Let be a graph with vertex set and edge set . A set is a dominating set if every vertex in is adjacent to at least one vertex in , an independent set if no two vertices in are adjacent, and a total dominating set if every vertex in is adjacent to at least one vertex in . The domatic number, idomatic number, and total domatic number, of a graph equal the maximum order of a partition of into {dominating sets, independent dominating sets, total dominating sets}, respectively. A queens graph is a graph defined on the squares of an -by- chessboard, such that two squares are adjacent if and only if a queen on one square can move to the other square in one move, that is, the two squares lie on a common row, column, or diagonal. In this note, we determine the value of these three numbers for for the first several values of . In addition, we introduce the concepts of graphs being -domatic, -domatic, -domatic, -domatic, -domatic, and -domatic.
Let be a graph with
vertex set of
order, and edge set , of
size.
Given an edge , we say that
vertices and are adjacent and
that they are neighbors. The (open)
neighborhood of a vertex is the set of neighbors of . The
degree of a vertex is , the number of neighbors
of vertex . The minimum degree of
a vertex in a graph is denoted by
. The closed
neighborhood of a vertex is the set .
A set of vertices is
independent if no two vertices in are adjacent. The vertex
independence number equals the maximum cardinality
of an independent set in .
1.1. Dominating sets
A set is a
dominating set if every vertex in is adjacent to at least one vertex
in . The domination
number is
equal to the minimum cardinality of a dominating set in . A minimum cardinality dominating set
is called a -set. The
upper domination number is equal to the maximum
cardinality of a minimal dominating set in .
A set is an
independent dominating set if it is both an
independent set and a dominating set. The independent
domination number
is equal to the minimum cardinality of an independent dominating set in
. A comprehensive treatment of
independent domination is given in the 2013 survey by Goddard and
Henning [5].
A set is a total
dominating set if every vertex in is adjacent to at least one vertex in
. The total domination
number is
equal to the minimum cardinality of a total dominating set in . A minimum cardinality total dominating
set is called a -set. The
upper total domination number is equal to the maximum
cardinality of a minimal total dominating set in . A comprehensive treatment of total
domination is given in the 2013 book by Henning and Yeo [8].
1.2. Queens graphs on chessboards
A queens graph is a graph whose vertices correspond
1-to-1 with the squares of an
-by- chessboard, and two squares are
adjacent if and only if a queen on one square can move to the other
square in one move, that is, the two squares lie on a common row,
column, or diagonal. Notice that by definition the queens graph applies only to -by- square boards, as distinct from
rectangular queens graphs which apply to arbitrary -by- chessboards. We should note that in the
graph theory literature the notation is also used to denote the -dimensional cube graph. Since our
entire focus in this note is on queens graphs, will be reserved for these
graphs.
The mathematical study of queens graphs dates back to the mid-to-late
1800s, most notably with the Eight Queens Problem of determining the
maximum number of ways one can place 8 queens on a chessboard so that no
two queens attack each other (lie on a common row, column, or diagonal),
and the Five Queens Problem, of placing 5 queens on the board so that
all unoccupied squares are attacked by at least one queen. The reader is
referred to the 1892 book by W. W. Rouse Ball [1], and the 1908 book by H.E. Dudeney [4]. Two well-known
solutions to the Five Queens Problem are shown in Figure 1.
Interested readers are also referred to two surveys of queens
domination problems by Weakley [11], [12]. Other discussions of chessboard
domination problems can be found in the 1964 book by Yaglom and Yaglom
[13], which contains a
comprehensive collection of results about independent, dominating, and
independent dominating sets of a variety of chess pieces. In addition,
the reader is referred to the 2004 book by Watkins [10] and a 2022 chapter by
Hedetniemi and Hedetniemi [7].
2. Domatic numbers
The domatic number of a graph was introduced by Cockayne and
Hedetniemi in 1975 [2] and subsequently studied by them in 1977
[3]. A
domatic -partition is a partition
of
into pairwise-disjoint dominating sets.
Thus, the domatic number is the maximum order of a domatic -partition. Note that many papers
studying the domatic number use the notation . Here we use to avoid possible confusion with
the use of to denote either
distance in graphs, or the
degree of a vertex in a graph, or the
diameter of a graph.
