International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020 Available

Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

Basic Maximal Total Strong Dominating Functions

Dr. M. Kavitha1,∗ ,
1
Department of Mathematics, KPR Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore - 641407, India.

Let G = (V, E) be a simple graph. A subset D of V (G) is called a total strong dominating set of G, if for every
u ∈ V (G), there exists a v ∈ D such that u and v are adjacent and deg(v) ≥ deg(u). The minimum cardinality
of a total strong dominating set of G is called total strong domination number of G and is denoted by γts (G).
Corresponding to total strong dominating set of G, total strong dominating function can be defined. The minimum
weight of a total strong dominating function is called the fractional total strong domination number of G and is
denoted by γsft (G). A study of total strong dominating functions is carried out in this paper.

Keywords: Total Strong Dominating Function, Maximal Total Strong Dominating Function, Basic Maximal Total
Strong Dominating Function
Introduction: Corresponding to total strong dominating sets in a graph, total strong dominating functions may be
defined. The minimality of a total strong dominating function can be characterised. Convex combination of minimal
total strong dominating function is defined and studied. A total strong dominating function is basic, if it cannot
be expressed as a covex combination of minimal total strong dominating functions. Basic total strong dominating
functions are characterised.

Definition 0.1:
Let G = (V, E) be a simple graph without strong isolates. A function
X
f : V (G) → [0, 1] is called a Total Strong Dominating Function (TSDF), if f (Ns (u)) = f (v) ≥ 1, ∀ u ∈
v∈Ns (u)
V (G), where
Ns (u) = {x ∈ N (u) : deg (x) ≥ deg (u)}.
Definition 0.2:
A TSDF is called a Minimal Total Strong Dominating Function (MTSDF), if whenever g : V (G) → [0, 1] and
g < f , g is not a TSDF.
Definition 0.3: Let G be a graph without isolated vertex. A TSDF (MTSDF) is called a basic TSDF (basic
MTSDF) denoted by BTSDF (BMTSDF) if it cannot be expressed as a proper convex combination of two distinct
TSDFs (MTSDFs ).
Remark 0.4: A BTSDF need not be a BMTSDF.

71

*Corresponding author: M. Kavitha, E-mail: [email protected]

 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

Lemma 0.5: Let f and g be two distinct MTSDFs of a graph G with Bfs = Bgs and Pf = Pg . Let δ(v) = f (v)−g(v),
for every v ∈ V . Then
(i) If f (v) = 0 or f (v) = 1, then δ(v) = 0.
X
(ii) δ(v) = 0, ∀ v ∈ Bfs .
u∈Ns (v)
X
(iii) δ(v) = 0, ∀ v ∈ Bgs .
u∈Ns (v)

Proof:
(i) We have, f (v) = 1 if and only if g(v) = 1 and
f (v) = 0 if and only if g(v) = 0.
Therefore, (i) follows.
(ii) Let v ∈ Bfs .
Then v ∈ Bgs .
X X
δ(v) = (f (u) − g(u))
v∈Ns (v) u∈Ns (v)
X X
= f (u) − g(u)
u∈Ns (v) u∈Ns (v)
= 1 − 1 (since v ∈ Bfs and v ∈ Bgs )
= 0.
Therefore, (ii) follows.
(iii) is similar to (ii).
Lemma 0.6: Let f and g be convex linear combination of MTSDFs g1 , g2 ,...,gn such that f is minimal. Then
\n [n
Bfs = Bgs = Bgsi , Pf = Pg = Pgi and g is minimal.
i=1 i=1
Proof:
Let v ∈ Pf .
Then f (v) > 0.
Xn n
X
Let f = λi gi , 0 < λi < 1, λi = 1.
i=1 i=1
Suppose gi (v) = 0, ∀ i. Then f (v) = 0, a contradiction.
n
[
Therefore, gi (v) > 0, for at least one i. Therefore, v ∈ Pgi .
i=1
n
[ n
[
Therefore, Pf ⊆ Pgi . Suppose v ∈ Pgi .
i=1 i=1
Then g(vi ) > 0, for some i. Therefore, f (v) > 0.
n
[
Therefore, v ∈ Pf . Therefore, Pgi ⊆ Pf .
i=1
n
[ n
[
Therefore, Pf = Pgi . Similarly, Pg = Pgi .
i=1 i=1
n
[
Therefore, Pf = Pg = Pgi . Let v ∈ Bfs .
i=1
n
X
Then f (Ns (v)) = 1. Therefore, λi gi (Ns (v)) = 1.
i=1
Suppose v ∈/ Bgsi , for some i, 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Then gi (Ns (v)) > 1.
Since gi (Ns (v)) ≥ 1, for all j , 1 ≤ j ≤ n,

