I have a different groups of natural numbers(sn1 ,sn2… snn).
I pass/give this group to a function ,which convert this group to a
list.I want to prove these lists are disjoint.I have defined theorems about disjoint list.But I have a problem in proving lemma. .
1. Are basic theorems about disjoint lists are sufficient to prove the required lemma?
2. I have to add some basic theorems about disjoint sets?
Lemma mutualexc: forall (sn1 sn2 bmax snmax:nat),
let g1 := group sn1 bmax snmax in
let g2 := group sn2 bmax snmax in
let list1 := f (fst(g1)) (snd(g1)) ((snd(g1)) - (fst(g1))) in
let list2 := f (fst(g2)) (snd(g2)) ((snd(g2)) - (fst(g2))) in
sn1 <> sn2 -> disjoint list1 list2.
intros. induction list1 as [|t l1] .
apply disjoint_nil_l. apply disjoint_cons_l.
unfold disjoint .
unfold disjoint.`
Related
I would like to perform the Edmond matching algorithm or Blossom algorithm on a Graph (example Graph in picture), but how to I start with a empty matching set?
The Algorithm work this way:
Given: Graph G and matching M in G
Task: find matching M' with |M'| =
[M| + 1, or |M'| = IM| if M maximum
1 let F be the forest consisting of all M-exposed nodes; 2 while there
is outer node x and edge {x, y) with y \in V(F), add (x, y} and
matching edge covering y to F;
3 if there are adjacent outer nodes x, y in same tree, then shrink
cycle (M-blossom) in F \cup {x, y) and go to Step 2;
4 if there are adjacent outer nodes x, y in different trees, then
augment M along M-augmenting path P(x) \cup {x, y} \cup P(y);
5 in reverse order, undo each shrinking and re-establish near-perfect
matchings in blossoms.
You don’t begin the algorithm with an empty M. You have to provide one, generally by generating it with a greedy algorithm that parses all edges e of the graph G and adds each e to M if M + e form a matching.
There are two sets, s1 and s2, each containing pairs of letters. A pair is only equivalent to another pair if their letters are in the same order, so they're essentially strings (of length 2). The sets s1 and s2 are disjoint, neither set is empty, and each pair of letters only appears once.
Here is an example of what the two sets might look like:
s1 = { ax, bx, cy, dy }
s2 = { ay, by, cx, dx }
The set of all letters in (s1 ∪ s2) is called sl. The set sr is a set of letters of your choice, but must be a subset of sl. Your goal is to define a mapping m from letters in sl to letters in sr, which, when applied to s1 and s2, will generate the sets s1' and s2', which also contain pairs of letters and must also be disjoint.
The most obvious m just maps each letter to itself. In this example (shown below), s1 is equivalent to s1', and s2 is equivalent to s2' (but given any other m, that would not be the case).
a -> a
b -> b
c -> c
d -> d
x -> x
y -> y
The goal is to construct m such that sr (the set of letters on the right-hand side of the mapping) has the fewest number of letters possible. To accomplish this, you can map multiple letters in sl to the same letter in sr. Note that depending on s1 and s2, and depending on m, you could potentially break the rule that s1' and s2' must be disjoint. For example, you would obviously break that rule by mapping every letter in sl to a single letter in sr.
So, given s1 and s2, how can someone construct an m that minimizes sr, while ensuring that s1' and s2' are disjoint?
Here is a simplified visualization of the problem:
This problem is NP-hard, to show this, consider reducing graph coloring to this problem.
Proof:
Let G=(V,E) be the graph for which we want to compute the minimal graph coloring problem. Formally, we want to compute the chromatic number of the graph, which is the lowest k for which G is k colourable.
To reduce the graph coloring problem to the problem described here, define
s1 = { zu : (u,v) \in E }
s2 = { zv : (u,v) \in E }
where z is a magic value unused other than in constructing s1 & s2.
By construction of the sets above, for any mapping m and any edge (u,v) we must have m(u) != m(v), otherwise the disjointedness of s1' and s2' would be violated. Thus, any optimal sr is the set of optimal colors (with the exception of z) to color the graph G and m is the mapping that defines which node is assigned which color. QED.
The proof above may give the intuition that researching graph coloring approximations would be a good start, and indeed it probably would, but there is a confounding factor involved. This confounding factor is that for two elements ab \in s1 and cd \in s2, if m(a) = m(c) then m(b) != m(d). Logically, this is equivalent to the statement m(a) != m(c) or m(b) != m(d). These types of constraints, in isolation, do not map naturally to an analogous graph problem (because of the or statement.)
There are ways to formulate this problem as an (binary) ILP and solve it as such. This would likely give you (slightly) inferior results to a custom designed & tuned branch-and-bound implementation (assuming you want to find the optimal solution) but would work with turn-key solvers.
If you are more interested in approximations (possibly with guaranteed ratios of optimality) I would investigate a SDP relaxation to your problem & appropriate rounding scheme. This level of work would likely be the kind one would invest in a small-to-medium sized research paper.
so here a grammar R and a Langauge L, I want to prove that from R comes out L.
