1. Introduction
All graphs considered in this paper are finite and simple. Let be a graph with vertex set and edge set . For a vertex , let be the set of neighbors of in , and be the degree of in . Then, . Let and (for short ) be the minimum and maximum degree
of , respectively. The
girth of a graph
is the length of a shortest cycle
in . A -vertex, a -vertex, and a -vertex of is a vertex with degree , at most , and at least . Let denote the number of -vertices adjacent to .
A proper edge--coloring of the graph is a function such
that any two adjacent edges receive different colors. The chromatic
index of is the smallest integer such that has a proper edge--coloring. Given a proper edge--coloring of , we use to denote the set of colors
assigned to the edges incident with . We say that two adjacent vertices
and are exclusive in , if and . The
proper edge--coloring is neighbor-distinguishing
if for
any . The
neighbor-distinguishing index is the smallest integer
such that has a neighbor-distinguishing
edge--coloring. The proper
edge--coloring is strict
neighbor-distinguishing if any two adjacent vertices are exclusive.
The strict neighbor-distinguishing index is the smallest
integer such that has a strict neighbor-distinguishing
edge--coloring. The proper
edge--coloring is local
neighbor-distinguishing (for short, -LNDE-coloring) if any two adjacent
-vertices are exclusive. The
local neighbor-distinguishing index is the smallest
integer such that has a local neighbor-distinguishing
edge--coloring.
A graph is normal if
it has no isolated edges, and formal if . The graph has a neighbor-distinguishing edge
coloring iff is a normal graph
and has a strict
neighbor-distinguishing edge coloring iff is a formal graph. It is evident that
for any formal graph . Moreover, the following propositions
hold obviously.
Proposition 1.1. If
is a formal graph, then
.
Proposition 1.2. If
is a
-regular graph, then
.
Zhang et al. [11] introduced the
neighbor-distinguishing edge-coloring and proposed the following
conjecture.
Conjecture 1.3. For any normal graph
,
, then
.
Akbari et al. 1]
proved that every normal graph
satisfies . The upper bound was improved to by Wang et al. 10], and to by Vučković 8]. In 2005, Hatami 5] showed that every normal graph
with has . Joret and
Lochet 7] improved this
result to that for any normal graph with sufficiently large . Huang et al. 6] showed that for any
normal planar graph with . Moreover, Wang et al.
9] showed that
for any normal planar graph with
, and if and only if
contains adjacent -vertices.
The strict neighbor-distinguishing edge-coloring of graphs was
studied in 12] (called the
smarandachely adjacent vertex edge coloring). Gu et al. 3] found a graph which is a graph obtained from
the bipartite graph by
inserting a 2-vertex into one edge. It is easy to show that ==. Based on these facts,
Gu et al. 3] proposed the
following conjecture.
Conjecture 1.4. If
is a connected formal graph, different
from
, then
.
Since ==, the upper bound in Conjecture 1.4 is tight. Gu
et al. 3] proved that the
Conjecture 1.4 holds for the graphs with . Recently, Gu et al. 4] proved that the Conjecture 1.4
holds for -minor-free graphs.
Moreover, Gu 2] proved
that for
the formal graph with .
In this paper, we show that for a formal
graph with . That is, we show the
following theorem.
Theorem 1.5. for any formal
graph
with
.
Theorem 1.6. for any formal
graph
with
.
2. Main results
This section is devoted to show the main result in this paper. For an
LNDE-coloring , set and .
We introduce some useful lemmas.
Lemma 2.1. 10] If
is a
normal graph with
,
then
.
Lemma 2.2. Let
with
. Set
. If
admits a
-LNDE-coloring
using the color set
, then
can be colored with a color
such that
and
are exclusive for any
.
Lemma 2.3. Let
with
. Set
. If
admits a
-LNDE-coloring
using the color set
. We delete the color of
and let
denote the set of forbidden colors
of
which makes
and
are exclusive for any
. If
, then
.
