Domination Value in Graphs

Abstract: A set $D \subseteq V(G)$ is a \emph{dominating set} of $G$ if every vertex not in $D$ is adjacent to at least one vertex in $D$. A dominating set of $G$ of minimum cardinality is called a $\gamma(G)$-set. For each vertex $v \in V(G)$, we define the \emph{domination value} of $v$ to be the number of $\gamma(G)$-sets to which $v$ belongs. In this paper, we study some basic properties of the domination value function, thus initiating \emph{a local study of domination} in graphs. Further, we characterize domination value for the Petersen graph, complete $n$-partite graphs, cycles, and paths.

\section{Introduction}

Let $G = (V(G),E(G))$ be a simple, undirected, and nontrivial
graph with order $|V(G)|$ and size $|E(G)|$. For $S \subseteq
V(G)$, we denote by $\langle S \rangle$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $S$.
The \emph{degree of a vertex $v$} in $G$, denoted by $\deg_G(v)$,
is the number of edges that are incident to $v$ in $G$; an \emph{end-vertex} is a vertex of degree one,
and a \emph{support vertex} is a vertex that is adjacent to an end-vertex. We denote by
$\Delta(G)$ \emph{the maximum degree} of a graph $G$. For a vertex
$v \in V(G)$, the \emph{open neighborhood} $N(v)$ of $v$ is the
set of all vertices adjacent to $v$ in $G$, and the \emph{closed
neighborhood}  $N[v]$ of $v$ is the set $N(v) \cup \{v\}$. A set $D
\subseteq V(G)$ is a \emph{dominating set} (DS) of $G$ if for each
$v \not\in D$ there exists a $u \in D$ such that $uv\in E(G)$. The
\emph{domination number} of $G$, denoted by $\gamma(G)$, is the
minimum cardinality of a DS in $G$; a DS of $G$ of minimum
cardinality is called a $\gamma(G)$-set. For earlier discussions
on domination in graphs, see \cite{B1, B2, EJ, Jaegar, Ore}. For a
survey of domination in graphs, refer to \cite{Dom1, Dom2}. We generally
follow \cite{CZ} for notation and graph theory terminology.
Throughout the paper, we denote by $P_n$, $C_n$, and $K_n$ the path,
the cycle, and the complete graph on $n$ vertices, respectively.\\

In \cite{Slater}, Slater introduced the notion of the number of dominating sets of $G$, which he denoted by HED$(G)$ in honor of Steve Hedetniemi; further, he also
used \#$\gamma(G)$ to denote the number of $\gamma(G)$-sets. In this paper, we will use $\tau(G)$ to denote the total number of $\gamma(G)$-sets, and
by $DM(G)$ the collection of all $\gamma(G)$-sets. For each vertex
$v \in V(G)$, we define the \emph{domination value} of $v$,
denoted by $DV_G(v)$, to be the number of $\gamma(G)$-sets to
which $v$ belongs; we often drop $G$ when ambiguity is not a
concern. See \cite{CK} for a discussion on \emph{total domination value} in graphs. For a further work on domination value in graphs, see \cite{Yi}. In this paper, we study some basic
properties of the domination value function, thus initiating a
\emph{local study} of domination in graphs. When a real-world
situation can be modeled by a graph, the locations (vertices)
with high domination values are of interest. One can use
domination value in selecting locations for fire departments or
convenience stores, for example. Though numerous papers on
domination have been published, no prior systematic local study of
domination is known. However, in \cite{pruned tree}, Mynhardt
characterized the vertices in a tree $T$ whose domination value is $0$ or $\tau(T)$.
It should be noted that finding domination value of any given vertex in
a given graph $G$ can be an extremely difficulty task, given the difficulty attendant to finding $\tau(G)$ or just $\gamma(G)$.\\

\section{Basic properties of domination value: upper and lower bounds}

In this section, we consider the lower and upper bounds of the
domination value function for a fixed vertex $v_0$ and for $v \in
N[v_0]$. Clearly, $0 \le DV_G(v) \le \tau(G)$ for any graph $G$
and for any vertex $v \in V(G)$. We will say the bound is sharp if
equality is obtained for a graph of some order in an inequality.
We first make the following observations.\\

\begin{observation}\label{observation}
$\displaystyle \sum_{v \in V(G)} DV_G(v) = \tau(G) \cdot
\gamma(G)$
\end{observation}

\begin{observation}\label{observation1}
If there is an isomorphism of graphs carrying a vertex $v$ in $G$
to a vertex $v'$ in $G'$, then $DV_G(v)=DV_{G'}(v')$.
\end{observation}

Examples of graphs that admit automorphisms are cycles, paths, and
the Petersen graph. The Pertersen graph, which is often used as a
counter-example for conjectures, is vertex-transitive (p.27,
\cite{Petersen}). Let $\mathcal{P}$ denote the Petersen graph with
labeling as in Figure \ref{P}.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{P.pstex_t}} \caption{The Petersen
graph}\label{P}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

It's easy to check that $\gamma(\mathcal{P})=3$. We will show that
$DV(v)=3$ for each $v \in V(\mathcal{P})$. Since $\mathcal{P}$ is
vertex-transitive, it suffices to compute $DV_{\mathcal{P}}(1)$.
For the $\gamma(\mathcal{P})$-set $\Gamma$ containing the vertex
$1$, one can easily check that no vertex in $N(1)$ belongs to
$\Gamma$. Further, notice that no three vertices from
$\{1,2,3,4,5\}$ form a $\gamma(\mathcal{P})$-set. Keeping these
two conditions in mind, one can readily verify that the
$\gamma(\mathcal{P})$-sets containing the vertex $1$ are
$\{1,3,7\}$, $\{1,4,10\}$, and $\{1,8,9\}$, and thus
$DV(1)=3=DV(v)$ for each $v \in V(\mathcal{P})$.

\begin{observation}\label{observation2}
Let $G$ be the disjoint union of two graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$. Then
$\gamma(G)=\gamma(G_1)+ \gamma(G_2)$ and $\tau(G)=\tau(G_1) \cdot
\tau(G_2)$. For $v \in V(G_1)$, $DV_G(v)=DV_{G_1}(v) \cdot
\tau(G_2)$.
\end{observation}

\begin{proposition}\label{upperbound1}
For a fixed $v_0 \in V(G)$, we have
$$\tau(G) \le \sum_{v \in N[v_0]} DV_G(v) \le \tau(G) \cdot \gamma(G),$$ and both bounds are
sharp.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The upper bound follows from Observation \ref{observation}. For
the lower bound, note that every $\gamma(G)$-set $\Gamma$
must contain a vertex in $N[v_0]$: otherwise $\Gamma$ fails to dominate $v_0$.\\

For sharpness of the lower bound, take $v_0$ to be an end-vertex
of $P_{3k}$ for $k \ge 1$ (see Theorem \ref{theorem on paths} and
Corollary \ref{path on 3k}). For sharpness of the upper bound,
take as $v_0$ the central vertex of (A) in Figure \ref{figure1}. \hfill
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition} \label{upperbound2}
For any $v_0 \in V(G)$, $$\sum_{v \in N[v_0]} DV_G(v) \le \tau(G)
\cdot (1+ \deg_G(v_0)),$$ and the bound is sharp.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
For each $v\in N[v_0]$, $DV_G(v)\leq \tau(G)$ and $|N[v_0]|=1+ \deg_G(v_0)$. Thus,\\
$$\sum_{v\in N[v_0]}DV(v) \leq \sum_{v\in N[v_0]}\tau(G)=\tau(G)\!\!\!\sum_{v\in N[v_0]}1=\tau(G)(1+ \deg_G(v_0)).$$\\
The upper bound is achieved for a graph of order $n$ for any
$n\geq 1$. Let $G_n$ be a graph on $n$ vertices containing an
isolated vertex. To see the sharpness of the upper bound, take as $v_0$
one of the isolates vertices, then the upper bound follows by
Observation \ref{observation2} and $\deg_G(v_0)=0$. \hfill
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{DVupperbound.pstex_t}} \caption{Examples of
local domination values and their upper bounds}\label{figure1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

We will compare two examples, where each example attains the upper
bound of Proposition \ref{upperbound1} or Proposition
\ref{upperbound2}, but not both. Let $v_0$ be the central vertex
of degree $3$, which is not a support vertex as in the graph (A)
of Figure \ref{figure1}. Then $\sum_{v \in N[v_0]} DV_G(v)=3$.
Note that $\tau (G) =1$, $\gamma (G)=3$, and $\deg_G(v_0)=3$.
Proposition \ref{upperbound1} yields the upper bound $\tau (G)
\cdot \gamma (G)=1\cdot 3=3$, which is sharp. But, the upper bound
provided by Proposition \ref{upperbound2}
is $\tau (G) \cdot (1+\deg_G(v_0))=1 \cdot (1+3)=4$, which is not sharp in this case.\\

Now, let $v_0$ be an isolated vertex as labeled in the graph (B)
of Figure \ref{figure1}. Then $\sum_{v \in N[v_0]}DV_{G'}(v)=2$.
Note that $\tau (G')=2$, $\gamma(G')=4$, and $\deg_{G'}(v_0)=0$.
Proposition \ref{upperbound2} yields the upper bound $\tau (G')
\cdot (1+ \deg_{G'}(v_0))=2 \cdot (1+0)=2$, which is sharp. But,
the upper bound provided by Proposition \ref{upperbound1} is
$\tau (G') \cdot \gamma (G')=2 \cdot 4=8$, which is not sharp in this case.\\

\begin{proposition}\label{subgraph-tau}
Let $H$ be a subgraph of $G$ with $V(H)=V(G)$. If
$\gamma(H)=\gamma(G)$, then $\tau(H) \le \tau(G)$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
By the first assumption, every DS for $H$ is a DS for $G$. By
$\gamma(H)=\gamma(G)$, it's guaranteed that every DS of minimum
cardinality for $H$ is also a DS \emph{of minimum cardinality for $G$}.
\end{proof}

The \emph{complement} $\overline{G}=(V(\overline{G}),
E(\overline{G}))$ of a graph $G$ is the graph such that
$V(\overline{G})=V(G)$ and $uv \in E(\overline{G})$ if and only if
$uv \not\in E(G)$. We recall the following

\begin{theorem}
Let $G$ be any graph of order $n$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] (\cite{Jaegar}, Jaegar and Payan)
$\gamma(G)+\gamma(\overline{G}) \le n+1$; and
\item[(ii)](\cite{B1}, p.304) $\gamma(G) \le n- \Delta(G)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proposition}
Let $G$ be a graph on $n=2m \ge 4$ vertices. If $G$ or
$\overline{G}$ is $mK_2$, then
$$DV_G(v)+DV_{\overline{G}}(v)=n-1+2^{\frac{n}{2}-1}.$$
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, assume $G=mK_2$ and label the vertices
of $G$ by $1,2,\ldots,2m$. Further assume that the vertex $2k-1$
is adjacent to the vertex $2k$, where $1 \le k \le m$. Then
$DV_G(1)=2^{m-1}$, which consists of the vertex 1 and one vertex
from each path $K_2$. By Observation \ref{observation1} and
Observation \ref{observation2}, $DV_G(v)=2^{m-1}=2^{\frac{n}{2}-1}$ for any $v\in V(G)$.\\

Now, consider $\overline{G}$ and the vertex labeled $1$ for ease
of notation. Since $\Delta(G)=n-2$, $\gamma(\overline{G})>1$.
Noting that $\{1, \alpha\}$ as $\alpha$ ranges from 2 to $2m$
enumerates all dominating sets of $\overline{G}$ containing the
vertex 1, we have $\gamma(\overline{G})=2$ and
$DV_{\overline{G}}(1)=n-1$. By Observation \ref{observation1},
$DV_{\overline{G}}(v)=n-1$ holds for any $v \in V(\overline{G})$.
Therefore, $DV_G(v)+DV_{\overline{G}}(v)=n-1+2^{\frac{n}{2}-1}$. \hfill
\end{proof}

Next we consider domination value of a graph $G$ when $\Delta(G)$ is
given.

