See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220621024

Metric-Locating-Dominating Sets in Graphs.

ARTICLE in ARS COMBINATORIA -WATERLOO THEN WINNIPEG- · OCTOBER 2004

Impact Factor: 0.26 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

8 179

2 AUTHORS:

Michael A. Henning Ortrud R. Oellermann

University of Johannesburg The University of Winnipeg
394 PUBLICATIONS 3,950 CITATIONS 142 PUBLICATIONS 1,733 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Ortrud R. Oellermann
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 19 March 2016
 Metric-Locating-Dominating Sets in Graphs
Michael A. Henning ∗
Department of Mathematics, University of Natal
Private Bag X01
Pietermaritzburg, 3209 South Africa
E-mail: [email protected]

Ortrud R. Oellermann †
Department of Mathematics, The University of Winnipeg
515 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg MB, R3B 2E9 Canada
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
If u and v are vertices of a graph, then d(u, v) denotes the dis-
tance from u to v. Let S = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vk } be a set of vertices in
a connected graph G. For each v ∈ V (G), the k-vector cS (v) is
defined by cS (v) = (d(v, v1 ), d(v, v2 ), · · · , d(v, vk )). A dominating
set S = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vk } in a connected graph G is a metric-locating-
dominating set, or an MLD-set, if the k-vectors cS (v) for v ∈ V (G)
are distinct. The metric-location-domination number γM (G) of G
is the minimum cardinality of an MLD-set in G. We determine the
metric-location-domination number of a tree in terms of its domina-
tion number. In particular, we show that γ(T ) = γM (T ) if and only if
T contains no vertex that is adjacent to two or more end-vertices. We
show that for a tree T the ratio γL (T )/γM (T ) is bounded above by 2,
where γL (G) is the location- domination number defined by Slater
(Dominating and reference sets in graphs, J. Math. Phys. Sci. 22
(1988), 445–455). We establish that if G is a connected graph of or-
der n ≥ 2, then γM (T ) = n − 1 if and only if G = K1,n−1 or G = Kn .
The connected graphs G of order n ≥ 4 for which γM (T ) = n − 2 are
characterized in terms of seven families of graphs.
Keywords: dominating set, locating set, metric-locating-dominating set
AMS subject classification: 05C69
∗ Research supported in part by the University of Natal and the South African Na-

tional Research Foundation

† Research supported by an NSERC grant, Canada.

1
1 Introduction
Let S = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vk } be a set of vertices in a connected graph G, and
let v ∈ V (G). The k-vector (ordered k-tuple) cS (v) of v with respect to S
is defined by
cS (v) = (d(v, v1 ), d(v, v2 ), · · · , d(v, vk )),
where d(v, vi ) is the distance between v and vi (1 ≤ i ≤ k). The set S
is called a locating set if the k-vectors cS (v), v ∈ V (G), are distinct. The
location number loc(G) of G is the minimum cardinality of a locating set in
G. These concepts were studied in [1, 4, 8, 10].
A set S of vertices of a graph G = (V, E) is a dominating set of G if
every vertex in V − S is adjacent to a vertex of S. The domination number
γ(G) is the minimum cardinality of a dominating set of G. A dominating
set of cardinality γ(G) is called a γ(G)-set. Domination and its variations
in graphs are now well studied. The literature on this subject has been
surveyed and detailed in the two books by Haynes, Hedetniemi, and Slater
[5, 6].
In this paper we merge the concepts of a locating set and a dominating
set by defining the metric-locating-dominating set, denoted by an MLD-
set, in a connected graph G to be a set of vertices of G that is both a
dominating set and a locating set in G. We define the metric-location-
domination number γM (G) of G to be the minimum cardinality of an MLD-
set in G. An MLD-set in G of cardinality γM (G) is called a γM (G)-set.
Slater [9, 10] defined a locating-dominating set, denoted by an LD-set,
in a connected graph G to be a dominating set D of G such that for every
two vertices u and v in V (G) − D, N (u) ∩ D 6= N (v) ∩ D. The location-
domination number γL (G) of G is the minimum cardinality of an LD-set
for G. An LD-set in G of cardinality γL (G) is called a γL (G)-set. These
concepts were studied in [2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11] and elsewhere. If N (u) ∩ D 6=
N (v) ∩ D, then cD (u) 6= cD (v). Thus every LD-set is an MLD-set, implying
that γM (G) ≤ γL (G). The graph of Figure 1 illustrates that γM (G) 6=
γL (G) in general. Note that {v1 , v2 , w1 , w2 } is a minimum cardinality MLD-
set and that {v1 , v2 , w11 , w12 , w21 , w22 } is a minimum cardinality LD-set.

2 Preliminary Results
In this section, we present a few preliminary results the proof of which are
straightforward and are therefore omitted.
Observation 1 Let S be an MLD-set in a connected graph G. If u and v
are distinct vertices of G such that d(u, w) = d(v, w) for all w ∈ V (G) −
{u, v}, then |S ∩ {u, v}| ≥ 1. In particular, if u and v are vertices of G
such that N (u) − {v} = N (v) − {u}, then |S ∩ {u, v}| ≥ 1.

2
 u
w11 v w21
u u u1 u u
 Z
w1 u Zuw2
 Z

Z 
Zu u u u u
Z 

w12 v2 w22
u

Figure 1: A graph G with γL (G) = 6 and γM (G) = 4.

Observation 2 If G is a connected graph containing a support vertex v,

then any MLD-set of G contains all the leaves adjacent to v or all but one
of the leaves adjacent to v as well as the vertex v.

Observation 3 For every connected graph G of order n ≥ 2,

γ(G) ≤ γM (G) ≤ n − 1.

3 Trees
Our aim in this section is first to characterize the trees T for which γ(T ) =
γM (T ) and secondly to determine the metric-location-domination number
of a tree in terms of its domination number.

Lemma 4 If a tree T contains no strong support vertex, then every domi-

nating set is an MLD-set.

Proof. Let S be a dominating set of T . Let u, v ∈ V (T ) − S. If N (u) ∩ S 6=

N (v) ∩ S, then cS (u) 6= cS (v). Suppose, then, that N (u) ∩ S = N (v) ∩ S.
Then, since T is a tree, there is a unique vertex w ∈ S such that N (u)∩S =
N (v) ∩ S = {w}. Since w is not a strong support vertex, at least one of u
and v cannot be a leaf. We may assume that deg v ≥ 2. Let x ∈ N (v)−{w}.
Since N (v) ∩ S = {w}, x ∈ / S. Thus, x is adjacent to a vertex y ∈ S. Since
T is a tree, w 6= y. Thus, d(v, y) = 2, while d(u, y) = 4. Thus, once again,
cS (u) 6= cS (v). 2
As an immediate consequence of Observation 3 and Lemma 4 we have
the following result.

Corollary 5 If T is a tree that contains no strong support vertex, then

γ(T ) = γM (T ).

3
Theorem 6 Let T be a tree. Then, γ(T ) = γM (T ) if and only if T contains
no strong support vertex.

Proof. The sufficiency follows from Corollary 5. Next we consider the

necessity. Suppose that T contains a strong support vertex v. Let S be an
MLD-set of G of cardinality γM (T ). Then, by Observation 2, S contains
all the end-vertices adjacent to v or all but one of the end-vertices adjacent
to v as well as the vertex v. Deleting all the leaves adjacent to v from
the set S and adding the vertex v to S, produces a dominating set of T of
cardinality less than that of S, and so γ(T ) < |S| = γM (T ). This proves
the necessity. 2
We are now in a position to determine the metric-location-domination
number of a tree in terms of its domination number. Recall that the set
of strong support vertices in a tree T is denoted by S(T ). For a tree T ,
we denote the total number of leaves in T that are adjacent to a strong
support vertex by `(T ).

Theorem 7 If T is a tree, then

γM (T ) = γ(T ) + `(T ) − |S(T )|.

Proof. If T contains no strong support vertex, then, by Corollary 5, γ(T ) =

γM (T ). Thus, since `(T ) = |S(T )| = 0 in this case, γM (T ) = γ(T ) + `(T ) −
|S(T )|. Hence we may assume that |S(T )| ≥ 1.
We show first that γM (T ) ≤ γ(T ) + `(T ) − |S(T )|. For each vertex
v ∈ S(T ), let Lv denote the set of leaves adjacent to v and let v 0 ∈ Lv . Let
X
T0 = T − (Lv − {v 0 }).
v∈S(T )

Hence, T 0 is the tree obtained from T by deleting all but one leaf adjacent to
each strong support vertex of T . Then, T 0 is a tree with no strong support
vertex. Let S 0 be a γ(T 0 )-set of T 0 that contains all the support vertices
of T 0 . By Lemma 4, S 0 is an MLD-set of T 0 (and a dominating set of T ).
Hence,  
[
S0 ∪  (Lv − {v 0 })
v∈S(T )

is an MLD-set of T , and so
X
γM (T ) ≤ |S 0 | + (|Lv | − 1) = γ(T ) + `(T ) − |S(T )|.
v∈S(T )

4
 We show next that γM (T ) ≥ γ(T )+`(T )−|S(T )|. Let D be an MLD-set
of T of cardinality γM (T ) that contains as few leaves as possible. It follows
from Observation 2, that for each v ∈ S(T ), D contains all except one leaf
adjacent to v as well as the vertex v. Let v 0 be the leaf adjacent to v that
does not belong to D. Then,
 
[
D0 = D −  (Lv − {v 0 }
v∈S(T )

is a dominating set of T . Thus,

X
γ(T ) ≤ |D| − (|Lv | − 1) = γM (T ) − `(T ) + |S(T )|.
v∈S(T )

The desired result now follows. 2

Since the domination number of a tree can be computed in linear time,
it follows from Theorem 7 that so too can the metric-location-domination
number of a tree be computed in linear time.

4 γL (G) versus γM (G)

Our aim in this section is to show that the ratio γL (G)/γM (G) can be made
arbitrarily large for general connected graphs G but is bounded above by 2
when G is a tree.
Since every LD-set is also an MLD-set, γM (G) ≤ γL (G) for all graphs
G. However, for graphs in general there is no constant c such that

γL (G)
≤ c.
γM (G)

To see this consider the following construction. For k ≥ 2, take ` disjoint

stars K1,k and subdivide each edge twice. Let these subdivided stars be
T1 , T2 , . . . , T` with centers w1 , w2 , . . . , w` , respectively. Let vi1 , vi2 , . . . , vik
be the leaves of Ti (1 ≤ i ≤ `). Let G be the graph obtained from
T1 , T2 , . . . , T` by identifying for each j (1 ≤ j ≤ k) the ` vertices v1j , v2j , . . . , v`j
in a new vertex vj and then adding a new vertex uj and the edge uj vj . (For
example, when k = 2 and ` = 3 the graph G is illustrated in Figure 2.)
Then, γL (G) = k(` + 1) (for example, the set

`
!  k 
[ [
N (wi ) ∪  {vj }
i=1 j=1

5
is a γL (G)-set) and γM (G) = k + ` (for example, the set {v1 , v2 , . . . , vk } ∪
{w1 , w2 , . . . , w` } is a γM (G)-set). Thus,

γL (G) k + k/`
= −→ k
γM (G) 1 + k/`

as ` → ∞. By choosing k sufficiently large, this ratio can be made arbi-

trarily large. We show, however, that for trees this ratio is bounded by 2.
w1 w2 w3
u u u
u @u
@ u @u
@ u @u
@
u u`` u u u u
HH ` ```   Q
Q 
H ```
 Q 
HH ``` Q 
u Qu

v1H
``` v
2
u u
u1 u2

Figure 2: A graph G with γL (G) = 8 and γM (G) = 5.

For ease of presentation, we mostly consider rooted trees. For a vertex

v in a (rooted) tree T , we let C(v) and D(v) denote the set of children
and descendants, respectively, of v, and we define D[v] = D(v) ∪ {v}. The
maximal subtree at v is the subtree of T induced by D[v], and is denoted
by Tv .

Lemma 8 If T is a tree that contains no strong support vertex, then γL (T ) <

2γ(T ).

Proof. We proceed by induction on the order n of a tree T with no strong

support vertex. If n = 1 or n = 2, then γL (T ) = γ(T ) = 1, and so the
result holds in this case. This establishes the base case.
Suppose that if T 0 is a tree of order less than n, where n ≥ 3, with no
strong support vertex, then γL (T 0 ) < 2γ(T 0 ), and let T be a tree of order n
with no strong support vertex. We now root the tree T at a vertex r and
let u be a vertex at maximum distance from r. Then, u is a leaf in T . Let
v be the parent of u. Since T has no strong support vertex, deg v = 2. Let
w denote the parent of v.
Suppose w is adjacent with a leaf v 0 . Let T 0 = T −{u, v}. Then, γ(T ) =
γ(T 0 )+1 and γL (T ) ≤ γL (T 0 )+1. Applying the inductive hypothesis to the
tree T 0 , γL (T 0 ) < 2γ(T 0 ). Thus, γL (T ) − 1 ≤ γL (T 0 ) < 2γ(T 0 ) = 2γ(T ) − 2,
and so γL (T ) < γL (T ) + 1 < 2γ(T ).
On the other hand, suppose that w is not adjacent to any leaf. Then each
child of w has degree 2 and is adjacent to a leaf. Suppose |C(w)| = k ≥ 1.

6
Let T 0 = T − D[w]. Then, γ(T ) = γ(T 0 ) + k. Furthermore, any LD-set of
T 0 can be extended to an LD-set of T by adding the set C(w) ∪ {w}, and
so γL (T ) ≤ γL (T 0 ) + k + 1. Applying the inductive hypothesis to the tree
T 0 , γL (T 0 ) < 2γ(T 0 ). Thus, γL (T ) − k − 1 ≤ γL (T 0 ) < 2γ(T 0 ) = 2γ(T ) − 2k,
and so γL (T ) ≤ γL (T ) + k − 1 < 2γ(T ) since k − 1 ≥ 0. This completes the
proof of the lemma. 2
As an immediate consequence of Corollary 5 and Lemma 8, we have the
following result.

Corollary 9 If T is a tree that contains no strong support vertex, then

γL (T ) < 2γM (T ).

Lemma 10 If T is a tree, then γL (T ) < 2γM (T ).

Proof. We proceed by induction on the order n of a tree T . If T is a star,

then γL (T ) = γM (T ) and the result follows. In particular, the result holds
for n = 1, 2, 3. Suppose thus that diam T ≥ 3.
Suppose that if T 0 is a tree of order less than n, where n ≥ 4, then
γL (T 0 ) < 2γM (T 0 ), and let T be a tree of order n. If T has no strong
support vertex, then the result follows from Corollary 9. Suppose thus that
T has a strong support vertex v. Let u be a leaf adjacent with v and let
T 0 = T − u. Then, γL (T ) = γL (T 0 ) + 1 and γM (T ) = γM (T 0 ) + 1. Applying
the inductive hypothesis to the tree T 0 , gives γL (T 0 ) < 2γM (T 0 ). Thus,
γL (T ) − 1 = γL (T 0 ) < 2γM (T 0 ) = 2γM (T ) − 2, and so γL (T ) < γL (T ) + 1 <
2γM (T ). 2
That the bound of Corollary 9 is asymptotically best possible may be
seen as follows. For k ≥ 2, let T be the tree obtained from a star K1,k by
subdividing every edge three times. Then, γL (T ) = 2k and γM (T ) = k + 1.
Thus,
γL (T ) 2
= −→ 2
γM (T ) 1 + 1/k
as k → ∞. As an immediate consequence of Lemma 10, we have the
following result.

Corollary 11 For any tree T ,

1
γL (T ) < γM (T ) ≤ γL (T ).
2

Furthermore, as an immediate consequence of Theorem 7 and Lemma 10,

we have the following result.

7
Corollary 12 For any tree T ,

γL (T ) < 2(γ(T ) + `(T ) − |S(T )|),

where S(T ) is the set of strong support vertices of T and `(T ) is the number
of leaves in T that are adjacent to a strong support vertex.

5 Graphs G with γM (G) = n − 1

Our aim in this section is to characterize connected graphs G of order n ≥ 2
for which γM (G) = n − 1.

Theorem 13 Let G be a connected graph of order n ≥ 2. Then, γM (G) =

n − 1 if and only if G = K1,n−1 or G = Kn .

Proof. If G = K1,n−1 , then, by Observation 2, γM (G) = n − 1, while if

G = Kn , then, by Observation 1, γM (G) = n − 1. This establishes the
sufficiency.
To prove the necessity, suppose that γM (G) = n − 1. If diam G ≥ 3,
then let u and v be two vertices distance at least 3 apart in G. Then,
V (G) − {u, v} is an MLD-set of G, and so γM (G) ≤ n − 2, a contradiction.
Thus, diam G ≤ 2.
Suppose that δ(G) = 1. Let u be an end-vertex of G and let N (u) = {v}.
Since diam G ≤ 2, v is adjacent to every other vertex of G. If two vertices
x and y in N (v) are adjacent, then V (G) − {u, x} is an MLD-set of G, and
so γM (G) ≤ n − 2, a contradiction. Thus, N (v) is an independent set, i.e.,
G = K1,n−1 .
Suppose then that δ(G) ≥ 2. If u and v are distinct vertices of G such
that d(u, w) 6= d(v, w) for some vertex w ∈ V (G)−{u, v}, then V (G)−{u, v}
is an MLD-set of G, and so γM (G) ≤ n − 2, a contradiction. Thus, for
every two distinct vertices u and v of G we must have d(u, w) = d(v, w)
for every vertex w ∈ V (G) − {u, v}. If u and v are two vertices that are
not adjacent, then for x ∈ N (u) we have d(x, v) = 1, while d(u, v) = 2.
So again V (G) − {u, x} is an MLD-set, a contradiction. Hence, every two
vertices of G must be adjacent, i.e., G = Kn . 2

6 Graphs G with γM (G) = n − 2

In order to characterize those connected graphs G of order n ≥ 4 with
γM (T ) = n − 2 we begin by defining seven families of graphs.
Let F1 be the family of double stars S(m, k), m, k ≥ 1, of order m +
k + 2 ≥ 4, where a double star S(m, k) is obtained by appending m leaves
to one of the vertices in a K2 and k leaves to the other vertex of the K2 .

8
 Let F2 be the family of graphs obtained from a complete graph of order
at least 3 by appending any positive number of leaves to exactly one of its
vertices.
Let F3 be the family of graphs obtained from K 2 + Km , m ≥ 2, by
appending any positive number of leaves to exactly one of the vertices of
degree m.
Let F4 be the family of graphs obtained from K2 + K m , m ≥ 2, by
appending any positive number of leaves to exactly one of the vertices of
degree m + 1.
Let F5 be the family of all complete bipartite graphs Km,k where m, k ≥
2.
Let F6 be the family of all complete multipartite graphs K m +Kk where
m, k ≥ 2.
Let F7 be the family of graphs obtained from a complete graph Km by
deleting k edges incident with some vertex u where 2 ≤ k ≤ m − 3.
Let F = ∪7i=1 Fi .

Theorem 14 Let G = (V, E) be a connected graph of order n ≥ 4. Then,

γM (G) = n − 2 if and only if G ∈ F.

Proof. If G ∈ F, then it is a straightforward task to show that γM (G) =

n − 2.
Suppose now that γM (G) = n − 2. We begin by showing that diam G ≤
3. Suppose there are vertices u and v such that d(u, v) = 4. Let u, x, y, z, v
be a shortest u-v path. Then, V − {u, y, v} is an MLD-set of G, and so
γM (G) ≤ n − 3, a contradiction. Thus, diam G ≤ 3.
We proceed by induction on n ≥ 4 to show that if G is a connected graph
of order n and γM (G) = n − 2, then G ∈ F. If n = 4, then G ∼ = P4 ∈ F1 or
G is the graph in F2 obtained from K3 by appending a leaf or G ∼ = C4 ∈ F5
or G ∼ K
= 4 − e ∈ F 6 (where e is an edge of K 4 ). Hence, G ∈ F.
Assume for any connected graph G0 of order n0 , where 4 ≤ n0 < n and
γM (G0 ) = n0 − 2, that G0 ∈ F. Suppose G is a connected graph of order n
with γM (G) = n − 2. Before proceeding further, we prove the following
claim.

Claim 1 If δ(G) = 1, then G ∈ ∪4i=1 Fi .

Proof. Suppose δ(G) = 1. Let v be a support vertex of G and let Lv

be the collection of leaves adjacent to v. Let G0 = G − Lv and let n0 be
its order. By Observation 3, γM (G0 ) ≤ n0 − 1. By construction, v is not
adjacent to any leaf in G0 .
If γM (G0 ) ≤ n0 − 3, let S 0 be a γM (G0 )-set. Then, S 0 ∪ Lv is an MLD-set
of G and hence γM (G) ≤ n − 3, a contradiction. So, γM (G0 ) = n0 − 2 or
n0 − 1.

9
 Suppose γM (G0 ) = n0 − 1. Then, by Theorem 13, G0 is a star or a
complete graph. G0 is a star, then v must be a leaf of G0 and hence G ∈ F1 .
If G0 is a complete graph, then G ∈ F2 .
Suppose now that γM (G0 ) = n0 − 2. By the inductive hypothesis, G0 ∈
F.
If G0 ∈ F1 , then v must be a leaf. However, then diam G = 4, a
contradiction. So, G0 ∈ / F1 .
Suppose G0 ∈ F2 . Let w be the vertex of maximum degree in G0 and
let x be a non-leaf neighbor of w. Then, v 6= w. Suppose first that v is a
leaf of G0 . Then, V − {v, w, x} is an MLD-set of G, and so γM (G) ≤ n − 3,
a contradiction. Hence, v is a non-leaf adjacent with w. We may assume
v 6= x. Let v 0 ∈ Lv and let w0 be a leaf adjacent with w. Then, V −{v 0 , w0 , x}
is an MLD-set of G, a contradiction. So, G0 ∈ / F2 .
Suppose G0 ∈ F3 . Let w be the vertex of maximum degree in G0 , w0
a leaf adjacent with w, y a vertex of degree 2 adjacent with w, and x the
vertex not adjacent with w in G0 . Then, v 6= w. If v is a leaf of G0 or if
v = x, then diam G = 4, a contradiction. So we may assume v = y. Let
v 0 ∈ Lv . Then, V − {v 0 , w0 , x} is an MLD-set of G, a contradiction. So,
G0 ∈/ F3 .
Suppose G0 ∈ F4 . Let w be the vertex of maximum degree in G0 , w0 a
leaf adjacent with w, y a vertex of degree 2 adjacent with w, and x the vertex
of degree exceeding 2 adjacent with w in G0 . Then, v 6= w. Let v 0 ∈ Lv . If
v is a leaf of G0 , then V − {v 0 , x, y} is an MLD-set of G, a contradiction.
If v = x, then V − {v 0 , w0 , y} is an MLD-set of G, a contradiction. If v is
a vertex of degree 2 in G0 adjacent with w, then we may assume v 6= y.
Then, V − {v 0 , w0 , y} is an MLD-set of G, a contradiction. So, G0 ∈ / F4 .
Suppose G0 ∈ F5 . Then, G0 ∼ = Km,k where m, k ≥ 2. Suppose v belongs
to the partite set of cardinality k in G0 . We show first that k = 2. If
k > 2, let u be a vertex in the same partite set as v, v 0 ∈ Lv , and w a
vertex adjacent with v in G0 . Then, V − {v 0 , u, w} is an MLD-set of G, a
contradiction. Hence k = 2 and so G ∈ F3 .
Suppose G0 ∈ F6 . Suppose first that v has degree n − 1 in G. Let u be
a vertex of degree n0 − 1 adjacent with v in G0 . Let w be a vertex of degree
less than n0 − 1 in G0 , and let v 0 ∈ Lv . Then, V − {v 0 , u, w} is an MLD-set
of G unless G0 has exactly three partite sets, in which case G ∈ F4 . On the
other hand, suppose v has degree less than n0 − 1 in G0 . Let w be in the
same partite set of G0 as v, u a vertex of degree n0 − 1 in G0 , and v 0 ∈ Lv .
Then, V − {v 0 , u, w} is an MLD-set of G, a contradiction. So, v cannot
have degree less than n0 − 1 in G0 .
Suppose G0 ∈ F7 . Suppose v is the vertex of degree at most n0 − 3 in G0 .
Let v 0 ∈ Lv , u a vertex adjacent to v in G0 and w a vertex not adjacent to
v in G0 . Then, V − {v 0 , u, w} is an MLD-set of G, a contradiction. Suppose
v has degree at least n0 − 2 in G0 . Let x and y be two nonadjacent vertices

10
in G0 distinct from v and let v 0 ∈ Lv . Then, V − {v 0 , x, y} is an MLD-set
/ F7 . This completes the proof of Claim 1. 2
of G, a contradiction. So, G0 ∈
We now return to the proof of Theorem 14. By Claim 1, if δ(G) = 1,
then G ∈ F. Hence we may assume that δ(G) ≥ 2. Let S be a maximum
independent set of G. Since G is not a complete graph, |S| ≥ 2.

Claim 2 If G − S is a complete graph, then G ∈ F6 ∪ F7 .

Proof. Since δ(G) ≥ 2, V − S contains at least two vertices. If all edges

between S and V − S are present, then G ∈ F6 . Hence we may assume
that some vertex u ∈ S is nonadjacent to some v ∈ V − S. Since S is a
maximum independent set, v is adjacent with some w ∈ S.
Suppose now that |S| ≥ 3. Let z ∈ S − {u, w}. Since δ(G) ≥ 2, z
is adjacent with some y 6= v. Then, V − {u, w, y} is an MLD-set of G, a
contradiction. Hence, |S| = 2. Suppose w is nonadjacent to some vertex
y ∈ V −S. If there is a common neighbor z of u and w, then V −{u, w, z} is
an MLD-set of G, a contradiction. It follows that V − S can be partitioned
into two sets U and W such that u is adjacent to every vertex of U and to
no vertex of W , while w is adjacent to every vertex of W and to no vertex
of U . Since δ(G) ≥ 2, |U | ≥ 2 and |V | ≥ 2. So, V − {v, w, y} is an MLD-set
of G, a contradiction. Thus, w is adjacent with every vertex in V − S. So
G ∈ F7 . 2
By Claim 2, if G − S is a complete graph, then G ∈ F. Hence we may
assume that G − S is not complete. Let W be a maximum independent set
in G − S. Then, |W | ≥ 2.

Claim 3 If V − (S ∪ W ) 6= ∅, then every vertex in V − (S ∪ W ) is adjacent

with either every vertex of S or every vertex of W .

Proof. Suppose, to the contrary, that there exists a vertex z ∈ V −(S ∪W )

that is nonadjacent to some vertex u ∈ S and nonadjacent to some vertex
v ∈ W . Since S and W are maximum independent sets in G and G − S,
respectively, z must be adjacent with some vertex x ∈ S and some y ∈ W .
Let D = V − {u, v, z}. Since D is not an MLD-set of G, cD (u) = cD (v). So,
N (u) − {v} = N (v) − {u}. Therefore, N (v) ∩ S ⊆ {u} and N (u) ∩ W ⊆ {v}.
Since S is a maximum independent set in G, N (v) ∩ S = {u}.
If |S| ≥ 3, let w ∈ S − {u, x}. Then, V − {w, u, z} is an MLD-set of G,
a contradiction. Therefore, |S| = |W | = 2.
Let w ∈ V − {u, v, x, y, z}. Since S is a maximum independent set,
w is adjacent with u or x. If w is adjacent with both u and x, then
V − {v, w, z} is an MLD-set of G, a contradiction. Hence either uw ∈ E(G)
or wx ∈ E(G) (but not both). Suppose uw ∈ E(G). Then, wx ∈ / E(G).
Similarly, wy ∈/ E(G). Since W is a maximum independent set in G − S,

11
vw ∈ E(G). So if a vertex w ∈ V − (S ∪ W ) is adjacent with u or v,
then N (w) ∩ (S ∪ W ) = {u, v}. Similarly, if a vertex w ∈ V − (S ∪ W ) is
adjacent with x or y, then N (w) ∩ (S ∪ W ) = {x, y}. Moreover, if w1 and
w2 are two vertices in V − (S ∪ W ) for which N (w1 ) ∩ (S ∪ W ) = {u, v} and
N (w2 ) ∩ (S ∪ W ) = {x, y}, then w1 w2 ∈
/ E(G), for otherwise V − {u, y, w2 }
is an MLD-set of G. It follows that G is disconnected, contrary to our
assumption that G is connected. Hence, every vertex in V − (S ∪ W ) is
adjacent with either every vertex of S or every vertex of W . 2

Claim 4 V = S ∪ W .

Proof. Suppose, to the contrary, that V − (S ∪ W ) 6= ∅. Then, by Claim 3,

every vertex in V − (S ∪ W ) is adjacent with either every vertex of S or
every vertex of W . By our earlier assumptions, |S| ≥ 2 and |W | ≥ 2.
Suppose some vertex z ∈ V − (S ∪ W ) is adjacent with every vertex of W .
Let x ∈ W . Since S is a maximum independent set of G, there is a vertex
y ∈ S adjacent with x. Let u ∈ S − {y}. Then, V − {u, x, z} is an MLD-set
of G unless N (u) − {x, z} = N (z) − {u, x}. In particular, N (z) ∩ S ⊆ {u}.
Since S is a maximum independent set of G, we must have N (z) ∩ S = {u}.
However, then V − {u, x, y} is an MLD-set of G, a contradiction. Similarly,
if some vertex of V − (S ∪ W ) is adjacent with every vertex of S, then we
obtain a contradiction. It follows that V = S ∪ W . 2

We now return to the proof of Theorem 14. By Claim 3, V = S ∪ W .

We show now that G ∈ F5 . Suppose that some u ∈ S is nonadjacent to
some v ∈ W . Let y and w be two distinct neighbors of u and let z be a
neighbor of w distinct from u. Then, V − {v, y, z} is an MLD-set of G, a
contradiction. Hence, every vertex of S is joined to every vertex of V − S,
and so G ∈ F5 . This completes the proof of Theorem 14. 2

References
[1] G. Chartrand, L. Eroh, M. Johnson, and O.R. Oellermann, Resolv-
ability in graphs and the metric dimension of a graph. Discrete Appl.
Math. 105 (2000), 99–113.
[2] C.J. Colbourn, P.J. Slater, and L.K. Stewart. Locating-dominating sets
in series-parallel networks. Congr. Numer. 56 (1987), 135–162.
[3] A. Finbow and B.L. Hartnell. On locating dominating sets and well-
covered graphs. Congr. Numer. 65 (1988), 191–200.

12
 [4] F. Harary and R.A. Melter, On the metric dimension of a graph. Ars
Combin. 2 (1976), 191–195.
[5] T.W. Haynes, S.T. Hedetniemi, and P.J. Slater, Fundamentals of Dom-
ination in Graphs, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1998.

[6] T.W. Haynes, S.T. Hedetniemi, and P.J. Slater (eds), Domination in
Graphs: Advanced Topics, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1998.
[7] D.F. Rall and P.J. Slater. On location-domination numbers for certain
classes of graphs. Congr. Numer. 45 (1984), 97–106.

[8] P.J. Slater, Leaves of trees. Ars Combin. 2 (1976), 549–559.

[9] P.J. Slater, Dominating and location in acyclic graphs. Networks 17
(1987), 55–64.
[10] P.J. Slater, Dominating and reference sets in graphs. J. Math. Phys.
Sci. 22 (1988), 445–455.
[11] P.J. Slater. Locating dominating sets and locating-dominating sets. In
Y. Alavi and A. Schwenk, editors, Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and
Applications, Proc. Seventh Quad. Internat. Conf. on the Theory and
Applications of Graphs, pages 1073–1079. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1995.

13