Figure 1 Two minimum dominating sets of 5 queens
on
To date approximately 280 papers have been published on various kinds
of domatic numbers. We will mention only the following two variants
here: (i) the idomatic number equals the maximum order of a
partition of into independent
dominating sets, while the (ii) total domatic
number equals
the maximum order of a partition of into total dominating sets. Several
survey papers and chapters have been written on various kinds of domatic
numbers; see for example a chapter by Zelinka in 1998 [15] and a chapter by Goddard
and Henning in 2021 [6].
The following basic results about the domatic number are worth
mentioning.
Theorem 2.1 .
If is a graph of order , then .
Theorem 2.2 .
[2] If is a graph of order and size with , and , where
, then .
In this paper we determine the value of for and , and provide tight bounds for and . In this regard, it will be helpful to note the following
upper bounds provided by Theorem 2.1 as shown
in Table 1. In this table we have a slight abuse
of notation. In the upper bound of , denotes the order of a graph . In this case the order of is actually .
Table 1
n
1
1
1/1 = 1
2
4
4/1 = 4
3
5
9/1 = 9
4
8
16/2 = 8
5
8
6
10
36/3 = 12
7
11 or 12
8
12
9
12 or 13
Since the entries in , , and in Figure 2 meet the upper
bounds, they are best possible, thereby establishing the facts that
, and . The fact that follows from the observation
that , but there is
one unique dominating set of cardinality 1, the set consisting of the
center square. All other dominating sets of a domatic partition of will therefore have to have
cardinality 2, and as can be seen there are four of them, the vertices,
or squares, numbered 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Thus, this solution
is best possible.
Figure 2 , , ,
The fact that is
shown in Figure 3. However, this solution does not meet the
theoretical upper bound of 12. The reason begins with the observation
that although ,
there is, up to isomorphism, only one unique dominating set of of cardinality 3, as shown by the
three queens in Figure 4.
Figure 3
Figure 4 and
This unique solution, however, requires the use of a corner square.
Thus, through rotations, any domatic partition of can have at most four dominating sets
of cardinality 3. This leaves 36 – 12 = 24 squares yet to be covered, by
dominating sets which must be of cardinality at least 4. Fortunately,
the remaining uncovered 24 squares can be covered perfectly by six
pairwise-disjoint dominating sets of cardinality 4, numbered 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, and 10, as shown in Figure 3.
The fact that is
shown in Figure 5. It is best possible since it achieves the
proven upper bound of .
Figure 5
The situation for is a
bit more complex. There are
minimum dominating sets of ,
each of cardinality , such as the
example shown in Figure 4. If 12
minimum dominating sets can be used, then . The
example given in Figure 6 establishes that . Here we have used minimum dominating sets of cardinality
, and three minimal dominating
sets, numbered , of
cardinality . The two unnumbered
squares can be assigned any number between 1 and 11.
Figure 6
The situation for is
also a bit more complex. There is, up to isomorphism, only one unique
minimum dominating set of cardinality , as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Unique minimum dominating set for
But this set contains a queen on the central square. And therefore,
in any domatic partition of ,
only one set can have cardinality . Thus, . By adding an extra column to the left of the first column
of in Figure 5 and an extra row
above the top row in Figure 5 we can produce a domatic 12-partition of
in which the entries in
Figure 5 are unchanged, as shown in Figure 8.
Thus, we can conclude that .
Figure 8
4. Idomatic numbers of queens
graphs
A graph is called
idomatic if its vertex set can be partitioned into
independent dominating sets. It is easy to see that not all graphs are
idomatic, for example the cycle
is not idomatic. The question then is: are all queens graphs idomatic?
If a queens graph is idomatic, its idomatic number is the maximum order of a
partition of the vertices of
into independent dominating sets.
Figure 9 shows that and are idomatic, and Figure 10 shows that is idomatic, as well. Since it is
known that , it follows
that , which is achieved in Figure 10.
Figure 9 , Figure 10
Figure 11 shows that and are also idomatic.
Figure 11 and
Proposition 4.1.
The queens graph is idomatic
and .
Proof. Let be a maximum order partition of into independent dominating sets. It
is well-known that and
. Thus, for , . In any idomatic
partition of the center square
must appear in exactly one set. We can assume without loss of generality
that the center square appears in set . It can be shown by enumeration that,
subject to rotations and reflections, there is only one independent
dominating set of that contains
the center square, and it has cardinality 5; it consists of the center
square and four squares on the outermost columns and rows, each
symmetrically adjacent to a corner square, as shown in Figure 11, where these five squares in
are numbered 4. Thus, we can
assume that . The
remaining 25 – 5 = 20 squares are in independent dominating sets of
cardinality 3 or 4. Thus, there can be at most 6 other independent
dominating sets, and hence, . The solution in Figure 11,
which was found by computer search, shows that 7 is achievable.
Proposition 4.2.
The queens graph is idomatic
and .
Proof. It is well known that , and thus, in theory, could be partitioned into 9
independent dominating sets of cardinality 4. It is known that up to
isomorphism there are 17 minimum independent dominating sets of
cardinality 4 in . Computer
search, however, shows that no collection of 9 minimum independent
dominating sets can partition the vertices of , while 948 idomatic partitions of
of order 8 exist, such as that
shown in Figure 11. Thus, .
Proposition 4.3 .
The queens graph is idomatic
and .
Proof. Figure 12 shows an idomatic partition of of order 10, which has one
independent dominating set of minimum cardinality 4 (numbered 1 in
Figure 12) and nine independent dominating sets of
cardinality 5; therefore is
idomatic. Since it is known that , it follows that .
But for the
following reason. It is known not only that , but there is only one minimum
independent dominating set of
up to isomorphism, and every reflection or rotation of this one set uses
a middle square in an outer row or column; notice the square numbered
one in the middle of the bottom row of Figure 12. There are only
four such squares.
Thus, we can use up at most 4 x 4 squares with independent dominating
sets of cardinality 4. All other independent dominating sets must have
cardinality 5, 6, or 7, and this must fill up the remaining 49 – 16 = 33
squares. However, there can be at most such sets, thus
allowing at most 4 + 6 = 10 disjoint independent dominating sets. Thus,
.
Figure 12
The following Figure 13, found by a computer search, shows that
is idomatic. Since , it is possible that
can be partitioned into at most
independent dominating sets. Thus, Figure 13 confirms that
.
Figure 13
The following Table 2 summarizes what is known about idomatic
queens graphs and their idomatic numbers. We have heard from Alice McRae
[9] that her genetic
algorithm has found an idomatic partition of of order .
Table 2 Idomatic queens graphs
n
idomatic?
1
yes
1
2
yes
4
3
yes
5
4
yes
5
5
yes
7
6
yes
8
7
yes
10
8
yes
12
9
yes
5. Total domatic numbers of
queens graphs
For the purposes of this paper, we will say that a graph is called
domatic if its vertex set can be partitioned into
minimal dominating sets. In determining the
domatic number it does not
matter if any of the sets in a
-domatic partition are minimal
dominating sets, only that they are dominating sets. Thus, for the
five-cycle , , but the vertices of cannot be partitioned into minimal
dominating sets. Thus, is not a
domatic graph.
Similarly, a graph is
called total domatic if its vertex set can be partitioned into
minimal total dominating sets. As with , not all graphs are total domatic,
for example, is also not total
domatic, nor is , as can be seen
by considering as shown in
Figure 2. For , , but does not have a minimal total
dominating set of cardinality . As
can be easily seen, the vertices of can be partitioned into three minimum
total dominating sets, each of cardinality , and a fourth total dominating set of
cardinality , but this fourth set
cannot be a minimal total dominating set. Thus, is not total domatic. The following
theorem, however, shows that except for for , all queens graphs are both domatic and total
domatic.
Theorem 5.1 .
For , is both domatic
and total domatic.
Proof. For ,
define the following partition of the vertices of of order , ,
as follows: (i) contains all
squares in the first (leftmost
column) excluding the top-left corner square, (ii) contains the leftmost squares in the top-row, excluding the
top-right corner square, (iii) contains the topmost squares in the rightmost column,
excluding the bottom-right corner square, (iv) contains the rightmost squares in the bottom row,
excluding the leftmost corner square. Each of the sets contain the squares in a middle column between
the topmost and bottommost squares of that column, as shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14 Domatic and total domatic and
It is easy to see that each of these sets is both a minimal dominating set
and a minimal total dominating set, since in each set, every queen has
several external private neighbors, that is, squares it attacks that no
other queen of the same color attacks.
Theorem 5.1 shows that for , and . This suggests the introduction of new parameters,
which, in this case equal the minimum orders of a
-domatic, -idomatic, and -total domatic partition of a graph
. Figure 14 raises the
following two questions: is it possible to partition into fewer than minimal dominating sets or fewer than
minimal total dominating sets?
At the risk of abusing notation, and looking for a good notation, we
could define to
equal the minimum order of a partition of into minimal
dominating sets, and to equal the maximum
order of a partition of into
minimal dominating sets. Thus, for queens graphs
, and similarly, .
Table 3 provides the limited preliminary
results for the total domatic numbers of the queens graphs, where for
example, the paritition of into
a maximum possible eight minimum total dominating sets is shown in
Figure 15.
Table 3 Total domatic numbers of
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X
2
2
2
3
4
4
5
X
2
4
8
Figures 15 and 16 establish the
total domatic numbers of .
Figure 15 , , and
Figure 16 and
Theorem 5.2.
For the queens graph , .
Proof. Let the squares of the queens graph be numbered as in Figure 17.
Figure 17
numbered
A computer program has shown that and there are precisely
minimum total dominating sets.
One can partition these -sets into six groups as in
Table 4, where the -sets in Groups II through VI are
the four -sets obtained by
rotations of one -set.
Table 4 The -sets of
Group I
Group II
Group III
{1, 19, 31, 49}
{1, 9, 27, 39}
{2, 8, 27, 45}
{7, 17, 33, 43}
{7, 13, 23, 39}
{6, 14, 15, 39}
{11, 23, 41, 49}
{5, 23, 42, 48}
{11, 27, 37, 43}
{11, 35, 36, 44}
Group IV
Group V
Group VI
{6, 14, 23, 47}
{4, 25, 32, 39}
{13, 19, 25, 37}
{11, 29, 42, 48}
{23, 24, 25, 28}
{9, 25, 33, 41}
{3, 27, 36, 44}
{11, 18, 25, 46}
{13, 25, 31, 37}
{2, 8, 21, 39}
{22, 25, 26, 27}
{9, 17, 25, 41}
One can see that eight of the
squares of never appear in a
-set; they are the squares
numbered . Thus, only squares
can be used in a partition of
into -sets. Therefore, in a
maximum order partition of into
total dominating sets there can be at most sets of cardinality and only one other set of cardinality
or greater.
Figure 18 shows a partition of into minimal total dominating sets.
Therefore, .
Figure 18
A further analysis of the -sets of given in the proof of Theorem 5.2 shows that, in fact, in any partition
of into a maximum number of
total dominating sets, at most six -sets can appear, and the
remaining five total dominating sets must have cardinality five, as
shown in Figure 18. This can be seen by considering the
graph of order , whose vertices correspond 1-to-1
with the minimum total
dominating sets of , and two
vertices are adjacent if and only if the corresponding two minimum total
dominating sets have a vertex in common. It can be seen that the vertex
independence number of this intersection graph is six, that is, .
We conclude this section with the results of an exhaustive computer
search which has found the following partition of , shown in Figure 19, into total dominating sets, eight of
cardinality and four of
cardinality . A partition of into total dominating sets is best possible
since and . Thus,
.
Figure 19
6. Several new classes of
domatic graphs
As shown in Figure 20, the vertices of can, in fact, be partitioned into 5
maximum independent sets.
Figure 20
is -domatic
This raises the following concept. A graph is called -domatic if its
vertices can be partitioned into
independent dominating sets such that for all , , that is each set is in fact a maximum cardinality
independent set. It is easy to see that all complete graphs are -domatic, as are all complete
multipartite graphs of the form , where . Since , and ,
it follows from Figures 9 and 20 that , , and are all -domatic, but , , and are not -domatic. This raises the question:
which queens graphs are -domatic? And, in general, which
graphs are -domatic?
Similarly, one can define a graph of order to be:
if it has a vertex partition into minimum dominating
sets,
if it has a vertex partition into minimum independent dominating sets,
if it has a vertex partition into maximum independent sets,
if it has a vertex partition into maximum cardinality minimal dominating sets,
if it has a vertex partition into minimum total dominating
sets,
if it has a vertex partition into maximum cardinality minimal
total dominating sets.
7. Open problems and questions
Are all queens graphs
idomatic? In particular, are
and idomatic?
Is the function
monotonic nondecreasing?
Is the function ,
when defined, monotonic nondecreasing?
What can you say about and ?
What can you say about and ?
What can you say about the values of ?
What are the values of and ?
What are the values of and ?
For , , and furthermore, there
is up to isomorphism, only one unique dominating set in each of and of cardinality 5. This suggests
that in a domatic partition of these two queens graphs, only four
minimum dominating sets can appear, through rotations and/or
reflections, and these will occupy 20 squares. All other dominating
sets, therefore, will have to have cardinality of at least 6 and will
occupy the remaining
squares. This shows that the upper bounds for for are as follows:
(i) : , , and therefore ;
(ii) : , , and therefore, .
For , , but there is up to
isomorphism, only one unique minimum dominating set of cardinality , and it uses a corner square. Thus,
again, at most four minimum dominating sets can appear in any domatic
partition of , which gives an
upper bound for of .
Notice in Figures 15 and 16 that , and can all be partitioned precisely into
minimum total dominating sets. Thus, , , and are all -domatic.
The final Table 5 summarizes what we have established about
the domatic numbers, idomatic numbers, and total domatic numbers of
queens graphs.
Table 5 Known domatic, idomatic and total domatic numbers of queens graphs
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
5
5
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
5
5
X
2
2
2
3
4
4
5
6
1
4
5
8
8
10
11,12
12
12,13
1
4
5
5
7
8
10
X
2
4
8
8
9
11
12
11-15
Declarations
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References:
W. W. R. Ball. Mathematical Recreations and Problems of Past and Present Times. MacMillan, London, 1892.
E. J. Cockayne and S. T. Hedetniemi. Optimal domination in graphs. IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems, CAS-2(11):855–857, 1975.
E. J. Cockayne and S. T. Hedetniemi. Towards a theory of domination in graphs. Networks, 7(3):247–261, 1977.
H. E. Dudeney. The Canterbury Puzzles and Other Curious Problems. E.P. Dutton and Co., New York, 1908.
W. Goddard and M. A. Henning. Independent domination in graphs: a survey and recent results. Discrete Mathematics, 313:839–854, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2012.11.031
W. Goddard and M. A. Henning. Fractional domatic, idomatic, and total domatic numbers of a graph. In Structures of Domination in Graphs. Volume 66, Developments in Mathematics, pages 79–99. Springer, New York, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58892-2_4
J. T. Hedetniemi and S. T. Hedetniemi. Domination in chessboards. In Structures of Domination in Graphs. Volume 66, Developments in Mathematics, pages 341–386. Springer, New York, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58892-2_12
M. A. Henning and A. Yeo. Total Domination in Graphs. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2013.
A. A. McRae. Private communication, May 2023.
J. J. Watkins. Across the Board: The Mathematics of Chessboard Problems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2004. Chapter 8: Queens Domination.
W. D. Weakley. Domination in the queen’s graph. In Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Applications. Volume 2, pages 1223–1232. Wiley, New York, 1995.
W. D. Weakley. Queens around the world in twenty-five years. In Graph theory: favorite conjectures and open problems. Volume 2, Problem Books in Mathematics, pages 43–54. Springer, Cham, 2018.
A. M. Yaglom and I. M. Yaglom. Challenging Mathematical Problems with Elementary Solutions, Volume 1, Combinatorial Analysis and Probability Theory. Holden-Day, San Francisco, London, Amsterdam, 1964.
B. Zelinka. On k-domatic numbers of graphs. Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, 33(108):309–313, 1983.
B. Zelinka. Domatic numbers of graphs and their variants: a survey. In T. W. Haynes, S. T. Hedetniemi, and P. J. Slater, editors, Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics. Volume 209, Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, pages 351–377. Dekker, New York, 1998.