72
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

n
X n
X
λi gi (Ns (v)) > λi .
i=1 i=1
= 1, a contradiction.
n
\
Therefore, v ∈ Bgsi , ∀ i. Therefore, v ∈ Bgsi .
i=1
n
\
Therefore, Bfs ⊆ Bgsi .
i=1
n
\
Let v ∈ Bgsi . Then gi (Ns (v)) = 1, for all i, 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
i=1
n
X n
X
Therefore, λi gi (Ns (v)) = λi = 1.
i=1 i=1
Therefore, f (Ns (v)) = 1. Therefore, v ∈ Bfs .
\n n
\
Therefore, Bgsi ⊆ Bfs . Therefore, Bfs = Bgsi .
i=1 i=1
n
\ n
\
Similarly, Bgs = Bgsi . Hence Bfs = Bgs = Bgsi .
i=1 i=1
Since f is minimal, Bfs weakly dominates Pf .
n
\ [n
s
That is, Bgi weakly dominates Pgi .
i=1 i=1
That is, Bgs weakly dominates Pg .
Hence g is a MTSDF.
Theorem 0.7: Let f be a MTSDF. Then f is a BMTSDF if and only if there does not exist an MTSDF g such
that Bfs = Bgs and Pf = Pg .
Proof:
Suppose f is a BMTSDF.
Suppose there exists a MTSDF g such that Bfs = Bgs and Pf = Pg .
Let S = {a ∈ < : ha = (1 + a)g − af } be a TSDF and Bhs a = Bfs and Pha = Pf .
Then S is a bounded open interval.
Let S = (k1 , k2 ).
Then k1 < −1 < 0 < k2 .
Also hk1 and hk2 are MTSDFs .
hk1 = (1 + k1 )g − k1 f .
(1 + k1 )g hk1
Therefore, f = − .
k1 k1
1 + k1 −1
Let λ1 = and λ2 = .
k1 k1
Therefore, λ1 and λ2 are positive and λ1 + λ2 = 1.
Therefore, f is a convex combination of g and hk1 .
Therefore, f is not a BMTSDF, a contradiction.
Therefore, there does not exist a MTSDF g such that Bfs = Bgs and Pf = Pg .
Conversely, suppose f is not a BMTSDF.
n
X
Then there exists MTSDFs g1 , g2 ,...,gn such that f = λi gi ,
i=1
n
X
where 0 < λi < 1 and λi = 1.
i=1

73
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

n
X n
X
Let g = µi gi , 0 < µi < 1 and µi = 1.
i=1 i=1
n
\ n
[
Then by lemma 0.6, Bfs = Bgs = Bgsi and Pf = Pg = Pgi and since f is a MTSDF, g is a MTSDF.
i=1 i=1
Thus there exists a MTSDF g such that Bfs = Bgs and Pf = Pg .
Hence the theorem.
Theorem 0.8: Let f be a MTSDF of a graph G = (V, E) with Bfs = {v1 , v2 , ..., vm } and Pf0 = {u ∈ V : 0 <
f (u) < 1} = {u1 , u2 , ..., un }.
Let A = [aij ] be a m × n matrix defined by
 1, if v weakly dominates u
i j
aij =
 0, otherwise.
n
X
Consider the system of linear equations given by aij xj = 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ m.
j=1
Then f is a BMTSDF if and only if the above system does not have a non-trivial solution.
Proof:
Suppose f is not a BMTSDF.
Then there exists a MTSDF g such that Bfs = Bgs and Pf = Pg .
Let xj = f (uj ) − g(uj ), 1 ≤ j ≤ n.
Suppose xj = 0, ∀ j , 1 ≤ j ≤ n.
If f (v) = 0, then v ∈ / Pf = Pg .
Therefore, g(v) = 0.
Therefore, f (v) − g(v) = 0, ∀ v ∈ / Pf .
That is, f (v) = g(v), ∀ v ∈ / Pf .
If f (v) = 1, then by Theorem ??, g(v) = 1 and hence f (v) − g(v) = 0.
Therefore, f = g , a contradiction.
Therefore, there exists, some j , 1 ≤ j ≤ n such that xj 6= 0.
Let f (uj1 ) − g(uj1 ) 6= 0.
Xn Xn
aij xj = aij (f (uj ) − g(uj ))
j=1 j=1X
= (f (u) − g(u))
u∈Ns (vi )
(since aij = 1 because vi weakly dominates u)
= 0, by lemma0.5.
Since xj 6= 0, the left hand side has a non-trivial solution.
Conversely, let {x1 , x2 , ..., xn } be a non-trivial solution for the system of
linear equations.
Define g: V (G) → [0, 1] as follows:
 f (v), / Pf0
if v ∈
g(v) =
f (v) + xj , if v = uj , 1 ≤ j ≤ n, where M is to be suitably chosen.
M
Since {x1 , x2 , ..., xn } is a non-trivial solution, g 6= f .
xj
Since 0 < f (uj ) < 1, choose Mj > 0 such that 0 < (f (uj ) + M j
) < 1, for each j, 1 ≤ j ≤ n.
0
Let M = max{M1 , M2 , ..., Mn }.
Choose M to be equal to M’.

74
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

X
For any v ∈ V , g(Ns (v)) = g(u)
u∈Ns (v)
X X
= g(u) + g(u)
0 0
u∈Ns (v)∩P f u∈Ns (v)−P f
X xi X
= (f (vi ) + 0 ) + f (u)
M
ui ∈Ns (v)∩Pf0 u∈Ns (v)−Pf0
X 1 X
= f (u) + xi
M0
u∈Ns (u) i
X
= f (Ns (v)) + M1 0 xi
i
X n
X
If v ∈ Bfs , then xi = aij xi = 0.
i j=1
(since v weakly dominates Pf and hence aij = 1).
Therefore, g(Ns (v)) = f (Ns (v)) = 1.
Suppose v ∈/ Bfs .
Then f (Ns (v)) > 1.
Choose M 00 > 0 such that g(Ns (v)) > 1, ∀ v ∈
/ Bfs .
Let M = max{M 0 , M 00 }.
For this choice of M , we have
X
0 ≤ g(v) ≤ 1 and g(v) ≥ 1, ∀ v ∈ V
u∈Ns (v)
Therefore, g is a TSDF.
From what we have seen above,
Bfs = Bgs and Pf = Pg .
Since f is a MTSDF, Bfs weakly dominates Pf .
Therefore, Bgs weakly dominates Pg . Therefore, g is a MTSDF.
Hence f is not a BMTSDF.
Corollary 0.9: Let G = (V, E) be a graph without isolated vertices. Let S be a minimal total strong dominating
set of G. Then χs is a BMTSDF.
Proof:
Clearly, χs is a MTSDF.
Let f = χs .
Pf0 = φ.
Therefore from the above theorem, χs is a BMTSDF.
Example 0.10:
Consider Hajo’s Graph H3 :
vs 1

v2 s sv3

v4 s s
v5
sv6

Define f1 and f2 as follows:

f1 (v1 ) = f1 (v4 ) = f1 (v2 ) = f1 (v6 ) = 0.
f1 (v3 ) = f1 (v5 ) = 1.

75
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

0 vs 1

f1 : v2 0s sv13

0
v4 s s
1 v5 0
sv6
f2 (v1 ) = f2 (v4 ) = f2 (v6 ) = 0.
1
f2 (v2 ) = f2 (v3 ) = f2 (v5 ) = .
2
0vs 1
1 1
f2 : v22s 2v
s3

0 s0v6
v4 s s
v5 1
f1 is a TSDF. 2

Bfs1 = {v1 , v3 , v4 , v5 }.
Pf1 = {v3 , v5 }.
Bfs1 weakly dominates Pf1 .
Therefore, f1 is a MTSDF.
Therefore, f2 is a TSDF.
Bfs2 = V .
Bfs2 weakly dominates Pf2 .
f2 is a MTSDF.
Pf01 = φ.
Let A = [aij ]m×n be a m × n matrix defined by



 1, if vi ∈ Bfs weakly dominates uj in Pf0

aij = .


 0, otherwise.

Consider the system of linear equations given by
a11 x1 + a12 x2 + . . . + a1n xn = 0
.
.
.
am1 x1 + am2 x2 + . . . + a1n xn = 0.
Since Pf01 = φ, the system of equations does not occur and hence does not have a non-trivial solution.
Therefore, f1 is a BMTSDF.
f2 is a TSDF.
Bfs2 = V, Pf2 = {v2 , v3 , v4 }.
Pf02 = {v2 , v3 , v4 }.

76
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

 
1 1 0
0 1 0
 
 
0 0 0
A = [aij ]6×3 =
1

 0 1
 
0 0 0
0 1 1 6×3



x1 + x2 = 0


x =0
2
imply x1 = 0 , x2 = 0


 x 1 = 0


x2 = 0

Therefore, f2 is a BMTSDF.
Example 0.11:
0 1 1 1 0
P5 : u u u u u
v1 v2 v3 v4 v5

f1 is a TSDF.
Bfs1 = {v1 , v2 , v4 , v5 }.
Pf1 = {v2 , v3 , v4 }.
Bfs1 weakly dominates Pf1 .
v2 v3 v4
v1 1 0 0
v2 x1
A = [aij ]4×3 = 0 1 0
v4 0 x2
0 1
v5 x3
0 0 1
x1 = 0, x2 = 0, x3 = 0.
Therefore, f1 is a BMTSDF.
Example 0.12:
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
Consider P9 : t t t t t t t t t
v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9

Define f1 on V (P6 ) as follows:

f1 (v1 ) = f1 (v4 ) = f1 (v5 ) = f1 (v9 ) = 0.
f1 (v2 ) = f1 (v3 ) = f1 (v6 ) = f1 (v7 ) = f1 (v8 ) = 1.
f1 is a TSDF.
Bfs1 = {v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 , v5 , v6 , v8 , v9 }.
Pf1 = {v2 , v3 , v6 , v7 , v8 }.
Bfs1 weakly dominates Pf1 .
Therefore, f1 is a MTSDF.

77
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

v2 v3 v6 v7 v8
v1 1 0 0 0 0
v2 0 1 0 0
0
v3 x1 x1 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
v4 x2 x2
0 1 0 0 0 x1 0
A = x3 x2 0
v5 0 0 1 0 0 0
x4 x3
v6 0 x4 0
0 0 1 0 x5 0
v8 x4 0
0 0 0 1 0
x5
v9 0 0 0 0 1

xi = 0, ∀ i, 1 ≤ i ≤ 5.
Therefore, f1 is a BMTSDF.
Example 0.13:
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
Consider P9 : t t t t t t t t t
v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9

