Total Domination Value in Graphs

Abstract: A set $D \subseteq V(G)$ is a \emph{total dominating set} of $G$ if for every vertex $v \in V(G)$ there exists a vertex $u \in D$ such that $u$ and $v$ are adjacent. A total dominating set of $G$ of minimum cardinality is called a $\gamma_t(G)$-set. For each vertex $v \in V(G)$, we define the \emph{total domination value} of $v$, $TDV(v)$, to be the number of $\gamma_t(G)$-sets to which $v$belongs. This definition gives rise to \emph{a local study of total domination} in graphs. In this paper, we study some basic properties of the $TDV$ function; also, we derive explicit formulas for the $TDV$ of any complete n-partite graph, any cycle, and any path.

\section{Introduction}

Let $G = (V(G),E(G))$ be a simple, undirected, and nontrivial graph without isolated vertices. For $S \subseteq V(G)$, we denote
by $<\!S\!>$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $S$. A set $D \subseteq V(G)$ is a \emph{total dominating set} (TDS) of
$G$ if for any $v \in V(G)$ there exists a $u \in
D$ such that $uv\in E(G)$. The \emph{total domination
number} of $G$, denoted by $\gamma_t(G)$, is the minimum
cardinality of a TDS in $G$; a TDS of $G$ of minimum
cardinality is called a $\gamma_t(G)$-set. The notion of total domination in
graphs was introduced by Cockayne et al.~\cite{EJ}. For a survey of total domination in graphs, see \cite{Henning}. For other
concepts in domination, refer to \cite{Dom1}. We generally follow \cite{CZ} for notation and graph theory terminology.\\

For each vertex $v \in V(G)$, we define the \emph{total domination value} of $v$, denoted by $TDV_{G}(v)$, to be the number of
$\gamma_t(G)$-sets to which $v$ belongs; we often drop $G$ when ambiguity is not a concern. We also define $\tau(G)$ to be the total number of
$\gamma_t(G)$-sets. Clearly, $0 \le TDV_G(v) \le \tau(G)$ for any $G$ and any $v\in G$. This definition gives rise to \emph{a local study of total domination} in graphs which is as natural as the notion of total domination itself, starting with the motivating problem of the five queens, as described by Cockayne et al.\,in~\cite{EJ}. A casual chess player is aware that it is important to control the center squares of the chessboard -- particularly
in the initial and middle phases of the game: thus, in a certain sense, center squares have greater (total) domination value; we'll take a look at a couple of ``miniature chess boards" at the end of next section. In any real-world situation which can be modeled by a graph and where (total) domination is of interest, the particular locations commanding high (total) domination values -- strategic high grounds,
if you will -- are obviously important. Though over a thousand papers have already been published on a
plethora of domination topics as of the late 1990's (see p.1 of~\cite{Henning}), a systematic local study of (total) domination is either new or not
well-known. However, in \cite{tdv}, Cockayne, Henning, and Mynhardt characterized the vertices in trees which attain extremal total domination values. In this paper, we study some basic properties of the $TDV$ function; we also derive explicit formulas for the $TDV$ of any complete n-partite graph, any cycle, and any path. For an analogous discussion on the $DV$ (\emph{domination value}) function, see~\cite{Yi}.\\

\section{Basic properties of $TDV$: upper and lower bounds}

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} of $v$ is the set $N[v]=N(v) \cup
\{v\}$. In this section, we consider the lower and upper bounds of
the $TDV$ function for a fixed vertex $v_0$ and for
$v \in N[v_0]$. If equality is obtained for a graph of some order in an inequality (the bound), we will say the bound is sharp.
We first make the following\\

\begin{Obs}\label{observation}
$\displaystyle \sum_{v \in V(G)} TDV_G(v) = \tau(G) \cdot
\gamma_t(G)$
\end{Obs}

To see this, list the vertices of each $\gamma_t(G)$-set in a row
--- forming a table with $\tau$ rows. $TDV(v)$ is the number of
appearances (possibly zero) the vertex $v$ makes in the table of
size $\tau$ by $\gamma_t(G)$.  \hfill \\

\begin{Obs}\label{isom invariant}
If there is an isomorphism of graphs carrying a vertex $v$ in $G$
to a vertex $v'$ in $G'$, then $TDV_{G}(v)=TDV_{G'}(v')$.
\end{Obs}

The $TDV$ function is obviously invariant under isomorphism. Many basic types of graphs, such as cycles and paths, admit obvious automorphisms. \\

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

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

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

For sharpness of the lower bound, take $v_0$ to be an end-vertex
of a path on 4 vertices. More generally, we can take $v_0$ to be
an end-vertex of a path on $4k$ vertices (see Theorem~\ref{theorem on paths} and Corollary~\ref{path
on 4k}). For sharpness of the upper bound, take as $v_0$ the
central vertex of a star. \hfill
\end{proof}

Remark: In fact, both the lower and upper bounds of Proposition \ref{upperbound1}
are achieved for a graph of order $n$ for any $n\geq 4$. Let $G_4$ be a path on $4$ vertices,
and we construct $G_n$ for $n\geq 5$ from $G_4$ by taking one support vertex $u$ of $G_4$,
$n-4$ new vertices, and draw one edge from $u$ to each of the $n-4$ new vertices.
For sharpness of the lower bound, take as $v_0$ any end-vertex. For sharpness of the upper bound, take as $v_0$ any support vertex.  \\

\begin{Obs}
If $s$ is a support vertex of $G$, then $\sum_{v \in N[s]} TDV(v) \ge 2 \tau(G)$,
since each $\gamma_t$-set must contain every support vertex $s$ and a neighbor of $s$.
More generally, the bound holds for any vertex $v$ for which $TDV(v)=\tau$.
\end{Obs}

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

\begin{proof}
For each $v\in N[v_0]$, $TDV(v)\leq \tau(G)$, and the number of vertices in $N[v_0]$ equals $1+ \deg_{G}(v_0)$. Thus,\\
$$\sum_{v\in N[v_0]}TDV(v) \leq \sum_{v\in N[v_0]}\tau(G)=\tau(G)\!\!\!\sum_{v\in N[v_0]}1=\tau(G)(1+ \deg_{G}(v_0)).$$ \\
The upper bound is achieved for a graph of order $n$ for any $n\geq 5$. Let $G_5$ be a path on $5$ vertices,
and we construct $G_n$ for $n\geq 6$ from $G_5$ by taking one support vertex $u$ of $G_5$, $n-5$ new vertices,
and draw one edge from $u$ to each of the $n-5$ new vertices. To see the sharpness of the upper bound,
take as $v_0$ the vertex of degree two, which is the common neighbor of support vertices. \hfill
\end{proof}

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

We look at examples which compare the upper bounds of Proposition
\ref{upperbound1} and Proposition \ref{upperbound2}.
Let $v_0$ be the vertex of degree $3$ in graph (A) of Figure \ref{figure1}.
Then $\sum_{v \in N[v_0]} TDV(v)=6$. Note that $\tau =3$,
$\gamma_t =2$, and $\deg(v_0)=3$. Proposition \ref{upperbound1} yields the upper bound $\tau \cdot \gamma_t =3\cdot 2=6$,
which is sharp. But, the upper bound provided by Proposition \ref{upperbound2}
is $\tau (1+\deg(v_0))=3 \cdot (1+3)=12$, which is not sharp in this case. \\

Now, let $v_0$ be the vertex of degree $3$ and adjacent to
three support vertices, as labeled in graph (B) of Figure \ref{figure1}. Then $\sum_{v \in N[v_0]} TDV(v)=8$. Note that
$\tau =2$, $\gamma_t =6$, and $\deg(v_0)=3$. Proposition \ref{upperbound2} yields
the upper bound $\tau (1+ \deg(v_0))=2 \cdot (1+3)=8$, which is sharp.
But, the upper bound provided by Proposition \ref{upperbound1} is $\tau \cdot \gamma_t =2 \cdot 6=12$, which is not sharp in this case. \\

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

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

Next, recall the following

\begin{Thm}(\cite{EJ}) \label{ej1}
If $G$ is a connected graph with $n \ge 3$ vertices, then
$\gamma_t(G) \le \frac{2n}{3}$.
\end{Thm}

\begin{Crlr} \label{up1}
If $G$ is a connected graph with $n \ge 3$ vertices, then
$$1 \le \tau(G) \le {n\choose \lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor}$$
where ${n\choose i}$ is the binomial coefficient. Both bounds are
sharp.
\end{Crlr}

\begin{proof}
Notice that $\tau(G) \ge 1$. We will show the upper bound. Since
$\frac{2n}{3} \ge \lfloor \frac {n}{2} \rfloor$, by Theorem \ref{ej1}, we have
$$\tau(G) \le \max \left\{{n\choose 2}, {n\choose 3}, \cdots, {n\choose\lfloor\frac{2n}{3}\rfloor}\right\}
\le {n\choose \lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor},$$

\noindent where the last inequality easily follows from, say, the
``Pascal's triangle". For sharpness of the lower bound, consider a path on $4k$ vertices or
an extended star (obtained from a star with at least three vertices by joining a path of length one
to each end-vertex of the star).
For sharpness of the upper bound, one may take $G$ to be $K_3$, $K_4$, or $K_5$ --
complete graphs on $3$, $4$, or $5$ vertices, respectively. (Notice that the upper bound is not achieved for any other graph.) \hfill
\end{proof}

Let $\Delta(G)$ denote the maximum degree of $G$, and $\bar{G}$ the complement of $G$. We recall
\begin{Thm} (\cite{EJ}) \label{G, Gc}
If $G$ has $n$ vertices, no isolates, and $\Delta(G)
< n-1$, then $\gamma_t(G)+\gamma_t(\bar{G}) \le n+2$, with
equality if and only if $G$ or $\bar{G}=mK_2$.
\end{Thm}

\begin{Prop}
Let $G$ be a graph on $n=2m \ge 4$ vertices. If $G$ or $\bar{G}$
is $mK_2$, then $$TDV_G(v)+TDV_{\bar{G}}(v)=n-1.$$
\end{Prop}

\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, assume $G=mK_2$ and label the vertices of $G$ by $1,\ldots,2m$. Further assume that the vertex $2k-1$ is
adjacent to the vertex $2k$, where $1 \le k \le m$. Clearly, $\tau (G)=1=TDV_G(v)$ for any $v\in V(G)$. \\

Now, consider $\bar{G}$ and the vertex labeled $1$ for ease of
notation. It's obvious that $\gamma_t(\bar{G})=2$, and $\{1,
\alpha\}$ as $\alpha$ ranges from $3$ to $2m$ enumerates all total
dominating sets containing the vertex $1$. Thus
$TDV_{\bar{G}}(1)=2m-2=n-2$. By relabeling the vertices, we see
that $TDV_{\bar{G}}(v)=n-2$ holds for any $v \in V(\bar{G})$.
Therefore, $TDV_G(v)+TDV_{\bar{G}}(v)=n-1$. \hfill
\end{proof}

\begin{Lem} \label{gamma-t 2}
For any graph $G$ with $\gamma_t(G)=2$, $TDV(v) \leq \deg(v)$ for any $v\in V(G)$.
\end{Lem}

\begin{proof}
For each $\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma$ containing $v$, the other member of $\Gamma$ must be a vertex in $N(v)$, and $|N(v)|=\deg(v)$. \hfill
\end{proof}

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

\begin{proof}
If $\deg(v)=n-1$, then $\gamma_t=2$; this is because $\{v, w\}$, where $w \in N(v)$, is a $\gamma_t$-set.
Then Lemma \ref{gamma-t 2} gives $TDV(v) \le n-1$ for any $v \in V(G)$. The last assertion is clear.
\end{proof}

At this juncture, we should state that the seminal paper~\cite{EJ} by Cockayne et al. already contains the following

\begin{Thm}(\cite{EJ})
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $G$ has $n$ vertices and no isolates, then $\gamma_t(G) \le n-\Delta(G)+1$.
\item[(ii)] If $G$ is connected and $\Delta(G) < n-1$, then $\gamma_t(G) \le n-\Delta(G)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Thm}

Our present focus is on total domination value; the need for coherence and being (by and large)
self-contained renders unavoidable some duplication of results in~\cite{EJ}.

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

\begin{proof}
Let $\deg(v)=n-2$, so there's only one vertex $w$ such that $vw \notin E(G)$. Since $G$ is without isolated vertices and $\Delta(G)=n-2$ (and thus connected), $w$ is adjacent to at least one of the
vertices, say $z$, in $N(v)$. Clearly, $\{v, z\}$ is a $\gamma_t$-set; so $\gamma_t=2$.
Noticing $N(v)\cap N(w)=N(w)$, we see that the number of $\gamma_t$-sets containing $v$ is $|N(w)|$;
i.e., $TDV(v)=|N(w)|$. Also, Lemma \ref{gamma-t 2} implies that $TDV(v) \leq \deg(v) \leq n-2$ for any $v \in V(G)$. \hfill
\end{proof}

\begin{Prop}\label{tau gamma-t 2}
If $G$ has order $n$ with $\gamma_t(G)=2$ and $\Delta(G) \le n-2$,
then $\displaystyle \tau(G) \le {n\choose 2} - \left\lceil \frac{n}{2} \right\rceil$. This bound is sharp.
\end{Prop}

\begin{proof}
Since $\gamma_t(G)=2$, choosing a $\gamma_t(G)$-set is the same as choosing an edge of $G$. Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{tau}
\tau(G) \le {n\choose 2}-|E(\overline{G})|
\end{equation}
But $\displaystyle |E(\overline{G})| \ge \left\lceil\frac{n}{2}\right\rceil$:
Consider the minimum number of edges to delete from $K_n$ to get to $G$.
The deletion of one edge reduces the degree by one to a pair of vertices. To
ensure $\Delta(G) \le n-2$, a minimum of $\frac{n}{2}$ edge deletions
must be made if $n$ is even, and a minimum of
$\frac{n-1}{2}+1=\frac{n+1}{2}$ edge deletions must be made if $n$
is odd. Thus, by inequality~(\ref{tau}), $\tau(G) \le {n\choose 2} - \lceil
\frac{n}{2} \rceil$. \\

To see the sharpness of this bound, let $G$ be the $(n-2)$-regular graph for any even $n \ge 4$.
Each vertex $v\in V(G)$ may be paired with any $w\in N(v)$ to form a $\gamma_t(G)$-set,
since any $u\notin\{v,w\}$ is adjacent to either $v$ or $w$. Thus $TDV(v)=\deg(v)=n-2$.
Observation \ref{observation} gives $n(n-2)=2\tau(G)$; i.e., $\tau(G)=\frac{n(n-2)}{2}$,
which equals ${n\choose 2} - \left\lceil \frac{n}{2} \right\rceil$. \hfill
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{tdv_fig2.pstex_t}} \caption{Example showing the sharpness
of the upper bound for Proposition \ref{tau gamma-t 2} when $n=6$}\label{figure2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{Thm}\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 $\deg(v)= \Delta(G)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] If $G$ is disconnected, then $\gamma_t(G)=4$ and $TDV(v)=n-3$.
\item [(ii)] If $G$ is connected, then $\gamma_t(G)=2$ with $TDV(v) \le n-3$ or $\gamma_t(G)=3$ with $TDV(v)
\le (\frac{n-3}{2})^2+2(n-4)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Thm}

\begin{proof}
Since $\deg(v)=n-3$, 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{tdv_fig3.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 $N[v]$:} Since $G$ has no isolates, $\alpha \beta \in
E(G)$ (see (A) of Figure \ref{max1}). Let $G^{\prime}=<\!V(G)-
\{\alpha, \beta\}\!>$. Then $\deg_{G'}(v)=n-3$ with
$|V(G^{\prime})|=n-2$.
By Proposition~\ref{degree n-1}, $\gamma_t(G')=2$ and $TDV_{G'}(v)=n-3$; Observation \ref{observation2}, with $\gamma_t(<\!\{\alpha,\beta\}\!>)=2$ and $\tau(<\!\{\alpha,\beta\}\!>)=1$, yields $\gamma_t(G)=4$ and $TDV_G(v)=n-3$.\\

\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, say $x_0$, in $N(v)$. Since $G$
has no isolates, $\alpha \beta \in E(G)$ and $\alpha$ is a support
vertex of $G$. (See (B) of Figure \ref{max1}.) Thus $\alpha$
belongs to every $\gamma_t(G)$-set. First suppose $\gamma_t(G)=2$.
Then there exists a common neighbor of $v$ and
$\alpha$, say $w$, such that $\{\alpha, w\}$ is a $\gamma_t(G)$-set. Since $\alpha$ is a
support vertex of $G$ (i.e., $TDV(\alpha)=\tau(G)$) and $v \alpha
\not\in E(G)$, $TDV(v)=0$. Next consider $\gamma_t(G)>2$.
Since $\{v, x_0, \alpha\}$ is a $\gamma_t(G)$-set, $\gamma_t(G)=3$
and $TDV(v) =|N(v) \cap N(\alpha)| \le n-4$, where $n \ge 5$. (If $|N(v) \cap N(\alpha)|=n-3$,
then $\deg(\alpha)=n-2$ because $\beta \in N(\alpha)-N(v)$, contradicting the assumption that $\deg(v)=\Delta(G)=n-3$.)\\

\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
$\deg(v)=\Delta (G)$ (see (C) of Figure \ref{max1}). Since $\{v,
x\}$ is a $\gamma_t(G)$-set, $\gamma_t(G)=2$. By Lemma \ref{gamma-t 2}, $TDV(v) \le \deg(v) \le n-3$ for any $v \in V(G)$.\\

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{tdv_fig4.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 $\gamma_t(G)=2$. This is
possible when $\{x_0, y_0\}$ is a $\gamma_t(G)$-set satisfying
$x_0y_0 \in E(G)$ and $N(x_0) \cup N(y_0)=V(G)$. In this case, $n
\ge 7$. Notice that there's no $\gamma_t(G)$-set containing $v$
when $\gamma_t(G)=2$: no $u\in N(v)$ is adjacent to both $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
Thus $TDV(v)=0$. Second, assume
$\gamma_t(G)>2$. Since $\{v, x_0, y_0\}$ is a $\gamma_t(G)$-set,
$\gamma_t(G) =3$. Noticing that every $\gamma_t(G)$-set contains
a vertex in $N(\alpha)$ and a vertex in $N(\beta)$ and that $N(\alpha) \cap N(\beta) =\emptyset$, we see
$$TDV_G(v) = |N(\alpha)| \cdot |N(\beta)| \le
\left(\frac{|N(\alpha)|+|N(\beta)|}{2}\right)^2 \le
\left(\frac{n-3}{2}\right)^2,$$ where the first inequality is the
arithmetic-geometric mean inequality ($\frac{a+b}{2} \geq \sqrt{ab}$ for $a, b \geq 0$).

\emph{Subcase 4.2. $\alpha \beta \in E(G)$ (see (B) of Figure
\ref{max2}):} First assume $\gamma_t(G)=2$. This is
possible as in Subcase 4.1 or when $\{x_0, \alpha\}$ (resp. $\{y_0, \beta\}$) is a
$\gamma_t(G)$-set with $N(x_0) \cup N(\alpha)=V(G)$ (resp. $N(y_0)
\cup N(\beta)=V(G)$). In this case, $n \ge 6$. Notice that there's no $\gamma_t(G)$-set
containing $v$ with $\gamma_t(G)=2$, as in Subcase 4.1. Thus
$TDV_G(v)=0$. Second, consider $\gamma_t(G) > 2$. Since
$\{v, x_0, y_0\}$ is a $\gamma_t(G)$-set, $\gamma_t(G)=3$. The
number of \mbox{$\gamma_t(G)$-sets} containing $v$, but containing neither $\alpha$ nor $\beta$, is bounded above by
$(|N(\alpha)|-1)(|N(\beta)|-1) \le (\frac{n-3}{2})^2$ (by the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality).
The number of $\gamma_t(G)$-sets containing $v$ and $\alpha$ (resp. $\beta$) is bounded above
by $|N(\alpha)|-1 \le n-4$ (resp. $|N(\beta)|-1 \le n-4$). Thus $TDV(v) \le (\frac{n-3}{2})^2+2(n-4)$.
\end{proof}

Remark: From our proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem on Delta(G)=n-3} emerges a noteworthy fact
that one may have $TDV(v)=0$ even though $\deg_{G}(v)=\Delta(G)$: see graph in Figure~\ref{zeroTDV-max-deg}; also notice that the addition of the edge $\alpha \beta$ will not necessitate a change in its caption. See \cite{tdv} for a characterization of extremal $TDV$ values for trees.

