ vertices, it's the other conditions. If you ask such a general question, the best you can expect is a very general answer, like "Think hard about it."



                                    Your question about $(2,3)$-biregular graphs is the kind we can deal with here. As stated, it's too easy: just consider the graph $nK_{3,2}$, the union of $n$ vertex-disjoint copies of the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,2}$. To make it a little more interesting, lets ask for large connected $(2,3)$-biregular graphs. There are still lots of solutions. Here's one:



                                    Draw an $ntimes n$ chessboard, $nge3$. Divide each little square into two triangles by drawing a diagonal. Make the chessboard into a torus by identifying the left side with the right side and the top with the bottom. Now each of the $2n^2$ triangles has $3$ sides, and each of the $3n^2$ edges is a side of $2$ triangles, so the triangle-edge incidence graph is a $(3,2)$-biregular graph of order $5n^2$.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer














                                    The question in your first paragraph is way too broad; it's almost like asking "How do I find a graph that satisfies some given conditions?" The difference is, you're asking "How do I find a graph that satisfies some given conditions, where one of the conditions is 'has more than $n$ vertices'?" The question is unanswerable because what gives the problem its flavor is not the part about having more than $n$ vertices, it's the other conditions. If you ask such a general question, the best you can expect is a very general answer, like "Think hard about it."



                                    Your question about $(2,3)$-biregular graphs is the kind we can deal with here. As stated, it's too easy: just consider the graph $nK_{3,2}$, the union of $n$ vertex-disjoint copies of the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,2}$. To make it a little more interesting, lets ask for large connected $(2,3)$-biregular graphs. There are still lots of solutions. Here's one:



                                    Draw an $ntimes n$ chessboard, $nge3$. Divide each little square into two triangles by drawing a diagonal. Make the chessboard into a torus by identifying the left side with the right side and the top with the bottom. Now each of the $2n^2$ triangles has $3$ sides, and each of the $3n^2$ edges is a side of $2$ triangles, so the triangle-edge incidence graph is a $(3,2)$-biregular graph of order $5n^2$.







                                    share|cite|improve this answer














                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                    share|cite|improve this answer








                                    edited 3 hours ago

























                                    answered 3 hours ago









                                    bof

                                    49.1k452116




                                    49.1k452116






























                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded




















































                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                        Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                        Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3024837%2fconstructing-an-infinite-family-of-graphs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        Understanding the information contained in the Deep Space Network XML data?

                                        Ross-on-Wye

                                        Eastern Orthodox Church