arxiv: v3 [math.co] 20 Sep 2016

Transcription

1 PLANAR GRAPHS ARE 9/-COLORABLE DANIEL W. CRANSTON AND LANDON RABERN arxi:0.7 [math.co] 0 Sep 06 Abstract. We show that eery planar graph G has a -fold 9-coloring. In particular, this implies that G has fractional chromatic number at most 9. This is the first proof (independent of the Color Theorem) that there exists a constant k < 5 such that eery planar G has fractional chromatic number at most k.. Introduction To fractionally color a graph G, we assign to each independent set in G a nonnegatie weight, such that for each ertex the sum of the weights on the independent sets containing is. A graph G is fractionally k-colorable if G has such an assignment of weights where the sum of the weights is at most k. The minimum k such that G is fractionally k-colorable is its fractional chromatic number, denoted χ f (G). (If we restrict the weight on each independent set to be either 0 or, we return to the standard definition of chromatic number.) In 997, Scheinerman and Ullman [, p. 75] succintly described the state of the art for fractionally coloring planar graphs. Not much has changed since then. The fractional analogue of the four-color theorem is the assertion that the maximum alue of χ f (G) oer all planar graphs G is. That this maximum is no more than follows from the four-color theorem itself, while the example of K shows that it is no less than. Gien that the proof of the fourcolor theorem is so difficult, one might ask whether it is possible to proe an interesting upper bound for this maximum without appeal to the four-color theorem. Certainly χ f (G) 5 for any planar G, because χ(g) 5, a result whose proof is elementary. But what about a simple proof of, say, χ f (G) 9 for all planar G? The only result in this direction is in a 97 paper of Hilton, Rado, and Scott [6] that predates the proof of the four-color theorem; they proe χ f (G) < 5 for any planar graph G, although they are not able to find any constant c < 5 with χ f (G) < c for all planar graphs G. This may be the first appearance in print of the inariant χ f. In Section, we gie exactly what Scheinerman and Ullman asked for a simple proof that χ f (G) 9 for eery planar graph G. In fact, this result is an immediate corollary of a stronger statement in our main theorem. Before we can express it precisely, we need another definition. A k-fold l-coloring of a graph G assigns to each ertex a set of k colors, such that adjacent ertices receie disjoint sets, and the union of all sets has size at most l. If G has Virginia Commonwealth Uniersity, Richmond, VA. dcranston@cu.edu. LBD Data Solutions, Lancaster, PA. landon.rabern@gmail.com.

