Research article Special Issues

New remarks on the Kolmogorov entropy of certain coarse-grained deterministic systems

  • Unless an appropriate dissipation mechanism is introduced in its evolution, a deterministic system generally does not tend to equilibrium. However, coarse-graining such a system implies a mesoscopic representation which is no longer deterministic. The mesoscopic system should be addressed by stochastic methods, but they lead to practically infeasible calculations. However, following the pioneering work of Kolmogorov, one finds that such mesoscopic systems can be approximated by Markov processes in relevant conditions, mainly, if the microscopic system is ergodic. So, the mesoscopic system tends to stationarity in specific situations, as expected from thermodynamics. Kolmogorov proved that in the stationary case, the instantaneous entropy of the mesoscopic process, conditioned by its past trajectory, tends to a finite limit at infinite times. Thus, one can define the Kolmogorov entropy. It can be shown that in certain situations, this property remains true even in the nonstationary case. We anticipated this important conclusion in a previous article, giving some elements of a justification, whereas it is precisely derived below in relevant conditions and in the case of a discrete system. It demonstrates that the Kolmogorov entropy is linked to basic aspects of time, such as its irreversibility. This extends the well-known conclusions of Boltzmann and of more recent researchers and gives a general insight to the fascinating relation between time and entropy.

    Citation: Michel Moreau, Bernard Gaveau. New remarks on the Kolmogorov entropy of certain coarse-grained deterministic systems[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26328-26342. doi: 10.3934/math.20231343

    Related Papers:

    [1] Ali N. A. Koam, Adnan Khalil, Ali Ahmad, Muhammad Azeem . Cardinality bounds on subsets in the partition resolving set for complex convex polytope-like graph. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 10078-10094. doi: 10.3934/math.2024493
    [2] Ali N. A. Koam . Metric based resolvability of cycle related graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 9911-9925. doi: 10.3934/math.2024485
    [3] Naila Mehreen, Rashid Farooq, Shehnaz Akhter . On partition dimension of fullerene graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2018, 3(3): 343-352. doi: 10.3934/Math.2018.3.343
    [4] Suliman Khan, Sakander Hayat, Asad Khan, Muhammad Yasir Hayat Malik, Jinde Cao . Hamilton-connectedness and Hamilton-laceability of planar geometric graphs with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3947-3973. doi: 10.3934/math.2021235
    [5] Moussa Benoumhani . Restricted partitions and convex topologies. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 10187-10203. doi: 10.3934/math.2025464
    [6] Li Liu, Long Zhang, Huaxiang Zhang, Shuang Gao, Dongmei Liu, Tianshi Wang . A data partition strategy for dimension reduction. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 4702-4721. doi: 10.3934/math.2020301
    [7] Sakander Hayat, Bagus Imanda, Asad Khan, Mohammed J. F. Alenazi . Three infinite families of Hamilton-connected convex polytopes and their detour index. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(5): 12343-12387. doi: 10.3934/math.2025559
    [8] Dalal Awadh Alrowaili, Uzma Ahmad, Saira Hameeed, Muhammad Javaid . Graphs with mixed metric dimension three and related algorithms. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16708-16723. doi: 10.3934/math.2023854
    [9] Ahmed Alamer, Hassan Zafar, Muhammad Javaid . Study of modified prism networks via fractional metric dimension. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10864-10886. doi: 10.3934/math.2023551
    [10] Jesús Gómez-Gardeñes, Ernesto Estrada . Network bipartitioning in the anti-communicability Euclidean space. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1153-1174. doi: 10.3934/math.2021070
  • Unless an appropriate dissipation mechanism is introduced in its evolution, a deterministic system generally does not tend to equilibrium. However, coarse-graining such a system implies a mesoscopic representation which is no longer deterministic. The mesoscopic system should be addressed by stochastic methods, but they lead to practically infeasible calculations. However, following the pioneering work of Kolmogorov, one finds that such mesoscopic systems can be approximated by Markov processes in relevant conditions, mainly, if the microscopic system is ergodic. So, the mesoscopic system tends to stationarity in specific situations, as expected from thermodynamics. Kolmogorov proved that in the stationary case, the instantaneous entropy of the mesoscopic process, conditioned by its past trajectory, tends to a finite limit at infinite times. Thus, one can define the Kolmogorov entropy. It can be shown that in certain situations, this property remains true even in the nonstationary case. We anticipated this important conclusion in a previous article, giving some elements of a justification, whereas it is precisely derived below in relevant conditions and in the case of a discrete system. It demonstrates that the Kolmogorov entropy is linked to basic aspects of time, such as its irreversibility. This extends the well-known conclusions of Boltzmann and of more recent researchers and gives a general insight to the fascinating relation between time and entropy.



