Practice Question 9: Proving a Graphic Sequence - 6 | 6. Question 9: Proving a Graphic Sequence | Discrete Mathematics - Vol 3
K12 Students

Academics

AI-Powered learning for Grades 8–12, aligned with major Indian and international curricula.

Professionals

Professional Courses

Industry-relevant training in Business, Technology, and Design to help professionals and graduates upskill for real-world careers.

Games

Interactive Games

Fun, engaging games to boost memory, math fluency, typing speed, and English skills—perfect for learners of all ages.

6 - Question 9: Proving a Graphic Sequence

Enroll to start learning

You’ve not yet enrolled in this course. Please enroll for free to listen to audio lessons, classroom podcasts and take practice test.

Learning

Practice Questions

Test your understanding with targeted questions related to the topic.

Question 1

Easy

Define a graphic sequence.

💡 Hint: Think about what a graph represents.

Question 2

Easy

What does the Havel-Hakimi theorem help prove?

💡 Hint: Consider what path or edges we can visualize.

Practice 4 more questions and get performance evaluation

Interactive Quizzes

Engage in quick quizzes to reinforce what you've learned and check your comprehension.

Question 1

Is the sequence [5, 2, 2, 1] graphic?

  • True
  • False

💡 Hint: Check the degrees against how many connections they can create.

Question 2

What condition must be met for a sequence to be graphic?

  • All integers must be even
  • Sum of degrees must be even
  • Degree values must be prime

💡 Hint: Think of how edges are counted in a graph.

Solve and get performance evaluation

Challenge Problems

Push your limits with challenges.

Question 1

Prove that the sequence [6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2] is graphic by constructing a graph.

💡 Hint: Remember to adjust your connections based on degree constraints.

Question 2

Using the Havel-Hakimi method, show that the sequence [1, 1, 1, 0] cannot be graphic.

💡 Hint: Focus on the odd count of degrees in the sequence.

Challenge and get performance evaluation