2 DANIEL W. CRANSTON AND LANDON RABERN a k-fold l-coloring, then χ f (G) l. To see this, consider the l independent sets induced by k the color classes; assign to each of these sets the weight. Now we can state the theorem. k Main Theorem. Eery planar graph G has a -fold 9-coloring. In particular, χ f (G) 9. In an intuitie sense, the Main Theorem sits somewhere between the Color Theorem and the5color Theorem. Itiscertainly impliedbytheformer, butitdoesnotimmediately imply the latter. The Kneser graph K n:k has as its ertices the k-element subsets of {,...,n} and two ertices are adjacent if their corresponding sets are disjoint. Saying that a graph G has a -fold 9-coloring is equialent to saying that it has a homomorphism to the Kneser graph K 9:. To claim that a coloring result for planar graphs is between the and 5 Color Theorems, we would like to show that eery planar graph G has a homomorphism to a graph H, such that H has clique number and chromatic number 5. Unfortunately, K 9: is not such a graph. It is easy to see that ω(k n:k ) = n/k ; so ω(k 9: ) =, as desired. Howeer, Loász [8] showed that χ(k n:k ) = n k+; thus χ(k 9: ) = 9 ()+ = 7. Fortunately, we can easily oercome this problem. The categorical product (or uniersal product) of graphs G and G, denoted G G is defined as follows. Let V(G G ) = {(u,) u V(G ) and V(G )}; now (u, ) is adjacent to (u, ) if u u E(G ) and E(G ). Let H = K 5 K 9:. It is wellknown [5] that if a graph G has a homomorphism to each of graphs G and G, then G also has a homomorphism to G G (the image of each ertex in the product is just the products of its images in G and G ). The 5 Color Theorem says that eery planar graph has a homomorphism to K 5 ; so if we proe that eery planar graph G has a homomorphism to K 9:, then we also get that G has a homomorphism to K 5 K 9:. It is easy to check that for any G and G, we hae ω(g G ) = min(ω(g ),ω(g )) and χ(g G ) min(χ(g ),χ(g )). To proe this inequality, we simply color each ertex (u,) of the product with the color of u in an optimal coloring of G, or the color of in an optimal coloringofg. (Itisanopenproblemwhetherthisinequalityalwaysholdswithequality[].) When H = K 5 K 9: we get ω(h) = and χ(h) = 5. Earlier work of Naserasr [9] and NešetřilandOssonadeMendez[0]alsoconstructedgraphsH,withω(H) = andχ(h) = 5, such that eery planar graph G has a homomorphism to H; howeer, their examples had more ertices than ours. Naserasr gae a graph with size 6 ( 6 ) = 5,,5 and the construction in [0] was still larger. In contrast, K 5 K 9: = 5 ( 9 ) = 80. Wagner [] characterized K 5 -minor-free graphs. The Wagner graph is formed from an 8-cycle by adding an edge joining each pair of ertices that are distance along the cycle. Wagner showed that eery maximal K 5 -minor-free graph can be formed recursiely from planar graphs and copies of the Wagner graph by pasting along copies of K and K (see also [, p. 75]). Since the Wagner graph is -colorable, it clearly has a -fold 9-coloring. To show that eery K 5 -minor-free graph is -fold 9-colorable, we color each smaller planar graph and copy of the Wagner graph, then permute colors so that the colorings agree on the ertices that are pasted together. Hajós conjectured that eery graph is (k )-colorable unless it contains a subdiision of K k. This isknown to betrue fork andfalsefork 7. The cases k = 5andk = 6remain unresoled. Since this problem seems difficult, we offer the following weaker conjecture.

3 PLANAR GRAPHS ARE 9/-COLORABLE Conjecture. Eery graph with no K 5 -subdiision is -fold 9-colorable. An immediate consequence of the Color Theorem is that eery n-ertex planar graph has an independent set of size at least n (and this is best possible, as shown by the disjoint union of many copies of K ). In 968, Erdös [] suggested that perhaps this corollary could be proed more easily than the full Color Theorem. And in 976, Albertson [] showed (independently of the Color Theorem) that eery n-ertex planar graph has an independent set of size at least n. 9 Albertson s proof inspired and heaily influenced our proof of the Main Theorem. The bulk of the work in our proof consists in showing that certain configurations are reducible, i.e., they cannot appear in a minimal counterexample to the theorem. The proof concludes ia a discharging argument, where we show that eery planar graph contains one of the forbidden configurations; hence, it is not a minimal counterexample. Before the proof, we need a few definitions. A k-ertex is a ertex of degree k; similarly, a k -ertex (resp. k + -ertex) hasdegreeatmost (resp. atleast)k. Ak-neighborofaertex is a k-ertex that is a neighbor of ; and k -neighbors and k + -neigbors are defined analogously. A k-cycle is a cycle of length k. A ertex set V in a connected graph G is separating if G\V has at least two components. A cycle C is separating if V(C) is separating. Finally, an independent k-set is an independent set (or stable set) of size k.. Fractional Coloring of Planar Graphs Now we proe our Main Theorem, that eery planar graph has a -fold 9-coloring. Our proof uses the methods of reducibility and discharging. First, we proe that certain properties must hold for eery minimal counterexample to the theorem (by minimal we mean haing the fewest ertices and, subject to that, the fewest non-triangular faces). To conclude, we gie a counting argument, ia the discharging method, showing that eery planar graph iolates one of these properties. Thus, no minimal counterexample exists, so the theorem is true. Hereafter, we write G to denote a minimal counterexample to the theorem. To remind the reader of this assumption, we will often refer to a minimal G. Wheneer we say a coloring, we mean a -fold 9-coloring. Note that G is a plane triangulation; otherwise, adding an edge contradicts our choice of G as haing the fewest non-triangular faces. Lemma. A minimal G has no separating clique. Specifically, G has no separating -cycle. Proof. Suppose G has a separating clique X and let C,...,C k be the components of G\X. By minimality of G, we hae colorings of G[V(C i ) X] for each i {,...,k}. Permute the colors on each subgraph G[V(C i ) X] so the colorings agree on X. Now identifying the copies of X in each G[V(C i ) X] gies a coloring of G, a contradiction. Although it was easy to proe, Lemma will play a crucial role in our proof. We will often want to identify two neighbors u and u of a ertex and color the smaller graph by minimality. To do so, we must ensure that u and u are indeed non-adjacent; these arguments typically use the fact that if u and u were adjacent, then u u would be a separating -cycle.