    Let ψ be a simple, connected graph with vertex set V(ψ) and edge set E(ψ). The distance d(ρ1,ρ2), ρ1,ρ2V(ψ) is the length of shortest path between ρ1 and ρ2. Let Q={v1,v2,,vj} be an ordered set of vertices of ψ. Let ρ1V(ψ), the representations denoted by r(ρ1|Q) is the j-tuple distances as (d(ρ1|v1),d(ρ1|v2),,d(ρ1|vj)). If distinct vertices of ψ have distinct representation w.r.t. Q then Q is called the resolving set. The minimum number of j in the resolving set is known as the metric dimension of ψ and written as dim(ψ). Motivated by the problem of determining an intruder's location in a network in a unique way, Slater introduced the definition of metric dimension in [27] and later independently by Harary and Melter in [11]. The concept of resolving set, metric basis and metric dimension appeared in the literature [4,6,8,9,10,12,15,19,28,30,31].

    A partition of a set is collection of its subsets, no pair of which overlap, such that the union of all the subsets is the whole set and partition dimension is related to the partitioning of the vertex set V(Ω) and resolvability. The partition dimension is a generalized variant of matric dimension. Another type of dimension of a graph, is called partition dimension. Let Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γj} and r(ρ1|Γ)={d(ρ1,Γ1),d(ρ1,Γ2),,d(ρ1,Γj)} are named as j-ordered partition of vertices and j-tuple representations respectively. If the representations of every ρ1 in V(ψ) w.r.t. Γ is different, then Γ is the resolving partition of the vertex set and the minimum count of the resolving partition set of V(ψ) is named as the partition dimension of ψ and it is represented by pd(ψ) [7]. The problem of determining the resolving set of a graph is NP-hard [20]. As, the problem of finding the partition dimension is a generalize version of metric dimension, therefore partition dimension is also a NP-complete problem. It is natural to think that there is a relation between metric and partition dimension, [7] proved for any non-trivial connected graph ψ,

    pd(ψ)dim(ψ)+1. (1.1)

    In [22], fullerene graph of chemical structure is discussed and proved that the graph has constant and bounded partition dimension. For more and interesting results on constant partition dimension can see [16,21,24]. To find the exact value of partition dimension of a graph is not easy therefore, various results on the bounds of the partition dimension are discussed in literature, such as the partition dimension of Cartesian product operation on different graphs are studies and provided extensive bounds on partition dimension [29]. In [1] different bounds of partition dimension of subdivision of different graphs are discussed. In [25,26] provide bounds of partition dimension of tree and uni-cyclic graphs in the form of subgraphs.

    The applications of partition resolving sets can be found in different fields such as robot navigation [19], Djokovic-Winkler relation [9], strategies for the mastermind game [10], network discovery and verification [5], in chemistry for representing chemical compounds [17,18] and in problems of pattern recognition and image processing, some of which involve the use of hierarchical data structures [23] for more applications see [6,11]. Following theorems are very helpful in finding the partition dimension of a graph.

    Theorem 1.1. [7] Let Γ be a resolving partition of V(ψ) and ρ1,ρ2V(ψ). If d(ρ1,z)=d(ρ2,z) for all vertices zV(ψ)(ρ1,ρ2), then ρ1,ρ2 belong to different classes of Γ.