\begin{observation} \label{degree n-1}
Let $G$ be a graph of order $n \ge 2$ such that $\Delta (G)=n-1$. Then
$\gamma(G)=1$ and $DV(v) \le 1$ for any $v \in V(G)$. Equality
holds if and only if $\deg_G(v)=n-1$.
\end{observation}

\begin{proposition}\label{degree n-2}
Let $G$ be a graph of order $n \ge 3$ such that $\Delta(G)=n-2$. Then
$\gamma(G)=2$ and $DV(v) \leq n-1$ for any $v \in V(G)$. Further,
if $\deg(v)=n-2$, then $DV(v)=|N[w]|$ where $vw \notin E(G)$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $\deg_G(v)=\Delta(G)=n-2$, then $\gamma(G)>1$ and there's only
one vertex $w$ such that $vw \notin E(G)$. Clearly, $\{v, w\}$ is
a $\gamma(G)$-set; so $\gamma(G)=2$. Noticing that $v$ dominates
$N[v]$, we see that the number of $\gamma(G)$-sets containing $v$
is $|N[w]|$; i.e., $DV(v)=|N[w]| \le n-2$. \hfill
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem on Delta(G)=n-3}
Let $G$ be a graph of order $n \ge 4$ and $\Delta (G)=n-3$. Fix a
vertex $v$ with $\deg_G(v)= \Delta(G)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] If $G$ is disconnected, then $\gamma(G)=2$ with
$DV(v)=2$ or $\gamma(G)=3$ with $DV(v)\le n-3$. \item [(ii)] If
$G$ is connected, then $\gamma(G)=2$ with $DV(v) \le n-2$ or
$\gamma(G)=3$ with $DV(v) \le (\frac{n-1}{2})^2$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Since $\deg_G(v)=\Delta(G)=n-3$, there are two vertices, say
$\alpha$ and $\beta$, such that $v \alpha, v \beta \not\in E(G)$.
We consider four cases.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{max_n_3D.pstex_t}} \caption{Cases 1, 2, and
3 when $\Delta(G)=n-3$}\label{max1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\emph{Case 1. Neither $\alpha$ nor $\beta$ is adjacent to any
vertex in $N[v]$:} Let $G^{\prime}= \langle V(G) - \{\alpha,
\beta\} \rangle$. Then $\deg_{G'}(v)=n-3$ with $|V(G^{\prime})|=n-2$.
By Observation~\ref{degree n-1}, $\gamma(G')=1$ and
$DV_{G'}(v)=1$. First suppose $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are isolated
vertices in $G$. (Consider (A) of Figure \ref{max1} with the edge
$\alpha \beta$ being removed.) Observation~\ref{observation2},
together with $\gamma(\langle\{\alpha,\beta\}\rangle)=2$ and
$\tau(\langle\{\alpha,\beta\}\rangle)=1$, yields $\gamma(G)=3$ and
$DV_G(v)=1$. Next assume that $G$ has no isolated vertex, then $\alpha
\beta \in E(G)$ (see (A) of Figure \ref{max1}). Observation
\ref{observation2}, together with $\gamma(\langle\{\alpha,\beta \}\rangle)=1$ and
$\tau(\langle\{\alpha,\beta \}\rangle)=2$, yields $\gamma(G)=2$ and $DV_G(v)=2$.\\

\emph{Case 2. Exactly one of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is adjacent to a
vertex in $N(v)$:} Without loss of generality, assume that
$\alpha$ is adjacent to a vertex in $N(v)$. First suppose that $G$
is not connected. Then $\alpha \beta \not\in E(G)$. (Consider (B)
of Figure \ref{max1} with the edge $\alpha \beta$ being removed.)
Let $G'=\langle V(G)-\{\beta\} \rangle$. Then $\deg_{G'}(v)=n-3$ with
$|V(G')|=n-1$. By Proposition \ref{degree n-2}, $\gamma(G')=2$ and
$DV_{G'}(v)=|N[\alpha]| \le n-3$. Observation \ref{observation2},
together with $\gamma(\langle \{\beta\} \rangle)=1$ and
$\tau(\langle \{\beta\}\rangle)=1$, yields $\gamma(G)=3$ and
$DV_G(v)=|N[\alpha]|\le n-3$. Next suppose that $G$ is connected.
Then $\alpha \beta \in E(G)$ and $\alpha$ is a support vertex of
$G$. (See (B) of Figure \ref{max1}.) Since $\Delta(G)<n-1$,
$\gamma(G)>1$. Since $\{v,\alpha\}$ is a $\gamma(G)$-set,
$\gamma(G)=2$. Noting that $v$ dominates $V(G)-\{\alpha, \beta\}$,
the number of $\gamma(G)$-sets containing $v$ equals the number of
vertices in $G$ that dominates both $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Thus $DV_G(v)=2$.\\

\emph{Case 3. There exists a vertex in $N(v)$, say $x$, that is
adjacent to both $\alpha$ and $\beta$:} Notice that $n \ge 6$ in
this case, since $vx, \alpha x, \beta x \in E(G)$ and
$\deg_G(v)=\Delta (G)$ (see (C) of Figure \ref{max1}). Since $\{v,
x\}$ is a $\gamma(G)$-set, $\gamma(G)=2$. If $\alpha\beta \not\in
E(G)$, then $DV(v)=|N[\alpha] \cap N[\beta]| \le n-3$. If
$\alpha\beta \in E(G)$, then $|N[\alpha] \cap N[\beta]| \le n-4$
since $\Delta (G)=n-3$. Noting both $\{v, \alpha\}$ and $\{v,
\beta\}$ are $\gamma(G)$-sets, we have $DV(v)=2+|N[\alpha] \cap N[\beta]| \le n-2$.\\

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{max_n_34.pstex_t}} \caption{Subcases 4.1
and 4.2 when $\Delta(G)=n-3$}\label{max2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\emph{Case 4. There exist vertices in $N(v)$ that are adjacent to
$\alpha$ and $\beta$, but no vertex in $N(v)$ is adjacent to both
$\alpha$ and $\beta$:} Let $x_0 \in N(v) \cap N(\alpha)$ and $y_0
\in N(v) \cap N(\beta)$. We consider two
subcases.\\

\emph{Subcase 4.1. $\alpha \beta \not\in E(G)$ (see (A) of Figure
\ref{max2}):} First, assume $\gamma(G)=2$. This is possible when
$\{x_0, y_0\}$ is a $\gamma(G)$-set satisfying $N[x_0] \cup
N[y_0]=V(G)$. Notice that there's no $\gamma(G)$-set containing
$v$ when $\gamma(G)=2$ since there's no vertex in $G$ that is
adjacent to both $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Thus $DV(v)=0$. Second,
assume $\gamma(G)>2$. Since $\{v, \alpha, \beta\}$ is a
$\gamma(G)$-set, $\gamma(G) =3$. Noticing that every
$\gamma(G)$-set contains a vertex in $N[\alpha]$ and a vertex in
$N[\beta]$ and that $N[\alpha] \cap N[\beta] =\emptyset$, we see
$$DV(v) = |N[\alpha]| \cdot |N[\beta]| \le
\left(\frac{|N[\alpha]|+|N[\beta]|}{2}\right)^2 \le
\left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)^2,$$ where the first inequality is the
arithmetic-geometric mean inequality (i.e., $\frac{a+b}{2} \geq
\sqrt{ab}$ for $a, b \geq 0$).\\

\emph{Subcase 4.2. $\alpha \beta \in E(G)$ (see (B) of Figure
\ref{max2}):} Since $\{v, \alpha\}$ is a $\gamma(G)$-set,
$\gamma(G)=2$. Since there's no vertex in $N(v)$ that is adjacent
to both $\alpha$ and $\beta$, there are only two $\gamma(G)$-sets
containing $v$, i.e., $\{v, \alpha\}$ and $\{v, \beta\}$. Thus
$DV(v)=2$. \hfill
\end{proof}

\noindent\textbf{Remark.} In the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem on
Delta(G)=n-3}, we observe that one may have $DV(v)=0$ even though
$\deg_G(v)=\Delta(G) \le n-3$. See Figure \ref{zeroTDV-max-deg}
for a graph of order $n$, $\deg_G(v)= \Delta(G)=n-3$,
$\gamma(G)=2$, and $DV(v)=0$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{zeroDV_max_deg.pstex_t}} \caption{A graph of
order $9$, $\deg_G(v)=\Delta(G)=6$, $DV(v)=0$ with a unique
$\gamma$-set $\{x_0, y_0\}$}\label{zeroTDV-max-deg}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Domination value on complete $n$-partite graphs}

For a \emph{complete} $n$-partite graph $G$, let $V(G)$ be
partitioned into $n$-partite sets $V_1$, $V_2$, $\ldots$, $V_n$,
and let $a_i=|V_i|\geq 1$ for each $1\leq i \leq n$, where $n\geq
2$.

\begin{proposition}
Let $G=K_{a_1,a_2, \ldots, a_n}$ be a complete $n$-partite graph
with $a_i \ge 2$ for each $i$ ($1 \le i \le n$). Then
$$\tau(G)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i\right)^2 - \sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i^2\right] \hskip .2in
\mbox{ and } \hskip .2in DV(v)=\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i\right)-a_j
\mbox{ if } v \in V_j.$$
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Since $\Delta(G) < |V(G)|-1$, $\gamma(G)>1$. Any two vertices from
different partite sets form a $\gamma(G)$-set, so $\gamma(G)=2$.
If $v \in V_j$, then
\begin{equation}\label{DV for n-partite}
DV(v)=\deg_G(v)=\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i\right)-a_j.
\end{equation}
From Observation \ref{observation} and (\ref{DV for n-partite}),
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{j=1}^{n}\sum_{v\in V_j} DV(v) =2 \tau(G) \
\Longleftrightarrow \ \sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(a_j\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i
-a_{j}^{2}\right) =2\tau(G) \\
 \Longleftrightarrow \ \
\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i\right)\left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}
a_j\right)-\sum_{j=1}^{n} a_j^2 =2\tau(G),
\end{eqnarray*}
and thus the formula for $\tau(G)$ follows.\hfill
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{n-partite2}
Let $G=K_{a_1,a_2, \ldots, a_n}$ be a complete $n$-partite graph
such that $a_i=1$ for some $i$, say $a_j=1$ for $j=1,2,\ldots, k$,
where $1 \le k \le n$. Then $\tau(G)=k$ and
\begin{equation*} DV(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{ if } v \in V_j \  (1 \le j \le \ k)\\
0 & \mbox{ if } v \in V_j \ (k+1 \le j \le n) .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Since $\Delta(G)=|V(G)|-1$, by Observation \ref{degree n-1},
$\gamma(G)=1$ and $DV(v)$ follows. By Observation
\ref{observation}, together with $\gamma(G)=1$, we have $\tau(G)=\sum_{v
\in V(G)}DV_G(v)=k$.\hfill
\end{proof}

If $a_i=1$ for each $i$ ($1\leq i\leq n$), then $G=K_n$. As an
immediate consequence of Proposition \ref{n-partite2}, we have the
following.

\begin{corollary}
If $G=K_n$ ($n \ge 1$), then $\tau(G)= n$ and $DV(v)=1$ for each
$v \in V(K_n)$.
\end{corollary}

If $n=2$, then $G=K_{a_1, a_2}$ is a complete bi-partite graph.
\begin{corollary}
If $G=K_{a_1, a_2}$, then
\begin{equation*}
\tau(G)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
a_1 \cdot a_2 & \mbox{ if } a_1, a_2 \ge 2 \\
2 & \mbox{ if } a_1=a_2=1\\
1 & \mbox{ if } \{a_1, a_2\} = \{1,x\}, \mbox{ where }x>1 .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
If $a_1, a_2 \ge 2$, then
\begin{equation*}
DV(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
a_2 & \mbox{ if } v \in V_1 \\
a_1 & \mbox{ if } v \in V_2 .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
If $a_1=a_2=1$, $DV(v)=1$ for any $v$ in $K_{1,1}$.
If $\{a_1, a_2\} = \{1,x\}$ with $x>1$, say $a_1=1$ and $a_2=x$,
then
\begin{equation*} DV(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{ if } v \in V_1 \\
0 & \mbox{ if } v \in V_2 .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}

\section{Domination value on cycles}

Let the vertices of the cycle $C_n$ be labeled $1$ through $n$
consecutively in counter-clockwise order, where $n \ge 3$. Observe
that the domination value is constant on the vertices of $C_n$,
for each $n$, by vertex-transitivity. Recall that
$\gamma(C_n)=\lceil \frac{n}{3} \rceil$ for $n \ge 3$ (see
p.364, \cite{CZ}).\\