R={S→abS|ε} , L={(ab)n|n≥0}
so I thought I would prove that L(G) ⊆ L and L(G) ⊇ L are right.
for L (G) ⊆ L: I show by induction on the number i of derivative steps that after every derivative step u → w through which w results from u according to the rules of R, w = v1v2 or w = v1v2w with | v2 | = | v1 | and v1 ∈ {a} ∗ and v2 ∈ {b} ∗.
and in the induction start: at i = 0 it produces that w is ε and at i = 1 w is {ε, abS}.
is that right so far ?
so here a grammar R and a Langauge L, I want to prove that from R comes out L.
Probably what you want to do is show that the language L(R) of some grammar R is the same as some other language L specified another way (in your case, set-builder notation with a regular expression).
so I thought I would prove that L(G) ⊆ L and L(G) ⊇ L are right.
Given the above assumption, you are correct in thinking this is the right way to proceed with the proof.
for L (G) ⊆ L: I show by induction on the number i of derivative steps that after every derivative step u → w through which w results from u according to the rules of R, w = v1v2 or w = v1v2w with | v2 | = | v1 | and v1 ∈ {a} ∗ and v2 ∈ {b} ∗. and in the induction start: at i = 0 it produces that w is ε and at i = 1 w is {ε, abS}.
This is hard for me to follow. That's not to say it's wrong. Let me write it down in my own words and perhaps you or others can judge whether we are saying the same thing.
We want to show that L(R) is a subset of L. That is, any string generated by the grammar R is contained in the language L. We can prove this by mathematical induction on the number of steps in the derivation of strings generated by the grammar. We start with the base case of one derivation step: S -> e produces the empty word, which is a string in the language L by choosing n = 0. Now that we have established the base case, we can state the induction hypothesis: assume that for all strings derived from the grammar in a number of steps up to and including k, those strings are also in L. Now we must prove the induction step: that any string derived in k+1 steps from the grammar is also in L. Let w be any string derived from the grammar in k+1 steps. From the grammar it is clear that the derivation of w must be S -> abS -> ababS -> ... -> abab...abS -> abab...abe = abab...ab. But this derivation is the same as the derivation of a string from the grammar in k steps, except that there was one extra application of S -> abS before the application of S -> e. By the induction hypothesis we know that the string w' derived in k steps is of the form (ab)^m for some m at least zero, and adding an extra application of S -> abS to the derivation adds ab. Because (ab)^m(ab) = (ab)^(m+1) we can choose n = m+1. So, all strings derived from the grammar in k+1 steps are also in the language, as required.
To prove that all strings in the language can be derived in the grammar, consider the following construction: to derive the string (ab)^n in the grammar, apply the production S -> abS a number of times equal to n, and the production S -> e exactly once. The first step gives an intermediate form (ab)^nS and the second step gives a closed form string (ab)^n.
I´ve got the following assignment.
You have a multiset S with of 1<=N<=22 elements.
Each element has a positive value of up to 10000000.
Assmuming that there are two subsets s1 and s2 of S in which the sum of the values of all the elements of one is equal to the sum of the value of all the elements of the other and it is the highest possible value. I have to return which elements of S would not be included in either of the two subsets.
Its probably been solved before, I think its some variant of the Partition problem but I can´t find it. If anyone could point me in the right direction that´d be great.
EDIT: An element can´t be in both subsets.
This is variation of subset sum, and can be solved similarly, by increasing the dimension of the problem (and the DP matrix), and then applying a solution very similar to the original one for subset-sum, which follows the recursive formula:
D(i,x,y) = D(i-1,x,y) OR D(i-1,x-l[i],y) OR D(i-1,x,y-l[i])
^ ^ ^
not chosen chosen for first set chosen for 2nd set
and base clause:
D(0,0,0) = true
D(0,x,y) = false x!=0 or y!=0
D(i,x,y) = false x<0 or y<0
After done calculating the DP matrix (3d array actyally) for this problem, all you have to do is find if there is any entry D(n,x,x) == true, for some x<= SUM/2 (where SUM is the sum of the entire original set), to find if there is any feasible solution.
Since you want the maximal value, the answer should be the maximal value of such x that D(n,x,x)=true (since there could be more than one)
Finding the elements themselves can be done after finding the solution (the value of x in D(n,x,x)) by following back the DP matrix and retracing your steps as explained for similar problems such as this: How to find which elements are in the bag, using Knapsack Algorithm [and not only the bag's value]?
Total complexity of this solution is O(SUM^2 * n)
Partition S as evenly as possible into T ∪ U (put the extra element, if any, in U). Loop through the three-way partitions of T into A ∪ B ∪ C (≤ 311 = 177,147 of them). Store the item |sum(A) - sum(B)| → C into a map, keeping only the value with the lowest sum in case the key already exists.