    Theorem 1.2. [7] Let ψ be a simple and connected graph, then

    pd(ψ) is 2 iff ψ is a path graph

    pd(ψ) is n iff ψ is a complete graph,

    Let R be a family of connected graphs Gn:R=(Gn)n1, where |V(ψ)|=λ(n) and limnλ(n)=. If there exists a constant α1 such that pd(ψ)α,n1, then R has bounded partition dimension otherwise unbounded. Imran et al. [14] studied the metric dimension of Rpn, Dpn, and Qpn, convex polytopes which motivates us to find the partition dimension of same families of convex polytopes. In this paper, the partition dimension of same families of convex polytopes are studied. We determine the partition dimension of Rpn, in second section. In the third section, the partition dimension of the graph Dpn of a convex polytope with pendent edges is presented. The fourth section remains for the partition dimension of the graph Qpn.

    The convex polytope Rpn (p for pendant edges) is a planar graph and obtained from the convex polytope Rn defined in [13]. If we attach a pendant edge at each vertex of outer layer of Rn then we obtained a new planer graph Rpn as shown in Figure 1. The vertex set of Rpn, V(RPn)={V(Rn)}{xα:1αn} and edge set of Rpn, E(RPn)={E(Rn)}{wαxα:1αn}.

    Figure 1.  Convex polytope Rpn.

    For calculation, {uα:1αn} represents the inner cycle, the cycle induced by {vα:1αn} is interior cycle, exterior cycle containing {wα:1αn} set of vertices and pendant vertices named {xα:1αn}.

    Theorem 2.1. Let Rpn be a polytopes with n6. Then pd(Rpn)4.

    Proof. We splits the proof into following two cases.

    Case 1: When n=2β,β3,βN. We partition the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets Θ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={V(Rpn)|{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertex of Rpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Rpn)4. We give the representations of all vertices w.r.t. resolving partition set Γ are following.

    The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If 3αβ, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α1,α2,βα+1,0). If β+2α2β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2βα+1,2βα+2,αβ1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Rpn.

    The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,1,β,0). If 2αβ, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α1,βα+1,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+2α2β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2βα+1,2βα+2,αβ,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Rpn.

    The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2αβ+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,βα+2,0). If α=β+2, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+3α2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2βα+2,2βα+3,αβ+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Rpn. The representations of pendant vertices w.r.t. Γ are shown in Table 1. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation of pendant vertices of Rpn.

    Table 1.  Representations of the pendant vertices w.r.t. Γ.
    Representation Γ1 Γ2 Γ3 Γ4
    xαα=1 3 3 β+2 0
    xα2αβ α+2 α+1 βα+3 0
    xαα=β+1 β+2 β+2 3 0
    xαβ+2α2β 2βα+3 2βα+4 αβ+2 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Rpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can resolve the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is even.

    Case 2: When n=2β+1,β3,βN. Again we resolve the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={V(Rpn)|{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Rpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Rpn)4. {We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.

    The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If 3αβ, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α1,α2,βα+1,0). If α=β+2, then r(uβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+3α2β+1, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2βα+2,2βα+3,αβ1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Rpn.

    The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,1,β,0). If 2αβ, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α1,βα+1,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β+1,β,1,0). If β+2α2β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2βα+2,2βα+3,αβ,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Rpn.

    The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are: If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2αβ, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,βα+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+1,2,0). If β+2α2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2βα+3,2βα+4,αβ+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Rpn.

    The pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ shown in Table 2. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation of pendant vertices of Rpn.

    Table 2.  Representations of the pendant vertices w.r.t. Γ.
    Representation Γ1 Γ2 Γ3 Γ4
    xαα=1 3 3 β+2 0
    xα2αβ α+2 α+1 βα+3 0
    xαα=β+1 β+3 β+2 3 0
    xαβ+2α2β+1 2βα+4 2βα+5 αβ+2 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Rpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can also resolve the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is odd.

    We note that from Case 1 and 2, there are no two vertices having the same representations implying that pd(Rpn)4.