\pagebreak

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{tdv_fig5.pstex_t}} \caption{$TDV(v)=0$, $\deg(v)=n-3$
is the unique maximum, and $\{x_0, y_0\}$ is the unique $\gamma_t$-set.}\label{zeroTDV-max-deg}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{tdv_fig6.pstex_t}} \caption{The graph
induced by the queen's movement on the $4 \times
4$ chess board.}\label{Queen4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Illustration: As promised in the introduction, let's consider the
queen's movement on (for simplicity) a $3\!\times\!3$
``chessboard" and (separately) on a $4\!\times\!4$ ``chessboard".
Let's assume that the queen can move, as usual, any number of
squares horizontally, vertically, or diagonally (so long as there
are no other chess pieces lying in its way). Figure~\ref{Queen4} shows the graph induced by the queen's
movement on the $4\!\times\!4$ chessboard: two vertices are adjacent if and only if the queen -- the lone chess
piece on board -- can go between the corresponding squares
(represented by vertices) in one move. Observe that $\gamma_t=2$ for both graphs. On the $3\!\times\!3$ chessboard (not shown),
the center square has $TDV=8$ and each of the eight squares on the
periphery has $TDV=4$. On the $4\!\times\!4$ chessboard, the four
center squares each has $TDV=3$ and each of the twelve squares on
the periphery has $TDV=1$. Checking the forgoing claims is a straightforward matter: Take the $4\!\times\!4$ chessboard, for example. It's easily seen that $\gamma_t=2$; it follows that $TDV(v)=|\{w\in N(v): V(G)=N(w)\cup N(v)\}|$. By symmetry, it suffices to check only the $TDV$ of three vertices. (One can draw just the vertices for simplicity; pick a vertex $v_0$ to consider, and then consider each vertex $w_i$ dominated by a queen at $v_0$. Then $\{v_0, w_i\}$ forms a $\gamma_t$-set if $N(v_0) \cup N(w_i)=V(G)$.)\\

\section{Total domination value in complete $n$-partite graphs}

For a \emph{complete} $n$-partite graph $G$ -- where $n\geq 2$,
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 $1\leq i \leq n$.

\begin{Prop}
Let $G$ be a complete $n$-partite graph with notation as specified above.
Then
$$\tau(G)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i\right)^2 - \sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i^2\right] \hskip .2in
\mbox{ and } \hskip .2in TDV(v)=\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i\right)-a_j \mbox{ if } v \in V_j.$$
\end{Prop}

\begin{proof}
Any two vertices from different partite sets form a
$\gamma_t(G)$-set, so $\gamma_t(G)=2$.
If $v \in V_j$, then $TDV(v)=\deg(v)=(\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i)-a_j$. By Observation \ref{observation}, we have the following

\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{v \in V(G)} TDV(v) = \tau(G)\gamma_{t}(G) \label{n-partite} \hskip .5in
\Longrightarrow \hskip .5in \sum_{j=1}^{n}\sum_{v\in V_j} TDV(v) =2 \tau(G), \\
\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(a_j\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i -a_{j}^{2}\right) =2\tau(G) \ \
\Longrightarrow \ \ \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 the formula claimed for $\tau(G)$ follows.\hfill
\end{proof}

\vspace{.2in}

If $a_i=1$ for each $i$, $1\leq i\leq n$, then $G=K_n$ is a complete graph.
\begin{Crlr}
If $G=K_n$, where $n \ge 2$, then $\tau(G)= {n \choose 2}$ and $TDV(v)=n-1$.
\end{Crlr}

If $n=2$, then $G=K_{a_1, a_2}$ is a complete bipartite graph.
\begin{Crlr}
If $G=K_{a_1, a_2}$, then $\tau(G)=a_1\!\!\cdot\!a_2$ and
\begin{equation*}
TDV(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*}
\end{Crlr}

\section{Total domination value in cycles}

Let $C_n$ be a cycle on $n$ vertices, labeled $1$ through $n$ consecutively in
counter-clockwise order. Observe that, by symmetry (or vertex-transitivity),
$TDV$ must be constant on the vertices of $C_n$ for each $n$. We denote by
$TDM(G)$ the collection of all $\gamma_t(G)$-sets. For $n \ge 3$, recall (p.368, \cite{CZ})
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_t(C_n) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\ \frac{n}{2} & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor +1 & \mbox{ otherwise .}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}

\noindent {\bf Examples.} (a) $\gamma_t(C_4)=2$,
$TDM(C_4)=\{\{1, 2\}, \{2, 3\}, \{3, 4\}, \{4, 1\}\}$;
so $\tau(C_4)=4$ and $TDV(i)=2$ for each $i \in V(C_4)$.\\

(b) $\gamma_t(C_5)=3$, $TDM(C_5)=\{\{1, 2, 3\}, \{2, 3,4\}, \{3, 4,5\}, \{4, 5, 1\}, \{5, 1, 2\}\}$;
so $\tau(C_5)=5$ and $TDV(i)=3$ for each $i \in V(C_5)$.\\

\begin{Thm}\label{theorem on cycles} Let $n \geq 3$, then
\begin{equation*}
\tau(C_n) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\ 4 & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
\ n & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 1, 3  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
(\frac{n}{2})^2 & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 2  \mbox{ (mod 4)}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{Thm}

\begin{proof}

First, let $n=4k$, where $k\geq 1$. Here $\gamma_t=2k$;
a $\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma$ comprises $k$ $P_2$'s and $\Gamma$
is fixed by the choice of the first $P_2$. There are exactly
two $\gamma_t$-sets containing the vertex $1$, namely
the $\gamma_t$-set containing the path $\{n,1\}$ and
the different $\gamma_t$-set containing the path $\{1,2\}$;
by symmetry, there must be two $\gamma_t$-sets omitting the vertex $1$;
thus $\tau=4$. (Alternatively, since $TDV(1)=2$ and $\sum_{1}^{4k} 2= 2k\tau$
-- observations~\ref{observation}~and~\ref{isom invariant}, we also have $\tau=4$.)\\

Second, let $n=4k+1$, where $k\geq 1$. Here $\gamma_t=2k+1$;
a $\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma$ comprises $(k-1)$ $P_2$'s and one $P_3$.
And $\Gamma$ is fixed by the choice of the single $P_3$.
Choosing a $P_3$ is the same as choosing its middle vertex;
so the number of choices is simply $4k+1$. Thus $\tau=4k+1=n$.\\

Third, let $n=4k+2$, where $k\geq 1$. Here $\gamma_t=2k+2$;
a $\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma$ is constituted in exactly one of
the following three ways: 1) $\Gamma$ comprises $(k-1)$ $P_2$'s
and one $P_4$; 2) $\Gamma$ comprises $(k-2)$ $P_2$'s
and two $P_3$'s; 3) $\Gamma$ comprises $(k+1)$ $P_2$'s. \\

\emph{Case 1) $<\Gamma> \cong (k-1)P_2 \cup P_4$:} Note
that $\Gamma$ is fixed by the choice of the single $P_4$.
Choosing a $P_4$ is the same as choosing its initial vertex
in the counter-clockwise order. Thus $\tau=4k+2=n$.\\

\emph{Case 2) $<\Gamma> \cong (k-2)P_2 \cup 2 P_3$:} Note
that here $k\geq 2$ and $\Gamma$ is fixed by the placements
of the two $P_3$'s. There are $n=4k+2$ ways of choosing the first $P_3$,
as discussed. Consider the $P_{4k-5}$ (a sequence of $4k-5$ slots)
obtained as a result of cutting from $C_{4k+2}$ the $P_7$
centered about the first $P_3$. The initial vertex of
the second $P_3$ may be placed in the first slot of
any of the $\lceil\frac{4k-5}{4}\rceil=k-1$ subintervals
of the $P_{4k-5}$. As the order of selecting the
two $P_3$'s is immaterial, $\tau=\frac{(4k+2)(k-1)}{2}$.\\

\emph{Case 3) $<\Gamma> \cong (k+1)P_2$:} Note that,
since each $P_2$ totally dominates 4 vertices, there are
exactly two vertices, say $x$ and $y$, each of whom is
adjacent to two distinct $P_2$'s in $\Gamma$.
And $\Gamma$ is fixed by the placements of $x$ and $y$.
There are $n=4k+2$ ways of choosing $x$. Consider
the $P_{4k-3}$ (a sequence of $4k-3$ slots) obtained
as a result of cutting from $C_{4k+2}$ the $P_5$ centered about $x$.
Vertex $y$ may be placed in the first slot of
any of the $\lceil\frac{4k-3}{4}\rceil=k$ subintervals of
the $P_{4k-3}$. As the order of selecting the two vertices
$x$ and $y$ is immaterial, $\tau=\frac{(4k+2)k}{2}$. \\

Summing over the three disjoint cases
(note the second summand vanishes when $k=1$), we get \\
$$\hspace*{0in}\tau(C_n)=(4k+2)+\frac{(4k+2)(k-1)}{2}+\frac{(4k+2)k}{2}=(2k+1)^2=\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^2.$$

Finally, let $n=4k+3$, where $k\geq 0$.
Here $\gamma_t=2k+2$; a $\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma$ comprises of
only $P_2$'s and is fixed by the placement of
the only vertex which is adjacent in two directions
(counter-clockwise and clockwise) to $P_2$(s) in $\Gamma$. Thus $\tau(C_n)=n$. \hfill
\end{proof}

\begin{Crlr}
Let $v\in V(C_n)$, then
\begin{equation*}
TDV(v) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\ 2 & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor+1 & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 1, 3  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
\frac{n}{2} \cdot \frac{n+2}{4} & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 2  \mbox{ (mod 4)}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{Crlr}

\begin{proof}
Use Theorem~\ref{theorem on cycles}, Observation~\ref{observation}, Observation~\ref{isom invariant}, and vertex-transitivity of $C_n$.
\end{proof}

\section{Total domination value in paths}

Let $P_n$ be a path on $n$ vertices, labeled $1$ through $n$ consecutively. Since $P_n$ is $C_n$ with an edge (but no vertices) deleted,
$\gamma_t(P_n)\geq \gamma_t(C_n)$. On the other hand, for $n\geq 4$,
there is a $\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma$ of $C_n$ omitting a pair of adjacent
vertices -- making $\Gamma$ a $\gamma_t$-set of $P_n$. Thus $\gamma_t(P_n)=\gamma_t(C_n)$; explicitly stated, for $n \ge 2$,
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_t(P_n) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{n}{2} & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor +1 & \mbox{ otherwise .}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}

\noindent {\bf Examples.} (a) $\gamma_t(P_4)=2$, $TDM(P_4)=\{\{2,
3\}\}$; so $\tau(P_4)=1$ and
\begin{equation*}
TDV(i)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{ if } i =2,3 \\
0 & \mbox{ if } i =1,4 .\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}

(b) $\gamma_t(P_6)=4$, $TDM(P_6)=\{\{ 2, 3, 4, 5\}, \{1, 2,4,5\},
\{1,2,5,6\}, \{2,3, 5, 6\}\}$; so $\tau(P_6)=4$, and
\begin{equation*}
TDV(i)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2 & \mbox{ if } i =1,3,4,6 \\
4 & \mbox{ if } i =2,5 .\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}

Remark: Note that $\tau(P_n) \le \tau(C_n)$ for $n \ge 3$ by
Proposition \ref{subgraph-tau}. In fact, we have

\begin{Thm}\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 4)} \\
\ \lfloor \frac{n}{4} \rfloor & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 1  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
\ (\lfloor \frac{n}{4} \rfloor +1)^2 & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 2
\mbox{ (mod 4)}\\
\ \lfloor \frac{n}{4}\rfloor + 2 & \mbox{ if } n \equiv 3 \mbox{
(mod 4)}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{Thm}

\begin{proof}
First, let $n=4k$, where $k \ge 1$. Then $\gamma_t=2k$ and a
$\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma$ comprises $k$ $P_2$'s. In this case, every
two adjacent vertices in $\Gamma$ totally dominates four vertices,
and no vertex of $P_{4k}$ is totally dominated by more than one
vertex. Thus none of the end-vertices of $P_n$ belong to any
$\Gamma$, which contains and is fixed by $\{2,3\}$; hence $\tau=1$.\\

Second, let $n=4k+1$, where $k \ge 1$. Here $\gamma_t=2k+1$; a
$\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma$ comprises $(k-1)$ $P_2$'s and one $P_3$.
Since each component with cardinality $c$ in $<\Gamma>$ totally
dominates $c+2$ vertices, no end-vertices belong to any $\Gamma$.
Note that $\Gamma$ is fixed by the placement of the single $P_3$, and
there are $\lfloor\frac{n}{4}\rfloor$ slots where the $P_3$ may be placed; so $\tau=\lfloor\frac{n}{4}\rfloor$.\\

Third, let $n=4k+2$, where $k \ge 0$. Here $\gamma_t=2k+2$; a
$\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma$ is constituted in exactly one of the
following three ways: 1) $\Gamma$ comprises $(k-1)$ $P_2$'s and
one $P_4$; 2) $\Gamma$ comprises $(k-2)$ $P_2$'s and two $P_3$'s;
3) $\Gamma$ comprises $(k+1)$ $P_2$'s.\\

\emph{Case 1) $<\Gamma> \cong (k-1)P_2 \cup P_4$, where $k \ge
1$:} Note that $\Gamma$ is fixed by the placement of the single
$P_4$, and none of the end-vertices belong to any $\Gamma$, as each component with cardinality $c$ in $<\Gamma>$ totally
dominates $c+2$ vertices. The $P_4$ may be placed in one of the $\lfloor\frac{n}{4}\rfloor=k$ slots.\\

\emph{Case 2) $<\Gamma> \cong (k-2)P_2 \cup 2P_3$, where $k \ge
2$:} Note that again, none of the end-vertices belong to any $\Gamma$, and $\Gamma$ is fixed by the placements of the two
$P_3$'s into the $k$ available slots. Thus $\tau={k\choose 2} =\frac{k(k-1)}{2}$.\\

\emph{Case 3) $<\Gamma> \cong (k+1)P_2$, where $k \ge 0$:} 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 three disjoint cases (note that $\tau=1$ when $k=0$), we get
$$\tau(P_n)=k+\frac{k(k-1)}{2}+\left(1+2k+\frac{k(k-1)}{2} \right)=k^2+2k+1=(k+1)^2= \left( \left\lfloor \frac{n}{4}\right\rfloor+1 \right)^2.$$

Finally, let $n=4k+3$, where $k \ge 0$. Here $\gamma_t=2k+2$, and
a $\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma$ comprises $k+1$ $P_2$'s. There is no $\Gamma$ containing both end-vertices of $P_n$. The
number of $\Gamma$'s containing exactly one of the end-vertices (no doubly dominated vertex) of
the path is two. The number of $\Gamma$'s containing neither of the
end-vertices (one doubly dominated vertex) is $k$. Summing the two disjoint cases, we have $\tau(P_n)=k+2=\lfloor \frac{n}{4}\rfloor+2$.
\end{proof}

For the total domination value of a vertex on $P_n$, note that $TDV(v)=TDV(n+1-v)$ for \mbox{$1\leq v\leq n$} 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

\begin{Crlr} \label{path on 4k}
Let $v \in V(P_{4k})$, where $k \ge 1$. Then
\begin{equation*}
TDV(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0,1  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
1 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2,3  \mbox{ (mod 4)} .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{Crlr}

\begin{Prop}\label{path on 4k+1}
Let $v \in V(P_{4k+1})$, where $k \ge 1$. Write $v=4q+r$, where
$0 \le r < 4$. Then, noting $\tau(P_{4k+1})=k$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{tdv of path on 4k+1}
TDV(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
k-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 4) }\\
k & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 3 \mbox{ (mod 4) }
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\end{Prop}

\begin{proof}
We prove by induction on $k$. The base, $k=1$ case, is easily
checked. Assume that (\ref{tdv of path on 4k+1}) holds for
$G=P_{4k+1}$ and consider $G'=P_{4k+5}$. First, notice that each
$\Gamma$ of the $k$ $\gamma_t$-sets of $G$ induces a
$\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma'=\Gamma\cup\{4k+3, 4k+4\}$ of $G'$.
Additionally, $G'$ has the $\gamma_t$-set $\Gamma^*$ which
contains and is determined by $\{4k+2, 4k+3, 4k+4\}$. The presence
of $\Gamma^*$ implies that $TDV_{G'}(v)=TDV_{G}(v)+1$ for $v\leq
4k+1$ and $v\equiv 2 \mbox{ or } 3 \pmod 4$. Still, $TDV_{G'}(v)=TDV_G(v)$ for $v \le 4k+1$ and $v \equiv 0 \mbox{ or } 1 \pmod 4$ .Clearly,
$TDV_{G'}(4k+2)=1, TDV_{G'}(4k+3)=k+1, TDV_{G'}(4k+4)=k+1, \mbox{ and }
TDV_{G'}(4k+5)=0$.
\end{proof}

Remark: The proofs (we have) of the $TDV$ formulas in the propositions from this point onward are all inductive and have rather similar arguments. Thus, to avoid undue repetitiveness, we will offer ``sketches of proofs" and leave some details to the readers. \\

\begin{Prop}
Let $v \in V(P_{4k+2})$, where $k \ge 0$. Write $v=4q+r$, where $0 \le r < 4$. Then, noting $\tau(P_{4k+2})=(k+1)^2$, we have
\begin{equation*} TDV(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(k+1)q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
(k+1)(q+1) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
(k+1)(k+1-q) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
(k+1)(k-q) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 3 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{Prop}

\textit{Sketch of Proof:}
Let $\Gamma$ be a $\gamma_t(P_{4k+2})$-set for $k \ge 0$. We
consider three cases.\\

\textit{Case 1) $<\Gamma> \cong (k-1)P_2 \cup P_4$, where $k \ge
1$:} Denote by $TDV'(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing
$v$. Noting $\tau=k$ in this case, we have
\begin{equation}\label{path 4k+2 case1}
TDV'(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0, 1  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
k-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2,3 \mbox{ (mod 4) }
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
A proof proceeds by induction on $k$ is similar to the proof of Proposition~\ref{path on 4k+1}: No end-vertex belongs to any $\gamma_t$-set. There is one $\gamma_t$-set of $P_{4(k+1)+2}$ which contains $\{4k+2, 4k+3, 4k+4, 4k+5\}$, while there are $k$ $\gamma_t$-sets of $P_{4(k+1)+2}$ derived from $\gamma_t$-sets of $P_{4k+2}$ which do not contain $\{4k+2, 4k+3\}$. \\

\textit{Case 2) $<\Gamma> \cong (k-2)P_2 \cup 2P_3$, where $k \ge
2$:} Denote by $TDV''(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing
$v$. Noting $\tau={k \choose 2}$ in this case and setting ${a
\choose b}=0$ when $a<b$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{path 4k+2 case2}
TDV''(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\vspace{.15in}
\sum_{j=1}^{q} (k-j) & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
\vspace{.1in}
{q \choose 2} & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
\vspace{.1in}
{k-q \choose 2} & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 4) }\\
{k \choose 2}-{q \choose 2} & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 3 \mbox{ (mod 4) }
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}

