Computation of Resolvability Parameters for Benzenoid Hammer Graph

Ahmad, Ali; Al-Hossain Ahmad, Al-Nashri

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7013832

Journal of Mathematics

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Distances in Graph Theory

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 7013832 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7013832

Computation of Resolvability Parameters for Benzenoid Hammer Graph

Ali Ahmad¹and Al-Nashri Al-Hossain Ahmad²

Academic Editor: Gohar Ali

Received02 Mar 2022

Accepted16 Mar 2022

Published14 Apr 2022

Abstract

A representation of each vertex of a network into distance-based arbitrary tuple form, adding the condition of uniqueness of each vertex with reference to some settled vertices. Such settled vertices form a set known as resolving set. This idea was delivered in various problems of computer networking as well as in chemical graph theory. Due to its huge implications, many new variants were introduced such as edge resolving set, fault-tolerant version of edge, and vertex resolving set and its generalization named as partition resolving set. In this work, we addressed all these variants for a benzenoid chemical structure named a hammer graph. Moreover, we proved that all the above variants are independent of the size and order of this graph.

1. Introduction

Chemical structures are studied with various techniques in different fields of science. Particularly, mathematical chemistry provides various tools and techniques to study different chemical networks and structures. There are many ways for the deep study of chemical networks, also approaching towards the applications of these chemical networks through suggested tools. Not only in chemistry itself but also mathematical chemistry open blockages in different other fields, such as physical chemistry, where particularly for thermodynamics and topics related to compound energy, uses mathematical chemistry tools to undergo the study of chemicals. In mathematical chemistry, graph theory provides unique and useful variants and topics to study chemical structures and its topologies. Few papers related to the topic of this work are given in [1–5].

To characterize the structural properties of clusters, polymers, crystals, and molecules, chemical graph theory is a very reliable tool and also provides various methods. In chemical graph theory, a vertex can be a collection of atoms, orbitals, intermediates, a molecule, an electron, or an atom and many other objects which are solemnly depended on the situation, model, and topic of implication. Whereas, an edge is may be a connection between two atoms, intermolecular bonding, or any other forces such as Keesom forces.

In 1975 and 1976, three graph theoretical researchers and experts of computer networking gave an idea of studying a graph in terms of distance vector [6, 7]. They named this idea as resolving set, metric basis, or locating set independently, and names variy depend on the field. In this idea, few vertices are selected on the condition that the remaining vertices of entire structure, network, or graph have unique position. The selected vertices formed a set named as the locating set [8] in computer-related topics, the resolving set in chemical topics [9], and metric basis in terms of pure theoretical studies of graphs in mathematics [10].

To get benefit from this idea, lots of practical applications have been introduced as improved variants. Fault-tolerant version of the resolving set is proposed in [11]. It dealt the problem of when any of a vertex from the resolving set fails to deliver and no more behave as a member of the resolving set. Instead of vertices’ position, if one can gain the unique position of entire graph’s edges, then this variant is known as the edge resolving set and proposed in [12], while the edge version of the fault-tolerant resolving set was introduced in [13].

The applications of these ideas are cited. The resolving set has applications in chemical compounds, which are detailed in [14], in pharmaceutical research and evaluating drugs [15], in information technology such as robot navigation [16], other computer related topics [17–20], image processing [6], weighting problem [21], and some detailed applications are further cited in [22–24]. Different works on chemical structures and their resolvability are discussed in [25–27]. For the computational cost of these topics, we refer to see [28–30], in which authors concluded that all the parameters are NP-hard problems in terms of computing in generalize way.

Given here are some suggested articles as a literature review and closely related to the topics studied here. In [31], vertex-based resolvability is considered as a point of discussion and implemented on Harary graph. The same technique is implemented on kayak paddles graph in [32], on necklace graph in [33], and on some general mathematical structures in [34, 35]. For the next variant which is fault tolerant of the resolving set, we refer to see [36, 37], in which some general graphs are considered and some computer related networks for different topologies of networking are studied [38, 39]. For the articles related to the partition dimension or resolving set, we refer to see [40, 41]. The general mathematical topologies and graphs are studied in terms of the edge-based resolving set in [42, 43], and they raised few questions related to this variant. In [44], the authors reply back and answered some questions. Necklace graph is studied in [45], polycyclic hydrocarbon-related structure is discussed in [46], Peterson graph is generalized in [47], and another general k-multiwheel graph is studied in [48].