    The convex polytope DPn is a planar graph and if we attach a pendant edge at each vertex of outer cycle of Dn [2] then we obtained a new plane graph DPn as shown in Figure 2. The vertex and edge set V(DPn)={V(Dn)}{yα:1αn}, E(DPn)={E(Dn)}{xαyα:1αn} are respectively. For calculation, {uα:1αn} represents the inner cycle, the cycle induced by {vα:1αn} is interior cycle, exterior cycle containing {wα:1αn} set of vertices, {xα:1αn} labeled as outer cycle and pendant vertices named for {yα:1αn}.

    Figure 2.  Convex polytope graph DPn.

    Theorem 3.1. Let DPn be a polytopes with n6. Then pd(DPn)4.

    Proof. We split the proof of above theorem into following two cases.

    Case 1: When n=2β,β3,βN. We partition the vertices of Dpn into four partition sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={V(Dpn)|{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Dpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Dpn)4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.

    The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If 3αβ, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α1,α2,βα+1,0). If β+2α2β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2βα+1,2βα+2,αβ1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Dpn.

    The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,β+1,0). If 2αβ, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α1,βα+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+2α2β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2βα+2,2βα+3,αβ,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Dpn.

    The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2αβ, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,βα+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+2α2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2βα+2,2βα+3,αβ+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Dpn.

    The vertices on outer cycle and pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in outer cycle and pendant vertices of Dpn.

    Table 3.  Representations of the vertices on outer cycle w.r.t. resolving set Γ.
    Representation Γ1 Γ2 Γ3 Γ4
    xαα=1 3 3 β+2 0
    xα2αβ α+2 α+1 βα+3 0
    xαα=β+1 β+2 β+2 3 0
    xαβ+2α2β 2βα+3 2βα+4 αβ+2 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4.  Representations of the pendant vertices w.r.t. resolving set Γ.
    Representation Γ1 Γ2 Γ3 Γ4
    yαα=1 4 4 β+3 0
    yα2αβ α+3 α+2 βα+4 0
    yαα=β+1 β+3 β+3 4 0
    yαβ+2α2β1 2βα+4 2βα+5 αβ+3 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Dpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can resolve the vertices of Dpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is even.

    Case 2: When n=2β+1,β3,βN. Again we resolve the vertices of Dpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={V(Dpn)|{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Dpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Dpn)4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.

    The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If 3αβ, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α1,α2,βα+1,0). If α=β+2, then r(uβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+3α2β+1, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2βα+1,2βα+2,αβ1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Dpn.

    The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,β+1,0). If 2αβ+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α1,βα+2,0). If α=β+2, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+3α2β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2βα+2,2βα+3,αβ,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Dpn.

    The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2αβ, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,βα+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+1,2,0). If β+2α2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2βα+3,2βα+4,αβ+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Dpn.

    The vertices on outer cycle and pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Tables 5 and 6. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in outer cycle and pendant vertices of Dpn.

    Table 5.  Representations of the vertices on exterior cycle w.r.t. Γ.
    Representation Γ1 Γ2 Γ3 Γ4
    xαα=1 3 3 β+2 0
    xα2αβ α+2 α+1 βα+3 0
    xαα=β+1 β+2 β+2 3 0
    xαβ+2α2β+1 2βα+4 2βα+5 αβ+2 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 6.  Representations of the pendant vertices w.r.t. Γ.
    Representation Γ1 Γ2 Γ3 Γ4
    xαα=1 4 4 β+3 0
    xα2αβ α+3 α+2 βα+4 0
    xαα=β+1 β+3 β+3 4 0
    xαβ+2α2β+1 2βα+5 2βα+6 αβ+3 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Dpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can also resolve the vertices of Dpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is odd.

    We note that from Case 1 and 2, there are no two vertices having the same representations implying that pd(Tpn)4.

    The convex polytope QPn is a planar graph and If we attach a pendant edge at each vertex of outer cycle of Qn [3] then we obtained a new plane graph QPn as shown in Figure 3. The vertex and edge set V(QPn)={V(αn)}{yα:1αn}, E(QPn)={E(Qn)}{xαyα:1αn} are respectively.