4 DANIEL W. CRANSTON AND LANDON RABERN Lemma. A minimal G has minimum degree 5. Proof. Since G is a plane triangulation, it has minimum degree at least and at most 5. If G contains a -ertex, then its neighbors induce a separating -cycle, contradicting Lemma. If G contains a -ertex, then some pair of its neighbors are non-adjacent, since K 5 is nonplanar. Form G from G by deleting and contracting a non-adjacent pair of its neighbors. Color G by minimality, then lift the coloring back to G; only is uncolored. Since two of s neighbors hae the same colors, we can extend the coloring to G. The following fact will often allow us to extend a -fold 9-coloring to the uncolored ertices of an induced K,. It will be useful in erifying that numerous configurations are forbidden from a minimal G. We will also often apply it when the uncolored subgraph is simply P. Fact. Let H = K,. If each leaf has a list of size and the center ertex has a list of size 5, then we can choose colors for each ertex from its lists such that adjacent ertices get disjoint sets of colors. Proof. Let denote the center ertex and u,u,u the leaes. Since L() > L(u ) + L(u ) + L(u ), some color c L() appears in L(u i ) for at most one u i. If such a u i exists, then by symmetry, say it is u ; now color with c and some color not in L(u ). Otherwise color with c and an arbitrary color. Now color each u i arbitrarily from its at least aailable colors. We use the same approach to proe each of Lemmas,, and 5. Our idea is to contract someedgesofgtogetasmallerplanargraphg, whichwecolorbyminimality. Inparticular, in G we identify some pairs of non-adjacent ertices of G that each hae a common neighbor. When we lift the coloring of G to G this means that some of the uncolored ertices will hae neighbors with both colors the same, reducing the number of colors used on the neighborhood of each such uncolored ertex. One early example of this technique is Kainen s proof [7] of the 5 Color Theorem. If G is a planar graph, then by Euler s Theorem, G has a 5 -ertex. If d(), then we 5-color G by minimality; now, since d(), we can extend the 5-coloring to. Suppose instead that d() = 5. Since K 6 is non-planar, has two neighbors u and u that are non-adjacent; form G by contracting the edges u and u, and again5-color G by minimality. To extend the 5-coloring to, we note that een though d() = 5, at most four colors appear on the neighbors of (since u and u hae the same color). This completes the proof. Because a minimal G has no separating -cycles, if ertices u and u hae a common neighbor and do not appear sequentially on the cycle induced by the neighborhood of, then u and u are non-adjacent. The numeric labels in the figures denote pairs (or more) of ertices that are identified in G when we delete any ertices labeled, u, u or u ; ertices with the same numeric label get identified. Typically, it suffices to erify that the ertices receiing a common numeric label are pairwise nonadjacent. One potential complication is if two ertices that are drawn as distinct are in fact the same ertex. This usually cannot happen if the ertices hae a common neighbor, since then the degree of would be too small. Similarly, it cannot happen if they are joined by a path of length three, since then we would get a separating -cycle.

5 PLANAR GRAPHS ARE 9/-COLORABLE 5 For -coloring, Birkhoff [] showed how to exclude separating -cycles and 5-cycles. Excluding separating -cycles would simplify our arguments below since we would not need to worry about ertices at distance at most four being the same. The proof excluding -cycles for -coloring is quite easy, but it does not work in our context because standard Kempe chain arguments break down for -fold coloring. The problem is illustrated in Figure. Figure (A) shows the situation for -fold coloring; here the -path blocks the -path. Figure (B) shows the situation for -fold coloring, here the -path can get through because on the -path, a ertex has color as well as color.,5,7,5,6,8,,7,6 (a) The,-path is blocked by the,-path.,8 (b) The, -path gets through. Figure. The problem with Kempe chains for -fold coloring. Lemma. A minimal G has no 5-ertex with a 5-neighbor and a non-adjacent 6 -neighbor. Proof. We first consider the case where a 5-ertex has non-adjacent 5-neighbors u and u, as shown in Figure (A). We color G by minimality, then lift the coloring to G. (Recall that to form G, we delete and all u i and for each pair (or more) of ertices with the same label, we identify them.) Now in G each u i has a list of at least colors and has a list of at least 5 colors; so, by Fact, we can extend the coloring to G. Now we consider the case where a 5-ertex has a 5-neighbor and a 6-neighbor that are non-adjacent, as shown in Figure (B). Again, when we lift the coloring of G to G, has a list of size 5 and each of its uncolored neighbors has a list of size. Hence, by Fact, we can extend the coloring of G to G. Here no pair of labeled ertices can be identified, since each such pair is drawn at distance three or less (and G has no separating -cycle). Lemma. A minimal G has no 6-ertex with non-adjacent 6 -neighbors. Proof. Let be a 6-ertex with two non-adjacent 6 -neighbors, u and u. We hae three possibilities for the degrees of these 6 -neighbors: two 5-ertices, a 5-ertex and a 6-ertex, and two 6-ertices. For each choice of degrees for the u i s, we hae two possibilities for their relatie location; they could be across from each other (at distance three along the cycle induced by the neighbors of ) or offset from each other (at distance two along the same

6 6 DANIEL W. CRANSTON AND LANDON RABERN u u u u (a) A 5-ertex,, with non-adjacent 5-neighbors, u and u. (b) A 5-ertex,, with a non-adjacent 5-neighbor, u, and 6-neighbor, u. Figure. The cases of Lemma. u u u u (a) A 6-ertex,, with non-adjacent 5-neighbors, u and u, that are across from each other. (b) A 6-ertex,, with a non-adjacent 5-neighbor, u, and 6-neighbor, u, that are across from each other. u u (c) A 6-ertex,, with non-adjacent 6-neighbors, u and u, that are across from each other. Figure. The across cases of Lemma. cycle). This yields a total of six possibilities; the three across possibilities are shown in Figure and the three offset possibilities are shown in Figure. In Figures (A,B), all of the ertices with numeric labels (those that will be identified in G ) must be distinct, since they are drawn within distance three of each other. The only complication is in Figure (C): a ertex labeled might be the same as a ertex labeled that is drawn at distance four; call this ertex x. By symmetry, assume that x is formed by identifying the ertex in the top left labeled and the ertex in the bottom right labeled. This is only a problem if also a ertex labeled is adjacent to one labeled ; so suppose this

7 PLANAR GRAPHS ARE 9/-COLORABLE 7 happens. Note that the ertex in the top right labeled cannot be adjacent to the ertex in the bottom left labeled ; they are on opposite sides of the cycle xu u. So, again by symmetry, we assume that x is adjacent to the ertex in the bottom left labeled. Howeer, now we hae a separating -cycle (consisting of x, its neighbor labeled, and their common neighbor u ); this contradicts Lemma. This contradiction finishes the across cases. u u u u (a) A 6-ertex,, with non-adjacent 5-neighbors, u and u, that areoffset from each other. (b) A 6-ertex,, with a non-adjacent 5-neighbor, u, and 6-neighbor, u, that are offset from each other. u u u u (c) A 6-ertex,, with non-adjacent 6-neighbors, u and u, that areoffset from each other (case i). (d) A 6-ertex,, with non-adjacent 6-neighbors, u and u, that areoffset from each other (case ii). Figure. The offset cases of Lemma. Now we consider the three offset cases, which are shown in Figure. As with the across cases, in Figures (A,B), all of the ertices with numeric labels must be distinct, since they are drawn within distance of each other. The only complication in is the third case, shown in Figures (C,D): the ertices labeled and that are drawn at distance four in Figure (C) might be the same; if so, then call this ertex x. In this case we switch to the identifications shown in Figure (D); we omit from Figure (D) a few edges incident to x, to keep the picture pretty. Now all ertices with numeric labels are at distance at most three, due to the extra edges incident to x. Also, the two ertices labeled that are drawn at distance three are non-adjacent, since they are separated by cycle u u x. This finishes the offset cases.

8 8 DANIEL W. CRANSTON AND LANDON RABERN Lemma 5. A minimal G has no 7-ertex with a 5-neighbor and two other 6 -neighbors such that all three are pairwise non-adjacent. Proof. Figure 5(A) shows a 7-ertex with three pairwise non-adjacent 5-neighbors. Here, all pairs of ertices with numeric labels are at distance at most three, so they must be distinct. In Figure5(B), all pairs of ertices with numeric labels are againat distance at most three, except for one ertex labeled which is drawn at distance four from each ertex labeled. The only possible problem is if one pair of ertices labeled and are actually the same ertex, while another pair labeled and are adjacent; these pairs must be disjoint, since otherwise we hae a separating -cycle. The pair that are adjacent must be drawn at distance at least three, to aoid a separating -cycle. Hence, we need only consider the case where the ertices labeled and drawn at distance three are adjacent, and the other pair labeled and are the same ertex x. Howeer, this is impossible, since then the adjacent pair are on opposite sides of the cycle u u x. In Figure 5(C), all pairs of ertices with numeric labels are at distance at most three, so they must be distinct. Consider Figure 5(D). None of the ertices labeled can be the same as any other numerically labeled ertices since they are all distance at most apart. Similarly, none of the ertices labeled and can be the same. So we need only consider the case that ertices labeled are the same as those labeled or. If a pair of ertices labeled and are the same, then it must be the pair that are drawn at distance ; call this ertex x. In this case, we unlabel the ertices labeled and label w with. Now, thanks to x, all labeled ertices are distance at most three apart; hence, they must be distinct. So we may assume that ertices labeled are not the same as those labeled. Suppose instead that a ertex labeled is the same as one labeled ; call this ertex y. This is only a problem if also some pair of ertices labeled and are adjacent. But this is impossible as follows. Since the pair of ertices labeled hae a common neighbor, they cannot be adjacent; similarly for the pair labeled. So the pairs that are identified and adjacent must be disjoint. Further, the identified pair must contain the rightmost ertex labeled. If it is identified with the bottom ertex labeled, then the remaining ertices cannot be adjacent, since they are on opposite sides of the -cycle u u y. If it is identified with the top ertex labeled, then the remaining pair cannot be adjacent, since they hae a common neighbor. Finally, consider Figure 5(E). By horizontal symmetry (and planarity), we assume that the ertices labeled that are drawn at distance three are indeed non-adjacent; furthermore, we can assume that the ertices labeled and that are drawn at distance four are distinct. If not, then we reflect across the edge u. Hence, in forming G we can contract the ertices labeled to a single ertex (we can also contract the ertices labeled to a single ertex). So we only need to consider the ertices labeled and. The only possible problem is if some pair of ertices labeled and that are drawn at distance four are actually the same ertex x. Suppose this is the case. If w and w are distinct, then we neglect the ertices labeled and altogether; instead we label w as and w as. Due to x, all pairs of ertices with numeric labels are now distance at most three. (Also, we can assume that w is not adjacent to the ertex labeled that is drawn at distance ; if not, then we again reflect across edge

9 PLANAR GRAPHS ARE 9/-COLORABLE 9 u u u u u u (a) A 7-ertex,, with non-adjacent 5-neighbors, u, u, and u. (b) A 7-ertex,, with a 6-neighbor, u, and two 5-neighbors, u and u, with all pairs of u i s non-adjacent. u u u u u u w (c) A 7-ertex,, with a 6-neighbor, u, and two 5-neighbors, u and u, with all pairs of u i s non-adjacent. (d) A 7-ertex,, with a 5-neighbor, u, and two 6-neighbors, u and u, with all pairs of u i s non-adjacent. u w u u w (e) A 7-ertex,, with a 5-neighbor, u, and two 6-neighbors, u and u, with all pairs of u i s non-adjacent. Figure 5. The fie cases of Lemma 5.

10 0 DANIEL W. CRANSTON AND LANDON RABERN u.) So assume that w and w are identified. Now we switch the ertex identifications we use to form G. Contract the two ertices labeled onto u ; also contract onto u its two neighbors labeled, the topmost ertex labeled, and w /. As usual, we color this smaller graph by minimality; when we lift this coloring to G, ertex and each ertex u i has enough aailable colors that we can extend the coloring by Fact. This finishes Figure 5(E) and completes the proof of the lemma. Now we use discharging to proe that eery planar graph has a -fold 9-coloring. Main Theorem. Eery planar graph G has a -fold 9-coloring. In particular, χ f (G) 9. Proof. The second statement follows from the first, which we proe now. Let G be a minimal counterexample to the theorem. We will use the discharging method with initial charge d() 6 for each ertex. We write ch() to denote the initial charge and ch () to denote the charge after redistributing. By Euler s Formula, V (G) ch() =. By assuming that G satisfies the conditions stipulated in Lemmas 5, we redistribute the charge (without changing its sum) so that eery ertex finishes with nonnegatie charge. This yields the obious contradiction = V(G) ch() = V(G) ch () 0. We need a few definitions. For a ertex, let H denote the subgraph induced by the 5-neighbors and 6-neighbors of. If some w V(H ) has d H (w) = 0, then w is an isolated neighbor of ; otherwise w is a non-isolated neighbor. A non-isolated 5-neighbor of a ertex is crowded (with respect to ) if it has two 6-neighbors in H. We use crowded 5-neighbors in the discharging proof to help ensure that 7-ertices finish with sufficient charge, specifically to handle the configuration in Figure 6. We redistribute charge ia the following four rules; they are applied simultaneously, whereer applicable. (R) Each 8 + -ertex gies charge to each isolated 5-neighbor and charge to each nonisolated 5-neighbor. (R) Each 7-ertex gies charge to each isolated 5-neighbor, charge 0 to each crowded 5-neighbor and charge to each remaining 5-neighbor. (R) Each 7 + -ertex gies charge to each 6-neighbor. (R) Each 6-ertex gies charge to each 5-neighbor. To show that eery ertex finishes with nonnegatie charge, we consider d(). d() 8: We will show that gies away charge at most d(). Since d() 8, we hae ch() = d() 6 d(), so this will imply ch () 0. Rather than giing away charge by rules (R) and (R), instead let gie charge to each neighbor. Now let each isolated 5-neighbor w take also the charge that gae to the neighbor that clockwise around succeeds w. Now each neighbor of has receied at least as much charge as by rules (R) and (R) and has gien away charge d(). Thus, when gies away charge according to rules (R) and (R), this charge is at most d(), so ch () 0. d() = 7: First, suppose that has an isolated 5-neighbor w. Let x,y N() be the two 7 + -ertices that are common neighbors of and w. We will show that the total charge that gies to N()\{x,y} is at most. By Lemma 5, these four remaining ertices include at

11 PLANAR GRAPHS ARE 9/-COLORABLE most two 6 -ertices. So, if gies them a total of more than, then one of them must be another isolated 5-neighbor. But now the final 6 -ertex must be at distance from each of the preious 5-neighbors, iolating Lemma 5. So instead assume that has no isolated 5-neighbors. Thus, if loses total charge more than, then it must hae at least fie 6 -neighbors that receie charge from it (since they each take charge ). So assume that H 5. This implies that H consists of either (i) a 7-cycle or (ii) a single path or (iii) two paths. Recall from Lemma, that no 6-ertex has non-adjacent 6 -neighbors. This means that eery ertex of degree in H is a 5-ertex; in other words, eery ertex on a cycle or in the interior of a path in H is a 5-ertex. Now in each of cases (i) (iii), H has an independent -set containing at least one 5-ertex; the only exception is if H consists of a path on two ertices and a path on three ertices, and the only 5-ertex is the internal ertex on the longer path. Howeer, in this case the 5-ertex is a crowded neighbor of, as in Figure 6, so it receies no charge from. Thus, ch () 0. d() = 6: By Lemma, we know that has at most two 6 -neighbors (and if exactly two, then they are adjacent). Now (R) implies that ch () 0+( ) () = 0. d() = 5: If has at least two 6-neighbors, then ch () + ( ) = 0; so assume that has at most one 6-neighbor. Now if has at least four 6 + -neighbors, then ch () +( ) = 0 (since has at most one 6-neighbor, is not a crowded neighbor for any of its 7-neighbors); so must hae at least two 5-neighbors. By Lemma, these 5-neighbors must be adjacent and has no 6-neighbors. But now one of s three 7 + -neighbors sees as an isolated 5-neighbor, so sends charge. Thus, ch () + +( ) = 0. This completes the proof Figure 6. A 7-ertex gies no charge to any crowded 5-neighbor. A natural question is whether our theorem could be strengthened to show that eery planar graph has a t-fold s-coloring, for some pair (s,t) with s < 9. Clearly, such results t are true for eery pair (s,t) with s, since they follow from the Color Theorem (this is t immediate since the Kneser graph K s:t contains K ). Howeer, here we note that a proof of any such result must differ significantly from the proof of the Main Theorem. In particular, we show that none of our reducibility proofs, with the exceptions of those for separating triangles and ertices of degree, remain alid for any pair (s,t) with s < 9. Recall that the t proofs of Lemmas 5 all crucially relied on Fact. Here we show that to proe an analogue of this fact, een for K, (rather than K, ) requires that s 9. t

12 DANIEL W. CRANSTON AND LANDON RABERN Suppose that a copy of K, has a t-fold coloring wheneer the leaes, u and u, are gien lists of size b and the center ertex,, is gien a list of size a. Consider the list assignment L(u ) = {,...,b}, L(u ) = {a b+,...,a}, and L() = {,...,a}. Eery t-fold coloring from these lists uses at most b (a b) = b a common colors on u and u, so uses at least t (b a) distinct colors on u and u. So, to color, we must hae a (t (b a)) t, which means b t. Now consider an analogue of Lemma,, or 5 for t-fold s-coloring. First we contract, color the smaller graph by minimality, and lift the coloring to G. Now has list size s t, and each u i has list size s t. So we hae a = s t and b = s t. Now s t = b t, so s 9. t Acknowledgments As we mentioned in the introduction, the ideas in this paper come largely from Albertson s proof[] thatplanargraphshae independence ratioatleast. Infact, manyofthereducible 9 configurations that we use here are special cases of the reducible configurations in that proof. We ery much like that paper, and so it was a pleasure to be able to extend Albertson s work. The first author thanks his Lord and Saior, Jesus Christ. References [] M. O. Albertson. A lower bound for the independence number of a planar graph. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B, 0():8 9, 976. [] C. Berge. Graphes et hypergraphes. Dunod, Paris, 970. Monographies Uniersitaires de Mathématiques, No. 7. [] G. Birkhoff. The reducibility of maps. American Journal of Mathematics, pages 5 8, 9. [] R. Diestel. Graph theory, olume 7 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, third edition, 005. [5] P. Hell. An introduction to the category of graphs. In Topics in graph theory (New York, 977), olume 8 of Ann. New York Acad. Sci., pages 0 6. New York Acad. Sci., New York, 979. [6] A. J. W. Hilton, R. Rado, and S. H. Scott. A (< 5)-colour theorem for planar graphs. Bull. London Math. Soc., 5:0 06, 97. [7] P. C. Kainen. A generalization of the 5-color theorem. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 5:50 5, 97. [8] L. Loász. Kneser s conjecture, chromatic number, and homotopy. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 5():9, 978. [9] R. Naserasr. K 5 -free bound for the class of planar graphs. European J. Combin., 7(7):55 58,006. [0] J. Nešetřil and P. Ossona de Mendez. Folding. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 96(5):70 79, 006. [] N. Sauer. Hedetniemi s Conjecture A Surey. Discrete Math., 9(-):6 9, 00. Combinatorics, graph theory, algorithms and applications. [] E. R. Scheinerman and D. H. Ullman. Fractional Graph Theory. Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 997. A rational approach to the theory of graphs, With a foreword by Claude Berge, A Wiley-Interscience Publication. [] K. Wagner. Über eine Eigenschaft der ebenen Komplexe. Math. Ann., (): , 97.