2
$\begingroup$

Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple, undirected and connected graph. We say that $S\subseteq V$ is a cutting set if $S\neq V$ and the induced subgraph on $V\setminus S$ is not connected any more.

If $S \subseteq V$ is a cutting set of $G$, is there a cutting set $S_0\subseteq S$ of $G$ such that for all $x\in S_0$ the set $S_0\setminus \{x\}$ is no longer a cutting set?

(This question has an easy positive answer for finite graphs, so it is only interesting for infinite graphs.)

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. The induced graph would have to have exactly two connected components. Pick a component of $V \backslash S$ to be a component of $V \backslash S_0$ and figure out what $S_0$ should be. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14, 2018 at 20:57
  • $\begingroup$ @AaronMeyerowitz What $S_0$ were you thinking about? (See Monroe Eskew's negative answer below) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2018 at 17:56
  • $\begingroup$ I was wrong. I was thinking of deleting a set of edges. But I might be wrong there too. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2018 at 18:28

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

No. Here is a counterexample.

Let $V = \{ x_n,y_n : n \in \mathbb N \}$. Put $x_n E y_m$ and when $n \leq m$, and put an edge between any two $y_n$'s. If $A \subseteq \mathbb N$ is cofinite, then the induced subgraph on $V \setminus \{ y_n : n \in A \}$ is not connected, since there are no edges with endpoint $x_n$ when $n > \sup(\mathbb N \setminus A)$. But if $\mathbb N \setminus A$ is infinite, then for any $a,b \in V \setminus \{ y_n : n \in A \}$, there is a large enough $m \in \mathbb N \setminus A$ such that $aEy_mEb$. Therefore, there is no minimal cutting set contained in $\{ y_n : n \in \mathbb N\}$.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.