Reconstruction and edge reconstruction of triangle-free graphs (Q6184530)

For a vertex \(v\) of a graph \(G=(V,E)\), the graph \(G-v\) produced by the deletion of \(v\) is a card; for an edge \(e\in E\), \(G-e\) is an edge-card; the family \(\mathcal{D}(G)=\{G-v:v\in V\}\) of all cards (respectively, the family \(\mathcal{ED}(G)=\{G-e:e\in E\}\)) of all edge-cards) is the deck (respectively edge-deck). In the traditional reconstruction problem one explores whether \(G\) is uniquely determined by \(\mathcal{D}(G)\); in the edge reconstruction problem, introduced in [\textit{F. Harary}, in: Theory of graphs and its applications. Proceedings of the symposium, Smolenice, Czechoslovakia, June 17--20, 1963. Prague: Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. 47--52 (1964; Zbl 0161.43404)], one explores whether \(G\) is uniquely determined by \(\mathcal{ED}(G)\). The connectivity of \(G\), \(\kappa(G)\), is the size of its smallest cut set. \(\mathcal{G}_2\) and \(\mathcal{G}_3\) respectively denote the set of graphs \(G\) of diameter 2, and the set of graphs \(G\) of diameter 3 whose complement \(\overline G\) also has diameter 3; it is known that the reconstruction conjecture can be reduced to its truth for every 2-connected graph in \(\mathcal{G}_2\cup\mathcal{G}_3\) [\textit{S. K. Gupta} et al., Discrete Math. 272, No. 2--3, 291--296 (2003; Zbl 1028.05070)]. In [\textit{S. Monikandan} and \textit{J. Balakumar}, Australas. J. Comb. 53, 141--150 (2012; Zbl 1256.05154)] a problem, Problem C, involving triangle-free graphs \(G\) of connectivity \(\kappa(G)\ge3\) was proposed, of which the present authors observe that one part (involving \(\mathcal{G}_2\)) was confirmed in [\textit{P. Devi Priya} and \textit{S. Monikandan}, Australas. J. Comb. 80, Part 2, 167--177 (2021; Zbl 1468.05134)], and of which the remainder (involving \(\mathcal{G}_3\)) is addressed in the present paper; the present authors also prove similar results about the edge reconstruction conjecture. Caveat lector! There are multiple confusing editorial deficiencies in this paper, in which the name of a concept or pair of concepts being defined is erroneously printed twice, without spacing, in each of two adjacent type-faces.