Propagation time for zero forcing on a graph

Abstract: Zero forcing (also called graph infection) on a simple, undirected graph $G$ is based on the color-change rule: If each vertex of $G$ is colored either white or black, and vertex $v$ is a black vertex with only one white neighbor $w$, then change the color of $w$ to black. A minimum zero forcing set is a set of black vertices of minimum cardinality that can color the entire graph black using the color change rule. The propagation time of a zero forcing set $B$ of graph $G$ is the minimum number of steps that it takes to force all the vertices of $G$ black, starting with the vertices in $B$ black and performing independent forces simultaneously. The minimum and maximum propagation times of a graph are taken over all minimum zero forcing sets of the graph.It is shown that a connected graph of order at least two has more than one minimum zero forcing set realizing minimum propagation time. Graphs $G$ having extreme minimum propagation times $|G| - 1$, $|G| - 2$, and $0$ are characterized, and results regarding graphs having minimum propagation time $1$ are established. It is shown that the diameter is an upper bound for maximum propagation time for a tree, but in general propagation time and diameter of a graph are not comparable.

\section{Propagation time}

All graphs are simple, finite, and undirected.
In a graph $G$ where some vertices are colored black and the remaining vertices are colored white, the {\em color change rule} is:
If $v$ is black and $w$ is the only white neighbor of  $v$, then change the color of $w$ to black; if we apply the color change rule to $v$ to change the color of $w$, we say $v$ {\em forces} $w$ and write  $v\to w$ (note that there may be a choice involved, since as we record forces, only one vertex actually forces $w$, but more than one may be able to). Given an initial set $B$ of black vertices, the {\em final coloring} of $B$ is the set of black vertices that results from applying the  color change rule until no more changes are possible.  For a given graph $G$ and set  of vertices $B$, the final coloring is unique \cite{AIM}.  A {\em  zero forcing set} is an initial set $B$ of vertices such that the final coloring of $B$ is  $V(G)$.  A {\em minimum zero forcing set} of a  graph $G$   is a  zero forcing set  of $G$ of   minimum cardinality, and  the  {\em   zero forcing number}, denoted $\operatorname{Z}(G)$,  is the cardinality of a minimum zero forcing set.

Zero forcing, also known as graph infection or graph propagation, was introduced independently in \cite{AIM} for  study of minimum rank problems in combinatorial matrix theory,  and in \cite{graphinfect} for study of control of quantum systems.  Propagation time of a zero forcing set, which describes the number of steps needed to fully color a graph performing independent forces simultaneously, was implicit in  \cite{graphinfect} and explicit in  \cite{Sev}.  Recently Chilakamarri et al. \cite{CDKY} determined the  propagation time, which they call the iteration index, for a  number of families of graphs including Cartesian products and various grid graphs.
Control of an entire network by sequential operations on a subset of particles is valuable \cite{Sev} and the number of steps needed to obtain this control (propagation time) is a significant part of the process.  In this paper we systematically study propagation time.
\begin{defn} \label{ztdefn}{\rm Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $B$ a zero forcing set of $G$. Define $B^{(0)}=B$, and for $t \ge 0$,  $B^{(t+1)}$ is the set of vertices  $w$ for which there exists a vertex $ b \in \bigcup_{s=0}^{t} B^{(s)}$ such that $w$ is the only neighbor of $b$ not in $\bigcup_{s=0}^{t} B^{(s)}$. The {\em propagation  time of $B$} in $G$, denoted  $\operatorname{pt}(G,B)$,  is the smallest integer $t_0$ such that $V=\bigcup_{t=0}^{t_0} B^{(t)}$.
}
\end{defn}

Two minimum zero forcing sets of the same graph may have different propagation times, as the following example illustrates.

  \begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.35}{\includegraphics{terminus.pdf}}
\caption{The graph $G$ for Example \ref{ex1}
} \label{reverseex}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{ex} \label{ex1}{\rm Let $G$ be the graph in Figure \ref{reverseex}. Let $B_1=\{g,h\}$ and $B_2=\{a,d\}$. Then ${B_1}^{(1)}=\{f,c\}$, ${B_1}^{(2)}=\{e\}$, ${B_1}^{(3)}=\{d\}$, ${B_1}^{(4)}=\{b\}$, and ${B_1}^{(5)}=\{a\}$, so $\operatorname{pt}(G,B_1)=5$.  However, ${B_2}^{(1)}=\{b\}$, ${B_2}^{(2)}=\{c\}$, ${B_2}^{(3)}=\{e,h\}$, and ${B_2}^{(4)}=\{f,g\}$, so $\operatorname{pt}(G,B_2)=4$.}
\end{ex}

\begin{defn}{\rm The {\em minimum propagation  time} of $G$ is
\[\operatorname{pt}(G)=\min\{\operatorname{pt}(G,B)\,|\,B\text{ is a minimum zero forcing set of } G\}. \] }
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}{\rm Two minimum zero forcing sets $B_1$ and $B_2$ of a graph $G$ are {\em isomorphic} if there is a graph automorphism $\varphi$ of $G$ such that $\varphi(B_1)=B_2$.}
\end{defn}

It is obvious that isomorphic zero forcing sets have the same propagation time, but  a graph  may have  non-isomorphic minimum zero forcing sets and  have the property that all minimum zero forcing sets have the same propagation time.

\begin{ex}\label{dartex}{\rm Up to isomorphism, the minimum zero forcing sets of the dart shown in Figure \ref{dart} are $\{a,c\}$, $\{b,c\},$ and $\{c,d\}$. Each of these sets has propagation time $3$.
 \begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.35}{\includegraphics{dart3.pdf}}
\caption{The dart} \label{dart}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
}
\end{ex}

 The   minimum propagation time of a graph $G$ is not subgraph monotone. For example, it is easy to see  that the 4-cycle has $\operatorname{Z}(C_4) = 2$ and $\operatorname{pt}(C_4) = 1$. By deleting one edge of $C_4$, it  becomes a path $P_3$, which has $\operatorname{Z}(P_3) = 1$ and $\operatorname{pt}(P_3) = 2$.

A minimum zero forcing set that achieves minimum propagation time plays a central role in our study, and we name such a set.

 \begin{defn} {\rm
 A    subset $B$ of vertices of $G$ is an {\em efficient zero forcing set} for $G$ if $B$ is a  minimum zero forcing set of $G$ and $\operatorname{pt}(G,B)=\operatorname{pt}(G)$. Define \[\operatorname{Eff}(G) = \{ B \, | \, B \text{ is an efficient zero forcing set of } G\}.\]
}\end{defn}

We can also consider maximum propagation time.

\begin{defn} \label{ztmaxdefn} {\rm The {\em maximum propagation  time} of $G$ is defined as \[\operatorname{PT}(G)=\max\{\operatorname{pt}(G,B)\,|\,B\text{ is a minimum zero forcing set of } G\}. \] }
\end{defn}

The bounds in the next remark were also observed in \cite{CDKY}.

\begin{rem}\label{ptPTbds} {\rm Let $G$ be a graph.  Then
\[\operatorname{PT}(G)  \le  \ord G - \operatorname{Z}(G)\] because at least one force must be performed at each time step, and
\[ \frac {\ord G-\operatorname{Z}(G)}{\operatorname{Z}(G)}   \le  \operatorname{pt}(G)\] because using a given zero forcing set $B$, at most $\ord B$ forces can be performed at any one time step.
}\end{rem}

\begin{defn} \label{intervaldefn} {\rm The {\em propagation time interval} of $G$ is defined as \[[\operatorname{pt}(G),\operatorname{PT}(G)]=\{\operatorname{pt}(G),\operatorname{pt}(G)+1,\dots,\operatorname{PT}(G)-1,\operatorname{PT}(G)\}. \]  The {\em propagation time discrepancy} of $G$ is defined as \[\operatorname{pd}(G) = \operatorname{PT}(G) - \operatorname{pt}(G).\]}
\end{defn}

It is not the case that every integer in the propagation time interval is the propagation time of a minimum zero forcing set; this can be seen in the next example.
Let $S(e_1,e_2,e_3)$ be the generalized star with three arms having $e_1,e_2,e_3$ vertices with $e_1\le e_2\le e_3$; $S(2,5,11)$ is shown  in Figure \ref{s2511}.

   \begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.4}{\includegraphics{S2511.pdf}}
\caption{The tree $S(2,5,11)$} \label{s2511}
\end{center}\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}

\begin{ex}\label{exT} {\rm  Consider $S(e_1,e_2,e_3)$ with  $1<e_1<e_2<e_3$.  The vertices of degree one are denoted by $u_1, u_2, u_3$, the vertex of degree three is denoted by $v$, and neighbors of $v$ are denoted by $w_1, w_2, w_3$.  The minimum zero forcing sets and their propagation times are shown in Table \ref{tabS2511}.   Observe that  the propagation time interval of $S(2,5,11)$ is $[12,16]$,  but there is no minimum zero forcing set with propagation time $14$. The propagation discrepancy is $\operatorname{pd}(S(2,5,11))=4$.

    \begin{table} [h!]
        \caption{Minimum zero forcing sets and propagation times of $S(e_1,e_2,e_3)$}\label{tabS2511}
        \centering
  \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
        \hline
       $B$   & $\operatorname{pt}(S(e_1,e_2,e_3),B)$ & $\operatorname{pt}(S(2,5,11),B)$ \\
      \hline\hline
  $\{u_1,u_2\}$   & $e_2+e_3-1$ & $15$ \\
        \hline
          $\{u_3,w_2\}$ & $e_2+e_3-1$ & $15$  \\
        \hline
            $\{u_3, w_1\}$  & $e_2+e_3$ & $16$ \\
        \hline
               $\{u_1,u_3\}$  & $e_2+e_3-1$ & $15$ \\
        \hline
          $\{u_2,w_3\}$  & $e_2+e_3-1$ & $15$ \\
        \hline
                 $\{u_2,w_1\}$  & $e_2+e_3$ & $16$ \\
           \hline
                $\{u_2,u_3\}$  & $e_1+e_3-1$ & $12$ \\
       \hline
                 $\{u_1,w_3\}$ & $e_1+e_3-1$ & $12$ \\
        \hline
                    $\{u_1,w_2\}$  & $e_1+e_3$ & $13$ \\
        \hline
          \end{tabular}
      \end{table}
 }\end{ex}

The next remark provides a necessary condition for a graph $G$ to have $\operatorname{pd}(G)=0$.
\begin{rem}{\rm Let $G$ be a graph. Then every minimum zero forcing set of $G$ is an efficient zero forcing set if and only if $\operatorname{pd}(G) = 0$.  In \cite{Zplus}, it is proven that the intersection of all minimum zero forcing sets is the empty set. Hence, $\operatorname{pd}(G)=0$ implies $\displaystyle \bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B = \emptyset$.
}
\end{rem}

 In Section \ref{sunique} we establish properties of efficient zero forcing sets, including that  no connected graph of order more than one has a unique efficient zero forcing set.
  In Section \ref{sextreme} we characterize graphs having extreme  propagation time.  In Section \ref{sdiam} we examine the relationship between propagation time and diameter.

\section{Efficient zero forcing sets}
\label{sunique}

In \cite{Zplus} it was shown that for a connected graph of order at least two, there must be more than one minimum zero forcing set and furthermore, no vertex is in every minimum zero forcing set.  This raises the questions of whether the analogous properties are true for efficient zero forcing sets (Questions \ref{unique} and \ref{intersect} below).

\begin{quest}\label{unique} Is there a connected graph of order at least two that has a unique efficient zero forcing set? \end{quest}

We  show that the answer to Question \ref{unique} is negative.  First we need some terminology.  For a given zero forcing set $B$ of $G$, construct the  final coloring, listing the forces in the order in which they were performed.  This list is a {\em chronological list of forces} of $B$ \cite{cancun}.
Many definitions and results concerning lists of forces that have appeared in the literature involve  chronological (ordered) lists of forces.   For the study of propagation time, the order of forces is often dictated by performing a force as soon as possible (propagating). Thus unordered sets of forces are more useful than ordered lists when studying propagation time, and we extend terminology from chronological lists of forces to sets of forces.

\begin{defn} {\rm  Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, $B$ a zero forcing set of $G$.  The unordered set of forces in a chronological list of forces of $B$ is called {\em a set of forces} of $B$.
}
\end{defn}

Observe that if $B$ is a zero forcing set and $\mathcal{F}$ is a set of forces of $B$, then the cardinality of $\mathcal{F}$ is $\ord G-\ord B$.  The ideas of terminus and reverse set of forces, introduced  in \cite{Zplus} for a chronological list of forces and defined below for a set of forces, are used to answer Question \ref{unique} negatively (by constructing the  terminus of a set of forces of an efficient zero forcing set).

\begin{defn} {\rm  Let $G$ be a graph, let $B$ be a zero forcing set of $G$, and let $\mathcal{F}$ be a set of forces of $B$.
The {\em terminus} of   $\mathcal{F}$, denoted  $\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})$, is the set of vertices that do not perform a force in $\mathcal{F}$.
The {\em reverse set of forces} of $\mathcal{F}$, denoted here as $\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})$, is the result of reversing each force in $\mathcal{F}$.
A  {\em forcing chain} of  $\mathcal{F}$ is a sequence of vertices $(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_k)$ such that for $i=1,\dots,k-1$,  $v_i $ forces $v_{i+1}$ in $\mathcal{F}$ ($k=1$ is permitted).    A {\em maximal forcing chain} is a forcing chain  that is not a proper subset of another  forcing chain.
}\end{defn}

The name ``terminus" reflects the fact that a vertex does not perform a force in $\mathcal{F}$ if and only if it is the end point of a maximal forcing chain (the latter is the definition used in \cite{Zplus}, where such a set is called a reversal of $B$).
  In \cite{Zplus}, it is shown that if $B$ is a zero forcing set of $G$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is a chronological list of forces, then the terminus of $\mathcal{F}$ is also a zero forcing set of $G$, with the reverse chronological list of forces (to construct a reverse chronological list of forces of $\mathcal{F}$,
  write the chronological list of forces in reverse order and reverse each force in $\mathcal{F}$).

   \begin{obs}\label{obsterm} Let $G$ be a graph, $B$ a minimum zero forcing set of $G$, and $\mathcal{F}$ a set of forces of $B$. Then $\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})$ is a  set of forces  of $\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})$ and $B=\operatorname{Term}(\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F}))$.
\end{obs}

When studying propagation time, it is natural to examine sets of forces that
achieve minimum propagation time.

\begin{defn} {\rm  Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $B$ a zero forcing set of $G$.     For a set of forces $\mathcal{F}$ of $B$, define $\mathcal{F}^{(0)}=B$ and for $t \ge 0$,  $\mathcal{F}^{(t+1)}$ is the set of vertices  $w$ such that the force $v\to w$ appears in $\mathcal{F}$, $w\notin \bigcup_{i=0}^{t} \mathcal{F}^{(i)}$,
and $w$ is the only neighbor of $v$ not in $\bigcup_{i=0}^{t} \mathcal{F}^{(i)}$.  The {\em propagation  time of $\mathcal{F}$} in $G$, denoted  $\operatorname{pt}(G,\mathcal{F})$,   is the least $t_0$ such that $V=\bigcup_{t=0}^{t_0} \mathcal{F}^{(t)}$.
}
\end{defn}

 Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, let $B$ be a zero forcing set  of $G$, and let $\mathcal{F}$ be a set of forces of $B$.  Clearly,  $\bigcup_{i=0}^{t} \mathcal{F}^{(i)}\subseteq \bigcup_{i=0}^{t} B^{(i)}$ for all $t=0,\dots,\operatorname{pt}(G,B)$.

\begin{defn} {\rm Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and let $B$ be a zero forcing set  of $G$.  A set of forces $\mathcal{F}$ is  {\em efficient}   if $\operatorname{pt}(G,\mathcal{F})=\operatorname{pt}(G)$.
Define \[\mathcal{F}_{eff}(G) = \{ \mathcal{F} \, | \, \mathcal{F} \text{ is an efficient set of forces of a minimum zero forcing set $B$ of } G\}.\]
}\end{defn}

If $\mathcal{F}$ is an efficient set of forces of a minimum zero forcing set $B$ of $G$, then $B$ is necessarily an efficient zero forcing set.
However, not every efficient set of forces conforms to the propagation process.

   \begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.4}{\includegraphics{fastnotprop2.pdf}}
\caption{The graph $G$ for Example \ref{exfastnotprop}} \label{fastnotprop}
\end{center}\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}

\begin{ex}\label{exfastnotprop} {\rm Let $G$ be the graph in Figure \ref{fastnotprop}.  Since every degree one vertex must be an endpoint of a maximal forcing chain and since $B=\{x,z,v\}$ is a zero forcing set, $\operatorname{Z}(G)=3$.  Since $(v,c,d,e,f,w)$ or $(w,f,e,d,c,v)$ must be a maximal  forcing chain for any set of forces of a minimum zero forcing set, $\operatorname{pt}(G)=5$.  Then $B$ is an efficient zero forcing set with efficient set of forces $\mathcal{F}=\{v\to c, z\to a, c\to d,  a\to b, d\to e,  b\to y, e\to f, f\to w\}.$ Observe that  $b\in\mathcal{F}^{(2)}$ (i.e.,  $b$ does not turn black until step $t=2$ in $\mathcal{F}$), but  $b\in B^{(1)}$ ($b$ can be forced by $x$ at step $t=1$).}\end{ex}

\begin{defn} {\rm Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, $B$ a zero forcing set of $G$, and $\mathcal{F}$ a  set of forces of $B$.
Define $Q_0(\mathcal{F})=\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})$ and for $t = 1,\ldots, \operatorname{pt}(G,\mathcal{F})$, define \[Q_t(\mathcal{F}) = \{ v \in V \, | \, \exists w\ \in \mathcal{F}^{(\operatorname{pt}(G,\mathcal{F})-t+1)} \mbox{ such that }  v\to w \}.\]   }
\end{defn}

Observe that $ V=\bigcup_{t=0}^{\operatorname{pt}(G,\mathcal{F})} Q_t(\mathcal{F})$.

\begin{lem}\label{reverslem} Let $G = (V,E)$ be a graph, $B$  a  zero forcing set of $G$, and  $\mathcal{F}$  a  set of forces of $B$.
Then  $Q_t(\mathcal{F})\subseteq \bigcup_{i=0}^t{\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})}^{(i)}$. \end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})$ is a  set of forces of $\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})$.  The result is established by induction on $t$.   Initially, $Q_0(\mathcal{F})=\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})=\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})^{(0)}$. Assume that for $0\le s \le t$, $Q_s(\mathcal{F})\subseteq \bigcup_{i=0}^s{\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})}^{(i)}$.  Let $v\in Q_{t+1}(\mathcal{F})$.  In $\mathcal{F}$,  $v\to u$ at time $\operatorname{pt}(G,\mathcal{F})-t$.  In $\mathcal{F}$, $u$ cannot perform a force until time $\operatorname{pt}(G,B)-t+1$ or later, so $u\in \bigcup_{i =0}^{t} Q_i(\mathcal{F})\subseteq\bigcup_{i=0}^t{\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})}^{(i)}$.  If $x\in N(u)\setminus \{v\}$ then in $\mathcal{F}$ $x$ cannot perform a force before time $\operatorname{pt}(G,\mathcal{F})-t+1$, so $x\in \bigcup_{i =0}^{t} Q_i(\mathcal{F})\subseteq \bigcup_{i=0}^t{\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})}^{(i)}$.  So if $v\notin \bigcup_{i=0}^t{\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})}^{(i)}$, then $v\in{\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})}^{(t+1)}$.  Thus $v\in \bigcup_{i=0}^{t+1}{\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})}^{(i)}$.
\end{proof}\medskip

\begin{cor}\label{ztreversal} Let $G = (V,E)$ be a graph,  $B$  a minimum zero forcing set of $G$, and $\mathcal{F}$ a  set of forces of $B$. Then \[ \operatorname{pt}(G,\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})) \leq \operatorname{pt}(G,\mathcal{F}).\]
\end{cor}

The next result follows  from Corollary \ref{ztreversal} and Observation \ref{obsterm}.

\begin{thm}\label{ztreversal2} Let $G = (V,E)$ be a graph,  $B$  an efficient zero forcing set of $G$, and  $\mathcal{F}$  an efficient set of forces of $B$. Then  $\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})$ is an efficient set of forces and $\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})$ is an efficient zero forcing set.  Every efficient zero forcing set is the terminus of an efficient set of forces of an efficient zero forcing set.
\end{thm}

The next result answers Question \ref{unique} negatively.

\begin{thm}\label{nonunique} Let $G $ be a connected graph of order greater than one.  Then $| \operatorname{Eff}(G) | \geq 2$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Let $B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)$ and let $\mathcal{F}$ be an efficient set of forces of $B$.
By Theorem \ref{ztreversal2}, $\operatorname{Term}(B)\in\operatorname{Eff}(G)$.   Since $G$ is a connected graph of order greater than one, $B \neq \operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})$.
\end{proof}\medskip

We now consider the intersection of efficient zero forcing sets.
The next result is immediate from Theorem \ref{ztreversal2}.

 \begin{cor}\label{termeffint} Let $G$ be a graph.  Then $\displaystyle \bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B=\bigcap_{\mathcal{F} \in \mathcal{F}_{eff}(G)}\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})$.
 \end{cor}

\begin{quest}\label{intersect} Is there a connected graph $G$ of order at least two and a vertex $v\in V(G)$ such that $v$ is in every efficient zero forcing set?
\end{quest}

The next example provides an affirmative answer.
\begin{ex}\label{W5ex}{\rm
The wheel $W_5$ is the graph shown in Figure \ref{wheel5}.
The efficient zero forcing set $\{a,b,c\}$ of $W_5$ shows that $\operatorname{pt}(W_5) = 1$. Up to isomorphism, there are two types of minimum zero forcing sets in $W_5$. One set contains $a$ and  two other vertices that are adjacent to each other; the other contains three vertices other than $a$. The latter  is not an efficient zero forcing set of $W_5$, because its propagation time is $2$. The possible choices for an efficient zero forcing set are $\{a,b,c\},\{a,c,d\},\{a,d,e\},$ or $\{a,b,e\}$. Therefore, $\displaystyle\bigcap_{B\in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B=\{a\} $.
}\end{ex}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.35}{\includegraphics{wheel5x.pdf}}
\caption{The wheel $W_5$}\label{wheel5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

 We examine the effect of a nonforcing vertex in an efficient zero forcing set.  This result will be used in Section \ref{sslow}.
It was shown in \cite{REU09} that $\operatorname{Z}(G)=\operatorname{Z}(G-v)+1$ if and only if there exists a minimum zero forcing set $B$ containing $v$ and set of forces $\mathcal{F}$ in which $v$ does not perform a force.   The proof of the next proposition is the same but with consideration restricted to an efficient zero forcing set  (the idea is that the same set of forces works for both $G$ and $G-v$, with $v$ included in the zero forcing set for $G$).

\begin{prop}\label{singletoniff} For a vertex $v$ of a graph $G$, there exists an efficient zero forcing set $B$ containing $v$ and an efficient set of forces $\mathcal{F}$ in which $v$ does not perform a force if and only if $\operatorname{pt}(G-v) = \operatorname{pt}(G)$ and $\operatorname{Z}(G-v) = \operatorname{Z}(G)-1$. \end{prop}

 \section{Graphs with extreme minimum propagation time}\label{sextreme}

 For any graph $G$, it is clear that $0 \leq \operatorname{pt}(G)\le \operatorname{PT}(G) \leq \ord G-1. $  In this section we consider the extreme values $\ord G-1$,  $\ord G-2$, i.e., high propagation time, and, $0$ and $1$, i.e., low propagation time.

\subsection{High propagation time}\label{sshigh}

The case of propagation time $\ord G-1$ is straightforward, using the well known fact \cite{Row} that $\operatorname{Z}(G)=1$ if and only if $G$ is a path.

\begin{prop} \label{ordGm1} For a graph $G$, the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\operatorname{pt}(G) =  |G| - 1$.
\item    $\operatorname{PT}(G) =  |G| - 1$.
\item $\operatorname{Z}(G)=1$.
\item $G$ is a path.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}

We now consider graphs $G$ that have maximum or minimum propagation time equal to $\ord G-2$.

\begin{obs}\label{ptG2obs} For a graph $G$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\operatorname{pt}(G)=\ord G-2$ implies $\operatorname{PT}(G) = |G| - 2$, but not conversely (see Lemma \ref{treelem} for an example).
\item  $\operatorname{pt}(G) = |G| - 2$ if and only if $\operatorname{Z}(G)=2$ and   exactly one force is performed at each time for every  minimum zero forcing set.
\item $\operatorname{PT}(G) = |G| - 2$  if and only if $\operatorname{Z}(G)=2$ and there exists a  minimum zero forcing set such that exactly one force performed at each time.
\end{enumerate}
 \end{obs}

\begin{lem}\label{disconlem} Let $G$ be a  disconnected graph.  Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\operatorname{pt}(G)=\ord G -2$.
\item $\operatorname{PT}(G)=\ord G -2$.
\item $G=P_{n-1} \dot{\cup} P_1$.
\end{enumerate}\end{lem}
\begin{proof}  Clearly  $G=P_{n-1} \dot{\cup} P_1\Rightarrow \operatorname{pt}(G)=\ord G -2\Rightarrow \operatorname{PT}(G)=\ord G -2$. So assume $\operatorname{PT}(G)=\ord G -2$.  Since $\operatorname{Z}(G)=2$, $G$ has exactly two components.  At least one component of $G$ is an isolated vertex (otherwise, more than one force occurs at time step one), and so
$G=P_{n-1} \dot{\cup} P_1$.  \end{proof}\medskip

A {\em path cover}  of a graph $G$  is  a set of vertex disjoint induced paths that cover all the vertices of $G$, and the path cover number $\operatorname{P}(G)$ is the minimum number of paths in a path cover of $G$. It is known \cite{cancun} that for a given zero forcing set  and set of forces, the set of  maximal zero forcing chains forms a path cover and thus $\operatorname{P}(G)\le \operatorname{Z}(G)$

A graph $G$ is a {\em graph on two parallel paths} if  $V(G)$ can be partitioned into disjoint subsets $U_1$ and $U_2$ so that the induced subgraphs $P_i=G[U_i], i=1,2$ are paths, $G$ can be drawn in the plane with the paths $P_1$ and $P_2$ as parallel line segments, and  edges between the two paths (drawn as line segments, not curves) do not cross; such a drawing is called a {\em standard drawing}.  The paths $P_1$ and $P_2$ are called the {\em parallel paths} (for this representation of $G$ as a graph on two parallel paths).

  Let $G$ be a graph on two parallel paths  $P_1$ and $P_2$.
  If $v\in V(G)$, then $\operatorname{path}(v)$ denotes the parallel path that contains $v$ and $\overline{\pth}(v)$ denotes the other of the parallel paths. Fix an ordering of the vertices in each of $P_1$ and $P_2$ that is increasing in the same direction for both paths in a standard drawing.  With this ordering, let $\operatorname{first}(P_i)$ and $\operatorname{last}(P_i)$ denote the first and last vertices of $P_i, i=1,2$.   If $v,w\in V(P_i)$, then $v\prec w$ means $v$ precedes $w$ in the order on $P_i$.  Furthermore, if $v\in V(P_i)$ and $v\ne \operatorname{last}(P_i)$, $\operatorname{next}(v)$ is the neighbor of $v$ in  $P_i$ such that  $v\prec \operatorname{next}(v)$; $\operatorname{prev}(v)$ is defined analogously (for $v\ne \operatorname{first}(P_i)$).

Row \cite{Row} has shown that $Z(G)=2$ if and only if $G$ is a graph on two parallel paths. Observe that for any graph having $\operatorname{Z}(G)=2$,  a  set of forces $\mathcal{F}$ of a minimum zero forcing set  naturally produces a representation of $G$ as a graph on two parallel paths with the parallel paths being the maximal forcing chains. The ordering of the vertices in the parallel paths is  the forcing order.

\begin{lem}\label{treelem} For a tree $G$, $\operatorname{PT}(G)=\ord G -2$ if and only if $G=S(1,1,n-3)$ (sometimes called a T-shaped tree). The graph $K_{1,3}$ is  the only tree for which $\operatorname{pt}(G)=\ord G -2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that  $\operatorname{PT}(S(1,1,n-3))=n-2$, and $\operatorname{pt}(K_{1,3})=2$.

Suppose first that $G$ is a tree such that $\operatorname{PT}(G)=\ord G -2$.  Then $G$ is a graph on two parallel paths $P_1$ and $P_2$.     There is exactly one edge $e$ between the two paths.  Observe that $e$ must have an endpoint not in $\{\operatorname{first}(P_i), \operatorname{last}(P_i), i=1,2\}$, so without loss of generality $\operatorname{first}(P_1)\ne\operatorname{last}(P_1)$ and neither $\operatorname{first}(P_1)$ nor $\operatorname{last}(P_1)$ is an endpoint of $e$.
If $G$ is a graph with multiple vertices in each of $P_1, P_2$ (i.e., if $\operatorname{first}(P_2)\ne \operatorname{last}(P_2)$), then no matter which minimum zero forcing set we choose, more than one force will occur at some time. So assume $V(P_2)$ consists of a single vertex $w$.  If the parallel paths were constructed from a minimum zero forcing set $B$, then $w\in B$, and without loss of generality $B=\{\operatorname{first}(P_1),w\}$.  If $N(w)\ne N(\operatorname{first}(P_1))$, then  at time one,  two vertices would be forced.  Thus $N(w)=N(\operatorname{first}(P_1))$ and  $G=S(1,1,n-3)$.

 Now suppose that $G$ is a tree such that $\operatorname{pt}(G)=\ord G -2$.   This implies $\operatorname{PT}(G)=\ord G -2$, so  $G=S(1,1,n-3)$.  Since $n-3>1$ implies $\operatorname{pt}(S(1,1,n-3))<n-2$, $G=S(1,1,1)=K_{1,3}$.
  \end{proof}\medskip

\begin{obs}  If $G$ is one of the graphs shown in Figure \ref{fzzbad}, then $\operatorname{pt}(G)<\ord G-2$, because the black vertices are a minimum zero forcing set $B$ with $\operatorname{pt}(G,B)<\ord G -2$.
\end{obs}

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.45}{\includegraphics{zigzagbad.pdf}}
\caption{Graphs $G$ and minimum zero forcing sets $B$ such that  $\operatorname{pt}(G,B)<\ord G -2 $ (where {\color{blue} light} vertices may be absent or repeated and similarly for {\color{blue} light} edges)} \label{fzzbad}
\end{center}
\end{figure

For any graph and vertices $x,y$,  $x\sim y$ denotes that $x$ and $y$ are adjacent, and  $xy$ denotes the edge with endpoints $x$ and $y$.

 \begin{defn}{\rm
A graph $G$ on two parallel paths $P_1$ and $P_2$ is a {\em zigzag graph} if it satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item  There is a path $Q=(z_1,z_2,\dots,z_\ell)$ that alternates between the two paths $P_1$ and $P_2$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $z_{2i-1}\in V(P_1)$ and $z_{2i}\in V(P_2)$ for $i=1,\dots,\lfloor\frac{\ell+1}2\rfloor$;
\item $z_j\prec z_{j+2}$ for $j=1,\dots,\ell-2$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Every edge of $G$ is an edge of one of  $P_1, P_2$, or $Q$, or is an edge of the form
\[z_jw \mbox{ where } 1<j<\ell, w\in\overline{\pth}(z_j), \mbox{ and } z_{j-1}\prec w\prec z_{j+1}.\]
\end{enumerate}
The number $\ell$ of vertices in $Q$ is called the {\em zigzag order}.}
\end{defn}

 Examples of zigzag graphs  are shown in Figures \ref{fzzbad},  \ref{zigzagfig1}, and \ref{fzzpt1}.

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.45}{\includegraphics{zigzag.pdf}}
\caption{A  zigzag graph (with $P_1, P_2$ and $Q$ in black)} \label{zigzagfig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure

\begin{thm} \label{ordGm2pt} Let $G$ be a graph. Then $\operatorname{pt}(G) =  |G| - 2$ if and only if $G$ is one of the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $P_{n-1}\dot{\cup} P_1$.
\item $K_{1,3}$.

\item\label{speczz} A
zigzag graph of zigzag order $\ell$ such that all of the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
 \item\label{ecx1} $G$ is not isomorphic to one of the graphs shown in Figure \ref{fzzbad}.
 \item\label{ecx2} $\deg (\operatorname{first}(P_1))>1$ or $\deg (\operatorname{first}(P_2))>1$ (both paths cannot begin with degree-one vertices).
  \item\label{ecx3} $\deg (\operatorname{last}(P_1))>1$ or $\deg (\operatorname{last}(P_2))>1$   (both paths cannot end with degree-one vertices).
   \item\label{ecx4} $z_2\ne \operatorname{first}(P_2)$ or $z_2\sim \operatorname{next}(z_1)$
 \item\label{ecx5} $z_{\ell-1}\ne \operatorname{last}(\operatorname{path}(z_{\ell-1}))$ or $z_{\ell-1}\sim \operatorname{prev}(z_\ell)$
 \end{enumerate} \end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

An example of a zigzag graph satisfying  conditions (\ref{ecx1}) --  (\ref{ecx5}) is shown in Figure \ref{fzzpt1}.

\begin{proof}  Assume   $\operatorname{pt}(G) = |G| - 2$.   If $G$ is disconnected or a tree, then  $G$ is $P_{n-1}\dot{\cup} P_1$ or $K_{1,3}$ by Lemmas \ref{disconlem} and \ref{treelem}.  So assume $G$ is connected and has a cycle.

First we identify $P_1, P_2$ and $Q$ for $G$:  By Observation \ref{ptG2obs}, there exists a minimum zero forcing set $B$ of cardinality 2 such that  exactly one force is performed at each time for $B$.
Renumber the vertices of $G$ as follows:  vertices $V(G)=\{-1,0,1,2,\dots,n-2\}$, zero forcing set  $B=\{-1,0\}$ with $0\to 1$, and vertex $t$ is forced at time $t$.
Then $G$ is a graph on two parallel paths  $P_1$ and $P_2$, which are the two maximal forcing chains (with the path order being the forcing order).  Observe that $\deg (0)\le 2$ and $\deg (-1)\ge 2$, because $0$ can immediately force and $-1$ cannot.
If $\deg (-1)=2$ and $\ord G>3$, then choose $P_1$ to be $\operatorname{path}(-1)$, and let $z_1=-1, \ z_2=\max N(-1) \cap P_2$.   Otherwise, choose  $P_1$ to be $\operatorname{path}(0)$ and let $z_1=\min N(-1), \ z_2=-1$.
For $j\ge 2$, define $z_{j+1}=\max N(z_j) \cap \overline{\pth}(z_j)$ until $N(z_j) \cap \overline{\pth}(z_j)=\emptyset$.   Define $Q=(z_1,\dots,z_\ell)$.  With this labeling, $G$ is a zigzag graph.

Now we show that $G$  satisfies conditions (\ref{ecx1}) --  (\ref{ecx5}).  Since $\operatorname{pt}(G)=\ord G-2$, $G$ is not isomorphic to one of the graphs shown in Figure \ref{fzzbad}, i.e., condition (\ref{ecx1}) is satisfied.  Since $-1$ is the first vertex  in one of the paths and $\deg(-1)\ge 2$, condition (\ref{ecx2}) is satisfied.  The remaining conditions must be satisfied or there is a different zero forcing set of two vertices with lower propagation time: if (\ref{ecx3}) fails, use $B=\{\operatorname{last}(P_1), \operatorname{last}(P_2)\}$; if (\ref{ecx4}) fails, then $z_2= \operatorname{first}(P_2)$ and $z_2\not\sim \operatorname{next}(z_1)$, so use $B=\{\operatorname{first}(P_1), \operatorname{next}(z_1)\}$; if (\ref{ecx5}) fails, this is analogous to (\ref{ecx4}) failing, so use $B=\{\operatorname{last}(\operatorname{path}(z_\ell)), \operatorname{prev}(z_{\ell})\}$.

For the converse,   $\operatorname{pt}(G)=\ord G -2$ for  $G=P_{n-1}\dot{\cup} P_1$ or $G=K_{1,3}$ by Lemmas \ref{disconlem} and  \ref{treelem}.  So assume   $G$ is a zigzag graph satisfying conditions (\ref{ecx1}) --  (\ref{ecx5}).  The sets $B_1=\{\operatorname{first}(P_1),\operatorname{first}(P_2)\}$ and $B_2=\{\operatorname{last}(P_1),\operatorname{last}(P_2)\}$ are minimum zero forcing sets of $G$, and $\operatorname{pt}(G,B_i)=\ord G-2$ for $i=1,2$.
If $z_2=\operatorname{first}(P_2)$, so $\operatorname{first}(P_2)\sim \operatorname{next}(z_1)$, then $B_3=\{\operatorname{first}(P_1),\operatorname{next}(z_1)\}$ is a zero forcing set and $\operatorname{pt}(G,B_3)=\ord G-2$.
If $z_{\ell-1}\ne \operatorname{last}(\operatorname{path}(z_{\ell-1}))$, so  $\operatorname{last}(\operatorname{path}(z_{\ell-1}))\sim \operatorname{prev}(z_\ell)$, then $B_4=\{\operatorname{last}(\operatorname{path}(z_\ell)),\operatorname{prev}(z_\ell)\}$ is a zero forcing set and $\operatorname{pt}(G,B_4)=\ord G-2$.  If $G$ is not isomorphic to one of the graphs shown in Figure \ref{fzzbad}, these are the only minimum zero forcing sets.  \end{proof}\medskip

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.45}{\includegraphics{zigzagspec.pdf}}
\caption{A zigzag graph $G$  (with $P_1, P_2$ and $Q$ in black) having $\operatorname{pt}(G)=\ord G-2$ } \label{fzzpt1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-5mm}

\subsection{Low propagation time}\label{sslow}

\begin{obs} \label{pt0} For a graph $G$, the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\operatorname{pt}(G) =  0$.
\item    $\operatorname{PT}(G) = 0$.
\item $\operatorname{Z}(G)=\ord G$.
\item $G$ has no edges.
\end{enumerate}
\end{obs}

Next we consider $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$.  From Remark \ref{ptPTbds} we see that if $\operatorname{pt}(G) =  1$, then $\displaystyle \operatorname{Z}(G) \geq \frac{|G|}{2}$.
The converse of this statement is false:

\begin{ex}\label{exMH1}{\rm  Let $G$ be the graph obtained from $K_4$ by appending a leaf to one vertex.  Then $\operatorname{Z}(G)  = 3 >|G|/2$ and $\operatorname{pt}(G) =  2$. }\end{ex}

\begin{thm}\label{pt1force}  Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph such that  $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$.  For $v\in V$,  $\displaystyle v\in \bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B$ if and only if for every $B\in\operatorname{Eff}(G)$, $\ord{B^{(1)}\cap N(v)}\ge 2$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
If for every $B\in\operatorname{Eff}(G)$,  $\ord{B^{(1)}\cap N(v)}\ge 2$, then $v$ cannot perform a force in an efficient set of forces, so $v\in\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})$ for every $\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{F}_{eff}(G)$.  Thus $v\in \bigcap_{\mathcal{F} \in \mathcal{F}_{eff}(G)}\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})=\bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B$.