\noindent {\bf Examples.} (a) $DM(C_4)=\{\{1,
2\}, \{1,3\}, \{1,4\}, \{2, 3\}, \{2, 4\}, \{3, 4\}\}$ since $\gamma(C_4)=2$;
so $\tau(C_4)=6$ and $DV(i)=3$ for each $i \in V(C_4)$.\\

(b) $\gamma(C_6)=2$, $DM(C_6)=\{\{1, 4\}, \{2, 5\}, \{3, 6\} \}$;
so $\tau(C_6)=3$ and $DV(i)=1$ for each $i \in V(C_6)$.\\

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem on cycles}
For $n \ge 3$,
\begin{equation*}
\tau(C_n) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\ 3 & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
\ n(1+\frac{1}{2} \lfloor \frac{n}{3} \rfloor) & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
\ n & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 2  \mbox{ (mod 3)} .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
First, let $n=3k$, where $k \ge 1$. Here $\gamma(C_{n})=k$; a
$\gamma(C_{n})$-set $\Gamma$ comprises $k$ $K_1$'s and $\Gamma$ is
fixed by the choice of the first $K_1$. There exists exactly one
$\gamma(C_{n})$-set containing the vertex $1$, and there are two
$\gamma(C_{n})$-sets omitting the vertex 1 such as $\Gamma$
containing
the vertex 2 and $\Gamma$ containing the vertex $n$. Thus $\tau(C_{n})=3$.\\

Second, let $n=3k+1$, where $k \ge 1$. Here $\gamma(C_{n})=k+1$; a
$\gamma(C_{n})$-set $\Gamma$ is constituted in exactly one of the
following two ways: 1) $\Gamma$ comprises $(k-1)$ $K_1$'s and one
$K_2$; 2) $\Gamma$ comprises $(k+1)$ $K_1$'s. \\

\emph{Case 1) $\langle \Gamma \rangle \cong (k-1)K_1 \cup K_2$:} Note that
$\Gamma$ is fixed by the choice of the single $K_2$. Choosing a
$K_2$ is the same as choosing its initial vertex
in the counter-clockwise order. Thus $\tau=3k+1$.\\

\emph{Case 2) $\langle \Gamma \rangle \cong (k+1)K_1$:} Note that, since each
$K_1$ dominates three vertices, there are exactly two vertices,
say $x$ and $y$, each of whom is adjacent to two distinct $K_1$'s
in $\Gamma$. And $\Gamma$ is fixed by the placements of $x$ and
$y$. There are $n=3k+1$ ways of choosing $x$. Consider the
$P_{3k-2}$ (a sequence of $3k-2$ slots) obtained as a result of
cutting from $C_{n}$ the $P_3$ centered about $x$. Vertex $y$ may
be placed in the first slot of any of the
$\lceil\frac{3k-2}{3}\rceil=k$ subintervals of the $P_{3k-2}$. As
the order of selecting the two vertices
$x$ and $y$ is immaterial, $\tau=\frac{(3k+1)k}{2}$. \\

Summing over the two disjoint cases, we get
$$\tau(C_{n})=(3k+1)+\frac{(3k+1)k}{2}=(3k+1)\left(1+\frac{k}{2}\right)= n \left(1+\frac{1}{2} \left\lfloor\frac{n}{3} \right\rfloor \right).$$

Finally, let $n=3k+2$, where $k \ge 1$. Here $\gamma(C_{n})=k+1$;
a $\gamma(C_{n})$-set $\Gamma$ comprises of only $K_1$'s and is
fixed by the placement of the only vertex which is adjacent to two
distinct $K_1$'s in $\Gamma$. Thus $\tau(C_{n})=n$. \hfill
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
Let $v\in V(C_n)$, where $n \ge 3$. Then
\begin{equation*}
DV(v) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\ 1 & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
\ \frac{1}{2} \lceil\frac{n}{3}\rceil (1+ \lceil\frac{n}{3}\rceil) & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 1  \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
\ \lceil\frac{n}{3}\rceil & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 3) }.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
It follows by Observation~\ref{observation}, Observation~\ref{observation1}, and Theorem~\ref{theorem on cycles}.~\hfill
\end{proof}

\section{Domination value on paths}

Let the vertices of the path $P_n$ be labeled $1$ through $n$
consecutively. Recall that $\gamma(P_n)=\lceil \frac{n}{3} \rceil$ for $n \ge 2$.\\

\noindent {\bf Examples.} (a) $\gamma(P_4)=2$, $DM(P_4)=\{
\{1,3\}, \{1,4\}, \{2, 3\}, \{2,4\}\}$; so $\tau(P_4)=4$ and
$DV(i)=2$ for each $i \in V(P_4)$.\\

(b) $\gamma_t(P_5)=2$, $DM(P_5)=\{\{1, 4\}, \{2,4\}, \{2,5\}\}$;
so $\tau(P_5)=3$, and
\begin{equation*}
DV(i)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{ if } i =1,5\\
2 & \mbox{ if } i=2,4\\
0 & \mbox{ if } i =3 .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}

\noindent\textbf{Remark.} Since $P_n \subset C_n$ with the same vertex set,
by Proposition \ref{subgraph-tau}, we have $\tau(P_n) \le
\tau(C_n)$ for $n \ge 3$, as one can verify from the theorem
below.

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem on paths}
For $n \ge 2$,
\begin{equation*} \tau(P_n) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\ 1 & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
\ n+ \frac{1}{2}\lfloor \frac{n}{3} \rfloor (\lfloor \frac{n}{3}\rfloor-1) & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 1  \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
\ 2+ \lfloor \frac{n}{3} \rfloor & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 2 \mbox{
(mod 3)} .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
First, let $n=3k$, where $k \ge 1$. Then $\gamma(P_n)=k$ and a
$\gamma(P_n)$-set $\Gamma$ comprises $k$ $K_1$'s. In this case,
each vertex in $\Gamma$ dominates three vertices, and no vertex of
$P_{n}$ is dominated by more than one vertex. Thus none of the
end-vertices of $P_n$ belongs to any $\Gamma$, which contains and
is fixed by the vertex $2$; hence $\tau(P_n)=1$.\\

Second, let $n=3k+1$, where $k \ge 1$. Here $\gamma(P_n)=k+1$; a
$\gamma(P_n)$-set $\Gamma$ is constituted in exactly one of the
following two ways: 1) $\Gamma$ comprises $(k-1)$ $K_1$'s and one
$K_2$; 2) $\Gamma$ comprises $(k+1)$ $K_1$'s.\\

\emph{Case 1) $\langle \Gamma \rangle \cong (k-1)K_1 \cup K_2$, where $k \ge
1$:} Note that $\Gamma$ is fixed by the placement of the single
$K_2$, and none of the end-vertices belong to any $\Gamma$, as
each component with cardinality $c$ in $\langle \Gamma \rangle$ dominates $c+2$
vertices. Initial vertex of $K_2$ may be placed in one of the $n
\equiv 2$ (mod $3$) slots. Thus $\tau=k$.\\

\emph{Case 2) $\langle \Gamma \rangle \cong (k+1)K_1$, where $k \ge 1$:} A
$\Gamma$ containing both end-vertices of the path is unique (no
vertex is doubly dominated). The number of $\Gamma$ containing
exactly one of the end-vertices (one doubly dominated vertex) is
$2{k \choose 1}=2k$. The number of $\Gamma$ containing none of the
end-vertices (two doubly dominated vertices) is ${k \choose 2}=
\frac{k(k-1)}{2}$. Thus
$\tau=1+2k+\frac{k(k-1)}{2}$.\\

Summing over the two disjoint cases, we get
$$\tau(P_n)=k+\left(1+2k+\frac{k(k-1)}{2} \right)=3k+1+ \frac{k(k-1)}{2}=
n+\frac{1}{2} \left\lfloor\frac{n}{3}\right\rfloor
\left(\left\lfloor \frac{n}{3}\right\rfloor-1 \right).$$

Finally, let $n=3k+2$, where $k \ge 0$. Here $\gamma(P_n)=k+1$,
and $\gamma(P_n)$-set $\Gamma$ comprises of ($k+1$) $K_1$'s. Note
that there's no $\Gamma$ containing both end-vertices of $P_n$.
The number of $\Gamma$ containing exactly one of the end-vertices
(no doubly dominated vertex) of the path is two.  The number of
$\Gamma$ containing neither of the end-vertices (one doubly
dominated vertex) is $k$. Summing the two disjoint cases, we have
$\tau(P_n)=2+k=2+ \lfloor \frac{n}{3}\rfloor$. \hfill
\end{proof}

For the domination value of a vertex on $P_n$, note that
$DV(v)=DV(n+1-v)$ for $1 \le v \le n$ as $P_n$ admits the obvious
automorphism carrying $v$ to $n+1-v$. More precisely, we have the
classification result which follows. First, as an immediate
consequence of Theorem \ref{theorem on paths}, we have the
following result.

\begin{corollary} \label{path on 3k}
Let $v \in V(P_{3k})$, where $k \ge 1$. Then
\begin{equation*}
DV(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0,1  \mbox{ (mod 3)} \\
1 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2  \mbox{ (mod 3)} .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}

\begin{proposition}
Let $v \in V(P_{3k+1})$, where $k \ge 1$. Write $v=3q+r$, where
$q$ and $r$ are non-negative integers such that $0 \le r < 3$.
Then, noting $\tau(P_{3k+1})=\frac{1}{2}(k^2+5k+2)$, we have
\begin{equation*} DV(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}q(q+3) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 3) } \ \\
(q+1)(k-q+1) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 3) } \ \\
\frac{1}{2}(k-q)(k-q+3) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 3) }.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $\Gamma$ be a $\gamma(P_{3k+1})$-set for $k \ge 1$. We
consider two cases.\\

\textit{Case 1) $\langle \Gamma \rangle \cong (k-1)K_1 \cup K_2$, where $k \ge
1$:} Denote by $DV^1(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing
$v$. Noting $\tau=k$ in this case, we have
\begin{equation}\label{path 3k+1 case1}
DV^1(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
k-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 3)} .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
We prove by induction on $k$. One can easily check (\ref{path 3k+1
case1}) for $k=1$. Assume that (\ref{path 3k+1 case1}) holds for
$G=P_{3k+1}$ and consider $G'=P_{3k+4}$. First, notice that each
$\Gamma$ of the $k$ $\gamma(P_{3k+1})$-sets of $G$ induces a
$\gamma(P_{3k+4})$-set $\Gamma'=\Gamma \cup \{3k+3\}$ of $G'$.
Additionally, $G'$ has the $\gamma(P_{3k+4})$-set $\Gamma^*$ that
contains and is determined by $\{3k+2, 3k+3\}$, which does not
come from any $\gamma(P_{3k+1})$-set of $G$. The presence of
$\Gamma^*$ implies that $DV^1_{G'}(v)=DV^1_G(v)+1$ for $v \equiv
2$ (mod 3), where $v \le 3k+1$. Clearly, $DV^1_{G'}(3k+2)=1$,
$DV^1_{G'}(3k+3)=k+1$, and $DV^1_{G'}(3k+4)=0$.\\

\textit{Case 2) $\langle \Gamma \rangle \cong (k+1)K_1$, where $k \ge 1$:}
Denote by $DV^2(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing $v$.
First, suppose both end-vertices belong to the unique $\Gamma$ and
denote by $DV^{2,1}(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing
$v$. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{Case 3-1}
DV^{2,1}(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0, 2  \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
1 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 3)} .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}