Define f1 on V (P9 ) as follows:

f1 (v1 ) = f1 (v4 ) = f1 (v5 ) = f1 (v9 ) = 0.
f1 (v2 ) = f1 (v3 ) = f1 (v6 ) = f1 (v7 ) = f1 (v8 ) = 1.
f1 is a TSDF.
Bfs1 = {v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 , v5 , v6 , v7 , v8 , v9 }.
Pf1 = {v2 , v3 , v6 , v7 , v8 }.
Bfs1 weakly dominates Pf1 .
Therefore, f1 is a MTSDF.
 
x1
 
  x2   
1 0 0 0 0   0
   x1   
 
0 1 0 0 0   0

 x x   
1 0 0 0 0  1   2  0

  x2  x3   
0 1 0 0 0     0
A=  x3  = x4  =  
      
0 0 1 0 0 
     0
   
0 0 0 1 0 x4  x5  0

 x5 x6   
     
0 0 0 1 0   0

x7 
0 0 0 0 1  
x  0
 8
x9
xi = 0, ∀ i, 1 ≤ i ≤ 5.
Therefore, f1 is a BMTSDF.
Example 0.14:
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Let P11 : t t t t t t t t t t t
v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11

Define f1 on V (P11 ) as follows:

f1 (v1 ) = f1 (v4 ) = f1 (v5 ) = f1 (v8 ) = f1 (v11 ) = 0.

78
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

f1 (v2 ) = f1 (v3 ) = f1 (v6 ) = f1 (v7 ) = f1 (v9 ) = f1 (v10 ) = 1.

f1 is a TSDF.
Bfs1 = {v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 , v5 , v6 , v7 , v9 , v10 , v11 }.
Pf1 = {v2 , v3 , v6 , v7 , v9 , v10 }.
Bfs1 weakly dominates Pf1 .
Therefore, f1 is a MTSDF.

v2 v23 v6 v7 v8
v1 1 0 0 0 0
v2 0 1 0 0
0
v3 x1 x1 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
v4 x2 x2
0 1 0 0 0 x1 0
A = x3 x2 0
v5 0 0 1 0 0 0
x4 x3
v6 0 x4 0
0 0 1 0 x5 0
v8 x4 0
0 0 0 1 0
x5
v9 0 0 0 0 1

xi = 0, ∀ i, 1 ≤ i ≤ 6.
Therefore, f1 is a BMTSDF.
Again consider
0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
P11 : t t t t t t t t t t t
v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11

Define f2 on V (P11 ) as follows:

f2 (v1 ) = f2 (v5 ) = f2 (v6 ) = f2 (v11 ) = 0.
f2 (v2 ) = f2 (v3 ) = f2 (v4 ) = f2 (v7 ) = f2 (v8 ) = f2 (v9 ) = f2 (v10 ) = 1.
f2 is a TSDF.
Bfs2 = {v1 , v2 , v4 , v5 , v6 , v7 , v10 , v11 }.
Pf2 = {v2 , v3 , v4 , v7 , v8 , v9 , v10 }.
Bfs2 weakly dominates Pf2 .

79
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

v2 v3 v4 v7 v8 v9 v10
v1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
v2 0 0 0 0
1 0 0
v4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 x1 0
v5 0 x2 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
v6 x3 0
B = 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 x4 0
v7 0 0 1 0 0 x5 0
0 0 x6 0
v10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 x7 0
v11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

xi = 0, ∀ i, 1 ≤ i ≤ 7.
Therefore, f2 is a BMTSDF.
Example 0.15:
Let G = C2n+1 .
Let V (G) = {v1 , v2 , ..., v2n+1 }.
Case (i)
Let n ≡ 0 (mod 2).
Let n = 2k .
Then 2n + 1 = 4k + 1.
 1, if i ≡ 1, 2 (mod 4)
Let f (vi ) =
 0, if i ≡ 3, 0 (mod 4).
Then f is a TSDF.
Bfs = {v2 , v3 , v4 , v5 , ..., v4k+1 }
Pf = {v1 , v5 , ..., v4k+1 , v2 , v6 , ..., v4k−2 }
Clearly, Bfs weakly dominates Pf .
Therefore, f is a MTSDF.