Mathematical notations, definitions, and parameters are given below.

Definition 1. The distance between two vertices, , is the minimum count of edges on the way from to or vice versa; usually, it is denoted by , with is the set of vertices of a graph . Setting is an ordered subsets of and is the -tuple vector of distance for the vertex . If each vertex have unique -vector, then is considered as the resolving set and the minimum count of members of is known as metric dimension . By eliminating any arbitrary vertex from and the condition of unique -vector remains true, then the set becomes which is known as fault-tolerant resolving set, and similarly, the least count of its members is known as fault-tolerant metric dimension . If we evaluate edges or retrieve the unique -vector for the edges of a graph, then the set becomes and known as the edge resolving set , and its member’s minimum count is denoted by . The fault-tolerant version for edges (similarly ) is denoted by and called as fault-tolerant edge metric dimension . Now, the whole arranging into subsets say and testing for unique -vector for each vertex. If we are able to find such , then the set known as the partition resolving set and the order of is called as partition dimension .

Theorem 1 (see [14]). If is a simple, undirected connected graph, then iff .

Theorem 2 (see [12]). For integers , , and . Moreover, iff is a path .

2. Results on the Vertex Edge-Based Resolvability and Their Variants for Benzenoid Hammer Structure

The graph shown in Figure 1 is a hammer structure with total number of vertices and count of total edges [49]. Hammer structure is basically a benzenoid structure and belongs to the benzenoid hydrocarbons family. It contains total hexagons or cycle attached in systematic way to build a hammer-like structure. Maximum edges attached to a vertex is three and the least edges are two. Moreover, given below is the vertex and edge set of hammer structure:

Lemma 1. Let be a structure of benzene hammer for . Then, the least possible cardinality in its resolving set is two.

Proof. There are in collective vertices in the mathematical graph of benzene hammer having limits , and to evaluate the least possible cardinality of its resolving set, by assuming both, the formula is . For any graph the least possible cardinality of its resolving set can be one as well but by Theorem 1, the path graph is the only graph having single member in its resolving set. As we know that the choosing resolving set for any graph is NP-hardness category of problems, that is why we cannot find the exact counts of resolving sets; therefore, we have a choice to make a single resolving set from -possibilities. For this particular graph, we defined as a resolving set and their members are . By implementing Definition 1, we will prove our main claim that is suitable for or benzene hammer structure’s resolving set. As the method defined in Definition 1, we will check all possible positions of each vertex of respective to considering as a resolving set.
Positions in relation to , for the nodes with , are provided asPositions in relation to , for the nodes with , are provided asPositions and in relation to , for the nodes and with , are provided asThe given positions of all -nodes of structure of benzene hammer having limits , according to , are distinct. It is concluding that the structure of benzene hammer or resolves with only two member’s resolving set. So, the least possible cardinality of the resolving set of structure is two.

Remark 1. Let be a structure of benzene hammer for . Then,

Proof. The concept of metric dimension, defined in Definition 1, is entirely dependent on the chosen vertices in a resolving set or say . The vertices are selected in a manner that each vertex of structure of benzene hammer have unique or distinct representations which are represented by . In Lemma 1, we have selected an appropriate resolving set for the benzene hammer structure with least possible cardinality. Such chosen resolving set is for or structure of benzene hammer and with possible values of . As we have seen that Lemma 1 already proved , it is enough for the prove of this remark and , or the structure of benzene hammer have two metric dimension; this concludes the proof.

Lemma 2. Let be a structure of benzene hammer for . Then, the least possible cardinality in its fault-tolerant resolving set is four.