Second, suppose exactly one end-vertex belongs to each $\Gamma$;
denote by $DV^{2,2}(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing
$v$. Then, noting $\tau=2k$ in this case, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Case 3-2}
DV^{2,2}(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
k & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
k-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 3)} .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
We prove by induction on $k$. One can easily check (\ref{Case
3-2}) for $k=1$. Assume that (\ref{Case 3-2}) holds for
$G=P_{3k+1}$ and consider $G'=P_{3k+4}$. First, notice that each
$\Gamma$ of the $k$ $\gamma(P_{3k+1})$-sets of $G$ containing the
left end-vertex $1$ induces a $\gamma(P_{3k+4})$-set
$\Gamma'=\Gamma \cup \{3k+3\}$ of $G'$. Second, each $\Gamma$ of
$k$ $\gamma(P_{3k+1})$-sets of $G$ containing the right end-vertex
$3k+1$ induces a $\gamma(P_{3k+4})$-set $\Gamma'=\Gamma \cup
\{3k+4\}$ of $G'$. Third, a $\gamma(P_{3k+1})$-set $\Gamma$ of $G$
containing $1$ and $3k+1$ (both left and right end-vertices of
$G$) induces a $\gamma(P_{3k+4})$-set $\Gamma^{*1}=\Gamma \cup
\{3k+3\}$ of $G'$ (making $3k+2$ the only doubly dominated vertex
in $G'$). Additionally, $\Gamma^{*2}=\{v \in V(P_{3k+1}) \mid v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 3)}\} \cup \{3k+2, 3k+4\}$ is a
$\gamma(P_{3k+4})$-set for $G'$, which does not come from any
$\gamma(P_{3k+1})$-set of $G$. The presence of $\Gamma^{*1}$ and
$\Gamma^{*2}$ imply that
\begin{equation*}
DV^{2,2}_{G'}(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
DV^{2,2}_G(v) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
DV^{2,2}_G(v)+1 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1,2 \mbox{ (mod 3)}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
for $v \le 3k+1$.
Clearly, $DV^{2,2}_{G'}(3k+2)=1$, $DV^{2,2}_{G'}(3k+3)=k+1$, and $DV^{2,2}_{G'}(3k+4)=k+1$.\\

Third, suppose no end-vertex belongs to $\Gamma$; denote by
$DV^{2,3}(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing $v$. Then,
noting $\tau= {k\choose 2}$ in this case and setting ${a\choose
b}=0$ when $a<b$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{Case 3-3}
DV^{2,3}(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}(q-1)q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
q(k-q) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
\frac{1}{2}(k-q-1)(k-q) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2\mbox{ (mod 3)} .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Again, we prove by induction on $k$. Since $DV^{2,3}(v)=0$ for
each $v \in V(P_{4})$, we consider $k \ge 2$. One can easily check
(\ref{Case 3-3}) for the base, $k=2$. Assume that (\ref{Case 3-3})
holds for $G=P_{3k+1}$ and consider $G'=P_{3k+4}$, where $k \ge
2$. First, notice that each $\Gamma$ of the $k\choose 2$
$\gamma(P_{3k+1})$-sets of $G$ containing neither end-vertices of
$G$ induces a $\gamma(P_{3k+4})$-set $\Gamma'=\Gamma \cup
\{3k+3\}$ of $G'$. Additionally, each $\Gamma_r$ of the $k$
$\gamma(P_{3k+1})$-sets of $G$ containing the right-end vertex
$3k+1$ of $G$ induces a $\gamma(P_{3k+4})$-set $\Gamma_r'=\Gamma_r
\cup \{3k+3\}$ of $G'$ (making $3k+2$ one of the two
doubly-dominated vertices in $G'$): If we denote by $DV^r_G(v)$
the number of such $\Gamma_r$'s containing $v$ in $G$, then one
can readily check
\begin{equation*}
DV^r_G(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
k-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2\mbox{ (mod 3)} ,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
again by induction on $k$. Thus, the presence of $\Gamma'_r$
implies $DV_{G'}^{2,3}(v)=DV_G^{2,3}(v)+DV^r_G(v)$ for $v \le
3k+1$. Clearly, $DV^{2,3}_{G'}(3k+2)=0=DV^{2,3}_{G'}(3k+4)$
and $DV^{2,3}_{G'}(3k+3)= {k\choose 2}+k=\frac{1}{2}k(k+1)$.\\

Summing over the three disjoint cases (\ref{Case 3-1}), (\ref{Case
3-2}), and (\ref{Case 3-3}) for $\langle \Gamma \rangle \cong (k+1)K_1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{path 3k+1 case3}
DV^2(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
q + \frac{1}{2}(q-1)q& \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
1+k+q(k-q) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 3)} \ \\
k-q+ \frac{1}{2}(k-q-1)(k-q)& \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod
3)} .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Now, by summing over (\ref{path 3k+1 case1}) and (\ref{path 3k+1
case3}), i.e., $DV(v)=DV^1(v)+DV^2(v)$, we obtain the formula
claimed in this proposition.~\hfill
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}
Let $v \in V(P_{3k+2})$, where $k \ge 0$. Write $v=3q+r$, where
$q$ and $r$ are non-negative integers such that $0 \le r < 3$.
Then, noting $\tau(P_{3k+2})=k+2$, we have
\begin{equation*}
DV(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 3) } \ \\
1+q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 3) } \ \\
k+1-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 3) } .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $\Gamma$ be a $\gamma(P_{3k+2})$-set for $k \ge 0$. Then $\langle
\Gamma \rangle \cong (k+1) K_1$. Note that no $\Gamma$ contains both
end-vertices of $P_{3k+2}$.\\

First, suppose $\Gamma$ contains
exactly one end-vertex, and denote by $DV'(v)$ the number of such
$\Gamma$'s containing $v$. Noting $\tau=2$ in this case, for $v
\in V(P_{3k+2})$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{path on 3k+2 case1}
DV'(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 3) } \ \\
1 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1,2 \mbox{ (mod 3) }.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}

Next, suppose $\Gamma$ contains no end-vertices (thus $k \ge 1$),
and denote by $DV''(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing
$v$. Noting $\tau=k$ in this case, we have
\begin{equation}\label{path on 3k+2 case2}
DV''(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 3) } \ \\
q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 3) } \ \\
k-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 3) } .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
We prove by induction on $k$. One can easily check (\ref{path on
3k+2 case2}) for the base, $k=1$. Assume that (\ref{path on 3k+2
case2}) holds for $G=P_{3k+2}$ and consider $G'=P_{3k+5}$. First,
notice that each $\Gamma$ of the $k$ $\gamma(P_{3k+2})$-sets
containing neither end-vertex of $G$ induces a
$\gamma(P_{3k+5})$-set $\Gamma'=\Gamma \cup \{3k+4\}$.
Additionally, the only $\gamma(P_{3k+2})$-set $\Gamma$ of $G$
containing the right-end vertex $3k+2$ of $G$ induces a
$\gamma(P_{3k+5})$-set $\Gamma^\star=\Gamma \cup \{3k+4\}$ of $G'$
(making $3k+3$ the only doubly-dominated vertex). The presence of
$\Gamma^\star$ implies that
\begin{equation*}
DV_{G'}''(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
DV_G''(v) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0, 1 \mbox{ (mod 3) } \\
DV_G''(v)+1 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 3) }
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
for $v \le 3k+2$. Clearly, $DV_{G'}''(3k+3)=0=DV_{G'}''(3k+5)$ and
$DV_{G'}''(3k+4)=k+1$.\\

Now, by summing over the two disjoint cases (\ref{path on 3k+2
case1}) and (\ref{path on 3k+2 case2}), i.e.,
$DV(v)=DV'(v)+DV''(v)$, we obtain the formula claimed in this
proposition. \hfill
\end{proof}

\textit{Acknowledgement.} The author thanks Cong X. Kang for
suggesting the concept of \emph{domination value} and his valuable
comments and suggestions. The author also thanks the referee for a couple of helpful comments.

\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

Domination Value in Graphs


Nearest points and delta convex functions in Banach spaces

Abstract: Given a closed set $C$ in a Banach space $(X, \|\cdot\|)$, a point $x\in X$ is said to have a nearest point in $C$ if there exists $z\in C$ such that $d_C(x) =\|x-z\|$, where $d_C$ is the distance of $x$ from $C$. We shortly survey the problem of studying how large is the set of points in $X$ which have nearest points in $C$. We then discuss the topic of delta-convex functions and how it is related to finding nearest points.

\section{Nearest points in Banach spaces}

\subsection{Background}\label{sec intro}

Let $(X, \|\cdot\|)$ be a real Banach space, and let $C\subseteq X$ be a non-empty closed set. Given $x\in X$, its distance from $C$ is given by
\[d_C(x) = \inf_{y\in C} \|x-y\|.\]
If there exists $z\in C$ with $d_C(x) = \|x-z\|$, we say that $x$ has a \emph{nearest point} in $C$. Let also
\[N(C) = \big\{x\in X: x \text{ has a nearest point in $C$ }\big\}.\]
One can then ask questions about the structure of the set $N(C)$. This question has been studied in \cite{Ste63, Lau78, Kon80, Zaj83, BF89, DMP91, Dud04, RZ11, RZ12} to name just a few. More specifically, the following questions are at the heart of this note:

\medskip
\begin{center}
\emph{Given a nonempty closed set $C\subseteq X$, how large is the set $N(C)$? When is it non-empty?}
\end{center}
\medskip

One way to do so is to consider sets which are large in the set theoretic sense, such as dense $G_{\delta}$ sets. We begin with a few definitions.

\begin{defin}
If $N(C) =  X$, i.e., every point in $X$ has a nearest point in $C$, then $C$ is said to be proximinal. If $N(C)$ contains a dense $G_{\delta}$ set, then $C$ is said to be almost proximinal.
\end{defin}

In passing we recall that If every point in $X$ is uniquely proximinal then $C$ is said to be a \emph{Chebyshev set}  It has been conjectured for over half a century,  that in Hilbert space
Chebyshev sets are necessarily convex, but this is only proven for weakly closed sets \cite{BV10}. See also \cite{FM15} for a recent survey on the topic.

For example, closed convex sets in reflexive spaces are proximinal, as well as closed sets in finite dimensional spaces. See \cite{BF89}. One can also consider stronger notions of ``large" sets. See Section \ref{sec porous}. First, we also need the following definition.

\begin{defin}
A Banach space is said to be a (sequentially) Kadec space if for each sequence $\{x_n\}$ that converges weakly to $x$ with $\lim \|x_n\| = \|x\|$, $\{x_n\}$ converges to $x$ in norm, i.e.,
\[\lim_{n\to \infty} \|x-x_n\| =0.\]
\end{defin}

With the above definitions in hand, the following result holds.

\begin{thm}[Lau \cite{Lau78}, Borwein-Fitzpatrick \cite{BF89}]\label{thm Lau BF}
If $X$ is a reflexive Kadec space and $C\subseteq X$ is closed, then $C$ is almost proximinal.
\end{thm}

The assumptions on $X$ are in fact necessary.

\begin{thm}[Konjagin \cite{Kon80}]\label{thm Kon}
If $X$ is not both Kadec and reflexive, then there exist $C\subseteq X$ closed and $U\subseteq X\setminus C$ open such that no $x\in U$ has a nearest point in $C$.
\end{thm}

It is known that under stronger assumption on $X$ one can obtain stronger results on the set $N(C)$. See Section \ref{sec porous}.

\medskip

\subsection{Fr\'echet sub-differentiability and nearest points}\label{sec diff}

We begin with a definition.

\begin{defin}
Assume that $f: X\to \mathbb R$ is a real valued function with $f(x)$ finite. Then $f$ is said to be Fr\'echet sub-differentiable at $x\in X$ if there exists $x^*\in X^*$ such that
\begin{align}\label{cond subdiff}
\liminf_{y\to 0}\frac{f(x+y)-f(x)-x^*(y)}{\|y\|} \ge 0.
\end{align}
The set of points in $X^*$ that satisfy \eqref{cond subdiff} is denoted by $\partial f(x)$.
\end{defin}

Sub-derivatives have been found to have many applications in approximation theory. See for example \cite{BF89, BZ05, BL06, BV10, Pen13}.