A proof proceeds by induction on $k$: No end-vertex belongs to any
$\gamma_t(P_{4k+2})$-set. The base, $k=2$ case, is easily checked.
Assume that (\ref{path 4k+2 case2}) holds for $G=P_{4k+2}$ and
consider $G'=P_{4k+6}$. First, notice that each $\Gamma$ of the
${k \choose 2}$ $\gamma_t(G)$-set induces a $\gamma_t(G')$-set
$\Gamma'=\Gamma \cup \{4k+4, 4k+5\}$. Additionally, there are
$k={k+1 \choose 2}-{k \choose 2}$ $\gamma_t(G)$-sets $\Gamma^*$
which contain $\{4k+3, 4k+4, 4k+5\}$. Having the sets $\Gamma^*$ implies that $TDV''_{G'}(4k+2)=TDV''_G(4k+2)$ and
$TDV''_{G'}(v)=TDV''_G(v)+TDV_{P_{4k+1}}(v)$ for $v \leq 4k+1$,
where $TDV_{P_{4k+1}}(v)$ is given in formula (\ref{tdv of path on 4k+1}).
Therefore, for $v \leq 4k+2$, we have
\begin{equation}
TDV''_{G'}(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\vspace{.1in}
\left[\sum_{j=1}^{q} (k-j)\right] +q = \sum_{j=1}^{q}(k+1-j)& \mbox{if } v \equiv 0  \mbox{ (mod 4)}\\
\vspace{.1in}
{q \choose 2} & \mbox{if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 4)}\\
\vspace{.1in}
{k-q \choose 2} + k-q= {k+1-q \choose 2}& \mbox{if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 4)}\\
{k \choose 2}-{q \choose 2} +k={k+1 \choose 2}-{q \choose 2}&
\mbox{if } v \equiv 3 \mbox{ (mod 4)}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
To finish this case, one separately checks that $TDV''_{G'}(4k+3)={k+1 \choose 2}-{k \choose 2}=k$,
$TDV''_{G'}(4k+4)=TDV''_{G'}(4k+5)={k+1 \choose 2}$, and
$TDV''_{G'}(4k+6)=0$.\\

\textit{Case 3) $<\Gamma> \cong (k+1)P_2$, where $k \ge 0$:}
Denote by $TDV'''(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing
$v$. First, suppose both end-vertices belongs to each $\Gamma$;
denote by $TDV_1'''(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing
$v$. Then there's a unique $\Gamma$ in this case, and we have
\begin{equation}\label{Case 3-1}
TDV'''_{1}(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1, 2  \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0,3 \mbox{ (mod 4) }
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}

Second, suppose exactly one end-vertex belongs to each $\Gamma$;
denote by $TDV_2'''(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing
$v$. Write $v = 4q+r$, $0 \le r < 4$. Then, noting $\tau=2k$ in
this case, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Case 3-2}
TDV'''_{2}(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
k+q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
2k-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
k-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 3 \mbox{ (mod 4)}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Notice each of $k$ $\gamma_t$-sets of $P_{4k+2}$ containing the left end-vertex is paired with
vertices $4k+4$ and $4k+5$ in $P_{4k+6}$; each of $k$ $\gamma_t$-sets of $P_{4k+2}$
containing the right end-vertex is paired with vertices $4k+5$ and $4k+6$ in $P_{4k+6}$.
Additionally, a $\gamma_t$-set of $P_{4k+2}$ containing both left and right end-vertices of $P_{4k+2}$
may be paired with vertices $4k+4$ and $4k+5$ in $P_{4k+6}$; there is also a $\gamma_t$-set in $P_{4k+6}$
containing vertices $4k+3, 4k+5, \mbox{ and } 4k+6$ (making $4k+4$ the sole doubly-dominated vertex).
Induction on $k$ readily verifies the claimed formula. \\

Third, suppose no end-vertex belongs to $\Gamma$; denote by
$TDV_3'''(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing $v$. Write
$v = 4q+r$, $0 \le r < 4$. Then, noting $\tau={k \choose 2}$ in
this case, we have
\begin{equation} \label{Case 3-3}
TDV'''_{3}(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\vspace{.1in}
{q \choose 2} & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
\vspace{.1in}
{k \choose 2}-{k-q \choose 2} & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
\vspace{.1in}
{k \choose 2}-{q \choose 2} & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 4)} \\
{k-q \choose 2} & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 3 \mbox{ (mod 4)}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Notice each of the ${k \choose 2}$ $\gamma_t$-sets of $P_{4k+2}$ containing neither
end-vertex is paired with vertices $4k+4$ and $4k+5$ in $P_{4k+6}$. Additionally,
each of the $k$ $\gamma_t$-sets of $P_{4k+2}$ containing the right end-vertex of $P_{4k+2}$
may be paired with vertices $4k+4$ and $4k+5$ in $P_{4k+6}$ (making $4k+3$ one of the two doubly-dominated vertices).
Induction on $k$ again readily verifies the claimed formula.\\

Summing over the three disjoint cases (\ref{Case 3-1}), (\ref{Case
3-2}), and (\ref{Case 3-3}) for $<\Gamma> \cong (k+1)P_2$ -- i.e., $\displaystyle TDV'''(v)=\sum_{i=1}^{3}TDV'''_{i}(v)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{path 4k+2 case3}
TDV'''(v)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\vspace{.08in}
q + {q\choose 2}& \mbox{if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 4)}\\
\vspace{.08in}
1+k+q+{k \choose 2}-{k-q \choose 2}& \mbox{if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 4)}\\
\vspace{.08in}
1+2k-q+{k \choose 2}-{q \choose 2}& \mbox{if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 4)}\\
\vspace{.08in}
k-q+ {k-q \choose 2}& \mbox{if } v \equiv 3 \mbox{ (mod 4)}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Now, sum over (\ref{path 4k+2 case1}), (\ref{path 4k+2 case2}), and (\ref{path 4k+2 case3}) -- namely $TDV(v)=TDV'(v)+TDV''(v)+TDV'''(v)$ -- to reach the formula claimed in this proposition. \hfill $\square$\\

\begin{Prop}
Let $v \in V(P_{4k+3})$, where $k \ge 0$. Write $v=4q+r$, where $0 \leq r < 4$. Then, noting $\tau(P_{4k+3})=k+2$, we have
\begin{equation*}
TDV(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
q+1 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
k+2 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
k+1-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 3 \mbox{ (mod 4) }
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{Prop}

\textit{Sketch of Proof:}
Let $\Gamma$ be a $\gamma_t$-set with $k \geq 0$. Note that no $\Gamma$ contains both end-vertices of $P_{4k+3}$.
We consider two cases. First, suppose $\Gamma$ contains exactly one end-vertex, and denote by $TDV'(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing $v$. We have
\begin{equation*}\label{path on 4k+3 case1}
TDV'(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 4) }\\
1 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1,3 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
2 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 4) }
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
Next, assume $\Gamma$ contains no end-vertices -- so $k\geq 1$, and denote by $TDV''(v)$ the number of such $\Gamma$'s containing $v$. Writing
$v=4q+r$ for $0 \le r < 4$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{path on 4k+3 case2}
TDV''(v)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 0 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 1 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
k & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 2 \mbox{ (mod 4) } \\
k-q & \mbox{ if } v \equiv 3 \mbox{ (mod 4) }
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
There are $k$ $\gamma_t$-sets in this case, and formula~(\ref{path on 4k+3 case2}) can be proved by induction on $k$ as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{path on 4k+1}.
Now, $TDV(v)=TDV'(v)+TDV''(v)$, which is as claimed. \hfill $\square$ \\

\bigskip

\textit{Acknowledgement.} The author greatly appreciates Eunjeong Yi for much valuable help in drawing the figures and in deriving the formulas contained in this paper. The author also likes to thank the referee for a correction and some helpful suggestions which improved the paper.\\

Total Domination Value in Graphs


On the symmetry of finite sums of exponentials

Abstract: In this note we are interested in the rich geometry of the graph of a curve $\gamma_{a,b}: [0,1] \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ defined as \begin{equation*} \gamma_{a,b}(t) = \exp(2\pi i a t) + \exp(2\pi i b t), \end{equation*} in which $a,b$ are two different positive integers. It turns out that the sum of only two exponentials gives already rise to intriguing graphs. We determine the symmetry group and the points of self intersection of any such graph using only elementary arguments and describe various interesting phenomena that arise in the study of graphs of sums of more than two exponentials.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}

Complex exponentials $\exp(2 \pi i k)$, $k \in \mathbb{Z}$, play a crucial role in different areas of pure and applied mathematics. They are the main building blocks of Fourier series in classical harmonic analysis and appear in all kinds of important exponential sums; see f.e. \cite{grafakos2,grafakos1,olson} and references therein. Many deep problems in number theory are intimately linked to certain types of exponential sums and a lot of effort is put into finding precise bounds for the growth of such sums; see f.e. \cite{iwaniec,korobov,shparlinski} and references therein. We do not aim to give a comprehensive account of the importance of complex exponentials and exponential sums in mathematics; we rather wish to convey a feeling for the immense power and structural richness that can be encoded with sums of exponentials. It turns out that already the most simple object, namely the sum of two exponentials, gives a powerful method to illustrate symmetry groups in a very easy fashion.  The aim of this note is to study the graphs of curves defined via the sum of two exponentials; i.e. we determine the symmetry groups of such graphs and find all points of self intersection. Recently, also the graphs of infinite sums of such exponentials have been studied; see \cite{bohnet}. In the following we set up our notation in a slightly more general frame. This allows to formulate interesting problems in our final section which are beyond the scope of this paper.

Let $\mathbf{a} = (a_0, \ldots, a_m)$ denote a vector of positive integers $a_0, \ldots, a_m$ with $m\geq 1$ and let $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ be the (closed) curve defined as
\begin{equation} \label{def}
\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t) = \exp(2\pi i a_0 t) + \ldots + \exp(2\pi i a_m t) = \sum_{j=0}^m \exp(2\pi i a_j t).
\end{equation}
Note that $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ is one-periodic, i.e., $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t)= \gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t+1)$ for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$, since $\exp(2 \pi i a t)$, $t \in [0,1]$, $a \in \mathbb{Z}$, is a circle in the complex plane.
Moreover, we do not require the integers in $\mathbf{a}$ to be distinct. If an integer appears more than once in $\mathbf{a}$ then $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ corresponds to a weighted sum of exponentials (with integer weights).
Interestingly, the graph of $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ can get quite chaotic for an arbitrary choice of parameters. However, it turns out that this graph can also be highly symmetric; see Figure \ref{fig:motivation}.

In Section \ref{sec2} we study the relation between the symmetry of the graph of $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ and the structure of the generating vector $\mathbf{a}$.
We recall the concept of a symmetry group and determine generating vectors of arbitrary, but finite, length $m$ such that the symmetry groups of the corresponding graphs are the dihedral groups $D_n$ for $n \in \mathbb{N}$; see Figure \ref{fig:sym}. Our theorem gives a complete description of the symmetry of the graph of $\gamma_{a,b}$ for distinct integers $a,b$.
In Section \ref{sec3} we study the self intersections of curves $\gamma_{a,b}$. The most interesting observation is that the arguments $t,t' \in [0,1]$ such that $\gamma_{a,b}(t)=\gamma_{a,b}(t')$ are of a very particular rational from.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{a2b7c31.pdf}\
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{a1b5c9.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The curves $\gamma_{2,7,31}$ and $\gamma_{1,5,9}$. } \label{fig:motivation}
\end{figure}

\section{Symmetry}
\label{sec2}

We start this section with a useful lemma, that allows to restrict attention to coprime tuples of numbers without loss of generality.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:cancel}
Let $\mathbf{a}=(a_0,a_1, \ldots, a_m)$ and let $q$ be a positive integer. Then $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ and $\gamma_{q\cdot \mathbf{a}}$ have the same graph and
$$ \gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(q t) = \gamma_{q\cdot \mathbf{a}} (t).$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We observe that
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(q t) = \sum_{j=0}^m  \exp(2\pi i a_j q t) =\gamma_{q \cdot \mathbf{a}}(t).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
Hence, the restriction of $\gamma_{q \cdot \mathbf{a}}$ to $[0,1/q]$ gives the graph of $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ and so does the restriction to any other connected interval of length $1/q$.
In fact, the graph of $\gamma_{q \cdot \mathbf{a}}$ covers the graph of $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ $q$ times for $t \in [0,1]$.

Next, we are interested in the symmetry of the graph of a curve $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$. We use the concept of a \emph{symmetry group} to describe symmetric properties of a graph; at this point we would like to draw attention to the marvellous book of H. Weyl on symmetry \cite{weyl}. Let $G$ be a set and let $\cdot: G\times G \rightarrow G$ be a map that combines any two elements $a,b \in G$ to form another element $a\cdot b=c \in G$; i.e. the map is closed. The pair $(G,\cdot)$ is called a \emph{group} if
\begin{enumerate}
\item the map is \emph{associative}, i.e. for all $a,b$ and $c \in G$, $(a\cdot b) \cdot c = a \cdot (b \cdot c)$;
\item there exists a unique \emph{identity element} $e$ such that $a\cdot e = e \cdot a = e$ holds for all $a \in G$;
\item for each $a \in G$ there exists an \emph{inverse element} $b \in G$, such that $a \cdot b = b \cdot a = e$.
\end{enumerate}
Now let $X \in \mathbb{R}^2$ be the graph of a curve. The \emph{symmetry group} of $X$ consists of all transformations under which the object is \emph{invariant} (this means under which the object looks the same) with function composition as the group operation.
Important examples of symmetry groups in two dimensions are \emph{cyclic groups}, $C_n$, and \emph{dihedral groups}, $D_n$. Cyclic groups consist of all rotations about a fixed point by multiples of the angle $2\pi / n$; in the complex plane such a rotation is realized by multiplying every point of $X$ with $\exp(2\pi i j/n)$, for $1\leq j \leq n$. Dihedral groups contain $2n$ elements, namely the rotations in $C_n$ about a fixed point, together with reflections in $n$ axes that all pass through the fixed point of the rotations.
We illustrate these two different types of symmetries in Figure \ref{fig:symmetry}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.4]

\node at (3.5,2) {$\bullet$};
\draw[thick] (3.5,0) -- (0,0) -- (3.5,2)--(3.5,6) -- (1.75,3);
\draw[thick] (5.25,3) -- (7,0) -- (3.5,2);

\node at (15.5,2) {$\bullet$};
\draw[thick] (12,0) -- (19,0) -- (15.5,6)--(12,0);
\draw[thick, dashed] (11.65,-0.2) -- (19,4);
\draw[thick, dashed] (12,4) -- (19.35,-0.2);
\draw[thick, dashed] (15.5,-0.4) -- (15.5,6.5);

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\emph{Left:} Example of a shape with rotational symmetry. The symmetry group is $C_3$. \emph{Right:} The symmetry group of an equilateral triangle is $D_3$. The dashed lines should illustrate the axes of reflection.} \label{fig:symmetry}
\end{figure}

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:symmetry} Let $a, k, q, m \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $a,k$ are coprime and set $q \cdot \mathbf{a}=q \cdot (a,k+a,2k+a, \ldots, mk+a)$. Then the symmetry group of the graph of $\gamma_{q \cdot \mathbf{a}}$ is the dihedral group $D_k$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem:cancel} it suffices to study the case $\mathbf{a}=(a,k+a,2k+a, \ldots, mk+a)$.
We prove the theorem in two steps. First, we show that $D_k$ is a subgroup of the symmetry group. In a second step we observe that $D_k$ contains already all invariant transformations of the image of $\gamma_{q \cdot \mathbf{a}}$.

The group $D_k$ is a subgroup of the symmetry group if all rotations about a fixed point by multiples of the angle $2\pi/k$ leave the image invariant and if we find reflections in $k$ axes through the same fixed point.
We start with the rotations. We have to show that for all points $x = \gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t)$, $t\in [0,1]$, there exists a $t' \in [0,1]$ such that the point $\exp(2\pi i /k) x = \gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t')$.
In the following we consider the special case $\mathbf{a}=(1,k+1,2k+1, \ldots, mk+1)$.
Rotating a point $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t)$ by $\exp(2\pi i /k)$ leads to
\begin{align*}
\exp&(2\pi i /k) \cdot \gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t) =
\exp \left(2\pi i \left( t + \frac{1}{k} \right) \right) + \sum_{j=1}^{m} \exp \left(2\pi i (j k+1) \left( t + \frac{1}{(j k+1) k} \right) \right).
\end{align*}
To prove that the right hand side of the above equation lies again on $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ it suffices to find a $y$ such that $t'=t + \frac{y}{k}$ with
\begin{align*}
t + \frac{1}{k} & \equiv  t + \frac{y}{k} \pmod{1},\\
(k+1) \left( t + \frac{1}{k(k+1)} \right) & \equiv (k+1) \left( t + \frac{y}{k} \right) \pmod{1}, \\
&\vdots \\
(mk+1) \left( t + \frac{1}{(mk+1)k} \right) & \equiv  (mk+1) \left(  t + \frac{y}{k} \right) \pmod{1},\\
\end{align*}
Since $k$ and $m$ are integers, this amounts to finding a joint solution to the congruences
\begin{align*}
1 & \equiv y \pmod{k},\\
1 & \equiv (k+1) y \pmod{k}. \\
&\vdots \\
1 & \equiv (mk+1) y \pmod{k}.
\end{align*}
Obviously, $y=1$ is a valid joint solution to all these congruences. Hence, for every $t$ we can indeed find a $t'$ such that $\exp(2\pi i /k) \cdot \gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t) = \gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t')$.
Note that we can proceed in the same way in the general case. However, if $\mathbf{a}=(a,k+a,2k+a, \ldots, mk+a)$, with $a>1$, we have to solve the congruence $1 \equiv ay \pmod{k}$. Since $a$ and $k$ are coprime we always find a solution (which will be different from $1$).

Turning to the reflections, it suffices to show that for every $x = \gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t)$, $t\in [0,1]$, there also exists a $t''$ such that $\bar{x} = \gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t'')$, in which $\bar{x}$ denotes the complex conjugate of $x$.
We recall that complex conjugation changes the sign of the exponent of an exponential. Thus $t$ maps to $-t$ and since our function is one-periodic, we can set $t''=1-t$ to see that complex conjugates of points in the image of $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ lie again on the curve.
This shows that $D_k$ is a subgroup of the full symmetry group and finishes the first step of our proof.

There are only two types of point symmetry groups in two dimensions; i.e. cyclic and dihedral groups. In particular, $D_k$ can only be a proper subgroup of a larger dihedral group of the form $D_{dk}$ for an integer $d>1$. If $D_k$ was a subgroup of a larger group then there have to be more invariant rotations. We will show that this is not the case with a simple geometric argument.

