Could someone explain to me the following definition of a vertex cover??
A vertex cover of G=(V,E), an undirected graph, is a subset $S\subseteq V$ such that each edge of G is incident upon some vertex in S.
You can think of a vertex cover as a set of vertices S so that every edge e in E has an endpoint in S (that's just rephrasing the definition). As an example, if your graph is a star (one central vertex v, and n leaves, w_1, w_2, ..., w_n) with edges {v, w_i} for i from 1 to n. A vertex cover could be any of the following:
S_1 = {v} because every edge contains v
S_2 = {w_1, w_2, ..., w_n}
S_3 = V
or just any subset of vertices containing v.
Related
Wondering if there exists an algorithm to split an undirected connected component graph given negative edges.
Essentially the vertices provided in negative edges should be unreachable.
If you want the connected components of your graph that contains only positive edges, then first delete all negative edges from your graph. Then run a DFS (depth-first-search) to find all connected components.
Here is the algorithm.
Begin
For each edge e in graph G, if e is negative, remove e from G.
For each vertex v in G, do:
If v is not labeled as visited
Let c be a new component, and add c to set C.
Call procedure DFS(v, c) to find one component of positive edges only.
End If
End For
The set C contains all the connected components consisting of positive edges only.
End
Procedure DFS(v, c)
Add v to c, and label v as visited.
For each edge from v to w, do
If vertex w is not labeled as visited then
Call DFS(G,w)
End If
End For
End Procedure
I'm trying to figure out to solve this problem: Given a graph G = (V, E) prove e <= n(n-1)/2 for all n, where e is the number of edges and n is the number of vertices.
I'm thinking that I should somehow be using math induction to figure out the correct answer and use n = 1 or 0 for my hypothesis, but I'm getting a little stuck on what to do after -- if I assume n = k, then: e <= (k+1)k/2. and if n = k+1 then e <= k(k-1)/2.
As I understand it, each vertex has n-1 possible edges coming out, and there are n total vertices, which is where n(n-1) comes from and dividing by 2 gets rid of the repeats. But I am unsure how I am to prove this.
The statement is false for multi-graphs. Take the graph:
/---\
O-----O
There are two vertices (O) and two edges; therefore n=2,e=2 and substituting into n(n-1)/2 <= e gives 1 <= 2 which is false.
However, if you restrict the graph to be simple - disallowing looping edges (where both ends of the edge terminate at the same vertex), multi-edges (where two edges connect the same pair of vertices) and that the graph is undirected - then the property holds.
Consider a complete graph K_n (with n vertices): each of the n vertices is incident to the other n-1 vertices via a connecting edge therefore there are n(n-1) connections from one vertex to another; given that edges are undirected then this will count each edge twice (i.e counting from vertex A to vertex B and vice versa) then the total number of edges will be n(n-1)/2.
Any graph G_n (with n vertices) will be a sub-graph of K_n (since you cannot add any more edges to K_n without creating multi- or looping edges) then there must be equal or fewer edges in G_n than in K_n.
Thus e <= n(n-1)/2 for all simple graphs.
If you further restrict the graph to be planar then you can state that e <= 3n - 6 (when n > 2).
Given an undirected graph in which each node has a Cartesian coordinate in space that has the general shape of a tree, is there an algorithm to convert the graph into a tree, and find the appropriate root node?
Note that our definition of a "tree" requires that branches do not diverge from parent nodes at acute angles.
See the example graphs below. How do we find the red node?
here is a suggestion on how to solve your problem.
prerequisites
notation:
g graph, g.v graph vertices
v,w,z: individual vertices
e: individual edge
n: number of vertices
any combination of an undirected tree g and a given node g.v uniquely determines a directed tree with root g.v (provable by induction)
idea
complement the edges of g by orientations in the directed tree implied by g and the yet-to-be-found root node by local computations at the nodes of g.
these orientations will represent child-parent-relationsships between nodes (v -> w: v child, w parent).
the completely marked tree will contain a sole node with outdegree 0, which is the desired root node. you might end up with 0 or more than one root node.
algorithm
assumes standard representation of the graph/tree structure (eg adjacency list)
all vertices in g.v are marked initially as not visited, not finished.
visit all vertices in arbitrary sequence. skip nodes marked as 'finished'.
let v be the currently visited vertex.
2.1 sweep through all edges linking v clockwise starting with a randomly chosen e_0 in the order of the edges' angle with e_0.
2.2. orient adjacent edges e_1=(v,w_1), e_2(v,w_2), that enclose an acute angle.
adjacent: wrt being ordered according to the angle they enclose with e_0.
[ note: the existence of such a pair is not guaranteed, see 2nd comment and last remark. if no angle is acute, proceed at 2. with next node. ]
2.2.1 the orientations of edges e_1, e_2 are known:
w_1 -> v -> w_2: impossible, as a grandparent-child-segment would enclose an acute angle
w_1 <- v <- w_2: impossible, same reason
w_1 <- v -> w_2: impossible, there are no nodes with outdegree >1 in a tree
w_1 -> v <- w_2:
only possible pair of orientations. e_1, e_2 might have been oriented before. if the previous orientation violates the current assignment, the problem instance has no solution.
2.2.2 this assignment implies a tree structure on the subgraphs induced by all vertices reachable from w_1 (w_2) on a path not comprising e_1 (e_2`). mark all vertices in both induced subtrees as finished
[ note: the subtree structure might violate the angle constraints. in this case the problem has no solution. ]
2.3 mark v visited. after completing steps 2.2 at vertex v, check the number nc of edges connecting that have not yet been assigned an orientation.
nc = 0: this is the root you've been searching for - but you must check whether the solution is compatible with your constraints.
nc = 1: let this edge be (v,z).
the orientation of this edge is v->z as you are in a tree. mark v as finished.
2.3.1 check z whether it is marked finished.
if it is not, check the number nc2 of unoriented edges connecting z.
nc2 = 1: repeat step 2.3 by taking z for v.
if you have not yet found a root node, your problem instance is ambiguous:
orient the remaining unoriented edges at will.
remarks
termination:
each node is visited at max 4 times:
once per step 2
at max twice per step 2.2.2
at max once per step 2.3
correctness:
all edges enclosing an acute angle are oriented per step 2.2.1
complexity (time):
visiting every node: O(n);
the clockwise sweep through all edges connecting a given vertex requires these edges to be sorted.
thus you need O( sum_i=1..m ( k_i * lg k_i ) ) at m <= n vertices under the constraint sum_i=1..m k_i = n.
in total this requires O ( n * lg n), as sum_i=1..m ( k_i * lg k_i ) <= n * lg n given sum_i=1..m k_i = n for any m <= n (provable by applying lagrange optimization).
[ note: if your trees have a degree bounded by a constant, you theoretically sort in constant time at each node affected; grand total in this case: O(n) ]
subtree marking:
each node in the graph is visited at max 2 times by this procedure if implemented as a dfs. thus a grand total of O(n) for the invocation of this subroutine.
in total: O(n * lg n)
complexity (space):
O(n) for sorting (with vertex-degree not constant-bound).
problem is probably ill-defined:
multiple solutions: e.g. steiner tree
no solution: e.g. graph shaped like a double-tipped arrow (<->)
A simple solution would be to define a 2d rectangle around the red node or the center of your node and compute each node with a moore curve. A moore curve is a space-filling curve, more over a special version of a hilbert curve where the start and end vertex is the same and the coordinate is in the middle of the 2d rectangle. In generell your problem looks like a discrete addressing space problem.
A friend presented me with a conjecture that seems to be true but neither of us can come up with a proof. Here's the problem:
Given a connected, bipartite graph with disjoint non-empty vertex sets U and V, such that |U|<|V|, all vertices are in either U or V, and there are no edges connecting two vertices within the same set, then there exists at least one edge which connects vertices a∈U and b∈V such that degree(a)>degree(b)
It's trivial to prove that there is at least one vertex in U with degree higher than one in V, but to prove that a pair exists with an edge connecting them is stumping us.
For any edge e=(a,b) with a∈U and b∈V, let w(e)=1/deg(b)-1/deg(a). For any vertex x, the sum of 1/deg(x) over all edges incident with x equals 1, because there are deg(x) such edges. Hence, the sum of w(e) over all edges e equals |V|-|U|. Since |V|-|U|>0, w(e)>0 for som edge e=(a,b), which means that deg(a)>deg(b).
Prove it by contradiction, i.e. suppose that deg(a) ≤ deg(b) ∀(a,b)∈E, where E is the edgeset of the graph (with the convention that the first element is in U and the second in V).
For F⊆E, designate by V(F) the subset of V which is reachable through edgeset F, that is:
V(F) = { b | (a,b)∈F }
Now build an edgeset F as follows:
F = empty set
For a ∈ U:
add any edge (a,b)∈E to F
Keep adding arbitrary edges (a,b)∈E to F until |V(F)| = |U|
The set V(F) obtained is connected to all nodes in U, hence by our assumption we must have
∑a∈U deg(a) ≤ ∑b∈V(F) deg(b)
However, since |U|=|V(F)| and |U|<|V| we know that there must be at least one "unreached" node v∈V\V(F), and since the graph is connected, deg(v)>0, so we obtain
∑a∈U deg(a) < ∑b∈V deg(b)
which is impossible; this should be an equality for a bipartite graph.
here is the question. I am wondering if there is a clear and efficient proof:
Vertex Cover: input undirected G, integer k > 0. Is there a subset of
vertices S, |S|<=k, that covers all edges?
Dominating Set: input undirected G, integer k > 0. Is there a subset of
vertices S, |S|<= k, that dominates all vertices?
A vertex covers it's incident edges and dominates it's neighbors and itself.
Assuming that VC is NPC, prove that DS is NPC.
There is a quite nice and well known reduction:
Given an instance (G,k) of Vertex Cover build an instance of Dominating Set (H,k), where for H you take G, remove all isolated vertices, and for every edge (u,v) add an additional vertex x connected to u and v.
First realize that a Vertex Cover of G is a Dominating Set of H: it's a DS of G (after removing isolated vertices), and the new vertices are also dominated. So if G has a VC smaller k, then H has a DS smaller k.
For the converse, consider D, a Dominating Set of H.
Notice that if one of the new vertices is in D, we can replace it with one of it's two neighbors and still get an Dominating Set: it's only neighbors are are the two original vertices and they are also connected - everything x can possible dominate is also dominated by u or v.
So we can assume that D contains only vertices from G. Now for every edge (u,v) in G the new vertex x is dominated by D, so either u or v is in D. But this means D is a Vertex Cover of G.
And there we have it: G has a Vertex Cover smaller k if and only if H has a Dominating Set smaller k.
Taken from :
CMSC 651 Advanced Algorithms , Lecturer Samir Khuller
I think that second problem is not NP.
Let's try the following algorithm.
1. Get the original Graph
2. Run any algorithm which checks if a graph is connected or not.
3. mark all used edges of step 2
4. if the graph is connected then return the set of marked edges otherwise there is no such a set.
If I understood correctly your problem then it is not NP Complete.