One of the connections between sub-differentiability and the nearest point problem was studied in \cite{BF89}. Given $C\subseteq X$ closed, the following modification of a construction of \cite{Lau78} was introduced.
\begin{align*}
L_n(C) = \Big\{x\in X\setminus C : \exists x^*\in \mathbb S_{X^*} \text{ s.t. }\sup_{\delta>0}~\inf_{z\in C\cap B(x,d_C(x)+\delta)}~x^*(x-z) > \big(1-2^{-n}\big)d_C(x)\Big\},
\end{align*}
where $\mathbb S_{X^*}$ denotes the unit sphere of $X^*$. Also, let
\begin{align*}
L(C) = \bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty}L_n(C).
\end{align*}
The following is known.
\begin{prop}[Borwein-Fitzpatrick \cite{BF89}]\label{prop open}
For every $n\in \mathbb N$, $L_n(C)$ is open. In particular, $L(C)$ is $G_{\delta}$.
\end{prop}
Finally, let
\begin{align*}
\Omega(C)  = & \Big\{ x\in X\setminus C : \exists x^*\in \mathbb S_{X^*}, \text{ s.t. } \forall \epsilon >0, \exists \delta>0,
\\ & ~~\quad\inf_{z\in C\cap B(x,d_C(x)+\delta)}x^*(x-z) > \big(1-\epsilon\big)d_C(x)\Big\}.
\end{align*}

While $L(C)$ is $G_{\delta}$ by Proposition \ref{prop open}, under the assumption that $X$ is reflexive, the following is known.

\begin{prop}[Borwein-Fitzpatrick \cite{BF89}]
If $X$ is reflexive then $\Omega(C) = L(C)$. In particular, $\Omega(C)$ is $G_{\delta}$.
\end{prop}

The connection to sub-differentiability is given in the following proposition.

\begin{prop}[Borwein-Fitzpatrick \cite{BF89}]
If $x\in X\setminus C$ and $\partial d_C(x) \neq \emptyset$, then $x\in \Omega(C)$.
\end{prop}

Also, the following result is known.

\begin{thm}[Borwein-Preiss \cite{BP87}]\label{thm var}
If $f$ is lower semicontiuous on a reflexive Banach space, then $f$ is Fr\'echet sub-differentiable on a dense set.
\end{thm}

In fact, Theorem \ref{thm var} holds under a weaker assumption. See \cite{BP87, BF89}.
Since the distance function is lower semicontinuous, it follows that it is sub-differentiable on a dense subset, and therefore, by the above propositions, $\Omega(C)$ is a dense $G_{\delta}$ set. Thus, in order to prove Theorem \ref{thm Lau BF}, it is only left to show that every $x\in \Omega(C)$ has a nearest point in $C$. Indeed, if $\{z_n\}\subseteq C$ is a minimizing sequence, then by extracting a subsequence, assume that $\{z_n\}$ has a weak limit $z\in C$. By the definition of $\Omega(C)$, there exists $x^* \in \mathbb S_{X^*}$ such that
\[\|x-z\| \ge x^*(x-z) = \lim_{n\to \infty} x^*(x-z_n) \ge d_C(x) = \lim_{n\to \infty}\|x-z_n\|.\]
On the other hand, by weak lower semicontinuity of the norm,
\[\lim_{n\to \infty} \|x-z_n\| \ge \|x-z\|,\]
and so $\|x-z\| = \lim\|x-z_n\|$. Since it is known that $\{z_n\}$ converges weakly to $z$, the Kadec property implies that in fact $\{z_n\}$ converges in norm to $z$. Thus $z$ is a nearest point. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm Lau BF}.

This scheme of proof from \cite{BF89} shows that differentiation arguments can be used to prove that $N(C)$ is large.

\medskip

\subsection{Nearest points in non-Kadec spaces}\label{sec non-Kadec}
It was previously mentioned that closed convex sets in reflexive spaces are proximinal. It also known that non-empty ``Swiss cheese" sets (sets whose complement is a mutually disjoint union of open convex sets) in reflexive spaces are almost proximinal \cite{BF89}. These two examples show that for some classes of closed sets, the Kadec property can be removed. Moreover, one can consider another, weaker, way to ``measure" whether a set $C\subseteq X$ has ``many" nearest points: ask whether the set of nearest points in $C$ to points in $X\setminus C$ is dense in the boundary of $C$. Note that if $C$ is almost proximinal, then nearest points are dense in the boundary. The converse, however, is not true. In \cite{BF89} an example of a non-Kadec reflexive space was constructed where for every closed set, the set of nearest points is dense in its boundary. The following general question is still open.

\begin{qst}
Let $(X, \|\cdot\|)$ be a reflexive Banach space and $C\subseteq X$ closed. Is the set of nearest points in $C$ to points in $X\setminus C$ dense in its boundary?
\end{qst}

 Relatedly,  if the set $C$ is norm closed and bounded in a space with the \emph{Radon-Nikodym property} as is the caae of reflexive space, then $N(C)$ is nonempty and is large enough so that $\overline{\rm conv} C = \overline{\rm conv} N(C)$ \cite{BF89}.

\medskip

\subsection{Porosity and nearest points}\label{sec porous}

As was mentioned in subsection \ref{sec diff}, one can consider stronger notions of ``large" sets. One is the following notion.

\begin{defin}
A set $S\subseteq X$ is said to be porous if there exists $c\in (0,1)$ such that for every $x\in X$ and every $\epsilon>0$, there is a $y \in B(0,\epsilon)\setminus \{0\}$ such that
\[ B(x+y, c\|y\|) \cap S = \emptyset.\]
A set is said to be $\sigma$-porous if it a countable union of porous sets. Here and in what follows, $B(x,r)$ denotes the closed ball around $x$ with radius $r$.
\end{defin}

See \cite{Zaj05, LPT12} for a more detailed discussion on porous sets. It is known that every $\sigma$-porous set is of the first category, i.e., union of nowhere dense set. Moreover, it is known that the class of $\sigma$-porous sets is a proper sub-class of the class of first category sets. When $X=\mathbb R^n$, one can show that every $\sigma$-porous set has Lebesgue measure zero. This is not the case for every first category set: $\mathbb R$ can be written as a disjoint union of a set of the first category and a set of Lebesgue measure zero. Hence, the notion of porosity automatically gives a stronger notion of large sets: every set whose complement is $\sigma$-porous is also a dense $G_{\delta}$ set.

\medskip

A Banach space $(X, \|\cdot\|)$ is said to be \emph{uniformly convex} if the function
\begin{align}\label{def uni conv}
\delta(\epsilon) = \inf\left\{ 1-\left\|\frac{x+y}2\right\| ~ : ~ x, y\in \mathbb S_X, \|x-y\| \ge \epsilon \right\},
\end{align}
is strictly positive whenever $\epsilon>0$. Here $\mathbb S_X$ denotes the unit sphere of $X$. In \cite{DMP91} the following was shown.

\begin{thm}[De Blasi-Myjak-Papini \cite{DMP91}]\label{thm DMP}
If $X$ is uniformly convex, then $N(C)$ has a $\sigma$-porous compliment.
\end{thm}

In fact, \cite{DMP91} proved a stronger result, namely that for every $x$ outside a $\sigma$-porous set, the minimization problem is \emph{well posed}, i.e., there is unique minimizer to which every minimizing sequence converges. See also \cite{FP91, RZ11, RZ12} for closely related results in this direction.

The proof of Theorem \ref{thm DMP} builds on ideas developed in \cite{Ste63}. However, it would be interesting to know whether one could use differentiation arguments as in Section \ref{sec diff}. This raises the following question:

\begin{qst}
Can differentiation arguments be used to give an alternative proof of Theorem \ref{thm DMP}?
\end{qst}

More specifically, if one can show that $\partial d_C \neq \emptyset$ outside a $\sigma$-porous set, then by the arguments presented in Section \ref{sec diff}, it would follow that $N(C)$ has a $\sigma$-porous complement. Next, we mention two important results regarding differentiation in Banach spaces.

\begin{thm}[Preiss-Zaj\'i\v{c}ek \cite{PZ84}]\label{thm PZ}
If $X$ has a separable dual and $f:X\to \mathbb R$ is continuous and convex, then $X$ is Fr\'echet differentiable outside a $\sigma$-porous set.
\end{thm}

See also \cite[Sec. 3.3]{LPT12}. Theorem \ref{thm PZ} implies that if, for example, $d_C$ is a linear combination of convex functions (see more on this in Section \ref{sec DC}), then $N(C)$ has a $\sigma$-porous complement. Also, we have the following.

\begin{thm}[C\'uth-Rmoutil \cite{CR13}]\label{thm CR}
If $X$ has a separable dual and $f:X\to \mathbb R$ is Lipschitz, then the set of points where $f$ is Fr\'echet sub-differentiable but not differentiable is $\sigma$-porous.
\end{thm}

Since $d_C$ is 1-Lipschitz, the questions of seeking points of sub-differentiability or points of differentiability are similar. Theorem \ref{thm PZ} and Theorem \ref{thm CR} remain true if we consider $f:A\to \mathbb R$ where $A\subseteq X$ is open and convex.

\bigskip

\section{DC functions and DC sets}\label{sec DC}

\subsection{Background}

\begin{defin}
A function $f:X\to \mathbb R$ is said to be delta-convex, or DC, if it can be written as a difference of two convex functions on $X$.
\end{defin}

This notion was introduced in \cite{Har59} and was later studied by many authors. See for example \cite{KM90, Cep98, Dud01, VZ01, DVZ03, BZ05, Pav05, BB11}. In particular, \cite{BB11} gives a good introduction to this topic. We will discuss here only the parts that are closely related to the nearest point problem.

The following is an important proposition. See for example \cite{VZ89, HPT00} for a proof.

\begin{prop}\label{prop select}
If $f_1,\dots,f_k$ are DC functions and $f:X\to \mathbb R$ is continuous and $f(x)\in \big\{f_1(x),\dots,f_n(x)\big\}$. Then $f$ is also DC.
\end{prop}

The result is true if we replace the domain $X$ by any convex subset.

\medskip

\subsection{DC functions and nearest points}

Showing that a given function is in fact DC is a powerful tool, as it allows us to use many known results about convex and DC functions. For example, if a function is DC on a Banach space with a separable dual, then by Theorem \ref{thm PZ}, it is differentiable outside a $\sigma$-porous set. In the context of the nearest point problem, if we know that the distance function is DC, then using the scheme presented in Section \ref{sec diff}, it would follow that $N(C)$ has a $\sigma$-porous complement. The same holds if we have a difference of a convex function and, say, a smooth function.

\medskip

The simplest and best known example is when $(X,\|\cdot\|)$ is a Hilbert space, where we have the following.

\begin{align*}
d_C^2(x) & = \inf_{y\in C}\|x-y\|^2
\\ & = \inf_{y\in C}\Big[\|x\|^2-2\langle x,y\rangle +\|y\|^2\Big]
\\ & = \|x\|^2 - 2\sup_{y\in C}\Big[\langle x,y\rangle - \|y\|^2/2\Big],
\end{align*}
and the function $x\mapsto  \sup_{y\in C}\Big[\langle x,y\rangle - \|y\|^2/2\Big]$ is convex as a supremum of affine functions. Hence $d_C^2$ is DC on $X$.
Moreover, in a Hilbert space we have the following result (see \cite[Sec. 5.3]{BZ05}).

\begin{thm}\label{thm local DC}
If $(X, \|\cdot\|)$ is a Hilbert space, $d_C$ is locally DC on $X\setminus C$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Fix $y\in C$ and $x_0\in X\setminus C$. It can be shown that if we let $f_y(x) = \|x-y\|$, then $f_y$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\big\|f_y'(x_1)-f_y'(x_2)\big\|_{X^*} \le L_{x_0}\|x_1-x_2\|, ~~ x_1,x_2 \in B_{x_0},
\end{align*}
where $L_{x_0} = \frac 4 {d_S(x_0)}$ and $B_{x_0} = B\Big(x_0, \frac 1 2 d_C(x_0)\Big)$. In particular,
\begin{align}\label{lip prop}
\big(f_y'(x+tv_1)-f_y'(x+t_2v)\big)(v) \le L_{x_0}(t_2-t_1), ~~ v\in \mathbb S_X, t_2> t_1 \ge 0,
\end{align}
whenever $x+t_1v, x+t_2v \in B_{x_0}$. Next, the convex function $F(x) = \frac {L_{x_0}} 2 \|x\|^2$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{anti lip hilbert}
\big(F'(x_1)-F'(x_2)\big)(x_1-x_2) \ge L_{x_0}\|x_1-x_2\|^2, ~~ \forall x_1,x_2\in X.
\end{align}
In particular
\begin{align}\label{anti lip}
\big(F'(x+t_2v)-F'(x+t_1v)\big)(v) \ge L_{x_0}(t_2-t_1),  ~~ v\in \mathbb S_X, ~t_2>t_1\ge 0.
\end{align}
Altogether, if $g_y(x) = F(x)-f_y(x)$, then
\begin{align*}
\big(g_y'(x+t_2v)-g_y'(x+t_1v)\big)(v) \stackrel{\eqref{lip prop}\wedge \eqref{anti lip}}{\ge} 0, ~~ v\in \mathbb S_X, ~t_2>t_1\ge 0,
\end{align*}
whenever $x+t_1v, x+t_2v \in B_{x_0}$. This implies that $g_y$ is convex on $B_{x_0}$. It then follows that
\begin{align*}
d_C(x) & = \frac {L_{x_0}} 2 \|x\|^2 -\sup_{y\in C}\Bigg[~\frac {L_{x_0}} 2 \|x\|^2-\|x-y\|\Bigg] = h(x) - \sup_{y\in C}g_y(x)
\end{align*}
is DC on $B_{x_0}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Even in $\mathbb R^2$ there are sets for which $d_C$ is not DC everywhere (not even locally DC), as was shown in \cite{BB11}. Thus, the most one could hope for is a locally DC function on $X\setminus C$.
\end{remark}

\medskip

Given $q\in (0,1]$, a norm $\|\cdot\|$ is said to be $q$\emph{-H\"older smooth} at a point $x\in X$ if there exists a constant $K_x\in (0,\infty)$ such that for every $y\in \mathbb S_X$ and every $\tau>0$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\|x+\tau y\|}{2} + \frac{\|x-\tau y\|}{2} \le 1+K_x\tau^{1+q}.
\end{align*}
If $q=1$ then $(X,\|\cdot\|)$ is said to be \emph{Lipschitz smooth} at $x$.
The spaces $L_p$, $p \ge 2$ are known to be Lipschitz smooth, and in general $L_p$, $p>1$, is $s$-H\"older smooth with $s = \min\{1,p-1\}$.

