Блог пользователя Ahmed_Hussein_Karam

Автор Ahmed_Hussein_Karam, история, 9 лет назад, По-английски

According to this wikipedia link, under the title "Success probability of the contraction algorithm":
Number of possible cuts in a graph is 2^(n-1)-1, while maximum number of minimum cuts is nC2, where n is number of vertices.
My question:
Why number of possible cuts differ from maximum number of minimum cuts? why isn't any cut a (candidate) minimum cut?

  • Проголосовать: нравится
  • +6
  • Проголосовать: не нравится

»
9 лет назад, скрыть # |
 
Проголосовать: нравится +4 Проголосовать: не нравится

Why did people downvote his post? He's just asking a question!

»
9 лет назад, скрыть # |
← Rev. 2  
Проголосовать: нравится +10 Проголосовать: не нравится

Not a formal proof, but an attempt.

For N <= 3 : nC2 = 2n-1 - 1

For N >= 4: We will prove by contradiction. Let all the possible 2n-1 - 1 cuts be a minimum cut.

Consider a case: We have a graph G = (V,E), Let V = {1,2,...N}, N >= 4

Consider a cut with the disjoint sets S,_T_. Since a cut will have all the possible combinations of S and T such that S U T = V and S and T are disjoint.

Let S = {1}, T = {2,3....N} and the condition that 1 is connected to atleast one vertex of T, otherwise we will have a trivial graph.

Since we are saying that all cuts are minimum cut, this cut is also a minimum cut.

Now, transfer one vertex from T to S. The moved vertex, say i, is connected to 1 (as we assumed earlier, atleast one vertex of T is connected to 1). Since the resulting cut after the movement should also be a minimum cut, the moved vertex should have the same number of neighbours in T as well in S(one here). So, we get a case that 1 is connected to all the nodes in T, since we can attempt to move every vertex in set T.

Now, consider S = {2}, T = {1,3,4..N}.

Let this be a minimum cut (since we assumed all cuts are minimum cuts), try moving 1 from T to S, but we have atleast two neighbours of 1 in T (N>=4 and 1 is connected to all nodes), but one neighbour in S. So, the number of removed edges in the current cut is less than the number of removed edges in the set we will obtain after moving 1 from T to S.

So, both of them cannot be minimum cut.

So, there are always cuts in a graph, that is not a minimum cut.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong.