The size of graphs with restricted rainbow $2$-connection number

Abstract: Let $k$ be a positive integer, and $G$ be a $k$-connected graph. An edge-coloured path is \emph{rainbow} if all of its edges have distinct colours. The \emph{rainbow $k$-connection number} of $G$, denoted by $rc_k(G)$, is the minimum number of colours in an edge-colouring of $G$ such that, any two vertices are connected by $k$ internally vertex-disjoint rainbow paths. The function $rc_k(G)$ was introduced by Chartrand, Johns, McKeon and Zhang in 2009, and has since attracted significant interest. Let $t_k(n,r)$ denote the minimum number of edges in a $k$-connected graph $G$ on $n$ vertices with $rc_k(G)\le r$. Let $s_k(n,r)$ denote the maximum number of edges in a $k$-connected graph $G$ on $n$ vertices with $rc_k(G)\ge r$. The functions $t_1(n,r)$ and $s_1(n,r)$ have previously been studied by various authors. In this paper, we study the functions $t_2(n,r)$ and $s_2(n,r)$. We determine bounds for $t_2(n,r)$ which imply that $t_2(n,2)=(1+o(1))n\log_2 n$, and $t_2(n,r)$ is linear in $n$ for $r\ge 3$. We also provide some remarks about the function $s_2(n,r)$.

\section{Introduction}\label{Intro}

All graphs in this paper are finite, simple and undirected. For a graph $G$ and vertices $x,y\in V(G)$, let $d_G(x,y)$ denote the distance (i.e., the length of a shortest path) from $x$ to $y$ in $G$, and let  $\textup{diam}(G)=\max\{d_G(x,y):x,y\in V(G)\}$ denote the diameter of $G$. Let $\deg_G(x)$ denote the degree of $x$ in $G$. For $X\subset V(G)$, let $G[X]$ denote the subgraph of $G$ induced by $X$. For disjoint subsets $X,Y\subset V(G)$, let $E_G(X,Y)$ denote the set of edges of $G$ with one end-vertex in $X$ and the other in $Y$. For a path $P$ and $x,y\in V(P)$ (possibly $x=y$), we write $xPy$ for the subpath of $P$ with end-vertices $x$ and $y$. A path $P=x_0x_1\cdots x_\ell$, for some $\ell\ge 1$, is called an \emph{$\ell$-ear} of $G$, or simply an \emph{ear}, if $V(P)\cap V(G)=\{x_0,x_\ell\}$ and $E(P)\cap E(G)=\emptyset$. For $r\ge 1$, an \emph{$r$-edge-colouring} of $G$, or simply an \emph{$r$-colouring}, is a function $c:E(G)\to\{1,\dots,r\}$. We think of $\{1,\dots,r\}$ as a set of colours, and occasionally we use the terms \emph{red}, \emph{blue} and \emph{green} if we are focussing on a small number of colours. We may use the terms \emph{edge-colouring} or \emph{colouring} if we do not wish to emphasize the number of colours. For any other undefined terms, the reader is referred to the books \cite{Bol78,Bol98, Die18}.

Let $k$ be a positive integer. A set of internally vertex-disjoint paths connecting two vertices in a graph will simply be called \emph{disjoint}. By Menger's theorem \cite{Men27}, a graph is $k$-connected if and only if every two vertices have $k$ disjoint paths connecting them. An edge-coloured path is \emph{rainbow} if all of its edges have distinct colours. Let $G$ be a $k$-connected graph. An edge-colouring of $G$, not necessarily proper, is \emph{rainbow $k$-connected} if every two vertices have $k$ disjoint rainbow paths connecting them. The \emph{rainbow $k$-connection number} of $G$, denoted by $rc_k(G)$, is the minimum possible number of colours in a rainbow $k$-connected colouring of $G$. Note that $rc_k(G)$ is well-defined if and only if $G$ is $k$-connected. We write $rc(G)$ for $rc_1(G)$. The parameter $rc_k(G)$ was introduced by Chartrand, Johns, McKeon and Zhang (\cite{CJMZ08} for $k = 1$ (2008), and \cite{CJMZ09} for general $k$ (2009)), and has since attracted significant interest from many researchers. For an informative survey and book on the subject of rainbow connection of graphs, see \cite{LSS13,LS12}.

We consider the following two problems.

\begin{pro}\label{prob1}
For integers $r,k\ge 1$, let $t_k(n, r)$ denote the minimum number of edges in a $k$-connected graph $G$ on $n$ vertices with $rc_k(G)\le r$. Determine $t_k(n,r)$.
\end{pro}

\begin{pro}\label{prob2}
For integers $r,k\ge 1$, let $s_k(n, r)$ denote the maximum number of edges in a $k$-connected graph $G$ on $n$ vertices with $rc_k(G)\ge r$. Determine $s_k(n,r)$.
\end{pro}

We note that Problems \ref{prob1} and \ref{prob2} have the following equivalent formulations.

\begin{pro1a}\label{prob1a}
Given integers $r,k\ge 1$, compute the maximum integer $g_k(n, r)$ such that, if $G$ is a $k$-connected graph on $n$ vertices and $|E(G)| \le g_k(n, r)$, then $rc_k(G) \ge r$.
\end{pro1a}

\begin{pro2a}\label{prob2a}
Given integers $r,k\ge 1$, compute the minimum integer $f_k(n, r)$ such that, if $G$ is a $k$-connected graph on $n$ vertices and $|E(G)| \ge f_k(n, r)$, then $rc_k(G) \le r$.
\end{pro2a}
It is easy to see that $t_k(n, r) = g_k(n, r+1) + 1$ and $s_k(n, r) = f_k(n, r - 1) - 1$, whenever the terms are defined. Problems \ref{prob1} and \ref{prob2} are  ``Erd\H{o}s-Gallai type problems''. Loosely speaking, an  Erd\H{o}s-Gallai type problem involves the study of the bounds of a graph parameter (such as the number of edges), among all graphs that satisfy some property. For the case $k=1$, note that if $G$ is a connected graph on $n$ vertices, then we have $|E(G)|\ge n-1$, with equality if and only if $G$ is a tree. Also, we have $1\le \textup{diam}(G)\le rc(G)\le n-1$, with $rc(G)= n-1$ if and only if $G$ is a tree. It is easy to see that
\begin{align}
{n\choose 2} &= t_1(n,1)\ge t_1(n,2)\ge\cdots\ge t_1(n,n-1)=t_1(n,n)=\cdots=n-1,\label{t1chain}\\
{n\choose 2} &= s_1(n,1)\ge s_1(n,2)\ge\cdots\ge s_1(n,n-1)=n-1,\label{s1chain}
\end{align}
and thus it suffices to consider $1\le r\le n-1$ in the above problems. Problem \ref{prob1} for $k=1$ was first considered by Schiermeyer \cite{Sch13}, when he determined the values of $t_1(n,r)$ for $\frac{n}{2}\le r\le n-1$, and the asymptotic answer for $r=2$. Subsequently, Bode and Harborth \cite{BH13}, and Li et al.~\cite{LLSZ14} made some improvements, and Lo \cite{Lo14} determined the values of $t_1(n,r)$ for $3\le r<\frac{n}{2}$. Thus Problem \ref{prob1} is essentially completely solved for $k=1$.

\begin{thm}\label{t1thm}\textup{\cite{BH13,Lo14,Sch13}}
Let $1\le r\le n-1$ and $n\ge 3$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{t1eq}
t_1(n,r)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle {n\choose 2} & \textup{\emph{if} }r=1\textup{\emph{,}}\\[2ex]
(1+o(1))n \log_2 n & \textup{\emph{if} }r=2\textup{\emph{,}}\\[1ex]
\displaystyle \Big\lceil\frac{r(n-2)}{r-1}\Big\rceil & \textup{\emph{if} }r\ge 3.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}

For $r\ge 2$, the constructions of a graph $G$ on $n$ vertices yielding the upper bounds in (\ref{t1eq}) are as follows. For $r=2$, we take $G$ to be the complete bipartite graph $K_{a,n-a}$ such that $2^{a-1}+a\le n\le 2^a+a$, so that $|E(G)|=(1+o(1))n\log_2n$. For $3\le r\le n-1$, we take $\lfloor\frac{n-3}{r-1}\rfloor$ cycles on $r$ vertices having one vertex in common, and connect the remaining $n - 1 -\lfloor\frac{n-3}{r-1}\rfloor(r-1)\le r$ vertices to the common vertex of the cycles. Then $|E(G)|=\lceil\frac{r(n-2)}{r-1}\rceil $. For these graphs, it was shown in \cite{CJMZ08} and \cite{BH13} that $rc(G)=r$.

Problem \ref{prob2}$'$ for $k=1$ was first considered by Kemnitz and Schiermeyer \cite{KS11}, and their results were subsequently improved by Kemnitz et al.~\cite{KPSW13}, and Li et al.~\cite{LLS13}. When stated in terms of $s_1(n,r)$, we have the following result.

\begin{thm}\label{f1thm}\textup{\cite{KPSW13,KS11,LLS13}}
Let $2\le r\le n-1$. Then $s_1(n,r)\ge {n-r+2\choose 2}+r-3$. Equality holds for $r\in\{2, 3, 4,5, n - 5, n -4, n -3, n -2, n -1\}$.
\end{thm}

The graph $G$ which yields the lower bound in Theorem \ref{f1thm}, as given in \cite{KS11}, is as follows. Take a complete graph $K_{n-r+2}$ and delete one edge $xy$. Then take a path on $r-1$ vertices and identify one end-vertex with $x$. Let $G$ be the resulting graph. We have $|E(G)|= {n-r+2\choose 2}+r-3$, and $rc(G)\ge\textup{diam}(G)=r$.

Finally, note that for $1\le k<\ell<n$, we have
\begin{equation}
t_k(n,r)\le t_\ell(n,r),\label{tktleq}
\end{equation}
whenever the terms are defined.

We remark that analogous Erd\H{o}s-Gallai type problems have also been considered for other parameters similar to the rainbow connection number, such as the monochromatic connection number \cite{CLW17}, and rainbow disconnection number \cite{BCLH19,BL19,CDHHZ18}, among others.

In this paper, we will focus on Problems \ref{prob1} and \ref{prob2} for the case $k=2$. This paper is organised as follows. In Section \ref{toolssect}, we gather some auxiliary results about $k$-connected graphs and the rainbow $k$-connection number. In Section \ref{t2(n,r)sect},
we study the function $t_2(n,r)$. Our main result will be Theorem \ref{t2(n,r)thm}, from which we can conclude that $t_2(n,2)=(1+o(1))n\log_2 n$, and $t_2(n,r)$ is linear in $n$ for $r\ge 3$. In Section \ref{s2(n,r)sect}, we provide some remarks about the function $s_2(n,r)$.

\section{Tools and some related results}\label{toolssect}

In this section, we gather some results which will be useful for Sections \ref{t2(n,r)sect} and \ref{s2(n,r)sect}. Throughout this section, let $n>k\ge 2$.

We first note that any $k$-connected graph $G$ on $n$ vertices has at least $\lceil\frac{kn}{2}\rceil$ edges, since $G$ has minimum degree at least $k$. Harary \cite{Har62} gave examples of $k$-connected graphs which show that the value $\lceil\frac{kn}{2}\rceil$ is best possible for the minimum number of edges.

\begin{thm}\label{Harthm} \emph{\cite{Har62}}
Let $n>k\ge 2$, and $G$ be a $k$-connected graph on $n$ vertices. Then $|E(G)|\ge\lceil\frac{kn}{2}\rceil$. Moreover, there exists a $k$-connected graph $H_{n,k}$ on $n$ vertices with $|E(H_{n,k})|=\lceil\frac{kn}{2}\rceil$.
\end{thm}

Since\, we\, will\, mainly\, be\, studying\, $2$-connected\, graphs,\, we\, state\, the\, well-known\, \emph{ear decomposition theorem}, which gives a characterisation for the structure of $2$-connected graphs. See for example \cite{Die18} (Ch.~3, Proposition 3.1.1).

\begin{thm}[Ear\, decomposition]\label{EDthm}
A\, graph\, $G$\, is\, $2$-connected\, if\, and\, only\, if\, $G$\, can\, be constructed from a cycle by successively adding ears to graphs that are already constructed.
\end{thm}

\begin{rmk} \textup{It is easy to see from Theorem \ref{EDthm} that, if $G$ is a $2$-connected graph on $n$ vertices and $q\ge 0$, then $G$ is constructed by successively adding $q$ ears, starting with an initial cycle, if and only if $|E(G)|=n+q$.}
\end{rmk}

We also have the following result from the book of Bollob\'as \cite{Bol78} (Ch.~IV, Theorem 2.8).

\begin{thm}\label{BBthm}\textup{\cite{Bol78}}
Let $m\ge 2$, and $G$ be a $2$-connected graph on $n$ vertices with diameter at most $2m$. Then
\[
|E(G)|\ge \Big(1+\frac{1}{2m-1}\Big)n-4(4m-2)^{m-1}.
\]
\end{thm}

Now, we consider some results about the rainbow $k$-connection number. Note that for any $k$-connected graph $G$, we have $rc_k(G)\ge 2$. When $n$ is sufficiently large, Chartrand et al.~\cite{CJMZ09} showed that equality holds for the complete graph $K_n$.

\begin{thm}\label{CJMZthm}\emph{\cite{CJMZ09}}
\indent\\[-3ex]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $rc_2(K_n)=2$ for $n\ge 4$.
\item[(b)] $rc_k(K_n)=2$ for $k\ge 2$ and $n\ge (k+1)^2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

To see (a), we have a rainbow $2$-connected $2$-colouring of $K_n$ as follows. For $n\ge 5$, we colour a Hamilton cycle of $K_n$ with red, and all remaining edges with blue. For $K_4$, we take the $2$-colouring where the colours red and blue both induce a path of length three.

Next, we have the following result of Li and Liu \cite{LL13} about the rainbow $2$-connection number of $2$-connected graphs. This result is analogous to the fact that $rc(G)\le n-1$ if $G$ is a connected graph on $n$ vertices.

\begin{thm}\label{LLthm}\textup{\cite{LL13}}
Let $G$ be a $2$-connected graph on $n\ge 3$ vertices. Then $rc_2(G) \le n$, with equality if and only if $G$ is the cycle on $n$ vertices.
\end{thm}

Finally, we prove the following useful lemma.

\begin{lem}\label{lm1}
Let $G$ be a $2$-connected graph, and $P$ be a path in $G$ of length at least three such that, all internal vertices of $P$ have degree two in $G$. Then for any rainbow $2$-connected colouring of $G$, the edges of $P$ must be rainbow coloured.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Suppose that there exists a rainbow $2$-connected colouring of $G$, and a path $P$ in $G$ as described in the lemma which is not rainbow coloured. We have $P=x_0x_1\cdots x_\ell$ for some $\ell\ge 3$, where $\deg_G(x_i)=2$ for all $1\le i\le\ell-1$. There exist two edges $x_{i-1}x_i$ and $x_{j-1}x_j$ with the same colour, for some $1\le i<j\le\ell$. If $i<j-1$, let $u=x_i$ and $v=x_{j-1}$. If $i=j-1$, let $u=x_{i-1}$ and $v=x_j$. Note that since $\ell\ge 3$, at least one of $u$ and $v$ is an internal vertex of $P$. We see that there do not exist two disjoint rainbow paths connecting $u$ and $v$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\section{The function $t_2(n,r)$}\label{t2(n,r)sect}

Let $n>k\ge 2$, and $G$ be a $k$-connected graph on $n$ vertices. By Theorem \ref{CJMZthm}(b), we see that for sufficiently large $n$ ($n\ge (k+1)^2$ will do), $t_k(n,2)$ is well-defined. Together with Theorem \ref{Harthm},  we have the following analogue to (\ref{t1chain})
\[
{n\choose 2} \ge t_k(n,2)\ge t_k(n,3)\ge\cdots \ge t_k\Big(n,\Big\lceil\frac{kn}{2}\Big\rceil\Big) = t_k\Big(n,\Big\lceil\frac{kn}{2}\Big\rceil+1\Big)= \cdots=\Big\lceil\frac{kn}{2}\Big\rceil.
\]

In this section, we study the function $t_2(n,r)$. For $n\ge 3$, the cycle $C_n$ is the unique $2$-connected graph on $n$ vertices with the minimum number of edges, which is $n$. Note that $rc_2(C_n)=n$. Thus for $n\ge 4$, Theorem \ref{CJMZthm}(a) implies
\begin{equation}\label{t2chain}
{n\choose 2} \ge t_2(n,2)\ge t_2(n,3)\ge\cdots \ge t_2(n,n)=t_2(n,n+1)=\cdots=n.
\end{equation}
It suffices to consider $t_2(n,r)$ for $2\le r\le n-1$. The following theorem is our main result.

\begin{thm}\label{t2(n,r)thm}
\indent\\[-3ex]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $t_2(n,2)=(1+o(1))n\log_2 n$.
\item[(b)]
\[
t_2(n,r)\ge
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{4}{3}n-24 & \textup{\emph{if} }r\in\{3,4\}\textup{\emph{ and }}n\ge 18\textup{\emph{,}}\\[2ex]
\displaystyle\frac{6}{5}n-\frac{1}{5}r(r-1) & \textup{\emph{if} }5\le r\le n-1\textup{\emph{ and }}\displaystyle n>\frac{1}{6}r(r-1).
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\item[(c)]
\[
t_2(n,r)\le
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{5}{2}n-5 & \textup{\emph{if} }r\in\{3,4\}\textup{\emph{ and }}n\ge r+1\textup{\emph{,}}\\[2ex]
\displaystyle\frac{7n-19}{3} & \textup{\emph{if} }r=5\textup{\emph{ and }}n\ge 7\textup{\emph{,}}\\[2ex]
  2n-r+2 &\textup{\emph{if} }6\le r\le n-3.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\item[(d)] $t_2(n,n-2)=n+2$ for $n\ge 6$, and $t_2(n,n-1)=n+1$ for $n\ge 4$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
(a) We have $t_2(n,2)\ge t_1(n,2)\ge n(\log_2 n -4\log_2 \log_2 n - 2)$ for sufficiently large $n$, where the first inequality follows from (\ref{tktleq}), and the second inequality was proved by Li et al.~\cite{LLSZ14}. Now we construct a graph $G$ on $n$ vertices, with a $2$-colouring $c$, as follows. Take the complete bipartite graph with classes $A$ and $B$, where $|A|=a\ge 4$ and $|B|=n-a$, such that $2^{a-2}+a-1\le n\le 2^{a-1}+a-1$. Add a complete graph on $A$. It is easy to obtain $|E(G)|=(1+o(1))n\log_2 n$. Now, assign to the vertices of $B$ distinct $(1,2)$-vectors of length $a$ with a positive even number of $2$s, such that the $a-1$ vectors $(2,2,1,\dots,1),(2,1,2,1,\dots,1),\dots,(2,1,\dots,1,2)$ are all present. Note that the assignment is possible, since $|B|=n-a\ge 2^{a-2}-1\ge a-1$, so that the $a-1$ aforementioned vectors can all be assigned; and $|B|=n-a\le 2^{a-1}-1$, whence there are a total of $2^{a-1}-1$ assignable vectors. Let $A=\{u_1,\dots,u_a\}$. For $u_i\in A$ and $v\in B$, let $c(u_iv)={\vec{v}}_i$, where $\vec{v}$ denotes the vector assigned to $v$, and $\vec{v}_i$ denotes the $i$th component of $\vec{v}$. Let $c(u_iu_j)=1$ for all $i,j$. Then $c$ is a rainbow $2$-connected colouring of $G$. Indeed, for two vertices of $G$, we may find two disjoint rainbow paths connecting them as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $u_i,u_j\in A$, then since the $a-1$ aforementioned vectors are present, we may choose $v\in B$ such that ${\vec{v}}_i\neq {\vec{v}}_j$, and take the paths $u_iu_j$ and $u_ivu_j$.
\item If $v,w\in B$, then there exist $i,j$ such that ${\vec{v}}_i\neq {\vec{w}}_i$ and ${\vec{v}}_j\neq {\vec{w}}_j$, and we may take the paths $vu_iw$ and $vu_jw$.
\item  If $u_i\in A$ and $v\in B$, then we may choose $u_j\in A$ such that ${\vec{v}}_j=2$, and take the paths $u_iv$ and $u_iu_jv$.
\end{itemize}
Thus $rc_2(G)=2$, and $t_2(n,2)\le (1+o(1))n\log_2 n$.\\[1ex]
\indent(b) Let $r\ge 3$, and $G$ be a $2$-connected graph on $n$ vertices with $rc_2(G)\le r$. Note that since $\textup{diam}(G)\le rc_2(G)\le 2\lceil\frac{r}{2}\rceil$, setting $m=\lceil\frac{r}{2}\rceil$ in Theorem \ref{BBthm} gives $|E(G)|\ge \big(1+\frac{1}{2\lceil r/2\rceil-1}\big)n-c_r$ for some constant $c_r>0$. This implies
\begin{equation}
t_2(n,r)\ge \Big(1+\frac{1}{2\lceil r/2\rceil-1}\Big)n-c_r.\label{t2diameq}
\end{equation}
For $r\ge 5$, we will see that the constant $1+\frac{1}{2\lceil r/2\rceil-1}$ in (\ref{t2diameq}) can be improved to $\frac{6}{5}$. For $r\in\{3,4\}$ and $n\ge 18$, setting $m=2$ in Theorem \ref{BBthm} gives $|E(G)|\ge \frac{4}{3}n-24$. Therefore, $t_2(n,r)\ge \frac{4}{3}n-24$.

Now, suppose that $5\le r\le n-1$ and $n>\frac{1}{6}r(r-1)$. Note that $rc_2(G)\le n-1$, so that $G\neq C_n$. We prove that $|E(G)|\ge \frac{6}{5}n-\frac{1}{5}r(r-1)$, which implies $t_2(n,r)\ge \frac{6}{5}n-\frac{1}{5}r(r-1)$. Let $V_2\subset V(G)$ be the subset defined by $V_2=\{v\in V(G):\deg_G(v)=2\}$. Note that $G[V_2]$ is a linear forest, i.e., $G[V_2]$ is a union of vertex-disjoint paths.
For an integer $i\ge 1$, let $\mathcal{P}_i$ be the family of path components in $G[V_2]$ such that $|V(P)|=i$ for every $P\in \mathcal{P}_i$. We have $V_2=\bigcup_{i\ge 1}\bigcup_{P\in \mathcal{P}_i}V(P)$.
By the definition of $\mathcal{P}_i$, together with the assumption that $G$ is $2$-connected, the following two properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] For any $P\in \mathcal{P}_i$ and $Q\in \mathcal{P}_j$ (possibly $i=j$), we have $E_G(V(P), V(Q))=\emptyset$.
\item[(ii)] For any $P=x_1\cdots x_i\in \mathcal{P}_i$, there exist two distinct vertices $x_0,x_{i+1}\in V(G)\setminus V_2$ such that $E_G(V(P), V(G)\setminus V(P))=\{x_1x_0, x_ix_{i+1}\}$, with $\deg_G(x_0)\ge 3$ and $\deg_G(x_{i+1})\ge 3$.
\end{enumerate}

Let $P=x_1\cdots x_i\in \mathcal{P}_i$ be a path, for some $i$. In view of (ii), we will often look at the extended path of $P$ containing $x_0$ and $x_{i+1}$. Thus, let $P^+$ be the path $P^+=x_0x_1\cdots x_ix_{i+1}$. Note that the paths of $\big\{P^+:P\in\bigcup_{i\ge 1}\mathcal{P}_i\big\}$ are pairwise edge-disjoint. Now, since $rc_2(G)\le r$, we may fix a rainbow $2$-connected $r$-colouring on $G$. By Lemma \ref{lm1}, we have $P^+$ is a rainbow path for any $P\in\bigcup_{i\ge 2}\mathcal{P}_i$. This implies that $\mathcal{P}_i=\emptyset$ for $i\ge r$.

\begin{clm}\label{c1}
We have
\[
\bigg|V_2\setminus \bigcup_{P\in \mathcal{P}_1}V(P)\bigg|=\sum_{i=2}^{r-1}i|\mathcal{P}_i|\le \binom{r}{2}.
\]
\end{clm}

\begin{proof}
First, suppose that there exist two paths $P\in\mathcal P_i$ and $Q\in\mathcal P_j$, for some $2\le i,j\le r-1$, such that $P^+$ and $Q^+$ both contain two consecutive edges using the same pair of colours, say red and blue. Let $u\in V(P)$ and $v\in V(Q)$ be the two vertices between the red and blue edges, and note that $\deg_G(u)=\deg_G(v)=2$. Since $i\ge 2$, we may choose a neighbour $w$ of $u$ such that $\deg_G(w)=2$. Then $w$ and $v$ are not connected by two disjoint rainbow paths, a contradiction.

Now,\, $\bigcup_{i=2}^{r-1}\bigcup_{P\in \mathcal{P}_i}P^+$\, contains\, $\sum_{i=2}^{r-1}i|\mathcal P_i|$\, pairs\, of\, edges,\, with\, each\, pair\, being\, two consecutive edges of some path $P^+$. These pairs of edges use distinct pairs of colours, therefore
\[
\bigg|V_2\setminus \bigcup_{P\in \mathcal{P}_1}V(P)\bigg|=\sum_{i=2}^{r-1}i|\mathcal{P}_i|\le \binom{r}{2}.
\]