    Figure 3.  Convex polytope graph Qpn.

    For convenience, {uα:1αn} represents the inner cycle, the cycle induced by {vα:1αn} is interior cycle, exterior cycle containing {wα:1αn} set of vertices, {xα:1αn} are exterior vertices, and pendant vertices named for {yα:1αn}.

    Theorem 4.1. Let QPn be a polytopes with n6. Then pd(QPn)4.

    Proof. Case 1: When n=2β,β3,βN. We partition the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={V(Qpn)|{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Qpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Qpn)4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.

    The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If 3αβ, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α1,α2,βα+1,0). If β+2α2β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2βα+1,2βα+2,αβ1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Qpn.

    The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,α+1,0). If 2αβ, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α1,βα+2,0). If β+2α2β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2βα+2,2βα+3,αβ,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Qpn.

    The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2,2,α+1,0). If 2αβ, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,βα+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α+1,α+1,2,0). If β+2α2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2βα+2,2βα+3,αβ+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.

    The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(3,3,α+2,0). If 2αβ, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+2,α+1,βα+3,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α+2,α+2,3,0). If β+2α2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2βα+3,2βα+4,αβ+2,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.

    The pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Table 7. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in pendant vertices of Qpn.

    Table 7.  Representations of pendant vertices w.r.t. Γ.
    Representation Γ1 Γ2 Γ3 Γ4
    yαα=1 4 4 β+3 0
    yα2αβ α+3 α+2 βα+4 0
    yαα=β+1 β+3 β+3 4 0
    yαβ+2α2β 2βα+4 2βα+5 αβ+3 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Qpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can resolve the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is even.

    Case 2: When n=2β+1,β3,βN. Again we resolve the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={V(Qpn)|{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Qpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Qpn)4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.

    The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If 3αβ, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α1,α2,βα+1,0). If α=β+2, then r(uβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+3α2β+1, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2βα+1,2βα+2,αβ1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Qpn.

    The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,α+1,0). If 2αβ, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α1,βα+2,0). If α=β+2, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+3α2β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2βα+2,2βα+3,αβ,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Qpn.

    The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2,2,α+1,0). If 2αβ, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,βα+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+1,2,0). If β+2α2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2βα+3,2βα+4,αβ+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.

    The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:

    If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(3,3,α+2,0). If 2αβ, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+2,α+1,βα+3,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+2,3,0). If β+2α2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2βα+4,2βα+5,αβ+2,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.

    The pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Table 8. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in pendant vertices of Qpn.

    Table 8.  Representations of the pendant vertices w.r.t. Γ.
    Representation Γ1 Γ2 Γ3 Γ4
    yαα=1 4 4 β+3 0
    yα2αβ α+3 α+2 βα+4 0
    yαα=β+1 β+4 β+3 4 0
    yαβ+2α2β+1 2βα+5 2βα+6 αβ+3 0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Qpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can also resolve the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is odd.

    We note that from Case 1 and 2, there are no two vertices having the same representations implying that pd(Upn)4.

    The core of the problem of the partition dimension is deciding the resolving partition set for a graph. In this paper, we have studies the partition dimension of some families of convex polytopes graph such as Rpn, Dpn and Qpn, which are obtained from the convex polytopes by adding a pendant edge at each vertex of outer cycle. In this research work, we have proved that partition dimension of these convex polytopes are bounded. Consequently, we propose the following open problems.

    Conjecture 5.1. The following equalities hold:

    pd(Rpn)=pd(Dpn)=pd(Qpn)=4

    The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.