Recall that the absolute value $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ of a complex number $x+i y=r \exp(i \phi)$ denotes the Euclidean distance of the point $(x,y)$ to the origin. For two complex numbers $z_1=r_1 \exp(i \phi_1)$ and $z_2=r_2 \exp(i \phi_2)$ with $z_1+z_2=r \exp(i \phi)$ we get by the triangle inequality
$$  r \leq r_1 + r_2,  $$
with equality if and only if $\phi_1=\phi_2 \pmod{2\pi}$; see Figure \ref{fig:sum}.
In particular,
$$\exp(2 \pi i a t)+\exp(2 \pi i (a+k) t) = r \exp(i \phi),$$
with $0\leq r \leq 2$. In particular, we find that $r=2$ if and only if $2 \pi a t \equiv 2 \pi (a+k) t \pmod{2\pi}$ which is only satisfied if $t=y/k$ for an integer $y$. Thus, there are only $k$ points with maximal distance of $2$ to the origin on the graph of our curve; see Figure \ref{fig:sym}. Hence, there can not be more than $k$ invariant rotations and therefore $D_k$ is indeed the full symmetry group of the graph.
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.35]

\node at (0,0) {$\bullet$};
\node at (1,5) {$\bullet$};
\node at (7,8) {$\bullet$};
\draw[ultra thick, ->] (0,0) -- (1,5);
\draw[ultra thick, ->] (1,5)--(7,8);
\draw[ultra thick, ->] (0,0)--(7,8);

\node at (-0.5,3) {$a$};
\node at (4,7.5) {$b$};
\node at (4,3) {$a+b$};
\node at (-0.2,-1) {$(0,0)$};

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Two vectors $a$ and $b$ and their sum $a+b$. The length of $a+b$ is maximal if $a$ and $b$ point in the same direction.} \label{fig:sum}
\end{figure}

Together with Lemma \ref{lem:cancel} this theorem suffices to completely describe the symmetry of sums of two exponentials $\gamma_{a,b}$ for arbitrary integers $a$ and $b$. We can reduce the pair $(a,b)$ via Lemma \ref{lem:cancel} to a pair of coprime integers and apply the following corollary.

\begin{corollary} \label{cor:2d}
For coprime integers $a,b \in \mathbb{N}$, with $b>a$ set $\mathbf{a} = (a, b)$. If $a=1$, the symmetry group of the image of $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ is $D_{b-1}$. Otherwise the symmetry group of the image is $D_{b-a}$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
In the first case we have that $(a, b)=(1,b) = (1, (b-1)+1)$. In the second case we have that $(a, b)=(a, (b-a) + a )$.
The claims then follow from Theorem \ref{thm:symmetry}.
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{a1b6.pdf}\
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{a3b8.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The curves $\gamma_{1,6}$ and $\gamma_{3,8}$ and their reflection lines. The black dots are the $5$ points with maximal distance $2$ from the origin.} \label{fig:sym}
\end{figure}

\section{Self Intersections}
\label{sec3}

Our next goal is to understand the self intersections of $\gamma_{a,b}$ for coprime $a$ and $b$. We prove that such curves self intersect in a very structured way. Because of the symmetry of the graph, it suffices to study what happens in the \emph{wedge} spanned by the real line and by the line through the origin that is obtained by rotating the real line by an angle of $2\pi/(b-a)$. We prove the following theorem for the special case $\mathbf{a}=(1,k+1)$, $k\geq 4$, and comment on the general case in Remark \ref{rem1}.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:intersections}
Let $k\geq4$ be an integer and $\mathbf{a}=(1,k+1)$. If $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t)\neq 0$ and if $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t)=\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}(t')$ with $t, t' \in [0,1]$ and $t \neq t'$  then there exist integers $0\leq j,j' \leq k(k+2)$ such that $t=j/(k (k+2))$ and $t'=j'/(k (k+2))$.
\end{theorem}

We illustrate Theorem \ref{thm:intersections} in Figure \ref{fig:intersections}. The proof of the theorem requires a bit of preparation. We first state several observations in separate lemmas before we bring all these ideas together in the proof of Theorem  \ref{thm:intersections} at the end of this section.
In Lemma \ref{lem:iffpoints} we determine all values of $t$ such that the real or imaginary part of $\gamma_{a,b}(t)$ equals zero.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.333]{a1b7indexed.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{a1b9.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Left: Plot of the curve $\gamma_{1,7}$. The integers are the numerators $j$ in $t=j/48$ of the points of self intersection. Right: Plot of the curve $\gamma_{1,9}$ in which the dots are at $t=j/80$.} \label{fig:intersections}
\end{figure}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:iffpoints}
Let $a,b$ be coprime integers and $t \in [0,1]$. Set $\bar{t}_j=\frac{j}{2(a+b)}$, $j=0,\ldots, 2(a+b)$ and $\hat{t}_h= \frac{h}{2(b-a)}$ for $h=0,\ldots, 2(b-a)$. Then $\mathrm{Im}(\gamma_{a,b}( t ) ) = 0$ if and only if $t=\bar{t}_j$ for even $j$ or $t=\hat{t}_h$ for odd $h$. Moreover, $\mathrm{Re}(\gamma_{a,b}( t) ) = 0$ if and only if $t=\bar{t}_j$ for odd $j$ or $t=\hat{t}_h$ for odd $h$. In particular, $\gamma_{a,b}(t) =0$ if and only if $t=\hat{t}_h$ for odd $h$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We first show that the real and imaginary parts vanish if we set $t=\bar{t}_j$ resp. $t=\hat{t}_h$ for $j$ and $h$ as stated. Observe that $\frac{a}{a+b} = 1 - \frac{b}{a+b}$. Now let $j=2q$ be even, then
\begin{align*}
\gamma_{a,b}(\bar{t}_j) &= \exp \left(2 \pi i a \frac{q}{a+b} \right) + \exp \left(2 \pi i b \frac{q}{a+b} \right) \\
&= \exp \left( 2 \pi i q \left(1- \frac{b}{a+b} \right) \right) + \exp \left(2 \pi i q \frac{b}{a+b} \right) \\
&= \exp \left( 2 \pi i q \right) \exp \left(- 2 \pi i q\frac{b}{a+b}  \right) + \exp \left( 2 \pi i q \frac{b}{a+b} \right) \\
&= 2 \cos \left(\frac{2 \pi q b}{a+b} \right).
\end{align*}
And similarly for $j=2q+1$ as well as for $\hat{t}_h$, which proves the first direction.

To prove the other direction, we first assume that $\gamma_{a,b}(t)=0$. This means
\begin{equation*}
\cos (2 \pi t a) + \cos (2 \pi t b)=0, \ \ \ \ \text{ and } \ \ \ \ \sin (2 \pi t a) + \sin (2 \pi t b) =0,
\end{equation*}
and can only be satisfied if $2\pi t a + \pi \equiv 2 \pi t b \pmod{2 \pi}$. Consequently, $ 1 \equiv 2 t (b-a) \pmod{2}$ and hence $t$ must be of the form $j/(2 (b-a))$ for an odd integer $j$.

Now assume that $\mathrm{Im}(\gamma_{a,b}( t ) ) = 0$ and $\mathrm{Re}(\gamma_{a,b}( t ) ) \neq 0$. Then we get that
\begin{equation*}
\sin (2 \pi t a) + \sin (2 \pi t b) =0.
\end{equation*}
Using $\sin(\varphi)=-\sin (-\varphi)$ we get,
$- 2 \pi t a \equiv 2 \pi t b \pmod{2 \pi}$ which implies $t (a+b) \equiv 0 \pmod{1}$ and therefore $t=j/(a+b)$ for an integer $j$.
Similarly, assume that $\mathrm{Re}(\gamma_{a,b}( t ) ) = 0$ and $\mathrm{Im}(\gamma_{a,b}( t ) ) \neq 0$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\cos (2 \pi t a) + \cos (2 \pi t b)=0.
\end{equation*}
Using $\cos(\pi/2+ \varphi) = - \cos(\pi/2 - \varphi)$, we get that $\pi \equiv 2 \pi t(a+b) \pmod{2\pi}$ which implies $1 \equiv 2 t(a+b) \pmod{2}$ and hence $t=\frac{j}{2(a+b)}$ for an odd integer $j$.
\end{proof}

In a next step we determine the points of self intersection of $\gamma_{a,b}$ that lie on the real axis. The symmetry of the graph of $\gamma_{a,b}$ implies then that there are also points of self intersection on every line that is a rotation of the real line by an angle $2\pi j/(b-a)$. These are the lines of points $r \cdot \exp(2\pi i j/(b-a) )$ with $r \in \mathbb{R}$ and $1\leq j \leq b-a$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:samepoints}
Let $a, b$ be coprime integers and let $t=j/(a+b)$ and $t'= j'/(a+b)$, with $0< j ,j' < a+b$ and $j\neq j'$. Then we have $\gamma_{a,b}(t)=\gamma_{a,b}(t')$ if and only if $j+j'=a+b$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
First, if $j+j'=a+b$, then $t+t'=1$ and thus $\gamma_{a,b}(t)$ is the complex conjugate of $\gamma_{a,b}(t')$. Since the imaginary parts are 0 by Lemma \ref{lem:iffpoints}, we get $\gamma_{a,b}(t)=\gamma_{a,b}(t')$.

Second, assume $\gamma_{a,b}(t)=\gamma_{a,b}(t')$. By Lemma \ref{lem:iffpoints} we know that the imaginary parts are both 0 and we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:equal}
2 \cos \left( \frac{2 \pi j b}{a+b} \right) = 2 \cos \left( \frac{2 \pi j' b }{a+b} \right).
\end{equation}
This equality can only hold if the arguments $x,y$ of the cosines either satisfy $x \equiv y \pmod{2 \pi}$ or $x+y \equiv 0 \pmod{2\pi}$.
First, we assume that the arguments are the same modulo $2\pi$. In this case we can rewrite \eqref{eq:equal} as
\begin{equation*}
\frac{(j - j') b}{a+b} \equiv 0 \pmod{1}.
\end{equation*}
However, $b$ and $(a+b)$ are coprime since $a$ and $b$ are coprime and $0<j,j'< a+b$, such that our assumptions only allow for the trivial solution $j=j'$.
The second possibility to satisfy \eqref{eq:equal} leads to
\begin{equation} \label{cond1}
\frac{(j + j') b}{a+b} \equiv 0 \pmod{1}.
\end{equation}
By our assumptions, there is only one solution for \eqref{cond1} in this case, namely $j+j' = a+b$.
\end{proof}