\medskip

A Banach space is said to be $p$\emph{-uniformly convex} if for every $x,y\in \mathbb S_X$,
\begin{align*}
1-\left\|\frac{x+y}{2}\right\| \ge L\|x-y\|^p.
\end{align*}
Note that this is similar to assuming that $\delta(\epsilon) = L\epsilon^p$ in \eqref{def uni conv}. The spaces $L_p$, $p>1$, are $r$-uniformly convex with $r = \max\{2,p\}$.

One could ask whether the scheme of proof of Theorem \ref{thm local DC} can be used in a more general setting.

\begin{prop}\label{prop Hilbert}
Let $(X, \|\cdot\|)$ be a Banach space, $C\subseteq X$ a closed set, and fix $x_0\in X\setminus C$ and $y\in C$. Assume that there exists $r_0$ such that $f_y(x) = \|x-y\|$ has a Lipschitz derivative on $B(x_0,r_0)$:
\begin{align}\label{lip of der}
\big\|f_y'(x_1)-f_y'(x_2)\| \le L_{x_0}\|x_1-x_2\|.
\end{align}
Then the norm is Lipschitz smooth on $-y + B_{x_0} = B(x_0-y, r_0)$. If in addition there exists a function $F: X \to \mathbb R$ satisfying
\begin{align}\label{strong conv}
\big(F'(x_1)-F'(x_2)\big)(x_1-x_2) \ge L_{x_0}\|x_1-x_2\|^2, ~~ \forall x_1,x_2\in B(x_0,r_0),
\end{align}
then $(X,\|\cdot\|)$ admits an equivalent norm which is 2-uniformly convex. In particular, if $X=L_p$ then $p=2$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
To prove the first assertion note that \eqref{lip of der} is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
\|x-y+h\|+\|x-y-h\|-2\|x-y\| \le L_{x_0}\|h\|^2, ~~ x\in B_{x_0}.
\end{align*}
See for example \cite[Prop. 2.1]{Fab85}.

To prove the second assertion, note that a function that satisfies \eqref{strong conv} is also known as \emph{strongly convex}: one can show that \eqref{strong conv} is in fact equivalent to the condition
\begin{align*}
f\left(\frac{x_1+x_2}{2}\right) \le \frac 1 2f(x_1)+\frac 1 2 f(x_2) - C\|x_1-x_2\|^2,
\end{align*}
for some constant $C$. See for example \cite[App. A]{SS07}. This implies that there exists an equivalent norm which is 2-uniformly convex (\cite[Thm 5.4.3]{BV10}).

\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
From \cite{Ara88} it is know that if $F:X\to \mathbb R$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\big(F'(x_1)-F'(x_2)\big)(v) \ge L\|x_1-x_2\|^2,
\end{align*}
for \emph{all} $x_1,x_2\in X$, and also that $F$ is twice (Fr\'echet) differentiable at one point, then $(X,\|\cdot\|)$ is isomorphic to a Hilbert space.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
If we replace the Lipschitz condition by a H\"older condition
\begin{align*}
\big\|f_y'(x_1)-f_y'(x_2)\big\| \le \|x_1-x_2\|^{\beta}, ~~ \beta <1,
\end{align*}
then in order to follow the same scheme of proof of Theorem \ref{thm local DC}, instead of \eqref{anti lip hilbert}, we would need a function $F$ satisfying
\begin{align*}
\big(F'(x_1)-F'(x_2)\big)(x_1-x_2) \ge \|x_1-x_2\|^{1+\beta}, ~~ x_1,x_2\in B_{x_0}.
\end{align*}
which implies
\begin{align}\label{anti holder}
\big\|F'(x_1)-F'(x_2)\big\| \ge \|x_1-x_2\|^{\beta}, ~~ x_1,x_2\in B_{x_0}.
\end{align}
If $G= (F')^{-1}$, then we get
\begin{align*}
\|Gx_1-Gx_2\| \le \|x_1-x_2\|^{1/\beta}, ~~ x_1,x_2 \in F'(B_{x_0}),
\end{align*}
which can occur only if $G$ is a constant. Hence \eqref{anti holder} cannot hold and the scheme of proof cannot be used if we replace the Lipschitz condition by a H\"older condition.
\end{remark}

\medskip

\subsection{DC sets, DC representable sets}

\begin{defin}
A set $C$ is is said to be a DC set if $C=A\setminus B$ where $A,B$ are convex.
\end{defin}
We can also consider the following class of sets.
\begin{defin}
A set $C\subseteq X$ is said to be DC representable if there exists a DC function $f:X\to R$ such that $C = \big\{x\in X: f(x) \le 0\big\}$.
\end{defin}
Note that if $C = A\setminus B$ is a DC set, then we can write $C = \Big\{\mathbbm 1_{B}-\mathbbm 1_{A}+1/2 \le 0\Big\}$, where $\mathbbm 1_A$, $\mathbbm 1_B$ are the indicator functions of $A,B,$ respectively.  Therefore, $C$ is DC representable. Moreover, we have the following.

\begin{thm}[Thach \cite{Th93}]
Assume that $X$ and $Y$ are two Banach space, and $T:Y\to X$ is surjective map with $\mathrm{ker}(T) \neq \emptyset$. Then for any set $M\subseteq X$ there exists a DC representable set $D\subseteq Y$, such that $M= T(D)$.
\end{thm}

Also, the following is known. See \cite{HPT00}.

\begin{prop}
If $C$ is a DC representable set, then there exist $A,B \subseteq X\oplus \mathbb R$ convex, such that $x\in C \iff (x,x') \in A\setminus B$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Define $g_1(x,x') = f_1(x)-x'$, $g_2(x,x') = f_2(x)-x'$. Let $A = \big\{(x,x') : g_1(x,x')\le 0\big\}$, $B = \big\{(x,x'): g_2(x,x') \le 0\big\}$. Then $x\in C \iff (x,x') \in A\setminus B$.
\end{proof}

In particular, every DC representable set in $X$ is a projection of a DC set in $X\oplus \mathbb R$. The following theorem was proved in \cite{TK96}

\begin{thm}[Thach-Konno \cite{TK96}]
If $X$ is a reflexive Banach space and $C\subseteq X$ is closed, then $C$ is DC representable.
\end{thm}

This raises the following question.

\begin{qst}\label{qst DC}
Is it true that for some classes of spaces, e.g. uniformly convex spaces, there exists $\alpha>0$ such that $d_C^{\alpha}$ is locally DC on $X\setminus C$ whenever $C$ is a DC representable set?
\end{qst}
If the answer to Question \ref{qst DC} is positive, then by the discussion in subsection \ref{sec diff} we could conclude that $N(C)$ has a $\sigma$-porous complement, thus giving an alternative proof of Theorem \ref{thm DMP}. One could also ask Question \ref{qst DC} for DC sets instead of DC representable sets.

\medskip

To end this note, we discuss some simple cases where DC and DC representable sets can be used to study the nearest point problem.

\begin{prop}
Assume that $C = X \setminus \bigcup_{a\in \Lambda}U_a$, where each $U_a$ is an open convex set. Then $d_C$ is locally DC (in fact, locally concave) on $X\setminus C$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
First, it is shown in \cite[Sec. 3]{BF89} that if $a\in \Lambda$, then $d_{X\setminus U_a}$ is concave on $U_a$. Next, it also shown in \cite{BF89} that if $x\in U_a$ then $d_{X\setminus U_a}(x) = d_C(x)$. In particular, $d_C$ is concave on $U_a$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
Assume that  $C = A\setminus B$ is a closed DC set, and assume $A$ is closed and $B$ is open, then $d_C$ is convex whenever $d_{C}(x) \le d_{A\cap B}$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Since $A = \big(A\setminus B\big) \bigcup B$, we have
$$d_A(x) = \min\big\{d_{A\setminus B}(x), d_{A\cap B}(x)\big\} = \min\big\{d_{C}(x), d_{A\cap B}(x)\big\}.$$
Hence, if $d_C(x) \le d_{A\cap B}(x)$ then $d_C(x) = d_A(x)$ is convex.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
Assume that $C$ is a DC representable set, i.e., $C = \big\{x\in X: f_1(x)-f_2(x)\le 0\big\}$, and that $f_2(x) =\max_{1\le i \le m}\varphi_i(x)$, where $\varphi_i$ is affine. Then $d_C$ is DC on $X$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Write
\begin{align*}
C & = \Big\{x : f_1(x)-f_2(x)\le 0\Big\}
\\ &= \Big\{x  :  f_1(x)-\max_{1\le i \le m}\varphi_i(x) \le 0\Big\}
\\ & = \Big\{x  : \min_{1\le i \le m}\big(f_1(x)-\varphi_i(x)\big) \le 0\Big\}
\\ & = \bigcup_{i=1}^n \Big\{x : f_1(x)-\varphi_i(x) \le 0\Big\}.
\end{align*}
where the sets $\Big\{x~ : ~ f_1(x)-\varphi_i(x) \le 0\Big\}$ are convex sets. Hence, we have that
\[d_C(x) = \min_{1\le i \le m}d_{C_i}(x),\]
is a minimum of convex sets and therefore by Proposition \ref{prop select} is a DC function.
\end{proof}

In \cite{Cep98} it was shown that if $X$ is superreflexive, then any Lipschitz map is a uniform limit of DC functions. See also \cite[Sec. 5.1]{BV10}. We have the following simple result.

\begin{prop}
If $X$ is separable, then $d_C$ is a limit (not necessarily uniform) of DC functions.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
If $X$ is separable, i.e., there exists a countable $Q = \{q_1,q_2,\dots\}\subseteq X$ with $\bar Q = X$. We have
\begin{align*}
d_C(x) = \inf_{z\in C}\|x-z\| = \inf_{z\in C\cap Q}\|x-z\| = \lim_{n\to \infty} \Big[\min_{z\in C\cap Q_n}\|x-z\|\Big],
\end{align*}
where $Q_n = \{q_1,q_2,\dots,q_n\}$. Again by Proposition \ref{prop select} we have that $\min_{z\in C\cap Q_n}\|x-z\|$ is a DC function as a minimum of convex functions.
\end{proof}

\section{Conclusion}
Despite many decades of study, the core questions addressed in this note are still far from settled. We hope that our analysis will encourage others to take up the quest, and also to reconsider the related \emph{Chebshev problem} \cite{B07,BV10}.


On Zeckendorf Related Partitions Using the Lucas Sequence

Abstract: Zeckendorf proved that every positive integer has a unique partition as a sum of non-consecutive Fibonacci numbers. Similarly, every natural number can be partitioned into a sum of non-consecutive terms of the Lucas sequence, although such partitions need not be unique. In this paper, we prove that a natural number can have at most two distinct non-consecutive partitions in the Lucas sequence, find all positive integers with a fixed term in their partition, and calculate the limiting value of the proportion of natural numbers that are not uniquely partitioned into the sum of non-consecutive terms in the Lucas sequence.

