Received 9 September 2015; accepted 3 April 2016; published 6 April 2016

1. Introduction
Let G be a graph with vertex set V and edge set E. A subset I of V is independent if no two vertices in I are adjacent. A subset S of V is a dominating set if every vertex in
is adjacent to at least one vertex in S. We define a coloring C of G with k colors to be a partition of V into k independent sets:

such that

and
is independent for
. The minimum of k for which such a partition is possible is the chromatic number of G, denoted
. The dominating-c-color number of G is motivated by a two-stage optimization problem. First, we partition the vertex set of G into the minimum number of independent sets; secondly, we maximize the independent sets that are also dominating in G. Clearly, the number of independent sets we use in the first stage will be
, the chromatic number of G. Among all colorings of G using
colors, the maximum number of independent sets that are also dominating is defined to be the dominating- c-color number of G, denoted by
. Formally, we have
![]()
The dominating-c-color number of G was first introduced in [2] . More research has been done in this area since then (see for example [1] [3] [4] ). However, the two interesting questions posed in [1] and [2] remain unanswered. In this article, we present some more results about the dominating-c-color number of a graph that are relevant to these two questions.
2. Main Results
The following observation was made in [2] .
Theorem 1 For all graph G, ![]()
The following two questions are posed in [1] and [2] .
Question 1. Characterize the graphs G for which ![]()
Question 2. Characterize the graphs G for which ![]()
Neither of the two extreme cases is trivial. It is known that if G has an isolated vertex, then
. However, a graph G with
can be connected and have arbitrarily large minimum degree.
Theorem 2. [1] For every integer
there exists a connected graph G with
and ![]()
The following lemma may help us understand the relation between the structure of a graph and its dominating-c-color number. It shows that if a graph G contains a complete bipartite graph as a spanning subgraph, then the dominating-c-color number of G is the sum of the dominating-c-color numbers of these two subgraphs.
Lemma 1. If
can be partitioned into two sets
and
such that every vertex in
is adjacent to every vertex in
, then
where
is the subgraph of G induced by
for
.
Proof. Since in any coloring of G, no vertex in
can share a color with a vertex in
, we have
. Let
and
. Let
be a
-coloring of
with
dominating coloring classes using the colors
. Let
be a
-coloring of
with
dominating coloring classes using the colors
. The combination of
and
is clearly a
-coloring of G. A coloring class of C is either a coloring class of
or a coloring class of
. Suppose that S is a coloring class of
that dominates
. Every vertex in
is adjacent to at least one vertex in S. Every vertex in
is adjacent to every vertex in
. Therefore S is a dominating set in G. Similarly, every coloring class of
that dominates
is a dominating set in G. C is a coloring of G with at least
coloring classes. We have ![]()
Suppose that
is a coloring of G with
colors and
dominating coloring classes. The restriction of
to
is a coloring of
with
colors for
. Let S be a dominating coloring class of
.
or
. Suppose that
. Then S is a dominating set for
. Therefore, every dominating coloring class of
is either a dominating coloring class of
or a dominating coloring class of
. Therefore ![]()
Using Lemma 1, we have a sufficient condition for the dominating-c-color number of a graph to be greater than one.
Corollary 1. If the complement of G is disconnected, then
.
The join of two graphs
and
, denoted by
, is defined by
![]()
![]()
In other words, we construct
by taking a copy of each of
and
and joining every vertex in
with every vertex in
. It is known that
By Lemma 1, there is a similar relation between the dominating-c-color numbers.
Theorem 3. ![]()
It is shown in [1] that it is possible for a graph with chromatic number k to have dominating-c-color number l for any k such that
and
. We present a new construction to prove this result using Theorem 3.
Theorem 4. For all integers
such that
and
there exists a connected graph G with
and
.
Proof. We prove by induction on l. If
, the existence of such graphs is guaranteed by Theorem 2. For
it is easy to check that
and
Therefore the theorem is true for
. Suppose that
and
Let
and
By inductive hypothesis, there is a connected graph H with
and
. Let
Since
, by Theorem 3 we have
![]()
and
![]()
This proves the theorem.
Next we turn our attention to Question 2. Arumugam et al. [2] showed that if G is uniquely c-colorable, then
. Therefore if G contains a subgraph that is uniquely
-colorable, then
. It is natural to ask whether there are any other kind of such graph, that is, whether there are any graph G such that
and G does not contain a uniquely k-colorable subgraph. For
, the answer is no since every edge is a uniquely 2-colorable subgraph. For
, the answer is yes. Arumugam et al. [1] showed that
for any nonnegative integer i.
was not uniquely 3-colorable for
. Using this fact and Theorem 3, we can show that the answer of our question is yes for all
.
First, we need a technical lemma.
Lemma 2. The graph
is uniquely
-colorable if and only if
is uniquely
-colorable and
is uniquely
-colorable.
The proof is easy and omitted.
Theorem 5. Let k be an integer greater than 3. There is a graph
such that
and
do not contain a uniquely k-colorable subgraph.
Proof. We prove by induction on k. We have shown that the statement is true for
. Suppose that
and the statement is true for
. Let
Since
by Theorem 3 and the inductive hypothesis. Every k-chromatic subgraph H of
must have the form
where
is a subgraph of
. By Lemma 2, H is uniquely k-colorable if and only if
is uniquely
-colorable. Since
does not contain a uniquely
- colorable subgraph,
does not contain any uniquely k-colorable subgraph. This proves the theorem.
The graphs constructed in Theorem 5 contain large cliques. In fact,
contains many copies of
. If
for some integers l and j, we may reduce the size of the largest clique in
by taking the join of copies of
in the first l steps and then taking the join with
afterwards. Thus, we have the following result.
Theorem 6. Let
be nonnegative integers and
. There is a graph
such that
.
does not contain a uniquely k-colorable subgraph and the largest clique in
has size
.
3. Remarks
It is well known that there are uniquely k-colorable graphs with arbitrarily large girth. Therefore, there are graphs G such that
and G has arbitrarily large girth. In light of Theorems 5 and 6, we would like to ask the following question.
Question 3. Are there triangle-free graphs G such that
and does G not contain a uniquely k-colorable graph? Furthermore, are there such graphs with arbitrarily large girth?