Proof. There are in collective vertices in the mathematical graph of benzene hammer having limits , and to evaluate the least possible cardinality of its fault-tolerant resolving set, by assuming both, the formula is . As we know that the choosing fault-tolerant resolving set for any graph is NP-hardness category of problems, that is why we cannot find the exact counts of fault-tolerant resolving sets; therefore, we have a choice to make a single fault-tolerant resolving set from -possibilities. For this particular graph, we defined as a fault-tolerant resolving set, and their members are . By implementing Definition 1, we will prove our main claim that is suitable for or benzene hammer structure’s fault-tolerant resolving set. As the method defined in Definition 1, we will check all possible positions of each vertex of respective to considering as a fault-tolerant resolving set.
Positions in relation to , for the nodes with , are provided asPositions in relation to , for the nodes with , are provided asPositions and in relation to , for the nodes and with , are provided asOn the discussion provided above, it is proved that chosen is a suitable candidate for a fault-tolerant resolving set and fulfills the definition having four least possible members in it. Now, for the approach of proving the optimized count of , we have to rethink about . To check whether the assertion is true or not and finding another fault-tolerant resolving set with three members in it for the structure of benzene hammer, given below are some general samples or cases. In these samples, we tried to prove that only is possible.

Case 1. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two vertices breached the definition of fault-tolerant resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 2. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two vertices and breached the definition of the fault-tolerant resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 3. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two vertices and breached the definition of the fault-tolerant resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 4. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two vertices and breached the definition of fault-tolerant resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 5. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two vertices and breached the definition of the fault-tolerant resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 6. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two vertices and breached the definition of the fault-tolerant resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 7. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two vertices and breached the definition of the fault-tolerant resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 8. Consider the subset , also assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality that is . This sample resulted in the same positions of two vertices and breached the definition of the fault-tolerant resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 9. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two vertices and breached the definition of fault-tolerant resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .
The given positions of all -nodes of structure of benzene hammer having limits , according to , are distinct. It is concluded that the structure of benzene hammer or resolves with only two members’ resolving set. So, the least possible cardinality of the resolving set of structure is two. It also fulfills the definition of eliminating any of arbitrary nodes in the chosen fault-tolerant resolving set, and it will still resolve the nodes of structure. The assertion for the fault-tolerant resolving set is not true, concluding having the same position of two nodes of structure. It is concluded that the structure of benzene hammer or resolves with only four member’s fault-tolerant resolving sets. So, the least possible cardinality of the fault-tolerant resolving set of structure is four.

Remark 2. Let be a structure of benzene hammer for . Then,

Proof. The concept of fault-tolerant metric dimension, defined in Definition 1, is entirely dependent on the chosen vertices in a fault-tolerant resolving set or say . The vertices are selected in a manner that each vertex of structure of benzene hammer have unique or distinct representations which are represented by . In Lemma 2, we have selected an appropriate fault-tolerant resolving set for the benzene hammer structure with least possible cardinality. Such chosen fault-tolerant resolving set is for or structure of benzene hammer with possible values of . As we have seen that Lemma 2 is already proved , it is enough for the prove of this remark and or the structure of benzene hammer has four fault-tolerant metric dimension; this concludes the proof.

Lemma 3. Let be a structure of benzene hammer for . Then, the least possible cardinality in its edge resolving set is two.

Proof. There are in collective vertices in the mathematical graph of benzene hammer having limits , and to evaluate the least possible cardinality of its edge resolving set, by assuming both, the formula is . For any graph, the least possible cardinality of its edge resolving set can be one as well, but by Theorem 1, the path graph is the only graph having single member in its edge resolving set. As we know that choosing edge resolving set for any graph is NP-hardness category of problems, that is why we cannot find the exact counts of edge resolving sets; therefore, we have a choice to make a single-edge resolving set from -possibilities. For this particular graph, we defined as an edge resolving set, and their members are . By implementing Definition 1, we will prove our main claim that is suitable for or benzene hammer structure’s edge resolving set. As the method defined in Definition 1, we will check all possible positions of each edge of respective to considering as an edge resolving set.
Positions in relation to , for the edges with , are provided asPositions in relation to , for the edges with , are provided asPositions and in relation to , for the edges and with , are provided asPositions in relation to , for the edges with , are provided asPositions of the joint edges in relation to are provided asThe given positions of all -bonds of structure of benzene hammer having limits , according to , are distinct. It is concluded that the structure of benzene hammer or resolves with only two member’s edge resolving set. So, the least possible cardinality of edge resolving set of structure is two. It is concluded that the structure of benzene hammer or resolves with only two members of edge resolving set. So, the least possible cardinality of edge resolving set of structure is two.

Remark 3. Let be a structure of benzene hammer for . Then,

Proof. The concept of edge metric dimension, defined in Definition 1, is entirely dependent on the chosen vertices in an edge resolving set or say . The vertices are selected in a manner that each edge of structure of benzene hammer have unique or distinct representations which are represented by . In Lemma 3, we have selected an appropriate edge resolving set for the benzene hammer structure with least possible cardinality. Such chosen edge resolving set is for or structure of benzene hammer with possible values of . As we seen that Lemma 3 already proved , it is enough for the proof of this remark and , or the structure of benzene hammer has two edge metric dimensions; this concludes the proof.

Lemma 4. Let be a structure of benzene hammer for . Then, the least possible cardinality in its fault-tolerant edge resolving set is four.

Proof. There are in collective vertices in the mathematical graph of benzene hammer having limits , and to evaluate the least possible cardinality of its fault-tolerant edge resolving set, by assuming both, the formula is . As we know the choosing fault-tolerant edge resolving set for any graph is NP-hardness category of problems, that is why we cannot find the exact counts of fault-tolerant edge resolving sets; therefore, we have a choice to make a single fault-tolerant edge resolving set from -possibilities. For this particular graph, we defined as a fault-tolerant edge resolving set, and their members are . By implementing Definition 1, we will prove our main claim that is suitable for or benzene hammer structure’s fault-tolerant edge resolving set. As the method defined in Definition 1, we will check all possible positions of each edge of respective to considering as a fault-tolerant edge resolving set.
Positions in relation to , for the edges with , are provided asPositions in relation to , for the edges with , are provided asPositions and in relation to , for the edges and with , are provided asPositions in relation to , for the edges with , are provided asPositions of the joint edges in relation to are provided asOn the discussion provided above, it is proved that chosen is a suitable candidate for a fault-tolerant edge resolving set and fulfills the definition having four least possible members in it. Now, for the approach of proving the optimized count of , we have to rethink about . To check whether the assertion is true or not and finding another fault-tolerant edge resolving set with three members in it for the structure of benzene hammer, given below are some general samples or cases. In these samples, we tried to prove that only is possible.

Case 10. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two edges and breached the definition of fault-tolerant edge resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with and .

Case 11. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two edges and breached the definition of the fault-tolerant edge resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with and .

Case 12. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two edges and breached the definition of fault-tolerant edge resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 13. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two edges and breached the definition of fault-tolerant edge resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 14. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two edges and breached the definition of fault-tolerant edge resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with and .

Case 15. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two edges and breached the definition of fault-tolerant edge resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .

Case 16. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two edges and breached the definition of fault-tolerant edge resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with and .

Case 17. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two edges and breached the definition of the fault-tolerant edge resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with , and .

Case 18. Consider the subset ; also, assume eliminating any arbitrary vertex from this assumed subset according to the requisite of definition and the restrictions on the cardinality, that is, . This sample resulted in the same positions of two edges and breached the definition of the fault-tolerant edge resolving set and our assumption, and the reason is , with .
The given positions of all -bonds of structure of benzene hammer having limits , according to , are distinct. It is concluded that the structure of benzene hammer or resolves with only four members’ fault-tolerant edge resolving set. So, the least possible cardinality of the fault-tolerant edge resolving set of structure is four. It also fulfills the definition of eliminating any of arbitrary nodes in the chosen fault-tolerant edge resolving set, and it will still resolve the edges of structure. The assertion for the fault-tolerant edge resolving set is not true concluding having the same position of two nodes of structure. It is concluded that the structure of benzene hammer or resolves with only four member’s of the fault-tolerant edge resolving set. So, the least possible cardinality of the fault-tolerant edge resolving set of structure is four.

Remark 4. Let be a structure of benzene hammer for . Then,

Proof. The concept of fault-tolerant edge metric dimension, defined in Definition 1, is entirely depend on the chosen vertices in a fault-tolerant edge resolving set or say . The vertices are selected in a manner that each edge of structure of benzene hammer have unique or distinct representations which are represented by . In Lemma 4, we have selected an appropriate fault-tolerant edge resolving set for the benzene hammer structure with least possible cardinality. Such chosen fault-tolerant edge resolving set is for or structure of benzene hammer with possible values of . As we have seen that Lemma 4 already proved , it is enough for the prove of this remark and or the structure of benzene hammer has four fault-tolerant edge metric dimension; this concludes the proof.

Lemma 5. Let be a structure of benzene hammer for . Then, the minimum subsets of its partition resolving set is three.

Proof. There are in collective vertices in the mathematical graph of benzene hammer having limits , and to evaluate the possible combinations given by Bell number which is , is the Stirling number of second kind [50]. is the possible number of choosing partition resolving set for , but the best and suited ones are presented here and defined as , with .
For any graph, the least possible cardinality of its partition resolving set can be two as well, but by Theorem 1, the path graph is the only graph having two members in its partition resolving set. As we know the choosing partition resolving set for any graph is NP-hardness category of problems, that is why we cannot find the exact counts of the partition resolving set; therefore, we have a choice to make a single partition resolving set from -possibilities. For this particular graph, we defined as a partition resolving set, and their members are , with . By implementing Definition 1, we will prove our main claim that is suitable for or benzene hammer structure’s partition resolving set. As the method defined in Definition 1, we will check all possible positions of each vertex of respective to considering as a partition resolving set.
Positions in relation to , for the nodes with , are provided aswhere
Positions in relation to , for the nodes with , are provided asPositions and in relation to , for the nodes and with , are provided asThe given positions of all -nodes of structure of benzene hammer having limits , according to , are distinct. It is concluded that the structure of benzene hammer or resolves by making only three members’ partition resolving set. So, the least possible cardinality of the partition resolving set of structure is three. It is concluded that the structure of benzene hammer or resolves by making only three member’s partition resolving set. So, the least possible cardinality of the partition resolving set of structure is three.

Remark 5. Let be a structure of benzene hammer for . Then,

Proof. The concept of partition dimension, defined in Definition 1, is entirely dependent on the chosen vertices in a partition resolving set or say . The vertices are selected in a manner that each vertex of structure of benzene hammer have unique or distinct representations which are represented by . In Lemma 5, we have selected an appropriate partition resolving set for the benzene hammer structure with least possible cardinality. Such chosen partition resolving set is , with , for , or structure of benzene hammer and with possible values of . As we have seen that Lemma 5 already proved , it is enough for the proof of this remark and or the structure of benzene hammer has three partition dimensions; this concludes the proof.

3. Conclusion

Under the field of graph theoretical chemistry, lots of methods have been developed to solve problems related to complex networks. Also, lots of new tools are introduced to create network and study them numerically, so they can further be studied under the field of computer-based algorithms. Study of resolvability parameters is a cluster of various techniques in which networks are developed and represented numerically. This can be only possible if the resolving set develops a graph’s numerical form when each vertex has its unique position, location, or representation. In this work, we consider a benzenoid chemical structure named as hammer graph and developed various types of resolvability parameters and proved that all these parameters are free from the order and size of a hammer graph.

Data Availability

No data were used to support the findings of the study.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest with this article.

References

B. Yang, M. Rafiullah, H. M. A. Siddiqui, and S. Ahmad, “On resolvability parameters of some wheel-related graphs,” Journal of Chemistry, vol. 2019, Article ID 9259032, 9 pages, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Imran, M. K. Siddiqui, and M. Hussain, “Computing the upper bounds for the metric dimension of cellulose network,” Applied Mathematics E-Notes, vol. 19, pp. 585–605, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
M. K. Siddiqui and M. Imran, “Computing the metric and partition dimension of h-naphtalenic and vc5c7 nanotubes,” Journal of Optoelectronics and Advanced Materials, vol. 17, pp. 790–794, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Manzoor, M. K. Siddiqui, and S. Ahmad, “On entropy measures of polycyclic hydroxychloroquine used for novel coronavirus (covid-19) treatment,” Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. K. Siddiqui, M. Naeem, N. A. Rahman, and M. Imran, “Computing topological indices of certain networks,” Journal of Optoelectronics and Advanced Materials, vol. 18, pp. 9-10, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Slater, “Leaves of trees,” in Proceedings of the 6th Southeastern Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory, and Computing, Congressus Numerantium, vol. 14, pp. 549–559, Boca Raton, Florida, February 1975.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Harary and R. A. Melter, “On the metric dimension of a graph,” Ars Combinatoria, vol. 2, pp. 191–195, 1976.
View at: Google Scholar
M. F. Nadeem, M. Azeem, and A. Khalil, “The locating number of hexagonal möbius ladder network,” Journal of applied mathematics and computing, vol. 66, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
A. N. A. Koam, A. Ahmad, M. E. Abdelhag, and M. Azeem, “Metric and fault-tolerant metric dimension of hollow coronoid,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 81527–81534, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. N. A. Koam and A. Ahmad, “Barycentric subdivision of cayley graphs with constant edge metric dimension,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 80624–80628, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Chaudhry, I. Javaid, and M. Salman, “Fault-tolerant metric and partition dimension of graphs,” Utliltas mathematica, vol. 83, pp. 187–199, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Kelenc, N. Tratnik, and I. G. Yero, “Uniquely identifying the edges of a graph: the edge metric dimension,” Discrete Applied Mathematics, vol. 251, pp. 204–220, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Liu, M. Ahsan, M. Ahsan, Z. Zahid, and S. Ren, “Fault-tolerant edge metric dimension of certain families of graphs,” AIMS Mathematics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1140–1152, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Chartrand, L. Eroh, M. A. Johnson, and O. R. Oellermann, “Resolvability in graphs and the metric dimension of a graph,” Discrete Applied Mathematics, vol. 105, no. 1-3, pp. 99–113, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Johnson, “Structure-activity maps for visualizing the graph variables arising in drug design,” Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 203–236, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Khuller, B. Raghavachari, and A. Rosenfeld, “Landmarks in graphs,” Discrete Applied Mathematics, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 217–229, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Sebö and E. Tannier, “On metric generators of graphs,” Mathematics and operational research, vol. 29, pp. 383–393, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Manuel, R. Bharati, I. Rajasingh, and M. M. Chris, “On minimum metric dimension of honeycomb networks,” Journal of Discrete Algorithms, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 20–27, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Perc, J. Gómez-Gardeñes, A. Szolnoki, L. M. Floría, and Y. Moreno, “Evolutionary dynamics of group interactions on structured populations: a review,” Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 10, no. 80, Article ID 20120997, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Perc and A. Szolnoki, “Coevolutionary games-a mini review,” Biosystems, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 109–125, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Söderberg and H. S. Shapiro, “A combinatory detection problem,” The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 1066–1070, 1963.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Hussain, M. Munir, M. Choudhary, and S. M. Kang, “Computing metric dimension and metric basis of 2d lattice of alpha-boron nanotubes,” Symmetry, vol. 10, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Krishnan and B. Rajan, “Fault-tolerant resolvability of certain crystal structures,” Applied Mathematics, vol. 07, pp. 599–604, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. M. A. Siddiqui and M. Imran, “Computing metric and partition dimension of 2-dimensional lattices of certain nanotubes,” Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 2419–2423, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Raza, S. Hayat, and X.-F. Pan, “On the fault-tolerant metric dimension of convex polytopes,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 339, pp. 172–185, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. M. Chu, M. F. Nadeem, M. Azeem, and M. K. Siddiqui, “On sharp bounds on partition dimension of convex polytopes,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 224781–224790, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Liu, M. F. Nadeem, and M. Azeem, “Bounds on the partition dimension of convex polytopes,” Combinatorial Chemistry and Throughput Screening, vol. 23, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Hauptmann, R. Schmied, and C. Viehmann, “Approximation complexity of metric dimension problem,” Journal of Discrete Algorithms, vol. 14, pp. 214–222, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. R. Lewis, M. Garey, and D. Johnson, “Michael R. ΠGarey and David S. Johnson. Computers and intractability. A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco1979,,” The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 498–500, 1983.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Johnson, Browsable Structure-Activity Datasets, Advances in Molecular Similarity, JAI Press Connecticut, Stamford Connecticut, London, UK, pp. 153–170, 1998.
A. Ahmad, M. Baca, and S. Sultan, “On metric dimension and minimal doubly resolving sets of harary graph,” Acta Mathematica Universitatis Comenianae, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 123–129, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Ahmad, M. Bača, and S. Sultan, “Computing the metric dimension of kayak paddles graph and cycles with chord,” Proyecciones (Antofagasta), vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 287–300, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ahmad, M. Baca, and S. Sultan, “Minimal doubly resolving sets of necklace graph,” Mathematical Report, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 123–129, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Vetrík and A. Ahmad, “Computing the metric dimension of the categorial product of some graphs,” International Journal of Computer Mathematics, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 363–371, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ahmad and S. Sultan, “On minimal doubly resolving sets of circulant graphs,” Acta Mechanica Slovaca, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 6–11, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Javaid, M. Salman, M. A. Chaudhry, and S. Shokat, “Fault-tolerance in resolvability,” Utliltas Mathematica, vol. 80, pp. 263–275, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Basak, L. Saha, G. K. Das, and K. Tiwary, “Fault-tolerant metric dimension of circulant graphs C (1,2,3),” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 817, pp. 66–79, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Raza, S. Hayat, and X.-F. Pan, “On the fault-tolerant metric dimension of certain interconnection networks,” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, vol. 60, no. 1-2, pp. 517–535, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Raza, S. Hayat, M. Imran, and X.-F. Pan, “Fault-tolerant resolvability and extremal structures of graphs,” Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 78–97, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Chartrand, E. Salehi, and P. Zhang, “The partition dimension of a graph,” Aequationes Mathematicae, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 45–54, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Shabbir and M. Azeem, “On the partition dimension of tri-hexagonal alpha-boron nanotube,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 55644–55653, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zhang and S. Gao, “On the edge metric dimension of convex polytopes and its related graphs,” Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 334–350, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Ahsan, Z. Zahid, S. Zafar, A. Rafiq, M. S. Sindhu, and M. Umar, “Computing the edge metric dimension of convex polytopes related graphs,” The Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 174–188, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Raza and M. S. Bataineh, “The comparative analysis of metric and edge metric dimension of some subdivisions of the wheel graph,” Asian-European Journal of Mathematics, vol. 14, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Liu, Z. Zahid, R. Nasir, and W. Nazeer, “Edge version of metric dimension anddoubly resolving sets of the necklace graph,” Mathematics, vol. 6, no. 43, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Azeem and M. F. Nadeem, “Metric-based resolvability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,” European Physical Journal Plus, vol. 136, no. 395, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Filipovic, A. Kartelj, and J. Kratica, “Edge metric dimension of some generalized peterson graphs,” Results in Mathematics, vol. 74, 182 pages, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
M. S. Bataineh, N. Siddiqui, and Z. Raza, “Edge metric dimension of $k$ multiwheel graph,” Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1175–1180, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. P. Chou, Y. Li, and H. A. Witek, “Zhang-zhang polynomials of various classes of benzenoid systems,” MATCH Communications in Mathematicaland in Computer Chemistry, vol. 68, pp. 31–64, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Klazar, “Bell numbers, their relatives, and algebraic differential equations,” Journal of Combinatorial Theory—Series A, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 63–87, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Ali Ahmad and Al-Nashri Al-Hossain Ahmad. 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.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

344

Downloads

356

Citations