3. Main Results
For convenience, we denote by the set , for , and by the set , for . In this section, we shall show that without and as its subgraphs and without as its subgraph are DS with respect to their adjacency spectrum.
Lemma 10. Let H be a graph with and , we have
(i) if , , then , the equality holds if and only if , where , and .
(ii) if , then , the equality holds if and only if and H does not contain as its subgraphs, where , , and .
(iii) if , then , where .
Proof. For a graph G with , is said to be the product degree of the edge . We denote by the product degree sequence of G, that is, , where . Now we prove the lemma by considering the product degree sequence of H.
(i) Let and . Then takes the following cases: , and , where in the sets means that H has k edges of the product degree a. Clearly, attain the minimum value if and only if . Therefore, by Lemma 3(ii), with the equality holding if and only if , which implies and . Thereefore, (i) is true.
(ii) Let . To observe all distinct product degree sequences of a graph in , one can find that attains the minimum value if and only if , which implies . By Lemma 3(ii), (ii) holds.
With a complete similar argument with that of (i) and (ii), one can prove that (iii) is true. □
Lemma 11. Let and . Then , where and , is not cospectral with .
Proof. By Lemmas 1 and 2, the characteristic polynomials of can be computed as follows:
From Lemma 6, we can write
as follows (using Mathematica5.0):
where
and
Using the same method to deal with the characteristic polynomials of , we obtain
Suppose that and are cospectral, which gives . We consider the possible largest exponents term of They are , and their combinations. All the possible combinations of terms are: , The coefficients of the front terms are −1, −2, −5, −3, −6, −7, and −8, respectively.
Case 1: . Substituting it into , we obtain
We consider the possible largest exponents term of They are and their combinations. All the possible combinations of terms are: The coefficients of the front terms are −2, −4 and −6, respectively. It is not difficult to see that the largest exponent terms of and are the same.
Suppose the largest exponent term of is , which gives so we obtain which is contradicted with Suppose the largest exponent term of is , which gives and , which is contradicted with Suppose that the largest exponent term of is ; there is not a combination in of which the coefficient is −4. It is a contradiction.
Case 2. If , the possible largest exponent terms of are , , and their combinations. All the possible combinations of terms are: , The coefficients of the front terms are and , respectively. It is not difficult to see that the largest exponent terms of and are the same. We consider the following possible cases:
Subcase 2.1. Suppose that the largest exponent term of is . This gives so we obtain which is contradicted with Suppose that the largest exponent term of is . This gives so we obtain Since , we obtain and , which is contradicted with Suppose that the largest exponent term of is . This gives so we obtain which is contradicted with Suppose that the largest exponent term of is ; there is not a combination in of which the coefficient is −4. It is a contradiction.
Subcase 2.2. Suppose that the largest exponent term of is , , which gives and the coefficient of it is −5. We obtain At the same time, the largest exponent term of is . It is obviously , so Substitute into , subtracting the same terms from and simultaneously. We obtain
The largest exponent term of is The largest exponent term of may be and their combinations. However, the coefficient which equals −2 is only . Therefore, we obtain , then . Since , we obtain , which is contradicted with
Subcase 2.3. Suppose that the largest exponent term of is which gives , and the coefficient of it is −6. We obtain At the same time, the largest exponent term of is . It is obviously , so we obtain . We also know that , so , which is contradicted with
Subcase 2.4. Suppose that the largest exponent term of is , , which gives and the coefficient of it is −7. We obtain At the same time, the largest exponent term of is . It is obviously , so we obtain . We also know that , so , which is contradicted with Then, we complete the proof of Lemma 11. □
Lemma 12. (i) Let and . If , then and are cospectral if and only if and .
(ii) Let and . If , then and are cospectral if and only if and .
Proof. (i) Suppose that and are cospectral, which gives . Similarly with , one can easily obtain
By eliminating the same terms of and , we obtain
The smallest possible terms of are , and their combination . The smallest possible terms of are , and their combination . The coefficients of the front terms are −2, −1 and −3.
Case 1. Suppose the smallest term of is . Since , we can easily obtain the smallest term of , which is , which gives . Substituting it into and eliminating the same terms of and , we obtain
Obviously, the smallest term of is , and so is of . Since , we obtain .
Case 2. Suppose the smallest term of is or . Similarly to Case 1, we obtain and . We complete the proof of Lemma 12(i).
(ii) Similarly to the proof of (i), we can easily obtain (ii). Then, we complete the proof of Lemma 12. □
Theorem 1. Let . Then , , is determined by its adjacency spectrum.
Proof. Let
H be a graph cospectral with
. Without loss of generality, we assume that
H has
k connected components
,
, ⋯,
. By Lemma 4 and
Table 1, it follows that
By Lemma 5, it is easy to see that , for . Therefore, H has exactly one component, say , such that and for , or H has exactly two components, say and , such that and for .
Now we observe the largest eigenvalue and the second eigenvalue of . By Lemmas 6 and 7, we obtain . Choose the middle vertex u of degree three of such that . By Lemmas 8 and 9, we obtain . Hence, we know that 2 is not the eigenvalue of , which implies that H does not contain C as its component. Therefore, we distinguish the following cases:
Case 1.
and
for
. By Lemma 5,
Table 1 and
Figure 2,
Clearly, and , so and . Note that and , which contradict with .
Case 2.
and
for
. By Lemma 5 and
Table 1,
and
has no subgraphs
.
Figure 2.
All connected graphs with .
Figure 2.
All connected graphs with .
Clearly, for each ; for each ; for and for each . Since , we arrive at
(i) , or
(ii) , where and .
Suppose that and H have no subgraphs . Then H and have the same degree sequence and number of ’s. Therefore, by Lemma 3 we obtain that for . From Lemma 10(ii), we have that and H does not contain as its subgraphs, where , , and . By Lemmas 11 and 12(i), we obtain .
Suppose that . By Lemma 10(ii), we have , which implies from Lemma 3. Therefore, the theorem holds. □
Lemma 13. Let and . Then, we have , where and is not cospectral with .
Proof. For convenience, we use F instead of . We deal with the characteristic polynomials of F in the same way as Lemma 11. By eliminating the same terms, we obtain
,
Case 1. . Substituting it into , we obtain
Obviously, the largest exponent term of is and the smallest exponent term of is . The difference of the two exponents is six.
Subcase 1.1. . Substituting it into , we obtain
.
Obviously, the largest exponent term of is . The coefficients of the largest term of and are different, which is a contradiction.
Subcase 1.2. If , one can see the smallest term of is , while the largest term of is . The difference of two exponents is , which is not six.
Case 2. If , the possible largest exponent terms of are , and their combinations. The coefficients of the front terms are −1, −2 and , respectively. When , the coefficient of the largest term of is −4, which does not appear in . If , one can see the smallest term of is , while the largest term of is . The difference of two exponents is . Therefore, the largest term of is , which gives . We obtain . Thus, the smallest exponent term of is . The difference of the two exponents is six. This results in a contradiction. Then, we complete the proof of Lemma 13. □
Lemma 14. Let . Then, we have , which are not cospectral with and .
Proof. . Suppose is cospectral with H, which gives , where . It is not hard to see that both the length and the number of shortest odd cycles in and H are the same. contains an odd cycle with the length 25, and so does H. Suppose , we can easily obtain or . Then, we have , which is contradicted with . Suppose , we can easily obtain or . Then, we have , which is contradicted with .
. Suppose is cospectral with H, which gives , and , where . is a biparticle graph, and so is H. Suppose , we can easily obtain , where . Since , one can see and . We calculate the eigenvalues of and . The eigenvalues of are The eigenvalues of are We can see −1.414214 is a eigenvalue of H; however, it is not a eigenvalue of . This results in a contradiction. Suppose , we can easily obtain , where . Since , one can see or . or . If , we arrive at a contradiction. We calculate the eigenvalues of , which are We can see −1.618034 is a eigenvalue of H, with multiplicity at least 2. However, it is a simple eigenvalue of . This results in a contradiction.
. Suppose is cospectral with H, which gives , and , where . is biparticle graph, and so is H. Suppose , we can easily obtain , where . Since , . , which a contradiction. Suppose , we can easily obtain , where . Since , one can see . Thus, , and we have arrived at a contradiction. Then, we complete the proof of Lemma 14. □
Theorem 2. Let and . Then, is determined by its adjacency spectrum.
Proof. Let
H be a graph cospectral with
. Without loss of generality, we assume that
H has
k connected components
,
, ⋯,
. By Lemma 4 and
Table 1, it follows that
By Lemma 5, it is easy to see that , for . Therefore, H has exactly one component, say , such that and for , or H has exactly two components, say and , such that and for .
Now, we observe whether two is the root of or not. By Lemma 1 and 2, we have . If two is the root of , we obtain . contains two as its root, if and only if . We consider the following case.
Case 1. If , we know that two is not the eigenvalue of , which implies that H does not contain C as its component. Therefore, we distinguish the following cases:
Subcase 1.1.
and
for
. By Lemma 5 and
Table 1,
Clearly, and , so and . Suppose that H has no subgraphs . Then, H and have the same degree sequence and number of ’s. Therefore, by Lemma 3 we obtain that . From Lemma 10 (i), we have that . By Lemma 13, is not cospectral with .
Subcase 1.2.
and
for
. By Lemma 5 and
Table 1,
and
has no subgraphs
.
Clearly, for each ; for each ; for and for each . Since , we arrive at
(i) , or
(ii) , where and .
Suppose that and H have no subgraphs . Then H and have the same degree sequence and number of ’s. Therefore, by Lemma 3 we obtain that for . From Lemma 10 (ii), we have that and H does not contain as its subgraphs, where , , and . By Lemmas 11 and 12(i), we obtain .
Suppose that . By Lemma 10 (ii), we have , which implies from Lemma 3. Therefore, in this case, the theorem holds.
Case 2. If , we know that 2 is a eigenvalue of . H may contain C as its component. Now, we observe the largest eigenvalue, the second and third eigenvalue of . By Lemmas 6 and 7, we obtain . Choose the vertex u of degree three of , such that . Choose the vertex v of degree three of , such that . By Lemmas 8 and 9, we obtain . Hence, we know that at most has two eigenvalues, which are not smaller than two. has three eigenvalues, which are not larger than two. We have . By Lemma 10, we can easily obtain , where . Thus, we just consider . By Lemma 14, we have H, which is not cospectral with . Then, we complete the proof. □