I need citation for a proof for my master's thesis. The reference is here, in Wolfram Mathworld. The reference is not fully accurate, it says published in 2000 while the actual book is in libraries is written to be published 2001.

Therefore I do not trust the reference there, perhaps I can get confirmation here?

So regarding proof of non-hamiltonicity of Petersen graph, is there a proof in here: "West, D. B. Introduction to Graph Theory, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, p. 225, 2000."

My illustration of the proof, inspired by this post here:

Cycle length can be at most 4

  • $\begingroup$ It is well known that the Peterson graph is not Hamiltonian. I wouldn't think you would have to cite it. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Feb 14 '13 at 8:29
  • $\begingroup$ If you don't trust the reference and you think you need one, go to the university library, grab the first book on elementary graph theory you can find and look where in this book the proof is given. It shouldn't be too hard to find a reference from there, right? $\endgroup$ – HSN Feb 14 '13 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ I agree that this fact is so well known that it does not need a reference. But my guess is that most elementary graph theory texts do not contain a proof of this result. $\endgroup$ – Chris Godsil Feb 14 '13 at 13:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Chris: Yeah, they probably use it as an exercise instead. $\endgroup$ – Henning Makholm Feb 14 '13 at 17:36
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisGodsil Oh wow, I just realized who that was. I just bought your book a few weeks ago. Cool! $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Feb 23 '13 at 0:47

I got the book from my universitys library.

The citation is not accurate. Page 225 mentions chord but no mention of Petersen graph.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.