\section{Introduction}
The Fibonacci numbers have fascinated mathematicians for centuries with many interesting properties. By convention, the Fibonacci sequence $\left\{F_n\right\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is defined as follows: let $F_0 = 0$, $F_1 = 1$, and $F_n = F_{n-1} + F_{n-2}$, for $n\ge 2$.
A beautiful theorem of Zeckendorf \cite{Z} states that every natural number $n$ can be uniquely written as a sum of non-consecutive Fibonacci numbers. This gives the so-called Zeckendorf partition of $n$. A formal statement of Zeckendorf's theorem is as follows:
\begin{thm}[Zeckendorf]\label{p1}
For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists a unique increasing sequence of positive integers $\{c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_k\}$ such that $c_1\ge 2$, $c_i\ge c_{i-1}+2$ for $i = 2, 3, \ldots, k$, and $n = \sum_{i=1}^kF_{c_i}$.
\end{thm}
Much work has been done to understand the structure of Zeckendorf partitions and their applications (see \cite{BDEMMTW1, BDEMMTW2, B, CSH, Fr, MG1, MG2, HS, L, MW1, MW2}) and to generalize them (see \cite{Chu, Day, DDKMMV, DFFHMPP, FGNPT, GTNP, Ho, K, ML, MMMS, MMMMS}). In this paper, we study the partition of natural numbers into Lucas numbers. The Lucas sequence $\left\{L_n\right\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is defined as follows: let $L_0 = 2$, $L_1 = 1$, and $L_n = L_{n-1} + L_{n-2}$, for $n\ge 2$. As the Lucas sequence is closely related to the Fibonacci sequence, it is not surprising that we can also partition natural numbers using Lucas numbers.

\begin{thm}[Zeckendorf]\label{p2}
    Every natural number can be partitioned into the sum of non-consecutive terms of the Lucas sequence.
\end{thm}

Note that the distinction between Theorems \ref{p1} and \ref{p2} lies in the \textit{uniqueness} property of such partitions of natural numbers in the Fibonacci and Lucas sequences.~Although $5$ is uniquely partitioned into $F_5 = 5$ in $\{F_2, F_3, \ldots \}$, its partition is not unique in the Lucas sequence as $5 = L_0 + L_2 = 2 + 3$ and $5 = L_1 + L_3 = 1 + 4$. In \cite{B2}, Brown shows various ways to have a unique partition using Lucas sequence. \footnote{For more on Brown's criteria, see \cite{BHLMT1, BHLMT2}.} In this paper, we prove the following results.

\begin{thm}\label{m1}
If we allow $L_0$ and $L_2$ to appear simultaneously in a partition, each natural number can have at most two distinct non-consecutive partitions in the Lucas sequence.
\end{thm}

\begin{thm}\label{m2} Suppose that we do not allow $L_0$ and $L_2$ to appear simultaneously in a partition.
The set of all positive integers having the summand $L_k$ in their partition is given by
$$Z(k) \ =\ \begin{cases}\left\{2+3n+\left\lfloor\frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\, :\, n\ge 0\right\}, & {\rm if}~ k = 0,\\
\left\{3n+\left\lfloor\frac{n+\Phi^2}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\, :\, n\ge 0\right\}, &{\rm if}~ k = 1,\\
\left\{L_k\left\lfloor\frac{n+\Phi^2}{\Phi}\right\rfloor+ nL_{k+1}+j\, :\, n\ge 0 ~{\rm and}~  0\le j\le L_{k-1}-1\right\}, &{\rm if}~ k \ge 2.
\end{cases}$$
\end{thm}
Theorem \ref{m2} is an analogue of \cite[Theorem 3.4]{MG1}. For $k\ge 0$, we find all positive integers having the summand $L_k$ in their partition. We have a different formula when $k = 0$ instead of one formula for all values of $k$ as in \cite[Theorem 3.4]{MG1}.

Our next result is predicted by \cite[Theorem 1]{Cha}, which deals with general recurrence relations; however, in the case of Lucas numbers, we can relate Lucas partitions to the golden string.

\begin{thm}\label{m3}
If we allow $L_0$ and $L_2$ to appear simultaneously in a partition, the proportion of natural numbers that are not uniquely partitioned into the sum of non-consecutive terms of the Lucas sequence converges to $\frac{1}{3\Phi+1}$, where $\Phi$ is the golden ratio.
\end{thm}

\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Definitions}
\begin{defi}
Let $A = \{a_0, a_1, \ldots, a_m \}$ be the set consisting of the first $m+1$ terms of the sequence $\big\{a_k\big\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$.~We say a proper subset $B$ of $A$ is a \textit{non-consecutive subset} of $A$ if the elements of $B$ are pairwise non-consecutive in $\big\{a_k\big\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$.~Furthermore, we say a sum $S$ is a \textit{non-consecutive sum} of $A$ if $S$ is the sum of distinct elements of $A$ that are pairwise non-consecutive in $\big\{a_k\big\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$.
\end{defi}
\begin{defi}
Let $A_m = \{L_0, L_1, \ldots, L_m \}$ denote the set consisting of the first $m+1$ terms of the Lucas sequence.
\end{defi}

\subsection{The golden string}
The golden string $S = BABBABABBABBA\ldots$ is defined to be the infinite string of $A$'s and $B$'s constructed recursively as follows. Let $S_1 = A$ and $S_2 = B$, and then, for $k\ge 3$, $S_k$ is the concatenation of $S_{k-1}$ and $S_{k-2}$, which we denote by $S_{k-1}\circ S_{k-2}$. For example, $S_3 = S_2\circ S_1 = a_2\circ a_1 = BA$, $S_4 = S_3\circ S_2 = a_2a_1\circ a_2 = BAB$, $S_5  = S_4\circ S_3  = BABBA$, and so on. Interestingly, the golden string is highly connected to the Zeckendorf partition \cite{MG2}. As we will see later, the string is also closely related to the partitions of natural numbers into Lucas numbers.
\begin{rek}\label{r1}\normalfont We mention two properties of the golden string that we will use in due course.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] For $j\ge 1$, the $(F_{2j})$th character of $S$ is $B$ and the $(F_{2j+1})$th character of $S$ is $A$. This can be easily proved using induction.
\item[(2)] The number of $B$'s amongst the first $n$ characters of $S$ is given by
$\left\lfloor\frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor$,
where $\Phi = \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$ is the golden ratio. For a proof of this result, see \cite[Lemma 3.3]{MG2}.
\end{itemize}
\end{rek}

\section{At Most Two Partitions}

In this section, we present our results that determine the maximum number of non-consecutive partitions that a natural number can have in the Lucas sequence, the proofs of which are adapted from \cite{HR}. Before we prove Theorem \ref{m1}, we introduce the following preliminary lemmas. For the proofs of Lemmas \ref{Lemma3} and \ref{Lemma5}, see Appendix B.

\begin{lem}\label{Lemma3}
Let $S$ be any non-consecutive sum of $A_m$.~Then
    \begin{enumerate}
            \item if $m$ is odd, $S$ assumes all values from 0 to $L_{m+1}-1$ inclusive, and
            \item if $m$ is even, then $S$ assumes all values from 0 to $L_{m+1}+1$ inclusive, excluding $L_{m+1}$.
    \end{enumerate}
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}\label{Lemma5}
If $m \geq 0$, then $L_{2m+1}+1$ has exactly two non-consecutive partitions in the Lucas sequence.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{m1}]
It suffices to show that for every non-negative integer $m$, there is no natural number that is equal to three or more distinct non-consecutive sums of $A_m$.~We proceed by strong induction.~No natural is equal to three or more distinct non-consecutive sums of $A_0$ and $A_1$.~This shows the base case.~Assume Theorem \ref{m1} holds for all non-negative integers less than or equal to $m=k$.~In our first case, suppose that $k$ is odd.~From Lemma \ref{Lemma3}, the non-consecutive sums that we can form from $A_k$ are the values from 0 to $L_{k+1}-1$ inclusive.~Hence, when we add the term $L_{k+1}$ to $A_k$, all new non-consecutive sums that can be formed must be at least $L_{k+1}$.~This implies there is no possible way in which we can form a third distinct non-consecutive sum of $A_{k+1}$ for any natural number because there is no intersection between the non-consecutive sums in which we can form before and after the addition of the term $L_{k+1}$.~When $k \geq 2$ is even, we have from Lemma \ref{Lemma3} that all non-consecutive sums we can form from $A_k$ are the values from 0 to $L_{k+1}+1$ inclusive, excluding $L_{k+1}$.~When we add the term $L_{k+1}$ to $A_k$, all new non-consecutive sums that can be formed are at least $L_{k+1}$ with $L_{k+1}+1$ being the only non-consecutive sum formed again, namely $L_{k+1}+L_1$.~By Lemma \ref{Lemma5}, we know that $L_{k+1}+1$ has exactly two distinct non-consecutive partitions in the Lucas sequence.~Therefore, there is no possible way in which we can form a third distinct non-consecutive sum of $A_{k+1}$ for any natural number.~This completes the inductive step.
\end{proof}

\section{Partitions with a Fixed Term}

Let $\mathcal{X}_k$ denote the set of all positive integers having $L_k$ as the smallest summand in their partition. Let $\mathcal{Q}_k = (q_k(j))_{j\ge 1}$ be the strictly increasing sequence obtained by rearranging the elements of $\mathcal{X}_k$ into ascending numerical order. We consider the cases $k = 0$ and $k\ge 1$ separately.

\subsection{When $k = 0$}

Table 1 replaces each term $q_k(j)$ in $\mathcal{Q}_k$ with an ordered list of the summands in its partition.

\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
 Row  &               &          &     &        &    &         &     &        &  &          &    \\
 \hline
1     &               & $L_0$    &     &        &    &         &     &        &  &         &     \\
2     &               & $L_0$    &     & $L_3$  &    &         &     &        &  &         &    \\
3     &               & $L_0$    &     &        &    & $L_4$   &     &        &  &         &     \\
$4$   &               & $L_0$    &     &        &    &         &     & $L_5$  &  &         &     \\
$5$   &               & $L_0$    &     & $L_3$  &    &         &     & $L_5$  &  &         &       \\
$6$   &               & $L_0$    &     &        &    &         &     &        &  &  $L_6$  &   \\
$7$   &               & $L_0$    &     & $L_3$  &    &         &     &        &  &  $L_6$  &     \\
$8$   &               & $L_0$    &     &        &    & $L_4$   &     &        &  &  $L_6$  &
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\begin{center}
Table 1. The partitions of the positive integers having $L_0$ as their smallest summand.
\end{center}

\begin{lem}\label{l1}
For $j\ge 3$, the rows of Table 1 for which $L_{j}$ is the largest summand are those numbered from $F_{j-1}+1$ to $F_{j}$ inclusive.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
We prove by induction. \textit{Base cases:} it is easy to check that the statement of the lemma is true for $j = 3$ and $j = 4$. \textit{Inductive hypothesis:} assume that it is true for all $j$ such that $3\le j\le m$ for some $m\ge 4$. By the inductive hypothesis, the number of rows such that their largest summands are no greater than $L_{m-1}$ is
$$1+\sum_{j=3}^{m-1}(F_{j} - F_{j-1}) \ =\ F_{m-1},$$
which is also the number of rows whose largest summand is $L_{m+1}$. Due to the inductive hypothesis, the rows whose largest summand is $L_m$ are numbered from $F_{m-1}+1$ to $F_{m}$ inclusive. Therefore, the rows whose largest summand is $L_{m+1}$ are numbered from $F_{m}+1$ to $F_{m+1}$, as desired. This completes our proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{k1}
For $j\ge 1$, we have
$$q_k(j+1)-q_k(j) \ =\ \begin{cases}L_{2}, & \mbox{ if }A \mbox{ is the }j\mbox{th character of }S,\\
L_{3}, &\mbox{ if }B \mbox{ is the }j\mbox{th character of }S.\end{cases}$$
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
We prove by induction. \textit{Base cases:} it is easy to check that the statement of the lemma is true for $1\le j\le F_4-1$. \textit{Inductive hypothesis:} suppose that it is true for $1\le j\le F_m-1$ for some $m\ge 4$. By Lemma \ref{l1}, the number of rows in Table 1 whose largest summand is no greater than $L_{m-1}$ is
$$1+ \sum_{j=3}^{m-1}(F_{j} - F_{j-1}) \ =\ F_{m-1},$$
which is also the number of rows whose largest summand is $L_{m+1}$. Furthermore, the rows for which $L_{m+1}$ is the largest summand are numbered from $F_{m}+1$ to $F_{m+1}$ inclusive. Therefore, the ordering of the rows in Table 1 implies that
$q_k(i+F_{m})\ =\ q_k(i) + L_{m+1}$,
for $1\le i\le F_{m-1}$. Hence, for $1\le i\le F_{m-1}-1$, we have
\begin{align*}
    q_k(i+1+F_{m}) - q_k(i+F_{m}) &\ =\ (q_k(i+1) + L_{m+1})-(q_k(i) + L_{m+1})\ =\ q_k(i+1) - q_k(i).
\end{align*}
By the construction of $S$, the substring comprising of its first $F_{m-1}$ characters is identical to the substring of its characters numbered from $F_{m}+1$ to $F_{m+1}$ inclusive. Thus the lemma is true for $F_{m}+1\le j\le F_{m+1}-1$. It remains to show that it is true for $j = F_{m}$. We have
\begin{align*}
    q_k(F_m+1) - q_k(F_m) \ =\begin{cases}\ L_{m+1} - (L_{m}+L_{m-2} + \cdots + L_4) \ =\ L_3,&\mbox{ if }m\mbox{ is even,}\\
    L_{m+1} - (L_m + L_{m-2} + \cdots + L_3)\ =\ L_2,&\mbox{ if }m\mbox{ is odd.}\end{cases}
\end{align*}
By Remark \ref{r1} item (1), we know that the lemma is true for $j = F_{m}$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}