So far, we know all points of self intersection that lie on the real line or on a rotation of it by an element of the symmetry group. However, there might be more. To determine them, we study the shape of the curve in intervals of the form $\mathcal{I}_j = [t_j, t_j+ 2/(b^2 - a^2)]$, with $t_j = j/(a+b)$, $j\in \mathbb{N}$ and $0\leq j \leq a+b$; see Figure \ref{fig:restriction}.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem5}
Let $a,b$ be coprime with $b-a \geq 4$ and let $t_j=j/(a+b)$, with $j\in \mathbb{N}$ and $0\leq j \leq a+b$. Then $\gamma_{a,b}: \mathcal{I}_j \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is injective for $t \in \mathcal{I}_j=[t_j, t_j + 2/(b^2 - a^2)]$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Setting $\gamma_{a,b}(t) =  (\mathrm{Re}(\gamma_{a,b}(t)), \mathrm{Im}(\gamma_{a,b}(t)) )$, we consider $\gamma_{a,b}$ as a function in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
In particular we have that
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Re}(\gamma_{a,b}(t_j+x/(b^2-a^2))) &= 2 \cos \left( \pi j + \pi \frac{x}{b-a} \right) \cos \left( \pi (a-b) \frac{j(b-a) + x}{b^2 - a^2} \right)\\
\mathrm{Im}(\gamma_{a,b}(t_j+x/(b^2-a^2))) &= 2 \sin \left( \pi j + \pi \frac{x}{b-a} \right) \cos \left( \pi (a-b) \frac{j(b-a) + x}{b^2 - a^2} \right).
\end{align*}

To show that the restrictions of $\gamma_{a,b}(t)$ to intervals $[t_j, t_j+2/(b^2-a^2)]$ are injective we assume there are two values $x, x' \in [0,2]$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{tangens1} \gamma_{a,b}(t_j+x/(b^2-a^2)) = \gamma_{a,b}(t_j+x'/(b^2-a^2)). \end{equation}
Note that $-2\leq x-x' \leq 2$. From the assumption \eqref{tangens1} it follows that
\begin{equation} \label{tangens2}
\tan \left( \pi j + \pi \frac{x}{b-a} \right) = \tan \left( \pi j + \pi \frac{x'}{b-a} \right),
\end{equation}
since $\tan(\alpha)=\cos(\alpha)/\sin(\alpha)$. However, the tangens is a $\pi$-periodic function. This means that \eqref{tangens2} can only hold if the two arguments are the same modulo $\pi$:
\begin{equation*}
\pi j + \pi \frac{x}{b-a} \equiv  \pi j + \pi \frac{x'}{b-a} \pmod{\pi},
\end{equation*}
which can be reduced to
\begin{equation*}
\frac{x-x'}{b-a} \equiv 0 \pmod{1}.
\end{equation*}
Since $b-a \geq 4$ and $-2\leq x-x' \leq 2$ this can only hold for $x=x'$.
\end{proof}

Importantly, we can say even more about the curve in the intervals where it is injective, namely that the curves are also convex.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem6}
For coprime integers $a,b$ and $t_j$ as above, the curve $\gamma_{a,b}: \mathcal{I}_j \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is convex for $t \in \mathcal{I}_j=[t_j, t_j + 2/(b^2 - a^2)]$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
A regular plane simple (injective) curve is convex if and only if its curvature is either always non-negative or always non-positive. We can calculate the curvature $\kappa_{a,b}(t)$ of our parameterized curve $(x(t),y(t))=(\mathrm{Re}(\gamma_{a,b}(t)) , \mathrm{Im}(\gamma_{a,b}(t)) )$ as
\begin{align*}
\kappa_{a,b}(t) = \frac{x'(t)y''(t) - y'(t)x''(t)}{(x'(t)^2 + y'(t)^2 )^{3/2}} = \frac{a^3 + b^3 + a b (a + b) \cos( 2\pi (a-b)t  )  }{ (a^2 + b^2 + 2 a b \cos( 2 \pi (a-b)t ))^{3/2} } > 0,
\end{align*}
since $-1\leq \cos(x)\leq 1$ for all $x$ and $a^3 + b^3 - a b (a + b)=(a-b)^2 (a+b)$ and $a^2 + b^2 - 2 a b = (a-b)^2$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:intersections}]
In the following we use the shortcut $\gamma:=\gamma_{(1,k+1)}$.
By Theorem \ref{thm:symmetry} the graph of $\gamma$ has the symmetry group $D_k$. By Lemma \ref{lem:iffpoints} we know that if $t_j= j/(k+2)$, $j\in \mathbb{N}$, then $\mathrm{Im}(\gamma(t_j) ) =0$ and
$$\gamma(t_j)= 2 \cos \left( 2\pi \frac{j(k+1)}{k+2}\right).$$
Now we observe that $j (k+1) \equiv -j \pmod{k+2}$. In other words, for increasing $j$, with $0 \leq j \leq \left \lfloor (k+2)/2 \right \rfloor$, we get a decreasing sequence of equally spaced arguments for the cosine.
By the symmetry of the cosine we get
\begin{align*}
 2\cos(0) > 2 \cos \left ( 2 \pi \frac{-1}{k+2} \right) &= 2 \cos \left ( 2 \pi \frac{1}{k+2} \right) \\
> 2 \cos \left (2 \pi \frac{-2}{k+2} \right)&=2 \cos \left (2 \pi  \frac{2}{k+2} \right) > \ldots > 2 \cos \left (\pi \right)
\end{align*}
The above can be rewritten as:
\begin{equation*}
\gamma(0) > \gamma \left ( \frac{1}{k+2} \right) = \gamma \left ( \frac{-1}{k+2} \right) >
\gamma \left ( \frac{2}{k+2} \right)=\gamma \left ( \frac{-2}{k+2} \right) > \ldots > \gamma \left (\left \lfloor \frac{k+2}{2} \right \rfloor \frac{1}{k+2} \right).
\end{equation*}
Rotating a complex number around the origin does not change the distance to the origin and we know by Theorem \ref{thm:symmetry} that
$$ \exp\left( 2\pi i /k \right) \gamma(t) = \gamma\left( t + \frac{1}{k} \right);$$
i.e., all points $\gamma \left ( \frac{\pm j}{k+2} \right)$ on the real line have the corresponding point $\gamma \left ( \frac{\pm j}{k+2} + \frac{1}{k} \right)$ on the line $r \cdot \exp\left( 2 \pi i / k \right)$.
Importantly, we have that
\begin{equation} \label{eq1} t_j + \frac{1}{k}=\frac{j}{k+2} + \frac{1}{k} = \frac{(j+1)k+2}{k(k+2)} = t_{j+1}+ \frac{2}{k(k+2)}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq2} t_{-j} + \frac{1}{k} = \frac{-j}{k+2} + \frac{1}{k} = \frac{(-j+1)k+2}{k(k+2)} = t_{-j+1} + \frac{2}{k(k+2)}. \end{equation}
Our first observation is now that if $\gamma(j/(k+2))=\gamma(-j/k+2)$, then
$\gamma\left( \frac{(j+1)k+2}{k(k+2)} \right)=\gamma \left( \frac{(-j+1)k+2}{k(k+2)} \right).$
We recall from Lemma \ref{lem6} that $\gamma$ is injective and convex for $t \in \mathcal{I}_j=[t_j, t_j + 2/(k(k+2))]$.
Then the second observation is that $\gamma$ maps the right endpoints of all intervals $\mathcal{I}_j$ to the rotated line, while the left endpoints are mapped to the real line.
Since the $t_j$ are the only values $t$ such that $\gamma(t)$ lies on the real line and is nonzero, we conclude that all pieces of $\gamma$ that lie within the wedge spanned by the two lines can be obtained via restricting $t \in [0,1]$ to the intervals $\mathcal{I}_j$; see also Figure \ref{fig:restriction}.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{a1b9wedge.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Plot of the curve $\gamma_{1,9}$. The black parts show the restrictions of the curve to values of $t$ in intervals $\mathcal{I}_j$.} \label{fig:restriction}
\end{figure}

In particular we see, that if two left interval endpoints have the same image on the real line, the corresponding images of the right endpoints differ on the rotated line and vice versa.
By \eqref{eq1} and \eqref{eq2} it follows that rotating $\gamma(t_j)$ resp $\gamma(t_{-j})$ gives exactly the image of the right endpoints of $\mathcal{I}_{j+1}$ resp $\mathcal{I}_{-j+1}$; i.e. of the two intervals whose left endpoints are neighbors of $t_{\pm j}$ on the real line.
Furthermore, the rotated images of $\gamma(t_{j-1})$ and $\gamma(t_{-j-1})$ are exactly the images of the right endpoints of $\mathcal{I}_{j}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{-j}$.
Hence, by convexity of the restrictions of the curve, we see that the curve must self intersect exactly $k$ times in the interior of the wedge and a direct calculation shows that the points of self intersection are exactly at the mid points of the intervals $\mathcal{I}_j$, i.e. at $ t_j + 1/(k(k+2))$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
This theorem also holds in the general case $\mathbf{a}=(a,b)$; i.e. all arguments of points of self intersection are of the form $j/(b^2-a^2)$ for $0\leq j \leq b^2-a^2$.
However, the proof is more technical in the general case since the points $\gamma(t_j)$ are ordered in a more involved way. While the order and correspondence of the points in the above proof can easily be described via the congruence $j(k+1)\equiv -j \pmod{k+2}$, the general equation reads as $j b \equiv - aj \pmod{a+b}$.
For the sake of clarity of our exposition, we restricted the theorem to the case $(1,k+1)$. However, note that we proved all lemmas for the general case.
\end{remark}

\section{Outlook}
\label{sec4}

We conclude our exposition with a short outlook. One interesting direction for future research could be the study of weighted sums of exponentials. Starting again with the simplest possible case, we already obtain very interesting images when considering curves $\gamma_{a,b,b}$ as in Figure \ref{fig:weighted} (left).
One obvious difference is that all the points on the curve have a certain minimal distance to the origin, while the graph seems to preserve the symmetry of $\gamma_{a,b}$.

A second intriguing question is to describe the points of self intersecting of general curves $\gamma_{\mathbf{a}}$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:weighted}(right). It seems that if $\mathbf{a}$ has a structure as in Theorem \ref{thm:symmetry} such curves still intersect in a very well structured way; see Figure \ref{fig:motivation}(right). However, already in this case there seem to be some points of self intersection, which turn out to be very hard to describe in an explicit fashion.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{a1b7c7.pdf}\ \
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{a3b6c7.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Left: Plot of the curve $\gamma_{1,7,7}$. Right: Plot of the curve $\gamma_{3,6,7}$} \label{fig:weighted}
\end{figure}

\bibliographystyle{plain}