Prove $D-A$ is similar to $D+A$ iff the graph is connected and bipartite












2














If $A$ is the adjacency matrix for the Graph $G$ and $D$ is the diagonal matrix of degrees, $D-A$ is the laplacian of the graph and $D+A$ is sometimes called the signless laplacian.
I want to prove that a connected graph is bipartite iff $D-A$ is similar to $D+A$.



Note: For the if part I know that if those two are similar, the spectrum of those graphs are the same. Since the graph is connected so the laplacian has just one zero eigenvector and there is a vector $x neq 0$ with so that:



$$ x^T(D+A)x = sum_{(i,j) in E(G)} (x_i+x_j)^2 = 0$$



so $x_i neq 0$ for all $i$ and using negative and positive elements of this vector I can form the bipartition. I would appreciate your hints on the "only if" part of the proof and also other ways of proving the "if" part.






graph-theory spectral-graph-theory bipartite-graph







share|cite|improve this question





























    2














    If $A$ is the adjacency matrix for the Graph $G$ and $D$ is the diagonal matrix of degrees, $D-A$ is the laplacian of the graph and $D+A$ is sometimes called the signless laplacian.
    I want to prove that a connected graph is bipartite iff $D-A$ is similar to $D+A$.



    Note: For the if part I know that if those two are similar, the spectrum of those graphs are the same. Since the graph is connected so the laplacian has just one zero eigenvector and there is a vector $x neq 0$ with so that:



    $$ x^T(D+A)x = sum_{(i,j) in E(G)} (x_i+x_j)^2 = 0$$



    so $x_i neq 0$ for all $i$ and using negative and positive elements of this vector I can form the bipartition. I would appreciate your hints on the "only if" part of the proof and also other ways of proving the "if" part.






    graph-theory spectral-graph-theory bipartite-graph







    share|cite|improve this question



























      2












      2








      2


      1





      If $A$ is the adjacency matrix for the Graph $G$ and $D$ is the diagonal matrix of degrees, $D-A$ is the laplacian of the graph and $D+A$ is sometimes called the signless laplacian.
      I want to prove that a connected graph is bipartite iff $D-A$ is similar to $D+A$.



      Note: For the if part I know that if those two are similar, the spectrum of those graphs are the same. Since the graph is connected so the laplacian has just one zero eigenvector and there is a vector $x neq 0$ with so that:



      $$ x^T(D+A)x = sum_{(i,j) in E(G)} (x_i+x_j)^2 = 0$$



      so $x_i neq 0$ for all $i$ and using negative and positive elements of this vector I can form the bipartition. I would appreciate your hints on the "only if" part of the proof and also other ways of proving the "if" part.






      graph-theory spectral-graph-theory bipartite-graph







      share|cite|improve this question















      If $A$ is the adjacency matrix for the Graph $G$ and $D$ is the diagonal matrix of degrees, $D-A$ is the laplacian of the graph and $D+A$ is sometimes called the signless laplacian.
      I want to prove that a connected graph is bipartite iff $D-A$ is similar to $D+A$.



      Note: For the if part I know that if those two are similar, the spectrum of those graphs are the same. Since the graph is connected so the laplacian has just one zero eigenvector and there is a vector $x neq 0$ with so that:



      $$ x^T(D+A)x = sum_{(i,j) in E(G)} (x_i+x_j)^2 = 0$$



      so $x_i neq 0$ for all $i$ and using negative and positive elements of this vector I can form the bipartition. I would appreciate your hints on the "only if" part of the proof and also other ways of proving the "if" part.






      graph-theory spectral-graph-theory bipartite-graph




      graph-theory spectral-graph-theory bipartite-graph






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 4 at 19:34







      Dandelion

















      asked Jan 4 at 16:23









      DandelionDandelion

      1299




      1299






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          If the graph is bipartite, choose a bipartition and let $P = P^{-1}$ be the diagonal matrix with $+1$ or $-1$ in the diagonal entries depending on which side of the bipartition we're on.



          Because diagonal matrices commute, $PDP^{-1} = PP^{-1}D = D$.



          On the other hand, $PAP^{-1} = PAP = -A$: left-multiplying by $P$ negates all the rows corresponding to the $-1$ side of the bipartition, and right-multiplying by $P$ negates all the columns corresponding to the $-1$ side of the bipartition. Each $1$ entry in $A$ corresponds to an edge from the $+1$ side to the $-1$ side, so it gets negated once: either due to its row, or due to its column.



          Therefore $P(D+A)P^{-1} = D-A$, and the two matrices are similar.



          For the reverse direction, you already have the idea, but I just want to point out that if $$sum_{(i,j) in E(G)} (x_i+x_j)^2 = 0$$ then we must have $x_i + x_j = 0$ for all $(i,j) in E(G)$.



          This forces each $x_i$ to be equal to either $x_1$ or $-x_1$, by applying this identity along a path from vertex $1$ to vertex $i$; in particular, we get $x_1$ if the path has even length and $-x_1$ if the path has odd length. We can take the vertices $i$ with $x_1 = x_i$ to be one side of the bipartition, and the other vertices to be the other side; since $x_i + x_j = 0$ for all $(i,j) in E(G)$, all edges go from one side to the other.



          (Alternatively, we can use the $x_i + x_j = 0$ condition to show that if any vertex $i$ is contained in an odd walk, then $x_i = 0$; if the graph is not bipartite, every vertex is contained in such a walk, so $x=0$ and we don't get an eigenvector.)






          share|cite|improve this answer























            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061800%2fprove-d-a-is-similar-to-da-iff-the-graph-is-connected-and-bipartite%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3














            If the graph is bipartite, choose a bipartition and let $P = P^{-1}$ be the diagonal matrix with $+1$ or $-1$ in the diagonal entries depending on which side of the bipartition we're on.



            Because diagonal matrices commute, $PDP^{-1} = PP^{-1}D = D$.



            On the other hand, $PAP^{-1} = PAP = -A$: left-multiplying by $P$ negates all the rows corresponding to the $-1$ side of the bipartition, and right-multiplying by $P$ negates all the columns corresponding to the $-1$ side of the bipartition. Each $1$ entry in $A$ corresponds to an edge from the $+1$ side to the $-1$ side, so it gets negated once: either due to its row, or due to its column.



            Therefore $P(D+A)P^{-1} = D-A$, and the two matrices are similar.



            For the reverse direction, you already have the idea, but I just want to point out that if $$sum_{(i,j) in E(G)} (x_i+x_j)^2 = 0$$ then we must have $x_i + x_j = 0$ for all $(i,j) in E(G)$.



            This forces each $x_i$ to be equal to either $x_1$ or $-x_1$, by applying this identity along a path from vertex $1$ to vertex $i$; in particular, we get $x_1$ if the path has even length and $-x_1$ if the path has odd length. We can take the vertices $i$ with $x_1 = x_i$ to be one side of the bipartition, and the other vertices to be the other side; since $x_i + x_j = 0$ for all $(i,j) in E(G)$, all edges go from one side to the other.



            (Alternatively, we can use the $x_i + x_j = 0$ condition to show that if any vertex $i$ is contained in an odd walk, then $x_i = 0$; if the graph is not bipartite, every vertex is contained in such a walk, so $x=0$ and we don't get an eigenvector.)






            share|cite|improve this answer




























              3














              If the graph is bipartite, choose a bipartition and let $P = P^{-1}$ be the diagonal matrix with $+1$ or $-1$ in the diagonal entries depending on which side of the bipartition we're on.



              Because diagonal matrices commute, $PDP^{-1} = PP^{-1}D = D$.



              On the other hand, $PAP^{-1} = PAP = -A$: left-multiplying by $P$ negates all the rows corresponding to the $-1$ side of the bipartition, and right-multiplying by $P$ negates all the columns corresponding to the $-1$ side of the bipartition. Each $1$ entry in $A$ corresponds to an edge from the $+1$ side to the $-1$ side, so it gets negated once: either due to its row, or due to its column.



              Therefore $P(D+A)P^{-1} = D-A$, and the two matrices are similar.



              For the reverse direction, you already have the idea, but I just want to point out that if $$sum_{(i,j) in E(G)} (x_i+x_j)^2 = 0$$ then we must have $x_i + x_j = 0$ for all $(i,j) in E(G)$.



              This forces each $x_i$ to be equal to either $x_1$ or $-x_1$, by applying this identity along a path from vertex $1$ to vertex $i$; in particular, we get $x_1$ if the path has even length and $-x_1$ if the path has odd length. We can take the vertices $i$ with $x_1 = x_i$ to be one side of the bipartition, and the other vertices to be the other side; since $x_i + x_j = 0$ for all $(i,j) in E(G)$, all edges go from one side to the other.



              (Alternatively, we can use the $x_i + x_j = 0$ condition to show that if any vertex $i$ is contained in an odd walk, then $x_i = 0$; if the graph is not bipartite, every vertex is contained in such a walk, so $x=0$ and we don't get an eigenvector.)






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                3












                3








                3






                If the graph is bipartite, choose a bipartition and let $P = P^{-1}$ be the diagonal matrix with $+1$ or $-1$ in the diagonal entries depending on which side of the bipartition we're on.



                Because diagonal matrices commute, $PDP^{-1} = PP^{-1}D = D$.



                On the other hand, $PAP^{-1} = PAP = -A$: left-multiplying by $P$ negates all the rows corresponding to the $-1$ side of the bipartition, and right-multiplying by $P$ negates all the columns corresponding to the $-1$ side of the bipartition. Each $1$ entry in $A$ corresponds to an edge from the $+1$ side to the $-1$ side, so it gets negated once: either due to its row, or due to its column.



                Therefore $P(D+A)P^{-1} = D-A$, and the two matrices are similar.



                For the reverse direction, you already have the idea, but I just want to point out that if $$sum_{(i,j) in E(G)} (x_i+x_j)^2 = 0$$ then we must have $x_i + x_j = 0$ for all $(i,j) in E(G)$.



                This forces each $x_i$ to be equal to either $x_1$ or $-x_1$, by applying this identity along a path from vertex $1$ to vertex $i$; in particular, we get $x_1$ if the path has even length and $-x_1$ if the path has odd length. We can take the vertices $i$ with $x_1 = x_i$ to be one side of the bipartition, and the other vertices to be the other side; since $x_i + x_j = 0$ for all $(i,j) in E(G)$, all edges go from one side to the other.



                (Alternatively, we can use the $x_i + x_j = 0$ condition to show that if any vertex $i$ is contained in an odd walk, then $x_i = 0$; if the graph is not bipartite, every vertex is contained in such a walk, so $x=0$ and we don't get an eigenvector.)






                share|cite|improve this answer














                If the graph is bipartite, choose a bipartition and let $P = P^{-1}$ be the diagonal matrix with $+1$ or $-1$ in the diagonal entries depending on which side of the bipartition we're on.



                Because diagonal matrices commute, $PDP^{-1} = PP^{-1}D = D$.



                On the other hand, $PAP^{-1} = PAP = -A$: left-multiplying by $P$ negates all the rows corresponding to the $-1$ side of the bipartition, and right-multiplying by $P$ negates all the columns corresponding to the $-1$ side of the bipartition. Each $1$ entry in $A$ corresponds to an edge from the $+1$ side to the $-1$ side, so it gets negated once: either due to its row, or due to its column.



                Therefore $P(D+A)P^{-1} = D-A$, and the two matrices are similar.



                For the reverse direction, you already have the idea, but I just want to point out that if $$sum_{(i,j) in E(G)} (x_i+x_j)^2 = 0$$ then we must have $x_i + x_j = 0$ for all $(i,j) in E(G)$.



                This forces each $x_i$ to be equal to either $x_1$ or $-x_1$, by applying this identity along a path from vertex $1$ to vertex $i$; in particular, we get $x_1$ if the path has even length and $-x_1$ if the path has odd length. We can take the vertices $i$ with $x_1 = x_i$ to be one side of the bipartition, and the other vertices to be the other side; since $x_i + x_j = 0$ for all $(i,j) in E(G)$, all edges go from one side to the other.



                (Alternatively, we can use the $x_i + x_j = 0$ condition to show that if any vertex $i$ is contained in an odd walk, then $x_i = 0$; if the graph is not bipartite, every vertex is contained in such a walk, so $x=0$ and we don't get an eigenvector.)







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Jan 4 at 20:27

























                answered Jan 4 at 17:14









                Misha LavrovMisha Lavrov

                44.2k555106




                44.2k555106






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061800%2fprove-d-a-is-similar-to-da-iff-the-graph-is-connected-and-bipartite%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    1300-talet

                    Image
                    Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output
                    Read more

                    1300-talet

                    Image
                    Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output
                    Read more

                    Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?

                    Image
                    36 3 The question Has there ever been a military combat going on around an active (running or in outage but not decommissioned) commercial nuclear power plant? Or dangerously near it? If yes, how did the plant and its personnel fare in such situation? Why I ask Let's assume for the scope of this question modern commercial nuclear power plants (CANDU, PWR, BWR of generation II plus all of gen III and newer) are usually reasonably safe to operate given that the engineering has been done right and there is a whole cohort of very well trained personnel on-site at all times, well rested and with considerable resources on their hands. Things hard to get with an armed conflict like the recent Syrian war raging around. I can't seem to find any reference or a comprehensive article about this, hence this question.
                    Read more