Loop through the three-way partitions of U into D ∪ E ∪ F. Look up |sum(D) - sum(E)| in the map; if it exists with value C, then consider C ∪ F as a possibility for the elements left out (the two parts with equal sum are either A ∪ D and B ∪ E, or A ∪ E and B ∪ D).
Let's consider square matrix
(n is a dimension of the matrix E and fixed (for example n = 4 or n=5)). Matrix entries
satisfy following conditions:
The task is to generate all matrices E. My question is how to do that? Is there any common approach or algorithm? Is that even possible? What to start with?
Naive solution
A naive solution to consider is to generate every possible n-by-n matrix E where each component is a nonnegative integer no greater than n, then take from those only the matrices that satisfy the additional constraints. What would be the complexity of that?
Each component can take on n + 1 values, and there are n^2 components, so there are O((n+1)^(n^2)) candidate matrices. That has an insanely high growth rate.
Link: WolframAlpha analysis of (n+1)^(n^2)
I think it's safe to safe that this not a feasible approach.
Better solution
A better solution follows. It involves a lot of math.
Let S be the set of all matrices E that satisfy your requirements. Let N = {1, 2, ..., n}.
Definitions:
Let a metric on N to have the usual definition, except with the requirement of symmetry omitted.
Let I and J partition the set N. Let D(I,J) be the n x n matrix that has D_ij = 1 when i is in I and j is in J, and D_ij = 0 otherwise.
Let A and B be in S. Then A is adjacent to B if and only if there exist I and J partitioning N such that A + D(I,J) = B.
We say A and B are adjacent if and only if A is adjacent to B or B is adjacent to A.
Two matrices A and B in S are path-connected if and only if there exists a sequence of adjacent elements of S between them.
Let the function M(E) denote the sum of the elements of matrix E.
Lemma 1:
E = D(I,J) is a metric on N.
Proof:
This is a trivial statement except for the case of an edge going from I to J. Let i be in I and j be in J. Then E_ij = 1 by definition of D(I,J). Let k be in N. If k is in I, then E_ik = 0 and E_kj = 1, so E_ik + E_kj >= E_ij. If k is in J, then E_ik = 1 and E_kj = 0, so E_ij + E_kj >= E_ij.
Lemma 2:
Let E be in S such that E != zeros(n,n). Then there exist I and J partitioning N such that E' = E - D(I,J) is in S with M(E') < M(E).
Proof:
Let (i,j) be such that E_ij > 0. Let I be the subset of N that can be reached from i by a directed path of cost 0. I cannot be empty, because i is in I. I cannot be N, because j is not in I. This is because E satisfies the triangle inequality and E_ij > 0.
Let J = N - I. Then I and J are both nonempty and partition N. By the definition of I, there does not exist any (x,y) such that E_xy = 0 and x is in I and y is in J. Therefore E_xy >= 1 for all x in I and y in J.
Thus E' = E - D(I,J) >= 0. That M(E') < M(E) is obvious, because all we have done is subtract from elements of E to get E'. Now, since E is a metric on N and D(I,J) is a metric on N (by Lemma 1) and E >= D(I,J), we have E' is a metric on N. Therefore E' is in S.
Theorem:
Let E be in S. Then E and zeros(n,n) are path-connected.
Proof (by induction):
If E = zeros(n,n), then the statement is trivial.
Suppose E != zeros(n,n). Let M(E) be the sum of the values in E. Then, by induction, we can assume that the statement is true for any matrix E' having M(E') < M(E).
Since E != zeros(n,n), by Lemma 2 we have some E' in S such that M(E') < M(E). Then by the inductive hypothesis E' is path-connected to zeros(n,n). Therefore E is path-connected to zeros(n,n).
Corollary:
The set S is path-connected.
Proof:
Let A and B be in S. By the Theorem, A and B are both path-connected to zeros(n,n). Therefore A is path-connected to B.
Algorithm
The Corollary tells us that everything in S is path-connected. So an effective way to discover all of the elements of S is to perform a breadth-first search over the graph defined by the following.
The elements of S are the nodes of the graph
Nodes of the graph are connected by an edge if and only if they are adjacent
Given a node E, you can find all of the (potentially) unvisited neighbors of E by simply enumerating all of the possible matrices D(I,J) (of which there are 2^n) and generating E' = E + D(I,J) for each. Enumerating the D(I,J) should be relatively straightforward (there is one for every possible subset I of D, except for the empty set and D).
Note that, in the preceding paragraph, E and D(I,J) are both metrics on N. So when you generate E' = E + D(I,J), you don't have to check that it satisfies the triangle inequality - E' is the sum of two metrics, so it is a metric. To check that E' is in S, all you have to do is verify that the maximum element in E' does not exceed n.
You can start the breadth-first search from any element of S and be guaranteed that you won't miss any of S. So you can start the search with zeros(n,n).
Be aware that the cardinality of the set S grows extremely fast as n increases, so computing the entire set S will only be tractable for small n.