This proves Claim \ref{c1}.
\end{proof}

If $|\mathcal{P}_1|\ge \frac{3}{5}n-\frac{1}{10}r(r-1)>0$, then the bipartite subgraph of $G$ induced by  $V(G)\setminus V_2$ and $\{V(P):P\in\mathcal P_1\}$ has $2|\mathcal P_1|\ge\frac{6}{5}n-\frac{1}{5}r(r-1)$ edges. Otherwise, if $|\mathcal{P}_1|\le \frac{3}{5}n-\frac{1}{10}r(r-1)$, then by Claim~\ref{c1},
\begin{align*}
|E(G)|&\ge \frac{1}{2}(2|V_2|+3(n-|V_2|))=\frac{3}{2}n-\frac{1}{2}|V_2|=\frac{3}{2}n-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^ri|\mathcal{P}_i|-\frac{1}{2}|\mathcal{P}_1|\\
&\ge \frac{3}{2}n-\frac{1}{2}\binom{r}{2}-\frac{3}{10}n+\frac{1}{20}r(r-1)=\frac{6}{5}n-\frac{1}{5}r(r-1).
\end{align*}
\indent(c) We first consider the case $6\le r\le n-3$. We construct a graph $G_{n,r}$ on $n$ vertices with an $r$-colouring, as follows. First, let $F_6$ be the graph on six vertices $x,y,a,b,c,d$, with the $6$-colouring as shown in Figure 1(a). Then, let $H_m$ be the graph obtained by taking $m\ge 1$ identically $6$-coloured copies of $F_6$, say $F_6^1,\dots, F_6^m$, and identifying the vertices $x$ and $y$. Let $a_i,b_i,c_i,d_i$ be the vertices of $F_6^i$ corresponding to $a,b,c,d$, for $1\le i\le m$. See Figure 1(b) for the case of $H_2$. Next, let $H_{m,r}$ be obtained from $H_m$ by adding an $(r-4)$-ear $P$ at $x$ and $y$. Colour the edges of $P$ with colours $5,6,\dots, r$ such that colours $5$ and $6$ are incident with $x$ and $y$. See Figure 1(c).\\[1ex]
\[ \unit = 0.7cm
\varline{450}{0.6}
\dl{-5.8}{3}{-6.8}{1}\dl{-6.8}{1}{-7.8}{3}\dl{-5.8}{3}{-6.8}{5}\dl{-6.8}{5}{-7.8}{3}
\dl{-5.8}{3}{-6.8}{2.5}\dl{-7.8}{3}{-6.8}{2.5}\dl{-5.8}{3}{-6.8}{3.5}\dl{-7.8}{3}{-6.8}{3.5}
\pt{-5.8}{3}\pt{-6.8}{1}\pt{-7.8}{3}\pt{-6.8}{5}\pt{-6.8}{2.5}\pt{-6.8}{3.5}
\ptll{-7.9}{3}{a}\ptlr{-5.7}{3}{c}\ptlu{-6.8}{3.5}{b}\ptld{-6.8}{2.5}{d}\ptlu{-6.8}{5}{x}\ptld{-6.8}{1}{y}
\ptll{-7.3}{1.9}{2}\ptlr{-6.3}{1.9}{1}\ptll{-7.3}{4.1}{1}\ptlr{-6.3}{4.1}{2}\ptlu{-7.2}{3.2}{3}\ptlu{-6.4}{3.2}{4}\ptld{-7.2}{2.75}{5}\ptld{-6.4}{2.75}{6}
\ptlu{-8.6}{5}{\textup{\normalsize (a)}}
\ptlu{-6.8}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $F_6$}}
\dl{-0.3}{1}{-2.8}{3}\dl{-0.3}{1}{2.2}{3}\dl{-0.3}{5}{-2.8}{3}\dl{-0.3}{5}{2.2}{3}\dl{-0.3}{1}{-1}{3}\dl{-0.3}{1}{0.4}{3}\dl{-0.3}{5}{-1}{3}\dl{-0.3}{5}{0.4}{3}
\dl{-1}{3}{-1.5}{2.5}\dl{-1.5}{2.5}{-2.8}{3}\dl{-1}{3}{-1.5}{3.5}\dl{-1.5}{3.5}{-2.8}{3}
\dl{0.4}{3}{0.9}{2.5}\dl{0.9}{2.5}{2.2}{3}\dl{0.4}{3}{0.9}{3.5}\dl{0.9}{3.5}{2.2}{3}
\pt{-2.8}{3}\pt{-0.3}{1}\pt{2.2}{3}\pt{-0.3}{5}\pt{0.4}{3}\pt{0.9}{2.5}\pt{0.9}{3.5}\pt{-1}{3}\pt{-1.5}{2.5}\pt{-1.5}{3.5}
\ptll{-2.8}{3}{a_1}\ptlr{-0.95}{3}{c_1}\ptlu{-1.3}{3.45}{b_1}\ptld{-1.3}{2.55}{d_1}\ptlu{-0.3}{5}{x}\ptld{-0.3}{1}{y}
\ptll{-1.6}{1.9}{2}\ptll{-1.6}{4.1}{1}\ptll{-0.65}{1.9}{1}\ptll{-0.65}{4.1}{2}
\ptlu{-2}{3}{3}\ptlu{-1.2}{3}{4}\ptld{-2}{3}{5}\ptld{-1.2}{3}{6}
\ptlr{1}{1.9}{1}\ptlr{1}{4.1}{2}
\ptlr{2.25}{3}{c_2}\ptll{0.35}{3}{a_2}\ptlu{0.7}{3.45}{b_2}\ptld{0.7}{2.55}{d_2}
\ptlr{0}{1.9}{2}\ptlr{0}{4.1}{1}
\ptlu{0.6}{3}{3}\ptlu{1.4}{3}{4}\ptld{1.4}{3}{6}\ptld{0.6}{3}{5}
\ptlr{1}{1.9}{1}\ptlr{1}{4.1}{2}
\ptlu{-3.6}{5}{\textup{\normalsize (b)}}
\ptlu{-0.3}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $H_2$}}
\dotline
\ellipse{6.7}{3}{1.5}{2}
\varline{450}{0.6}
\dl{6.7}{1}{8.2}{1}\dl{8.2}{1}{8.9}{1.7}\dl{6.7}{5}{8.2}{5}\dl{8.2}{5}{8.9}{4.3}\dl{8.9}{1.7}{8.9}{2.2}\dl{8.9}{4.3}{8.9}{3.8}
\ptlu{8.9}{2.58}{\vdots}
\pt{6.7}{1}\pt{6.7}{5}\pt{8.2}{1}\pt{8.2}{5}\pt{8.9}{1.7}\pt{8.9}{4.3}
\ptlu{6.7}{2.65}{\textup{\normalsize $H_m$}}\ptlu{6.7}{5}{x}\ptld{6.7}{1}{y}\ptlu{7.45}{5}{5}\ptld{7.45}{1}{6}
\ptlu{8.7}{4.55}{7}\ptld{8.7}{1.45}{r}
\ptlr{8.95}{4}{\textup{\normalsize $P$}}
\ptlu{4.4}{5}{\textup{\normalsize (c)}}
\ptlu{7.05}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $H_{m,r}$}}
\ptlu{0}{-1.6}{\textup{\normalsize Figure 1. The graphs $F_6$, $H_2$ and $H_{m,r}$}}
\]\\[1ex]
\indent We have $|V(H_{m,r})|=4m+r-3$. Let $m$ and $b$ be integers such that  $n=4m+r-3+b$, where  $0\le b\le 3$. Note that $m\ge 1$ since $n\ge r+3$. Let $G_{n,r}$ be the graph obtained from $H_{m,r}$ by adding $2$-ears $Q_1,\dots, Q_b$ at $x$ and $y$, with the colouring as shown in Figure 2. Note that $G_{n,r}=H_{m,r}$ if $b=0$. If $b\ge 1$, let $w_j$ be the middle vertex of $Q_j$ for $1\le j\le b$. We have $G_{n,r}$ is a $2$-connected graph on $n$ vertices, and $|E(G_{n,r})|=8m+r-4+2b=2n-r+2$.\\[1ex]
\[ \unit = 0.7cm
\varline{450}{0.6}
\dotline
\ellipse{-6.3}{2.5}{1}{1.5}
\varline{450}{0.6}
\bez{-6.3}{1}{-7.3}{1}{-8.3}{2.5}\bez{-6.3}{4}{-7.3}{4}{-8.3}{2.5}
\pt{-6.3}{1}\pt{-8.3}{2.5}\pt{-6.3}{4}
\ptlu{-6.3}{4}{x}\ptld{-6.3}{1}{y}\ptll{-8.3}{2.5}{w_1}
\ptll{-7.5}{1.4}{1}\ptll{-7.8}{3.2}{1}
\ptlu{-6.3}{2.15}{\textup{\normalsize $H_{m,r}$}}
\ptlu{-7.5}{3.7}{\textup{\normalsize $Q_1$}}
\ptlu{-6.8}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $b=1$}}
\dotline
\ellipse{-1.3}{2.5}{1}{1.5}
\varline{450}{0.6}
\bez{-1.3}{1}{-2.3}{1}{-3.3}{2.5}\bez{-1.3}{4}{-2.3}{4}{-3.3}{2.5}\bez{-1.3}{1}{-0.3}{1}{0.7}{2.5}\bez{-1.3}{4}{-0.3}{4}{0.7}{2.5}
\pt{0.7}{2.5}\pt{-3.3}{2.5}\pt{-1.3}{1}\pt{-1.3}{4}
\ptlu{-1.3}{4}{x}\ptld{-1.3}{1}{y}\ptll{-3.3}{2.5}{w_1}\ptlr{0.7}{2.5}{w_2}
\ptll{-2.5}{1.4}{1}\ptll{-2.8}{3.2}{1}\ptlr{-0.1}{1.4}{2}\ptlr{0.2}{3.2}{2}
\ptlu{-1.3}{2.15}{\textup{\normalsize $H_{m,r}$}}
\ptlu{-2.5}{3.7}{\textup{\normalsize $Q_1$}}\ptlu{-0.1}{3.7}{\textup{\normalsize $Q_2$}}
\ptlu{-1.3}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $b=2$}}
\dotline
\ellipse{6.2}{2.5}{1}{1.5}
\varline{450}{0.6}
\bez{6.2}{1}{5.2}{1}{4.2}{2.5}\bez{6.2}{4}{5.2}{4}{4.2}{2.5}\bez{6.2}{1}{7.2}{1}{8.2}{2.5}\bez{6.2}{4}{7.2}{4}{8.2}{2.5}\bez{6.2}{4}{3.4}{4}{3.2}{2.5}\bez{6.2}{1}{3.4}{1}{3.2}{2.5}
\pt{3.2}{2.5}\pt{4.2}{2.5}\pt{8.2}{2.5}\pt{6.2}{1}\pt{6.2}{4}
\ptlu{6.2}{4}{x}\ptld{6.2}{1}{y}\ptll{4.2}{2.5}{w_1}\ptlr{8.2}{2.5}{w_2}\ptll{3.2}{2.5}{w_3}
\ptlu{5}{1.5}{1}\ptld{5}{3.45}{1}\ptlr{7.4}{1.4}{2}\ptlr{7.7}{3.2}{2}\ptll{3.75}{1.4}{3}\ptll{3.4}{3.2}{4}
\ptlu{6.2}{2.15}{\textup{\normalsize $H_{m,r}$}}
\ptlu{4.15}{2.8}{\textup{\normalsize $Q_1$}}\ptlu{7.4}{3.7}{\textup{\normalsize $Q_2$}}\ptlu{4}{3.7}{\textup{\normalsize $Q_3$}}
\ptlu{5.7}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $b=3$}}
\ptlu{0}{-1.6}{\textup{\normalsize Figure 2. The graph $G_{n,r}$ for $b\in\{1,2,3\}$}}
\]\\[1ex]
\indent To complete the third part of (c), it remains to prove the following claim.
\begin{clm}\label{c2}
The $r$-colouring defined on $G_{n,r}$ is rainbow $2$-connected.
\end{clm}
\begin{proof}
Let $u,v\in V(G_{n,r})$. We show that there are two disjoint rainbow paths connecting $u$ and $v$. This is easy to check if at least one of $u,v$ is $x$ or $y$; or if $u,v$ belong to the same copy of $F_6$; or $u,v\in V(P)$; or $u,v\in\{w_1,w_2,w_3\}$; or $u\in\{w_1,w_2,w_3\}$ and $v\in V(P)$. It remains to check the following cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $u$ and $v$ belong to two different copies of $F_6$. It suffices to consider the cases $(u,v)=(a_1,a_2), (a_1,b_2), (a_1,c_2), (b_1,b_2), (b_1,d_2)$. By consulting Figure 1(b), it is easy to check that for these cases, $u$ and $v$ are connected by two disjoint rainbow paths.
\item Let $u$ belong to a copy of $F_6$, say $F_6^1$, and $v\in V(P)\setminus\{x,y\}$. It is easy to check that $u$ and $v$ are connected by two disjoint rainbow paths. In the case $u=d_1$, we take the paths $ua_1yPv$ and $uc_1xPv$.
\item Let $u$ belong to a copy of $F_6$, say $F_6^1$, and $v\in\{w_1,w_2,w_3\}$. If $(u,v)=(a_1,w_1)$, we take $ub_1c_1xv$ and $uyv$. The case $(u,v)=(a_1,w_2)$ is similar, and the case $(u,v)=(a_1,w_3)$ is easy. The case $u=c_1$ and $v\in \{w_1,w_2,w_3\}$ is similar to these previous three cases. If $u\in\{b_1,d_1\}$ and $v=w_1$, we take $uc_1xv$ and $ua_1yv$. If $u\in\{b_1,d_1\}$ and $v\in\{w_2,w_3\}$, we take $ua_1xv$ and $uc_1yv$.
\end{itemize}

This proves Claim \ref{c2}.
\end{proof}

Next, suppose that $r=5$. Let $F_5$ be the $5$-coloured graph as shown in Figure 3(a). As before, construct the graph $H_m$ by taking $m\ge 1$ copies of $F_5$ and identifying the vertices $x$ and $y$. Then, let $H_{m,5}$ be the graph obtained from $H_m$ by adding a $3$-ear at $x$ and $y$, with the colouring as shown in Figure 3(b). We have $|V(H_{m,5})|=3m+4$. Let $m$ and $b$ be integers such that $n=3m+4+b$, where $0\le b\le 2$. Note that $m\ge 1$ since $n\ge 7$. Let $G_{n,5}$ be the graph obtained from $H_{m,5}$ by adding $2$-ears $Q_1,\dots, Q_b$ at $x$ and $y$, with both edges of $Q_i$ given colour $i$ for $1\le i\le b$. See Figure 3(c). Note that $G_{n,5}=H_{m,5}$ if $b=0$. We have $G_{n,5}$ is a $2$-connected graph on $n$ vertices, and $|E(G_{n,5})|=7m+3+2b\le\frac{7n-19}{3}$. By a similar argument as in Claim \ref{c2}, the $5$-colouring of $G_{n,5}$ is rainbow $2$-connected. This proves the second part of (c).\\[-1ex]
\[ \unit = 0.7cm
\varline{450}{0.6}
\dl{-6.2}{3}{-7.2}{1}\dl{-7.2}{1}{-8.2}{3}\dl{-6.2}{3}{-7.2}{5}\dl{-7.2}{5}{-8.2}{3}
\dl{-6.2}{3}{-7.2}{3.5}\dl{-8.2}{3}{-7.2}{3.5}\dl{-8.2}{3}{-6.2}{3}
\pt{-6.2}{3}\pt{-7.2}{1}\pt{-8.2}{3}\pt{-7.2}{5}\pt{-7.2}{3.5}
\ptll{-8.3}{3}{a}\ptlr{-6.1}{3}{c}\ptlu{-7.2}{3.5}{b}\ptlu{-7.2}{5}{x}\ptld{-7.2}{1}{y}
\ptll{-7.7}{1.9}{2}\ptlr{-6.7}{1.9}{1}\ptll{-7.7}{4.1}{1}\ptlr{-6.7}{4.1}{2}\ptlu{-7.6}{3.2}{3}\ptlu{-6.8}{3.2}{4}\ptld{-7.2}{3}{5}
\ptlu{-9}{5}{\textup{\normalsize (a)}}
\ptlu{-7.2}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $F_5$}}
\dotline
\ellipse{-2.7}{3}{1}{1.5}
\varline{450}{0.6}
\dl{-2.7}{1.5}{-1.2}{1.5}\dl{-2.7}{4.5}{-1.2}{4.5}\dl{-1.2}{1.5}{-1.2}{4.5}
\pt{-2.7}{1.5}\pt{-2.7}{4.5}\pt{-1.2}{1.5}\pt{-1.2}{4.5}
\ptlu{-2.7}{4.5}{x}\ptld{-2.7}{1.5}{y}\ptlu{-1.95}{4.5}{3}\ptld{-1.95}{1.5}{4}\ptlr{-1.15}{3}{5}
\ptlu{-2.7}{2.65}{\textup{\normalsize $H_m$}}
\ptlu{-4.5}{5}{\textup{\normalsize (b)}}
\ptlu{-2.45}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $H_{m,5}$}}
\dotline
\ellipse{3.3}{3}{1}{1.5}
\varline{450}{0.6}
\bez{3.3}{1.5}{2.3}{1.5}{1.3}{3}\bez{3.3}{4.5}{2.3}{4.5}{1.3}{3}
\pt{3.3}{1.5}\pt{1.3}{3}\pt{3.3}{4.5}
\ptlu{3.3}{4.5}{x}\ptld{3.3}{1.5}{y}\ptll{1.3}{3}{w_1}
\ptll{2.1}{1.9}{1}\ptll{1.8}{3.7}{1}
\ptlu{3.3}{2.65}{\textup{\normalsize $H_{m,5}$}}
\ptlu{2.1}{4.2}{\textup{\normalsize $Q_1$}}
\dotline
\ellipse{7.3}{3}{1}{1.5}
\varline{450}{0.6}
\bez{7.3}{1.5}{6.3}{1.5}{5.3}{3}\bez{7.3}{4.5}{6.3}{4.5}{5.3}{3}\bez{7.3}{1.5}{8.3}{1.5}{9.3}{3}\bez{7.3}{4.5}{8.3}{4.5}{9.3}{3}
\pt{9.3}{3}\pt{5.3}{3}\pt{7.3}{1.5}\pt{7.3}{4.5}
\ptlu{7.3}{4.5}{x}\ptld{7.3}{1.5}{y}\ptll{5.3}{3}{w_1}\ptlr{9.3}{3}{w_2}
\ptll{6.1}{1.9}{1}\ptll{5.8}{3.7}{1}\ptlr{8.5}{1.9}{2}\ptlr{8.8}{3.7}{2}
\ptlu{7.3}{2.65}{\textup{\normalsize $H_{m,5}$}}
\ptlu{6.1}{4.2}{\textup{\normalsize $Q_1$}}\ptlu{8.5}{4.2}{\textup{\normalsize $Q_2$}}
\ptlu{5.3}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $G_{n,5}$ for $b\in\{1,2\}$}}
\ptlu{0.5}{5}{\textup{\normalsize (c)}}
\ptlu{0}{-1.4}{\textup{\normalsize Figure 3. The graphs $F_5$, $H_{m,5}$ and $G_{n,5}$}}
\]\\[-0.5ex]
\indent Finally, let $r\in\{3,4\}$. Let $F_3$ be the $3$-coloured graph as shown in Figure 4(a). Let $H_m$ be the graph obtained by taking $m\ge 1$ copies of $F_3$ and identifying the vertices $x$ and $y$. We have $|V(H_m)|=2m+2$. Let $n=2m+2+b$, where $0\le b\le 1$, and note that $m\ge 1$ since $n\ge r+1\ge 4$. If $n$ is even, set $G_{n,3}=H_m$. If $n$ is odd, let $G_{n,3}$ be obtained by adding a $2$-ear to $H_m$ at $x$ and $y$, with both edges of the ear given colour $3$. See Figure 4(b). We have $G_{n,3}$ is a $2$-connected graph on $n$ vertices, and $|E(G_{n,3})|=5m+2b\le\frac{5}{2}n-5$. It is easy to check that the $3$-colouring of $G_{n,3}$ is rainbow $2$-connected. This proves the first part of (c).\\[-0.5ex]
\[ \unit = 0.7cm
\varline{450}{0.6}
\dl{-1.9}{2.5}{-2.9}{1}\dl{-2.9}{1}{-3.9}{2.5}\dl{-1.9}{2.5}{-2.9}{4}\dl{-2.9}{4}{-3.9}{2.5}\dl{-1.9}{2.5}{-3.9}{2.5}
\pt{-1.9}{2.5}\pt{-2.9}{1}\pt{-3.9}{2.5}\pt{-2.9}{4}
\ptll{-4}{2.5}{a}\ptlr{-1.85}{2.5}{c}\ptlu{-2.9}{4}{x}\ptld{-2.9}{1}{y}
\ptll{-3.4}{1.65}{2}\ptlr{-2.4}{1.65}{1}\ptll{-3.4}{3.35}{1}\ptlr{-2.4}{3.35}{2}\ptld{-2.9}{2.5}{3}
\ptlu{-4.7}{4}{\textup{\normalsize (a)}}
\ptlu{-2.9}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $F_3$}}
\dotline
\ellipse{3.9}{2.5}{1}{1.5}
\varline{450}{0.6}
\bez{3.9}{1}{2.9}{1}{1.9}{2.5}\bez{3.9}{4}{2.9}{4}{1.9}{2.5}
\pt{3.9}{1}\pt{3.9}{4}\pt{1.9}{2.5}
\ptlu{3.9}{4}{x}\ptld{3.9}{1}{y}\ptll{1.85}{2.5}{w}
\ptll{2.7}{1.35}{3}\ptll{2.7}{3.6}{3}
\ptlu{1.1}{4}{\textup{\normalsize (b)}}
\ptlu{3.9}{2.15}{\textup{\normalsize $H_m$}}
\ptlu{3.4}{-0.4}{\textup{\normalsize $G_{n,3}$, $n$ odd}}
\ptlu{0}{-1.4}{\textup{\normalsize Figure 4. The graphs $F_3$ and $G_{n,3}$}}
\]\\[-1ex]
\indent(d) We first prove the two upper bounds. For $n\ge 4$, we construct a graph $G_1$ on $n$ vertices, with $|E(G_1)|=n+1$ and $rc_2(G_1)\le n-1$, as follows. We take the cycle $C_{n-1}=v_1v_2\cdots v_{n-1}v_1$, and connect another vertex $x$ to $v_1$ and $v_2$. Now, define the $(n-1)$-colouring $c_1$ on $G_1$,  where $c_1(v_iv_{i+1})=i$ for $1\le i\le n-1$ (with $v_n=v_1$), $c_1(xv_1)=2$, and $c_1(xv_2)=n-1$. Then $|E(G_1)|=n+1$, and it is easy to check that $c_1$ is a rainbow $2$-connected colouring of $G_1$, so that $rc_2(G_1)\le n-1$. It follows that $t_2(n,n-1)\le n+1$.

Next, let $n\ge 6$. We construct a graph $G_2$ on $n$ vertices, with $|E(G_2)|=n+2$ and $rc_2(G_2)\le n-2$, as follows. We take the cycle $C_{n-2}=v_1v_2\cdots v_{n-2}v_1$, and connect a vertex $x$ to $v_1$ and $v_2$, and a vertex $y$ to $v_2$ and $v_3$. Now, define the $(n-2)$-colouring $c_2$ on $G_2$,  where $c_2(v_iv_{i+1})=i$ for $1\le i\le n-2$ (with $v_{n-1}=v_1$), $c_2(xv_1)=2$, $c_2(xv_2)=n-2$, $c_2(yv_2)=3$, and $c_2(yv_3)=1$. Then $|E(G_2)|=n+2$, and it is easy to check that $c_2$ is a rainbow $2$-connected colouring of $G_2$, so that $rc_2(G_2)\le n-2$. It follows that $t_2(n,n-2)\le n+2$.

Now we prove the two lower bounds. First, let $n\ge 4$. Recall that the cycle $C_n$ is the unique $2$-connected graph on $n$ vertices with the minimum of edges, which is $n$. However, $rc_2(C_n)=n$. It follows that $t_2(n,n-1)\ge n+1$.

Next, let $n\ge 6$. By (\ref{t2chain}) and the above, we have $t_2(n,n-2)\ge t_2(n,n-1)\ge n+1$. Suppose that $G$ is a $2$-connected graph on $n$ vertices, and $|E(G)|=n+1$. We prove that $rc_2(G)\ge n-1$, and this implies the lower bound $t_2(n,n-2)\ge n+2$. By the remark after Theorem \ref{EDthm}, $G$ must be a cycle with one ear attached. Thus $G$ is a $\Theta$-graph, i.e., $G$ consists of three disjoint paths connecting two vertices, say $x$ and $y$. Let $Q_1,Q_2,Q_3$ be the three paths, on $q_1,q_2\ge 3$ and $q_3\ge 2$ vertices. Let $x_i,y_i\in V(Q_i)$ be the neighbours of $x$ and $y$ for $i=1,2$, and for $i=3$ if $q_3\ge 3$. Assume that there exists a rainbow $2$-connected colouring of $G$ with at most $n-2$ colours. In the two claims and the subsequent argument below, we obtain a contradiction by finding two vertices which are not connected by two disjoint rainbow paths. Call such a pair of vertices \emph{bad}. For convenience, whenever we state an edge $wz\in E(Q_i)$ below, we have $d_{Q_i}(x,w)=d_{Q_i}(x,z)-1$.

\begin{clm}\label{clmA}
If there exist two edges $ab\in E(Q_i)$ and $cd\in E(Q_j)$ with the same colour, for some $i\neq j$ with $q_i,q_j\ge 3$, then either $a=x$ and $d=y$, or $b=y$ and $c=x$.
\end{clm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose first that $a,b$ are internal vertices of $Q_i$. Then $\{a,c\}$ (resp.~$\{b,d\}$) is bad if $c$ (resp.~$d$) is an internal vertex of $Q_j$. Now suppose that $a=x$. If $d\neq y$, then $\{b,d\}$ is bad. Similarly, if $b=y$, then we have $c=x$.
\end{proof}

\begin{clm}\label{clmC}
There do not exist three edges with the same colour.
\end{clm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that there exist three edges using the same colour, say red. If these red edges occur in all three paths, then we have a contradiction to Claim \ref{clmA}, unless (without loss of generality) $q_3=2$ and $xx_1,y_2y,xy$ are all red. But then $\{x_1,y\}$ is bad. Thus, some $Q_i$ contains two red edges. Lemma \ref{lm1} implies that $q_i=3$, so there is a red edge in $Q_j$ for some $j\neq i$. Claim \ref{clmA} then implies $q_j=2$, so that $j=3$, and we may assume that $i=2$. Claim \ref{clmA} again implies that there cannot exist a red edge in $Q_1$. Since $|E(G)|=n+1$ and we have at most $n-2$ colours, $Q_1$ must have two edges with the same colour other than red. But then $\{x,y\}$ is bad.
\end{proof}

Thus, since $|E(G)|=n+1$ and we have at most $n-2$ colours, Claim \ref{clmC} implies that there exist three colours, where for each colour, there are exactly two edges using the colour. Let red, blue and green be these three colours. \\[1ex]
\emph{Case 1.} $q_3=2$.\\[1ex]
\indent By Claim \ref{clmA}, it follows that $Q_3=xy$ must be one of the three colours, say green. If say $Q_2$ contains both blue edges, then Lemma \ref{lm1} implies $q_2=3$. But then both red edges occur in $Q_1$, and $\{x,y\}$ is bad. Thus by Claim \ref{clmA}, we may assume that $xx_1, y_2y$ are red, and $xx_2,y_1y$ are blue. Now, the remaining green edge is in $Q_i$ for some $i\in\{1,2\}$, and $\{x,x_i\}$ is bad.\\[1ex]
\emph{Case 2.} $q_3\ge 3$.\\[1ex]
\indent Suppose, say, that the two green edges are in $Q_3$. By Lemma \ref{lm1}, $q_3=3$, and $xx_3,x_3y$ are green. If, say, the two blue edges are in $Q_2$, then Lemma \ref{lm1} implies that $q_2=3$, and $xx_2,x_2y$ are blue. But then $\{x,y\}$ is bad. Otherwise, Claim \ref{clmA} implies that, we may assume $xx_1, y_2y$ are red, and $xx_2,y_1y$ are blue. But then $\{x,x_1\}$ is bad.

Hence, none of the three paths may contain two edges in red, blue, or green. Now by Claim \ref{clmA}, we may assume that $xx_1,y_2y$ are red, $xx_2,y_3y$ are blue, and $xx_3,y_1y$ are green. But then, since $n\ge 6$, we have $q_i\ge 4$ for some $i$, and $\{x_i,y_i\}$ is bad.

Therefore, we have $rc_2(G)\ge n-1$, as required.\\[1ex]
\indent This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{t2(n,r)thm}.
\end{proof}

\section{The function $s_2(n,r)$}\label{s2(n,r)sect}

Let $n>k\ge 2$. If $n\ge (k+1)^2$, then by Theorem \ref{CJMZthm}(b), we have $s_k(n,2)={n\choose 2}$. Now, define
\[
M_{n,k}=\max\{r:rc_k(G)=r\textup{ for some }k\textup{-connected graph $G$ on $n$ vertices$\}$.}
\]
Then $s_k(n,r)$ is well-defined if and only if $2\le r\le M_{n,k}$. Together with Theorem \ref{Harthm}, we obtain the following analogue to (\ref{s1chain})
\[
{n\choose 2} = s_k(n,2)\ge s_k(n,3)\ge\cdots\ge s_k(n,M_{n,k})\ge\Big\lceil\frac{kn}{2}\Big\rceil.
\]

Now, we focus on the function $s_2(n,r)$. Let $n\ge 4$. Theorem \ref{CJMZthm}(a) implies that $s_2(n,2)={n\choose 2}$. Theorem \ref{LLthm} then implies that $s_2(n,r)$ is well-defined if and only if $2\le r\le n$. Moreover, if $G$ is a $2$-connected graph on $n$ vertices with $|E(G)|\ge n+1$, then $G\neq C_n$, so Theorem \ref{LLthm} gives $rc_2(G)\le n-1$. This implies that $s_2(n,n)=n$. Therefore, for $n\ge 4$,
\[
{n\choose 2} = s_2(n,2)\ge s_2(n,3)\ge\cdots\ge s_2(n,n)=n.
\]
Thus, it remains to consider $3\le r\le n-1$. We provide lower bounds for $s_2(n,r)$ in the following proposition.

\begin{prop}\label{s2(n,r)prop}
\indent\\[-3ex]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] Let $3\le r\le n-1$. Then $s_2(n,r)\ge {n-r+2 \choose 2}+r-1$.
\item[(b)] Let $n\ge 6$, and $\frac{n}{2}+2\le r\le n-1$. Then $s_2(n,r)\ge {n-r+3\choose 2}+r-3$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
(a) Let $G$ be the graph on $n$ vertices, obtained by taking the complete graph $K_{n-r+2}$ and attaching an $(r-1)$-ear $P$ at two vertices $v_0,v_{r-1}$. Then $|E(G)|={n-r+2 \choose 2}+r-1$. We show that $rc_2(G)\ge r$, which implies that $s_2(n,r)\ge {n-r+2 \choose 2}+r-1$.

Let $P=v_0v_1\cdots v_{r-1}$ and $u_1,\dots,u_{n-r}$ be the remaining vertices of $G$. Suppose that there exists a rainbow $2$-connected colouring $c$ of $G$, using at most $r-1$ colours. The two disjoint rainbow paths connecting $v_{r-1}$ and $v_{r-2}$ must be $v_{r-1}v_{r-2}$ and $v_{r-1}v_0v_1\cdots v_{r-2}$, so we may assume that $c(v_{i-1}v_i)=i$ for $1\le i\le r-2$ and $c(v_0v_{r-1})=r-1$. Similarly, by considering $v_0$ and $v_1$, the path $v_1v_2\cdots v_{r-1}v_0$ must be rainbow, and so $c(v_{r-2}v_{r-1})=1$. Now for any $1\le j\le n-r$, to connect $v_1$ and $u_j$ with two disjoint rainbow paths, one path must be $v_1v_2\cdots v_{r-1}u_j$. Thus $c(v_{r-1}u_j)=r-1$. Similarly, by considering $v_{r-2}$ and $u_j$, we have $c(v_0u_j)=r-1$. But now, we see that there do not exist two disjoint rainbow paths connecting $v_0$ and $v_{r-1}$. Therefore, $rc_2(G)\ge r$.\\[1ex]
\indent (b) Note that we have $r\ge 5$. We construct the graph $G$ on $n\ge 6$ vertices as follows. Take the complete graph $K_{n-r+3}$ and delete one edge $v_0v_{r-2}$. Then add an $(r-2)$-ear $P$ at $v_0$ and $v_{r-2}$. We have $|E(G)|= {n-r+3\choose 2}+r-3$. We show that $rc_2(G)\ge r$, which implies that $s_2(n,r)\ge {n-r+3\choose 2}+r-3$.

Let $P=v_0v_1\cdots v_{r-2}$ and $u_1,\dots,u_{n-r+1}$ be the remaining vertices of $G$. Suppose that there exists a rainbow $2$-connected colouring $c$ of $G$, using at most $r-1$ colours. Since $P$ has length $r-2\ge 3$, Lemma \ref{lm1} implies that $P$ must be rainbow coloured. We may assume that $c(v_{i-1}v_i)=i$ for $1\le i\le r-2$. Now for $1\le i\le r-2$, to connect $v_{i-1}$ and $v_i$ with two disjoint rainbow paths, one path must be $v_{i-1}Pv_0u_jv_{r-2}Pv_i$, for some $1\le j\le n-r+1$. Note that $n-r+2\le r-2$, so that the vertices $v_0,v_1,\dots,v_{n-r+2}$ all exist. By considering the vertices $v_{i-1}$ and $v_i$ for $1\le i\le n-r+1$, we may assume that for $1\le i\le n-r+1$, the path $v_0u_iv_{r-2}$ uses the colours $i$ and $r-1$. But now, we see that there do not exist  two disjoint rainbow paths connecting $v_{n-r+1}$ and $v_{n-r+2}$. Therefore, $rc_2(G)\ge r$.
\end{proof}

For $3\le r\le n-1$, we believe that the lower bounds in Proposition \ref{s2(n,r)prop} are close to the correct values of $s_2(n,r)$. We propose the following problem.

\begin{pro}
For $3\le r\le n-1$, determine the function $s_2(n,r)$. Do there exist $n$ and $r$ such that $s_2(n,r)$ is equal to either lower bound in Proposition \ref{s2(n,r)prop}?
\end{pro}

\section*{Acknowledgements}
Shinya Fujita is supported by JSPS KAKENHI (No.~19K03603). Henry Liu is partially supported by the Startup Fund of One Hundred Talent Program of SYSU, and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.~11931002). Boram Park is supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (NRF-2018R1C1B6003577).

Shinya\, Fujita\, and\, Boram\, Park\, acknowledge\, the\, generous\, hospitality\, of\, Sun\, Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. They were able to carry out part of this research with Henry Liu during their visits there in 2019.

The\, authors\, would\, like\, to\, thank\, the\, anonymous\, referee\, for\, valuable\, comments\, and suggestions.


Possible cardinalities of the center of a graph

Abstract: A central vertex of a graph is a vertex whose eccentricity equals the radius. The center of a graph is the set of all central vertices. The central ratio of a graph is the ratio of the cardinality of its center to its order. In 1982, Buckley proved that every positive rational number not exceeding one is the central ratio of some graph. In this paper, we obtain more detailed information by determining which cardinalities are possible for the center of a graph with given order and radius. There are unexpected phenomena in the results. For example, there exists a graph of order $14$ and radius $6$ whose center has cardinality $s$ if and only if $s\in \{ 1, 2, 3, 4, 9,10,11,12,14\}.$ We also prove a related uniqueness result.

\section{Introduction}

We consider finite simple graphs. The {\it order} of a graph is its number of vertices. We denote by $V(G)$ and $E(G)$ the vertex set
 and edge set of a graph $G$ respectively. Denote by $d_{G}(u,v)$ the distance between two vertices $u$ and $v$ in $G.$ If the graph $G$ is clear from the context, we simply write $d(u,v).$
 The {\it eccentricity}, denoted by $e(v),$ of a vertex $v$ in a graph $G$ is the distance to a vertex farthest
from $v.$ Thus $e(v)={\rm max}\{d(v,u)| u\in V(G)\}.$ If $e(v)=d(v,x),$ then the vertex $x$ is called an {\it eccentric vertex} of $v.$
The {\it radius} of a graph $G,$ denoted ${\rm rad}(G),$ is the minimum eccentricity of all the vertices in $V(G),$ whereas the {\it diameter}
of $G,$ denoted ${\rm diam}(G),$ is the maximum eccentricity. A vertex $v$ is a {\it central vertex} of $G$ if $e(v)={\rm rad}(G).$ The {\it center} of a graph $G,$ denoted $C(G),$ is the set of all central vertices of $G.$ A vertex $u$ is a {\it peripheral vertex} of $G$ if $e(u)={\rm diam}(G).$ A graph with a finite radius or diameter is necessarily connected. If ${\rm rad}(G)={\rm diam}(G),$ then the graph $G$ is called {\it self-centered.} Thus, a self-centered graph
is a graph in which every vertex is a central vertex. A graph is called {\it trivial} if it is of order $1;$ otherwise it is {\it nontrivial.}

The {\it central ratio} of a graph $G$ is the ratio of the cardinality of its center to its order; i.e., $|C(G)|/|V(G)|.$ In 1982, Buckley [1] proved the following result.

{\bf Theorem 1.} (Buckley [1]) {\it If $c$ is a rational number with $0<c\le 1,$ then there exists a graph whose central ratio is equal to $c.$}

In this paper, we obtain more detailed information by determining which cardinalities are possible for the center of a graph with given order and radius,
from which Theorem 1 follows immediately. There are unexpected phenomena in the results. We also prove a related uniqueness result.

\section{Main Results}

First recall the basic fact that if $n$ and $r$ are the order and radius of a graph respectively, then $r\le n/2.$ This can be seen by considering a spanning tree of the graph. It is well-known (e.g. [4]) that there exists a graph of radius $r$ and diameter $d$ if and only if
$r\le d\le 2r.$

We will need the following two lemmas due to other authors.

{\bf Lemma 2.} (Erd\H{o}s, Saks and S\'{o}s [2, Theorem 2.1])  {\it Every connected graph of radius $r$ has an induced path of order $2r-1.$}

A cycle $C$ in a graph $H$ is called a {\it geodesic cycle} if for any two vertices $x,y\in V(C),$ $d_{C}(x,y)=d_{H}(x,y).$ Thus, a geodesic cycle
is necessarily induced; i.e., it has no chords.

{\bf Lemma 3.} (Haviar, Hrn\v{c}iar and Monoszov\'{a} [3, Theorem 2.6]) {\it Let $G$ be a graph of order $n,$ radius $r$ and diameter $d.$
If $n\le 3r-2$ and $d\le 2r-2,$ then $G$ contains a geodesic cycle of length $2r$ or $2r+1.$}

 {\bf Notation 1.} For a positive integer $n,$\, $\langle n\rangle=\{1,2,\ldots,n\},$  the set of the first $n$ positive integers.

 $K_t,$ $C_t$ and $P_t$ will denote the complete graph of order $t,$ the cycle of order $t$ and the path of order $t$  respectively.
 Recall that the {\it join} of graphs $G$ and $H,$  denoted $G\vee H,$ is the graph obtained from the disjoint union $G+H$ by
 adding the edges $xy$ with $x\in V(G)$ and $y\in V(H).$ $\overline{G}$ denotes the complement of a graph $G.$
 A {\it leaf} in a graph is a vertex of degree $1.$

{\bf Notation 2.} A {\it lollipop} is the union of a cycle and a path having exactly one common vertex which is an end-vertex of the path.
We denote by $L(n,k)$ the lollipop of order $n$ whose cycle has length $k.$ A {\it broom} is a tree obtained by subdividing one edge of a star
an arbitrary number of times. We denote by $B(n,k)$ the broom of order $n$ and diameter $k.$ If $k\le n-2,$ the broom $B(n,k)$ has a unique vertex
of degree at least $3,$ which we call the {\it joint} of the broom. The {\it joint} of the path $B(n,n-1)=P_n$ is defined to be the neighbor of one of
the two end-vertices.

Two examples are depicted in Figure 1.
\vskip 3mm
\par
 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.8in]{Fig1.jpg}}
\par

 Now we are ready to state and prove the main results.

 {\bf Theorem 4.} {\it Given positive integers $n$ and $r$ with $r\le n/2,$\, let $\Omega(n,r)$ denote the set of those integers $k$
 such that there exists a graph of order $n$ and radius $r$ whose center has cardinality $k.$ If $n\ge 3$ then
$$
 \Omega(n,r)=\begin{cases} \langle n\rangle\setminus \{n-1\}\quad {\rm if}\,\,\,r\le (3n+2)/8;\\
                             \{1,2,...,n-2r+2\}\cup\{6r-2n+1,...,n-2,n\}\quad {\rm if}\,\,\,(3n+2)/8<r<n/2;\\
                             \{2,n\}\quad {\rm if}\,\,\,r=n/2.
                             \end{cases}
$$}

{\bf Proof.} We first show that every value $s$ in the expression of $\Omega(n,r)$ can be attained. Note that the condition $(3n+2)/8<r$
means $(n-2r+2)+1<6r-2n+1;$ i.e., there is an integer gap between $n-2r+2$ and $6r-2n+1.$

For this part, there is no need to distinguish the case $r\le (3n+2)/8$ and the case $(3n+2)/8<r<n/2.$ The constructions below give two graphs
attaining some values of $s$ in the former case.

Suppose $r=1.$ For any $s\in \langle n\rangle\setminus \{n-1\},$ the graph $K_s\vee \overline{K_{n-s}}$ has order $n$ and radius $1,$
and its center has cardinality $s.$

Now suppose $2\le r<n/2.$ We distinguish six cases.

Case 1. $s=1.$ The broom $B(n,2r)$ has order $n$ and radius $r,$ and its center has cardinality $1.$

Case 2. $2\le s\le n-2r+2.$ Let $G_{1}(n,r,s)$ be the graph obtained from the broom $B(n-s+2,2r-1)$ by adding $s-2$ additional vertices
and joining each of them to the two central vertices of $B(n-s+2,2r-1).$ Then $G_{1}(n,r,s)$ has order $n$ and radius $r,$ and its center
has cardinality $s.$ The graph $G_{1}(14,4,5)$ is depicted in Figure 2.
\vskip 3mm
\par
 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3 in]{Fig2.jpg}}
\par

Case 3. $6r-2n+1\le s\le 2r-1$ and $s$ is odd. Then $s=2r-2k+1$ for some $k$ with $1\le k\le n-2r.$
If $n=2r+k,$ define the graph $G_{2}(n,r,s)$ to be the lollipop $L(n,2r).$ If $n>2r+k,$ $G_{2}(n,r,s)$ is obtained
by identifying the joint of the broom $B(n-2r+1,k+1)$ with one vertex of the cycle $C_{2r}.$
Then $G_{2}(n,r,s)$ has order $n$ and radius $r,$ and its center has cardinality $s.$ The graph $G_{2}(15,4,3)$ is depicted in Figure 3.
\vskip 3mm
\par
 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.1 in]{Fig3.jpg}}
\par

Case 4. $6r-2n+1\le s\le 2r-1$ and $s$ is even. Then $s=2r-2k$ for some $k$ with $1\le k\le n-2r-1.$
If $n=2r+k+1,$ we identify the eccentric vertex of the unique leaf of the lollipop $L(2r+1,2r)$ with one end-vertex of
the path $P_{k+1}$ to obtain the graph $G_{3}(n,r,s).$ If $n>2r+k+1,$ we identify the eccentric vertex of the unique leaf of the lollipop $L(2r+1,2r)$
with the joint of the broom $B(n-2r,k+1)$ to obtain the graph $G_{3}(n,r,s).$ Then $G_{3}(n,r,s)$ has order $n$ and radius $r,$ and its center
has cardinality $s.$ The graph $G_{3}(15,4,2)$ is depicted in Figure 4.
\vskip 3mm
\par
 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.1 in]{Fig4.jpg}}
\par

Case 5. $2r\le s\le n-2.$ Then $s=2r+k-1$ for some $k$ with $1\le k\le n-2r-1.$ Define the graph $G_{4}(n,r,s)$ as follows.
Let $C:\,x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{2r}$ be a cycle of length $2r.$ Add $n-2r-k$ new vertices to $C$ and join each of them to the vertex $x_1$ to
obtain a graph $D.$ Add $k$ new vertices to $D$ and join each of them to the two vertices $x_2$ and $x_{2r}$ to obtain the graph
$G_{4}(n,r,s),$ which has order $n$ and radius $r,$ and whose center has cardinality $s.$ The graph $G_{4}(15,4,11)$ is depicted in Figure 5.
\vskip 3mm
\par
 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2 in]{Fig5.jpg}}
\par

Case 6. $s=n.$ We obtain a graph $G_{5}(n,r)$ by adding $n-2r$ new vertices to the cycle $C:\,x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{2r}$ of length $2r$
and joining each of them to the two vertices $x_2$ and $x_{2r}.$ Then $G_{5}(n,r)$ is a self-centered graph of order $n$ and radius $r.$
The graph $G_{5}(12,4)$ is depicted in Figure 6.
\vskip 3mm
\par
 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2 in]{Fig6.jpg}}
\par

Finally suppose $r=n/2.$ We have $n=2r.$ The center of the path $P_{2r}$ has cardinality $2$ and the center of the cycle $C_{2r}$
 has cardinality $n.$

Conversely, we prove that the integers appearing in the expression of $\Omega(n,r)$ are the only possible elements of the set $\Omega(n,r).$

First note that any nontrivial graph has at least two peripheral vertices. Indeed, suppose $v$ is a peripheral vertex and $u$
is an eccentric vertex of $v.$ Then both $v$ and $u$ are peripheral vertices. Thus, we always have $n-1\not\in \Omega(n,r).$

We then treat the easier case $r=n/2.$ Let $H$ be a graph of order $n$ and radius $r$ with $r=n/2.$ By Lemma 2, $H$
has an induced path $P$ of order $2r-1=n-1.$ Thus there is only one vertex $y$ outside $P.$ Since $P$ is an induced path of radius $r-1$
and $H$ has radius $r,$ the two end-vertices of $P$ are the only possible neighbors of $y.$ Hence $H$ is either a path or a cycle of the even order $n.$
Consequently the center of $H$ has cardinality $2$ or $n.$

Now we consider the case $(3n+2)/8<r<n/2.$ Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$ and radius $r$ whose center has cardinality $t.$ We will show that
either $t\le n-2r+2$ or $t\ge 6r-2n+1.$ Note that the condition $(3n+2)/8<r$ implies that $n\le 3r-2.$ Denote by $d$ the diameter of $G.$
We distinguish two cases.

Case 1. $d\ge 2r-1.$ Let $Q$ be a diametral path of $G;$ i.e., a path of length $d$ whose end-vertices are at distance $d.$
There are two possible values of $d.$ If $d=2r,$ then there are at least $2r$ non-central vertices of $G$ on $Q.$ Hence $t\le n-2r.$
If $d=2r-1,$ then there are at least $2r-2$ non-central vertices of $G$ on $Q.$ Hence $t\le n-2r+2.$ In both cases we have $t\le n-2r+2.$

Case 2. $d\le 2r-2.$  As remarked above, we also have $n\le 3r-2.$ By Lemma 3, $G$ has a cycle $C$ of length $2r$ or $2r+1.$
We distinguish two subcases.

Subcase 2.1. $C$ has length $2r.$ Since $2r<n,$ $G$ has vertices outside $C.$
Suppose $u_1v_1$ is a non-cut-edge of $G$ with $u_1\in V(C)$ and $v_1\not\in V(C).$ Recall that an edge is a
cut-edge if and only if it belongs to no cycle [5, p.23]. Thus there is a cycle containing $u_1v_1.$ In this cycle we choose an edge $e$ such that
$e\not= u_1v_1$ and $e\not\in E(C).$ Delete $e$ to obtain a new graph. If $u_1v_1$ is still a non-cut-edge of this new graph, delete an edge $f$ in a cycle
containing $u_1v_1$ such that $f\not= u_1v_1$ and $f\not\in E(C).$ After finitely many such edge deletion steps, we obtain a graph $G_1$ containing $C$
in which $u_1v_1$ is a cut-edge.

If $G_1$ contains a non-cut-edge $u_2v_2$ with exactly one endpoint in $C,$ by repeating the above edge deletion procedure,we obtain a graph
$G_2$ containing $C$ in which $u_2v_2$ is a cut-edge. Continuing this process, after finitely many steps we obtain a graph $R$ containing $C$
in which every edge with exactly one endpoint in $C$ is a cut-edge of $R.$ Suppose $u_iv_i,$ $i=1,2,\ldots, p$ are all such cut-edges of $R$
with $u_i\in V(C).$ The vertices $v_1,\ldots, v_p$ are pairwise distinct, but it is possible that $u_i=u_j$ for some pairs $i\neq j.$
Since deleting edges cannot decrease the radius of a graph, we have $r={\rm rad}(G)\le {\rm rad}(R).$ Denote by $F_i$ the component of $R-u_iv_i$ containing $v_i.$ Then $F_1,\ldots, F_p$ are pairwise vertex-disjoint.

Denote $a_i={\rm max}\{d_R(u_i,x)|x\in V(F_i)\},$ $i=1,\ldots, p.$ Since $C$ contains $2r$ vertices and $F_1,\ldots, F_p$ are pairwise vertex-disjoint, we have $a_1+a_2+\cdots+a_p\le n-2r.$ Since the order $n$ of $R$ satisfies $n\le 3r-2,$ we deduce that $a_i\le n-2r\le r-2$ for each $i.$ It follows that $C$ contains at most $2r-(2(r-a_i)+1)=2a_i-1$ vertices $y$ such that there exists a vertex $z\in V(F_i)$ with $d_R(y,z)>r.$ In $R,$ altogether $C$ contains at most
$$
\sum_{i=1}^p(2a_i-1)=2\left(\sum_{i=1}^p a_i\right)-p\le 2(n-2r)-1=2n-4r-1 \eqno (1)
$$
vertices with eccentricity larger than $r.$ Hence $C$ contains at least $2r-(2n-4r-1)=6r-2n+1$ vertices with eccentricity not exceeding $r$ in $R.$ Since
$6r-2n+1\ge 6r-2(3r-2)+1=5,$ we have ${\rm rad}(R)\le r.$ Combining this conclusion with the fact that ${\rm rad}(R)\ge r$ we obtain
${\rm rad}(R)=r;$ i.e., $R$ and $G$ have the same radius. Since $R$ is obtained from $G$ by deleting edges, every central vertex of
$R$ is also a central vertex of $G.$ We deduce that $R$ and hence $G$ contains at least $6r-2n+1$ central vertices.

Subcase 2.2. $C$ has length $2r+1.$ The proof is similar to that for Subcase 2.1, but there are some differences in details. Continue using
the above notations. $C$ contains at most $2\sum_{i=1}^p a_i$ vertices with eccentricity larger than $r.$ We have $2\sum_{i=1}^p a_i\le 2(n-2r-1).$
Hence, $C$ contains at least
$$
(2r+1)-2(n-2r-1)=6r-2n+3\ge 6r-2(3r-2)+3=7
$$
vertices of eccentricity $r.$ Thus, $G$ has at least $6r-2n+3$ central vertices.

Combining subcases 2.1 and 2.2 we conclude that $t\ge 6r-2n+1.$ This completes the proof. $\Box$

 {\bf Theorem 5.} {\it Let $n$ and $r$ be positive integers with $(3n+2)/8\le r<n/2.$ Then the lollipop $L(n,2r)$ is the unique graph
 of order $n$ and radius $r$ whose center has cardinality $6r-2n+1.$}

 {\bf Proof.} First note that the condition $(3n+2)/8\le r<n/2$ implies that $n\ge 7,$ $n\le 3r-2$ and $n-2r+2<6r-2n+1.$

 We observe that the lollipop $L(n,2r)$ has order $n$ and radius $r,$ and its center has cardinality $6r-2n+1.$

 Next suppose $G$ is a graph of order $n$ and radius $r$ whose center has cardinality $6r-2n+1.$
 Denote by $d$ the diameter of $G.$  We assert that $d\le 2r-2,$ since in the proof of Theorem 4 we have shown that
 if $d\ge 2r-1,$ then the center of $G$ has cardinality at most $n-2r+2,$ which contradicts the fact that the center of $G$ has cardinality $6r-2n+1.$

 By Lemma 3, $G$ contains a geodesic cycle $C$ of length $2r$ or $2r+1.$
 In the proof of Theorem 4 we have shown that if $C$ has length $2r+1,$ then the center of $G$ has cardinality at least $6r-2n+3,$ which
 contradicts our assumption.  Hence $C$ has length $2r.$ Since $C$ is geodesic, it is an induced cycle. Continue using the notations
 in the proof of Theorem 4. Since  the center of $G$ has cardinality $6r-2n+1,$ equality must hold in (1), which implies that $p=1$
 and $\sum_{i=1}^p a_i=n-2r.$  Thus, in $R,$ the component $F_1$ is a path of order $n-2r,$ implying that $R$ is the lollipop $L(n,2r).$
 Note that the center of $L(n,2r)$ has cardinality $6r-2n+1.$  If in $G$ there is an edge other than $u_1v_1$ joining a vertex of $C$ and
 a vertex of $F_1,$ then the cardinality of the center of $G$ would be larger than $6r-2n+1,$ a contradiction.
 It follows that $G=R=L(n,2r)$ and the proof is complete. $\Box$

 For example, Theorem 5 asserts that the lollipop $L(14,12)$ is the unique graph of order $14$ and radius $6$ whose center has cardinality $9.$

 Finally we show that Buckley's Theorem 1 follows from Theorem 4.