v1 v2 v5 v6 . . . v4k−1v4k−2 v4k+1
v2 1 0 0 0 ... 0 x1 0
0 0
v3 0 1 ... 0 0 0 x2 0
0 0
v4 0 0 ... 0 x3 0
1 0 0 0
v5 0 0 0 1 ... 0 x4
0 0 0
A = . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
v4k+1 0 0 0 ... 0 0 0 x2k+1 0
1

80
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

Therefore, xi = 0, ∀ i, 1 ≤ i ≤ 2k + 1.
Therefore, f is a BTMSDF.
Case (ii)
Let n ≡ 1 (mod 2).
Let n = 2k + 1.
Then 2n + 1 = 4k + 3.
 1, if i ≡ 1, 2 (mod 4)
Let f (vi ) =
 0, if i ≡ 3, 0 (mod 4).
Then f is a TSDF.
Bfs = {v1 , v2 , v5 , v6 , ..., v4k+2 }.
Pf = {v1 , v2 , v5 , v6 , ..., v4k+1 , v4k+2 }.
Clearly, Bfs weakly dominates Pf .
Therefore, f is a MTSDF.

v1 v2 v5 v6 . . . v4k+1 v4k+2
v1 0 1 0 0 ... 0 0
x1 0
v2 1 0 0 0 ... 0 0
x2 0
v5 0 0 ... 0 0
0 1 x3 0
v6 0
0. 1 0 ... 0 0 x4 0
A = . .
. .
. . .
. .
. .

v4k+2 0 0 0 ... 1 0 x2k+1 0

0

Therefore, xi = 0, ∀ i, 1 ≤ i ≤ 2k + 2.
Therefore, f is a BTMSDF.
Case (iii)
Let G = C2n .
Let V (G) =  {v1 , v2 , ..., v2n }.
 1, if i ≡ 1, 2 (mod 4)
Let f (vi ) =
 0, otherwise.
f is a TSDF.
Clearly,
 V, if n ≡ 2 (mod 4)
Bfs =
 V − {v1 , v2n }, if n ≡ 1 (mod 4).

{v , v , ..., v
1 5 2n−3 , v2 , v6 , ..., v2n−2 }, if n ≡ 2 (mod 4)
Pf =
{v1 , v5 , ..., v2n−1 , v2 , v6 , ..., v2n }, if n ≡ 1 (mod 4).

81
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

Clearly, Bfs weakly dominates Pf .

Therefore, f is a MTSDF.
Let n ≡ 2 (mod 4).

v1 v2 v5 v6 . . . v2n−3 v
2n−2

v1 0 1 0 0 ... 0 0

v2 1 0 ... 0 0
0 0
.
A = .
.
.
. .

v2n 1 0 0 0 ... 0 0

AX = 0 implies X = 0.
Therefore, f is a BMTSDF.
Let n ≡ 1 (mod 4).

v1 v2 v5 v6 . . . v2n−1
v2n

v2 1 0 ... 0
0 0 0
v3 0 1 0 0 ... 0 0
.
A = .
.
.
. .

v2n−1 0 0 1
0 0 0 ...
AX = 0 implies X = 0.
Therefore, f is a BMTSDF.

R EFERENCES
[1] Acharya, B.D., The Strong Domination Number of a Graph and Related Concepts, J.Math. Phys. Sci., 14,471-475(1980).
[2] Allan R.B., and Laskar.R.C., On Domination and Independent Domination Number of a Graph, Dicrete Math., 23, 73-76(1978).
[3] Arumugam.S. and Regikumar.K., Basic Minimal Dominating Functions, Utilitas Mathematica, 77, pp. 235-247(2008).
[4] Arumugam.S. and Regikumar.K., Fractional Independence and Fractional Domination Chain in Graphs, AKCE J.Graphs Combin., 4,
No.2, pp.161-169(2007).
[5] Arumugam.S. and Sithara Jerry.A., A Note On Independent Domination in Graphs, Bulletin of the Allahabad Mathematical Society,
Volume 23, Part 1.(2008).
[6] Arumugam.S. and Sithara Jerry.A., Fractional Edge Domination in Graphs, Appl. Anal. Discrete Math.,(2009).

82
 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development(IJTSRD Volume 4 Issue 4 June 2020
Available Online www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN 2456 - 6470

[7] Berge.C., Theory of Graphs and its Applications, Dunod, Paris(1958).

[8] Berge.C., Graphs and Hypergraphs, North-Holland, Amsterdam(1973).
[9] Cockayne E.J., Dawes R.M. and Hedetniemi.S.T., Total domination in graphs, Networks, 10, 211-219(1980).
[10] Cockayne E.J., Favaron O., Payan C. and Thomasaon A.G., Contributions to the theory of domination, independence and irredundance
in graphs, Discrete Math., 33, 249-258(1981).
[11] Cockayne E.J., MacGillivray G. and Mynhardt C.M., Convexity of minimal dominating functions and universal in graphs, Bull. Inst.
Combin. Appl., 5, 37-38(1992).
[12] Cockayne E.J. and Mynhardt C.M., Convexity of minimal dominating functions of trees: A survey, Quaestiones Math., 16, 301-317(1993).
[13] Cockayne E.J., MacGillivray G. and Mynhardt C.M., Convexity of minimal dominating functions of trees-II, Discrete Math., 125,
137-146(1994).
[14] Cockayne E.J. and Mynhardt C.M., A characterization of universal minimal total dominating functions in trees, Discrete Math., 141,
75-84(1995).
[15] Cockayne.E.J., Fricke.G., Hedetniemi.S.T. and Mynhardt.C.M., Properties of Minimal Dominating Functions of Graphs, Ars Combin.,
41,107-115(1995).
[16] Cockayne E.J., MacGillivray G. and Mynhardt C.M., Convexity of minimal dominating functions of trees, Utilitas Mathematica, 48,
129-144(1995).
[17] Cockayne.E.J. and Hedetniemi.S.T., Towards a Theory of Domination in Graphs, Networks, 7,247-261(1977).
[18] Cockayne.E.J. and Mynhardt.C.M., Minimality and Convexity of dominating and related functions in Graphs, A unifying theory, Utilitas
Mathematica, 51,145-163(1997).
[19] Cockayne.E.J. and Mynhardt.C.M. and Yu.B., Universal Minimal Total Dominating Functions in Graphs, Networks, 24, 83-90(1994).
[20] Grinstead D. and Slater P.J., Fractional Domination and Fractional Packing in Graphs, Congr., Numer., 71, 153-172(1990).
[21] Harary.F., Graph Theory, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass(1969).
[22] Hedetniemi.S.T. and Laskar.R.L., Bibliography on Domination in Graphs and Some Basic Definitions of Domination Parameters,
Discrete Math., 86,pp 257-277(1990).
[23] Ore.O, Theory of Graphs, AMS(1962).
[24] Regikumar K., Dominating Functions - Ph.D thesis, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University(2004).
[25] Sampathkumar.E and Pushpa Latha.L., Strong Weak Domination and Domination Balance in a Graph, Discrete Math., 161,235-
242(1996).
[26] Scheinerman E.R. and Ullman D.H., Fractional Graph Theory: A rational approach to the theory of graphs, John Wiley and Sons
Inc.,(1997).
[27] Terasa W. Haynes, Stephen T. Hedetneimi, Peter J. Slater, Fundamentals of Domination in Graphs, Marcel Dekker Inc.,(1998).
[28] Terasa W. Haynes, Stephen T. Hedetneimi, Peter J. Slater, Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics Marcel Dekker Inc., New York(1998).
[29] Yu.B., Convexity of Minimal Total Dominating Functions in Graphs, J.Graph Theory, 24,313-321(1997).

83