-
Recent Posts
- Matrix Domination December 1, 2023
- Maximum Likelihood Ranking October 27, 2023
- Randomization Test For Matched Pairs October 13, 2023
- Clustering September 29, 2023
- Shapley-Shubik Voting Power September 15, 2023
Recent Comments
Archives
- December 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
Categories
- Algebra and Number Theory
- Appendix- Algebra and Number Theory
- Appendix- Automata and Language Theory
- Appendix- Games and Puzzles
- Appendix- Mathematical Programming
- Appendix- Network Design
- Appendix- Program Optimization
- Appendix- Sets and Partitions
- Appendix-Graph Theory
- Appendix-Logic
- Appendix: Miscellaneous
- Appendix: Sequencing and Scheduling
- Appendix: Storage and Retrieval
- Chapter 3 Exercises
- Core Problems
- Overview
- Problems not in appendix
- Uncategorized
Tag Archives: Difficulty 4
Protected: Integral Flow With Bundles
Enter your password to view comments.
Posted in Appendix- Network Design
Tagged Difficulty 4, Independent Set, Integer Flow With Bundles, ND36
Protected: Integral Flow With Multipliers
Enter your password to view comments.
Posted in Appendix- Network Design
Tagged Difficulty 4, Integral Flow with Multipluers, ND33, Part, SOS
Monotone 3-Satisfiability
I told Daniel when he gave me his Monotone Satisfiability reduction that the actual problem mentioned in G&J was Monotone 3-Satisfiability. So he went off and did that reduction too.
The Problem:
Monotone 3 SAT. This is a more restrictive case of Monotone SAT
The Description:
Given an formula of clauses where each clause in
contains all negated or non-negated variables, and each clause
contains at most
variables. Does there exist an assignment of the variables so that
is satisfied?
Example:
the following assignment satisfies :
However:
And the following is in Monotone 3SAT form:
are both unsatisfiable.
The reduction:
In the following reduction we are given an instance of 3SAT,
. Here each clause is of the form:
where
and each is a literal of the form
.
We use the following construction to build an instance of Monotone 3 SAT out of the above instance of 3SAT :
In each clause we have at most one literal,
that is not of the same parity as the rest of the literals in the clause. For every such literal, we may preform the following substitution:
this yields a modified clause
.
Now we must be able to guarantee that and
are mapped to opposite truth values, so we introduce the new clause:
and conjunct it onto our old formula
producing a new formula
.
For example:
so we preform the substitution
so and
Now repeating this procedure will result in a new formula: .
We claim logical equivalence between the and
This is semantically intuitive as the
clause requires all substituted literal
in
to take the value opposite of
this was the stipulation for the substitution initially. It is also verifiable by truth table construction for:
:
If there exists a truth assignment that satisfies
, then we may extent this truth assignment to produce
which will satisfy
by letting
for all
and letting
for all
.
Obviously if is satisfiable
must be by the above construction of
. So by the above claim we have that
will satisfy
.
:
Continuing from the above, if we have a truth assignment that satisfies
, then by the claim above it also must satisfy
. And
is a sub-formula of
so any truth assignment that satisfies
must also satisfy
.
(Back to me)
Difficulty: 4, since it’s a little harder than the regular Monotone Sat one.
Posted in Appendix-Logic
Tagged 3-sat, Dan's Problems, Difficulty 4, Monotone 3SAT, Monotone Sat, uncited reduction
Protected: Stacker-Crane
Enter your password to view comments.
Posted in Appendix- Network Design
Tagged Difficulty 4, Difficulty 5, Hamiltonian Circuit, ND26, Rural Postman, Stacker-Crane
Protected: Rural Postman
Enter your password to view comments.
Posted in Appendix- Network Design
Tagged Difficulty 4, Hamiltonian Circuit, ND27, Rural Postman
Protected: Network Survivability
Enter your password to view comments.
Posted in Appendix- Network Design
Tagged Difficulty 4, Difficulty 5, Difficulty 8, Dominating Set on Bipartite Graphs, Network Reliability, Network Survivability, uncited reduction
Protected: Network Reliability
Enter your password to view comments.
Posted in Appendix- Network Design, Uncategorized
Tagged Difficulty 4, ND20, Network Reliability, Steiner Tree
Weighted Diameter
It took over a year (the first problem strictly from the Appendix was Domatic Number, last August), but we’re finally at the end of the Graph Theory section! And the last problem is one that’s actually good for students to solve.
The problem: Weighted Diameter. This is problem GT65 in the appendix
The description: Given a graph G=(V,E) a collection C of |E| not necessarily distinct, non-negative integers, and a positive integer K. Can we find a one-to-one function f mapping each edge in E to an element of C such that if f(e) is the length of edge e, then G has a diameter of K or less.
In other words, given a set of edge weights C, can we give each edge in E a (distinct) weight from C such that the resulting weighted graph has a path between any two vertices of length ≤ K?
Example: Suppose I have a graph:
And C= {1,2,2,2,3,5}. I think the best was you can label this is:
The Diameter here is 7 (The length of the path from A-D).
The reduction: G&J say to use 3-Partition, so we’ll go with that. We’re given a set A, with 3m elements, a bound B, and want to split the elements of B into sets of size 3 so that each set adds up to m. We know several things about A, but the important thing for our purposes is that all of the elements in A add up to m*B.
We’ll also assume that |A| is at least 9. If it’s smaller than that, we can just brute-force the answer.
What we’re going to do is build a graph that is a tree with 3m+1 vertices. We have a root, and the root has m chains of length 3 extending from it. This gives us exactly 3*m edges.
We set K = 2*B, and set C = A
If there exists a 3-partition of A, then each of the sets of 3 elements can map onto a different chain in the graph. This makes the longest path in the graph be between any 2 leaves. Since the length from a leaf to a root is exactly B, the diameter of the graph is 2B.
If there exists a weighted diameter of the graph of cost 2*B, then we need to show that the cost of each chain is exactly B. Suppose it wasn’t, and the cost from the root to some leaf v is > B, let’s say B+x. Then, since there are at least 3 chains (since |A| >= 9) and since the sum of all of the weights is m*B exactly), there must exist some leaf w, with the cost of the chain from the root to w > B-x. The cost of the path from v to w is now > 2B, a contradiction.
If the cost from the root to some leaf is < B, then there must be some other leaf u with the cost from the root to u > B (since the costs of all of the edges add up to m*B), and we can do the above on u.
Since each chain costs exactly B, we can use the edge weights of each chain as the sets of 3 elements that make our 3-Partition.
Difficulty: 4. G&J does say in the comments that this problem is NP-Complete even for trees, so that may have been a hint. The proof is a little tricky (getting from “diameter ≤ K” to “set adding up to exactly K” requires some work, and there may be a more elegant way than what I did). But I think this would make a good homework problem.
Posted in Appendix-Graph Theory
Tagged 3-Partition, Difficulty 4, GT65, Weighted Diameter
Protected: Graph Homomorphism
Enter your password to view comments.
Posted in Appendix-Graph Theory
Tagged Difficulty 3, Difficulty 4, Graph 3-coloring, Graph Contraction, Graph Homomorphism, GT52, uncited reduction
Protected: Path Graph Completion
Enter your password to view comments.
Posted in Appendix-Graph Theory
Tagged Difficulty 4, Difficulty 8, GT36, Interval Graph Completion, Path Graph Completion, restrictions, uncited reduction