Now suppose $v\in \bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B$ and let $ B\in \operatorname{Eff}(G)$.  If $v$ performs a force in an efficient set of forces  $\mathcal{F}$ of $B$, then  $v\notin\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})$.  By Theorem \ref{ztreversal2}, $\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})\in \operatorname{Eff}(G)$, so $v$ cannot perform a force in any such $\mathcal{F}$.  Since $v$ cannot perform a force, $\ord{B^{(1)}\cap N(v)}\ne 1$.  It is shown in \cite{Zplus} that (assuming the graph is connected and of order greater than one) every vertex of a minimum zero forcing set   must have a neighbor not in the zero forcing set.  Since $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$, $\ord G>1$, and so $\ord{B^{(1)}\cap N(v)}\ge 2$.  \end{proof}\medskip

We now consider the case of a graph $G$ that has $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$ and $\operatorname{Z}(G)=\frac 1 2 \ord G$.  Examples of such graphs include the hypercubes $Q_s$ \cite{AIM}.

\begin{defn}{\rm Suppose $H_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $H_2=(V_2,E_2)$ are graphs of equal order and $\mu:V_1\to V_2$ is a bijection. Define the {\em matching graph} $(H_1,H_2,\mu)$ to be the graph constructed as the disjoint union of $H_1, H_2$ and the perfect matching between $V_1$ and $V_2$ defined by $\mu$.}
\end{defn}

Matching graphs play a central role in the study of graphs that have propagation time one.

\begin{prop}\label{matchprop} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph.  Then any two of the following conditions imply the third.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{cZ} $\ord G = 2\operatorname{Z}(G)$.
\item\label{cpt} $\operatorname{pt}(G) = 1$.
\item\label{cmatch} $G$ is a matching graph
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} $(\ref{cZ}) \ \& \ (\ref{cpt})  \Rightarrow (\ref{cmatch})$: Let $B$ be an efficient zero forcing set of $G$ and let $\overline{B}=V\setminus B$.   Since $\ord B=\frac 1 2 \ord G$ and $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$, every element  $b \in B$ must perform a force at time one.    Thus  $\ord{N(b) \cap \overline{B}}=1$ and there exists a perfect matching between $B$ and $\overline{B}$ defined by $\mu:B \to {\overline B}$ where  $\mu(b)\in N(b) \cap \overline{B}$.   Then $G=(B,{\overline B},\mu)$.

For the remaining two parts, assume $G=(H_1,H_2,\mu)$ and $n=\frac 1 2 \ord G$ ($=\ord{H_1}=\ord{H_2}$).

$(\ref{cZ}) \ \& \ (\ref{cmatch})  \Rightarrow (\ref{cpt})$:  Since $\operatorname{Z}(G)=n$, $H_1$ is a minimum zero forcing set and $\operatorname{pt}(G,H_1)=1$.

$(\ref{cpt}) \ \& \ (\ref{cmatch})  \Rightarrow (\ref{cZ})$:   Since $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$, $\operatorname{Z}(G)\ge n$, and $\operatorname{Z}(G)\le n$  because $H_1$ is a zero forcing set with $\operatorname{pt}(G,H_1)=1$.
\end{proof}\medskip

We examine conditions that ensure $\operatorname{Z}((H_1,H_2,\mu))=\ord{H_i}$ and thus $\operatorname{pt}((H_1,H_2,\mu))=1$.
The choice of matching $\mu$ affects the zero forcing number and propagation time, as the next two examples show.

\begin{ex}\label{C5P2}{\rm  The  Cartesian product $C_5\Box P_2$ is $(C_5,C_5,\iota)$, where $\iota$ is the identity mapping. It is known \cite{AIM} that $\operatorname{Z}(C_5\Box P_2)  = 4$   and thus $\operatorname{pt}(C_5\Box P_2)  >1$. }\end{ex}

\begin{ex}\label{Pet}{\rm  The Petersen graph $P$ can be constructed as $(C_5,C_5,\mu_P)$ where $\mu_P=\left(\begin{array}{rrrrr}
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\
1 & 4 & 2 & 5 & 3
\end{array}\right)$. It is known \cite{AIM} that $\operatorname{Z}(P)  = 5$   and thus $\operatorname{pt}(P)  =1$. }\end{ex}

Let $c(G)$ denote the number of components of $G$.

\begin{thm}\label{H1H2mucomponent} Let $\ord {H_1}=\ord {H_2}=n$ and let $\mu:H_1\to H_2$ be a bijection.  If $\operatorname{pt}((H_1,H_2,\mu))=1$, then $c(H_1)=c(H_2)=c((H_1,H_2,\mu))$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Assume it is not the case that $c(H_1)=c(H_2)=c((H_1,H_2,\mu))$.  This implies  $\mu$ is not the union of perfect matchings between the components of $H_1$ and the components of $H_2$. Without loss of generality, there is a component $H_1[C_1]$ of $H_1$ that is not matched within a single component of $H_2$. Then there exist vertices $u$ and $v$ in $C_1$ such that $\mu(v) \in C_v$,  $\mu(u) \in C_u$, and $H_2[C_v]$ and $H_2[C_u]$ are separate components of $H_2$. We show that there is a zero forcing set of size $n-1$ for $(H_1,H_2,\mu)$, and thus pt$((H_1,H_2,\mu))>1$. Let $B_1 = C_1 \backslash (\mu^{-1}(C_v) \bigcup \{u\})$, $B_2 = V_2 \backslash (\mu(B_1) \bigcup \mu(u))$, and $B = B_1 \bigcup B_2$, so $|B|=n-1$. Then 1) $x \rightarrow \mu^{-1}(x)$ for $x \in C_v$, 2) $v \rightarrow u$, 3) $y \rightarrow \mu(y)$ for $y \in C_1 \backslash \mu^{-1}(C_v)$, and 4) $z \rightarrow \mu^{-1}(z)$ for all $\mu^{-1}(z)$ in the remaining components of $H_1$. Therefore B is a zero forcing set,  $\operatorname{Z}((H_1,H_2,\mu))\le n-1$, and thus $\operatorname{pt}((H_1,H_2,\mu))>1$.
\end{proof}\medskip

\begin{thm}\label{KrmatchH}  Let $\ord H=n$ and let $\mu$ be a bijection of vertices of   $H$ and $K_n$  (with $\mu$ acting on the vertices of $H$).  Then   $\operatorname{pt}((H,K_n,\mu))=1$ if and only if $H$ is connected.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
If $H$ is not connected, then $\operatorname{pt}((H,K_n,\mu))\ne 1$ by Theorem \ref{H1H2mucomponent}. Now assume $H$ is connected and let $G=(H,K_n,\mu)$. Let $B\subseteq V(G)$ with $\ord B =n-1$.  We show $B$ is not a zero forcing set. This implies $\operatorname{Z}(G)=n$ and thus $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$.  Let $X=V(K_n)$ and $Y=V(H)$.    For $x\in X$, $x$ cannot perform a force until at least $n-1$ vertices in $X$ are black. If $\ord {X\cap B} =n-1$ then no force can be performed.  So assume $\ord {X\cap B} \le n-2$. Until at least $n-1$ vertices in $X$ are black, all forces must be performed by vertices in $Y$.   We show that no more than $n-2$ vertices in $X$ can turn black.  Perform all forces of the type $y\to y'$ with $y,y'\in Y$. For each such force, $\mu(y)$ must be black already. Thus at most $\ord{X\cap B}$ such forces within $Y$ can be performed.   So there are now at most $\ord {Y\cap B}+\ord{X\cap B}=n-1$ black vertices in $Y$.  Note first that if at most $n-2$ vertices of $Y$ are black, then after all possible forces from $Y$ to $X$ are done, no further forces are possible, and at most $n-2$ vertices in $X$ are black.  So assume $n-1$ vertices of $Y$ are black.  Let $w\in Y$ be white.  Since $H$ is connected, there must be a neighbor $u$ of $w$ in $Y$, and $u$ is black.  Since $u\in N(w)$ and $w$ is white, $u$ has not performed a force.  If $\mu(u)$ were black,  there would be at most $n-2$ black vertices in $Y$, so $\mu(u)$ is white.    After preforming all possible forces from $Y$ to $X$, at most $n-2$ vertices in $X$ are black because all originally black vertices $x$ have $\mu^{-1}(x)$ black, there are $n-1$ black vertices in $Y$, and  $u$ cannot perform a force at this time (since both $w$ and $\mu(u)$ are white).  Thus not more than $n-2$ vertices of $X$ can be forced, and $B$ is not a zero forcing set.
 \end{proof}\medskip

The Cartesian product of $G$ with $P_2$ is one way of constructing matching graphs, because $G \, \square \, P_2=(G,G,\iota)$.
 Examples of graphs $G$ having $\operatorname{Z}(G \, \square \, P_2) = |G|$ include the complete graph $K_r$ and hypercube $Q_s$ \cite{AIM}.  Since $\operatorname{Z}(G\,\Box\, P_2)\le 2\operatorname{Z}(G)$ \cite{AIM}, to have $\operatorname{Z}(G\,\Box\, P_2)= \ord G$ it is necessary that $\operatorname{Z}(G)\ge \frac{\ord G} 2$, but that condition is not sufficient.

\begin{ex} \label{ex2} {\rm Observe that $\operatorname{Z}(K_{1,r})=r-1\ge \frac 1 2 \ord{K_{1,r}}$ for $r\ge 3$.
But  $\operatorname{Z}(K_{1,r} \, \square \, P_2) = r < \ord{K_{1,r}}$, so $\operatorname{pt}(K_{1,r}\, \square \, P_2) \geq 2$. }\end{ex}

The next theorem provides conditions that ensure that  iterating the Cartesian product with $P_2$ gives a graph with propagation time one.   Recall that one of the original motivations for defining the zero forcing number was to bound maximum nullity, and the interplay between these two parameters is central to the proof of the next theorem.  Let $G=(\{v_1,\dots,v_n\},E)$ be a graph. The {\em set of symmetric matrices described by  $G$} is
$\mathcal{S}(G)=\{A\in\Rnn : A^T=A \mbox{ and for } i\ne j, a_{ij} \ne 0 \Leftrightarrow v_iv_j\in E\}.$
The {\em maximum nullity of $G$} is
$\operatorname{M}(G)=\max\{{\rm null}\, A: A\in \mathcal{S}(G)\}.$  It is well known  \cite{AIM} that $\operatorname{M}(G)\le\operatorname{Z}(G)$.
The next theorem provides conditions that are sufficient to iterate the construction of taking the Cartesian product of a graph and $P_2$ and obtain minimum propagation time equal to one.

\begin{thm}\label{GboxP2}  Suppose $G$ is a graph with $\ord G=n$ and there exists a matrix $L\in\mathcal{S}(G)$ such that $L^2=I_n$.  Then \[\operatorname{M}(G\,\Box\, P_2)= \operatorname{Z}(G\,\Box\, P_2)=n \mbox{ and } \operatorname{pt}(G\,\Box\, P_2)=1.\]  Furthermore, for \[\hat L=\frac 1 {\sqrt 2}\mtx{L & I_n\\I_n & -L}\] $\hat L\in \mathcal{S}(G\,\Box\, P_2)$ and ${\hat L}^2=I_{2n}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Given the $n\times n$ matrix $L$, define
\[
H=\mtx{L&I_n\\ I_n&L}.
\]
Then $H,\hat L\in\mathcal{S}(G\,\Box\, P_2)$ and ${\hat L}^2=I_{2n}$. Since $\mtx{I_n&0\\ -L & I_n} \mtx{L&I_n\\ I_n&L}=\mtx{L&I_n\\ 0&0}$, $\nul(H)=n$.
Therefore,  $\operatorname{M}(G\,\Box\, P_2)\ge n$.  Then
\[n\le \operatorname{M}(G\,\Box\, P_2)\le\operatorname{Z}(G\,\Box\, P_2)\le n\]
so we have equality throughout.  Since $G\,\Box \,P_2$ is a matching graph, $\operatorname{pt}(G\,\Box \,P_2)=1$ by Proposition \ref{matchprop}.
\end{proof}\medskip

Let $G\,(\Box\, P_2)^s$ denote the graph constructed by starting with $G$ and performing the Cartesian product with $P_2$ $s$ times.  For example, the hypercube $Q_s= P_2\,(\Box\, P_2)^{s-1}$, and the proof given in \cite{AIM} that $\operatorname{M}(Q_s)=\operatorname{Z}(Q_s)=2^{s-1}$ is the same as the proof of Theorem \ref{GboxP2} using  the matrix $L=\mtx{0 & 1\\1 & 0}\in\mathcal{S}(P_2)$.

\begin{cor}\label{GboxP2s}  Suppose $G$ is a graph such that there exists a matrix $L\in\mathcal{S}(G)$ such that $L^2=I_{\ord G}$.  Then for $s\ge 1$,  \[\operatorname{M}(G\,(\Box\, P_2)^s)=\operatorname{Z}(G\,(\Box\, P_2)^s)=\ord G 2^{s-1} \mbox{ and }\operatorname{pt}(G\,(\Box\, P_2)^s)=1.\]
\end{cor}

\begin{cor}\label{KrboxP2s}  For $s\ge 1$, $\operatorname{M}(K_n\,(\Box\, P_2)^s)=\operatorname{Z}(K_n\,(\Box\, P_2)^s)=n 2^{s-1}$ and $\operatorname{pt}(K_n\,(\Box\, P_2)^s)=1$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}  Let $L=I_n-\frac 2 n J_n$, where $J_n$ is the $n\times n$ matrix having all entries equal to one.  Then $L\in\mathcal{S}(K_n)$ and $L^2=I_n$.
\end{proof}\medskip

Observe that if the matrix $L$ in the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{GboxP2} is symmetric (and thus is an orthogonal matrix), then the matrix $\hat L$ in the conclusion also has these properties.  The same is true for  Corollary \ref{KrboxP2s}, where $L=I_n-\frac 2 n J_n$ is a Householder transformation.

 We have established a number of constructions that provide matching graphs having propagation time one.  For example,   $\operatorname{pt}(P_2\,(\Box\, P_2)^s)=1$, $\operatorname{pt}(K_n\,(\Box\, P_2)^s)=1$, and if $H$ is connected, then $\operatorname{pt}((K_n,H,\mu))=1$ for every matching $\mu$.  But the general question remains open.

 \begin{quest} Characterize matching graphs $(H_1,H_2,\mu)$ such that $\operatorname{pt}((H_1,H_2,\mu))=1$.
 \end{quest}

We can  investigate when $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$ by deleting vertices that are in an efficient zero forcing set but do not perform a force in an efficient set of forces.
The next result is a consequence of Proposition \ref{singletoniff}.

\begin{cor}\label{cor2}   Let $G$ be a graph with $\operatorname{pt}(G) = 1$, $B$  an efficient zero forcing set of $G$ containing $v$, and $\mathcal{F}$ an efficient set of forces of $B$ in which $v$ does not perform a force. Then $\operatorname{pt}(G-v) = \operatorname{pt}(G) = 1$. \end{cor}

\begin{defn}{\rm Let $G$ be a graph with $\operatorname{pt}(G) = 1$, $B$  an efficient zero forcing set of $G$, $\mathcal{F}$ an efficient set of forces of $B$, and $S$  the set of vertices in $B$ that do not perform a force. Define $V'=V\setminus S$, $G'=G[V']=G- S$,  $B'=B\setminus S$, and $\overline{B'}=V'\setminus B'$. The graph $G'$ is called a {\em prime} subgraph of $G$ with associated zero forcing set $B'$.
}\end{defn}
\begin{obs} \label{pt1structure} Let $G$ be a graph with $\operatorname{pt}(G) = 1$.   For the prime subgraph $G'$ and associated zero forcing set $B'$ defined from    an efficient zero forcing set $B$ and  efficient set of forces $\mathcal{F}$ of $B$:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item $\overline{B'}=V\setminus B$.
\item $\ord B' = \ord  {\overline{B'}}$ and   $|G'| = 2|B'|$.
\item   $G'$ is the matching graph defined by  $G[B'], G[\overline{B'}]$
and  $\mu:B' \to \overline{B'}$ defined by $\mu(b)\in(N(b) \cap \overline{B'})$.
\item $B'$ and  ${\overline B'}$ are efficient zero forcing sets of $ G'$.
\item $\operatorname{pt}(G') = 1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{obs}

 It is clear that if $G=(V,E)$ has no isolated vertices, $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$, and if $\hat G$ is constructed from $G$ by  adjoining a new vertex $v$ adjacent to every $u\in V(G)$, then $\operatorname{pt}(\hat G)=1$.

We now return to considering  \ $\bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B$, specifically in the case of propagation time one.
We have a corollary of Theorem \ref{pt1force}.

\begin{cor}\label{deg4ex2} Let $G = (V,E)$ be a graph such that $\operatorname{pt}(G) = 1$. If $\displaystyle v \in \bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B$, then $\deg v \geq 4$. \end{cor}
 \begin{proof} Let $\displaystyle v \in \bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B$.  Since $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$, for any efficient set $\mathcal{F}$ of $B$, $\operatorname{Term}(B)=B^{(1)}$.  By Theorem \ref{pt1force}, $\ord{B^{(1)}\cap N(v)}\ge 2$, so $\ord{\operatorname{Term}(B)\cap N(v)}\ge 2$. Since $B=\operatorname{Term}(\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F}))$,   $\ord{{B}\cap N(v)}\ge 2$.  Thus $\deg v\ge 4$. \end{proof}\medskip

Note that Corollary \ref{deg4ex2} is false without the hypothesis that $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$, as the next example shows.

\begin{ex} \label{deg4ex3}{\rm  For   the graph $G$ in Figure \ref{deg42}, $\operatorname{Z}(G) = 3$. Every minimum zero forcing set   $B$ must contain one of $\{a,c\}$ and one of $\{x,z\}$; without loss of generality, $a,x\in B$. If $v\in B$ then $\operatorname{pt}(G,B)=2$; if not then $c$ or $z$ is in $B$ and $\operatorname{pt}(G,B)=3$. Thus $v$ is in every efficient zero forcing set.

  \begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.4}{\includegraphics{deg4r2.pdf}}
\caption{A graph $G$ with  $v\in\bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B$ and $\deg v <4$ } \label{deg42}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
}\end{ex} \vspace{-5mm}

\begin{prop}\label{propintersect} Let  $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $v\in V$.  If $\deg v> \operatorname{Z}(G)$ and $\operatorname{pt}(G)=1$, then  $v\in \bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}   Suppose $v\notin B\in\operatorname{Eff}(G)$, and let $\mathcal{F}$ be an efficient set of forces of $B$.   Then $v$ performs a force in the efficient set $\operatorname{Rev}(\mathcal{F})$ of $\operatorname{Term}(\mathcal{F})$.  Since every force is performed at time 1, $\deg v\le \operatorname{Z}(G)$.  \end{proof}\medskip

The converse of Proposition \ref{propintersect} is false, as the next example demonstrates.

\begin{ex} \label{deg4ex}{\rm  Let $G$ be the graph  in Figure \ref{deg4}.
  \begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.8}{\includegraphics{deg4r.pdf}}
\caption{A graph $G$ with  $v\in\bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B$ and $\deg v <\operatorname{Z}(G)$ } \label{deg4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It can be verified that $\operatorname{Z}(G) = 5$. Then $B_1=\{a,b,c,d,v\}$ and $B_2=\{x,y,z,w,v\}$ are  minimum zero forcing sets and $\operatorname{pt}(G,B_1)=\operatorname{pt}(G,B_2)=1$, so $\operatorname{pt}(G) = 1$. Let $B$ be a zero forcing set  of $G$ not containing vertex $v$.  In order to have $\operatorname{pt}(G,B)=1$, some neighbor of $v$ must be able to force $v$ immediately. Without loss of generality, this neighbor is $d$.  Then $a,b,c,d,w\in B$.  The set $\{a,b,c,d,w\}$ is a minimum zero forcing set but has propagation time  $2$, because no vertex can force $z$ immediately.  Thus $\bigcap_{B \in \operatorname{Eff}(G)} B = \{v\}$, and observe that $\deg v = 4 < 5 =\operatorname{Z}(G)$.
}\end{ex}

\section{Relationship of propagation time and diameter}\label{sdiam}

In general, the diameter and the propagation time of a graph are not comparable. Let $G$ be the dart (shown in Figure \ref{dart}). Then $\operatorname{diam}(G) = 2 < \operatorname{pt}(G) = 3$. On the other hand, $\operatorname{diam}(C_4) = 2 > 1 = \operatorname{pt}(C_4)$.

Although it is not possible to a  obtain a direct ordering relationship between  diameter and propagation time in an arbitrary graph, diameter serves as an upper bound for propagation time in the family of trees. To demonstrate this, we need some definitions.
 The {\em walk} $v_1v_2\dots v_p$ in $G$ is the subgraph with vertex set $\{v_1,v_2,\dots, v_p\}$  and edge set $\{v_1v_2, v_2v_3, \dots, v_{p-1}v_p\}$ (vertices and/or edges may be repeated in these lists but are not repeated in the vertex and edge sets). A  {\em trail} is a walk with no repeated edges (vertices may be repeated;
a {path} is a trail with no repeated vertices). The {\em length} of a trail $P$, denoted by $\operatorname{len} (P)$, is the number of edges in $P$.  We show in Lemma \ref{ztraillem} below that for any graph $G$ and minimum zero forcing set $B$, there is a trail of length at least $\operatorname{pt}(G,B)$.  A trail produced by the method in the proof is illustrated in the Example \ref{extrail} below.

\begin{lem}\label{ztraillem} Let $G$ be a graph and let $B$ be a minimum zero forcing set of $G$. Then there exists a trail $P$ such that $\operatorname{pt}(G,B)\le\operatorname{len}(P)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Observe that if $u,v \in V(G)$ such that $u$ forces $v$ at time $t>1$, then $u$ cannot force $v$ at time $t-1$.  Thus  either $u$ was forced at time $t-1$ or some neighbor of $u$ was forced at time $t-1$. So there is a path $w u v$, where $w$ forces $u$ at time $t-1$, or a path $w x u v$, where $w$ forces $x$ at time $t-1$ and $x$ is a neighbor of $u$.

 We construct a trail $v_{-p} v_{-p+1} v_{-p+2} \dots v_0$, such that for each time $t$, $1 \le t \le \operatorname{pt}(G,B)$, there exists an $i_t$, $-p \le i_t \le -1$, such that $v_{i_t}$ forces $v_{i_t+1}$ at time $t$.
 Begin with $t=\operatorname{pt}(G,B)$ and work backwards to $t=1$ to construct the trail,  using negative numbering.  To start,  there is some vertex $v_0$ that is forced by a vertex   $v_{-1}$ at time $t=\operatorname{pt}(G,B)$; the  trail is now $v_{-1}v_0$. Assume the trail $v_{-j}\dots v_0$ has been constructed so that for each time $t=\ell, \dots, \operatorname{pt}(G,B)$, there exists an $i_t$, such that $v_{i_t}$ forces $v_{i_t+1}$ at time $t$. If $\ell>1$, then $v_{-j}\to v_{-j+1}$ at $t=\ell$.  Thus either  $v_{-j-1}v_{-j}v_{-j+1}$ or $v_{-j-2}v_{-j-1}v_{-j}v_{-j+1}$ is a path in $G$, and we can extend our trail to $v_{-j-1}v_{-j}\dots v_0$ or $v_{-j-2}v_{-j-1}v_{-j}\dots v_0$.
 It should be obvious that no forcing edge will appear in this walk multiple times (by our construction). If $uv$ is not a forcing edge, then it can only appear in our walk if  $u'$ forced $u$ and $v$ forced $v'$. Let $u' u v v'$ be the first occurrence of $uv$ in our walk.
 If $uv$ were to occur again, either $u$ or $v$ would need to be forced at this later time, but this cannot happen because $u$ and $v$ are both black at this point. \end{proof}\medskip

\begin{ex}\label{extrail} {\rm Let $G$ be the graph in Figure \ref{longfish}.   As shown by the numbering in the figure, $\operatorname{pt}(G)=4$, but $G$ does not contain a path of length 4.  The trail produced by the method of proof used in  Lemma \ref{ztraillem} is $abcdecf$ and has length 6.}

  \begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.4}{\includegraphics{fish3.pdf}}
\caption{A graph $G$ that does not have a path of length $\operatorname{pt}(G)$} \label{longfish}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{ex

\begin{thm}\label{zdiamtree} Let $T$ be a tree and $B$ be a minimum zero forcing set of $T$. Then $\operatorname{pt}(T,B) \le \operatorname{diam}(T)$. Hence, $\operatorname{pt}(T) \le \operatorname{PT}(T) \le \operatorname{diam}(T)$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof} Choose $B$ to be a minimum zero forcing set such that $\operatorname{pt}(T,B) = \operatorname{PT}(T)$. By Lemma \ref{ztraillem}, there exists a trail in $T$ of length at least $\operatorname{pt}(T,B)$. Since  between any two vertices  in a tree  there is a unique path, any trail is a path and the diameter of $T$ must be the length of the longest path in $T$. Therefore, \[\operatorname{pt}(T) \le \operatorname{PT}(T) =\operatorname{pt}(T,B)  \le \operatorname{diam}(T).\qedhere\]
\end{proof}\medskip

 The diameter of a graph $G$ can get arbitrarily larger than its minimum propagation time. The next example exhibits this result, but   first we observe that if
 $G$ is a graph having exactly $\ell$ leaves, then $\operatorname{Z}(G)\ge \lceil\frac \ell 2\rceil$ since at most two leaves can be on a maximal forcing chain.

\begin{ex}{\rm
 To construct a $k$-comb, we append a leaf to each vertex of a path on $k$ vertices, as shown in Figure \ref {comb} (our $k$-comb is the special case $P_{k,2}$ of a more general type of a comb $P_{k,\ell}$ defined in \cite{Sev}).   Let $G$ denote a $k$-comb where $k\equiv 0\mod 4$. It is clear that $\operatorname{diam}(G) = k+1$.
 If we number the leaves in path order starting with one, then the set  $B$ consisting of every leaf whose number is congruent to 2 or 3$\mod 4$ (shown in black in the Figure $\ref{comb}$) is a zero forcing set, and  $\ord B = \frac{k}{2}$.  Since $\operatorname{Z}(G)\ge \frac k 2$, $B$ is a minimum zero forcing set.   Then $\operatorname{pt}(G) \leq \operatorname{pt}(G, B)= 3$. Since $|G|=2k$, $\operatorname{Z}(G)=\frac{k}{2}$, and $\operatorname{pt}(G)\ge \frac  {\ord G-\operatorname{Z}(G)} {\operatorname{Z}(G)}$, $\operatorname{pt}(G) \geq 3$. Therefore, $\operatorname{pt}(G) = 3$.  Thus the $\operatorname{diam}(G)=k+1$ is arbitrarily larger than $\operatorname{pt}(G)=3$.
}\end{ex}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}\scalebox{.5}{\includegraphics{comb2.pdf}}
\caption{A $k$-comb} \label{comb}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\noindent{\bf Acknowledgement}
The authors thank the referees for many helpful suggestions.


Seymour's Second Neighborhood Conjecture for Subsets of Vertices

Abstract: Seymour conjectured that every oriented simple graph contains a vertex whose second neighborhood is at least as large as its first. In this note, we put forward a conjecture that we prove is actually equivalent: every oriented simple graph contains a subset of vertices $S$ whose second neighborhood is at least as large as its first.This subset perspective gives some insight into the original conjecture. For example, if there is a counterexample to the second neighborhood conjecture with minimum degree $\delta$, then there exists a counterexample on at most ${\delta + 1 \choose 2}$ vertices.Given a vertex $v$, let $d_1^+(v)$ and $d_2^+(v)$ be the size of its first and second neighborhoods respectively. A digraph is $m$-free if there is no directed cycle on $m$ or fewer vertices. Let $\lambda_m$ be the largest value such that every $m$-free graph contains a vertex $v$ with $d_2^+(v) \geq \lambda_m d_1^+(v)$. The second neighborhood conjecture implies $\lambda_m = 1$ for all $m \geq 2$. Liang and Xu provided lower bounds for all $\lambda_m$, and showed that $\lambda_m \to 1$ as $m \to \infty$. We improve on Liang and Xu's bound for $m \geq 3$ using this subset perspective.

\section{Introduction}

Unless otherwise noted, all digraphs in this paper are oriented simple graphs, and thus do not contain loops or two-cycles.    We will use $V(D)$ to denote the set of vertices of a digraph $D$.

Given a digraph $D$ and vertices $u$ and $v$, let $d(u, v)$ be the length of the shortest directed path from $u$ to $v$.   For this note, we consider $d(v, v)$ not to be zero, but the length of the shortest cycle containing $v$.  Let $N_k^+(v)$, the set of $k$th out-neighbors, be all vertices $u$ such that $d(v, u) = k$, and note that these sets are disjoint for fixed $v$.   We will use $N_k^-(v)$ to refer to the set of $k$th in-neighbors, defined analogously to out-neighbors.  For fixed $v$, the $N_k^-(v)$ are disjoint, though they may intersect with the $N_k^+(v)$.   Also, since we consider $d(v, v) \neq 0$,  $N_k^+(v)$ contains $v$ for some $k > 0$.   Let $d_k^+(v) = |N_k^+(v)|$ and $d_k^-(v) = |N_k^-(v)|$.  If $d_1^+(v) \leq d_2^+(v)$, we will call $v$ a \emph{Seymour vertex}.  For a set of vertices $S$, let $N_k^+(S)$ be all vertices $u$ such that $\min_{s \in S} d(s, u) = k$, and note that $N_1^+(S)$, $N_2^+(S)$, etc. are all disjoint. Again, because we have defined $d(v, v) \neq 0$, it is possible $S$ intersects with $N_k^+(S)$.   Define $d_k^+(S) = |N_k^+(S)|$.

Seymour made the following conjecture, which has become known as Seymour's Second Neighborhood Conjecture.

\begin{conj}[Seymour, see~\cite{DeanLatka95}]
\label{conj:original}
Every oriented simple graph contains a Seymour vertex.
\end{conj}
We will use SNC to refer to this conjecture throughout this note.

The SNC, along with related conjectures of Caccetta and H\"aggvist~\cite{CaccettaHaggkvist78} and Ho\'ang and Reed~\cite{HoangReed87}, have remained open for decades.  (See Sullivan~\cite{Sullivan06} for a nice summary of results and conjectures related to the Caccetta-H\"aggvist conjecture.)   In this note, we introduce a new, related conjecture.
\begin{conj}
\label{conj:subset}
Every oriented simple graph $D$ contains a non-empty, proper subset of the vertices $S$, such that $d_1^+(S) \leq d_2^+(S)$.
\end{conj}
Note that Conjecture~\ref{conj:subset} is clearly implied by the SNC, since if there is a Seymour vertex $v$, then we can simply let $S = \{v\}$ and Conjecture~\ref{conj:subset} follows.  We prove Conjecture~\ref{conj:subset} is actually equivalent to the SNC.  This follows from a lemma we prove in Section~\ref{sec:lemma}.   There may be some hope that Conjecture~\ref{conj:subset} is easier to prove than the SNC:  for example, Conjecture~\ref{conj:subset} has an easy proof for regular graphs (see Proposition~\ref{prop:reg}), a case that has received much attention but has yet to yield a proof for the SNC.

Since $N_1^+(S)$ is a set which when removed disconnects the graph, it is possible Conjecture~\ref{conj:subset} is related to the isoperimetric method of Hamidoune. Using the isoperimetric method,  Hamidoune~\cite{hamidoune08} proved the SNC for vertex-transitive graphs, and later Llad\'o~\cite{llado13} proved the SNC for $r$-out-regular graphs of connectivity $r-1$.

In attempt to make progress on the SNC, Chen, Shen, and Yuster~\cite{ChenShenYuster03} posed the following problem:  Find the largest $\lambda$ such that one could prove the existence of a vertex $v$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:app}
d_2^+(v) \geq \lambda d_1^+(v).
\end{equation}
They proved this approximate form of the SNC  for $\lambda \approx 0.6573 \ldots$, where the exact value of $\lambda$ is the real root of the equation $2 x^3 + x^2 - 1 = 0$.  They also claimed that $\lambda \approx 0.67815 \ldots$ was achievable with similar methods.

A digraph is $m$-free if it has no directed cycles with length at most $m$.    One can then ask the Chen, Shen, and Yuster question in regards to this restricted set of digraphs.   Let $\lambda_m$ be the largest value such that every $m$-free digraph has a vertex $v$ where $d_2^+(v) \geq \lambda_m d_1^+(v)$.   The second neighborhood conjecture implies $\lambda_m = 1$ for all $m \geq 2$. Zhang and Zhou~\cite{ZhangZhou10} showed $\lambda_3 \geq 0.6751$.    Liang and Xu~\cite{LiangXu17} improved this and extended the result for all $m$, showing that $\lambda_m$ is greater than the only real root in the interval $(0, 1)$ of the polynomial
$$
2x^3 - (m-3)x^2 + (2m-4)x - (m-1).
$$
This implies $\lambda_3 \geq 0.6823 \ldots$, which improved the Zhang and Zhou result for $\lambda_3$.   The bound on $\lambda_4$ was $0.7007 \ldots$, and in general, $\lambda_m \to 1$ as $m \to \infty$.

To improve upon Liang and Xu's bounds, this note proves the following:

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:m-free}
The unique positive real root of $x^m + x^{m-1} = 1$ is a lower bound on $\lambda_m$.
\end{thm}

In other words, an $m$-free digraph $D$ will have a vertex $v$ such that $d_2^+(v) \geq \lambda d_1^+(v)$ for any nonnegative $\lambda$ satisfying $\lambda^m + \lambda^{m-1} \leq 1$.

For $2$-free digraphs, Theorem~\ref{thm:m-free} gives the golden ratio of $\lambda_2 \geq .6180 \ldots$, which is not as good as the Chen, Shen, and Yuster result.  However, Theorem~\ref{thm:m-free} gives $\lambda_3 \geq .7548 \ldots$ and $\lambda_4 \geq 0.8191 \ldots$, which does improve upon the Liang and Xu result.   In fact, our result provides the best-known bound for all $m \geq 3$.  Note that the Liang and Xu result  asymptotically gives a lower bound of $1 - \sqrt{2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} + o\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} \right)$, while our result asymptotically gives a lower bound of $1 - \ln(2) \frac{1}{m} + o\left( \frac{1}{m} \right)$.

\section{Main Lemma}
\label{sec:lemma}

We say $D$ is a \emph{$\lambda$-counterexample} (to the SNC) if $d_2^+(v) < \lambda d_1^+(v)$ for all vertices $D$.   We say $D$ is an \emph{edge-minimal} $\lambda$-counterexample if one cannot remove edges to create a smaller $\lambda$-counterexample.  We say $D$ is \emph{minimal} $\lambda$-counterexample if one cannot remove edges, vertices, or both to create a smaller counterexample.  We need to discuss $d_k^+(v)$ for different digraphs in this proof, so let $d_k^{+}(v, D)$ represent the number of $k$ out-neighbors of $v$ specifically in graph $D$.

The following lemma says, starting with a counterexample to the SNC, one can remove edges so that $d_2^+(S) < \lambda d_1^+(S)$ for all subsets of vertices $S$ where $N_1^+(S)$ is non-empty.   If $N_1^+(S)$ is empty and $S$ is a proper, non-empty subset of the vertices, then the graph is no longer strongly connected, and hence we can remove vertices to create an even smaller counter example.  By removing edges and vertices, we can create a strongly connected counterexample to the SNC where $d_2^+(S) < \lambda d_1^+(S)$ as long as $S$ is non-empty and and not equal to $V(D)$.     This show that Conjecture~\ref{conj:subset} is equivalent to Conjecture~\ref{conj:original}.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:contract}
Let $D$ be a edge minimal $\lambda$-counterexample to the SNC, and let $S$ be any subset of the vertices of $D$ such that $N_1^+(S)$ is non-empty.  Then $d_2^+(S) < \lambda d_1^+(S)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Choose a subset of vertices $T \subset N_1^+(S)$ to be maximal such that $\lambda|T| > |N_1^+(T) \setminus S|$, or $T = \emptyset$ if no such $T$ exists.  If $T = N_1^+(S)$, then $\lambda d_2^+(S) = \lambda |T| > |N_1^+(T) \setminus S| = d_2^+(S)$  and we are done.  So assume $T \subsetneq N_1^+(S)$.  Set $T' = N_1^+(S) - T$, and note $T'$ is non-empty since $N_1^+(S)$ is non-empty, and $T \neq N_1^+(S)$.

Now create a new graph $D'$ equal to $D$ but with all edges from $S$ to $T'$ removed.  We claim that $D'$ is an $\lambda$-counterexample to the SNC, contradicting the minimality of $D$.  Suppose $D'$ is not an $\lambda$-counterexample, so it has $v$ such that $d_2^+(v, D') \geq \lambda d_1^+(v, D')$.  Since we only removed outgoing edges from vertices in $S$, $v$ must be in $S$.

Let $A$ be the set of first out-neighbors of $v$ in $D$ that are not first or second out-neighbors of $v$ in $D'$.  Similarly, let $B$ be the set of first outneighbors of $v$ in $D$ that are second out-neighbors of $v$ in $D'$.   Using out-neighborhoods within $D$, let $$C = N_1^+(A \cup B) \setminus (S \cup T \cup N_1^+(T)),$$ and note that every vertex in $C$ is a second out-neighbor of $v$ in $D$ but not in $D'$.  See Figure~\ref{fig:lemma-diagram} for a diagram of some of these sets.  We  have that $v$ satisfies $d_2^{+}(v, D) < \lambda d_1^{+}(v, D)$ in $D$ and satisfies $d_2^{+}(v, D') \geq \lambda d_1^{+}(v, D')$ in $D'$,  we have that
\begin{align*}
\lambda d_1^{+}(v, D) & >  d_2^{+}(v, D) \\
\lambda (d_1^{+}(v, D) - d_1^{+}(v, D')) & > d_2^{+}(v, D) - d_2^{+}(v, D') \\
\lambda(|A| + |B|) & > |C| - |B|.
\end{align*}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{lemma-diagram}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:lemma-diagram}  A diagram of some of the sets used in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:contract}.}
\end{figure}

Set $T_2 = T \cup A \cup B$.   Since $B$ consists of second out-neighbors of $v$ in $D'$, but we removed all edges from $S$ to $B$, it must be the case that the vertices of $B$ are second out-neighbors of $v$ through $T$.  In other words, the vertices of $B$ lie inside $N_1^+(T)$.  Based on this fact about $B$ and how $C$ was defined, we have $|N_1^+(T_2) \setminus S| \leq |N_1^+(T) \setminus S| + |C| - |B|$.  By assumption, $|N_1^+(t) \setminus S| \leq \lambda |T|$, and we also have $|C| - |B| < \lambda(|A| + |B|)$.  Hence
\begin{align*}
|N_1^+(T_2) \setminus S| & \leq |N_1^+(T) \setminus| + |C| - |B| \\
& <  \lambda(|T|) + \lambda(|A| + |B|) = \lambda|T_2|.
\end{align*}
But this contradicts the maximality of $T$.
\end{proof}

\section{Quick Results}

Lemma~\ref{lemma:contract} leads to a quick corollary using $\lambda = 1$.

\begin{cor}
If there exists a counterexample $D$ to the SNC with minimum degree $\delta$, then there exists a counterexample with at most ${\delta + 1 \choose 2}$ vertices.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Let $D$ be a counterexample to the SNC with minimum degree $\delta$.  We can assume $D$ is edge-minimal, as that does not affect the number of vertices and at worse lowers the minimum degree.   Thus Lemma~\ref{lemma:contract} applies.

Let $v$ be a vertex of minimum degree.  Using $S = \bigcup_{i = 1}^{k-1} N_i^+(v)$, we see Lemma~\ref{lemma:contract} gives $d_k^+(v) > d_{k+1}^+(v)$ for $k = 1, 2, 3, \ldots, \ell$, where $\ell$ is defined to be the first neighborhood of $v$ where $N_{\ell+1}^+(v)$ is empty.    Define  $U = \bigcup_{i = 1}^\ell N_i^+(v)$.  We see each neighborhood in this union is smaller than the last, so $U$ has at most
$$
\delta + (\delta - 1) + (\delta - 2) + \cdots + 1= {\delta + 1 \choose 2}
$$
vertices.   While $U$ may not be all the vertices of the graph if $D$ is not strongly connected, it must contain a counterexample to the SNC, which gives the result.
\end{proof}

Kaneko and Locke~\cite{KanekoLocke01} showed that the SNC is true for all graphs with minimum degree at most $6$.   The previous corollary says that to extend this result to $7$, you could do so by showing there is no counterexample with $28$ vertices or fewer.  This is a tall order computationally, but a finite problem at least.

An \emph{in-regular} graph is a graph such that $|N_1^-(v)|$ is the same for all $v$.  Here we show that Conjecture~\ref{conj:subset} is true in the case of in-regular graphs.  Note that this proof unfortunately does not translate to the SNC since in-regular graphs are not closed under removal of edges and vertices, and therefore Lemma~\ref{lemma:contract} does not help.

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:reg}
Given an in-regular digraph $D$ without loops or multiple edges, there exists a subset of vertices $S$ such that $d_1^+(S) \leq d_2^+(S)$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Consider a minimum, strongly-connected counterexample $D$ to this proposition.   Since $D$ would also be a counterexample to the SNC, for every vertex $v$, we have $d_1^+(v) > d_2^+(v)$.   Since $\sum_{v \in V(D)} d_1^+(v) = \sum_{v \in V(D)} d_1^-(v)$ and $\sum_{v \in V(D)} d_2^+(v) = \sum_{v \in V(D)} d_2^-(v)$, $d_1^+(v) > d_2^+(v)$ implies that $\sum_{v \in V(D)} d_1^-(v) > \sum_{v \in V(D)} d_2^-(v)$.  Therefore we know there exists at least one vertex $v$ such that $d_1^-(v) > d_2^-(v)$.     Let $\mathcal V$ be the set of all vertices such that $d_1^-(v) > d_2^-(v)$.

For every $v \in \mathcal V$, set $S_v = V(D) \setminus (N_1^-(v) \cup N_2^-(v))$.  Since $D$ is a counterexample, we know that $d_1^+(S_v) > d_2^+(S_v)$.  Notice that
\begin{itemize}
\item $N_1^+(S_v) \subseteq N_2^-(v)$,
\item there are more vertices in $N_1^-(v)$ than $N_2^-(v)$, and
\item there are fewer vertices in $N_2^+(S_v)$ than $N_1^+(S_v)$.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, there are fewer vertices in $N_2^+(S_v)$ than in $N_1^-(v)$, so there must be some vertex $u$ in $N_1^-(v)$ not in $N_2^+(S_v)$.   This implies the first two in-neighborhoods of $u$ are contained in the first two in-neighborhoods of $v$.  Notationally, $\left(N_1^-(u) \cup N_2^-(u)\right) \subsetneq \left(N_1^-(v) \cup N_2^-(v)\right)$.    See Figure~\ref{fig:prop-diagram} for a diagram of some of these sets.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{prop-diagram}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:prop-diagram}  A diagram of some of the sets used in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:reg}.}
\end{figure}

If $u \in \mathcal V$, then we can apply the same argument and get a $u'$ such that the first two in-neighborhoods of $u'$ are contained in the first two in-neighborhoods of $u$.  By repeating this argument, eventually we find a $u^*$ whose first two in-neighborhoods are contained in the first two  in-neighborhoods of $v$, but $u^* \notin \mathcal V$.    So $\left(N_1^-(u^*) \cup N_2^-(u^*)\right) \subsetneq \left(N_1^-(v) \cup  N_2^-(v)\right)$.  However, since $D$ is in-regular, we have $|N_1^-(u^*)| = |N_1^-(v)|$, and $|N_2^-(u^*)| \geq |N_2^-(v)|$, and so this containment is a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\section{Approximate Second Neighborhood for $m$-free digraphs}

We know prove the main result, which is a restatement of Theorem~\ref{thm:m-free}.

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:reverse-radius}
Any $m$-free digraph $D$ has a vertex $v$ such that $d_2^+(v) \geq \lambda d_1^+(v)$ for $\lambda$ any real number between $0$ and $1$ satisfying
$$
\lambda^{m} + \lambda^{m-1} \leq 1.
$$
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We start with a rough outline of the proof.   We will assume $D$ is a minimal $\lambda$-counterexample to this theorem, and thus every vertex has a second neighborhood that is smaller (by a factor of $\lambda$) than the first neighborhood.   Applying Lemma~\ref{lemma:contract}, we see this implies that every subset of vertices has a smaller second neighborhood in this way.   This means that if we go forward from a vertex $v$, every neighborhood we look at is smaller than the last.   Using an averaging argument, we can find a vertex $w$ where moving backwards, these neighborhoods get  smaller as well.   Starting at $w$ and moving backwards (looking at $N_1^-(w)$, $N_2^-(w)$, $N_3^-(w)$, etc.) we find these neighborhoods get smaller and smaller, until we reach $N_{r-1}^-(w)$.   We then reverse directions and move forward, and these neighborhoods will be even smaller yet.   These neighborhoods moving forward will be so small that, even though there are potentially more of them, they can only cover all the vertices that were in-neighborhoods moving backwards $\left(N_1^-(w) \cup N_2^-(w) \cup N_3^-(w) \cup \cdots \right)$ if $\lambda$ is sufficiently big, which gives the result.  Refer to Figure~\ref{fig:thm-diagram} for an illustration of some of the sets that will be involved in the proof in the case $r = 4$.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{thm-diagram}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:thm-diagram}  A diagram of some of the sets for the case $r = 4$ used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:reverse-radius}.}
\end{figure}

Consider a counterexample $D'$ to the statement;  that is, for a valid $\lambda$, $D'$ is $m$-free and satisfies $d_2^+(v) < \lambda d_1^+(v)$ for all vertices $v$.  Since it is a $\lambda$-counterexample to the SNC, it contains a strongly-connected minimal $\lambda$-counterexample $D$ to the SNC.   Since deleting edges and vertices cannot create a smaller cycle, $D$ is still $m$-free.    By Lemma~\ref{lemma:contract}, for every proper, non-empty subset of vertices $S$, $d_2^+(S) < \lambda d_1^+(S)$.  As we have seen, this implies that $d_{i+1}^+(v) < \lambda d_i^+(v)$ for all $i$ such that $d_i^+(v)$ is nonzero.  One can then show that this implies $d_{m}^+(v) < \lambda^{m-i}  d_{i}^+(v)$, and hence $d_i^+(v) >  \frac{1}{\lambda^{m-i}} d_{m}^+(v)$.

Let $A_v = \bigcup_{i = 1}^{m-1} N_i^+(v)$.    We see
\begin{align*}
|A_v| & =  \sum_{i = 1}^{m-1} d_i^+(v) \\
& > \sum_{i = 1}^{m-1} \frac{1}{\lambda^{r-1-i}} d_{r-1}^+(v) \\
& = \frac{1 - \lambda^{m-1}}{\lambda^{m-1}(1 - \lambda)} d_{m}^+(v)
\end{align*}
If we set $\gamma = \frac{\lambda^{m-1}(1 - \lambda)}{1 - \lambda^{m-1}}$, then we see that for every vertex $v$, $d_{m}^+(v) < \gamma |A_v|$.

Let $B_v = \bigcup_{i = 1}^{m-1} N_i^-(v)$.  Since $\sum_{v \in V} d_i^+(v) = \sum_{v \in V} d_i^-(v)$ for all $i$, we see that on average $B_v$ is the same size as $A_v$, and $d_{m}^+(v)$ is on average the same size as $d_{m}^-(v)$.  Therefore, since $d_{m}^+(v) < \gamma |A_v|$ for every vertex,  there must exist some vertex $w$ such that  $d_{m}^-(w) < \gamma |B_w|$.

Note that since $D$ is strongly connected and $m$-free, for any $v$, $N_i^+(v)$ is non-empty for $i \leq m+1$.  This is because of how we defined $N_i^+(v)$, there is some $i$ such that $v \in N_i^+(v)$, and being $m$-free means this cannot happen until at least $i = m+1$.  Similarly, $N_i^-(v)$ is non-empty for $i \leq m+1$.

Since $N_{m+1}^-(w)$ is non-empty, we set $S^* = \bigcup_{i = m+1}^\infty N_i^-(w)$.  Notice that we take an infinite union simply  because we want to keep going as long as the in-neighborhoods of $w$ are non-empty.   Since $N_1^+(S^*) \subseteq N_{m}^-(w)$, we have $|N_1^+(S^*)| \leq d_{m}^-(w) < \gamma |B_w|$.   By repeated use of $|N_2^+(S)| < \lambda |N_1^+(S)|$ for appropriate $S$, we see that $|N_2^+(S^*)| < \lambda \gamma |B_w|$, $|N_3^+(S^*)| < \lambda^{2} \gamma |B_w|$, etc., and in general, $|N_k^+(S^*)| < \lambda^{k-1} \gamma |B_w|$.

Because this graph is strongly connected, these $N_k^+(S^*)$ must eventually cover $B_w$.   Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i = 2}^\infty |N_i^+(S^*)| \geq |B_w| \\
\sum_{i = 2}^\infty \lambda^{i-1} \gamma |B_w| > |B_w| \\
\sum_{i = 2}^\infty \lambda^{i-1} \gamma  > 1 \\
\frac{\lambda}{1 - \lambda} \gamma > 1 \\
\frac{\lambda}{1 - \lambda} \cdot \frac{\lambda^{m-1}(1 - \lambda)}{1 - \lambda^{m-1}}  > 1 \\
\lambda^{m} > 1 - \lambda^{m-1}.
\end{align*}
This gives the result.
\end{proof}

\subsection*{Acknowledgments}

The author would like to thank Debbie Seacrest for her insights and valuable edits.

\bibliographystyle{plain}


Digits of pi: limits to the seeming randomness

Abstract: The decimal digits of $\pi$ are widely believed to behave like as statistically independent random variables taking the values $0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5$, $6, 7, 8, 9$ with equal probabilities $1/10$.In this article, first, another similar conjecture is explored - the seemingly almost random behaviour of digits in the base 3 representations of powers $2^n$. This conjecture seems to confirm well - it passes even the tests inspired by the Central Limit Theorem and the Law of the Iterated Logarithm.After this, a similar testing of the sequences of digits in the decimal representations of the numbers $\pi$, $e$ and $\sqrt{2}$ was performed. The result looks surprising: unlike the digits in the base 3 representations of $2^n$, instead of oscillations with amplitudes required by the Law of the Iterated Logarithm, convergence to zero is observed. If, for such "analytically" defined irrational numbers, the observed behaviour remains intact ad infinitum, then the seeming randomness of their digits is only a limited one.

\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The decimal digits of $\pi$ are widely believed to behave like as statistically independent random variables taking the values $0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9$ with equal probabilities $\frac{1}{10}$ (for an overview, see \cite{marsaglia}).

In Section \ref{powers} (it reproduces in part Section 2.1 of \cite{paper2}) another similar conjecture is explored - the seemingly almost random behaviour of digits in the base 3 representations of powers $2^n$. This conjecture seems to  confirm well - it passes even the tests inspired by the Central Limit Theorem and the Law of the Iterated Logarithm.

Especially remarkable is Fig.\ref{Oscilat1} below showing oscillations with amplitudes almost as required by the Law of the Iterated Logarithm.

In Section \ref{pi}, similar pictures for the sequences of digits in the decimal representations of the numbers $\pi$, $e$ and $\sqrt{2}$ are obtained. The result looks surprising: instead of oscillations with amplitudes required by the Law of the Iterated Logarithm, we observe {\itshape convergence to zero}!  If, for such "analytically" defined irrational numbers, the observed behaviour remains intact {\itshape ad infinitum}, then the seeming randomness of their digits is only a limited one.

\pdfbookmark[1]{2. Base 3 representations of powers of 2}{powers}
\section{Base 3 representations of powers of 2}
\label{powers}

Throughout this section, it is assumed that $p, q$ are positive integers such that  $\frac{\log{p}} {\log{q}}$ is irrational, i.e., $p^a \neq q^b$ for any integers $a, b>0$.

\begin{definition}
Let us denote by $D_q(n, i)$ the \textbf{$i$-th digit} in the canonical base $q$ representation of the number $n$, and by $S_q(n)$ - the \textbf{sum of digits} in this representation.
\end{definition}

Let us consider base $q$ representations of powers $p^n$. Imagine, for a moment, that, for fixed $p, q, n$,  most of the digits  $D_q(p^n, i)$ behave like as statistically independent random variables taking the values $0, 1, ..., q-1$ with equal probabilities $\frac{1}{q}$. Then, the (pseudo) mean value and (pseudo) variance of $D_q(p^n, i)$ should be
 \[E=\frac{q-1}{2}; V=\sum\limits_{i=0}^{q-1}\frac{1}{q}\left(i-\frac{q-1}{2}\right)^2=\frac{q^2-1}{12}.\]
The total number of digits in the base $q$ representation of $p^n$ is $k_n \approx n \log_q{p}$, hence, the (pseudo) mean value of the sum of digits  $S_q(p^n)=\sum \limits_{i=1}^{k_n} D_q(p^n, i)$ should be $E_n \approx n\frac{q-1}{2}\log_q{p}$ and, because of the assumed (pseudo) independence of digits, its (pseudo) variance should be $V_n \approx n\frac{q^2-1}{12}\log_q{p}$. As the final consequence, the corresponding centered and normed variable
\[\frac{S_q(p^n)-E_n}{\sqrt{V_n}}\]
should tend to behave as a standard normally distributed random variable with probability density $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{x^2}{2}}$.

One can try to verify this conclusion experimentally. For example, let us compute $S_3(2^n)$ for $n$ up to $100000$, and let us draw the histogram of the corresponding centered and normed variable
\[s_3(2^n)=\frac{S_3(2^n)-n \log_3 2}{\sqrt{n\frac{2}{3}\log_3 2 }}\]
(see Fig. \ref{Histo1}). As we see, this variable behaves, indeed, almost exactly, as a standard normally distributed random variable (the solid curve).

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Podnieks_Fig1.jpg}
    \caption{Histogram of the centered and normed variable $s_3(2^n)$}
    \label{Histo1}
\end{figure}

Observing such a phenomenon ``out there'', one could conjecture that the sum of digits $S_q(p^n)$, as a function of $n$, behaves almost as $n\frac{q-1}{2}\log_q{p}$, i.e., almost \textbf{linearly} in $n$.

An even more advanced idea for testing randomness of sequences of digits was proposed in \cite{borwein1} - let us use the Law of the Iterated Logarithm. Namely, let us try to estimate the amplitude of the possible deviations of  $S_q(p^n)$ from $n\frac{q-1}{2}\log_q{p}$ by ``applying'' the Law of the Iterated Logarithm.

Let us consider the following centered and normed (pseudo) random variables:
\[d_q(p^n, i) = \frac{D_q(p^n, i)-\frac{q-1}{2}}{\sqrt{\frac{q^2-1}{12}}}.\]
By summing up these variables for $i$ from $1$ to $k_n$, we obtain a sequence of (pseudo) random variables:
\[\kappa_q(p, n) = \frac{S_q(p^n)-\frac{q-1}{2}k_n}{\sqrt{\frac{q^2-1}{12}}},\]
that ``must obey" the Law of the Iterated Logarithm. Namely, if the sequence $S_q(p^n)$ behaves, indeed, as a "typical" sum of equally distributed random variables, then $\lim \limits_{n \to \infty} \inf$ and $\lim \limits_{n \to \infty} \sup$ of the fraction
\[\frac{\kappa_q(p, n)}{\sqrt{2 k_n \log{\log k_n}}},\]
 must be $-1$ and $+1$ correspondingly ($\log$ stands for the natural logarithm).

Therefore, it seems, we could conjecture that, if
\[\delta_q(p, n) = \frac{S_q(p^n)-(\frac{q-1}{2}\log_q p)n}{\sqrt{(\frac{q^2-1}{6}\log_q p) n \log{\log n}}},\]
then
\[\lim \limits_{n \to \infty} \sup \delta_q(p, n)=1; \lim \limits_{n \to \infty} \inf \delta_q(p, n) = -1.\]

In particular, this would mean that
\[S_q(p^n)=(\frac{q-1}{2}\log_q p)n +O(\sqrt{n \log \log n}).\]
And, for $p=2; q=3$ this would mean (note that $\log_3 2 \approx 0.6309$):
\[S_3(2^n)=n \cdot \log_3 2 + O(\sqrt{n \log \log n});\]
\[\delta_3(2, n) =\frac{S_3(2^n)-n \log_3 2}{\sqrt{(\frac{4}{3} \log_3 2) n \log{\log n}}}\approx \frac{S_3(2^n)-0.6309 n}{\sqrt{0.8412 n  \log \log n}},\]
\[\lim \limits_{n \to \infty} \sup \delta_3(2, n)=1; \lim \limits_{n \to \infty} \inf \delta_3(2, n) = -1.\]

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Podnieks_Fig2.png}
    \caption{Oscillating behaviour of the expression $\delta_3(2, n)$}
    \label{Oscilat1}
\end{figure}

However, the real behaviour of the expression $\delta_3(2, n)$ until $n=10^7$ does not show convergence of oscillations to the segment $[-1, +1]$ (see Fig. \ref{Oscilat1}, obtained by Juris Čerņenoks). Although $\delta_3(2, n)$ is oscillating almost as required by the Law of the Iterated Logarithm, very many of its values lay outside the segment $[-1, 1]$.

Could we hope to prove the above estimate of $S_q(p^n)$? To my knowledge, the best result on this problem is due to C. L. Stewart. It follows from his Theorem 2 in  \cite{stewart} (put $\alpha=0$), that
\[S_q(p^n)>\frac{\log{n}}{\log{\log{n}} +C_0}-1,\]
where the constant $C_0>0$ can be effectively computed from $q, p$. Since then, no better than $\frac{\log{n}}{\log\log{n}}$ lower bounds of $S_q(p^n)$ have been  proved.

\pdfbookmark[1]{3. Digits of $pi$, $e$ and $sqrt2$}{pi}
\section{Digits of $\pi$, $e$ and $\sqrt{2}$}
\label{pi}

In Section \ref{powers} above, the Central Limit Theorem (Fig. \ref{Histo1}) and the Law of the Iterated Logarithm (Fig. \ref{Oscilat1}) were used to verify the conjecture that the sum of digits of the base 3 representation of $2^n$ behaves closely to the expected behaviour of the sum of the first $n$ members of a sequence of independent random variables taking the values $0, 1, 2$ with equal probabilities $\frac{1}{3}$.

Let us try, as proposed in \cite{borwein1}, to apply this method  to the sequences of digits in the decimal representations of the numbers $\pi$, $e$ and $\sqrt{2}$.

Imagine, for a moment, that the digits in the decimal representation of some real number X behave, indeed, like as statistically independent random variables taking the values $0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9$ with equal probabilities $\frac{1}{10}$. Then, the (pseudo) mean value and (pseudo) variance of $n$-th digit would be (see the formulas above)
 $\frac{10-1}{2}=4.5$ and $\frac{10^2-1}{12} = 8.25$ correspondingly.
And, the (pseudo) mean value of the sum of the first $n$ digits  $S_{10}(n)$ would be $4.5 n$, and, because of the assumed (pseudo) independence of digits, its (pseudo) variance would be $8.25 n$. Let us try to estimate the amplitude of the possible deviations of $S_{10}(n)$ from the expected mean $4.5n$ by ``applying" the Law of the Iterated Logarithm. Let us introduce the necessary centered and normed (pseudo) random variables:
\[\frac{d(i)-4.5}{\sqrt{8.25}}\]
($d(i)$ denotes the $i$-th digit). By summing up these variables for $i$ from $1$ to $n$, we obtain a sequence of (pseudo) random variables:
\[\frac{S_{10}(n)-4.5 n}{\sqrt{8.25}},\]
that ``must obey" the Law of the Iterated Logarithm. Namely, if the sequence $S_{10}(n)$ behaves, indeed, as a "typical" sum of equally distributed random variables, then $\lim \limits_{n \to \infty} \inf$ and $\lim \limits_{n \to \infty} \sup$ of the fraction
\[\delta(n) = \frac{S_{10}(n)-4.5 n}{\sqrt{2\cdot 8.25 n \log{\log n}}},\]
  must be $-1$ and $+1$ correspondingly ($\log$ stands for the natural logarithm).

In particular, this would mean that
\[S_{10}(n)=4.5 n +O(\sqrt{n \log \log n}),\]
and that the values of $\delta(n)$ must oscillate accross the entire segment $[-1, +1]$, like as in Fig. \ref{Oscilat1}.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Podnieks_Fig3.png}
    \caption{The number $\pi$: behaviour of the expression $\delta(n)$}
    \label{OscilatPI}
\end{figure}

However, Fig. \ref{OscilatPI}, Fig. \ref{OscilatE}, and Fig. \ref{OscilatSQRT2} obtained by Juris Čerņenoks for the first $10^7$ digits of the numbers $\pi$, $e$ and $\sqrt{2}$ are showing a completely different behaviour. (Digits were provided by Wolfram Mathematica \cite{wolfram}.)

For the three numbers in question, the values of $\delta(n)$ do not oscillate accross the entire segment $[-1, +1]$, instead, they seem converging to 0. Thus, the pictures seem to support the following somewhat stronger conjecture for $\pi$, $e$ and $\sqrt{2}$ :
\[S_{10}(n)=4.5 n +o(\sqrt{n \log \log n}).\]

An even more specific behaviour are showing (see Fig. \ref{OscilatRAND}) the famous Million Random Digits of the RAND Corporation published in 1955 \cite{rand}.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Podnieks_Fig4.png}
    \caption{The number $e$: behaviour of the expression $\delta(n)$}
    \label{OscilatE}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Podnieks_Fig5.png}
    \caption{The number $\sqrt{2}$: behaviour of the expression $\delta(n)$}
    \label{OscilatSQRT2}
\end{figure}

The pictures obtained for $\pi$, $e$, $\sqrt{2}$ are similar to Figure 12(b) obtained for the number $\alpha_{2,3}$ by the authors of \cite{borwein2}. They conclude:

``For  $\alpha_{2,3}$, the corresponding computation of the first $10^9$ values of  $\frac{m_1(n)-n/2}{\sqrt{2n\log\log n}}$ leads to the plot in Figure 12(b) and leads us to conjecture that it is 2-strongly normal."

However, when comparing these pictures with the above Fig. \ref{Oscilat1}, the following conjecture seems more plausible:

The seeming randomness of the digits of $\pi$, $e$, $\sqrt{2}$ and other ``analytically" defined irrational numbers is only a limited one.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Podnieks_Fig6.png}
    \caption{Million random digits from RAND Corp.: behaviour of the expression $\delta(n)$}
    \label{OscilatRAND}
\end{figure}

\bibliographystyle{splncs03}

\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{References}