    [1] V. I. Arnold, A. Avez, Ergodic problems of classical mechanics, Mathematical Physics Monographs, Benjamin, 1968.
    [2] B. Gaveau, M. Moreau, On the stochastic representation and Markov approximation of Hamiltonian systems, Chaos, 30 (2020), 083104. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0001435 doi: 10.1063/5.0001435
    [3] J. Doob, Stochastic processes, Wiley, New York, 1953.
    [4] P. Levy, Théorie de l'addition des variables aléatoires, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1937.
    [5] C. E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell Syst. Tech. J., 27 (1948), 623–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x
    [6] A. I. Khinchin, Mathematical foundations of information theory, Dover, New York, 1957.
    [7] R. MacMillan, The basic theorems of information theory, Ann. Math. Stat., 24 (1953), 193. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729028 doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177729028
    [8] T. Cover, J. Thomas, Elements of information theory, Wiley, New York, 1991.
    [9] L. Brillouin, Science an information theory, Academic Press, New York, 1956.
    [10] L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical physics, 3 Eds., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980.
    [11] F. Reif, Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics, Mc Graw Hill, New York, 1965.
    [12] W. Feller, An introduction to probability theory and its applications, Wiley, New York, 1971.
    [13] M. Moreau, B. Gaveau, Stochastic theory of coarse-grained deterministic systems: Martingales and Markov applications, In: Advances in Dynamical Systems Theory, Models, Algorithms and Applications, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95903
    [14] G. Akemann, J. Baik, P. Di Francesco, The Oxford handbook of random matrix theory, Oxford University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198744191.001.0001
    [15] C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, Time and memory: Issues in philosophy and psychology, Clarendon, Oxforf, 2001.
    [16] L. Boltzmann, Vorlesungenüber gastheorie, Part 2, J. A. Barth, Leipzig, 1898.
    [17] L. Boltzmann, Reply to Zermelo's remarks on the theory of heat, In: History of modern physical sciences: The kinetic theory of gases, Imperial College Press, 57 (1896), 567.
    [18] H. B. Callen, Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1985.
    [19] L. S. Schulman, Time's arrows and quantum measurement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511622878
    [20] L. S. Schulman, arXiv.cond-mat/991101, 1999.
    [21] I. Prigogine, From being to becoming, Freeman, 1980.
    [22] I. Prigogine, Time and change, 2003.
    [23] I. Prigogine, Time, dynamics and chaos: Integrating Poincare's non-integrable systems, Center for Studies in Statistical Mechanics and Complex Systems at the University of Texas-Austin, United States Department of Energy-Office of Energy Research, Commission of the European Communities, 1990.
    [24] J. B. Gao, Y. H. Cao, W. W. Tung, J. Hu, Multiscale analysis of complex time series-integration of chaos and random fractal theory, and beyond, Wiley, New York, 2007.
    [25] J. B. Gao, F. Y. Liu, J. F. Zhang, J. Hu, Y. H. Cao, Information entropy as a basic building block of complexity theory, Entropy, 15 (2013), 3396. https://doi.org/10.3390/e15093396 doi: 10.3390/e15093396
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Xiujun Zhang, Muhammad Salman, Anam Rani, Rashna Tanveer, Usman Ali, Zehui Shao, Metric Identification of Vertices in Polygonal Cacti, 2023, 136, 1526-1506, 883, 10.32604/cmes.2023.025162
    2. Kamran Azhar, Sohail Zafar, Agha Kashif, Amer Aljaedi, Umar Albalawi, The Application of Fault-Tolerant Partition Resolvability in Cycle-Related Graphs, 2022, 12, 2076-3417, 9558, 10.3390/app12199558
    3. Wajdi Alghamdi, Muhammad Ahsan Asim, Akbar Ali, On the Bounded Partition Dimension of Some Generalised Graph Structures, 2022, 2022, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2022/9531182
    4. Ali Al Khabyah, Ali N. A. Koam, Ali Ahmad, Niansheng Tang, Partition Resolvability of Nanosheet and Nanotube Derived from Octagonal Grid, 2024, 2024, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2024/6222086
    5. Syed Waqas Shah, Muhammad Yasin Khan, Gohar Ali, Irfan Nurhidayat, Soubhagya Kumar Sahoo, Homan Emadifar, Ram Jiwari, On Partition Dimension of Generalized Convex Polytopes, 2023, 2023, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2023/4412591
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1377) PDF downloads(52) Cited by(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog