Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Volume 2017, Article ID 2941615, 7 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2941615
Research Article

Sharp Bounds for the General Sum-Connectivity Indices of Transformation Graphs

1School of Science, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
2School of Mathematics and Physics, Anhui Jianzhu University, Hefei 230601, China
3Department of Mathematics, Savannah State University, Savannah, GA 31404, USA
4School of Information and Technology, Yunnan Normal University, Kunming 650500, China
5Department of Mathematics, School of Natural Sciences (SNS), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Sector H-12, Islamabad, Pakistan
6Department of Mathematical Sciences, College of Science, United Arab Emirates University, P.O. Box 15551, Al Ain, UAE
7Department of Applied Mathematics, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Narmak, Tehran 16844, Iran

Correspondence should be addressed to Haiying Wang; moc.621@thcyhw

Received 12 July 2017; Revised 23 October 2017; Accepted 9 November 2017; Published 3 December 2017

Academic Editor: Chris Goodrich

Copyright © 2017 Haiying Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Given a graph , the general sum-connectivity index is defined as , where (or ) denotes the degree of vertex (or ) in the graph and is a real number. In this paper, we obtain the sharp bounds for general sum-connectivity indices of several graph transformations, including the semitotal-point graph, semitotal-line graph, total graph, and eight distinct transformation graphs , where .

1. Introduction

In this paper, we consider simple, undirected, and connected graphs. Let be the graph with vertex set and edge set . The order and size of are denoted by and , respectively. For a vertex , denotes the degree of . Two vertices in are adjacent if and only if they are end vertices of an edge, and each of the two vertices is called incident to the edge. Besides, two edges are adjacent to each other if and only if they share a common vertex. The minimum and maximum degrees of graph are denoted by and , respectively. We will use the notations , , and for a path, cycle, and complete graph of order [1], respectively.

The complement of , denoted by , is the graph with and two vertices in are adjacent if and only if they are not adjacent in . Thus, the size of is and if then .

A topological index is a numeric quantity associated with a graph which characterizes the topology of graph. A topological index of a graph is equal to the topological index of , if and only if two graphs and are isomorphic. The idea of topological index appears from work done by Wiener in , this index is called Wiener index. The first and second Zagreb indices have been introduced by Gutman and Trinajestić [2]. These indices are defined on the ground of vertex degrees as follows:The Randić connectivity index was defined in 1975 by Randić [3]. It has been extended to the general Randić connectivity index. The general Randić connectivity index (general product-connectivity index) was defined by Bollobás and Erdős [4] as follows:where is a real number. Then is the classical Randić connectivity index. The sum-connectivity index was proposed in [5]. This concept was extended to the general sum-connectivity index in [6], which is defined aswhere is a real number. Then is the classical sum-connectivity index. The sum-connectivity index and the product-connectivity index correlate well with the -electron energy of benzenoid hydrocarbons [7].

The total graph of the graph is a graph whose vertex set is the union of and such that if and only if and are either adjacent or incident in [8]. Let , , and be the variables having values + or −. The transformation graph is a graph whose vertex set is the union of and , and if and only if(1); then or if and are adjacent or nonadjacent in , respectively;(2); then or if and are adjacent or nonadjacent in , respectively;(3) and ; then or if and are incident or nonincident in , respectively.

There are eight different transformations of the given graph . For instance, is the total graph of with number of vertices and number of edges , and is the complement of total graph . For other transformations of graph, , , and are the complements of , , and , respectively.

The concepts of semitotal-point graph and semitotal-line graph are introduced by Sampathkumar and Chikkodimath [9]. The semitotal-point graph is a graph whose vertex set is the union of and , and if and only if (i) and are adjacent vertices in or (ii) one is a vertex of and the other is an edge of incident to it. Thus, semitotal-point graph has number of vertices and number of edges.

The semitotal-line graph is a graph whose vertex set is the union of and , and if and only if (i) and are adjacent edges in and (ii) one is a vertex of and the other is an edge of incident to it. Thus, semitotal-line graph has number of vertices and number of edges.

Eventually, many properties of these transformation graphs can be determined. For example, the Zagreb indices of transformation graphs and total transformation graphs were calculated by Basavanagoud and Patil [10] and Hosamani and Gutman [11], respectively. Wu and Meng [12] investigated the basic properties (connectedness, graph equations and iteration, and diameter) of total transformation. Xu and Wu [13] determined the connectivity, the Hamiltonian, and the independence number of . Yi and Wu [14] determined the connectivity, the Hamiltonian, and the independence number of .

In this paper, we obtain lower and upper bounds for the general sum-connectivity indices of the above-defined transformation graphs.

2. Main Results

In this section, we discuss the lower and upper bounds for the general sum-connectivity indices of transformation graphs defined in Section 1.

Theorem 1. For , we have , where the equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph.

Proof. Since has vertices and edges, it holds thatNote that if then and if then . It is clear that and Δ. And these equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph. Therefore,Similarly, we can computeThe two equalities in (6) and (7) obviously hold if and only if and are regular, respectively.

Example 2. By Theorem 1, the general sum-connectivity indices of some semitotal-point graphs are given below:(1).(2).(3).

Theorem 3. If then , wherethe equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph.

Proof. Since and , we haveNote that if then and if then . Therefore, we haveSince and , each equality holds if and only if is a regular graph.
After simplification we getSimilarly, we can calculateObviously the equalities in (11) and (12) hold if and only if is a regular graph.

Example 4. By Theorem 3, the general sum-connectivity indices of some semitotal-line graphs are given below:(1).(2).(3).

Theorem 5. Let . Then , wherethe equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph.

Proof. Since and , we haveNote that for and for . SoNote that and . The equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph.
After simplification, we get Similarly, we can compute Since , we can also write the results above asThus, if is a regular graph, then we obtain the equality in (16), (17), and (18).

Example 6. By Theorem 5, the general sum-connectivity indices of some total graphs are given below:(1)(2)(3)

Theorem 7. Let . Then , wherethe equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph.

Proof. For a given graph , since and , then , , and . Using these values, we can compute the required results.

Theorem 8. Let . Then , wherethe equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph.

Proof. Since and , Note that if then and if then Note that and . The equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph. After simplification, we get Similarly, we can compute The equalities in (23) and (24) obviously hold if and only if is a regular graphs.

Theorem 9. Let . Then , wherethe equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph.

Proof. Since and ,Note that for and for . ThenNote that and . The equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph.
After simplification, we getSimilarly, we calculateIf is a regular graph then we obtain the equalities in (28) and (29).

In fully analogous manner, we also arrive at the following.

Theorem 10. If then(1), where(2), where(3), where (4), where In all the above cases, the equalities hold if and only if is a regular graph, respectively.

3. Conclusion

In this paper, we obtain the sharp lower and upper bounds for general sum-connectivity indices of the semitotal-point graph, the semitotal-line graph, the total graph, and the eight distinct transformation graphs , where in terms of the order, minimum degree, and maximum degree of a graph. Moreover, the extremal graphs achieving these bounds have been described.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (nos. 2652015193 and 2652017146) and NSFC of China (no. 11701530).

References

  1. S. Ji and S. Wang, “On the sharp lower bounds of Zagreb indices of graphs with given number of cut vertices,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 458, no. 1, pp. 21–29, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  2. I. Gutman and N. Trinajstić, “Graph theory and molecular orbitals. Total φ-electron energy of alternant hydrocarbons,” Chemical Physics Letters, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 535–538, 1972. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. M. Randić, “On characterization of molecular branching,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 97, no. 23, pp. 6609–6615, 1975. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. B. Bollobás and P. Erdős, “Graphs of extremal weights,” Ars Combinatoria, vol. 50, pp. 225–233, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  5. B. Zhou and N. Trinajstić, “On a novel connectivity index,” Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1252–1270, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  6. B. Zhou and N. Trinajstić, “On general sum-connectivity index,” Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 210–218, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  7. B. Lučić, N. Trinajstić, and B. Zhou, “Comparison between the sum-connectivity index and product-connectivity index for benzenoid hydrocarbons,” Chemical Physics Letters, vol. 475, no. 1-3, pp. 146–148, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. Behzad, “A criterion for the planarity of the total graph of a graph,” Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 679–681, 1967. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. E. Sampathkumar and S. B. Chikkodimath, “The semi-total graphs of a graph-I,” Journal of the Karnatak University, vol. 18, pp. 274–280, 1973. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  10. B. Basavanagoud and P. V. Patil, “A criterion for (non-)planarity of the transformation graph when ,” Journal of Discrete Mathematical Sciences & Cryptography, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 601–610, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  11. S. M. Hosamani and I. Gutman, “Zagreb indices of transformation graphs and total transformation graphs,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 247, pp. 1156–1160, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  12. B. Wu and J. Meng, “Basic properties of total transformation graphs,” Journal of Mathematical Study, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 109–116, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  13. L. Xu and B. Wu, “Transformation graph ,” Discrete Mathematics, vol. 308, no. 22, pp. 5144–5148, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  14. L. Yi and B. Wu, “The transformation graph ,” The Australasian Journal of Combinatorics, vol. 44, pp. 37–42, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet