Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2015 |Article ID 504251 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/504251

Martin Bača, Zuzana Kimáková, Andrea Semaničová-Feňovčíková, Muhammad Awais Umar, "Tree-Antimagicness of Disconnected Graphs", Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2015, Article ID 504251, 4 pages, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/504251

# Tree-Antimagicness of Disconnected Graphs

Accepted05 Jan 2015
Published15 Jan 2015

#### Abstract

A simple graph admits an -covering if every edge in belongs to a subgraph of isomorphic to . The graph is said to be (, )--antimagic if there exists a bijection from the vertex set and the edge set onto the set of integers such that, for all subgraphs of isomorphic to , the sum of labels of all vertices and edges belonging to constitute the arithmetic progression with the initial term and the common difference . is said to be a super (, )--antimagic if the smallest possible labels appear on the vertices. In this paper, we study super tree-antimagic total labelings of disjoint union of graphs.

#### 1. Introduction

We consider finite undirected graphs without loops and multiple edges. The vertex and edge set of a graph are denoted by and , respectively. An edge-covering of is a family of subgraphs such that each edge of belongs to at least one of the subgraphs , . In this case we say that admits an -(edge) covering. If every subgraph is isomorphic to given graph , then the graph admits an -covering. A bijective function which we call a total labeling and the associated -weight of subgraph is . An --antimagic total labeling of graph admitting an -covering is a total labeling with the property that, for all subgraphs isomorphic to , the -weights form an arithmetic progression , where and are two integers and is the number of all subgraphs of isomorphic to . Such a labeling is called a super if the smallest possible labels appear on the vertices. A graph that admits a (super) --antimagic total labeling is called a (super) --antimagic. For , it is called -magic and -supermagic, respectively.

The -(super)magic labelings were first studied by Gutiérrez and Lladó . These labelings are the generalization of the edge-magic and super edge-magic labelings that were introduced by Kotzig and Rosa  and Enomoto et al. , respectively. For further information about (super) edge-magic labelings, one can see . Gutiérrez and Lladó  proved that certain classes of connected graphs are -(super)magic, such as the star and the complete bipartite graphs are -supermagic for some . They also proved that the cycle is -supermagic for any such that . Lladó and Moragas  studied the cycle-(super)magic behavior of several classes of connected graphs. They proved that wheels, windmills, books, and prisms are -magic for some . Maryati et al.  and also Salman et al.  proved that certain families of trees are path-supermagic. Ngurah et al.  proved that chains, wheels, triangles, ladders, and grids are cycle-supermagic.

The --antimagic total labeling is introduced by Inayah et al. . In , the super --antimagic labelings are investigated for some shackles of connected graph .

When is isomorphic to , a super --antimagic total labeling is also called super -edge-antimagic total. The notion of -edge-antimagic total labeling was introduced by Simanjuntak et al. in  as a natural extension of the edge-magic labeling defined by Kotzig and Rosa in  as magic valuation.

The (super) --antimagic total labeling is related to a super -antimagic labeling of type of a plane graph. A labeling of type , that is, a total labeling, of a plane graph is said to be -antimagic if for every positive integer the set of weights of all -sided faces is for some integers and , where is the number of the -sided faces. Note that there are allowed different sets for different . The weight of a face under a labeling of type is the sum of labels of all the edges and vertices surrounding that face. If , then Lih  calls such labeling magic and describes magic (-antimagic) labelings of type for wheels, friendship graphs, and prisms. In , Ahmad et al. investigate the existence of super -antimagic labelings of type for disjoint union of plane graphs for several values of difference .

In this paper we mainly investigate the existence of super -tree-antimagic total labelings for disconnected graphs. We concentrate on the following problem: if graph admits a (super) -tree-antimagic total labeling, does the disjoint union of copies of the graph , denoted by , admit a (super) -tree-antimagic total labeling as well?

#### 2. Super -Tree-Antimagic Total Labeling

In this section, we will study the super -tree-antimagicness for disconnected graphs. The main result is the following.

Theorem 1. Let be positive integers. Let with a -covering be a super --antimagic graph of order and size , , where is a tree and every tree , , is isomorphic to . Then the disjoint union is also a super --antimagic graph.

Proof. Let and be positive integers and let be a tree of order . Let , , be a graph with vertices and edges that admits a -covering. Note that is not necessarily isomorphic to for . Assume that every , , has a super --antimagic total labeling ; thus is the set of the corresponding -weights, where every tree , , is isomorphic to .
Define the labeling for the vertices and edges of in the following way: First we will show that the vertices of under the labeling , use integers from up to ; that is, if , then the vertices of successively attain values , if , then the vertices of successively assume values , the values of vertices of are equal successively to , and if , then the vertices of successively assume values .
Second we can see that the edges of under the labeling use integers from up to . It means that if , then the edges of successively assume values , if , then the edges of successively attain values , , the values of edges of are equal successively to , , , and if , then the edges of successively attain values , .
It is not difficult to see that the labeling is a bijective function which assigns the integer to the vertices and edges of ; thus is a total labeling.
For the weight of every subgraph isomorphic to the tree under the labeling , we have As every , , , is isomorphic to the tree , it holds Thus for the -weights we get
According to (1), we get that the -weights in components are the following:if , then the -weights in are , , and ;if , then the -weights in are , , and ;if , then the -weights in are , , and ;if , then the -weights in successively attain values , , , and ;if , then the -weights in successively assume values , , , and .
It is easy to see that the set of all -weights in consists of distinct and consecutive integers:
Thus the graph is a super --antimagic.

Immediately from the previous theorem we get that arbitrary number of copies of a super --antimagic graph is a super --antimagic.

Corollary 2. Let be a super --antimagic graph, where is a tree. Then the disjoint union of arbitrary number of copies of , that is, , , also admits a super --antimagic total labeling.

Moreover, for copies of a graph which is --antimagic but is not super, we can derive the following result.

Theorem 3. Let be an --antimagic graph of order and size , where is a tree. Then , , is also a --antimagic graph.

Proof. Let be a tree of order and let be an --antimagic graph of order and size with corresponding labeling and the corresponding -weights .
For every vertex in , we denote by symbol the corresponding vertex in the th copy of in . Analogously, let be the edge corresponding to the edge in the th copy of in .
For , we define labeling of as follows:
Let . We consider two cases.
Case 1. If the number is assigned by the labeling to a vertex of , then the corresponding vertices , , in the copies in will receive labels
Case 2. If the number is assigned by the labeling to an edge of , then the corresponding edges , , in the copies in will have labels We can see that the vertex labels and edge labels in are not overlapping, and the maximum used label is . Thus is a total labeling.
Analogously as in the proof of Theorem 1 we get that the weight of every subgraph , , , under the labeling attains the value and the set of all -weights in successively attain consecutive values . Thus the resulting labeling is a --antimagic total labeling.

#### 3. Disjoint Union of Certain Families of Graphs

In , the following results are proved on path-antimagicness of cycles and paths.

Proposition 4 (see ). Let and be positive integers. The cycle is a super --antimagic for every .

Proposition 5 (see ). Let and be positive integers. The path is a super --antimagic for every .

In light of Propositions 4 and 5 and Corollary 2 we immediately obtain the following.

Corollary 6. Let , , and be positive integers. Then copy of a cycle , that is, the graph , is a super --antimagic for every .

Corollary 7. Let , , and be positive integers. Then copy of a path , that is, the graph , is a super --antimagic for every .

#### 4. Conclusion

In this paper we have shown that the disjoint union of multiple copies of a (super) -tree-antimagic graph is also a (super) -tree-antimagic. It is a natural question whether the similar result holds also for other differences and other -antimagic graphs. For further investigation we propose the following open problems.

Open Problem 1. Let be a (super) --antimagic graph, where is a tree different from . For the graph , determine if there is a (super) --antimagic total labeling, for and all .

Open Problem 2. Let be a (super) --antimagic graph. For the graph , determine if there is a (super) --antimagic total labeling, for certain values of and all .

#### Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

#### Acknowledgment

The work was supported by Slovak VEGA Grant 1/0056/15.

1. A. Gutiérrez and A. Lladó, “Magic coverings,” Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, vol. 55, pp. 43–56, 2005. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
2. A. Kotzig and A. Rosa, “Magic valuations of finite graphs,” Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, vol. 13, pp. 451–461, 1970. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
3. H. Enomoto, A. S. Llado, T. Nakamigawa, and G. Ringel, “Super edge-magic graphs,” SUT Journal of Mathematics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 105–109, 1998. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
4. M. Bača, F. A. Muntaner-Batle, A. Semaničová-Feňovčíková, and M. K. Shafiq, “On super (a, 2)-edge-antimagic total labeling of disconnected graphs,” Ars Combinatoria, vol. 113, pp. 129–137, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
5. M. Bača and M. Miller, Super Edge-Antimagic Graphs: A Wealth of Problems and Some Solutions, Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2008.
6. R. M. Figueroa-Centeno, R. Ichishima, and F. A. Muntaner-Batle, “The place of super edge-magic labelings among other classes of labelings,” Discrete Mathematics, vol. 231, no. 1–3, pp. 153–168, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
7. R. M. Figueroa-Centeno, R. Ichishima, and F. A. Muntaner-Batle, “On edge-magic labelings of certain disjoint unions of graphs,” The Australasian Journal of Combinatorics, vol. 32, pp. 225–242, 2005. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
8. A. M. Marr and W. D. Wallis, Magic Graphs, Birkhäuser, New York, NY, USA, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | MathSciNet
9. A. Lladó and J. Moragas, “Cycle-magic graphs,” Discrete Mathematics, vol. 307, no. 23, pp. 2925–2933, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
10. T. K. Maryati, A. N. Salman, E. T. Baskoro, J. Ryan, and M. Miller, “On $H$-supermagic labelings for certain shackles and amalgamations of a connected graph,” Utilitas Mathematica, vol. 83, pp. 333–342, 2010. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
11. A. N. M. Salman, A. A. G. Ngurah, and N. Izzati, “On (super)-edge-magic total labelings of subdivision of stars Sn,” Utilitas Mathematica, vol. 81, pp. 275–284, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
12. A. A. Ngurah, A. N. Salman, and L. Susilowati, “$H$-supermagic labelings of graphs,” Discrete Mathematics, vol. 310, no. 8, pp. 1293–1300, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
13. N. Inayah, A. N. Salman, and R. Simanjuntak, “On -antimagic coverings of graphs,” Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, vol. 71, pp. 273–281, 2009. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
14. N. Inayah, R. Simanjuntak, A. N. Salman, and K. I. Syuhada, “Super (a, d)-H-antimagic total labelings for shackles of a connected graph H,” The Australasian Journal of Combinatorics, vol. 57, pp. 127–138, 2013. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
15. R. Simanjuntak, M. Miller, and F. Bertault, “Two new (a, d)-antimagic graph labelings,” in Proceedings of the 11th Australasian Workshop of Combinatorial Algorithm (AWOCA '00), pp. 179–189, Hunter Valley, Australia, July 2000. View at: Google Scholar
16. K. W. Lih, “On magic and consecutive labelings of plane graphs,” Utilitas Mathematica, vol. 24, pp. 165–197, 1983. View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
17. A. Ahmad, M. Bača, M. Lascsáková, and A. Semaničová-Feňovčíková, “Super magic and antimagic labelings of disjoint union of plane graphs,” Science International, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 21–25, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
18. A. Semaničová-Feňovčíková, M. Bača, M. Lascsáková, M. Miller, and J. Ryan, “Wheels are cycle-antimagic,” Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, In press. View at: Google Scholar

#### More related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.