Paper detail

Cores, joins and the Fano-flow conjectures

The Fan-Raspaud Conjecture states that every bridgeless cubic graph has three 1-factors with empty intersection. A weaker one than this conjecture is that every bridgeless cubic graph has two 1-factors and one join with empty intersection. Both of these two conjectures can be related to conjectures on Fano-flows. In this paper, we show that these two conjectures are equivalent to some statements on cores and weak cores of a bridgeless cubic graph. In particular, we prove that the Fan-Raspaud Conjecture is equivalent to a conjecture proposed in [E. Steffen, 1-factor and cycle covers of cubic graphs, J. Graph Theory 78 (2015) 195-206]. Furthermore, we disprove a conjecture proposed in [G. Mazzuoccolo, New conjectures on perfect matchings in cubic graphs, Electron. Notes Discrete Math. 40 (2013) 235-238] and we propose a new version of it under a stronger connectivity assumption. The weak oddness of a cubic graph $G$ is the minimum number of odd components in the complement of a join of $G$. We obtain an upper bound of weak oddness in terms of weak cores, and thus an upper bound of oddness in terms of cores as a by-product.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.