\subsection{When $k\ge 1$}

Table 2 replaces each term $q_k(j)$ in $\mathcal{Q}_k$ with an ordered list of the summands in its partition.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
 Row  &               &          &     &        &    &         &     &        &  &          &    \\
 \hline
1     &               & $L_k$    &     &        &    &         &     &        &  &         &     \\
2     &               & $L_k$    &     & $L_{k+2}$  &    &         &     &        &  &         &    \\
3     &               & $L_k$    &     &        &    & $L_{k+3}$   &     &        &  &         &     \\
$4$   &               & $L_k$    &     &        &    &         &     & $L_{k+4}$  &  &         &     \\
$5$   &               & $L_k$    &     & $L_{k+2}$  &    &         &     & $L_{k+4}$  &  &         &       \\
$6$   &               & $L_k$    &     &        &    &         &     &        &  &  $L_{k+5}$  &   \\
$7$   &               & $L_k$    &     & $L_{k+2}$  &    &         &     &        &  &  $L_{k+5}$  &     \\
$8$   &               & $L_k$    &     &        &    & $L_{k+3}$   &     &        &  &  $L_{k+5}$  &
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
Table 2. The partitions of the positive integers having $L_k$ as their smallest summand.
\end{center}

Table 2 is similar to Table 1 in \cite{MG1}. The next lemma follows from \cite[Lemma 3.1]{MG1}.

\begin{lem}\label{l2}
For $j\ge 2$, the rows of Table 2 for which $L_{k+j}$ is the largest summand are those numbered from $F_{j}+1$ to $F_{j+1}$ inclusive.
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}
For $j\ge 1$, we have
$$q_k(j+1)-q_k(j) \ =\ \begin{cases}L_{k+1}, & \mbox{ if }A \mbox{ is the }j\mbox{th character of }S,\\
L_{k+2}, &\mbox{ if }B \mbox{ is the }j\mbox{th character of }S.\end{cases}$$
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
We prove by induction. \textit{Base cases:} it is easy to check that the statement of the lemma is true for $j$ such that $1\le j\le F_4-1$. \textit{Inductive hypothesis:} assume that it is true for $1\le j\le F_m-1$ for some $m\ge 4$. From Lemma \ref{l2}, the first $F_{m-1}$ rows of Table 2 are those for which the largest summand is no greater than $L_{k+m-2}$. Also, the rows for which $L_{k+m}$ is the largest summand are those numbered from $F_m+1$ to $F_{m+1}$ inclusive. Therefore, the ordering of the rows implies that
$q_k(i+F_m) \ =\ q_k(i) + L_{k+m}$,
for $i = 1, 2, \ldots, F_{m-1}$. Hence, for $i = 1, 2, \ldots, F_{m-1}-1$, we have
\begin{align*}
    q_k(i+1+F_m) - q_k(i+F_m) &\ =\ (q_k(i+1)+L_{k+m}) - (q_k(i) + L_{k+m})\ =\ q_k(i+1) - q_k(i).
\end{align*}
By the construction of $S$, the substring comprising its first $F_{m-1}$ characters is identical to the substring of its characters numbered from $F_m+1$ to $F_{m+1}$ inclusive. Thus, the lemma is true for $F_m+1\le j\le F_{m+1}-1$. It remains to show that the lemma is true for $j = F_m$. We have
\begin{align*}
    q_k(F_m+1) - q_k(F_m)\ =\begin{cases}\ L_{k+m} - (L_{k+m-1}+L_{k+m-3} + \cdots + L_{k+3}) \ =\ L_{k+2},&\mbox{ if }m\mbox{ is even,}\\
   L_{k+m} - (L_{k+m-1}+L_{k+m-3} + \cdots + L_{k+2})\ =\ L_{k+1},&\mbox{ if }m\mbox{ is odd.}\end{cases}
\end{align*}
By Remark \ref{r1} item (1), we know that the lemma is true for $j = F_{m}$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}

We are ready to prove Theorem \ref{m2}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{m2}] We consider three cases.
\mbox{ }\newline

Case 1: $k = 0$. By Lemma \ref{k1}, we have $\mathcal{X}_0 \ =\ \{2+a(n)L_2 + b(n)L_3: n\ge 0\}$, where $a(n)$ and $b(n)$ denote the number of $A$'s and $B$'s, respectively, amongst the first $n$ characters in the golden string. Using Remark \ref{r1} item (2), we have
\begin{align*}
    \mathcal{X}_0 &\ =\ \left\{2+3\left(n-\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\right)+4\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\, :\, n\ge 0\right\}\ =\ \left\{2+3n+\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\,:\, n\ge 0\right\}.
\end{align*}
It is clear that $Z(0) = \mathcal{X}_0$; hence, the statement of the lemma is true when $k = 0$.
\mbox{ }\newline

Case 2: $k = 1$. Using a similar reasoning as above, we have
\begin{align*}
    \mathcal{X}_1 &\ =\ \left\{1+L_2\left(n-\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\right)+L_3\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\, :\, n\ge 0\right\}\\
    &\ =\ \left\{1+3\left(n-\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\right)+4\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\, :\, n\ge 0\right\}\ =\ \left\{3n+\left\lfloor \frac{n+\Phi^2}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\, :\, n\ge 0\right\}.
\end{align*}
It is clear that $Z(1) = \mathcal{X}_1$; hence, the statement of the lemma is true when $k = 1$.
\mbox{ }\newline

Case 3: $k\ge 2$. Using a similar reasoning as above, we have
\begin{align*}
    \mathcal{X}_k &\ =\ \left\{L_k+L_{k+1}\left(n-\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\right)+L_{k+2}\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\, :\, n\ge 0\right\}\\
    &\ =\ \left\{L_k\left(1+\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{\Phi}\right\rfloor\right)+nL_{k+1}\, :\, n\ge 0\right\}\ =\ \left\{L_k\left\lfloor \frac{n+\Phi^2}{\Phi}\right\rfloor+nL_{k+1}\, :\, n\ge 0\right\}.
\end{align*}
If $k\ge 3$, the numbers in $\{L_0, L_1, \ldots, L_{k-2}\}$ are used to obtain the partitions of all integers for which the largest summand is no greater than $L_{k-2}$. In particular, such partitions generate all integers from $1$ to $L_{k-1}-1$ inclusive. Furthermore, such partitions can be appended to any partition having $L_k$ as its smallest summand to produce another partition. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
    Z(k) \ =\ \left\{L_k\left\lfloor \frac{n+\Phi^2}{\Phi}\right\rfloor+nL_{k+1} + j\, :\, n\ge 0\mbox{ and } 0\le j\le L_{k-1}-1\right\},
\end{align*}
as desired. It is easy to check that this formula is also true for $k = 2$.
\end{proof}

\section{Proportion of Nonunique Partitions}
Let $c(N)$ count the number of numbers that are not uniquely represented in the Lucas sequence and are at most $N$. We want to show that $\displaystyle\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\frac{c(N)}{N} = \frac{1}{1+3\Phi}$, where $\Phi = (1+\sqrt{5})/2$ is the golden ratio. Note that \cite[Lemma 3]{B2} says we can make the Lucas partition unique by requiring that not both $L_0$ and $L_2$ appear in the partition. Therefore, if a number has two partitions, then one of the partition starts with $L_0+L_2$. If we can characterize all of these numbers and find a formula for $c(N)$ in terms of $N$, we are done. Call the set of these numbers $K$. We form the following table listing all of such numbers in increasing order. Let $q_k(j)$ be the $jth$ smallest number in $K$.

\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
 Row  &               &          &     &        &    &         &     &        &  &          &    \\
 \hline
1     &               & $L_0+L_2$    &     &        &    &         &     &        &  &         &     \\
2     &               & $L_0+L_2$    &     & $L_4$  &    &         &     &        &  &         &    \\
3     &               & $L_0+L_2$    &     &        &    & $L_5$   &     &        &  &         &     \\
$4$   &               & $L_0+L_2$    &     &        &    &         &     & $L_6$  &  &         &     \\
$5$   &               & $L_0+L_2$    &     & $L_4$  &    &         &     & $L_6$  &  &         &       \\
$6$   &               & $L_0+L_2$    &     &        &    &         &     &        &  &  $L_7$  &   \\
$7$   &               & $L_0+L_2$    &     & $L_4$  &    &         &     &        &  &  $L_7$  &     \\
$8$   &               & $L_0+L_2$    &     &        &    & $L_5$   &     &        &  &  $L_7$  &
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\begin{center}
Table 3. The partitions of the positive integers having $L_0$ and $L_2$ as their smallest summands.
\end{center}

Observe that Table 3 has the same structure as Table 1. Therefore, Lemma \ref{k1} applies with a change of index. In particular, we have the following.

\begin{lem}\label{k2}
For $j\ge 1$, we have
$$q_k(j+1)-q_k(j) \ =\ \begin{cases}L_{3}, & \mbox{ if }A \mbox{ is the }j\mbox{th character of }S,\\
L_{4}, &\mbox{ if }B \mbox{ is the }j\mbox{th character of }S.\end{cases}$$
\end{lem}
Therefore, we can write
$$K \ =\ \{L_0+L_2 + a(n)L_3 + b(n)L_4: n\ge 0\},$$
where $a(n)$ and $b(n)$ denote the number of $A$'s and $B$'s, respectively, amongst the first $n$ characters in the golden string. Hence,
\begin{align*}K &\ =\ \{5 + 4(n-\floor{(n+1)/\Phi})+7\floor{(n+1)/\Phi}\,:\, n\ge 0\}\ =\ \{5+4n+3\floor{(n+1)/\Phi}\,:\, n\ge 0\}.\end{align*}

Now, we are ready to compute the limit.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{m3}]The number of integers with two partitions up to a number $N$ is exactly
$\#\{n\ge 0\,|\, 5+4n+3\floor{(n+1)/\Phi}\le N\}$.
The number is found to be $\frac{N-1}{4+3/\Phi}$ within an error of at most $1$. Therefore, as claimed, the limit is
$$\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{N}\frac{N-1}{4+3/\Phi}\ =\ \frac{1}{4+3/\Phi} \ =\ \frac{1}{1+3\Phi}.$$
\end{proof}

Among the first $N$ natural numbers, we see how $\alpha = \frac{1}{3\Phi + 1} \approx 0.17082$ estimates the proportion of natural numbers within this range that do not have unique non-consecutive partitions in the Lucas sequence.~The data we collect is shown in Table 4.
\begin{center}
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
    \hline
      N & $c\left(N \right)$ & $\beta\left(N\right)$ \\
      \hline
      10 & 1 & 10.000 \% \\ \hline
      100 & 17 & 17.000\% \\ \hline
      1,000 & 171 & 17.100\% \\ \hline
      10,000 & 1,708 & 17.080\% \\ \hline
      $10^5$ & 17,082 & 17.082\%\\ \hline
      $10^6$ & 170,820 & 17.082\%\\ \hline
    \end{tabular}
\end{center}

\begin{center}
Table 4. Proportion $\beta\left(N\right)$ of the first $N$ natural numbers that do not have unique non-consecutive partitions in the Lucas sequence.
\end{center}