 {\bf Proof of Theorem 1.} Any self-centered graph, say, a cycle, has central ratio $1.$ Now let $c=a/b$ with $a<b.$
 First suppose $a\neq b-1.$ Choose any positive integer $r$ with $r\le (3b+2)/8.$ By Theorem 4, there exists a graph $G$ of order $b$
 and radius $r$ whose center has cardinality $a.$ Then $G$ has central ratio $a/b.$ Next suppose $a=b-1.$ We have $2a\neq 2b-1.$
 Reasoning as above, there exists a graph $H$ of order $2b$ whose center has cardinality $2a.$ Clearly $H$ has central ratio
 $(2a)/(2b)=c.$ $\Box$

\vskip 5mm
{\bf Acknowledgement.} This research  was supported by the NSFC grants 11671148 and 11771148 and Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (STCSM) grant 18dz2271000.


On comparing Zagreb indices

Abstract: Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple graph with $n = |V|$ vertices and $m = |E|$ edges. The first and second Zagreb indices are among the oldest and the most famous topological indices, defined as $M_1 = \sum_{i \in V} d_i^2$ and $M_2 = \sum_{(i, j) \in E} d_i d_j$, where $d_i$ denote the degree of vertex $i$. Recently proposed conjecture $M_1 / n \leqslant M_2 / m$ has been proven to hold for trees, unicyclic graphs and chemical graphs, while counterexamples were found for both connected and disconnected graphs. Our goal is twofold, both in favor of a conjecture and against it. Firstly, we show that the expressions $M_1/n$ and $M_2/m$ have the same lower and upper bounds, which attain equality for and only for regular graphs. We also establish sharp lower bound for variable first and second Zagreb indices. Secondly, we show that for any fixed number $k\geqslant 2$, there exists a connected graph with $k$ cycles for which $M_1/n>M_2/m$ holds, effectively showing that the conjecture cannot hold unless there exists some kind of limitation on the number of cycles or the maximum vertex degree in a graph. In particular, we show that the conjecture holds for subdivision graphs.

\section{Introduction}

Let $G = (V, E)$ be a simple graph with $n = |V|$ vertices and $m =
|E|$ edges. The first Zagreb index $M_1$ and the second Zagreb index
$M_2$ of $G$ are defined as follows:
$$
M_1 = \sum_{i \in V} d_i^2 \quad \mbox { and } \quad M_2 = \sum_{(i,
j) \in E} d_i d_j,
$$
where $d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_n$ are vertex degrees, while $d_i d_j$
represents weight associated to the edge $(i,j)$. The Zagreb indices
were first introduced in~\cite{GuTr72} and the survey of properties
of $M_1$ and $M_2$ is given in~\cite{NiKMT03}. Note that in random
graphs with $n$ vertices and uniform edge probability~$p$, the order
of magnitude of $M_{1}$ is $O(n^{3}p^{2})$, while the order of
magnitude of $M_{2}$ is $O(n^{4}p^{3})$, implying that $M_{1}/n$ and
$M_{2}/m$ have the same order of magnitude $O(n^{2}p^{2})$. This led
to the following conjecture posed in~\cite{HaVu07}:
\begin{con}
\label{conjecture}
For all simple connected graphs~$G$:
$$
\frac {M_1}{n} \leqslant \frac{M_2}{m},
$$
and the bound is tight for complete graphs.
\end{con}
It was shown in~\cite{HaVu07} that this conjecture is not true in general
by finding a disconnected counterexample consisting of a six-vertex star and a triangle,
and a connected counterexample on $46$~vertices and $110$~edges.
Nevertheless, it was proven in~\cite{HaVu07} that
the conjecture holds for chemical graphs.
Further, it was proven in~\cite{VuGr07}
that the conjecture holds for trees (with equality attained for and only for stars),
while in~\cite{Li08} it was proven that the conjecture holds for connected unicyclic graphs
(with equality attained for and only for cycles).\vspace{0.2cm}

Our goal here is twofold, both in favor of a conjecture and against
it:
\begin{enumerate}[($i$)]
\item We show that the expressions $M_1/n$ and $M_2/m$ are both
bounded with $\frac{4m^2}{n^2}$ from below and with $\frac{\Delta
M_1}{2 m}$ from above, with equality attained for and only for
regular graphs. We also establish lower bounds for variable Zagreb
indices.

\item We show that for any fixed number $k\geq 2$,
there exists a connected graph with $k$~cycles for which
$M_1/n>M_2/m$ holds, effectively showing that the conjecture cannot
hold unless there exists some kind of limitation on the number of
cycles or the maximum vertex degree in a graph.  In particular, we
prove that the conjecture holds for subdivision graphs.
\end{enumerate}

\section{Common lower and upper bounds}

The following two theorems give sharp lower bounds for $M_1$
and~$M_2$. Recall that for a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges,
the average value of vertex degrees is $2m / n$.

\begin{thm}
\label{first} It holds that $M_1 \geqslant \frac{4 m^2}{n}$.
The equality is attained if and only if graph is regular.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We use the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality on vectors
$(d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_n)$ and $(1, 1, \ldots, 1)$ to get
$$
M_1 \cdot n = \left ( d_1^2 + d_2^2 + \ldots + d_n^2 \right ) \left
( 1^2 + 1^2 + \ldots + 1^2 \right ) \geqslant (d_1 \cdot 1 + d_2
\cdot 1 + \ldots + d_n \cdot 1)^2 = (2m)^2.
$$
Equality holds if and only if $d_1 = d_2 = \ldots = d_n$, namely
if and only if $G$ is regular.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
\label{le-xlnx}
For positive real numbers $x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n$ the following
inequality holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-ineq}
x_1 \ln x_1 + x_2 \ln x_2 + \ldots + x_n \ln x_n \geqslant \left (
x_1 + x_2 + \ldots + x_n \right ) \ln \frac{x_1 + x_2 + \ldots +
x_n}{n}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The function $f (x) = x \ln x$ is strictly convex on interval $(0,+\infty)$,
since its second derivative $f'' (x) = \frac{1}{x}$ is positive.
The inequality~(\ref{eq-ineq}) follows directly from the Jensen's inequality~\cite{HaLP98}
$$
\frac {f (x_1) + f (x_2) + \ldots + f (x_n)}{n} \geqslant f \left
(\frac {x_1 + x_2 + \ldots + x_n}{n} \right ).
$$
Equality holds in~(\ref{eq-ineq}) if and only if all $x_i$ are equal.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}
\label{second} It holds that $M_2 \geqslant \frac{4 m^3}{n^2}$.
The equality is attained if and only if graph is regular.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
First we use the inequality between the arithmetic and the geometric mean:
$$
\frac{M_2}{m} = \frac{\sum_{(i, j) \in E} d_i d_j}{m} \geqslant
\sqrt[m]{ \prod_{(i,j)\in E}^{\phantom{n}} d_id_j} =
\sqrt[m]{ \prod_{i = 1}^n d_i^{d_i} }.
$$
Since $d_i \geqslant 1$, we take the natural logarithm of both
sides to get
$$
\ln \frac{M_2}{m} \geqslant \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^n d_i\ln d_i.
$$
Then from Lemma~\ref{le-xlnx} we get:
$$
\ln \frac{M_2}{m} \geqslant \frac{1}{m}\,
\left(\sum_{i=1}^n d_i\right) \ln\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n d_i}n\right)
=\frac1m\,2m \ln \frac{2m}{n}
= 2\ln \frac{2m}{n},
$$
and finally
$$
M_2\geqslant \frac{4m^3}{n^2}.
$$
Equality holds if and only if $d_1 = d_2 = \ldots = d_n$,
i.e., if and only if $G$ is regular.
\end{proof}

From two previous theorems, we see that the expressions from Conjecture~\ref{conjecture}
have common sharp lower bound:
$$
\frac{4m^2}{n^2} \leqslant \frac{M_1}n \quad \mbox{ and } \quad
\frac{4m^2}{n^2} \leqslant \frac{M_2}m.
$$

Next we show that these expressions also have common sharp upper bound.

\begin{prop}
\label{upper} Let $\Delta$ be the maximum vertex degree in~$G$. Then
$$
\frac{M_1}{n} \leqslant \frac{\Delta M_1}{2 m} \quad \mbox{
and } \quad \frac {M_2}{m} \leqslant \frac{\Delta M_1}{2 m}.
$$
Equality is attained simultaneously in both inequalities
if and only if $G$ is regular.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
The first inequality is equivalent to the obvious inequality $2m \leqslant \Delta n$,
while the second inequality is equivalent to $2 M_2 \leqslant \Delta M_1$.
Then
$$
2M_2 = \sum_{(i,j)\in E} 2d_id_j \leqslant \sum_{(i,j)\in E} (d_i^2
+ d_j^2) = \sum_{i\in V} d_i\cdot d_i^2 \leqslant \sum_{i\in V}
\Delta d_i^2 = \Delta M_1.
$$
Equality is attained in both inequalities simultaneously if and only
if $d_i=\Delta$ for every $1 \leqslant i \leqslant n$, i.e., if and
only if $G$ is regular.
\end{proof}

Now, using the upper bound on $M_1$ from \cite{Das04}
(where $\Delta$ is the maximum, while $\delta$ is the minimum vertex degree):
$$
M_{1}\leq m\left(\frac{2m}{n-1} + \frac{n-2}{n-1}\Delta
                +(\Delta-\delta)\left(1-\frac{\Delta}{n-1}\right)\right),
$$
with equality if and only if $G$ is a star graph or a regular graph
or $K_{\Delta+1}\cup(n-\Delta-1)K_{1}$,
we see that the expressions $M_1/n$ and $M_2/m$
also have common upper bound in terms of $n$, $m$, $\Delta$ and $\delta$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{M_1}{n} &\leqslant&
\frac{\Delta}2\left(\frac{2m}{n-1} + \frac{n-2}{n-1}\Delta
                +(\Delta-\delta)\left(1-\frac{\Delta}{n-1}\right)\right), \\
\frac {M_2}{m} &\leqslant&
\frac{\Delta}2\left(\frac{2m}{n-1} + \frac{n-2}{n-1}\Delta
                +(\Delta-\delta)\left(1-\frac{\Delta}{n-1}\right)\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Equality is attained simultaneously in above inequalities if and
only if $G$ is regular. \vspace{0.2cm}

These indices have been generalized to variable first and second
Zagreb indices defined as
$$
{}^\lambda M_1 = \sum_{i = 1}^n d_i^{\ 2 \lambda} \quad \mbox{ and }
\quad {}^\lambda M_2 = \sum_{(i, j) \in E}^n (d_i d_j)^\lambda
$$

More results about comparing variable Zagreb indices can be found in
\cite{Vu07} and \cite{VuGr08}. For $2 \lambda \geqslant 1$, we
define $p = 2 \lambda$ and $q = \frac{2 \lambda}{2 \lambda - 1}$ in
order to establish relation $\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} = 1$. Now we
use H\"{o}lder inequality~\cite{HaLP98} on vectors $(d_1, d_2,
\ldots, d_n)$ and $(1, 1, \ldots, 1)$ to get
$$
\left ( \sum_{i = 1}^n d_i^{\ p} \right )^{1 / p} \cdot \left (
\sum_{i = 1}^n 1^q \right )^{1 / q} \geqslant \sum_{i = 1}^n (d_i
\cdot 1).
$$
Next, raise each side of equation to the power of $2 \lambda$
$$
\left ( \sum_{i = 1}^n d_i^{\ 2 \lambda} \right ) \cdot n^{2\lambda
- 1} \geqslant (2m)^{2 \lambda}.
$$
The last inequality is equivalent with
$$
{}^\lambda M_1 \geqslant n \left (\frac {2m}{n} \right )^{2
\lambda}.
$$

For the variable second Zagreb index and every $\lambda \geqslant 0$
it holds
$$
\frac{{}^\lambda M_2}{m} = \frac{\sum_{(i, j) \in E} (d_i
d_j)^{\lambda}}{m} \geqslant \sqrt[m]{ \prod_{(i,j)\in
E}^{\phantom{n}} (d_i d_j)^\lambda} = \sqrt[m]{ \prod_{i = 1}^n
d_i^{\lambda d_i} }.
$$
We can use the same technique as in the proof of Theorem
\ref{second} and get lower bound:
$$
{}^\lambda M_2 \geqslant m \left (\frac {2m}{n} \right )^{2
\lambda}.
$$

Also, we have similar upper bounds for variable Zagreb indices:
$$
\frac{{}^\lambda M_1}{n} \leqslant \frac{\Delta \cdot {}^\lambda
M_1}{2 m} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \frac {{}^\lambda M_2}{m}
\leqslant \frac{\Delta \cdot {}^\lambda M_1}{2 m}.
$$

\section{Counterexamples}

Let $C (a, b)$ be a graph that is composed of $(a + 1)$-vertex star
with exactly $b$ triangles attached in line at arbitrary leaf (see Figure~1).
If triangles have vertex labels $v_i, u_i, w_i$, where $1
\leqslant i \leqslant k$, then there exist edges $u_i v_{i + 1}$ for
every $1 \leqslant i \leqslant k - 1$, and vertex $v_1$ is connected
with an arbitrary leaf of star $S_{a + 1}$. \vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{figure}[ht]
  \center
  \includegraphics [width = 10cm]{counterexample.png}
  \caption { \textit{ The bicyclic counterexample $C (12, 2)$ with $19$ vertices }}
\end{figure}

Assume that $a \geqslant 3$ and $b \geqslant 1$. It is obvious that
the number of vertices of $C (a, b)$ is $n = a + 3b + 1$ and the
number of edges is $m = a + 4b$. Also note that $C (a, b)$ has
exactly $b$ cycles. \vspace{0.2cm}

In $C (a, b)$ there is one vertex of degree $a$ and $a - 1$ pendent
vertices. Every triangle has vertex degrees $3, 3, 2$, except for
the last one which has $3, 2, 2$. Now we can calculate the first
Zagreb index:
$$
M_1 (C (a, b)) =
a^2 + (a - 1) \cdot 1^2 + 2^2 + (b - 1) (3^2 + 3^2 + 2^2) + (3^2 + 2^2 + 2^2)
= a^2 + a + 22 b - 2.
$$

The weight of $a - 1$ pendent edges is equal to $a \cdot 1$, while
every triangle has weights $9, 6, 6$, except for the last one which
has $6, 6, 4$. The edges connecting triangles have weight $9$, and
therefore,
$$
M_2 (C (a, b)) = a \cdot 1 \cdot (a - 1) + 2 \cdot a + 2 \cdot 3 +
(9 + 6 + 6)(b - 1) + (6 + 6 + 2) + 9(b - 1)
= a^2 + a + 30 b - 8.
$$

The Conjecture \ref{conjecture} is equivalent to
$M_2 \cdot n - M_1 \cdot m \geqslant 0$,
which for the graph $C (a, b)$ yields:
$$
(a^2 + a + 30b - 8) (a + 3b + 1) - (a^2 + a + 22b - 2)(a + 4b) \geqslant 0.
$$
i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-ab}
a^2 (1 - b) + a (7 b - 5) + (2 b^2 + 14 b - 8) \geqslant 0.
\end{equation}

Next, fix the number of cycles $b \geqslant 2$.
The left-hand side of~(\ref{eq-ab}) is a quadratic function in~$a$.
Since the coefficient of $a^2$ is negative, and the discriminant
$$
D = (7 b - 5)^2 - 4 (1 - b)(2 b^2 + 14 b - 8) = 8 b^3 + 97 b^2 - 158 b + 57
$$
is greater than zero for $b \geqslant 2$, we get that
the left-hand side value of~(\ref{eq-ab}) is negative for
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-alower}
a > \frac {-(7b - 5) + \sqrt{D}}{2 (1 - b)}.
\end{equation}

Thus, each value of~$a$ satisfying~(\ref{eq-alower}) yields
a counterexample to Conjecture~\ref{conjecture} with $b$~cycles.
In particular, for $b=2$ we get that any $a\geqslant 12$
yields a counterexample to the conjecture and
the smallest counterexample of this form is shown in Figure~1.

\section{Conclusion}

From the previous section it is evident that the
Conjecture~\ref{conjecture} cannot hold unless there exists some
kind of limitation on either the maximum vertex degree or the number
of cycles in a graph. This {\em limitation} may be implicitly given,
as it becomes evident from the following example. \vspace{0.2cm}

The subdivision graph $S (G)$ of a graph $G$ is obtained by
inserting a new vertex of degree two on each edge of $G$. If G has
$n$ vertices and $m$ edges, then $S (G)$ has $n + m$ vertices and $2
m$ edges. Clearly, $S (G)$ is bipartite.
\begin{thm}
Let $S (G)$ be a subdivision graph of $G$. Then,
$$
\frac {M_1 (S (G))}{n + m} \leqslant \frac {M_2 (S (G))}{2 m},
$$
with equality if and only if $G$ is a regular graph.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
The vertex degrees of~$G$ remain the same in the subdivision graph $S(G)$,
while the new vertices have degree two. Thus,
$$
M_1 (S (G)) = M_1 (G) + 2^2 \cdot m.
$$
Every edge $(i, j)$ of $G$ is subdivided in two parts with weights
$2 d_i$ and $2 d_j$. Therefore,
$$
M_2 (S (G)) = \sum_{(i, j) \in E} (2 d_i + 2 d_j) =
2 \sum_{i = 1}^n d_i^2 = 2M_{1}(G).
$$
Using these formulas, we get that
the inequality
$\frac{M_{1}(S(G))}{n+m}\leqslant \frac{M_{2}(S(G))}{2m}$
is equivalent to
$\frac {M_{1}(G) + 4m}{n + m} \geqslant \frac {2 M_{1}(G)}{2m}$,
i.e., to $M_{1}(G)\geqslant \frac{4m^{2}}n$,
which is true by Theorem~\ref{first}.
The case of equality easily follows.
\end{proof}

On comparing Zagreb indices


\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}
{-30pt \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}
{2.3ex \@plus.2ex}
{\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries\boldmath}}

\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}
{-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}
{1.5ex \@plus .2ex}
{\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries\boldmath}}

\renewcommand{\@seccntformat}[1]{\csname the#1\endcsname. }

\makeatother

\newtheorem{lem}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{lemma}[lem]{Lemma}

\newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{proposition}[prop]{Proposition}

\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{theorem}[thm]{Theorem}

\newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{corollary}[cor]{Corollary}

\newtheorem{conj}{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{conjecture}[conj]{Conjecture}

\newtheorem{defi}{Definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[defi]{Definition}

\newtheorem{exam}{Example}
\newtheorem{example}[exam]{Example}

\newtheorem{prob}{Problem}
\newtheorem{problem}[prob]{Problem}

\newtheorem{ques}{Question}
\newtheorem{question}[ques]{Question}

\newtheorem{rem}{Remark}
\newtheorem{remark}[rem]{Remark}

\def{\mathbb N}{{\mathbb N}}
\def{\mathbb Z}{{\mathbb Z}}
\def{\mathbb R}{{\mathbb R}}
\def{\mathbb C}{{\mathbb C}}
\def{\mathbb Q}{{\mathbb Q}}

\newcommand{\mathbf{m}}{\mathbf{m}}
\newcommand{\binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k}}{\binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k}}

\begin{document}

\begin{center}
\uppercase{\bf Repetitions of multinomial coefficients and a generalization of Singmaster's conjecture}
\vskip 20pt
{\bf Jean-Marie de Koninck
}\\
{\smallit D\'epartement de math\'ematiques, Universit\'e Laval, Qu\'ebec,
Canada}\\
{\tt jmdk@mat.ulaval.ca}\\
\vskip 10pt
{\bf Nicolas Doyon
}\\
{\smallit D\'epartement de math\'ematiques, Universit\'e Laval, Qu\'ebec,
Canada}\\
{\tt Nicolas.Doyon@mat.ulaval.ca}\\
\vskip 10pt
{\bf William Verreault
}\\
{\smallit D\'epartement de math\'ematiques, Universit\'e Laval, Qu\'ebec,
Canada}\\
{\tt william.verreault.2@ulaval.ca}\\
\end{center}
\vskip 10pt

\centerline{\bf Abstract}
\noindent
    Given two integers $k\geq 2$ and $a>1$, let $N_k(a)$ stand for the number of multinomial coefficients, with $k$ terms, equal to $a$.
    We
    study the behavior of $N_k(a)$ and show that its average and normal orders are equal to $k(k-1)$. We also prove that $N_k(a)=O\left((\log a/\log\log a)^{k-1}\right)$ and make several propositions about extreme results regarding large values of $N_k(a)$.

\pagestyle{myheadings}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip=12.875pt
\vskip 30pt

\section{Introduction}

Let $N(a)$ denote the number of times the integer $a>1$ occurs as a binomial coefficient, that is, $\displaystyle N(a)=\# \left\{(n,r) \in {\mathbb N}^2 : \binom{n}{r}=a \right\}$. Singmaster \cite{kn:Singmaster-1971} conjectured that $N(a)=O(1)$ and proved that $N(a)=O(\log a)$. Abbott, Erd\H os, and Hanson \cite{kn:Abbott-Erdos-Hanson} later showed that $\displaystyle N(a)=O\left(\frac{\log a}{\log\log a}\right)$ and that its average and normal orders are 2. Finally, Kane \cite{kn:Kane-2004}, \cite{kn:Kane-2007} improved the bounds to $\displaystyle O\left(\frac{\log a\log\log\log a}{(\log\log a)^2}\right)$ and $\displaystyle O\left(\frac{\log a\log\log\log a}{(\log\log a)^3}\right)$, respectively.

Considering the properties of Pascal's triangle, one can reformulate the problem as follows. Is there an upper bound for the number of times a given integer appears in Pascal's triangle?

Despite the fact that infinitely many positive integers appear at least six times in Pascal's triangle \cite{kn:Singmaster-1975}, only nine such integers, namely $$1, 120, 210, 1540, 3003, 7140, 11\,628, 24\,310 \text{ and } 61218182743304701891431482520,$$ have been found to satisfy this property up to $10^{60}$ \cite{kn:OEIS}. It is worth noting that $N(3003)=8$, and that this is the highest known value of $N(a)$. Singmaster \cite{kn:Singmaster-1975} actually conjectured that its maximal value might be $8, 10$ or $12$.

In what follows, we study repetitions of multinomial coefficients, that is, for a fixed integer $k\geq 2$, those numbers
$\displaystyle\binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k}=\frac{m!}{m_1!\cdots m_k!}$, where $\displaystyle m=\sum_{i=1}^k m_i$.

Given an integer $k\geq 2$, let $\mathbf{m}=(m_1,\ldots,m_k) \in {\mathbb N}^k$, and let
\begin{equation*}
    N_k(a)=\# \left\{\mathbf{m} \in {\mathbb N}^k : \binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k} = a \right\}
\end{equation*}
denote the number of times the integer $a>1$ occurs as a multinomial coefficient. As such, $N_k(a)$ is a generalized version of $N(a)$ where we consider multinomial coefficients of $k$ terms equal to $a$, and in particular, $N(a)=N_2(a)$.

If one considers Pascal's $k$-simplices as a generalization of Pascal's triangle in dimension $k$, where the entries of the simplex are given by multinomial coefficients of $k$ terms, then the problem is equivalent to asking whether there is an upper bound on the number of times an integer appears in Pascal's $k$-simplex for a given $k\geq 2$.

A simple program tells us that in the first $1000$ lines of Pascal's triangle, $494$ integers appear once, $248\,861$ twice, $5$ three times, $63$ four times and $3$ six times. In comparison, Pascal's $3$-simplex, often called Pascal's pyramid, has $445\,666$ distinct integers in its first $250$ layers, of which $429\,135$ appear exactly six times. These results were to be expected, as we will see.

Obviously, it may be the case that for any fixed value of $k\geq 2$, $N_k(a)$ is bounded. We will also pursue this investigation for large values of $k$.

\section{Main results}

We start by showing that the average and normal orders of $N_k(a)$ are both $k(k-1)$. Intuitively, the average order of $N_k(a)$ is another arithmetic function which takes the same values on average, while its normal order is an arithmetic function which is close to $N_k(a)$ for almost all values of $a$. Consequently, our first theorem implies that for any given integer $a > 1$, there are almost always $k(k-1)$ multinomial coefficients with $k$ terms equal to $a$. An immediate corollary is that almost always one can find any given integer a total of $k(k-1)$ times in Pascal's $k$-simplex.

\begin{remark} \label{rem:1}
    A multinomial coefficient of the form $\displaystyle \binom{a}{a-1,1,0,\ldots,0}$ is always equal to $a$. As such, one gets $\displaystyle N_k(a) \geq k(k-1)$ for all $k \geq 2$. Now notice that $a=1$ and $a=2$ are the only exceptions to this, and while $1$ appears infinitely many times, 2 occurs $\displaystyle \binom{k}{2}$ times as a multinomial coefficient, for it must be of the form $\displaystyle \binom{2}{1,1,0,\ldots,0}$.
\end{remark}

\begin{thm} \label{thm:}
    Let $k\geq 2$ be a fixed integer and $N_k(a)$ be defined as above. Then, the average and normal orders of $N_k(a)$ are both $k(k-1)$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
    Let $M$ be a positive integer. We define
    \begin{align*}
        \mathcal{S}(k,M) &= \left\{\mathbf{m} : 2 < \binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k} \leq M \right\}, \\
        \mathcal{S}_1(k,M) &= \left\{\mathbf{m}\in \mathcal{S}(k,M) : m_i=m-1 \text{ for some } i \in \{1,\ldots,k\}\right\}, \\
        \mathcal{S}_2(k,M) &= \mathcal{S}(k,M)\setminus \mathcal{S}_1(k,M).
    \end{align*}

    Following Remark \ref{rem:1}, we find that
    \begin{align}
        \sum_{1<a\leq M}N_k(a)
        &= \binom{k}{2} \: + \sum_{\mathbf{m} \in \mathcal{S}(k,M)}1 \label{eq:50} \\
        &= \binom{k}{2} \: + \: \sum_{\mathbf{m} \in \mathcal{S}_1(k,M)}1 \quad
        + \sum_{\mathbf{m} \in \mathcal{S}_2(k,M)}1. \nonumber
    \end{align}
    Now, since
    \begin{align}
        \sum_{\mathbf{m} \in \mathcal{S}_1(k,M)}1 &= k(k-1)\sum_{2<\binom{m}{1,0,\ldots,0,m-1}\leq M}1 \label{eq:51} \\
        &=k(k-1)\sum_{2 < m\leq M}1 \nonumber\\
        &=k(k-1)(M-2), \nonumber
    \end{align}
    it only remains to consider $\displaystyle\sum_{\mathbf{m} \in \mathcal{S}_2(k,M)}1$.

    If $\mathbf{m} \in \mathcal{S}_2(k,M)$, then
    $\displaystyle 2 < \binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k} \leq M$ and $m_i < m-1$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,k$. Assume, without loss of generality, that $m_i \leq m_{i+1}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,k-1$.
    Then we have the inequalities
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:4}
      M\geq \binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k} \geq \frac{m!}{m_j!(m-m_j)!} \geq \binom{2m_j}{m_j} \geq 2^{m_j} \quad (j=1,2,\ldots,k-1)
    \end{equation}
    and
    \begin{equation*}
      M\geq \binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k} \geq \frac{m!}{m_k!(m-m_k)!} \geq \binom{m}{2}=\frac{m(m-1)}{2},
    \end{equation*}
    which implies that $m_j=O(\log M)$ and $m=O(M^{1/2})$, respectively.

    Since the value of $m_k$ is entirely determined by that of $m,m_1,m_2,\ldots,m_{k-1}$, we get
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:52}
        \sum_{\mathbf{m} \in \mathcal{S}_2(k,M)}1=\sum_{\substack{2<\binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k}\leq M \\ 0\leq m_i < m-1}}1
        = \sum_{\substack{m_i \\ 1\leq i \leq k-1}}\sum_{m}1 = O\left(M^{1/2}\left(\log M\right)^{k-1}\right).
    \end{equation}

    Using \eqref{eq:51} and \eqref{eq:52} in \eqref{eq:50}, we obtain
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:1}
        \sum_{1<a\leq M}N_k(a)=\binom{k}{2}+k(k-1)(M-2)+O\left(M^{1/2}\left(\log M\right)^{k-1}\right),
    \end{equation}
    and therefore,
    \begin{align*}
        \lim_{M\to\infty} \frac{1}{M} &\sum_{1<a\leq M}N_k(a) \\
        &= \lim_{M\to\infty} \frac{1}{M} \left(\binom{k}{2}+k(k-1)(M-2) + O(M^{1/2}(\log M)^{k-1})\right) \\
        &=k(k-1),
    \end{align*}
        which provides the average order of $N_k(a)$.

        For the normal order, let
    \begin{align*}
        f_k(M) &= \# \left\{1<a\leq M : N_k(a) < k(k-1)\right\}, \\
        g_k(M) &= \# \left\{1<a\leq M : N_k(a) = k(k-1)\right\}, \\
        h_k(M) &= \# \left\{1<a\leq M : N_k(a) > k(k-1)\right\}.
    \end{align*}
    We wish to prove that $\displaystyle N_k(a)-k(k-1) \leq \varepsilon k(k-1)$ for all $\varepsilon >0$ and for almost all $a$. It should be clear that this inequality holds only if  $N_k(a)=k(k-1)$, for $N_k(a)$ only takes integral values. As such, it suffices to show that $f_k(M)+h_k(M)= o(M)$ as $M\to\infty$.

    Now Remark \ref{rem:1} implies that $f_k(M)=1$. Also, $g_k(M) + h_k(M) = M-2$ since they only exclude $a=1$ and $a=2$. Thus,
    \begin{align}
        \sum_{1<a\leq M}N_k(a) &\geq f_k(M) + k(k-1)g_k(M) + (k(k-1)+1)h_k(M) \nonumber \\
        &= 1 + k(k-1)(g_k(M)+h_k(M)) + h_k(M) \nonumber \\
        &= 1 + k(k-1)(M-2) + h_k(M). \label{eq:2}
    \end{align}
    Comparing \eqref{eq:2} with \eqref{eq:1}, we get that $h_k(M)=O\left(M^{1/2}(\log M)^{k-1}\right)$, which means that $f_k(M)+h_k(M)=o(M)$ as $M\to\infty$ and in turn implies that the normal order of $N_k(a)$ is indeed $k(k-1)$. \qedhere
\end{proof}

We also state an additional result, even though it is weaker than our claim
$$N_k(a)=O\left(\left(\frac{\log a}{\log\log a}\right)^{k-1}\right),$$
be it simply for the fact that our proof is both more general and simpler than that of Singmaster in \cite{kn:Singmaster-1971}.

\begin{prop} \label{thm:2}
    Let $k\geq 2$ be a fixed integer. Then $\displaystyle N_k(a)=O\left(\log^{k-1} a\right).$
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
    Since
    \begin{equation*}
        \frac{\binom{m+1}{m_1,\ldots,m_j+1,\ldots,m_k}}{\binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k}}
        = \frac{\frac{m+1}{m_j+1}\binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k}}{\binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k}}
        = \frac{m+1}{m_j+1}\geq 1,
    \end{equation*}
    the multinomial coefficients are strictly increasing in $m_j$ for all $1\leq j \leq k$, which implies
    that if we fix $k-1$ parameters in the multinomial coefficient, say all but $m_i$, then
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:20}
        \# \left\{m_i : \binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k} = a\right\} \leq 1.
    \end{equation}

    The proof is based on the observation that, for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
    \begin{equation*}
        N_k(a)=\sum_{\substack{m_j \\ j \: \in \: \{1,\ldots,k\} \setminus \{i\}}}\# \left\{m_i : \binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k} = a \right\},
    \end{equation*}
    so that in particular,
    \begin{equation*}
        N_k(a)=\sum_{\substack{m_j \\ 1\leq j \leq k-1  }}\# \left\{m_k : \binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k} = a \right\}
        \leq \sum_{\substack{m_j \\ 1\leq j \leq k-1  }}1
        =O(\log^{k-1} a),
    \end{equation*}
   where we used \eqref{eq:20} and \eqref{eq:4}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
  One may be tempted to write $N_k(a)$ as a sum over less than $k-1$ fixed parameters, but then it becomes quite a tedious task to determine the number of multinomial coefficients equal to $a$. This is why we should be satisfied with this bound for now.
\end{remark}

Next, we generalize a result of Abbott, Erd\H os, and Hanson \cite{kn:Abbott-Erdos-Hanson}, obtaining a better upper bound for $N_k(a)$. We will need two lemmas.

\begin{lem}[Baker, Harman, and Pintz \cite{kn:Baker-Harman-Pintz}]  \label{lem:2}
    There exists a real number $x_0$ such that the interval $\displaystyle \left[x,x+x^{0.525}\right]$ contains at least one prime number for all $x>x_0$.
\end{lem}

\begin{lem} \label{lem:1}
    For each $j=1,2,\ldots,k$, we have $\displaystyle \binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k}\geq \left(\frac{m}{m_j}\right)^{m_j}$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
    We proceed by induction on $m_j$.
    At first, if $m_j=1$, then,
    \begin{align*}
        \binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k} &= \binom{m_1+\cdots+m_{j-1}+1+m_{j+1}+\cdots+m_k}{m_1,\ldots,m_{j-1},1,m_{j+1}\ldots,m_k} \\
        &= (m_1+\cdots+m_{j-1}+1+m_{j+1}+\cdots+m_k)\binom{m_1+\cdots+m_{j-1}+m_{j+1}+\cdots+m_k}{m_1,\ldots,m_{j-1},m_{j+1},\ldots,m_k} \\
        &\geq (m_1+\cdots+m_{j-1}+1+m_{j+1}+\cdots+m_k).
    \end{align*}

    Now,
    \begin{align*}
        \binom{m+1}{m_1,\ldots,m_j+1,\ldots,m_k} &= \frac{m+1}{m_j+1}\binom{m}{m_1,\ldots,m_k} \\
        &\geq \frac{m+1}{m_j+1} \left(\frac{m}{m_j}\right)^{m_j} \\
        &\geq \frac{m+1}{m_j+1} \left(\frac{m+1}{m_j+1}\right)^{m_j} \\
        & = \left(\frac{m+1}{m_j+1}\right)^{m_j+1},
    \end{align*}
    where the second to last inequality holds since $m\geq m_j$.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm} \label{thm:3}
    Let $k\geq 2$ be a fixed integer. Then, $\displaystyle N_k(a)=O\left(\left(\frac{\log a}{\log\log a}\right)^{k-1}\right).$
\end{thm}

\begin{proof} We let $m_i \leq m_{i+1}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,k-1$ without loss of generality.

    Let
        \begin{align*}
        A &= \left\{\mathbf{m} \in N_k(a) : m > \log^{\frac{22}{21}} a\right\}, \\
        B &= \left\{\mathbf{m} \in N_k(a) : m \leq \log^{\frac{22}{21}} a\right\},
    \end{align*}
    so that $N_k(a)=\#A+\#B$.

    Hence, it is sufficient to show that $\#A$ and $\#B$ are both $$\displaystyle O\left(\left(\frac{\log a}{\log\log a}\right)^{k-1}\right).$$

    First, assume $\mathbf{m}$ is in $A$, so that
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:9}
        m>\log^\frac{22}{21} a.
    \end{equation}

    Notice that in \eqref{eq:4}, we have not used the fact that $m_i < m-1$ for all $1\leq i\leq k$. Thus, we can write
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:10}
    m_i\leq \frac{\log a}{\log 2} \qquad (i=1,2,\ldots,k-1).
    \end{equation}

    Using Lemma \ref{lem:1}, \eqref{eq:9} and \eqref{eq:10}, we get
    \begin{equation*}
        m_i \leq \frac{\log a}{\log \frac{m}{m_i}}
        < \frac{\log a}{\log \frac{\log^\frac{22}{21} a}{\log a/\log 2}}
        =O\left(\frac{\log a}{\log\log a}\right) \qquad (i=1,2,\ldots,k-1).
    \end{equation*}

    By monotonicity, for fixed $m_1,\ldots,m_{k-1}$, there is only one $m_k$ that yields a multinomial coefficient equal to $a$. Hence,
    \begin{equation} \label{eq:8}
        \# A=O\left(\left(\frac{\log a}{\log\log a}\right)^{k-1}\right).
    \end{equation}

                Secondly, assume $\mathbf{m}$ is in $B$. Let $M=M_1+M_2+\cdots +M_k$ be the greatest element for which the associated $\mathbf{M}=(M_1,\ldots,M_k)$ lies in $B$. We also define $S=M-M_1$.
                Then,
                \begin{equation*}
                    a=\frac{M!}{M_1!\cdots M_k!}<\frac{M!}{(M-S)!}=M(M-1)\cdots (M-S+1)<M^S.
                \end{equation*}

                From $\displaystyle M \leq \log^\frac{22}{21} a$ and $a < M^{S}$, we get
                \begin{equation*}
                M < (S\log M)^\frac{22}{21}.
                \end{equation*}

                Note that
                \begin{equation*}
                    \log^\frac{22}{21} M \leq S^\frac{18}{21} \text{ for all }  M\geq 2.
                \end{equation*}

                Since $k\geq 2$ and $M_1$ is maximal when all parameters are equal, it is sufficient to show that the result holds for $M_1=M/2$. It is easy to verify that $\log^\frac{22}{21}M\leq (M/2)^\frac{18}{21}$ for all $M\geq 2$.

                Therefore, $\displaystyle M \leq S^{22/21}S^{18/21} < S^{40/21}+ S$ or, equivalently, $\displaystyle (M-S)^{21/40} < S$.
                 Adding $M-S$ on both sides, we finally have
               $\displaystyle
                    (M-S)^{21/40}+(M-S) < M,
                $
                that is,
                \begin{equation} \label{eq:5}
                    M_1+M_1^{21/40} < M.
                \end{equation}

                Using Lemma \ref{lem:2}, there exists a prime in $\displaystyle \left[M_1, M_1+M_1^\frac{21}{40}\right]$. Combining the latter with \eqref{eq:5}, there is a largest prime P satisfying
                \begin{equation*}
                    M_1 \leq P < M,
                \end{equation*}
                which tells us that $P$ divides our fixed $a$, so the same can be said of any $m$ for which the associated $\mathbf{m}$ is in $B$. Thus, $P\leq m\leq M$ whenever $m\leq \log^\frac{22}{21} a$.
                As such, there are at most $M-P$ elements in $B$.

                Next, let $x=P$ in Lemma \ref{lem:2} and let $Q$ be the largest prime in the interval $\displaystyle \left[P, P+P^\frac{21}{40}\right]$. Then, since $P$ is the largest prime less than $M$, we must have
                \begin{equation*}
                    P<M\leq Q \leq P+P^{21/40},
                \end{equation*}
                and so it follows that
                \begin{equation*}
                    \# B \leq M-P \leq P^\frac{21}{40} < M^\frac{21}{40}
                    \leq (\log^\frac{22}{21}a)^\frac{21}{40} = \log^\frac{11}{20} a=O\left(\left(\frac{\log a}{\log\log a}\right)^{k-1}\right),
                \end{equation*}
                which, combined with \eqref{eq:8}, yields the desired result.
\end{proof}

We end this paper by stating some partial results regarding large values of $N_k(a)$. We will see that we can do much better than the naive bound $N_k(a) \geq k(k-1)$ for all $k\geq 2$.

\begin{prop} \label{prop:2}
For any integer $k>2$,
$$
\#\{a \leq x:N_k(a)\ge k! \}\gg x^{\frac{2}{(k-1)(k-2)}}.
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We will force $a$ to take the form of a multinomial coefficient by counting the integers $a$ that can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:25}
  a=\frac{(m+(k-1)(k-2)/2)!}{0!1!\cdots(k-2)! m!}\leq x,
\end{equation}
which obviously has at least $k!$ representations as a multinomial coefficient once $x$ is big enough, by permuting the terms in the denominator.
We have
$$
\frac{(m+(k-1)(k-2)/2)!}{0!1!\cdots(k-2)! m!}=\prod_{j=1}^{k-2}\frac{1}{j!} \prod_{j=1}^{(k-1)(k-2)/2} (m+j)\sim C_k m^{\frac{(k-1)(k-2)}{2}}
$$
as $m\to\infty$,
where
$$
C_k=\prod_{j=1}^{k-2}\frac{1}{j!}.
$$
It follows that for $x$ large enough, \eqref{eq:25} holds as long as
$$
(1+\varepsilon)C_km^{(k-1)(k-2)/2}\leq x$$ for any given $\varepsilon>0$, that is
\begin{equation*}
  m\leq \frac{1}{((1+\varepsilon)C_k)^{\frac{2}{(k-1)(k-2)}}}x^{\frac{2}{(k-1)(k-2)}},
\end{equation*}
which proves our claim.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop} \label{prop:3}
For each $k\ge 4$,
$$
\#\{a:N_k(a)\ge 2\cdot k!+k(k-1)\} = \infty.
$$
\end{prop}
Note that this proposition also works for $k=2$ since infinitely many positive integers appear at least six times in Pascal's triangle.

\begin{proof}
Our proof follows from the simple identity
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
12!2!1!=11!4!0!,
\end{equation}
from which we have, for any $m\ge 15$,
$$
a(m):=\frac{m!}{12!2!1!(m-15)!}=\frac{m!}{11!4!0!(m-15)!}.
$$
If $m\ge 28$, all the integers appearing in the denominator of the above equation are distinct, thus providing $2\cdot 4!=48$ distinct vectors. To obtain the remaining $4\cdot 3=12$ vectors, we just have to consider the expression
$$
\frac{a(m)!}{(a(m)-1)!1!0!0!},
$$
thus completing the proof of the proposition when $k=4$.
This idea can easily be generalized for $k>4$ by observing that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{(m+m_5+m_6+\cdots + m_k)!}{12!2!1!(m-15)!m_5!m_6!\cdots m_k!}=\frac{(m+m_5+m_6+\cdots m_k)!}{11!4!0!(m-15)!m_5!m_6!\cdots m_k!}. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}

\begin{prop} \label{prop:4}
For each $k\ge 7$,
$$
\#\{a:N_k(a)\ge 7\cdot k!/2 +k(k-1)\}=\infty.
$$
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
First observe the identity
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
24!5!3!1!=23!6!4!0!.
\end{equation}
From equations \eqref{eq1} and \eqref{eq2}, we have
$$
24!5!3!1!12!2!=23!6!4!0!12!2!=24!5!3!11!4!0!=23!6!4!0!11!4!0!,
$$
from which we can deduce that for any $m\ge 47$,
\begin{align*}
&\frac{m!}{24!12!5!3!2!1!(m-47)!}=\frac{m!}{23!12!6!4!2!0!(m-47)!}
=\frac{m!}{24!11!5!4!3!0!(m-47)!} \\
&=\frac{m!}{23!6!4!0!11!4!0!(m-47)!}.
\end{align*}
By choosing $m\ge 72$, we ensure that all the integers appearing in the denominator are distinct, except $0$ in the last denominator, which provides $7\cdot 7!/2=17\,640$ solutions. To obtain the $7\cdot 6=42$ remaining solutions, we set
$$
a(m)=\frac{m!}{24!12!5!3!2!1!(m-47)!}
$$
and consider the quantity
$$
\frac{a(m)!}{(a(m)-1)!1!0!0!0!0!0!}.
$$
This argument can be generalized for $k>7$, by observing that
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &\frac{(m+m_8+m_9+\cdots+m_k)!}{24!12!5!3!2!1!(m-47)!m_8!m_9!\cdots m_k!}\\
&=&\frac{(m+m_8+m_9+\cdots+m_k)!}{23!12!6!4!2!0!(m-47)!m_8!m_9!\cdots m_k!}\\
&=&\frac{(m+m_8+m+m_9+\cdots+ m_k)!}{24!11!5!4!3!0!(m-47)!m_8!m_9!\cdots m_k!}\\
&=&\frac{(m+m_8+m+m_9+\cdots+ m_k)!}{23!6!4!0!11!4!0!(m-47)!m_8!m_9!\cdots m_k!}.
\end{eqnarray*}
From this we have that for $k\ge 7$,
\begin{equation*}
\#\{a:N_k(a)\ge 7\cdot k!/2 +k(k-1)\}=\infty. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}

We also looked numerically for large values of $N_3(a)$ and $N_4(a)$. With $a=2671465728531600$, we found that $N_3(a)\ge 30$ and $N_4(a)\ge 180$. Recall that we expect $N_3(a)=6$ and $N_4(a)=12$. The bound $N_3(a)\ge 30$ comes from the fact that
$$
a=\frac{37!}{7!11!9!}=\frac{38!}{19!11!8!}=\frac{39!}{19!14!6!}=\frac{40!}{19!16!5!}=\frac{a!}{(a-1)!1!0!}.
$$
To prove the bound $N_4(a)\ge 180$, it suffices to observe that
\begin{eqnarray*}
a&=&\frac{37!}{17!11!9!0!}=\frac{38!}{19!11!8!0!}=\frac{39!}{19!14!6!0!}\\
&=&\frac{40!}{19!16!5!0!}=\frac{40!}{20!16!3!1!}=\frac{39!}{21!13!4!1!}=\frac{38!}{22!10!4!2!}=\frac{a!}{(a-1)!1!0!0!}.
\end{eqnarray*}

\section{Concluding remarks}

    At this point, it seems natural to ask whether $N_k(a)=O(1)$ for all $k\geq 2$. However, the problem seems just as hard as in the basic case of binomial coefficients. Obviously, as multinomial coefficients can be rewritten as a product of binomial coefficients, it would be particularly interesting to show that proving Singmaster's conjecture is equivalent to proving its generalization in any dimension $k\geq 2$. Perhaps considering symmetries and patterns in Pascal's $k$-simplex would help. For example, setting a parameter to $0$ in $\mathbf{m}$ leads us to Pascal's $(k-1)$-simplex, and induction seems to be the way forward.

    Our final remark is that there is still a lot we don't know about repetitions of multinomial coefficients. For instance, whether $N_2(a)=5$ or $N_2(a)=7$ is even possible.
    Furthermore, Singmaster \cite{kn:Singmaster-1975} showed that
    \begin{equation*}
        \binom{F_{2i+2}F_{2i+3}}{F_{2i}F_{2i+3}}=\binom{F_{2i+2}F_{2i+3}-1}{F_{2i}F_{2i+3}+1},
    \end{equation*}
    where $F_n$ is the $n$th Fibonacci number, by solving a type of Pell equation. The same result has been proved in \cite{kn:Lind}. This implies that infinitely many integers are going to appear at least six times in Pascal's triangle, as stated in the Introduction.
    Perhaps similar considerations, such as the ones we made in Propositions \ref{prop:2}, \ref{prop:3} and \ref{prop:4}, can be made in higher dimensions to find equal multinomial coefficients, although equations in several variables would have to be solved in a different manner.