Proof. Let . Since and are exclusive in , there exists a color . Suppose that can be recolored with a color . Then . If
,
then . If ,
then . Therefore, 
Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1.6. Let be a counterexample of Theorem 1.6
with minimum number of edges. Then . But for each
graph with and , we have .
Assume that . Let
with . By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . Suppose that . Let be the second neighbor of other than . Then we can color with a color to derive
a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. Suppose that . Then we can color
with a color . Since , we can obtain a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. So we can assume that in the following
discussion.
To complete the proof, we have to establish a series of auxiliary
claims.
Claim 1. Let
with
, then
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that there exists a -vertex adjacent to a -vertex . Without loss of generality, assume
that . Let and . Set and .
Case 1. .
By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set .
Suppose that . If with , then color with a color
and color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. If ,
then color with a color and
color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Suppose that . If
with , then color with a color
and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of
, a contradiction. If , then color with a color
and color with a color . Since and , we can obtain a 12-LNDE-coloring of
, a contradiction.
Case 2. .
By Case 1, and
for all . By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . Suppose that and , . Suppose that . By Lemma 2.3,
. Note that , and . We recolor
with a color . If , then we color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. If , then we color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. Now, suppose that . Note that and . Then . Then we color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of by Lemma 2.2, a
contradiction.
Case 3. and .
By Case 1 and Case 2, for all and
for all .
Subcase 3.1. , say .
By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . Since , we can color with a color . Since , we can color with a color . Since , we can color with a color . It is easy to check that the
obtained coloring is a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction.
Subcase 3.2. .
Then . By the
minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . First, suppose that . By Lemma 2.3,
. We recolor with a color .
Note that . If , we can color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of
, a contradiction. If , then we can color
with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction. Then suppose that
.
Note that . By Lemma
2.2,
we can color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction.
Case 4. .
By Case 1-3, and
for all .
Subcase 4.1. .
By Case 1-3, every vertex in for is a -vertex. By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . Note that for each and . We can color with a color , with a
color , with a color , and with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring
of , a contradiction.
Subcase 4.2. .
Without loss of generality, suppose that . By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . First, suppose that . By Lemma 2.3,
. We recolor with a color .
Set . If , then let ;
otherwise, let . then , so . Then we color with a color
to get a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. Now, suppose that . Then and . By Lemma 2.2, we can color
with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction. 
Claim 2. does not contain a
-cycle
with
and
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that such a -cycle exists. Let be the neighbor of
other than .
Case 1. .
By the minimality of , has a
12-LNDE-coloring using the
color set . Then . We can color with a color ,
color with a color ,
color with a color ,
and color with a color
to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of ,
a contradiction.
Case 2. ,
say .
By the minimality of , has a
12-LNDE-coloring using the
color set . Let (), and . Without loss of
generality, assume that and
. Note that and are exclusive in , and . Let and .
Subcase 2.1. .
We can color with
, color with , color with a color , and
color with a color to
derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Subcase 2.2. and .
We color with , color with a color ,
color with a color , and
color with a color to
derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Subcase 2.3. .
Note that . We color with a color ,
color with a color ,
color with a color , and
color with a color to
derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Case 3. .
Then for
every . By Claim 1,
all the neighbors of are -vertices. Let when
, and , when , where .
Subcase 3.1. .
Then for
each . By the
minimality of , has a
12-LNDE-coloring using color
set . Hence . We color with a color
and color with a color
. Note that when . So there exist a color for
any . Then we color
with a color , color
with a color , color
with a color , color with a color , and color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Subcase 3.2. , say .
Let be the second
neighbor of other than . Suppose that =. By the
minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring using the color set . Then by Claim 1.
We color with a color
and color with a color . Note that when for each . So there exists a color
. Color
with a color , color
with a color , color
with a color ,
color with a color ,
color with a color , and color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Subcase 3.3. , say .
Let be the second
neighbor of other than for each . Let . By the
minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring using the color set . Since , there exists a color
and . Note that and . Color with a color and color with a color .
Suppose that . Then
there exists a color , say
. Note that by Claim 1. We color
with a color ,
color with a color
,
color with a color , color
with a color , color
with a color , color with a color , and
color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of
, a contradiction.
Suppose that . Let
, be the neighbors of other than . Let and . First assume
that , say . With the same coloring
as , we can obtain a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. So assume that . By Lemma 2.3, . Note that . We recolor
with a color , color with a color ,
color with a color
,
color with a color , color
with a color , color
with a color ,
color with a color , and
color with a color to
derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Subcase 3.4. , say .
Let be the neighbors of
other than for each . Let = . By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring using the color set . Since , there exists a
color and .
Note that and . We color with , color with , color with a color for
each , color with a color , color
with a color ,
color with a color ,
color with a color , and
color with a color to
derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. 
Claim 3. does not contain a path
such that
,
and
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that such a path exists. By Claim 1, . Suppose that . Let be the neighbors of not in , be the neighbors of
not in , and be the neighbors of not in .
Case 1. .
By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring using the color set . Let , , , where . By Claim 1, and . Moreover, if , by Claim 1. For each
, let when with the second neighbor other than , and when . Then we can color with a color in such that and its neighbors are exclusive. We
color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color
with a color , and color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Case 2. .
By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . Then . Without loss of generality,
suppose that for , for , and for .
Subcase 2.1. , .
Suppose that . By Lemma
2.3,
and . We recolor with a color ,
recolor with a color .
Note that . So
and are exclusive. Similarly, and are exclusive. If , then we color with a color ; otherwise, we
color with a color . If
, then we color
with a color ; otherwise, we
color with a color .
Note that . Then . Hence, the obtained coloring is
the 12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Suppose that . By Lemma
2.3.
and . We recolor with a color
and recolor with a color .
For , if , let
; otherwise, let . Note that . We color with a color .
If , we color
with a color ; otherwise, we
color with a color .
Note that . Then . Hence, the obtained coloring is the
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Subcase 2.2. , .
Let . By Lemma 2.3, . We recolor with a
color . If , then we color with a color ; otherwise,
we color with a color .
Then we color with a color
to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of ,
a contradiction.
Subcase 2.3. , .
If , then the proof is
the same as Subcase 2.2. So suppose that . Let .
By Lemma 2.3, . We recolor with a
color . For , if , then
let , otherwise, let . Note that . We color with a color ,
and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction.
Subcase 2.4. , .
Let and . We color with a color ,
and color with a color
to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of ,
a contradiction. 
Claim 4. does not contain a path
such that
,
and
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that such a path exists. By Claim 1, . Let be the neighbors of not in , be the neighbors of not in , and be the neighbors of not in . By Claim 1, . If , then the proof is the same as
Case 1 of Claim 3. So suppose that , say . Then, . By Lemma 2.3, . By the minimality of
, has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set .
Case 1. .
Suppose that . By Claim
3, . Note that and are exclusive in . We recolor with a color .
Then there exists a color for
each . Color with a color , and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction.
Suppose that , say . Let be the second neighbor of other than . By Claim 3, . We recolor with a color . Then there exists a color for each . We color with a color , and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring
of , a contradiction.
Suppose that , say . Let be the second neighbor of other than for each . We recolor with a color . Then there exists a color . We color with a
color , and
color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Case 2. , .
Let . By Lemma 2.3, . Let for
. We recolor with a color .
For each , if , let
; otherwise, let . We color with a color ,
and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring
of , a contradiction.
Case 3. , .
Let and . Then we color with a color , and color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. 
Claim 5. Let
with
. If
, then
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that . Then . Let be the neighbors of
with . Let and be the neighbors of other than . Then by Claim 1.
Case 1. , say
.
By Claim 3, for each . Let be the neighbors of other than for . By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set .
Suppose that . Note that and . Then , say . We recolor with a color . Let .
Then we color with a color
to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of
, a contradiction. If . Then
we color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction.
Case 2. .
By Claim 3, for each . Let be the neighbors of other than for .
Suppose that .
By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . Let for . Then we color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , and color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Suppose that . By Claim 2, . Let =.
By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring using the color set . Let . Note that
. We color and with the color . Then we color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring
of , a contradiction. 
Claim 6. does not contain any vertex of degree
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that contain a -vertex . Let be the neighbors of . By Claim 1 and Claim 5,
and for each . By the minimality of
, has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . Then . Suppose that . Then we color with a color , color
with a color , and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction. So suppose that . By
symmetry, and .
That is , and .
Obviously or , say .
Then we color with a color
, color
with a color , and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction. 
Claim 7. Let
with
. If
, then
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that then . Let be the neighbors of
with . Let be the neighbors of other than . Then by Claim 1.
Case 1. ,
say .
By Claim 4 and Claim 6, . Let and be the second neighbor of other than for . By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set .
Suppose that . Note that and .
Then
, say
. We
recolor with a color . Let ,
when . If , then we color with a color
to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of ,
a contradiction. If ,
by Claim 4 and Claim 6, we have
. Let be the second neighbor of other than . Then we color with a color
to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of ,
a contradiction. If . We color
with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of
, a contradiction.
Case 2. .
By Claim 4 and Claim 6, for , let be the second neighbor of other than .
Suppose that .
By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . Let for . Then we color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , and color with a color . Note that , then .
Hence, the obtained coloring is the 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction.
Suppose that . By Claim 2, . Let =.
By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring using the color set . Let . Note that
. Then we color and with the color . Now, we color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , and color with a color . Note that , then .
Hence, the obtained coloring is the 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction. 
Claim 8. does not contain any vertex of degree
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that contain a -vertex . Let be the neighbors of . By Claim 1 and Claim 7,
and for . By the minimality of
, has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . Then . Note that for each . Then there exist colors
such that , say . Now, we color with a color , color
with a color , color with a color , and color with a color . Note that ,
then . Hence, the
obtained coloring is the 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction. 
Claim 9. does not contain a
-cycle
with
and
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that such a -cycle exists. Let be the neighbors of
not in and be the neighbors of
not in .
Case 1.
or , say .
By the minimality of , has a
12-LNDE-coloring using the
color set . Then . We color with a color , color
with a color , color with a color , and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction.
Case 2. .
By Claim 6 and Claim 8, . For each , let be the second neighbor of other than , and be the second neighbor of other than . For each , if , then and has a 12-LNDE-coloring, a
contradiction. So we may suppose that . By Claim 2, . Let . By the
minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring using the color set . Let and for . Then we color and with a color , Color with a color , with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , and
color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. 
Claim 10. does not contain a path
with
and
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that such a path exists. Let be the neighbors of
not in . Then by Claim 2.
Case 1. .
By the minimality of , has a
12-LNDE-coloring using the
color set . Then . We color with a color , color
with a color , color with a color , and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction.
Case 2. , say
.
By Claim 6 and Claim 8, . Let be the second neighbor of other than for each . Let =. By the
minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring using the color set . Let . We color and with the color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , color with a color , and color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction.
Case 3. .
By Claim 6 and Claim 8, . For each
, let be the second neighbor of other than . By Claim 2 and Claim 9,
and
. Let =. By the minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring using the color set . Let and . We color
and with the color , color and with the color , color with a color , color
with a color , color
with a color , color with a color , color with a color , and color with a color to derive a
12-LNDE-coloring of , a
contradiction. 
Claim 11. does not contain any vertex of degree
.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that contain a -vertex . Let be the neighbors of .
By Claim 1 . By Claim 6
and Claim 8-10, . By the
minimality of , has a 12-LNDE-coloring
using the color set . Then . We color with a color , and color with a color to derive a 12-LNDE-coloring of , a contradiction. 
Now it follows from Claim 1-11 that is -regular. But, by Lemma 2.1 and Proposition
1,
is -LNDE-colorable, a
contradiction. So we complete the proof of Theorem 1.6.
Funding
The first author’s research is supported by NSFC (No. 12171436,
12371360) and Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (No.
LZ23A010004); The third author’s research is supported by NSFC (No.
12031018).